laffite

>The "Look" episode was another I was thinking of. It's so cleverly done, I think many audience members don't get that they are the ones being called out for laughing at her. I know I didn't get it until many viewings and either Peter Bogdanovich or Scott Eyman mention it. 'Till then I just thought it was an awkward moment. I didn't laugh at poor Look there. I don't say that to brag that I didn't fall for the call out. It's just that I liked her too much. Oh, that crestfallen look on her face when her father turned down the first offer. I thought she was cute in her large, gangling way, the big eyes, the sweet disposition. I thought getting kicked like that a little jarring...and then having her roll all the way down the hill like that? Well, if what's his name (Jeffrey Hunter guy) ever learns to read and write he should pen a book entitled, "How to get a wife without really trying (and why I kicked her down the hill)." It will sell a million copies.

The Headline *MORRIS TO WED HEIRESS* has resonance to anyone who has seen *The Heiress*, haha. sorry...

After seeing *Rochelle Hudson* in her brief stint in *Dr Bull*, I did a double take on the note about her on Jan 3 stating that she was 24 years old. That would make her 18 (possibly even 17) when *Dr Bull* was released. I had to go back to the movie (still on DVR) and marvel how mature she looks. Amazing! *Filmlover*, this is a great idea, I'll be stopping here on a daily basis. I'm so glad you're doing this.

>Will Rogers had a ton of Confidence - he just looked easy and comfortable all the time. I guess what he was was what you got - the real deal and nothing else. I would think that came from all his long years of experience and hard work leading up to where I finally see him in films. Will Rogers is new to me as well. I?ve seen two films, *Connecticut Yankee* and *Dr Bull.* After the first one I was reluctant to draw any conclusions about him because it was such a farce, he was supposed act the way he did, etc?but with the latter he plays more the ?contemporary? man in a setting to match and I felt I got a better take. In *Dr Bull* he is immensely likable, not only because he does good things but because of that persona. There is so much humility there that it?s just too hard not to like him. As I get to more of his films--- *To Busy to Work* is next---it will be interesting to gauge how he comes across. Is he the same person in every film?or does he make adjustments (however slight) depending on who?s he playing. Normally the charge of playing yourself in every movie is considered pejorative but if Will does do this---the jury is still out with me---he may be one who can absorb that dubious distinction more gracefully than others might. In the intro to *Dr Bull*, *Mr O* said that John Ford gave Will a green light to rephrase certain lines to his own liking (not to freely ad-lib, he had to stay on script) and this may have contributed to how well he comes across. And if so, thanks to Mr Ford who, as I gather, was not necessarily so flexible in such matters. Thank you, Mr Ford, for lightening up on this one, you did good.

MissG, here is Tara's theme by Percy Faith, I've always loved this version. Not the original soundrack, of course, but a very Faith-ful, haha, version. L

>...but I'm not sure I can stretch it to include The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (my second favorite movie of all time in case you didn't know ) Mais non, je ne le savait pas. Je voudrais savoir le film le plus favoris, laisse-moi deviner... (thinking) Hmm, c'est GWTW ou MDC, l'un ou l'autre...Mais lequel? Sinon, peut-etre autre chose???

>:x :x Just for that you don't need to like a single other John Wayne movie. Does that mean I don't have to like *The Searchers* ? How about Aunt Myra? So much to like. Her answer to a ringing telephone is to move to another chair. She is splendid with her typhoid theory. Lay logic in medical matters are almost ALWAYS wrong but the script lets her buck the odds and be right. Dr Bull laughs at her at first in a similar way that he will be laughed by Dr Verney later on. After her relentless rhetorical assault sends the doctor to the manuals, she concludes: ?Well, I told you.? Then: ?Do you want tea or coffee supper?? (no answer) ?DO YOU WANT TEA OR COFFEE FOR YOUR SUPPER? _KENNETH!_ ? That ?Kenneth? is a great finisher there. It?s a little out of the Edna May Oliver playbook but Effie Ellsler makes it her own. As I go back and see her in this, her facial expressions, her tone and inflection, the overall strength and vitality of speech and movement, she?s a riot. I didn't check her out on IMDB but she could have used like this in a lot of movies. She is potentially the ilk of Marie Dressler, and it simply does not get any better than that. And oh, the telephones! Dr Bull has a rare moment of petulant silliness saying that if he is no longer a doctor he will spend the rest of his life ripping phones apart with his bare hands (It?s not really germane but I couldn?t stop the image in mind of Anthony Quinn in *La Strada)*. Good thing he didn?t have a cell phone although in his case it might not have made a difference. Ford is using his music, the songs, the carols. And the camera, wonderful real life scenes of the town, visually freeing and lending added authenticity to the story. The camera stays back at times for those long shots that he used in later films. I like the view of the doctor leaving the house of the Italian family. The camera is motionless and at a distance as if we the audience are standing on the corner, stumbling upon the scene and being treated to a humorous slice-of-life little occurrence, the little doctor exhausted from the all nighter, easing away from the clamor of flamboyant Italian gratitude.

