Arkadin

For the last 2 years John Garfield usually has his own day on "Summer Under the Stars". As far as his own month, I am not aware of it happening in recent years.

Like others here I can remember seeing silents as a child and thoughout my early life, but it's hard to remember what I was seeing at that age. The first films I can actually remember seeing as a child were "Harvey" (1950), and "Arsenic and Old Lace" (1944). My dad was an old film buff and passed the disease on to me! The first silent I can actually remember though was "Foolish Wives" (1922). I still think it's one of the greatest.

dfordoom, "Bitter Tears" is a trip to say the least. If you like Fassbinder check out "Chinese Roulette" (1976). Great film and my personal favorite of his work. "Veronika Voss" (1982) is another of my faves.

Hard to choose just ten, but these are all great films. In no particular order: 1)All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) 2)The Grand Illusion (1937) 3)Shoah (1985) 4)Cross of Iron (1976) 5)Das Boot (1982) 6)King Rat (1965) 7)Grave of the Fireflies (1988) 8)Open City (1945) 9)The Battle of Algiers (1966) 10)Paisan (1946)

Thanks for the info. That is quite interesting!

Ingrid Bergman. In Spellbound (1945) and Notorious (1946) she plays two completely different characters back to back. A great actress Hitch should have used more of.

The 400 Blows (the title means "raising hell") is a good film. The main character is a young boy who is essentially misunderstood by the adults around him (who themselves are seen as less than pure). I can't really tell you much more than that without giving something away.

Dassin was a great artist. I loved "Theives Highway", "Night and the City", and "Rififi".

Thanks. That helps a lot. I remembered the flashbacks told their personal stories of how they came to prison, but I couldn't actually remember them. I will key in on your thoughts the next time it comes on TCM. Is a DVD in production for this film BTW?

I have seen "Brute Force" a couple of times, but it was years ago. I did request it last month though. I remember it as a prison film with Burt Lancaster. They plan a break, but someone squeals and it all goes wrong, but Burt still manages to kill the guard that's been hacking him off. Is that the one? Can you explain what you saw in it that made you feel this way? As I said, I haven't seen it in a awhile. My favorite part was the flashbacks.

"The Glass Key" (1942) was a great film. I can see maybe a nod to that here and there (Allan Ladd and V. Lake having a little something going on behind his bosses back, getting beat up alot, Bendix character is vicous like Eddie Dane, but not as smart). Rats, you guys are making me want to pull it out and watch it again!

I have read Haskell's book as well and she is no dummy. There is a big difference between being an author and a host and that might be what people are complaining about (most of the things shown on The Essentials I have on DVD so I rarely watch the show itself), but she does know her stuff.

Probably one of the best things about the film was that Johhny Caspar who was supposed to be "the evil boss" believed in honor and commitment to his people which ultimately caused his death. He also intuned the performance with lots of fun and humor (did somebody hit you?) reminding me at times of Akim Tamiroff (Uncle Joe Grande) from "Touch of Evil" (1958). The ending is obviously a nod to "The Third Man" (1949) and there are other little homages here and there. I also liked the use of color and lighting. Not a perfect film by any means, but a fun one.

I am surprised no one mentioned "Force of Evil" (1948). That has to be one of the most anticapitalist films ever. Someone also mentioned that Noir doesn't work in color. "Leave Her to Heaven", "House of Bamboo", "Chinatown","Le Samourai", "Killing of a Chiniese Bookie" and others would seem to refute that. I think it's more DIFFICULT to make a color Noir (as with the Horror genre) but I think it can be done.

Never had a problem w/subtitles. What I sometimes do have a problem with is the subtile translation VS what the actors actually did say. Many times this is not an issue, but sometimes it irks me a bit because it can change the meaning of what's said or how we percieve it. I really don't have a problem with dubbed tracks if they are natural and well done. I will usually check out the dubbed track to see how it is because I (and I think many of us who love foreign films) also have friends who hate subtitles. If the dubbed track is decent many times it has been a doorway to get a friend interested in these great films. Once they are hooked they will usually take the next step to watching a subtitled film. As far as foreign language films, I am glad TCM shows them and I am always requesting them when I can. Something I have gotten into the habit of lately is just leaving subtitles on english films as well. I had never really thought of this until a friend of mine in the business recommended it. As CS says sometimes you can lose important words due to noise, etc. This is very true with modern films with a bad mix.

That's kinda the same vibe I have gotten from it.

"M" is a great film and Lang has even said (in a movie no less) that M was his personal favorite. Lorre was great in that film. Unfortunately, it somewhat typecast him for years to come though. One of the things I thought was amazing about Lorre was when he made Hitchcock's original "The Man Who Knew Too Much" he couldn't speak English supposedly so he learned all his lines phonetically. Another great performance.

I read a lot about this film in a book on Noir. I have watched the first part (I recorded it). A very different role for Cummings, but he is pulling it off so far.

I think the difference of Truimph is it was deliberately deceptive. It portayed the Nazi party as unified for example when Hitler had just had the head of the SA (Rohm) murdered. Hilter did not have the popular support at that time and many scenes were staged (the young girl bringing him flowers for example). These things and the edited speeches helped him gain popular support and bought him time to amass his position of power. Also, part of some of the scenes were reshot in a studio and I believe the closing shots in the Luitpold hall were also shot once and then reshot because it did not have the desired effect. To the extent that films present ideas, all films are some what propagandaic in nature. We as humans are never completely unbiased one way or another as much as we might try to preserve an unbiased view. I agree with you to that extent, but I do think that there is a big difference in TOTW and 911. As far as if they should be in separate catagories, I could care less if they are placed in a doc or prop section of a store or listed as such in a magazine. I do think they should be shown though. They are very much a part of history and explain in part how Hitler gained so much support so quickly.

