TCM: The Greatest Movie Channel

[Tom Holmberg]

On 10/2/2021 at 11:24 AM, Rinaldo said:

Eh, there are worse things they could show again. Catalina Caper is at least modest fun in its mediocrity. (Though most fun of all as roasted by MST3K.)

Tommy Kirk was in much better films than that.

[Charlie Baker]

Spending a little time with Ben and Nancy Sinatra on TCM made for a fun Friday evening. (No, I don't get out much.)  They showed some movies from her admittedly less than spectacular film career: Marriage on the Rocks, with her father and which I think they just ran on Deborah Kerr day, the beach partier For Those Who Think Young, which had Ellen Burstyn in its cast when she was still working as Ellen McRae. 

But the kick-off selection was the one I couldn't resist, Movin' with Nancy, a special she made for NBC in 1967. It's not on Watch TCM, but may be floating around You Tube.  Anyway, it's for sure a time capsule and along with A Hard Day's Night and Help, an obvious precursor to the music video tropes of the early 80s.  Some groovy 60s dances choreographed and performed by David Winters. Plus it's got Sinatra and Sammy Davis, Jr., and Dean Martin.  And Lee Hazlewood, who wrote some of NS's hits.  Included is NS's rendition of "This Town," written by Hazlewood, and part of the soundtrack for our infamously beloved The Cool Ones.  IMDB says NS was going to play the female lead in Cool Ones, but did not.  She dodged a bullet. 

[Fool to cry]

Exodus (1960) with Paul Newman and Eva Marie Saint tonight. I always liked that she had her hair cut into a bob for North By Northwest and kept it that way for life. I recently watched her bringing it in the climax of Grand Prix(1966) and besides having mind blowing racing footage that still looks fantastic now is it reminded me how more international Hollywood movies were in the 1960s. They would bring in actors and actresses from other countries more often.  It didn't matter if they could speak little English and had to be dubbed like Toshiro Mifune, or have stilted and little dialogue like Antonio Sobato or Francoise Hardy. Yves Montand is the best of the foreign cast. Able to speak English well and give a compelling performance.

Edited October 9, 2021 by Fool to cry

[Rinaldo]

22 hours ago, Charlie Baker said:

IMDB says [Nancy Sinatra] was going to play the female lead in Cool Ones, but did not.  She dodged a bullet. 

In a way, yes. In another way, being in that kind of inadvertent camp classic offers its own cachet, probably more than any of the merely-forgettable movies she did make.

19 hours ago, Fool to cry said:

it reminded me how more international Hollywood movies were in the 1960s. They would bring in actors and actresses from other countries more often. 

That was part of the technique of making big-budget blockbusters then: ideally a star from each of the big international markets, to ensure all those audiences would show up. It would be interesting to see a film historian (like Jeanine Basinger) analyze how that thinking keeps evolving over the years for big productions. For instance, in the comic-book franchises now, are the already-known characters the stars, so it doesn't matter who plays them? But Grand Prix is certainly one of the prime examples of that kind of casting.

Edited October 10, 2021 by Rinaldo

[EtheltoTillie]

Fantastic Voyage is a hoot!  I thought it was very exciting when I was eleven. Now the science is preposterous and the special effects cheesy. Tune in to see Raquel Welch wasted in a jumpsuit. 
Also how could anyone not realize Donald Pleasence was the villain?  

Edited October 10, 2021 by GussieK

[EtheltoTillie]

Is anyone watching the Mario Cantone horror movie intros?  I am going to try them. He’s so funny. I was able to catch one of his live shows a couple of years ago. He also appears on Gilbert Gotfried’s podcast and does movie trivia and impressions. Come to think of it, Gilbert used to host a cheesy horror movie show on USA in the eighties. 

[Milburn Stone]

15 hours ago, Rinaldo said:

IIt would be interesting to see a film historian (like Janine Basinger) analyze how that thinking keeps evolving over the years for big productions.

If she took that on, I'd be particularly interested in her analysis of why foreign stars in American movies were so often terrible. Oskar Werner, Omar Sharif, et. al.--they had to be good actors in their home countries to have risen to stardom, right? But in American movies they're just lumps. ESL is probably part of it, but I feel like that can't be all of it. Something about acting styles that work in one culture but not another? 

[Charlie Baker]

Saturday night had a noir double feature.  First, Armored Car Robbery.  Yes, that's the title, generic as it sounds.  But don't be fooled.  It's a tough, tidy, short heist movie.  It's no Asphalt Jungle.  And it's no Narrow Margin either, the excellent subsequent collaboration of director Richard Fleischer and lead Charles McGraw, who did this one.  But there's loads of flavor and 50s LA location shooting.  And a performance from William Talman as the job's mastermind that suggests he might have been recognized as a great screen heavy, instead of as the DA on Perry Mason opposite Raymond Burr.  Further evidence: his memorable psychopath in Ida Lupino's The Hitch-hiker. 

