misswonderly3

Fun little song; I think Mr. Jerry (or whatever his name is, I didn't look him up) must've had to take out a license of some kind for those sideburns. Must have worked for him, though -look at all the chicks he managed to pick up from singing that song. ( "chicks" is still a good word sometimes.)

I just saw Naomi Watts in the new Woody Allen film, *You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger*. ( I have mixed opinions on that, but that's not for this thread.) Naomi looked fantastic in it - if she's 40, bring it on. But come to think of it, Bette Davis, at 42, looked pretty good in *All About Eve*.

There have been lots of interesting suggestions and examples of the suspension of disbelief and movie watching on this thread. I realized the other day that I almost always have no problem with accepting all kinds of things in film. For instance, technical gaffes or just shoddiness resulting from cheap technical shortcuts don't bother me at all. When a couple in a car is having an argument or making a plan, I'm focussed on what they're saying, and not on the obvious rear-view projection behind them. I don't care if they're really driving a car, or if they're sitting in a car on a set with rear-view projection . If I'm engaged in the story and the characters are interesting to me, I hardly notice it. James Bond and his array of gadgets, always the right one at the right time? Hey, it's James Bond. I agree with SansFin and laffite that that sort of thing is essential to a Bond type film in order for it to work. The only time I usually have trouble with the Suspension of Disbelief" concept is when the characters themselves behave in a way that I don't think they ever would, just to further the story. This seems to happen most often in comedy, particularly screwball comedy. I recognize that part of what comedy is about is disorder, the reversing of the norm, miscommunication. Up is down, etc. And often I love that, it absolutely connects with me when it comes to some comedy, such as the Marx Brothers. The celebration of chaos. But with rom/com or screwball comedies, I can't seem to "go with it". People behave in such an idiotic fashion, they're not just creating disorder, they're abandoning all human common sense. There are a few exceptions, but usually I have no patience with the degree of stupidity in terms of both character and plot that's playing in these films. I know that sounds harsh, "stupidity" is an extreme word. But people go to great lengths in these films to do things that are absolutely unnecessary, they lie when they don't have to, they hide when they don't have to, they pretend to be someone else when it would be so much easier to admit their true identity. I fully realize these things have to happen to contribute to the miss-communication and disorder essential to this kind of comedy, but most of the time it just annoys me. "They wouldn't do that !" I say out loud when watching this kind of film. "He wouldn't believe that story !" I think. That is my main suspension of disbelief issue. Having said that, I'm fully aware that these kinds of exaggerated situations, disguise, miss-communication, hiding in people's closets, etc. go all the way back to Shakespeare, Chaucer, and beyond , probably to ancient Greek comedy. Maybe they did it better - I don't experience the same kind of impatience, trouble with my suspension of disbelief, with those writers. Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 11, 2010 12:54 PM

kinokima, your're right, part of what is involved in "the suspension of disbelief" is the need for consistency within the story itself. Tolkien's "purple sky with a purple ocean" is a perfect example. It's often considered a requirement when reading literature, especially fantasy, but I consider it to be just as relevant when watching film. And not only fantasy. Here is one definition I picked up on the net: "Suspension of disbelief The temporary acceptance as believable of events or characters that would ordinarily be seen as incredible. This is usually to allow an audience to appreciate works of literature or drama that are exploring unusual ideas. Origin samuel taylor coleridgeThis term was coined by Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1817 with the publication of his Biographia literaria or biographical sketches of my literary life and opinions: ... The state is arguably an essential element when experiencing any drama or work of fiction. We may know very well that we are watching an actor or looking at marks on paper, but we wilfully accept them as real in order to fully experience what the artist is attempting to convey.

Me too. Thanks to mark for both his alerting us all to some great upcoming stuff on tcm, and also for his enthusiasm ! (Sometimes it makes me happy just to read his posts.)

