Sergio Leone Web Board

Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: drinkanddestroy on September 19, 2011, 06:13:37 AM



Title: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on September 19, 2011, 06:13:37 AM
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043338/

Cast (courtesy of imdb)


   Kirk Douglas    ...   Chuck Tatum
    Jan Sterling    ...   Lorraine Minosa
    Robert Arthur    ...   Herbie Cook (as Bob Arthur)
    Porter Hall    ...   Jacob Q. Boot
    Frank Cady    ...   Mr. Federber
    Richard Benedict    ...   Leo Minosa
    Ray Teal    ...   Sheriff Gus Kretzer
    Lewis Martin    ...   McCardle
    John Berkes    ...   Papa Minosa
    Frances Dominguez    ...   Mama Minosa
    Gene Evans    ...   Deputy Sheriff
    Frank Jaquet    ...   Sam Smollett
    Harry Harvey    ...   Dr. Hilton
    Bob Bumpas    ...   Radio Announcer
    Geraldine Hall    ...   Nellie Federber


10/10



The film flopped in the USA; I guess many critics couldn't handle the negative portrayal of the media like that. Paramount re-packaged it as "The Big Carnival," which didn't do anything to improve its box-office mojo.

I'd also like to hear your opinions on which is the better title? There are certainly very interesting meanings behind both.

I enjoyed the dvd commentary; there are some very interesting insights there. It's by a Brit named Neil Sinyard. He does not have a great voice and he speaks dryly, but the substance is very good. I hardly ever watch dvd commentaries, but since I loved this movie so much, i decided to watch this one. If you like this movie, i'd recommend that you watch the commentary.





Wilder's direction was outstanding. The "carnival" set was amazing. the cynicism was incredible. The commentator says that perhaps the reason Wilder did this and it was successful in Europe is that as a European himself, a Jew who had escaped the Nazis, he was much more cynical about the media (and probably authority in general) than American audiences in the 50's. Who knows -- that sounds like an interesting point, maybe there is truth to that. (Btw, It's interesting to think about the fact that Wilder made perhaps the two greatest films that criticize major media industries: this one RE: the news, and Sunset Boulevard RE: Hollywood. Whether there is a correlation or coincidental is an interesting discussion point).

 -- I have a problem with the waywith Sherrif Kretzer announces on the radio, (parahprasing) "When casting your vote for sherrif, don't base your vote on this incident at all." Plus the sign "Re-Elect Sherrif Kretzer." That's just a bit over the top. No matter how egotistical, narcissistic, career-drive, psychotic, or whatever, it was waaaay too blatant. Such slimy characters should be much more subtle about it, (except perhaps in private conversations, etc.) with the truth eventually coming out. That openly slimy stuff is not very believable. I wish the script had made them a bit more subtle. In general I feel that some of the sliminess would perhaps be a bit more believable if it would have been  more subtle. The only smll problem.

This is absolutely spectacular in every sense. The casting was fantastic, the performances were great, by Douglas and the supporting cast, across the board


and btw, in one of the early scenes, Tatum pokes fun at his editor who wears a belt and suspenders....


Further discussion (in the RTLMYS thread) RE: the ending can be found here http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=7645.msg151058#msg151058


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: cigar joe on November 14, 2011, 03:22:54 AM
I also like the line "kneeling bags my nylons"  ^-^


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: Novecento on November 14, 2011, 03:50:50 AM
I remember this being quite noirish in story but not so much visually.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 14, 2011, 03:59:44 AM
I remember this being quite noirish in story but not so much visually.

yeah, I agree. I have also discussed this with cj, (one of) our rsident noir expert(s).... (who btw considers everything a noir  ;)) but acknowledges that in at least in the visual aspects, this movie is less noirish than some others. I don't recall any use of the noir shadow lighting. But Douglas's character is a noir character... cj will chime in here soon enuf  :)


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: titoli on November 14, 2011, 09:45:32 AM
I never liked the finale. But it surely reinforces Wilder position as top Hollywood director of the '50's, bar none.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 14, 2011, 02:59:55 PM
what is your problem with the finale? I think it's perfect


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: titoli on November 14, 2011, 07:08:03 PM
Douglas not being a sob to the end.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 14, 2011, 07:18:26 PM
Douglas not being a sob to the end.

I don't understand what you mean....

he tries telling the true story at the end, out of frustration that his plan did not work out, and cuz now the only BIG story left is the one about how he manipulated this whole story. And ironically, now nobody wants to listen to him. It's not that he becomes "good" at all...


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: titoli on November 14, 2011, 08:15:15 PM
I don't understand what you mean....

he tries telling the true story at the end, out of frustration that his plan did not work out, and cuz now the only BIG story left is the one about how he manipulated this whole story. And ironically, now nobody wants to listen to him. It's not that he becomes "good" at all...

I mean his sympathizing with the man in the hole. He having second thoughts about his behaviour once the man dies. His not being cynical to the end. I never said he becomes "good".


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 14, 2011, 08:17:59 PM
I mean his sympathizing with the man in the hole. He having second thoughts about his behaviour once the man dies. His not being cynical to the end. I never said he becomes "good".

I don't view him as ever sympathizing with Leo.

Sure, at the end he becomes desperate to get Leo out, but only so that he can save his "human interest" story; IMO at no point did Tatum ever show any true remorse or feelings for Leo's actual well-being


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: titoli on November 15, 2011, 01:28:51 AM
I don't view him as ever sympathizing with Leo.

