Discussion:
Laura (1944)
(too old to reply)
Mack A. Damia
2014-04-20 01:02:25 UTC
Permalink
Presently showing on TCM.

Betwitching story, and Gene Tierney is an eyeful!

Problem is that Hollywood wouldn't let their leading ladies have
buttocks in those days.

Such a waste of fine cheeks.

--
l***@aol.com
2014-04-20 07:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Presently showing on TCM.
Betwitching story, and Gene Tierney is an eyeful!
Problem is that Hollywood wouldn't let their leading ladies have
buttocks in those days.
Such a waste of fine cheeks.
For me the worthitness of this movie is the interrogation scene. Dragging her into his lair so he can dry f**k her with questions about her whereabouts and what's she's been up to is kind of pre-Velvet Underground in its sub-dom emotional language. Brown Bunny precursor? One shudders at the thought.
trotsky
2014-04-20 11:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Presently showing on TCM.
Betwitching story, and Gene Tierney is an eyeful!
Problem is that Hollywood wouldn't let their leading ladies have
buttocks in those days.
I thought that was because all the asses were running the studios.
w***@gmail.com
2014-04-20 16:54:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Such a waste of fine cheeks.
Among other things. Otto Preminger once said that he was attracted to the film for the "gimmick" and at this point it really creaks. The story was one of many "new wave" whodunits such as The Maltese Falcon, DOA, Murder My Sweet and others that twisted the golden age mystery into a new form while retaining the whodunit aspect.
Hardyboys
2014-04-20 17:01:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Among other things. Otto Preminger once said that he was attracted to the film
for the "gimmick" and at this point it really creaks. The story was one of
many "new wave" whodunits such as The Maltese Falcon, DOA, Murder My Sweet and
others that twisted the golden age mystery into a new form while retaining the
whodunit aspect.
"Laura" is especially good the first time it is watched.
Less so on subsequent viewings as the surprise element is gone.
Still, it is a very good movie and Clifton Webb alone is worth the price of
admission.
For what it's worth, the readers of IMDb gave it 8.2 stars.
Mack A. Damia
2014-04-20 17:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
Such a waste of fine cheeks.
Among other things. Otto Preminger once said that he was attracted to the film for the "gimmick" and at this point it really creaks. The story was one of many "new wave" whodunits such as The Maltese Falcon, DOA, Murder My Sweet and others that twisted the golden age mystery into a new form while retaining the whodunit aspect.
It had a rocky road to production according to TCM host, Robert
Osborne.

The initial director was Rouben Mamoulian, and the stars were not the
first or even second choices for the film.

Maybe you know more about this, but I think the film is a classic,
and, of course, I love the soundtrack.

Dana Andrews seems to have been shafted by Hollywood. No major
awards, and he was a fine actor.

--
w***@gmail.com
2014-04-20 17:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Maybe you know more about this, but I think the film is a classic,
and, of course, I love the soundtrack.
I really wish people would read what I wrote and not jump to some deranged conclusion based on what they think I wrote. That isn't aimed you (Macadam). Nowhere did I say it wasn't a "classic" and in no way did I say it was a "bad" movie. What I did say was how it was among a re-visioned type of mystery that was becoming the all the rage and at this point, "Laura" is a tad creaky. Since it was based on a gimmick -- that the director acknowledged at the time -- it was only a matter of time before the creakiness set in. To me, for all the other advantages of the film, its being moored in the waters of a "mystery" -- in the golden age sense -- is what keeps it from being a really good film. Ultimately, it's an Agatha Christie mystery dressed up as a 1940s crime film. Having said all of that, it's a watchable film even if subsequent viewings aren't as impressive as the first. People around here just live to go to the extreme and miss everything else . . .
Hardyboys
2014-04-20 17:40:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
People around here just live to go to the extreme and miss everything else . .
.
That's rather ironic coming from you.
Mack A. Damia
2014-04-20 17:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
Maybe you know more about this, but I think the film is a classic,
and, of course, I love the soundtrack.
I really wish people would read what I wrote and not jump to some deranged conclusion based on what they think I wrote. That isn't aimed you (Macadam). Nowhere did I say it wasn't a "classic" and in no way did I say it was a "bad" movie. What I did say was how it was among a re-visioned type of mystery that was becoming the all the rage and at this point, "Laura" is a tad creaky. Since it was based on a gimmick -- that the director acknowledged at the time -- it was only a matter of time before the creakiness set in. To me, for all the other advantages of the film, its being moored in the waters of a "mystery" -- in the golden age sense -- is what keeps it from being a really good film. Ultimately, it's an Agatha Christie mystery dressed up as a 1940s crime film. Having said all of that, it's a watchable film even if subsequent viewings aren't as impressive as the first. People around here just live to go to the extreme and miss everything else . . .
Well, this isn't aimed at you personally, either, William, but if I
like a film, I don't much care what others think, and picking it apart
to find fault means nothing to me. Never did and never will.

