Midsommer Murders is quite a cult show. It's set in a picturesque town, there has been so many murders over the series, there can't be anybody left. It's often poked fun at in a gentle way for this fact. It's hugely popular.
There is the Messiah series starring Ken Stott. These are usually quite chilling and gruesome.
Morse had a huge cult following and there is now a spin off series called Lewis but I haven't seen this.
Another I haven't seen but was hugely popular was Frost starring David Jason. He's been in a few comedy series which might have made it to the US. Only Fools and Horses, Open All Hours and Porridge.
Perhaps Stuart has suggestions?
WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?
-
charliechaplinfan
- Posts: 9040
- Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am
-
charliechaplinfan
- Posts: 9040
- Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am
Last night I watched Drole De Drame directed by Marcel Carne and starring some of Frances best actors Francoise Rosay, Michel Simon, Louis Jouvet and Jean Louis Barrault.
The plot is a kin to a Wilde play with many twist and turns of circumstance, misunderstanding and social jockeying. It's thoroughly delightful and even watching it with subtitles the meaning conveyed is still very funny.
That film put me in mood for some Wilde. I chose An Ideal Husband starring Paulette Goddard and Michael Wilding and produced by Alexander Korda. This film is a must see if only for the gorgeous colours and costumes. It has a glow common to films made in technicolour in that time. I don't know quite what it is but it has the same hues that make The Quiet Man so becoming.
Again the plot is full of conniving as well as being a social commentary on the institutions of marriage, society and government. Most of the conniving is done by Mrs Cheveley played by Paulette Goddard. Paulette Goddard is someone I've always wanted to see more of but many of her films are unavailable on DVD.
The plot is a kin to a Wilde play with many twist and turns of circumstance, misunderstanding and social jockeying. It's thoroughly delightful and even watching it with subtitles the meaning conveyed is still very funny.
That film put me in mood for some Wilde. I chose An Ideal Husband starring Paulette Goddard and Michael Wilding and produced by Alexander Korda. This film is a must see if only for the gorgeous colours and costumes. It has a glow common to films made in technicolour in that time. I don't know quite what it is but it has the same hues that make The Quiet Man so becoming.
Again the plot is full of conniving as well as being a social commentary on the institutions of marriage, society and government. Most of the conniving is done by Mrs Cheveley played by Paulette Goddard. Paulette Goddard is someone I've always wanted to see more of but many of her films are unavailable on DVD.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
Being totally bored late this a.m., I watched the latest version of Little Women, starring Wynona Ryder, the favorite 'girls' story of just about every little girl who ever read a book.
I truly hate to sound like a constant broken record, but, why did they bother? Although I prefer the June Allyson version, I still recommend the Kate Hepburn one. Both of them are fine representations of the book, and the entire family are cast with people who make the characters real and make you care about them. You have to get a tear in your eye when little Margaret O'Brien goes to thank the old man for the piano, and although you may love and adore Edna May Oliver, you have to want to kick her bustle through town for being so mean and thoughtless in the earlier version.
Perhaps if Susan Sarandon were on screen more she might have saved bits of this film but she would have to have played Jo for that, rather than Marmy.
As I said, why do they bother with these boring, overblown re-makes? I imagine they think they will be wonderful, but the talent for acting just is not there any longer. Most of these people CAN act, but not to the calibre of the pre-Vietnam days. Yes, yes, there are a few, there always are, but I'm talking about the overall picture, not the few.
My two favorite all time movies are Casablanca and The Women. They are already working on The Women, but please don't ever let the thought enter some little director's mind that he can improve on Bogie and Bergman!!!!
Anne
I truly hate to sound like a constant broken record, but, why did they bother? Although I prefer the June Allyson version, I still recommend the Kate Hepburn one. Both of them are fine representations of the book, and the entire family are cast with people who make the characters real and make you care about them. You have to get a tear in your eye when little Margaret O'Brien goes to thank the old man for the piano, and although you may love and adore Edna May Oliver, you have to want to kick her bustle through town for being so mean and thoughtless in the earlier version.
Perhaps if Susan Sarandon were on screen more she might have saved bits of this film but she would have to have played Jo for that, rather than Marmy.
