The Annual FrankGrimes Torture Thread

[FrankGrimes]

*The moment you mention with Saito is coming back to me. It was shattering.*

 

I was stunned by it. The man we have seen up to that point is far different than the man we see crying in privacy. So we feel great about Nicholson's triumph, only to then feel immediate sympathy for Saito. It's an amazing sequence of emotion by Lean.

 

 

*Leadership. It can seem so inspiring, only to lead to tragedy since we're all too human.*

 

 

I always think you learn a lot about a person in how they handle power.

[MissGoddess]

you and jackie, your conversation on *grand illusion* really brings tears to my eyes. it's such a powerful movie and it does it all without bombast or seeming like it's preaching at you. remarkable.

 

and i like the point about the snowy, harsh world just on the other side of the glass where the flower sits. such details...

 

I always think you learn a lot about a person in how they handle power.

 

you do. and it's quite a test. even ordinarily good and fair men can stumble when given power or money with all their temptations.

[CineMaven]

*SPOILED ALLUSIONS, AIN’T THEY GRAND...*

 

( Yeah, I went the Amazon route too. )

 

 

Jean Renoir painted a world. A living breathing world full of three-dimensional characters. What a wonderful film. I was struck by the honor and compassion and deep friendship of the men, in the midst of being prisoners of war. Their captors were not sadistic brutes. In fact, the captors mockingly taunted the Germans. ( But not too much. This ain't "Hogan's Heroes"! ) When we see the new recruits enter the camp...they were greeted by the men there before them. Recruits. Ha. I know - far from it. But it felt like watching fresh meat...new cadets coming into West Point. Each group passing on to the next, their experience. Listen to those who were there before you.

 

 

I was struck by the normalcy the men tried to inject into their existence there. Wow...they were allowed to receive packages from home. Food, books, wine. I felt so warmly towards these men who are just trying to make the best of a very bad situation. Here are men who are missing their wives and sweethearts and "Fifis." They settled for...looked forward to just the illusion of women being there with them was something else. Can you imagine in an American movie...in "Stalag 17" - the men being so happy to receive women's clothing so they could put on their own variety show with some of them portraying dance hall girls. Remember when one of the men was dressed in full regalia to see how it all fit? He came into that room of men who all stop what they were doing to look at him. The camera pulls back I believe to show all the men staring in silence. Wonderful. Moving.

 

 

I was struck with the shorthand of each group imprisoned there: the French, the British, the Russians. I chuckled when the Russians only got books in their delivery; they began to burn the books and almost had a mini-riot in their cell. One of the prisoners fights them saying: *"you can't burn books."* And in that instant, I was teary-eyed. Didn't the Germans start the war that way? Devastating. Why am I chuckling and crying at the same time? Renoir paints human beings.

 

 

Yes, *Marcel Dalio as Rosenthal* was fantastic. What a crying shame he came to America to make movies. You make it in Hollywood you're seen all over the world. And once you sell your soul to Hollywood...sign on the dotted line...they take away the charm that is you, the thing that is you, and you're regulated to playing croupiers and head waiters. ( There are none so blind... ) Dalio was fantastic here; I watched as his friendship deepened with *Marechal,* played by the incomparable *Jean Gabin.* I fell in love with Gabin. He didn't take anything seriously; even being in this camp he was sort of bemused ( ? ) No that's not the right word. Oh he knew he was in prison, but he was kind of humored by the goings on. ( Funny, wasn't it -- as though he was getting a 'tour' of the fortress he ultimately wound up in: "14th century...13th century." ) I noticed he didnot wear a woman's dress for the revue. Unh, unh...not him. ( But later the prison captain noted that Marechal disguised himself as a woman in one of his failed prison escapes. I liked that. )

 

 

Gabin - Gabin - Gabin. I could watch him all day. And when he was locked up in solitaire, zombied, in darkness I think he broke a little under those circumstances. And the kindly prison guard who gives him some smokes and his harmonica; when I heard the little harmonica playing a moment later gave Marechal some of his humanity back. I was relieved...he's going to come around

 

 

The movie moved quickly in the beginning. Showing two camps, the French, the German. Not so very different are they? The slight insouciance of *Captain Boeldieu ( Pierre Fresnay )* as he prepares with Marechal to go off on a mission. Captain Von Rauffenstein, having his sip of brandy, dispatching another enemy plane. Then the next shot is Boeldieu and Marechal captured - invited to eat with Rauffenstein. Then next they are in the prison camp. Then the next, Rauffenstein's body is broken. ( The next brace reminded of that horrifying Peter Lorre movie whose name escapes me. Keep it moving Renoir. Keep it moving.

 

 

The men have dug and dug and dug a tunnel. What a tense moment when we see their makeshift can alarm fall and none of the men see it. Will that little man die in the tunnel??!! I was freaking out. How 'bout digging and digging and digging a tunnel, only now to be assigned to another camp. HA!! Oh man. How 'bout trying to impart your experience to the next group of detainees, to help them...but the British officer does not understand French, and is not even trying to deal with you. Listen to those who were there before you. Renoir, Renoir. He puts these little petals or pebbles in our paths. He makes these "grand" statements, these "grand allusions" in the smallest of ways.

 

 

But of course the bulk of the movie belongs to *Erich von Stroheim* and *Pierre Fresnay.* I loved them. Poor little baldy bean Erich...he looks like a sad sad boy. Like that kid in tv's "Malcolm In the Middle" with the ears. And Fresnay reminds me of Alec Guinness or Robert Donat. They were both sooooo wonderful I couldn't believe it. They broke my heart. Their relationship, their friendship, their mutual respect ( or maybe it was one-sided on Rauffenstein's part. ) But there was a respect there, right? Or was Boeldieu in essence saying "I am never you." Rauffenstein seeing an "equal" in Boeldieu...which Marechal and Rosenthal clearly were not in Rauffenstein's eyes. ( I think this turned the tide for Boeldieu in some respects. ) This might even be a Grand Canyon leap off topic here, but I felt Deborah Kerr was a bit like these two Capitans in her outpost high up in the Himalayas. She was kind of rigidly duty bound. But she was in a death grip of power against Sister Ruth - - as much as Fonda and Cagney were in "Mr. Roberts."

 

 

Rauffenstein and Boeldieu. What more can I say that you guys haven't already covered so much better than I. I could say so much more but you guys have got a rhythm of conversation going on here so I'll butt out...but please let me say this one last thing: Boeldieu with his last sacrifice as a sort of tragic and noble "Pied Piper" playing the flute, climbing higher and higher...and Rauffenstein begging him to come down, wiped me out.

 

 

And I was never soooooooooo glad to see Switzerland in my life...

[JackFavell]

Wow, Maven, I just have to comment on your post. You really capture the feeling I had of de Boeldieu. Truly, this feeling is more about Pierre Fresnay, and even more so of Renoir. Fresnay has a certain quality about him, a neutral feeling. I find it fascinating. It is not a trait in any other actor that I can think of. He is almost completely devoid of judgment. When he plays a character, he plays it straight through, with no outward comment on what actions that character takes. It's marvelous. In other words, he doesn't seem to say to himself, "Oh I love this character", or "what he did here was wrong", or Gosh, this is such a wonderful trait".... I don't get the impression that he makes those judgments at all, and in some ways he gets to the heart of a character faster by simply playing their actions.

 

Renoir also doesn't make our decisions for us. There are so few filmmakers who make this kind of movie. It can be maddening, but with patience one finds so much more in this kind of film. de Boeldieu is neither good, nor bad. He is what he is, and the same goes for all the other men in the camps, and the commandant himself, and the soldiers watching them all. Renoir casts no judgmental eye on his characters. He leaves us to make up our own minds as to what he means by his movies, and by his character's actions. To each person viewing, it can mean something different. And basically, without those judgments, we are left with what happens BETWEEN the men, the relationships, the strings that tie them together, or keep them apart. Those borders (or lack of) in the mind. It's such a fragile way to make movies, this focusing on the air between people, the emotion between. And the relationships are fragile in themselves because they are based on nothing at all, just the whims and emotions of very human people.

