misswonderly3
-
Posts
12,768 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
36
Posts posted by misswonderly3
-
-
A lot to say, but i am using my phone and I hate say a lot using my phone because it misunderstands half of what I say...
If you have the same box Edition that I do, MISS WONDERLY THEen there's a really interesting comic book adaptation of the movie included. It's smaller, but an exact reproduction of the comic book that came out to coincide with THE SEARCHERS release in 1956.
I like it a lot, and highly recommend giving it a full read. It may enhance your appreciation of the movie.
I wish I had that same edition of The Searchers, Lorna, but alas, mine is more ordinary, its just included in a 4-movie DVD set of Westerns - actually, I think it's one of those TCM compiled sets.
I'd love to see this comic book version of "The Searchers". It sounds kind of fun.
Maybe it would remind me of those Classic Comics that my brother collected when we were kids. I used to sneak into his room and read them. If he caught me he'd be furious, since he was obsessive about them, kept them in impeccable order, and did not want his younger sister sullying them by borrowing without permission (which he never gave.)
-
... oh, and it's been awhile, but I find a lot of the comic bits in THE SEARCHERS funny.
Esp "unhand my fee an cee!"
Yes ! That part's hilarious ! I should have mentioned Ken Curtis' gem of a performance in my OP. I love this guy. Apparently Ken Curtis was in real life a singer as well as an actor, so those scenes where he strums his banjo (guitar? can't remember) are authentic.
Love, love, his crazy accent in this movie !
-
1
-
-
In response to this thread, I would recommend reading Glenn Frankel's The Searchers: The Making of an American Legend. The first half of the book deals with the historical basis for the novel The Searchers and the film that evolved from it. Texas was a battleground between settlers and Comanches, with raids and massacres occurring on both sides. The Comanches were an extremely fierce warrior tribe, known for brutal behavior toward enemies, and they were feared not just by settlers, but by other tribes. They were known for not merely slaughtering, but mutilating their victims, and of course, rape. However, the Comanches were extremely compassionate to each other, and also to children they captured. Children who were captured were incorporated into a tribe and often given to a family who had lost a child. Debbie's story is based on that of Cynthia Ann Parker, who was abducted at age 9 and incorporated into the tribe. She later married a brave and had children by him, including a boy, Quanah, who eventually became a great warrior chief (Quanah actually has some parallels with Scar.). Cynthia's uncle, James Parker, an Indian hunter and itinerant preacher, went in search of her. James had another daughter, Rachel, who was married and a young mother, also captured by Indians. Rachel was rescued within months after her capture, but she eventually died in childbirth after her return home. By all accounts, Parker was an erratic character, untrustworthy and violent; his "character" might have been separated in the film between Ethan and the preacher played by Ward Bond.
Parker never found Cynthia. She and her infant girl, Prairie Flower, were eventually "rescued" by Texas Rangers and restored to her white family (an uncle and aunt). I use "rescued " because Cynthia Ann never adapted to white society and was very unhappy with her white family. She and her child both died of an illness, possibly influenza.
I highly recommend Glenn Frankel's book because the story behind the film, and his account of the relationship between Indians, settlers, and later the government, are fascinating. I read it on my way to Monument Valley last summer, which was magnificent beyond all imagining -- no wonder Ford chose it -- a place of beauty and yet almost terrifying vastness. As I watched the film last night, I felt very awed that I had been in that place, but also felt the fear of settlers willing to live in such a desolate but awesome (excuse this overused word -- but perhaps its original meaning applies here) place.
Like other posters here, I found on my re-viewing of the film, that the "humorous" moments were jarring and even tiresome. The movie's greatness is in its story of racism and reconciliation, amid a stunning yet unforgiving natural backdrop. It is a movie of its time, but telling a story that goes beyond its time. (Those feelings don't exist today? Maybe not about native Americans, but think of some other groups.) I think it is a greater film that Gone with the Wind, an expression of the dark side of American myth, and a classic.