As I said, why do they bother with these boring, overblown re-makes? I imagine they think they will be wonderful, but the talent for acting just is not there any longer. Most of these people CAN act, but not to the calibre of the pre-Vietnam days. Yes, yes, there are a few, there always are, but I'm talking about the overall picture, not the few.
My two favorite all time movies are Casablanca and The Women. They are already working on The Women, but please don't ever let the thought enter some little director's mind that he can improve on Bogie and Bergman!!!!
Anne
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
-
charliechaplinfan
- Posts: 9040
- Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am
Anne, I agree so much with what you say. Most of today's films seem to have the same target audience, perhaps all the teenagers in this world are the only people who want to go to movies.
I heard they are remaking East Of Eden with Brad Pitt as Cal the part played by James Dean. I love the novel and the original film only covers the last third of the book. Cal is a young man just reaching maturity not 45. The novel itself is about Adam, Cal's father. Maybe they think none of us read anymore, or appreciate literature. That we might want to see stories well told, well cast that build up the characters and the storyline and let the audience use it's imagination in the process.
In truth Brad Pitt could play Adam from the beginning of the novel to the end but Adam isn't the glamorous part.
I heard they are remaking East Of Eden with Brad Pitt as Cal the part played by James Dean. I love the novel and the original film only covers the last third of the book. Cal is a young man just reaching maturity not 45. The novel itself is about Adam, Cal's father. Maybe they think none of us read anymore, or appreciate literature. That we might want to see stories well told, well cast that build up the characters and the storyline and let the audience use it's imagination in the process.
In truth Brad Pitt could play Adam from the beginning of the novel to the end but Adam isn't the glamorous part.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
-
silentscreen
- Posts: 701
- Joined: March 9th, 2008, 3:47 pm
I've just seen You Can't Take It With You with one of my favorite little screwballs Jean Arthur (see avatar),Jimmy Stewart, Edward Arnold, and Lionel Barrymore. The latter two give superlative performances and this 1938 gem is chock full of feel good energy and tender wisdom. I got to see this on a friends wall with projector churning. It was quite an experience!
Edward Arnold and Lionel Barrymore are two of the best as far as character actors go, but they really brought a lot of fine tuned nuances to this Capra mini masterpiece, and my respect for them has increased. Working Barrymore onto crutches for his role as the eccentric with the heart of gold when he was in fact suffering from crippling arthritis,was a stroke of genius and added to his character's charm. Ann Miller and Spring Byington, and a wealth of outstanding character actors rounded the whole thing out into a film that will resonate with you long after the final credits go up. Jean Arthur and Jimmy Stewart couldn't be cuter or more romantic as the couple from opposite sides of the track.
Just a delight! Watch this one when you're down and out. It's sure to lift your spirits! A plus.
Edward Arnold and Lionel Barrymore are two of the best as far as character actors go, but they really brought a lot of fine tuned nuances to this Capra mini masterpiece, and my respect for them has increased. Working Barrymore onto crutches for his role as the eccentric with the heart of gold when he was in fact suffering from crippling arthritis,was a stroke of genius and added to his character's charm. Ann Miller and Spring Byington, and a wealth of outstanding character actors rounded the whole thing out into a film that will resonate with you long after the final credits go up. Jean Arthur and Jimmy Stewart couldn't be cuter or more romantic as the couple from opposite sides of the track.
Just a delight! Watch this one when you're down and out. It's sure to lift your spirits! A plus.
"Humor is nothing less than a sense of the fitness of things." Carole Lombard
-
feaito
"You Can't Take it with You " is sure non-stop fun Brenda. In my country it was titled (in Spanish) Tómalo o Déjalo (Take it or Leave It). Everything with Jean Arthur, especially from 1935 onwards is very, very worthwhile.
Last night I watched a contemporary horror-thriller based upon a Stephen King novella: "The Mist" (2007). I'm not -at all- a fan of contemporary horror-gore-fests, but this film enthralled me. Very well paced, naturally acted by the cast (an outstanding performance by Marcia Gay Harden as crazy religious fanatic) and all the strong scenes featuring the "things" hidden in the mist, did not seem unnecessary or included for their shock value only.
An Engrossing film that had me on the verge of falling off my bed! A thriller, suspense movie, a horror movie, a sci-fi film, an end of the days movie, all in one! Not for the squeamish. My wife could not continue watching, because she could not stand it. 9/10.
And I did not have much expectations about this particular movie... I like to be surprised like this!
