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

Recommended Posts

I watched Cave of the Yellow Dog, which was one of the featured women-directed films presented Tuesday night.  This is a visually stunning film.  The family of nomadic shepherds in Mongolia is played by an actual family.  There is both beauty and hardship in that life, and the children were absolutely adorable.  I was moved to tears at some points, and was impressed by the courage of this family and especially the little girl and the mother.   She basically has to have the child take adult responsibilities, such as herding the sheep when the father is gone, and at one point, the mother has to leave the two younger ones on their own to search for their sister.  If a parent was raising children like this in a 21st century American household, child protective services would get called, but this is the life that these rural people had to lead.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Spurs (1965)

During the '60s producer A.C. Lyles produced a number of small budget conventional westerns in which he cast Hollywood veterans past their prime who appreciated getting a couple of weeks' pay at a time when employment for them was getting tough in the industry. With such titles Town Tamer, Johnny Reno and Arizona Bushwackers these were nicknamed "geezer westerns" by some. None of them are good films but I have found a couple of them, including Black Spurs, to be passable time wasters.

This particular effort features Rory Calhoun (whose '50s western film career took a hit when his criminal past was exposed in the gossip rags) as a man who gains a feared reputation as a bounty hunter. He comes up with a money scheme, in combination with a corrupt rich guy who runs one town, to turn a nearby peaceful town into a "hell town" so that the rich guy's town will get a railway company to lay down new tracks near his town instead of the other one. Calhoun plans to accomplish this by bringing gambling and prostitutes (referred to as saloon girls) into the town.

The cast of old timers includes Terry Moore as Calhoun's former fiancee now married to the sheriff of the town targeted for corruption, Bruce Cabot as his hired bouncer who has a number of thugs working for him, Scott Brady as the two fisted town preacher, Lon Chaney Jr. as the rich guy in on Calhoun's plan, Richard Arlen as proprietor of the saloon which will be centre of the action, as well as James Best as the honest town officer married to Moore and DeForrest Kelly as a corrupt sheriff.

Linda Darnell receives second billing in the film in a small inconsequential role as the flashy dressed head of the saloon girls. This was the actress's first film in eight years, her acting opportunities having been limited to sporadic television work recently. Darnell had put on a considerable amount of weight, compromising her once stunning dark haired beauty, and, as the saloon girl/madam, she wears an excessive amount of makeup. This would be the actress's last role, and it's a sad farewell appearance, Black Spurs being released six weeks after her tragic death in a fire.

Aside from the curiosity value of seeing the cast of Hollywood veterans, Black Spurs is also interesting due to the fact that its lead character, played by Calhoun, is largely viewed as a bad guy (even though, SPOILER ALERT, he will reform, rather abruptly, before the end). Calhoun is quite convincing in his role, being an old hand at playing cowboys.

MV5BZGFhZTgxMDYtMTEzYi00NDI3LWJjMGYtZjkz

2 out of 4

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TomJH said:

During the '60s producer A.C. Lyles produced a number of small budget conventional westerns in which he cast Hollywood veterans past their prime who appreciated getting a couple of weeks' pay at a time when employment for them was getting tough in the industry. With such titles Town Tamer, Johnny Reno and Arizona Bushwackers these were nicknamed "geezer westerns" by some. None of them are good films but I have found a couple of them, including Black Spurs, to be passable time wasters.

I saw Black Spurs many years ago, but can't recall anything about it, even after reading your detailed post. I saw several of these AC Lyles westerns because I was a big fan of Lon Chaney Jr and wanted to see as many of his films that I could. I thought the best one (which is isn't saying much) was Johnny Reno, because it gave Chaney the biggest role he had in these films. Normally he had a very small part, sometimes just a glorified cameo. In Johnny Reno, he plays the ineffective sheriff of the town, he looks in terrible health, being overweight and having a ragged voice, but it fit with his over the hill character. He even is given a heroic scene near the end. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

phantom622.jpg?w=625

SO IT SEEMS AS IF a certain streaming service has become available to me and it is offering a good chunk of UNIVERSAL-OWNED HORROR TITLES, I am not sure if that means they will not be showing up on TCM this OCTOBER (I have not checked the OCTOBER SCHEDULE THREAD yet.)