Following that was Noir Alley proper, with a Brit-noir, Brighton Rock.  Its plot can be a little confusing, due to local referencing of the period it's set, the 30s, and some dialect that doesn't fall too easily on American ears.  But it's beautifully made, and its chief asset is also its baddie, young Richard Attenborough, who suggests an adolescent James Cagney at times, and is lit and shot to look ethereally beautiful or haunting and menacing.  This teen gang leader is maybe sicker than any crook Cagney ever played. 

Mario Cantone can strike me as quite funny or a bit much or both at the same time.  His horror choices have been interesting, especially how he pairs them.  The Birds with Little Shop of Horrors, the musical.  The Bad Seed with the quite bizarre-sounding It's Alive, which I haven't watched.  From what I've seen, his commentary and interaction with Ben are fun. 

[Fool to cry]

22 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

If she took that on, I'd be particularly interested in her analysis of why foreign stars in American movies were so often terrible. Oskar Werner, Omar Sharif, et. al.--they had to be good actors in their home countries to have risen to stardom, right? But in American movies they're just lumps. ESL is probably part of it, but I feel like that can't be all of it. Something about acting styles that work in one culture but not another? 

I also think they were playing different types of roles in their home country. Franco Nero became a star in Italy playing the original Django, a brooding, taciturn anti-hero ala Clint Eastwood in a violent speghetti Western. Then Warner Bros brings him over to play righteous and boisterous singing knight Lancelot in their musical Camelot!

Edited October 11, 2021 by Fool to cry

[EtheltoTillie]

8 hours ago, Charlie Baker said:

Saturday night had a noir double feature.  First, Armored Car Robbery.  Yes, that's the title, generic as it sounds.  But don't be fooled.  It's a tough, tidy, short heist movie.  It's no Asphalt Jungle.  And it's no Narrow Margin either, the excellent subsequent collaboration of director Richard Fleischer and lead Charles McGraw, who did this one.  But there's loads of flavor and 50s LA location shooting.  And a performance from William Talman as the job's mastermind that suggests he might have been recognized as a great screen heavy, instead of as the DA on Perry Mason opposite Raymond Burr.  Further evidence: his memorable psychopath in Ida Lupino's The Hitch-hiker. 

Following that was Noir Alley proper, with a Brit-noir, Brighton Rock.  Its plot can be a little confusing, due to local referencing of the period it's set, the 30s, and some dialect that doesn't fall too easily on American ears.  But it's beautifully made, and its chief asset is also its baddie, young Richard Attenborough, who suggests an adolescent James Cagney at times, and is lit and shot to look ethereally beautiful or haunting and menacing.  This teen gang leader is maybe sicker than any crook Cagney ever played. 

Mario Cantone can strike me as quite funny or a bit much or both at the same time.  His horror choices have been interesting, especially how he pairs them.  The Birds with Little Shop of Horrors, the musical.  The Bad Seed with the quite bizarre-sounding It's Alive, which I haven't watched.  From what I've seen, his commentary and interaction with Ben are fun. 

I’m glad someone else recommended Armored Car Robbery. It was a tidy little treat, and Talman was scary. The blonde woman looked so much like a second tier Virginia Mayo. I also watched It’s Alive. This is a little gem with unknown actors. They manage to convey a lot of suspense with spare visual imagery. 

[Charlie Baker]

Schedule alert: tomorrow morning 8:30 ET is The Golden Fleecing, a little "B picture" I like a lot.  It's a comedy with Lew Ayres as a bumbling insurance salesman turned hero and Lloyd Nolan as his gangster client, both terrific. Just fun. 

[Rinaldo]

4 hours ago, Charlie Baker said:

Schedule alert: tomorrow morning 8:30 ET is The Golden Fleecing, a little "B picture" I like a lot.  It's a comedy with Lew Ayres as a bumbling insurance salesman turned hero and Lloyd Nolan as his gangster client, both terrific. Just fun. 

This title was nagging at my memory, though I'd never seen this movie. Then I finally remembered -- there's a play by that title which is credited as the source of the 1960s comedy The Honeymoon Machine (Steve McQueen, Brigid Bazlen, the Prentiss-Hutton duo), which TCM plays from time to time. The play was on Broadway in 1958, and apparently totally unrelated to the 1940 movie described above.

On 10/10/2021 at 12:59 PM, Milburn Stone said:

why foreign stars in American movies were so often terrible. Oskar Werner, Omar Sharif, et. al.--they had to be good actors in their home countries to have risen to stardom, right? But in American movies they're just lumps.

