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

Out of the Past Standout


HepburnGirl
 Share

Recommended Posts

I just watched “Out of the Past" for the first time and was not disappointed, I absolutely loved it! the acting was top-notch all around, the cinematography was terrific, it was wonderfully stylish, and Jane greer was positively gorgeous (kudos to the wardrobe department; Greer's outfits are to die for). It was really entertaining, and Mitchum and Douglas are superb together.

 

With all that said, there was one big standout to me-- Paul Valentine as "Joe Stephanos". He was really great! I'd never seen him in anything prior to this, but he really took a character that could easily have been just another greasy henchman/thug and turned it into a really interesting character. He had great facial expressions, an interesting voice, and a pretty easygoing demeanor considering, very affable and charming, though he did show a bit of angst a couple of times. Also, the complexity we see in the character after he murders Eels, with him showing some remorse for doing so, the look on his face and what he says indicate he does feel genuinely bad for it, was really atypical of other characters of the same type in other crime-dramas/noirs.

 

Anyway, he was really fantastic, and it's too bad he didn't do more movies, because he really had presence and was pretty handsome. There's also very little information about him on the internet, besides the fact that he was married to famed burlesque dancer Lili St. Cyr.

 

It really is a shame, but at least we'll always have his great performance in "Out of the Past".

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OUT OF THE PAST is a favorite film of mine and I think its a film that best illustrates what the term "film noir" is all about.  By that I mean it has  so many of the elements that we look for in a film noir.  And as a film standing on its own merit it has an excellent storyline, well paced direction and first class acting by the cast (supporting players as well as the stars). As for Paul  Valentine , he doesn't have a very extensive film bio. He was in the very good HOUSE OF STRANGERS  as one of Edward G Robinson's sons, that film was made right after OUT OF THE PAST. And he appeared in a small part in the film AGAINST ALL ODDS, an 80's "remake" of OUT OF THE PAST. That film also has Jane Greer playing the mother of the "Kathie" character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just watched “Out of the Past" for the first time and was not disappointed, I absolutely loved it! the acting was top-notch all around, the cinematography was terrific, it was wonderfully stylish, and Jane greer was positively gorgeous (kudos to the wardrobe department; Greer's outfits are to die for). It was really entertaining, and Mitchum and Douglas are superb together.

 

With all that said, there was one big standout to me-- Paul Valentine as "Joe Stephanos". He was really great! I'd never seen him in anything prior to this, but he really took a character that could easily have been just another greasy henchman/thug and turned it into a really interesting character. He had great facial expressions, an interesting voice, and a pretty easygoing demeanor considering, very affable and charming, though he did show a bit of angst a couple of times. Also, the complexity we see in the character after he murders Eels, with him showing some remorse for doing so, the look on his face and what he says indicate he does feel genuinely bad for it, was really atypical of other characters of the same type in other crime-dramas/noirs.

 

Anyway, he was really fantastic, and it's too bad he didn't do more movies, because he really had presence and was pretty handsome. There's also very little information about him on the internet, besides the fact that he was married to famed burlesque dancer Lili St. Cyr.

 

It really is a shame, but at least we'll always have his great performance in "Out of the Past".

 

Valentine was a dancer -- he turns up in the last Marx Bros movie Love Happy.

 

IMHO what's most notable about him in OOTP is his rather effete manner. This is perhaps the big gun for those pushing the homosexual subtext argument re the Whit-Joe relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valentine was a dancer -- he turns up in the last Marx Bros movie Love Happy.

 

IMHO what's most notable about him in OOTP is his rather effete manner. This is perhaps the big gun for those pushing the homosexual subtext argument re the Whit-Joe relationship.

Wow, I must be really naive, because that homosexual subtext never even occurred to me! I didn't really see him as effeminate, just kind of smooth and laid back for the most part. I thought his demeanor was refreshing for the kind of character he was - a murdering thug.

 

We really don't get a whole lot of backstory on the relationship between Whit and Joe; how long they've known each other, how good of friends they actually are. But whit does seem genuinely upset when he finds out Joe has died.

