Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
MissGoddess

Noir Gallery

Recommended Posts

Hiya Rick.. It all goes back to what I said earlier... we are not all going to like the same things, but that's what makes the world go around...

 

And ps... I will look forward to reading your list... I have been looking at all those recents lists on here and getting some ideas as to what noirs might be best for a "not so noir" like me. I am always open to expanding my horizons if the right movie comes along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the word, Rick? -- I feel a little like Cody Jarrett at the oil refinery at the

end of White Heat: besieged on all sides and screaming ?Come and get me.? And you

all did. But that?s OK, it was all done with respect and very interesting analyses of

why you all like Shadow of a Doubt so much.

 

You dirty rat, you!

 

(1) Frank and many others all seem to agree that young Charlie was supposed to

be no older than 18 or 19, and while this probably should not be a big point, I still

respectfully disagree. While we can?t prove it one way or another, I think another

piece of evidence is the scene when she and Uncle Charlie go into the rather

seedy bar downtown and they meet the waitress there who knew Charlie from high

school. Didn?t she say they were classmates? Well, if they were, then that waitress

had to be at least 21 because the legal drinking age in California is 21 and you

can?t work in a bar if you?re underage.

 

I searched the Internet to see what the legal drinking age was in California in 1941.

 

1953 - California enacted its current minimum drinking age of 21. (Section 25658

Business and Professions Code)

 

I'm not sure what the age was, but it was under 21.

 

Again maybe nitpicking, but I?ll just say I guess since I felt she was more of an

adult than a teenager, I had a harder time accepting some of her decisions,

(especially her willingness to let her uncle leave Santa Rosa and escape to kill

more widows rather than turn him in) because I felt a 21 or 22 year-old would

know the right course to take: turn him in, relative or not. But obviously I?m in

the minority here, so be it.

 

Even an 18 or 19 year old should know better in regards to letting a killer loose. Young

Charlie was being selfishly unselfish. She was more concerned about her mother's

mental and emotional well-being than the physical safety of someone else, like

Mrs. Potter. She's guilty of this. But I do believe she was living in fear of Uncle

Charlie, in terms of what he would do to her family, more so than herself.

 

Predators will often threaten the person they are abusing with the potential harm

of those they care about. This makes the person being abused take the abuse

because they don't wish to see what's happening to them happen to those they

care about. They are to take it for the family.

 

Young Charlie and Jack look to protect Mrs. Newton but at what price?

 

shadowofadoubt109.jpg

 

shadowofadoubt110.jpg

 

shadowofadoubt111.jpg

 

shadowofadoubt112.jpg

 

shadowofadoubt113.jpg

 

shadowofadoubt114.jpg

 

shadowofadoubt74.jpg

 

To all of you who feel this film is a good depiction of the evil that can lurk in small

towns, right under the noses of its citizens, I don?t disagree. In fact, I?m not holding

this movie to any Hitchcockian criteria; in other words, I know I?ve said it lacked the

classic suspense we?ve come to expect from Hitch, and while it did, I was still

prepared to like it on its own terms, the ones many of you articulate.

 

You are right, Shadow of a Doubt isn't a suspenseful Hitchcock film. It's mostly

a psychological horror with social commentary. What we see isn't always what we

see. And what we want isn't always what we want. This is especially true when we

are younger. Young Charlie thinks the life her parents are leading is "old hat." She

doesn't appreciate what they have, but she will grow to appreciate this as she matures.

There is a little bit more to life and happiness than furs and emeralds.

 

shadowofadoubt34.jpg

 

While I can see your points, I guess for me the film has several shortcomings

that prevent me from appreciating it the way the rest of you do. I realize that

perhaps I?m expecting too much, wanting holes to be ?plugged? and a back-story

to be provided when in reality that?s not really what Hitch was going for. For example,

it bothers me that we never really know how often the family has seen Uncle Charlie

over the years; his sister?s view of him seems totally based on their childhood.

