"Marty" is a lovely film, although the original 1953 TV drama with Rod Steiger
packed a greater emotional punch. It is a pity that Steiger did not repeat the
performance for the film.
On 16 December, 2001, Opencity wrote:
"Marty" is a lovely film, although the original 1953 TV drama with RodSteiger
packed a greater emotional punch. It is a pity that Steiger did not repeatthe
performance for the film.*****
I agree. I saw a kinescope of the 1953 performance a few years back and I
was amazed at how much more directly emotional it was than the movie Delbert Mann directed in 1955. The film could have used the more squashed look of the television version, in my opinion.
Also, as good as Borgnine is (and he's very good), Steiger was leagues better. There was something in that role that he clearly connected with. Its been said that during rehearsals for the broadcast, he couldn't keep from crying at certain moments. You can tell from watching it.
Tom Sutpen
"Cinema is Truth, 24 times a second" -- Jean-Luc Godard
"Movies lie 24 times a second" -- Brian DePalma
"Kill Ugly Cinema!" -- Tom Sutpen
On 16 December, 2001, Opencity wrote:
"Marty" is a lovely film, although the original 1953 TV drama with RodSteiger
packed a greater emotional punch. It is a pity that Steiger did not repeatthe
performance for the film.*****
I agree. I saw a kinescope of the 1953 performance a few years back and I
was amazed at how much more directly emotional it was than the movie Delbert Mann directed in 1955. The film could have used the more squashed look of the television version, in my opinion.
Also, as good as Borgnine is (and he's very good), Steiger was leagues better. There was something in that role that he clearly connected with. Its been said that during rehearsals for the broadcast, he couldn't keep from crying at certain moments. You can tell from watching it.
Tom Sutpen
"Cinema is Truth, 24 times a second" -- Jean-Luc Godard
"Movies lie 24 times a second" -- Brian DePalma
"Kill Ugly Cinema!" -- Tom Sutpen
According to this:The rise of mass media changed those terms, Susman wrote. In the media-savvy and consumption-oriented society that Americans were building, people came to value—and therefore demand—what Susman called “personality”: charm, likability, the talent
- By the mid-20th century, the historian Warren Susman argued, a great shift was taking place. American values had traditionally emphasized a collection of qualities we might shorthand as “character”: honesty, diligence, an abiding sense of duty.
This is very apparent when you compare Rod Steiger's portrayal of an awkward, lonely man in Paddy Chayefsky's 1953 teleplay Marty and Ernest Borgnine's portrayal of the same man in the major motion picture of the same name by the same author two yearslater. Steiger plays a character; Borgnine has a personality.
https://www.metafilter.com/198105/Weve-Lost-the-Plot
But as some commentators said, you still need SOME romantic attachment. I.e., don't think you're ever going to feel romantic, after marriage, toward someone you were never really attracted to. (Assuming you've ALREADY known each other for years and thefeeling still isn't there.)
On Sunday, December 16, 2001 at 3:09:20 PM UTC-8, Opencity wrote:rise of mass media changed those terms, Susman wrote. In the media-savvy and consumption-oriented society that Americans were building, people came to valueand therefore demandwhat Susman called personality: charm, likability, the talent to entertain.
"Marty" is a lovely film, although the original 1953 TV drama with Rod Steiger
packed a greater emotional punch. It is a pity that Steiger did not repeat the
performance for the film.
According to this:
- By the mid-20th century, the historian Warren Susman argued, a great shift was taking place. American values had traditionally emphasized a collection of qualities we might shorthand as character: honesty, diligence, an abiding sense of duty. The
This is very apparent when you compare Rod Steiger's portrayal of an awkward, lonely man in Paddy Chayefsky's 1953 teleplay Marty and Ernest Borgnine's portrayal of the same man in the major motion picture of the same name by the same author two yearslater. Steiger plays a character; Borgnine has a personality.
https://www.metafilter.com/198105/Weve-Lost-the-Plot
the feeling still isn't there.)But as some commentators said, you still need SOME romantic attachment. I.e., don't think you're ever going to feel romantic, after marriage, toward someone you were never really attracted to. (Assuming you've ALREADY known each other for years and
To put it another way, you can't live on salt, but most people can't bear the thought of food without it, as a rule.
(This was well portrayed in a famous British variant of "Cinderella" called "Cap O' Rushes.")
https://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/eft/eft12.htm
So, aside from economic reasons to marry (assuming one is honest about those reasons), it's usually a bad idea to marry someone you don't love.
On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 4:07:28 PM UTC-8, Lenona wrote:the feeling still isn't there.)
But as some commentators said, you still need SOME romantic attachment. I.e., don't think you're ever going to feel romantic, after marriage, toward someone you were never really attracted to. (Assuming you've ALREADY known each other for years and
To put it another way, you can't live on salt, but most people can't bear the thought of food without it, as a rule.
(This was well portrayed in a famous British variant of "Cinderella" called "Cap O' Rushes.")
https://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/eft/eft12.htm
So, aside from economic reasons to marry (assuming one is honest about those reasons), it's usually a bad idea to marry someone you don't love.I wonder what matchmakers would say about that? Arranged marriages still exist in these times in parts of the world.
