|
|
Post by london777 on Mar 12, 2017 23:00:22 GMT
I would like to see a Film Noir section here, either stand-alone, or as a sub-section of "Classic Film".
Watched this one last night and had a lot more respect for it this time around, as knowing the reveal made me appreciate how well Mr and Mrs O'Neil's thoughts and fears were portrayed throughout.
Odd to see Kirk Douglas billed fourth, but it was his first movie.
He, Van Heflin and Lizbeth Scott were all cast against their main strengths in later movies and I do not think that entirely worked. Stanwyck is great and carries the film.
(Incidentally, I have a problem with Stanwyck, in that I can never understand how the heroes of her movies find her sexually attractive. Strong, intelligent, sophisticated roles, and a great actress for sure, but who wants to bed a virago? I just have have to take that on trust and move on.)
Typical Miklos Rosza score. Not one of his more memorable, but still better than 95% of anyone else's.
Though a Noir it is not a homogeneous example. The earlier scenes have a gothic melodrama flavor. Judith Anderson and the weather see to that. The O'Neils at home scenes are still prewar upper-middle class drawing-room drama. I am not suggesting these things spoil the movie, but it does look somewhat old-fashioned considering that pure Noirs like Double Indemnity had already been released.
It is in the Public Domain, so if you have not seen it, what are you waiting for?
|
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Mar 13, 2017 0:50:55 GMT
Barbara Stanwyck's roles in films noir tend to be that of dominatrixes.
And some men find that sexually alluring.
One could go "Dr. Freud" and explain that these men were emotionally castrated by their mothers during their childhoods.
That's probably one of a number of explanations.
But in film noir, it is always the woman (the "femme fatale") who holds the upper hand in the relationship.
Besides Stanwyck, there was Joan Bennet, Gene Tierney, Ava Garfdner, and Yvonne DeCarlo.
|
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Mar 13, 2017 4:02:55 GMT
And, unlike you, I love anything and everything that Barbara Stanwyck does, period. Not "unlike me" at all. I think she is a great actress. It is just that I would not want to bed her for all the tea in China, and I do not find it believable that a string of leading men of all ages and types would find her sexually alluring. I have the same problem with another fine actress, Meryl Streep. Admittedly she does not play so many "alluring glamour puss" roles, but then she is even further removed from being one. |
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Mar 13, 2017 4:19:57 GMT
Barbara Stanwyck's roles in films noir tend to be that of dominatrixes.
And some men find that sexually alluring.Sure, but they are a small minority. Kirk Douglas typifies that type in "Martha Ivers" (although miscast to play such a role). But the Van Heflin character does not. He was from childhood self-confident, charming and liked to dominate both women and men. (Again, somewhat miscast in my opinion. In fact they should have swapped roles.) But in film noir, it is always the woman (the "femme fatale") who holds the upper hand in the relationship. Besides Stanwyck, there was Joan Bennet, Gene Tierney, Ava Gardner, and Yvonne DeCarlo.And I can imagine men falling for any of them. The most credible femme fatale is in the best Film Noir, "Out of the Past" (1947). Kathie Moffat (Jane Greer) is manipulative and dangerous but she also comes across as vulnerable. She is like an ill-treated animal who has learned to get her reprisals in first. |
|
|
|
Post by marshamae on Mar 13, 2017 4:23:29 GMT
The funniest thing about Martha Ivers is Kirk Douglas cast as a wimpy smart kid with glasses who can't hold onto Martha, while Van Heflin , who always seems a quart low to me, is the strong ,unpredictable Sam.
