infinite1

SansFin, At no time in my post, I THINK, did I ever suggest using the overrated Oscars as a criteria for determining which films are to be labeled as classic and which films are not. And, while I do consider the majority of BUSTER KEATON's work to be classic comedy, his appearances in such films as IT'S A MAD MAD MAD MAD WORLD and BEACH BLANKET BINGO are far from classic, even though the former is a classic comedy film and the later is just plain all around dreadful, and to consider it a classic in any way shape, or form, is a stretch of the imagination that borders on the absurd. While I get that the CLASSIC in TURNER MOVIES adds a certain amount of prestige to the channel, it's really a misnomer because not every movie they show IS a bonified classic by anyones' stretch of the definition or imagination. And yes, while one can tailor one's own prejudices into the definition of what constitutes a classic film, one can hardly expect to be taken seriously when they lump together truly classic films like STEAMBOAT BILL JR. with the nonsensical, unfunny BEACH BLANKET BINGO. That's why there is a rating category called BOMB in Leonard Maltin's annual movies on television book or don't you believe that there are some films that merit that description?

> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote} > Any movie which has endured longer than the lifespan of its original negative is classic because some person or corporation considered its merit was so great it was worth the time and money to preserve it. To endure for generations past its origin as an ephemeral work is the definition of a classic. I am not against all movies enduring beyond the lifespan of their original negatives, just the labeling of all movies as classic. There are persons or corporations that might expend their time and money to preserve any film, irrespective of it's lack of merits, if there is the feeling that in addition to recouping their original investment, enough money can be made to generate a profit. It is a sad commentary on society, but it is a simple fact of life that junk sells. To label every piece of junk that was ever filmed as a classic cheapens the word and does a disservice to actual classics. If you are really looking for a fine definition of a classic film I would recommend the following definition from the reelclassics site: h3. Defining "Classic" Movies h4. by Elizabeth, ReelClassics.com h4. April 4, 2003 "I like the word "classic" because the term is broad enough that I can tailor my own prejudices into its definition. In general, I use it to mean "embodying high qualities" with a touch of "famous in the sense of long-established." A classic also usually either serves as a model or adheres to certain established standards. Classic movies aren't so much defined by a specific time frame (although the Hollywood studio system that existed from the 1910s into the 1960s and produced the majority of the films I consider classics certainly lends a temporal prejudice to my definition). Rather, classic movies embody a method of storytelling that leaves something to the audience's imagination. When, in a classic movie, the leading man and leading lady kiss and the screen fades to black, the older members of the audience know what that means. The younger members of the audience don't know what that means, but their ignorance doesn't hurt their enjoyment of the film. As a result, the whole family can watch the same movie together and get different things from it depending on their stage of life and the experiences they bring to the theatre with them. By leaving graphic depictions or descriptions of sex and violence and moral corruption to the audience's imagination through suggestion and innuendo, classic movies make these themes more powerful in the minds of those old enough to understand, yet without destroying the innocence of those on whom these subtleties are lost." The article goes on, check it out, but I think that this paragraph says it all. Obviously so does the OP.

> {quote:title=Bolesroor wrote:}{quote}CMonty, the idea of TCM turning more program hours over to Ben Manckiewicz visiting Hollywood diners is a prospect I find less than thrilling. There are enough channels filling up programming hours with disposable "reality/documentary" shows. If you're looking for that type of programming there's plenty on FOOD Network, TLC, A&E, FIT TV, USA, E!, LIFETIME, HGTV, WE, TRAVEL, OXYGEN, and OWN, the Oprah Winfrey Network. > > I have no desire to see James Lipton interviewing Will Smith and asking him the secrets of his legendary acting career. Turner Classic Movies has traditionally been for CLASSIC MOVIES. Let's keep it that way. You forgot amc. It was the "original" programming that, in retrospect, was the first sign of the demise of AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS as a classic movie channel. If you all want history to repeat itself then by all means TCM, bring it on. Obviously, there are some "fans" that "love" TCM so much, they can't wait until it becomes another amc. Yes, I know the pat answer, "TCM is immune from THAT ever happening". I wouldn't bet the farm on that little delusion.

