Cinemascope
-
Posts
5,161 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Cinemascope
-
-
But as filmlover confirmed, some of us happen to like at least some of the movies he made... it's a bit of an overgeneralization to say all of a director's movies are bad just because of your own personal taste when there are a lot of people who did like some of his movies.
And yes, it still strikes me as odd why someone would want to cast such a negative light on directors (or actors) who are no longer with us, when they were part of the Golden Age of Hollywood.... we are all free to watch what we like and not watch what we don't like.
-
No I didn't say that it was just one opinion, but rather that there's a lot of people who consider it the greatest musical ever made... I happen to agree with them.
Here's an essay that explains why so many people consider it the greatest musical ever.... it's an interesting read:
Singin' In The Rain
BY ROGER EBERT / June 18, 1998
The image that everyone remembers from "Singin' in the Rain" has Gene Kelly, dressed in a yellow slicker, hanging from a lamp-post and swinging his umbrella in the wild joy of new love. The scene builds to agloriously saturated ecstasy as Kelly stomps through the puddles of water in the gutters, making big wet splashes.
The entire sequence, from the moment Kelly begins to dance until the moment the cop looks at him strangely, is probably the most joyous musical sequence ever filmed. It celebrates a man who has just fallen in love and has given himself over to heedless celebration. And the rainwater provides the dancer with a tactile medium that reflects his joy in its own noisy way.
"Singin' in the Rain" has been voted one of the greatest films of all time in international critics' polls, and is routinely called the greatest of all the Hollywood musicals. I don't think there's any doubt about that. There are other contenders--"Top Hat," "Swing Time," "An American in Paris," "The Bandwagon," "Oklahoma," "West Side Story"--but"Singin' in the Rain" comes first because it is not only from Hollywood, it is about Hollywood. It is set at the moment in the late 1920s when the movies first started to talk, and many of its best gags involve technical details.
A restored print of the movie, made from the original three-strip Technicolor process with its brilliant reds and yellows, is going into national release to celebrate "Rain's" 40th anniversary. It is also available in video, including high-quality laserdiscs from MGM and Criterion. Looking at it again shows that the movie still has every ounce of its original charm, but then that didn't come as a surprise to me since I've seen it at least once a year since the first time I saw it, at Chicago's late, lamented repertory house, the Clark Theatre.
Unlike most of the movie musicals of recent years, "Singin' in the Rain" was not based on a Broadway stage production; it worked the other way around, with a London and Broadway musical in the 1980s being based on themovie. The original screenplay held up so well that the Tommy Steele stage version in London followed the film even in small details.
The movie was cobbled together fairly quickly in 1952 to capitalize on the success of "An American in Paris"--which won the Academy Award as the best picture of 1991, also starred Gene Kelly, and had the same director, Stanley Donen. The new movie had an original screenplay by Adolph Green and Betty Comden, and new songs by Nacio Herb Brown and Arthur Freed. But some of the songs, including the famous title tune, were anything but new. The Criterion Collection laserdisc includes old film clips of a version of "Singin' in the Rain" from "Hollywood Review of 1929," "You WereMeant for Me" from "Broadway Melody of 1929," and "Beautiful Girl" from the Bing Crosby musical "Going Hollywood" (1933).
Film historian Ron Haver, who does the scene-by-scene commentary on an alternate sound track of the laserdisc, points out that "Singin' in the Rain" was not immediately hailed for its greatness. It did well at the box office, but won no Academy Awards and was on no critics' year-end lists of best films. Only after it went into repertory in 1958, as part of a package of MGM classics, did audiences begin to realize how special it was.
Influential critic Pauline Kael was managing a repertory theater in Berkeley then, and her program notes, calling the movie "just about the best Hollywood musical of all time," helped establish the movie's eventual reputation.
