What Movie You Watching?

[Shrink]

Originally Posted by Scepticalscribe

Ah, yes, the 'hard-boiled detective' genre - I really should take a look at some of them, as it is not a genre I am very familiar with.

For a first directorial effort, 'The Maltese Falcon' is just flawless, and simply superb. Was Humphrey Bogart the first choice to play Sam Spade? Something is giving a twinge in the back of my mind suggesting that he might not have been.

Of course, the irrepressible Orson Welles also had an outstanding (and yes, flawless, too) directorial debut with the superlative 'Citizen Kane'. I remember the first time I saw it - I had feared that it would not live up to all I had read about it. But it did. It is a spellbindingly brilliant, complex, clever, fast, nuanced, highly intelligent movie, with fantastic cinematography, lighting, pacing, and is a stunning example of excellent ensemble acting and using the medium of film to tell a richly layered morality tale. I was awestruck, and could watch it again and again.

Well, "Citizen Kane" is the absolute ultimate first directorial triumph. And both Welles and Huston went on to make some pretty good films. Definitely not one shot wonders!

As for who was first choice for the Marlowe role in the Falcon...get this... it was George Raft! And actor who makes wooden Indians look over animated. A man with the acting talent of a chair. And he turned it down because he knew this would be Huston's first directorial assignment, and he didn't want to put his career in the hands of a novice. Please note, even as an actor, Huston could act Raft off the screen, but Raft didn't trust him as a director. Imagine Raft rather than Bogart!

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by Scepticalscribe

Ah, yes, the 'hard-boiled detective' genre - I really should take a look at some of them, as it is not a genre I am very familiar with.

For a first directorial effort, 'The Maltese Falcon' is just flawless, and simply superb. Was Humphrey Bogart the first choice to play Sam Spade? Something is giving a twinge in the back of my mind suggesting that he might not have been.

Of course, the irrepressible Orson Welles also had an outstanding (and yes, flawless, too) directorial debut with the superlative 'Citizen Kane'. I remember the first time I saw it - I had feared that it would not live up to all I had read about it. But it did. It is a spellbindingly brilliant, complex, clever, fast, nuanced, highly intelligent movie, with fantastic cinematography, lighting, pacing, and is a stunning example of excellent ensemble acting and using the medium of film to tell a richly layered morality tale. I was awestruck, and could watch it again and again.

I love Film Noir. They don't make movies like that any more although there have been some attempts like LA Confidential.

[Scepticalscribe]

Originally Posted by Shrink

Well, "Citizen Kane" is the absolute ultimate first directorial triumph. And both Welles and Huston went on to make some pretty good films. Definitely not one shot wonders!

As for who was first choice for the Marlowe role in the Falcon...get this... it was George Raft! And actor who makes wooden Indians look over animated. A man with the acting talent of a chair. And he turned it down because he knew this would be Huston's first directorial assignment, and he didn't want to put his career in the hands of a novice. Please note, even as an actor, Huston could act Raft off the screen, but Raft didn't trust him as a director. Imagine Raft rather than Bogart!

Thank you for that. Yes, I had a vague recollection that Humphrey Bogart (who was absolutely perfect in that role - in fact, so good was he that you simply cannot conceive of anyone else, ever, playing it instead) had not been the first choice and that someone who enjoyed a considerable profile at the time, (but who has since become quite forgettable) had been offered it.

Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, ah.....what a wonderfully atmospheric film. And I love that the characters are all so flawed, and that hardly any of them conform to some notional standard of what it is to be good looking. (One of my pet gripes about modern US movies is that everyone is so impossibly, implausibly, and blandly, almost identikit good looking - there is hardly any character visible anywhere, because Botox has taken care of the etching of life's lessons on the human face, leaving this sterile and superficially flawless facade behind, devoid of laugh lines, crinkles, and any expression which owes anything to the experience of living).

Originally Posted by Huntn

I love Film Noir. They don't make movies like that any more although there have been some attempts like LA Confidential.

Yes, I do too - well, the classics, at any rate. And yes, I did enjoy LA Confidential; terrific acting, a great cast, an excellent and brooding atmosphere and a rich and complex narrative.

[Shrink]

Originally Posted by Scepticalscribe

Thank you for that. Yes, I had a vague recollection that Humphrey Bogart (who was absolutely perfect in that role - in fact, so good was he that you simply cannot conceive of anyone else, ever, playing it instead) had not been the first choice and that someone who enjoyed a considerable profile at the time, (but who has since become quite forgettable) had been offered it.

Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, ah.....what a wonderfully atmospheric film. And I love that the characters are all so flawed, and that hardly any of them conform to some notional standard of what it is to be good looking. (One of my pet gripes about modern US movies is that everyone is so impossibly, implausibly, and blandly, almost identikit good looking - there is hardly any character visible anywhere, because Botox has taken care of the etching of life's lessons on the human face, leaving this sterile and superficially flawless facade behind, devoid of laugh lines, crinkles, and any expression which owes anything to the experience of living).



