NitrateVille.com

Harlett O'Dowd wrote:
Singin' in The Rain *is* a masterpiece and is arguably the greatest original musical to come out of Hollywood - maybe even the best ever...it starts on a high note and never loses any of its energy from start to finish...try as I might, I can't think of another musical - on stage or screen - that keeps the ball up in the air so consistantly. I've floated higher, but never for that long.

I feel this way about EASTER PARADE, my vote for the greatest original musical to come out of Hollywood. Every Irving Berlin song a winner; absolutely amazing choreography and performance of it (I dare your jaw not to drop during Drum Crazy); perfect plot, neither too heavy nor too light. I'm a bit biased perhaps, because I prefer Fred to Gene, and Judy...well, she's just in a class by herself. Musicals just don't get any better than this.

rollot24 wrote:I agree with Mike. The reason SITR works so well for me is, it really looks like the cast is having the time of their lives. The joy is infectious and it never fails, no matter how many times I see it.

I love SITR lots. (Especially Jean Hagen..."Round tones, Miss Lamont, round tones!") I guess I don't much care whether it's a masterpiece or not.

Fred

Mike Gebert wrote: One of my theories is that filmmakers often do their best work when slumming a little, kicking back and taking it easy. Powell and Pressburger were in their most serious and self-consciously arty period, the time of big Technicolor statements like The Red Shoes, Black Narcissus, A Matter of Life and Death, Colonel Blimp-- and they knocked off a little black and white movie shooting half on location with doubles and half in a studio, and it's I Know Where I'm Going, their most human and affecting movie.

Likewise Donen and Kelly, taking a breather after An American In Paris, threw together a revue of old songs-- and their sheer joy at being at the top of their form came shining through.

But I like self-conscious and arty Powell & Pressburger films! That said, I adore I Know Where I'm Going. One of my top ten films.

SITR is one of my favorite films, not the least of which for Donald O'Connor and the hilarious Jean Hagen. Hartlett is right, the film is infectious from the get-go, never lets up, nor does it let you down (until Debbie's final offkilter notes at the close of the film).

Mike Gebert wrote:One of my theories is that filmmakers often do their best work when slumming a little, kicking back and taking it easy.

What I find is that a filmmaker's lesser-known, underpraised film is often more compelling than the exalted classic that's been nailed to a pedestal.

I'd rather watch Orson Welles' Journey Into Fear any day over his excellent but dreary Magnificent Ambersons. It may be a pulpy potboiler, but it's still a fast-moving visual feast with a dynamite climax. (Yeah, I know Welles was the producer, not the credited director, but somehow nearly every single shot is lined up in the Welles style.)

William Friedkin's The Exorcist is justly famous, but his half-forgotten Sorcerer is the film of his I love. It's a remake of The Wages of Fear, and without taking anything away from the original, Sorcerer is dynamic, realistic and suspenseful, with one of the greatest set-pieces I've seen in any film.

And since we're in the silent movie forum, I'll add that Clarence Brown's The Trail of '98 is every bit as good as his famous Flesh and the Devil, if not more so. I find Chaplin's The Pawn Shop funnier than any of his other Mutuals, far more so than the perennial Easy Street, and as great as Herbert Brenon's Beau Geste is, his Sorrell and Son is even better.

Count me in as a fan of SITR as well. The only problem is that my wife hates it and if I watch it when she's around, I have to sit through a chorus of jeers and catcalls. Her special ire is reserved for Donald O'Connor. Oh well.

Rather conventionally, I think that the ballet section with the Cyd Charisse bit goes on a bit, also, I read some review of it somewhere on the interweb, which pointed out an alternative reading of the story - Debbie Reynolds' character as a scheming, backstabbing careerist, Lina Lamont as the wronged heroine. Mainly because I think Miss Hagen looks so fine in this film, I can't help but watch it that way, and I'm rooting for her, and I want her to win! Apart from that, I think it's a great musical, one of the best.

N_Phay wrote:Count me in as a fan of SITR as well. The only problem is that my wife hates it and if I watch it when she's around, I have to sit through a chorus of jeers and catcalls. Her special ire is reserved for Donald O'Connor. Oh well.

Wow. It must be love! Now there's a good thread. Films that you cherish but that your spouse/SO loathes.

Fred

But I like self-conscious and arty Powell & Pressburger films! That said, I adore I Know Where I'm Going. One of my top ten films.

I do too, but there's a breezy quality to IKWIG that is absent, oh how it is absent sometimes, from their grander works, great as they are.

Another example for me would be The Asphalt Jungle, which I think has far more to say about human nature coming from a W.R Burnett pulp novel than any of Huston's delvings into Melville, Crane, Lowry, McCullers, etc.-- or B. Traven, for that matter.