> {quote:title=Bolesroor wrote:}{quote}CMonty, the idea of TCM turning more program hours over to Ben Manckiewicz visiting Hollywood diners is a prospect I find less than thrilling. There are enough channels filling up programming hours with disposable "reality/documentary" shows. If you're looking for that type of programming there's plenty on FOOD Network, TLC, A&E, FIT TV, USA, E!, LIFETIME, HGTV, WE, TRAVEL, OXYGEN, and OWN, the Oprah Winfrey Network. > > I have no desire to see James Lipton interviewing Will Smith and asking him the secrets of his legendary acting career. Turner Classic Movies has traditionally been for CLASSIC MOVIES. Let's keep it that way.You forgot amc. It was the "original" programming that, in retrospect, was the first sign of the demise of AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS as a classic movie channel. If you all want history to repeat itself then by all means TCM, bring it on. Obviously, there are some "fans" that "love" TCM so much, they can't wait until it becomes another amc. Yes, I know the pat answer, "TCM is immune from THAT ever happening". I wouldn't bet the farm on that little delusion.

Maybe not on TCM given their loose usage of the word "classic". But, in serious academic circles, discussions of what defines a classic film, by folks that know a little more then TCM's programmers, differ from TCM's broader, trying to satisfy everyone definition. According to TCM every film ever made is a classic and that cheapens not only the word, but the true CLASSIC films that TCM shows. Are the BEACH BLANKET BINGO movies really on an equal par with the ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD and CASABLANCA? Well according to TCM they are because they all fall under the TCM defined banner of CLASSIC. Dosen't that sort of give the word CLASSIC a hollow ring? that and the fact that it's a laughable concept in and of itself.

> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote} > > I also agree that the argument is more about the airing of modern classics. Rather, the argument is more about the airing of films post 1960, period, because there is the greater liklihood that they will not be family friendly. Your labeling the films in question "modern classics" is an oxymoron. A film can't be both modern and a classic. In order for a film to be considered a classic it has to withstand the test of time. It must "transcended time and trends, with indefinable quality. Classic films are often universal favorites that hold up after repeated rescreenings." Modern films are new films that are still enjoying first run in movie theatres. Once a film is taken out of the theatre it becomes an old film, but not an instant classic. Every pre 1960 film that tcm airs may not be CONSIDERED a classic based on the above definition of a classic film, but they are, for the most part, family friendly. On the other hand, every post 1960 film, that is or is not not defined as a classic has the greater liklihood of containing some element whether it be excessive graphic violence or explicit nudity/sex, for not being family friendly. Unless, of course, we're talking DISNEY. That is the concern/argument of the OP.

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote} > In my thinking, you can be a very "moral" person, and still have sex with someone to whom you are not married. Sex has little to do with it. No doubt there are losers in child custody cases, due to Infidelity, that wish someone with your thinking was the presiding judge ruling on their case. Unfortunately, that is not the kind of progressive thinking considered the norm in today's prudish, repressive society. However, the question, as I see it, boils down to this. Is the showing of a film depicting half naked women taking baths appropriate or inappropriate for a channel called TCM? In and of itself I find nothing wrong with it, especially if the women in question are Jayne Mansfield or Anna Nicole Smith. But, as we all know, TCM viewers come in all stripes. As I stated in my last post, there is a perception, right or wrong, partly due to TCM's policy of tooting it's own horn of being a family friendly channel, that TCM's perceived intent is to be a channel that encourages and welcomes children into it's fold. I'm not suggesting that TCM start showing FUNNY ANIMAL cartoons 24/7 or that parent's leave their toddlers in front of TCM unsupervised, but the sad truth is that some parents have come away with the feeling, no matter how baseless in fact, that TCM is a safe haven for their teen-age children. So what if there's the occassional make believe GANGSTER flick or HORROR flick, nothing different from what they saw when they were a teen watching television. But, nudity, in their minds crosses the line. All of a sudden TCM is no longer a place that they want their teen-age children to visit, and TCM loses another family and perhaps future classic movie fans. Now it is likely that the OP over reacted to the innocent scene in question. I didn't see it. I guess I am going to have to do some late night viewing of TCM, purely for research, you understand.

