rohanaka

Oh me.. are we REALLY in the same boat for our dislike for Heathcliff and Cathy, Grey Guy?? WHAT is the world coming to?? ha. One thing I will say is that I likely am more a fan of this whole story than you are (despite my distaste for the two characters) And PS: I still need to go back and re-read all that I have missed here before I can respond TOO much more to what all you have said but HERE is where I want to hang my thought for the moment: I guess you could say that this is a classic case of two people loving each other but wanting different things out of life. And I like that. There are many in this world who love each other but they are just too different to come together I think it comes down to this (for me) Love is a REALLY hard word to define sometimes (because there are SO many "types" of love. And when it comes to Heathcliff and Cathy.. I don't SEE the love.. all I see is the passion. They are on "passion" overload, in fact. Don't misunderstand.. they DO love each other.. but it is that "all consuming passion" sort of love that burns brightly, but does not warm the heart of one person toward another. To me REAL love (the kind that is what marriage and ultimate lasting happiness between a man and woman truly is all about) is NOT only about PASSION but also about selflessness and seeking the best for the other person. And that is only the tip of the iceburg.. there is even more to it than that. But I guess what I am saying is they were WAY too passionate to REALLY love one another more than they loved themselves. So did they REALLY love one another in any sort of way that would lead them to be happy if they ever WERE to be able to be together? I do think there was a "level of love" they each had for the other.. but it was such a possessive and very much self centered sort of love that I don't think it would ever bring them true happiness. And it just made them seem to be (to me) entirely too self absorbed to be all that sympathetic. I think this story is a TRAGIC tale of love gone wrong as much as anything else. Basically it is just one huge lesson in how NOT to treat your true love (if you ever want to be happy this side of the grave) (ha) Edited by: rohanaka on Sep 10, 2010 3:54 AM