Today I saw "The Night Walker" (1964) one of the least cheesy William Castle films I have seen with a pivotal performance by Barbara Stanwyck -she carries the film all the way. Robert Taylor gives an adequate, rather stiff performance. Lloyd Bochner is OK as the "dream". Hayden Rorke is creepy as Stany's husband. It was nice to see Rochelle Hudson in a small role as a hairdresser who works in Stany's beauty saloon (she was also featured in Castle's "Strait Jacket" (1965) with Joan Crawford. Judi Meredith is a very stunning woman.
The film deals with Stany's recurring dreams and nightmares. She's married to creepy-looking Rorke, who's a blind, bitter man, obsessed that Stany's having an affair with another man. Taylor is the family lawyer. Good film, good story, but it has some flaws. For one, I figured what was really going on from the beginning!! Anyway any movie with Barbara Stanwyck is always a must-see, just for her.
I've always wondered why Miss Stanwyck stopped dying he hair while she was still so young. Actresses are always very concerned about looking younger and white hair, although beautiful when taken care of, makes us look older than we actually are and I know that from experience; my mum's hair turned white way before she was 30 and she's never stopped dying it.
Anyhow, in the film miss Stanwyck looks fantastic; ultra chic and elegant with her silver-hair, her slim figure and very youthful-looking skin. I have always found her to be a very attractive woman and that voice of hers! Oh! I melt when I listen to her voice. The kind of strong-willed women she used to play are my kind of dames!!
I remember watching "The Thorn Birds" years ago and thinking about the character she played in it: "Now this is a woman, forget about Rachel Ward. Barbara Stanwyck is the real WOMAN of this series."[/i]
Last night I watched a contemporary horror-thriller based upon a Stephen King novella: "The Mist" (2007). I'm not -at all- a fan of contemporary horror-gore-fests, but this film enthralled me. Very well paced, naturally acted by the cast (an outstanding performance by Marcia Gay Harden as crazy religious fanatic) and all the strong scenes featuring the "things" hidden in the mist, did not seem unnecessary or included for their shock value only.
An Engrossing film that had me on the verge of falling off my bed! A thriller, suspense movie, a horror movie, a sci-fi film, an end of the days movie, all in one! Not for the squeamish. My wife could not continue watching, because she could not stand it. 9/10.
And I did not have much expectations about this particular movie... I like to be surprised like this!
Today I saw "The Night Walker" (1964) one of the least cheesy William Castle films I have seen with a pivotal performance by Barbara Stanwyck -she carries the film all the way. Robert Taylor gives an adequate, rather stiff performance. Lloyd Bochner is OK as the "dream". Hayden Rorke is creepy as Stany's husband. It was nice to see Rochelle Hudson in a small role as a hairdresser who works in Stany's beauty saloon (she was also featured in Castle's "Strait Jacket" (1965) with Joan Crawford. Judi Meredith is a very stunning woman.
The film deals with Stany's recurring dreams and nightmares. She's married to creepy-looking Rorke, who's a blind, bitter man, obsessed that Stany's having an affair with another man. Taylor is the family lawyer. Good film, good story, but it has some flaws. For one, I figured what was really going on from the beginning!! Anyway any movie with Barbara Stanwyck is always a must-see, just for her.
I've always wondered why Miss Stanwyck stopped dying he hair while she was still so young. Actresses are always very concerned about looking younger and white hair, although beautiful when taken care of, makes us look older than we actually are and I know that from experience; my mum's hair turned white way before she was 30 and she's never stopped dying it.
Anyhow, in the film miss Stanwyck looks fantastic; ultra chic and elegant with her silver-hair, her slim figure and very youthful-looking skin. I have always found her to be a very attractive woman and that voice of hers! Oh! I melt when I listen to her voice. The kind of strong-willed women she used to play are my kind of dames!!
I remember watching "The Thorn Birds" years ago and thinking about the character she played in it: "Now this is a woman, forget about Rachel Ward. Barbara Stanwyck is the real WOMAN of this series."[/i]
-
silentscreen
- Posts: 701
- Joined: March 9th, 2008, 3:47 pm
Once again we are in complete agreement Fernando.feaito wrote:"You Can't Take it with You " is sure non-stop fun Brenda. In my country it was titled (in Spanish) Tómalo o Déjalo (Take it or Leave It). Everything with Jean Arthur, especially from 1935 onwards is very, very worthwhile.
