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

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

Raymond Burr was born in 1917, which would have made him about 24 around the time they filmed this movie (maybe 25.) He *might* have (FOR ONCE) been too young for the part.

(or maybe he was one of those people who was just born looking 44 years old.)

Laird Cregar was only 26 or 27 when I Wake Up Screaming was filmed, even if he looked 10 years older.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Det Jim McLeod said:

I like this one, 7/10, just watched it again.

The best thing in it is Laird Cregar as the creepy cop obsessed with waitress Carole Landis. He was always a welcome addition to the cast of a few films. One year after this film he played the nervous Nellie saboteur in This Gun For Hire. Despite his huge girth, his character is terrified of diminutive hitman Alan Ladd, literally half his size. 

 

39 minutes ago, Hoganman1 said:

I thought I WAKE UP SCREAMING  was just OK too. I kept thinking I'd seen it before and realized I was thinking about VICKI (the remake) after doing some research. For some reason I haven't seen many Betty Grable movies. I guess the fact she was primarily a song and dance actress explains why.  Anyway I liked both her and Mature's performances for the most part. Here's hoping the next few Noir Alleys excite me a little more.  It looks like my TCM watching will only increase over the next few weeks. Hopefully, my wife can cultivate a taste for classic mystery movies to match mine.

I have seen SCREAMING (I think) three times now- the first, 10 years ago on DVD, and i did not like it. The second time, not too long ago on TCM, and I still didn't like it.

BUT THE THIRD TIME I WATCHED IT, THIS MORNING, well, I didn't DISLIKE it. Once you know what the faults are going into this thing, you can sit back and talk to the screen and not worry about anything logical or sensible or genuine happening in it.

it has been SO LONG since I read the STEVE FISCHER (SP?) NOVEL, that I would have to re-read it to say for sure, but I think the real big mistake that was made was changing the location to NEW YORK CITY. I don't think this was a NEW YORK STORY at heart, it was  a HOLLYWOOD STORY. Hollywood is where hashslingers "learn to sling something else" after being discovered...in my mind at least.

There was also a definite "WE ARE TOTALLY MAKING THIS THING UP AS WE GO ALONG" feel to it- I have the sense that everyone's script was a RAINBOW OF COLORED PAGES** and this thing was BEAT SEVERELY in the EDITING ROOM, they probably even added shots and scenes after it was over.

(the identity of the killer especially feels like they came up with it on-set that morning and were like "ANYONE GOT ANY BETTER IDEAS? NO? OK THEN, LET'S PLAY IT!")

 

 

**Rewritten pages in a script are printed on colored paper, like yellow or pink. if you see a script that is more than three colors of paper, it's probably a MESS.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

Raymond Burr was born in 1917, which would have made him about 24 around the time they filmed this movie (maybe 25.) He *might* have (FOR ONCE) been too young for the part.

(or maybe he was one of those people who was just born looking 44 years old.)

Well, I suppose they could have used Walter Brennan instead.

(...but I still think he would've been a bit miscast in the part) 

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Well, I suppose they could have used Walter Brennan instead.

(...but I still think he would've been a bit miscast in the part) 

;)

i'LL BE dead honest with you, i DO NOT LIKE WALTER BRENNAN, BUT (i think) HE WOULD HAVE NAILED THE CREGAR PART, IF GIVEN THE CHANCE.

WALTER was really, really good at playing a sonoffab*****....there is a DARKNESS to him that all that folksy artifice is trying to hide.

(think THE WESTERNER.)

 

ps- and Hell, if you're gonna play OVER THE RAINBOW every five minutes in your dark psychological thriller, why not be unconventional with the casting as well?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bronxgirl48 said:

I wake up screaming, too -- only one roll of toilet paper left.

Oh, well, maybe somewhere over the rainbow a local market has already restocked....

LOL ( or should I say LMREO) I agree with Lorna, Bronxgirl's post will be the best one this week

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

i also enjoyed how in the "outro" EDDIE MULLER threw up his hands and was like "you got me" as to why OVER THE RAINBOW** was ALL OVER this TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM NOIR.

it's the equivalent of DOOLEY WILSON singing AS TIME GOES BY in the middle of a REPUBLIC WESTERN.

