laffite

>I thought diegesis is when there is a narrator to the story? *MyFavoriteFilms* knows more about this than I do but let me say this. The quoted material in my previous post indicates that non-diegesis usually refers to incidental music in a film. That's a good example because music is not a part of the actual story, the characters are not aware of it, only we, the audience, can hear it. It seems to me that narration (voiceover) might be considered diegesis if it comes from one of the characters because that means, obviously, that at least one of the characters is involved, but non-diegesis if it comes from an omniscient narrator since that is like music in the sense that none of the characters are aware of it, but we are. I'm not all sure about that. It could be, as you say, than any narration at all is diegesis. I'm fairly sure, however, that diegesis can certainly occur in a movie where there is no narration at all. Edited by: laffite on Nov 18, 2010 1:28 PM

Hi *Jackie*, I watched it last night on the Net, my first youtube movie. *Frank* points out that this Kino version is the best and I believe it. I've seen DVD transfers that were grainy as all get out but not a trace of it here. I'm not used to thinking that youtube movies are available in entirety on the net but now I see it's another option, something to keep in mind. You alluded to this as well with some of the movie links you posted in the RalphR thread.

SLEEPERS NIGHT PEOPLE or THEY LIVE BY NIGHT

>There's also something important about Audrey Totter's character, You mean Gloria Grahame. I feel I should correct you. Miss Grahame has a cult following around here and I wouldn't want them to gang up on you.

Awhile back I was telling someone at work who I run across only occasionally that he looked and talked like an old movie actor. At the time I didn't who I was talking about and I to do some research. It turned out to be Howard DaSilva. And this person at work is a nicest-guy-in-the-world type. They resemble not only facially but both have that distinctive voice. I've always like DaSilva's voice. It would have served him well as "a nice" guy, I think.

The Men scatter

To Sir With Love My Cousin Rachel or My Cousin Vinny

I was let down by the ending of WITW the first time I saw it. My reaction that first time (as I recollect it) makes me think of your recent take on the ending of Ride Lonesome (to mix my genres here for a moment), i.e., not bad but expecting more. But your take on WITW is clever, *FrankGrimes*, he beats the game by etc etc., that's nice. In SS, however, a terrible nightmare for CC, but for Mr Noir Fan in the audience it hardly gets any better. Why, when that---but wait, I can't say it, at least not so casually. I won't even issue a spoiler alert on that one. Best to just keep mum. But wow!

>I agree that Dodsworth's wife is probably Ruth Chatterton's most memorable role...and it's shame that people don't remember her other films as much. Her legendary status at Warners was probably eclipsed by Bette Davis. The other role that jumps out is the domineering CEO-type she played in *Female* (1933), an unusual movie since women didn't have those kind of careers back then (hence, the title, presumably), one of those excellent pre-codes that, for some reason, tend to be forgotten. When she's at her best---these two movies are good examples---she claims the roles as her own, so to speak, and makes it difficult to imagine anyone else doing them better. Edited by: laffite on Nov 15, 2010 11:02 AM

>"Contrive | Define Contrive at Dictionary.com >/kənˈtraɪv/ Show Spelled kuh n-trahyv Show IPA verb,-trived, -triv?ing. ?verb (used with object). 1. *to plan with ingenuity; devise; invent* " I bolded the part I thought most relevant. >If an unskillful screenwriter, director, or actor is involved, maybe that's when we become aware of the "contrivance" behind the film. Isn't there some expression, " You can practically hear the plot creaking" ? That's a good point, there. Yes, "creaking," which sort of means that the "ingenuity" part of the definition loses it's power, that is, in the hands of an "unskillful" movie maker, as you point out. Words can be so tricky, n'est-ce pas? Actually, doesn't "contrive" mean, in the oft-used sense of the word, an ending of a movie, say, that is not credible, expedient maybe, and forced? No ingenuity there, I'm afraid, just the opposite in fact. The "ingenuity" aspect of the definition seems to fall away in that context. But that broader definition can apply in that overall sense of the treatment of the film, the big plan, "to devise, to invent." And where does "manipulation" come in? How's that for a can of worms? Does a movie manipulate us (or at least, try) from beginning to end? Edited by: laffite on Nov 14, 2010 3:28 PM

>Isn't the acronym technically SOD (suspension of disbelief). Mea Culpa! I believe I initiated the unfortunate acrynom SOB but you have exposed my error. SOD is not altogether pleasant either but a definite improvement.

