ValentineXavier

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > For years Hollywood used brief rain and storm sequences, usually followed by a fade out, to represent the "and" events which the code back then wouldn't let them show. > One of my favorites is in *The Big Sleep*, Bogart with Dorothy Malone, the bookshop proprietress.

> {quote:title=nightwalker wrote:}{quote} > And, if the plural of "louse" is "lice" and the plural of "mouse " is "mice," how come the plural of "spouse" isn't "spice?" > Oh, but it is!

> {quote:title=TomJH wrote:}{quote} > To my eyes, the scene is a misguided attempt at dark humour. And listen to that howl Mitchum lets out when the basement door lands on his hand and then the big bad man is sucking on his hand to make the hurt go away. You don't think that's some kind of attempt at levity? > > No, I don't think it's an attempt at levity > That second scene is a strange one because of Mitchum's reaction which I think most audience members would regard as unexpected because of all that hollering that the preacher does. And the manner in which Mitchum's head pops into the screen when confronted by the gun, eyes saucer wide, his face elongated, almost like it's an elastic band. (A second before we see Mitchum's exaggerated facial reaction there is the cry of a cat for whatever reason-what, his tail was just stepped on? That's dramatic?) That is not, in my opinion, a moment to be taken seriously. Mitchum is psychotic. Almost everything he does is exaggerated, including the iconic LOVE/HATE thing. He is ironically, also kind of childlike himself in his single-minded pursuit of what he wants. Those saucer eyes, exaggerated expressions, cries, whoops, are an expression of his personality, and psychosis, not an attempt at humor, dark or otherwise. 49 years ago, we had a rather different image of psychosis than we do now. So, that sort of depiction seems odd, or even funny, to us today. To a man of Laughton's era, that was a common expression of psychosis. >Then comes all that hollering as Mitchum beats a hasty retreat. You think those cries are war whoops? Well, if they were there sure wasn't any follow up from the preacher. Gish is on the phone ("Ive got something trapped in my barn"), the state troopers are there and Mitchum is gone. > As you demonstrate, Mitchum had no chance for a followup. > I still regard it as dark humour that is inappropriate for this otherwise great film. You are as entitled to your opinion as I am, and with Laughton and Mitchum dead, there is no way to get a definitive answer. But to me, it is clear that Laughton had no intention of "Looney Tunes Humour," but was having Mitchum portray a psychotic and intentionally exaggerated character as he intended. Edited by: ValentineXavier on Oct 11, 2011 9:33 PM

> {quote:title=ThelmaTodd wrote:}{quote}Here is some more poster art for *Reefer Madness (1936)* (Good grief, how many of them were there?) To bad the producer's books aren't open for examination; the film cost little to make and had to have grossed a lot. > It grossed me and a lot of my friends.

Another favorite rain scene of mine is in John Boorman's underrated 1985 film *The Emerald Forest*. It is the climactic ending, when Indian shaman, the engineer who built it, and the frogs of the Amazon conspire to destroy a newly built dam in the rainforest, by calling up an incredible rain, thus preserving the way of life of The Invisible People, and the forest.

*House*, aka *Hausu* is great. One of the weirdest, most psychedelic horror films ever made. Lucky dog me gets to see it on the big screen, 35mm print, on Oct. 29th. Yep, those all sound great to me.

That "Fred" looks like it could eat a gila monster for breakfast.

Wow! In Color! That's amazing! It's now my desktop background.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > Seven Samurai - decisive bloody battle in the rain, where several of the samurai die. > Yes, yes! Fantastic scenes. Also, the rain at the temple ruins in "Rashomon". > I have seen *Rashomon* many times, but the print was always very worn. At the beginning, it was impossible to tell the rain from the print damage. Then, last year, I saw a new print from a restored negative on a big screen. No damage, and I could really see the rain! One of my favorite rain scenes is at the beginning of the film noir western, *Blood on the Moon*. It's in the middle of the night, in a scrub brush thicket, pouring rain. Robert Mitchum, in a big cowboy hat, is leaning over a little pile of wood, trying to light a fire. Then, a cattle stampede runs over him, destroying all his gear.