Miss G says: It sure is good to have you back rambling again (Ha. You better wait until you read THIS long and blabby ramble little missy!! Ha. I am sorry in advance for such a lengthy post, but I have a bit of catching up to do!) Wow. I just watched the Tall T and I L-O-V-E loved it! But now for SOME unexplained reason I have a hankering for some striped cherry stick candy!!! (ha) OH good grief and GOOD gravy, HA! Didn't?t he have a SADDLE BAG to put that stuff in for crying out loud!! WHERE was the prop guy? (was there some sort of prop guy strike going on the day they filmed all those scenes?) ?Hey Budd, what should I do w/ this candy?? ?Aw heck, Randolph, we lost our prop guy, guess you will just have to hang onto it? HA! So here is Randolph Scott riding around out in the desert with all that dirt and dust flying around and that candy was in his hand the WHOLE trip?? And then when he gets to that ranch where he rides the bull, he gets knocked down in the dirt by that run away horse and the candy falls down with him and then that rancher picks it up and sits on the fence watching Scott ride that bull (and the WHOLE time he is sitting there he is holding that package of candy!!!) And THEN after Scott loses his horse and he is walking along that dirty road he has the candy sticking out of the pocket of his sweaty shirt. Ok. So there you have it. This is just about my ONE and only major complaint for this whole film. I TRULY liked this movie a LOT but I just could not get over this whole ?candy? thing. Ha (the mom in me is just GAGGING from the thought of how DISGUSTING that stuff would have been by the time all that went on, ha) I KNOW we were supposed to get the idea that he LOVED the little boy and was bringing him that candy no matter what, but good gravy, I got tired of seeing it handled like that. Ha. Those sticks had to be SO covered in dust and dirt (and who knows WHAT was on the ground at the cattle ranch earlier, ha) by the time it arrived at it?s destination if that poor little kid had not been a goner already he?d likely have died from stick candy poisoning!! (ha) Golly I hate to see good candy go to waste! Ha. (at least Billy Jack got to have SOME of it before Frank knocked that one stick out of his mouth. HA. (and just in the knick of time, too or HE might have croaked from ingesting all the dirt and germs and then that would have evened the odds considerably sooner and the movie would JUST not have been as exciting! ha) But I digress. OK, NOW onto the REAL ramble. *Tall T Spoilage Ensues* WOW, have you folks covered a LOT of territory. I am going to be hard pressed to catch up so I will try to cover as much as I can. First I want to say again how much I enjoyed your opening thoughts, Ms Favell. You have really set the tone with laying out the characters as ?Good, Bad, Ugly, and REALLY Ugly?. And you were SPOT on w/ the comparison to Fargo too. My goodness what a weasel that Mims guy was. In some ways, to ME he seemed to be THE worst offender of them all. (except for maybe ****. That guy was pathological for sure) But wow what a piece of work to stoop so low as to bargain for his own life at the expense of his wife and everyone else if you think of it. He met the end I only WISH Macy?s character could have gotten in Fargo (except maybe I think it was pretty sweet seeing him get hauled out of that hotel room in his underwear, just crying like a baby, so I don?t know) Brennan is the only man in the movie who has a sense of morals, and the nerve to back it up. He sees things straight, even when life is unpleasant. There is only one way to live, and that is truthfully, honestly, whether you are on the right side or the wrong side of the law. And it makes no difference if what you see is good or bad, but you must actually see it, and see it for what it is, in order to act. You have to put your money where your mouth is He was as good a white hat as I love to see in a movie like this. I really enjoyed his resolve. His first motivation (when they are captured) was for himself (he says he doesn't?t want to die even if she does) but then over time he takes ownership of her situation too. But really, I suspect, he?d have done that whether the two of them had formed a bond toward one another or not. He was the direct opposite of Mims in that he was NOT a ?save my own skin first? sort of guy. Do you think Frank (Usher) would have had the memory of the boy's death in his head for all of eternity, or do you think he would have walked away without a thought - if Brennan had not come along to act as a sort of ideal of what he might have been What I am asking is if you think that Frank had a real conscience, not just regrets? I still am not sure Jackie, I like you in that I WANTED to feel sorry for Frank. But he was just to horrid (down inside) for me to give him that sympathy I WISHED I could have given him. If he had been the ?underling? working for one of the other men, I might have. But he was clearly ?the boss? at least it seemed that way to me. So that tells me he either A) TOLD **** to kill the dad and little boy at the station. Or could not stop him from doing it (and then did not hold him accountable by shooting **** in turn) So to me this says a LOT about his character. I think he is a PERFECT example of someone who may have had some spark of a conscience but just has gotten WAY too good at ignoring it. He was as ruthless as they come in that he ONLY had his own best interest at heart in the end. He MIGHT have had a moment here and there (where possibly he caught himself reflecting on what MIGHT have been if he had chosen a different path. And that scene w/ the food for Mrs. Mims might be an example).) And maybe he DID see something in Brennan?s inner character that he WISHED he could have had himself, but I think in his mind he realized he?d gone too far and it was too late. Because really for the rest of the entire movie, it just was all about him and at the end of the day, I think he had no measurable conscience really. (but was just not ruthless enough to get his own hands dirty so he lets his men handle the dirty work) So no. I don?t think he felt any lasting guilt for the boy. Maybe if he had lived and grown old, I?d like to think SOMEWHERE in the dead of night a cold chill would have gotten to him and he?d have the fear of his guilty conscience to keep him up at night, but it would not have been a ?repentant? life changing sort of guilt. That was just my impression. Miss G says: He's a cautious man of the west...he can wait for the right time and opportunity. Look how carefully he plans every move, so calculating, it's brilliant. He's really every bit as smart as Frank but infinitely wiser That is a good way to compare and contrast the two men. Brennan planned his moves before he carried them out. Frank was a ?think on your feet? guy. Only evidently he did not really THINK on his feet well enough to succeed. He NEVER intended for their stagecoach robbery to turn into a kidnapping so he made a plan (for the ransom) that made it necessary to split him and his men up to carry it out. And that is what cost him everything. He did not have the wisdom of seeing the ? danger signs down the road? the way Brennan did. He and Brennan both had the ?idea? of owning their own place someday. Brennan knew how to work and plan and carry it out. Frank was looking for an ?opportunity? to drop in his lap. Mr Movieman says: Why did Boone come back? Scott gives him the chance to just go away but he can't. Maybe he won't admit to being beaten. He is no worse off if he goes. He is short two people who he didn't really feel any real relationship with. Where is the strength? Is it coming back to confront Scott or would it have been to just ride off? Movieman, I am w/ Ms Favell. I think it was ALL about the money. (but it MIGHT have also been about not wanting to be beat?) I truly do think the 50 grand was just too much to walk away from without a fight. I have to say Boone really was VERY smooth. I think of all the actors in that film, he comes off as the most ?natural? Someone mentioned how ?stoic? Scott is in this movie, and to me that is a good way to describe him. I have always seen a level of this in his acting that has kept him not as high up on my list as I might have placed him otherwise. Not saying I don?t LIKE him as an actor, I just think he sometimes come off a bit ?stone faced? no matter WHAT he supposed to be registering. But BOONE on the other hand just flows naturally like water. He is NOT anything other than who he is playing on screen at the moment and he is PERFECTLY conversational in the way he delivers his lines. (as if you could just jump right in the chat with him) He gives the right emotion every time. I LOVE his ?smart mouth? replies. (and his nasty comebacks that almost sound like a joke (but you know he is not joking at all) I still think Big Jake is my favorite for him but WOW this film has got to be a close second. (and PS: SOMEDAY I am going to check out his TV series that you all have brought up recently as I have never seen it but BOY would I like to now) Ms Favell says: She sees what she wants to in her husband, because otherwise, life would be unbearable. And yet, when the truth is finally laid out for her, it isn't as bad as she thought, because she already knows the truth, deep down. She is NOT the "old maid" that she thought she saw in the mirror, and she has stronger resources than even she imagined I really like the transition for her character. She starts out very ?plain? and non-descriptive, but in the end she is much like Brennan. She has let her hair down literally and figuratively and by the time it is all over, she has even taken on a similar ?color? and appearance as he has, fitting into the deceptively plain, yet ?wild and free? landscape. The Grey Guy says: I also view the film as strength vs. weakness and how the two can be sometimes confused for the other. Brennan (Randolph Scott) is clearly the strongest character in the film, yet, he admits to be scared and he makes a fool of himself a few times, including bumping his head and Then you got Frank (Richard Boone), **** (Henry Silva), and Billy Jack (Skip Homeier). They've got all the power on their side because they got an arsenal and are crazy enough to use it without remorse. Does this make them strong? Well, all of their weaknesses are used to undo them. That is a terrific way to compare and contrast them all. And I would add Mims in the list of people who were ?undone? by their own weakness too. And PS: Mr Movieman. Again I say SEE what you started!! Gee, I am really glad you brought this film up for a ramble. I might never have sought it out on my own (because again, I am a bit guilty of not being TOO big on Randolph Scott (in general) but I also have not really just sat down a made a study of his films the way I likely should have. This one was terrific, and I am truly glad to have gotten in on this here chat . Thanks again for letting me blab! Edited by: rohanaka on Sep 10, 2010 3:59 AM

found this DVD cover art for the German DVD of The Tall T and thought it was surprising who dominates the image Oh my golly... way different from the other... Boone looks downright menacing... PS: Went to the library.. my copy for this movie is here!! Yeehaw!!! I am looking forward to it after reading all these posts (I know.. ha.. shame on me for giving in to the temptation and reading all the spoilers.. ha) Will try to watch tonight. or tomorrow if possible... then maybe I can catch up. (WH still not in yet.. but at least I have seen that one before... )

