FrankGrimes

*None of the performers really draw me and it's a propaganda film on top of it. That kind of movie has to have something else going for it to get me hooked.* I'd suggest you watch it.

*It doesn't really interest me.* Why?

*I didn't want to do that until after you and ro had moved on and I know you're getting ready to reply to her last post.* Someone around here is rather cute. *I've never seen it.* Non? That really surprises me.

Hi, SansFin -- *I hope you enjoyed Pursuit to Algiers (1945). I find it is an odd installment in the series as it seems to have been made on a budget of 2 and 6. There are several times there is no set and they are in only a swirl of fog. Most of the scenes are set in two staterooms which look as if they are made of the same stage panels.* You're very right, it's definitely an odd "Sherlock." I wasn't as impressed by it as the other films in the series. My issue was Holmes' antagonists. *I think it is fun that it includes so many of the series' stock in trade. Holmes is believed dead. Holmes excuses Watson's being thick-headed. They mention The Giant Rat of Sumatra and Holmes mentions Prof. Moriarity who is not part of the plot.* Again, you're right on it. The Sherlockian conventions are present and I enjoyed them. All we needed was the disguise. *I wonder if Basil Rathbone telling Nigel Bruce that he should not become an actor is an inside joke.* It sure felt like it! I thought this the was most Nigel was used in a Sherlock film since the very first one. And what I've learned from watching the "Rathbone/Bruce" Sherlocks is that it's the formula that is what's great more so than the actual stories and films. If I view the films on their own, they seem less than if I do so as one big entity.

Bonjour, Mlle. Snip -- *How about combining the two, Mr List?* You already know how I liked the others! But you haven't guessed the new list. *I am assuming the Contraband in question is the 1940 Powell-Pressburger film?* Oui. Hiya, Musicman -- I hope you had a very nice Christmas. *Darn. Another list where I am mostly behind in those I have seen. I guess I'll be reading a lot in the nexr week or so.* You haven't seen many of those films? Which ones have you seen?

I've also watched 15 more films since then: Another Thin Man China Seas Contraband Desk Set The End of the Affair The Gay Divorcee The House of Fear Invitation to a Gunfighter Lady of Burlesque Obsession Pursuit to Algiers Rendezvous Skyscraper Souls Susan Slept Here The Woman in Green

Merry Christmas! Some of my faves:

*Ha.. not hardly.. I wouldn't know the first thing about how to cook a GOOSE ha.* You don't know the first thing about cooking, just burning! *But what is it w/ Dickens and his "whacky names"?? Cratchit.. Scrooge.. Drood... (ha.. and my personal favorite tonight.. Uriah.. HEEP (of "INFAMY" ha.. seriously.. that is a movie you need to see if you are interested in more Dickesn, sir)* That's a really good point. Those are definitely names with a personality. *No, not necessarily.. not entirely.. but I DID try to with this one. (because I do have such a poor track record of guessing whether you will like a story or not, ha)* You're awfully brave to think I'd like a British lit flick! *She really was a tragic character (if you think about it) despite how horrible she is.. she had NO hope of being anything else. (at least not so long as she was under the teaching of Miss H. But I do think you may have it right that she did take to the teaching pretty naturally. ( Because everyone DOES have their own personality.. and we are all accountable for our own actions, no matter how we are raised) But still if a person is only raised to think ONE way all their life from infancy.. and they are bred to BE a certain way (with no other exposure to any other thought or deed) she was bound to live up to her teacher's "EXPECTATIONS", wasn't she?* You're right, she really is a product of her home. She was raised to think and act a certain way, like all of us. And since it was just the two of them, the message becomes very one-sided. *So there she was for quite some time.. just out there taking her "revenge" on the male species long after the teacher was gone.. because she didn't know any better...* Women! *Greatly Expected SPOILAGE* *And here's the difference betweem Pip and Estella... HE knew all along that the life he'd been leading (and the thoughts he was having about his change in status and how it compared to Joe.. and his benefactor too, for that matter.. at least early on) were not the way he should think because he'd known a different life at one time. (and he came to feel guilty for it... eventually)* That's right. Pip felt the pangs of guilt. He was embarrassed by Joe (Bernard Miles) yet he knew he was wrong to feel this way. *I like that despite the good intentions and the offer of prosperity (from the "great expectations" he was offered by one person (who really did mean well.. but did not truly know him for who he was) he still did not find his happiness in THOSE expectations.. but rather it came from the teaching he found and the love he always had.. from the other person who (despite offering more humble "expectations") had known and cared about Pip, and wished the best for him all along. (So maybe those expectations were the "greater" ones after all)* Very nicely said. And that's something I was drawn to with this film and in real life. So many have visions of grandeur that they eventually lose sight of what really matters the most. They'd rather love money and status above all. Family is purely a facade for others.

