list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around All About Eve on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/All_About_Eve/884/default.aspx Title: All About Eve
Year: 1950
Director: Joseph L. Mankiewicz
Plot: Based on the story The Wisdom of Eve by Mary Orr, All About Eve is an elegantly bitchy backstage story revolving around aspiring actress Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter). Tattered and forlorn, Eve shows up in the dressing room of Broadway mega-star Margo Channing (Bette Davis), weaving a melancholy life story to Margo and her friends. Taking pity on the girl, Margo takes Eve as her personal assistant. Before long, it becomes apparent that naïve Eve is a Machiavellian conniver who cold-bloodedly uses Margo, her director Bill Sampson (Gary Merill), Lloyd's wife Karen (Celeste Holm), and waspish critic Addison De Witt (George Sanders) to rise to the top of the theatrical heap. Also appearing in All About Eve is Marilyn Monroe, introduced by Addison De Witt as "a graduate of the Copacabana school of dramatic art." This is but one of the hundreds of unforgettable lines penned by writer/director Joseph L. Mankiewicz, the most famous of which is Margo Channing's lip-sneering admonition, "Fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy night." All About Eve received 6 Academy Awards, including Best Picture. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 56
Number of Lists: 45
Number of blog posts: 5
Number of discussion threads: 2
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:43:56 GMTAll About Eve1950Joseph L. MankiewiczBased on the story The Wisdom of Eve by Mary Orr, All About Eve is an elegantly bitchy backstage story revolving around aspiring actress Eve Harrington (<a href="/players/P_____4663/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Anne Baxter</a>). Tattered and forlorn, Eve shows up in the dressing room of Broadway mega-star Margo Channing (<a href="/players/P____17295/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Bette Davis</a>), weaving a melancholy life story to Margo and her friends. Taking pity on the girl, Margo takes Eve as her personal assistant. Before long, it becomes apparent that naïve Eve is a Machiavellian conniver who cold-bloodedly uses Margo, her director Bill Sampson (Gary Merill), Lloyd's wife Karen (<a href="/players/P____32955/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Celeste Holm</a>), and waspish critic Addison De Witt (<a href="/players/P____62948/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>George Sanders</a>) to rise to the top of the theatrical heap. Also appearing in All About Eve is <a href="/players/P____50065/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Marilyn Monroe</a>, introduced by Addison De Witt as "a graduate of the Copacabana school of dramatic art." This is but one of the hundreds of unforgettable lines penned by writer/director Joseph L. Mankiewicz, the most famous of which is Margo Channing's lip-sneering admonition, "Fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy night." All About Eve received 6 Academy Awards, including Best Picture. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide56Tag Target (>10)45524http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t26650b50sw.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/All_About_Eve/884/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2009/11/16/44379.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 11/16/2009 2:15:17 PM
Body: This is the second feature length film I've seen by director Joseph L. Mankiewicz. I chose to watch this film based on previous good ratings I've given other films by this director and to better my favorite directors by algorithm listing. All About Eve I don't have too much to say about such a famous movie mostly because I feel like it must have all been said before, and I would tend to agree with the general sentiments surrounding it. If you rent the DVD for this movie, you will get more special features than you can almost handle. I watched them all because I'm compulsive. I enjoyed them, but now I've heard so much about this movie, that I can't stand to take too much time to write much more about it. I usually tend to shy away from movies about backstage theatre drama, especially involving selfish divas. People tend to write about what they know, so there are a highly disproportionate amount of backstage subject matters in movies and plays. But when the writing, acting, and everything else are the best, I guess it doesn't matter what the subject is, as long as it's the best for what it is. Mankiewicz loved the theatre yet was one of it's most its most harsh and savvy critics. Joseph L. Mankiewicz:Total feature length films seen: 2Previous average film score: 10New average film score: 9.5 Rating: 9/10
]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:15:17 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog11/16/2009 2:15:17 PMThis is the second feature length film I've seen by director Joseph L. Mankiewicz. I chose to watch this film based on previous good ratings I've given other films by this director and to better my favorite directors by algorithm listing. All About Eve I don't have too much to say about such a famous movie mostly because I feel like it must have all been said before, and I would tend to agree with the general sentiments surrounding it. If you rent the DVD for this movie, you will get more special features than you can almost handle. I watched them all because I'm compulsive. I enjoyed them, but now I've heard so much about this movie, that I can't stand to take too much time to write much more about it. I usually tend to shy away from movies about backstage theatre drama, especially involving selfish divas. People tend to write about what they know, so there are a highly disproportionate amount of backstage subject matters in movies and plays. But when the writing, acting, and everything else are the best, I guess it doesn't matter what the subject is, as long as it's the best for what it is. Mankiewicz loved the theatre yet was one of it's most its most harsh and savvy critics. Joseph L. Mankiewicz:Total feature length films seen: 2Previous average film score: 10New average film score: 9.5 Rating: 9/10 http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/9/19/35323.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 9/19/2008 5:01:43 PM
