Movie Rambles

[movieman1957]

Make that two.

[HollywoodGolightly]

Yey for two mustaches!

 

Anybody else?

[JackFavell]

> {quote:title=movieman1957 wrote:}{quote}

> Make that two.

 

I'm in heaven..... :x :x

 

 

[scsu1975]

If a goatee qualifies, then three.

[HollywoodGolightly]

I think it should qualify. Thanks for letting us know!

[JackFavell]

> {quote:title=scsu1975 wrote:}{quote}

> If a goatee qualifies, then three.

 

That depends. Are you a Herbert Marshall/Ronald Colman type,

 

or :

 

 

I suspect, since you are a professor, it is the former..... in which case - :x :x :x

[fredbaetz]

Mustaches of the world unite. All you have to lose is a bare upper lip.Also goatees are welcome...

[HollywoodGolightly]

That's the spirit!

[JackFavell]

I think you are all dreamy.....

[scsu1975]

I am definitely not a Maynard G. Krebs type.

[JackFavell]

I didn't think so.

 

I picture you more like this....

 

 

_Very nice_.

[scsu1975]

Well, more like this - and that's a real Emmy Award.

 

[JackFavell]

You are a doll! A goatee definitely suits you.

 

Now I must find out - how did you win an Emmy..... ????

[scsu1975]

I didn't. It belongs to a colleague's daughter. She won it for producing a television show, so a bunch of us took turns posing with it. And yes, it's true what they say, it is heavier than it looks.

[HollywoodGolightly]

You look very handsome!

 

Plus, you really look cool holding an Emmy! B-)

[JackFavell]

The Emmy is so much more beautiful than the Oscar. I think it's the most attractive award.

 

Perhaps I shouldn't say this... but I also find men with glasses irresistible.

[butterscotchgreer]

oh!

 

scsu1975, what a wonderful picture of you with an Emmy. thats a really sweet story. you

shoulda kissed it. heehee!

[MissGoddess]

Mighty cute, Herr Professor!

[HollywoodGolightly]

Rich, congratulations, your photo has met with unanimous praise!

[MissGoddess]

In betwixt and between the hilarious ?mustache musings? I just want to squeeze in a

lumbering ?ramble? and apologize if it puts you all to sleep, but I had to get it down before I

started to forget my thoughts.

 

Recently I got to watch Kings Go Forth (1958) at Lincoln Center and it won me over---again. I

always liked the movie and seeing it on a giant screen (the Walter Reade Theater is a great place

to see these films) I could appreciate the finer points of Delmer Daves? uniquely quiet directing

style, which can be hard to pin down when watching it on a TV.

 

I?d say Daves? style seems to serve to bring out the inner lives of the characters. One technique

he uses several times during particularly critical, emotional shots is a very, very gradual move

from medium to close-up on a character. It?s quite effective at making you feel the character is

really building to a point of either confession or resolution; either way, it gives the scene a great

deal of suspense.

 

The film is also filled with ?big head? close-ups, still unusual for those days but becoming more

popular I guess. They usually distract me but here I felt like they kept the main focus on the

feelings and reactions of the principal characters. It makes sense because the movie is also

fairly balanced with several tense battle and action scenes, taking place as it does during WWII

when the Americans were fighting the Germans for control of Southern France. I?m not fond of

war movies but the military and battle scenes seem decently realistic, showing as they do both

the tediousness and the shock of war. Not much glory mongering, thank goodness, but a lot of

claustrophobia as the forward observation team, including Frank Sinatra (as 1st Lt. Sam

Loggins) and Tony Curtis (Sgt. Britt Harris)are ensconced for several days in a bunker,

observing a Nazi enclave in the valley below. These two men have to do their job in close

quarters, under fire---and while hating each other?s guts.

 

The reason for the mutual hatred is Monique (Natalie Wood), a beautiful young French girl

they both fall in love with, a girl French by birth but whose parents are both American expats and

her father just happens to be African American.

 

All my previous viewings of the movie left me with the impression that race prejudice was a

central issue to the story, but now I?m not convinced. It almost seems like Monique?s

background just serves to put a spotlight on how humanity just likes to put individuals in ?boxes?

