T minus 15 mins to AMoLaD screening at the Sea Metro

[MonicaMC]

I feel so intellectual. :-D

[Steve Crook]

I feel so intellectual. :-D

Enjoy

Steve

[MonicaMC]

Perhaps this is heretical, but after it was all over, I thought, "I'd rather have seen IKWIG." I think perhaps, having a soft spot for Livesey, I don't like it when he doesn't get the girl - no offense to Niv.

Or, maybe it's like BE -- you have to see the film several times before you get and appreciate the nuances.

[Steve Crook]

I've seen both films many times. I appreciate both of them for their own qualities

Did Roger ever get the girl in any other film apart from IKWIG?
He wasn't the romantic lead in AMOLAD so he wasn't really in the running, although June obviously likes and admires him hugely.

Steve

[Wolfgang]

I think IKWIG has edge over AMOLAD, not to say AMOLAD is bad or anything, but IKWIG has that little bit more charm.

[RogerThornhill]

I like them both but I think that AMOLAD has much more quality, it's has far more originality whereas IKWIG is a fairly routine movie.

[Steve Crook]

I like them both but I think that AMOLAD has much more quality, it's has far more originality whereas IKWIG is a fairly routine movie.

IKWIG may be fairly routine but it's a superb example of a routine film. It is a fairly simple story, but there are also touches of magic in it and that's what makes people travel thousands of miles to visit Mull just to visit the places where this film was made.

But AMOLAD is still my favourite

Steve

[Wolfgang]

Isn't IKWIG taught at UCLA for its "perfect script"? I am pretty sure I read that somewhere.

[Steve Crook]

Isn't IKWIG taught at UCLA for its "perfect script"? I am pretty sure I read that somewhere.

In 1947 Emeric Pressburger met the head of the script department at Paramount who told Emeric that they used 'I Know Where I'm Going!' (1945) as an example of the perfect screenplay which was shown to any writers stuck for inspiration or who needed a lesson in screen writing.

Steve

[MonicaMC]

I forgot to ask last night: who did the voice over at the top of AMOLAD?

I think that I might prefer IKWIG over AMOLAD because I have basic philosophical differences with AMOLAD, especially as to the nature of love. I believe that love exists in eternity, outside of time and space. (This is one of the reasons I think marriage is so difficult - you're asked to perpetuate something in time that exists in eternity - but that is a discussion for another day, when I haven't been going 16 hours more or less straight.). Anyway, I kind of shook my head at Frank's assertion that the law rules in heaven but love rules on earth. Also, I found the Massey/Livesey U.S./Brit debate didn't resonate with me, and the second jury seemed a bit heavy-handed at making a point re: what constitutes an American. But times do change.

IKWIG, OTOH - it's a romantic fable. I love fables and myths -- they wear much better with time, I think.

[moonfleet]

I think that I might prefer IKWIG over AMOLAD because I have basic philosophical differences with AMOLAD, especially as to the nature of love.... Also, I found the Massey/Livesey U.S./Brit debate didn't resonate with me, and the second jury seemed a bit heavy-handed at making a point re: what constitutes an American.

IKWIG, OTOH - it's a romantic fable. I love fables and myths -- they wear much better with time, I think.

Hi Monica

You pointed it for me too, that's some reasons why I Know Where I'm Going ! is my favourite ...

[Steve Crook]

I forgot to ask last night: who did the voice over at the top of AMOLAD?

John Longden
He had done a few other minor roles in P&P films, before and after AMOLAD

I think that I might prefer IKWIG over AMOLAD because I have basic philosophical differences with AMOLAD, especially as to the nature of love. I believe that love exists in eternity, outside of time and space. (This is one of the reasons I think marriage is so difficult - you're asked to perpetuate something in time that exists in eternity - but that is a discussion for another day, when I haven't been going 16 hours more or less straight.). Anyway, I kind of shook my head at Frank's assertion that the law rules in heaven but love rules on earth. Also, I found the Massey/Livesey U.S./Brit debate didn't resonate with me, and the second jury seemed a bit heavy-handed at making a point re: what constitutes an American. But times do change.

You should bear in mind when it was made - 1945, at the end of the war, and why it was made.

(from the introduction I'll give to it this evening in Croydon)
The subject of this film was suggested by the British government, but they were NOT paid or supported by the government.
Apart from 49th Parallel, which was partially paid for by the government, Powell & Pressburger remained fiercely independent.

Towards the end of the war there was quite a lot of ill-will between the British and the Americans. The Americans were famously "Over paid, over sexed and over here". They had been brought to Britain in their millions to prepare for D-Day. In their spare time they were out dating the local girls - your mothers and grandmothers - enticing them with things like stockings and chocolate which hadn't been seen for many years in heavily rationed wartime Britain. This annoyed the British men who were still around, and the many more British men who were serving, or were prisoners, overseas.

The ill-will went the other way as well. America had stayed out of the war for the first few years, not wanting to get involved in what they saw as another European conflict. Even after Pearl Harbour there were still plenty of people in America who objected to sending their troops to Europe.

The suggestion from the Ministry of Information was that Powell & Pressburger make a film that would do something about this situation and point out that we should all be friends, despite our differences. They did this in their own unique and quirky way

Powell & Pressburger wanted to make this film in 1944, for release in 1945. But they had decided early on to use Technicolor and all the Technicolor cameras in the world (there weren't many of them) were in use, mainly making training films for all of those American troops that were over here.

So while they waited they made another feature film, I Know Where I'm Going!

Steve

[moonfleet]

Hi Monica

You pointed it for me too, that's some reasons why I Know Where I'm Going ! is my favourite ...

+ un atout majeur:

[MonicaMC]

Ah, yes -- someone asked me what I thought of AMOLAD. I said with a sigh, "Not enough Roger Livesey."

That pic you've posted reminds me of the commentary on the Criterion version. Ian Christie seemed to think that Torquil here was referring to Catriona as a queer girl and difficult to tame. I thought he meant Joan.

(Incidentally, Ian Christie's commentary IMO was far and away better than that fellow they got for BE. Leave it to an historian to wax pedantic and drone on about Noel Coward during the best part of the film!! As far as I'm concerned, any "expert" who can get through that film without breathing Rachmaninov and leitmotiv in the same sentence should be -- I think your term is "sacked"? Or maybe he did say it, but he just did not impress me -- an immortal film such as BE deserves more than a freeze-dried analysis.)

[Steve Crook]

Ah, yes -- someone asked me what I thought of AMOLAD. I said with a sigh, "Not enough Roger Livesey."

He's always an asset

That pic you've posted reminds me of the commentary on the Criterion version. Ian Christie seemed to think that Torquil here was referring to Catriona as a queer girl and difficult to tame. I thought he meant Joan.

(Incidentally, Ian Christie's commentary IMO was far and away better than that fellow they got for BE. Leave it to an historian to wax pedantic and drone on about Noel Coward during the best part of the film!! As far as I'm concerned, any "expert" who can get through that film without breathing Rachmaninov and leitmotiv in the same sentence should be -- I think your term is "sacked"? Or maybe he did say it, but he just did not impress me -- an immortal film such as BE deserves more than a freeze-dried analysis.)

Ian Christie's commentaries are a masterclass in the art of the commentary. He's a great lecturer and a very nice bloke. But he plans out his commentaries properly, scripting them & timing them. His commentaries for the P&P films on Criterion are superb. Some other companies, like Sony, haven't given him as much time (or money) to do a proper job, but his commentaries are still some of the best available

Steve