Body: Sometimes I really wish David Bordwell’s blog permitted comments. Mostly it’s better that it doesn’t, but the man’s last post has made me want to discuss the art of movie titles for a whole week now. And it didn’t help that coinciding in time with Bordwell’s post was another one of those sidebars in Entertainment Weekly pointing out some new movies with misleading titles. Yes, Lakeview Terrace does sound like a period romance, as do many other badly titled films (Elizabethtown and Wicker Park come to mind). This weekend also sees two new movies employing the method of borrowing song titles, which are typically not appropriate (Ghost Town seems more like a horror western hybrid, while My Best Friend’s Girl actually fits its plot). Well, fortunately for me (and hopefully you), I can bring the discussion over to SpoutBlog, though not quite as in depth as Bordwell. I’ll be more than happy to have a conversation in the comments section regarding the more general topic of movie titling, but for now I’ll kick things off with a list of what I find to be the most interesting movie titles of the past decade. It’s been a time when studios and filmmakers have been very loose with ill-fitting and overlong titles, as well as some that are too plainly literal (Snakes on a Plane), but the following selections have the benefit of featuring clever, well-chosen and more meaningful monikers. All About My Mother (Todo sobre mi madre) (1999) This Pedro Almodóvar film has a very telling title, one that goes along with Bordwell’s acknowledgment of titles that speak for the character. Yet the character spoken for here is Esteban, the kid who dies in the beginning. Or does he? The title actually refers to a story Esteban has written for school and is inspired by the film All About Eve, which he has just watched. Esteban doesn’t so much die in the film as he does in his own story, which is depicted within the film. Also, the word “Mother” in the title doesn’t so much refer to his actual mother, Manuela, as it does his (made-up) transvestite “father”, Lola, who we learn all about. Amores Perros (2000) Although improperly translated as “Love’s a Bitch,” that phrase does at least apply on some level to Alejandro González Iñárritu’s film. As does the more acceptable translation of “Love is Dogs,” which references the film’s canine companions, each of which parallels its owner. But there is also another translation that’s more like “Goodness Wretchedness,” referring to a phrase on the film’s website that basically translates as “If your story turned out well, put it down to ‘amores.’ If bad, put it to ‘perros.’” The fact that you can interpret the meaning of the title multiple ways, and therefore you can interpret its meaning to the film multiple ways, is the reason that it was so important to release the film in the U.S. with its original Mexican title. The Perfect Storm (2000) Although the title comes from Sebastian Junger’s book, the name took on a whole new meaning for the film, which is, in my opinion, completely about the attempt to perfectly create a storm on a computer. Sure, there’s a plot within the film, too, but nothing more attended to than the perfectly rendered storm. In fact, the film’s storm may have been too perfect-looking, as the film lost the Visual Effects Oscar to Gladiator. While the title was clearly not intended for such purpose, and I had planned to ignore titles that inadvertently become more ironically meaningful upon release (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed; Disaster Movie), I think the filmmakers at least meant to produce a spectacular storm more than a good story, so I believe it more qualifiable for the list at hand. Shanghai Noon (2000) This title doesn’t necessarily add anything to the meaning of the film nor does it really have multiple layers of meaning by itself. But it features the most cleverly punned title of the last ten years, in my opinion. The sequel’s title, Shanghai Knights, isn’t too bad, either. But just as the movie isn’t nearly as good as the original, neither is the title. Adaptation (2002) This title may actually be my favorite of all time due to its consisting of only a single word, which can be lent to the film in a multitude of ways. The title refers to the adaptation of a book to a film, the adaptation of a plant to its environment, the adaptation of a screenwriter character to his assignment, the adaptation of the same character to the events of his environment and, finally, the adaptation of the film itself to fit the mold of a certain kind of film that fares well in the present environment of the movie biz (ironically it’s this adaptation in the end from a smart film to a silly action movie that fails in execution, even though the joke more fittingly works perfectly on paper). Bad Company (2002) Even awful movies can have titles with multiple meanings, and this lame Joel Schumacher effort is a good example of such. Because “Company” means the CIA in addition to companionship, the title may refer to any of the following: an incapable member of the CIA (Chris Rock’s character); an incapable CIA in general (this was a time when the organization was called into question); a defective spy or untrustworthy spy; or simply the bad buddy team-up of Anthony Hopkins and Chris Rock (diegetically and extradiegetically). The same title had been used previously for a bad 1995 movie dealing with the CIA, so its multilayered usage here was not that inspired, but it is nevertheless a good title, in my opinion, and perhaps it will one day be put to better use. National Treasure (2004) The same goes for this movie, which should have and could have been a lot better. The title, which is a well-played mix of figurative and literal meaning and seems more thoughtful than most blockbuster Hollywood titles, would have you believe there was once some smarter writing to be found within the film itself. Shaun of the Dead (2004) For a short while, I thought the title of this comedy didn’t really appropriately fit the film’s story. Shaun isn’t of the dead, I reasoned, because he never “dies.” I accepted the title, though, because it was a nice play on the title Dawn of the Dead. Eventually I decided that it does indeed fit, because the general theme of the movie is that Shaun has been living his life as if he were a zombie. Before the real zombies show up, the “dead” of the title refers to all the people living in this spiritless way, Shaun included. Yet while the rest of these “dead” become undead creatures, Shaun proves that he is capable of living more fully and is able to survive the (allegorical) outbreak. 2046 (2004) Wong Kar-Wai loves to play with the idea of Hong Kong’s transition from British territory to Chinese (which occurred in 1997), and the title partly refers to the final year in which Hong Kong is allowed self-regulation before becoming fully integrated into mainland China in 2047. In the film, the numerical title literally references both a hotel room and the future year, which is employed in a science fiction story being written by the main character. Some people also like to interpret the title as reading “two-oh-four-six” meaning “to owe for sex.” Though there are prostitute characters in the film, this meaning is less likely the intention of Wong. But the additional interpretation makes for a richer title anyway. There Will Be Blood (2007) Why not retain the title of Upton Sinclair’s source novel, “Oil!”? Well, besides all the changes made to the story, it could be because Paul Thomas Anderson’s new title has more possible meanings. The word “Blood” in the title may refer to the actual oil, or the blood shed for the oil (as in drilling accidents then and wars now), or family, especially actual blood relatives (of which there aren’t actually many in the film). Mostly, though, the title allows for and acknowledges a connection between the film’s setting and the current events it appears to be commenting on. