Betty Field


man i may be young in 2006 but sometimes i wish i was young in 1941 because Betty Field is so so beautiful and i wonder what she would have been like to know well and to talk to and to discuss the world with

why is life so mind numbing

the way time moves and passes and cruises and saunters and ignores and slithers and compensates and reacts and promises and lies and creates and breaks and takes and gives and whispers and yells and how certain things but certain things and no things but everything.

Anyway, Betty Field , makes me crazy when u watch this movie..... but at this point I've only seen her behave incredibly and with great intention for emotion.... incredible.

reply

i agree.she was beautiful and sexy in this,in a very ahead-of-her-time kind of way.

reply

I have felt that way many of time watching the silver & golden age films. It is most certainly a weird feeling. Having lust and more in one's heart for someone long gone. But then, I'm weird.

"What does it do?" Do? "It doesn't DO anything. That's the beauty of it." Jacques Heim/Louis Reard

reply

I don't think it's really weird. So many of those actresses from Hollywood's early era are simply stunning and gorgeous. It's easy to feel an attraction toward them.

reply

Betty Field was a great great chameleon-like actress who preferred the stage to movies.

For a different Betty Field, check out "Blues In The Night" where she plays a sexy b*llb****r from hell.

Also, she was a still-attractive middle aged mother in "Picnic".







Absurdity: A Statement or belief inconsistent with my opinion.

reply

NO, YOU AREN'T WEIRD... IT IS REAL WHEN A WOMAN SHOWS TRUE STRENGTH AND INTRIGUE INSTEAD OF SINGING "I AM WOMAN" AND DEMANDING YOU RESPECT HER STRENGTH AND INTRIGUING QUALITIES.

WOMAN IN AMERICA HAVE GIVEN UP ALL THERE POWER.

reply

and apparently their ability to spell their.

reply

mental nomad:

You're weird, all right. But then so are tens of thousands of the rest of us. Every new generation falls in love all over again with Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, Claudette Colbert, Priscilla Lane, Hedy Lamarr, Ruby Keeler, and a chorus line of others.

Betty Field? She was cute and winning in this movie. I wouldn't mind having her for a daughter is she didn't live too close to me. I guess I'm old as well as wierd.

He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45

reply

Heh! I can relate to the being old too.

But it is weird. I remember thinking Teresa Wright was adorable in The Best Years Of Our Lives. Then felt guilty because she was so young. Then a couple of days later I saw her in The Rainmaker. She was nearly 80 in that I think. A handsome old woman to be sure but so old. In just a couple of days. But therein lies the beauty of the timelessness of film I reckon.

Kinda off topic but we did not even own a color television until the mid 70's. My dad had something against them. Even when he had a color television he was prone to adjusting it so it was B&W. Thing is, I can actually understand it. People act as if a B&W is "old." But to me it is color films that are dated. Show me a color film and I can tell you the decade it was made. Often the year. Whereas, to me, B&W films add a timeless quality that color lacks. Shrug. Maybe it was growing up watching everything in B&W if it was on television.

And lol@ didn't live too close....





Don't trust reality. After all, it's only a collective hunch.

reply

Fellow night owl, Mental Nomad:

Teresa Wright is assuredly on the list of those each new generation who sees her falls in love with. They just don't make dames like they used to.

Couldn't agree more on the "timelessness" of b & w movies. I didn't choose my IMDb nom de plume for nothing. When someone posts in msg board or review that one of the beautiful old nitrate black and white movies they've seen would have been better in color, it gives me a rigor (see my review of Ziegfeld Girl). My family didn't have a TV period until late 1954. I saw lots of movies in the late 1940's and early 1950's and very few were in color. I have a wide-screen, digital TV and a DVD player but not hooked to any network. Buy lots of DVD's. Most of the movies I watch were made before 1960, most standard screen (1.37:1) b & w. I like color, too, especially the Technicolor movies of the golden era (late '30's to early '50's) such as The Shepherd of the Hills.

I've just been reading up on Technicolor and have discovered why those seem to look better than the ones from the late '50's onward. Because there were no true "three-strip" Technicolor movies after 1955. After that, they were all basically the Eastman Color process, even the ones called Technicolor, except for the gorgeous Vista Vision movies (see my review of Three Violent People) and Todd-AO pictures. I've noticed on some posts and reviews that some at least of the younger generation thinks Eastman Color is truer to life and looks better. But I have also heard that most of the younger generation astonishingly think margarine tastes better than butter! Is this what they mean by no taste literally and figuratively?

