GordonCole
-
Posts
980 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by GordonCole
-
-
On 12/22/2018 at 6:21 PM, Sgt_Markoff said:
Jazz Man, the best find I had last year (in this vein) was Stefan Grapelli's lost accompaniment to "Wish You Were Here". He was in a neighboring studio at Abbey Road, when the Floyd were recording, and they asked if he would like to sit in. And he did. But the reel was lost for a long time; it re-emerged when Floyd was assembling the 'immersion set' for that album. Few years ago.
I always found the song, Good Morning, Mr. Zip-Zip-Zip, to be a personal favorite which could have only been improved if Leon Beiderbecke had been on the recording.
-
1 hour ago, Sgt_Markoff said:
Like Martin Milner for example? Mickey Rooney?
Or for that matter, Glenn Milstead?
-
1
-
-
On 1/6/2019 at 11:56 AM, Lost In Space said:
The Magic Eraser continues. By now, I am due an explanation from a TCM moderator. Where are my rights as a member of this forum? I am getting angry. I am doing nothing wrong, but get constantly deleted.
Let's just say, that you could get reported here for having a sense of humor undetectable to some of the vox populi, but if you were acting like Harvey Weinstein, you would probably get on just fine. Don't let it get you down.
-
On 1/4/2019 at 6:40 PM, misswonderly3 said:
This is hilarious. And actually, kind of flattering. Flattering because you seem to be attributing all kinds of motives and ulterior schemes to me that simply don't exist. It's just not that complicated. So I repeat, what the frig are you talking about? ("Frig": so glad Otto Censor doesn't seem to recognize this word. It's a fun word, don't you think?) I suspect you're simply a bit bored this evening and are trying, in your unique and somewhat bizarre Gordon Cole way, to have a bit of fun.
Of course you should be complimented, Miss Wonderly, as you are the most inherently noir woman here, and so deserving of the title. Mary Astor herself could not be so appealing. Can you not see that I am your biggest fan and I will never turn you in like Sam did, and not appreciate your unique qualities of dissembling intelligence and circuitous routes of endeavor, and I mean that in the nicest way. I would never send you up to the Big House since I would miss your posts too much. Now get out there and carry on posting, and put more of these male suckers under your thumb, and don't hate me for loving your evil ways. The Black Bird is just beyond your reach this time for sure.
-
On 1/3/2019 at 5:43 PM, Sgt_Markoff said:
Wilbur Post? Or Wiley Post?
Wil....Burrrrr, of course.
-
1
-
-
On 1/6/2019 at 2:44 PM, Lost In Space said:
I have some dyslexia, and frequently make errors. I must proof everything I type. Unintended mistakes occur.
Just joshing ya! If we got rid of all typos on forums, there'd probably be no post at all.
I enjoy your posts so keep them coming.-
1
-
-
Last week on Thursday, a rather negative review of the movie, The City of the Dead was reviewed herein on the I Just Watched thread, by a respected poster at TCM. I will take this opportunity to post an alternative viewpoint as I feel [and hope others do also] that all opinions are worthy of exposure at this forum.
The opening credits of the film portend a medieval feeling what with an elegant demonic monk theme, accompanied by Gregorian chant background music. We then enter the realm of a very Lovecraftian environs in New England, which could be Arkham if it weren’t called Whitewood, with apologies to Blanch Dubois. Harking back to Dreyer’s Vampyr, we see ghostly images achieved by the skillful hands of noted director of photography, Desmond Dickinson who also lensed such classics as Hamlet, The Rocking Horse Winner, The Browning Version and others. What Dreyer achieved by shooting at twilight, Dickinson does with the aid of a sprayed paraffin that casts a mysterious spell on the village.
The period is set in 1692, namely March the 3rd echoing a kind of Salem witch trials mood since a local harridan is being subjected to the ritualistic fires after a Candlemas celebration. In refusing to recant but instead cursing her accusers, they invoke the noted diatribe, “Burn, witch, burn!” in venomous tones yet are somewhat stymied by a burst of rain, which delays the final denouement of the life of witch, Elizabeth Selwyn [Patricia Jessel]. These are the first usages of the four elements in the film, of fire, water, earth and air, though Taoism adds wood, another essential item in the movie.
