Members

I think what we fail to realize is, that while TCM was conceived and nurtured in its early years by a staff and management who LOVED CLASSIC MOVIES, that is no longer the case. Ted Turner obtained the MGM film library for the purpose of starting a network featuring classic films, the vast majority of which had been produced during the studio system era. Most of these films had not been widely seen anywhere for years, except at the occasional film festival. He hired Robert Osborne to host and to be the "face" of the network because Osborne was a well known (dare I utilize a much over-used word?) curator of classic films and the actors, writers and directors who created them. TCM management assembled the best writers, producers, researchers, art directors and composers they could find to pay homage to classic films and the station soon became, not a network, but a phenomenon. Also, a veritable feast for the eyes with its clever graphics, music and special features. The channel succeeded beyond Turner's (later Time-Warner's) wildest dreams. No doubt, in the first decade of TCM's existence management was saying: "We've tapped into something here! These fans will come to film festivals, go on cruises, buy anything with a TCM logo on it because they love what we have created here and they love classic films. They feel bonded to our network in a way that never happens. We don't have viewers, we have fans!" Fast forward to today. TCM is, for the most part, no longer run by a management and staff of classic film lovers. Au contraire. Ownership and management are TV executives who probably worked at one of AT&T/Warner Media's other channels before coming to TCM. They most likely are of the age group they seek to drive to the network -- regardless of whether or not that is a realistic expectation. There's a reason why this new logo/graphics package and bizarre shooting style of the intros/outros exists. It exists because the current decision makers clearly believe that everything about the "original" TCM was dated, ugly and very often "inappropriate." And, they also know that they can do whatever they like because, as bosses often say to recalcitrant staff: "What are you gonna do? Quit?" TCM viewers will continue to watch the channel (and pay the appropriate cable or streaming fees) even if they hate the "new look" and attitude because it is pretty much the only classic movie channel out there. Departing now with a vat of lethal Kool Aid to "convert" more unsuspecting folks . . .

You are being astonishingly arrogant and condescending. For the record, I don't really care all that much about the visual changes to TCM. I don't like them, but they're not going to stop me from watching the station. I suspect most people here who are complaining about these changes feel the same way: Look, it's not that big a deal, but still, it's ugly and unnecessary. Most people who come to these boards are long-time TCM fans; it's not unreasonable or inappropriate that they think it's ok to vent here about something like a stylistic overhaul of the way TCM presents itself. I don't think anyone here who dislikes these changes is saying they're going to boycott TCM or anything like that, they're simply expressing their dislike of the new format in a completely appropriate way, eg, posting here on the TCM forums. How come you've taken this up as such a big cause? I can't help but suspect that you think anyone who's objecting to the "TCM Refresh" is old and conservative. I suspect you think anyone who's bothered by the changes also dislikes it when TCM shows anything made after 1960, or a foreign language film, or presents programming with themes such as " Women in Cinema", or TCM Underground films. Guess what? I am happy when TCM shows all of the above. I'm not "conservative" when it comes to such programming. I welcome it. My annoyance with the visual changes the station has recently made is completely valid, and has nothing to do with how I feel about their programming. ( True, ok, you have not directly said there's a connection, but I have a feeling you think there is. Correct me if I'm wrong.) Oh, and by the way, as I stated before, I've been watching TCM since 2005, and contrary to what you seem to think, there has never been as radical an alteration to the visuals of the station as there is now. So your " Oh, you'll get used to it and then you'll complain about another change 5 years from now" idea is unfounded, and insulting.

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

Paul Robeson as Othello, with Uta Hagen as Desdemona, appeared in a production of Othello which opened in 1943 and which to this day remains the longest-running production of a Shakespeare play ever on Broadway. There is an audio of the production. Robeson and Hagen were not pleased with the recording, but it's a treasure for those of us who couldn't see their performances. Margaret Webster (the daughter of Dame May Whitty and Ben Webster) directed. Here's an excerpt. Btw, the stories of the tour of that production are hair-raising and can be read about in Martin Duberman's biography of Paul Robeson.

One of the greatest films ever made about this subject would be...

Gotta say here Yancey, it seems by this you're pretty much sayin' we have yet to reach a time in this country when, and to paraphrase a certain memorable speech once given by a great man of peace: "I look forward to a day when TCM hosts aren't judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their wraparounds!"