 

Have you seen *The Life and Death of Col. Blimp*? This is another odd duck of a movie, with the most noble of characters being German, played by Anton Walbrook, made during the war. I find it a frustrating film, I am the first to admit I don't understand it, but I can't help but think that Clive and Theo are more modern versions of de Boeldieu and Rauffenstein. Perhaps Deborah Kerr and Kathleen Byron are also versions, since the two films are made by the same people. Is it possible that the films of Powell and Pressburger are a natural extension of Renoir? But then, one could say that about almost all filmmakers.

 

The flow of *Grand Illusion* and the few other Renoir films I've seen is like nothing else. It's like real life unfolding in real time. It doesn't go where you want it to, it follows some course unto itself. And at the same time, it's a snapshot into the time it was made...a perfect mirror of 1937. I'm sorry, you can't tell me that what Renoir was really pondering here was WWI. No way. He was pondering deep stuff from 1937, and leaving it there on film for the ages, for the future, where we most definitely need it.

 

Yes, in the end, de Boeldieu chose his 'side' over his own heart or inclinations. Perhaps he was saying, "I'm not like you" to Rauffenstein, but I think he was simply tired and wanted to die. In some ways his betrayal is good, and in some ways it is bad. He betrayed his class, and Rauffenstein, the only man who he really felt a kinship with. It feels like he wanted Rauffenstein to take him out, not at the hands of someone low. Is this a good thing? This superiority? The way it is done means everything to him. He had to do what he did because of the way men are programmed to behave in a war, especially someone of such a class superiority. And Rauffenstein had to shoot him. He didn't want to, he simply followed the code that he and de Boeldieu had set for themselves, an outmoded one, I think Renoir felt. They are victims of war, more maybe than the men under them, or any of the prisoners of war. They are prisoners of their own pride and faith and rank and nobility. Its simply what you do, and it is why they are crumbling inside as well as outside.

 

It's a shame that this film that broke so many barriers and showed the futility of war and walls did literally nothing to stop the next war from coming, or any other war.

 

I found Marechal's frustration with de Boeldieu almost as interesting as the friendship between the two highborn officers. He simply can't understand de Boeldieu. I adored the scene where Marechal asks de Boeldieu why he can't do anything normal. it made me laugh out loud. Marechal is so vital, it's obvious that he will live, I don't know how you could kill him off, he's the future, as well as the common middle class or even lower class man. It's the de Boeldieu's and the Rauffensteins who will die off, without progeny. Again, I feel a certain neutered quality with these two men, they have outgrown life itself, but not love. There is no reality for them anymore. Rauffenstein only has his picture of a beautiful woman, and his phonograph and his fine wines before de Boeldieu enters the picture. And of course his flowers. The two are bloodless, except for this kinship, born of racial superiority. It's very sad, but they must go, these two men. It's the way of the world.

[CineMaven]

The space in-between.

 

I love what you wrote, Jax*x*xon.

[JackFavell]

> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}

> von Stroheim is at his very best. He's such a gentleman. One that is full of sadness. The respect and love he has for Boeldieu is beautiful.

 

It is beautiful. I found the two of them the most interesting and sympathetic part of the film. They are like two of a kind, the last of an endangered species, that find one another, just a bit too late.

 

>

>

>

>

 

They break one barrier, the barrier of country, but are holding up another, class. And they can't do different. de Boeldieu actually breaks that barrier, by sending Marechal and Rosenthal off to escape.... into the future he has no part in, nor any wish to be a part of.

 

>

>

>

> What I love about the above "rose" cap is seeing the snow in the background. The harsh world is just right outside the window from the cared-for flower.

 

That's a GREAT catch! The most symbolic moment of the whole film. I feel more for these two than anyone else in the film. I am a dreamer, and so there sometimes feels like there is no place in the world for me. It is a harsh world for sure...you are right. It's broken Rauffenstein to bits.

 

> Absolutely. It's the humanist view compared to the tribal.

 

I felt that view emanating from the movie.

 

> He's very dignified in *Grand Illusion*. And I really liked the commentary on class and standing in the film. Boeldieu (Pierre Fresnay) is the aristocratic one whose view on war and life is that of a decency. You win in the same manner as you lose: chin up.

 

And this is the best part of the old ways and old views. It's almost non existent now. Sadly, decency and that chin up attitude are out the window in our complaining society. As I age, I feel more and more outmoded.

 

> I've only seen him in two other films, so I'm very unfamiliar with him as an actor.

 

Which movies?

 

> I really like Gabin. I've liked him in everything that I've seen. He reminds me a lot of Spencer Tracy in the 30s. He's the "dock worker." There's some "Burt Lancaster" with him, too.

 

He really is. So vital and strong. He's impressive. I had to get used to him, everyone says he's the Spencer Tracy of french films, but I hate that definition (not that I can't see the comparison) it's so limiting. I see the Burt comparison a bit more. I find Gabin interesting, but I hadn't yet decided if I liked him or not. Now I think I like him. Maven was right, he's got a bemused quality that I really enjoyed here in this movie. You can't cage a man who is laughing at you. Kind of like Steve McQueen in The Great Escape. You know he will escape, and he knows he will escape and it becomes a kind of game. A game of life or death. That to me is Gabin in a nutshell. Life's a game.

 

 

> You raise a good point about the coming together of people from different walks of life via the military. It's much different than going to school, where it's all localized, for the most part.

 

Very true. And we saw this in the barracks. What did you make of the scene where the black prisoner of war came over to the men and gave his opinion? They all ignored him, and this struck me full in the face for some reason. I don't know if he said something wrong, or I missed it, but this was the only barrier that really shocked me in the movie. Maybe this was part of the mirror Renoir was holding up? Ugly. _Very_ 1937. The rest of the movie was timeless.

 

> The scenes between he and Marechal (Jean Gabin) in the final part of the film is nothing but lovely. They are both frustrated and angered by their existence and by each other but they cannot leave the other.

 

 

I agree. Just as every nation in the world is tied together, we may not like it but it's either love or blow each other up. I found that scene very very moving. Men do have to blow off steam, and argue, but we don't leave each other to die. And that's the code of the common man. Or should be.

 

> Now that was lovely. You captured it all so perfectly.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

Isn't it the truth.

[JackFavell]

> {quote:title=CineMaven wrote:}{quote}*SPOILED ALLUSIONS, AIN’T THEY GRAND...*

>

> ( Yeah, I went the Amazon route too. )

 

And I'm so glad you did!

 

> Jean Renoir painted a world. A living breathing world full of three-dimensional characters. What a wonderful film. I was struck by the honor and compassion and deep friendship of the men, in the midst of being prisoners of war. Their captors were not sadistic brutes. In fact, the captors mockingly taunted the Germans. ( But not too much. This ain't "Hogan's Heroes"! ) When we see the new recruits enter the camp...they were greeted by the men there before them. Recruits. Ha. I know - far from it. But it felt like watching fresh meat...new cadets coming into West Point. Each group passing on to the next, their experience. Listen to those who were there before you.

 

You felt an excitement, all these different types of men living in close quarters. Their captors weren't so different from themselves, nor the Russians or Brits. How ya gonna keep em down on the farm, after they've seen Paree? How can these men go back to insular lives, when they now know men from all over the world? And look at Marechal....he literally won't go back. As soon as the war is over, he's going back to Germany, to his girl, and they'll have a 'mixed marriage'. The future.

 

> I was struck by the normalcy the men tried to inject into their existence there. Wow...they were allowed to receive packages from home. Food, books, wine. I felt so warmly towards these men who are just trying to make the best of a very bad situation. Here are men who are missing their wives and sweethearts and "Fifis." They settled for...looked forward to just the illusion of women being there with them was something else. Can you imagine in an American movie...in "Stalag 17" - the men being so happy to receive women's clothing so they could put on their own variety show with some of them portraying dance hall girls. Remember when one of the men was dressed in full regalia to see how it all fit? He came into that room of men who all stop what they were doing to look at him. The camera pulls back I believe to show all the men staring in silence. Wonderful. Moving.

