misswonderly3

I also made a special effort to listen very carefully at the very end. And I did hear it, ever so faintly. I agree with people here (and not just on this thread, but an older one about this film) who believe that final "Bye Shane !" is important. It's important because it shows that Joey finally accepts Shane's leaving, and why he must leave. "A man can't change who he is", Shane tells Joey as he prepares to ride off. And that almost inaudible "Bye, Shane" shows that in the end, Joey understands that.

Dang ! I can't come up with a pun on the name "Sothern" !

Oh, I think there's no question that there's an attraction between Marian and Shane. But to say she was "in love" with Shane is probably not accurate; she loved her husband and always would. But she was also weary of the hard pioneer life, the endless work, the many dangers, etc. Shane was good-looking and mysterious; what we might call "cool" nowadays. Some part of Marian was drawn to that, to the idea of a restless rambling man, a man who seemed always on the verge of some adventure. I don't think she was "in love" with Shane; she never for one moment considered leaving Starrett for Shane. And she genuinely loved Starrett. But the film makes it clear that there's a mutual attraction between her and Shane, an attraction which both of them know they will never act upon.

Well, that's actually a better explanation than the one I gave.

Remember, Joey says "I hate you, Shane !" after he sees Shane knock his father out (for a very good reason which maybe Joey only half understands.) Just a minute or so later he tells his mother, as she's tending to her beat-up husband, that he didn't mean it. Marian acknowledges she knows Joey didn't mean it, and suggests he tell Shane. So Marian is aware that Joey's set off to apologize to Shane. She probably didn't realize her son was going to follow the gunfighter the whole way into town, but still, she knows where he's going and that he'll be ok. And of course, there's a purpose to Joey's pursuit of Shane right into the town and the gunfight in the saloon. After Shane's taken care of Wilson and Ryker, he thinks there's no one more to fear and lets down his guard. It's Joey, who's been watching the entire battle, who sees another of Ryker's gang getting ready to shoot Shane from the rafters. It's Joey who warns Shane, who immediately sees the sniper and guns him down. Joey saves Shane's life. That's why it's so important that he follow Shane all the way in to town.

Just to be serious for a minute: (I'll try not to be unctuous) I respect Robert Osborne and appreciate what he does and how he does it as the main host representing Turner Classic Movies. Still, the guy is 84 years old. I don't quite understand why he doesn't want to retire, especially if he has health issues. Yes, clearly he loves old movies and talking about them, and sharing his knowledge about them. And I can understand why he'd be reluctant to give that up. On the other hand, he's been away from his spot as TCM host, on and off, for several years now, I believe due to the aforesaid health issues. I'm not unsympathetic to that, but I also think it's plain that he is probably going to continue in a frail state of health for the rest of his life. (Sorry if that sounds brutal.) Maybe a good compromise would be for Mr. Osborne to continue at TCM in a special capacity, maybe "Robert Osborne's Picks" one night a week, something like that. (Or, if that's too much, one night a month?) Meanwhile, I say let's have Ben step in as the new permanent TCM host, including the Essentials and all the other programming spots Robert O. did. I know this might be controversial, that a lot of people don't like Ben Mankiewicz (and I'm not talking about his political leanings, I'm talking about his demeanour, etc.) I always liked Mr. Mankiewicz and would be happy to see him replace Robert Osborne as the main TCM host. It seems a logical step to me. I'd much rather see him than Michael Feinstein or Dave Karger (who the hell is he?) or that Tiffany babe. The only thing I'm not sure of is if the Mankman wants the job.

Sorry, Dargs. I won't munction it anymore.

I think if he isn't, if his health won't allow it, they should be straightforward with the TCM audience and let us know. By this time it's what everyone's wondering anyway. However, I suppose if there is a chance that Mr.Osborne will recover and return to his position as the main host of TCM, or if he wants to wait and see if that might happen, he might not want to give up and retire just yet. Maybe he's adopting a "wait and see" attitude. But how long will we have to wait before we see?

So you would have no compunction about dating her?

I suppose you'd describe her as "scrumptious".

Hey, Dargs, I was merely quoting your earlier post her. I don't want to get too rambunctious about this matter.

I understand Mr. Feinstein is a big fan of "Petticoat Unction".

You have not wounded my pride, Coen-based or any other kind. It's your loss that you don't appreciate the Coen brothers. Of course I know the term "smart aleck" ( and "smart azz".) I don't need to look it up. My question to you was obviously ( or so I thought) what is meant in your own personal idea of what constitutes such a person.

