misswonderly3

C.Bogle wrote: "...I can't recall his name offhand..." Not sure who exactly you're referring to, maybe an overall philosophical meditation on the lost names of talented people. However, if you mean the person who wrote and sang that version of "Soldier of Love", his name is Arthur Alexander (he also wrote "Anna", "Shot of Rhythm and Blues", "You Better Move On" -the Stones covered this - and quite a few others.)

> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote} > Isn't the acronym technically SOD (suspension of disbelief). Yup. Neither lafitte nor I noticed that. However, I'm not sure the new acronym -ie, SOD (as opposed to SOB) is any better. A lot of British people might tell you it's worse.

Deborah Harry was pretty dynamic, all right. Whatever is that blue paper bag with legs she's wearing? Oh well, if anyone can pull off a thing like that, Deborah Harry can. (Uh - maybe "pull off" is an unfortunate turn of phrase -the singer for Blondie was somewhat given to exhibitionism from time to time, wasn't she? ) Arthur Alexander is a sad figure in the annals of pop history. He was such a good singer, and he wrote so many great songs that other groups (like the Beatles, for one) performed with much success. But success was not for Arthur, who knows why. He is now mostly forgotten, but he shouldn't be. Here is one of his many catchy tunes, "Soldier of Love" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC9419Gx-I0 Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 15, 2010 2:16 PM Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 15, 2010 2:21 PM sp

But I'm dying to know...what movie did you see there?

SansFin, yours' is truly a lovely and touching story. I feel a little humbled after reading your post. And yes, nobody would want someone they cared for to stay with them out of pity, rather than love. Thank you for bringing things into perspective for me. MFF, I agree with you about more character development in film helping to account for a character's behaviour. You said: (regarding *A Millionaire for Christy* ) "...If there had been better character development, maybe with a montage, where we saw her go through a series of disastrous dates and it was all the more traumatic when she lost the mink coat, we might be able to buy into some of her predicament. ..." That would help a lot. Speaking for myself, I need to know what's going on with the character in order to believe/accept their actions. I 'd still probably think the whole thing was a bit more silly than I can take, but at least I would have a little more understandable motivation from the character.

Kinokima, I have great respect for your opinion. You make some very reasonable points; to be honest, I hadn't thought of those two films from the perspective of the character's pride and sense of independence. I had seen her choice to remove herself from her lover's life as self-sacrifice, in the sense that she did not want to be a "burden" to him. But, ultimately, I suppose that's just a different way of saying that she was proud and reluctant to be dependent on someone. When you put it that way, it does cause me to reconsider the film's narrative from the woman's accident on. (I still think it's a bit sappy, though.) lafitte, I agree with what you said about how all films (I suppose all works of fiction, really) are contrived, and what counts is whether we think about the story's "contrivance" as we're watching it, in which case, something went amiss in the creative process. I always like to check definitions of words that get used a lot on these threads. Here is one for the word "contirve" (pasted from one of the dictionaries on the net) : "Contrive | Define Contrive at Dictionary.com /kənˈtraɪv/ Show Spelled [kuh n-trahyv] Show IPA verb,-trived, -triv?ing. ?verb (used with object). *1. to plan with ingenuity; devise; invent* " I bolded the part I thought most relevant. So, yes, when an author writes a novel, or a screenwriter a screenplay, or a director puts a lot of his own ideas, possibly dialogue, into a work of fiction ( be it a book, a play , a film, or whatever) he or she is planning, devising, inventing something - ergo, all fictional films are contrived in that sense. If the author ( or perhaps, if it's a film, the "auteur" - hope I don't sound pretentious, a little cinematic jargon never hurt anyone ) creates their narrative well enough, we don't see the seams, we don 't consciously think about the workings of the plot or the fleshing out of the characters. It should just "work". If an unskillful screenwriter, director, or actor is involved, maybe that's when we become aware of the "contrivance" behind the film. Isn't there some expression, " You can practically hear the plot creaking" ?

