MovieChat Forums > roger1 > Replies
roger1's Replies
I've always thought it must be...interesting? ...to actors and actresses to meet up again on new movies -- work , not just a party -- with former co-stars. So often, cast members make a movie and never see each other again...but sometimes they do. It must have been tough for Swanson and Olsen -- who I would expect TALKED to each other on the Airport 1975 set -- to know that they had last been together on a stone cold classic.
The two actors I always noticed working together again were Anthony Perkins and Martin Balsam. In the classic Psycho(1960) Perkins famously and bloodily stabbed Balsam to death on a staircase in a blockbuster movie. They met again ten years later on Catch 22 (1970) filming in Mexico. (Balsam's Army captain in that movie speaks to Perkins' army chaplain while sitting on the toilet.) Then they met again on "Murder on the Orient Express" in 1974. Was the greeting, "Marty...my old murder victim! How the heck are you?"
Yeah, its too bad.
By the way, I'm older but I find often when I deal with females "at the counter" these days, and they are a bit older too, I get "honey" from them a lot. "Here you go, honey." I think it is an affectation, but I like to hear it!.
Its interesting: Ruth Roman was definitely not a "Hitchocck blonde." Hitch didn't want her for Strangers on a Train, she was pushed on him by the studio. (He borrowed Robert Walker from MGM.) I've never read who else he wanted for the role -- Grace Kelly wasn't known yet, really and the role was too small for Ingrid Bergman.
So we end up with Ruth Roman at her sexiest -- a certain raw physicality to her -- and to my mind , sometime in alignment with the gay overtones of Strangers on a Train. Guy and Bruno seem to be miming a gay romance(well, Bruno wants it)...Ruth Roman for all her beauty, has a kind of mannish, butch quality to her.
Why didn't Ruth Roman have a bigger career?
Well, I'm not sure exactly when it happened -- sometime in the 60's , I think - but the "mannish" look of Ruth Roman started to take over as she aged. She added weight, started "looking rough," often played tough aging alcoholic types.
Earlier than that, the key reason Ruth Roman didn't become a star is...she didn't get enough star movies. Grace Kelly did. Audrey Hepburn did. Elizabeth Taylor did. A level down, Janet Leigh did.
Tough business.
PS. I read some interview with some guy who worked on Strangers on a Train and he said that just hanging around the set, Ruth Roman turned all the men on. "She had this blouse that she wore..."
A matter of admitted reality about the two leads of Strangers on a Train:
Robert Walker, a straight man, was playing gay.
Farley Granger, a gay man, was playing straight.
Acting!
I've always opined that Hitchcock "slipped gay characters into his movies" because the Hays Code forbade having gay characters, so he just snuck 'em in. The two killers in Rope. Bruno in Strangers on a Train. Martin Landau in North by Northwest.
There has been political anger expressed that gays were so often villains in Old Hollywood -- "the other." And yet with Hitchcock, I'm not so sure he didn't slip some gay HEROES in there, too. His grouchy men who didn't much like the women who desired them.
The movie "Hitchcock" (2012) about the making of Psycho, has a rather obvious in-joke when Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) interviews the closeted gay Anthony Perkins(James D'Arcy) for the role of Norman Bates:
Hitchcock: Tony, have you seen any of my films?
Perkins: Yes.. I particularly like Rope and Strangers on a Train.
Wink, wink. Nudge nudge.
I would also like to note that while Walker plays "stage gay circa 1951" in certain ways as Bruno, he actually has more of a FEY, nutty, otherworldly persona and he proves quite the "macho man" in easily seducing Granger's slutty estranged wife at the fairgrounds -- he's a MAN and she is surrounded by BOYS. Two moments there: (1) Bruno slams the "test your strength" hammer and rings the bell easily(he's STRONG, she likes that, its why he's beating Guy on the carousel at the end) and (2) a provocative sexual shot of Bruno standing with his legs spread giving Miriam a definite "lets do it" look.
So Bruno's sexuality really moves out in all directions.
The scene is fantasy, but it's still one of Hitchcock's most entertaining movies. A little suspension of disbelief is a great aid toward the enjoyment of most movies.
---
As Hitchcock told Truffaut "Other people's movies are a slice of life. Mine are a slice of cake."
Hitch didn't always go for super-entertaining fantasy. He was very "serious" in movies like Lifeboat, Notorious, Under Capricorn, I Confess, The Wrong Man, and Topaz.
But when he WANTED to pull out all the fantastic movie stops, he did: Strangers on a Train, Rear Window, North by Northwest, Psycho, The Birds.
The shooting into the carousel was the icing on the cake, although I did enjoy the comical bit on the train, with the minister, in the movie's final scene.
--
That's a great ending with the minister -- a perfect "bookend" to the beginning -- but weirdly enough, today(2023) this is NOT considered the ending. At least not to "the American version of Strangers on a Train."