 

Edna May Wonacott, who plays Ann, was 10/11 years old when

Shadow of a Doubt was shot and then released. Ann "sort of" remembers

Uncle Charlie from his last visit. So I'm guessing she was either 4 or 5 years old, which

would mean Uncle Charlie last saw the family about 5 to 7 years ago.

 

I do believe Mrs. Newton only sees the good in her baby brother. You get the sense

she was a second mother to him. Her baby brother, her "child," can do no wrong in

HER eyes.

 

Mrs. Newton and Young Charlie are very much alike, in many ways. Young Charlie

thinks she doesn't want to be like her mother because, like Jackie mentioned, she's

at that age. But time will bring her around and she'll end up being more and more

like her mother and she'll probably like this feeling.

 

Our eyes change.

 

Ironically, Mrs. Newton's eyes have remained the same with her Charles. She only

sees him as her baby brother and she will always see him as that. There's

something beautiful about that, but we also see the problems with it, too.

 

His brother-in-law doesn?t seem overly fond of him, his only reaction to the news

that Charlie is coming is that he knows young Charlie and his wife will be ?thrilled?

the guy is going to visit. In fact, after Charlie?s speech at the bank, and making the

father embarrassed, old man Newton seems somewhat indifferent to Uncle

Charlie. He spends the rest of the movie playing Sherlock Holmes to Hume

Cronyn?s Hercule Poirot, to what effect I?m not sure. Those two were two of the

oddest peripheral characters in a Hitchcock movie I can remember.

 

Joe and Herbie are wonderfully Hitchcockian because they provide the black humor

while also bringing us great irony. They complement and contrast each other

brilliantly. And what makes this unbelievably ironic is that "Joe" and "Herbie" have

been talking on this here "porch." We are they.

 

Joe is straightforward and common sense. In what has been written about

this film on this thread, I'd say you are more of a "Joe." Herbie takes the long way

around. He's sneaky and thinks himself clever, too much so. I'm more of a "Herbie."

 

Herbie: Say, have you read this one?

 

Joe: Huh?

 

Herbie: That little Frenchman beats them all. You can talk all you like about Sherlock

Holmes. That little Frenchman beats 'em all.

 

Joe: I read it. Air bubbles don't necessarily kill a person. Those writers from the

other side get too fancy. The best way to commit a murder --

 

Herbie: I know, I know. Hit 'em on the head with a blunt instrument.

 

Joe: Well, it's true, isn't it? Listen. If I wanted to murder you tomorrow, do you think

I'd waste my time on fancy hypodermics? Or on Inee?

 

Herbie: What's that?

 

Joe: Inee... Indian arrow poison. Listen. I'd find out if you were alone, walk in, hit you

on the head with a lead pipe or a loaded cane --

 

Herbie: What'd be the fun of that? Where's your planning? Where's your clues?

 

Joe: I don't want any clues. I want to murder you. What do I want with clues?

 

Herbie: Well, if you haven't got any clues, where's your book?

 

Joe: I'm not talkin' 'bout writing books. I'm talking about killing you!

 

Herbie: If I was going to kill you, I wouldn't do a dumb thing like hitting you on the head.

First of all, I don't like the fingerprint angle. Of course, I could always wear gloves, press

your hands against the pipe after you were dead and make you look like a suicide.

 

Joe: Ho, ho!

 

Herbie: Except it don't seem hardly likely that you'd beat yourself to death with a

club. I'd murder you so it didn't look like murder.

 

shadowofadoubt36.jpg

 

shadowofadoubt37.jpg

 

I think of Herbie as Hitchcock. Hitch was all about poisoning the audience in some

way. He was the charming murderer.

 

As for Joe's view of Uncle Charlie, I thought he was rather indifferent to him. Uncle

Charlie's charms didn't work on Joe. Joe is meat and potatoes. He's not a

dreamer. Joe is pretty much Joe. And he's very comfortable being just Joe. He's

definitely an "old hat."