(like that bunker Frank and Tony share).

 

?Boxed in? Sam Loggins experiences a moment of self-examination.

 

For the Sergeant and his Lieutenant don?t just dislike each other because of a romantic rivalry,

they also share mutual class prejudices. Loggins is from the so-called lower class and Harris is

from money and went to four universities including a military academy. More time is actually

spent developing their mutual distrust, gradual mutual respect, and eventual mutual hatred than

on the issue of any feelings of prejudice either man may have harbored toward Monique.

Nevertheless, the poor girl does get caught in the middle because she?s so young that in falling

for Britt Harris she is experiencing the wonderful blindness of first love.

 

One of the main criticisms I have heard about this movie is the casting of Natalie Wood as

Monique, because they say she looks nothing like their idea of how she should. I?m not bothered

by that, because I don?t think outward, physical attributes are as important as whether the

performer can bring forward the inner life of the character, and Natalie DEFINITELY scores high

on that end. This is supposed to be a relatively sheltered young woman who grew up in France

, raised by two obviously doting and protective parents and whose father was apparently very

idealistic and spiritual. Her values and outlook are completely different to the American soldiers

who soon swarm over Villefranche and, being naturally na?ve yet seeing with her heart, she can

both read Loggins? character and most intimate thoughts, and not have the slightest idea what

Sgt. Harris really has on his mind behind those dazzling blue eyes. Finding an actress who

merely ?looked the part? couldn?t fulfill the needs of such a character. Especially when you have

to stand in front of a camera that is gradually closing in on you until all the screen is filled with

your face while you choke out the truth about your heritage to a man you have reason to suspect

may despise you for it. It was beautifully done, one of Natalie Wood?s finest screen moments yet

one rarely ever acknowledged over all the fuss about her looks. Please.

 

Natalie?s ?Monique? is hard to resist, she Is as open hearted as a rose and I would be

astonished if any man could fail to fall for her. Sam certainly couldn?t. I think Frank and Natalie

have an incredible chemistry on screen, she bringing out his real tenderness and protectiveness.

 

The movie features some excellent supporting performers, including Leora Dana as

Monique?s mother (in somewhat unconvincing old-age make-up, but she more than makes up for

that with a lovely understated bearing and constant inner concern and questioning in her eyes);

Karl Swenson as the outfit?s commanding officer (again, a quietly understated performance

that manages to underscore the need to cling to something human in the midst of the insanity);

and, providing some laughs in his all too brief scenes, is Eddie Ryder as Cpl. Lindsay.

 

Leora Dana, expressing some doubts about Sgt. Harris? betrothal to her daughter. Dana

charmingly but subtly conveys the idea that she really had hopes Monique would choose Sam.

 

Eddie Ryder, a delightfully humorous presence in the midst of all the drama, facetiously

assuring Captain Loggins they won?t get a word out of him.

 

I haven?t yet written about the performances of Tony Curtis and Frank Sinatra, both of which

are the equal of the best work they ever did anywhere. Curtis is so smooth and ingratiating one

moment, and then so level the next that, just when I think I?ve made up my mind about him,

he throws me---just like he throws Loggins. Credit goes to both the actors and the director for

this because, again, it?s just another example of the film?s continual focus on the relationships

and inner truths of the characters. When we finally find out the ?truth? about Britt, it?s not the

whole truth, not yet. The movie is all about judgments people make, and how they can be both

right and wrong simultaneously, because people are seldom consistent and never all one thing,

good or bad. Even Monique, who is pure and innocent yet she is too much of a child to see the

real value of Sam when the glamour of Britt sweeps over her.

 

Tony Curtis turns on the charm but it?s lost on his Captain. Scenes like this that make you

cringe over Britt Harris will be followed by a moment of startling self-knowledge so that we are

never quite comfortable with our judgment of his character---or lack of it.