Maybe because the movie was made quickly and with a certain freedom (and because it was not based on an expensive stage property), it has a wonderfully free and improvisational feeling. We know that sequences likeDonald O'Connor's neck-breaking "Make 'Em Laugh" number had to be painstakingly rehearsed, but it feels like it was made up on the spot. So does "Moses Supposes," with O'Connor and Kelly dancing on tabletops.
Debbie Reynolds was still a teenager when she starred in the movie, and there is a light in her eyes to mirror the delight of her character, who is discovered leaping out of a cake at a party, and soon becomes the offscreen voice of Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen), a silent star whose voice is not suited to talkies, to say the least. The movie's climax, as Reynolds flees from a theater while Kelly shouts out "Stop that girl!" and tells everyone who she is, and that he loves her, is one of those bravura romantic scenes that make you tingle no matter how often you see it.
There's great humor in "Singin' in the Rain," too, especially in the scenes that deal with the technical difficulties of the early days of talkies. Lina Lamont can never seem to remember which flower arrangement holds the concealed microphone, and so her voice booms and whispers as she turns her head back and forth. This was not an imaginary problem for early actors in the talkies; Chicago bandleader Stanley Paul collects early soundmovies with scenes that reflect that very problem. Although "Singin' in the Rain" has been on video in various versions for a decade and is often seen on TV, a big-screen viewing will reveal a richness of color that your tube may not suggest. The film was photographed in bold basic colors--the yellow raincoats are an emblem--and Donen and his cast have an energy level that's also bold, basic and playful. But is this really the greatest Hollywood musical ever made? In a word, yes.
-
They're all good musicals, but I wouldn't say they're as good as Singin' in the Rain!!
-
I agree with you filmlover, Josh Logan did direct some good movies, I still can't understand why someone would simply want to tarnish the entire career of a director just on account of one movie they didn't like... I mean, say all the awful things about anybody if they actually did something intentionally to hurt others. But to speak in such broad stokes about someone simply on account of not liking one picture seems a bit overblown.
And of course Ed Wood didn't direct the best movies ever made, but bless his heart, at least he gave them his all (or so it appeared) and he did serve as an inspiration for a truly touching movie about his life.... Tim Burton's Ed Wood, ironically enough, serves as precisely the kind of homage to the less-talented and the has-beens that Hollywood sometimes doesn't know what to do with. There's still a little bit of humanity left even in those lives, much as some would like to just say the worst about 'em.
-
filmlover, I remember going to El Capitan when they had the special engagement of The Nightmare Before Christmas, it was quite an experience! Wish more theaters would get that kind of treatment....
-
Another good candidate!
-
Besides, as an adult, the very idea of actors giving each other awards for play-acting, is ludicrous to me
Well, a lot of industries give out awards for their own industry, don't they? Why should this one be the exception?
-
And those two movies happen to be terrific, in the minds of a lot of people. Again, just because the Academy gives it the Best Picture Oscar doesn't have to mean you agree with them, and certainly nobody could argue that there might have been more deserving movies... but once you start talking about the Oscars, you are following the Academy's game, which is only to garner publicity and to get people talking about it... so whether anyone agrees with them is totally beside the point, isn't it?
-
> Until one has PROOF - which one cannot have unless
> one is a moderator/administrator with ISP tracking
> ability - one should not make such accusations. In
> fact, making that accusation without proof IS
> trolling!
We may not have some sort of proof, but when it comes to one person registering just to post an inflammatory thread, never to be heard of again under that username, then it becomes pretty evident. If this new poster isn't some variation of that old technique, only time will tell.... in the meantime, I don't see why it would be weird to have a few suspicions.
-
A mission? No, it's simply something we all do naturally when we express our opinions on the boards... I doubt anyone here is "keeping score" or anything silly like that.
At any rate, otter, why would you make it your job to control others, what they post or do not post?
-
Why, indeed!
-
I would agree with that, Anne.
