WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Chit-chat, current events
RedRiver
Posts: 4200
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by RedRiver »

"Gun Hill" and "OK Corral" are fine westerns. Both the work of John Sturges? It's ironic that I like "OK Corral" as much as I do. Yet I can't acknowledge it as the best telling of that story. That honor goes to Mr. Ford's version!

I'm doing some community theatre right now. Our director's idea of acting is OVERACTING! I know. I know. Theatre is different than film. Play to the back row. But I feel like a fool. Real people just don't blow things up that big. Directors don't care if actors look silly. Their goal is to convey an image, create a mood. Sometimes overplaying is the most efficient way to do that. If I were directing, I'd probably do the same thing. That's why there are struggles between actors and directors.

And the director always wins!
User avatar
moira finnie
Administrator
Posts: 8024
Joined: April 9th, 2007, 6:34 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by moira finnie »

Mr. Arkadin wrote:While we often can complain about actors and how they play a role, many times it's not specifically their fault. There are some actors who are magnetic and will take over a scene unless the director subdues them. In other cases, that might be exactly what the director wanted. Another issue is interplay among the players. While some actors can elevate lesser thespians (think of Fred MacMurray, Joel McCrea), others seem to be stealing the scene if the people they're working with aren't up to their level. Many of Joan Crawford's critics will jump on her for hamming a scene when the guy she's next to is nothing more than wallpaper. Pair her with Garfield, or anyone of similar stature and that problem disappears. At the end of the road we all have people we don't care for, but you also have to realize that every film does not consist of a single person's performance, just as every dish is not based on single components. The components themselves might be great or not so great, but its the blending and harmonizing of the individual items that create a harmonious piece of work that one can enjoy--or not.
Good points, and well expressed, Ark. Thanks.

I think that Douglas' sometimes OTT style may have deterred from other performers ability to share the spotlight, but I still enjoy his bravura performances in unrealistic but enormously entertaining flicks such as The Vikings. I don't care for his work as Vincent Van Gogh, but he probably got carried away when he was teamed with Anthony Quinn. Also, when actors get Oscar fever there is no stopping them. I agree with the other opinions expressed in this thread about Seven Days in May. The taut script, the presence of Lancaster and the ensemble form under the guidance of John Frankenheimer may have tamped down his impulse to externalize his interesting character.

When Kirk had a strong director he was able to channel much of that explosive energy into selective moments instead of steamrolling over the story and other actors.
Avatar: Frank McHugh (1898-1981)

The Skeins
TCM Movie Morlocks
User avatar
Fossy
Posts: 566
Joined: April 29th, 2010, 8:13 pm
Location: Cairns, Qld., Australia

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by Fossy »

I revisited SueSue Applegate (The Major and The Minor) last night. I had not seen it for over a year. It is not hard to see why this was listed as one of the top ten movies of 1942. Ray Milland`s confusion over his attraction to her, Rita Johnson`s determination to keep him by her side where she could dominate him, Diana Lynn`s dislike of her sister and her friendship to Sue Sue, and Ginger Roger`s portrayal of a young girl, an attractive young woman, and her own middle aged mother all combined to make this a memorable show
User avatar
CineMaven
Posts: 3815
Joined: September 24th, 2007, 9:54 am
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Contact:

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by CineMaven »

I admit I felt a little obligation to “The Classics” in my original reason to go see the movie. Reading some posts around FaceBook put a little of that ol’ enthusiasm bug in me. Not so quick on the draw with my keyboarding, I was timed out several times with Fandango to purchase my movie ticket, but I finally secured it.

It wasn’t until I heard those first three-seconds of Max Steiner’s score in that sound system that my SENSES kicked in. I was ready for the journey. I was ready to invest four hours of my life, but hearing Steiner kicked in an investment of my emotions into “Gone With the Wind.” This movie is 75 years old and the depth and breadth of this film astounds and overwhelms me. It’s so interesting that they put ALL the credits at the top of the film, and nothing behind it but “THE END.” You sort of don’t want to be aware that you’ve just watched a film; you’ve witnessed Life.

Every classic film fan knows “Gone With the Wind.” We know it so well we only need its acronym ( “GWTW” ) to know what movie it is. I know there are movies people like better, which is fine; they can go talk about those. I want to share what I was struck by with this movie, and hope it resonates with you.

CASTING

Wonderfully cast down to its toes and smallest detail. Everyone seems to tell the full story of their life in just one or two strokes. And I don’t only mean the big five, but I mean bit parts: the older woman and man who find out they lost their son but the band plays on, the man who’s carrying a dying comrade and is refused a carriage ride, the dying soldier, a mere boy, who’s dictating his last letter and many more.

SWEEPING DEPTH & BREADTH

An entire world is created in “GWTW.” I’m looking at extras and background people, far far far away from the leads, who add to the ambience of the film. The full life of the world behind the leads was remarkably robust. Then there’s the barbecue at Twelve Oaks, the chaos of evacuation, the hustle and bustle of Reconstruction. Crowds, crowds of people waaay in the distance. Hell, to me just seeing Black Union soldiers passing by was something else. Slices of life.