 

This is pretty much how I view Joe:

 

shadowofadoubt123.jpg

 

Another point several of you have made is what a ?charmer? Charlie is and how

the family is beguiled by and enamored of him. Well, again I must have missed

some evidence of this, because for me the guy hadn?t been in town very long when

he was already twisting young Charlie?s arm and hurting her quite a bit,

embarrassing his brother-in-law at his place of business, and then totally wigging

out when he thinks some magazine photographer has taken his picture.

 

I don't believe the family is enamored with him, just Young Charlie and Mrs. Newton.

 

Uncle Charlie is extremely vain. He's very sure of himself. There is no doubt with

him. He will speak his mind. However, he's also a criminal and if you call him out

on his being a criminal, he's going to turn violent. When he's threatened, the real

Uncle Charlie comes to the surface.

 

Young Charlie is someone who slowly starts to realize Uncle Charlie's behavior as

strange and wrong. Her heart is telling her it's not true, but her head is saying

differently. Her head wins out, so she goes to the library. That's where heads go.

 

The proof of Uncle Charlie being charming is that he makes wealthy widows, a man

of the cloth, and a banker all fall for him. They all toast him. Is this because Uncle

Charlie is a man of wealth? Hmmmm... Yet, he's bankrupt.

 

shadowofadoubt71.jpg

 

shadowofadoubt116.jpg

 

shadowofadoubt117.jpg

 

(By the way, when someone Charlie?s age proudly pronounces that he?s ?never

had his picture taken,? don?t you think the members of his family might think that

was strange? In fact, if he?s visited them in the past, you mean he never consented

to have his picture taken with them as a remembrance? And wouldn?t they think that

was strange?

 

I have no idea if regular American families owned their own cameras back in 1941.

But this really speaks to Joe and his view of possessions:

 

shadowofadoubt118.jpg

 

shadowofadoubt119.jpg

 

I guess what I?m saying here is that all this affection and love for good

old Uncle Charlie, which we?ve been told has existed for years, is based on

exactly what? Unless this guy became a serial killer overnight, I think he?s

exhibited sociopathic tendencies for a long time, which begs the question: has

this family always been blind to it because he?s been ?charming? in the past? If so,

then his behavior towards them has changed pretty dramatically this time around,

which, if he?s trying to hide out, that wouldn?t make too much sense would it?

Well, I guess I?m just looking too hard and deep for logic when others see much

else to enjoy about this film.

 

I think the Newtons are representative of many American families. A relative may

only visit every so many years, so you really don't know what is going on in their life

but for what they wish to tell you. All the Newton family knows is that the mother of

the family adores her "baby brother" and Young Charlie is very taken by him. Joe,

Ann, and Roger are along for the ride.

 

Uncle Charlie is a hider, a coward. He hides behind his various masks. The real

Uncle Charlie is hateful. He doesn't give a darn about anyone but himself and his

own sick pleasures. For him to enjoy life, he must put on masks and harm others.

He's trying to fool people into believing he's a good, upstanding person. Those who

KNOW Uncle Charlie, KNOW the TRUTH. Most people cannot see Uncle Charlie,

even when he's staring them in the face. Ohhh, they will tell you they see just

perfectly, but they are wrong. They are blind.

 

shadowofadoubt12.jpg

 

shadowofadoubt32.jpg

 

shadowofadoubt40.jpg

 

I debated whether or not I should even post again on this film since I've already

made myself clear about my "problems" with it. However, I just wanted to say that

your last few posts have made me realize a few things. Someone mentioned that

Charlie seemed to be more of an "impresser" than a charmer, and Jack says that

the family probably viewed him as "eccentric," as a way of explaining his odd

behavior and less-than-charming type statements. He's traveled widely, has lived

in big cities, and therefore they're both "impressed" by him and willing to overlook

his "eccentric" behavior and comments, especially since he's family.

