The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

An ongoing survey of the Criterion Forum membership to create lists of the best films of each decade and genre.
Post Reply
Message
Author
nitin
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:49 am

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#676 Post by nitin » Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:40 am

I don’t know whose orphan it was but seeing it on the orphan list made me dig out my unwatched Pathe blu ray of Une si Jolie Petit Plage (1949) and boy am I glad that I did.

A film of quiet but cumulative power that is really heart wrenching by the time it is over. Possibly also the noirest of noirs even though there isn’t a gumshoe or femme fatale in sight. But psychologically and visually it is as noir as noir gets.

Gérard Phillipe carries the bulk of this film through the saddest eyes in cinema but he gets very solid support from Madeline Robinson. Their extended scene together halfway through the film is simply beautiful.

And visually it’s stunning, the small town this is set in is always covered in rain and there are unforgettable night shots lit by street lamps where the rain swirls in a way that it seems to almost coil itself around the characters.

This will go on to my revised list possible even in the top 10. Essential.

ps the Pathe blu ray is region free and from a pretty good 2k restoration. The blacks are a little off for my liking and a bit digital looking in places but if you knock back your tv’s gamma a couple of notches, it generally looks pretty pleasing.

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#677 Post by TMDaines » Sat Nov 16, 2019 3:33 pm

nitin wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:40 am
I don’t know whose orphan it was but seeing it on the orphan list made me dig out my unwatched Pathe blu ray of Une si Jolie Petit Plage (1949) and boy am I glad that I did.

A film of quiet but cumulative power that is really heart wrenching by the time it is over. Possibly also the noirest of noirs even though there isn’t a gumshoe or femme fatale in sight. But psychologically and visually it is as noir as noir gets.

Gérard Phillipe carries the bulk of this film through the saddest eyes in cinema but he gets very solid support from Madeline Robinson. Their extended scene together halfway through the film is simply beautiful.

And visually it’s stunning, the small town this is set in is always covered in rain and there are unforgettable night shots lit by street lamps where the rain swirls in a way that it seems to almost coil itself around the characters.

This will go on to my revised list possible even in the top 10. Essential.

ps the Pathe blu ray is region free and from a pretty good 2k restoration. The blacks are a little off for my liking and a bit digital looking in places but if you knock back your tv’s gamma a couple of notches, it generally looks pretty pleasing.
I did the same too and dug my copy out on Thursday, but was a bit cooler on the film. It was perfectly good, but won’t be making my list. I was a bit confused for the first half of the film where the plot was headed, and I’m not sure if that contributed to me not really feeling any emotional pull.

In contrast to you, I found the film quite stagey and thought there was a certain level of artifice there, unlike both the earlier naturalist French films, whose sets and locations always offer that sense of inevitable downfall, and the Italian neorealist films of the period, which usually have a great sense of place, even if they were not on location. I have no idea whether the pretty little beach was just around the corner from the other locations or sets, but I didn’t feel it was.

User avatar
HinkyDinkyTruesmith
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:21 pm

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#678 Post by HinkyDinkyTruesmith » Sat Nov 16, 2019 6:56 pm

Lured––Sirk exhibits his typical mastery, and I would be surprised if he didn't have a large role in shaping the material, not only for its literary pretensions (weaker than in his later films, but still present), but also for the film's complex system of ironies, performances, and reversals. The opening sequences is briefly interrupted by a very Brechtian sandwich board reading
The Sandwich Board wrote: MURDER IN SOHO
NOW PLAYING
BELTMAN THEATRE
which Jeremy Arnold (whose commentary on the Cohen is painfully dry and simple), obviously notes is Sirk's way of hinting that this is going to be a murder mystery, but more importantly, and more in keeping with Sirk's general aesthetic, is a way of cueing us to thinking of this film as a series of performances. Everyone is performing in this film, at various times, and when they're not, they're still being sized up to play a role somehow, somewhere. Lucille Ball goes through a series of costumes, she even needs to audition for her role of female detective; people are not who they seem pretty much every step of the way through the film. I was struggling at first to find the thread that links the various pieces of this film together––it is certainly a shaggy dog of a film, and deliberately delays fulfillment of the plot, which is already picaresque to begin with, caught between dual lines of action that develop over a series of episodes, indulging in comedy as frequently as murder. Appropriately so. What connects the general tenor of the film––its tide between comedy and murder mystery (embodied in George Sanders's character, who is either Ball's witty love interest or potential murderer)––and the thematic structure of performances and acting, is the role of women in this narrative: they are constantly on the alert with men, performing for them, appeasing them, putting up with them, unsure whether they are a comedic hero for marriage, or a murderous psychopath. It's still relevant––the violent masculine presumption that women are there for their satisfaction.

