What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[Harp]

^^^A lawyer cannot introduce false claim, fraudulence, questionable evidence now or earlier;
then, like now there are and were evidentiary standards.

I recall a scene from the television series where Mason discovered a corpse and called it in to police,
explaining his legal requirement to do so to his office investigator but also the limit of this obligation.

Years later, another legal television show, Murder One had the lawyer enter a crime scene with two
corpses, didn't call it in, and took evidence off one of the dead. Dereliction, clearly.
That show ended abruptly.

 

[Worf]

"A man's got's to have a code...."
Omar

Worf

 

[Fading Fast]

^^^A lawyer cannot introduce false claim, fraudulence, questionable evidence now or earlier;
then, like now there are and were evidentiary standards.

I recall a scene from the television series where Mason discovered a corpse and called it in to police,
explaining his legal requirement to do so to his office investigator but also the limit of this obligation.

Years later, another legal television show, Murder One had the lawyer enter a crime scene with two
corpses, didn't call it in, and took evidence off one of the dead. Dereliction, clearly.
That show ended abruptly.

Please understand, I'm not arguing making up evidence is defendable at all, period. I'm just saying it was a thing that I see in '30s movies and books that was, in certain circumstances at that time, acceptable to the public. To be sure, you wouldn't see that today.

As is part of FL's mission, I'm just trying to highlight a cultural difference from that era. Today, heroes are about the downtrodden and never getting paid for their work as that would soil their motives. In the '30s, they were more about men with a code (even if the code was a bit janky) and, as noted, heroes earning money back then wasn't looked down upon either.

It's kinda neat to look at how heroes have changed over time.

 

[Harp]

Please understand, I'm not arguing making up evidence is defendable at all, period. I'm just saying it was a thing that I see in '30s movies and books that was, in certain circumstances at that time, acceptable to the public. To be sure, you wouldn't see that today.

As is part of FL's mission, I'm just trying to highlight a cultural difference from that era...

__________________

I believe we are talking past each other. And as I am not going to the track today I'll polish
the boilerplate as I absolutely love the law. Not a lecture but an indulgence. This particular topic
is not only timely but remarkably insistent weight upon Justice's balance scales.

Criminal evidentiary standards, not cultural issues, are at stake here, past and present.
The burden of production for prosecution, discovery, trial, and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
are collectively held to stricture. A defense attorney's work product, analysis of factual evidence,
subjective inference writing is not generally required discovery surrender or request.
However, a layer cannot manufacture or introduce false evidentiary claim. Then or now.
_____________

More ironically, recent events in the initial impeachment trial of President Trump failed standard.
Law and politics are undeniably incestuous at times and utter travesty results when strictures
are deliberately ignored for political ends.

 

[Fading Fast]

__________________

I believe we are talking past each other. And as I am not going to the track today I'll polish
the boilerplate as I absolutely love the law. Not a lecture but an indulgence. This particular topic
is not only timely but remarkably insistent weight upon Justice's balance scales.

Criminal evidentiary standards, not cultural issues, are at stake here, past and present.
The burden of production for prosecution, discovery, trial, and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
are collectively held to stricture. A defense attorney's work product, analysis of factual evidence,
subjective inference writing is not generally required discovery surrender or request.
However, a layer cannot manufacture or introduce false evidentiary claim. Then or now.
_____________

More ironically, recent events in the initial impeachment trial of President Trump failed standard.
Law and politics are undeniably incestuous at times and utter travesty results when strictures
are deliberately ignored for political ends.

We are talking past each other as I agree completely with what you've written above. What I am saying - regardless of the actual law - our culture sometimes wants, at least in its fictional stories and heroes, a version of "justice" not in accordance with the IRL laws on our books.

We don't mind sometimes when the fictional hero beats up the villain, or decides who gets the money at stake, or "rights the perceived wrong" even though there's been no trial, due process, evidence presented, etc. Of course, we can't run our actual judicial system that way, but we can tell myths and stories however we like.

In the '30s, we were okay with fictional stories that resulted in "the right" outcome even if the evidence was made up. Today, we don't like that in our heroes, but it was pretty common in the '30s. That's it - that's all I'm saying is that our culture likes different things in its fictional heroes at different times (and those things are not always in accordance with our actual laws).

 

[Harp]

We are talking past each other as I agree completely with what you've written above. What I am saying - regardless of the actual law - our culture sometimes wants, at least in its fictional stories and heroes, a version of "justice" not in accordance with the IRL laws on our books.

