misswonderly3
-
Posts
12,768 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
36
Posts posted by misswonderly3
-
-
There are a few reasons I can think of that fit me.
Many users do not check out the Film Noir thread very often, if at all. I generally go to View New Content, then the black hole of Off Topic from which I have a hard time escaping, then General Discussions. Sometimes I remember to check out the other sections, but not often.
This thread is under General Discussions, but just does not leap out at me and seldom shows up in New Content.
Also, many of us have said about as much as we wish to on the general topic of Film Noir. There is a section dedicated to Film Noir specifically.
In addition, while I enjoy Film Noir, the selections so far have not done that much for me OR I have already commented on them before. While there are many noirs I watch often, the selections for this series are ones that I have seen and really do not feel inspired to see them again.
I also wonder if owning copies of many of these movies decreases the desire to discuss them? If I have a movie, I may not watch it when TCM shows it and therefore not as inclined to discuss it.
Just my speculations.
Thanks for your reply, Cid.
To respond to some of your comments: When I first joined these TCM message boards, I went on that Film Noir forum all the time. I do recognize what you're saying - eg, that if I want to talk about noir so much, I can always go to that forum. Point taken.
The reason I stopped visiting the noir forum was a combination of things, but mainly it was my time became more limited. I really don't have the time to go on as many forums and threads here as I'd like to, and I just had to let some of them go. So I stuck mostly to General Discussions, mainly because there's the most "action" on that forum. The Noir forum is great, but fewer people post on it, and also, there seems to be a longer window of time between postings there than on the G.D. forum.
As for your comment that the particular selections for "Noir Alley" are films you've already seen and don't have that much more to say about them, well, fair enough. l cannot argue with people's personal preferences when it comes to movies ( or of course, anything else for that matter.)
However, I disagree. I too have seen all the choices so far ( some of them several times) but I seem to like them more upon each successive viewing. Many of the noirs being featured on the program are among my favourites, so I'm happy to see them again ( even though, like you, I actually own most of them.)
I guess I just think that there's a lot to be said about these movies, and even if they have been discussed here ( or elsewhere) before, like most interesting intelligent engaging films, they can be discussed many times without fatiguing my enthusiasm for them.
Something I've always fondly believed about Turner Classic Movies and this accompanying website is that it has a unifying aspect to it; that when it airs a certain movie ( or series of movies), many people are watching it at the same time, therefore sparking the desire to discuss it. Of course I know that many, probably most, TCM fans do not watch these films in real time, that they DVR them and watch them later/ Still, just the fact that TCM is airing them draws attention to them.
Anyway, I appreciate your taking the time to give me your take on my peevish post.
-
2
-
-
I caught SCARLET STREET this morning, which I have not seen in some time. Much was made about the film being Fritz Lang's "American masterpiece" but I can think of at least two films I would cite as Lang's best American efforts -- THE BIG HEAT (1953) and FURY (1936).
I was alo struck by the tremendous similarity of the plot of SCARLET STREET to THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW, also with Edward G. Robinson and Joan Bennett, directed by Fritz Lang in 1944. I know THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW has its detractors, owing primarily to the happy ending of the film, but in some ways I found the earlier film to be more entertaining than SCARLET STREET. The first time I saw SCARLET STREET, I was expecting to turn out to be a dream like WOMAN IN THE WINDOW, and then when it ended it was a real downer. I guess that's what Lang was going for, but it was so terribly bleak.
Which one do you prefer?
Oops ! Posts collide ! Now I feel more peevish than ever. Sorry, Barton. As for your question, to me it's a "no brainer " :
The Woman in the Window is a good movie, and highly entertaining. But Scarlet Street is a great film. I will get back to this later, I have to ponder both films before I can articulate a better answer.
-
I know this is going to sound peevish, and I'm sorry about that, because, like most people, I don't like whining and complaining.
BUT ! Yes, at the risk of being peevish, I have to wonder why so few people seem interested in this thread. Thing is, I wouldn't care if the topic were about some obscure movie or foreign language films or something equally unpopular on these boards.
