JackFavell

> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote}Ciao, Spunky -- *Hey thanks for plugging This Land is Mine! > > It's a very good film. And I thought the themes in the film were very much in line with Quiet Gal. You are a good one for pegging what others will like. Or maybe we are all just suggestible. > Exactly. Sometimes when a person like Paul goes on and on about how wonderful he has it, you can admire what he has and be happy for him or you can be envious of him, or you can just get sick and tired of his constant talking about himself. Those without such wonderful worlds are always put in a spot with this. Jean was a conniving opportunist. Paul was basically telling Jean where his hidden treasure was buried. That's a great point! I never really looked at it from Jean's POV before. Yackety yak yak, it's like he was just egging Jean on with how great his life was. That's a really interesting way to view it. More of the "he deserved it" kind of thinking. "If he hadn't gone on and on about it, I wouldn't have been so compelled to steal his life/wife." More putting the blame on the victim. > Precisely! A lot of us don't want to know the truth. We'd rather go on believing what we wish to believe. Very human.I can relate to that. And that goes right back to Blanche Dubois. > How could you do that to your mother-in-law, Jeannie?! I hope she is all right. Hey! Don't even say that in jest! She's pretty shaky still, and the person is still hanging around, not with access, but so my MIL has to see her every once in a while. It's going to be a longer process to get this person out of her life than she originally thought. That makes her pretty upset. > Ding, ding, ding, ding! I know a couple of liars who will immediately turn the tables on you, looking to place you on the defensive. It's never them. Exactly! "It was your fault I lied my head off!" I am glad I don't have those issues anymore. So's my dad. But it does make me understand that mindset a little bit. Oh heck I think we all can. > Only if you have a guilty conscience. The liars I know feel empowered by getting away with the lies. They see themselves as being brilliant for being able to get away with lies while keeping a certain image. Somewhere inside they have a guilty conscience. At this point, it's buried so deep they don't even know it's there. But catch them up - I mean, REALLY catch them, so they have to pay for the lies, and it will come out pretty quick. They may still try to twist it around on someone else, but if the people they lie to were to say that won't play anymore, they'd have to look at themselves a little differently. I don't know how you could live with the load of guilt over that long a time. > It sounds like you have a guilty conscience. I struggle to lie because I kill myself over it. I do too, but I was young, and very frightened of my dad's wrath, so I lied about stupid things that I knew he wouldn't approve of, but that seemed more on the reasonable side to me. If he grounded me for getting in 1 minute late by the clock, that didn't seem reasonable to me, so I thought his rule was stupid. I would go out in the afternoon, thinking he wouldn't know. He always did! I knew I was wrong the whole time he was asking me if I went out, but fear is a great motivator. So is anger. Fear of speaking up for yourself can also force you into twisted resolutions, like lying. > The liars I know don't hate themselves. In fact, they think highly of themselves. They became liars as a way to avoid confrontation with an authority figure. They feared the punishment. It's a childhood issue that they have never grown out of. In fact, they've grown more into it. They are now comfortable with the lying, for it's who they are. That's terrible! The weight must be tremendous - just to be able to keep the lies in place.... I think they still must hate very much to lie like that. If they don't hate themselves somewhere inside, I'd be very surprised. > Now that's interesting. I can see this. To actually go around thinking everyone is lying and cheating because they are does create a horrible kind of existence of distrust. I'd hate it. But I can tell you that I don't trust these people to be honest with me with everything. There's almost always a selfish slant with them. Definitely. It's the ultimate insult, frankly. That they think you are so stupid that they can say anything to you. My old room mate was horrible, she always thought you were lying to her, and she was very manipulative, forcing you into decisions, trying to catch you up when there was nothing to catch, trying to make you prove that you liked her. Honestly, the spirals were worthy of *Vertigo*. She would make you feel sorry for her, then come clean and tell you she had been lying about the thing that supposedly happened to her that made you sorry in the first place. Oh the depths of doubt she must have had! The sad thing is, she had so much to offer outside of the lying, but she never saw it. She had to make herself "more" than what she was. The truth is, if you don't lie - you can't get caught, and even better, no one can ever hold you hostage, or emotionally blackmail you EVER. If your life is an open book, then you have no worries, no fear that someone will find you out. I try to live my life as openly as possible, my foolish choices are openly shown. The funny thing is, people can see it when you lie. The liar thinks you can't, but it's so obvious, once you've seen it before. And when I meet a liar, I usually laugh right in their face, I can see it all over them. They always think I am as afraid as they are, but I am free and they are the ones who have trapped themselves. And because I went through all that, I have a bit of a sixth sense about it. I've had a few run ins with habitual liars, and it's pathetic really. In theatre, you get quite a bit of it. It sometimes goes hand in hand. I just look at them and consider myself the lucky one. But I'm certainly not going to put myself up on a pedestal, acting like I never did it. It hurts to tell the truth here, to have to admit it about that past lying, but it makes me realize how lucky I am that I didn't fall into it for any time past high school. I just felt terrible when I did it. It chokes you, burdens you. But I don't want anyone feeling like i am coming off holier than thou here, I did it and it hurt me and those around me. In fact, it probably did more damage to me in the long run than to my dad, who just saw right through me. It took a long time for him to want to trust me again. Now, I can say that we are very open with one another and have a better relationship than we've ever had. But it also made me more understanding person. I