And Sirk directs it largely in long shots that rely heavily on deep-focus, playing distant objects and people off nearer ones, playing as much with perspective as with lighting and atmosphere. He even frequently will stage scenes that finds characters largely lost amongst masses of people, making them anonymous, in a sense, only gradually or subtly distinct––which is another motif of the film, and a frequent dramatic action (Sanders finding Ball at the concert, for instance). The film begins with Lucy, one of the victims of the killer, looking at a personal column listing meant for her––everything about her is reduced to her blue eyes, in the anonymity of the personal column. In contrast, the very reason why the police are unable to make sense of the poems that the killer taunts them with is often because they are highly specific––the elephant trinket, or Sandra's starry dress. The women in Sanders's life are also, with really only one exception, anonymized––he doesn't recognize most of them when he sees their pictures, and they truly become simply one in a series of a dance line; like this is a comment a john makes to both Lucy and Sandra, where he says they're the loveliest girl in London, or something like that (and Lucy's supposed lover's name is also John, a pathetically bland attempt by the killer that Lucy desperately buys into, hoping for love and happiness). It all this, it's a miracle that anyone is noticed missing at all.

The cast is uniformly wonderful, including smaller roles and extras––Ball and Coburn have very little time together on screen, but they still manage to develop a wonderful camaraderie––and watch out in the 50s list for Has Anybody Seen My Gal?, Coburn second pairing with Sirk, which is even better than this one!
Last edited by HinkyDinkyTruesmith on Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lowry_Sam
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 3:35 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#679 Post by Lowry_Sam » Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:45 pm

theflirtydozen wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:44 pm
Now to claim my orphans and shop some of them around with some blurbs (in order of what I consider their chances of being unorphaned):
La main du diable (Maurice Tourneur, 1943) - A deal with the devil goes wrong, as they tend to do. This one featuring a dismembered left hand talisman and weird masks. Maurice Tourneur brings plenty of silent film style to the table.
At first I thought this was my orphan, but then remembered I bumped this off my list to help boost another title. So I fixed things to include it as I really did regret dropping it below 50, if for anything to have both father & son both included.

User avatar
Rayon Vert
Green is the Rayest Color
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#680 Post by Rayon Vert » Sat Nov 16, 2019 11:58 pm

More commentary notes.

Image
Old Acquaintance. (WB Archive DVD: Boze Hadleigh & Vincent Sherman). Hadleigh helms this on his own most of the time, and provides a well-rounded appreciation addressing the film itself, its making, the lead actors’ different styles, and sociological perspectives like the patriarchal way the older woman/young man narrative strand is resolved. He also brings in clips from the director himself, which were obviously recorded beforehand but also clearly done so for the sake of the commentary. (The original release date for the DVD was 2006 so this was likely just before he died at age 99 – he did at least another commentary in his last year). In my view there’s something very historically valuable in getting on tape Golden Age Hollywood film directors commenting on their films in this way, especially the less often heard, non-pantheon ones. Sherman has specific memories of making the film, and working with both of the actresses, and on Davis’ strong interest in participating in the making of the film beyond just her acting. Hadleigh surprised me at one point asserting that Davis had a tendency to fall in love with her directors, and asking Sherman if it happened to him, and the director then goes on at length to describe how she did indeed declare her love for him and how what happened afterwards affected their relationship and the making of Mr. Skeffington. Enjoyable.

(Earlier in the project I also watched the commentary for The Harvey Girls by director George Sidney, also on Warner Archive. My memory is already fading but I remember thinking it was overall OK-to-good, and the detail stuck in my mind of how Garland just watched once the last rehearsal for the complexly choreographed On The Atcheson etc. train number, then joined in and did it in one take.)

The Pirate. (WB DVD: John Fricke). Really all about the production and making of the film, including the many script rewrites and changes made after the test screenings, and then the divided reception the film received then and now. Informative but the pace can get a bit dizzying and it really just stays mostly on that level rather than providing some subjective criticism that would have helped give it another dimension. Some points deducted also for all of those unnecessary mini-bios thrown into the fact deluge. Do we really need one about Cole Porter and even… Franz Mesmer?