But I know a lot of you out there like film noir. So how come I'm more or less the only one posting on this thread?
I really don't want the thread to turn into a "misswonderly reports" kind of thing, where it sort of becomes "my" thread, where I'm the only person posting on it, and I keep "replying" to my own previous posts. And I didn't even create this thread !
I'm not a fan of those threads, what I call "vanity" threads, in which just one poster is the only person to participate on it. This is not a blog, and I don't want to be regarded as one of those vanity thread people.
I'd love to hear from others, especially all you noir fans who I know exist out there.
People, these are great movies we're getting on "Noir Alley". Am I really the only one watching them?
(ps: I appreciate the "likes" some have given me, only because it shows some people are reading this thread. My peevishness was not aimed at them. Although I would really like it if they - and other noir fans, I know they're there - shared some of their ideas about these movies here. We did have something going for a while with "Detour", but now all conversation here has fizzled out...)
-
2
-
-
When this Steely Dan song came out I couldn't figure out the title no matter how many times I heard it on the radio. It may have been decades before I found out what it all meant via the internet. We had it tough back then! But it was mysterious and challenging, the guessing of it all was a major after-school occupation. Now we can simply type in Taylor Swift's or The Weeknd's latest tune and learn everything and then some.
When I was young and foolish I didn't like Steely Dan, I was into punk and stuff like the Velvet Underground, and I thought Steely Dan were too slick and too smug.
Now I'm older and wiser and know better; These guys are great ! Complex, often jazzy, sophisticated melodies and arrangements with ace musicianship and really smart ( albeit often sardonic) lyrics.
Here's one of my favourites:
-
2
-
-
It's a bit late in the day for this one, it was aired last Sunday, and now we're almost up to the next one coming up for this Sunday ( as in, tomorrow.) Still....it's a film worth discussing....
THE BLUE GARDENIA
Oh, Fritz Lang, you are so friggin good ! I can't think, off-hand, of a Fritz Lang film I haven't liked, a lot, and The Blue Gardenia is no exception.
The film's premise is a classic noir theme: A sympathetic protagonist ( in this case, a woman !) thinks she's committed a murder, but maybe she didn't, she just can't quite remember ( due to about a gallon of hard liquor in the form of "Polynesian Pearl Divers". I'd kind of like to try one of these. But not 10 in a row...)
Even the audience doesn't know whether she killed Harry Prebble, the man who was trying to force himself on her when she whacks a poker at him - or so we're led to believe, but it's hard to tell, what with the point-of-view camera angle and the smashed mirror and Norah's ( our heroine) being so drunk.
This film,by the way, is interesting to watch these days if only for the 1953 take on date-rape, which the above scenario definitely is. Attempted date-rape.
Can't resist noting that the scene leading up to the date-rape situation is the meeting between Norah and lascivious, predatory Harry ( Raymond Burr, good casting choice), at the trendy hot spot, "The Blue Gardenia". I love scenes like this - luxurious, pleasure-filled '50s nightclubs with fancy drinks and musicians like Nat King Cole (who sings, beautifully, the title song.) What fun it would be to hang out at a place like that !
Anyway....
What we have with The Blue Gardenia is something unusual for 1953, a female-centric crime movie with most of the story seen from the perspective of a female character, Norah Larkin. Norah is convincingly and sympathetically played by Ann Baxter, proving that "Eve" was not just a happy fluke for this talented actress.
Norah lives with her two room-mates (female, of course), and one of the fun things about this movie is the way you see how the three women have worked out a co-operative system when it comes to house-keeping tasks and morning routines such as washing the dishes and making the orange juice. I really enjoyed all the scenes ( and there are quite a few) with the three "girls" interacting in their smallish apartment, talking, kidding, and supporting each other.
But what Lang and Baxter really nail is the panic a person would feel if they believed they'd committed a murder. Panic complicated by confusion, if you couldn't remember what exactly had transpired the night you think you might have done the murder. And the "closing net" feeling as the newspapers and radio continually update the story, how it's reported that the police are hard on the trail of the killer, is a perfect noir trope.
