Hi Judith,
No luck in locating the young lady I knew in Brooklyn way back when. She's not related to any of the people with the same last name that I spoke to. So she'll have to remain just a very pleasant memory to me. Thanks anyway for all of your assistance.
As always,
Hollis
WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?
-
Ann Harding
- Posts: 1246
- Joined: January 11th, 2008, 11:03 am
- Location: Paris
- Contact:
Recently, I have been watching some nice Michael Powell features. I am a great fan of this marvellous British director. First, I watched Contraband (1940) with Conrad Veidt and Valerie Hobson. Conrad is the captain of Danish ship who gets involved unwittingly with a spy (gorgeous Valerie Hobson). As usual, with Powell, we get some wonderful humor and pacing. Just one lovely touch: the nasty German spy gets knocked out by Veidt using a bust of Churchill!!! 
Afterwards, I watched The Edge of the World (1937) with John Laurie and Niall MacGuinnis. This is Powell's first important feature shot on locations in a small island north of The Shetlands. The story sounds like a folk or fairy tale. It shows the life of the rugged inhabitants of this faraway island completely isolated in the North Sea. The cinematography is just stunning taking advantage of the wonderful seascape. Powell already had this incredible visual sense coupled with his superb sensitivity to human beings.
Powell is a master.
Afterwards, I watched The Edge of the World (1937) with John Laurie and Niall MacGuinnis. This is Powell's first important feature shot on locations in a small island north of The Shetlands. The story sounds like a folk or fairy tale. It shows the life of the rugged inhabitants of this faraway island completely isolated in the North Sea. The cinematography is just stunning taking advantage of the wonderful seascape. Powell already had this incredible visual sense coupled with his superb sensitivity to human beings.
Powell is a master.
-
movieman1957
- Administrator
- Posts: 5522
- Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
- Location: MD
What do you do when you want to take a bit about the train in "The Quiet Man" and make another movie? You make "The Titfiled Thunderbolt." With some of the same actors and a great deal of the same look and atmosphere it is a charming little movie. Not great laughs but enough to make you smile.
The government is going to shut down the old and unprofitable rail line for Titfield. The locals will have none of it and they want to take over the line. A bus line hoping to take over has other plans. They will stop at nothing to have it their way.
Deceit, sabotage and a pretty good train wreck might sound like high drama. Nah! A light little comedy from Charles Crichton and all the nice people at Ealing.
The only odd thing is that a lot of townsfolk along the route show up unannounced to help at all the right times.
The government is going to shut down the old and unprofitable rail line for Titfield. The locals will have none of it and they want to take over the line. A bus line hoping to take over has other plans. They will stop at nothing to have it their way.
Deceit, sabotage and a pretty good train wreck might sound like high drama. Nah! A light little comedy from Charles Crichton and all the nice people at Ealing.
The only odd thing is that a lot of townsfolk along the route show up unannounced to help at all the right times.
Last edited by movieman1957 on May 13th, 2008, 12:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chris
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
I saw "The Titfield Thunderbolt" last summer and liked it. It's not in the first rank of my favorite Ealing comedies, but it is very funny once it gets going.
I just saw "Orlando," the British film with Tilda Swinton from the mid-90s. It started out okay. The film looks great, and the action played like a more serious "Monty Python" kind of film.
And then in the 19th Century, Billy Zane showed up as some kind of swooner romantic dreamboat, and the movie went to hell. He was only around for 10 minutes or so before riding off into the fog, but he ruined the movie for me. I couldn't believe him for a moment.
I just saw "Orlando," the British film with Tilda Swinton from the mid-90s. It started out okay. The film looks great, and the action played like a more serious "Monty Python" kind of film.
And then in the 19th Century, Billy Zane showed up as some kind of swooner romantic dreamboat, and the movie went to hell. He was only around for 10 minutes or so before riding off into the fog, but he ruined the movie for me. I couldn't believe him for a moment.
I just watched the 1995 Ian McKellan "Richard III," which is superb. What a great cast. The concept is that the action takes place in the 1930s, so everyone walks around in quasi-fascist uniforms. Director Richard Loncraine ("The Long Good Friday") keeps the action moving, and the words of Shakespeare seem natural in the surroundings. Annette Benning gave a terrific performance as Elizabeth, the mother of the doomed princes in the tower.