 

As forFrank Sinatra?s performance, I find it to be absolutely flawless and totally real. He

carries the audience with him so we experience the whole gamut of his conflictive feelings and

reactions, first to the people and scenery of southern France with its intoxicating beauty and the,

for the moment, feeling of adoration from the welcoming locals---to his growing feelings for

Monique and how they lift him up to the skies, to the sinking humiliation and pain of her rejection

along with his perplexity and distrust of his new Sergeant and rival. All the thoughts and nuances

of emotion are beautifully expressed in several tight, merciless close-ups that seem to see right

into the man?s mind and soul and his body language is always calibrated to the joy, sorrow,

loneliness, despair, hostility or fear of the moment. A performance far more deserving of

accolades than his earlier Oscar triumph in From Here to Eternity, and pitifully overlooked.

 

Finally, one of the more unusual aspects of the movie is that it tells a love story from the point of

view of a man, which doesn?t happen as often as you might think and gives a kind of freshness of

perspective, at least for me. The film is pretty much told entirely from Sam Loggins? P.O.V.,

Sinatra even narrating at regular intervals, almost always musingly about his inner thoughts at a

particular moment, as though this journey was to rediscover for himself what it was like back

there, more than to merely fill the audience in on some necessary exposition. Lonely people

often do have a lot of inner dialogue going on with them, and Loggins is a very solitary

creature---making him an ideal role for Sinatra who portrayed loners and losers as well as

anyone ever did or could.

 

I realize I see WAY more in Kings Go Forth than most people do, so thanks for letting me go

on and ON about it, ha! My only explanation is I?ve been watching it over and over again for

several years, and when a movie keeps pulling back into it so often, I eventually have to find out

why. I think it?s a brilliant example of the underrated Delmer Daves? subtle yet unique style---for

his movies are different (though not in any showy, spectacular manner) and they do have

a mark or characteristic rhythm: one that moves along at a very human pace, much like the

steady march of the American soldiers (the ?kings?) to Elmer Bernstein?s beautiful score at the

film?s opening.

 

Villefranche. I just had to insert this cap because it shows, on the very far left, the hotel

that I stayed in for part of my trip to France this summer. It?s still there, the same name (Hotel

Welcome), just as it?s been since the 1920s. Imagine my astonishment when I watched the

movie in the theater and relived the same walks Sinatra, Curtis and Wood take! Not much has

changed (well, it?s more colorful now ).

[CineMaven]

In the warmth of the summer's sun streaming into the very European breakfast place I eat in called Settepani Bakery (120th & Lenox) I wait for my Eggs Benedict and read your essay on "KINGS GO FORTH."

 

Your writing astonishes me. It is as beautifully expressive as Daves' film.

 

Based on your suggestion Miss Goddess, I watched "KINGS GO FORTH." I'll proffer my thoughts on this film folks, but don't look for anything as eloquently expressed as Miss Goddess' post below. Am I gushing? Yeah. But mostly I'm just a tad embarrassed to follow hers.

 

I shall post my thoughts shortly.

 

Again, a beautiful read Ms. G.

[CineMaven]

And to think how close we fan guest programmers came to actually MEETING Tony Curtis when TCM invited us to Atlanta! <SIGH!!>

 

?KINGS GO FORTH? Frank Sinatra * Tony Curtis * Natalie Wood Director: Delmer Daves

 

(SPOILERS THROUGHOUT!!!!)

 

There?s an interesting amalgam of themes and movie plots that are interweaved very well in ?KINGS GO FORTH.?

 

RICH MAN, POOR MAN:

 

We start off with the ?poor kid? vs ?privileged kid? plot line. You?ve seen it before. Upon meeting Tony Curtis, Frank Sinatra dislikes him straight off the bat. Sinatra has a chip on his shoulder. Even his captain sees Sinatra?s chip:

 

?Don?t ride the man so hard. He can?t help it he went to college.?

 

Curtis is gorgeous, a bon vivante and in no time, the film shows how he uses his looks and breezy manner to his advantage by scoring a dozen eggs off a little ma?amselle:

 

?I don?t know why, Sir. Women are always giving me things.?

 

Uh....yeah. Sinatra makes sure the eggs are shared. When Curtis takes off his shirt to help rescue men caught in a minefield, I chuckled...I thought that was a great Matthew McConaughey move. So it?s set into motion the class struggle between Ol? Blue Eyes and pretty boy Tone. (Frgive me for not referring to the actors by their characters? names).

