Tikisoo

>casablancalover said: There were some stations that would include shot of street sign at the corner after the establishing shot, then return to a close up of the the ambulance or fire truck, but you don't see this too much anymore. Now they just show a googlemap picture to establish location. >And Re the Gene Kelly scene in "SINGIN'" Dargo, I started by explaining exactly what the Broadway Melody number was going to look like. I said "the ending is a big crane shot-watch the backround - and the camera is going to zoom in to Gene's face, so close you're going to see his tonsils!" So as it zooms in I implore "slow down!" and then put my hands in front of my face and jokingly yell "Aaahhh" as if we're going to crash! It got a big laugh out of her....I know, overly dramatic. But I'm just illustrating how you can be an active viewer instead of a passive watcher. (at least when we're in our own homes) The kid hated musicals, but now she understands and enjoys their fantasy aspect. And now when she watches a film, she's much more aware they are not "real stories" but team efforts of many people putting their talents together for one vision-which is kind of what this thread is about. It's just kind of funny that whenever she sees an extreme close up, in any movie, she'll repeat my silly performance. Laughter is a good teacher. You want gifs? I'll give ya gifs:

I've always loved him- although he seems like a tough guy stereotype, his handsome looks, gravelly voice and big guy grace created the stereotype. He wasn't a trained actor but he always brought truth to his roles just by being himself. Amazing when you think THE MARRYING KIND was only his 5th movie-as the husband he carried half the film with wonderful Judy Holliday. He was great in that, totally believable. Then his small bit in PAT & MIKE as the boxer-another great performance. Three films later, he's in a lead again as a soldier in BATTLE CRY and 2 films later a convict in WE'RE NO ANGELS. He seems to be that big tough dope with a heart of gold, a sweetheart inside. Who doesn't love that? I'll watch just about any film with Aldo Ray in it, he just seems to elevate it.

Just to clarify something.... When I mention John Ford's "inappropriate choices of long/medium/close shots" For example- when a charactor realizes they love another-it's a full body shot and when someone's drinking a beer at the bar-it's an intimate close facial shot. Opposite of what you'd expect to create mood. Maybe that's Ford's "genius", but I don't get it. And just because my friends made documentaries, doesn't mean they didn't study (or work in) film in general. I love that example Dargo. When I showed TikiKid Singin' In The Rain, I warned her about the extreme close up crane shot coming for the big ending in the Broadway Melody number. When it closed in on Gene's big toothy smile I screamed like PeeWeeHerman, "GAH!" Now, no matter what we're seeing, if the camera gets too close we both do it in unison, which usually gets a chuckle from those around us. I agree about the editor imput too. Remember how Hitchcock edited by only shooting one way, not letting anyone change his vision? I rarely pick up on bad edits but always notice the impact of great editing. And you never really know if an actor disregards direction and gives the performance THEY want to give, especially with a Bette Davis or Marlon Brando egotist type. Just goes to show you film is a team effort with many unsung contributers. In fact, if anyone stands out _too_ much, it can ruin the finished product. It needs to mesh, blend and flow as a whole.

Thank goodness....a real "general discussion"! I am reminded of a time I was on a job with 2 young accomplished documentary filmmakers from Canada. We were in our hotel having pizza when "The Quiet Man" came on TCM, one of my favorites. Neither had seen it before so we all watched it together. They were in stitches laughing over the director's choices of close/medium/long shots, something I've never noticed since I was so mesmerized by the fantastic performances of the actors. Once the movie was over, they couldn't believe John Ford was such a beloved director, they thought he was the worst! Since then I have tried very hard to watch John Ford films without noticing this major flaw in his direction, although some are more pronounced than others. Doesn't ruin the film, just his films could have had even more impact if more conventional shots were chosen. I also have seen talent misdirected by Ford, such as Ava Gardner in Mogambo. She can be great but in that movie seems cartoonish. I can only assume she was "directed" to act that way by Ford.

