Tikisoo
-
Posts
9,238 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Posts posted by Tikisoo
-
-
>Rita Hayworth is enchanting and her "Put the Blame on Mame" number in the black strapless dress is a classic.
I recently got to see THE DRESS in a Hollywood costume exhibit. You'd be amazed to see how teeny tiny that dress is.
Hayworth was about a modern size 3.
-
Amazing the moderators don't catch this spam.....oh yeah, TCM is too busy sending out their own marketing.
Anyone else getting TCM Shop emails daily?
Nothing turns me off from buying more than "internet blanket marketing".
I refuse to ever buy from these companies because I'm convinced they'll never leave me alone afterwards.
-
Hey sister, there IS a real reason.
The relationship the public has with "stars" or "celebrities" was explained in an academic book on the subject, STAR STRUCK.
In a nutshell, the public views celebrities the way our culture used to view family.
Traditionally, families were brought up together, in the same general area, you knew your cousins and your cousin's children, etc. When a misfortune would happen, the family would say, "Did you hear what happened to so & so?" Family members learned from other family all sorts of ways to behave and what to avoid.
With families fragmented and scattered, we now gossip about celebrities. "Poor Jennifer Anniston, stood up at the alter!" Caring about celebrities has replaced caring about those in our personal circles.
We "relate" to stories our classic stars "play" in a movie, a story, a morality play. We feel as if we "know" them, we care about their "career" ups & downs.
I think anytime an artist dies we not only feel sad because we think we "knew" them, but there's also a sense of loss they'll never create their art again.
-
Saw A LION IN WINTER when it came out in the theater. I was struck by how wonderful this story was told and mesmerized by the actors bringing the past to life. That screening was a catalyst in my interest in classic film.
Once Peter O'Toole takes on a part, you can never even imagine anyone else doing it-he just owns it.
From deep drama of LAWRENCE to comedy like FAVORITE YEAR, he was just brilliant. To watch him you don't really know why that is, it's just his own inner natural ability.
Sad to lose him, but what a great body of work he leaves behind for the ages.
-
>I've read their mother played favorites, always preferring deHavilland over Fontaine, which gave Joan such feelings of inadequacy.
Maybe she used that in her roles, certainly seems so.
How sad. I know we all have to go "sometime" but it just feels so sad when we lose another piece of the golden age of film. She was wonderful and brought real life to her roles.
-
>I'm with you on Chariots of Fire !
>All those John Hughes teen and young adult movies of the 80's.
>Another one for me is the musical remake of Lost Horizon.
Great. My movie pal gave me a copy and keeps asking if I've watched it yet. I dread it.
And same said movie pal has got me watching every Elia Kazan film. I never want to see BABY DOLL ever again.
-
Can anyone here explain or define what it is about her "looks" that we see as "modern"?
We saw a 35mm screening of MODERN TIMES a few years ago. Leaving the theater, MrTiki said, "Wow who was the leading lady? She was a knockout!"
When I see Jean Harlow on film, she looks odd; her hard black lips, cartoony eyebrows, white sculpted hair. I just can't relate to that look except in a goth sort of way.
Paulette wore her make up very naturally, not unlike Ingrid Bergman. She exuded a "joy of life", and pluck making her really likeable. I could totally see her as Scarlett, Leigh's only close rival for the part (in my mind)
Paulette has a perfectly proportioned face and body-we're attracted to that too. Look at Liz Taylor.
Any fan of Paulette's needs to see Paulette as a pirate-REAP THE WILD WIND '42, great dramatic role in SO PROUDLY WE HAIL '43 and elevating so-so writing in fun THE CRYSTAL BALL '43 and THE CAT & THE CANARY '39.
I highly recommend reading her biography too.
-
Along the same lines of the last post....
I am an equestrian as well as a film fan and everyone assumes I love any movie with horses in it. 99% of "horse" movies are so way off whack of how horses really are, I'm infuriated more than enamored.
I especially hate Westerns, where horses are treated terribly. The ranches that provided the horses used very severe bits and you can see horses swing their heads avoiding the bit when an actor yanks on them.
But it's fun spotting costume directors ideas of proper horse tack. I love seeing Olivia DeHavilland riding Trigger in ROBIN HOOD in an ugly western saddle disguised by draped fabric!
The only "horse" movies I really enjoy are those laced with fantasy, touching more on the magical bond humans and horses can have. NATIONAL VELVET, THE BLACK STALLION, INTO THE WEST and that type of movie. Thanksgiving, I visibly weeped in front of my entire family over the scene where Elizabeth Taylor gallops along side the train & waves. Amazing.
In reality, horses really love routine. The most realistic horse in movies are those contented pulling a milk wagon or plow and loves the owner that feeds him.
-
My classic top ten are the movies I recommend to anyone who is interested in discovering the wonderful art of film. These are movies everyone can enjoy-no matter what age or what culture they're brought up in.
