COOPER, BRANDO, AND NEWMAN BOXSETS IN NOVEMBER - Page 3

Roger Rollins · 08-06-2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haggai

Do not forsake his other Oscar for playing Will Kane, O Roger Rollins.

Maybe it's because I subconsciously eradicate the Oscars for 1952 from my memory because of the insipid choice for Best Picture, and the Academy's ignorance toward SINGIN' IN THE RAIN!

I have corrected my post, and got a chuckle out of the way you kindly pointed out my faux pas. The reference to the song by Messrs. Tiomkin and Washington was quite witty.

Michael Elliott · 08-06-2006, 04:16 PM

Hmm....$40 for one film or that one film and six others for $40. Me know which one I'm taking.

Armin Jäger · 08-06-2006, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford

Well, I guess those of us that love "Sergeant York" as a film are nothing more than embarassing simple folks with jingoistic tendencies.

Robert, I see you never forget a nasty remark

.
But it's somehow a nice even if slightly rough description of Americans you wrote :p. That's probably why the film is still so popular there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford

Different strokes for different folks. Also, to fully appreciate many film classics, you have to give consideration to the context of the time they were filmed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Rollins

I have a great deal of difficulty comprehending the concept of anyone thinking that the film SERGEANT YORK would ruin the reputation of Gary Cooper! It was in its day, and is, a hugely popular film, of which director Hawks was most proud, and for which Mr. Cooper won the Academy Award for Best Actor.

It was at the moment it was made a popular movie that hit a certain strain just before the war.
Now it's simply embarassing and I don't have to make the same excuses for THE GRAPES OF WRATH, ONLY ANGELS HAVE WINGS or TO BE OR NOT TO BE made roughly at the same time. Hawks is one of the most highly regarded directors, but in any study or biography YORK is commented upon with remarks ranging from indifference to total hostility. A movie dealing with such serious issues as war and conscience shouldn't be that dumb. Alone the whole turkey affair is horribly misjudged. Compared to ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT or WESTFRONT 1918, this is a throwback to silly war heroics rounded up with folksiness and sentimentality (Gary Cooper pondering alone in the mountains what to do).
But it's probably a good film for military people who can show it to people as advertisement for joining the next war.

seanOhara · 08-06-2006, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Hawks is one of the most highly regarded directors, but in any study or biography YORK is commented upon with remarks ranging from indifference to total hostility.

Which says more about the people writing on Hawks' career than it does about the film.

Yes, it's an absolute propaganda piece, designed to get the audience feeling patriotic and ready to kill Nazis. But that's neither a good nor bad thing. Triumph of the Will, Alexander Nevsky, and Sergeant York are all great films even though they're propaganda.

And to say that Gary Cooper's most popular film is an embarrassing inclusion, is insane. Sergeant York is a movie that people who don't normally buy catalogue titles will buy.

Robert Crawford · 08-06-2006, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armin Jäger

Robert, I see you never forget a nasty remark

.
But it's somehow a nice even if slightly rough description of Americans you wrote :p. That's probably why the film is still so popular there.

It was at the moment it was made a popular movie that hit a certain strain just before the war.
Now it's simply embarassing and I don't have to make the same excuses for THE GRAPES OF WRATH, ONLY ANGELS HAVE WINGS or TO BE OR NOT TO BE made roughly at the same time. Hawks is one of the most highly regarded directors, but in any study or biography YORK is commented upon with remarks ranging from indifference to total hostility. A movie dealing with such serious issues as war and conscience shouldn't be that dumb. Alone the whole turkey affair is horribly misjudged. Compared to ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT or WESTFRONT 1918, this is a throwback to silly war heroics rounded up with folksiness and sentimentality (Gary Cooper pondering alone in the mountains what to do).
But it's probably a good film for military people who can show it to people as advertisement for joining the next war.

Please, try again! WWII was already in full swing when this film was released during the Fall of 1941, and it was only a matter of time before America was going to be brought into this world conflict. Furthermore, only the film intellects make such negative comments about a film that many common Americans really enjoyed. Don't forget that films are made for the masses to be entertained by them and not for those that write about film and take an academic approach to evaluating them.

Crawdaddy

Corey · 08-06-2006, 09:01 PM

i always thought that cooper should've won for ball of fire and not sergeant york.

Thomas T · 08-07-2006, 01:09 AM

Oh gosh! Add my voice to the chorus of those who are miffed that I'll have to buy entire box sets for titles I desperately want even if I have no interest in the other titles. Oh, for the days when Warners would make all titles available individually. Guess I'll have to bite the bullet and buy them then sell or give away the trash (trash to ME!).

Gary Cooper: Keeping all but dumping Sergeant York.
Marlon Brando: Keeping all but dumping The Formula.
Paul Newman: Dumping Pocket Money and The MacIntosh Man.

Simon Howson · 08-07-2006, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford

Don't forget that films are made for the masses to be entertained by them and not for those that write about film and take an academic approach to evaluating them. Crawdaddy

Hence the first chapter of Professor Richard Maltby's text book on Hollywood Cinema is titled "Entertainment". This is a quality of film that is studied, because scholars like Maltby realise that the promise of being entertained is what attracts audiences to the cinema (or to the DVD shelves).

I think what you are arguing against is interpretation, which is what most people think studying film means. Increasingly, film studies is concerned with the industry, economics, aesthetics, and technologies of filmmaking, and leaves interpreting films to members of the english faculty.

But then again, the recent thread on The Searchers shows that interpretation is alive and well outside of the academy too. So maybe we are all scholars at heart...

Jacqui · 08-07-2006, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Howson

I think what you are arguing against is interpretation, which is what most people think studying film means. Increasingly, film studies is concerned with the industry, economics, aesthetics, and technologies of filmmaking, and leaves interpreting films to members of the english faculty.

Spot on. I can't even believe this argument started.

If Sergeant York entertains, then you will buy it. For those who love Gary Cooper, it is a superb offering in a wonderful Warners tribute.

Robert Crawford · 08-07-2006, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Howson

Hence the first chapter of Professor Richard Maltby's text book on Hollywood Cinema is titled "Entertainment". This is a quality of film that is studied, because scholars like Maltby realise that the promise of being entertained is what attracts audiences to the cinema (or to the DVD shelves).

I think what you are arguing against is interpretation, which is what most people think studying film means. Increasingly, film studies is concerned with the industry, economics, aesthetics, and technologies of filmmaking, and leaves interpreting films to members of the english faculty.

But then again, the recent thread on The Searchers shows that interpretation is alive and well outside of the academy too. So maybe we are all scholars at heart...

What I'm arguing for, instead of against, is that most people first and foremost watch films to be entertained. Of course, there is a level of interpretation while watching a film because that process is very similar to reading a book as one absorbs the information presented to them. There has been a level of more discussion about film interpretation on this forum than what an average moviegoer will do, but that's because this forum gives those of us a tool to do so. Many of us have either studied film or have fancy themselves of doing so in a less conventional manner.