I was interested in the zig-zag production of it. That's why I
replied to your message.

--
w***@gmail.com
2014-04-20 18:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Well, this isn't aimed at you personally, either, William, but if I
like a film, I don't much care what others think, and picking it apart
to find fault means nothing to me. Never did and never will.
I have never had a problem with someone "liking" a film. First off, it's none of my business. Second, we all have different reasons for what we do. "Picking something apart" isn't a fault-finding exercise and when someone -- not necessarily you -- claims that something is "good" because it's a "classic" might lead someone like me to examine the film. The other problem comes with writing about various aspects of a film and if there's information that some see as negative, then the assumption follows that I didn't like the film. All I can suggest is that someone read James Agee's review of "The Best Years of Our Lives" where he starts off picking the film apart (credibly) and then goes on to say how much he admires the film. This was pretty standard for film criticism back then and now with critics being cheerleaders -- for the most part -- all the subtlety has been washed out in favor of bumper-sticker blurbs. So, you might not be interested in examining films to see how they work but other of us are.
Mack A. Damia
2014-04-20 18:18:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
Well, this isn't aimed at you personally, either, William, but if I
like a film, I don't much care what others think, and picking it apart
to find fault means nothing to me. Never did and never will.
I have never had a problem with someone "liking" a film. First off, it's none of my business. Second, we all have different reasons for what we do. "Picking something apart" isn't a fault-finding exercise and when someone -- not necessarily you -- claims that something is "good" because it's a "classic" might lead someone like me to examine the film. The other problem comes with writing about various aspects of a film and if there's information that some see as negative, then the assumption follows that I didn't like the film. All I can suggest is that someone read James Agee's review of "The Best Years of Our Lives" where he starts off picking the film apart (credibly) and then goes on to say how much he admires the film. This was pretty standard for film criticism back then and now with critics being cheerleaders -- for the most part -- all the subtlety has been washed out in favor of bumper-sticker blurbs. So, you might not be interested in examining films to see how they work
but
Post by w***@gmail.com
other of us are.
Not certain what you mean by "how they work"? These are only opinions
from mere mortals.

Many times, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts", too. You
know the saying, "Don't miss the forest by looking for the trees."

Some films work for me while others do not.

--
w***@gmail.com
2014-04-20 18:34:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Not certain what you mean by "how they work"? These are only opinions
from mere mortals.
Not always. You always dismiss observations by claiming they're only opinions. Some "opinions" are more informed than others and "how" films work can sometimes be examined on a technical level.
Mack A. Damia
2014-04-20 18:51:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
Not certain what you mean by "how they work"? These are only opinions
from mere mortals.
Not always. You always dismiss observations by claiming they're only opinions. Some "opinions" are more informed than others and "how" films work can sometimes be examined on a technical level.
I agree with you. Cinematography, editing, soundtrack, et al, are
many times overlooked and are best evaluated by experts in the field,
but I think the finished product speaks for itself.

