Follow TV Tropes

Following

Calling all Classic Film Lovers!

Go To

LongTallShorty64 Frumpy and grumpy Since: Apr, 2015 Relationship Status: What is this thing you call love?
Frumpy and grumpy
#1901: Feb 14th 2017 at 12:34:04 PM

Wednesday, February 15

Remakes and adaptations:


edited 14th Feb '17 12:36:21 PM by LongTallShorty64

"It's true that we had a gentleman's agreement, but unfortunately, I am no gentleman."
Aldo930 Professional Moldy Fig/Curmudgeon from Quahog, R.I. Since: Aug, 2013
Professional Moldy Fig/Curmudgeon
#1902: Feb 14th 2017 at 12:36:22 PM

Are the two Little Womens right after each other?

What were they both nominated for, anyway? And which one is the better version?

edited 14th Feb '17 12:36:36 PM by Aldo930

"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."
LongTallShorty64 Frumpy and grumpy Since: Apr, 2015 Relationship Status: What is this thing you call love?
Frumpy and grumpy
#1903: Feb 14th 2017 at 12:54:09 PM

Yup, they are. The '49 version was nominated for Best Production Design and has stars from The '50s: Elizabeth Taylor, Janet Leigh, and June Allyson.

The '33 version was nominated for Best Screenplay/Writing. And has George Cukor directing and Katharine Hepburn and Joan Bennett.

I haven't seen either, but the general consensus is that the 1933 version is superior. They put a lot of effort in that one.

RKO house-style versus MGM house-style; they go about it differently, for sure.

edited 14th Feb '17 12:57:15 PM by LongTallShorty64

"It's true that we had a gentleman's agreement, but unfortunately, I am no gentleman."
jamespolk Since: Aug, 2012
#1904: Feb 14th 2017 at 1:32:53 PM

The funny thing is that Kitty Foyle is indisputably a Chick Flick, with Ginger Rogers as a career girl having to choose between two handsome, adoring suitors. It's Bridget Jones' Diary in 1940, really. Of course the Bridget Jones movies aren't exactly enlightened.

The women-voting thing is part of a little prologue independent of the main story. But there's another part later—one of Kitty's suitors comes over on a date, but refuses to take her anywhere, so they just play cards in her living room. Later he says that was his test to make sure she wasn't a Gold Digger. When one of Kitty's roommates comes out with her makeup face on the guy says he's seen better specimens in a glass jar.

And he's the good guy, the suitor that the audience is supposed to root for. The other guy is a rich trust fund baby who gets engaged to Kitty and then dumps her because her family doesn't want him marrying a lower-class girl. Then he comes back after he's married and wants her to be his mistress.

It's pretty appalling frankly, but it did win Ginger that Oscar.

LongTallShorty64 Frumpy and grumpy Since: Apr, 2015 Relationship Status: What is this thing you call love?
Frumpy and grumpy
#1905: Feb 14th 2017 at 1:39:23 PM

Boy, that truly sounds more sexist than usual. But her career tanked after that Oscar, or is that just how it looks retrospectively? Because I can only think of two 40s films with Ginger: the aforementioned film and The Major and the Minor. And then nothing.

"It's true that we had a gentleman's agreement, but unfortunately, I am no gentleman."
jamespolk Since: Aug, 2012
#1906: Feb 14th 2017 at 2:04:46 PM

[up]I'll Be Seeing You with Joseph Cotten and teenaged Shirley Temple is pretty good. The Other Wiki thinks she did ok by herself in the 1940s but I haven't seen any of those other movies listed.

Tuckerscreator (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#1907: Feb 14th 2017 at 3:07:01 PM

A pretty interesting vid on the Hollywood musicals (and a French film or two) that the recent La La Land references.

JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#1908: Feb 14th 2017 at 11:18:28 PM

Ginger Rogers was personally quite conservative and her mother Lela Rogers was notorious in Hollywood for being a famous wingnut.

So it's not that out of character at all.

But in any case even actresses as outspoken as Katharine Hepburn had to play some sexist roles, as many feminist actresses have to do to today. The agent more or less tell them, "You can make money, be independent and have a career in life but to do that you have to portray women imprisoned by the conventions of society and patriarchy...that's the Faustian contract".

Hepburn remember was branded "Box-office poison" in the Thirties because a few of her films centered on her like Sylvia Scarlett or Bringing Up Baby weren't doing well. Actresses had to work twice as hard to be half as good.

