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

Recommended Posts

SPOILERS

 

Wonderful, Kathy! I especially like how you broke it all down, as Jackie said.

I wonder how you would like the book, or how it would compare to the two

film versions in your mind. I think the grim and harsh tone of the later film

is more in tune with the book, but the understanding of the characters' motivations,

I'm not so sure, nor of the physical resemblences. The book is not that long,

so maybe you will be able to read through it one day and find out. I honestly

don't remember many of the plot details and I don't remember any children...

but I could be wrong. I thought the book began and ended much as the 1939

movie does, with the man lost on the moors, stumbling upon Wuthering Heights

and receiving that warm welcome, ha. The ending with the "ghosts", though, was

totally tacked on and I don't like it myself.

 

Your words help reinforce in my mind that the story seems to contrasting

natural impulse...and love...with the calculated contrivances (and temptations

to self-indulgence) of the world. Emily Bronte loved the wild, isolated moors

where she was raised and always resisted the new or the worldly. I think she

feared its snares. The "natural man" seemed to her closer to purity and to

nobility than the bloodless aristocrat. Her real skilll seems to be in creating

a complex character like Cathy, who is torn between the two.

 

Edited by: MissGoddess on Sep 16, 2010 11:10 AM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, LadyB!

 

Probably the only thing rising up to meet Arthur Shields in DAUGHTER OF DR. JEKYLL would be the usual group of angry villagers carrying torches. I actually haven't seen the movie in a while, but I do remember that John Agar wears a silly jacket with large stripes that make him look like one of the inhabitants of "The Prisoner" (all that's missing is a scarf)

 

Hahahaaa! Oh my goodness, that's a good one. When I saw it I did indeed think

he looked like an escaped prisoner.

 

Agar to me was always creepy looking, perfect type-casting for horror (yes, John, HORROR!) and sci-fi movies. He had this scary grin, intensified by high cheekbones. Together with a perpetual maniacal glint in his eyes and a psycho laugh, it's no wonder the supernatural and alien worlds were where he flourished best, much I'm sure to his chagrin. But who, for instance, can forget his performance in THE BRAIN FROM PLANET AROUS? How much poorer would all these grade B,C, and Z masterpieces be without Agar? He really must have aged (maybe alcohol was involved) to look like Wild Bill, lol. John in his prime had a moon-face and rugged build.

 

lol, I haven't seen The Brain from Planet Arous yet. I don't recall his laugh, either,

I don't think Ford gave him much to laugh about in Fort Apache and I can't recall

if I've seen him anywhere else.

 

 

Loved the last scene, ha!! "Are you suuuuuuuuuuure?"

 

LOL, that was the corny outro, right? With you-know-who addressing the camera in full monster regalia?

 

Yes! Actually he does it in the intro, too.

 

Interestingly, I'd first seen the Moon killer in his "normal" roles, most notably a more mature part in a famous children's story that I believe was the first screen version filmed. (he was also in the sequel)

(the original is actually one of my all-time faves, and one I loved as a kid, and still do) Then I saw him in a memorable (but frightening in its own way) movie set in ancient Rome. perhaps one of the first "disaster" stories.

 

My goodness, I didn't think his repertoire was so varied. He's good but stolid with Carole Lombard

in one of her romantic comedies.

 

 

So you'd think I wouldn't be creeped out by seeing him in DR. X, but it took a long time for me to "accept" him once more in his more typical performances. I've always appreciated Lee Tracy (he's terrific in THE BEST MAN) He's urban, wise-cracking, the ultiimate newspaper guy, willing to do anything to get a good story. As for Atwill, that sharp, clipped voice of his cuts like a knife, and he makes his chilling presence known in every role.

 

Tracy seemed to be the go to guy for newspaper hounds, along with Roscoe Karnes.

 

I'm loving everyone's WUTHERING HEIGHTS discussions. I'll have to re-watch it soon and offer up my own thoughts.

 

I hope you will!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy there Ms Favell!

