JackFavell

I think you are probably very right, all the silents you have mentioned are well known and I am sure TCM would love to have them. I bet there is some rights issue or fee issue.

I was hoping for Upstream too and the others, I'm thinking Beggars of Life has a good chance of being shown sometime, but the rest, not so sure.

> Thanxx for citing it. I've got to make time. I've Jean Arthur to do, and then there's that cowboy movie you guys were mentioning with Gail Patrick and Esther Ralston. I want to know more about her. I am so sure you saw that one - the backwoods feud story? Oh heck, I must be losing it. > Ha. I just know movies...I don't know how smart I am. On second thought...isn't that enough? Here's the title for your book: Everything I know I learned from the movies oh wait, is that one taken? > Ha-ha. And that beat of dead silence at the dinner table before they laugh. ( "I know I ain't well-read, but I'm rich and you're not!" ) Hilarious. That movie is hilarious. I would have thought Grimes would love it, the way that crime does pay. > I haven't really seen her since back then. I often wonder about actors/ actresses who I used to see a lot of in the 70's 80's 90's and who've disappeared: Skye Aubrey, Susan Clark...etc. Actors who were hot and in demand...and then...nothing. "NORMAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!! YOU'RE GOING IN THE DEEP END OF THE OCEAN!!! D'OH!" hmmm. I'm thinking if I had a career like Elizabeth McGovern, from Ordinary People to Downton Abbey. > Yeah...that'd be a neat hat trick. I'll take being manipulated in the movies. In real life, I'd urge folks not to try that. I don't mind some kinds of manipulation in movies, but I draw the line at Terms of Endearment. > Fancy schmancy..."O" not "A"? Well excuuuuse me! And how ARE the "Housewives of the Harper Valley, PTA...uhhmmm I mean O"? Listen, when I get a chance I'll send you a mini-cooking video I directed. Just now on MSNBC, they named the five best states for women in terms of economy, health care, education and a whole slew of things that women want; the top five are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, California and Hawaii. Uhh-oh. I'm in trouble. That's why the ex-pats are with you. I'm not surprised. We are a liberal state on the whole, so there are probably a lot of services here for women. But the people themselves, their personalities are conservative in the extreme and I am anything but that. Insatead of conservative, maybe I should say, closed off. > The uhmmmm...study didn't talk about where to find a husband. I think a girl has to bring those with her to those states. I can't imagine where they are hiding.... > I hear ya. Pat O'Brien is always so sanctimonious. And mysogynistic. For the life o' me I don't know why he was so hell bent against Annie in *"Torrid Zone."* He was so off-putting right out the gate. ACK! He's good in at least two movies I've seen, I just can't remember which two. > She's the go-to girl, the 'utility man.' She could glam it up and fry a man's brains...she could be the down-to-earth gal-pal who could help a guy with no legs, she could even kiss Jack Benny. Comedy or drama...Annie. I love her so. That's a great description! > I enjoyed the Dead End/Bowery Boys when I was kid. Always gravitated towards Billy Halop, Gabriel Dell and that cute young Keanu Reeves-looking one. > > Bobby Jordan. > > Go on....you DO do more than bake, Mahatma. Aww, shucks! Twarn't nuthin' ....

