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

Recommended Posts

I appreciate the lecture on film noir by Dr. Edwards. It gives clarity to what makes film noir "film noir." I have seen a number of the better known and lesser known films noir, courtesy of TCM, especially when the theme of the evening or month is film noir.

 

That said, I feel the Dr. Edwards is trying to prove a point that isn't there. Hitchcock has long been a sort of genre or type of film unto himself. If I were to put a film noir such as "Kiss of Death" or "Double Indemnity" side by side with any of Hitchcock's films (and let's use "Shadow of A Doubt"), I would be hard pressed to see the similarities. The typical film noir lives in a world of darkness (and I don't just mean lighting, though that contributes strongly to it). Hitchcock's characters for example, don't inhabit the same world of "The Killer's" Swede, or "Kiss of Death's" Tommy Udo.

 

These characters live in a dark world, and are doomed from the start; or they are so unrepentantly bad as to deserve their fate. More importantly, these characters are usually the central focus of the film.

 

Hitchcock rarely had characters such as these, with maybe the exception being Uncle Charlie in "Shadow of a Doubt." But I can't think of any other examples of character such as him - and having them as a central focus. You would never believe Cary Grant as a bad character, "Suspicion's" suspicions notwithstanding. Even in that film, there's always been the rumor that Grant's character was indeed supposed to murder his wife, but that Hitchcock and / or the studio balked at that ending.

 

To that end, the vast majority of Hitchcock's leading characters were the innocent "wrong man" or "the wrong people in the wrong place at the wrong time." See "Sabotage," "North By Northwest" or either of the productions of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" for typical examples of that scenario.

 

There's also a gritty realism to films noir that Hitchcock never worked in. (Well, maybe "The Wrong Man," which does have a procedural realism to it. But even there, Henry Fonda is the typical Hitchcock "wrong man" character.) Hitchcock was more interested (as we have seen in the prior lectures) in creating his own reality (not realism) in his films.

 

After too many years of watching film, especially Hitchcock and numerous examples of film noir, I'm going to stick with the belief that Hitchcock films were a genre unto themselves, and that it's too much of a stretch to consider them related to film noir.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the lecture on film noir by Dr. Edwards. It gives clarity to what makes film noir "film noir." I have seen a number of the better known and lesser known films noir, courtesy of TCM, especially when the theme of the evening or month is film noir.

 

That said, I feel the Dr. Edwards is trying to prove a point that isn't there. Hitchcock has long been a sort of genre or type of film unto himself. If I were to put a film noir such as "Kiss of Death" or "Double Indemnity" side by side with any of Hitchcock's films (and let's use "Shadow of A Doubt"), I would be hard pressed to see the similarities. The typical film noir lives in a world of darkness (and I don't just mean lighting, though that contributes strongly to it). Hitchcock's characters for example, don't inhabit the same world of "The Killer's" Swede, or "Kiss of Death's" Tommy Udo.

 

These characters live in a dark world, and are doomed from the start; or they are so unrepentantly bad as to deserve their fate. More importantly, these characters are usually the central focus of the film.

 

Hitchcock rarely had characters such as these, with maybe the exception being Uncle Charlie in "Shadow of a Doubt." But I can't think of any other examples of character such as him - and having them as a central focus. You would never believe Cary Grant as a bad character, "Suspicion's" suspicions notwithstanding. Even in that film, there's always been the rumor that Grant's character was indeed supposed to murder his wife, but that Hitchcock and / or the studio balked at that ending.

 

To that end, the vast majority of Hitchcock's leading characters were the innocent "wrong man" or "the wrong people in the wrong place at the wrong time." See "Sabotage," "North By Northwest" or either of the productions of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" for typical examples of that scenario.

 

There's also a gritty realism to films noir that Hitchcock never worked in. (Well, maybe "The Wrong Man," which does have a procedural realism to it. But even there, Henry Fonda is the typical Hitchcock "wrong man" character.) Hitchcock was more interested (as we have seen in the prior lectures) in creating his own reality (not realism) in his films.