Frederica wrote:

N_Phay wrote:Count me in as a fan of SITR as well. The only problem is that my wife hates it and if I watch it when she's around, I have to sit through a chorus of jeers and catcalls. Her special ire is reserved for Donald O'Connor. Oh well.

Wow. It must be love! Now there's a good thread. Films that you cherish but that your spouse/SO loathes. Fred

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE! One of my favourite films - visual and stylish in the extreme - but my wife loathes it with a vengeance. She can't even bear the classical pieces that form part of the soundtrack any more.

Arndt wrote:

Frederica wrote: Wow. It must be love! Now there's a good thread. Films that you cherish but that your spouse/SO loathes. Fred

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE! One of my favourite films - visual and stylish in the extreme - but my wife loathes it with a vengeance. She can't even bear the classical pieces that form part of the soundtrack any more.

The aforementioned 7 Brides for Seven Brothers. But I think Jim hates it more because of unhappy memories of the ex and family (who loved the film) than any fault of the piece itself.

He is also slow to warm to The Music Man which may rival SITR for "moments of ecstacy in my book.

Getting ready to duck again.....
SITR would be a deal greater if the Broadway Ballet was cut out......it's in the wrong film.
And I'm sorry, but IMO Blimp (the full version, of course) is the greatest film ever made. However, if you like P'n'P's less-big budget works, you should try Contraband (1940) A Canterbury Tale (1944) or The Small Back Room (1949) all of which have wit, intelligence, great performances and stunning photography.

Penfold wrote: SITR would be a deal greater if the Broadway Ballet was cut out......it's in the wrong film.

No, it isn't.

And I'm sorry, but IMO Blimp (the full version, of course) is the greatest film ever made.

No, it isn't.......and your apology is accepted.

In fact, now that they have been mentioned, I'll jump into this conversation and list Powell and Pressburger as two very overrated filmmakers indeed. Pretentious, classic examples of style over substance, and too damn many films where the heroines jump off a cliff or train station or whatever after being hysterical for so damn long that you'd have been happy to hurl them over some precipice reels earlier.

And when it ain't some self-absorbed bimbo like Moira Shearer flying off the edge or horny nuns getting all hot and bothered in glorious technicolor, it's just boring nonsense like BLIMP or MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH which think they are too clever by half, and they go on and on and on trying to impress you with what they seem to think are great ideas that I always find rather shallow.

THE BATTLE OF THE RIVER PLATE may just be the most boring war film ever made. Easily Powell's best films are THE SPY IN BLACK and CONTRABAND and there he's got Conrad Veidt and Valerie Hobson shooting sparks and he's doing faux-Hichcock and has strong enough plots that even his over-fancy camerawork can't mess it up. Gad, can't even turn out a nice quota-quickie musical like HIS LORDSHIP without trying to pull off over-tricky camerawork the budget doesn't allow for and making a muck of it.

I've tried to like Powell for years, and the more I see, the less I'm impressed. He is now the poster-child for my theory that Martin Scorcese's stamp of approval on any old film is the kiss of death.

And speaking of Martin, thats another overrated "classic" in my book, but anyone from Arizona thinks THE SEARCHERS is a grand hoot when you get to that montage of John Wayne spending years hunting for the girl, dissolve in to him with his hunting-dog expression through rain, sleet, snow and hail.......and Monument Valley's in the background of every shot! Hell Duke, try travelling five or ten miles in any direction and you might have better luck at finding her! You get the feeling that every time Olive Carey goes out back to hang up the washin' that she runs into the Duke hiding under a bush.

"You found her yet?"
"No----but I'm still lookin!"

And John Wayne's so-called "great dramatic performance" consists of him losing any sense of humor in the part, not impressed, sorry. And I think Wayne was a much better actor than most give him credit for, but I'm far more impresssd with him in stuff like ISLANDS IN THE SKY where he acts more like a human being (he even cries in that film!).

THE SEARCHERS---great opening and closing shot, not so much in between.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

Richard M Roberts wrote:

And when it ain't some self-absorbed bimbo like Moira Shearer flying off the edge or horny nuns getting all hot and bothered in glorious technicolor, it's just boring nonsense like BLIMP or MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH which think they are too clever by half, and they go on and on and on trying to impress you with what they seem to think are great ideas that I always find rather shallow.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

We'll have to agree to differ then - but I'll just point out that without The Red Shoes, none of the raft of ballet-inclusive, high-concept dance Hollywood films from the fifties - the aforementioned SITR included - would be as they finished up. IIRC Donen and Kelly touted a print of The Red Shoes around the Hollywood suits to get backing for their projects.....in a 'Look, this is what can be done' way.
And as for Blimp, amongst its other themes of ageing and obsession, to film a debate about the nature of refugees in War, the conduct and ethics of War and imprisonment of your enemies, and the future conduct of peace, were not shallow ideas in Britain in 1943. Frankly, I don't think they are now.

