misswonderly3
-
Posts
12,768 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
36
Posts posted by misswonderly3
-
-
Eric mentioned a British commercial:
"Still, as foreign Christmas commercials go, they have a long way to beat the classic:"
By "classic", I hope he meant the original animated film, and not the commercial upon which it is based.
I don't know how many people here are familiar with the original this commercial is based on. It's one of my favourite Christmas videos, even though it's quite short ( I think less than half an hour.) It's called The Snowman, and it's based on a children's book by celebrated children's author and illustrator (at least by those who know their children's books) Raymond Briggs.
This animated little film perfectly captures the spirit of the original book. Both are exceptionally moving, magical, and uplifting, as all good books for young children should be. I own a copy of The Snowman (the film) and watch it every year around this time with my family. We all love it. It has to be one of the sweetest, gentlest, most imaginative children's Christmas animated shorts ever made. And the part in the film where the song that this commercial uses, taken from the original film, occurs, almost brings me to tears every time I hear it.
I'm kind of sorry it was made into a commercial. Oh well....
Here's the original . Hope someone takes the time to watch it. It's one of the best Christmas cartoons ever made.
-
1
-
2
-
-
On 12/12/2018 at 10:26 PM, scsu1975 said:
I was hoping for North By Northwest.
I was hoping for Hot Spell.
-
4
-
-
I would love to see The Night Has A Thousand Eyes. For many years now, I've actively pursued and sought out film noirs (or is it "filmS noir" but that sounds odd) and as a result, I've seen quite a few of them, some of them pretty rare and obscure.
But Night Has A Thousand Eyes has always eluded me. I suspect that even if TCM did air it again, it would not be available to see in Canada. I'm actually jealous of my husband, because he's seen it. Years ago (dear god, back in the 80s), a friend of his was taking a film course at the local university, and invited my husband to accompany him to the class and view whatever film they were showing that day. It was Night Has A Thousand Eyes ! But that was the only time he ever saw it, and he's been wanting to view it again ever since. (I asked him what the film prof said about it after the screening, but he doesn't remember. And hey, this was literally decades ago !)
Another film I've always wanted to see but again, there's some kind of "rights" problem around it, is Beyond the Forest. I did see it once, again, decades ago, in a repertory cinema. Of course I've never forgotten "What a dump." ! Oh, I would love to see that one again !
I've said this many times here: it seems strange to me that this whole confusion around the rights of old movies - some of them very old - should so get in the way of letting people see them. It's hard to understand, not to mention very frustrating, that the "rights issues" around these films can't be straightened out. It's hard to believe a lot of money could still be made from them, which leaves me wondering what exactly the problem is. It's such a damn shame that these great old movies are unavailable for fans to see now.
...and don't get me started on the "film rights" issues that extend to Canada !
-
On 12/8/2018 at 8:11 PM, TopBilled said:
Not sure the need for the put-down. Joe and I were not discussing actors but movies with similar themes...and since NIGHTMARE ALLEY also starts with the word 'Night' it is possible Lavender misremembered titles, not actors. If MovieCollector's data seems to indicate the Robinson film did not air on TCM, then it's likely Lavender is thinking of a different movie.
If anybody here knows their movies, it's lavenderblue. This is a sharp-witted lady who would certainly not have mixed up the two titles. Let's give some of the smartest posters here some credit.
-
3
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Sepiatone said:
There was a point in which Bette's eyes showed a lot of "bag" under them to be considered still attractive. It were those images that made me wonder if that KIM CARNES song was supposed to be an insult or not. But in both Bette and Angela's earliest film appearances, they WERE both quite stunning(IMHO).
Sepiatone
If you listen to the lyrics of that song I think you'll find that it's definitely meant to be complimentary to Miss Davis. The girl the singer's singing about is supposed to be irresistibly attractive. Come on Sepia, haven't you ever really listened to the song?
ps: There's at least one other song that mentions Bette Davis, although it does not allude to her appearance in any way. It's Bob Dylan's "Desolation Row". I've always liked this line:
"...she puts her hands in her back pockets / Bette Davis style"
-
2
-
-
On 12/8/2018 at 1:39 PM, Debra Johnson said:
On a Bette Davis binge now and recently watched Angela Lansbury in "A Life At Stake". I don't want to be mean but I absolutely can't see how anyone could ever have thought either of these women attractive w/their strange looks and ugly eyes!
