LornaHansonForbes

I mean, seriously, I watched SILENCE OF THE LAMBS without flinching and CALIGULA without wincing too many times, but EVEN I watched THE DEVILS with my chin on the ground from pretty much ten minutes in to the end.

. Or maybe the Liv Ullman musical disaster "Lost Horizon" (1973)? Please? Or, as Bette Midler referred to it: "Lost Her Reason."

some juicy tidbits from wikipedia (true or not, who knows? but juicy:) Director Lewis Milestone left the film for several days in sympathy with a set decorators' strike which was going on at the time. In his absence, the film was directed by Byron Haskin, who did not receive screen credit.[1][7] Stanwyck had considerable influence on how she was lit, and was not shy about putting her fellow actors on notice that she didn't like to be upstaged. When she saw the coin trick Van Heflin had learned – at Milestone's suggestion, to show that Heflin's character was a professional gambler – she informed him to make sure he didn't do it during any of her important lines, since she had a bit of business that would upstage him, if she had to. With that she raised her skirt high and adjusted her garter. The result was that Heflin only used the trick once in a scene with her.[7] Kirk Douglas later wrote that Stanwyck was indifferent to him at first, until at one point she focused on him and told him: "Hey, you're pretty good." Douglas, smarting from having been ignored previously, replied: "Too late, Miss Stanwyck," but the two got on well after that.[1][7] Six months after the film's release, Milestone gave an interview in which he said he would never work for producer Hal B. Wallis again, because Wallis had wanted re-shoots in order to get more close-ups of Lizabeth Scott. Milestone refused, telling Wallis to shoot them himself, and, according to the director, Wallis did.[2]

I don't recall Duryea being terribly sympathetic in it (he even has his trademark slapping of the female lead scene, although in this case, some may find it warranted)...although it is a shame when he dies as he is the most interesting character in the movie. I didn't find Scott's going off the rails too hard to swallow, the film was one of those basic premises like QUICKSAND- one bad deed snowballs and it just keeps getting tougher and tougher to stay above water....often the case in real life. Seriously though, you have to kind of love it when Scott- in strapless, organza gown with heavy decollotage- goes over a balcony at an Acapulco hotel, file this one under: they don't make 'em like this anymore.

Yeah, but having seen THE DEVILS, I totally respect that decision. An early pm airing would most likely cause strokes from coast to coast. (lots of free publicity though.)

Did you see it? I watched it on youtube the same week that Lizabeth died. It's one of those cheap, but interesting, little late forties/fifties noir/melodramas; pretty compelling with a nice ending; the only really gifted performer in it, though, is Dan Duryea. (I don't much care for the always ACTING! style of Arthur Kennedy.)

WOW! I would never've guessed! Thanks for the FYI.

I have serious doubts it will* (although I would love it if it did.) *full frontal male nudity, **** scenes, naked nuns simulating sex with a statue of Jesus, graphic torture scenes, and a finale where a deranged nun pleasures herself with the femur of a dead man- just to name some of the saucier elements.

It's been alleged, yes. ps- the real interesting footnote to the story though is that within 10 years (or so) the man who streaked across the stage was found murdered in his sex toy shop in San Francisco.

I understand. I'm a pretty sick, twisted person. But really- underneath all the luridness, there is a well-told tale about what it means to be moral, steadfast and a defender of ones faith.

Which quite a few people have alleged was a pre-arranged stunt.

I'd like to know as well, but I have a feeling the "A" stands for "a**-grabber."

Um, are you familiar at all with the ouevre of Joan? She is right at home in this one. Joan breathes over-the-top. I do agree though that HUMORESQUE has plenty of issues- mainly the fault of Clifford Odets, who was IMO one of the worst screenwriters of the classic era. It's a film I could go on and on about, but pobably shouldn't as we'll gravitate away from Miss Ivers. To kind of bring the two together though, I think 1946 was a real watershed year for films, it started a big trend that showed up in the three years after WWII wherein BIG STARS really suffered/and or went through some dark, psychological stuff on screen like they had not before, and some even dared to play unsympathetic characters (that last one due to Stanwyck and MacMurray's winning performances in DOUBLE INDEMINTY.) Just a few examples- Olivia DeHavilland in THE DARK MIRROR, Tyrone Power in NIGHTMARE ALLEY, Crawford in POSSESSED and THE DAMNED DON'T CRY, Cagney in WHITE HEAT, Robert Taylor in THE HIGH WALL, Joan Bennet in SCARLET STREET, Van Heflin in POSSESSED and ACT OF VIOLENCE, Turner in THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RIGNS TWICE, Garfield in, well, everything he did, and even Edward G. Robinson went back to the well of sadism (with delightful results).... (A lot of those roles are so unlike what the actors had done before The War, and some go even deeper into the darkness than their pre-war films.)

