That was the sequel. Audrey Dalton eased out Ann-Margret for the lead. Did a passable version of Ann's trademark, hair swinging, "Hey! There's No Bone In My Neck" Frug, and a less than passable version of Ann-Margret's trademark bellowing pop. At 32, Audrey was less than convincing as a thrill addicted teen reform school escapee and the film went nowhere....despite the addition of George "Bernardo" Chakiris as a swarthy teen who tries to take liberties.
> He was attracted to Annette because the script
> demanded that he be. Same with Jack's attraction
> to Rose.
Well, Jim...I'd have been into Rose (and that's saying something). Dialog aside, Kate looked great in that film. Well, not the last half. But overall.
Now Audrey is another story.
Nice lunch scene, Rocky. The tux scene, I've never agreed with. Your tinkering was good, even though having two teenage boys alone in a room with one saying "let's see if this fits you" might make some giggle or arch knowing eyebrows. It would have been stronger...and shorter...to omit the tux scene altogether, have Molly say, "I've got one you can wear" and then cut to Jack at the foot of the GSC. Seeing him in the tux beforehand ruins the effect of seeing Jack for the first time "shined up like a new quarter".
> demanded that he be. Same with Jack's attraction
> to Rose.
Well, Jim...I'd have been into Rose (and that's saying something). Dialog aside, Kate looked great in that film. Well, not the last half. But overall.
Now Audrey is another story.
Nice lunch scene, Rocky. The tux scene, I've never agreed with. Your tinkering was good, even though having two teenage boys alone in a room with one saying "let's see if this fits you" might make some giggle or arch knowing eyebrows. It would have been stronger...and shorter...to omit the tux scene altogether, have Molly say, "I've got one you can wear" and then cut to Jack at the foot of the GSC. Seeing him in the tux beforehand ruins the effect of seeing Jack for the first time "shined up like a new quarter".
>Well, Jim...I'd have been into Rose (and that's saying something).
Danger, Will Robinson. I am SURE that you, and Jack, could find somebody more palatable amongst the female passengers. She's not THAT attractive....or at least not attractive enough to compensate for the fact that she's not only demented and rude, but also suicidal AND the sort who has sex with a stranger (behind her fiance's back) on a first date. She's strictly the sort of person to whom one gives a fake phone number after sex and then studiously avoids, lest the 3AM "I've taken an overdose and I'm not going to tell you where I am" phone calls begin.
Step on over to the Lusitania. I'll introduce you to Rita Jolivet, who in her 1915 film, The Unafraid, strongly resembles Kate Winslett. Was embarking on a fairly successful film career, and had a few Broadway successes, including one smash. You can discuss BlueGobo with her...let's face it, Rose is a bit of a dullard and (you may have noticed by our brief yet interminable exposure to her in that film) cannot discuss anything other than I ROSE- virtually every conversation swings back to her her her.
You can do better.
Danger, Will Robinson. I am SURE that you, and Jack, could find somebody more palatable amongst the female passengers. She's not THAT attractive....or at least not attractive enough to compensate for the fact that she's not only demented and rude, but also suicidal AND the sort who has sex with a stranger (behind her fiance's back) on a first date. She's strictly the sort of person to whom one gives a fake phone number after sex and then studiously avoids, lest the 3AM "I've taken an overdose and I'm not going to tell you where I am" phone calls begin.
Step on over to the Lusitania. I'll introduce you to Rita Jolivet, who in her 1915 film, The Unafraid, strongly resembles Kate Winslett. Was embarking on a fairly successful film career, and had a few Broadway successes, including one smash. You can discuss BlueGobo with her...let's face it, Rose is a bit of a dullard and (you may have noticed by our brief yet interminable exposure to her in that film) cannot discuss anything other than I ROSE- virtually every conversation swings back to her her her.
You can do better.
> sort who has sex with a stranger (behind her
> fiance's back) on a first date
We've all done it.
> fiance's back) on a first date
We've all done it.
Not whilst engaged to another. (One must observe some standards) And SURELY not with someone who has all the attributes of a serial killer (Jack) or who we met in mid-suicide attempt (Rose). "Hmmmm....that's a cute gal dangling over the props. I wonder if she'll sleep with me?" is just NOT a sane reaction to witnessing a manifestation of someone else's insanity.