I've been thinking lately about our use of what is called "suspension of disbelief" when it comes to watching movies. We probably do it almost every time we watch a film, most of the time without thinking about it very much. If you start thinking about it, then maybe the film is not "working". Suspension of disbelief is an actual official term, referring to the audience's (or readers' , if it's a novel we're talking about) willingness when watching a film to put aside considerations of what is realistic, what would be likely to happen, and to in a sense co-operate with the filmmaker ; for the sake of maximizing their engagement with the film, the viewer chooses to overlook events or behaviour that would be extremely unlikely or even impossible in real life. The term is most often applied to fantasy and science fiction, stories in which things that are literally impossible happen. But I feel that " suspension of disbelief" is used when watching almost any film. How often do you figure you do this, and do you consider it an essential aspect of watching a film in order to derive the most enjoyment from it? Or do you figure, if it's that unbelievable (whatever event is occurring in the film), it's too difficult to accept, and you dismiss the movie as just too unrealistic to be a satisfying film watching experience? Maybe it depends on the film?

Lana Turner would have been all wrong for the role anyway.For one thing, as someone pointed out, she was too old. For another, she was too well-known. Lee Remick was a perfect choice, not only because of her youth and her relative obscurity, but because she brought a kind of freshness and insolence to the role,which worked in conjunction with the story and her character. Lana would have brought the wrong kind of flirtatiousness to the film; the character was extremely flirtatious, that's part of what drives the story, but in the cheeky, almost innocent manner that Lee Remick has. Lana's flirtatiousness , even when she was younger, always struck me as more sullen, something that wouldn't work in *Anatomy of a Murder* .

I wondered that too. Come on, C.B., tell us , are you really +D+ Bogle ? Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 10, 2010 2:37 PM

I own *Hollow Triumph* / *The Scar* on one of those cheapo boxed sets I've picked up. I'm not altogether sure if Paul Henreid is right for this role, but maybe that's just because I always have him pegged as a good guy. I always like Joan Bennett, I think it's because she's so impudent and sarcastic; it's sort of her usual persona. I started to watch *The Guilt of Janet Ames* when it was on a couple of weeks ago, but was interrupted, can't remember how. Funny seeing Rosalind Russell in a noirish flick. I hope TCM runs it again soon, so I can see the rest of it. There are a lot of "newspaperman" noirs, aren't there? I'd love to see *The Secret Beyond the Door*, if only because of that great title.

C.B., I noticed you've cleverly skirted the Springsteen comments. Don't tell me you've no use for him, either. Et tu, Brute ? Well, whatever you think of The Boss, we can agree on Sam Cooke. What a singer; I have a double disc record set of Sam Cooke, and it never grows old. (can't resist adding, neither does Bruce Springsteen's stuff either.) Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 10, 2010 2:38 PM

Nobody "entrusts" anyone to make a film. The filmmaker chooses what he wants to do, and makes it, or makes compromises to it, depending on his or her financial situation. Unless you're talking about a corporation or non-profit agency, in any case some organization that has hired someone to make a film for commercial or information purposes. In the case of Woody Allen, he has a deserved reputation for making movies on time and on budget. Considering the quality of his production values and the casts he recruits, he is amazingly economical in his movie-making. He makes what he wants, and I've little doubt would be amazed and possibly offended -more likely amused - if told he is "entrusted" with the task of film making. "Entrusted" by whom? You say of Allen. "Yet he is allowed to keep churning them out. " Who "allows" him? Is he going to be arrested by someone if he does it wrong, possibly one of those who have "entrusted" him with his filmmaking? Sometimes , MFF, your posts make no sense to me. Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 10, 2010 1:11 PM