> {quote:title=CineMaven wrote:}{quote}* Actions always speak louder than words. But you can ignore me. I'm one of the less intelligent ones. Ha (spit-take)! That made me laugh hard! yeah right! If you are one of the _un_intelligent ones, I'm mahatma gandhi. > *"Desire Me."* From what you've written, sounds like something to check out. I've always liked the varieties of the Cyrano theme. I think you ought to check it out! it's on youtube here (I meant to post it before): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPN-iiSvIyE I never thought about Cyrano. See? You are so smart! > Love that movie. "...Now if we could just get rid of the actors and the writers..." By the by...where IS Greta Scacchi? She had "something"; something European about her. I liked her in movies. "Can we talk about something other than Hollywood for a change? We're educated people." I liked her too, I think I saw her in something in the last year, but it was a shock, she was very much a supporting player. I know it was the newer Brideshead Revisited > All movies by nature manipulate us. Me...I'm willing to be manipulated unless I'm not willing. *"Bombshell"*bombastic fun. *"Stage Door"* ensemble acting; poor working girls trying to make it. Great lines. *"All About Eve"* veddy veddy arch, sophisticated...martini-movie. I enjoy it. Revel in it. Bette is the queen. Your writing's making me want to re-visit Gaynor's *"A Star Is Born."* But I'd better take it easy. I've got a slew of Jean Arthur films to see since she's my newest discovery. Uhmmm.. (re)discovery. I'm only guessing that Frank might feel manipulated, I'm tying it in with his dislike of sermons. I guess the real trick is to make a movie that manipulates without letting you know it's manipulating you. > I envy you that. As for being ignored by the less intelligent...you don't need 'em. Go with the believers. will do. I tell you, the life of a housewife is filled with power struggles, pitched battles and manipulation.... and that's just at the PTA!! or PTO if you live here. > I enjoyed the Dead End/Bowery Boys when I was kid. Always gravitated towards Billy Halop, Gabriel Dell and that cute young Keanu Reeves-looking one. *"Roaring Twenties"* vs. *"Angels With Dirty Faces."* Hmmm... I liked *"Each Dawn I Die"* but "Angels..." was easier to digest 'cuz of its straight-forward linear story. "...Twenties" was a touch more complex, for me. Changing times...not fitting in...liking a girl who doesn't like you. Cagney? Awwww...he's just a human dynamo. Top o' the world!!!! Bobby Jordan. It's just my preference. I know that Angels is a great movie, but for me, it drags down every time Pat is on the screen. I like the overall effect of Roaring Twenties, I empathize with Raoul Walsh's characters so much more. I was really surprised this time watching Annie in Angels. I thought her role was much bigger, I thought Jimmy won her over completely, but maybe I was thinking of a different movie. Something felt chopped out this time through, like most of Ann's role.

Just beautiful!

No I missed those threads - I get hardly any notifications anymore, if I put a new thread on my watched list, others disappear, and I don't know it until suddenly it is months later and someone tells me. I had the silent forum labeled so as to let me know if a new thread was started, but obviously it's not working any more. Don't tell me to go and check with the mods, I've sent them messages about it for at least two years and have never heard back one thing about it. Damn website! I would probably never have known it was John Gilbert if I hadn't seen him in Hell's Hinges and the Mary Pickford film, is it M'liss? from about that time period. He was so scrawny, you'd never know it was him, but so expressive, even then. I love the picture, the look on his face is so full of meaning. Edited by: JackFavell on Mar 15, 2012 1:26 PM

I'm expecting The Desperadoes on Friday! I mean the movie. I just watched *Fighting Man of the Plains*, with R. Scott (la) which, although it was just a B oater, kept me watching all the way through. It was a little twisty, directed by Edward L. Marin, whose name seems familiar. It ended up being less twisty than I thought it would be, but it was kind of nice to see a backwards western - where the guy starts out seeming to be all bad and ends up completely good, and might have been all along except for one mistake. It's our view of him that changes, not the man. I liked it, in spite of it's pedigree as a lower ranking western. Scott is a fascinating guy. Victor Jory also stars, with a small role by the recently departed Joan Taylor - her first, in fact, arranged by Jory after he saw her in a play at the Pasadena Playhouse. All in all, it was not bad.