I may have mentioned this in the initial write-up but this really needs an upgrade – the transfer is so dark, and it surely did not help my own appreciation. I have to imagine what Gene Kelly saw when it’s mentioned in the commentary that he thought it was one of the best-looking musicals ever.

Thieves’ Highway. (Criterion DVD: Alain Silver). I acquired the Arrow blu to watch the film for this project but kept this long-time owned, unwrapped edition for the additional commentary. Glad I did because this is really excellent work. Silver allots time to different things, like comparison to Bezzerides’ novel, but his overriding focus is continual close reading of the film. And he does this principally by addressing how the art of the director (staging, blocking, shot selection, camera placement, editing) creates the film’s meaning, i.e. beyond what the script tells us. So many times internally I was just appreciatively going “now that's cinema, that's the magic”, and this is the type of commentary that uncovers most a film’s riches, and that makes other types look amateurish by comparison.

Too Late for Tears. (Arrow BR: Alan K. Rode). This unfortunately contrasts sharply and badly with Rode’s commendable work on T-Men. Here it’s almost all backstagey, off-screen-focused, from the financing of the film to regular actor-and-producer bios to Production Code stuff to Duryea’s screen reputation as women-slapper. It ends up making it feel as if the film itself is not interesting enough to comment on, with what scene-directed comments there are almost always of a superficial and obvious character.

Captain from Castile. (Twilight Time BR: Rudy Behlmer, Jon Burlingame & Nick Redman). I’m not keeping track of where the commentaries originate from, but here it’s referenced in the track itself that the film is part of a DVD boxset, so it’s before the TT issue. Since this is one of my orphans, let me just mention that, even if don’t expect that it would likely make anyone’s list, if you happen to like grand historical epics and haven’t seen this, give this one a shot sometime, especially on the basis of how impressive it looks and sounds, really feeling like it’s ahead of its time in those departments, including a well-researched, authentic-striving recreation of the Aztec world that made good use of an actual active volcano! Given how this was such a lavish production, and included 3 and a half months of shooting in Mexico, it’s not surprising that a lot of the commentary here is about the production. It’s far less scene-specific than I what prefer, but once I accepted that this was how it was going to be the commentary was on the whole an entertaining ride, in a free-ranging conversation with Behlmer as the main, lively voice and interesting to listen to. Burlingame is a film music scholar and a surprising amount of this track is also devoted to Alfred Newman’s celebrated and innovative score for this film, one of his best, and how it was also one of the first to see a contemporary record release (78 rpm set).

A Letter to Three Wives. (MoC BR: Kenneth Geist, Cheryl Lower & Christopher Mankiewicz). This was (just) OK but a little underwhelming given the promise of having two Mankiewicz scholars and the man’s son. A lot of the commentary goes to underlining the social satire and other things happening in the screenplay but it didn’t generally add to what is already fairly obvious when you’re watching the film. Nevertheless Lower especially occasionally provides some interesting (though not overly penetrating) observations, such as articulating how it’s a progressive film focused on the female POV. Meanwhile the director’s son occasionally talks about his father’s methods of work, but also trivia like how details in the script incorporate what took place in the Mank household. (I thought this view had in recent years or decades shifted, but I was surprised to hear him describe his father as a “fabulous screenwriter but a less-than-fabulous director” – which this commentary at least did not provide much to argue with, with extremely little devoted to Mankiewicz’s directorial duties as such.) Sprinkle the whole with the occasional actor bios and there you have it.

The Snake Pit. (Indicator BR: Aubrey Solomon). Rather poor. There is some but overall little attention to cinematic elements, with the majority of comments, though sometimes informative, given to not always scintillating topics like getting the project off the ground, the differences with the novel, the contributors’ bios, and the film’s place amidst Fox’s output at the time. The biggest problem is that after a while the commentary gets into a fairly consistent ratio groove of about 30 seconds-to-1 minute of comment to 1-to-3 minutes of silence. I don’t mind commentators taking a breathe, but stretching it likes creates an experience where you start to wonder why you’re wasting your time listening to this weakly existing track rather than watching the hockey game.

