🚀 go-pugleaf

Bob wrote:
> I saw this film last night on Turner Classics, having seen bits and pieces
> over the years.  I never like the bits and pieces, so I gave the entire film
> a fair chance.  The accalim this film has received susrpises me.  The
> reviews on IMDB were mostly gushing (but then it seems the posters there are
> generally those who have been impressesd with  a film).
>
> Too many parts of the film, for my part,  were beyond belief.

Well, Condon's specialty -- and it's true in Winter Kills as well as
Manchurian Candidate -- is to ask the question "What if all your
paranoid nightmares about American politics were absolutely true"

>I still
> haven't figured out Janet Leigh's purpose in the film.  And several
> characters were overdone, e.g., the clown of a senator and the bald headed
> Korean intelligence chief.  And talk about miscasting!  Larence Harvey as an
> American sergeant!  Give me a break.

Well, Laurence Harvey as a cold, unlikeable emotionally empty automaton
killer is perfectly buyable.

Manchurian Candidate is essentially all-American surrealism, and works
straight from the novel (between MC, Winter Kills and Prizzi's Honor,
Condon has had remarkable luck with movie adaptations of his novels) --
It doesn't operate on a "realistic" level. Everything is an
exaggeration, an overstatement, except for Angela Lansbury and Sinatra.


John Harkness

Harkness wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>> I saw this film last night on Turner Classics, having seen bits and
>> pieces over the years.  I never like the bits and pieces, so I gave
>> the entire film a fair chance.  The accalim this film has received
>> susrpises me.  The reviews on IMDB were mostly gushing (but then it
>> seems the posters there are generally those who have been impressesd
>> with  a film).
>>
>> Too many parts of the film, for my part,  were beyond belief.
>
> Well, Condon's specialty -- and it's true in Winter Kills as well as
> Manchurian Candidate -- is to ask the question "What if all your
> paranoid nightmares about American politics were absolutely true"
>
>> I still
>> haven't figured out Janet Leigh's purpose in the film.  And several
>> characters were overdone, e.g., the clown of a senator and the bald
>> headed Korean intelligence chief.  And talk about miscasting!
>> Larence Harvey as an American sergeant!  Give me a break.
>
> Well, Laurence Harvey as a cold, unlikeable emotionally empty
> automaton killer is perfectly buyable.
>

"Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being
I've ever known in my life."

> Manchurian Candidate is essentially all-American surrealism, and works
> straight from the novel (between MC, Winter Kills and Prizzi's Honor,
> Condon has had remarkable luck with movie adaptations of his novels)
> -- It doesn't operate on a "realistic" level. Everything is an
> exaggeration, an overstatement, except for Angela Lansbury and
> Sinatra.

I completely agree with John here. At the time of its first run, it was the
oddest, most arresting, most chilling film I have ever seen. I was a junior
in high school, btw.

And during the long hiatus when it was unavailable, thanks to that silly ass
Sinatra, I continued to remember it vividly and to want to see it again. You
may be sure that I rushed to the theater the moment the rerelease hit town
in 1988.

I suspect that only those of who really remember the surrealism of just
being alive in the heyday of the Cold War do not have to work to "get" _The
Manchurian Candidate_, but I'm not saying it ain't accessible to everyone
else; they just have work at it a little.

--
Frank in Seattle
____

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Millennium hand and shrimp."

Frank R.A.J. Maloney wrote:
> Harkness wrote:
> > Bob wrote:
> >> I saw this film last night on Turner Classics, having seen bits and
> >> pieces over the years.  I never like the bits and pieces, so I gave
> >> the entire film a fair chance.  The accalim this film has received
> >> susrpises me.  The reviews on IMDB were mostly gushing (but then it
> >> seems the posters there are generally those who have been impressesd
> >> with  a film).
> >>
> >> Too many parts of the film, for my part,  were beyond belief.
> >
> > Well, Condon's specialty -- and it's true in Winter Kills as well as
> > Manchurian Candidate -- is to ask the question "What if all your
> > paranoid nightmares about American politics were absolutely true"
> >
> >> I still
> >> haven't figured out Janet Leigh's purpose in the film.  And several
> >> characters were overdone, e.g., the clown of a senator and the bald
> >> headed Korean intelligence chief.  And talk about miscasting!
> >> Larence Harvey as an American sergeant!  Give me a break.
> >
> > Well, Laurence Harvey as a cold, unlikeable emotionally empty
> > automaton killer is perfectly buyable.
> >
>
> "Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being
> I've ever known in my life."
>
> > Manchurian Candidate is essentially all-American surrealism, and works
> > straight from the novel (between MC, Winter Kills and Prizzi's Honor,
> > Condon has had remarkable luck with movie adaptations of his novels)
> > -- It doesn't operate on a "realistic" level. Everything is an
> > exaggeration, an overstatement, except for Angela Lansbury and
> > Sinatra.
>
> I completely agree with John here. At the time of its first run, it was the
> oddest, most arresting, most chilling film I have ever seen. I was a junior
> in high school, btw.
>
> And during the long hiatus when it was unavailable, thanks to that silly ass
> Sinatra, I continued to remember it vividly and to want to see it again. You
> may be sure that I rushed to the theater the moment the rerelease hit town
> in 1988.
>
> I suspect that only those of who really remember the surrealism of just
> being alive in the heyday of the Cold War do not have to work to "get" _The
> Manchurian Candidate_, but I'm not saying it ain't accessible to everyone
> else; they just have work at it a little.
>
> --
> Frank in Seattle
> ____
>


I liked it a lot. Especially Angela Lansbury's performance. Very tense
climax as I remember.