If I were Rose the first sign of of strangeness would be "That's the good thing about Paris, lots of girls willing to take their clothes off for you."
I would say "Well, nice meeting you...."
I would say "Well, nice meeting you...."
Hmmm...let's see. No fixed address. Consorts with prostitutes. Is sexually aroused by a woman he meets in mid suicide attempt. Is apparently roaming the world with a male partner, a la Henry Lee Lucas and Ottis Toole and innumerable other serial killing pairs. This one seems like a real "keeper" to me.
I suspect Jack was actually The Railroad Axeman, a serial killer in the Midwestern/Southern United States, who murdered at least 30 people who lived alongside railroad tracks (several entire families) in 1911, early 1912, and then vanished. (In real life. Not a joke character I've created) Everything about him fits the bill, from his claimed place of birth (Midwest) to the fact that the crime wave seems to have ended with Jack's death.
Were there corresponding killings in Paris coinciding with Jack's visit? And, would Rose have ended up as a series of parcels left at various points along the Pennsylvania Railroad?
I suspect Jack was actually The Railroad Axeman, a serial killer in the Midwestern/Southern United States, who murdered at least 30 people who lived alongside railroad tracks (several entire families) in 1911, early 1912, and then vanished. (In real life. Not a joke character I've created) Everything about him fits the bill, from his claimed place of birth (Midwest) to the fact that the crime wave seems to have ended with Jack's death.
Were there corresponding killings in Paris coinciding with Jack's visit? And, would Rose have ended up as a series of parcels left at various points along the Pennsylvania Railroad?
> And, would Rose have ended up as a series of
> parcels left at various points along the
> Pennsylvania Railroad?
One can only hope.
I don't see the suicide thing as an issue. Lots of people fall in love with people they have "saved". (Hank Kimball impersonation) Well, not "lots"...but some.
> parcels left at various points along the
> Pennsylvania Railroad?
One can only hope.
I don't see the suicide thing as an issue. Lots of people fall in love with people they have "saved". (Hank Kimball impersonation) Well, not "lots"...but some.
I agree! Jack and Rose are basically 90's Mall-Rat Slackers transported back in time for Mr. Cameron's Water Epic and their behavior should be judged accordingly on that fact!
I though Kate Winslet was very attractive as well!
I, Myself in Rose's shoes would of married Cal and supported Jack on Cal's Money! Shoot, we all know Cal was gonna end up cheating on her! Rose should of married Cal and waited for him to stray and got photo's of it and taken him to Divorce Court! Then Jack and her could of lived on the Riviera with Cal's Alimony Checks!
>I don't see the suicide thing as an issue
Oh, it's a big one. It's the film's Jump-The-Shark moment. If you introduce something that extreme as a plot device, and then don't resolve (or even address) the issue again, you've created a massive roadblock, and something too stupid to be ignored.
It's like the film Legend of Lylah Claire. Seen it? Kim Novak plays a Miss Nobody, tapped to play The Greatest Star Of The 1920s Who Died Mysteriously. As written, she gets so "into" the part that she "becomes" Lylah. Somehow, while in the editing stages, the disastrous decision was made to add a supernatural element, and a booming, male sounding, German accented voice was dubbed over that of Miss Novak in certain scenes. Thing is, as shot, no one reacts at all to the voice of satan booming out of Kim Novak. One has to accept that a pretty blonde woman would suddenly begin speaking with the voice of a German man, and no one would comment, notice, or ask why. And we hit the roadblock of stupidity and the film becomes unwatchable.
And so it is with Rose dangling over the propellers. Yeah, lots of people (masochists, who channel their proclivities into 'nurturing') fall in love with people they've 'saved' (and you KNOW how well that usually works out) but usually not within 30 seconds of foiling someone's suicide attempt. There are a number of reactions that surface in such cases (dont get me started) ranging from anger to shock to fear to disgust. Generally, an erection isn't one of them. Not in the world of the sane, anyway. Yes, long term, Jack COULD have fallen for Rose, etc, but in the time frame that the film allows, his immediately pursuing and sleeping with a stranger who he met while in mid suicide attempt, reduces him to someone on the psychological level of....Ted Bundy.