feel bad for someone who is caught out, I know that choking feeling, and I can only hope that they will realize how it's the lie that ruins their life, not the other person who they think forced it on them. That's the excuse. Maybe they will turn it around after having been caught. It's so much better that way. > I think it's the best era for "haunted" films. It started with *Rebecca* and then went on to films such as *Jane Eyre*, *Dragonwyck*, *The Uninvited*, *Portrait of Jennie*, *The Woman on the Beach*, *Secret Beyond the Door*, etc. And all those Lewton films. Also La Belle et la Bete fits the genre....a man transformed, a mere ghost of himself. Black Narcissus is more psychological, but deals with the ghosts of the nuns former and future selves.... I could even fit some of those Burt Lancaster films too, like Criss Cross and Kiss the Blood Off My Hands.... and I am watching *Woman on the Beach* right now! I also include some of those films that seem outside the genre, like The Search or The Third Man, because they have to do with the same thing - finding someone you thought was dead, remembering someone who is gone, maybe they aren't dead, but just as gone as if they were. Even a movie like Act of Violence is similar - someone comes back from your past to haunt you - with the truth... funny how that came up in my mind, since it's about another liar. The war left it's scars on people, but there is something kind of hopeful in most of the movies, the hope for a rebuilt life or psyche. A rebirth, like a phoenix from the ashes. That's what I latch onto in these films, and I think most 1940's women did too. > Have you watched *Pilgrimage* yet? No! I'll have to add it to the pile... maybe I can get to it after Buchanan Rides Alone. > I'll have to check it out. I am not sure you will like it, but it's quite fascinating. I don't know that Kay is your cup of tea. > You're a loon! But everyone knows that. It tells me you're stubborn. You like the strength and courage of convictions. It's very "Christ-like." I never thought of it that way, but I guess it is. That courage of convictions plays well to me, since I tend to see too many sides of a question to be very sure of my own convictions. I like someone who shows that courage and strength. It's a model for me. I also admire those who can keep a secret, like Stella Dallas or Frisco Jenny. I am a big blabbermouth! I can keep other people's secrets, but not my own. That's why I was never a good liar. My own convictions tend to be about tolerance and anti-prejudice, and justice, and those are the messages in movies that appeal to me most, but I also like someone who has the strength to go down nobly - and when they fight the weakness in themselves, it's even more powerful - like Charles Laughton in This Land is Mine, or Ruth Chatterton in Frisco Jenny. > I do like *Barton Fink*. I like that one. Talk about a psychological mess. Yeah, even worse than The Player - it has all that "Is it real or is it all in his head" (sorry for the pun) thing going for it. > Really? I haven't been drawn to it, expecting something light and fluffy. I'll have to watch it, now. It is light and fluffy but I think you will just find it funny. Just watching Roland Young walk in the movie is hilarious. And you like Billie Burke! > It really does feature one of the best casts ever. They really do play off each other so very well. My favorite part is where Lucy is trying to pull a fast one with the butcher. She and Eve Arden together in a movie just makes it fantastic! The best quipsters ever! > You're right, Norman really isn't a jerk, as I deemed him to be. He's just playing the kind of guy I really don't care for. So why is it that I like Maurice Chevalier's characters but not Norman? Because he sings? Fredric March is an actor who sometimes brings out the unpleasantness in a role, without having a lot of actual charm himself. He plays charming, but I always get the feeling that he's "acting". There's a stodgy, stubborn core to March that is singularly unlikable. With Chevalier, his charm just seems to bubble out of his own personality. > *Interesting. Have you seen Young in Heart? I really like that one, not just for Janet, but also for Doug Fairbanks Jr. and Paulette Goddard. It also has Roland Young and Billie Burke of Topper in it. > That's another I've yet to see. The title worries me. The title has almost nothing to do with the movie. It's about con men and women. > I can't imagine living such a public life where your appearance means more than who you are as a person. We're such a vain society. And getting vainer. It's terrible. Now we actually have people who alter themselves with surgery for NO REASON. Ack! > "Straightforward." That's good. Wellman usually does get right to it. I also think he values faces, just as John Ford does. The moments I always remember with Wellman have to do with faces. I can't believe he directed *A Star Is Born*. That doesn't seem like him. Isn't it funny? No it doesn't seem like him, except in tone. The sharpness is all in the dialogue, and maybe the editing. But he comes out with these weird movies that don't really fit his personality at all, every ten years. So Big in the early thirties, then A Star is Born, then Gallant Journey (a gentle movie about the invention of airplanes, which is the only thing that ties it to Wellman at all), and The Happy Years in 1951 about a bratty boy who goes away to school and learns humility. These oddball films are thrown in as an experiment every so often... like he wanted a challenge every now and then. Or maybe it was studio projects, I don't know. Yet they all seem very personal somehow. > I'm not that big on redemptive endings. They can be too much for me. I greatly prefer the ending to *The Roaring Twenties*. I usually love redemptive endings and I do here, but the rest of the movie doesn't actually get me. I was annoyed at Pat O'Brien this time, although it's kind of sad that he can't reach the boys. I would have loved it if Pat had picked up a little of Rocky's style... why did they have to make the good side so unappealing? Didn't we just talk about a movie where the good was made to look like a fine thing? Oh yeah, Comanche Station. > I hope not! Oh, you mean his character. Yes, his character. > That will be the next gangster film I watch. I better catch up with that one - I haven't seen it in years. I like how sassy he is with Margaret Lindsey, and the Pat O'Brien role is played by Robert Armstrong (King Kong). > *Yankee Doodle Dandy* ?! Are you trying to kill me?! I'll definitely come back and haunt you! You'll come back and thank me. I KNOW you'll like this one. Edited by: JackFavell on Mar 21, 2012 9:48 AM

