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

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, LsDoorMat said:

It was probably just sex with him. She was in love. He broke up with her. Like I said, that was his right. It is everything past this point that makes him a cad.  Is that a misprint - I don't know how  "claim her good books" or "claim her good looks" would work in that sentence.  And you know how you MAKE her let go? Stay away. He was a talented engineer. There are other jobs. There are other employers. He didn't pick her boss as a boss for himself BECAUSE she was there. He simply didn't care about her feelings. He crashed the wedding party because - hey, free food and a party! So what if I am making a fool of my boss AND his new bride by my very presence at this event?  That was what he was thinking. He didn't do any of this as part of a plan. The romance with Louise' stepdaughter just happened.  But he never stopped to figure that marrying her stepdaughter would just humiliate her and send her over the edge. Like I said, good riddance. 

...meaning that if she could be counted as a friend, not someone who he has PO'd by breaking up with her, it might have helped him with her boss. But in order for that he would have had to be dishonest with her and hold her on a string, which he did not do. Somewhere along here you are coming dangerously close to the charge, well if you look to precisely at things we might not have the movie we got. Your suppositions make sense but were not developed by the movie. The movie chose not to make him warm and fuzzy with her or to take responsibility for her. He took her for an adult and he apparently expected her just deal with it. Crashing the reception was a bit crass but she was apparently happily married now, he need not treat her with kid gloves.. He might have thought that she was okay and that sending her "over the edge" as a result of his own marriage with the stepdaughter might not have seriously occurred to him. It has already been admitted by me and others that he is deficient in consideration and thoughtfulness towards others, and so he is. But IMO he did not deserve to die. He was shot not because he was an egregiously bad fellow, he died because he was shot by a lunatic.  //

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

1)  To be honest,  I'm a bit miffed that no one here responded at all to my observation about one reason why Joan's character would be so obsessed with Van's.  It's made as clear as was possible for a mainstream 1947 film that Louise  (Joan)  and David had been "intimate"; to put it bluntly, had had sex.  Possibly over the entire summer.  this would be a big deal for a "respectable" woman like Louise.  She was a nurse  (ie, relatively respectable ,  not a floozie), and she probably did not make the decision to go to bed with David casually.  Back then,  a "respectable" woman might have reasonably expected an offer of marriage, or at least,  a declaration of love from the man she was sleeping with.  It was not something a woman like Joan's character would have done lightly , back in 1947.   I truly think this could be one major reason why she was so shocked when David declared he did not   "feel that way" about her.    If you read nothing else in this paragraph,  read    PRE-MARITAL  SEX  in 1947 WAS A BIG DEAL FOR A WOMAN LIKE LOUISE

Maybe all that can be assumed though the we don't really know the details. The movie makes it clear that David is what triggers her mental illness (is he a symptom or the cause, we aren't given anything) and that she is unable to accept his rejection of her. In all other respects she appears stellar, she seems responsible and wholly competent as a nurse and her exceedingly thoughtfulness and unselfishness in deciding to sacrificially decline to marry without the stepdaughter's blessing is astonishing. The movie is no doubt flawed. They were intent on mental illness being showcased as a social consciousness issue at the expense perhaps of story issues. Maybe the relationship needed more backstory.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Hibi said:

Yes, me too! Censor must've taken the day off.  I have also heard that John Hamm is in that "club"! Also Forrest Tucker (I STILL would've turned him down!)

It is actually Jon Hamm.  I am re-watching Mad Men on IMDb(?).  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

It's maybe getting a bit late to still be discussing Possessed,  but I did want to make 3 more comments about it.  I'll try and be brief   ( I know,  I know....)

