SCFZ poll: Carol Reed

[Evelyn Library P.I.]

I'd say that he's romantic and clueless in matters of heart ("Haven't got a sensible name, Calloway"), but not that he's an "asshole". I think Holly expects, or hopes against hope, that Anna will change her mind having had some time to see that Harry was bad for her and that Holly saved her from identity fraud prosecution. It's a tale of two people who idolize Harry Lime, under his charming immoral spell. One person is made to see the morality of the situation and hopes the other will too, the other person does not, and that is what the ending image conveys. I agree that Holly is inappropriately romantic with Anna, but I don't see that as altering the primary moral consideration in which Holly has done the right thing with respect to Harry and Anna has attempted to prevent this right thing. Anna refuses to see that Harry should have been killed, from a failure to see the moral big picture and a selfish elevation of her personal desires as synonymous with the needs of the community (which, I would argue the movie argues, is the central emotional groundwork of a black market smuggler economy, but that's another matter altogether).

[wba]

@Roscoe and Evelyn

hmm, ok, fair interpretaions I guess, and of course everyone perceives people differently.
But I still don't see what you see mainly because love is one thing: I totally get that Welles's character is an asshole, and that Anna still loves him (or if she doesn't anymore can't completely let go of her feelings). Love is an irrational thing, and I have no problems with nice people loving assholes and vice versa (so your Fonda argument doesn't apply here in my opinion, Roscoe): I have no problem whatsoever with Anna loving Lime and not wanting to rat him out. Hell, even a parent often protects his child, no matter what.

The only thing that would make sense to me is if Cotton's character were obsessed with Anna or madly in love with her, but I don't see any indication of that anywhere in the film.

And how could anyone think of himself as being basically a great guy after having shot a former close friend and not be an amoral asshole? I personally think that anyone with a modicum of decency would have had somewhat conflicted feelings after such a horrible situation, even if he thought he had done the right thing. And Cotton is introduced as a character who's supposed to have some morals and feelings in the beginning of the film.

In my opinion, after everything that happened, what he does in the end (either waiting for Valli to start talking to him as she passes by, or - what I believe - waiting for her to mock her and make himself/show himself "morally" superior to her) is the act of a sociopath. I'd expect a character like Trump to do such a thing, not a character like Cotton.

Maybe the killing of Lime at the end, that specific moment, has changed something in Cotton's fabric, has broken him, has turned him into a killer or something similar himself: has ultimately turned him into someone (potentionally) like Harry (which would be in line with the somehwat homoerotic tension and the doppelganger motif between Cotton/Welles, which is implied throughout the film). Something like the ending in William Friedkin's "To Live and Die in L.A. (1985). But this would only make sense to me if there was a bit more insight into Cotton's character after the killing in the film. As it is, it somehow doen't really fit for me (other than maybe to hammer home the negative moral spiral into which Cotton was sucked and has descended). In my opinion Anna in the end, when she walks past Cotton, shows so much more integrity, is morally so much more "upright", that the picture has changed completely, when compared to one of their former conversations, in which asshole Cotton talked to Anna to convince her to rat out Welles (I think he's already a huge asshole at this moment, cause in my opinion all he wants is to get rid of Lime in order to possibly get closer to Anna, and not save the world from the criminal activities of Lime, as he wants her to believe) in which Anna appeared to be the amoral one when she refused to help him.

But no matter what I think about the film and the characters, the ending, as fascinating as it is in itself as a self-contained scene, doesn't really gel with the rest of the movie. I think the film should have ended right after Cotton shoots Lime, with a wide shot of the sewers, as the police rush past Cotton up the stairs to retrieve Welles body in the off-space of the screen.

[Evelyn Library P.I.]

Yeah, fair enough, I think we obviously morally evaluate the situation depicted in the film differently, which I think can be a very common reason why people have different reactions to movies or stories and like a movie where others dislike it.

[Roscoe]

But I still don't see what you see mainly because love is one thing: I totally get that Welles's character is an asshole, and that Anna still loves him (or if she doesn't anymore can't completely let go of her feelings). Love is an irrational thing, and I have no problems with nice people loving assholes and vice versa (so your Fonda argument doesn't apply here in my opinion, Roscoe): I have no problem whatsoever with Anna loving Lime and not wanting to rat him out. Hell, even a parent often protects his child, no matter what.

My example of Fonda in EVE was meant more as an example of a character I find loathsome that lots of folks find not nearly as cosmically hideous as I do, rather than the love relationships in the respective films and how could those women love those revolting guys. I hadn't gotten to Anna's holding on to her feelings for Lime at all, as interesting as they might be, and I'm thinking I should see the movie again just to refresh my memory about what she knows about Lime's activities (does she still love the guy knowing that he sold diluted penicillin, responsible for those blighted children in that infirmary?). Just that your condemnation of Holly Martins was, I feel, like my utter revulsion at Fonda in EVE. A character generally tolerated by others drives me to absolute foaming rage and a desire to see him torn apart by wolves.

[wba]

Hehe, yeah that analogy works. Though I have no rage against Holly Martins. I just think he's an idiot and an asshole, but don't really care about him one way or the other. I'm probably rather indifferent towards him, as I find his character completely uninteresting.

But I know that feeling of yours from other films and characters I really couldn't stand (off the top of my head: Sam Neill in Possession (a film I love and a character that fits perfectly into what the film is doing) or Ryan O'Neal in Barry Lyndon (another film I love, and the characterization of him by Kubrick is fantastic).

[flip]

results

1. The Third Man (1949) -- 34.5 pts
2. Outcast of the Islands (1952) -- 16 pts
3. Odd Man Out (1947) -- 15 pts
4. Our Man in Havana (1959) -- 13 pts
5. Night Train to Munich (1940) -- 9 pts
6. The Fallen Idol (1948) -- 5 pts
7. Trapeze (1956) -- 4 pts
8. Girl in the News (1940) -- 3 pts
8. Bank Holiday (1938) -- 3 pts
8. The Man Between (1953) -- 3 pts
8. The Agony and the Ecstasy (1965) -- 3 pts
8. Oliver! (1968) -- 3 pts
13. A Kid for Two Farthings (1955) -- 2.5 pts
14. The Way Ahead (1944) -- 2 pts
14. The Stars Look Down (1940) -- 2 pts
16. The Public Eye / Follow Me! (1972) -- 1 pt
16. The Key (1958) -- 1 pt
16. Mutiny on the Bounty (1962) -- 1 pt

[flip]

up at letterboxd:

https://letterboxd.com/fliptrotsky/list ... -poll-164/