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:01:43 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com9/19/2008 5:01:43 PMSometimes I really wish David Bordwell’s blog permitted comments. Mostly it’s better that it doesn’t, but the man’s last post has made me want to discuss the art of movie titles for a whole week now. And it didn’t help that coinciding in time with Bordwell’s post was another one of those sidebars in Entertainment Weekly pointing out some new movies with misleading titles. Yes, Lakeview Terrace does sound like a period romance, as do many other badly titled films (Elizabethtown and Wicker Park come to mind). This weekend also sees two new movies employing the method of borrowing song titles, which are typically not appropriate (Ghost Town seems more like a horror western hybrid, while My Best Friend’s Girl actually fits its plot). Well, fortunately for me (and hopefully you), I can bring the discussion over to SpoutBlog, though not quite as in depth as Bordwell. I’ll be more than happy to have a conversation in the comments section regarding the more general topic of movie titling, but for now I’ll kick things off with a list of what I find to be the most interesting movie titles of the past decade. It’s been a time when studios and filmmakers have been very loose with ill-fitting and overlong titles, as well as some that are too plainly literal (Snakes on a Plane), but the following selections have the benefit of featuring clever, well-chosen and more meaningful monikers. All About My Mother (Todo sobre mi madre) (1999) This Pedro Almodóvar film has a very telling title, one that goes along with Bordwell’s acknowledgment of titles that speak for the character. Yet the character spoken for here is Esteban, the kid who dies in the beginning. Or does he? The title actually refers to a story Esteban has written for school and is inspired by the film All About Eve, which he has just watched. Esteban doesn’t so much die in the film as he does in his own story, which is depicted within the film. Also, the word “Mother” in the title doesn’t so much refer to his actual mother, Manuela, as it does his (made-up) transvestite “father”, Lola, who we learn all about. Amores Perros (2000) Although improperly translated as “Love’s a Bitch,” that phrase does at least apply on some level to Alejandro González Iñárritu’s film. As does the more acceptable translation of “Love is Dogs,” which references the film’s canine companions, each of which parallels its owner. But there is also another translation that’s more like “Goodness Wretchedness,” referring to a phrase on the film’s website that basically translates as “If your story turned out well, put it down to ‘amores.’ If bad, put it to ‘perros.’” The fact that you can interpret the meaning of the title multiple ways, and therefore you can interpret its meaning to the film multiple ways, is the reason that it was so important to release the film in the U.S. with its original Mexican title. The Perfect Storm (2000) Although the title comes from Sebastian Junger’s book, the name took on a whole new meaning for the film, which is, in my opinion, completely about the attempt to perfectly create a storm on a computer. Sure, there’s a plot within the film, too, but nothing more attended to than the perfectly rendered storm. In fact, the film’s storm may have been too perfect-looking, as the film lost the Visual Effects Oscar to Gladiator. While the title was clearly not intended for such purpose, and I had planned to ignore titles that inadvertently become more ironically meaningful upon release (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed; Disaster Movie), I think the filmmakers at least meant to produce a spectacular storm more than a good story, so I believe it more qualifiable for the list at hand. Shanghai Noon (2000) This title doesn’t necessarily add anything to the meaning of the film nor does it really have multiple layers of meaning by itself. But it features the most cleverly punned title of the last ten years, in my opinion. The sequel’s title, Shanghai Knights, isn’t too bad, either. But just as the movie isn’t nearly as good as the original, neither is the title. Adaptation (2002) This title may actually be my favorite of all time due to its consisting of only a single word, which can be lent to the film in a multitude of ways. The title refers to the adaptation of a book to a film, the adaptation of a plant to its environment, the adaptation of a screenwriter character to his assignment, the adaptation of the same character to the events of his environment and, finally, the adaptation of the film itself to fit the mold of a certain kind of film that fares well in the present environment of the movie biz (ironically it’s this adaptation in the end from a smart film to a silly action movie that fails in execution, even though the joke more fittingly works perfectly on paper). Bad Company (2002) Even awful movies can have titles with multiple meanings, and this lame Joel Schumacher effort is a good example of such. Because “Company” means the CIA in addition to companionship, the title may refer to any of the following: an incapable member of the CIA (Chris Rock’s character); an incapable CIA in general (this was a time when the organization was called into question); a defective spy or untrustworthy spy; or simply the bad buddy team-up of Anthony Hopkins and Chris Rock (diegetically and extradiegetically). The same title had been used previously for a bad 1995 movie dealing with the CIA, so its multilayered usage here was not that inspired, but it is nevertheless a good title, in my opinion, and perhaps it will one day be put to better use. National Treasure (2004) The same goes for this movie, which should have and could have been a lot better. The title, which is a well-played mix of figurative and literal meaning and seems more thoughtful than most blockbuster Hollywood titles, would have you believe there was once some smarter writing to be found within the film itself. Shaun of the Dead (2004) For a short while, I thought the title of this comedy didn’t really appropriately fit the film’s story. Shaun isn’t of the dead, I reasoned, because he never “dies.” I accepted the title, though, because it was a nice play on the title Dawn of the Dead. Eventually I decided that it does indeed fit, because the general theme of the movie is that Shaun has been living his life as if he were a zombie. Before the real zombies show up, the “dead” of the title refers to all the people living in this spiritless way, Shaun included. Yet while the rest of these “dead” become undead creatures, Shaun proves that he is capable of living more fully and is able to survive the (allegorical) outbreak. 2046 (2004) Wong Kar-Wai loves to play with the idea of Hong Kong’s transition from British territory to Chinese (which occurred in 1997), and the title partly refers to the final year in which Hong Kong is allowed self-regulation before becoming fully integrated into mainland China in 2047. In the film, the numerical title literally references both a hotel room and the future year, which is employed in a science fiction story being written by the main character. Some people also like to interpret the title as reading “two-oh-four-six” meaning “to owe for sex.” Though there are prostitute characters in the film, this meaning is less likely the intention of Wong. But the additional interpretation makes for a richer title anyway. There Will Be Blood (2007) Why not retain the title of Upton Sinclair’s source novel, “Oil!”? Well, besides all the changes made to the story, it could be because Paul Thomas Anderson’s new title has more possible meanings. The word “Blood” in the title may refer to the actual oil, or the blood shed for the oil (as in drilling accidents then and wars now), or family, especially actual blood relatives (of which there aren’t actually many in the film). Mostly, though, the title allows for and acknowledges a connection between the film’s setting and the current events it appears to be commenting on. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/7/20/32798.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 7/20/2008 1:38:48 PM
