|
Post by kijii on Aug 8, 2018 21:08:37 GMT
I think that is how I happened to watch The Set-Up (1949) / Robert Wise on TCM this week also. Though the story and feeling seemed sterotypic of the late 40s fight scene, I was still very impressed with the acting by both Audrey Totter and Robert Ryan. I pulled myself through this movie thinking I was continuing my Robert Wise project. When I was finished, I remember thinking that Totter was much better than I would have thought she would be. She managed to take an "nothing role" and make it interesting. She didn't have much dialogue, but one had the feeling what she was thinking throughout the movie.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Aug 8, 2018 23:00:39 GMT
The Seventh Victim (1943) Third or fourth viewing for me; first for hubby. Like all productions of the Val Lewton unit at RKO, this one makes the most from the least, favoring mood over action; suggestion over depiction; apprehension over mayhem. Of all of them, it's the most ethereal and enigmatic, creating a state that seems somewhere between waking and sleeping, existing between conscious daydreams and slumbering nightmares. And as always for a Lewton project, it displays rich visual elegance that transcends its economical production. Kim Hunter makes her film debut as innocent Mary Gibson, arriving in New York on the trail of sister Jacqueline, who's apparently dropped off the map to all who know her, each of whom harbors his or her own story and is often less than fully forthcoming. Appearing along with Hunter are some Lewton favorites like Tom Conway, Jean Brooks, Elizabeth Russell and Isabel Jewell. Hugh Beaumont fits comfortably into the atmosphere (playing a character whose name happens to be Ward), providing reassuring guidance to Mary, but keeping his own secrets. Under Mark Robson's direction, veteran DP Nick Musuraca furnishes evocative images contributing as much to the senses of mystery and dread as the Charles O'Neal/DeWitt Bodeen screenplay. Hubby's verdict: "That was a rather strange movie." And indeed it is.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Aug 9, 2018 12:05:55 GMT
T rouble In Paradise (1932). Light as air comedy about two jewel thieves (Herbert Marshall and Miriam Hopkins) insinuating themselves into the home of wealthy widow Kay Francis in order to rob her. Every time I watch it I am always a little afraid that this time it will seem less funny, less exquisite, less delightful, but it never disappoints.
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Aug 9, 2018 17:36:52 GMT
The Bible: In the Beginning... 1966, directed by John Huston, based on the first part of the book of Genesis, screenplay by Christopher Fry, starring Michael Parks, Ulla Bergryd, Richard Harris, John Huston, Stephen Boyd, George C. Scott, Ava Gardner, Peter O'Toole, Gabriele Ferzetti, Franco Nero and others. Italian-American biblical epic with Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah and his ark, Nimrod, Abraham and Sara, Lot and his wife and Sodom and Gomorrah. The best things are Toshirô Mayuzumi Oscar nominated soundtrack, having a self-professed atheist directing the movie, and the Noah sequence with all it's animals. The movie is actually very boring, and maybe is that way, because I guess it has to please so many believers, and hurt as few as possible in their beliefs. By 1966 biblical epics were a bit out of fashion, the times were changing. They had planned to make a whole series in which this was planned as the first part, but it became a stand alone movie instead since the box-office returns were disappointing. The Noah sequence is at least entertaing, with Huston himself seemingly having a good time among all the animals. He was at one point trying to get Charles Chaplin to play the part. In one scene in the Sodom and Gomorrah sequence I think I heard the sound of a moped or vespa driving by. Recomended for those who is just curious about how it looks, and how they solved some things technically, if it's worth nearly 3 hours of your time.
|
|
|
Post by ZolotoyRetriever on Aug 9, 2018 17:41:20 GMT
The Devil is a Woman (1935). Directed by Josef von Sternberg, with Marlene Dietrich, Lionel Atwill, Cesar Romero, Edward Everett Horton. DVR'd from recent TCM telecast.
Really enjoyed this one on a number of levels: exquisite black & white photography, surreal, dreamlike sets, great soundtrack music featuring excerpts from Rimsky-Korsakov, Enrique Granados, et al, fluid plot (never bogs down for a single moment!), and last but not least, the appearance of a very radiant Marlene Dietrich as a femme fatale who seems to have everybody - even the viewers - wrapped around her little finger. It's also fun to see a young Cesar Romero here: some of you may remember him in his older years as "the Joker" on the classic 1960s TV show Batman.
