Members

Coming up on Noir Alley this weekend: ACT OF VIOLENCE. This is definitely one of my very favourite noirs. Ok, I know I say that all the time (believe it or not, there are quite a few noirs that are NOT on my "favourites" list.) Maybe I've said this or that noir is "one of my favourites" so many times, my saying it has no validity anymore. (But hey, I love noirs, what can I say?) Anyway, truly, Act of Violence really IS right up there in Noirsville for me- I'd list it in my top 5. I've seen it quite a few times, and am never bored. For one thing, I think the story is very compelling. The two main characters are complex, there's no clear "hero"; this makes for an unexpected turn in the film. Of course I won't say anything more about that til after it's aired- I hate spoilers myself. But I can say that these two main characters are played by two of the best that "classic" Hollywood had to offer, and both of them are noir stalwarts: Van Heflin and Robert Ryan. I love both these guys, both are veterans of film noir, and both are great actors. They're both particularly memorable in Act of Violence. Also...interesting, we just saw Janet Leigh in Noir Alley a couple of weeks ago (as poor traumatized Susan Vargas in Touch of Evil ) and here she is again, playing a loving wife again. Here she 's a lot younger, Act of Violence was made almost 10 years before Touch of Evil. Janet Leigh was one of those actresses who, when she was young, somehow looked very young, all wide-eyed and innocent. Anyway, if you haven't seen Act of Violence, I suggest you try and make a point of watching or recording it this weekend. Oh, one thing more: it's interesting how the film segues from a decidedly UN-noirish setting to some of the most visually noir images in the classic noir canon. So anyone who 's looking for shadows and twisty staircases and morally ambiguous characters, look no farther. Act of Violence may start out sunny, but it gets increasingly dark, both visually and psychologically, as the film progresses. (I hope that none of the above contains any spoilers, even of the vague kind.)

Even I, a Boomer, had school friends back in the day who possessed this attutide of "What happened before I came into this world is not worth knowing", and in this regard I had no respect for them. BUT, it sure as hell seems to me that this same lame, yes LAME mindset has exploded in numbers in recent years. And unfortunately, THIS time the "excuse" seems to be, "Even if I learned what happened in the world before I came into it, what they're teaching me is slanted and untruthful, and so I won't bother learning it." But once again in MY estimation, THIS is just another damn cop-out for laziness when it comes to the pursuit of knowledge. (...oh and btw...STAY OFF MY LAWN, all you young whippersnappers out there!!!) LOL

True dat. We get a lot of twenty-somethings here where I work. The number that have never seen a black&white film is appalling. I mention the names Humphrey Bogart or Cary Grant and all I get is a deer stuck in the headlights response. But then also most of them can't even identify the decades the Great Depression and the Second World War took place in either. No one seems to care about the roots from which things sprang anymore and that saddens me.

Prepare yourself for some deja vu all over again.