That stereotyping is all over the place here. What a crock! I don't remember this attitude from when I was younger, maybe it was the artistic and theatrical crowd I hung out with, or maybe it really was something about the midwest that was more egalitarian, or maybe it's just how people age. I can't tell you how many times I have heard someone discussing other people's business with a judgmental attitude. This is the mindset that really ticks me off, even people who should know better fall into it, it's so prevalent. I never knew people could be so small minded. Ugh. I find it very distasteful, and maybe this is why I have a hard time making new friends lately. Now if someone told me that they were a "muss thriver", I wouldn't be put off at all, it would never even occur to me to think about it in a bad way. But if someone says to me, "you know, these muss thrivers have an I.Q. of about 10" I would have a hard time actually talking to that person again without thinking they were an idiot, and someone I didn't really want to be friends with (and I HAVE heard that exact thing come out of people's mouths here). And because everyone in this area seems to be trying to keep up with the Joneses (or the Rockefellers), they are constantly making themselves out better than they are, which means that they want to be better than everyone else. I thought that the higher up in class you went, the more tolerant and open minded you ought to be - since you supposedly had more money for education and such mind expanding things. It certainly doesn't seem that way. With more money comes just as much stupidity as with less. But now I'm making my own generalizations, and that's exactly what I am riling against! OK. Now I'm off my soapbox.... I promise. Has this got something to do with movies? Maybe I can try and figure out what the heck point I was trying to make.... Edited by: JackFavell on Mar 15, 2012 1:05 PM

First of all, gilbert roland is muy bueno! Is that John Gilbert in the W.S. Hart still?

I'll say! Beautiful dress. I wonder what she's seeing.

