Tikisoo
-
Posts
9,238 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Posts posted by Tikisoo
-
-
>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.
-
>I can't believe the final price for THE FALCON was $4,085,000. Amazing!
Yeah, it's amazingly sad to me.
Sad that anyone would spend that kind of money on "things". When completing a large restoration contract, I donate half of my final payment to the Eastman House film restoration fund instead of buying "things".
The guy who owns a traveling collection of Hollywood costumes that I saw on exhibit last year is having an awful time keeping his collection intact. Not many collectors invest in proper storage or conservation and these items deteriorate quickly, especially fabric. And sending them off on display only adds to the wear while barely supporting preservation.
Sorry to be such a wet blanket curmudgeon, but I'd much rather see items like this properly preserved in a museum setting where they can be enjoyed by everyone, not just a few eccentrics.
-
>he (Cooper) did, after all, have his pet boa constrictor, Kachina,
I always thought the name of Cooper's boa was Eva Marie Snake. Did he have more than one?
This pic was on my wall as a teen:
-
>JamesJG said: My dad rarely hit us kids but I remember complaining that nothing was on TV expect the news and I made a comment like 'who cares about some dead guy' and my dad hit me hard.
I spit out my coffee at that...certainly wouldn't happen today, hitting kids I mean.
And that my friend is why they call it "The day the world changed". ;-)
When I was a kid and they said that phrase I had no idea what they meant. I know exactly what it means now. And that aspect of the presidency & time period alone make these retrospectives so interesting.
I lived through it but learned many things from the very well done AMERICAN EXPERIENCE (pt 1) that I wasn't aware of, especially his relationship with Martin Luther King Sr.
-
There have been reproductions of the Maltese Falcon made for decades. I have a plaster cast from the original mold that has to be at least 25 years old. It looks exactly like the fourth one in that photo (taller platform than the first one)
That plaster is HEAVY because it's solid, about 8-10 lbs. Through the years it's fallen and has a few surface scratches...which should remind you when Greenstreet scratched it with a knife, it was white plaster beneath the shiney black surface.
>I'm super jealous
It collects dust just like an "original" would.
Besides, with molds all over the place, I'd be wary of anything touted as "original".
I have seen many a reproduction put up as "authentic" at these fancy schmancy reputable auction houses. (as well as Antiques Roadshow)
-
The first big "retro" trend happened in the 70's, when popular style looked back to the 20's emulating "flapper" clothing & art deco style designs.
In the 70's the general public started discovering the classic stars and because of that interest, the studios realized profits by redistributing their early films.
Secondly, film stars that were still with us were sought out for interviews and retrospectives.
Then MGM compiled clips into THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT collages that were huge hits.
There were many books written about classic film in this time period and most are "picture" books, along with a few star biographies.
In the last decade or so, it seems there has been another big resurgence in the interest in classic film. This time around, it's become more scholarly and production driven (than star or style fueled) as can be seen by the more academic type of books about film published today.
People are calling themselves "film historians" and colleges offer real film history courses, not just fluff. People are more familiar with lesser known vintage films and even seek out the stinkers, mostly for historical context.
Any insights as to why this has happened?
Was TCM (or cable) a big part of that?
Is home viewing video/DVD a contribution?
Is the proliferation of CGI action "franchises" turning off the rest of adult film goers like myself?
I mean really, if anyone had said in 1985 there would be a "cruise ship event that showed old movies" that cost thousands of dollars, no one would believe them.
Opinions, please.
-
>Whether it's the shoppers or store owners being selfish is up for debate. I don't think it's shoppers being selfish is the problem more than just their **** poor time management.
Historically, the only ones strapped for time who wait until the last minute were working men. Shopping is a chore and they just put it off. Also, historically, "last minute" shoppers would find whatever's left at super bargain prices to soften the panicky purchase. I once received a bottle of shampoo & lawn chair because the drug store was the only store open after 6pm on Dec 24th!
The real culprit for the shopping frenzy comes from those with plenty of time who like shopping but MUST get a bargain.
The newest debacle is the "doorbuster" where in one designated hour you get one select item at a low price (limited quantities) which is what causes the fist fights.
Guess "black Friday" wasn't enough of a frenzy.
And I don't mind working "holidays" because the Mr is in law enforcement and has to work anyway - usually kept an extra shift for those who call in "sick". But the "administration" considers black Friday a _paid_ holiday although officers don't receive time & half "holiday" pay. Really?
Wow Sepia, I'm an usher in a vintage theater and I'd be livid if anyone ruined my uniform the way you describe.
-
Don't bother watching THE PHANTOM TOLLBOOTH (1969) on 11/28. Despite the talent of adorable Butch Patrick and various voice actors, this Chuck Jones full length film is a pretentious stinker.
-
>Toys were neater before the present day child safety garbage came out. (snipped) Girls had Suzy Homemaker that actually worked i.e. the washing machine
Yeah, because household drudgery is SUCH FUN!
I had a bb gun growing up and there was nothing more fun than shooting 100 plastic army men off the back fence. You never know how they'd be mangled when you found them in the grass. The hardest to hit was the combat shooter lying on his belly.
I never pointed that gun at any other kid, animal or property in my life.
You wouldn't believe the cool accessories you can buy for your kids Daisy gun these days - like spinning targets & clay pigeons in a launcher. Guess kids these days are too sophisticated for dad's empty beer cans.
-
I'm 100% gullible when it comes to movies, even when they tell you the end at the beginning, like DOA or SUNSET BLVD, I just get wrapped up in the story and forget.
MrTiki however, *always* guesses the conclusion/whodunit and whispers it in my ear, much to my chagrin. And TikiKid is totally his daughter and been doing that since she was like 10 or so.
So for fun I showed her THE SIXTH SENSE. In the first 15 minutes when the boy is talking to Bruce Willis's charactor, the kid blurts out, "OH, so Bruce Willis is dead then, right?"
She WAS completely surprised by the ending of PSYCHO, though!
And recently I was surprised at the ending of Fritz Lang's WOMAN IN THE WINDOW, but like I said, I'm easily fooled.
-
I love your reminisces of the movie theater darkblue, they are similar to my friend who was a projectionist around the same era.
And retail during the "holidays" used to be fun during the same era. I was a display person (uh, visual merchandiser) at the big downtown department store. The week after Thanksgiving we started making dummy boxes & bows for display, hanging decorations throughout the store and even got extra money for trimming the big tree if we wanted to come in on a Sunday when we were closed. It was a big party because it was the only time us display people ever got to work together.
The few days before XMas we had to sit in our office on-call (remember the "ringing" paging system you'd hear in stores?) for anything that had to be taken off a mannequin. This is why stores would have elaborate window displays instead of merchandise, btw.
We'd often walk around the store making sure it was neat & tidy.
Most Dec 24ths there wasn't a SOUL in the store so it became a tradition to have toy wars- we'd wind up toys and bash them with the radio controlled ones!
That was the 70's, and I saw stores gravitate into malls and my job became obsolete. I bought many mannequins and display props just for the nostalgia of being the last generation of department store display.
Costume Designers - Deborah Just Went Out on a Limb
in General Discussions
Posted
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.