 

I agree completely about Linton - even if I was a bit harsh on him for his position. David Niven is marvelous in the role, perfect in fact. He is another reason I love this movie so much....He was able to dig a little deeper and play that bloodless, slightly corrupted British upper class gentleman who has only an inkling of what is really going on

 

I agree. I was really surprised how MUCH he stood out for me when I watched it all again this time. I love the line where he tells her that he is not afraid for her to smile at Heathcliff because now when she smiles at him it would be as his wife... sigh.. poor guy. ha. It was spoken with such love.. but alas.. he did NOT really know what he was saying, did he?

 

It's great that Niven got the chance at such a great role - I would hate for him to have gone on playing Fritz in Prisoner of Zenda all his life

 

Ha.. I have never SEEN Prisoner of Zenda.. I need to check that out

 

As it is, he ended up playing variations on this deeper role all his life

 

He did seem to have a knack for that proper Endlish gentleman, didn't he.

 

PS: Miss G:

 

The book is not that long, so maybe you will be able to read through it one day and find out.

 

It is on my library list.. but not sure when I am going to make it back up there again.. I have a lot going on lately. And THEN when (oh when) am I going to find time to read it..ha. (maybe will have to make it a "lunch break" kinda thing, ha. I have read a LOT of books that way.. it takes longer.. but at least they DO eventually get read :-) )

 

the story seems to contrasting natural impulse...and love...with the calculated contrivances (and temptations to self-indulgence) of the world

 

They don't usually mix well, do they? It make for a very tragic tale when they do.

 

Emily Bronte loved the wild, isolated moors where she was raised and always resisted the new or the worldly. I think she feared its snares.The "natural man" seemed to her closer to purity and to nobility than the bloodless aristocrat.Her real skilll seems to be in creating a complex character like Cathy, who is torn between the two

 

Thanks for the info on Bronte.. I know next to nothing about her. (and you are right about her "strong suit" on creating complex "torn" characters. (at least from what I can tell) I love your insight into the literary styles and the personality of the authors.. You have helped me better understand a lot of stories (that were movies) that way. You are a pretty well read kid. :D I think I would have to take a LOT of lunch breaks to catch up with you. ha.

 

PS: Miss B!! I am with Miss G.. hope you will get a chance to chime in soon on WH!! (oh.. and golly.. I can only IMAGINE what mom would say about it all!! ha)

 

Edited by: rohanaka on Sep 17, 2010 12:09 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have GOT to watch Prisoner of Zenda. OH what a great romantic adventurous fun movie! I love it - it has two villains, and two Ronald Colmans! a great cast. I think you would love it almost as much as Knight Without Armour. Make sure you get 1937, not 1952. Ronnie, not Stewart Granger.

 

B-girl - I will chime in and add my two cents - I would love to see what you have to say!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the channel on Fox for about five minutes. HOW TO BE VERY, VERY POPULAR was on. Showgirl Betty Grable finds herself on a college campus, and knocks on a dorm room door. Robert Cummings opens it up and says, "Welcome to Wuthering Heights".

 

I find myself, like Jackie, frustrated by Merle Oberon's Cathy and really did think I would have had more insight into the character's emotional complexity with Vivien Leigh at the helm. (while still managing to do GWTW) But I'm giving Merle another chance (I know, it's so big of me, lol) tomorrow. And I might have to agree with molo that Heathcliff doesn't appear to be all that bright. The deliberate, shrewd acts of revenge hint at a possibly more intelligent mind, but that I believe comes directly from the charismatic, bitter romanticism of Oliver's performance.

 

Edited by: Bronxgirl48 on Sep 18, 2010 9:17 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Duchess!

 

> {quote:title=Bronxgirl48 wrote:}{quote}

> I had the channel on Fox for about five minutes. HOW TO BE VERY, VERY POPULAR was on. Showgirl Betty Grable finds herself on a college campus, and knocks on a dorm room door. Robert Cummings opens it up and says, "Welcome to Wuthering Heights".

>

 

Had Cummings opened the door and greeted the wanderer I'm sure he'd have run for the hills.