Whaaat? I think you must have a pretty narrow definition of "beauty". Not everyone has Barbie Doll boring perfect faces, that's what makes great actresses like Bette Davis and Angela Lansbury interesting looking. And beautiful, just not in a "one size fits all" kind of way.
There are many different ways of being beautiful. And certainly, in their prime, both Bette Davis and Angela Lansbury were beautiful, in their own unique ways.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:
What's with the expletives? I thought this was a family website
What frigging expletives ?
-
5
-
-
5 minutes ago, Hibi said:
SPOILERS.
But Herbert Marshall wasnt a villain. I suspected he was as he often is, but not in this film! I liked the fact that the good girl secretary turned out to be not so good. I'd forgotten that aspect as well.......
SPOILERS
Damn ! You is right, Hibi baby. Of course I believed you, but just because I had it so firmly in my mind that Marshall was the bad guy, I went and read the whole plot synopsis.
So...interesting, here I've seen Crack Up about three times, yet I still remember it incorrectly. Oops, I look pretty dumb on this one, I'm afraid.
All I can say is - anyone agree with me at least on this? -- that Herbert Marshall seems like a candidate to be the film's bad guy throughout much of the film; it's a surprise when you find out he's not (the bad guy), he's a detective. I dunno, I think I wanted him to be the villain.
ps: I do remember this: that the real "bad guy" just did it all because he loved the paintings and coveted the originals, something like that. He wasn't doing it for the money. (or am I wrong about that too? hope not....)
-
9 hours ago, Hibi said:
I'd seen Crack Up once before a few years back on TCM, but had forgotten much of the plot and who the villain was so it was like watching it for the first time. Very dark and very enjoyable. Robert Bray (from Lassie) had a wordless role. Great camera work.
Some SPOILERS
I like Crack-Up, too, Hibi. Although Pat O'Brien is not exactly an ideal noir protagonist, he's actually believable in this film. Any anyway, Pat O'Brien: what's not to like? I also enjoyed Herbert Marshall as the villain. Herbert Marshall actually seems to have specialized in playing seeming good guys who turn out, near movie's end, to be bad guys. (As in Foreign Correspondent, for example...)
I thought the semi-romantic relationship between Pat and Clare was kind of sweet, maybe because it was so tentative.
I also liked the whole "world of art" that the film depicted. And that gaming gallery, complete with pinball etc., was fun - shows that even back then a lot of people had a thing about those kinds of games (well, the 1940s version of them.)
-
On 12/2/2018 at 7:42 AM, TheCid said:
Poor quality film has long been one of the problems with Detour, even on TCM. Never have decided whether I like it enough to buy it or not, but this will be in favor of doing so.
I've seen Detour a few times. I disliked it the first time I saw it, but wanted to give it another chance, as so many noir fans seem to revere it (notice I didn't say "love" it, as it's not a lovable film...) But with each subsequent viewing, I disliked it as much as ever.
I kind of like my noirs to be "fun" (which is possible ! Sergeant, don't start arguing with me about this, please !), and Detour is one of the least fun noirs I've ever seen. Plus, once those two get stuck in that dingey hotel room, or rented apartment, or whatever it is, it's just such a claustrophobic experience (and yes, I know, "claustrophobia" is often cited as a potential element of film noir.) I cant' stand the Anne Savage character; Miss Savage herself is very good, it's not her acting I have a problem with. And there are many female characters (I suppose we could call her a "femme fatale") in noir who are nasty and selfish and evil, but I tend to like them; they're entertaining and fun to watch. But Vera's more a harpy than a femme fatale - she's no fun !
...Hey, good thing phones with long cords (or any kind of cord) are now almost obsolete, eh?
Anyway, sorry to come off as a grouch...Just sayin', I can't get excited about any version of that film, Detour.
"That said", it was comradely and nice of cigarjoe to give us all a heads up about this new release of that film. I'm sure many here appreciated it.