 

Also, Joe and Kathie don't really seem to like each other, or rather they seem very indifferent towards each other, though I just took that as Joe knowing exactly who and what Kathie really is, and seeing as how she's already messed up with his friend before, it's not hard to see why he doesn't care for her too much. Kathie , on the other hand, doesn't like Joe because she knows he knows what she really is, and of course she wouldn't like someone who can see through her. She doesn't seem to especially care or be affected at all when Jeff tells her Joe's dead. I never took it as any kind of jealousy between them for Whit's affections. There was absolutely no romantic or sexual tension between Joe and Kathie, but there didn't have to be in the context of the movie.

 

With all that said, I CAN see why people might read into the homosexual subtext. It's definitely something to consider.

 

I'll definitely check out “Love Happy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.  There is NO homosexual subtext between Joe and Whit.  If there was, you could say this about all "buddy" movies and all movies with one guy working for another one.  I hate it when people create these phony "subtexts."  Guess Tough Guys with Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas would definitely have a "homosexual subtext?"

2.  HepburnGirl:  You might also enjoy The Big Steal, which was made a couple of years after Out of the Past.  Also, starred Mitchum and Greer, but in a more humorous mystery movie.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.  There is NO homosexual subtext between Joe and Whit.  If there was, you could say this about all "buddy" movies and all movies with one guy working for another one.  I hate it when people create these phony "subtexts."  Guess Tough Guys with Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas would definitely have a "homosexual subtext?"

2.  HepburnGirl:  You might also enjoy The Big Steal, which was made a couple of years after Out of the Past.  Also, starred Mitchum and Greer, but in a more humorous mystery movie.

 

I agree there is no homosexual subtext between Joe and Whit but Joe could have been a homosexual thug.    It is fairly common for the thugs to be homosexual and there are very practical reasons for this.    A hired thug has to live underground and so did homosexuals in that era.    Playing the field with the ladies is a sure way to get too much exposure or expose the interworking of the gang to them. e.g.  The Big Heat where Marvin's girlfriend Gloria leads to his doom.     See The Big Combo for hired thugs that, since they have each other,  limit their exposure. 

 

There is no sexual chemistry between Joe and Kathie.   Of course that could be just smart business (not messing with the boss's gal).  So I'm not saying Joe was homosexual but that it wouldn't be unusual in the noir world for that type of character to be.     Also, didn't you see the way Joe looked at the Kid?   (hey,  I'm pulling your leg here!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. There is NO homosexual subtext between Joe and Whit. If there was, you could say this about all "buddy" movies and all movies with one guy working for another one. I hate it when people create these phony "subtexts." Guess Tough Guys with Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas would definitely have a "homosexual subtext?"

2. HepburnGirl: You might also enjoy The Big Steal, which was made a couple of years after Out of the Past. Also, starred Mitchum and Greer, but in a more humorous mystery movie.

I agree that homosexual subtext is too often applied to movies where there are close same-sex friendships or working relationships. I've heard it applied to many classic films, and in most cases it's absured. like I said, looking back on the film, I can see why some people might get that idea, perhaps it can be read that way if one is really looking for it. There's nothing wrong with that subtext in films where it makes sense within the story, where it is actually strongly implied, I just don't think this is one of those films.

 

As for myself, I didn't see it -the subtext- at all, but then I've only seen the movie once. however, I really think they were just friends. Joe had probably been working for Whit a long time. We really don't get a lot of backstory on their relationship, certainly not enough to make the assumption that they are somehow in love with each other or have an affair of their own going on.

 

Either way, I value everyone's opinion and theories about film. I'll always take things into consideration. That's what makes film so great--so many different people can watch the same movie, but can come out of it with completely different points of view and with differing opinions on the story and the deeper meaning in and of the film.

 

The Big Steal sounds very good! I'll definitely try to see that one! I'd love to see more with Greer; she was really terrific!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree there is no homosexual subtext between Joe and Whit but Joe could have been a homosexual thug. It is fairly common for the thugs to be homosexual and there are very practical reasons for this. A hired thug has to live underground and so did homosexuals in that era. Playing the field with the ladies is a sure way to get too much exposure or expose the interworking of the gang to them. e.g. The Big Heat where Marvin's girlfriend Gloria leads to his doom. See The Big Combo for hired thugs that, since they have each other, limit their exposure.

 

There is no sexual chemistry between Joe and Kathie. Of course that could be just smart business (not messing with the boss's gal). So I'm not saying Joe was homosexual but that it wouldn't be unusual in the noir world for that type of character to be. Also, didn't you see the way Joe looked at the Kid? (hey, I'm pulling your leg here!).

