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

Recommended Posts

TheCid: Thanks for sharing your thoughts; I'm glad you caught Decoy (1946) this morning. I'm also intrigued that you remembered having seen this noir in the past. I had only recently learned of the film, and when I was unable to find it on YouTube; I was really pleased to find it on TCM's schedule.

 

Many noir books list Decoy as the most well known low-budget \ no famous actors noir of all time.   Some place Gun Crazy in that category as well (but the actors in Gun Crazy are more well known than Decoy).

 

Either way,  glad you had a chance to see Decoy.     In my book one can't get too much noir.

Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S. . . . One minute she was killing the doc (and boy, he was familiar from some television show) and the next she was on the couch. . . .

 

 

8773c6f1-eb2a-4893-b388-671c7ecf2181_zps

 

Herbert Rudley portrayed Dr. Craig; he had a career in films during the 1940s and appeared in Rhapsody in Blue (1945) as Ira Gershwin. He is (probably) better remembered with a mustache and for his many roles on early television. I remember him from re-runs of Perry Mason, he appeared several time on the show, but he also appeared on Leave It To Beaver and The Munsters.

 

c38f9818-6094-4d75-be30-d92d16738339_zps

Link to post
Share on other sites

8773c6f1-eb2a-4893-b388-671c7ecf2181_zpsc38f9818-6094-4d75-be30-d92d16738339_zps

 

Herbert Rudley portrayed Dr. Craig; he had a career in films during the 1940s and appeared in Rhapsody in Blue (1945) as Ira Gershwin. He is (probably) better remembered with a mustache and his many roles on early television. I always remember him as a regular on Perry Mason in the 1950s and 1960s, but he also appeared on Leave It To Beaver and The Munsters.

That's it, thanks, the mustache! Believe it or not, I remember him (well, now I remember him) from The Mothers-In-Law, which sadly I used to watch. He was married to Eve Arden's character.

 

I hope TCM reruns this movie again soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would I want to ignore primosprimos, who agrees with me?

 

Well I agree with you but I believe primosprimos has more people on ignore than anyone else at this forum.

 

I provided primosprimos the plot hole to Decoy as a decoy!   I assumed I was on ignore but I wasn't sure.   I'm sure now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Primosprimos must have me on ignore.   He\she has a lot of people on ignore.  Oh well I was trying to do them a favor by telling them the ending (since they asked for it),   but this is their lost now.

Just curious.  How do you know how many people someone else has on ignore?

Also, how do you place someone on ignore?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many noir books list Decoy as the most well known low-budget \ no famous actors noir of all time.   Some place Gun Crazy in that category as well (but the actors in Gun Crazy are more well known than Decoy).

 

Either way,  glad you had a chance to see Decoy.     In my book one can't get too much noir.

 

JJG: I saw your comment regarding the plot, and I'm glad I didn't go into too much detail. The information you provided was succinct (dare I say pity?) without giving away too much. I've heard/read a few noir fans call this a "rare" film, and I understand there are several reason why this would be true. Jack Bernhard was a WWII vet and this was his first gig as a director/producer. He went on to direct Perilous Waters (1948) and Blonde Ice (1948), but in 1950 his career came to an end. The film was, as you said, a low-budget, B-picture made through Monogram Pictures/Pathe Pictures. Jean Gillie was Bernhard's wartime bride and had a brief film career before leaving for America. This was the first of two films roles she had in the states, the second being The Macomber Affair (1947), but the couple divorced before Decoy (1946) was released. I suspect the film is additionally intriguing to fans of noir because Jean Gillie died three years later, age 33, leaving this engimatic character as her legacy. Her character allows me to imagine how a pulp fiction writer might have described her: "Margot Shelby was a dame, the kind of dame many have warned 'everything she wants is everything she sees' (and don't dare get in her way). She was also the type of dame who answers the question is the female of the species really deadlier than the male" with a resounding "yes!" "Do they have this kind of trash on your level, Jojo? . . . Jojo, please, just this once, come down to my level".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious.  How do you know how many people someone else has on ignore?

Also, how do you place someone on ignore?