Ro and Movieman, you guys are too sweet for words. I really didn't mean anything by my comments, maybe I shouldn't have even brought my own life up. And it's nothing overt that anyone does, it's just that some people immediately think of you as uninteresting if you are at home. You must be doing something big for them to consider you of interest. I live in a community where social standing is important, and if you are just living your life without making a mark, some of the folks here can be very snooty. It's no big deal, but sometimes it's wearing. >You're right, he's a manipulator. He has to deceive to make someone love him, so he thinks. Lots of insecurity. >I believe you're right on it. He didn't have the self-confidence to be himself. Paul was extremely comfortable with who he was, but Jean was an impostor with himself. Could Jean ever be loved by Marise to the level Paul is? Probably not. He would always be the replacement, even if he was honest and true. But at least it would be real. I mean, how can you take someone else's love, and hide yourself completely in another man? He must have been heartily sick of Paul, but he couldn't shake his shadow off himself once he used him to get to Marise. I knew he would have to try to kill him. But the easier thing to do would have been to confess to Marise, and open up. But he couldn't, because he had no faith. No faith in others or in himself. Liars always think everyone else is lying to them. >I like the scenes when the real Jean is coming out. He's short-tempered and cruel. Marise is taken aback by this, for she's been shown a wounded man. She feels Jean is similar to her and that they can comfort each other. I know - he walks a fine line, and only realizes he has let himself show through after he is sharp, and sees her reaction to his bitterness. I thought he was going to give it away every time he opened his mouth! That scene where he lost the letter...I was on the edge of my seat! It was funny his going back to pick it up, the one incriminating thing and he has to keep a hold of it. Better to have lost it. Some of the suspense in the movie came from Jean, which is unusual, you find yourself almost rooting for him to get the letter, and yet, you dislike him. It's interesting how they play with your fears and emotions in this movie. >Yes, I liked all of that. I liked seeing the liar's version of the truth and then the truth. Exactly. >I read the history of this film is a bad one. Even today's viewers don't seem to like the film. I'm guessing they are Greer fans who are expecting a different kind of film. Or fans of noir films expecting a different setting and leading lady. I thought it was quite good, a mix of woman's picture and noir, leaning heavily toward noir. Where is Butterscotchie???? >We spend a nice amount of time developing the story in the beginning and the end (in court and prison) but the middle, where all the heavy stuff happens to Jenny (Ruth Chatterton), is told in ten minutes. But I will say, the film did remind me some of Diary of a Lost Girl. It's just that film spends more time showing Thymian's (Louise Brooks) life travels. The ending to Frisco Jenny is similar to that of Safe in Hell. I agree the middle is just a big leap to the end, all scrapbooking. I never thought of Diary of a Lost Girl! That's great! I just liked that she did what she had to do for her kid, and then it came back around to bite her. It is a good ending, I like brave endings - Angels with Dirty Faces is another brave ending. Cagney is Frisco Jenny! >I agree. I thought she was very good in Frisco Jenny. I greatly prefer her performance here compared to Dodsworth, where she's playing the character to be easily disliked. That entire last 10 minutes is riveting, where she goes back and forth trying to decide whether to tell him or not.... whew! She's great. >You hit on it. You're really on fire today! I'm not big on the Hollywood/stage scene. That bores me and annoys me. I really don't like films such as All About Eve and The Bad and the Beautiful. And I just watched The Player for the first time a week ago and I wasn't into that until the final ten minutes. One "stage" film that I do like is Stage Door. I love The Player, but talk about cynical! >Have you seen What Price Hollywood with Constance Bennett yet? >No, I haven't. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a "Connie" flick. Oooh! I have to think about what one you might want to start with. NOT What Price Hollywood, I think! You must have seen *Topper*, no? >Lionel Stander (good ol' "Max") is basically "George Sanders" in A Star Is Born. I like Lionel, but he gets to be too much. I just thought of another "behind-the-scenes" film that I like: Bombshell. Ha, both of them are writers. Notice how writers are looked at in the movies. YIKES. Bombshell is a good one! Stage Door too. Bombshell is more of a flat out comedy, and Stage Door has real innocents up against those cynics.... I think maybe you felt manipulated watching All About Eve and A Star is Born. Maybe the direction of those two is too... tight... too... concentrated on a particular subject that the director wants to get across? They are both more bombastic than Bombshell or Stage Door. In Stage Door, there are far more sympathetic characters, in All About Eve and A Star is Born, the main characters have artistic flaws that make it hard to sympathize with them. >You don't like cynical I think. >Film noir! oh yeah. So what is