CineSage_jr

> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote} > One of the condemned men is *TIED* with heavy ropes to the cross, NOT crucified!. What Gives? He'll be up there forever! > Message was edited by: hamradio Not really. The real cause of death in crucifixion is suffocation from being suspended from the cross, with the whole weight of the body pulling across and down on the chest. The driving of nails through the wrists and feet is to inflict additional pain, not hasten death. The crucified generally last about three days in such conditions, nails or not.

There's never been any actor to appear in four Best Picture winners, but a number who've been in three: Clark Gable (IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT, MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY and GONE WITH THE WIND). Shirley MacLaine: (AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS, THE APARTMENT, TERMS OF ENDEARMENT, Dustin Hoffman: (MIDNIGHT COWBOY, KRAMER VS. KRAMER, RAIN MAN) Meryl Streep: (THE DEER HUNTER, KRAMER VS. KRAMER, OUT OF AFRICA) Talia Shire: (THE GODFATHER; THE GODFATHER, Part II; ROCKY) Morgan Freeman: (DRIVING MISS DAISY, UNFORGIVEN, MILLION-DOLLAR BABY)

Oops. I was so fixated on the "n" in place of the "d" that I ignored the forest for the trees.

How many actors can you name who have played parts during their careers that are nearly antithetical to each other, meaning that each character would be the natural opposite and enemy of the other were they thrown together in the same time and place? Examples: Gregory Peck: King David (DAVID AND BATHSHEBA)/Nazi Dr Josef Mengele (THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL) Yul Brynner: King Solomon (SOLOMON AND SHEBA)/Pharaoh Ramesses II (THE TEN COMMANDMENTS) Laurence Olivier: Nazi hunter Ezra Lieberman (THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL)/Nazi dentist Dr Christian Szell (MARATHON MAN)

That's Gwen Virdon.

If you've recounted the question's wording correctly, then "received" means Harold Russell. If it had been worded as "won," then Russell wouldn't qualify, because he was given an honorary, non-competitive Oscar along with the Best Supporting Actor award he earned for his performance in THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES. Technically, though, only one of the Oscars was for his performance; the other was, essentially, a public relations effort by the Academy to honor all disabled veterans via the special award to Russell (who never saw combat, by the way; he lost his hands to a premature hand-grenade detonation during an Army training exercise here in the U.S.). I don't think any other actor has ever been given two Oscars at one ceremony, let alone for a single performance.

Certainly not in a major Hollywood film (and probably not in any foreign productions, either): H.B. Warner (KING OF KINGS, 1927) Jeffrey Hunter (KING OF KINGS, 1961) Claude Peyton (BEN-HUR, 1925) Claude Heater (BEN-HUR, 1959) Cameron Mitchell (voice only, THE ROBE) Roy Mangano (SALOME, 1953) Max von Sydow (THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD) Willem Dafoe (THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST) Jim Caviezel (THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST)

The real point is, of course, if a story has the right ending, meaning the one that's organic and true to that story and the characters and what they've endured and striven for, then it is a happy ending, even if ends unhappily for them. In the final analysis, pandering to audiences who're too immature to accept that is a betrayal of the integrity of the first 98% of the story, and that inevitably leaves a bad taste in the mouth, and the back of the mind, of any thoughtful viewer.

Less that than the fact that studio-contract directors, like Curtiz, always got less credit than those directors who (eventually) had the power to generate their own projects. Still, some of John Ford's more celebrated films (primarly DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK, THE GRAPES OF WRATH and HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY) were instituted by the studio -- in this case by Darryl Zanuck at Fox -- and not by Ford, and almost certainly reflect Zanuck's sensibilities rather than Ford's. Curtiz, though his abilities were head and shoulders above his contract-director contemporaries such as Victor Fleming and William Dieterle, never really got to inject much, if any, of himself into his films. There's no real personsal point of view in a Curtiz film, even though he usually hit out of the ballpark whatever was handed him by Warner Bros.

> {quote:title=georgiegirl wrote:}{quote} > If you could change the ending of a movie, fiction, of course, which one would you change? > > For it would be The Day the Earth Stood Still . I'd have Helen and Bobby Benson getting on that spaceship with Gort and Klatuu in a heartbeat! > > C'mon we all know Helen and Klatuu were smitten with each other, and her boyfriend was a real jerk! :-) But that wouldn't be the end, then. Helen and Bobby would end up in a celestial zoo with Roddy McDowall, who was stuck there in the Twilight Zone episode People Are Alike All Over.

