What's new

Are Negulesco "Fox Studio" films dreck or film classics? (1 Viewer)

Seth Paxton

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 5, 1998
Messages
7,585
In fairness to Fox, that line of releases carries a couple of things that bind the DVDs together. First, these are films that are classics in the sense that in their day they made their mark. Without actually analyzing all the films selected so far, I would roughly think that each of them had an impact either critically or socially.

Peyton Place is a film that become more than itself, and falls into a "I've heard of that" type of film from Fox. These were films that marked the major efforts from Fox in these Zanuck years (though perhaps some fall outside of those years?).

Second, the brand also indicates what sort of package is contained with the film, the sort of extras and approach to the film's release. This isn't just a case of saying "Special Edition" where that could mean kids' games and fluff or a 2nd disc with nothing but documetary materials or 4 cast and crew commentaries.

The artwork and packaging is consistant as well.

To me they represent major releases being treated like major releases again (sort of, ie not the marketing of a modern major release - but then what pre-1970 films get that anyway).


Oh, and I haven't watched Titanic yet, but I love How to Marry a Millionaire. Not "touched my soul" love, not "Seven Year Itch" love, but lots of fun to watch love. :)
 

Herb Kane

Screenwriter
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
1,342



Actually no. No I don't believe so. And I didn't state watch it yourself and "make a declarative statement". Watch it yourself and form your own opinion - absolutely.

I'm a few days late in my response for the very reason I feel the way I do; I'd rather watch movies than discuss them. But that's just me. Rarely will you find me in the movies forum for this very reason. In fact, this thread was born from a software thread whereby a moderator wanted this discussion to carry on in the appropriate forum. It was my understanding that Armin was unable to see many of the films being discussed since he was in Germany and was unable to view many of these films on German TV. Thus, the reason for my response.

While I don't have a problem with anyone reading critical analysis of a film or opinions regarding its interpretation or style etc., I'd like to think that when Marty or Clint are crafting these films, that they're doing so with the hope of fans watching them primarily, not reading about them. I too have dozens of books relating to film and quite often in fact, I read reviews of various films to check out someone else's take on it or their interpretation of the film.

Without sharpening too fine a point, I'm of the opinion that the value of art in terms of appreciation can't be quantified in any manner - whatsoever. What works for some might not work for others. If the majority of folks find Negulesco's films dreck, so be it. Obviously, there were a good many who didn't, otherwise he wouldn't have been around for four decades. He was responsible for the direction of dozens of films, many of which I hold in high regard.

My comments were based on someone quoting a book to formulate an opinion, particularly when it was clear, that person hadn't watched the films in question and then citing it as gospel. Just because films aren't widely popular doesn't mean to say they are flawed or poor. Just because Criterion releases a film doesn't mean its "important"...

If I eat French Onion soup, I don't need to read critical analysis to find out why I didn't like it nor should I post why everyone else won't like it… But if I did, wouldn't you like to think that I tasted it first...?
 

Armin Jager

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
135

That's something with which I strongly disagree. There are criteria which allow you to evaluate films quite objectively.
Has the film interesting characters or are they one-dimensional? Is the story told well or is it loaded with pointless episodes, long-winded told and full of redundancies? Has the film a visual style or is it flatly photographed like a bad TV show? Do the visual elements serve a purpose or is it merely a visual fireworks without substance? Do the actors fit their roles or are they badly miscast? Do they justice to their roles or indulge they in hammy overacting or are they so talentless that there's no acting at all? Have they charisma? Are the main points of the drama interesting or merely fluffy nonsense or brainless action? Is the film made with subtlety or does it hammer its points home with ponderous obviousness? Is the movie intelligent or are there offensive messages which are more or less obvious?
I could write more, but it should be obvious that you can discuss the quality of a film quite objectively without denying that obviously there are personal preferences. But I'm sure we'll never see The Best of Everything winning at the Sight and Sound poll and defeating Citizen Kane.
Addiuionally I can only repeat that praising mediocre potboilers is offensive to real artists who create masterpieces of film. Also it is problematic to like films which are simply reactionary and stupid, read this biting review of The Best of Everything:

The author of the best-selling novel this movie is based on, Rona Jaffe, sent notes to director Jean Negulesco (yes, him again) reminding him to keep everything "real, real, real!" So, imagine our surprise to find that, as a trio of secretaries (not them again!) trying to make it in the starlet-eat-starlet world of Manhattan publishing, Hope Lange, Diane Baker and Suzy Parker spend most of their time sitting around their apartment drinking champagne. Lange threatens that if she's not wed "by the time I'm 26, I may have to take myself a lover." Baker sympathizes: "If you're that old, you have a right to live." Parker pours more bubbly and proposes a toast: "Here's to men. Bless their clean-cut faces and their dirty little minds."

