Rate The Last Movie You Saw

[drinkanddestroy]

Chopper (2001) 8/10

Great performance by Eric Bana

[Groggy]

The Prisoner of Shark Island (1936)

This movie is supposedly about setting the record straight and clearing the name of Dr. Samuel Mudd, who was convicted of conspiring with John Wilkes Boothe to kill President Lincoln.

Advancing from a false premise I see? I tuned out of your review after one sentence.

(To be sure, I generally do not concern myself with historical accuracy

Yeah, sure.

[drinkanddestroy]

Advancing from a false premise I see? I tuned out of your review after one sentence.

Well, that's your choice. And probably a wise one.


But the fact remains that there are very important elements of the story that this movie gets wrong. It twists facts  in order to favor Mudd -- particularly  the facts related to Mudd's association with Boothe.
I would be happy to take back my statement if you can show me otherwise, but I am pretty damn near certain that the way many things are portrayed in the movie is nothing more than a cinematic "version" of events that is not backed up by a single historical source, including the many sources that believe that Mudd was 100% innocent.

Mudd had met Boothe on several prior occasions. And he knew that the patient he was treating was John Wilkes Boothe. Those are just 2 very important facts that the movie lies about; according to the movie, the only times he had ever seen Boothe was when the latter was performing on stage, and he did not recognize that the patient he was treating was Boothe.
And that scene where the head of the commission instructs the members of the Commission to disregard due process and reasonable doubt is like a cartoon. I wasn't in the room, but I have never heard any assertion that that instruction ever took place. (At best, it may be the screenwriter's guess at the conversation that took place among the Commission, but making an assertion like that  in a movie that claims to tell the true story is absolutely despicable unless it is clear that that instruction did take place).

Again, A) I am certainly no historian, and B) I have absolutely no opinion as to whether or not Mudd was guilty.

But the fact is that The Prisoner of Shark Island depicts many of the elements of the story of Mudd/Boothe and the Lincoln Asassination, about as accurately as My Darling Clementine depicts many of the elements of Wyatt/Doc and the gunfight at the ok corral.

Honestly, I would be very happy to recant my statements if you can show me any historical that backs up the movie's version of those events.

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

This is supposed to be a very serious movie to clear the historical record; it should not be screwed around with in the way that eg. the tales of Wyatt/Doc, Jesse James, and Billy the Kid are. There are certain stories that have to be told accurately. Samuel Mudd knew who John Wilkes Boothe was. The Mossad agents who killed the terrorists who planned the Munich Massacre didn't agonize over it, nor did they have flashbacks to the attacks while having sex with their wives. And Anne Frank and the others hiding in the attic did not risk their lives by having a cat with them. Certain stories are just plain wrong to screw around with. Wyatt Earp and Jesse James are basically cartoon characters by now, and nobody expects the stories about them to be true. But there are other stories that shouldn't be messed with.

[Groggy]

This is supposed to be a very serious movie to clear the historical record; it should not be fuck around with in the way that eg. the tales of Wyatt/Doc, Jesse James, and Billy the Kid are.

What gives you THAT idea? John Ford never cared much for accuracy in ANY of his films. Shark Island is no less a piece of myth than his Westerns.

[drinkanddestroy]

What gives you THAT idea? John Ford never cared much for accuracy in ANY of his films. Shark Island is no less a piece of myth than his Westerns.

I agree with you that John Ford did not care for historical accuracy. But what bothers me is that this particular movie gives the indication that it does care about accuracy. The movie is very clear that it's goal is to clear Mudd's name; the movie opens with a letter from a U.S. Senator from Maryland with some flowery words to the effect of that now with this movie, Mudd, who be says is one of the most courageous or greatest men in American history or something like that, will finally be cleared of the injustice to his memory.
 I think that a movie whose stated purpose is setting the record straight about Mudd should try its best to get the facts straight. the purpose of clearing Mudd is so that future generations should know the TRUTH.  It doesn't make much sense to basically say, For the sake of truth we have to clear Mudd's name and tell his story, but we can try to clear his name by telling a story that isn't true. That doesn't make sense, and actually hurts the very purpose of the movie! Why should we believe what the movie wants us to believe -- that Mudd was innocent -- if the movie's depiction of facts isn't honest?

So I am not saying that John Ford ever declared "everything in this movie is 100% truth." But considering that the purpose is to set the record straight, it makes no sense that it wouldn't try to set it straight across the board, by telling the REAL story. And besides, by minimizing the evidence against Mudd, Ford is wrongfully besmirching those who were involved in his conviction! Why should he be so concerned with clearing the name of one innocent man, but unconcerned about besmirching the names of others? if he is so convinced of Mudd's innocence, why does he feel the need to minimize the evidence against Mudd? You can certainly argue that Mudd was innocent, and the victim of either bad luck and/or an overzealous system of "justice," without distorting the evidence against him.

