|
|
Post by Andrea Doria on Sept 19, 2024 22:10:51 GMT
I love Suzanne Pleshette so much I think I've seen all those movies.
I've watched, 'The Ugly Dachshund," with my own dachshund in my lap many times.
"A Rage to Live," is a full on melodrama if anyone ever needed a definition. Suzanne plays a girl who can't say no and all the drama that results from that particular problem. It really was ahead of its time. It's a good demonstration of Suzanne's range after watching the Disney movies.
One of my favorites is, "Rome Adventure," where we get to see her fall in love with Troy Donahue who she married soon after.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 20, 2024 3:51:02 GMT
A film I just recently watched is one that had been on my radar for some time, but it took awhile until I actually felt ready to watch it-- MIKEY AND NICKY (1976).
It's on the Criterion Channel, with plenty of extra interviews included for good measure.
So, I will be honest...I think this is a film I am going to have to re-watch, and right now I am letting it sink in. I did go on to the IMDb to read all the reviews where people gave it a 10 or a 9; and then all the reviews where people gave it a 1 or a 2. I did this since I feel it's a movie that people either really love and herald it as a gem, or else don't like it (don't understand it) and attack it in full force.
I don't know where I stand on it, so that is why I will take time to re-watch it before rendering a judgment in the matter. I have a feeling I will end up on the "like side" of the equation, but I don't see myself giving it a 9 or a 10 because during my initial viewing, I thought some of it was contrived and some scenes felt like they ran too long.
I know that for purposes of cinema verity or improvisation, and increased realism, directors may purposely let scenes go too long...but I did kind of feel as if some scenes went on too long to the point they became tedious and boring, which made me think the premise was interesting but the execution was slightly uninspired.
Would I say Elaine May turned out a masterpiece? No, not really. But I think there may be some layers in it that escaped me and re-watching it will allow me to dive a bit deeper. We shall see how I feel about MIKEY AND NICKY after the second viewing.
|
|
nickandnora34
Full Member
Just a grease spot on the L&N
Posts: 102
|
Post by nickandnora34 on Sept 20, 2024 19:39:28 GMT
A film I just recently watched is one that had been on my radar for some time, but it took awhile until I actually felt ready to watch it-- MIKEY AND NICKY (1976).
It's on the Criterion Channel, with plenty of extra interviews included for good measure.
So, I will be honest...I think this is a film I am going to have to re-watch, and right now I am letting it sink in. I did go on to the IMDb to read all the reviews where people gave it a 10 or a 9; and then all the reviews where people gave it a 1 or a 2. I did this since I feel it's a movie that people either really love and herald it as a gem, or else don't like it (don't understand it) and attack it in full force.
I don't know where I stand on it, so that is why I will take time to re-watch it before rendering a judgment in the matter. I have a feeling I will end up on the "like side" of the equation, but I don't see myself giving it a 9 or a 10 because during my initial viewing, I thought some of it was contrived and some scenes felt like they ran too long.
I know that for purposes of cinema verity or improvisation, and increased realism, directors may purposely let scenes go too long...but I did kind of feel as if some scenes went on too long to the point they became a tedious and boring, which made me think the premise was interesting but the execution was slightly uninspired.
Would I say Elaine May turned out a masterpiece? No, not really. But I think there may be some layers in it that escaped me and re-watching it will allow me to dive a bit deeper. We shall see how I feel about MIKEY AND NICKY after the second viewing.
this is one of those movies where I will agree that you sometimes need to let sit for a bit before re-watching... I watched it as a film club recommendation a few years ago and still don't know how I feel about it if I'm being totally honest lol... Sometimes I need to watch something a second time and then I end up enjoying it more. Case in point, Vertigo. I was so determined to hate it that I feel like I purposely sabotaged my own opinions on it and rated it 2/5 stars. I watched it again a few weeks later and gave it a 4.5/5 lol.
So I think what I'm saying here, is I can fully understand wanting to re-watch something in hopes of feeling better about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 20, 2024 20:49:41 GMT
this is one of those movies where I will agree that you sometimes need to let sit for a bit before re-watching... I watched it as a film club recommendation a few years ago and still don't know how I feel about it if I'm being totally honest lol... Sometimes I need to watch something a second time and then I end up enjoying it more. Case in point, Vertigo. I was so determined to hate it that I feel like I purposely sabotaged my own opinions on it and rated it 2/5 stars. I watched it again a few weeks later and gave it a 4.5/5 lol.
