 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
February 27, 2018:
http://filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?threadID=126054&forumID=7&archive=0
83) Bruce Marshall in "These Phrases Need to Go Away":
"Attention TCM Subscribers. ."
I've already addressed Jim's concern on another post of mine he's negatively responded to. What may I ask is your specific problem with my posts? The opening phrase? I cannot imagine a life so unimportant that an individual would take the time to point out something so trivial instead of just ignoring it altogether. Is it simply to make me feel bad, like some kind of bully, (because I can find no rules regarding posts here that I have broken)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just 'aving a laugh, ART.
You kinda set yourself up for ribbing.
Peace.
Bruce
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Me too arthur.
El bruco was just ribbing ya.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Me too arthur.
El bruco was just ribbing ya.
"Who said I was joking?"
-The Man with No Name [aka Manco]FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks to those who have posted responses of appreciation here. That means the world to me, honestly. Now I can simply ignore those who inexplicably post negative comments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've just updated the top post to reflect Saturday morning's (July 27) showtime information throughout the U.S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once again, this is updated to reflect Wednesday, August 7's showtime information. Please see top post for details and a no-spoiler review.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 11, 2019 - 4:30 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
joan hue
(Member)
|
Hey Arthur, I did watch this movie. Your review was excellent, and I’m glad you notify us of classic movies, but I have to admit that I struggled with this movie. Yes, Stewart and Scott were fine, both consummate actors, but their constant haggling and interrupting each other just grated me after an hour or so, and the idiot judge also grated on me.
It was a gutsy movie for its time, and I realize that some of the dialogue was very frank considering the year it was made. Also, it really does have an enigmatic ending which leaves audiences pondering. That was cool.
However, because of the time it was made, it was perfectly all right to attack Remick for not wearing nylons or for wearing a tight skirt so it couldn’t be rape, or if it was rape, it was her fault. That was very hard to watch, and these court room behaviors were allowed for decades. Times have changed, but it still made it hard to watch at times. It is a accurate piece of history that I’m glad is in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Arthur, I did watch this movie. Your review was excellent, and I’m glad you notify us of classic movies, but I have to admit that I struggled with this movie. Yes, Stewart and Scott were fine, both consummate actors, but their constant haggling and interrupting each other just grated me after an hour or so, and the idiot judge also grated on me.
It was a gutsy movie for its time, and I realize that some of the dialogue was very frank considering the year it was made. Also, it really does have an enigmatic ending which leaves audiences pondering. That was cool.
However, because of the time it was made, it was perfectly all right to attack Remick for not wearing nylons or for wearing a tight skirt so it couldn’t be rape, or if it was rape, it was her fault. That was very hard to watch, and these court room behaviors were allowed for decades. Times have changed, but it still made it hard to watch at times. It is a accurate piece of history that I’m glad is in the past.
Thanks so much for commenting Joan. I'm afraid though that courtroom "wheeling and dealings" even regarding the most serious of criminal offenses continue with everyone doing what they can to win. This particular case, very authentic and based on a very similar factual case is, as I said in my review, studied in law classes all over the country. The attempts made by the prosecution to play up the Remick character's alleged promiscuity would, I'm sure, (having worked in the legal system myself) be just as likely to happen today as it did then I'm sorry to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 12, 2019 - 1:23 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Bob DiMucci
(Member)
|
Robert Traver, the name of the novel’s author, is a pseudonym for Michigan Supreme Court Justice John D. Voelker, who served as technical advisor on the film and was the defense attorney on the real-life case on which the novel was based. The murder occurred in the small town of Big Bay in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. On 31 July 1952, Lt. Coleman Peterson, who had recently returned from Korea, shot and killed tavern owner Mike Chenoweth, allegedly because Chenoweth raped Coleman’s wife, Charlotte.
Voelker crafted a defense that hinged on the rabid, irrational rage that erupted when Peterson - an otherwise responsible citizen - learned that his wife had been manhandled by Mike Chenoweth. He argued the officer was influenced by an "irresistible impulse" to defend the integrity of his marriage by killing Chenoweth. He asked the jury of 10 men and two women to acquit Peterson on the basis of temporary insanity.
The idea of fleeting hysteria as an excuse for homicide challenged the common sense of the small-town jurors, and they initially voted 8-4 to convict Peterson of murder. But a judgment of insanity, encouraged by a particularly persuasive juror, gained a foothold in the jury room and gradually became the prevailing point of view over a series of blind votes.
Finally, the jury returned to the courtroom with a unanimous verdict: not guilty due to temporary insanity.
Shrinks at a state asylum judged after the trial that Peterson had regained his sanity, so he was a free man following just a month under the psychiatric microscope. After being freed, Peterson left town without paying Voelker his fee.
The Petersons soon divorced, and the lieutenant is said to have died in a plane crash in Alaska a few years later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 12, 2019 - 1:30 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Bob DiMucci
(Member)
|
It was a gutsy movie for its time, and I realize that some of the dialogue was very frank considering the year it was made.
Despite the film’s frank treatment of a rape trial, it was granted a certificate of approval by the Production Code Administration after the producers agreed to several minor deletions. In a letter from Geoffrey Shurlock of the PCA to Otto Preminger, Shurlock instructed Preminger to delete the words "sperm," "sexual climax" and "penetration" and to restrict the use of the words "panties" and "rape." The National Catholic Legion of Decency placed the film in a separate classification on the grounds that it “exceed[ed] the bounds of moral acceptability and propriety in a mass medium of entertainment.”
The film was scheduled to open in Chicago on 2 July 1959, but the screening was canceled after the Police Film Censor, backed by Police Commissioner Timothy J. O’Connor and Mayor Richard J. Daley, ruled that the film could not be shown unless two sequences containing the words “intercourse,” “contraceptive” and “birth control” were deleted. After Preminger brought a suit for a permanent injunction against the ruling, Federal Judge Julius Miner overruled the censor board, stating that the film could not be considered obscene because “[it] does not tend to excite sexual passion or undermine public morals.” The Variety review noted that the film contained language “never before heard in an American film with the Code Seal.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