Lol, the kid. I don't know about how he was looking at him, but I felt so bad for the kid when Joe called him deaf AND dumb. Like, you couldn't just say he was deaf? the kid didn't seem dumb at all. But I get it, it was back in the day. But the look on the kid's face was kind of sad.

 

And regardless of whatever subtext was going on or was not going on, I enjoyed Valentine's performance immensely! I found myself watching him in every scene he was in with a great interest. Whatever was going on with the character, I think he made the role very interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, the kid. I don't know about how he was looking at him, but I felt so bad for the kid when Joe called him deaf AND dumb. Like, you couldn't just say he was deaf? the kid didn't seem dumb at all.

 

With the kid, dumb doesn't mean that he's dumb in the usual sense, it means he can't talk. He's actually quite sharp, he showed that with his lie at the end, saving Jeff's girlfriend a lot of grief.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, the kid. I don't know about how he was looking at him, but I felt so bad for the kid when Joe called him deaf AND dumb. Like, you couldn't just say he was deaf? the kid didn't seem dumb at all. But I get it, it was back in the day. But the look on the kid's face was kind of sad.

 

And regardless of whatever subtext was going on or was not going on, I enjoyed Valentine's performance immensely! I found myself watching him in every scene he was in with a great interest. Whatever was going on with the character, I think he made the role very interesting.

 

I agree that Valentine gave a great and nuanced performance as the right hand man \ thug.    Take that first talk he has with Jeff (Mitchum) advising him to go see Whit in Tahoe.   Notice how I say 'advising him';  now this was really a threat in that Jeff couldn't say no,   but the way Valentine made the request as well as the dialog provided by the writer elevated this simple scene beyond 'hey, the man wants to see you' type of exchange one would see in a standard gangster film.     The occurred in all the scenes Valentine was in (the best one,  as you noted, with Greer after the killing).     

 

As for the kid being 'dumb';  this was slang used at the time for someone that couldn't speak. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just watched “Out of the Past" for the first time and was not disappointed, I absolutely loved it! the acting was top-notch all around, the cinematography was terrific, it was wonderfully stylish, and Jane greer was positively gorgeous (kudos to the wardrobe department; Greer's outfits are to die for). It was really entertaining, and Mitchum and Douglas are superb together.

 

With all that said, there was one big standout to me-- Paul Valentine as "Joe Stephanos". He was really great! I'd never seen him in anything prior to this, but he really took a character that could easily have been just another greasy henchman/thug and turned it into a really interesting character. He had great facial expressions, an interesting voice, and a pretty easygoing demeanor considering, very affable and charming, though he did show a bit of angst a couple of times. Also, the complexity we see in the character after he murders Eels, with him showing some remorse for doing so, the look on his face and what he says indicate he does feel genuinely bad for it, was really atypical of other characters of the same type in other crime-dramas/noirs.

 

Anyway, he was really fantastic, and it's too bad he didn't do more movies, because he really had presence and was pretty handsome. There's also very little information about him on the internet, besides the fact that he was married to famed burlesque dancer Lili St. Cyr.

 

It really is a shame, but at least we'll always have his great performance in "Out of the Past".

 

 

Agree with all your points. Especially Valentine. Dunno why he didnt have a better career. Out of the Past is one of my favorite noirs or films PERIOD. I never tire of watching it (and have seen it at LEAST a dozen times by now.....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I must be really naive, because that homosexual subtext never even occurred to me! I didn't really see him as effeminate, just kind of smooth and laid back for the most part. I thought his demeanor was refreshing for the kind of character he was - a murdering thug.

 

We really don't get a whole lot of backstory on the relationship between Whit and Joe; how long they've known each other, how good of friends they actually are. But whit does seem genuinely upset when he finds out Joe has died.

 

Also, Joe and Kathie don't really seem to like each other, or rather they seem very indifferent towards each other, though I just took that as Joe knowing exactly who and what Kathie really is, and seeing as how she's already messed up with his friend before, it's not hard to see why he doesn't care for her too much. Kathie , on the other hand, doesn't like Joe because she knows he knows what she really is, and of course she wouldn't like someone who can see through her. She doesn't seem to especially care or be affected at all when Jeff tells her Joe's dead. I never took it as any kind of jealousy between them for Whit's affections. There was absolutely no romantic or sexual tension between Joe and Kathie, but there didn't have to be in the context of the movie.

