I Just Watched...

[LornaHansonForbes]

I THOUGHT THAT WAS PA KETTLE!

thanks!

ps- also “Bessie” the over devoted maid from LAURA has a small and similar role in this. 

[JamesJazGuitar]

1 hour ago, FilmSnob said:

Hey Cavegirl, good to see you again. Thanks for your reply.

Let me preface my criticism by saying that I consider myself Christian and my beliefs are important to me, although I would say I am pretty liberal and much more on the progressive side. I appreciated the theological conflict portrayed between the more mainstream and sensible Borgen family, and their rivals, the hypocritical fundamentalists, the Petersens.

My problems with the movie were two-fold:

1. From a critical standpoint, I thought the characters were flat as paper and nothing more than Dreyer's soapbox. Johannes doesn't change in the entire movie, despite his insanity disappearing. Inger is a kind woman, but again she is just a "type". I would say the same about everyone except Morten, who was alright in my book. Everything else was just predictable and lacked any authenticity.

2. As you pointed out Cavegirl, anyone can have knowledge about a certain subject, even atheists about religion. But do they really feel it? What is in their heart or message when they are trying to tell a story? What is their perspective? If they don't really believe in a subject, can they technically present the facts correctly without being able to convey an honest and heartfelt presentation?

When I watched Ordet, I found the character of Johannes and the events of the story to be insulting to both my intelligence and my beliefs. The idea that a man could proclaim himself to be Jesus Christ, predict someone's death (or supernaturally kill them?), and then bring them back to life, did nothing but make a mockery of Christianity. People who proclaim themselves to be Christ or God or Buddha or whatever...that's a thing. Those people ARE insane. They don't perform miraculous acts and do good things. They harm people. Sometimes, they even get thousands of people to commit suicide.

People like Johannes should be ridiculed to the utmost extreme.

It's not lost on me that Dryer would have viewed Johannes as no different than Christ himself (it's my understanding he was an atheist?). But that's where inauthentic disbelief comes into play. I find it easy to tell the difference between someone who believes the material and writes a story, and someone who doesn't (hey Ridley Scott, I'm looking at you!).

Of course, ymmv.

The question of 'can one do a film that is 'authentic' if they don't belong to the 'group' that is being represented is THE hot topic in Hollywood.  

E.g. when the story is related to the African American experience,  the director must be African-American.  That only gay \ transgender actors should play gay \ transgender characters. 

 I don't agree with the activist.   

  

[speedracer5]

35 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

I THOUGHT THAT WAS PA KETTLE!

thanks!

ps- also “Bessie” the over devoted maid from LAURA has a small and similar role in this. 

Is "Bessie" the witness with the crazy eyes?

I forgot to mention that I thought Alice Faye was the real weak spot in this film.  I couldn't help but feel like she was out of her element.  Betty Grable, a contemporary of Faye's and also primarily known for musicals, I thought was great in I Wake Up Screaming.  I can't help but wonder how she would have fared in Faye's role in Fallen Angel.

[LornaHansonForbes]

1 hour ago, speedracer5 said:

Is "Bessie" the witness with the crazy eyes?

I forgot to mention that I thought Alice Faye was the real weak spot in this film.  I couldn't help but feel like she was out of her element.  Betty Grable, a contemporary of Faye's and also primarily known for musicals, I thought was great in I Wake Up Screaming.  I can't help but wonder how she would have fared in Faye's role in Fallen Angel.

Read the entries for the movie on IMDb and Wikipedia. There’s a pretty long story about how it was changed midproduction from an Alice Faye vehicle to a de facto Linda Darnell vehicle, and Faye was not happy. The role of Stella was supposed to be small.

In fact, FALLEN ANGEL was Faye’s final feature for Fox. 

I did not dig herSwiss Miss hairdo in the first act. 

[LawrenceA]

I returned to 1957 movies today, although I only got around to a mere four titles:

The Pajama Game - A musical that I liked! Based on the hit stage show, the story blends the politics of a labor dispute with romantic comedy. At a pajama factory, new shop foreman John Raitt has to deal with an employee revolt over a 7 cent pay raise, while also falling for Doris Day, the head of the union Grievance Committee. I thought this was lively and a lot of fun, and I was particularly impressed with Carol Haney, a Tony-winner for the stage version, as secretary Gladys.    (7/10)

Pal Joey - Another musical that I liked! Frank Sinatra is excellent as Joey, a womanizing lounge singer who takes a job in a burlesque theater in San Francisco. He tries to make time with every gal in sight, but dancer Kim Novak repels his advances. She eventually falls for him, but not before he becomes a virtual "kept man" for wealthy widow Rita Hayworth. Solid songs and winning performances made this an enjoyable diversion.   (7/10)