 

It was moving. The way they felt the silks and the stockings. remembering. Terribly sad. Also touching was how the Germans didn't take their packages, even when they were starving.

 

> I was struck with the shorthand of each group imprisoned there: the French, the British, the Russians. I chuckled when the Russians only got books in their delivery; they began to burn the books and almost had a mini-riot in their cell. One of the prisoners fights them saying: *"you can't burn books."* And in that instant, I was teary-eyed. Didn't the Germans start the war that way? Devastating. Why am I chuckling and crying at the same time? Renoir paints human beings.

 

Yes, I thought of that too. But the riot felt so real, I can't blame them, they were willing to share their food and wine. But the Czarina was too practical to send food... how awful. And yet, I was more like the poor schlub who loved his books. I could never destroy one. Did you get the impression that he didn't understand the books he was reading? But at least he was trying. And de Boeldieu gave him a look at one point of absolute disgust, and said something like "Pour Pindar!" at the prospect of being read and misunderstood by this dumb little fellow. So in the midst of good fellowship, there are always tensions. Just so long as they are good natured ones.

 

 

> Yes, *Marcel Dalio as Rosenthal* was fantastic. What a crying shame he came to America to make movies. You make it in Hollywood you're seen all over the world. And once you sell your soul to Hollywood...sign on the dotted line...they take away the charm that is you, the thing that is you, and you're regulated to playing croupiers and head waiters. ( There are none so blind... ) Dalio was fantastic here; I watched as his friendship deepened with *Marechal,* played by the incomparable *Jean Gabin.* I fell in love with Gabin. He didn't take anything seriously; even being in this camp he was sort of bemused ( ? ) No that's not the right word. Oh he knew he was in prison, but he was kind of humored by the goings on. ( Funny, wasn't it -- as though he was getting a 'tour' of the fortress he ultimately wound up in: "14th century...13th century." ) I noticed he didnot wear a woman's dress for the revue. Unh, unh...not him. ( But later the prison captain noted that Marechal disguised himself as a woman in one of his failed prison escapes. I liked that. )

 

No way were they going to even ask him to get into women's clothing... and yet, he was desperate enough to do it to escape.

 

I thought that description of his escapes was hilarious.

 

And the tour of the 'architecture' was interesting, almost as if they were going back in time themselves, to be imprisoned in 'the dungeon'.

 

> Gabin - Gabin - Gabin. I could watch him all day. And when he was locked up in solitaire, zombied, in darkness I think he broke a little under those circumstances. And the kindly prison guard who gives him some smokes and his harmonica; when I heard the little harmonica playing a moment later gave Marechal some of his humanity back. I was relieved...he's going to come around

 

That frightened me. He was all out there... like an animal. It was shocking, for me to see this in a 1937 film.

 

> The movie moved quickly in the beginning. Showing two camps, the French, the German. Not so very different are they? The slight insouciance of *Captain Boeldieu ( Pierre Fresnay )* as he prepares with Marechal to go off on a mission. Captain Von Rauffenstein, having his sip of brandy, dispatching another enemy plane. Then the next shot is Boeldieu and Marechal captured - invited to eat with Rauffenstein. Then next they are in the prison camp. Then the next, Rauffenstein's body is broken. ( The next brace reminded of that horrifying Peter Lorre movie whose name escapes me. Keep it moving Renoir. Keep it moving.

 

Yes, I thought the brace was very effective at showing Rauffenstein's character. Ramrod straight. He reminded me of the stories about Baron von Richtofen, the Red Baron. The code of honor Snoopy holds so dear...

 

 

> The men have dug and dug and dug a tunnel. What a tense moment when we see their makeshift can alarm fall and none of the men see it. Will that little man die in the tunnel??!! I was freaking out. How 'bout digging and digging and digging a tunnel, only now to be assigned to another camp. HA!! Oh man. How 'bout trying to impart your experience to the next group of detainees, to help them...but the British officer does not understand French, and is not even trying to deal with you. Listen to those who were there before you. Renoir, Renoir. He puts these little petals or pebbles in our paths. He makes these "grand" statements, these "grand allusions" in the smallest of ways.

 

Oh that was well put! I thought it was fascinating that this little deaths happened to them all along, death by boredom and frustration, no big escape scene here. Ford does the same thing in They Were Expendable.

 

 

> But of course the bulk of the movie belongs to *Erich von Stroheim* and *Pierre Fresnay.* I loved them. Poor little baldy bean Erich...he looks like a sad sad boy. Like that kid in tv's "Malcolm In the Middle" with the ears. And Fresnay reminds me of Alec Guinness or Robert Donat. They were both sooooo wonderful I couldn't believe it. They broke my heart. Their relationship, their friendship, their mutual respect ( or maybe it was one-sided on Rauffenstein's part. ) But there was a respect there, right? Or was Boeldieu in essence saying "I am never you." Rauffenstein seeing an "equal" in Boeldieu...which Marechal and Rosenthal clearly were not in Rauffenstein's eyes. ( I think this turned the tide for Boeldieu in some respects. ) This might even be a Grand Canyon leap off topic here, but I felt Deborah Kerr was a bit like these two Capitans in her outpost high up in the Himalayas. She was kind of rigidly duty bound. But she was in a death grip of power against Sister Ruth - - as much as Fonda and Cagney were in "Mr. Roberts."

 

I think de Boeldieu's code never let him reveal his true feelings. That being said, I think he WAS deeply attached to Rauffenstein. His last words show that he knows how lonely it will be. And I like your death leap ( ), the more I think about it the more it makes sense. That rigidity did in Sister Clodagh too.

 

 

> Rauffenstein and Boeldieu. What more can I say that you guys haven't already covered so much better than I. I could say so much more but you guys have got a rhythm of conversation going on here so I'll butt out...but please let me say this one last thing: Boeldieu with his last sacrifice as a sort of tragic and noble "Pied Piper" playing the flute, climbing higher and higher...and Rauffenstein begging him to come down, wiped me out.

 

 

Me too. Bawling like a baby at the end of their scene together.

 

 

> And I was never soooooooooo glad to see Switzerland in my life...

 

 

Ha! Nowadays they would have shot them anyway.

[CineMaven]

*You felt an excitement, all these different types of men living in close quarters. Their captors weren't so different from themselves, nor the Russians or Brits. How ya gonna keep em down on the farm, after they've seen Paree? How can these men go back to insular lives, when they now know men from all over the world? And look at Marechal....he literally won't go back. As soon as the war is over, he's going back to Germany, to his girl, and they'll have a 'mixed marriage'. The future.*

 

My niece worked on the base in Fort Hood, Texas. ( She's not in the military. ) She said she saw people from all over the country on base. Then she accepted a better paying job with the military...in Afghanistan!! ( Her mother and I are getting grayer by the day. ) Now that she's in "the 'Stan" she's told me she thought she saw all different kinds of people before on Ft. Hood, but nothing compares to the U.S. base in Afghanistan, where she is really seeing people from all over the world. She now wants to travel all over. She's "seen" Paree, if you get my metaphor. Killeen is going to look mighty small-town to her when she comes back. I do hope that Marechal returns to Germany and gets his girl. He's been changed. Has Rosenthal?

 

*It was moving. The way they felt the silks and the stockings. remembering. Terribly sad. Also touching was how the Germans didn't take their packages, even when they were starving.*

 

Yes. Why were they all so civilized?

 

*Yes, I thought of that too. But the riot felt so real, I can't blame them, they were willing to share their food and wine. But the Czarina was too practical to send food... how awful. And yet, I was more like the poor schlub who loved his books. I could never destroy one. Did you get the impression that he didn't understand the books he was reading? But at least he was trying. And de Boeldieu gave him a look at one point of absolute disgust, and said something like "Pour Pindar!" at the prospect of being read and misunderstood by this dumb little fellow. So in the midst of good fellowship, there are always tensions. Just so long as they are good natured ones.*

 

Aaaaah, so you’re a bookworm ey? :-) I remember "poor Pindar." I felt annoyed. Get off your high horse Captain, he ain’t hurtin’ nobody. There goes those class lines again. His snobbery was evident. ( Dang...now a guy can't read a book and try to understand it?! )

 

*Have you seen The Life and Death of Col. Blimp? This is another odd duck of a movie, with the most noble of characters being German, played by Anton Walbrook, made during the war.*

 

I've heard of it; even saw just a small small moment of it. Walbrook reminds me of Fresnay. Economy of motion and emotion. I'll have to check it out. I like the *P & P* style.