[up] I prefer La La Land when it was called New York, New York or for that matter Mitchell Leisen's 1937 Swing High Swing Low starring Fred MacMurray and Carole Lombard. That's one of those movies that could have been made in the pre-code almost but managed to slip in after the guard towers had been erected. It's a really good story about couples and relationships.

edited 14th Feb '17 11:21:17 PM by JulianLapostat

LongTallShorty64 Frumpy and grumpy Since: Apr, 2015 Relationship Status: What is this thing you call love?
Frumpy and grumpy
#1909: Feb 15th 2017 at 10:24:49 AM

February 16

Many M's and magnificents:


edited 15th Feb '17 10:29:05 AM by LongTallShorty64

"It's true that we had a gentleman's agreement, but unfortunately, I am no gentleman."
JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#1910: Feb 15th 2017 at 11:36:28 AM

M is a happy letter in the alphabet. So many masterpieces there...Liberty Valance and Meet Me in St. Louis and of course the eternally Magnificent Ambersons.

You know The Magnificent Ambersons and Meet Me in St. Louis are more or less the same kind of story. A midwestern town is ruptured by modernity and progress. Welles' movie deals with what happens when you don't deal with progress while Minnelli's movie has this kind of ironic Happy Ending that isn't at all happy but kind of allows people to have that easy nostalgia for the past, and the safe and stable nuclear family.

LongTallShorty64 Frumpy and grumpy Since: Apr, 2015 Relationship Status: What is this thing you call love?
Frumpy and grumpy
#1911: Feb 15th 2017 at 2:35:03 PM

Ida Lupino!

"It's true that we had a gentleman's agreement, but unfortunately, I am no gentleman."
LongTallShorty64 Frumpy and grumpy Since: Apr, 2015 Relationship Status: What is this thing you call love?
Frumpy and grumpy
#1912: Feb 16th 2017 at 10:02:44 AM

February 17

More M's:


edited 16th Feb '17 10:04:25 AM by LongTallShorty64

"It's true that we had a gentleman's agreement, but unfortunately, I am no gentleman."
JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#1913: Feb 16th 2017 at 3:44:58 PM

Made pages for the following today...(a personal record me thinks).

Bigger Than Life, Nicholas Ray's 1956 masterpiece.

And two creator pages for Max Ophuls and, amazingly of all, James Mason who I was amazed did not have a creator page.

JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
jamespolk Since: Aug, 2012
#1915: Feb 16th 2017 at 5:45:29 PM

[up][up]I feel compelled to note that you missed a LOT of James Mason works.

And technically I should not mention this here as it is not a Live Action Film, but anyone who is a fan of James Mason owes it to themselves to seek out the 1954 animated short film version of The Tell-Tale Heart, which features Mason reading the story over the action. He knocks it out of the park.

edited 16th Feb '17 6:02:27 PM by jamespolk

Aldo930 Professional Moldy Fig/Curmudgeon from Quahog, R.I. Since: Aug, 2013
Professional Moldy Fig/Curmudgeon
#1916: Feb 16th 2017 at 6:19:30 PM

I second it as well. One of UPA's best shorts, next to Gerald Mc Boing Boing and The Unicorn In The Garden.

"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."
JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#1917: Feb 16th 2017 at 6:41:16 PM

[up][up] You are right, it's just that I didn't know how much of Mason was there.

I didn't even know about the Tell-Tale Heart but I mentioned he was a famous voice-over artist.

And I didn't know that Five Fingers had a page. It wasn't on Joseph L. Mankiewicz's creator page until I just added it today after seeing you place it on Mason's page.

Mason worked with a lot of great film-makers: Ray, Ophuls, Kubrick, Hitchcock, Reed, Mankiewicz, Powell and I am sure I am forgetting someone.

jamespolk Since: Aug, 2012
#1918: Feb 16th 2017 at 6:52:25 PM

I made a page for The Hasty Heart, which is not all that interesting but does feature Ronald Reagan in a movie that is not terrible. There aren't many of those.

Gonna have to go back and look over James Mason's filmography, there's a lot to talk about.

Aldo930 Professional Moldy Fig/Curmudgeon from Quahog, R.I. Since: Aug, 2013
Professional Moldy Fig/Curmudgeon
#1919: Feb 16th 2017 at 6:54:08 PM

You know, looking at James Mason's filmography, it's odd that he appeared in two films based on Jules Verne's works in the 50s...