Thank you Polly of the Precodes for alerting me in re: THE KISS BEFORE THE MIRROR (1932) This was a JAMES WHALE JOINT for UNIVERSAL, and even then, in the glory days of LAEMMLE, their motto was: "reduce, re-use, recycle"- only this is not a bad thing here as some of the TOWER SETS from FRANKENSTEIN are curiously and noticeably used again, as is the MITTEL-EUROPEAN VILLAGE SQUARE that we would see later in THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD (which would make a great double bill with this film) and, of course, THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. As with many JAMES WHALE films, this story seems to take place in A ENGLISH VILLAGE situated for some reason in CENTRAL EUROPE where it's 1890 but people drive 1930's cars and wear 1930's fashions and they all have GERMAN NAMES and TITLES but nearly everyone speaks in a British or Transatlantic accent and it's never explained WHY, but the direction is so confident you just roll with it. The movie starts out tediously, but about 20 minutes in, the story reveals itself, and it is QUITE THE INTRIGUIN PREMISE, one that I think NABOKOV himself would have admired. A man [PAUL LUKAS, "woddling in his grandvodders voodschtoppes" EVEN MORE THAN HE USUALLY IS) MURDERS his cheating wife (the enchanting GLORIA STUART) in a jealous rage [as i recall it, he shoots her in the back] and is represented at trial by THAT OLD KANSAS MAN himself, FRANK MORGAN- a hotshot defense attorney whose wife (the equally enchanting NANCY CARROLL) is also running around on him. In a MIRROR IMAGE SCENARIO, it turns out MORGAN is planning getting LUKAS acquitted for his "crime of passion" thus establishing a LEGAL PRECEDENT so that HE HIMSELF can MURDER his OWN philandering wife- to be honest with you, this is the exact kind of s*** a lawyer would think of and- I have to say- if THE SUPREME COURT tilts any further to the right in the coming years, I can honestly at least see arguments being heard. it's some pretty clever filmmaking for a little bit, UNTIL.... the final act, set in a courtroom, where IN HIS OPENING ARGUMENT TO THE JURY, MORGAN [again- the ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENSE] CROSS EXAMINES HIS OWN CLIENT AND GETS HIM TO ADMIT [in open court!] TO KILLING HIS WIFE IN A CRIME OF PASSION BECAUSE HE HATED HER FOR CHEATING ON HIM then (get this) HE TURNS TO THE JURY AND INFORMS THEM THAT THE PENALTY FOR THIS CRIME IS DEATH, AND UNLESS THEY CAN WORK UP THE SAME INTENSE LEVEL OF PASSION AND HATRED IN THEIR OWN HEARTS FOR HIS CLIENT (LUKAS) THAT HE HAD FOR HIS WIFE WHEN HE (checks notes) MURDERED HER IN (checks notes again) A FIT OF JEALOUS RAGE- then they should ACQUIT HIM. WARNING: I AM GOING ALL IN WITH THE SPOILERS ON THIS, BUT HONESTLY, IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM, I THINK KNOWING WHAT TO EXPECT WILL HELP YOU APPRECIATE IT ALL THE MORE. THE JURY IS ONLY OUT FOR FIVE MINUTES AND JESUS CHRIST ON A CRACKER, THEY ACQUIT THE GUY OF ALL CHARGES!!!!!! ^&*%&^$%$&^%&*^*(&(*)(*%&^$ it's really something to see; i am going to go out on a limb here and say NO ONE CONSULTED WITH A LAWYER DURING THE MAKING OF THIS FILM. this is from a non-lawyer here, but I dare to say that IN THE WORLD THAT IS NOT 1930's HOLLYWOOD, if a defense attorney in a murder trial tried to pull this crap, The Prosecution would ask for- and receive immediately- a COMPLETE MISTRIAL; and then the JUDGE would kindly (or not) request that the COUNSEL FOR DEFENSE contact THE STATE BAR and inform them that he will be surrendering his law license IMMEDIATELY...and also not to speak- at least for the rest of his time in the courtroom on that day, but preferably ever- unless he wants to spend time in the county jail. EDIT- OF COURSE, I don't know what the laws or the court system were like in BRITISHSLOVAKIA of 1932...

Rounding out my Walter Matthau double feature, I just watched THE FORTUNE COOKIE '66. This is first & foremost a billy Wilder film, it has all the hallmarks-great script, great cast, great editing, the story just flows along at a perfect pace. This apparently was the first pairing of Lemmon/Matthau with both leads playing it straight & therefore riotously funny. Lemmon's charactor Harry Hinkle is injured when broadcasting a football game when players explode onto the sidelines. Love the huge camera he's holding on his shoulder-I'm sure it was the sweetest nut in '66. Matthau is his brother-in-law Bill "Whiplash Willy" an ambulance chasing lawyer who sees a big opportunity to sue every big corporation involved. When the story is focused on this, it works great. When any of the side stories, like Hinkle's ex-wife comes back, or the football player who feels incredible guilt over the accident, the humor falls a bit. I did enjoy the slapstick of the two surveillance charactors, one played by recognizable charactor actor Cliff Osmond. The two leads are so strong comedically though, all others are just relief to somewhat ground the story. I loved the ending, although wholly predictable. This movie pales a bit only when compared to other Wilder films-and only because they are so brilliant & stellar-but this is a fun movie anyone can enjoy.