Dave in Toronto

Bob wrote:
> I saw this film last night on Turner Classics, having seen bits and pieces
> over the years.  I never like the bits and pieces, so I gave the entire film
> a fair chance.  The accalim this film has received susrpises me.  The
> reviews on IMDB were mostly gushing (but then it seems the posters there are
> generally those who have been impressesd with  a film).
>
> Too many parts of the film, for my part,  were beyond belief.  I still
> haven't figured out Janet Leigh's purpose in the film.  And several
> characters were overdone, e.g., the clown of a senator and the bald headed
> Korean intelligence chief.  And talk about miscasting!  Larence Harvey as an
> American sergeant!  Give me a break.
> RB

Condon's book and Frankenheimer's film may, in addition to Harkness's
American surrealism, be seen as a harbinger of a now-throughly paranoid
and conspiracy-saturated American kulch. In this sense it's avant. I
love it. (And I like what Demme did in the remake, too, although
circumstances of history make it look like satire while Frankenheimer's
must've seemed surrealistic at the time.) I now see the paranoia in the
film as a synecdoche for the world we live in NOW.

I think Laurence Harvey was aptly cast.

I "like" the film very much, however dark things have indeed played
out. Or seemed to have, from my perspective. Rather I "dislike" that
the film seems to have turned out to be so ahead of its time.

David Oberman wrote:
> "rmjon23" <rmjon23@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Condon's book and Frankenheimer's film may, in addition to Harkness's
> >American surrealism, be seen as a harbinger of a now-throughly paranoid
> >and conspiracy-saturated American kulch. In this sense it's avant. I
> >love it. (And I like what Demme did in the remake, too, although
> >circumstances of history make it look like satire while Frankenheimer's
> >must've seemed surrealistic at the time.) I now see the paranoia in the
> >film as a synecdoche for the world we live in NOW.

David Oberman:
> Would it be a metonymy or a synecdoche?

Dammit, I knew one of you bright ones wd catch me on this. I always
forget the difference. IOW, I'm full of it. You tell me. Good call,
David.

"rmjon23" <rmjon23@aol.com> wrote:

>Condon's book and Frankenheimer's film may, in addition to Harkness's
>American surrealism, be seen as a harbinger of a now-throughly paranoid
>and conspiracy-saturated American kulch. In this sense it's avant. I
>love it. (And I like what Demme did in the remake, too, although
>circumstances of history make it look like satire while Frankenheimer's
>must've seemed surrealistic at the time.) I now see the paranoia in the
>film as a synecdoche for the world we live in NOW.

Would it be a metonymy or a synecdoche?

Bob wrote:

> Too many parts of the film, for my part,  were beyond belief.  I still 
> haven't figured out Janet Leigh's purpose in the film.  And several 
> characters were overdone, e.g., the clown of a senator and the bald headed 
> Korean intelligence chief. 

You have to have lived through that era to understand that casting. 
Senator Iselin was a surrogate for Senator Joe McCarthy.  ("Iselinism" = 
isolationism)  Senator McCarthy really was a clown.  If the voters had 
had the good sense to vote him out of office, he would have been 
dismissed as a crackpot.  But as Senator he did some things that were 
quite unbelievable, all right.

And due to some scare stories that had filtered out of the Korean War, 
there was a big scare in this country about "brainwashing."

Time changes our perception of those events.

In the 1950's, we had to do shelter drills in school (those infamous 
"duck and cover" drills).  Back then it was deadly serious, even scary. 
  But now, we can laugh at it and even satirize it (cf. "The Atomic Cafe").


-- 
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:  sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 19:10:10 -0700, "Bob" <robadar@sonic.net> wrote:

>I saw this film last night on Turner Classics, having seen bits and pieces
>over the years.  I never like the bits and pieces, so I gave the entire film
>a fair chance.  The accalim this film has received susrpises me.  The
>reviews on IMDB were mostly gushing (but then it seems the posters there are
>generally those who have been impressesd with  a film).
>
>Too many parts of the film, for my part,  were beyond belief.  I still
>haven't figured out Janet Leigh's purpose in the film.  And several
>characters were overdone, e.g., the clown of a senator and the bald headed
>Korean intelligence chief.  And talk about miscasting!  Larence Harvey as an
>American sergeant!  Give me a break.
>RB
>


You just found one.  I don't like RAGING BULL or THE SEARCHERS either.


N``

rmjon23 wrote:
> David Oberman wrote:
> > "rmjon23" <rmjon23@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Condon's book and Frankenheimer's film may, in addition to Harkness's
> > >American surrealism, be seen as a harbinger of a now-throughly paranoid
> > >and conspiracy-saturated American kulch. In this sense it's avant. I
> > >love it. (And I like what Demme did in the remake, too, although
> > >circumstances of history make it look like satire while Frankenheimer's
> > >must've seemed surrealistic at the time.) I now see the paranoia in the
> > >film as a synecdoche for the world we live in NOW.
>
> David Oberman:
> > Would it be a metonymy or a synecdoche?
>
> Dammit, I knew one of you bright ones wd catch me on this. I always
> forget the difference. IOW, I'm full of it. You tell me. Good call,
> David.

i'm still trying to figure out what "kulch" means. "Kisch?"

