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

Recommended Posts

Miss G.. I started watching just before she started dancing with my beloved C. Aubrey. ha. (I had no idea what the movie even WAS when I first happened upon it. I just always stop and watch ANYTHING whenever I see him in anything, ha) But then when I saw it was Vivien and I clearly had missed a big portion of the story, I looked it  up. And then I ALMOST turned it (because when I saw the schedule, I knew it was almost over)  But I was just so doggone curious after remembering some of the things you had said about it, I had to keep watching.

 

(And ps, Patful..yes.. tragic was the right word. sniff, sob, sniff..)  :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with RO -- Vivien was never so beautiful as she was in WATERLOO BRIDGE, and there's also something about the black & white photography that emphasized her character's fragility and fatalism. 

 

I have a hard time accepting Bob as a Scot, but he's lovely too, lol, so I say, who cares?

 

Btw, watching A MAJORITY OF ONE recently, it was bizarre the way everyone kept referencing him in THE LAW AND JAKE WADE.  Roz:  "You know, I think Robert Taylor is Jewish!"  The "cheeky houseboy": "No, Robert Taylor is Japanese!"  I guess this was supposed to be funny.

 

Oy!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my goodness ME. I just watched Flesh and the Devil. Wowsa, what a story. Who knew?? (Ok., probably most of YOU did.. ha. but I had only heard of this movie and had no idea what it was even about. until watching it tonight, ha) :)  

 

And I have to say, the friendship angle between the two "blood brothers" was really just so emotional. I was literally on the edge of my seat to see how that all played out. And may I just add.. I only THOUGHT I knew what the words "Femme Fatale meant until seeing Ms. Garbo just now. (wow.. all others pale in comparison) Put that all together with the "repentance" angle there at the end, and (did I mention my goodnes ME??)  I will just say have to say again.. wowsa. What a story. :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my goodness ME. I just watched Flesh and the Devil. Wowsa, what a story. Who knew?? (Ok., probably most of YOU did.. ha. but I had only heard of this movie and had no idea what it was even about. until watching it tonight, ha) :)

 

And I have to say, the friendship angle between the two "blood brothers" was really just so emotional. I was literally on the edge of my seat to see how that all played out. And may I just add.. I only THOUGHT I knew what the words "Femme Fatale meant until seeing Ms. Garbo just now. (wow.. all others pale in comparison) Put that all together with the "repentance" angle there at the end, and (did I mention my goodnes ME??)  I will just say have to say again.. wowsa. What a story. :)

 

Gosh, you sent me running to my somewhat abbreviated DVD collection to see if I had this Garbo Silent Collection 3-feature dvd and there it was, I do remember getting this cheap somewhere and really enjoying. It has The Mysterious Lady, The Temptress, and Flesh and the Devil. I liked them in just that order. Not to rain on your parade, Ro, you make it sound so much better than I remembered. After watching the first two, Flesh seemed somewhat stilted to me, not in the acting but in the directing. But I was in to the comparative and that can be dangerous. I need to try it again so as to rehabilitate that obviously very good movie in my mind. Have you seen the other two? They tried to get Gilbert (I believe) to play opposite Greta in TML but I don't how even he could have done any better than Conrad Nagel. And GG was smashing throughout. I recall something no less than electrifying about Greta in the opening sequences of The Temptress. While I was marveling at her very presence I tried to imagine the impression she gave to those sitting in the theaters back then. She no doubt had her way with the audience. I do recall the wonderful music, the new music from the composer's series, which was terrific. This movie bogged down for me when it switched to Argentina but then had that wonderful final sequence back in civilization. I enjoy Greta so much more in the silents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only THOUGHT I knew what the words "Femme Fatale meant until seeing Ms. Garbo just now. (wow.. all others pale in comparison) Put that all together with the "repentance" angle there at the end, and (did I mention my goodnes ME??)  I will just say have to say again.. wowsa. What a story.

 

Ro, those words just about summed up the silent phase of Garbo's career.  She took "femme fatale" to its zenith.  I like Wild Orchids and The Single Standard, too.  I also think she was her most beautiful in TSS.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

HELLO, Monsieur Pirate, 

 

Not to rain on your parade, Ro, you make it sound so much better than I remembered. After watching the first two, Flesh seemed somewhat stilted to me, not in the acting but in the directing.

 

Ha.. no worries, it's all sunny skies here.. (not even a sprinkle) :)  I know that movies are among the most subjective mediums around.. so I can see why you might have a different take on it. There may even be something to what you are saying with regard to the direction, but to be honest, I have not seen (or even heard of) the other two films, so have no comparison for that.

 

I think where this film really "got" me was the affection and faithfulness between the two friends. It was really just so deep and it resonated so well for me. The way Leo ABSOLUTELY had nothing but the purest motive toward his friend, coupled with the fact that Ulrich was clueless up until the very end as to what the whole issue between them was really all about (he never EVER would have put his friend in such a situation) all spoke so well for what they really felt for one another.  And so all that made it so much more poignant to me to see how everything played out as Felicitas began to really turn on the heat and work her way deeper and deeper into not just Leo's heart, but his mind. She finally broke him.. but even then he did not want to dishonor his friend by "sneaking" behind his back. It was all about the love he had for Ulirich more than it was the love he had for her. A very unusual spin on the "boy meets girl, girl breaks up a friendship with the boy's best bud" kinda story. 