Marlene Dietrich claimed that this was her favorite of all her films. As a matter of fact, we have Dietrich herself to thank for the existence and availability of this picture today. From the trivia section:
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Aug 10, 2018 1:21:35 GMT
Apologies: some spoilers. I don’t really think it’s worth a spoiler tag, though, to be perfectly honest. The last movie I saw was utter dreck. I rather enjoyed it. It’s yet another movie in which Béla Lugosi plays a red herring—I mean, a karate-chopping butler who IS SO OBVIOUSLY THE RED HERRING SUSPECT AND, THEREFORE, NOT THE REAL KILLER THAT HOW ON EARTH DID THE FILMMAKERS EXPECT TO FOOL US WITH SOMETHING THIS DOGGONE OBVIOUS?—ahem. And in which Lionel Atwill plays some rich, suspicious guy who has his life threatened by some mad serial killer who goes by the moniker “the Gorilla”! So, in order to face the threat of the Gorilla, Atwill doesn’t call the police, because that would make some logical sense, and instead calls a private detective agency that sends three complete morons who are supposed to be our comic relief. They’re the third-rate Ritz Brothers, and they are comic relief if you define the phrase as “relief-from-comedy”—to wit, they’re not very funny. Mostly they scream and yell and get scared and throw their hands up and run like Lou Costello seeing Count Dracula, but these three dummies actually do the seemingly impossible task of making Lou Costello seem like a halfway funny comedian. Then the plot gets going, and the plot has no need for the Ritz Brothers, except that we keep cutting back to them for some inexplicable reason. They do nothing and achieve nothing, especially because Atwill ends up getting kidnapped by the Gorilla exactly when the Gorilla said he’d be, but at least they’re there, I guess? Then some stuff happens, and bodies appear and disappear, and the Gorilla stalks the house and makes really loud footsteps [?], and we have Joseph Calleia, who looks like Cesar Romero, coming from nowhere yet knows where all of the secret-passageways in the house are. (Oh. Did I not mention the house has secret-passageways? The house has secret-passageways. Every old dark house in the movies has boatloads of secret-passageways. What, your house doesn’t? You weirdo.) The moment Ersatz Romero popped up, I said out-loud, “He’s the killer.” Spoiler: I was right. There’s also some other guy who pops up just to get murdered by the Gorilla. I don’t think it’s ever explained who he is. Anyway. Spooky sounds, and les Frères Idiots (which will now be the title of my new Dostoyevskian novel written simultaneously in French, which I know, and Russian, which I don’t) disappear into the furthest reaches of the secret passageway, thank God. But then they come back, damn it all. There’s also a perpetual storm outside the old dark house. (Oh. Did I not mention there’s a perpetual storm outside the house? There’s a perpetual storm outside the house. Every old dark house in the movies has a perpetual storm outside it. What, your house doesn’t? You nut.) Then, after lots of screaming and moaning and blah-blah-blah-Béla Lugosi-being-SUPER-DUPER-SUSPICIOUS, the solution is revealed: the killer is actually Lionel Atwill! Huh? That’s a twist. You see, Atwill was kidnapped but not killed. In fact, he was actually the killer. He’s all OK, just going to jail, Ersatz Romero tells us. Ersatz Romero, by the way, is a cop—except he’s not! Because one of the McKenzie Brothers shakes hands with him and sees he’s really hairy—exposing him as THE GORILLA! Wow. Then Béla Lugosi pops up to karate-chop Romero, and everyone lives happily ever after. There’s also a real gorilla who’s kindly and silly and the fall-guy [fall-gorilla?] for Ersatz Romero. So that’s the movie. Yeah. And I actually kinda liked it. The direction is so much better than it ought to be—we have these sweeping camera-movements, showing the most of the old dark house sets. It was directed, I later found out, by Allan Dwan, who seemingly never phoned in his direction even when he was given terrible material (like this) to work with. We actually get a pretty neat, if nonsensical, suspense sequence in which the Ritzes and some annoying comic-relief maid go silent for a minute (merciful Heaven) and hear the creaking of the Gorilla’s footsteps. We get a juicier role for Béla Lugosi than most of his run-of-the-mill red herring parts; he even kind of gets to be the hero in the end. We get a fast pace and some hammy acting from Lugosi and Atwill, and an appearance by my ‘30s-b-movie crush Anita Louise. The plot and the Ritz Brothers may be awful, but I wasn’t disappointed that I watched this one.