I've been thinking this over, and have decided that each case is different. (I know, what an original notion...) I could propose to myself that often these foreign stars are singled out because of a distinctive look or "exotic" quality that doesn't work out satisfyingly when they have to act in English. But then I recall that exactly such circumstances worked out great for Greta Garbo and Ingrid Bergman. And Antonio Banderas in more recent times. So my profound conclusion is, there's no rule about it. Some foreign-language stars prove themselves good actors in American films, some don't.

Edited October 12, 2021 by Rinaldo

[EtheltoTillie]

Sophia Loren is another example. 

[EtheltoTillie]

The Golden Fleecing is on Watch TCM. I may try it. 

Speaking of Sophia Loren, I implore anyone within the sound of my keyboard to catch some of Five Minutes to Midnight.  Is this for real?  Apparently someone thought it was a good idea to marry off the luscious Sophia to Norman Bates. Of course he is an insane stalker/control freak and slaps her hard within the first two minutes, after which I promptly tuned out.  The plot apparently goes on to involve some insurance fraud where he is faking his own death. 

[EtheltoTillie]

Apologies. That’s Five Miles to Midnight.  It’s my watching time that was five minutes. 

[mariah23]

1 hour ago, GussieK said:

The Golden Fleecing is on Watch TCM. I may try it. 

Speaking of Sophia Loren, I implore anyone within the sound of my keyboard to catch some of Five Minutes to Midnight.  Is this for real?  Apparently someone thought it was a good idea to marry off the luscious Sophia to Norman Bates. Of course he is an insane stalker/control freak and slaps her hard within the first two minutes, after which I promptly tuned out.  The plot apparently goes on to involve some insurance fraud where he is faking his own death. 

That was the second time Loren and Perkins were paired together.  Have you seen Desire Under the Elms?

[EtheltoTillie]

3 hours ago, mariah23 said:

That was the second time Loren and Perkins were paired together.  Have you seen Desire Under the Elms?

No, but I read about it earlier today.  I may be afraid to watch.   What do you think?

Another good B picture is Mystery Street, just shown yesterday.  It has young Ricardo Montalban as a detective.  A little noir trifle.  It also has Betsy Blair, who is always interesting to see when she's not playing Plain Jane Clara Snyder.  I have a feeling she isn't seen much because of the blacklist. 

[mariah23]

19 minutes ago, GussieK said:

No, but I read about it earlier today.  I may be afraid to watch.   What do you think?

Another good B picture is Mystery Street, just shown yesterday.  It has young Ricardo Montalban as a detective.  A little noir trifle.  It also has Betsy Blair, who is always interesting to see when she's not playing Plain Jane Clara Snyder.  I have a feeling she isn't seen much because of the blacklist. 

It aired once when Sophia Loren was SOTM.  I was weirded out by their pairing but the movie is a tragedy…

[Rinaldo]

On 10/14/2021 at 8:46 AM, GussieK said:

Apparently someone thought it was a good idea to marry off the luscious Sophia to Norman Bates.

I haven't seen this, and I don't doubt you're right about the effect of the movie, but I suspect this is the only sort of role Anthony Perkins was getting offered after Psycho. I generally am a disbeliever that any single movie "wrecked someone's career," but in this one case I've come to believe that it's true. Look at Tony Perkins in earlier movies like Friendly Persuasion and (especially) The Matchmaker, and he's a charming charismatic young man with a bright future, someone I'd have liked to see onscreen a lot more. But it didn't happen that way, and the permanent aftereffect of Psycho probably couldn't have been predicted in advance. (I'm not discounting that there may have been other contributing factors in his life, too; but I don't think this one can be ignored.)

[EtheltoTillie]

4 hours ago, Rinaldo said:

I haven't seen this, and I don't doubt you're right about the effect of the movie, but I suspect this is the only sort of role Anthony Perkins was getting offered after Psycho. I generally am a disbeliever that any single movie "wrecked someone's career," but in this one case I've come to believe that it's true. Look at Tony Perkins in earlier movies like Friendly Persuasion and (especially) The Matchmaker, and he's a charming charismatic young man with a bright future, someone I'd have liked to see onscreen a lot more. But it didn't happen that way, and the permanent aftereffect of Psycho probably couldn't have been predicted in advance. (I'm not discounting that there may have been other contributing factors in his life, too; but I don't think this one can be ignored.)

This is an interesting discussion of Tony Perkins's career.  Now I've even taken a look at Tall Story.  He's not yet Norman Bates, and he's kind of goofy.  Nothing menacing.  I've also seen Friendly Persuasion and The Matchmaker--same idea.  But he drew on something inside him to play the frightening character of Norman Bates, and maybe it scared people off forever. 

