Tikisoo

>darkblue said: There were probably a few people who felt all those crying babies were a little too insulting - three of them might have been viewed as opinion overkill by our moderator. I was braced to be flamed, but not for deletion. I've been posting on message boards since 1993 (on an SE-30 Mac!) and NEVER had a moderator delete my post! I'm pretty ashamed actually. Next response to a complaining post I'll limit it to *one* crybaby photo and try to be more civil. But doesn't anyone here tire of hearing the same 3 complaints? >darkblue also said: But twinkeee would never have posted something that provocative I'm amazed at how many here fell for that attention troll's antics. >Because she misunderstood almost everything I would say (based on how she would reply back to my posts). So I would clarify my comments in a reply and that didn't clarify anything. Instead the hole just got deeper and deeper. jamesjazzguitar figured it out. Also amazing to me is that so many believed T was female! As I stated to someone in PMs about trolls, "Picture comic book guy giggling as he's typing posts-THAT'S who you're dealing with." UNLIKE Dobbsey & myself who are really just traditional curmudgeons. >Miss W said: I do not like the idea that they chose to stop posting here due to anything I might have done or said to them. That's part of an attention troll's game. I'm guessing he's joined some gaming group or out of the country for the holidays. Let's try to spot the "alter" when they come back. But let's address the OP. No, films less than 20 years old really shouldn't be considered "classic". Classic refers to standing the test of time, among other criteria. Anything really well loved made recently can be suggested as "future classic", but I haven't seen anything I'd deem future classic in the past 20 years. Does anyone think HARRY POTTER is as universally enjoyed (by all age groups, by other cultures) as say NIGHT OF THE HUNTER? But for THE STORY OF FILM, showing recent examples to illustrate a point is perfectly fine. After all, many early films (some real stinkers) are not really "classic" - just because they're old.

One of the most enjoyable aspects of watching classic film (for me) is the true historical aspect. I love seeing the real hairstyles, clothing, sets & language of the 20's-50's films. (I remember the 60's) It kind of makes my mother's & grandmother's stories come to life for me.

Heh, everyone has been joking with me about this because they know how much I hate Tom Hanks and my thorough disgust with the Disney "brand". What many don't know is this story between Disney & Travers has been written about pretty extensively in most Disney biographies. There's nothing new to say, this is just a typical cash grab - not unlike the Hitchcock movie last year. What's next? A movie about which actors in old Hollywood were racist? Yawn, old unimportant news.

>By the way, you didn't kill twinkeee and hide her body somewhere, did you? Twinkee's posts may have been quietly deleted. I responded to this thread with my usual "crybaby" pictures and there's not a trace of it anywhere. I suspect the moderators decided it might incite a riot. So I'll just simply state it without (I thought) humor- people who simply complain on an internet message board are just as effective as a crying baby. Realize there are millions of other viewers of the station, not everyone likes the same thing. If you don't like something, be proactive and DO something about it.

>I turn on TCM to see movies from the 1920's to the 60's, not something that i can get from the video rental store or from the $5 bin >There are way too many movie channels on the DIsh/Direct that could be showing these movies. >In my opinion, the 10 hours of showing these newer films could have been better spent showing some obscure b/w films that even a die hard TCM watcher hasn't seen before. Do you realize stations have to pay for broadcast rights? And not every obscure title is even available? Amazing how we've become a culture of complainers rather than doers. Rather than complaining about how some cable TV station has "gone wrong" why not go to your window, stick your head out and yell, "I'm mad as hell and I'm just not going to take it anymore!" it has about the same impact. No wonder our society and government is dysfunctional. Not enough people get off their butts to change things, they just complain on an internet message board. (the first thing you can _do_ is stop shopping at WalMart and other stores that undermine US made products)

If IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE has taught the studios anything it's what makes a film popular, is people being able to SEE it. TV broadcasts of MIRACLE ON 34TH ST, The WIZARD OF OZ & IAWL have made them all "staples". Hiding them away waiting for broadcasts highest bidder is a loser's game. >I would rather TCM purchase the rights to 10 movies they can shown multiple time during the year than obtaining the rights to a holiday film Indeed because TCM is about MOVIES, not holidays or specials. >Also there are other outlets for Holiday movies. Exactly. I have all the holiday movies I want on DVD. But there is just something different about the "appointment" of knowing something is broadcast and sitting down for it-it won't stop for you to go to the bathroom. And I doubt most households have every version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL on DVD. But the shared experience of theater viewing can't be beat. Especially when it's not an over saturated film like Holiday Inn or White Christmas.

