Author Topic: Antares' Short Summations  (Read 137427 times)

Offline Antares

  • Super Heavy Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 4096
    • View Profile
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #90 on: July 01, 2011, 03:19:07 AM »
I think you might like The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp Antares. Livesay is in it and it's a Powell/Pressburger film.

I've seen and I loved it.

Offline dfmorgan

  • Heavy Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Country: gb
    • View Profile
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #91 on: July 01, 2011, 08:47:37 PM »
I think you might like The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp Antares. Livesay is in it and it's a Powell/Pressburger film.

I've seen and I loved it.

Have you seen A Matter of Life and Death? Roger Livesey, although not the star as that is reserved for David Niven, does appear in this superb Powell/Pressburger film.
Dave

Life? - Who needs a life when you have anime!

My DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-ray Collection
My Library
My CD Collection - sorry I use readerware for that and it doesn't have an online component.

Offline Antares

  • Super Heavy Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 4096
    • View Profile
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #92 on: July 01, 2011, 11:53:26 PM »
Not yet, but I own it. It's just been sitting in my unwatched pile for about 8 months.

Offline dfmorgan

  • Heavy Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Country: gb
    • View Profile
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #93 on: July 02, 2011, 12:31:34 AM »
Not yet, but I own it. It's just been sitting in my unwatched pile for about 8 months.

May I suggest that you move this up as I think it a wonderful film, with a brilliant use of Colour and Black and White scenes. I know that my anime recommendations haven't been to your taste but this is in a totally different category and is just simply a classic.
Dave

Life? - Who needs a life when you have anime!

My DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-ray Collection
My Library
My CD Collection - sorry I use readerware for that and it doesn't have an online component.

Offline Antares

  • Super Heavy Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 4096
    • View Profile
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #94 on: July 02, 2011, 03:09:45 AM »
I've already promised another person at another forum that I would watch it this weekend. He felt that it was a sin that I had it in my collection and that it was collecting dust.  :bag:

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #95 on: July 02, 2011, 03:40:35 AM »
I've already promised another person at another forum that I would watch it this weekend. He felt that it was a sin that I had it in my collection and that it was collecting dust.  :bag:

Honestly, I would have assumed you'd already seen it. I love it. It was a favourite film of mine when I was younger. It's unashamedly sentimental and very British. Just watch stiff upper lip Niven talking about his doomed plane to the emotional American radio operator! :laugh:

Offline Antares

  • Super Heavy Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 4096
    • View Profile
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #96 on: July 05, 2011, 03:04:23 AM »
Brigadoon (1954) 2.5/5 - Last Thursday night TCM had a theme night comprising of films with a Scottish setting. After watching the delightfully charming I Know Where I'm Going!, I decided to stick around and watch Gene Kelly's Brigadoon. Now anyone who has read either my reviews or posts on this forum, knows my disdain for musicals and especially musicals with Gene Kelly in them. But as of late, I've been trying to temper down my cynical side and I thought to myself, let's give Gene a break.

So...where to begin... I was surprised to see that Kelly did not seem to be mugging as much in this film and that was a pleasant surprise. But that being said, I can understand why this film didn't fare well at the box office back in 1954. For a musical, it's kind of lifeless at times. Maybe this is a factor of MGM's refusal to allow Kelly to shoot on location in Scotland. But I can understand MGM's apprehension, I have read that every musical that Kelly made after the highly profitable Singin' in the Rain lost a substantial amount of money. Also, I didn't feel that the majority of the songs were memorable. In fact, the only two songs that piqued my interest were Heather on the Hill and Almost Like Being in Love, but unfortunately these two songs were well beyond the limits of Gene Kelly's vocal range. Lastly, I noticed that a lot of the movements and dance steps that Kelly choreographed seemed repetitive of other dances in previous films, mainly Singin' in the Rain. Could it be that Kelly decided to go back to what had worked so well in that film at the expense of making Brigadoon more exciting? Could be...
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 10:47:05 PM by Antares »

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #97 on: July 05, 2011, 12:29:46 PM »
Hot Fuzz (2007) 3.5/5 - For the last few years I've read such glowing praise of this British comedy, and finally after reading a friends review on another forum, I decided the time had come to watch it. Well, after the first hour or so, I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. Sure, it had me chuckling every so often, but to be honest, I was expecting side-spliiting belly laughter. But it seems, I only had to wait until the climax of the film. When the town rises up against the new police officer, I was keeling over. Every action film cliché is skewered with the precision of a surgeon, not to mention the countless quotable lines that come fast and quick. I'm now looking forward to Shaun of the Dead.

