|
Post by Swithin on May 14, 2023 0:11:16 GMT
Fascinating lists, thanks! I was a very little kid in 1955 and was taken to see movies that I couldn't possibly understand, but a few of them left their mark. For years, I remembered The Phenix City Story being about Phoenix, Arizona, which of course it isn't. I also remember being taken to Land of the Pharaohs and being scared by the ending (who wouldn't be?) I remember seeing The Long Gray Line, which I loved. But the film that really gave me nightmares, more than any other, as a child, was Kiss Me Deadly. Can you imagine what a little kid would make of the final scene? I didn't know what film I was dreaming about, until I saw it again as an adult, I just remembered a woman opening a box and a light coming out of it that destroyed everything.
I've seen some of the films on the lists as an adult, but there are also many that I've never heard of. If/when you get to 1957, that's one of the best years for horror films.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 14, 2023 0:22:33 GMT
Fascinating lists, thanks! I was a very little kid in 1955 and was taken to see movies that I couldn't possibly understand, but a few of them left their mark. For years, I remembered The Phenix City Story being about Phoenix, Arizona, which of course it isn't. I also remember being taken to Land of the Pharaohs and being scared by the ending (who wouldn't be?) I remember seeing The Long Gray Line, which I loved. But the film that really gave me nightmares, more than any other, as a child, was Kiss Me Deadly. Can you imagine what a little kid would make of the final scene? I didn't know what film I was dreaming about, until I saw it again as an adult, I just remembered a woman opening a box and a light coming out of it that destroyed everything.
I've seen some of the films on the lists as an adult, but there are also many that I've never heard of. If/when you get to 1957, that's one of the best years for horror films.
Yes, I will create a thread for 1956 tomorrow and probably get to 1957 on Monday.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 14, 2023 0:29:09 GMT
The piece I wrote on THE RAINS OF RANCHIPUR...
***
Recently I came across a disc of films I had recorded called ‘Natural Disasters.’ One title was the Fox classic THE RAINS CAME, and another one was its remake THE RAINS OF RANCHIPUR.
As I watched these films, I looked at user reviews on the IMDb and various message board comments. People had a lot to say about both the original– starring Tyrone Power, Myrna Loy and George Brent– as well as the remake with Richard Burton, Lana Turner and Fred MacMurray. The first version currently has an overall user rating of 6.9, whereas the second version has a 5.9. I would personally rate the one with Power a 7.5, and the one with Burton a 9.0. In the following paragraphs, I will explain my reasons.
First, it is more than the casting, though the casting and quality of acting does matter quite a bit. I have never been a fan of Tyrone Power’s acting, and while I don’t entirely dislike his work, it certainly pales by comparison with the level of excellence Richard Burton brings to the screen in any role.
Probably a real Indian actor should have been cast, and in my view, this property is ripe for another remake so they can get the casting right. In the 1955 offering, which is in Technicolor, we see that Burton is more like a Welshman with a tan– almost implying the character is a half-breed, not a full-blooded Indian.
If Fox was going to ‘go there’ with the interracial storyline more than in the first production, they couldn’t make him too dark, I suppose.
Continuing with the acting, I think Lana Turner is much better (though slightly miscast) as Lady Edwina. Why do I say this? Well, Myrna Loy definitely comes across as a lady, and Lana does seem by comparison to have the morals of gutter trash in this story– but Lana oozes a lot more passion.
We get the feeling she is rather desperate for real and lasting love, believing Dr. Safti can give it to her. Myrna just seems too put together emotionally and a little too brittle to be affected this way. Also, when the conflicts come to the surface between Edwina and the Maharani, we can see the Indian woman’s points more clearly in the remake that maybe Edwina is poison for Dr. Softi.
Also, I tend to like the secondary love story performers better in the remake. Fred MacMurray does a convincing job as a self-loathing drunk, and when he reaches redemption later in the story, his tenderness towards Joan Caulfield seems a lot more realistic. Like they are equals despite the age difference. I felt like MacMurray was probably tapping into his own redeeming relationship with his younger wife June Haver when he played those scenes.
In the other picture, George Brent just comes across smarmy and he still treats Brenda Joyce like a kid at the end, who can’t get over her schoolgirl crush on him– not at all signifying any type of equality or character growth.
As for the Maharani, I love Madame Maria Ouspenskaya in the original despite her obvious Russian ethnicity. She seems very authoritative during the flood sequence. But Eugenie Leontovich is better I think in the remake. Leontovich is not afraid to tap into the more shrewish aspects of the character and fight Edwina no matter how ruthlessly. Ironically, I think Leontovich seems to be channeling Ouspenskaya’s shrew in DODSWORTH.
Now that I’ve addressed casting and performances, I want to talk about dialogue and special effects. The dialogue in the original is a little too stiff. A lot of it seems interchangeable, where it doesn’t matter who is speaking it, because it is all coming from a third-person screen writing point of view. But in the remake the dialogue is much more individualized. The lines the characters utter seem more idiosyncratic and less archetypical.
Meanwhile, the use of Cinemascope helps aid the special effects extravaganza in the remake in ways that make the action in the first one seem cropped or chopped off. I do agree that the splitting of the earth and the bursting of the dam in the first film were done very well and deserved at least an Oscar nomination (not a win over GONE WITH THE WIND’s burning of Atlanta sequence). But the collapse of the bridge is better in the remake, because even though they may be using models in some shots, we see people losing their lives and the danger is much more apparent.
There are many other things I could cite as examples regarding why I feel the second film is better than the original. But I will end for now with a comment about the overall sweeping nature of the film. The remake seems more epic to me, and much more ambiguous. When Lana rides off with Michael Rennie at the end, we know that this is not a real happy ending. She will wind up like Vivien Leigh in THE ROMAN SPRING OF MRS. STONE. There will be other men behind her husband’s back, young gigolos and hangers on that she will spoil to keep her company. She will always love Dr. Softi but continue to be punished for her immoral ways by being stuck in a loveless marriage with Rennie and forever denied her true Indian soul mate.
As they drive off, and the words ‘The End’ flash over the screen, you know that it truly is the end of her happiness. MacMurray and Caulfield have the happy ending here, but not any of the other main characters. And back inside the palace, the Maharani, who is a twisted psychological mess of feminine success, takes comfort in having driven the so-called lady back to the gutter. It’s a drama, a tragedy of epic proportions– a wholly unnatural disaster.
|
|
|
Post by sagebrush on May 21, 2023 13:38:10 GMT
I had no idea OKLAHOMA! was a RKO production! It seems so big budgeted compared to the other RKO musicals and films in general that they produced during the 1950's. I assumed it was a 20 Century Fox production, like CAROUSEL and SOUTH PACIFIC.
|
|
|
Post by I Love Melvin on May 21, 2023 13:53:34 GMT
I had no idea OKLAHOMA! was a RKO production! It seems so big budgeted compared to the other RKO musicals and films in general that they produced during the 1950's. I assumed it was a 20 Century Fox production, like CAROUSEL and SOUTH PACIFIC.
I think Fox is happy to spread that confusion because I have a Rodgers and Hammerstein DVD box set in which Oklahoma is packaged identically to all the Fox releases. Either they leased it or the rights changed hands?
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on May 21, 2023 14:06:51 GMT
I don't think OKLAHOMA! originated at RKO. I think it was more of an independent production that needed an infusion of capital so RKO helped cover costs and in exchange got the rights to distribute it. After RKO went out of business in the late 50s and the film was no longer being exhibited theatrically in re-releases, the rights probably reverted to the original owner(s) who then sold it to Fox.
|
|