laffite

Lovely post, *Jackie,* you have an extraordinary command of this story, movie and book (book in progress, I know). My comment about irony (and ?exasperation?) had a rather narrow focus and maybe with a different emphasis, referring to a single line of speech. Your ensuing discussion regarding ?ironical form? and Sloper?s manner with Catharine show me that I may not have been as fully aware of all that as I might have. The ?air of reproof? of Sloper towards Catharine is there, I agree, but I?m not sure it is always there, or is it? I have to look again. So much of what you say seems to illuminate my own blind spots. It seems to please me that despite all his problems with Catharine he can still come across in a outwardly benevolent way, ?air of repoof? notwithstanding. It humanizes him a little and in a way sets up the drama of when this positive regard is lost to anger. He is not an evil man, per se, and I appreciate your remarks regarding the casting of RR and how he avoids having Sloper come across that way, to excess anyway. And I do love his manner with her before she actually mentions the proposal. There is another moment, at the dinner table with company, where he makes these reproving gestures, one specifically where he waits for her to sit, but I confess I didn?t make that connection when they were together talking about the proposal. The informality of them together caught me off guard, I guess, and his acknowledgment of her girlishly excited state might have allowed for a little tolerance with regard to decorum...but you are no doubt right, it was still there. The scene was more than that though. He seems positively and genuinely delighted at her initial enthusiasm when he says, ?Let?s go into the other room and hear it.? (Although he probably disapproves her sleeping on the divan like that, ha). But I do like him in this mode, though, and RR is splendid. The various what-if scenarios are thought provoking, i.e. Sloper?s reactions to an actual marriage taking place, whether or not he would admire Catharine in her remarks to Austin (a toughie), the comparison around his willingness to accept the wedding and the unwillingness to disinherit her and the extent of her power over him in these cases, whether or not he would forgive her for marrying Austin, are judgment calls, judgments I don?t think I?m ready to make as yet. In a way, I?m still honeymooning with the initial impact with this movie, which is considerable, and you certainly give food for thought as it evolves. You have a wonderful way of getting inside the minds of these people and making them quite vivid. You should write a novel. Beautifully done, Jackie, I may comment more later. Meantime, I have *The Fallen Idol* coming this week, Tue or Wed, depending on whether the last mailing was picked up on Sat or not. Since this is your favorite, no other choice is permissible I see that TFI was made at about the same time, late 40s, which makes it all the more appealing to me. A more valid comparison can be made, especially considering they are different type roles (assuming). I have *Carrie*, a choice inspired by this thread despite no RR. But it is Wyler, has a Sir from Albion, and is based on a well-known novel. This isn?t the thread for this movie but I?m interested in seeing it again (as usual, I have no appreciable grasp of the first viewing).

