random thoughts


I just saw this movie for the first time over the weekend and thought it was a very good movie(not ever having read the book).

1. I thought Sondra Locke was really great and it was nice to see her in a movie that did not have Clint Eastwood attached. I guess this is her shining achievement without him.

2. I thought that something was going to come of Alan Arkin's occupation once he moved to the new town and into Mick's house, but you never saw him once doing any type of work after the move. Then when you get to see Mick's father doing the same type of work, thought that there was going to be some connection made between the two of them.

reply

[deleted]

2. I thought that something was going to come of Alan Arkin's occupation once he moved to the new town and into Mick's house, but you never saw him once doing any type of work after the move. Then when you get to see Mick's father doing the same type of work, thought that there was going to be some connection made between the two of them.
I agree. There were a lot of things which I thought would happen, but didn't, especially with Arkin's character, Singer.

From reading the synopsis before watching the film last night on TCM, I got the impression that Singer would help find substantial resolutions to problems that Mick's family was having, as well as issues the doctor's family members were having. Given Singer's history of shrewdly observing situations and figuring out ways to make things happen in a positive way, I thought he would somehow "kill two birds with one stone" and unite the two families in a way which would be productive for everyone concerned.

I knew there were about 35 minutes left to go in the film, so as time was running out I thought, "Singer doesn't have much time left to get everything resolved. How will he do it?" Maybe that had something to do with why he did what he did in the end. Maybe he thought that even if he could fix everyone else's problems he would still feel empty inside.

Interestingly Mick and the doctor were brought together at the grave site, but who knows if her family and his family were eventually able to form a bond after that, to the point of being able to lean on one-another. It's almost as if the writer had that in mind while creating the story, but didn't take it that far due to the racial issue.

People eat cotton candy. This is
better...it's made out of real cotton.

reply

As far as Singer not being able to help find solutions to everybodies problems, the book does a better job explaining this than the film. In the book, Singer writes to his deaf mute friend how strange all the people he has met are. He writes that these people act as if I am wise and all knowing when all I do is read their lips and nod. Singer basically becomes a God figure to Mick, the black doctor, and the drifter. This is made even more obvious in the case of Mick who in the book declares she does not believe in God.

reply

[deleted]

"...Instead, the writer drew upon her real-life tragedy of losing a husband to a senseless suicide, as a way to bring about an end to the story."

She wrote "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter" in 1940 and her husband committed suicide in 1951.

reply

I just saw it recorded from last month on TCM, and while being drawn into the interactions of the different characters, I also found myself thinking there was going to be a connection made between the father and Singer. I did also wonder if he ever got a job after the move, and my wife and I were thinking that he must have as he had a fair bit of disposable income, unless he sold his house? Its not important to the story, but a simple mention somewhere in the script would have kept me from wondering.

reply

Locke was surprisingly good and was far better in this than any of those awful Eastwood flicks.

reply

Maybe she didn't want to upstage him although she's absolutely atrocious in "Sudden Impact".

reply

[deleted]