I agree with you, Ben is a "celebrity" without any real classic film credentials. I'm sure he has ambitions to be some sort of celebrity host and I suppose TCM is a perfect fit, although he's also recently been given time on CBS Sunday Morning. I think he does an OK job as a spokesperson and he can do the research to enhance his comments just like anyone else. Leonard Maltin has many historical facts & personal anecdotes filed right in his brain, especially early cinema. I've always felt he was "the guy" while many on this board trashed him, mostly for misunderstanding his movie guide books. But I'm afraid his illness will eventually keep him off camera. Pity he wasn't better appreciated in his prime years, he really is a classic film treasure trove.

Well, I've gotten used to Ben.....sort of, lol. He can be occasionally witty -- I do enjoy the fun, clever exchanges between him and Eddie Muller "You always feel like Mary Astor" -- but, in my humble opinion I doubt Mankiewicz has ever had any important insights on film, exclusive or otherwise. This might sound harsh to some but it's the way I feel. I keep hoping TCM will bring Leonard Maltin on board, but I guess he's not as glamorous....not "hip" looking or with a movie "name".

That just shows what a good actor he was.

Possible future Bond titles according to reddit: Dr? No. The Benefits Are Not Enough The Man With The Golden Parachute Die Another Rostered Day Off You Only Call Out Twice Never Say Organize Again

From May 26-28, 1921, the feature at the Poli was Romance, starring Doris Keane as Marguerita Cavallini, Basil Sydney as Tom Armstrong, and Norman Trevor as Cornelius Van Tuyl. The film was released on May 23, 1920, at seven reels, and is presumed lost. Plot: Harry Armstrong has decided he is going to marry an actress. He visits his grandfather, Tom Armstrong, who is the Bishop of St. Giles. Harry asks his grandfather for blessing. When the Bishop tries to dissuade Harry from getting married, the young man accuses his grandfather of forgetting what it is like to be young and in love. The Bishop then relates his own story of how, as a young rector, he attended a fancy party on Fifth Avenue in New York, thrown by his wealthy friend, Cornelius Van Tuyl. The guest of honor was the famous Italian opera star Marguerita Cavallini. Armstrong fell in love with her, and she eventually returned his affections. He proposed to her, not knowing that she was the mistress of Van Tuyl. Then he learned the truth about her. He went to her apartment intending to save her soul. But passion overcame him and he attempted to have her. The diva stopped him, explaining that his love had changed her for the better, but they must part. Back in the present, the Bishop gives his blessing to his grandson. The following stills could not be placed in context; some of them are probably publicity shots. The first shows Sydney with Keane, the others show Keane in various poses: The film was based upon a 1913 play of the same name, written by Edward Sheldon. Both Keane and Sydney were re-creating their long-running stage roles. In fact, Keane had performed the role over 2000 times. A second version of the story was filmed in 1930, with Greta Garbo as the lead. That film has been shown on TCM. I’ve seen it and it stinks. Wid’s Daily wrote that the film was “all a romance with hardly any action, yet always interests and sometimes grips.” Motion Picture Magazine offered a mixed review, noting that the film was “another proof positive that a good screen story cannot always be made out of a good stage story,” adding “we find the screen version constantly demanding spoken titles which intercept the action seriously, otherwise the major portion of the beauty would be entirely lost.” The Moving Picture World raved over Keane’s performance, writing “her expressive face finds in the screen a perfect mirror for her splendid emotional power, and she has succeeded in catching the tricks of the silent stage wonderfully well in so short a space of time. Exhibitor’s Herald added “Miss Keane’s portrayal is excellent. Although this is her first screen endeavor, the impressive work she does gives her a foothold in pictures.” Ironically, Keane never made another film. She returned to the stage. In contrast, this was Basil Sydney’s film debut, beginning a long career on the screen. D. W. Griffith was originally slated to direct the film, but ended up producing it instead. He paid $150,000 for the rights to the play. The directing duties went to Chet Withey, shown below with Keane: Doris Keane and Basil Sydney were married in real life, although the marriage ended in 1925. “We parted the best of friends,” remarked Keane, “but romance and marriage are two different things, and any time I speak of the former it must not be confused with the latter.” That same year, Keane sued the New York Graphic for libel after they published a story suggesting she was Fatty Arbuckle’s lover. The amount of the suit ranged from $25,000 to $100,000, depending upon which newspaper you believed. Several other papers latched onto the story, stating that the two were going to get married, and that the marriage was imminent. In fact, the Graphic had confused Keane with a woman named Doris Deane. So a judge held the story was not libelous, and even assessed Keane $24.50 for court costs.

