misswonderly3

Ever see a movie you know is really good, but you still don't like it? That's me with Bad Day at Black Rock. I saw it once, I thought it was a fine film, well-directed, well-acted, well-written. But I've never wanted to see it again, even though it's been aired on TCM many times since my first viewing. I fully acknowledge that what I'm about to say is completely irrational and also unworthy of a true film fan: I don't enjoy movies that are set in a "world" I find repellent. And the world of Bad Day at Black Rock is definitely one I'd never want to be. It's not just the red neck attitudes of its few residents; more than that, it's the depressing feel of the place. It's so tiny and barren - I feel bored and dispirited just looking at that world and the people who dwell in it. Most of all, I can't handle the desert; anywhere that dry always makes me feel down. Now, I recognize that that's the whole point: Black Rock is a tiny, barely inhabited desert town in the middle of nowhere. That's partly why the few people who do live there are so narrow-minded, as well as vaguely bored. A perfect recipe for a bit of clandestine racism and murder. And the town's desolate, barren quality is an effective metaphor for the hearts and minds of its citizens. I get all that. Still, understanding why the film has the setting it has does not help me to enjoy it any better. The story is an interesting one, the acting is superb, and the "message" of the film resonates today as much as it did then. I know. But I still don't ever want to visit Black Rock again.

I'm going to disregard your comments about those three famous actresses, and just focus on your ambiguous remark about silent movies. You complain that TCM "destroys" your Sunday nights with "BAD silent films", which makes it sound as though you regard all silent films as bad. Is this so?, in which case, what you really mean is, you don't like silent movies, therefore, to you, they're all bad. If you meant you like some silents, you just don't care for some of TCM's Sunday night selections, I apologize for misunderstanding your post. But I can't help but think you just meant you don't like silent movies, period, and wish TCM would not air them, Sunday night or any time you watch TCM. Disliking a particular style or era of filmmaking does not make that style or era "bad", it just means you personally don't like it. Since some people - a good number, I believe - actually like and enjoy silent movies, it's only fair to them for TCM to air them; and after all, Sunday night is pretty much the only time they do. Personally, I love silent movies and wish I had the chance to take advantage of the fact that TCM airs them more often. I know most people don't care for them, but I find them enchanting.

Of course, we do all know that there's actually no such thing as "nimfomania", right? A woman who likes sex a lot and is not too discriminating where it comes from is "ill" ? Notice there's no corresponding word for men who enjoy and pursue sex a lot. In a woman, it's pursuing this activity "to excess"; there doesn't appear to be any measure of "to excess" in men. There's certainly no word like "n****c" that applies to men. Every character who's been mentioned here - always a woman - is either someone who has sex with men to earn her living, a p r o s t i t u t e , or simply a woman who really enjoys sex and is not too choosy about who she has it with. Why is this considered an illness? edit: I just looked it up. According to a definition I found on the internet, the condition is found in "a woman who has uncontrollable and excessive sexual desire." Hmm. edit2: wait ! I just looked this up, too: I was wrong. There is a word for the parallel condition in men, it's called "satyriasis". But you don't hear that one batted about the way you do the other word, the one that applies to women.

I'm surprised no one has as yet mentioned one of the most famous (I've always thought) "nimphos" of all moviedom, Carmen Sternwood, delightfully and deliciously played by Martha Vickers. How 'bout that scene where she sways up to Bogart and "tried to sit on his lap while he was standing up"? I suspect it's made even more clear in the novel, but in the film, at the very end, Marlowe tells Vivian Sternwood that they should send Carmen away somewhere to be "cured". He says something like "she's sick, they have treatments for that kind of thing..." Poor Carmen !

Lawrence, respectfully, you've conflated two Fellini films. It was not 8 1/2, you are right, it's Amarcord. It's a character called "Volpina", played by Josiane Tanzilli. She's the town --- here I have a problem with what word to use. The usual word is the "town s l u t", a word I regard as intensely derogatory and offensive. Anyway, Volpina clearly really wants it; she's always sidling around work sites where men are, licking her lips and laughing quietly to herself. I don't think she has a single word of dialogue in the film. I believe we're supposed to think she's not only the town s **t, but the village idiot. (Which has all kinds of awful implications, if you think about it. But she's presented in a fairly sympathetic and light-hearted way.) Coincidentally, I just received a fabulous copy of Amarcord, a Criterion edition, as a Mother's Day gift (even though it was not from any of my children, it was from my husband. But I digress.) I was delighted, Amarcord is one of my favourite movies of all time. The character people are thinking of in 8 1/2 is "Saraghina". She was the local prostitute in Gweedo's village when he was a boy, and she's the one who "lived in a shack on the beach". He has a recurring childhood / adolescent memory of Saraghina dancing on the beach. It's a great scene. But a "prostitute" is not the same thing as a "n imphomanyac". Although of course, it always helps if you enjoy your work. ps: I know how to spell the name of the male character in 8 1/2,but the ridiculous autocensor bleeps it out, so I deliberately misspelled it.