Yes, I remember that I did not like it as much as I thought I was going to, and that may just be the reason.... it seemed like the ending was like a different movie and that it just didn't make sense. I think, though I may be wrong, that it goes from braod comedy like the scene where Jeanie gets stuck in the airplane to real drama, and I just couldn't grasp the change, but maybe it's because the transition was missing.

It must have been a blackhawk movie.

Amazing! I wish I'd known about them before I practically ruined my crock pot making ribs, then scraping the dried, cooked on, cement like rib sauce with a razor blade.

So here's a question. The version I saw when I was a teen borrowing it from my local library, was that incomplete as well? It would explain a lot if it were.

I only wish I could see the whole thing again, Jeff. Thanks for posting those links!

That's a great idea, Sansfin... I never heard of them before, but I did just read that spraying the inside of the cooker with spray oil helps with the sticking, and it did work the last time I tried it. A liner sounds like a better plan.

I'm definitely going to get to it! Probably tomorrow morning...sorry, I just was so busy this weekend and yesterday. As soon as I watch it tomorrow, I'll come over here and we can chat.

> {quote:title=rohanaka wrote:}{quote} > So am I little darlin' It was SO worth the blurry eyes I have today (from staying up late last night to finish it) What a powerful and compelling film. I am just about beside myself thinking of it all again. I can see why this is a favorite film for you. I tried to get online on Sunday night to reply but I couldn't get on the TCM site! I'm so happy you really loved this movie like me. > I imagine so! To think that he started out ONE way.. but ended up SO very different by the end of it all. I love how he finds himself in the film. When confronted by his absolute worst fears, he was suddenly freed from them. > I think this is my absolute favorite role for him.. I am sort of a "new" Laughton fan.. only having recently started enjoying his films (in the last couple of years) I have seen several though.. and have found that he really can play just about ANYTHING (good guy, bad guy.. all points in between) but usually most of his characters are at least a little "outspoken" (if not BOISTEROUS) sometimes even lecherous. But wow.. this Albert Lory is a side of him I have not seen before. Certainly as the hunchback.. he was both pathetic and sympathetic. But in this film.. he was something else altogether. Yes, I always knew he was a great actor, but here, I think it shows through even more so, when playing just a regular person. His quietness really showed a whole other side of Laughton, and to me, too, this was maybe his best role. He's so controlled all the way through the movie, there are no outbursts or blusterings, just pure character. He really WAS Albert Lory. > To watch him at the beginning of the film.. so "bumbling" and repressed even. Rather incapable.. and shy, to the point of being handicapped by his own lack od assertiveness. And yet.. so obviously longing to break free from all that and express the emotions he was feeling (especially toward his co-worker and neighbor and the affection he had for her.. but perhaps with regard to the frustration he felt with his students and his mother as well) He doesn't seem like much of a hero, does he? I think Renoir is smart to show how the most unassuming person could find strength of character inside to become the bravest person when the battle is for everything you love. > I could not help but feel he had MUCH more hidden away in him.. and BOY when it came forth.. it just about bowled me over. In fact.. as he was giving his speech (during his final moments in court) he fairly shone as he spoke so freely and started naming names even.. and challenging each person there to stand with him.. or lay down and give up and let the Nazi's win. And then when he bends low.. just to talk with Maureen OHara's character.. as if she were the only one in the room.. he nearly took my breath away. You are choking me up just talking about it! I think that final speech of his is so brilliant. If ever there were a speech to convince those who doubted which side to be on, that was it. No flaming words, no grandstanding, just quiet rational thoughts. Everyone knows fear, and everyone has something at stake in the world. We all know tyranny in some form or another - even if it is just within our little worlds. It all seems so very familiar, even in this day and age. There will always be weak and strong, those who go along with the crowd and try to convince us all that it's for our own good..... and it's hard to stand up for freedom when you are in need of something provided by someone more strong willed than you, it seems so easy to just agree, after all, they are just words.... but this makes the argument against falling into that easy way so strongly. I guess what I am saying is, it's easy to fall into a corruption of your ideals when you have something to protect, but that is when we have to fight that urge most strongly. It may be hard to identify with an Errol Flynn or a Clark Gable, but I could very much identify with poor Albert. So the film seems rather timeless to me. > By the time he goes back to his classroom and pulls out his book (the one we didn't even KNOW he'd been hiding all along) and started reading to those boys.. he had them all in tears.. and I was crying right along with them. (ha.. in fact I was sobbing so hard.. I had to cover my mouth for fear I was going to wake up the whole house... and I am NOT too embarrassed to admit it here.. ha) Oh no! I too have the same reaction. Such a quiet movie, but what an impact! > I LOVED how he shook off the soldiers and walked out on his own.. without letting them lay their hands on him.. he was a whole new man. Yes, it was a brave gesture, and showed that he was his own man finally. Free. > There is so much more to say about this story.. and ALL the other characters.. his mom.. Maureen's character.. Paul.. your sweet George.. and OH that Walter Slezak!! (Again w/ the whole Nazi thing..I think I remember you bringing him up in our OUAH chat. Good gravy, he should NOT be that menacing and evil.. and yet so NICE and polite all at the same time) He's so reasonable. That's what makes him such an evil villain. I think those are the men who I despise most in the movies, like Raymond Huntley in I See a Dark Stranger, or Louis Calhern in Devil's Doorway. They play on others' weaknesses, and know their power, they don't even have to try to convince anyone. They know that one little word will tip the balance to their side for someone with a little weakness in them. It's like playing with a toy for them. > But will stop for now and just say again.. OH that Charles Laughton. Wow. He's amazing, in a film filled with amazing performances. I have to say, I've never seen Una O'Connor used in such a way before. Her entire character was so foolish and hateful. It's like the dark side of her more comic characters. She is symptomatic of that whole town and how it almost crumbled under the Nazi occupation. I watched this movie the first time for George Sanders, who is simply flawless in his acting. I really enjoy seeing him play the opposite of what he usually is, he was so consumed with guilt and fear, that I eventually felt terrible for him. Again, I can sympathize because I've made mistakes in my life too - none so far reaching, but still mistakes I've paid for with horrible guilt and worse. I even thought Kent Smith was great in this movie, and I have a hard time with him usually. Maureen was the only one who did not surprise me in this movie. She was strong from the beginning. When she took that book at the end.... oh man....

