Tikisoo

I got this out of the library based upon this thread. Wow. I agree with everything HIH said in the OP: I too had thought I had seen it before but obviously hadn't. About halfway through I stopped it to go to the kitchen and thought to myself, "Amazing to think that's an actress playing a role she seems like a real person stuck in a movie, saying what she really feels" What IS it about this woman that's so intriguing? And the movie was so "stagey" too! The actress playing her daughter as well as Lancaster both supported her well in the story. The daughter overacted, but it was acceptable knowing she's a teen in love for the first time. Natalie Wood, Shirley Temple, there's a few who pull off this "stereotype"mooning teen. And Burt was unleashed ham, but it worked well against Magnani's powerhouse performance. I love seeing Burt sneer and use his body in a role when he can. And boy, were all the principles good looking! What interests me is the play by Tennessee Williams. It's just so indicative of "southern" plays of this time period, I'm sad there's nothing in it's place today. Were these playwrights supported by WPA? I'd rather see our government fund artists again than what it's funding these days. American Art & Culture lasts. (this is a perfect example of why art is more important than sports)

Some that come to mind, some mainstream, some controversial: Rope Some Like It Hot Strangers on a Train Cat on a Hot Tin Roof The Childrens Hour Rebel Without a Cause Wow. So by your criteria, people of the same sex just can't be close FRIENDS without homosexuality? Or even just an aquaintence like Strangers On A Train? I don't necessarily think of these as "gay themed" stories like Harvey Milk's story or PHILADELPHIA which both truly center around gay charactors & situations.

And while I agree with most of your other points, sorry, I JUST could never get past Shelley Duvall and her, well, sorry again, WEIRD look and manner about her. I completely understand this POV. The first few times I watched this film, I definitely felt Duvall was the weak link. She's so goofy looking & acting. Then on one viewing, all of a sudden, I GOT it- she IS goofy, childlike, not able to defend herself or her child. It made Jack's rage all the more frightening. Consider a strong female actress instead; Sigourney Weaver wouldn't have taken Jack's bellowing for one second! In the end, Wendy escaped by running away, not defending herself at all. The entire story is a moot point now with cel phone towers everywhere. I bet even Grady & the twins have cel phones now.

There's a huge former Loews theater, also now called The Landmark, in Syracuse NY doing a big classics series starting later this month, but everything is digital. We'll go to a few, just to see them on the big screen, but if 35mm we'd go to them all. At least they're showing movies in the theater instead of stand up comedians or off Broadway chestnuts. The Capitol Theater in Rome NY has shown several of those titles already so I know many are still available on film.

I loved very much the concept in: Wonder Man (1945) that afterlife includes possibility of becoming a ghost so that you may bring your murderer to justice. I suspect that there are many other examples in movies Yeah, like GHOST with Patrick Swayze.

I must be the only person who loves King's THE SHINING book, and also loves Kubrick's THE SHINING film. I can only imagine King's dislike for the film is that it's not as "literal" as the book. I cannot imagine what it takes to translate a book to film, but it seems in this case, much "information" originally written had to be translated into "pictures". I think most screenwriters write that information into dialogue, but creating this info into "visuals" had much more impact as a horror film. Really, how creepy is the shot of the girls in the hallway? My only real beef with the film is Jack Torrence goes nuts right away. I would have liked to see his slide happen more gradually so to make Wendy not exactly sure if he's ok or not. Nicholson as usual, made that charactor his own, but Shelly Duvall's Wendy was also great. Her childlike physical appearance helps, as does her gawkiness, you just don't feel like anyone's in control. And I really like Danny's finger friend Tony-it's very typical for a child to have an imaginary friend, but has that little bit of creepiness to it. This movie works for me because I'm always jolted back and forth, "Is it real? Or is this only real for Jack?" And I sure wish people would stop quoting that tired stupid "Here's Johnny".

In space . . . Really, Holden? Please, just give it a rest.