I love the scene where Norah hears that they've figured out the killer was wearing a black taffeta dress. She gets up in the middle of the night and burns her dress ( a fabulous little black cocktail dress, what a waste !), only to encounter a police officer on the beat. Ann Baxter is wonderful at conveying the fear, the jumpiness, her character would feel in such a situation. (Turns out the cop just wants her to limit her incinerator activities to day- time....)
I haven't yet mentioned Richard Conte, who plays a hard-working reporter who wants to get Norah's "story" before the cops do. There's a fun Cinderella-like bit in which Conte ("Casey Mayo") tests whether the women calling him to tell the story, claiming they're the killer, are truly the one the police are looking for by asking their shoe size ( Norah had left her shoes in the murdered man's apartment.)
Conte is one of my favourite noir actors. He can do "good" guy ( as in The Blue Gardenia) or heartless villain ( check out The Big Combo ) with equal aplomb. He's perfect as the ambitious journalist who ( of course) falls for Norah once he meets her. I do have a bit of trouble believing that he doesn't realize that Norah, who claims she's just representing her "friend", is the suspect the police are looking for. The old "it's not me, it's my friend" strategy had been used so many times, shirley Casey Mayo would have spotted it.
Anyway, I know I'm all over the place with these comments about The Blue Gardenia. Sorry if I haven't gone into the plot more, but for one thing, I assume that people wouldn't be reading this if they hadn't already seen the film, and for another, I don't think the plot is the most interesting aspect of a movie to talk about.
I hope all you noir fans out there, if you didn't catch The Blue Gardenia when it was on last Sunday, at least recorded it. It's well worth adding to your collection.
-
3
-
-
And wasn't it amazing how just that change with the glasses made him totally unrecognizable.
Yes ! I think it's hilarious - and I do mention this really funny "disguise" idea in my little write-up about Tension ( on the "Noir Alley" thread.)
The old " unrecognizable without their glasses " ( or with their glasses) trope seems to have been a favourite of classic movies. Usually it's the opposite of the Warren Quimby character's choice; it's a woman, and she removes her glasses ( which, oddly enough, she doesn't need anymore) to reveal the sexy beautiful babe that she is. Which of course was impossible to perceive before, when she wore glasses.
-
1
-
-
I think Roz Russell could pull something like that off just fine.
Absolutely ! I think of Rosalind Russell as the ultimate combination of the qualities of both successful, in-charge career person and "feminine", empathetic woman.
But Eugenia, I'm kind of surprised you didn't suggest your own fave: Barbara Stanwyck. She's always come across to me as a woman who's very sexy and feminine, yet at the same time commands respect. I think of her ( along with Roz Russell) as someone who played "strong" female characters, a woman who was exceptionally capable and good at being in command, and knew it. (Ok, maybe not as Stella Dallas, but that just shows her range...)
-
5
-
-
Thanks for the Tony Bennett version of "Maybe This Time", db. The only version I was familiar with was Liza Minelli's, from Cabaret. In which she, too, definitely pulls out all the stops.
Townes Van Zandt: another great songwriter who, seemingly, hardly anyone's heard of (except for real hard core music fans...)
Here's one of his most haunting songs, "Kathleen":
-
1
-
-
I love the way Audrey Totter looks royally p***** off so much of the time. She's good at this. (Check out her pretty, disapproving, face in Lady in the Lake. )
For some reason, I find her scowling really funny.
Oh, Claire, frowning again!
-
1
-
-
Its implied, if I remember right, that once Quimby told Barney about Claire's M.O., i.e., how she tells him that she is going off to watch a film but actually trolling for more men, that Barney probably confronted her and in the ensuing fight she shot him.
Yeah, that's probably it. I did think of that - that Barney starts getting worried about whether Claire's actually gone to the movies or not (if she's not at the movies, where is she?), because of the doubt that Warren plants. And rightly so...that trampy girl probably IS lying to Barney about where she's been. It's clear that she's a restless, easily distracted, fickle thing who may have been getting bored already with her new beau.
