Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2020 23:21:43 GMT
An enjoyable film about a year in the life of students at Harvard Law, most fascinating because it is like a time capsule, it has the obligatory problems with any movie about students in a rigorous academic environment, the relationships and stress and dorm life, a problem for me is I really didn't like most of the characters with the exception of the one played by Lindsay Wagner, Houseman is the most imposing with a one note but commanding performance as Kingsfield, the strict Harvard professor. 8/10
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Apr 19, 2020 23:29:27 GMT
9/10
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 20, 2020 19:39:03 GMT
8/10. Quiet little 70's gem, and also one of the few films that transitioned into a tv series which managed to retain the excellence of its parent production.
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Apr 21, 2020 2:54:27 GMT
8/10 very good movie
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on May 18, 2020 21:01:56 GMT
8/10. Quiet little 70's gem, and also one of the few films that transitioned into a tv series which managed to retain the excellence of its parent production. I saw this film for the first time late last year. I recall the t.v. series when I was a kid, but too young to get into it.
I wasn't sure what the point of the film was. Was it supposed to be inspiring? I went in thinking it was about a young law student who was going to be at loggerheads with his professor and challenge his methods. That is how it was sold to me. Instead, it appeared he got detached inspiration from the professor and I wasn't getting any authentic conflict from the story, except the pressure he was under to succeed. The hotel sequence was stupid and far-fetched. They had paid for their room.
The film could be regarded as a time capsule for early 70's quality cinema and yet I found the pathos forced. I didn't enjoy watching Bottoms, (never have), nor did I care for his relationship with Wagner. Didn't ring true, except for a screw. Houseman was a dominating presence, but as the OP has mentioned he was largely one-note. His Kingsfield character was born of personality and a sensationalized plot device. I'd say the t.v. series would have fleshed him out more and given him more layers to make him more personable.
I watched Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore - 74' the other week with Ellen Burstyn. Now that one is a corker of a 70's classic. Have seen before yonks ago. Was on You Tube in a HD upload. Good quality. "What is it? What is it? What's your problem, kid? What do you want from me? Huh? What's wrong with your life? Here, I want you to do something for me, alright. I want you to make me a list of everything that's wrong with your life. I want to see it in writing. All the things that are wrong in your life. Everything that can go wrong. Go on! Write! Start writing! All the bad things! Write! Well, why aren't you writing? Write! ...I'm out there spending too much money on a dress trying to look like maybe I'm under thirty so that somebody will hire me and you're sitting in here whining like an idiot! I will get a job, allright?! I will get you to Monterey before your birthday! I will get you into school by September! I promise! Shall I open a vein and sign it in blood!"I probably didn't get all that right, but wow, that is some bright, in the moment dialogue. So vivid and alive. And acid funny. And Burstyn's breathless delivery does the dialogue justice. I also like how Alice and Tommy both give as good as they get, though I do think Tommy needed a couple of good spankings.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on May 19, 2020 17:37:21 GMT
"What is it? What is it? What's your problem, kid? What do you want from me? Huh? What's wrong with your life? Here, I want you to do something for me, alright. I want you to make me a list of everything that's wrong with your life. I want to see it in writing. All the things that are wrong in your life. Everything that can go wrong. Go on! Write! Start writing! All the bad things! Write! Well, why aren't you writing? Write! ...I'm out there spending too much money on a dress trying to look like maybe I'm under thirty so that somebody will hire me and you're sitting in here whining like an idiot! I will get a job, allright?! I will get you to Monterey before your birthday! I will get you into school by September! I promise! Shall I open a vein and sign it in blood!"I probably didn't get all that right, but wow, that is some bright, in the moment dialogue. So vivid and alive. And acid funny. And Burstyn's breathless delivery does the dialogue justice. I also like how Alice and Tommy both give as good as they get, though I do think Tommy needed a couple of good spankings. I love that sequence. I replayed it a few times. The delivery and timing of Burstyn was impeccable, and as you say, in the moment and top-notch believable acting. I find it hard to believe, that this was the same Burstyn playing the mother of similar aged daughter the year before in The Exorcist. While she was still very good, it is perhaps one of my lessor favorites of Burstyn. The problem here though, is Friedkin's direction which may perhaps be a bit too austere and heavy-handed, in a film that struggles to find a thematic stance.
Yes, Tommy was a brat, but what I liked about Alice, she also knew as a parent, that the responsibility of not over-reacting to children, her child, is a big massive task and test placed upon them. The onus is theirs, regardless of any excuses parents can make about why and what they do to their children. I have experienced and witnessed way too much parental and teacher authority abuse than I would have cared too in my lifetime. She wouldn't tolerate David spanking him and when he did it caused a fight. She did lose her cool on the drive home when she threw Tommy out of the car, but just look at the grief and frustration that it caused her soon after.
Even as much as Hargensen may have deserved that slap in Carrie, it wasn't for Collins to administer it. I also feel, consequence for kids is best left at the behest of their own peers, if of the physical violent sort. It at least puts it into the same level playing field if it is going to happen. Adults promoting violence onto kids, is only going to corrupt and teach the same, as trite as that sounds.