 

PS Miss G: Ro, those words just about summed up the silent phase of Garbo's career.  She took "femme fatale" to its zenith.  I like Wild Orchids and The Single Standard, too.  I also think she was her most beautiful in TSS.

 

Well I have to confess that I have never really sought out Ms Garbo's films. (no real huge reason.. just not a big Garbo kinda gal, ha.. or so I thought) I typically am not a big "femme fatale" kinda gal, I guess. But now I may have to delve into some of these films  you and the Pirate Dude are mentioning to me, because I may have been missing out, ha. Because WOWSA.. she was really something.

 

You could really see the whole "thing" that she had in the way she sort of took over Leo's mind and heart. That opening moment when they first meet and they end up going out to the garden.. as he strikes the match to light the cigarette, I thought the way the light was used to show her face was just so striking. And then later when she is in front of the fire and Leo tries to stay back and away from her.. but eventually he is drawn to her "light"or "heat" as it were.. sort of like a poor little moth, ha. You know he is going to burn up. I kept yelling, "RUN, Leo, RUN!" but of course.. he didn't listen. AGHHH. (they NEVER listen) There were also several places were "smoke" and "mist" were used. And I confess I could be just reading too much into it, but it was almost like it was emanating from HER.. ha. (or from the fact that Leo was just being consumed by her.. the first time I noticed it was when they are lounging in her apartment and the cigarette smoke is spiraling up above them.  Very creative. And then when that all plays out.. I just kept wondering, did she plot and scheme for him to provoke a duel with her first husband? Was she really that manipulative? Or did she just really just not think about the consequences of just living in the moment with Leo?  Wowsa.. she really was "that good' it was hard to tell sometimes. 

 

Even when he goes to visit her on the island (FRIENDSHIP Island, of all places) the mist is covering everything.. like she was trying to cloud HIS mind and his judgement. Again.. I could be reading too much into it.. or even reading it incorrectly, but that is how I saw it, anyway.

 

Whatever it was.. I just couldn't help thinking how she was some kinda operator, wasn't she?. . 

 

MAJOR SPOILER ALERT: 

I loved the transition for her at the end of it all though (and yes.. it is because I AM such a sucker for a good repentance angle in a story) but I have to confess, I never saw it coming. When Hertha started praying.. I figured she would get so upset she would run out of the room.. but I did NOT see her reacting to the prayer in any sort of repentant way. I really liked how that all ended up.  I  figured things would end up with one (or both) of the men getting killed. I did NOT expect her to be taken out.. and especially in the way that she was.. running to stop them both. Very unexpected indeed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were also several places were "smoke" and "mist" were used. And I confess I could be just reading too much into it, but it was almost like it was emanating from HER.. ha. (or from the fact that Leo was just being consumed by her.. the first time I noticed it was when they are lounging in her apartment and the cigarette smoke is spiraling up above them.  Very creative.

 

I really want to see it again now you've pointed this out...because mostly what I do remember about Flesh and the Devil is the very atmospheric photography.  It felt very "German Expressionist", including the setting.  Smoke and mist just looks so beautiful/evocative in black-and-white...

 

And then when that all plays out.. I just kept wondering, did she plot and scheme for him to provoke a duel with her first husband? Was she really that manipulative? Or did she just really just not think about the consequences of just living in the moment with Leo?  Wowsa.. she really was "that good' it was hard to tell sometimes. 

 

Garbo's enigmatic expressions made her an ideal "mysterious woman" (title of one of her silents).  You could never be sure if she was all bad or not---yet she didn't necessarily have "attitude" like a modern actress might play it.  She just seemed so remote and unreadable, even when vamping it up you weren't sure if she was doing so instinctively or out of calcuation.

 

She really was made for the movies, for that era.  The plots of her films could be formulaic, but she really was compelling and like no one else.  Yes, they had "faces" then, didn't they Norma? :D


 

Even when he goes to visit her on the island (FRIENDSHIP Island, of all places) the mist is covering everything.. like she was trying to cloud HIS mind and his judgement. Again.. I could be reading too much into it.. or even reading it incorrectly, but that is how I saw it, anyway.

 

THIS is the scene I remember most...the part at the Friendship Island.  It has always stayed with me, the set design is gorgeous.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Miss G.. I hope you will revisit sometime if only so you can tell me whether or not I was reading too much into that whole "mist and smoke" thing. ha. Sometimes I see things and it may or may not be what he director intended.. but that is how it comes out when I roll it around in my head a while (in and among all those rocks, ha) 

 

I am going to the library later this week and plan to see what I can find for some of her other films.. will hope to be able to check out some of the titles you and Laffite mentioned for me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoilers for FLESH AND THE DEVIL

 