 

WAR IS HELL:

 

This is a war movie. Don?t let the gorgeous vistas of the Riviera fool you. All that was missing in the scenery was Mylene Demongeot ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0218634/) of ?Bonjour Tristesse? fame. And even in black & white I could see the blue sea and the colorful surroundings. But this is a war movie. We start by showing the triumphant Allies. The Americans march. Our soldiers are heartily greeted by the townspeople. (Have we quite received a welcome like this since?) The Americans fight and beat the Germans. But I?m a girI; I don?t traditionally like war movies. I did find Sinatra and Curtis believable as soldiers...barking orders - crawling in the dirt - dodging mortar fire. Curtis makes some heroic gestures. He is a good soldier and begrudgingly Sinatra has to admit that to himself.

 

LOVE IS BLIND...OR IS IT?:

 

The crux of the story for me is the love triangle between Curtis, Sinatra and Natalie Wood. Yes the movie is more than that, but here was my focus. Now, you?ve seen this countless times before: two men in love with the same woman. ?CRASH DIVE? comes to mind; but definitely not as complex as "Kings..." tackles. At the apex of the triangle is Natalie Wood. I've always been a big fan of hers. In this film, she is very pretty, sincere and virginal. I like how she sometimes smiles, simultaneously having a pained look that barely flashes across her face. We also have Sinatra. Oh, he?s far from Pal Joey, hipster, rat pack leader here. Though he can bark out orders, with Natalie he is the sincere salt of the earth type. He even (reluctantly at first) incorporates Natalie?s mother into his wooing. He?s very gentle with both mother and daughter.

 

Then there?s Tony Curtis. (For me, his crowning glory performance is in "Sweet Smell of Success" but he is excellent in "Kings..." He starts pitching immediately. He?s a whirlwind for a girl who?s been in a protective environment. He flashes that smile, talks fast and knows French. He?s right in there. He?s not boring or shy. He dances. He?s playful, attractive. He goes for it. Yeah, that means trouble for any girl but for one who is not ready...

 

Sinatra puts himself in the position of being the third wheel once Tony enters the picture with Natalie. What guy does that? He did it to let Natalie have fun. I imagined it must have killed him to do that. It was a killer for me to witness. And Tony's insensitivity to the fact that he knew Sinatra cared about Natalie sent red flags up for me. Uh-oh...

 

THE BOMBSHELL:

 

Why don?t I know this movie? Why didn?t I see this coming? I thought Natalie was going to confess that her beloved hero of a Papa was really a Nazi sympathizer or something. (I had just seen "Inglorious Basterds" that day). My jaw dropped at the bombshell news she hands Sinatra and the way she phrases it. W-w-wow! I'm trying to imagine sitting in the audience in 1958.

 

Let?s just say that we have a little bit of ?Pinky? ?Raintree County? ?Islands in the Sun? ?The World, The Flesh and the Devil? ?Sapphire? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053242/) & (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053242/quotes) ?Guess Who?s Coming to Dinner? and ?Imitation of Life? comes to mind. When Natalie's mom (played by Leora Dana) describes her late husband, it sounds like the typical way that would be introduced in movies. He'd have to be more than a blue collar truck driver. The man was a veritable Paragon: picking himself up by his bootstraps, overcoming all odds, becoming president of an insurance company. A man among men. He has so many overwhelmingly good qualities why wouldn't you want him. He couldn't just be an ordinary Joe. Would he have to be all that in order to get her? (Just wondering).

 

When Curtis hears the news about Natalie, he takes it in stride with just the tiniest hint of a smirk. (?Whaddya know") he says, while Sinatra struggles. Sinatra does struggle with this info. ("Dammm what?s his problem?! Whattsamatta, you!" I thought at first). In actuality, Sinatra?s struggle was heartfelt and more realistic. He can?t even look at a photo of Natalie?s father. He has to reconcile his feelings with the way he was brought up. And this is a struggggle for many. It was touching to watch him coming to terms with this. When he does come back...I?m happy for Natalie. I?m happy for her Mom. I?m happy for Sinatra. I?m happy for the changing of heart for 1958 America.

 

EMOTIONAL ARMAGEDDON:

 

?He came to me this morning with those great eyes. They must?ve got him so much and saved him so much. He told me that he loved her and wanted to marry her.? - Mrs. Blair (Leora Dana:http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0199070/).