The Devil and Daniel Webster. (Criterion DVD: Bruce Eder and Steven C. Smith). This was frustrating. My memory of Eder, reliable or not, was positive. Here again he shows he’s an extremely well-prepared commentator who appears to have done his research on every possible angle, and he has the skill engage the film itself, not only its background. He does this here, as well as tackle all the other usual commentary dimensions, but as the track progresses he ends up sinking it with those constantly recurring, extremely long career run-downs on every major contributor. That Huston one near the end is fifteen minutes or thereabout. It’s frustrating because after he starts the commentary with background information of the film, he apologizes to the viewer-listener for neglecting the film before then getting to it, so it’s hard to understand why he thought it a wise choice to eventually ignore the film again as much as he does. Smith is a Herrmann scholar who just pops in for 10 minutes or so, but his bit on the score and composer is detailed and informative.

User avatar
senseabove
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:07 am

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#681 Post by senseabove » Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:22 am

Well, after rewatches of two orphans, I wrote up a bit about how Address Unknown might actually get bumped off my list after some late additions and other shuffling but you should still watch it if you've got the Kit Parker Noir Archive Vol. 1 set, and a bit about how it looks like the only Anger film that has placed at all before is Fireworks but I'll take Puce Moment and you should too... but my login had timed out when I hit post, so it all got lost and now I'm tired. But go watch Puce Moment and appreciate it as the early pinnacle of the diva-worship-as-self-actualization element of modern camp that it is (or if you want to be strictly 1949 about it, a version where someone takes a wild guess at what Verdi piece served as the original soundtrack, because no one seems to know...).

User avatar
HinkyDinkyTruesmith
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:21 pm

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#682 Post by HinkyDinkyTruesmith » Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:05 am

Since You Went Away––John Cromwell's wartime melodrama, like his previous collaboration with Selznick, MADE FOR EACH OTHER, trades largely in sociopolitical sentimentality––but what made that previous film and his followup IN NAME ONLY so powerful was the strong sense of a melodramatic metaphysicality that defies the bounds of logic and reality. Although the imagery of that is here occasionally, namely through the playing on a central figure being absent throughout (one irony––for someone to go missing, while already being missing), what Cromwell and his cinematographers (Lee Garmes and Stanley Cortez, unsurprisingly) bring to this elevates it. The film is aggressively rich in lush imagery, stunning lighting, and fresh, rejuvenating compositions, surpassing either in visual splendor. Deliberately draping an antirealistic aesthetic with its heavy shadows and impossibly pretty lighting over an aggressively homey setting, the film manages to justify its nearly three hour runtime along with some incredible setpieces and also a scope that expands outwards. It falters in its last act somewhat––it feels like Selznick biting off more than he could chew, or perhaps the film trying slightly too hard to accommodate propagandist means. Nevertheless, the material that is developed from the start feels rich and full, never lagging. The expansive cast is complimented as well by one of the film's more audacious, obviously "epic" moves, which Kenneth Lonnergan would attempt to do sixty years later with MARGARET but only manage to get approved in a shafted director's cut, of sweeping amongst anonymous individuals in nightclubs, train stations, etc. to hear snippets of conversation, bits and pieces that flesh out the world of the film. Perhaps the film could have worked better simply as a Jennifer Jones-Robert Walker romance, but the cast is so uniformly wonderful, playing off each other so tenderly at times, and Cromwell and Selznick work the material so elegantly and with such patience, that the rest of the material doesn't hinder the best so much as amplify it, and give it much appreciated context. And, in turn, that patience can be undercut by some sudden plot twists that are all the more unsettling because of how quickly they occur.

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#683 Post by TMDaines » Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:16 pm

I forgot this for the first go around, but are we counting the German Concentration Camps Factual Survey as a 40s film or 2010s? It was unreleased in the 40s, but the modern release is intended to be a restoration of the 1945 originally proposed cut.

User avatar
swo17
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#684 Post by swo17 » Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:28 pm

Good question. I'm fine with people voting for it. No one has yet, though I don't know if that's specifically because they considered it ineligible

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#685 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:00 am

I’ve been on a Mark Robson 50s kick and finally went back to the 40s for Youth Runs Wild. Robson developed a more consistent humanist outlook later on as he worked his way out of the cynicism of the WWII years to achieve a complicated empathy, but he’s always been a systemic theorist interested in communication and perspective barriers between individuals and groups. His later films I find to be stronger overall because he takes a step back to balance objective portraits with care and finds the overlap between this systems theory and emotional intelligence, though earlier films like this and The Seventh Victim are more weighted in the subjective as they emit their sociological sharpness. While this one doesn’t carry the existentially destroying power that was only heightened by the systemic barriers of his first film, it doesn’t intend to operate beyond the latter and that more than serves its purpose.