Nonetheless, it would be wise to keep an ear to the ground just in case it does.

Now that is strange that that one gets a graveyard slot...that film was a life changer for Shirley. Shouldve been on at 8:00 pm.

I like LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM, but I love THE DEVILS, which was (and is) a highly controversial film. Nonetheless, I thought it was utterly brilliant, one of the best of the 1970's, a definite inprovement on the source novel and (ironically) one of the most moral films I've seen. I was lucky enough to see it (in 25 parts!) on youtube, totally unedited and with nudity galore.

AHAHAHAHAHA!!! Leslie Caron was a star of the month a couple of years ago, and they showed VALENTINO late one evening. I'm hard-pressed to think of another film that was so savaged on these boards, and from what little I saw I have to say I agreed with the savaging. Ken Russell, man, when his name is attached to a film they are either really good or really bad. No middle ground where he is concerned.

I have to admit that I have seen MARTHA IVERS many times, but did not watch most of it last night largely because the print being shown wasn't the best. However, everytime I see it I am really struck by how "off" Lizabeth Scott's character in that film is. Yes, as some have noted the character is written as weak, but weak to the point that she is almost simple minded or - dare I say it - a touch on the developmentally disabled or possibly even autistic side. MARTHA IVERS is definitely one of the kinkiest, most sadistic films made in the 1940s, so the quirks in her character maybe are not entirely out of place in the outrageous noir/ black comedy (personally, I could see a subplot where Toni plays with matches and ends up burning down the Iverstown hotel.) ..but I just don't think Scott is right in the role, her very being suggests a certain intelligence, a certain world-weariness and anything but naivete. Everything about Lizabeth Scott doesn't seem to gel with this Human Question Mark of a character she is forced to play. I don't know, either way the last full time I saw the film I was just struck by how dumb the character is. Its more than just naivete, its like pure unfiltered unpretentious stupidity that I just find it a little hard to believe exists in the real world of either then or now. Edit- in writing that last paragraph, my mind flashed back to a few of Drew Barrymore's Essentials comments and perhaps I was short sighted in my assessment.

for some reason I feel like it's worth noting, that HUMORESQUE, a major film from the same year as MARTHA IVERS also had a lead character die by suicide...although the motives for the suicide are murky....And it was one of the highest grossing films of the year.

oMG, I totally misread the words "flicker alley" at the top of the image you posted as starting with an entirely different f word.

first part - that's part of the shame about MARTHA IVERS being in the public domain and the print thusly deteriorating, for me at least it's hard to fully respect the artistry if what's left to look at it is not in the best shape. second part - I know, I'm so bummed out: i think I've missed my chance to see DOUBLE INDEMNITY on the bigscreen & I really wanted to, just been busy.

it's also worth noting that the section of Eddie Muller's film noir book DARK CITY in which MARTHA IVERS is profiled is called HATE STREET- and deals with noirs set in small town America. I've always thought HATE STREET would maybe be a better title for the film than THE STRANGE LOVE OF MARTHA IVERS (a title which one could perhaps confuse with a romantic comedy.)

I think besides the weak performance by Lizabeth Scott, which isn't entirely her fault because it's a terrible role, the biggest fault with MARTHA IVERS is that the final scene with Douglas and Stanwyck is so shamelessly derivative of the scene between McMurray and Stanwyck in DOUBLE INDEMNITY (and not quite as artfully done.) (of course it's also worth noting that INDEMNITY has been preserved and restored, whereas MARTHA IVERS has lingered in the public domain - the print they showed last night on TCM seemed even dirtier and weaker than ones they've shown in the past- and these things do make a difference.)

Two ideas: The postwar climate was different, and the following year would see a lot of DARK films that skirted the code: the world was growing up, and films started reflecting it. Lewis Milestone- who directed MARTHA IVERS- had won 2 oscars, both for direction, one for ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, which was (and is) well regarded; so he had some clout.

Oh yeah, well i said "trailblazer," Valentino and those cats were PIONEERS. #Respect