Being a troll certainly is!!!

Ok, slayton, up tp a point you're right, in that people often dislike change and resist it, even when it's just a cosmetic change that doesn't really make a lot of difference. This goes for websites, newpaper and magazine formats, and even renovated restaurants. It's true, it's very common for people to go, "Well, I liked it better before", just because getting used to a change requires a bit of effort ( although not much, really.) However, in this case, I will say that I've been watching TCM since at least 2005, and while there have been a few changes to their graphics etc. over the years, there's never been as drastic a change as this. And the new look is uglier than the old one ( ones, there were a few ), and kind of cheapo-looking. Also, always before, there was a unified overall style that fit well with a television station that celebrates films made a long time ago. The new TCM look has no connection with that style, it looks like it was conceived by a committee of people who spend a lot of time on TikTok.

I don't think he's on green, but that back and forth movement of this camera "slider" is beyond annoying. If they want to go one direction and then let the camera settle, fine, but the back and forth is just movement for the sake of movement. It's meaningless. To me, this separates lazy, modern film-making from classic directors and DPs. In those olden, golden days, the camera moved with purpose. It dollied into a CU to accentuate a dramatic moment. It tracked to follow action. What it didn't do was just move because it could. The best directors and DPs used dollies and cranes judiciously. Today, and perhaps due to the invention of the Steadicam, they simply can't stop moving. In commercials, this might be fine. It takes a dull scene and animates it a bit, but on long shots like these intros, it is noticeably stupid. The "language" of film was developed very early on. Not "crossing the line" was something that people learned quickly, so that viewers weren't confused about where the actors were in space. The concept of the "dirty over the shoulder" helped in this regard as well. That out of focus shoulder of the other person let us go, "Ah, I know who's talking to whom." I get it that breaking these rules in a lot of fun for many people, but for TCM to go this route is just silly.

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’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.

Well, here we go again, with TCM "bringing us into the 21st Century," to quote good Ben Manqiewicz in his new promo for TCM's "spiffy new look" (also to quote Ben). Ben, you also acknowledge in your promo that you know "TCM fans don't like change." Then why for goodness sake ARE YOU DOING IT? Once again, let me remind your sharp, young network executive who is obviously behind this biggest marketing and programming blunder since Coca-Cola changed their formula that we TCM viewers come to the channel because IT IS A REFUGE FROM THE 21st CENTURY. We HATE the 21st Century and everything about it. BTW, your "spiffy new look" also just happens to stink. It is a cold, hollow and austere design. You have ruined a beautiful brand. Time to look for a new job, bright young TCM executive.

Really sad news. I've enjoyed all the films that I've seen him in. Some of his best were ( in my opinion) are: Breathless Le Doulos ( the Finger Man) Pierrot Le Fou - opposite the great Anna Karina Borsaino- co-starring with Alain Delon Classe Tous Risques

6:15 AM tomorrow: Er, maybe not.

This is exactly what we have here. Modern culture is devolving into a quick-cut, short-attention-span, convoluted mess. Which is fine for MTV or VH1, but I think a classic movie channel does not benefit from trying to present itself as something it really isn't. I watch TCM to get away from modern culture.

You do have a point. However, in this instance, I can tell you I'll never grow to like this needlessly moving camera. It's sily, pointless and unimaginative

''I SHOULDN'T HAVE COME'' - favorite from EASY RIDER

This, silly.

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.

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’m a long time TCM fan and I want to say I’m not a fan of the new look. I don’t think the logo and graphics are representative of what TCM is all about. Years ago there was a logo with a profile drawing of a gangster type man with chiseled features that I really liked. These new colored graphics, not so much.

Happy Labor Day Everybody. Hey. Did everybody watch the Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon every year?

Three on a Couch

PICTURE SNATCHER (1933) Next: lots of red herrings

1) Cyd Charisse thought of getting an abortion, but decided not to and her role in an "American in Paris" went to Leslie Caron. 2) Alfred Hitchcock was greatly disappointed when Vera Miles told him she would not be available for the lead role in "Vertigo" due to pregnancy. The role went to Kim Novak. 3) Fred Astaire's original co-star in "Royal Wedding" was to be June Allyson. Then she became pregnant with the baby that the doctors said was impossible for her to have and she was replaced by Judy Garland. Judy later had personal difficulties and was eventually replaced by Jane Powell, who actually completed the role.

