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

Recommended Posts

*CineMaven writes:*

>As a filmmaker, I totally get what you're saying. And what director doesn't want to make a big statement and go out with a Korngold bang. But you know what I've learned on my travels in filmmaking: less is more. I don't think Fritz Lang needed to conk us over the head with Kitty's painting. That sad walk down the street shows the depths of Hell poor little Chris Cross has sunk to with his experience. The quiet torment he is going to endure with Kitty's voice whispering in his ear is enough. He won't last too much longer anyway.

 

I don?t think I quite mean that, I don?t think a director necessarily wants to make a big statement if no statement is needed. I do mean that IMO something more could have been done with that. Too bad Lang didn?t feel the same way, he no doubt would have done something quite good. But I concede on the less is more theory, I may have been asking too much, maybe Lang need not ?conk us over the head? with the painting, but I wish he would have at least given us a swift kick or something.

 

*FrankGrimes writes*:

>It's my favorite classic film of all. I still cannot believe the Code allowed a murderer to walk free with the guilty conscience as being the punishment.

*CineMaven writes:*

> I think the Code might have felt satisfied that Chris was going to be bedevilled by a guilty conscience and that was enough. But I can't help thinking Lang might've tricked the code into thinking this was enough, when the story just let a man get away with murder

 

Lots of folks carry a guilty conscience with them through life and function quite well. The Code knew that Chris was far beyond that. They could see he was bordering on insanity, if not already insane. I don?t think Lang needed to trick the Code, he knew, just as a lawyer does, that insanity works. Unless the trick was to make Chris appear to be insane, if so, then it worked. Look at Joanie in Possessed. Look how the movie loves her at the end. True, she was more certifiably insane than Chris, but look at the fuss they made. The doctor telling the husband, she?s got a long haul to load but hold her hand through it all and she?ll be all right, etc.. It was sickening. She killed this guy (after driving him half crazy to boot). In all fairness, I think the very purpose of Possessed was to bring the idea of mental illness to public awareness. Nevertheless, poor Chris didn?t get a break like that. But even if it is argued that Chris was not insane, but just suffering from guilt, that might be enough if it can be shown to be an extreme case. The Code wants you to pay for your crime, and Chris was doing that either because the Code considered him insane (or nearly so) or because It could see that the intensity of his suffering was far beyond what we normally think of as a guilty conscience, per se. I wonder, if the Code had said no to Lang, how would he have ended the film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lafitte...so tell me, if you were Lang, ( or the writer ) how would YOU script out the ending to "Scarlet Street"? There's no right or wrong answers here, just druthers. ( I love how Edgar G. Ulmer ends "Detour" with a cop car rolling up beside Al Roberts. Game! Set! Match! ) How would you swift kick the ending? I'm really curious. I loved the irony: the guy that killed Kitty is not punished ( by the courts ) and the man who didn't kill her ( Johnny ) gets the chair. OW! It hurts so good...like a film noir should.

 

I like how we're talking about The Code like it's some concrete tangible being, deciding who lives and dies. Or deciding what's a sin and what's NOT a sin. ( At least I'm the batty one giving anthropomorphic qualities to these set of rules...but please, don?t mind me. I AM batty. ) Could The Code be sexist? Crawford in "Possessed" was 'crazy in love' and that's par for the course with women, but if a man ( Eddie G. ) is crazy in love, must he be punished for succumbing to that lovey dovey stuff? I'm only talking for the sake of argument, the sake of conversation. I'm not really trying to peel back this Rubik's Cube and go down a rabbit hole. I do see your point, Lafitte, in the way a fuss was made over Crawford's dementia and not Robinson's.

 

Have you ever seen the Sean Penn-directed film "The Promise"? Jack Nicholson suffers a similar devastating movie ending ( years past The Code's tentacles guiding and strangling our sense of morality. ) This is an excellent movie. He's lost control and gone down a rabbit hole in order to keep a promise that eventually drives him insane. And because he's so crazed, he does not even realize he has allllready fulfilled his promise. Was Chris Cross insane or guilt-ridden. Maybe they're both the same thing. Poor guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Enjoying this discussion immensely!

 

I just had to jump in and give my two cents on Chris Cross. I've seen the movie once, so bear with me....

 

I think Chris is just USED up. He's been driven mad, yes, but I feel he's more guilt ridden, which somehow for me seems different than insane, I don't know why. Insane means there is no reason for your actions, mental illness with no clear cause. We know the reason. No one else does, so the stranger on the street might say "insane", but we know better.

 

Perhaps he's the sane one, the one WITH morals, which is why he needs to be punished, in his own head.

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Jan 27, 2014 9:30 AM

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've only seen the movie once, JackaaAaay? Because for a one-time viewing, you're dead on. I think he's guilt-ridden as well, and yes, that's different from being insane. ( Crawford was insanely "Possessed." )

 

And what added twist you introduce when you say the one WITH the morals had to be punished.

 

Have you ever seen "Being John Malkovich"? This movie is insane and wild. I'm watching it right now. John Cusack finds a portal into John Malkovich's brain, and Cameron Diaz takes trips into his brain also to be able to go to bed with Catherine Keener, who'll only go to bed with her through Malkovich. Malkovich is disturbed and not understanding what's happening to him. Wild...wild...wild by Spike Jonze. If Malkovich goes inside his own brain, I'm going to freak the heck out right now.

 

I'm going to botch up something I'm about to paraphrase from the movie.

 

J. Cusack: "I love you. This is what it looks like to be in love."

C. Keener: "You picked the unrequited kind. Sorry."

 

Malkovich went inside his own brain and...

 

This is nutz!!! Yeah...I'm freaked out. And your two cents is worth $6.23.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! I wanted to go see *Being John Malkovich.* I think about it once in a while because all my really bright friends told me it was great. I'll have to see if it's on any of my sites. Sounds so crazy that it makes sense. :D

 

 

I re-watched *RULES OF THE GAME* yesterday as I was starting to feel better from a bout of flu and I had a hankering to watch more French films, mainly Renoir for whom I seem to have an affinity lately. On second watch, it really hit me strongly. Last time through, about 15 years ago, I didn't get the depth of the film at all. Perhaps I can fault the terrible print, the smaller TV I watched it on, and the long deep shots where I couldn't see which characters were which. I can also fault my complete lack of life experience and perhaps an inattention to what was really going on. I didn't really understand the characters working as an ensemble - I wanted star turns and stand out characters I could identify with. My reaction was 'cute, but best film ever made?'

 

This time through, after getting used to the film techniques (deep focus takes one whole watch through I think before you get the idea of what is happening), ensemble playing and the lack of a single fully good person to root for, I found ROTG to be a charming comedy/drama, but so much more. Many think it's about the decadence and crumbling of the class system in France or perhaps Europe before the second world war. It struck me so hard that I think it's about the decadence and crumbling of everything. The Fall of Civilization. A corrupt world that keeps on keeping on, sweeping the dust of it's human debris under the rug. It seemed SOOOO fresh and modern, a perfect example of today's TV and electronics age told 80 years ago before they were even a twinking in someone's brain. One could substitute today's obsession with the unreal worlds of electronics for Dalio's obsession with music boxes; and the lack of feeling for human life is, if anything, even more apparent today with our twenty-four-seven monitoring of so-called news. Basically, the things that make the movie great are still around. The moral lack which drives people to value the foolish and fickle above the deep and sombre (sometimes rightly), the class restrictions are coming back, the phoniness and ennui of life are still with us. We dream of a different life, but can't really escape our ingrained habits and selfishness. People are still killing themselves over those who aren't worthy, people are still jaded and shunned by society, people still talk behind other's backs, and people are still strange and crazy enough to kill for nothing at all. Plus ca change.....