>the demise of American manners began with: Howdy Doody ...or TV ...or cel phones As we all know the complaint of "youth out of hand" has been going on for hundreds of years. I'd guess one reason is because manners are a refinement of age and experience for most. It takes a long time for a child to realize they are not the center of the universe and even longer to realize their role in society means respecting others. I am extremely dismayed at what I call "The Infantilization of US Society" where youth is so glorified, adults simply refuse to grow up. You've all seen the results: grown men who live in their parent's basements at 40 because they spend every penny earned "gaming", the 30 year old wearing cartoon animal head hats & mitten sets and the constant nattering (like a teen) on their cel phones. The constant nattering or texting in movie theaters (or restaurants/stores/etc) just illustrates the utter self centeredness many people accept as their "right". They simply do not understand or care about anyone else besides themselves, just like 5 years olds. I've observed erratic outlandish behaviour by fully grown adults that just crave attention from the crowd, anyone....LOOK AT *ME!* Just like people driving-taking up two lanes, turning in front of others, speeding....GET OUT OF *MY* WAY! It's all about ME. That's what I see as the social deterioration, the inability to comprehend "society". Cel phones and texting just reinforce that idea.

>Markfp suggested: their requests have been turned down numerous times simply because those stars didn't want to do it. Perhaps that's the case with Mamie. I'd speculate that she'd jump at the chance to be on TCM, she's never been a modest wallflower type. A friend does artwork for MVD and he's in contact with her pretty regularly. From what he says, she's still a very outgoing lady and thrilled to know she has fans out there wanting to see her. Any TV appearance would be good promotion for her & her autobiography. (there's a ton of contemporary photos on mamievandoren.com)

I'm a big Mamie Van Doren fan too and was thrilled to see the line up of her films being shown on TCM. Too bad they couldn't get the rights to show my favorite GIRLS TOWN though. It has the added bonus of Mel Torm? and super goofy story line. At least they are showing UNTAMED YOUTH, another pretty good one. While MVD is still around and kicking, I doubt she'd be a good guest host on TCM. From the comments on this thread you can see that many view her as a joke and she hasn't done much to dispel that image. Cher, even with her knowledge and true love of classic film is scoffed by many TCM viewers....I could foresee MVD would get even less respect.

>This is the movies, man. They don't need no stinking air intake! This question reminds me of all the movies where you see a car speeding away on a dirt road punctuated by a squealing tire sound as it rounds a corner.

>WHY THE HELL IS EVERYONE IGNORING ME ?! >my posts don't matter on here. so i'll no longer post anything here. WAH! BTW, if you won't bother to make complete sentences, use grammar or punctuation, you run the risk of others misunderstanding your posts. Ever think maybe there's no response because no one knows the answer to your question?

Well I for one thought Pat O'Brien was adorable and sorry he never got any "leading man" type roles. He comes across as thoughtful and sensitive in most of his roles. I never understood why he wasn't better appreciated for his contribution to film either. Supporting roles are just the unsung heros of classic film. When I first saw George Clooney, although yes, he somewhat resembles Gable, (esp in attitude) I see a stronger resemblance to Pat O'Brien

>ThelmaTodd wrote: Indian film needs to be taken seriously, because it's an up and coming nation with a huge and established domestic film industry. I predict that Bollywood will not remain a provincial backwater indefinitely. I agree 100% and have been saying this for years. If you watch the credits, you'll often find several Indian names among the crew in US films...especially if made in Canada (Hollywood North). When I saw Michael Jackson's "Thriller" video, I noted his dancers were in a triangle formation (with MJ at the peak front) dancing "moves" in one spot instead of fluid movement using the entire floor space. This is a style of dance perfected by Bollywood movies previous to MJ's choreography, which is now typical in the US-you see it on all the kid's group dance competitions. So, Bollywood dance style has already infiltrated US productions. I can't wait for the "tradition" & "morality" aspects of B'wood to filter into US filmmaking. That's what I like most about their films-they remind me of grand MGM musicals of the 40's-50's. I don't think you need any historical backround to understand their traditions. And musicalnovelty, Ted Lyons & His Cubs are great! A clip from Gumnan was featured in GHOST WORLD to illustrate the teen girl's acceptance of all types of music. Superstar Helen is the featured dancer in the number. I didn't know Lyons was in other films! When TCM had it's spotlight on Merchant Ivory Productions, they showed "Helen, Queen Of The Nautch Girls" a short about her life as a Bollywood dancer in the 60's. (introduced by Illeana Douglas) It can be found on the Shakespere Wallah dvd as an extra. I have never seen the 90's FBC film "Desperately Seeking Helen" about Canadian/Indian film fans who wanted to meet her. Although now rediscovered, she often is in cameo roles in B'wood films.

