Sign in to follow this  
johnm001

Cinemascope's Sociopathic Spamming Thread

302 posts in this topic

It had been my impression that the WebAdmin had largely taken a hands-off approach but, at any rate, if thee are women who could be the subject of further verbal abuse, then don't you think they ought to at least be aware of this? For their own protection? >>

 

Aware of what??? Over the years here, I have only been verbally abused by one poster and see below for how it was handled. I have had my hair singed a few times by both men and women here but that's part of the give and take of this unmoderated forum.

 

Both Chris and I have suggested that you contact the TCM WebAdmin if you have received threatening PMs, been verbally abused or anything else that has made you feel uncomfortable posting in these forums.

 

I pointed out that last summer when some of us (men and women) received threatening PMs we individually contacted the WebAdmin and the situation was dealt with. The poster came back to rear his ugly head publicly making some very vile statements about many of us before finally being given the boot by the WebAdmin.

 

 

If it is unacceptable to verbally abuse women on these boards (and the majority of us would agree it is) it is just as unacceptable to verbally abuse the men. Everyone here deserves to be treated the same and singling out women for special treatment over the men will only cause further dissension around here.

 

People are trying to tell you, Stoney and Bartlett that they have had enough. People don't come here to watch a train wreck. They come here to share their love for classic movies and making personal attacks on posters is not helping in any way shape or form.

 

If you have a problem with anyone on these boards, follow your own advise and take it to PM and if that fails and you feel strongly enough about it, contact the WebAdmin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah maybe this time you'll post photos of James Garner. :)>>

 

Smiley face not withstanding, what part of disengage from the fight are you not understanding?

 

Earlier today, you were very upset that Stoneyburke was accusing you of multiple personalities.

 

Now, here you are hours later, insinuating that SueSue is an alias for johnm.

 

You want us to stand up for you against those who make these unfounded accusations against you (I saw your post to Klondike in Mongo's In the Spotlight thread) but you are resorting to the same behavior.

 

You can't have it both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, thank you very much lzcutter. Just as I had finally gotten all of this out of my system and hoped that I wouldn't have to start discussing these matters again, you come back and you bring all of these things up again.

 

I do not think you are truly trying to help, I think you're just trying to kick a person while she's down, or while she's just getting up.

 

If you have anything further to say on this please PM me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's a good thing they cast Audrey Hepburn instead of Julie Andrews for the film version of my My Fair Lady. JA is OK, but she doesn't even come close to having the kind of class that only Audrey could bring to a character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Fair Lady is certainly about learning to have class, and by the end of the movie Eliza has arguably more class than Professor Higgins. And sorry but sense has absolutely nothing with seeing that Julie Andrews just isn't as classy and could never be as classy as Audrey Hepburn was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that Julie Andrews didn't play Eliza allowed My Fair Lady to

display Audrey's finesse in the role. If anyone had heard Hepburn's own

singing in a movie clip I saw years back, it did not seem o lack a

personal quality of talent and the ability to hit the right note. Just the

men in suits decided to make the change, which hurt Audrey's feelings terribly.

 

But Julie Andrews had the luck and opportunity to create Mary Poppins

on screen.

 

The sad moment was that Audrey was not even nominated for My Fair Lady

because she truly could act those moments that I feel that maybe Julie

was not yet ready for onscreen. The happy moment is that Julie

won for Mary Poppins, a cinema highlight during my elementary years.

 

The positive nature of Julie's early, onscreen characters helped me to be more positive in my dealings with the adult world, no matter how "Pollyanna" (Is that another thread?) it may seem to other posters. I am grateful for those screen moments that steered me into a happier outlook on life that I might not have had otherwise.

 

Message was edited by:

SueSueApplegate

 

Message was edited by:

SueSueApplegate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The positive nature of Julie's early, onscreen characters helped me to be more positive in my dealings with the adult world, no matter how "Pollyanna" (Is that another thread?) it may seem to other posters. I am grateful for those screen moments that steered me into a happier outlook on life that I might not have had otherwise.

 

Well I would imagine that the "positive nature" of such characters would have been very similar had they been portrayed by another actress. And there's no way to know how movies like Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music may have hurt Andrews' career by typecasting her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you about the singing part, although I loved Audrey in ' . . . Lady", but I would have given a ton to see Julie Andrews, no in the movie necessarily, but on stage, she had to be the ultimate! I'm not a rah-rah Julie fan, but I do like her, and can imagine her in some parts, and I can't imagine anyone else in things like Mary Poppins. Some people just make the role their own. For one, seeing Julie as Maria, I have a hard time knowing the same woman who flew around the stage in Peter Pan on TV is the one who originated Maria in Sound of Music, nor can I see Mary Martin as Nellie Forbush in South Pacific. I've never seen Mary Martin except in musical numbers in various bio-pics, but she just doesn't have the animation that Nellie needed. Then, back to Julie Andrews, I could never accept her as a man in Victor/Victoria. I know some woman impersonators are extremely beautiful, but she just never put it across for me, though I have no idea of anybody else who could have filled the bill.