Excuse this huge post!
Sorry if I'm making this thread longer than it really is by quoting all these long posts , but I wanted to directly address many of them and what was said in them. (Hey, I guess that's the reason why we quote other posters here.)
rosebette, many thanks for your extremely interesting and informative post. It's truly helpful in lending insight as to that whole subject of Indians capturing young white children, and what happened to those children.
One thing I was a little confused about: You said Debby's character may have been based on Cynthia Ann Parker, who was captured by the Comanches, grew up with them, and had a child who became a great Comanche leader.
So, this was before she was "rescued" and restored to white society, right? The child she had after her "rescue" was obviously a different one from Quanah? (sorry to be so thick about this; I'm wondering if maybe you went back and edited your original post here to clarify Cynthia's story....)
-
With regards to the question of "What part of living with the Comanches for years would make them developmentally challenged? They might not remember English anymore, but would that make them incapable of speech of any kind? Why is that one woman (quite a bit older than the other two) ranting and moaning like that".
I have always assumed the girls were abused in various ways that really messed with their mental abilities.
I don't make that assumption at all. It's made clear in the film that if a white child was taken by the Comanches at a young enough age, they were adopted and integrated into their sociiety. Not abused in any way.
Yes, if they found a young woman who was older than whatever age they thought "adoptable", they'd abuse them all right: but that seems to me a matter of r a p l n g and then killing them. Quickly. I've never heard of them keeping white girls as sex slaves.
As RoseBette informed us earlier on this thread, if the Indians did decide to adopt a young child, they treated him or her as one of their own.
So I'm still puzzled by the bizarre behaviour exhibited by the three white females ( one a woman who looked about thirty, the other two young girls, maybe ten and seven) in the scene where Ethan and Martin look to see if any of them are Debby.
edit: I find it interesting that the autocensor deletes the word "r a p e", but allows the word "kill".
-
Miss-- you've done a wonderful overview and critique of this movie.
But honestly I'm going to have to be frank with you about why you don't like this movie and the Americans do.
When I was growing up in the 1950s we had a common phrase in the United States that's "the only good Indian is a dead Indian".
It wasn't a joke ; it wasn't something people said every day-- it was just ingrained in your psychic.
We grew up watching every kind of Western there was-- old movies on TV, TV western series, Western serials etc.
In some of these westerns it was just the Cowboys, but most were Cowboys and Indians. And the good Indian was always the one who sided with the white people.
Broken Lance is a western by Edward Dmytryk,starring Spencer Tracy, that really does explore what happens when a white man marries an Indian woman and has a child, in this case is Robert Wagner. You might take a look at that movie for a little more realism on this issue.
American audiences will accept a lot in a movie like The Searchers, not just in the 1950s, but for good because they have a different understanding and background of the situation.
It's difficult to explain to an outsider, but these things are acceptable to an American audience.
I saw the documentary with John Ford where he talked about how Legend becomes truth. Later in his career he had an apologia film for the Native Americans called Cheyenne Autumn. It starred Richard Widmark and it's a good thing-- you should see that as well, if you already haven't.
In Kansas, the Kansa, or Kaw Indians the natives of Kansas, that's where we get the name, were forced out of the state by whites to live in Oklahoma. And many Native American children were forced into federally-sponsored boarding schools. I've been in one that still exists as a museum in Kansas. They were to be taught the white man's ways. " Kill The Indian in him--save the man" was the motto for these schools. This is a part of our history.
Like American slavery, the genocide of the Native American will always be with us and it's something that we have to address and not just talk about when we see an old John Ford movie or Gone with the Wind.
Princess of Tap, your assumption that Canada has treated its First Nations people better than your country has is touching but inaccurate. Canada is and has been for several years now undergoing a very painful and shameful expose of a long list of wrongs committed against its indigenous peoples. Too many to mention here, but the one that's received the most attention and is in many ways the worst, is the history of the "Residential Indian Schools" that were implemented in many provinces here. The aftermath of the horrible treatment of thousands of aboriginal children is still resonating today.
