misswonderly3

Really Lorna? I like Arthur Kennedy. And I like most of the movies I've seen him in. I don't think he overacts. Apropos of nothing, I've also always thought he looked a bit like Van Heflin. Maybe not quite as attractive, but nevertheless, I often get them mixed up. Here's Arthur ( I think from Rancho Notorious) Van Heflin ( don't know offhand what movie, if any) Maybe it's just that they both had wavey reddish hair. Sorry, I realize that this is pretty off-topic. But hey, isn't there anything you like Arthur Kennedy in? What about....Devotion, Too Late for Tears, Rancho Notorious ( oh I can see you thinking he over does it in that one), or even The Lusty Men ?? As for his performance in Boomerang...hey, if you were accused of a murder you didn't commit, wouldn't you shout and generally be a bit truculent too?

Vautrin, thank you for saying with such clarity what I was trying to say (that pretentious statement I made about "humanity against one man" or whatever I said.) I bolded the first part of your post here because you said exactly what I wanted to say about the film. There's a lot of Christ imagery in Odd Man Out, shots of Johnny suffering, half-dead, with his arms outspread. And yeah, he does stumble around the city, stopping at various "stations". I wonder if there are 14 of them? Next time I'll have to count. As for Kathleen, the actress was also named Kathleen. Kathleen Ryan. Too bad she doesn't get a little more screen time - she's very beautiful. I'd never heard of or seen her before. SPOILER As for the two shots at the film's end, I thought she simply shot the gun into the air, in order to draw attention and fire from the approaching police. She did this so the police would shoot both her and Johnny, a slightly different matter than turning the gun on him herself. She knew when the police heard the shots, they'd shoot back and thus kill them both, which is what Kathleen wanted. It reminded me a little of the ending of Gun Crazy, you know, when Bart and Laurie know they're surrounded by the police and haven't a chance. Partly to prevent Laurie from killing any of the police, and partly because he thinks it's the best way to go, Bart wrests the gun from Laurie and shoots it into the air, knowing the police will shoot back and so end it for them.

This was the third film aired last night on TCM's James Mason evening. (By the way, what was the deal with that? It wasn't his birthday - or even his death day - or anything...) I wish they'd shown Odd Man Out earlier, I suspect some may have skipped it because of its late air time (midnight.) Too bad. I would say Odd Man Out is way up there in the list of great British films. Even though it was late, I never got sleepy once - it held my attention from start to finish. James Mason is billed as the star of the film, playing Johnny McQueen, an IRA type leader who gets wounded in a robbery his "organization" has planned, but I would say the real stars of this film are all the interesting, quirky, Irish people who encounter him as he stumbles around the dark rainy streets of Belfast. There are loads of little cameos of ordinary folk interacting with Johnny, some wanting to help him, some planning to hand him over to the police, some wanting to paint his portrait ( a tad difficult when the portrait subject is unconscious), others hoping to save his soul - and one in love with him. The film is a thing of beauty , with some of the most visually arresting black and white cinematography I've ever seen ( and I've seen a lot, baby.) Some of it is filmed on location in Belfast, and you get a real sense of what this Northern Ireland city was like in the early years after the war. There's one scene in particular that's unforgettable: Johnny is dragged by a well-meaning (maybe) cabbie to what looks like a cross between a rail yard and a cemetery monument warehouse. He collapses onto a broken fence, and the camera moves back to reveal a magnificent stone angel, looking indifferently down on him. There's a lot of imagery like that in the film, the meaning of which you can take or leave, since Odd Man Out works equally well as an allegory about humanity and a man struggling outside the law ( eek, that sounds a bit grand and pretentious) and as just a great suspense story. Looks a little like "The Third Man"? Directed by the same guy, Carol Reed I really recommend this deeply moving film. It's by turns exciting, sad, and even at times, funny. Anyone else catch it?

Oh now, Dargs...poor Charlotte did not deserve a life of humiliation and tears. She was young and foolish when she made the fateful choice to marry horrible Geoffrey ( aka James Mason at his cruelest), and yes, she did turn out to be quite a weak and spineless person. But we do see another side of her, a side capable of cheerfulness and humour, and certainly possessing a great capacity for love ( the misdirected love for her monster husband, and the unconditional love she has for her children), whenever she has a chance to be away from the monster for a while. She sheds her timidity and depression, and becomes just an ordinary but nice lady. I don't think people should be punished forever for a choice they made when they were 18 ( which is the age I imagine Charlotte was when she met Geoffrey.) However, I do agree with you that They Were Sisters was a pretty darn good little melodrama. Even my husband liked it, and he's not big on what used to be called "women's movies", which arguably the film could be labelled. What struck me in almost every scene Mason appeared in was, how common that kind of man is; that kind of psychological cruelty, that need for control and power over others, especially over those you'd think he'd love, is, sadly, just as present today as he was then. I recognized a couple of horrible people I've known in the James Mason character.

