A very cogent explanation of Doris Day's career and appeal, Brother Rat.
[b][u]RedRiver[/u][/b] wrote:Teresita, Gable is the classic combination of a ladies' man and a man's. Part Errol Flynn, part John Wayne. Romantic and playful. But tough enough to stand the line. I guess there's a little James Bond in there too! There are some male stars who make me think, "What do women see in that reptile?" Gable? Oh, yeah! That I can see!
Why, do you suppose, has Gable not ever played a detective in the movies like Bogie, or William & Dick Powell??
[b][u]knitwit45[/u][/b] wrote:
< ( spit - take ) >
P.S. I hope I didn't cast any aspersions on any other male stars being a man's man when I was trying to laud Clark Gable.
Kingrat, what is it about Love in the Afternoon that you can't take? Is it the obvious age gap of the main couple? It is a pity because it's a lovely story the part is played well by Audrey and I love Maurice as her father, Gary Cooper is just wrong, in the nicest possible way, I can't find him believable, I wish it had been played by William Holden but that one woman's personal opinion.
Theresa, I really don't know what it is about Doris Day. In my mind there is a seperation in her films, I'm thinking of Pillow Talk as I think it is the start of a later style in her movies. Personally knowing her life story I think she had a lot of guts and determination. I don't dislike her, I love her in Love Me or Leave Me, Teacher's Pet and The Pyjama Game and quite like her in Calamity Jane but as a Hitchcock blonde she left me cold. I haven't searched out her earlier musicals because I haven't felt the connection with her work. I struggle to find Pillow Talk charming which is a film many love but I think for me this is because of Rock Hudson, not Doris, I love Cary Grant in A Touch of Mink (how did he still look so great, he had a secret no one else knew) but Doris seems just to old and sensible to be so chaste. Is The Thrill of it All the one with James Garner and she's in advertisin? Again I love James Garner but Doris is playing the same character again. I like her version of My Favourite Wife but it's has no Cary Grant in it and I'd rather watch Irene Dunne. Don't I sound the sourpuss? When I started to answer this I didn't realise I'd seen all these films. I think it's a lot to do with what Kingrat says, I don't think she was allowed to deviate very much and that character doesn't appeal much to me. I have no idea why I link her and Audrey apart from the fact one can do no wrong and the other who was equally popular doesn't cut the mustard with me.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
A very cogent explanation of Doris Day's career and appeal, Brother Rat.
We may never, ever see a better one! Very well written, KingRat!
LOVE IN THE AFTERNOON bores the living **** out of me. I see no reason to tell the story. But this simply illustrates my point. If Ms. Audrey Hepburn is in the movie, Mr. RedRiver is in the audience!
Thanx Alison, for taking the time out to explain your feelings on Doris Day. I hear EXACTLY what you are saying: you like Rock and Cary and Jim Garner better...she was too old to be so chaste (that's American movies in the 50's for ya)...and she played the same character over and over again. (Hollywood, if a formula works...they run it into the ground). I find her wam. You're no sourpuss. You just don't care for her. And that's fine.
Yes I agree to all that, it was bad casting and unfortunate as everything else in the film is charming.
I'm glad you understood me about Doris Day, I wonder how much gets lost in translation when it crosses the pond and vice versa. I guess time hasn't been kind to Doris's later films but in one way I can see that that might be an attraction for some, a hark back if you like to better morals.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
This'll sound bad but i don't mean it in a bad way but I'm not big on morals. I know that a different time was a different time. When I watch these films I know I'm going back 2 a different time. I hope my humour is translating well to you over there in jolly ol'.
I saw most of Shadow in the Sky and I thought that was just the kind of role Ralph Meeker did best. An average guy but with unpredictable sides to his personality, even dangerous and not particularly charming. Until he smiles. He really did have a handsome smile that relieved his serious look. I used to confuse him with Vic Morrow, but I haven't seen much of Morrow's work, beyond a couple of "Combat!" episodes and some small parts in films. Both men did "sullen" and sore-head really well.