The Prince and the Showgirl - I was prepared for the worst, based on comments I've read on this site, but while this wasn't anything I'm keen to revisit, it wasn't a complete waste for me, either. In London circa 1911, American showgirl Marilyn Monroe gets invited to dinner by visiting Carpathian royal Laurence Olivier. They decidedly fail to hit it off, but events conspire to keep her around and entwined with various family and political situations. This would-be rom-com fails to be very romantic or funny, but Monroe's charms shine through, and even Olivier is occasionally silly as the self-important Regent, although he often sounds like Dracula.    (6/10)

Something of Value - The Mau Mau uprising in Kenya is dramatized, with Rock Hudson as a white citizen sympathetic to the mistreatment of the native blacks. He's especially close to lifelong friend Sidney Poitier, so he feels betrayed when Poitier joins up with the Mau Mau to violently attack whites in their homes. The thorny politics, interwoven with both native and Christian religion implications, are handled fairly well, and the film is shockingly violent at times. The good cast also includes Dana Wynter, Wendy Hiller, Juano Hernandez, Ivan Dixon, Juanita Moore, Robert Beatty, Michael Pate, and William Marshall.    (7/10)

[laffite]

41 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

The Prince and the Showgirl - I was prepared for the worst, based on comments I've read on this site, but while this wasn't anything I'm keen to revisit, it wasn't a complete waste for me, either. In London circa 1911, American showgirl Marilyn Monroe gets invited to dinner by visiting Carpathian royal Laurence Olivier. They decidedly fail to hit it off, but events conspire to keep her around and entwined with various family and political situations. This would-be rom-com fails to be very romantic or funny, but Monroe's charms shine through, and even Olivier is occasionally silly as the self-important Regent, although he often sounds like Dracula.    (6/10)

This is probably well known but I'll mention it. The final rushes were a disaster and Olivier told her so. MM was depressed. Olivier told her that if she wanted they could do their scenes over (or some of them perhaps but at least quite a few). She agreed. Olivier said in his biography that she was a pain but it seems from other accounts that he was always or most of the time was gracious with her. She made one film a year during the last five years of her life, and despite the problems everyone had to put up with (being late, not remember lines, hissy-fits, etc) the end product as seen on screen revealed some really fine acting. //

[LawrenceA]

1 hour ago, laffite said:

This is probably well known but I'll mention it. The final rushes were a disaster and Olivier told her so. MM was depressed. Olivier told her that if she wanted they could do their scenes over (or some of them perhaps but at least quite a few). She agreed. Olivier said in his biography that she was a pain but it seems from other accounts that he was always or most of the time was gracious with her. She made one film a year during the last five years of her life, and despite the problems everyone had to put up with (being late, not remember lines, hissy-fits, etc) the end product as seen on screen revealed some really fine acting. //

I read quite a bit about the film in an Olivier biography, as well. I also watched 2011's My Week with Marilyn, the movie based on the making of The Prince and the Showgirl, years before actually watching The Prince and the Showgirl. 

And I agree that Marilyn's performance was good. Sadly, this was the last major role of hers that I had not seen. There are still a handful of the early bit roles that I haven't seen, but no more major ones.

[Tikisoo]

A remake of Les Diaboliques came out quite a number of years ago. It was nowhere as good as the original, but judged on its own it was pretty good.

Lorna said: GOD FORGIVE ME, but I genuinely prefer the remake.

Thank you for speaking up. I was hugely disappointed with Les Diaboliques. It was the ONLY film I have ever guessed the ending-and in the first 15 minutes. (typically, I'm gullible & clueless and can so easily led down a path...) Was not impressed with this one at all. Knowing there's another, some preferred version is great news.

[TomJH]

Blackmail (1947)

An entertaining "B" detective drama from Republic. Note, I said entertaining, as in a corny and predictable way, not good.

The story isn't much (a private eye is hired by a show business millionaire getting blackmailed and, surprise, surprise, a couple of murders occur) and there are the usual stereotypes found in a zillion other films of this kind: the forever wise cracking private dick (William Marshall), a beautiful dame (Adela Mara) , the millionaire (Ricardo Cortez) who may or may not be a murderer, and a tired looking homicide detective (Grant Withers) who constantly makes bantering wise cracks with the private eye.

There are, however, a few aspects to this modestly budgeted production that make it more entertaining than some. At the top of the list is the hilariously over-the-top dialogue, written by someone who read too many Raymond Chandler novels but lacked the wit of that author.

Marshall's tough guy chip-on-the-shoulder attitude as the detective is clearly established with his first lines of dialogue. Upon spotting a chauffeur polishing a car he calls out, "Hey you, you there with the m u f f in your mitt. I'd like some information."