I enjoy this film a lot. The different tones, gothic to standard police / noir to romantic dark drama , keep it moving. The characters are not extremely complex, but they are certainly interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard Kimble on Mar 13, 2017 8:34:27 GMT
I would like to see a Film Noir section here, either stand-alone, or as a sub-section of "Classic Film". It's carefully hidden to ensure no trespassers, but it's there: Film Noir sub-sub-forum |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Kimble on Mar 13, 2017 8:43:32 GMT
The funniest thing about Martha Ivers is Kirk Douglas cast as a wimpy smart kid with glasses who can't hold onto Martha, while Van Heflin , who always seems a quart low to me, is the strong ,unpredictable Sam. In his memoirs, Douglas describes doing a scene where he improvised a bit of business by desperately grabbing Heflin's lapel, showing his character trying to stand up for himself. Heflin didn't expect this and was caught totally off guard. Director Milestone seemed statisfied, but Heflin asked for another take. They did the scene again, and Douglas again grabbed Heflin's lapel. But this time, instead of being off guard, Heflin simply looked down calmly at Douglas' hand. His character remained in control. Douglas himself wrote, "As an actor, it was the rgiht thing to do. It took away the strength." |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Mar 13, 2017 14:10:09 GMT
Odd to see Kirk Douglas billed fourth, but it was his first movie. He, Van Heflin and Lizbeth Scott were all cast against their main strengths in later movies and I do not think that entirely worked. Stanwyck is great and carries the film. Major-role film debuts can be funny things, and may, in retrospect, seem to define an entire career or contradict one. Take Doris Day's for instance, as a gum-chewing hep-talker not very successfully masquerading as elegant high society. And so it goes with Douglas, whose work in TSLOMI becomes uncharacteristic only in the context of what came later. I found it refreshing to see him in self-pitying weakling mode, and felt he pulled it off quite well. This film is also among those which increased my respect for Van Heflin. And speaking of retrospection, it's worth remembering that Film Noir, as a genre or style, was one that was retroactively defined. What we now identify as its characteristics and conventions developed organically among film makers with no thought at the time to following or conforming thereto, which no doubt makes any number of films of the period difficult to classify as being representative of it. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Mar 14, 2017 5:42:22 GMT
I would like to see a Film Noir section here, either stand-alone, or as a sub-section of "Classic Film". Watched this one last night and had a lot more respect for it this time around, as knowing the reveal made me appreciate how well Mr and Mrs O'Neil's thoughts and fears were portrayed throughout. Odd to see Kirk Douglas billed fourth, but it was his first movie. He, Van Heflin and Lizbeth Scott were all cast against their main strengths in later movies and I do not think that entirely worked. Stanwyck is great and carries the film. (Incidentally, I have a problem with Stanwyck, in that I can never understand how the heroes of her movies find her sexually attractive. Strong, intelligent, sophisticated roles, and a great actress for sure, but who wants to bed a virago? I just have have to take that on trust and move on.) Typical Miklos Rosza score. Not one of his more memorable, but still better than 95% of anyone else's. Though a Noir it is not a homogeneous example. The earlier scenes have a gothic melodrama flavor. Judith Anderson and the weather see to that. The O'Neils at home scenes are still prewar upper-middle class drawing-room drama. I am not suggesting these things spoil the movie, but it does look somewhat old-fashioned considering that pure Noirs like Double Indemnity had already been released. It is in the Public Domain, so if you have not seen it, what are you waiting for? |
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Mar 14, 2017 5:45:27 GMT
I would like to see a Film Noir section here, either stand-alone, or as a sub-section of "Classic Film". Watched this one last night and had a lot more respect for it this time around, as knowing the reveal made me appreciate how well Mr and Mrs O'Neil's thoughts and fears were portrayed throughout. Odd to see Kirk Douglas billed fourth, but it was his first movie. He, Van Heflin and Lizbeth Scott were all cast against their main strengths in later movies and I do not think that entirely worked. Stanwyck is great and carries the film. (Incidentally, I have a problem with Stanwyck, in that I can never understand how the heroes of her movies find her sexually attractive. Strong, intelligent, sophisticated roles, and a great actress for sure, but who wants to bed a virago? I just have have to take that on trust and move on.) Typical Miklos Rosza score. Not one of his more memorable, but still better than 95% of anyone else's. Though a Noir it is not a homogeneous example. The earlier scenes have a gothic melodrama flavor. Judith Anderson and the weather see to that. The O'Neils at home scenes are still prewar upper-middle class drawing-room drama. I am not suggesting these things spoil the movie, but it does look somewhat old-fashioned considering that pure Noirs like Double Indemnity had already been released. It is in the Public Domain, so if you have not seen it, what are you waiting for? Excellent movie london777, and I didn't cry once (smile emoticon). |
|
