misswonderly3
-
Posts
12,768 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
36
Posts posted by misswonderly3
-
-
Wait! I'm all confused now.
Was somebody saying "Ann Sothern looked like an Oldsmobile sucking a lemon" HERE?!!
(...that's what they used to say about the Edsel...remember?!)
Dang ! I can't come up with a pun on the name "Sothern" !
-
1
-
-
One of the things I like about Shane is that there is no silly romance between the mother and Shane. You appear to believe there was some type of 'impossible love' which to me sounds like romantic love. I don't see it as that. Instead I see a mother that knows her only child is hero-worshiping this stranger and she has concerns if the character of this stranger justifies this type of love\worship.
There are a few scenes that communicate this, mostly related to Shane's use of a gun and the fact we know he has killed people (outside of war). The mother comes to understand and respect Shane and is glad this man had a profound impact on her child's life. But to me that doesn't mean she had romantic, I want to sleep with this man and cheat on my Husband, feelings for him.
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.
-
1
-
-
No offense, but to quibble about this seems kind of petty, Cathy or Kenton.
I can see your point if I look at the film as a literal story about an American farm family, but this film is on a bigger scale in a mythic way and needs that scene to solidify Shane's influence on the child, and the goodness in Shane in not wanting to create a hero-worship belief in little Joey, that if the parents were around to see, would be utterly lost.
Shane's concern for Joey to love his parents more than him, is the reason for the ending.
Well, that's actually a better explanation than the one I gave.
-
One thing bugged me,though. In the end, when the kid runs after Shane, where are the parents? When the kid started running, my maternal instinct kicked in and I wanted the parents to run right after him
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.
-
7
-
-
Saaaaay, is THIS now some kind'a "give the guy a dose of his own medicine" thing you're pullin' on me now, MissW?!
(...look lady, IF you're tired of all my lame puns around here, just come out and SAY so, OKAY?!)
LOL
Sorry, Dargs. I won't munction it anymore.
-
Is RO EVER coming back???
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?
-
2
-
-
LOL
YEAH! As a matter of fact I WOULD!
(...good one, btw)
So you would have no compunction about dating her?
-
I knew you were, MissW. I got it.
(...it's just that your little pun reminded me of that HOT BRUNETTE on that otherwise pretty dumb old sitcom)
I suppose you'd describe her as "scrumptious".
-
Gotta say I've always found Mr. Feinstein JUST a wee bit too "unctuous" for my tastes, BUT overall I think he's probably a good fit for this little gig.
(...and doubt his knowledge of classic film ends at just musicals)
Hey, Dargs, I was merely quoting your earlier post her. I don't want to get too rambunctious about this matter.
-
Gotta say I've always found Mr. Feinstein JUST a wee bit too "unctuous" for my tastes, BUT overall I think he's probably a good fit for this little gig.
(...and doubt his knowledge of classic film ends at just musicals)
I understand Mr. Feinstein is a big fan of "Petticoat Unction".
-
1
-
-
A) Please look up "Smartaleck" in the dictionary. It's for the same Moderated reason as "Smart azz", but at least it's there, albeit more recent than "Wisenheimer". It's since I was a kid, let's just put it that way.
B ) What I think of Tarantino isn't "Smartaleck" ("Fanboy" is more in the ballpark of what I'm looking for, but not quite it, either)......
However much I've wounded your Coen-fan pride that I must be pursued past the Hesperides and back, this isn't in the same category......
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.
-
2
-
-
That's the second time someone's tried to warn the board of the dangers of "A*P*E*", and like the title, think a lot of the "goofier" scenes were added by the American distributors to try and sell it as low goof-camp. (Asians don't really understand the flipoff, that's a western gesture.)
There were a lot of Hong Kong DeLaurentiis-ripoffs, like when Tarantino rediscovered "Mighty Peking Man", but APE's big sell was 3-D, which was getting a bit of revival in cheap HK's at the time.
"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.
-
1
-
-
Astaire does tend to play a lot of wise guys \ smart alecks in his films, especially the Roger \ Astaire musicals.
I find the way Astaire does this to be charming and that to me is the key.
What is a smart aleck?
-
.....Fred Astaire is just as amazing on his feet, but always played the Smartaleck, which is an acquired taste. (I remember a discussion on Christmas specials, and one kid said "I always hated that mailman guy from Santa Claus is Comin' to Town, he just looked so smug!", and I had to respond "Of COURSE he's smug, he's Fred Astaire!")
Otherwise, you could sell a new Singin' convert on "The Band Wagon", since it's practically the Broadway "sequel" to Singin'--Another ego-driven disaster preview that has to be fixed before opening night, by characters who learn to stop being pretentious fakes.