--
w***@gmail.com
2014-04-20 19:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
I agree with you. Cinematography, editing, soundtrack, et al, are
many times overlooked and are best evaluated by experts in the field,
but I think the finished product speaks for itself.
Many a perfect film sucks. Last Year at Marienbad comes to mind. And then they are terribly made films -- such as Detour -- that rise above all that to become brilliant.
Hardyboys
2014-04-20 18:51:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Not certain what you mean by "how they work"? These are only opinions
from mere mortals.
Not always. You always dismiss observations by claiming they're only opinions.
Some "opinions" are more informed than others and "how" films work can
sometimes be examined on a technical level.
Purely technical aspects of a film can arguably be quantified and so objective
observations can be made but a question of whether a film "works" or not is
purely subjective and thus any observation on its "working" or not is purely
opinion.
Dave M
2014-04-20 22:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hardyboys
Post by Mack A. Damia
Not certain what you mean by "how they work"? These are only opinions
from mere mortals.
Not always. You always dismiss observations by claiming they're only opinions.
Some "opinions" are more informed than others and "how" films work can
sometimes be examined on a technical level.
Purely technical aspects of a film can arguably be quantified and so objective
observations can be made but a question of whether a film "works" or not is
purely subjective and thus any observation on its "working" or not is purely
opinion.
I've seen _Laura_ about four times now and I find I never like it as much as I think I should. I still think that it would have better if Hitchcock had directed it and I know William won't agree with that. :-)