> {quote:title=cigarjoe wrote:}{quote}Oh come on you really think it would be that difficult with a DVD player, this isn't rocket sicence, lol. > > No, film noir is NOT rocket science, which is why it isn't a suitable candidate for precise, mechanistic, quantitative analysis. It is not only art, but a very fluid genre of a highly varied artform. Trying to be precise about it is as pointless as trying to pin down a blob of jelly. No matter how many pins you stick in it, it's still a blob of jelly, and you still can't pin it down. I've long considered *M* to be the first true noir, but I haven't seen the three earlier films you listed. Coincidentally, (and I really mean that,) *M* was directed by Fritz Lang, a German Expressionist director, who went on to direct several fine noirs in the US. German Expressionism is generally regarded as one of the stylistic inspirations for film noir. On the newer end, Films like *Red Rock West*, *Blood Simple*, and *Memento* are just as clearly noir as any of the classic 40s noirs, to me. Robert Wise's 1948 film *Blood on the Moon* is a western, starring Robert Mitchum. To me, it is also clearly a noir. I believe it even meets MovieMadness's rather narrow definition of a noir. Should we NOT call it a noir, just because it's a western too?

True, Bee Man uses his bees in every film, but IIRC, in *Phantom Raiders*, he sticks his hand in his pocket, pulls it out, covered with bees, and has them go under a door. I think we only see a jar of bees in one film. I might be wrong... I like it when his alarm clock goes off, he says it's feeding time, grabs some nearby flowers, and shoves them in his pocket for the bees.

Happy Birthday, Mongo! Wasn't Rin 10/10 born today, too?

I was in my mid 20s when the Kung Fu series started. I loved it, never missed one, and now own all three seasons on DVD. So, yes, I am familiar. There is something about that series that most people watching it today won't realize. It ran during the Viet Nam War. But, on Kung Fu, each week we saw a wide variety of Asians, most of them not the enemy. The lead role guy was an Asian pacifist, for whom force was a last resort. That was all a pretty high contrast with the news and Gov. line of the day.

> {quote:title=Frank-------Ohio wrote:}{quote}{font:Verdana}If quizzes are quizzical, what are tests?{font} If pro is the opposite of con, is Congress the opposite of progress?

> {quote:title=C.Bogle wrote:}{quote}....and fired three shots at Kennedy, and left the building, etc. > The evidence points quite clearly to Oswald as the sole gunman. Well, except that a Marine marksman couldn't fire three shots from Oswald's gun as fast as he supposedly did, even without aiming. And the total weight of all the fragments purported to come from "one bullet" in the "single bullet theory" was greater than the weight of a single bullet. Neither of us will convince the other, so we might as well drop it.

Listening to him kills me...

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > Wolves, Zombies, Nazies!!! AAARRRGGGG!!! There does seem to be a certain synergy there!

I don't buy your premise that those two scenes are comic, or were intended to be. The second scene is a little comic, but in an ironic sense only. In the first scene, something had to happen for the children to be able to get away from him. So, he trips on a bottle. I guess he could have broken a step, but that would be a bit too much deus ex machina, IMO. He reaches out because that's the kind of guy he is, and he sees what he wants slipping from his grasp. In the second scene, Harry Powell is embarrassed that he has backed down to a little woman. His hooting and hollering is meant to demonstrate that he isn't really afraid of her, doesn't take her seriously, and is still out there. He may be imitating early Daffy Duck, but to me, it is menacing, not humorous. He wants her to take them as war whoops, not a surrender.

*Fearless Vampire Killers* and *Dr. Strangelove* are rarely referred to by their full titles. "A Space Odyssey" is usually dropped from *2001*.

I'm surprised that no one's said *Blue Lagoon* yet...

*One Way Pendulum* has to be one of the strangest films I've ever seen. It's very surreal, like being in someone's psychosis. I didn't really find it funny, it was just too strange. But, I did like it.

Yeah, he was there, and had that rifle alright. But, that's about the only thing that's certain.

My mom and dad both grew up in Oklahoma during the 30s, he on a farm, her in the city. They used to argue about which had it worse, with the Dust Bowl, and the Depression. She would say, well you lived on a farm, so at least you had something to eat. He would say, not much, because of the Dust Bowl.

answer in 3 minutes! That may be a record!

Darn! I thought this thread was going to be about Abbott and Costello meeting a Dr. Seuss character...