 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 3, 2014 - 12:21 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ralph
(Member)
|
Over at Cinema Treasures, there’s a debate as to whether “The Blue Max” was a roadshow or special engagement at the Sutton. Here’s the link:
http://cinematreasures.org/comments?page=1&theater_id=308
Been said that “The Blue Max” has fierce champions, but I’ve yet to meet any except here. This is the kind of class-exclusive war movie that shows the elite can conveniently find time for champagne while on the battlefield. Whoever decided that it would end up a roadshow presentation has kept his secret, but it’s unfortunate cinematographer Douglas Slocombe can’t remove his name from the credits. Easily one of his least visually-appealing efforts, but making matters worse is that for some reserved seat engagements (including the Cinestage), the CinemaScope print was blown up to something unofficially 70mm — cynics mocked it as Grandeur 70 — that eliminated the usual Fox gloss, causing distortions and making images look darker and dirty and adding to the depressive atmosphere created by production designer Wilfrid Shingleton and art director Fred Carter. George Peppard had four months of special flying training before filming started. Didn’t help much — the Harvard Lampoon named him 1966’s worst actor. James Mason once more looking downright puny and unconvincing, if not impotent in uniform, just as he did in 1952’s “The Prisoner of Zenda.” (Is it because he hasn’t the neck for military collars?) So poor sexy muscular-backed wife Ursula Undress has to get her kicks from you know who, though it looks like she’d get much more affection from that little kitty that meows on her hotel bedroom pillow. Always fun to listen to that short-of-tongue phenomenon Anton Diffring. One of the great mysteries that he and Darren Nesbitt missed the casting calls for Visconti’s “The Damned.” They’d have given Helmut great support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: "And I've come back to note that he turns 79 tomorrow!"
So, with a nod to CinemasScope, happy 79th birthday to Jeremy Kemp!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just have to get stuck into this. I was never a fan of the Barry Norman school of 'reviewing'. I've even less time for its copycats.
This is the kind of class-exclusive war movie that shows the elite can conveniently find time for champagne while on the battlefield.
Well, let's see, shall we? This couldn't be farther from the truth, given, as is clear to anyone, the whole thrust of the film is anti-class, and about aristocratic and political exploitation of heroes they build and then demolish. And of course, this isn't the trenches. This is WWI France, where the various Flying Corps had access to the wine-cellars of God knows how many chateaux and hotels. Especially if they were aristos and occupiers.
So THAT's coq au vin.
.....but making matters worse is that for some reserved seat engagements (including the Cinestage), the CinemaScope print was blown up to something unofficially 70mm — cynics mocked it as Grandeur 70 — that eliminated the usual Fox gloss, causing distortions and making images look darker and dirty and adding to the depressive atmosphere created by production designer Wilfrid Shingleton and art director Fred Carter.
Well now, why, oh why, would a cinematographer want to create a 'darker and dirtier' glossless WWI battlefield aesthetic in a film about WWI battlefields? 'Funny that. Do stick to the technical stuff though. 'Safer territory.
George Peppard had four months of special flying training before filming started. Didn’t help much — the Harvard Lampoon named him 1966’s worst actor.
What, a varsity rag? Oh the shame. I suppose what it DOES go to show, is that he spent a fair bit of the time in real aircraft.
James Mason once more looking downright puny and unconvincing, if not impotent in uniform, just as he did in 1952’s “The Prisoner of Zenda.” (Is it because he hasn’t the neck for military collars?)
But I'll bet you have a big one.
This is macho posturing. Have you ever looked at photos of WWI Prussian staff officers? Mason always looked military, and anyone who thinks he didn't has never met any military. The overweight 8 foot blowhards Hollywood casts as soldier heroes usually don't stick the pace in the real world. Career soldiers then were lean. And 1,000 women who always saw Mason as a sex-symbol are even now urinating on print-outs of this.... derisively. That's what tbey do in some parts of N. Africa y'know.
But as long as we know you have a big one...
So poor sexy muscular-backed wife Ursula Undress has to get her kicks from you know who, though it looks like she’d get much more affection from that little kitty that meows on her hotel bedroom pillow.
You've never met these people have you? Don't you know the cliches about aristocratic army wives? They aren't after 'affection', dearie. Nor do the Stachels of this world give it.
Do you?
Always fun to listen to that short-of-tongue phenomenon Anton Diffring. One of the great mysteries that he and Darren Nesbitt missed the casting calls for Visconti’s “The Damned.” They’d have given Helmut great support.
Well, I'd say it's because Visconti wanted to avoid familiar character actor STEREOTYPES and CLICHES in his film. Yes, I'd say that was it.