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 1:27:06 AM UTC-5, gggg gggg wrote:and the feeling still isn't there.)
On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 4:07:28 PM UTC-8, Lenona wrote:
But as some commentators said, you still need SOME romantic attachment. I.e., don't think you're ever going to feel romantic, after marriage, toward someone you were never really attracted to. (Assuming you've ALREADY known each other for years
whatsoever regarding the physical pain that many virgins experience on their wedding nights - in fact, he was practically angry at her for having problems at all! Not exactly what you would expect from a gentlemanly Mormon man. Imagine what it would beTo put it another way, you can't live on salt, but most people can't bear the thought of food without it, as a rule.
(This was well portrayed in a famous British variant of "Cinderella" called "Cap O' Rushes.")
https://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/eft/eft12.htm
See what I already said.So, aside from economic reasons to marry (assuming one is honest about those reasons), it's usually a bad idea to marry someone you don't love.I wonder what matchmakers would say about that? Arranged marriages still exist in these times in parts of the world.
Arranged marriages pretty much ARE all about economics. Nothing dishonest about that.
But, in such societies, divorce is typically very much frowned upon.**** Also, IIRC, in many Muslim societies, it's much harder for a woman to get a divorce than a man.
And while there's maybe a 50-50 chance of romantic feeling between two strangers at some point after they marry, there are three reasons the woman, at least, is unlikely to feel that way:
1. She's being denied any spontaneous relationships, like Juliet. (And Romeo was being denied sex, so the result was inevitable when they met. But, at the same time, the play's end was symbolic of the ephemeral nature of romantic love.)
2. Parents being parents, there's little chance they would care about a son-in-law's boring personality - or a 10-year age difference or ugly appearance - when they choose him for their daughter.
3. There's a good chance, in such countries, that she can't legally deny her stranger-husband sex, either on her wedding night or any time afterward. How utterly horrible that would be, for most women!
(Regarding that last one, I remember an autobiography - circa 2000 - by a Mormon woman who, when she married - I don't remember how well she knew her fiance - had a pretty awful consummation with him. The main reason? He had no patience or sensitivity
****Regarding divorce: In the U.S., adultery is frowned upon, but divorce is mostly OK. But in the U.K., it's the other way around - or it used to be. The idea was that you could hide adultery, but you could't hide divorce.
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 5:52:53 AM UTC-8, Lenona wrote:and the feeling still isn't there.)
On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 1:27:06 AM UTC-5, gggg gggg wrote:
On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 4:07:28 PM UTC-8, Lenona wrote:
But as some commentators said, you still need SOME romantic attachment. I.e., don't think you're ever going to feel romantic, after marriage, toward someone you were never really attracted to. (Assuming you've ALREADY known each other for years
sensitivity whatsoever regarding the physical pain that many virgins experience on their wedding nights - in fact, he was practically angry at her for having problems at all! Not exactly what you would expect from a gentlemanly Mormon man. Imagine whatTo put it another way, you can't live on salt, but most people can't bear the thought of food without it, as a rule.
(This was well portrayed in a famous British variant of "Cinderella" called "Cap O' Rushes.")
https://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/eft/eft12.htm
See what I already said.So, aside from economic reasons to marry (assuming one is honest about those reasons), it's usually a bad idea to marry someone you don't love.I wonder what matchmakers would say about that? Arranged marriages still exist in these times in parts of the world.
Arranged marriages pretty much ARE all about economics. Nothing dishonest about that.
But, in such societies, divorce is typically very much frowned upon.**** Also, IIRC, in many Muslim societies, it's much harder for a woman to get a divorce than a man.
And while there's maybe a 50-50 chance of romantic feeling between two strangers at some point after they marry, there are three reasons the woman, at least, is unlikely to feel that way:
1. She's being denied any spontaneous relationships, like Juliet. (And Romeo was being denied sex, so the result was inevitable when they met. But, at the same time, the play's end was symbolic of the ephemeral nature of romantic love.)
2. Parents being parents, there's little chance they would care about a son-in-law's boring personality - or a 10-year age difference or ugly appearance - when they choose him for their daughter.
3. There's a good chance, in such countries, that she can't legally deny her stranger-husband sex, either on her wedding night or any time afterward. How utterly horrible that would be, for most women!
(Regarding that last one, I remember an autobiography - circa 2000 - by a Mormon woman who, when she married - I don't remember how well she knew her fiance - had a pretty awful consummation with him. The main reason? He had no patience or
****Regarding divorce: In the U.S., adultery is frowned upon, but divorce is mostly OK. But in the U.K., it's the other way around - or it used to be. The idea was that you could hide adultery, but you could't hide divorce.Isn't this an arranged marriage?:
- “My dad introduced me to a man one morning and I was told I would marry him that night. He was 28. I was 15,” Sara Tasneem, a victim of child marriage, told a legislative committee.
https://mynorthwest.com/3798565/new-bill-aims-to-end-child-marriages-in-washington-state/
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 489 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 26:31:00 |
| Calls: | 9,665 |
| Files: | 13,716 |
| Messages: | 6,168,454 |