*I saw it years ago. I'll go one better in that when I did I had no idea who Anthony Mann was. When I did find him it was all westerns.* Wow! What I've learned is that most movie-watchers don't know directors. It usually takes some experience and investigating the world of film before you end up at directors. *On top of that I certainly didn't appreciate those noir qualities like I can now.* I can certainly understand that. I didn't get film noir until about 2006. T-MEN SPOILED *The murder of the partner was especially clever as when he gets shot the camera immediately cuts to O'Keefe and as he watches him fall to the ground you see the shadow on his face cover it until his face is gone, just like his partner. It was quick but very interesting. I never would have noticed that years ago.* That's one of the best moments in the film. It's a shocking scene that ends with a stylish touch. I had watched the film about four years ago, and that scene is one I remembered the most upon my revisit. *You and the gang have taught me well.* Thanks! You've been helping me out with westerns.

Good evening, Mrs. Cratchit -- *Woo hoo! I finally got lucky and picked one you liked ha. This is a rare treat!! I don't think I have had a succesful "guess" for you since Destry Rides Again.. ha. (and that one really WAS just blind luck) ha.* But have you been trying to pick films I'd personally like? That's dangerous with me! *But I really did think you might like this one, at least a little. was because I was HOPING you'd be "hooked" (like Jackie said) by just the beginning of the story (and give the rest of the movie a chance)* *I mean.. bloodthirsty convict.. attacking small defenseless boy in a graveyard.. and threatening him with MURDER no less. Come on now and admit it.. Pride and Prejudice it AINT. ha.* ** No, it's definitely not *Pride and Prejudice*. But I must say, I wasn't into the film at the outset. I thought it was a strange opening and it piqued my interest, but I was still on the fence. Once Jean showed up, I perked up. She got me going. I know how Pip felt! Then I started to worry again when he was whisked off to the city, but the story finally starts to kick in there and I started to like the film, more and more. *Yes.. and that was the OTHER thing I thought you'd like.. ha. She WAS quite something wasn't she??? Oh me, oh my.. I figured you'd have LOTS to say about HER.. ha. But then... look who was raising her to BE that way.. * I don't think she needed much encouraging! She's the real "pip"! SPOILED EXPECTATIONS *I just like how the whole "twist of fate" aspect of this story ends up to be not all that "twisty" after all. Because even though he SEEMS to have just more or less been "blessed" all of a sudden with some unexplained good fortune,.. his future (at least in terms of his success) has been pretty much "arranged" for him (even if it took years for him to learn by whom.. and why)* Pip finds himself in an interesting quandry. He becomes too proud when he's been chosen to be the "one," but then he feels shame when he sees who has chosen him. Then, in an interesting turn of events, he sees his benefactor in a different light. I definitely liked the commentary of the film, most notably about money and status. I also liked the commentary on one's past and how we choose to own it. There's some modernity in the film, which I liked. Miss Havisham (Martita Hunt), for one.

What's the word, Movieman -- *Anthony Mann's T Men is a straight forward docudrama of federal agents going undercover to bust a counterfeiting ring. The drama is solid enough but the thing that sets this one apart is the look of it.* *It is a very dark film. Apart from establishing shots there is only one scene that takes place during the day. Shadows permeate every scene. In two shots one might be in the light and the other in darkness.* You said it. Almost every scene is shadows. You can't be on the phone without being cloaked in shadows. It's great! *Charles McGraw plays a killer and even his own granite like face throws it own shadows giving him a more menacing look.* Is there anyone more intimidating in film noir than Chuck? He's a pitbull. Once he shows up, I know it's big trouble. *Some unusual shots make add to the feel of it. It is especially eerie in a couple of scenes that involve a murder.* The one murder is very stylistic while the other is like a bullet. *A "B" cast stars with Dennis O'Keefe, Wallace Ford and Charles McGraw. Solid enough entertainment enhanced by a very noir look. There was much more to Mann than westerns and this one highlights his talent in other fields.* I actually knew of the "film noir" Mann before the "westerns" Mann. *T-Men* is one of the harder-hitting films noir you'll ever see. Since it's a docu-noir, it plays more systematic than dramatic.

