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

Whales of August Tonight


Hibi
 Share

Recommended Posts

I really like Malcolm McDowell a lot, so I would actually enjoy seeing either IF.... or OH LUCKY MAN!

 

McDowell is always good even if the film he is in is kind of stinky (and he has done a lot of stinky films.)

 

He also kind of looks like Donald Duck...but a shaggable Donald Duck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like Malcolm McDowell a lot, so I would actually enjoy seeing either IF.... or OH LUCKY MAN!

 

McDowell is always good even if the film he is in is kind of stinky (and he has done a lot of stinky films.)

 

He also kind of looks like Donald Duck...but a shaggable Donald Duck.

 

Here he is in O Lucky Man:

 

11572-13956.gif

 

 

Hmm, I see what you mean about the Donald Duck thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think i fully realized what a terrific actor McDowell is when i netflixed CALIGULA- really just to see what the fuss is about.

 

(yeah it is that messed up.)

 

Not since Peter Finch have I seen an actor in a film manage to remain fully commited to such a tawdry project and maintain their dignity to boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care whether you like Whales of August or not. I didn't even watch it the other night when it was on (although now I kind of wish I had). Only saw it once, when it first came out. Maybe what others have said here is true, that you appreciate it more upon a second viewing - a few decades later.

 

Whatevah. I'm responding to your post not because of your opinion of the film, but because you refer to the two female leads in it as " a last glimpse of a couple (of) starlets..."

 

That sounds very impressive, it sounds clever and your choice of words fits very well with the point you want to make - that the film is slight and over-rated. (Which I'm not arguing one way or the other, I'd have to see it again to do that...)

 

But the problem is, your clever-sounding phrase is inaccurate. Neither Lillian Gish nor Bette Davis -especially not Bette Davis - were  "starlets".

Leave out the " _lets" and you might be right. These two women were not starLETS, they were STARS. Both of them hugely talented actresses, both appeared in films that are still watched and appreciated today.

"Starlets" is just a silly way to describe them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care whether you like Whales of August or not. I didn't even watch it the other night when it was on (although now I kind of wish I had). Only saw it once, when it first came out. Maybe what others have said here is true, that you appreciate it more upon a second viewing - a few decades later.

 

Whatevah. I'm responding to your post not because of your opinion of the film, but because you refer to the two female leads in it as " a last glimpse of a couple (of) starlets..."

 

That sounds very impressive, it sounds clever and your choice of words fits very well with the point you want to make - that the film is slight and over-rated. (Which I'm not arguing one way or the other, I'd have to see it again to do that...)

 

But the problem is, your clever-sounding phrase is inaccurate. Neither Lillian Gish nor Bette Davis -especially not Bette Davis - were  "starlets".

Leave out the " _lets" and you might be right. These two women were not starLETS, they were STARS. Both of them hugely talented actresses, both appeared in films that are still watched and appreciated today.

"Starlets" is just a silly way to describe them.

 

A starlet is a young movie actress.    Therefore using it in the context of TWOA was incorrect.     Either way I feel it is a term that has seen its better days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A starlet is a young movie actress.    Therefore using it in the context of TWOA was incorrect.     Either way I feel it is a term that has seen its better days.

 

Yes, of course. I didn't even bother to mention the age aspect - the inaccuracy of calling women in their 80s and 90s "starlets"- because I was more concerned with the poster's using the word to dismiss the significance of their appearance in the film.

Fact is, even when they were young, Lillian Gish and Bette Davis were not "starlets". They were serious actors.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Starlet" is a term that was used for pretty, but generally inconsequential, young women who were under contract but were not stars. As opposed to genuine actors, they were hollywood hopefuls at best, and their careers were over before you could say "Pamela Tiffin". The "pretty" part cannot be separated from the "starlet" part.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually agree with this well-worded analogy, but dont think its a bad thing at all.

 

The bit you quoted, Lorna ("flowers wilting away into the sunset") is quite good, very literate, and yes,  a "well-worded" analogy. My quibble wasn't with that part, it was with calling Lillian Gish and Bette Davis "starlets", an inapt description, whatever the age of the ladies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bit you quoted, Lorna ("flowers wilting away into the sunset") is quite good, very literate, and yes, a "well-worded" analogy. My quibble wasn't with that part, it was with calling Lillian Gish and Bette Davis "starlets", an inapt description, whatever the age of the ladies.

Apparently you havent seen the cover of the 1925 issue of HOLLYWOOD CONFIDENTIAL:

 

LIL GISH NIP SLIP STUNS CROWD AT "SCARLET LETTER" PREEM!!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lorna, Lindsay Anderson was a famous and respected filmmaker who's directed a number of good movies. I'm surprised he isn't better known on these boards...maybe because he's British, which often seems to be a mark against someone on this site.

 

True, This Sporting Life is a very difficult and unpleasant movie to watch.  If , which he made five years later, is also difficult, but more interesting and focussed than the earlier film. It was also considered a bit of a "zeitgeist"  work, being made in 1968 and featuring youth rebellion and angst, etc.

His best work, in my opinion, is O Lucky Man !  (1973). In fact, it's one of my favourite movies. But you might not like it, because it is definitely "weird" and often inexplicable from a realistic point of view.

Anderson was not a particularly prolific director of fiction films, but those he did make are memorable.

 

(By the way, Hibi must be gratified that her thread has lasted this long - and without any fights, moreover ! I only jumped in at this point because I noticed how durable it was, an unusual thing these days on these forums, and was curious to see what all the fuss was about.)

 

ps: However, now that I've posted on it, it may fizzle out. I've noticed lately that a post of mine will often be the kiss of death for a thread.

 

 

I love O Lucky Man! too. Havent seen it since it came out. Would be nice to see it on TCM. Perhaps an evening of Anderson's films.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love O Lucky Man! too. Havent seen it since it came out. Would be nice to see it on TCM. Perhaps an evening of Anderson's films.....

I think I have seen it half dozen times but to be honest I don't think it has aged all that well.  I still enjoyed it but didn't think it was the same film I loved in the 1970's.   Alan Price's numbers are still terrific though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I have seen it half dozen times but to be honest I don't think it has aged all that well.  I still enjoyed it but didn't think it was the same film I loved in the 1970's.   Alan Price's numbers are still terrific though.

 

 

It's been so long, I've forgotten what the movie is about. Just remembered I loved it at the time. I have the soundtrack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I have seen it half dozen times but to be honest I don't think it has aged all that well.  I still enjoyed it but didn't think it was the same film I loved in the 1970's.   Alan Price's numbers are still terrific though.

 

It's aged better than The Social Network will, I'm betting. (chortle chortle)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm still alive in 50 years (I'd be 92 if I were) it is very likely I will not have watched The Social Network by then.  I have not seen O Lucky Man!, either, but I'd be open to watching it as opposed to my distinct lack of interest in The Social Network.

 

    

 

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...