Movie Rambles

[MissGoddess]

>

> oh i know! i cried when she turned him down the first time....i was like, "No Natalie, you have to go for it, you will love him!"...little did i know. i think he really did love her more than she could ever understand.

>

 

She was very young and dazzled by Britt's glamour, I think. Sam didn't come with

glamour, he came with kindness. It's part of Monique's immaturity that she doesn't

yet appreciate the difference. Some people never do.

 

>

> what i dont get is why Britt ever agreed to marry Natalie in the first place if he knew he was never going to do it? did he love tearing girls hearts out? i dont know. he certainly seems like that.

>

 

He probably thought that's what she wanted to hear. Remember, he was always

thinking of "What do I need to say to get what I want?"

[butterscotchgreer]

hey dahlink!

 

im going to sleep. im all tuckered out; ill answer you tomorrow.

 

good night everyone!

[MissGoddess]

nitey nite!

 

[HollywoodGolightly]

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

> I've never seen "Two Weeks..." and I think I just recently found out that Harding played in the original version of "Holiday" that was re-made later with Hepburn. I just saw "Animal Kingdom" (thank you Ollie, whereever you are!) and enjoyed her performance in that one too. Now listen, Birthday Girl. You must catch Ann Harding and Basil Rathbone (go to YouTube) in "Love From A Stranger." Happy Birthday...and keep writing!

>

 

The original version of Holiday is supposed to be very good, actually, though I've never really had a chance to watch it. Knowing that Harding is in it only makes it all the more tempting. Let's hope TCM can show it one of these days!

[molo14]

Late to the party as usual. I'm got people in town visiting from Philly. Since you have all written so in depth and so well about the film, I can merely respond to some of what you all wrote.

 

*Miss Goddess wrote:* *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 asked my visiting friend what she thought of Davies. She's no slouch when it comes to film. She didn't know enough to have an opinion. I was the same. Interesting.

 

Well Miss G. you have once again broadened my horizons by suggesting this film. It would have languished in my collection for years if you hadn't brought in up. Thank you.

 

*Miss Goddess wrote:* *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).*

 

As I said, this was my first viewing. I like your "boxes" comment.

 

*Miss Goddess wrote:* *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.*

 

Her casting didn't bother me for that reason. My main problem with Natalie Wood is that she is so beautiful I get distracted by her very presence in a film. My mind wanders. She is maybe the most beautiful creature to ever grace the screen for my money.

 

*Miss Goddess wrote:* *As for Frank 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.*

 

Sinatra was truly great here. I'm beginning to appreciate what he brings to these types of roles. He is weary, his flaws float lightly to the surface, he lacks a certain confidence but it comes from a truthful, if rather cynical, place. It can be a self-fulfilling prophecy with him. In *Kings Go Forth* it certainly doesn't start with the arrival of Britt Harris.

 

*CineMaven wrote:* *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...*

 

What guy does that? A guy like I described above. A guy that is in love. That desires. He watches over Monique, but he isn't ready to separate himself from the situation anyway. He will be there to see what happens, her "confession" is maybe an opportunity, something may change, he's not ready to walk yet. It was difficult to watch, but I understood it. At least I think I did.

 

*CineMaven wrote:* *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.*

 

I was annoyed by his initial reaction but it was Mrs. Blair that set the tone in that scene. She made her speech. She sees he doesn't want to look at the picture. She perceptively closes it back up. She tells him not to speak. He doesn't. When she leaves, he looks at the picture. It's a beginning for him. What brought me back to him was the struggle he recounts in his narration. He showed me that he knew it was his issue to deal with and then he dealt with it.

 

*Movieman1957 wrote:* *Sam is a wounded soul. He is from the start.*

 

One of the things I thought was important, in his relationship with Britt, but also to understanding Sam at all, was his immediate past. He had been through the hell of battle. He was at Anzio, he experienced the brutal fighting in Italy. Britt was a late arrival, and in an unfavorable way. For Sam, it must have taken something out of him. Something that might show in himself or that he may be more apt to contemplate now that he has time too. I think it's another piece to add on to what others have said.

 

*Movieman1957 wrote:* *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.*

 

That scene sent chills down my spine.

 

*Movieman1957 wrote:* *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.*

 

The fact that the fighting had eased up to some degree and that they could go to the Riviera to unwind now and then was kind of odd. You don't see that kind of juxtaposition in many war films.