Sure, at the end he becomes desperate to get Leo out, but only so that he can save his "human interest" story; IMO at no point did Tatum ever show any true remorse or feelings for Leo's actual well-being

Last time I saw the movie was more than 30 years ago. When i'll fetch a dvd I'll be back.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 15, 2011, 09:50:28 AM
As per usual, titoli and I completely agree. If the film had true noir spirit, Douglas would begin and end as an SOB. Instead, he starts to sympathize with the trapped man: he makes the feckless wife wear the fox stole, he goes and gets the priest personally to perform extreme unction, he announces the man's death to the people as a way of shaming them, he tries to tell the guy in New York the real story and when he refuses to listen, he goes back to the small town paper to write the story up. At every point, he's so high on his white horse that he neglects to get the medical attention he needs and so dies. Garbage.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 15, 2011, 10:07:20 AM
As per usual, titoli and I completely agree. If the film had true noir spirit, Douglas would begin and end as an SOB. Instead, he starts to sympathize with the trapped man: he makes the feckless wife wear the fox stole, he goes and gets the priest personally to perform extreme unction, he announces the man's death to the people as a way of shaming them, he tries to tell the guy in New York the real story and when he refuses to listen, he goes back to the small town paper to write the story up. At every point, he's so high on his white horse that he neglects to get the medical attention he needs and so dies. Garbage.

as per usual, dj and I completely disagree.

IMO Tatum does begin and end as an SOB; he never feels true sympathy for Leo.

At the end, Tatum is desperate to get Leo out alive, but that is because as Tatum says, when you sell people the human interest story, they are also buying the happy ending. Leo's death kills Tatum's happy ending, and thus, his chance at lasting fame and recognition, and to get out of New Mexico. Similarly, he forces the wife to act as the "good wife" cuz that is part of the human interest story Tatum is creating and selling: the family man trapped, with his loving wife waiting tearfully for him to be freed, etc. Doesn't make for nearly the compelling story if the audience were to know that his wife doesn't give a damn about him. So the concern for Leo and the admonishment of his wife is all part of Tatum's game.

At the end, once Leo has died, killing Tatum's human interest story, Tatum now has only one BIG story left: to tell the story of how a newspaper,man manipulated the human interest story. It is not out of remorse, but because he is a "reporter" to the very end, going with the big story. And at the end, that is the only big story left.

I am not saying that Tatum has zero shred of humanity. Whether or not he ultimately feels a twang of regret is IMO unsettled; it's never shown clearly one way or the other, which is not a bad thing. I mean, Tatum IS an SOB. The fact that he may feel a tiny bit of guilt at the end in no way changes that.

However, as I understand your interpretation, dj, you believe Tatum basically makes a complete 180; truly feeling complete remorse for what he has done. I couldn't disagree more with that. At best, it's a possibility of a small bit of guilt, which is a) totally believable; and b) consistent with other classic noir characters. Consider eg. Barbara Stanwyck in Double Indemnity -- how she says something like "but just now, I have realized I can't shoot you." Is that real, or part of her game? No way to know for sure. Also the Jane Greer character in Out of the Past: for all the murder and treachery she has committed, she seems to really want to take off with the Mitchum character and live happily ever after with him. Does she genuinely love him; or is this just a way to get away with the money until she can find another way to screw him over? Again, no way to know for sure.

So whether you are looking at it from a believability perspective; and/or the perspective of the "noir character," I think Douglas's actions/emotions at the end work very well.

 I have no special love for noirs, any more or less than non-noir dramas/thrillers. So I am looking at it simply from the same "believability" aspect I take with all movie characters, and on that level it works just fine. However, even if you do want to look at it from the perspective of the "noir character," based on my very limited familiarity with noirs, I think it works just fine as well. Even noir SOB's can have some shred of humanity -- or at least, there can be some question as to whether or not they can have it.

Again, I don't think that Tatum does feel any true remorse; but even if you do believe that there is some ambiguity to that question, that works just fine, based on the preceding discussion I had with myself  ;)

if you want to argue that there is no ambiguity; rather, Tatum clearly has remorse, I strongly disagree with that interpretation of the movie. (If that interpretation were indeed true, I am unsure of whether or not I'd be happy with it -- either from what I call the "believability perspective," or from the "noir character perspective." But I never considered that possibility, cuz IMO Tatum never shows any clear remorse).






Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 15, 2011, 11:20:16 AM
Interesting take. You've given me something to think about.

Still, you wonder why Douglas lets all the other newspapermen have the story of the guy dying without keeping any for himself. It may be that he is trying to sucker punch the competition--letting them have the putative story, and then coming back with the true gen (in a kind of reverse scoop). But if that's what's up, why doesn't Douglas seem to be more calculating toward the end? He looks like he's being swept along by events rather than stage-managing them. Sure, he's feeling the effects of his wound. But if he needs medical treatment, why doesn't he get it? Especially if he wants to put the "real" story out. Since he's both the writer and source for his story, wouldn't he, as a good newspaperman, want to protect his source? I suppose you can argue that he doesn't realize just how badly injured he is, but that seems to me a bit of a stretch.

I fault Wilder's direction to a point, but I also don't think the film is written as well as, say, Double Indemnity or Sunset B. or even Stalag 17.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 15, 2011, 11:40:58 AM
Interesting take. You've given me something to think about.

Still, you wonder why Douglas lets all the other newspapermen have the story of the guy dying without keeping any for himself. It may be that he is trying to sucker punch the competition--letting them have the putative story, and then coming back with the true gen (in a kind of reverse scoop). But if that's what's up, why doesn't Douglas seem to be more calculating toward the end? He looks like he's being swept along by events rather than stage-managing them. Sure, he's feeling the effects of his wound. But if he needs medical treatment, why doesn't he get it? Especially if he wants to put the "real" story out. Since he's both the writer and source for his story, wouldn't he, as a good newspaperman, want to protect his source? I suppose you can argue that he doesn't realize just how badly injured he is, but that seems to me a bit of a stretch.

I fault Wilder's direction to a point, but I also don't think the film is written as well as, say, Double Indemnity or Sunset B. or even Stalag 17.