>there was an category for "Best Title Writing." Hey, if you've ever watched a foreign film but knew the language you'd be surprised at some of the clunky writing-it's an art. And I love watching a silent and reading lips when the actor is clearly swearing! When I first read the OP I couldn't believe the mendacity of "only show what *I* like!" and thought to myself .... then someone else will complain about some 'too new' movie shown, like something made in 1989, right? As for "no one likes silents", I'll throw one out there....15 year old TikiKid PREFERS silent films! She's often lost in dialogue, especially rapid fire dialogue like in screwball comedies. That said, we both prefer watching film with an audience and silents most notably. TikiKid has sat through endless hours of silents at film festivals and often mentions how much she enjoyed them.

>Poor Audrey was stuck having romantic relationships with Bogie, Cooper, Astaire, and Grant, who were all way to old for her in my view and this impacted the chemistry. Somewhere, someone thought a young woman in her 20's would be attracted to a man in his late 40's early 50's. If that was "real life" the older person would be considered a "dirty old man" or "cougar" (if a woman) with a non romantic element of manipulation or victimization. No matter how attractive those leading men, those pairings just come across badly.

Ugh, the movie was about Morton, the guy who STOLE the idea from Wells! http://www.trincoll.edu/classes/hist300/group2/horace.htm >Calamity wrote: You don't really see facial hair like that billy goat beard on the one man anymore. And I've never had laughing gas, I wonder what it's like. Are you kidding? It's all the rage with hipsters, especially when there's flat or no hair on top: (as well as grown adults wearing juvenile theme t-shirts) As for laughing gas, it was a very fun (if controlled) experience. First, your extremities would feel like they were leaving your body, then your entire body would follow. I remember the distinct feeling I was floating about 6 inches above the dentist's lounge. I had asked for the mask to be removed because it was scary (I was 13 or so) and I could NOT form words which caused uncontrollable laughter instead. I had 2 wisdom teeth pulled and every time the dentist cracked one for removal, the horrific sound made me laugh. It wore off quickly afterwards and my mouth HURT instead! It's not used anymore probably because it fries brain cells and local shots seems to numb several hours longer.

An excellent insider view of the relationship of Tracy & Hepburn is Garson Kanin's book of the same title. Paperback ISBN 1-55611-102-9 and can generally be found in any used bookstore for a song. Kanin & wife Ruth Gordon were best friends with the un-couple and there are many stories of their travels & interesting incidents. Through the years I have discovered the inner person comes through charactors portrayed on the screen. This is certainly true of both Spencer Tracy & Katherine Hepburn especially when together. Hepburn is a strong willed expressive person. Tracy is a controlled person who holds his cards close to his chest. They are best when they influence the other in a story. I especially like "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?" although the words may not reflect who they are, their eyes do.

>What elements do you think make up a "great"musical? This has been a discussion around the Tiki household numerous times as *I* love musicals, while the rest of the Teeks loathe them. A good musical is where the music actually furthers the plot, rather than just interjects the story. A GREAT musical happens when everything comes together with performance, story and great songs. Of course, that can differ among personal opinion. I have purposely been showing musicals that I know cannot fail, just to open their minds to the genre. They always have more impact on the big screen with an audience. I am quick to point out the movie they just enjoyed was a dreaded musical. :-) Great musicals EVERYONE enjoys: The Wizard of Oz Singin' In The Rain An American In Paris Fantasia My Fair Lady (the costumes!) Annie Get Your Gun Mary Poppins Willy Wonka (1970) Astaire/Rogers musicals My Favorite Musicals: Seven Brides For Seven Brothers The Music Man A Star Is Born (54) Hello Dolly Gypsy Evergreen/First A Girl Busby Berkeley musicals These are a little more "quirky" and not for everyone. Many musicals, including the other musicals mentioned (ie Sound of Music) fail for me in one way or another. (where's High Society on the list?) Early musicals like Astaire/Rogers & Busby Berkeley movies are real crowd pleasers at our Monday night screenings. Amazing to me they seem to grab a modern audience. I recently watched Carousel and simply hated it. I hated the "heaven" element with the corny stars & sets but especially the song about "My man hit me but it didn't hurt because I love him" I wanted to pull my hair out. And the clambake dance number on the dock just seemed like a weak imitation of Seven Bride's barn raising number.