 

After too many years of watching film, especially Hitchcock and numerous examples of film noir, I'm going to stick with the belief that Hitchcock films were a genre unto themselves, and that it's too much of a stretch to consider them related to film noir.

 

To me it all come down to if Noir is a genre or style;  I view Noir as more of a style.   So films like The Wrong Man and Shadow of a Doubt use noir elements of the style.

 

I agree that Hitchcock films are not as dark as most noirs (especially 50s noirs which were generally darker than 40s noirs),  but there is darkness;  e.g. what happens to the wife of the 'wrong man' is very dark.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Hitchcock films do exhibit a noir style.  I agree with JamesJazz' assessment that noir is more of a style of filmmaking as opposed to a genre.  While I do agree that many of Hitchcock's films are a style of their own and perhaps "Hitchcock" deserves to be its own sub-genre--however, many of his films do exhibit traits that are commonly associated with noir.

 

Rope.  Two men kill a classmate for sport and end up stashing his corpse in a trunk.  Then then proceed to have a party and turn the trunk (with their friend's body still inside) into a banquet table.  The rest of the film involves the guests inquiring where [the dead man] is, of course not suspecting their hosts had just killed them prior.  It is only until James Stewart arrives that he begins to unravel the mystery surrounding the missing man.  If that's not a dark story, then I don't know what is.

 

Dial M For Murder.  Grace Kelly's husband, Ray Milland, arranges to have her murdered after he discovers her affair with Robert Cummings.  Kelly ends up killing her assailant and Milland spends the rest of the film trying to figure out how to outwit the police.  Milland ends up framing Kelly for the assailant's murder and she's sentenced to death row.  This film has tons of "noirish" elements--especially the courtroom scene where it is just Kelly against a blank background where she is sentenced to death.

 

Psycho.  This film is shot very much in the style often associated with noir.  It is black and white and full of shadows, ominous music, etc.  In this film, we pretty much know who killed Janet Leigh, but the real mystery is the identity of Norman Bates' mother and what Norman's "deal" is.  

 

The Wrong Man, North By Northwest, To Catch a Thief... all feature "the wrong man" who is blamed for a crime that he did not commit. Many noir feature the protagonist trying to clear his name from a murder he didn't commit.  I Wake Up Screaming immediately comes to mind. In fact, "the wrong man" is a common element of noir.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it all come down to if Noir is a genre or style;  I view Noir as more of a style.   So films like The Wrong Man and Shadow of a Doubt use noir elements of the style.

 

I agree that Hitchcock films are not as dark as most noirs (especially 50s noirs which were generally darker than 40s noirs),  but there is darkness;  e.g. what happens to the wife of the 'wrong man' is very dark.

I would agree with your characterization of noir as a style.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with your characterization of noir as a style.

 

Hitchcock clearly had his own style and one can see his 'footprints' on his films verses some other directors that, while able to make great films, didn't have a clearly evident style.     Of course suspense was his forte but what I often forget is how good Hitchcock was at creating moving romantic moments in his films.     E.g. I'm watching Rebecca (for the 10 times),  and the beginning is so romantic.  The performance he got out of Fontaine is really touching.   

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitchcock clearly had his own style and one can see his 'footprints' on his films verses some other directors that, while able to make great films, didn't have a clearly evident style.     Of course suspense was his forte but what I often forget is how good Hitchcock was at creating moving romantic moments in his films.     E.g. I'm watching Rebecca (for the 10 times),  and the beginning is so romantic.  The performance he got out of Fontaine is really touching.   

 

Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman in Notorious...Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint in North by Northwest...Cary Grant and Grace Kelly in To Catch a Thief. You can probably guess the scenes I'm talking about in all three films.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Hitchcock films do exhibit a noir style.  I agree with JamesJazz' assessment that noir is more of a style of filmmaking as opposed to a genre.  While I do agree that many of Hitchcock's films are a style of their own and perhaps "Hitchcock" deserves to be its own sub-genre--however, many of his films do exhibit traits that are commonly associated with noir.