>This short shown on TCM where her son reminisces about his mother is a nice touch. Is there a link to that? I don't have cable, but would really like to see it. Margaret Hamilton contributed fantastic reminisces to a book "The Making of The Wizard of Oz", the only reliable window into her private life, and then only brief snippets. I was struck by her choice to name her son "Hamilton". Wouldn't he be "Hamilton Hamilton"? She must have had another surname! A really sweet and talented lady. Most people don't realize her charactorizations of a witch (especially the voice) became the standard and definition of what a witch looks and sounds like.

I've always liked the handwritten credits for DR STRANGELOVE, it gives you an inkling that what you are about to see is going to be off-beat. I also like the end credits of SKIDOO, all sung by fave Nilsson. Saul Bass credits are often wonderful and set the stage for the story to come....PSYCHO. (although not crazy as you originally ask)

>It may be hard for some to believe but, TCM isn't the only place to see classic films. It is if you enjoy seeing movies on TV without interruption. My beef is there are no theaters in my city that show FILM anymore. HOLIDAY INN used to be a holiday staple at theaters, but they've all tossed away their projectors-WAH! (I'm not complaining too much-two theaters still show film-one 45 minutes east and one an hour west, but neither are showing )

Only 2 years later, anyone even remotely titillated by that Debbie Reynolds poster could get their fill with this- (more like Lolita's sister, than Tammy's)

I like HoldenIsHere's excellent point that many aspects of historical films must be up to today's standards. But I'm not sure that explains design elements like hair & costume as the OP is referring. Also remember, that in the 70's, people THOUGHT that swept up beehive was evocative of "old wild west" 1800's hairdos. Kids today think wearing an upswept "bun" at the crown and side bangs make them look like Audrey Hepburn. They're not historical, just evocative. I have a great book HOLLYWOOD & HISTORY: Costume Design in Film (LOC 87-50184) that covers this very subject with LOTS of designs and costume examples.

>I hate his girly smile and smugness that he's just the bees knees. >Why do people have to be so cruel? I didn't mean to be "so cruel". Dick Powell played the boy that every girl in the movie desired-and knew it! He puffed up like a peacock when he sang and exuded an air of smugness. If he was a woman, we'd call it "cloying". It was just the way he played the part. Once he was in dramatic roles (or even comedic as in CHRISTMAS IN JULY) that smarmyness was gone. As Marlowe, the smug attitude was toned down and used much more subtlety. It's obvious when reading anything about his life & art that he too disliked the "sex object" role given him early on.

Although a huge fan of those silly Busby Berkeley musicals, Dick Powell was a huge turn off. I hate his girly smile and smugness that he's just the bees knees. Come to find out, HE hated that persona too and did everything he could to change it. (re Films of The Golden Age recent cover story) I too just watched CHRISTMAS IN JULY and could see the transformation towards his film noir persona, which he did very convincingly. His "girly" looks soften the hardness of the tough guy he's playing. It's much easier to see a woman's attraction to Powell than Bogart in the same role. And his role in THE BAD & THE BEAUTIFUL shows how well he could do straight drama. And then he went on to successfully act & direct on TV-a man of many talents for sure. It's really great when an actor can break free of the pigeon hole "type" studios often think an audience wants. Too bad there weren't more with the talent & strength of Dick Powell.

Thanks for the heads up LZ. I don't get cable anymore, but I'll make sure I'm "visiting" someone who does that night! I just finished reading the book on DESILU studios and there were many pages about Robert Osborne's relationship with Lucy. RO took every opportunity to mingle with the stars, (even when no longer popular by Hollywood's standards) and that gave him "insider" information and relationships with many legends. I always enjoy the Private Screenings with Mitchum, it reminds us how difficult interviews can be. I'm always reminded of the interview in Woody Allen's film ZELIG where they're interviewing the mother of a charactor who contradicts EVERY sentence: "It must have been a struggle for you to send her through medical school..." "Oh no, John was always well off, we always had plenty of money."

I liked this early Cohen Brothers film, they seemed like they were trying hard to make a "nice" movie, like the old classics. I couldn't wait to see what they'd do once they had more experience and better stories. Unfortunately their films just got bloodier & more foul.

