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

Recommended Posts

On 2/7/2021 at 10:51 AM, LsDoorMat said:

Question here regarding "Killer That Stalked New York" - When exactly did smallpox vaccinations start being required before starting public school? I was born in 1958, and I was vaccinated in 1964.   So in the 1940s this wasn't one of the vaccinations required to enter public school? Because the film makes it sound like the entire city of New York was unvaccinated. Just wondering, since the vaccine for smallpox had been around since the 1800s.

I was curious about that as well.  In this article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/18/nyregion/nyc-smallpox-vaccine.html

it says that "In 1947, most New Yorkers had been inoculated against smallpox. They’d been told the inoculation would protect them for life — but there was no guarantee. In some cases, the vaccine didn’t take" and implies that the carrier Eugene Le Bar had actually been vaccinated before as well.  So they apparently undertook the huge task of newly-vaccinating everyone to make sure there would be no epidemic.

  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, cmovieviewer said:

Ben likes to make ridiculous comments about Eddie and Noir Alley as sort of a running joke, since he’s typically doing the lead-in movie prior to Noir Alley each Saturday.

In this case, he was talking about Young Frankenstein being the third-highest grossing film of 1974 (as compared to Blazing Saddles, also released that year), and said it was “coming up next on Noir Alley.”  Then he said something like, “I’m kidding, I’ve never seen Noir Alley, and I never will.”

This is all just dumb humor to give us a laugh before Eddie takes over.

IF you laugh at dumb humor.......

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2021 at 5:31 PM, mr6666 said:

 

Eddie's intro should be interesting.........

see:  https://www.chicagofilmsociety.org/2011/07/02/native-son-shot-in-buenos-aires-restored-in-dayton/

".....its exhibition in 1951 proved rocky. Characteristically, Variety lamented its anti-American sentiment but predicted box office success in Latin America on precisely that basis. Details of Native Son’s performance abroad are scant, but the film received great resistance in the US, with the New York State Censors demanding extensive cuts. It was rejected outright in Ohio for “present[ing] racial frictions at a time when all groups should be united against everything that is subversive.” When the Chicago Defender finally got a chance to see the film in New York, the pre-release puffery of its earlier dispatch was quickly refuted:

“Native Son” on film has its “Bigger Thomas,” the hero but here the likeness ends. This despite the fact that Richard Wright who wrote the book is cast in that important role. In fact you dislike the pix as much because of the presence of Wright as anything else. Wright the author and Wright the actor suffer quite a bit in comparison—one with the other.

However the trouble with Pierre Chenal and Richard Wright’s movie version of “Native Son” does not begin with portrayal of “Bigger” Thomas nor does it end there….

Those things brought out in the book as responsible for “Bigger” are conspiciously [sic] absent from the film leaving the audience with no choice but to condemn the accident charged to him twice in the play.

The Defender review ended with the sad and extraordinary verdict that Native Son on screen was no better or worse than The Birth of a Nation........"

:huh:

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I found NATIVE SON very interesting. As a movie the acting and directing was not that good, but I found the plot line very intriguing. it was also very sad. What's even sadder is that the conditions in parts of the black community today are only marginally better seventy years later. It is interesting that this film could not be made in the US in 1951. I guess one can say we've made a lot of progress in that area.  However, whenever I start to think we're moving to a better place something like 1/6 happens. Like Rodney King famously said "Can't we just all get along?" 

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

I had lots of sympathy for the protagonist, seeing the spot he was in, and how one thing led to another, even with the gruesome disposal of the body. But when he wrote that ransom note he lost that sympathy to a large degree.  Good to see such a rare and interesting film on Noir Alley. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I listened to Eddie's intro and then watched about 20 or more minutes of it and then gave up.

Eddie did not really give a reason for watching it as a Noir.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The film following was Trouble in Paradise. It struck me right off that Patricia Highsmith  kinda borrowed from the protagonist to create Ripley. The film next week, Odds Against Tomorrow, listen to the score.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Thompson said:

The film following was Trouble in Paradise. It struck me right off that Patricia Highsmith  kinda borrowed from the protagonist to create Ripley. The film next week, Odds Against Tomorrow, listen to the score.

Odds Against Tomorrow is a fine film and for me the last from the core film noir era.    Yea,  some fine jazz music in the film is a bonus.  especially for me!

(i.e.  the story, and first rate acting would have been enough,  but the jazz scenes and film score make this one of my favorite noirs).

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ElCid said:

I listened to Eddie's intro and then watched about 20 or more minutes of it and then gave up.

Eddie did not really give a reason for watching it as a Noir.

I do agree that Eddie could have done a better job emphasizing what makes it a noir film, but I think it pretty easily fits the genre once a crime is committed.  Their emphasis seemed to be on explaining why the movie is so weird. I thought Jacqueline's comments about the cinematic qualities of the novel were interesting but could have been saved for after the movie. It is a good point, but some of the scenes that come to mind aren't actually in the movie. (Since I'm already comparing the book and the movie, I did like everything with Bessie better in the movie.)

Overall, I think I liked it, but it would have been much better with a different lead actor. Having the author play the main character was really distracting. It seems fair that reviewers focused on that when the movie came out, especially since they saw a cut that left out a lot of important plot elements. The first scene with Bigger in it had me very skeptical about how good this movie would be. The dubbing is very noticeable, and Bigger seems like he should be his siblings' father. Bigger's youth and lack of experience is such an essential part of his character that it is bizarre to have him played by someone that is obviously too mature for the role.