P.S. Just taking it back to the tile of this thread, I like Ralph but I can't say he's an actor I'll watch no matter what the film is about, though that list is a long one for me, full of not just leads, either. Here are just a few character/supporting players that I will often watch just because they are in the movie (in no particular order):
Thelma Ritter
Sara Allgood
Eve Arden
Marjorie Main (except the Ma and Pa Kettle films...I don't care much for those)
Audrey Meadows
Agnes Moorehead
Edna May Oliver
Maria Ouspenskaya
Gladys Cooper
Barbara Nichols
Isabell Jewel
Una Merckel
Una O'Connor
Eileen Crowe
Mildred Natwick
Aline MacMahon
Helen Broderick
James Whitmore
Henry Daniel
J. Farrell MacDonald
Thomas Mitchell
Basil Rathbone
Hank Worden
Henry B. Walthall
Lloyd Nolan
Samuel S. Hinds
Walter Brennan
Ward Bond
Reginald Owen
Cedrick Hardwicke
C. Aubrey Smith
Sig Ruman
Felix Bressart
John Qualen
Alan Hale
Eugene Pallette
Edward Arnold
Burl Ives
Edmund Gwynn
John Williams
Rhys Williams
Arthur Shields
Barry Fitzgerald
Frank MacGowran
Last edited by MissGoddess on November 24th, 2011, 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"There's only one thing that can kill the movies, and that's education." -- Will Rogers
CineMaven wrote:This'll sound bad but i don't mean it in a bad way but I'm not big on morals. I know that a different time was a different time. When I watch these films I know I'm going back 2 a different time. I hope my humour is translating well to you over there in jolly ol'.
I'm not big on morals in film either but I can see how some people could hanker after them, I'm thinking of my mother and her acquaintances. Do you have film certification in the US? We have ages on films with 18 being the biggest ranking. Ah, the thrill of going to the video rental library when I was 15 and renting a 18 movie, that was really grown up. I wish they would do the same with television, they are meant to but swear words or suggestive remarks do get through.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
There would be no plots without "morals". I sometimes think people get the idea moral = self righteous/hypocritical. That's like saying marriage = infidelity and misery . In both cases, it's often true but due to the failure of the people, not the ideas. Morals are simply the natural bounderies of human behavior. Without them, there's no really accurate depiction of a human being, no conflict and therefore, no story. So, yes, I'm big on morals in movies. The entire classic era of film wouldn't exist without them and this board would be purposeless.
"There's only one thing that can kill the movies, and that's education." -- Will Rogers
[b][u]CHARLIE CHAPLIN FAN[/u][/b] wrote:...I guess time hasn't been kind to Doris's later films but in one way I can see that that might be an attraction for some, a hark back if you like to better morals.
[b][u]CINEMAVEN[/u][/b] wrote:This'll sound bad but i don't mean it in a bad way but I'm not big on morals...
[b][u]CHARLIE CHAPLIN FAN[/u][/b] wrote:I'm not big on morals in film either but I can see how some people could hanker after them, I'm thinking of my mother and her acquaintances...
[b][u][color=#0000FF]MISS GODDESS[/color][/u][/b] wrote:There would be no plots without "morals". I sometimes think people get the idea moral = self righteous/hypocritical. That's like saying marriage = infidelity and misery . In both cases, it's often true but due to the failure of the people, not the ideas. Morals are simply the natural bounderies of human behavior. Without them, there's no really accurate depiction of a human being, no conflict and therefore, no story. So, yes, I'm big on morals in movies. The entire classic era of film wouldn't exist without them and this board would be purposeless.
Let me offer a more thoughtfully thought out thought than my initially flippant kneejerk response might indicate from my reply: "This'll sound bad but i don't mean it in a bad way but I'm not big on morals..."
When I hear the word "Morals" I admit, it makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up like fur on a cat's back. I think of "when Knighthood was in flower." It brings to mind a certain high and mighty judgmental way some folks wear the mantle. I smell it a mile away and head for the hills. Your equation does come to mind April (guilty as charged) and that never holds much sway for me in my choosing films. (Just know I do understand you're not saying that's what you believe the word 'moral' is, but that that's sometimes the connotation some folks give the word. Got it).