1)  To be honest,  I'm a bit miffed that no one here responded at all to my observation about one reason why Joan's character would be so obsessed with Van's.  It's made as clear as was possible for a mainstream 1947 film that Louise  (Joan)  and David had been "intimate"; to put it bluntly, had had sex.  Possibly over the entire summer.  this would be a big deal for a "respectable" woman like Louise.  She was a nurse  (ie, relatively respectable ,  not a floozie), and she probably did not make the decision to go to bed with David casually.  Back then,  a "respectable" woman might have reasonably expected an offer of marriage, or at least,  a declaration of love from the man she was sleeping with.  It was not something a woman like Joan's character would have done lightly , back in 1947.   I truly think this could be one major reason why she was so shocked when David declared he did not   "feel that way" about her.    If you read nothing else in this paragraph,  read    PRE-MARITAL  SEX  in 1947 WAS A BIG DEAL FOR A WOMAN LIKE LOUISE

2)  Anyone else think that for a while,  Possessed kind of turned into a ghost story?  Those scenes where Louise thinks she sees Dean's dead wife,  especially the one in the lake house,  when Dean runs up to his dead wife's room and sees Louise, terrified,  backing against the wall and going,  "No---NO !  " , staring at something we can't see,  are really eerie.  We know it's Louise's mental illness,  but it's definitely scary and ghost -like.   Oh,   also in the lake house,  when Louise sees the buzzer ringing for "Mrs. Graham's room".   ghostly.

3)  How did this movie get past the code?  I thought they had a rule then that a person could not get away with murder.  Ok,  I know Louise is bonkers,  and that will be taken into consideration at her trial.  But it's implied that the jury will be lenient on her  -  poor lady, she was crazy, she couldn't help it -- and who knows,  maybe she'll end up spending a year in the looney bin and then be back in Raymond Massey's arms  (ugh).    It does not show that she gets any "just desserts".  Also,  Carol  (Dean's daughter)  would never ever forgive her for killing David,  so the whole family would be messed up forever.  Maybe that IS the punishment.

There are several movies where I ask "How did that get past the code?" Like "Born To Kill". SPOILERS AHEAD.  You have promiscuity, divorce, gambling, murder, and a one-way unrequited gay relationship in the first fifteen minutes. Although the two main characters "get theirs" so to speak, what about that detective who spouts Bible verses while contemplating his next bribe? He is a most detestable person, perfectly willing to let somebody get away with murder as long as he gets paid, and yet the film ends with his moralizing.  And then there is the wealthy sister. Did she say what she said to Tierney's character just because she realized that he'd go into a homicidal rage against Trevor - he did! - just to get even for the fact that the guy never loved her?  She certainly did not "get hers" either. 

Back to "Possessed" - Maybe because they had to have Louise "sort of" get away with it - Not responsible for killing David because she is insane - the script had David painted as a most unsympathetic character. Just my take.  More than likely David dying saved Louise' stepdaughter from years of unhappiness, although I'm sure it would be awhile before she saw it that way. 

I did get what you said about Possessed being a sort of ghost story. They never show the first wife. You just hear her voice and you see the back of her when they are pulling her body out of the water. So it is easy to imagine her as a ghost. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, laffite said:

Well, he might have strung her along and lied to her and whatever else so he could claim her good books when he approached her employer. But he didn't. And did he really break up with her? She seemed to have always expected a little more than was there, and she wouldn't let go. He didn't woo her so he could become Louise son-in-law, he knew that would be dynamite. The last thing he wanted was a rapprochement with Louise. He did not crash the party because he wanted to get married and especially to someone who was related to Louise. He married her because the script ordered it. Sometimes things like that in Hollywood movies. He clearly had regard for Louise when he implored that she accept that their relationship was not what she thought it was, and before she went bonkers and killed him, he urged her to go to her husband because he loved her and would help her. So he does have regard for someone but himself. He is not a stellar human being, but who is.

Whether the script "ordered it" or not, makes no difference, he was still a CAD!

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

It is actually Jon Hamm.  I am re-watching Mad Men on IMDb(?).  