As for Stanwyck, no one could compete with her in pure raw talent. I remember reading that the entire cast stood back in complete awe of her in this scene from "The Thornbirds."
Last edited by silentscreen on June 22nd, 2008, 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Humor is nothing less than a sense of the fitness of things." Carole Lombard
I was originally going to write about this on Thursday but I got caught up in other pursuits (I forget which now though)
ANYWHO
I watched The Star Chamber (1983) starring Michael Douglas, Hal Holbrook and Yaphet Kotto. (along with a few very familiar faces for fans of '80s and early '90s TV) The premise is pretty simple, Douglas is a young Superior Court judge in LA who goes through 2 cases in which the defendants are clearly guilty but their lawyers gets them off through technicalities. The 2nd case is the main focus of the movie as a boy was used in a child porn ring then brutally killed.
The father of the child tries to persuade Douglas to find the defendants guilty in a very heart rending scene in which the father tries to get Douglas to look at the picture of his mutilated son.
Nonetheless Douglas has to throw out the case and the father goes nuts and nearly kills the defendants. Meanwhile Kotto is a detective who is emotionally wrecked over the case and wants to get those guys and starts an investigation to get more evidence.
Douglas in the meantime is the student to Hal Holbrook's master. Holbrook is an older judge who's the mentor to Douglas. Eventually Holbrook convinces Douglas to join in a cabal of other judges that pass judgment against those who get off due to technicalities and such. Basically they're found guilty and killed by a hitman. The rationale being that justice has been replaced by "the law".
Eventually Douglas gets the other judges to pass judgment on the two pedophiles/killers but there's a hitch....
The first half of this film was very interesting as you get the sense that justice has been perverted and judges, lawyers and what have you can't get the bad guys to face their punishment. The whole case with the little boy and the distraught father (played wonderfully by James B. Sikking) was some of the most heart wrenching stuff without having to resort to the usual "pull at the heart strings" techniques often seen in film. So the first half of the movie with the frustrations of Douglas' character and how the justice has been perverted was very intriguing stuff and gets 4 stars from me. It's the 2nd half of the movie where things fall down a bit and it turns into a typical action movie. There was probably no other way to do it but it kind of distracted from the overall message of the film. In the end Douglas' character has to make a huge choice and he made the right one.
The movie gets 3 stars out of 5 on the basis of the 1st half of the movie. BTW said film is slated to be remade next year or 2010 (haven't looked at the IMDB page in a while)
ANYWHO
I watched The Star Chamber (1983) starring Michael Douglas, Hal Holbrook and Yaphet Kotto. (along with a few very familiar faces for fans of '80s and early '90s TV) The premise is pretty simple, Douglas is a young Superior Court judge in LA who goes through 2 cases in which the defendants are clearly guilty but their lawyers gets them off through technicalities. The 2nd case is the main focus of the movie as a boy was used in a child porn ring then brutally killed.
The father of the child tries to persuade Douglas to find the defendants guilty in a very heart rending scene in which the father tries to get Douglas to look at the picture of his mutilated son.
Nonetheless Douglas has to throw out the case and the father goes nuts and nearly kills the defendants. Meanwhile Kotto is a detective who is emotionally wrecked over the case and wants to get those guys and starts an investigation to get more evidence.
Douglas in the meantime is the student to Hal Holbrook's master. Holbrook is an older judge who's the mentor to Douglas. Eventually Holbrook convinces Douglas to join in a cabal of other judges that pass judgment against those who get off due to technicalities and such. Basically they're found guilty and killed by a hitman. The rationale being that justice has been replaced by "the law".
Eventually Douglas gets the other judges to pass judgment on the two pedophiles/killers but there's a hitch....
The first half of this film was very interesting as you get the sense that justice has been perverted and judges, lawyers and what have you can't get the bad guys to face their punishment. The whole case with the little boy and the distraught father (played wonderfully by James B. Sikking) was some of the most heart wrenching stuff without having to resort to the usual "pull at the heart strings" techniques often seen in film. So the first half of the movie with the frustrations of Douglas' character and how the justice has been perverted was very intriguing stuff and gets 4 stars from me. It's the 2nd half of the movie where things fall down a bit and it turns into a typical action movie. There was probably no other way to do it but it kind of distracted from the overall message of the film. In the end Douglas' character has to make a huge choice and he made the right one.