A moment later: "What's wrong, pal? You always this scared or is it only when you're frightened?"

Later he will have a number of other dialogue gems such as, when questioning a maid, "How much dirt have you picked up around here that didn't belong in a vaccum cleaner?"

And when he is later told to talk by another tough guy, the private dick responds, "Talk, eh? Wouldn't you rather hear me whistle?"

At one point Marshall's detective tells a hood there are five reasons why he can't accommodate him. When the hood asks what they are, he responds, "Four fingers and a thumb" before smashing him in the face with his fist.

Which brings up another of the film's fun aspects, its fight scenes. Sure you can tell the actors are constantly doubled but the fights are fast paced and of the "break up all the furniture while we're at it" variety, undoubtedly performed by the same stuntmen that Republic used for its well beloved action serials.

William Marshall isn't much of an actor but his dead panned delivery is adequate for the role of the detective lead. Marshall would have a limited career as an actor but he would be active on the Hollywood scene, marrying Ginger Rogers and Michele Morgan among others and producing/directing a couple of stinkeroo Errol Flynn films during that actor's career decline. Oh, yeh, he also married Flynn's leading lady in one of those films, Micheline Presle. Maybe that's why she has more screen time in that film than Errol.

Finally, it's good to see that old smoothy Ricardo Cortez cast as the millionaire. Third billed and with his character increasingly acting baffled as the story unfolds, Cortez, whether he's playing a good guy or a sleazy rat, always added to a film's enjoyment for me. His performance may be nothing out of the norm here but it's still good to see Cortez, even in such mediocre material. He always brings a professional gloss to the proceedings.

2.5 out of 4

 

[CaveGirl]

I woke up last night and the tv was still on and there was Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet in a movie I'd never  seen so I had to watch. Basically Greenstreet as Grodman of Scotland Yard had been sacked and replaced by the great George Coulouris, of Kane fame, as his successor, Buckley due to a rather upsetting malfeasance of justice. Now we see a murdered boarder being found by Rosalind Ivan, as the annoying landlady, pounding on doors of the boarding house and windows on nearby dwellings, which could wake the dead, but didn't in this case. Who has killed this stiff, is now the big question. Many people are questioned, including the stately Paul Cavanaugh, who has some secrets about other men's wives and also stage performer, Lottie who is played by Joan Lorring. I wasn't too big on her Cockney sounding accent but otherwise she was okay. The air of a Jack the Ripper infused London is swathing the entire atmosphere of the film, though I have no idea about what time period it is set in. Lorre as usual, as an offbeat artist named Victor is superb, staying unflappable no matter what happens. Those eyes, those downward glances, the voice! Who cannot love seeing him say things in his typically lanquid manner like "Oh...you got blood on my shirt. I just may have to kill you." Okay, he didn't say that in this film but he could have which is all that counts. He and Greenstreet just make the perfect team and all their interplay is enjoyable to watch. The movie was nearing its end, I was mesmerized and then...the mesmerizing resulted in my accidentally going back to sleep on my down-filled couch and now I will never know who did the nasty deed. If anyone can tell me who the murderer was, I will be appreciative. I was leaning towards it being Greenstreet so please inform me if I was right.

[midwestan]

20 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

That is true. 

Zachary Scott was adorable- especially without the mustache (ie THE SOUTHERNER) I think he maybe wasn’t the best actor in the world, but seriously a pretty mug can blind me to a (male) actor’s shortcomings anytime

More often than not, clean-shaven guys look much younger than if they have facial hair, but some men look much better with it.  Zachary Scott falls into this category, for me.  Anthony Quinn, Clark Gable, and James Craig are others that look much, much better with moustaches than without (to me anyway).  Guys like Errol Flynn and Lew Ayres could pull off both looks and still be attractive.  Also, guys like William Powell, Robert Taylor, and Melvyn Douglas look better with a 'soup strainer' than without.

[scsu1975]

4 hours ago, CaveGirl said:

I woke up last night and the tv was still on and there was Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet in a movie I'd never  seen so I had to watch....  I was leaning towards it being Greenstreet so please inform me if I was right.

If this is the movie I'm thinking of, then I remember who the killer was. Send me a PM and I will tell you.

[Fedya]

19 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

E.g. when the story is related to the African American experience,  the director must be African-American.  That only gay \ transgender actors should play gay \ transgender characters. 

And only straight whites can play straight whites, so Hamilton is right out.

[Fedya]

6 hours ago, midwestan said:

Also, guys like William Powell, Robert Taylor, and Melvyn Douglas look better with a 'soup strainer' than without.

Well that's because you're thinking of Powell in drag in Love Crazy.  I don't think the mustache would make him look any better there. 