Personally, I think that in the haste of everyone to rush to the defense of TCM, you are all missing the point of the OP. TCM is not DISNEY, we know that, but by the same token it is not CINEMAX, HBO, SHOWTIME, or any number of other pay channels that show excessive violence or nudity. TCM's goal, or at least, one of TCM's goals, so they have claimed in the past, is to get our young people hooked on classic films. It does not help the reputation of a channel that boasts of "films that the whole family can watch", to add to it's "library" films that stray into the territory of questionable content. And by questionable content, I mean the questionable content of modern films, not the suggestive content of HARLOW, WEST, or MONROE, or the make believe violence of CAGNEY or BOGART. Believe me, I am not offended by anything that TCM CURRENTLYshows, and if there was something that I did find objectionable, I am old enough to turn off the channel, but I am not a parent. I think the OP is expressing frustration at TCM for letting him/her down. For being the last bastion, so to speak, against the kind of "adult" fare found on other channels that would require the kind of research and censoring that you all suggest. As I said, I am not a parent, but I don't know any parents who have the time or the patience to research the content and block every questionable program or movie on every channel. Besides, I don't know of any reference material that lists every nude scene, foul language, or explicit violent act in every movie ever made so that "pushing back" on the parent as the 24/7 moral police is unfair as well as a cop out on the part of any channel, specifically a channel that purports to be family friendly. And, for the information of all here, TCM has shown SAM PECKINPAH's films in prime time so the excuse that it's ONLY after hours is a flagrant untruth. But, all this aside, the bigger question is where DO YOU ALL draw the line? Would you be as tolerant of TCM and dismisive of the OP if the movies in question were the classic double bill I AM CURIOUS YELLOW, I AM CURIOUS BLUE, and the equally classic FACES OF DEATH? Oh, and next time, instead of DOG PILING on a poster for expressing a concern, you might try putting yourself in their place and understanding. You might find it a novel experience.

Sorry one and all, but I watched this film last night, FOR THE UPTEENTH TIME, and still did not understand it. The following represent, to me, what might have been going on, but only one can be correct. Which is it? Or am I all wet? 1.) WAS SHE DYING, IN THE CAR, AND DREAMED ALL THIS BEFORE SHE ACTUALLY DIED? 2.) WAS SHE MEANT TO DIE, EVADED DEATH, AND THE DEAD RECLAIMED HER THEREBY SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT? 3.) WAS SHE CO-EXISTING IN BOTH THE WORLD'S OF THE LIVING AND THE DEAD UNTIL SOMEONE, GOD MAYBE, MADE UP HIS MIND???? A truly confusing and disturbing movie.

When the girl answers "Yes, I see now." What is it that she sees? Does she see her own shortcommings? After all, she was presumptuous/haughty enough to assume that a MIILIONAIRE would care enough about a blind flower girl to fall in love with her? What, love at first sight???? Does she see that once she reclaimed her sight, she became the kind of person that would only see the surface of a person and fail to "see" his soul? Which was probably how she viewed the world when she was blind. She only saw/recognized the soul of the tramp after she experienced the kind of physical contact that they had when she was blind. But, there would be no hope for that pair. She would be grateful and continue to show him pity, while despising him for shattering her fantasy. And the tramp, a tramp long before he met her, would remain a tramp and therefore no longer be a worthy companion for her new station in life. And even if she felt differently, I'm sure her mother would not.

