criterionforum.org

Domino, I love your post, but I also love this film. For me I think of this film more as a horror film than a drama, which is probably not
the intent of the studio. Which is why I can tolerate some of the over the top hokiness. What made you stick around through the seventy first minute? Surly you could’ve saved yourself some heavy sighing

It’s funny you say that, as I can’t remember the last movie that so alluringly tempted me with turning it off, but I unfortunately have an internal policy of finishing films I start. Though perhaps this life choice is due for a reassessment!

And I know I am and will be in the minority on this one, but I appreciate the appreciation of my disparagement from two more tolerant of the film. As a thank you, let me remind you both that you like a movie with a scene of overblown bucolic squalor in which hoity-toity Hopkins, who for fifteen seconds inexplicably loves kids, is portentously told the poor cabin baby is kept in the woodbox “so’s the rats don’t get ‘im”

In the book's defense it is actually really good, but the things that make it good would have to be cut out for such a short film. The main plot doesn't hold much if any weight.

domino harvey wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:55 pm And I know I am and will be in the minority on this one

I usually never agree with your dismissal of certain classic films (Borzage's Moonrise comes to mind) but I was really shocked when I saw this get the criterion treatment (although Criterion has released plenty of bad/mediocre films). I watched this last year along with a number of other pre-code films and found this one pretty forgettable (so much so that I don't even remember why didn't like it) especially in comparison to the other ones I watched so it's sad to see this one getting the attention..

I'm with you on this at least. Strange bedfellows, enemy of mine enemy, &c-- pick your platitude. It made me think of the Carroll Baker Something Wild, for obvious thematic reasons, but also because this is also a not particularly well-known or popular film that nevertheless someone at Criterion was passionate enough about to rescue and devote time and energy to and all I can think is that whoever is responsible has drastically different taste in movies than me

This is the first time since watching Something Wild that I remembered that Criterion released Something Wild

swo17 wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:41 pm This is the first time since watching Something Wild that I remembered that Criterion released Something Wild

I'm reminded of Something Wild every time I see The Strange One dvd on my shelf & think why oh why didn't think pick his better film. And now with The Story Of Temple Drake, I'll be thinking why oh why couldn't the pre-code have been Scarface.

I don't know if you saw, but at least Scarface will be getting a solo Blu-ray release from Universal on the 19th

Also, I like Imogen Sara Smith, but she's got her work cut out for her if her piece here really is an in-depth defense of Hopkins' performance. The ad copy already wrote a check this film can't cash with regards to Hopkins, and I don't think twenty minutes can even begin to reclaim her greasefire perf

domino harvey wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:14 am I don't know if you saw, but at least Scarface will be getting a solo Blu-ray release from Universal on the 19th

That's why I mentioned it. I will be forever reminded that they came out in the same month & that Criterion picked the wrong one to release. I'm assuming the Universal blu will be bare bones & not a restoration, not to mention having that annoying menu selection.

Undoubtedly true on all fronts, though I thought it was mentioned that this was probably a Fox license and not a Universal one because they bought the rights to make Sanctuary? --And while the notion of Tony Richardson directing Lee Remick as Temple Drake and Yves Montand as someone called "Candy Man" makes me want to touch the plate, I know damn well it'll be hot and I shouldn't

domino boos Temple Drake online

Drake gets booed in real life

COINCIDENCE???

swo17 wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:02 pm domino boos Temple Drake online

Drake gets booed in real life

COINCIDENCE???

In a temple? Maybe you should write a story about it & sell the film rights to Jordan Peele.

]

domino harvey wrote: Wed Aug 28, 2019 9:03 pm I’m not sure if I learned it from this song, but it’s def why I remembered it

I learned it from this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPoBE-E8VOc

domino harvey wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:14 am Also, I like Imogen Sara Smith, but she's got her work cut out for her if her piece here really is an in-depth defense of Hopkins' performance. The ad copy already wrote a check this film can't cash with regards to Hopkins, and I don't think twenty minutes can even begin to reclaim her greasefire perf

UPDATE: It is, and she indeed hinges much of her argument on Hopkins' performance being good, which is... not a courtesy I could extend here. I don't agree with her conclusion about Hopkins not having a consistent screen presence/style either-- has anyone who knows her beforehand ever been surprised by a Miriam Hopkins performance? We know we're getting a Becky Sharp variation every time, and that's okay for movies where it works. That's just how the studio system operated, but no need to go stacking the deck for Hopkins with this kind of thing. I was also taken aback when Smith offhandedly revealed she apparently hasn't read Sanctuary, which seems like something she should have done before talking about it in relation to the film for a special feature like this. I think this extra was doomed at conception regardless, but needless to say, not a winner from someone who has produced more insightful content elsewhere

The Pre Code extra with LaSalle isn't particularly enlightening either, and I was kinda taken aback by his description of the Fatty Arbuckle scandal as merely revolving around a "murder," which is factually incorrect and a bit strange since I think the lurid details of Virginia Rappe's rape-by-object and subsequent death are precisely why it gained so much traction and had such an impact back in the day

I think Bogdanovich characterized it that way in his new Keaton doc as well?

Very strange muting of what made it so lurid in the first place no matter the source doing it. Generally people just refer to it as the Fatty Arbuckle Scandal if they want to get around / not go into the details, which makes sense. Calling it a simple murder (and the charge was manslaughter, by the way) undersells how awful the alleged crime was and why people were so shaken by it (in addition to the accused being a popular and lovable comic oaf) and if you're already being invited to the extra for a film all about rape, I think it's safe to go there for a thing like this. This probably won't bother most people, I admit, but I found it odd

Bogdanovich did brush over the details but in his defense it would have been strange to stop the greatest-hits history rundown of Keaton to meditate on it. It seems very out of place to commit the oversight in the context of an extra for this film in particular.

Didn't he call it a murder though? He could have just said there was a scandal. I agree it wasn't the place to go into details, but I recall thinking "Hey now, I think it was a bit more indecent than that!"

You could be right, either way the focus was on how Keaton was shaken by it. I’m sure Bogdanovich chose one part of the scandal and threw it as the signifier though I agree he could’ve easily added or replaced a word or two if he thought to.

It's also possible that Bogdanovich, in his dotage, simply forgot the details. (He confesses to not being a Keaton obsessive, and an unlikely choice for the project, which makes it even more likely he didn't take extra care with something like this, which is only Keaton-adjacent at best.)

Pro-B wrote:Hopkins' performance is remarkably nuanced and allows the difficult transformation of her complex character to appear incredibly authentic. It is really the type of bold female performance that should have been praised and recognized as 'groundbreaking'. [...] Miriam Hopkins gives a bold yet very nuanced performance that even in the old days should have been praised and recognized as 'groundbreaking'.

And sincerely using the phrase "Even in the old days" says it all for Pro-B's level of engagement and intellectual rigor with this kind of stuff

Not a surprising use though, considering how passeist he seems to be. His Festival review was a huge joke in this regard, for instance.

Assuming I understand your meaning, wouldn't a passéiste not frame things as being good "even" for an older period, though? The assumption in his words is that modern audiences would be more attuned to whatever it is he thinks she's doing here but even those rubes back in ye olden days of Hollywoode should have recognized it

this reminds me of how people genuflect to Becky Sharp as a deathless classic (because it's the first three-color Technicolor feature?) but it's actually a turgid film with an extremely annoying lead performance by Hopkins. she's charming in some of those Lubitsch films but often hard to take elsewhere, especially as a lead.

and yeah, people who write some variation on "this is good for an old film" have forfeited any chance of being taken seriously.