 

Rope.  Two men kill a classmate for sport and end up stashing his corpse in a trunk.  Then then proceed to have a party and turn the trunk (with their friend's body still inside) into a banquet table.  The rest of the film involves the guests inquiring where [the dead man] is, of course not suspecting their hosts had just killed them prior.  It is only until James Stewart arrives that he begins to unravel the mystery surrounding the missing man.  If that's not a dark story, then I don't know what is.

 

Dial M For Murder.  Grace Kelly's husband, Ray Milland, arranges to have her murdered after he discovers her affair with Robert Cummings.  Kelly ends up killing her assailant and Milland spends the rest of the film trying to figure out how to outwit the police.  Milland ends up framing Kelly for the assailant's murder and she's sentenced to death row.  This film has tons of "noirish" elements--especially the courtroom scene where it is just Kelly against a blank background where she is sentenced to death.

 

Psycho.  This film is shot very much in the style often associated with noir.  It is black and white and full of shadows, ominous music, etc.  In this film, we pretty much know who killed Janet Leigh, but the real mystery is the identity of Norman Bates' mother and what Norman's "deal" is.  

 

The Wrong Man, North By Northwest, To Catch a Thief... all feature "the wrong man" who is blamed for a crime that he did not commit. Many noir feature the protagonist trying to clear his name from a murder he didn't commit.  I Wake Up Screaming immediately comes to mind. In fact, "the wrong man" is a common element of noir.

 

I will go as far as to agree that Hitchcock incorporated noir elements in some of his films. But my main disagreement is with the statement that Hitchcock made noir films.

 

Films like Rope and Dial M for Murder take place in an upperclass milieu that is outside of the seedy underbelly of society that noir inhabits. Additionally, Dial M for Murder was originally a stage play; Rope seems like an attempt to film a stage play with it's single-takes. And...both are in color. (Plus Dial M was originally filmed in 3-D.) I have a hard time thinking of a noir film shot in color. Film noir pretty much demands black and white photography for it's visuals. It's hard to create believable shadows in color.

 

I think that Edwards will come back later and say that Psycho was Hitchcock's working in the horror (albeit modern) film genre, the same as The Birds.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will go as far as to agree that Hitchcock incorporated noir elements in some of his films. But my main disagreement is with the statement that Hitchcock made noir films.

 

Films like Rope and Dial M for Murder take place in an upperclass milieu that is outside of the seedy underbelly of society that noir inhabits. Additionally, Dial M for Murder was originally a stage play; Rope seems like an attempt to film a stage play with it's single-takes. And...both are in color. (Plus Dial M was originally filmed in 3-D.) I have a hard time thinking of a noir film shot in color. Film noir pretty much demands black and white photography for it's visuals. It's hard to create believable shadows in color.

 

I think that Edwards will come back later and say that Psycho was Hitchcock's working in the horror (albeit modern) film genre, the same as The Birds.

 

There are color noir films: Leave Her to Heaven and Niagara are two that immediately come to mind.

 

Noir doesn't necessarily have to take place in seedy locales.  Laura is in a very uppercrust apartment.  Gilda takes place in a very nice nightclub that caters to the elite--sure there is the crime element, but the setting of Gilda is not seedy.  Double Indemnity doesn't take place in gritty locales.  

 

I will agree that Hitchcock didn't set out to make a noir film.  Nobody specifically set out to make a film noir in the 1940s-1950s.  "Noir" wasn't a thing during the studio era.  It wasn't until years (decades?) later that the label "film noir" was assigned to films that satisfied specific tropes.  During the studio era, filmmakers just set out to make a crime film or a suspense film or a romantic thriller, whatever the case may be.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will go as far as to agree that Hitchcock incorporated noir elements in some of his films. But my main disagreement is with the statement that Hitchcock made noir films.

 

Films like Rope and Dial M for Murder take place in an upperclass milieu that is outside of the seedy underbelly of society that noir inhabits. Additionally, Dial M for Murder was originally a stage play; Rope seems like an attempt to film a stage play with it's single-takes. And...both are in color. (Plus Dial M was originally filmed in 3-D.) I have a hard time thinking of a noir film shot in color. Film noir pretty much demands black and white photography for it's visuals. It's hard to create believable shadows in color.

