Page 4 of 7

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 07 Oct 2008, 16:30
by Theodomus
Well, it's not THAT bad - I don't like her going away from her job either, but in the end she did decide alone, just being pushed a little by her hubby... ;)

Otherwise I just LOVE this movie!

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 07 Oct 2008, 17:05
by rt
Being a "doctor's wife" is NOT a career. :roll:
I can't imagine any self-respecting female condoning the hubby's attitude.

(I know one lady paediatrician who is married to a "house husband" :wink: )

Rum

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 07 Oct 2008, 17:16
by Theodomus
Naturally not - But let's face it: For some women that still is what they want and they are or would be quite happy with it.

As long as we can decide for ourselves, that's fine with me.

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 07 Oct 2008, 18:24
by webmaster
I wouldn't mind being a doctor's wife (thinking laterally) at least I wouldn't have to sit in a waiting room full of sick people! :lol:

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 07 Oct 2008, 18:32
by rt
Tell me about it, I spent 8 hours in A&E once!

Rum

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 01 Feb 2009, 23:42
by mikeydv
For those who have forgotten...............What is it that Doris ALWAYS WANTED but never got? To be a happily married woman, with house and kids, and to stay home and take care of the house. Aha!

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 02 Feb 2009, 08:37
by webmaster
How could we forget, Mike? She's said it enough times! :wink: But maybe she didn't really want that deep down - they say the proof of the pudding is in the eating. She grew up in an era that taught little girls to want to have that - as she admitted - but in real life she behaved as she often did in her films and choose independence, life imitating art, etc.

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 06 Feb 2009, 17:18
by Johnny
The Thrill Of It All is a really smart film that really looks at the world of advertizing in a new way for 1963. The brilliant series Mad Men is exploring the same material in a dramatic and dark form. Credit must be given to the brilliant and under-valued talent of Doris Day who conveys the power of the psychology of adverizing and its' imapct on consumers. Remember, this is 1963. The crispness and humour of the film holds up well to this day, thanks to Doris Day. No other actor could carry the light touch the film required to be so effective. Well done Doris Day!

Johnny

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 06 Feb 2009, 18:22
by webmaster
Johnny - the BBC (UK) have been showing 'Mad Men' - it's really excellent. Series 2 starts next week.
For people who haven't seen it, it's really 'Ad Men', set in the roughly the same period as 'The Thrill of it Alll', it captures the cut-throat world of advertising, without the humour. But it's very gripping, it has a touch of 'The Stepford Wives' about it, plus a Grace Kelly type who's husband (the rising star in the company - of which Doris co-star from 'Where Were You When the Lights Went Out', Robert Morse, is the head) has reinvented himself (he was in Vietnam and went a bit mad, I think) and taken on a new identity. His brother tracks him down and he offers him money to go away, resulting in the brother hanging himself at the hotel he'd been confined to. As the series ended it looked like 'Grace's husband' was starting to feel guilty. Worth watching.

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 06 Feb 2009, 18:58
by daybyday08
I love Mad Men it's a great show! My parents watch it all the time. I have to admit I only watch it for the clothes and decor but the episodes I have seen are really good. It's amazing how they found so many things from that time period. You can probably find the show on youtube. The music is very good too!

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 17 Jan 2010, 10:11
by puck
I did watch a short time ago " Tea for Two", still after watching it a couple of time I did enjoyed it, shaw this on the internet.

http://i50.tinypic.com/nq233r.jpg

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 17 Jan 2010, 10:24
by puck
Did something wrong, never learn, here is the right one, the other belong to " Tea for Two".
http://i50.tinypic.com/2i70r9i.jpg

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 18 Jan 2010, 14:57
by littlegoldfish666
Just say this movie. I gotta say that it was a little boring at the beginning (what? I can't help it, I'm more of an action kinda girl usually :p And I'm impatient :P) butr once it got into the movie it was quite enjoyable. Both Doris and James Gaqrner are so funny at times.

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 19 Jan 2010, 13:20
by Jas1
I never find this film boring.

It is just beautifully understated and a very fine example of how to play comedy- superbly!

Doris never looked better either, and I find the children a joy!

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 19 Jan 2010, 19:25
by Lauren Benjamin
I, too, find this movie to be one of Doris' very best comedies. It's wonderful from beginning to end.

Lauren

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 20 Jan 2010, 14:33
by littlegoldfish666
Like I said, (somewhere :wink: ) I'm a very impatient person and I like the action to start pretty quickly :P

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 20 Jan 2010, 16:48
by littlegoldfish666
Oh and there's just one thing I found a little...um.....odd.....They were married, right? So, why would they have single beds in their room instead of a double bed? *scratches head*

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 20 Jan 2010, 18:54
by Lauren Benjamin
I believe there were "codes" that stated that you had to have double beds and no *open-mouth* kissing. It was perfectly ridiculous and unreal, but I think the codes were still in effect. Anyone remember the name of the codes. I think the Catholic church had something to do with it.