That one sounds great! Is it available anywhere?

Everything you say about Blanche, Stanley and Mitch is just brilliant! I couldn't even hope to achieve such understanding. And now I will waffle and say you are probably right about it all. I just get so mad at Mitch for being so hateful to her, even if he is doing it out of shock and hurt feelings. I think because he had higher ideals in the first place, I expect more of him when he finds out about her. I also love what you said about Norman Maine. You really put it so well, he didn't exist even to himself, except as a star. As for Jean, are you saying that he thinks he does not exist unless he takes something from someone? Like he has to steal their soul? That's way heavy! I see him now as maybe similar to Stanley in a way. Maybe I'm just tired now and getting confused. >He must have been like an explosion to audiences. Wasn't he awfully reserved and proper sounding in that early interview? I could see now for the first time what everyone has said about how he really was just a nice, polite guy off screen and not like the characters he played. I was actually shocked by how calm he was and maybe more intellectually inclined. Those shorts! Edited by: JackFavell on Mar 17, 2012 11:54 PM

Ha! That's far worse torture than any frozen rope!

Well, with two such good reviews, I am going to find it if it kills me now! And then I'll come back and haunt someone.

Oh Chris that sounds wonderful! I only wish we could have gone with you.

> Fascinating! This sounds almost like it could be about Blanche in *Streetcar Named Desire*! She and Jean are not so very different, though the deck is far more stacked against Blanche, based on what we know of her life. We aren't told much about what made Jean the way he is. Maybe the war itself? But does war make liars out of honest men? I'm not so sure, unless there's a profit motive (like in *The Third Man*). You know, it could be about Blanche. It's funny, I empathize so much with Blanche that I forget she's a habitual liar. I could have turned out that way. In some ways, I should thank that college roommate of mine for showing me how harmful lying about your background, your thoughts and feelings, everything about yourself can be. It can poison relationships, and drive the people you wanted to impress away from you, like Alice Adams, which is on right now. I am drawn to this type of character, the Alices and the Blanches. I feel for them so much. I had a normal childhood, but felt very inferior all the time. I was never too far into the lying part, but I was very unhappy with who I was at one time, and always wanted to have been born a different person, with a different background. Even now sometimes the temptation is there to try and make myself sound better than I really am to new acquaintances, especially, as I've said, in this crazy town I live in. But I can honestly say, I've never dressed up in all my finery, with a tiara on my head and hosted a cotillion by myself like Blanche. I do think the only one Blanche hurts is herself. Did she actually hurt Mitch (is that Karl Malden's name? I am so bad at names)? I don't really feel his hurt. In the end, he's hurt by his own prejudice against women and then he feels regret - he didn't know Blanche was so delicate, and he's struck by remorse, which is only right. He should be mad at Stanley, but he should be more mad at himself. People are fragile and if you do them dirt then you should live with it the rest of your life. My goodness, where did that come from? I didn't realize that I harbor such anger towards him. What's the line? "The only unforgivable thing is deliberate cruelty". Mitch is in some ways more cruel than Stanley. Stanley though it's awful to say, is simply following his urges to power, and to make Blanche face the truth, in his brutal way. Mitch, well, to me there is no excuse for his behavior towards Blanche. Norman is very similar to Blanche, deluded - the only person he hurts is himself. I am sure he disappointed many women, but I don't see him making love to them, or telling them he loves them and then dumping them. I see him not showing up for dates, or forgetting he was supposed to pick them up at a certain time, which IS disappointing, but only so much so. So I feel that the harm he does is to himself mainly. And he IS good-natured, generous, and genuinely cares for Vicki/Esther. I have to agree about your comparison of Harry Fabian and Norman Maine. For me, there is no contest between the two. Jean is deluded, in much the same way that the other two are, but he does seem like a person who would harm another through his actions. As long as he gets what he wants, even if it is love, he doesn't care what happens to anybody else, even to Marise. That's selfish, and verges on evil. I am slightly sorry for him, but he's too messed up to really care for as a character. I can't find much to redeem him.... yes, I think in a way he loved Marise, but it was completely selfish love. I also got the feeling that oddly enough, he was the type of man who couldn't bear to be alone. So again, his love was about himself.... he loved Marise because he didn't want to be alone and she filled the need he had. It is sad to watch him struggle, but he was as I said before, like a stray dog or something. Maybe even worse, because dogs can love unconditionally. I thought he said somewhere along the way that he grew up in the streets where you take what you want and no one shows any kindness, but I could be wrong. Maybe I'd feel more sympathy for the stray dog, rather than the human, who only takes from his kindly owner and never really trusts them. I guess I can understand it if the dog was abandoned, but humans should be able to overcome such things somewhere along the way. > > I could go into the fact that I really love the ghostly, eerie movies from 1944 up to 1948 or 1949, they are so rich and atmospheric, dealing with death and the dead, and the missing. I would even include non ghost stories, like The Search or The Third Man, which still deal with the effects of war and it's aftermath on the people who survived. But mostly, I like the ghost stories. >*Me, too. You are so right about this period probably being the zenith of these atmospheric, mood mysteries. They all seem to have a psychological component that is dealt with much more subtly, say, than those in the 1960s on.