Dave in Toronto wrote:
> Frank R.A.J. Maloney wrote:
> > Harkness wrote:
> > > Bob wrote:
> > >> I saw this film last night on Turner Classics, having seen bits and
> > >> pieces over the years.  I never like the bits and pieces, so I gave
> > >> the entire film a fair chance.  The accalim this film has received
> > >> susrpises me.  The reviews on IMDB were mostly gushing (but then it
> > >> seems the posters there are generally those who have been impressesd
> > >> with  a film).
> > >>
> > >> Too many parts of the film, for my part,  were beyond belief.
> > >
> > > Well, Condon's specialty -- and it's true in Winter Kills as well as
> > > Manchurian Candidate -- is to ask the question "What if all your
> > > paranoid nightmares about American politics were absolutely true"
> > >
> > >> I still
> > >> haven't figured out Janet Leigh's purpose in the film.  And several
> > >> characters were overdone, e.g., the clown of a senator and the bald
> > >> headed Korean intelligence chief.  And talk about miscasting!
> > >> Larence Harvey as an American sergeant!  Give me a break.
> > >
> > > Well, Laurence Harvey as a cold, unlikeable emotionally empty
> > > automaton killer is perfectly buyable.
> > >
> >
> > "Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being
> > I've ever known in my life."
> >
> > > Manchurian Candidate is essentially all-American surrealism, and works
> > > straight from the novel (between MC, Winter Kills and Prizzi's Honor,
> > > Condon has had remarkable luck with movie adaptations of his novels)
> > > -- It doesn't operate on a "realistic" level. Everything is an
> > > exaggeration, an overstatement, except for Angela Lansbury and
> > > Sinatra.
> >
> > I completely agree with John here. At the time of its first run, it was the
> > oddest, most arresting, most chilling film I have ever seen. I was a junior
> > in high school, btw.
> >
> > And during the long hiatus when it was unavailable, thanks to that silly ass
> > Sinatra, I continued to remember it vividly and to want to see it again. You
> > may be sure that I rushed to the theater the moment the rerelease hit town
> > in 1988.
> >
> > I suspect that only those of who really remember the surrealism of just
> > being alive in the heyday of the Cold War do not have to work to "get" _The
> > Manchurian Candidate_, but I'm not saying it ain't accessible to everyone
> > else; they just have work at it a little.
> >
> > --
> > Frank in Seattle
> > ____
> >
>
>
> I liked it a lot. Especially Angela Lansbury's performance. Very tense
> climax as I remember.

But the o.p., imo, is indeed entitled to wonder what the Janet Leigh
character was all about...

--

/---------------------------\
|    YOUR taste at work...  |
|                           |
|  http://www.moviepig.com  |
\---------------------------/

moviePig wrote:
> Dave in Toronto wrote:
> > Frank R.A.J. Maloney wrote:
> > > Harkness wrote:
> > > > Bob wrote:
> > > >> I saw this film last night on Turner Classics, having seen bits and
> > > >> pieces over the years.  I never like the bits and pieces, so I gave
> > > >> the entire film a fair chance.  The accalim this film has received
> > > >> susrpises me.  The reviews on IMDB were mostly gushing (but then it
> > > >> seems the posters there are generally those who have been impressesd
> > > >> with  a film).
> > > >>
> > > >> Too many parts of the film, for my part,  were beyond belief.
> > > >
> > > > Well, Condon's specialty -- and it's true in Winter Kills as well as
> > > > Manchurian Candidate -- is to ask the question "What if all your
> > > > paranoid nightmares about American politics were absolutely true"
> > > >
> > > >> I still
> > > >> haven't figured out Janet Leigh's purpose in the film.  And several
> > > >> characters were overdone, e.g., the clown of a senator and the bald
> > > >> headed Korean intelligence chief.  And talk about miscasting!
> > > >> Larence Harvey as an American sergeant!  Give me a break.
> > > >
> > > > Well, Laurence Harvey as a cold, unlikeable emotionally empty
> > > > automaton killer is perfectly buyable.
> > > >
> > >
> > > "Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being
> > > I've ever known in my life."
> > >
> > > > Manchurian Candidate is essentially all-American surrealism, and works
> > > > straight from the novel (between MC, Winter Kills and Prizzi's Honor,
> > > > Condon has had remarkable luck with movie adaptations of his novels)
> > > > -- It doesn't operate on a "realistic" level. Everything is an
> > > > exaggeration, an overstatement, except for Angela Lansbury and
> > > > Sinatra.
> > >
> > > I completely agree with John here. At the time of its first run, it was the
> > > oddest, most arresting, most chilling film I have ever seen. I was a junior
> > > in high school, btw.
> > >
> > > And during the long hiatus when it was unavailable, thanks to that silly ass
> > > Sinatra, I continued to remember it vividly and to want to see it again. You
> > > may be sure that I rushed to the theater the moment the rerelease hit town
> > > in 1988.
> > >
> > > I suspect that only those of who really remember the surrealism of just
> > > being alive in the heyday of the Cold War do not have to work to "get" _The
> > > Manchurian Candidate_, but I'm not saying it ain't accessible to everyone
> > > else; they just have work at it a little.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Frank in Seattle
> > > ____
> > >
> >
> >
> > I liked it a lot. Especially Angela Lansbury's performance. Very tense
> > climax as I remember.
>
> But the o.p., imo, is indeed entitled to wonder what the Janet Leigh
> character was all about...
>
> --
>

Yes he is, and I guess as I remember nothing about the Janet Leigh
character apart from the fact she got killed, that he has a point.

Dave in Toronto

moviePig wrote:
> Dave in Toronto wrote:

[deletions]

>> I liked it a lot. Especially Angela Lansbury's performance. Very
>> tense climax as I remember.
>
> But the o.p., imo, is indeed entitled to wonder what the Janet Leigh
> character was all about...

Sex?

See the thread on how a script needs a woman character.