 

I think that Edwards will come back later and say that Psycho was Hitchcock's working in the horror (albeit modern) film genre, the same as The Birds.

 

Since I view noir as a style,  I categorize a film as "noir" if it has enough noir elements  (visuals,  themes,  plotlines).    But of course this is a very subjective process;   E.g. like Speedy I believe a noir can be in color,  but since such a film is 'weak' on noir style visuals,  it has to have very strong noir themes and plotlines.    (and there are black and white films with strong noir visuals that lack noir themes or plotlines  (e.g. crime or police procedural films). 

 

The book Film Noir (Ward \ Silver),   list 4 Hitchcock films;  Notorious,  Shadow of a Doubt,  Stranger on a Train, and The Wrong Man.   It a great book that explains what makes the films included in the book 'noir' film (in the view of the authors). 

 

Now I'm not saying this book is 'right',  I'm just providing information,  but I do see strong noir elements in those 4 Hitchcock films.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guilt, sexuality and memory drive the Hitchcock canon. The very few exceptions to his body of work prove the rule. Hitchcock is in a class by himself, and is not a Noir director. Certainly Noir borrowed from him, but he never floated in and out of his own genre as many good, sometime Noir directors floated out of that genre (Billy Wilder, Orson Welles, Robert Siodmak, Edgar Ulmer).

 

Labeling all crime thrillers with atmospheric lighting as Noirs lacks serious thought and insight into Noir. Hitchcock doesn't play around with gangsters, toughtalking dames or hardboiled private investigators. He also doesn't subscribe to the Noir construct of victim, fallguy, femme fatale, colored by money ("I didn't get the money and I didn't get the woman." "Double Indemnity"). Evil is obvious in the world of Noir, for Hitchcock evil comes in unexpected places (music halls, "The 39 Steps"). Hitchcock's murder victims are woman murdered by male "fatales," while Noir murder victims are men who fall prey to femme fatales. Further, Hitchcock's Catholic view of the world produces moral absolutes (murder is wrong). Guilt in Noir is always relative. Noirs are mostly B films with economies of style, Hitchcock makes A films with gorgeous blond stars and handsome leading men. In many ways Hitchcock is the opposite of Noir, but he is definitely NOT Noir.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Edwards will come back later and say that Psycho was Hitchcock's working in the horror (albeit modern) film genre, the same as The Birds.

Based on the rest of your (snipped) comments, I assume you think this is a silly assertion. If so, why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the rest of your (snipped) comments, I assume you think this is a silly assertion. If so, why?

 

I see a little too much hero worship of Hitchcock in his comments.   Note that Edwards 'liked' my comments related to Noir as a style and NOT a genre as well as that some Hitchcock films can be and often are (within books) classified as 'noir'. 

 

I would say The Birds is Hitchcock dipping into horror but that Psycho is a psychological drama.   I.e. The Birds has unworldly things happening but that isn't the case with Psycho.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say The Birds is Hitchcock dipping into horror but that Psycho is a psychological drama.   I.e. The Birds has unworldly things happening but that isn't the case with Psycho.   

Well, I realize that the boundaries of genre can be a very subjective thing, but it is generally accepted that horror movies don't have to have "unworldly" elements. Looking over Bosley Crowther's contemporary New York Times review, he refers to Psycho as "grisly" and a "blood-curdler," and furthermore refers to the Bates property as a "haunted house." (Presumably metaphorically.) Sounds like he considers it a horror movie.

 

Also, Psycho is widely considered, by those who consider such things, to be one of the pioneering slasher films, the slasher film practically universally being considered one of the sub-genres of the horror film. I don't think I've ever heard of Hitchcock explicitly calling Psycho a "horror movie," but having taken inspiration from William Castle's successes I think he knew what waters he was treading in.