 

On other threads primosprimos has stated how many people he\she has on ignore.    As to how to do it;  While I have no one on ignore (what fun would that be!),   one clicks on a user and there is an ignore option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JJG: I saw your comment regarding the plot, and I'm glad I didn't go into too much detail. The information you provided was succinct (dare I say pity?) without giving away too much. I've heard/read a few noir fans call this a "rare" film, and I understand there are several reason why this would be true. Jack Bernhard was a WWII vet and this was his first gig as a director/producer. He went on to direct Perilous Waters (1948) and Blonde Ice (1948), but in 1950 his career came to an end. The film was, as you said, was a low-budget, B-picture made through Monogram Pictures/Pathe Pictures. Jean Gillie was Bernhard's wartime bride and had a brief film career before leaving for America. This was the first of two films roles she had in America, the second being The Macomber Affair (1947), but the couple divorced before Decoy (1946) was released. I suspect the film is additionally intriguing to fans of noir because Jean Gillie died three years later, age 33, and leaving this engimatic character as her legacy. Her character allows me to imagine how a pulp fiction writer might have described her: "Margo Shelby was a dame, the kind of dame many have warned 'everything she wants is everything she sees' (and don't dare get in her way). She was also the type of dame who answered the question is the female of the species really deadlier than the male" with a resounding "yes!" "Do they have this kind of trash on your level, Jojo? . . . Jojo, please, just this once, come down to my level".

 

I see you really know about this film.   Funny but my noir book Film Noir (Ward \ Silver),  has her name spelled as Margot.   I just checked it again to ensure I didn't make a mistake.    I wonder what the actual credits say.   It could be my book since I have found errors from time to time in it.    The book covers over 200 noirs in great detail (two parts for each movie;  one for the plot and another about the making of the movie,  the impact of the movie on noir,  the director, etc....).   Great reference material.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

On other threads primosprimos has stated how many people he\she has on ignore.    As to how to do it;  While I have no one on ignore (what fun would that be!),   one clicks on a user and there is an ignore option.

I think they have removed the ignore feature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoiler Alert \ Spoiler Alert:   DO NOT READ ON IF YOU DON'T WISH TO KNOW HOW DECOY ENDS

 

 

Once the doctor and Margot dig up the money box,  Margot shoots the doctor.   Margot returns to her apartment but the doctor is only wounded and goes there and shoots Margot.   The policeman opens the money box to find a single dollar bill with a note from Frankie stating he left the dollar for double-crossers!

Wow. Not sure how I missed this, I was watching intently or so I thought for the entire time after I remembered it was on.

 

Thanks, james, I saw she had blood on her blouse but didn't know how it got there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they have removed the ignore feature.

No they didn't it's still here. Look up to top of the page. Where you see your moniker name, click on it a drop down menu appears click on MY SETTINGS. Look on the left of the my settings page it will give a few options, one is IGNORE PREFERENCES, click on that and then it tells you what to do. Very easy takes a second to do. Comes in handy every now and then LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious.  How do you know how many people someone else has on ignore?

Also, how do you place someone on ignore?

TheCid, you click on your name on the upper right, then on 'manage ignore prefs'. You don't know the number of people a poster has on ignore.

 

Funny to see how everyone (not directed at you) is so interested in how I set up my preferences on this board.  :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you really know about this film.   Funny but my noir book Film Noir (Ward \ Silver),  has her name spelled as Margot.   I just checked it again to ensure I didn't make a mistake.    I wonder what the actual credits say.   It could be my book since I have found errors from time to time in it.    The book covers over 200 noirs in great detail (two parts for each movie;  one for the plot and another about the making of the movie,  the impact of the movie on noir,  the director, etc....).   Great reference material.  

 

No need to double-check your book; the spelling is Margot and not Margo. The film credits do not include character names, and I guess I assumed it was the later and not the former. I checked the IMDb and TCM's movie data base and both list her name with the Film Noir spelling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a sub-forum created for discussion about film noir and gangster pictures. I don't understand why the noir people have to keep pushing their favorite genre on the General Discussions board. 

 

I think this thread should be moved over there:

 

http://forums.tcm.com/index.php?/forum/13-film-noir-gangster/

 

TopBillled, you are so frigging officious.

 

This is what that word means:

 

of·fi·cious
əˈfiSHəs/
adjective
adjective: officious
  1. assertive of authority in an annoyingly domineering way, especially with regard to petty or trivial matters.
    "a policeman came to move them on, an officious, spiteful man"

What do you care if a thread about a film noir is created in the "General Discussions" forum? Funny thing is, when movies from other genres (a Western, musical, a comedy, a silent film...) get a thread in "General Discussions", you don't sniffily point out that there are specific forums for those genres here, and would the moderator kindly move the thread to the forum it's "supposed" to be in.

 

You only mention the genre forums and complain about the use of "General Discussions" for a particular genre of film when that genre is film noir.

I used to go on that noir forum a lot. The reason I stopped is the same reason I seldom go on any of the other forums on these message boards, which is that I don't want to wait a long time before getting a response, (with  all of one or two posters responding) .

 

For whatever reason, "General Discussions" gets the most action, so that's where people will post their threads. whether about film noir or anything else.