I don't think this is the place to discuss this topic, but here's a link about it if you're interested:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/a-history-of-residential-schools-in-canada-1.702280
Just wanted to clarify that Canada bears its own disgracefully well-earned burden of guilt when it comes to racist attitudes toward its indigenous peoples, and countless injustices towards them.
-
2
-
-
I don't take many John Ford films seriously because it's hard to accept his version of masculinity. But I do like The Searchers because it's an interesting take on a man that has seen too much and will never be part of decent society. He only goes on his quest because of a sense of loyalty to the only woman he ever loved. And I think the acting is top rate, even if the humor is crude and some of the characters are over the top.
Every time I think about Ford I can't help but think about how cruel he was to actors. For that reason it's hard to have any affection for his films. There are a couple I like and I've seen a lot of his films so it's not like I haven't been exposed to his work.
ETA: I realize what I've just written probably makes no sense, but I'm just not very good at expressing myself. I've never taken any film courses and I don't look at films much beyond the superficial.
Interesting comment, Helen. Casablancalover said more or less the same thing in a more recent post. I think someone (we three?) could write a book on John Ford and his images of on-screen masculinity. (Probably someone already has.)
As for your theory as to why Ethan went on his quest, it's a good one. In fact, one thing I've realized about The Searchers since starting this thread is that the film is more complex than I'd previously given it credit for. This is one example: I've read a few ideas here as to Ethan's motivation for his long search for Debby.
1 The one you gave here, that Ethan loved Martha (his brother's wife), and for her sake was bent on finding her daughter.
2 He was an outsider, he did not fit in to any kind of society (white or native), and was driven to a quest like the search for Debby because it was the only kind of thing he could do. He'd never be happy, settling down to a "normal" life.
3 He had a profound hatred for "Indians" and could not rest until he'd "rescued" his white niece from them.
I think there were some other suggestions about his need for this quest, but I'd have to go back and read the whole thread. If I've left any out, I apologize.
So here are at least three different (although related) theories as to the what drove Ethan on this 7-year search. That alone suggests a degree of complexitiy to The Searchers that I'd never previously considered.
Helen, please don't denigrate your own posts like that. None of what you said about your writing and your contributions here is true. I and many others enjoy your posts. As for film courses, some of the dumbest, most pointless writing on these forums comes from so-called film studies graduates, and some of the most well-written and insightful from people who've never taken a single film course.
-
4
-
-
I see in the three days I've been away from here there have been quite a few posts about this film. Thanks, everyone, for your ideas. I'd like to respond to some of them.
First, this one:
....P.S. I forgot to ask, what are some of the westerns that you are more fond of, Miss Wonderly?
There are quite a few Westerns I "am fond of", but it seems to me that a question like that deserves its own thread. It would be fun to talk about Westerns in general, especially as this is "Western"month at TCM. If you start a thread about it, I'd be glad to list some Westerns that I like.
-
I don't think I am a "doubter" in the sense you mean, but I also don't disregard any of your reservations [sorry it just came out with no pun intended] about the film.
But I do dig this movie, and think that it says volumes that even in England, the rock group the Searchers were so taken with this film that they named themselves after it. But I digress.
Having hung out in my youth with many boys in the neighborhood, I can state quite unequivocally that they all loved this film. I think it is the adventure element and Wayne's performance, meaning that to many they can divorce themselves from the very pertinent arguments you make about flaws in the logic and just go along with the storyline. Now of course, Debbie being played by Natalie Wood is going to be hard pressed to seem to have had much change from living with the natives. As we know, even in stories like the Roanoke oen which remained unsolved, there was some belief that women who had been kidnapped seemed not so disenchanted with their later lives. But regardless, we see that Wayne is portrayed as a man with strict guidelines to his moral strata and in his sensibilities, Debbie would be better off dead than alive. Someone I do not remember said once, that though he hated Wayne and his politics that he was immeasurably moved by the scene when one thinks Wayne may kill Debbie but instead has a change of heart and lifts her up in his arms. This change of character is perhaps the crux of the film, and it served as a basis for later films like the one with George C. Scott seeking to find his daughter who had descended into more sordid activities.