Dave M
w***@gmail.com
2014-04-20 22:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave M
I've seen _Laura_ about four times now and I find I never like it as much as I think I should. I still think that it would have better if Hitchcock had directed it and I know William won't agree with that. :-)
I don't think it would have made much difference and a plot that revolves around a trick is kind of perfect for Hitchcock.
Hardyboys
2014-04-20 23:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave M
I've seen _Laura_ about four times now and I find I never like it as much as I
think I should. I still think that it would have better if Hitchcock had
directed it and I know William won't agree with that. :-)
As I posited earlier, the watchabilty of "Laura" decreases with subsequent
viewings because the surprise is gone.
Personally I think Preminger did a fine job and I doubt Hitch would (or could)
have done it any better as it's damn near flawless on a directorial level and
nearly so as a film.
moviePig
2014-04-21 13:50:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
Well, this isn't aimed at you personally, either, William, but if I
like a film, I don't much care what others think, and picking it apart
to find fault means nothing to me. Never did and never will.
I have never had a problem with someone "liking" a film. First off, it's none of my business. Second, we all have different reasons for what we do. "Picking something apart" isn't a fault-finding exercise and when someone -- not necessarily you -- claims that something is "good" because it's a "classic" might lead someone like me to examine the film. The other problem comes with writing about various aspects of a film and if there's information that some see as negative, then the assumption follows that I didn't like the film. All I can suggest is that someone read James Agee's review of "The Best Years of Our Lives" where he starts off picking the film apart (credibly) and then goes on to say how much he admires the film. This was pretty standard for film criticism back then and now with critics being cheerleaders -- for the most part -- all the subtlety has been washed out in favor of bumper-sticker blurbs. So, you might not be interested in examining films to see how they work
but
Post by w***@gmail.com
other of us are.
Not certain what you mean by "how they work"? These are only opinions
from mere mortals.
Many times, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts", too. You
know the saying, "Don't miss the forest by looking for the trees."
Some films work for me while others do not.
Still, a value of others' opinions and analyses can be to discover new
ways in which a film can "work" for us. Of course, like you, I'm less
enchanted to learn ways that a film I liked *shouldn't* have worked...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
trotsky
2014-04-20 21:30:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
Maybe you know more about this, but I think the film is a classic,
and, of course, I love the soundtrack.
I really wish people would read what I wrote and not jump to some deranged conclusion based on what they think I wrote. That isn't aimed you (Macadam). Nowhere did I say it wasn't a "classic" and in no way did I say it was a "bad" movie. What I did say was how it was among a re-visioned type of mystery that was becoming the all the rage and at this point, "Laura" is a tad creaky. Since it was based on a gimmick -- that the director acknowledged at the time -- it was only a matter of time before the creakiness set in. To me, for all the other advantages of the film, its being moored in the waters of a "mystery" -- in the golden age sense -- is what keeps it from being a really good film. Ultimately, it's an Agatha Christie mystery dressed up as a 1940s crime film. Having said all of that, it's a watchable film even if subsequent viewings aren't as impressive as the first. People around here just live to go to the extreme and miss everything else . . .
Well, this isn't aimed at you personally, either, William, but if I
like a film, I don't much care what others think, and picking it apart
to find fault means nothing to me. Never did and never will.
I was interested in the zig-zag production of it. That's why I
replied to your message.
at this point it really creaks.
In his subsequent post, when he realized people were going to pounce on
Post by Mack A. Damia
"Laura" is a tad creaky
Everybody has different tolerance levels, but I find this fucking guy to
be psychotic. YMMV.
Mack A. Damia
2014-04-20 21:58:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
Maybe you know more about this, but I think the film is a classic,
and, of course, I love the soundtrack.
I really wish people would read what I wrote and not jump to some deranged conclusion based on what they think I wrote. That isn't aimed you (Macadam). Nowhere did I say it wasn't a "classic" and in no way did I say it was a "bad" movie. What I did say was how it was among a re-visioned type of mystery that was becoming the all the rage and at this point, "Laura" is a tad creaky. Since it was based on a gimmick -- that the director acknowledged at the time -- it was only a matter of time before the creakiness set in. To me, for all the other advantages of the film, its being moored in the waters of a "mystery" -- in the golden age sense -- is what keeps it from being a really good film. Ultimately, it's an Agatha Christie mystery dressed up as a 1940s crime film. Having said all of that, it's a watchable film even if subsequent viewings aren't as impressive as the first. People around here just live to go to the extreme and miss everything else . . .
Well, this isn't aimed at you personally, either, William, but if I
like a film, I don't much care what others think, and picking it apart
to find fault means nothing to me. Never did and never will.
I was interested in the zig-zag production of it. That's why I
replied to your message.
at this point it really creaks.
In his subsequent post, when he realized people were going to pounce on
Post by Mack A. Damia
"Laura" is a tad creaky
Everybody has different tolerance levels, but I find this fucking guy to
be psychotic. YMMV.
Too much flaming and abuse going on in Usenet, Trotsky. I don't want
to take sides; I only want to discuss the topics at hand with
straightforward sincerity and without personal attacks.

--
w***@gmail.com
2014-04-20 22:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Too much flaming and abuse going on in Usenet, Trotsky. I don't want
to take sides; I only want to discuss the topics at hand with
straightforward sincerity and without personal attacks.
Thank you for that. Maybe he'll take it to heart.
Hardyboys
2014-04-20 22:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Too much flaming and abuse going on in Usenet, Trotsky. I don't want to take
sides; I only want to discuss the topics at hand with straightforward
sincerity and without personal attacks.
Thank you for that. Maybe he'll take it to heart.
More irony from you William.
My god, you are such a hypocrite.
trotsky
2014-04-21 00:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
Too much flaming and abuse going on in Usenet, Trotsky. I don't want
to take sides; I only want to discuss the topics at hand with
straightforward sincerity and without personal attacks.
Thank you for that. Maybe he'll take it to heart.
Lack of self awareness duly noted.
Hardyboys
2014-04-20 22:54:10 UTC
Permalink
Too much flaming and abuse going on in Usenet, Trotsky. I don't want to take
sides; I only want to discuss the topics at hand with straightforward
sincerity and without personal attacks.
I'll take you at your word but didn't you recently post the following about a
fellow user?

