laffite

The Diary of a Country Priest (Bresson 1961) is now available on Netflix. I had seen it a long time ago and had it on the Netflix SAVE list. A young priest's first assignment, a small village that seems a 'wicked' place and that seems to have nothing but hostility to the new arrival. It's not clear to me why. The villagers seem to attribute negative qualities to the priest that are not really shown to us. If anything he is just too devout, too earnest. I believe he must be a saint. I am not religious and don't know about these things, ha. But I enjoyed the film. The long scene with the Countess is great, this young's priest greatest triumph. He is completely misunderstood by the older priest and has the proof to set it right but refuses to do so. He won't be defensive, he will let it be. A pretty good film, to say the least. The actor Laydu is wonderful as the young priest.

I am looking for the titles of one or several movies made in the 30s that dealt with religious matters---Christianity to be exact, I believe---and featured all black casts. There are a number of them and I know they have been shown occasionally on TCM. Thanks. Edited by: laffite on Dec 26, 2012 11:57 PM

When I was a kid, II met Lucille Ball on a Del Mar beach in the 50s. Somebody led me up to her while she was sunbathing. She was actually on her property just beyond the public beach area. She smiled and said hello. I said, "Where's Ricky?" She laughed and said, "You mean, Desi." Ah! She wore sun glasses and I would have never known who she was. There was no thrill of recognition. Much more recently, a few years ago, I was in a Whole Food market and lost track of my cart. Oh, there it is, somebody's got it. It turned out to be John Lithgow. The customary laugh. He was cordial and regular. I sought for something to say to him and ended up telling a lie. I told him I liked his Don Quixote (not a success for him) when in truth I never saw it. But I always thought he really looked the part.

Having not the slightest idea of what may be the most well made foreign film of all time I can happily forget about that?but after having watched Smiles of a Summer Night for probably the third or fourth time in my life, I am quite bowled over (this time) and would like to dare nominate this film as the best foreign comedy ever made, at least that. Most foreign film lovers have seen this, it?s a recognized gem; appealing actors all who do a great job (the women are unbelievably attractive, each in their own way), and a screenplay for the ages, wordplay at it?s best. There is a short scene with the actress and her mother that is so good that it produces a dazzling effect. But the standard is evident throughout. Move over, Oscar Wilde. But the idea of ?well-made? is what makes me bring the film here. There is a sort of Classical convention present, the comedy of manners, of love, where those who are married, those who are not, those who have mistresses, those who do not, those who have neither and would fain have something, those who indulge too freely but (maybe) would like to settle down, get what they want and the little story ends without a loose end in sight. There is a sense of construction from beginning to end, like a good piece of music without a single false note. The best foreign comedy ever made?maybe.

Hi Clore I'm not getting that, looks okay to me. L

Bonjour Mlle La Maven

When Mr Drouet (Eddie Albert) loans Carrie (Jennifer Jones) $10 at the beginning of 1952?s *Carrie*, it comes to $84.80 by todays standard; thus, a Drouet of today would probably have given over a one-hundred dollar bill. Carrie earns a dollar a day at the shoe factory and later Mr Hurstwood (Lawrence Olivier) is willing to pay 50 cents for a chit that affords him a days? work, presumably the same pay as a day at a shoe factory, a dollar a day. Later the sum of $10,000 becomes important to the story (I won?t reveal), quite an amount in those days, coming to approximately $84,000 today. There are several instances when exact amounts of money are explicitly mentioned throughout, no accident I?m sure, since money is thematically important to the story.

I remember seeing this awhile back after having seen Quinn in Warlock and liking it so much. He's not as good in Gun Hill but probably had less to work with. Lancaster could have acted the pants off this role but it would have been out of the ordinary to see him a loser.

Here is a song with a corny title but probably one of the classiest love songs ever written, sung here by just maybe the greatest living tenor in the world today... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juvlkAYogEo

