Sign in to follow this  
AvaG92260

The Host without the most...

14 posts in this topic

Hey all,

 

Do u ever notice how the host on the weekend seems to have like the worst tidbits about the actors before the movie (just trash) and Mr.Osbourne though he has tidbits there never trashing the actor or whomever....class how it should before introducing a movie....case in point today...Paris Always Sizzles...he talked about how William Holden was always drunk and the director couldnt shoot...he just took a look at him and new he wouldnt get anything that day so he didnt shoot.......Now is that really necessary BEFORE showing the movie? What a way to present a novie...there ya go folks now enjoy the movie...just classless... i guess TCM sees something? Oh thats right his uncle is Joe Mankewitz..i forgot..thats what they see in him....hmmmm hollywood...lol.......One more thing does this guy ever smile..i mean hes soooooooo condesending...UGH! Anyway, anyone else agree with me?

'

AvaG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO, I like Ben. I think he's a refreshing change from the older, more dignified Robert Osborne. I like them both. They do what they should do and they do it well. If we only had the goody -goody about Hollywood, how long would anyone watch the show? It certainly isn't letting the cat out of the bag when referring to William Holden as a drunk.

As far as Ben's reluctance to smile, I forgive him that solely on the basis of his amazing Hollywood lineage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a silly movie anyway. These were known as "women's movies" back in the early '60s. Any film set in Rome or Paris with a handsome man and good looking young girl, a Rolls Royce car, those were "women's movies". We had to take our dates to see them. Very boring. We men always suspected our dates would rather be with the men in the movies rather than with us.

 

Anorexic girls like Audrey Hepburn never turned me on. She always looked like she just escaped from a concentration camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"These were known as "women's movies" back in the early '60s."

 

Good to see a little candor around here, every now and then. I'll say this ONE TIME...as the TCM Board "minions" would slaughter me for this; GWTW, probably the greatest single achievement of the studio system, and I believe that, was undeniably a "chick flick".

As far as Ben goes, sure why not? He's not RO, and isn't supposed to be. RO is the "Prime-time" guy. Ben lets his "hair down".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>GWTW, probably the greatest single achievement of the studio system, and I believe that, was undeniably a "chick flick".

 

You very well could be right. It would be interesting to know the demographics of the original and subsequent audiences to find out the ratio of women to men in the audience.

 

This current film ?The Ambassador?s Daughter? is another woman?s film from 1956. But this one is for older women. The ?daughter? in this film is 40 year old Olivia de Havilland. She looks very good, but the entire film is shot with a wide-angle lens, with no close-ups, I suppose so we won?t notice how old the actors are.

 

Contrary to what Cine said above, most of the film ?The Ambassador?s Daughter? was shot with a wide-angle lens to play down the ages of the two leading ladies, Olivia de Havilland (40) and Myrna Loy (51). There were a couple of medium wide shots with Olivia, but none with Myrna.

 

While other Cinemascope films of the early ?50s had close-up of younger men and women.

 

The Seven Year Itch (1955) had lots of close-ups:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5-7zvXBs70

 

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953) had close-ups:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0FDGnAIWpk&feature=related

 

Meet Me In Las Vegas (1956) had close-ups:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cuuFYp--Rg

 

Bus Stop (1956) had close-ups:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QocHIbrelcw

 

Demetrius and the Gladiators (1954):

 

 

The Robe (1953) had close-ups:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8v7D2LLPIo&feature=related

 

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954) had close-ups:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuMGfzhtscA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting, thanks. Maybe that's how she developed the habit of not eating much and being very thin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like both Robert Osborne and Ben...they both rock in their own way. I realize that the funds are probably not available for such, but I would also love it if they would add another host (or 2 or 3) for the other time frames where there isn't currently a host now. And I'd prefer it be someone NOT cool or hip or chic, but someone like the hosts on the old AMC, with a sweater on and very low key. Heck it could be one of us, you know? :) I just think that would be fun, but not necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This current film ?The Ambassador?s Daughter? is another woman?s film from 1956. But this one is for older women. The ?daughter? in this film is 40 year old Olivia de Havilland. She looks very good, but the entire film is shot with a wide-angle lens, with no close-ups, I suppose so we won?t notice how old the actors are.

 

That has nothing to do with the film's star's appearance, and everything to do with the feeling during the first part of the widescreen era that began in 1953, that films would need far fewer close-ups, since the CinemaScope frame in master-shot could contain all that was needed to tell a story, requiring much less "coverage" in medium-shot and close-up (as such, 'Scope was seen as a boon that would cut production costs -- despite the fact that sets had to be built bigger -- by reducing films' shooting schedules).

 

There was also the matter of early CinemaScope's lamentable tendency to distort images shot in close-up, making actors' faces look like the characters in George Pal movies right after the rocket has blasted off.

 

Within a few years it became apparent that cinematic narrative and "language" required the same techniques it always did, irrespective of the shape of the screen, and directors went back to doing things the way they always had -- and for that, we may all be thankful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't care for the film, but the title isn't "Paris Always Sizzles." It's called "Paris When It Sizzles," but I have always thought of it as "Paris When It Fizzles."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It would be interesting to know the demographics of the original and subsequent audiences to find out the ratio of women to men in the audience."

 

Haha. Only problem being, I doubt any one in the 40's was assigned to find out which percentage of male viewers were dragged there "kicking and screaming".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mark,

 

forgive me but how u could u say Ben ROCKS..lol...sorry but the guy has as much personality as a wet rag.....refreshing faaaaaaaar from it....but every1 has there opinion..and u are entitiled to yours my freind..

 

As well i want to thank every1 for there input, but i want to add it seems like we are talking about the movie more then what my thread was about strictly Bens performance(if u can call it that)..lol....buuuut as far as the movie..When paris Fizzles...heehee....i thought it stunk....just a silly stupid movie..BAD Script with wonderful actors...that happened alot back in the day..unfortunaltly...they would pop out movies then just to meet the contracts..studios ect....Unfortunate

 

Anyhoot

TyYall

AvaG :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first, as Ben began his monlogue, I too wondered if he was heading into tabloid salaciousness. The comments on the actors' prior affair, Holden's drinking, tensions on the set and so forth could cause one to wonder if this was a proper introduction to the movie. But his final comment as to Holden's solid performance, in spite of these issues, made it, I think, appropriate.

 

After watching the movie, surely one of the worst I have ever sat through, I considered both Holden and Hepburn not only quite professional in their efforts but downright courageous.

 

And, I like Ben. He seems pleasant enough and I don't hold his family connections against him. Those connections have most assuredly given him a knowledge of the movie industry that many posters here might lack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DTs,

 

though very nice your comments on Ben..i dont hold anything against him but him....And to say JUST because he is related in some way to someonne in the industry does NOT mean for sure he has more knowledge then the next person thats just silly..there are plenty od ppl who are family related to someone in the industry and honestly most of those ppl have NO talent (like Ben) and they RIDE on Just that, they are related to someone who was someone in the industry as Ben clearly is doing....i mean i know im not alone here...this guy has NO business being a host of any kind,,,he has NO personality i mean watching him is like watching paint dry.....lol....

 

Anyway, my opionion and i know im not alone here even if some ppl are afraid to come on here and say it..lol...heehee,,

 

ty yall

AvaG

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