FredCDobbs

I agree. They need to cut out the dialogue, and cut it down to only scenes where the actress is naked, then run it as a short.

JOAN BLONDELL

The film is not necessarily based on any kind of reality. It’s based on Faulkner’s novel, which contained a lot of fantasy xxx stuff of a salacious nature that was designed to titillate his readers so he would sell a lot of books. And the film tries to do the same thing. Listen to what Jack La Rue says right after he gets her to his hideout in Memphis, and he says to her, “I ain’t hurt ya none. I spotted ya the minute I seen ya. Ya holler and ya faint, but.....you’re crazy about me.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qLzuMd0zK4&index=5& La Rue is basically saying he knew she was just a college-girl tease who only teased college boys, while pretending to be a free-thinking wild girl. He tells her he knew after first seeing her that all she really needed was the lust of a real man, like him, who knew how to seduce women, and with that approach he had finally turned her into a loose free-thinking woman. She denies it, and shows some fear of him, but she doesn’t try very hard to get away. Whether or not she really liked his method of seduction is not completely clear in the book or in the film, but she does stay with him until her old boyfriend turns up, and then she decides to get away. It’s salacious books and movies like this that started the old myth that if a cold woman is raped by a “real man”, she will like it and will stay with him.

Each year they probably weigh a few dollars on both sides of a scale...... dollars on one side represent how much can be made off a few sales of a DVD of a 70 year old film. The dollars on the other side represent how many dollars will be lost if such a DVD starts a boycott of their other products.

I think he is talking about now... about releasing a DVD of the film now.

Me too.

I did.

How about a re-make of the film, with a 21st Century Gangsta Remus??

Mantan Moreland was the star and co-start of a lot of movies.

I like Dr. Goldman's remarks very much, especially his comment about "the new Jew", meaning, I think, Jews who like being Jews but who also like and respect Gentiles and other decent people, and who have a live-and-let-live attitude, and ones who do not whine, and are willing to become close friends with decent honest non-Jews. And Jews who will physically protect and defend their human rights just like many of the rest of us will, such as most of us Americans. I would be proud to stand side by side with them and fight to keep the Reds and the Russians and the Thuggees* from attacking our country. *of all kinds

We did have some serious Political Correctness back then. This term has a long history that is associated with the official "party line" of the Communist Party. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#Early-to-mid_20th_century Early-to-mid 20th century In the early-to-mid 20th century, contemporary uses of the phrase “Politically Correct” were associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine, debated between formal Communists (members of the Communist Party) and Socialists. The phrase was a colloquialism referring to the Communist "party line", which provided for "correct" positions on many matters of politics. According to American educator Herbert Kohl, writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s, The term “politically correct” was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance. —“Uncommon Differences”, The Lion and the Unicorn Journal[4]

I don't know. Who? All I know is that Disney stopped releasing it in America, but still release it in Europe. Why did they stop releasing it in America? I've never heard anyone complain about it. Complaints about it seem to be assumed, but where are they? Who complains?

Yes, but it is NOT at all like a discussion in person, where we can see each other and smile and laugh and not seem rude when we disagree. For some reason, using text only, just about everyone who disagrees with each of us "seems" to be rude, even though we are not trying to be rude.

Regarding the subject of the "gay subtext", if there is such a subtext in THE STRANGER, it would surely be easy to spot by now. But it's not, because there is none. It is far more likely that a gay person will see "hidden meaning" in films that were not actually intended by the director or screenwriter to be "hidden" or "secret" meanings. For example, does a film with guys eating doughnuts have a vulgar "male/female subtext"? If a film has lots of doughnuts AND cigars, is there a vulgar subtext? Now, on the other hand, I think it is possible for somewhat of an unintended "gay subtext" to occasionally turn up in a film but only as a result of a subconscious inclusion by a director or screenwriter, without his knowledge, and they might not realize what they are doing. It's the old Freudian Slip type of situation, where a director's subconscious mind adds the subtext while his conscious mind doesn't even realize what he is doing. But in that case, there should be more "hidden subtexts" in hundreds of films. And, in fact, I remember when I was a teenage high school boy, watching films about love and romance, and any other topic at all, we high school boys thought we saw/heard thousands of "hidden subtext" lines, plots, stories, remarks, etc., only because we were thinking about xxx all the time, and we thought we saw such references in many many movies. But years later, when seeing the movies again, I realize how wrong we were. One of the best and easiest and most vulgar real one to spot, which the director surely DID intend, is the "horse racing" dialogue between Bogie and Bacall in THE BIG SLEEP.... the one where she says, "It all depends on who's in the saddle." Yikes!

It sort of irritates me when I see a movie in which a guy is running away from a lot of people, especially the cops, and he tries to escape by climbing upward on something, a tower, a bridge, a factory, a tall TV antenna, a hill, a church bell tower.... such as Cagney did at the end of WHITE HEAT. Don't they realize that by going UP, they will soon reach the end of UP, and the only way out is DOWN, and that's where all the cops are waiting?