 

And I guess I've seen more of the world now, so I've changed... and the movie, if anything, has become more meaningful.

 

I hope the next time I watch, I will have changed some more, and I'll find even richer troves to mine in this film.

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Jan 27, 2014 3:59 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

>so tell me, if you were Lang, ( or the writer ) how would YOU script out the ending to "Scarlet Street"?

 

I had something in mind before you even asked. I have the gist but there are a couple of details I want to work out. No, I'm not taking this too seriously, I just want give it a little thought, minor details if you will. I will have it in a day or two. I'm glad you asked, this is fun. This ending would be the new ending if MrC (uh, you know, the Code, that monster) had nixed Lang's existing ending and required instead the ultimate fate of Chris Cross.

 

OT Note:I am seriously worried about my computer. It is agonizingly slow and I get error messages that sometimes prevent me from logging in. I sometimes find myself thus in a read-only mode when I am here on the site. So if I read something fascinating, which is the norm with all you wonderful people, then, I will not be able to answer. Right now I am here and writing on Grace, I could go down the rabbit hole at any time. I mention this because If I suddenly fall out of sight, it's not my usual disappearing act, it means that I am indisposed with faulty equipment. If my computer can rally there may be no interruption at all. Thanks for listening :)

 

I haven't seen THE PROMISE and I see that it not available on Netflix but I'll keep it in mind. A friend of mine gave me DETAILS from Netflix, with Toby McQuire and Laura Linney. It's listed as an Indie, black comedy, that touches a little on morality in general and guilt in particular. It might serve as a sort of what to do when you're tortured by guilt and it doesn't appear that there are any easy answers. Think twice before doing the so-called right thing whether you want to a favor for a friend out of gratitude or make amends for wrong doing and it might be a good idea to forget about those absolutes that your mother and father told you such things. It might just depend on the particular. It's a very odd narrative with all kinds of surprises along the way. The first half is all over the place but settles down after that. There's some good acting, i.e., the whackadoodle neighbor who is annoying as all get out but who is played brilliantly by some actress (I don't think it's Laura, but whoever she is, she's great). I mention this because guilt seems to the issue around here lately, ha. Anyway, it might be worth a try.

 

Now, I gotta go back and check out the ending of Scarlet Street. I gotta make my revisions. :)

 

Edited by: laffite on Jan 27, 2014 11:52 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your kind remark, Jackie. One reason the puter is so important right now is that I really enjoy being here.

 

*Cine says:*

>Good luck with your computer. It is an absolute necessity in this day and age. A necessary evil.

 

Yup. When VCRs first came out, it was the ultimate bummer when something happened to it. Now it?s the puter.

 

*Cine says*:

>Laura Linney?? I love her. She's a fine actress who does good work and doesn't 'seem to be' concerned with big box office.

 

It _was_ Laura Linney who played the whackadoodle neighbor, sorry for not being precise about that, Elizabeth Banks is good too. I may not have the themes precisely correct but I was thinking along those lines afterwards. Strangely enough this crazy movie has been instructive to me regarding an issue in my own life right now. Common sense decrees the obvious knee-jerk reaction to a situation, but wait a minute, who?s going to get hurt? Think again, maybe. The exact title BTW is THE DETAILS. Yeah, Laura Linney, great.

 

After watching the ending to SCARLET STREET, I feel like I?m sobering up a bit. I may even let Fritz Lang off the hook ;) There?s a bit of music there when the painting is carried out of the store, Chris is looking at it to this dark low, ominous tone. It?s Christmas time, everybody is supposed to be happy. Come All Ye Faithful is playing and then we get the shift of tone when the picture appears. A bit of Jingle Bells as the buyers of the painting say something as Chris walks by. Then it?s Melancholy Baby as Chris? eyes follow the painting as it is carries away. And finally, the last shot as we watch Chris walk away to a much more dire and darker tone. I didn?t realize befoe that all the other people in this last shot, pedestrians, simply disappear, Chris is really in his own world, no more music now, just the broken record, Oh Johnnnneeeeeeee. This may have been the trick, surely the idea is that Chris is insane by now. In THE HEIRESS, Olivia de Havilland gets stood up by Montgomery Cllift, she rushes out onto the porch when she hears his car. The car simply drives away and she is left there standing. In previews, the audience laughed at that and the studio was horrified. The viewer is supposed to feel sorry for her, or at least not ridicule her. Aaron Copland was doing the music and they asked him to fix it. He put a quirky, squiggly, modern sound to it and I guess it worked. The full Citizen Kane treatment at the end of ScarletS, my original idea, would not work but I would have liked to see a bit more punch. I don?t think I would change the visual, but working with the music would have been fun. And yet, it seems pretty well thought out as it is. There are several shifts there at the end.

 

If CC had to die I don?t feel at all very creative about it. Probably simply have the picture be too much for him and have him fall to the ground. A close up of a wide-eyed Chris with the broken record echoing in his head. Then have the sound in his head just stop abruptly, let the idea be that means he?s dead. Maybe his eyes could remain open, possibly for a kind of morbid, realistic effect. I was sort of relishing the idea of coming up with an ending but I don?t at all feel up to it. It?s hard, isn?t it? I think I?ll leave the moviemaking business up to the experts, like you, Cine. If MrC, the monster, had nixed the idea of CC remaining alive, what would you do? I don?t mean to just fling it back at you like that, but it is an interesting question. The studios probably had to think this way all the time. I think it?s amazing that Hollywood movies are as good as they are, considering all the restrictions. They had contract players that they had to sometimes pigeon hole into roles that might not have quite correct, they had to come up unrealistic endings to provide some clout, and last but not least, they had to worry about the dreaded Code. Among other things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

_G'day, Torchy_ -- *I re-watched RULES OF THE GAME yesterday as I was starting to feel better from a bout of flu and I had a hankering to watch more French films, mainly Renoir for whom I seem to have an affinity lately.*

 

Boy, are we ever in a similar spot. I'm also fighting a nasty head cold. I haven't been able to taste food for three days. I could actually eat Quiet Gal's cooking! :P:P I can finally breathe through my nose today.

 

And if you are looking to watch French films, you are to watch *Le Notti Bianche*!

 

I've had *The Rules to the Game* on DVD since July but I hadn't watched it yet. Your post prompted me to do so. I have also fallen for Jean Renoir. I think he's a brilliant director, one of my new favorites.

 

*On second watch, it really hit me strongly. Last time through, about 15 years ago, I didn't get the depth of the film at all. Perhaps I can fault the terrible print, the smaller TV I watched it on, and the long deep shots where I couldn't see which characters were which. I can also fault my complete lack of life experience and perhaps an inattention to what was really going on. I didn't really understand the characters working as an ensemble - I wanted star turns and stand out characters I could identify with. My reaction was 'cute, but best film ever made?'*

 

I think you make valid points about a bad print, small screen, and life experience being detriments to liking a film such as *The Rules of the Game*. I can tell you that I would not have liked it about ten years ago. It has taken my experience in classic film to appreciate and enjoy films like this. In fact, I actually saw a film very similar to this last year, that being Luis Bunuel's *The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie*. Bunuel was clearly inspired by Jean Renoir's film. And if you haven't seen Bunuel's film, I do recommend it to you.

