Swithin

MacCaulay, Really nice, lovely sentiment; I think we all feel that way, that's why we're here. How can any man or woman, of whatever sexual persuasion, look at Marlene Dietrich singing "Falling in Love Again" in The Blue Angel and not fall in love, with her, and with the movies? There are a million examples like yours, and mine.

It depends to a great extent on the society. Nothing is 100%. It has been working in Scotland and Australia. And there is always the little girl, who, playing with her father's legal gun, accidentally shoots herself. Would I use "recreational" drugs occasionally if they were legal and easily available? Maybe. Do I use them? No.

*The Clairvoyant* ?

I think a sensible discussion is beginning to take place. It is tragic that it needed the spark, but that's frequently the way it happens. It has started to affect economics/business -- gun stocks fell today; the company that made the nefarious weapon is up for sale, elected officials and entities who would never consider any form of gun control are making positive noises. Certain rifle sales have been suspended by a major retailer; even Wal-Mart is just beginning to get its toes wet. Gun shows are being cancelled, etc. Even the Republican Governor of Michigan vetoed a Republican bill today, that would have allowed concealed weapons, giving the tragedy as the reason. There's more, but the point is, this time it's different.

Not that, I meant this need the two of you have to fight. You seem to like it. Maybe the room is the answer!

Dargo, be careful! I had a friend once who saw a couple fighting viciously on the street. He was so alarmed, he went over to try to break it up. They stopped for a moment, looked at him with hatred in their eyes, and shrieked, "MIND YOUR OWN F@<.## BUSINESS." My impression is, they like to fight with each other; there's something going on there that we don't understand! Like Gilda saying to Johnny, "I hate you so much I can't stand it..." Too kinky.

James, I'm the cynical, jaded New Yorker here! And yes, there are alot of guns out there, but we have to start somewhere. Another big issue is how films and video games influence kids. The first place I traveled to in Europe was Edinburgh, because that's where my favorite childhood film, Journey to the Center of the Earth, took place (at least above ground). So I was influenced by that and other films, hopefully in socially acceptable ways. How do the violent films and video games (I LOVE to play DOOM, which is rather lame by today's standards) influence kids? Why are the most heinous of these violent crimes not created by girls? There's alot we don't understand, but hopefully if there is commitment, understanding will come.

I continue to think that it's good to have this discussion, in all arenas. Thank goodness, it has become a mainstream country-wide discussion, and I think there will be a good dialogue and some action. Something that I find interesting -- I was out all day but just watched some talk shows from the treadmill -- is that there are always people who seem to say that no action will totally solve the problem, so there's no point in doing anything. Make guns harder to get, people will still get them. Yes, but guns are not drugs; they are not addictive in the same way. Certain controls will make it more difficult to get, and maybe those ridiculous adjustments that made that assault weapon in CT not technically an assault weapon, will be done away with. I think there is going to be some agreement, and even the NRA has made encouraging noises. I'd like to make two points. I remember the debate about sanctions and South Africa. People who were against sanctions dressed up their opposition by saying that sanctions would hurt average people there. But in the end, it was sanctions that helped end apartheid. Regarding gun controls, people say guns don't kill people, people kill people. But fairly recent controls imposed in Australia have been a great success; and after the UK's terrible massacre in Scotland in the 1990s, controls were put into place. There hasn't been an episode like that since. So, if more control helps to solve the problem, at least a little, that would be great. If it doesn't, it certainly won't do any harm. But it is also worth noting that the rancor one fears here in various conversations -- not just the political ones -- generally comes from the same posters. So I don't think that it's the subject under discussion that makes these people rancourous, I think that's just the way they are, and will continue to be.

Raquel and Dargo, I didn't mean for this to become an unpleasant discussion (and it hasn't, nor is it about politics). I just would like people to actually read the Second Amendment -- it has a preamble part of the sentence which may make the part we are familiar with obsolete. Also, Raquel, may I refer you to the Code of Conduct for this board. My cursory reading of it indicates that the Code says nothing about this board being solely for the discussion of film. The Code is VERY MUCH concerned about copyright infringements. So for those of you who are so concerned about living up to the Code, I would suggest that you express that everytime someone posts a photo. I would guess -- and I'm in the arts business and have had to use alot of photos -- that a majority of the photos put up on the Board are under copyright. That of course is a separate issue and has nothing to do with the present tragedy. But it's potentially a far more serious infringement of the Code than discussing non-film subjects, which may not be an infringement al all!