-
2
-
-
On 12/2/2018 at 11:50 AM, LornaHansonForbes said:
GReat outro by EDDIE today, There are two things I have to chime in with:
I like ROSEANNA MCKOY!
And FREDERIC BROWN is a pretty interesting writer. I think his best novel, which is still only about 120 pages or so, is THE FAR CRY- recommended highly
Lorna, I've seen Crack-Up a couple of times, but missed the airing on Noir Alley. Which means I missed Eddie's comments. I was curious about whoever "Roseanna Mckoy" is, and looked her up. As far as I can tell, she doesn't have any connection to Crack Up or to film at all. I think I must have missed something, something Eddie must have said about her in his "intro " or "outro" commentaries.
Can you enlighten me please? Who's "Roseanna McKoy" and what does she have to do with the film Crack- Up ?
-
1
-
-
Who the frig is Polly of the Precodes? I only ask because I keep noticing she responds to posts here, but has never posted anything herself (on this thread, anyway.)
Polly, come out where ever you are. (Crackers optional.)
-
56 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:
I think she's saying that people were saying the actual play MacBeth is a noir.
I was. ...although I am aware that there have been a few film versions of it.
The whole thing about "Macbeth" came up because of the sort of thing TB is suggesting, as below:
31 minutes ago, TopBilled said:I said it, sort of. There are noir elements in several of Shakespeare's histories/tragedies. Definitely. We can certainly use the term noir retroactively and apply it back to stories that were produced before FILM noir came along. There's nothing to stop anyone from doing that, from taking the concept of noir and giving a greater existence as it were. A more expansive timeline.
Though when I said MACBETH was a historic noir, I was actually referring to Orson Welles' 1948 filming of the story. And when I said HAMLET was also a historic noir, I had Zefferelli's dark 1990 film version in mind.
What I've been trying to say on this thread for a while is, of course, of course, literature and stories throughout the ages have had "darkness" in them, themes of betrayal, murder, oppression, alienation, madness, you name it - all great stories tell in some way of the evil in the world and in human beings. Nothing new. What I've been thinking is, a lot of people just like to use the word "noir" in place of "darkness". That's basically what TB is saying...just retroactively substitute "noir" instead of "darkness", and there you go. I suppose so, if you want.
But to me the phrase "film noir" refers specifically to film. If I want to talk about all the dark themes in Shakespeare (or Euripides or Dante or Dickens or Thomas Hardy- - the list is endless) I'll call it "evil" or "malevolence" or "darkness"; I'd feel a bit pretentious calling them "noir". But hey, maybe that's just because I'm not French.
-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:
I gave you a title to Joe MacBeth a film noir based on Shakespeare's MacBeth.
I'd never heard of Joe MacBeth. I looked it up. Now I'd like to see it, anyone know if TCM has ever aired it?
Now, one film based on "Macbeth" that I have seen is Men of Respect, from 1990, starring John Turturro and Stanley Tucci (among others) two actors I really like. And yes, based on what I remember about it, I'd say it was a "neo noir".
-
2
-
-
26 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:
Misswonderley3 stated:
I'm quite chagrined about this. Truly. See, I have a browser format issue that garbles the quote function most of the time, forcing me to manually recreate people's comments. Certainly had no intention to make it less apparent (that my reply needed to dovetail to yours). Ordinarily I try to be diligent about this, but this morning when I first sat down to peruse the chatter, the fur was really flyin' and I had my hands full. You're not the first to complain about it. Wish I could figure out a solution; in every other way the TCM site functions very nicely indeed. Programmers did a good job.
You're not a second-class citizen! You're not!
Thanks, Sgt.M. Oh, I think I was just being kind of "hey pay attention to me"-ish, which unfortunately I get like sometimes. It was clear to me you were addressing my question to you about "The Blue Dahlia", and I suppose that's what counts.
It must be frustrating to have technical issues when trying to post here (or anywhere on the net, for that matter.) I still don't know or use all the functions on this site, just the basic ones....Although, hey, I see you've mastered the emoji options ! 🙂
-
3 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:
Blue Dahlia:
The Blue Dahlia is merely a very disappointing crime film. It fails to convey any noir sensation to the viewer even though all the elements are present.
