Sgt_Markoff

Certainly 1970s movies have a style and a feel to them. But unless the flick is about sex ('The Harrad Experiment' for example) I still fail to see why any such '70s undercurrent' or '70s tone' in "Varrick" makes for a hindrance or an obstacle. What fails to make the transition from then to now? State troopers, a small bank in the rural Southwest, pickup tucks, trailer park, radios, a crop-dusting plane, a cathouse, a pawn shop, a photographer's studio; a girl wearing cut-offs, a middle-aged guy in a windbreaker, a beefy villain in a cowboy hat; a junkyard, and a couple of bank officials. There's many films with similar content; is any of this alien to our eyes? On the other paw, you could even take a very topical 70s film like 'Network' which has quite a few scenes with a 'noticeable cultural difference' (newsmedia technology, political activisim) and yet the film still works just as thunderingly good as it ever did. The question always comes back to the sensibility of the individual audience member. If you over-focus on what's around us today, (arguably frivolous differences like microwave ovens) then yes, 'movie differences' become noticeable. But they're not deep differences. (In my humble opinion) some of us simply have modernistic lifestyles which makes it hard to keep unaware of trends and fads. For instance its hard to be traditional if one must work in an electronics store; naturally there's a lot of "significant" changes in that environment from one year to next. Or so it would seem if you worked there. But me, this is one reason I myself will never be a fad-follower; consumer; etc. I'd be livid if I couldn't turn to "Charley Varrick" and enjoy it just the same as I have always done! I guess what I'm saying is: human life never fundamentally changes. We're not essentially different than the Ancient Romans; why would we be different from 1970s Americans?

Indulging in a yen for Cat Stevens lately. So refreshing. No one like that around anymore. That's a guy I'd be honored to ride the same plane with. (Whereas, I wouldn't invite a corpor-ified bro-rock miming musical drone of today to eat dinner with me; heck I wouldn't even call an ambulance if one slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk outside my address). p.s. Mahler: being a fan of Mahler used to get laughs among the music-lovers' community way back when. He was always considered too cerebral and passionless compared to the three B's; and then of course his famous battle for head of the NBC Symphony orchestra wherein (I recall) he lost out to Arturo Toscanini. His rep as analytic and neurotic; seems unfounded to me --based more on his personality, mannerisms and lifestyle than anything else. After all, like Schubert and Rachmaninoff and Vaugh-Williams, he incorporated vernacular rhythms into his compositions. My favorite Mahler symphony is #4 (theme of "Childhood"). Astounding well-structured; but still melodic and emotional. His others rank variously in my estimation but his #4 is thunderingly, quakingly good. I took my girlfriend to see it live and she bawled her eyes out. What I am I saying, so did I

So I suppose that college crony I had once--the toff who majored in 'noir studies' (graduate level) could have simply took a degree in falling snowflakes instead, or maybe chaos theory or something. That's what we should surmise; seeing as how all 'film noir' is so utterly random and serendipitous, happens so unconsciously rather than deliberately, ...bearing in mind how easily it "emerges as whimsy" ...recognizing, how it is "entirely based on the unpredictable" and ...assembled by "will-o'-the-wisp" players ..."thrown together impromptu" and "putting their heads together". (His degree cost him at least 100 grand, I know that much. Oh, what a fool he was!) Heck, maybe I'm in a noir myself --right now --simply by browsing this forum; maybe I'm suffering from amnesia, maybe this is all a dream, maybe I imagined that friend from years ago, maybe I imagined that school's film department; maybe I hallucinated all the thick textbooks on his shelf. A contemporary director (one 'enamored' of noir) certainly might choose to shoot my plight and dilemma that way. "Noir-ishly"; using tropes selected by pure happenstance; [That's of course, the way all noirs always come into being. Via someone's penchant for it; like a taste for almond gaunache]. But that eerie bookshelf I encountered once. H'mmm...how did it take shape? I wonder. Rows and rows of noir research. Incredible in retrospect; because naturally no film critics could ever have found very much to say or publish about such a vague, loose, 'random cinematic style'. How could anyone 'study' something that merely..."happened to crop up occasionally" in film history ....hidden deeply among hit musicals, westerns, hit comedies, and whatnot. Such an array of books wouldn't ever have been published. Instead, research analyzing...oh, maybe the history of snack food in American cinema, or wars between prop departments at the Big Six would have whetted publishers' appetites more. Yes, I'm sure wherever that former student is now, he probably had to switch his degree; there just wouldnt have been enough material for him to 'graduate in noir studies'. How preposterous....

