|
Post by geode on Aug 12, 2019 5:08:13 GMT
One of the most unrelentingly depessing films I have ever seen.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 12, 2019 4:52:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 12, 2019 4:37:17 GMT
Yes, this is very true. Holly being a fish out of water is central to the plot and theme. I rather frequently have seen people analysing the film as saying that he is not very bright, and what they really are reacting to his his being naive. In recent years I have found what he does in the sewers to be considered a violation of his principals and integrity. I don't believe I ever saw that interpretation in decades past. Is the perception of morality shifting?It's an interesting question I admit not having considered, and off the top of my head, I'm honestly not sure. Maybe you could expand upon it. I can say this much: perhaps I hadn't considered it because it seems to fit so well from the standpoints of both dramatic construction and thematic unity. Holly, writer of Zane Grey-like old west fiction, finds himself in the position of administering "frontier justice" by his own hand, but also able to do so sympathetically out of what remains of his sense of friendship toward Harry. EDIT: With a couple or so hours since posting to consider those issues, I still have no clear opinion on the first, but have some thoughts on the second: "Is the perception of morality shifting?" Since we're talking films, there are two ways to approach it: 1) movie morality; 2) real-life morality. What do I mean by these? By 1949, there had been decades of westerns, crime dramas and private-eye yarns in which the nominal hero - frontier sheriff, urban cop or private gumshoe - summarily executes the clear-cut bad guy(s) in the final reel. I can't say to what extent these dramatic resolutions influenced attitudes toward real-life justice or merely reflected those existing at the time, but they often seem simplistic from today's points of view. As an example, at the climax of one of the films noir I most admire (from only two years prior to The Third Man), the calm, methodical, straight-arrow police detective fatally shoots - in the back from an upper-floor window - the unarmed killer he's been after as the guilty party runs away down the street. That's the sort of thing that now generates public outrage when occurring in the real world, and would be acceptable on the screen (I'm guessing) only in cartoonish action features with high body counts in service to youth audience tastes (but equally simplistic). And that's perhaps where movie morality and real-life morality both converge and diverge: what causes public outrage in reality can be cheered from a theater seat in entertainment that most audiences understand to be purely escapist. In that sense, it can be said that morality has indeed shifted...although current political attitudes more than suggest that some have regressed in that regard (and that's all I'll say about that). What director Reed and screenwriter Greene do with their version of "frontier justice" is suffuse it with emotional investment for both characters and viewers that goes beyond "black hat/white hat" simplicity, and ultimately, the moral choices involved are murkier and more profound for Holly than for anyone else: Calloway, Anna or even Harry himself. Spoilers folliow: Well, as I said, the most modern critiques I have been reading feel that Holly has been compromised by what has occurred in Vienna and acts against his native and noble principles by shooting Harry.... that it is murder. Obviously Calloway does not view it this way in the film. He has of course even admonished Holly to shoot Harry on sight. I have read a couple of times that this line from Calloway was added to satisfy American censors who refused to allow "mercy" killings, that it makes it basically Holly being instructed by the police to do what he does, sort of like a deputy carrying out the law. Earlier in the film we have Holly telling Calloway that he doesn't like policemen, that in his novels he calls them sheriffs. it would seem that in Holly's novels sheriffs are not necessarily straight-forward figures that are "true blue".... he may be a better author than he gives himself credit to be. Was Graham Greene having fun with what he wrote for an author in this work? Anyway, Holly finds himself in a role he has earlier disdained. Despite what the censor forbade, I think what does come across is a mercy killing. It is open to interpretation but many of us read into Harry's eyes and motions at the end a signal to Holly to act. He knows if captured that his death by execution is all but certain should he survive to trial and it would be better for a quick end.... at his request, from an old friend. Perhaps audiences in 1949 saw it more as avenging the death of Sgt. Paine, perhaps in a simple way the most likeable character in the film. The irony is Holly acting in the role he has earlier disdained. One might say that he has matured, and now sees the world as less B&W and more morally ambiguous. But really, ultimately has he violated his principles and betrayed Harry or instead done him one last favor? I would guess that Anna and Calloway see it differently.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 12, 2019 3:54:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 11, 2019 10:30:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 10, 2019 8:32:55 GMT
I suck at criticism, I don't never know what i'm talking about, but... He seems like a fish out of water, in this movie . lol.
