Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Thumpersma

  1. I've never found this particular scene hysterically funny as others have; interesting and odd, yes, but only worth a minor chuckle in my opinion. I think it's the (what I perceive as) forced rediculousness of the situation that actually turns me off. I suppose I have a hard time suspending reality long enough to find humor in what I perceive as forced silliness. In watching the figures bend and tangle in the room, I can't help thinking that one would never climb over a perfect stranger with such roaming hands and feet as they do in the stateroom. It's exactly the vertical and horizontal positi
  2. In watching TCM today, I caught "4 for Texas" (1963) during the Summer Under the Stars salute to Dean Martin. Unexpectedly, in the middle of the movie, there were The Three Stooges! I've never been a fan of the Three Stooges or slapstick so imagine my surprise when they popped up in the middle of what was, up to that point, a comedy western. As soon as they appeared on screen the entire mood of the movie changed from one of a satirical western, to one of vauldville slapstick with everyone, including the other actors in the movie, watching the "gag". Since following #SlapstickFall and espe
  3. I've decided to take this course simply to discover why everyone thinks slapstick is so funny. Personally, I have always found slapstick predicable and rather boring. It is exactly the anticipation that others are eagerly eating up that I felt took away from the fun of comedy. For me, being able to see ahead to just what would happen (knowing the Gardner would get squirted in the face with the hose before it happens) is exactly what takes away the fun from slapstick for me. To me, it's always been, "Oh yeah, we knew the guy would get it in the face. What's so funny about that?" or the Keystone
  4. Kathie seems to walk out of the shadows and into real life even though she comes into the scene from the bright sunshine. She seems to appear like a ghost, chats briefly with the living, and then disappears into oblivion. She says little but her posture tells us she is worldly and wise...even for a ghost. Jeff is the simpleton who sees this vision and, thinking he can use his usual charms on her, is brushed aside. Although her parting words give him hope of another encounter, it is vague and full of questions. Who is she? Will he really see her again? How often will he have to go to the descri
  5. I just watched the last 15 minutes of THE KILLERS although I have seen it at least twice before. Believe it or not, this was the first time I FINALLY understood the plot, outcome, and reason for "the killers" to hunt down The Swede. I find many times with some really complicated noirs, I lose track of the players and wind up not understanding the plot once all is said and done. For some reason, watching just the last few minutes of the movie just lit the light bulb for me. I find that trying to follow who's who and who did what in a noir is an exercise in concentration and note taking. I have
  6. Q. In what ways can the opening of Laura be considered as an important contribution to the film noir style? The voice-over narration was not new at this point but it certainly seems more effective here. The opening of Laura lays the groundwork for identifying the protagonist, the victim, and the hero, all in the first few moments. This is an important contribution because it gives the audience the "teasers" which keep us involved and interested. It also,sets the tone of the rest of the film.
  7. Q: What do you think about how Preminger introduces the character of Waldo Lydecker in this scene? In having Lydecker narrate the opening we are introduced to his obsession with control, luxury, details, and the finer things in life. By having Lydecker himself introduce himself to us, we are confronted with his superiority and his desire to explain Laura's death in his own words. Lydecker is laid out for us with great detail and we are left with few questions about his importance. At the same time, Preminger's allowing Lydecker to have so much control at the start lays a groundwork for sus
  8. Q. What examples do you see that fit with Nino Frank's contention that Laura is a "charming character study of furnishings and faces?" I believe Nino Frank was referring to the guided tour we are given of Waldo Lydecker's apartment and how this tour gives us clues to the characters. We are shown the fine, cultured furnishings which lead us to the introduction of Lydecker in his bath. Being in his bath Lydecker shows his lack of modesty as well as his sense of superiority. He orders McPherson around like he was Lydecker's man-servant oblivious to McPherson's disdain for him. McPherson, on t
  9. I saw the entire STRANGER ON THE THIRD FLOOR today. I'd seen the ending previously when I caught it on tv but never saw it from the start. Today, I was blown away by it! Not only were the dream sequences and voice-overs intensely noir, but they evoked all kinds of emotional reactions in me. The desperation, the fear, the suffocating intensity were marvelous. It really brought the ending into focus. And even though I find Peter Lore to be creepy in many of his roles, I almost thought his creepiness was secondary to the intense thoughts and "illusions" of the main male character. I have see
  10. I don't generally like this kind of POV if it goes on too long. However in this instance I think it added to the anxiety and desperation of the character. It was especially effective once the character is picked up by the driver. We get to see the growing realization on the face of the driver that the person beside him is not just an ordinary hitchhiker. Although it would have been interesting to see the anxiety on the face of Bogart as he gets frustrated with the questions and his eventual "outing" by the radio announcement, I feel the expressions on the drivers face were sufficient to prepar
  11. I'd love to see more of these cartoon shorts on TCM. I don't think I'd like a marathon night of them but interspersed between movies or three or four bunched together would be great. These cartoons are some that we grew up on and others that, even though very old, are new to me. TCM is such a treasure-trove of all things film related. I've been educated and enriched by watching TCM. Adding these cartoons to the line-up can do nothing but bring me more pleasure. Thank you, TCM!
  12. > Was it a silent or a talkie? It was a talkie. Bad audio. as I remember. Really needed restoration. > > The closest I can think of is Should Ladies > Behave? from 1933. (Of course, the answer is a > resounding "NO!") The synopsis for Should Ladies Behave just doesn't sound right, though. I remember the whole point of the plot was that what was good for the men was good for the women and the women were going to teach that to the men. If I recall correctly, Robert Osborns's equivalent at the time introduced the movie with this very idea; that the plot centered
  13. Good guess but the synopsis just doesn't sound right for What Fools Men Are. But hey! Thanks for introducing me to a new movie database site! :-) Susan
  14. Hi! :-) I'm hoping someone can help me figure out what this movie is. I saw it once about 10 years ago. I don't know any of the actors or actresses in it. I just know it must have been made in the 1920's or 1930's because of the subject of the movie and the clothing styles. It was in black and white. It was about men who behaved "badly" by smoking, drinking, and taking mistresses. The men lied for one another so that their wives would not find out about where they were when they were having affairs. But the wives got together and decided that what was good for the men was also good
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...