The first thread about MB I defended how much I like him....well last night was the first time I've seen his TCM "Screwball" intros-and boy you were right! It certainly doesn't help there is no backround setting for him, only seamless paper. But he had ZERO facial expression. Not only does he look uncomfortable and stiff (well, he used his hands a bit, it helped a little) but his line delivery was AWFUL. Broderick's delivery was hesitant and a few times lost his rhythm- I would have asked for another "take". After all, isn't he a *professional?* It just made me wonder how he could lead an audience through a big Broadway show like THE PRODUCERS....I know he was very popular in that.

The Dargo B&W method only works for the film's appearance. Once the actors open their potty mouths, the illusion is ruined. I think a film's dialogue has a lot to do with it becoming a classic. I don't like swearing or sex scenes in film which is why I watch older film & Indian film, although I noticed kissing is creeping into those. >TCM is showing the movie The Holiday, a 2006 film HA! I saw this as a special "preview" film before it was released for audience response. I don't recall a thing about it except when one of the women opened the door, the shot went to her jerk of a boyfriend standing there- an audience member shouted out, "****" and the entire auditorium burst out in laughter.

>......and I still couldn't pick him out of a lineup. Me too. For some reason all it takes is an unusual hairsyle & costume to completely change his face for me. Maybe his even featured face (won't say nondescript) is what helps him "become" his charactor so convincingly. I watched GWTW & IAWL for years before realizing he was in both. (same as with Thomas Mitchell, but he's more recognisable in roles than Bond) It can be a game to play "spot Ward Bond" especially when in a one line bit part....once he speaks, I recognise him. When I saw the thread title in the sidebar it said "WARD BOND: he's...." and I knew the last word was "everywhere".

SUNSET BLVD FALLEN IDOL Any film where you sense the charactors are "trapped". Most film noirs make me feel this way too. Most notably WOMAN IN THE WINDOW >I've come to the conclusion that "Dr. Strangelove" is DEFINITELY a "guy's movie". Oy! It's been a favorite of mine (I don't THINK I'm a guy) since first seeing it in my 20's. And I know a few guys who find it "slow" and actually miss the humor. >(...my wife can not for the life of her fathom why I laugh at and love this movie so much) I think some of the humor is subtle, especially in the "straight" delivery, like GC Scott & Seller's (as the British Commander) roles....even the closing number.

>Nope...talkin' 'bout the Star of the Month for December, the great FRED ASTAIRE. Heehee, the first Fred that popped into my mind was our favorite forum curmudgeon! Glad you clarified. The Astaire/Rogers films were some of the first "classics" I got interested in. I loved the songs and found the dancing pure entertainment. The stories were cute & the great supporting actors always delighted. Many songwriters wrote what are now "standards" with Fred's singing in mind. His interpretation of songs were as good as his dancing. Listen to any Fred Astaire LP to confirm that. One New Years Eve, TCM showed a marathon of Astaire/Rogers films. I had the TV on just for backround interest. Around 11pm or so, so many were gathered around the TV, I turned up the volume. Maybe it was the booze, but everyone was laughing and really getting a kick out of the corny jokes. The timelessness of these films for all my guests was a surprise to me. I once asked my Mom how Astaire/Rogers films went over with audiences in their day and she said, "When Fred started singing, all the men went to the lobby for a cigarette." And SO MANY credit Michael Jackson as being such a great dancer (which he was) but if you watch him & are familiar with Fred Astaire, you'll see many lifted "moves" captured in Fred's films. (since Hermes Pan was the choreographer, were they HIS moves?) Fred was a great actor, if given the chance. His role in ON THE BEACH is one of my favorites. Is there anything he couldn't do? Most guys find Fred kind of "funny looking". I point out most women generally find anyone so well mannered and charming just fine in the looks department, so there. His first partner was his sister and she was considered a great beauty. They look a lot alike, don't they? Their real last name was Austerlitz. Whenever I drive past the town of Austerlitz NY I play Fred Astaire on the car player in his honor. His art & talents have brought much pleasure into my life.