I'm not particularly "rational -minded". Far from it (not that there's anything wrong with it...). I have no difficulty with SOB (we've gotta change that acronym ! ) with respect to fantasy and science fiction, even musicals. I love films with magic in them (I've always loved literature with magic too -which is not the same as sci fi or even necessarily fantasy. But I digress.) I'll reiterate - for me, the only time I have a huge problem with the suspension of disbelief "pact" the viewer makes with the film, is when the characters do things that people just wouldn't do, for the sake of comedic effect, or for furthering the plot. I don't care what else happens in a film, but I have to feel the characters are acting like real people. Of course I know that in real life, people can behave in all sorts of strange ways, why shouldn't we accept that people in movies do so too? All I can say is, it's not logical with me ( so, the opposite of "rational" actually), it's a "gut" feeling. It seems to depend as much on whether I like the characters -or the actors who are playing them - as anything else. I'll give an example that is not a screwball comedy. I really dislike *Love Affair* and its remake, *An Affair to Remember* . I dislike the story because it feels , to me, maudlin and silly, over the top "romantic" ( in fact, I personally don't find it romantic at all), and, well, "contrived". That is to say, the entire story points to (SPOILER ! ! - but I'm assuming most people have seen at least one of these movies ) the events leading up to the female character's self -sacrifice. And it's that self-sacrifice that drives me crazy ! I have a great deal of trouble believing not only that the Irene Dunne/Deborah Kerr character would not allow Charles Boyer/Cary Grant to find out what happened, but that she would believe that this would be the best thing for them both. Why should her lover prefer to think her faithless than to discover that she was injured? Why would that hurt him less? I don'lt like the film(s) anyway, but the simpery self-sacrifice that the female lead chooses taxes my SOB and further, makes me want to throw something at the screen.

Yes, that's a great song. Almost all the songs from *The Pajama Game* are undeservedly forgotten. "Hernando's Hideaway" is a lot of fun, so is "Steam Heat". Just to name a couple more.

Hey, fi, no argument there. Marvin Gaye -it doesn't get any better. (too bad about the way he died -so weird). Someday I will definitely post a song from that album. Jerry Lee Lewis was just as much a country boy as a rock n roller. No. "Rockabilly". Love the rockabilly. Here is a sad and sweet song from Lucinda Williams. I think of it as vaguely Sundayish, for some reason. It's kind of slow, so dust off your attention span, people. "Sweet Old World" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U93v3oeiiQ Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 14, 2010 9:30 PM

I thought it was those chocolate covered whole wheat cookies, the kind you give to little kids (maybe without the chocolate, if they're really young.)

Arturo wrote: "Suspension of disbelief happens every time we walk into a movie theatre, or watch a movie at home. We KNOW those are actors, and not the characters they are playing. As basic as that." Well, it isn't always as basic as that. Yes of course everyone knows they're watching a play or a film and the characters are being played by actors and it isn't real. No one disputes that, nor that we normally attend a theatrical performance or a movie with the expectation that for the duration of the show, we will accept that we are figuratively visiting another world, not the real one. Of course. What I was curious about when posting this thread was, are there ever times when your "visit to this other world" doesn't work, your putting aside expectations of credulity for the film is broken, and if so, why? Broken by what? I feel that if it is a good film, your suspension of disbelief which, yes, should normally be quite basic, will carry you through the entire film. But sometimes the viewer's "pact", so to speak, with the filmmaker ( or actors on stage ) is disrupted. The reasons for this are probably as numourous as the reasons people watch movies. Some are bothered by technical deficiencies, some dislike musicals because they can't accept people bursting into song outside of a stage, and some, like myself, have tremendous difficulty with accepting unrealistic behaviour from the characters. I can handle all the other "suspension of disbelief" issues, no problem. But I need to feel that the characters behave as they do because of their, well, character, and not because their actions will further the plot. I think I saw *My Favourite Wife* recently, although I must admit sometimes I get it confused with *The Awful Truth*. As I recall, I didn't enjoy it much for the reasons I just described, and did not find it particularly funny. It's just me, I guess, those 30s screwball comedies always come up against my suspension of disbelief wall. As I've stated, there are exceptions. I have the same problem with the 50s television situation comedy, "I Love Lucy". Yes, I know everybody loves it, and Lucille Ball. I like her too, I think she was talented, smart, and funny. Also very business savy. But I have trouble "going with" all the silly situations her character gets into in that show. And everyone lies their head off all the time, for very little reason. Half the difficulties that come up in" I Love Lucy" would never exist if the characters would just bite the bullet and be honest. But then, of course, we wouldn't have the crazy ensuing shenanigans that the show was all about. Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 13, 2010 4:03 PM

Slightly off-topic - except if you stick with the concept that of course all musicals require SOB - my favourite Doris Day film, hands down, is *The Pajama Game*. This fun musical is about a union,( for a pajama factory), a union leader (Doris - a woman ! ), and the factory's new manager (John Raitt) hired to keep the union from getting the 7 1/2 cent raise they're demanding. It's quite unusual to make a musical about a union, and director Stanley Donen makes the most of it. This funny and lively movie is chock full of great singable tunes and almost acrobatic dancing. I can't understand why TCM doesn't show it when they're doing a "Doris" day. EVen if you don't like musicals, you might find this one hard to resist. (And not once do I experience a disbelieving moment in it.) Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 13, 2010 10:20 AM