To Be Or Not To Be (1942) TCM On Demand 7/10 A Polish theatrical troupe deals with the Nazi invasion in Warsaw. I had created a thread several months ago about top rated IMDB films that I had not seen, this was one of them. While it is not one of the greatest films I ever saw, I thought it was very good. It seems like an unlikely subject for a comedy, but much was very funny. The first scene where we see Hitler turned out to be both shocking and hilarious, though the rest of the film does not quite live up to that beginning. Jack Benny plays the lead hammy actor of the troupe, he has some subtle but funny scenes with his reactions and quips. He is not on screen for long periods of time and the more dramatic moments without do not work as well. Still, Carole Lombard (her last movie) gives a fine performance. Due to her death and the subject matter it must have not been very funny to the audiences of that time. I am sure modern audiences may think it is in bad taste as well, but I liked it.

I think Betty started to like Joe when they met in the studio office and discussed the screenplay idea—even if he was less than enthused about her ideas at first. Then they met again at the party and really bonded over the screenplay. It’s their mutual love of writing that made them start falling for one another. They continued to fall in love over their nights of writing. Their love for one another reaches its peak when they kiss, and that’s when Joe realizes that he needs to cut off the relationship.

If people would only understand that long ago, I withdrew my application for entry into the popularity contest, things would be simpler...

Man. Didn't seem that long ago(to me at least) when Belmondo was, to American audiences, the hottest thing on toast. I remember my older stepsisters and my buddies' older sisters going noodle brained over the mention of his name. Finding his work more interesting as I got older, I'd go so far as to say he defined French "new wave". Hope he does Rest In Peace. Sepiatone

From Curator to Curate's Egg, in about 25 years.

Well said, Mr. Lydecker, and thank you for your post. Indeed. "Curate" seems to have been discovered by the Twitter mob, along with "aesthetic"

STRANGERS WHEN WE MEET('60) With Kirk Douglas, Kim Novak, Barbara Rush and Walter Matthau BOY'S NIGHT OUT ('62) Mostly ATTEMPTED infidelity, but nonetheless.... Sepiatone

I remember watching Dark Shadows circa 1970. I remember being under 10 yrs old and being totally in love w/ Kate Jackson's Daphne. I remember the bone chilling Head of Judah Zachary kept in a windowed carrying case. I remember my youngest brother running out the room when Barnabus Collins was moving in for the kill. Great memories! I hate when they put out a movie (often a Depp vehicle) of a beloved series, and the entire movie's purpose is to try and laugh and poke fun at the show, even if was a sitcom. For that matter, there's never a reason to do a movie or a beloved series in the first place. Worse, you don't make a non-cartoon movie out of a beloved cartoon. There's a reason it was a cartoon. Memories of classics should be left sacred and remain the fond memories we have of them. It's like someone showing up, impersonating your dead grandmother, and doing her interpretation of who she was. I would tell her not to presume that this attempt was wanted in any way, and not to disrespect my grandmother's memory.

Infidelity with permission?

KANSAS CITY CONFIDENTIAL (1952)

Going along with Swithin's (now SWITHIN) example of the woman being unfaithful, I just (re)watched A Walk on the Moon (1999), with Diane Lane, Liev Schreiber, Viggo Mortensen and Anna Paquin. SPOILER ALERT: It's set in the Catskills in 1969 in the vicinity of Woodstock and at the time of the moon landing. Diane Lane's husband (Liev} works in the city but comes up on weekends. Diane is drawn to an itinerant "blouse man" (Mortensen) whose van visits the cottage colonies. Some of the psychological underpinnings are familiar: she became pregnant young and married the first man she'd been with, gave up her dreams in favor of his, which he didn't end up realizing either because of the demands of supporting a family. They've grown to love each other and are both devoted to the family, but she feels the frisson of the unknown and the undone more than her stoic husband. On the drive up they pass a couple of hippie hitchhikers, whom he dismisses with a pejorative as both the mother and daughter (Paquin) look back curiously. The affair happens in fits and starts, then blossoms when she's offered the kind of experiences she's wanted (and asked for) from her husband but never had, but it becomes onerous as she understands fully what she's doing. The mother-in-law who lives with them guesses and confronts her, then finally alerts her son when it goes on. The husband is hurt and unforgiving but eventually understands it's he who is being tested, not just "the marriage". I can't really do all of his thought processes justice here, but he finally sees there's a way forward for them if he becomes a more willing participant. In the final scene, she turns on the radio on the porch and asks him to dance with her. They start to but he balks. It seems for a moment that he's unwilling to dance with her, but then he changes the station to find a current "psychedelic" rock song and they begin to dance loosely and more freely in a way they never have before. My husband, who watched it with me on my recommendation, was less inclined to forgive her transgression and didn't like the ending, but I think it's a great example of "the ties that bind" and how they can weather (or not) almost anything. The fact that it's set at a pivotal moment in American culture and history may seem obvious to some, but for me the added resonance was welcome.