 

One scene I didn't buy was when they are getting ready to go on their mission and the Colonel (Swenson) takes there guns away. Well, gee thanks chief! That didn't seem right, it was like a plot device that was not necessary.

 

*JackFavell wrote:* *I love Tony Curtis for his self knowledge... and he can play fatuous better than anybody. What surprised me was his ease, turning on a dime to play that one scene.... you know the scene - in which he tells Monique that it was a thrill for him, nothing more. He plays it on so many levels at the same time. He is brutally honest, not even attempting to be mean, but cutting her to the heart with his horrible thoughts. And at this point, he doesn't even know he is horrible. He actually expects Sam to understand. He's a liar and a user and he thinks it's funny. He's like a kid who has no idea of the consequences of his actions. Well, kids are cruel. How is it then, that later we see underneath that to the insecure kid wishing he were a better person?*

 

 

That's a good summation of Britt. I will have to think about all that. As for the hatred Sam feels for Britt. I liked it. I liked that he said he was going to kill him and I loved Britt's reaction. I didn't find Britt very redeeming as a character. I just didn't like him. Tony Curtis played that role perfectly though.

 

*JackFavell wrote:* *So I do have one question - did Sam and Monique get together in the end?*

 

*Miss Goddess wrote:* I *say they do, but I am perversely optimistic on this point. Monique*

*would be crazy to send him away now. He sacrificed a lot of himself because his love*

*was as pure as she deserved. He set aside his own hopes when he realized he*

*was out of the running. That's real love. I wonder how the novel will end it.*

 

Interesting. I wasn't sure about the ending.

 

*Butterscotchgreer wrote:* *toward the beginning of the movie while Sam is marching with the troops and he stops nextto the old lady to get a drink from her, i thought that showed a lot of his character up front and i loved it! i loved just how soft he could be and for me, thats what made him so lovable.....*

 

I thought it was funny that he took the bottle!

 

*Butterscotchgreer wrote:* *Britt was very selfish to me and i thought that he loved having attention, so he went out of his way to save the day and become a "hero", although i think he was trying to prove that he was more than a spoiled kid growing up. i do think Sam was a bit jealous of Brit too. Sam was the poor kid who didnt grow up with a lot and i think HE also wanted to prove to someone that he was special; that he could be a hero who was worth so much, but not in the same way as Britt.*

 

I agree that Sam was certainly jealous of Britt. I liked that he gave Britt credit when Britt earned it. There was a growing respect building between them that Britt blew all to heck with the way he treated Monique. Sam hated him for that and Britt earned that too, with Sam it had become very personal.

 

*Butterscotchgreer wrote:* *im afraid to read Frankie's review on this movie. he might turn it into a massacre. heehee! as for molo (sweet larry), im looking forward to his review too!*

 

Sweet Larry? I don't know about that. Why should Frank always get to be the bad guy? I can be a bad guy too ya know! I wanna be the bad guy! Consarn it!

 

Wow! It is getting really late!! I will be back later on this evening, as it is now morning!

[HollywoodGolightly]

> {quote:title=molo14 wrote:}{quote}

> Sweet Larry? I don't know about that. Why should Frank always get to be the bad guy? I can be a bad guy too ya know! I wanna be the bad guy! Consarn it!

>

 

I have always thought of you as a good guy, I hope you don't mind!

 

Some very good comments there on what others have written about Kings Go Forth. I do think that in many ways, Natalie Wood was one of the most beautiful faces ever to grace the silver screen; maybe one of these days you'll have time to take some screencaps with your favorite Natalie scenes.

[butterscotchgreer]

good morning everyone!

 

*She was very young and dazzled by Britt's glamour, I think. Sam didn't come with*

*glamour, he came with kindness. It's part of Monique's immaturity that she doesn't*

*yet appreciate the difference. Some people never do.*

 

**SPOILERS**

 

my mother walked in on me watching the movie a few minutes into it and she really doesnt mind frankie sinatra movies, so she started to watch it with me for a while and she said the strangest thing about Sam and Britt....

 

momma: Britt is the kind of man every girl wants to date, but Sam is the kind of guy every girl wants to marry.......but this movie is way to sappy for me. Ugh!