I think Lorna or Arturo did already mention that there was no Oscar for Dana. But as you imply ( with your "not that there's anything wrong with that"), so what? Dana's no-Oscar status is no reflection on his talent, which was definitely of an award-winning calibre. I pay little attention to the whole Oscar thing. I couldn't care less if an actor or actress ever received one. To me, there are many many great actors who never received an Academy Award - and many great movies which were never awarded one either. That's why I never bother with the many "Oscar" threads that populate these boards. Baby, I don't care.

I do. And she deserves him so much more than that horrible Virginia Mayo !

I don't know what to say about this song. It's almost embarrassing, it's so intense and intimate. It's like some paen to ....I don't even know what. The singer and musicians together take this music to some other level, as though they're seeking to attain some other state. That's how I hear it, anyway. And the lyrics are as mystical as the music. They must have been listening to Van Morrison. I dunno, maybe the embarrassing part is me going on this way. but I love this song. A little bit of ecstasy, the non-drug kind.

Despite their (relative) fame, I'm not very familiar with the J. Geils Band. I've certainly heard a lot about them, so maybe it's time I checked out their music. I'll start with "Nightmares".

I love Dana Andrews, and have always thought he got short shrift in terms of critical recognition. He was especially good at looking bewildered when random malevolent forces turned against him, for no rhyme or reason ( as is the way with random malevolent forces.) He had a great face, which, as I guess I just said, was especially expressive when it came to showing feelings such as betrayal, confusion, pain. Here he is in The Oxbow Incident. His innocent character cannot believe the unbelievable - that he's going to be lynched for something he didn't do. Dana looking very worried ( with good reason) in Where The Sidewalk Ends. Sorry these pics are so large. I tried to find smaller images of the same shots, but to no avail. Anyway, my point is that Dana Andrews wasn't just another pretty male face ( although he was that, I love his looks.) He was also a very expressive pretty male face. When I see him looking like that, I want to put my arms around him and tell him that everything will be all right ( even though it probably won't be.)

I remember Sloan. For some reason, thinking about Sloan reminds me of another band from around the same era - well actually, a few years earlier. This goofy but fun tune is from the mid-'80s. The singer is probably really experiencing some of those "getting old" problems he sings about when he was in his 20s... By the way, db, this video made me nostalgic. Recognize any of those places from Toronto in the 80s?

I love this song. All god-like beings and magic and mandolin. Sandy Denny and Robert Plant made a great singing team. Sing along in Spanish, if you like.

GD, thanks for reminding me of this song. I remember it well. Unfortunately, for some reason all I get from your link is "This video is not available." I don't even know if it means "not available IN CANADA", or, not available AT ALL. No matter. I found a version on youtube that was available. Very soulful.

I think it's funny that a frivolous thread I started about private messages is right near the top of the page, but a "serious" thread I started about a celebrated classic film noir has sunk to the bottom.

I know. Many maintain that it's Itsy Bitsy Spider. There have been coutless debates over the creature's actual name, and how this contributes to its direction and values in its tiny eight-legged life. But I have always believed that it's Inky Pinky. (Anyone interested in the thesis paper I mentioned, I can forward it to you in a pm.)

I wrote an entire thesis paper on the significance of Inky Pinky Spider. The prof was so impressed, she was going to have it published for me in "Arachnida Metaphor Today". However, the project was, unfortunately, squashed.

So, just curious...do most of you delete your personal emails, too? At least email has a much greater storage capacity than the private message function here on the TCM boards. I suppose there's really no point in saving this kind of stuff. Confession: I would have saved all my university essays if they hadn't been accidentally left in the garage of the rental home where I was living. A week after I moved from the place, I remembered them and went back to get them, but the new tenants had tossed them out for the garbage collection, and they were gone, baby. Probably just as well. Now I can remember them as masterpieces of academic erudition, when they were probably embarrassing undergrad rubbish.

