Tikisoo

Whenever I'm watching a film with my husband and there's a letter-writing scene, he always barks out "Movie handwriting !" "painted backdrop !" or "wild track !" or "rear screen projection !" or "continuity error !" Haha TikiKid loves yelling out "TOY" when she spots a miniature boat, plane, train, city. Last night we watched HISTORY IS MADE AT NIGHT featuring a kiss off letter written in cursive. They no longer teach cursive writing in school and I asked, "Can you read that?" and she said NO. I had to read it really fast for her before it faded off the screen. Cursive writing comes in handy when parents want to leave notes for each other that you don't want the kids to read! Yes, the writing in movies generally was done by the art department. There's always someone with good handwriting around to do this. Same with hands. My hands were often called upon when I worked for a photography studio doing catalogue shots. I think my feet have even been in shots too. I was the only female employed there and was in my 20's, so it worked out fine.

Saw a new double disk set of Midnight Cowboy at work today for $9.99. Kind of amazed me because we're a "cowboy" store whose demographic is uber conservatives. I think our average customer would be shocked or repelled by the subject matter in this movie. (I've only seen it once and didn't care for it at all)

And of course throw in Norman Jewison. I once transcribed an interview with Jewison and was told by the CFB interviewer that Jewison had changed his name purposely to sound Jewish. I don't know about the validity of that claim, but funny that would be the story "going around". I recently saw GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT for the first time and really liked it. I thought it captured what it felt like to try an experiment like this back then. But I've taken note to all the comments here and requested CROSSFIRE from the library.

This is part of what makes Mitch's character such a bizarre and incomprehensible person. Anyone who has known someone with "women issues" can buy Mitch's portrayal. The swagger is a direct result of the fear, his coping mechanism. It makes this charactor more interesting than Max Cady, imho. I want to "like" this entire discussion!

This is part of what makes Mitch's character such a bizarre and incomprehensible person. He's all messed up about sex, thinks it's "an abomination". There are those scenes near the film's beginning that show him attending some "girly" strip revue; the camera pans in on a close-up of his face, and he looks both fascinated and repelled by what he sees. How could you forget the knife that pops up? It's funny & chilling at the same time. Shelly Winters was such a good actress, but she was always being killed off-this film, PLACE IN THE SUN even LOLITA. She was so good at being the whiney & needy woman. In the Criterion "outtakes" the most fascinating segment is the scenes of the original actor playing the drunk fisherman discovering her body. His performance is acceptable because we're involved in the story. Then you see James Gleason take over and those scenes are not simply "acceptable", but become REAL. While most of us just adore James Gleason, you don't realize his incredible acting talent until comparing those scenes. He is truly amazing.

Would porn be a "guilty pleasure"? I agree with CLUELESS & LEGALLY BLONDE...both fun surprises. They remind me of Joan Blondell 30's screwball comedies. Why not? I add RIDING IN CARS WITH BOYS into that ilk. Although I've seen it regularly since 1976, I really enjoy popping in ROCKY HORROR dvd now & then. The songs are fun to sing to and the performances are electric. I think the whole cult film "Underground" genre is about guilty pleasures. People who find merit in misfire films. It's as if cult fans appreciate the effort, even if the movie fails for most.

The Criterion Collection has a second disk of 2 and a half hours of "outtakes"of NIGHT OF THE HUNTER. It's an unbelievably fascinating thing to watch-take after take of the exact same scene-scenes we are all familiar with. It's great hearing Laughton's voice softly coaching from behind the camera....sort of like the voice of God. HE reads the charactor's lines using the emphasis he wants the actors to use. (all except Mitch) I was often struck by the boy's odd line delivery, but it's wholly different hearing Laughton saying it. I wish more films had kept this sort of material-it's a glimpse into the artistry of the past. I showed this to two 16 year olds that are into classic film and they were not impressed or even moved by it. While I'd never describe NOTH as "subtle", the situations were more cerebral than say PSYCHO which they loved. And they both looked at us in wonder as we burst out laughing when the older lady says at the picnic, "I just sit back and think about my canning" - her husband's face is perfection! Now THAT's clever humor in a horror film. (pay attention Tim Burton)

The biggest difference I notice between modern film actors and classic era film actors is their personalities. You take a few mentioned: Cagney, Bogie, Kate Hepburn, Bette Davis.....etc.....and compare them to any handful of actors now, and you'll notice the stars of yesteryear had BIG unique personalities and today's stars are like bland 'every day' people. An indication of this is the fact you'd be hard pressed to imitate any one of today's stars and have anyone recognise what you are doing. Even the worst mimic could imitate Bette Davis' clipped gestures or Cary Grant's speech cadence. These- and many other- stars brought their own unique personality to each role, look at SZ Sakall for example. Today, that style of acting is only acceptable for live performances, if someone acted that way in a film they'd be labeled "over-the-top" like Jim Carey. Impressionist entertainers like Rich Little are a thing of the past. You can't do impressions of Tom Hanks or Kate Winslett.