At the end, I think Tatum is kind of "losing it." He had planned this as his big escape from New Mexico and back into the big time, and his plans have slipped away just before he reaches the finish line. Inside, he is dead. I mean, you get the feeling that feels living and working for a paper in New Mexico ain't much of a living, and this was his chance at redemption. Once that is gone, Tatum is lost. Doesn't care about stuff anymore, perhaps. becomes depressed and apathetic.

RE: hos wounds: she had stabbed him with a scissor. Perhaps he had bled out slowly, partially unaware yet partially to proud to walk into the hospital in New Mexico, having been stabbed with a scissor by another man's wife.

 So I guess, in a certain sense, you can say that once Leo dies and Tatum loses what would have been his big break, he is dead inside. I am sure he doesn't literally realize he is bleeding to death -- is that a bit of a stretch? Perhaps. But the overarching issue is that for all intents and purposes, Tatum is now a dead man. In addition to having lost his shot at his big break, now he is trying to walk around and give a truly BIG story -- how a newspaperman created a crisis and had the country at his fingertips for a week -- and nobody wants to listen to him. Tatum has lived as a newspaperman -- to tell the story (or create the story  ;)) -- and now, nobody wants to listen to his story. That is a dead man.
(The physical death is perhaps a manifestation of his being "dead" inside (to go a little mystical about it ;-)) -- there is no way a man like Tatum can go on living now.

RE: your comparisons to other Wilder films: I think this film is on a similar level of greatness as Sunset Boulevard. As you know, I don't love Double Indemnity. And I have not yet seen Stalag 17 (it's in my queue)


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 15, 2011, 04:29:20 PM
If he's bleeding to death, where's the blood? I might buy another scenario--the stab wound ruptured his spleen, and he's slowly being poisoned. Except I think the spleen is not where the wound is indicated. But maybe there's a plausible explanation that someone with more anatomical knowledge can make.

I see your point about Tatum being a walking dead man once his meal ticket dies. But why, then, would he bother to write his story? He makes that one last attempt with the editor in New York. But when that fails he knows his career is over. So why go back to the small town newspaper? Particularly since he just ends up dying there, story untold. Why not call the small town publisher up and give him the story over the phone (preferably from a hospital bed). Why not tell his young protege what he's up to? Hell, why not tell anyone what he's up to. If he just wants to die, he needn't make the trip back to the paper. If he just wants to write his story, he needn't make the trip back to the paper (he can phone the story in or dictate it to the cub).

The only thing that makes sense is that he wants to punish himself for his past sins against journalism. He returns to a "real" newspaper (where on the wall is the message "Tell the Truth") as if he were going to The Temple of the Holy Newsprint to lay his body down in sacrifice. If you think this is far fetched, look again at the scene with the dying man and the priest. That scene is not treated ironically. And look at Douglas's face throughout that scene. That's the moment when he gets religion.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: stanton on November 15, 2011, 04:50:00 PM
I only remember, and it is long ago since I watched it, that I didn't likerd the ending too.



Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: titoli on November 15, 2011, 08:00:53 PM
As per usual, titoli and I completely agree. If the film had true noir spirit, Douglas would begin and end as an SOB. Instead, he starts to sympathize with the trapped man: he makes the feckless wife wear the fox stole, he goes and gets the priest personally to perform extreme unction, he announces the man's death to the people as a way of shaming them, he tries to tell the guy in New York the real story and when he refuses to listen, he goes back to the small town paper to write the story up. At every point, he's so high on his white horse that he neglects to get the medical attention he needs and so dies. Garbage.

So it was even worse of what I remembered. THX, you saved me a couple aof euros.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 16, 2011, 02:32:33 AM
If he's bleeding to death, where's the blood? I might buy another scenario--the stab wound ruptured his spleen, and he's slowly being poisoned. Except I think the spleen is not where the wound is indicated. But maybe there's a plausible explanation that someone with more anatomical knowledge can make.

I see your point about Tatum being a walking dead man once his meal ticket dies. But why, then, would he bother to write his story? He makes that one last attempt with the editor in New York. But when that fails he knows his career is over. So why go back to the small town newspaper? Particularly since he just ends up dying there, story untold. Why not call the small town publisher up and give him the story over the phone (preferably from a hospital bed). Why not tell his young protege what he's up to? Hell, why not tell anyone what he's up to. If he just wants to die, he needn't make the trip back to the paper. If he just wants to write his story, he needn't make the trip back to the paper (he can phone the story in or dictate it to the cub).

The only thing that makes sense is that he wants to punish himself for his past sins against journalism. He returns to a "real" newspaper (where on the wall is the message "Tell the Truth") as if he were going to The Temple of the Holy Newsprint to lay his body down in sacrifice. If you think this is far fetched, look again at the scene with the dying man and the priest. That scene is not treated ironically. And look at Douglas's face throughout that scene. That's the moment when he gets religion.

Tatum lives for the big story.

Imagine Tatum can now get his new BIG story printed, ie. the story of how he, as a reporter, manipulated an event and singlehandedly created a major human interest story that captivated America for a week, well that indeed is a big story that would also generate much interest. So it certainly makes sense that he would want it told. (otherwise, it's back to where he came from -- the little desk in the crapy little NM newspaper offices).

It is possible that he is somewhat disgusted with everything that has happened -- sure, he is disgusted with the failure of his big plan, but perhaps that has led him to be disgusted with everything. Not necessarily a complete "religious awakening," but in some sense, now that he has failed and he is beat, he wants to just, for the first time in his life, "tell the truth."

So again, I am not saying it is 100% clear exactly what Tatum's thoughts are at the end, and I think it's legit to have somewhat varying interpretations. But I never thought he is truly remorseful. and I think the ending fits very well with the narrative and the character and is entirely appropriate.