Some interesting comments from my fellow noir fans on the film here. Something I want to clarify: I may not have stated emphatically enough how much I did like some aspects of The Killers. Like the opening scene; as at least one poster here observed, it's got to be one of the best opening scenes ever, certainly in noir, and maybe even for movies in general. It's truly gripping, in terms of both the narrative (What the hell is going on? Who are these guys? Damn, are they tough ! etc.), but also with regard to the fabulous black and white cinematography. I think it was Tom posted a still from the very first shot of the film - the diner, the two menacing-looking dark figures approaching it, and the contrast between light and shadow in the street. (Why am I trying to describe it, when Tom's picture speaks a thousand words?) As speedracer pointed out, The Killers is rife with all things noir, and certainly features many of the things a lot of us noir lovers enjoy about the genre. But I'll just quote speedy, she says it better than I could: Speedracer said, of "The Killers" : "When I saw this film the first time, I was automatically hooked by the setting. I love when film noir (and other 1940s dramatic films) use the small town diner, the old gas station, the crumbling derelict warehouses, etc. as locations for their scenes. It adds a certain grittiness and aesthetic to the film that I enjoy. The action at the beginning of The Killers wouldn't be nearly as effective if it took place at 21 or something. I especially love the diner scenes, if only to see the prices of the food ("I could get a steak sandwich, fries and a drink for only 75-cents!"). One of my other favorite diner scenes is in another of my favorite noir films, They Drive By Night. In fact, They Drive By Night also features many of the same type of settings as in The Killers. " Exactly, speedy. I couldn't agree with you more, that the visuals of The Killers, the "grittiness" of the settings, (diners, warehouses, etc.) give a wonderful, classically noirish feel to the film. I also agree with everyone who pointed out that the narrative structure is very unusual, and that alone makes The Killers a stand-out in the noir canon. Lots of noir movies use flashbacks, but very few begin with the main character getting killed in the first few minutes ( ok, Sunset Boulevard ), and even fewer use that device in which various characters who knew the murdered man recount their memories, their version of that man's life, to piece together the entire story. (ok, Citizen Kane did it first.) Another clarification: Speaking of the story structure, I'll say again, as I did in my original post, that although the plot is complicated, maybe a little difficult to figure out for first-time viewers, I have no problem with that. In fact, complicated plots are pretty common in noirs ( nobody has as yet ever figured out what's going on in The Big Sleep...) It was not the convoluted plot that I didn't like about this film. What I did not like about it was its coldness.I found it very un-involving; I felt I never "got to know" Burt's character, (of course this is because we only see him through others' eyes, their recollections of him), and therefore never really came to care much what he did or what happened to him. Tom and others have commented that the "love story" (such as it is) between him and Ava's character is not that important, and that, if Kitty was in love all along with her husband, there wouldn't be much to show between Swede and Kitty anyway. Ok, I buy that. But still, the lack of plot development between them, the paucity of scenes between them, does feel like a missing piece in the story. As I said in my earlier post, I understand and recognize all those wonderful noir features that appear so abundantly in The Killers. But, for the reasons I mentioned, I guess it's not enough for me. It just feels cold to me. (sorry, one last point: The Killers is just about the only film noir classic that does "leave me cold". I love the genre ( or style,maybe I should call it), and off-hand can't think of another noir that leaves me feeling "meh" like that. )

Shelley Winters as Kitty Collins? Oh...maybe...radio is not a visual medium.

I think The Conversation is one of the best films of the 70s. (Of course, that was a decade that yielded many great movies.)

One of the more interesting scenes in The Killers is the one in which one of the members of the payroll heist gang gets fatally wounded and brought to the hospital. He's dying, but before he does he recounts (between gasps for breath) his version of the robbery, including Swede's role in it. I think the character's name is "Blinky". I love the nick-names these guys always have in noirs, names like"Blinky" and "Dum-Dum".

I think if they pay for the rights to use the song, anyone can use anybody's music in their own musical creation. Isn't it called "sampling"?

There are two ways to respond to insult on an internet message board. One, ignore it. Two, respond to it. Although I'm tempted to do the first, I'm going to do the second. Sepiatone, it's very rude of you to refer to my write-up as "bloated paragraphs". You have this thing, where you think anyone who talks about why they like or dislike something is being "bloated". I've also seen you use the word "pretentious". Why is it better to simply state, in one sentence, your opinion of something, rather than going into a bit of detail about it? How come it's somehow more admirable ( I suspect you think this) to write one or two definitive statements about a film or song, or whatever the topic is, rather than to discuss it in more depth? Clearly you take pride in not only sticking to the short and simple, but in disparaging anyone who wants to talk about it in more depth. Apparently going beyond a sentence or two is to be "bloated". I had a few specific ideas about The Killers, and thought it might be fun to share them with others here, and solicit others' opinions about the same film. This is actually what these message boards are supposed to be about, or so I thought. That might actually mean going into a little more depth than "not the BEST noir I ever saw, but not the WORST either". Wow, I sure got a lot of insight about the movie, reading that. Thanks for your incisive ideas. god forbid you say anything more about The Killers, that would mean being pretentious and bloated. There ya go. And limited to a mere six paragraphs.