 

*This time through, after getting used to the film techniques (deep focus takes one whole watch through I think before you get the idea of what is happening), ensemble playing and the lack of a single fully good person to root for, I found ROTG to be a charming comedy/drama, but so much more.*

 

I also found it to be a charming comedy/drama. And you are right, there isn't a clear lead or overly good person.

 

*Many think it's about the decadence and crumbling of the class system in France or perhaps Europe before the second world war.*

 

I think there is some of that, but not mostly.

 

*It struck me so hard that I think it's about the decadence and crumbling of everything. The Fall of Civilization. A corrupt world that keeps on keeping on, sweeping the dust of it's human debris under the rug.*

 

I thought it was mostly that. It's about the uncaring, selfishness of people, especially those with money and power.

 

*It seemed SOOOO fresh and modern, a perfect example of today's TV and electronics age told 80 years ago before they were even a twinking in someone's brain. One could substitute today's obsession with the unreal worlds of electronics for Dalio's obsession with music boxes; and the lack of feeling for human life is, if anything, even more apparent today with our twenty-four-seven monitoring of so-called news. Basically, the things that make the movie great are still around. The moral lack which drives people to value the foolish and fickle above the deep and sombre (sometimes rightly), the class restrictions are coming back, the phoniness and ennui of life are still with us. We dream of a different life, but can't really escape our ingrained habits and selfishness. People are still killing themselves over those who aren't worthy, people are still jaded and shunned by society, people still talk behind other's backs, and people are still strange and crazy enough to kill for nothing at all. Plus ca change.....*

 

You know, I didn't think of any of that while watching the film, but what you say can be found. Today's world is full of selfishness. Everyone is all right with things when it's how they want it. But if it doesn't match their own wants and desires, it's wrong. "It's okay for me to do what I do, but you cannot do that to me." We really do live in a mirror-less society.

 

*And I guess I've seen more of the world now, so I've changed... and the movie, if anything, has become more meaningful.*

 

I also think our society has changed drastically since you last watched the film. When a smart phone is your master, it just tells you where we're headed. Most everyone now views themselves as the most important person.

 

*I hope the next time I watch, I will have changed some more, and I'll find even richer troves to mine in this film.*

 

The film has quite a few angles, without a doubt. Was there one person in the film who wasn't selfish? Actually, there were some. The cook who spoke up for Marceau (Julien Carette) did so unselfishly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

_How do, CinemAva_ -- *Hi Grimesy - Yes I have seen "SCARLET STREET" and a review is probably buried somewhere deep in these here archives.*

 

I was starting to worry I was losing my mind, just like Chris!

 

*I'm not sure what struck me this time as I was more solistening to the goings on and not getting distracted by the visual. I think the Code might have felt satisfied that Chris was going to be bedevilled by a guilty conscience and that was enough. But I can't help thinking Lang might've tricked the code into thinking this was enough, when the story just let a man get away with murder. Chris...don?t feel guilty 'cuz Kitty sure 'nuf deserved it, though it was brutally done.*

 

You know what's strange? After reading your words, I actually thought of your film, *The Letter*. Chris (Edward G. Robinson) and Leslie (Bette Davis), two married people, both do what they do after being confronted with a rejected reality.

 

*I had a sardonic chuckle throughout, looking at Kitty chewing gum, throwing wrappers and butts and dirty dishes on the floor. She was sloppy and did what she wanted.*

 

And I laughed at all of that. She was a total mess of a woman.

 

*Johnny was a sloppy cad, smacked her, kissed her, and did what he wanted. 'That's all ya got? Ya gotta get me more.'*

 

And I've known quite a few women who have loved jerks like "Johnny Prince." There's something about such a guy being, "my man." "That's my man."

 

*Even Chris was sloppy about his life allowing himself to fall for a vixen who so obviously played him; letting his life spiral out of control.*

 

What Chris wanted he wanted so badly. He left himself out there to be taken, to be used. And the film is all about using. For him to have a woman take an interest in him is all he needed. He was that lonely and wanting. I think some of us can relate to Chris on that level.

 

*You're right, we all choose.*

 

There are many times when people do change who they are on us, but for the most part, you would think we'd know who we were marrying. One of the biggest tricks with that is knowing ourselves. How many people really know themselves?

 

*So tell me...who do YOU choose Grimesy? The Broncos or the Seahawks?*

 

I'm picking the Broncos (30-20), but I'm rooting for the Seahawks. But I think it's Peyton's year. He's on a mission, and I think he's going to finish it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SCARLET STREET SPOILED

 

_Hey there, Super Charger_ -- *Lots of folks carry a guilty conscience with them through life and function quite well. The Code knew that Chris was far beyond that. They could see he was bordering on insanity, if not already insane.*

 

Insane or not, he's still walking the streets, free. And this after committing a second-degree murder. It's amazing the Code allowed that to pass.

 

*I don?t think Lang needed to trick the Code, he knew, just as a lawyer does, that insanity works.*

 

But they go to the ward!

 

*But even if it is argued that Chris was not insane, but just suffering from guilt, that might be enough if it can be shown to be an extreme case. The Code wants you to pay for your crime, and Chris was doing that either because the Code considered him insane (or nearly so) or because It could see that the intensity of his suffering was far beyond what we normally think of as a guilty conscience, per se. I wonder, if the Code had said no to Lang, how would he have ended the film.*

 

I don't know if I have ever seen a murderer walk free in a film during the Code. I know crooks who were a part of a criminal act can get leniency if they redeemed themselves by helping the authorities. But even those folks usually get sent up with a "happy ending."

 

I do believe you are right, the Code had to have felt Chris was a shattered man and that was enough to keep him free on the streets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

_Ciao, Jacquita_ -- *I think Chris is just USED up. He's been driven mad, yes, but I feel he's more guilt ridden, which somehow for me seems different than insane, I don't know why. Insane means there is no reason for your actions, mental illness with no clear cause. We know the reason. No one else does, so the stranger on the street might say "insane", but we know better.*

 

I agree with that. I think Chris is losing his mind but he hasn't lost it. He's probably on the brink. I believe he's consumed with guilt and self-hate. I don't think he feels bad about what he did to Kitty, but that he was taken by her and Johnny. He's a haunted soul walking the Earth.

 

*Perhaps he's the sane one, the one WITH morals, which is why he needs to be punished, in his own head.*

 

Great point! So what would you tell Chris if he came to you saying, "I hate my life"? What is he to do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps he's the sane one, the one WITH morals, which is why he needs to be punished, in his own head.

 

*Great point! So what would you tell Chris if he came to you saying, "I hate my life"? What is he to do?*

 

There is nothing I could say to him that would make any difference. he would feel it no matter what, even though to some extent we the audience don't think he's guilty. Now isn't that something? We sympathize with the murderer. Should he get off scott free for the killing? Perhaps not, but I feel that he paid. It's a weird position Lang puts us in.

 

I guess if I had to say anything to him, I'd say "Paint it. Paint your horror." :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

*Boy, are we ever in a similar spot. I'm also fighting a nasty head cold. I haven't been able to taste food for three days. I could actually eat Quiet Gal's cooking! :P:P I can finally breathe through my nose today.*

 

Perhaps you'd do well to eat something healthy made by our Rohanaka! Some chicken soup and some greens for the vitamins would do you good, Mr. sawdust and saurkraut!

 

I'm only teasing. I do hope you are feeling better today, it was miserable, the way we felt here, but I was lucky that it only lasted for a couple days and I didn't get a cold with it. Alice had it for only 24 hours. Oh to be young again! Drink plenty of water and soup and orange juice if you can.