So I think what I'm saying here, is I can fully understand wanting to re-watch something in hopes of feeling better about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Sept 20, 2024 21:34:49 GMT
this is one of those movies where I will agree that you sometimes need to let sit for a bit before re-watching... I watched it as a film club recommendation a few years ago and still don't know how I feel about it if I'm being totally honest lol... Sometimes I need to watch something a second time and then I end up enjoying it more. Case in point, Vertigo. I was so determined to hate it that I feel like I purposely sabotaged my own opinions on it and rated it 2/5 stars. I watched it again a few weeks later and gave it a 4.5/5 lol.
So I think what I'm saying here, is I can fully understand wanting to re-watch something in hopes of feeling better about it.
You've the expansive movie knowledge to offer your opinions with expected respect, Fading Fast, but I still think that last line is funny. |
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 25, 2024 9:34:11 GMT
Shanghai Express from 1932 with Marlene Dietrich, Clive Brooks, Anna May Wong, Warner Oland and Lawrence Grant.
Shanghai Express, one of several Marlene Dietrich collaborations with director Josef von Sternberg, uses a train journey from Peking to Shanghai as a metaphor for the personal journey that Dietrich and several of the other first-class passengers experience along the way.
The main story is about Dietrich's character, the notorious Shanghai Lily – a courtesan, a woman who "makes her living" by having "relationships" with wealthy men. On this train, though, is the one man she truly loved and lost, played by Clive Brooks.
Five years ago, Brooks, a British Army captain and surgeon, broke off their relationship for murky reasons. It is implied, though, that he doubted her faithfulness and was unwavering in his British sense of honor; so Dietrich was cast off to become the infamous Shanghai Lily.
When they meet here, it's clear neither has put the past completely behind them. Brooks is still angry; Dietrich is still hurt by his distrust of her. This is no leisurely train trip for five-year-old reminiscences and recriminations, however, as the train is traveling through civil-war-torn China.
Almost all the attention is on the first-class passengers, which include a Chinese courtesan played by Anna May Wong, a rigid English minister, played by Lawrence Grant, a seemingly wealthy Chinese man, played by Warner Oland, and several other "typical" rich Europeans.
Oland, it is soon revealed, is really the head of the rebel Chinese army. After one of his top commanders is removed from the train by the Chinese government, he later stops the train and detains all the passengers, looking to exchange Brooks for his commander.
Brooks was on the way to Shanghai to perform a life-saving operation on a top Chinese government official, so he's a powerful bargaining chip. While being held by Oland, he and Dietrich toss more recriminations at each other until Oland's threats become deadly.
Then Brooks and Dietrich get to show, through sacrifice, that they still love each other; but Brooks is too stubborn to admit it. Worse, events unfold in a way that, once again, make Dietrich look unfaithful.
While Brooks and Dietrich's little soap opera is playing out, poor Anna May Wong is facing her own challenges as Oland doesn't believe no means no. But since this is precode-movie world, Wong can dish out her own rough justice and walk away.
By journey's end, most of the white European passengers have come down a peg or two, or at least see that the condescensions they held toward the Chinese and toward women like Dietrich and Wong didn't align with the way events unfolded when lives were on the line.
Grant as the seemingly highbound minister makes the furthest personal journey as he, versus some of the other Europeans, is willing to admit his past prejudices were wrong. It's refreshing to see a movie where each ethnic group isn't portrayed as all good or all bad.
Today, though, the movie is most famous for its beautiful cinematography of Dietrich in particular – it won its one Oscar for its cinematography. Dressed in archly elaborate 1930s gowns and accoutrements, several of the close-up shots of the German star are now iconic.
Lit like an angel, despite her character's reputation, the movie at times is a love letter to Dietrich, who at thirty-one is at the peak of her arresting beauty. Dietrich aged incredibly well and could still turn heads in her fifties, but youth and beauty combined has a power of its own.
Brooks unfortunately is the movie's Achilles heel. Besides the fact that his face seems somehow hidden under his officer's cap, you never understand what Dietrich sees in this wooden, cold man whose sense of honor is real but inflexible.
Dietrich is not the warmest-looking human ever put on earth to start, so one feels that it would take some work to fire up her libido. One doubts very much that Brooks is up to the task. But as the saying goes, it's pointless trying to figure out what attracts one person to another.