>StillJames makes it clear that as drab and plain as she was physically, all her excitement and pent up feelings seemed to come out in her manner of dress - as if her very soul were on exhibit in her clothing. Thus her father's somewhat ironic and even a touch exasperated line, "Can this vision really be my child?" JACK FAVELL Does James have Sloper say that in the novel? In the movie he says, ?Can this magnificent person be my daughter?? Okay, near the same thing but wondering if there is a line like that in the book. I didn?t detect any irony or exasperation in the way Sloper says this (or were you referring to the way James characterized Sloper saying this in the book). This is the first thing he says to her in the movie and it seems totally genuine to me. There is a genuine affection there. (I'll check it out when I get the DVD back, maybe I missed something) It?s almost as if that when his beloved wife is out of mind, he can actually SEE his daughter. But oh, when Catharine says, ?Didn?t my mother wear this dress?? look at the shot we get of Sloper. Like he has been struck with something very important. And, of course, he has. Even when he delivers the awful line, ?But Catharine, you?re mother dominated the color,? he does so with seeming affection, gently holding her by the shoulders and then exiting the room. He doesn?t seem to realize that he has offended her. And I thought that those two things he says to her make a statement, dramatically, the paradox of having said something that indicates he loves his daughter followed immediately by such a jarring insult. It's very effective coming as it does right at the beginning, telling us what the problem will be here, the wife and daughter. But I'll have a look at this again when I get the DVD. >Love yes.. but no real affection for her. So his love came out in a harsh and unfeeling tone.ROHANAKA Indulge me here, I love this scene, and I think it shows how nice Sloper can come across. When he comes home and finds Catharine resting on the hallway divan, she jumps up wanting to tell him the news. Look at the way he reacts to her. I don?t have the DVD here so quotes are approximate, but he says, ?Well, let?s go into the other room and hear it.? He speaks affectionately. In the other room, he says, ?Do you suppose we might sit down.? He speaks to her as if she were a little girl, Daddy?s best girl, if you will, in the manner of ?Well now, let?s hear all about it.? He seems to me an absolutely loving father?Of course he might not have taken that tone if he knew what was coming. Again, look at his face when he is told that she is engaged to be married. He is somewhat stunned. And when he says something like, ?And who is the lucky one,? he surely must know already. When Morris? name is mentioned he says something that seems unexpected to me. Something like, ?Well, the important thing is do you love him.? Doesn?t he say that? (I don?t have the damn DVD) I?m surprised to hear him say that because we are led to believe throughout that it is more important to him whether or not Morris loves her (not the other way around), and of course, why. And this kind regard seems present even later when things start to heat up. He refuses to tell her on several occasions that it?s only her money that Morris wants. When his two sisters ask him about it in the hallway he says firmly, ?No.? He tells Catharine, ?Trust me, I can?t. I?ll tell you when we are alone.? He doesn?t want to confront her. The trip to Europe is confined to one short scene. There is no indication that he talked with her during the trip about why Morris wanted to marry her, the money. He seems to have a positive regard for her, a respect, like he doesn?t want to hurt her feelings. An affectionate regard, maybe?love perhaps?respect only? *Jackie* and *Ro*, you have both already covered this: >He tries not to be cruel for a long period of time?JACKIE >I have tried to figure out WHY he wanted to protect her so badly - it's not just the money and the property, or at least I don't think so when I really dig into his character. Maybe this is more key - it is that Catherine is not clever enough to make a good decision? He does feel responsible, and even protective, but is that really a slap in the face? JACKIE I think you might have it. Sloper might ask himself, ?What would my wife do.? She would have seen through it. Maybe Sloper wants desperately for Catharine to see Morris? duplicity for herself. It would help him esteem her more and solve the whole problem to boot. Maybe he would feel humiliated, not only for himself but for her to stoop so low, to have to tell Catharine about Morris' reasons. Curious though, when Catharine tells him that she is going to marry Morris anyway, Sloper turns away and says, ?Well, I wash my hands of it? (or something like that) as if he would actually allow it to go through. He might have changed his mind about that, but Morris, in a necessary move to advance his own cause, insists on Sloper?s approval, which brings about the trip to Europe and the story leads in a new direction. But would Sloper have allowed the marriage to go through without confronting Catharine with the real reason for Morris? interest? Of course, no. You have already pointed out, *Jackie*, that Sloper seems not want to do much unless pushed. The approaching marriage would have certainly done that. Maybe it all has something to do with the reserve that such personalities such as Sloper?s seem to have. Don?t do anything unless you have to. But if Sloper seems to be nice to her in her presence, look how wicked he can be when she is not. How can you measure the utter contempt of (again, approximate quote), ?I lost my wife, and look what I got in her place.? Absolutely horrible. Is this the same man who ushered her so lovingly into the other room to hear the news? And if that wicked comment means, BTW, that his beloved wife died while giving birth to Catharine, then it?s difficult to ignore that fact when trying to assess Sloper?s true feelings for Catharine. I wonder if we get mixed messages in this story about Sloper and what he actually feels for Catharine? >I think he did want to protect HER as much as his money and name in preventing her from marrying Morris, but even that at best just played out like a criticism of her "foolishness" rather than an act of fatherly love.ROHANAKA Yes. One of the sisters in the hallway says something rather provocative to Sloper (approximate quote) ?He may not love her but might handle the money very well and make her very happy.? Sloper?s retort is, ?But she?s been taken in.? That?s what he?s worried about, not that she might be happy. But we know what Sloper thinks about how Morris would handle Catharine?s money, although he didn?t say anything about it at that point. ==