The TCM programmers work hard to create daytime and primetime themes throughout the week to organize the schedule. This “curation” of the films is one of the prominent ways TCM distinguishes itself from other movie channels. Many of the themes are designed to feature noteworthy guests and/or specific concepts for film appreciation that try to draw viewers to watch the channel. - Yes, there are the occasional articles at the beginning of the month that will describe a theme for a given day or month, but this in no way covers them all. - Yes, the monthly electronic program guide lists themes, but this is often incomplete or becomes out of date by the time the programs air. There are often last-minute changes to the schedule that never get reflected anywhere other than the raw list of films. - The online schedule used to show the primetime themes, but that was lost when the new schedule system was put in place last year. Even then it didn’t make sense to not show both the daytime and primetime themes each day. By refusing to show the daily themes, TCM is missing a major opportunity to promote their brand, entice more viewers to the daily events, and enhance the viewing experience for serious viewers who seek out this information. Not taking full advantage of the work the programmers do to create the schedules seems crazy. Something this fundamental would certainly be worth any extra work required to update the schedule system for this feature, and it would likely be a one-time change that would require little maintenance from month-to-month. Perish the thought that TCM would ever do away with these themes, because that’s what makes TCM what it is. Why not shout them out from the highest mountaintop?

June Havoc

I agree: the themes are very important to emphasize. Among other things, they enhance the viewer's experience by highlighting connections between the movies being shown -- connections that can be personal (e.g., a particular actor, director, or writer worked on each movie), content-based, historical, etc. TCM sometimes includes the themes in their on-screen "upcoming" schedules between the primetime movies. I wish the themes would be featured in every schedule, both on-screen and text, including the daytime schedules. Without the themes (and without the hosts and short subjects), TCM is just a collection of movies being shown on pay-TV. It's the context provided by the themes, hosts, and shorts (the "original" productions about particular movies or actors) that help make TCM the wonderland that it is.

1935

I agree that on some level the hosts have a certain amount of sincerity (most of them) but they were picked for these jobs because of their liberal sensibilities. Otherwise we would have conservative hosts on TCM showing political films and attaching their own agenda to those broadcasts. That is not happening. As for today's younger generation, I think some of them stay away from classics not because of political correctness but because they don't like films in black-and-white. A bigger hurdle to overcome.

I think it's a deeply complex issue. They want to show the films, since the films are what keep the channel in business and provide them with these high-profile high-paying jobs. But they also want to be able to say the films are not politically correct. They HAVE to say these classics are not politically correct in order to protect their liberal causes and also keep their liberal supporters on board. But they can't "enjoy" these problematic films too much, like some of the conservative viewers do. The whole thing is a mess and TCM is smack dab in the middle of it all. It will only intensify with time, because these films will become even more divisive as we go along.

Jason and the Argonauts (1963) Clash of the Titans (1981) Red Sonja (1985)

Ugly Betty

Ford vs Ferrari (2019)

East of Eden 1955

True!

Suddenly Susan

The combination of Horror and Comedy usually works. Hopefully I'll watch it soon.

So, whaddaya sayin' here, Bronxie? Wait! IF you might be implying that these "exclusive insights" into movies are something that your average Joe or Jane couldn't glean from just going into a film's IMDb web page and then clicking on the "Trivia" section of it and reading though it, THEN you MIGHT have a point here, lady! (...but I CERTAINLY hope you're not implyin' THAT, and seein' as how Ben JUST by virtue of his surname comes from a LONG line of "Hollywood insiders", ya know) LOL

THE CHILDREN'S HOUR (1961)

Or maybe another "Charles" in this category too, Bronxie? And as in.. .