A huge crowd for Peter Pan. We arrived late and had to stand. It wasn?t dark enough at the regular starting time so there was a delay and the organist entertained us with musical selections and personal anecdotes (argh!) but about an hour later the show finally went on, hooray. Silly me, I was half expecting a movie projector, instead a DVD projected onto a screen, an excellent transfer that had the gloss of restoration. (I see now that the DVD is available on Amazon for about $19). The organist was great, totally in sync, variable in tone and mood as required and despite the size and brilliance of the sound of this huge instrument managed not to upstage the movie itself but humbly maintained its subordinated role. Not surprising given the quality of the movie. I had only seen two scenes prior, the two bedroom scenes; the one that representing Peter?s first scene and the other at the end representing his last scene. Only a smidgen of the dog (played by a human in a costume) are in these scenes and it was amazing to see the full performance, as well some the other delights. A gorgeous tableau of what appeared to be a real pirate ship (where lost children become veritable swordsman) and an enticing long view of mermaids basking on a shore, not to mention the appeal of the principals, Betty Bronson, Mary Brian, and Esther Ralston, etc. My total standing time was probably close to three hours but it was worth it, not only due to the movie itself, but the setting. I'm not much for crowds of people but this was nice for an event like this. ==

The Organ Pavillion in Balboa Park, San Diego, will be the venue for a showing of Peter Pan (1924) featuring a live accompaniment on the organ by Dennis James on *Monday, August 22, 2011, 7:30 PM*. No charge for admission. A wonderful choice of film. Unless there has been a recent change, Peter Pan is not easily available to the public. A splendid opportunity to see a rare classic and in such a setting. Anyone not too far away---those in L.A., for instance---might want to make the trip. http://www.balboapark.org/calendar/event/2011-08-15/summer-organ-festival

Just noticed this... *The Fallen Idol*, later today, *Wednesday, March 30...at 6:30PM Pacific Time, 9:30PM in the East...* ...not just for the great RR, also for a really fine movie flawlessly directed by Carol Reed...a thriller with a hint of Hitchcock...Try it!

>laffite wrote: >I?m here because prior to today I owned a total of zero DVDs and now I own six. A modest start. I happened to drop into a thrift store this afternoon and was amazed at the selection and only $3 each. Someone had dumped them because they were moving?Anyway I bought six of them and had to stop myself Now I own 11. I went back to Ye Ole Thrifte Shoppe and couldn?t stop myself. *MissGoddess* initiated an old thread of yore with a nod towards movies that can be viewed ?over and over? (this thread is probably history since it surely has been a year since it has been honored with a post) and I remember posting, nah, I don?t see movies that way, maybe twice a year if it?s really good, etc., how wrong I was. The DVD movies that attract me now and make me purchase (besides, of course, the smashing price of only $3) are precisely those that are so good that they can be enjoyed after only brief respites and especially can be mined for special moments and scenes that somehow never cease to please. For instance, in *Carrie* (1952) there is this important but probably oft forgotten moment when Carrie (Jennifer Jones) mounts the stairs of the apartment she ?shares? with Drouet (Eddie Albert) and has this encounter with a little girl who lives down the hall. Jennifer plays this so well that I like to go back to it. When she sees the toddler idling in the hallway, everything in woman who dreams of a child comes alive in her and she peppers the child with all the enthusiastic questions that a one-day would-be mother might care about. All that enthusiasm is important because it sets up with how the scene ends. And how about the wonderful Ray Teal who has a short gig as a bondsman who pays Hurstwood (Lawrence Oliver) an unhappy visit at an hotel where the latter is honeymooning. Teal is so good in this scene. Oh, he?s in the driver?s seat and he knows it and watch the way he chomps on the gum and looks at Hurstwood out of the corner of his eye and with that gotcha smile. The scene is all the more effective because the bondsman is not a bad guy and in his own way treats HurstW with at least a modicum of respect. About a month ago I kept my Netflix copy for about six weeks. I didn?t watch it every day but I had trouble returning it because I couldn?t convince myself that I was really through with it, so much I like it. Now it?s mine, all mine! It?s one of the new acquisitions, along with *Jezebel* (1938), maybe not Bette?s best movie, she did so many, but the one of hers that I seem to like the best. She has a marvelous entrance, dismounting and hooking her skirt with the whip so it won?t drag behind her. Watch Fay Bainter when she opens the door. This is the first look we get and she is so uncannily natural. Watch what she does with her face, perfection. She is terrific throughout and deserves her Oscar. I?ll be happy to watch this again, it has been awhile, HenryF, never a disappointment, and GeorgeB as Buck Cantrell. The only thing that grates for me is that horrible waltz Steiner wrote, oh I can?t stand it, just me, just me, no offense. And what a surprise to see *Anna Karenina* (1948) on that shelf at The Shoppe, just waiting to be bought and for only $3. About a year ago I was totally smitten by Vivien here?and since then, thanks to *Jackie?s* thread, have been a true RR fan. I?m really anxious to see this one again. The DVDs available here were donated by a private citizen but they have a glossy, new look to them. AnnaK has a DVD cover (that slips over the actual DVD box) and an insert, along with several post-card stock strength pictures from the movie. The other two DVDs were bought on impulse. *The Cat and the Canary* (Remastered with new scenes) is my first silent. I can blame *Gagman66* for this since he recently gave a good rundown on Laura LaPlante down in Silent Films, I believe I was influenced by that. The last is a Hitchcock double feature, *The Secret Agent* and *Sabotage*, both 1936. I've seen the latter, Oskar Homolka is interesting just by being there, and I seem to recall a central episode in the story to be daring to depict at that time. These two movies make an interesting pairing since *Sabotage* was based on Joseph Conrad?s novel, ?The Secret Agent,? while the other movie, bearing the title of Conrad's novel, nevertheless has nothing to do with it, a completely different story, based on Maugham. This DVD also includes a Betty Boop cartoon and a nine-minute newsreel from 1936. I understand from the proprietorship of this Shoppe that they acquired about 4,000 titles but can only display a couple hundred at a time due to space constraints. So my plan is to make a weekly visit, so fun to browse those shelves. I have a long way to attain the heights of the great collectors of TCM City but however modest the collection turns out to be, what I end up with will be me.