 

[CaveGirl]

21 hours ago, FilmSnob said:

Hey Cavegirl, good to see you again. Thanks for your reply.

Let me preface my criticism by saying that I consider myself Christian and my beliefs are important to me, although I would say I am pretty liberal and much more on the progressive side. I appreciated the theological conflict portrayed between the more mainstream and sensible Borgen family, and their rivals, the hypocritical fundamentalists, the Petersens.

My problems with the movie were two-fold:

1. From a critical standpoint, I thought the characters were flat as paper and nothing more than Dreyer's soapbox. Johannes doesn't change in the entire movie, despite his insanity disappearing. Inger is a kind woman, but again she is just a "type". I would say the same about everyone except Morten, who was alright in my book. Everything else was just predictable and lacked any authenticity.

2. As you pointed out Cavegirl, anyone can have knowledge about a certain subject, even atheists about religion. But do they really feel it? What is in their heart or message when they are trying to tell a story? What is their perspective? If they don't really believe in a subject, can they technically present the facts correctly without being able to convey an honest and heartfelt presentation?

When I watched Ordet, I found the character of Johannes and the events of the story to be insulting to both my intelligence and my beliefs. The idea that a man could proclaim himself to be Jesus Christ, predict someone's death (or supernaturally kill them?), and then bring them back to life, did nothing but make a mockery of Christianity. People who proclaim themselves to be Christ or God or Buddha or whatever...that's a thing. Those people ARE insane. They don't perform miraculous acts and do good things. They harm people. Sometimes, they even get thousands of people to commit suicide.

People like Johannes should be ridiculed to the utmost extreme.

It's not lost on me that Dryer would have viewed Johannes as no different than Christ himself (it's my understanding he was an atheist?). But that's where inauthentic disbelief comes into play. I find it easy to tell the difference between someone who believes the material and writes a story, and someone who doesn't (hey Ridley Scott, I'm looking at you!).

Of course, ymmv.

I totally understand your well voiced points and actually am surprised that most anyone likes this film. It is heavy beyond compare and deep and morose and tough to watch in any time period. I was on a Dreyer kick for awhile after reading a couple books about him, so forced myself to watch all his films just to be knowledgeable about their totality. I also tended to believe that even if I hated the film, it was probably more my fault than the movie's fault, since reading Dreyer's words on film, are very convincing of his genius.

My one question about your original post was the theory that Dreyer was an atheist. Maybe I've lost it or totally forgotten all I ever read about him, but I thought he was the exact opposite and was a very religious man, perhaps in his own way though, and that his movies were about being respectful to religious beliefs of anyone. That was why I wrote what I wrote even though I did not think he was a non-believer and that his films reflect that. Maybe I'm wrong and I've not had time to check any of my books on him, but in the back of my mind I just seem to recall him being of a truly deep and spiritual nature, so if I'm wrong I apologize. I seemed to get from your post that one of your complaints was that as the director he was an atheist which colored his scenario and made the film less valid. But if Dreyer is not an atheist, then what do you think of the film? I shall wait for anyone to give definitive testimony as to Dreyer being or not being an atheist, before I speak again. Thanks, FilmSnob...I always enjoy reading your thoughts on film!

[LawrenceA]

3 more from 1957:

The Sun Also Rises - Overlong Hemingway adaptation with Tyrone Power as an impotent reporter wandering around 1920's Europe looking for meaning. He hangs out in Paris, then Pamplona, with other Lost Generation characters played by Ava Gardner, Eddie Albert, Mel Ferrer, Juliette Greco, and Errol Flynn. Power looks old and tired, while Flynn looks puffy and inebriated. Hemingway detested this film, and while I thought it was an overall misfire, it still has its moments. I despise bull fighting, though, which may have increased my antipathy. (6/10)

Ten Thousand Bedrooms - Overlong musical romance marking the first solo starring role for Dean Martin post split-up with Jerry Lewis. Martin is a wealthy American hotel owner who travels to Rome to oversee the acquisition of a fancy hotel there. He meets a family of beautiful Italian women and falls in love with two of them. His employees fall in love the rest of them. This is lazy and uninspired filmmaking with not a single memorable moment. The film features such authentic Italians as Walter Slezak and Eva Bartok.    (5/10)

Time Without Pity - British drama with Michael Redgrave as an alcoholic writer whose son (Alec McCowen) has been convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Redgrave tries to prove the boy's innocence before his date with the hangman, but the stress may push him back toward the bottle. Redgrave is very good, and the story takes some unexpected turns. Also featuring Leo McKern, Ann Todd, Joan Plowright, Lois Maxwell, and Peter Cushing.   (7/10)

 

[kingrat]

Seems like I should check out Time Without Pity. Losey is often a good director, and that's a strong cast. Lawrence, I'm glad you liked Pajama Game, which has an unusually good score. They even cast actors who can sing and dance, not always a given with musicals. And Something of Value is one of Richard Brooks' best films, I think. TCM has shown it fairly often as part of Sidney Poitier tributes, and I think it's one of Poitier's best performances.