I had pretty much the same reaction, but on the third viewing it seemed to gel beautifully and I couldn't fault it at all. Love it. What did you think of the score by the way, especially when Angel is going back into town? I swear it's a twist on Yojimbo.

Do you normally go for horror films? Doesn't matter, because first and foremost Shaun is a rom-com, but it's also the only rom-zom-com and if you know your zombies, you're in for a treat. Sod it, you're in for a treat anyway! :P
 
A Matter of Life and Death (1946) 3.5/5 - I was going to start out this review by telling verbALs to stop scratching his head, because I finally watched the film, but I think that after he reads the score I rated this film, he may just keep on scratching away. I liked the film, but when Raymond Massey's character comes forward, I thought it threw a money wrench into the flow of the screenplay. Bringing an anti-British rant from an American just seemed to me, a little disengenous. This was only one year removed from the end of the Second World War and it just came across as a rather condescending way to take a swipe at the Americans who were still over in England awaiting their return to the States. I saw it as a brave move by Pressburger to do it, but also it appeared as he was left-handedly saying... These Americans, what petulant little children. I could be reading it wrong, but that's how it came across to me.

It reminded me of something I read in a New York Times archived newspaper one day when I was perusing the microfilm collection at a library. I had been reading war reports from France from the D-Day invasion until the Battle of the Bulge. I was surprised to read a small piece about French citizens complaining about the American soldiers in the aftermath of the liberation of Paris. They were actually complaining about the soldiers who had just liberated them from over 4 years of Nazi occupational tyranny.

You have to remember that Europe was very critical of America's lack of involvement in the early years of the war... Imagine if your neighbour started throwing grenades on your lawn and you called the police. They ignore you, but just as your lawn has been turned into a useless pit of wreckage and mud and you can't find your dog, they turn up, pat you on the head and say, "don't you worry" and then demolish your neighbours house. Would you shake their hand for a job well done?  :laugh:

I think some in France felt let down that America didn't step in sooner and even several years of war doesn't undo that. A fair argument would be of course, why didn't the French put up more of a struggle. That leads me to the British perspective and the film.

Because England didn't fall, but did suffer a lot in trying to help France immediately, I think P&P were having an ironic political dig at America. What we're seeing in this film is possibly an early example of the resentment from other countries about the American foreign policy method amounting to sledgehammers to crack a nut! But even then it's not that simple. It's been a while since I saw the film, but I have seen it a lot. I seem to remember feeling that in those staged arguments against America, there was an air of proud sadness that perhaps recognised that Europe was in a mess for deeper, very old reasons long before even WWI broke out. To go back to my silly example, you probably watched your neighbour making those grenades that eventually he threw at your lawn and maybe you even helped him.

I'm not looking for an argument here by the way, but the politics of the 1940s are fascinatingly complex and it's very difficult to judge fairly in retrospect. You have to remember that P&P would have been of a mindset born of the British Empire and old Europe, so America was young and naive.

It's reminded me of Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent. Have you seen that? You might appreciate the mood of it, considering Hitchcock was an Englishman stuck in the States when war broke out. Apparently he was distraught that he was unable to phone his mother, but communications to Europe had been cut. With that in mind, the ending of FC is passionate and moving. Possibly optimistic even considering it was an American character... http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,5251.msg89248.html#msg89248

Offline Antares

  • Super Heavy Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 4096
    • View Profile
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #98 on: July 05, 2011, 10:58:13 PM »
You have to remember that Europe was very critical of America's lack of involvement in the early years of the war...

Well, if that was the consensus of European thinking at the time, then I have to say
(click to show/hide)
It was French, British and Italian arrogance that sowed the seeds of the Second World War in the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. Woodrow Wilson was against imposing such harsh restrictions and reparations upon Germany, knowing full well what would happen. We as a nation, had done the same thing to the Confederacy after the American Civil War and the South held deep grudges against their former vanquishers and furthermore, it sowed the seeds of Jim Crow laws at the hands of the Ku Klux Klan.

