Tikisoo

You bring up an interesting point, Andy. I was busy as a young person in the 70's & 80's and didn't go to many movies, although many titles are familiar. I'm now seeing these films for the first time either on TCM or from the library. Many of the movies from the 60's to the 90's are just awful, like DR DOOLITTLE or aforementioned TANGO, but many are really interesting. I was really happy TCM showed THE EFFECT OF GAMMA RAYS a few years ago, it's not available for loan. And frankly, would I have even understood it at 19 years old? It was a first time viewing, 40 years later. This age old discussion on "new films" on TCM has many facets. Not ALL 1930's films are classic, nor are all 1970's films junk. They are all worth seeing to give an overall picture of the state of the art & talent of every era and every culture. I've said it a hundred times on this board and no one seems to grasp the concept of YES, there IS a definition of "classic". It's any art form (music, poetry, paintings, film) that's appreciation is transcended by culture and time by many people. The entire world enjoys and appreciates the Pyramids although we do not share it's people or it's time. So, if a French film from the 60's is still enjoyed by people in say, a hundred years, it's a true classic. If a strong contingent of people enjoy a particular film whose merits are lost to others, it is defined as a "cult classic". TCM shows a lot of not classic film, the era doesn't matter. All the hits & misses round out the picture of what film is as an art form.

We just finished watching WB's ROMANCE ON THE HIGH SEAS and every time strains of "It's Magic" played all I could think of was Bugs Bunny singing, "Oh carrots are so divine you get a dozen for a dime...it's magic" (or something to that effect-anyone know the exact lyrics?) That reminded me of all the songs Mel Blanc had sung as Bugs with changed lyrics. I recall hearing Bugs sing, "I'm looking over a 3 leaf clover that I overlooked be three!" And as Little Red Riding Hood, "The rabbit in red....la-da-de-dee...the rabbit in red" (instead of The Lady In Red) Does anyone else remember these? WHAT'S OPERA DOC with Wagner's Ring rewritten lyrics is an obvious answer, but I'm more tickled by the scenes where Bugs sings one or two lines of some popular hit to himself. Were these songs usually tie-ins with WB films?

>hamradio said: That movie has more bugs than a bait store. About the ending... Realize you're responding to someone who just posts links of whatever he can find with no additional personal comments to explain his pov. Those kind of posts just seems like spam when they're a bold all-cap single sentence. Anyone who actually saw that stinker knows it certainly wasn't "The Most Perfect Ending" in a movie....unless you consider that it was perfect because then it was over.

How could you forget DANCE GIRL DANCE where Maureen makes that great speech at the end? It goes to show you she could hold her own among a female cast as well as those dusty westerns. Wow, looking at her IMDB list she played in a LOT of movies! We always think of her starring roles, but she was a wonderful supporting actress too-look at SITTING PRETTY. Her presence can add to the story without overtaking it. That photo of her at the Wayne celebration is wonderful (are those Duke's boys in the back?) Man, that lady never changes, she must have a painting in her attic that ages for her. Maybe she's just a testament to what hard working, good & honest living can do for you. Too bad there isn't an entertainer today who follows her lead. Thank goodness *I* had her as a role model. Think about it, she played an independent career woman in MIRACLE ON 34TH ST in 1947, when that wasn't typical for another 40 years. And she balanced her career and private life without any crazy scandals. I second her autobiography 'TIS HERSELF.

Being an old thread, I haven't re-read many back pages so forgive me if this has been mentioned.... I've always really enjoyed Wim Wender's WINGS OF DESIRE and the ending (spoiler!) when the angel's dreams are fulfilled. It's a great film. I then found myself in the theater watching CITY OF ANGELS, the Hollywood remake. It was basically the same story, a bit less poetic and had the ill fate of starring Meg Ryan...but I actually liked the change they made to the ending! It creates an entirely different story (if you can get past a Dr who doesn't wear a helmet while biking in traffic) with it's tragic ending. I love the idea of an angel giving up divinity for "life" and then facing the trials and tribulations life brings without the one he loved! It has some of the same feeling as the end of Lon Chaney's UNKNOWN.

Yipes! You two have some incredible posters! I am an art restorer, so I've restored some great movie posters and archivally framed them for others, but my own collection is much less "classic". For example, my living room sports full size KITTEN WITH A WHIP (self explanatory for those who know me) PAPER MOON and half sheet IT SHOULD HAPPEN TO YOU. Funny what becomes your "favorite". Mine is a lobby card from SECRET OF THE INCAS because it pictures fave Yma Sumac. I have scads of half sheets and those long skinny size of oddball titles from the 40's-50's that I've just never framed. Usually I just like the graphic or the star pictured. I also scored some really old silent lobby cards from someone who found them insulating a roof! All have nail holes & rust, but are still great! And then I have a HUGE wall size crazy sexy pirate girl graphic of GUNS OF THE BLACK WITCH. What the heck do you DO with something that big?