MISE-EN-SCENE

This might sound all yada yada yada, but I have to say the mise-en-scène of the movie is an incredible package. The editing ( Melanie reading to the women while waiting for the men to return from Shanty town ) - costumes ( those dresses, and Rhett’s outfits, were to die for ) - cinematography ( Mr. O’Hara telling Scarlett the value of land ) - the technicolor, the fluid way the camera moves, the sound ( I thought Sherman’s army was about to bust into lower Manhattan’s Battery Park ) - all of it was assembled perfectly.

SCENES

( * ) The crane shot at the railway station. The waste is staggering.

( * ) Scarlett watching a leg amputation. Her revulsion.

( * ) The dolly-in shot to Scarlett in her blood red gown at Melanie’s party. ( Yo, what was that gown doing in Scarlett’s closet anyway? )

( * ) Rhett carrying Scarlett up the stairs.

( * ) Rhett heartbroken over Scarlett’s miscarriage.

( * ) Mammy on the staircase imploring Melanie to speak to Rhett about Bonnie’s funeral.

( * ) The conversation in the carriage between Melanie and Belle Watling. Incredibly intimate and poignant. I really watched those two actresses. Their eyes rarely left each other. A wonderful scene among so many wonderful scenes. ( Ona Munson, you were great! )

( * ) Rhett and Scarlett always being at cross-purposes.

( * ) Rhett pulling the horse and wagon through the fire at the railroad station is worth ten years of movies alone.

THE ACTING

“GWTW” is really a petrie dish to examine performances. I think the movie is a proving ground where all involved could prove they could act. Not that they all didn’t come with a pedigree beforehand. They did. But they’re given a real solid chance here to strut there stuff.

Image

HATTIE McDANIEL ( Mammy ) -

“Mammy’s a smart old soul. And one of the few people whose respect I’d like to have.”


They may be the boss, but SHE is in charge. As fiercely protective as a mother bear. Discretion, ethics, disapproval and integrity all shown within the confines of the box she’s in. Ha! Sometimes she’s out the box too. Scolding Scarlett or weeping on the staircase recounting the latest goings on, I get it, I get it. No matter the circumstances that brought her to them, the O’Haras ARE Mammy’s family; She does a fantastic job overseeing them. I wish to thank the Academy too. And Miss McDaniel.

OLIVIA deHAVILLAND ( Melanie ) -

She is true. She is quietly and regally true. It’s not that she’s such a goody-goody in this movie; that’d be the easy way out - an easy way out I took for years watching her in this movie. But this time, I took away something new from deHavilland’s performance. I could see she looked past a person’s exterior and saw into their heart. She had quiet strength. She looked at Belle Watling with understanding, helped to console Rhett, unabashedly loved Ashley and admired and maybe even pitied ( ?? ) Scarlett. In her unassuming way she took control when Ward Bond was waiting outside her door, or when she told Belle: “You mustn’t say unkind things about my sister-in-law.” And what courage did it take for her to greet Scarlett in front of her and welcome her in; the pause in her sentence: “India was unable to come tonight. Will you be an angel. I do need you to help me...receive my guests.” Or when she did what she could do when she dragged Ashley saber out when an intruder came into the house. DeHavilland took a not-too- glamorous part and really made you at least try to see things as she saw them.

CLARK GABLE ( Rhett Butler ) -

Gable. Girls I need a moment. .... .... .... Okay. Handsome, dashing, virile no doubt. But underneath all that bravado, underneath all the girls he can muster up at Belle’s place or gambling debts he may have, he can be humbled and vulnerable. He convincingly expresses many emotions in the movie. He could be devil-may-care and mocking. He could see Scarlett’s spit and moxie fire up his imagination and keep him interested. He asks for the kiss; a real kiss and not some peck you’d give a pup. A kiss Scarlett means from her heart. A kiss a hundred of Belle’s girls couldn’t deliver. He’s hurt when he sees it’s Ashley’s picture under his foot. I loved the quiet way he says “And do you know I can divorce you for that?” before he kicks down the door. He’s furious when he throws the glass at Scarlett’s portrait. He’s overflowing with love for his daughter and crushed when Scarlett has a miscarriage. He gives her a million chances because he loves her so. I think Gable was robbed of an Academy Award. I think it’s best performance.

VIVIEN LEIGH ( Scarlett O’Hara ) -

“You’re a heartless creature, but that’s part of your charm.”


She can deaden her eyes with contempt, or make them sparkle with hope. And she can do more with one raised right eyebrow, than Meryl, Helen and Cate combined. And I love those actresses.

