misswonderly3
-
Posts
12,768 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
36
Posts posted by misswonderly3
-
-
I really wish more people were catching Eddie Muller's "Noir Alley" screenings, and that more contributed to this thread.
I know, I know....a lot of people DVR these movies, and intend to watch them later, when they can.
Anyway....there are a few more comments I wanted to make about Phantom Lady.
Let's see: I think I mentioned that it's a classic noir plot,,,, an innocent person is indicted for murder/ or someone they care about is murdered/ and the protagonist spends most of the film searching, either for the real murderer, or for a key witness. In the case of Phantom Lady, it's the latter.
SPOILERS
I love Franchot Tone's performance as the insane, narcissistic killer. It's a very Hitchcockian motif, that of the audience knowing who the killer is fairly early on, but the hero/heroine does not, and in fact often trusts the very person they should fear the most.
Eddie Muller did mention that the producer, Joan Harrison, had worked with Hitchcock extensively before making Phantom Lady; guess that's why we can spot those Hitchcock -like touches, including that of the killer being there in plain sight - at least to the audience. It really does add a nice layer of suspense to the proceedings.
The fixation with the lady's unusual hat is kind of funny. Ella Raines' character is so delighted when she finally comes into possession of this hat, and yet the hat in and of itself proves nothing. It's the wearer of the hat who's important, who could stand witness to testify for Scott Henderson's innocence. Yet this poor lady appears to be a basket case. It's hard to imagine her being willing to come forward and speak, especially in court.
But it matters not, because Franchot Tone seals his own fate and manifests his guilt when he falls out the window in the film's suspenseful climax. So the lady in the delicate state of mental health is not needed.
Elisha Cook Jr.: The first time I saw Phantom Lady, I could not believe the obviously sexually charged drum solo his character takes, after he takes Ella on a date to a jazz club. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite so overt in a '40s movie. The sexual analagy between Cook's frantic intense driving drum solo and his lust for Ella is - well, jaw -dropping. Also kind of funny, in a way. In fact, like a lot of noirs, there's a fair bit of humour in Phantom Lady.
Here's a still of Elisha, whipping himself into an erotic frenzy over pretty "Kansas" (Ella Raines).
Shirley other people have seen this film, if not this morning, maybe some other time? I wish I didn't always have to beg for other people's comments here.
I can't be the only one watching and enjoying this series of noirs.
-
1
-
-
PHANTOM LADY
SPOILERS !
This Robert Siodmak noir is not as well-known as it deserves to be. With great black and white cinematography, full of criss-crossing shadows, late night NYC streets, and strange "terrain vague" settings such as Scot's prison interview room, Phantom Lady makes its mark as a true visual noir. Add to that the plot of an innocent man found guilty of murder and sentenced to death, and his secretary's desperate search to find a mysterious witness who can prove his innocence, and you've got a classic noir situation.
Ella Raines plays the secretary who works so hard to help her boss ( who of course she's in love with), and she should have been in more movies. She's really good -plus, what a beauty. I tried to post a pic of her here, but couldn't find one that shows how unusual and beautiful her eyes were. The scenes in which she (successfully) "haunts" the bartender who could be a helpful witness for her boss are almost spooky. She just keeps staring at him.
And the bit where she flirts with Elisha Cook Jr.'s drummer are actually kind of funny ( until poor old Elisha gets bumped off...) I love the way Ella puts across a "cheap tart" persona in these scenes, complete with raucous laughter and gum-chewing.
There's lots more to say about Phantom Lady, but right now I just want to add a quibble about the plot:
Scott Henderson is found guilty of his wife's murder, and condemned to be executed. The key "evidence", or lack of same, seems to be that he cannot locate a witness to his alibi, a woman who, on the night of the murder, he spent the entire evening with. No one who saw them together will testify that they saw the woman he keeps talking about.
But here's the thing: they saw him ! Both the bartender and the taxi driver confirm that they saw Scott at the time the murder was committed ( or just a minute or so after), first in the bar and then taking a taxi to the show.
Wouldn't their testimony that they saw him be enough to acquit him? How could he be murdering his wife at 8 pm if he was seen in a bar, some distance away, at 8:02? Why does he so desperately need the "phantom lady" as a witness?
