mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
I was hoping for more gothicness I think. Anyway, just read this on the Guardian website


I suppose it doesn't necessarily follow that he is his child in the film but may be relevant.

That's interesting, I think I'm gonna hafta read the book - I HATE doing that after I've seen films! - but yeah it seemed that there was alot left out. I liked the perspective of an oil man from that period regardless though, it's not something I'd really thought about.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Apparently it's called Oil and it's by Upton Sinclair. I think I read somewhere that it diverged so widely from the novel that he decided he couldn't in fairness give it the same name.
 

Octopus?

Well-known member
Apparently it's called Oil and it's by Upton Sinclair. I think I read somewhere that it diverged so widely from the novel that he decided he couldn't in fairness give it the same name.

It's a completely and totally different beast...unrecognizable. It's vaguely surreal watching the film as the names of some of the oil workers are included from the book but attached to characters nothing like their literary counterparts. The relationship between the oilman and the preacher in the book as compared to the movie is like night and day.

Anderson basically took the idea of the oilman, the religiously inclined poor family and a few setpieces from the book and then ran wild with them. He even changed the main characters' names to make the disconnection complete.

It does make for an interesting comparison as they're two very different approaches to the same era and themes. Definitely worth reading the book, even if it does get quite heavy handed with the imagery/socialist preaching near the end.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Changing the subject back to films that one would unreservedly recommend, I watched The Roaring Twenties the other day and it was great. I love pretty much anything with Humphrey Bogart but (for me) it was quite unusual to see him just before he hit the really big time playing a ruthless bad guy and playing second fiddle to James Cagney. Anyway, it's just a really great rise and fall type gangster movie (similar to but deeper and basically better than Little Ceasar which is also well worth checking) with a fantastic story, great performances and lots of great period detail and real (I think) newspaper headlines that perfectly evoke the time from the end of the first world war to the ending of prohibition.
If I'm not mistaken, there are other films in the same style with both Cagney and Bogey and I'm going to check them all soonest.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Changing the subject back to films that one would unreservedly recommend, I watched The Roaring Twenties the other day and it was great. I love pretty much anything with Humphrey Bogart but (for me) it was quite unusual to see him just before he hit the really big time playing a ruthless bad guy and playing second fiddle to James Cagney. Anyway, it's just a really great rise and fall type gangster movie (similar to but deeper and basically better than Little Ceasar which is also well worth checking) with a fantastic story, great performances and lots of great period detail and real (I think) newspaper headlines that perfectly evoke the time from the end of the first world war to the ending of prohibition.
If I'm not mistaken, there are other films in the same style with both Cagney and Bogey and I'm going to check them all soonest.

Oh, I love the Roaring 20s, much better than Little Caesar (whicvh I remember as being a little flimsy) - the death scene (you know which one I mean) is beyond mental.

As for Bogart, doesn't he play bad guy/2nd fiddle to JC in Angels With Dirty Faces too? I have the pair on one old VHS. Might have to plug the VCR in again soon.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"As for Bogart, doesn't he play bad guy/2nd fiddle to JC in Angels With Dirty Faces too? I have the pair on one old VHS. Might have to plug the VCR in again soon."
I believe so, I haven't seen that (yet).
I rate Little Ceasar, I love that end bit "Mother of God, is this the end for Rico?".
 

Jonesy

Wild Horses
After a long dry patch there seems to be a run of decent films at the moment. I've recently seen, and can unhesitatingly recommend, both In the Valley of Elah and The Assassination of Jesse James. My enjoyment of the former was spoilt a little by popcorn-munching, chair-kicking chatterboxes. I wonder if people are worse here in Portugal or whether it's just my latent xenophobia.

Anyone support a popcorn ban? Are there any louder foods?! I think the only food that should be allowed in cinemas are marshmallows eaten out of cotton wool bags with velvet-gloved hands.
 