 

the reason i was shocked when she said this, is b/c my mother never analyzes movies to this extent and i think she was being sarchastic....but i think in a way she is right.

 

Britt knows how to make a girl feel beautiful and shows them all the excitement, but Sam was a little more suttle about this, and was much more kind....i personally dont think i would even date Britt, but i might be a little prejudice, b/c i just looove Frankie. heehee!......yes dahlink, we can fight over him.

 

*He probably thought that's what she wanted to hear. Remember, he was always*

*thinking of "What do I need to say to get what I want?"*

 

Oh yeah! That part of the movie was really emotional when Sam and Britt were in the little shelter and Britt was discussing the differences between them; but what i admied about Britt is that he actually had the guts to say it and admit it to Sam. I think Sam needed to hear that. Granted, that doesnt change what Britt did, but he still aware of what he caused.

[HollywoodGolightly]

Sometimes, my mother also has some interesting insights into a movie, stuff that maybe wouldn't have occurred to me, but when she says it, it all kind of makes sense. Maybe this is yet another movie that would also play differently to folks from different generations. Many classic movies are like that.

[movieman1957]

*Uhhhh...are we waiting for FrankieG. and Molo *The Sultan of Glo" and movieman to give us the* *male p.o.v. of all this love and war and love business in "Kings Go Forth"??? Ladies, we may have* *this thing alllllllllllll wrong.*

 

As far as the triangle is concerned I don't wonder if Sam is torn between the idea of being separated from her is more painful than being with both of them when she clearly now loves Britt. Sam knows Britt is superficial and I think he hopes Monique will notice too. At that point he can be there to step in again. But he then can't stand it at all. He sends them on their way and her out of his heart.

 

At the end it is more than Sam's physical disabilities that keeps them apart. It is now a history that will. Knowing the one that came between them is dead doesn't keep him from being between them. They go to their separate lives.

[HollywoodGolightly]

I finally had a chance to watch Kings Go Forth from beginning to end and enjoyed it quite a bit, even though of course in the end it is kind of bittersweet.

 

Although the war setting helps to heighten the drama, the essential dilemma in the movie is one that would work in almost any milieu - whether the girl chooses a guy who's all flash and no good for her, or the one who has something of substance to offer, perhaps with little or no flash, but he is the one that would most likely really love her for the rest of their lives.

 

This may also be one of the best performances ever by Natalie Wood. I was a bit skeptical at first about her playing a French-speaking character, but in the end that's just a little detail, because you find out that although she grew up in France, her parents were both American. I've met a lot of Third Culture kids throughout many schools I attended, so perhaps her character ended up being the one that was easiest of all for me to relate to.

 

Good movie, good performances, great locations, and well directed. I'm surprised I've not heard more about it by now.

 

Thank you very much to MG and everyone else who's shared their thoughts and reactions with us, this is definitely a movie that leaves you wanting to talk about it, imho.

[JackFavell]

Butterscotchie - What a great ramble you wrote! Nicely done. I think you really hit strongly in your discussion of Britt and Sam. You inspired me to think over their relationship more. I still liked Natalie, even though she didn't accept Sam. I think she was so sheltered, and her father probably taught her to be honest above all else... that she simply couldn't lie to Sam and make believe she felt something that she didn't.

 

>what i dont get is why Britt ever agreed to marry Natalie in the first place if he knew he was never >going to do it? did he love tearing girls hearts out? i dont know. he certainly seems like that.

 

I feel that Britt wanted badly to be a better person than he was. No, that's wrong..... He wanted to SHOW he was a better person than he really was. Because for Britt, it is all about SHOW. He wanted to SHOW he was more than a lazy, pretty, rich kid.... he had a chip on his shoulder too, you see. He had something to PROVE to everyone, just as Sam did, more than Sam did. When he goes into the mine field, he is grandstanding. Yes, it is brave, and yes, he gets the job done, but mostly, to him, he is making people SEE him in a certain way. That is his bottom line. He doesn't have to BE brave.... he just has to APPEAR brave, then everyone will think he is. These types of jobs are easy for him so he isn't actually risking a whole lot. He has done it before. Everyone buys it. He's a hero. Everyone always buys what he is selling. Except now, there's Sam.