I look for Conflict in plot. I look for characters' ethics. Okay, The Conflict / Ethics might wrap itself around some type of moral imperative; so maybe it's all a case of semantics for me. (Conflict = morals = a rose by any other name... ; so I can't take okra, but if you put it on a pizza with basil and oregano and tomatoes and pepperoni and bake it, I can eat it). I don't think morals are "natural" boundaries of human behavior. Maybe again it's the semantics and I'm foolishly stuck on a word; but I don't think there's anything natural about it. Morals are man-made. They're man-made boundaries, designed to keep society from going off the wacky deep-end. I dare say, a woman seen smoking cigarettes in 1902 was not seen as a very moral woman. What is inherently wrong with tobacco that Woman could not smoke it? Society ascribed that judgment on Woman. Society made a judgment about women who smoked. It's the 'judgment' thing that kind of kills me when I hear the word "morals". Alison, you speak of your mother and her acquaintances who might fancy Doris Day b'cuz it harkens back to the days of "better morals." I was just adding that my wanting to "go back to the good old days" was not specifically based on those days' "better morals"; that those morals were not my reason for liking these great old classics. So have I got morals? Yeah yeah. I have 'em. But that's not the word I say inside my head that guides my behavior. If you heard the inside of my head, you'd probably hear the words "code of ethics." Yeah, it's a mouthful to say...but my brain says it very very fast & it goes down easier.
Don't mean to beat a dead horse by posting the YouTube video below, but I accidentally came across this in my travels. You guys may not watch the whole ninety minutes, and this is not to change anyone's mind, but if you could just watch the first two-minutes, it'll just be doing me a favor.
SWITCHING GEARS: And by the by April, your list of character actors/actresses is top notch...especially one particular "Sammykins." (That meanie role in Karloff's movie was merely a speedbump). They could really go deep in the bench in those days. Your list just proves the depth of talent that was in movies back then, and that is sorely lacking today.
Well said both of you. My hankering for old movies is not so much the moral code as the good old days, some of my favourite classic movies are the precodes which didn't shy away from the seamier side of life, although they were banned for a great number of years I don't think of these movies as a good example of what I mean when I mention morals as I think they often have a moral stance all of their own. I think we have come so very far in what is acceptable to put on a screen. Personally I shy away from most of the these movies but I appreciate a movie like Pulp Fiction because it is tongue in cheek and like Last Tango in Paris despite it leaving little to the imagination. I hanker after the good old days in my preferred movie watching either this or I want to watch a movie in which the director has treated it as a work of art. I too have my code of what is acceptable and I can accept that I don't have to watch movies that offend my code, my problem is when these movies creep onto television or are seen at a friend's house by my children. Thankfully they are too young for me to have to face this. Do I hanker for the good old days when it was all about the ability to use a good script, actors and directors and make films that would offend no one? Of course I do but then I also feel that the arts should have freedom to express themselves as long as no crime is being committed in the process. A quandry? Certainly, it often is with me.
Failure is unimportant. It takes courage to make a fool of yourself - Charlie Chaplin
I couldn't agree more, ChaplinFan. Violence, vulgarity, spiritual disregard. Do those concepts belong in some stories? Sure. Are they the most super-duper cool things you've ever seen? Actually...no. They're bad things. That's the point. At least, it used to be.
I was watching a Lon Chaney film with the commentary turned on the other day. The commenter was Michael Blake, noted Chaney biographer. At one point, he tossed out some statistics that reminded me of this thread.
The report came from an August 1927 edition of the industry trade magazine Film Spectator. I'm guessing that the polling question was something like: "How likely is it that you would go see a film with one of the following actors in it?" Here are the top results:
100% Charlie Chaplin
100% Harold Lloyd
100% Douglas Fairbanks
96% Rudolph Valentino (even though he had already died)
93% John Barrymore
92% Lon Chaney
86% John Gilbert
86% Greta Garbo
81% Mary Pickford
74% Buster Keaton
Interesting snapshot of public opinion, I thought.
"Immorality may be fun, but it isn't fun enough to take the place of one hundred percent virtue and three square meals a day."
Goodnight Basington