 

*And if you are looking to watch French films, you are to watch *Le Notti Bianche*!*

 

I saw that it was on this morning and missed it! I guess I have to find the disc! I don't know why I have such a block about watching this movie!

 

*I've had The Rules to the Game on DVD since July but I hadn't watched it yet. Your post prompted me to do so. I have also fallen for Jean Renoir. I think he's a brilliant director, one of my new favorites.*

 

Me too. The movie hit me so hard on a serious note that I forgot to mention how funny it was also. Very pleasurable as a comedy and you know how much I like 1930's comedies. And somehow, the tragic ending works perfectly well, because there are telegraphs throughout the movie that something is just going horribly wrong, getting darker.

 

I've been reading reviews now that I watched it. They are almost as fascinating as the movie itself, since every single person who wrote about it, from critics to famous directors, has a different take on what the tragedy is or what makes the film great.

 

*I think you make valid points about a bad print, small screen, and life experience being detriments to liking a film such as The Rules of the Game. I can tell you that I would not have liked it about ten years ago. It has taken my experience in classic film to appreciate and enjoy films like this. In fact, I actually saw a film very similar to this last year, that being Luis Bunuel's The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie. Bunuel was clearly inspired by Jean Renoir's film. And if you haven't seen Bunuel's film, I do recommend it to you.*

 

I definitely would not have gotten so much out of this film if my eye hadn't been trained by you Ramblers here at the TCM boards.

 

I have a block about Bunuel too for some reason. I've resisted watching him. I have to get to know someone on my own I guess. It's foolish how stubborn I can be sometimes. I always resisted any music or tv shows that were too popular. Bunuel is always talked about by the intelligentsia, critics who want to show off how much they know. The reason I resisted has nothing to do with him,... it's just that I hear his name and think "pretentious" because of the way critics talk about him. Ridiculous. I should know better. I'll give him a try since you mention him, and since I have this free video thing going on.

 

*I thought it was mostly that. It's about the uncaring, selfishness of people, especially those with money and power.*

 

Now see, I would debate that. A lot of people say the same thing, but I don't see any difference at all between the rich and the working class in this film. Maybe that's what ticked off so many people when it opened. The maids and servants are just as bad as the upper class. Are they mimicking those they work for? have those wealthy few corrupted the common man? I tend to think not.... money or comfort is the corrupting influence, certainly but the rich are not more selfish than the poor here. They are all equally screwed up! As we all are. Marceau the poacher is as contemptible a human being as you can get.... and he has nothing. He doesn't have to poach another man's wife. It's rather funny that I like him so much.

 

*You know, I didn't think of any of that while watching the film, but what you say can be found. Today's world is full of selfishness. Everyone is all right with things when it's how they want it. But if it doesn't match their own wants and desires, it's wrong. "It's okay for me to do what I do, but you cannot do that to me." We really do live in a mirror-less society.*

 

That's very good, a mirror-less society. Is art the mirror? Is it different from 1939 right now? I'm not so sure, and that's a scary, scary thought. Sometimes I feel we too are dancing on the brink of a volcano, just as those in Europe were doing in 1939, not seeing the brink of world war.

 

And now that I think about this theme in *The Rules of the Game*, perhaps it isn't even money that is the corruptor... I think perhaps it's WANT. Want of what you don't have... want of more things, want of someone else, want of a better life, the longing for love but only on our terms - like Christine and Andre - they both wanted love, but only on their own terms. He wanted her to fling her life aside, even as he publicly berated her. He wanted her to fling aside the RULES OF THE GAME. And she wanted him to take her away immediately, flinging aside THE RULES OF THE GAME. He wanted to do the 'honorable" thing by telling Robert her husband, but she just wanted him to throw everything to the wind for her. I can't blame either of them, One wants to break free but one can't really, ever. Christine feels very real to me because I've been there - the disappointment that your hero is not going to sweep you away, that he is all too human and weak. It all makes sense, every person's actions in the film makes sense, 'The awful thing about life is, everyone has their reasons.' Only too true, too true. And that goes for you and me, and everyone on this planet. We WANT and nothing is satisfying, not for very long anyway.

 

*I also think our society has changed drastically since you last watched the film. When a smart phone is your master, it just tells you where we're headed. Most everyone now views themselves as the most important person.*

 

I do see that around me, especially as a parent with kids in the school system. Every parent thinks their kid is special, and that's fine. But when they think their kid is above the rules, then it gets messed up. No one plays by the rules anymore, not even the written down rules. The rule of the game now is to be above the rules.

 

The film has quite a few angles, without a doubt. Was there one person in the film who wasn't selfish? Actually, there were some. The cook who spoke up for Marceau (Julien Carette) did so unselfishly.

 

And see, I don't even remember the cook! :D

 

I thought that a few were a bit less selfish, but on deeper look were they? One could say Andre and Shumacher were less selfish, but then again you could look at them as unbending, which is actually more selfish. Christine seemed less selfish to me, but on closer look she was exactly like the others, trapped on a merry-go-round, wanting her cake and eating it too. If I had to sympathize with anyone, I think the ones I sympathized with most were

 

Christine - her ennui and discovering the affair with Robert and Genevieve felt very real to me, she didn't really mean for things to get out of hand until after she saw Robert kissing Genevieve. Also her discomfort with Andre's insistence on telling Robert before they left would have ticked me off too. But I also think she let men love her too much, because she was insecure about her status as a foreigner. Guilty of selfishness! :D

 

Marceau - at least he was open about his selfishness.

 

Jackie - she was pretty above boards

 

Octave - is the conscience of the thing. He can see what's going on, really going on, but he is powerless to stop it, divert it, or do anything at all. He tries to get people together, but is it unselfish? It's all in the service of his friends, but perhaps it's so he can remain the treasured houseguest. He is selfish enough to flee with Christine, but he sees the wrongness of it, just as Marceau sees his own selfishness. When he tries to fix it, it still ends up a selfish act that gives him pain for a lifetime afterwards, because it makes him look a coward. Octave is a true artist (one who sees), but without an art. I feel for him very much as I find myself in this position often.

 

Robert - I can sympathize with his wish to disappear into a world of make believe, of his own making. He is happier with his music boxes than with any human being. As a classic film buff, I can relate.

 

Octave was somewhat unselfish at the end (or was he just having second thoughts about how poor he would appear to Christine after they lived together for a while?), but look what it got him? A guilty conscience for the rest of his life. I was thinking as I was reading this thread this morning that there are some huge correlations for me between *Rules of the Game* and *Scarlet Street*. Chris didn't play by the rules of the game.... he actually fell for Kitty - they made fun of him for falling so hard. And he ended up in a murder, walking away with a guilty conscience for the rest of his life. This is not to denounce Scarlet Street in any way at all. On the contrary, it's a great, great film that takes a step forward from Rules of the Game and takes it one step further by zeroing in on one story.

 

Maybe there are correlations between *The Rules of the Game* and every other movie made. I don't know, I haven't really thought it out. But I suspect that it's going to be another *Liberty Valance* or *The Searchers* for me... a benchmark movie that I measure most other films by, one that I see in most other films. I think The Rules of the Game is one of those rare films that is about everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

UNREQUITED LOVE..IS A MANY SPLENDORED THING: Yes, do add "La Notti Bianche." < Sigh! >

 

I've been reading some thought-provoking and profound stuff here at the ol' Ramblin' Corrall. Loving it:

 

Hiya JaxXxon: I was thinking as I was reading this thread this morning that there are some huge correlations for me between Rules of the Game and Scarlet Street. Chris didn't play by the rules of the game.... he actually fell for Kitty - they made fun of him for falling so hard. And he ended up in a murder, walking away with a guilty conscience for the rest of his life. This is not to denounce Scarlet Street in any way at all. On the contrary, it's a great, great film that takes a step forward from Rules of the Game and takes it one step further by zeroing in on one story.