*MFF*: This is taken from the same article you quoted. The link is here: http://tinyurl.com/285hxwd I hope you don't mind if I add these other paragraphs. The middle paragraph is practically the same as the one you quoted. The added material provides further explanation. This is not a "hand-out" as if I am trying to provide instruction. I am only just now familiarizing myself with this term. --- *QUOTE QUOTE QUOTE* ... In terms of classical poetics, the cinema is an epic form that utilizes dramatic elements; this is determined by the technologies of the camera and editing. Even in a spatially and temporally continuous scene (mimicking the theatrical situation, as it were), the camera chooses where to look for us. In a similar way, editing causes us to jump from one place (and time sometimes) to another, whether it be somewhere else in the room, or across town. This jump is a form of narration; it is as if a narrator whispers to us: "meanwhile, on the other side of the forest". It is for this reason that the 'story-world' in cinema is referred to as 'diegetic'; elements that belong to the film's narrative world are diegetic elements. This is why, in the cinema, we may refer to the film's diegetic world "Diegetic," in the cinema, typically refers to the internal world created by the story that the characters themselves experience and encounter: the narrative "space" that includes all the parts of the story, both those that are and those that are not actually shown on the screen (such as events that have led up to the present action; people who are being talked about; or events that are presumed to have happened elsewhere). Thus, elements of a film can be "diegetic" or "non-diegetic." These terms are most commonly used in reference to sound in a film, but can apply to other elements. For example, an insert shot that depicts something that is neither taking place in the world of the film, nor is seen, imagined, or thought by a character, is a non-diegetic insert. Titles, subtitles, and voice-over narration (with some exceptions) are also non-diegetic.*END QUOTE* ...as well as your fine example, the coke bottle advertisement.

>Thank you Monsieur Pirate! I had no idea - what a blabbermouth I am. But what blab! The quality of blab has reached new heights! *I am glad that I could devote number 10K to such an august member of the acting profession.* Somewhere he may be beaming. "Thank you, Jack Favell." Ralph: Ten thousand posts, a veritable achievement." Larry: Very like, very like, hmm ,,

*Arturo wrote:* "Suspension of disbelief happens every time we walk into a movie theatre, or watch a movie at home. We KNOW those are actors, and not the characters they are playing. As basic as that." *misswonderly wrote:* Well, it isn't always as basic as that. Yes of course everyone knows they're watching a play or a film and the characters are being played by actors and it isn't real. No one disputes that, nor that we normally attend a theatrical performance or a movie with the expectation that for the duration of the show, we will accept that we are figuratively visiting another world, not the real one. Of course. That "pact" (good!) is a sort of suspension of belief in itself. An engrossing movie can induce it by being damned good and actually make us "forget" albeit on a superficial level that this not a movie but real. In other words, make it good and I'll do my part by playing pretend that's it's real. Same as you said, MW, but it's good point. Related to SOB, is the idea of contrivance. In a sense, every movie ever made is contrived. After all, every scene, the screenplay, etc., has been written before hand and put in a certain order, etc., to achieve a certain effect(s) and give us a story. To keep us interested though, it must not _seem_ contrived. If too contrived, suspension of belief kicks in. This is an obvious and perhaps hackneyed idea, but I love thinking about these things. This is a great thread. Edited by: laffite on Nov 13, 2010 2:12 PM

*I would kill to find a copy of his Falstaff on video! Or his Cyrano.... or Peer Gynt. Why couldn't they have been more foresighted??? * I agree. I mean, if they can look back 400 years to Shakespeare, they might at least be able look ahead 60 years to youtube. Sheesh! Thanks for the Hedda. I watched the clip and searched further clips to at least get a look at Ralph. Sadly, I don't know this play but I'm hooked and will have to put this on my short list. You know me, I love this stuff. I think you and I have discussed (along with others) Chekhov in the past as well as various BBC productions in this same vein. I loved this opening clip. Of course, I can' compare Hedda's yet but I like what little I saw of Ingrid. By the way, Ms Favell, congratulations on 10K. Are you being celebrated elsewhere on the boards that I'm missing? Ten thousand wonderful posts and hoping for at least Fifty thousand more (for starters) We should have a party.

