Kinokima

It's a great film but mainly for Louise Brooks performance. I thought she was brilliant. It also has a terrific ending.

Triumph of the Will is probably something I would never rent on my own but if TCM plays it I think I would watch it out of curiosity so I wouldn't mind if they played it. Obviously if TCM plays it I don't think that means they are endorsing Nazism. It is an important part of film history well really just history. Watching Hitler does make me personally uncomfortable though hence why I probably wouldn't rent the film to watch on my own.

Totally agree about Swanson To me one of the biggest Oscar mistakes was not giving an award to Barbara Stanwyck in 1944 for Double Indemnity. I love Ingrid Bergman but I thought Stanwyck should have won that year. I also think Irene Dunne should have won in 1937 for The Awful Truth.

I also love the 90's Mummy and the first sequel. I actually have not seen the original Universal film yet (on my Netflix queue) so I can't say how that compares.

I actually should get the Criterion of Charade (next 50% off sale at B&N maybe). I have a DVD but it is a public domain one a friend got for me a long time ago. The print actually isn't that bad but I am sure the Criterion is amazing in comparison.

Katharine Hepburn & Irene Dunne are my personal favorite actresses he worked with. Also Ingrid Bergman as one time in Notorious (I don't like them together in Indiscreet as much). But I should stop because I am going to bring this too off topic.

I am actually the opposite with Love in the Afternoon and Sabrina. I can somewhat accept Bogart in Sabrina and he makes Hepburn's choice less obvious in the movie. But I think Cooper ruins Love in the Afternoon. He doesn't come off as a playboy at all (which I think Grant would have been perfect at) and was way too old at that point. Luckily Gregory Peck is perfect in Roman Holiday. As for Charade Grant actually stipulated in his contract that Hepburn be the one chasing him. He thought it would be creepy to have him as a much older man chasing her and he was cautious of his movie image. Whether audiences really would have cared who was chasing who I can't say.

I have never seen A Fish Called Wanda but it will be available on Instant Netflix soon. *A film that has great personal meaning to you:* Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans: After years of thinking I wouldn't be able to appreciate Silent films this is the film that opened the door to me to Silent Movies. *A film that you think deserves a wider audience (either because it's obscure or not commercially available)* Ossessione the Italian version of the Postman Always Rings Twice. Some film historians also list it as the start of the Italian Neorealism movement though that is debatable. If I hadn't already listed as silent film in Sunrise I would have put The Wind with Lillian Gish as a second choice. *A film that is pure escapist entertainment, you just love it* The Adventures of Robin Hood a great cast of lead and character actors, beautiful technicolor, great script and music and probably the best Robin Hood film that is out there even after all these years. *A film that features a favorite artist in a standout role:* Charade: After a few previous tries (Grant backed out of Roman Holiday, Sabrina and Love in the Afternoon) this is the one and only time Grant & Hepburn worked together (yeah I know I am cheating a bit because that is too actors) *A film that represents your favorite director's best work:* I can't decide between these two films from favorite directors (I have more favorites than these)- Ernst Lubitsch's Trouble in Paradise a wonderful precode sophisticated romantic comedy. or Jean Renoir's La Grand Illusion in my opinion a perfect and unique anti-war film edit: Maybe I will go with Renoir because other people covered Lubitsch Edited by: Kinokima on Jan 27, 2011 6:47 PM

I guess The King's Speech did win the Producers Guild of America Award....well we will see as you say. You never can tell with the Oscars they are known for upsets too.

> {quote:title=LonesomePolecat wrote:}{quote} > My Mother's Castle (LA CHATEAU DE MA MERE) > > Hadn't seen this in a very long time, having only owned the first movie, La Gloire de Mon Pere (My Father's Glory). This one is just as good as the first one. What great filmmaking and story telling. What fascinating and human characters. The hilarity of the situations draw you closer to these characters, making the ending very poignant. (I shan't spoil the film). And how funny it is that Les Colines (The Hills) he is so in love with look exactly like my local mountains. This is a fantastic movie. And I'm not just saying that. Though I am biased towards the early 1900s and foreign films. Oh I saw those in my French Cinema class back in college. They were really nice movies from what I can remember. I would like to see them again.

Yes but Social Network is still the favorite to take home the main prizes: Best Picture, Director, and Adapted Screenplay. It has won all the other major awards. I do expect King's Speech to win Best Actor (I am rooting for Colin) and Best Original Screenplay. I also am really rooting for Haillee Steinfeld for Best Supporting Actress but I think Melisse Leo from the Fighter is the favorite. But who knows a lot of times votes are split and something unexpected can happen.

Okay this is kind of a silly post but I can't decide between these two movies and I wanted to see what others felt. You see it is easy for me to love Adventures of Robin Hood best because it has Olivia, Claude Rains, & Basil Rathbone plus a lot of other great character actors. But The Sea Hawk and Captain Blood are both missing some of these elements Captain Blood has Olivia & Basil but is missing Claude Rains The Sea Hawk has Claude Rains but is missing Olivia and Basil How do I decide between them? Everything else about the movies are pretty much equal to me.

