|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 28, 2017 15:39:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 28, 2017 15:40:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 28, 2017 15:43:13 GMT
 Strawberries Investigation |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 28, 2017 15:44:12 GMT
Meatball and Horrible  |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 28, 2017 16:26:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 28, 2017 16:31:33 GMT
The Crew of the Caine  |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Aug 28, 2017 17:15:32 GMT
Fascinating post, dog. I admire your patience in writing such a long missive, LOL. Your description of the book's Queeg fits Trump to a T. Seems that there always has to be some kind of character adaptation when transferring a novel to the screen. For instance, in GWTW, Vivien Leigh's Scarlett is more sympathetic than the book's hard-hearted protagonist. That's kind of you; it's really your patience that's to be commended for wading through what results when I'm in a garrulous mood. I imagine a screen adaptation must be the source of conflicting emotions for a novelist (especially a best-selling one): satisfaction with the generous paycheck and prestige, but dread of the necessary alterations, eliminations and wholesale jettisoning of sweated-over prose passages. Those emotions might be even more acute for those who adapt their own works for the screen, when the literary advice alternately attributed to Faulkner, Welty, Wilde and even Stephen King - "Kill your darlings" - must be most brutally brought to bear. |
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Aug 29, 2017 9:07:15 GMT
Johnson, cast against type as Lt. Maryk. He was usually cast as the handsome leading man in MGM musicals, but this movie broadened his range and led him to being cast into diverse movie and TV roles. Van Johnson Experts : Comments on the quoted statement ? I have my doubts about any sort of major change in his career path post Caine. Pre-Caine he had played several military men and the majority of his films had been non-musicals. Ditto Post Caine. Van Johnson Filmography True about Van, however his screen image was rather that of a light leading man, not a tough guy or a man of action. Yes, he'd done those war films, even played a cop or two, but there was something about the way he presented himself on screen that just didn't seem serious. He was excellent in Caine I think because he didn't run away from his usual style but worked within his range and was quite convincing. |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 29, 2017 14:02:33 GMT
telegonusAgree that Johnson did ok in Caine. I don't see a major change in the roles he played Pre vs. Post Caine as was stated earlier in the thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 31, 2017 15:09:28 GMT
This may be kicking a dead horse BUT this bold statement got me wondering and would really appreciate a reply from a Van Johnson expert. Johnson, cast against type as Lt. Maryk.
He was usually cast as the handsome leading man in MGM musicals, but this movie broadened his range and led him to being cast into diverse movie and TV roles.
Is this true ? Did his career path change so dramatically after Caine ? I have looked over his filmography Van Johnson and just do not see this great difference pre and post Caine. Was never a major Fan of Van myself so need someone more familiar with the details of his career to help with this earth shaking quandry. |
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Aug 31, 2017 15:14:06 GMT
Maybe not as dramatic a career shift for Van as was Dick Powell with MURDER MY SWEET and Stewart with WINCHESTER '73, Bat.
But with CAINE his 'nice boy next door' image did toughen up somewhat after that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Aug 31, 2017 16:45:23 GMT
This may be kicking a dead horse BUT this bold statement got me wondering and would really appreciate a reply from a Van Johnson expert. Johnson, cast against type as Lt. Maryk.
He was usually cast as the handsome leading man in MGM musicals, but this movie broadened his range and led him to being cast into diverse movie and TV roles.
Is this true ? Did his career path change so dramatically after Caine ? I have looked over his filmography Van Johnson and just do not see this great difference pre and post Caine. Was never a major Fan of Van myself so need someone more familiar with the details of his career to help with this earth shaking quandry. I don't claim to be a Van Johnson expert, but I am a Fan Of Van (I like that), and I'm not sure there's really a discernible trajectory to his career. All through it, he bounced easily between dramas (both heavy and light), comedies and musicals, and like any good performer, constantly honed, refined and expanded his craft. In retrospect, I'd say he was among the most reliable all-purpose performers, solidly filling the bill for whatever was required as both lead and supporting player, and just seemed to fit comfortably wherever he landed. Although he sometimes nearly walked away with an entire picture (as with his acerbic, wisecracking roles in State Of the Union and Brigadoon, for example), he never did so in a showy, spotlight-grabbing or histrionic way and, pro that he was, seemed able to gauge just the proper amount of lightness or intensity to provide dramatic balance appropriate to the project and his fellow performers, making his work harmonious with both. In this way, his quietly authoritative performance benefits Caine immensely and is right on pitch. |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 31, 2017 18:48:25 GMT
Doghouse6That's rather as I saw Johnson's career as well, which is probably why I was rather taken back by the authorative pronouncement that somehow Caine had caused a major alteration in the type of roles he played. My mom was a Fan Of Van but I never was either pro or con. For me he was just there in some pretty good movies. The one I liked the best which he happened to be part of was Caine.
