Task: Sentiment Analysis
Input (English): deep focus . I've taught this film in colleges for thirty-plus years.  Even back at the earliest screenings, traditional-aged freshmen had trouble with it (a) because it was in b&w, and (b) because the dimensional characters didn't telegraph plot advancement but instead used irony, wit, or assumptions that would later be proven wrong by subsequent events.    The first of these objections stunned me when they couldn't appreciate Gene Tierney descending the stairs to seduce "Larry" in a gown relegated to grays.  The second objection (young auduence confusion) just made me sad about the impact of television ... but you already know that story.  As with Hollywood's THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY, released in during the same general period, I personally appreciate the "epic scope" of the narrative, enhanced by remarkable set direction detail.  And I appreciate even more the depth-of-focus photography in both of these films, which enriches viewing by sharp images at several planes of action within the frame.  It's a story well-told at the visual level.  I've read complaints about Tyrone Power's "dated" acting in this performance, NIGHTMARE ALLEY, etc.  But again, I suspect this is from a generation more comfortable with MTV editing than with theatre as an entertainment criterion.  Power is given a series of difficult monologues to recite about uncinematic spiritual/ philosophical themes, and he pulls each off brilliantly.  As with Olivier's opening scene in RICHARD III, it's interesting to watch how these monologues have been directed to use a pacing movement of the actor within the frame as a "paragraphing" punctuation.  The lengthy, uninterrupted takes and consequent fluidity of camera movement within these shots not only enhances the impact of the monologues but also makes sly commentary on characters/ themes as continuous camera includes other characters in medium close-ups.  Herbert Marshall's Maugham is interesting and underplayed almost as masterfully as Cedrick Hardwicke's performance of "goodness personified" in ROPE.  The close-ups of "Maugham's" eyes to communicate ironic plot points may seem obtrusive, but they're true to Maugham's voice in the novel.    Further, they emphasize the ill-advised decision to omit this narrator's perspective in Murray's hapless remake.  That later film fails in no small part because the female characters are virtually indistinguishable visually, and because the studio (which only made the film to entice Murray to make GHOSTBUSTERS II) invested no interest in producing a good movie script.  Pity, since Murray could have done okay.  Two less successful scenes in the 40s version are the "Baby!" hospital melodrama and the ashram Jehovah sequences (not including the remarkably visual spiritual moment in the mountains).  But the supporting cast remains superb throughout--especially the bracing comedy of Webb and Lancaster, and the moving subtlety of John Payne and Lucille Watson.    Tierney's richest moments are linked to the plot:  "That's all right, Larry.  It might be less than a year"; the wedding announcement over the phone; the camera-narrated scene where Isabel "seduces" Larry's fiancee; and, of course, the climax with Larry at the end.  And, by the way, she's as gorgeous as Tyrone Power!    How much more value can one expect from an entertainment that succeeds so well with complex, mature themes of spiritual redemption in a society of capitalist myopia?
Output (English): POS