Image Image Image Image Image

Vivien Leigh’s Scarlett carries that entire movie on her slender delicate shoulders. You have to have the strength to do that and a good director guiding you. Vivien Leigh commits to being this wrong-headeded, head-strong girl. Through it all, we see her spirit. She might bend a little but she won’t break. Her sense of survival is strong. She’s resourceful and coquettish. If you take her seriously that’s your own look out. She is quite beautiful in all her scenes. Yeah, even when she vows never to go hungry again. She faces adversity squarely because she has to, but is scared to face Melanie at her surprise party for Ashley. She grows from a Southern belle with not too much in her head to a smart businesswoman clawing her way through and after the war to help her family. She’ll do what she can to get ahead - work with prisoners...or steal your beau. But the movie is about a girl who has to learn her toughest lesson; her Achilles Heel is loving a man who does not love her.

“You’re throwing away happiness with both hands.”

We watch her through the entire movie with this thought in mind. No matter what she does in the film, it always goes back to Ashley. It’s tough watching her wrong-headedness...but there is a lesson even in that. The man that’s right for her is her equal, can match her in temperament, will not let her get away with anything. But she wants what she cannot have, a dream...an illusion.

I’m picturing every actress in Hollywood sitting in a theatre in 1939 to see WHO got the role of Scarlett O’Hara, many of them thinking that they could have done this part; after all Vivien Leigh is British. But they’d be wrong ( yes, even you Paulette Goddard and you’re my girl! ) There was a combination of things they needed, that Vivien Leigh had in spades. What they were looking at up there on the screen was a woman who played many women, who understood many emotions, who played them subtly, delicately. A woman who had charm even when she was being selfish. They were watching a woman, an actress, a star who would carve out a performance that would last 75 years.

“Gone With the Wind” will be timeless.

Image

Image
“GWTW” trivia shown before the movie
Last edited by CineMaven on October 3rd, 2014, 9:28 am, edited 4 times in total.
"You build my gallows high, baby."

http://www.megramsey.com
User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5522
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by movieman1957 »

A wonderful commentary.
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11926
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by JackFavell »

Wow. You made me cry, T.
User avatar
CineMaven
Posts: 3815
Joined: September 24th, 2007, 9:54 am
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Contact:

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by CineMaven »

Thank you MovieMan. Thank you JackaaAaay. Maybe the older I get...the more I see. I'm glad you enjoyed it. :) The film overwhelmed me.
"You build my gallows high, baby."

http://www.megramsey.com
RedRiver
Posts: 4200
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by RedRiver »

Scarlett O'Cinema!

I'd like to see this one more time in a theater myself. A real theater! I would argue that it's the most important movie ever made. Not my favorite. Not the best reviewed. But the movie to which all others are compared. "It's good. But it's no GONE WITH THE WIND!" It changed the way movies were made, or expected to be made. There was before GWTW and after. 40 years later, STAR WARS changed it again. And STAR WARS is good. But it's no GONE WITH THE WIND!
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11926
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by JackFavell »

Hahahahaha! red that was hilarious...

Last time I saw it on the big screen, I had just read the book. It was the year before it was supposed to show on TV for the first time. I was 15 years old.

I am so angry that my movie theater that usually shows the TCM films is being renovated right now! Big disappointment!
User avatar
Lucky Vassall
Posts: 272
Joined: January 27th, 2014, 2:40 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by Lucky Vassall »

A staggering contribution! Thank you for reminding us why we cherish the classics.
[size=85]AVATAR: Billy DeWolfe as Mrs. Murgatroid, “Blue Skies” (1946)

[b]“My ancestors came over on the Mayflower.”
“You’re lucky. Now they have immigration laws."[/b]
[i]Mae West, The Heat’s On” (1943[/i])

[b]:–)—[/b]
Pinoc-U-no(se)[/size]
User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5522
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by movieman1957 »

"The King and The Chorus Girl" is about a girl paid by a king's family to keep him company after he meets her and becomes fond of her in the hopes that he'll quit drinking. Odd little premise leads to okay film. The best line in the thing may come in the first five minutes and is more out of circumstance of the scene.

Starring Joan Blondell, Fernand Gravet (who was unknown to me) and Edward Everett Horton. The intrigue for me was that the script was cowritten by Groucho Marx. It turns out though there isn't much Marx about it. Maybe that was the point for Groucho.

Not all that funny the film does have some charm. The problem for Joan is that even though she is doing it to help she winds up falling for the "Ex King." It does keep Edward Everett Horton almost as big a part as everyone else. He is fun.

If you stumble on it again you might check it out but I wouldn't spend time tracking it down.
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11926
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by JackFavell »

Chris, it sounds like one of those nice movies to cuddle under a blanket and watch on a rainy day... not too taxing, but pleasant.

Am I the only person who actually likes Fernand Gravet (I heard someone pronounce it Gravy once and I always think of him that way now)? I find him very interesting, not afraid to play weakish characters or characters with flaws. I wish he'd made a few more movies, or maybe better quality ones once in a while.
User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5522
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by movieman1957 »

That is right Wendy. It makes you smile but won't exactly knock you down.

I looked up Fernand on imdb and they do list his last name as Gravey. His career mainly was in France with a handful of American films. He seemed quite engaging in this role.

It reminded me how old films treat drinking. It is often the source of humor without any of the consequences of it. I think you could make an argument in this film that he was an alcoholic but it is all played for fun.
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
Post Reply