MovieChat Forums > telegonus > Replies
telegonus's Replies
Right. The national political parties were not divided by ideology until the 20th century was more than half over. There were many Left progressives in the Republican party in the first half and especially first third of the last century. One only has to look up, among others, Robert LaFollette, Teddy Roosevelt, Hiram Johnson, Charle Evans Hughes (moderate), Wayne Morse, among many others. Liberal New York Mayor John Lindsay served in the 1960s. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Minnesota elected their share of moderate to liberal Republicans well into the middle of the last century, including California Governor and later Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren and anti-Vietnam War Representative Pete McClusky years later.
As to the Democrats, many "race conservative" Southerners were pro-New Deal under FDR; and many were also with Roosevelt on going to war circa 1940, while Midwestern Republicans, Left and Right, tended to be isolationist even as many were also moderate to liberal economically. There were also conservative northern and western Democrats, especially in upstate New York and New England and the Far West, notably the Southwest. Neither political party was monolithic in terms of ideology till relatively recently. Pre-1900 neither party was much to the Left or Right, as the Industrial Revolution did not lead unionization and more rights and better living conditions for people of modest to medium means. Regional loyalties, and the difference between city folk and country folk were larger factors than economic issues.
Laurence Harvey's performance was fine by me. His accent was not an issue. He was a movie actor, and young though he was, a seasoned one; and he got the job done. If he had tried for an American accent I doubt that it would have worked anyway, as he was known to be British (albeit South African born), and he was already a well known international player, if not a superstar. It was okay for the time, and that's what works for me. I found him credible in The Alamo, from a couple of years earlier, in which he also played an American, also an unlikeable fellow who yet did the right thing in the end, though not conflicted about it.
The Manchurian Candidate was so well made, first rate down the line, some offbeat casting (Sinatra, Henry Silva) didn't hurt it much. It was all part of the film's scheme, with unreality in play, people not being what they seem, not meaning what they say, much of the time anyway; director John Frankenheimer aced it with his expert direction. That some things about this movie are "off', don't feel quite credible, works for me in making it come alive. Some scenes and characters might have been better written, notably James Gregory's Joe McCarthy based senator, too obviously a jerk, and also in too obviously channeling McCarthy in some of his phrasing. John McGiver's senator was a bit too good to be true, and also a composite of in his case many real life political figures of the time (1962) the film was made. All criticism aside, the film is an American classic.
I agree wholeheartedly. Monty Clift was one of the best screen actors ever. He brought authenticity to everything he did. Just by the way he looks, and on paper, he was the world's most unlikely cowboy, yet I find him believable every step of the way in [b]Red River[/b].
Re Tiomkin: some of the music he wrote for [b]Red River[/b] turns up in [b]The Thing From Another World[/b]. It's strange hearing it during the cattle drive in the earlier film, but there it is.
I agree re Fay Dunaway. She was a beauty, and a classic one. Jane Fonda was "prettier" in an almost 'girl next door" way. This made her a better fit for films like They Shoot Horses and Klute. Dunaway was also a fine actress; she took chances; played some unlikable, even loathsome characters. The movies, American movies, were a lot more exciting and fun when these two talented ladies were in their heyday, at around the same time.
A thought on Jane and Faye: they both seemed like grownups even when they were young. Their manners, their voices, made them come across as real women, in the best sense of that term, while few (any?) young actresses in their twenties and thirties today have that quality (foreign, more likely).
Walking Distance for me. Also, it's a sunny episode, while it always feels dark in A Stop At Willoughby, the dream scenes set on old-time Willougby aside. The "today" reality part is just plain dark and depressing. Gig Young's character in WD always either drives or walks. He's healthy, and he looks it. James Daly looks way older than the age he was given in the show (36!); and he doesn't look healthy, either. Gig looks like he's ready to make a change of pace in his life, while Daly looks like his next step will be in a mortuary, which is apparently, and ironically, ends up when he steps off the train.
Entrapment is a theme in both of these early TZ episodes, and it's repeated throughout the series run.
It's a very good show, at its best as good as Dragnet, although the main law enforcement characters aren't so fleshed out. The stories make it work; and yes, there is a good deal of action.
Yes, and re Raymond Burr, he modeled his screen persona on Laird Cregar's, to a degree anyway. At his best, Burr could, like Cregar, draw the viewer in, and make one sympathize or at least empathize with his villainous or evil, as the case my be, characters. Burr was known to have been an admirer of Cregar's, just barely missed knowing or at least meeting him, by a couple of years prior to his arrival in Hollywood after World War II. Yet Cregar truly had no "successors", as such. Victor Buono was probably the nearest to him in this regard, although he had a more genial and lighthearted side. Cregar could play comedy well at times, however when he was playing a truly tragic figure he could own the screen better than any other actor I can think of. The nearest Buono came to play a Cregar-like part was his portrayal of the title role in the 1964 The Strangler, in which he was excellent.