When this movie remembers to send its gals back to the workplace, we're introduced to their hard-as-nails boss Joan Crawford, who, being tragically beyond 26, chainsmokes, makes sour milk expressions with her lips and--for the sheer sport of it--fires secretaries. To Lange's innocent query about whether to type a report, this career-harpie snarls, "No--beat it out on a native drum!" Everything about Crawford (in fact, everything about the entire movie) warns the fairer-sex viewer who wants a career, any career, "This could happen to you!" Down the hall, patriarch editor Brian Aherne is around to recall, improbably, that "Eugene O"Neill was one of my proteges," and to foist himself on exec Martha Hyer (whose excuse for having a job is that she's an unwed mother. "Who do you think you're fooling?" Aherne drools. "You've been around!"
When Crawford, who's called "the witch" by the entire cast, gets an unsolicited manuscript and scrawls her comments across the title page, "Trash... No!" you can't help thinking that she must have scrawled "Trash... Yes!" on this movie's screenplay. Crawford is, of course, like every unmarried working woman, secretly carrying on with a married man. The movie goes into high gear when she closes her office door to take a phone call from him: "I waited and waited," she overacts into the receiver. "You were home? But last night was ours. One night a week is all we have. She did the same thing last week. How many headaches can she have? I will not be taken for granted. You and your rabbit-faced wife can both go to hell!" No wonder that, before long, editor Stephen Boyd advises Lange to "get out quick--and love happily ever after." But she drunkenly throws herself at him instead: "Please make love to me, even if you don't love me," she begs, "26 is too far ahead!" She passes out cold before he can take her up on this offer, but in the morning finds she's been given both a promotion and a raise--the rewards that go to good girls who wait.

Parker and Baker don't fare as well. Parker switches careers to become "the toast of Broadway" and meets brilliant playwright Louis Jourdan (him again!). While you've probably guessed that Jourdan will begin his seduction of Parker by murmuring, "Act One, Scene One," and will later kiss her off by murmuring, "End of Act Three, end of play," who'd ever guess that a blank dullard like Jourdan would drive Parker literally mad? She takes up living on his fire escape and one day, when her high heel catches in the grating, she plunges to her death.
This, in the movie's view, is far preferable to the fate worse than death that awaits Baker. At the company picnic, she meets playboy Bob Evans and no sooner falls for his come-on ("'No, no, no'--is that all they taught you in school? They give a course in 'yes,' you know") than she finds she's pregnant. On the day they're to elope, Evans brings a bouquet, but once in his convertible, he tells Baker he's really driving her to have an abortion. "I'm not going! Let me out!" she screams, and then she climbs out while the car's speeding. Wll, that's one way to get rid of a love child. Baker lives, if only to spell out the movie's message: "I'm so ashamed," she says from her hospital bed. "Now I'm just somebody who's had an affair." (Because she's learned the error of her ways, Baker's allowed to meet a nice young doctor.) Back at the office, Lange lands Crawford's job when--in the most deranged plot twist of the whole flick--Crawford resigns because she's found true love: "Oh, he talks with a twang and his suits don't fit, but he treats me as if he believes I'm the gentlest, softest woman in the world. And maybe, with enough time and tenderness, maybe I can get to believe it myself." Fat chance. Sure enough, Crawford's back in a flash, sorrowfully explaining, "It was too late for me." Lange, at last, realizes... yes!... "This could happen to me," and rushes out into the street to track down Boyd.
 

Herb Kane

Screenwriter
Joined
May 7, 2001
Messages
1,342

Evaluate, sure. In fact, given your listed questions, one could write a thesis on film. No one is questioning the fact films can be dissected and analyzed objectively.

However, that still doesn't explain how one quantifies the appreciation of film as an art.

Surely, you're not saying that just because a film isn't highly regarded (in an academic sense) that it can't be enjoyed or appreciated as much as a Citizen Kane...? If you have the formula, I suspect it would be right up there in value with the Coca-Cola or the Kentucky Fried Chicken recipe...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,705
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top