SCFZ

wba wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 5:26 pm

Holymanm wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 2:51 pm
And yeah, watching film noir adaptations on top of already having read the literature noir - that's a level of commitment to modern American art I am just not ready to make.

It's quite rewarding! You just have to expect a waaay different movie, that's all.

nrh wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 5:41 pm

Holymanm wrote: ↑Sat Mar 07, 2020 2:51 pm It's a shame the apparently inferior 50s "remake" is the one with James Mason in it - wouldn't he be delightful as Rupert...

there's a really fun bengali remake from the '60s with the great uttam kumar and soumitrya chatterjee called jhinder bondi. the thorpe version is incredibly dull if i remember correctly...

Evelyn Library P.I. wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 10:54 pm

wba wrote: ↑Sun Mar 08, 2020 9:29 pm Well, I've only seen a meager 4 films by Van Dyke, but his direction in all 4 of them was outstanding! And all 4 were in completely different genres. I LOVE YOU AGAIN for example is one of the best directed screwball comedies I've had the pleasure to watch. So I'd personally put him up there in the pantheon of Hollywood greats of the classic era - with reservations of course, cause I might just have seen his 4 best films and that's that, but I seriously doubt it.

Success in a variety of genres is a definite virtue, but One-Take Woody in the same class as Ford, Hawks, Hitchcock, Lubitsch, and whoever else one fancies? You have 100% jurisdiction over your taste, but as for me, I don't know, I can't imagine classing Van Dyke anywhere but 'Lightly Likable' (to fall back on the old Sarris terminology I grew up on). For me, Van Dyke in the 1930s is indistinguishable from MGM in the 1930s, which just makes him feel like a talented but limited journeyman more than a distinctive personality I can rely on to be interesting even in his failures. (Though in fairness, I'm not actually much of an auteurist anymore, anyway, so studio contract players are increasingly interesting to me even in their failures, too.) I will say that had Van Dyke lived longer he might be spoken of in the same breath as Michael Curtiz, whose career is in some ways indistinguishable from the career of Warner Bros. product but who nonetheless stands as a major name for his interesting prolificness if nothing else. I imagine that if Van Dyke hadn't died relatively young he would have been a comparable figure for MGM, and he probably would have tried his hand at even more genres!

wba wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:59 am I will have to see way more of his work of course, but to me he seems like a contender. Curtiz (after having seen some 20 films by him) is in my opinion easily as good as Hitch, Ford, Lubitsch, etc. And I'd put him above Hawks in terms of talent and vision, for example. A total filmmaker.

Holymanm wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 7:58 amI'm just not at all interested in noir stuff in the first place. Waiting to be banned from the site now

Evelyn Library P.I. wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:20 am

wba wrote: ↑Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:59 am I will have to see way more of his work of course, but to me he seems like a contender. Curtiz (after having seen some 20 films by him) is in my opinion easily as good as Hitch, Ford, Lubitsch, etc. And I'd put him above Hawks in terms of talent and vision, for example. A total filmmaker.

That's fair, that case could definitely be made for Curtiz, who I'm usually in the business of defending. I'd have to see more Van Dyke's to be sure, too, he's certainly talented and usually a sign the movie will be well made. Perhaps it just amounts to the fact that I don't like MGM that much (certainly relative to Warner Bros., which is my favourite studio by a mile) and thus I don't find Van Dyke's filmography as suggestive of greatness. I have seen one Van Dyke I'd call great, though: the 1931 murder mystery Guilty Hands, among my favourite recent discoveries in the realm of pre-Code.