Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Osgood Fielding III Test


CaveGirl
 Share

Recommended Posts

I once had a college professor for literature that said, if a work of art is really good, then one can revisit it many times and the fact that one knows the end of the story does not affect one's enjoyment.

 

I now call this, for me, The Osgood Fielding III Effect!
 

Being that TCM showed "Some Like It Hot" last night, I decided to watch and scrutinize the whole film one more time.

 

Thought I've seen "Some Like It Hot" many times, I usually watch it when it is on, even if only for a few scenes to see if it still makes me laugh. Though my teacher's remarks were about literature in general, but also movies since he was the local newspaper film critic also, it is easier to appreciate a dramatic work, but harder to make someone laugh when they already know the punchline.

 

But in Billy Wilder's SLIH, I still laugh. I laugh at all the same lines and just as hard. Though Jack and Tony are magnificent, and Marilyn is great too, I think it is Joe E. Brown who is the key to the film. His takes and comments are so hilarious, that they still make me crack up.

 

I'm so glad he was just hanging around the country club and retired, when Billy Wilder saw him and asked if he'd like to be in the film. Things he does, like the way he says Ma-Ma', with the accent on the second syllable, seem small but make things even funnier. When he escorts Lemmon into the elevator and says something to the operator like "Once around the block and keep your eyes to yourself" he is just a scream.

 

I could go on and of course the scene where Jack thinks the only reason he cannot marry Brown, is because he might be too old for him, are wonderful too. The ending of course, is legendary and I shan't go there but my question to you is, do you also find that some movies that you love, are just as rewarding to watch more than a few times?
 

So my Osgood Fielding Test is to rewatch a film and see if it still can make you laugh, or cry or have great enjoyment, even though you have seen it before.

 

Agree or disagree, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once had a college professor for literature that said, if a work of art is really good, then one can revisit it many times and the fact that one knows the end of the story does not affect one's enjoyment.

 

I now call this, for me, The Osgood Fielding III Effect!

 

Being that TCM showed "Some Like It Hot" last night, I decided to watch and scrutinize the whole film one more time.

 

Thought I've seen "Some Like It Hot" many times, I usually watch it when it is on, even if only for a few scenes to see if it still makes me laugh. Though my teacher's remarks were about literature in general, but also movies since he was the local newspaper film critic also, it is easier to appreciate a dramatic work, but harder to make someone laugh when they already know the punchline.

 

But in Billy Wilder's SLIH, I still laugh. I laugh at all the same lines and just as hard. Though Jack and Tony are magnificent, and Marilyn is great too, I think it is Joe E. Brown who is the key to the film. His takes and comments are so hilarious, that they still make me crack up.

 

I'm so glad he was just hanging around the country club and retired, when Billy Wilder saw him and asked if he'd like to be in the film. Things he does, like the way he says Ma-Ma', with the accent on the second syllable, seem small but make things even funnier. When he escorts Lemmon into the elevator and says something to the operator like "Once around the block and keep your eyes to yourself" he is just a scream.

 

I could go on and of course the scene where Jack thinks the only reason he cannot marry Brown, is because he might be too old for him, are wonderful too. The ending of course, is legendary and I shan't go there but my question to you is, do you also find that some movies that you love, are just as rewarding to watch more than a few times?

 

So my Osgood Fielding Test is to rewatch a film and see if it still can make you laugh, or cry or have great enjoyment, even though you have seen it before.

 

Agree or disagree, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

THE APARTMENT has legs. SOME LIKE IT HOT does not, except for the scene in the train compartment with Lemmon and all the girls. That is where Lemmon first got to show what a comic acting genius he was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE APARTMENT has legs. SOME LIKE IT HOT does not, except for the scene in the train compartment with Lemmon and all the girls. That is where Lemmon first got to show what a comic acting genius he was.

Okay, TA has legs...got it!

 

SLIH does have feet though, what with Spats as  played by George Raft, Down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE APARTMENT has legs. SOME LIKE IT HOT does not, except for the scene in the train compartment with Lemmon and all the girls. That is where Lemmon first got to show what a comic acting genius he was.

I don't know--maybe I'm just one of those people who likes it cold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree.  There are several books I give almost annual re-reads.  So when TCM has frequent showing of some certain movies, I don't mind.

 

As for the movies in question(so far) I can more readily view SLIH more often than THE APARTMENT.

 

That's not to say I think one is BETTER than the other, just I prefer the comedy more.

 

I also like Brown's appearance in it, and he is a hoot(and usually is in just about anything of his), and...

 

I also always get a good laugh out of Lemmon's giddyness over his engagement to Osgood, and when he also blurts, "NObody talks like THAT!" upon running into Curtis as "JR> on the beach and hearing Curtis's Cary Grant impression.

 

And, as a guy, I also always enjoy seeing Monroe in that gown worn in the yacht sequence.  ;)

 

But one thing struck me while watching last night.....

