Don't let Atomic Suplex see that !Children Of Men
Local hero
Researched that recently to confirm my suspicion that it couldn't be as good as I remembered. It is, of course, better than I remembered.
I love that, it adds another layer to the film. It's not confirmed or dwelled on either, it's just suggested in one shot.It’s a great film and one of my all-time favourites but I think the “Marina (Jenny Seagrove) is a mermaid” plot line is unnecessary and weird.
A - yes she does, that’s why the magazine is hiddenThe socialite never got tamed, otherwise the film wouldn't devote its last shot to the fact that she still does as she likes. Whether the wife is "shrewish" is up to interpretation. We find out that Thorwald is a horrible person and that he was probably having an affair, so she may have good reasons to hate him.
A - nopeA - yes she does, that’s why the magazine is hidden
B - do try to develop a sense of humour
That's what I thought we were doing but when I disagree with you, it frequently results in a personal attack on me.It’s all debatable dear heart, that’s why it’s art.
Re: Rear Window. One thing that makes it perfect is that you have to see it on a big screen to get the effect.
I dislike that actor who played the lead. Can't remember his name. he has ParkinsonsYou watched it next week
Yo dog, I heard you like etc. etc.Or through a window
RW is one of Hitchcock tautest films, no doubt. It’s just a piece of piss to criticise them from a feministy angle.
I dislike that actor who played the lead. Can't remember his name. he has Parkinsons
Apologies, I don’t mean to be personal, just thought the reaction was a tad serious for a light hearted post. I shall endeavour to make my light heart more obvious.That's what I thought we were doing but when I disagree with you, it frequently results in a personal attack on me.
All this shows is that it is a piece of piss to criticise them from a feminist angle, but that that doesn’t necessarily make that criticism right, or even particularly insightful on occasion. If Hitchcock films were just misogyny we wouldn’t still be watching and analysing them, there is clearly more to them than that. But his misogyny does often show through, even if he also challenges it within the same film. That tension is one of the things that make them great.The feminist discourse around Hitchcock's films has moved on a lot since Laura Mulvey and there have been plenty of reassessments by feminist film writers like Anne Billson, Tania Modleski, Camille Paglia and Robin Wood, who would disagree with you. Whole books have been written on the matter, so I'd dispute that its "a piece of piss". Many of Hitchcock films actively deal with a male/female power imbalance, they are about chauvinist men trying to change or mold women to their ideal. That doesn't mean that the films assert that the men are good guys for doing so. Other films of the period simply took a chauvinist stance for granted without investigating it. Hitchcock's films take that as their subject matter and deal with it. Doesn't mean he was a feminist, but his films aren't as simplistic as you make them out to be.
You appear to subscribe to a "showing means approving" type of interpretation, which assumes that films uncritically take the side of their main protagonist. That's never been the case with Hitchcock, who complicates things by giving his heroes unlikeable traits, while making his villains charismatic, charming and sometimes even quite vulnerable. Much has been written about how Hitchcock used James Stewart's decent, all-American image and darkened it, but giving him fetishistic, perverse and misogynist traits. Vertigo takes that to its logical and tragic end. The reason why that film is so highly acclaimed now, is not because people think James Stewart does right by Kim Novak.
If you come to Hitchcock's films with the bias that they must be misogynistic because men treat women poorly in some of them, then that's all you will see. Look further and it gets a lot more complicated. Thematically, it also makes the films far more rich.
I think I am a bit out of my depth, don't quite feel qualified to reply ha, I was just winging it.Don’t get me wrong, I love High Society so much I have a lyric tattooed on me, but it’s floundering to keep all the characters motivated. Inevitably it has to cut a boatload of content from the original to make room for the songs. And there’s content in all that rapid fire screwball dialogue in The Philadelphia Story.
The plot of TPS is more or less a traditional theatrical farce, but the enormous quantity of dialogue puts flesh on the insubstantial, improbable plot.
Musicals tell less story, hour for hour, than non musicals. When the plot is flimsy to start with, a musical will expose that. What High Society does have going for it is unmatched charm plus top performances and banging tunes... but it’s still got a hole in the middle where the plot is unsatisfying. Obviously all MHO.
And on the subject of Calamity Jane, while I agree Windy City and Whip Crack Away are barnstormers, the film is really quitesubversive in the way it represents womanhood. There are pretty mainstream reading of it as being a codified lesbian film, (“A Woman’s Touch” and “Secret Love” being the other two notable songs in the film) although that requires us to write off the Heteromantic ending.
Thing is, I was considering posting some more musicals yesterday. Singing in the Rain is glorious but the fifteen minute dance sequence has been shoehorned in and is just weird. Maybe The Wizard of Oz? and West Side Story. And Cabaret.
The Broadway Melody(?) sequence in Singin in the Rain is iconic, yes. It’s absolutely everything that’s the Technicolor MGM musical. Glorious. One of the best bits. All I’m saying is it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the plot of the film, even down to the leading lady.Love the dance sequence in Singin' in the Rain, it's not a flaw, it's a bonus.
West Side Story's flaw is its two bland leads and Natalie Wood's casting as a Puerto Rican.
For a feminist musical of the 50s (or at least as feminist as you get in the 50s), how about Gentlemen Prefer Blondes ? The main relationship in the film is the friendship between two women and it's a satire about how women navigate their way in a patriarchal society on their terms.
Meet Me in St. Louis is about as perfect a musical movie as I know.
Glorious in so many ways but Tony Curtis deliberately sets out to lie and deceive Sugar into bed. My sixth formers were quite scathing of how anyone could want them to end up together after that.Some Like it Hot
To say Hitch has complicated and dysfunctional ways re: representation of women is so obvious as to be pointless. But it’s not misogyny. For each Ice Queen in peril there’s an older, less glam woman who speaks truth to our hero and puts him in his place... just as there was at home.Apologies, I don’t mean to be personal, just thought the reaction was a tad serious for a light hearted post. I shall endeavour to make my light heart more obvious.
All this shows is that it is a piece of piss to criticise them from a feminist angle, but that that doesn’t necessarily make that criticism right, or even particularly insightful on occasion. If Hitchcock films were just misogyny we wouldn’t still be watching and analysing them, there is clearly more to them than that. But his misogyny does often show through, even if he also challenges it within the same film. That tension is one of the things that make them great.
In RW Mrs Thorwald is, imo, shown as shrewish, both through the glimpses we see of her and more especially because of Stewart’s commentary (which we go along with for the ride, initially). As the film progresses we see that her husband is obviously much worse. And by the end of the film, Grace can still only read that mag when hubby ain’t watching.
of course the film can be read on many other levels as well, that’s why it’s a proper classic.
A new film version of West Side Story by Spielberg was supposed to get released this year, but like most big films it has been pushed back to next year. In that one the lead actors do their own singing and Maria will be played by a Latin-American actress.You’re right about West Side Story. The leads are duff. And Natalie Wood’s vocals are dubbed too. The stage version is perfect, though.
Et une vache!La Haine. Beautiful cinamatograhy, characters and le hip hop.