 

**I mean, it was an MGM SIGNATURE SONG, maybe moreso than SINGIN IN THE RAIN. And it had WON THE OSCAR TWO YEARS EARLIER!!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

i'LL BE dead honest with you, i DO NOT LIKE WALTER BRENNAN, BUT (i think) HE WOULD HAVE NAILED THE CREGAR PART, IF GIVEN THE CHANCE.

WALTER was really, really good at playing a sonoffab*****....there is a DARKNESS to him that all that folksy artifice is trying to hide.

(think THE WESTERNER.)

 

ps- and Hell, if you're gonna play OVER THE RAINBOW every five minutes in your dark psychological thriller, why not be unconventional with the casting as well?

Actually a pretty good point here, Lorna. Yep, Walter did play the heavy in a film now and then, and in addition to his usual role of the folksy sidekick.

(...still, and even though I offered up his name in jest, I think Laird was perfect in this thing, and can't understand why Cid earlier questioned his casting in it?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, another thing I noticed last night about this film and after perhaps my fourth viewing of it, was that it contained a whole lot of snappy dialogue that didn't come across as cliched for the most part.

(...anyone else notice this too?)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

I JUST HAVE a hard time seeing MGM being like "SURE, NO problem, borrow OVER THE RAINBOW for your movie, RIVAL FILM STUDIO/THEATER OWNER. You guys want MICKEY ROONEY and MYRNA LOY too? Hell, you can even have LEO THE LION if you ask nice enough."

Harold Arlen retained the rights to Over the Rainbow;  I.e. MGM didn't own the song.    Thus Arlen was able to market said song as he wished.    

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Harold Arlen retained the rights to Over the Rainbow;  I.e. MGM didn't own the song.    Thus Arlen was able to market said song as he wished.    

THANK YOU! You should contact EDDIE with this info. He might send give you a shout-out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2020 at 7:02 PM, cigarjoe said:

It's weird because it's a "Gateway Noir"......

........I'm calling it a seminal "Gateway Noir" because the film serves the same purpose as a gateway drug, it functions as a sort of gateway to Noir for those unfamiliar, at that point in time, with what eventually came to be known stylistically, and hard boiled narratively, as Films Noir.

...... You can say that the film has dissociative identity, multiple genres if you will. It's also a bit of a Screwball Comedy, a Romantic Drama, and almost a Musical. This seamless genre bending provides the "gateway" for Comedy, Romance, and Musical audiences at that time into the films that eventually will be pigeonholed into the future Noir cycle.

 

Joe,  I agree with most of what you say here.  Except....musical ?  Really?  You can't count the soundtrack, all movies at that time had soundtrack music. Doesn't make them a "musical".  And there is all of one scene with anyone singing. Yes, there's that clip -- I guess it's Vicky's screen test /audition for Hollywood.  I can't even remember what's she's singing, and the scene ends before her song is done.   I can go with your explanation of the "Gateway" genre thing in the other categories, but not "musical".

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

THANK YOU! You should contact EDDIE with this info. He might send give you a shout-out.

...or maybe even a fedora.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

Joe,  I agree with most of what you say here.  Except....musical ?  Really?  You can't count the soundtrack, all movies at that time had soundtrack music. Doesn't make them a "musical".  And there is all of one scene with anyone singing. Yes, there's that clip -- I guess it's Vicky's screen test /audition for Hollywood.  I can't even remember what's she's singing, and the scene ends before her song is done.   I can go with your explanation of the "Gateway" genre thing in the other categories, but not "musical".

Well, thank god it wasn't Somewhere Over the Rainbow, anyway!!!

(...nobody will ever touch Judy's rendition of it, ya know...well, I suppose there WAS that big Hawaiian dude with his ukulele who didn't do such a bad job with it a while back)

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Btw, another thing I noticed last night about this film and after perhaps my fourth viewing of it, was that it contained a whole lot of snappy dialogue that didn't come across as cliched for the most part.

(...anyone else notice this too?)

i don't usually recall specific dialogue but the line "I'M GONNA SLING MORE THAN JUST HASH!" spoken by soon-to-be-former waitress CAROLE LANDIS in re: her new career plan was MEMORABLE.