There is no 'paranoia', or 'sense of malevolent persecuting forces'. Everyone in this film seems in control of their own fate and responsible for their own lives. The principal characters do not suffer from neurosis, obsessions or psychological problems. The times or the society do not seem 'out of joint'. Instead, The Blue Dahlia is a mystery story, or who-dun-it. The principal suspects are even gathered into one room at the end for a revelation of the guilty party, just as in an Agatha Christie novel.
Instead of the sweeping hysteria of film noir, the characters are simply quietly negotiating for the best deal they can get from a complex situation. They 'want a home', as Marshall's characters always do. If they got upset or obsessive, they wouldn't be on their toes for this goal.
Raymond Chandler wrote the original script. Literary critics, (and even Chandler himself) occasionally forgot that he is a literary mystery writer, (unlike most noir scriptwriters), and had a strong commitment to the paradigms of the mystery story in his work. He didn't give in to the genre-pressure of the day.
--Cribbed the above from a Dahlia review I found and admired. Says it better than I.
Sergeant M., I have to assume that the post above is in response to my question to you a page or two back, where I asked,
"You say that you don't regard The Blue Dahlia as a true noir, (despite its having all the requisite "ingredients"), but you don't say why. "
I have to wonder why you didn't quote me , then reply as you did in the above post (where I've quoted you.)
This is a very active thread, with a lot going on in it, a lot of different posters and comments etc. One way we can clarify if we're addressing a particular poster's questions or comments on the thread is to first quote them, then reply. To me it's almost a courtesy. It took me a minute or two to read this and realize that you were responding to my question as to why you don't regard this film as a noir. Just wondering if there were a reason why you did not quote me first (sometimes I feel like a second class citizen on these boards. Now that's
sadnoir.)-
1
-
-
On 11/27/2018 at 6:09 PM, cigarjoe said:
No MissW that is where you have it wrong,
"Charles O’Brien’s research indicates that the term “film noir” was used in French film reviews and newspaper articles in 1938 and 1939, to refer to French films such as Quai des brumes (1937) by Marcel Carné and La Bête humaine (1938) by Jean Renoir. O’Brien states that he found a “dozen explicit invocations of film noir” in the late 1930s, such as the paper L'Intransigeant, which called Quai des brumes a "film noir” and the newspaper Action française, in which a January 1938 film review by Francois Vinneuil called Le Puritain "un sujet classique: le film noir, plongeant dans la débauche et le crime" ("a classic subject: the film noir plunging in debauchery and crime"). O’Brien points out that the term “film noir” seems to have been first coined by the political right-wing and that may be because many – but not all – of the film noirs were from the poetic realist movement that was closely associated with the leftist Popular Front."
French critics Nino Frank and Jean-Pierre Chartier revived the term and applied it to American Films after WWII most of the films were about Crime, The Maltese Falcon, Laura, Double Indemnity, Murder, My Sweet, The Woman in the Window and one was about Addiction, The Lost Weekend
The Inclusion of The Lost Weekend, in the 40's, and the original coinage of Film Noir in the 1930s does refer to any kind of darkness.
It's not just any film. The film has to have enough of the darkness, along with enough of the visual Noir stylistics to tip it into noir.
Think of Brick in Cat On A Hot Tin Roof when he explains to Maggie or Big Daddy why he drinks, He drinks until that switch clicks in his head.
For me it's like an addiction, you watch a film and if it's got enough of the darkness and enough of the visual stylistics it will click into Noir.
Obviously they don't click, tip, or "tune" for you then but they just might for somebody else. no? It's subjective.
There's a lot to address here.
Thanks for the quote from noir researcher Charles O'Brien. That's really interesting, that the term was used by French critics before those guys (also French) in the late 40s came up with it.
It's always interesting and useful to know this kind of stuff - the more knowledge we have, the better. It can only enhance our enjoyment of movies (or music, or whatever one is, uh, enjoying.) For me, enlightening though that info about those earlier French critics is, film noir will always be primarily those "gritty" black and white crime films from the 40s and 50s that the slightly later French cineastes were talking about.