Oh yeah, as that one line in this essay said about this sort of "journalism" being around since Caesarian times, there will always be people like Kirk Douglas' Chuck Tatum character, and because there'll always be a buck to be made by it and supplied by the hoi polloi, and btw, regardless if the brand of it has a distinctively American cultural "heartless and superficial" flavor (or maybe better said "smell") to it or not. In fact, I'd say smiling boy Harvey here might be the best example of a latter-day version of the Tatum character... (...and who himself seems to be accumulating a small fortune for himself in the process)

Aykroyd was...not too bad of a straight actor, Driving Miss Daisy included. He admitted he didn't have much of an act without John Belushi, and his own strange comedy scripts never quite lived up to Ghostbusters, so it made sense as a career move. There's a whole CATEGORY of ex-SNL comics who were never funny as comics, but make pretty darn good straight character actors, if you've seen Mike Myers in "54", Chris Kataan in the 90's "House on Haunted Hill", or, lord help us, Kevin Nealon in a few cable series. Think Will Ferrell even did a few straight roles in the 00's.

He's great in Blues Brothers and that's probably because he says so little.

Wallace Next: Jeans, Jewell, Sanford

ALL OF ME (1984)

"Boys from County Hell" (2021) a small town is terrorized by an vampire in this good horror comedy from Ireland. If you like "An American Werwolf in London" you'll love it- you can watch it on Shudder on Amazon,

Well, this is exceptional news to me. I have never heard of Act of Violence. Robert Ryan is so intense, can’t wait to see him in this one. I’m guessing right off that sentiment and girly stuff is at a minimum but he’s probably got that archetypical wife who is boss of the kitchen and maybe believable. The plot sounds like something I wouldn’t like, so we shall see. Probably the music will make the difference. All these subliminal things make the difference. And every facial expression - twitch of an eye, curl of a lip, the first drag from a newly lit cigarette.

Friday May 28, 2021 Homecoming on TCM the best years of our lives

Wayne, David

I would love to see the following stars honoured this year: 1) Ward Bond- Character actor in so many great films(It Happened One Night, Gone With the Wind). TCM would have a plethora of films to choose from. 2) Lucile Watson- Another interesting Canadian (yayy) actor. 3) Gloria Grahame 4) Joan Crawford( my favourite next to the incomparable Barbara Stanwyck) 5) Robert Mitchum 6) Vivien Leigh 7) Sidney Poitier 8)Irene Dunne 9) Deborah Kerr I also agree that it would be nice to see some lesser known films from some of the bigger stars in lieu of "some"of their more popular films.

Films with multiple directors would be a cool theme. I think Desire Me had four directors and was unsigned by anyone.

"I'll Buy That Dream" -- music by Allie Wrubel + lyrics by Herbert Magidson, from Sing Your Way Home (1945). It was Oscar-nominated as Best Song.

Deliverance next: playing the piano

Hi starliteyes, as far as I can tell these three would qualify: Baby Takes a Bow (1934) Our Little Girl (1935) The Littlest Rebel (1935) This also seems to be true of The Little Colonel (1935), although I'm a little vague about that one. Baby Takes a Bow stars James Dunn and Claire Trevor, who won Oscars for A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945) and Key Largo (1948), respectively. Until you pointed it out, I never realized quite how overwhelmingly she was cast as either an orphan or the child of a single parent. I guess this was assumed to increase the audience's natural impulse to want to "adopt" her, at least in their hearts.

THE DIVORCEE (1930)...PRIVATE LIVES (1931)...RIPTIDE (1934) Next: Bob Hope & Marilyn Maxwell

Cary Grant Sean Connery Burt Reynolds

Becket 1964

LOL, Thanks, yes in the telling in probably does sound better than the actual film, although I do like this film. Yes, it is East Side, West Side. Barbara Stanwyck, James Mason, Ava Gardner, Van Heflin, Cyd Charisse, Gale Sondergaard and Nancy Reagan. quite an impressive cast. I 've seen this one quite a few times on TCM and it was just shown a week ago on TCM. Good work Princess, it's your thread

HARVEY (1950)

I don't know why you would assume this based on the comments made.

What Amazon got was the MGM-UA film library which dates back to about 1954 and the MGM film library post 1985. Warner Brothers retains the movies from MGM's golden years - 1924-1985.

ANY GIVEN SUNDAY (1999)

Haven't seen it. But it's a British film, shot mostly in England. I don't understand the green card comment; but at any rate, since they were mostly Brits making a film in the UK, I don't think Willy Nilly needed to hand them out.