Sign in to follow this  
kaslovesTCM

Tootsie ??? not AGAIN!

414 posts in this topic

You've never seen Diner?

 

The film came out in 1982.

 

It's a great "little" film. The story of a circle of male friends who meet at a diner in the northwest section of Baltimore. They have not seen one another often since graduating from high school. One of the members of the group is getting married. It's a really good film that tells the stories of each character. The director, Barry Levinson encourage all of the actors to improvise some of their dialogue to capture a more natural feeling for the audience. The film is listed on the AFI 100 Years, 100 Laughs series. Levinson received an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Screenplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....neither of which I have never heard of. Assuming that I haven't been living under a rock, that may indicate that not many people agreed with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>....neither of which I have never heard of. Assuming that I haven't been living under a rock,

 

Yeah, well, I just saw a gila monster crawl under it, so you need to be careful. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>It's a great "little" film. The story of a circle of male friends who meet at a diner in the northwest section of Baltimore. They have not seen one another often since graduating from high school.

 

I saw THE BIG CHILL in 1983, and that is enough of that type of film from that era.

 

"A group of seven former college friends gather for a weekend reunion at a posh South Carolina winter house after the funeral of one of their friends."

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085244/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Thanks, but I'm not interested.

 

That's fine Fred. I never said you HAD to watch Diner. Oh, and by the way, Diner is completely different than The Big Chill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}What is Diner (1982)??

>

> Is this a joke?

 

I agree :)

 

But as well, a Lot of post 50s movies are a joke. Isn't that why we love the 30s /40s movies so much , as they make more sense.

 

Twink

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> But as well, a Lot of post 50s movies are a joke. Isn't that why we love the 30s /40s movies so much , as they make more sense.

 

Well, unfortunately for everyone who watches films, since there were so many more films produced during the so-called Golden Age of film, and from the silent era, there are also many more bad movies made back then comparable to today's films.

 

I am not saying that today's films are better, just that so many more films were made from the 1910's all the way up to the 1940's. And so one could say that there were *just as many* if not more average to mediocre to bad films made then than there are today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> And it costs money which I am sure is hard to come by at TCM.

Judging by their incessant rotation of the same movies over and over, *I'm certain of that*. Where's Doctor Zhivago? Haven't seen it for a month and a half now or is TCM waiting for their print to resume room temperature again? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to compare the Academy Award years of the 1930s and 40s with the 1960s and 70s:

 

 

Awards for 1940

 

Oscar

 

Best Picture

 

WINNER

Gone with the Wind: (Selznick International Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM))

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOMINEES

 

Dark Victory: (Warner Bros., First National)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Goodbye, Mr. Chips: (M-G-M)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Love Affair: (RKO Radio)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington: (Columbia)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ninotchka: (M-G-M)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of Mice and Men: (Hal Roach)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stagecoach: (Walter Wanger)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Wizard of Oz: (M-G-M)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wuthering Heights (Samuel Goldwyn Productions)

 

====================================

 

Awards for 1970

 

Oscar

 

Best Picture

 

WINNER

 

Midnight Cowboy: Jerome Hellman

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOMINEES

Anne of the Thousand Days: Hal B. Wallis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid: John Foreman

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello, Dolly!: Ernest Lehman

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Z: Jacques Perrin, Ahmed Rachedi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't we lucky that TCM can appeal to everyone's tastes. Film lovers can get to enjoy films of any era. I love silent films, and TCM has given me the opportunity to see and enjoy many I haven't seen before, the same for pre-codes, musicals, noirs, comedies,dramas. As far as post '60's films, there are many that I'm glad I've gotten to enjoy again. Had many of our great directors and stars lived, they would have continued making films post 1960. Life and great films do go on. Just grateful TCM exposes us to all eras.

 

I'm so glad that the GREAT John Huston, director of *The Treasure of the Sierra Madre* decided to direct another excellent film the *1985* *Prizzi's Honor* . Glad great director's felt that great film did not have to end in 1960.

 

Edited by: lavenderblue19 on Jul 27, 2013 2:04 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have to compare Fred. I just wrote that because there were so many more films produced from the silent era all of the way up and into the 1940's that there were also just as many badly produced films made then as there are now.

 

The films of the late 1930s to the late 1940s I would never compare to films of the 1960s to the 1970s.

 

For one thing the film industry changed 180˚ after the abolishment of the Hays Code in 1968. In fact the industry was changing in the mid to late fifties. Not every year of the Golden Age of Film, were there great Academy Award nominated films. Especially the 1930's and 1940's.

 

If you'd like I could sit here and write a pretty convincing argument comparing AA nominated films for Best Picture from certain years and I would have to say that many of the films from the 1960's and 70's were on par if not better than some films form the earlier time period. But again, I am not going to say that the 60's and 70's produced better films. There were some good films form this time period, but I could also flip the coin and say that there were some pretty bad films from the 1930's and 40's as well.

 

Again, everything is I write is my own opinion, not based on some other so-called "expert".

 

Edited by: fxreyman on Jul 27, 2013 1:58 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Showing films from the 1930s through the 2000s now waters down what I originally subscribed to TCM to receive, which was mainly the best classic films from the 30s and 40s, with some from the 20s and 50s.