* I agree! I never thought to compare them to sixties films before... Psychological thrillers or atmospheric ghost stories like say The Innocents or The Haunting I can suddenly see a connection to, but I am trying to think of some other sixties romances or other types of films that could correlate. There is something lyrical and almost beautifully dark in the forties films, a real longing for something unearthly - to connect with those beyond or a universe beyond death - to bring back a person who is beyond the pale. The forties films seem to me to be mostly about remembering..... and in remembering, you preserve a person, bring them back, reconnect. In my limited experience, the sixties films are about burying things forever or putting something to rest. Or even maybe pulling something repressed out of someone's psyche. Of course, I am not too familiar with the sixties. > Have you seen Delmer Daves' *The Red House*, Jackie? A different setting, but very atmospherically "country noir". No, I have never even heard of it! I am going to go look for it though now that you've mentioned it. We are both Wuthering Heights, if you go by that movie personality test we took a few years ago.... so I'm betting I will like it. > > > She's dead, Jackie. She was shot escaping the camp. I saw it happen. > > > OMG! That made me laugh so hard!!!! >*Look out for long black gloves!* She's coming back from the dead to strangle you, Frankie! > > I guess I like it if the hero goes to the chair at the end of the movie! What does that say about me? Have you seen *Manhattan Melodrama*, Jackie? The ending reminds me a little of *Angels with Dirty Faces*. Oh I like that one too! It's been a long time since I've seen it, but I think it was the first of the kids-who-grow-up on-the-opposite-sides-of-the-law movies. What's not to like after all? William Powell and Clark Gable! I'm glad they didn't make Powell a priest...he's far too naughty. >Poor Patty. I love him but not his priests. I like him naughty, as he was in real life. He has a twinkle in his eye that doesn't take anything too seriously, so seeing him lecture others makes me laugh. I can only imagine the carrying on between takes. "You! A priest! ha!" Of course, plenty of Irish priests acted just as ribald and I'm sure they knew that. I like Pat in a couple of pre code pictures, when he's a scamp and a braggart or a tough guy who can't hold his temper. Apparently, in real life, he put the other bad boys of Hollywood to shame. > > > I don't know. Maybe it IS the preachy part of it for me too. I don't think it's nearly as deep as TRT. There is something about it that seems left unfinished. >*I like this movie for Cagney's character and seeing him with Ann. I never thought before but the story is only interesting to me because it forces Cagney's reactions one way or another. I admit the kids I can do without.* It is all about Jimmy isn't it? You want to see what he's going to do in every situation. He;s so much more interesting than anyone else. > Frank, I take back recommending *Dead End*. That was the one that gave the Bowery Boys their start. You may handle them better there, though, I don't know. There are more leading characters to take the emphasis off of them. I still think he might like that one better. The Dead End kids are far more subdued in that picture. In Angels they are really pretty much leaping at the camera, shoving each other all around and causing havoc everywhere. It's all more controlled and distant in Dead End, with others taking the spotlight as you say. They aren't literally in your face in Dead End. > I love 30s Cagney. He's so fiery, so full of pep. He's like Bette Davis was. They remind me of each other, just different styles. Both had this mind boggling energy that the screen can't seem to contain, they bounce off the sides of the frame. Neither of them could even cross a room like a normal person, they sort of plowed their way across. I always thought the way John Wayne pushed through the cattle in *Red River* was just how Cagney would have done it, only he was shorter. Ha! Can you imagine what kind of a shock Cagney must have been to 1930's audiences after the more refined types of the 20's? Wow, he's a ball of fire, unusual, a real city tough, gritty, daring you to watch what he does next. He can't even help it, he seems completely natural compared to most of his co-stars. Lately I have noticed in his early films how he says his lines. His lines come out like a real person would say them, not like a stage actor. In fact, I thought he was more realistic in his movies than in that early interview with him! It always makes me sorry for some of his blander co-stars, like Donald Woods. How can you compete? He literally takes the screen. Edited by: JackFavell on Mar 17, 2012 9:45 PM Edited by: JackFavell on Mar 17, 2012 9:47 PM Edited by: JackFavell on Mar 17, 2012 9:53 PM

Hey, I forgot the picture that was supposed to go with that line. I'll go back and edit it.