--
Frank in Seattle
____

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Millennium hand and shrimp."

artyw2@yahoo.com wrote:
> i'm still trying to figure out what "kulch" means. "Kisch?"

I borrowed that from one of Ezra Pound's shifts to homespun Murrkin
register, when he means "culture." One of my favorite books by him is
titled _Guide To Kulchur_. I think he resented academic highbrows and
their semantic inflections when they wrote "culture," so he spelled it
in an ironically deprecating way. Ezra Pound: the most interesting
nutcase in 20th c. poetry. Much of his stuff seems borderline insane
(and sick and biliously hate-mongering: see the antisemitism), but
there's enough genius there I find him totally worthsomelongwhiles.
He's still mostly persona non grata in cacademe, due to the
antisemitism, yet no one in the world has had as much infl. on
contemporary poetry as he did...

And to get back to the subject of paranoia/conspiracy in American life:
Pound's writings on money and banking and its relation to war fit right
in here. I think some of his stuff on this subject seems horrifyingly
SANE. But to talk of banks/corporations/class warfare and the
promulgation of wars is still mostly taboo. You're "irresponsible" and
banished as a conspiracy theorist if you bring it up...or an
antisemite, for complex historical reasons.

David: thanks for pointing out what I suspected yet feared I was wrong
about: there does seem no significant distinction between metonymy and
synecdoche. Some nitpicker might come along and point out a difference
for us?

moviePig wrote:

> > > > Bob wrote:

> > > >> I still
> > > >> haven't figured out Janet Leigh's purpose in the film.

> But the o.p., imo, is indeed entitled to wonder what the Janet Leigh
> character was all about...



It's a silly question.

She's there because a spy story needs a girl.

She's a nonjudgemental sounding board for the hero, if you like. When
he thinks he's going crazy, he can talk to her and she doesn't look at
him like he's crazy.

And hell, she looks like Janet Leigh in her prime. That's enough reason
for her to be in any movie.

John Harkness

Dave in Toronto wrote:
> moviePig wrote:
> > Dave in Toronto wrote:
> > > Frank R.A.J. Maloney wrote:
> > > > Harkness wrote:
> > > > > Bob wrote:
> > > > >> I saw this film last night on Turner Classics, having seen bits and
> > > > >> pieces over the years.  I never like the bits and pieces, so I gave
> > > > >> the entire film a fair chance.  The accalim this film has received
> > > > >> susrpises me.  The reviews on IMDB were mostly gushing (but then it
> > > > >> seems the posters there are generally those who have been impressesd
> > > > >> with  a film).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Too many parts of the film, for my part,  were beyond belief.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, Condon's specialty -- and it's true in Winter Kills as well as
> > > > > Manchurian Candidate -- is to ask the question "What if all your
> > > > > paranoid nightmares about American politics were absolutely true"
> > > > >
> > > > >> I still
> > > > >> haven't figured out Janet Leigh's purpose in the film.  And several
> > > > >> characters were overdone, e.g., the clown of a senator and the bald
> > > > >> headed Korean intelligence chief.  And talk about miscasting!
> > > > >> Larence Harvey as an American sergeant!  Give me a break.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, Laurence Harvey as a cold, unlikeable emotionally empty
> > > > > automaton killer is perfectly buyable.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being
> > > > I've ever known in my life."
> > > >
> > > > > Manchurian Candidate is essentially all-American surrealism, and works
> > > > > straight from the novel (between MC, Winter Kills and Prizzi's Honor,
> > > > > Condon has had remarkable luck with movie adaptations of his novels)
> > > > > -- It doesn't operate on a "realistic" level. Everything is an
> > > > > exaggeration, an overstatement, except for Angela Lansbury and
> > > > > Sinatra.
> > > >
> > > > I completely agree with John here. At the time of its first run, it was the
> > > > oddest, most arresting, most chilling film I have ever seen. I was a junior
> > > > in high school, btw.
> > > >
> > > > And during the long hiatus when it was unavailable, thanks to that silly ass
> > > > Sinatra, I continued to remember it vividly and to want to see it again. You
> > > > may be sure that I rushed to the theater the moment the rerelease hit town
> > > > in 1988.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect that only those of who really remember the surrealism of just
> > > > being alive in the heyday of the Cold War do not have to work to "get" _The
> > > > Manchurian Candidate_, but I'm not saying it ain't accessible to everyone
> > > > else; they just have work at it a little.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Frank in Seattle
> > > > ____
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I liked it a lot. Especially Angela Lansbury's performance. Very tense
> > > climax as I remember.
> >
> > But the o.p., imo, is indeed entitled to wonder what the Janet Leigh
> > character was all about...
> >
> > --
> >
>
> Yes he is, and I guess as I remember nothing about the Janet Leigh
> character apart from the fact she got killed, that he has a point.
>

And you remembered THAT incorrectly. Janet Leigh is the girl Sinatra
meets on the train.

You're confusing her with Leslie Parrish, who played Jocelyn Jordan,
Raymond Shaw's fiancee.