Hi Ro, if I may but chime in, I feel you may be on to something there with the smoke and mist thing, for as you and MissG both point out, there is this mysterious inscrutablility about Greta/Felicitas that makes us unsure exactly what’s going on with her. Misty, indeed. At first I felt that she just had this sort of half-unconscious, insouciant, careless, and perhaps a bit irresponsible way of conducting herself, that she was just that way. She seemed totally unconcerned of the danger of being discovered with Leo at the beginning. We see right away that her husband is older than she is and that she is perhaps unhappy with her marriage and would like to bring it to a head so, yes, we are bound to question her motives. Then she marries Ulrich after finding out he has money, again very suspect, she is supposed to be waiting for Leo to come back. But maybe there was something about Ulrich that captured her heart as well. Although I suspect her motives, the movie allows me to entertain a few nagging doubts about her, like maybe she’s not so bad, she’s just human and allows life to lead her where it may. She gets a few points with me when she exhorts Leo to renew friendship with Ulrich because, she says, the latter needs him. Curious that she would make this request considering the existing emotional baggage between her and Leo, again it’s as if she unaware of that, this quality of just going with the flow and perhaps not quite thinking things through. Look how honest she is with Leo when she changes her mind about running off. She gets this bracelet from Ulrich and realizes she “can’t leave all this,” and tells Leo so without the least dissembling. Would a truly perfidious woman be so forthcoming? There may indeed a problem with Felicitas but there seems a mitigating factor, a paradoxical and innate innocence associated with her behaviour, she knows not what she does, kind of thing.  Greta is of course ideal and absolutely captivating with this kind of portrayal, it’s part of her mystique to be so mysterious and so alluringly so, to boot. I think it’s only when Felicitas tells that barefaced lie (the strangulation scene) that her true colors are revealed, that was bad, and this event makes us inevitably rethink her earlier behaviours. But up to that point, though we might feel uncomfotable about her, there was this controversial aspect about her as well. I didn’t really care for the drowning. It’s as if the movie is punctuating the fact that, yes, a bad woman indeed and we won’t hurt your feelings if we kill her off. I didn’t like the drowning, I thought they might have done something else with her…but what? Alive, she was in the way of ending they wanted, the buddy-buddy ending.

 

Ps How about the strangulation scene? How realistic was that? He’s got her by the neck and he appears to actually lift her off the floor before flinging on the bed. Slightly disturbing, but they did a good job with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoilers for FLESH AND THE DEVIL

 

Hi Ro, if I may but chime in, I feel you may be on to something there with the smoke and mist thing, for as you and MissG both point out, there is this mysterious inscrutablility about Greta/Felicitas that makes us unsure exactly what’s going on with her. Misty, indeed. At first I felt that she just had this sort of half-unconscious, insouciant, careless, and perhaps a bit irresponsible way of conducting herself, that she was just that way. She seemed totally unconcerned of the danger of being discovered with Leo at the beginning.

 

Hello there, Laffite. I am glad to hear you saw some of that too. (ha.. makes me feel better that I might not have made too much of it.) The scene where they are in her apartment.. just before the husband comes home.. where he is lying on her lap with the smoke just spiraling up from the two of them together really just got my attention and that is where I first started thinking about it.. and then every so often, there it would be again.. ha. A little puff of smoke here.. a misty fog there.. it just showed up now and then, but usually at a time when he was either with her.. or thinking of her, etc.  Not sure if the director really intended that.. ha.. but that was what I kept thinking all the same. 

 

 

Then she marries Ulrich after finding out he has money, again very suspect, she is supposed to be waiting for Leo to come back. But maybe there was something about Ulrich that captured her heart as well. Although I suspect her motives, the movie allows me to entertain a few nagging doubts about her, like maybe she’s not so bad, she’s just human and allows life to lead her where it may. 

 

She sort of lets it "out" that the reason she married Ulrich was because Leo was gone.. and she needed someone. (either to provide for her.. to love her.. to just be with her.. I don't know which) She clearly had no concept of faithfulness to anyone but herself. But still.. I DO think she was as "in love" with Leo as she was capable to be. She just loved herself WAY more. (at least that is how I saw her)  And that is why I think she kept inviting Leo to come by to visit.. not so much for Ulrich's sake (as she told him) but more to try and keep Leo "on the hook" with her. So that is where I started to see some "flaws" in her facade. If he was spending time with Ulrich.. he would be with her.. and maybe SOME time.. they would be able to be alone together.. if he kept coming by to see Ulrich.. or if she kept coming by to see him (on behalf of Ulrich) and that was the way she could (and did) eventually wear him down. His love for his friend was the trap she used to "snare" him.  That to me was one of her more "obvious" schemes.  

 

But I don't think she was always that easy to read..  Sometimes it could be hard to tell. I don't know if she was so malicious as to "plot" against her husband in the beginning..  That one was more difficult to tell. She certainly did not try to HIDE the fact that she had a gentleman caller in her apartment. (even going with him over to the wide open window, etc) Did she want to provoke an incident.. or was she really just that unable to feel guilt for what she was doing (to not mind being open about it) She was that hard to get a fix on sometimes. But you are right.. her mercenary side DOES eventually come through in the end (with the bracelet) I think she may even have MEANT it when Leo asked her could she give up everything to come with him when they were planning to leave. She told him yes.. and I think she really WOULD have been alright (as long as it was exciting and they had money) but when she saw the bracelet.. she realized the life on the run with Leo would NOT give her the creature comforts she would have staying with Ulrich (and cheating on him behind his back, with Leo).  Oh what a mess. 

