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

Recommended Posts

They could. He could have sent for her, after he'd taken hold there.

 

I just don't think Cathy wanted any part of that. And I really can't blame her for wanting to stay where she was. Moving to a new world, even if it's for love, can be a very tough thing.

 

I guess you could say that this is a classic case of two people loving each other but wanting different things out of life. And I like that. There are many in this world who love each other but they are just too different to come together. Ironically, Cathy says she is "Heathcliff." Is she? Really?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh me.. are we REALLY in the same boat for our dislike for Heathcliff and Cathy, Grey Guy?? WHAT is the world coming to?? ha.

 

One thing I will say is that I likely am more a fan of this whole story than you are (despite my distaste for the two characters)

 

And PS: I still need to go back and re-read all that I have missed here before I can respond TOO much more to what all you have said but HERE is where I want to hang my thought for the moment:

 

I guess you could say that this is a classic case of two people loving each other but wanting different things out of life. And I like that. There are many in this world who love each other but they are just too different to come together

 

I think it comes down to this (for me) Love is a REALLY hard word to define sometimes (because there are SO many "types" of love. And when it comes to Heathcliff and Cathy.. I don't SEE the love.. all I see is the passion. They are on "passion" overload, in fact. Don't misunderstand.. they DO love each other.. but it is that "all consuming passion" sort of love that burns brightly, but does not warm the heart of one person toward another.

 

To me REAL love (the kind that is what marriage and ultimate lasting happiness between a man and woman truly is all about) is NOT only about PASSION but also about selflessness and seeking the best for the other person. And that is only the tip of the iceburg.. there is even more to it than that. But I guess what I am saying is they were WAY too passionate to REALLY love one another more than they loved themselves. So did they REALLY love one another in any sort of way that would lead them to be happy if they ever WERE to be able to be together?

 

I do think there was a "level of love" they each had for the other.. but it was such a possessive and very much self centered sort of love that I don't think it would ever bring them true happiness. And it just made them seem to be (to me) entirely too self absorbed to be all that sympathetic.

 

I think this story is a TRAGIC tale of love gone wrong as much as anything else. Basically it is just one huge lesson in how NOT to treat your true love (if you ever want to be happy this side of the grave) (ha)

 

Edited by: rohanaka on Sep 10, 2010 3:54 AM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Me and my asides... back again... I did get a good recording of JOHNNY COOL, by the way. Eliz Montgomery - wow - I'd have NEVER thought of teaming her up with Henry Silva, but they both deliver well.

 

With AMC showing some of the Dirty Harry films this week, it's kinda fun to have TCM showing films that originally portrayed some of those scenes - like the "suitcase bomb into swimming pool".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked JOHNNY COOL when I saw it a couple of years ago. It surprised me to see Henry Silva in a leading role. I can't say I quite believed he was anything but bad, but I need to watch it again. He's just so locked in my mind as a villain, like "****" in *The Tall T*.

 

I actually watched (most of) *Dirty Harry* for the first time ever the other night. I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. I can see now why the role was first offered to John Wayne and Frank Sinatra. But I'm glad they turned it down. Eastwood is good in it and it was entertaining. Still too graphic for my tastes and that bus caper was too crazy (I guess that is what Speed took from?) to be believed, but what worked was the element of frustration on Eastwood's part (and the audience) toward out of control violence. Of course, the movie doesn't really address that he is reduced to behaving on the same level to catch the murderer. I doubt I will bother seeing the other "Harries", one was enough!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also glad Wayne turned down "Dirty Harry." I believe he was too old. Can you imagine Duke riding around on the top of that bus? Eastwood fit it right in that he was the right age and I think his prior movies gave him the right reputation. (Sinatra seems even less suited for the role.)

 

Some of the others don't hold up as well. The problem with a lot of films from the 70s is that they are so 70s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

> I am also glad Wayne turned down "Dirty Harry." I believe he was too old. Can you imagine Duke riding around on the top of that bus? Eastwood fit it right in that he was the right age and I think his prior movies gave him the right reputation. (Sinatra seems even less suited for the role.)

>

 

I agree, he and Frank were both too old, even though both of them did these kind of cop

roles long past the point they should have (though I think Frank was superb as The

Detective, made in 1968).