Excuse me, the interloper, I waited until the end of the day after the present conversation was over because I didn?t want to interrupt. The advantages of living on the West Coast. I don?t do lists. You have to be a prolific viewer of whatever category is being subjected to a list for it to mean anything, so I generally stay clear. I?m here because prior to today I owned a total of zero DVDs and now I own six. A modest start. I happened to drop into a thrift store this afternoon and was amazed at the selection and only $3 each. Someone had dumped them because they were moving. I don?t know about you but normally DVDs at thrift stores or second hand music shops have no selection, no classics, no foreign, nothing for anyone other than those who are looking for modern blockbusters, etc. Anyway I bought six of them and had to stop myself. Not an earthshaking event but I wanted to share the experience. Here are the six: *Algiers* *, *Home Town Story* (early MM), and *The Outlaw* were on a single DVD. (Despite Marilyn here, the main attraction was *Algiers* ) The rest: *Diary of Lost Girl* *The Heiress* * *Les Liaisons Dangereuses (1960)* *Onegin* * *Women in Love* * Asterisks are relatively familiar and such favorites I had to get them. The others are less known to me and were impulses. The only DVD of a movie in my possession prior to today?s shop fest is a copy made for me by a TCM-ite who has posted on various pages (but not of late) and who knows who she is, heehee. I have an extensive collection of VHS movies from TCM, really quite a considerable number?but since VHS is so pass?, it?s no fun bragging about that any more, sigh. I certainly can?t boast about owning six DVDS but I am amazed that I broke down and bought them. Up to now I have steadfastly refused to get into collecting (I?m a Netflixer) and I sincerely hope that this is not the start of something big (sorry, Steve). >Last Train From Gun Hill SPOILER >I was struggling to find female characters. Going down my list of westerns (in my mind), her character kept sticking in my memory. I found her interesting because she switches her loyalty from the man she formerly loved (Anthony Quinn) to a virtual stranger (Kirk Douglas) and she was instrumental in helping Douglas accomplish his intentions. MISSG *MissG*, I caught this post of yours and I wanted to say that I recently watched this and was going to do a little preview thing on Westerns but now I won?t. But I thought Susan Oliver the best character in the story. I watched this because I wanted to see Anthony Quinn after his ?Morgan? in *Warlock*, a very interesting guy and Quinn was brilliant. Here, he is less so but had to less to work with. One thing that grabbed me about the movie is this theme of two friends who once rode together as outlaws and meet later in life. Some of this recent spate of Westerns that I?ve seen, such as *Ride the High Country*, *The Law and Jake Wade*, *Ride Lonesome*, to name a few are of this ilk. Usually one is now on the side of the law (Douglas) and the other if not still an outlaw, per se, is nevertheless a bit louche and involved in something shady (Quinn). I thought Douglas a little bland and Quinn better but not earthshaking. Susan Oliver?s character, as you point out, is pivotal and the most interesting. She is crisply made up (maquillage) but not floozy-like, her round face is almost like a little doll. But she has poise and a sharp manner and can take care of herself. Yes, she chooses to help Douglas, not because she is after him, but more for ethical reasons. Right or wrong is more important than this former attachment to the other. This story had a *310 to Yuma* feel about it, in fact, it?s almost giving away too much to mention it. But, *Last Train from Gun Hill* is nowhere near the other (speaking of the original, of course)