Penfold wrote:

Richard M Roberts wrote:

And when it ain't some self-absorbed bimbo like Moira Shearer flying off the edge or horny nuns getting all hot and bothered in glorious technicolor, it's just boring nonsense like BLIMP or MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH which think they are too clever by half, and they go on and on and on trying to impress you with what they seem to think are great ideas that I always find rather shallow.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

We'll have to agree to differ then - but I'll just point out that without The Red Shoes, none of the raft of ballet-inclusive, high-concept dance Hollywood films from the fifties - the aforementioned SITR included - would be as they finished up. IIRC Donen and Kelly touted a print of The Red Shoes around the Hollywood suits to get backing for their projects.....in a 'Look, this is what can be done' way.
And as for Blimp, amongst its other themes of ageing and obsession, to film a debate about the nature of refugees in War, the conduct and ethics of War and imprisonment of your enemies, and the future conduct of peace, were not shallow ideas in Britain in 1943. Frankly, I don't think they are now.

THE RED SHOES is a mediocre film.

The classic and far superior production is the previous DONDE MUEREN LAS PALABRAS. That AAA film is a much more unforgettable experience... even in black and white.

In fact, now that they have been mentioned, I'll jump into this conversation and list Powell and Pressburger as two very overrated filmmakers indeed. Pretentious, classic examples of style over substance, and too damn many films where the heroines jump off a cliff or train station or whatever after being hysterical for so damn long that you'd have been happy to hurl them over some precipice reels earlier.

Although I love Powell & Pressburger (on occasion at least; I think A Matter of Life and Death and Peeping Tom overrated and I've watched the first half hour of Blimp without getting any further about 5 times, only made it all the way through once) I can see this view. I think they were like that because British cinema was so fundamentally unlike that for so long-- terribly decent people having terribly civilized conversations in drawing rooms. (Even Lean made one of those, it's called Brief Encounter. I've always thought it should have been a 1929 talkie with Clive Brook and Diana Wynyard.) So they went way over the top. but on at least two occasions (IKWIG and Black Narcissus) made genuine masterpieces. I do agree that if you can't take the florid Technicolor P&P, their black and white thriller period (including the propaganda-heavy, but very well done, 49th Parallel) is the perfect antidote.

They do seem to go off the rails after The Red Shoes. Oh!! Rosalinda!! is a great-looking boxcar load of marshmallow fluff, and River Plate is a complete disappointment-- I think they composed it for widescreen and so everything's in long shot, which doesn't work on TV at all, but even if you could see the faces, it's not much of a drama (compare it to the great unknown British WWII naval film The Cruel Sea).

I'll just point out that without The Red Shoes, none of the raft of ballet-inclusive, high-concept dance Hollywood films from the fifties - the aforementioned SITR included - would be as they finished up.

Frankly, the whole arthouse thing might not exist without The Red Shoes, it was a huge hit that played for years and established the idea that there was another audience out there who'd respond to other kinds of films, just in time for the likes of Bergman, Fellini, etc. So you may put that in its credit or debit column as you choose....

Frankly, the whole arthouse thing might not exist without The Red Shoes, it was a huge hit that played for years and established the idea that there was another audience out there who'd respond to other kinds of films, just in time for the likes of Bergman, Fellini, etc. So you may put that in its credit or debit column as you choose....

It is still a mediocre film... a pale shadow to the far superior DONDE MUEREN LAS PALABRAS.

Penfold wrote:
We'll have to agree to differ then - but I'll just point out that without The Red Shoes, none of the raft of ballet-inclusive, high-concept dance Hollywood films from the fifties - the aforementioned SITR included - would be as they finished up. IIRC Donen and Kelly touted a print of The Red Shoes around the Hollywood suits to get backing for their projects.....in a 'Look, this is what can be done' way.

The success of stage ballets like "Slaughter on 10th Avenue" in On Your Toes and the dream ballet in Oklahoma! had a lot more to do with Kelly's screen ballets than The Red Shoes.

The latter may have been a blueprint of how to film them, but the stage musicals convinced the moguls that there was a wide audience for this material when "art" and "entertainment" dovetailed nicely.

The success of stage ballets like "Slaughter on 10th Avenue" in On Your Toes and the dream ballet in Oklahoma! had a lot more to do with Kelly's screen ballets than The Red Shoes.