The viewer is now transported to modern times with Professor Driscoll, as played by Christopher Lee, to debate the veracity of such demonic personages with his students, in his lecture on “The History of Witchcraft in 17th Century New England”. Any researcher of demonology or covens will tell you that when Driscoll directs young and innocent, Nan Barlow [Venetia Stevenson] to visit an Inn named after Ravens, that things may become hazardous but such is the way of all flesh and now we are on the road to the misty, foggy, eerie world of Whitewood.
I need not go into any further details about the plot, so as to despoil it, let’s just say that Nan may meet her destiny on Candlemas Eve, and leave it at that. I would rather remark on many of the virtues of this extremely low budget film that has garnered praise as a cult item on many fronts. The storyline with the assistance of George Baxt is literate and intriguing and bears an interesting connection to the later renowned horror classic he worked on with Richard Matheson called, “The Night of the Eagle” which was also graced with a second moniker, “Burn, Witch, Burn”. The director, John Moxey derived incredible visual effects with a small budget, and produced said film entirely on a soundstage at Shepperton Studios. As Moxey has stated quite eloquently, his desire was to make films for people with creative imaginations who did not need to be spoon fed. For those who need films to be more formulaic and straightforward in imagery, this film is not for them. Moxey’s use of half shadows and chiaroscuro would have impressed Caravaggio, and is artistically rendered throughout in a macabre way, reeking of evil but with hidden violence.
I feel it unnecessary to explain to long time horror fans, of silents and talkies, that the movie contains a certain Descent Motif in the heroine’s intrepid entrance into dangerous waters in which she is bound to become a sacrificial victim. This theme along with Moxey’s mise-en-scene tendencies in shot selections brings the viewer into the film willingly in morbid curiosity. We also are aware that in Reformation times, any search for forbidden knowledge was greeted with those ending up in the Devil’s Hellmouth possibly. Credit should also be mentioned for the choices of villagers with faces reminding one of a Bosch or Hogarth painting.
This movie is full of atmospheric touches of an auto-da-fe audacity, that remind horror film buffs of antecedents in the genre like The Devil and Daniel Webster particularly in the frenetic dancing scene and influenced later films like Herk Harvey’s Carnival of Souls, Hardy’s The Wicker Man and Tombs of the Blind Dead by Osirio and even The Exorcist. It’s resemblance to Psycho in some plot points has been noted by many over the years, yet interestingly it preceded Psycho in production.
All in all, one can only believe that the film in all its minor classic glory would have pleased both Howard Phillips and the professors of the occult at Miskatonic University and even witchfinder general, Mathew Hopkins more than any Peine Forte et Dure could have supplied in ardor of the fantastic. The City of the Dead is for some, a truly unique and remarkably beautiful and poetic film. Before judging a film by only one reviewer, which might dissuade one not to view it... remember:
Ars Longa, Vita Brevis-
2
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:
re: Gilgamesh et al. Well said, Cole Man. This is meatier stew.
Its an interesting idea at least--and is one held to by TopBilled as well. I like hearing this better than I do 'noir is a visual library' (which makes utterly no sense whatsoever).
But the issue of retroactive application of a concept from the present to the past, however...in my opinion its insurmountable. Its a convenience we alone enjoy thanks to our position in history.
Post-Marxian, Post-Freudian, Post-Einstein, Post-Darwin, Post -WWII America --the existential angsts which emerged --this world couldn't have been imagined in previous societies. When existential themes were touched on, it was primitively done: Sisyphus or Tantalus for example. The Book of Job. Yes, maybe Gilgamesh too.
On the high side? Maybe Oedipus, and the Orestia. These last aren't crude, apart from their stage techniques (masks, chorus) and theater-as-ritual; but they are too crude for our own time.
Anyway, noir (I think) still has some uniqueness to it despite some unusual historical parallels.