Body: What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx All About Eve is on the following AFI lists:The Original Top 100 (#16)100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (Eve Harrington is the #23 villain)100 Movie Quotes (#9 - Margo Channing: "Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night.")The Revised Top 100 (#28) Thanks to Netflix, I moved right along down the AFI Original list to the next entry, All About Eve, which I had never seen before. I knew about it only vaguely and mostly knew only random factoids, such as the short but memorable turn by Marilyn Monroe as an aspiring, ditzy actress of questionable talent. By the way, she was far less annoying and much funnier in this picture than she was in Some Like It Hot, but I digress. I also knew the famous quote uttered by Bette Davis' Margo Channing, diva extraordinaire, about fastening some seatbelts. I looked forward to watching this film because of its fabulous cast, and as a theater person, I couldn't go wrong with a premise surrounding the dramatic theatrical world. In fact, I was kind of excited and, to wit, my excitement was well-rewarded. All About Eve is an outstanding film, as entertaining as it is artistically sound, and since I watch films for both qualities (give me art and entertainment, I want it all!), I was very happy. The Eve of the title is Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter), who has seen every performance by theatrical tour de force Margo Channing (Davis, in her own tour de force performance and the best of her career). Margo's best friend, Karen Richards (Celeste Holm), takes pity on Eve, huddled in the stage doorway in the rain, and brings her to Margo's dressing room to meet her idol. Eve tells a heart-wrenching story to support what I would consider an unsettling fanaticism for Margo, about her poor upbringing and tragic marriage ending in the death of her war hero husband, and soon everyone, including the viewer, forgets the fact that Eve saw every single performance of Margo's latest play and seemingly stalks her too. Margo is so taken with the adoration (as any actress can be), she hires Eve as an assistant and gives her a home, but Margo, and her knowing head of household Birdie, see that Eve is more than she seems after awhile. Things begin to happen without Margo's knowledge, mostly surrounding her lover and director Bill Sampson (Gary Merrill), and Margo's natural insecurities about her advancing age (she reveals she's 40) and her status as the actress of the moment feed into other, more conspiratorial notions about Eve. While everyone around Margo, including Karen and her playwright husband Lloyd, who writes parts specifically for Margo, thinks she's simply being crazy and theatrical - the consummate actress - they soon realize that Margo's instincts may be right. What doesn't help matters is that acid critic and columnist, Addison DeWitt (George Sanders), takes a personal interest in Eve, resulting in a revealing column praising Eve's performance after she fills in as Margo's understudy - a position into which she manipulated herself without Margo's knowledge to begin with. I have to say, I really loved this film. I'm a theater person myself, though I mostly play the role of techie or stage manager and occasionally director. Diva actresses are a relatable topic, and Director Joseph L. Manciewicz's ingenius screenplay, taking gentle but uncompromised swipes at the world and society of theater, was simply brilliant, and his Oscars were well-deserved. The script was so smart, so clever, and so wittily ascerbic, there were some true moments of sardonic comedy that played very well in this satire. The dialogue was amazing, and the story was original, complete with some intriguing shades of gray. Some of it may seem dated, but I actually think it has a timeless relevance. After all, the theater isn't going anywhere, and as Lloyd Richards eloquently jibes, "Actresses never die!" And those actresses! The women rule this movie, which is probably another reason why I love it. I mean, Margo and Eve are two of the juiciest roles I've ever seen, and Bette and Anne played them to perfection. Bette Davis in particular was stunning as Margo; she gave Margo a complex and multilayered existence with many emotional undercurrents that were all at once human and otherworldly. Her quiet philosophical moments were just as entertaining as her temper tantrums, and her delivery of some of those fantastically bitchy barbs were so unique, original, imitated but never duplicated, and awesome. The "fasten your seatbelts" quote is so notable and so famous because dear Bette made it that way. Yet, Anne Baxter was also brilliant, playing this ambitious young upstart with impenetrable moral ambiguity, until her goose is finally cooked, and she lets loose. Eve is arguably a good kid at heart, but her greed and ambition and addiction for applause consume her. She makes you want to feel sorry for her and cheer for her, even though you knew all along that she was a conniving little minx. That's a great performance on many levels, not only for the audience but for the characters she was trying to fool. Then, there was George Sanders. His appearance in the film was limited to, perhaps, a third, but his portrayal of the snake-like Addison made the character one the audience hates to love or loves to hate. He won the Oscar too, and I couldn't argue with it. From a filmmaking perspective, I don't think there was anything particularly novel, except for the awesome costumes. I never noticed the score or any particular camera use or prop or setting that screamed groundbreaking or innovative to me, but that's not to say that these aspects weren't completely competent. For me, All About Eve was the whole package, but the true art lies in the story and the performances. My only problem with this film was the ending (vaguely spoilery ahead). It felt rushed. Margo's last barb to Eve lacked some of the punch of her earlier ones, and taking the focus away from Margo and Eve to focus on the cycle beginning anew felt somewhat anticlimactic to me. Maybe I was hoping for a more traditional comeuppance that I could witness, rather than the hint of what was to come. It wasn't just that, though. It just felt like there was a rush to get it done and to break with the characters, particularly with Eve, the seemingly misunderstood antagonist. It just didn't feel right to me, but I don't think the ending was necessarily bad either. It fit in a sense, but it also didn't fit in a sense. It's hard to explain. And it's what keeps from giving this film a 10 for being a masterpiece. But, I will give it a 9.5, between masterpiece and perfectly entertaining. Also, I think this film passes the test. It has all the film ingredients that work for me, including a relatable story based on an interesting and relatable premise that makes me want to show my theater friends why it should be All About Eve (and that would be easiest if I bought it). I highly recommend this flick. It also contains some remarkably candid and not untrue observations about women, then and now, without sexist undertones. For 1950, that was an amazing feat in and of itself.
