slaytonf

Coming up next: a simple explaination of how the set-up was supposed to work in Out of the Past, followed by a clear description of just what the hell was happening in The Big Sleep.

It's exciting to see a film by that great Iranian filmmaker Abbas Kiarostami scheduled for tonight's Imports series. TCM has shown his A Taste of Cherry, perhaps his best-known and appreciated work. But he's made many others just as good, though this is not one of them. Not that it isn't very good. He's one of a number of directors, among them Yasujiro Ozu, Satyajit Ray, and Hou Hsiao-Hsien, that have a particular style of storytelling, involving small, unremarkable subjects that make the viewer wonder at first why the filmmaker bothered telling the tale. Yet our interest is held, and through it's elaboration, we are unconsciously drawn into the course of events, until by the end we are surprised to find the extent we are involved with the characters, care what happens to them, how much it says about the human condition, and how powerful the effect it has on us. Aside from the surface story, Kiarostami's films should be seen as commentaries about the political, religious, social, and economic conditions in Iran. Because of the control the goverment has on creativity, they have to be disguised, but it's not too hard to see how the characters and events that exist on a local or personal level can translate to a national or cultural level.

The only downside of that is it would tend to propagate the mullet (internal shudder).

The Weenie King's good. He's good. But for extravagance of characterization, pushing right up to the line of going too far, and seeming to cross that line, but not really crossing that line, just playing it so fine that the performance walks right along that line, Mary Astor is unequalled.

>missw: >courage /strength / professionalism, not sure which is the right word You can use all of 'em, as far as I'm concerned. A fine performance.

>Dothery: >I did think he was adorable in that movie. I also liked the writing. That's what makes the ending all that much worse. It was a good movie until then, with two of my favorite actors (Novarro, and Evans). The impossibility of a relationship between the two forced the tortured ending.

What film?

If he bought her the chain.

More importantly, can you explain the beginning? What the hell is going on in the title sequence? I've heard it explained once this way: both Colbert and McCrea are twins. And each of them are locked in battle in the opening sequence with their alter image to be the one that gets married. You know, looking at what I just wrote, I still don't understand it. But it doesn't matter, just watch Mary Astor--she's the only thing worthwhile in the movie. One of her most brilliant performances. She steals every scene she's in. In fact, she walks away with the whole movie.

On tomorrow as part of the Friday night noirs. Perhaps not as important as his Antoine Doinel films, or as popular as Day For Night, nonetheless, it's one of Francois Truffaut's best. Don't be fooled by his informal, seemingly improvised style, it's a well-told tale of intrigue and danger that despite it's surface lightness packs a powerful punch. I'm ambivalent about watching it, but in deference to those who've not seen it, I'll not say why. Hooray for TCM!

Yes, the Rains was a dreadful exercise. Filled with every wretched, hackneyed dialog and plot convention. I didn't waste time watching the whole thing, just tuned in every now and then during the commercials on Mythbusters to see how it was lurching along. It was especially disheartening to see Richard Burton in such an embarrassingly inappropriate role. He must have really needed the money.

Lana Turner must be a bigger star than Myrna Loy, she gets to live at the end of the picture. Or maybe it is evidence of changing mores. A white woman no longer has to die for being in love with a man of a different race. She still doesn't have sex with him, or marry him, but at least she doesn't have to die. Compare with Son of India and its atrocious ending, with Ramon Novarro kneeling at the feet of the White Goddess, personified by Madge Evans.

Mm. A watershed moment.

Sad can be sublime, especially for the original Colbert/Beavers/Washington version. Clearly the more powerful statement.

The Rains of Ranchipur, supreme evedence of why good enough should be left alone. (I didn't want to poach on this thread by starting a new one on this film.)

Most worthwhile quote from the article: Not every good movie is famous, and conversely, not every famous movie is good. Not every good movie is famous, and conversely, not every famous movie is good.

Yes, he played Sgt. Major Tambul.

They were, I believe, Clarence Kolb: and Andrew Tombes:

ValentineXavier, can you racall other details that might jog someone else's memory?

Air intake? This is the movies, man. They don't need no stinking air intake!

You are thinking of Virginia O'Brien: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0639877/

Hey, great choice! A cut above the usual romantic fluff. Of course, updating for modern times allows the opportunity for playing around with the set-up. Perhaps, say, switching the roles and having Carole Lombard's character being the one marrying for money. And there's the Ralph Bellamy character to add a little salt to the candy for contrast, though these days, physical handicap isn't a bar to romantic love anymore. Something else to provide a little sorrow for contrast to heighten the happiness of the lovers would be needed.

Did you see it on TCM? Or somewhere else?

I didn't watch it, but films like Gaslight have what's called, if I remember correctly, descriptive audio service. This is something for visually impired people to aid in their viewing. It is available in the auxiliary audio options your cable company provides. It was somehow turned on inadvertently. Look for SAP on your audio options to turn it off.

>NoraCharles1934: >Oh, remakes, dramatic sigh - I generally don't like to regard any source material (particularly staples - which are often good jumping boards for many interpretations) as sacred cows never to be defiled, but to my mind, the story, style, something's got to be outright changed or at least given a new twist. Otherwise, I'm left feeling - what was the point? I heartily agree. That is why I specifically avoided the term remake in the title of my thread. I am interested in people's ideas of movies that present opportunities for modern takes. The reason I think well known movies aren't good fodder are, in addition to continual comparison as you mentioned, the creative process tends to be dominated by the original. For a film like Marion Davies The Patsy, for example, I can see the plot set-up of two sisters, one chic, one awkward, adversarial, chasing the same guy set today. Plenty of opportunity for humor and comic situations.