Robson probably had limited creative control in Lewton’s world and even less as this film was altered significantly by the studio, however he still directs his actors into isolated spaces even during conversations with peers, overwhelmed with not only normal developmental stages or abnormal maladaptive societal poison, but pressure from a culture that doesn’t understand and doesn’t try to, at least not in the right ways. The noirish fatalism is flaring, but it’s a strong film that proposes a multidisciplinary analysis even in the confines of a short runtime that only operates on a micro-level. Robson’s change from here to Peyton Place explicitly showcases how affected he was by the wartime era here, or perhaps he was always an empathetic person who was for hire on the pictures that weren’t ready for the scope of his vision yet. Either way, this is a wonderful propaganda product of its time, and one that’s far more introspective than the studio likely noticed.

User avatar
swo17
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#686 Post by swo17 » Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:57 pm

As a final reminder, you all have until I get going Monday morning to submit a revision to your list, or a new list if you haven't submitted one yet.

I might also add that if you submitted a list during the last round I still have it, and if you would like me to send it to you to use as a starting point, or even just count it again as is, you can let me know that by PM

Noiradelic
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:45 am

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#687 Post by Noiradelic » Sat Nov 23, 2019 2:27 pm

Re-reading the thread, I see The Ghost and Mrs. Muir's no longer an orphan.

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#688 Post by TMDaines » Sat Nov 23, 2019 3:55 pm

swo17 wrote:
Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:28 pm
Good question. I'm fine with people voting for it. No one has yet, though I don't know if that's specifically because they considered it ineligible
I reckon 2014 is probably the right year for it after reading this. It was most definitely unfinished until then and it isn’t a case like Ucho where it was finished.

Likewise, I think Partie de campagne should really be a 40s film next time around. There was no film to speak of until the 40s, even if the footage was shot many years earlier. Voting for it in the 30s doesn’t recognise that films are made in the edit. The shoot is just one stage.

User avatar
swo17
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#689 Post by swo17 » Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:01 pm

You can bring that up next time we do the 1930s list and we can make a ruling at that time. Though as everyone knows, Partie de campagne is a 2010s film made in Argentina

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#690 Post by therewillbeblus » Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:57 pm

swo17 wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 4:01 pm
Though as everyone knows, Partie de campagne is a 2010s film made in Argentina
It’s also a (mostly) silent film.

User avatar
swo17
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#691 Post by swo17 » Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:02 pm

Yep

User avatar
Rayon Vert
Green is the Rayest Color
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#692 Post by Rayon Vert » Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:38 pm

Commentaries again...

The Stranger. (Olive BR: Nora Fiore). Fiore is a blogger but her commentary here belongs among the best I’ve listened to for this project (I listened to the earlier Kino edition commentary too long ago to compare). Right from the start she reads the film’s scenes closely, and the occasional digressions to discuss script changes or other topics always remain focused on the film itself. She brings both knowledge and skill in analyzing the film’s themes, symbolism and art (the surrealism in the early scenes, the role editing plays and so forth), and references movies that may have influenced Welles here. She pays a lot of attention to the importance of the concentration camp footage and the way it’s used. Also, Robinson’s performance is rightly singled out for praise. Finally she discusses interesting sub-textual readings like women after the war adjusting to their husbands’ return from war as “strangers”, and fascism hiding in plain sight in America. (A small technical issue here that Gary Tooze also noticed is that when she occasionally pauses, the soundtrack doesn’t come up in volume so you don’t hear the actors speaking.)

Dead of Night. (Kino BR: Tim Lucas). Unfortunately Lucas really does a lot of those IMDB-career run-downs. On the other hand, he knows his horror film history, he can draw interesting parallels to other work/authors (for instance, Borges, Bava, Hitchcock, Bunuel), he provides other information like the source for every story here, and he does some good close reading of scenes, especially in the mirror segment. That being said, the feature-length documentary that’s here and on the Studio Canal blu already did an exceptional job of analyzing the film from beginning to end, so this track is a bit superfluous.