The movie gets 3 stars out of 5 on the basis of the 1st half of the movie. BTW said film is slated to be remade next year or 2010 (haven't looked at the IMDB page in a while)
I just watched Roger Corman's "Von Richtofen and Brown" on DVD.
An odd movie for 1971, and certainly not a movie for anyone not up on WWI aviation. Such a person would be lost the whole way through the film.
The movie doesn't begin well. It is a bit too rushed. If there was one movie that needed a narrator or title cards, it was this one. As the film went on, I found myself drawn in to the Von Richtofen scenes. He became something of a tragic character.
On the other hand, Don Stroud as Brown came across as an obnoxious lout. All his scenes played like cliches from other war movies, only that if a pilot were as big a jerk as Brown (the movie's Brown) I could imagine the rest of the squadron abandoning him to the Germans at the first chance instead of coming to idolize him.
So this ended up as something of a mixed bag. Good aviation scenes (if somewhat unclear as to individual pilots) and the Von Richtofen scenes became good. Lousy Brown scenes.
An odd movie for 1971, and certainly not a movie for anyone not up on WWI aviation. Such a person would be lost the whole way through the film.
The movie doesn't begin well. It is a bit too rushed. If there was one movie that needed a narrator or title cards, it was this one. As the film went on, I found myself drawn in to the Von Richtofen scenes. He became something of a tragic character.
On the other hand, Don Stroud as Brown came across as an obnoxious lout. All his scenes played like cliches from other war movies, only that if a pilot were as big a jerk as Brown (the movie's Brown) I could imagine the rest of the squadron abandoning him to the Germans at the first chance instead of coming to idolize him.
So this ended up as something of a mixed bag. Good aviation scenes (if somewhat unclear as to individual pilots) and the Von Richtofen scenes became good. Lousy Brown scenes.
-
charliechaplinfan
- Posts: 9040
- Joined: January 15th, 2008, 9:49 am
Last night I watched A Yank At Oxford. It was made in England in 1938. I'm unsure whether this was before Vivien Leigh was spotted by David Selznick for Scarlett O'Hara.
One thing is certain she steal the movie from Maureen O'Sullivan who plays Robert Taylor's girlfriend. Vivien plays Elsa who is married to an older husband who runs a bookshop. She flirts with any young male student who comes in the bookshop and is carrying on with one of them behind her husband's back. With this role she displays such charm, what man could resist her?
Robert Taylor who plays the Yank is perfect in the role of the student who is extrordinarily good at running and rowing.
Lots of shots of him running and rowing, hey I never realised he was so handsome. He certainly looked good in a pair of shorts
I'm being all juvenile 
The story is about the noisy yank who is a sports ace getting accepted into the partially closed and partially snobbish world that is Oxford. He commits one or two faux pas but eventually he is accepted.
Lionel Barrymore is wonderful in the role of Robert Taylor's father.
I can't comment on how like Oxford university the movie is, it's probably just Hollywood's take on it but Hollywood's take is very good.
One thing is certain she steal the movie from Maureen O'Sullivan who plays Robert Taylor's girlfriend. Vivien plays Elsa who is married to an older husband who runs a bookshop. She flirts with any young male student who comes in the bookshop and is carrying on with one of them behind her husband's back. With this role she displays such charm, what man could resist her?
Robert Taylor who plays the Yank is perfect in the role of the student who is extrordinarily good at running and rowing.
Lots of shots of him running and rowing, hey I never realised he was so handsome. He certainly looked good in a pair of shorts
I'm being all juvenile The story is about the noisy yank who is a sports ace getting accepted into the partially closed and partially snobbish world that is Oxford. He commits one or two faux pas but eventually he is accepted.
Lionel Barrymore is wonderful in the role of Robert Taylor's father.
I can't comment on how like Oxford university the movie is, it's probably just Hollywood's take on it but Hollywood's take is very good.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
-
MissGoddess
- Posts: 5072
- Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:01 am
- Contact:
I love A Yank at Oxford! I think it's one of Vivien's most charmingly vivacious roles, I only wish it could have been expanded. There was some comedy to it and she hardly ever did anything half so light hearted. It also has to be one of the best looking casts ever: Taylor, O'Sullivan and Leigh are all unbelievably beautiful.
