misswonderly3

That's right. It would be quite a jarring experience.

There were a few things I noticed and was wondering about in my viewing of the film last night. (By the way, I find it kind of nice to watch these TCM airings in real time -makes it more of an "event" somehow.But that's a whole different topic...) Anyway...here's a few notes on those "things" I noticed: 1 Doctor Pretorious' tiny people. What's up with that? Are they real sentient beings ( as the Monster is), and if so, isn't it a little cruel to keep them contained inside a jar? Not even one big jar where they can all hang out together, but each one has his or her own indiviualized jar -a cage, really. And what do they do when they're not performing for the good Doctor, who simply wants to show them off? Do they eat? Do they speak, or just talk in that highpitched babble we hear? I realize we're not really supposed to ask these questions, we're just supposed to be amused by the scene, by the ingeniousness, not only of Doctor Pretorious, but of Whale and his technicians for coming up with such an unusual spectacle - the way they achieve this special effect really is amazing, especially considering it was 1935. Still, I can't help wondering what became of those tiny perfect people. Grown from seeds, no less ! 2 The capture of the the Monster when the townspeople discover where he is and gather together to hunt him town, torches ablazing. I love those "townspeople on the rampage with torches" scenes. And when they capture him, it's one of the sad moments I referred to earlier in my O.P. He looks so bewildered and yet resigned, frightened, hopeless, angry, and sad, all at once. People are right to credit Boris Karloff with great acting chops. But what I couldn't help wondering about - and actually laughing about ( and I'm not sure if this part was intended to be funny), was how little the townsfolk have learned about this guy. For one thing, why don't they just kill him when they catch him? Not that I want them to, and plus, that would be the end of the story, with 45 minutes to go. But honestly, they hate and fear the Monster, they thought they were rid of him once already - wouldn't it have made sense for one of them - say, that Burgomaster or whoever he was - to whip out a gun and shoot him a few times, point blank? Instead, they go to some trouble to tie him to a stake (giving the Monster an opportunity for us to see him in quite a Christ-like position) and then chain him up in prison. Again. I mean, come on, townspeople, we know that doesn't work. The Monster is very strong. Plus, were they planning to put him on trial? Or what? 3 The Bride's horror and fear of the Monster. First, I think it's really interesting that the female Monster is much better looking than the male original. Was this due to Dr. Pretorius' assistance? He knew a way to duplicate Henry's technology, but with a more, shall we say, comely outcome? Second, why would the Bride be afraid of the Monster? She'd only just been "born" a minute ago - literally - and shirley had not yet picked up the prejudices and commonly -held notions of acceptable versus repellent human appearance. Yet she recoils from the poor guy when he touches her hand. Guess that's why he decides to just give up and blow the whole place to kingdom come. Anyway, these observations are not criticisms - I enjoy Bride of Frankenstein and admire it way too much to do that. They're just thoughts that came into my head while I was watching it last night, and I wondered if any one else had wondered about these things.

Bride of Frankenstein Oh what fun this movie is ! Shall I count the ways? Let's start with Una O'Connor - after all, the movie does. She's a riot ! I suspect director James Whale told everyone in the cast to ham it up,camp it up, as much as they wanted. And I'm glad to say, they did. Especially Una. How can you not laugh when she turns around and beholds the Monster right beside her? The faces she makes when she sees him are beyond description. And that thing she wears on her head throughout the entire film - it's almost enough to rival the Bride's head gear. I love the way she ceaselessly announces her fear and loathing for the Monster. Also, her suspicion and dread of Dr. Pretorious. Which takes us to the other delicious ham in B. of F., Ernest Thesiger. I can't take my eyes off this guy when he's in the shot. He doesn't even have to say anything, he just has to look weird and crazy, and I'm laughing. I often don't like it when modern audiences laugh at scenes in old movies, but in the case of Bride of Frankenstein, I'm pretty sure it's intentional. How can you not love the line, especially the way it's uttered by Doctor Pretorious, "You think I'm mad?...Perhaps I am." But B. of F. isn't only deliciously campy; it's quite moving at times. You have to feel for the poor old Monster, especially in the touching scene where he makes friends with the blind hermit. True, I kept thinking of the almost identical scene made decades later in Young Frankenstein, but that's ok, it just proves how classic and timeless the original is. I also enjoyed the intro "Essentials" discussion with Alec and Tina Fey. But I was disappointed that they didn't continue the conversation afterwards. I hadn't realized that that second bit, the one that happens after the screening, had been discontinued . Anyway, Bride of Frankenstein is hugely entertaining, but also thought-provoking ( hey, that "human being as God" theme resonates more than ever today) and touching. Thanks for airing it, TCM.