So, yes, we can imagine a scenario in which Barney confronts Claire, she gets angry and defensive ( and nervous - she doesn't want to lose her comfortable beach house position already), grabs the gun that is sitting conveniently around somewhere within reach, and pulls the trigger on Barney. Probably not pre-meditated, maybe she'll get off with 2nd degree murder and life in prison ( where she can exchange life notes with Brigid O'Shaughnessy...)
But I still think something, just a couple of lines about why she did it, wouldn't have been amiss. Something like " All right ! The truth ! Barney was beginning to be a bore, even worse than you were, Warren. He started giving me a hard time, and before I knew it, I let him have it. I didn't mean to, it just happened. It's his fault. Ya gotta help me, Warren, ya gotta back me up."
By the way, I neglected to mention in my previous post about Tension the truly likable character Cyd Charisse plays - the sweet girl, the kind of girl Warren should have met and married in the first place. Cyd's role is relatively small, but she makes the most of it. I love the scene in the drugstore where the detective is trying to trap her into openly recognizing Paul Sothern/ Warren Quimby, but she won't take the bait. Of course ! She doesn't recognize him because he's wearing glasses ! He looks totally different ! - - doesn't he?
-
How come I found this interesting thread languishing on page 4? Time to bump it up.
TENSION
Anyone see Tension ? It was aired on the Sunday morning "Noir Alley " series a few weeks ago.
Damn, I love this odd little noir ! Like a lot of less spectacular film noirs, it's not as well-known as it deserves to be.
The always good Richard Basehart ( who's also not as well-known as he deserves to be) stars as a mild-mannered pharmacist ( a pharmacist ! what an un-noirish profession ! and nope, there's no poison prescriptions to be seen...) who's sexually obsessed with his tarty selfish shallow but very sexy ( in an obvious tarty sort of way) wife. Audrey Totter shines as the shapely but nasty wife, she's a hoot to watch in this.
I won't go into the details of the plot - suffice to say that Basehart's character decides to create a false identity, the better to commit the perfect murder .
Some of the things I found really enjoyable about Tension were the on-location suburban L. A. setting ( I love that 50s courtyard apartment complex the hero moves into), the dual identity ruse, in which the plotting pharmacist disguises himself by switching his glasses for contact lens (!), and the smart -a** detective who keeps stretching an elastic band - to remind us that everyone cracks under , uh, tension.
Maybe I'm alone in this, but I often find film noir movies rich with humour. Often intentionally ( as in much of the dialogue in them), sometimes unintentionally. Either way, although I know, obviously, that these movies are not comedies nor were they intended to be, I find a lot that makes me laugh in some of them. This is not to say that I don't take noir seriously, or recognize that very dark things happen in this genre.
But there's also, often, much that I find quite funny in them, and Tension is a good example of this.
I do have one quibble with the film: SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
Don't read this part if you haven't seen the movie, although it's probably not much of a surprise that - yes, Audrey Totter is the bad girl who's murdered her new boyfriend and tried to run home to Warren. I don't have a problem with Audrey being the killer; but we're never given any motivation for her murdering the boyfriend. He's rich, he's crazy about her - why does she kill him? We have to make up the reason, since it's never given us.
Anyway, other than that, Tension is a fine little noir that's well worth watching.
-
Since we're talking about Ann Sothern and ( at least with regard to The Blue Gardenia), film noir, I'll mention an interesting little tidbit that I noticed a few weeks back, when the Noir Alley series aired Tension.
As those of you who have seen this thoroughly enjoyable under-rated little noir know, the main character, Warren Quimby, decides to create a new identity, which of course requires a new name. There's a brief but amusing scene in which we see him casting about for a name, trying on different handles. He hits upon a first name ("Paul"), but takes longer to come up with a surname.
Finally, his eyes fall upon a movie star magazine ( no doubt left by his hard-hearted wife). Who should be featured on the cover but Ann Sothern? That's it ! Our hero takes on the name "Paul Sothern", and the movie takes on a new direction.
(I'm surprised no one on these boards has talked about this great little film. Or maybe they did, and I missed it.)
