slaytonf

Eisenstein has had a much greater influence on the filmmaking outside of the socialist world. This can be taken as evidence of his inherent reactionary tendencies, rightly recognized by his soviet peers. The directors who properly realized the socialist ideal in their work have naturally faded from memory. And Eisenstein remains ranked with the greatest of directors for his power, innovation, and imagery.

I'd like to do a thread comparing the two movies, the original and the remake,but I can't, not having seen the latter. I did see a few moments of the remake, but when I saw that Thomas Crown was doing the heisting, I lost interest. One of the great attractions for the real one is that he commits the crime without ever taking part in it. I will observe, however, that nobody has to keep insisting that the McQueen/Dunaway movie is really actually good. The Thomas Crown Affair (1968) for me is the chicest, most stylish movie ever. Steve McQueen, sophisticated, cosmopolitan--cool. Faye Dunaway, gorgeous, sexy, chic, polished, predatory. Norman Jewison gives her one of the great movie entrances.

Try Stella Dallas (1937), with Barbara Stanwyck: http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/91392/Stella-Dallas/ Click on the READ FULL SYNOPSIS button.

For those interested, bytheway, the movie doesn't end with Carter dumping the body of his brother's killer, and corrupter of his daughter into the gondola. As he walks along the beach returning to his car, he's killed by a sniper sent by a mobster who had been framed earlier for murder by Carter--in a most shocking manner. So it's a real downer all around. Shot in B/W in the fifties, it'd make a decent film noir.

Yes, as was noted in the companion thread, "SOLVED! CAN ANYONE ID A (VILLAIN SHOT IN SMALL DIRT HAULING GONDOLA) MOVIE???"

1139. Count Alfonso I of Portugal proclaimed King. Mmm, no. 1729. North Carolina becomes a royal colony. Mmmnno. 1814. English engineer George Stephenson introduces his first steam locomotive. Interesting, but. . . .no. 1918. Annette Adams sworn in as 1st woman district attorney of US, California. Mnnnno. 1933. 1st Dutch live radio concert: Duke Ellington. Cool. . . .but, no. 1956. Italian liner Andrea Doria sinks after colliding with the Stockholm. Too sad. 1981. Voyager 2 encounters Saturn. Cosmic. . . .nnno. Well, I give up. I can't find the occasion for the movies tomorrow. I wouldn't say it's out/out communist-themed, but there certainly is more than a suspicion of socialist/collectivist subversion there. But there are also some good movies in the lineup. Catch the King Vidor. Not a monument, but a surprising 'let's all pitch in and make something from nothing Depression era positive pull up the bootstraps' kind of thing. Salt of the Earth (1954) is a monument. I'm recording the Eisenstein.

Looking at my post now, I might have said 'the most effective way.' I'm glad you bring up Mammy as it presents a good comparison with Prissy. I'm not so certain how she acts as a subversive. She certainly is bossy toward Scarlett in the pre-war sequences. But her authority comes from her role as mammy given to her by Scarlett's parents. It is not a negro bossing around a white person, but Mammy acting for her parents. That doesn't keep her from using her considerable intellect getting Scarlett to be obedient, though--a lot of the time. She knows how to use psychological crow bars to lever her. For all of Scarlett's scheming and angling, I'd give Mammy the edge on intelligence, clear thinking, and common sense. After the war, she turns more into a Cassandra than a Mentor. Her constant warnings, admonitions, and forebodings become an ineffectual litany that at times becomes wearing. There is one moment when Ashley Wilkes returns, and Scarlett is on the point of running from the house to meet him, Mammy actually physically restrains her. Understand, a negress in a lady's service lays her hands on a white woman. She's not her mammy anymore, but a servant. No more authority from the plantation owner. Now, that's subversive.

Ah! you have hit on the formula!

Ah, books are a different matter. Can't get too much Don Quixote.

If I gave the impression in my posts that Prissy was intellectually profound, that was a mistake. But you don't need to operate on the level of Lenin or Angela Davis to be subversive, you just have to resent mistreatment by The Man, and work to reduce the efficiency of the system.

Wow. Lots of interesting comments. Where to start. Let's say first that two hours isn't an absolute limit, beyond which should lie cinematic annihilation. But much beyond that you're pushing up against the limit of toleration. I said two hours because it looked better in the thread title than saying 'about two hours, give or take a certain amount, depending on circumstances and the quality of the movie.' My most general response to people who cited long good movies (and long bad ones) is that they all were probably longer in their pre-release form. We don't pine for that lost footage. And if they had been cut even more pre-release, we'd never know the difference. 'Course there are movies where it's pretty clear how to cut them. I remember thinking to myself while watching Titanic (1997), at 3h 14min, that there probably was a decent hour and three-quarter movie in it somewhere. As for arguing that long good movies give you more to savor of the good stuff, all I have to say is that I like ice cream a lot--I mean a lot. But I can't eat a gallon of it at a time. And CaveGirl, as Muddy Waters has it, I'm a Man! But it's not my backside that wearies watching a long movie, it's my brain. Worry not, I watch movies in pleasant circumstances, on my restful sofa, or in my comfy chair. But I will test your notion of the Chitty effect, and reduce my watching it to no more than three times a week.