Anyhoo, I watched the HAMMER VERSION OF THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1962).

I am all apologies, but I do not like this movie.

It is odd to me that a STUDIO known for shooting in VIBRANT REDS AND GOLDS chose to film a tale that involves THE OPERA with an AGGRESSIVELY PUTTY-CENTRIC COLOR THEME THAT GETS TO BE REALLY DEPRESSING!!!!!!

This is one of this HAMMERs that was done with the cooperation of UNIVERSAL, so they stick pretty close in some respects to the 1943 version...only thing is I don't like that version either.

HERBERT LOM is "in" this movie as MONSIEUR L'FANTOME- he has about 5 minutes less screentime than the shark got in JAWS though (not really, but he is absent for a verrrrry good part of the film) MICHAEL GOUGH is in this as L'VILLAINOUS OWNER D'LE'OPERA and he is really TERRIBLE. I do not like MICHAEL GOUGH as an actor. Sue me.  HEATHER SEARS- who I think is superb in THE STORY OF ESTHER COSTELLO is the young Opera Singer, it's a thankless part and her hair is not flattering and she's badly lit and made-up.

This being HAMMER, they INSIST on ANGLIFYING the HELL out of every single aspect. the "Opera" is in English and it is terrible. A quartet of SAUCY  COCKNEY CHARWOMEN show up at the film's UNQUESTIONED HIGHLIGHT.

LOM is excellent though, and very VERY menacing- even though he is not a murderer in this version,he is a real d!ck. there's a scene at the end where the Hero shows up and asks "CHRISTINE, DID HE HURT YOU?!" and she says "NO," and I was like "YEAH, outside of slapping you silly and throwing sewage in your face, he's been a real G.D. PRINCE."

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Det Jim McLeod said:

I saw Black Spurs many years ago, but can't recall anything about it, even after reading your detailed post. I saw several of these AC Lyles westerns because I was a big fan of Lon Chaney Jr and wanted to see as many of his films that I could. I thought the best one (which is isn't saying much) was Johnny Reno, because it gave Chaney the biggest role he had in these films. Normally he had a very small part, sometimes just a glorified cameo. In Johnny Reno, he plays the ineffective sheriff of the town, he looks in terrible health, being overweight and having a ragged voice, but it fit with his over the hill character. He even is given a heroic scene near the end. 

Yeh, I'm a Chaney fan too. But I'm the reverse of you, having seen Johnny Reno but not able to recall much of it. Lon's career, as you know, was impacted by his alcoholism but he still got some work until about the last two years of his life (his final film, Dracula Vs Frankenstein , is an abomination with Chaney playing a mute in it). But after his heyday as a horror star at Universal he was still able to do the occasional good character work, with a pair of highlights being High Noon and The Defiant Ones.

He also gave a great villainy portrayal as gunman Charlie Gordo in an episode of The Rifleman called Gunfire. I recommend this episode to any Chaney fan. His craggy features and ragged voice really add to the menacing characterization. Recently I saw him in I Died A Thousand Times for the first time and he gave a fine account of himself as Mac, the brains behind a holdup, in the part originally played by Donald McBride in High Sierra.

I still have a card that Chaney sent me in 1966 with his autograph on it. His handwriting was still beautifully legible then and his signature was almost identical to that of his father. I also have the letter envelope in which Chaney sent the card. It was hand written by the actor and it gives me a kick to see my name and address once written in ink by the legendary Lon Chaney.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Red Shoes

Just watched this, in real time, last night on The Essentials.  It's one of those films that I thought I'd seen before, but watching it last night, I realized I'd never seen it in full, at best, I'd seen the last half hour or so, once or twice, some time ago.

