Swithin

I think the only film I've seen Sam Elliott in is The Legacy, a rather peculiar horror film in which Margaret Tyzack turns into a white cat.

No, the Chevalier charge is different. There was evidence, it was fairly well known, it may have been due to his "circumstances," he may have been exonerated, but it was based on fact.

Brennan's racism was no secret. Crew members saw him dance a jig when he learned of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination.

Child molester?!!! I never heard that. I did hear that he was a Nazi collaborator. Old story of separating the actor from the person. I like Walter Brennan in films, but he was an outrageous, unrepentent, racist. I've never been a fan of Chevalier, but I can't resist Love Me Tonight.

Rex Harrison, nasty man, mediocre actor irritates me. His 1964 Oscar win, over Richard Burton, Peter O'Toole, Anthony Quinn, and Peter Sellers, was the worst Best Actor Oscar travesty in history.

Trade Winds is one of those exotic voyage Tay Garnett films -- he also directed One Way Passage, Seven Sinners, Slave Ship, China Seas, more. He seemed to specialize in those sorts of movies early in his career.

Miss W., I see your point, but when you refer to "endless worrying and furrowed brow", that's pretty much an acting issue -- look at the roles she played! How else could the scene have been played in Caged, when, imprisoned, she's trying to get her mother to take her baby? That scene requires "worrying and a furrowed brow"! I don't know of any other actress who could have played that scene so well. Certainly not Bette Davis, who could do most things. Maybe Ruth Chatterton, but she was of an earlier era. But in the end, of course, it's a question of taste, but not only of actors and irritation, but of roles and movies.

Miss W., I'm afraid that I do not agree with you. Ms. Parker should have won the Best Actress Oscar for her performance in Caged, over Judy Holliday who won (she should have come second); Anne Baxter; and the overrated (that year) duo of Bette Davis and Gloria Swanson.

What a great list, it was a particularly good year for horror. Also, Million Dollar Legs is a CRAZY film about a country -- Klopstockia -- where all the women are named Angela and all the men are named George. W.C. Fields has a thankfully minor part; one of the real stars is Lyda Roberti "the woman no man can resist," who sings one of the craziest songs in the history of film. Wikipedia says: "After a June 2010 screening in Tribeca, New Yorker writer David Denby called the movie 'about as close as Hollywood (in this case, Paramount) ever came to the spirit of Dada'. The movie is so silly that it seems both artless and weirdly avant-garde, a style that the studios never quite explored again."

Ladies of the Jury is a delight! TCM screened it last year. They also screened We're on the Jury (1937), with the great Helen Broderick, based on the same play as Ladies but not nearly as good.

I saw an interview with Elaine Stritch recently. She talked about playing someone's mother on stage -- I forgot the actress she was talking about. Elaine said if it were a movie, she'd have to play the girl's grandmother. That's just one small part of it. Here's a link which seems fairly accurate: http://www.infoplease.com/cig/movies-flicks-film/film-acting-vs-theater-acting.html

Lois originated the role of Carol Cutrere in the Broadway production of Orpheus Descending by Tennessee Williams. The play was adapted to film as The Fugitive Kind. Joanne Woodward played Carol Cutrere in the film.

I think she's great in films; I was responding to the poster who said she was irritating by implying her style might be a bit different. Didn't mean to give the impression that she was not good in films. Funny, Lois Smith, whom I also mentioned in the second part of my post, was also in East of Eden.

Julie Harris is magnificent -- on stage. Possibly our greatest living stage actress who loves not only Broadway but touring across the country as well. A sentiment from an earlier age of theater. But there is a difference between being a great actor on stage and in movies. And I don't think she ever really enjoyed working in films. Like many of the really top stage actors, perhaps she did it to make an occasional few bucks to support her theater habit. I love the Law & Order shows. Never watched them until I did a gig with Sam Waterston and felt that I should see what they're about, and now I'm addicted. But I don't really like D'Onofrio or his character that much; nor Saffron Burrows. Of the Criminal Intent group, I do like Kathryn Erbe and some of the others. And they've given so much work to New York theater actors -- people like Phil Bosco, Lois Smith, David Harbour, Kathleen Chalfant, Richard Easton, et. al.

Why don't you start a thread about sheep in films? I would cite Au Hasard Balthazar. The scene with the sheep surrounding the donkey at the end is amazing.

In my experience, Ollie, website staff are paid more than program staff. This may not be true at TCM, but in many places web managers/designers are paid more than most people in an organization.

I think after RO retires, they should minimize the intros and use the funds to buy rights to old films that haven't shown yet. I do think intros add something, but we don't need quite so many of them. And I find that theatrical thing of him having to walk toward the camera is just too fake at this point. And to get back to the point of this thread, I do NOT think we need Maltin's ratings on the TCM website. There is plenty of information on the web about every film.

I've re-watched a number of movies recently which take place around the turn of the 20th century -- 1895-1910: I Remember Mama; Maurice; The Happy Years; Ah, Wilderness!; Also of course Every Day's a Holiday, my favorite Mae West movie. I'm not sure I'd want to live in that period, but I find the very late Victorian and the Edwardian periods very attractive in some ways.

LZ, you are quite right about RO being the face of TCM, as Alistair Cooke was of Masterpiece Theatre. RO IS a sort of rock star in our circles -- maybe that's all the more reason to revisit the concept of host when he retires. But I think there should always be someone to do special intros, on occasion. Wish PBS would get rid of Linney and Cumming, though; I like them on stage and in films; not so much in their PBS roles. And those backdrops! Oy!

Finance, have you watched Masterpiece Theater on PBS over the years? I loved their original host -- Alastair Cooke. But after he retired, they kept the host idea going when I think they could have phased it out. Now they have Laura Linney and Alan Cumming making fairly ridiculous, wildly theatrical comments before each screening, against bizarre backdrops. Totally unncessary, and a waste of time and money. When RO retires, perhaps TCM can retire the idea of the host. Maybe just have one for special events, like the premiere screenings of old films they'll be able to afford, since they won't have to pay a host regularly!

But it's not even about differing opinions. It's just that the TCM website does not need ratings on the schedule.

Finance, Might I add something sacreligious? I like RO and think he adds a lot to the screenings. But whenever we write on these boards of repetitious screenings, a few posters indicate -- quite rightly I think -- that it's often a budget issue -- TCM has to pay for rights to show films, and funds are limited. So, perhaps when RO retires, we can have fewer of those intros, lovely though they are. The funds saved could be put toward purchasing rights for films that haven't been shown. It's not only RO's salary -- it's all that transportation/expenses of getting him to Atlanta from NYC!

I agree that it makes a great stocking stuffer. But I don't think that the ratings should be on the TCM website.

The point is, particularly to those of us who love TCM, we can be the judge of what is "mediocre." We do have different standards. How many of us love actors and their films, from Lionel Atwill to George Zucco? Maltin just does not appreciate these films. He writes for a "general" audience. We are not a general audience. Maltin's reviews have a place in a book, or on his own website, but not on the TCM site.

But Helen, baby, that's why we don't want/need Maltin's reviews -- HE finds the silliest things to complain about. He's often out of synch with the true love of movies that is TCM and its audience. I don't mind a one-line objective plot synopses -- I just don't want the star ratings.