 

Oh what fun, it is to ride...there are some cruel people in the world who laugh at you for believing them. Caveat emptor. I must check out "Rules to the Game." I enjoyed "Grand Illusion" ergo...

 

I guess if I had to say anything to him, I'd say "Paint it. Paint your horror." :D

 

To quote our beloved Elsa: BRILLIANT!!!! Just brilliant JackaAay.

 

I say the movie could ONLY be made by a European. Only a European would be sophisticated enough to get around our dumb ol' Puritanical American code. Nyehhh!

_______

 

What's cookin' Grimesy: You know what's strange? After reading your words, I actually thought of your film, The Letter. Chris (Edward G. Robinson) and Leslie (Bette Davis), two married people, both do what they do after being confronted with a rejected reality.

 

Rejected reality.? I LOVE that! Good comparison of the two movies.Yes, they took it hard. Probably because they both had been played. One was delusional. ( C'mon Chris. Really? ) And the other was just plain played. Remember the things Leslie said Hammond said once he dumped her? ( Hell hath no fury... ) Hammond didn't leave like a gentleman. He twisted a salty knife into Leslie's heart. Hammond and Kitty both got what they deserved. BUT the Code certainly DID make Leslie pay, didn't it? Swift, fast and in a hurry. Boooohya!! Sexist Code. :P

 

And I've known quite a few women who have loved jerks like "Johnny Prince." There's something about such a guy being, "my man." "That's my man."

 

Some girls are very desperate. Any man is better than no man at all, to some. Sheesh! Women! Grimesy, do you find the worse you treat a girl, the better she likes you?

 

There are many times when people do change who they are on us, but for the most part, you would think we'd know who we were marrying. One of the biggest tricks with that is knowing ourselves. How many people really know themselves?

 

Many do. And very many don't. They are in a dreamworld of a fantasy they think they are. And they want someone a fantasy deserves to have. ( Am I making sense? ) One can probably get a pretty good partner if he/she is honest with themselves. And then again some folks are rotten to the core and play games. It's a jungle out there. I say squirrels to the nuts.

 

I don't know if I have ever seen a murderer walk free in a film during the Code. I know crooks who were a part of a criminal act can get leniency if they redeemed themselves by helping the authorities. But even those folks usually get sent up with a "happy ending."

 

I do believe you are right, the Code had to have felt Chris was a shattered man and that was enough to keep him free on the streets.

 

I think you and Jackaaay are onto something! That Code. I wonder if IT was ever in love. "Oh you met someone and now you know how it feels. Goody goody!"

 

Boy oh boy! Didja ever see a girl like Joanie. And how she turned men inside out in the 40?s. Brother!!

 

ff662e0c-0d7e-4d1a-92b7-e34fd94546dd_zps

 

Robert Preston, Gregory Peck, Eddie G., James Mason and yeah...Charles Bickford. Caveat emptor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a bunch of Joanie films on the DVR and last night I watched a couple. I had never even heard of HARRIET CRAIG ( *minor Spoilers* ). We are gradually led through a number of episodes, discovering ever so slowly just exactly who this woman is and what she is capable of doing. There comes a time at last when it becomes nearly impossible not to hate her. They have Joan with that short, manly hairdo which serves to emphasize even more than usual, the strong facial features, giving her a severe and forbidding look. I finally conclude that she is not an intrinsically evil woman, I think she can be seen as a simply but desperately insecure woman. The distinction doesn?t help her in the end. Then THE DAMNED DON?T CRY ( *Spoilers* ), which I though entertaining. She goes from what appears to be a regular type, a loving mother etc., to something completely different. Something happens and she leaves her husband. She gets a regular job where she involves herself, reluctantly at first, in some petty, underhanded activities that provide a little extra income on the side. She learns quickly and soon we see her transformed into an ambitious, even ruthless woman, who gets what she seems to want, a better life through social climbing, through her association with strong but dangerous men, three who seem to fall in love with her (it?s to Joan?s credit that at her age she can still pass for being attractive enough to be so assiduously pursued, that is if you buy it). Eventually she is in over her head and a little of that traditional world view seeps in that we saw at the beginning of the film. Killing people is simply not something she can abide (especially someone she might just possibly be in love with). Unfortunately this film did not have my undivided attention, I found myself engaged in unwanted but necessary activities regarding an ailing computer :( It was interesting to see Joan and Greer together in LADIES THAT MEET ( *Major Spoilers* ), especially after Mank?s intro regarding the two vying for top banana at MGM, and I was relieved to find that they did not come out clawing each other?s eyes out right there on screen, ha! Striking how different they looked. Joan?s hair looked like typical 40s, elaborate, busy, dowdy by today?s standards, but like they wore in her own time, while Greer looked more modern, her hair could have been anytime much later than when the movie was made. This is certainly not my expertise so I can be corrected on that, but in any case there was a striking contrast for me. Greer has such a glamor look, yet I don?t think she completely upstaged Joan in that way, but it could have happened. Joan is no slouch but Greer is a truly beautiful woman in a more impactful way IMO. I liked Joan especially when she comes across perky and spontaneous, when questioning Jimmy (Robert Taylor) about ?Lottie.? Both women were very fine. They were on screen together for one short, but vital scene. A heady conversation about men, women, and love where there is a bit of disagreement (but I think Greer gets the best of it). Robert Taylor?s character is the only player who gets exactly what he wants. He is the grand manipulator and he orchestrates the show to his own end. The rest get what they want (maybe) but not necessarily what they expected, they have to make adjustments. Does Woodruf (Herbert Marshall) get taken back into his home? I think we are supposed to believe so (if we can consider this story comedy-drama, I think the comedy aspect wins in the end where a happy ending prevails) but Mrs Woodruf (Greer) played that rejection scene so well it might be hard to believe she would take him back. Herbert Marshall doesn?t do a whole lot but he is difficult to criticize because his screen presence is strong and he has that wonderful voice. I?ve never noticed Spring Byington much in other movies but I don?t think I?ve ever seen her do comedy. She?s very good. I?ve never seen her so vibrant and winning. That little laughing jag over the misunderstanding of the word ?jacket? was so good I had to back up the DVR and watch it again (and again, even). Yes, she played the yappy, tiresome one, and was up against a couple of heavy hitters; but she may have been a pesky little scene stealer in a place or two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

_Good morning, Torchy_ -- *There is nothing I could say to him that would make any difference. he would feel it no matter what, even though to some extent we the audience don't think he's guilty. Now isn't that something? We sympathize with the murderer. Should he get off scott free for the killing? Perhaps not, but I feel that he paid. It's a weird position Lang puts us in.*

 

It's very weird. We definitely sympathize with the murderer, although we also view him as a fool.

 

*I guess if I had to say anything to him, I'd say "Paint it. Paint your horror." :D*

 

And that's what his friend encouraged him to do before it all happened. But my question was actually meant to be asked before he met Kitty. If Chris was your friend, and he told you he was unhappy, what would you tell him?