As for your comment about my point about how some are just substituting the word "darkness" for "noir", and that a film with "darkness" in it is not necessarily a noir, I still say just that -- That a lot of people who seem to be fascinated with this term "noir" and like to use it a lot, simply stick that word onto any story or movie that has any kind of "bad" characters or actions.
You say, (to paraphrase you), "Well, yeah...if someone sees /feels/ tunes to the darkness in a movie, then for them, it's a noir". I'm not sure I can go with that. I agree with that "tuning fork to noir" idea, but I guess only up to a point. And to say something like Shakespeare's Macbeth is a noir (uh, I guess a play not a film), and that the "label" , the idea of "Noir" just hadn't yet been conceived in 1606, is silly to me. Lots of stories, going back millennia, are about evil, evil doings and evil people, alienation, mental illness, obsession, despair, and on and on. Film noir was not the first art form (or storytelling form, if "art" sounds pretentious) to explore themes around the darkness in the world and in human beings.
But for me, it just feels extreme to apply that word "noir" to any story that was written (or told) before film was invented. For me, the very word "noir" applies to movies.
I feel as though I'm getting lost in my own verbiage, and am in danger of repeating myself (probably already have) so I'll leave it at that.
edit" "And to say something like Shakespeare's Macbeth is a noir..." Not that you were the one who said that, C.J.
-
15 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:
Note that I'm also 100% fine with the Miss Wonderly approach; who cares how it is 'labeled', I just know that I like it.
(and hopefully I'm not misstating how she view this but likely oversimplifying it).
I'm flattered you quoted me on this, james, especially because it was a post I made on another thread altogether (the Noir Alley one). And basically that's how I feel, although I was deliberately being a bit silly at the time, I think I said "I don't know much about noir, but I know what I like" ( as in, "I don't know much about art but I know what I like".) Because sometimes all this earnest - albeit fascinating and fun - discussion and debate and parsing seems beside the point, which is, for me, I love a certain kind of old movie which is usually termed "film noir".
-
15 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:
.... if pushed to say a film was 'noir' or not, my foundation is this: If I was writing a book like Film Noir (Ward \ Silver), would I feature that film in my book? For a film like Night and the City the answer would be YES. For a film like The Night of the Hunter I wouldn't mention it in the main section, but instead in the appendix as a film with noir elements; Note that the book Film Noir has such an appendix where they list period, comedies, westerns, and gothic films that have noir elements but are NOT part of the noir genre\style (as defined by the authors).
I think we have the same book, james. I love this Encyclopaedia of Film Noir by Alain Silver and Elizabeth Ward. Looks like this, right? with the cover a still from "Sudden Fear".
The image I've posted here says "third edition", but I think mine is a reprint of the first edition (copyright 1979, but mine says reprinted 1988). I love this book and refer to it all the time. It's very informative and interesting, and a great guide for noir fans.
I also have the more recent edition, which looks like this: I think the cover is from "The Big Combo", but maybe not, I could not find a credit for the cover or any acknowledgement of what film the still is from anywhere in the book. (if anyone knows what this still is from, let us know !)
But I actually prefer the earlier one. It's been heavily used and like yours', is falling apart. But I still cherish it !
-
4 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:
No problem. If the topic is 'what is a 'noir' film' then ...
Actually, technically the topic was "Someone said "A Christmas Carol" aka "Scrooge" the 1951 version could be called a noir. Discuss."
Which brings me to something I've been meaning to ask: there's actually been hardly any conversation about that film and whether it has noir elements at all. I'm curious: How many people following this thread have seen that movie?
-
3 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:
Another reason why I agree that a 'checklist' approach is unworkable is because of films like 'The Blue Dahlia'.
Has this title ever been discussed 'round these parts? Pretty interesting case.
On the face of it, Dahlia possesses everything a noir should possess to confidently designate it a noir. Right?
1946, Raymond Chandler screenplay, dark photography, well-known noir players, ex-servicemen...why does it fail the "gut" test? Why does it not feel like noir at all?
Its a noir on 'paper', a noir 'blueprint'... but not a noir in fact. Why?
Its a failed noir only if you treat noir as 'ornamental' rather than 'structural'. That's the gross error that haunts this whole forum like a bad cold.