Politics isn't just political parties and elections and candidates. It's Lost Horizon, Meet John Doe, etc. It concerns the way people interact. My dictionary gives this as one definition: "The total complex of relations between human beings in society."

"Everything is politics" -- Thomas Mann I had lunch with a friend today who is a rather prolific writer about theater and film. We talked about about Rodgers and Hammerstein and how their musicals are totally political -- about class ( Carousel ), race ( Flower Drum Song, South Pacific ), and party politics ( The Sound of Music ). But delve into any film or play, and you'll find politics there, in some form, if not on the surface, then lurking beneath it. Whose films are more political than Frank Capra's? (And I don't just mean Mr. Smith...)

Just look at the post -1980 movie thread! You don't need a "political" thread for people to go over the top! And I think if enough posters are involved to provide a modicum of civility, it can check and balance the others. I for one have to control myself, when I see all the revolting over-the-top adulation about a mediocrity like Stanwyck, I could really get crazy and abusive and call people names about that! ] But I restrain myself, and try to be moderate in my criticisms. But I do understand your concern, and Sepia's and others as well. I just don't see the current tragedy as a political issue; maybe I'm naive in thinking it wouldn't escalate into a gun-control argument. But at any rate, the discussion has begun in the wider world, which is a good thing.

Sometimes in our lives something transcendant happens that affects so many people and touches us all. It therefore gets discussed in all arenas where people gather, even those arenas that were created for other purposes. I don't see this as a political issue. For those of you who continually say, "this is not the place," I would refer you to the TCM Code of Conduct. So long as we are not offensive, there seems to be nothing in the Code that prohibits issues unrelated to film from being discussed. The Code is very clear in its protection of copyright, so that for those of you who are so concerned about straying from the Code, I would look carefully at some of the photos that are posted on this board. But for those of you who rush to say that any non-film chat is out of bounds, I would refer you to the Code. And I would repeat that this current tragedy is not about politics. Maybe to think it is, is part of the problem. Like some of you, I smelled the fires of 9/11. I'll never forget it. Had I been on the board at that time, and tried to express the way I felt (as everyone in NYC did in all the communities we belong to), would I have been inundated with posts saying, "this is not the place?"

Rohanka, thank you for your sensitive post. I certainly understand your point of view, and your eloquence attests to your compassion. But the reports from tonight's moving ceremony seem to say that the people in pain say, now is the time. Many remember the tragedy of the violence and murder in Selma, Alabama in 1965. President Johnson said enough, now is the time. He addressed Congess one week after the tragedy, and the Voting Rights Act was introduced and passed.

My favorite John Barry score is Out of Africa. I think it's brilliant -- so perfect to help set the mood for that great film. Btw, I saw Virginia McKenna on UK television fairly recently. She has aged quite elegantly.

I agree with you Val, this IS the time; and it looks like the President agrees as well. I wish the media would actually recite the Second Amendment! It's doesn't say that everybody has the right the have guns; there's a first part to the sentence, which makes it all an anachronism now: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If the founders just wanted to give us an eternal right to have guns, they would not have put in the first part of that statement. For the sake of this board (and because I think it's relevant), let me put it in movie terms. We all remember Henry Fonda rushing out to fight in Drums Along the Mohawk. Every man grabbed his gun, ran out of his house, and fought a battle. Well, that was then. We have armies and police now, and people who join those services are given guns when they really need them!

Yes, sorry you are in a rotten mood. But you got it, a fun film which was finally shown on TCM earlier this year. Your thread.

The film where they met was Camelot, but it's not the film I'm going for. So... what did Vanessa's husband play in that film? Put that together with our beloved movie theater, and you have the answer.

In 1927, she was in a B'way play called Burlesque with Oscar Levant. Now I'm sure she was great in that!

Here is the late great Joyce Redman in the eating scene from Tom Jones.

I like her well enough, and I love many of her movies!

Hi Eugenia, and thanks for your comment. I assume anything we post here is open to response by everyone else, so no need to think I wasn't addressing you! You make an interesting point, because so many other posters do seem to feel as if BS could walk on water!

Hi Lavender. Not that film, but the Paradise part is correct. Think of the role that Vanessa Redgrave's current husband played in the film where they met. (I had two graduations at the Paradise: Junior High and High School).

I haven't seen it yet but am so sorry to hear that the great *Joyce Redman* has been overlooked. That scene you mention is seminal, classic, and wonderful. And Ms. Redman was nominated for two Oscars.

Hint for the second part of the clue: the most famous Bronx movie theater, used to have stars in the sky, goldfish in the lobby!