"Tarantino" ? Quentin Tarantino ? ! Shirley in your book he's in the same category as the smart alecks Fred Astaire and the Coen Brothers. In fact, I would expect you to regard Mr. Tarantino as the ultimate "smart aleck". I mean, even I think he's a bit of a smart azz (variation of "smart aleck"), and I like him. Partly because he's a smart azz. Please tell me you think he's in the same smart azz or aleck boat as the Coens, or I will be very confused.

What is a smart aleck?

You seem to think a lot of people are "smart alecks". Fred Astaire is a "smart aleck"?? Guess the Coen brothers are in good company.

Well, I cannot pretend to interpret the post intentions of other people. Hopefully Lorna herself will return to this thread soon and clear up the mystery, one way or the other.

It is a good movie, and Keaton shows what she can do when given a role like that. But it's just so despairing, that final scene where she's lying dead on the bed, her life so quickly and so violently dispatched. It all happens so suddenly, too, there's no time for the audience to get emotionally prepared that something terrible is going to happen to her. I know what Lorna means about its being hard to watch.

Tom, it's quite possible that Lorna was making a Lorna-style joke. ie, Lorna made it all up about Ronald Coleman because she has a wicked sense of humour and couldn't imagine anyone less suited to the role of meek, unprepossessing Will Mossop than the debonair Mr. Coleman. Lorna wrote "I want to say" which suggests to me that she was amused by this idea and just threw it out there. Here's what she said: "I want to say that HOBSON'S CHOICE was originally supposed to pair LAUGHTON with RONALD COLMAN, but Colman died suddenly of a heart attack, which allegedly devastated Laughton- but he soldiered on; and really, I adore John Mills in this and wouldn't want anyone else."

I know what you mean about a film that you don't like because it is painful or unpleasant or emotionally harrowing, yet is a good movie. It's very possible to know a movie is good - well-made, well-acted, smart - and yet not enjoy it. The Entertainer is a very sad movie. With the possible exception of the grandfather, all the characters are sad, Laurence Olivier's most of all. When he stands there on the stage, with his heavy theatre make-up and his terrible little jokes, a handful of maybe 10 people in the audience, it's heart-breaking.

Eric: Well, I have to grudgingly admire anyone who dislikes anything (like Coen brothers movies) that much and takes the time and effort to articulate why to the extent you just did. I honestly appreciate your writing and the way you didn't just say "I don't like the Coen brothers, they think they're smart when they're dumb", but went to some length to explain what you regard as the whole background behind the kind of attitude you think the Coens have about movies, theirs' and the classic ones you think they're mocking ( in a superficial smug way.) I still don't agree with you though. And I've read extensively about the Coens. They actually have watched a lot of old movies, and they actually do regard them with affection and respect. But since we're both fully convinced of our own distinct and individual opinions of this, there doesn't seem much point in continuing the argument. I can't resist asking, though....have you see all their movies?

I agree, the "3rd act" is a big let-down after the first two thirds of the film. But those first two acts are so good, you can't completely dismiss the film as "total nonsense". Just that last half an hour or so. I do have to wonder why Wayne's character would decide to hang the runaways. Seems pretty extreme . And there's not much in the script to explain it. If he wanted to punish them, he could have just taken their horses, guns, and food supply and turned them loose in the wilderness. Good thing old Monty shot that idea down.

I wish I had more time to address all the points in the above post, but I don't right now, so all I'll say is, every time I read a criticism here of the Coen brothers I feel compelled to leap to their defence. I love them, I think they're amongst a small handful of intelligent movie makers alive today, and I've never understood people's dislike for them. You should be happy that there are films made today that allude to these old movies, that there are smart creative funny filmmakers who know and love those old movies as we do. And that they assume there are people like us out there who will get those references. If you watch their movies carefully, I think you'll find that they're not "snide", really. They are funny and often compassionate (but not in an obvious sentimental way.)

Right ! I love that movie-- one of two ventures into noir that Kubrick did (the other being The Killing.) Love 'em both. And that mannequin scene in Killer's Kiss is just fantastic.

Yes, I like Jean but again, she acts as though she and Cary have known each other for years instead of days. Katharine Hepburn is also annoying sometimes in Bringing Up Baby, but since she's also funny and kind of likable ( and I am not much of a Katharine Hepburn fan), I'll ease up on her a bit. "Oh, David, be careful you don't lose your bone again ! " How did Hawks get away with stuff like that ? But I'm glad he did.