Imagine if your neighbour started throwing grenades on your lawn and you called the police. They ignore you, but just as your lawn has been turned into a useless pit of wreckage and mud and you can't find your dog, they turn up, pat you on the head and say, "don't you worry" and then demolish your neighbours house. Would you shake their hand for a job well done?  :laugh:


I think I would if knowing that the alternative was having my neighbor start rounding up all the neighborhood dogs and systematically eradicating them.  ;)

I think some in France felt let down that America didn't step in sooner and even several years of war doesn't undo that. A fair argument would be of course, why didn't the French put up more of a struggle. That leads me to the British perspective and the film.

Because England didn't fall, but did suffer a lot in trying to help France immediately, I think P&P were having an ironic political dig at America. What we're seeing in this film is possibly an early example of the resentment from other countries about the American foreign policy method amounting to sledgehammers to crack a nut! But even then it's not that simple. It's been a while since I saw the film, but I have seen it a lot. I seem to remember feeling that in those staged arguments against America, there was an air of proud sadness that perhaps recognised that Europe was in a mess for deeper, very old reasons long before even WWI broke out. To go back to my silly example, you probably watched your neighbour making those grenades that eventually he threw at your lawn and maybe you even helped him.

And there's the rub...

Had France just been happy with the return of Alsace and Lorraine, or if Britain would have been satisfied with the destruction of the German fleet, which was the prime reason for Britain's involvement in the first place, and neither would have demanded the exorbitant reparations which crippled the German economy, the Nazis would have remained a fringe political party

If France had mobilized it's army when Hitler re-militarized the Rhineland in 1936, Hitler would not have been lulled into thinking that France and Britain were soft on his plans for expansion.

Had both Britain and France called Hitler's bluff at the Munich conference, 9/1/1939 may have never happened.

So in this sense, you can't as a country or a continent for that matter, fault the US for not coming to your rescue sooner. We had already been the recipients of over 320,000 military casualties in our first foray into a European war. Had the European victors in that war showed just the slightest bit of common sense, the second war would have not taken place.

I'm not looking for an argument here by the way, but the politics of the 1940s are fascinatingly complex and it's very difficult to judge fairly in retrospect. You have to remember that P&P would have been of a mindset born of the British Empire and old Europe, so America was young and naive.

And in hindsight I can without reservation declare that it was this antiquated mindset that set forth in motion the destructive events of the early and mid- 20th century.

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #99 on: July 06, 2011, 02:39:23 AM »
That'll teach me to try and be Devil's Advocate. If you reread my post without getting too jingoistic (oh hang on, it was the 4th July the other day wasn't it?  :tease: ), you'll see I was talking about the emotional response of everyday people, while also alluding to the fact that history held the lessons. You spelled out much of what I meant, but somehow thinking it was me being critical of America. Don't take it personally, or make it personal.

So in this sense, you can't as a country or a continent for that matter, fault the US for not coming to your rescue sooner.

"You"? Oh well. :-\ We didn't need rescuing, you needed insurance and were sticking with "wait and see", just like WWI. Had England fallen, the Third Reich would have swarmed over Europe and where would Hitler be looking next? 'You' would have had a nasty fight on your hands then. England couldn't stand by and let him get stronger. We can see bloody France from Dover! Too close for comfort.

And don't lump us in with Europe, thank you very much! I voted Conservative...   :devil:

Now I agree with the facts of what you say overall, but you're trying to paint in black and white and it can't work. You call it our and France's arrogance that sowed the seeds? For one, considering the monumental losses we took in WWI, some might say we had a right to throttle Germany. In hindsight, it wasn't sensible but otherwise, look closer to home. Wilson created the League of Nations and then America didn't support it. He essentially made a giant white elephant for the world to stare at, while America itself was becoming more isolated. Good intentions that he couldn't see through. Perhaps if America had committed itself to being part of the new world order it was so keen to create, it would have been able to temper us arrogant types. Funny how history repeats itself too... going to war in a foreign country, talking about how to protect the future and then not seeing it through... so is America going to finish the job in Afghanistan and Iraq this time?