Thanks, I had a feeling it was.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

There are several movies where I ask "How did that get past the code?" Like "Born To Kill". SPOILERS AHEAD.  You have promiscuity, divorce, gambling, murder, and a one-way unrequited gay relationship in the first fifteen minutes. Although the two main characters "get theirs" so to speak, what about that detective who spouts Bible verses while contemplating his next bribe? He is a most detestable person, perfectly willing to let somebody get away with murder as long as he gets paid, and yet the film ends with his moralizing.  And then there is the wealthy sister. Did she say what she said to Tierney's character just because she realized that he'd go into a homicidal rage against Trevor - he did! - just to get even for the fact that the guy never loved her?  She certainly did not "get hers" either. 

What was the one way gay relationship? The old broad and the young one who was (SPOILER)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hibi said:

What was the one way gay relationship? The old broad and the young one who was (SPOILER)

It is implied that there might be something going on between Elisha Cook Jr.'s character Marty and Tierney's character, Sam. They are traveling together and rooming together. It is assumed when Sam leaves town because of the murder that he committed that Marty will be joining him shortly. It is pretty obvious Marty is crazy about Sam. At least, that's my read on it. I think Eddie said something about it too when it was on Noir Alley. 

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

It is implied that there might be something going on between Elisha Cook Jr.'s character Marty and Tierney's character, Sam. They are traveling together and rooming together. It is assumed when Sam leaves town because of the murder that he committed that Marty will be joining him shortly. It is pretty obvious Marty is crazy about Sam. At least, that's my read on it. I think Eddie said something about it too when it was on Noir Alley. 

OK. Yeah, I get that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

Bronxgirl,  thanks for getting back to me re.  actors you think are attractive.   I do apologize  (hey,  I'm Canadian !)  for not responding to your post above sooner,  didn't have a chance to go on this site til today.

Well,  if I've never said it before,  I'll say it now:  I love the way you write.  You have a breezy but very literate,  hugely entertaining style that often makes me laugh out loud  (literally.)  I know you sometimes take breaks from this website....maybe that's why I never noticed til now how much fun your posts are.

Anyway....We agree that it's Bugs'   wit   (he  was witty )  and as you say, irreverence,  that is appealing.  But yeah,  it just wouldn't work for us  (either of us)-  if it's not the inter-speciesism,  it's the animated vs real.    (I'm guessing, if you had a crush on a cartoon character who was at least human, it might be Clutch Cargo?? )

You're right,  I was wondering about Alan Ladd.  I find him more interesting than he's often given credit for.  I actually think he's quite sexy  (although, yes,  a tad scary) in This Gun for Hire.  I love the scene with him and Veronica Lake hiding out in that train shed - the fact that they don't "do" anything only makes it more erotic.  On the other hand,  I can understand if someone found Mr. Ladd a little on the bland side. 

I like William Powell, but only as an actor,  I never found him attractive.  I don't actually go for men with moustaches.  ( George Brent, are you listening?)

But that other William you mention:  YES  !  We can unequivocally agree about William Holden !  Damn,  both good-looking and  attractive  ( as I said and you noted,  they don't always go together.)   Funny thing about Bill Holden, I've never seen anyone age more quickly and visibly on the screen over the years.  When he was young,  he was such a baby face !  I think he's in his prime in a film like Stalag 17.  And for me,  Rachel and the Stranger is a treat because I get to look at both Robert Mitchum and William Holden.  ( two other fave Bill Holden pics for me are Born Yesterday  and Picnic.)   But you can see poor Bill's looks deteriorating over the years, he was such a heavy drinker.  Of course,  this applies to other actors we both like,  Dana Andrews and Alan Ladd.

misswonderly, I'm really humbled by your compliments; wow, thank you so much.  Of course it's easy to write about things one is passionate about (as we all are here).  

I never even heard of Clutch Cargo!

What I also love about Alan Ladd in addition to the cool good looks is his "minimalist" acting style (much like Dana Andrews, who, after THE OX-BOX INCIDENT, never seemed to smile or show much expresson yet still managed to subtlety convey emotion).

