wouldbestar

Hannah Hunter is a child-woman, spoiled rotten by the antebellum lifestyle but loyal to it and courageous enough to defend it against an enemy army. She is forced to grow up in a hurry and goes from annoying to gaining the Colonel?s love. We don?t know if they find each other after the war, or even should, but she is not the same person standing at that bridge as she was in the beginning. I think Constance Towers hit the mark in taking Hannah from flighty to caring.

He reminds her it is his family home and if anybody is leaving it's her. She says she and the boy will go to Europe. He replies that he refuses to give up his son and when he returns for her to be gone. He then walks out, climbs into the carriage with Mary, and they drive off. The movie ends there. We don't know what they do since a Catholic can't marry a divorced person. Hope this helps.

American Flyer, about bicycle marathons, is one I recommend. Kevin Costner and Rae Dawn Chong make an interesting couple and it's a chance to see Janice Rule who wasn't doing much by then. There are other actors who are about to become well known in it as well. You will never guess the ending. It's as much a family drama as a sports movie.

Thank you, Clore, for your reply to me. The defense wins this one; I bow to your logic and facts. I think you?re right about Hawks and his female stars. I saw a lot of Lauren Bacall?s influence in Angie Dickinson?s Feathers character in Rio Bravo I?ve only seen parts of El Dorado but get the same feeling about Charlene Holt?s character. I?ve not seen Rio Lobo. To me much of the sparring between Feathers and Wayne?s Sheriff Chance in Rio Bravo seems forced. I blame it on the dialogue. The scenes that worked showed some chemistry between the two but Dickinson was only in her 20?s and Wayne was 50 but looked much older. I know Bogey and Bacall had a 25 year or so age difference but she seemed older and despite his hard living, not really noticeable as a man in his forties. You are right, Hawks never found that magic with any other combo again. The strange part is that Wayne was to star with Gail Russell in 7 Men From Now, one of the films with the revenge plot, but could not so Scott stepped in. I?m comparing Scott?s work in that to Wayne?s in The Horse Soldiers where his character has lost his wife in surgery and hates all doctors. Scott took better care of himself and looked like a man the newly widowed Annie would decide on as her next husband. (Of course she did; why else did she stay out West instead of going wherever it was she had planned to?) The Scott leading ladies-mostly Karen Steele but also Barbara Hale, Nancy Gates, and Angela Landsbury-were not shrinking violets but real women with courage who spoke their minds and deserved respect. He didn?t always end up with them but that added to the story?s reality. I?ll look at the Scott/Boetticher movies a bit differently now. Thanks again.

Thank you for all the intelligent comments about one of my favorite movies. I found myself in agreement with a lot of it. First, I finally know the name of the actor who played Colonel Fosgate is Willis Bouchey. He was in so many of the Ford and Wayne movies but until now I couldn?t put name to face. Isn?t that him driving Wayne crazy in The Horse Soldiers trying to turn military success into political capital? Nobody in American history has ever tried that, right? About his ?better half? Billie Burke as Cordelia: Watching her Saturday night I thought the character too silly and distracting from the story. I think she could have been toned down and still got across what was needed. The other ladies were on a much lower noise level and the prejudice and holier-than-thou mentality came through. I did laugh at how the men tried to protect these ?flowers of womanhood ?from things their delicate sensibilities shouldn?t hear. Had the Indians attacked, the dear ladies would have scared them away. Sad as it was, I think the ending was true to life. Maybe there should have been a few pats on the back or ?hollow? good words but soon it would have been business as usual. Hollow is just what those words would be. We were a long way from anything close to the present and that road is still being traveled. A few things and perceptions might have changed but not a lot. Rutledge is mythical but so were most of Wayne?s characters. I?m guessing this might be the first time you saw a Black man standing there against the background looking so strong and heroic as he does while you hear ?Captain Buffalo?. It might be only a movie but I wonder what impact it had on young Afro-American boys used to being called a worse name to see this in a mainstream film. What a start! I don?t know what the consensus is about Constance Towers?s talent but I liked her Mary Beecher. She had courage and a strong sense of what was right. She showed some of this as Hannah Hunter in The Horse Soldiers although her side of the War was in the wrong about slavery. Here she quietly but firmly stands against the town and, when necessary, the military to make certain the whole truth comes out. The tribunal is no match for her. As to Hubble, Rutledge had to be innocent for the story to work meaning somebody else had to. He was as good a guilty party as any and being willing to have his own son be blamed makes him pretty lowdown. I think FredC made some good points about the plot flaws but a lot of well known films ask you to suspend belief at times. Everyone keeps saying that you can?t really follow The Big Sleep but folks saw and keep seeing it. The next time I see this I?ll try to look at it through his filter. It?s still on my must see list.

traceyk65 and ClassisViewer: Because of your comments, this Catholic who has been avoiding this movie like the plague will now give it a look. I left and came back 35 years later so I've had my crises of faith. I doubt it will make me defect again but if so, don't blame yourselves. Jane Fonda later claimed Christianity so maybe some of the story got to her in real life.

