TheVFM

How long is Ava Duvenay going to be on The Essentials?

146 posts in this topic

Count me in as also not being a fan of the films she picks for essentials. I think we have a case of an individual who has the memories of seeing these films in a setting of say a liberal arts class and cherishing those memories of the class more than the films themselves. Let’s face it some of these films are real junk. Just my theory, considering her political views in her personal life.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vidorisking said:

Count me in as also not being a fan of the films she picks for essentials. I think we have a case of an individual who has the memories of seeing these films in a setting of say a liberal arts class and cherishing those memories of the class more than the films themselves. Let’s face it some of these films are real junk. Just my theory, considering her political views in her personal life.

I wonder if she's reading this thread. 

I hope she is...not to sound mean...but it would be nice if she reflected on how her choices are not going over well with people.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

I wonder if she's reading this thread. 

I hope she is...not to sound mean...but it would be nice if she reflected on how her choices are not going over well with people.

I am guessing we are more respectful here than social media. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't even pay attention to what she's scheduled. The only part of the Saturday evening schedule I look at is the film in the 9:00pm slot-- Noir Alley. 

I saw her list of Essentials when she was first announced as host--and nothing appealed to me at all.  There wasn't even anything that I thought "hmm. Maybe I'll check this one out." Nothing. I haven't given her much thought after that. Frankly, I forgot that she was still on TCM. 

This discussion may bring me to this question:

Depending on the definition of "Essential," are there a finite group of Essentials a la TCM's annual Oscars programming?

RO was basically showcasing many of the tried and true Hollywood Essentials, which many here (at the time) complained that the selections were too repetitive. Ava's programming may seem to have gone over to the other end of the spectrum, and people are complaining that the selections are too obscure. 

Is there a middle ground between repetitive "Essentials" e.g. Casablanca and obscure "Essentials" e.g. lady cleaning her house in desolate Siberia (or whatever) movie ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hibi said:

AGREE. The channel is top heavy with hosts now. Whose salaries could be used to rent NEW films!

Universal and Paramount say hi.

 

Signed CI, who just spent $3.99 on Amazon video to see a 60s Paramount title......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't Warner Brothers cartoons be considered essential?  Or a particular 13 chapter serial, say FLASH GORDON because of its influence on STAR WARS?  Perhaps the question of what is essential is too broad when considering everyone has a different opinion on what is essential.

Certainly the criteria should include how a film advanced, influenced or changed film making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

 

And I remember seeing this and thinking, "hang on a second, this is her SECOND FEATURE. And now she's a VISIONARY??? 

I don't have anything against her; Selma was a solid film. But a statement like that is an example I feel of 2010s hyperbole. There are certain actors and actresses and certain directors who are presented with rapturous praise after hitting it out of the park with the critics after doing one film. Afterwards they are given all this laudatory attention.... until they do something that isn't so popular or bottoms out, and then everyone screams they are overrated and their career fades away. I'm tired of that type of whiplash......

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

Universal and Paramout say high.

 

Signed CI, who just spent $3.99 on Amazon video to see a 60s Paramount title......

Signed Speedracer5 who just spent $9.99 to purchase the entirety of the 1960s sci-fi series The Time Tunnel on Amazon Prime, in a feeble effort to clear up space on her DVR.  The good news is however, I now own The Time Tunnel commercial free! Take that Me-TV! I also just stuck it to the man who decided to take a one-season show and split it into two volumes of DVDs AND make the second volume out of print!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, yanceycravat said:

The word brilliant has been way over used as of late.

As has the word "iconic." 

Last time I checked, "Iconic" or "icon" if you will, is supposed to be something that is symbolic of a certain time or what have you. Something cannot be instantly iconic.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, yanceycravat said:

The Time Tunnel was one of my favorite shows when I was young time traveler myself back in the 60's!

This show used to be on Hulu.  I originally started watching it for James Darren. Then Hulu dropped it and Me-TV picked it up.

I'm not the biggest fan of science fiction, but I do enjoy 1960s sci-fi and time travel.  I was pleasantly surprised that I actually enjoyed the show. It's a shame that it only has one season.

I mainly bought the show so that I could free up the space on the DVR that 17 hour-long episodes was taking up and because I did like it. It was a better deal on Amazon Prime Video than it was buying the physical DVDs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just now, speedracer5 said:

As has the word "iconic." 

