Main Page | Report this Page
 
   
Movies Forum Index  »  Past Movies Forum  »  Films we misinterpreted as kids?...
Page 1 of 1    
Author Message
...
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 5:35 pm
Guest
We did this before - here's the whole 2002 thread - but I'm sure we
can add to it!
Lenona.

There was a thread, a while back, in rec.arts.books.childrens, about
books where we misunderstood details or even the main plot points
because we were young. One poster said (about the book "Little
Women") "I always missed the point when books weren't literal about
death. What was all the fuss about if Beth was "well at last," and
where did she get to in the next chapter?" Also, in the movie review
book "Feminist in the Dark," the author remembered crying over
"Waterloo Bridge" as a child and having no idea why, since the only
"sin" she could see was that Vivien Leigh wore tacky clothes.

Since I was lucky enough as a kid to have already memorized "The
Wizard of Oz" in book form before I was 5, I remember not getting the
movie's idea that it was supposed to be a dream, since that's not true
in the book - I thought her "waking up" was just a set-up by Glinda,
and it never occurred to me to think otherwise till I was practically
grown-up!

Any similar examples you remember?


Bill:
One that sticks in my mind was a 40s comedy about a woman whose
boyfriend had been killed in WWII and was pregnant, and the movie was
about her trying to find a husband before the baby was born. I was old
enough to know that having a kid out of wedlock was frowned upon, but
not old enough to know exactly how babies were made. So I drew the
conclusion that at a certain age women just became pregnant, and had
to get married before
then. Not really about misinterpreting the *movie.* Bill

(That would be Miracle at Morgan's Creek, I guess?) Lenona.

I read The Sun Also Rises when I was 12. And for the life of me I
couldnt figure out why Jake and Lady Brett just didn't get together
and live happily ever after... Ruth, ( Old war wound???)

I was a mere cine-tyke, maybe eleven years old, when I first saw a
reissue of Citizen Kane. I remember being shocked at the headlines of
"Kane and Singer Caught In Love Nest": I mean, all he did was visit
Susan Alexander, and help her with her toothache, and make funny
shadows on the wall, and listen to her sing. Right? Right...??? Bob
Keser

Wait... oh boy. Jesus Christ, I'm 21, and some "things" still fly
straight over my head. MadiHolmes

I remember when I was a kid, my friend Calvin and I "misinterpreted"
the ending of a kids' movie! -- specifically, the all-kiddie gangster
musical "Bugsy Malone." I remember him complaining about two things at
the ending:
1. Bugsy and his girlfriend stay totally clean throughout the whole
final piefight, and
2. After an entire movie explaining how getting hit with a pie will
kill a character, suddenly at the end the whole piefight has no effect
on any of the characters.
I think I was in my late twenties when I realized: Those pies *did*
kill all those characters! Bugsy and his girlfriend were the only
ones to survive, so they get to leave the club and drive away at the
end!

Oh, also, in Chinatown(SPOILER), even though Faye Dunaway shakes her
head no
when she's asked directly, her father really did rape her. Dave Gates.

My favorite misinterpretation--or should I say deliberate
misrepresentation?-- involved a friend of my younger brother, who when
watching A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM was informed
by his parents that all those sexy girls in Phil Silvers'
establishment were actually Phil's "daughters". --Hal E

LOL...for those of us who have no interest in pirates... Ivan
Howard Brazee...
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 6:24 pm
Guest
Sometimes a kid will choose to not accept what he sees - such as the
kid trying not to cry as he told me that Davy Crockett was still
alive.
David Matthews...
Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 8:00 pm
Guest
"Howard Brazee" <howard at (no spam) brazee.net> wrote in message
news:oibc24t88sb4eifqultj5e2lf22cd1cpre at (no spam) 4ax.com...
Quote:
Sometimes a kid will choose to not accept what he sees - such as the
kid trying not to cry as he told me that Davy Crockett was still
alive.


It's probably a made up story but I read of a kid watching _QUO VADIS_ with
his mother and he started to cry when his mother asked why he was crying he
said "That lion doesn't have a Christian".

It was probably the same kid when in his Sunday school class was asked "Who
was the sorriest when the prodigal son returned?" replied "The fatted calf."

Dave in Toronto
Steven L....
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 6:20 pm
Guest
lenona321 at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
We did this before - here's the whole 2002 thread - but I'm sure we
can add to it!
Lenona.

There was a thread, a while back, in rec.arts.books.childrens, about
books where we misunderstood details or even the main plot points
because we were young. One poster said (about the book "Little
Women") "I always missed the point when books weren't literal about
death. What was all the fuss about if Beth was "well at last," and
where did she get to in the next chapter?" Also, in the movie review
book "Feminist in the Dark," the author remembered crying over
"Waterloo Bridge" as a child and having no idea why, since the only
"sin" she could see was that Vivien Leigh wore tacky clothes.

Since I was lucky enough as a kid to have already memorized "The
Wizard of Oz" in book form before I was 5, I remember not getting the
movie's idea that it was supposed to be a dream, since that's not true
in the book - I thought her "waking up" was just a set-up by Glinda,
and it never occurred to me to think otherwise till I was practically
grown-up!

Any similar examples you remember?