 

*They break one barrier, the barrier of country, but are holding up another, class. And they can't do different. de Boeldieu actually breaks that barrier, by sending Marechal and Rosenthal off to escape.... into the future he has no part in, nor any wish to be a part of.*

 

How very knowing and self-aware...and honest he is. Some folks stay blind and make the same mistake over & over again with no sense of the truth of who they are, or their place in the world.

 

*What did you make of the scene where the black prisoner of war came over to the men and gave his opinion? They all ignored him, and this struck me full in the face for some reason. I don't know if he said something wrong, or I missed it, but this was the only barrier that really shocked me in the movie. Maybe this was part of the mirror Renoir was holding up? Ugly. Very 1937. The rest of the movie was timeless.*

 

This was my very first reaction: *"You're not one of the gang yet."* ( Silly me. ) But it probably was, what it obviously was. Later, when the boys started playing the flutes and banging on pots and pans as an escape distraction, that same soldier ( was he Algerian? ) was one of the guys making noise too...sitting among them banging away. It probably was a mirror. Renoir is deep. Call me crazy, call me silly: I was happy to see a Black guy in prison with the rest of them.

 

Yeah...crazy, silly. But I'm all about inclusion.

 

*I think de Boeldieu's code never let him reveal his true feelings. That being said, I think he WAS deeply attached to Rauffenstein. His last words show that he knows how lonely it will be. And I like your death leap ( ), the more I think about it the more it makes sense. That rigidity did in Sister Clodagh too.*

 

I was going to try to write up my thoughts of *"BLACK NARCISSUS"* which I saw on the big screen at the Film Forum a few weeks ago, but I can't get it together. The scene that rocked me to the core, though, was this one:

 

 

Lipstick *vs* The Bible. Serving The Lord *vs* Desire. And then seeing it up close up there so big. Powerful. I do understand that Boeldieu and Rauffenstein were more sympatico to each other than Sister Clodagh and Sister Ruth.

 

*Ha! Nowadays they would have shot them anyway.*

 

HA! Ya better b'lieve it. *"BORDERS, SCHMORDERS! YOU'RE GOIN' DOWN, MES AMIS!!!"*

 

*Yes, I thought the brace was very effective at showing Rauffenstein's character. Ramrod straight. He reminded me of the stories about Baron von Richtofen, the Red Baron. The code of honor Snoopy holds so dear...*

 

I must look up more Renoir.

 

...And Charlie Brown.

 

[rohanaka]

Helllllooooo there Mr. Grey...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd say, in terms of war pics to me, I'd go with

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. The Sand Pebbles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Men in War

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Bitter Victory

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Grand Illusion

5. The Bridge on the River Kwai

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well I have only seen the LAST one on your list. ha. But I have at least seen a poriton of #1 (though I really don't remember much of it) After all the reading here I see that I need to see your #4 for sure. That sounds like a truly amazing film. I will try to keep an eye out for it

 

which ones rank higher

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmm... I think my top three actual "war" films (in no particular order) would have to be

 

 

 

{font:Times New Roman}http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrkN0q7Hs1o{font}{font:Times New Roman} {font}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

{font:Times New Roman}

{font}

 

 

 

 

 

 

{font:Times New Roman} {font}

{font:Times New Roman}An honorable mention could go to several others.. but the first one that comes to mind would be:

{font}

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqOqXj2biG0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and then also I would say.. another honorable mention to:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCI9qUIrec8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ha.. which is the "Christmas present" that I am HOPING is the "suprise" that you have waiting for me.. ha.. but I won't hold my breath)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

{font:Times New Roman}And speaking of NOT holiding my BREATH.. ha.. although this may or may NOT be an actual "war" film.. I think this would be probably my all time favorite for a movie made "during" war{font}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

{font:Times New Roman}

{font}

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

{font:Times New Roman}It is likely my favorite out of all the films I am listing here (in terms of being a favorite overall) because I know you already know.. ha... for all that I have tried to get you to WATCH it.. it is one of my all time fave movies ever.. I rate it pretty high up on my all time list, for sure. And by the way.. though it may just seem like I am trying too hard.. ha.. but I think it would make a really great "companion"film to watch with BOTRK... because despite the fact that the two stories are really NOT about the same "thing", still they have a LOT in common all the same. And I see a lot of similar "moments' in the two.. again, even though they are about two entirely different subjects.

{font}

 

 

 

SOMEDAY.. ha.. if I can ever wear you down.. I hope you will give this movie a try.. I would really enjoy hearing your thoughts on it.. but ha.. I am SURE by now you are getting SICK of me telling you to watch it. (And yet.. ha.. you KNOW I will keep trying.. its what I do)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And it's interesting you bring that film up since Nicholson reminds me of Thursday. I didn't feel any sympathy for him, either

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They did have some things in common.. arrogance.. pomp.. a total misunderstanding for their primary goal (overall) and how to achieve it. But that is about where it ends for the "similarity" because the biggest difference between them would have to be that Nicholson actually had the respect (most of the time) from his men that Thursday could only dream of or imagine. NONE of Thursday's men supported him or thought he was anything but a pompous jerk pretty much all the way through the entire story. Nicholson actually had the men cheering for him and WANTING to follow him.. that is a huge difference in the two for sure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When Saito triumphs over Nicholson, Nicholson is greeted by all his comrades with cheers. Lean then cuts to Saito, who is crying in loneliness. Even though he's the one who made the defeat possible, he is deeply wounded by his decision. It's my favorite moment in the film

 

 

 

 

 

 

And see.. I took him to be crying from shame. He HATES the British (ha.. I love the scene where Nicholson is let out for a while.. and Saito LOSES it in front of him and starts yelling how MUCH he hates them) .. and ultimately the "British" (through Nicholson) bested him in front of everyone. And whats more.. both sides knew it. I don't know.. I imagine there might have been some level of "lonely" to his tears.. but I think he was all but dying from shame. He lost face the moment his bluff was called (about the shooting) even though he never got to shoot.. and it went down hill (for his "face" from there) he never got "the high ground" back again.. and he was only looking "up" to Nicholson from there on out.. even if he did have power over him (by keeping him locked in the hot house for so long)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Favell says:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mainly I cry because it's just such a great moment in film. I get kind of mushy about certain movies or scenes in film.... there are only about 5 that can make me cry for the way they are handled by a director. When a scene is done perfectly, it chokes me up. This scene was done PERFECTLY. All this stuff is happening, Nicholson sees the wire, they are all breathlessly waiting for the moment and in comes this jackass,ON THEIR SIDE, pulling up the wire. I believe the boy goes to kill Nicholson and the commandant, but he gets shot instead, then Holden goes floundering across the river. You've come so far with them through the movie, you can't believe it will all be screwed up by Nicholson. And then Holden is shot, bullets are whizzing by and in the middle of it all is Guinness, having this moment of still (quiet) self revelation. And it happens! He's got it! He suddenly realizes what he's been doing.... he turns to act, to change the outcome, because he knows that what he's done is wrong, maybe even evil, but is shot in this moment of self awareness. His very last act, the very final thing he does, and he's dead already, before it happens, is to fall on that plunger. It's an accident, redeeming him, but it doesn't matter. It's beautifully illustrative of the madness of war. It's just plain beautiful

