New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie Oleson" data-source="post: 348256" data-attributes="member: 8">[ATTACH=full]42230[/ATTACH]Watching old movies as a 21st century person can be a tricky thing to do if you intend to rate these old movies based on originality and various artistic values.But art isn't science, I think the only thing that really matters is what it does for/to you, the spectator (or, in the case of my recent watch of The Godfather Part II, the person on the receiving end of a creation).Some movies and TV productions were good (or bad) for the time it was released, while other movies simply never lose their magic, or even increase that very magic retrospectively.Somehow I knew that THE ARRANGEMENT was going to be my cup of tea and considering the various aspects used to create this film it certainly doesn't disappoint.The iffy part of it is that it often comes across as a checklist for making a very 1969  film, as if the idea of what the film should be  is more important than what the film is.And even if it turns out that this film was groundbreaking in its quasi-anti-Hollywood sort of way - with shades of European cinema - it still doesn't feel that way because the chaos is being hammered home so relentlessly.Things do slow down a bit in the second part of the film, at least for Kirk Douglas' character, but that's because the story starts to explore the main character's troubled past, going back as far as immigrants arriving at Ellis Island.I can only assume that the theme of the American Dream ties in with building a capitalist/consumerist identity only to lose another kind of identity in the process.Somehow I feel that THE ARRANGEMENT wasn't the first film to use this cynical approach - but again, I can't say for sure.I think the best part of this film isn't the crisis of the main character, but all the other characters being caught up in the chaos of it all. I had not expected to see Deborah Kerr in a film like this and perhaps she herself had not expected to feature in a film like this, and this parallels the journey of her character in a fascinating way.Despite primarly catching up with her husband's latest antics she holds up surprisingly well throughout the entire movie.I'm sensing an attitude of "I'm not sure if this movie was the right choice for me, but I'm going to make it work even if it kills me".Faye Dunaway plays the feminist type who thinks she can control her own narrative and for the most part she does, but the theme of the story almost requires that that attitude is going to backfire and naturally she ends up being just as miserable as everybody else.She's got some meaty scenes that already showed Dunaway's lack of acting-restraint, it's really not that  different from Mommie Dearest.Deborah Kerr has equally powerful scenes but it never comes across as DARK SHADOWS-type of histrionics.I'm not saying that the lack of restraint is a problem per se, and it still looks quite good in this movie. I wonder if it could be as simple as being a physical aspect of the actor, in Faye Dunaway's case her voice.Laura Linney has the perfect voice to pull out all the stops but it never ever sounds as if she's going to crack under the pressure of doing that kind of performance.When Faye does it I can't help but bracing myself, especially because she's so good in everything else  she does.</blockquote>

Verification: Who played Sue Ellen in Dallas?