I wasn't bored, so that's good.  But upon thinking about it afterwards,  I just can't get with the basic premise, that an artist has to choose between their art or a personal life.  And I noticed this premise only applies to the woman in the story.  Ambitious, talented young dancer Vicky Page falls in love with  ambitious, talented young composer Julian Craster.  One problem I have with the movie is, if their love story is so significant, so all-encompassing, how come we never get to see when they first meet?  Although they are both members of the same corps de ballet, they never seem to encounter each other until it's convenient for the story. Craster, as the  composer of the new ballet "The Red Shoes", is requested to play the score every day for Vicky while she has lunch; also, of course, they interact all the time while rehearsing the new ballet.

But while all this gives us a context in which the two lovers get to know each other, it doesn't really show the natural development of their romance. We see one or two scenes between them, then all of a sudden they're deeply in love and going for carriage rides together and late night dinners, etc. Since their love for one another is one of the major points of the story, I think it would have been appropriate and more interesting for the audience to have been given a couple more scenes showing them falling in love.

Anyway, they announce their love and their plans to marry, only to be met with the strenuous, almost fanatical objections of the ballet company's powerful director, Boris Lermontov  (played to great effect by Anton Walbrook, an actor I've always liked --check out the original version of Gaslight, for example...)

Lermontov, who has been shown to be extremely egotistical and dictatorial, especially when it comes to anything that happens in his ballet troupe, objects to the couple marrying on the grounds that it would distract Vicky from her dancing, that her art as a dancer would somehow be compromised by love and marriage.  In a way, this attitude towards "art" reminds me of the Catholic Church's prohibition of priests to marry, lest the energy they are supposed to give to God will somehow be diluted if they have a life partner and family.

Vicky and Julian both choose to leave Lermontov's ballet troupe and marry anyway, telling themselves their careers can thrive without Lermontov's company.  But while this appears to be true for Julian  -- we see him achieving success as a composer, including staging an opera he has written since his marriage -- it appears to be less true for Vicky, whom we see languishing away , her dreams of achieving her ambitions as a dancer unfulfilled.  We even are treated to a scene where she opens a drawer containing all her ballet slippers and caresses them mournfully.

Later, Lermontov seeks Vicky out and asks her to return to his troupe, which she happily agrees to.  She does not see this as in any way betraying her husband - and indeed, it is not, by any normal standard.  But the night of her first return as prima ballerina in Lermontov's troupe, in which she is to perform "The Red Shoes" for the first time in a year, is the same night that composer husband Julian's opera is being performed  (the ballet in Paris, the opera in London,  I think).  Suddenly Julian rushes through Vicky's dressing room door, declaring that he cannot attend his own opera opening night because he's distraught without Vicky by his side, imploring her to return to London with him.  Just then, of course, Lermontov also shows up,  reminding Vicky that she must choose between her art as a dancer or her love for Julian  (throwing in a few insulting and misogynist remarks about how she'll end up a "dull little housewife").

I had to roll my eyes at this penultimate scene, the two men bullying her, each telling her she has to "choose".  Why, exactly, does she have to choose?  I actually was more disgusted with her husband Julian than with the ballet director Lermontov, because Julian claims he loves her and just wants her to be happy. If that's the case, for heaven's sake,  why doesn't he just tell her to do what she loves, and that of course they can continue to be married and pursue a happy fulfilling life together, she can dance, he can compose,  what's to stop them?  Even Lermontov is willing to let Vicky dance in his troupe again. But no, that would be too simple.  For some reason Julian begs her to leave that very instant, abandoning the performance she is just about to give.  How entirely dramatic and unreasonable.

Apparently the only solution is for Vicky to die, and so she casts herself off the balcony of the theatre, conveniently staying alive only long enough to ask Julian to take off the red shoes she's wearing.  It is definitely implied that the shoes have a diabolical power, in real life, just as in the story of the ballet itself.

I know this film was made in 1946, when ideas about women and careers and a family life were much different than they are today. I do try to take that into consideration, but still, there's no getting away from the fact that in The Red Shoes, it's only the woman, only the female artist, who is made to choose between love and a normal married life, and her art.  None of the male characters are asked to make such a choice, including her husband Julian.