> {quote:title=BingFan wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=TomJH wrote: > > }{quote}... once they had made their first couple of Road films together, I will wager that there were few times in the public's mind that when Bob appeared in public, there were not thoughts or comments about Bing, and vice versa. Those two stars were forever locked in the public's mind as a team in spite of the fact that during the vast majority of both their careers they did not work with one another. ... > I think you've got it exactly right that the public saw Bing and Bob as a real team, not just temporary co-stars. John Lahr notes in his New Yorker article on Hope that when Paramount announced in 1945 that there wouldn't be any more Road pictures (presumably after Utopia, which had been made but not yet released), the studio received 75,000 letters protesting the decision, which was quickly rescinded. The public clearly wanted Bing and Bob to stay together as a team. > > Bob and Bing apparently intended to remain a team as well, even though they also had very active solo careers. The first Road movie (Singapore) was made in 1940, and in 1977, when Bing died, they were still planning to do one more, Road to the Fountain of Youth. So, for 37 years, they saw each other as at least an intermittent team, although Bing's death meant that the last movie was never made. As it was, their Road movies spanned 22 years (from 1940 until 1962's Road to Hong Kong), much longer than Martin and Lewis were together. And you also have the numerous joint appearances they made on radio and TV, as well as at public events like golf tournaments. They even made a joint cameo appearance in the circus audience in De Mille's Greatest Show On Earth. > > > > > > *So, FIVE films in the forties, ONE in the fifties, and ONE in the sixties, plus cameos in GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH and SCARED STIFF equates to giving the public what they want? ROAD TO HONG KONG is generally regarded as the weakest of the Seven, that leaves Six. ROAD TO RIO and ROAD TO BALI are rarely if ever showcased by TCM to the extent that SINGAPORE, ZANZIBAR, MORACCO, and UTOPIA are. I guess they are not considered the comic masterpieces on a par with the CLASSIC FOUR. So, what are we left with? FOUR CLASSIC FILMS that Hope and Crosby were featured in by virtue of their individual STAR power, and draw.* > > > By the way, I need to correct a fact I threw out earlier -- according to John Lahr's article, which I have to assume was rigorously fact-checked by the New Yorker, Bob Hope received five, not four, "special" Academy Awards. (The source for my original number appears to be less reliable than the Lahr article.) > > > > > > ...As for Crosby and Hope, I really think you're off target when you say they hated one another. Hate? Sure there's back stabbing (I know I wouldn't want a friend like Bing selling me into slavery the way he does Bob in Road to Morocco) but, in spite of the competitiveness that existed between their characters there are also countless scenes in the Road films in which the two buddies are expressing affection for one another. It might be a keep-your-hands-out-of-my-pocket-while-you're-patting-me-on-the-back kind of affection, but it was still there. ... > You only have to look the way they sing "Put 'Er There, Pal" to confirm that their characters were indeed pals on screen, even though they often had different interests in mind. After all, in each of the Road movies, Bob and Bing are portraying pals who have usually been in some kind of vaudeville act together for a while, getting along by supporting each other, although they do sometimes double-cross one another, too. Conflict is one of the key elements of most comedy, and they had it. > > > *If I recall the lyrics to that song it was more sarcastic then buddy buddy. They took turns putting each other down to music. And while they played the part of pals on screen the fact that they "often had different interests in mind" proved that they were not a comedy team in the true sense of the term. The most successful comedy teams operated as a unit with the SAME interest in mind.* > > Incidentally, try as I do I cannot separate my response from the post I am responding to, hence my reason for highlighting my response. I am not shouting.

