|
|
Post by howardschumann on Aug 2, 2017 1:36:51 GMT
Hard to argue with someone whose knowledge of history is so vast that he or she thinks the US and Russia were allies in the 1930s. Actually, it was the USSR and Nazi Germany that were allies in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Members of the American Communist Party were naive, gullible, and more loyal to the Soviet Union than to the US. Some of them knowingly helped with Soviet espionage. I have no more respect or sympathy for them than I have for those who sentimentalized and supported the Third Reich. They weren't officially Allies until World War II but they were on good terms after they extended diplomatic recognition to Russia in 1933. During the 1930's, the American Communist Party, with approximately 65,000 members, were committed to housing, unemployment struggles, and civil rights. Though they were to the left of FDR and opposed many policies of New Deal liberalism, they became national, regional, and community leaders in liberal, cultural, student organization and in several important CIO unions. Communist Party members were also elected to the New York City Council. It was only after the war when the Soviets extended their influence into Eastern Europe that they became our adversary. |
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Aug 2, 2017 2:08:08 GMT
Spider--
I consider Panic in the Streets something of a masterpiece, though these two movies are often forgotten when Kazan is mentioned. I think the reason for this is the great symbolism of the port of New Orleans.
I first time I saw it was on a Criterion DVD with the commentary track. The great scene with Palance and Mosel being made chased in the port location was wonderfully shot.
I think I also enjoyed in because it highlighted the role of the US Public Health Service with Widmark playing "the good guy," too.
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Aug 2, 2017 15:21:58 GMT
It also won an Oscar for best screenplay, kijii . It's certainly a film that I always enjoy seeing, and I do think Kazan did an exceptional job with a genre that wasn't his metier of choice. Then again, one of the reasons it works so well is because the performances are superb. And it's one of my favorite Widmark films precisely for the reason you mention. Oh, you've made me want to see it again; maybe I'll dig out my DVD. . .(great on-location cinematography by Joe McDonald, too, lest we forget). |
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Aug 2, 2017 23:34:02 GMT
Spider--
Have you ever seen The Visitors (1972)?
It is a strange little story with James Woods and a small cast.
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Aug 3, 2017 1:09:23 GMT
Spider-- Have you ever seen The Visitors (1972)? It is a strange little story with James Woods and a small cast. Kijii, as hard as it is to believe, this is the only Kazan film I haven't seen. I never had a chance when it was first released, and I never sought it out later, because it didn't get good reviews and didn't seem like a film that would appeal to me (not a real Kazan film, in other words). He directed it because his son, Chris Kazan, wrote it. I probably should see it, just so I can say I've seen all of his films, but I have a feeling I won't. What were your thoughts about it? |
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Aug 3, 2017 5:21:58 GMT
I've seen them all.
Another movie that I really liked was Wild River (1960).
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Aug 3, 2017 13:07:05 GMT
Another movie that I really liked was Wild River (1960). is one of my favorites. Such a beautiful film with an important story. A film that Kazan had wanted to make since he was the assistant director on the WPA documentary short, The People of the Cumberland (1937), about Depression era Appalachia. |
|