Wow, pretty amazing everyone here totally agrees on "best to not so best" on Tracy/Hepburn films. My only problem with WOMAN OF THE YEAR is it's a bit mean spirited when it comes to the baby. I also felt the divorce part of ADAM'S RIB a bit harsh too, but understand how it leads to a revelation. My only comment on the "end speech" in GWC2D is I feel that is exactly what impression they were going for. Tracy is just reciting words in his own special way and Kate's eye watering and wavering head were part of her physicality at that point in her life. I'm sure it wasn't hard for her to tear up just a bit more and she appears to be quaking with emotion. Garson Kanin was a gifted writer (Born Yesterday, Adam's Rib, Pat & Mike, The Marrying Kind) and he & wife Ruth Gordon were close personal friends of Tracy & Hepburn. His memoirs of them stands as the very best "insider's" point of view, an excellent read: ISBN: 1-55611-102-9

I love all the T/H movies mentioned already as well. Might I also add GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER? Although rather outdated in subject, still wonderful performances, and a chance to see how their dynamics changed as they aged.

I use the movie script data base frequently to find particular quotes to post here. God help anyone who paraphrases around this bunch.

>TikiSoo, that was Betty Grable. I looked it up to be sure, and it's her. Why do you do this to me? (my point was there may be much more to a career than just what TCM shows)

>Fred to become "bored" with the film. And then the film becomes a non-classic, according to Fred. And therein lies the flaw in Dobbsy's argument. A "classic" means it is universally enjoyed by many generations and cultures. If a book (or seal meat) only appeals to Eskimos, it's not technically "classic" instead it's "classic within Eskimo culture." "Classic" is not "what a fan decides based on personal opinion." And as helenbaby states, using "always" and "never" is like gunpowder to open flame in an argument. You'll instantly be proven incorrect. Geez, by 15 years old I understood not to use those terms in conversation, unless you wanted to paint yourself into a corner.

>FredDobbs referring to Gaslight: "It is no longer a classic" Can you please explain or elaborate on that statement? (I do not understand how a movie can be "classic" and then no longer "classic")

I'm with finance....no biggie when you've made a mistake or misspoken. (Well, except when you're a know-it-all geek that needs to point out superiority on a message board) I've mixed up Lana Turner and Betty Grable for years and often on this board. They're both just bland WW2 pin up blondes to me. Well, until I saw Grable sparkle in a Fox musical never shown on TCM. And Lana holds her own in TB&TB as well as in IMITATION OF LIFE. I just saw Lana in I WAKE UP SCREAMING and boy was she lusciously pretty. I love TB&TB, mostly for it's over-the-top acting and silly composite charactors that ring true in Hollywood history. My very favorite scene is where Douglas snivels, "Maybe I LIKE to be cheap once in awhile! (screams) Get out!" There's something funny about a guy screaming in a high voice like a little girl. I also really like the ending where everyone realizes the value of someone who gives it all for their craft.

>SansFin said: It has been very evident in the past that showing some people the facts has no affect on their perceptions, beliefs or assertions. Yet we continually analyze the schedules so we can present the facts in hopes they will see the truth and accept it. Their perception that TCM "used to be better" is because when they first tuned in, EVERY movie was a new discovery. The first time they saw THE WOMEN, KEY LARGO, MILDRED PIERCE (and others from Fred's list) it was exciting and fun. They may have watched these fine films again and enjoyed them scheduled through the years. But after the 4th or 5th time, the viewer decides to pass them over, looking for something else to discover. So if you're a regular viewer, your choices run out as you become more familiar with these films. And then the perception becomes, "They show the same old movies on TCM"

I love Burt Lancaster and am looking forward to revisiting a few films I haven't seen in awhile, like CRISS CROSS. If you like Burt I highly recommend BURT LANCASTER AN AMERICAN LIFE by Kate Buford ISBN: 0-306-81019-0 As far as Hollywood biographies go, it was one of the most interesting & varied. It's in depth and very well written telling about Burt's beginnings, his film triumphs, and his elderly years in a respectful non judgmental way. No ATLANTIC CITY on the list, that's one of my favorites.

>I don't know if the Honeymooners belongs on TCM, but it would be nice if there were a channel that showed old TV the same kind of respect TCM shows old movies. There is...a poster mentioned METV earlier in this thread. It broadcasts a wide variety of classic TV shows. The programmers understand we've seen these shows before, so they mix the roster pretty regularly to keep it fresh. Yeah, there's commercials, but we all have "mute" buttons and besides, these shows were originally seen with commercials! I agree, the Honeymooners do not belong on TCM.

Yay! You stated it perfectly- I am generally bored by SUTS, but they always throw one or two unusual gems into the mix of typical oft seen stars & flicks. Mary Boland Day is almost as difficult to decide what to watch as Thelma Todd Day two years ago. Thanks TCM!

I just want to say THANKS to the programmers at TCM for the great rarities you offer viewers. I just watched HI-DE-HO (1947) from your "music" day last week. Not made by any major movie studio, the film was of poor quality and the print was fuzzy, scratched and looked as if it was made in 1911. But it was a fun light story featuring Cab Calloway and his band. It was thrilling to see his performance of "We The Cats Shall Hep Ya" (and see couples trying to slow dance to it) What a great historical record on film. I realize many turned the channel on 7/22, but thanks for your scheduling that for all us "oddball" viewers. Where else can you start the day with fun Busby Berkeleys, then see shorts of real bands, then see more movies with a "musical" theme? It's like having a film festival in my own home!