Well I had this recorded because from the description it sounded like it was the story of Horace Wells, the man who discovered anesthesia. I stumbled across Well's grave site when I visited Katherine Hepburn's burial spot, they are in the same cemetary in Hartford CT. Well's has a huge elaborate marker with bronze scultures that say "I Sleep to Awaken" and the other side "I Awaken To Glory" http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=5820828 I was really glad they made a movie about him and bonus it's a Preston Sturges film! Hope it's a decent one!

Hey Swithin, thanks for that photo of Zohra Sahgal...she's in several DVDs that I own and I knew nothing about her except I like her. She's in everything....the Ward Bond of Bollywood films. >Apparently Roger Ebert regarded her as one of the most beautiful women in the world. Well, she WAS Miss World, obviously other people thought so too. And isn't she married to Amitabh's son? Talk about Bollywood royalty. English language Indian film set in Toronto or London are pretty common, especially romantic comedies. Indian made films are more interesting to me, if only for the exotic locations. I've been looking for "Desperately Seeking Helen" for years now. It's a FBC film about tracking down the very famous queen of dancing in Bollywood film from the 60's & 70's. Every once in awhile she shows up in a cameo performance, but I'd love to know her story these past decades.

>TomJH said: I (also) think that the best of the Road films made in the '40s finds in Bing and Bob one of the great chemistry collaborations between two male stars. The fact that I grew up with the Road films perhaps prejudices me towards them a little but I never really liked either Crosby or Hope quite so much as when they were bouncing off each other. I agree 100%. What I don't quite agree on is "why" I don't care for Crosby. I dislike Crosby because of his smugness. I realize an actor must believe in himself, but Bing just comes across as thinking he's God's gift to women and I don't buy it. (I also dislike Dick Powell for the same attitude-ew) When you put Hope & Crosby together, you get the perfect foil in self depreciating Bob with smarmy Bing...as a woman, I'd certainly fall for Bob over Bing-which makes Bing's huge ego even funnier. Bob Hope can be fun in Bing-less movies, but he needs that counter-point for his schtick to work better. That said, Bing's "I'm sexy" bluffing works well in HS, but Grant is much more believable because he IS sincerely charming and handsome.

Wow-I love all the responses! I agree with so many: >I hate films where Bing Crosby is paired with women half his age. >I'll watch anything with Weidler and Roland Young. Seriously, Roland (along with Charlie Ruggles) is always great. >One last thing to note is Cole Porter's score. It was great and worked beautifully with Crosby and Sinatra's style. (and I didn't know that affair story, mimi-thanks!) >And Grace Kelly for Katharine Hepburn? I don't think so >I have far more CDs of Sinatra than I do Crosby so I guess I obviously prefer his singing, but as a screen presence, certainly during the '40s, especially when he was teamed with Bob Hope, I find Crosby a genuine pleasure to watch (and hear). I too have far more Sinatra than Bing. And I too am a fan of the Road pictures...they hold up well from teen to adult. The only other thing I'd point out is the "look" of each film. TPS has beautiful luminous lighting, truly giving Hepburn an otherworldly effect. HS is a color acheivement; sets and actors lit beautifully, stunning art direction and camera work in it's own right. TPS has Kate in a perfectly suited role, and the photography has a dreamy quality which trumps HS musical number strength, for me at least.

I love that list of "wordy" titles....two of my favorites: Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living & Became Mixed Up Zombies and Effect of Gamma Rays On Man-On-The-Moon Marigolds To get back to film trends- The 70's gave us the flapper throwback with several films that take place in the roaring 20's- Bonnie & Clyde The Big Party Paper Moon (b&w) come to mind, with many others I'm sure someone can add. I also notice starting in the late 50's going into the 60's a plethora of mentally ill or alcoholic charactors in long wordy films. It's as if "unstability" became a national fascination. I immediately think of Liz Taylor & Paul Newman as beautiful but "flawed" charactors. Was there also a "trend" in filmmaking (preWW1) of depicting (esp NYC) the industrial turn of-the-century? Just recently I watched: A Tree Grows In Brooklyn The Strawberry Blonde Chicken Every Sunday I Remember Mama And I don't care if I never see another gentle period piece ever again!