Apropos of nothing. It's just kinda weird.

edited 16th Feb '17 6:54:57 PM by Aldo930

"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."
JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#1920: Feb 16th 2017 at 8:26:17 PM

Well Jules Verne's science-fiction had romance, adventure and a certain European elegance, qualities that Mason represented well. So he's a good fit.

He was a real romantic actor. In the original sense, he was a Byronic Hero and quite sinister and smooth, and a major sex symbol besides. About the only time he played a straight leading man is Max Ophuls Caught but Ophuls had him play a doomed Irishman in The Reckless Moment, a guy who falls in love with the woman he's sent to blackmail.

And of course he played the Flying Dutchman next to Ava Gardner in the zany adventure/fantasy pandora and the flying dutchman

jamespolk Since: Aug, 2012
#1921: Feb 17th 2017 at 9:06:39 AM

James Mason was good at playing villains. Pretty much a natural Evil Brit. The bad guy in the 1952 The Prisoner of Zenda, the bad guy in North By Northwest, the evil pervert Villain Protagonist in Lolita...

JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#1922: Feb 17th 2017 at 9:33:54 AM

He's more a Byronic Hero in Lolita, a pervert who is too romantic and cultured for America and he ends up being outfoxed by a little girl and a proto-Trumpian vulgarian like Quilty. I always saw that film as Stanley Kubrick explaining why he left America. He couldn't handle the Quiltys anymore.

Mason played villains but in The '40s and The '50s he would often be leading man who are of a romantic type. Odd Man Out, The Reckless Moment are among the most notable. And of course Bigger Than Life by Nicholas Ray is him playing the kind of part that Breaking Bad gets attention for...incredibly intense performance and a perfect companion film to Rebel Without a Cause.

jamespolk Since: Aug, 2012
#1923: Feb 17th 2017 at 9:49:43 AM

Humbert Humbert abused a child, let's not call him a Byronic Hero.

edited 17th Feb '17 9:50:24 AM by jamespolk

JulianLapostat Since: Feb, 2014
#1924: Feb 17th 2017 at 10:17:57 AM

Hmmm...Byronic Hero are those who stretch the boundaries of morality, decency and general values. It's not glorifying him to call Humbert one...the character is a romantic at heart. Lord Byron wrote a poem Don Juan that mostly amounts to whitewashing a famous character who in the original Spanish play and Mozart opera Don Giovanni was a rapist and sexual predator. Romanticism has a lot of dark and messy stuff. Like the German romantic Heinrich von Kleist wrote a story Die Marquise von O...(made into a film by Rohmer) about a woman who more or less marries and falls in love with a man who raped her while she was unconscious. And of course you have Goethe's Faust who does some outright evil and weird stuff.The point about romanticism is that such evil people are at the least interesting in a society and culture that is generally vapid and without values and is supremely repressive.

So rape apology or glorifying sexual abuse is not outside of romantic archetypes and ideas.

In a weird sense, the novel by Nabokov is actually less romantic than the movie. And part of that has to do with casting James Mason. In the novel's Humbert is written from his point of view and he's a total liar and Unreliable Narrator who is justifying his evil. But in the film by Kubrick because it's outside, objective you kind of see all the characters presented as how Humbert narrated it. Most important of all, by casting Mason as Humbert, you have an actor who is as handsome, elegant and seductive as Humbert imagines himself to be. So in some sense the movie is validating his pretensions.

And Kubrick's film is very sympathetic to Humbert. The censorship means that he couldn't touch on the pedophilia so he instead dialed up the satire on Americana that is there in the book, mocking Stepford Suburbia, Conspicuous Consumption and the general naivete which Americans use to disguise the ugliness. And within that, Kubrick does identify a little bit with Humbert, especially at the end when he finds out that Lolita never cared for him, manipulated him throughout and was actually far wiser and realistic than he ever was.

LongTallShorty64 Frumpy and grumpy Since: Apr, 2015 Relationship Status: What is this thing you call love?
Frumpy and grumpy
#1925: Feb 17th 2017 at 4:19:36 PM

February 18

The end of the M's and the beginning of the Ns:


edited 17th Feb '17 4:30:16 PM by LongTallShorty64

"It's true that we had a gentleman's agreement, but unfortunately, I am no gentleman."

Total posts: 3,674
Top