 

I do believe both Rohanaka and Jackie are correct in that Uncle Charlie is seen by

others as an impressive man because of his appearance. He's a man

of money, of style.

 

shadowofadoubt121.jpg

 

shadowofadoubt122.jpg

 

Uncle Charlie is all about presents.

 

shadowofadoubt120.jpg

 

We never actually see Uncle Charlie in a setting where he can show off his

charms. We don't see him alone with a widow he's looking to seduce. We didn't

hear his speech. In otherwords, we didn't hear his speech, his pitch.

 

Finally, I think all of you who are so very fond and intrigued by this film have found

a lot of good things to like about it. And I've done something here that I myself in

the past have become angry with friends (and even movie critics) for doing when

they rail against movies that I've always loved, but which have obvious flaws and

inconsistencies. Instead of accepting Shadow of a Doubt for what it is, and for

what Hitchcock intended it to be, I keep trying to make it into something it's

not (and which Hitchcock was not interested in). If he wanted it to be more about

the pursuit of a serial killer by law enforcement officials, he probably would have

made the cops stronger and more tenacious in their investigation. But that

element is peripheral to the crux of the story. If Hitchcock had wanted the story

to be more about the long-family history of Charlie and his Santa Rosa relatives,

then he most likely would have created more of a backstory, perhaps with the

history of previous visits, etc. But he didn't want to tell that story. Again, what

mattered was what was happening in Santa Rosa during this visit, at this particular

time as young Charlie is reaching womanhood (whether she is a late teenager or

a very young woman is beside the point as well).

 

That was exceptionally said and I agree with you on all of it. For me,

Shadow of a Doubt is very similar to Suspicion, only it's more American

and definitive with its intentions. There is no doubt about Uncle Charlie with us, the

audience. We're left with great doubt with "Johnnie" (Cary Grant) in Suspicion.

Suspicion is more of a suspense thriller for this very reason.

 

I guess it's taken me some time to think about this, and as I read through all

your interesting comments, it made me realize that while I still may have the same

problems with the film as made, I'm holding it up to criteria and standards that

I don't usually apply to my own favorite movies, flawed as they may be. What it

comes down to is this: I liked this film well enough to want it to be stronger in the

few areas in which I believe it's weak, so then I could appreciate it as much as

I do many of Hitchcock's other films. In addition, it was a film I had heard so many

good things about for so many years that after it's build-up it left me disappointed

(but I'm sure that's happened to many of you as well).

 

Hey, if a movie doesn't do it for you, then it just doesn't do it for you. There's nothing

wrong about that. It could be worse, you could tell me Gone With the Wind is

your favorite movie of all time. :)

 

I have enjoyed your "nitpicking" because it forces me (and others) to take a closer

look. What kind of bar discussion would leave it at "just that"? You don't just

say, "Duke Snider was the best ballplayer in the 50s" without having to explain it.

"What'd be the fun of that?"

 

That's it for me. I've been meaning to get to my top 25 film noir list for the past few

days (since I promised FrankG I would do it.) I can hardly wait to see the "friendly fire"

that list will elicit from Frank and the many others on these boards. I'm looking forward

to it!

 

I'll be at the end of the bar, awaiting your list.

 

Hitchcockian jewelry:

 

shadowofadoubt66.jpg

 

vertigo1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote}

> I searched the Internet to see what the legal drinking age was in California in 1941.

>

> 1953 - California enacted its current minimum drinking age of 21. (Section 25658

> Business and Professions Code)

>

> I'm not sure what the age was, but it was under 21.

 

If the drinking age wasn't 21 at that time, it almost certainly would have been 18. Which is all very well, as far as I am concerned, since that's what it is in many other countries. And regardless of the drinking age, I'm sure young Charlie wasn't likely to try any drinks, not on her own or even due to peer pressure. She knew better than that, at least.

 

As for turning her uncle in... that's a whole different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great analysis by all. Rick, you really made the discussion go to another level!