Hey thanks for plugging This Land is Mine! Ro, I think you'll like it. Maybe _this_ guess will be right. > He's a thief. He has to steal everything. And sometimes it's not about how you get something but that you get it. Lie, steal, cheat. I never thought about it that way. It goes hand in hand with envy. "The other guy has it so I want it. Well, I'll show him! He doesn't deserve it anyway..... " > The easier way out is to eliminate the problem. Being honest is difficult and can create even bigger problems. But see, then that weight would be off him and he'd know for sure if Marise loved him. But of course, he didn't want to know that. > That's very profound and deadly accurate. I have a couple family members who are big-time liars and they immediately think others are lying and cheating. Why? Because they are. I also know someone who is amazingly honest who thinks others are just as he. Yeah, we are dealing with that problem right now in our family. My mother in law has someone who has been stealing from her. It broke her heart since that person was a friend and helper to her, smiling and all chummy with her to her face. Liars think the worst thing in the world would be to be caught and have to tell the truth, but actually the worst thing is to get away with it and have that burden hanging over your head always. You don't know how weighty it is until you have it lifted away. And I'll tell you right now that when I was younger, I did my own share of lying, mostly to my dad who I thought was too strict, so I know what it's like. I also had a college roommate who was a habitual liar. You have to hate yourself really a lot to lie like she did. So I do feel deeply sorry for them, the psyche that caused them to become that way in the first place, and the neurotic predicament they have caused for themselves, but I have no patience for the actual lying. In fact, I hate it. But I also think that they have created their own punishment already. Their life is one of always doubting and mistrusting others and that is sad sad sad. They put themselves inside a little box and they can't leave it. it's their own brand of hell. > That's terrific! You're right, that really is a suspenseful moment. Are we rooting for him to get it back or are we wondering if he'll get caught? We feel sorry for Jean until the real him emerges. But the entire idea of his worming his way into a lonely woman's life via her "dead" husband's lovely words about her and his home is super creepy. I think I was hoping he'd get caught at that moment, and in a way I was mad he didn't, but at the same time, it was great he didn't, because the suspense kept building up and up even further! I didn't think it was possible to get any more out of the situation. > No, it seemed more like they were the Greer or "MGM" kind of fans. Film noir fans should find it interesting because it really is messed up. I'll say! > I completely agree. I love the feminine side of the film, the question of when to move on from your love. And I love the dark side (film noir) of the film. I liked that it was a french countryside noir! - like Random Harvest meets D.O.A. or something. I mean who puts french peasants in a film noir? But the setting was beautiful and perfect with the fog and the waves and the secludedness of it. Even the town was perfect. Rustic and yet somehow hard to deal with because everyone knew everyone else and their business. I could go into the fact that I really love the ghostly, eerie movies from 1944 up to 1948 or 1949, they are so rich and atmospheric, dealing with death and the dead, and the missing. I would even include non ghost stories, like The Search or The Third Man, which still deal with the effects of war and it's aftermath on the people who survived. But mostly, I like the ghost stories. > *Where is Butterscotchie????* > > > She's dead, Jackie. She was shot escaping the camp. I saw it happen. OMG! That made me laugh so hard!!!! > Exactly. It's heart-wrenching. And the almighty kind of words her son uses to tear her down without knowing a damn thing is fantastic. It's a very heavy-handed message, but one that I love. I am a real sucker for a mother love/self sacrifice story. It gets me every time, from Stella Dallas to Frisco Jenny, even to Ladies in Retirement, which isn't exactly a mother love movie, but it's kind of the same thing. > They are very similar endings! They both go out with the idea of protecting others. There's one with Kay Francis that I just love too, I just thought of it, it's a remake of a German film. *Confession*. Another whopper of an ending. I guess I like it if the hero goes to the chair at the end of the movie! What does that say about me? > And I'm glad she doesn't. That makes the ending stick with you more. Oh yeah! I like it heavy duty. > Tell me about it! It's as cynical as they get. It's a very clever film. Just the idea a writer gets bludgeoned to death by a producer is classic. I also loved how everyone sells out in the end. Yeah, but it makes you want to shower after watching it. Hey you must have seen *Barton Fink*! Do you like that one? > No, I've never seen *Topper*. And I'm a huge Grant fan. You have GOT to see *Topper.* > I agree with that. *Stage Door* plays with you. It starts off as a comedy, but it turns real serious. I like the comedy and romance of *Bombshell*. Stage Door is probably the most well cast movie ever. Every girl has a part to play, and they are all perfect. It's hard not to like it, the way they all fit together like pieces of a puzzle. It's a great movie. I feel that way unreservedly. > I think you're on to it. I do not like Norman Maine, the character. He's a self-absorbed jerk. Then he hits the skids and now we're to feel sorry for him. *All About Eve* is also dominated by a character that I'm not crazy about. But, again, I think it's the environments that are the biggest problems for me. I do not like those worlds. I guess I just like Norman. He reminds me of John Gilbert a little, who grew up with a horrible mother, a small time actress who abandoned him while she traveled from theatre to theatre. He got carted all over, but when he turned 16 he went and got a job in Hollywood. It was his salvation - I mean he was starving to death. Then he becomes a star, and he burns a few people, not really purposefully, just through his own personality, and suddenly, the thing that he loved, that saved him, turns around and bites him. I don't get the idea that