Members

Aargh ! The new Noir Alley theme/graphics is rubbish ! I can't believe they chose to get rid of that atmospheric , very noirish theme music and evocative black and white graphics based on actual noir movies for the flat 3 notes and forgettable -- and coloured ! --graphic to herald the beginning of Noir Alley. That former music and those graphics were part of the fun of the program. True, it's not a big loss in the overall scheme of things, and Eddie's intro and outros were just as good. But you just have to wonder why they were motivated to do this. And that applies to the whole "refresh" thing TCM is doing. I hate all the new graphics, they do look computer-generated, and also in colour ! Totally unnecessary. I realize this will make me sound like an old fogie, being dragged kicking and screaming into the 3rd decade of the 21st century, but honestly, I just don't understand the whole concept of "change for the sake of change". And in this case, the change to the look of TCM's graphics and its musical themes is definitely not for the better. Ah, I remember when I first started watching this station. I loved not only the films themselves, but also the "look" of TCM, they used to have fantastic "interstitials" ( or whatever they're called) and very creative, atmospheric promos . I remember one with what looked like a NYC subway , a woman dressing at a window in a brownstone building, and people sitting at an all-night diner ( a la Edward Hopper). That's just one of many interesting, inventive little "bits" TCM would show to promote the station. Way more creative and fun to watch than anything they do now. Ok, guess I'm turning into this:

If you sat down to create the life of someone, and freed your imagination to consider the wildest possibilities and the widest extremes of adversity and success, despair and exaltation, acclaim and condemnation, you could come close to what Paul Robeson actually was. The list of his achievements might take up more space than there is room for it here, but here goes: University scholarship student; debating and public speaking champion; phi beta kappa; all-star athlete, lettering in multiple sports; class valedictorian; polyglot; renowned actor on the New York and London stage; motion picture star; touring singing sensation; labor and human rights activist; lawyer; professional football player. His accomplishments and actions would require the lives of any three regular people to make up. And he did this as an African-American in a time of virulent racism and segregation. He was a hugely popular performer in plays, originating and popularizing roles, and as a singer, live and recorded, all around the world. But because of his outspokenness on the topics of racism in America, and his unapologetic support for communism, he was unrelentingly pursued and persecuted by the federal government, blacklisted by the entertainment industry, and vilified in the press--even in instances by African-American papers. Today, he is remembered, if at all, for only an infinitesimal part of his work: his rendition of "Ole Man River" in James Whale's adaptation of Showboat (1936), and his portrayal of Emperor Jones in the 1933 movie. It highlights how our understanding of the past is skewed and distorted. It seems like someone needs to actually live through a time to understand it, and even then you can't be sure. Or you could say the power structure of the country at the time, the fbi, the congress, the state department, and the entertainment industry were successful in suppressing the man, his prominence, and his message. But this is a movie site, and so, his movies. I have watched a lot of his movies on YouTube, but not in a long time, so my memory of them is dim. Due to social conditions in America, Robeson lived for many years in England, thus a lot of his movies are British. His best known, is as I noted above The Emperor Jones (1933). It's the story of a black rogue's rise to power in a Caribbean island and his downfall, helped by white rogues, both ways. Out of roguery Robeson extracts magnificence. A lot of his movies put him in stereotypical pejorative roles, like Saunders of the River (1935), Showboat (1936), and Tales of Manhattan (1942), the last of which finally decided him to abandon movies, disenchanted with their portrayal of African-Americans. But many portrayed him in a positive light, like Song of Freedom (1936) where he plays a dockworker who becomes a singing star and later discovers he is heir to the throne of an African island nation (hey, it's the movies), and The Proud Valley (1940) where he plays a seaman who jumps ship in Wales to become a coal miner who sings and helps to save trapped miners. Paul Robeson, Star of the Month

I've long admired Paul Robeson. Not just for his fine voice and insightful acting, but his character and activism too. Sure, we can belabor the sadness of his embrace of communism. But it's concrete proof that America's attempt to eradicate communist sympathizers in our country was gone about all wrong. Jailing, deporting and otherwise ridding the country of their presence wasn't the way. But ridding this country of the reason for their gravitation towards communism should have been essential. Paul Robeson tried his damnedest to get that across with sadly, little success. He was certainly someone who deserves a special month for ANY damn reason. And a whole month for sure. Sepiatone

I’m not surprised that it was so easy to miss the beginning of Noir Alley. TCM replaced the noir-esque graphics, taken from actual films noir, and “lonely trumpet” theme music with generic computer-generated graphics and electronic music that could have been for any program, on TCM or elsewhere. The Noir Alley opening was a big, big disappointment. (Eddie Muller made his usual excellent presentation nonetheless.)