*The Will Rogers line-up was really a treat. I loved DR. BULL! Vera Allen as his love interest had a lot of the "mature" grace and charm of Mary Astor in DODSWORTH.===Bronxgirl* *This is one of the reasons Dr Bull is my favorite of the Ford-Rogeres films. It's the only time he has a girlfriend, at least in his talkies that I know of. And it's a really nice, mature love story. Love when he kicks aside her former husband's house slippers.===MissG* The two are so good together. We know instinctively that Dr Bull is probably not up to much in the way of real scandal with the Cardmaker widow but all the gossip is a good lead-in to what we actually see, namely, that first scene together and the delightful rapport they share. Wonderful spontaneity with the song where they finish together and have that laugh. They are so comfortable with each other, so at ease?there are things still unsaid at this point and they skirt around the issues with bits of innuendo, but their basic compatibility is undeniable. Vera Allen DOES bring to mind Mary Astor in *Dodsworth*?but I wonder hmm, if Mr Dodsworth would sit still long enough for Alice in Wonderland. Also, a sympathetic nod to May, the phone operator, the bookworm surrounded by Philistines. She has familiar prettiness, I looked up her films but they are unknown to me. I notice that Ford is not afraid of having an actor?s back to the camera for short time, giving an odd impression that the audience is eavesdropping, yielding a sense of realism. I love this movie. I'm putting it on VHS, something I don't do much anymore. But I need to have *Dr Bull* on demand. EDIT: I thought that Berton Churchill fella was familiar...Ford used him in Stagecoach in a similar role. He did a lot of smiling in that one too. Edited by: laffite on Jan 1, 2011 1:14 PM

>I loved DR. BULL! Vera Allen as his love interest had a lot of the "mature" grace and charm of Mary Astor in DODSWORTH. Oh my, that's high praise! *Dr Bull* is on my short list...and now I can't wait to meet Vera!

Happy New Year to ALL from me as well. I hope 2011 is your BEST EVER Laffite PS ... Ro, will you please PM me one of those cupcakes. Yum! I want one with the blue icing

>I'm so glad you liked Will...did you get to see Doctor Bull by any chance? Nay...but I must needs do so...anon ...I've just checked the DVR and to my horror I have *Doubting Thomas*, *Life Begins at 40,* *Too Busy to Work, Down to Earth, and Dr Bull.* Yike!!! I didn't know I recorded that many. Well, I won't watch them all, I'm sure. And there is only so much space on the DVR. I will watch at least two of them. Would you care to recommend? *Dr Bull* and ____ (I will keep all until I have seen the two...in case I get Willmania and want to watch them all. Thanks

I haven't seen this movie but I would consider it now after reading this. I like this kind of in-depth look you have given us here. Well done...and thank you.