See? Now you're making me angry and that wasn't what I wanted. The ties between our countries will always be much stronger than those either of us have to Europe and that is very respected here. There is no "consensus" opinion than America let us down; if a Brit says so, he's taking the piss (I work with one of you lot and every time he's late, I say "Just like WWII!" :-X). If a Frenchman says so (and these days I think even they're past it!), it's jealousy.  :whistle:

This stuff happened how long ago? And to bring it full circle, I really do think you'll get a lot out of Foreign Correspondent. Forget all the history, forget all the blame, just try to imagine what Hitchcock felt in America, as war broke out. He can't go home, he can't even phone home and he knows what London is going through. America would have felt very cut-off. In that film, there is a perfect blend of satire and metaphor, but an underlying sense of optimism. I think he was making it when the war hit and he lets it inform the narrative; the plot lines fizzle as enemies who were conspiring about war suddenly realise they've got it and they feel petty. And the very last scene is gloriously sentimental, but I think it summed up the real mood of the time. Have you read my review? At the end there is quote from another rather unique review that perfectly sums it up...  ;)

Anyway, most of the resentment of American troops was from British soldiers who got back home to find out their wives had been shagged by your lot on the promise of nylon stockings! A baby boom of bastards was not something we were banking on!  :hysterical:
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 02:42:26 AM by Jon »

Offline Antares

  • Super Heavy Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 4096
    • View Profile
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #100 on: July 06, 2011, 03:09:25 AM »
That'll teach me to try and be Devil's Advocate. If you reread my post without getting too jingoistic (oh hang on, it was the 4th July the other day wasn't it?  :tease: ), you'll see I was talking about the emotional response of everyday people, while also alluding to the fact that history held the lessons. You spelled out much of what I meant, but somehow thinking it was me being critical of America. Don't take it personally, or make it personal.

I wasn't taking it or trying to make it personal. I was only pointing out how hypocritical it was for P & P to take their little dig as you called it. I never for one moment, included you in that summation.


"You"? Oh well. :-\ We didn't need rescuing, you needed insurance and were sticking with "wait and see", just like WWI. Had England fallen, the Third Reich would have swarmed over Europe and where would Hitler be looking next? 'You' would have had a nasty fight on your hands then. England couldn't stand by and let him get stronger. We can see bloody France from Dover! Too close for comfort.

I'm sorry to disagree with you again, but you did need rescuing. By December 7 of 1941, Karl Donitz and the U- boat wolfpacks had almost singlehandedly severed your lifeline to the commonwealth nations and their important natural resources. A few more months of that or Roosevelt deciding to throw our full industrial weight behind defeating Japan would have surely spelled the end of Britain's involvement in WWII. Remember that Hitler did not want to defeat Britain in 1940. He knew that if England capitulated, your overseas empire would have been divided between the US and Japan and your navy would have probably been relinquished to Canada. But that being said, if Britain had fallen, then we would have concentrated our relief efforts on supporting Russia. Even though we did not trust Stalin at the time, Hitler was about to make the same mistake that Napoleon had the previous century, by committing to a land war in Asia. I guarantee you that with Britain out of the war and the Wehrmacht concentrating wholly upon Mother Russia, Stalin would have acquiesced to our troops traveling across Siberia to help fight the Nazi invasion. You'd be amazed at how fast the Russians would have built train tracks to the Kamchatka Peninsula.

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #101 on: July 06, 2011, 03:49:52 AM »
I wasn't taking it or trying to make it personal. I was only pointing out how hypocritical it was for P & P to take their little dig as you called it. I never for one moment, included you in that summation.

Maybe not, but it was you who started using "you", "we", etc, as if this happened yesterday and I had personally undermined your sensibilities.