Any other movies you don't like that much? :D

 

After everything that's been written, I'm coming to the conclusion, too, that

Joseph Cotten's "Uncle Charlie" is one of Hitch's most compelling villains.

And it's not just him that's so interesting---if the movie had just followed him

around and built its premise on how and if the cops could catch him, I'm not

sure I'd care. But since it's plopped him right down in the middle of a happy

family in "Small Town, U.S.A", he suddenly looms larger and more sinister.

He looked kind of small and cheap back there in the city.

 

Coincidentally, I just finished watching a movie that made me think a lot of

Shadow of a Doubt and how it must be to suddenly feel suspicious that

the one you love more than all others could be a killer...

 

InALonelyPlace-46.jpg?t=1238199551"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That really is a fascinating comparison. There really are interesting parallels between "Shadow of a Doubt" and "In a Lonely Place", even if one of them deals with beloved family members and the other one with actual romantic love. And I think that in both cases the person who feels so strongly about the person they don't immediately know everything about have to go through a great deal of denial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A warm Hitch good evening to you, Hitchcock Blonde -- Great analysis by all. Rick,

you really made the discussion go to another level! Any other movies you don't like that

much?

 

Don't say Gone With the Wind! Don't say Gone With the Wind!

 

After everything that's been written, I'm coming to the conclusion, too, that

Joseph Cotten's "Uncle Charlie" is one of Hitch's most compelling villains.

And it's not just him that's so interesting---if the movie had just followed him

around and built its premise on how and if the cops could catch him, I'm not

sure I'd care. But since it's plopped him right down in the middle of a happy

family in "Small Town, U.S.A", he suddenly looms larger and more sinister.

He looked kind of small and cheap back there in the city.

 

That's a terrific point, and I believe that's what Hitch was going for, too. The

thought of such a deceptive, evil person in a happy community is most horrific.

 

I do believe Uncle Charlie is one of the most unique of Hitch's villains. As I

mentioned before, most of Hitch's villains were like Uncle Charlie in that they

were seen as acceptable men of society, most with power and influence. This

helped to hide their evil. But I believe most did evil deeds because of power

and influence. Uncle Charlie is different. It was all a game to him. Rope and

Strangers on a Train are two other Hitch films where the villains were pure

evil. It was all a game to them. Robert Walker's "Bruno" is my favorite Hitch

villain.

 

Coincidentally, I just finished watching a movie that made me think a lot of

Shadow of a Doubt and how it must be to suddenly feel suspicious that the one

you love more than all others could be a killer.

 

In a Lonely Place! That's a terrific call. You are very right. What's ironic is that

I hold something against "Laurel" but I don't with Young Charlie. I'm a hypocrite! I'm

sure I'll find a way to weasel out of it. :P

 

I wonder if In a Lonely Place will make Rick's top 25 favorite film noir list?

 

shadowofadoubt60.jpg

 

shadowofadoubt61.jpg

 

inalonelyplace1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> I wonder if In a Lonely Place will make Rick's top 25 favorite film noir list?

 

If I were going to bet on it, I'd say it would definitely be on almost everyone's top 25 list. Of course, I'm sure there's bound to be at least _one_ exception. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote}

>

> Don't say Gone With the Wind! Don't say Gone With the Wind!

>

 

:P Pure, Southern gothic noir!

 

>

> That's a terrific point, and I believe that's what Hitch was going for, too. The

> thought of such a deceptive, evil person in a happy community is most horrific.

>

 

He does like to force simple, good people to confront evil, usually on their doorstep

though sometimes they go to it, as in Foreign Correspondent and

The Man Who Knew Too Much.

 

> I do believe Uncle Charlie is one of the most unique of Hitch's villains. As I

> mentioned before, most of Hitch's villains were like Uncle Charlie in that they

> were seen as acceptable men of society, most with power and influence. This

> helped to hide their evil.

 

Yes, and many of them wore the cloak of respectability themselves. Uncle

Charlie used his family to cloak his sins.