Shanghai Express, despite its casting flaws, has aged well. It is still an engaging story with some contemporaneous history weaved in. Despite being shot all on sets in Hollywood, it offers a thoughtful look at China, while delivering a sharp elbow to upper-class England.
Shanghai Express is also a cognate to 1932's Grand Hotel, which beat out Shanghai Express for the Best Picture Oscar. And refreshingly, it displays a more balanced view of cultural difference than would be seen after the Motion Picture Production Code was enforced.
Today, film buffs come to see Dietrich famously framed by von Sternberg. Yet they can't help noticing that it's also a darn good movie that rips along at a precode fevered pace, while showing that prejudice wasn't nearly as rigid back then as we often believe today. |
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Sept 28, 2024 10:48:13 GMT
Purple Noon from 1960 with Alain Delon, Marie Leforêt, Maurice Ronet and Bill Kearns
First, read the book The Talented Mr. Ripley by Patricia Highsmith because it's very good and you get to form your own images of everything and everyone in your head.
Then watch Purple Noon to see how director René Clément interpreted the novel in 1960 cinema. Finally, watch The Talented Mr. Ripley to see how director Anthony Minghella did so in 1999.
Other than, one assumes, censorship that forced a different ending from the book, Clément's Purple Noon is reasonably faithful to Highsmith's story and a bit grittier than Minghella's later interpretation; the latter made post-war Italy look like the prettiest place on earth.
Not that Clément's post-war Italy isn't darn attractive, especially with a beautiful cast including Alain Delon proving a man can be prettier than even the beautiful Marie Leforêt.
Despite all this visual beauty, Purple Noon is still a murderous tale about a polished, psychotic grifter and a nasty, spoiled rich kid who take the concept of frenemies to a new level of spite and antipathy. The picture is effectively film noir in its soul, but it's too pretty to fit the genre.
Delon plays a poor boy bounder who is hired by a rich kid's dad to bring his prodigal son home to America from Italy. The son, a young man, played by Maurice Ronet, is living a sybaritic life with his quasi fiancée, played by Leforêt, whom he mentally abuses when he's bored or angry.
Delon befriends Ronet while stringing along Ronet's dad back in America with dissembling telegrams. Delon is attracted to Ronet's lifestyle and his fiancée. Ronet is sometimes friendly and sometimes nasty to Delon, but the poor boy puts up with it to stay in Ronet's wealthy orbit.
That is until he doesn't. It happens about halfway in, so maybe it's a spoiler, but after Ronet is particularly nasty to Delon, Delon kills Ronet, disposes of the body at sea, and then shows why Highsmith titled her novel The Talented Mr. Ripley, Delon's character's name.
After he murders Ronet, Delon goes full grifter, stealing Ronet's identity to make it look as if Ronet is still alive. This both covers up the murder and allows Delon to enjoy some of Ronet's lifestyle.
Delon shows an incredible talent for copying signatures and faking passports, but where he really shines is in thinking far ahead to put all the pieces of his elaborate deception in place. But the boy can also think on his feet, as he outwits the French police on the fly several times.
Delon's encounters with a particular French detective, played by Erno Crisa, are wonderful nail-biting scenes as the detective clearly suspects pretty-boy Delon, but he has no evidence. Delon, for his part, assumes a reserved innocence with the detective that requires nerves of steel.
Delon also outwits Ronet's friends and Leforêt, but one friend he can't outwit is an obnoxious, arrogant, but whip-smart nosy ba***rd, played by Bill Kearns. So Delon "disposes" of him the way many good film noir villains do: he bonks him hard on the head and dumps the body.
You'll get exhausted just keeping up with Delon as he dances all over Italy, spinning stories to the police, American Express agents, Ronet's friends, and, of course, Leforêt. It is the heart and soul of the book's story. The movie, though, adds visual beauty.
Italy might have been struggling to get back on its feet after WWII, but not where the rich expat Americans play, party, sun and sleep around. With everyone dressed in beautiful clothes, the film doubles as a travel brochure for Rome and Naples.
In the real world, even though Ronet was a rich ba***rd with a nasty meanstreak, you'd want Delon caught, convicted and punished for his murder. But in the world of movies, your morality wobbles as Ronet is hateful, and Delon is so handsome and passionate, you almost root for him.