[Swithin]

12 minutes ago, kingrat said:

 I'm glad you liked Pajama Game, which has an unusually good score. They even cast actors who can sing and dance, not always a given with musicals. 

The Pajama Game is a fine musical and fine film. Like Damn Yankees, the other big Adler/Ross musical, they did indeed cast some of the Broadway cast, though not as many as Damn Yankees. Janis Paige,  the original Babe, who was replaced by Doris Day, will be 96 in a few weeks.

I'm a fan of Thelma Pelish, who played Mae. 

 

[FilmSnob]

8 hours ago, CaveGirl said:

I totally understand your well voiced points and actually am surprised that most anyone likes this film. It is heavy beyond compare and deep and morose and tough to watch in any time period. I was on a Dreyer kick for awhile after reading a couple books about him, so forced myself to watch all his films just to be knowledgeable about their totality. I also tended to believe that even if I hated the film, it was probably more my fault than the movie's fault, since reading Dreyer's words on film, are very convincing of his genius.

My one question about your original post was the theory that Dreyer was an atheist. Maybe I've lost it or totally forgotten all I ever read about him, but I thought he was the exact opposite and was a very religious man, perhaps in his own way though, and that his movies were about being respectful to religious beliefs of anyone. That was why I wrote what I wrote even though I did not think he was a non-believer and that his films reflect that. Maybe I'm wrong and I've not had time to check any of my books on him, but in the back of my mind I just seem to recall him being of a truly deep and spiritual nature, so if I'm wrong I apologize. I seemed to get from your post that one of your complaints was that as the director he was an atheist which colored his scenario and made the film less valid. But if Dreyer is not an atheist, then what do you think of the film? I shall wait for anyone to give definitive testimony as to Dreyer being or not being an atheist, before I speak again. Thanks, FilmSnob...I always enjoy reading your thoughts on film!

I could be mistaken, but I read a few different sources that stated he wasn't much for religion. Another source said he identified as Christian -- at least at the time he made Ordet. Maybe I should have used the word agnostic instead of atheist, but in any event I do not feel Ordet is the story of a Christian man. When I watched it, it felt like the story of someone who did not believe in the religion but was trying to use it to tell a story. And I say that without making any judgement on his motives. It's possible he was just trying to tell the kindest, most remarkable story of a miracle, but from my perspective it is what it is: a problem film.

Anyway, I know other people enjoy Ordet and give it high praise. Someone I know who has pretty similar taste in movies to me recommended it as a top-notch film on religion and faith, so I made sure to watch. But was more than a bit disappointed by what I saw.

[misswonderly3]

On 8/24/2018 at 1:25 PM, CaveGirl said:

I wouldn't care either if he was an escaped prisoner or was friends with Carrot Top.

It's Zachary Scott for gosh sakes! So suave and sophisticated.

Now you know you will have a good time with him, unless you've got a daughter named Veda.

Really ?  Hate to be disagreeable, but I've never really warmed to Zachary Scott. I wouldn't even mind his rather stiff acting style, if he were as handsome as many seem to think he is.  Guess he's just not my type. But, chacun a son gout.

[misswonderly3]

On 8/25/2018 at 10:11 AM, CaveGirl said:

I woke up last night and the tv was still on and there was Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet in a movie I'd never  seen so I had to watch. Basically Greenstreet as Grodman of Scotland Yard had been sacked and replaced by the great George Coulouris, of Kane fame, as his successor, Buckley due to a rather upsetting malfeasance of justice. Now we see a murdered boarder being found by Rosalind Ivan, as the annoying landlady, pounding on doors of the boarding house and windows on nearby dwellings, which could wake the dead, but didn't in this case. Who has killed this stiff, is now the big question. Many people are questioned, including the stately Paul Cavanaugh, who has some secrets about other men's wives and also stage performer, Lottie who is played by Joan Lorring. I wasn't too big on her Cockney sounding accent but otherwise she was okay. The air of a Jack the Ripper infused London is swathing the entire atmosphere of the film, though I have no idea about what time period it is set in. Lorre as usual, as an offbeat artist named Victor is superb, staying unflappable no matter what happens. Those eyes, those downward glances, the voice! Who cannot love seeing him say things in his typically lanquid manner like "Oh...you got blood on my shirt. I just may have to kill you." Okay, he didn't say that in this film but he could have which is all that counts. He and Greenstreet just make the perfect team and all their interplay is enjoyable to watch. The movie was nearing its end, I was mesmerized and then...the mesmerizing resulted in my accidentally going back to sleep on my down-filled couch and now I will never know who did the nasty deed. If anyone can tell me who the murderer was, I will be appreciative. I was leaning towards it being Greenstreet so please inform me if I was right.