]]>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:38:48 GMTpippin06Reel Thoughts7/20/2008 1:38:48 PMWhat's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx All About Eve is on the following AFI lists:The Original Top 100 (#16)100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (Eve Harrington is the #23 villain)100 Movie Quotes (#9 - Margo Channing: "Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night.")The Revised Top 100 (#28) Thanks to Netflix, I moved right along down the AFI Original list to the next entry, All About Eve, which I had never seen before. I knew about it only vaguely and mostly knew only random factoids, such as the short but memorable turn by Marilyn Monroe as an aspiring, ditzy actress of questionable talent. By the way, she was far less annoying and much funnier in this picture than she was in Some Like It Hot, but I digress. I also knew the famous quote uttered by Bette Davis' Margo Channing, diva extraordinaire, about fastening some seatbelts. I looked forward to watching this film because of its fabulous cast, and as a theater person, I couldn't go wrong with a premise surrounding the dramatic theatrical world. In fact, I was kind of excited and, to wit, my excitement was well-rewarded. All About Eve is an outstanding film, as entertaining as it is artistically sound, and since I watch films for both qualities (give me art and entertainment, I want it all!), I was very happy. The Eve of the title is Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter), who has seen every performance by theatrical tour de force Margo Channing (Davis, in her own tour de force performance and the best of her career). Margo's best friend, Karen Richards (Celeste Holm), takes pity on Eve, huddled in the stage doorway in the rain, and brings her to Margo's dressing room to meet her idol. Eve tells a heart-wrenching story to support what I would consider an unsettling fanaticism for Margo, about her poor upbringing and tragic marriage ending in the death of her war hero husband, and soon everyone, including the viewer, forgets the fact that Eve saw every single performance of Margo's latest play and seemingly stalks her too. Margo is so taken with the adoration (as any actress can be), she hires Eve as an assistant and gives her a home, but Margo, and her knowing head of household Birdie, see that Eve is more than she seems after awhile. Things begin to happen without Margo's knowledge, mostly surrounding her lover and director Bill Sampson (Gary Merrill), and Margo's natural insecurities about her advancing age (she reveals she's 40) and her status as the actress of the moment feed into other, more conspiratorial notions about Eve. While everyone around Margo, including Karen and her playwright husband Lloyd, who writes parts specifically for Margo, thinks she's simply being crazy and theatrical - the consummate actress - they soon realize that Margo's instincts may be right. What doesn't help matters is that acid critic and columnist, Addison DeWitt (George Sanders), takes a personal interest in Eve, resulting in a revealing column praising Eve's performance after she fills in as Margo's understudy - a position into which she manipulated herself without Margo's knowledge to begin with. I have to say, I really loved this film. I'm a theater person myself, though I mostly play the role of techie or stage manager and occasionally director. Diva actresses are a relatable topic, and Director Joseph L. Manciewicz's ingenius screenplay, taking gentle but uncompromised swipes at the world and society of theater, was simply brilliant, and his Oscars were well-deserved. The script was so smart, so clever, and so wittily ascerbic, there were some true moments of sardonic comedy that played very well in this satire. The dialogue was amazing, and the story was original, complete with some intriguing shades of gray. Some of it may seem dated, but I actually think it has a timeless relevance. After all, the theater isn't going anywhere, and as Lloyd Richards eloquently jibes, "Actresses never die!" And those actresses! The women rule this movie, which is probably another reason why I love it. I mean, Margo and Eve are two of the juiciest roles I've ever seen, and Bette and Anne played them to perfection. Bette Davis in particular was stunning as Margo; she gave Margo a complex and multilayered existence with many emotional undercurrents that were all at once human and otherworldly. Her quiet philosophical moments were just as entertaining as her temper tantrums, and her delivery of some of those fantastically bitchy barbs were so unique, original, imitated but never duplicated, and awesome. The "fasten your seatbelts" quote is so notable and so famous because dear Bette made it that way. Yet, Anne Baxter was also brilliant, playing this ambitious young upstart with impenetrable moral ambiguity, until her goose is finally cooked, and she lets loose. Eve is arguably a good kid at heart, but her greed and ambition and addiction for applause consume her. She makes you want to feel sorry for her and cheer for her, even though you knew all along that she was a conniving little minx. That's a great performance on many levels, not only for the audience but for the characters she was trying to fool. Then, there was George Sanders. His appearance in the film was limited to, perhaps, a third, but his portrayal of the snake-like Addison made the character one the audience hates to love or loves to hate. He won the Oscar too, and I couldn't argue with it. From a filmmaking perspective, I don't think there was anything particularly novel, except for the awesome costumes. I never noticed the score or any particular camera use or prop or setting that screamed groundbreaking or innovative to me, but that's not to say that these aspects weren't completely competent. For me, All About Eve was the whole package, but the true art lies in the story and the performances. My only problem with this film was the ending (vaguely spoilery ahead). It felt rushed. Margo's last barb to Eve lacked some of the punch of her earlier ones, and taking the focus away from Margo and Eve to focus on the cycle beginning anew felt somewhat anticlimactic to me. Maybe I was hoping for a more traditional comeuppance that I could witness, rather than the hint of what was to come. It wasn't just that, though. It just felt like there was a rush to get it done and to break with the characters, particularly with Eve, the seemingly misunderstood antagonist. It just didn't feel right to me, but I don't think the ending was necessarily bad either. It fit in a sense, but it also didn't fit in a sense. It's hard to explain. And it's what keeps from giving this film a 10 for being a masterpiece. But, I will give it a 9.5, between masterpiece and perfectly entertaining. Also, I think this film passes the test. It has all the film ingredients that work for me, including a relatable story based on an interesting and relatable premise that makes me want to show my theater friends why it should be All About Eve (and that would be easiest if I bought it). I highly recommend this flick. It also contains some remarkably candid and not untrue observations about women, then and now, without sexist undertones. For 1950, that was an amazing feat in and of itself. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Antagonists/190/27116/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 4/9/2008 1:54:50 AM