Ironically, I'd bet that even the most liberal proponent of all these hybrid-noir genre labels would probably be unwilling to label this textbook noir a noir. (Which shows up the falsehood inherent in that "noir-style" method).
Surprisingly, Dahlia shows that a "by-the-book noir" can still be less-than-the-sum-of-its-parts, if you break out all the parts and separate them.
You don't find noir throbbing in the chest cavity after you break open the ribcage, (oh my goodness, snakes alive, what's going on? Where is it? You "check list" guys told us this was the noir recipe, were you lying to us?)
So what happens? This kind of thing --this abject failure of the checklist model--probably makes some folks abandon faith in noir as a unique creature at all.
It leads to thinking that it is after all, just a 'kit of parts'. Parts which turn up like Easter Eggs in this-film-or-that-film, a will-o'-the-wisp phenomenon that might happen, half-happen, or fail to happen any time and anyplace depending on wholly mysterious causes; in ghostly fashion.
All of this backpedaling, instead of just admitting that the circumstances under which noir emerged are unrepeatable. A one-time thing. Born of necessity. Born from the true mother of invention.
That notion just doesn't seem to fit the national urge to dissect, diagram, and anatomize. Americans love modularity and interchangeability. Things like Colt pistols and Mr. Goodwrench. One size fits all.
You say that you don't regard The Blue Dahlia as a true noir, (despite its having all the requisite "ingredients"), but you don't say why.
-
22 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:
Say, I'm sorry if my last remark sounded a bit bull-headed. Umbrageous, even. Not intended. Just surly today I guess.
But I wonder if we really cant come up with any other reasonable system for sorting things out, if that is indeed our urge? The publishing industry has done it. Look at all the acronyms they devised like HEA ('happily ever after') vs HFN ('happy for now'). And tons more besides. ...
Would that be the publishing industry, or the on-line publishing industry?
-
2 hours ago, GordonCole said:
That might be wishful thinking on Muller's part about his father since it is certainly not reflected in his books as hand me down incidents from dad's so-called noirish life. Muller's books should be titled something more like The Bobbsey Twins Meet Jersey Joe Walcott or Little Men Meet Little Women Dames in the Dark.
James M. Cain was a noirish writer. Muller ain't, he's just a mild imitation of authentic noir writing.I wonder if part of your problem with Eddie Muller is that you seem to take everything he says seriously, when I believe that often his comments are what used to be called tongue-in-cheek.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 11/23/2018 at 8:31 AM, Sepiatone said:
I'll make this quick( since I'm behind my schedule ) but after viewing my DVD of '51's "Scrooge"( or "A Christmas Carol") I had time to spare and took in some of the "features". And in one of them, saw where the movie was referred to as "A Christmas Noir."
Well, I never thought of the movie in that term, but it does seem to fit.
Thoughts?
Sepiatone
I thought I'd go right back to the beginning of this.
Sepiatone, upon due (or maybe overdue) reflection, I've realized that there are definitely what you could call "noir elements" present in dingy, gloomy, poverty-ravaged Victorian London. And there are many films set in Victorian London that are disturbing (check noir), in black and white (check noir), "dismal" (check some noirs), and may feature some aspect of mental illness and /or violence (check and check noir.)
Dickens' London was not a pretty or happy place, unless of course you were rich. It was dark and full of potential danger. Noirish. So I can kind of concede that some films set in that place and time "have noirish elements." Some have named one or two films about Jack the Ripper, of course there's Gaslight (both versions), and there are many others. So I can see where people "are coming from" when they want to label those kinds of films as "noir". Cigarjoe would say their "noir tuning forks" pick up on those dark and dangerous aspects to Victorian urban settings. OK.
But ! This does not mean that Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" is a noir story. It might have dark aspects to it - in fact it absolutely does - but its ultimate meaning and message is a positive one, a message of redemption and kindness and joy (very Christmassy, wouldn't you say?) Noir is generally not about redemption and kindness and joy.
I'd kind of like to watch the original "extra track" commentary on the DVD you've got that set off all this controversy and judge for myself what exactly the film historian was saying.
What's with the expletives? I thought this was a family website
I'm All Mixed Up!
in General Discussions
Posted
Didn't they both star in Blythe Spirit?