Have you seen The Full Monty, speedy? It's a fun movie about would-be male strippers. "Hot Stuff" is one of the songs they use in their act.

Never mind the 90s or 80s, let's go back back back to the 70's !

FURY Just watched this in real time as it aired on TCM. I'd seen it before, many years ago. It's one serious movie. An innocent man, en route to meet his fiance, is arrested on suspicion of kidnapping. From there things go out-of-control with amazing and frightening rapidity. I'm not big on plot delineation, I'll just say, the man, played with great intensity by Spencer Tracy, starts out as an amiable,decent, idealistic person and ends up a furious embittered obsessive. Well, until the last 5 minutes. (does that count as a spoiler?) All because the townspeople, upon hearing there's a suspect in the town jail, whip themselves into a crazed frenzied state of bloodlust and march upon the jailhouse to administer rough "justice" on the man. If I have a criticism of the film, it's that I think it's unlikely, even with a mob mentality at work, that such a state would occur so quickly; in a matter of two hours or so, the townfolk go from simple gossip and speculation to pitchfork-wielding rage. Still, it's possible it could happen, the time-line is just speeded up a bit, probably for the sake of economy in terms of the movie's duration. What's really interesting about Fury is this very thing, this irrational acceptance of rumour as truth, and the frightening results that can ensue from this kind of mindlessness. Almost equally disturbing is the bitter rage Tracy's character demonstrates after his ordeal. He becomes a walking incarnation of - well, fury. It's a great title, because it refers to both the original fury of the mob, and the profoundly angry and vengeful fury the almost-lynched character experiences - lives - for months after the incident. Made in 1936, there are parallels today that can give us pause. True, it's unlikely now that we'd have a raging fire-starting mob raiding a jailhouse today. But in a less direct and violent way, we do have people judging other people based on very little, and inflaming others to judge also. Look at all the "shaming" on social media that happens now. Often the "shaming" is initiated without looking into the full story of the one being shamed. This is 80 years later, and the pleasure people derive from singling out and pre-judging others based on incomplete information is as strong as ever. It's just the way it's expressed that's changed. * (Sorry, I know I've gone all portentious and moralizing.) I haven't yet mentioned the performances. They're all really good, but the film belongs to Mr. Tracy. I used to dislike this actor, I thought he seemed smug and supercilious a lot of the time. I have to say, I still find him a bit like that in his teamings with Katharine Hepburn (ok, I like Adam's Rib.) But I've come to appreciate him in his without-Hepburn movies, of which there are many. One more thing: Thank gawd for Fritz Lang. What a director, I love this guy. Fury, as Mank tells us in his intro, was Lang's first American film. What a great start. * Re: "It's just the way it's expressed that's changed." Uh, yeah, changed a lot. I kind of think I'd rather be shamed on social media than lynched. Still, it was the pre-judging I was trying to make the point about.

If you are addressing your question to me, the answer is, I was.

Ok, right, Betty Grable is talked about repeatedly in Stalag 17, and one of the characters is obsessed with her. But we do need to keep in mind that, while the film is worth mentioning in a thread about Betty Grable because of the prisoner's infatuation with her, and in fact, her poster graces the walls of the prisoners' cabin, she does not actually appear in Stalag 17. The way you wrote this, "Grable makes a very important appearance in her publicity photo in the movie Stalag 17." would suggest to someone who hasn't seen the movie that she does. Yes, you do say "publicity photo", but for anyone who's not seen this movie, it does make it sound like she has more to do with it than she actually does. By the way, Stalag 17 is a great movie. It's a shame to give away the ending like you did.

Right, clore. slayton's list was very helpful, but still, I checked the schedule. There's one pre-code right after another all day !

Thanks for that list, slayton. I didn't even know May 3rd was Mary Astor's birthday (although I suppose I of all people should have known this.)

Thanks, fi, I'll check it out.

You be one big Prince fan, Vautrin. I remember you used to often try to post his stuff here, only to be given the message that it was "not available". Ironically, it seems that since his death, a lot more of his music is now available to share. Too bad it seemed to take his death to make this happen. You're just one big funk fan, aren't you? I remember, I didn't know that much about Parliament til you started posting them (him?) here. And I is glad you did.