 

Sam is testing him. It was more important for Brit to impress SAM than anyone else, because Sam was someone who had the respect of all the others.... Sam is the natural leader, and Brit's boss. Sam is the alpha dog, whether he knows it or not. Therefore he is Britt's biggest objective, and also Brit's biggest rival. If he can win Sam over, he is made. All the guys will respect Britt if he can earn Sam's respect. But Sam won't fall for Britt's line. He makes Britt really work for respect. And he doesn't ever really buy it. That makes Britt try all the harder to impress Sam. Sam is a kind of father figure to Britt.

 

This kind of acting on Britt's part carries over to the situation with Monique. Britt simply sees her, he wants her, he takes her. From Sam. Without even trying. I don't think he did it on purpose, or at least I don't think it was something done with self knowledge. There might have been underlying psychological reasons for it....in other words, I think he did it because he COULD and it felt good to him to have Sam's girl. If he had her, he must be like Sam. A big man. Having Monique helps him see himself a certain way. It is all about SAM.... proving he is the best and the biggest to SAM. He is worthy of Sam's girl, so he is worthy of Sam's respect.

 

So when he and Sam become romantic rivals, Britt is all about proving to Sam that he can be good to Monique. He is different, a changed man...in love. He will earn Sam's respect by the way he treats Monique. And it works - for all of two or three weeks. When he finds out about Monique's past, Sam is there. And Britt has the right answer - "well, whaddya know?" No bad reaction..... maybe he is for real. He wants to impress Sam with his answer. And I think he tries.... but what seems strong to Britt is weak to us. He thinks that to try for a week is really hard, but he was strong and did it. It is really something to be proud of. He tried for that little while. He gave it a shot, but now he is on to something else. Wasn't he great to say he would marry Monique? He really is getting better and better all the time. We see that Britt is really as shallow and cruel as a child. He doesn't tell Monique that she was just an exciting fad....he was slumming. He would have left her already if it wasn't for Sam, watching over his shoulder. He lies because he wants Sam to think he is great.

 

*One thing about liars..... they think no one will ever figure out that they are lying. Unfortunately, they also lie to themselves, believing that they are so powerful that no one will ever stop them from doing or getting exactly what they want. But they are _deluded_. They will always be found out, if they haven't tipped their hand already. Though they think the are pulling the wool over everyone's eyes, they are really as transparent as glass....* Britt is transparent. Sam finds out what he knew all along.

 

I think the scene in which Sam tells Britt that he is going to kill him is interesting, because Sam means every word. Brit retaliates that Sam better watch out, because he, BRITT is going to kill him first. Sinatra is the alpha dog all the way here.... he is totally convincing... his threat is real and he is deadly serious. He tells Brit in a low voice, very steady. Curtis is like a yappy dog, he barks a lot but isn't really threatening. He talks a good game, but his threats to kill Sinatra are shallow just like he is.... they are loud and mainly for SHOW, because he is the weaker man.

 

Whew! That's all I can write tonight. Thanks. This one really was a ramble... all over the place. It's late, and I just hope it makes sense.

[HollywoodGolightly]

(SPOILERS)

 

After reading through some of the comments posted earlier, I am left wondering how it felt to be watching this movie in 1958. There is also the added irony of Natalie Wood having portrayed two characters who were involved in an actual or potential inter-racial relationship, which from what I understand was still a pretty big taboo in America in the late 50s. But, more importantly, I also have to wonder to what extent the ending of the movie might have been determined by the Code restrictions and the things that filmmakers still couldn't show on the screen at the time.

[MissGoddess]

>

> **SPOILERS**

>

> my mother walked in on me watching the movie a few minutes into it and she really doesnt mind frankie sinatra movies, so she started to watch it with me for a while and she said the strangest thing about Sam and Britt....

>

> momma: Britt is the kind of man every girl wants to date, but Sam is the kind of guy every girl wants to marry.......but this movie is way to sappy for me. Ugh!

>

> the reason i was shocked when she said this, is b/c my mother never analyzes movies to this extent and i think she was being sarchastic....but i think in a way she is right.

>

 

 

Oh wow, a classic movie your Mom ALMOST liked! I think she boiled down

our entire discussion into one. astute sentence. I see where you get your perception from,

Miss T.

[MissGoddess]

Hi Jackie!

 

He makes Britt really work for respect. And he doesn't ever really buy it. That makes Britt try

all the harder to impress Sam. Sam is a kind of father figure to Britt.

