JackFavell

Bogart seems to me to be one of the few stars who never seemed to quibble over what "type" he was playing. I know he was a bit of a complainer (like on location for "The African Queen"), but was he pretty easygoing about the roles he was offered? Who initiated the film? Did Ray ask for Bogie? Did they know one another before? I really have no knowledge here.

I just recorded it, but my daughter was home from school today because of snow, and I didn't get to watch it. I have never seen it, so I am very curious. I have to stop recording everything and start watching!

I agree. There is also "Sybil" but since that was a TV movie I don't think it counts here.

Great point! Bogie is a pretty mashed up looking guy.....

I saw the last five minutes and couldn't figure out why everyone was laughing - they were probably hysterical thinking their careers were over.....

D**n. I recorded it.

Marnie

Thanks for the info, FF. I hope TCM shows it soon, so I can see the bits I missed....

Welcome Musicalnovelty! Nice to see you here.

Since everyone else is guessing $12, I will go ahead and guess....... $20. But if I win, you must pay me. I want more posts from you, monsieur! And not just about football!

> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote} > Maybe Amy doesn't understand the situation because Will has never explained it. She is new in town. THAT's why he should have said a few words to her.... > > Amy: Please, Will. If you'll just tell me what this is all about. > > Will: I sent a man up five years ago for murder. He was supposed to hang. But up north, > they commuted it to life. Now he's free. I don't know how. Anyway, it looks like he's coming > back. > > Amy: I still don't understand. > > Will: He's... well, he was always wild, kind of crazy. He'll... he'll probably make trouble. > > Amy: But that's no concern of yours, not anymore. > > Will: I'm the one who sent him up. > > Amy: Well, that was part of your job. That's finished now. They've got a new marshal. > > Will: Won't be here till tomorrow. Seems to me I've got to stay. Anyway, I'm the same man > with or without this. > > Amy: Well, that isn't so. > > Will: I expect he'll come looking for me. Three of his old bunch are waiting at the depot. > > Amy: That's exactly why we ought to go. > > Will: They'll just come after us -- four of them -- and we'd be all alone on the prairie. > > Amy: We've got an hour. > > Will: What's an hour? > > Amy: Well, we could... > > Will: What's 100 miles? We'd never be able to keep that store, Amy. They'd come after us, > and we'd have to run again, as long as we live. > > I think Will does a very good job of explaining to Amy what is going on and what is at > stake. He doesn't need to explain anymore to her. It's now up to her to TRUST him. There > is no time for, "but, what if, let's think about this, maybe." No. She needs to trust him this > very second. He is her husband. > > > > I agree that Amy should have had more trust in Will. She should have known he would handle things right. > > She failed the first test of their marriage but there are reasons for her failure. Much can be learned through Amy and much is to be learned by Amy. Well, is my face red! I guess Will did tell Amy. So you just proved that Amy is actually yucky, after all!

> The "store" represents them. It's their future together. Will understands the situation, > Amy does not. This is nothing against Amy, though. In fact, it's part of what I wish to > talk about with High Noon. I believe there's a heckuva lot more to Amy and marriage > than what people have written about with High Noon. Maybe Amy doesn't understand the situation because Will has never explained it. She is new in town. THAT's why he should have said a few words to her.... > You also must realize that Will has a ticking clock on him. Time is of the essence for him > AND Amy. He cannot afford to have a sit down with her. He needs her to TRUST him. > NOW! I agree that Amy should have had more trust in Will. She should have known he would handle things right. > > I believe marriage must have trust and both High Noon and In a Lonely Place > place trust on the burner. I totally agree!!!!!! > > Dix has an excuse, he cannot read Laurel's mind, after all. But he should have taken > the time to OBSERVE Laurel, to find out what she is thinking, not immediately jump to > conclusions or leap to action. > > I don't believe that's who he is. Nor I. > See, I believe Dix DID trust Laurel. Did. He had faith in her, no questions asked. This > is why he felt betrayed when he found out she was sneaking around behind his back. The > thing is, he forgave her the first time and then the second time but the third did him > in. I hope to shine a brighter light on Laurel in my commentary. I didn't realize that she was on her third strike.... Perhaps if I had seen the movie I might have known that. I did peek at the end on youtube, and refreshed my memory of the beginning with clips there. > But Dix knows he has a problem.... he should have gotten some help or something > if he wanted to continue his relationship. > > He was never happier in his life. Laurel had reached him. Did she? He was still beating the crap out of people though. > > just as Laurel should have gotten help for her commitment issues. > > This is a problem. That's not to say Dix was an angel, because he clearly is not. I'll say. > But I definitely believe there is something to your comments > about a 50s woman feeling trapped by "what's expected of." However, I do believe it's more > about a woman being afraid of commitment, a woman not knowing what she really > wants. Those who are scared look to run, even from those who love them most. SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER I believe that the filmmaker wanted to make a statement about how doubt can damage a relationship. Maybe even about how fickle Woman is. However, the whole movie is skewed by Bogie's terrifying performance, and the fact that he tries to strangle the life out of her at the end.....this makes Laurel's repeating of the line "I lived a few weeks while you loved me..." less poignant to me. I think she was lucky to get out of that relationship (alive).