Thank you, Sproket Man. I now wish I had chosen a different word even though I was looking to disprove rather than prove the term. I didn?t think he was and that there had to be more to the story than what I was gleaning from the comments. Nuff said! One thing that I have to do now is see These Three. I always thought it was the watered down story as from what I understand the Code forced a change from the play. The people had to be accused of being in a heterosexual triangle rather than the women in lesbian relationship and even this was heavily censored. I am now anxious to see how Wyler and the writers worked their way around this. From what you have described in your postings yesterday they did. If I?m wrong about this, let me know.

Izcutter: Thank you for your 3:21 posting. I did not realize the Production Code still had such a hold on moviemaking then. Your idea of people who knew or knew more about Wyler joining the thread was just what I needed to get the truth and send my negative thoughts about him packing. To me, he was one of the greatest directors who ever lived and I?ve never seen a movie of his I didn't like or not be touched by. I have trouble with the quote function, too. Sprocket Man: Thank you fro the insight. This is what I needed and was hoping to learn . I?m the one, not Iz, who brought in that ?C? word hoping to have it disproved. You all have. Seeing the film when I understood what it was about was a help. I don?t think the subtleties drew away from the story but helped us stay involved. Did we need a courtroom scene to know what happened? The bleak weather and seemingly deserted school building seemed to tell us the women had lost the case. We already knew from the confrontation at the Tilford house where she stood and can guess what she and Mary said on the stand. All we needed to see was Martha?s hanging feet to know she had taken her life and from her confession to Karen we knew why. Having to use our imagination to picture the trial and suicide drew us into the story and not having it ?in our faces? kept us watching rather than turning away. Finance: You mentioned Tea and Sympathy. In it the boy is not gay but doesn?t measure up to what was considered masculinity back then. He is labeled and treated as if he was by everyone but Laura. After the final scene and narrative update we learn he definitely was not. (I think this is what TikiSoo thought might have been true of Martha.) I know the movie was based on a Broadway play; was the ending the same or did the movie play around with it for Code reasons? Last thought: Even if this is not a world-beater movie, can we hope the folks who worked on it, are still alive, and reading this know their labors were not in vain?

I remember that many of the reviews for this film were negative. I was a teen-ager but so sheltered that I really didn?t understand the premise. I saw it because I liked the actors. I loved the score; that and the suicide scene is what stayed with me. From the Gays on Film month I got that this was a topic not used as a main theme in mainstream movies but only secondary and often so subtle that it disappeared into the cracks. To me, this seems to me like a ?baby step? in trying to change that. Like babies, it stumbles and falls but keeps trying. Being straight, I did not really follow the advance of gay characters through that decade or later but know by 1969 the was a mainstream film called The Fox which from reviews and advertising openly dealt with a lesbian, a man, and a woman not certain what she was. If these movies were not good, did they help pave the way for better ones? From your postings I am tempted to think Wyler a coward but I don?t really know what his motivations were for the decisions he made and until I do I should refrain from labeling him I do remember how many of the ?average folks? I knew thought and might have wondered about box office success and profits too. The movie did not have a wide audience but can?t it be debated weather that was subject matter, film quality, or both? I am a James Garner fan but agree he was not at his best. Also, I wonder how else the movie could have ended. Instead of giving the townsfolk with the audacity to come to the funeral hell Karen takes the high road by walking by them without a word but with head held high. I don?t see how anything can make the situation right. That might be the moral to the tale; some things you can?t cover with ?I?m sorry?. As for punishment, Mrs. Tilford?s having to live with what Mary did and her response is punishment enough for her. Like me did you wonder if Mary learned anything? TikiSoo: ?That's right, and that's what I really like about this film. It doesn't have to be "in your face" with graphic descriptions. And in my perception, the subtleties are more "real"; it's Martha's own confusion with her feelings. Maybe she's never befriended any boys growing up, maybe Karen was her only friend, and maybe she's never experienced the difference between close friendship and romantic love.? Thank you. I never thought of it this way: was she really gay or insecure or confused? Did we really need for the movie to be graphic or just be trusted enough to be able to draw our own conclusions? Finally, since the movie is prompting this discussion, is it really a total failure?