 

And let's return to the "unworldly" aspect. While there's nothing (that I'm aware of) in Psycho that absolutely couldn't take place, it could be argued that the underlying issue of madness (coupled with bloody violence) helps push the film beyond the realm of the thriller. Considering the dollar-book Freud we get at the end of the picture, we could probably throw around words like "uncanny" and "unheimlich" as well, but perhaps that should wait until next week.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a little too much hero worship of Hitchcock in his comments.   Note that Edwards 'liked' my comments related to Noir as a style and NOT a genre as well as that some Hitchcock films can be and often are (within books) classified as 'noir'. 

 

I would say The Birds is Hitchcock dipping into horror but that Psycho is a psychological drama.   I.e. The Birds has unworldly things happening but that isn't the case with Psycho.   

 

I wouldn't call it hero worship. I've spent an entire lifetime watching many different films. I go by my feeling about the films, not by any sort of reverence to the particular filmmaker.

 

That said, Hitchcock is one of the truly great filmmakers. I think that we can all agree upon that, otherwise, we wouldn't be taking this course.

 

I put Hitchcock together in a select group with Bergman, Kurosawa, Kubrick, Wilder, and a few others because each brought a masterful talent to film-making. Each carved out a particular area in film-making that they called their own. I have come to enjoy many of the films from these film-makers, because of what went into the film, not because of any particular personal thing about these filmmakers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(Just finally getting to Friday in the course.)

 

In Dr. Edward's Friday lecture notes, he says:

 

"In closing, I would argue that Hitchcock made important contributions to the noir style—but he will likely need to remain a ‘strange’ or ‘special’ case due to the strength of his authorial signature and the singularity of his filmmaking style."

 

This helps clarify Dr. Edward's position on Hitchcock and film noir, and is a statement that I can finally agree with. (Especially after binging on Notorious and Strangers on a Train on Friday evening.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the rest of your (snipped) comments, I assume you think this is a silly assertion. If so, why?

 

Absolutely not, I don't consider it a silly assertion. What we do know about Hitchcock and Psycho:

 

1. Hitchcock worked fast and economically, using the crew from his television series. Many horror films work on a limited budget and shooting schedule.

2. Hitchcock wanted to make something completely uncharacteristic after North by Northwest. Psycho was a real departure from the usual films Hitchcock made, without Hitchcock relinquishing the Hitchcock "touch."

As someone said somewhere else in this thread, Psycho is considered one of the first slasher / horror-style films. There's only one film that came after Psycho and before the slasher film came into vogue in the late 70's that advanced and solidified the rules for what a slasher / horror film was - and that is Mario Bava's "Bay of Blood."

 

But Hitchcock did it with such class and style that none of the these types of films that followed can ever hold a candle to.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so sure that Hitchcock ever made anything that qualified as Noir.  I agree with the posters above that mention that with Noir there is a seediness, down on their luck aura that sort of dictates the scenes.  Hitchcock's dark environs are almost always middle to upper-class scenes, that hint at a darker reality than can be covered by the glamor.  Even choosing national monuments in North by Northwest, which by all accounts are held up as great treasures to be proud of, he chooses them as sites for potential murder.

 

To me, Noir lets you know what you're going to get right off the bat, while Hitchcock hints in one direction, but goes the other.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be interested for all those who don't consider SHADOW OF A DOUBT a film noir to distinguish it from IN A LONELY PLACE, which is often considered classic noir, though I think of it as more borderline.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely not, I don't consider it a silly assertion. What we do know about Hitchcock and Psycho:

 

1. Hitchcock worked fast and economically, using the crew from his television series. Many horror films work on a limited budget and shooting schedule.

2. Hitchcock wanted to make something completely uncharacteristic after North by Northwest. Psycho was a real departure from the usual films Hitchcock made, without Hitchcock relinquishing the Hitchcock "touch."

As someone said somewhere else in this thread, Psycho is considered one of the first slasher / horror-style films. There's only one film that came after Psycho and before the slasher film came into vogue in the late 70's that advanced and solidified the rules for what a slasher / horror film was - and that is Mario Bava's "Bay of Blood."

 

But Hitchcock did it with such class and style that none of the these types of films that followed can ever hold a candle to.