You're all over the place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just have to get stuck into this. I was never a fan of the Barry Norman school of 'reviewing'. I've even less time for its copycats.
This is the kind of class-exclusive war movie that shows the elite can conveniently find time for champagne while on the battlefield.
Well, let's see, shall we? This couldn't be farther from the truth, given, as is clear to anyone, the whole thrust of the film is anti-class, and about aristocratic and political exploitation of heroes they build and then demolish. And of course, this isn't the trenches. This is WWI France, where the various Flying Corps had access to the wine-cellars of God knows how many chateaux and hotels. Especially if they were aristos and occupiers.
So THAT's coq au vin.
.....but making matters worse is that for some reserved seat engagements (including the Cinestage), the CinemaScope print was blown up to something unofficially 70mm — cynics mocked it as Grandeur 70 — that eliminated the usual Fox gloss, causing distortions and making images look darker and dirty and adding to the depressive atmosphere created by production designer Wilfrid Shingleton and art director Fred Carter.
Well now, why, oh why, would a cinematographer want to create a 'darker and dirtier' glossless WWI battlefield aesthetic in a film about WWI battlefields? 'Funny that. Do stick to the technical stuff though. 'Safer territory.
George Peppard had four months of special flying training before filming started. Didn’t help much — the Harvard Lampoon named him 1966’s worst actor.
What, a varsity rag? Oh the shame. I suppose what it DOES go to show, is that he spent a fair bit of the time in real aircraft.
James Mason once more looking downright puny and unconvincing, if not impotent in uniform, just as he did in 1952’s “The Prisoner of Zenda.” (Is it because he hasn’t the neck for military collars?)
But I'll bet you have a big one.
This is macho posturing. Have you ever looked at photos of WWI Prussian staff officers? Mason always looked military, and anyone who thinks he didn't has never met any military. The overweight 8 foot blowhards Hollywood casts as soldier heroes usually don't stick the pace in the real world. Career soldiers then were lean. And 1,000 women who always saw Mason as a sex-symbol are even now urinating on print-outs of this.... derisively. That's what tbey do in some parts of N. Africa y'know.
But as long as we know you have a big one...
So poor sexy muscular-backed wife Ursula Undress has to get her kicks from you know who, though it looks like she’d get much more affection from that little kitty that meows on her hotel bedroom pillow.
You've never met these people have you? Don't you know the cliches about aristocratic army wives? They aren't after 'affection', dearie. Nor do the Stachels of this world give it.
Do you?
Always fun to listen to that short-of-tongue phenomenon Anton Diffring. One of the great mysteries that he and Darren Nesbitt missed the casting calls for Visconti’s “The Damned.” They’d have given Helmut great support.
Well, I'd say it's because Visconti wanted to avoid familiar character actor STEREOTYPES and CLICHES in his film. Yes, I'd say that was it.
You're all over the place.
Well countered William! I particularly objected to those comments about James Mason. But, of course, it was all way off the mark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: I just have to get stuck into this. I was never a fan of the Barry Norman school of 'reviewing'. I've even less time for its copycats.
This is the kind of class-exclusive war movie that shows the elite can conveniently find time for champagne while on the battlefield.
Well, let's see, shall we? This couldn't be farther from the truth, given, as is clear to anyone, the whole thrust of the film is anti-class, and about aristocratic and political exploitation of heroes they build and then demolish. And of course, this isn't the trenches. This is WWI France, where the various Flying Corps had access to the wine-cellars of God knows how many chateaux and hotels. Especially if they were aristos and occupiers.
So THAT's coq au vin.
.....but making matters worse is that for some reserved seat engagements (including the Cinestage), the CinemaScope print was blown up to something unofficially 70mm — cynics mocked it as Grandeur 70 — that eliminated the usual Fox gloss, causing distortions and making images look darker and dirty and adding to the depressive atmosphere created by production designer Wilfrid Shingleton and art director Fred Carter.
Well now, why, oh why, would a cinematographer want to create a 'darker and dirtier' glossless WWI battlefield aesthetic in a film about WWI battlefields? 'Funny that. Do stick to the technical stuff though. 'Safer territory.
George Peppard had four months of special flying training before filming started. Didn’t help much — the Harvard Lampoon named him 1966’s worst actor.
What, a varsity rag? Oh the shame. I suppose what it DOES go to show, is that he spent a fair bit of the time in real aircraft.
James Mason once more looking downright puny and unconvincing, if not impotent in uniform, just as he did in 1952’s “The Prisoner of Zenda.” (Is it because he hasn’t the neck for military collars?)