I am currently reading The History of Hell by some lady who was the fiction editor at Playboy, so she know of what she speaks. Currently I am riding the crest of a wave on the River Lethe which works well after reading posts here.
Speaking of all the Post paradigms including Post-Modernism and such, I only deal with Post-Post, which is following in the footsteps philosophically of Wilbur Post. -
Thanks for this list. It's a wonder Ray Anthony is alive after being married to MVD.
-
Thank you for an unvarnished answer. There are those who would prefer that their stars remain untarnished by truth in a bio or even autobiography but I think, why write anything if it is not a true approximation of how one became one in essence. Now don't get me wrong, autobiographies which detail every liaison known to man are not the kind of truth I am looking for in my literary slacking off periods. But to paint a film star who slept their way to the top as Pollyanna out picking daisies daily, I feel is a disservice to the point of writing a book about anyone.
-
3 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:
Not sure where any evidence ever came from to suggest I have 'multiple accounts'. Eh, believe what you will about that. I don't mind.
As for 'Ignore lists' --yes! I fully endorse putting me on 'Ignore'! By all means, you should do so. I often write posts merely for the satisfaction in-and-of itself. Its the ideas alone, which intrigue me. If I read something cogent in a post, I reply to it. That's all!
I have to go but want to thank you, Sgt. Markoff for the way you are deftly playing with the pretense of Miss Wonderly that you need prompting to just "do it" and post your really true and heartfelt feelings about the pure noirs you would choose. As if you are not fully capable mentally to do so without her helping you along to foist your feelings on others here. Those into expressing their "feelings" about films tend to think that this is the coup de grace on what constitutes just adulation or importance of any film. Next she'll be explaining to you how to dig deeply into your psyche and tell us what you really think about all earthly things without using all the ameliorating terminology about such themes being already sewn in ancient times, the works of Homer and so on.
-
1
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:
I like to think I don't engage in "rule-mongering" here (or anywhere else, for that matter...in fact, I'm a bit of a rule-breaker.) I know you mentioned rule-mongering in a different post, but I just wanted to address it here, before I moved on to this next bit. Which is:
Sarge, I think maybe you're over-thinking this; that is, you're predicting what you think people will say in response to a post you haven't even written yet. I'm sympathetic to this, sometimes I "overthink" things too.
But really, it's very very simple. Since you indeed appear to have very strong opinions and ideas on what constitutes a true film noir, it should be easy for you to provide us here with a list of titles that you believe fits that definition. Yes, I've upped the ante. I'm not asking for "just one title" now, I'm requesting a list ! (could be a small list, if you like...)
Ok, Detour. Good. I get it. Many people regard Detour as the ultimate noir. (I really dislike this film, by the way, but I certainly would not argue that it's not a noir.) That's a good start. Now, I'd fall out of my chair with gratitude if you'd just type out a few more. Just the facts, sir. That is, just the titles.
Don't worry about people countering and nay-saying the films on your (hoped for) list. Just do it ! Otherwise, we all end up falling down the rabbit hole of argument (oh no, I can't believe I used that over-used expression. Lewis Carroll would fall down his own rabbit hole in his grave if he heard how everyone uses that phrase now. I bet half the people who say "falling down the rabbit hole" have never even read Lewis Carroll. But I digress.)
Speaking of "too much" methinks the lady doth protest too much that she has a sincere interest in what Sgt. Markoff thinks.
Thinly veiled but still quite apparent what the devious goal here is, but keep it up as it is entertaining.
When she accuses you of being a multiple personality poster though, run for the hills.-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:
Well, think of it this way. What if I were to blithely blurt out that 'Detour' (Edward G. Ulmer, 1945) is a famous example of film noir. What if I were to insist that it "absolutely is" film noir?
The way current 'camps' fall out around here, someone would be sure to pipe up and chivvy me about it, ("Well but Markoff, 'Detour' has some scenes shot out of doors, there's a moving car, location photography, the leading man is not an ex-serviceman...")