It's this ability of Delon to do bad things, but still have you somewhat like him that takes Purple Noon to a higher level. Clément made a pretty and intelligent movie with beautiful cinematography, smart pacing and engaging scenes, but Delon makes the movie.
The man "grifts" the viewer as much as the characters in the story. Ronet is fine as the nasty rich kid, but he becomes a prop for Delon. Leforêt, though, is the other interesting character, as she projects a depth of thought and feeling that exceeds the role as written.
You, of course, don't have to read the book first or watch the 1999 version of the movie afterward to enjoy Purple Noon, but you might want to so that you can fully appreciate the rich texture and multiple layers of Highsmith's achievement.
Clémet's interpretation of her work, however, stands on its own as an engaging, appealing, and pretty, but also somewhat frightening look at a charming sociopath quietly menacing his way through Italy's young, rich American expat community. |
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Oct 1, 2024 9:23:54 GMT
Three Strangers from 1946 with Geraldine Fitzgerald, Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet, Joan Lorring and Alan Napier.
If you put O. Henry's The Gift of the Magi into a film noir blender, something like Three Strangers could come out. In O. Henry's tale, good people learn a lesson about giving and money; in Three Strangers, some questionable people, maybe, learn something about irony and money.
Three Strangers, from a John Huston and Howard Koch screenplay, directed by Jean Negulesco, and starring Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet and Geraldine Fitzgerald, is notable even in noir land as good and evil, right and wrong never fully sort themselves out in the end.
None of that would matter, though, if all three leads, and Joan Lorring and Alan Napier in key supporting roles, didn't deliver compelling performances that elevate this picture above its short-story-like plot.
The movie starts with a blink-and-you'll-miss-it moment, as Fitzgerald's character separately lures two men, Greenstreet and Lorre, to her London apartment posing as a prostitute – the censors missed that one – only to switch the game once the two men are there.
Fitzgerald assembled them in her apartment because she believes in the legend of an ancient Chinese statue about wishes, three people, and the Chinese New Year. The upshot has the three buying one sweepstakes ticket on the belief that the statue will allow them to win.
The scene has both a noir and "ancient mystery" vibe, as all three hover around the antique statue in the darkened apartment, with sounds of Chinese New Year celebrations drifting in through the window. And, of course, it doesn't take much to make Lorre look eerily mystical.
From here the movie, sometimes through flashbacks - film noir loves flashbacks - explores each of the three lives. Fitzgerald, the true believer, is trying desperately to win back the affections of her husband, played by Alan Napier, who wants to divorce her.
Greenstreet, initially, seems to just want to gain the respect of his legal peers. Soon, though, we learn he, in the role of a trustee, has used a client's funds to make a risky investment for himself that turned south. He now doesn't have the funds to return his client's money.
Lorre's story is the most confusing. It seems he's an educated gentleman from a wealthy family who, owing to alcoholism, has fallen in with a group of crooks. While he's innocent of any crime, he is being set up by them to be the fall guy for a murder.
Money would only solve Greenstreet's problem. This leaves the real intrigue in this movie to be the three lives themselves, each quickly reaching a crisis stage. Will Greenstreet's embezzlement be exposed? Will Lorre go to jail? Will Fitzgerald's husband file for divorce?
Greenstreet and Lorre see the sweepstakes ticket as a lark. Thus, it isn't until the climax, when their horse is, against all odds, running for the big money, that all three reunite. They then, of course, fight about the ticket now that it is valuable.
The outcome has a The Gift of the Magi irony, where nothing works out as it should because fate and intentions mix, as always, in unpredictable ways. While there's enough "justice" to satisfy the censors, the movie is really a tangle of morality that is left somewhat balled up.
Three Strangers really works because of the acting. Fitzgerald has her best career role here, playing an unstable wife. She sinks her teeth into it, shifting our opinion of her several times. Look for her confrontation scene with her husband's girlfriend: it is gripping and frightening.
Lorre and Greenstreet, who teamed up in a total of nine movies, are also outstanding here, even in atypical roles. Greenstreet is not a master manipulator, as usual, but a man who is being out manipulated. It is interesting to see him be the one to twist and turn in agony for a change.
Lorre, too, plays against type in this one, as he is a thoughtful and philosophical man. Yes, he is an alcoholic, but he's not creepy, sinister, or bent in the way he usually is. He's the more rational one than Greenstreet.
