mrroberts

Is it safe to assume that everyone recognizes Ted Knight (aka Ted Baxter, MTM show ) as the cop standing guard in the last scene in the film?

In *Niagara* Joseph Cotton does show some of that charm when Jean Peters befriends him. I always wish that they could have ended up together, Cotton could have murdered her screwy husband (Casey Adams), that would have been fun to watch

I wonder if Fly is related to Dead End kid Leo Gorcey? Right now I wish Cagney were here to put him in line

I really like Joseph Cotten's work in *Niagara* . He really is a sympathetic guy, but very troubled, and potentially very dangerous. His no good cheating wife (Marilyn) learns that the hard way. Even though he commits the crime and must pay for it I find myself rooting for him to somehow get away, and its rather sad to see him meet his fate. Cotten plays the part very well, I don't think anyone could have done it better.

To get back to the original point of this thread, and its a flawed point, no one has altered/tinted the original black and white films shown here. The color tinting that we are seeing in these early films was put there from the start by the original creators of the film. When film was first created, if color was possible at the start, would anyone have wanted to make a black/white film? If sound had been possible from the beginning would anyone have purposely made a silent movie? The early film makers made do with what was technologically possible at the time. Tinting was an attempt to add some enhanced realism to the picture. Over time the technology improved greatly. Then cost was a factor. When it was possible to actually film in color it was at first very expensive. Over time the expense came down, then it was more a choice of the film maker whether to film in color or black/white. Hitchcock purposely chose to film *Psycho* in black/white for example. In conclusion, I believe most of us want to see a film as it was originally done and accept the limitations that existed at the time. Edited by: mrroberts on Sep 3, 2013 11:30 PM Edited by: mrroberts on Sep 3, 2013 11:31 PM

Its been a very long time since I saw the *Psycho II* sequel. I remember it as being rather good, Perkins and Vera Miles both replayed their roles. The film was made soon after Hitchcock's death, I wonder if he would have approved? Edited by: mrroberts on Sep 3, 2013 7:28 PM

Sepiatone, you didn't work with *Gung Ho* Michael Keaton did you? And there was that Richard Pryor movie *Blue Collar* . And who can forget the opening of *Christine* ? I worked in a steel mill inspecting finished product. So being a butler to Carole Lombard would be a big step up for me. Edited by: mrroberts on Sep 3, 2013 7:20 PM

I wonder if taking some crummy new films and decolorizing them would make them better? HA! Probably not. --- The point is, show the old movies the way they were made, its fascinating how many things they tried to do early on in film making, and some effects really added to the product.

I'd like to see TCM show *Tough Guys* , Burt and Kirk's final film together, I know its too new for the classic fanatics but the actors are classics. And its a comedy, I'm sure the guys really had fun doing it and I enjoy the heck out of watching it.

Hitchcock spent one week piecing together a scene that lasted how many seconds? I think he just liked working in the editing room, or maybe he took a lot of naps?

I just viewed your Mitchum interview, and I also just bought the criterion DVD of the film, on sale of course. A ton of stuff on the DVD (2 discs) so a lot to go through. Mitchum talks in a lot of generalities, he always gives the impression of being indifferent but you know he took his work seriously. And he really liked working with Charles Laughton as the director.

I don't believe that Hitchcock meant the film to be thought of as a "horror" film, remember Hitchcock is all about suspense. The first killing we see is quite a surprise (no one saw that coming) and it seemed graphic in 1960 (very tame compared to future movies) but it was quick and then it was over. Then the story enters a new phase , the sister comes looking for Marion and we the audience don't really know what's going on. The second killing is not quite so much of a shock, when the snoopy detective goes up in the house we know something is going to happen. And little by little we learn somethings about Norman and "Mom" . Hitchcock found the ending to the story to be rather amusing. Edited by: mrroberts on Sep 2, 2013 11:55 PM

I would say that *Alvarez Kelly* is a very average film but the two stars definitely pick it up a notch or so. Holden and Widmark worked very well together here. Supposedly Holden was having a little trouble with the drinking at the time but Widmark befriended him and helped keep him focused on the work.

I believe that Hitchcock himself has said in interviews that *Shadow Of A Doubt* was his favorite of his own films. An ordinary town, ordinary people living ordinary lives (that could be very boring) but a "monster" is right there among them and they haven't the slightest clue about that , except for one very observant young woman. She has figured it out, but she knows no one will believe her. To make things worse, the "monster" knows that she knows. How do we resolve this? Hitchcock is all about suspense and this film has it big time. Having a very good cast makes it even better. You'll find many other Hitchcock films are of a similar nature. If you haven't seen them I think you would like *Strangers On A Train* , *The Man Who Knew Too Much* (either version, the 1956 remake may be more appealing) , *I Confess* (I think a very underrated Hitch film). Among my personal favorite Hitchcock films are *Rebecca* , *Rear Window* , and *Dial M For Murder* , and of course about a dozen or so others

I am revising my choice, I would like to be a butler, if I could buttle for Irene Bullock (Carole Lombard)

Hitch must have been on a tight budget. Notice how all of that stabbing only resulted in a little blood (or chocolate syrup , or whatever).

I would be up for a little gold prospecting, but not sure if I want Dobbsy along for the trip!

Doesn't the music right at the opening titles just set the tone for this whole pic?

I would have at least gotten her autograph

That's cool, let us know how your first full viewing goes, what impression it makes.

Jim, I was thinking along the lines of the background that each man had before getting into the movies. Cagney had a lot of time in vaudeville as opposed to stage acting. In his first movie roles he got typed as the smart aleck tough guy and *Public Enemy* really cemented that image. With few exceptions he was stuck with that thru the 30's at Warner Bros. Only after leaving WB did he get to do a greater variety of work. Your right, he really excelled at bio pictures playing Cohan ,Lon Chaney, Admiral Halsey, etc.

Who's this Sir Larry guy and what does he know? Eddie had a lot more success then Cagney in trying to vary his roles in the early 30's Warners films . Robinson did those comedies that spoofed the gangster characters and several other non gangster films, that prevented him from being too typed. I'm sure that Jimmy C wanted to do the same but got a steady diet of the cocky, tough guy stuff. Cagney was always fighting with Mr Warner about that, but in the end the boss got what he wanted. Robinson seemed to be a little more accommodating and got more leeway which paid off later on. Of course Bogart got typed early on too, just keep being Duke Mantee. Eventually he broke that mold too.

I just read the Wiki entry for the film, very interesting stuff about the making of the film. Anyone have the recent DVD of it? Anyone familiar with the original book and if the film is close to it?

To get back to the comparison of these 3 mugs, I mean 3 great actors. Robinson had the most experience as a stage actor and that served him very well in playing characters in certain films. I'm thinking of his roles in films like *Double Indemnity* , *All My Sons* , *Five Star Final* , etc. I don't think Cagney or ,maybe Bogart, could have done those parts as well as Eddie G. Most if not all of the scenes in those films were like scenes from a play. Eddie could really make the most of those moments where his character would go into a little sermon . His ending in the film *Two Seconds* , that's incredible stuff. His talking about "types of suicide" in *Double Indemnity* , His exchanges with Bogie and Lionel Barrymore in *Key Largo* , etc --- PS, I put the "maybe Bogart" in because I know he also had quite a bit of stage experience early in his career Edited by: mrroberts on Sep 1, 2013 7:26 PM