>Baines is so small compared to Sloper, but the turmoil he is going through is greater. He takes great pains to hide it, to appear normal, but WE see all. He's walking a fine line. I always enjoy actors who have the gift of showing something to US that they are hiding from everyone else. This act of hiding one's feelings, or one's nature makes me want to look more closely at them. I am a sucker for the actor who can communicate deep emotion with a "tell" - like in poker... allowing something to slip out here and there in their body movement or a flicker of an eyelid. Alec Guinness is very much one of these actors, and I think maybe he learned a bit from Richardson when he was coming up in the Old Vic. I admit, I was puzzled when you said in an earlier post that you liked Baines better than Sloper (the portrayals), but your reasons explained above makes it clear. Your take on Baines is far deeper than mine, I thought him a little bland and therefore Richardson?s nuances unnoticed. This is probably why Richardson?s Sloper appeals me to more, it?s out front to see. The nuances are there but they amplify the more overt aspects of the portrayal. I will always believe that Richardson as Sloper is absolutely flawless, not a single false note. SPOILERS FOR *FALLEN IDOL* Yet your take on Baines is arresting, making me feel like, what have I missed? It?s a valid reason for revisiting the movie for that reason alone. Bravo, Jackie. What flashed in my mind while reading you here was Baines? reaction to the Phillipe?s question, ?Did you kill Mrs Baines.? He pauses, looks away, then returns his glance, more pause, then he says, ?No,? hardly audible. I?m sure you can read him there better than I could. In any case, he was believable and the child, indeed, believes. But there are many more, I?m sure, and as I say, the movie should be revisited, doing the same thing you did with Sloper, taking in the whole story with particular attention to his point of view. END SPOILER I think I was paying more attention to the child. If I didn?t know better I would think that it was simply an astonishingly brilliant performance by an exceptional and precocious child actor. But after watching the Carol Reed Feature, we learn differently. It?s fascinating what Reed had to do. The child was manipulated, cajoled, and sometimes painstakingly forced to do whatever necessary for the scene. These facts do not ruin my perception of the child or the performance. The end result is phenomenal. The personality of Phillipe comes across as a consistent, well integrated young person, not at all indicative of the hodge-podge of stratagems required to realize him on screen. I wonder who deserves the most credit, the child actor or Reed himself. In any case, Phillippe seemed to be my primary focus. In fact, occurring to me just now is the thought that I may have doing with Phillipe what you were doing with Baines. I was always aware of how Phillipe was coming across, really small things, like the expression on his face when he surprises upon Baines and girlfriend having tea. The frame changes to the two sitting at the table, then quickly back to the child. His expression is slightly different, this time communicating his decision to enter the caf? with all the anticipation and delight in doing so. A small thing but Phillipe is so full rich detail like this. SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER One of the more fascinating of these is one that is not so little. Reed deserves a lot of credit here. It?s when Phillipe is back home from the police station. When he spots Baines he cannot take his eyes off him. He looks, and looks, and looks. The police doctor tries to ask him questions but Phillipe only has eyes for Baines. We get five or six frames of this going on, some of them interestingly placing Philipe on the side of the frame with the police doctor right in the middle. Ostensibly, the viewer is supposed to focus on the police doctor and the questioning, but Carol Reed, sly fox, knows that we are probably as fascinated with Philippe as Phillippe is with Baines. The context is everything. Phillipe hasn?t seen Baines since the incident and has concluded (or at least strongly suspects) that Baines did it, a thought aggravated by the fact that the image of the Wanted For Murder sign in the police station is fresh in mind and surely a part of Phillipe?s fascination as he gazes upon Baines. He is trying to assimilate this new information with regard to his ?idol.?There?s more. Phillipe has this blanket wrapped around him (it was cold outside) the top of which reaches just below eye level thereby accentuating this absolutely fixed gaze. It's as if Phillipe is spying on Baines, unseen. It?s a brilliant scene. Nobody asks him what he?s looking at, no one seems to notice, all these questions going on etc. There?s a coyness about this. Reed doesn?t want to put Phillipe center stage and has all this other stuff going on. But he does want us to notice it ourselves, making it all the more effective. I love this. Baines? is apprehensive (but composed) and no wonder. I almost died when Phillipe says to the doctor, eyes glued to Baines, ?You?re not going to send him to prison,? an implied question and then a minute later to Baines as the latter takes him up the stairs to bed, ?Was it self defense like in Africa?.? Yike! END SPOILER Please excuse all that detail, Jackie?I know you?ve seen the movie, but I also know how much you think of Carol Reed and I think he did a splendid job with this, as well as with the whole movie. Thank you for allowing me to wallow a bit in what I think is an extraordinary moment in the story. Jackie, thank you for your updates on Washington Square. I?m interested and I appreciate that you are taking the time to do it. Hmm, I?m allowing you do to all the work and I receive the benefit, at least your interesting summaries. It?s obvious, of course, the characters are filled in so completely in a novel and have to be streamlined for stage or screen. I would like your assessment on how they did that when you?re finished. I remember how much I loved the BBC production of *The Jewel in the Crown* and how I marveled (having read all four novels of The Raj Quartet ) at the screen adaptation. SPOILER FOR *THE HEIRESS* It?s taking me this long to realize why I was so uncomfortable with some of those really quite good scenarios you advanced with regard to Sloper. I realize now how much I identify with Sloper and I don?t want to him to make concessions. I think he?s quite right with just about everything and I am unhappy that he would tolerate ?an uneasy peace? with Townsend. I want him to love Catharine but to realize the absolute unacceptability of leaving money to her if he thought that Morris would squander it. Catharine still has the ten thousand after all. (Morris would have been happy with this uneasy peace, giving him time to make it up with Sloper, but Catharine left no possibility of reconciliation, so off he went. Color him greedy.) But you are quite right about Catharine?s handling of the re-drawing of the will and the demonstration of power she has over him, making my view of Sloper perhaps unrealistic. He has weaknesses. It?s interesting that these characters, made over for stage and screen, are necessarily less defined than their original selves, which allow for diverse views on who they really are. =