Here is a very pretty Supremes song that has been going through my head lately (no particular reason, by the way). When you listen to the arrangements a lot of these Motown groups had, how everything was played by absolutely top-notch musicians, and how sophisticated and elegant those arrangements were, it's easy to see (or hear, actually) why "classic" Motown has endured. The piano is this is particularly sweet. Diana and her friends, Standing at the Crossroads of Love :

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote} > Anyone who sent me a private message---all my private messages have been deleted by the system What ? Why? Did you have too many, and the pm system was overloaded? Or was it a Communist plot?

For some reason that kind of thing doesn't bother me. That's an example of where I use "SOB" without any problem.

"In MY FAVORITE WIFE Irene Dunne returns home after being on a desert island for several years. She sees her children--but doesn't tell them she's their mother. No one would behave this way, and I've just disconnected from the movie." Right, kingrat, that's the sort of thing that drives me crazy in this kind of comedy. I hate it when people don't behave the way they normally would, for the sake of furthering the plot. If the plot needs that kind of unrealistic action from its main characters, then, as I see it, it is "contrived" to the point where I too "disconnect " from it. There are always exceptions. I know not everyone like musicals, but I love 'em, and have no difficultly whatsoever with the suspension of disbelief required to accept people bursting into song with a full orchestra in the background while strolling down a country lane ( or whatever.) I 'm a big fan of the Astaire/Rogers musicals, and they provide a double whammy of SOB problems. Not only are they musicals, but often they feature elements of screwball comedy as well - ie, mistaken identity, lying to cover something up that doesn't really need covering up in the first place, etc. But I find these films so charming, such a sweet journey into music and dance, that I completely forgive all unrealistic features in them. *Top Hat*, for instance, asks us to believe that the Ginger Rogers character would go through the entire film harbouring the mistaken notion that Fred Astaire is her friend's husband. In fact, this mistake would in real life be cleared up after one conversation, with either the friend or Fred. But since the entire story is based around this question of mistaken identity , we have to, at least for the duration of *Top Hat* , believe that Ginger thinks Fred is someone else. Normally this would annoy me to the degree where I'd lose interest, but the film is so charming, the songs so good, the dancing so delightful, and Fred and Ginger et al so skilled in their comedic powers, that I don't worry about the "foolish" behaviour that usually bothers me in these kinds of comedies at all.

What poem? I didn't know *The Set Up* 's origin was a poem. Anything with Robert Ryan in it is almost guaranteed to be good.

Whoa ! The Boss can play an audience like it's one of his guitars. Talk about fist-pumping arena rock ! Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 12, 2010 3:39 PM

Kinokima, you're right, *A Millionaire for Christy* is not typical of the screwball genre, and was made 20 years or so after its heyday. It's not a good example. Take a film like *The Major and the Minor*. I like this little comedy, mainly because I like Ginger Rogers and Ray Milland. They are both inherently likable somehow, and because of that, I accept the film. But it's quite possible that if their characters were played by different actors, I'd find it annoying. It's a perfect example of a well-made film rising above the SOB issue. Nobody would think Ginger Rogers was 13 (around that?) just because she wears her hair in pigtails and talks in a higher register. But she and Milland take that premise and make it somehow funny, so I choose to forget the unbelievability of the situation. I don't want you or anyone to think that I don't like comedies -quite the opposite. It' s just that one aspect of some comedies, expecting the audience to accept idiotic behaviour on the part of the characters for the sake of the plot, that gets in the way for me. I've also just realized that I don't like most of television's "situation comedies" for the same reason. I know I'm in the minority here, that a great many people love those situation comedies from the 50s and 60s. Now I've finally figured out why they never make me laugh very much. They are the inheritors of 30s screwball comedy. (No offense to all the people who love them, and I know their numbers are legion.)

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote} > If Lana had played the role, wouldn't Gazzara have been too young to play her husband?They would have had to replace him with someone such as, say, Barton McLane. Exactly...as I said, Lana was too old for the part. One of the main elements of *Anatomy of a Murder* is that Gazzara's wife if young, pretty, and very flirtatious. Remick had not only her youth, but a different quality of fliratiousness from Turner's. (see earlier post).