The story has a lot of potential, and I think there are some points that live up to it. The scenes with Bigger interacting with the police were very good. I think casting actors that were physically larger than Richard Wright helped him seem younger. Gloria Madison (Bessie) and Jean Wallace (Mary) both had very good performances. Unfortunately, it looks like this is Madison's only credit.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the film was AWFUL. The book had to be better than this. (I'll have to read it) Considering the low budget, the film wasn't that bad from a production and technical standpoint. And Wright wasnt bad either, considering he's not an actor. (aside from being too old for the role). But the script? Who wrote this? (I've forgotten) Embarrassing and cringe worthy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I listened to Eddie and Jacqueline's intro but didn't watch the film.  Unfortunately, I read Native Son after Ellison's The Invisible Man, which was so powerful.  Ergo, I had very little sympathy for the character for many reasons.  I would like to have seen what Canada Lee did with the part.  I still think the book should be read.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m really excited to get the skinny from Eddie on Odds Against Tomorrow.  There is something about it , like James mentioned, that takes this film to a higher level.  In Cold Blood is another example.  Got to be the music. Sorta confuses me because I don’t listen to jazz, don’t understand it,  or dig it really, yet there you go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Native Son was kind of a mixed bag. It went a bit downhill after the first murder and became more

of a standard crime flick, though the criminal being black made it a bit more interesting. Yeah, I doubt

any American film made at the same time would have shown so clearly the discrimination and oppression

of black people as Native Son did. On the mistakes criminals make side,  I would have just left Jean Wallace in

her bed and let people assume she was drunk and died from something related to that. Keep it simple is

sometimes the best way to go. I read Native Son a long time ago and just remember the general plot, but

I'm guessing that the book is more complex than the movie. One last lesson--if you see some young, affluent

Marxists coming toward you, run like hell or you might be in a world of pain.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2021 at 11:51 AM, LsDoorMat said:

Question here regarding "Killer That Stalked New York" - When exactly did smallpox vaccinations start being required before starting public school? I was born in 1958, and I was vaccinated in 1964.   So in the 1940s this wasn't one of the vaccinations required to enter public school? Because the film makes it sound like the entire city of New York was unvaccinated. Just wondering, since the vaccine for smallpox had been around since the 1800s.

I happened to read a news article that mentioned the Supreme Court case relating to this today, so here's a Wikipedia article. According to this, the Supreme Court okayed states making people get vaccinated in 1905. They ruled that schools could require vaccinations in 1922.

I think I'm more confused after reading that than I was before.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Vanessa17 said:

I happened to read a news article that mentioned the Supreme Court case relating to this today, so here's a Wikipedia article. According to this, the Supreme Court okayed states making people get vaccinated in 1905. They ruled that schools could require vaccinations in 1922.

I think I'm more confused after reading that than I was before.

At the risk of misconstruing you yet again ... Maybe you are mistaking the court saying the states can do something for the court saying the states must do something. 

States run the schools, so even if the court said they could require vaccinations to protect public health, not all states felt the need. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2021 at 5:15 PM, ElCid said:

I listened to Eddie's intro and then watched about 20 or more minutes of it and then gave up.

Eddie did not really give a reason for watching it as a Noir.

You didn't watch it long enough, if you have to ask that, It just gets darker and darker.  Pierre Chenal afterwards  made a very good French Noir called The Sinners Of Paris 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cigarjoe said:

You didn't watch it long enough, if you have to ask that, It just gets darker and darker.  Pierre Chenal afterwards  made a very good French Noir called The Sinners Of Paris 

No, I said Eddie did not give an explanation of why it should be considered a Noir film.  Others noted the same thing.

I didn't watch it any longer because I found it boring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ElCid said:

No, I said Eddie did not give an explanation of why it should be considered a Noir film.  Others noted the same thing.

I didn't watch it any longer because I found it boring.

Its hard to believe you are asking that question.

Its a dark story told in a visually stylistic manner, of events spiraling out of control including flashbacks and dream sequences. Its not polished Hollywood product we are used to  but it was interesting enough for me.  Its not much different from Detour - events spiraling out of control and wrong decisions made.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, cigarjoe said:

Its hard to believe you are asking that question.

Its a dark story told in a visually stylistic manner, of events spiraling out of control including flashbacks and dream sequences. Its not polished Hollywood product we are used to  but it was interesting enough for me.  Its not much different from Detour - events spiraling out of control and wrong decisions made.

 

 

As I have stated at least twice already - Eddie did NOT state why it is a film noir or why viewers should watch it as a film noir.  Others noted the same thing. 

I watch Noir Alley as much for Eddie's commentary as for the movies he picks as I have already seen most of them.  That is where I learn why he thinks it is a significant noir and why it should be viewed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ElCid said:

As I have stated at least twice already - Eddie did NOT state why it is a film noir or why viewers should watch it as a film noir.  Others noted the same thing. 

I watch Noir Alley as much for Eddie's commentary as for the movies he picks as I have already seen most of them.  That is where I learn why he thinks it is a significant noir and why it should be viewed.

Because its a Noir with a black man in the lead.... That's pretty significant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cigarjoe cellph said:

Because its a Noir with a black man in the lead.... That's pretty significant.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend.  Maybe you should stop trying to read this on a PHONE.
Not disagreeing with your opinion, BUT AS I HAVE SAID THREE TIMES OR MORE BEFORE, EDDIE DID NOT EXPLAIN WHY IT IS A NOIR THAT PEOPLE SHOULD WATCH.  What is so hard to understand about that????????

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...