"You may want to know that poisoned rose is a notorious troll who inhabits and
pests several newsgroups when he's not sucking up sewage under a bridge.
Mack A. Damia
2014-04-20 23:23:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hardyboys
Too much flaming and abuse going on in Usenet, Trotsky. I don't want to take
sides; I only want to discuss the topics at hand with straightforward
sincerity and without personal attacks.
I'll take you at your word but didn't you recently post the following about a
fellow user?
"You may want to know that poisoned rose is a notorious troll who inhabits and
pests several newsgroups when he's not sucking up sewage under a bridge.
That was yesterday; today is today.

I am tired of all the flaming.

--
trotsky
2014-04-21 00:45:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Hardyboys
Too much flaming and abuse going on in Usenet, Trotsky. I don't want to take
sides; I only want to discuss the topics at hand with straightforward
sincerity and without personal attacks.
I'll take you at your word but didn't you recently post the following about a
fellow user?
"You may want to know that poisoned rose is a notorious troll who inhabits and
pests several newsgroups when he's not sucking up sewage under a bridge.
That was yesterday; today is today.
I am tired of all the flaming.
And I'm tired of anyone that governs himself like Fox News, which is
what wee willy did. I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt,
Mack, because you're not in the U.S. The political scene makes wee
willy's antics look like he has a wee willy.
Mack A. Damia
2014-04-21 00:54:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Hardyboys
Too much flaming and abuse going on in Usenet, Trotsky. I don't want to take
sides; I only want to discuss the topics at hand with straightforward
sincerity and without personal attacks.
I'll take you at your word but didn't you recently post the following about a
fellow user?
"You may want to know that poisoned rose is a notorious troll who inhabits and
pests several newsgroups when he's not sucking up sewage under a bridge.
That was yesterday; today is today.
I am tired of all the flaming.
And I'm tired of anyone that governs himself like Fox News, which is
what wee willy did. I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt,
Mack, because you're not in the U.S. The political scene makes wee
willy's antics look like he has a wee willy.
I don't think I start any of the nonsense (in any group) but I
sometimes react strongly if I feel that I am being personally
attacked. I have been in some horrid flames wars over the years, and
nothing is ever resolved.

As difficult as it is at times, it's best to ignore and move on. It's
all nonsense.