Oh yeah, Lorna, The Big Clock ! Love this movie. I envy you, sounds like it was your first time seeing it. It's always such a pleasure to see a really good movie for the first time. I agree with all you said about it. Elsa Lanchester, as you say, steals the show with her kooky portrayal of an artist. She's so pleased when Ray takes an interest in one of her paintings ! I love Elsa, she's always great fun to watch, especially in her, as you put it, second "blowsy stage of her career". I did notice, you didn't mention Ray Milland. Not a fan ?? I am, and enjoy pretty much everything I've ever seen him in. By the way, you probably know this: The Big Clock was re-made in 1987 as No Way Out ( no connection to the 1950 movie by the same name starring Sidney Poitier, Richard Widmark and Linda Darnell.) The '87 version was not nearly as good. It featured Kevin Costner, Gene Hackman, and Sean "Whatever -Happened-To Her?" Young. Anyway, yes, The Big Clock would be on the list of one of those films that would be a fine introduction to old black and white movies for the uninitiated.

Not to mention Barney Fife.

Sorry, Lawrence, I don't have the answers to your questions. I can only speak for my own cable situation. I switched my cable provider, about two and a half years ago, from Rogers to Bell. Rogers was fine, I only changed because Bell was offering a great deal at the time. I chose a medium price package, I'm not sure how many stations I get, since there at most only about 12 I care about at all, and I made sure I got all of those. TCM of course was one of them. I have no idea how many American channels we get in Ontario. I imagine it depends on the cable package and what sort of digital reception you get. Besides, there are so many different ways now to receive television programming and to watch tv shows, television cable providing now is almost irrelevant. I'm one of the few old-fashioned hold-outs.

Andy Serkis. Sorry to give a serious answer when you were just having fun. But I really like the actor Andy Serkis, and I think he did an amazing job of inhabiting, so to speak, the soul of this strange, sad, ambivalent character. Poor Gollum. Andy Serkis also gave an unforgettable portrayal of a creepy, scheming psycho killer in the television series, "Little Dorrit".

Yes, I've heard that before - that the cable companies in Canada are bringing a "pick and pay" system to our television programming. Only I heard it was supposed to be happening already; the date I thought it was going to take place was March 1 - just a couple of months ago. But nothing has changed, so I suppose the December date you'd heard must be right. I'm really concerned about this. Turner Classic Movies is just about my favourite station in our cable package - in fact, other than TVO and the two CBCs (which I think I'd get anyway), it's the only one I really care about. I'd be truly heart broken if I couldn't get TCM anymore. It's been available here in Ontario since 2006. That's ten years of TCM for me, ten years of watching and learning about one of my very favourite things: movies. Hopefully there will be enough Canadians who value TCM as much as I do, and whose numbers will justify including TCM as one of the "picks" in "pick and pay".

Well, I'm not an actress, but as I said, I too actually find Mr. Buscemi kind of attractive. Good to know I'm not alone - and in the company of actresses, yet !

Fedya, I'm assuming you recorded Nightmare when it was aired on TCM, just over a month ago. I saw it at that time, and posted about it here. I know this is kind of cheesy, but I'm going to quote what I said about it, just so you can get my take on it. (ps: I've noticed that sometimes we get a person's write up of a film they just watched here, and then, weeks or even months later, another person sees the same movie and posts their take on it. I wish there were some way the board techies could put all the posts about the same film, regardless of differences in the time they appeared here, all together, one right after the other. It would be interesting to compare various members' opinions on any given movie.) Anyway, apologies for quoting myself like this, but I'm only doing it because it is about the exact same film and I don't think you saw what I said about it at the time: " So, thoughts about Nightmare: Well, first, I really enjoyed it. This might be partly due to "first time watching a noir that's new to me" syndrome. It's rare that I don't really like any film noir I've never seen before, at least on first viewing. It's got that eerie dream-like atmosphere some noirs have (that drug-addled scene in Murder, My Sweet, Spellbound -almost anything by Hitch is at least border-line noir -, lots of other film noirs.) I love this "dream / nightmare / lost memory" trope in movies. If it's well-done, it's a fascinating trip into a character's psyche, and also an interesting exercise in trying to guess what's real and what isn't. Kevin McCarthy stars as a musician who wakes up one morning to find tangible evidence of something he thought he'd done in a dream. I like this actor, who's probably best-known for his role in Invasion of the Body Snatchers (made the same year as Nightmare, 1956.) But the film really gets going when good old Edward G. Robinson appears as the musician's brother-in-law who also just happens to be a police detective. There's just something about Edward G. that compels us to watch him, whatever he's in. McCarthy's character, Stan, thinks he may have committed a murder, and is tortured by the fact that he has no recollection of doing so, except in his "nightmare". (Not to mention that hopefully most normal people who think they might have killed someone but can't remember who or why would be "tortured".) He can't reconcile what he knows as reality with what he remembers from his dream and the evidence he found afterwards. (Intriguingly, a button and an odd-looking key.) Oh, there's also a few female characters, none of them of the fatale variety. One of them is just a pick-up in a seedy all-night bar (interesting and kind of fun scene, though), the other two are his sister and his "girlfriend". I put girlfriend in quotation marks because Stan doesn't seem to have much regard for the poor girl, who's a jazz singer (not bad, either) and devoted to him. Poor Gina, Stan has not the least interest in confiding his troubles to her, or in fact talking to her at all, as far as I could tell. He reminded me a little of Charlton Heston's character in Touch of Evil, in the way he's always leaving his wife (or in the case of Nightmare, his girlfriend), telling her he'll get back to her later, when he's straightened some things out. Some noirs have a smart and sympathetic girlfriend or secretary (who of course later becomes the girlfriend) who helps the main character sort out his troubles, but Nightmare isn't one of those. It's all about Edward G. and his crime-solving abilities. But who's complaining when Edward G. solves or even commits a crime in any movie? The story is set and filmed on location in New Orleans. This is a major strength of the film. There's one scene where Stan goes on a desperate search through the nightclubs and all-night bars of the city, trying to find a musician who's heard the mysterious melody he heard in his nightmare. I love all the neon lights flashing on and off, proclaiming the alluring names of the nightclubs - scenes like this are what noir is made of. Another memorable scene is when Stan, the long-suffering Gina, and Edward G.Robinson and his wife (Stan's sister) go on a picnic and get caught in a rainstorm. They take refuge in a deserted house, where they light a fire and make themselves tea ! It just struck me as funny that they were making themselves so much at home in a complete stranger's house. Now, there is a reason for this, but I'm not going to do any spoilers. Anyway, I got a big kick out of Nightmare. As I said, I really enjoyed this cool little noir, and would definitely recommend it to fans of the genre. " Quote