I did like this film, despite my objections cited above.  It had a great look to it, I liked that late '40s colour stock, it looks like it's absolutely drenched in colour. I also liked the ballet sequences, and the performances, especially, as mentioned, Anton Walbrook's.  The two men who play the main male dancers in the ballets corps are also quite entertaining. But overall , as I stated at the beginning of this post,  I just can't get past the essential "message" of The Red Shoes, which appears to be that a woman must choose between her art or her personal life, that she cannot have both.  And that's such a silly and untrue message, I just have no patience with it.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2020 at 10:06 AM, EricJ said:

I liked Bugs Bunny's imitation of Lionel Barrymore, when he was showing off in a hospital wheelchair:

15thumb.jpg

("*snrrrt*, GEN-tlemen of the juryyy, YOU can't send that poor boy *snrrt!* to prisonnn!....")

Also, haven't watched it, but the current documentary Our President has been floating around on streaming, showing footage of just to what bizarre, surreal lengths Putin's state-propaganda machine was trying to demonize Hillary Clinton's 2016 election, and sell Trump to the Russian people as the Great White Holy Anti-Hillary Savior....

No idea why they're still meddling in '18 and '20 elections where Hillary isn't running, it's just...more sort of a pride thing for them.  They literally miss being the old Cold-War bullies.

1. That’s kind of ironic that he’s doing an impression of Lionel in “a free soul“ in the wheelchair because that was one of the last films Lionel made before he ended up being confined to a wheelchair. In fact people took his performance so seriously, they thought he actually suffered a stroke at the very end and that was the reason why he was in a wheelchair.
2. HOLY SHIRT, They found the motherfudder’s taxes and that **** paid $750 a year he became president. That sack of **** is broker than I am. I feel like Oprah Winfrey in that scene in the color purple when she’s at the table and Miss Celie finally gets the guts to tell off Mister. 
PASS ME THEM PEAS CHILE!!!!! (Cackles)


*You know it’s kind of funny I actually had to self sensor one of those words in there. Apparently there’s an extremely dirty word that the auto sensor is OK with, or maybe it’s just OK with me calling that one particular person that one particular word, because damn if it isn’t earned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Freshman (1925)

Source: Criterion Blu Ray Blind Buy

My husband and I watched this Harold Lloyd silent film last night.  After having seen Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd, my husband has decided that Harold Lloyd is his favorite silent comedian of the three "big" ones.  I like all three men and it's hard to determine a favorite as each one has a different brand of comedy.  

Anyway.

In The Freshman, Lloyd plays "Harold Lamb," an incoming college freshman.  He's psyched about starting college and has saved $485 ($7200 in 2020 dollars) for "living expenses" while at school.  He's set to start at Tate University, seemingly in Texas, though the campus of USC Los Angeles is seen in the film.  Harold, having seen the hit film "The College Hero" decides to model his personality and aesthetic on that presented in the film.  He even steals the tagline from "The College Hero" something to the effect of "I'm just a regular guy...call me Speedy!" Harold decides that this  line, along with a jig  that he's  developed, will be how he introduces himself to his new college classmates.  At this point, I was trying to figure out if Lloyd's Speedy in this movie was the same "Speedy" in Lloyd's 1928 film of the same name, but I couldn't find any connection.

Anyway, at  school, Harold tries way too hard to be cool and emulate last year's "Most Popular College Man," Chet Trask, and ends up being the target of a group of bullies.  These bullies are so lame.  It's a wonder that "The Most Popular Man" even hangs out with them.  Meanwhile, Harold has also become acquainted with a young woman, Peggy, whom he meets on the train to college and then discovers that she also lives (works?) at the boarding house he resides in.  To impress Peggy, win over the school bullies, and have a shot at becoming popular, Harold decides to join the college football team.