--
trotsky
2014-04-21 00:42:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by trotsky
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
Maybe you know more about this, but I think the film is a classic,
and, of course, I love the soundtrack.
I really wish people would read what I wrote and not jump to some deranged conclusion based on what they think I wrote. That isn't aimed you (Macadam). Nowhere did I say it wasn't a "classic" and in no way did I say it was a "bad" movie. What I did say was how it was among a re-visioned type of mystery that was becoming the all the rage and at this point, "Laura" is a tad creaky. Since it was based on a gimmick -- that the director acknowledged at the time -- it was only a matter of time before the creakiness set in. To me, for all the other advantages of the film, its being moored in the waters of a "mystery" -- in the golden age sense -- is what keeps it from being a really good film. Ultimately, it's an Agatha Christie mystery dressed up as a 1940s crime film. Having said all of that, it's a watchable film even if subsequent viewings aren't as impressive as the first. People around here just live to go to the extreme and miss everything else . . .
Well, this isn't aimed at you personally, either, William, but if I
like a film, I don't much care what others think, and picking it apart
to find fault means nothing to me. Never did and never will.
I was interested in the zig-zag production of it. That's why I
replied to your message.
at this point it really creaks.
In his subsequent post, when he realized people were going to pounce on
Post by Mack A. Damia
"Laura" is a tad creaky
Everybody has different tolerance levels, but I find this fucking guy to
be psychotic. YMMV.
Too much flaming and abuse going on in Usenet, Trotsky. I don't want
to take sides; I only want to discuss the topics at hand with
straightforward sincerity and without personal attacks.
Sure, whatever. He misrepresented himself. I'm not sure what "side"
that is.
Hardyboys
2014-04-21 01:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
at this point it really creaks.
In his subsequent post, when he realized people were going to pounce on him
Post by w***@gmail.com
"Laura" is a tad creaky
Everybody has different tolerance levels, but I find this fucking guy to be
psychotic. YMMV.
I agree.
His irrational anger when being corrected, his transparent lies, his desire to
always be "right" and the twisting of facts to make appear so, all indicate to
me that William is mentally ill and may be on the verge of a psychotic break.
He doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on reality but rather he lives in a fantasy
world where he can fancy himself a knowledgeable cinéaste who is respected by
his peers.
The reality is that he's a cranky, ill-tempered, unbalanced old man with few, if
any, saving graces.
trotsky
2014-04-21 10:37:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hardyboys
Post by trotsky
Post by w***@gmail.com
at this point it really creaks.
In his subsequent post, when he realized people were going to pounce
Post by w***@gmail.com
"Laura" is a tad creaky
Everybody has different tolerance levels, but I find this fucking guy
to be psychotic. YMMV.
I agree.
His irrational anger when being corrected, his transparent lies, his
desire to always be "right" and the twisting of facts to make appear so,
all indicate to me that William is mentally ill and may be on the verge
of a psychotic break.
He doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on reality but rather he lives in a
fantasy world where he can fancy himself a knowledgeable cinéaste who is
respected by his peers.
The reality is that he's a cranky, ill-tempered, unbalanced old man with
few, if any, saving graces.
I feel bad for people that are so starved for discussion that they look
to him as a source of information. It would be like trying to talk
politics with Dick Cheney.
Bill Steele
2014-04-22 18:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
Such a waste of fine cheeks.
Among other things. Otto Preminger once said that he was attracted to the film for the "gimmick" and at this point it really creaks. The story was one of many "new wave" whodunits such as The Maltese Falcon, DOA, Murder My Sweet and others that twisted the golden age mystery into a new form while retaining the whodunit aspect.
It had a rocky road to production according to TCM host, Robert
Osborne.
The initial director was Rouben Mamoulian, and the stars were not the
first or even second choices for the film.
Maybe you know more about this, but I think the film is a classic,
and, of course, I love the soundtrack.
Dana Andrews seems to have been shafted by Hollywood. No major
awards, and he was a fine actor.
What I heard was that he drank himself out of the business. Indeed a shame.

What I remember most about Laura is the song, very effectively used to
promote the movie, and one of the few examples of a song associated with
a movie that really tied in with the plot.
w***@gmail.com
2014-04-22 18:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Steele
What I remember most about Laura is the song, very effectively used to
promote the movie, and one of the few examples of a song associated with
a movie that really tied in with the plot.
They tried the same thing with "The Unsuspected" -- a pale ripoff of "Laura" -- and it sure didn't work.
Dave M
2014-04-22 20:20:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by Bill Steele
What I remember most about Laura is the song, very effectively used to
promote the movie, and one of the few examples of a song associated with
a movie that really tied in with the plot.
They tried the same thing with "The Unsuspected" -- a pale ripoff of "Laura" -- and it sure didn't work.
Another ripoff of _Laura_ was _Vicki_ with Jeanne Crain and Jean Peters - That didn't work either. _Vicki_ was a remake of _I Wake Up Screaming_ They used the same script but deliberately added a few touches to make it more Lauraish.

Dave M
w***@gmail.com
2014-04-22 20:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave M
Another ripoff of _Laura_ was _Vicki_ with Jeanne Crain and Jean Peters - That didn't work either. _Vicki_ was a remake of _I Wake Up Screaming_ They used the same script but deliberately added a few touches to make it more Lauraish.
Except I Wake Up Screaming came out three years *before* Laura, or do you mean that tricked out Vicki?
Dave M
2014-04-22 21:07:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by Dave M
Another ripoff of _Laura_ was _Vicki_ with Jeanne Crain and Jean Peters - That didn't work either. _Vicki_ was a remake of _I Wake Up Screaming_ They used the same script but deliberately added a few touches to make it more Lauraish.
Except I Wake Up Screaming came out three years *before* Laura, or do you mean that tricked out Vicki?
Yes. Twentieth Century Fox took the basic script of _I Wake Up Screaming_ and "tricked it out" to make it seem more like _Laura_.