 

..............He doesn't tell Monique that she was just an exciting fad....he was slumming. He

would have left her already if it wasn't for Sam, watching over his shoulder. He lies because he

wants Sam to think he is great.

 

I think you're onto something there, because Britt's motivations, though they boil

down to simply selfishness, are up until that point rather complicated. I wonder if

that "father figure" bit is because his own old man gave up on him. I don't know if

his father indulged Britt into being what he is, or tried to make a man of him

and failed, but Britt does seem to want to always "prove himself." But only the

surface credit means anything to him. If given the choice between changing for

real but not drawing any attention for it, or just giving an impression of changing

and having everyone pat him on the back for it, he doesn't hesitate. He's very

ordinary in this respect.

 

I can't help but see Britt as the modern, executive type and Sam is the old school,

extinct type.

 

One thing about liars..... they think no one will ever figure out that they are lying. Unfortunately,

they also lie to themselves, believing that they are so powerful that no one will ever stop them

from doing or getting exactly what they want. But they are _deluded_. They will always be

found out, if they haven't tipped their hand already. Though they think the are pulling the wool

over everyone's eyes, they are really as transparent as glass.... Britt is transparent. Sam finds

out what he knew all along.

 

Sadly, you are RIGHT as we all know only TOO well.

 

Britt, like most operators, can only fool the smug and the innocent. Remember how

Monique naively defends his most blatant defects here:

 

 

I like this scene because it it very true to both characters and makes Britt's character

even more of interest because we see how two people can interpret his actions. What

many will see through as cunning, the naive or inexperienced will merely see as harmless.

 

I think the scene in which Sam tells Britt that he is going to kill him is interesting, because

Sam means every word. Brit retaliates that Sam better watch out, because he, BRITT is going to

kill him first. Sinatra is the alpha dog all the way here.... he is totally convincing... his threat is

real and he is deadly serious. He tells Brit in a low voice, very steady. Curtis is like a yappy dog,

he barks a lot but isn't really threatening. He talks a good game, but his threats to kill Sinatra are

shallow just like he is.... they are loud and mainly for SHOW, because he is the weaker man.

 

Frank, for a rather little guy, can sure scare the heck out of me when he's mad. His

eyes get more lethal than just about anyone I can think of.

 

 

Message was edited by: MissGoddess because every now and then Photobucket goes berserk.

[butterscotchgreer]

hey dahlink and wendy!

 

i just loved reading the rest of you raambles about Sam and Britt....i cant wait to answer them. tonight i have so much to answer! AH!!! heehee!

 

im on my way to class now. i absolutely detest these late classes. my brain doesnt feel functional this late in the day. heehee!

 

Message was edited by: butterscotchgreer

[HollywoodGolightly]

Dear fellow movie ramblers,

I continue to follow the discussion with great interest, I'm fascinated by the multiple layers of meaning in the movie, and I absolutely adore all the screencaps that have been posted here. They are very nice screencaps.

 

I continue to think about Britt and Monique and I am still so puzzled that he could have been so callous and hurt her so much. It is very sad, but I am sure there have been cases like that in real life.

 

Carry on, fellow movie ramblers.

[JackFavell]

Scotchie,

 

I can't wait to read your reply.

 

I never liked late classes either. The worst one for me was a math class that ran from 6:00 to 9:00 at night.... yuccckkkk. There is no WAY anyone could learn math concepts that late at night! Oy!

[CineMaven]

Rohanaka??? OH ROHANAKA???? ROHANAKA....

 

Of course we will wait for you! Looking forward to reading your ramble on "Kings Go Forth."

[rohanaka]

Thank you my dear Miss Maven... I hope to catch up soon. If you folks need to move on... go ahead... and I will tag along as soon as I can... I have purposely NOT read any of what I am SURE are all the excellent posts here.. because I want to be surprised. I wil report in as soon as I can...

[rohanaka]

Wow, I got to finally watch Kings Go Forth last night. And then I finally got to read through everybody's posts now too. And did I mention WOW? I especially want to mention your beautiful opening ramble, Miss G, but truly everyone, VERY nice job. There's been some MIGHTY fine rambling going on here.

 

And alas, I have gotten here SO late I don't think I can ever catch up to respond to everyone's comments. So instead I am just going to hit on the three main characters and a few other points for now.