I liked the James Mason Hitchcock hour entry very much when I first saw it just a few years back, when I still had a television, thus still had MeTV (it's a long story, but I moved last November, and the same day accidentally broke my set when I placed it on an overupholstered chair, and it hit the hardwood floor hard, and just smashed).
Mason's star power sells his episode, though it's a good one to begin with, but just imagine if it had been Barry Sullivan, Joseph Cotten or James Daly, good actors all, but not in Mason's league as a star, and not charismatic, and imagine how well it would played. Two of my first hour long seasons eps are from early on, A Piece Of The Action, just a good, well acted story, and Don't Look Behind You, in which Vera Miles seems to be stalked by half the male faculty members of a college. Great atmosphere, a spooky score, fair to middlin' writing, with Dick Sargent coming through in the end like he's the only sane one of the bunch.
I hope so, EC. Also, I'm hoping that the Moviechat admins don't start deleting posts, or closing threads that still have life in them. Psycho is sill alive ad kicking, as a classic movie AND a worthy topic for discussion.
Once more, EC, some interesting thoughts. The voices of actors is a seldom discussed topic these days; while the era of celebrity imitating comedians pretty much ended in the 70s.
Yet don't let us forget that distinctive voices were common in films as well as, arguably, more so, on radio, fifteen or twenty years prior to Psycho. In the very early 40s (1941-42) several popular, major movies were, and for many of us still, like catnip for the classic film buff. Think Rebecca (Colman, Fontaine, George Sanders, C. Aubrey Smith, Judith Anderson); or The Maltese Falcon. (Bogart, Astor, Greenstreet, Lorre, Cook and even the dynamic duo of Barton McLain and Ward Bond). These are great classic movies with great classic voices. Psycho is perhaps a tribute to those films; and maybe even an attempt to recapture their texture, visually (lighting, shadows, camera placement) and aurally (voices, often very subtle sound effects).
Thanks for all the decades musings, EC. They have my head spinning. Somewhat. As to the voices in Psycho, I've taken a shine to the somewhat similar vocal stylings of Johns Anderson and McIntire, with the former more deft and understated, the latter deadpan hilarious, a sort of Rocky & Bullwinkle for grownups. Both men had good runs in anthology shows of the same era as Psycho, and appeared in The Twilight Zone, as did several other cast members of the movie (Vaughn Taylor, Vera Miles, Balsam And Oakland, and even. in a tiny, non-speaking role, Ted Knight).
The 50s-60s and 70s-80s cusps in Hollywood is an interesting take on what seem in retrospect, competing eras; not at the time so much as now, viewed as four decades of the 20th century.
Those decades were also shaped by what even at the time, as a child, then teen, then a very young man, I was aware of as Old Hollywood in its death throes, and wasn't happy about. The historical breakdowns made major social change almost inevitable; and well beyond the usual suspects of Sex, Drugs and Rock & Roll: the rise of at the time a largely youth-driven culture led by Elvis, then JFK, with reality kicking in the the Vietnam war, the civil rights movements, and the massive changes in manners, morals and fashion implicit is S,D & R & R.
Psycho does appear as a key factor in these changes; as a template, a shocker and a hugely successful movie, filmed mostly on the Uni back lot, in glorious black and white and a cast of not thousands, or even hundreds but at most dozens; like maybe two or three, allowing for extras and very small parts players.
What happened, in the wake of all this isn't that Hollywood began changing history so much as history changing Hollywood. By around the mid to late 70s, the summer blockbuster era of movies, then Saturday Night Live, it's like America had become like Fernwood Tonight merged with Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman. No one could have predicted that. It was like a tsunami, and it came to a halt when Ronald Reagan became President and things began to settle; a little anyway.
That remark, as delivered by Lurene Tuttle, was one of the many comic moments in an otherwise serious and unsettling movie. She was a veteran radio actress, appeared frequently on TV in the 50s-60s, and very good. Miss Tuttle spoke that line in a rather loud whisper to Vera Miles, and in a manner consistent with the time in which Psycho was made.
And a Happy New Year to you, EC, and here's to good health and a long life!
Charming lady, gifted actress, often in light or comic roles. When I see Miss Johns in anything these days she brightens my spirits, and makes me wonder why there aren't more like her today. RIP, Miss Johns.
Yes, although for many, the Chaney, Jr. Wolf Man is up there, especially as he was, in non-wolf form, a man of conscience and moral integrity. In the Frankenstein monster there's an incipient humanity to him, yet he remains, due to the nature of his lab creation, essentially a dumb animal, albeit with some sympathetic human attributes.