*Yo.. Grey Dude.. November is a memory.. December is fading fast. (I'm not getting any younger here.. "Aged Parent" that I am) :-)Tick tock, tick tock...... * I ended up enjoying *Great Expectations*. I thought it was an interesting tale about money, status, family, and friendships. I most especially liked young Estella (Jean Simmons). She had Miss G down pat!

That was beautiful, Rey. Quite lovely and very moving. You've lived your own movie. I think that's wonderful.

I'm such a loyalist than I couldn't handle such a betrayal from my love.

*I am with the poet who declared it better to have loved and lost.* So you'd rather your spouse choose another over you? I'm not sure I could take such an utter rejection. I can handle being rejected by someone I love who I have never intimately loved or kept from this love (Countess and Baron), but for my intimate love to choose another over me (General), that's damning.

*Would you rather not be with the one you love* *(the Countess' plight) or lose the one you love* *(the General's plight).* Great question! As always. I'm of the school of losing something is much more painful than never having. I can love someone and never be with them. But if you are lucky enough to be with the one you love, only to have them leave you, that's a killer. I'd say the Countess and the General are both afraid to lose what they have. The General's love for the Countess emerges through the threat of losing her. He's being rejected for another, which is a devastating blow to the male ego. The Countess is afraid to lose a strong feeling that has struck her to the core. She was certainly fond of her furs and jewelry... and the General. But what she feels now is much stronger and would be a devastating blow to the female heart if lost. Just as with *Wuthering Heights*, do you marry for security or love? Like and love... there's a vast world of difference.

*Why am I thinking your reason for this has nothing at all to do w/ David Copperfield?? ha (To borrow from Bridge on the River Kwai... "Madness!" ) * If I could go from December to March, weather-wise, I'd gladly watch *David Copperfield* ! *Hmmm.. let me think of a good example.. have you ever seen Jane Eyre??????????????* *(OH good gravy.. look who I am talking to.. am I KIDDING myself to even THINK that??)* Yes, I've seen that one. I own it. Someone snippy suggested that one to me. I can't remember the trap in that one! *1) What do you think of each of the characters and the way they behaved in this film.. and who do you find to be the most sympathetic? (if you feel any of them was more sympathetic than the others) And why?* I believe the General and the Countess married for status and they liked each other well enough but the Countess didn't truly love him. They were a couple by appearance. I started to feel sympathy for the General as the film progressed. You can tell he was hurt by his wife's falling in love with the Baron. I do believe he cared about her and most likely loved her in his way. But I'm also aware of the General's doings with ladies. Like many men of money and power, he was looking to have his wife and mistresses. The Baron was drawn to this mysterious woman and then fell in love with her the more time he spent with her. He seemed to connect with the Countess on an emotional level that was deeper than her connection with the General. I got the feeling the Baron was inside (emotional) and the General was outside (appearance). Did I feel sympathy for the Baron? Not necessarily. The Countess seemed to grow as a woman throughout the film. She's the one who evolves. She starts off being very superficial and appearance-driven. She'd rather make love to her clothes and jewelry, to herself. She then falls for the Baron and she falls hard for him. She's been stirred, deep inside. That's a tough fire to light and an even harder one to put out. Now her entire life has gone from worrying about how she appeared to worrying about she feels. She cannot escape the kind of love she feels and she is now willing to sacrifice anything and everything for that love. Do I feel any sympathy for her? Absolutely. What is a woman to do in that situation? She's really caught. The General was very good to the Countess in terms of providing for her in the materialistic, but he wasn't good in providing for her in the emotional. Is that all his fault? Probably not. She's just as at fault for marrying him for the reasons she did. That's the trap. The General is still the General that she married, is my guess. He even speaks of wishing their marriage could be more. MAJOR SPOILER ALERT: *And 2) Because there is some doubt (or IS there?) about what REALLY happened at the duel (since we only have her question of"Why was there only one shot?" and no real clear outcome.. or was there?) What DO you think happened? What is your take on that whole duel and why it was fought and who was going to walk away.. and who was not.* The ending is very open-ended. We don't know the fate of any of the three. We are left to make our own conclusions. My conclusion is that since we were shown the General is a dead shot, he killed the Baron with his shot. Does the Countess die of a heart attack? I'm of the belief that she does.