Brief Encounter La Grande Illusion Both titles sound very poetic to me

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > I think were probably not going to change each others minds, and Im getting tired of keeping up with this thread, so why dont we just agree to disagree. I think we are both very stubborn so agreeing to disagree is probably the best option. At least we can agree there.

You have to love when someone twists what someone says to try to prove their point. That's okay Fred you keep believing you are right but I will know I am right.

There are plenty of clues. They might not be the Fred C Dobb's required clues of incest (most of which would have been too explicit and would not have gotten past the censors) but they still imply incest nonetheless. It is not what anyone wanted to put in the movie. I said it was more explicit in the original script not that the incest angle was absent from the movie. It IS in the movie just in a more subtle way. And it is not just modern film critics who saw this. I am not going to show you where it is in the movie because whatever I show you won't matter. You obviously will refuse to see it. What you think is a normal brother/sister relationship I don't see as normal at all. Muni was obsessed with his sister because he obviously had feelings for her that went well beyond the feelings a brother would have for his sister. He even kills George Raft (his main support) because he shows interest in his sister. He was just protecting her you say that is why he protects her so well in the end from the gangster life style.... Muni and Ann Dvorak's final moments in the film sound like the conversation between two lovers not brother and sister. Heck it is hardly subtle at this point. But you are right it is impossible for me to show you it is in the movie because you obviously refuse to see it.

Fred, Just because you do not see it does not mean it is not there. I see it, many other people see it, there are references of it today and in the past. Oh? You know what they are thinking, beyond the grave? Who gave you that ability? How do I get such a marvelous ability like you have? Thank you for trying to make out what I say as arrogance. Of course I don't know what they are thinking I am saying the only people you would believe would be people who can no longer tell you because they are dead. Obviously you are convinced they would tell you something different. You say it is certainly not in the movie well I say it certainly is. You are not going to convince me and I am obviously not going to convince you.

Well I am certainly glad to know you are an authority on Scarface and that everything that is written that says there is incest in the film is wrong because according to you it is just not in the movie. I am sorry we can't talk to Ben Hecht, Howard Hughes, and Howard Hawks beyond the grave because I think that is the only thing that would convince you.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > The movie wasn't released until April of 1932, and there is nothing about incest in the movie. It wasn't released until 1932 because censors held it up. It was completed in 1931.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > It?s not in the movie. It?s not even ? subtle?. You want it to be in the movie, but it just isn't in the movie. It sounds more to me you don't want it to be in the movie because you are obviously in denial about it. I at least posted plenty of links that talked about the incest angle you have provided nothing that proves it isn't there. Here is another link http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/article.jsp?contentId=176537 Even if you can argue that it is just "modern day" film critics interpretation of the film (which it isn't again it is mentioned in 1931) how can you say that their interpretation is less correct than yours?

I am sorry I don't need to talk to 6.5 million people to know that there is incest subtext in the film. Obviously you do not understand the meaning of subtext. It was more explicit in the original script it's just toned down in the movie. It is still there. And once again it is not just modern 21st century audiences that saw it. Apparently 1931 audiences saw it too. " "Nonetheless, July 1931 memos in the file continue to reveal the AMPP's concern over the subject matter: "inasmuch as they have everything in the story, *including the inferences of incest*, the picture is beginning to look worse and worse to us, from a censorship point of view."

Okay I am wrong and so is everyone else except for you I don't have the script but again there is plenty written on the subject on many places that mentions how the incest angle was more explicit in the original script All of these sites mention the incest angle as a fact http://www.filmreference.com/Films-Ro-Se/Scarface-The-Shame-of-a-Nation.html (mentions the script) http://www.filmsite.org/scar.html http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title.jsp?stid=89192&category=Notes In fact please show me somewhere written that denies the incest besides your own interpretation. As I said it is not meant to be in your face but subtle.

No it went well beyond not wanting his sister to be a ho. How is she a ho if she is married and in love with George Raft's character He was insanely jealous of his sister and obviously had feelings for her that goes well beyond a normal Catholic brother. And in the end she had feelings for him too even after he killed the man she loved. There is plenty written on the subject "look up incest and Scarface". As I said it was even more explicit in the original script but Hawks toned it down a bit. edit: This is from the TCM website on the film "Nonetheless, July 1931 memos in the file continue to reveal the AMPP's concern over the subject matter: "inasmuch as they have everything in the story, including the *inferences of incest*, the picture is beginning to look worse and worse to us, from a censorship point of view." even 1931 Censors saw the references to incest! Edited by: Kinokima on Jan 24, 2011 9:01 PM

Actually apparently in the actual script there are references to incest in the brother and sister's feelings for each other. No it is not explicit but explicit references to incest would never have gotten past the censors even before the production code was enforced. I mean the brother is jealous when anyone touches his sister. It goes well past just a brother wanting to protect his sister. No one is too good for her not even his right hand man (who really did love her). you're me and I'm you" Edited by: Kinokima on Jan 24, 2011 8:20 PM

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote} > Thanks, Kinokima, that makes sense. I guess if I'd looked a little more carefully at the structure of tracey's post, I would have seen what she meant. (sorry, tracey, baby ) I could be wrong though I just wanted to take a guess.