Movies, Mom & Me

  ... a new label: "20th-century-chick-flicks1". I thought of it while fixing the post for An Affair to Remember. It's meant to highlight the romantic situation where two "meant for each other" partners come together, separate and come together, finally, "forever", or, you know, at least for what they think is forever.
  I know. It would seem, without much thought, that every romance, made in the 20th or the 21st century would fit this category. Not so. Think The Heiress, for instance. I'm sure there are more, and I probably have some of them.
  At any rate, in the first few minutes of writing this post, I've found four in my collection that would fit this category. I'm sure there are more.
  This also doesn't mean that these movies aren't being made in the 21st century. They most certainly are. I, though, became aware of them, and ambivalent about them, in the 20th century, hence the particularity of the label. It'll be interesting (for me) to see what other movies I label as "20th-century-chick-flicks1". In fact, I might search out a few, right now.
  As a reminder to myself, perhaps I should also search to see if anyone has done any research on types of romance movies, these in particular.
  Stay tuned.
  Well, after an initial survey, I discovered 14 movies that fit this category, and I haven't finished discovering them all, so, the category, having previously been merely "20th-century-chick-flicks", is now "20th-century-chick-flicks1", or blah-blah2, etc., in anticipation that I'll find, and probably continue to acquire, way more than I suspected.
  Back to our scheduled programming.

... I'm going to have to go back through every title and change the urls for those I linked to Roger Ebert's newspaper column reviews. They all reside over on RogerEbert.com, now. Although the direct link to his Sun Times column redirects to his own site, the movie reviews with links to his Sun Times column do not redirect. So, I'm writing this, primarily, as a reminder to myself.
  No rest for the wicked, I guess.
  In case you're wondering, regarding the origin of the phrase "no rest for the wicked", here's an interesting article about it. The quote is from the Old Testament Bible. In a roundabout way. If you read the article, you'll see what I mean.
  Come to think of it, I have to do that for the New York Times reviews to which I've linked, too, since they've decided to turn their asses to their non-subscribed readership. Jesus, guys, how many times do you have to get bailed out by the feds (which didn't, by the way, happen for your plebian neighbors) before you act neighborly, again!?! Are we going to have to get the pitchforks out?

• 
  Commentary:  I just watched this movie this evening (8/20/21). I'd forgotten how absurd it is and, yet, despite it's absurdity, how compelling it is emotionally. Its ability to compel rests solely on the shoulders of two of the actors: Barbara Stanwyck as Stella Dallas and Barabara O'Neil as Helen Morrison Dallas. Yes, I know, there are actors in this movie who have more screen time than Barbara O'Neil, particularly the actors who play Laurel Dallas, Steven Dallas and Ed Munn. But none holds a candle to the ardent performances of these two actors.
    I'd love to be able to give you a good reason for my love of this film, for the fact that I can't seem to get enough of it. I'll tell you, though, each time I watch this film it's personally embarrassing for me to be overcome, yet again, by the gush of pure feeling I experience when watching it. Even as I'm sitting right in front of the screen absorbing it, I'm embarrassed by how I'm reacting. I'm not sure whether this means its good or bad, I just know that, every once in a while, when I feel the need to take a bath in sentiment, crazy and disjointed as Stella Dallas is, this movie does the trick.
    I did, some years ago, watch the Bette Midler remake, called simply, Stella. Even though I was looking forward to seeing it when I heard about it, I remember nothing about the story, the film or my reaction to it, which was probably insignificant. I haven't had the urge to re-view it since, even though, in the meantime, I've watched this Stella Dallas multiple times. I don't know why Bette's wasn't effective for me. And, "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
    Glenn Erickson of DVD Savant, whose reviews I often use, he's especially good with old and obscure movies, has written about the film twice. His earlier review is linked to the title of this post, above, and is dated 3/26/2005. Here is his later review, dated 1/1/2014. He has slightly different things to say about the movie in each review, although much of both reviews are the same.
    

  Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role
  Barbara Stanwyck	Stella Martin Dallas	John Boles	Stephen Dallas	Ann Shirley	Laurel Dallas	Barbara O'Neil	Helen Morrison Dallas
  Alan Hale	Ed Munn	Marjorie Main	Mrs. Martin	Tim Holt	Richard Grosvenor III	George Walcott	Charlie Martin

  
    Here is the Wikipedia write-up for the film.
    Release Date: 1937
    Directed by King Vidor.

Labels: barbara-stanwyck, marjorie-main, melodramaA, mother-daughter-dynamics1, popcorn-and-soda7, women's-movie2

• 
  Commentary:  Under construction.
    Roger Ebert wrote twice about this movie. He wrote, first, about the Dutch movie, the review of which is attached to the title of this post, above. He was much impressed with it, gave it 3.5 stars, and wrote enthusiastically about it.
    Then, George Sluizer came to the United States to remake the film for an "American" audience. I'm not going to describe Ebert's disgust with the remake, I'm going to quote it, because it's succinct, appropriate and, well, thank you, Roger, for saying it: "... I do not want to reveal important plot details, but let me say that I sat with a sinking heart as the movie methodically rewrote all that was good in the earlier version, turning its cold logic into trashy commercialism. The first movie was existential in its merciless unfolding. This one turns into a slasher movie with a cheap joke at the end. ... What's the story here? Do Sluizer and his American producers believe the American movie audience is so witless it will not accept uncompromising fidelity to a story idea? Are Europeans deserving of smart, cynical filmmaking, but Americans have to be approached on a more elementary level? I don't know. I simply know that George Sluizer has directed two films named "The Vanishing," and one is a masterpiece and the other is laughable, stupid and crude."
    I saw the "American" version on television years ago. Without knowing there was an original, much more elegant version of the film, or that Ebert had reviewed both, I felt exactly the same way Ebert did about the second version. Just like him, in the last third of the movie I had that "sinking" feeling that this was not going to end well, by which I mean, I was going to feel as though I'd been cheated, then spat upon for being a dupe. That's exactly how I felt.
    I only recently acquired this film, the Dutch version. I haven't watched it, yet, but I'm looking forward to erasing any memories I have of the "American" version with this version. I'll be reporting back.
    Roger, although we never knew each other, may I say, I feel closer to you than I do to many people, right now, after having read your review of the "American" version of this film.
    Let me say, as well, to you, dear audience [Of one? Of none?]: if you are native to the United States, be aware that the rest of the world thinks of you, erroneously, I hope, as an "American", in quotes. There are many reasons, in the history of our country and within our national personality (I hesitate to use the word "character", I hope that is not true), why this is so, and it has been true for a long time (consider The Ugly American, published in 1958). If you want to refute this perception, and I do, start acting like a person of the earth, not a person of a belligerent, dying empire. The empire will die. You will die. But, maybe you can see to it that your personal death will bring sorrow to the world, not relief. I'm not one who often endorses "shoulds", but that's how it should be.
    

  Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role
  Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu	Raymond Lemorne	Gene Bervoets	Rex Hofman	Johanna ter Steege	Saskia Wagter	Gwen Eckhaus	Lieneke
  Bernadette Le Saché	Simone Lemorne	Tania Latarjet	Denise Lemorne	Lucille Glenn	Gabrielle Lemorne	Roger Souza	Manager

  
    You can find the Wikipedia write-up for this movie here. You can find the Wikipedia write-up for it's remake here. The "Reception" sections are interesting to read, one after the other.
    Release Date: 1988
    Directed by George Sluizer.

Labels: §1, Criterion3, horror1

• 
  Commentary:  Under construction.
    

  Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role
  Peter Riegert	Mac	Burt Lancaster	Felix Happer	Fulton Mackay	Ben Knox	Denis Lawson	Gordon Urquhart
  Norman Chancer	Moritz	Peter Capaldi	Danny Oldsen	Rikki Fulton	Geddes	Alex Norton	Watt
  Jenny Seagrove	Marina	Jennifer Black	Stella	Caroline Guthrie	Pauline	Christopher Asante	Reverend Macpherson

  
    Here is the Wikipedia write-up for this film.
    Release Date: 1983
    Directed by Bill Forsyth.
  

Labels: §1, burt-lancaster, Criterion3