Lauren

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 21 Jan 2010, 11:31
by Pedro
Do you mean they should have had a double bed out of respect for the code ? They didn't so the code was not respected ?

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 21 Jan 2010, 13:23
by littlegoldfish666
Lauren Benjamin wrote:I believe there were "codes" that stated that you had to have double beds and no *open-mouth* kissing. It was perfectly ridiculous and unreal, but I think the codes were still in effect. Anyone remember the name of the codes. I think the Catholic church had something to do with it.

Lauren
Really? Even if they were married? huh, weird *shrugs*

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 21 Jan 2010, 16:16
by Jas1
It was the Production [or Hays Code- named after Will Hays- former US postmaster general who was in charge of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America [MPPDA]-who established a set of guidelines in 1930 that came into affect in 1934.

The guidelines came about due to growing public perception that Hollywood was awash with vice and immorality [on and off screen] - they also came about as a means of avoiding federal censorship.

Joseph Breen became head of the Production Code Administration [backed up by the Catholic Church's Legion of Decency] - maybe some of you have heard of [or read about] getting approval from the Breen office, for certain risque scripts.

The result of the guidelines/codes was a very strict censorship on certain depictions/ actions from 1934 until the late 1950s. The Code [although penetrated] was not abolished until 1968 when the ratings system [still in place] came into effect.

I know so much about the code as I once wrote a piece about 'De-coding the code' - arguing [particularly in film-noir] - that far from curtailing film makers': the code encouraged them to be ingenious in getting certain things past the code - look again at films such as Gilda; Maltese Falcon etc. See also 'The Postman Always rings twice' and in the 1950s, films such as 'Streetcar named desire'; 'Cat on a Hot Tin Roof'; Suddenly Last Summer and Butterfield 8 - also pushed boundaries.

Those who have read Doris' book will know it was due to the code the rape scene in Love me or Leave Me was cut to pieces - leaving very little in the finished/ released film! I also read somewhere that there either was a scene in Pillow Talk [or there was going to be] where Brad & Jan are in their respective baths and one drops the soap and feels around [split screen] for it - and again, due to the code, this did not proceed.

The rules of the code were quite often ridiculous- you will notice films before 1934 were in many ways more explicit than ones after [until the 1960s]. There is a Bette Davis film [pre-1934] where she openly lives with her boyfriend and things go wrong only when they marry! There is a film [again I cannot recall the title] during this time where it is heavily suggested Barbara Stanwyck 'pleasures' her boss in a washroom of a club. Bette Davis talking about her film 'The Letter' said the Hays office insisted her character die at the end of the film - as punishment for killing. Before the code, the character would have lived, as was intended in the original script.

The code also banned 'excessive and lustful kissing...'; 'suggestive postures and genstures...'; 'the technique of murder must be presented in a way that will not inspire imitation...'; etc etc - it also banned a man and woman [married or not in the script] to be on the same bed- unless at least one of them had a foot on the ground! Paradoxically, the code allowed - 'apparent cruelty to children or animals'; & 'the sale of women'; - provided they were 'within the careful limits of good taste...'- unbelievable I know!

Re- Doris & James and double beds - by 1963 they could have had a double bed - being married and all, so I don't think the code would have prevented this - I'd say it was just more to do with cosmetics; set design etc.

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 21 Jan 2010, 17:01
by littlegoldfish666
Thanks for the explanation Jas1. Seems a little extreme dont'cha think :wink:

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 22 Jan 2010, 06:47
by Pedro
Thanks a lot Jas1. Very interesting and vast subject, so I’ve done some googeling about it. The main issue is : are government regulations necessary and if they are, how are they compatible with the freedom of expression guaranteed by constitution since 1789. Of course there are multiple possible answers to that question. The Hays code was one of them, and we must be very grateful to this M. Hays that we can see such beautiful nightdresses in DD movies. But he won’t make me change my mind on the main thing. I still believe that double beds are far more comfortable than singles. And I’m sure DD would agree with that.

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 22 Jan 2010, 10:54
by littlegoldfish666
Pedro wrote:Thanks a lot Jas1. Very interesting and vast subject, so I’ve done some googeling about it. The main issue is : are government regulations necessary and if they are, how are they compatible with the freedom of expression guaranteed by constitution since 1789. Of course there are multiple possible answers to that question. The Hays code was one of them, and we must be very grateful to this M. Hays that we can see such beautiful nightdresses in DD movies. But he won’t make me change my mind on the main thing. I still believe that double beds are far more comfortable than singles. And I’m sure DD would agree with that.
Well I'm single but I have a double bed and I gotta agree that they are far comfier :D Especially when I had my cat and she used to lie on the bed beside me :roll: What is it with cats, can't they lie on just one side or the other....But noooooooo they have to lie right across the bed...Um yeah, risregard my last statement. When you have a cat it's still not very comfy :P

Re: The Thrill of it All

Posted: 22 Jan 2010, 17:20
by melancholy
Image