You're right, Lorna, I should have acknowledged Ben Hecht's significant contribution to Design for Living. He did indeed write the screenplay; I guess I just assumed he'd taken a lot of it verbatim from Coward's play. In that case - since apparently Hecht wrote most of the dialogue - he deserves credit for all those double entendres.

I literally ( as in less than an hour ago) just watched Design for Living, live broadcast time on TCM. I'd kind of always wanted to see this film, I'd heard a lot about it - here and there, I think on these boards, too. My impressions: You can certainly tell it's a very early sound film. Well, maybe not that early; I just looked it up, and it was released at the end of the year 1933. But it feels like an early "talkie" to me, probably because when the characters are not speaking, there's just dead air. No background music, which is almost too ubiquitously present in slightly later 1930s movies. And you can tell it's based on a play; now, I like Noel Coward, and you can hear the Coward touch throughout. So that works in the movie's favour; still, I don't always like movies that are so obviously taken from stage productions. They look and feel like a play, which is fine if you're watching a play. If you're watching a movie, it's a little constrictive and limited. ("That said", I acknowledge that many great movies have been based on plays.) Also, I should cut Lubitsch and co. some slack ; after all, this is pretty early on in sound film, and Design for Living is not unique in its stiff filming style and oddly soundless soundtrack. I did enjoy the three lead performances, (Miriam Hopkins, Gary Cooper, and best of all, Fredric March.) It's interesting seeing Coop in a movie like this, all talk and drawing room comedy. But I found myself watching Fredric March more than his co-stars. I've always liked this actor, and also think he has very distinguished good looks. He has an intelligent face. SPOILER - although really, there's very little plot, so a spoiler warning seems a bit unnecessary: The essence of Design for Living, and what makes it a naughty pre-code, is the premise of the semi menage-a-trois the three characters work out. It starts that way and it ends that way, the three of them living together, with a vague, wink wink "gentlemen's agreement" that there'll be no hanky panky. It's also quite clear that Miriam's character (whose name, interestingly, is "Gilda", but with a soft "G") has sex with both men (although not at the same time !), very racy for a 1933 movie. Anyway, although it was kind of fun, and I'm glad I saw it, I'm not sure I'd want to view it again. After the first 45 minutes or so I did keep checking the time to see when it would be over.

Palmerin, although I love the movie Fargo, I cannot remember if the description of Steve Buscemi you just gave is a quotation from one of the film's characters, or your own assessment of the actor's appearance. As I recall, didn't they always refer to him as "a little guy" * in the film? Anyway, although agreed, nobody's going to nominate Steve Buscemi for "Most Handsome Man of the Year" anytime soon, I actually have to admit that, oddly enough, I kind of like the gentleman's looks. And he's one of those guys who started out so homely that he couldn't help get better-looking as he got older. (Like Wayne Gretzky and Pete Townshend.) And I know everyone here is going to think I'm completely nuts after this statement, but I actually thought he was kind of sexy in Ghost World and Trees Lounge. But I concede I have pretty off-beat tastes sometimes. * edit: I just remembered, I think he's described as "the funny looking (little) guy" in Fargo.