Well,it would help if you said anywhere in your post what the title of the movie was.

edit: Ok, I did a little detective work of my own - well, not really, I just googled something like "film with george coulouris peter lorre sydney greenstreet" and it came up with The Verdict. So at least we know the title now. However, I've never seen this film, so cannot answer your question. Maybe now that we know the title, someone else can.

[misswonderly3]

SOMETHING WILD

(Not the 1986 one, which is not a remake of this 1961 film.)

Hoo, boy, I honestly don't know what to say about this one. It's one of those films I'd always heard about and always been curious to see. So now I have. I can cross it off my list, I have no desire to see it again.

I would go SPOILERS , but honestly, there's not really enough plot to worry about giving anything away. 

Now, I have no problem with plotless films; a movie doesn't always have to be about plot, and there are loads of great films that prove that. However, it has to have something  - and no, I'm not making a pun on the title. In fact, it's the title that attracted me, I thought a film with a title like that would be fun, or at least interesting. But, despite the potential to be interesting (ok, once you find out the subject matter you know it's not going to be fun), I found Something Wild to be, well, rather dull. Certainly not engaging.

Briefly: A young woman on her way home one night is pulled into some bushes and raped. Her attacker immediately flees - he's not part of the story. The story, such as it is, is how this traumatized girl responds to what has happened to her.  Now back in 1961, a rape victim, as we all know, often felt she could not tell anyone what has happened to her, and this is the case with Mary Ann (played well enough by Carroll Baker.) She does not tell the police, she does not tell her mother , with whom she lives. That's understandable, nobody would tell such a thing to a mother like that - a woman who seems to worry more about what the neighbours will think than about her daughter's well-being. But Mary Ann doesn't seem to have any friends, no one to whom she can talk about her horrible experience.

She leaves home, finds a very sketchy, dirty-looking apartment with a creepy landlord and a noisy, crude woman who lives next to her flat. She gets a job at a Woolworth's , and tries to make a go of living on her own and getting over the brutal sexual attack. But because she has no one to tell about it, she becomes increasingly depressed. After a few days ( I think - the time line is not clear, and I suppose it doesn't really matter), she leaves her job in the middle of the day, claiming she's sick (her co-workers don't like her and have bullied her), and wanders onto one of those New York bridges overlooking the river (or the sea?) It looks as though she's about to throw herself over when a man rushes up to her and pulls her away.

The man, played by Ralph Meeker, feels one of those "I've saved your life so now we're connected" things; also, he's lonely and somewhat dysfunctional himself, and he's attracted to the girl he's saved. He invites her to rest in his apartment, and - why does she do this?? - Mary Ann agrees. Once there, the man keeps her a prisoner. It reminded me a bit of a later British film, The Collector. A lonely messed-up man who can't connect in the normal way with women decides to keep a pretty girl prisoner, hoping she'll fall in love with him. He does not attempt sexual contact with her, except when he's drunk. He does attack her fairly early on in her imprisonment, but he's very drunk, she repels him by kicking him in the eye, which causes him permanent eye damage.

I'm afraid I'm going into too much detail on the plot, which I originally said didn't count for much. Ok, long story short, she escapes one day when he's forgotten to lock the door. She wanders around, enjoying her freedom. I thought she might return to her mother's place, but no, she just wanders around, falls asleep in Central Park, and then, presumably refreshed by her night under the stars, returns to her kidnapper and marries him ! 

Next scene, it's several months later, winter, Christmas time. Her mother has received a letter from her at last. The mother goes to her new home - the same appalling basement apartment she was held prisoner in -  meets her daughter's husband - the man who took her prisoner and at one point tried to rape her  - and is told that she's married, happy, and expecting a baby.

That's the end !

The reason I went into such detail on the storyline is to demonstrate how there are so many choices Mary Ann makes that don't make any sense. She's raped walking home alone at night, yet she chooses to move out and live all alone in a sketchy scary old building with a creepy landlord who openly ogles her. How would this move in any way make her feel safer? We know she has a poor relationship with her mother, but how is living all by herself surrounded by potential rapists any better?