Body: Top 5 Antagonists: Human1.) Dazed and Confused - O'Bannon - Ben Affleck's character takes the cake as the biggest a**hole and eventually gets what he deserves.2.) Mutiny on the Bounty - Captain Bligh - Sadistic and unflinchingly evil, Captain Bligh is undoubtedly one of cinemas most hated antagonists.3.) What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? - Jane - Bette Davis oozes nastiness from her caked on makeup to her hoarse, smokers voice.4.) Se7en - John Doe - The unseen serial killer in this film intensifies the terror and dread the viewer feels throughout this film, even more so when he reveals himself and his final acts of brutality.5.) Groundhog Day - Phil "like the groundhog!" Connors - Bill Murray is incredibly noxious for most of the film as a jaded weather man forced to relive the same day over and over again.Runner's Up: Strangeland, Misery, All About Eve, Man Bites Dog, Lemony Snicket's, Dogville Top 5 Antagonists: Supernatural / Science Fiction1.) The Wizard of Oz - The Wicked Witch of the West - Damn if that green-skinned witch isn't the meanest *itch in all of Oz and cinema.2.) Star Wars Trilogy - Darth Vader - Masked and menacing, Darth Vader is felt through each film even when he's not on screen.3.) Jaws - The Great White Shark - Only supernatural in it's damned ability to know what's going on in every inch of the ocean, the shark is one evil son of a *itch.4.) Halloween - Michael Myers - Again, masked and scary as hell, Michael Myers is the definition of a nightmare come to life.5.) Alien - The Alien - In my opinion, one of the creepiest monsters ever imagined.Runner's Up: A Nightmare on Elm Street, Poltergeist, Friday the 13th, Mommie Dearest (Joan Crawford must have had supernatural powers to be that wicked). Top 5 Antagonists: Inanimate Objects1.) The Money Pit - The House - Definitely one of the most aggravating movies where the main antagonist really does nothing but sits there (and continues to fall apart).2.) Speed - The Bus - You try to keep your cool while maintaining the speed limit in L.A. traffic!3.) Cube - The Cube - Murderous booby-traps aplenty, room after room after room after room after room after room after room etc.4.) Maximum Overdrive - The Machines - When those damned semis went crazy, they really went crazy.5.) Modern Times - The Machines - Again, those damned machines getting a mind of their own.
]]>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 05:54:50 GMTmercurialTop 54/9/2008 1:54:50 AMTop 5 Antagonists: Human1.) Dazed and Confused - O&#39;Bannon - Ben Affleck&#39;s character takes the cake as the biggest a**hole and eventually gets what he deserves.2.) Mutiny on the Bounty - Captain Bligh - Sadistic and unflinchingly evil, Captain Bligh is undoubtedly one of cinemas most hated antagonists.3.) What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? - Jane - Bette Davis oozes nastiness from her caked on makeup to her hoarse, smokers voice.4.) Se7en - John Doe - The unseen serial killer in this film intensifies the terror and dread the viewer feels throughout this film, even more so when he reveals himself and his final acts of brutality.5.) Groundhog Day - Phil "like the groundhog!" Connors - Bill Murray is incredibly noxious for most of the film as a jaded weather man forced to relive the same day over and over again.Runner&#39;s Up: Strangeland, Misery, All About Eve, Man Bites Dog, Lemony Snicket&#39;s, Dogville Top 5 Antagonists: Supernatural / Science Fiction1.) The Wizard of Oz - The Wicked Witch of the West - Damn if that green-skinned witch isn&#39;t the meanest *itch in all of Oz and cinema.2.) Star Wars Trilogy - Darth Vader - Masked and menacing, Darth Vader is felt through each film even when he&#39;s not on screen.3.) Jaws - The Great White Shark - Only supernatural in it&#39;s damned ability to know what&#39;s going on in every inch of the ocean, the shark is one evil son of a *itch.4.) Halloween - Michael Myers - Again, masked and scary as hell, Michael Myers is the definition of a nightmare come to life.5.) Alien - The Alien - In my opinion, one of the creepiest monsters ever imagined.Runner&#39;s Up: A Nightmare on Elm Street, Poltergeist, Friday the 13th, Mommie Dearest (Joan Crawford must have had supernatural powers to be that wicked). Top 5 Antagonists: Inanimate Objects1.) The Money Pit - The House - Definitely one of the most aggravating movies where the main antagonist really does nothing but sits there (and continues to fall apart).2.) Speed - The Bus - You try to keep your cool while maintaining the speed limit in L.A. traffic!3.) Cube - The Cube - Murderous booby-traps aplenty, room after room after room after room after room after room after room etc.4.) Maximum Overdrive - The Machines - When those damned semis went crazy, they really went crazy.5.) Modern Times - The Machines - Again, those damned machines getting a mind of their own. http://www.spout.com/blogs/jakestevens/archive/2007/11/5/21449.aspx Post By: JakeStevens
Post To: JakeStevens Blog
Post Date: 11/5/2007 8:08:08 PM
Body: Take that, theater denizens! One of the most biting satires I've ever seen, I was hesitant to see it because of it's age, but apart from some dated dialogue, it holds up wonderfully to this day, thanks to a sharp script, deft acting and more-than-able direction and cinematography. I'd say it's mostly for people who have been around the theater crowd, but really, anyone who's worked in an office can relate to the characters portrayed here. Watch it!
]]>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:08:08 GMTJakeStevensJakeStevens Blog11/5/2007 8:08:08 PMTake that, theater denizens! One of the most biting satires I&#39;ve ever seen, I was hesitant to see it because of it&#39;s age, but apart from some dated dialogue, it holds up wonderfully to this day, thanks to a sharp script, deft acting and more-than-able direction and cinematography. I&#39;d say it&#39;s mostly for people who have been around the theater crowd, but really, anyone who&#39;s worked in an office can relate to the characters portrayed here. Watch it! http://www.spout.com/blogs/jlgdrd/archive/2007/7/15/14770.aspx Post By: jlgdrd
Post To: Wicked Fun
Post Date: 7/15/2007 5:55:00 PM
Body: Camp is a less polished cousin to Alan Parker’s Fame, and a film that pushes all my queer consciousness buttons. Once I knew the premise, I wanted to love the movie, and it spoke to me in a way that other movies, from their heterosexual world-view, could not. What teenager wouldn’t want to attend a retreat (like Camp Ovation) where all summer long you get to sing, dance and act in stage plays and musicals? As far as I’m concerned it would have been Mecca. And how delicious is it, that for once, the yummy, manly, straight guy is at the disadvantage? Feels like the freak? So, yes, when a movie like Camp comes along and I see an instance when Michael eyes Vlad (Daniel Letterle ) unapologetically, explaining, “I’m only human,” I can only say I’m deeply, sincerely grateful. But it helps no one if we pretend something is better than it is because we applaud the message. When we expect heterosexuals to make allowances, as if we were five-year-olds, handing them a crayon picture to hang on the refrigerator. And perhaps it’s because of the high hopes the premise instilled, that I found Camp to be such a disappointment. There are gratifying