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And THAT was just "plain beautiful" the way you have that all laid out, little darlin'. A perfect "blow by blow" of the end for Nicholson. Nicely said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you are right.. in that one moment, I think he IS sympathetic. and you know what else.. through much of the film.. he is ALMOST right.. in fact, I think he is exactly right.. all up to the point where he just sort of "forgets" that despite all the work they'd done.. and despite all the effort they put in.. that BRIDGE was not "his" or even his men's.. it belonged to the Japanese.. and was aiding them in the war effort and it could NOT be allowed to succeed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know.. that is yet another comparison to The Empire of the Sun. Nicholson sort of "forgot' that he was not there to build the bridge FOR the Japanese.. because he lost sight of the fact (through his own arrogance) that they were at war.. and Jamie becomes so "fascinated" by the Japanese pilots.. and their planes.. he too more or less "forgets" through a good part of the film.. that they are his "enemy". Of course the situaion is very different (in that Jamie was a child.. and even though he was British.. he did not really "feel" British.. having never been to England) but still.. he even has a conversation with the doctor.. about how he needed to remember "what side" he was on.. and not have so much "respect" for the enemy and their "tools of war" so to speak. Its a great moment on the story.. even if it passes by very quickly.. because it helps you understand how much of his personal identity he had lost.. just by being raised in a prison camp.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That will be a surprise

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmm.... did I ever tell you that I HATE suprises?????????????????? Ha.. Meanwhile.. I will be waiting.. and waiting.... and WAITING

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by: rohanaka on Jan 27, 2013 12:08 AM HA!! (because the crummy "font" monster strikes again.)

 

 

 

Edited by: rohanaka on Jan 27, 2013 12:17 AM

[JackFavell]

> My niece worked on the base in Fort Hood, Texas. ( She's not in the military. ) She said she saw people from all over the country on base. Then she accepted a better paying job with the military...in Afghanistan!! ( Her mother and I are getting grayer by the day. ) Now that she's in "the 'Stan" she's told me she thought she saw all different kinds of people before on Ft. Hood, but nothing compares to the U.S. base in Afghanistan, where she is really seeing people from all over the world. She now wants to travel all over. She's "seen" Paree, if you get my metaphor. Killeen is going to look mighty small-town to her when she comes back. I do hope that Marechal returns to Germany and gets his girl. He's been changed. Has Rosenthal?

 

Whoa, your sister, god bless her! She'll bring a lot of knowledge and hopefully tolerance back with her. But you know, she'll just be happy to get back to Killeen, small town that it is. Paree is one thing, but a total war zone is another. Strangely, we are excluded from combat in *Grand Illusion.*

 

I don't know if Rosenthal changes during the movie. It's such a good question. I don't think so.... I think he's pretty much the same guy we see at the beginning, when we first meet him. HOWEVER, and it's a big however, I think he's been changed. I think his change has come long, LONG before we ever see him. I think he must have gone through some personal hell, long ago, when first interned, and he learned that for him, the best way to get through it was to share what he had with others. I am in fact quite sure this was his coping mechanism and his instinctual way to deal with the unpleasantness and downright boredom of war. He's a generous guy, it's his main personality trait, it helps him to forget the war, that he is cut off. He is rich, everyone says, but not at all miserly. A fascinating representation of a jew in this time period, is it not? I think if he can play the patron, donating his largesse, it makes him feel somewhat at home in that barracks. But the question was, does he change during the course of the movie. His friendship with Marechal, hmmmm, does it change him? Maybe it does just slightly. He allows himself to be the beneficiary of Marechal's strength, so maybe that's a change. Instead of the giver, or helper, he must be the taker, the recipient of help. Neither he nor Marechal is comfortable with this role reversal as they are traversing the snow, and they argue because they love one another, and it isn't the sensible thing to do to stay together. I think that there is a change in Rosenthal, though it's not huge. Marechal is the focus of the big change. He goes from being a man unto himself ("I stick my neck out for nobody") to being a man who is broadened, he's sensitized to the plight of others. He becomes a part of the world, just like Rick becomes a part of the world.

 

> Yes. Why were they all so civilized?

 

I really don't know!

 

I am not sure whether it was Renoir saying that things were more civilized in WWI, because of the old world ways, or if he was creating this world where we have to stick together because it's the best thing for us all. I suspect the latter, judging from that introduction he made.

 

 

> Aaaaah, so you’re a bookworm ey? :-) I remember "poor Pindar." I felt annoyed. Get off your high horse Captain, he ain’t hurtin’ nobody. There goes those class lines again. His snobbery was evident. ( Dang...now a guy can't read a book and try to understand it?! )

 

I am with you, a hundred percent. de Boueldieu was maddening, wasn't he? And yet it never seemed personal. I guess that's an excuse for anyone with a prejudice. "It's not personal I just think you're a moron".

 

 

> I've heard of it; even saw just a small small moment of it. Walbrook reminds me of Fresnay. Economy of motion and emotion. I'll have to check it out. I like the *P & P* style.

 

It's probably my least favorite of their movies, but it does relate to this story. It's almost the anti Grand Illusion, except for the friendship at the center, which takes a lot from this film I would say.

 

> How very knowing and self-aware...and honest he is. Some folks stay blind and make the same mistake over & over again with no sense of the truth of who they are, or their place in the world.

 

I liked his self awareness. It forced him to action, whereas Ashley Wilkes' self awareness kept him from really doing anything. He was mired, and couldn't let go of his world, like Rauffenstein. It's very sad.

 

> This was my very first reaction: *"You're not one of the gang yet."* ( Silly me. ) But it probably was, what it obviously was. Later, when the boys started playing the flutes and banging on pots and pans as an escape distraction, that same soldier ( was he Algerian? ) was one of the guys making noise too...sitting among them banging away. It probably was a mirror. Renoir is deep. Call me crazy, call me silly: I was happy to see a Black guy in prison with the rest of them.>

> Yeah...crazy, silly. But I'm all about inclusion.

 

 

I think that's what bothered me, I was so happy to see him, and the film seemed to be about inclusion, and then there was just this thudding silence when he spoke. I'm glad he was shown later being a part of the gang. It makes me feel better. Not much, but some.

 

> I was going to try to write up my thoughts of *"BLACK NARCISSUS"* which I saw on the big screen at the Film Forum a few weeks ago, but I can't get it together. The scene that rocked me to the core, though, was this one:

>

>

>

>

>

> Lipstick *vs* The Bible. Serving The Lord *vs* Desire. And then seeing it up close up there so big. Powerful. I do understand that Boeldieu and Rauffenstein were more sympatico to each other than Sister Clodagh and Sister Ruth.

 

It's an incredible scene, so sexual. Sister Ruth is slapping Sister Clodagh in the face with that lipstick, it's as if she were making love right there in the church. You can see how Sister Clodagh thinks it's disgusting. And yet, we also see that Sister Clodagh's inner turmoil leads to the whole thing in the first place. She's not sure of herself, and her own decisions, so she takes it out on Ruth. She hates her, first for showing her womanliness, and second, for spotting Clodagh's own weakness and flaunting it back to her. IF she were really clear in her mind about God and her place there, she wouldn't be upset with Ruth's sexuality, and she might have even helped her. But Ruth's failing was also her own failing, and Ruth knew it. Lordy, they are each the same as each other, using the lipstick AND the Bible... as a weapon against the other. And she gives Ruth power over her, you can see it in that shot above. She's the weaker, because of her indecision.

 

It's a brilliant scene, and I do see a bit of resemblance to the cliff walking that de Boeldieu does in front of Rauffenstein, however, I think the main difference is in the understanding and self awareness of the two male characters. They know they are playing out a game, each having to do what he has to do, knowing again, it's nothing personal. With Clodagh and Ruth, it's all personal.

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Jan 27, 2013 1:45 PM

[JackFavell]

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> They did have some things in common.. arrogance.. pomp.. a total misunderstanding for their primary goal (overall) and how to achieve it. But that is about where it ends for the "similarity" because the biggest difference between them would have to be that Nicholson actually had the respect (most of the time) from his men that Thursday could only dream of or imagine. NONE of Thursday's men supported him or thought he was anything but a pompous jerk pretty much all the way through the entire story. Nicholson actually had the men cheering for him and WANTING to follow him.. that is a huge difference in the two for sure.