Rainer was actually the understudy to Rose Stradner at the Vienna State Theatre. Stradner came to Hollywood at about the same time, and married producer (and later director) Joseph L. Mankiewicz, who more or less forced her to give up her acting career.

Wyler would have a greater critical reputation today (and might even be considered the greatest director of the sound era) if he'd been a bit more of a visual stylist (though his association with cinematographer Gregg Toland during the 1930s and '40s certainly gave him a leg up in that department), and had an easily-identified theme and point of view running through his work, as was obviously the case with John Ford. Cineastes and the Cahiers du Cinema auteurist crowd, who essentially granted themselves inordinate power to make or break a director's reputation in the 1960s (and relegate others, such as producers, to the periphery) have shown themselves very susceptible to those considerations (and not necessarily to their credit). What shouldn't be in dispute is that Wyler was certainly the greatest director of actors who ever worked in Hollywood, or anywhere else (and I don't care what anybody says about Elia Kazan). His collaboration with writers was no less masterful and, if one accepts that writing and acting are 90% of the filmmaking process (the other 10 % being editing and music), then there's little doubt that Wyler sits at the pinnacle of filmmakers.

Because of Kelly's athleticism (besides the different dancing styles, I've always found Astaire a bit fey), I think he appeals to folks like me who're not particularly fans of musicals.

I wasn't aware that elephants are native to Rhode Island. Seems to me they'd be conspicuous in such a small state.

> {quote:title=sleezybugger wrote:}{quote} > I stumbled across TCM UK & see this movie is playing this week. This movie hasn't been shown for years. I seem to recall that Peter O' Toole plays a total stumble-bum that is subjected to a tickling torture by Jeanne Moreau after he accidently shoots her in the rear end. Does anyone recall this? This title does not appear to be on dvd. If it is now being shown will that now lead to it being available? Yes, it's a not terribly good fish-out-of-water comedy in which, as I recall, O'Toole plays a down-on-his luck mercenary English general who signs on to command the armies of Tsarina Catherine the Great (Moreau), only to discover that Mother Russia, especially in the hands of Catherine's lunatic prime minister (Zero Mostel), is no place for a sane Englishman. Still, as you say, it hasn't been seen in a long time (it used to play on late-night TV in New York about thirty years ago), and I'd like to catch it again, too.

It sounds like the French film LE VIEIL HOMME ET L'ENFANT (THE TWO OF US): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063771/

> {quote:title=musicalnovelty wrote:}{quote} > Yes, Virginia Leith was good in those pictures you mentioned, and I agree she seemed to retire too soon. But after starring in the "classic" "The Brain that Wouldn't Die" I guess she decided to quit while she was "a head"! You wouldn't dare tell that to Ray Milland and Rosey Grier. Or Hedy Lamarr. Seriously, Rainer always considered herself a stage actress. She didn't care for MGM's intention to control every facet of her career, the roles they offered, and Hollywood's shallow obsession with movies, money and power in general. She much preferred her native Austria, and returned to her beloved Vienna State Theatre.

I'm reading it right now. It's interesting, if a bit overwritten -- and not entirely accurate.

No, no, no; I wrote that. It was a joke.

Fire's always a hazard when you put Rita Hayworth on film.

It's such a difficult choice: Hollywood grinds out dreadful films with such mind-numbing regularity these days, but if I had to nominate any movie, it'd be the execrable Da VINCI CODE, which was about as inept and inane a piece of storytelling as I have seen in a very, very long time.

There'll always be Paul Newman in THE SILVER CHALICE, the film that launched a thousand varieties of salad dressing (and millions to charity. Actually, everyone associated with that film should've disavowed their involvement).

> {quote:title=Metropolisforever_0 wrote:}{quote} > The ignore button is for cowards. I've encountered some of the vilest people to ever roam the Internet, but I refuse to cop out and hit "Ignore" like a baby. I tend to agree, but I use it for one member -- not because of what she says (everything's harmless), but because her postings are so broken up and cluttered with superfluous symbols that they're simply impossible to read.

> {quote:title=JackFavell wrote:}{quote} > Ron Santo and Harry Caray made me a baseball fan for life..... Over the years, I used to get pretty dissatisfied listening to Mets announcer Ralph Kiner, with all his malapropisms. Then I'd hear Harry Caray and think to myself, "You know, that Kiner's not such a bad announcer after all."

MOON 44 CYBORG 2087 THE 27th DAY ONE MILLION, B.C. (1940, as distinct from the re-make ONE MILLION YEARS, B.C.) FIVE MILLION YEARS TO EARTH (QUATERMASS AND THE PIT)