John Harkness

Bob wrote:
> I saw this film last night on Turner Classics, having seen bits and pieces
> over the years.  I never like the bits and pieces, so I gave the entire film
> a fair chance.  The accalim this film has received susrpises me.  The
> reviews on IMDB were mostly gushing (but then it seems the posters there are
> generally those who have been impressesd with  a film).
>
> Too many parts of the film, for my part,  were beyond belief.  I still
> haven't figured out Janet Leigh's purpose in the film.  And several
> characters were overdone, e.g., the clown of a senator and the bald headed
> Korean intelligence chief.  And talk about miscasting!  Larence Harvey as an
> American sergeant!  Give me a break.
> RB

politically, the movie is totally ludicrous but that's why it's great.
you can take it as a political thriller, tragic romance, and/or as a
comedy. it has a perverse kick, like dr. strangelove.

what's really great is the film-making.  the strength of movies like
'lady from shanghai' or 'touch of evil' isn't their plausibility, but
consider their visual ingenuity, a sense of fun and flair.  if you do
material like this straight, you end up with rather dull hare-brained
movies like seven days in may or fail safe.  done with a certain
irreverence, it proffers a deliriously absurd vision of the world--pop
kafka.   and, it expresses something of our dissatisfaction, paranoia,
cynicism about politics and human motives: that it is all a kind of
tragi-farce.

as for harvey, he works precisely he makes such an unlikely sergeant.
he's an odd-man out in every situation--at home with his ma, among his
army men, among his political peers.  he only found peace with that
woman but he loses her too.  how this movie blends farce, tragedy,
paranoia, etc is truly brilliant.  unlike later films which dwell only
on cynicism, alarmism, or moralism, manchurian candidate found the
almost impossibe balance of all those elements.  it's both hollywood
and 'modernist', pulp and serious.

rmjon23 wrote:
> <snip>
>
> David: thanks for pointing out what I suspected yet feared I was wrong
> about: there does seem no significant distinction between metonymy and
> synecdoche. Some nitpicker might come along and point out a difference
> for us?

A synecdoche replaces a concept/object with a sub-set or sometimes a
super-set of the concept/object while a metonymy replaces it with
something closely related.
If you were to have intercourse with a "bird" while visiting London it
might be quite significant if it was a metonymy or a synecdoche.(OK,
that was stretching it a bit but you get the picture).

"rmjon23" <rmjon23@aol.com> wrote:

>> Would it be a metonymy or a synecdoche?
>
>Dammit, I knew one of you bright ones wd catch me on this. I always
>forget the difference. IOW, I'm full of it. You tell me. Good call,
>David.

I'm only BSing you. I don't think anyone knows the difference between
the two.

Frank R.A.J. Maloney wrote:
> moviePig wrote:
> > Dave in Toronto wrote:
>
> [deletions]
>
> >> I liked it a lot. Especially Angela Lansbury's performance. Very
> >> tense climax as I remember.
> >
> > But the o.p., imo, is indeed entitled to wonder what the Janet Leigh
> > character was all about...
>
> Sex?
>
> See the thread on how a script needs a woman character.

Well, certainly if it spans more than a generation...

--

/---------------------------\
|    YOUR taste at work...  |
|                           |
|  http://www.moviepig.com  |
\---------------------------/

Harkness wrote:
> moviePig wrote:
>
> > > > > Bob wrote:
>
> > > > >> I still
> > > > >> haven't figured out Janet Leigh's purpose in the film.
>
> > But the o.p., imo, is indeed entitled to wonder what the Janet Leigh
> > character was all about...
>
>
>
> It's a silly question.
>
> She's there because a spy story needs a girl.
>
> She's a nonjudgemental sounding board for the hero, if you like. When
> he thinks he's going crazy, he can talk to her and she doesn't look at
> him like he's crazy.
>
> And hell, she looks like Janet Leigh in her prime. That's enough reason
> for her to be in any movie.

Absolutely.  I don't see why they wrote her out of PSYCHO so fast...

--

/---------------------------\
|    YOUR taste at work...  |
|                           |
|  http://www.moviepig.com  |
\---------------------------/

Stacia wrote:
> "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> writes:
> >Bob wrote:
>
> >> Too many parts of the film, for my part,  were beyond belief.  I still
> >> haven't figured out Janet Leigh's purpose in the film.  And several
> >> characters were overdone, e.g., the clown of a senator and the bald headed
> >> Korean intelligence chief.
>
> >You have to have lived through that era to understand that casting.
>
>   That doesn't fly.  A movie that can only be understood by those who
> lived in a certain era fails on a basic level, unless for some
> inexplicable reason the director intended it to be understood only by a
> few people in a brief moment in time.

I think Steven phrased that badly.

a grasp of the sociocultural environment that produced a work of art
usually helps one to appreciate it. Especially when it is a very
specific product of its place and time. I often wonder, when I
recommend old movies in my DVD column, what people under 30 see when
they look at The Searchers or Dr. Mabuse.

John Harkness

Harkness wrote:
> Stacia wrote:
> > "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> writes:
> > >Bob wrote:
> >
> > >> Too many parts of the film, for my part,  were beyond belief.  I still
> > >> haven't figured out Janet Leigh's purpose in the film.  And several
> > >> characters were overdone, e.g., the clown of a senator and the bald headed
> > >> Korean intelligence chief.
> >
> > >You have to have lived through that era to understand that casting.
> >
> >   That doesn't fly.  A movie that can only be understood by those who
> > lived in a certain era fails on a basic level, unless for some
> > inexplicable reason the director intended it to be understood only by a
> > few people in a brief moment in time.
>
> I think Steven phrased that badly.
>
> a grasp of the sociocultural environment that produced a work of art
> usually helps one to appreciate it. Especially when it is a very
> specific product of its place and time. I often wonder, when I
> recommend old movies in my DVD column, what people under 30 see when
> they look at The Searchers or Dr. Mabuse.

Where's the gap?  SEARCHERS (and certainly MABUSE) is before your time,
too.  Seems like a 29-year-old could enjoy them as much as, say, THE
FRENCH CONNECTION.  Better, maybe... because the required transition's
clearer.  It's movies that originally depended on fads or personalities
(whichever, e.g., Frankie and Annette were) that may best be viewed
from a time-capsule retrospective... wearing costumes...