Prince of Foxes. (Kino BR: Troy Howarth). About half the track is career wrap-ups for the participants. I started wondering to what extent commentators think this is what they’re supposed to do, or even if they’re asked to do this by certain labels. I was already in the midst of entertaining these thoughts when Howarth, late in the commentary, just before launching into a long bio for Orson Welles, excuses himself to the viewer for probably being familiar with all of this already. Then what’s the reason for doing it? Anyhow, it’s unfortunate because the rest of the track is interesting enough even if unspectacular, commenting on the performances especially, the shooting in Italy for the whole film, the great-looking black-and-white photography that fits the tone of this “thinking man’s action film” as he puts it (more political intrigue than anything else), and a few comments about the staging of certain scenes. (The recording has an annoying, fairly constant stream of sonic thumps in the background.)

Letter from An Unknown Woman. (Olive Signature BR: Lutz Bacher). Deficient in a completely different way than usual. Bacher is an Ophüls academic who single-mindedly focuses on describing and putting into context in terms of microscopic production history the way the director stages and shoots each scene. Until the last twenty minutes, this is done without any reference to the narrative or how it creates meaning; rather it’s almost entirely historical description of what the director chose to do on the set the day of the scene, and also talking about the shoot in relation to things like budget and schedule. So unless you’re really interested in the minutiae of Ophüls’ working methods, this is mostly mind-numbingly dull, and also definitely not helped by the fact that the commentator has a thick accent creating a somewhat difficult to understand mushmouth effect and that he is evidently reading his material at an incredibly fast pace that, ironically here given his subject of study, lacks any rhythm or grace. By the time he got into some observations of potentially more consequence in that last section, I’d endured enough so that I no longer had the will to summon the slightest interest.

That being said, for good or ill, based on my minuscule sample, at least Olive seems to be ready to take more risks than the formulaic Kino.

Rebecca. (Criterion BR: Leonard J. Leff). I’d never heard this track because the MGM was the one I owned. This is irreproachable. For the whole feature Leff reads the film through all of its possible facets, he knows the director’s oeuvre thoroughly, and the production backstory elements he includes, mostly having to do with Selznick’s influence on the film, are seamlessly woven into his narrative. Again a model of a commentary from Criterion, and it makes you sad that the trend has now been to abandon that feature since they really often could be in a class of their own here.

nitin
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:49 am

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#693 Post by nitin » Sun Nov 24, 2019 1:53 am

Submitted my revised list, didn’t get as much time as I wanted to rewatch for the purposes of revising but at least Such a Pretty Little Beach is a very new and high addition.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#694 Post by therewillbeblus » Sun Nov 24, 2019 2:06 am

Just realized The Fan was my orphan. Others have already chimed in on the merits of the film so I don’t feel the need to make a last minute long defense, but it’s an underrated rich Preminger, and if you fancy his direction and have some free time tomorrow I strongly recommend tracking it down (it’s somewhere on the internet to stream for free in good quality, wasn’t too hard to find).

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#695 Post by domino harvey » Sun Nov 24, 2019 2:22 am

With Muir safely rescued, I was torn between that and another film to rescue with my vote. Sorry to say it was the losing film, though

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#696 Post by therewillbeblus » Sun Nov 24, 2019 2:42 am

At least you rescued something, you’re a better man than I

User avatar
barryconvex
billy..biff..scooter....tommy
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:08 pm
Location: NYC

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#697 Post by barryconvex » Sun Nov 24, 2019 5:11 am

I could've easily subbed in Mrs. Minniver or The Ghost & Mrs. Muir but I ended up adding The Big Clock to my list.

Noiradelic
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:45 am

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#698 Post by Noiradelic » Sun Nov 24, 2019 8:00 am

As of a few days ago, I've seen 99 of the previous final 1940s list. First time I've seen that many of a past decade list.

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#699 Post by TMDaines » Sun Nov 24, 2019 9:42 am

I think I’m at the low 60s, which is pretty good for me.

User avatar
Rayon Vert
Green is the Rayest Color
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: The 1940s List: Discussion and Suggestions

#700 Post by Rayon Vert » Sun Nov 24, 2019 11:45 am

87 (the unseen are mostly the shorts, animations, docs)

Post Reply