Here is another point to ponder: Tatum is not necessarily a truly evil guy. I mean, he is certainly not the most ethical reporter in the world. And he  is looking for his big break to get back to his dream job in the big city. And if he has to create a crisis and cause a man to be trapped in a cave for an extra week, so be it. But that doesn't necessarily mean he is willing to kill someone to achieve his goals. Perhaps, he never considered the serious possibility that Leo would die; and if he had been aware of it, there is no way he'd have taken that chance. Being willing to cause a man to be stuck for a week in a cave is far different than being willing to risk his death. So while Tatum is not the most ethical person in the world, he is not a classic "bad guy" either. If you agree with me on this point, then -- while I still don't think Tatum is terribly saddened by Leo's death -- it fits with Tatum's character that he would be somewhat remorseful.

As I've said, I am looking at this strictly from a point of view of whether it fits with Tatum's character, rather than worrying about noir conventions. Perhaps you should do the same  ;)




Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 16, 2011, 02:48:02 AM
btw I get a kick out of y'all here whining about what you view as Tatum's unrealistic actions. Cuz  everyone around here is always telling me that I am too worried about realism  ;D ;D As I've said  many times in these past discussions about realism: of course, movies are not REAL. But there is a certain level -- that is hard to define in words -- up to which point a person is willing to suspend his disbelief, until it reaches a threshold where he says, "no longer. this is bullshit." That threshold varies for every person in every situation, but it exists at some point for everyone. Nobody truly expects movies to be 100% real, but nobody is willing to suspend his disbelief infinitely either. So while some generally have a high threshold, and some (like me) generally have a low threshold, it exists at some level for everyone. Just remember that next time you wanna tell me that I am too concerned about realism   ;)


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: Cusser on November 16, 2011, 05:16:49 AM
We saw this film in college film class.

Stalag 17 is simply great.  You see how many POW films have drawn from it, even Great Escape, Hogan's Heroes.  It's aspisodic-type film, Cool Hand Luke also was episodic.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 16, 2011, 05:56:29 AM
As I've said, I am looking at this strictly from a point of view of whether it fits with Tatum's character, rather than worrying about noir conventions. Perhaps you should do the same  ;)
I don't consider the film a noir. But that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I think the film works. I'd like to believe that the film is the way you view it, but I'm not seeing that up on the screen. I see Douglas starting out as a manipulator, losing control as events overtake him, then exhibiting disgust at the mess he's caused, and finally succumbing to self-loathing before his death. I'd like to believe that the film is actually better than that, but at this point I really can't. Maybe some day.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 16, 2011, 07:55:57 AM
I don't consider the film a noir. But that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I think the film works. I'd like to believe that the film is the way you view it, but I'm not seeing that up on the screen. I see Douglas starting out as a manipulator, losing control as events overtake him, then exhibiting disgust at the mess he's caused, and finally succumbing to self-loathing before his death. I'd like to believe that the film is actually better than that, but at this point I really can't. Maybe some day.

It may well be true that Tatum is "finally succumbing to self-loathing before his death." I completely agree that that may well be what is happening. I still think that is a very believable turn of events.

His desire to finally "tell the truth" may be because right now, that's the next BIG story. Or it may be him succumbing to self-loathing, or some combination thereof.

So let's focus on that "self-loathing" point: at this point, Tatum doesn't give a rat's ass about the BIG story anymore, but has succumbed entirely to self-loathing. I think that fits perfectly with the story and Tatum's character.

Tatum's plans have fallen apart, he is kind of going nuts, is self-destructive and self-loathing, realizes that now he's never gonna get out of New Mexico, and he's given up on life (as I described earlier, like he is "dead inside.") I think all of that is very believable from Tatum's character.

 It seemed to me that that what bothered you and titoli is that Tatum is now "repenting", and you did not find that believable.

However, I think it is possible for Tatum to be "succumbing to self-loathing"-- but not because he has repented and become  a "good guy" and had a sudden change of heart about the evilness of his ways.

Rather, his succumbing to self-loathing is out of despair upon realizing that his grand plans have backfired, and thus arises from the very narcissism he has displayed all along. He realizes now that he screwed up, his plans are down the drain, he is a failure, and thus begins the self-loathing. Not because he has suddenly gotten a conscience, but because the realization has hit him that he has failed and he'll never be anything more than a $50 a week reporter at a NM paper working for a guy who wears both a belt and suspenders.


Do you agree that the self-loathing (possibly) arises out of this realization that he's failed? If yes, do you have a problem with that -- do you still find that not plausible? Do you still say you'd "like to believe that the film is actually better than that"? Please explain. Cuz that sounds mighty plausible to me.



-----------------------------------------------------------

This reminds me of something one of my law professors once said, while I was chatting with him about politics/policy: He is an awesome guy, more like a buddy. a real young guy, who also is an economist, and one of the few profs that I chatted about politics with -- in general, I am very selective about who I talk about politics with. Anyway, at one point, I don't remember what the specific issue we were discussing was, he said (paraphrasing heavily):" "Over time, the longer a particular issue is debated in the public arena, the more refined the argument becomes:  the more the the BS falls away, and the better the really good, solid arguments -- on both sides -- remain, the better the debate becomes, the more knowledgeable the debaters become, the more they can understand the other side's point of view, the more they learn how to answer those questions, and the more everyone gets educated, and the higher the level of discussion becomes etc. etc. etc."
 
You may well argue that is an oversimplification. You may well argue that it's an entirely unnecessarily "deep" way to describe a straightforward point. But seriously, I was just reminded of that now, seeing how the discussion gets elevated from post to post, and how -- while I can't speak for anyone else here -- I certainly gain an immense understanding from much of the discussion here. Thanks all  O0



Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 16, 2011, 08:52:04 AM
Quote
It seemed to me that that what bothered you and titoli is that Tatum is now "repenting", and you did not find that believable.