*Monte Walsh* *William A. Fraker* *Lee Marvin, Jack Palance* Wow, glad you mentioned this, totally forgot it existed. Who would have thought Marvin playing against Jeanne Moreau. I thought they were great together. An anomaly for Marvin, his character is not always comfortable with himself, even a little shy and diffident in some of his scenes with Moreau, an actor's actor sort of role. Marvin is nearly always good but here he shows us something a little different.

>Now I do confess that I found Connecticut Yankee a bit "silly' but I mean that in a fun way, ha. It was QUITE silly near the end w/ all the modern machinery coming in to save the day, ha... but again.. it was fun (sort of in a "Keystone Kop-ish" kinda way.) And you are right.. OH that Myrna.. she was LOVELY (even if she was playing "rotten" ha.) I enjoyed this movie. Since it was made 1931 I made no particular demands (I think I underestimate these early talkies sometimes) and proceeded in relax and enjoy mode. What choppy, who noticed? Some of the gags were funny getting progressively sillier and anachronistic all along. I even liked some of the tableaus, distant shots of castles, for instance, though they were no doubt large photographs or cardboard makeups. Some perhaps miniature made of clay, some of those castle-shattering explosions were cool, in an elementary sort of way. Some of the archaic, pseudo-Shakespearean language was pleasing to me. ?Foul traitor!/Spawn of the Devil/I know thee no for what thou has ever been/Thy heart is black/Thy soul stinks with evil? says King Arthur on the scaffold. ?Thems beautiful words, King, and just what I?ve been trying to think of what to call that guy ever since I met?em,? is Martin?s not-so-Shakespearean rejoinder. This is the first time I?ve seen Will Rogers in a movie and I like him. If this is the basic persona of Will on the screen it works very well in a movie like this where the setting is so far removed from his own. I like my Myrna in ?rotten mode.? She was even a little titillating (I won?t elaborate on that). She is not all that convincing as a meanie though. Oh Myrna, I know you too well.

frxeyman, thanks for that, a very nice read. I'm looking forward to the new one.

>I sometimes wonder if because he's playing authority figures people only I?ve heard that too. >Well....I would say "No", in your case. Talk about a movie lacking any subtlety...and either one likes that or they don't. I can enjoy it, but it might offend Piratical tastes. Got it. I don?t mind an unsubtle romp now and then, but I?m passing on this one. >In fact, more people need to do that in general...I venture into other forums here and all I see is negativity and no real depth whatsoever (lots of pontificating, though), so that I don't wonder people feel less and less like posting anything meaningful here. I am learning to let pass the things I don't like but I wish, like you, that more would air their views about particulars, something more than a snippet here and there. I won?t mention names but there are some extremely smart and knowledgeable people in these other forums who really shine but don?t amplify. I wish there were more of the ?ramble? persuasion.