moments that are clever and enjoyable. Jill (Alana Allen) and Fritzi’s (Anna Kendrick) turn on All About Eve is funny and pleasurable, Michael’s (Robin De Jesus) birthday surprise is fantastic. But from the endless possibilities that could have emerged, Camp has very little to show for it. A movie doesn’t have to be flawless to be successful, it doesn’t have to be slick, or refined or visionary. But it’s got to have something on the ball. Some aspect that will make you remember it, 10 days, 10 months, 10 years from now. Some kick. A piece of dialogue, the way a shot is lit, a strain of music wed to an image that made it implacable. Something. Camp’s key strength is its’ urge to be plain-spoken, which might also be its downfall.When the alcoholic, embittered theatre veteran, Bert (Don Dixon) calls Ellen (Joanna Chilcoat) a “fag-hag” it’s okay, because that’s the lingo. It may not be nice, but it’s “true.” Fame was conceivably the inspiration for Camp, both movies revolve (more or less) on a triangle between a straight boy and girl and a queer boy. Both elicit the characters’ personal demons as they strive to cultivate their talents and grapple in the competitive jungle of the performing arts. And though Camp strips down the content (no moody, shadow-ridden milieu, no song-and-dance numbers in the cafeteria) the verisimilitude, the ingenuousness is a washout. The actors have a kind of charisma, we like them, but they lack screen presence. Camp definitely gets points for the way the Michael and Vlad connect, but you have to wonder if Graff was conflicted between needing to show us the world as it ought to be and is. Michael may be the screen’s first Gay Noble Savage. The problem with affecting documentary style is the belief that it’s a one-way ticket to Truth. It’s a device like any other, and simply instructing the actors to converse as if they were on the street, or talking on the phone won’t cut it. There’s a lot of good work going on in Camp, but the spark is missing. As it spars for stronger, less elaborate swipes at authenticity than Fame, it doesn’t feel more spontaneous, it feels more contrived.
]]>Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:55:00 GMTjlgdrdWicked Fun7/15/2007 5:55:00 PM Camp is a less polished cousin to Alan Parker&rsquo;s Fame, and a film that pushes all my queer consciousness buttons. Once I knew the premise, I wanted to love the movie, and it spoke to me in a way that other movies, from their heterosexual world-view, could not. What teenager wouldn&rsquo;t want to attend a retreat (like Camp Ovation) where all summer long you get to sing, dance and act in stage plays and musicals? As far as I&rsquo;m concerned it would have been Mecca. And how delicious is it, that for once, the yummy, manly, straight guy is at the disadvantage? Feels like the freak? So, yes, when a movie like Camp comes along and I see an instance when Michael eyes Vlad (Daniel Letterle ) unapologetically, explaining, &ldquo;I&rsquo;m only human,&rdquo; I can only say I&rsquo;m deeply, sincerely grateful. But it helps no one if we pretend something is better than it is because we applaud the message. When we expect heterosexuals to make allowances, as if we were five-year-olds, handing them a crayon picture to hang on the refrigerator. And perhaps it&rsquo;s because of the high hopes the premise instilled, that I found Camp to be such a disappointment. There are gratifying moments that are clever and enjoyable. Jill (Alana Allen) and Fritzi&rsquo;s (Anna Kendrick) turn on All About Eve is funny and pleasurable, Michael&rsquo;s (Robin De Jesus) birthday surprise is fantastic. But from the endless possibilities that could have emerged, Camp has very little to show for it. A movie doesn&rsquo;t have to be flawless to be successful, it doesn&rsquo;t have to be slick, or refined or visionary. But it&rsquo;s got to have something on the ball. Some aspect that will make you remember it, 10 days, 10 months, 10 years from now. Some kick. A piece of dialogue, the way a shot is lit, a strain of music wed to an image that made it implacable. Something. Camp&rsquo;s key strength is its&rsquo; urge to be plain-spoken, which might also be its downfall.When the alcoholic, embittered theatre veteran, Bert (Don Dixon) calls Ellen (Joanna Chilcoat) a &ldquo;fag-hag&rdquo; it&rsquo;s okay, because that&rsquo;s the lingo. It may not be nice, but it&rsquo;s &ldquo;true.&rdquo; Fame was conceivably the inspiration for Camp, both movies revolve (more or less) on a triangle between a straight boy and girl and a queer boy. Both elicit the characters&rsquo; personal demons as they strive to cultivate their talents and grapple in the competitive jungle of the performing arts. And though Camp strips down the content (no moody, shadow-ridden milieu, no song-and-dance numbers in the cafeteria) the verisimilitude, the ingenuousness is a washout. The actors have a kind of charisma, we like them, but they lack screen presence. Camp definitely gets points for the way the Michael and Vlad connect, but you have to wonder if Graff was conflicted between needing to show us the world as it ought to be and is. Michael may be the screen&rsquo;s first Gay Noble Savage. The problem with affecting documentary style is the belief that it&rsquo;s a one-way ticket to Truth. It&rsquo;s a device like any other, and simply instructing the actors to converse as if they were on the street, or talking on the phone won&rsquo;t cut it. There&rsquo;s a lot of good work going on in Camp, but the spark is missing. As it spars for stronger, less elaborate swipes at authenticity than Fame, it doesn&rsquo;t feel more spontaneous, it feels more contrived. http://www.spout.com/blogs/apfradella/archive/2007/4/13/7005.aspx Post By: apfradella
Post To: apfradella Blog
Post Date: 4/13/2007 12:46:35 AM
Body: It doesn't get much better than this. This movie has one of the best screenplays ever written. This is a must see for all film fans.
]]>Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:46:35 GMTapfradellaapfradella Blog4/13/2007 12:46:35 AMIt doesn&#39;t get much better than this. This movie has one of the best screenplays ever written. This is a must see for all film fans. http://www.spout.com/groups/Black_And_White/Short_Survey/269/6327/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: SwingDancingRed
Post To: Black And White
Post Date: 3/14/2007 12:20:43 AM
Body: Hello B&W Friends!To better know who's out there & what you guys want from the B&W community, I've put together a little survey.1. Name or alias2. Why you joined B&W3. Any lists you'd like to see added4. What you feel you uniquely bring to the table5. What film(s) sparked your love for the classics?6. What would you like to gain from this group?7. Something random/interesting/or just plain weird about yourself...
]]>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 04:20:43 GMTSwingDancingRedBlack And White3/14/2007 12:20:43 AMHello B&amp;W Friends!To better know who&#39;s out there &amp; what you guys want from the B&amp;W community, I&#39;ve put together a little survey.1. Name or alias2. Why you joined B&amp;W3. Any lists you&#39;d like to see added4. What you feel you uniquely bring to the table5. What film(s) sparked your love for the classics?6. What would you like to gain from this group?7. Something random/interesting/or just plain weird about yourself... http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 313