He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45

reply

One of my favorite earlier color films is Michael Curtiz's The Adventures of Robin Hood. If I recall correctly the studios at the time thought color was a waste except to show the actresses' dresses. Which made sense with Robin Hood as Olivia de Havilland's dresses were stunning to the eyes. But it also made her horse (which was later to become Roy Rodger's Trigger)look amazingly handsome. As well as making the Lincoln Green pop.'

Many directors then and now would love to work in B&W. I honestly believe many would prefer it. You can do so much with it that you cannot do with color. I think color was, and is, like CGI is now. At first it was cool. So cool it become the norm. If a show doesn't have it, the general public feels it is somehow less. But studios see what puts folks in seats.

You know more of Vista and Technicolor than I do. But you are right that Eastman changed the look. And Technicolor did change. And Three Violent People...is it any wonder it looked good? The director was a cinematographer of the first order.

And it is likely that many younger folks never have actually tasted butter. But to be fair, since so few people actually use butter anymore it is hard to find good butter. But I get the feeling I may be a young whippersnapper compared to you if you were in theaters in the 40s. First things I recall watching was in 68 or 69. But as to age, I will plagiarize my favorite author Terry Prathett, If you use cynicism and world-weariness as a form of carbon dating of the soul, then I am roughly 700 years old. But if you are merely using the Gregorian Calendar, then I'm 47 years old. Grin.






Don't trust reality. After all, it's only a collective hunch.

reply

mental nomad:

I don't remember The Adventures of Robin Hood very well, but Curtiz's The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex is a spectacular Technicolor movie. And a great one otherwise. Wonder how Trigger felt about the demotion from co-starring with a fine actress like Olivia de Havilland to...whinnie! snort!!! Roy Rogers!?

You are right about black & white. They composed the screen better and made much better use of lighting. When they tried those same artistic effects of lighting in color movies, it often came off as pretentous or hokey.

I'll bet you are not as cynical as you like to portray yourself. Otherwise you wouldn't be watching movies like Shepherd of the Hills. Sometimes a cynic is just a disillusioned romantic. Anyone who isn't disillusioned by 47 is either unusually resillient or just plain dumb. In most ways I was at my best in my forties. For some reason no one believes I'm 39 anymore.....

He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45

reply

Curtiz was adept in B&W too. In fact it is what I prefer of his work. Naturally. Casablanca is a great example. And they did it almost off the cuff. A lot can be said against the studio system but it turned out some great work.

But if you have not seen the Adventures of Robin Hood in a while give it a look. I loved a lot in it. Spoiler alert Where Robin Hood, already having faced down Sir Guy, comes to the Prince's party with a King's deer over his shoulder, kicks open the doors, uses the deer to knock aside pesky guards and throws the deer on the table in front of the prince with a smile on his face. The sword fights, especially the finale between Basil Rathbone and Errol Flynn (some nice shadow play there, even in color) the humor.

I am pretty cynical. But sentimental to the point I will weep at any sad ending. Embarrassing but true. So I guess it evens out.





Don't trust reality. After all, it's only a collective hunch.

reply

Mental Nomad:

"....will weep at any sad ending..."

The only way to enjoy a movie is to become completely absorbed in it. Then such things happpen. Movies that don't engage us and absorb us completely are not very good ones.

