misswonderly3
-
Posts
12,768 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
36
Posts posted by misswonderly3
-
-
I woke up in a Soho doorway
A policeman knew my name
He said "You can go sleep at home tonight
If you can get up and walk away"
I staggered back to the underground
And the breeze blew back my hair
I remember throwin' punches around
And preachin' from my chair.
Whoooo are you? Who-ooh? Who-ooh?
-
2
-
-
The Twilight Zone episode that creeped me out the most as a child was the one about Marsha.
My attic is the smoking area during parties and is populated with mannequins. (I was a visual merchandiser early in my career)
Around the table & chairs are 3 complete females, 1 child, several torsos, 2 sets of legs & at least 8 arms hanging from the rafters above.
People ALWAYS mention "Marsha" their first visit.
Tiki, baby, those manniquins must come in handy at Hallowe'en.
-
You may not care so much about the movie, but I appreciate your comments.
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.)
-
2
-
-
True, but they arent plentiful around here like squirrels. I've never actually seen a vole. Ground is clay around here, not their cup of tea, thankfully.....
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.
-
Until Matt does it for her.
Hawks wasn't always successful with this formula. In movies like Only Angels Have Wings, and The Big Sleep, it works. In Red River, not so much.
He might have a poor way of having them express themselves, but look at it this way, these are women who know their own minds. They know what they like when they see it, and they are not ashamed at letting the men they want know it. This doesn't mean they're willing to be walked over. They want something for real and forever.
Here's an exercise: All these forward women characters and the men they're after--reverse the sexes. Now, do they seem so obnoxious and unrealistic?
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.)
-
"White Witch Doctor" (1953)--Starring Robert Mitchum and Susan Hayward, directed by Henry Hathaway.
So-so jungle love story takes place in 1907. Nurse Ellen Burton (Hayward) arrives in the Belgian Congo to join Dr. Mary in her practice. Lonnie (Robert Mitchum) is a animal keeper/gold seeker who wants to get rich, along with his greedy partner (Walter Slezak). Lonnie guides Burton to Dr. Mary's village, only to find the Dr. has died. Film treads a predictable path from here.
Mitchum and Hayward have no chemistry. I counted the beats as they kissed; Mitchum kissed her--1,2,3 Hayward responds--4,5,a romantic clinch, fade-out to next scene. Walter Slezak's portrayal of a greedy slob seems like it was done while he was checking his watch.
The cliched script, obvious filming on the soundstage(s), and sheer predictability of the film are major problems. Bernard Herrman's score, which is louder than anything else in the film (including gunfire), seems composed to blare at the viewer and keep them awake. The music over the opening credits is LOUD. Turn down the volume before watching the film.
Mitchums' and Haywards' professionalism keeps the film from being a total waste of time. 2.3/4.
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.
-
2
-
-
What happened to the companion thread bout what would make u leave this place.
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/
-
2
-
-
Wait! Didn't Casey Kasem used to say somethin' just like THAT???
Oooooh....wait. The rest of that was "Keep reaching for the stars", huh.
And sooooo, once AGAIN...never mind.
(...he now exits floating away sans balloon...and I don't mean you of course, Sans my dear...although once again, you DO know you once again left out the word "a" between the words "need" and "balloon" up there, doncha?!...don't worry, I'll get ya to start using it AND the word "the" in no time at all, just see...AND of course as ALWAYS, I only kid ya because I love ya, I LOVE YA, you lovely Ukrainian-American hunk o' woman, you!!!)
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.
-
1
-
-
What we see with the Dru character in Red River is very common in Hawks films. There will be a women that gets off to a poor start with one of the leading men. This creates tension that of course resolves itself leading to a relationship between the two.
E.g. Only Angels Have Wings, Rio Bravo, and to a lesser degree To Have and Have Not etc...
(but I do find the Dru character to be more annoying then most of these typical Hawks' female characters).
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.
-
1
-
-
Heard talk that River might be remade wonder how that will work out.
A wash-out, I imagine.
-
Well, according to darkblue, THAT'S supposed to be "ay" to you Canucks up there, isn't it?!
(...HUH?!)
Yes, our friend db prefers the phonetic spelling. Makes sense, AY ?
-
See?! Considering how we've come to view John's memory as a person who'd go on to write "Imagine", and a song which pretty much is an anthem to the thought of discarding material things, do THESE lyrics sound as if he'd truly be "passionate" about the thoughts expressed within them???
(...good point, EH?!)
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.....)