Wow Dargo, I loved your insights.... >an environment facilitating dialogue between the generations, and whereas now, the kids are most likely doing or watching "THEIR thing" in another room while their parents are doing "THEIR thing" in a different room, and thus little if anything IS being "taught" to the little darlings today. That is very astute, never occurred to me. Going to the movies is a family activity for the Tikis. I'm in my early 50's and having ONE TV was a big deal. MrTeek is 10 years younger (rawr cougar-soo) and grew up with a "kid's TV" upstairs-typical for his generation. It's kind of the same with eating meals-I'd NEVER consider having dinner away from a set table, but MrTeek & kid rarely dine away from the TV when I'm not present. Every generation drifts farther from tradition. >the reason Noir films especially have seemed better presented when filmed in B&W, giving them the "nightmarish" feel that best suits the subject matter. YES! I never connected that. >many of those old character actors were experts in this rapid line delivery which you bring up here. Yup, but the Kid can't follow it. Groucho goes right over her head while she completely connects with Harpo. We watched some screwball comedy and quickly realized I had to put on the close captioning because she just couldn't follow the dialogue. And Sepia, I recall Jim Henson OFTEN say he named Bert & Ernie after the charactors in IAWL. I wouldn't put much faith in what Wikipedia says. A sequel to IAWL just won't fly; older people will be turned off by tampering with a perfectly told story and younger generations will not be interested in anyone else's personal angst. It is just another vain attempt to ride coattails like the new Wizard of Oz and 3 Stooges movies. For some reason, the ONLY story I can think of that has been successfully remade is A CHRISTMAS CAROL. It's a Tiki family tradition to watch one traditional version & one modern version every December. There are so many versions to go around!

>Well, besides the idea that the youth of today can't "get into" B&W films That really depends on what they are taught. We see a lot of various movies and I have pointed out the use of photography and symbolism often while viewing. NIGHT OF THE HUNTER is a stellar example to illustrate these points to a kid viewer. I've often explained that especially in a fantasy movie like IAWL, the use of B&W (especially backlit scenes) gives a "dream" or "otherwordly" effect while in newer films adds a "vintage" touch, like in PAPER MOON. Color or lack of color is just another tool in the storytelling bag of tricks. Adults get past it and kids aren't really any different if they are taught how to view "art" in general. We see IAWL every year on the big screen. I don't think the kid "gets" the entire story yet, but there's still enough in it to entertain her. >even years ago I noticed many of my Boomer generation contemporaries seemed rather bored with this film's somewhat slow-paced first 2/3rds. Another element that's very different in today's films is the rapid line delivery. In older films, actors spoke deliberately and pretty dramatically (think Bette Davis) while today they just speak quickly and conversationally. I need to watch new films on DVD so I can go back and re-play what the heck the person just said! Most younger viewers don't care what's said, they want to be told by ACTION.

>. . . that used to play at the end of the intro to TCM's "Word of Mouth" segments? Not really, it gave me the heebie jeebies.

>So, the film entered the public domain. Though a box office flop on release, it became immensely popular on television thanks to repeated showings: Stations programmed it heavily during the holidays, paying no royalties to its producers, and more than 100 distributors sold the movie on tape. As young Violet Bick said, "What's wrong with THAT?" I think the entire "royalties" issue that reaches beyond the death of all involved in the actual creative process is a disgrace. My kids will inherit my name, my tools and if they're lucky, my talent. WHY should they continue to be paid for what I created? The only reason IAWL flourished is BECAUSE it was free for all to enjoy. I could see studios *restoring* a PD film and selling their restored version; they invested time & money and many would be interested in viewing or buying a restored version. And this would open up all sorts of new competition (or creative process) where those are rewarded for doing a good job. I think free enterprise is what fuels creativity. Those who just sit back and are paid from OTHER'S creativity are just leeches. And all art really belongs to the public anyway. What good has come from those who hold on so tightly, that no one even gets to SEE these films wrapped up in royalty battles? They are simply forgotten.

Wow Fred, thanks for that photo & link-that bird is magnificent! I read the article from the link you posted and my attention was caught by: "The resin falcon was lost for years before being rediscovered in 1991" This raised all sorts of red flags in my mind. I have been brought *many* incomplete art pieces by clients that want them restored "to original" condition for their "own collection". A few years later, I see them show up in the big auction houses calling them "newly discovered & professionally restored to their original glory". For example, an antique carousel horse head & neck brought to me in a basket where we carved an ENTIRELY NEW BODY. To me, if less than 50% of the carving is original, this becomes an artist's interpretation, not an authentic antique and should be disclosed to buyers. Instead, this is passed off as an original antique. (I suppose a testament to our shop's design & carving skills, right?) The poor schmo who paid $150,000 for that $1000 piece would most likely sue the seller and auction house for misrepresentation if they ever had the figure stripped and saw all new wood underneath. But it's worded in such a way the seller/auction house would probably win the suit. I've seen lots of what I consider fakes (and stolen pieces!) pass through auction houses where they simply claim to be the vehicle for the seller. When you're speaking of big money like this, caveat emptor.