Dave M
w***@gmail.com
2014-04-22 21:19:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave M
Yes. Twentieth Century Fox took the basic script of _I Wake Up Screaming_ and "tricked it out" to make it seem more like _Laura_.
Actually, I Wake Up Screaming -- a stupid title -- is an interesting forerunner of Laura and lacks the gimmicks that fueled Laura.
Dave M
2014-04-22 23:04:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by Dave M
Yes. Twentieth Century Fox took the basic script of _I Wake Up Screaming_ and "tricked it out" to make it seem more like _Laura_.
Actually, I Wake Up Screaming -- a stupid title -- is an interesting forerunner of Laura and lacks the gimmicks that fueled Laura.
Agreed I Wake Up Screaming is a very stupid title - it is a very good movie however.

Dave M
Mack A. Damia
2014-04-22 18:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Steele
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
Such a waste of fine cheeks.
Among other things. Otto Preminger once said that he was attracted to the film for the "gimmick" and at this point it really creaks. The story was one of many "new wave" whodunits such as The Maltese Falcon, DOA, Murder My Sweet and others that twisted the golden age mystery into a new form while retaining the whodunit aspect.
It had a rocky road to production according to TCM host, Robert
Osborne.
The initial director was Rouben Mamoulian, and the stars were not the
first or even second choices for the film.
Maybe you know more about this, but I think the film is a classic,
and, of course, I love the soundtrack.
Dana Andrews seems to have been shafted by Hollywood. No major
awards, and he was a fine actor.
What I heard was that he drank himself out of the business. Indeed a shame.
Read his biography (on Wiki, for one). He beat his alcoholism and
gave credit to Ronald Reagan for his recovery. Andrews became a
spokesman for overcoming alcoholism. He rehabilitated himself and was
quite active into the 1980s. He deserved better treatment by
Hollywood.
Post by Bill Steele
What I remember most about Laura is the song, very effectively used to
promote the movie, and one of the few examples of a song associated with
a movie that really tied in with the plot.
Written specifically for the film by the prolific composer, David
Raskin, whose credits include the soundtrack for the 1939 film, "The
Hound of the Baskervilles and the 1940 film "The Adventures of
Sherlock Holmes". Also, "Ben Casey" on TV.

--
m***@gmail.com
2014-04-22 20:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Steele
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
Such a waste of fine cheeks.
Among other things. Otto Preminger once said that he was attracted to the film for the "gimmick" and at this point it really creaks. The story was one of many "new wave" whodunits such as The Maltese Falcon, DOA, Murder My Sweet and others that twisted the golden age mystery into a new form while retaining the whodunit aspect.
It had a rocky road to production according to TCM host, Robert
Osborne.
The initial director was Rouben Mamoulian, and the stars were not the
first or even second choices for the film.
Maybe you know more about this, but I think the film is a classic,
and, of course, I love the soundtrack.
Dana Andrews seems to have been shafted by Hollywood. No major
awards, and he was a fine actor.
What I heard was that he drank himself out of the business. Indeed a shame.
What I remember most about Laura is the song, very effectively used to
promote the movie, and one of the few examples of a song associated with
a movie that really tied in with the plot.
The song is never heard in the film, is it? I don't remember it being in the movie, only the theme music.
w***@gmail.com
2014-04-22 20:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
The song is never heard in the film, is it? I don't remember it being in the movie, only the theme music.
Nope. Johnny Mercer added lyrics after the fact, as it were.
Bill Anderson
2014-04-22 23:02:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by m***@gmail.com
The song is never heard in the film, is it? I don't remember it being in the movie, only the theme music.
Nope. Johnny Mercer added lyrics after the fact, as it were.
Here's how it goes:


--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog
anim8rFSK
2014-04-22 21:04:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Steele
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by w***@gmail.com
Post by Mack A. Damia
Such a waste of fine cheeks.
Among other things. Otto Preminger once said that he was attracted to the
film for the "gimmick" and at this point it really creaks. The story was
one of many "new wave" whodunits such as The Maltese Falcon, DOA, Murder
My Sweet and others that twisted the golden age mystery into a new form
while retaining the whodunit aspect.
It had a rocky road to production according to TCM host, Robert
Osborne.
The initial director was Rouben Mamoulian, and the stars were not the
first or even second choices for the film.
Maybe you know more about this, but I think the film is a classic,
and, of course, I love the soundtrack.
Dana Andrews seems to have been shafted by Hollywood. No major
awards, and he was a fine actor.
What I heard was that he drank himself out of the business. Indeed a shame.
What I remember most about Laura is the song, very effectively used to
promote the movie, and one of the few examples of a song associated with
a movie that really tied in with the plot.
What I remember is the horrible Lee Radziwill TV remake, the first time
I saw this story. Even as a kid I asked who this woman was that
couldn't act at all; we were supposed to be impressed because of who she
was related to, by blood and marriage.
--
Wait - are you saying that ClodReamer was wrong, or lying?
Apteryx
2014-04-21 22:32:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Presently showing on TCM.
Betwitching story, and Gene Tierney is an eyeful!
Great dialogue too - worth it for this exchange between two very
different characters:

Lydecker: Laura considered me the wisest, the wittiest, the most
interesting man she'd ever met. And I was in complete accord with her on
that point. She thought me also the kindest, the gentlest, the most
sympathetic man in the world.

McPherson: Did you agree with her there, too?

Lydecker: McPherson, you won't understand this; but I tried to become
the kindest, the gentlest, the most sympathetic man in the world.

McPherson: Have any luck?

Lydecker: Let me put it this way. I should be sincerely sorry to see my
neighbors' children devoured by wolves.


Apteryx
gggg gggg
2021-08-05 01:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mack A. Damia
Presently showing on TCM.
Betwitching story, and Gene Tierney is an eyeful!
Problem is that Hollywood wouldn't let their leading ladies have
buttocks in those days.
Such a waste of fine cheeks.
--
(Recent Youtube upload):

Film Noir Film Talk Series | Laura
John Doe
2021-08-05 03:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Google Groups idiot...
--
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7608:: with SMTP id t8mr2430141qtq.246.1628128481659; Wed, 04 Aug 2021 18:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:ae24:: with SMTP id a36mr17081ybj.205.1628128481471; Wed, 04 Aug 2021 18:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.mixmin.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 18:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=32.132.12.210; posting-account=VREO7AoAAABGo_TnRXAj3kKbki4Qex7X
NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.132.12.210
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Laura (1944)
Injection-Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2021 01:54:41 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org rec.arts.movies.past-films:132620
Post by Mack A. Damia
Presently showing on TCM.
Betwitching story, and Gene Tierney is an eyeful!
Problem is that Hollywood wouldn't let their leading ladies have
buttocks in those days.
Such a waste of fine cheeks.
--
Film Noir Film Talk Series | Laura
Mack A. Damia
2021-08-05 03:55:06 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 18:54:41 -0700 (PDT), gggg gggg
Post by gggg gggg
Post by Mack A. Damia
Presently showing on TCM.
Betwitching story, and Gene Tierney is an eyeful!
Problem is that Hollywood wouldn't let their leading ladies have
buttocks in those days.
Such a waste of fine cheeks.
--
Film Noir Film Talk Series | Laura
Let's Knock Knees from The Gay Divorcee

Check out the women's shapes. Flat. No asses.

Except I think I lot of them were coked up, probably in the producer's
office. Look for glassy stares.



Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...