Well, not to argue the point too much, but my recollection of the film (and I've seen it a number of times) is that there definitely IS a sense of romantic/sexual conjugal connection between them, as well as "affection". How about the scene in which Tracey is giving Hepburn a massage, and then he gives her a spank? Admittedly, it's kind of an aggressive gesture on his part, and Kate is upset and tells him it hurt, etc. But the very fact that she's half-naked with him, lying on the massage table while he massages her, is definitely a sign of marital intimacy - and you get the feeling this was something ( the half-naked massage, not the spank - although you never know, some people like spanking...) they did quite regularly. And the bedroom scene at the film's conclusion, with Tracy crowing "Viva that little difference !", - it's quite clear where that scene is going. Need I say more?

Hmm, I don't know about that. I'd say there's quite a lot of affection and playfulness between them in Adam's Rib.

SPOILER ALERT Yes, I agree...although I love Fritz Lang, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is beyond a reasonable suspension of disbelief, and certainly beyond my cognitive powers to completely keep up with it. A very complicated plot. Now I don't usually mind complicated plots, but this one takes the proverbial cake for just one too many twists. Besides, I like Dana Andrews. How can I like and sympathize with his character knowing he really is the true murderer? (Hey, I said "spoiler alert" !) I dunno...although I enjoyed it for all the usual Fritz Lang reasons ( cinematography, atmosphere, never a boring moment etc.) compared to the rest of his work, this one's a bit of a - - uh, - toilet-flusher.

I think the ideas in this post express the essence of what being a true movie fan is all about. Movies are both entertainment and art. (Sorry if the "art" part sounds pretentious.) They're like my other two favourite kinds of entertainment, books and music, in that they're a source for endless enjoyment. To me, anyone who would consider watching a film more than once a "waste of time" is someone who doesn't really love movies anyway. It's not about how many movies one can see in a lifetime....that argument that there are so many movies, why watch one, even if it's one you liked, more than once when you can move on to another one you haven't seen, makes it sound like it's some kind of contest or numbers game, where the more you've seen the better or more experienced a movie-viewer you are. But it's just the opposite - really good - or as speedracer says, "fun" - movies - are worth watching repeatedly. And the more times you view them, the more you get out of them. As I said, I feel very strongly that this also applies to books and music. Now, it's true, reading books requires a greater investment of time than movies or music do. A typical movie is 2 hours or less, and of course music - at least if we're talking about songs, usually involves a committment of several minutes. Ok, maybe an hour or so if we're talking about classical music or jazz. Ok, I'm blathering a bit here. The point I'm trying to make is, if a film ( or book or tune) gives you pleasure or moves you once, shirley it will continue to do so, and in more depth, upon repeat viewings ( or readings, or listenings.)

It's not depressing; it's sad. There's a difference. And yes, sad it is. But it's also very moving and tender, probably the sweetest - not an adjective applied very often to this genre - film noir ever made.

I REMEMBER THROWING MAMA FROM THE TRAIN A talented young American girl, daughter of honest hard-working Norvegian immigrants, decides the memoir she's writing about her mother would be much more interesting if she added a little action to it by throwing her beloved Mama off a train to see what would happen next. She's counting on finally going to that bank if hospital bills are needed. Danny de Vito plays a cameo as the train porter and later, the hospital orderly. "See, I figure we can make twice as many tips if we help throw her off the train and then show up at the hospital where she'll be treated." "Now don't you be getting any ideas about schpicing up that memoir, min kjaere. That bank account must not be touched."

Depends on how many teeth you have. It is a little-known fact that smart people keep their wisdom teeth after they've been removed, because they know that - well, that's where all their wisdom is stored. Chew on that.

THEY LIVE BY NIGHTIES A desperate couple, young and in love, are on the run from the law and a society that misjudges and misunderstands them. No matter where they turn, they cannot live an ordinary decent life because of the young man's criminal record. Soon they run out of the money they've been living on - the money the young man stole in a bank heist. Then they hit on the solution: since they're always active and awake at night, they'll earn a living selling an item that's always in great demand at night: nighties. The young wife, handy with a sewing machine, is soon making boutique name-brand nighties ("Keetchie-Keetch") while her enterprising husband sells them from the trunk of their getaway car. Sadly, it isn't the police, the nosy motel owners, or even the bitter ex-con lady who they trusted who brings about their downfall. It's the competition: the big-name brand nightwear manufacturers, who team up to capture the couple and put an end to their nightie-selling escapades. "Look, hon, I just don't think that onesy look you're so fond of is going to work." "Bowie, think of all the money we could make here - a cut-rate marriage office. My hand-made nighties would be just the thing for these newly-weds."

Thanks for that, Lorna. Tomorrow's a holiday (where I live), so maybe I'll have a chance to listen to it. You seem to know quite a bit about old "classic" radio shows - - I guess they're the equivalent of old "classic" movies, but a lot less well-known. By the way, I agree with you about Robert Taylor. A handsome piece of wood. Still, he didn't stop me from enjoying High Wall.