But I'll bet you have a big one.
This is macho posturing. Have you ever looked at photos of WWI Prussian staff officers? Mason always looked military, and anyone who thinks he didn't has never met any military. The overweight 8 foot blowhards Hollywood casts as soldier heroes usually don't stick the pace in the real world. Career soldiers then were lean. And 1,000 women who always saw Mason as a sex-symbol are even now urinating on print-outs of this.... derisively. That's what tbey do in some parts of N. Africa y'know.
But as long as we know you have a big one...
So poor sexy muscular-backed wife Ursula Undress has to get her kicks from you know who, though it looks like she’d get much more affection from that little kitty that meows on her hotel bedroom pillow.
You've never met these people have you? Don't you know the cliches about aristocratic army wives? They aren't after 'affection', dearie. Nor do the Stachels of this world give it.
Do you?
Always fun to listen to that short-of-tongue phenomenon Anton Diffring. One of the great mysteries that he and Darren Nesbitt missed the casting calls for Visconti’s “The Damned.” They’d have given Helmut great support.
Well, I'd say it's because Visconti wanted to avoid familiar character actor STEREOTYPES and CLICHES in his film. Yes, I'd say that was it.
You're all over the place.
Well countered William! I particularly objected to those comments about James Mason. But, of course, it was all way off the mark.
Geeeeeeeeeeze, folks … haven't we strayed more than a bit from the original posting about L. Bender's wish that they would release "The Blue Max" on Blu-ray???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jan 5, 2014 - 7:54 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
RoryR
(Member)
|
Geeeeeeeeeeze, folks … haven't we strayed more than a bit from the original posting about L. Bender's wish that they would release "The Blue Max" on Blu-ray???
Since Twilight Time is about to do just that, the original purpose for this thread is now moot.
So, let this be a debate on the qualities, or lack thereof, of the 1966 motion picture THE BLUE MAX. What's wrong with that, as long as we're not going to actual war and killing each other, I mean, come on. So, your opinions are challenged, and maybe your feelings are hurt, but for crying out loud -- get over it. Everyone has just as much right to disagree with you (and I'm talking the generic "you," not anyone in particular) as they have to agree with you. It might be unpleasant to have your views disagreed with, even ripped apart, but it doesn't physically hurt you, doesn't ruin your life or kill your dog or something. I like THE BLUE MAX, but it's far from a perfect picture, and I can see and often agree on some of the points some can make that it's actually a close to lousy movie. Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't affect what I like about it one bit. I guess some of us are just built a little more immune to what can be seen as hostile debate than others are.
Anyway, in response to this: George Peppard had four months of special flying training before filming started. Didn’t help much — the Harvard Lampoon named him 1966’s worst actor.
I think the arc of Peppard's career pretty much confirms that those on the Harvard Lampoon where on to something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like THE BLUE MAX, but it's far from a perfect picture, and I can see and often agree on some of the points some can make that it's actually a close to lousy movie. Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't affect what I like about it one bit. I guess some of us are just built a little more immune to what can be seen as hostile debate than others are.
Anyway, in response to this: George Peppard had four months of special flying training before filming started. Didn’t help much — the Harvard Lampoon named him 1966’s worst actor.
I think the arc of Peppard's career pretty much confirms that those on the Harvard Lampoon where on to something.
I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me. But sometimes you get a 'review' that is arrogant, a sort of vehicle for the reviewer's own, totally unobjective attempts to show off what he sees as wit, hence my reference to the Barry Norman school of film critique. (He was the genius by the way who said he didn't like music in films: didn't know what it was for!)
But when that technique strays over into nasty reviews about James Mason's physicality, which CLEARLY is a psychological compensation for his own self-love and convictions about his OWN 'attractiveness' (you can see the signs ...) then that reviewer doesn't deserve the time of day. D'you remember when Charlton Heston attacked 'Cleopatra' because, as he said, 'Richard Burton lacks the physical stature of greatness'? He then went on to direct his own version of 'Antony and Cleopatra' after the bard with himself as Tony. That speaks volumes. It's about HIMSELF. Whatever were the faults of Mankiewicz's movie, Dicky has stature.
It's not about the film, or the art or craft, but about THEM and their crowing. Sometimes these people ejaculate over the people they're supposed to be reviewing for, and it's unpleasant for any reader. It's also, thankfully, passe, by the way. It poses as criticism when in fact it's abuse of the material from a very ugle place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yuck
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pauline Kael said it best on this one: "The planes can't crash fast enough"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pauline Kael said it best on this one: "The planes can't crash fast enough"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