 

The soldiers cheering for Nicholson almost had no face in this film. They were an extension of Nocholson's wrongheadedness. Sort of like Nazis, who just did what they were told to do. He was supposed to be right, therefore he was right.

 

 

> And see.. I took him to be crying from shame. He HATES the British (ha.. I love the scene where Nicholson is let out for a while.. and Saito LOSES it in front of him and starts yelling how MUCH he hates them) .. and ultimately the "British" (through Nicholson) bested him in front of everyone. And whats more.. both sides knew it. I don't know.. I imagine there might have been some level of "lonely" to his tears.. but I think he was all but dying from shame. He lost face the moment his bluff was called (about the shooting) even though he never got to shoot.. and it went down hill (for his "face" from there) he never got "the high ground" back again.. and he was only looking "up" to Nicholson from there on out.. even if he did have power over him (by keeping him locked in the hot house for so long)

 

I thought he was crying from shame as well, but I want to go back and watch again now with Frank's idea in mind.

 

> And you are right.. in that one moment, I think he IS sympathetic. and you know what else.. through much of the film.. he is ALMOST right.. in fact, I think he is exactly right.. all up to the point where he just sort of "forgets" that despite all the work they'd done.. and despite all the effort they put in.. that BRIDGE was not "his" or even his men's.. it belonged to the Japanese.. and was aiding them in the war effort and it could NOT be allowed to succeed.

 

Yes, his pride got in the way of his sight. He was blinded by himself, by his glorious perfectionism. He then got that confused with what he thought his duty was....

 

> You know.. that is yet another comparison to The Empire of the Sun. Nicholson sort of "forgot' that he was not there to build the bridge FOR the Japanese.. because he lost sight of the fact (through his own arrogance) that they were at war.. and Jamie becomes so "fascinated" by the Japanese pilots.. and their planes.. he too more or less "forgets" through a good part of the film.. that they are his "enemy". Of course the situaion is very different (in that Jamie was a child.. and even though he was British.. he did not really "feel" British.. having never been to England) but still.. he even has a conversation with the doctor.. about how he needed to remember "what side" he was on.. and not have so much "respect" for the enemy and their "tools of war" so to speak. Its a great moment on the story.. even if it passes by very quickly.. because it helps you understand how much of his personal identity he had lost.. just by being raised in a prison camp.

 

At the beginning, Jamie had no concept of anything but himself and his own appreciation of 'good things' like those plane models and the real machines themselves. By the end, things did not matter anymore, a potato mattered more than a plane, and I think people mattered more to him. He grew up. Nicholson is almost the opposite, he reverts to a childlike state as he builds his little bridge, like a child with an erector set. He loses sight of the people he's fighting for and supposed to be leading. He's blinded by the accomplishment, which was supposed to be a way to pass the time for his men. War can start out as a battle for freedoms, and can turn men into deluded joyous killing machines, blinding them as to what they were fighting for in the first place.

 

Maybe I'm way off on this, but that's sort of how I see the bridge itself. It is senseless, leading from nowhere to nowhere, and the blowing of it is senseless as well. It's a metaphor for war. Madness...

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Jan 27, 2013 2:02 PM

[JackFavell]

Sorry for going on and on.... I feel like a such a chatterbox here! Like I'm alone in a stadium full of crickets....

 

I think what I am trying to say is that duty for duty's sake is meaningless. Without the people and the care behind it, it's empty.

 

Thursday lost track of the meaning of duty, the meaning of those precious rules he had, and why they should be followed. They should be followed so that men will survive, and become closer, so they can behave as a unit. For him it was 'because _*I*_ say so."

 

With Nicholson, he was kind of like the gollum in Lord of the Rings, "shiny shiny pretty pretty"... he saw his creation and it was good, if you know what I mean. He was playing God. I guess they both were, but in different ways.

 

And with Rauffenstein and de Boeldieu, well, it's more complicated. It's very complex to me, I'm not sure I can put it into words...They did their duty, knew it was meaningless in a modern world, but in some ways it strengthened their relationship. They knew that duty would separate them, but they still did it because it was the right thing to do, even at the risk of going against their own needs and friendship. And each understood, in the end, and that drew them even closer. It's very beautiful, but it's still a waste.

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Jan 27, 2013 3:07 PM

[rohanaka]

 

Hello there, little darlin'.

 

 

The soldiers cheering for Nicholson almost had no face in this film. They were an extension of Nocholson's wrongheadedness. Sort of like Nazis, who just did what they were told to do. He was supposed to be right, therefore he was right

 

 

Hmm.. I don't know. I do think they were sort of that way, perhaps. But I think it went deeper than that. They did follow him.. and even willingly. But I don't think it was on the same level of blindness perhaps as the Nazi soldiers followed their leaders. I think it was just that they saw him as a hero.. the guy who stood up to their captors and would take it on the chin (so to speak) for "them" (even if what he was really suffering for was maybe not so much for the men.. but for "the principle". Did you ever see The Hunt for Red October? At one point the captain of the submarine is "perceived" to be fighting the Americans (even if what he was REALLY doing was something totally opposite) The men of his ship THOUGHT he was with them.. and therefore his "suffering" was FOR them.. and they cheered him and saluted him for it. I think that is more what it was like for Nicholson's men. The "old man" was THEIR old man.. and he was leading them even in suffering.. as in "THIS is how you do it, boys". And they responded like "Give'em hell, Colonel." In their mind.. by suffering well.. he was giving Saito "hell' for them.

 

 

At the beginning, Jamie had no concept of anything but himself and his own appreciation of 'good things' like those plane models and the real machines themselves. By the end, things did not matter anymore, a potato mattered more than a plane, and I think people mattered more to him

 

 

I think I was referring to a comment Jamie makes to the doctor somewhere along the line about how much he respects the Japanese for being such good pilots.. and the Dr reminds him that he's British.. and Jamie says.. "yes.. I know" and then as a side comment.. almost to himself, he says something like "I've never been there" He WAS British.. but he just had no concept for being "at war" with Japan.. even as he was being held prisoner by them. He'd lost sight of the fact that they were his enemies.. even for that brief moment as he was admiring their skill.

 

 

Nicholson is almost the opposite, he reverts to a childlike state as he builds his little bridge, like a child with an erector set. He loses sight of the people he's fighting for and supposed to be leading. He's blinded by the accomplishment, which was supposed to be a way to pass the time for his men. War can start out as a battle for freedoms, and can turn men into deluded joyous killing machines, blinding them as to what they were fighting for in the first place

 

 

I think that is what happened for Nicholson only in reverse. He FORGOT about the killing... and the war that was going on outside the camp he was in. And all the mattered was the "legacy" of his career.. and the bridge he was going to leave behind to future generations.. built by BRITISH SOLDIERS (as if that MEANT something good.. but in truth it meant almost the opposite.. if it was going to allow the Japanese to succeed in the war)

 

 

Thursday lost track of the meaning of duty, the meaning of those precious rules he had, and why they should be followed. They should be followed so that men will survive, and become closer, so they can behave as a unit. For him it was 'because *I* say so

 

 

Thats exactly the way of it for Thursday for sure. He was TOTALLY all about "because I say so" I don't see Nicholson that way, though. He was out to make a name for himself too.. but he saw it his duty to pull the men together.. to give them purpose.. as much as he was about building the bridge. (at least I think it started out that way) It soon became more about building the bridge than it did about keeping the men together and not letting them feel defeated.. even while in their "defeat"

 

With Nicholson, he was kind of like the gollum in Lord of the Rings, "shiny shiny pretty pretty"... he saw his creation and it was good, if you know what I mean. He was playing God

 

 

Absolutely.. I never noticed this scene before.. but when the bridge is all built.. and he is standing there at the end of the last "work" day.. looking out over the water, Saito comes up behind him and says something like "its beautiful" and HE was talking about the sunset.. but Nicholson only saw the bridge.. "Yes.. its a beautiful bridge, isn't it" It was.. ha.. as you say, his "precious".