Last weekend I saw another early Viv film, Dark Journey. It was my new Region 2 dvd and it was pleasant to see how nicely cleaned up the print is compared to the old vhs copy I used to watch. I seldom get to
appreciate Conrad Veidt in a romantic leading role, as I've yet to watch his German films, although
I should qualify things by adding he does play a German Spy so technically, he's the Enemy
here. However this was 1937 and I guess even Britain would still allow a German agent to appear
somewhat sympathetic, which surprises me. I won't give a way the ending, but I must say
that was most surprising of all. I'd forgotten what happens---or what doesn't happen, more
to the point.
The chief pleasure of the movie, however, is seeing some glamour before the severe restrictions
would make this impossible in British filmmaking for years. There are some nightclub scenes
which are surprisingly extravagant and I would even say the club scenes are the most entertaining
in the movie. Veidt is a serious playboy and Viv plays a stunningly dressed haute couture
shop owner who also happens to be a spy. Just who she's spying for, you have to watch the
movie to find out.
Vivien Leigh's seriousness is never abated and sometimes I would have liked to see her character
lighten up just a bit, but she seemed to think that would have been out of character or perhaps
she just seldom could disguise her own little inner demons. But she's pretty as a picture and her
eyes practically engulf the screen they're so huge. It would be nice if TCM could air this little seen
movie of a more glamorous time in British films (and it's not even a period picture!), even nicer if
they could spotlight Viv as a "Star of the Month," paltry as the number of her films was.
Last weekend I saw another early Viv film, Dark Journey. It was my new Region 2 dvd and it was pleasant to see how nicely cleaned up the print is compared to the old vhs copy I used to watch. I seldom get to
appreciate Conrad Veidt in a romantic leading role, as I've yet to watch his German films, although
I should qualify things by adding he does play a German Spy so technically, he's the Enemy
here. However this was 1937 and I guess even Britain would still allow a German agent to appear
somewhat sympathetic, which surprises me. I won't give a way the ending, but I must say
that was most surprising of all. I'd forgotten what happens---or what doesn't happen, more
to the point.
The chief pleasure of the movie, however, is seeing some glamour before the severe restrictions
would make this impossible in British filmmaking for years. There are some nightclub scenes
which are surprisingly extravagant and I would even say the club scenes are the most entertaining
in the movie. Veidt is a serious playboy and Viv plays a stunningly dressed haute couture
shop owner who also happens to be a spy. Just who she's spying for, you have to watch the
movie to find out.
Vivien Leigh's seriousness is never abated and sometimes I would have liked to see her character
lighten up just a bit, but she seemed to think that would have been out of character or perhaps
she just seldom could disguise her own little inner demons. But she's pretty as a picture and her
eyes practically engulf the screen they're so huge. It would be nice if TCM could air this little seen
movie of a more glamorous time in British films (and it's not even a period picture!), even nicer if
they could spotlight Viv as a "Star of the Month," paltry as the number of her films was.
"There's only one thing that can kill the movies, and that's education."
-- Will Rogers
-- Will Rogers
-
MissGoddess
- Posts: 5072
- Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:01 am
- Contact:
Also, I watched You Only Live Once (1937---again!)
Directed by Fritz Lang and starring Henry Fonda as an ex-con who's a "three time loser" and
Sylvia Sydney as his devoted fiancee/wife who also happens to be assistant to the Public
Defender (Barton MacLane). No one can understand why Joan (Sydney) wants to marry this
guy Taylor (Fonda), least of al her boss who is in love with her. It's nice, by the way, to
see MacLane playing a good egg---and an educated egg at that. Boy, is he good---he
practically sacrifices everything for Joan at one point. Joan's sister also believes she is
throwing herself away on a worthless criminal, and you've seldom seen Jean Dixon in
such a bitter, humorless role. Life has obviously been rugged and she can't abide to see
her younger sister ruining her own chances for secuity. None of the expected Jean Dixon
sarcastic wisecracks here, she's sour and doesn't care who knows it, but she obviously
does care for her sister.