it about the Hollywood or Broadway stories that puts you off? Is it that it seems shallow? >I just saw Janet in Three Loves Has Nancy, and I really liked her a lot. She's basically a "poor woman's Jean Arthur." She's on the cute, regular girl side of the aisle. And I like those girls. But in A Star Is Born, she just didn't do anything for me. I wonder why not in this one? Did you feel she was playacting, or it was not the right part for her" I;m really curious what the difference is. She's still innocent, but more adult in this one. >It was too late for him in being the main attraction. Those days were over. He would have to take on supporting roles. No more top credit. Meanwhile, his wife was now the top star in the family. He was "Mr. Lester." Stardom is always fragile, and those who live for it are vulnerable to dying from it. >I agree with that. Your comparison to All About Eve is very apt. It's really about one's time in the spotlight and how aging takes that away more than declining talent. Norman was like a child. Once you grow up, you lose so much. You are forced to deal with some tough realities. He wasn't equipped to do so. He's left floating in some ways, he kind of reminds me of Blanche Dubois, dependent on the kindness of strangers, and unable to get out of the rut he's in. I can see how he might not be sympathetic, "Just get up and go out there, get a job, man!" it doesn't matter if you are leading man or not. But he reads between the lines too much.... he sees that he is not really wanted, and that Menjou is just giving him a break. Instead of taking it gratefully, he only sees the charity, the uncomfortableness of everyone around him. It breaks my heart, as shallow and selfish as he's been, he's stuck seeing the worst of himself and can't get out of it. I still don't think he deserved all the backbiting and the sarcasm from Libby and all the others who now are just waiting to kick him. It makes me cry like a baby when I watch the movie. What did you think of the film-making techniques? Was there anything that jumped out at you? For instance, I just love the tight way Wellman fashions his scenes, he's very clipped, and I like the way he draws us into the characters - for instance, the scene where Norman and Esther have been out after he grabs her from the kitchen of the Hollywood party? How Wellman comes in on Esther's face as he's saying goodnight to her? the shadow of Norman's face hides half of Esther's face, and we are just to look at her eye, looking at him, and we see she's smitten? It's a lovely shot, it tells everything. They are in love, deeply, he for the first time, she for the first time. They are becoming one. And also, by using only Norman's shadow, we are to focus on Esther, and HER feelings. It's her movie. We follow her. It's a scene I really like, but the movie has all sorts of simple touches, nothing outrageous, nothing to distract from the overall feel of the film, but little things - Esther coming home to find Norman alone, he says he's been busy, but there is a shot of Esther looking down and she sees the pile of golf balls and the cup on the floor and she knows he hasn't done anything all day. >You're not the only one! I've never had ambition. Everyone else is out to do something or prove something and here I am floating. I hear ya! I'm the same exact way. >You wish to be appreciated and valued. All you need is to feel this way and to be told this. Lots of people believe you are to "know this." That's not good enough. You need to be told and reminded. Not just once every year. Many times in different ways. If you were to feel this way, then what others think wouldn't matter nearly as much to you. That's very true, I completely agree with that. I am lucky to have a husband who does show me he loves me in different ways. It's just being ignored by people who seem less intelligent than I am that bugs me! >Personally, I prefer the housewife, especially if you have a child. I'd want my wife to watch over our child. That's a very important job to me. Now if she needed to work for her own sense of self-worth, for money, for social, or for her sanity, I'm all for that, too. But I'm not that keen on the moms who don't really mother. The ones who throw the kids in daycare, clubs and programs, microwave, television, etc. Blah. Now if she's a single mom, all bets are off. That's a whole different world full of different stresses. >As for you, you must be pretty darn awesome because your daughter sounds absolutely adorable. She is, if I do say so myself. And it has nothing to do with me! >I'd say women, more so than men, need to be reminded how wonderful they are. If a man does that enough with his woman, he's going to benefit from it. Unless they're snippy! I think it's more important to show it, rather than to say it all the time. After a while, the saying doesn't mean much. And sometimes the saying of it makes one seem needy. It's more about you than about the other person. >I hate sermons! Ah! You hated Pat O'Brien! I get it. I must say after watching it again, I found him to be the weak link. BTW, I loved the Bowery boys, or Dead End kids. This movie though always came in ranked lower than The Roaring Twenties. It's funny, I never liked this one as much. But Cagney is wonderful. He's a lot darker, more unthinking in this one though, and that part I really like. He's not as sympathetic, he's just plain charisma! I can't blame the kids for being drawn to him.