 

[Rinaldo]

42 minutes ago, GussieK said:

But he drew on something inside him to play the frightening character of Norman Bates, and maybe it scared people off forever. 

There are also always those (they're all over forum discussion of TV, and I've learned to say nothing and leave) who say "Now I can't see Actor X as anything but Role Y." Which always seemed absurd and short-sighted to me, as if acting didn't exist. (I love to see actors play varied roles.) But he did make Norman Bates exceedingly vivid, and the movie itself made a deep impression. In its wake he apparently looked for roles in obscure European films for several years. The most successful of his later roles still used him as an eccentric, repressed, rather odd person (Evening Primrose on TV, Pretty Poison, Murder on the Orient Express). 

[Bastet]

38 minutes ago, Rinaldo said:

There are also always those (they're all over forum discussion of TV, and I've learned to say nothing and leave) who say "Now I can't see Actor X as anything but Role Y." Which always seemed absurd and short-sighted to me, as if acting didn't exist.

Eh, it happens sometimes.  A role is iconic, or it's in a movie I watch dozens of times/TV show I watch for many years, I haven't seen the actor in very many other things, etc. -- sometimes circumstances combine so that actor and role meld in the mind such that the connection always exists, no matter how many other roles I see the actor in.  It's exceedingly rare for me to become distracted by it - I generally see them turn up in something else, think, "Hey, it's [character]," and then get caught up in who they're playing now - but Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates is definitely in that tiny percentage for me.  Of course I understand he's playing a completely different character in a completely different film, but there's that little part of my subconscious that's waiting for the reveal he's actually a psycho.

[Milburn Stone]

Just as it's hard not to imagine Norman Bates when seeing Tony Perkins, it's hard to imagine anyone but Tony Perkins playing Norman Bates.

[Wiendish Fitch]

Re: Tony Perkins as Norman Bates

Lots of actors play iconic parts, but can still rise above them and be remembered beyond that. Judy Garland as Dorothy, for example, or, or Humphrey Bogart as Rick Blaine, or Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lector. Iconic parts, but the actors in question weren't completely swallowed whole by them. 

Then there are those roles that are almost too iconic, and they break your career more than make it. Bela Lugosi as Dracula comes to mind. Anthony Perkins was brilliant as Norman Bates... almost too good, and I guess no one could see him as anything else.

 

Edited October 16, 2021 by Wiendish Fitch

[Charlie Baker]

Jane Powell tribute in progress as I write this--four movies, wrapping this afternoon with, of course, Royal Wedding and Seven Brides. 

[EtheltoTillie]

Speaking some more about Norman Bates, if anyone can stand it, I just caught the sequels episode of AMC’s history of horror films, with a lengthy segment on Psycho 2.  Quentin Tarantino thinks that Anthony Perkins outdid himself in this sequel. I don’t know about that—I have never seen the whole movie—but he was playing the part in a different way.  

[Bastet]

I've seen II and III quite a few times (IV only twice), and I agree Perkins's performance in II is fantastic; there's a sweetness and optimism when Norman first returns that's impressive to pull off given how everyone last saw the character, and then his portrayal of Norman's confusion and fear as the gaslighting gets under way is heartbreaking at points.

[EtheltoTillie]

9 hours ago, Bastet said:

I've seen II and III quite a few times (IV only twice), and I agree Perkins's performance in II is fantastic; there's a sweetness and optimism when Norman first returns that's impressive to pull off given how everyone last saw the character, and then his portrayal of Norman's confusion and fear as the gaslighting gets under way is heartbreaking at points.

Yes, that’s exactly what they were describing. I think I will have to watch it now.  These AMC shows are well done and fun to watch.  They either remind you of things you enjoyed or point you at new things to watch. 

[Fool to cry]

I think Perkins was great in Orson Welles' adaptation of Franz Kafka's The Trial which came out three years after Psycho. He really captured the confusion of the main character experiencing the harrowing neverending nightmare of the story.

Edited October 19, 2021 by Fool to cry

[Gemma Violet]

I just finished watching Carousel.  Of course, I was familiar with some of the beautiful music and I knew that it was originally a R&H Broadway show, but I didn't really know the plot.  Wow, I'm so disappointed.  I thought it was unpleasant and boring.  Basically, a jackass of a guy treats his wife like shit and she happily takes it.  And then he dies and realizes he loves her.  Big whoop.   

[Constant Viewer]

11 minutes ago, Gemma Violet said:

I just finished watching Carousel.  Of course, I was familiar with some of the beautiful music and I knew that it was originally a R&H Broadway show, but I didn't really know the plot.