It's a fun variation on their usual pairing, as typically, it's Lorre who is spiraling into an abyss of self-doubt, with Greenstreet settling him down. That "feels" right as Greenstreet is three times Lorre's size. Yet here, it's tiny Lorre calming the flailing giant down: it's wonderfully unexpected.
Even the acting in the supporting roles is strong. Joan Lorring gives an excellent performance as a woman whom life has kicked around, but who recognizes the good qualities – the human decency – in Lorre even at his lowest.
Alan Napier, too, stands out in a small role as the man married to Fitzgerald, a woman whom we come to see is emotionally unstable and dangerous. His final scene, where he realizes he's gotten a lucky break, is acting without words at its best.
Huston and Koch penned a good short-story type of plot that director Negulesco turned into an engaging noir with the use of black-and-white cinematography, shadows, wet streets, blunt objects as weapons, one-billion cigarettes and stark visuals – and a fantastic cast.
Fitzgerald wanted money to buy back her husband. Greenstreet wanted it to cover a crime. Lorre wanted it, after he had learned something from Lorring, to give his life a fresh start. The story runs the gambit of morality from honorable to dishonorable, but never lands anywhere.
When it's over, as in The Gift of the Magi, you see the lost opportunity and the futility of it all. In the Magi, it's irony and fate playing with good intent; in Three Strangers, it's irony and fate playing with mal intent. Either way, you come away thinking anew about fate, irony, luck, and life.
Perhaps another Fitzgerald squared the circle for us. F. Scott Fitzgerald's famous quote from the end of The Great Gatsby, "So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past," argues we can never fully escape our past, but must try.
Isn't that what the three strangers in Three Strangers were trying to do—escape their past—only to find that fate, irony, and luck kept pulling them back? |
|
|
|
Post by I Love Melvin on Oct 1, 2024 12:34:46 GMT
Three Strangers from 1946 with Geraldine Fitzgerald, Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet, Joan Lorring and Alan Napier.
This one sounds fascinating and I'm ashamed to say I've probably seen a listing for a showing of it and passed it over. I won't let that happen again. It intrigues me that it was written (co-written?) by John Huston but was directed by Jean Negulesco, whom I normally associate with lighter material and a glossier style, though I know he has noirs to his credit. 1946 was post-war, so I'd be curious to know if there was a reason Huston didn't save it for himself, because it definitely sounds like his kind of thing, especially the part you mentioned about "irony and fate playing with mal intent" rather than with good intent. Anyway, it sounds like quite a package and I look forward to watching. |
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Oct 3, 2024 9:03:36 GMT
Split Second from 1953 with Stephen McNally, Alexis Smith, Jan Sterling, Keith Andes, Robert Paige, Paul Kelly, Frank DeKova, Arthur Hunnicutt, and Richard Egan.
At only eighty-five minutes long, there is a lot of plot, a lot of characters, and a lot of philosophy on life, love, and honor packed into the film noir Split Second. Director Dick Powell, a veteran of film noir acting, corrals these elements into a taut movie that builds to a gripping climax.
Two escaped prisoners, played by Stephen McNally and Paul Kelly, with the help of another former gang member, played by Frank DeKova, on the outside, commandeer two cars and take four people, played by Alexis Smith, Jan Sterling, Keith Andes, and Robert Paige, hostage.
But since that isn't complicated enough, they take them to a deserted Nevada town. The town is deserted because it's in the blast radius of the nearby above-ground government nuclear bomb test site that is scheduled to detonate a bomb early the following morning. Jesus.
McNally and Kelly, the latter was shot when they escaped, hole up there waiting for both a partner to come and a doctor. The doctor, played by Richard Egan, is Smith's estranged husband, whom McNally "blackmailed" over the phone into coming by threatening his wife's life.
The final puzzle piece is an old prospector, played by Arthur Hunnicutt, who wanders into the group with a backpack containing, among other things, a bible and a gun. With everyone now assembled in the town's bar, the tension builds to tomorrow morning's bomb-blast deadline.
McNally, the leader of the gang, is ruthless and smart. His brand of tribalism has him killing anyone in his way, but risking everything for his wounded partner, Kelly. Andes, an educated newspaper man, tries to reason with McNally, but ethical dialectics do not work on tribalists.