In a way, you do know what you're talking about here, because "a fish out of water" is exactly what Holly Martins (Cotten) is: a true, 20th-century "innocent abroad," to borrow a phrase from Mark Twain, uninformed and unprepared for the corruption and political intrigue in postwar Vienna. While the film is constructed in mystery form, the central drama revolves around Holly's loss of that innocence, as the scales fall from his eyes about his old friend Harry, and about issues like trust, loyalty, love, betrayal and the way the world works when desperation coexists with predatory opportunism. Yes, this is very true. Holly being a fish out of water is central to the plot and theme. I rather frequently have seen people analysing the film as saying that he is not very bright, and what they really are reacting to his his being naive. In recent years I have found what he does in the sewers to be considered a violation of his principals and integrity. I don't believe I ever saw that interpretation in decades past. Is the perception of morality shifting?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 9, 2019 18:38:23 GMT
Knowing nothing but the title, how would you know that Steven Spielberg had nothing to do with this movie?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 8, 2019 16:52:55 GMT
Of this movie, is this a great movie in your opinion? Starring joseph cotton. I have a criticism of it. Though. So what is your criticism?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 8, 2019 10:10:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 4, 2019 10:07:31 GMT
I love the Last Shark. It's such an unapologetic Jaws rip-off. Vic Morrow's Quint cracks me up--plus the actual shark footage is pretty damn good for what it is. I have yet to see Hercules Goes Bananas. Schwarzenegger was turning up in comic book ads around 1970 though--Conan and Thor comics. In actual peplum films they often did have a big muscle guy teamed up with a dwarf. Someone on another forum said they encountered an actress from this film at a party and when he mentioned the film she got embarrassed and pleaded with him not to tell anyone else about it. I wonder who the actress was?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 2, 2019 9:27:17 GMT
I saw it a long time ago when the library had it and everything else on VHS, I never read the original story but I liked the movie. It was required reading in my English class when I was a freshman in high school. Silas Marner
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 1, 2019 19:04:10 GMT
I considered this an absolute gem when it was first released.... I still do. The script is a brilliant adaptation by Steve Martin of a classic 19th Century novel, by George Eliot.
When video stores put out tapes for rental they were not sure which section to place them in. It has comic moments, but it is not a comedy.
Why this gem laid an egg at the box office and was not a better critical success is beyond me. It comes out on Blu-ray from Kino Lorber soon.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 1, 2019 8:10:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 31, 2019 6:29:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 30, 2019 19:30:19 GMT
I need to watch that still haven't at all seen it and it seems up my alley. I watched it decades ago and was very disappointed in it. It is quite inferior to "The Third Man" or "Odd Man Out"....
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 30, 2019 19:26:03 GMT
Not Sellers' greatest, but it holds a good laugh quotient--and Steve Franken almost steals the show from under Sellers as the tipsy sommelier during his moments onscreen. Frankly, I have no problem with the 'racial' aspect of this. It's goofy comedy and shouldn't be taken as any sort of affront to anyone, except maybe vapid Hollywood types. And Denny Miller....
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 30, 2019 12:10:36 GMT
I am not a Sam Peckingpaw fan, and this was already the case when this film came out. To be honest it surprised me because I liked it. It remains my favorite of his films, but I haven't seen it since first release.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 30, 2019 7:04:28 GMT
I now think of Film Noir as a wry joke that the French perpetrating on us decades ago. They are laughing their heads off at how seriously some now take it as a genre.
I think the main problem is that it got distorted from the original concept to the point where any B&W crime or detective film started to be classified within it. Then having to be B&W went out the window. I was in a discussion about Film Noir on one of the old IMDb boards years ago. I purposely selected a film I thought was about as far from what the concept is supposed to be, maybe it was The Sound of Music and argued that it was noir and force fitted scenes into the so-called required aspects. I got agreement from some people!
When I bought into the idea 40 years ago I remember the criteria being used seemed to be more restrictive. Films included had to be American, set in post WW II America, have an urban setting, take place largely at night, be in B&W, and have a bleak downer ending where the hero is basically worse off for the experience he had in the events that have preceded... It was claimed that the genre basically closed in the 50s with Touch of Evil. I made two exceptions, The Woman in the Window started out as pure noir, but the added ending after previews was not a downer. Odd Man Out was British, and set outside the U.S.
For years I have seen claims that The Maltese Falcon was the first entry, but I don't think it is noir as Sam Spade is never really in serious peril. The often playful Max Steiner on its own shows this is not a proper selection for this so-called genre.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 29, 2019 17:32:45 GMT
My understanding is that the nature of their relationship was left ambiguous on purpose, so that lesbians watching the show could imagine they were a couple, but there was nothing to conclusively say they were for non-lesbians watching the show. According to this article it was mainly to leave open a heterosexual relationship with Ares. God of War
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jul 29, 2019 10:42:13 GMT
There was a movie star about which I have said for decades got very far despite having only average "looks" and having below average acting talent. But, being married to a studio head didn't hurt. Watching Norma Shearer act can at times be painful for me.
Does anybody else have this problem with an Academy Award winning star?
|
|