 

> I find myself, like Jackie, frustrated by Merle Oberon's Cathy and really did think I would have had more insight into the character's emotional complexity with Vivien Leigh at the helm. (while still managing to do GWTW) But I'm giving Merle another chance (I know, it's so big of me, lol) tomorrow. And I might have to agree with molo that Heathcliff doesn't appear to be all that bright. The deliberate, shrewd acts of revenge hint at a more evolved mind, but that I believe comes from the swoony. narcissistic/actorly, bitter romanticism of Olivier's performance.

>

 

I certainly look forward to your observations of these two problematic characters, Dr. Bronxie. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bon soir, Mrs. D!

 

HA! I think Bob told Betty that he was a STUDENT, not a professor. Must be all those vitamins... Cummings was about 45 at the time.

 

I might wind up on the couch myself trying to figure out Cathy and Heathcliff. (Oh, I take back my "evolved" description re: Heathcliff's revenge, since that act of payback really can't be considered a step forward in human development....so I edited and replaced it with "intelligent")

 

Caught THE MOON IS BLUE. I kept thinking that a young Margaret Sullavan would have done the part justice and made us care about the character. Maggie McNamara, eh, I don't know. I kept changing my mind about her -- one moment I thought she was charming in a straightforward, Audrey Hepburn-ish gamine way; the next, I didn't see any real charisma or talent. Ultimately, it seemed a mechanical performance.

 

Edited by: Bronxgirl48 on Sep 18, 2010 11:42 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Bronxgirl48 wrote:}{quote}

> Bon soir, Mrs. D!

>

> HA! I think Bob told Betty that he was a STUDENT, not a professor. Must be all those vitamins....I think Cummings was about 45 at the time.

>

 

lol! I think his initials stood for Vitamins.

 

> Caught THE MOON IS BLUE. I kept thinking that a young Margaret Sullavan would have done the part justice and made us care about the character. Maggie McNamara, eh, I don't know. I kept changing my mind about her -- one moment I thought she was charming in a straightforward, Audrey Hepburn-ish gamine way; the next, I didn't see any real charisma or talent. Ultimately, it seemed a mechanical performance.

>

 

Oh, you're not alone there. I have never cared for her style. She was

a rather strangely sexless and passionless actress, at least in the two

or three movies I've seen her in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched A FACE IN THE CROWD again last week and had a nightmare that Andy Griffith took Vitajex and was chasing me around the apartment. I woke up in a sweat.

 

The only other film I've seen McNamara in is THREE COINS IN THE FOUNTAIN, and was not impressed. I do want to see "The Ring-A-Ding Girl" again from The Twilight Zone. She was also in PRINCE OF PLAYERS but don't remember her in that at all.

 

I think the best performance in WH just might be Geraldine Fitzgerald's....

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

> "I watched A FACE IN THE CROWD again last week and had a nightmare that Andy Griffith took Vitajex and was chasing me around the apartment. I woke up in a sweat."

>

> You're running from Andy? Tsk! Tsk! You woke up too soon.

 

I second that!

 

B-girl - You may be right about Geraldine Fitzgerald - though I have to say she is an actress who annoys me - which is perfect for the part!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Girls, Sheriff Andy Taylor floats my boat! (the square thing again....) Yeah, technically speaking, Griffith as Lonesome is definitely sexy, but it would be like making love to the devil. Eeek! Give me the angel every time....

Link to post
Share on other sites

> B-girl - You may be right about Geraldine Fitzgerald - though I have to say she is an actress who annoys me - which is perfect for the part!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know what you mean about Isabella. I feel equal parts of contempt and pity for her. But I've always liked Geraldine, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it true that tonight TCM debuts a previouosly unseen director's cut of *Dial "M" For Murder* where Grace only finds dull pinking shears on the desk top? I heard this was his "tryout" for offing Janet Leigh in *Psycho*.

 

Kyle In Hollywood

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ro,

 

It's taken me a while but I wanted to respond to your thoughts after seeing *Wuthering Heights* again.