*MissG*, if I ever do watch *Rio Grande* again I will try to remember the things you said. I appreciate your very thoughtful take on it, the subject matter and how you view John Wayne. I admit I didn?t see the degree of subtlety in the performance as you, but the fact you do see it gives me pause. Maybe I will come to better appreciate him one day. *MissG,* you wrote, ?I like the idea of Maddy and the way her character is written?,? and that says it for me too, only I had no problem with the actress, I thought she was fine. I think Maddie WAS supposed to be irritating, just witness how she affected those around her, at times. I might have liked her in this movie but I wouldn?t want to live with her. *Ro,* I agree with you on the ?fun? aspect of TG. There is a likability about the show that cannot be denied. I DID have the impression prior to watching that it was supposed to be something of a coup for him, acting wise, maybe it was the Award that made me think so. But your takes, both of you, on that seems on the mark to me and I consider you both as experts on all things relating to the Duke. Thanks to you both for your comments. I will read them again, I may have a little more to add. Next, *The Searchers*, it?s on the DVR. I?ve seen it before but I didn?t get it (apparently) and was a little amazed after that to read how immensely popular it is with everyone. I?m looking forward to it. (I also have *McClintock* on the DVR, should I see it?) =

*_Miss Goddess writes:_ Useless trivia: Dorothy Jordan (Mrs. Merian C. Cooper, producer of The Searchers) was also in Hell Divers (written by Spig Wead) as Clark Gable's leading lady, a movie which is shown in the screening room scene between Ward Bond (as "John Dodge") and John Wayne (as "Spig Wead") in Ford's Wings of Eagles...in which Dorothy also has a role. She is also in Ford's The Sun Shines Bright.?* *_CineMaven writes_: No useless trivia there. I love classic films and love connecting the dots of how various stars? careers intersect. I find it very interesting.* Absolutely! Thanks, *Maven,* for jumping in there with that. I almost did myself but held back. Is there such a thing as useless trivia? Count me among those who say NO. And especially from one---compliment alert---who knows so much. I'm glad too, *MissG*, that you said what you did about Will Rogers, the "old-fashioned" thing. It gives me a perspective that I might need and enable me to refrain from a rush to judgment...since he is so new to me.

Well, I can finally say it. I?ve seen *True Grit*. Another monkey off my back. I?ll be honest, though, I?m a bit under whelmed?but wait, what to do you expect from a mangy old pirate trying to make it on the range, a newbie on the trail, and someone with no particular enthusiasm for the Duke prior to entering into all this Western stuff (although I?ve seen four Duke films recently and I am warming up, slow but sure). I didn?t get the memorable portrayal, the tour-de-force, bravura performance of the this one-eyed hero of heroes that I might have wanted. But no matter, both actor and character were very likable nonetheless and he is no doubt a treat for any Duke fan. And FWIW, Rooster became better and better as the movie progressed, I think he got off to a bad start with me. And who is this girl? Wow! So young, so smart, so chipper, so fresh air, and with a bit of the grit in her own right. I was expecting the big guy with an eye patch, but not this. Formidable in every respect. I did not fail to notice how strange it seemed with her hollerin for help down in the pit with the snakes, actually immersed in a situation that she couldn?t handle by herself. Up to that point, she is the most self-reliant lass in all Westerndom. For sheer screen impact she almost out-dukes the Duke. Thankfully, the two of them are so vastly different they don?t invite comparison. Better to think of how well they play off each other. I remember Glen Campbell, but vaguely. He is so overshadowed by the two gritty ones, I?ve practically forgotten him. Robert Duvall is excellent. He would have made a good Billy the Kid if a movie had been made back then. He has a kind of magnetism, especially for a bad guy in a small role. I groaned here and there during the show but got through it okay (remember, I?m a pirate and basically hopeless) but as I think of it now, it seems to have improved with the recollection (it?s only been 24 hours). I believe this is the prejudice exerting itself in the present but which wanes over time and what is left is thing itself, seen in a better light. For instance, the charge one against four, rifle in one hand, six gun in the other, was so over-the-top Hollywoodism I practically couldn?t stand it?but now I think, how could it have been any different. A scene like that is absolutely de rigeur for a movie like this. In contrast, the scene where Mattie offers a place in the family plot for Rooster is nicely underplayed, sentiment wise. I like the final flourish with Rooster jumping the fence. Hmm, this movie is getting better and better the more I think about it. Maybe in another 24 hours, it will be my all time favorite. Ps Oh, BTW, *Mr O* said that Duke didn?t like the eye patch because it made him look like ?a damn pirate.? Uh, excuse me? Listen, Mr Duke, Sir, without that patch you might not have won that Academy Award?damn cowboy. = BTW too, that is a good picture of the Colonel you posted, *MissG*. Refreshing to see that he really has feeling for his son, other than all that heavy laden attitude about how he failed West Point and Is now here as an enlisted man out of choice and ?in the army now? etc. We always knew he loved his son, of course, but he doesn?t show it early?I forget when that shot of him occurred in the film but if memory serves, one of the first times when we really get to _see_ how he feels.. I was a little surprised later when the son gets the support detail leading out the women and children instead of the more dangerous mission, with the Colonel saying to his wife, ??he?s so young?? which seemed a little out of sync with the Colonel?s earlier attitude. Maybe another indication that love and protection breaks through all that officious you?re-just-another-soldier-here scheme of things. (And, I suppose it doesn't hurt to placate the missus a little either). Of the three cavalry movies, *Rio Grande* is a distant, distant, third in likeability chez moi. I posted a little of this on another thread and don?t want to repeat myself, other than the heavy dose of music, especially all those solos. Is it possible that some of the Duke/Ford enthusiasts here could possibly be of that opinion as well . Okay, okay? *Fort Apache* is my favorite of the three. I was almost disappointed at first to see *Yellow Ribbon* in color, having liked much the BW of *FA*, but soon warmed up to it. The pictures of Monument Valley were great. The story and narrative in the final two cavalry pictures did not have the bite and interest that *FA* had for me. --