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.
-
1
-
-
Well, MissW, if it's an attempt at humour (Really? A Joke?), it's quite obscure to me.
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.
-
I like 'Looking for Mister Goodbar'.
I enjoy watching a story of a professional woman in the 70's who is determined to be independent and has a great attitude that feeds that purpose. She takes no ****, and stands up for herself and her choices.
Keaton is fantastic in the role - much more enjoyable than the usual mousy, insecure thing she often does.
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.
-
I would like to suggest that any poster stating that Ronald Colman's death prevented him from appearing in Hobson's Choice better research their facts.
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."
-
this is another example of a good, well-made movie that i don't like- which is in all likelihood what the makers were aiming for.
see also: LOOKING FOR MR. GOODBAR
I actually think this is Olivier's greatest performance, he is so great as someone who has NO TALENT- he has this devastating scene where he takes the pipe hard in front of an audience and it is AGONY to watch.
Brilliant agony, but agony.
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.
-
2
-
-
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?
-
1
-
-
Ridiculous movie. After constructing a great 2nd act, the film is allowed to turn to total nonsense in the 3rd.
I can see that a-hole John Wayne's fingerprints all over the thing (can't you just picture him bellowing "Change it! I'm not gonna be the bad guy!" even though the rest of the movie has set it up that he is).
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.
-
Have to admit, between this, The Misfits and Don't Bother to Knock, I prefer the roles where Marilyn was trying to stretch and play against type, for more downtrodden/bad girls. She really couldn't quite yet, but she makes a good effort of trying, and most of movie fans' support for her consists of sticking up for her ambitions.
-----
As for my Just Watched--probably too new to be in the category, but still TCM-related--I happened to be wandering through the public library while the monthly film-screening was showing the Coen Bros. Hail Caesar (2016), the pseudo-sequel to "Barton Fink" where the Bros. try to impress us with how much more 30's-40's Hollywood lore they "know" and we don't (they think). Okay, maybe third in the trilogy if you count "O Brother Where Art Thou" as "We've seen Sullivan's Travels, get it, get it?"
As you can tell, I don't particularly worship the Coens just because they had one movie that got an Oscar, one that should've, and one that parodied stoners too stoned to know they were being made fun of, and I tend to think of them more as obnoxious jackasses too much in love with their own cleverness by half--But it was free, I serendipically happened to be there in time, and I always try to support the local library.
The movie was supposed to be parodies of 40's Hollywood studios, but when we see "wacky" parodies of the movies being made--a Gene Kelly sailor-suit musical (and it looks ambiguously homoerotic, get it, get it?), an Esther-Williams-dives-into-the-pool musical, and the main plot about crass George Clooney as the Roman soldier in a biblical epic--I was sitting there thinking "Who even TELLS these jokes anymore in 2016? It's not 1975, and this isn't the Carol Burnett Show!" (And I apologize to Ms. Burnett and her writers, who actually did know their movies.)
Between the other thirdhand Hollywood myth/anachronisms being thrown about--so Republic did singing-cowboy westerns in widescreen Technicolor in 1946?...That's enlightening--I sat there realizing, these are exactly the sort of deconstructive "mythologizing" we used to do of Old Hollywood forty years ago, back when we didn't have the same intimacy of knowing one old movie apart from another, nobody watched them to begin with, and we sneered shame and abuse on them for not being cynical enough in the 70's of Watergate and Taxi Driver. The Coens' hostility toward...basically everything tends to be a bit more than the average Simpsons episode and almost as subtle, but listening to Joel & Ethan talk about 40's movies, the Hollywood Ten communist screenwriters, or the 30's depression in general is like listening to an atheist preaching to the choir: Loud, uninformed, and chuckling over his own jokes we've heard twenty times just because he thought he was the first.
I was tempted to do an entire guest Movie Morlocks blog post on the issue ("Why should we watch somebody else's badly-remembered thirdhand gag about 'old movies', when I was on the same library floor as the DVD shelf, and could take home a real copy of Anchors Aweigh, Million Dollar Mermaid or Ben-Hur to watch instead?"), but figured someone else had done a blog post on the Bros.' "bold genius" by now, and the idea of changing movie-literacy between then and now seemed more like the stuff for my own blog.
Had to vent, though.
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.)
-
3
-
-
I'm surprised they don't mention Stanley Kubrick's Killer's Kiss
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.
-
well, Jean Arthur is really annoying and pushy in ONLY ANGELS HAVE WINGS. both she and and Rita are weak links in the film, made all the more glaringly s by how amazing all the male stars are and what a story they're given to work with.
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.
The Flaw in Shane
in General Discussions
Posted
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.