 

> Rope and

> Strangers on a Train are two other Hitch films where the villains were pure

> evil. It was all a game to them. Robert Walker's "Bruno" is my favorite Hitch

> villain.

 

To me, those guys were punks. I don't like snotty, young punk-type villains.

 

>

> In a Lonely Place! That's a terrific call. You are very right. What's ironic is that

> I hold something against "Laurel" but I don't with Young Charlie. I'm a hypocrite! I'm

> sure I'll find a way to weasel out of it. :P

>

 

Laurel is no "innocent", as young Charlie was. She was a Hollywood actress. :D

And she drew Dix in just as much as he pursued her.

 

> I wonder if In a Lonely Place will make Rick's top 25 favorite film noir list?

>

 

It's definitely in mine if it wasn't before, especially after this latest viewing. Great

comparison shots!

 

I'd forgotten how truly frightening Dix could get. What they tried and failed to get

in The Two Mrs Carrolls was better realized in this film. Bogart could really

flip his lid. Gloria didn't look like she had to "act" in those scenes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I still don't have a top 25 list, but I do think I'll be putting *In a Lonely Place* on it. I just don't know how I'll rank it. But I definitely want to include it. It's such a great movie.

 

inaloneyplace77.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pure, Southern gothic noir!

 

Scarlett is the biggest femme fatale in film history and Rhett is certainly a SAP. :P

 

He does like to force simple, good people to confront evil, usually on their

doorstep though sometimes they go to it, as in Foreign Correspondent and

The Man Who Knew Too Much.

 

Hitch loved the dark figures of power who blended into society, as the two movies

you mentioned both feature.

 

Yes, and many of them wore the cloak of respectability themselves. Uncle

Charlie used his family to cloak his sins.

 

Oooohhh, very good. I like that.

 

To me, those guys were punks. I don't like snotty, young punk-type villains.

 

They frighten me more than the "business" men in suits.

 

Laurel is no "innocent", as young Charlie was. She was a Hollywood actress.

And she drew Dix in just as much as he pursued her.

 

And Laurel knew of Dix's being a suspect in a murder, right from the start. That's how

their relationship began. Young Charlie had no idea of Uncle Charlie's suspicions until

later on.

 

It's definitely in mine if it wasn't before, especially after this latest viewing.

 

We need to see your latest favorite top 25 film noir list. Maybe you can piece one

together this weekend.

 

Great comparison shots!

 

Thank you! Did you see the absolute fear in Young Charlie's eyes? What a wonderful

performance by Teresa.

 

I'd forgotten how truly frightening Dix could get. What they tried and failed to get

in The Two Mrs Carrolls was better realized in this film. Bogart could really

flip his lid. Gloria didn't look like she had to "act" in those scenes.

 

You're right, I don't think Gloria had to act, merely react. What I have a

problem with in The Two Mrs. Carrolls is Barbara Stanwyck playing Bogie's

wife. I was so used to seeing her handle her own against men. I guess the film is

kind of a film noir take on The Fall of the House of Usher.

 

Suddenly, I feel very empathetic toward Laurel...

 

And that's why Dix is in the wrong... in the end. But, before that, well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Well I still don't have a top 25 list, but I do think I'll be putting In a Lonely Place on it. I just don't know how I'll rank it. But I definitely want to include it. It's such a great movie.

 

To be frank, I'm not much for lists, but I think this movie definitely deserves all the recognition it has gotten, and maybe even more. It also happens to be one of Nicholas Ray's finest, imho.

 

Actually, I think it may have even been selected for the National Film Registry at the Library of Congress. I should check on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote}

>

> Scarlett is the biggest femme fatale in film history and Rhett is certainly a SAP. :P

>

 

He was for a little while, but he figured things out by the end.

 

 

>

> They frighten me more than the "business" men in suits.