Last time I checked, "Iconic" or "icon" if you will, is supposed to be something that is symbolic of a certain time or what have you. 

 

Just now, yanceycravat said:

The word brilliant has been way over used as of late.

One thing also that I think should also be addressed about the reception of films today, is how the mixed review in papers and on websites devoted to film are much rarer than they used to be. metacritic is an example of that. That's a website that rates movies on a weighted critical average, with 1 being the lowest and 100 the highest (its all based on the star rating or tenor of the review). In the 90s, most films, even the most praised ones, would top out in the high 70s to low 80s. Most films were in the middle ground of the 40s and 50s scores (banded in Yellow). Now, the most praised ones place in the 90s and up to even near 100, whereas even some films that not many people like are given scores in the 50s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

One thing also that I think should also be addressed about the reception of films today, is how the mixed review in papers and on websites devoted to film are much rarer than they used to be. metacritic is an example of that. That's a website that rates movies on a weighted critical average, with 1 being the lowest and 100 the highest (its all based on the star rating or tenor of the review). In the 90s, most films, even the most praised ones, would top out in the high 70s to low 80s. Most films were in the middle ground of the 40s and 50s scores (banded in Yellow). Now, the most praised ones place in the 90s and up to even near 100, whereas even some films that not many people like are given scores in the 50s. 

I agree with the ratings.  Some people will give a film/video game/ etc. a horrendous score for some inane reason, like giving Top Hat a 1/10 because they dislike musicals; and others will drone on and on about how bad a film is and still give it an above-average score.  It seems that people assign their grades to their "reviews" very arbitrarily. I rarely grade anything online, but sometimes I will elevate my personal score solely for something superficial, like thinking that the lead actor was cute and saved a film that would be barely passable otherwise. 

It's funny how there's such a movement to be PC and nice and what not, which might be contributing to the inconsistent grading on movies/games/etc. But at the same time, people will go on to write the most vile things about people online. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you haven't seen Pather Panchali, I do recommend trying it, unless you don't want to deal with the subtitles. The film seems to be real life unfolding in front of us, and yet each shot is beautifully composed, which is an almost impossible combination. I do consider this an Essential.

As for Chantal Akerman . . . well, I've seen Jeanne Dielmann, which as a movie is a good graduate seminar paper, but doesn't excite me to see more Akerman films. Recording Jeanne Dielmann and using the fast-forward button turned out to be a good decision.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, kingrat said:

As for Chantal Akerman . . . well, I've seen Jeanne Dielmann, which as a movie is a good graduate seminar paper, but doesn't excite me to see more Akerman films. Recording Jeanne Dielmann and using the fast-forward button turned out to be a good decision.

It's the most boring film about a prostitute anyone could ever make.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

I think I’d rather watch the bowl of puke film that we envisioned in a few threads prior. I don’t even like doing my own chores, let alone watch someone do theirs. 

But by Akerman it would be mesmerizing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kingrat said:

 

As for Chantal Akerman . . . well, I've seen Jeanne Dielmann, which as a movie is a good graduate seminar paper, but doesn't excite me to see more Akerman films. Recording Jeanne Dielmann and using the fast-forward button turned out to be a good decision. 

I did the same thing ,it saved a lot of precious time,movie lasted like 45-55 minutes...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, slaytonf said:

Don't like what she chooses?  Don't watch it.  Have a nostalgic hankerin' for the good ol' days with Osborne and Baldwin?  Dig out your old DVDs.

I don't watch................

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does Peter Bogdanovich have to do to get hired by TCM???

 

He's a walking, talking, movie machine & has such a long list of favs it's often difficult to make out  Always rated Hawks though over *Ford

 

Who recalls him on tv's The Sopranos?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CinemaInternational said:

Signed CI, who just spent $3.99 on Amazon video to see a 60s Paramount title......

I'd rather spend $3.99 on something that you can't see anywhere else than watch the same ol' same ol'. It's cheaper than driving into town and taking a gambol on what the cineplex is dishing out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, cigarjoe said:

I'd rather spend $3.99 on something that you can't see anywhere else than watch the same ol' same ol'. It's cheaper than driving into town and taking a gambol on what the cineplex is dishing out.

do you also have demand?   TCM is free on it too

  • Like 1

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

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us