I'm also not drawn to men with 'staches.   George Brent is only sexy to me in JEZEBEL (and imo it's his best performance).

Bill Holden.....God, yes, how he aged -- most specifically in NETWORK; in fact, even his ears in that Paddy Cheyevsky opus looked decrepit, poor guy....STALAG 17 oh yeah, baby and I also found time to admire Don Taylor as well.  At ease!  I've got an attraction to brawny handsome men wearing cheaters, so Holden in BORN YESTERDAY and Rod Taylor in THE CATERED AFFAIR really send me!  It's that vulnerability factor the glasses impart, without them taking anything away from the physical attributes...

We didn't talk about Fred MacMurray.   Ugh, those beetle brows and the shape of Fred's face reminds me of that cartoon-strip character Henry, lol.  Pear-shaped.  Not a good look by any stretch of the imagination. 

If Mitchum had done nothing but NIGHT OF THE HUNTER and CAPE FEAR it would still solidify him for me as one of our greatest (and underrated) actors.  I don't think I've seen anything so chilling as those two performances.   But the sleepy eyes you are partial to do nothing for me unfortunately.   Plus Bob has a barrel chest which I don't find appealing. 

Mickey Rooney did a few noirs.  Inconceivable to me how women flocked to that hideous imp.  No doubt the moolah.  And in the midst of the Andy Hardy series The Mickster was apparently "comforting" the Widow Thalberg (although I've read rumors it was actually vice-versa, in her dressing room.  Ugh.  You'd think Norma could have her pick of all the handsome men in the MGM stable....)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

What?  Jimmy Stewart blubbery -lipped ? !  And I was just about to mention that I think ol' Jimmy is kind of sexy ...sometimes.  I mean, that scene near the end of The Shop Around the Corner, where he gets all husky-voiced with Margaret Sullivan.   And in a lot of his later films -  some of the Anthony Mann westerns-- he's pretty cool, low-key sexy.   I agree that most early James Stewart ,he's a bit too drawly  and  "now, see here,  " etc.  He got better as he got older  (except for the aforementioned  Shop Around the Corner,  when he was still relatively young.)

image.jpeg.8528e058dc1463cc8d1c63511cc62d45.jpeg

looks good to me.

I love Jimmy but, well, not in THAT way.  Never have.  (he's also pretty hirsuite, perhaps not as much as Fonda, but still...)  It's a testament to Stewart's talent that I totally believe he is a Hungarian clerk in THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER.  (I adore that movie; it's a Christmas perennial for me -- everyone is perfect -- and that's my opinion, my honest opinion, lol)  I'm not drawn to him in the later stuff either.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

Wha....? !"Burt's not your cup of tea "  ? ! !   Burt Lancaster has to be the single most handsome   ( and attractive ) male actor in all of Hollywood moviedom.  He's got it all;  those wonderful bedroom eyes,  perfect classic features yet not boring-looking,  and charisma,  screen presence, whatever you want to call it.  All that, plus a great voice, very sexy.   Oh,  and a fine actor, too.   Burt Lancaster is the Platonic ideal of male beauty.  

Objectively speaking I can see Burt in this light but -- there is something off-putting to me about Lancaster's physical presence.   Very overpowering!  I actually struggle to define what the aversion is....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us not forget Gregory Peck!

The kindest, most gentle eyes I've ever seen on an actor.    Melting brown, so sweet...

I was shocked to the core -- totally horrified -- when I saw him cast against type (to put it mildly) as Nazi war criminal Mengele in THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL.   But, like Robert Young, I find Peck totally unconvincing as any sort of sinister character.  He was not believable to me in DUEL IN THE SUN as Lionel Barrymore's black sheep son, cavorting with the equally ludicrous "Pearl Chavez" as portrayed by an over-the-top Jennifer Jones.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bronxgirl48 said:

misswonderly, I'm really humbled by your compliments; wow, thank you so much.  Of course it's easy to write about things you're passionate about (as we all are here).  