This scene really got to me. Very well done scene by both players, poor Marushka, a maid, is duped horribly by the manipulations of the Count. She is simple and dreadfully gullible but there is no inclination to laugh at her. Just the opposite. Von Stroheim is certainly an effective villain. He has a way of licking his lips, running his tongue all around his mouth when contemplating his prey, enhancing his manifestly reptilian countenance. *The Foolish Wife* The DVD has added scenes when compared with an earlier version shown on TCM. I taped one of these on VHS in the 90s. I tried watching both simultaneously to pin point the differences. The additions to the newer one were plentiful, sometimes there were just editing changes with parts of scenes played in different order. In the newer, more complete version, a clergyman stumbles upon the house during the storm scene thereby preventing the Count a sure conquest. The daggered look Stroheim gives him is dramatically pleasing and is missing from the earlier version, to name just one. The more complete version is surely better but I am hopelessly enamored of the Steven Sterner score in the earlier, less complete version. There is much repetition but I like the way he takes the themes and tailors them to the tone of the story. The music is so immediately vibrant. The great Sigmund Romberg wrote the original music (I believe) and is used in the later DVD version and it is hard to quarrel with any of it. I have always liked this movie. *Gagman*: Thank you for the additional information on *Laura La Plante*. I will give her a better chance next time. BTW, I watched *The Temptress* for the first time (blown away) and there was a blonde actress who appeared very briefly and who looked like Laura. Is it possible? In the banquet scene she is sitting on Fontenoy?s left (the camera?s right) at the beginning of that long and magnificent tracking shot down the table. Just prior to that, she was framed with the gentleman sitting with her, goofing around in line with the general gaiety of the scene (that is, before all hell broke loose, haha). Laura was already established by 1925 so it is not likely that she would be used in such a small, un-credited role like that, but I was intrigued nonetheless. You would probably know immediately if she is Laura or not.

>What I want to say is I was knocked out by Olivier in the 1931 FRIENDS AND LOVERS. So early on, and he's already got that dashing, moody, charismatic, romantic presence! Have you seen *Carrie* ? HIs character is middle aged and might be a little short of the dashing (some of the vigor is gone) but he makes up for it with an extra dose of ?moody? and strong dose of tragic yearning, yes, a dubiously campy phrase. But when he leans out of the carriage to take her hand, ?Don?t leave me!" he makes it work. Thanks for mentioning *Two Way Stretch*. *lzcutter*, is it your birthday? HappyB to you!

>Nanette Newman was adorable as the slightly balmy cousin with a fixation on crime against women. ...as well as a few other things. >I was surprised that Dudley Moore actually got girls in this one. He always felt that this was his favorite film...maybe >I picture Sir Ralph giving rides on his motorcycle to cast members. ...regaling them with facts along the way. Must keep in character. >Can you see Firs and Sir John, hair blowing back as they ride through the British countryside? Too funny. They should have worked that in there.

>I think Wilfred Lawson DID play Firs in The Cherry Orchard. Original 1904 production. Honestly, I thought he was going to drop dead any minute! He was a riot! Wow, how precocious of him, Four years old! Firs moves around so slowly and mumbles so much to himself and is often very nearly unintelligible. Lawson would have made a good Firs.