Sterling, a wayward woman all her life, sees something special in decent Andes, but she's a survivor, so she keeps her options open. The most intriguing character is Smith, who is having an affair with Paige, but she's willing to, ahem, "bargain" with anyone for her life.
Egan shows up – he won't let his estranged wife die – and is bullied by McNally into removing the bullet from Kelly right there in the bar. All this is an intentional set-up by Powell and the writers so that we can see the different personalities perform under pressure as the time ticks down.
Andes finally gives up reasoning and goes caveman, but is badly beaten up by McNally in a fight, a fight sparked by Sterling showing some gumption by standing up to McNally. Egan, meanwhile, tries to save Kelly, while arguing with his wife, Smith, in his downtime.
Theirs is the truly interesting relation here, as Smith, who appears well-bred and polished, is weak and ruthless in a mindlessly selfish way. Egan, who knows this, won't let her die, but he will let her go - it's an entire marriage mini drama dropped in the middle of a hostage situation.
The gang, too, has its dynamics as even Kelly, loyal as he is to McNally, sees that leaving six people to die in a bomb blast is morally wrong. His "give me a bible" request on the make-shift operating table has a "there are no atheists in a foxhole" moment to it.
Kelly is probably dying and has only made it this far because his friend and partner has risked everything to save him. But Kelly, in his soul, is not the tribalist McNally is. Look for the moment when McNally mindlessly tosses the bible on the ground and Hunnicutt calmy reproves him.
Director Powell understands film noir well. He moves seamlessly and continuously between fistfights, philosophy, sexual tension, and the countdown to the bomb blast, all in an atmosphere of fear and fatalism, shot in black and white with moody camera angles and lighting.
He was fortunate to have the cast to pull off what essentially is a dialogue-heavy stage-play-like story taking place mainly on one set – a bar in a deserted town. There is not one bad performance, but Egan's, Sterling's, McNally's and, especially, Smith's stand out.
Having resurrected his acting career in film noir several years earlier, Powell respected the genre, so much so he thoughtfully directed his picture to rise well above it B movie status.
He effectively made a gripping morality tale pitting tribalism against objective justice that requires selfless acts of heroism for that justice to triumph, all set in the shadow of a looming nuclear bomb blast that has one questioning if anything man does really has any meaning.
The movie leaves you meditating, sometimes uncomfortably, about how you, individually, would respond if faced with decisions where survival and morality were at odds.
Some movies deserve more attention than they'll ever get. Driven by an outstanding cast and a script that weaves together life's biggest questions—love, sex, honor, betrayal, and purpose — Split Second, with its film noir slow burn to a dramatic climax, is one of those movies.
 |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 5, 2024 0:05:03 GMT
Great line:
"...ethical dialectics do not work on tribalists."
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrea Doria on Oct 6, 2024 15:31:54 GMT
Purple Noon from 1960 with Alain Delon, Marie Leforêt, Maurice Ronet and Bill Kearns
First, read the book The Talented Mr. Ripley by Patricia Highsmith because it's very good and you get to form your own images of everything and everyone in your head.
Then watch Purple Noon to see how director René Clément interpreted the novel in 1960 cinema. Finally, watch The Talented Mr. Ripley to see how director Anthony Minghella did so in 1999.
Other than, one assumes, censorship that forced a different ending from the book, Clément's Purple Noon is reasonably faithful to Highsmith's story and a bit grittier than Minghella's later interpretation; the latter made post-war Italy look like the prettiest place on earth.
Not that Clément's post-war Italy isn't darn attractive, especially with a beautiful cast including Alain Delon proving a man can be prettier than even the beautiful Marie Leforêt.
Despite all this visual beauty, Purple Noon is still a murderous tale about a polished, psychotic grifter and a nasty, spoiled rich kid who take the concept of frenemies to a new level of spite and antipathy. The picture is effectively film noir in its soul, but it's too pretty to fit the genre.
Delon plays a poor boy bounder who is hired by a rich kid's dad to bring his prodigal son home to America from Italy. The son, a young man, played by Maurice Ronet, is living a sybaritic life with his quasi fiancée, played by Leforêt, whom he mentally abuses when he's bored or angry.
Delon befriends Ronet while stringing along Ronet's dad back in America with dissembling telegrams. Delon is attracted to Ronet's lifestyle and his fiancée. Ronet is sometimes friendly and sometimes nasty to Delon, but the poor boy puts up with it to stay in Ronet's wealthy orbit.
