1940's Hall Of Fame Part I

Tools    





You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
Yeah, I got the 40s version ready to watch, played it and then noticed as it started that it was the wrong one, but I look forward to watching it too. Both are meant to be great I have heard

Heard about The Big Trail in a John Wayne doc I watched the other day too. Strawberry Blonde sounds really interesting, I need to watch more of James Cagney too. I think I've only seen him in Ceiling Zero and Yankee Doodle Dandy, which are both great films, and he's fantastic in, I wouldn't have minded nominating the latter for here but I am not sure everyone would like it, I was surprised I did so much.

I love Yankee Doodle Dandy. It's the only musical that I considered nominating for this HoF, but I decided against it because too many people here complain about musicals.
__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.



I need to watch more of James Cagney too. I think I've only seen him in Ceiling Zero and Yanke Doodle Dandy, which are both great films, and he's fantastic in, I wouldn't have minded nominating the latter for here but I am not sure everyone would like it, I was surprised I did so much.
Only seen him in White Heat, he was great. Also had the ending of The Public Enemy ruined for me through The Sopranos I wouldn't have minded if you nominated that, i still struggle with musicals and i've been trying to change that so that would have given me a push especially since i was going to make sure to watch How Green anyway. Will make sure to check it out at some point.



I'm at the theater now and soon watching Arrival. But I'll he watching Pursued when I get home.
Hope you enjoy Pursued . Glad i liked it myself, that would've been awkward if i didn't




Rope
(Hitchcock 1948)...spoiler free review

This was my second viewing of Rope. I still feel the same, it's a good movie but middle of the road for Hitch. I never got that sense of tension and desperation that Hitch was so famous for. I think that's because of two choices that Hitch made: The 'continual take' and his choice of actors.

'Continual take'...The movie looks like it was made in one long camera take. It wasn't of course and if you keep your eyes open you can see where one take ends and another starts...usually from a closeup of the back of someone's jacket or some solid object. Though there are direct cuts...at the start of the party there's an edit from Brandon to Ropert's face. I thought that continual take was OK, BUT it has the side effect of not being able to show events taking place elsewhere. And it might have been effective to start with an opening shot, set in the college classroom where the murders learn of the idea that murder can be an elite form of art from their teacher Rubert (James Stewart). That would have shown the two men's impetus for murder, giving us more of a background...which would build tension by foreshadowing future events. But there's no flashbacks with a 'continual take'. Even Hitch would latter call his continual take just a stunt.

Casting: Hitch was known for making superb casting choices, most of the time. Originally Montgomery Clift was intended to play Brandon Shaw, the dominate murderer. Clift would have been awesome but I think the actor who played Brandon (John Dall) was truly excellent as a narcissistic sociopath intellectual. Though his sidekick Philip (Farley Granger) didn't bring much to the role. I would have loved to see Monty Clift play Philip. The maid was a gem, as was the aunt. I really liked Joan Chandler as the girlfriend of the murder victim. BUT as much as I like James Stewart, he was all wrong for the role. He's suppose to be a haughty, smug, intellectual professor who feels murder can be justified as art...but doesn't have the guts to carry off his own views. But Jimmy Steward is the antithesis of this, he's homey, he's friendly, and he's very trust worthy, every one likes Stewart! and he's just the wrong fit. He thought so himself too:

This was the only movie James Stewart made with Alfred Hitchcock that he did not like. Stewart later admitted he felt he was miscast as the professor.
It's funny because during the movie they talk about actors of the day, Errol Flynn, Cary Grant, James Mason. Cary Grant was the first choice to play Rupert... James Mason would have made an excellent Rupert. So would have Walter Pidgeon or James Massey.

Anyway, sorry! for being so long winded. I did enjoy watching the film and thinking about it.



Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	Rope Set.jpg
Views:	408
Size:	112.1 KB
ID:	27940   Click image for larger version

Name:	04 Joan Chandler as Janet Walker.jpg
Views:	97
Size:	69.3 KB
ID:	27941  



I was hoping to watch Thief of Bagdad tonight but my wife is off work the next two days. I'd like to watch it Wednesday when she's back to going to bed early. I saw that it's on dailymotion; has anyone watched it on that?



I was hoping to watch Thief of Bagdad tonight but my wife is off work the next two days. I'd like to watch it Wednesday when she's back to going to bed early. I saw that it's on dailymotion; has anyone watched it on that?
I have a link for the restored version of Thief of Bagdad, it looks great. I'll PM you.



2022 Mofo Fantasy Football Champ


Pursued

A really good blind nomination by Camo here. I'd never even heard of this film prior to its nomination. It's pretty much a complete film but it's really built on solid acting performances. Robert Mitchum is fantastic in the lead role and Teresa Wright has become one of my favorite classic actresses. I really liked her in Best Years of Our Lives and she was really great in this as well. I also never really heard of Rauol Walsh before so this will have me looking into more of his films. Judith Anderson also gave a good supporting actress role. I think I only saw her otherwise in Rebecca.

