misswonderly3

Ah, Lorna baby, you have articulately and effectively shot my anti-Hawks ladies diatribe into the dust ! I can do nothing but bow to your superior Hawksian points. and acknowledge that in fact, there are many admirable, even likable, female characters in Howard Hawks movies. Just one tiny defence on behalf of my earlier post: I never said I did not think Hawks' heroines were strong; au contraire, they all come across as Supergirl strong. My point was just that a lot of them are annoying pushy, in too much of a hurry to get to know the hero. As for the films and their female leads you mention in your first paragraph, all I can say is, you're right. ( I did say in an earlier post here that I liked the leading ladies in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. ) Oh, and I love Ball of Fire. And Barbara Stanwyck's character in it. So I will cut me a slice of some bittersweet humble pie.

Whoooo are you? Who-ooh? Who-ooh?

Tiki, baby, those manniquins must come in handy at Hallowe'en.

Thank you, slayton. I enjoy your comments too. (And not just here on this thread, but in general.) However, I do want to "correct" you in one thing: I like most of Howard Hawks' movies, annoying female characters notwithstanding. I think maybe you interpreted my earlier post as saying "I don't care about this movie", but what I was saying was, "I don't really care all that much one way or the other about this whole matter of obnoxious female characters in Howard Hawks films. It's not that big a deal to me, and I still like his films." And I really like Red River. (I'm only saying this because you seemed to have the impression that I did not enjoy that movie. Just setting the record straight, I think it's a great Western. It's just the Joanne Dru part I don't like.)

So, since the original post, Saturday Night Fever has been aired. There are lots of fond reminiscences and nostalgic comments about the disco era here (which I remember too), but not many posts about the actual movie. Any thoughts about that? The movie, I mean. Anyone know what ever happened to "Stephanie" ? (Karen Lynne Gorney). This movie should have been her big break to stardom, but I never saw or heard of her again. Of course, not the case for John Travolta. I have to admit, I enjoy the music in the film. More than I did at the time it came out, at which time I "hated" disco, and looked down on anyone who liked it. But I'm older and wiser. and actually like quite a lot of disco now. But even at the time, I took a guilty pleasure in the BeeGees' "Staying Alive". Who didn't? (take pleasure in the song, whether guiltily or not.)

Now, Hibi baby, you can see a Vole anytime you want. Just scroll down the page a little. What about skunks ? Now there's a creature I whole-heartedly loathe. Ok, just looked them up. Apparently skunks are NOT rodents, but in some skunky species category of their own. Slightly related to weasels.

Yes. I don't have a double standard when it comes to male / female interaction. Any man who's as aggressive with a woman as Hawks' women are with men, I'd regard as equally obnoxious (although maybe not unrealistic.) It's not so much that the Hawks female leads are "forward" in terms of letting the man know she likes him. It's the way she asks - no, demands - personal information about the guy: his life, who he is, what he does, who was his former wife or lover, what went wrong, how did he get along with his parents (or in the case of Red River, his surrogate father), is he mad at her, if so why, what is he thinking, and on and on. The women in Hawks' films assail these men they've just met with personal questions, and they behave as though they've known them for years, not minutes. And they assume the men will be interested in them - which, given that it's a Hawks movie, and that the women are always attractive, is a fairly accurate assumption. But I just don't like the way they try to create emotional intimacy with these men ( no sex jokes, I'm not talking about that) so quickly. It feels pushy and artificial. Part of the fun of a new romance is taking your time getting to know the other person. But for some reason I've ended up writing this long post about this matter, when I really don't care all that much about it. I still enjoy Howard Hawks' movies ; I just dislike his female characters. (There are exceptions, like the babes in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.)

That's too bad, film lover. "On paper" it sounds like this film would be a lot of fun. Guess not, though. Ah well, at least if I watch it at some future date, my expectations won't be very high.

I come to this site partly for a little cogitation about sanitation. And rodents. Rats are apparently very social animals. At least with other rats. http://nypost.com/2016/02/05/nycs-rats-finally-get-their-own-hbo-show/

No, don't "correct" SansFan. She's one of the best writers on the boards as it is, she does not need any "improvements" or "lessons". Plus, I find it very charming when she leaves out the articles.