Well, I wouldn't want to watch a Coen Brothers film with my mother, regardless of the language in it. In fact, that would totally spoil it for me, worrying about how and when my mum was going to get upset over the myriad things that would upset an old lady in any Coen Brothers film. That doesn't stop me from liking Coen Brothers films, though. I love these guys, foul language, violence, and all. Just not in conjunction with my mother.

> {quote:title=laffite wrote:}{quote} > *Filmguy24:* At the beginning of La Belle et La Bete there is a ?disclaimer? that says something like ?This is a fantasy for a child,? or something like that. That precludes any issue of suspension of belief. It simply would not come up for me. And even without that opening preamble the movie itself is so obviously a fantasy that I would not anticipate any strictures regarding realism. I don?t expect it to be realistic. You wrote, correctly (in general), that ?splendid performances, beautiful writing, and just the art of filmmaking? make this movie watchable? that's true and those things have saved many movies from the usual criticism regarding suspension of belief. But with Belle, IMO. even if the performances were mediocre, the writing shoddy, and the film making below average, I wouldn't expect having suspension of belief issues because it is an unabashed fantasy in any case. I may want to criticize the mediocre aspects but I don't believe I would have SOB issues. > ... > Suspension of belief issues can probably turn up in any type of genre of movie but I would say that the ones most vulnerable are those that assume to be of our time and reflects the realistic world we live in. Because we actually occupy that world (and not a fantasy world, for instance) we are acutely sensitive to anything that might seem far fetched. The treatment of the story becomes circumscribed to a degree and events (or things, whatever) that occur can be jarring if they don?t adhere to that world?unless, of course, you have a brilliant filmmaker, for instance, who can make some outlandish occurrence actually work, if he can make it play well on screen. Or some other factor in the movie making process that can, in effect, make us take something seriously that we might otherwise tend to dismiss as phony, or whatever. Well said, laffite ! I have never had problems with "Suspension of Disbelief" when it comes to fantasy, for the very reason you give. It's a fantasy, it is a given that you don't expect it to reflect real life. (By the way, *La Belle et la Bete* is absolutely magical, one of my favourite films in any genre). Same goes for "Star Trek" - of course you don't question the "incredible " things that happen, because it is set far off in the future. This gives us permission, so to speak, to just relax and enjoy the story. As I said before, the main occasions when I have difficulty with SOB (an unfortunate, acronym, that) is when the characters behave in an unrealistic way in order to set up requirements concerning the plot. In other words, their silly behaviour is nothing more than a plot contrivance. "If character A doesn't hide in the closet and get caught, then character B won't think A is having an affair (which they're not) and want to divorce them" or whatever. As laffite said, there are times when the excellence of the production, the actors, direction, dialogue etc. is so good that I forgive the idiotic and unrealistic behaviour of the characters. But most of the time I have great difficulty suspending my disbelief to accept the goofy things people do in this kind of film. I guess that means I don't like screwball comedies. I didn't realize this before I initiated this thread, but it was a screwball comedy , a very bad one in my opinion, that got me started thinking about the unrealistic behaviour of characters in films, and the larger issue of disbelief. That recent Eleanor Parker/Fred MacMurray vehicle, *Christy Needs a Millionaire* or whatever it was called, got me thinking about all this. Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 12, 2010 9:37 AM

I was going to post something else today, but in view of C.B.'s delicious Challenge Schedule (anyone who hasn't looked at this thread, check it out ) I really had no choice but to go with the Velvet Underground's Venus in Furs : Then again, maybe this is just as appropriate: (David Bowie's Heroes ) Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 12, 2010 2:00 PM

Something else Marlowe had to keep an eye on: the Phelps Department Store specialized in contraband duck soup, horse feather dusters, and animal crackers. They were also not above selling scalper-priced tickets to hoirse races and the opera. Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 11, 2010 2:17 PM

Well, phroso, I admit you may have a point. I still say it's a shame that the "mindless arena rockers" come to mind for a lot of people when talking about Springsteen, rather than the intelligent singer/songwriter that I think of when his name comes up. I really do encourage people who have labelled him in the former category to reconsider. I say, "Hallelujah ! , Bruce Springsteen !" C.B., I concede you have a point, too. Well, I won't post The Boss again for a while (not saying "never", though.) Change of pace from both Springsteen and Mungo Jerry: Here is a plaintive and elegiac song from Tom Waits, appropriate to the day. This is the kind of song that doesn't need images, and maybe shouldn't even have them, so I just chose the album cover. From Swordfish Trombones, " A Soldier's Things" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS_J9ONoNQk ( In Canada, it's Remembrance Day. Don't know if you guys have it there, at least, maybe not on November 11th.)