That is until he doesn't. It happens about halfway in, so maybe it's a spoiler, but after Ronet is particularly nasty to Delon, Delon kills Ronet, disposes of the body at sea, and then shows why Highsmith titled her novel The Talented Mr. Ripley, Delon's character's name.
After he murders Ronet, Delon goes full grifter, stealing Ronet's identity to make it look as if Ronet is still alive. This both covers up the murder and allows Delon to enjoy some of Ronet's lifestyle.
Delon shows an incredible talent for copying signatures and faking passports, but where he really shines is in thinking far ahead to put all the pieces of his elaborate deception in place. But the boy can also think on his feet, as he outwits the French police on the fly several times.
Delon's encounters with a particular French detective, played by Erno Crisa, are wonderful nail-biting scenes as the detective clearly suspects pretty-boy Delon, but he has no evidence. Delon, for his part, assumes a reserved innocence with the detective that requires nerves of steel.
Delon also outwits Ronet's friends and Leforêt, but one friend he can't outwit is an obnoxious, arrogant, but whip-smart nosy ba***rd, played by Bill Kearns. So Delon "disposes" of him the way many good film noir villains do: he bonks him hard on the head and dumps the body.
You'll get exhausted just keeping up with Delon as he dances all over Italy, spinning stories to the police, American Express agents, Ronet's friends, and, of course, Leforêt. It is the heart and soul of the book's story. The movie, though, adds visual beauty.
Italy might have been struggling to get back on its feet after WWII, but not where the rich expat Americans play, party, sun and sleep around. With everyone dressed in beautiful clothes, the film doubles as a travel brochure for Rome and Naples.
In the real world, even though Ronet was a rich ba***rd with a nasty meanstreak, you'd want Delon caught, convicted and punished for his murder. But in the world of movies, your morality wobbles as Ronet is hateful, and Delon is so handsome and passionate, you almost root for him.
It's this ability of Delon to do bad things, but still have you somewhat like him that takes Purple Noon to a higher level. Clément made a pretty and intelligent movie with beautiful cinematography, smart pacing and engaging scenes, but Delon makes the movie.
The man "grifts" the viewer as much as the characters in the story. Ronet is fine as the nasty rich kid, but he becomes a prop for Delon. Leforêt, though, is the other interesting character, as she projects a depth of thought and feeling that exceeds the role as written.
You, of course, don't have to read the book first or watch the 1999 version of the movie afterward to enjoy Purple Noon, but you might want to so that you can fully appreciate the rich texture and multiple layers of Highsmith's achievement.
Clémet's interpretation of her work, however, stands on its own as an engaging, appealing, and pretty, but also somewhat frightening look at a charming sociopath quietly menacing his way through Italy's young, rich American expat community.Love the review! Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Oct 6, 2024 15:53:33 GMT
... I kind of hate Gwyneth which makes her perfect for me for her part. She reminds me a little bit of Daisy in "The Great Gatsby." A beautiful, gracious, classy, entitled snob.Love the review! Thank you!
Also this,"A beautiful, gracious, classy, entitled snob," is awesome. I wish I had written that killer line.
If you do get a chance to see "Purple Noon," I think you'll find Marie Leforêt a lot more interesting in the Marge role than Ms. Paltrow is.
I was introduced to Phillip Seymour Hoffman at a Yankees game in the early '00s. We shook hands and he immediately forgot who I was, but my one takeaway was that he looked exactly like he does on screen, which not all stars do. That's it, that's my entire Phillip Seymour Hoffman story. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrea Doria on Oct 6, 2024 17:58:19 GMT
Fading Fast said:"I was introduced to Phillip Seymour Hoffman at a Yankees game in the early '00s. We shook hands and he immediately forgot who I was, but my one takeaway was that he looked exactly like he does on screen, which not all stars do. That's it, that's my entire Phillip Seymour Hoffman story."
I wouldn't wonder about the instant forgetting, from what we found out about the poor man after his death he was using a lot of drugs for many years. I hated some of the movies he was in, but I've watched, "Owning Mahowny" four times, once I start it I can't stop, I'm mesmerized.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Oct 10, 2024 9:01:42 GMT
Fog Over Frisco from 1934 with Bette Davis, Margaret Lindsay, Lyle Talbot, Alan Hale and Henry O'Neil
You watch Fog Over Frisco for the leads, in particular, for a Bette Davis, seconds before her breakout to major stardom, and you watch it for the 1934 zeitgeist and argot – reporters, gangsters, gun molls, Wall St. types, cops, and amazing on-location San Francisco footage.