We don't mind sometimes when the fictional hero beats up the villain, or decides who gets the money at stake, or "rights the perceived wrong" even though there's been no trial, due process, evidence presented, etc. Of course, we can't run our actual judicial system that way, but we can tell myths and stories however we like.

In the '30s, we were okay with fictional stories that resulted in "the right" outcome even if the evidence was made up. Today, we don't like that in our heroes, but it was pretty common in the '30s. That's it - that's all I'm saying is that our culture likes different things in its fictional heroes at different times (and those things are not always in accordance with our actual laws).

Nolo contendere. And Mason is best as a bachelor. And Della needs her distance for objectivity's sake.

 

[Edward Reed]

...

I have a great one for you Swing Girl!
The More the Merrier
a 1943 comedy about the WWII housing shortage in Washington D.C.
Well written romantic comedy ... very funny!

 

[Edward Reed]

King of the Underworld (1939)
A crime drama film starring Humphrey Bogart as a gangster and Kay Francis as a doctor forced to treat him. Very low rating at rotten tomatoes but I enjoyed it and Bogart is perfectly cast as the gang leader.
Kay Francis was the number one female star and highest-paid actress at Warner Bros. studio between 1930 and 1936.
Its an easy watch at only 67 minutes, see... so watch it if ya know what's good for ya....

 

[Swing Girl]

I have a great one for you Swing Girl!
The More the Merrier
a 1943 comedy about the WWII housing shortage in Washington D.C.
Well written romantic comedy ... very funny!
View attachment 354245 View attachment 354246 View attachment 354247

This looks great! I just requested it from the library and can't wait to watch it. Thanks!

 

[Harp]

King of the Underworld (1939)
A crime drama film starring Humphrey Bogart as a gangster and Kay Francis as a doctor forced to treat him. Very low rating at rotten tomatoes but I enjoyed it and Bogart is perfectly cast as the gang leader.
Kay Francis was the number one female star and highest-paid actress at Warner Bros. studio between 1930 and 1936.
Its an easy watch at only 67 minutes, see... so watch it if ya know what's good for ya....
View attachment 354264

If I recall correctly, Ingrid Bergman watched this to learn /study Bogie to prep for Casablanca.

 

[Edward Reed]

If I recall correctly, Ingrid Bergman watched this to learn /study Bogie to prep for Casablanca.

Wow thats cool!

 

[Edward Reed]

I’ve never seen Four Jills in a Jeep (1944) and thought it was going to be a slapstick comedy the way the poster looks… And while there’s plenty of fun escapism and gags it actually takes the war and the USO entertainers mission very seriously. Worth a look if you are into WWII.

some of the best quotes....
Martha Raye- "In the meantime, where do we go?"
Eddie- "Get in this building. But if the Jerries come over, there are some slit trenches outside the town. Dive in them and stay there! You can't entertain anybody with your brains knocked out!"
Martha Raye-"I guess he's never been to Hollywood!"

but the unintentional gag line that made me spit out my drink though was this one where Mitzi is daydreaming about her boyfriend named Dick.
Kay-"What's the matter with you?"
Mitzi- "I'm thinking of Dick."
Kay-"For heaven's sakes. Love at a time like this?"

 

[Fading Fast]

The Enemy Below from 1957 with Robert Mitchum, Curd Jürgens and David Hedison


Why is this movie not better known and not more talked about? Sure, it's respected by those who do know it, but it seems to fly below the radar when great war movies are discussed.

Before Das Boot, before The Hunt for Red October, the deadly crazy chess match submarines and surface ships play was brilliantly portrayed in The Enemy Below. The claustrophobic camaraderie and psychosis of living in a submarine, Das Boot's raison d'être, and the captain-versus-captain meme of The Hunt for Red October are both here in this "small" 1957 effort.

Robert Mitchum is the new commander of a US destroyer in WWII that is located by a German submarine, captained by Curd Jürgens, in the South Atlantic. From that moment on, it's "go time" in this mortal chess match as Mitchum dodges the sub's opening missile attack, then, using sonar, navigational plotting, experience and instinct, goes on the offensive.

It's an incredibly tense battle that plays out very slowly for war, as the sub tries to hide, while the destroyer hunts and, occasionally, attacks using depth charges (providing surprisingly entertaining battle footage).

Can the sub stay submerged long enough and deep enough without its hull collapsing or its men breaking? Will the surface ship overplay its hand, run out of depth charges and switch perforce from predator to prey?

Owing to the almost lethargic battle pace of submarine hunting, there's plenty of time for reflection as Mtichum explains his reason for being in the Navy: having captained a civilian merchant ship, he wanted to go from being hunted to, at least sometimes, being the hunter. His command style is an understated approach that focuses on leading by laconically explaining his strategy and only asking of his men what is needed.