However, I think it is possible for Tatum to be "succumbing to self-loathing"-- but not because he has repented and become  a "good guy" and had a sudden change of heart about the evilness of his ways.

Rather, his succumbing to self-loathing is out of despair upon realizing that his grand plans have backfired, and thus arises from the very narcissism he has displayed all along. He realizes now that he screwed up, his plans are down the drain, he is a failure, and thus begins the self-loathing. Not because he has suddenly gotten a conscience, but because the realization has hit him that he has failed and he'll never be anything more than a $50 a week reporter at a NM paper working for a guy who wears both a belt and suspenders.

Do you agree that the self-loathing (possibly) arises out of this realization that he's failed? If yes, do you have a problem with that -- do you still find that not plausible? Do you still say you'd "like to believe that the film is actually better than that"? Please explain. Cuz that sounds mighty plausible to me.
It does sound plausible--up to a point. If that were the whole of the matter, I wouldn't have a complaint. But it seems the film sends out mixed signals. True, I don't find the repentance (if that's what it is) persuasive, but that seems to be what the film is trying to put over (again, I refer you to the priest with the dying man scene). I like the idea of Douglas being engulfed in his sins, deciding, Oedipus-like, to deliberately take into himself the punishment for those sins, to ride them down to his own destruction. And at times the film seems like it can be read that way. But there are other moments that seem that the phony repentance thing is going on. Again, why does Douglas make the wife wear the stole when no one is around to see her do it? Why does he go personally for the priest? Why does he himself make the announcement of the man's death to the crowd? None of these things are in the interest of the story or can be accounted for in terms of journalistic practice. They can be accounted for, however, if you believe that the screenwriter wanted to show that Douglas has suddenly grown a heart.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 16, 2011, 09:32:28 AM
It does sound plausible--up to a point. If that were the whole of the matter, I wouldn't have a complaint. But it seems the film sends out mixed signals. True, I don't find the repentance (if that's what it is) persuasive, but that seems to be what the film is trying to put over (again, I refer you to the priest with the dying man scene). I like the idea of Douglas being engulfed in his sins, deciding, Oedipus-like, to deliberately take into himself the punishment for those sins, to ride them down to his own destruction. And at times the film seems like it can be read that way. But there are other moments that seem that the phony repentance thing is going on. Again, why does Douglas make the wife wear the stole when no one is around to see her do it? Why does he go personally for the priest? Why does he himself make the announcement of the man's death to the crowd? None of these things are in the interest of the story or can be accounted for in terms of journalistic practice. They can be accounted for, however, if you believe that the screenwriter wanted to show that Douglas has suddenly grown a heart.

I think either you are reading too much into some details, or I am reading too little:

He wants the wife to play the part of the "good wife," cuz that makes for a better human interest story. I don't think he cares that she wear the stole inside per se; his point is, "put it on and play the part!" If she played the part on the outside, he wouldn't care what she feels. But his putting the stole on her and smacking her around is a stern message, "Get you shit together, at least for the next few days." Obviously, having the priest there makes for better copy -- the part about him going personally for him, I never thought much about -- though remember, this is Tatum;s circus, and he takes a very hands-on approach. As far as Tatum making the announcement to the crowd: again, I don't read that much into it. All along, Tatum has been the ringleader: all information comes from him, he is the one providing all updates, he is the Master of Ceremonies. It is only natural that he be the one to announce that the ceremonies are over. (I think the studio gave the movie the title "The Big Carnival" or sumthin).

As I've discussed previously: I do think it is possible -- and plausible! -- that Tatum does have a slight twang of guilt upon realizing what he's done, but not full-blown repentance.



I had another question, on a separate but related matter: at one point, when Tatum returns to the carnival area, and sees the "Re-Elect Sheriff Kretzer" sign and he reads it, it seems to me that there is a big cynicism/disgust to the way he reads it. Tatum is not one to be criticizing the sheriff for lack of morals, so why does he read the sign aloud with a very negative connotation? Is this the beginning of his realization that this carnival is getting a little out of hand? is it just that one sleazeball looks down upon another? or am I wrong that Tatum says it in a negative way, and does he really say it in an amusing way?



Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 16, 2011, 09:38:03 AM
alright cigar joe, time for you to chime in...


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: cigar joe on November 16, 2011, 11:20:39 AM
alright cigar joe, time for you to chime in...

Nope I'm staying out,  8)


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 16, 2011, 11:41:54 AM
you couldn't last a week on the sidelines.....


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 16, 2011, 12:12:25 PM
He wants the wife to play the part of the "good wife," cuz that makes for a better human interest story. I don't think he cares that she wear the stole inside per se; his point is, "put it on and play the part!" If she played the part on the outside, he wouldn't care what she feels. But his putting the stole on her and smacking her around is a stern message, "Get you shit together, at least for the next few days."
Maybe. But notice that this follows immediately the scene in which the dying man confides the fact of the stole and its hiding place to Tatum. The man in effect commissions Tatum to make sure his wife gets her present (and he checks later to see if Tatum followed through). It seems to me that Tatum's racing back to look for the stole is not motivated by his desire for one more prop to help sell his story. Instead, it looks very much like he is attempting to fullfill the dying man's last--or next to last--wish. And the fact that Tatum treats Jan Sterling so roughly seems to be not because she isn't playing her part better, but because she's such a heartless bitch. He's finally found the one person who is so bad she can disgust even him. And this is a personal response, not a professional one.