 

The movie takes place in 1929, and was made 30 short years after(at my age, 30 years is a short time).  Yet, when I remember how things looked in 1959, the stuff in the movie's 1929 looks so much OLDER than in comparison to the difference between 1959 and 1989.  IF you get my drift.  But also....

 

Movies, plays and music have one aspect that literature can't be privy to... 

 

REMAKES.  There are countless plays that have been redone on stage countless times, and nobody has ever complained about a restaging of HAMLET or ROMEO and JULIET, for example, and it's just so-so as far as movie remakes go, and how many "covers" of how many different songs have we all heard over the years?

 

But BOOKS?  Well, so far, I've NEVER  heard of anything like say, Robert Ludlum doing HIS version of EAST OF EDEN or the like.

 

But like some songs sounding suspiciously like others, I suppose plot lines of one book can be found in others, but probably not on the same level as a movie "remake" or a song "cover".  I also don't ever recall hearing about one studio suing another because one thinks one of their movies had been "plagiarized".

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree.  There are several books I give almost annual re-reads.  So when TCM has frequent showing of some certain movies, I don't mind.

 

As for the movies in question(so far) I can more readily view SLIH more often than THE APARTMENT.

 

That's not to say I think one is BETTER than the other, just I prefer the comedy more.

 

I also like Brown's appearance in it, and he is a hoot(and usually is in just about anything of his), and...

 

I also always get a good laugh out of Lemmon's giddyness over his engagement to Osgood, and when he also blurts, "NObody talks like THAT!" upon running into Curtis as "JR> on the beach and hearing Curtis's Cary Grant impression.

 

And, as a guy, I also always enjoy seeing Monroe in that gown worn in the yacht sequence.  ;)

 

But one thing struck me while watching last night.....

 

The movie takes place in 1929, and was made 30 short years after(at my age, 30 years is a short time).  Yet, when I remember how things looked in 1959, the stuff in the movie's 1929 looks so much OLDER than in comparison to the difference between 1959 and 1989.  IF you get my drift.  But also....

 

Movies, plays and music have one aspect that literature can't be privy to... 

 

REMAKES.  There are countless plays that have been redone on stage countless times, and nobody has ever complained about a restaging of HAMLET or ROMEO and JULIET, for example, and it's just so-so as far as movie remakes go, and how many "covers" of how many different songs have we all heard over the years?

 

But BOOKS?  Well, so far, I've NEVER  heard of anything like say, Robert Ludlum doing HIS version of EAST OF EDEN or the like.

 

But like some songs sounding suspiciously like others, I suppose plot lines of one book can be found in others, but probably not on the same level as a movie "remake" or a song "cover".  I also don't ever recall hearing about one studio suing another because one thinks one of their movies had been "plagiarized".

 

 

Sepiatone

I totally get your drift about the 30 year span being very different from a later year span, Sepia.

 

I had an article once from like "Vanity Fair" or such, where the author made a point about that exact thing and also said that after the 1980's that mostly all styles of clothing and hair and such were just rehashes of past styles.

 

Thanks for your post!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I totally get your drift about the 30 year span being very different from a later year span, Sepia.

 

I had an article once from like "Vanity Fair" or such, where the author made a point about that exact thing and also said that after the 1980's that mostly all styles of clothing and hair and such were just rehashes of past styles.

 

Thanks for your post!

 

Okay, I suppose that whole padded shoulder dress/suit look women wore in the '80s might've been right out of Joan Crawford's closet in the '40s(minus wire hangers, of course), but sorry, I don't recall ever seein' the whole "big hair" thing goin' on much before Ronnie Reagan was first inaugurated as POTUS, CG.

 

(...not to mention the thought that when before THAT time did guys ever sport that godawful '80s Mullet hairstyle???) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once had a college professor for literature that said, if a work of art is really good, then one can revisit it many times and the fact that one knows the end of the story does not affect one's enjoyment.

 

I certainly agree. And it doesn't have to be really good. Whenever I see a post that says "SPOILER ALERT" I think, gimme a break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally get your drift about the 30 year span being very different from a later year span, Sepia.

 

I had an article once from like "Vanity Fair" or such, where the author made a point about that exact thing and also said that after the 1980's that mostly all styles of clothing and hair and such were just rehashes of past styles.

 

Thanks for your post!

 

You're welcome CG, as always. 

 

But in another sense, last night at yet ANOTHER nephew's graduation party( a GRANDnephew to be more precise, and there are 11 of those, with an equal number of grandnieces!) one of the nephews( age 41) said something about some song from around 2003 being an "old" song! 

 

And this same nephew seems to feel that any MOVIE older than his oldest son( age 8) is an "old" movie, and MUCH too old to bother watching!

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that: The Irony of Fate, or Enjoy Your Bath! (1975) passes your test in that it is shown each New Year's Eve and ratings have never faltered. It is a movie which many people watch more than once each year. I watch it each time it is available.