 

 

 

 

 

[JackFavell]

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

> Hello there, little darlin'.

 

 

Hi! Whew! I'm glad someone was out there, especially my sis.

 

> Hmm.. I don't know. I do think they were sort of that way, perhaps. But I think it went deeper than that. They did follow him.. and even willingly. But I don't think it was on the same level of blindness perhaps as the Nazi soldiers followed their leaders. I think it was just that they saw him as a hero.. the guy who stood up to their captors and would take it on the chin (so to speak) for "them" (even if what he was really suffering for was maybe not so much for the men.. but for "the principle". Did you ever see The Hunt for Red October? At one point the captain of the submarine is "perceived" to be fighting the Americans (even if what he was REALLY doing was something totally opposite) The men of his ship THOUGHT he was with them.. and therefore his "suffering" was FOR them.. and they cheered him and saluted him for it. I think that is more what it was like for Nicholson's men. The "old man" was THEIR old man.. and he was leading them even in suffering.. as in "THIS is how you do it, boys". And they responded like "Give'em hell, Colonel." In their mind.. by suffering well.. he was giving Saito "hell' for them.

 

Yes, I totally agree with what you said. It's been a while since I saw it, and I realized I couldn't remember any of the soldiers under Nicholson. I think they definitely saw him as standing up to Saito, suffering for them, and in some ways he was, he just got caught up in his 'job' in a completely unhealthy way. Still, the soldiers work as one entity in the film, not as individual voices of reason.... like for instance William Holden does, or even James Donald. I guess I didn't mean to imply they were Nazis, just that they easily followed Nicholson's dream, because he was usually such an ace, especially playing the duty card in going to the box, etc, so few of them questioned the bridge building effort. He was deluded by his dreams of glory, and they were deluded into a false sense that whatever the old man did was right.

 

> I think I was referring to a comment Jamie makes to the doctor somewhere along the line about how much he respects the Japanese for being such good pilots.. and the Dr reminds him that he's British.. and Jamie says.. "yes.. I know" and then as a side comment.. almost to himself, he says something like "I've never been there" He WAS British.. but he just had no concept for being "at war" with Japan.. even as he was being held prisoner by them. He'd lost sight of the fact that they were his enemies.. even for that brief moment as he was admiring their skill.

 

I see. Those kind of boundaries are completely skewed for a child, and yet, they became even more skewed when it came to who would survive. Because when you think about it, it's every man for himself in that movie, so everyone ended up as his enemy at a certain point in the film... even someone who is supposed to be his friend, who speaks English, but is actually stealing his food, if I remember correctly.

 

> I think that is what happened for Nicholson only in reverse. He FORGOT about the killing... and the war that was going on outside the camp he was in. And all the mattered was the "legacy" of his career.. and the bridge he was going to leave behind to future generations.. built by BRITISH SOLDIERS (as if that MEANT something good.. but in truth it meant almost the opposite.. if it was going to allow the Japanese to succeed in the war)

 

Again, when you are right, you are right! This is why I come here, to float out tentative ideas I have about a movie, and then get the feedback that clarifies the movie and what's actually happening for me.

 

Yes, and I would go another step and say, perhaps deep in his heart, he WANTED to forget the war and the killing, which is why he became so deluded and obsessed with the bridge, and his reputation, the glory surrounding his 'accomplishment'. When we start doing something for the glory involved, this is when it gets tricky.

 

> Thats exactly the way of it for Thursday for sure. He was TOTALLY all about "because I say so" I don't see Nicholson that way, though. He was out to make a name for himself too.. but he saw it his duty to pull the men together.. to give them purpose.. as much as he was about building the bridge. (at least I think it started out that way) It soon became more about building the bridge than it did about keeping the men together and not letting them feel defeated.. even while in their "defeat"

 

I agree, I think Nicholson and Thursday are pretty far off from each other in that regard. Nicholson started out on the right track, but lost himself somehow. Thursday doesn't ever seem to have been on the right track, though he has a few admirable qualities. He strikes me as a small man with too much power, whereas Nicholson strikes me as a good man who lost track of his purpose.

 

> Absolutely.. I never noticed this scene before.. but when the bridge is all built.. and he is standing there at the end of the last "work" day.. looking out over the water, Saito comes up behind him and says something like "its beautiful" and HE was talking about the sunset.. but Nicholson only saw the bridge.. "Yes.. its a beautiful bridge, isn't it" It was.. ha.. as you say, his "precious".

 

Ahh, perfect! Yes, I remember that, it's a PERFECT metaphor for how blind he is. That bridge is onstructing his view. And he created it himself. Isn't that a metaphor for our brains sometimes?

[rohanaka]

I'm glad someone was out there, especially my sis

 

 

 

Ha.. glad to catch you in "real time" my little OK kid.

 

 

 

few of them questioned the bridge building effort

 

 

 

And that is where they all sort of went "wrong" I think. His men were so used to following him (for all his propers ways of leading) that even though they saw what he was doing.. they didn't question why he was doing it. (A few of them did start to say something.. but then thought better of it. I bet they were thinking surely he must have had SOME plan for "sticking it" to the Japanese.. even as they kept on hammering away on the nails and boards) And in his mind.. I think he WAS "sticking it" to them.. just by buiding the bridge THEY couldn't build. THAT would be his "victory" It was a matter of pride.. he was "showing them" and gaining the higher ground. See what WE did.. we are the "better men".. you lose. But wow.. what a "hollow" victory. He cared more for winning on "principle" instead of winning the greater cause. I don' think his men had any clue at all that this was his real mindset.

 

 

 

I would go another step and say, perhaps deep in his heart, he WANTED to forget the war and the killing, which is why he became so deluded and obsessed with the bridge, and his reputation, the glory surrounding his 'accomplishment'. When we start doing something for the glory involved, this is when it gets tricky

 

 

 

In that respect he forgot it really WAS war.. and not a "game of cricket" ha. WHO cares who wins the game.. if they all end up getting blown to bits (even if only "figuratively speaking) They might have won the "game" but they MIGHT have LOST the war.

 

 

 

Nicholson strikes me as a good man who lost track of his purpose

 

 

 

He was a great leader because he knew how to motivate.. (whereas Thursday only knew how to "brow beat" and look down on his men. Nicholson made them feel like they mattered and that he couldn't get the job done withouth them. I mean.. here's a guy who could go into an infirmary and convince men on the sick and injured list to come back out to work just to help their fellow comrades by lending a hand.. fetch and carry.. a spot of paint.. whatever needs to be done. (pip pip.. and jolly good, ha) Now THAT is a British way of leading for sure.. ha. Let's all pull together, lads.. for the common good, chin up.. now there's a good fellow") By the time they all were following him back outside.. they likely were GLAD to be doing it.. rather than just feeling like they were being put upon.. after all.. he'd told them it was a "crisis" He NEEDED them.

[CineMaven]

*Hello..*.ello...ello.

 

*How's it going*...oing...oing.

 

*I can see and hear you*...you...uuuuu.

 

 

I'm reading, enjoying and agreeing with what you've written Jaxxxon - and had a laugh out loud moment when you allude to de Boeldieu: ( "It's not personal I just think you're a moron". )

 

 

This movie was very deep; it doesn't hit you over the head or right on the nose about things. Renoir gives you space to think.

 

 

I love your analysis about the nuns in *"Black Narcissus":*

 

 

*...She hates her, first for showing her womanliness, and second, for spotting Clodagh's own weakness and flaunting it back to her.*

 

 

Is Sister Clodagh praying for Sister Ruth...or for herself. People do that a lot, don't they. They hate the thing in other people that they see inside themselves. I always wondered why Aryans were put on such a high pedestal by a small dark-haired little man with a mustache. I really do have to look at more Renoir.

 

 

[JackFavell]

> Ha.. glad to catch you in "real time" my little OK kid.

 

It is unusual for us to be on the same time schedule! I'm glad.

