"I never killed a man who didn't need killin"

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff

I saw a performance of the Cavalcade Titanic scene a few years ago - part of a programme on Coward, probably - and they said that Coward felt that the Titanic reference at the end was slightly over-egging the pudding. I like Coward, though.

What did you think of the decision to give the Oscar to Stalag 17 instead of Shane? Both good films but I prefer Shane.

Hi Robert,

I would say the Cavalcade "Titanic" scene was a bit overdone, but there would have been no other way to end the scene. Somehow the payoff has to be that we know that this sad, happily newlywed couple is doomed due to forces they can't foresee. If you start the scene with them saying how wonderful the "Titanic" is, the scene will wilt away.

I like both "Stalag 17" for the performances of William Holden and Robert Strauss (as "Animal"), and "Shane" which contains one of Alan Ladd's sturdiest performances, as well as having that scene where Jack Palance goads Elisha Cook Jr. into drawing so he can kill him "in self defense" before witnesses. I cannot choose between them as to which is better. The problem is "Stalag" is a great war film, and "Shane" a great western. There is really no fair way of comparing them.

The Academy ought to return to a differentiation in awards they dropped far to early. In 1928 they had a special category, "Best comedy direction", as opposed to "Best direction". I believe Lewis Milestone won the award for one of those "Quirk and Flagg" follow-up films ("Women of all Nations" may have been the title - not, I believe, either Chaplin's "The Circus" or Keaton's
"The Cameraman", or LLoyd's "The Kid Brother". What the Academy could have done would have been to make "Best Western Award", "Best Musical Award", "Best Historical Drama", "Best Mystery" - well you can see it would have made more sense. However, the rivalry of the major studios, and the tremendous clout of MGM in voting, reduced the chances of this (it would look more tremendous if MGM's "Grand Hotel" won the 1932-33 Best Picture Oscar than if it was compartmentalized into a genre of some type. It surprises me that in the early years Oscars went to a Western ("Cimerron" with Irene Dunne and Richard Dix") and a Musical ("Broadway Melody"), and that Frederic March got the 1932-33 best actor Oscar for a horror role ("Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde") though MGM forced additional late votes to be counted to give a tie award that year to Wallace Beery for "The Champ". March was the last performer to win for a horror or science fiction part until Anthony Hopkins did as "Hannibal Lector" in "Silence of the Lambs" six decades later.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

I don't think that was a terrible decision...as you said.. both great films...

we should maybe talk about the worst Oscar moments ever .. the one that sticks in my craw is when Tom Hanks (who I admit is a good actor) was given the best actor Oscar for Forest Gump (ok.. I know I will upset lots of folks now.. but the movie was really not that good.. and his performance was nothing special... ANYONE could have played it that way!!) and he beat Nigel Hawthorne who was nominated for The Madness of King George, and his performance may be one of the great screen performances of all time..that was a crime...but, nobody saw Madness, and well Gump was forced down all our throats...I actually stopped watching the Oscars after that..

Steadmund Brand--

Hi Steadmund,

I'm still working on the fact that the Nigel Hawthorne film changed the title from the play from "The Madness of King George III" because they feared that Americans would think they missed "The Madness of King George I" and "The Madness of King George II". The only similar idiotic title change like that for a British film in America that I recall is a film from the 1940s with Rex Harrison and Lili Palmer called "The Rake's Progress", a reference to the loose living of Harrison's upper crust bounder in the film (and a reference to William Hogarth's 18th Century series of classic cartoons about the rise and fall of Tom Rakewell). It was feared Americans would not understand "The Rake" in the title, and think that Harrison was in a film about gardening or agriculture. The film was shown here as "The Notorious Gentleman".

This nonsense is in other communication venues besides films. In 1892-93 Arthur Conan-Doyle wrote (in the series of stories called "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes") a story called "The Adventure of the Reigate Squires". There is nothing wrong with that title, but in the 1890s there were some bumpy diplomatic moments between the U.S. and Great Britain, and Conan Doyle's American publisher thought the title would offend American democratic feelings. Here the title was changed (and I regret to say remains changed) to "The Adventure of the Reigate Puzzle", which deals with a clue to a murder. I still can't see why it cannot be formally changed back.