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Aug 10, 2018 5:45:56 GMT
trouble In Paradise (1932). every time I watch it I am always a little afraid that this time it will seem less funny, less exquisite, less delightful, but it never disappoints. So very concise and to the point. And, I couldn't agree with you more or have said it better. This was the first Lubitsch movie where I recognized total genius, from beginning to end. It's as if the movie were molded or sculpted; it's overall structure is as good--or better--than any of it parts.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Aug 10, 2018 7:45:00 GMT
but these three dummies actually do the seemingly impossible task of making Lou Costello seem like a halfway funny comedian. Sacrilegious!!! Not that every Costello joke works for me, but he has his moments. Who's On First and The Loafing bit are still classic.
This Ritz Brothers movie is featured in A Pictorial History of the Horror Film by Dennis Gifford. maybe one day I will get to see it.
I watched MADIGAN 1968--which came up in discussion with a Brazilian friend who has an interest in political messages in Hollywood films. I am very much in tune to spotting them. lol He felt this film was without any such message so I wanted to check it out. My skepticism paid off-it has some counterculture messaging. Much like Siegel's COOGAN'S BLUFF of the same year, the story hinges on old fashioned cops who do things their way and run into trouble for it. In CB nothing particularly bad happens--Coogan doesn't follow the rules-gets beat up, catches up with his prisoner-then follows the rules to take his prisoner home. At the end we see he learned a little from his time in New York, since he gives his prisoner something to promote lung cancer. In 1968 that was progressive. Well in MADIGAN there are a few threads through the story. You have Henry Fonda's black and white morality cop having an affair with a married woman. You got his friend James Whitmore dealing with some corruption for the sake of his son. You have Widmark's wife thinking about cheating on him (not to mention Widmark being friendly with the singer). Then there is a black doctor with the son who apparently confessed to a crime he didn't commit, and the father wanting justice--I don't know what that was about in the end. Was the doctor right or not?
Then of course Madigan and partner get the criminal they missed the first time, but it ends on a dark note (at least until the tv series a few years later--which reminds me, in reading up on that I see one of the rotating shows was called Cool Million and Barbara Bouchet guest starred in it..I am also interesting in checking out another show which Pamela Franklin appeared in, as well as some Banacek episodes since his Polish proverbs intrigue me).
But I digress. So it ends with a typical late 60s hysterical tirade against the system as Madigan's wife tells off Henry Fonda (unnecessary since we Fonda praising Madigan before he heads into trouble--which he probably could have avoided if he took the time to put on the bulletproof vest). Ultimately the message is:
being a cop sucks and may not be worth it.
Isn't that the same point at the end of Dirty Harry?
I see a pattern emerging!
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🦞 on Aug 10, 2018 14:56:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Aug 10, 2018 17:52:01 GMT
The Flight of the Phoenix 1965, directed by Robert Aldrich, based on a novel by Trevor Dudley Smith (aka Eleston Trevor), music by de Vol, staring James Stewart, Richard Attenborough, Peter Finch, Hardy Krüger, Ernest Borgnine, Ian Bannen, Ronald Fraser, Christian Marquand, Dan Duryea, George Kennedy, Barrie Chase (who only appears as a mirage), and a few others. Drama adventure about a plane crash in the Sahara and it's aftermaths, one of the survivors says he's an airplane designer and they can make a flyable plane from the wreckage. Our friend wmcclain gave such a good review of it that I agree with so I give you the link: watershade.net/films/Flight%20of%20the%20Phoenix%2C%20The%20%281965%29.htmlSince I started the thread about Aldrich's 100 years I felt obligated to watch one of his movies. Nice to see movie bad guy Dan Duryea in a nice role. I like this movie, had a short 8 minute version once on 8mm home movie, showed on silent projectors. Ian Bannen was Oscar nominated for Best Actor in a Supporting Role (as a very unpleasant character, as a person who craves for some kind of approval for every racistic remark he does), and Michael Luciano for Best Film Editing.
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Aug 10, 2018 18:01:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Aug 10, 2018 18:03:48 GMT
I still have it. Its beaten up with no cover. I had books on a lot of films years before I saw them. Dont think I'll ever see all the films listed in that book!
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Aug 10, 2018 18:07:30 GMT
but these three dummies actually do the seemingly impossible task of making Lou Costello seem like a halfway funny comedian. Sacrilegious!!! Not that every Costello joke works for me, but he has his moments. Who's On First and The Loafing bit are still classic.