From your fine overview of the novel, *Jackie*, It seems to me that Sloper comes across not so terribly bad in the novel and that the makeovers from novel to play, from play to screenplay, might have reduced him to his worst denominator, some of his better qualities jettisoned out of necessity and economy. And probably nuances of the story gone as well. I still believe he did not love his daughter (per the movie), the story seems better that way to me, lending a tragic bent. But in all fairness it might be simplistic to reduce his whole attitude to that one horrible incident. I?m realizing that I tend at times to step back and view from a distance, seeing only the broad Classical lines of what the character represents and therefore necessarily ignoring the real-world psychology of each, which could lead to totally different way of looking at things. Maybe he just lost his temper. Maybe his failing is loving his daughter very much but?(enter scenario here), which might be quite plausible. >I understand that Monty Clift felt that Richardson was a scene stealer, and so he probably is, but in watching over and over again, I can think of no more charming way to do it, nor do I think he is a ham, for his small bits of business work perfectly in exposing the heart of the story, That a good point. Thinking about it now, I can honestly say that I did not have the impression that R was trying to steal scenes. So if he was, he even does that well. >His diction is perfect, but what I like about Richardson is his tone, he has a way of sinking his tone till it plumbs the very depths of your soul. Unfortunately, that deep heartbreaking tone is not really on display in this movie, his character would never allow himself to open up that much for us. Sometimes he gets a thin, high, wavering tone in moments of duress that makes you think he is going to cry. It's very moving. Would you recommend something of this ?tonal? RR? After *The Heiress* I want to see more of him now. I was thinking of *Anna Karenina*. I have seen that within the last year but understandably perhaps was concentrating more on Vivien . But from I can remember of R, his role there might be to similar to *Heiress*, so maybe I should try something else first. (But I am doubly curious about R in AK now). How about *The Sound Barrier* ? >I always pictured her living day after day.... a living death, shut up in her house, like Miss Havisham. It honestly never occurred to me that she might kill herself, but it does explain the embroidery line. My operatic scenario there is a little fanciful. But I would almost rather see her do that as opposed to shutting herself off. >In some ways, I feel that Catherine has liberated herself from both her father's influence and the need for a man at all. To me, at this point, I feel that she should be ready to live finally? I like that. It would be happy ending of sorts. I?ve lent my NetF copy to a friend (I told her to watch it, it was an order) but from what I remember she mounts those steps with an almost craven satisfaction of having exacted revenge?but could it mean something else? Maybe you are right. By closing the door on Morris, she opens the door to a new life. And by snipping the embroidery (which happens at _precisely the same moment_ as the sound of the bolt) she has finally freed herself from the influence of her father, just as you say. It?s been years since her father died but maybe this incident of turning Morris away is an epiphany for her. She wants to live. Or am I trying to make a fairy tale out of this? First, an opera?now, a fairy tale. Arg! (Do you think we might wrangle a happy ending out of this, after all. ) I have a few comments about Olivia's Catharine that I would like to talk about, as well as a few directorial decisions that I feel are interesting. Maybe in a few days or so, if you and Sir Ralph don't mind . Don't worry, it won't be too long. Need I tell you, *Jackie*, how grateful I am that you started this thread. Edited by: laffite on Dec 18, 2010 2:41 PM