Football in the 20s must have been an incredibly dangerous sport, even more than it can be now.  Those helmets don't appear to offer any protection and the players wear barely any padding whatsoever.  Harold kept putting a thing over his nose.  We were trying to decide if it was a nose guard or if he was being weird and trying to protect his nose with a jock strap.  We decided on the former option, and that it was an odd 1920s nose protector? 

This film was very funny and Harold Lloyd was a very charming onscreen personality.  While The Freshman didn't have any major stunts like Safety Last! it still offered some very memorable scenes, such as the climactic football game and the very funny scene at the "Fall Frolic" that Harold hosts for his "friends." 

This film is highly recommended to anyone who likes Harold Lloyd, silent comedies, or just comedies in general. It was definitely worth the risk buying the film sight unseen.  Though, Lloyd has never steered me wrong in the past, so I felt confident that I would enjoy the film.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is my favorite OVERACTING OF ALL TIME.

In movies, it seems like there is a fine line between good overacting and bad overacting.  Vincent Price is a champion in good overacting.  I dare say that Lee J. Cobb or Rod Steiger on the other hand, have the tendency to do bad overacting. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, speedracer5 said:

In movies, it seems like there is a fine line between good overacting and bad overacting.  Vincent Price is a champion in good overacting.  I dare say that Lee J. Cobb or Rod Steiger on the other hand, have the tendency to do bad overacting. 

source.gif?w=500

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2020 at 7:54 AM, LornaHansonForbes said:

I watched two very interesting MGM films which were both meant to be the first installment of a series, but apparently because interest wasn’t there did not move on to DR KILDAREDOM. 
 

EYES IN THE NIGHT which is about a blind detective and his absolutely adorable black German shepherd seeing eye dog named Friday (And I don’t particularly like German shepherds) who get involved in a Nazi plot. Edward Arnold- who is one of the best examples Of an AUTHORITATIVE ACTOR stars, I really do wish he had found a role in a detective series, because he is perfect for the part. ANN HARDING and DONNA REED costar- It’s a bit of an uneven film, but the scenes with the dog are absolutely fantastic. Seriously, the dog should’ve been considered for best supporting. I also thoroughly agree with this movie’s assertion that community theater has been infiltrated by Nazi agents.

then I watched MIRACLES FOR SALE (1939)- Which was the final film of Tod Browning and which I have only read negative things about, and I have to say It is far better than it gets credit for. ROBERT YOUNG stars as a New York City magician who manufactures and sells stage illusions, FRANK CRAVEN is his father and he gets some  laugh out loud funny lines. GLORIA “DRACULA’s DAUGHTER” HOLDEN has an all too brief part as a phony mystic and HENRY HULL has  an absolutely terrific part as a rival magician (miles away from WEREWOLF OF LONDON) This is an absolutely perfect film to be Brownings last because it hits on a lot of notes of his previous movies, psychics vampires, demons, magic tricks, and the completely ludicrous notion of being able to frighten a criminal into confessing their murder by using Scooby Doo methodology. I thoroughly enjoyed it and laughed out loud several times, I really do recommend it although I will note that the denouement needed a rewrite... This is however one of those impossible mystery films where the solution is actually quite clever.

I saw Eyes in the Night once a long time ago.  An oddity, but interesting.  I don't remember much about it and would like to see it again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Hibi said:

I saw Eyes in the Night once a long time ago.  An oddity, but interesting.  I don't remember much about it and would like to see it again.

I forgot to mention it was directed by FRED ZINNEMANN (sp?) I guess it was the first time he and DONNA REED worked together.

The story itself is odd, it seems as if it is going to be a straightforward murder mystery, but then The Nazis get involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Det Jim McLeod said:

Just saw this. A good role for Chaney, played with some sadistic glee. still not too much screen time. He of course was no match for Lucas McCain's rapid fire gun.

Yes, there was a lot of cat-and-mouse sadism on Chaney's part, which he played with glee. It's just that every time Chaney calls out to Micah (Paul Fix) the marshall goes running into the back of the jail, "What do you want, Gordo?" "I think, Bonehead," I thought, "He just wants to see you jump like a scared rabbit and run in there every time he calls out your name. Stop playing his game!" At least the show ended with a lot of bullets flying, what is only to be hoped for in an episode called Gunfire.