But not more!

Of course Prissy would not think of her condition in the terms I used. But she knew she was a slave. She knew she could not go where she liked when she liked. And she knew what would happen to her if she did--and it wouldn't be a slap. Scarlet's act is understandable not on a human level, as one angry at the mendacity of a close associate, but as the outraged white slave owner at a disobedient slave. I don't sympathize with her in the least. Prissy's conduct exhibits the best way African Americans could rebel against their captivity, through passive resistance. Feigning ignorance or incompetence was the most powerful strategy for frustrating white aims and escaping (to the extent they could) the impositions of their persecutors. Because this behavior fit in with white preconceptions and interests, they did not look beyond the surface and developed the stereotype of negroes we see so often depicted in studio era movies.

This thread was prompted by the following parenthesis by Dargo in another thread: (...supposedly his reason for this was that he felt the movie's running time of 221 freakin' minutes was already too damn long!!!) I'll say up front, this has been my position for a long time. Two hours is plenty of time to do justice to whatever material you cover. After that, no matter how good the movie, it starts to wear. Anything more is egotism on the part of the filmmaker (I am waiting to see a director's cut that's actually shorter that the original release.) And if you really can't cover the matter in two hours, split the movie up, like Richard Lester did with the Musketeer movies. Then you can make twice the money. I'll offer Chitty Chitty Bang Bang as an example. I really like this movie, and I watch it more than many better musicals. But you know, it does start to tire toward the end, notwithstanding the wonderful coda of Potts and Scrumptious driving off into the sunset sky. And if it gets tiring for me, what would it be like for a child, who doesn't have the same mental stamina I have? The movie I think would definitely benefit by being fifteen or so minutes shorter.

You may not see it as a racial issue, but Prissy sure did. She was a slave. The human qualities you demand of her would in no case be shown her by her owners or people of the owning class. I don't think anyone would claim Prissy had no idea of her position in southern society, that she was vulnerable to the slightest whim of a white person. Why should she care about anyone who would not return the concern in the least? Her irresponsibility was her way of returning as little value as possible to the people who robbed her of her individuality, and perpetrated an outrage on her humanity.

Comic relief does not preclude subversiveness. In fact, it is an effective way of disguising it, if the comments of some of the posters here can be taken as evidence. Remember what Preston Sturges said, that you could get anything past the censors as long as you put it in a comedy. And he got a lot in his movies. Prissy rightly didn't consider the approaching Union Army as a threat. Judging from the dangers they encountered on the road from Atlanta to Tara, you could make a good argument it would have been better for her to stay.

I hope so.

I don't see how she endangers her own life. So what if she lied? What does she owe to the whites around her?

Chicago (2002) was shown in 2015. Gladiator (2000) was shown in 2010. L. A. Confidential (1997) was shown in 2012 and 2015, at least. Schindler's List (1993) is not on Movie Collector's list, but I have seen it I know. I guess not on TCM. Unforgiven (1992) last showed in 2008. Tombstone (1993) aired in 2007. Silence of the Lambs (1991) last aired in 2011. A lot of the early Bond movies with Sean Connery and Roger Moore have aired on TCM. All these movies it's true have not aired in a while, some in quite a number of years, so maybe they're due for another showing.

On the surface of it, Prissy is a no-account, feckless, irresponsible daydreamer. It's no more apparent than in the sequence just before the burning of Atlanta during Melanie's childbirth. Her dawdling, aimlessness, and self-aggrandizement exasperate the viewer along with Scarlett. But is she that? We get a momentary insight into her thinking on the staircase looking at Scarlet leaving to get a doctor. Her look is almost of contempt, certainly of unconcern with the tragedies facing the white folk around her. She can't rebel openly, but she does her best passive-agressively to frustrate white goals.

Per MovieCollector's list, it was shown in 2010, but I know I saw it within the last year. It may have been on YouTube on the Paramount Vault channel. But it seems that doesn't show movies anymore, just clippies.

Kitty has been shown, but not for a looong time.

Both have been shown a number of times, so they'll probably show them again.

Maybe 'cause this one's from a B'way play and the other D'Day movies aren't, so that's where the rights come in.