Stephen444
-
Posts
313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Stephen444
-
-
This is truly a disturbing film and relevant to our present culture. Don't miss it.
-
Grand Central in New York? I hope the people of New York appreciate what they have in the preservation of Grand Central in contrast to the fate of the late great Pennsylvania Station.
Message was edited by: Stephen444
-
Wow, I never heard of that show. Where was it held?? I've never seen any background paintings in an exhibition. Certainly sounds well worth seeing.
-
It's been a few days since this film was shown on tcm but I wanted to write down a few thoughts on it before anymore time goes by.
I have seen this film on numerous occasions and like all significant films the more times you view it the more you see. The creation of the sets of Penn Station are phenomenal as they were done in Hollywood. For the longest time I thought this was actually shot at the station and not until recently did I learn that they were movie sets.
I think what has and still impresses me the most about this movie, and all of Minnelli's films, is their degree of romanticism. He is able to create a romantic scene without being overly sentimental. If you look at some of the scenes in this movie they just beg to be "Hallmark" drama moments but they are not. I can't think of a director that can pull this kind of subject off as successfully as Minnelli.
Some of my favorite scenes ...Judy thinking about going to meet Joe (Robert Walker) for their date and the wind blowing the curtains in the room where she is standing. It's a very sensual detail.
The love scene in the park is very successful...music, lighting, acting. Again on the surface it seems to be a woman's movie but it is packed with emotion that is one of the most convincing scenes of falling in love that I can think of.
Another element that makes this movie so attractive and alluring are the tragic real life figures of Robert Walker and Judy Garland. Also Penn Station itself was to vanish from our world and now only exist as a whole in the ground.
Message was edited by: Stephen444
-
I wonder if he was considered for Director of the 'Lolita' remake? Art should be on the edge and what director had more experience on this subject.
Message was edited by: Stephen444
-
> Saw this & *Lange was great as usual, but Barrymore seemed out of her league-(accent,etc)
Did you see the documentary?? The real Little Edie did talk and act the way Barrymore portrayed her in the film and it was interesting to see these women at an earlier period in their lives, which the documentary doesn't give us.
I think both Lange and Barrymore nailed their characters. It's so hard to portray a character that is well documented, as these two women were in the Grey Gardens documentary, without looking unconvincing compared to the real person. I think you have to see the documentary to appreciate the Barrymore and Lange portrayals.
-
>Were they always mentally unstable or what?
>I don't suppose there are any easy answers.
Yeah, but that's what is so interesting... the ambiguity of their personalities and the world that they lived in. I think we are all attracted to the tragedy and glamour of their lives. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.
Message was edited by: Stephen444
-
>drednm wrote...I thought Jeanne Triplehorne was lousy as Jackie Kennedy.
I don't agree. This story wasn't about Jackie and I appreciate that the actress that played her didn't overplay the part. It was important for her to be present but just as a supporting figure in the background.
-
Ever notice how many photos there are of Jackie wearing a head scarf? Not to the extreme of Little Edie but maybe it was a Bouvier thing.
-
>No, I think it was Drew. I thought you meant, for us to see a recreation of the act, not the actual performance by the real little Edie.
I think seeing the real performance would have completed the story. What a great addition this would have made to the HBO DVD. But the question is was her act recorded?
-
>Watch Grey Gardens the 1975 documentary film which is alot better!
Apples and oranges. The 1975 film is a documentary the HBO film is a drama of their lives.
-
>In the movie or in the documentary? I thought we did see here cabaret act - over the end credits.
Ahh!, was that the real Little Edie? I thought that was Drew. I'll have to look at it again.
> it could have been better!
I thought the later scenes in the movie looked a little too neat compared to the filthy conditions that you can clearly see in the documentary....the beds and walls definitely looked less filthy in the movie.
-
I agree that it is an uplifting, positive story although, as you say, a skewed one. There is much to be appalled by in the decay of their living conditions but I don't think that you can say it was all their doing. Their living circumstances were certainly tied to the power that the men in their lives had over them. I don't think that they would have chosen to live the way they did if they had the means to maintain Grey Gardens as it should have been. These were pampered women who were not very domestic but who aspired to be artistic.
I think one of the main ideas that I got out of the movie was Big Eddie's obsession with holding onto Grey Gardens. Aside from practical considerations of the money needed to run this home it was made clear that Big Edie considered it part of her identity as a person and would never leave there. On some level Big Edie reminds me of the Ruth Wilcox character in "Howard's End". She also had an obsession for her country house while other family members looked down on it. Of course the similarity ends there as Grey Gardens sunk into hopeless disrepair.
You bring up an interesting point about Little Edie's later Cabaret act. I would also love to see it. If it wasn't filmed we lost a significant element in her story.
-
One fact in the movie that seems to have been blurred for artistic considerations was the year that Mr. Beale leaves Big Edie. In the movie this is portrayed as the year of Little Edie's introduction to society in 1936 but, according to what I've read, he left Big Edie in 1931. Portraying the break up in the 1936 time certainly made a more dramatic exit.
It's interesting that you selected a photo that shows the Beale women in their more affluent days. Little Edie doesn't even have her patented head scarf.
-
I just rented this movie. I thought it was an excellent film. Drew Barrymore and Jessica Lange were first rate. It's much more interesting if you've seen the 1975 documentary, Grey Gardens.