I find the Karloff Mummy poignant, especially in his (admittedly) morbid romanticism, or obsessiveness, if one prefers a more clinical perspective. Dracula and other, similar vampire creatures, is nearly impossible to relate to, yet his aristocratic ancestry and, for a monster anyway, poise and good manners, make him stand out, and lend him a measure of charisma.
The Invisible Man, in the original 1933 film, is difficult for most of us to relate to due to his megalomania, sadism and overall narcissism, which came, for him, from the chemical that enabled him to become invisible, and was not inherent to his character prior to his becoming invisible. This, plus the fact that he can't be seen, make him wholly unlikable, unless, I suppose, the viewer has a yen for world domination and playing cruel tricks on innocent people.
Brilliant stuff, Swanstep. Your three posts are a pleasure to read, and I haven't even seen the god-damn movie! Thanks to much for staying alive and keeping up the good work. Writing about films, modern and classic, on the Internet, is more difficult than many years past; and there's so much more going on now, in the world, movie-wise, intellectually and socially, as to make one's head spin; but there are still some good places left, and new ones that have sprouted, post-IMDB, the relative safety of the old place, and the accompanying good fellowship (gender neutrally speaking) it's easy to get demoralized or just plain overwhelmed by all that's going on in the world, much less the film world. By all means, keep up the good work!
Indeed, EC, finding the classics by our own cleverness is the best way to go with this. YouTube and Archive.org both have lots of fans, and I gather that they get a lot of hits, in most senses of that word.
My growing fondness for classic TV is a nice way to find old movies that aren't really that old, and certainly not movies. Filmed in the style of the classics, with many shot on the wonderful still alive and kicking back lots of old Hollywood.
In their way, Perry Mason and Peter Gunn are chopped up movies, essentially first rate B's, allowing for the melodrama. Combat! is like a top of the line A picture, featuring a talented cast and guest players, and often amazingly well written stories, and not typical prime time fare.
Many if not most Combats eschew the easy irony of the most "vulnerable" new character of the week dying (a hero, of course); on Combat, a total jerk who cheats at cards not only survives but prospers. The only "typical" thing is that he's "brought down" by all the good guy regulars shunning him. "Big deal!", says the average viewer, "but he's still alive, and he still has his rank even though his dereliction of duty caused another man's death". There are no easy answers on this show.
Hitchcock's two shows made him a literal household name, and they also entertained the co-called average viewer, as to me they seem too subtle and sophisticated for prime time. But I guess not. For today, yes! For the Millennial viewers, they're too slow, too talky, too asexual, lack the requisite violence to please many if not most viewers.
The decline of the Old Guard classical education, practically a dinosaur now, is a major factor in this change of pace and love of speed and gimmicky effects. I see no way this is going to turn around. Even the elite, generally liberal Brandeis University is strongly considering discontinuing granting advanced degrees in English. They don't want to burden young people with an education there's almost no market for.
I've been away and round and about of late, EC, and delighted to see you back, whatever your screen monicker. My classic film viewing has been limited of late, due mostly to the local TV stations having gone digital-HD, although I still use an antenna and do not use cable, haven't for quite a few years now. Not a one of the digitals features classic Hollywood films exclusively, nor seems favorably inclined to draw classic film buff types to watch them, as younger viewers to a large extent steer clear if black and white films and TV shows, although many classic TV series of the 50s-60s are broadcast in black and white; and even shows that switched from one to the other, such as Andy Griffith's show, it gets a lot of air time, as does
The Honeymooners, which was all black and white, as well as the 60s Dick Van Dyke Show, ditto, get regular airings. So all is not lost. What I miss the most is the local PBS station, or rather stations, showing of classic movies of the 30-40s era, including even 50s sometimes. They had access to the Ted Turner library, and they used Turner's logo before showing those films. It was, for at least a quarter of a century, a treasure trove for people like me (us, I gather), with damn near the entire Warners and MGM pictures, mostly A level, shown on weekends, often in odd time slots, with occasional repeat airings of many old favorites, in the same week sometime.
That's been gone for at least a decade now, likely more, and I truly miss it, as it was my safety net for classic films. They didn't have most of the Paramount library, though they had some later films from the studio's backlog; and they showed many high quality Fox films, mostly from the post-1940 period, into the 50s, from The Grapes Of Wrath to at the very least All About Eve. Lots of Bette and Bogie pictures, too, 30s through 40s primarily, though their Warner package include two James Dean pictures, Rebel Without A Cause and Giant, but not, alas, Strangers On A Train.