What about Taylor? Is he worth it? The movie isn't always making that clear, it won't
make it easy for us to like Fonda's Taylor. Itt takes pains to show how he got to be in his
circumstances, which warrants compassion but I get the feeling Lang wanted to "test" his
audience a little. Lang seemed to excel at telling stories of crime-and-punishment, and by
extension, the public's attitude toward such issues. Fury, starring Spencer Tracy,
really hit hard on mob violence and this movie shares some of it's uncompromising look
at the injustice of the justice system. And, of course, Madame Sydney is the heart of both
movies, humanising her man in each, sometimes just by virtue of her magnificent eyes that
always seem to be just about to brim over with tears.
The two, undaunted, marry. Well, Joan is undaunted but Taylor tries to share her
optimism as he attempts to keep a job and pay for that new house they just found. Oh,
thatj's the most heartbreaking part of the movie, along with the ending! You know
how it is, just when everything seems to be falling into place for happiness, something
happens. What happens may take you by surprise because it plays a little on the audience's
own possible lingering prejudice toward Taylor's character. There are many twists
and turns and I don't want to ruin the plot for anyone, but the couple does eventually go on the
lam. It makes you wonder how far you would go if you were in Joan's place, out of loyalty
and love for your mate.
A word about Fonda's performance. He makes himself out to be pretty cold, psychicly
beat up and emotionally shut-down by years in correctional hell. There is little trace of
the honorable good guy or bumbling comic lover we usually saw in the 1930s. A fine
performance.
You Only Live Once may not be quite as raw as Fury or a masterpiece of
Expressionism like the German films, but it has it's own peculiar power. It's also on
dvd, so check it out!
P.S. Moira, since you've told me this is your favorite Lang
film, do you mind sharing your reasons why? I am considering getting
the dvd if I can find it and would love to know what someone else
appreciates in the movie. I'm sure there are many things I missed this
first time around that I will look for in subsequent viewings.
Directed by Fritz Lang and starring Henry Fonda as an ex-con who's a "three time loser" and
Sylvia Sydney as his devoted fiancee/wife who also happens to be assistant to the Public
Defender (Barton MacLane). No one can understand why Joan (Sydney) wants to marry this
guy Taylor (Fonda), least of al her boss who is in love with her. It's nice, by the way, to
see MacLane playing a good egg---and an educated egg at that. Boy, is he good---he
practically sacrifices everything for Joan at one point. Joan's sister also believes she is
throwing herself away on a worthless criminal, and you've seldom seen Jean Dixon in
such a bitter, humorless role. Life has obviously been rugged and she can't abide to see
her younger sister ruining her own chances for secuity. None of the expected Jean Dixon
sarcastic wisecracks here, she's sour and doesn't care who knows it, but she obviously
does care for her sister.
What about Taylor? Is he worth it? The movie isn't always making that clear, it won't
make it easy for us to like Fonda's Taylor. Itt takes pains to show how he got to be in his
circumstances, which warrants compassion but I get the feeling Lang wanted to "test" his
audience a little. Lang seemed to excel at telling stories of crime-and-punishment, and by
extension, the public's attitude toward such issues. Fury, starring Spencer Tracy,
really hit hard on mob violence and this movie shares some of it's uncompromising look
at the injustice of the justice system. And, of course, Madame Sydney is the heart of both
movies, humanising her man in each, sometimes just by virtue of her magnificent eyes that
always seem to be just about to brim over with tears.
The two, undaunted, marry. Well, Joan is undaunted but Taylor tries to share her
optimism as he attempts to keep a job and pay for that new house they just found. Oh,
thatj's the most heartbreaking part of the movie, along with the ending! You know
how it is, just when everything seems to be falling into place for happiness, something
happens. What happens may take you by surprise because it plays a little on the audience's
own possible lingering prejudice toward Taylor's character. There are many twists
and turns and I don't want to ruin the plot for anyone, but the couple does eventually go on the
lam. It makes you wonder how far you would go if you were in Joan's place, out of loyalty
and love for your mate.
A word about Fonda's performance. He makes himself out to be pretty cold, psychicly
beat up and emotionally shut-down by years in correctional hell. There is little trace of
the honorable good guy or bumbling comic lover we usually saw in the 1930s. A fine
performance.
You Only Live Once may not be quite as raw as Fury or a masterpiece of
Expressionism like the German films, but it has it's own peculiar power. It's also on
dvd, so check it out!