*MissG*, thank you for this. I don't believe I've ever seen a WR film. The DVR will be busy. I see *Down to Earth* has *Dorothy Jordan*. an added treat. I liked her in *In Gay Madrid* and *Devil-May-Care,* with Ramon Novorro. (She was in *The Searchers* as Martha Edwards, you probably remember her there, I don't). *Will Rogers* is a rare occurrence on TCM. Another surprise blast out of nowhere from our favorite movie channel. You never know what you're gonna get but it's almost always good.

HI Chris >I can tell you Ben Johnson did that Roman style ride. I don't know if Jarman did. For all I know it was Johnson again in a blonde wig right up to where he falls off. Johnson was a first rate stunt man and Rodeo champ. The idea of the Roman Ride amazes me. >I can imagine a upper class mother having a fit about her under age son running off and doing anything to get him back, I agree with that, it's her acting. >Just for the record it is McLaglen. Everybody's favorite "uncle" but he has a fine dramatic history in his work and it would have been nice to use more of it. Oh, so true. It's been ages since I saw *The Informer.* I take it that is a dramatic role. I should have a look again. That long comic bit in the saloon near the end of SWAYR was simply awful. Anything for a laugh, Ford style. McLagen does these scenes okay, he is not terrible...but he is not funny to me, especially in comic relief sequences. Actually I blame Ford, the scenes are forced and oddly inserted between the action and that doesn't help. (I had a lot of trouble with Thomas Mitchell in *Stagecoach*. always trying to be funny. That could have been a dynamite role, a little more gravity with occasional humor would have been better, IMO) *TikiSoo*, Shirley Temple?s character in FA is so fresh faced and young, almost still a child, or at least very child-like. Ford may have not thought it appropriate for a long closeup. Just a thought. The romance between these two is a subplot and Ford might have preferred not emphasize it too much. Not to be contrary, here, just thinking out loud. Maybe I worry about sappiness Shirley Temple is so adorable she doesn?t need a close up (for me, anyway) Edited by: laffite on Dec 24, 2010 11:55 AM