-
3
-
-
Gak ! I'm afraid I broke one of my own rules with regard to posting here, which is to read the entire thread before posting any comments of my own. I wouldn't have written those two or three posts below if I had read everything here.
Sorry about that folks - no point in carrying on any kind of disagreeableness when everyone's "made up" already.
-
I'm the person who started this thread and I don't see why I, nor anybody, should be attacked. I simply made a post about what I, personally, perceived as tension within the film in regards to the two Charlies. That's it. I knew that not everybody would agree-- and that's perfectly ok. However, I don't think I'm perverse for having sensed what the filmmakers very well could have intentionally put in the film. You, nor I, really know what the filmmakers true intentions were, regardless of the era in which the film was made. This is Hitchcock we're talking about; he wasn't above putting a strange, sexual twist to his films. I very well could be wrong, but at the end of the day, I honestly don't think it's perverse of anybody to simply "sense" something between two characters in a film. That's just ridiculous, frankly.
And I can assure you, I've never been the type of viewer to project my modern sensibilities on to a film. I can can always view a film in the context of the time in which it was made. That's how I keep from getting so easily offended. Maybe this has less to do with me viewing the film through a "modern" lens, and more to do with me viewing it through a "Hitchcock" lens.
Lastly, I don't think the thing to combat being "attacked" is to propose the attack of someone else. However, I do thank you for your opinions.
It's unfortunate that sewhite used the word "attack"; I think he simply meant, in his response to Sepiatone, that he was not the one who suggested a "sense" of possible sexual tension between young Charlie and her uncle, so why not address his (Sepiatone's) objections to the original poster, who was the one who suggested this idea?
Not that I have a problem with your (Golightly's) feeling about this tension. I don't agree with it, I don't think it's there, but as you said, there's no right or wrong when it comes to a viewer sensing something in a film. It's an entirely personal response, and different people will have different responses to such things.
-
....Now, roughly 20 years later, when Angela Lansbury slowly kisses Laurence Harvey on the lips in The Manchurian Candidate - interpret THAT as you will!
Not to be all know-it-all-ish, sewhite - - and I really appreciate your insightful posts - - but I think you must have meant to type 55 years after The Manchurian Candidate. Oh, unless you meant the remake. But the scene you describe certainly occurs in the original, and since the original is definitely better than the remake, why not just allude to it? (the original 1962 version.)
But 1962 or 2004, I get your point.
-
The whole SOLILOQUY of Sewhite exposes more about how that individual's mind works than anything else. For generations, MANY young girls, AND boys had a "favorite Uncle" whom for one reason or another were lionized in their minds, and NO untowards behavior or nastiness on EITHER part was ever taking place or suspected.
Sewhite either watches too much SVU or has the "hots" for a niece or nephew and is expressing denial.
Sepiatone
I don't think you read sewhite's post very carefully. He was saying that some people tend to put a 21st century interpretation on old movies, an interpretation that certainly would not have existed when Shadow of a Doubt was initially released.
It just seems funny you picked out his comments about this matter; I would think your indignation over anyone conceiving the idea that there was some kind of sexual tension between the two Charles would be more appropriately directed towards the original poster, who is the one who posited this question in the first place.
-
I should be used to this by now, but it never gets any easier to take. Peeping Tom was not aired in Canada. It always frustrates and infuriates me when some rare movie I'd love to see is blocked to Canadian viewers. It's hard to believe that there's a lot of money involved in this "rights" business.
The inertia on the part of someone - don't know who - to sort out this business of who has the "rights" to air old movies and what countries they can be aired in is a constant source of annoyance to me. Especially because the "who has the rights" issue is always about films that are at least 40 years old, usually much more. Is anyone really going to make or lose a lot of money from a film that was obscure even at the time of release (1960), let alone almost 60 years later? Aargh and aargh again.
ps: In place of Peeping Tom, we Canadians got Night Must Fall. I can see why this would fit in with the "malice" theme of the evening, but I've seen it twice now, and honestly, I don't think it's as good as many seem to think it is. (That's being polite.)
-
3
-
-
I heard this song today on the radio. I loved it. I'd heard of the Strumbellas, but I was unaware they were Canadian. I'm proud to say they are.