What I'm seeing is a script that doesn't hang together all that well. Douglas is playing a particular kind of character that the audience can enjoy but not identify with. Initially, that's not a problem. But later it becomes apparent that there needs to be a character who is a surrogate for the audience, who can respond with righteous indignation to the things done by Douglas, the wife, the sherrif, the other newspeople, and especially the rubes who come to enjoy the "carnival." Because no character was established to assume that role, it, by default, falls to Douglas. But since he's playing a different role already we end up with a character with a lot of inconsistencies. Believable characters can be inconsistent, but they have to be written that way from the beginning. Douglas is a single-minded, well defined character from the beginning, then late in the film becomes this very different guy. You may not see a change but I do. Again, change in a character is possible, but it has to properly prepared for. This film, to my way of thinking, doesn't do the necessary preparation.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 16, 2011, 01:45:22 PM
Tatum is never really a completely evil dude. He is opportunistic and does what is necessary to get ahead, even if that means he doesn't always "tell the truth." but i don't think he is ever presented as a totally evil motherfucker. So assuming for a moment that Tatum is indeed feeling true remorse: Is that so implausible? It's one thing to make a guy stay in a cave for a week -- even a guy like Leo, who is a genuinely good guy -- but it's quite another to kill him. Is it so implausible that Tatum realizes it's gone too far, only once it's too late?.... also, when he is in his room with the Sheriff, talking about how they have to get Leo out ASAP, Tatum emphasizes that it's because people bought a human interest story, which includes a happy ending. He never ever explicitly mentions concern for Leo. Do you believe that all that shit Tatum said about delivering the happy ending the people had bought was really just a cover-up for what has become his genuine concern fo Leo's well-being?.....


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 16, 2011, 03:49:32 PM
No, but that's before the scene with the priest. I notice you keep dodging that scene. You really need to look at it again. Although I don't find it convincing, I'm pretty sure the film is trying to sell us on a kind of conversion for Tatum at that point. Maybe "conversion" is the wrong word. Let's call it "a  change of sympathy."


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 16, 2011, 05:41:10 PM
No, but that's before the scene with the priest. I notice you keep dodging that scene. You really need to look at it again. Although I don't find it convincing, I'm pretty sure the film is trying to sell us on a kind of conversion for Tatum at that point. Maybe "conversion" is the wrong word. Let's call it "a  change of sympathy."

I am not "dodging" anything. I don't have very strong memories of that scene. I mean, sure, I remember it, but I didn't take particular note of it when I first watched the movie.

I guess I am gonna have to re-watch this baby. I'll put it first in my queue. Maybe you should do that as well, and we can watch it on the same day and discuss it  ;)


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: cigar joe on November 17, 2011, 05:52:22 AM
And that's basically why I'm not participating, its not fresh enough in my mind to make comments on.  O0


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 17, 2011, 08:21:37 AM
I'll put it first in my queue. Maybe you should do that as well, and we can watch it on the same day and discuss it  ;)
Just say when.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 17, 2011, 01:34:42 PM
Just say when.

how about we watch it next week Wednesday. at 10 PM. you too, cj. and everyone else.... then we go on the board at midnite and discuss it  O0

Is that a deal?

-----------------------

btw, if this works out, maybe we can start having these "individual viewing party" like once a month or so -- we agree on a movie for everyone to watches at a specific time (or a broad 24-hour time period, since everyone is on a different schedule), then we make up a time for us all to go on the board to discuss it... Let's begin with Ace in the Hole, which we should watch anytime on Wednesday Nov. 23, then a big discussion begins at midnite.... y'all in?  :)


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 18, 2011, 02:16:56 AM
how about we watch it next week Wednesday. at 10 PM. you too, cj. and everyone else.... then we go on the board at midnite and discuss it  O0

Is that a deal?

As it happens, Wednesday doesn't work for me, I'm tied up all day with Broadway shows and jazz club visits. Friday is probably bad, too. I could do any other day, though.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: stanton on November 18, 2011, 05:40:14 AM
I don't have a copy of it, so ...


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 18, 2011, 05:46:50 AM
I am gonna rent it off Netflix. No matter where you are, there should be ways to rent classic movies, like some equivalent of Netlix or iTunes...


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: cigar joe on November 18, 2011, 06:20:51 AM
It doesn't float my boat enough to discuss it.  :-[


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 18, 2011, 08:34:50 AM
It doesn't float my boat enough to discuss it.  :-[

alright, so you will pick the one for our December viewing party  ;)


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: stanton on November 18, 2011, 09:50:40 AM
I am gonna rent it off Netflix. No matter where you are, there should be ways to rent classic movies, like some equivalent of Netlix or iTunes...

Unfortunately not. There is no German DVD, and at Amazon even the UK DVD is out of print.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 18, 2011, 10:02:02 AM
it's a Criterion Collection dvd that I believe was first released just a few years ago in the USA, so I guess it makes sense that it may not be available yet in Europe.

Do you not have any streaming or download services like iTunes?

This Ace in the Hole viewing party kind of started spontaneously with me and dj, but in the future, if we can generate enough interest for these viewing parties (I'm hoping we can do it like once a month or so) we'll definitely make sure to do movies that are readily available everywhere


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: T.H. on November 18, 2011, 12:11:12 PM
My only issue with AitH is the stabbing death, which had the studio fingerprints all over it. They simply wouldn't allow for Douglas' character to survive, which is a cop out. My ideal ending/final shot is for him to be at the soon to be desolate scene as the crowd is leaving.

I don't think the character is evil, but he has a god complex, which is destroyed in the third act.

This is one of my favorite movies but is by no means perfect. I'll take a daring, unique experience like AitH over most "flawless" movies all day.





Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 18, 2011, 06:52:45 PM
My only issue with AitH is the stabbing death, which had the studio fingerprints all over it. They simply wouldn't allow for Douglas' character to survive, which is a cop out. My ideal ending/final shot is for him to be at the soon to be desolate scene as the crowd is leaving.
You mean end the movie earlier? Well, I think we have to see what becomes of Tatum. What happens to him after the Big Carnival goes tits up. Anything less than that would probably leave most audiences dissatisfied.