>

 

They're scarier than Herbert Marshall, that's for sure. But I still

think they're punks. I don't like "spoiled brat" villains, which is how

I see all three of those "villains". To me, people like that deserve

what they get and I feel no sympathy. I can squeeze a smidge of

sympathy for Uncle Charlie because he was knocked in the head.

Although he, too, shares that same mentality of thinking he's above

eveyrone else. Most of Hitch's villains seem to be meglomaniacs and

filled with an overweening sense of superiority. This blinds them.

 

 

>

> We need to see your latest favorite top 25 film noir list. Maybe you can piece one

> together this weekend.

>

 

I'll have to think about it. It may take me all weekend to finish watching Rio Bravo!

 

 

> Thank you! Did you see the absolute fear in Young Charlie's eyes? What a wonderful

> performance by Teresa.

>

 

It was very real.

 

 

>

> What I have a

> problem with in The Two Mrs. Carrolls is Barbara Stanwyck playing Bogie's

> wife. I was so used to seeing her handle her own against men. I guess the film is

> kind of a film noir take on The Fall of the House of Usher.

>

 

I think it just had a lousy script and lackluster direction. It's limp, like a piece

of spaghetti, no tension in it despite its chilling premise.

 

How do you see it resembling The Fall of the House of Usher?

 

> Suddenly, I feel very empathetic toward Laurel...

>

> And that's why Dix is in the wrong... in the end. But, before that, well...

 

I meant I'm finding out what it's like trying to "live" with a maniac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=moviefan1951 wrote:}{quote}

> Actually, I think it may have even been selected for the National Film Registry at the Library of Congress. I should check on that.

 

I just checked. It was selected by the National Film Preservation Board in 2007. Oddly enough, it didn't receive any nominations back when released, for anything!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was for a little while, but he figured things out by the end.

 

Don't you think it would have been better if Scarlett shot Rhett?

 

"After all, tomorrow is another day. Well, except for you, Rhett." Bang!

 

They're scarier than Herbert Marshall, that's for sure. But I still

think they're punks. I don't like "spoiled brat" villains, which is how

I see all three of those "villains". To me, people like that deserve

what they get and I feel no sympathy. I can squeeze a smidge of

sympathy for Uncle Charlie because he was knocked in the head.

Although he, too, shares that same mentality of thinking he's above

eveyrone else. Most of Hitch's villains seem to be meglomaniacs and

filled with an overweening sense of superiority. This blinds them.

 

Sympathy? You actually look to sympathize the villains? And you say I

like psychos!

 

You are very right about Hitch's villains being meglomaniacs. They really

do have a superiority complex. And I also liked your "spoiled" comment

for Bruno, Brandon, and Charles.

 

I'll have to think about it. It may take me all weekend to finish watching Rio Bravo!

 

Are you going to take 400 screencaps, Feathers?

 

I think it just had a lousy script and lackluster direction. It's limp, like a piece

of spaghetti, no tension in it despite its chilling premise.

 

Yeah, that could be it, too. :D

 

How do you see it resembling The Fall of the House of Usher?

 

The finishing of a portrait equals death to the object.

 

I meant I'm finding out what it's like trying to "live" with a maniac.

 

Ohhh, that. You don't find it flattering to be the all-consuming love of another? That

all they care about in this world is you, for without you, they are absolutely

nothing? Who wouldn't want someone to follow you wherever you went? To play

dress-up, just for you. Ain't that sweet? Hey, who could blame them? Some people

are just worth following around. It's the only way some can learn anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote}

>

> Don't you think it would have been better if Scarlett shot Rhett?

>

> "After all, tomorrow is another day. Well, except for you, Rhett." Bang!

>

 

No! Real men are too scarce!

 

>

> Sympathy? You actually look to sympathize the villains? And you say I

> like psychos!

>

 

Bad choice of words, I mean interest, I guess. I'm not interested in bratty, rich kid

punks. They bore me.

 

>

> Are you going to take 400 screencaps, Feathers?

