MovieChat Forums > Owlwise > Replies
Owlwise's Replies
That's an excellent point. When there's a year of so many standout performances, how can just one be chosen? Other factors enter into it. I agree that Art Carney was loved—and perhaps voters also thought that while those other fine actors would always have another go-around, this might be the single chance to honor Carney.
That said, I do feel that he honestly deserved his award. Harry and Tonto is a smaller, quieter film than the other rightful contenders ... but it has rich & humane depths that don't immediately leap out, because of the very nature of the story. One thing that's changed since the 1970s is a dwindling of character studies that also capture the underlying zeitgeist of their era. Paul Mazursky's films, at least from the late 1960s to the early 1980s, did so superbly; but that style is out of fashion in these more action-oriented, stun-the-senses times. So I can understand how many younger viewers won't see a film like Harry and Tonto in the same way as someone who saw it when it first came out. — Which isn't to say that there aren't appreciative viewers now, as your own post clearly shows! :)
But he has a sense of humor & a sense of absurdity, something the Omegas lack. He cheerfully owns up to his bullshit & knows it's ridiculous.
Neither film needed a prequel, a sequel, or a series. They were complete stories in themselves, having said everything that had to be said about their characters & their themes. Prequels, sequels, spinoffs, and series are all evidence of an utter lack of imagination, as well as turning distinct pieces of art into product to be mined until the original source material means nothing.
Actually, it appears that he did change to a considerable degree, as those he knew him in his later years will testify. Doesn't mean he became perpetually blissed-out, but that he took responsibility for his younger days & was actively striving to become a better person. It's never a complete process & it's always ongoing—the important thing is making the effort. And he was making the effort.
Lennon indeed had major anger issues, due to all that happened in his youth: abandonment by his father, then his mother, then his mother's return as his best friend, only for her to be killed by a drunken off-duty policeman who hit her with his car. Everyone who knew Lennon then agree that's when he started become so cynical & angry & violent.
But he did want to change. He owned up to his youthful behavior in both his songs & in his later life. He was quite sincere about wanting more peace & love in both the world at large & in his own life, and far less hatred & violence.
Well said! Asperger's seems to be the diagnosis du jour these days for anyone who's shy, or quiet, or socially awkward. But those things are common to pretty much everyone people to some degree, and particularly when they're teenagers. As all of us can probably testify to from our own teen experience!
I think 2001 is perfection, an almost purely visual tone-poem that rewards countless re-watching. Solaris is also a superb film, no question about that, but it's going for the emotional tone that 2001 quite consciously eschews. Nothing wrong with that, as it poses some provocative questions about the human condition. But 2001 goes for something far most vast & transcendental—and succeeds with seeming effortlessness.
Or so it seems to me.
Agreed, he was one of those actors who's always fun to watch, and who indeed brought something to any role he played, as you say.
Yes, that attempt to pose as authentic, but a fear of actually being so, unprotected by glib irony. I think this is an example of the concept of Inner-directed & Other-directed people. Tolkien is Inner-directed. Posers are Other-directed.
And that's a major part of the appeal of Tolkien, I think. He is authentic, and he offers his authenticity on every page of his work. Our current culture is hungry for that, but afraid of the vulnerability & openness it requires—because what would "people say" if they weren't being ironic?
Carl Jung once wrote that he never had a patient who didn't find personal meaning in midlife without returning to a religious outlook. He hastened to add that this need not be through any organized religion (although of course it can be as well), but rather a personal & individual sense of transcendent meaning to some extent. A lot of people find that in Tolkien.
Yes, sincerity is so often mocked today, isn't it? Yet those doing the mocking seem to be doping so out of their own insecurities, an unwillingness to delver below the superficial, which feels safer to them.
You may have experienced this yourself, when speaking earnestly about something important & deeply meaningful to you: someone will turn it into a joke, an easy & slightly sneering dismissal, because it troubles them. I've certainly experienced it. And of course I'm not talking about acting pompous or superior, as the mockers often claim—it's not "acting" at all, but an honest expression of personal substance. Yet many shy away from that & feel a need to tear it down.
Sad but true. Credit to Roddenberry for getting the show on the air & championing it—but pretty much all credit has to end there, as it justly belongs to all the others who took that core idea & made something richer & more complex out of it.
Well said! The mythic is a level of experience that seems in short supply these days.
Absolutely. Those first two seasons made an actual effort to recreate the 1950s, or at least a somewhat recognizable version as far as TV standards at the time would allow. It didn't go into the more troubled aspects of the 1950s & often settled for easy cliches, but at least it was aware that those aspects were present.
But after they went to the live studio audience, the actors played to that audience, and the writers wrote to it. In one of the first 3rd season episodes, Richie makes fun of how his father acts when he's drunk, mockingly so. The Richie of the first 2 seasons would never have done that.
"For him to embrace such a grand style with no irony is rare in a world of snide, cynical sneering."
This in particular!
Tolkien writes about & through a worldview of depth, dignity, and simple decency, which is much-needed in this age of superficiality & snark. Yet his worldview isn't stodgy or pompous, merely outer form with no inner substance. There's plenty of room for good-hearted humor, appreciation of the countless little beauties & treasures of life, and a recognition that compassion, respect & quiet humility are the true signifiers of nobility.
Nor does he stint on the terrible power of fear, envy, hatred, and the insatiable hunger for power & control. Yet he makes clear that while those negative qualities may have initial physical victory, they are ultimately empty & hollow, devouring themselves in the end.
Nowhere Man was an unappreciated gem.
Absolutely agree! The original has heart, it takes its story seriously without being overwrought, has room for a little humor, is blessed with the ethereal beauty of Judi Bowker, and of course features the last work of the wonder-working Ray Harryhausen.
Ha! :)
Vincent Price always took such joyous gusto in hamming it up. It often helped to save some otherwise mediocre films ... though Theatre of Blood is a mordant gem. :)
I always got the feeling that she & Vincent had enormous fun with that film!
Style, tone, and production values will be rather different from contemporary TV series, to put it mildly. But taken on its own terms, in the context of its time, Coronet Blue works very well for me. As usual back then, there's no season-long story arc, just done-in-one episodes. Yet as it goes on, Michael Alden seems to be finding himself as he is now, as who he's becoming.
In some ways, it follows the anthology format of series like Route 66 or The Fugitive, in that his ongoing search leads him into the lives of other people, whom he often helps. In the modern world of digital devices & planet-wide instantaneous connectivity, I don't know how well his story would work. Nowhere Man, from the mid-1900s, is about the last such series that wouldn't be hamstrung by the ubiquity of modern communication.
But the central theme of seeking one's true identity, finding & shaping one's authentic self, remains as potent as ever, I think.