This is what I find frustrating about the common perception of Springsteen, that he was just a fist-pumping mindless rocker who churned out loud simple tunes for equally mindless people, 80s frat boys included, to sing along to. People who have that opinion of him have got it all wrong. First, there's nothing wrong with powerful catchy anthemic rock songs, some of the best rock ever fits this description (hey, The Velvets' Rock 'n Roll from Loaded fits that description, and no one would dream of dissing them.) Songs like Born to Run and Born in the USA have been rejected by many for the simple reason that they were too popular for their own good, they got almost too much air play and people who liked to think they were fans of "indie" music turned away. This does not diminish the quality of the songs. Second, Springsteen has actually written far more songs that are almost the opposite of the anthemic "mindless" rock tune . His lyrics, which many people miss or don't notice, are almost always thoughtful, intelligent observations on life and how difficult it can be. I'm simplifying, not doing him justice by summing the songs up like that. They are as good, as carefully written, and as authentic and as passionate as any other great song writer/musician's. Springsteen has composed so many really good songs, outstanding in both lyric and musical creativity, that I'm amazed that so many music fans still seem to hold the view of him described at the beginning of this post.

Must have something to do with you guys being American. I rarely have difficulty with it (she said smugly.)

To get back to noir - I've also recently viewed, from my new boxed set, the Edward Dmytryk film *Cornered*. I'd seen this before, and hadn't liked it much; I wanted to give it another chance. But I find it unusually unenjoyable ( is that a word?) for a noir. It's partly the Argentina setting, which I find depressing for some reason, although I understand why it is set there. The other actors are not fun or compelling for me to watch -ok, the woman who plays Madame Jarnac (Micheline Cheirel ) is appropriately mysterious, and beautiful in an unusual way, but she's the only one who's at all sympathetic to me. Dick Powell, whom I usually love to watch, never smiles once in this film. One of the reasons I like Powell is his self-deprecating sense of humour, which is nowhere in sight in *Cornered.* In other words, it's kind of heavy-gooing, and lacks the usual elements of noir that make the genre fun for me. (sorry, mark.)

I usually have little trouble understanding English accents, especially of the kind used in *Kind Hearts and Coronets*, because that film featured "upper class" characters, whose diction is exceptionally clear. My problem is with very thick Cockney or Scottish accents. Or Yorkshire accents -sometimes sounds almost like another language. *Kind Hearts and Coronets* is one of those wonderful British comedies produced in the 50s (ok, some in the very late 40s) by Ealing Studios. I love Alec Guinness' bravura performance(s). And Dennis Price as the conscienceless frustrated would-be heir, striving to contain his impatience with the various aristocratic relatives he meets, is equally enjoyable. Now that's my idea of a good comedy - no comparison to rubbish like *A Millionaire for Christy* or *Kiss Me Stupid*. (But I'm being unfair, because there are many great American comedies that are hilarious and smart. ) Anyway, to return to your comment, I find the dialogue in this film completely comprehensible. (Maybe you're distracted by Joan Greenwood's throaty purring voice.)

Hmmph. (I notice this is not deleted by TCM Web Admin. Guess it's not a swear word.)

finance, *Kiss Me Stupid* was so stupid no amount of high level casting could have improved it. Billy Wilder at his lowest. (and I'm a fan of Wilder's.) By the way, speaking of "damn", I've noticed that the TCM Web Admin people don't censor out this word. Other words get astericked out, but "damn " is allowed. Shows how inoffensive the word is now. I figure there's some kind of program in place that automatically deletes "unacceptable " words; I know it's not some Admin person checking out all the words on all our posts -that would be a boring and tedious job.

No,no.no -I have to disagree. How familiar are you with his albums? Have you listened to all the songs from Born in the USA, or did you just think the title song was a mindless rocker (which it most definitely is not - check out the lyrics), and assume that's what Springsteen was all about. Are you familiar with his great album, Nebraska ? And even some of his more recent work is great -he made an album, 2005, I think, called Devils and Dust, that was equal to his earlier stuff. Did you listen to the song I posted? How can you not think that was great?