Its the "British version ending." This is insane.
The American version ends with the so-so scene right BEFORE the minister scene. Ruth Roman hangs up the phone on an unseen Farley Granger and tells sister Pat Hitchcock that Granger is coming home to change clothes or something. Just a NOTHING scene -- for an ending. OK for a scene BEFORE the ending.
No matter. The minister ending is PERFECT, one of the best Hitchcock endings. I choose it.
---
Not for nothing was Alfred Hitchcock called the Master.
---
Incredibly dominant "in his time." He was followed by decades of followers who may have made "more violent movies" (DePalma, Scorsese, Tarantino) but Hitchcock WAS the man back then and he remains popular today. I think historian Camille Paglia called it: Hitchcock -- what with his giant TV stardom to go along with his movie career -- was "above his Hollywood peers." On a level of his own, alongside the great artists of all time. And showmen.
Truly, EC. A movie to cherish, yet largely unrealistic at the climax, even as it's so exciting.
--
I probably "buried this point" elsewhere in this thread, but I think we have to consider Hitchcock himself KNOWING that this climax was unrealistic -- but very exciting -- and he did it almost as "self parody."
He suggested some years later that "North by Northwest" was somewhat self-parody and I say that Strangers on a Train and North by Northwest play similar roles in the Hitchcock canon.
They both come after two or more "too serious" Hitchcock films that didn't do well at the box office.
NXNW first: it followed the flop of The Wrong Man and the near-flop of Vertigo...both very downbeat movies. So Hitchocck "pulled out all the stops" and gave his audience all the thrills and action he could under 1959 terms -- including a fantasy climax on Mount Rushmore!
Strangers on a Train: Notorious (a rather action-free movie) had been Hitchcock's last hit, in 1946. Then came The Paradine Case(a disaster), Rope(good but banned over its gay material), Under Capricorn(a costume picture) and Stage Fright(an OK British mystery film.) The 50's had arrived and Hitchcock needed a BIG HIT. So he converted Patricia Highsmith's novel into a fast paced thriller with a great psychpath villain and a climax not in the book -- that berserk carousel.
---
The first time I saw Strangers On A Train, on the late movie, senior year in high school, I was wholly charmed, totally involved in its story.
---
Me, too, on the late movie. The first time I watched it alone. When they showed it again a year later, I gathered some friends to watch -- I thought it was that good. There is a certain hormone-driven innocent excitement to youth as a movie fan. And remember, back then, Hitchcock was just about the only game in town for action and suspense movies.
CONT
I think they call it "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark" on DVD covers and streaming menus now.
I wish they wouldn't.
I remember that when it was just called "Raiders of the Lost Ark" no information was given out for all of the production time about the PLOT, or about Indiana Jones.
If it had gone into production in 1980 as "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark," we would have at least had a clue.
More on this thread:
https://moviechat.org/tt0082971/Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark/6253159349abdc4fe214e7a0/When-Raiders-of-the-Lost-Ark-Was-in-Production-in-1980-I-Had-No-Idea-What-It-Was-About
Bond.
And never Bourne.
That "series" was like the same movie over and over and over. With "shaky cam" car chases that will look plenty dated not too long from now. And...Matt Damon? (though he ended up looking better than his replacement, Jeremy Renner.) Fight scenes were OK.
Indy is really a trilogy. Everything since then doesn't matter.
PS. There is a scene in the first Bourne where Matt Damon outfoxes and kills enemy agent Clive Owen. I remember thinking: DAMON is the star here? Not OWEN?
Don't people still call each other "Honey" and "Baby" anymore? It seems an all purpose term of endearment, men to women, women to men....
A pity.
This movie came out in 1915, and Airplane! in 1917. Airplane scriptwriters saw that, and built up on it.
---
Er...1974 and 1980?
---
Lots of airport movies got referenced in Airplane (including the full food poisoning plot of "Zero Hour" (1957) ) but it seems that "the singing nun and the kidney girl" is THE scene from Airport 1975 fully given its due in Airplane. Helen Reddy had some good radio hits in the 70's -- some of them saucy -- but THIS song and her singing were just atrocious.
I occasionally watch Airport 1975 and when Reddy starts singing to Linda Blair, I am EXPECTING the guitar to knock off the feeding tube and Blair to start crossing her eyes...but then I remember "wrong movie."
There is also a shot in Airport 1975 of a doctor at the "kidney storage" unit talking to someone on the phone. No kidneys are visible. In "Airplane," a kidney is bouncing all around the room, hopping even.
Comedy Gold.
Since these ratings were self-imposed by the studios over their own "product for sale," in the beginning they
WANTED to have a LOT of G movies so as to invite EVERYBODY.