I have to spray dust and cobwebs everywhere so he'll feel right at home. Ha.. just tell him you will meet him at my house... ha. (the way things have been around here lately.. that is sad but true) You make this place worthwhile... Well, now you are being way so very far nicer than I deserve.. but thanks.. (and ps: right back at ya, little gal) :-) and safe for us civilians Ha.. yes.. me and Barney Fife. (nip it!!)

That gives me an idea! Oh, Peacemaker I'm on it!! Great idea!!! (meanwhile.. we are going to have to rent a bigger storage shed to house my arsenel soon.. ha. I am running out of room!!)

Wowsa, Mr. Movieman... see what you started bringing this one up for a ramble???? Ha.. this really looks like a great movie. (PS:Jackie. I LOVED your thoughts in your opening post and I have not even SEEN the movie yet) I am really going to keep all this in mind as I watch... hopefully in the next few days. I am going to check w/ the library Thursday.. (their orders usually come in then) I can see already I have a lot of catching up to do.

*And the Wuthering Spoilage Resumes:* Hello there little missy... Thank you. I remember when that came out. I never saw it, because I'm not a fan of Juliette Binoche. I find her cold, not passionate at all like Catherine. And Ralph Fiennes always looked to me more like Edgar than Heathcliffe I don't know.. ha.. Fiennes looks pretty " dark" in this film. VERY grim, in fact. But you are right.. he is not "hulking". But he does a good job w/ the bitterness angle.. Though in some ways he takes it TOO far. I bet you are right.. Neeson would likely have done a very good job for the role. As for Binoche.. I am not sure I really recall her performance as well as I do his in this version.. it has been a really long time. I can imagine. I bet they made him a mental case or a navel gazing, social misfit, ha Think more "mental case" ha. He was nearly pathological. (strike the "nearly") Little Miss Butterscotchie says: It was a little more toward the reality check side, but I didn?t get as emotional in this remake, because it didn?t seem as sincere as the original. I mean, us girls have to cry to Wuthering Heights, it?s just a moral imperative. Heehee! Larry Olivier plays a more sophisticated Heathcliffe and this remake made his character out to be a more violent person That is a PERFECT way to contrast the two films.. You do get more sympathy going for Olivier's Heathcliff... and if memory serves.. even for Ms. Oberon's Cathy as well. The two more modern actors just play it very harsh. Again.. I think there were aspects of this version that I like MORE than the '39 one.. but not on the whole. Overall.. I think the 1939 film gives you more of a feeling for the "romance" so in that regard it is more enjoyable.. Heathcliff and Cathy still come off "horrid" toward one another.. but it is not so completely grim (I keep using that word.. but it is the right one) and so wholly unlikeable as I am remembering the characters in the newer version to be. (and again.. THAT is the one I saw first.. so that is likely why I have always held such a grudge for those two.. ha.) Oh, that doesn't sound right. I don't remember a daughter in the book, though I could be wrong. I like that the '39 version really keeps the focus on the attraction and antagonism between the lovers. I went in and looked at that youtube (just to refresh my memory) and watched all of part one.. and the tail end of the last one (to see the beginning and the end) I was wrong about how much focus there is on the daughter (I THINK she is Cathy's daughter.. Her name is Cathy too.. and she is more or less made to marry Heathcliff's son (or the other way around) and then the son dies.. etc) I really ought to watch the '92 one again to say for sure.. but I really do remember her as Cathy's daughter.. and I think Binoche played both roles.. (the younger Cathy is blonde.. like Linton) Anway.. it is SOMEONE living under Heathcliff's roof (after Cathy is gone) and when Heathcliff dies she is finally free to be w/ someone (maybe a hired hand) that she has fallen in love with. Anyway.. that is only a brief mention at the end (instead of being played up more like I thought) and then it goes on to Heathcliff and Cathy.. together at last (as it should be) for the final ending. The most poignant scene to me is when he overhears Cathy and the housekeeper (Flora Robson) talking about Hindley and then Cathy's cruel remarks about Heathcliffe's dirty, surly behavior. He is so wounded, but we don't see him leave, we follow Cathy's conversation which turns to her love for Heatchliffe and the famous line she speaks, "I am Heathcliffe" (which I believe is from the book) only when the camera cuts away to where Heathcliffe was standing, we see he is gone. He never hears her words of love, only her condemnation and it drives him away. I felt dreadful for him. That is a gut wrencher for sure. I do remember how strong that moment is... when we hear the words.. but HE does not.