GET IT GIRL!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

i don't usually recall specific dialogue but the line "I'M GONNA SLING MORE THAN JUST HASH!" spoken by soon-to-be-former waitress CAROLE LANDIS in re: her new career plan was MEMORABLE.

GET IT GIRL!

And that would be just one of 'em, Lorna.

I noticed almost all the actors were given some rather snappy lines to spout in this thing, and especially during the scenes where Mature, Alan Mowbray and Allyn Joslyn were verbally sparring with each other.

(...not to mention many of the clever lines given to Cregar, which he nailed so perfectly deadpan)

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

When Frank Christopher got his claws into Vickie for celebrity status, why didn't he draw up a contract as her agent? Then he could have followed her to Hollywood. That's a glaring plot hole. I mean, we don't think of him being that stupid, an ace PR man like that.

Whatever the song, it serves effectively as a sort of love theme and the signature tune for hope. The painting the Garden of Hope, behind which the note was hidden may be a symbol. And Lynn's statement about life not worth much without it. She is loving Frankie as she said it and at that moment in the film, it wasn't looking good for love match up. Still, why THAT song? Maybe, as someone has pointed out, they had the rights to it. Still, only two years after The Wizard of OZ, whoa.

The first half of the movie was quite good, moving right along with that crisp series of flashbacks. All of that is above averaged stuff IMO, The movie declines a bit when Lynn Bashes Cornell in the back of the head. Still good though. The movie has a great look overall. Betty Grable acts well, she had a sort of Lana Turner perfection, every strand of hair in place. I wonder how she might look with her hair mussed a bit. Ouch, we'll never know. One big misdirect notion on my part was early on when Frank opens the door and sees Lynn for the first time. I thought he might forget all about Vicki and make Lynn a star instead. Grable nearly upstages Landis as candidate for stardom IMO, though not everyone will agree with that. 

Cregar is wonderful. I love his last scene though I wish it had been hammed up more. I wanted him to start sobbing, "I coulda had her for my girlfriend," or something like that. But it is good that they had Cornell not resist, That utterance, "I am a sick man" is a great line as it represents a complete reversal of character and comes a little as a surprise. Notice how Frank takes off knowing what Cornell is going to do. But hey, when you're off the hook and you got the babe, Over the Rainbow sounds mighty sweet.

//

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Something else, I chuckled at the swimming pool scene. It has nothing to do with the plot but it accomplishes two things. We get a little male beefcake and I have to admit, though I am not one to fully appreciate this sort of thing, that Victor is rather a phenomenal specimen physique-wise. I confess, and I have posted this before, that I have always have had a mancrush for this guy. I would have wanted to look like him, even that face, which is a controversial one---you either love it or you hate it---which has character galore in it. His screen persona is perfect. He can play it tough or he can be regular. Hooray for Vic.

And the second thing is that the Grable gams cannot go to waste. It's not a showbiz film but if Grable is in it, we must have the requisite eyeful.

Hey, did Grable and Gable ever appear together in a film? I doubt it. But if they had, I would have loved to see the poster.:lol:

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

late to the party, I suppose everyone's moved on by now.  (I never seem to get the chance to post right away after "Noir Alley", seems to be hours or even days afterwards, when everything to be said about the film has been said...)

Anyway, for whoever's still reading here;  Just a few thoughts on I Wake Up Screaming...

I really like Laird Cregar in this, I don't think Raymond Burr would have been more impressive  ( the age thing aside.)  Although Burr was great at playing cold-blooded people, it's for that very reason that I don't think he would have fit the part of Detective Cornell.  Burr never seems to get across the kind of sadness that other "bad guys" can. Like Robert Ryan in any number of roles,   and our man Cregar in IWUS.  Although Cornell's been weird and creepy and obnoxious and all kinds of other nasty things throughout, that final scene where Christopher confronts him, amid that sad and bizarre shrine to Vicky, is oddly moving. Suddenly we feel sorry for Cornell, his creepiness and inappropriate police behaviour is all mixed in with his vulnerability and loneliness and pathetic (also yes, creepy)  love for Vicky.   I can't imagine feeling sorry for the character if it were Raymond Burr.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...