Cinemascope

Thanks for the link. Do you have a preference for Crawford films of her early career, or late in her career? Or you just like all of them?

Well, as I said before, it's one thing to want to win an Oscar when you've never won any after several decades of fine performances... On the other hand, wanting a competitive Oscar after winning an honorary Oscar might strike some as maybe a bit much. I've mixed feelings about it, but I certainly think if I were an actor, an honorary Oscar might in some way be more cherished, since there's far fewer of them ever being awarded.

> How can anyone watch an awards ceremony, be it Oscar, > Emmy, Grammy or the like, and not know what to > expect? I don't think that watching television > qualifies as a task, do you? Actually, under certain circumstances it is a task. > Except for news coverage, the medium is designed to > entertain and shouldn't have to be worked at. The medium is designed to communicate. It can also be used for educational purposes, although in America this may be virtually unheard of! I, quite frankly, couldn't care less about what you do > with your time. After all, it is yours to do with as > you please. Yet that's not what you said in your earlier post... is it? I'm just amazed sometimes, at how some > people choose to spend theirs. The biggest difference > between you and me, in my opinion, as far as these > message boards go, is that the majority of my > postings are in the form of questions, hoping to > learn something from people who know far more about Actually, the two more recent examples I can think of were just to knock things you don't particularly like. > You, on the other hand, seem > all too eager to try and impress others with just how > much you know and to bless us with your almost > limitless opinions on an almost limitless number of > subjects. I certainly don't find my own film knowledge to be impressive at all. There's a lot of other folks who've had decades more than me to soak up on their film knowledge. Take a cue from lzcutter and > FredCDobbs and wait for someone to ask for > your opinion rather than just foisting it on us. Did someone really ask you for your opinion of the Oscars? No, you just volunteered it. > There's no denying that you're a knowledgeable person > when it comes to movies, but there can be "too much > of a good thing." Capiche? Nope, there's never too much of a good thing when it comes to classic movies. And it has very little to do with one being knowledgeable or not. > p.s. I've always ascribed to the old Chinese adage > "Better to sit in silence and be thought the fool, > than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." I > think it's served me well. How odd that you didn't observe the adage when it came to your opinions on the Oscars and about film criticism in general.

I can't imagine what it was nominated for Best Writing, Motion Picture Story Joe Connelly Bob Mosher

Tivo'ing for later viewing...

Well, but of course! Don't tell us -- nowhere near as good as Kubrick's Clockwork Orange, right?

lol

Based on your high opinion of him, I'll definitely look for those soundtracks at the local library...

The greatest living American director? Without a doubt. Glad also that TCM showed most of his early shorts last year -- I very much also enjoyed The Big Shave, It's Just Not You, Murray and What's a Nice Girl Like You Doing in a Place Like This?

I also generally prefer the movies when stuff like that is implied... too bad it's done less often every day, apparently.

I should like to go back and listen to more of his music. I can't really say I know much about it, when it comes to memorable film soundtracks my head is (for better or worse) full of melodies from classic movies... Still no reason why I shouldn't learn to appreciate modern film composers!

Well the most explicit violence would be the beating they give Brando's character near the end... was that strong stuff back in the 50's? Maybe a bit stronger than it is now, but probably not considered too violent, even back then.

I guess maybe the Academy voters took this into consideration... there's no denying that one more Oscar, a competitive Oscar, would have been nice, but also a bit anti-climactic when he's already been given one that even fewer actors ever get! And although it might not have been his intention, I now wonder whether he wasn't being slightly manipulative in answering "zilch" when asked how many Oscars he'd won (this in the opening montage right at the start of the ceremony). Yes, he'd won no competitive Oscars, but he had won one that only a handful of actors can ever aspire to!

Gee, what if all of Marty's films are favorites? They're always great to watch! Alright, let's see.... Raging Bull GoodFellas The Departed The Last Temptation of Christ The Aviator Gangs of New York The King of Comedy Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore Mean Streets The Age of Innocence Bringing Out the Dead New York Stories - "Life Lessons" Cape Fear Kundun A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies No Direction Home: Bob Dylan

It is especially sad because young men and women are still losing their lives today in wars that probably could have been avoided, like they imply in the movie, it's a lot easier for politicians to start wars when they can just sit back home and not be in any risk themselves.

Crikey! I'd already forgotten about that! Well, what's he want another one for...?

> I agree, otterhere-I would much rather have been > annoyed by Elizabeth Taylor in the role of Bonnie > Blue (or, as Mr. Burley once pointed out, "Bonnie > Violet.") That might have been interesting to watch... too bad Taylor lived in England until age 7. Her parents didn't relocate to the U.S. until 1939.

jim, what can I say? I too would have been very, very happy to see Peter O'Toole win. On the other hand there's some incredible actors and directors who also never won an Oscar. I think going in to this business as an actor or director, you'd have to realize that it's up to your peers to decide who gets it or who doesn't, and even if you don't agree with that, you have to live with that. Maybe some prefer not to care, because in the end it's kind of a popularity contest within the Academy. Certainly I can think of no greater honor for Peter than to have starred in several of the greatest and most breathtaking film epics of the 60's, and to have done quite a few other neat performances along the way, although those kinds of historical epics now seem to be a thing of the past. Who knows? Maybe they'll give him an honorary Oscar sometime. Hopefully it won't be posthumously.