I do. It surprised me too And then the one guy says he will finish the letter to his kid. Sniff.. Sob.. OH don't get me started. :-)

Ok.. HERE is the version I saw first... it came out (I think) in 1992.. but I know it has not been THAT long since I saw it because I know I watched it after the QT and I got married.. because I remember where I LIVED when I was watching.. ha.. Maybe it was not "made for TV" but I just saw it when it aired on tv a few years after it came out (maybe?) Or maybe I rented it.. GOLLY I don't know. ha. But I know this is the one I saw because I remember the whole Juliette Binoche and Ralph Fiennes thing... they were the leads. (now that I have seen the poster for it in my google search, ha)

The HEIGHTS of Wuthering Spoilage: How would you say it compares? Is it more "realistic" in tone, maybe? It has been at least 10 or 12 years (maybe more) since I saw it.. but I would have to say that is is much darker. In some ways I remember liking it more than the 1939 version.. but not on the whole. I wish I could remember more for sure when I saw it.. but I know it was within the last 15 years anyway. I despised Hindley the way I despised the husband of Maureen O'Sullivan in The Tall T. You'll see what I mean. he got absolutely what he deserved Hindley!! That's it. ha. Thank you for the reminder.. As for Maureen's husband.. ha. I will have to watch out for him when my copy of The Tall T comes in. I just LOVE to hate a good bad guy! :-) oh poor Isabella (Geraldine Fitzgerald)! Hers is just as tragic...even MORE tragic an outcome because she was not selfish as the other two were...she truly loved Heathcliffe and he treated and used her abominably. That to me was his worst, worst act That's it exactly. She was totally a victim of their "fall out" so to speak. As for the book, I've read it twice but not in recent years. All I remember is that it was one of the grimmest, most depressing stories I ever read. Shocking, too, from a supposedly "sheltered" daughter of a country parson. THAT is how I remembering the other version I saw.. VERY dark...and grim.. that is the right word. The ending is more about Cathy's daughter too.. and her "love interest" finally being free to get together. (rather than focusing on Heathcliff and Cathy.. together at last..ha) (I think the housekeeper is the narrator in this version.. I don't remember that being the case in the '39 version.. but I might be wrong) That is what I am remembering, anyway. I, alas, don't even have it recorded and it is sadly still not on DVD which is surprising since it's considered one of "the" classics of all time. Well guess what. ha.. YOU should be a TCM programmer.. ha. I just went in and looked it up and it IS part of the "Acts of Revenge" theme this month.. it is on the VERY last night (Sept 30) at 8PM. Maybe you can get it recorded! :-) One reason the '39 version may always be my favorite is the music...the love theme is one of the most beautiful in classic cinema I am not recalling that but I will listen for it when I watch again. (I am thinking my copy will be in from the library in the next few days, I hope)

was very into the end because I did not expect it to end that way at all. I was pulling for Ralls to get the gold. I couldn't believe he didn't make it. John Wayne? This was the FIRST Wayne film I've seen where he was killed. I was shocked. And, please, don't anyone tell me other Wayne films where he is killed! Ha.. OK.. I won't tell you... but I WILL tell you there is one.. where I just about fell out of my CHAIR it was so shocking.. you think the movie is over.. and everyone is feeling pretty good..and it is the end..and then WHAMMO!!!! (I bet at least Chris knows which one I am talking about) OH I hate the end of that movie SO much!! PS: Miss G: +So,do you think Ralls was grabbing the gold out of greed or to prove he could do it or to try and "beat" the Red Witch? I'm not sure. I found it hard to believe he'd sink back into greediness. Could he have had a death wish+ I think it was A) he wanted to "beat" the Witch.. and maybe C) he MIGHT have had a death wish..But really.. I am not so sure about the whole "death wish" thing. I really think he just wanted a cut of the money so he could make a new start. I am not sure. I also think he went down there so no one else had to.. he knew it was too dangerous... and I think he did not want a "family man" to die for his misdeed.. (in terms of.. it was HIS fault the gold was down there to begin with.. so he was going to go get it) I don't really think it was about him getting rich off of it.. but I do think it is possible he saw his share of it as a way to "retire". Edited by: rohanaka on Sep 6, 2010 11:35 PM (and then edited again.. because I made a mistake on my "duke" movie.. they were not "going home".. yet.. gotta get my facts straight, Grey Dude, even if I CAN'T tell you what movie I am talking about, ha) Edited by: rohanaka on Sep 7, 2010 1:22 AM