>Basically, I am asking the question here: do you regard film as an art form or as mere entertainment? Of course, if the movie is really bad, it's neither. Well I've clearly defined "classic" here several times before, now I'll attempt at clearly defining "art". Art is communication of the artist's ideas or feelings through their medium to others. This includes ALL art-music, the written word, visual, dance, documentary, etc. Within the context of film, the "artist" can refer to the actor, the photographer, the director, the costumer, hairdresser, the sound design, etc. The "communication" part is important because if no one understands or "receives" the message, the art fails. Let's take the child's fingerpainting example. The child is enjoying moving colors around with his fingers, just for his/her own expression of joy & fun. If anyone seeing the picture feels that sense of joy, and thinks "that just seems FUN!" then the picture succeeds. In the case of a bad movie, the intent may be to scare or horrify you but instead it's horribly funny (as in the recently shown "Manitou"(78), it is still touching the viewer, although not in the way intended. This sort of "art" is more difficult to define, as it technically "fails" but instead creates a life of it's own, touching viewers in a way not intended by any of the artists involved. So in short yes, film is an art medium and falls under the same definition as any other creative art. This has nothing to do with my opinion, it's a technical definition.

I've never understood Dean's appeal, although I don't hate him....he's just meh. Some of his "cool" was because of the times. If he truly was an outstanding actor, maybe it would have been more apparent if he had been given many diverse roles to play. I think the tragedy of Dean's death is that we never really get to see where he goes with his acting skills. (or just peter out because of lack of skill) Look at Elvis, who was naturally talented and could have done so much better, if given better material. Movie studios tend to give the "same role over & over" to be "safe". Hollywood still tries playing it safe by releasing the same teen violent goth crap year after year. Nothing changes does it?

When I saw the thread title immediately I imagined Gone With The Wind. Such a long involved movie with a one/two punch lines of "...give a damn" then "tomorrow IS another day" I think great endings give hope for whatever the next chapter may be-and so much better left to the viewer's imagination! The Ghost & Mrs Muir fits that definition as does 2001 A Space Odyssey. I agree 100% that Chaplin succeeded in this perfectly as does Woody Allen. My fave Allen endings are those that focus on "classic Hollywood films". Examples: Mia Farrow's charactor in Purple Rose of Cairo-she's left crying from her broken dreams and stumbles into her local theater. You see her get caught up in the fantasy of Astaire & Rogers dancing cheek to cheek and somehow is comforted by it's escapism. This illustrates the importance of movies during the great (or personal) depression. Was it Radio Days (? I sometimes mix his movies up) Allen himself walks into a theater after realizing he's going to die SOMEday, (love Julie Kavner, "You're just realizing this?") and he sees the Marx Brothers and realizes the absurdity of life and then realizes the greatest meaning of life is to be happy & make others happy. But, whenever James Cagney is mentioned in the Tiki household, the kid always says, "Top of The World!" That ending had a huge impact on her and is stamped in her mind although she's seen several great Cagney films.

Count me in as a Bollywood fan... Glad there's someone else on the board into it. I think TCM would do well to broadcast a few Indian classics (like Straight From The Heart) as a month long spotlight. I've found US audience to be more receptive to East Asian film including J-Horror & Martial Arts than to anything Indian-and the Indian film industry is HUGE and much better in my opinion! I enjoy the morality: the honor & dedication to the planet, family and tradition and the joy and spectacle of the dance numbers. Escapism at it's highest form. Personally, I find the "shoot 'em ups" to be too brutal for my taste, although I did enjoy Eklavya for it's bee-utiful cinematography. Mostly I enjoy the fun Bollywood and the long drawn out epic romances and the spiritual horror. Once in awhile I enjoy the silly comedies like the Munna Bhai series, they always have underlying morality at the base. Speaking of Amitabh, how did you like him in JhoomBarabarJhoom? All he did was dress up like a hippie and punctuate the dance numbers-typical for silly romance films. Nowadays I'm limited to library borrowing (thank goodness my city has a large Indian population) and blind DVD buying at the Indian grocer. I did buy young Amitabh in the remake of Meet John Doe online and it was horrible. I've moved on to Shah Rukh Khan for older beefcake and very much enjoyed My Name is Kahn.