misswonderly3
-
Posts
12,768 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
36
Posts posted by misswonderly3
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
6
-
-
There is affection and playfulness. No doubt. But how much romantic, physical gestures like a good old-fashioned screen kiss?
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?
-
4
-
-
While I enjoy their pairing, I always thought it was a bit weird that the only film where they are kissing and seeming really affectionate with each other is their first one together - WOMAN OF THE YEAR. .....
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.
-
2
-
-
This one, Lang's last in America, I believe, was very, very interesting - but -
(Spoiler Alert) -
the final twist - that Dana Andrews' character was not the innocent that we all thought that he was - was just too much for the involved plot.
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.
-
3
-
-
I've been reading this Reddit thread about the idea of re-watching a film. Some people, like me, can re-watch the same film over and over again and never tire of it. Others, cannot fathom the idea of seeing something that they've already seen. Even if they loved the film, they can't bear the idea of seeing it again, because they've already seen it. I find this mindset kind of sad, but to each his/her own. I suppose it depends on the degree of movie fanaticism that someone has acquired (whether they have any or not).
For me, a film's "re-watchability" is its main selling point in whether it's a film I decide I want to own, or in some cases, keep a copy on the DVR if a physical copy is unavailable (1966's Penelope for example). Even if the film is critically acclaimed like The Godfather or Apocalypse Now, they are not considered re-watchable for me, so I don't have any desire to own a copy of either film. I thought that Silence of the Lambs was creepy and I have no desire to see it again. My friend on the other hand, loves that movie and can fall asleep to it (I think it actually may be the film's score the lulls her to sleep). If I cannot see myself re-watching a film, then I'm done with it. Likewise, if there's a film that was pleasant enough to watch, but I don't see myself needing to see it again, as I felt like I'd gotten everything out of it and there was nothing memorable or "fun" about it, then it won't make it into my collection. My recently watched Mrs. Potter and Edge of Seventeen would fit this criteria.
Many people on the Reddit thread who expressed disbelief that someone could watch something they'd already seen stated that their main reasoning was "I've already seen Film A, but I haven't seen Film B. Why would I waste time on A, if I could see B?" I understand that reasoning and respect it, but the idea that you could fall in love with a film upon first viewing and never see it again because you could watch something else seems sad to me. There's always going to be something new to see. Some films practically require multiple viewings to figure out the whole story. Of course, there has to be something in the first viewing to make you want to watch it a second or third time.
For me, if I'm in the mood to watch a particular film, then no other selection will do until I get my "fix." If I want to watch Meet Me in St. Louis for the 100th time (probably not exaggerating at this point), then I will watch Meet Me in St. Louis. If Singin' in the Rain ends and I feel like I want to immediately watch it again, then I will watch it again. Has anyone ever watched the same movie multiple times in a row? I have. I've done this recently with Pitch Perfect and Down With Love. Have you ever started a film and then decided that you weren't in the mood for it after all and turned it off and switched to something you'd seen a million times? I have. A couple weeks ago, I wanted to watch Fred Astaire, so I thought I'd give Yolanda and the Thief another try. About five minutes after selecting it on the DVR, I decided I really wasn't into it and opted to watch Swing Time again, which is what I wanted to watch originally. However, I'd seen it a few times prior and decided to watch something I had only seen once. It didn't work. I had to watch what I wanted to watch. Some films basically live on my TV stand in lieu of the bookshelves because I get the urge to watch them so often. Lately, Funny Face, The Major and the Minor, Down With Love, Pitch Perfect, Picnic and Meet Me in St. Louis have fit that bill.
Other people on the Reddit thread cited that they had often watched old cartoons or childhood favorite films out of nostalgia. I agree with this and also do this as well. I've seen many of the Disney animated films (especially the 90s ones) multiple times. Most of the 90s teen movies also all rank on the nostalgia meter for me. I also love a lot of the 80s movies as well because I remember watching my parents' Showtime VCR recordings of them. Watching some of these films, even if they're not the best, bring you back to some point of your life which make them fun to watch. The opposite can be true and there could be films you absolutely avoid because they remind you of something unpleasant in your life. Have you you ever had someone "ruin" something for you, because you associate it with someone or something bad that happened in your life?
I'm sorry if this is a rambling mess. I'm kind of doing a stream of consciousness thing here. For me, if I get swept up into the story, like with Casablanca, even if I know who Ingrid Bergman will end up with at the airport, the 100th visit to Rick's is still as fun as the first. Then there are musicals, which I love. Let's face it, most musicals' plots are very thin. But if they have fun music and dancing, then they'll hold my attention and I'll love it. The plot of Summer Stock, for example, is your very basic "let's put a show on in the barn" story. There isn't much to it. You know that Judy will end up with Gene. You know that something will happen that'll threaten the show. And you know in the end, the show will come together with a bunch of random musical numbers that don't go together, but you don't care. With the exception of the god awful "Heavenly Music" song, every number is enjoyable because you have the talent of Judy Garland and Gene Kelly to watch.