I tuned in yesterday and, lo, what do I see? It's Ben Mankiewicz on the high seas! The whole set is now gently rolling, as if we're all standing on the deck of the Pequod. How annoying is that? Well, pretty dang annoying, actually. In real life, people typically stand still when they're talking to you. The old set said "old Hollywood". The new set says "3D-CAD-generated-render-with-a green-screen-of-Ben-in-front-of-it". And the new "quick cut" animated graphics are perfect for triggering an epileptic seizure, which I don't particularly want. Why have they suddenly decided they have to appeal to the ADHD millennials? They're still not gonna watch TCM until they get to my age, anyway. And again I'm sorry, but the new logo doesn't exactly scream "classic". As a graphic designer of over 30 years, all I could think of was, "Gosh, they weren't trying very hard, were they?". Yes, I'm a boomer. Yes, there's nothing cool about me. And Ben is right, I don't like change. But that's only because it's been my experience that most change isn't really necessary or helpful. They already had a great product, with great brand appeal. Now, I dunno what they're trying to be, or to whom. Well, obviously they know their product better than I do. My comments aren't intended to be a "YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!" moment. I'm just a firm believer in supplying feedback to a company who's product I consume.

Waterloo Bridge (1931) Back Street (1932) Madame Butterfly (1932) Forbidden (1932) So Big! (1932) Ann Vickers (1933) Imitation of Life (1934)

ONE WAY PASSAGE GONE WITH THE WIND CAMILLE

Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939) . Dark Victory (1939)

Hear, hear! Bingfan. There simply is nothing in the new TOM branding that makes me think of classic movies. Not even just plain old run-of-the-mill movies for that matter. I might as well be looking at a channel devoted to cleaning out septic tanks. Oh, well. Certainly nothing so bad as to make me not watch the channel, but what a waste of time and talent on this unsatisfactory confection. Never has so little been done to annoy so many so quickly.

I’ve been away from the discussion for a couple of days, so apologies if someone else has already made the same point. I’m finding that I dislike the new TCM logo and overall style changes more as I see them more. At first, I was just relieved that they weren’t changing the main content, and I thought I’d get used to the style changes. While I may indeed get used to those changes because I have no choice if I want to watch TCM, I really don’t like them now that I’ve seen them more. The new “style” is generic and boring, as others have pointed out, while at the same time being annoyingly frenetic and noisy. The new logo tells you nothing about what it refers to, again, as others have correctly pointed out. I think the last straw for me was the opening to Noir Alley last night. They scrapped the Noir-esque graphics, taken from actual films noir, removed the lonely trumpet soundtrack, and replaced them with a generic opening with graphics and electronic music that could have been for any other program, on TCM or elsewhere. I’ve experienced this kind of thinking before, in my workplace, a government agency. Several years ago, they hired consultants who were paid a great deal of money and took a lot of time just to recommend new colors and fonts for our web pages and other documents, although it took a thick “report” for them to explain their simplistic changes. “Consistency” was their watchword, even when there were reasons for things to be different. Sound familiar? (“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds... .” — Ralph Waldo Emerson) I’m sorry to say that TCM has really disappointed me here.

From what I read, I think the Tracys had a strong bond over their children. Their son was deaf and the doctors told them to put him in a state school. His parents ignored this advice and kept talking to their son, and eventually the child learned to read their lips. In 1943, his parents established the John Tracy Clinic in Los Angeles to help hearing impaired kids and their families. For the first few years, Spencer Tracy completely funded the clinic. I think Spencer Tracy had a lot of guilt over his son's condition and as a result felt a deep obligation to his family despite his affairs with various leading ladies.

I can no longer watch the intros/outros of films on TCM. I am not exaggerating. Can't watch 'em. Moving the camera for no apparent reason. It's silly and distracting and they need to get over the novelty of it. It draws attention to the camera. "Let's do something new!" "What?" "I don't know. Just...something."

I have to admit that was a funny and clever response. Someone not reading the whole thread orsomeone who believes what another wrote might actually believe it was those 3 guys LOL. To make it clear, that was Loretta, Ingrid and Joan. I don't believe that Spencer and Kate were just "Pals" . I do believe that Spencer got around quite a lot and with other women.

made me think of Kay Francis... Mary Stevens, M.D. -- baby dies Dr. Monica -- mother of husband's baby dies In Name Only -- Kay's in the way

GIRLS! GIRLS! GIRLS! (1962) next: shellfish

Amanda Blake on Gunsmoke Next: actress who played a spy

DRUMS IN THE DEEP SOUTH

DOWN THREE DARK STREETS

If they wanted to go color those Hopper-esque images would have been the way to do it agree.

Magnificent Obsession 1935 Three Comrades 1938

POINT BREAK (1991) Next: deep sea fishing

I just posted about this film on another thread: TCM showed this when Bergman was featured in SUTS.

Nothing to see here... Move along... Thus far this has all been much ado about nothing... Ben got a new set and the graphics changed. They went out of their way to assure us nothing was going to change and so far they're right. Well, maybe that moving camera thing no one seems to enjoy... The ballyhoo makes no sense to me at this point... Perhaps there's more to come later but for now... ho hum... business as usual just a different font... And I'm guessing a very expensive one at that.

Outside of European arranged marriages in the 19th century, I seriously doubt male infidelity was ever really common or winked at in the first half of the 20th century. Like suburban wife-swapping in post-war years, I suspect it was more talked about than actually done. But I wasn't there in any case so I don't know. Edit: Oh. As for movies that deal with it seriously, Dodsworth is often said to be an example. Edit 2: Then maybe 10 North Frederick. But both of these titles are sympathetic to the husband, which may not go over well in the #MeToo age.