Still, I don't want to get stuck on that. The search for the mysterious lady and her hat make for a fun noir ride, and that's really all I care about.
I recommend Phantom Lady for anyone who likes classic noir.
-
2
-
-
more info on Lex Barker
Cheryl Crane tells all in:
Detour: A Hollywood StoryJan 1988
Cheryl finally told her mother what Barker was doing to her.
Lana dropped him.
But, a previous "boyfriend", Fernando Lamas, had exposed himself to Cheryl.
Johnny Stompanato did not bother Cheryl, but by the time he joined the family Cheryl was such a
basket case that she reacted to an argument between Johnny and Lana by stabbing him to death.
But what does any of that have to do with The Beatles? I'm thinking maybe you accidentally posted this on the wrong thread.
-
.....Wonder if Dickie Moore was any good at pinball.
I hear he was a wizard.
-
The critics in PR--a very snobbish lot--made a very big deal about what a grand accomplishment it was for Coppola to depict these subhuman miscreants as ,,human beings''. After watching these ,,human beings'' butcher a poor innocent horse, I thought that I would be better off in the jungle, living with the jackals, the wolves and the hyennas.
Well, there's nothing to say to that, except that of course you're entitled to your opinion.
Oh, hell, actually I do have something to say to it.
While I dislike watching some of the violence depicted in The Godfather, I have to say, I've seen a lot worse. I don't watch violent movies for their violence; but often, the film has something further to offer. If that's the case, then I accept the fact that there's going to be some difficult scenes - sometimes I avert my eyes. But if the film is good, I don't let the violence in it stop me from wanting to see it.
Also: I'll say it again ( already said in a previous post), that in fact the characters in The Godfather - at least those whose point-of-view is presented to the audience - (the Corleone family and their loyal supporters and henchmen) - are presented somewhat sympathetically. I kind of like quite a few of them. Coppola ( and writer Mario Puzo) make a point of showing us these people up close, not just when they're carrying out their terrible actions, but also when they're attending a family wedding, making spaghetti, discussing family matters. They make jokes, they kiss their wives and children, they revere their elders.
I'm not justifying what they do, I'm just saying, one of the strengths of this movie is the way it gets you inside the main characters' heads and elicits at least a little sympathy for them. At least, I kind of like and sympathize with them. A bit. Not when they're dumping someone in the Hudson river, of course.
Palmerin, if you're upset and revulsed by the Corleones and their people, I imagine you don't watch many crime films, or maybe any films with violence.
-
1
-
-
That's just it: just about everybody in this trilogy is evil and corrupt, while the very few sympathetic characters, such as Troy Donahue, Diane Keaton and Talia Shire, are pitiful and ineffectual.
I'd say Diane Keaton's character is quite strong. She ends up leaving Michael, taking their children with her. This was a pretty courageous thing to do, given how powerful Michael Corleone was, and how strong a taboo there was at that time and in that culture to leaving one's husband.
-
3
-
-
That's just it: just about everybody in this trilogy is evil and corrupt, while the very few sympathetic characters, such as Troy Donahue, Diane Keaton and Talia Shire, are pitiful and ineffectual.
You're oversimplifying. If The Godfather were merely a straightforward study of gangsters in the 1940s, with a black and white "these characters are good, these others are bad" sensibility, it would not be the great film that it is.
Part of what makes it such an interesting and thought-provoking story is the way the audience is allowed to get inside these characters' heads, to see the way they justify and rationalize what they do - and also, to see that many of them actually do have a "good" - or at least, less evil - side to them. One of the many things The Godfather is, is an examination of how otherwise seemingly "normal" people can develop a code of ethics that justifies doing evil things - and to them, it's perfectly normal.
There are few characters in film who change as much as Michael Corleone does. Watching this young man go from a decent person who deplores what the rest of his family does, to someone who begins to understand and support what they do, to a ruthless gangster who feels justified standing godfather to his sister's baby while he knows that baby's father is being murdered upon his orders is a profoundly disturbing and thought-provoking cinematic experience.
-
6
-
-
As someone for whom ethics and morals are very important, I cannot admire a movie in which the solemn holy occasion of a christening is juxtaposed with gory scenes of murderous violence.
It's that kind of scene that makes The Godfather so good.