Norman ever had it as rough as Gilbert did, certainly. He seems like he just drifted into it. I also find it interesting that he isn't very good at acting (at least in the scene he does from the movie-within-the-movie that they show), as opposed to Gilbert. Norman to me isn't a jerk, he's just lazy, and has relied on charm for too long. He IS a taker, though. I'm just pretty sure he isn't aware of it, until his eyes are opened with Esther. And then he can see it, but he can't change it. I think this is Fredric March's best role. It's probably the only one he ever did where I am sympathetic to him. > I believe you are right. It's the self-importance and vanity of it all. I could care less about stars. Oh, I have my favorites, but I would never wish to meet them unless they took an interest in me. I'm not going to fawn over them. I'm not into the "behind the scenes" unless it's directorial. That fascinates me. But stars just don't do it for me. That's why biographies don't interest me one bit. But I know I'm in the minority on this board with such thinking. Heck, I'm in the minority in our culture! I am not one to read biographies much either. But I used to read the books. I honestly don't care anymore about the backstory of an actor, because I've read too many that disappoint me. If I love what an actor does on screen, then I've learned all I need to about them through that performance. I really don't want to know that Norman Maine was a jerk in real life. Of course, I have my exceptions to the rule. John Barrymore for instance. > She seems muted in *A Star Is Born*. She's vibrant and "take charge" in *Three Loves Has Nancy*. I'd say the former is Fredric March's film whereas the latter is more Gaynor's. Interesting. Have you seen *Young in Heart*? I really like that one, not just for Janet, but also for Doug Fairbanks Jr. and Paulette Goddard. It also has Roland Young and Billie Burke of *Topper* in it. > Oh, really? I did feel sorry for Norman, but then I didn't, too. But it really is tough for a person to go from the top of the heap to "one of the players." It's not easy. And if you possess a huge ego, it's damn near impossible. Once you taste success, it's hard to accept anything less. And this is one of the greatest issues with aging. The loss of who you are is very tough. Knowing it's "no more" with things is difficult. That's very astute. And true of anybody. It's probably worse for stars, they go through it all in public. Can you imagine going out, and people are writing about how much you weigh, or that you have a sagging neckline or something? Sheesh, I might have it, but I don't have to pay attention to it every time I pick up a magazine and see myself in all my glory. Especially if you were the cat's meow in the first place and now you are not. I think of some of those stars though who try so hard to stay looking young and it's almost like it backfires.... Gene Tierney to me looked better in age than a Ginger Rogers, who stayed platinum blonde and heavily made up. Yuck. I don't even like talking about this subject, I find what I wrote just now distasteful. Where's the shower??!! > I did like how the scenes of Esther and Norman finally coming together are shot. Those were well done. > I really haven't found Wellman to be visually interesting as other directors, but I think it's because he's more subtle. He's kind of sneaky. I believe it's his framing where he's best. he IS sneaky. and youre right, he does frame extremely well. I noticed a shot in Frisco Jenny that was right out of Safe in Hell - Wellman's faces - all these lowlifes, and he pans across from face to face, each more disreputable than the next. But he doesn't really have a visual style, at least not till he gets to the b & w pictures in the late forties and early fifties. But then he switches over to color again, and that look is gone. I just like how he is speedy, clipped, and to the point, and yet, he isn't afraid of silence, or the long look with no words. He's probably the most straightforward of the famous directors. > The loving husband trumps all. You're way ahead of the game. I know that doesn't make discussing your life to other women any easier. Boy, that's for sure. You know human nature! >But the ultimate feeling for you is to feel loved and appreciated by those who really matter the most to you. You can't top that. Of course, this is coming from someone who doesn't give a darn about money, power, and prestige. I'm a family man. It's defnitely the best. And I am coming to appreciate that more, the older I get. > I know better. From what you've said about your daughter, there's a lot of "mom" there. Uh...oh. > I don't hate him. I thought Pat was very good. But the film is sermonizing. That bothers me. I see that. > I was very fine with Pat, actually. He was playing his role. I didn't like the sermon and the Dead End Kids. It drove me nuts whenever they were on the screen. I was hoping Cagney would whack them! He did! And tripped them. And they loved him for it! > *This movie though always came in ranked lower than The Roaring Twenties. It's funny, I never liked this one as much.* > > > Why not? I don't know. Maybe it IS the preachy part of it for me too. I don't think it's nearly as deep as TRT. There is something about it that seems left unfinished. > I actually thought Cagney was more human in this one. And I'm not talking about the end. In the other films I've seen him in, he seemed possessed. It was all about his obsessions. I didn't see him as being this in *Angels with Dirty Faces*. He seemed rather relaxed, smooth, and cool. I liked Cagney in this one. I think he's more fascinating in *The Roaring Twenties* because of where he ends up, but I actually like the kind of guy he's playing in *Angels with Dirty Faces*. Well, that is quintessential Cagney. So it's all uphill from here for you. His thirties movies are mostly like Angels with Dirty Faces. It's impossible not to like him. Personally, my next favorite is G-Men, if you can get over the lame introduction which the studio tacked on about how they didn't want to glorify the gangsters. This one is pure Jimmy, all personality, but this time he's on the right side of the law. Picture Snatcher, he Mayor of Hell and The Crowd Roars are also favorites from that time. And someday, you really HAVE to see Yankee Doodle Dandy, and The Strawberry Blonde. Not to mention Love Me or Leave me. Edited by: JackFavell on Mar 17, 2012 1:28 PM