-
feaito
I watched "Undercurrent" and I enjoyed it, although I feel Robert Mitchum was little miscast as the sensitive brother. Notwithstanding that feeling I think he acted well. It's just that the image I have of him did not fit the character. Maybe its my problem, because he was cast against type]; at least the types or roles he later became known for . Kate Hepburn is excellent and looks very beautiful in a rather atypical role for her (IMO) -especially in the fitting scene with that evening black dress. Wow!-. Robert Taylor's good as the psycho. Good support from Jayne Meadows, Marjorie Main, Edmund Gwenn, Kathryn Card. Fine Minnelli flick. Very suspenseful.
-
Ann Harding
- Posts: 1246
- Joined: January 11th, 2008, 11:03 am
- Location: Paris
- Contact:
I saw Undercurrent for the first time many years ago. I was very intrigued by the cast with the two Bobs! I went to a screening of the cinémathèque and saw a print with any any subs.....OMG! it was pretty hard then for me to understand.... Actually, Robert Taylor was a much better actor than he is usually credited for. Even Katharine hepburn said so during the shooting of that film! 
-
jdb1
I saw Undercurrent last year for the first time, and liked it. I'm not a big Taylor fan, but I thought he was quite good in this, a depature from his usual leading man roles. It was interesting to see Hepburn in this sort of passive role (talk about departures!). Maybe she could have played Nameless Girl in Rebecca, and given the part a lot more than Joan Fontaine brought to it. However, I thought Mitchum was wasted in a rather silly and underwritten part. How good he would have been in Taylor's role, don't you think?
I always like seeing Jayne Meadows, and the scene with her and Hepburn in the powder room really good. I'd like to see this one again.
I always like seeing Jayne Meadows, and the scene with her and Hepburn in the powder room really good. I'd like to see this one again.
Judith:
You are so correct on the casting of this one. The two Bobs should definitely have been switched. Up to this movie however, Mitchum had done mostly grade B and C westerns, and relatively sensitive guys in The Story of G.I. Joe, and Til the End of Time. The tense and threatening husband was much more in his style than in Taylors', but unfortunately, he was filming The Locket simultaneously with Undercurrent, and Out of the Past didn't appear until a year later when his forcefulness on screen became a trait. Taylor was the pretty boy, good guy, so they were both playing against type, but nobody really knew that while casting was going on for Undercurrent. I'll bet there were some rueful remarks made a year or two later when Mitchums' abilities started to emerge.
Personally, I think just about anyone could have put more into Rebecca than Joan Fontaine did. I don't mind seeing faded lillies but Fontaines' Rebecca was a dying violet.
Anne
You are so correct on the casting of this one. The two Bobs should definitely have been switched. Up to this movie however, Mitchum had done mostly grade B and C westerns, and relatively sensitive guys in The Story of G.I. Joe, and Til the End of Time. The tense and threatening husband was much more in his style than in Taylors', but unfortunately, he was filming The Locket simultaneously with Undercurrent, and Out of the Past didn't appear until a year later when his forcefulness on screen became a trait. Taylor was the pretty boy, good guy, so they were both playing against type, but nobody really knew that while casting was going on for Undercurrent. I'll bet there were some rueful remarks made a year or two later when Mitchums' abilities started to emerge.
Personally, I think just about anyone could have put more into Rebecca than Joan Fontaine did. I don't mind seeing faded lillies but Fontaines' Rebecca was a dying violet.
Anne
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
-
feaito
That scene is one of the film's best! Both actresses are superb! Jayne Meadows looks very attractive in is very skilled as actress. It is a pity she made few films. Some weeks ago I saw her in "David and Bathsheba" (1951)jdb1 wrote:I always like seeing Jayne Meadows, and the scene with her and Hepburn in the powder room really good. I'd like to see this one again.
-
feaito
Tha casting of the two Bobs also intrigued me a lot and besides a Minnelli film is always worthwhile to watch, IMO, even "The Cobweb", which is not everybody's cup of tea.Ann Harding wrote:I saw Undercurrent for the first time many years ago. I was very intrigued by the cast with the two Bobs! I went to a screening of the cinémathèque and saw a print with any any subs.....OMG! it was pretty hard then for me to understand.... Actually, Robert Taylor was a much better actor than he is usually credited for. Even Katharine hepburn said so during the shooting of that film!