--

/---------------------------\
|    YOUR taste at work...  |
|                           |
|  http://www.moviepig.com  |
\---------------------------/

moviePig wrote:
> Harkness wrote:
> > Stacia wrote:
> > > "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> writes:
> > > >Bob wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Too many parts of the film, for my part,  were beyond belief.  I still
> > > >> haven't figured out Janet Leigh's purpose in the film.  And several
> > > >> characters were overdone, e.g., the clown of a senator and the bald headed
> > > >> Korean intelligence chief.
> > >
> > > >You have to have lived through that era to understand that casting.
> > >
> > >   That doesn't fly.  A movie that can only be understood by those who
> > > lived in a certain era fails on a basic level, unless for some
> > > inexplicable reason the director intended it to be understood only by a
> > > few people in a brief moment in time.
> >
> > I think Steven phrased that badly.
> >
> > a grasp of the sociocultural environment that produced a work of art
> > usually helps one to appreciate it. Especially when it is a very
> > specific product of its place and time. I often wonder, when I
> > recommend old movies in my DVD column, what people under 30 see when
> > they look at The Searchers or Dr. Mabuse.
>
> Where's the gap?  SEARCHERS (and certainly MABUSE) is before your time,
> too.  Seems like a 29-year-old could enjoy them as much as, say, THE
> FRENCH CONNECTION.  Better, maybe... because the required transition's
> clearer.  It's movies that originally depended on fads or personalities
> (whichever, e.g., Frankie and Annette were) that may best be viewed
> from a time-capsule retrospective... wearing costumes...

Searchers came out when I was a kid -- and I'm old enough to have grown
up with "Silents Please" -- and btw, I never really appreciated Mabuse
until I heard the commentary on the Image DVD, which goes deep into
Mabuse's sociological meaning as a function of Weimar (by contrast,
Metropolis is a kid's movie)

I'd suggest that movies have changed much more since the mid-60s, than
they had between the beginning of sound and the mid-60s. I remember
going into shock at a Toronto film festival screening of the restored
Vertigo when people in the audience, confronted by Scotty's sexual
desperation to turn Judy into Madeleine, started laughing.  Vertigo
isn't a "time capsule" movie in the way you describe it, but it is not
a "modern" movie -- it operates on terms that contemporary audiences
don't use. It works in a realm of moral uncertainty just as unwieldy as
the moral certainty of Ethan Edwards in The Searchers.

The world changes fast and movies change with it. French Connnection is
easy -- it's the granddaddy of the rogue cop action movie. You don't
have to figure out what it is, because so many movies of the last 35
years have lifted from it. (I've not seen The Searchers in a theatre in
so long that it would be interesting to see it with an audience of
under 30s.)

John Harkness

Harkness wrote:
> moviePig wrote:
> > Harkness wrote:
> > > Stacia wrote:
> > > > "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> writes:
> > > > >Bob wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> Too many parts of the film, for my part,  were beyond belief.  I still
> > > > >> haven't figured out Janet Leigh's purpose in the film.  And several
> > > > >> characters were overdone, e.g., the clown of a senator and the bald headed
> > > > >> Korean intelligence chief.
> > > >
> > > > >You have to have lived through that era to understand that casting.
> > > >
> > > >   That doesn't fly.  A movie that can only be understood by those who
> > > > lived in a certain era fails on a basic level, unless for some
> > > > inexplicable reason the director intended it to be understood only by a
> > > > few people in a brief moment in time.
> > >
> > > I think Steven phrased that badly.
> > >
> > > a grasp of the sociocultural environment that produced a work of art
> > > usually helps one to appreciate it. Especially when it is a very
> > > specific product of its place and time. I often wonder, when I
> > > recommend old movies in my DVD column, what people under 30 see when
> > > they look at The Searchers or Dr. Mabuse.
> >
> > Where's the gap?  SEARCHERS (and certainly MABUSE) is before your time,
> > too.  Seems like a 29-year-old could enjoy them as much as, say, THE
> > FRENCH CONNECTION.  Better, maybe... because the required transition's
> > clearer.  It's movies that originally depended on fads or personalities
> > (whichever, e.g., Frankie and Annette were) that may best be viewed
> > from a time-capsule retrospective... wearing costumes...
>
> Searchers came out when I was a kid -- and I'm old enough to have grown
> up with "Silents Please" -- and btw, I never really appreciated Mabuse
> until I heard the commentary on the Image DVD, which goes deep into
> Mabuse's sociological meaning as a function of Weimar (by contrast,
> Metropolis is a kid's movie)
>
> I'd suggest that movies have changed much more since the mid-60s, than
> they had between the beginning of sound and the mid-60s. I remember
> going into shock at a Toronto film festival screening of the restored
> Vertigo when people in the audience, confronted by Scotty's sexual
> desperation to turn Judy into Madeleine, started laughing.  Vertigo
> isn't a "time capsule" movie in the way you describe it, but it is not
> a "modern" movie -- it operates on terms that contemporary audiences
> don't use. It works in a realm of moral uncertainty just as unwieldy as
> the moral certainty of Ethan Edwards in The Searchers.
>
> The world changes fast and movies change with it. French Connnection is
> easy -- it's the granddaddy of the rogue cop action movie. You don't
> have to figure out what it is, because so many movies of the last 35
> years have lifted from it. (I've not seen The Searchers in a theatre in
> so long that it would be interesting to see it with an audience of
> under 30s.)