>*Frank Grimes* wrote: I believe Dr. Sloper is to blame for Catherine being as she is. --- >*Laffite* wrote: I am humbled by that...My sense is that *Catharine is just that way* but that Sloper refused to help her out of it. I have to correct something here as I misunderstood your meaning. I certainly agree with your assertion above. About a month ago I wrote here stating categorically that Sloper could never accept Catharine the way she was and therefore did not love Catharine, that I couldn?t even say that he loved her in his own way (no palliatives), that the comparisons that he made of wife and daughter were ?odious? and that the way he treated her was ?abominable.? I did not say specifically that he was the cause of the way she is but of course he was. You might have thought I was nuts. What went through my mind when you said that is what I now consider to be relatively unimportant. Did Catharine inherit her gaucheness, was she like that from birth? Or was Sloper?s influence on her so pernicious that she might have developed normally had Sloper not compared so unfavorably with his wife, etc? I automatically assumed the former, that Sloper did not ?create? her gaucheness, but that she was like that naturally. I thought your assertion meant the latter, that Sloper "created" her shyness, etc. I don't have that view and that's what shocked ("humbled") me. When I wrote later: >I did not mean physical fear. She just doesn't seem to be so outwardly fearful of her father to have allowed him to stunt her growth like that, to make her so totally unresponsive to the schools he sent her to, etc., It's unrealistic to me that he would **** her so with the way they generally come across together on screen. This is the way it plays to me anyway. ...it was with reference to the idea that Sloper was not the first cause of Catharine's shyness and had nothing to do with trying to absolve Sloper for the harm he caused his daughter because he most certainly did. Whether he caused her to be the way she was, or whether she was that way naturally and he could not accept her that way is moot because whether the one of the other, he nonetheless could not accept her the way she was as she grew older and his constant reproofs and comparisons did in fact impede her growth. >*Jackie* wrote: I think it's absolutely fascinating that you said you relate to Dr.Sloper most - ?It's amazing to me that you are sympathetic to him. >*FrankGrimes* wrote: he's ignorant of his harmful arrogance and selfishness. That's who he is. However, I don't think he purposely set out to hurt his daughter. It's a byproduct of his world and manner. I just can't give him a pass on it. This is where we differ. I take back the one part of what I wrote a month ago, that it was not okay to see him love her in his own way. There is a palliative after all. I think ?giving him a pass? is not quite the right phrase, it sounds a little to lenient. But to understand that Sloper IS a product of his ?world and manner? and that therefore it is impossible for him to act anyway other than he does is important. It makes him not an intrinsically bad man. He is man of his time. I don?t want to remove him from the movie, to take Sloper out of his element and place him in my own time and subject him to my own values of today. If I do that he is indeed appalling. But to understand his point of view as a man of his own time, too see him mean well but do badly is what makes him an interesting character in the story. To fully appreciate that, I want to sympathize with Sloper a little, to see his point of view. If I don?t do that and see him simply as an ogre, a selfish man who thinks only of himself, based on the my values of today instead of Sloper?s values of his day, then the essential richness of his character is compromised, the irony is gone, the ambiguity that Wyler strives to show is weakened, the story itself, suffers. For me. Is it possible even that Sloper's motives regarding Catharine are less selfish and more well meaning towards Catharine than either Laviania or Morris? The one is thrilling for a match for her own edification despite being someone who is privy to information that might help Catharine, while the other wants to marry Catharine for reasons other than love, the thing that Catharine actually wants the most. And yet he, Sloper, by virtue of being her father, in the long run has hurt her the most, however unwittingly done. But he is not the ALL of it. He is the prime mover in comparison with the others but as Jackie and perhaps others have so eloquently pointed out, Sloper, Lavinia, and Morris all want poor Catharine do what they want her to do for their own purposes and they all hurt her in the process. She is ripped to pieces by all of them and gets nothing. Edited by: laffite on Jan 13, 2011 2:12 AM Edited by: laffite on Jan 13, 2011 2:35 AM

I started *The Love Trap* with *Laura La Plante,* not ever having seen her before. At the beginning there are two young women who share the screen, a blonde and a brunette, and it was not immediately clear who was who. I was hoping the brunette was Laura La Plante because I liked her better. But... I did not watch the whole movie, partly because I was disappointed in Laura, but mostly because of other matters, time constraints, other pressing matters. Then I saw your excellent review of *Captain of the Guard* and my interest in Laura is renewed. I don't see the movie available anywhere but one day I hope to see it. Even if it should come up for purchase I would not follow through on that since I simply do not buy movie DVDs. But I'm glad I saw your review. If you have a recommendation with Laura, please let me know and I can check availability on Netflix, etc. I want to give Laura another chance.

>Catherine is in constant search of her father's approval. Her entire world revolves around his approval. She's paralyzed by the want and need of his approval. How does one get to this stage? Paralyzed? She wanted the approval of her father just as many daughters would. >It's not a physical fear of her father that Catherine has. It's the fear he doesn't approve of her. Her fears are warranted. I did not mean physical fear. She just doesn't seem to be so outwardly fearful of her father to have allowed him to stunt her growth like that, to make her so totally unresponsive to the schools he sent her to, etc., It's unrealistic to me that he would **** her so with the way they _generally_ come across together on screen. This is the way it plays to me anyway. I wlll be very interested when I see this film again. I love RR's performance so much that I may have seen him in too good a light.