When I think of all the boring thread topics in General Discussions, I have to wonder why you object to something interesting like film noir when it comes up there.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
I first saw Decoy on a double disc with Crime Wave its a pretty ridiculous Noir comparatively, revolving around bringing the dead back to life to find out where he hid the loot Jean Gillie plays the over the top  femme fatale with  Sheldon Leonard really camping it up also has Edward Norris, 

Robert Armstrong, and Herbert Rudley, and. I give it a 5-6/10 at most.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What do you care if a thread about a film noir is created in the "General Discussions" forum? Funny thing is, when movies from other genres (a Western, musical, a comedy, a silent film...) get a thread in "General Discussions", you don't sniffily point out that there are specific forums for those genres here, and would the moderator kindly move the thread to the forum it's "supposed" to be in.

 

You only mention the genre forums and complain about the use of "General Discussions" for a particular genre of film when that genre is film noir.

I used to go on that noir forum a lot. The reason I stopped is the same reason I seldom go on any of the other forums on these message boards, which is that I don't want to wait a long time before getting a response, (with  all of one or two posters responding) .

 

For whatever reason, "General Discussions" gets the most action, so that's where people will post their threads. whether about film noir or anything else.

When I think of all the boring thread topics in General Discussions, I have to wonder why you object to something interesting like film noir when it comes up there.

There's a thread down on page two I just noticed last night about Joel McCrea westerns. That one is definitely in the wrong place, too. If it comes back to page one, I may post something about it. Since this thread was on page one, it seemed a little more urgent to address. But I don't think I am saying anything too outrageous. The designers of the webstie specifically set up an area for genre-based discussions. So are you saying that if people don't visit those sub-forums, then we should just keep using Gen Discussions as a hodgepodge/catch-all? That seems disorderly to me.

 

I see General Discussions as being a place to go over topics that relate to classic Hollywood and TCM's business practices. If a thread is about a specific kind of film, put it in the correct sub-forum. I think you have said in the past you worked in a library or a bookstore-- shirley you believe in categorizing things so they are easier to find.

 

The argument that nobody goes to the sub-forums is silly, because if these threads were over there, I am sure people would seek them out and that would increase internet traffic to the sub-forums. Plus, new members or guest visitors can still find them from google or whatever search engine they are using, so it shouldn't matter if they are directed to a sub-forum. 

 

All I did here was point out something in a very unbiased matter. But once again misswonderly, you have taken it personally and then posted a snide comment about the definition of the word 'officious.' I don't think you realize how brittle (using the word brittle to suggest inflexibility on your part) some of your posting is-- at least, that is my humble opinion.

 

You definitely have a bias, when later in the same post, you say that the DECOY thread is interesting because it is a conversation related to film noir. I can think of plenty of other threads about musicals and science fiction that are just interesting, and more importantly, located in the correct sub-forums.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I first saw Decoy on a double disc with Crime Wave its a pretty ridiculous Noir comparatively, revolving around bringing the dead back to life to find out where he hid the loot Jean Gillie plays the over the top  femme fatale with  Sheldon Leonard really camping it up also has Edward Norris, 
Robert Armstrong, and Herbert Rudley, and. I give it a 5-6/10 at most.

 

I agree with your rating of this film. I think others over-rate it for a number of reasons, but to me it doesn't work mostly because of the wild plot contrivances-- the Dick Tracy films made at RKO around this time that blend elements of sci-fi and horror with noir are much more effective. In short, if you are going to tell a story with a cartoon plotline, then you need a lead or a villain that is already established with the audience as a cartoon (or comic strip creation).

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a thread down on page two I just noticed last night about Joel McCrea westerns. That one is definitely in the wrong place, too. If it comes back to page one, I may post something about it. Since this thread was on page one, it seemed a little more urgent to address. But I don't think I am saying anything too outrageous. The designers of the webstie specifically set up an area for genre-based discussions. So are you saying that if people don't visit those sub-forums, then we should just keep using Gen Discussions as a hodgepodge/catch-all? That seems disorderly to me.

 

I see General Discussions as being a place to go over topics that relate to classic Hollywood and TCM's business practices. If a thread is about a specific kind of film, put it in the correct sub-forum. I think you have said in the past you worked in a library or a bookstore-- shirley you believe in categorizing things so they are easier to find.

 

The argument that nobody goes to the sub-forums is silly, because if these threads were over there, I am sure people would seek them out and that would increase internet traffic to the sub-forums. Plus, new members or guest visitors can still find them from google or whatever search engine they are using, so it shouldn't matter if they are directed to a sub-forum. 