 

And with regard to the "strangulation" scene.. I agree that was OVER the top and very well done. (in fact.. did you notice later on she is lying on the bed talking to Hertha.. I could even see marks on her neck and I wondered if maybe they were an accidental result of the whole process of filming that.. my GOODNESS me, would that be hard to take. ha. 

 

I am not sure what I felt about her drowning the way she did. It was such a shock to see that, and so unexpected.. especially since she was coming to put a stop to the trouble she had caused. (because even if she was a "bad woman" she was now a repentant one, at least) But I agree.. they were not going to be able to really LIVE with the situation if she were still Ulrich's wife.. they could never go back and 'start over".. even if she stayed with Ulrich and Leo gave her up (and she gave up Leo) Way too much water flowing under that bridge. ha. (so I guess the writer decided to let some of it flow over HER too, ha.. just to wrap things up so the two friends could start over together. Very unusual way to but a "bow" on things, ha.. but for whatever reason it worked for me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ro, you wrote:

 

The scene where they are in her apartment.. just before the husband comes home.. where he is lying on her lap with the smoke just spiraling up from the two of them together really just got my attention and that is where I first started thinking about it.. and then every so often, there it would be again.. ha. A little puff of smoke here.. a misty fog there.. it just showed up now and then, but usually at a time when he was either with her.. or thinking of her, etc.  Not sure if the director really intended that.. ha.. but that was what I kept thinking all the same.

 

If he wasn't thinking of that, he certainly should have. It's certainly fits.

 

And that is why I think she kept inviting Leo to come by to visit.. not so much for Ulrich's sake (as she told him) but more to try and keep Leo "on the hook" with her

 

I think you're probably right there, but she might have been expected to try to hook him on the sly, away from Ulrich, as she in fact ended up doing. I had thought that by encouraging Leo's presence in her home (the visits), she could ignite an already potentially explosive situation, given the fact that she upped and married her husband's best friend, scrapping the plan to wait for Leo, a fact that she probably knew that Ulrich did not know and would want to keep from him, just for the sake of avoiding a scene. It might be expected that she would want to avoid a scene with Leo in Ulrich's presence. In other words, having Leo in close proximity with the household might have been potentially dangerous, and that she might have encouraged private meetings with him instead...was what was going through my mind...but as you say and you're probably right, is serves the plot to simply have us think that she wanted Leo around the household to keep him near her, etc. I'm probably complicating the whole matter. But if having Leo around was in fact not in her best interests, it would be in keeping IMO with her quixotic and enigmatic nature to encourage it anyway, just as it was to allow her husband to find her and Leo together, etc...Oh heck, I hope I'm making sense... :unsure:

 

I could even see marks on her neck and I wondered if maybe they were an accidental result of the whole process of filming that.. my GOODNESS me, would that be hard to take. ha.

 

Wow, what a catch! Or perhaps they simply wanted to exhibit of some realism, showing us those marks. Chilling.

 

I am not sure what I felt about her drowning the way she did. It was such a shock to see that, and so unexpected.. especially since she was coming to put a stop to the trouble she had caused. (because even if she was a "bad woman" she was now a repentant one, at least) But I agree.. they were not going to be able to really LIVE with the situation if she were still Ulrich's wife.. they could never go back and 'start over".. even if she stayed with Ulrich and Leo gave her up (and she gave up Leo) Way too much water flowing under that bridge. ha. (so I guess the writer decided to let some of it flow over HER too, ha.. just to wrap things up so the two friends could start over together. Very unusual way to but a "bow" on things, ha.. but for whatever reason it worked for me.

 

Very well explained. Her very presence would be just too much for a clean ending. That was a nice touch to have Ulrich come up with that eleventh-hour realization, talk about timing. Not very realistic, but perfect for a movie like this.

 

I am going to the library later this week and plan to see what I can find for some of her other films.. will hope to be able to check out some of the titles you and Laffite mentioned for me.

 

I'm so glad you will be following up on Greta. I kind of hope that you hang with the silents for now. IMO she is at her best in the silent era. I think these two aspects of her career---silent and talkie---should be considered separately, so different. As mentioned, The Mysterious Woman and/or The Temptress would be candidates for further viewing. She is wonderful in both, a little less 'mysterious' in that misty, smoky way, if I remember correctly, but absolutely terrific all the same. Let's see what Miss Goddess says about recommendations. I will certainly be looking forward to what you have to say regardless what you decide to watch next. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Laffite says:  If he wasn't thinking of that, he certainly should have. It's certainly fits.

 

Well again, ha. I am glad it wasn't ALL in my head. :D Am glad you saw it too. Even if it is not as much as I was thinking, there were certainly a few places in the story where you are right, it really does seem to fit. 

 

she might have been expected to try to hook him on the sly, away from Ulrich, as she in fact ended up doing.