Jürgens, conversely, is a career Navy man in the pre-Nazi military tradition when it was a life of honor and loyalty. Something that could only happen with WWII a decade-plus in the past, he is portrayed as a decent man quietly derisive of the rah-rah Nazi political officer on board his submarine.

As the battle plays on, the tension on both vessels increases, forcing each commander to use all his experience and instinct. Jürgens makes the first successful strike prompting Mitchum to pull out all the stops in a taut final-battle scene that needs to be experienced without foreknowledge to be fully appreciated.

Maybe it won't hold up as well to subsequent viewings, but on a first pass, it seems like a somewhat overlooked gem of a war movie. Heck, it isn't until it's all but over that you notice there is not a single woman in the cast as, reflecting the era and the movie's sole focus, The Enemy Below is a man-versus-man war movie.


N.B. In addition to the already-referenced successor movies, it's clear the well-regarded episode, "Balance of Terror," from the original Star Trek TV series is a retelling of The Enemy Below, just set in space. As to those successor movies, the inspiring German singing scene to maintain morale in The Enemy Below was shamelessly copied in The Hunt for Red October's Russian singing scene - imitation, flattery and all that.


@Trenchfriend, have you seen this one? It's a nice compliment to your favorite sub movie, Das Boot, and to another one I know you like, The Hunt for Red October?

 

[Harp]

The Enemy Below is a singular war film with an exceptional cast and plot. Mitchum as usual is superb
and Jurgens quite believable as a Catholic Junker class professional submarine commander.

Away All Boats starring Jeff Chandler as a ship captain favorably compares to The Enemy Below
as does The Sand Pebbles with Richard Crenna as a China gun boat captain in leadership qualities and command style.

Surprisingly, personality is a strong component of martial leadership. Professional competence is of course
absolutely requisite; however, the inner qualities of individuality comprise a very close second advantage.

 

[EngProf]

The Enemy Below is a singular war film with an exceptional cast and plot. Mitchum as usual is superb
and Jurgens quite believable as a Catholic Junker class professional submarine commander.

Away All Boats starring Jeff Chandler as a ship captain favorably compares to The Enemy Below
as does The Sand Pebbles with Richard Crenna as a China gun boat captain in leadership qualities and command style.

Surprisingly, personality is a strong component of martial leadership. Professional competence is of course
absolutely requisite; however, the inner qualities of individuality comprise a very close second advantage.

I'd like to add "the Bedford Incident" as another excellent "war movie" of the destroyer/submarine genre.
In this case it's set in the Cold War with Richard Widmark as the destroyer captain who is relentlessly stalking a Russian submarine which is just skirting NATO territory. Widmark is very professional, but with traces of fanaticism around the edges. On board is a US journalist (Sidney Poitier) who acts as a skeptic from a civilian perspective to some of Widmark's decisions. Also on board is a NATO German Navy officer (former U-Boat commander) who advises and also questions Widmark from a submariner's perspective.
The supporting actors are excellent also: Martin Balsam as the ship's doctor, Wally Cox as the sonar operator, and James McArthur as the young ensign.
I refuse to give away any substantive plot points - it's tension-provoking and you need to see it as it happens.
If you have a chance to see this one you should take it. VERY highly recommended...

("Surprisingly, personality is a strong component of martial leadership." This movie could have been made to illustrate that exact concept.)

 

[Zombie_61]

The Enemy Below is a singular war film with an exceptional cast and plot. Mitchum as usual is superb and Jurgens quite believable as a Catholic Junker class professional submarine commander...

This is what makes the movie for me--the casting of Robert Mitchum as Captain of the destroyer and Curd Jürgens as Captain of the U-Boat. If they had cast lesser actors in those roles the movie wouldn't have worked as well as it does, but these men knew these characters. And, for a change, the German officer wasn't portrayed as an obsessive freak willing to do anything to prove his loyalty to Der Führer, he was simply a man with a duty to perform. It all works believably.

 

[belfastboy]

"A man's got's to have a code...."
Omar

Worf

My all time favourite character. Whenever we spot him in another show or series my wife or I shout...."It's Omar!"