I agree with most that has been said of Crosby and Hope, except, that they were NOT a COMEDY TEAM, at least not in the tradition of teams like Abbott and Costello or Laurel and Hardy. Crosby and Hope just happened to be two very successful individual performers who happened to click together in a short series of films that made money for Paramount. But their "teaming" was by no means their only source of "bread and butter". Also, if they never made those 7 "ROAD" pictures their careers would have been just as successful. Unlike true Comedy Teams that either fail when they try to go solo or have limited success, like MARTIN and LEWIS. In a way this was even true about Bugs and Daffy. Two great individual Cartoon Stars who clicked together in a short series of cartoons, but they were not a team. A true comedy team is made up of two characters who basically love each other like brothers or real brothers if we're talking MARX, RITZ, or STOOGES. It's clear that Bugs and Daffy hated each other. It could also be said that the characters that Hope and Crosby portrayed hated, or at the least, disliked each other to the point that they always looked to shaft each other in the back. That may make for some funny sequences, but it is not representative of a true comedy team. While Abbott used Costello and Hardy bullied Laurel there was no denying the love that those characters felt for each other. I don't see it in the Hope and Crosby pictures or the Bugs and Daffy cartoons.

Don't know why my last post was tagged onto the previous post??? Suffice it to say that my previous post began with the word NOW.

> {quote:title=TCMWebAdmin wrote:}{quote}Please be aware that none of this information is official, final or complete. What TCM airs in January may be significantly different, and you should not rely on this information to provide correct results. The official January scheduled will be revealed in the normal way and time. > > Michael/TCMWebAdminNow, that's a downer. Probably the true January 2012 schedule will contain the "usual suspects" like NORTH BY NORTHWEST, CASABLANCA, SINGIN IN THE RAIN, and SOME LIKE IT HOT, among others. I knew this thread was too good to be true.

> {quote:title=TomJH wrote:}{quote}*We certainly didn't need another Bogart, we had enough repeat performances with just one. Bogie was a passable actor who basically played the same type over and over from picture to picture, no matter the part. As for Raft, his tough guys were copied from his real life associations, not the kind of phony acting by his contemporaries Bogart, Cagney, and Robinson. I prefer the real deal, Raft would have been great..* > > That's a really interesting take, infinite 1, but not entirely accurate. It's true than Raft had underworld associations to draw upon but even though he had seen "the real deal" it still didn't, in my opinion, make him more convincing as a tough guy than the other three stars. > > I would also very much challenge your statement that there was anything "phony" about James Cagney's acting. Cagney was known to have lifted mannerism from real life street thugs that he remembered seeing growing up on the streets of New York City. For example, the frequent hitch of the shoulders that his Rocky Sullivan character had in Angels With Dirty Faces, the actor lifted, if memory serves me correctly, from a pimp that he used to see as a boy. > > As for Bogart and Robinson, let's put it this way, their histrionic credentials were able to trump Raft's real life experiences in order to make more vivid impressions, to me, at least, in their tough guy roles. Having said that, I still think Raft is a pretty good screen tough guy, but he doesn't linger in the memory than way the other three actors do. > > By your standards, you probably think that Frank Sinatra would have been a good screen tough guy. What am saying? In this case, you'd be right. Sinatra was a good actor. You're right about Cagney, I had forgotten that info. It's just that RAFT seems, at least to me, to have been given the shaft, partly self inflicting, but also due to the very poor exposure given his early Paramount pictures which made him a first caliber star. People have just forgotten him. It's no wonder that he dosen't "linger in your memory" and the memories of others. You all see him in THEY DRIVE BY NIGHT, INVISIBLE STRIPES, MANPOWER, BACKGROUND TO DANGER, and SOME LIKE IT HOT and think or assume that's all he did. There is no shortage of films available from Cagney, Bogart, Robinson, and John Garfields' film libraries, my god, we are constantly smacked in the face with them by TCM, NOT THAT I DISLIKE BEING SMACKED IN THE FACE WITH THEM, but you have to seek out poor Raft's early Paramount films from the grey market dealers and they are not usually in the condition that one finds on a channel like TCM. It's no wonder that he doesn't linger in your memory. Also, he dosen't come across as overbearing like Cagney, Bogart, or Robinson, his subdued acting WAS modeled after real life mobsters who did not copy CAGNEY, BOGART, or ROBINSON's on screen histrionics. I guess you enjoy the histrionic Gangster portrayals more then the accurate ones and if so, that's your choice. But, how did you feel about the GODFATHER films? I feel their Gangster portrayal was closer to Rafts model then the histrionic model of ROBINSON, BOGART, or CAGNEY.