Jeff

[Robert]

Hi Jeff

It could also happen the other way round. See 'Underworld' and 'Young Man With A Horn.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_with_different_titles_in_the_United_Kingdom_and_United_States

[Steadmund Brand]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;321693]Hi Steadmund,

I'm still working on the fact that the Nigel Hawthorne film changed the title from the play from "The Madness of King George III" because they feared that Americans would think they missed "The Madness of King George I" and "The Madness of King George II".

What is pathetic is they are right... most Americans would think that... I hate to admit that but tis sad but true..

by the way... did you have an example of an Oscar decision that really upset you? or does anyone have an example?

Steadmund Brand

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=Steadmund Brand;321760]

Hi Steadmund,

I'm still working on the fact that the Nigel Hawthorne film changed the title from the play from "The Madness of King George III" because they feared that Americans would think they missed "The Madness of King George I" and "The Madness of King George II".

What is pathetic is they are right... most Americans would think that... I hate to admit that but tis sad but true..

by the way... did you have an example of an Oscar decision that really upset you? or does anyone have an example?

Steadmund Brand

Hi SB
Oh God yes! But I'll just keep to most recent:

Shakespeare in love
American Beauty
A Beatiful Mind
Argo

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff

It could also happen the other way round. See 'Underworld' and 'Young Man With A Horn.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

True. I forgot what G. B. Shaw said: the U.S. and Great Britain are two nations divided by a single language.

I also forgot about Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None", which is also called "Ten Little Indians". When it was published the "N' word in the title was acceptable in Great Britain, and possibly in the U.S.

When there was a production of Christie's "Why Didn't They Ask Evans?" back in the middle 1980s they used that title when it was shown in the U.S. But a more recent BBC production (which I thought was inferior to the earlier one) was called "The Boomerang Clue".

Years ago, Robert Morley was a guest on Dick Cavett's talk show, and for some reason Cavett mentioned hobos and used the term "bum" which is the equivalent in the U.S. Morley looked shocked and said, "Why are we talking about bums?" Cavett explained and asked what was wrong. Morley said (using a euphemism, "In England a "bum" is a bottom"!"

Jeff

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Steadmund Brand;321760]

Hi Steadmund,

I'm still working on the fact that the Nigel Hawthorne film changed the title from the play from "The Madness of King George III" because they feared that Americans would think they missed "The Madness of King George I" and "The Madness of King George II".

What is pathetic is they are right... most Americans would think that... I hate to admit that but tis sad but true..

by the way... did you have an example of an Oscar decision that really upset you? or does anyone have an example?

Steadmund Brand

Hi Steadmund,

Maybe you're right, although the term or name "King George III" ought to ring some bells in Americans regarding the history of the American Revolution (how many of us know anything of the three earlier 18th Century British monarchs, Anne, George I, or George II?).

Thinking about it I was not duly impressed by some of the "Acting" Oscars over the years -

1954 - Grace Kelly for "The Country Girl" over Judy Garland for "A Star is Born". Kelly probably had an unexpected edge because she appears rather frumpish in the film - as opposed to the glamorous appearance in the Hitchcock movies or even in John Ford's "Mogambo" (in the middle of the African jungle?). Garland gave her greatest performance in "A Star is Born" (abetted by an equally great one by James Mason - who never won an Oscar he deserved despite six or seven nominations). But there had been a classic earlier film version with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March in 1937, and a variant model earlier ("What Price Hollywood" with Constance Bennett), and Judy was known for her musicals. Still was a special case - I'd have given her the Oscar.

Would I have given Mason the Oscar for Best Actor over Brando for "On the Waterfront". That's a real hard one. Mason himself never minded (he got movie honors in England). He once said on a talk show that he thought his best performance was as the wounded and dying IRA man in "Odd Man Out" in 1947. It is a great performance. My own favorite, because it is a cathartic type of performance, is his Marquis of Rohan in "The Man In Grey" summoning his righteous anger against Margaret Lockwood for killing his wife to marry him. That film was the one that brought him international attention.

1955 - Ernest Borgnine for "Marty". This one is really complicated - Borgnine gave a fine performance, but was it really the best. However like Kelly's performance the year before he played against type. Typrical roles for Borgnine were "Fatso" Judson in "From Here to Eternity" and the thuggish goon (with fellow goon Lee Marvin) in "Bad Day at Black Rock". Somehow he still did not merit such an early Oscar. However, in recent years I re-evaluated this award. My reason was that , whereas Grace Kelly left movies for her seat as Rainier's consort in Monoco three years after her Oscar - and so wasted it a little - Borgnine built a pretty fair career of various roles in films like "A Catered Affair", "Pay or Die", "The Dirty Dozen", "The Wild Bunch", "The Poseiden Adventure" (the original one). He left an impressive body of work in the movies and on television. So I have less reason to question this award now - it opened doors to a first rate character actor.