This Ritz Brothers movie is featured in A Pictorial History of the Horror Film by Dennis Gifford. maybe one day I will get to see it. … Yeah, unfortunately I’m not a big Abbott and Costello fan, though I like Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein and The Time of the Their Lives. Actually, let me clarify that: I’m not a big Lou Costello fan, because I think Bud Abbott was one of the greatest straight-men in the business, but Lou’s brand of comedy grates on me. Ceaseless “Abbott!”s and their myriad variations! But I think Doghouse6 and I are the only people in the world (at least, the only people I know) to prefer Bud to Lou by far. I like several of their routines, which I think they do best in their TV shows rather than their movies. (I’m not as much a fan of their radio show.) But I far prefer W.C. Fields, the Marxes, and especially Laurel and Hardy to Abbott and Costello. So subjective, comedy…
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Aug 10, 2018 18:13:07 GMT
I still have it. Its beaten up with no cover. I had books on a lot of films years before I saw them. Dont think I'll ever see all the films listed in that book!
I still have it with covers and all, and had totally forgotten about it untill you mentioned it. The pages have been yellowed though and probably had a lot of damp too. Thanks for bringing some good childhood memories back! Sounds strange to outsiders offcourse, LOL
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Aug 11, 2018 5:19:25 GMT
In playing the GARTH GAME : WHAT ABOUT BOB? I was stimulated to watch a couple Robert Mitchum movies. The first is one I had a couple times before; Two for the Seesaw (1962) / Robert Wise
I often get this movie mixed up with The Apartment (1960) since Shirley MacLaine plays similar roles in the two movies: As I remember, she played sort of a non-conventional NYC girl who men could to take advantage of. In both movies, she is cute but vulnerable.
I once saw Shirley MacLaine interviewed on a daytime talk show. The subject of Jack Lemmon was brought up as, possibly, MacLaine's favorite leading man since they had played opposite him so often. When asked if he was, her answer was something like--No, he was a cream puff, but Robert Mitchum was the leading man who could knock her off her feet. She said this without any hesitation. (Actually, I think she only made two with each actor.)
Two for the Seesaw---adapted from a Broadway play by William Gibson--is a great movie in that the dialogue is so very rich at every turn. The movie was nominated for two Oscars: Best Black-and-White Cinematography (Ted D. McCord) and Best Best Music, Original Song (André & Dory Previn).
The story starts out with great promise as a straight-laced lawyer from Omaha, Jerry Ryan (Robert Mitchum), comes to NYC to try to get "unstuck from the flypaper" while in the process of getting divorce from his wife back home. He ends up as the odd-man-out at a wild Greenwitch Village party. There is makes a passing acquaintance with a girl totally opposite to him, Gittel Mosca (Shirley MacLaine). He calls after the party and they soon start living together, each giving something to the other that the the other needs.
I loved this movie at the beginning. But finally--about the middle of the movie, when each goes to a different party--the "seesaw" starts getting way too repetitive: He loves her and wants to give to her and take care of her, but she refuses to accept that his love is real enough (what, she thinks) is he hiding about his real feelings about his wife? This happens over and over again. Even with great dialogue, this "seesaw" starts to lose the charm that it held at the beginning of their relationship (and the movie). As this charm wears down, so did my initial enthusiasm for the story..........................
Jerry Ryan (Robert Mitchum) : I told you to make a claim on me, to depend on me. I practically forced you. Gittel, I care for you. I don't want to see you hurt or lost or short-changed. Gittel 'Mosca' Moscawitz (Shirley MacLaine): So what's the future, Jerry? You gonna think any less about her? A little time'll pass, everything'll be hunky-dory? How am I gonna give her competition? Have a hemorrhage twice a year? Trap you that way? I got half of you by being a wreck, is that how we'll go on? Oh, you gotta short-change me, Jerry. Jerry Ryan : I've tried not to. Gittel 'Mosca' Moscawitz : That's what's outta whack. How hard you try. Who works that hard if everything's OK?
