CineSage_jr

The bonus package for the DVD was done by my friend's Sparkhill Productions, one of the best such companies in the business, so you can expect some excellent features.

> {quote:title=cinemafan wrote:}{quote} > Sorry to start this on a Friday evening, but I just had the worst thought. I sincerely hope that these Message Boards are not being slowly phased out or let to die. > > Not only is it a struggle to log on and post, but now the whole page looks different. At the top, there are no options to go anywhere else, ie. Home, Morlocks, etc. > > Please tell me these are only temporary glitches. We have had sparse communication with WebAdmin. I view these Boards as a place to read and communicate with others, not just make lists and post articles. > > Sincerely, cinemafan Over the years it's become apparent that the company TCM contracts with to run its website employs inferior computer servers that are prone to constant partial (and occasionally total) breakdown. TCM should understand that website outages are far more expensive in terms of the public's diminished opinion of the site, and TCM as a whole, than the economic cost of terminating their contract with the current website provider in favor of a more reliable firm.

The network places a broadcast-quality tape transfer of a film in its playback machines (it could be either digital or analog; whether TCM uses one or the other exclusively, I don't know). It's sent to a satellite uplink which beams it to a communications satellite in geosynchronous orbit 35,960 kilometers above the equator, whose transponder then beams down the signal to cable operators and satellite providers throughout the Western Hemisphere (the satellite providers, such as DirecTV then embed the signal in their own programming and send the signal back up to their own satellite, that then sends it back down to the individual subscribers' dishes). For the rest of the world, TCM's various internation feeds are bounced from the initial Westeen Hemisphere satellite to other geostationary satellites around the world, until the signal is over the decired reception points, where it's received by foreign cable/satellite operators' downlinks. Clear?

> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote} > I haven't read anything about that just yet. Are there any specific examples that you can think of? And what do you think caused (Fleming) to be anti-Semitic? What causes anyone to be an anti-Semite, or anti-black, or anti-gay? Bigotry is like falling off the proverbial log; it's the easiest thing to fall into, the path of least resistance. The difference is that some people struggle against their prejudices more mightily than others, and manage to triumph, even if it's day-to-day. In her biography of her father, Vincent Price's daughter, Victoria, wrote that he came to Hollywood as a strident anti-Semite, a common enough view for someone with his Midwest background (Missouri), but after being here, working for and among Jews, he discovered they weren't the horned, Christian baby-blood-drinking devils he'd been told they were during his childhood. He was angry at what he'd been fed during his upbringing, and profoundly remorseful about his earlier words and actions. Eventually, he made a lot of Jewish friends and engaged in charity work for Jewish causes. As I sad above, some are willing to struggle to find the proper equilibrium in their souls, and other are not.

The most offensive thing around here is the bloody censorship. Well, censor this: %@*$+@@&%!!!

He was certainly a vigorous anti-Semite.

{...} Message was edited by: TCMWebAdmin Personal Attack

TCM didn't buy or earn one; Robert Osborne earned it for appearing on TCM.

The below makes one notable omission: the post-1948 Warner library is owned by Warner Bros., TCM's sister company. The titles have the rented by the channel, as they would films from any other sourse, but they are available, and run frequently.

> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote} > BTW, it's not a Fox film--it's a Leland Hayward Productions in association with Warners, but TCM doesn't have the rights to post 1948 Warner's films. Of course they do; whatever gave you that idea? Every time TCM shows, say, WHITE HEAT, or A STAR IS BORN, or THEM?!, or GIANT, just to name four titles at random, they're showing a post-'48 Warner's film. That said, they are plenty of post-'48 titles they haven't shown within memory, and one only hopes they'll get on the basll and start digging into their holdings to air things a lot of folks would like to see,

Hell, I've got one of those. Got it on eBay for $25.00.

Prince John and his Norman barons would've taken the Oscar by force; it's a measure of ROBIN HOOD's greatness that he would take the Oscar only if it was awarded to him fairly.

Big deal, so the Shoes are now really, really Red. Any bad old Eastmancolor print can turn a pair of shoes -- and anything else -- red.

That Carpa's rather leaden filming of Kaufman & Hart's bit of forgettable, preachy whimsy was chosen as Best Picture of 1938 over THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD never ceases to rankle as one of the great injustices in cinema history (as does even referring to YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU as "cinema").

That should read, "...all us Peggy Cummins fans..."

McArdle. And when they walk out onto the portico of the New York State Supreme courthouse in Foley Square, and descend the steps to the street, have you ever noticed how the wet pavement from the "downpour" ends suddenly a half-block away, with the rest of Manhattan apparently bone-dry?

YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU and ARSENIC AND OLD LACE, two of Capra's weakest films whose stage origins he was unable to transcend, though the latter does have a certain pleasuable manic quality, largely thanks to Cary Grant (who hated the film) and John Alexander.

VERTIGO's mystery is apparently also a mystery to you, since ROPE has none.