Yes, I do too - well, the classics, at any rate. And yes, I did enjoy LA Confidential; terrific acting, a great cast, an excellent and brooding atmosphere and a rich and complex narrative.

BTW: It was Sidney Greenstreet's first film role!

[Huntn]

Regarding Citizen Kane, it's got great elements, set high standards, is intriguing, great cinematography, but I ultimately, I found the story unsatisfying.

[Shrink]

Originally Posted by Huntn

Regarding Citizen Kane, it's got great elements, set high standards, is intriguing, great cinematography, but I ultimately, I found the story unsatisfying.

First, I would never question your personal evaluation of the movie.

I'm sure you're aware that the film was firmly based on the life of William Randolph Hearst, so there was a bit of a limitation on Welles who wanted it to be close enough to Hearst's life so no one would miss the connection.

Just a little bit of fun about "Rosebud". Mankiewicz had learned that "Rosebud" was Hearst's pet name for Marion Davies clitoris...and used it in the movie for other purposes. As you can imagine, Hearst wasn't thrilled about that, or any part of the movie, and famously tried to buy all the copies of the film from RKO to burn them. Surprisingly, RKO stood up to him, so Hearst ordered that none of his newspapers (and he controlled a massive empire) would not accept advertising of RKO films, and Luella Parson's (who along with Hedda Hopper and Walter Winchell were extremely powerful at the time) would not review RKO films.

If you've read this far, Huntn, could you talk a bit more about what you found lacking, or unsatisfying about the film. I'm really interested since it is a brave position to take in the face of almost universal praise of the film.

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by Shrink

First, I would never question your personal evaluation of the movie.

I'm sure you're aware that the film was firmly based on the life of William Randolph Hearst, so there was a bit of a limitation on Welles who wanted it to be close enough to Hearst's life so no one would miss the connection.

Just a little bit of fun about "Rosebud". Mankiewicz had learned that "Rosebud" was Hearst's pet name for Marion Davies clitoris...and used it in the movie for other purposes. As you can imagine, Hearst wasn't thrilled about that, or any part of the movie, and famously tried to buy all the copies of the film from RKO to burn them. Surprisingly, RKO stood up to him, so Hearst ordered that none of his newspapers (and he controlled a massive empire) would not accept advertising of RKO films, and Luella Parson's (who along with Hedda Hopper and Walter Winchell were extremely powerful at the time) would not review RKO films.

If you've read this far, Huntn, could you talk a bit more about what you found lacking, or unsatisfying about the film. I'm really interested since it is a brave position to take in the face of almost universal praise of the film.

Fascinating trivia. I did know about WRH and I remember when this movie was called the greatest movie ever made. Maybe it still is. The story descended into a dark place, a place where I would not want to watch it multiple times like I do with my favorite movies. In a way similar to Schindler's List. I can call it outstanding and profound, but I only want to watch it once. So I acknowledge these are great movies, but in CK's example, I don't like where the story took me. Not saying that I can only enjoy movies with happy endings.

[twietee]

I feel a bit like Huntn. Since I'm much younger and don't know much about Hearst or what kind of life he led, but it's not a character I am so overtly interested in, and in the end it's a bit like a fairy tale with a moral at the end of the story, which, for me, is always a bit tedious. We see the rise and fall of a great person, American dream comes true, ultimately the Emperor with no clothes.

Brilliant movie, but nothing that touches me emotionally. Doesn't have to, though, to be a good movie of course.

[Scepticalscribe]

Originally Posted by Shrink

First, I would never question your personal evaluation of the movie.

I'm sure you're aware that the film was firmly based on the life of William Randolph Hearst, so there was a bit of a limitation on Welles who wanted it to be close enough to Hearst's life so no one would miss the connection.

Just a little bit of fun about "Rosebud". Mankiewicz had learned that "Rosebud" was Hearst's pet name for Marion Davies clitoris...and used it in the movie for other purposes. As you can imagine, Hearst wasn't thrilled about that, or any part of the movie, and famously tried to buy all the copies of the film from RKO to burn them. Surprisingly, RKO stood up to him, so Hearst ordered that none of his newspapers (and he controlled a massive empire) would not accept advertising of RKO films, and Luella Parson's (who along with Hedda Hopper and Walter Winchell were extremely powerful at the time) would not review RKO films.

If you've read this far, Huntn, could you talk a bit more about what you found lacking, or unsatisfying about the film. I'm really interested since it is a brave position to take in the face of almost universal praise of the film.

Wow, thank you for that fascinating piece of information. While I knew about the fact that the movie was based on the life of W. R. Hearst - and that his publishing empire 'blacked' the movie, and also refused to carry RKO advertising, I had assumed 'Rosebud' was a clever allegory on the idiocy of the media in chasing what they hope might be revealing details which are irrelevant, (often at the expense of a bigger story under their noses) and was also a sad reflection on the ultimate emotional bleakness of Kane's own life at the end, but I hadn't known that delicious detail.