 

With all that said, I CAN see why people might read into the homosexual subtext. It's definitely something to consider.

 

I'll definitely check out “Love Happy".

 

 

Kathie didnt care when ANYONE died! (as long as she didnt) LOL. I can see a gay subtext in his character (reading that today, I mean) but I'm not sure it was meant to be there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that homosexual subtext is too often applied to movies where there are close same-sex friendships or working relationships. I've heard it applied to many classic films, and in most cases it's absured. like I said, looking back on the film, I can see why some people might get that idea, perhaps it can be read that way if one is really looking for it. There's nothing wrong with that subtext in films where it makes sense within the story, where it is actually strongly implied, I just don't think this is one of those films.

 

As for myself, I didn't see it -the subtext- at all, but then I've only seen the movie once. however, I really think they were just friends. Joe had probably been working for Whit a long time. We really don't get a lot of backstory on their relationship, certainly not enough to make the assumption that they are somehow in love with each other or have an affair of their own going on.

 

Either way, I value everyone's opinion and theories about film. I'll always take things into consideration. That's what makes film so great--so many different people can watch the same movie, but can come out of it with completely different points of view and with differing opinions on the story and the deeper meaning in and of the film.

 

The Big Steal sounds very good! I'll definitely try to see that one! I'd love to see more with Greer; she was really terrific!

 

 

Jane Greer, unfortunately, didnt have the career she deserved. Her boss at RKO, Howard Hughes, was interested in her, but she wasnt in him, so he often put her in run of the mill stuff and really didnt promote her career. Past is definitely her best film, but she did appear in some other good ones (usually on in the early morning hours on TCM) Steal is one of them too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that homosexual subtext is too often applied to movies where there are close same-sex friendships or working relationships. I've heard it applied to many classic films, and in most cases it's absured.

 

I agree completely.

 

However, in this case, what has always struck me about Paul Valentine in Out Of The Past, ever since I first saw the film many years ago -- long before I was trained to search for subtexts 'n' stuff -- is how near-effeminate his performance is. His soft manner of speaking, as well as his unaggressive posture.

 

And remember, in my first post I said "subtext". That doesn't mean Joe and Whit were taking weekend getaways together to Key West. But I also think it's clear that Joe is not your typical henchman.

 

I can think of a similar, lesser-known example in a lesser known film: John Kellogg as Dick Powell's loyal gofer in Johnny O'clock. In every other Kellogg performance I've ever seen, Kellogg has a deep gravelly voice and permanent sneer. Here though he is very soft-voiced and almost wide-eyed in innocence. Was this the director's idea? Actor's interpretation? Or a rare glimpse of the "real" Kellogg?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely.

 

However, in this case, what has always struck me about Paul Valentine in Out Of The Past, ever since I first saw the film many years ago -- long before I was trained to search for subtexts 'n' stuff -- is how near-effeminate his performance is. His soft manner of speaking, as well as his unaggressive posture.

 

And remember, in my first post I said "subtext". That doesn't mean Joe and Whit were taking weekend getaways together to Key West. But I also think it's clear that Joe is not your typical henchman.

 

I can think of a similar, lesser-known example in a lesser known film: John Kellogg as Dick Powell's loyal gofer in Johnny O'clock. In every other Kellogg performance I've ever seen, Kellogg has a deep gravelly voice and permanent sneer. Here though he is very soft-voiced and almost wide-eyed in innocence. Was this the director's idea? Actor's interpretation? Or a rare glimpse of the "real" Kellogg?

 

 

It's hard to know what was being implied (or not). Unless the writer/director went on record about it. I dont see any vibes between Kirk and Valentine. But I could see Valentine's character being gay. Nothing obvious, of course. I doubt viewers at the time thought anything about it.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, the kid. I don't know about how he was looking at him, but I felt so bad for the kid when Joe called him deaf AND dumb. Like, you couldn't just say he was deaf? the kid didn't seem dumb at all.