!955 - Anna Magnani ("The Rose Tatoo") - best actress. I've seen it and she is giving a good performance. But Ms Magnani made most of her films in Italy or on the continent, and maybe made three or four movies in English that were shown here. It's not quite like Sophia Loren a few years later (who varied Italian films with American productions). I think even Simone Signoret tried to make more English speaking movies after her Oscar in "A Room at the Top". It does not diminish Magnani's acting at all, but wouldn't a separate category (best Actress in a foreign film) have made more sense?

1951 Shirley Booth ("Come Back Little Sheba") - best actress. Had I been born twenty years earlier, in the 1930s, I would have grown up seeing plays and musicals with Booth in them for she was a very fine Broadway actress. But let's face it - her total output is about five or six films! When was the last time you wanted to see her performances in "The Matchmaker" (based on the Thornton Wilder play that became "Hello Dolly") with Paul Ford, Anthony Perkins, Shirley MacLane, and Robert Morse? Or "About Mrs. Leslie" with Robert Ryan. Her performances are good ones - but there are so few, because the roles were not being written for her. She is best recalled now because of the television series (in the 1960s) "Hazel" about a remarkable maid in a household (sort of a female "Jeeves").

1950 - Judy Holliday ("Born Yesterday) - best actress. Holliday had been nominated the year before for her performance as the wronged wife who shoots her husband and wounds him (Tom Ewell) in "Adam's Rib". She was nominated as best supporting actress. She lost. But she had made the role of "Billie Dawn" in "Born Yesterday" her own, and she won. We're lucky as this is one of those rare filmed records by Hollywood of a classic Broadway acting performance (think of Ethel Merman in the musical "Call Me Madam" as another one). But was it the best? Actually I have some doubts (as with Borgnine's), because in 1950 two iconic performances graced the best actress category, but lost to Holliday. These were Bette Davis as "Margo Channing" in "All About Eve", and Gloria Swanson as "Norma Desmond" in "Sunset Boulevard". Both of those performance are close to flawless, and the two films remain marvelous. Yet so does "Born Yesterday" and Holliday's "Dawn". It's a really hard choice. I tend to think because the Davis and Swanson roles were both about the problems facing aging actresses (one a stage performer, and one a silent film star) that they cancelled each other out. Perhaps. Davis had also won two awards in the 1930s (for "Dangerous" - actually not a good choice, but they could not give it to her for "Mildred" in "Of Human Bondage" by a write-in campaign the previous year, and for "Jezebel" - a better choice, but not as great as the slew of performances that came after ("Dark Victory", "The Letter", "The Little Foxes", "Now Voyager")). Swanson, shamefully, never got one - not even for "Rain". She deserved one for hitting a perfect home-run in a comeback feature. Sadly she only made four more pictures in her later career, none as good as this or her silent films. Davis was to have two more chances for another "Oscar" for "The Star" (1952) and "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" (1962). But while her career went on, with frequent appearances in television films, and with a fine coda movie near the end with Lillian Gish ("The Whales of August") her age and infirmities did catch with her towards the end. Holiday actually used her "Oscar" to advantage making films like "The Marrying Kind" and "It Should Happen to You" as well as the Vincente Minelli musical of her stage hit "The Bells Are Ringing". But tragically she died of cancer in the middle 1960s (Swanson and Davis outlived her). This is a hard one for me to accept or question. In a way I am glad Judy got her Oscar (unlike Swanson, or Judy's contemporary Marilyn Monroe).

Before I leave this 1950 saw one "All About Eve" performance get rewarded - George Sanders as "Addison De Witt". The waspish, even poisonous drama critic fit the snide and intellectual Sanders like a glove (even better than his bon-mot swilling "Lord Henry" in the "Picture of Dorian Gray"). I believe (correct me if this is wrong) that Sanders was the first person to win an Oscar who had a negative character in a film that won the audience's sympathy as he trounced a worse character. The scene where he smashes the schemes of Anne Baxter in the hotel room in New Haven always excites me. To this day (when I meet people who were in San Francisco) I ask if they've been to the "Schubert Theatre" there (and hear Sanders wonderful purring voice mentioning "Fine old theatre the Schubert").