Duh, I dunno. Most of us are as clueless as you are about our history. We just liking having time off work, waving red and white balloons, and watching fireworks. ...By the way, did you know that Jack Warner, of Warner Brothers Studio fame, was born in Canada? "That's right, eh, I'm a Yankee Doodle CanUck"

This jUst in: soon to be annoUnced, a ban on all Canadians trying to travel to the States. Extra secUrity measUres to be taken with French Canadians. But even the Anglophones are going to be banned - unless they have a bona fide reason for visiting the U. S. of A.

Yikes. I never even noticed the absent "u". Maybe I would have "gotten it" if I had. But then, we Canadians are far above such inconseqUential details. We're too busy thinking up the next hilarious jokes to tell. Our humour is UbiqUitoUs. (Now's the part where you can say "Sez U.")

Ooh, out with the big words, eh, Fedya baby? Well, better "epenthetic" than "apathetic". Or just "pathetic". At least you didn't call me a dipthong.

james, yes, I did know you were joking. And yes, I'm not a big fan of "emoticons", so thank you for remembering that. I guess I just reacted as I did because it seemed, kidding as you were, that it was a deliberate jab at Canadians. And I guess I was a little overly-sensitive because it just seemed unnecessary to make that kind of joke ( a vaguely insulting one, even it it was made in a light-hearted spirit). And actually, Canadians really are known for their good sense of humour ( including, I must admit, the ability to laugh at themselves.) anyway, our national holiday is over, now it's time for yours'. You guys do get the 4th off, right? Wonder how your dear leader is going to celebrate it ( there's a subtle jab right back at ya.)

So, in terms of "how one interprets", why would you interpret the phrase "great comedy" as meaning "Canadians are nothing but a joke" ? That's not interpretation, that's willful MISinterpreting. Canada has long been known for its great comedy - meaning, to spell it out, NOT being a joke but more, great at making jokes.

Wha? I don't quite get it...Sounds like you're saying both that Canadians get Ben's sense of humour, but then, not, only "normal viewers" get it. I don't mind the implication that Canadians aren't "normal", I just can't figure out if you're saying it's only Canadians, or only normal people, or both, who get Ben's jokes. (But whatever you were trying to say, I appreciate the reference to Canadians, especially in view of the fact that it's the day after Canada Day. 150 years of great comedy.)

I like Ben and I like his jokes. And his voice. I wish he'd been made the new "Essentials" host instead of Alec Baldwin. Alec's ok, I don't mind him. But I like Ben more. I met Ben Mankiewicz once. He was very friendly and gracious, exceptionally so.

rosebette, you don't post all that often, but when you do, you always write comments that are extremely well-written and insightful. I really enjoy your participation here.

I don't know why I'm responding to this thread as, aside from anything else, this particular Original Poster rarely if ever replies to anything I say. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) "However"...."That said"... I saw both films around the time they were released. I think both are very good. But they are so very different from each other that to me it doesn't even make sense to compare them. The old "apples and oranges" thing. Still, if someone were to insist that I had to state which of the two were the better film, perhaps under threat of waterboarding, I'd have to go with Moonlight. It was different from anything I'd ever seen, it engaged me every minute, all the actors were outstanding and it was beautifully scripted and filmed. (Not that there's a lot of "script" in it , but what there is is choice.) Most of all, it moved me. La La Land was a fun movie. I'm a fan of the leads in it - Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are both talented and very likable actors. The tunes were pleasant, the dance numbers imaginative and well-done, and the story enjoyably bitter-sweet. But I have to say, of the two movies, I think Moonlight is the more memorable. And ultimately, one of the main criteria I go by for judging a movie's worth ( whatever we mean by "worth") is how well I remember it. Something to do with its long-term impact, how much it impresses itself on my brain, I guess.

The most recent offering to be aired on "Noir Alley" was High Wall. yanceycravat, since you're clearly an Eddie Muller fan - and therefore, presumably, a noir fan - did you see this film? If so, let us know what you thought of it. ps...Come to think of it, if anyone has seen High Wall, on "Noir Alley" or any other time, let us know what you thought of it. Me, I love Audrey Trotter.

"Imagine" is a good song, but it's over-rated. I can't understand why so many people love it more than the many much better songs John Lennon wrote. I think maybe it's the lyrics, which people tend to go all mushy over and sigh, "Oh, that's so profound." Music always trumps lyrics when it comes to songs. And Lennon penned many songs with better music than "Imagine" (not that it isn't a nice tune.) "Across the Universe" is one of the greatest songs Lennon ever wrote - that goes for both the music and the lyrics.

HE RAN ALL THE WAY This was John Garfield's last film. Maybe, knowing this, that's why to me there's something quite sad about it. Here's my usual question that I ask forlornly every Sunday: anyone else here watch it, any thoughts and /or comments about it?