Link to post
Share on other sites

*Perhaps you'd do well to eat something healthy made by our Rohanaka! Some chicken soup and some greens for the vitamins would do you good, Mr. sawdust and saurkraut!*

 

Bite your tongue! I'd rather not taste! :P

 

*I'm only teasing.*

 

I'm not! :P

 

*I do hope you are feeling better today, it was miserable, the way we felt here, but I was lucky that it only lasted for a couple days and I didn't get a cold with it. Alice had it for only 24 hours. Oh to be young again! Drink plenty of water and soup and orange juice if you can.*

 

Yes, mom. :P I have felt pretty good since Tuesday, it's just my taste hasn't fully returned. I finally got to taste some food last night, but today has been hit or miss.

 

*I saw that it was on this morning and missed it! I guess I have to find the disc! I don't know why I have such a block about watching this movie!*

 

And I see you watched it! Yay!

 

*Me too. The movie hit me so hard on a serious note that I forgot to mention how funny it was also. Very pleasurable as a comedy and you know how much I like 1930's comedies. And somehow, the tragic ending works perfectly well, because there are telegraphs throughout the movie that something is just going horribly wrong, getting darker.*

 

There's a lightness to it all, but I always felt the darkness while watching it. Nothing terribly heavy, just present. The hunting scene is the most impactful with this.

 

*I've been reading reviews now that I watched it. They are almost as fascinating as the movie itself, since every single person who wrote about it, from critics to famous directors, has a different take on what the tragedy is or what makes the film great.*

 

That's definitely the film. It's not one thing. It's really just tossed on the screen and held together with loose ideas. Jean Renoir has mentioned how there was no script, just some plot points. The film feels this way. Even Renoir has danced back and forth on the film's real meaning. I think the opening quote about Love (Cupid) and its wings speaks to what Renoir was going for.

 

*I definitely would not have gotten so much out of this film if my eye hadn't been trained by you Ramblers here at the TCM boards.*

 

I know what you're saying. I've learned a lot from the people on this board, most notably those on a thread like this. By being exposed to the interests and thoughts of others, it has created a greater eye and broader mind for me.

 

*I have a block about Bunuel too for some reason. I've resisted watching him. I have to get to know someone on my own I guess. It's foolish how stubborn I can be sometimes. I always resisted any music or tv shows that were too popular. Bunuel is always talked about by the intelligentsia, critics who want to show off how much they know. The reason I resisted has nothing to do with him,... it's just that I hear his name and think "pretentious" because of the way critics talk about him. Ridiculous. I should know better. I'll give him a try since you mention him, and since I have this free video thing going on.*

 

Ha! You sound like me! But my issue isn't the intellects and critics, it's the masses. I typically pull back from popular shows and films with the thinking it can't be that go if everyone likes it. I'm one of the snobs! I definitely trust the word of critics over the masses, especially with film. If I hear my family members raving about a show, I immediately think it's spoon-fed for all.

 

Luis Bunuel is a divisive filmmaker. He is extremely irreverent. He often attacks the hypocrisy of the Catholic church, the faith he was raised in. His films are also sexual. So those two subjects alone are going to marginalize him. Having said all of that, *The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie* doesn't feature commentary on religion or sex. It's a commentary on the bourgeois.

 

One major thing you wouldn't like about Bunuel is that he really doesn't care for his characters all that much, and you definitely respond to a filmmaker caring about their characters. This makes Bunuel cold, whereas you greatly respond to warmth, which is Renoir.

 

*Now see, I would debate that. A lot of people say the same thing, but I don't see any difference at all between the rich and the working class in this film. Maybe that's what ticked off so many people when it opened. The maids and servants are just as bad as the upper class.*

 

You are right. There really isn't a class distinction with the behavior. But I believe the behavior stems from the rich and powerful, who have set the rules of the game, and the lower class folk have come to accept these rules (Lisette), with some striving to be a part of them (Marceau). It's like a poor person defending big business. They have been taught that big business is good for them. "Trickle down class." They are all part of the game, but they are not.

 

*Are they mimicking those they work for? have those wealthy few corrupted the common man? I tend to think not.... money or comfort is the corrupting influence, certainly but the rich are not more selfish than the poor here. They are all equally screwed up! As we all are. Marceau the poacher is as contemptible a human being as you can get.... and he has nothing. He doesn't have to poach another man's wife. It's rather funny that I like him so much.*

 

I think the game is Society and its "rules." Where do we fit in, how do we fit in? Everything is all right so long as you play by the rules of the game. The poacher is seen as bad by some but not by others. Who sets the rules? The rich and powerful. So Marceau isn't jailed for his poaching. In fact, he's given a job.

 

How many people do you know who wish to live like the rich and powerful? Are they rich and powerful or are they Lisette and Marceau?

 

Also, I think the rules of game may be set by each person. We choose the rules of the game.

 

*That's very good, a mirror-less society. Is art the mirror? Is it different from 1939 right now? I'm not so sure, and that's a scary, scary thought. Sometimes I feel we too are dancing on the brink of a volcano, just as those in Europe were doing in 1939, not seeing the brink of world war.*

 

I'd say our society is dancing on that volcano, but its effect will be relationship-oriented, which in turn affects the next generation to be born. How people relate, how men and women relate, is going to greatly influence the thinking and feeling of their children. I feel the more and more self-centered and self-oriented we become, the more less caring of others we are going to be. And a less-caring world is a worse world. If we can't get in a car without being on our phone, where are we headed?

 

*And now that I think about this theme in The Rules of the Game, perhaps it isn't even money that is the corruptor... I think perhaps it's WANT. Want of what you don't have... want of more things, want of someone else, want of a better life, the longing for love but only on our terms*

 

Yes, I completely agree with that. And that is very modern. It's not about the other person and their feelings, it's about you and your wants. If you want it, you are to have it. Heck, that's being taught by parents today. "Don't you let anyone tell you that you can't."

 

It's funny how one thing leads to another. The children of the 50s and 60s were told "no" by their parents, so they rebelled. They in turn told their children, those of the 70s and 80s, "yes." Now we're looking at the children of the 90s and 2000s, who aren't being told a thing because their parents are still busy telling themselves, "yes"!

 

*like Christine and Andre - they both wanted love, but only on their own terms. He wanted her to fling her life aside, even as he publicly berated her. He wanted her to fling aside the RULES OF THE GAME. And she wanted him to take her away immediately, flinging aside THE RULES OF THE GAME. He wanted to do the 'honorable" thing by telling Robert her husband, but she just wanted him to throw everything to the wind for her. I can't blame either of them, One wants to break free but one can't really, ever. Christine feels very real to me because I've been there - the disappointment that your hero is not going to sweep you away, that he is all too human and weak. It all makes sense, every person's actions in the film makes sense, 'The awful thing about life is, everyone has their reasons.' Only too true, too true. And that goes for you and me, and everyone on this planet. We WANT and nothing is satisfying, not for very long anyway.*

 

Nicely said! It is true, we all want what we want on our own terms. We humans are terribly selfish. We never even see how selfish we are because we like to think of ourselves as not being such. We are conditioned to know that selfish is bad, so we immediately look to view ourselves and define ourselves as unselfish, even though we are not.

 

The moment there are two people, there are two different thoughts and feelings. I don't care how sympatico you may feel with someone, you are still different. And, as you know, I often talk about the differences of man and woman. We are very different. That's what fascinates me.

 

*I do see that around me, especially as a parent with kids in the school system. Every parent thinks their kid is special, and that's fine. But when they think their kid is above the rules, then it gets messed up. No one plays by the rules anymore, not even the written down rules. The rule of the game now is to be above the rules.*

 

Absolutely. If a parent thinks their kid is special, it's because they are telling you they are special. We humans have huge egos.