>and their behavior should be judged accordingly on that fact!
Sleeping with a stranger one met while she was trying to kill herself, within hours of the suicide attempt, was weird and unwholesome in 1912. It's weird and unwholesome now.
Oh, it's a big one. It's the film's Jump-The-Shark moment. If you introduce something that extreme as a plot device, and then don't resolve (or even address) the issue again, you've created a massive roadblock, and something too stupid to be ignored.
It's like the film Legend of Lylah Claire. Seen it? Kim Novak plays a Miss Nobody, tapped to play The Greatest Star Of The 1920s Who Died Mysteriously. As written, she gets so "into" the part that she "becomes" Lylah. Somehow, while in the editing stages, the disastrous decision was made to add a supernatural element, and a booming, male sounding, German accented voice was dubbed over that of Miss Novak in certain scenes. Thing is, as shot, no one reacts at all to the voice of satan booming out of Kim Novak. One has to accept that a pretty blonde woman would suddenly begin speaking with the voice of a German man, and no one would comment, notice, or ask why. And we hit the roadblock of stupidity and the film becomes unwatchable.
And so it is with Rose dangling over the propellers. Yeah, lots of people (masochists, who channel their proclivities into 'nurturing') fall in love with people they've 'saved' (and you KNOW how well that usually works out) but usually not within 30 seconds of foiling someone's suicide attempt. There are a number of reactions that surface in such cases (dont get me started) ranging from anger to shock to fear to disgust. Generally, an erection isn't one of them. Not in the world of the sane, anyway. Yes, long term, Jack COULD have fallen for Rose, etc, but in the time frame that the film allows, his immediately pursuing and sleeping with a stranger who he met while in mid suicide attempt, reduces him to someone on the psychological level of....Ted Bundy.
>and their behavior should be judged accordingly on that fact!
Sleeping with a stranger one met while she was trying to kill herself, within hours of the suicide attempt, was weird and unwholesome in 1912. It's weird and unwholesome now.
Actually wasn't it a couple of days later in the film? After she'd gotten to know Jack and they went to Dinner and their little party below stairs. After them getting to know each other I for a couple of days I could see one thing leading to another after that!
It *is* addressed. Old Rose says that Jack saved her in every way a person *can* be saved. Young Rose also has an entire scene where she and Jack discuss the previous night's event. She thanks him and he tells her that she wouldn't have done it.
I personally like Rose and Jack. It's not a dreadful story line. Some people are too cruel to it, I think.
Touche' again Jeremy! I like Debbie Reynolds. I do not like her as Molly Brown though. She played her like Molly was on speed!
Hi Rocky,
Hi Rocky,
You have a point! Ive thought that myself at times too. But at other times they just annoy me. I must of liked it at one time because I did go back to see the movie 2 more times. Jack and Rose are the Rhett and Scarlett of our generation. I'm gonna try and keep that in mind next time I, myself feel like bashing them! I hope to keep that promise.
>Jack and Rose are the Rhett and Scarlett of our generation.
Ehhhh.....
Scarlett is one of the more interesting literary creations of the last century, although the novel is massively flawed in places, and the film is "like being locked in a closet with Miss Piggy for nearly 4 hours" to quote a 1990s critic- believe Joe Queenan.
Ya see, Scarlett was a fairly ghastly person (she had set up an appointment to abort Bonnie, but Rhett found out; later asks God why he couldnt have killed her daughter, Ella, if he had to take one of her children, and enjoys tormenting her son, for examples) but one who could be counted on to do the right thing when people needed her to. And, interestingly, the only two people who see her for what she actually is are her slave and the woman whose husband she is actively trying to steal.
Rose is just a ghastly person, with none of the shading that makes Scarlett the subject of...at this point... about 40,000 character analyses. One cannot dissect Rose-the-character. She is all surface. And, from what one sees on screen, there is little or no indication that Rose could be counted on to do the right thing in a bad situation.