Wow Hollis, so first you make it sound like you totally didn't watch any of the Oscars, because there were those two movies you really wanted to watch, but now you're telling us that you did in fact watch some of it? Well, I don't understand. Anyone who knows the first thing about Oscar knows or at least has some idea of what to expect from an Oscar telecast... this one wasn't particularly different in a lot of ways, but since I know what to expect going in, I just kind of go with the flow and not take it too seriously.... Honestly it's a lot easier when you have the TV on and watch only the parts you're really interested in, and do stuff online the rest of the time (there's multitasking for you!). Maybe that's why I had such a good time -- I could turn to look at the TV when something happened I wanted to see, and totally ignore it when there was nothing interesting happening. And in the meantime I can talk with friends online and do other stuff. Honestly, why you'd decide to try and make it your business what I do with my time is quite beyond me.

Anne, I'm very sorry that you feel that way. You have every right in the world to wish that the U.S. was 100% an isolationist country, but for better or worse the whole world is moving in the opposite direction, and the U.S. itself has been a major promoter of this, looking for ways to do away with trade barriers and promoting free trade. I think we have a lot to learn from other cultures and it would be very ethnocentric to wish that America became isolated from the world. The U.S. has become a great country in great part because it has embraced immigrants from all over the world, and this is reflected in many ways, particularly the amazing variety of regional food that has become commonplace in the U.S, such as Thai, Chinese, Japanese, Italian, Mexican, South American, Cuban, Egyptian, and many others too numerous to mention. When it comes to Hollywood, obviously the industry recognizes that box-office receipts from around the world now dwarf domestic box-office, and it goes hand-in-hand with making movies that reflect a more globalized world. Perhaps it's no wonder that Clint Eastwood was nominated for a movie that was entirely in Japanese and with a cast that was almost completely Japanese. Nobody can force you to like the way things are now, but for my generation and future generations, a more globalized world will be a natural thing.

I'd just add that the 1939 original is better than either the 1957 or the 1994 remake, IMHO.

Anne, I forgot to mention this -- the diversity that was evident in the awards ceremony was actually one of the things that were praised about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/movies/awardsseason/26osca.html?pagewanted=2&hp This appeared to be the most ethnically and linguistically diverse batch of film nominees yet, appropriate enough given that Hollywood?s foreign revenues now eclipse the domestic take by a significant margin. The Oscar slate included several films shot largely in languages other than English, most notably Mr. Eastwood?s ?Letters From Iwo Jima,? in Japanese, and Mr. Gibson?s ?Apocalypto,? in Maya dialects. ?Babel,? from the Mexican director Alejandro Gonz?**** I??rritu, spanned three continents and five languages ? Japanese, Berber, Spanish, English and sign ? and two of its actresses, Rinko Kikuchi of Japan and Adriana Barraza of Mexico, received nominations. (Three films by Mexican directors were up for a total of 16 honors.)

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/files/whvchat.html

Awesome that Marty and The Departed won Oscars for best director and best picture, respectively. In that regard, it was one of the most satisfying Oscar ceremonies in recent memory (never mind the usual tackiness of the ceremony itself )

If you want to get really nitty-picky, you could say it was released in the U.K. in 1934 and in the U.S. in 1935. Naturally I know it's generally considered more correct to refer to the year of release in the country of origin, but sometimes people can get confused with the year of American release. Just in case anyone here is interested, here's the review of TMWKTM that ran in the NYT in 1935: March 23, 1935 At the Mayfair. A.S. The British cinema, never notable for its command of filmic pace, goes in for a blistering style of story-telling in "The Man Who Knew Too Much," the new photoplay at the Mayfair Theatre. Directed with a fascinating staccato violence by Alfred Hitchcock, it is the swiftest screen melodrama this column can recall, with the possible exception of "Fog Over Frisco." Normally the work would be important chiefly because it offers Peter Lorre in his first part since his remarkable performance as the insane killer in "M." But "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is distinctly Mr. Hitchcock's picture. Although the photography and lighting are inferior according to Hollywood standards, the film is an interesting example of technical ingenuity as well as an absorbing melodrama. It is the story of an Englishman and his wife and child who, by the sheerest of accidents, became involved in an anarchist plot to assassinate a foreign diplomatist in London. They are at a resort in St. Moritz when an invisible gunman shoots one of their chance acquaintances. The dying man asks Mr. Lawrence to find a hidden code message in his rooms and relay it at once to the British Foreign Office. Lawrence locates the message, but before he can turn it over to the British authorities his child is kidnapped and he is warned that the girl will be safe only so long as he maintains his silence. Upon their return to London the Lawrences are besieged by the secret service for the momentous code message, but decide they are more interested in saving their little girl's life than in preventing a possible war. Mr. Lawrence and a friend engage in a bit of private sleuthing, are captured by the anarchists, and in the grand climax find themselves trapped with the assassins in a hideout which the police are bombarding. Mr. Hitchcock tells the story in a succession of brief and tantalizing scenes which merge so breathlessly that you are always rapt and tense. The method, of course, subordinates the actors to the technique, but Mr. Lorre, as the anarchist leader, is able to crowd his r?le with dark and terrifying emotions without disturbing his placid moon face. Then there are Edna Best as the wife, Leslie Banks as the husband, Hugh Wakefield as the amateur sleuth, and Nova Pilbeam as the kidnapped child. Pierre Fresnay becomes a corpse so hurriedly that you scarcely have time to know he is in the cast. THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, based on a story by Charles Bennett and D. B. Wyndham Lewis; screen play by Edwin Greenwood and A. R. Rawlinson, with additional dialogue by Emlyn Williams; directed by Alfred Hitchcock; a Gaumont British production. At the Mayfair. Betty Lawrence . . . . . Nova Pilbeam Abbott . . . . . Peter Lorre Lawrence . . . . . Leslie Banks Jill . . . . . Edna Best Ledine . . . . . Frank Vosper Clive . . . . . Hugh Wakefield Louis . . . . . Pierre Fresnay Nurse Agnes . . . . . Cicely Oates Binstead . . . . . D A. Clarke Smith Gibson . . . . . George Curzon