 

JackFavell says: So I do have one question - did Sam and Monique get together in the end?

 

Miss G says: I say they do, but I am perversely optimistic on this point.

 

Molo says: Interesting. I wasn't sure about the ending.

 

Rohanaka says: After sitting through that entire movie watching three of my least favorite actors EVER, they doggone BETTER have gotten together. HA.

 

I really have to say April, this movie was quite a change of pace for me. And I enjoyed watching it very much. And that IS saying a lot for me because I think I commented in your ?Name Five? thread that it was a ?triple threat? with Sinatra, Curtis, and Wood (since I am no huge fan of any of the those three._ But little did I know it was really a QUADRUPLE threat. I am ALSO no huge fan of films where there is a lot of ?narration? going on as a way to tell the story. So this thing had strikes galore against it for me going into it.

 

 

But the truth is, it all worked. And it worked very well.

 

Now can I say that this was my most favorite movie ever? Or even my most fave wartime romance movie ever? No. I don?t think I can go that far. But I CAN say that it is to date the BEST thing I have ever seen from Frank Sinatra. I think this has to be my favorite role for him so far. He REALLY stood out for me in this one. So much so that as things went on, I didn?t even mind the narration anymore (more about that in a minute).

 

I liked that his character wasn?t ?perfect? and that he showed us his struggles. And I really liked how he overcame his ?boyhood? prejudice when faced with adult realities. (When he was talking to Monique?s mom about how he grew up being taught to hate, I kept thinking of that song from South Pacific, ?You?ve got to be carefully taught?.) And the line where he tells the mom that he was ?better than he was last week? said it all for me. He had just had one of those ?lightbulb moments? only it took a while for the light to come on.

 

 

And I do have to say that Miss Wood did very well with this story too, both with the French accent and with the young and vulnerable aspect of her character. It is likely my favorite performance so far for her as well.

 

 

And now: the REST of the story, HA. I think Curtis did well enough in his role, (And gee, he really was a good lookin' guy) But I was not as pleased with his character (in terms of how it was written) as I would have liked to be.

 

I wish we had seen a little more of his real nature before he REVEALED it to the other characters. (does that make sense?) I think he was confusingly presented (and I don?t mean that because he fooled Monique and lied to everybody about wanting to marry her. I am trying to say that he was not believable going EITHER direction (good guy OR bad guy)and that was not Curtis' fault. To me, the writing let him down.

 

Just at the point you start to see him acting ONE way, he turns around and goes an entirely DIFFERENT way (because for someone who supposedly freely admits he has NO character, he certainly acted like a truly decent and stand up guy several times throughout the story). I really did think he was actually going to turn out to be a genuinely honest guy, at least at the beginning.

 

Several times toward the beginning of the story when he puts himself in danger to help his fellow soldiers, I thought, ?He is a formerly spoiled rich kid who has something to prove and he is going to overcome his ?playboy? past and make some sort of big sacrifice or something and turn out to be a hero in the end.?

 

Well, so much for that. What a fat lotta WHOOEY. He really WAS a jerk. But he was too ?undefined" to be a believable one altogether. First he is one way, then a completely DIFFERENT way, (and not because part of the story is about him FOOLING everyone. Yes.. he did that too, but I am talking about something more.

 

I know some of this (about his true self vs his "shown self" has already been discussed, (especially in the most recent posts w/ you Miss G and Jackie) but I just still had such a hard time with it all.

 

 

Most of the movie, he really acted more like a stand up ?misjudged character? who deserved the benefit of the doubt. And you might be saying YES, Kathy. We had to think that of him so we could be surprised when he fooled us. But I am saying he didn?t fool me because he ACTED that way. The story fooled me because he was WRITTEN two different ways. (and that is not the same thing)

 

I did not even believe it when that clerk started saying what he did (about the marriage license). I was just so disappointed, I almost wanted to turn the tv off. Ha. And again, it wasn?t because I thought Curtis played him so deceptively that he fooled me. I think more it was because he just wasn?t given enough development as a character to really get a good a radar fix on him. I guess what I am saying is: I either wanted to be fooled by HIM (which I wasn?t so much as I was misled by events in the story) or I wanted him to spend more time ACTING like a jerk. There were just too many gaps left out of his part of the story for me to really get a good fix on him.