Almost all of Hawks' lead female characters ("lead" ? There's usually only ONE female character anyway) are exceptionally annoying and aggressive. I don't believe women should be shy retiring flowers when it comes to talking with men, but Hawks' heroines throw themselves - sometimes literally - at the male characters. And they talk and act as though they've known these guys for ages, when in fact it's usually about 5 minutes. Too much emotional intimacy, too soon. I think it's supposed to be charming, or sexy, or something, but I just find it obnoxious. And unrealistic.

A wash-out, I imagine.

Yes, our friend db prefers the phonetic spelling. Makes sense, AY ?

I dunno about that....John was 23 when he sang "Money", and 30 when he recorded "Imagine". Most people change and grow and become a little wiser in the years between those two ages. (God, what a prim poe-faced goody-goody answer was that ! Sorry.....)

Correction, Dargo: It's "What IS it with those Brits over there, EH ? "

Reminds me... your lovin' gives me a thrill, but your lovin' won't pay my bills; Now Give Me Money. That's ......what I want !

Certainly a "fast talking" dame; she never shuts up !

Right, there's just the profoundly annoying and intrusive Joanne Dru in a pioneer dress, slapping Mongomery Cliff in the face after he'd just rescued her from a bunch of marauding Indians, and removed an arrow from her shoulder, along with any poison it may have contained. I can't stand that character !

Dargs, remember in the Seven Year Itch when Tom Ewell's character apologizes to Marilyn Monroe's for something (forget what), and Marilyn just looks at him and says "Don't ever be sorry." ? Well, something like that, I don't remember the details. I always think of that scene when people say they're sorry when they don't have to. (not that I'm comparing myself to M.M. ! ) 'S'ok. It's the old "agree to disagree" thing. I say "tomaytoe", and you say "tomahtoe". You spell "color", I spell "colour"....etc. I don't care if you like the original rock n roll and /or r n b versions better than the Beatles, lots of people do. But I do have a problem with people saying someone's version of a song is inferior if they're a bit "flat". Perfect pitch and perfectly in key singing is not something I particularly value in music. I hate autotuning and wish it had never been invented. This is not to say that I'm ok with singers going the opposite route, totally off-key and out-of-tune is not my idea of good music performance either. But John and the other Beatles were definitely musically intuitive enough to be in-key enough for me to love whatever they did, even if and when they were a tiny bit off the note. I'll take John Lennon's singing, the passion and excitement with which he infuses practically everything he sings, over a note-perfect interpretation of a song any day. For me it's not about technical perfection, it's about how exciting the Beatles made just about every cover they ever did.

Can't agree with this. The Beatles' version has more raw excitement; the Isley Brothers' sounds like something your mum might sedately nod her head to. I say the same about Money. Yeah, the Barrett Strong take on this song is pretty darn good. But then you hear the Beatles' version, and it blows all the others away. Nobody can touch John Lennon's vocals, the sheer pure love for rock n roll and his complete commitment to it that you can hear in his voice in so many of their songs, including those early covers.

I am not a recent arrival, but I will share one fact about myself, if only to bounce this thread back to page 1. Hmm. Once I rode in a hot air balloon. The 5th Dimension had nothing to do with it.

Yeah, I see the similarities. But there's one huge difference, and that is, there was never much love lost between Bligh and Fletcher Christian, whereas it's clear that Dunson and Garth do love each other, as father and son. At the very least there's a long and complicated relationship between them that goes much beyond the commanding class connection between the captain and his first officer in Bounty.

Oops, I'm embarrassed. I already said basically the exact same thing when this thread was first created. Shoud have re-read the thread before posting. Oh well, at least I'm consistent.

slayton, you seem to think every other movie made before 1960 is a film noir. It really dilutes the actual genre of noir to do this. And I'm pretty open-minded when it comes to considering something "noir". I respect your opinions on these boards, and often agree with you. But I have noticed this tendency you have to want to label a lot of non-noir movies "noir". A director can create a sense of danger in a film without using "noir" techniques and style. And you can have "ultra-determined characters focused on an objective to the point of obsession" in other types of movies besides film noir. (Hey, Scarlet O'Hara is an "ultra-determined character" who's focused to the point of obsession on Ashley Wilkes. Example of a definitely non -noir movie with that particular element in it.) Damn, I've used the word "noir" about ten times in one paragraph. Again, sorry to come across as argumentative, and I do value your views and your posts here. But I gotta call 'em as I see 'em.

Yes, it's a good song. It actually has already been posted here, just scroll down a little and you'll see.