Oh that reminds me, I watched the Sundowners too recently. It was an eye opener, she refused to believe that she was wrong, she was mule headed and I really kind of liked that about her, even if she was wrong. Not to say I wasn't glad that she finally listened to Trevor.

I think Raymond Huntley would go on my best villains list, for sure... he's such a calm villain, almost too normal and soft spoken. It's creepy!

>Please don't. "They" would be so wrong about you. Thank you both for the words of encouragement. I don't feel bad, but I was just using my own situation to show how one can sympathize with Norman, I've luckily never been an alcoholic or addicted to anything except maybe the message boards! >You must know who the "idiots" really are; those who would think in such a narrow, pitiable way. Gosh, now I think of it, I do empathize with Norman, too. I have to work at something I loathe to survive because I never could earn enough in dance or, laughably, acting...Talk about cynical, I figured you either had to be too good at it or terrible enough at it to be successful and I guess I was neither. I think Norman is a cynic too, he believes what they say about him, maybe more than they do. I imagine you were very good at acting, and you definitely have the looks. I think it's something like what I deal with here in my town - it's about who you know.

How gorgeous are those two? Gosh I'd love to see it... it just makes me crazy seeing the stills.

Awww....they are adorable!

> I thought he played the perfect creep. Everything about him was uneasy, yet, like you said, you kind of felt sorry for him. He was a creep! He just liked to manipulate people. He maipulated Marise, but I think it was out of fear that she would leave him. I wonder what would have happened, had he come to her and told her about himself - I mean really about himself. I bet she would have felt bad for him and he would have had someone he really could be free with. But he was completely untrusting of human nature, even with her. > I think the real Jean was the one who acted like a jerk to the village. He was playing a role with Marise. I guess we all put on an act when we're trying to impress someone, but he was truly putting on an act, in this case. I do too. He wanted her to feel sorry for him, not love him. > I just loved how creepy the film felt. It's really messed up. I liked how it showed the vulnerability of loneliness. Does Marise really love Jean or does she love Jean because he was around Paul? I think she put it best at the end, she was in a fog, and it didn't matter anymore without Paul. So she just fell into it. Jean wanted her so she just ambled along with him in a daze. Nothing really mattered. I think she cared for Jean as she would a stray dog. > You could be right about that. We knew Paul was coming back, we just didn't know how and when. I don't know if I could have taken the suspense if we hadn't had that opening monologue of Paul's. Maybe they previewed it and it was too suspenseful? But then, it was set up from the beginning as a memory piece - I did like that the way they went back and forth in different people's memory - first Paul's, then Jean's. That felt right. And then they waited until we had some doubt about Paul coming back before they inserted the shot from the concentration camp with Paul getting shot, but then getting back up after he supposedly died in the water. > I mostly liked *Frisco Jenny*. The ending is the best part of the film. What I didn't like was how fast everything happened. All these big events happen in a blink. I prefer stories to develop versus something is just tossed in our lap. But the 30s feature films like this. I see! Yes, they travel through time without any depth. Now I understand. One reason I liked this one so much was Ruth Chatterton's performance. She's quite a different woman from Fran. I think she's pretty great in this one too, in some ways softer than her other pre-codes where she is usually a business woman. I saw something real in her as Jenny, not just the 30's arch bantering and posturing. > *A Star Is Born* was too dry for me until the final half hour. Once Norman (Fredric March) goes off the deep end, then the film gets interesting. I didn't like what he ultimately did, though. I really wasn't into the entire vibe of the film or Janet Gaynor. The final line in the film is one of the best I've heard, though. And I also loved May Robson. Interesting. Maybe it was just an off night, or maybe you just don't buy into that Hollywood thing. Have you seen What Price Hollywood with Constance Bennett yet? I find the 1937 A Star is Born really humorous in a lot of ways, snappy and very, very cynical. This one is about as cynical as it gets, except for maybe George Sanders in All About Eve, another movie you didn't care for much. You don't like cynical I think. I at turns like the cynical lines, and abhor the cynicism in the characters that drives the movie. That's why I find it so appealing I guess. I do like Janet Gaynor, more and more, but you have to know that in acting, playing innocent is harder to do that than any other kind of performance. It's almost impossible to make it believable. Something about the film catches at me, it really pulls my heartstrings. I feel for Norman so much, a man who has ruined his life, wasted it, and now he has something to live for, but it's too late. I have a question - do you think that it was really too late for him, or did he just convince himself it was? He was the kind of man who probably got into the movies because he couldn't do anything else... and now he's faced with bowing out of the business, but he has no reserves to fall back on. I can understand this. I've never been driven at anything except acting. My jobs were always just to earn money, not something I loved. I want to get back to work, but I realize my skills are not partcularly marketable at this point, and I don't really want to go back to just anything.... I am selfish in that way. That's the trap, and I keep going around and around about it, ending with me doing nothing at all. It's sad and I do feel like Norman sometimes, like I'm not worth anything in the world without a job. People act like you are an idiot if you are a housewife, and you begin to believe it. > Look at you! I liked James Cagney in this film. I thought he was superb. But I wanted to strangle the Bowery Boys. I loathed them. They ruin the film for me. And I hate the ending. It's dreadful. I can't believe you hated the end!