>I believe Dr. Sloper is to blame for Catherine being as she is. I am humbled by that. My take of Sloper was that he was hard on Catharine and I disapproved of that but that it was not so bad as to have terrorized her to that extent. Despite her problems, she does not seem to be excessively fearful of her father, at least on the outside. And he often acts kindly towards her though with an "air of reproof" (Jackie) but she seems gently tolerant of that. She doesn't come across to me as a person reduced to "fear and paralysis." But perhaps Wyler weaves Sloper's pernicious influence on her in a way that is under my radar. My sense is that Catharine is just that way but that Sloper refused to help her out of it. I think your view is the more conventional. I may have missed the whole point here, very possible. I will certainly give it some thought.

>No, I don't like her obstinate vulnerability. There is a point where you learn something in life, and Catherine was incapable of taking the right lesson from her experiences. Why did she learn how to hurt and strike back, but not how to be more demure and attractive? *Jackie* Catharine is non learner. That?s her. Sloper has sent her to the schools, music, how to act., we know all that, but she does not learn. There are people like that?but I share your frustration, Jackie, about that and Catharine. And I say too, it is far, far easier to ?learn? to be hurt and strike back than to be ?demure and attractive.? This latter is not within everybody?s reach. I have to remind myself that, despite the attempts to make Olivia appear unattractive, her underlying beauty is still there to a certain extent and that belies the hard fact to the audience that Catharine is as unattractive as she is supposed to be to us. She is not only an ugly ducking but she has no aptitude for being charming (Olivia makes Catharine charming in a home-spun sort of way but succeeds in making her without poise and social grace in the society of others, obviously the more important.). Sloper compares Catharine unfavorably with his wife, but if his wife was far less perfect than Sloper thinks and the comparison not so glaring, would Sloper be happier about Catharine? I think not. Even without the comparisons, Catharine would be far below Sloper?s expections, and unnervingly, justifiably so. >I am annoyed at her right now because I want her to win once - I keep thinking when I go back to watch the movie maybe this time she will learn to be more discerning, or she will know how to get what she wants and keep it. But I have the benefit of hindsight...*jackie* Me too. I don?t normally crave happy endings but I wish this one were. It?s ironic because Hollywood has been at time notorious for changing the tragic endings of some classic stories to please the audience. I think they overdid Catharine when they remade her into the forceful, bitter woman she becomes. I understand, they had to make her this way?but she doesn?t ring true to me. I have to remind myself that years have passed when she is like this and there seems not a trace of that former self. But you?re right, there was room for at least some hope for her, but the story, as is, just doesn?t allow for it. I understand *FrankGrimes* assertion that she has, in a sense, ?won? but it?s a Pyrrhic victory. I keep trying to make something of her facial expression as she mounts the steps that last time to give her something more. She has a look of triumph on her face (contrasting with the utter defeat earlier when Morris didn?t come for her.) Can?t we find something there? >I adored Lavinia until the end. She started off with good "vision" but she lost it with Morris. Morris had her under his thumb. Catherine saw Morris more honestly than she. *FrankGrimes* But Lavinia says to Catharine, ?I wish you had been more clever?? (re, telling Morris that she had broke with her father) so she must have had an inkling at least that Morris was after money, something that Catharine didn?t know. (I absolutely love the way the script has Catharine ask twice (or thrice?) and very slowly, ?What shouldn?t I have told Morris about my father?? She has been gullible but she comes across here to me with an endearing innocence, to ask that with such heartbreaking honesty and unawareness. My poor girl! I don?t like Lavinia at all. She?s only being herself with all this marry Morris no matter what attitude, giggly I?ve-got-a-headache stratagems so that Catharine and Morris will be alone, but as a viewer I hated that, one reason being that I?m not sure how much she knew about Morris? intentions, _as time went on_, and depending on that, did she encourage the match out of mindless, exhilarating necessity to see Catharine married as soon as possible and at any cost? Depending on how much she really knew and when she knew it about Morris, she may have been in a position to actually help Catharine. Sloper invites Lavania to ?stay on? for awhile to help Catharine with her social problems etc., yet she invites Morris to the house when Sloper and Catharine are in Europe. When they return Lavania