Cloudburst was a fine addition to Noir Alley. Eddie pointed out a major plot hole in his outro. I particularly enjoyed the codebreaker background. Robert Preston, as usual, is a solid actor who can carry a film whenever he has a leading role. Elizabeth Sellars was terrific as Preston's wife, as smart and fascinating as she was lovely. Not the usual noir. All in all, a well-made film of the right length.

Yates, Cassie

How far astray have we gone in this thread when you have an exchange between posters in which one of them talks of how some women make him want to throw up? But I've seen this same poster here before (under a different name, of course) and conversations with him often headed downhill like this one.

Totally missed the opening as I was coming in with cup of coffee and Eddie was already there. Must have been short as I usually arrive as former intro starts. As for Cloudburst, interesting but not one I would watch again. Sort of typical British Noir/mystery/crime movie of the period. Thought the police solved the murder way too quickly. Also, in reality Preston would have completed his planned action in the ending before anyone could stop him. One thing that helped was that it was short at 83(?) minutes.

Man, I always thought she was sexy. Sepiatone

SOLDIER BLUE (1970)

Tarnish (1924)

Vince Vaughn, Psycho (1998) Next: often cast as the trusty sidekick

Lawrence, Gertrude-- Julie Andrews in Star! (1968)

Keene, Linda--Ginger Rogers "Shall We Dance", 1937

CHARLOTTE'S WEB (1973)

Tension (1949), has a lot of scenes that shows how such a drug store in L.A. functioned in the 40s.

I love the old TCM logos so much, I make glass charms of them. This "classic movie" charm bracelet is my talisman for film festivals. Hard to photograph because of the glare, but the first one is the cameraman & the center one is the girl.

I just watched it and yes, you're right. He's saying quit yer b!tchin' old people. Might as well tell us to relax, pop open a cool Ensure and peel off those uncomfortable compression socks. Then using words like "cool" and "spiffy.?"Why not "neat-o" and "outta sight?" Good God. And how much sense does it make to say, we know you hate change, so we're making changes. Who are they doing it for?

Rhythm on the River (1940)

THE FLUTE CONCERT OF SANSSOUCI (1930)

I was just watching the excellent film "The Women" (1939) starring Norma Shearer, Rosalind Russell, Joan Crawford and Joan Fontaine. When Mary (played by Norma Shearer) finds out that her husband is having an affair with a salesgirl Crystal (played by Joan Crawford), she is advised by her mother to let it go - basically all men do this during marriage - including Mary's father. Mary and her mother then depart on a trip to Bermuda. This attitude toward male infidelity by the older generation I understand. I think my older relatives felt this way. I am deeply disturbed by it. It ignores the deep emotional pain and feeling of betrayal that infidelity causes. How many women were advised to "stick it out" and ended up really hurt? I prefer the attitude toward this topic in the recent movie "A Marriage Story" (2019) starring Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson which shows the couple pushed toward emotional extremes in a stinging and (at least to me) more honest way. I'd love to hear your thoughts and about any other films that deal with this difficult subject in a good (or not good) way.

The Bicycle Thief (1948-Italian)

99 and 44/100% DEAD! (1974-Gangster Lunacy)

1984 (1956)

Well they said that back in the 50s and they were right. But all kidding aside, I don't think TCM is going to reduce the percentage of B&W films they show by anything more than 5%, if that.

From September 1-3, 1921, the Poli ran The Whistle, starring William S. Hart as Robert Evans, Frank Brownlee as Henry Chapple, and Myrtle Stedman as Mrs. Chapple. The film was released in April of 1921, and is available on YouTube, running around 70 minutes. Brief Plot: Robert Evans works at a factory owned by Henry Chapple. Evans complains to Chapple that the machines are not safe. Tragedy strikes when Evans’ son is accidentally killed in the factory. Later, Chapple’s chauffeur is transporting Chapple’s infant son when the car goes off a bridge. Evans saves the young boy, and, partly in revenge, decides to raise him as the son he lost. Evans leaves town, and after a few years go by, fate brings him together with the Chapple’s again, where Mrs. Chapple continues to mourn the death of her son. She develops an affection for Evans’ boy, and Evans’ conscience begins to bother him. Will he give up the boy to his rightful parents? Review: This is a pretty good morality play, with Hart playing something other than a gunslinger. As with many of his roles, he walks a fine line between good and evil. Just as interesting is the Chapple character played by Frank Brownlee, who initially appears to be the villain, then softens as the climax approaches. There are several heart-tugging scenes; one in particular is when Hart sees his “son” and dog kneeling and praying that Mrs. Chapple will someday get a son to replace the one she lost. Overall, this is a solid drama, moving at just the right place. My only complaint is that some of the title cards are needlessly abstruse. Also on the bill was the “Wonder Girl,” who “swings high above the stage by her teeth or one foot or any other part of her body that seems handy, while the rest of her person goes through a variety of contortions.”

A Majority of One (1961)

Branson and Bezos remind me of Don Knotts (remember his 1967 movie?) and the kids from SPACECAMP (1986).