The music of Carousel is gorgeous, but the story is very problematic, especially today.  The song What's the Use of Wondering" is especially melancholy and so many people wind up in a situation like that. I do like the end scene with "When You Walk Through a Storm".

Edited October 22, 2021 by Constant Viewer

[Rinaldo]

Yeah, Carousel has not survived the years well, to put it as mildly as possible. It's perhaps R&H's richest and most ambitious score (onstage at least; the movie cuts the music content way down), but I can't summon any defense for the show as a whole. Actors & directors still seem to want to revive it and find a way to lean into the tragedy and make it relevant (or palatable), but I don't think the text is there to support that. Carousel may be best experienced as individual numbers, out of context. The Carousel Waltz is magnificent, the musical scene in which Billy and Julie meet (barely present in the film) is an almost operatic bit of composition, and on its own without story context, "What's the Use of Wondrin'" is lovely and moving.

[Milburn Stone]

35 minutes ago, Rinaldo said:

It's perhaps R&H's richest and most ambitious score (onstage at least; the movie cuts the music content way down), but I can't summon any defense for the show as a whole.

I can.

I find the show tremendously moving; a good production reduces me to sobs. Is Billy supposed to be "likable"? No. But he is not beyond redemption. And neither is Louise.

For me, the worst thing about Carousel is Hammerstein writing "steal it or take it." 

 

 

[Rinaldo]

45 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

I find the show tremendously moving; a good production reduces me to sobs. Is Billy supposed to be "likable"? No. But he is not beyond redemption. And neither is Louise.

As far as that goes, no disagreement. And the whole idea in the later scenes that we can somehow get another chance with those we've wronged, and make things right, has tremendous resonance for most of us, I would think. The problem is in some of the actual lines that have to be said, like Julie's assurance to Louise that a man hitting you can feel like a kiss, and not hurt at all. The most recent Broadway revival simply cut that one; and the director of the previous one (Nicholas Hytner) now says that he should have cut it too -- it's not just the character who thinks so, the whole show does ("If I Loved You" is underscoring the speech, to assure us that it's true).

[Milburn Stone]

1 hour ago, Rinaldo said:

...it's not just the character who thinks so, the whole show does ("If I Loved You" is underscoring the speech, to assure us that it's true).

Off the top of my head I'm not coming up with the part of "If I Loved You" that underscores "being hit can feel like a kiss," but I know you have something in mind, and If you can refresh my memory I'll appreciate it.

I find it regrettable that the line is sometimes cut. I am 100% capable of putting myself in the time of the show (I mean 1945, not the historical period depicted) when that line was rich with emotional meaning and didn't offend audiences. Hammerstein wouldn't have written it--and multiple other creative artists involved in the original production wouldn't have allowed it to stand--if it was remotely offensive at the time. Works from the past demand a little work from audiences--the effort to put oneself in a mental time machine to receive from the work all the meanings intended, no matter if one doesn't "like" those meanings today. I know you agree with that because it's come up before and we're philosophically aligned on the issue. So I'd be interested why this is an exception.

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by Milburn Stone

[Suzn]

1 hour ago, Milburn Stone said:

Off the top of my head I'm not coming up with the part of "If I Loved You" that underscores "being hit can feel like a kiss," but I know you have something in mind, and If you can refresh my memory I'll appreciate it.

I find it regrettable that the line is sometimes cut. I am 100% capable of putting myself in the time of the show (I mean 1945, not the historical period depicted) when that line was rich with emotional meaning and didn't offend audiences. Hammerstein wouldn't have written it--and multiple other creative artists involved in the original production wouldn't have allowed it to stand--if it was remotely offensive at the time. Works from the past demand a little work from audiences--the effort to put oneself in a mental time machine to receive from the work all the meanings intended, no matter if one doesn't "like" those meanings today. I know you agree with that because it's come up before and we're philosophically aligned on the issue. So I'd be interested why this is an exception.

 

What makes Carousel different than many movies with problematic parts is that it is far more than a few scenes or lines.  The entire movie is about a character with few redeeming characteristics. Billy may love Julie but really never acts with love or her best interests.  He's a bad guy.

I love this movie for the songs and dancing and it touches me in a way I can't explain.  It is totally atypical for me but the movie makes me cry from the daughter dancing on the beach to the end.

[Mrs. P.]

5 hours ago, Suzn said:

What makes Carousel different than many movies with problematic parts is that it is far more than a few scenes or lines.  The entire movie is about a character with few redeeming characteristics. Billy may love Julie but really never acts with love or her best interests.  He's a bad guy.