Saw *The Heiress* and was surprised in that I don?t believe I had ever seen it before. It was like new. My confusion was due, I believe, to a documentary clip about Aaron Copland that I once saw by chance. They talked a little about his music and the movie and maybe at present I felt I had seen the whole film before. But no, I hadn't. In the documentary, an incident is related when the brass of the movie had asked Copland to compose some music for the scene where Catherine was stood up, running out onto the porch. In the initial previews they were dismayed that the audience found this funny. They laughed at her. Aaron Copland, music doctor, to the rescue. The newly composed music has a quirky, modern edge to it, morphing at the end into a little melody with a wistful touch. It worked. (There was another instance, not mentioned in the documentary, where music might have played a similar, remedial role. When Sloper tells Catherine that he might change his will she marches right into the next room and crisply takes paper and pen out of the drawer and begins dictating. I?m wondering if they were afraid that it might have seemed comical, maybe childish, to do that, and that some music was required there as well. The music here is morbid sounding to keep us from snickering. Among those great English actors, the big three, if you will, Sir John, Sir Lawrence, and Sir Ralph, I have always counted Olivier as leader of that group with regard to movie making. Now I?m not so sure. After seeing Ralph in this movie (and reminding me of a similar role in *Anna Karenina* ) I believe Ralph may have the edge. Olivier had admitted that he was at times not comfortable on screen. And that he needed a prop to help him get into his character. Just wearing a business suit was relatively difficult for him, but make him a clown with a big, red, nose, and he was off to the races. Not to belittle Sir Laurence, but this sort of thing certainly is not necessary with Ralph Richardson. This movie is a treasure of trove of golden moments for Sir Ralph. I am so smitten with his perf here that there isn?t a single moment when he isn?t watch worthy. The marriage interview and those acrid, fireside quips, even the verbal attack on Catharine, horrible as it was. There is almost something to admire about him in every single scene. If it's not that impeccable diction, it's a gesture, a piercing glare, or a piece of business or two, like the way he stands and waits (in judgment, of course) for Catharine to recognize that she has to sit first before the others. Watch how he does that, honestly. He assures me anyway that Sloper has the word on all of this from the very beginning, he is right about everybody...but he loses where it counts the most. It?s besides the point deciding whether or not he loved Catharine or not and it's good to avoid the usual palliatives, he loved her the best he could, he loved her in his own way, etc., actions DO speak louder than words (or intent) and his action and words towards Catharine are the antithesis of love, the inability to accept her the way she is. The irony may be that all that professed love for his deceased wife prevents him from any capability of loving his daughter. Maybe he didn?t even love his wife, just admired her. Maybe he was incapable of love altogether, or at least showing it (which may mean the same thing). Catharine was convinced that she was not loved by her father and she came to finally realize that Austin did not love her as well. Does she conclude that she is unlovable by anyone, anytime, anywhere, now or in the future? If this were an opera, she plans to end her life as she climbs the stairs for that last time. Just prior, she told Lavinia that she will not do another embroidery and that there will be no reason foe Morris to visit a third time. That would have been her final aria. In this scenario, that look of triumph on the stairway represents something more than just revenge, something more grandiose than that. She plans to exit the world on her own terms by taking that final, drastic measure. Curtain. Have I been watching too many operas? Did you notice, *Jackie*, in the opening credits that the movie is based on a play ?suggested? by the novel. Suggested, hmm?that usually means significant changes were made. I wonder now how the novel squares with the movie. Are you still reading the novel? This movie is so good it scares me. There isn?t a wasted moment in the whole thing. Your paragraph, *Jackie,* on how Wyler films the classic stories is realized. The economy, the straightforwardness, let the actors tell the story, etc. I have been watching some of these scenes over and over and over. There is richness everywhere. I wish someone would help me?how many times do I have to see that poor girl?s world crumble before my very eyes. By the way, did anyone else think that Maria :x was cute. (I often fall in love with minor characters, I could actually make up a list).

I don't know my directors and enjoyed your paragraph about Wyler. And I can see what you mean by your examples, *The Letter* and *Wuthering Heights*. I like this approach. As you indicate, he seems to stay out of it, respecting the story as well as his actors. *...or D.H. Lawrence?* Yes, D.H. A couple of years ago TCM featured gay issues in film, airing among others, *The Fox* (Sandy Dennis and Anne Heywood) and I was curious to what extent these two were represented as a gay couple in the novel. Lawrence had to be careful but he was as daring as they got back then. I did a post on this and tried to look for it in my files since sometimes I'll make a draft on a Word document. But no luck. I'm hard pressed to remember what I found, but I think that Lawrence made significant reference to a homosexual relationship. I wish I could find that post. It was in 2008 and it's not easy to search that far back....also a similar issue with *Women In Love,* a fascinating movie by Ken Russell, involving the Alan Bates and Oliver Reed characters. I hope you'll share what you find in the James novel.