What's that ye say, Guv'nor? Happy St. Patrick's Day? You're buyin'? h5. well, it's about time. I mean, it sure is fine. Edited by: JackFavell on Mar 17, 2012 1:32 PM

> {quote:title=rohanaka wrote:}{quote} > They were a crack up. ha. There were several fun characters that only had a moment or two.. but am glad their roles were a bit more (because I think they were just about the funniest) Though I DID like the old guy who kept insisting she had NOT taken him out for a wheelchair ride that night... and nobody would believe him. (though he did finally start to make his case too well, so she had to high tail it out of there, eventually.. but still very funny) Oh that poor guy in the wheelchair! And no one believed him because he was old! Too funny and too true to life, isn't it? I thought for a minute there, he was even going to believe her story, even if it was false! I like how the cantankerous old coot mentioned something they did the week before with a tricky twist that couldn't have possibly happened - he was so proud of himself that he tricked her! > You do sort of (almost) feel sorry for him (if it is possible to feel sorry for a Nazi) He was all that you say.. normal, calm, enigmatic.. and yet. OH so creepy and evil. Inscrutable! I couldn't think of the word earlier. In fact, I wasn't even sure at the beginning that he was a bad guy, they started him out seeming bad, but then he seemed to really be so nice and unassuming, and there were so many twists, I thought he might turn out to be actually good the first time I saw it. > I don't think I would have ever thought of it had she not been so "MaryKate-like" in the way she could rant and rave.. and yet be a bit playful and sweet, even.. all at the same time. That's so perfect a description. I think there was even maybe a resemblance at this young age, and the hair was very similar. > I must have missed the intro/or closing comments from our beloved Mr. O.. but I do see the similarity. Ha.. it was also a bit "Ford like.. again w/ the TQM comparisons.. ha. Sort of a Hitch meets Fordie combination. (now THAT is quite a contrast, ha) Yes! I was thinking that exact same thing too as I was watching! I almost wrote it here, but I didn't want to be too gung ho Ford again! I thought it also had a touch of the Ealing comedies...so an Ealing-Fordie-Hitchcock film. > I liked the way he stuck with her, even when he wasn't even sure WHY he should (and when she CLEARLY wished he wouldn't) And the way she walks out on him at the end.. STILL holding onto her pride.. no WAY was she going to stay THERE. ha. Even on her wedding night. Too funny. I've seen it before, and I was still convinced this time that he knew more about the case than he let on. But I guess he really was just a particularly smart bystander who happened to be in the service. I loved the ending! because it confused me so much! I could NOT figure out why she was mad at him again, which was the point - her being a woman and subject to fits of irrationality... I think Frank definitely needs to see this one. I am almost 100% sure he will like it (eye roll at how I am just asking for trouble here).

I watched the whole movie of *I See a Dark Stranger* again today, and I have to say there were quite a few times when I was on the edge of my seat, and even more times when I snorted out loud at the funny parts, especially at the two English military men! Oh my gosh they gave me so many laughs! Also the whole thing with the horse cart parade down that narrow road really cracked me up! At first, I kept wondering how the Irish would have responded to this movie, but the writers made fun of everyone in this picture. I definitely thought Raymond Huntley was brilliant, he was at the same time creepy, normal, soft spoken, evil, enigmatic, and even almost sympathetic when he was dying. He played the part very evenly and calmly - no theatrics at all, and I just loved him (as an actor) for that. I don't think anyone has ever made the comparison before, and I certainly never thought about it in my entire life watching movies, but I think there's a case to be made that Maureen O'Hara and Deborah Kerr are very closely related, acting wise. Honestly, I think they could be sisters. Its as if they split one actress right down the middle, and one took the more fiery side, and the other took the repressed side. Thanks for putting that bug in my ear, Ro! I think you are spot on. R.O. said that the same writers who wrote Hitch's The Lady Vanishes wrote and produced this picture. I could see the resemblance. I wonder if they did any other movies, I like their style. Oh yeah!I just LOVED Trevor in this one. I could fall for him so easily here. Edited by: JackFavell on Mar 16, 2012 7:02 PM Edited by: JackFavell on Mar 16, 2012 7:04 PM

It looks like it's in the photo itself, Jeff, not your doing. Its a texture problem I think, not that I know anything!

ugaarte, I'm so sorry about your computer troubles, but I'm very glad to see you posting tonight! You've been greatly missed around here.

Oh, I better watch that one too. I can't wait to see it and hear what you have to say about it.

I've always liked that movie, Don Juan I mean. I had always heard it wasn't up to snuff, but I think it's just great! Every time I see it, I think he's a riot.