I'm sorry to disagree with you again, but you did need rescuing. By December 7 of 1941, Karl Donitz and the U- boat wolfpacks had almost singlehandedly severed your lifeline to the commonwealth nations and their important natural resources. A few more months of that or Roosevelt deciding to throw our full industrial weight behind defeating Japan would have surely spelled the end of Britain's involvement in WWII. Remember that Hitler did not want to defeat Britain in 1940. He knew that if England capitulated, your overseas empire would have been divided between the US and Japan and your navy would have probably been relinquished to Canada. But that being said, if Britain had fallen, then we would have concentrated our relief efforts on supporting Russia. Even though we did not trust Stalin at the time, Hitler was about to make the same mistake that Napoleon had the previous century, by committing to a land war in Asia. I guarantee you that with Britain out of the war and the Wehrmacht concentrating wholly upon Mother Russia, Stalin would have acquiesced to our troops traveling across Siberia to help fight the Nazi invasion. You'd be amazed at how fast the Russians would have built train tracks to the Kamchatka Peninsula.

Are you kidding? "Hitler didn't want to defeat Britain in 1940"? What absolute bollocks! You do remember something called The Battle of Britain? The Luftwaffe threw everything they could at England with the sole purpose of forcing a surrender. The fact they couldn't do it is considered Germany's first major defeat.

The German Navy is another matter. Credit where its due, their Navy was the most powerful in the world. It was running rings around the Royal Navy which was underfunded, ill-equipped and making mistakes. You're right, our supply lines were stuffed. But the decisive turning point was less to do with what America was or wasn't doing and more down to the St. Nazaire Raid in March 1942 (those "few months" later you mentioned), by commandos that could be considered the first SAS, back when Mission Impossibles hadn't even been thought of as remotely Mission Plausibles. It's nicknamed The Greatest Raid of All Time for good reason. It crippled a key dry dock, throttling Germany's ability to move at sea and giving Britain the breathing space it needed to take control. Hitler was so pissed off he rebuilt all his sea defences. Had England not thwarted his Navy with the most audacious, craziest plan possible, he may well have eventually starved us out, but he would have also ruled the oceans and America would have struggled to break that with Japan on their backs. 

Offline Antares

  • Super Heavy Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 4096
    • View Profile
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #102 on: July 06, 2011, 04:43:34 AM »
Are you kidding? "Hitler didn't want to defeat Britain in 1940"? What absolute bollocks! You do remember something called The Battle of Britain?

OK I'll admit that I should have worded that line differently by stating that prior to the Battle of Britain, Hitler didn't want to defeat Britain in 1940. Bad choice of words on my part, but none the less it is true and it's a known fact that Hitler only wanted Britain to acquiesce to his dominance on the European continent. I'm not making this up, it is true. Had England agreed to an armistice and left Hitler with France, he would have left you alone, albeit probably only until he turned Russia into a wasteland. Hitler was known to have admired your empirical prowess over the centuries. He wanted to emulate it, not destroy it.

And with that I'm done. It was not my intention to fan any flames of discord between us.

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #103 on: July 06, 2011, 12:07:59 PM »
Ok, I see what you mean, but it's a moot point. Hitler needed to control the air for an invasion, he was stopped. He needed to control the sea for a longer term plan, he was stopped. I know you didn't want an argument, but it does piss me off when the "America rescued you" stuff comes up, because it reduces Britain to a single island that was in a purely defensive position and supports the idea that invasion was merely a matter of time and until then it was a war of attrition at best until America weighed in. It undermines Churchill, who in truth declared war on Germany as an offensive move to liberate France from day 1 and was immediately planning to force a second front and take the fight to Hitler. And because Britain was an Empire, not just an island, the Commonwealth forces were gaining ground in Africa all the time. Russia would have come in under much the same manner, building the Eastern front and linking up with British, Canadian, Aussie, etc, but Stalin needed to lose first to realise he couldn't wait it out (Hitler's legacy is probably forcing Russia onto the world stage at all, which turned out well! :-[). If America hadn't stepped in, it would have been a longer, messier war and the invasion of France may have even failed, but it would have been an invasion nonetheless. Churchill wasn't sitting on his hands hoping Eisenhower would see sense. Actually, Russia would have eventually prevailed I think and then your Cold War would have been a lot warmer once they controlled Berlin following 1945.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 12:10:04 PM by Jon »

Offline Achim

  • Mega Heavy Poster
  • *******
  • Posts: 7170
    • View Profile
    • ya_shin's site
Re: Short Summations
« Reply #104 on: July 07, 2011, 06:15:36 AM »
I remember seeing that in some movie: I guess the fact that the Americans cracked the code of the enigma thingy also helped move things along more quickly.