Some other G movies of question in 1969:
The Italian Job: Michael Caine is released from prison and goes to brothel. All the "girls" are lined up for him and he is asked "which one do you want?" His answer with a smile: "all of them."
True Grit: A man gets all his fingers chopped off with a machete that is then jammed through his heart.
Again, they figured "hey, we want everybody to come -- so G it is."
They kept having to tweak the system:
M became GP so people wouldn't think it was an X.
GP became PG so people wouldn't think it was a G.
X became NC-17 so it would sound like "X-rated pornography."
PG added PG-13 for "the older pre-teen child."
From the original GMRX, only the G and the R remain...and G is for pre-school kids. Disney likes PG ratings to attract older kids.
Michael Cera would be great, too.
---
You have to figure that with QT saying he's looking for someone 35, every actor even CLOSE to that age is going to come calling...fronted by their hungry agents.
You're welcome on the preview information. I think that QT knows how to slowly but surely develop interest in his new movies, a bit of information at a time. I'll be watching for more tidbits.
But this thing will REALLY pick up traction when he starts announcing a cast. The big question: will he keep the cast tight and "new" -- or will he find cameos for everybody he ever worked with (Sam Jackson, Leo, Brad, Travolta, DeNiro, Pacino, Russell, Thurman, Leigh...)
PS. One thing I forgot to mention about Airport '77.
Alfred Hitchcock was actually brought into pre-production talks on the film, not to direct it, but to advise on the filming of the "rescue finale" in which balloons were placed under the underwater plane to bring it to the surface(not very long before sinking again, so everybody has to get out fast.)
I picture Hitchcock on the Universal lot in the 70's as kind of a "guiding old mentor" on things. He took a lot of lunches with the young generation and indeed advised here and there on projects.
Note in passing: Netflix isn't showing Airport 79, which has a reputation as the worst in the bunch by far.
Of the three they are showing, I must admit all three films exploit the terror of air travel gone wrong in three terrifying ways:
1. Bomber on the plane; bomb explodes.
2. Light plane hits jet and removes the entire cockpit crew! (Chuck Heston has to be lowered in mid-flight, after ANOTHER guy tries and dies.)
3. Art thieves out to hijack rich James Stewart's art collection knock out the crew and passengers with gas but crash underwater . Crew and passengers awakenwith the plane underwater at the edge of a cliff. Talk about claustrophobia. My hands sweat watching this one.
I gotta admit something about watching these movies this time around "Got to me." Those were HORRIBLE scenarios. (In real life in 1978, a light plane DID hit a jet landing in San Diego, killing everybody . Chuck Heston wasn't there.) "Airplane" made fun of them (especially the singing nun and kidney transplant girl in 1975) and 9/11 gave us a nightmare version of them. They're just no fun anymore.
I think with both the Airport sequels and the Psycho sequels, you just have to drop the sequels as mattering at all. Yes, Airport 1975 has more realistic shots of real jets in the sky "in trouble," but it is a threadbare cheapo production. At least "Airport" gave us TWO major stars(Lancaster and Martin...not Paul Newman and Steve McQueen though -- see how fleeting stardom is?)
As for the Psycho sequels, the original was famously filmed real cheap(partly due to the stars and HItchcock cutting their pay) so the sequels got to be cheap too -- and to depend on slasher murders for box office. But they weren't GOOD slasher murders.
That was in 1974. A few months later in 1975 it was announced that Alfred Hitchcock had cast -- Karen Black and Roy Thinnes -- in two of the leads in his new movie, "Deceit."
I remember I found that disappointing. "So Hitchcock is casting with Universal's current contract players -- and Thinnes isn't very big at all." As it turned out, Hitchcock fired Thinnes a few weeks into shooting and replaced him with the equally low wattage but more interesting William Devane.
Airport 1975 also contributed another Universal contract player to Deceit...renamed Family Plot. It was the dullish Alan Fudge, an air traffic controller in Airport 1975, the helicopter pilot on the ransom pick up in Family Plot. Indded, Family Plot's support casting in 1976 was rather like that of Psycho's in 1960 : the players available at the time. Far fewer "known" support names in 1976, I'd say.
---
Airport '77 chose an interesting "fading star" lead as its heroic pilot: Jack Lemmon. Lemmon was asked why he had not been in a disaster movie yet and he said "nobody asked me." He later said he regretted making Airport '77, but I say it was a heroic, macho role that rather saved him from permanent Felix Unger status in the 70's...he was playing entirely too many neurotic wimps.
Hitchcock connections: a very elderly James Stewart in a cameo as the very rich man whose private jet sinks underwater in the Bermuda Triangle and causes the crisis.