mattgarthExcellent point about Powell and Stewart. Much more career altering than the somewhat tougher Van .
|
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Aug 31, 2017 18:50:59 GMT
Other fave Van films:
ROMANCE OF ROSY RIDGE
BATTLEGROUND
COMMAND DECISION
STATE OF THE UNION
23 PACES TO BAKER STREET
MIRACLE IN THE RAIN
THIRTY SECONDS OVER TOKYO
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Aug 31, 2017 19:13:48 GMT
Although the Caine Mutiny was not made by one of the big studios it still has the subversive demoralization agenda that Yuri Bezmenov claimed was well under way in the US.
Whether that is true or not, the story certainly fits the themes.
Keith is marrying outside his class--which must have been about as far as they could go with "embrace the foreigner" in the 1950s.
On the military side, the implication is that the US armed services is full of corruption. The bad guy is the well-to-do white guy Keefer, the hero? The lawyer Greenwald. Maryk is dumb, Keith is an idiot, Queeg has been damaged by his military service (does every US military veteran come back a Rambo or American Sniper?).
De Vriess is the 1950s liberal while Queeg represents the fascist.
|
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Aug 31, 2017 20:30:30 GMT
"Queeg has been damaged by his military service...".
Well, that might explain Queeg's behavior, but it can't explain Trump's!
The irony of this story is that, after the court martial, Willie is transferred to a ship captained by deVriess, the former leader of the "Caine".
And, although Willie didn't like deVriess on the "Caine", he was happy to be under his rule on the new ship.
This movie was made while the HUAC "witch hunts" were still in full swing.
Wouldn't the studio be in trouble for its positive portrayal of "liberal" deVriess?
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 31, 2017 21:44:20 GMT
Although the Caine Mutiny was not made by one of the big studios it still has the subversive demoralization agenda that Yuri Bezmenov claimed was well under way in the US. Whether that is true or not, the story certainly fits the themes. Keith is marrying outside his class--which must have been about as far as they could go with "embrace the foreigner" in the 1950s. On the military side, the implication is that the US armed services is full of corruption. The bad guy is the well-to-do white guy Keefer, the hero? The lawyer Greenwald. Maryk is dumb, Keith is an idiot, Queeg has been damaged by his military service (does every US military veteran come back a Rambo or American Sniper?). De Vriess is the 1950s liberal while Queeg represents the fascist. Do have to wonder just how much of this that you posted above is just claptrap being read into what was, at the time of its release, just seen as a pretty darn good yarn about some guys on a ship in a storm dealing with an unhinged captain. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Aug 31, 2017 22:03:47 GMT
Do have to wonder just how much of this that you posted above is just claptrap being read into what was, at the time of its release, just seen as a pretty darn good yarn about some guys on a ship in a storm dealing with an unhinged captain. No movie is made without ideological underpinnings. Ditto for book publishing. |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 31, 2017 22:15:51 GMT
Primemovermithrax Pejorative said : No movie is made without ideological underpinnings. Ditto for book publishing.
The question was ... how much of what is being said was actually there in the 1950's and how much is there now because of it being now ?
An awful lot of nonsense can be read into anything and today it seems to be a cottage industry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Sept 1, 2017 0:14:32 GMT
An awful lot of nonsense can be read into anything and today it seems to be a cottage industry. Well I dont know--there are people who make blanket statements about Hollywood control, some say that Hollywood had no political messaging prior to the 60s. others say they always had some message. Every studio owner has it--Walt Disney, RKO, they all have their particular philosophies. I mentioned Jason and the Argonauts in another forum. There is a scene where 4 black guys appear--they arrest Jason-and then disappear--and are not seen again even though it appears they are important guards of the king. It, like TCM, was a Columbia film. Why did they appear? I used to think studios were only interested in making money-but now I do believe they shape stories according to their own preferences. Looking at the Caine Mutiny another way, yes it is just a story about these people caught up in a crisis. But look at the author's background. Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov said that communists were at work in the US with a demoralization agenda in education and media. Well, Herman Wouk's background lines up with that--and the story does work as I suggested. The good character is Greenwald the lawyer--the most WASPy and educated character is treasonous, treacherous, scheming to attack the others. The ultimate point of the story is that there is something wrong with the military structure of the US. But who is making that criticism? Wouk the outsider. ironically Norman Lear also comes from the same background as Wouk and he created Archie Bunker, an attack on a white working class character. Coincidence? I dont think so anymore. |
|