>I just started reading Washington Square, which the movie is based on. I wonder if it will shed any light on the characters? Jackie, I just love all the things you're doing with this. It will be interesting to compare the book with the movie. Sometimes Hollywood likes to put their own spin, but what would they change in a story like this? I think they would just go with it. Thankfully for you the novel is relatively short for James (I looked it up out of curiosity, I haven?t read the novel). I had to do something like this once, with Lawrence, I believe, to shed light on a couple of key scenes of movies based on his work. BTW, are you aware of the 1997 *Washington Square*, with Albert Finney and Jennifer Jason Leigh? I saw it eons ago and of course remember nothing.

Wow, great portrait piece of RR's character. The details of your analysis are lost on me because I don't remember the picture that much...but I have it coming from NetF (on your cue here), I think Monday . I watched a little of this a few months ago but I got distracted. Great caps of a pensive RR. I hope to get back to you on this. That's interesting to watch again and concentrate on a particular point of view the way you did. Edited by: laffite on Dec 10, 2010 4:01 PM

>THE APARTMENT---the perfect combination of comedy, drama and pathos. Acting is suberb by all.(Lemmon has never been better). Fred MacMurray was excellent in that as well. So condescending to Baxter with the veiled threats. And he showed how well he could do slime.

>"Warlock" is a really interesting western. Not much on action but plenty of head games... Hi Chris, just curious, what do you mean by head games? Something to do Morgan? Of all the characters in this, he is the most enigmatic to me and wondering if you were referring to him, specifically. Thanks.

>One of the things I adore about Ford's films is the fact that they are deeply layered. There is the film you think you are watching but as you watch the films again over time, you realize that if you start peeling away those layers, the films have much deeper depth than originally realized on the first screening. I'm already finding that out . It sure seems to his credit that he was able to do that. His first concern was selling the product, which can sometimes be identified with simplicity, and yet to be able to incorporate a little depth at the same time was probably not that easy. Very interesting about the music too, thanks. =

Howdy, *Mave*. Here are a few things I liked about *Dorothy Malone* in Warlock. She gets a nice entrance. ?There were three of them,? she says off screen. The camera then gets her as she steps down from the stagecoach, accompanied by a little rush of music. She looks fabulous. Blaisedale (Fonda) turns and walks away from her. Lily has been through a lot lately and what love she felt for those who are now gone has been replaced by revenge for those who took them away. She eyes the French Palace, a gambling house run by Morgan (Anthony Quinn), a former employer and lover. It's evident that she has a problem with him too. *SERIOUS SPOILERS BELOW* That early scene with Morgan is so well done and should be savored from beginning to end. She enters the French Palace (did you notice that foreshadowing exchange of glances between Gannon ((Richard Widmark)) and Lily just before she enters). She is all business, her face taut, she has scores to settle. The conversation is measured and a bit tense. He tries to be casual but it's a little forced, she is all business and quite aggressive. It ends brilliantly when he alludes to how she once loved him. She says, ?How could have I ever? A cripple!? Those word are flung at him with such venom that I got some sort of rush from it. She doesn't emote so terribly much, she simply says them, but with an edge and a force that is chilling. She has another good line when Gannon is intent on running Blaisedell out of town. It's the eve of a morning confrontation. She and Gannon are together by now and she is distraught over the dawning day ahead, ?What do you want?your whole life in one night?? with a faint hint of a Southern drawl that she uses (variably) throughout the film. When he tries to leave the room she says one word, ?Johnny,? and then? Later when something happens to Morgan we get a head shot of her leaning against the post that is somehow striking?maybe even inspired. Is it a sigh of relief...or are there some mixed emotions in that countenance? Dorothy gives Lily a more pleasant side in the scenes with Gannon, quite a contrast with the Lily who is absolute dynamite with those she hates. For the drama, I enjoyed watching Dorothy most in these moments because she was so damned good. I don't think it's that important to the story but I didn't see Gannon and Lily as an altogether realistic match. She seems more mature and worldly than he is. Gannon comes across early as a bit callow (to me), a little unsure. And even when he comes around a bit, deciding to leave the gang and become a deputy, he shows a lot of courage but not too much discretion, as if not quite realizing that he might be in over his head. But she loves him...I hope she has better luck this time. She deserves it. Edited by: laffite on Dec 9, 2010 12:27 AM