Her school goals: she seems very young, I wasn't even sure if she was still in high school or attending college. College, I guess. It's not clear to me if she quits, or if it's just summertime and school's out for the summer. Why does she choose to quit (probably) and get a nowhere job at a five and dime? Ok, we know she's traumatized and not thinking straight. But we have to guess what she's thinking and feeling throughout the whole movie, since there's actually little dialogue from any of the characters, including Mary Ann, that would illuminate us as to their motives or who they are or what they're about.

Why would she willingly walk into a strange man's home? I don't buy it that she's exhausted and depressed and suffering the mental after-effects of a sexual attack, therefore she doesn't know what she's doing. There are so many things she does that don't make sense to me, and we never get to find out what's going on in her head. In fact, I felt I knew as little about Mary Ann, who she is, what she wants from life, why she makes the choices she does, at the end of the film as at its beginning.

I know Something Wild is supposed to be "different", and daring for its time, and edgy, and all that. But I just thought it was a bit dull, I did not like any of the characters - including Mary Ann - and a frustrating movie to watch. I'm not sorry I saw it, since I'd always wanted to, but I don't plan to ever see it again.

EDIT:  There was one thing about Something Wild I liked a lot: It's set and filmed on location in New York City, and you get a real sense of what NYC was like then, especially the less glamourous areas of it. There are lots of scenes of actual New York brownstone apartments, bridges, parks, gritty streets with funny little stores, subway stations, things like that. The on-location NYC shooting was the best thing about this film.

 

 

[rayban]

Jack Garfein, the film's director and the star's husband, was trying to establish Carroll Baker as a serious dramatic star - and definitely not a "sexpot".

But as "Sylvia", which is not a very good film, proved - Carroll Baker was a most effective "sexpot".

[LsDoorMat]

Symphony Murder Mystery (1932) 6/10

I can understand why the inspector always brings the doc along with him on cases, because he'd never be able to solve these murders without him!

Inspector Carr (John Hamilton) gets a note from someone saying there will be a murder at the symphony that night. Just about that time the doctor (Donald Meeks) shows up and asks to tag along to the symphony while the police stand around waiting for the murder to happen. A cellist drops dead of a gunshot wound while performing, and later the only person to have a tangible motive is found dead in his locked office, apparently a suicide. The police - well, actually the doctor - takes it from there.

The cast is strong in this series of 20 minute murder mysteries WB put out in the early 30s. There isn't any time for side plots or melodrama, so the series comes off as having a workmanlike quality. The cast you will recognize as having good careers as character actors in the 30s and 40s, especially Donald Meeks and Douglass Dumbrille. And then there is John Hamilton who in the 50s is the cigar chomping editor of The Daily Planet in the Superman TV series.

Notice I said there was no time for melodrama, but the sole woman in the cast, Rita Lan, makes time for it. She is constantly looking terrified or burying her head in her hands and either looking like she needs a valium or some calamine lotion to treat what seems to be a powerful itch. She actually dropped a star off of my rating. Believably, this is her only role - credited or otherwise - mentioned on imdb.

I'd recommend all of these early talkie murder mysteries. They are fun if only for watching the chemistry between Meeks and Hamilton.

 

Source: TCM, the other night

[spence]

51 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

SOMETHING WILD

(Not the 1986 one, which is not a remake of this 1961 film.)

Hoo, boy, I honestly don't know what to say about this one. It's one of those films I'd always heard about and always been curious to see. So now I have. I can cross it off my list, I have no desire to see it again.

I would go SPOILERS , but honestly, there's not really enough plot to worry about giving anything away. 

Now, I have no problem with plotless films; a movie doesn't always have to be about plot, and there are loads of great films that prove that. However, it has to have something  - and no, I'm not making a pun on the title. In fact, it's the title that attracted me, I thought a film with a title like that would be fun, or at least interesting. But, despite the potential to be interesting (ok, once you find out the subject matter you know it's not going to be fun), I found Something Wild to be, well, rather dull. Certainly not engaging.

Briefly: A young woman on her way home one night is pulled into some bushes and raped. Her attacker immediately flees - he's not part of the story. The story, such as it is, is how this traumatized girl responds to what has happened to her.  Now back in 1961, a rape victim, as we all know, often felt she could not tell anyone what has happened to her, and this is the case with Mary Ann (played well enough by Carroll Baker.) She does not tell the police, she does not tell her mother , with whom she lives. That's understandable, nobody would tell such a thing to a mother like that - a woman who seems to worry more about what the neighbours will think than about her daughter's well-being. But Mary Ann doesn't seem to have any friends, no one to whom she can talk about her horrible experience.