 

if having Leo around was in fact not in her best interests, it would be in keeping IMO with her quixotic and enigmatic nature to encourage it anyway, just as it was to allow her husband to find her and Leo together, etc...Oh heck, I hope I'm making sense

 

 

Yes.. you are. And I think there is something to what  you are saying. But I also think what it really boils down to is, I think she totally underestimated Leo's integrity. That MAY have been why she even married Ulrich too, if I think about it long enough, ha. She really under-appreciated the fact that he was the sort of man who cared about his promises and so she likely figured he was gone and he wasn't coming back.. so moving on to the next best thing with money just made sense to her.

 

AND I also think she did not realize he was the sort of man who would NEVER want to sell out the love he has for his friend.. even for her, so she did everything she could think of to convince him to come around her (including the use of his love from Ulrich)  I think she never expected him to have that sort of backbone. I think she viewed him much more cheaply than he actually was.. and that is why she had to work so hard to get him to finally agree to even be around her. (let alone be WITH her)

 

And even when he DOES finally break and give in to her.. he wants to go away.. not sneak under Ulrich's nose.. he loves Ulirich too much to deceive him that way. And he loves HER too much to ignore her any more.. so in his mind, the kindest thing to do for everyone's sake was to leave and start over.  

 

Wow, what a catch! Or perhaps they simply wanted to exhibit of some realism, showing us those marks. Chilling

 

I don't think it was something they left in for "realism" but I just think it was a mark on her skin. I went online and tried to find an image of that part of the movie (or a youtube) but couldn't find it because I wanted to be sure I am remembering it right.. but basically.. ha.. as much as I hate to confess it.. my FIRST thought is that it was.. um.. something you MIGHT see on the neck of the average jr. high young teen after his first date.. ha. :D But then I remembered what she had just gone through and I thought.. WOW.. I wonder if he really had a tight enough hold on her that he might have actually left a mark when they were filming. And if that IS the case.. you are right. Chilling would be the word for it.  (ha.. and if it really was only just what my ORIGINAL thought was at first.. well, I guess we should blame the makeup guys for not doing a better job of covering that up for her! ha!!!) :D

 

Not very realistic, but perfect for a movie like this.

 

I wanted to see it end with them discovering her scarf.. with Hersha running out just behind her (and them at least BEGINNING to put all the pieces together about what had just happened, instead of never even acknowledging what just took place while they were about to kill each other.  (Ha.. poor girl.. there they are all buddy-buddy again.. and she is just sinking down to the murky bottom with one big final "glub" ha... Oh well.. they didn't ask ME how to end it now did they? :D  Still.. It all worked, somehow. It was a very unexpected but effective way to finish it off. 

 

I'm so glad you will be following up on Greta

 

Well, it's probably going to take me some time because I checked at BOTH of the libraries near me and did not come up with much. The one library I go to the most often doesn't have ANY Garbo movies.. and the OTHER library has a handful. but none are among the ones that you two listed a few days ago for me. I will have to keep looking (or keep watch for TCM to show them) and will hope to get  a chance to catch a few sometime. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But I also think what it really boils down to is, I think she totally underestimated Leo's integrity. That MAY have been why she even married Ulrich too, if I think about it long enough, ha. She really under-appreciated the fact that he was the sort of man who cared about his promises and so she likely figured he was gone and he wasn't coming back.. so moving on to the next best thing with money just made sense to her.

 

I did not think of that. I might not be giving her enough credit. I don't see her thinking so rationally about it. Is it possible that she simply did not have the patience to wait and that the allure of the good life was just too inviting for her, that being a part of her flawed character? Instead of waiting for love, she'll take the money now? If Leo comes back, she'll deal with it then, her slipshod way of thinking and dealing with things? Dunno, my take was somewhere along these lines but I may be wrong.

 

And even when he DOES finally break and give in to her.. he wants to go away.. not sneak under Ulrich's nose.. he loves Ulirich too much to deceive him that way. And he loves HER too much to ignore her any more.. so in his mind, the kindest thing to do for everyone's sake was to leave and start over. 

 

I don't let Leo off the hook so easily.  :D  I feel he is still betraying his friend anyway by running off with his wife. Sneaking under the nose of the man's whose wife you're fooling around with is inherently unnpleasant, no one wants to live like that. Is it possible he may want to 'leave and start over' for selfish reasons, not out of consideration for Ulrich? Too bad he didn't consider the option of just leaving himself...but then we wouldn't have a movie (unless to show what true allegience to a friend really is).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't let Leo off the hook so easily.  :D  I feel he is still betraying his friend anyway by running off with his wife. Sneaking under the nose of the man's whose wife you're fooling around with is inherently unnpleasant, no one wants to live like that. Is it possible he may want to 'leave and start over' for selfish reasons, not out of consideration for Ulrich? Too bad he didn't consider the option of just leaving himself...but then we wouldn't have a movie (unless to show what true allegience to a friend really is).

 

OH you are absolutely right. ha. (I have had these sorts of conversations with Frank Grimes on many occasions, ha) I don't mean to imply that he was blameless. He does NOT get a "pass" from me. ha. (in fact.. I kept yelling and YELLING at him all the way through the movie, ha) But I guess I just found him so much more sympathetic because he really (REALLY) did not want to hurt his friend and he knew he was going to do that by trying to reclaim what he felt was his "lost love" He wasn't a totally innocent guy.. but his motives were not hurtful the way hers were. (even if she was being hurtful just by being so obtuse about how WRONG it was for her to think the way she did about things) There was only one conscience between the two of them. ha. and I don't think it was HERS.  