The story may have a few flaws but overall it wasn't much of an issue for me. The only issue I only had was when Wright's character wanted to kill Mitchums. Just didn't seem all that believable but it wasn't enough to ruin the film or anything like that. I thought the camera work and use of transitions was very well done as well. I've seen many make a noir comparison but I would stick more to the Western side of things and call it a Western different from most others.




So glad you liked it. We agreed on just about everything too. My main problem was the quick turn in Wright too. It actually is a western mixed with noir. I read someone say it is not a western it is a film noir that just happens to be set in the west.



Interesting, I'll have to watch that one next.
Hope you like it . BTW, i don't know if i'm totally on board with that but i see where he's coming from at least. There aren't many outdoors actual west scenes, most of it is set on the farm or in the town and most of the time it's inside a bar or house or whatever.



Women will be your undoing, Pépé
I tried watching Pursued on dailymotion but the sound was waaay off. Been anxious to see this since reading daniel's review of it and even more so, now, after camo's and raul's. VERY solid reviews, guys!

I've got Shadow of a Doubt from the library so I'll be watching that some time this week.
I've been playing Russian roulette with my library with what's available so tomorrow when i drop off arsenic and old lace I'll see what's available to see after Shadow.

Regarding James Cagney; along the lines of his public enemy and white heat, if you enjoy them you may want to try Angels with Dirty Faces that has him, bogart, pat o'brien and the dead end kids (to be later known as the bowery boys). Definitely worth a watch.
Haven't seen Yankee Doodle Dandy since I was a kid and watched it quite often back then. Remember hearing how that was Cagney's favorite movie. That could very well be worthwhile for a HOF. The musical aspects are stage performances as opposed to people breaking out in song in every day circumstances.
__________________
What I actually said to win MovieGal's heart:
- I might not be a real King of Kinkiness, but I make good pancakes
~Mr Minio



I tried watching Pursued on dailymotion but the sound was waaay off.
I didn't realize, i only skipped through it and didn't pay attention to the sound. Have you found it elsewhere? If not i can send you one.



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
Rope (Hitchcock 1948)...spoiler free review

This was my second viewing of Rope. I still feel the same, it's a good movie but middle of the road for Hitch. I never got that sense of tension and desperation that Hitch was so famous for. I think that's because of two choices that Hitch made: The 'continual take' and his choice of actors.

I disagree about the lack of tension. I thought the last 20 minutes of the movie was very tense.
WARNING: "SPOILER ABOUT THE ENDING!!!" spoilers below
As James Stewart is figuring it out, and the two killers are realizing that he knows what happened, you could cut the tension with a knife in that room.



'Continual take'...The movie looks like it was made in one long camera take. It wasn't of course and if you keep your eyes open you can see where one take ends and another starts...usually from a closeup of the back of someone's jacket or some solid object. Though there are direct cuts...at the start of the party there's an edit from Brandon to Ropert's face. I thought that continual take was OK, BUT it has the side effect of not being able to show events taking place elsewhere. And it might have been effective to start with an opening shot, set in the college classroom where the murders learn of the idea that murder can be an elite form of art from their teacher Rubert (James Stewart). That would have shown the two men's impetus for murder, giving us more of a background...which would build tension by foreshadowing future events. But there's no flashbacks with a 'continual take'. Even Hitch would latter call his continual take just a stunt.

I thought the parts where he used a closeup of the back of someone's jacket or some solid object were a bit distracting. The way he zoomed in, and sometimes up or down, seemed to pull me out of the movie for just a second or two. It just didn't feel natural, like I was watching the people in the room anymore.


Casting: Hitch was known for making superb casting choices, most of the time. Originally Montgomery Clift was intended to play Brandon Shaw, the dominate murderer. Clift would have been awesome but I think the actor who played Brandon (John Dall) was truly excellent as a narcissistic sociopath intellectual. Though his sidekick Philip (Farley Granger) didn't bring much to the role. I would have loved to see Monty Clift play Philip. The maid was a gem, as was the aunt. I really liked Joan Chandler as the girlfriend of the murder victim. BUT as much as I like James Stewart, he was all wrong for the role. He's suppose to be a haughty, smug, intellectual professor who feels murder can be justified as art...but doesn't have the guts to carry off his own views. But Jimmy Steward is the antithesis of this, he's homey, he's friendly, and he's very trust worthy, every one likes Stewart! and he's just the wrong fit. He thought so himself too:

This was the only movie James Stewart made with Alfred Hitchcock that he did not like. Stewart later admitted he felt he was miscast as the professor.

I agree about Farley Granger, but I disagree about James Stewart. I loved watching Stewart when he was off to the side, or behind the two killers, and you could see him watching them, and trying to piece it all together.


It's funny because during the movie they talk about actors of the day, Errol Flynn, Cary Grant, James Mason. Cary Grant was the first choice to play Rupert... James Mason would have made an excellent Rupert. So would have Walter Pidgeon or James Massey.

I would have loved to have seen Cary Grant in the role of Rupert. I'm not sure he would have been the best actor for the role, but I bet he would have been great.



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
Pursued

I had never heard of Pursued before it was nominated, but I usually like Robert Mitchum, so even though I'm not much of a fan of westerns, I was still looking forward to this movie. This is a very good movie, but there were a few minor things that bothered me about it.