You don't watch it for its confusing, off-the-pre-code-shelf plot about two wealthy stepsisters: one dangerously scratching her underworld itch, while the other tries to save her.
Bette Davis plays the bad sister here; Margaret Lindsay, the good one. Davis is also the stepdaughter (her mom seems to have passed away) of a very wealthy financier, Lindsay's real father, but from the first scene, we see Davis likes the seamy side of life.
We also quickly learn that she's involved in some sort of financial fraud racket – yes, a full on racket – which involves using her dopey fiancé, a broker at her stepfather's firm. Davis has no shame or conscience as she launders stolen securities through stepdad's brokerage house.
Davis' partners are mobsters and an "inside man" working at her dad's firm. She is no average bad daughter running up bills, drinking, sleeping around and gambling, while expecting her rich father to just make it okay afterwards, as this is full-on corruption that could ruin her stepdad.
Lovely sister Lindsay, unaware of all the corruption and devoted to her stepsister, tries to make peace between her dad and Davis. Also tossed into this mix is Lindsay's boyfriend, a reporter, who uses his access to Davis to report her shenanigans in his paper.
This unstable brew comes to a head as federal agents are getting wise to Davis' scheme; yes, it's so big, the Feds are involved. Her dad is also getting wise and her fiancé is wobbling. There is no easy way out for Davis, though, as the mobsters want her to keep laundering for them.
Most of the movie, all shot at a warp-speed pace with typical Warner Bros. warp-speed dialogue, is Davis trying to find a safe escape hatch for herself, her money, and her gangster boyfriend, while the Feds and stepdad close in, and sister Lindsay, still unaware, tries to help.
Being a Warner Bros. picture (under its First National Pictures brand), there's a real-world grit to all this as the gangsters kidnap, assault and shoot to kill to protect their money and turf. Davis also is no misguided good kid, but a corrupt, lying and selfish young woman.
The movie's wrap-up is confusing as there are so many players - local cops, the Feds, several newspapers, several gangsters, and the family - but you get it easily enough at a high level. Plus, you don't watch this movie for its plot; you watch it for its actors and atmosphere.
Davis, shortly, would become one of the era's defining stars, but here you see her ready to launch, as her energy, presence, and delivery have her owning every scene she's in. She's so good, it sometimes seems like everyone else is just standing still around her.
Lindsay is no Davis, but she's a perfect counterbalance here as the good, level-headed sister truly trying to save Davis. Also, Lindsay's character has the absolutely wonderful name Valkyr (pronounced Val-ker) Bradford, a first name which should be brought back immediately.
The entire cast, which is chockablock with Warners' regulars, including Lyle Talbot, Alan Hale, Henry O'Neil and others, feels like old home week for the studio. The acting talent that Warners could throw at even a B movie is impressive to this day.
Warners also captured the hijinx and competitiveness of the intense newspaper business back then – look for the scene where the reporters raaz the paper's photographer, played by Hugh Herbert. No historical account could mimic the real-world feel you get here.
Unusual for the time, Warners Bros. also took to the streets to film, shooting all over San Francisco. This brings the city alive in a way no recreation on studio sets and backlots can ever achieve.
Along with all of the movie's gangster argot and wealthy people swag – Davis' bedroom is an Art Deco Hollywood fantasy that had to have 1930s audiences swooning – you feel the era and the times in an almost palpable way.
Fog Over Frisco is a B movie with a run-of-the-mill plot, but as sometimes happens when fate and luck combine, it also captured so much of-the-moment history, and so many period curios that it's probably a better movie for modern audiences than it was for contemporaneous ones.
Today, it offers us a chance to see Bette Davis locked and loaded for stardom, San Francisco just before the Golden Gate was built, and the city's gritty underworld just before the Motion Picture Production Code forced movies to whitewash its pictures.
Sometimes it's just happenstance, but in Fog Over Frisco, a nondescript B movie, Warner Bros. thankfully, even if accidentally, preserved a lot of cultural and historical ephemera on celluloid for us.
 |
|