P.S. Moira, since you've told me this is your favorite Lang
film, do you mind sharing your reasons why? I am considering getting
the dvd if I can find it and would love to know what someone else
appreciates in the movie. I'm sure there are many things I missed this
first time around that I will look for in subsequent viewings.
"There's only one thing that can kill the movies, and that's education."
-- Will Rogers
-- Will Rogers
-
moira finnie
- Administrator
- Posts: 8024
- Joined: April 9th, 2007, 6:34 pm
- Location: Earth
- Contact:
Why do I like You Only Live Once best of all Lang's movies?
Well, it doesn't have the dazzling effects or imagination of Metropolis or the Nibelengen films or near perfect script and playing of M, but it does have a quality similar to Liliom: it tells the relatively simple story of a man and woman, in some ways, kindred souls whose love for one another gives their rather anonymous existence some depth of meaning, at least to them. It's interesting that so many of the characters around them have sympathy for them, even though they find their actions understandably human but abhorrent and try to warn them that self-destruction isn't all that romantic. Some have interpreted this as Lang's realistic comment on the ultimate de-humanization of human life in the modern world after fascism, though I tend to think this is also a socially acceptable way of Lang translating his alienation from all human societies and his distrust of all institutions. This attitude may have been affected by his experience of being thrust into an unfamiliar, ice cold shark pool of American capitalistic society in the Depression, though I think his viewpoint, as perceptive as it could be, was a narrow one, defined by his earlier experiences in Germany & WWI, and the fact that he saw the U.S. from a Hollywood vantage point, which was naturally skewed a bit, even though the director made a conscious effort to travel in America and absorb the idioms of the country.
*POSSIBLE MILD SPOILER BELOW*
Most of all, Lang seemed for once, to see some redemption as well as futility of the powerful attachment of the two Bonnie & Clyde type characters, played beautifully by Henry Fonda & Sylvia Sidney, who gives up everything, even her baby to follow him.
The sublime Sylvia Sidney with Jean Dixon in a key scene in You Only Live Once (1937).
While the previous year's Lang film Fury is justifiably seen as the director's first great American movie, there is a didacticism in Fury, despite the fascinating rage of Spencer Tracy the beautiful work of Sylvia Sidney and the technical sophistication of that film that sort of puts me off. The later movie, You Only Live Once, with its doomed romanticism and underlying social critique that presaged so much that would come to the fore in film noir, seems to be a remarkable blend of thought and feeling. Perhaps it might be seen as an essential in some ways?
Well, it doesn't have the dazzling effects or imagination of Metropolis or the Nibelengen films or near perfect script and playing of M, but it does have a quality similar to Liliom: it tells the relatively simple story of a man and woman, in some ways, kindred souls whose love for one another gives their rather anonymous existence some depth of meaning, at least to them. It's interesting that so many of the characters around them have sympathy for them, even though they find their actions understandably human but abhorrent and try to warn them that self-destruction isn't all that romantic. Some have interpreted this as Lang's realistic comment on the ultimate de-humanization of human life in the modern world after fascism, though I tend to think this is also a socially acceptable way of Lang translating his alienation from all human societies and his distrust of all institutions. This attitude may have been affected by his experience of being thrust into an unfamiliar, ice cold shark pool of American capitalistic society in the Depression, though I think his viewpoint, as perceptive as it could be, was a narrow one, defined by his earlier experiences in Germany & WWI, and the fact that he saw the U.S. from a Hollywood vantage point, which was naturally skewed a bit, even though the director made a conscious effort to travel in America and absorb the idioms of the country.
*POSSIBLE MILD SPOILER BELOW*
Most of all, Lang seemed for once, to see some redemption as well as futility of the powerful attachment of the two Bonnie & Clyde type characters, played beautifully by Henry Fonda & Sylvia Sidney, who gives up everything, even her baby to follow him.
The sublime Sylvia Sidney with Jean Dixon in a key scene in You Only Live Once (1937).
While the previous year's Lang film Fury is justifiably seen as the director's first great American movie, there is a didacticism in Fury, despite the fascinating rage of Spencer Tracy the beautiful work of Sylvia Sidney and the technical sophistication of that film that sort of puts me off. The later movie, You Only Live Once, with its doomed romanticism and underlying social critique that presaged so much that would come to the fore in film noir, seems to be a remarkable blend of thought and feeling. Perhaps it might be seen as an essential in some ways?