I think though you discount the cinematography, that it is essential to the film's greatness as Monument Valley was in general to Ford, being that it shows a time and place that is ravaged by danger and the wilderness, and where a family can be killed at a moment's notice and that attracts people whose lives are lived in much safer environs.
The film probably has many logical flaws but the setting and performances if one allows it, can sweep away such doubts and one just goes with the flow. There are many humorous bits too, with Ford regulars and the bits with Vera Miles fed up with Hunter and his supposed marriage to the squaw lend comic relief, as does the fight scene which she provokes and enjoys to the hilt.
I think perhaps you are taking it a bit too seriously, and need to go down a notch, have a couple shots from the Long Branch Saloon and forget that Scar is not really a true native American, and just let the horse take you for a ride instead of attempting to rein in your steed.
Keep repeating, it is just a movie, it is just a movie. Better to be more critical of something like "The Sorrow and the Pity" and just drink while watching any John Wayne movies, unless you are a teetotaller and then I would suggest to take some Nyquil before watching and let the film seep over you as you dose off.
Hope this helps! Just my take, and it may be completely invalid, Miss W.!
Cave Girl: Thanks for your considered response to my thoughts on The Searchers. Overall, I respect your take on the film. But just for the sake of discussion, I'd like to counter a few of your points. I've bolded to the colour blue- Lorna-style -- the comments you made which I address.
I did not "discount" the cinematography or the setting, au contraire, it was the first of the (few) positive things I said about the film. Ok, maybe one sentence for such a magnificent location and such sensitive and visually arresting cinematography is not doing it justice, since this IS a major strength of The Searchers. Still, although I maybe could have and should have praised the Monument Valley location and shooting more than I did, I did not "discount" it. I gave credit where credit is due.
You mention the "humourous" bits in the film. I, too, mentioned them, but did explain why I thought they were NOT funny. I don't think Martin's "marriage" to poor little "Look" is funny at all, but sad and even somewhat disturbing, especially the part where Martin kind of shoves her over and she topples down the hill. True, Martin did not mean for that to happen, and "Look" is not hurt-- but her dignity is. I am not at all one of those poe-faced disapprovers who cannot see the humour in what would now be considered politically incorrect depictions and situations in old movies; it's not that. It's just that the"squaw" is not accorded any respect or compassion at all, she's just supposed to be a source for comic relief.
As for Vera Miles, I also addressed her "funny" scenes; she just seems kind of desperate and bossy to me.
Fact is, as I said before, I just don't think John Ford could do humour. His supposedly comic scenes in his movies never make me laugh or even smile, they just make me roll my eyes.
As for "taking it a bit too seriously", the whole reason why I started this post was because The Searchers is esteemed, venerated even, as a very serious film that deserves to be taken very, uh, seriously. I've never heard it spoken of as merely a piece of light entertainment. It's often called "one of the greatest films of all time". With a reputation like that, I'm not going to tone down my expectations of it. It's not the sort of film that one is told to "lighten up" about.
-
1
-
-
Great legs. Shane about her face.
With comments like that, you should become a monk.
-
Miss Wonderly, I just found out that Shane had another daughter, Shani Wallis.
She was illegitimate, and her mother wanted the Shane surname, but did not know it, so called her Shani to keep part of the heritage. Of course without a father in attendance, since Shane had taken off again to parts unknown, Shani became a lady of the night and started hanging out with guys like this Bill Sykes and you know the rest.
Well, that's a damn shane.
-
1
-
-
I could have put this in the "I Just Watched" thread, since I did "just watch" The Searchers last night. But I wanted discussion of this (for me, anyway) problematic film to extend beyond that thread, because this is such a "big" movie in so many ways.