 

With the kid, dumb doesn't mean that he's dumb in the usual sense, it means he can't talk. He's actually quite sharp, he showed that with his lie at the end, saving Jeff's girlfriend a lot of grief.

oh, ok! makes sense then, why he called him that. The look on the kid's face just looked little hurt when he said it. I guess that's what threw me off, assuming he meant not very bright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jane Greer, unfortunately, didnt have the career she deserved. Her boss at RKO, Howard Hughes, was interested in her, but she wasnt in him, so he often put her in run of the mill stuff and really didnt promote her career. Past is definitely her best film, but she did appear in some other good ones (usually on in the early morning hours on TCM) Steal is one of them too.

all I will say is that I prefer jane greer in man of a thousand faces as the most supportive of women to a homicidal babe. that's the real jane greer. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely.

 

However, in this case, what has always struck me about Paul Valentine in Out Of The Past, ever since I first saw the film many years ago -- long before I was trained to search for subtexts 'n' stuff -- is how near-effeminate his performance is. His soft manner of speaking, as well as his unaggressive posture.

 

And remember, in my first post I said "subtext". That doesn't mean Joe and Whit were taking weekend getaways together to Key West. But I also think it's clear that Joe is not your typical henchman.

 

I can think of a similar, lesser-known example in a lesser known film: John Kellogg as Dick Powell's loyal gofer in Johnny O'clock. In every other Kellogg performance I've ever seen, Kellogg has a deep gravelly voice and permanent sneer. Here though he is very soft-voiced and almost wide-eyed in innocence. Was this the director's idea? Actor's interpretation? Or a rare glimpse of the "real" Kellogg?

I truly wonder then - and since I've never seen Valentine in anything else - if his interesting way of speaking and his demeanor (both of which I enjoyed in the character) were mostly just for the character, or if that was how Valentine was in real life. It all seemed very natural, but of course that's what good actors are supposed to do, make everything that's not them seem completely natural. Was it a conscious choice to play the character that way? was he written that way? directed that way? or was it all purely Valentine coming through the character?

 

Also, his voice kept reminding me of some other actor and it was kind of driving me crazy, but I think I finally got it - Farley Granger. Maybe they don't sound exactly alike, but there are similarities. Does anybody else think so? or did his voice remind you of any other actor? Granger was the closest I could come to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never seen Valentine in anything else

 

He's also in the Marx Bros Love Happy (playing a choreographer) and House Of Strangers as the "dumbhead" son who works as a bank guard and moonlights as an aspiring boxer. In the latter role he certainly is more soft-spoken than, say, Mike Mazurki would have been, though I don't get a Joe-like vibe from him there.

 

Those would probably be his most notable roles, though I do remember being surprised a few years ago when Valentine popped up in a rerun of Quincy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's also in the Marx Bros Love Happy (playing a choreographer) and House Of Strangers as the "dumbhead" son who works as a bank guard and moonlights as an aspiring boxer. In the latter role he certainly is more soft-spoken than, say, Mike Mazurki would have been, though I don't get a Joe-like vibe from him there.

 

Those would probably be his most notable roles, though I do remember being surprised a few years ago when Valentine popped up in a rerun of Quincy.

 

 

DId he age well? I never saw him when he was older...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

     

....As for the kid being 'dumb';  this was slang used at the time for someone that couldn't speak. 

 

No, actually "dumb" meant then and still means "unable to speak". It wasn't slang at all, it was the correct meaning of the word. There was originally no perjorative connotation at all.

I think maybe what you meant was,  "dumb" was slang back then and is still slang for unintelligent. Hence the offensive interpretation . In fact, apparently now we're supposed to say "speech-impaired".

 

Here's the Cambridge dictionary definition:

 

 

Meaning of "dumb" - English Dictionary

dumbadjectiveuk us /dʌm/
 
 
dumb adjective (SILENT)
C1 permanently or temporarily unable to speak: He's been deaf and dumb since birth. She was struck dumb by what she had seen.
dumb adjective (STUPID)
B2 mainly US informal stupid : Are they brave or just dumb? What a dumb idea!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...With the kid, dumb doesn't mean that he's dumb in the usual sense, it means he can't talk. He's actually quite sharp, he showed that with his lie at the end, saving Jeff's girlfriend a lot of grief.

 

I've never agreed with that take on the ending. That is to say, yes, there's no doubt that the deaf (and dumb) kid indicates to Ann that Jeff was indeed going away with Kathie, with no intention to return to Ann. The kid led Ann to believe that Jeff had let her down, that if he'd lived he'd have left her and gone to Mexico to live with Kathie.