You needn't have worried. Almost no newspaper film (not unless titled, 'Ace in the Hole') qualifies as noir...

The 'block user, block thread, & block post' functions on TCM forums are almost perfect; but not quite there yet. I wish the 'block user' functions would block the post headers as well. So that a post would not even have a trace at all. Its not really that effective to be subjected to spam-threads galore with the only relief not being forced to endure the content of the post. Why can't the post itself be hidden?

Or the one where she attends Mike Nichols' controversial flick and comes back all flustered. She thought she was going to see a movie about the Pope. ("Cardinal Knowledge").

It has a highly-regarded reputation but I'm in the some boat as yourself. I've never seen it all the way through so I suspect there must be some hook or hint in Act 1 which I've consistently missed and therefore the rest of the flick mystifies me as to its appeal. It looks very competent, sure--but also very 'workmanlike'.

Hum. Good call. But no, even as good as that title is, (Deadline USA) I am sure I can think of some others. The thread is almost 'closed' at the start by the list given. None of these are NOIR! Oh well. -30- by Jack Webb. Let's hear it. Or, 'Call Northside 777'. Even 'Capricorn One' deserves mention. 'Parallax View'? 'The Big Clock'? Are you doing this just to rile me?? What is the matter with you?

'Red River'. Gorgeous. The delicacy of the the storytelling was amazing. I never really cottoned on to the story because I'd never seen the beginning of the flick. It's exquisite. The equivalent of at least five films from John Ford. Hawks sure showed him how its done. Outrageous.

Sidney Poitier was indeed great. Is he still alive? There's an astonishing dearth in this era, of men to admire. I was watching 'Red River' tonight for really, the first time all the way through--and I have to say I was embarrassed at the tears rolling down my face. Embarrassing. It's a superb movie. I'd only ever before, seen passages of it. I bawled my eyes out.

GordonCole, you're a man after my own taste. I salute this scrupulous turn-of-mind you're displaying. Wine is clearly a pet topic of yours, this is exemplary.

Harry Lauter is a very obscure name...fascinating backstory though... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Lauter Its extraordinary to me, how a guy like this appears in a zillion movies but we never notice him. Admittedly, he worked often as 'uncredited' but its just another point in support of the classic studio system. They kept people on.

You'd be surprised at this next name: Gale Gordon. We all know him as the blowhard on "The Lucy Show". But he had a long career before that; he was multi-talented performer with experience in many mediums; and once was even quite handsome.

it might be better if they took a wine which actually appeared in a movie and made it available (no matter how rare it might be) to today's wine aficionados

Nicely summarized Gordon. So her stint was just a stunt, h'mmm... ...well like the line from Sullivan's Travels: "There's always a girl in the picture! Don't you go to the movies?"

It definitely gets under my skin too. I can't help but sound off when it crosses my path. On the other paw, maybe I should adjust my doctor-prescribed Jameson dosage on weekends. There's no excuse for blowing my stack as I often do. It's embarrassing. I need to talk to my nurse about this. Maybe when she's wiping down the glassware later tonight. Although, you know...where I really "go off" about 'dated' are book sites where overly-PC readers newly introduced to classic lit will make this same kind of remark. Bemoaning the 'misogyny' of Jack Kerouac or Henry Miller; the imperialism of Joe Conrad; the sexism of Ian Fleming. My god!