So. I'm going to say, right up-front: I don't get The Searchers. I own the DVD (it came in a set), I've seen it many times, and it was analyzed in depth in a film course I took (on Westerns, yet) . But despite all its accolades and its position in the top ten, which it enjoys on many " Best Movies Ever Made" lists, I'm missing something. I just don't understand why this film is so venerated.
Don't Read This If You're Worried About Spoilers.
Pro: Ok, yes, it's got beautiful location shooting, and along with that, lovely cinematography. It's got a fine score. The acting is pretty darn good (except for Lucy, but then the poor girl is only in the film for all of five minutes), even from The Duke himself. Yes, one has to admire the structure and the metaphor in the use of dark doorways (and also cave apertures) opening out onto brightly lit exteriors. And the final scene, wherein Ethan chooses not to kill Debby but to take her "home", is, I suppose, emotionally surprising and powerful.
But:
Con: I get weary of watching these two guys riding around in circles for seven years . (I figured it out: I used to think it was ten years, but last night I paid attention. Ethan and Martin are away for two years, then return to the Jorgensen's home (for like, one night !) and then are away for another five years.) I don't usually like films that span a long period of time. I know, I know, that's the point, that's what The Searchers is all about, Ethan's persistence and obsession. But still. Poor old Martin, that's seven years of his life - his youth - spent, wandering around with crazy hate-filled old Ethan. Still, it's his choice to do so.
Another Con: John Ford can not do funny. His sense of humour is not his strong point. The scenes with that poor young Comanche woman ("Look" ) are not even remotely funny, they're kind of disturbing and sad. Also the scenes with Lori scolding Martin in the bath don't make me laugh or even smile. Give the guy some privacy.
Con 3: This is the main problem I have with The Searchers: The whole issue of white children who were adopted by Indians.
(I don't say "Indians" in normal discourse, I say "aboriginal" or "First Nations". But in the context of The Searchers, "Indian" just seems the natural word to use.)
Why, for instance, when at one point Ethan and Martin are told the Cavalry has found and captured back 3 white girls from a Comanche settlement, and they go to see if any of them are Debby, are these girls jabbering idiots? What part of living with the Comanches for years would make them developmentally challenged? They might not remember English anymore, but would that make them incapable of speech of any kind? Why is that one woman (quite a bit older than the other two) ranting and moaning like that? And why are the two young girls, children really, grinning foolishly at Ethan? All three seem to have no intelligence whatsoever. Are we supposed to think this is what happens to white people who live with Indians for years? It makes no sense, not even in the world of The Searchers; especially since later, when they do find Debby, she clearly is an intelligent young woman, who even remembers how to speak English- without a hitch.
Also- when Martin sneaks into her tent and tells her he's going to "rescue" her, she immediately agrees, "Oh yes, oh yes, ,take me back..." But she'd actually be very confused and ambivalent about her "rescue".
Also: Ok, Debby's back in the white world. What now? She was captured at 8 (or so?) and is now around 16. This means she's spent fully half her young life with the Comanches. Why would she necessarily want to return to white society? And even if she did, she'd still be frightened, I'm sure, and would have a myriad of problems to deal with. Poor Debby, what's to become of her ?
I could overlook all these problems I have with The Searchers if I just plain enjoyed it more. But honestly, there are lots of Westerns I think are better and more entertaining. And even more profound.
Is there anyone else out there who is a fellow Searchers doubter?
-
3
-
-
And of course everyone knows Shane's two daughters; Valli and Cher.
...and Capucine.
-
Everytime I see the film I wonder "Just what is Shane's last name?"
I mean, Shane being a derivative of Sean of course would be from the Irish, and the name John, and so he might have been Shane Donovan, or Shane Gallagher or even Shane Plunkett though that's not too romantic a name, but it is on all the lists of surnames that you can buy things embroidered on in Ireland. Being that I'm related to the Walsh surname I only purchased things with that on it, just like I bought tartans for the Kerr surname in Scotland. I'd say Alan Ladd had to be from the Celtic side so I'm guessing something like Shane Flanagan maybe.