>I agree with all that. Such an odd little film. I'd really like to see it again. Hart had an annoying desperation that seemed perfect for the character. He leaped at his chance, and you can't altogether blame him, or rather, one feels sorry for him. That's a tough role to play and I'm going by memory of the impression he made, even though I'm fuzzy about what he actually looked like! How funny. You really nailed Richard Hart in this movie- annoying desperation. He was perfectly cast, I hated him, and I felt sorry for him at the same time. He simply couldn't help himself, and you can't blame him for grasping at this life that seemed out of his grasp up until then. And yet, he put himself in that spot... I couldn't help thinking if he had been kinder to the priest and the villagers, it might have gone better for him. Some people make themselves miserable, then put the blame on society for being standoffish. He wanted love and unconditional acceptance, but he pushed it away with both hands. He didn't expect the villagers to like him and they didn't which re-affirmed his contempt for them which put them off further. Frank, I hope you will join in here, I watched the movie on youtube because it was on your list, and it intrigued me that you liked it. I wonder whether the studio added the prologue in which it was given away that Mitchum survived, after the movie was made... it was awfully suspenseful even so. I'd also love to know (I think I would anyway) what it was about Frisco Jenny and A Star is Born that you didn't like. I also re-watched Angels with Dirty Faces. Edited by: JackFavell on Mar 14, 2012 11:29 AM Edited by: JackFavell on Mar 14, 2012 11:31 AM

I finally got that one recorded last night, Ro! I've seen half of it once, and I just loved Deborah in it! I think it's my favorite of her performances, for exactly the reason you described, she's so feisty! The movie has a great mix of comedy and suspense.

Maven, I love Mike Mazurki, Barton MacLane, William Bendix and of course, Big Boy. But I would only want to date Big Boy, and maybe Barton. The other two are great actors and personalities, but I would be afraid I'd end up strangled.....

That's right, I remember that one...it touches me, though some people don't care for it because Colbert can't recognize him, even though it's obviously the same Orson Welles. Personally, I kind of like that choice in the movie to make him just somewhat different looking. To me , her not recognizing him seems like a psychological thing - like her brain can't even comprehend that it is the same person, because she was told he was dead, and she had grieved heartily and gone through so much, that she couldn't believe it was him, even if he looked the same. Back to Desire Me, I think it was in Marise's (Greer's) nature to be a caring person, and Jean (Richard hart) took advantage of that, always appealing to her "better nature" when she thought about sending him away. She really was played by him. I would probably have been a more suspicious and not so generous person... but the loneliness I can understand.

I loved what you said about Lane's impulsive decisions... that his loyalty depended on the moment and the situation, and only briefly at that. I was torn too, during *Desire Me*, especially knowing it was Mitchum.... He was so much stronger than the other guy, I wanted to scream to her to wait for him! And yet, I don't know that I would have done any differently if I were her. The usurper, Jean kept throwing it up to her that she was supposed to be welcoming to everyone, but when Paul came back, it was different... she wasn't supposed to be so innocent and welcoming. What had drawn Mitchum's character to her in the first place was now what galled him in her personality. Edited by: JackFavell on Mar 13, 2012 4:34 PM Edited by: JackFavell on Mar 13, 2012 4:34 PM