Ever wonder how many bad guys Lucas McCain cut down with that rifle of his? If he put a notch for every one on the rifle butt he wouldn't have any gun left to shoot with.

26b2496c-8e70-471d-bc68-a365f99c12ec-gif

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

I forgot to mention it was directed by FRED ZINNEMANN (sp?) I guess it was the first time he and DONNA REED worked together.

The story itself is odd, it seems as if it is going to be a straightforward murder mystery, but then The Nazis get involved.

I remember at the time, it seemed like an odd film for Ann Harding to be in, but her career was going downhill at that time. I'd completely forgotten about Zinnemann directing it! (in his early days)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vautrin said:

The Freshman has one of my favorite title cards, Tate University~A large football stadium with acollege attached.

That, and varsity-boy Harold trying out his 20's-football cheers:  "Hi-ta-ticky!  Bing-bang-blooey!  T-A-T-E, zip-chop-suey!"
While we see his puzzled dad downstairs listening to the shortwave radio:  "I've just tuned in on China!"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

The Red Shoes

Just watched this, in real time, last night on The Essentials.  It's one of those films that I thought I'd seen before, but watching it last night, I realized I'd never seen it in full, at best, I'd seen the last half hour or so, once or twice, some time ago.

I wasn't bored, so that's good.  But upon thinking about it afterwards,  I just can't get with the basic premise, that an artist has to choose between their art or a personal life.  And I noticed this premise only applies to the woman in the story.  Ambitious, talented young dancer Vicky Page falls in love with  ambitious, talented young composer Julian Craster.  One problem I have with the movie is, if their love story is so significant, so all-encompassing, how come we never get to see when they first meet?  Although they are both members of the same corps de ballet, they never seem to encounter each other until it's convenient for the story. Craster, as the  composer of the new ballet "The Red Shoes", is requested to play the score every day for Vicky while she has lunch; also, of course, they interact all the time while rehearsing the new ballet.

But while all this gives us a context in which the two lovers get to know each other, it doesn't really show the natural development of their romance. We see one or two scenes between them, then all of a sudden they're deeply in love and going for carriage rides together and late night dinners, etc. Since their love for one another is one of the major points of the story, I think it would have been appropriate and more interesting for the audience to have been given a couple more scenes showing them falling in love.

Anyway, they announce their love and their plans to marry, only to be met with the strenuous, almost fanatical objections of the ballet company's powerful director, Boris Lermontov  (played to great effect by Anton Walbrook, an actor I've always liked --check out the original version of Gaslight, for example...)

Lermontov, who has been shown to be extremely egotistical and dictatorial, especially when it comes to anything that happens in his ballet troupe, objects to the couple marrying on the grounds that it would distract Vicky from her dancing, that her art as a dancer would somehow be compromised by love and marriage.  In a way, this attitude towards "art" reminds me of the Catholic Church's prohibition of priests to marry, lest the energy they are supposed to give to God will somehow be diluted if they have a life partner and family.

Vicky and Julian both choose to leave Lermontov's ballet troupe and marry anyway, telling themselves their careers can thrive without Lermontov's company.  But while this appears to be true for Julian  -- we see him achieving success as a composer, including staging an opera he has written since his marriage -- it appears to be less true for Vicky, whom we see languishing away , her dreams of achieving her ambitions as a dancer unfulfilled.  We even are treated to a scene where she opens a drawer containing all her ballet slippers and caresses them mournfully.

Later, Lermontov seeks Vicky out and asks her to return to his troupe, which she happily agrees to.  She does not see this as in any way betraying her husband - and indeed, it is not, by any normal standard.  But the night of her first return as prima ballerina in Lermontov's troupe, in which she is to perform "The Red Shoes" for the first time in a year, is the same night that composer husband Julian's opera is being performed  (the ballet in Paris, the opera in London,  I think).  Suddenly Julian rushes through Vicky's dressing room door, declaring that he cannot attend his own opera opening night because he's distraught without Vicky by his side, imploring her to return to London with him.  Just then, of course, Lermontov also shows up,  reminding Vicky that she must choose between her art as a dancer or her love for Julian  (throwing in a few insulting and misogynist remarks about how she'll end up a "dull little housewife").