 

Ok, I know, I likely did NOT say all that as well as I should. I wish I could really just lay out what I am trying to say coherently. I know it is not likely coming out the way I want... but somewhere in the rocky plain that is my mind, it makes some sort of sense. Ha.

 

At any rate... given all my "problems" about Brit the character.. I think Curtis did do a good job bouncing back and forth from one aspect of the charcter to another. I really liked the honestness between him and Sam near the end where he more or less confesses he KNOWS he has no character. I thought that was especially moving and Curtis really brought that part of the film in for a landing to be sure. (and gee... did I mention he was gorgeous?)

 

So to wrap it all up here, I have to make one more comment about the narration. (Because this IS all about my ?quadruple threat? comment. ha) As I mentioned before, I do not usually like films that rely on narration to tell the story. So the first part of the story, as Sinatra starts talking and talking I am rolling my eyes going ?He?s not going to do that all the way THROUGH this movie is he?? Well, yes. He did. But you know what? It worked

.

And it worked REALLY well the longer it went on. I liked the insight he gave us into the thoughts he was having along with the detail of the story. And I got a sense at the end, as he was standing at the back of the classroom and all the kids were singing that I could be standing there too, and he had just been telling me the whole story leading up to that moment in time.

 

 

And Ms Favell, you asked DID they get together at the end. I say yes as well. I think Monique is ?older and wiser? and sees the VALUE of the man she has before her now. And I think he truly does love her, and more or less did all the way through, despite his momentary failure when she revealed the details about her father (Oh, and PS: Miss Maven, I expected her to say he was a Nazi too, ha.)

 

Getting back to the ending. When he first told her that he loved her, she was young, inexperienced, and not mature enough to see him as he truly was, but only as a nice guy and a friend. But now after all that has happened, I think they were BOTH ready for one another. And I will take the optimistic road along with Miss G. They lived happily ever after. (the end) ha.

 

Molo Says: Why should Frank always get to be the bad guy? I can be a bad guy too ya know! I wanna be the bad guy!

 

Ha. Why am I suddenly hearing the WHO singing: ?Molo knows what its like to be the bad man?

 

Message was edited by: rohanaka

[movieman1957]

I am glad you got to do this. Just think what we would have missed if you had decided to skip it.

 

Like you I thought the scene near the end with Curtis explaining himself was one of his better scenes. While it didn't redeem him it was good to see him admit he was who he was. However, we already knew that.

 

>Why am I suddenly hearing the WHO singing: ?Molo knows what its like to be the bad man?

 

I love a good pun.

[rohanaka]

I am glad you got to do this.

 

Thank you my friend.. you are nicer than I deserve.

 

I love a good pun.

 

Every now and then... my little light bulb comes on... if only for a moment. Ha. :-)

[MissGoddess]

Yay! The Peacemaker made it to the party! Now it official qualifies as a "gasser".

 

 

>

> I really have to say April, this movie was quite a change of pace for me. And I enjoyed watching it very much. And that IS saying a lot for me because I think I commented in your Name Five thread that it was a triple threat with Sinatra, Curtis, and Wood (since I am no huge fan of any of the those three._ But little did I know it was really a QUADRUPLE threat. I am ALSO no huge fan of films where there is a lot of narration going on as a way to tell the story. So this thing had strikes galore against it for me going into it.

>

 

Ha! Well, I am glad you gave it a shot. Boy, you watch a Frankie Sinatra movie AND

a film noir within a week---I'd say we definitely owe you a ramble, soon, on DONOVAN'S

REEF.

 

>

> Just at the point you start to see him acting ONE way, he turns around and goes an entirely DIFFERENT way (because for someone who supposedly freely admits he has NO character, he certainly acted like a truly decent and stand up guy several times throughout the story). I really did think he was actually going to turn out to be a genuinely honest guy, at least at the beginning.

>

> Several times toward the beginning of the story when he puts himself in danger to help his fellow soldiers, I thought, He is a formerly spoiled rich kid who has something to prove and he is going to overcome his playboy past and make some sort of big sacrifice or something and turn out to be a hero in the end.

>

 

I can remember when I first saw the movie I had exactly the same confused reaction.

 

 

> Well, so much for that. What a fat lotta WHOOEY. He really WAS a jerk. But he was too undefined" to be a believable one altogether. First he is one way, then a completely DIFFERENT way, (and not because part of the story is about him FOOLING everyone. Yes.. he did that too, but I am talking about something more.