Yep. It makes sense when you think about it: a bar won't do something that thwarts the conversation of the patrons. People can ignore the audio from a sports feed; but movie audio is not bland, uniform, or white noise. Its got peaks and dips that distract people's attention. By the way, ever notice that some people can fall asleep to a dead-silent room; some people can only fall asleep to a TV or radio; some people need the window open to the sound of the night air? I'm sure with your battle experiences you must have tried to sleep during some pretty unusual conditions. Anyway I only miss out when there's a film airing which I haven't ever seen before. But on the other hand, if I'm in a crowd of people I don't necessarily want to get 'lost' in a movie; I like to keep an eye on what's happening around me. It's New York, after all. Anyone can spazz out at any moment. By the way I came home last night in 'angry drunk' mode. No reason for it. Sorry bout it. I was frothing! Ugh

Enjoyed 40 minutes of 'Citizen Kane' tonight. Rather shocked to see it aired. Out-of-the-Blue? Its closed-captioning in the bar where I watch TCM, so I was able to focus entirely on the visuals. The jigsaw puzzle motif is really a lot stronger than I realized. And the 'mirrors'. Seems like a 'mirror' is the symbol accompanying Kane in more scenes than you'd think. Welles' acting in this is colossal. The way he 'aged'. Tremendous.

I really looked closely for the first time tonight at the wine-spot. Is that the redhead you're referring to? What is her particular field of expertise? Is she just ornamental or...? I don't particularly mind the wine-ads. Seems slightly elitist but for just $79 bucks, 15 bottles of wine seems like a good...good deal to me. Maybe I read it wrong? Is $79 just the entry fee? The funniest element is this "movie themed wines" teaser. In what way exactly can a wine be 'movie themed'? How can one show off one's movie tastes in the..privacy of one's home? Oh! Maybe take the bottles to a BYOB? Oh well. My primary request is really this: PLEASE SOMEONE, DO SOMETHING TO BEN'S HAIRDO ! ! ! ! It looks like its about to leap off his head and savage the camera!

There's no sense to the statement. Charley Varrick is part of a modern standard of movie-making that still persists today. Cameras, lights, director, actors. Anytime you want to make a realistic movie, that's still how you do it. If you're making a space-opera set in another galaxy for dopey kids, then yeah you can say "well this is how we do things now" because that kind of juvenile silliness needs all sorts of specialized CGI and digital gadgets and absurd, fake, exaggerated, camera-movements. But any nuts'n'bolts indie production today is indistinguishable from the way they made 'Varrick'. Its boilerplate. There's not a single thing 'dated' about it. Film production still has theater as its bedrock. 'Varrick' is an actor's movie: there's a handful of action scenes but otherwise it's all actors.

What contest?

Bah. I wouldn't have anyone else except Perkins. They showed us this flick in junior high school and kids were bursting into tears.

One of the other titles in the list was a very well-articulated "perfect murder" yarn starring ...Edmund Gwenn? His was the only name I recognized at the time. I'm probably mis-recalling it now. Anyway, it was a really ingenious as a murder plot and the nature of it made for a strong build-up of narrative suspense. Basically, a jealous husband decides to kill his wife's lover. But instead of just blundering into a rash act of violence--he cunningly decides to take his time about it. He kidnaps him instead and socks him away in a hidden location which no one can discover. That way he can take his time and kill him many months later. So it's all up to the hapless victim to prevent his own murder in the time he has left. No loopholes, no feeling of being 'cheated' at the end. All of it was handled very satisfyingly.

So, Millie Perkins did a bad job as Anne Frank? This is news to me. I disagree. And no, I myself can't see glamorous Audrey Hepburn being convincing in such a part...it would be strange role for such a 'fashion-plate' as she was!

Agreed. Helpful post for sure.