Never mind the Catholic Legion of Decency, *Kiss Me Stupid* should have been condemned by the Film Lovers Legion of Decent Films . ("decent" meaning, half-decent, having at least a degree of intelligence, maybe.) Maybe I've become desensitized, but I don't remember any foul language in *Anatomy of a Murder* . "Panties" ? Come on.

tracey, that was pretty interesting. I like the way they superimposed images of Karen Carpenter singing over the video from time to time. finance, here's an artist you're bound to recognize. When I was at band camp - I mean, The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame a couple of months back, I saw a major exhibition dedicated to none other than The Boss, Mr. Springsteen himself. Sometimes dismissed as nothing more than a fist-pumping arena-rocker by those who aren't that familiar with his work, Springsteen has proven himself time and again to be a thoughtful and inventive musician who writes great songs and yes, occasionally indulges in anthemic rock songs -but only really good ones. Here he is with one of my favourites by him, "This Hard Land" : Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 10, 2010 9:02 AM Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 10, 2010 9:03 AM

lz, I read your post (the one in question) and I definitely did not take it as a defense of Griffith's beliefs.l saw your message more as an explanation of how he came to develop those beliefs. fred, thanks for the pics of those old plantation houses. This is a bit of a digression from the main topic, and I freely admit I'm on shakey ground here, not being a Southerner or even a Yankee. But I was in the American South recently, and made a point of checking out Civil War historic sites. Perhaps it was because I spent most of my time in Georgia, but my impression was that many Southern plantations, founded and owned by Southerners, were razed and burnt to the ground, utterly destroyed, by the invading Union troops, who were instructed to do so by General William Tecumseh Sherman. His idea behind this destruction was to break the spirit of the Southerners, soldiers and civilians alike. Natchez is in Mississippi, right? I don't doubt for a moment that the families you refer to were non-Southerners originally, but I think many of the Confederate states east of Mississippi (I'm thinking primarily of Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia) were populated by native Southerners, including the plantation owners. I should be humble about this, however, since I am neither a historian nor an American. In any case, my impression was that this myth of which lzcutter speaks was very powerful, as myths usually are, and remnants of it remain to this day. (Not so much the racist aspect of it today, but the idea of the marauding Northerners ruining a gracious way of living. When I was in Georgia I actually heard someone refer to the Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggression". In 2010 ! I wasn't offended, I was intrigued.) As for *Birth of a Nation*, it's one of those problematic cinematic works that deserve to be viewed by any serious film lover for what it is, a story on film made in 1915, when, as I believe hamradio said, all filmmakers were feeling their way with what worked and what didn't in terms of technical experimentation. (eg, the intercutting and editing). The racist depictions are there, nobody likes them, in fact we are repelled by them, but we should still not reject the film. My feeling is, it is a historical document, not for the Civil War era but for the discovery of film era. Perhaps if it were called *Birth of an Antecedent to Modern Filmmaking*. ( But not modern perspectives on race, of course.) Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 10, 2010 2:16 AM

Very nice. Love the video. So this is what Kim Deal did after the Pixies. Another group with a female lead singer, Metric. They're mostly Canadian (sorry, I did it again ) with a little American mixed in for good measure. This is a fun pop song by them called "Gimme Sympathy" (no, not for the devil this time.)

> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote} > The bathroom scene was an excuse to separate them long enough for Carlson to whisk him off to the wedding. And of course, for her to follow them and break up the marriage before it even happened. That's exactly my point. Nobody would go into a bathroom and then decide to call out the reason for their visit from there, especially with such important news . The only reason she did so was, as you say, the "separate them long enough for Carlson to whisk him off to the wedding...". And that's what I mean by "contrived".

SansFin, baby, I have never found your contributions to the Vole thread to be those negative things you say. As far as I can tell (although C. Bogle is the expert on this) there is no "right" or "wrong" way to do it -whatever works, and I think that your posts on that thread "work". I noticed your "20th Century Vole" part of the programming challenge - looks good !

Gloria Graham is pretty and unusual looking, but perhaps not what you'd call "beautiful". But she's sexy.