About Debbie. Her magnum opus was, of course, The Singing Nun. Any film about a nun that uses the phrase "sending ducks and chickens a-scattering" in its press material, and any film that contains a subplot about a teenager posing for skin magazines who ends up getting beaten by her father when a nun rather unwisely brings that fact to his attention, and any film in which "Dominique" is performed in English, goes to the top of my must-view list. Singin' In The Rain was a lot of fun, although I rather severely edited my copy to eliminate any number in which people burst into song, leaving only those which could logically be explained. Kathy (Cathy?) is a fun character. Dub in the machine gunning of Donald O'Connor after Make 'em Laugh, digitally expand or contract every frame in which he appears beyond that number until he is not visible in it, chop his dialogue, and the film becomes a pleasure. She's exceptionally pretty in it.
Ehhhh.....
Scarlett is one of the more interesting literary creations of the last century, although the novel is massively flawed in places, and the film is "like being locked in a closet with Miss Piggy for nearly 4 hours" to quote a 1990s critic- believe Joe Queenan.
Ya see, Scarlett was a fairly ghastly person (she had set up an appointment to abort Bonnie, but Rhett found out; later asks God why he couldnt have killed her daughter, Ella, if he had to take one of her children, and enjoys tormenting her son, for examples) but one who could be counted on to do the right thing when people needed her to. And, interestingly, the only two people who see her for what she actually is are her slave and the woman whose husband she is actively trying to steal.
Rose is just a ghastly person, with none of the shading that makes Scarlett the subject of...at this point... about 40,000 character analyses. One cannot dissect Rose-the-character. She is all surface. And, from what one sees on screen, there is little or no indication that Rose could be counted on to do the right thing in a bad situation.
About Debbie. Her magnum opus was, of course, The Singing Nun. Any film about a nun that uses the phrase "sending ducks and chickens a-scattering" in its press material, and any film that contains a subplot about a teenager posing for skin magazines who ends up getting beaten by her father when a nun rather unwisely brings that fact to his attention, and any film in which "Dominique" is performed in English, goes to the top of my must-view list. Singin' In The Rain was a lot of fun, although I rather severely edited my copy to eliminate any number in which people burst into song, leaving only those which could logically be explained. Kathy (Cathy?) is a fun character. Dub in the machine gunning of Donald O'Connor after Make 'em Laugh, digitally expand or contract every frame in which he appears beyond that number until he is not visible in it, chop his dialogue, and the film becomes a pleasure. She's exceptionally pretty in it.
Hmm that's not how I remember "Gone with the Wind". I see you know of Wade Hampton and Ella Lorena, Scarlett's two children from her first marriages to Mr. Charles Hamilton, Melanie's brother who died of the measles and Suellen's Mr Frank Kennedy, who Scarlett up and stole that trashy wench! But she saved Tara with his money from da Yankee carpetbaggers. Anyways Wade Hampton Hamilton and Ella Lorena Kennedy didn't make it into the movie. Actually what your describing sounds more like "Buggleland" plot wise then GWTW! But you knew about Scarlett's older children. Why Mr Jim did you up and read GWTW! Fiddle-Dee! I thought I was the only one out of our coterie to have read such literature! I declare though that Rose and Jack are still the Rhett and Scarlett of our generation and that Titanic our GWTW. Now what that says about our generation I'd rather not say nor can I form an opinion. I leave that to others on this rainy morn. One last thing I always thought Scarlett the American version of Thackeray's Becky Sharp from Vanity Fair A Novel with out a hero. Their characters are very similar. Maybe they are related though their French relatives. Miss Sharp and Miss O'Hara both having Mothers of French descent.
I like Debbie for her singing and afternoons where she made a 7 year old boy forget he had the flu.
I like Debbie for her singing and afternoons where she made a 7 year old boy forget he had the flu.
>Hmm that's not how I remember "Gone with the Wind".
How DO you remember it? The character is one of the better anti-heroes of the 20th century. Selfish and morally bankrupt, but with a core of integrity that compels her to do the right thing (often against her initial instincts) in bad situations. As the narrator to the book points out, Scarlett hates one sister and has no feelings at all for the other, but breaks her back to feed them.... while simultaneously tormenting them by gleefully saying that once they were over their typhoid fever they, too, would be doing field hand work. Etc.