He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45

reply

What you say is essentially true but with some inaccuracies. The reason for the superiority of Technicolor has to do with the lab processing. It is a dye transfer process. Technicolor changed its formula a couple of times between 1939 and the fifties, mostly to tone down the over-saturation and eliminate bleeding, especially in the red strip. The pictures before the war have one look (Robin Hood etc.). Getting flesh tones correct was the biggest challenge. When its done wrong all skin tones look orange instead of cream-colored. In the forties the color was more stable and some of the absolute best looking results happened then (especially Fox, Paramount and Universal). See pictures like Captain from Castile, For Whom The Bell Tolls, Leave Her To Heaven or Phantom of the Opera. In the fifties the process changed a lot. The color is handsome but no longer as vibrant and breathtaking. You are wrong to say there was no true Technicolor after 1955. The Technicolor lab didn't close until the seventies. Directors who cared, and had clout demanded Technicolor processing. Thus Hitchcock's late UNIVERSAL pictures were all Technicolor till the lab closed in 1974. Vertigo, North By Northwest, To Catch A Thief and Rear Window are all true Technicolor. After 1974 Hitchcock filmed in England where the British Technicolor lab stayed open a bit longer. British lab produced a different color palette, more pastel but very rich and beautiful. Frenzy, Family Plot were done this way. Other examples of true Technicolor in this period include the first two Godfather films and Jaws. When processed properly these negatives can still produce beautiful results. Technicolor was so much better than Eastman that many Eastman films were processed in the Technicolor lab to produce better results. You'll see copies that say Print by Technicolor. When companies like Fox transferred their IB negatives to Eastman safety stock, which was less flammable, many great Technicolor films were lost forever. In the seventies, there were many 16mm Technicolor prints that survived in the hands of collectors and museums. Today, few people can tell what Technicolor should look like. It's all in timing the scene when you print it and scenes have to be done individually. There used to be instructions for timing that the labs understood. Night scenes, action scenes , indoor or outdoor lighting, all had to be done differently, depending on how they were originally lit. Today everything is processed by computer and these important distinctions are lost. Only if they get source material that was originally timed correctly do you get the right result. Then suddenly it will look spectacular. Only a handful of movies survive in this form.

reply

rollieri:

I confess you are up on Technicolor better than I. However, most of those Hitchcock movies you mentioned were VistaVision, which I stated continued to be In Technicolor and had to be processed in the Technicolor Lab. Likewise Todd-AO and other 70mm and 65mm processes. No big deal.

The Technicolor movies in the 'forties certainly seem better than any others. Recently watched dvd of Unconquered, and the color cimematography was a knockout!

He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45

reply

It matters that you mentioned Priscilla Lane.

reply

Yeah, Betty is on par with the most gorgeous in this film. *Those Eyes!*

Lee Remick, Elizabeth Taylor when she was young...

The power of the beauty of a woman whom YOU find beautiful, it comes in your eyes and goes right to your Heart and Soul.

I'm getting older, and it still happens to me...

...not a bit ashamed to admit it!


*************

reply

I felt the same way whilst watching the film, she did stand out. A reason being that she reminded me slightly of Jean Arthur in terms of her hair style.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

reply

[deleted]

What a wonderful thread, so appropriate for those of us who have a special fondness for the Golden Era of film, and the young starlets who made those films so engrossing. They were just as beautiful, talented and sexy as today's film stars imo. However, that era relied so much more on the eyes and facial expressions, along with the demure mannerisms and just raw personalities of the characters that come across on film. I'm not saying Angelina Jolie, Amy Adams or Scarlett Johansson aren't immensely talented, as well as, beautiful. It's just that today they can "expose" more of their sexuality and in different ways than the actresses from the '30s/'40s.

Just my two cents.


__________________________________________
When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.

reply

Ashly Judd looks like her

reply

[deleted]

Field is radiant in this film.

As fine as the film is overall; as much as the story centers on Carey's character (and superb performance); as strong as the chemistry is between Carey and Wayne -- this film belongs to Field. Her performance -- and, yes, her looks -- are just beautiful. It's like she just infuses her character with this remarkable... I dunno, life-force. Like I said, she's radiant.

What a tremendous actress. Other Field films that can't be missed are Of Mice and Men, King's Row, Tomorrow the World! and, best of all, Jean Renoir's American masterpiece, The Southerner. She's incredible in all of them. Fully inhabiting each character in such different ways, even looking pretty darn different in each film!

Her later, character/supporting actress career was pretty keen, too -- see Peyton Place, Bus Stop, Picnic... even the forgotten little gem, Don Siegel's Hound-Dog Man.

There are a few key films from both eras I still haven't seen but am dying to do so: Blues in the Night, The Birdman of Alcatraz, a few others... 7 Women isn't supposed to be very good, but, as Ford's last completed movie, I've got to see it -- and just look at that great cast!

I'm so glad I finally got to see The Shepherd of the Hills.

Matthew

reply

I just watched the film for the first time and completely agree. She was both very beautiful and sexy. I was very surprised thought, for 1940, that when she's unloading the back of the truck, she continually is shown bending over in tight jeans. I know she's getting the idea across that Young Matt is becoming attracted to her, but I was still surprised that the censors didn't jump all over that.

reply