I love this movie for the songs and dancing and it touches me in a way I can't explain.  It is totally atypical for me but the movie makes me cry from the daughter dancing on the beach to the end.

If I Loved You is one of my favorite R&H songs ever.

[Rinaldo]

16 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

Off the top of my head I'm not coming up with the part of "If I Loved You" that underscores "being hit can feel like a kiss," but I know you have something in mind, and If you can refresh my memory I'll appreciate it.

It's instrumental during that speech (at least onstage; I can't swear that this is retained in the movie as I haven't rewatched it in a while, but I would think it is because in a couple of minutes into Billy singing "Longing to tell you but afraid and shy" etc.

I don't know if we're as philosophically aligned on this point as you think. Yes, I'm a purist in some ways about trying to make older stage pieces work without alteration; but in a few instances I now think the gap can't be bridged without intervention. (As movies continue to exist unaltered, each of us decides individually how we feel about it, which may include deciding not to watch it again.) Writers from another time, with the best of intentions, may have been oblivious to something we now find too fundamental to ignore. The idea that "he really loves her deep down, he just can't express it except by hitting her" is one I can no longer accept as a redemptive excuse for Billy, not with the awareness we've achieved (and are still struggling to achieve). And Molnar, the author of the source play, didn't think so either: after Liliom gets a second chance and hits Louise, he's taken off to hell and gets no third chance. End of play.

I think it's possible to imagine a drama in which Billy and Julie are both victims of their upbringing, in which they knew violence as part of their parents' marriages and continued it as part of their own, and Louise will be the one to, as we now say, break the cycle. But Hammerstein didn't write the text to support all that. Directors and actors love to imagine that it can all be done by acting, but I've never seen it really achieved, and my opinion is that it can't. It's a complicated, uncomfortable situation: on principle I tend to think "Accept a work as it is, or leave it alone," but this is one that tests me. We'll each have our own feelings about it, and I've already gone on more than long enough.

(Especially as I see in the stats that I'm the most frequent poster in the TCM topic, and by a huge huge margin. I'm embarrassed to find myself such a windbag, and I try to refrain from saying anything these days. Obviously without success.)

[wilsie]

5 minutes ago, Rinaldo said:

16 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

Off the top of my head I'm not coming up with the part of "If I Loved You" that underscores "being hit can feel like a kiss," but I know you have something in mind, and If you can refresh my memory I'll appreciate it.

It's instrumental during that speech (at least onstage; I can't swear that this is retained in the movie as I haven't rewatched it in a while, but I would think it is because in a couple of minutes into Billy singing "Longing to tell you but afraid and shy" etc.

I don't know if we're as philosophically aligned on this point as you think. Yes, I'm a purist in some ways about trying to make older stage pieces work without alteration; but in a few instances I now think the gap can't be bridged without intervention. (As movies continue to exist unaltered, each of us decides individually how we feel about it, which may include deciding not to watch it again.) Writers from another time, with the best of intentions, may have been oblivious to something we now find too fundamental to ignore. The idea that "he really loves her deep down, he just can't express it except by hitting her" is one I can no longer accept as a redemptive excuse for Billy, not with the awareness we've achieved (and are still struggling to achieve). And Molnar, the author of the source play, didn't think so either: after Liliom gets a second chance and hits Louise, he's taken off to hell and gets no third chance. End of play.

I think it's possible to imagine a drama in which Billy and Julie are both victims of their upbringing, in which they knew violence as part of their parents' marriages and continued it as part of their own, and Louise will be the one to, as we now say, break the cycle. But Hammerstein didn't write the text to support all that. Directors and actors love to imagine that it can all be done by acting, but I've never seen it really achieved, and my opinion is that it can't. It's a complicated, uncomfortable situation: on principle I tend to think "Accept a work as it is, or leave it alone," but this is one that tests me. We'll each have our own feelings about it, and I've already gone on more than long enough.

(Especially as I see in the stats that I'm the most frequent poster in the TCM topic, and by a huge huge margin. I'm embarrassed to find myself such a windbag, and I try to refrain from saying anything these days. Obviously without success.)

I think your opinions, this one included, are very interesting.

[Milburn Stone]

50 minutes ago, wilsie said:

I think your opinions, this one included, are very interesting.

I agree with @wilsie, @Rinaldo. I would be surprised if anyone on this forum wished you to post less often, or at less length. 