But in winning that award he kept the award for best supporting actor from another "Man You Loved to Hate". Indeed the first "Man You Loved to Hate" - Erich von Stroheim. He had been "Max von Mayerling" the ex-silent film director and first husband of Norma Desmond, now her butler and factotum. It was a controlled and wonderful performance, completing Billy Wilder's central triangle in the Desmond household. Von Stroheim never not got an Oscar for his brilliant (if costly) films or his acting (as in this role or in "Le Grande Ilusion" or "Five Graves to Cairo"). However, he had been working steadily (except when in the U.S. in the 1940s) in France's cinema, and before his death in 1957 he was awarded the Legion of Honor.

There are other Oscars I can add, but this should see that I do think about who got them.

Jeff

[Steadmund Brand]

Loving the feedback....

Mayerling....some great examples...as you said, most of those don't "upset" me...because the winners were usually great performances...if not the best, the Hanks over Hawthorne one gets me because one was such an amazing job and the winner did nothing special at all, as I said there are time Hanks is great, but not in that film, anyone could have played that role, then again, with very few exceptions, when actors (or actresses) portray " mentally challenged" characters they just go to stock stereotype acting..sad really, the one stand out example was Mickey Rooney in a made for TV movie called Bill... now that was a performance, 2 scenes into his performance and you forget that it's Mickey Rooney you are watching... he was simply fantastic in that role..

Borgnine for Marty I don’t have a problem with… except well the 1953 Teleplay version, Rod Steiger was better in the role than Borgnine.. and his was live TV..

I agree that it’s sad Erich von Stroheim was never given the award.. but he shot himself in the foot with Hollywood… and executives never forget ( pity, because Queen Kelly and Greed both should have been recognized.. and I know many people disagree with me, but I loved him in Five Graves to Cairo..

And Abby…all GREAT examples….

With Shakespeare in Love.. the award probably should have gone to Life is Beautiful or Saving Private Ryan…..

I agree American Beauty was terrible!!! However, not a strong year for films… I guess The insider of the nominees, I like Being John Malkovich that year.. but it didn’t get nominated

A beautiful Mind- there is no way Mulholland Drive should have been snubbed…but that’s another story 

Argo- another film that people praised WAY too much…but again.. not a great year for films… Lincoln was….ok (not as great as everyone said).. may have to say that Pixar film Brave was best film of that year

Steadmund Brand

[Abby Normal]

Loving the feedback....

Mayerling....some great examples...as you said, most of those don't "upset" me...because the winners were usually great performances...if not the best, the Hanks over Hawthorne one gets me because one was such an amazing job and the winner did nothing special at all, as I said there are time Hanks is great, but not in that film, anyone could have played that role, then again, with very few exceptions, when actors (or actresses) portray " mentally challenged" characters they just go to stock stereotype acting..sad really, the one stand out example was Mickey Rooney in a made for TV movie called Bill... now that was a performance, 2 scenes into his performance and you forget that it's Mickey Rooney you are watching... he was simply fantastic in that role..

Borgnine for Marty I don’t have a problem with… except well the 1953 Teleplay version, Rod Steiger was better in the role than Borgnine.. and his was live TV..

I agree that it’s sad Erich von Stroheim was never given the award.. but he shot himself in the foot with Hollywood… and executives never forget ( pity, because Queen Kelly and Greed both should have been recognized.. and I know many people disagree with me, but I loved him in Five Graves to Cairo..

And Abby…all GREAT examples….

With Shakespeare in Love.. the award probably should have gone to Life is Beautiful or Saving Private Ryan…..

I agree American Beauty was terrible!!! However, not a strong year for films… I guess The insider of the nominees, I like Being John Malkovich that year.. but it didn’t get nominated

A beautiful Mind- there is no way Mulholland Drive should have been snubbed…but that’s another story 

Argo- another film that people praised WAY too much…but again.. not a great year for films… Lincoln was….ok (not as great as everyone said).. may have to say that Pixar film Brave was best film of that year

Steadmund Brand

Hi SB
Pretty much agree with everything you say.

just to add a couple thoughts.

I thought American beauty was OK-but basically pretty much a forgettable movie. That movies lasting impression pretty much ended when the movie did. LOL

A beautiful mind-IMHO just a plain BAD movie-from miscasting Jennifer Connally and russel crow (as brilliant scientist/mathemeticians-yeah right!) to the ridiculous reappearances of Paul Bettany's character. by the end of the movie-the audience was actually laughing (not in a good way)whenever he appeared. Not the intended reaction I would say.