I've never heard of Kim Stockwood. Never heard her music, either ( as far as I know.) I feel I should have - judging by those two tunes you posted, she's pretty talented. Makes me wonder how many other good Canadian artists have been kicking around for a while who I've never heard of.

This famous noir was aired on TCM last night. As most of you probably know, it's directed by Robert Siodmak and stars Edmond O'Brien, Burt Lancaster, and Ava Gardner. (I put O'Brien's name first because he actually has much more screen time than Lancaster.) SPOILERS, SPOILERS, SPOILERS Ok, here's my story on The Killers: I love film noir, and this 1946 film is one of the most famous, reputedly noiriest noir of them all. (No arguments about Out of the Past, please - I said one of , NOT the ultimate noir...) So I always want to watch it when it comes on. But here's the thing - I always fall asleep watching it, right about the time Ava (Kitty Collins) appears. It's nothing against Ava, it's just around the time that the film gets kind of boring for me. I've never made it past that point, I always fall asleep then and wake up to hear Ava begging, "Kitty is innocent ! Say it ! Say "Kitty is innocent !" " What happened in between I never knew. Til last night, when I actually managed to stay awake for the whole thing. Well, here's my verdict: Sorry, "Killers" fans, I still think it's kind of boring. Ok, that's a harsh word for anything made by Siodmak. Let me change that to "un-engaging". My main criticism of the film is, you don't get to know anything about Burt's or Ava's characters. Yes, I know, Burt's dead within the first 5 minutes of the story, and it's all told from the point of view of many characters who knew him, through the lens of insurance investigator Edmond O'Brien. (Kind of Citizen Kane-ish, eh?) Ava's character is a true femme fatale, using Burt's obsession with her to manipulate him and get what she wants (in this case, the stolen loot from the heist Burt's just participated in.) But in most noirs with a memorable femme fatale ( and by the way, many great noirs do not have such a character), we get to know her a bit. There are a few scenes where we see the hapless male protagonist and the lovely ff. getting to know one another, flirting, talking, teasing, and of course, making out. ( fun phrase, that.) But we get very little, in fact I'd say none, of that kind of interaction in The Killers. It's not even very clearly implied. Ok, yeah, we can see by the way Burt stares at Kitty that he's got it bad. But the audience has to fill in the rest of the story of their relationship. In fact, until the last 15 minutes or so of the film, Ava's hardly even on screen. Without some kind of establishing flirtation scenes, or passionate eye contact, or something between the Swede and Kitty, we have little reason to care or be interested in what happens to them. When we find out that Swede flips out when he discovers Kitty has left, and tries to jump out the window, we have only the knowledge that he was in love ( or rather, en thrall) with Kitty. The audience has seen very little evidence of it, and as a result, his pain does not move us. Doesn't move me, anyway. This is my main criticism of The Killers. I was hoping and assuming that all that movie time I'd slept through in the past was filled with important scenes between Burt and Ava, only to find that I'd missed nothing, as far as their love affair was concerned. As for the story, it's hard to follow, at least if it's the first time you've seen it. But this is nothing unusual for film noirs, and I don't really have a problem with complicated plots in noir. My problem was, because Burt is both the main character and at the same time, a character once removed ( since it's all from O'Brien's perspective, Burt's dead ), I couldn't get very interested in him, I had too little to go on. I love Burt Lancaster, and I think he did a fine job in The Killers. It's not his fault; but I found his character uninteresting, and Kitty's downright boring. I fear I may be offending noir fans, and certainly The Killers fans, right left and centre here. I can't help it; film noir movies usually fascinate and move me, and this film did neither. One positive thing I can say about it: it had a beautiful noirish look. I loved the cinematography, the interesting angles and shots, and the settings - seedy old buildings, rain soaked streets, and lots of shadows. The name of the man responsible for all this is Woody Bredell, who photographed a number of other Siodmak productions, as well as good little noirish dramas like The Unsuspected. I just thought of the word I think describes The Killers: cold. To me, it's a cold film. Anyway, people, I know I've committed blasphemy here. Please feel free to tell me why I am wrong, and why, if I can repeat the difficult feat of staying awake a second time through The Killers, I'll retract my words here. I'm willing to have it 'splained to me.

I really appreciate all the feedback from those who've posted here, and am going to send a special personal sentimental pm to each and every one of you.