Jerry Ryan : It's true. Half of me hasn't even been in this town. Gittel 'Mosca' Moscawitz : I tried Jake. Jerry Ryan : Of course. Gittel 'Mosca' Moscawitz : So we're both flops. Jerry Ryan : No. Not both of us. Not you. I've tried to make you over so you'd be more like me - like everyone, I guess. Stingy, holding back, guarding what we have because we've got so little. Everything you get, you give back double. No, you're not a flop. You're a gift, infant. Underneath that beautiful face there's a street brawler. But underneath that there's someone... that no one, nothing has ever dirtied. The way people were meant to be. That's what you are.
Gittel 'Mosca' Moscawitz: Nebraska. That's right next to California, isn't it? Jerry Ryan: No, I think that's Nevada you're thinking about.
Full TCM Synopsis with Spoilers:Omaha lawyer Jerry Ryan arrives in Manhattan after the breakup of his marriage and the loss of his job. He is lonely and decides to go to a Greenwich Village party given by his friend Oscar. There, he meets Gittel Mosca, a dancer from the Bronx, and they begin an affair. Jerry's thoughts, however, are still in Omaha, and he is unable to give of himself. Though he gets a job with a prominent law firm and uses some of his money to set Gittel up with a little dance studio in an empty loft, she senses that he cannot forget his wife and becomes depressed. After attending a party with a friend, she quarrels with Jerry, and has to be taken to the hospital with a hemorrhaging ulcer. When she returns he devotedly takes care of her, but the time inevitably arrives when she examines their relationship and asks Jerry to marry her when he is free of his marital ties. She learns that his divorce has already become final, though he has been afraid to tell her. They realize that the affair must end, and Jerry decides to return to his wife. Gittel is alone in her apartment when Jerry phones to tell her he loves her, and to say goodby.
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Aug 11, 2018 5:40:47 GMT
The Relic - a very underrated monster movie. Also underlit, although they've corrected some of that since its release.
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Aug 11, 2018 15:29:32 GMT
För att inte tala om alla dessa kvinnor 1964 aka All These Women, directed by Ingmar Bergman, starring Bibi Andersson, Harriet Andersson, Eva Dahlbeck and others. Every great director makes a stinker, and this was certainly Bergman's
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Aug 11, 2018 17:23:42 GMT
In playing the GARTH GAME : WHAT ABOUT BOB? I was stimulated to watch a couple Robert Mitchum movies. The 2nd movie I watched (for the first time). The Friends of Eddie Coyle (1973) / Peter Yates Here, Yates gives us the film version of a story based on a George V. Higgins novel. This story takes us into the multifaceted criminal world of South Boston in the early 70s. The movie seems disjointed upon first viewing until you know who is who and who is manipulating or finking on whom. The many sides of interstate gunrunning (illegal gun trafficing) has to be told somewhat of a chronological order. So the movie moves back and forth from one vignette to another, without us knowing who is doing what to whom or why.
In any case, we see the bank robberies, money exchanges, gun exchanges and deals (lots of deals here) that build the overall picture of crime and corruption. We see federal agents making deals with hit men too. Eddie 'Fingers' Coyle (Robert Mitchum) is getting old and he wants to get out of the racket in exchange for getting into the federal protection program. Maybe if he rats on a gun dealer leading to the arrest of the parties involved, the agent will put in a good word to "uncle" about a pending case Eddie has in New Hampshire. But, what if the agent keeps moving the goal post on him? The title of the movie is an irony: with friends like these.....
Eddie 'Fingers' Coyle (Robert Mitchum) : One of the first things I learned is never to ask a man why he's in a hurry. All you got to know is I told the man that he could depend on me because you told me I could depend on you. Now one of us is gonna have a big fat problem. Another thing I learned. If anybody's gonna have a problem, you're gonna be the one. Jackie Brown (Steven Keats): You finished? Eddie 'Fingers' Coyle : No, I am not finished. Look, I'm gettin' old, you hear? I spent most of my life hanging around crummy joints with a buncha punks drinkin' the beer, eatin' the hash and the hot dogs and watchin' the other people go off to Florida while I'm sweatin' out how I'm gonna pay the plumber. I done time and I stood up but I can't take no more chances. Next time, it's gonna be me goin' to Florida. Eddie 'Fingers' Coyle : I was thinkin' in terms of you maybe talkin' to the prosecutor up there, and havin' him drop a word to the judge how I been helpin' my Uncle like a bastard? Dave Foley : Well, I would. But then again you haven't been. Eddie 'Fingers' Coyle : What? I gave you a couple of calls. Dave Foley : Yeah, you give me some real stuff, too. You tell me about a guy that's gonna get hit, 15 minutes later he gets hit. You tell me about some guys on a job, but you don't tell me till their coming out the door with the money. That's not helping Uncle, Eddie. You gotta put your whole soul into it.