 

*And see, I don't even remember the cook! :D*

 

The cook speaks of preparing food for the "Yid," which is de la Chesnay (Marcel Dalio). He says the other aristocrats think they know food but Chesnay is the one who really does. He was giving credit to the Jew. He does so in front of everyone else, who are gossiping out of control.

 

I believe that scene, the one with all the servants behaving honestly and horribly goes to what you speak of, of how bad behavior reaches all classes and people. And this is true. But are the servants being influenced by their "betters"? That's where it gets tricky.

 

*I thought that a few were a bit less selfish, but on deeper look were they? One could say Andre and Shumacher were less selfish, but then again you could look at them as unbending, which is actually more selfish.*

 

You've got it. Schumacher is married to "duty." He doesn't show much attention to Lisette. He's terribly male. He only shows want for Lisette when someone is going after her. Andre is probably guilty of loving too much, actually. He's a little child. He can't function without Christine.

 

*Christine seemed less selfish to me, but on closer look she was exactly like the others, trapped on a merry-go-round, wanting her cake and eating it too.*

 

Christine is definitely caught up in the game. I don't think she's any worse than the others, but I also don't see her being any better.

 

*If I had to sympathize with anyone, I think the ones I sympathized with most were*

 

*Christine - her ennui and discovering the affair with Robert and Genevieve felt very real to me, she didn't really mean for things to get out of hand until after she saw Robert kissing Genevieve. Also her discomfort with Andre's insistence on telling Robert before they left would have ticked me off too. But I also think she let men love her too much, because she was insecure about her status as a foreigner. Guilty of selfishness! :D*

 

That's great analysis! I think you hit on it with Christine. Her being a foreigner and needing to fit into the "Game" is where she's really guilty of selfishness.

 

*Marceau - at least he was open about his selfishness.*

 

:D He was! Until Schumacher shows up! He was running and hiding, then.

 

*Jackie - she was pretty above boards*

 

She has little girl selfishness. She wants Andre for herself but she knows he views her as just a "little girl." She'd love to be with him and then the "Game" would start with her. She's basically in the wings, waiting.

 

*Octave - is the conscience of the thing. He can see what's going on, really going on, but he is powerless to stop it, divert it, or do anything at all. He tries to get people together, but is it unselfish? It's all in the service of his friends, but perhaps it's so he can remain the treasured houseguest. He is selfish enough to flee with Christine, but he sees the wrongness of it, just as Marceau sees his own selfishness. When he tries to fix it, it still ends up a selfish act that gives him pain for a lifetime afterwards, because it makes him look a coward. Octave is a true artist (one who sees), but without an art. I feel for him very much as I find myself in this position often.*

 

He's certainly the conscience of the film, and the most likable character. His selfishness is the kind that I personally relate to. Octave can have what he wants but he's too afraid to take it. He's afraid of responsibility, such as commitment. He'd rather float. So just when he can have Christine, he pulls back into his safe and irresponsible world of floating. As you say, he'd rather be loved by many than just one. He really is the "Cupid" of the picture. He's going to set up everyone else but not himself.

 

*Robert - I can sympathize with his wish to disappear into a world of make believe, of his own making. He is happier with his music boxes than with any human being. As a classic film buff, I can relate.*

 

:) He really is happiest with the inanimate. He can control these devices and they won't ask anything of him. That's very male. He kind of reminds me of Louis (Dennis Price) from *Kind Hearts and Coronets*. Sometimes you want a "Sibella" and sometimes you want an "Edith" and sometimes you don't want either.

 

*Octave was somewhat unselfish at the end (or was he just having second thoughts about how poor he would appear to Christine after they lived together for a while?), but look what it got him? A guilty conscience for the rest of his life.*

 

Fear of commitment. Once again, this is very male.

 

*I was thinking as I was reading this thread this morning that there are some huge correlations for me between Rules of the Game and Scarlet Street. Chris didn't play by the rules of the game.... he actually fell for Kitty - they made fun of him for falling so hard. And he ended up in a murder, walking away with a guilty conscience for the rest of his life. This is not to denounce Scarlet Street in any way at all. On the contrary, it's a great, great film that takes a step forward from Rules of the Game and takes it one step further by zeroing in on one story.*

 

"Chris Cross" (Edward G. Robinson) would certainly qualify as one of those chasing after his wants and desires. For him, it's the first time in his life, and at a later stage in life. He was burned by those who live to play the game.

 

*Maybe there are correlations between The Rules of the Game and every other movie made. I don't know, I haven't really thought it out. But I suspect that it's going to be another Liberty Valance or The Searchers for me... a benchmark movie that I measure most other films by, one that I see in most other films. I think The Rules of the Game is one of those rare films that is about everything.*

 

It's a highly influential film, but I'm not sure if Hollywood was influenced by it until much later. I'd say *Kind Hearts and Coronets* has similarities to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

_Hola, Lively Gal_ -- *Yes, do add "La Notti Bianche." < Sigh! >*

 

So you like the film, too? What do you like about it?

 

*I say the movie could ONLY be made by a European. Only a European would be sophisticated enough to get around our dumb ol' Puritanical American code. Nyehhh!*

 

That made me laugh!

 

*What's cookin' Grimesy:*

 

I don't know! I can't smell it!

 

*Rejected reality.? I LOVE that! Good comparison of the two movies.Yes, they took it hard. Probably because they both had been played. One was delusional. ( C'mon Chris. Really? ) And the other was just plain played. Remember the things Leslie said Hammond said once he dumped her? ( Hell hath no fury... ) Hammond didn't leave like a gentleman. He twisted a salty knife into Leslie's heart. Hammond and Kitty both got what they deserved. BUT the Code certainly DID make Leslie pay, didn't it? Swift, fast and in a hurry. Boooohya!! Sexist Code. :P*

 

Ha! But Leslie has the best line! There's something about a good heartbreak film that really connects with me. What does that say about me?!

 

*Some girls are very desperate. Any man is better than no man at all, to some. Sheesh! Women!*

 

I also think there's this idea that since he's "their man," that automatically makes him great. That's a woman's ego at work. But we men have the worst ego, by far.

 

*Grimesy, do you find the worse you treat a girl, the better she likes you?*

 

I wouldn't know! I'm not around women! I can tell you how I have learned from the women on this board and how they respond to me. Do you really want to get me in trouble? I'm stupid, so I just walk right into the noose. I have learned that if you don't agree with a woman you could be asking for serious trouble. Especially with something they hold dear or firmly believe in. I've been bruised a lot by my own stubborn ego and need to speak my feelings. You don't know how many times I've been in trouble! :D

 

For the most part, I have found women respond to kindness best, but there is something about stirring a woman's feelings with some anger. I don't know what it is. I think it has to do with passion and the idea that they really care about a guy enough to get angry at them.

 

But I will say, I tend to be viewed as the "friend." Nice guys tend to be friends.

 

*Many do. And very many don't. They are in a dreamworld of a fantasy they think they are. And they want someone a fantasy deserves to have. ( Am I making sense? )*

 

Completely. We all have an idea in our mind of how things are to be with everything in life, but especially love. I have found that women really paint pictures of love in their mind, and are seeking their prince for the painting. When reality doesn't match the dream, disappointment sets it. Women are very cerebral.

 

*One can probably get a pretty good partner if he/she is honest with themselves. And then again some folks are rotten to the core and play games. It's a jungle out there. I say squirrels to the nuts.*

 

I love how you start off positive and quickly turn negative!