>The several-months-long theme which begins in September has several movies which I love but which fear are little known to most viewers and I must wonder if my calling attention to them might spur some to watch them. I'd appreciate it! I no longer have cable and read the board daily to see what people are talking about. I may then get a copy from the library or ask my friend if he might record it for me. A thread like Bogart/Cagney/Robinson may contain a declaration, "Yeah, but didja ever see him in XXX? It was a powerful performance that threw me for a loop!" and I'll be intrigued. Whenever anyone mentions a film they like (and why) and I understand their point of view, I may seek out that film. I've certainly discovered a few beloved gems prompted by postings here, so please SansFin, feel free to post your opinions. If you say, "I really enjoyed the gory violence in this revenge tale" I'll know to skip it. Often I'll often give films I was less than enthused with another try if there's some heated argument going on these boards about it's merit. Most of the time I feel the same, but a few times have been turned around to "getting" it better. "Influential" posts of fellow film lover's opinions is certainly more exciting than the endless vanity threads about nothing clunking up the forums.

>It is difficult to understand why anyone would declare ONE decade to be the best there ever was in cinema history. (snipped) What is even more difficult to understand is why people can't just go, "Well, I prefer (fill in decade), but I recognize that's a personal preference Because the anonymity of the internet encourages people to state their beliefs/tastes/preferences as facts, since it's true for themselves, it MUST be true for others! Then you add to the mix all those people who feel the need to "correct" everyone else, the "know-it-alls". Sigh. It just gets tiring. When you're discussing art, music, movies, comedy...the reaction is so objective, so much a matter of opinion, it's unwise to state anything as "factual" without reasonable back-up such as documented examples. Then throw into the mix misinterpretation of the written word. (ever try "technical" writing?) You just have to take these discussions with a grain of salt and give people room for their opinion, "Tootsie...not again!" you either agree with or you don't. People added their opinion and stated why. Then, like every good discussion at a party, this conversation gained a life of it's own, complete with bullying, snarking, etc. In RL people would walk away, but on the 'net some feel the need to drive their point for pages & pages.

>I've used wrinkled cellophane with a video camera to take the lines off older people's faces. If that's so, I'm going to wear wrinkled cellophane around my head like a veil from now on.

>the opening scene was right out of the W.C. Fields segment of If I Had A Million, that slight case of plagiarism doesn't diminish the film in the slightest. And in terms of atmosphere, you couldn't depict the Baltimore of the early 60's any better if you could step into a time machine. Love your assessment Andy. And I love Levinson's trilogy. They are not the stupendous films that touch every viewer beyond demographics like The Wizard of Oz, but I don't want them to be. I like Levinson's story telling style and his talent of setting the atmosphere and connect with them like a "cult" film will. I especially enjoy them in contrast to John Waters' Baltimore. Unlike Fred, I identify with Baltimore and enjoy the role it plays in their story telling. And omg sepiatone, you left out of your list Paul Riser!

>Here's a little of what a wikipedia article says about "The Golden Age" of movies Yeah, because we all know Wikipedia must be right-they wouldn't print it if it wasn't FACTUAL.....

>When the girls says 'what can we throw in the well now?', the creature mugs for the camera with a look of 'hey, I have an idea!'. Without ever seeing the original film, people know what he's thinking...the question is quite leading. I've always considered Young Frankenstein one of the "perfect" films of perfect writing, perfect casting/acting, perfect editing & perfect looking. It's a film someone of 10 or 70 will find funny and entertaining. You can't say much more than that about it. Such a nice role for great Madeline Kahn. My favorite line? When a student asks, "Are you related to the Frankenstein who did all those experiments?" "We all know what he did." (Wilder's tired delivery just makes that so funny)

OK, I'm going to go out on a limb here.... On pg 2, I mentioned the actors of yesteryear had more "personality" than the actors of today, in voice, gestures and physicality, while actors today are simply "bland". Errol Flynn was gorgeous, yes. But his real talent lied in him just being himself on screen. HE was fascinating, so he made the charactors in the role fascinating. Cagney, Bette Davis, Cary Grant all brought their unique personal style to their roles. Have you ever met anyone with a personality like Carol Channing? No, and you won't, she's a CHARACTOR. Cary Grant had more than a British accent-he had an unusual cadence to the way he spoke, you listened to every word. I've found even "natural" actors, such as Spencer Tracy -the king of subdued acting- added all kinds of memorable gestures and emphasis that registers subliminally! But wow, he still makes an impact. I've been told by some "in the biz" that it is difficult for today's actors to "act". A take can be 45 seconds long and the actor has no idea where (or if) there's any story arc. I also think there is much less opportunity to become involved in a story, in a charactor, in today's movies. There is so much whirling around visually, you can't really concentrate on a story, or concentrate on an actor's emotions or gestures. Someone needs to put the drama back into acting by putting drama into the stories.