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Aug 11, 2018 18:03:42 GMT
The Beginning or the End (1947) / Norman Taurog
This docudrama aired on TCM on the anniversary of the bombing of Japan in 1945. (Aug 9th) I found it interesting in that it dramatizes the steps in the development, testing, and first use of the A bomb.
Full TCM Synopsis with Spoilers:
Speaking from his laboratory, Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, a theoretical physicist and one of the world's leading atomic scientists, praises the discovery of atomic energy, buts also warns of the many dangers posed by the discovery. To illustrate his concerns about the future of atomic science, Oppenheimer outlines the history of the study of the atom, beginning his account in the early days of World War II: As Germany races to build the first atomic weapon, many American scientists are busy studying the use of the atom as a source of energy. One such scientist is Matt Cochran, a Columbia University researcher working under the guidance of Dr. Enrico Fermi and Dr. Marré. Matt's research leads to an important discovery that confirms Marré and Fermi's theory that splitting uranium atoms produces energy. When Matt raises his concern that atom splitting will be used to make highly destructive weapons, Fermi tries to allay his fears by reassuring him that the United States government is interested primarily in energy uses for the atom. Following the success of early atom-splitting experiments, Matt and some of his colleagues decide to take their discovery to world-famous scholar Dr. Albert Einstein, who, in turn, interests President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the new findings. With Roosevelt's cooperation, researchers at universities all over the United States begin studying the atom. In 1941, following America's entrance into the war, Roosevelt authorizes a project to develop an atomic bomb, despite a predicted cost of up to two billion dollars. Work on the bomb begins in December 1942, at the University of Chicago, with help from leading scientists Dr. Chisholm, Dr. John Wyatt and Dr. C. D. Howe. These scientists are later joined by Col. Jeff Nixon, who has been assigned to act as an official observer for the Army. Though the initial atomic experiments are successful, Matt begins to question the ethics of the project, and shares his concerns with his new wife Anne. Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., Gen. Leslie R. Groves is placed in charge of bringing the scientific, industrial and defense communities together to build the atomic bomb, and Jeff is assigned to work for him. In 1945, following the death of Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman becomes President of the United States and vows to continue the atomic project. A short time later, Oppenheimer, who is now head of operations at the bomb's Assembly Center in Los Alamos, New Mexico, receives the first delivery of uranium-235, a necessary component of atomic bomb production. The uranium is used to build the first atomic bomb, which is eventually tested successfully in the New Mexico desert. In July 1945, after Truman gives an order to use the atomic bomb to force Japan to surrender, Jeff and Matt are assigned to accompany the crew transporting the bomb to the South Pacific. While preparations are made to drop the bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, tragedy strikes when Matt accidentally comes into contact with radioactive material and dies. The next day, on 6 August 1945, Jeff and others board the "Enola Gay," the airplane carrying the atomic bomb, and watch in silence as the bomb is dropped over Hiroshima. After the mission, Jeff returns home and tells Anne the sad news of Matt's death.
|
|
|
Post by ZolotoyRetriever on Aug 11, 2018 18:04:24 GMT
The Beginning or the End (1947). Directed by Norman Taurog, with Brian Donlevy, Robert Walker, Tom Drake, Beverly Tyler, Audrey Totter. DVR'd off of recent TCM telecast - broadcast on August 6, 2018, 73rd anniversary of dropping of first A-bomb.
Very interesting, well-done docu-drama detailing the history of the dropping of the first atomic bomb over Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6, 1945. It tells the tale of the Manhattan Project, which developed the atomic bomb, all the way from inception, to testing, to the actual delivery of the device on target. Interestingly enough, in spite of some strains of "pro-bomb" propaganda, the film includes some notable glimpses of moral doubt and revulsion over the use of atomic energy for military purposes. There is a scene, for example, where some scientists on the project essentially walk off the job when they realize the purpose to which their scientific efforts will be put.
If nothing else, the film shows the nearly inconceivable amount of manpower and resources required to develop this weapon, during a wartime period of acute shortages of "men, money and materials." Equally amazing is that it was all done in total secrecy: nearly everybody laboring on the Manhattan Project, other than a few key people at the top, didn't even truly know what they were working on until after the bombs were dropped.
|
|