 

First off, Wow! That was quite a breakdown of the story as well as the emotions and motivations of the characters. I pretty much agree with all you say. That's the thing about this film. It is very "GREY" in that the characters all seem to have (at least) that one moment where we gain some sympathetic insight that allows us to say "yes, but.." every time they behave or act badly or out of spite.

 

*Rohanaka wrote: (to Jackie)*

 

*I think you have made an excellent point. If Earnshaw HAD been more aware of the needs (for better attitudes) in his OWN children, his attempt to help HEATHCLIFF have a better life might have been more successful. It is not enough to just ?take someone out of the gutter? if all you are going to do is throw them to the wolves instead. I wonder if he was away a lot (on business?) or if he fell ill soon after Heathcliff came into the picture and did not really have a chance to be a better benefactor to this new ?charge? he?d taken in.*

 

I thought Earnshaw fell ill, fairly early on. That was my assumption anyway.

 

*He expected them to adopt HIS good will and morals..but he did not seem to be able to instill them in an effective way (for whatever reason) and it truly did more to HARDEN Heathcliff?s heart (in many ways) than to help it.*

 

I think back to that moment when he introduces Heathcliff, and Cathy says something (I forget exactly what) and he tells her that he doesn't want her to make him ashamed of her. At first I thought we might see some follow through with that. It was clear, very shortly on, with Hindley's behavior that the message hadn't gotten through.

 

This could have been subterfuge on the children's part. They could have played up nicely to Heathcliff within his view but went with their own instincts when he was out of sight. Heathcliff wouldn't have said anything. Still, as you say, his good will was not imparted on to the children. It seems a recurring theme in literature of this period that sudden or untimely death dramatically shapes the fates of characters.

 

*As time went on, and they all grew up, I think Heathcliff COULD have (and maybe should have) just packed up and left to get out from under Hindley?s HIDEOUS treatment of him. And he most likely would have, IF ONLY it were not for Cathy.*

 

Aye, but there's the rub, if only, his love for Cathy was stronger than his own free will. It's the key part of the story that I had to really think about to understand, that love can really be that strong.

 

*But after Heathcliff leaves her, she is ?done in?. Not just by the illness from being out in the storm. I think she really felt as if he was gone forever from her and she had NOTHING in life to look forward to. And I think she was grateful to Linton for helping her. You are right, her love for him WAS more about her gratitude and appreciation for his kindness. It was as if her first love? had died and this was the ?kind man? she married in her grief. She loved him (for being so kind to her) but she NEVER had that passion for him that she had for Heathcliff.*

 

I like what you say here. It was like a death. She could never have gone after him because that was not in her nature, she moves forward with Linton and sees Heathcliff as gone away forever. It was probably the only way she could move forward.

 

*She wanted him to kill Heathcliff, not to save Isabella but rather to save herself from having to live in a world where Heathcliff was not HERS. And now he has to face the ugly truth that (despite the fact she wants him dead) she REALLY does still love the ?other man? in a way that he will NEVER ever be loved by her.*

 

This is why I found Heathcliff's return so well done in a dramatic sense. By simply living at Wuthering Heights and existing in her world, Heathcliff is haunting her, tormenting her. It would be easier if he were removed. Whether she really truly wants it or not, it is the simplest means of escape for her. Meanwhile, Heathcliff savors the turmoil he has created in her. For in his mind, It's all he has to live for now.

 

*Those are the ?fascinating? questions that make talks like this so much fun. WHAT would have happened. IF only....*

 

I know. We need each other to bounce this stuff of on. I know I do. I always come away from good films with questions and ideas and I want to hear what others think, and what their take on certain parts of film might be. :)

 

Now hurry up and read the book and get back to me. I want to know about this thing with the children.

I don't think I want to see the newer version of this film, even though it might be very good. I have these characters in my mind as presented in Wyler's film. I think I'll keep them that way. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Mad Hat!! :-)

 

Thanks for the feedback on my post.. you know me... ha.. I just like to blab, blab, blab. ha.