Cinemaven - Thanks for the response! I too would never ever blame the victim in real life. As I said before, Dix scares me to death. I have a hard time watching the film for that reason. But I do like to play devil's advocate on occasion, and I just felt an itch to turn things around. I like the idea that this movie has a deeper, subversive meaning - that the ideal 50's marriage is not what it's cracked up to be, and in fact, can cause a complete breakdown between a man and a woman. It seems to me that Laurel (and maybe Dix too) is caught in a 1950's movie, when she is a more modern character. She has a lot of chutzpah, the way she comes right out and tells the police that she was standing on the balcony in her negligee..... and that she was attracted to Dix. I think this shows Laurel at her best, honest and forthright, free to choose who she is interested in. But then she and Dix fall in love, and marriage comes up (because that is what you did in the 50's), and she is caught. She loses whatever honesty she had, and becomes a liar. 50's morality has turned her into a cowering, lying mess! Her 50's side says, "Stand by your man, no matter what." Her 2009 side says, "This guy's a loon. Run away!" In any case, she must pay for her foolhardy attraction....because this is a 50's movie after all.... (I don't want to offend anyone by writing about subversive motives or making a modern statement about a 50's movie, I am just having a bit of fun here. I hope no one gets too upset with my modern "spin". I am just a goofball who likes to analyze things too much)

>I mean come one, does it get anymore gorgeous than this? :x No, it doesn't.

> {quote:title=Film_Fatale wrote:}{quote} > OK. enough of this! My brain feels foggy just trying to make this all fit together! Oy vay. I forgot what I was trying to explain..... > > I think it makes sense, Wendy. To some extent, I guess you're saying both of these male characters were rather self-absorbed, right? Well, yeah. If you wanna boil it down into one sentence...... Why didn't I think of that?

Men are brought up to value a career more than anything else in the world. Women are brought up to value men more than anything else in the world. Men are THEIR career. Or at least at the time these movies were made that was the case. I believe that at some point, a woman will expect a man to value her above everything else. To the woman, this is only fair. To the man, it's a rule change, and almost impossible. So I guess what I am saying is, neither Dix nor Kane trust their mates enough to actually consider AND value the woman's opinion. Now, I am not sure that either woman WANTS them to do what they ask, but they do want their men to make a serious attempt to see their point of view. Kane is just so used to being the boss of his own and everyone else's life, he doesn't even take a second to explain to Amy why he can't leave town. Maybe he doesn't know why he must stay, but he does owe Amy a sentence like, "I'm doing this for you, so you can be safe forever, because I love you most of all." That would have gone a long way toward healing the growing breach between them. Instead, he just turns away to go do his job - this makes it very clear to Amy what comes first in his life, and what her life will be from now on - him turning away over and over and over. Never listening. Dix has an excuse, he cannot read Laurel's mind, after all. But he should have taken the time to OBSERVE Laurel, to find out what she is thinking, not immediately jump to conclusions or leap to action. Trust goes both ways - Laurel makes a mistake by not trusting Dix, however, he doesn't trust her either, which fuels his paranoia and rage, maybe even his love. They really don't know one another well enough for such a trust to have been built up over time. Maybe by saying, "Nothing you can say will affect my love for you." he might neutralize the fear in her heart. Put HER first instead of HIS fear. Believe in her, and she will believe in you. This is a bit of a stretch, here, I know. But Dix knows he has a problem.... he should have gotten some help or something if he wanted to continue his relationship......just as Laurel should have gotten help for her commitment issues. OK. enough of this! My brain feels foggy just trying to make this all fit together! Oy vay. I forgot what I was trying to explain..... Now it's your turn, Dix..... if you ever come back........

> I disagree with that. I believe Will is Will and Dix is Dix. It's the WOMEN who are on the > hot seat in these two films, with me. I don't think the men are completely off the hook here..... but I will play your game. And what does *The Birds* have to do with it? Explain yourself, Mister.....

Wow! You said a mouthful, Ro! And I'm not talking about brownies.... The line in your post that just leaped off the page for me was: >Veda was NEVER going to be satisfied with Mildred's "best"... because Mildred had already taught her she deserved something BETTER. Better than whatever it was she had at the present.... So there could NEVER be a BEST for Veda... she would always want something more than what she had... And the saddest truth of all is that she had her parents (specifically Mildred )to thank for it. That was awesome writing. And I think you are right. Mildred was guilty because she was never around, so she bought Veda. Getting money became of prime importance, and made Mildred's job the most important thing in her life. Therefore Mildred's "best" was that she not be there. To Veda the "best" that could happen to her was a never ending supply of money, and Mildred gone. Veda was just complying with Mildred's own wishes in a twisted way by cutting her out of her life...........harsh, but true.

> {quote:title=Poinciana wrote:}{quote} > Turning on TCM the other night, there was a close-up of Claire Bloom looking for all the world just like Frances Dee. Good one, I see it!

Thanks, Mica. I may just mosey over there, though I can't contribute, because I don't know anything about the movie! I'll just lurk around....

I sure do hope so!

Oh, I love that video, MissG! And I know that song, too. Was that the Enya version, Ang? I wasn't sure. You are right about the little touches. The movies aren't as creative that way nowadays. It's a shame they can't tie things together like they did in the studio days.... Your videos are cementing in my mind an idea for a thread - something to do with the art of cinematography and the sheer beauty of films made in the classic era. We don't get beauty and light in our movies much anymore. I'd like to make a tribute to the cinematographers, whose names we don't often see or even sometimes know. I can't quite make up my mind if I want to limit the thread to just black and white or not. I hate to put limits on what people consider beautiful, but black and white just seems more beautiful to me..... Message was edited by: JackFavell

Hey, FF. Thanks! I took a few more caps because I wanted to somehow tie in the landscape and the way Ford frames his shots, but I haven't posted them yet. I haven't quite got my ideas together on the subject. In fact, my brain feels sort of like this today:

Oh my gosh, you guys! Kim and Tiki -You really awe me. I have been trying to be more creative in my home (mostly due to lack of funds) and I really want to start doing some painting. Your artwork is awesome AND inspiring!