JarrodMcDonald
-
Posts
1,661 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by JarrodMcDonald
-
-
Hehe...glad you think so.
Reasons for my reluctance:
I think some people have made up their minds about loving CASABLANCA no matter what. That's cool, but I'm not feeling the love with them. LOL
Also, I do know that I have made valid points in these comments and that people will try to brush over them without really taking what I've written to heart. I don't like ignorance and that is my reason for starting this discussion about the film in the first place.
As you said previously, this could be applied to any over-exposed flick. But CASABLANCA is the one up to bat today.
-
I just read through my 56 comments. I think it's very tame, now that I've had the chance to reflect on it. I use a lot of humor and I think people will get a kick out of it.
But for several reasons I am reluctant to post it just yet.
-
I don't know if a Russian girl as a Native American would've been any more convincing. They needed to develop actresses that were really Native Americans.
Even now, we hardly see any Native American actresses. You would think after the success of DANCES WITH WOLVES, that there would be more opportunities now for them.
They were and continue to be an underrepresented group.
-
-
My guess (I hope I'm wrong, but knowing Zanuck I bet I'm right):
Bacon was brought on to reshoot scenes that would play up Linda Darnell more. Is that what happened?
I wonder if Zanuck had a lot of affairs...and if these starlets were all his girlfriends.
EDIT: According to Wikipedia, he had a daily extra-marital affair. Figures. LOL
Edited by: JarrodMcDonald on Mar 22, 2010 2:11 PM
-
He got hot fast...two years after reclaiming his baby from Opie, he joined up with EASY RIDER's Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda.
-
Until we know exactly what Bacon filmed, it's unwise to jump to any conclusions about what appears in the 97 minute version. Bacon was no novice, and Zanuck was no hack.
-
Oh no...maybe you need to head to northern Canada, like to the tundra region or something. LOL
-
Thanks...! A lot of Marx Brothers films are coming up...including HORSE FEATHERS & DUCK SOUP.
-
Hepburn finished THE UNFORGIVEN in May '59, but she had injured her back and continued to recuperate awhile after that. Then, she got pregnant. Her son Sean was born July 17, 1960.
TIFFANY'S was finished in January 1961...so I am guessing it was filmed after she had the baby, in the fall of 1960.
-
*JOHN WAYNE (1907-1979)*
-
-
Tonight TCM is airing THE SHOOTIST, a 1976 Western starring John Wayne in his last screen role. The film is based on a novel by Glendon Swarthout and is directed by Don Siegel.
The movie begins with a montage of shots from the Duke's previous westerns. These images serve a dual purpose: to recognize the actor?s immeasurable contributions to the genre; and to function as glimpses into the early life of his character in this story.
Ironically, J.B. Books is an aging cowboy known as the most celebrated "shootist" alive, but he is dying from cancer. John Wayne would also succumb to cancer-- three years after production ended. THE SHOOTIST marks the end of a film career that began during the silent film era in 1926.
Joining the Duke in this final production: Lauren Bacall in a rare western role as a widow that rents a room to him; teenaged Ron Howard as her impressionable son; James Stewart as the local physician; and veteran character actor Harry Morgan as the marshal. THE SHOOTIST was named one of the Ten Best Films of 1976 by the National Board of Review.
-
Do you want me to do 56 comments on those films, too? LOL
-
TIFFANY'S was filmed in 1960 (released in '61). Monroe died in August of 62. That is two years I guess.
-
You will see in my comments that I reference Billy Wilder's A FOREIGN AFFAIR. I think Wilder is more effective at identifying patriotism than Curtiz.
-
I need to run some errands in a few minutes, but I will be back on after lunch.
I am not trying to drag this out...I did say in the original post that it would take a day or so to display my comments after viewing it.
My comments are indeed written. But I need an hour or two away from it, then I can come back and fix the spelling errors and edit a few things for flow. Probably ten of the 56 comments are harsh and will undoubtedly be controversial. But before what I write gets 'lifted out' of my post and 'attacked,' I want to make sure these are words I can unequivocally stand behind. Thanks for your patience, and it will be posted in this thread in a little while.
I don't know if there is limit on how much text you can put in a post...I may need to split the 56 comments and spread them over more than one post...I guess I will find out. LOL
-
I don't think we can keep using the emotional response of immigrants (many of them are dead now) to continue bolstering the importance or relevance of this picture. It has a place in cinematic and extra-filmic history, but it is ultimately limited in its impact. That is what needs to be understood.
-
You asked earlier about the titling of this thread...I had to title it that way. I had to put the sacred cow into the thread title to bring people to the altar of deconstruction.
-
Yes, it is possible to isolate emotions. A more scientific approach to analyzing film gives you that.
I don't want a film to manipulate me emotionally. That is a tool used by a director to get the audience to side with a character or cause. You can have a physical reaction to something, through tears, chills or sexual arousal, but you have to be in control of your response. Some people want to let a film control them...I don't. I believe the consumer is in control.
I have watched it and I have 56 comments on it.
Incidentally, your comment about the good guys fighting the Nazis seems like a Jim Cameron Terminator approach to the evils of the world. I don't watch a film that way. LOL
-
There is something bigger going on here, Fred.
There is an ignorant passing of a film on down to the next generation, out of nostalgia, instead of the fact that it is a solid construct of the Hollywood studio system.
I knew this film would not measure up to my expectations.
I am not going to be mean about it. So I won't purposely underrate it. I will be fair. But it does not get higher than a 7 out of 10 for me.
You will read my comments soon and see where I find fault with it. Mostly, the lack of action and the use of formula to make a political statement is where it goes wrong for me.
-
Already, people are saying I will fail at analyzing this film if I only watch it once. So I need to spend more time on it. But it is also not good to spend four hours on it and go through it slowly? I should let it go by quickly, so as not to detect Curtiz' errors or plotholes. Give me a break.
I have a very particular style when doing a critical analysis on a film. You will see my style more clearly when I post the findings.
-
The format is only going to make a difference in terms of emotional impact. I am not interested in the emotional or nostalgic aspects of this picture. I only care about the political, technical and narrative aspects...not the sentimental side of it.
-
I don't think we should elevate a movie because it supposedly champions freedom. It is a construct, a product of Hollywood and it needs to be assessed in that way. A film can have a good idea at heart but execute it lazily.
The anti-CASABLANCA thread
in Films and Filmmakers
Posted
Okay, it won't be a problem.
Edited by: JarrodMcDonald on Mar 22, 2010 4:11 PM