I know, in the beginning of the second part. He does not say a word and does not have to. His facial expressions and body language show his sadness at what he knows is coming, would like to stop, but not at the cost of principle. You knew it was Massey. Fonda, Peck, and the others can just get in line.

It?s not an epic but a good story of how the FBI grew from mouse to lion. Stewart and Murray Hamilton are fictional agents who go through life investigating situations based on real cases. The Oklahoma Indians are cheated out of or murdered for oil, the **** raises hell in the South, Nazi and Communist spies are hunted here and in South America, and of course the 30?s gangsters are hunted down. The beginning scenes, starring Nick Adams, had only recently happened. The toll all this takes on them and their families is explored as well. A bunch of good character actors keep pooping out at every turn. This is one of those movies that had a companion comic book version to generate interest. It worked; I read it and wanted to see the movie but was outvoted by my ?higher authorities?. I finally did in a small town where all the movies were oldies. I think you?ll enjoy it, at least I hope so.

I saw 13 Ghosts last week-end as I like it too. If you check the Rambles II thread farther down this forum list I talked about that experience. Glad that somebody else likes it too. I have never seen Mr. Sardonicus all the way through but keep trying. I seem to remember the main character ending up looking ugly for life as he is on the inside. Want to see why he gets that way.

I enjoyed seeing the first two and what I could stay awake watching of the third. (I apologize to the Hustons for that). They were all interesting if different. The winner was Raymond Massey. He brought passion and forcefulness as well as melancholy and self-deprecation to the role. Such extremes in character calls for a skilled actor and he was totally believable all around. Henry Fonda was so young I barely recognized the man I've come to know on screen but that unmistakable voice was there and did he put it to work. Reading the accused men's letters from jail to the family and his defense of them in the courtroom scenes kept you looking. Perhaps if he had preceded the more animatated Massey his milder tone would have stood out more . I would like to see this again on its own and see what I think. That last statement goes for the Walter Huston version. As it was made nearly ten years before the other two and the process was more primitive it would not seem as good. From what I saw, Mr. Huston was also giving life to the role. I wanted to see it all because I want to see more of his work and also how D. W. Griffith-who made Birth of a Nation and was a Southern segregationist-plaid the man who kept the Union together. From what I was able to see, which was Lincoln first entering politics-he was getting a fair shake. I'm curious to see what comes later. One strange moment came in the Massey film when John Brown surrenders to Lee at Harper's Ferry. The scene looks nearly identical to the one in Santa Fe Trail a year or so later when Massey was playing Brown and it took me a second to realize that with different studios and actors it couldn't be the same. Now I understand how some posters have gotten things confused regarding movies or performances. I am a history buff since third grade-of course we didn't have that much back in the Stone Age- and enjoyed last night very much. I notice much of next week's programming is theme related on given nights. I'm not certain if I like that but will keep an open mind.

I got my first look at Ride Lonesome and it was worth the wait. Scott and Steele together again plus Coburn, Best, Van Cleef, and Pernell Roberts all doing great work. Beautiful scenery and color. Almost perfect. The only mark I have against it is that Scott's character is once again seeking revenge/justice for the death of his wife he feels partly responsible for. This device was used in so many of his later Westerns it almost made it seem like "seen one, seen them all". It's a tribute to everyone involved that the other parts of the films-this one included-make the whole worth seeing. Pernell Roberts stands out. In this he is so different from his Bonanza persona or even Trapper John. A native Georgian, he lets his laid back Southern drawling side come out and is likable. You expect he is the villain and will end up in a losing shootout with Scott's character but to our pleasant surprise he is not and does not. Both get what they want and part on friendly terms. The burning tree is a good rather than sad ending. The other question is Lee van Cleef. According to Roger Moore, he was a very big and well respected actor in Europe in the 50'; his mother was a big fan and he was able to introduce them while he was at Warners. Why was this not true here? It took the spaghetti Westerns for him to make a mark in America and he's one of us (New Jersey). If I haven't played spoiler too much and anybody want to see it, you won't be sorry.