I assume you are all talking about a newer movie titled HEAVEN IS FOR REAL and you've seen it. Can anyone please elaborate or explain "heaven is for real WHAT?" Real people? Real investors? Real what? Sorry, I must be out of the loop, have not heard of it yet.

So essentially Selznick is saying that it's perfectly okay for the men to seek "revenge" on an entire neighborhood by raiding it and burning homes for the actions of individuals from that neighborhood so long as the "raiders" are not wearing long white sheets. Is this a question? I don't think Selznick wanted white robes included because he didn't want to blatantly identify the "raiders" with a specific group. I think the group we're referring to developed over a period of time, not instantly a formal organization the moment the war ended. It was just an illustration of how some people reacted to the situation in the newly freed south. I like the previous argument citing we all know Belle Watling is a prostitute, but it's never actually said. Same thing. Remember, back in '39 they knew how to tell stories effectively. The South became a "strong woman"?? You don't understand that? Or are you just needling?

Glad someone got my joke Dargo. But I will say that in the movie GWTW, it was always my understanding the men "cleaning out the shanty town" is in reference to the origins of the k**n. It explains their reasoning as to why an organization like this would even be started. No, they don't say it by name, but they don't have to. It's a bunch of guys banding together to take the law into their own hands. I believe these guys portrayed in the movie truly thought they were "protecting" their interests and the story illustrates that. You don't have to use the term, the name, to illustrate a point. And wow Fred, your judgement of Scarlett's actions is really narrow. You really dislike her and blame her for everything. I see her as someone trapped in a culture of manners that do not fit into the emerging new world of the free south. Her actions are fueled by her childish self-centeredness, something many teens & young 20's still carry with them. The triumph of the story/movie is her realization there is no "self" but they are all facing the new emerging world together. It's the story of a pampered girl becoming a strong woman, just like the south itself.

Glad someone took my GENIUS OF THE STUDIO SYSTEM recommendation. If you retain facts better than me you'll have all sorts of juicy tidbits to reiterate on this board. I otoh, took someone else's recommendation of Mary Astor's autobiography A LIFE ON FILM. It's unbelievably well written & actually rather juicy! I am very sorry I missed her star-of-the-month spotlight last month. I have just GOT to see her (at 17) with (my love) John Barrymore in the silent BEAU BRUMMEL. Her musings of Barrymore and early film making are simply delicious.

Wow. "hoes" back then sure dressed conservatively.

Now, I enjoyed the 3D WIZARD OF OZ immensely! that was truly wonderful. perhaps gwtw should get the same treatment. Really? You need to see TWOZ projected on 35mm film, the new restoration is truly spectacular. Projecting digitally with post 3D adaptation looks exactly like watching at home on your big TV. I find really good quality film, along with great lighting creates a more three dimensional illusion than any post 3D fiddling with glasses. B&W films even more so.

Funny BartonKeyes, that you started this thread. Looking at your avatar makes me think of Hoskins playing any part EG Robinson played. The news shocked me, Hoskins seemed "too young" to go. Truly a class act.

The score originally used for Street Scene 193 was re-used for Cry Of The City, Kiss Of Death, I Wake Up Screaming, Where The Sidewalk Ends, and The Dark Corner. I did not know that, thank you! I recorded STREET SCENE hoping to get variations of the song-I was familiar with it from Capitol's Ultra Lounge series which sports various versions. Great song. I have copies of I WAKE UP SCREAMING & WHERE THE SIDEWALK ENDS and will give them another viewing/listen.

Welcome to the boards Annie! Your post pretty much reinforces what I said earlier in this thread....that many films you don't care for now may really hit you after the passage of time. Not unlike a book, a story will strike you very differently after you've gone through some "life experience". (and the reverse is true...you may not be as entertained at 40 by Red Skelton as you were when you were 15) Katherine Hepburn is a dividing force here-posters love her or hate her. I'm in the "love" category, as I am kind of that sort of gal myself. Maybe now with ALL women being liberated, her daring & independence just comes across as cold. (society changes just like the viewer does) That said, I hated THE AFRICAN QUEEN when I first saw it in my 20's. Seeing again in my late 40's, it was an entirely different film. (now that I'm an old maid myself!)