I saw My Fair Lady yesterday. We hadn't counted on it being so long, but it was a very interesting film. I'm not sure whether I liked it or not, something about it made me depressed. Maybe because I'm a woman who believes in 'changing people'... It made the ending difficult to accept for me, I could never take to professor Higgins character. He remained an arrogant, insensitive idiot throughout, and then he was proven right? I found myself wishing he would end up alone.
Still, I eventually began to realize that this musical could be very impressive. I only wish I could have seen it on stage. The film was practically a filmed stage play. I understand that a stage musical can be very difficult to adapt to screen, so they simply remained faithful to the style of the stage. The streets never felt real, everything was artificial - except maybe professor Higgins's house. I suppose you could make the argument that everything is bound to look artificial anyway in a movie where people regularly burst into song, often not in their own voices. I think this artificiality worked pretty well in the Ascot scene and the court scene. Maybe that's because these places are played up as being such artificial environments anyway. Everyone who lives and moves there has to keep up an act, nobody is allowed to be him/her self. But in the street scenes, I was so aware that this was a stage, that I kept thinking, "this has just been filmed by someone sitting in a front row seat in a theater," and that just created a distancing effect. I couldn't get into it.
Perhaps I am simply so used to street life being depicted as the "real" life, that I couldn't accept that it looked fake. This movie makes a different argument, after all - the street life is also fake, because Eliza isn't seen as a human being there. Not by professor Higgins at any rate. I guess it might not be a coincidence that his house is the only place that looks real. Or else it's just that indoor sets are easier to make realistic than outdoor sets.
Still, I eventually began to realize that this musical could be very impressive. I only wish I could have seen it on stage. The film was practically a filmed stage play. I understand that a stage musical can be very difficult to adapt to screen, so they simply remained faithful to the style of the stage. The streets never felt real, everything was artificial - except maybe professor Higgins's house. I suppose you could make the argument that everything is bound to look artificial anyway in a movie where people regularly burst into song, often not in their own voices. I think this artificiality worked pretty well in the Ascot scene and the court scene. Maybe that's because these places are played up as being such artificial environments anyway. Everyone who lives and moves there has to keep up an act, nobody is allowed to be him/her self. But in the street scenes, I was so aware that this was a stage, that I kept thinking, "this has just been filmed by someone sitting in a front row seat in a theater," and that just created a distancing effect. I couldn't get into it.
Perhaps I am simply so used to street life being depicted as the "real" life, that I couldn't accept that it looked fake. This movie makes a different argument, after all - the street life is also fake, because Eliza isn't seen as a human being there. Not by professor Higgins at any rate. I guess it might not be a coincidence that his house is the only place that looks real. Or else it's just that indoor sets are easier to make realistic than outdoor sets.
-
movieman1957
- Administrator
- Posts: 5522
- Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
- Location: MD
I finally sat through Long Day's Journey Into Night. First let me say the cast was terrific. On the other hand, what a miserable family.
It seemed half of the movie they were busy beating each other up and the other half apologizing for what they just said. There is really no one to like in this film. They are all unhappy with themselves and each other. They spend a great deal of time blaming someone else for their misery. It's a very unhappy movie. It might be great writing and acting but it's a tough go.
I'm glad I saw it for the performances but I don't think I'll be in a hurry to see it again.
It seemed half of the movie they were busy beating each other up and the other half apologizing for what they just said. There is really no one to like in this film. They are all unhappy with themselves and each other. They spend a great deal of time blaming someone else for their misery. It's a very unhappy movie. It might be great writing and acting but it's a tough go.
I'm glad I saw it for the performances but I don't think I'll be in a hurry to see it again.
Chris
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
-
jdb1
I wholeheartedly agree. I own a copy of this movie, but I can only look at it when I'm reeeealllly in the mood, 'cause it's such a downer. If not for the fabulous cast and their fabulous performances, I think it would be doubly, maybe triply, hard to watch. (That beating people and and then apologizing - sounds like a whole lotta families I know, but that doesn't mean I'd want to live with them. That O'Neill must have been a real barrel of laughs.)