Ah, my mistake. Actually, I was also the "someone who said [something] somewhere else in this thread." I find it hard to keep track of who is who on this particular board. I suppose if I got a gravatar it would help others.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I realize that the boundaries of genre can be a very subjective thing, but it is generally accepted that horror movies don't have to have "unworldly" elements. Looking over Bosley Crowther's contemporary New York Times review, he refers to Psycho as "grisly" and a "blood-curdler," and furthermore refers to the Bates property as a "haunted house." (Presumably metaphorically.) Sounds like he considers it a horror movie.

 

Also, Psycho is widely considered, by those who consider such things, to be one of the pioneering slasher films, the slasher film practically universally being considered one of the sub-genres of the horror film. I don't think I've ever heard of Hitchcock explicitly calling Psycho a "horror movie," but having taken inspiration from William Castle's successes I think he knew what waters he was treading in.

 

And let's return to the "unworldly" aspect. While there's nothing (that I'm aware of) in Psycho that absolutely couldn't take place, it could be argued that the underlying issue of madness (coupled with bloody violence) helps push the film beyond the realm of the thriller. Considering the dollar-book Freud we get at the end of the picture, we could probably throw around words like "uncanny" and "unheimlich" as well, but perhaps that should wait until next week.

 

Some great points here.   I find 'boundaries of genre' discussions fun and interesting as long as no one gets too serious (which so far is the case which is great).

 

I can see labeling Psycho as borderline horror film and the filming of the murder scenes certainly 'fit' the slasher sub-genre,  in spite of  my need for 'unworldly' aspects,  which are lacking in the film.    (verses say serials slasher\horror films like Fridays where the killer can't be killed and is therefore something beyond an everyday human being).

 

As for the clinical ending of the film:  yea, that is another can of worms and I'm sure it will be discussed as part of the course (with some saying the film would have been better without the Oakland character).    Was this ending designed to take away the horror aspects of the film?     I.e.  by explaining all the spooky events in such a straight forward,  clinical manner,  was Hitchcock telling us;  what looked like horror was just the works of mental illness?    

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

(Just finally getting to Friday in the course.)

 

In Dr. Edward's Friday lecture notes, he says:

 

"In closing, I would argue that Hitchcock made important contributions to the noir style—but he will likely need to remain a ‘strange’ or ‘special’ case due to the strength of his authorial signature and the singularity of his filmmaking style."

 

This helps clarify Dr. Edward's position on Hitchcock and film noir, and is a statement that I can finally agree with. (Especially after binging on Notorious and Strangers on a Train on Friday evening.)

 

I agree with Dr. Edward's says here;   While Hitchcock utilized classic noir elements in his films (especially the 4 I mentioned),  his own style still dominates these films.     Therefore I can see why people would say 'they are not noir films,,,, but Hitchcock films'.     

 

Note that in the noir forums one can find a similar discussion related to Orson Welles.   That being said if I was writing a book on Film Noir I would include some Hitchcock films,  as well as Welles films (instead of leaving out directors that had strong, unique styles).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, my mistake. Actually, I was also the "someone who said [something] somewhere else in this thread." I find it hard to keep track of who is who on this particular board. I suppose if I got a gravatar it would help others.

 

Thanks for that. If I want to get my thoughts down without losing them, I have to forgo looking back through the thread to see who said what. Lucky coincidence in this case!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Dr. Edward's says here;   While Hitchcock utilized classic noir elements in his films (especially the 4 I mentioned),  his own style still dominates these films.     Therefore I can see why people would say 'they are not noir films,,,, but Hitchcock films'.     

 

Note that in the noir forums one can find a similar discussion related to Orson Welles.   That being said if I was writing a book on Film Noir I would include some Hitchcock films,  as well as Welles films (instead of leaving out directors that had strong, unique styles).

 

Which of Welles films would you include?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which of Welles films would you include?

 

I don't have a personal list of noir films,  instead my source is the book Film Noir (Silver \ Ward).   The book list 5 Welles films: 

 

Journey into Fear  (un-credited co-dir).     The Lady from Shanghai,   Mr. Arkadin,   The Stranger,  and what some say is the final noir film in the 'classic noir era',   Touch of Evil. 

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...