*Jackie*, you're mah-velous. Great OP on Ralph. I liked the clip on "Q planes." I was particularly struck by that rapid-fire opening sequence, the montage with cars, the streets, the crowds, a great beginning, and mah-velously constructed. Oh, Ralph was kind of cool, too. And a nice twist right there at the beginning, Oh, he's Mr Hammond. I had to go back and play that again, like, how come he's in his office? Good thing I didn't see this in the theater, I would have had to ask the projectionist for a replay, it happened so fast. Very clever and entertaining beginning, all the way around. I've never seen a whole movie on youtube. Are all the parts there to view consecutively? You mentioned going back and see Ralph play Falstaff. Absolutely, and so many of those other greats who played at the Old Vic. Ralph and Lawrence used swap roles, one night as Falstaff, the other as Prince Hal, didn't they? Didn't anyone ever think to film some of that stuff, at least sequences? Didn't they know we would have youtube one of these days. I'll be keeping track of this thread, you come up with such good ones, so thorough, and great caps, the norm.

THE APPLE SUNDAY IN NEW YORK or KING KONG

Dog Day Afternoon weather vane

*He was going to help them. His loyalty to them overrides his commitment to Keechie.* I might be projecting my own thoughts and feelings to Bowie so I may be confused here. I was appalled to see Chickamaw show up...and broke. It doesn't seem like loyalty to the gang to me because I believe he actually offered Chickamaw half of what he had just to get rid of him. I think he would have rather stayed with Keechie. It wasn't a commitment to Keechie that was lacking, it was a realization that Chickamaw wasn't going away and so he went on the job out of default, with perhaps some kind of hope he could break free. I'm short on memory but after the reunion of the gang, didn't Bowie try to say nothing doing to a job but was forced into it. But I also seem to remember that from Keechie's point of view, Bowie did seem to be running from her in favor of the gang. *I felt that there would always have to be one more job.* Now, for some reason, I didn't have Bowie as one of those just-one-more-job type of guys. For one thing, didn't he have a lot of money that seemed to last. So long as there was still money left there was no time to establish the one-more-job trend. When the other gang members died, Bowie had no inclination to go solo for a job. In fact, he turned to Mexico (another pie-in-the-sky idea) rather than returning to crime. My memory of details of this movie is fading fast...so I may not have this right.

>In MY FAVORITE WIFE Irene Dunne returns home after being on a desert island for several years. She sees her children--but doesn't tell them she's their mother. No one would behave this way, and I've just disconnected from the movie. I haven't seen My favorite Wife (I know, I know ) so I can't speak for that, but I remember being unphased by the same scene in Doris Days' remake, Move Over, Darling. It's been awhile but I recall that she sees the children while they are taking a bath. She is so visibly moved and seems to feel her way through her emotions---reasonably, it seems to me---by asking the children some questions, all the while not quite believing that she is really there with her children. She may have even thought that the moment to reveal herself was inappropriate though I don't exactly remember if that was the case. Then, if memory serves, she seems on the verge of telling them who she is, but something happens, a noise, someone calling from the other room, or something like that, and I remember being relieved because had she told them, the scene would have been spilled over into some over-the-top sentimentality that might be hard to take. I believe the intention was just that, to make us anticipate that wonderful moment where she reveals herself, then abruptly (disappointing to some, I'm sure) not carrying through due to the interruption. In fact, she might have gone so far as to say to them, "Do you know who I am?" but did not have the chance to follow up. Do I have that right? Perhaps someone can tell me, I haven't seen the movie in years. But if that's right it appears that this mother (Doris) at least made an attempt to tell them whereas the other mother (Irene) did not. A crucial difference, perhaps. Edited by: laffite on Nov 12, 2010 1:30 PM

Thank you.

I didn't see the most recent showing but I remember from a prior viewing that the fight scenes were particularly realistic. I'm a sports fan and have rarely been satisfied with the depiction of sports in movies. But here it is stellar. It's probably significant that this was not a Rocky movie or a Raging Bull movie, because those were about specific hero fighters and the boxing sequences were bound to be and were annoyingly (to me) unrealistic. The sequences in The Set-Up are not depictions of what fight fans would call "a great fight" but they nevertheless have a true-to-life look to them.