Six of one, I think. In any case, the box office success of The Red Shoes proved that an American movie could do what was already being done on the American stage, and audiences wouldn't think it was too arty. I don't know what the dream ballet on stage looked like, but the one in Zinnemann's film certainly looks a lot like The Red Shoes in terms of setting and cinemtography.

Though of course the biggest musical hit of that era was the one that could hardly have been more retrograde. I speak of course of this...

The Jolson Story is, in effect, part of a massive "nostalgia arc" that lasts from about 1938 to the mid 50s. (One could make the argument for including She Done Him Wrong or The Bowery as part of this trend, but those two pictures are far less sentimental than what came later.) Seemingly about half of all 20th Century-Fox musicals from those years involve a Technicolored presentation of the late 19th or early 20th century; other studios got into the nostalgia act too: MGM (Meet Me in St Louis, Summer Holiday, In the Good Old Summertime), Warners (Yankee Doodle Dandy, Shine on Harvest Moon, One Sunday Afternoon), Paramount (The Perils of Pauline, The Emperor Waltz), and really too many more to mention.

Ultimately, you could include all the composer biographies in this category too. There's no clear point at which the nostalgia cycle ends, though at some point between The Music Man and Bonnie and Clyde the past starts to be presented rather differently.

-Harold

Harold Aherne wrote:The Jolson Story is, in effect, part of a massive "nostalgia arc" that lasts from about 1938 to the mid 50s. (One could make the argument for including She Done Him Wrong or The Bowery as part of this trend, but those two pictures are far less sentimental than what came later.) Seemingly about half of all 20th Century-Fox musicals from those years involve a Technicolored presentation of the late 19th or early 20th century; other studios got into the nostalgia act too: MGM (Meet Me in St Louis, Summer Holiday, In the Good Old Summertime), Warners (Yankee Doodle Dandy, Shine on Harvest Moon, One Sunday Afternoon), Paramount (The Perils of Pauline, The Emperor Waltz), and really too many more to mention.

Ultimately, you could include all the composer biographies in this category too. There's no clear point at which the nostalgia cycle ends, though at some point between The Music Man and Bonnie and Clyde the past starts to be presented rather differently.

-Harold

.. and then starts us again in the 70s (American Graffiti, Grease, Happy Days.) I think the case can be made that - at least in the century of film (and later, television) where there is *so* much product that needs to be churned out that - we often get writers/directors/studios looking back on the era of their childhood. The more optimistic the time (late 30s, 1950s) the more rose-colored the glasses and the more cynical the era (1920s, early Depression, 60s) the more critical the look back. WWII marks a special case as it was important as propaganda to show audiences what we were fighting FOR, so the treacle often ran thick during this era (Oklahoma!, Meet me in St, Louis, Fox musicals)

I think after a time of rapid social change you get a sudden longing for the supposed innocence and simplicity of the era... that most of the audience at that time is just old enough to remember from childhood, or was just before they were born. So the 40s looked back to the 1890s, the 60s had a 20s revival (of which, of course, the silent comedy boom was part), and the 70s looked back to before the tumultuous 60s to the 50s.

Occasionally there seems to be a bit of an 80s revival but I'm just not convinced that the world has changed enough since then to make it work; watching Mad Men in fascination at how different men and women were is one thing, going to the stage revival of Dirty Dancing is a much thinner cup of tea.

Twenties nostalgia does surface during the 40s and early 50s--Greenwich Village and Our Hearts Were Young and Gay (1944), Good News (1947), Tea for Two (1950), Has Anybody Seen My Gal? (1952), and the like, though it's not like cloche hats had a revival then as they did (to some degree) in later decades. Now that's an interesting question for a cultural anthropologist--when does a decade (or period of any kind) become sufficiently removed that nostalgia or detachment becomes viable? I notice that when early 30s films are set in the late 10s or 20s, no one bothers to replicates the hairstyles or clothing of those years (in Turn Back the Clock from 1933 there are period-accurate fashions for the early 10s, but by 1917 or so everything looks the same as 1933).

-Harold

Harold Aherne wrote: I notice that when early 30s films are set in the late 10s or 20s, no one bothers to replicates the hairstyles or clothing of those years (in Turn Back the Clock from 1933 there are period-accurate fashions for the early 10s, but by 1917 or so everything looks the same as 1933).

-Harold

That complaint isn't new. Someone in the 20's (forget who) said that although DeMille's costumes might be Ancient Rome the leading lady's face was always the latest Max Factor.