 

All I did here was point out something in a very unbiased matter. But once again misswonderly, you have taken it personally and then posted a snide comment about the definition of the word 'officious.' I don't think you realize how brittle (using the word brittle to suggest inflexibility on your part) some of your posting is-- at least, that is my humble opinion.

 

You definitely have a bias, when later in the same post, you say that the DECOY thread is interesting because it is a conversation related to film noir. I can think of plenty of other threads about musicals and science fiction that are just interesting, and more importantly, located in the correct sub-forums.

 

I concede, I did go just a little far in using the word "officious". Or at least in pasting a definition of it for you, since I'm fairly sure you already knew what the word meant. Still, think of all the potentially insulting words people tend to use on the internet, and "officious" becomes relatively innocuous.

 

Let me try to explain how I feel about all this "The Boards Are Organized a Certain Way, That's For a Reason, and We Should Stick to That Structure" business.

 

First, it's a fact that the majority of people who post on the TCM message boards gravitate to the "General Discussions" forum. Maybe they're at work, and don't have time to explore the various other forums here, maybe they think (correctly), that there's more activity to follow on the main forum, or maybe they're just lazy.

Doesn't matter....I actually think it's just human nature to hang out in the main part of the fairground, and that's not going to change.

 

You suggest that if people actually did read and write in the genre or other forums of their choice, they would in time generate the kind of activity that would liven those forums up, possibly to a degree similar to the "General Discussions" forum.

 

I don't think so. These other forums have been around as long as the whole TCM Message Board website has (I think, anyway), and it's never changed.

It used to annoy me, or at least frustrate me, that so (comparatively) few posters went on other forums. I used to think, if I saw in General Discussions a thread about Alfred Hitchcock or Woody Allen, or whoever, "That should really be in the "Films and Filmmakers" forum.

But a big party tends to be more fun than a small party, and a discussion about a filmmaker that includes a lot of people is more fun and interesting than one that only involves two or three people (give or take...)

 

Which brings me to my second point about this:

I like a diversity of people and opinions when engaging in a discussion about film or anything else. The greater the input, the more variety of opinions and ideas there is to discover and exchange. I prefer a "we're all in this together" approach, rather than an esoteric "I know only hard-core fans are going to post on this forum" approach.

 

In fact, for me, it's the same with this idea about TCM that comes up every now and then, to wit, (it's fun to say "to wit", isn't it?), that Turner Classic Movies branch into two separate stations, with the one showing so-called "classic" films from before, say, 1960, and the other showing "newer" movies post-1960 (that date is arbitrary, but you know what I mean.)

 

I would not like that. Not only because I like movies from all eras and genres, and enjoy having such a mix on the station as it currently exists, but also because I feel there's something unifying about TCM the way it already is, that "we're all here together" feeling, that would be diluted or disappear altogether if there were indeed two different TCM stations.

 

My preference is almost always towards uniting, sharing, a mixture of different opinions and likes and dislikes of people, whether we're talking about a television channel or a social or political group. It's more fun and interesting that way, as opposed to specialized different compartments where only a relatively small number of people participate.

 

So, there you go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. You can wait forever to get any response down in those sub forums. (I check occasionally) People gravitate here, and that's the place to go if you want to get any sort of discussion going for the most part (I've found that out) or you want an immediate response to something you've watched. What's the big deal?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. You can wait forever to get any response down in those sub forums. (I check occasionally) People gravitate here, and that's the place to go if you want to get any sort of discussion going for the most part (I've found that out) or you want an immediate response to something you've watched. What's the big deal?

 What's the big deal?

 

There isn't any, not sure why one was made. Remember the Hot Topics thread? That thread got a lot of people, and once it went away, everyone came here.

 

Nothing wrong with it at all. Hopefully TheCid will continue to say whatever comes to mind.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your rating of this film. I think others over-rate it for a number of reasons, but to me it doesn't work mostly because of the wild plot contrivances-- the Dick Tracy films made at RKO around this time that blend elements of sci-fi and horror with noir are much more effective. In short, if you are going to tell a story with a cartoon plotline, then you need a lead or a villain that is already established with the audience as a cartoon (or comic strip creation).

If you don't believe film Noir movies should be discussed on General Disscusions site, why are you discussing it?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't believe film Noir movies should be discussed on General Disscusions site, why are you discussing it?

Because I am sure the thread will eventually get moved over to the noir sub-genre and then my comments will be there with everyone else's comments. I don't object to discussing this film. Just where the thread is currently located.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TheCid, you click on your name on the upper right, then on 'manage ignore prefs'. You don't know the number of people a poster has on ignore.

 

Funny to see how everyone (not directed at you) is so interested in how I set up my preferences on this board.  :D

Thanks - never thought to click on my name to get to it.

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...