I think the best conclusion would be the Elmer Gantry one--after the Big Scheme falls apart, he has to pick himself up and start hustling all over again. He'd like to chuck it all and do something else, but the con/the big story is all he knows. Even when the big story is pretty small. So Tatum finally goes to work for The National Enquirer, and lives happily ever after.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: cigar joe on November 18, 2011, 06:57:49 PM
You mean end the movie earlier? Well, I think we have to see what becomes of Tatum. What happens to him after the Big Carnival goes tits up. Anything less than that would probably leave most audiences dissatisfied.

I think the best conclusion would be the Elmer Gantry one--after the Big Scheme falls apart, he has to pick himself up and start hustling all over again. He'd like to chuck it all and do something else, but the con/the big story is all he knows. Even when the big story is pretty small. So Tatum finally goes to work for The National Enquirer, and lives happily ever after.

That's a good one  O0


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: T.H. on November 19, 2011, 09:36:23 PM
You mean end the movie earlier? Well, I think we have to see what becomes of Tatum. What happens to him after the Big Carnival goes tits up. Anything less than that would probably leave most audiences dissatisfied.

I think the best conclusion would be the Elmer Gantry one--after the Big Scheme falls apart, he has to pick himself up and start hustling all over again. He'd like to chuck it all and do something else, but the con/the big story is all he knows. Even when the big story is pretty small. So Tatum finally goes to work for The National Enquirer, and lives happily ever after.

My scenario is basically the figurative death of a character with a god complex. My personal interpretation is that the character is broken down, but that's why this is a great film. I don't think the same discussion could be had for Stalag 17 or Witness For the Prosecution.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 19, 2011, 10:31:30 PM
My scenario is basically the figurative death of a character with a god complex. My personal interpretation is that the character is broken down, but that's why this is a great film. I don't think the same discussion could be had for Stalag 17 or Witness For the Prosecution.

are you in some way agreeing with my earlier points here, that Tatum is "dead inside" once his plan falls apart; his physical death is a manifestation of the fact that he is figuratively dead, as a man whose a) chance for his "big break" has fallen apart; and b) who no one wants to listen to. a reporter's job is to report the story (or in Tatum's case, to make the story as well ;) ) But once nobody wants to listen to him, his life is worthless. Cuz of those 2 reasons, he is already dead inside, so the physical death is appropriate (and if you wanna get mystical about it, it's a manifestation of his being dead figuratively (or emotionally or spiritually, however you wanna put it).


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: T.H. on November 22, 2011, 07:41:02 PM
are you in some way agreeing with my earlier points here, that Tatum is "dead inside" once his plan falls apart; his physical death is a manifestation of the fact that he is figuratively dead, as a man whose a) chance for his "big break" has fallen apart; and b) who no one wants to listen to. a reporter's job is to report the story (or in Tatum's case, to make the story as well ;) ) But once nobody wants to listen to him, his life is worthless. Cuz of those 2 reasons, he is already dead inside, so the physical death is appropriate (and if you wanna get mystical about it, it's a manifestation of his being dead figuratively (or emotionally or spiritually, however you wanna put it).

It cheapens the aftermath though. The character should be in a vulnerable position, among those he thought he controlled/manipulated. Having him stabbed to death rids him of his fate imo



Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 25, 2011, 07:00:51 AM
okay, I just watched it again.

I agree with T.H. and dj on the point that Tatum does actually feel bad toward the end. I was wrong about that. I think it starts the moment Leo's mom comes into to the room bringing new candles, and you see the look on Tatum's face. And then he spends all night with Leo instead of writing his story, getting fired. So yes, he does feel bad about what he did to Leo.

However, IMO this is plausible. I still think it is done well and fits the movie. Tatum was never a totally evil dude. He is an unethical reporter willing to create a story. But he never dreams it would end like this, with Leo dying. There are many movies out there about people who did a bad thing but it got way out of hand and then they feel bad about it the consequences.

Tatum is not a good guy. But he is not capable of murder either. It's not like he breaks down crying, but yes, he sees how much Leo is grateful toward him, and how good a man Leo is, and what he did to him, and yes, he feels bad about it. Is that so hard to believe? Just because he is an unethical reporter, does that mean he can't feel any guilt for killing a man? If you forget about classic "noir characters" and just take this story on its own, it works very well. Tatum figured he'd milk the story for a few extra days and then Leone would get out and all would live happily ever after, Leo with his family and Tatum with a big paper in New York. But now his actions have gotten away from him. he is an unethical reporter, but not a killer. I think it works very well.

As far as dj's question of why he doesn't see a doctor: Herby (the kid who has been acting as Tatum's assistant) does offer to bring him to see a doctor, but Tatum refuses. He says something like "we have things to do." He is an ambitious, arrogant SOB, and when he has a story to work on, he wants to work on it, being a tough guy and not seeing a doctor. That is totally plausible.

At the end, Tatum has lost everything. Lost his big break, lost his job, and lost the new BIG STORY he wanted to sell of how he had orchestrated this whole thing. So yeah, he is finished. Physically and spiritually, he is gone.

A great movie  :) :) :)




Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 29, 2011, 01:24:51 PM
just watched Disc 2, with all the special features. If you are a Wilder fan, I recommend that you watch this disc (avaialble on Netflix), there are some fantastic interviews with him about his career.

one of the features is an audio interview with one of the writers named Walter Newman, and he discusses how the death of Tatum was mandated by the Hays Code. Bad guys had to die. So for any of y'all who don't like that ending, I guess you can't blame the writing. Another feature there is an interview with Kirk Douglas. He discusses how, Tatum is not the most terrible guy in the world (as I have argued in this thread); he is an unethical guy who wants to get ahead, but he is certainly not the worst guy in the world.
and he never intended for anyone to die. So I think Tatum's actions and emotions make sense.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: dave jenkins on June 23, 2012, 04:59:37 PM
It's interesting to compare the film to the true account it's based on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Collins