Yes, I'm not the brightest person on these boards. So we're going to start with that. Now let's continue with the premise you have a big role out saying you want to bring TCM into 21st century. And during that first month of this big change you make Paul Robeson, one of the most controversial personalities of the 20th Century Star of the Month. A bold premise and totally appropriate for your new role out. Then instead of having the likes of Jacqueline Stewart or Donald Bogle or perhaps Stewart and Bogle discussing African-American Paul Robeson's career you have a Caucasian do it. Not that a Caucasian can't do it but you just said... Now again, I'm not smart but that just doesn't make sense to me. Especially in light of the fact that you made a big stink about how you want these films to be relevant in a new era. Bring them into context. It seems to me a perfect, perfect opportunity to set the bar for your new look was completley wasted. Immediately following a three film tribute to Paul Robeson you have Jacqueline Stewart introduce a single Harold Lloyd short. Not even saying a word about the two shorts that follow. Then you present a film from India and Alicia Malone isn't there to introduce it and put it into context for these new enlightened times. At the moment I'm finding little to celebrate regarding TCM so it's best to follow the old saying, If you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all. I'm going to shut up now and go to bed. I'm not going to comment further and will likely stay off the boards for a while because I seem to be spewing a lot of negative comments regarding this new "incarnation" of TCM. I really don't want to be that guy.

Yardley, Alexander - Sydney Greenstreet in Christmas in Connecticut

You need Dramamine and a nap, and avoid TCM intros/outros for a week. Of course, though, you're not actually dizzy. You just think you're dizzy. If you want to know how you really feel, check with slaytonf.

No, no no. How many times did you say you'd seen this movie? Joe has two completely understandable , valid reasons for "rejecting" Betty. First, he is embarrassed and ashamed for Betty to find out that he is Norma Desmond's gigalo. Second , he feels that, due to the situation described above, he is not good enough for Betty. He feels he doesn't deserve her. But he knows if he tries to tell her this, she won't accept what he says and will try to get him to stay with her ( it's as much about their romance as it is about their writing partnership.) Joe thinks that the only way he can set Betty free from him is to appear to reject her. And, as stated, he cares about her and doesn't want her to get mixed up with him and his sordid life. He is not a cad when it comes to Betty, he's trying to free her to live a better life. As for the screenplay, I think he believes Betty is talented enough to finish it without him.

Well, that sounds like a whole lot of fun. How can that stuff compare to travelling carnivals and geeks? Not very noirish.

Katie, that's really funny, thanks for that, I literally did laugh out loud !

Yes, I did acknowledge that there have been TCM changes before. Although I don't remember a radical change to the look on the actual station -- they have been comparatively minor over the years. And I don't recall anyone here on these boards making much of a fuss about those smaller changes. However, there have been many changes made to the format of the TCM boards here, and yes, every time people have objected, myself included. I don't actually get why there's a need to overhaul the boards every other year or so, but I've sort of become resigned to it. But the new "refreshed" appearance on the actual TCM channel is much more of a change than I've seen in all the years I've been watching it. And I still don't get why such a change is considered desirable.

I believe that may be due to limits of their technology. It is easy for camera to center on Dave K. and Alicia M. because they are focused people. It may be that Ben M. is so fuzzy that the software is continually searching for clarity.

Nice to see you back because now more than ever we need the laughs

THE SPOILERS (1942)

Slings and arrows. I love it, because you are so right. 👍

Lady in the Dark (1944)

Why? Could have done without the Letterman footage. Never thought HE was ever all that great. Sepiatone

I'm with you,Twokeets, it's annoying as hell.