*Oh, no... that was just a friendly little "tap" from my hat pin. :pThe scissors come later my DEAR friend!! * That's a sharp hat pin! *Oh well.. March is not so far away.. when you think of how quickly NOVEMBER flew by. (HA!)* Tell me about it. I hope March does get here very soon. *Nope.. no conflict there. And I mean that to say it is because I do have some pretty clearly defined ideas about that subject.. so I never feel conflicted when I see a movie w/ that as a major theme (in terms of what I WANT people to do or not do in a story)* *But.. that is not to say that I am unsympathetic to two people who may fall in love and one of them is trapped in what seems to be a loveless marriage.* Ahhhh, very good! I thought you may be a hard-liner with that. *However.. again.. it all goes back to how a person views the Countess and her actions and the motivations behind them (really how one views all three main characters and what is motivating them) as to how much sympathy any of the three may or may not garner.* So you are saying you did not like the Countess' motivations? You find her to be selfish from start to finish? You're thinking she's looking to buy what she wants?

*No, I didn't know you had a weak heart...but I will find it.* Black hearts can be weak, right?

*Hello there my DEAR Mr Grey * Here come the scissors! I feel 'em! *(but who am I to point fingers.. does the title "A Canterbury Tale mean anything right about now?? ha. Sometimes it has NOTHING to do w/ how good a story is.. just how worn out the moviewatcher is.. alas)* That's all it was, really. *I hope you do get to see a few of them.. especially little Davey Copperfield. alas.. he is on so late tonight. I purposely let myself MISS this one for fear I would just fall asleep and not catch it.. but I hope you are at least taping it.. (HEY.. what's not to love.. along w/being a great story it has Freddie Bartholomew.. OH.. and its got Edna May in it (woo hoo) .. and OH how I love WC Fields near the end.. ) In fact I ALMOST picked this one for you (back when I was picking a film) instead of GE.. but I do confess.. I love my GE...* Actually, I missed recording it. And the DVD is pricey, so I may not get to that one until March. *I enjoyed it alright.. but I gotta confess... apart from a few "Dickens-ish" moments (and characters) it almost had more of a Sherlock Holmes feel to it.. without Holmes and Watson, that is. Let me know what you think of it when you get around to it.* Hmmmmm... interesting. I may find it all right, then. *Sure.. I am CERTAIN that he had fluffy scruffy stuffed puppets in the back of his mind SOMEWHERE when he wrote all that stuff down.. NOT!! Good gravy young man.. we gotta pour some culture in you SOMEHOW..* The Muppets are culture! *But you were right.. (gasp.. did I say THAT??) I am conflicted about this film.. just as you said.. but NOT for reasons you may guess.* Hmmmmm... *Or DO I agree with you?? Hmmm... I imagine we share a lot of common opinions about who she was and her motivations throughout the film... but I imagine we still end up seeing her differently.* You will have to explain that one. *But alas.. (and here comes the conflict.. ) despite the many things I found to like about it.. (and I did find several) at the same time.. I never felt so let down by a story (at the end of it all) in all my born days.* Huh? That definitely confuses me. *But.. did I happen to mention: "Somebody hand ME a brick????????????????" * *OH.. and PS: my reasons for saying this may NOT even be the ones you think.. as I imagine that right now, you are expecting me to have some definite opinions on the various characters based on certain moral issues that are raised (and/or not raised) in the story. And while it is true that I do have opinions about all that.. that is STILL not the reason I felt frustrated w/ this film.* *In fact.. ha.. I would be very surprised if you could guess what I THOUGHT (maybe even WISHED) for the end of this film to be (woman of mystery that I am.. ha )* *:-)* Well, where I thought your conflict would be is that she was in love with someone other than her husband. It's great to love someone honestly and truly and wishing the very best for him. It's another to love someone other than your spouse. The only other disappointing aspect I can see for you would be her offering the earrings to the saint to save her love. Other than those two things, I have absolutely no idea what would frustrate you.

*The Prodding Of Monsieur G...* *Merci Monsieur. Thank you very much for picking up my handkerchief.* That was good! Now I feel faint. You know how weak my heart is.