 

> Some of the others don't hold up as well. The problem with a lot of films from the 70s is that they are so 70s.

 

You said it, they are so banal. That whole decade, yuck! I admit I'm very prejudiced against most 70s movies (not all but I like only a handfull).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe it.

 

And Goddess is right. If *Wuthering Heights* were a noir film with Mitchum and Jane Greer in the roles you would be eating it up with a spoon. You just don't like Olivier.

 

Who is indeed better looking in this film than any other he ever made.

 

I am curious what you thought of the beginning and the end - the "brackets" of the story.

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Sep 10, 2010 10:52 AM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe it.

 

What can't you believe?!

 

And Goddess is right. If Wuthering Heights were a noir film with Mitchum and Jane Greer in the roles you would be eating it up with a spoon.

 

Quite possibly. But then there would be things going on other than snobby dances! All this pride and prejudice... blah!

 

You just don't like Olivier.

 

I don't like him in this film or Pride and Prejudice. He annoys me. Not my kind of guy, at all. I find him to be very off-putting. I like him in Bunny Lake is Missing.

 

Who is indeed better looking in this film than any other he ever made.

 

I was talking about how I liked him more as a dirty commoner more than a clean snob. And I believe he liked himself more that way, too. He not only loses Cathy, he loses himself. And, yes, that is very film noir. He was a sap who fell for a femme fatale. But, oh, that setting. That's death to me!

 

I am curious what you thought of the beginning and the end - the "brackets" of the story.

 

I agree with you, I liked that device. I like the "gather around the fire" kind of story presentations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like him in this film or Pride and Prejudice. He annoys me. Not my kind of guy, at all. I find him to be very off-putting.

 

You might be one who would like the 1992 version of this story more (maybe, I don't know) I found the characters to be very "grim and dark"... way more so than in this version.. And boy oh boy, that Ralph Fiennes is no Olivier. :-) (but for you that might be a good thing) ha.

 

To be truthful the later version has its merits, but overall.. I prefer the "romanticized" version of the 1939 film... (which I HOPE will be in at the library soon for me so I can watch it again to refresh my memory and then maybe I will talk more about IT and less about the more modern film, HA!) . :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

> I can't believe it.

>

> What can't you believe?!

 

I was sure you were going to like it - if only for the crisp direction, the beautiful black and white cinematography and especially the ghost story. The story is a bit gritty along with the romance and I thought that would appeal to you.

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Sep 10, 2010 12:33 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was sure you were going to like it - if only for the crisp direction, the beautiful black and white cinematography and especially the ghost story. The story is a bit gritty along with the romance and I thought that would appeal to you.

 

It's the setting, the performances, the kind of characters, and the entire class stuff that just kills everything for me. Merle actually started to bother me by the end of the film. Olivier bothered me throughout. These just aren't my kind of people.

 

And, Quiet Gal, I can't see me wanting to watch any newer versions of these kind of films.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha! So you are close-minded about something after all! :D

 

I can understand how the performances could get under your skin. I can see it appearing kind of "actor-y" to someone who has a critical eye for that type of thing anyway. But oh, my, it is so breathtaking to me, the ghost story and gorgeous look of it.... and the writing - "Haunt me, then!" ahhhhhh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey there, Quiet Gal -- Oh me.. are we REALLY in the same boat for our dislike for Heathcliff and Cathy, Grey Guy?? WHAT is the world coming to?? ha.

 

They annoy me.

 

One thing I will say is that I likely am more a fan of this whole story than you are (despite my distaste for the two characters)

 

I'm sure of that. This has become one of my least favorite of films.

 

I think it comes down to this (for me) Love is a REALLY hard word to define sometimes (because there are SO many "types" of love. And when it comes to Heathcliff and Cathy.. I don't SEE the love.. all I see is the passion. They are on "passion" overload, in fact. Don't misunderstand.. they DO love each other.. but it is that "all consuming passion" sort of love that burns brightly, but does not warm the heart of one person toward another.

 

I tend to agree with you. And what kind of love is it if you leave it so easily? I'm speaking of Cathy. I do believe Heathcliff loves her. In fact, I believe he's paralyzed by his love of her. He shovels "dirt" to be with her. She wouldn't do the same for him.