 

> And that is where they all sort of went "wrong" I think. His men were so used to following him (for all his propers ways of leading) that even though they saw what he was doing.. they didn't question why he was doing it. (A few of them did start to say something.. but then thought better of it. I bet they were thinking surely he must have had SOME plan for "sticking it" to the Japanese.. even as they kept on hammering away on the nails and boards) And in his mind.. I think he WAS "sticking it" to them.. just by buiding the bridge THEY couldn't build. THAT would be his "victory" It was a matter of pride.. he was "showing them" and gaining the higher ground. See what WE did.. we are the "better men".. you lose. But wow.. what a "hollow" victory. He cared more for winning on "principle" instead of winning the greater cause. I don' think his men had any clue at all that this was his real mindset.

 

 

He did have that "we'll beat them at their own game" mindset didn't he? It just goes to show you how far off the mark you can get. Because all through it he really thought he was looking at the big picture, but really he was narrowing his viewpoint. "We'll show them!" Win the battle at the cost of the whole war.

 

 

> In that respect he forgot it really WAS war.. and not a "game of cricket" ha. WHO cares who wins the game.. if they all end up getting blown to bits (even if only "figuratively speaking) They might have won the "game" but they MIGHT have LOST the war.

 

In that respect he and Thursday are both in exactly the same boat.

 

> He was a great leader because he knew how to motivate.. (whereas Thursday only knew how to "brow beat" and look down on his men. Nicholson made them feel like they mattered and that he couldn't get the job done withouth them. I mean.. here's a guy who could go into an infirmary and convince men on the sick and injured list to come back out to work just to help their fellow comrades by lending a hand.. fetch and carry.. a spot of paint.. whatever needs to be done. (pip pip.. and jolly good, ha) Now THAT is a British way of leading for sure.. ha. Let's all pull together, lads.. for the common good, chin up.. now there's a good fellow") By the time they all were following him back outside.. they likely were GLAD to be doing it.. rather than just feeling like they were being put upon.. after all.. he'd told them it was a "crisis" He NEEDED them.

 

He led by EXAMPLE, something Thursday couldn't or wouldn't do. Thursday wasn't ready to do what needed to be done. He reminds me of bosses who are brought in at the top, but never had to work their way up through the ranks. They don't know how to (or don't want to) do the dirty work and so they cannot set a good example, which leads to disgruntled workers.

 

And I find that where there is an excess of propriety, there is something very IMproper lurking underneath.... Thursday set great store in the image, and neatness, and the rules, but his soul was anything but neat. There was a lot of jealousy I think, anger and discontent underneath his outward appearance and stick to the rules conduct. He strove so hard to appear proper, because at heart his feelings were anything but. I believe the same goes for Sister Clodagh in Black Narcissus, while we're at it. They are both boiling up with something inside, that they don't want anyone to see. Thursday is covering up a deep guilt I think, where Sister Clodagh is covering up an inner life perhaps unsuited to being a nun. Guilt can lead a person to do the exact wrong thing.

 

So some can't set a good example and some can. But sometimes the good example is simply wrong, as in Nicholson's case. This is where the complexity of the story lies. The way you do something doesn't count for as much as WHAT you do. You may build that bridge to perfection, but it's still the wrong thing to do. And when someone basically good sends you down that road of folly, that's doubly hard to take.

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Jan 27, 2013 5:24 PM

[JackFavell]

> {quote:title=CineMaven wrote:}{quote}*Hello..*.ello...ello.

>

> *How's it going*...oing...oing.

>

> *I can see and hear you*...you...uuuuu.

 

 

Thank goodness! :D You really made me laugh seeing your 'echo'.

 

> I'm reading, enjoying and agreeing with what you've written Jaxxxon - and had a laugh out loud moment when you allude to de Boeldieu: ( "It's not personal I just think you're a moron". )

 

Ha! Did I really write that? Lordy

 

> This movie was very deep; it doesn't hit you over the head or right on the nose about things. Renoir gives you space to think.

 

That's why I'm still thinking about the movie. It's a hard one to try and understand.

 

> Is Sister Clodagh praying for Sister Ruth...or for herself. People do that a lot, don't they. They hate the thing in other people that they see inside themselves. I always wondered why Aryans were put on such a high pedestal by a small dark-haired little man with a mustache. I really do have to look at more Renoir.

 

That's what I think too, she hates what she sees in Ruth that is similar to herself. Sister Clodagh won't admit it, and Ruth thinks that's hypocritical... Clodagh sees how indelicate Ruth is and finds it unattractive.

[movieman1957]

Good morning Sir Francis:

 

Somewhere last week you asked me for a list of my favorite comedies. (I don't remember where.) I thought this might be a good time. So, in no real order and with blandness run amok -

 

 

1. My Man Godfrey - 1936

2. Duck SOup - 1933

3. Easy Living - 1937

4. My Favorite Wife -1940

5. Our Hospitality - 1923

6. Vivacious Lady - 1938

7. The Awful Truth - 1937

8. Theodora Goes Wild - 1936

9. Horse Feathers - 1932

10. Way Out West - 1936

11. Ninotchka - 1939

12. You Can't Take It With You -1938

13. Born Yesterday -1950

14. Support Your Local Sheriff - 1969

15. The More The Merrier - 1943

16. Sleeper - 1973

17. A Fish Called Wanda - 1988

18. Help - 1965

19. The Quiet Man - 1952

20. Life With Father - 1947

21. Airplane - 1980

22. Palm Beach Story - 1942

23. The Major and The Minor - 1942

24. Midnight - 1939

25. The Cameraman - 1929.

 

 

I'm stuck in the 30s. Very few in 50s and 60s. I'm not sure why. I like other early Woody Allen pictures.There are other Keaton, Lloyd and L&H's "Sons of The Desert." I guess screwball/romantic comedy is where my head and heart lives.

[JackFavell]

That is anything BUT bland! What a great list, Chris. Take those movies together and it shows a subversive streak, not bland at all.

[FrankGrimes]

Thanks, Movieman! That's a very good list of comedies. I like most of them. Nicely done!

 

It looks like *Easy Living* is going to be the next film for me to watch. That rates very high for you. I've been holding off on Keaton. He will be a big commitment for me. I do like him quite a bit. I still haven't gotten to Laurel & Hardy. I can't see me watching *Help!* anytime soon. The other comedies on your list that I've yet to see are *Born Yesterday*, *Support Your Local Sheriff*, and *Life with Father*.

 

Here's how I like the rest of your list:

 

1. Airplane! (# 15 in the 80s for me)

2. A Fish Called Wanda (# 25 in the 80s for me)

3. The More the Merrier

4. The Quiet Man

5. The Awful Truth

6. Sleeper (# 39 in the 70s for me)

7. My Man Godfrey

8. Duck Soup

9. You Can't Take It with You

10. Midnight

11. Ninotchka

12. Vivacious Lady

13. Horse Feathers

14. My Favorite Wife

15. The Palm Beach Story

16. The Major and the Minor

17. Theodora Goes Wild

[movieman1957]

*Hi Sir Francis:*

 

Glad you like the list.

 

"Help!" is almost a novelty in that it is not so much a main stream movie. If you are not a Beatles fan than no reason to bother.

 

"Sheriff" might be enjoyable with you having watched a few more westerns lately. It's not likely to all tastes but it is fun in how they deal with western sterotypes.

 

"Easy Living" is great fun. It is quite an eye opener on Ray Milland. He's quite funny. This is the movie where I fell in love with Jean Arthur. A nice turn by Edward Arnold also.

 

My list wasn't in any order but glad some of them are on your list. Maybe some others will chime in.

 

*JF:*

 

Thanks for your comment. I hardly see myself as subversive but maybe even at my age there is something still to learn. A list from you would be wonderful or have you done one that I didn't see?

[MissGoddess]

I can't believe I have never seen EASY LIVING. Somehow, I manage to miss it if it's on TCM. I'll have to see if ClassicFlix has it.

[movieman1957]

It's only ever been on TCM once and that was to promote the DVD when it cam out a couple of years ago. If you can't find it let me know.

[JackFavell]

I don't think I've ever done a list of favorite comedies. I'll have to put my thinking cap on.