I see from your reply that our disagreement stems from different interpretations of Julie's line. I do see now how it echoes his line in "If I Loved You" (thank you for that; I never made the connection before, or if I did, I don't remember doing so) but I don't see Julie's Act 2 line as "making excuses" for Billy, or for that matter as Julie being gaslit into believing that it's OK or that she deserves to be hit. I have always seen it as an expression of Julie's deep love for Billy, and that's why I find it so moving. I do see the validity of your interpretation, but it's not mine. If I could paraphrase what I think Hammerstein condenses into that one line, it would be, "I love Billy so much (and I know in my soul that he loves me, no 'ifs' about it), that I accept him, abuse and all. I don't define what he did as anything other than abuse, it is abuse, and it's not 'OK'; but my love for him, and his for me, and my understanding of him, and my forgiveness of him, and my need for him, transcend all that." To put all that into ten words or less is the work of a master.

 

Edited October 23, 2021 by Milburn Stone

[EtheltoTillie]

I rewatched Carousel the other night for the first time in a while, before all these posts.  I always struggle with the content, given our modern perspective, but I love the music and acting.  I choose to see it as a tragic opera, where it a given that some characters are not redeemable.  For example, I  got to see a wonderful Off Broadway performance of Carmen Jones a couple of years ago, and it occurred to me for the first time just how much the character of Carmen has no redeeming value.  Also for the first time, I looked at the original Liliom script, so I could see where the ideas came from.

Additional thoughts.  "What's the Use of Wonderin'" is one of my favorite songs musically, although the sentiment is, well, unpalatable.  I love the Carousel waltz.  I had forgotten how young and innocent Shirley Jones looks at the beginning as she gazes up at Billy so adoringly.  How did she manage that?  There is some wonderful acting and writing when Julie tells Billy that she is pregnant and he suddenly gets happy and she naively hopes he won't be abusive anymore; it so brilliantly illustrates the dynamic of an abusive relationship. 

Why did R/H choose this material?  Maybe @Rinaldo can enlighten us.  All I can find is that Liliom was a popular play and many people tried to buy the rights, but Molnar wouldn't sell them till R/H came along. 

 

Edited October 23, 2021 by GussieK

[Charlie Baker]

A very thoughtful discussion on a piece that can provoke hostility-- congratulations, all.  And I hope you don't dial back on the posting, @Rinaldo.

[AgathaC]

You put that very well, Rinaldo. Carousel is one I’ve always struggled with. I can recall the first time I saw it as a 10-year-old. It was on TV and I was watching it with my mom (who had seen it but it had been years) with my dad in the room but not really watching. When it got to the “someone can hit you but it doesn’t hurt” part, he suddenly said “What the HELL are you watching?!” This led into a lecture on domestic violence and acceptable behavior in relationships that I found more alarming than educational. The movie itself was very confusing to me because I had grown up on musicals and had seen Oklahoma many times so seeing Curly being like that just messed with my young brain.

I saw it again in college and as an adult and continue to struggle with it. As a lover of history and of old movies, I’m a big proponent of putting things in context of the time (possibly as a teachable moment, depending on the audience) and leaving them alone. (Or skip those parts entirely if necessary.) But, as Rinaldo said, this one seems different. It’s been a while since I saw it so I may be off-base, but I think it has to do with the prominence of the problematic aspects.

One of my favorite Christmas movies is Remember the Night, which has a scene with an African-American manservant that is extremely cringeworthy today. That part can be put in context or even ignored without gutting the movie. It’s there for “comic relief” and other than setting up the next step in the story, it has no bearing on the overall theme of plot, really. It’s teachable or ignorable.

But domestic abuse and Billy’s character/behavior are central to Carousel. And the way it’s presented, I always got the feeling I was supposed to buy into the “he loves her, he just can’t express it correctly so he’s not that bad” narrative. There were ways it could have been tweaked (like the source material ending) or subtle alterations to Julie’s attitude that could have made it more palatable  but that wasn’t done and, in fact, as it stands, it pushes too far the other way. It’s not so easily dismissed and has always left me just feeling a mix of sad, uncomfortable and angry, which I don’t think was the intent.

[EtheltoTillie]

Can we discuss Taming of the Shrew next LOL?

Seriously, in a college Shakespeare class (in the 70s at a women's college), the prof tried to present the ending as a secret alliance between the two instead of an abusive relationship.  This seemed to be a revisionist history, given the times. 

Edited October 24, 2021 by GussieK

[Milburn Stone]

Love is complicated.

BTW, I think it was Rinaldo who mentioned that one response (among many possible) is to not watch a movie anymore. That resonated with me, because it's how I now feel about Gone With the Wind. 

[Suzn]

4 hours ago, GussieK said:

I rewatched Carousel the other night for the first time in a while, before all these posts.  I always struggle with the content, given our modern perspective, but I love the music and acting.  I choose to see it as a tragic opera, where it a given that some characters are not redeemable. 