That is where Rose fails. No matter how many times Jack says "you're special" (which, doubtlessly, he would never say again once she 'came across') Rose just isn't special. She is too irritating and selfish to fill the role of hero, does not have the great internal contradictions needed to make an effective anti-hero, shows virtually no sign of intelligence, and is just....flat.
>Anyways Wade Hampton Hamilton and Ella Lorena Kennedy didn't make it into the movie.
Well...the fact that she frequently slaps and beats Wade until one day she realises that he is an overly-timid little boy who doesn''t like her and is visibly afraid of her... and the fact that not only does she ignore Ella (who she thinks is an ugly, stupid, and spiritless child) but asks God why he couldn't have killed her, Ella, rather than Bonnie....and the fact that after Bonnie's death Scarlett realises that God took the only one of her children she either wanted or liked.... would not have played well on the screen.
>It *is* addressed. Old Rose says that Jack saved her in every way a person *can* be saved. Young Rose also has an entire scene where she and Jack discuss the previous night's event. She thanks him and he tells her that she wouldn't have done it.
No. That is not addressing the issue of self-destruction coupled with erotic attraction. It is just mentioning it. There's a difference. Let's change the scenario slightly. Rose meets Jack. Jack has already knocked a gay man down, and is about to jackboot (Jack boot) his face. Rose talks Jack out of it, and within a day they are having stranger-danger sex and the entire affair is dismissed, with Rose saying "Oh, I know you wouldn't have done it anyway." Would ANYONE consider that a satisfying resolution to something atrocious and ugly, or would one call it a stupidly facile dismissal of something quite serious? Because, suicide attempts, like acts of physical assault, are ALWAYS serious. She was on the outside of the rail. The same as if she had already placed a gun barrel in her mouth. It's not romantic. It's sick. Jack is sick. The issue should NOT have been introduced, but having been introduced it should not have been dismissed with a few stupid lines.
How DO you remember it? The character is one of the better anti-heroes of the 20th century. Selfish and morally bankrupt, but with a core of integrity that compels her to do the right thing (often against her initial instincts) in bad situations. As the narrator to the book points out, Scarlett hates one sister and has no feelings at all for the other, but breaks her back to feed them.... while simultaneously tormenting them by gleefully saying that once they were over their typhoid fever they, too, would be doing field hand work. Etc.
That is where Rose fails. No matter how many times Jack says "you're special" (which, doubtlessly, he would never say again once she 'came across') Rose just isn't special. She is too irritating and selfish to fill the role of hero, does not have the great internal contradictions needed to make an effective anti-hero, shows virtually no sign of intelligence, and is just....flat.
>Anyways Wade Hampton Hamilton and Ella Lorena Kennedy didn't make it into the movie.
Well...the fact that she frequently slaps and beats Wade until one day she realises that he is an overly-timid little boy who doesn''t like her and is visibly afraid of her... and the fact that not only does she ignore Ella (who she thinks is an ugly, stupid, and spiritless child) but asks God why he couldn't have killed her, Ella, rather than Bonnie....and the fact that after Bonnie's death Scarlett realises that God took the only one of her children she either wanted or liked.... would not have played well on the screen.
>It *is* addressed. Old Rose says that Jack saved her in every way a person *can* be saved. Young Rose also has an entire scene where she and Jack discuss the previous night's event. She thanks him and he tells her that she wouldn't have done it.
No. That is not addressing the issue of self-destruction coupled with erotic attraction. It is just mentioning it. There's a difference. Let's change the scenario slightly. Rose meets Jack. Jack has already knocked a gay man down, and is about to jackboot (Jack boot) his face. Rose talks Jack out of it, and within a day they are having stranger-danger sex and the entire affair is dismissed, with Rose saying "Oh, I know you wouldn't have done it anyway." Would ANYONE consider that a satisfying resolution to something atrocious and ugly, or would one call it a stupidly facile dismissal of something quite serious? Because, suicide attempts, like acts of physical assault, are ALWAYS serious. She was on the outside of the rail. The same as if she had already placed a gun barrel in her mouth. It's not romantic. It's sick. Jack is sick. The issue should NOT have been introduced, but having been introduced it should not have been dismissed with a few stupid lines.