Re getting VERTIGO... I share the shock about the film festival, which
I'd have assumed by dint of self-selection to be relatively moron-free.
 But lots of movies, old and not so, require a transition to their
stories' mores and customs, e.g., as any kid can tell you who knows
that you *don't* steal another man's horse.  And the required
transition is seldom obscure or difficult.  No, VERTIGO isn't a
"modern" movie, and certainly lacks the adrenaline punch of lesser
movies now playing at your multiplex.  But VERTIGO's *moviemaking*
remains intact for appreciation (and enjoyment if you're lucky)... even
if you divest it of all nostalgic value.  (I'm trying to avoid
analogies to music, here... and bombast like 'timeless'.)  And I'd
figure even a 29-year-old could wrap his growing sensibilities around
that.

--

/---------------------------\
|    YOUR taste at work...  |
|                           |
|  http://www.moviepig.com  |
\---------------------------/

moviePig wrote:
> Harkness wrote:
> > moviePig wrote:
> > > Harkness wrote:
> > > > Stacia wrote:
> > > > > "Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> writes:
> > > > > >Bob wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >> Too many parts of the film, for my part,  were beyond belief.  I still
> > > > > >> haven't figured out Janet Leigh's purpose in the film.  And several
> > > > > >> characters were overdone, e.g., the clown of a senator and the bald headed
> > > > > >> Korean intelligence chief.
> > > > >
> > > > > >You have to have lived through that era to understand that casting.
> > > > >
> > > > >   That doesn't fly.  A movie that can only be understood by those who
> > > > > lived in a certain era fails on a basic level, unless for some
> > > > > inexplicable reason the director intended it to be understood only by a
> > > > > few people in a brief moment in time.
> > > >
> > > > I think Steven phrased that badly.
> > > >
> > > > a grasp of the sociocultural environment that produced a work of art
> > > > usually helps one to appreciate it. Especially when it is a very
> > > > specific product of its place and time. I often wonder, when I
> > > > recommend old movies in my DVD column, what people under 30 see when
> > > > they look at The Searchers or Dr. Mabuse.
> > >
> > > Where's the gap?  SEARCHERS (and certainly MABUSE) is before your time,
> > > too.  Seems like a 29-year-old could enjoy them as much as, say, THE
> > > FRENCH CONNECTION.  Better, maybe... because the required transition's
> > > clearer.  It's movies that originally depended on fads or personalities
> > > (whichever, e.g., Frankie and Annette were) that may best be viewed
> > > from a time-capsule retrospective... wearing costumes...
> >
> > Searchers came out when I was a kid -- and I'm old enough to have grown
> > up with "Silents Please" -- and btw, I never really appreciated Mabuse
> > until I heard the commentary on the Image DVD, which goes deep into
> > Mabuse's sociological meaning as a function of Weimar (by contrast,
> > Metropolis is a kid's movie)
> >
> > I'd suggest that movies have changed much more since the mid-60s, than
> > they had between the beginning of sound and the mid-60s. I remember
> > going into shock at a Toronto film festival screening of the restored
> > Vertigo when people in the audience, confronted by Scotty's sexual
> > desperation to turn Judy into Madeleine, started laughing.  Vertigo
> > isn't a "time capsule" movie in the way you describe it, but it is not
> > a "modern" movie -- it operates on terms that contemporary audiences
> > don't use. It works in a realm of moral uncertainty just as unwieldy as
> > the moral certainty of Ethan Edwards in The Searchers.
> >
> > The world changes fast and movies change with it. French Connnection is
> > easy -- it's the granddaddy of the rogue cop action movie. You don't
> > have to figure out what it is, because so many movies of the last 35
> > years have lifted from it. (I've not seen The Searchers in a theatre in
> > so long that it would be interesting to see it with an audience of
> > under 30s.)
>
> Re getting VERTIGO... I share the shock about the film festival, which
> I'd have assumed by dint of self-selection to be relatively moron-free.
>  But lots of movies, old and not so, require a transition to their
> stories' mores and customs, e.g., as any kid can tell you who knows
> that you *don't* steal another man's horse.  And the required
> transition is seldom obscure or difficult.  No, VERTIGO isn't a
> "modern" movie, and certainly lacks the adrenaline punch of lesser
> movies now playing at your multiplex.  But VERTIGO's *moviemaking*
> remains intact for appreciation (and enjoyment if you're lucky)... even
> if you divest it of all nostalgic value.  (I'm trying to avoid
> analogies to music, here... and bombast like 'timeless'.)  And I'd
> figure even a 29-year-old could wrap his growing sensibilities around
> that.

He.

29 year olds don't have "growing sensiblities"

19 year olds have "growing sensiblities"

But the time you're 29, you're pretty much set in what you like. (I
have to work to listen to most pop music made past the mid 80s -- at
least, I have to work to find artists I like. If I don't I'll just
listen to the local classic rock station all day.

John Harkness

Bob wrote:
> Too many parts of the film, for my part,  were beyond belief.

Welcome to the 50's. Find a stack of Life's or Look's and be amazed.

> I still haven't figured out Janet Leigh's purpose in the film.

You think Frank Sinatra's going to go through a movie without a love
interest? She's in the novel, anyway, as is that whole train dialogue
that drove Ebert and so many others nuts.

>And several characters were overdone, e.g., the clown of a senator

An apt characterization of McCarthy--yet he was running the country
there for a few months. You get C-Span? Check out Imhofe some time, or
Bill Frist doing diagnoses on a tv monitor. Next to Jim Bunning,
Iselin's Cicero.

>and the bald headed Korean intelligence chief.

Manchurian, actually. Read up on Beria sometime.