 

If I had my druthers.. I actually would have LOVED to see a movie where he did not give in and was consistent in refusing her.(I actually was envisioning a situation where he kept refusing her and she got mad.. and then figured out a way to trap him and make him look bad.. and THEN he and Ulrich fought.  It would have been a totally different scenario.. but COULD have still played out with the same sort of ending. (but hey.. they don't pay ME the big bucks to write these things. ha.) I kept saying, RUN, Leo, RUN! ha. I kept HOPING he would hold out.. and she would be exposed somehow. But alas.. they NEVER listen, do they?? ha. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

OH you are absolutely right. ha. (I have had these sorts of conversations with Frank Grimes on many occasions, ha) I don't mean to imply that he was blameless. He does NOT get a "pass" from me. ha. (in fact.. I kept yelling and YELLING at him all the way through the movie, ha) But I guess I just found him so much more sympathetic because he really (REALLY) did not want to hurt his friend and he knew he was going to do that by trying to reclaim what he felt was his "lost love" He wasn't a totally innocent guy.. but his motives were not hurtful the way hers were. (even if she was being hurtful just by being so obtuse about how WRONG it was for her to think the way she did about things) There was only one conscience between the two of them. ha. and I don't think it was HERS

 

Agreed, agreed; you say it well.

 

If I had my druthers.. I actually would have LOVED to see a movie where he did not give in and was consistent in refusing her.(I actually was envisioning a situation where he kept refusing her and she got mad.. and then figured out a way to trap him and make him look bad.. and THEN he and Ulrich fought.  It would have been a totally different scenario.. but COULD have still played out with the same sort of ending. (but hey.. they don't pay ME the big bucks to write these things. ha.) I kept saying, RUN, Leo, RUN! ha. I kept HOPING he would hold out.. and she would be exposed somehow. But alas.. they NEVER listen, do they?? ha. :D

 

I'm not soft soaping you, Ro, but I like your ending better. It strengthens the theme of friendship between Leo and Ulrich while at the same time making the death of Felicitas a little more palatable story-wise (rather than merely seem expedient or tacked on). Of course they would have to change the name of the movie, ha...since Leo resists the flesh and the devil, so to speak ... Ro, call Hollywood, I think they can use you. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like your ending better. It strengthens the theme of friendship between Leo and Ulrich while at the same time making the death of Felicitas a little more palatable story-wise (rather than merely seem expedient or tacked on). Of course they would have to change the name of the movie, ha...since Leo resists the flesh and the devil, so to speak ... Ro, call Hollywood, I think they can use you

 

HA! Mr Pirate Dude.. if you only knew. :D  I probably could come up with a list of a dozen or more titles (just sitting here) of movies I would change that way.. for the exact same reason. ha. (Hollywood would BOOT me out, for altering so many time-honored, well-loved classics, ha) What can I say.. I guess Mr. Grey (Frank Grimes) didn't label me Mrs. "Black and White" for nothing. ha  

 

But all kidding aside.. I really DO think it strengthens a story when the characters are able to resist the sorts of temptations like Leo only TRIED to do. It gives them a much deeper "layer" than most folks realize. Some would look at a story and say.."oh it's too BORING if everyone just went about making GOOD choices" ha. But sometimes the struggles they have to endure to MAKE the right choice (and keep making it) to me would be a much more interesting and fascinating way to build a character. 

 

I know.. I know.. I am likely just too old fashioned for my own good. But hey.. somebody has to be the stick in the mud. Guess it's going to be me. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all--

I have really been enjoying your discussion on Flesh and the Devil!  That was the first Garbo silent I had seen and it really made an impression on me. She was good in her talking pictures, but she is really kind of awe-inspiring in the silents. There really was no one else like her in silent Hollywood. She looked different (tall and rangy) and wouldn;t fit into any of the prevailing "types" that filled movies at the time. They tried to make her a vamp, but it didn't work out quite as they planned. I'd like to add Woman of Affairs to the list of Garbo silents to recommend. She runs the gamut of emotions--carefree and girlish in the beginning (her chemistry with Lewsi Stone as her father is actually kind of endearing) to tragic and heartbreaking at the end. 

 

RE Flesh and the Devil I remember reading once that one interpretation of this film was that Garbo was actually the Devil or at least the Devil's handmaiden. Her reaction to the prayers, the scene in the church where she drinks from the communion cup her lover has just used and turns religion on its head by making it more or less a sexual act, the way the two men are about to shoot each other, then Garbo dies and (cue spinning wheel of clarity) the spell breaks and  they suddenly remember that they are blood brothers and come to their senses. They don;t even go looking for her.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tracy, you wrote:

 

She was good in her talking pictures, but she is really kind of awe-inspiring in the silents. There really was no one else like her in silent Hollywood.

 

That's how I feel about it. She quite bowls me over with her silent films. Her appeal in the talkie era is uneven at best, for me.