*Fran alone. The last look we get of her. It?s hard not to feel a little sorry for her, despite everything.* *"Yes, Edith, I?ll have another cup."* :x :x :x Please pardon a bit of nostalgia ==

>I still think back fondly on our conversation about Dodsworth, and I've even had an epiphany watching it again, where I realized I was completely wrong about it and you were right. I don't have that impression at all. I remember starting that thread, a long, meandering catalog of impressions on a first viewing, good in its own right and as far as that goes, but not necessarily stellar on the substantive issues, the themes, etc., of the film. And I'm not sure how much I improved upon that as the conversation progressed. Some of your later speculations in that long conversation covered those things much better than I. I don't even remember an item of contention (maybe my memory is going). But that thread was a lot of fun and I count *Dodsworth* as one of the best movies I've ever seen. Edited by: laffite on Dec 8, 2010 7:09 PM

No, not much. I?m too much the gentleman these days. But I still practice the David Niven Maneuver---making those faces---to use in the unlikely event that I should forget myself and commit some execrable faux pas against the fair. But it's probably all for naught. I think you have to be David Niven for that to really work (although I think Archie Leach could have pulled it off). Remember the way Niven told off Chatterton in *Dodsworth* ? Now if he had tried The Maneuver with her, would it have worked if she had really wanted to slap him. I tend to doubt it. She was quite livid (and we know Ruth). Besides Mr Dods came in and interrupted their conversation. We?ll never know.

Oh. For some reason (the alliteration, no doubt), my mind (what's left of it) recorded the image of Claudette Colbert when my eyes saw the words, "Claudia Cardinale." Why would Claudette Colbert''s chair be on the set? And if it was, why was Claudia Cardinale sitting in it? Questions I didn't bother to ponder. My only thought was, "Why is she sitting in the wrong chair?" She's lovely, I remember her from *The Pink Panther* (I hope I have that right). She raised her hand to slap David Niven but when David kept making these faces prior to contact she was charmed and instead just laughed. Good show, David, I've never been able to do that. Edited by: laffite on Dec 8, 2010 5:31 PM

*TikiSoo*, I'm relatively new to John Ford myself and I appreciate the honesty of your concerns about him since there are, in fact, a host of Fordian enthusiasts on this board who might jump all over this. I hope they come over here and address your concerns. I don't want to make you jump through hoops but it would help if you could be more specific about what you mean by "wrong choices." Examples, perhaps. I ask you because I saw recently *Fort Apache* for the first time and thought the camera was great, not that many close ups really, and lots of long shots that presented interesting tableaus and a real feeling for the setting. You mentioned *Stagecoach*. There is a scene inside the moving coach when the camera gives us a series of close ups, the peculiar thing being, however, the music, which would seem more given to an action scene. I liked the effect of that. I'm wondering if you might be referring to something like that. Thank you.

Fred, sorry you didn't like Warlock better. I have only recently gotten into Westerns and this one is far and away the best I've seen. There is a dearth of gratuitous violence, the cast is great, and perfs are nearly flawless. But it's a bit talky for a Western and unless one is really drawn into it, it could seem overlong.

Jackie, what creature is that who is sitting in Claudia's chair? Name, please. (whew!)