Any song with a title like "Young and Wild" deserves a listen. Turn it way up and shake it.
-
Another rock legend bites the dust. Chuck Berry, truly one of the greats.
I thought I was familiar with most of his music, but when I first saw Pulp Fiction, I'd never heard this song, nor did I realize it was a Chuck Berry track. It was released in 1964, a bit after Chuck's golden time, and maybe for that reason it didn't get the attention it deserved.
Here 'tis. I just picked a vid with a still of Chuck Berry, because even though the Pulp Fiction dance number is a delight to watch, I think it might distract a bit from Chuck Berry, who deserves some undiluted attention today. Good tune.
We all know what a profound and extensive influence Chuck Berry had on rock and roll music. Here's just one example. I'm pretty sure, if you listen, you can hear echoes of the song posted above in this Nick Lowe composition. You never can tell.
-
3
-
-
Great song, db, and one I hadn't heard before. I like Steve Earle, so down-to-earth; just a guy who makes good music.
I hate to be predictable, but I can't resist posting a song here in honour of St. Patrick's Day. So much Irish music to choose from, but I'm just going to go with a song from the film The Commitments, because I love it, and it's very Irish (even though all the songs they do are actually American. You'd have to see the movie to get it...)
Then I think a little Van the Man Morrison is in order. Again, this song is not particularly Irish, but he's Irish (from Belfast, but Northern Ireland is still Ireland), and besides, I'll go with any excuse to post anything by Van Morrison.
(hey, I said it wasn't an Irish song....it's an Irish movie. And what a fun song it is.)
This is a really obvious Van choice, I could have picked lots of less known tunes, but I feel Van Morrison doesn't get the love he deserves in North America, so I decided to go with a "hit". Again, far from any Irish content, Van is celebrating an American musician here. There's no need for argument. There's no argument at all.
-
1
-
-
DETOUR
This is the second film to be aired in the Eddie Muller Noir Alley series.
( Wonder what, if any, rationale he's using for the order in which these films are shown? Not chronologically, not alphabetically - seems pretty random. But that's ok, so is life, as reflected in film noir...)
Hoo boy, this is one dark nasty movie. But fascinating. At just over an hour ( 67 minutes), this ultra bleak little picture gets in, tells its disturbing story, and gets out with no frills and no unnecessary plot or character devices. Bare bones dark (oh, I said that ), almost nihilistic, and devoid of any soft edges.(hey, sometimes a noir does have a few soft edges. Not this one.)
A few thoughts, in no particular order:
I noticed in his introduction to the film Eddie Muller says something about "an unreliable narrator". Actually, I have a problem with people saying the voice-over narrator in movies is "unreliable". This guy is telling his story to us, the audience. Or maybe he's just telling it in his own head.
In any case, he's certainly not ( as yet) telling it to the police. Why should he lie? It's his story, and one of the salient features of it is his remarkable bad luck. He wants us to know all about his bad luck, how things just didn't work out for him in this indifferent universe we all live in. I take what happens in the film literally, and at Al Roberts' word. Why not?
This is about the third time I've seen Detour. I liked it better this time around, and I think I got more out of it.
For one thing, I was much more sympathetic to the main character ( call him Al.) I love it when movie characters are musicians, I automatically have sympathy and even respect for them. I enjoyed the early seedy nightclub scenes, with Al and Sue doing their best to make the crummy little joint just a bit better, with his ( surprisingly good) piano playing and her torchy singing.
And I believe what I honestly think the director intends us to believe: that Al is basically an ok guy who just wants to marry his girl and make a decent living playing music. But it all falls apart when his girl (Sue) decides to head out for L. A. and see if she can make it there. We have to wonder how interested she is in her fiance following her out there. Come on, Al, can't you see she's giving you the brush-off?
Anyway, our boy decides to hitch-hike out to L. A. to join Sue. Unfortunately, he hitches a ride with a driver with some unnamed medical problem - the guy keeps asking Al to pass him some medicine box with a bunch of pills in it. ( Whether this is some underlying heart condition, or he's the 1945 version of a prescription drug addict, we neither know nor care.)