*Filmguy24:* At the beginning of La Belle et La Bete there is a ?disclaimer? that says something like ?This is a fantasy for a child,? or something like that. That precludes any issue of suspension of belief. It simply would not come up for me. And even without that opening preamble the movie itself is so obviously a fantasy that I would not anticipate any strictures regarding realism. I don?t expect it to be realistic. You wrote, correctly (in general), that ?splendid performances, beautiful writing, and just the art of filmmaking? make this movie watchable? that's true and those things have saved many movies from the usual criticism regarding suspension of belief. But with Belle, IMO. even if the performances were mediocre, the writing shoddy, and the film making below average, I wouldn't expect having suspension of belief issues because it is an unabashed fantasy in any case. I may want to criticize the mediocre aspects but I don't believe I would have SOB issues. *Sanfins:* ?and similarly with Star Trek. I was actually there for those original Star Trek episodes. Suspension of belief was not an issue for me because when you have a setting that far in the future I can easily believe that there would be technological advances far, far beyond my own time. It was easy to believe that Captain Kirk could say, ?Beam me up, Scottie,? and seeing Scottie do just that. It was easy to accept. I don?t see how it would be any easier to accept now than in 1966, because we are still eons away from anything approaching that kind of technology, either now or 40 years ago. Suspension of belief issues can probably turn up in any type of genre of movie but I would say that the ones most vulnerable are those that assume to be of our time and reflects the realistic world we live in. Because we actually occupy that world (and not a fantasy world, for instance) we are acutely sensitive to anything that might seem far fetched. The treatment of the story becomes circumscribed to a degree and events (or things, whatever) that occur can be jarring if they don?t adhere to that world?unless, of course, you have a brilliant filmmaker, for instance, who can make some outlandish occurrence actually work, if he can make it play well on screen. Or some other factor in the movie making process that can, in effect, make us take something seriously that we might otherwise tend to dismiss as phony, or whatever.

*Cinemaven:* writes: *Myrna Loy on a horse??? Pshaw!!! She was made for a Martini!!!* Thank you. My curiosity vis-a-vis ML on a horse is validated. I'm not convinced, however, that she was _on_ that horse ... but maybe. "At any rate, I'm not a cowgirl. You can make that martini now!" *Rohanaka* writes: *I am glad to see you diving in to the westerns, sir. And I like you are finding the "rarer" finds, too.. way cool. ROTRG is not one I have heard of before, but it sounds as it if were a fun one.* Thank you for your nice comments. A fun post, exactly. And a fun movie too. It's not the best ever made but it should be seen by anyone with the least liking for Myrna. It's only 59 minutes of your life and you get to see Myrna talk like a senorita and dance the Argentine Tango. And you even get to see her on a horse... ...maybe.

>it seems there is little to add and certainly nothing that can be improved on. You say that from time to time, Chris, but you are so good at making great contributions when there "is little to add." >Keechie is a mystery. She is plain, annoyed, caught up in a family she wants no part of. When she begins to have feelings for Bowie I get the sense there is a little thinking she can get away as much as there is someone who is interest in her. I agree with that. She seems aware that this will probably not turn out. Though they are both "lost," Keechie has a no-nonsense take on Bowie's involvement with the "gang," at the beginning and though desperately unhappy seemed to have a basic hold on reality in ways that Bowie does not. >Bowie is all over the place. He is tender with Keechie, tough with others and naive early one especially when he wants to get that lawyer. What makes him think he can use stolen money to pay for a lawyer. Even if he could get his sentence reduced he has already committed other crimes that land him right back where he started. He is not so innocent or misunderstood that he is going to return the money. He is so fixated on it that he carries nearly everywhere he goes. No qualms about living on it. He seems less aware of the basic reality of things. As you point out, he is in over his head with the law when the story starts and like covering up a lie you have to continue to do so, in this case, not heeding Keechie's advice early on and seeking ways to escape his predicament via a sense of bravado rather than any realistic appraisal of his situation. >His sense of decency is rather misplaced since he is willing to pull another job with the guys. I had the sense that Bowie felt trapped when Chickamaw found them in the hotel. Chickamaw was broke and desperate himself and Bowie knew he would not be left alone and that Chickamaw could make trouble. Maybe he thought he had to at least agree at that time to do another job and in the process find a way to extricate himself from them for good.