Well, kinda. The theater will be showing this film (yes 35mm) next month and the "intro" has been discussed by three different employees. We all like the film, but not one of us has any ideas of what would be interesting for the intro! Of course, looking through the internet was suggested, but I thought that was a bad idea since there's so much mis-information I didn't want anyone to repeat unsubstantiated text. Knowing this board is chock full of literate film buffs, I thought YOU might be a great source....give you a chance to play Robert Osborne-well Robert Osborne's writers. If you want to play, there's no need to write an actual script, just suggestions of interesting tidbits you think should be included for anyone seeing the film for the first time. How about it? Any ideas?

without their makeup on, you really wouldn't look twice at 'em because they're not nearly as good looking in person as they are in the movies or on television in many cases Hey, this goes for most of the rest of us too! I couldn't believe how I looked on camera after being made up by a professional. Wow. Although "real life" makeup is wholly different from "TV or movie" makeup which is heavy and clownish. Whenever I've seen a celebrity on the street wearing "show" make up, they look like plastic CGI people.

Tiki, why do you call them "back ROUNDS" instead of "backGROUNDS"? Because I'm a dope & can't spell. (thanks for "correcting" me)

Anyone who does not like Technicolor is not all there. How kind of you. I don't think that is a valid statement, I would say some of us enjoy it some of us don't, and I would agree with Dargo, that "I don't find anything objectionable about it when it comes to the more "fanciful" stories in film and/or Musicals" That's you two. YOU'RE basing your enjoyment of color on subject matter. I'm speaking about the technique itself including the all important frame composition. Did anyone read the fact that MrTiki is red/green colorblind? I think that affects his ability to discern back rounds from subjects when the tones are close and there are no shadows due to bright lighting. I was explaining that what HE sees is comparable to what WE see in the warehouse scene in KANE - just a jumble of shapes. Maybe because I'm an artist by profession, I understand how the eye perceives color, shape and contrast. I'm talking about Technicolor itself, not subject matter or genre. Not all people discern color the same, although the majority sees basic colors in a similar way. I found this out when taking on apprentices, "What? You don't SEE your blend needs more raw umber to cool it down?" So maybe insisting on a "Technicolor Supervisor" on films was the best assurance of success. Colorists know what the average person perceives and how to make it work correctly. This is what makes Monet & A. Wyeth such great artists-not the subject matter, but the composition of frame, color and tone. That said, while I'm a "colorist" by profession, you'll find 80% of pictures hung in my home are B&W photography!

A Woofer In Tweeter's Clothing -- Album by the '70s rock band Sparks I lurved Sparks! I've always loved the movie title: MARS NEEDS WOMEN

There are deep anthropological reasons why humans "gossip" and are interested in each other's lives-it's part of our social structure. 100 years ago most Americans lived in rural communities and everyone knew each other and had family as part of their daily lives. Everyone learned what was acceptable/not acceptable via gossip-"did you hear....?" By mid century, US populations started spreading out, families became more fragmented. Focus on celebrities gained importance as "extended" families. You could talk about celebrity marriages/arrests/drunken benders as if you "knew" them from familiarity on the screen-they came INTO your town, your life and your cousin in Scranton "knew" them too. Nowadays in the era of internet bi-coastal dating and even less personal face to face interaction, social interaction has been reduced to typed conversations. Celebrity information broadcast to your personal device has created a far greater false intimacy with celebrities, as if we OWN them. They have become part of our "social circle", albeit virtually. "Gossip" about celebrities has just replaced family or community gossip since we don't have much of a sense of community, family or intimate friends any more. (I realize the irony that I'm typing this to a bunch of strangers on an internet movie group!)

Most of the time when I've met a star, I've been standing backstage waiting awhile. That's good because you have time to compose yourself, there's others waiting with you and the star is expecting this barrage of fans waiting for autographs. I can't imagine trying to maintain composure with a star sitting nearby in a restaurant! How do you NOT stare? I think it's natural to want to look at the star's face since it's already so familiar. That kind of situation would make me uncomfortable and I can't imagine what it's like for them.