I never even heard of Clutch Cargo!

What I also love about Alan Ladd in addition to the cool good looks is his "minimalist" acting style (much like Dana Andrews, who, after THE OX-BOX INCIDENT, never seemed to smile or show much expresson yet still managed to subtlety convey emotion).

I'm also not drawn to men with 'staches.   George Brent is only sexy to me in JEZEBEL (and imo it's his best performance).

Bill Holden.....God, yes, how he aged -- most specifically in NETWORK; in fact, even his ears in that Paddy Cheyevsky opus looked decrepit, poor guy....STALAG 17 oh yeah, baby and I also found time to admire Don Taylor as well.  At ease!  I've got an attraction to brawny handsome men wearing cheaters, so Holden in BORN YESTERDAY and Rod Taylor in THE CATERED AFFAIR really send me!  It's that vulnerability factor the glasses impart, without them taking anything away from the physical attributes...

We didn't talk about Fred MacMurray.   Ugh, those beetle brows and the shape of Fred's face reminds me of that cartoon-strip character Henry, lol.  Pear-shaped.  Not a good look by any stretch of the imagination. 

If Mitchum had done nothing but NIGHT OF THE HUNTER and CAPE FEAR it would still solidify him for me as one of our greatest (and underrated) actors.  I don't think I've seen anything so chilling as those two performances.   But the sleepy eyes you are partial to do nothing for me unfortunately.   Plus Bob has a barrel chest which I don't find appealing. 

Mickey Rooney did a few noirs.  Inconceivable to me how women flocked to that hideous imp.  No doubt the moolah.  And in the midst of the Andy Hardy series The Mickster was apparently "comforting" the Widow Thalberg (although I've read rumors it was actually vice-versa, in her dressing room.  Ugh.  You'd think Norma could have her pick of all the handsome men in the MGM stable....)

Hmmpph!! What about my performance in The Rains Came???

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to find words about Burt -- he has "raptor"-ish, predatory facial features.  That hawk nose and the wide mouth with those endless teeth.  Now Kirk also possesses an imposing set of choppers but they -- and Douglas' overall face -- don't bring to mind anything prehistoric as with Lancaster.

This is the best I can do, lol. 

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

Hmmpph!! What about my performance in The Rains Came???

lol, George, I'll have to catch you again in that; it's been years and my memory's faulty.

If I were Julie I would have flown to Buck in a heartbeat and thanked my lucky stars wimpy Pres married that washed-out little Yankee.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray Milland is pleasing to my eyes.   He also had satanic reserves, thanks in part  to strategically malefic shifts in eyebrows, cheeks and smile. (I'm thinking specifically of ALIAS NICK BEAL, which Turner Classic Movies hardly ever shows)

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I try to live by the principle of "each movie stands on its own",    but of course that is only in theory;   we are influenced by what we have seen before.   In the case of SLOMI;  before I saw this film,  I had seen Van Heflin in a few roles and one that stood out was his Oscar winning supporting-actor in Johnny Eager.    I had seen Kirk Douglas in films like Spartacus, Seven Days in May and a few noirs like Out of the Past and I Walk Alone.    Thus by the time I saw SLOMI for the first time,  what popped into my head was:   they miscast the two leading men!      

 

Robert Osborne once did an intro with that theme, so you are in excellent company.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LsDoorMat said:

It is implied that there might be something going on between Elisha Cook Jr.'s character Marty and Tierney's character, Sam. They are traveling together and rooming together. It is assumed when Sam leaves town because of the murder that he committed that Marty will be joining him shortly. It is pretty obvious Marty is crazy about Sam. At least, that's my read on it. I think Eddie said something about it too when it was on Noir Alley. 

I read it exactly the same way. Not only are they sharing the room, but it has a double bed.

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...