[Groggy]

There's also the reasonable question: what was known (or common knowledge anyway) about Mudd when the movie was released?

I don't see the title card as any more incriminating than Ford loudly proclaiming My Darling Clementine was authentic because he knew Wyatt Earp. In any case it would hardly be the first or last time a director had his head up his ass.

[drinkanddestroy]

There's also the reasonable question: what was known (or common knowledge anyway) about Mudd when the movie was released?

I don't see the title card as any more incriminating than Ford loudly proclaiming My Darling Clementine was authentic because he knew Wyatt Earp.

--- Yes, if Ford truly believed his depiction to be correct, then I have no problem with it. But these facts I am talking about were exposed at Mudd's trial, and it has been pretty clear all along.

--- I can accept that Ford was never pretending to be accurate in the depiction of any detail besides for the one main point of Mudd's being innocent. then my problem is that Ford should have tried to show the story accurately; I think he was wrong for trying to make one important point -- that Mudd's name should be cleared -- without giving a damn about how many inaccuracies it took for people to believe it. So he is wrong not for pretending to be accurate, but for not attempting to be accurate. Besides, it A) restores one man's reputation by besmirching others' more than they deserve to be besmirched; and B) it hurts Ford's own cause, cuz it seems as if the belief that Mudd is innocent can't stand up to the real evidence.

[Groggy]

The Hunger Games - 7/10 - 2nd viewing. Brother wanted to see it and I didn't hate it the first time around.

[Groggy]

The Seven-Ups - 7/10 - Roy Scheider is (what else?) a hardnosed NYC cop tracking down a gang of extortionist. Fairly typical '70s crime flick with lots of grit, cynicism and violent action, including an excellent car chase. All it needs is a compelling story.

[titoli]

The Seven-Ups - 7/10 - Roy Scheider is (what else?) a hardnosed NYC cop tracking down a gang of extortionist. Fairly typical '70s crime flick with lots of grit, cynicism and violent action, including an excellent car chase. All it needs is a compelling story.

Agreed.

[drinkanddestroy]

Stella Dallas (1937) 8/10

TCM has been showing a bunch of movies about moms cuz it's Mother's Day. Mildred Pierce is up next.


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

Saddle the Wind (1958)  6.5/10

[Groggy]

I remember liking Stella Dallas.

[drinkanddestroy]

I remember liking Stella Dallas.

That scene where Stella goes prancing around the hotel like a clown is absolutely hilarious!

SPOILER ALERT

It's a shame that such an enjoyable movie had to have such a silly ending

I understand that Stella sent her daughter away cuz felt like she was just a piece of shit and an embarrassment to her. But what exactly was she trying to accomplish when -- after she sends her daughter off following that hotel incident --  she starts acting like a tramp and running off with that drunk old man Eddie Munn??  (for some reason, the mention of that name Eddie Munn just cracks me up   ) It's not like you can say that she realized she was trash and not going to get any better, cuz the fact is that she hadn't been getting any action anyway for the past 15 years, and it didn't seem to to bother her.

Then her daughter says "but she would have seen in the papers that we were getting married," as if the newspapers in South America mentioned every marriage in Massachusetts! And then she comes back just in time, watches through the window, and walks away? Come on..... Though the truth is, once the movie was going to end with that scenario, it is definitely better that it ended completely unsentimentally, with Stella walking off into the night, rather than coming inside and ending on a big kiss, that's for sure! But overall, I think the script just kind of fell apart a bit in those last few minutes, starting with the moment she decides to go after Eddie Munn. But a good watch nonetheless. (How hilarious was it that this drunk bastard living in a shitty little room, keeps a framed picture of himself on the mantle?!   )

Barbara Stanwyck was good in the lead role, but John Boles (as Stephen Dallas), Ann Shirley (as Laurel Dallas), and Alan Hale (as Ed Munn) were particularly great.

[Groggy]

I liked the ending.

[drinkanddestroy]

I liked the ending.

My problem isn't so much with the final scene, but with Stella running off with Ed Munn.

it didn't bother you that after such a good movie in which you can understand the characters' motivations all along, she would do something so implausible at the end? If Munn was still wealthy, then maybe it would be an understandable act of desperation by Stella looking for a sugar daddy or sumthin, even if he is a drunken idiot. But with him living in that shithole like that, with no money or status, I just don't see anything to justify her doing that. (I don't think it was cuz she was feeling lonely without her daughter, or cuz she needed a guy in her life). As miserable and desperate as she may have been, he offered her nothing whatsoever, and it makes no sense why she would do that. (Then again., how often do women make sense?  )