Super MEGA Wuthering Heights Spoilage: I had no idea you felt this way about Wuthering Heights, Ro. I can see why you'd find them hard to like, especially Cathy. Heathcliffe I think is easier to comprehend, for he is, in his way, a very "pure" individual You know.. I never thought of him that way.. but I can see how you are describing him. I actually saw the "classic" movie for the first time AFTER I saw a made for TV one (I think it might have been on TNT maybe (??) or possibly another cable network.. that re-made it back in the late 90's) And OH me.. It is a bit different (in terms of intensity) from the one w/ Olivier and Oberon.. So I have to confess that MAY have been a part of what has shaped my mindset for those two characters all this time.. but in truth.. I LIKELY should read the book if I want to really get a feel for their true nature... He lives only in his own ideas, or world, and that world is Catherine and their kingdom is Pennistone Crag (not sure I'm spelling that right, I don't have the book on hand). Without Catherine, he is lost. Even his quest for revenge (this movie should have been included in TCM's "REvenge" theme this month!) is tied to her. She truly was the motivating force for his every thought (both good and evil) but the evil was also shaped by his "mis"treatment from the jealous brother (what was his name.. I am not remembering) I think the made for TV version REALLY played up Heathcliff's absolute HATRED for him and for his new wife too... (boy don't you just feel the MOST sorry for her in a way??) and he came off a LOT (a LOT) crueler in that TV movie than he does w/ Olivier. Again.. I do not know how he compares w/ the Heathcliff in the book.. but OH me.. he was awful. And oh, my, one of my favorite scenes in all movies is when they open the door at Edgar and Catherine's house to see Heathcliffe standing there in all his new "glory", ha. He is SO much more impressive than Edgar ever THOUGHT of being. But what a waste, why did evil impulses have to make him conquer the world instead of love? So I do feel Catherine was justified, a little, in being frustrated with him. But oh, goodness, the raging, nagging AGONY she felt when he came back, came back as the "king" she always commanded him to be. I love it! My kind of "tortured love" story!! I think "evil impulse" is the right way to say it. And to me the most tragic thing of all is how they LOVE each other so much they begin to hate each other for it.. oh me.. it is a powerful concept. (in the TV version I saw.. Once she is gone.. he is so consumed by grief over her that he even digs her up.. just to hold her in his arms again! YIKES!! ha.. is THAT in the book???) Anyway.. I guess that is why I am looking forward to watching this again because I DO want to view it once more to see if I still am holding on to my pre-conceived disgust with the two of them that I know likely came from that first movie I watched. Golly.. first impressions really are everything.. ha

I'm afraid it's going to sink your estimation of women even further and I can already hear you calling me a "Cathy". Ha.. let's leave the light on for him.. (in the window) and see what he gets... HA!!!!

I can't believe the Duke meets up with not one but two octopi I know.. who'da thunk it?? ha. Pretty slim odds for a guy who made most of his "movie-making" money on the back of a HORSE!! It really took me by surprise.. but I think I was still a TEENAGER (or at the very least in my EARLY early 20's) when I saw it.. so I guess I am just getting forgetful in my old age. ha. We pretty much pick up where everyone else picks up with Ralls. He was a tough pleasure-seeker who ended up falling for a lass and getting his heart broken. Do we need to know more than this? He's "Rhett Butler." Hmmmm I don't know if I can totally get that picture in my head for him.. he was his "own" man for sure and can maybe see some comparison to Rhett in that I imagine he did not intend in any way to fall in love with Angelique.. (before he met her, he was likely a "love 'em and leave 'em" kind of guy) But although he might have been a "victim" of love (sort of).. I don't think she really intended to break his heart by going w/ Sydney (out of spite) I think she more or less "fell into it" by circumstances. And I think Ralls blamed himself for losing her more than he blamed her. If he had stuck around (instead of running off) after the "fire" incident.. I think she'd have gotten over the shock of it all and likely would not have been such easy prey for Sydney to marry. (but I might need to rewatch it again. ha. Only a day or so and already the details are getting fuzzy.. ha Did I mention I am getting forgetful in my old age??) I find the end to be very poetic It was at that. Though (here I go again w/ my whining...ha) I wish there maybe had been a bit more "drama" to it. For me it was not very "suspenseful". Maybe I am used to more "nail biting" tension from some of his other action movies.. ha. Anyway.. I think it was very "mystical" in a way with the sunset and the images of them sailing off to sea at the end. Poetic is a good word. Sydney says: Ralls lives. He makes every day of living a challenge. Beside him, you're all decadent, dead That was a GREAT line... and VERY telling. Up to that point you REALLY dont' know for sure whether he just TOTALLY hates Ralls or not.. but you truly do see the admiration for him (or at least his spirit) in that line.. EVERY man there.. including himself.. gets measured by Ralls.. and comes up lacking. And you really see the "love/hate/love/hate/love" thing going on for him. PS: Miss G.. I loved that moment w/ Rosen and the girl (where Ralls tells Rosen not to lose her) It WAS a very telling and emotional moment.. and I would have liked to have seen MORE of those "emotions" coming out in him a bit... at the risk of whining about it all again.. HA. :-)