Argo-tripe. A movie about Hollywood patting itself on the back at an awards where Hollywood pats itself on the back. total vanity project.

[Mayerling]

Funny thing about "Shakespeare in Love" (nice film that it is - and only nice) is that it takes an entire movie to do what Laurence Olivier did with a set of great model buildings and some scholarly acting by himself and his cast (including Felix Aylmer) in about ten minutes of Olivier's first film, "Henry V". If you recall he transports his audience back to London in 1600 and shows what the audience at the old "Globe" theatre would have seen - then he uses his "Chorus" (Leslie Banks) to transport our imaginations into the real world for the rest of the film, until the last two or so minutes when we return to the Globe. That it takes a two hour film to do the same thing suggests something is wrong with us.

[Steadmund Brand]

Hollywood patting itself on the back.. that never happens does it hahahahah...the Oscars are so terrible now.. I hate to say that...but even the jokes are just terrible... because nobody is allowed to be themselves... they have to read their "script" and for a bunch of "professional actors and actresses" they don't even come off convincing  . Plus, let’s be honest, money buys statues now…. I know it always did to some degree but it’s gotten out of hand, plus, there are so few really great performances in film.. (not just no, but all thru history) that it just seems like a silly tradition at this point……the Oscars should be like the Baseball Hall of Fame… if there is no one deserving that year.. they just don’t give out an award (how crazy would that make the Hollywood establishment  ).. most of the 1990’s and 2000’s the show could have been cut down to 20 minutes if that were the case.

Now, just for fun.. we should start naming (in our opinions) the truly great performances ever.. with or without awards…doesn’t matter the genre etc…just what made you go “wow” or what just makes you feel good ( or bad or sad or frightened depending on the role) we can do one at a time if you like, or several..

1t I’ll say Peter O’toole in 1982’s My Favorite Year… may not be his best performance, however that is the one that I think about when I think of him, I know Alan Swann was supposed to be Errol Flynn and all, but it is a charming little film, and O’toole was wonderful in it.

2- Charles Chaplin in City Lights, I know he was just playing the Tramp again…..but there was so much more to it in that film, or maybe the film is just so powerful and moving that we see more in his Tramp then we ever did before.

3- Anthony Quinn in Requiem for a Heavyweight, This is a strange one, so many people I know say they hate his performance in this film, that it’s over the top and not realistic, but I have to tell you, as someone who has been around the sport of boxing his whole life ( do some work in that field still) I have known hundreds and hundreds of old fighters over the years, and his performance makes me cry because I personally have known more than a few “ Mountain Rivera’s” in my time, it is not over the top at all… it is dead on

Now that is a film that could have had 3 best actor Oscars in one film, Jackie Gleason was great and his was the least impressive of the three, Mickey Rooney was fantastic, and well you know what I thought of Quinn ( throw in a best actress Oscar for Julie Harris as well). The scene between Rooney and Gleason alone in the hotel room, where Rooney just lays into Gleason, that’s a “WOW” scene for me…..By the way Requiem for a Heavyweight 0 Oscar nominations, big shock eh? ( to be fair there was some great competition that year!!)

Steadmund Brand

[Ginger]

I've never been able to summon the interest to watch the Oscars (or any other industry awards show, for that matter). I'm not in the movie industry, so the awards are pretty much meaningless to me. I just consume the finished product, from time to time - how it's made isn't that interesting to me.

[Mayerling]

Hollywood patting itself on the back.. that never happens does it hahahahah...the Oscars are so terrible now.. I hate to say that...but even the jokes are just terrible... because nobody is allowed to be themselves... they have to read their "script" and for a bunch of "professional actors and actresses" they don't even come off convincing  . Plus, let’s be honest, money buys statues now…. I know it always did to some degree but it’s gotten out of hand, plus, there are so few really great performances in film.. (not just no, but all thru history) that it just seems like a silly tradition at this point……the Oscars should be like the Baseball Hall of Fame… if there is no one deserving that year.. they just don’t give out an award (how crazy would that make the Hollywood establishment  ).. most of the 1990’s and 2000’s the show could have been cut down to 20 minutes if that were the case.