And "Uncle Charlie" is on board: a very aged but elegant Joseph Cotten. I liked a shot of Stewart standing next to Lemmon...its the two of them 19 years after Lemmon supported Stewart in Bell, Book and Candle(1958) and the 70's were sure different than the 50s.
CONT
To me, the connection between the "Airport" sequels and the "Psycho" sequels was this: all were pretty cheapjack productions, with poor scripts. Irony: "Airport"(the original) had a pretty poor script too -- it FITS the sequels in that regard. Meanwhile Psycho stands alone and apart as a classic work of popular art, with a "top of the line" professional screenplay based on a very good novel of its type.
---
The Psycho sequels landed only two stars from the original film -- Anthony Perkins(no longer a star but still a thin and handsome man) and Vera Miles(for Psycho 2 only, looking much OLDER than Perkins and dying in this one.) Thereafter the sequel casts for the Psycho films were pretty much "star free"; Perkins had to carry the load alone.
Two of the three Airport sequels managed to grab one "name" star(somewhate faded) but couldn't pull off two as Airport had with Lancaster and Martin:
Airport 1975 gave us Charlton Heston as the star, and boy did two things happen to Chuck in the 70's: (1) he WORKED all the time(the period epics were over, now he found a new trade: disaster movies) and (2) the movies were all pretty bad and devalued his stardom quite a bit. He became "the highest paid B actor in Hollywood."
Heston WANTED to play Chief Brody in "Jaws" during this period, and as a Universal contractee, had a shot. But had he gotten the role, Jaws would have suddenly seemed like nothing much, the usual Universal potboiler(with George Kennedy as Quint, no doubt.)
Airport 1975 has a couple of Hitchcock connections:
Karen Black has the female lead -- and got some good reviews for her performance. She's "the stewardess flying the plane!" when a light plane hits the jet and kills two out of three of the cockpit crew and critically injures the pilot. And yet -- she seemed a bit "below grade" as a star. Roy Thinnes has a short part as the co-pilot sucked out of the plane on crash impact.
CONT
But this: watching “Airport” in proximity to “Psycho,” one is AGAIN reminded that blockbusters come in different types, and that compared to the square and clunky "Airport," “Psycho” was incredibly artful in its direction, composition, camera moves and montage and MUCH better written than “Airport.” Still, “Airport” was exciting family entertainment in a year where there wasn’t much of that: its Best Picture competition included Five Easy Pieces and MASH.
--
I return to note: Airport and Psycho have one pretty strong connection which is worth bringing up.
In each case, the first movie was blockbuster hit enough to generate SEQUELS. But in each case, the sequels just couldn't match the original. These sequels were all made by Universal Pictures--- Psycho was a Paramount release filmed at Universal , bought by Universal and sequelled by Universal. So we ended up with "Universal sequels' and they were all pretty poor in construction, writing, presentation, etc.
Now Airport 2 came only four years after the original. It was called "Airport 1975" and inexplicably released in October of 1974. Then came "Airport '77" -- "19" was dropped. Then came the awkwardly titled "The Concorde: Airport 1979."
Meanwhile, Psycho 2 came TWENTY-THREE years after the original, a record at the time( I believe) and with that kind of decades-long distance, Psycho 2 felt very disconnected from the original. There had been time for ALL the movies of the 60s, ALL the movies of the 70's, and a few years of the 80's before Psycho 2 saw theater screens(Hitchcock died in 1980 which I think "cleared the way" to make Psycho 2 for 1983 release; I'm not sure they would have tried it while he was still alive.)
CONT
Schyler. (the obnoxious kid) Cindy Bakersfeld. (Burt's Wife) Marcus Rathbone (actually, he DOES get smacked now that I think about it!)The lady smuggler.
---
Marcus Rathbone is the most villainous person in the movie. Even the bomber (mad?) is kinda sad.
The movie did something interesting with the character.
In the book, Rathbone is introduced only as Dean Martin grabs the briefcase from Van Heflin. Author Arthur Hailey wrote someting like "And the incident -- except for restraining Guerrero and turning him over later -- should have been over. That it was not was due to a man across the aisle: Marcus Rathbone." Hailey then gives us a paragraph of background on Rathbone as a lifelong misanthrope, gadfly and ruiner of other people's fun.. And Rathbone gives the briefcase back to Guerrero.
There's no time to stop the movie for a "flashback biography of Marcus Rathbone," so the script smartly introduces us to Rathbone early in the movie and in little scenes along the way, always loudly complaining: on the bus; at the ticket counter; on the plane. Thus, when it comes time for the "big briefcase grab," we just KNOW that Rathbone is going to ruin things and then he ruins them one more time -- yelling "he's got a bomb!" just when Gurerro was going to give up the case.
Yep, whatever one thinks of Airport, Marcus Rathbone is one of the great hateable movie characters of all time. Acted by Peter Turgeon -- his little piece of movie history.