lies to Sloper about taking a drink for her heart, a harmless enough little white lie on the surface, but when Sloper says, ?Is he upstairs in my bed?? (Oh, I loved that, good going Sloper!), and ?He?s been using my house for a club,? (Bingo, Sloper, I love it!) I see how Laviania is cavalierly unmindful that she may have been acting against Sloper?s wishes in giving Morris an open-door policy. I know, I know, it?s all for love and all that but I would have experienced visceral satisfaction if Sloper had ordered her out of the house right then and there, back to her sister?s or wherever this babbling fool and traitor keeps herself when she?s not running an inn for duplicitous suitors. Sloper?s main reason for the trip to Europe, ostensibly, was his conviction that Morris would tire and give Catharine up after a few months, something he seems to have forgotten when he quits Europe for the other reason, that Catharine might forget about Morris. But how can the original reason be tested if Lavinia is pouring drinks and lighting cigars for the guy. If I?m Sloper, I?m livid at Lavinia for entertaining Morris. Sloper does finally reject Lavinia when he later issues orders about his home care, ?Don?t let Lavinia come into my room,? high time. Lavinia is thoroughly irritating to me. (Of course, I appreciate her as necessary for the story, but that is another matter). >When you say the characters here are less defined than the originals, you are totally, completely right. I've been doing some reading on the subject of this movie and I found that Wyler purposely let Clift make Morris more sympathetic. In doing that, he created some ambiguity about Morris' motives, which leaves us uncomfortable with the outcome. Well, of course, the original being a novel, the characters are developed fully, so I wasn?t saying much there?but that?s interesting about making Morris sympathetic. How awful had he been totally transparent from the beginning. It would have made Catharine look really stupid, for one thing. Morris comes across sincere enough at the outset that we can almost believe him. Clift (and Wyler) have Morris acquit himself well in general, even Sloper admits this. It?s only in hindsight that some of the flattery can be seen for what it is, coming across as false. Morris is shown to be forthcoming about squandering his ?small fortune? while ?cultivating horizons? (whatever the term) which intimates honesty. His urging Catharine to go to Europe with her father, etc. Ominous signs are cleverly introduced and give us pause, but only by degrees. Morris ducks in the long shot of asking Sloper for help in securing a position. Later with Catharine he declares himself and says to her, ?If I should ever appear to high-something and false?? employing the ever effective pre-emptive strike, introducing presumptive objections first and in effect immunizing Catharine to the noxious effect of thinking of them herself, even ?forearming himself? (Sloper) by extracting a the promise of fidelity, no matter what comes. Sloper has already mentioned that he thinks that Morris is a fortune hunter but Clift only lets us know, by degrees, behavior that allows us to assess this for ourselves. >There is also no original elopement scene in the book *Jackie* Somebody remind me why there was one in the movie. I understand Catharine?s insistence of eloping sooner than planned, to get away from her father?but why was there need to elope in the first place. Sloper could do nothing to prevent the marriage. It was bad for Morris because his plan was, now that he had Catharine, to woo the father, something much more difficult to accomplish by running away. Morris would have been more than happy with that ?uneasy peace? (---Jackie) biding time to show himself a good husband to Catharine and gaining Sloper?s favor. It?s ironic that Morris, having won Catharine?s heart so easily, apparently felt powerless to change her mind about her father, hence his flight. The true Morris, revealed.

*The Wrong Box* is a good show with a fine cast: *Michael Caine*, a doctor who will now specialize in lady?s ankles?uh, careful doctor; *Nanette Newman,* was sexual repression ever as sweet as this?; *Ralph Richardson*, best ever blabber mouth in a film and that?s a fact; *John Mills*, new record holder for the most attempted murders in a single scene; *Peter Cook,* brilliant schemer turned common thief, *Dudley Moore*, who says, ?Here today, gone tomorrow,? and gets away with it, *Peter Sellers,* who delivers a hilarious turn as a Death Certificate dealing doctor with a penchant for cats and their various uses ?and the creepy voiced Butler who sets a new standard for same (he should play Firs in the The Cherry Orchard ). Did I mention *Nanette Newman* :x _Warning_: The word "body" has prurient overtones in this film. Discretion advised.

>The Wrong Box (1966) will be shown tonight... I'm a few minutes into the film, the rest to be viewed shortly... He is such a blabber, blab, blab, blab...good thing they didn't put me into this movie. I would seek him out just to hear him talk.