I agree and like the idea of kids taking care of their own. Whatever lesson needs to be learned is going to get a much more effective deliverance when it is done by one's peers. I also agree that when corporal punishment is handed out by adults, particularly by adults who are not the parents is going to likely backfire, causing resentment and potential damage to the healthy, growing spirit within the child. What I can say about parents is the spankings should never leave any marks. But there are always exceptions to the rule and I believe Chris Hargensen is one of those exceptions. She had no sense of moral responsibility, defying and smirking at authority at every chance she got. It is not addressed in the movie, but the Chris Hargensen character is spoiled rotten by her father, who thought everything his princess bitch daughter did was okay. He did not hold up his end of the parent-child by administering any discipline. There is no reaching the brat. Miss Collins knew this and, after the nastiness of their cruel prank and the fact that Chris will not take her due punishment (and the principal went pretty easy on the girls, to begin with) and then tells Miss Collins to "stick em up your ass!", it becomes very easy to root for Miss Collins. It is likely that Chris was simply irredeemable. And likely Miss Collins knew of the possible consequences, but at that point had become fed up with such a lackadaisical and inefficient administration, not to mention the girl's lack of a conscience, and took her chances with a well-deserved slap. And that slap sure did get Hargensen's attention! Anything less would not do. (In the book, the lawyer dad demands Miss Collins be fired and threatens the principal with a lawsuit. The principal retaliates with a very long list of his daughter's cruel actions.) Also, I think for any slap to make even a dent in Chris Hargensen's warped armor, it would need to be given by another female. With Hargensen's sick and destructive sado-masochistic nature, a slap from a man would get Chris sexually riled.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on May 25, 2020 1:26:58 GMT
I agree and like the idea of kids taking care of their own. Whatever lesson needs to be learned is going to get a much more effective deliverance when it is done by one's peers. I also agree that when corporal punishment is handed out by adults, particularly by adults who are not the parents is going to likely backfire, causing resentment and potential damage to the healthy, growing spirit within the child. What I can say about parents is the spankings should never leave any marks. But there are always exceptions to the rule and I believe Chris Hargensen is one of those exceptions. She had no sense of moral responsibility, defying and smirking at authority at every chance she got. It is not addressed in the movie, but the Chris Hargensen character is spoiled rotten by her father, who thought everything his princess bitch daughter did was okay. He did not hold up his end of the parent-child by administering any discipline. There is no reaching the brat. Miss Collins knew this and, after the nastiness of their cruel prank and the fact that Chris will not take her due punishment (and the principal went pretty easy on the girls, to begin with) and then tells Miss Collins to "stick em up your ass!", it becomes very easy to root for Miss Collins. It is likely that Chris was simply irredeemable. And likely Miss Collins knew of the possible consequences, but at that point had become fed up with such a lackadaisical and inefficient administration, not to mention the girl's lack of a conscience, and took her chances with a well-deserved slap. And that slap sure did get Hargensen's attention! Anything less would not do. (In the book, the lawyer dad demands Miss Collins be fired and threatens the principal with a lawsuit. The principal retaliates with a very long list of his daughter's cruel actions.) Also, I think for any slap to make even a dent in Chris Hargensen's warped armor, it would need to be given by another female. With Hargensen's sick and destructive sado-masochistic nature, a slap from a man would get Chris sexually riled. Yes, there are always an exception to a rule and Collins just reacted out of anger and frustration at Hargenson, but at the end of the day, it was Collin's anger that she wasn't able to control here. The other girls were scared stiff though. It goes to show how kids are largely obedient in the presence of older authority, Chris just liked to push the envelope as far as she could and perhaps had never experienced hardly any serious consequence for her spoiled sociopathic behavior.
I think it was a mistake for De Palma to not include a sequence of Hargensen's father confronting the principal about the decision to suspend his daughter and exclude her from the prom. This was included in both remakes and he seemed unaware though of his daughter's past behavior, even in the book. Surely this would have been brought up with him at the time, or did the school just keep a record of it? Well at any rate, the school threatened to counter sue if Chris's dad took the issue further and he knew with the information he learned, he didn't have much of a leg to stand on.
If it was a runtime time limit issue, De Palma could have trimmed that stupid sped up montage scene of the boys looking for tuxes to hire. That appeared like something out of another film altogether and De Palma was just trying to be cute here I'd say to temper the tension and horror about to ensue. A lot of people cite the montage sequence as the low point of the film. I can see why people would say that and it is kinda corny, but it does not bother me. I always took it as De Palma being experimental, trying new things and I always respected that.
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on May 25, 2020 4:29:45 GMT
A lot of people cite the montage sequence as the low point of the film. I can see why people would say that and it is kinda corny, but it does not bother me. I always took it as De Palma being experimental, trying new things and I always respected that. My folks love that sequence as well and when I have watched it with my dad, he has genuinely laughed at it. I guess it is the male camaraderie thing here going on that many males relate too.
I have shown them the 02' version and the 13' version on dvd. I don't think they minded the 02' version and I saw they were really tense and quiet during the 13' version and were concentrating fully on it, (rare experience for me to not see them fidgety), especially once it got to the prom sequence, but when it was over they felt that it wasn't as good as Spacek take on Carrie and they didn't like Judy Greer as Desjardin at all. They said she didn't come through. Greer was awful and I actually loved the take on Collins\Desjardin character by Rena Sofer in the 02' version. I recall my folks liked her too at the time.
I get the two remakes confused. The only thing I know to do to keep them separate is by the two actresses who played Margaret White, Julianne Moore and Patricia Clarkson. I didn't think either actress did a very good job. And I usually like Moore. Piper Laurie would make mincemeat out of those two. I guess because Laurie was so commanding in her over the top approach that nobody dared to try and do anything like what she did. That might explain why Moore's and Clarkson's portrayals were so solemn and subdued and ultimately very boring. When I was a kid, Piper Laurie scared the hell out of me. And, irl, these kind of people still do frighten me. All that super intense religious fervor, no thank you. Though I do like how Tommy and his buddies went together looking for tuxedos. It's a cute scene. And goofy as it may be, I still respect a director who takes as many chances as De Palma did. Whatever else it is, I think it is the opposite of stuffy and dull, and I think it also shows a real love for the medium.
|
|