Interesting about the horses...I was astonished at the Roman Ride. I kept looking to see if the horses were harnessed together. I can't imaging that not being so. Even the best of riders could err and allow the horses to stray apart, resulting in an horrific accident. Your other comments about the horse sequences are interesting. I don't own a horse or ride at all so I'm not aware. I did wince, however, at some of those stunts when the horses go down like that. I liked FA but RG was difficult for me. I got so fed up with the songs that I FF through them. Heresy, I know. Ford was found of inserting all these songs so that's fine. They probably came off well with the audience at the times. These, like most films of this era were general audience, family oriented films, and all the fine sentiment of these songs were probably enjoyed. I found them too copious in RG and finally intrusive. Victor Macglagan (sp) has strong presence and can be quite powerful at times but he loses me when he tries to hard to be funny. Stopping the action and inserting some long "funny" comic bits, again intrusive. This sort of thing was more prevalent in FP and SWAYR (especially the latter). I did like (very much) the scene between the doctor and Victor when the latter was telling about Bridesmaid. Excellent! After telling the story he holds out his hand, "This is the hand that did it." Love that. This scene was not a comic bit, it tells us something about the the story we needed to know. Victor in scenes like this are powerful. Maureen was all wrong for me in RG. She is too strident in her opening scenes and just never came across well for me. It's like she's lost in a wrong movie. And I was disappointed that the Father-Son-Wife connection wasn't developed more. I enjoyed the initial scene in the Commander's tent. The son, after failing West Point, looking frail and sissy like, but yet coming across strong, even forcing the Commanding Officer to stand up and salute him. I thought, what a fine victory that was. I felt embarrassed for the Colonel there. I think it reality, the Colonel would have glared at the soldier and simply said, "Dismissed." The Colonel is all duty though, he had to act that way, I suppose. Ford's camera is the best thing of all. I didn't get the bad vibes that you did, but something to keep in mind, next viewing (FT is probably the one one of the three I will bother to see again) And I also love the long, scenic shots of the countryside with the rider, or the stage streaking across the desert plain, or the column of soldiers on horseback, these scenes breathe and offer a realistic look of how it really was back then.

Saw *Fallen Idol* and loved it. A nifty plot with ironic twists all the way including an ending to match. So much of the story hinges on how the mind of a nine year old works, especially in ways that adults don?t realize. Telling little stories about far away places can seem innocuous but how do they really come across to a child. And what is the difference between the proverbial, everyday idea of keeping a secret and the bald duplicity of a lie? Depends on who you ask...and how old they are. There is something very tricky about all this. I watched the 24-minute feature on Carol Reed (He?s a man?ah how little I know!) and the problems with working with a child actor. Despite everything the little guy comes across wonderfully (and Carol Reed emerged with sanity intact). I wonder where ?Phillipe? is today. He would probably be about 70. RR was smooth and playing it straight, a regular guy in comparison with stuffy, aristocratic Sloper. Baines is more likable than Sloper but I think I?m a little partial to the more stylized acting technique required for Sloper. There seems more to enjoy. But I l iked RR in this. As usual, these companionable, pretty types appeal to me and Michele Morgan won me over quickly?ah she is French? enchantez, Madame! Mrs Baines is terrifying ?and I?m not even a child. Pity poor Phillipe. I?m going to see this again over the weekend, if I can. I want to sort out my thoughts. The big picture is fairly clear but this is too cleverly put together to have the whole story after a single viewing (for me, anyway). =

Hi Rohanaka I know you are very busy, you haven?t been on the boards as much of late, but I hope you will have a chance to watch *The Heiress* sometime soon. I can?t remember when I have been so smitten on first viewing. I recently loaned to a friend with explicit instructions. The prime directive is sit and watch all the way through---no interruptions. If you must go to the bathroom, wait until the 60 minute mark, just prior to Off To Europe sequence. The long sequence at the dance early on must be taken without interruption. If the phone rings, forget it. From the 23 minute mark (Morris goes a-wooing) to the 60-minute mark (Europe again) and you have to go to the bathroom, hold it. You get the point. The flow of the story casts spells and they should not be interrupted. It is imperative, for instance, that the Hearth scene (68 minute mark) to the Rejection scene (85 minutes) should be watched almost without moving (you may still blink, but not too long). If you get hungry (you have to really be hungry now), you can make a sandwich here. You might need it for the denouement. Now, of course, you have kids?if they need anything, drop the movie (and, of course, I don?t need to tell you that Sometimes the priority rule must be heeded, no matter what. Seriously though?you might try to get to this. We will be patient, however, we know we have John Wayne (your favorite) coming up in a couple of days and everybody waits on the Duke.