Oh, and about that "final line"..... It was Rod Serling who actually said it, in a voice-over, as we still see the film of the guy hanging from the bridge. Serling said: "An occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge - in two forms, as it was dreamed, and as it was lived and died. This is the stuff of fantasy, the thread of imagination... the ingredients of the Twilight Zone." This is the way I remember the original presentation, and I think this is the same as the version you posted. (And see my post below this one.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DocXC-kobmU

I saw the original when it first aired on TV. Most of the dreams of his wife and home took place while he was dropping. If I remember correctly, without dialogue, he was marched across the bridge, with his hands tied up, and a noose was placed over his head and neck, at one end of the bridge. Then he seemed to slip or fall or break the rope and escape and run away and get back to his wife. But at the very end, we hear the loud "ca-thunk" sound of the rope tightening as he dropped, and he died when he was hanged (without escaping). It is only then. at the very end, that we realize he was only dreaming about his "escape" and his meeting with his wife. In the introduction, Rod Serling said that this was the only TZ episode that was made by an outside film crew. He said it was made in France by a French crew and was submitted to the Twilight Zone show, which decided to air it as a Twilight Zone episode. La Rivière du Hibou (French, "The Owl River"; English title: An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge) is a 1962 French short film based on the American short story An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge (1891) by Ambrose Bierce. It was directed by Robert Enrico and produced by Marcel Ichac and Paul de Roubaix with music by Henri Lanoë. It won awards at the Cannes Film Festival and the Academy Awards. It was also screened on American television as an episode of The Twilight Zone in 1964. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Occurrence_at_Owl_Creek_Bridge_%28film%29 Two years after its production, the film was screened on American TV as part of the fantasy/science fiction show The Twilight Zone. Producer William Froug saw the film and decided to buy the rights to broadcast it on American television. The transaction cost The Twilight Zone $25,000 – significantly less than the average of $65,000 they expended on producing their own episodes. However, Froug’s purchase allowed for the film to be aired only twice (the first airing was on February 28, 1964). Consequently, it is not included on The Twilight Zone’s syndication package (although it is included on Image Entertainment's DVD box set of the original series and on the DVD Treasures of the Twilight Zone). The episode's introduction is notable for Rod Serling breaking the fourth wall even more than usual, as he explains how the film was shot overseas and later picked up to air as part of The Twilight Zone. The introduction by Rod Serling is as followed: “ Tonight a presentation so special and unique that, for the first time in the five years we've been presenting The Twilight Zone, we're offering a film shot in France by others. Winner of the Cannes Film Festival of 1962, as well as other international awards, here is a haunting study of the incredible, from the past master of the incredible, Ambrose Bierce. Here is the French production of "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge." ” Rod Serling even provided a closing narration for this adaptation: “ An occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge - in two forms, as it was dreamed, and as it was lived and died. This is the stuff of fantasy, the thread of imagination... the ingredients of the Twilight Zone.

Frankly, I think most of us agree about this subject in many ways, but many of us tend to post fast, read fast, then post fast again. Leading to confusion about what we actually believe.

Ok, I guess so.

Yes, A NIGHT TO REMEMBER is great. Also, the earthquake sequence in SAN FRANCISCO (1936) And the fall of the temple at the end of SAMSON AND DELILAH (1949). This was great in Technicolor and on the big screen when I first saw it in 1949:

What agenda do you suppose the Academy Award people are pushing? They've been pushing it all my life and even a decade or so before that. http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/86/nominees.html

I understood all of her words. What caused my friend the trouble was the long delay in signal travel time. It took me a minute or so to realize why she seemed to be responding in such a long time-delayed manner, but once I caught on, I would talk to her and allow her time to answer. I have received two calls over the past 10 years when I could not understand an Indian and a Latin American Spanish accent. Or maybe one was a Philippine accent.

I agree. But there is another problem too.... One time I had to help a friend program a telephone credit card gadget, because he could not understand the person on the phone giving him the instructions. Actually, the lady on the phone, who was in India, spoke perfect English, but there was a 2-second or more lag time in her and my discussion, since our voice signals had to go up and down to several satellites as it worked its way around half the earth, and back. Each up and down link to and from a geostationary communications satellite is about 47,000 miles. An electronic voice signal, traveling at the speed of light, requires 1 full second to go up and down to 4 different satellites, and these signals can not go direct from the US to India, because of the curvature of the earth. Radio can do that but it causes other problems, so the telephone companies use geostationary satellite relay systems. Some round-the-world telephone calls require as many as 8 satellite links, which takes 2 seconds for a signal to reach India, and another 2 seconds for a response to get back to the US. This sets up a 4 second lag time. For example, if you say “Hello”, and that takes 2 seconds to reach India, and the other party responds with “Hi”, then after you say “Hello”, you will not hear the response “Hi” for 4 seconds. They will say “Hi” after your 2 second delay, but there will be another 2 second delay for their “Hi” to reach you. That is why there is often a long lag time when New York news anchors talk to their field reporters in India or the Middle-East, and the field reporter just stands there for a few seconds nodding his head before we see the beginning of his response. This is also why we see different lag times on different TV networks whenever they all telecast a live Presidential speech. This is why you can hear him say the same thing over again, if you change channels. Different networks use different numbers of satellite up and down links. So, this adds to the language problem with long-distance telephone conversations.

Not so. See this......... http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/86/nominees.html