>

 

:D I don't think so, it's not that sort of movie. Scenes flow into one another

so it's not that easy to take cap after cap. Thank goodness! It's over two hours

long!

 

>

> The finishing of a portrait equals death to the object.

>

 

Hmmmm....

 

>

> Ohhh, that. You don't find it flattering to be the all-consuming love of another? That

> all they care about in this world is you, for without you, they are absolutely

> nothing? Who wouldn't want someone to follow you wherever you went? To play

> dress-up, just for you. Ain't that sweet? Hey, who could blame them? Some people

> are just worth following around. It's the only way some can learn anything.

 

No, I'm not used to being confronted with unbalanced behavior. If I have to witness it, I'd rather

it be no more real than in a movie.

 

That's why I get impatient with Laurel, and this last viewing I spotted the very moment when

I'd have said "bye forever!"...when he started to drive off, leaving her at the beach. She

stupidly forced her way into the car. ha! I'd like to see a man leave ME behind like that!

That glimpse of me in rearview mirror would be his LAST.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Oddly enough, it didn't receive any nominations back when released, for anything!

 

If that's the case, then that's a real shame. I don't think Nicholas Ray was appreciated when he was making some of his best movies. Of course, a lot of what he did must have seemed kind of offbeat at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No! Real men are too scarce!

 

That's because you femmes fatales are gunning them down, Scarlett!

 

Bad choice of words, I mean interest, I guess. I'm not interested in

bratty, rich kid punks. They bore me.

 

So the sociopaths don't interest you, eh?

 

I don't think so, it's not that sort of movie. Scenes flow into one another

so it's not that easy to take cap after cap. Thank goodness! It's over two hours

long!

 

It's over two hours? I'm not watching it now. :P

 

No, I'm not used to being confronted with unbalanced behavior. If I have to witness

it, I'd rather it be no more real than in a movie.

 

We're just too important.

 

That's why I get impatient with Laurel, and this last viewing I spotted the very

moment when I'd have said "bye forever!"...when he started to drive off, leaving her

at the beach. She stupidly forced her way into the car. ha! I'd like to see a man

leave ME behind like that! That glimpse of me in rearview mirror would be his LAST.

 

:D You'd never chase after your man, Amy Jolly? Well, I guess it is different when

your man blows up on you in front of friends. That's no good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>

> That's because you femmes fatales are gunning them down, Scarlett!

>

 

I said real men, not Yankees!

 

 

>

> It's over two hours? I'm not watching it now. :P

 

Yes you ARE, Sunday night.

 

>

> :D You'd never chase after your man, Amy Jolly? Well, I guess it is different when

> your man blows up on you in front of friends. That's no good.

 

Gary Cooper?! Well, that's different! :)

 

No, it's the leaving me behind like that. UNacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of "In a Lonely Place" - and since this is presumably still a noir gallery:

 

Ray,%20Nicholas-In%20a%20Lonely%20Place-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said real men, not Yankees!

 

:D Yes, ma'am.

 

It's over two hours? I'm not watching it now.

 

Yes you ARE, Sunday night.

 

Yes, ma'am. :P

 

Gary Cooper?! Well, that's different!

 

I said man!

 

No, it's the leaving me behind like that. UNacceptable.

 

Ohhhhh! Well here's a very unacceptable guy leaving you behind...

 

gonewiththewind5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=route66 wrote:}{quote}

> Ray,%20Nicholas-Party%20Girl-1.jpg

> (From that other great Nicholas Ray crime movie, "Party Girl")

 

Ah, Robert Taylor and Cyd Charisse. They made such a great couple! :x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote}>

> Ohhhhh! Well here's a very unacceptable guy leaving you behind...

>

 

He's not leaving me! He's just taking out the trash. He's very neat, he

carries it in a suitcase. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not leaving me! He's just taking out the trash. He's very neat, he

carries it in a suitcase. :P

 

Dix was in a hurry to pick up your ring! And I thought you were a romantic. What

a shame.

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...