 

All she wanted was for her daughter to be happy. But it becomes all to clear and painfully apparent what Curtis? intentions are. I was horrified. It was a great Hitchcock-defined suspense plot point to let us know something that the character does not. My breath stopped...my heart sank. I was filled with dread as I see Natalie next...waiting with hope and happy expectations. I was filled with dread seeing Sinatra?s reaction to the turn of events. He is seething. And Sinatra had to bring it to bear and witness the results. (I personally have felt that myself on one painful lovesick occasion). Natalie is about to take the wallop of her young life. I think we?re ALL about to get a sledgehammer in the stomach. And Daves makes us feel every painful word of it when Tony?s character says:

 

?On several occasions I?ve been engaged to marry and on several occasions I?ve been not engaged to marry, if you follow me. And a lot of these girls I wouldn't take to a country club. But with the exception of your daughter Mrs. Blair, all of them were white!?

 

Natalie?s reaction is heartbreaking.

 

Daves adds just one more piece to this film. Revenge. Sinatra using the war and going on a mission to exact his revenge on Curtis. How will this play itself out?

 

I enjoyed this movie for the mixture of themes Daves introduces in this movie. I thought I wasn?t familiar with his work, but looking at his filmography, I note that I have seen: ?Dark Passage? ?Demetrius and the Gladiator? ?3:10 to Yuma? ?The Hanging Tree? ?A Summer Place? (didn?t we rag on that film here in TCM City?) ?Parrish? ?Susan Slade? and ?Youngblood Hawke? many of these films I must revisit. I?ll have to look at ?Kings Go Forth? again to focus on his directing style since this go ?round I was focused on his weaving this tale of love and vengeance and how putting people in boxes is unfair becuz we are all good and bad.

 

Miss Goddess, thank you for the suggestion. This one got by me in my movie-viewing. I look forward to reading other essays on this film and hopefully permitted to comment on them.

[HollywoodGolightly]

I'm not really familiar with Kings Go Forth, but it sounds like a fascinating movie. I'll definitely add it to my Netflix queue. I really dig that cast.

 

(And sorry to hear you folks who visited Atlanta didn't get to meet Curtis!)

[CineMaven]

P.S. "THE LADY OF THE TROPICS" starring Hedy Lamarr and Robert Taylor.

[movieman1957]

Unlike Theresa I sit in my living room deciding where I should go for my breakfast. Maybe I will visit my bride at work.

 

Like Theresa I am moved by the eloquence of your writing. You are clearly moved by and understand the film.

 

My thought was that this is primarily a love story. A story of how a man loves a woman and so easily can lose her. Sam is a wounded soul. He is from the start. He is also not without charm and warmth. Sam doesn't like Britt. He gets his way, whether it is getting out of something or getting what he wants. Britt knows this as he well explains later. Sam is down to earth. Works for what he has and makes no pretense that he is more than he is.

 

What is most hurtful for Sam is that after he loves Monique he really "loses" her the moment she meets Britt. He is a good sport for a while but no one likes to be the third wheel. (Believe me, I know.) After Britt finds out I wonder why he continues with Monique other than that he can. But when he is confronted by Sam with Monique it has all been for fun. No one really gets over it. From here comes the hate April spoke of. Sam is mad that Britt has treated Monique as he had when she not only deserved better but ruined his chances with her.

 

The cast is fine. Curtis has a few scenes particularly the above mentioned one where he shows he is quite good when he is angry. With one line to the mother he sums up his whole thinking of their situation and he makes his point firmly. (BTW, he fakes a trumpet really well.) Sinatra is terrific in his role. Caught between the confidence of being a leader and the lack of it in all other respects he plays the line well. Wood, though lacking the physical characteristics that one might imagine, quickly, for me, dispenses any thought of it.

 

Oh yeah, there is a war going on. They spend their time living in both worlds and are reminded that they have a job to do. And do it they must. It is also a credit to the characters that despite their differences they put it aside for the moment to do the job. That is the important part.

 

As much as it is a love story it is the story of two men and the lives they lived and how it effects them with where they are and the woman they both love.