-
3
-
-
OUT OF THE PAST
I love this movie- what fan of film noir doesn't? Robert Mitchum is one of my favourite actors, and he, along with Jane Greer, Kirk Douglas, Paul Valentine, Rhonda Fleming and Virginia Huston make a great cast in a legendary noir.
I must have seen it for the tenth time today. The fun thing about repeat viewings of movies you like is, you start to notice things that you might have missed the first or second time around. For one thing, I think I finally figured out the plot. I mean, everything's crystal clear in the flashback - up to that point I think everyone gets what's going on.
But it becomes really complicated when Jeff meets Whit the second time - this is partly because the dialogue is so sharp, full of wise cracks, veiled insults, (on everyone's part) and double meanings, that it's hard to figure out what exactly going is on. All we really know is, Whit Sterling wants to punish Jeff Bailey for stealing his girl and his money, and sends him on a truly dark and convoluted mission to San Francisco. But all Whit really wants is to exact revenge upon Jeff. He doesn't care a whit about anything else ( sorry, I just couldn't resist !)
A few things I hadn't really noticed on previous viewings:
The San Francisco part is really complicated, but it does actually make sense. And I love all those on-location Frisco settings. That apartment (the one the ill-fated tax lawyer resides in) on the hill, the glamourous night club where Jeff sees Kathie for the second time, that phone booth Kathie makes her treacherous call from ...even if you don't entirely follow what's going on, it's ok, because part of what film noir is all about is scenes like those.
Kathie's character: what does this girl want? She has to be the most complicated femme fatale in all of noir. She claims she hates Whit Sterling, yet she returns to him and plots with him to betray Jeff. It can't be just money she wants, because she could have just taken off to South America after she kills Fisher - she's got forty thousand dollars. She yo-yos back and forth between Jeff and Whit, we don't really know why. And she lies constantly, effortlessly, passionately, even when she doesn't have to. I think what Kathie is really about is a desire for power - power over the men in her life. While you could argue that she doesn't have any such power with Whit - in fact, all signs point to the other way around - it's strongly indicated that she does wield a kind of sexual power over him, and maybe that's what she wants. Same with Jeff.
I don't really know, and I realize that the above might come across as just blather. If anyone has another idea about what makes Kathie Moffat tick, let me know. I'm thinking maybe she's just evil, like another Kathy ( Cathy Ames in "East of Eden"). We never really know, and maybe that's part of what makes Out of the Past fascinating.
A side character who I think really adds interest and even some humour ( in a dry, noirish way) to Out of the Past is Joe Stephanos, Whit Sterling's assistant and messenger. Played with a kind of world weary menace by Paul Valentine, Joe is key to the double dealings orchestrated by Whit. And he has more than a few funny lines - some of the hard-boiled verbal sparring between him and Jeff is pretty entertaining. I looked up this actor - Paul Valentine - and was surprised to find that he wasn't in very much at all - just a handful of films, until a comeback he made in the '80s. Don't know why - I really enjoyed his performance as the treacherous, slightly bored Joe Stephanos.
Two quibbles I have with the film: it seems everyone who writes about Out of the Past accepts what Kathie and others ( like the Bridgeport cop, Jim) say about Jeff Bailey /Markham: that he's "no good".
But in fact, there's nothing in the film - no action that Jeff takes - that convinces me of this. Jeff doesn't actually kill anyone, nor does he want to. In fact, he tries to prevent someone from being killed. He's demonstrated that he can "settle down", and be happy doing it, running his little gas station business in a small mountain town, and courting a girl who's worth a hundred Kathies.
And "Anne" may be "good", but she's not dull. She's neither boring, stupid, nor plain. I quite like her, and I wish that "the Kid" had told her the truth in the film's final few seconds - that Jeff loved her, not Kathie, and that he had not been planning to run away with Kathie.
I believe that Anne would have felt betrayed and bitterly hurt, thinking that Jeff had lied to her. She could have "moved on" with her life, knowing that Jeff had been true to her. I don't think she would have locked herself up and mourned for him - she may have loved Jeff, but in the few scenes she has, she demonstrates that she's also a stable, normal woman. I don't see how letting Anne believe that Jeff still loved Kathie would have made her life any better.
I've always had a problem with that ending.