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 23, 2012, 09:42:15 PM
It's interesting to compare the film to the true account it's based on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Collins

In the movie, Tatum explicitly refers to this story


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 15, 2014, 11:49:30 AM
Criterion BD on May 6.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: dave jenkins on April 12, 2014, 01:59:38 PM
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Ace-in-the-Hole-Blu-ray/77718/#Review

They give the PQ a 4.5/5 and provide this detailed report:
Quote
Recently restored in 2K, Ace in the Hole looks very good in high-definition. There are some minor sharpness fluctuations, but most close-ups and large panoramic shots boast very good depth and clarity (see screencaptures #3 and 9). The darker footage from the cave is also crisper. Contrast levels remain stable throughout the entire film. The blacks, whites, and the variety of grays are well balanced. There are no traces of problematic degraining corrections. However, in select areas some extremely light traces of fading are visible. There are no problematic sharpening corrections. Overall image stability is very good. I specifically would like to mention that the light edge flicker present on the R1 DVD release has been eliminated on the Blu-ray release. Finally, large debris, scratches, cuts, stains, and warps have been removed as best as possible.

I won't be getting this, as the DVD is sufficient to my needs. But I'm sure D&D will want to pick it up. If you can wait until July, Drink, you can get it for half price at the B&N sale.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 24, 2014, 06:20:49 AM
It cheapens the aftermath though. The character should be in a vulnerable position, among those he thought he controlled/manipulated. Having him stabbed to death rids him of his fate imo

thinking about it now, maybe I agree that having Tatum basically repenting isn't so great (I am never big on forgiveness or repentance themes), and having him die a is a cop-out. To be sure, he doesn't really repent (like in, say, The Informer), but you see he regrets it, and he becomes self-loathing (one reason, perhaps, why he doesn't seek medical attention after he is stabbed). What DJ mentioned above - an ending that had Tatum drifting, working for the National Enquirer - sounds very intriguing.
Two points on that, though (I may have mentioned it previously) 1) maybe Tatum had to die cuz of the Production Code; since he was the cause of Leo's death, nothing less than his own death is appropriate punishment? Just speculation. And 2) If Tatum didn't die, then we would miss out on what is a) one of the greatest closing lines in movie history; b) one of the greatest lines in a Billy Wilder movie; c) one of the only times Wilder ever did a stylized shot, in which the camera/shot calls attention to itself. Of course, I am referring to Tatum falling dead right in front of the camera, as he says, "I'm a thousand-dollar-a-day newspaperman; you can have me for free!"


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 10, 2014, 05:16:11 PM
Ha, Drink, check it out. You get a faux newspaper with the new CC Blu: http://www.criterionforum.org/DVD-packaging/ace-in-the-hole-dual-format-edition/the-criterion-collection/1271


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 10, 2014, 07:10:56 PM
Cool, i'll definitely get meself a copy :)


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 12, 2014, 01:53:18 PM
Savant: http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s4490ace.html


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 06, 2014, 12:46:36 AM
Ha, Drink, check it out. You get a faux newspaper with the new CC Blu: http://www.criterionforum.org/DVD-packaging/ace-in-the-hole-dual-format-edition/the-criterion-collection/1271

my BRD arrived, courtesy of the USPS.

that newspaper The Albequerque Sun Bulletin, with the date June 17, 1951 is actually the text that would usually come with a BRD package in a booklet. Criterion usually includes a booklet with some writing about the movie, so in this case they had a newspaper instead of the normal booklet.

In the past, there were a few times I considered buying the Criterion DVD of this movie, but I never did, and I am sure glad of that, cuz now I got this nice BRD package (which happens to include the DVD's anyway). I'm definitely never gonna buy any DVD's anymore, cuz I'll end up regretting it when the BRD's are released (at least in the case of the great movies, which are sure to be released on BRD eventually).


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: dave jenkins on June 28, 2014, 06:12:27 AM
The Disolve's movie of the week: http://thedissolve.com/features/movie-of-the-week/

And check out this excellent piece on the Brackett-Wilder partnership: http://thedissolve.com/features/movie-of-the-week/635-charles-brackett-billy-wilder-and-the-rise-and-fal/


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: cigar joe on September 03, 2014, 08:52:15 PM
Watched my CC today, 10/10, Tatum was doomed the minute he opted for the drill over shoring up the tunnel. I think its Douglas' best performance, he has some great newspaper themed monologues and his scene with Porter Hall is a classic.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: Dust Devil on September 07, 2014, 10:42:06 AM
I don't much care about the ending too. Why it doesn't glide has more to do with common sense than with logic.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: Dust Devil on September 07, 2014, 10:53:03 AM
To make it clear: this broiling inside Tatum was done actually pretty well during the movie, there's a lot of memorable acting and dialogue, it's the 180 degrees turn in the very end that disrespects this (and the audience, ironically that is) for shallow purposes.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: Dust Devil on September 07, 2014, 10:57:49 AM
But the movie's a good one besides this - I won't rate it since it's been a while since I watched it on television - from those times when movies were still grown around a skelet of ideas. I respect that.


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on September 07, 2014, 06:30:39 PM
we had a big discussion about the ending a while ago, I defended it ... but the more I think about it now, the more I agree with those who criticize the ending: I'm not interested in Tatum repenting. It's unnecessary to have him feeling all bad about what he did. He dies in the end anyway so I assume that his repentance wasn't necessary for the Production Code so you could have him self-loathing for having the human-interest story screwed up by Leo dying; you don't need him to get a conscience in order to turn him into a self-loather. I still won't have a firm belief on it until I see it again I have the CC BRD but I am insanely busy lately and may not see many movies for a while. However, even if you don't like Tatum repenting at the end, the final shot rescues it anyway  ;)


Title: Re: Ace in the Hole (1951)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 09, 2014, 04:51:40 PM
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/what-wilder-did-to-brackett/