She leaves home, finds a very sketchy, dirty-looking apartment with a creepy landlord and a noisy, crude woman who lives next to her flat. She gets a job at a Woolworth's , and tries to make a go of living on her own and getting over the brutal sexual attack. But because she has no one to tell about it, she becomes increasingly depressed. After a few days ( I think - the time line is not clear, and I suppose it doesn't really matter), she leaves her job in the middle of the day, claiming she's sick (her co-workers don't like her and have bullied her), and wanders onto one of those New York bridges overlooking the river (or the sea?) It looks as though she's about to throw herself over when a man rushes up to her and pulls her away.

The man, played by Ralph Meeker, feels one of those "I've saved your life so now we're connected" things; also, he's lonely and somewhat dysfunctional himself, and he's attracted to the girl he's saved. He invites her to rest in his apartment, and - why does she do this?? - Mary Ann agrees. Once there, the man keeps her a prisoner. It reminded me a bit of a later British film, The Collector. A lonely messed-up man who can't connect in the normal way with woman decides to keep a pretty girl prisoner, hoping she'll fall in love with him. He does not attempt sexual contact with her, except when he's drunk. He does attack her fairly early on in her imprisonment, but he's very drunk, she repels him by kicking him in the eye, which causes him permanent eye damage.

I'm afraid I'm going into too much detail on the plot, which I originally said didn't count for much. Ok, long story short, she escapes one day when he's forgotten to lock the door. She wanders around, enjoying her freedom. I thought she might return to her mother's place, but no, she just wanders around, falls asleep in Central Park, and then, presumably refreshed by her night under the stars, returns to her kidnapper and marries him ! 

Next scene, it's several months later, winter, Christmas time. Her mother has received a letter from her at last. The mother goes to her new home - the same appalling basement apartment she was held prisoner in -  meets her daughter's husband - the man who took her prisoner and at one point tried to rape her  - and is told that she's married, happy, and expecting a baby.

That's the end !

The reason I went into such detail on the storyline is to demonstrate how there are so many choices Mary Ann makes that don't make any sense. She's raped walking home alone at night, yet she chooses to move out and live all alone in a sketchy scary old building with a creepy landlord who openly ogles her. How would this move in any way make her feel safer? We know she has a poor relationship with her mother, but how is living all by herself surrounded by potential rapists any better?

Her school goals: she seems very young, I wasn't even sure if she was still in high school or attending college. College, I guess. It's not clear to me if she quits, or if it's just summertime and school's out for the summer. Why does she choose to quit (probably) and get a nowhere job at a five and dime? Ok, we know she's traumatized and not thinking straight. But we have to guess what she's thinking and feeling throughout the whole movie, since there's actually little dialogue from any of the characters, including Mary Ann, that would illuminate us as to their motives or who they are or what they're about.

Why would she willingly walk into a strange man's home? I don't buy it that she's exhausted and depressed and suffering the mental after-effects of a sexual attack, therefore she doesn't know what she's doing. There are so many things she does that don't make sense to me, and we never get to find out what's going on in her head. In fact, I felt I knew as little about Mary Ann, who she is, what she wants from life, why she makes the choices she does, at the end of the film as at its beginning.

I know Something Wild is supposed to be "different", and daring for its time, and edgy, and all that. But I just thought it was a bit dull, I did not like any of the characters - including Mary Ann - and a frustrating movie to watch. I'm not sorry I saw it, since I'd always wanted to, but I don't plan to ever see it again.

EDIT:  There was one thing about Something Wild I liked a lot: It's set and filmed on location in New York City, and you get a real sense of what NYC was like then, especially the less glamourous areas of it. There are lots of scenes of actual New York brownstone apartments, bridges, parks, gritty streets with funny little stores, subway stations, things like that. The on-location NYC shooting was the best thing about this film.

 

 

Always liked Baker, now about 86 or so  Another good but supporting turn was in what is easily among the top 5ALL-TIME MOST DEPRESSING PICTURES, thought still an acting powerhouse by both *NICHOLSON & *STREEP-(both up for *Oscars)

1987's IRONWEED (***1/2) ($7m. at best)  Anyone else ever see it?  That year *JACK won most of the annual Pre=-*Oscar Film Critics awards for it & WTCHES OF EATWICK ($65m.) (***)  But Hollywqood voted for *MICHAEL DOUGLAS as Gordon Ghekko in WALL STREET instead-(which has since & even then, become an anthem for greed, yuppies & wall street itself)

He did already take home an *ACADEMY AWARD-(good trivia question) But as Best Producer for 1975's Best Picture sweeper *CUCKOO'S NEST

& can anyone believe that still is *Michael's only shot at an acting statue?  Check out 2000's terrific 3 & 1/2) WONDER BOYS though  It only sold $19m. in tickets, but is really good on all levels & *BOB DYLAN won an *Oscar for it's song & though it never woulda' been a contender I really think '93's FALLING DOWN ($41m.) is still special