 

[Harp]

I'd like to add "the Bedford Incident" as another excellent "war movie" of the destroyer/submarine genre.
In this case it's set in the Cold War with Richard Widmark as the destroyer captain who is relentlessly stalking a Russian submarine which is just skirting NATO territory. Widmark is very professional, but with traces of fanaticism around the edges. On board is a US journalist (Sidney Poitier) who acts as a skeptic from a civilian perspective to some of Widmark's decisions. Also on board is a NATO German Navy officer (former U-Boat commander) who advises and also questions Widmark from a submariner's perspective.
The supporting actors are excellent also: Martin Balsam as the ship's doctor, Wally Cox as the sonar operator, and James McArthur as the young ensign.
I refuse to give away any substantive plot points - it's tension-provoking and you need to see it as it happens.
If you have a chance to see this one you should take it. VERY highly recommended...

("Surprisingly, personality is a strong component of martial leadership." This movie could have been made to illustrate that exact concept.)

Adsumem advocatus diaboli. I deliberately excluded The Bedford Incident from my earlier post
because of psychological mindset as you remark. You probably saw A Few Good Men with Jack Nicholson
in which he portrays a Marine colonel in command of the Gitmo garrison and elects a code red against
an enlisted man who subsequently suffers a heart attack and dies, leaving Nicholson holding the dunce bag.
Nicholson rashly concluded an attitude problem Marine instead of considering the entire situation
objectively as a professional. He failed to examine the individual, a Marine who couldn't run, perform
physical endurance training; did not entertain the notion of cardiac issues that might have been root
cause; instead of sending the recalcitrant Marine to Bethesda Naval Hospital for a complete cardiac
workup including labs and cardiac echo and nuclear stress tests-in short, exhausting the somatic
before leaping to the psychological- Nicholoson declares sentence and orders a code red.
After the young Marine's death, Nicholson is little more than a dog chasing its tail.

Widmark's destroyer skipper is also flawed. His mindset is well beyond professional bounds...
track a Soviet Union Navy submarine but do not attempt or initiate contact much less hostile intent.
His supposed primary objective is subtle monitor of Soviet craft, not commit the sin of supposition
and presume anything other than locus and track.

Gregory Peck's portrayal of Brig General Frank Savage in Twelve O'Clock High is superb leadership,
well reasoned and focused on the primary objective.

British actor Richard Todd, a Second World War para starred in several post war martial films.
Anything he is in should be watched for extraordinarily high standard professionalism.

 

[EngProf]

Adsumem advocatus diaboli. I deliberately excluded The Bedford Incident from my earlier post
because of psychological mindset as you remark. You probably saw A Few Good Men with Jack Nicholson
in which he portrays a Marine colonel in command of the Gitmo garrison and elects a code red against
an enlisted man who subsequently suffers a heart attack and dies, leaving Nicholson holding the dunce bag.
Nicholson rashly concluded an attitude problem Marine instead of considering the entire situation
objectively as a professional. He failed to examine the individual, a Marine who couldn't run, perform
physical endurance training; did not entertain the notion of cardiac issues that might have been root
cause; instead of sending the recalcitrant Marine to Bethesda Naval Hospital for a complete cardiac
workup including labs and cardiac echo and nuclear stress tests-in short, exhausting the somatic
before leaping to the psychological- Nicholoson declares sentence and orders a code red.
After the young Marine's death, Nicholson is little more than a dog chasing its tail.

Widmark's destroyer skipper is also flawed. His mindset is well beyond professional bounds...
track a Soviet Union Navy submarine but do not attempt or initiate contact much less hostile intent.
His supposed primary objective is subtle monitor of Soviet craft, not commit the sin of supposition
and presume anything other than locus and track.

Gregory Peck's portrayal of Brig General Frank Savage in Twelve O'Clock High is superb leadership,
well reasoned and focused on the primary objective.

British actor Richard Todd, a Second World War para starred in several post war martial films.
Anything he is in should be watched for extraordinarily high standard professionalism.

Let me "second the motion" concerning Richard Todd - especially "The Dam Busters" (1955) in which he played Guy Gibson, squadron leader of 617 Squadron during WWII, which dropped the famous "bouncing bombs" which damaged three German hydroelectric dams.
That movie is so good that I use clips from it to illustrate clever but simple solutions to complex technical problems, such as maintaining an exact altitude of only 60 feet (!) at night, over water, using 1943 technology. I have also used those clips as questions for engineering exams. (That fits, since one of the main characters in the movie, and in real life, was Barnes Wallis, a British aeronautical-engineering genius.)
He was also in "The Longest Day" in which he played British paratroop Major John Howard, who led the attack on a vital bridge behind the Normandy landing sites. It was particularly appropriate for Todd to play that part since he was a lieutenant in Major Howard's unit at the bridge.

 

[Harp]

^Todd could have theoretically portrayed himself in Longest Day. Extremely impressive man.
I would also recommend A Man Called Peter, all of his work, civil or military is splendid cinema.