 

I prefer films that used the old style of photography, lighting, sets, music, background sounds, etc., such as the style Mel Brooks used to film YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN.

 

I'm watching some of that same style in PATHS OF GLORY right now. In fact, PATHS OF GLORY is a good imitation of an anti-war film from the early 1930s. That's one thing that makes it so good.

 

Edited by: FredCDobbs on Jul 27, 2013 1:22 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said. Yea, it appears many 30s film fans, (being so in love with that era), forget that the studios were cranking out a lot of films and not much care was given to these films. I still find these films interesting and entertaining (especially WB programmers), because I love the contract player and the action was fast placed, but most of these movies lack depth. i.e. by design they were made to be seen once and then forgotten.

 

Also there was the Hays Code which added an unrealistic layer on many of these productions but it is interesting to see how producers and directors would work around the Code to get racy elements communicated.

 

Many of my favorite films are from the 30s but a lot of these are based on plays. These movies have depth since the play they are based on did.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......but most of these movies lack depth i.e. by design they were made to be seen once and then forgotten.

 

That's precisely how I feel about todays movies, "To be seen Once and the Forgotten" !

 

Twink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PATHS OF GLORY was pretty much a Hays Code film. I don't recall any nudity or cursing in the film. This movie certainly doesn't "lack depth".

 

In fact, PATHS OF GLORY very closely imitated the style of the early 1930s anti-war films about WW I. Did you notice the early 1930s style of photography, lighting, image composition? Kubrick copied early 1930s films when he made this one.

 

Compare his shy-girl-singing sequence at the end, with the first two minutes of this clip from a 1930 Anny Ondra film:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jy1D5V3-D1k&t=33

 

Compare PATHS OF GLORY with BROKEN LULLABY from 1932.

 

Having been a documentary cameraman most of my life, I can tell that Stanley Kubrick carefully studied many of the early 1930s anti-war films, before he made PATHS OF GLORY.

 

I mentioned PATHS OF GLORY in my post on July 21 about BROKEN LULLABY:

 

I don't recall any Post-WW II films like this one, not until Paths of Glory.

 

Nancy Carroll was a very good dramatic actress, and Phillips Holmes was a very good young actor.

 

 

*The Broken Lullaby* (1932)

 

Nancy Carroll ... Fraulein Elsa, Walter's Fianc?e

Phillips Holmes ... Paul Renard

Lionel Barrymore ... Dr. H. Holderlin

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Many hundreds of 1960s and 70s films might have been salvaged, if they had been photographed in the 1930s artistic style, instead of being front lit with high-key lighting and no back or side lighting. And not much in B&W now.

 

YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN was another modern film that was very good and successful, because it imitated the 1930s style of photography and lighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry Fred by I fail to see how your post is related to what I posted in anyway. I love Paths of Glory and yes, it is a film full of depth and a very high quality production. But it wasn't a 30s programmer, which is what I was mostly discussing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't even see them once. I haven't been in a theater in decades and I only watch about 2 - 5 new releases each year.

 

But I still feel your view of the 30's era verses the post Hays code era (1968), is way too black and white. While one can still get a lot of entertainment from movies that were made on the cheap, I see no reason to pretend that they were not made on the cheap and that they have many flaws, if one is willing to look closely.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>But it wasn't a 30s programmer, which is what I was mostly discussing.

 

This thread has been discussing Tootsie and mostly modern 60s and 70s programmers, like Ice Station Zebra, filmed almost entirely on small sets and is a very boring do-nothing nonsense film

 

I've been discussing the lack of classic films that are not being shown, while these modern junker films are being shown.

 

PATHS OF GLORY and YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN are newer films, but they are great because they COPY the photography, lighting, etc. styles of the 1930s and late 20s.

 

PATHS OF GLORY is a 1957 film made to look like a high-quality late-20s, early-30s anti-war film. That's why it is good. That's why YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN was good last night.

 

*Trench walking dolly shot, followed by battle scenes, from WHAT PRICE GLORY 1926*

 

1:25:10 into this video:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wrRcNio9fmM&t=5107

 

*Trench walking dolly shot, followed by battle scenes, from PATHS OF GLORY 1957*

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know folks, I gotta say readin' all these exchanges between the adherents of "newer thought" and that of the "more traditional" in this thread is ALMOST as fun as watchin' THESE TWO go at it!!!...

 

Inherit_the_wind_trailer_(2)_Spencer_Tra

 

 

(...but in the meantime, just envision me as the Gene Kelly character snickerin' in the background at all the goin's on here)

 

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>But I still feel your view of the 30's era verses the post Hays code era (1968), is way too black and white.

 

Can you not see that Kubrick copied WHAT PRICE GLORY and that scene from the Anny Ondra film when he made PATHS OF GLORY, and he wanted his film to be in black and white?

 

Can you not see that with YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN Mel Brooks copied FRANKENSTEIN (1931)? Did you not hear the intro and outtro to YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN last night? He didn't copy the color Hammer Frankenstein films, he copied the original early-30s classic.

 

Do you think this ICE STATION ZEBRA is a classic film worth 3 hours shooting on small indoor sets? Is there a big demand for and fan club for ICE STATION ZEBRA? Is there a lot of demand for DINER?

 

Dish TV advertises more than 30 other movie channels these non-classics could show on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us