I must be the only person in the world who has never seen it. Didn't the same director make AVATAR? Haven't seen that one either. Don't feel like I missed a thing.

After I record a film I look for an image of the movie's poster and copy it. I cut the image to fit in the dvd's jewel box casing so I made a nice label for each movie I recorded. I do this too, mostly gleaned from "posters of the day" thread! But for anything that cannot fit in a clamshell, I make my own "box sets" from old 16mm film reel cans. My noir, musicals & pre-code sets are bursting already. They have a 3" computer printed image on the front and category title on the spine. I also print a list of what's included & glue it to the inside lid for quick reference. They can hold about 20 disks. Categorizing can be tricky; does INTERNATIONAL HOUSE go into "musicals" or "pre-codes"? If I want to see HEAVEN KNOWS MR ALLISON, I look for my "he-man" can containing Cagney, Mitchum & Lancaster favorites. I had to combine Katherine Hepburn, Bette Davis & Joan Crawford movies in the same box too-wouldn't they hate that?

Today, most films look like they were shot in the dark. Oy and not noirs, either! I gave Harry Potter a try and just could not get into it because it was so dark. Now I don't mind contrast, or shadowy, if it's composed artistically. But sets on modern films are just "lots of stuff" piled high with too much teeny detail to focus on ANYthing. Much like the ending "warehouse" scene seen last night in CITIZEN KANE-I desperately searched for Kane's hourglass but there was too much detail to see anything. In noirs, the backrounds are sparse, making large shapes and patterns in shadow-like venetian blinds on a wall, not distracting from the picture. In other words, good composition for the medium. The Teek family watched SINGIN' IN THE RAIN last night and I noticed all the shadows the actors cast, they must have used racks of lighting. The colors of the back rounds (typically lighter hues) receded so the (colors of) costumes just jumped out at you. The costume colors were vivid, even when neutral, like Kelly's brown sweater in Moses Supposes. The lighting, the colors struck me exactly the same way they do when I see a stage play. I loved it. I kept saying to MrTeek, "How can you NOT LOVE the way that looks? He said, "It's the same for me as watching fireworks (he's red/green colorblind) it's just bright, I don't see the colors harmonizing as you say, I just see lots of light and no shadows". This, of course makes the subjects far less 3 dimensional for him. When SITR was over, we caught the last 20 minutes of KANE on TCM. Even parts where the faces were in complete shadow, he commented, "Now THAT looks real." So folks, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Most of us "see" Technicolor and enjoy it while some just don't.

OK I'm going to take an unpopular view and disagree. First, I think a film needs to represent it's genre better than others to be an "essential". An "essential" movie is not geared towards film buffs looking for rarities, but geared towards those just discovering classic film-show them the very best examples of classic film to get them interested in seeing more. While I love animation and wholeheartedly agree an animated film should be included as an "essential", the very best examples ARE Disney films. And as mentioned, Disney doesn't make their best available to TCM. (I always divide Disney films between the time Walt was alive and after Walt's death) Anyone first learning about classic film that scoffs "cartoons?" would be completely won over seeing any of Disney's earlier animated features, they are stellar examples of great filmmaking. They certainly bridge any gap between adults & children. While I loved GAY PUR-EE as a child, it hardly captures an adult's interest and I think Miyazaki's films are too offbeat and slowly paced to be considered the best examples of animation (although I personally enjoy them) But I agree, animated movies are "essential" and it's sad any of Walt's era Disney films can't be representative of the genre on TCM. (after all, these titles are readily available on DVD anyway) It's high time the mega company overrides their insatiable rampage of money taking by instead honoring Walt's legacy as an artistic filmmaker by making them available for all to enjoy.

So, "Marx-bros-nian", ya say, HUH?! Well, in THAT case, let ME hear to recite the following... Groucho's lines are routinely interjected into everyday life. My favorite is to mutter, "must've been vaccinated with a phonograph needle" when some lady just won't shut up.