This is largely how I reconcile what I value in Carousel and what is completely unacceptable.  Billy is unredeemable and abuse can never be acceptable, the movie can be watched as a beautiful tragedy.

2 hours ago, AgathaC said:

  ...the way it’s presented, I always got the feeling I was supposed to buy into the “he loves her, he just can’t express it correctly so he’s not that bad” narrative. There were ways it could have been tweaked (like the source material ending) or subtle alterations to Julie’s attitude that could have made it more palatable  but that wasn’t done and, in fact, as it stands, it pushes too far the other way. It’s not so easily dismissed and has always left me just feeling a mix of sad, uncomfortable and angry, which I don’t think was the intent.

I don't think it can ever be considered that "he's not that bad".  I can watch it with the full acceptance that Billy is a very bad guy who does things that cannot be justified and still see the beauty in the movie.

2 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

Love is complicated.

BTW, I think it was Rinaldo who mentioned that one response (among many possible) is to not watch a movie anymore. That resonated with me, because it's how I now feel about Gone With the Wind. 

I haven't reached that point with Gone With the Wind quite yet, but it takes weighing various parts and characters against each other.  For example, I think I will always admire Melanie and she outweighs what Scarlett becomes.

And finally,  @Rinaldo, you haven't overstayed your welcome.  I always enjoy your take on the movies.

[StatisticalOutlier]

On 10/23/2021 at 9:58 AM, Charlie Baker said:

A very thoughtful discussion on a piece that can provoke hostility-- congratulations, all.  And I hope you don't dial back on the posting, @Rinaldo.

On behalf of shallow people, I'll ask that all y'all keep posting.  Seriously.  I see a LOT of movies but only because I love watching movies.  And but for discussions like these, and even one-off thoughtful posts that add to a post count but don't spark conversation, I wouldn't even think about 99% what y'all observe and think about and discuss. 

I don't want to read a treatise on every movie I see, but I do like listening to conversations among my "friends" here.

[Rinaldo]

On 10/23/2021 at 10:40 AM, GussieK said:

Why did R/H choose this material?  Maybe @Rinaldo can enlighten us.  All I can find is that Liliom was a popular play and many people tried to buy the rights, but Molnar wouldn't sell them till R/H came along. 

Alas, I can't. All I know is what can be found in any R or H bio: that they wanted a follow-up to Oklahoma! (it used a lot of the same personnel) and they saw something in Liliom that would work for them. As I mentioned, Molnar's play ends with the guy (Liliom, later to become Billy) hitting his daughter after being allowed to return from Beyond, and then being led off by his guide, to what fate we can imagine. And Julie (same name in both) then has the line about being hit, but there I find it unobjectionable because he's not redeemed and the end is tragic, so she's just saying the sad truth from her miserable outlook. Molnar (who by 1945 was living in NYC) is said to have loved R&H's new ending; but if that's true, I cynically wonder if he was (a) initially overcome by the power of the music, and/or (b) aware of the royalties he was going to be earning (and probably, at that point, very much needed).

At the risk of further beating an already-expired horse, I'll add that (possibly without meaning to) I was talking more about Carousel onstage than onscreen. For one thing, I honestly don't think the movie is that good -- there are better R&H film adaptations out there (for one thing, the 10-minute musically continuous scenes are all gone, but that's not the only reason). For another, the time, effort, and expense required to mount any stage production (as opposed to airing a movie, or indeed picking up a book etc.) implicitly says "We have something important to share, with something vital to say to all of us."

Edited October 25, 2021 by Rinaldo

[EtheltoTillie]

@Rinaldo I appreciate your knowledge of the comparisons with stage versions.  While being a lifelong New Yorker, I’ve had the opportunity to see a lot of Broadway, but I still have to reply on film versions of many musicals or plays to be my only experience. What’s your opinion—should I get tickets to the new production of The Music Man with Sutton Foster and Hugh Jackman?  This is a movie we have dissected endlessly here. 

[Milburn Stone]

13 hours ago, Rinaldo said:

Molnar (who by 1945 was living in NYC) is said to have loved R&H's new ending; but if that's true, I cynically wonder if he was (a) initially overcome by the power of the music, and/or (b) aware of the royalties he was going to be earning (and probably, at that point, very much needed).

I would suggest that if the answer is (a), that is an entirely valid reason to love the ending. Carousel isn't a straight play (to belabor the obvious), it's a musical, and what it presents to audiences is a total package. Presumably Molnar liked the R&H ending and his "problematic" Julie line, because somehow they work together. (I could never explain how they work together; only people with the genius to have created Carousel could explain it, if even they could.)

I've never seen a production of Liliom on stage or film, but my wild guess is that I'd find it nowhere near as moving and powerful as I do Carousel. There's a reason for that.