 

It is very "GREY" in that the characters all seem to have (at least) that one moment where we gain some sympathetic insight that allows us to say "yes, but.." every time they behave or act badly or out of spite

 

True.. all true. I still wanted to knock them around a bit, though. ha. (but I mean that in a very "I'm only doing this for your own good" sort of way.. much like I have to wield my ROPE from time to time.. ha) :P

 

It was clear, very shortly on, with Hindley's behavior that the message hadn't gotten through

 

That's the whole problem as far as I could see. I mean.. it is ONE thing to tell a kid to do something.. but it is a WHOLE other thing to expect a kid to do something... (and then reinforce the expectation if they do not follow through) He just did not seem to be much of an "enforcer".

 

By simply living at Wuthering Heights and existing in her world, Heathcliff is haunting her, tormenting her.

 

I guess you could say he haunted her in life.. so she haunted HIM in death. ha.

 

Now hurry up and read the book

 

Thanks for the "kick in the pants" ha. I NEEDED that. I have not been able to get to the library (other than to return my movies) yet. I will MAYBE have some time later this week to stop by there and see if they have a copy of it. (SURELY they will) Anyway.. I do hope to get to it SOMEtime this fall.. (it's nice to have a goal, ha) :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oy, WUTHERING HEIGHTS, well, there goes my "Dr. Bronxie" title down the tubes, because quite frankly, I am stumped. Now understand, I've never read the novel so have only this film adaption to go on. Cathy's dual personality is quickly established in the flashback -- she's romping about with Hindley and doesn't want to get spruced up for her father's arrival, but then is immediately interested in being fairly presentable for any possible gifts he may have brought back with him. (little does she know...) Then of course her first reaction to Heathcliff is a rather snooty "He's dirty". But Cathy has found a handsome little playmate she can fantasize with ("I've always wanted to meet a noble prince"). Heathcliff goes along with her fairy tales. To her, the cliff is a castle, to him, it's just a cliff, but he is swept up in the game-playing. Heathcliff seems merely a blank slate for Cathy's imaginative outlets. This gypsy beggar has no definable past, or one he doesn't remember or want to share with his new "family". Frankly I think he's a bit too dull-witted to resist her imperious charms. (noir material there) I don't know when Mrs. Earnshaw died, but her death had a profound effect on the children. Without the firm but gentle guidance of a mother, Cathy and Hindley ran wild but were stunted emotionally, Both became hard in their own ways. Heathcliff too. Cecil Kellaway was an absentee parent. When he brought Heathcliff into the fold, Hindley became rageful with jealousy. Hindley didn't have a mother's love to lean on, and the father didn't seem to care enough. After Earnshaw's death, Hindley pulls away from Cathy and starts asserting his territorial rights, which includes treating Cathy not as a beloved sibling, but a weak female whom he can order about. Heathcliff is resentful of Hindley's treatment. So it would be natural that Heathcliff and Cathy cling to each other. On some level I think Cathy is frustrated at the passive female role she's required to play in that society. She has no power. Hindley (who calls them "birds of a feather") is weak, cruel, and contemptuous. There's no love lost between brother and sister. When she tells Heathcliff to go out and bring back "the world" for her, it's because she can't do it herself in that same aggressive, masculine way. A woman's only choice was to make an advantageous marriage, which Cathy eventually does (to become Queen of the Indoors) Until then, she's making mad, passionate, physical love Outdoors to Heathcliff among the heather. (Wyler makes this as clear to the audience as the Production Code will allow) What is the significance of "I am Heathcliff?" Might it mean that Cathy is internalizing Heathcliff's "maleness"? It could suggest that the two lovers are one soul, but maybe Cathy also identifies with Heathcliff, not merely in his sufferings, but, with his capacity for actualization, which to her dismay, he cannot carry out, because he is so pathologically attached to her that he'll put up with Hindley's atrocious behavior.

 

At the same time, I think that in her heart of hearts, Cathy's true heaven was always Penniston Crag with Heathcliff, where they could remain innocent -- not of each other, but of "the world".

 

Stay tuned, I'll have more blather later on.

 

Edited by: Bronxgirl48 on Sep 26, 2010 2:45 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...