Bill:
One that sticks in my mind was a 40s comedy about a woman whose
boyfriend had been killed in WWII and was pregnant, and the movie was
about her trying to find a husband before the baby was born. I was old
enough to know that having a kid out of wedlock was frowned upon, but
not old enough to know exactly how babies were made. So I drew the
conclusion that at a certain age women just became pregnant, and had
to get married before
then. Not really about misinterpreting the *movie.* Bill

(That would be Miracle at Morgan's Creek, I guess?) Lenona.

I read The Sun Also Rises when I was 12. And for the life of me I
couldnt figure out why Jake and Lady Brett just didn't get together
and live happily ever after... Ruth, ( Old war wound???)

I was a mere cine-tyke, maybe eleven years old, when I first saw a
reissue of Citizen Kane. I remember being shocked at the headlines of
"Kane and Singer Caught In Love Nest": I mean, all he did was visit
Susan Alexander, and help her with her toothache, and make funny
shadows on the wall, and listen to her sing. Right? Right...??? Bob
Keser

Wait... oh boy. Jesus Christ, I'm 21, and some "things" still fly
straight over my head. MadiHolmes

I remember when I was a kid, my friend Calvin and I "misinterpreted"
the ending of a kids' movie! -- specifically, the all-kiddie gangster
musical "Bugsy Malone." I remember him complaining about two things at
the ending:
1. Bugsy and his girlfriend stay totally clean throughout the whole
final piefight, and
2. After an entire movie explaining how getting hit with a pie will
kill a character, suddenly at the end the whole piefight has no effect
on any of the characters.
I think I was in my late twenties when I realized: Those pies *did*
kill all those characters! Bugsy and his girlfriend were the only
ones to survive, so they get to leave the club and drive away at the
end!

Oh, also, in Chinatown(SPOILER), even though Faye Dunaway shakes her
head no
when she's asked directly, her father really did rape her. Dave Gates.

My favorite misinterpretation--or should I say deliberate
misrepresentation?-- involved a friend of my younger brother, who when
watching A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM was informed
by his parents that all those sexy girls in Phil Silvers'
establishment were actually Phil's "daughters". --Hal E

LOL...for those of us who have no interest in pirates... Ivan

I'm surprised no one else has yet mentioned the sci-fi film "Forbidden
Planet." I saw that for the first time when I was maybe 5 years old.
At the time, I did not know it had been loosely based on Shakespeare's
"The Tempest." (And neither did my parents.) So I didn't find out
about that connection till high school. And then I could enjoy it a lot
more.

Still later, I had occasion to buy the novelization by Randy Stuart,
which made Morbius's subconscious incestuous feelings toward his
daughter more explicit. That was another thing I had missed at age
five, of course.


--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin at (no spam) earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Stone me...
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 11:41 pm
Guest
<lenona321 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:197d7325-c9bf-4722-a3e0-1cc99ffd603b at (no spam) d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 12, 1:34 pm, "trickster... at (no spam) yahoo.com" <trickster... at (no spam) yahoo.com>
wrote:
Quote:
I can't remember the name of this movie, though it was written by
Lillian Hellman. It was about a student lying about the relationship
between two teachers. When I was young, I thought the lie was just a
lie. As I got older, I realized, it was the lesbian intimation of the
lie.

I can't remember the name of the movie, Us Three, Then There Were
Three, Three Hours, The Children's Hour. Damn I hate when that
happens!

"These Three" was the 1936 heterosexual-triangle version. The scandal
back then, of course, was the idea that two teachers would be involved
in a premarital affair. (In the IMDb, which has 23 user comments, it
says: "The play was partly inspired by an actual case in Scotland in
1810, which resulted in a libel suit brought on by the teachers.")
Many consider this the superior film.

"The Children's Hour" was the 1961 lesbian version, which was the
original play. (That has 61 user comments.)

About "These Three":

http://movies.com/moviescommunity/tidbits?movieid=814373

"During the filming of These Three, producer Samuel Goldwyn and
director William Wyler often clashed. Jan Herman, Wyler's biographer,
reports one incident: After viewing the scene in which Martha
confesses to Karen that in fact she was in love with Joe, Goldwyn
said, "I dont understand this scene. Whats it all about?" Wyler
believed that it was so simple that it could be understood by his
young son Sammy, who happened to be there in the projection room with
them. He asked Sammy what the scene was about. When the nine-year-old
explained exactly what it meant, the furious Goldwyn retorted, "Since
when are we making movies for children?"


I wonder whether we couldn't make a similar movie today. (Maybe
"Atonement" fits the bill - but I haven't seen it yet. Don't spoil
it!) That is, there's already so much in the news about vicious little
brats making up false accusations of sexual- and nonsexual- assault
when they're angry at their teachers, it might be more interesting to
write a movie about a different but equally crushing type of malicious
lie.

Lenona.

I wonder about those Goldwyn stories. From what I've read, he wasn't
stupid.
Those amusing statements like " a gentleman's agreement isn't worth the
paper it's written on" sound like someone playing around with a language
rather than accidentally making a silly statement..
He may have felt a little intimidated by his best directors, though he was
on
record as demanding better than average quality for his films.

Stone me.
 
Page 1 of 1       All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Sep 05, 2008 2:38 am