« Lay Leda Lay: Black Swan Sardonicus | Main | A-quiverin' with Christmas ... »

Comments

Paul D. Brazill

Great post. I haven't seen that film for years.

spork

Just piped in to say that you have a great blog.

Actually 'great' isn't quite the word.

More like astonishing, considering that the entries posted here reflect knowledge that older critics distill only after years of aging in tweed, yet the photos make you look about 13 years old or ready to suck blood in order to maintain your immortal youth.

Are you the devil's spawn?

Thank you for all these informative posts!

好秘书

Great post

Steven Bingen

Apparently I’m late to the table on this one – Although, after the blood-drinking-thumb-sucking comment above, well, really, what’s the point of bothering?

I’m a proud cynic, but both the TV and film version of “Wine and Roses” tear at me every time. Cliff Robertson on TV is perhaps even (by a nose) better than Lemmon, but Piper Laurie starts out the teleplay already mincing about like a floozy in waiting. I bet I’m the only person here who knows that playwright Miller wrote a novelization of this material and read it. I remember well how he noted in print, if in no other media, that Joe Clay fell in love with Kirsten because of her corn-fed wholesomeness, and based the dairy campaign that launched his career as a “madman” on that inspiration. So when she is despoiled (An old-fashioned word, but apt here, yes?) it was the beginning of both his personal and professional downfall. My Kirstin will always be Lee Remick because, well, doesn’t she just have the sort of face you could imagine adorning a milk carton?

The comments to this entry are closed.