> {quote:title=Nikita706 wrote:}{quote} > but did anyone ever notice "Giant" tells the story about bad Texans and Mexican relations but portrays east coast Americans and African Americans as too good to be true? And, there's no mention about europeans stealing the east coast from native Americans but Texans stole Mexico? It's like one world is ok but the other world needs a book written about it. Watch the movie. I think you're seeing only what you want to see, and ignoring what you don't want to see, probably in large part from your own insecurity. The scenes at Leslie's parents' home in Maryland, with its columned Southern-style mansion, and docile, fawning black servants might as well Tara and the house slaves in GONE WITH THE WIND. Giant author Edna Ferber knew quite well that during the Civil War, Maryland was a slave state though it remained part of the Union, and that's the point she was trying to make -- one that was retained by screenwriters Fred Guiol and Ivan Moffat, and director George Stevens -- that no part of American culture is blameless for each region's shameful treatment of minorities in the name of "building civilization." This is also not lost on Bick Benedict. He sees his new wife, Leslie, as a hypocrite for disdaining the racist attitudes in the Texas he's taken her to. Of course, just as you're insecure, so is Bick, and he uses the admittedly more genteel mores of the Maryland horse country to justify those of his own kind. In the end, everybody is wrong, which is as much Edna Ferber's reason for writing Giant as it was Spike Lee's thirty-seven years later when he made DO THE RIGHT THING, in which nobody does the right thing. PS: None of this changes the fact that Texas was, indeed, stolen from Mexico.

> {quote:title=lux0786 wrote:}{quote} > I like what Maltin wrote about Henry: > > The words one most often with Henry Fonda are "honesty" and "integrity." He projected those qualities in the characters he played, and audiences came to associate them with Fonda himself. Similarly, those words can be used to describe his approach to acting. You never saw the wheels turning: you simply believed him. Maltin doesn't go deep enough. Comparing Fonda to his longtime friend, Jimmy Stewart, is easy and probably unavoidable. Yes, "honesty" and "integrity" can be, and are, applied to both men, but it's the less-than-perfect characters that each man played that separates them most fully. When Stewart played a flawed, even obsessive, individual, such as those in the Anthony Mann Westerns, VERTIGO, CALL NORTHSIDE 777, FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX, or IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, it was always an instance of a fine actor pretending to be something he wasn't. With Fonda, the relationship between actor and the flaws of the character he played was more complex; the darkness one sees is actually some part of the actor's real character, something borne out by Jane Fonda's memories of her father. Neither man was a Method actor, not even close, but Henry Fonda certainly did draw on whatever it was in his own makeup that made him as private, and sometimes intolerant, as he was (by intolerant, I certainly don't mean in the sense we use the word now, as relates to minorities. Fonda was a lifelong liberal and had a keen concern for the downtrodden, something that grew during the Vietnam War in his conversations with Jane). He was, apparently, a hard man to know, even by his family and friends. That enforced solitude adds, in its way, to the integrity of his characters, as it's probably a very hard thing for an actor, even a superior one, to fake.

They're not merely pikes, but halberds: hal?berd Pronunciation:ˈhal-bərd, ˈhȯl- Variant(s):also hal?bert -bərt Function:noun Etymology:Middle English, from Middle French hallebarde, from Middle High German helmbarte, from helm handle + barte ax Date:15th century : a weapon especially of the 15th and 16th centuries consisting typically of a battle-ax and pike mounted on a handle about six feet long And they wouldn't have been designed by Adrian, but probably by Cedric Gibbons's art department.

> {quote:title=sellyoulloyd wrote:}{quote} > 1. In what film was the following line, "Best part of the day, sundown" ? > *Sundown* > 2. In what film did Lloyd Bridges say, "To rest is not to conquer" ? > *The White Tower* > 3. In the film SAHARA, what was the name of Humphrey Bogart's tank? > *Lulabelle* > > Thanks for reminding me of these movies... The tank is named "Lulubelle."

> {quote:title=Catwoman915 wrote:}{quote} > Well TikiSoo you bring up some good points. The only one I know of to debunk is the door opening outward. I don't know when it changed but it did change because of fire codes. When there were fires in places where the doors didn't open outward people would crush each other against the door in a panic therefore blocking their exit route. Don't know when they changed it though. > The rest are good points. As far as his wound it would all depend on what caliber he got shot with, whether there was an entrance and exit wound, if vital organs were hit etc. You bring up some very valid food for thought. I think you've got it backward, re the direction in which the door opens. There is, of course, no national fire code in the U.S., so when each local jurisdiction amended its codes to mandate that all doors open inward varies greatly, but the problem was always that doors swinging open into common areas like hallways were a recipe for disaster. As for DOUBLE INDEMNITY, it's not true Film Noir but, like THE MALTESE FALCON three years earlier, considered a kind of proto-Noir. True Noir, defined not just by subject matter or overall treatment, but by photographic style and set-design, wouldn't come into existence for a couple more years. Lastly, as regards Walter Neff's bullet wound, all a slug of any caliber would have to do is slightly nick an artery; the victim would then bleed out very quickly without surgical intervention. Of course, the cut ending to the film had Walter going to the California gas chamber at San Quentin, with Keyes viewing from the visitors' gallery. That's fairly conclusive proof that Phyllis's shot was, and would not be, fatal.

Fankly, I see little or no validity in the examples you cite. All movies must rely on Heraclitus's dictum that character is fate, meaning that characters' actions determine not just their fates, but the very nature of the people they're supposed to be within the confines and context of the story. As to charaters' names, the similairty between those in one Hitchcock film to another is irrelevant. Charles Dickens may have used the names of the creations who peopled his novels to make a point as to the characters' natures, but few had, or have, his skill for that. By the 1950s any attempt to give a character some name "relevant" to his or her nature came across as too precious by a factor of ten.

You may not receive many replies until you re-phrase your posting a bit more simply. I suspect that most reading it don't have the vaguest idea as to what you're trying to ask. PS: That should be "Am I to assume?"