Anyway, although Out of the Past has been discussed on these forums many times, I'd still love to hear others' comments on it.
-
3
-
-
Top Ten Orson Welled Films Reimagined for the Trump Era:
1. CITIZEN SHAME
2. THE MAGNIFICENT IMBECILESONS
3. THE STRANGEST
4. TO TOUCH ****** SO EVIL
5. THE THIRD SCAM
6. MR. AREUKIDDING?
7. THE TRIAL TO IMPEACH
8. F IS FOR FAKE NEWS
9. TWEETS AT MIDNIGHT
10. JOURNEY INTO FOUR YEARS OF FEAR
10. EUROPA I'LL SHANGHAI
10. MACMOUTH
10. THE IMMORAL'S STORY
That's hilarious and clever ! Thanks, Arturo !
-
1
-
-
JOURNEY INTO FEAR
Ho boy, what to say about this one? It's such a mixture of really good and incomprehensible. Of course, the incomprehensible part can be explained by the fact that Orson Welles kind of abandoned it halfway through for another project, leaving it up to his pal Norman Foster to finish directing it. It's not really a bad reflection on Foster that it's a bit of a mess; according to what I've heard, and also what Eddie Muller said in his intro, Journey Into Fear was rewritten, chopped up, and edited to the point where it's a wonder it's any good at all.
And in many ways it is good. You have to love the beautiful black and white cinematography (Karl Struss), which is wonderfully atmospheric and noirish. I love all the scenes on the boat - it's almost funny, how dark and labyrinthine that boat turns out to be. Kind of like the plot, which is almost as complicated and full of unsavoury characters as The Third Man. (Which it precedes by a good 6 years...)
In fact, there's little point trying to describe the plot (I know I always say this.) Joseph Cotten plays Howard Graham, a naval engineer ( or something like that) who for some reason is in Turkey (I think) and wants to go home to the States. But a whole slew of dubious characters want to either stop him, help him, or kill him, and the film's entire 68 minutes is all about which of these will prevail.
I mentioned The Third Man because, as in that film, Cotten's character is somewhat passive, bemused, and a little foolish, and is caught up with people and forces outside his understanding or control. He always seems a bit irritated, although I suppose we can't blame him, since people keep making him do things and go places he has no desire to do or go to.
What's kind of funny is his apparent devotion to his wife ( played by Ruth Warrick, who was Mrs. Citizen Kane). He's separated from her very early on in the story, and the entire film features a voice-over of Cotten reading a letter he's writing to her, trying to explain why he's been away from her and that he has no interest in the sexy woman who's accompanied him on the boat trip.
In fact, the wife serves as a kind of McGuffin, since his primary interest (other than staying alive) seems to be to get back to her. Yet when we finally see her again, she seems oddly uninterested in her husband and what has been happening to him. It's tempting to say that the first Mrs. Kane has somehow wandered into this other story - that's how detached and unemotional she seems when she's finally reunited with Cotten.
And it looks like Cotten's equally uninvolved with her, despite his desperate letter-writing to her - which is really just to serve as some kind of narrative cohesion in an otherwise rambling plot. At the film's conclusion, we don't see Mr. and Mrs. Graham happily united and leaving for the United States together. In fact, we don't see Mrs. Graham at all - and Graham tears up the letter he's been writing to her throughout the movie.
Some fun bits: Orsen Welles playing a Turkish police chief. He strides into the police station wearing an enormous Turkish hat and a puffy fur coat. There's something funny ( as in amusing - something funny as in odd, too) about his appearance.
Also: Dolores del Rio as the sympathetic dancer who befriends Graham. When we first meet her, she's wearing some kind of cat costume, complete with a cat headpiece with ears. She looks quite silly and pretty. No wonder Graham, despite his claims of fidelity in his letter to his wife, is more interested in her than in the dull Ruth Warrick.
Also: Agnes Moorehead puts in an appearance as a French lady with a garrulous husband. I love her French accent and the way she's always getting mad at her spouse. Agnes M. is always good.
Also: The fat assassin, who says not one word in the entire film ( apparently, according to Eddie M., because the actor told Welles he'd only appear in the movie if he didn't have to say any lines.) Every time he encounters Graham /Cotten on the ship, he stares wordlessly at him, which is much more intimidating than anything he could say.