Oh.. for pity's sake... Ok.. get ready for a HUGE laugh at my expense. ha. Get ready for TRUE Confessions of the Hopelessly Doofy. (I told some one the other day that I was such a doofus that way back in my "youth" ha.. I had planned to make it my college major.. and when I got there they said I was TOO doofy and made me "DEAN OF DOOFINESS STUDIES" instead. ha.. sad but TRUE!! (ok.. I am making that up.. but I AM the reigning queen of natural born doofuses.. or is it dooffusi??) Anyway..... Remember how I told you that I really could nor remember much about Wake of the Red Witch and how it had been a LONG LONG time since I saw it (decades maybe) and that all I could recall was that John Wayne croaked in it.. and there was an Octopus?????????? After reading Miss G and mrsl's posts about Reap the Wild Wind.... THAT is the movie I saw a LONG LONG TIME AGO!! ha. And I feel so much better.. ha... because all the way through WOTRW I kept thinking.. gee.. I really don't remember THAT.. and Gee.. how could I have forgotten THAT??? ha. But when I went into the TCM database and read the synopsis of RTWW.. THAT is the movie I am remembering!! ha. (did I mention I was doofy??????) So gosh.. this is a GOOD thing that we have YOU to thank for bringing WOTRW into the limelight for me, Mr. Grey. Otherwise.. I'd have gone on confusing the two movies FOREVER. (and now I have to go see if I can find a copy of RTWW and watch it for comparisons.. .ha Oh boy.. I did mention my "doofiness", didn't I?????? Golly I am getting old.. ha. Ok.. so now on to the rumbling.. I mean rambling.. ha. SPOILER OF THE RED WITCH to follow: Well, since you stuck the knife in my heart Knife?? What knife.. to quote YOU.. ha.. I am innocent. And besides, I only use HATPINS! I decided to watch the film again, today. And, thanks to you, I ended up liking it more. I actually cried a little. Oh, my Oh my indeed. Wowsa.. I love how you go all out, Grey Guy. You really sink your teeth into things.. and THAT sir, is what makes discussing these films so much fun. I think it is good for both of us that you did some investigating too because some of your post made me remember another thing I wanted to talk about to.. (more on that in a moment) And PS: I LOVE the use of the screencaps and dialogue.. you really have done a terrifc job of bringout out some interesting (and very moving) aspects of Ralls and the story too. I'm now convinced the film is about this: You do have a point (but it helps me make my own point as well) He does have a "past" and everyone seems to know all about him and what it is that led him to where he ended up (except us) It's about men and their drives and ambitions. They are often selfish and quite reckless. The one thing that usually slows them down or brings them to a halt is a woman. The right woman. That is a great point of view to hang this whole story on. I agree. It goes deeper than that in some ways.. but it is a good frame work to more or less describe the story as a whole. Now, in Wake of the Red Witch, "she" refers to Angelique (Gail Russell) and the sea. Maybe.. but honestly, I thought Paul Fix was saying "she" and meaning the boat. Fix said something earlier about how The Red Witch was after him. I need to watch it again. Either way though.. YOU are right.. Angelique did get him... and so did the sea. (and I won't give out any HUGE Wuthering HEIGHTS spoiler.. but there is a big comparison that way too.. only not w/ the sea... I have likely said too much already) I also felt the end was very similar to The Ghost and Mrs. Muir. It's the "male" version. Ha.. you might be right.. it is the "guys" version.. ha. I don't think it would have been as "macho' for John Wayne to have to wait until he was an old man and die in his sleep for them to finally be together. ha. You mentioned wanting to know more about Ralls (John Wayne), why he is how he is. Ironically, you happen to be the opposite of Angelique. True.. she wanted to just love him for who he was when he was with HER and did not hold him to any sort of standard beyond that.. and although I liked his character.. flaws and all, and I wanted to love him.. I also wanted to know MORE about who he was.. inquiring minds wanna know. :-) There are some very beautiful words and feelings exchanged between Ralls and Angelique throughout the film. I didn't take them all in with my first viewing. This time, they impacted me She really was a beautiful woman.. inside and out.. I think her character was meant to be "pure".. especially of heart... and Gail did a great job w/ that aspect of her for sure. Then we get to the deeper meaning of the film: Man sails around the world, looking for his treasure. Is it on the map? And this brings me back to what I wanted to say earlier but forgot.. thanks for the reminder.. he DID seem to have a repentant "moment' where all his past washed away and he wanted to be a new man.. if only to be happy with her.. but alas.. it was not meant to be... (at least for the moment anyway) PS: Miss G: More like Chicken of the Sea! (It is chicken, right?) Ha. you do not strike me as being a Tuna.. but if you are saying you are a "chicken" of the sea.. ha.. I am with you, my sister. I swim like a ROCK!! Ah, sweet romance!! I can't wait for the Wuthering Heights rumble! I am looking forward to it for sure.. maybe you all can help me finally come to terms w/ WHY I love it so much and yet hate the characters all at the same time, ha. He was pretty transparent. It helped that all the men seemed to suffer from the same fit of envy, except Rosen. And Paul Fix too. ha. (Funny that the Grey Guy should mention To Have and Have Not earlier.. ha. He was very "Walter Brennanish" in this one.. did someone already say that??) Ray Milland and Susan Hayward are in it, along with Paulette Goddard and a giant squid (or octopus) HA... well.. did you see what I wrote at the beginning of this post.. ha.. appearantly I HAVE seen this film.. duh!! (did I mention I was a doofus??) Edited by: rohanaka on Sep 6, 2010 8:16 PM

hope you both get to see it one day, it's a handsome looking film (but I still think Trail of the Lonesome Pine has it beat) THANK you, little lady.. for the reminder on that one. I saw you mention it a while back and FORGOT to check on it. I will try to see if I can find it when I go to look for Canyon Passage... and that will likely be when I go to pick up my copy of The Tall T from the library as soon as it comes in.. OH golly.. ha.. I am thinking I need a score card.. ha. Hope I can find CP and TOTLP... but if not.. hope you folks will chat them up anyway.. And re: the Tall T... should be a few more days, but maybe by this time next week at the latest. Go ahead and start whenever you folks have a mind to and I will try to catch up.

just think it's his nature. It's Wayne's To Have and Have Not. Hey.. maybe he was bit by.. a DEAD BEE!!! (and that was what made him so angry!!)

Hello Goddess of the Sea!!! I thought maybe I was stretching things a bit, but I'm glad to know someone else saw the similarities. Oh yeah.. it was very much there. I even thought Gail looke a bit "Cathy-ish) and sounded that way too.. about all that "now we can be together forever" stuff. Sydney was not the type to resist a challenge. I thought he was the best "explained" character of them all. You really got a sense for how AWFUL he was.. and yet.. he DID have his moments where he was pulling for the Duke to win out. I at least understood him (in terms of who he was) better than I did the others. (somewhat) I think it may be better than Reap the Wild Wind, I need to look that one up because I am familiar w/ the title but it is not ringing any bells for me w/ the story. And if nothing else, it inspired you to add a new "weapon" to your arsenal! Oh yeah.. and I am putting a RUSH order on that thing too... especially if we are going to go down the road to Wuthering Height. ha. Somehow, I KNOW it will come in handy!!