I think that the movie captures the mystique of the Bouvier's and it's connection to the Kennedy's with a large dose of decaying grandeur. Many of these historical stories don't come off very well but I thought that both Lange and Barrymore captured the dialect accurately. Again seeing the documentary first will add to the appreciation of this film.
-
Yeah, too bad they were on so late. Especially East of Eden. This film is so seldom shown and at inconvenient times unless you are a night owl. It's like our local tv stations that are always promoting some investigative story that will be shown on the 11:00 NEWS. Sorry no way in h... I'm going to see it. I shut down at about 10 since I have to be up at 5:30 in the morning. I would prefer the premier features of the day to be on at 6:00 (dinner time) and 8:00.
-
My vote for most unhappy endings goes to "Looking for Mr. Goodbar". I can deal with unhappines but a story like this that shows no direction or purpose to life is depressing. It's still a good film though.
-
I didn't read all the comments on this thread but personally I was surprised at how much younger the real Nixon was compared with the movie. I thought that Frank Langella captured the essence of Nixon's personality but a physically older Nixon. This could be due to the fact that Langella is 70 Nixon was only 64 in 1977. Conversely I thought that Michael Sheen portrayed a younger looking David Frost, although he was actually 2 years older then the real Frost was in 1977.
Aside from these observations I think that this is still a fine film and worth seeing. I would encourage those seeing it to also look at the real interview for comparison
Message was edited by: Stephen444
-
>Izcutter said....The original version of Baby Face was released months before the Production Code took affect in Hollywood in 1934.
From FilmBuffOnLine....
Since no standardized ratings system existed at the time, every film was screened by state and often also local film boards who would rule whether or not it was acceptable to be screened for the public. When Warners submitted Baby Face to the New York State Board of Censors, it was rejected for its frank subject matter on April 28, 1933. Since New York City was a financially important market, the studio reworked the film into a more acceptable form. The modified version was released in July 1933
-
>http://blog.gnumatt.org/archives/2007/7/8/the_propatriarchy_censorship_of_the/
This is the best review that I have read on Baby Face. Thanks Marian.
Fred, I didn't know what to make of your comment about Leopold and Leob until I read the link. Wow, what a connection. It just goes to show how everything happening in the world at a particular time is usually connected.
Another far flung connection that I was thinking about was the relationship of Ann Rand's philosophy and that of nietze...the individual being responsible for what happens to themselves. And then Barbara Stanwick wanting to play the part of Dominique Francon in "The Fountainhead" (based on Rand's book)
Message was edited by: Stephen444
-
>I have a vague memory of the Nietzsche part being presented in the movie to sort of accompany a point about female empowerment, in order to dominate men.
Ah, female empowerment. Now that's something that the public must not be exposed to.
-
I rented the Baby Face DVD this week from Netflix and would say that it is the most interesting movie that I have rented thus far. I had not seen this movie before, in it's entirety, and then I discovered that the DVD had two versions on it. In addition to the theatrical release version that the public saw in 1933 there was the pre-please original version that was rejected by the New York State Board of Censors.
In addition to some more explicit scenes that involved sexual situations the censored version of the film also eliminated all references to the philosopher Frederick Nietzsche. I have found numerous references to the explicit scenes that were left out of the censored version but have only found token mention of the elimination of the Frederick Nietzsche references in the movie. The elimination of the Nietzsche content is as much a part of the censorship of this movie as the sexual content. I wonder why Frederick Nietzsche upset the board of censors as much as the sexual content? Of course Hitler was just hitting his stride at this time but I wouldn't think this would have concerned the censors enough to make such an effort to eliminate it from the movie.
-
I'm amazed at the number of Best Pictures that I have never seen. This list would include:
08 - Slumdog Millionaire
05 - Crash
04 - Million Dollar Baby, I did see The Aviator, which was excellent.
03 - Lord of the Rings
02 - Chicago
01 - A Beautiful Mind
00 - Gladiator
98 - Shakespeare in Love
96 - The English Patient
95 - Braveheart
94 - Forrest Gump will never watch this
92 - Unforgiven
90 - Dances with Wolves
87 - The Last Emperor
86 - Platoon
82 - Gandi
68 - Oliver
66 - A Man for All Season
55 - I can't believe that East of Eden and Rebel Without a Cause were not even nominated
49 - All the King's Men
48 - Hamlet
47 - Gentleman's Agreement
44 - Going My Way
Notice how the number of nominees was downsized after 1943.
32-33 - Cavalcade
30-31 - Cimarron
27-28 - Wings
-
Why doesn't TCM have a chat room?
Peter Bodonovich's "Targets" on tonight at 8pm.....Very intersting film
in General Discussions
Posted
>Dang, I didn't mean to shoot down your thread.
Well Fred, just don't use me for target practice. Seriously though, this is well worth watching. I am always fascinated when a movie like this one transcends it's era and still has something to say.
Edited by: Stephen444 on Oct 30, 2009 9:49 PM
Edited by: Stephen444 on Oct 30, 2009 10:03 PM
Edited by: Stephen444 on Oct 30, 2009 10:59 PM
Edited by: Stephen444 on Oct 30, 2009 11:07 PM