Andy, I love The UMBRELLAS of CHERBOURG's sets & costumes too-so 60's. Jlewis, I just saw the 1940 version of THEIF OF BAGDAD on film (thanks Mr Barrios!) and the color/sets/costumes were great! I love Technicolor too. I love any film where color becomes a focal point, a "charactor" in the film like BLACK NARCISSUS.

the character was the Sacred Fool. That concept (if Im understanding it correctly) of the naive innocent who imparts great wisdom without really knowing he/she is doing it and who wanders through life under something like divine protection? Interesting take on it. I think this concept had been more successfully told in THE FISHER KING by Terry Gilliam. FORREST GUMP always struck me as a weak imitation of Woody Allen's far superior ZELIG. "Life's like a box of chocolates....you never know what you'll get." You get a CHOCOLATE, dumba**.

Glad you like their purchasing choices, speedracer. Whether I like their choices of "what to buy" or not, the fact remains, they just don't "create" anything anymore. Disney only bought Pixar (and all the other successful established companies) because they were cutting into Disney's business. It's become the "kid" entertainment monopoly. SAVING MR BANKS was an excellent movie but again, actually made by a subcontracting entity. They just had to work through Disney to get the "rights" to show clips, depict Walt & the company, use the music, etc. The idea of reworking Tomorrowland which was modeled after World Fairs to a Star Wars theme (gawd I hate the concept of "theme") saddens me. Let's just give up any concept of humanity for the "sure thing" that will bring us dollars. This is what Walt's idea has come down to. The Disney Corporation has quietly gone from a successful creative artistic company to Big Brother of all kid's entertainment. It's a total turn off for me.

I must be getting used to the guy because I laughed at a few of his jokes. Yeah, he definitely grows on you and you know little kids are laughing at much of the sillyness you're rolling your eyes over. I like the variety of the breaks-some historical tidbits, show biz interviews, his face in the still scene....

sfpcc1-was that a typo "non CGI manor"? My problem with Disney Corporation is they are not creating anything new. When Walt was alive the studio pushed the envelope, creating the most innovative and artistic films. All the Disney Corporation does now is buy, buy, buy other's "creativity". They buy any kid's "branding" out there they can; Marvel Comics, Lucas' stable of charactors, etc. and subcontract out all their animation. It's great my friend's animation studio gets contracts animating 30 second ads for the next Tinkerbell DVD, but it kind of disappoints me "Disney" is now just a corporate title. I recently saw SAVING MR BANKS which reminded me of how things "used to be" done.

I was just looking through some old posts and I noticed the word tbag, spelled out in full that is, was given asterisks. Kind of funny how four asterisks are given no matter how long the word is. For a minute I was wondering why that word would be censored, then I remembered that it is also a sexual slang term. At least the filter is keeping up to date. You're a better man than me-I haven't a clue what it means except for drinking tea. My bleeped word was Q, as in "lining up" five letters. I have no idear why that's a bad word either. Thanks for using the word "lurid" Morris, I never hear that anymore.

I steer clear of "new" biographies about classic Hollywood stars. They often seem short on facts and just full of pictures. Also, any book that goes into detail about a movie by describing the movie (I can watch it myself!) instead of providing information about the movie = fails. I'm furiously trying to finish IMPULSE- WHY WE DO WHAT WE DO WITHOUT KNOWING WHY WE DO IT by David Lewis. It's a pop culture view with many psychological studies cited which I find rather interesting rather than dry academic style writing. Mary Astor's autobiography is next in the queue, I'm dying to read it from reading about it on this board! Amazing our local library even HAS a copy! And I can HIGHLY recommend THE GENIUS OF THE STUDIO SYSTEM that was loaned to me by another board member. A fascinating account of the rise & fall of each major studio, how they "made" pictures, their successes & failures of the various styles, methods & more. Really ties it together better than reading about stars or directors.

darkblue- please re-read Fred's post.... I don't know what the policies are for this board either, but I'm sure they are fair. You probably get "warned" if you are slipping down a slope attacking opinions, being offensive, whatever in a thread. You're "warned" and then if you don't stop-you'll be booted off. I suppose this is preferable than just a thread disappearing and no one knows why. Glad everyone likes the improved board. It just seems more like all the other boards to me, with the avatars/profiles and little pictures for response menus. Windows always seemed juvenile to me with all the bouncing graphics, but I suppose picture links are more efficient than actually knowing html when you consider global use and that not everyone uses the same language. (heck, some here don't use English very well) PS when I saw the "city scape" topper I thought, "Ugh they improved this board so they could add animated pictures" Then I saw the Kyle sign-that took my curmudgeon attitude down a notch.