>Do you think that Cody's loyalty was now misplaced seeking out his wife ten years after her abduction? When do you think loyalty gives way to obsession? > I don't think it's obsession in this case though I can see that argument. At least his obsession or mission has benefited many others that he's saved along the way. I ask myself how I'd think of his actions if I were his wife, still alive, held against my will somewhere in that land. I put it this way: wouldn't you want to have some spark of hope left, based on what you know about your man, i.e., that he's the kind who'd never give up on finding you? Does it make the woman obsessive to hold onto hope? Isn't love and therefore loyalty, forever? > > In this case, I don't thinks Scott is playing "Scottie". > > I also think Boetticher sets up Cody's constancy as a contrast to Lane's values which are up for sale to the highest bidder or based only on satisfying an immediate impulse (sometimes a good impulse, like when he saved Cody's skin, sometimes a bad one, with regard to the young man). Lane is very modern, Cody is like a knight on a mission, a relic, but like Ethan Edwards, it's the kind of man and the only kind that can get that kind of job done (getting captives from the tribes). Cody would probably never be able to live in a city, while Lane would flourish (until he got thrown in jail for wrecking a place or shot by someone's husband). I find this a VERY interesting subject - is it obsession, or mission, or duty, or love that keeps Scott wandering on? or all of those put together? I wasn't sure that it was ever PROVED that she died, so I think that for him, it was the only thing he could do. If someone saw it happen and came back to tell it, then maybe his 'mission' would be an obsession. As long as there is doubt about her death, then he's simply acting as a devoted husband. Ethan Edwards most definitely has an obsession with finding Debbie - what is the difference in the two stories? Ethan's 'search' is a twisted one, for it is equal parts hate and guilt. It's proven to be hate because he only wants to find her to kill her. To him, his hatred of Scar and any Indian is so intense that the only way to wipe it from her is in death. I think it's equally guilt because of the way Scar is presented as a mirror image of Ethan. He would wipe himself away with Scar. But Scott is not filled with hatred. He barters with the Indians, placing himself in death's path abjectly, with humility. He is single minded, not obsessed. . Welll. as I write that, I wonder. Maybe it is obsession, but in a good way. IS there such a thing as a good obsession? I do think that Chris is right, in rescuing those other women, it was like he was offering those deeds up to the heavens to help atone for some guilt he might have felt... Maybe with each one, there was one less woman to be found before he finally found his wife. I guess I think that if you still feel married to that person who has died, then it is not obsession, it's simply the reality of how you feel. Obsession denotes something sick or not right, and I honestly don't get that vibe in this movie. He's not sitting in his cabin pretending that his wife is there with him. But maybe it's all in how each person individually looks at Scott. I bet Mrs. Lowe didn't think it was obsession, but I also bet that Lane did. It's up to us to draw our own judgements about him. I don't mean to digress, but the idea of trying to find someone who you thought was gone forever is also particularly valid in the context of the movie *Desire Me* with Greer Garson. It made me think of the opposite side of this idea of obsession. Garson's husband (Robert Mitchum) has died in a Nazi camp, and another man who knew Mitchum in the concentration camp comes calling, after he escapes. He brings Mitchum back to life for Greer, talking about Mitchum's memories and thoughts of her, which he somehow incorporates into his own lonely personality. Those things draw Garson closer to the man, and he falls in love. After using those memories to steal Mitchum's life, he insists that she is living with ghosts and she falls like a sleepwalker into a relationship with him. Is there a time when one should give up thinking about a person (dead or maybe just gone)? Probably. I think there can be no one answer. It should be an individual thing to decide for oneself. If you had a deeply loving relationship with someone, then I guess I think the answer is no. If your relationship was one-sided, or somehow tainted, well then, maybe it's time to give up on it. I felt in *Desire Me* that Greer should not have given up hope, and yet, she was told point blank that her husband was dead. If she kept her husband alive by drawing this man close to her, to reap his memories of Mitchum, was she wrong? Perhaps she was. And was the man wrong to fall in love with a memory that another man had that seemed so good and lovely, when all he had was poverty and hatred and evil in life? Perhaps so. Was what they had together based on what each brought to the relationship alone, or on something else entirely? Similarly, is Ethan Edwards searching because he loves Debbie? I've worked my way around this subject, and I guess I come to the conclusion that if _love_ is at the heart of the search or the relationship, then all is well. If not, then it is obsession.

Hey! I've seen that one! I think Maven has too, she's a big fan of Gail Patrick, Jack LaRue and now Esther Ralston, we both thought Ralston was darn good and wondered why she didn't make many more sound movies. A victim of the casting couch I fear. I thought certain parts of it were very good indeed, but the plot encompassed too much and too many generations I think. I liked the peaceful father, Ralston, Jack LaRue and Randolph Scott. You are right, he was so smooth faced and young! I kept expecting Gail to give someone a withering glance but she never did - she was so impossibly beautiful in this one as the good sister, it made me wonder what kind of career she would have had if she hadn't been so good at playing the "rival". Yellow Sky has a lot going for it, it's not perfect by any means, but it's got a great cast, including another good role for Pa Clegg (from Wagon Master). I'm so happy Chris that they are playing Randy on April 11th. Would be star and fred, I really love Big Boy, and appreciate the info about him. Glad to hear he was a nice feller as well as good lookin'. Edited by: JackFavell on Mar 12, 2012 3:46 PM