*With that said...I am walking over to you FrankGrimes. And I am asking you in earnest to start the film discussion on* *"The Earrings of Madame de..." (when the discussion on* *"Safe in Hell" safely concludes). I don't want your point/counterpoint. I want you to initiate. I mean after all, that'd be the only gentlemanly, un-Garfield-like thing to do.* Me initiate?! This is horrible! I'm terrible at initiating! I'm a prodder! THE SPOILED EARRINGS OF MADAME DE... I feel *Earrings of Madame de...* is a brilliant film. It's genius. The film is "book-ended" perfectly. We are introduced to a faceless woman at the outset of the film. This woman can be any woman, is how I took that. She is going over her personal clothing items, particularly her jewelry and furs. We eventually learn she's a married countess (Danielle Darrieux) who is looking to sell one of her "cherished" items. She needs the money. Why? Because she likes to spend money. Her life is presented as a world of materialism. She's in love with her possessions. Enter Baron Donato (Vittorio De Sica). He and the Countess meet in passing before, by chance, end up at a ball together. They share a dance, that leads to a night of dances, which leads to nights of dances. The Baron sweeps her off her feet. And, you get the feeling, for the very first time in her life, the Countess has fallen in love. Her emotions have been aroused. Aroused emotions are problematic when a woman is married. So the Countess decides she must run away from the heat of passion with the hope of it cooling. But before she is to leave, the Baron presents her with a gift. I love how she scurries upstairs to find her gift: It's the earrings she sold. How ironic. Surely this woman will be forced to fawn appreciation for the gift since these were the earrings she chose to sell in the first place, the earrings her husband gave her as a wedding present. They were the jewels she liked the least amongst her grand collection, after all. The Countess' reaction ends up being one of real joy for the earrings, for they have been offered to her by her love with love. There is now an emotional attachment to the earrings. They are no longer pieces of jewelry that are to be worn for appearance but symbols of love that are to be cherished. The exact same pair of earrings can come to mean completely different things to the same woman. Sensational! The next turn of events has the jealous husband, the General (Charles Boyer), taking the earrings from the Countess. And who can blame him? He eventually pushes her to give away her earrings to a niece. The niece turns around and sells the earrings back to the jeweler. The Countess is told by her niece of this news and returns to the "scene of the crime." In this beautiful twist-of-fate film, the Countess is now begging to buy her earrings back, offering to sell all of her furs and jewelry just to have those earrings back. What she cherished at the start of the film, she no longer cherishes at all. And what she could easily part with at the start of the film, she's now willing to give up everything to have. The Countess has gone from an empty, superficial woman to a woman with great feeling and love. How does it all end? It ends perfectly. I absolutely love the film. And after going over it again a second time, I can see I'll love it even more with subsequent viewings. The words and actions of the General resonate even more with me this time. I feel for him more. I love this kind of love and love story. Max Ophulence is one heckuva director.

*Which seems to indicate it was all about situations and the kind of people who were as you say, on the 'wrong' side of the street that mattered to him, not calling attention to how clever he was.* Oh, definitely. I believe he had a fondness for the Street.

*And that's the only reason I can stomach (mostly) what he deals out, because he's not doing these things with an exploitative intent. In a way, the singing scene is as daring as anything he ever did because it's Fuller and again he's kind of thumbing his nose at those who pretend to admire boldness when in fact are merely titillated by the kind of exploitation he exposes* *and at the same time, he's also exposing those who pretend to "bless the little children and the animals" when in fact they're destroying their innocence.* That's a superb point. One I never thought of. You're right, I do believe he's looking to exploit the exploiters. *I admit it took me a while to find these things in Fuller. He's so in-your-face you think it must be some kind of joke. Well, I guess it is, maybe he was laughing a bit at some folks.* I think Fuller liked slapping people in the face with the hard truths about our ugliness as a society. He is not a subtle filmmaker. *Did you ever wonder if he made his films not only about the fringe characters in society, but for them, and that's why they're so boldly drawn? He seldom went in for subtlety or slyness, which usually is about the director not the subject. He seemed to care passionately about subject matter, like a journalist does.* From what little I know of Fuller, he felt more humanity from those on the wrong side of the street than those on the right. His on-the-ground coverage of the harsh urban worlds and then the harsh worlds of war helped to shape him as a writer/director. He made socially-conscious films, for the most part. He looked to make statements through entertainment.

I find it absolutely amazing that a prostitute, who we see beat a "John" for owing her money at the outset of the film, is now singing a song of hope to disadvantaged children. That's pretty darn remarkable to me. Sam Fuller's films often expose the ugliness of Society through the "ugliness" of society.