Number of times used: 1454

]]>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:30:46 GMT8163131454Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drama/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrama
Number of films tagged: 527

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 627

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:29 GMT527102627Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/deception/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeception
Number of films tagged: 1090

Number of people who tagged: 55

Number of times used: 123

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:18:11 GMT109055123Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/satire/MemberTagFilms.aspxsatire
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 55

Number of times used: 120

]]>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:27:25 GMT17055120Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/party/MemberTagFilms.aspxparty
Number of films tagged: 900

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 169

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:17:56 GMT90043169Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/competition/MemberTagFilms.aspxcompetition
Number of films tagged: 1282

Number of people who tagged: 42

Number of times used: 95

]]>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:49:19 GMT12824295Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/clever/MemberTagFilms.aspxclever
Number of films tagged: 57

Number of people who tagged: 40

Number of times used: 74

]]>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:40:08 GMT574074Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/manipulation/MemberTagFilms.aspxmanipulation
Number of films tagged: 249

Number of people who tagged: 39

Number of times used: 65

]]>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:46:13 GMT2493965Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/car/MemberTagFilms.aspxcar
Number of films tagged: 1316

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 99

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:32:16 GMT13163299Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/smart/MemberTagFilms.aspxsmart
Number of films tagged: 34

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 40

]]>Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:46:30 GMT342840Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Picture/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Picture
Number of films tagged: 83

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 118

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:16:34 GMT8326118Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/actor/MemberTagFilms.aspxactor
Number of films tagged: 2328

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 55

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:12:17 GMT23282555Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/writing/MemberTagFilms.aspxwriting
Number of films tagged: 1300

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 43

]]>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:17:22 GMT13002543Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/oscar/MemberTagFilms.aspxoscar
Number of films tagged: 110

Number of people who tagged: 24

Number of times used: 103

]]>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:03:17 GMT11024103Tag