Comments on: This Week on TCM

By: Sarah

Sarah — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:55:34 +0000

Johanna, I think you may find certain aspect of SHANE rather dated, but I think Dave’s point of view is essentially sound. It’s very close to pure archetype.

By: Val

Val — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 02:25:00 +0000

Gads, until reading these updates I forgot what an obsessive TCM fan I used to be. When the obsession was really bad, I’d check the schedules for “Fox Movie Channel” as well.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 22:02:44 +0000

Dave, thanks very much for that. I added it to the Tivo list after a friend saw the blog and called me up to say that I needed to see it. How can I turn down such passionate recommendations as his and yours?

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:50:36 +0000

Johanna, I highly recommend you give SHANE a try. I’m not a particular fan of the genre, either (I want to be, if that makes any sense– it just never seems to take.), but I would place this in my all-time Top 10. That’s partly because it’s one of my Dad’s favorite movies and I have nostalgic feelings for it, evoking as it does Sunday afternoons, long before I’d ever heard of cable TV, watching it on the local UHF station. But it’s also a nearly perfect “stranger comes to town…” story, but with a lot more layers and complexity than you’d expect. I just re-read a great essay by Roger Ebert on this film at

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20000903/REVIEWS08/9030301/1023

and while it’s only fair to warn you that it contains spoilers, the story is somewhat predictable anyway- there have been hundreds of superhero stories over the years that offered up riffs on this archetype. Ebert does a good job of breaking down the different emotional and psychological layers that make this such a great film far better than I can. Give it a shot- I’ll look forward to reading your reaction.

By: ADD

ADD — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 13:19:23 +0000

In that case, I would definitely give it a go if it pops up. I would have to think in this day and age most good movie channels would try to present one of the better versions. If it helps the odds any, all three of the ones on the Criterion edition make sense, and the first two are previously-available versions (albeit restored), so I think you should be OK.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 13:11:58 +0000

Well, the question (which I asked badly) was more “if I stumble across it on cable, can I just watch that, instead of having to find the DVD?” I wish I knew people local to borrow classic DVDs from; they all buy action movies instead. :)

By: ADD

ADD — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 13:01:47 +0000

The Criterion release has three versions, and explains pretty well what the differences are. If I were to recommend one of those, I would say watch the third one, which was compiled (I believe) by Criterion based as closely as possible on what it’s believed Welles wanted the movie to be.

Any other version, I can’t say, because I haven’t seen them. But if you can rent or borrow the Criterion edition, I don’t think you’d be confused. I hope that helps. :-)

By: Johanna

Johanna — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:53:02 +0000

No, I haven’t. Judging from the imdb comments, it sounds like I might find it confusing without seeing the Criterion version. Do you think that’s accurate?

By: ADD

ADD — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:35:03 +0000

As a huge Welles fan, I certainly agree about Kane. Just wondering if you’ve ever seen Mr. Arkadin? I have a feeling you would like it. Criterion has an amazing set out with three different versions of it, each of which has something unique to make it worth viewing to get a sense of Welles’s intentions. I’d strongly recommend it to you, if you haven’t seen it.