 

It remains so popular that sequel: The Irony of Fate, or Enjoy Your New Happiness! (2007) was made thirty years after original. I feel that it is not quite as good but it is very popular also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really do need a spoiler alert for WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION and PSYCHO, more than any other films that I can think of.

 

I remember the alert that was published when the film came out. But I saw it on TCM the other night, and I enjoyed it just as much, knowing the outcome.  I think a movie is much more than "what's going to happen next;" or how is it going to turn out?" 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I suppose that whole padded shoulder dress/suit look women wore in the '80s might've been right out of Joan Crawford's closet in the '40s(minus wire hangers, of course), but sorry, I don't recall ever seein' the whole "big hair" thing goin' on much before Ronnie Reagan was first inaugurated as POTUS, CG.

 

(...not to mention the thought that when before THAT time did guys ever sport that godawful '80s Mullet hairstyle???) 

Hey, Dargo!

 

The 1980's supposedly are the last period in the US history, which had innovative styles like the Big Hair thing, the Mullet and some of the clothes. After that supposedly, like in the 1990's and after, everything was derivative from an earlier style and just transmogrified a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Dargo!

 

The 1980's supposedly are the last period in the US history, which had innovative styles like the Big Hair thing, the Mullet and some of the clothes. After that supposedly, like in the 1990's and after, everything was derivative from an earlier style and just transmogrified a bit.

 

I'm reminded of the late '50's and into the early '60's when a lot of girls sported those "beehive" hair-do's.  "Ratting" a bunch of hair into a big pile and covering it all with untangled straight hair.  I've seen a few old photos of my wife and a couple of her sisters with those and always get a kick out of seeing them.  I'D consider that style to be "big hair" as some of them WERE pretty huge!

 

I certainly hope nobody brings those back anytime soon!

 

There does these days, among too many young men and women, seem to be a definite lack of individuality in hair and clothing.  Sometimes it seems those who DARE to be individuals are largely shunned by their contemporaries.  I remember something funny from not too long ago....

 

My city of residence back about the late '90's , well, the school district here decided to instill a dress code for middle and high school students.  There was a huge flap of resistence to it, and surprisingly from many of the parents!  NOT realizing that another kind of "dress code" was already in place.

 

A local TV station's news crew decided to cover the story.  A roving street reported zeroed in on one kid to ask his thoughts on it.  Now, THIS kid was dressed in----a ball cap with the brim in back, an oversized coat(it WAS mid fall), and those pants that hung down to mid cheek with the back pocket visible about mid thigh and with enough material gathered at his ankle to look like Popeye.  You could see the small group of his friends in the backgraound watching him being interviewed, and THEY were all dressed identically to the young man being interviewed.  And HE said( I swear he did!) that, "I don't like the dress code because it supresses my ability to express my individuality!"     :lol:

 

I'd suggest that just being young and subject to peer pressure does a good enough job of that.

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm reminded of the late '50's and into the early '60's when a lot of girls sported those "beehive" hair-do's.  "Ratting" a bunch of hair into a big pile and covering it all with untangled straight hair.  I've seen a few old photos of my wife and a couple of her sisters with those and always get a kick out of seeing them.  I'D consider that style to be "big hair" as some of them WERE pretty huge!

 

I certainly hope nobody brings those back anytime soon!

 

There does these days, among too many young men and women, seem to be a definite lack of individuality in hair and clothing.  Sometimes it seems those who DARE to be individuals are largely shunned by their contemporaries.  I remember something funny from not too long ago....

 

My city of residence back about the late '90's , well, the school district here decided to instill a dress code for middle and high school students.  There was a huge flap of resistence to it, and surprisingly from many of the parents!  NOT realizing that another kind of "dress code" was already in place.

 

A local TV station's news crew decided to cover the story.  A roving street reported zeroed in on one kid to ask his thoughts on it.  Now, THIS kid was dressed in----a ball cap with the brim in back, an oversized coat(it WAS mid fall), and those pants that hung down to mid cheek with the back pocket visible about mid thigh and with enough material gathered at his ankle to look like Popeye.  You could see the small group of his friends in the backgraound watching him being interviewed, and THEY were all dressed identically to the young man being interviewed.  And HE said( I swear he did!) that, "I don't like the dress code because it supresses my ability to express my individuality!"     :lol:

 

I'd suggest that just being young and subject to peer pressure does a good enough job of that.

 

 

Sepiatone

Very cute story, Sepia and thanks for sharing.

 

I had a similar experience. A friend's daughter came into work and was wearing bell bottoms, a peace sign, long straight hair and platform shoes. Someone said "Oh, you're so retro" and she said "I hate retro clothing!". The other employee said "I hate to break it to you but everything you are wearing is from the late 1960's and a bit later, and all retro."

 

As for BIG HAIR, I of course think of the giant beehives as not the same as the big hair phenom of the 1980's. They both were big, but configured differently and only the beehive girls had urban legends about having spiders build their nests in them, as I recall.

 

Love that Aquanet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...