I had to roll my eyes at this penultimate scene, the two men bullying her, each telling her she has to "choose".  Why, exactly, does she have to choose?  I actually was more disgusted with her husband Julian than with the ballet director Lermontov, because Julian claims he loves her and just wants her to be happy. If that's the case, for heaven's sake,  why doesn't he just tell her to do what she loves, and that of course they can continue to be married and pursue a happy fulfilling life together, she can dance, he can compose,  what's to stop them?  Even Lermontov is willing to let Vicky dance in his troupe again. But no, that would be too simple.  For some reason Julian begs her to leave that very instant, abandoning the performance she is just about to give.  How entirely dramatic and unreasonable.

Apparently the only solution is for Vicky to die, and so she casts herself off the balcony of the theatre, conveniently staying alive only long enough to ask Julian to take off the red shoes she's wearing.  It is definitely implied that the shoes have a diabolical power, in real life, just as in the story of the ballet itself.

I know this film was made in 1946, when ideas about women and careers and a family life were much different than they are today. I do try to take that into consideration, but still, there's no getting away from the fact that in The Red Shoes, it's only the woman, only the female artist, who is made to choose between love and a normal married life, and her art.  None of the male characters are asked to make such a choice, including her husband Julian.

I did like this film, despite my objections cited above.  It had a great look to it, I liked that late '40s colour stock, it looks like it's absolutely drenched in colour. I also liked the ballet sequences, and the performances, especially, as mentioned, Anton Walbrook's.  The two men who play the main male dancers in the ballets corps are also quite entertaining. But overall , as I stated at the beginning of this post,  I just can't get past the essential "message" of The Red Shoes, which appears to be that a woman must choose between her art or her personal life, that she cannot have both.  And that's such a silly and untrue message, I just have no patience with it.

My only beef with THE RED SHOES Is that it uses trick photography during the dance sequences. For a film that is all about the incredible art of dance, and the painful contortions and unnatural degree of effort that goes into BALLET dancers moving  their bodies in such a way- The film uses freeze frames and I think slow motion, and that’s not fair. It’s not fair to the dancers and it’s not fair to the story.

i see KRASNER as THE VILLAIN and LERMONTOV as the true hero. I love Anton Walbrook in this movie, in his book “alternate Oscars” Danny Peary  argues that Walbrook should’ve won best actor in 1948 and I agree, his final scene is absolutely devastating. 
also

GASLIGHT (1940) is MUCH BETTER than GASLIGHT (1944)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, EricJ said:

That, and varsity-boy Harold trying out his 20's-football cheers:  "Hi-ta-ticky!  Bing-bang-blooey!  T-A-T-E, zip-chop-suey!"
While we see his puzzled dad downstairs listening to the shortwave radio:  "I've just tuned in on China!"

Yeah, I can't say I'm a big silent film fan, but The Freshman is hilarious. Hard to beat the premise of a

nerdy guy like Harold trying to be a big football star and a BMOC. Goooooo Tate.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

Yeah, I can't say I'm a big silent film fan, but The Freshman is hilarious. Hard to beat the premise of a

nerdy guy like Harold trying to be a big football star and a BMOC. Goooooo Tate.

I loved the scene where he lined up on wrong side of the scrimmage line. And I also loved it when Harold literally became the team tackling dummy.  What was that thing he was wearing on his nose? Were there nose guards in the 1920s? Before face masks, was there a combination nose/mouth guard? Harold seemed to be the only one wearing it.  I believe that The Freshman was the first sports film.  

I also loved the scene at the Fall Frolic where Harold's suit kept falling apart and the tailor was trying to discreetly sew it back together.

  • Thanks 1
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
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...