criterionforum.org

In regard to posts earlier in the thread about audiences laughing at this film during screenings... I have to admit that, on seeing it for the first time by myself this week, I laughed quite frequently but it wasn’t in a derisive way. Ever since I was a child and saw Jurassic Park theatrically, I have often laughed — somewhat nervously, but also joyously — when I am surprised at how extreme the situation in a film or TV show is, it’s mostly a response of actual surprise at a movie having conviction enough to go as far as this film does, for instance, down the

Spoiler

potential-child-murderer hole.

I don’t know if that’s an unusual response or not but I did like the film (though it’s not, on first pass, among my favorites of Nicholas Ray’s films) and certainly didn’t feel superior to it in any way, and found James Mason’s performance most credible and only “over the top” insofar as it needed to be to serve the narrative.

That said, I relate immensely to the despair of hearing an audience refuse to take a film seriously. As a teenager I fell in love with Truffaut’s Fahrenheit 451; it hit me just right and I found it terribly moving. One day in English class we unexpectedly screened the film and not only did my friends/classmates ridicule it relentlessly when they paid attention to it at all, I found myself able to “see it” through their eyes — even though I didn’t agree with their dismissiveness — and felt vulnerable and stupid for being upset about the whole ordeal.

Not to take away from your post, dustybooks, but I haven't seen this film yet (I plan to purchase the Blu-ray during the next flash sale) and have a question. Is cortisone even addictive? I haven't found any mention of it being so. I semi-frequently used topical hydrocortisone cream when I was in elementary school, and I don't think I became addicted...

Cortisone was invented in 1948, so maybe it wasn't proven to be non-habit-forming yet? If anyone has a page (or personal perspective) about this, I'd like to hear!

The extras tackle this in depth, but my memory suggests they say that the film has no scientific basis, but that’s irrelevant to the movie.

I'm pretty sure it's not, and was just used for the purpose of exploring 50s-contemporary fears and general shaky attitudes toward mental health issues including addiction.

I simply mentally substituted corticosteroids in for cortisone.
Not that corticosteroids are addictive, but they can cause adverse reactions such as "problems with mood swings, memory, behavior, and other psychological effects, such as confusion or delirium."
Benefit: the drug names sound fairly similar so it's easy to make the mental switch.

Corticosteroids are synthetic drugs "that closely resemble cortisol, a hormone that your adrenal glands produce naturally." So really instead of cortisone the film would have been better off using cortisol, with the added benefit that not only does it have side effects but hasn't become a well-known drug in the intervening half century plus, and the drug names are extremely close.

So swap in cortisol for cortisone and enjoy!

BTL was on TCM last week. I recommended it to my mother. She liked it, thought it well cast. But my father hated it and bailed mid-film. Now he has a short attention span and rarely watches a film or listens to any music. He thought it was way too slow, yet his main hobby is collecting coins ...
But I found it interesting that he detested a film about a tyrannical father, when my mother still has to tiptoe around his moods and put up with his sarcasm and criticism. Though I'd like to think the theme got under his skin a bit, some people just aren't self-aware.