> {quote:title=Filmgoddess wrote:}{quote}A night of Danny Kaye films on TCM would cause me to sell my television set. I can't think of a big name whose stuff/shtick has aged more badly than his work. I find it completely unwatchable today. *Plus he's so unpleasant.* Sell it to me, I'll buy it, if it's HD ready. But, really?? What is it about his stuff/shtick that has aged more badly than his work??? As far as the UNPLEASANT remark, you KNOW this to be a fact, HOW??????? Do you have any first hand experience that you'd like to share with the rest of us???? Or, is it something about him personally, that you find so unpleasant?????

> {quote:title=EugeniaH wrote:}{quote}*Can you think of any incidents in which this occured? And whose decision making was the worst of all? I nominate George Raft. I'll start the ball rolling:* > > *George "Bad Decision Making" Raft turning down High Sierra, Maltese Falcon AND Casablanca* > > Hi Tom, > > This is a great thread, but I also think that, for example, if Raft had decided to make these pictures, they wouldn't have been the hits they were, imo. Raft is certainly no Bogart... Thank god for that. We certainly didn't need another Bogart, we had enough repeat performances with just one. Bogie was a passable actor who basically played the same type over and over from picture to picture, no matter the part. As for Raft, his tough guys were copied from his real life associations, not the kind of phony acting by his contemporaries Bogart, Cagney, and Robinson. I prefer the real deal, Raft would have been great..

Sorry James, my last post got a little messed up when I hit the enter button. Somehow it got tagged onto the end of your post. Anyway, here it is again. Not sure I understand you. Where is it written that SOTM should be based on who is more "deserving" then someone else? How do you define "deserving"? That is in the eye's of the beholder. You feel Leslie Howard is more deserving, the Prince feels, as do I and Thelma, that Bela Lugosi rates that honor because he has EARNED it. Frankly, I feel that any star, past or present, should rate the honor, irrespective of how "deserving" you or I feel he or she "rates" in the purely subjective game of rating stars. I, for one, would love to have LIONEL ATWILL, GEORGE ZUCCO, MANTAN MORELAND, RIN TIN TIN, and LESLIE HOWARD as SOTM, not because they "deserve" it, but because they have entertained me, and others, in the past and I FEEL they have all earned the honor.

> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}Where did I indicate that I don't get the Lugosi mystique? You stated that there was no reason why he shouldn't be SOTM and I gave what I believe are two valid reasons. There is a limited number of slots and there are others that deserve a slot more than him. > > We again disagree on who deserves the next, say 12 slots, but that doesn't mean I'm knocking the talent of anyone I don't list. > > I don't assume you think Leslie Howard should NOT be SOTM just because you favor Lugosi.Not sure I understand you. Where is it written that SOTM should be based on who is more "deserving" then someone else? How do you define "deserving"? That is in the eye's of the beholder. You feel Leslie Howard is more deserving, the Prince feels, as do I and Thelma, that Bela Lugosi rates that honor because he has EARNED it. Frankly, I feel that any star, past or present, should rate the honor, irrespective of how "deserving" you or I feel he or she "rates" in the purely subjective game of rating stars. I, for one, would love to have LIONEL ATWILL, GEORGE ZUCCO, MANTAN MORELAND, RIN TIN TIN, and LESLIE HOWARD as SOTM, not because they "deserve" it, but because they have entertained me, and others, in the past and I FEEL they have all earned the honor.