First watching classic movies, I didn't understand what all the Technicolor hoopla was about - the colors looked just "false". It took a few years and all of a sudden I came around to really liking the lighting and tones of Technicolor. It has more to do with lighting than color, doesn't it? Now MrTiki is the film newbie and he hates Technicolor. We've discussed the whys and taste, etc. It will be interesting to see if he comes around to liking it, as I have. Since experiencing it myself, I completely understand negative feelings about it. Do many go through the hate/love thing with Technicolor? It sure beats "cooking" colors in PhotoShop, like too many movies (& photographers) do these days-yuk! We just saw a screening of THE THIEF OF BAGDAD on film: bee-oo-tiful!

What about PLEASANTVILLE? The teens are trapped in a TV world where they have the more knowledge & experience than anyone. They "teach" the citizens of Pleasantville, and in return, learn a lot about themselves and "real life". It's one of my favorite movies. I think that is the key to a successful movie about teens; giving them power/knowledge/independence. It's even better when they have power & knowledge above adults-every teens fantasy!

I haven't given it much thought beyond Willa's "it don't matter" meaning never having marital relations. (she can just lie back and think of her canning) If her eyes were closed when the preacher lifts the knife high in the air, she would not have known what was coming, would she? (raising the knife is wholly for dramatic effect, which this film has MANY*) According to the wound, he didn't "stab" her, he "sliced" her neck. I don't think anyone facing being stabbed (even with religious resolve) would lie there without reaction. Covering your face, rolling off to the side, ANYthing would be survival instinct. The scene always reminds me of a sacrifcial pig. *I always notice the odd way lines are delivered in this film, like the boy saying "No" very unnaturally when he sees his Dad taken away. Listening to Laughton's coaching, this is exactly how he wanted the line delivered. One of our favorites is when the preacher calls, "Chil-DREN! CHIL-dren!" It's menacing because it just doesn't sound natural. And it's said that Laughton did not coach Mitchum at all.

My best friend and I went to see AMERICAN PIE when it was first released Are you aware this was made by Susan Kohner's kids? I also really like "nice" teen films (not raunchy, thank you) and one of my favorites was THE PARENT TRAP. I know, it's kind of girl oriented, but I'm a girl. And I like the divorced parents aspect, although the premise of splitting twins is ridiculous. And the "Disney" ending....really? But I like it anyway. I especially like seeing kids being mean to "Vicky" played brillintly by Joanna Barnes. Actually, it's all the fantastic performances that elevates this movie as a whole. I attend a horror festival that screens 35mm horror of every era. It's a great way to catch up on pop horror films of the 80's that I missed like FRIGHT NIGHT, POPCORN & THE LOST BOYS which seem like "teen movies" in the horror genre. Seems like the 80's was the turn from "nice" teen movies to "gross out" teen movies. But I could see teens of the 30's & 40's enjoying "gross out" horror movies of their day too-they were just less bloody and more psychological.

Shortly after I compiled my list, TCM had a miracle, out-of-nowhere screening of You mean "broadcast", they don't screen film. But please, keep making lists! Obviously you can change the cosmos somehow to make TCM show movies we want to see! As for "looking Jewish" people quiz me ALL the time as to my heritage. I certainly have a big hook nose & dark complexion where guesses range from Jewish to Eye-talian to Middle Eastern. Generally I'll answer with some BS like "Bohemian" or "Marx-bros-nian". Who cares really? I was wholly impressed with GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT and read all the comments on this thread suggesting CROSSFIRE was better. I watched CROSSFIRE last night and while an excellent noir, it wasn't even close in subject to GA. CROSSFIRE is essentially a murder mystery while GA is a drama and social statement. I liked that GA was many small incidents of anti-semitic behaviour, because that's how prejudice can be in real life, more subtle. Describing the movie to MrTeek he said, "Oh it's like BLACK LIKE ME" which sounds like an update. So, now I have to go and see that! How about another Kazan film that covers what prejudices minorities can face, PINKY?

A fellow film buff loaned me this DVD and I enjoyed it very much. Goes to show not every movie has to be a blockbuster to be a good movie.