Last edited:

UFO over easy

online mahjong
on the subject of bogart I watched In A Lonely Place last night, kind of noir-ish but he plays a screen writer. Good fun - unfeasibly beautiful women and some nice playing around with the idea of a script within a script.

Main reason I mention it though is that the character he plays is called DICK STEEL

beat that
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
on the subject of bogart I watched In A Lonely Place last night, kind of noir-ish but he plays a screen writer. Good fun - unfeasibly beautiful women and some nice playing around with the idea of a script within a script.

Main reason I mention it though is that the character he plays is called DICK STEEL

beat that

I saw that once years back. Remember reading that they'd filmed two endings, the one you get and


SPOILER




one in which Bogey dunnit. Thought it would've stood up better with the latter.
 

UFO over easy

online mahjong
I'm not sure about that.. the ending they used where he's innocent is certainly more in keeping with traditional tragedy. If he'd been guilty it would've been too neat I think. The theme would've simply been murder, whereas if he's innocent it's more focusing on paranoia, suspicion, madness and the concept of trust - which gives it a bit more substance I think.
 

Grievous Angel

Beast of Burden
I saw "No country" on valentines night - amazing, fantastic film, Coens are just the best for me. We spent as long talking about it as we did watching it, which says a lot about how invigourating it was.
Chigurh was the most harrowing character in the film and I felt at the time like I should embrace the Coens rejecting any sort of climax to the chase and him becoming the total focus, but everything after the hotel felt so jumpy that I couldn’t get into it; it was like an epilogue that went on for too long.
Yeah, I see what you mean. The elegaic first hour was so perfect that the last section was a bit too remorselessly bloody - I know they're playing with the western form (and reversing it, with the bad guy shooting everyone instead of the good guy shooting everyone) but it just got a bit brittle. Then again...

Having said that, the more I think about the film since last night the more I come around to it. It was exceptionally well acted (Bardem especially) and shot, and I want to see it again.
Yeah I want to see it again to see how well the last section works in context with the rest of it. The acting was amazing! The girlfriend's final speech embodying the voice of moral authority was stunning.

And the cinematography was mind-blowing...
 

slim jenkins

El Hombre Invisible
Watched 'The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada' on Sat night and was totally absorbed. If you enjoyed 'No Country' I'd say this is a must, not only because it also features Tommy Lee Jones, but the border country setting is the same, as is the tone, atmosphere, to a large extent. Brilliant script, great acting...Peckinpah, Leone infleunces...quite superb.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"I saw that once years back. Remember reading that they'd filmed two endings, the one you get and

SPOILER

one in which Bogey dunnit. Thought it would've stood up better with the latter."
Just googled this and the story you get on every page is:

"In the original ending and the final shooting script, Dix actually did kill Laurel in the heat of their argument. Martha comes and discovers the body as Dix silently types his script. Later his detective friend comes to arrest him, Dix says that he's almost done with his script. There is a close-up of the last page of the script, echoing the words Dix said in the car to Laurel: "I was born when she kissed me, I died when she left me, I live a few weeks while she loved me." It is said that this scene was filmed, but before it could be shown to a test audience, director Nicholas Ray shot a new ending because he hated the scripted ending--he didn't want to think that violence was the only way out of this situation. So he cleared everyone off the set, even Lauren Bacall, who was visiting her husband Humphrey Bogart, except for Humphrey Bogart, Gloria Grahame, Art Smith--who ended up not being used in the final scene--and the camera and sound men, and they improvised the ending that is seen in the final cut."
So it sounds as though he didn't commit the original murder but snaps and kills his fiancee. I wondered how it could be that he kills the original girl because you see her leave his house and him go to bed.
 

DJ PIMP

Well-known member
Darjeeling Limited
Lars and the Real Girl
Funny Games
Margot at the Wedding
The Orphanage
Badlands
No Country for Old Men
Flying Scotsman
Superbad
Control
 
Top