 

*I think you and Jackaaay are onto something! That Code. I wonder if IT was ever in love. "Oh you met someone and now you know how it feels. Goody goody!"*

 

Ha! I love the idea of the Code as a character! "Don't touch me! Put your foot back on the floor or get out of this bed!"

 

*Boy oh boy! Didja ever see a girl like Joanie. And how she turned men inside out in the 40?s. Brother!!*

 

Oh sure, now you're trying to seduce me with Joan! I just love the gal. And *The Woman on the Beach* is actually my favorite Jean Renoir film. I love watching the shattered triangle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>I'm picking the Broncos (30-20), but I'm rooting for the Seahawks. But I think it's Peyton's year. He's on a mission, and I think he's going to finish it.

 

It won't be easy :) The Seahawks are stronger overall IMO. But you're right about Manning, he's itching to 'catch up' with little brother and end all the chatter about that. I can't decide who I want, I like both teams. But just for fun, let's say 37-34 Seahawks, a thriller! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like your reviews of Harriet Craig and Ladies Who Meet, Laffite! You are completely spot on with the two films (Ihaven't seen The Damned Don't Cry yet).

 

Have you seen the originals of both of those movies? It would be interesting to get your impressions of them too. I think Harriet Craig is good, a solid movie with a very good performance by Crawford, who is so well cast. Craig's Wife with Roz Russell also has a top notch performance, but it is surrounded by a really chilling film, so I give the upper hand to it. Somehow, the bite, the scariness is lost in the Crawford version, the blackness of the idea. Maybe because it's a fifties topic? It seems more appropriate to that era. The thirties Craig's Wife is kind of shocking to me. It comes out of nowhere, and is a rather frightening story of house pride gone horribly wrong. Roz is colder than Crawford, if such a thing is possible.

 

I prefer the Crawford version of *When Ladies Meet,* which is odd because I usually go for the pre-codes... but it would be worthwhile to go back and do a re-watch of the movies back to back. I enjoy them all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to When Ladies Meet; That scene with Garson and Crawford is one of the best there is between two first rate female stars. I would of loved to be on the set when that scene was filmed. No sign of one trying to out do the other. Funny, but if either actress would of done that it would of spoiled the scene since each of their characters is clueless to whom the other one is (until Garson starts to figure it out at the end). I made my wife watch this movie and focus on that scene since to me for a 'women's picture' this is art.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*JamesJazzGuitar wrote*:

>With regards to When Ladies Meet; That scene with Garson and Crawford is one of the best there is between two first rate female stars. I would of loved to be on the set when that scene was filmed. No sign of one trying to out do the other. Funny, but if either actress would of done that it would of spoiled the scene since each of their characters is clueless to whom the other one is (until Garson starts to figure it out at the end). I made my wife watch this movie and focus on that scene since to me for a 'women's picture' this is art.

 

When I was watching this encounter I made a mental note to come back to that for another reading. I thought it needed mining, a parsing of sorts.. My comment that I thought Greer had got the better of the argument was preliminary and intuitive, but when I went back to nail it down I discovered to my dismay that I had erased the movie from my DVR. Drat! But you?re right, regarding the two actresses, it was evenhanded on both sides and I think the same can be said of the movie as a whole, it was neither one nor the other?s movie, there was a fine balance.

 

 

*Jackie, you wiite*:

>Have you seen the originals of both of those movies? It would be interesting to get your impressions of them too. I think Harriet Craig is good, a solid movie with a very good performance by Crawford, who is so well cast. Craig's Wife with Roz Russell also has a top notch performance, but it is surrounded by a really chilling film, so I give the upper hand to it. Somehow, the bite, the scariness is lost in the Crawford version, the blackness of the idea. Maybe because it's a fifties topic? It seems more appropriate to that era. The thirties Craig's Wife is kind of shocking to me. It comes out of nowhere, and is a rather frightening story of house pride gone horribly wrong. Roz is colder than Crawford, if such a thing is possible?.I prefer the Crawford version of When Ladies Meet, which is odd because I usually go for the pre-codes... but it would be worthwhile to go back and do a re-watch of the movies back to back. I enjoy them all.

 

I haven?t seen either of the earliler versions, but I really want to now. WLM, the early one, has a regular rotation on TCM, HC I don?t? think so. This latter is not on NetFlix either. Roz is colder than Joan, you say. That really IS interesting, Jackie. I didn?t know anyone could outJoan joan in the Cold Department. Joan, if you?re up there (or down there) and can read this, I mean that as a compliment :) .

 

I am halfway through ROMAN HOLIDAY (1953) and am liking it. Everyone already knows how delectable *Audrey Hepburn* is and I think I knew it too, but I didn?t REALLY know it until NOW. She is _introduced_ in this movie so I guess it?s her first, she is so young and fresh, positively adorable. Early on an Italian housekeeper runs her out of the bathroom and Audrey comes out wrapped in a towel. Talk about arresting. A few minutes later she says to *Gregory Peck*, ?Thank you for letting me sleep in your bed last night.? The context of that statement is squeaky clean but nonetheless to hear those words at face value coming out of the mouth of such an angel is, uh, well, arresting. (Have I mentioned how arresting she is? :) ) Strangely enough, there is something wrong with Gregory Peck. His role calls for some buoyancy, nimbleness, and banter in the style of light comedy and I don?t think he quite pulls it off for me. At least it?s not a persona that I associate with him and he doesn?t seem comfortable. Maybe he will get better for me in the second half of the film. As for Audrey, she will not get better. How can you improve upon perfection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Audrey02.jpg

 

I?m trying to contemplate what it would have been like to walk into a theater in 1953 to watch ROMAN HOLIDAY without ever having seen Audrey Hepburn. She was so new and no one knew her. She must have made quite an impression..

 

*UPDATE*

 

Laffite wrote:

>I am halfway through ROMAN HOLIDAY (1953) and am liking it. Everyone already knows how delectable Audrey Hepburn is and I think I knew it too, but I didn?t REALLY know it until NOW. She is introduced in this movie so I guess it?s her first, she is so young and fresh, positively adorable. Early on an Italian housekeeper runs her out of the bathroom and Audrey comes out wrapped in a towel. Talk about arresting. A few minutes later she says to Gregory Peck, ?Thank you for letting me sleep in your bed last night.? The context of that statement is squeaky clean but nonetheless to hear those words at face value coming out of the mouth of such an angel is, uh, well, arresting. (Have I mentioned how arresting she is? :) ) Strangely enough, there is something wrong with Gregory Peck. His role calls for some buoyancy, nimbleness, and banter in the style of light comedy and I don?t think he quite pulls it off for me. At least it?s not a persona that I associate with him and he doesn?t seem comfortable. Maybe he will get better for me in the second half of the film. As for Audrey, she will not get better. How can you improve upon perfection.

 

I have reservations with Peck?s comedy, but he surely makes up for it with his nearly wordless performance at that scintillating press conference. Were ever the words I LOVE YOU ever been left unsaid, yet so clearly felt, on a movie screen?. I love everything about this. Audrey was positively divine. ?I should like to meet the ladies and gentleman of the press.? I guess not even Hollywood would dare have an English Princess run off with newspaper reporter. Either they had the scruple, or they did not want to offend the British Government (since, I learn, this very issue was in the news regarding the real Princess Margaret at that time). Or maybe (probably) they realized is was just better this way. I agree.

 

==

 

Above, the sentence:

 

*I should like to meet the ladies and gentleman of the press*

 

is supposed to be in quotation marks. Does anyone know how to get the quotation marks to work? :(

 

Edited by: laffite on Feb 7, 2014 2:34 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
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...