THE WIZARD OF OZ
SINGIN' IN THE RAIN
NIGHT OF THE HUNTER
SUNSET BLVD
CITIZEN KANE
ANNIE HALL
IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE
HAROLD & MAUDE
PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY
PSYCHO
They all have drama, are paced well so not to be too tedious, most are visual treats, well written and most discover deeper meanings with repeat viewings.
-
The real scenario is someone who's been watching TCM awhile gets annoyed over; (choose one) too many repeats, too modern a film, the term "classic" or their desire to see a film TCM hasn't shown. It's usually one of their first times posting here.
Us "regulahs" are sick of the debate. We ALL usually calmly explain that TCM is a cable channel and works within their budget restrictions, rental availability, etc. In short, we understand.
I simply add a photo of a crying baby to succinctly point out to the OP complaining is childish. OK, maybe it's condescending, but I don't see it as mean, just a nudge to point out to them "it's not all about YOU"
And unlike a crying baby, YOU have the power to control what you watch, don't expect the world to bend to your needs.
Like I said, I was aghast my post was considered offensive enough to be deleted.
-
>Ok, but why this that the title of the movie?
I suspect it's a play on words referring to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, Hank's most lauded role. Yuk. Just another indication that no one can make a stand alone film anymore.
>What's with Hanks' accent? Disney didn't have an accent.
Did Disney have a midwestern accent? I don't recall.
I suspect it's just Tom Hanks bad acting. I really think he's horrible.
(I used to say the same thing about well loved Kevin Costner)
That said, I enjoyed Hanks early in his career-don't know when he lost his ability to act, maybe it's the writing?
>Walt Disney (snipped) was a hands on guy.
Walt Disney himself was a brilliant man who made great art for the ages. He wasn't perfect and could be cruel to those he felt didn't have the same dedication as himself. Sometimes the same qualities that make you a great creative force are the same qualities that make you a jerk.
But I feel so badly about what an evil mega force the Disney Corporation has become in the past 20-30 years.
-
>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.
-
As I understand it, finance, smoking natural tobacco is not nearly as addictive or harmful to the body as manufactured cigarettes. (of course I'm trying to find a true medical link but searches only yield blog discussions)
Manufacturers add over 2000 chemicals to cigarettes, many known carcinogens.
Cigar & pipe smokers don't inhale and don't smoke constantly, the tobacco is often completely natural. That said, *any* smoke will be harmful if taken in excess, the key is moderation. And without the added addicting chemicals, moderation can be more easily achieved.
I live among Native Americans, smoking was an important ritual to their culture.
-
>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)
-
Well I just love Kirk Douglas's work, and very much enjoy his books.
It's interesting how a person's perspective changes from "themselves" to "others" as they age and when you get way up in years, the focus is "all mankind". Very nice piece.
>A world where smoking tobacco is considered a ridiculous practice from a bygone era
Well I think the cultural rituals of tobacco from Native Americans to the Middle East are valuable. Tobacco itself isn't addictive or evil, it's the chemicals the big American tobacco companies ADD to tobacco that causes the problems.
>A world where all diseases are curable and physical pain is no longer a part of life
That would be heaven, not earth.
>A world where we control technology, not the other way around
I agree 100%. Technology has become the newest US "addiction". (and there aren't any chemicals added)
-
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)
-
You better enjoy the movie while you can...
TCM used to show ALL THE FINE YOUNG CANNIBALS and I enjoyed it whenever it showed, typically 3-4 times a year. The minute I bought my recorder, it stopped! Not available on DVD, either.
This is one reason why "repeats" don't bother me. Another is catching up on the entire movie if I've only caught half by chance.
Some don't even have cable anymore, so consider yourself lucky just to get TCM at all.
Saving MR Banks
in General Discussions
Posted
Wow you hit the nail on the head with that post traceyK.
I am AMAZED at how both Audrey Hepburn & Marilyn Monroe are perceived by high schoolers/college age girls. I even ASK them why they like these stars (since they've never seen them in a movie) and was told, "I like what MM stood for-a strong woman who's got big curves."
Really?
Most women were insulted by her "dumb blonde sex kitten" persona in her own time and were even MORE insulted by Jayne Mansfield, the Madonna of her day.
I like Audrey just fine in some films - goodness, A NUNS STORY? And I've heard the tracks of her singing in MFL and absolutely prefer it to Marnie Nixon. No one could match Julie Andrews voice, they shouldn't have worried about it. (I'm a HUGE Julie Andrews fan)
The entire film MFL was a fiasco solely because of decisions made second guessing the public, something Hollywood films do in excess these days.
But I understand anyone's dislike for Emma Thompson based on whatever they think- I certainly avoid any Tom Hanks movie like the plague because I simply can't stand him.