But it isn't just the non-verbal assassin Cotten's character has to watch out for; in fact, by the end of the film's first 15 minutes, you decide nobody, not even Delores and her kitty -hat, can be trusted. If only in this - the complete confusion when it comes to who to believe, which is no one - Journey Into Fear is a true noir.
Anyway, if you just watch Journey Into Fear without trying to figure it out too much, you'll enjoy it more. Just sit back and let all the sinister characters take you on a seedy boat ride over the Black Sea,and you'll be fine.
-
6
-
-
jakeem, while I appreciate your starting a thread about a topic as interesting and worthwhile as the release of Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, I do wonder why your main contributions to your own thread is simply posting links to articles about the album.
I'm more interested in what you - and others here- have to say about the album yourself.
I'm fully aware that I can look up and read any number of articles on the subject written outside this website; that's what having access to the internet is all about.
Maybe I'm in the minority here, and my opinion about this is just going to be viewed as disagreeable, but I do find it a bit annoying when people start a thread and then just keep posting links to articles about the topic, saying very little themselves about the very thing they started the thread about.
You're definitely not the only one on these forums to do this.
Anyway, forgive me if I come across as cranky or judgmental about this habit of yours'. Nobody else seems to mind, and I suppose it's harmless enough.
But shirley at the very least, you could write some comments yourself to accompany these links you post - such as what your own take on these articles might be.
-
2
-
-
Glad someone mentioned this as we were thinking it too. I was surprised Muller did not mention this issue but someone here posted about his making mistakes about this film and others in the Sunday slot since he seems to just research them online for his opening remarks without internal background knowledge of films. Can't remember what someone here said was wrong about his intro for this film and Stanwyk's career. Maybe someone else knows where that post is detailing mistakes by Muller on noir films?
I watched both Eddie's comments about Crime of Passion - by "both", I mean, both his before- and after-the screening remarks. I don't recall any "mistakes" as such that he made; certainly there's room for disagreement regarding what he said, but that doesn't really fall into the category of Eddie being inaccurate.
I did notice a definite mistake on the TCM schedule itself: its brief synopsis of Crime of Passion said something about Barbara Stanwyck's character marrying a "business executive" and her efforts for him to "get ahead".
Of course, her husband was not a business exec, he was a police detective. His profession is integral to the story, and what happens with Stanwyck, so the erroneous blurb about the film (it's only two lines or so on the TCM schedule) is quite misleading, and it's odd that such a mistake would appear.
But of course, this isn't the first time there's been an incorrect plot precis on the TCM schedule. Not that this is a beeg deal, since presumeably one's decision to watch any film on the schedule is based on more than those two-line summaries.
-
2
-
-
.....I love Sexy Sadie. You made a fool of everyone-un-un-un-un-un, etc.
The record company is really going to town on the 50th anniversary.
I saw an ad in the paper with three different editions of the record.
Now Vautrin, I know that you know that Sexy Sadie is on the "White Album". You must just be thinking of Beatles songs in general.
By the way, are you familiar with Radiohead's "OK Computer"? Which, it will be twenty years ago today, or at least on June 1, that that fine recording was released. Anyway, there's a song on it, Karma Police, which clearly pays tribute, at least musically, to Sexy Sadie.
Oh, what the hell, why not? Compare:
-
1
-
-
To make sure they're not watching me back.
Hey, don't you want someone to watch your back?
-
I'm not sure what your issue with the song really is, but I'm guessing you couldn't get into the sitar "thing". A lot of people I know couldn't. I LIKED it though(and still do) and still have some old Shankar LPs somwhere around the house. Even a couple he recorded for DEUTSCHE GRAMMOPHON. But ya do have to admit...the MUSIC of "Within You/Without You" is an excellent compliment to the LYRICS.
Sepiatone
I don't think you're addressing me here, but just to clarify: I like "Within You and Without You", and do not have any issue with it, although it's certainly not my favourite S.P. track.
-
I had only seen The Prowler online (YT) before and remain amazed at its taut structure. The burgeoning romance just sort of "happens," if you're not paying too close attention. I love films that are able to get across a plot point like that without beating you over the head. The end of this film is just utterly horrible -- and (for viewers) -- wonderful. Getting shot dead while desperately trying to scale a heap of debris is the ultimate noir statement!