 

RE Flesh and the Devil I remember reading once that one interpretation of this film was that Garbo was actually the Devil or at least the Devil's handmaiden. Her reaction to the prayers, the scene in the church where she drinks from the communion cup her lover has just used and turns religion on its head by making it more or less a sexual act, the way the two men are about to shoot each other, then Garbo dies and (cue spinning wheel of clarity) the spell breaks and  they suddenly remember that they are blood brothers and come to their senses. They don;t even go looking for her.

 

It didn't occur to me to consider a literal interpretation as devil incarnate or the like, but it sure sounds plausible, in fact decisively so. The movie just trashes her and surely it must because of this idea, there is no redemption for the devil after all, right? Or at least conventionally. And I had at least a minor W T F moment when Ulrich has this last minute epiphany about Leo and Felicitas. I just chalked it up to typical Hollywood, but now there is a more arty reason for it. Tracy, thanks for bringing this up , very interesting.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I found this quiz online that goes a little deeper into the psychology behind our movie preferences.  My results, typically, were all over the place.

 

Here is the link to the quiz: http://www.thefagans.org.uk/filmuses/

'

Unfortunately, though "nostalgia" came up, it was in terms of our own past, and nothing in the quiz really applied to a preference for older films.  Hence, all those modern film posters there, none of which are among my own favorites and most of which I've never seen, ha.

My Results:
  • YOUR PERSONALITY

    Take a look at how you scored on the Big Five personality dimensions below.
    Your scores, compared with the responses of other people, suggest that you may be described as follows:

    YOU ARE 50% EXTRAVERTED.

    You are moderate in activity and enthusiasm. You enjoy the company of others but you also value your privacy.

    YOU ARE 75% AGREEABLE.

    You are generally warm, trusting, and agreeable, but you can sometimes be stubborn and competitive.

    YOU ARE 92% CONSCIENTIOUS.

    You are conscientious and well organised. You have high standards and always strive to achieve goals.

    YOU ARE 0% EMOTIONALLY STABLE.

    You are sensitive, emotional and prone to experience feelings that are upsetting.

    YOU ARE 100% OPEN TO NEW EXPERIENCES.

    You are open to new experiences. You have broad interests and are very imaginative.


    WHY YOU WATCH MOVIES

    We have proposed 10 psychological uses for watching films.
    Below are your scores for each of these 10 uses, and the relevant descriptions of the ways in which you enjoy films.

     

    PLEASURE-SEEKING: 70% NOSTALGIA: 80% pleasure.jpg Your high score on the “pleasure seeking” dimension suggests that you are a hedonistic movie watcher – this means you enjoy films that give you pleasure or make you feel good.   nostalgia.jpg Your high score on the “nostalgia” dimension suggests that you watch movies in order to re-experience the past. Thus you use movies in order to repeat or re-live prior experiences and use films to transport you to the past again.


    CATHARSIS: 60% AGGRESSION: 40% catharsis.jpg The “catharsis” dimension refers to the extent to which you watch movies in order to feel miserable and suffer with the characters of the movie. Your score on this dimension is average or similar to most people.   aggressive.jpg The “aggressive” dimension refers to the extent to which you enjoy watching violent movies in order to release aggression or tension. Your score on this dimension is average or similar to most people.


    ESCAPISM: 90% SENSATION-SEEKING: 45% escapism.jpg Your high score on the “escapism” dimension suggests that you watch movies in order to escape or forget about reality – thus films provide you with the necessary distractions to switch off from everyday problems.   sensation.jpg The “sensation seeking” dimension refers to the extent to which you watch movies on order to experience arousing or adrenalising feelings. Your score on this dimension is average or similar to most people.


    ARTISTIC: 35% INFORMATION-SEEKING: 45% artistic.jpg The “artistic” dimension refers to the extent to which you are interested in aesthetically driven, conceptual, and highly creative films. Your score on this dimension is average or similar to most people.   information.jpg The “information seeking” dimension refers to the extent to which you are a curious and intellectual movie watcher. Your score on this dimension is average or similar to most people.


    BOREDOM-AVOIDANCE: 35% SOCIALISATION: 65% boredom.jpg The “boredom avoidance” dimension refers to the extent to which you watch films primarily as a means of avoiding boredom. Your score on this dimension is average or similar to most people.   social.jpg The “socialising” dimension refers to the extent to which you are more interested in the company of others than the actual movie, when watching a film. Your score on this dimension is average or similar to most people.


    (The pictures above are demonstrative of the highest instance of each film use dimension, and do not necessarily relate to your own score.)

    The aim of this study is to examine how people's personalities relate to the reasons they watch films. For instance, extraverted people are expected to watch films socially and in a pleasure-seeking way, but not to induce catharsis. Agreeable people are expected to watch films in a pleasure-seeking way as well, but would not be expected to enjoy aggressive movies; while conscientious people would also not be expected to enjoy aggressive films, but rather would watch films in an information-seeking way. Emotionally-stable people would be expected to watch films for pleasure-seeking, but not in a nostalgic way, nor for catharsis, escapism or artistic merit. Open people would be expected to watch films for their escapism, artistic value, information-seeking, sensation-seeking and boredom-avoidance dimensions, but not in the pursuit of nostalgia.