When one wants to merely 'contradict', or 'nay-say' (and we've seen it happen) you can easily pounce on tiny incongruities in any absolute statement. This then, is not a productive discussion. It becomes mere "circling-the-wagons". It flounders on details rather than principles. "The discussion is unworthy of the topic" (Thom. Jefferson)
Or, someone else might chime in and claim, "Well, you know, 'Detour' never really seemed that noirish to me..". And there we go off down another dead-end.
I'm trying not to 'compound errors' here by continually reverting to the subjectivity of film-viewing itself. When discussing noir, there's a whole other sphere of knowledge we can touch on, which make this rather paltry.
Production methods are a fact. Studio budgets are a fact. 1950s history is a fact. Emotional stimuli/response is a fact. The course of people's lives are facts.
This is why specific titles seem to me, to be besides-the-point.
Let's not even venture into the camp that thinks The Maltese Falcon is noir, including Eddie Muller.
Hammett is laughing in Hades now I bet...-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:
the lovely MissWonderlyIII wrote:
I expect a little vexation like this to emerge once in a while. I beg your pardon!
I agree they are pedantic. I'm trying to keep my occasional diatribes to a minimum.
But my most recent post (in this thread), how long had it been since the previous one? A few days at least, right? I don't pounce on every single utterance and make a nuisance of myself. At least I hope not to.
the fair MissWonderlyIII wrote:
From where I stand, I haven't really even started to talk about noir. So far, there's been too much clutter underfoot to clear out of the way first.
I suppose its just habitual practice for most people now, to grossly misapply the label these days, but just this much is usually enough to make me grind my teeth.
You know, like when someone pronounces "nuclear" as "nuke-u-lar" or says "mis-chiev-eous" instead of "mischievous".
And then when I asked about it, it turns out that a few wags around here mount a massive defense of these errors. They don't want to keep 'apples' distinct from 'oranges'.
I don't fathom this approach at all. "Its always the way we've done it, so...".
(Do we value clarity anymore, or are we just too lazy to care when something is muddled? Is it because its "just the internet" and its easy?)
Anyway. I don't think a truly grounded conversation about noir --on these forums--has been embarked on yet by anyone. "Noir-chat" seem always to wind up harping on 'the look of noir', in-this-film or that-film.
It is this which is "the same exact thing every time" --probably hundreds of threads --and always the same: "here's a list of movies that look like noir". Or, "someone once said this is noir, so ...". Or, "lots of people have always thought this is noir...".
Utterly stultifying! I can apologize til I'm blue in the face... but I refuse to follow this 'mynah-bird' style of inquiry.
Of course, I am still sifting through threads on the 'Summer of Darkness' section. But I have my doubts as to what I will find there. How can any in-depth treatment of noir arise when it is constantly fettered like this?
Its just somewhat shocking to me that this is the highest level discussion seems to rise to.
the genteel MissWonderlyIII wrote:
I suppose I watch movies to study and to learn from them. I'm an academic; cinema is something intellectual for me. But perhaps this is only because 'feel good movie-going experiences' are harder and harder to come by these days. There's only one theater in all of New York that runs classics. This year its been closed for renovation.
the gracious MissWonderlyIII wrote:
I started to once; and ran into a firestorm and a backlash. I started talking about how 'pure noir' has a whole slew of traits which underpin it, which are not "just visual". Things like moral quandaries, fallen men, xenophobia, fragmented societies, men's fates, guilt and remorse, self-abnegation, nihilism, existentialism, dramatic tension, inevitability, emotion...this kind of discussion gets nowhere. No one wants to hear it.
(No offense to anyone here) but the really interesting noir topics I'm looking for ...don't seem to be found in "koffee klatch" style banter. Once we get beyond the currently 'polarized' debate, this "factionism"... then maybe we can talk about what pure noir might really be.
Oh well. Don't worry. This stalemate can't last. I won't stick around here forever, like an albatross around your necks. I'll eventually grow weary of the thin feed lying on this atoll and move on...
cordially,
'Markoff'
("C'était un homme sans autre vertu que le courage ")
p.s. to return to your main point--thank you MissWonderleyIII, for reminding me that I do go on too much. Too true! So its always worth remonstrating with me about. And also thank ye for addressing me as 'Sergeant'. My, now that does bring back fond memories of the Maghreb!