Oh, for goodness sake, Quiet Gal! You and your always wanting more! Ha.. THIS from the guy who once spent days (no.. it was literally WEEKS I think) going round and round (and ROUND) with me over The Oxbow Incident. Of COURSE I want MORE. I like to know what it is that makes someone THAT interesting (as Rall's character) TICK! And then you let McLintock! just walk right on by! Oh good gravy, Grey Dude.. we are talking apples and ORANGES!! McLintock was a "fun" comedy about a BIG man with a BOLD personality taking on his " NOT-so" prim and proper" hot headed wife (among other things) It was a "COMEDY" for crying out loud..ha. I do not need to KNOW what makes THEM the way they were to enjoy it. Oh..and PS: regarding my love for "getting to know" my characters... there WAS a lot more detail about who McLintock and Katherine were and their background too than what was given to us about RALLS and Angelique.. by the way.. Golly, talk about apples and oranges.. GW was an OPEN BOOK. He even tells that whole story to his daughter about how it was when he and Katherine were first starting out.. so put THAT in your "apple basket' and smoke it, Mister "I hate all things McLintock" HA!! Were you looking for one specific event in his childhood or life that made him who he was? "Back when he was ten, all the other kids teased him so he swore he'd get revenge on everyone." Now you are just being smart mouthed, ha. But MAYBE. That MIGHT have been it. Who KNOWS??? And that's the point. I am thinking he got knocked down a LOT in life and it made him mad.. and he was not a good "mad" guy. Some people handle anger better than others. Anyway.. nobody ends up THAT dark of a person w/out SOME sort of reason or background.. I just wanted to get a glimpse, of the "inner" mindset for him, I guess.

Chalk one up for the biggest doofus here , Ro! Oh, my poor little fellow "doofus". ha. You have been hanging around ME too long and now I am starting to "infect" you w/ my "doofy" ways. ha. Maybe we can both get lucky enough to find a copy of this movie soon so we can watch too. Hang in there, kid. Doofy is only occasionally "debilitating" but so far does not seem to be "terminal" ha.

Hellooooooooo Grey Guy! Well I got to watch WOTRW again this weekend and I really enjoyed it. I can honestly see WHAT it is you like about this film and the Duke?s character and why. But to be truthful, if I had ONE complaint about this movie, it would the opposite of this statement by you: I do believe it's the most complete of all the characters I have seen of John Wayne's. He gives you everything in this one Now before it looks like I am turning on my beloved Duke, let me get more specific and try to explain what I mean by that. I thought HE did a good job bringing out all the MANY facets of Rall?s character (because WOW there was a LOT to bring out w/ him) but the STORY let him down. It just did not develop well enough for me to get that ?complete? feeling about who he really was and WHY he was the way he was. And for that I have to say it left me a bit disappointed. I honestly had SO little recollection of this movie (because I was remembering only snatches of images about it before I watched it again this weekend) so I do not know if it made any sort of impression on me before. But this time around I really felt like that was just so much missing from the story line that it really left me just a bit unhappy in the way it all played out. Now as for the Duke, OH me! Was he ever GREY GREY GREY!! Ha. I can absolutely see why it was you liked him so well. At one moment he was menacing.. and even LIFE threatening.. and then he could be just so calm and fun loving.. and even very gentle. I think he was a decent guy who had been dumped on a LOT by circumstances in life.. and by the hard life he had chosen to lead (at sea) and also by some REALLY bad choices on his part.. and it more or less just made him into this fractured and really two-sided person. The good in him was VERY good.. but OH that dark side. WOW. Did he ever have one. It was an interesting character.. but gee.. I just wanted to know WHY he was the way he was.. and the story NEVER really gets to that level of understanding for him. It could have just been so much better. (I wonder if the book is more detailed or not?) Miss Goddess says: What caught my attention most this time was another similarity to a film, this time to Wuthering Heights. There are a couple of shots that seem to be "stolen" right from Wyler's masterpiece, and the character of Captain Ralls (John Wayne) is to me, very "Heathcliffe". Brooding, masterful, and with a thirst to put down those who wronged him and destroyed his love. But Ralls is more genial, and more apt to blame himself for his tragedies, than Heathcliffe was. As crazy as it sounds, John Wayne actually plays a more introspective character than Olivier did. Olivier is all emotion, anger and brute strength. Ralls is intellect, humor as well as darker forces not under his control. I absolutely saw this when I watched this time (it was SO long ago, I don't know if I had even seen Wuthering Heights way back when I watched this movie the first time) The similarity is almost blatant... they don't even really try to hide it... (Except that Angelique" is like the "Anti-Cathy" ha.) I wonder if the author just sort of had that in mind when it was written.. or if it was how it played out when it got made into a movie. Either way.. the comparison there cannot be ignored. I see what an interesting and complex man Sydney was. He didn't just hate Captain Ralls, he actually wanted to BE Captain Ralls and knew he didn't have what it took. He could become as rich and powerful as he was and still didn't have that freedom, that independence and inner resourcefulness Ralls possessed. Sydney knew that, and it was like something meaningful went out of his life when Ralls died. His expression when he realized Ralls was gone, was great. You expect the whole time he hates Ralls so much he'll try to kill him himself, but no, he wants him to live because competing with him is what gives him excitement and justification. There was very much a "hate/love/hate/love" thing going on with him for Ralls. I think in the beginning he just wanted to use him (for what he could get out of him) and then as he saw his personality and his inner strength and determination.. he began to envy, resent, and secretly admire him for it all at the same time. It was almost like a "cat and mouse" thing with him... he would toy with him.. and you'd think at any moment he was going to pounce and just try to devour him.. but at the same time.. the cat wanted to keep the mouse as a pet (sometimes for "entertainment" of amusement.. and sometimes because he really (secretly) liked him and admired his spirit. Ralls almost became his "reason" for being in a way. The Grey Guy says: Gail seemed quiet and distant in the film, on the sad side That was another thing I wish had been better about the film. Her character was SO "undone". And OH she was just so beautiful and tragic.. there could have been a LOT she could have brought out about who RALLS was if both their characters had had more "layers" showing in this story. One of the things I think that WOTRW had working against it was the whole "flashback" thing. I think this is one example of a story that would have been MUCH stronger if it had been told in "real time" instead of all the flashing back and forth on multiple levels by multiple characters. In fact.. if you think of it.. the entire MOVIE was just one big flashback as it starts w/ Rosen telling "his" story..but it wasn't even HIS story he was telling. And not to get TOO technical.. because I am NO "expert" writer here.. but I thought that there were way too many issues w/ "perspective" too with all that "flashbacking". So many of the things we were seeing were NOT things that the person telling the story would even have had any knowledge of. (like the private scenes between Angelique and Ralls) at the very least whoever was doing the telling (first Sydney then his neice, etc) would have HAD to be "outside the room" or "hiding in the bushes" to even KNOW what those two said or thought while they were alone.. if the whole "flash back" thing were to be legitimate. (Oh brother.. listen to me.. ha. like I even know what I am talking about.. ha. My 10th grade English teacher would be so proud.. yeah.. right.. HA!) Anyway... ALL things considered.. and for ALL that "complaining" I have done.. I DID enjoy getting to watch this movie.. and I am REALLY glad YOU (my DEAR grey friend) brought it up for a ramble. It's about time you blew the "dust" off your Duke DVD collection. HA! We need gentle squids and gentle hair-pulls Was it a squid or an octopus? I am going to go back and count the legs.. HA! Because I am about to place my phone call to the "Sea Creatures R Us" people so I can order one for my "arsenal" to use against you when you get out of line. Oh to heck w/ checking.. I think I will go with an OCTOPUS. (Eight is better than SIX when it comes time to take up arms for fighting!) Edited by: rohanaka on Sep 6, 2010 1:51 PM