>

> I know some of this (about his true self vs his "shown self" has already been discussed, (especially in the most recent posts w/ you Miss G and Jackie) but I just still had such a hard time with it all.

>

 

It's true his character is not so much "grey" (a smooth combination of flaws and virtues)

as it was contradictory (jaggedly defined, as if his personality only developed on the

surface or only those virtues that would garner him the most praise, like courage in battle,

etc.).

 

 

> I did not even believe it when that clerk started saying what he did (about the marriage license). I was just so disappointed, I almost wanted to turn the tv off. Ha. And again, it wasnt because I thought Curtis played him so deceptively that he fooled me. I think more it was because he just wasnt given enough development as a character to really get a good a radar fix on him. I guess what I am saying is: I either wanted to be fooled by HIM (which I wasnt so much as I was misled by events in the story) or I wanted him to spend more time ACTING like a jerk. There were just too many gaps left out of his part of the story for me to really get a good fix on him.

>

 

It would have been cool to get some feel for what kind of home he had come from. Obviously

it was moneyed, but nothing else is said. As I mentioned to Jackie, I am curious what his

relationship with his father was like.

 

In the book, he says all the men in his family had always been officers in the military.

 

>

> So to wrap it all up here, I have to make one more comment about the narration. (Because this IS all about my quadruple threat comment. ha) As I mentioned before, I do not usually like films that rely on narration to tell the story. So the first part of the story, as Sinatra starts talking and talking I am rolling my eyes going Hes not going to do that all the way THROUGH this movie is he? Well, yes. He did. But you know what? It worked

> .

 

Great! I really, REALLY like the narrative device as it's used here. As I said in

my opening "War and Peace" length ramble, I think it puts everything into focus

from his point of view and we see a love story played out from a man's perspective.

 

> And it worked REALLY well the longer it went on. I liked the insight he gave us into the thoughts he was having along with the detail of the story. And I got a sense at the end, as he was standing at the back of the classroom and all the kids were singing that I could be standing there too, and he had just been telling me the whole story leading up to that moment in time.

>

 

That's how I felt, too. I have to admit the last scene reminded me of Leo McCarey's "Love

Affair", ha! I wonder if Daves was tipping his hat to the director? And I'm VERY curious

how the book ends. I may have to "cheat" and read the last chapter tonight to see. I can't

wait.

 

>

> And Ms Favell, you asked DID they get together at the end. I say yes as well. I think Monique is older and wiser and sees the VALUE of the man she has before her now. And I think he truly does love her, and more or less did all the way through, despite his momentary failure when she revealed the details about her father (Oh, and PS: Miss Maven, I expected her to say he was a Nazi too, ha.)

>

 

Wow, that's so interesting how you two were suprised by the "revelation". I never

had that chance since I remember reading a summary of the movie before watching

it. I wonder if I would have been surprised or not? I'm sure I would have.

 

Thanks so much, again, for giving it a try, I know this cup of tea is not your "brew"

but you are such a good sport and no ramble is complete without you!

[MissGoddess]

oh, and Kathy---I hate to say this, but one of the defining characteristics of

a "film noir" is the use of....a narrator! :0 Woops!

[JackFavell]

Kathy -

 

You watched a film noir??!! Where have I been?

 

I wanted to ask you if you've ever seen *Brief Encounter*..... sob... but I daren't mention another first person narrated movie at this time....

 

MissG-

 

I am so glad that you mentioned Love Affair because I have been trying to figure out what the end reminded me of, all week. However, I think that is why the ending didn't quite set right with me. I have never really liked An Affair to Remember (I like the stars), though I can tolerate Love Affair a little better.

 

I think Britt's dad was a straight arrow army guy, this seems logical to me. Britt is always trying to look like a chip off of the old block, as good as his old man, but the reality is when his dad isn't there he can relax into the lazy man that he really is. He just wants to get by with as little as he can to make that impression. I think maybe in Britt's father's group, there is a little talk of how Britt has not lived up to the family traditions, and the older men see him more for what he is, because the truth is, Britt doesn't care about those old men unless they can get him something.... then he turns on the charm and the heroism. If he doesn't care about you, he doesn't bother to con you. Just my take.