-
1
-
-
So then you're sayin' that "s" AND that "e" are superfluous TOO, Bogie???
(...geeez...what IS it with those Brits over there, HUH?!)
Correction, Dargo: It's "What IS it with those Brits over there, EH ? "
-
1
-
-
Nice reply, MissW.
Yeah, I see your point here, especially the one about "Lennon's passion". He did have that in spades, to be sure. I guess I've always just preferred to hear his passion expressed in the songs he wrote about his own personal passions a little more than in those he borrowed from others.
(...still though, I say he's a bit flat in the song "Money", and "passion" or not...sorry)
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 !
-
What a babe!
A western 'dame'.
Certainly a "fast talking" dame; she never shuts up !
-
1
-
-
Yeah MissW, good point.
And besides all THAT, in the Red River flick, there ain't no hot Tahitian babes in sarongs either!
(...sa-right?!)
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 !
-
1
-
-
Sorry MissW, but now I can't agree with this.
As much as I absolutely LOVE the Beatles' music, in so many cases in regard to their covers of other artists's earlier recordings, I have to say I like the original versions just a little better.
This goes for the previously mentioned Isley Brothers song, Barrett Strong's "Money"(Lennon is totally flat and can NOT hit the higher notes in this song like Barrett Strong could and did), and along with other recordings such as Chuck Berry's "Roll Over Beethoven"(side note here...my second favorite version of this was done my E.L.O. and only because it starts out with Beethoven's 5th and with their patented use of orchestral string instruments and then goes into the rock mode...I think that's kind'a cool and unique) and just about every other Berry song they covered, Little Richard's "Long Tall Sally", Carl Perkins' "Honey Don't", and Ray Charles' "I Got a Woman".
Now, there ARE a few covers of theirs I think are as good as the originals and maybe even a little better, "Please Mr. Postman" originally by The Marvellettes comes to mind, but overall it's rare when I'd pick a Beatles cover over the original.
Nope, their own original music will always be tops with me.
(...sorry, just had to say this)
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.
-
1
-
-
...I just heard the Isley Brothers' original version of "Twist and Shout" and it is really superior by far to the Beatles, but the Isleys did not have cute moptops and there's the rub.
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 resurrecting this thread because: EugeniaH's excellent thread re: why we are on this site made me think of how many posters have found this forum of recent.
My original post in this thread stated:
we share much in our posts but it is always in bits and dabs here and there so it is difficult at times to assemble a complete image of our fellow posters. That this is true is evidenced by the fact that it happens often that a person will mistake the gender of a poster with whom they have discussed many things.
Some posters have introduced themself when first coming to this forum but it is nearly always very bare-bones and hesitant as they feel they are coming into a group of strangers.I can not and will not ask nor expect any other person to provide information about themself and I surely will reveal no secrets about myself but I think it may be handy to have a single place with as much information as some posters are willing to share.Some wonderful posters shared their history. I resurrect this thread so that more recent arrivals might have a place to share with us.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.
-
1
-
-
With a little sleight of hand and a blink or two of the eye,
almost any film can become a film noir. The only real
limitation is the nerve of the proposer. I agree with the
idea that Red River is another version of Mutiny on the
Bounty, the setting simply transferred from the high seas
to the American West.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
Notwithstanding what is talked about other westerns, I've always thought Red River had a lot of elements of film noir. Not surprising, considering it was directed by Howard Hawks, of film noir notoriety. Now, you don't have quite the assemblage of flawed individuals acting out their morality play, or a true femme fatale, but there are ultra-determined characters, focused on an objective to the point of obsession. And there are some noir lighting effects, shadows of railings and point-source lights. The tone doesn't enter the movie until about the middle, as the oedipal conflict between Dunson and Matt develops, and especially with the entrance of Tess Millay, the tough talking card dealer-who Matt takes for a prostitute. Her character is more suited for a New York night club than a dusty western wagon train.
Of course, it's all dissipated by the ending. So it's possible Hawks introduced the elements to heighten the sense of danger once the rift happens. Joanne Dru has the unenviable task of draining the wound of its poison, so to speak, with her angry diatribe that awakes people to the obvious. She does as good a job as anybody, and by this, but more by her earlier scenes on the trail with Clift and Wayne, she has earned my regard.
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.
-
I love the Raspberries, especially "Go All The Way" which I hope I can succeed at posting
Yes, it's a good song. It actually has already been posted here, just scroll down a little and you'll see.
-
1
-
Red River: Western film noir.
in General Discussions
Posted
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.