still think his Ethan Edwards is one of the most fascinating screen characters I've ever seen Mad Hat I am with you on that one for sure. I think (if I REALLY had to choose... and PLEASE oh PLEASE don't make me.. ha) He would come down as my most favorite character for Wayne.. but then there is Doniphan. And then there is Rusty. And oh what about.... Ha.. See.. (I TOLD you not to make me choose!!) I definitely like Wayne as an actor, and as a person for that matter I grew up liking him.. my dad is a fan of his movies.. and so I guess over time growing up, I more or less just developed my own preference for them as well. I think for me I would have to say I like his "persona" most of all. So very "Bigger than life" but w/ a real HEART underneath. That is what I like about his characters (the ones that REALLY stand out for me) there is a lot of "icon" status attatched to them.. but they are REAL people under the surface and a lot more complex than most folk realize. As for John Wayne the individual, I am honestly not all that familiar with him that way. I have heard and read a lot of things (some good, some not so good) about who he was in real life, but to be truthful... I really do think he was a decent guy based on most of what I read. Sure he had his flaws, but I think in general he loved his family and loved his country and he loved life and lived it with gusto, so to speak. (Very much like a lot of the characters he played, in that regard) But again... I am no expert on his life at all so I am sure there is more I might be able to say if I were better read on him. it is cookout mayhem at my house YUM!!! You lucky guy!! Dadgum!! I have not had a "cook out" all summer long!! Save a burger and some potato salad (oh.. and a deviled egg) for me!! PS: THANKS for the heads up on Make Way For Tomorrow. OH me OH MY I heartily recommend it. It is a very thought provoking and extremely moving story. I saw it on youtube a couple of months ago (thanks to Miss G's tip) but boy.. it would be good to get to see it all the way through. (I will have to go stock up on my Kleenex for sure!!)

Mmmm yummy!! Is it vanilla or red velvet? Ha.. Little T, it is BOTH!! (the top layer was vanilla and the bottom layer was red velvet!) Sounds like you had quite a day, youngun!! Glad to hear it! :-)

You remembered that? Of COURSE I remembered you, little darlin!! Hope your day is a VERY happy one!!! Here is a lovely party hat to wear, just for you You don?t give yourself enough credit young lady?.Mrs. Quiet Man! Ha.. well.. judging from what the Movieman wrote..HE is the Duke watching champion hands down. ha. (and PS: thanks for saying "YOUNG Lady" ha. I haven't been called THAT in a while. Likely since about a GAZILLION years ago when I was a young'un YOUR age.) Have a very happy day, kiddo!! PS: Here's a little cake to help you celebrate too!! Edited by: rohanaka on Sep 5, 2010 3:03 AM