I'd heard of The Prowler (from these forums, I believe), but never seen it until it was aired a few weeks ago on "Noir Alley". It definitely deserves a place in the noir canon; I quite enjoyed it.
Aside from anything else, I always like Van Heflen, and in this film he shows his range. He's a pretty nasty character, something that's a bit of a change for Van. But this actor always played complex characters, the most complex being his Frank Enley in a great and under-rated noir, Act of Violence.
I found Eddie's comments at the end of The Prowler most interesting. He said that the censors insisted on some aspects of the story being changed, mainly the sexual heat between Webb and Susan. It's too bad, because the result is a bit tamer, and therefore less interesting and noirish, than if the two had been allowed to show unbridled lust - as opposed to the attempt at depicting some kind of nice, domestic "love"between them, which is what we end up seeing on-screen, and which doesn't really engage us nearly as much as the kind of sexual attraction you see in, say , The Postman Always Rings Twice.
Lust trumps love when it comes to film noir.
-
2
-
-
Personally, I watch classic movies because they're...
...schweetheart.
You said it, Dargs. I would just tweek your statement by saying that in one way or another, all good movies, past or present, are the stuff that dreams are made of.
My simplest answer to the question of the thread topic is, I just love movies. And that includes old movies. I don't see them as two separate categories - pre-1960 films / big division / post-1960, or even post-1980.
There are bad, mediocre, good, and great movies from all time periods, and I don't limit my movie -watching enjoyment to one particular era. I've seen a lot of unforgettable films that way.
-
6
-
-
....."Within You/Without You" really isn't all that bad a song. Certainly not one of Harrison's BEST, but still excellent in showcasing George's depth and range as a singer, songwriter and musician. And lyically more profound and spiritual than many of the songs PAUL ever wrote( IMHO).. And considering on the other hand.....
I love George Harrison's compositions, both those he wrote with the Beatles and his solo efforts. And you're right, his lyrics were exceptionally thoughtful and intelligent, especially as he matured and continued into his solo career.
"That said", I've always felt that when it comes to songs, the music is more important than the words. Good lyrics are the icing on the pop tune cake, but if the cake isn't very good, great icing won't save it. (And let's hope nobody leaves it out in the rain.)
-
2
-
-
Planet of The Grapes
A young pomologist (Eddie Redmayne) ends up on a mysterious planet after a mission to cultivate fruit trees on Mars goes awry. He ends up have to stay alive against a hostile tribe of giant grapes. Also starring Ralph Fiennes as the voice of the grapes' leader Zinfandel, Sigourney Weaver as the voice of the grape scientist Shiraz, and Cristin Milloti as Redmayne's love interest Penelope.
The tagline: Grapes of Wrath has a whole new meaning
I'd heard Glenn Close has a cameo appearance as a double agent grape warrior called Merlot.
-
3
-
-
For their historical interest, which is a value even commonplace movies share with the greats. It's fascinating--albeit sometimes painful--to witness what people of the past regarded as fashionable and sexy; even more fascinating, and even more painful, is what movie makers of the past regarded as riveting and absorbing entertainment.
So...that's why you watch classic movies?
-
While I didn't particularly care for the screenplay, Barbara Stanwyck's fierce performance made it "enjoyable" - she had set herself a goal and she would not be deterred.
I also felt her devotion to Sterling Hayden, who was decidedly "the love object".
Sterling Hayden played that role believably.
What the woman could have invested in her career, she invested in an insane scheme to better her husband's position.
But I did not buy the ending - she would not have gone that quietly.
Instead, she probably would have shot him, too.
Not to quibble rayban, and in any case, I'm glad you watched the film and had comments to make about it, but - it's that very "she set herself a goal and she would not be deterred" aspect of the story that I have a problem with.
How come, if she's such a strong character, so determined and ambitious, she never showed any interest in advancing her own career when she was a writer for that newspaper? If it were that important to her to get ahead, it seems likely to me that she would not have been content with producing the "Lovelorn" advice column she apparently laboured at for many years. (I mean, even though yes, Barbara's still an attractive woman in this movie, it's clear that she's not a young one....)
Kathy never seemed to have much ambition until she married Bill Doyle. Why not? A career woman like her would have been on the move long before she met Doyle.