Otterhere, In reading the end of your post again "would these (films) qualify as documentaries?" I believe I mispoke a bit and didn't answer your question. Most people (myself included) view "Triumph" & "Olympia" as propaganda films for the Nazi party. LR maintains that they are simply documentaries. In 1933 when Hitler took over as chancellor, most people had not seen him and were unsure of what the Nazi party would stand for. Originally Josef Goebbels (minister of propaganda) spoke to Fritz Lang about doing a party film. (Hitler was a big fan of "Metropolis" (1927)). Lang arranged for a meeting and then immediately left Germany. Hitler was also a fan of LR's "mountain films" and her new smash "The Blue Light" (1932). They had met once before and he had remembered her so he brought her in and asked her to make a film of the 33 party meeting. Leni made this film, but it's nothing like "TOTW". She claimed that she had no cooperation and was in fact hindered during shooting. Hitler then requested she make the 34 party meeting with unlimited funds and total control. What followed was a masterpeice of filmmaking, but a major deception of who Hitler was and what he stood for to gain popular support at home and abroad. RL always claimed she was just a filmmaker doing a job, documenting what happened, but looking at this film you can see it was obviously staged and plotted out. I don't think Leni was a Nazi though. I think she was an opportunist which in a way is somewhat worse. She was a female director working in a very talented group of directors most of who came to America and had great success. Suddenly all these men were gone and here was an offer to shoot a film any way she wanted with total control and the final cut. The only other director who had such an offer was Orson Wells, but he was hampered by budget. Leni had unlimited resources! I think she is one of the world greatest directors, but I think she made a horrible choice in doing what she did. I understand some of her reasoning in the fact that this was an unbelieveable chance for any director-- for a woman in the 30's even more so. I doubt however that she was a total innocent as she claimed. Hilter's views on the "Jewish Problem" were well known even at that early stage from his writings. Also of note was LR's close friendship with Julius Streicher (also known as "Jew Baiter #1"). His words "A nation that does not attribute high value to it's racial purity will perish." is one of the most insightful lines of the film. The bottom line-- "Is this (and Olympia which the Nazi party paid for) a documentary or propaganda film?" is a debate which raged thoughout her life and will probably continue for years to come. I would support it's showing on TCM though with her other works. Art it is--although twisted. Message was edited by: Arkadin

Yes. Have it.

I don't question the film. I believe I made several statements to the contrary. Films are like any other art--open to many interpetations. Some people will see one theme in a movie while another person will see things entirely differently. I offer my views as just that--my interpetation of the film. If someone does not see things my way that's OK. For some reason you seem to like to argue about anything and everything. If someone does not bow to your personal taste they are less than you. I personally just wanted the other posters here to know that although I like "Written On the Wind" I am not going to call them "simple" or "the lowest common denominator" just because we see things differently.

SPTO, I don't think you overthought the film at all. That is pretty much how I personally see it. This war with technology is shown right from the start when we see a cowboy sitting at a campfire. We assume we are watching an old western when we hear this noise growing louder. The camera then shows us a jet passing overhead and we realize we are in modern times. The plane dominating the air and the man on the ground are a clear forshadowing of two different worlds at odds (or in disharmony) with each other. BTW, If there are any fans of the theater here, check out Sam Shepard's play "True West". A great play in which two brothers who are at odds with each other (one is a screenwriter, the other a bum) discuss the merits of "Lonely Are the Brave" with a film director.

http://www.amazon.com/Suicide-Blonde-Life-Gloria-Grahame/dp/0688067182/sr=1-1/qid=1169852450/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-4559045-1966023?ie=UTF8&s=books

mrsl, I think you make some good points. I'm sorry if I was not clear. In saying that there is lot's of humor in this film I did not mean to imply there was not tragedy. Satire can be funny or biting and I think there are elements of both here. We see a vicious phoney world that Stack and Malone have built to insulate themselves from fear and pain. Hudson and Bacall represent a wholeness they are trying desperately to attain but cannot let go of their own self interest to achieve. When they (Hudson & Bacall) leave together (escaping from this world) we see Malone fingering a small oil derrick representing a ****. The scene is humorus and heartbreaking to me personally. Here is a woman that wants love so desperately yet she has no understanding of what love is. Her idea of love is manipulation and control. In finally coming to terms with herself, she sets Mitch free. Mitch chooses to leave and she is left with no one (even her brother and father are gone now). She then retreats back into the world that she made for herself while Hudson and Bacall leave to start a new life together Rainer Werner Fassbinder (very heavily influenced by Sirk) made a film much like this called "The Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant" (1972). Again, it is more of a satire than anything else while balancing elements of camp, humor,and manipulation. "Bitter Tears" is much more transparent than "Written" and is perhaps a better film to start with if that interests you. As for the comments of Cenimascope, I do not agree with what she has said to you or others here. There are films that all of us like and dislike and it could be that this is one of the latter for you. I was just trying to state what I personally saw in the film. I am here to have fun, share and learn just like you and look forward to more exchanges between us.