Hm. It shall intensify my enjoyment of 'Citizen Kane' when I next see it. Re what moves people, and emotionally satisfying and unsatisfying movies, one of the things that does interest me is the effect of power on people, and here, Citizen Kane offers a magnificent and psychologically satisfying - if dark and disturbing - case study.

[twietee]

Maybe I've to see it again, but Sunset Boulevard, just as an example, seems to me much more complex and manipulative re character development. But well, both are good movies.

[Scepticalscribe]

Originally Posted by twietee

Maybe I've to see it again, but Sunset Boulevard, just as an example, seems to me much more complex and manipulative re character development. But well, both are good movies.

Oh, Sunset Boulevard is just brilliant. Everything works, plot, character, (use of old movie clips), drama, cinematography, epic scope of the tale, great magisterial acting. That is another movie I regard as nothing short of cinematic perfection. Sheer class.

Granted, Citizen Kane is more 'political' and deals more with issues such as power, but then, the study of politics and power are some of the things that I find hugely interesting.

[Shrink]

Originally Posted by twietee

Maybe I've to see it again, but Sunset Boulevard, just as an example, seems to me much more complex and manipulative re character development. But well, both are good movies.

Originally Posted by Scepticalscribe

Oh, Sunset Boulevard is just brilliant. Everything works, plot, character, (use of old movie clips), drama, cinematography, epic scope of the tale, great magisterial acting. That is another movie I regard as nothing short of cinematic perfection. Sheer class.

Granted, Citizen Kane is more 'political' and deals more with issues such as power, but then, the study of politics and power are some of the things that I find hugely interesting.

I agree that "Sunset Boulevard" was an emotionally complex and extremely well done movie. Gloria Swanson's completely over the top performance was perfect...another example of the right actor in the right role. In other films, her silent era style was not appropriate in the post talkie, lower key acting style that had developed. But in this movie...just right.

Here's a little kicker...the actor originally signed to play the young man was Montgomery Clift. An interesting actor, to be sure, but much too soft and "suffering" actor to play the Holden part. I cannot imagine Clift in the role, as I cannot really imagine anyone other than Holden in the role.

As far as comparisons with "Citizen Kane"...we'll have to agree to disagree. While "Sunset Boulevard" is an excellent film, it does not have the power of Kane on so many levels. Also, Kane's direction and cinematography were historic, original, and ground breaking. Greg Toland's use of extreme depth of field photography was a first. Scene's in the gigantic room at Xanadu were breathtaking in their power and originality. The extreme camera angles were also a first. So much of the film's techniques broke cinematic ground, and became part of the visual lexicon used to this day.

[marcial]

Not much into movies. But the last one I saw was very recent: Ironman 3.

[zachlegomaniac]

Evil Dead 2. What a blast!

Re-watching a lot of favorites these days. I have 2001: Space Odyssey on tap next (followed by more Kubrick).

[Huntn]

Not picking on anyone in particular, but including a "like" or "dislike" comment about what you saw gives us something to talk about. No offense intended.

[Shrink]

Originally Posted by Huntn

Not picking on anyone in particular, but including a "like" or "dislike" comment about what you saw gives us something to talk about. No offense intended.

OK...I can take a hint!

I know my posts are so short, and I'm so shy about stating my opinions...I'll try to come out of my shell.

[Huntn]

Originally Posted by Shrink

OK...I can take a hint!

I know my posts are so short, and I'm so shy about stating my opinions...I'll try to come out of my shell.

I was not thinking of you. Even though the thread only asks "What Movie You Watching?" I think when someone says "saw Avengers" it would be more interesting and helpful to those who have not see it, if they also include a feeling about it. But it's not required or anything.

[Shrink]

Originally Posted by Huntn

I was not thinking of you. Even though the thread only asks "What Movie You Watching?" I think when someone says "saw Avengers" it would be more interesting and helpful to those who have not see it, if they also include a feeling about it. But it's not required or anything.

Just joking, of course. If my posts were any more opinionated, pedantic, boring , or longer...I'd get Edited for exceeding character limits!

I do agree with your suggestion...some expression of evaluation of what one is watching would make for more lively discussion.

[Huntn]

Saw Star Trek Into Darkness yesterday. Compared to the first one, I was disappointed for this primary reason, the movie was too frantic, frantic action and frantic camera work.

One of the high points, surprised Kirk was not all over that. :
.

Star Trek Into Darkness Spoilers Follow

Not a deal breaker, but I did not buy Kirk going into the core to kick some equipment. I really liked Khan, but wondered why he did not have long hair.

Happy to see Robo Cop and not that sad to see Admiral Pike go as I still had not forgiven him for double crossing Ashely Judd. (actors from and other movie refs)

[SandboxGeneral]

Tonight its Ace Ventura: Pet Detective!

[ritmomundo]

Originally Posted by SandboxGeneral

Tonight its Ace Ventura: Pet Detective!

Alrighty then!!

[Plutonius]

A very stupid but funny movie .