>And talk about miscasting!  Larence Harvey as an American sergeant!  Give me a >break.

An accent, yes, but not as thick as Elvis's, or Ted Kennedy's, other
famous GI's.
You'd think after the Garden Party you'd have had the filters set to ON
for non-realism.

"Bob" <robadar@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:44b06585$0$96215$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>I saw this film last night on Turner Classics, having seen bits and pieces
>over the years.  I never like the bits and pieces, so I gave the entire
>film a fair chance.  The accalim this film has received susrpises me.  The
>reviews on IMDB were mostly gushing (but then it seems the posters there
>are generally those who have been impressesd with  a film).
>
> Too many parts of the film, for my part,  were beyond belief.  I still
> haven't figured out Janet Leigh's purpose in the film.  And several
> characters were overdone, e.g., the clown of a senator and the bald headed
> Korean intelligence chief.  And talk about miscasting!  Larence Harvey as
> an American sergeant!  Give me a break.
> RB

I did enjoy the film. It was kinda sureal, but there were some hightlighs.
Angela Lansbury for a start, I never knew she could be so evil. I also
thought the end was cool, the whole red queen thing was cool and the "go
jump in a lake" bit was just funny.

The Janet Leigh thing is apparently better explained in the book. My
instinct was that she was meant to be Sinatra's "red queen". In the remake
the character is a CIA agent there to help the protagonist. I prefered the
more sinister theory. As I said though, somewhat surreal.

--
Fil

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
numbered. My life is my own."

"Steven L." <sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> writes:
>Bob wrote:

>> Too many parts of the film, for my part,  were beyond belief.  I still
>> haven't figured out Janet Leigh's purpose in the film.  And several
>> characters were overdone, e.g., the clown of a senator and the bald headed
>> Korean intelligence chief.

>You have to have lived through that era to understand that casting.

  That doesn't fly.  A movie that can only be understood by those who
lived in a certain era fails on a basic level, unless for some
inexplicable reason the director intended it to be understood only by a
few people in a brief moment in time.
  I once posted about how ridiculous I thought "Candidate" was and was
dogpiled.  I'm mildly amused to see Bob being treated in a much more
civil manner.

Stacia

In the Year of the Dog, the Great and Powerful Harkness declared:
> moviePig wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Bob wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>I still
>>>>>>haven't figured out Janet Leigh's purpose in the film.
>
>>But the o.p., imo, is indeed entitled to wonder what the Janet Leigh
>>character was all about...
>
> It's a silly question.
>
> She's there because a spy story needs a girl.
>
> She's a nonjudgemental sounding board for the hero, if you like. When
> he thinks he's going crazy, he can talk to her and she doesn't look at
> him like he's crazy.
>

Either that or she's Marco's control agent.


--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Hermes: I respect your diversity to the extent the law requires.
    -Futurama

"tomcervo" <tomcervo@aol.com> wrote:

>Manchurian, actually. Read up on Beria sometime.

It's the story of a Berian enemy!

"unglued" <dragonseed@spray.se> wrote:

>A synecdoche replaces a concept/object with a sub-set or sometimes a
>super-set of the concept/object while a metonymy replaces it with
>something closely related.
>If you were to have intercourse with a "bird" while visiting London it
>might be quite significant if it was a metonymy or a synecdoche.(OK,
>that was stretching it a bit but you get the picture).

Now that you're on a roll, help us with the distinction between
tautology & pleonasm.

David Oberman wrote:
> "unglued" <dragonseed@spray.se> wrote:
>
> >A synecdoche replaces a concept/object with a sub-set or sometimes a
> >super-set of the concept/object while a metonymy replaces it with
> >something closely related.
> >If you were to have intercourse with a "bird" while visiting London it
> >might be quite significant if it was a metonymy or a synecdoche.(OK,
> >that was stretching it a bit but you get the picture).
>
> Now that you're on a roll, help us with the distinction between
> tautology & pleonasm.

Now that's a tricky one, to the best of my knowledge a tautology is a
sub-set of pleonasms consisting of different words/concepts for the
same thing whereas a a pleonasm contains any old redundancy, so "A big
giant" is a tautology and therefore a pleonasm but a PIN number is just
pleonasm he said pretending it was starting to rain.

Harkness wrote:
> I'd suggest that movies have changed much more since the mid-60s, than
> they had between the beginning of sound and the mid-60s. I remember
> going into shock at a Toronto film festival screening of the restored
> Vertigo when people in the audience, confronted by Scotty's sexual
> desperation to turn Judy into Madeleine, started laughing.  Vertigo
> isn't a "time capsule" movie in the way you describe it, but it is not
> a "modern" movie -- it operates on terms that contemporary audiences
> don't use. It works in a realm of moral uncertainty just as unwieldy as
> the moral certainty of Ethan Edwards in The Searchers.

The marker is not age or generation, but empathy. With it you can look
at Scotty and think that maybe, given the circumstances, you could be
as obsessed. I've heard that same laughter, and heard it explained as
unnerving ideas processed by minds too fearful to think very much on
where they lead. I've heard it at Stratford, when a student audience
full of kids in crested blazers think that any effort of thought is
something their parents will do for them and I've heard it at a
performance of Long Day's Journey Into Night, when Jamie confesses his
rage to Eugene, from an Ann Arbor audience from whom you might expect
more. But maybe, like Metcalf, the effort of being the coolest kid in
the room drained all of their mental resources.

Y'know what bugs me? The music. And I really like film and TV music of
that era. But this stuff just screams THIS IS IMPORTANT! Way over the
top.

But I like the flick...

   /-----------------------/
   The One True Robb
/-----------------------/