Eric

Harold Aherne wrote:. Now that's an interesting question for a cultural anthropologist--when does a decade (or period of any kind) become sufficiently removed that nostalgia or detachment becomes viable? I notice that when early 30s films are set in the late 10s or 20s, no one bothers to replicates the hairstyles or clothing of those years (in Turn Back the Clock from 1933 there are period-accurate fashions for the early 10s, but by 1917 or so everything looks the same as 1933).

-Harold

One book on film costume i read some time ago (so i dont' remember which it was) observed that there is usually about a 30 year lag in costumes, where films set 30 years or more in the past will make some attempt at reproducing period fashions, but anything set within 30 years will just be costumed in the present. I also notice that sometimes when there is a "past and present" they will get the eras wrong. One egregious example is Norma Shearer's "Smilin' Through", where the past is apparently set in the 1860s (crinoline gowns) but the present is set in WWI with 1930s clothes, but the young woman, who is supposed to be the niece of the woman killed in the 1860s, would be probably be in the late 30s at least by the time of WWI.

Of course you can always tell the era of filming by hair and eye makeup, as well as subtle anomalies in the shape of the costumes (you never can get rid of those pointy bras in the 50s and 60s no matter what era its set in)

greta

greta de groat wrote:Of course you can always tell the era of filming by hair and eye makeup, as well as subtle anomalies in the shape of the costumes (you never can get rid of those pointy bras in the 50s and 60s no matter what era its set in)

What you see in nearly all period pictures, even those produced today, is that everybody's wearing impeccably tailored, immaculate outfits, and the vintage cars are always gleaming and flawless without so much as a speck on the windshields.

greta de groat wrote: Of course you can always tell the era of filming by hair and eye makeup, as well as subtle anomalies in the shape of the costumes (you never can get rid of those pointy bras in the 50s and 60s no matter what era its set in)

greta

Ah yes, the cruise-missile look. Designers make deliberate decisions to tweak (or sometimes outright ignore) period clothing detail. The designer for the Olivier/Garson Pride and Prejudice deliberately chose to clothe the Bennett gals in dresses dating from the Victorian era, rather than from the Regency. The materials were richer and the dresses themselves were...bigger. Big, big dresses.

I've been having loads of fun watching The Tudors--the clothing is sumptuous, but more "derived" from Tudor styles (which were hairbrained) than accurate. You want the clothing to enhance and support the story, not to leave your audience thinking "what a silly hat."

Fred

Frederica wrote:The designer for the Olivier/Garson Pride and Prejudice deliberately chose to clothe the Bennett gals in dresses dating from the Victorian era, rather than from the Regency. The materials were richer and the dresses themselves were...bigger. Big, big dresses.

Wellllllllllllllll, it was Adrian, after all.

Chris Snowden wrote:

greta de groat wrote:Of course you can always tell the era of filming by hair and eye makeup, as well as subtle anomalies in the shape of the costumes (you never can get rid of those pointy bras in the 50s and 60s no matter what era its set in)

What you see in nearly all period pictures, even those produced today, is that everybody's wearing impeccably tailored, immaculate outfits, and the vintage cars are always gleaming and flawless without so much as a speck on the windshields.

The one thing that always annoys me when they get down to serious rumpy-pumpy in period drama is that all these 17th, 18th, 19th century aristocrats and peasants tend to have flawless 21st century tans under their finery or rags. I recently watched THE PERFUME, where a whole 18th century French town takes off its kit and gets snogging. As if this scene were not ludicrous enough, they all are beautifully bronzed all over, no tanlines in sight. Now when did they do all that nude sunbathing?

Arndt wrote:
The one thing that always annoys me when they get down to serious rumpy-pumpy in period drama is that all these 17th, 18th, 19th century aristocrats and peasants tend to have flawless 21st century tans under their finery or rags. I recently watched THE PERFUME, where a whole 18th century French town takes off its kit and gets snogging. As if this scene were not ludicrous enough, they all are beautifully bronzed all over, no tanlines in sight. Now when did they do all that nude sunbathing?

And rippling six-pack abs, $500.00 hair, and all their teeth. Also we can't smell them. This is a good thing.

Fred

Frederica wrote:
And rippling six-pack abs, $500.00 hair, and all their teeth. Also we can't smell them. This is a good thing.

Fred

And thin. Everyone is thin. Well, at least most parts of them, anyway.

greta de groat wrote:
And thin. Everyone is thin. Well, at least most parts of them, anyway.

And most of them speak American English. Except for Romans, all Romans had British accents. No one ever speaks Provencal or Thuringian or Uto-Aztecan or Anglo-Saxon. Even Beowulf didn't speak Anglo Saxon.

Fred