>Well, it's been a week, now, and I'm still plugging away with Confederacy of Dunces. Embarrassing thought this is to admit, I'm only about half-way through it. I have to remind myself to pick it up and read it. Why do I continue, when there are a million books to read? Well, I feel kind of committed to it now, and I do want to find out what happens to the dysfunctional Ignatious *misswonderly*, Years ago I read *Confederacy of Dunces* for an online forum and had so much trouble just getting through it. I thought it was just dreadful. The story is blissfully out of memory but I do recall that a major problem for me was the writing itself. I couldn?t believe that editor would even accept it. I guess amateur-ish might be the word. It was one of the few books I?ve ever read that I felt I could do so much better (To date, I haven?t written any novels so there you go . And the fact that the book could even be chosen for that particular forum amazed me. It was peopled by some pretty potent literary types and the mere fact they even recognized it as legitimate literature was bad enough not to mention the agony of having to endure reading anything complimentary, There were detractors, however, that made me not only breathe a sigh of relief but also prevented me from going insane. I wish I could acquit myself better in talking about it, it?s cheap to come on here and trash it without making a better case why, but at least I can say that the writing itself had a lot to do with it. But to be a little more positive and with the regard to the Books to Movies Department, I recall, after reading *Catch-22* years and years ago, that a movie could never be made. The time scheme is convoluted, it would take a Master thesis to catalogue all the events of the book and put them in chronological order. (Never mind for the moment that exact chronology might not be important, it still seemed to me to be an unmakable film). I think it was Nichols who directed and I liked his simple approach. He didn?t try anything fancy. He played it straight, just giving us these crazy events and characters with all the absurdities without trying to make any conventional sense out it. It might be the only movie I can think of where there may be an advantage to having read the book first. At least you have the mood down. Going in cold turkey might seem puzzlingly (Like, what? going on here!). I also thought that they could never find an actor to play Yossarian, but they found Alan Arkin and I thought he was okay.

*MissG*, The *Maven* is after me for my Top Ten Sexy list...you are putting me in the mood for that project with some of these recent photos (do NOT count the interloper) among which is the strongest candidate for that coveted numero uno spot. (Gee, I wonder who that could be )

*...the photo of Cornel... This picture speaks more volumes than my blather.* No offense to CW...but I prefer the --blather-- poetry of the portrait. It speaks --volumes-- tomes about how alive one can still be when evoked in such a way. Blather, indeed.

*You see Monsieur. That's the power of Bronxie's writing. Or is it the power of Cornel Wilde?* Bronxie is a great writer, no question. You have a similar flair, my dear Maven. Birds of a feather, the both o' yuz. Cornell who? *Listen...no drive-by...no dodging my question pour vous. Tell me the actresses that you find sexy. And why. There's no right or wrong answer. There's just your subjective opinion. S'il vous plait?* J'y penserai. En tout cas, il me faut du temps pour reflechir...d'accord?

*"Warlock" is a really interesting western. Not much on action but plenty of head games and some pretty good performances.* I am probably not the right person to really know this, but Warlock seems an anomaly among Westerns. As you indicate, there are none of the sometime and gratuitous action sequences that are so often present in many Westerns (to appease the restless). It almost plays like straight drama. And yes, too, the story has its puzzlements.

*Jackie* says, *?How about rum truffles, Laffite? Yummy! Chocolate and Rum! A perfect combo.?* Oh my, what an idea. Everything goes good with rum and with chocolate too. But to have then together, oh, shamefully delightful. Hey, *Rohanaka*, can we put *Jackie Favell* in charge of the refreshments? I won?t tell you why if you don?t ask. *Miss G* says: *Laffite, you and i can duck round back and polish off that bottle of rum...i'll bring some cloves to chew on so Ro will think we just ate some fruitcake. * ?and then we can start another. I have a whole case. It will be a lot of fun. Duke who? Please pass the cloves. *Rohanaka* says: *??because you HAVE to be there.. it would JUST not be the same w/ out you.?* Oh, Ro, you are so sweet?I can see you would be a hostess most kind. *Rohanaka* continues: *Oh boy.. I can picture it now.. there you three will be with your rosey cheeks and these big GRINS on your faces and you'll all be singing a cheerful tune at the tops of your lungs.. and see, I will just think it is because your hearts are warm and all aglow w/ the holiday spirit and the smell of cookies in the air.. ha. :-)* What a tableau! What me, movies? Oh, what kind of cookies? The cookies, the cookies!!! And *Movieman Chris* ducks in at the last minute with the answer: *"I'd be there in a heartbeat with chocolate chip cookies."* Good choice! You're a great go-to guy, Chris, when it comes to the cookies. == Edited by: laffite on Dec 5, 2010 12:13 PM

Gosh, BronxG, after reading such a stellar portrait, I even like him.