I know it was the 1950s when values were very different from what they are now, but even so, I find it hard to believe that the only thing that would have galvanized Kathy's ambition was marriage, and that her desire to "move up" would only be manifested vicariously, through her husband.
The whole film just feels to me, as I said before, like they made it up as they went along.
But yes, I did enjoy all the performances, especially Miss Stanwyck's.
-
1
-
-
Miss Wonderly said: And, "after all these years", while people who were born long after its release may not understand the iconoclastic nature of Sergeant Pepper, how amazing and different it was, different from anything that had gone before, anyone of any age can delight in the wonderful music it contains.
I'm not contradicting you, but this statement deserves elaboration.
Even though I grew up listening to the Beatles: seeing them on Ed Sullivan, going to the record store to buy MEET THE BEATLES and the big event HELP! was (wow you get to watch them for 1.5 hours on the big screen!) I do think the entire phenomenon of how great they were has faded over time. (not unlike Elvis)
Pop music has had several new incarnations & innovations since then, some just as powerful & unique. The Beatles (as Elvis) have now just been absorbed into our consciousness & culture and it's hard understanding the impact they had "back then".
I always wondered if the Beatles would hold up for later generations and I've found their music to be looked upon similarly to "Great American Songbook" standards, like what Ella Fitzgerald & Frank Sinatra sang in the 40's-50's.
Beatles songs are now "standards" for others to build upon, as if their original versions were "basic" versions. Also similar to Woody Guthrie and Hank Williams for American folk music- revolutionary for the time, almost creating their own genre.
I've found the kids today still like the Beatles, their songs are still listened to. But the revolutionary cultural icons we know, and their impact has been completely lost to time. Sadly for those of us who lived the "phenomenon".
TikiSoo, my friend, we are in complete agreement.
The point I was trying to make was that, even though the "iconoclastic" nature of Sergeant Pepper is a thing of the past, and could only be experienced by people who heard it at the time of its release ( and up to several years afterwards), the music itself is still great.
I agree, the songs on this album have achieved the same kind of status as the standards of such greats as those from the "American Songbook", along with the compositions of Woody Guthrie, Hank Williams, and all the other timeless music produced in the past.
That's why I said "anyone of any age can delight in its wonderful music". This sentence applies equally to Frank Sinatra and all the other legendary musicians you cite in your post.
I am a big believer in the concept of timelessness in art; i.e. : if something was good 50 or 100 years ago, it's good now. This applies, by the way, to all art, whether we're talking about music, books, or movies.
By the way, I do recognize that a lot of great music has been produced since the release of "Sergeant Pepper", some of it even quite recently.
-
How can one compare The Beatles, a group that grew and changed over time for the better with Elvis, someone that got worst and worst over time and never fully developed his many talents (and ended up becoming a carny act).
The Beatles are very much unlike Elvis and that is a good thing.
Shirley we don't want this thread to turn into a "Beatles vs Elvis" argument. That would be silly.
Still, I have to jump in here....it matters not whether Elvis got "worst and worst" ( or even worse and worse) over time; he made some truly great music and deserves respect and a high standing in rock history for the fantastic rock n roll music he made.
Let's not start judging artists by "what they became", but by what they did when they were at their best.
-
1
-
Noir Alley
in General Discussions
Posted
Well, yeah, if you want to get picky about the plot. As far as that goes, my main criticism of the story of Phantom Lady is the fact that they don't even need this mysterious woman as a witness. Both the bartender and the taxi driver confirmed that they saw the accused, just a few minutes after the time of the murder. You'd think that would be alibi enough, what matter if they did or did not see a woman accompanying him?
But anyway, cigarjoe, what we have to do, not only with Phantom Lady, but with any number of famous and venerated noirs, is go with our suspension of disbelief. We both know we don't love film noir for its carefully mapped-out and well-considered plot points. Plot is the least important feature of film noir.
We've got beautiful Ella Raines, wonderful noirish settings, quirky characters, unforgettable scenes ( I love that whole sequence in which Ella stalks the bartender, not saying a word the entire time - eerie !), and beautiful dark urban streets.
Would it make sense for Jack to do all those things you enumerate? No. Do I care? Baby, I don't.