Interesting to see GEORGE RAFT in a cameo as a rival Dance Contestant that stole first prize from Cagney. Too bad that Warners never grabbed up Raft in the early thirties before Paramount. Surprising also, considering Raft's history and associations. It seems like he would have been a perfect hood for Warners early thirties Gangster shootups.

> {quote:title=PrinceSaliano wrote:}{quote}MURDER BY TELEVISION (Bela Lugosi) > BEHIND LOCKED DOORS (Tor Johnson) > QUEEN OF BURLESQUE (Evelyn Ankers) > UNKNOWN ISLAND (Richard Denning) > TWO LOST WORLDS (James Arness) > THE UNEARTHY (John Caradine) > NIGHT OF THE HOULS (Tor Johnson) > DEATHDREAM > BEAST OF THE DEAD > THE TORTURE CHAMBER OF DR. SADISM (Christopher Le) > MARK OF THE DEVIL > SO SAD ABOUT GLORIA > LET'S SCARE JESSICA TO DEATH > DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT > THE MASK (1961) > MATANGO > THE FLESH EATERS > I EAT YOUR SKIN > TERRIFIED! > BLOODY PIT OF HORROR > BLOOD BATH > THIS NIGHT I'LL POSSESS YOUR CORPSE > BLOOD AND LACE > DERANGED > BLOOD MANIA I'd add CHILDREN SHOULDN'T PLAY WITH DEAD THINGS. Should go well on a double bill with DON'T LOOK IN THE BASEMENT.

ThelmaTodd, I appreciate what you've done with the Lugosi films, especially the ones that are not available on Home Video, but there are many on your list, and not on your list, that are available on DVD, still available on VHS, or shown from time to time on TCM. Those would generate a more pleasing viewing experience then watching all these films on YOUTUBE. I have found the quality of YOUTUBE to be uneven and at times downright unwatchable. It should be used as a last resort when nothing else is available. Perhaps some ambitious soul, alas, I am not that person, would be so kind as to expand on your list, making it allinclusive by listing every LUGOSI film, and their availablity on DVD, VHS, LASERDISC, YOUTUBE, or whatever else is out there, or indicate if it is lost or not available in any form whatsoever. Thanks, infinite1

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}Actually, I was joking. This is the way "Cheyenne Autumn" (1964) really is. > > The central hour of comedy in Dodge City, with Jimmy Stewart, was intentionally put into "Cheyenne Autumn" by John Ford. > > This makes it a very odd film. > > First, about 50 minutes of soldiers mistreating Indians. > > Then about 50 minutes of the comedy in Dodge City. > > Then another 50 minutes of soldiers mistreating Indians. Was the comedy sequence really 50 minutes? Wikipedia has it down as 13 minutes, or does it just seem longer to you due to Jimmy Stewarts delivery?

I don't know about LEAST frequently shown, but BELA LUGOSI and GEORGE RAFT have to be right up there. BELA, I would imagine, due to his lack of a library of MGM, WARNER, or RKO films and although GEORGE manages a showing whenever a BOGART, CAGNEY, or ROBINSON festival is in the offing, rarely rates a marathon of his own. Yes, I know he did get a Birthday tribute this past year, but it would have been nice if some of his PARAMOUNT films, from his STAR period were included. I haven't seen them since the old AMC days.

Can some one please help me? I attempted to DVR the 24hr Chaney marathon. MOCKERY got messed up due to the weather, I subscribe to the DISH NETWORK. However, by the time HUNCHBACK was shown, the weather was clear. Yet, the last few seconds of HUNCHBACK as well as the credits were loped off of the DVR recording and tagged onto the begining of PHANTOM. Unlike the other films, there wasn't that much of a break between HUNCHBACK and PHANTOM. Is there a way around this? I guess one loss due to the weather and another due to whatever is pretty good considering that I got all the others, but it is annoying nonetheless.