Sometimes it's just the actor/actress themselves that makes the film re-watchable even if you wouldn't normally enjoy that type of film. I'll watch Errol Flynn in anything. He could be starring in one of my least favorite genres, horror, and I'd watch him. He does a handful of Westerns and War movies, two other genres that aren't normally at the top of my list, but I'll watch them because Errol is in them. Same situation is true with Lucille Ball and Judy Garland.
Frankly, I kind of find those people who can't handle seeing the same thing more than once(because they already know what is going to happen), to be a bit of a stick in the mud.
For me, my criteria for deciding if a film is "re-watchable" are a combination of these factors: interesting characters, eye candy, great music, quotable and frankly, if the film was fun. Every film doesn't need to be awards bait and I don't need to be pretentious about my movie viewing and write off anything that isn't a serious drama. I want something that entertains. If it's boring, it's out.
I have seen The Long, Long Trailer probably a hundred times (I'm not kidding), but every trip with Lucy & Desi from LA to Colorado in that trailer will be just as fun the 101st time (102nd time, 103rd, etc.) as it was the 1st.
What about you? Can you re-watch a film over and over again? What makes you want to see a film over and over? Are there films that you like but wouldn't watch again?
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.)
-
8
-
-
This week on Noir Alley: They Live by Night
Just too depressing.
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.
-
1
-
-
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."
-
7
-
-
That's a lot of wisdom.
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."
-
5
-
-
Wow, this is scary, I have actually remembered a series of things correctly in this and other threads.
The SUSPENSE! RADIO version of THE HIGH WALL does indeed star ROBERT YOUNG and HERBERT MARSHALL and it is indeed excellent.
Really, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND GIVING THIS A LISTEN, PREFERABLY IN THE DARK OR ON A LONE COUNTRY ROAD- it is one of the finest radio episodes I've heard (and i've heard me share.)
especially enjoyable if you've seen the movie.
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.
-
1
-
-
I assumed this was 150 years of NOT being part of the British Empire but instead it is the joining of 3 formally separate British colonies. So separation didn't really start until 1946 and wasn't fully completed until 1982. Wow, I was clueless!
So out of these 3 which one do Canadians celebrate (if any) as an independence day that would be similar to the USA July 4th?
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"
-
1
-
-
OH, then I guess you haven't heard the latest, Fedya!
TCM is presently considering having Ben's intros being dubbed into French for Quebec province broadcasts.
Yep, and in fact there are open auditions being held in Montreal as we speak.
Word is in order to make it seem as if it's Ben himself speaking French, they're particularly looking for voice-over/dubbing artists with a slight nasally sound to their voices too.
And which of course really shouldn't be much of a problem, considering that MOST French speakers ALREADY sound as if they're talking through their noses, ya know!
(...SEE?!...now THIS is how one sparks an "international incident" if they're TRULY seeking to do so, dude!)
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.
-
1
-
-
As I mentioned to Dargo, it was a joke about the fact that Canadians spell the word humoUr with an extra U, so they get Ben's sense of "humour". Americans, spelling it "humor", get Ben's sense of "humor".
Of course, the Quebeckers don't get it at all since Ben's intros, not being in French, violate Bill 101.
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.")
-
It's only superfluous to you. It's epenthetic to me.
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.
-
First I was joking. I didn't use a emoticon since if I understood previous post from you, you don't favor them and you have implied one should be able to get what one is getting at without having to use one.
Note that are many other ways one could interpret that line; That Canada is NOT known for dramas, etc....
Anyhow, I believe I was funny but maybe that joke only goes well with surfer dudes in So Cal.
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.)
-
1
-
-
150 years of great comedy? So Canadians are nothing but a joke. See it all relates to how one interprets such comments.
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.
-
Only for Canadian viewers. For normal viewers, he's got a sense of humor.
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.
-
A brilliantly crafted film, full of humor and poignance, and perhaps one of the most accurate portraits of a marriage. I am familiar with the many passport scenes in real life (and dealing with spouse's other often misplaced items). The scene where Audrey returns to her Finney after an infidelity always brings me to tears -- one of those times where you feel there is almost no alternative to infidelity -- Finney's workaholism and narcissism seemed impenetrable at that point in their marriage.
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.
-
3
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
It took many yrs but the truth finally came out that it was JOHN LENNON who was the brains,etc of THE BEATLES Personally I rate "IMAGINE" as not only his finest, but over anything they did as well
"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.
-
1
-
-
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?
"She's Alive !"
in General Discussions
Posted
That's right. It would be quite a jarring experience.