Ooh, I see the trap being set already by some ersatz dark dame trying to pin you down and make you cry uncle, Sgt. Markoff but as usual you are way too clever to become the proverbial noir male loser, who spills all his beans and then gets castigated by the same lady for whatever you says in supposed confidence.
The truth is, there have been noirish tales since time immemorial, eschatologically speaking that aren't even dreamed of by Eddie Muller. His erstwhile fan club hang on his every word, as if he is to noir what Jerry Falwell was to biblical interpretation. My favorite noir character is Gil Gamesh, and if he were to appear in the noirish tale called Frogs I think all Coptic devotees would see the light at the end of the noir tunnel.-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:
I wish I could come across words that require my looking them up in a dictionary. Its one of the purest pleasures of reading.
Yes, being erudite does prevent the enjoyment of many pleasures for you, I'm so sure. It must console you though to be called "pedantic" as a barb, when it is really a compliment.
-
4 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:
Miss Wonderley wrote :Sergeant Markoff, I only quoted a bit of your post just to get your attention. And it could have been a bit of a quote from any one of the many long, pedantic (sorry), complicated posts you write about noir.
What is the meaning in the above sentence for "pedantic" one might ask.
Translation for Sgt. Markoff: Any post with words that had to be looked up in the dictionary by the poster.-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:
Sergeant Markoff, I only quoted a bit of your post just to get your attention. And it could have been a bit of a quote from any one of the many long, pedantic (sorry), complicated posts you write about noir.
What is the meaning in the above sentence for "pedantic" one might ask.
Translation for Sgt. Markoff: Any post with words that had to be looked up in the dictionary by the poster. -
8 minutes ago, MovieCollectorOH said:
One that is faithful to an original sounds great, but I presume this would be designed by the Bryan Nesbitt of lamp makers?
I'm sure Chiparus would be complimented to hear of that connection.
-
8 hours ago, TikiSoo said:
The first was CITY OF THE DEAD from 1960, recommended here, sometimes also known as HORROR HOTEL. This movie starts out with a classic witch burning scene. The "witch" makes a pact with the devil just before dying, cursing the town. A college professor teaches this story in class and one student is interested enough to visit the cursed town! Alone. She stays in the only hotel in town and is quickly kidnapped. The rest of the movie is her friends/boyfriend/brother all investigating where she was last heard from, this hotel in a cursed town. Did anyone think her going off alone to investigate a cursed town a good idea in the first place?
Despite the hammy acting of Christopher Lee and Patricia Jessel, this movie was predictable and boring. I may have even dozed off a few minutes in the second half of this short 78 minute movie. I just could not get sympathetic over a 19-20 year old who goes "evil hunting" on her own.
Some might say "There are no boring things, just boring people."
Apropos of that though, must say I was certainly not bored reading this fascinating review of Moxey's film.
-
2 minutes ago, yanceycravat said:
As I have said elsewhere, the TCM culture has changed over the last 25 years from simply being a channel for lovers of old classic films to one of abject consumerism.
Ya mean you are not desirous of purchasing a faux Chiparus Art Deco lamp for your den anytime soon?
-
3
-
-
Do you prefer a biography of a movie star, director or anyone movie related, that ignores the more unsavory aspects of their life to portray them as saintly specimens or one which tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, including warts and all?
-
I'd go with 1919's Anne of Green Gables with Mary Miles Minter and directed by her lover, William Desmond Taylor.
-
1
-
-
I'd say ones with the wise cracking dame who thinks she knows everything but is sadly mistaken which leads to adversity as in The Blair Witch Project.
-
Beautifully composed tribute befitting a great actress. Much thanks also for the wonderful photos of Valentina throughout her career.
-
1
-
I am thrilled to pieces with TCM ON HULU, EXCEPT FOR ONE THING
in General Discussions
Posted
Baby, excuse me for saying it, but you're my kind of woman.