And think of the myriad of boys named Shane in the US, after this movie came out. It might have been a fairly common name in Ulster, just like Elvis was down in Tupelo, but it was still not so well known outside those environs.
Shane, come back and tell us your last name and we hope it's not Plunkett!!!
Maybe he's just plain Shane. Since, technically, "Shane" could serve as either a first or last name, perhaps he just wanted to keep it simple - or maybe keep people guessing - and just call himself "Shane". He was way ahead of Clint Eastwood. Clint may have been the Man With No Name, but Shane was "the Man With One Name".
-
1
-
-
Not sarcastic or anything, I get that it's a great movie...
I'm just curious as to why this FESTIVAL OF 100 WESTERNS isn't just:
TCM PRESENTS A FESTIVAL OF 100 GREAT WESTERNS,
but instead IS:
TCM PRESENTS SHANE (AND 100 OTHER GREAT WESTERNS).
Something special about the print? a restored version? (couldn't find any info on the main site, they have an annoying flashplayer and want me to to sit through some fancypants animated schedule and any explanation on why SHANE gets to be SO SPECIAL is contained somewhere within.)
So, you're not actually saying,
" I HATE YOU, SHANE ! "
-
You can definitely tell that Brian has decided to tell Sally that he has also been "screwing" (to use the movie's terminology) Maximillian.
When you say that "Brian decides to directly tell Sally that he's bisexual" the "he" you mean is Maximillian, correct?
Sally already knows that Brian has been involved primarily with men in he past. Sally in fact was the only female with whom Brian has been able to, um, close the deal.
I meant Brian. I wasn't sure whether to say "bisexual" or "gay". I wanted to say "gay", but since Brian was having an, uh, "successful" affair with Sally, I figured he must kind of sort of sometimes like women too.
But yes, upon reflection, Brian was pretty much gay. Sally was, as you say, an exception. (and after all, she practically forced herself on him...at least at first.)
-
1
-
-
The film's most memorable exchange -
Brian (Very angry): "Screw Maximilian!"
Sally: "I do."
Brian: (Without thinking) "So do I."
......
I don't agree that he says this "without thinking". In fact, there's a noticeable pause before he replies, and when he does, his voice is filled with significance. I think this is a key scene in the film, the one in which Brian decides to directly tell Sally that he's bisexual.
-
1
-
-
I was pretty smug a few weeks ago about my knowledge of classic alternative rock. It turns out that what I knew was only the tip of the iceberg. The whole wide world of post-punk has opened up to me, about 35 years later than it should have.
Well, at least it sounds like it's making you happy. What's a few decades matter when you're having fun?
-
You're setting yourself up for this question..... Do fyou feel that you are receptive to learning genres of music with which you are not familiar?
I'm not setting myself up for anything. The post you quoted is just about a love for music,whatever genre or genres a person likes.
Whether someone makes an effort to familiarize themselves with a new (to them) type of music is a different matter. I was talking about music that one already loves.
However, yeah, sure, I'm open to many different types of music. Often one has to hear something a few times before actually "hearing" it. One listen only is not really enough to "get" everything a particular piece of music has to offer.
-
Back to what I was originally trying to say here:
By the way, since, sadly, I am not a musician, I'm talking about listening to music as opposed to playing it. If you can sing or play an instrument, I admire you. But this is more about "appreciating" music than creating it.
I think the kind of person who loves movies ( and I chose the word "love" as opposed to "like" on purpose) is also likely to love music. Film-lovers who come to this site often also start or participate in threads about music.
But music is something apart from books, plays, or movies in that you don't need to have a plot, or characters. There's no investment of time the way there is in reading a book or watching a film (obviously, with a film it's about 2 hours, with a book it could be as long as 2 months...) You can listen to music and do something else at the same time. I suppose I mean mindless tasks, because when I play music I don't have it as background sound, I pay attention to it.