Now, just for fun.. we should start naming (in our opinions) the truly great performances ever.. with or without awards…doesn’t matter the genre etc…just what made you go “wow” or what just makes you feel good ( or bad or sad or frightened depending on the role) we can do one at a time if you like, or several..

1t I’ll say Peter O’toole in 1982’s My Favorite Year… may not be his best performance, however that is the one that I think about when I think of him, I know Alan Swann was supposed to be Errol Flynn and all, but it is a charming little film, and O’toole was wonderful in it.

2- Charles Chaplin in City Lights, I know he was just playing the Tramp again…..but there was so much more to it in that film, or maybe the film is just so powerful and moving that we see more in his Tramp then we ever did before.

3- Anthony Quinn in Requiem for a Heavyweight, This is a strange one, so many people I know say they hate his performance in this film, that it’s over the top and not realistic, but I have to tell you, as someone who has been around the sport of boxing his whole life ( do some work in that field still) I have known hundreds and hundreds of old fighters over the years, and his performance makes me cry because I personally have known more than a few “ Mountain Rivera’s” in my time, it is not over the top at all… it is dead on

Now that is a film that could have had 3 best actor Oscars in one film, Jackie Gleason was great and his was the least impressive of the three, Mickey Rooney was fantastic, and well you know what I thought of Quinn ( throw in a best actress Oscar for Julie Harris as well). The scene between Rooney and Gleason alone in the hotel room, where Rooney just lays into Gleason, that’s a “WOW” scene for me…..By the way Requiem for a Heavyweight 0 Oscar nominations, big shock eh? ( to be fair there was some great competition that year!!)

Steadmund Brand

It is patting itself on the back. Both you and Ginger are right. I used to stay up until Midnight or so to see the awards. Now I wait for the newspapers on the following day. It's too much bother.

I have figured out one thing though. Everyone has always been complaining about how long the "thank you " speeches are. It took me awhile to realize what is going on. I don't know how many of you have written a book, and included (around the bibliography or index or notes) a section of "thank yous" to people who assisted you. It's the same thing, except since it is not part of the body of the book most of us don't bother reading it. But if you are in the same profession you do read it - to see who helped, and to consider if they may be of similar help if you go to their manuscript collections, picture collections, libraries, museums, etc. In a full industry like Hollywood's, the winners are giving everybody in their specific area of interest the names of those who helped them win the award - sort of helping to get them similar future work from others by saying "you can't but help to win using these people!!" Those "thank yous" (forgetting of course the personal ones to family, loved ones, and friends) are commercials for the people in the industry. That's why they are tolerated at all!!

I did like "Requiem for a Heavyweight". I also liked the earlier version where the central boxer is "Mountain McClintock" (played by Jack Palance), and "Raish" was Keenan Wynn (and Ed Wynn was in the Mickey Rooney part). It is interesting to compare the two. The television play by Sterling ended with Palance refusing to go out as a wrestler, and taking the job as a sports counselor at a camp. "Raish" is not beaten up but ends up agreeing to train a young and coming boxer that his creditors want to turn into a champion - and "Raish" learns enough to get it into the young kid's head to realize the real difficulities in reaching the ultra champion circle. Different from the movie.

But actually the film is more tragic. And possibly more realistic. "Rivera" is not well educated, and can be made drunk (remember Gleason does that to Quinn to ruin his chance to get out of the fight/sports world and enter into a different area of work). So his own options are small at best. Quinn is about to walk out when he realizes that Gleason will be beaten, possibly killed, by the gangsters. It is. whatever one thinks about wrestling, steady work for some time, and less dangerous (physically) then the pounding that almost blinded Quinn. He agrees to humiliate himself as a "funny wrestler" to keep Gleason from getting killed. But one can see that Gleason is all alone as Quinn (followed by Rooney) leave with the others to go to the wrestling ring. They will not have anything more to do with "Raish" for the rest of his life. Gleason is fully aware of this.

The three performances remain top (four with Harris's employment agency worker). I also enjoyed Madame Spivy and Stanley Adams as the two gangsters who have their way in the end. There are a lot of movies on a small scale that actually have considerable heft to their effect on the viewer - more so than big spectacles. I surely liked watching "Requiem" more than the Charleton Heston "Ben-Hur" for example, and l like history films.

Jeff

[DVV]

Anyway...whatever... quoi qu'il en soit... Unforgiven deserves its award.

[Steadmund Brand]

Oui, Je suis d'accord Unforgiven fait meriter le prix!!!

Steadmund Brand