 

Also, though I never saw Julie in Camelot, I did have the stage recording, and Redgrave definitely did not fit my idea of Guinevere in the movie. Again, the fun and animation wasn't there. Of course Richard Harris as Arthur instead of Burton could have had a lot to do with it!

 

Anne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the fact that they dubbed Audrey; but there is really nothing about the film that I do like, other than it preserves Harrison's and Holloway's performances. As I've said before, the direction is just wrong, imo; and it's barely the same musical that it was on stage. Julie could have done both MP and MFL, had she been cast. MFL's shooting schedule conflicted with THE AMERICANIZATION OF EMILY and THE SOUND OF MUSIC. To highlight how bad Hepburn is in the role -watch the scene when she first comes to Higgins' home. Everyone else is playing it like they are in a film. She plays it like she's in a high school play. Absolutely no coloring to her character. Just broad. Also, look at the number, "Loverly". She's all phony grins and carefully placed smudges. The song is about longing. She needed a different director. Also, she never sounds English. Finally, the film just sits there. Very static and non-cinematic. For a Super-Panavison 70 presentation, released in 1964, it barely plays like a film. I've always been grateful that Julie did 'Emily' and TSOM, instead. Besides, I had already seen her do the definitive Eliza. Trivia about her Eliza. She was the youngest actress to ever play the role (either in MFL or PYGMALION), and she also portrayed the role, longer than any other actress - 3 1/2 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of what JA did in the early 80's would appear to have been motivated at least in part by the desire to shake loose from the typecasting that practically killed her career, so to some extent some people might see S.O.B. and Victor/Victoria from that perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of stage productions have to be adapted in different ways when they are adapted for the screen, and I can think of very few musicals that get nearly everything so right as My Fair Lady does; almost all the non-musical elements are fairly similar to Pygmalion, which is also a delightful movie in its own right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest issue with MY FAIR LADY is the lack of adapting it for the medium of film. You obviously didn't read my post, or you would have known that. It didn't adapt the piece for film. It is the most non-cinematic film I can recall. The number, GET ME TO THE CHURCH ON TIME, for example, was bigger and far more exciting than the film. All the numbers were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have a sense of the flat portrayal with missing spark that you mention about

Audrey, but I am grateful Julie was in Americanization. I just loved that film.

 

My Fair Lady needed some spark, but I think that, like you stated, John,

direction might have helped. I always felt the beginning of the races

sequence was dull, and it didn't perk up until Audrey said "bloomin' ****."

 

I am a Julie and an Audrey fan, so I am grateful for both their careers on film.

 

Being typecast for Julie, well, life's all hits and misses anyway, and if

she was afraid of being typecast, it was a good idea for her to

be Jerusha in Hawaii because that was a non-singing role.

She has her 3 squares a day, her book deals, a home in Switzerland

and the U.S. It didn't seem to hurt her much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not every musical has to be the most gargantuan and the splashiest spectacle on the face of the Earth for it to be enjoyable. The human element is there and that's the most important thing. I've never once failed to fully engage with all the characters and their feelings as the film progresses; in that sense it rings more true than a lot of other musicals (which are nonetheless enjoyable).

 

There isn't a single scene in the whole movie that I don't enjoy exactly as it is, and the movie's charm has not been diminished by the years. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Fair Lady has plenty of spark as it is, and as a fan of Audrey Hepburn and Rex Harrison, it is one of my favorite movies with both of them. There really wasn't a dull moment in the whole movie.

 

As for Julie Andrews, well, I think that being typecast for well over 20 years and then to face that horrible surgery really doesn't make for a Mary Poppins-cheerful life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Film star or not, everyone has to roll with the punches, hits or misses...Julie is a class act if for no other

reason than she kept moving forward even after

such a devastating physical setback...

 

Message was edited by:

SueSueApplegate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, but celebrities do it in the public eye. No idea how much harder it may or may not make it, and probably would rather not know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt that Julie Andrews has many regrets. Her career is virtually unsurpassed with successes. No one even touches the amount of record-setters, in every area of entertainment, with which she was involved. She made her own decisions to turn down films like THE PRIME OF MISS JEAN BRODIE and Broadway shows like SUNSET BLVD., always preferring family to a career. Now, she's kept busy, directing, writing, running her own publishing division, and doing the same charitable work for the agency she co-founded in 1979, Operation USA and for UNIFEM, among others. She's also busy working on the musical adaptation of her book, "Simeon's Gift". She's still a star, after being a professional entertainer for almost 60 years, with homes in 3 states and 3 countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us