    What do you think - does this seem accurate based on your results? Might your personality help explain why you like the films you like?

    Thank you for taking part in this study! If you have any questions or comments, or would like to know more about the study, please do not hesitate to contact pss02tc@gold.ac.uk.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thank you for posting that link. I found the test, its underlying theory and the results very amusing.

 

YOU ARE 58% AGREEABLE.
You are generally warm, trusting, and agreeable, but you can sometimes be stubborn and competitive. 
 
I am warm only by bloodlust when an addlepated fool interferes with what I wish to do.
I trust only in that some person will each day try to make my life unnecessarily difficult.
I agree only that half of the people in the world are below average.
 
YOU ARE 58% CONSCIENTIOUS.
You are dependable and moderately well-organised. You generally have clear goals and are able to set goals aside. 
 
I do seriously doubt that: "moderately well-organised" is why I found my reading glasses in the refrigerator and the book in the laundry basket. 
 
YOU ARE 67% EMOTIONALLY STABLE.
You are generally calm and able to deal with stress, but you sometimes experience feelings of guilt, anger and sadness. 
 
I believe that I do often appear calm but it is only due to my meditating on whether the paperwork involved afterwards is worth the temporary satisfaction of strangling a clerk.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I thank you for posting that link. I found the test, its underlying theory and the results very amusing.

 

YOU ARE 58% AGREEABLE.
You are generally warm, trusting, and agreeable, but you can sometimes be stubborn and competitive. 
 
I am warm only by bloodlust when an addlepated fool interferes with what I wish to do.
I trust only in that some person will each day try to make my life unnecessarily difficult.
I agree only that half of the people in the world are below average.
 
YOU ARE 58% CONSCIENTIOUS.
You are dependable and moderately well-organised. You generally have clear goals and are able to set goals aside. 
 
I do seriously doubt that: "moderately well-organised" is why I found my reading glasses in the refrigerator and the book in the laundry basket. 
 
YOU ARE 67% EMOTIONALLY STABLE.
You are generally calm and able to deal with stress, but you sometimes experience feelings of guilt, anger and sadness. 
 
I believe that I do often appear calm but it is only due to my meditating on whether the paperwork involved afterwards is worth the temporary satisfaction of strangling a clerk.

 

 

Brilliant!  In any case, you are 67% less likely to strangle that clerk than I am!

Link to post
Share on other sites

YOU ARE 50% EXTRAVERTED.
You are moderate in activity and enthusiasm. You enjoy the company of others but you also value your privacy
.

 

Hmmm.. I figured that would be much higher. That must be a typo.. surely all my blabbing and gabbing would say otherwise. :D

 

YOU ARE 75% AGREEABLE.
You are generally warm, trusting, and agreeable, but you can sometimes be stubborn and competitive.

 

Hahahahahahahaha (Grey Dude.. are you reading this??? I am sure if he is he would beg to differ) :D

 

YOU ARE 58% CONSCIENTIOUS.
You are dependable and moderately well-organised. You generally have clear goals and are able to set goals aside.

 

Hmmm.. "moderately" well organized.. I'll get back to you on that one.. if I ever catch up on all my housework. HA. 

 

 

YOU ARE 75% EMOTIONALLY STABLE.
You are generally calm and able to deal with stress, but you sometimes experience feelings of guilt, anger and sadness.

 

Wow, I am 75 percent Emotionally stable??? Who knew?? ha. (I am sure my beloved QT might beg to differ on THAT one. ha) :D  Meanwhile.. what about the OTHER 25 percent of me.. ha. (be afraid.. be very afraid) :D

 

YOU ARE 42% OPEN TO NEW EXPERIENCES.
You are down-to-earth, practical, traditional, and pretty much set in your ways.

 

Now THAT one I can maybe see. I am the "original' stick in the mud, most of the time. ha. So they might have gotten that one right. 

 

Here is my "why you watch what you watch" score: 

 

PLEASURE-SEEKING: 60%  NOSTALGIA: 75%  CATHARSIS: 60%  AGGRESSION: 30%  ESCAPISM: 45% SENSATION-SEEKING: 30%  ARTISTIC: 40% INFORMATION-SEEKING: 50%  BOREDOM-AVOIDANCE: 35% SOCIALISATION: 50%

  

Hmmm. I wonder if that lower score for avoiding boredom means I don't get bored too easily OR I just don't watch movies when I am bored... inquiring minds wanna know. HA. :D  

 

In the meantime.. What I REALLY want to know is why the left off food and how likely I was to be eating chocolate, salty snacks.. and/or veggies and dip while watching.. and what the significance is for each of those types of snacks (and if I would choose a certain kind to go with what sort of movies, etc, etc, etc and what all THAT would mean .ha) Because hey!!  SOME movies I confess I have enjoyed eating all THREE!!  HA! :D

 

Hmmm.. I wonder what  THAT would say about my psyche. ha. :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahahahahahahaha (Grey Dude.. are you reading this??? I am sure if he is he would beg to differ)

 

I'm wondering what your husband would say!  Miss G loves to kick and slap but you love to grapple.  A fella has to be ready to get in the ring with you, Mrs. Agreeable!

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...