I don't think some of the characters were really developed enough for us to ever care about them, or understand why they did certain things, especially Adam, Thor, and Grant Callum. And people seem to just do things and change their feelings with no rhyme or reason at times.

WARNING: "SPOILERS ABOUT THE MOVIE AND THE ENDING!!!" spoilers below
We find out that Grant is the person who killed Jeb's family, but other than basically a one line type of scene, we never really find out much about what happened that made him so mad that he would kill an entire family. Just because his sister-in-law had an affair with Jeb's father? Why was he blaming the whole affair on Jeb's father? Shouldn't he be just as mad at his sister-in-law? She's the one who cheated on his brother. And on a side note, does that make her Jeb's mother? If so, then that changes a lot about the ending of the movie.

And we know that Adam and Jeb haven't gotten along since they were kids, but why is Adam so angry at Jeb that he would actually try to kill him? And then, after Jeb kills Adam, Thor just turns on Jeb, even though he killed Adam in self-defense? Then at the end, she just changes her mind and all of a sudden she's in love with Jeb again. It just felt like it came out of nowhere.


I think this is a very good movie, and it had a lot more potential, but it seemed to try too hard to have a bunch of twists and turns.



Glad you liked it and most of your problems are fair. Here's my responses to your post:

WARNING: "Pursued" spoilers below
I don't get your confusion why he was so angry. Jeb was an adult in the 1890s we know this because he served in the Spanish-American War, so this was at least the 1870s when this happened. It's not like today when affairs are a more common thing, back then there was a serious emasculation factor related to a mans wife having an affair and with Grant being a gangster, basically some nobody having sex with his brothers wife is something that wouldn't fly. I'd understand your problem more if it was that you felt that explanation was unsatisfying but i think it is completely understandable when you consider who Grant is. I'll give you the Mrs Callum part, possibly because she was the mother of his brothers kids?

Of course she wasn't Jebs mothere. No offence but that is one of the silliest things i've read in a long time. What do you think he got her pregnant then while being with her husband she was pregnant for 9 months then had the baby and gave it to Jebs dad to bring up, and somehow it took 5 years or whatever age Jeb was then for people to question what happened there? We don't know who Jebs mum was or if she was with Jebs dad during this time but it clearly wasn't Mrs Callum. I think the writer tried to give the audience the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn't think this rather than unneccesarily over-explain it, cause ya know it's absurd.

To the Adam and Jeb thing, here's a small part from my review where i touched on it:

Another thing is that his mother brought him up under a 'you need to be a strong man of the house' type philosophy from some of the stuff she said; Adam was the same way he wasn't scared of Jeb and clearly resented him being seen as a war hero possibly because it made Jeb seem braver or tougher than him, this coupled with Jeb feeling like he was alone wouldn't have went well with him acting more remorseful or outright emotional in my opinion.
I think it's more of the attitudes towards how a man should be, and Mrs Callum brought both of them up that way. It isn't greatly touched on but that's what i got from her telling Jeb that "he needs to be a man". It can also be explained by Adam from an earliy age resenting having to share his family with Jeb and him not thinking he was good for his sister. Remember that after the fight Jeb said he was taking Thor and if Adam tried to stop him he'd kill him, Adam obviously took this as a very real threat and decided to deal with it.

Don't know why you're confused about Thor turning on Jeb, she obviously didn't believe him. Easy to see why after he made that threat then Adam goes out seemingly to bring him back and ends up dead with no witnesses. I agree with you on her changing her mind though, that was really silly.



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
WARNING: "SPOILERS ABOUT "PURSUED"!!!!" spoilers below
It just seemed that Grant was angry enough at Jeb's father to kill his whole family, to the point of taking their family name out of existence, but he didn't seem to blame his sister-in-law at all. If he was that mad, it seems like the first two people to die would have been Jeb's father and Mrs. Callum.

In reference to her being Jeb's mother, I know it's a long shot, and it doesn't make much sense, but it would explain why she took Jeb in as her own son when his family was killed. Why would she jeopardize her own family if she knew that Grant was the one who tried to kill him? She had to know that he would try again, and that would put her and her children at risk.

In reference to Adam taking Jeb's threat seriously, it looked like Adam was knocked out when Jeb made the threat, so he didn't even hear it. And if Thor knew that Adam was that mad at Jeb, then why is it such a stretch to believe Jeb when he said that it was self-defense? After all, she was supposed to be in love with Jeb at the time. If she was really in love with him, she should have at least thought that he might be telling the truth, rather than just turning on him so quickly. She didn't seem to even give it a little bit of thought. She just immediately thought that Jeb was lying. That makes it even harder to believe that she was really in love with him, and to understand why she saved him and stayed with him at the end of the movie. She just seemed to change her feelings for him too easily for her to have any "real" feelings for him.


It just seemed like a lot of this was left to speculation, when it would have been easy to explain most of it in the movie without adding a lot of time to the movie. A few lines of dialogue in the right places and it could have all been explained.

It didn't really hurt the movie because it's not difficult to figure out some of their motivations, but it just felt like a little bit of sloppy writing at times.