I was too young to have personal thoughts on McCarthy but well remember Hoover's impact on people in the 60's and 70's. Perhaps he had been just what the FBI needed in the 30's but by the 70's he seemed to have let power go to his head. In fact, the week he died he was-in a manner of speaking-on the cover of LIFE magazine. Someone had done a marble-like Roman-style bust of him and toped it with an olive branch wreath. A blurb below advertised an article inside entitled J. Edgar Hoover, Emperor of the FBI. I don't care about the then scandalous rumors about his personal life unless they paid a part in how he conducted taxpayer supported business. That's the only way it figgures to have been mine.

When I registered my user name-my one and only-I had to list my name and address and I assume everyone else did as well. Can't TCM use this info to detect the multi-name cyber stalkers and troublemakers I see described right now? If anybody breaks the rules after repeated warnings can't they be banned no matter how many names they use? I would back a one name only rule and specific rules as to what counts as harassment, stalking, and personal attacks on people. Many of you who have commented on this thread are people whose opinions I respect. It's like taking sides in a family feud, someone you care about is always on the other side. Some of you might feel that way about me. I hope there are a resolution soon and all the parts-myself included-are back as a whole. I have a question: I am not certain but I think I have unintentionally upset a few people these past seven months. If somebody chooses to put another poster on their Ignore list, how does that poster know? There's a place on our profiles to list people we choose to ignore-which I've never deliberately done-but I don't want to be pushing myself on somebody who'd rather I not respond to them. My regrets to anybody I've offended; it was not my intent.

CeneMaven: Thank you for introducing me to Theresa Harris. What a beautiful woman. I will watch for her films. I also agree with you about Leon Ames who could and did play almost any kind of part and John Litel who could always be depended upon to be believable in whatever he did. Walter Brennan-enough said. ValX: Did you mean Robert Middleton and Victor Jory who were bad guys at their best? If not, who is Charles? Obviously, I love character actors and "second bananas'. This thread is definately needed and I'm waiting to see who else gets a "Shout out". Thank you, Jack.

This is one of those good old movies that seems to have a life of it's own, not an Oscar contender or dud but just a solid film that gets to you and you want to see it over and over again. I wish it was in color so Ann's beautiful red hair would shine through but I guess filn noir is best in b&w to add to the sense of mystery. Nice to know that you like it too.

I wasn't trying to lecture you or anybody else. I don't have that right. This was just my opinion to take or leave as you see fit. Please don't take it any other way. Your pride in ALL of your heritage is comming through my screen loud and clear and I think it's great.

What a great line up for today. Narrow Margin, Born to Kill, and a new one for me, The Locket. with a Mitchum performance I've never seen. Thanks for spicing up a drab day around here.

Encore is broadcasting something called Son of the Morning Star next Wednesday at 1:30PM on the Westerns channel. I thought it was a movie but I guess it might be the TV one you mentioned. Then at 5:45 they will show the "Home of the Brave" episode of Cheyenne I wrote FrankGrimes about in the Western forum ramblings thread. If you haven't already, check that out as we have been having some lively discussions there about the topic of this one. FredC: I don't necessarily mean inter-marriage but just that cultures be respected and learned from. I don't have to marry into a race or nationality to be able to appreciate their ways of life. OK, sometimes I might not be able to do that for moral or other reasons but at least I can explain that without malice. I would hope that's true whether it be Black, Asian, Native American or any other race or group.

Frank: The Cheyenne episode I wrote about titled "Home of the Brave" will be on next Wednesday afternoon at 5:45 on Encore Westerns. I want to see if I think any differently about it after this and the Native Americans thread comments. Thought you or anybody else who might be interested in seeing it would want to know.

"Good Morning" is my favorite. It's timeless. You're hearing it almost 100 after it was written and 100 years from now you still can. The sun always comes up and you can always greet it or the people you know with it. Very upbeat and peppy unless you have a hangover.

Than you, Izcutter : I have heard of Black Kettle, probably from movies, but did not know Custer participated in any massacre. If Greasy Grass was pay back, Custer was warned well in advance. It?s a shame he took the whole company with him. FredCDobbs: No they would not still be the teepees but perhaps if we whites had been more willing to work with, rather than conquer, them or meant what we said in the treaties we could have walked together into this century or the last. Of course there would have been some Indian opposition to this and not all of them were honorable either but things could be so much different than they are. We could be recognizing or celebrating their holidays as we do each other?s national, ethnic, or religious ones. We would all know more about each other.

Regarding: Dinner at Eight: " I was looking at a poster the other day..." Love the movie and that last exchange. Doubly blessed today: the movie and this. Thanks!