MovieChat Forums > CalvinJarrett > Replies
CalvinJarrett's Replies
I adore her. She became my favorite actress in 1990 when I was 13. I saw her in a British-made made-for-TV movie adaptation of an Agatha Christie novel, Thirteen at Dinner. As low-budget as that production may have been, and as past her glory days as that film may have been made (1985), I thought she was marvelous. She did not phone in her performance; she stole the show ... and my heart. From then on, I rented or taped off of cable pretty much every other film of hers to date. I continued watching her films and television as they came out in the '90's, 2000's, 2010's, etc. Unfortunately, she seems to have all but retired, and I agree with other posters that she does not get he due she should from both the critics and mere mortals like us.
I think she was a big enough star even without the big boobs. And size isn't what's important anyway. If you saw her in Network, she disrobed and showed off a very nice, perky set of breasts for all of us to appreciate.
Thank you, Funnyboy73 for asking this question. And thank you, orbit_087 for answering it! I saw this movie over 20 times. It was my favorite movie in the early '90's, and you cleared something up for me over 30 years after! I always thought it was the oranges that were getting the "big, ugly looking bruises," and while unaesthetic, they were still edible. And I thought the insurance was on the produce. But that there was some commercial use for the still unharmed oranges (e.g., juicing). I thought the permanent damage and lousing up your insides came from the idea that sometimes the oranges aren't wrapped properly, and if someone eats any, they get some kind of bacteria that permanently screws up their GI track. Thank you for clearing this up. I must have never really heard that first line about "hitting a person."
Sydney Pollack also played the acquaintance/neighbor of the Faye Dunaway character when Redford abducted her. He said, "Hey Kathy." And then Redford was all curious about how well he knew her and that she should act naturally.
An Unmarried Woman (1978)
Interiors (1978)
Saturday Night Fever (1977)
Fame (1980)
Disagree. The space ship and space, itself, were the stars of the show. The humans (actors) were just along for the ride. That being said, their wooden performances fit the screenplay perfectly.
I think that was the point Cronenberg was trying to make. Shivers was a cautionary tale. Cronenberg was warning us that the spirit of free love and the swinging '70's could be a slippery slope. That if sex were so casual some highly objectionable situations (i.e., pedophilia, incest) could become mainstream. Once you look at it through that lens, Shivers makes a very effective point. I don't think Cronenberg was glamorizing the sex in this picture - just the opposite.
I think you make good points. But couldn't that scene be illustrating something else about her character than her contempt for Conrad? I don't think the movie discloses that Calvin was an orphan. The book does. As such, Calvin had a much more working class upbringing than his patrician wife, Beth. What this scene could be saying is that Beth is entitled and does not care about wasting food. Calvin, on the other hand, finds disposing of perfectly good French toast objectionable because it is edible even if it is not as sumptuous as when it first came out of the pan. Also, her attitude could be the offense any cook/chef feels when any patron does not eat/finish their creation. So she may have had the same reaction to Calvin not eating her French toast or, dare I say, Buck had he been alive.
That's pretty harsh. She may not have "redeemed" herself, but you can't hold that against her. The truth is you can't keep French toast. Have you ever tried reheating French toast? It's never up to the standard of coming fresh out of the pan or off of the griddle. And it's not one of those 'just as good cold' dishes like fried chicken or roast beef. Room temperature or cold French toast is unenjoyable. So if you must judge Beth (which is a whole separate argument) don't judge her on that early scene where she disposes of Conrad's uneaten French toast. She may know a little more about cooking than Calvin. Give her credit where credit is due.
I don't seem to remember any casseroles. I do recall her making fish for Cal and Conrad. Remember the "fish too dry" line? She made those homemade candy apples for the trick-or-treaters. She and her mother made sandwiches when her parents visited (or she, Calvin, and Conrad visited her parents). Oh, and she made French toast that she put down the garbage disposal because "you can't keep French toast."
I remember renting this movie sometime in the '90's. After the era of nuclear war panic films had passed. I had wanted to see what this genre had to offer. Not only was this movie the most hopeless film I'd ever watched I had to force myself to watch another movie in order to continue my hobby of film consumption. That's how bad I felt after watching Testament. I wasn't sure I could watch another movie - any movie, any genre. Happily, I enjoyed whatever I next viewed. Maybe it was a raunchy comedy? And I found my way back.
I think, yes, Allen was attempting to juxtapose Pearl's red dress and overall colorful attitude toward life against the family's blandness. But, beyond that, if you look back on 1978 "interiors," those color schemes were very accurate. Sure, people had earth tones in their '78 homes and apartments, but that was likely left over from 1974-77. If you were designing something new in 1978, and Eve was an interior designer, the color palette would look very much like the rooms in Interiors. They were wealthy New Yorkers/Long Islanders. They're not going to be living like it's 1974 in 1978. And when 1981 came around, I'm sure they swapped out all that furniture and repainted/wall papered their homes in the contemporary style of the early '80's.
I think that's the scene where Falk delivers that hilarious line, "Lady, take your hand off my hand."
Loved the party scene too. Done in a very cinema verite kind of way. I got a real kick out of the guy with glasses 'mansplaining' the rules of golf to a clearly uninterested female guest. He says something like, "If a player, his equipment, or [something else] comes in contact with the ball ... ," and the woman heads over to the buffet table completely unwilling to let this dork delay her from getting some of that carved ham (or whatever she had her eye on).
I think that's one truth that would not set anyone free. I think if she were to express that to Conrad it would only serve as an added impediment to their chance at a loving relationship. Conrad would always think that he is being loved by default and that if Buck were still alive she wouldn't give him the time of day. And he might be right.
They showed one scene in the beginning of the movie where Beth and Conrad tried to have a pleasant conversation with each other. Beth was wearing a brown suede jacket and she went outside to advise Conrad to put on a coat (or sweater) if he was going to relax on the patio furniture at that time of year. The two ended up having an awkward conversation mainly because they weren't taking the time to wait and listen to the other person or remember what the other just said. I always thought that the effort was there and that with practice they would end up not only loving but liking each other. They just needed practice. Sadly, with Beth leaving for Houston at the end of the movie, they may never get that chance.
You have to remember that Calvin's preceding line to Beth was, "He [Conrad] just wants to know that you don't hate him." Beth responds very defensively stating what she perceives as a truism, "Mothers don't hate their children." I think her brother was genuinely trying to support her. I don't think it was an "empty" gesture. He had the misfortune of choosing the wrong word "happy." Beth jumped all over that because she was feeling defensive again.
They may not "buy" that explanation, but they know enough about her personality not to pry any further and to accept her answer.