 

But why is this a good thing to believe? The kid seems to think that by leading Ann to believe that Jeff no longer loved her, perhaps never loved her, was always in thrall to Kathie, this will somehow free Ann up to marry the sheriff and get on with her life.

 

I don't agree. It's always bothered me that Ann will live the rest of her life believing that Jeff did not love her, that he had returned to Kathie.

It was not true, Jeff had every intention of returning to Ann and starting a new and hopefully happy life with her. Since Jeff is dead anyway, of course Ann will have to get on with her life. I don't think she would have refused to marry the sheriff had she known that Jeff was true to her; what would be the point? The man she loved was dead. After some time to grieve and adjust to that fact, I think Ann, who was a sensible young woman as well as a romantic one, would have realized that Jeff himself would have wanted her to live a normal life.

I don't believe Ann would have pined away for the rest of her life for a man who was dead, whether she knew he'd loved her or not. And by letting Ann think that Jeff had been planning to leave her, I think the boy did Ann a great DISservice.

I think it would have made Ann  happy to know the truth, that Jeff really did love her, had no further interest in Kathie, and was intending to marry Ann. I've always thought it hurt Ann more to think that Jeff did not really love her after all. And it was not true, he did love Ann.  I know if I were in that situation, I'd want to know if the man who'd died had loved me.  I don't see how knowing that would have stopped Ann from getting on with her life - - after a while, anyway.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never agreed with that take on the ending. That is to say, yes, there's no doubt that the deaf (and dumb) kid indicates to Ann that Jeff was indeed going away with Kathie, with no intention to return to Ann. The kid led Ann to believe that Jeff had let her down, that if he'd lived he'd have left her and gone to Mexico to live with Kathie.

 

But why is this a good thing to believe? The kid seems to think that by leading Ann to believe that Jeff no longer loved her, perhaps never loved her, was always in thrall to Kathie, this will somehow free Ann up to marry the sheriff and get on with her life.

 

I don't agree. It's always bothered me that Ann will live the rest of her life believing that Jeff did not love her, that he had returned to Kathie.

It was not true, Jeff had every intention of returning to Ann and starting a new and hopefully happy life with her. Since Jeff is dead anyway, of course Ann will have to get on with her life. I don't think she would have refused to marry the sheriff had she known that Jeff was true to her; what would be the point? The man she loved was dead. After some time to grieve and adjust to that fact, I think Ann, who was a sensible young woman as well as a romantic one, would have realized that Jeff himself would have wanted her to live a normal life.

I don't believe Ann would have pined away for the rest of her life for a man who was dead, whether she knew he'd loved her or not. And by letting Ann think that Jeff had been planning to leave her, I think the boy did Ann a great DISservice.

I think it would have made Ann  happy to know the truth, that Jeff really did love her, had no further interest in Kathie, and was intending to marry Ann. I've always thought it hurt Ann more to think that Jeff did not really love her after all. And it was not true, he did love Ann.  I know if I were in that situation, I'd want to know if the man who'd died had loved me.  I don't see how knowing that would have stopped Ann from getting on with her life - - after a while, anyway.

 

Well since the Kid was dumb (as in can't speak)  it would have taken him a very long time to get across the points you're making to Ann.    

 

But seriously,   while I see the point that the lie was a disservice to Ann,  I  always viewed it as a sounding ending to a movie titled 'Out of the Past',   as in even in death Jeff's past unfairly taints him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DId he age well? I never saw him when he was older...........

 

He had grayish temples and had put on a few pounds (but was by no means fat). What I remember most about it is that deja vu feeling: "Hey that guy looks familiar..." IIRC this was the pre-(my having) internet era, so I had to wait until the end credits to find out who he was. Ah, the primitive olden days...

 

That might make an interesting thread: actors who had such huge gaps in notable appearances they looked so old (or young, if you only knew them from later) that you barely recognized them, or didn't recognize them at all.

 

I remember the first time I saw The Enforcer (1951), the hit man who wanders into the police station in the opening sequence looked awfully familiar. I finally realized it was 24 year old Michael Tolan, a busy male lead on late '60s/early '70s TV (perhaps best remembered as Mary's on-off BF on the MTM Show). I presumed his quick disappearance from Hollywood in the early '50s was due to blacklisting, though his Wiki bio claims he left of his own accord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...