When Al, who's taking a turn at the wheel, discovers the man is dead, he makes a fateful decision. Of course he does. He drags the guy's body off the road a bit and hides it in some brush. First big mistake.
I know forensics in 1945 was much much different than it is now, but shirley if he'd gone to the police and told them what happened, a simple doctor's check ( or yeah, maybe an autopsy) would have revealed that Al Roberts spoke the truth. There was no evidence that he'd struck the man. (The head hitting the road when he opened the door was because he was already dead; it wasn't that that killed him.)
But then we wouldn't have had this unnerving story. That would have been the end of it.
Instead, Al carries on in the dead man's car, picks up a bona fide harpy from hell, and seals his fate.
There can be no female character in noir as malevolent as Vera. Played with frightening intensity by the rightly named Ann Savage, Vera's like some creature sent by a hostile Fate to ruin his life. He's virtually her prisoner, and it's somehow fitting that when he finally does break free from her, it's in the worst possible way. How was he to know she'd wrapped that telephone around her neck? This guy can't get a break for love nor money. She's taken all his ( well, actually, the deceased car-owner's) money, and he's not interested in her openly sleezy attempts at love - or at least, lust.
It's truly impressive that all this is packed into 67 minutes.
The first time I saw Detour I didn't like it. As I said before, there's not one second of relief from the unsettling,claustrophobic, atmosphere, and I found this a bit hard to take. I tend to like my noir with a bit of humour, maybe even a little genuine passion or human decency ( which yes, many noirs have). But Detour's one relentless ride from beginning to end.
However, this time, maybe because I already knew what was in store for Al Roberts, I enjoyed it, in a semi-masochistic kind of way. The film's so bleak and hopeless and at the same time so compelling, you have to admire it, even if you don't love it.
-
2
-
-
What ? ! I had no idea. I just saw this thread a minute ago. I was not aware of this news. If I had, I wouldn't have blathered away in another thread when something like this has happened.
I'm not really surprised, I think we all knew Mr. Osborne had been ill for some time. Still, I did not know how ill.
I'm genuinely saddened by this news. Robert Osborne was in many ways the face, the brand, of Turner Classic Movies. Even though he had not been very active on the station for quite a while, I will still miss him. It won't be the same without him.
-
4
-
-
Something just popped into my head; maybe I've thought this before but just never typed out a comment . . .
Are there any color films that are considered 'film noir'? I can't think of any, but I'm not a 'noir' expert of any sort.
Leave Her to Heaven, for one.
-
THE LETTER was released a year earlier than THE MALTESE FALCON, and though not usually considered a true noir, it was also more noirish.
It feels as though what I wrote earlier today about the whole "which film noir is more authentically noir" contest didn't really make any kind of impression - at least on you, DownGoesFrazier. I mean, shirley you see what I'm trying to say about the noir contest thing?
By the way, I love The Letter, whatever movie genre you want to apply to it. One of Bette Davis' best (which is saying something, since she was in so many excellent films.)
A film by any other genre name would smell as sweet.
Mitchum in 'Farewell My Lovely' (1975)
in General Discussions
Posted
Don't know, db. However, I do have a thought or two about Farewell My Lovely.
1. I love Robert Mitchum, he's one of my very favourite actors, for many reasons. However, I'm afraid I don't wholeheartedly enjoy watching him in FML. I hate to say it, but I think he was too old for the part, and it shows. Yes, Mitch always demonstrated a certain world-weariness in all his roles, but by 1975, some of that seems just weariness (without the world part.)
2. Charlotte Rampling, on the other hand, is gorgeous as the love-object of Moose Malloy. I've always liked this actress, I think she's the incarnation of female style and coolness.
3. I prefer the 1944 version of this story, Murder My Sweet. I especially like the drug-addled scene, where Dick Powell wakes up and thinks he's emeshed in a giant spider web.
As for your question - maybe it was one of those "No Canadian Rights" things. I know I saw this film (Farewell My Lovely) in one of those Toronto repertory theatres, a year or so after it came out.