Also, to me anyway, music is much more about the senses than movies are. Yes, film is a visual art /entertainment form, and there are many great movies that are as much about what you see as they are about story. But in general, most movies have characters and plot, and a large part of why we enjoy them is connected with that. You have to comprehend what's going on in a film to enjoy it.
With music, all you need is to be able to hear. It's a direct connection between sound, ear, and brain. And to respond to it emotionally, all you need to do is listen to it.
This is not to say that I don't love movies, obviously I do. But for me, because the effect of music is more immediate and direct upon my senses ( well, the sense of hearing) than either reading or film-watching is, it moves me in a different way than books or films do. It's deeper, it's more direct, it's more emotional.
-
My psychiatrist was always trying to get me to listen to it. He'd play it quietly in the background during our talks. I didn't complain, though - I just talked over it.
No wonder you don't like classical music.
It's like when they make you read a great book in high school, but for whatever reason you're not ready for it, or - more likely - the teacher ruins the book by analyzing it to death (there you go, Sepia) , making reading become work, and taking all the fun out of it.
I hate it that so many people- social workers, shrinks, and even pre-natal experts - think of classical music as "soothing" and something to listen to merely to be calmed down. No surprise so many people think it's lame or boring. The classical music "calmer downers", I suspect, don't really care about it as music. Who's going to like classical music if it's treated as therapy?
-
So you wear glasses, do you.
I don't know about Cave Girl, but I am a glasses-wearer, have been since I was 16. I've never minded them. Once, for about three months, I tried contact lenses, but they were more trouble than they were worth.
-
I have 3 loves - music, movies and books.
Depending on how big a supply we're talking about being able to take to the deserted island, I just might be inclined to go with books.
For music I have my own memory and singing voice.
Much depends on my age - if I'm young, with unworn vision, books would be great.
So, books over movies? How many of each and for how long is pretty influential to my decision.
I almost added books to the mix in my original post. Yes, I really have three "loves": music, movies, and books. The only reason I didn't mention them is, I didn't want to make it too complicated- or too difficult to decide.
But in fact, books were my first love. I discovered the joys of reading before those of either music or movies.
-
1
-
-
I would pick movies but a lot of the movies would be documentaries about music and musicians. Yea, I cheat!
Movies gets my vote--mostly musicals, with a few films with favorite scores thrown in ("How The West Was Won" (1963) "Spellbound", (1945) "The Sting" (1973), just to name three).
Ha ! Cheating ! Just kidding. As I said in my O.P., movies and music go hand in hand. Why not have your cake and eat it too by choosing movies in which music is an essential part of their make-up ?
-
2
-
-
Hey, people. This is not one of those threads about the place of music IN movies, movie soundtracks, favourite film score composers, great songs associated with certain movies, etc. Although there is undeniably a deep connection between movies and music - - even silent films have specific scores to be played along with them - - this thread is not intended to be about that, not exactly anyway.
It's about two of the things I love most, two things that give me a lot of joy: music and movies. I realized the other day that I was spending a lot more time recently on a thread in these forums that's about music, and hadn't participated very much at all on any of the movie threads. This got me thinking about how much I love music, and what an important part it plays in my life.
As do movies. Now, I know, this does not have to be an "either / or " thing. You can appreciate both equally. They're similar, yet very different. Nobody's saying you have to pick one or the other. That would be silly.
Still, for some reason I got to thinking about both these loves of mine, and how, if I were banished to a deserted island ( yes ! the old "deserted island" cliche !) and I could take a supply of only one with me -- music or movies - - which one would I choose.
(Since this is a purely hypothetical situation, we won't sorry about where the power hook-up to enable either movie-watching or music-listening activity would come from.)
I'd choose music.
Thoughts?
-
1
-
Very Strange Movies
in General Discussions
Posted
Black Moon (Louis Malle)
The Exterminating Angel (Luis Bunuel)
(My strange films have to be directed by people named Looey.)