 

So did they REALLY love one another in any sort of way that would lead them to be happy if they ever WERE to be able to be together?

 

Cathy would only be happy if she had it all. Heathcliff just needed her. They are worlds apart. That's why I find it odd that she says she's "Heathcliff." She isn't. She's definitely "Cathy."

 

I do think there was a "level of love" they each had for the other.. but it was such a possessive and very much self centered sort of love that I don't think it would ever bring them true happiness. And it just made them seem to be (to me) entirely too self absorbed to be all that sympathetic.

 

I give Heathcliff the benefit of the doubt since he did sacrifice for her. I don't view Cathy as sacrificial. Not at all. In a way, she's very similar to Vance (Barbara Stanwyck) in The Furies. Vance would always ride to Juan (Gilbert Roland) whenever she was upset. But after using Juan for her selfish needs, she'd ride away from him to where her real interests lie. Unlike Heathcliff, Juan never sells out. He's truly a sacrificial love. He stays true to himself. Heathcliff actually becomes what Cathy wants him to become but it leaves a bitter taste in his mouth. She's like Dr. Frankenstein, looking to create her monster. And this plays into my belief that women do dream of their ideal and men really don't.

 

And maybe that's Emily Bront?'s point. That girls expect boys to go off and slay dragons for them and then come back to spoil them royally. But isn't that one-sided?

 

Miss G was right, I don't like Cathy because I feel she's the worst of woman. There are women in this world who say they believe in love but they'll quickly toss it aside for other things. What do we value most in life?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

> Miss G was right, I don't like Cathy because I feel she's the worst of woman. There are women in this world who say they believe in love but they'll quickly toss it aside for other things. What do we value most in life?

 

Our things, of course. We women like to have our things around us. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

> And you men like to make lists of your things.

 

Hahahahaaaa! Good one, Jackie!

 

Mr. Grimes, just FYI, in the novel Emily clearly is pointing out Cathy's

weakness for worldliness and her vanity are faults and weaknesses.

 

Bronte was the "anti" Jane Austen and her sister even wrote critically

of Austen's values, saying she wrote of "rose gardens" rather than reality.

 

Emily was a free spirit who felt such types as Lytton had lost their way,

had been drained of all trueness, spirituality and manhood. Heathcliffe was

in many ways her ideal. At least that is what I always got from the work.

The book is not making her out to be evil, just deeply flawed and in the end,

regretful of her compromises.

 

So, to me, Catherine Ernshaw was a true "femme fatale"...fatal to Heatchliffe

but also fatal to herself, hence she could say she was Heathcliffe. He was

her true self, the self she betrayed. She sold their kingdom on the crag for

a handful of gold.

 

You can see her consciousness of her fatal mistake when she went

to Heatchcliffe to confront him about his marriage. It was after this

her health declined. She'd condemned herself to death.

 

Edited by: MissGoddess on Sep 10, 2010 2:43 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Grimes,

 

Who?! Where are we?

 

just FYI, in the novel Emily clearly is pointing out Cathy's weakness for worldliness and her vanity are faults and weaknesses. Bronte was the "anti" Jane Austen and her sister even wrote critically

of Austen's values, saying she wrote of "rose gardens" rather than reality.

 

Well then, I like the lass.

 

Emily was a free spirit who felt such types as Lytton had lost their way, had been drained of all trueness, spirituality and manhood. Heathcliffe was in many ways her ideal. At least that is what I always got from the work. The book is not making her out to be evil, just deeply flawed and in the end, regretful of her compromises.

 

She wanted what she wanted. So it goes.

 

So, to me, Catherine Ernshaw was a true "femme fatale"...fatal to Heatchliffe but also fatal to herself, hence she could say she was Heathcliffe. He was her true self, the self she betrayed. She sold their kingdom on the crag for a handful of gold.

 

But was it her true self? The entire fairytale she conveys to Heathcliff as a boy. Isn't that her? The looking in the window, wishing it was them, or, should I say, her. Isn't that her?

 

You can see her consciousness of her fatal mistake when she went to Heatchcliffe to confront him about his marriage. It was after this her health declined. She'd condemned herself to death.

 

But isn't that just her not getting it ALL when she wants it all?

 

Cathy is definitely a femme fatale. She's very one-sided. I don't view Heathcliff as being one-sided.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

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