-
Probably because it's a lot easier to remember musicals like Gigi and An American in Paris to other MGM musicals from the decade like Rose Marie, Hit the Deck, Jupiter's Darling, It's Always Fair Weather, Invitation to the Dance, etc.
-
> I have read some of your post and it is sad that
> their recent scheduling is driving us both away from
> TCM.
As I said before, TCM is under no obligation to show exactly what we might want to see... at the end of the day, there is no better channel atm for watching classic movies.
If you don't like the way TCM is now, by all means don't watch any more of it than you can stand, or better yet, stop watching cable channels altogether and just watch DVDs, then you can have a schedule that's exactly to your liking!
-
I don't think there's any conjecture when someone new starts an inflammatory thread on the same day they registered and then disappear, only to come back under a different username.
And expressing one's opinion about anything doesn't make one a "self-assigned moderator".
-
As to your second comment, there is no hypocrisy. I simply state an opinion as honestly as can be. There's no hypocrisy in saying what you think.
-
> Right, it's just about you wanting to live and let
> live. At least don't be a hypocrite. You don't like
> posts that don't agree with yours. Period.
I neither like them nor dislike them. I might disagree with them. However threads started with obviously inflammatory purposes are a very different thing, as filmlover pointed out.
> WE'RE simply suspicious -- who's WE? There you go,
> proving that you think you belong to a club of
> rarified TCM worshippers whose sole mission is to
> keep all the naysayers at bay. Hypocrite.
No, the "we" refers to those of us who don't like people posting threads for purely incendiary reasons.
> And I'm thrilled to death that you are happy. And
> there are those here, believe it or not, who have the
> same right to post if they are NOT happy.
Sure, but what does that get you? TCM obviously isn't making changes to their programming based on what people post here... are they?
> SOME of us -- some of you in your little circle you
> mean, where everyone is grateful to Time Warner and
> wants all the posts here to be happy 24X7? Poor
> Cinemascope, still can't admit you want to be king of
> the world, eh? It would be refreshing if you were at
> least honest.
Who said anything about every post being "happy"? Please do not resort to misrepresenting what others say.
> Reread your last sentence and then reread your next
> to last sentence. Those who want to complain about
> Time Warner and TCM also have the right to voice
> their opinion and that includes posts saying that TCM
> is the next AMC, well.......here, I'll type really
> slowly for you.....................
Thre's two different things there... inflammatory threads which are obviously intended only to get people riled up. And the honest comments from those who clearly haven't only registered to start inflammatory threads. While I don't think anyone here would want to defend having more of the former, I don't think the latter are a bad thing, although perhaps a bit futile.
-
> It's not up to you to decide HOW MANY so-called
> negative posts should appear on these boards (nor
> what their titles should be).
>
> Another of my mottos is: "Being negative about
> something negative is being positive!"
>
> otterhere, though you addressed it to cinemascope, I
> just wanted to answer that. I have no problem with
> someone disagreeing with me about something if they
> believe in what they are saying. That was NOT the
> point of my post. My problem is that there are some
> who come on the board to start an inflammatory
> thread, not because they believe in what they say,
> but because they are doing it for the fun of watching
> others fight.
>
> I like to think you are not in favor of such people,
> but at times I do get from your posts that you don't
> care if a troll/arsonist is just having fun at mine
> and your expense, that even the disruptors have the
> right to do what they want without anybody trying to
> stop them.
I agree 100%
-
Well, I'm not just confused, I'm dumbfounded. Sounds to me like you'd use the "it's a free country!" argument to defend someone who yelled "Fire!" in a crowded space knowing full well there wasn't any fire, just to get a rise out of people.
-
Ah, so now you're trying to silence all dissent? Wonderful!
-
> stoney, my calling certain people "arsonists" is not
> directed to you or anyone who are regular members of
> the board. I am only referring to the one(s) who
> joins that very day and posts threads like TCM Sells
> Out, etc. and then vanishes, only to create a similar
> one a short time later. Separate what I say from
> regulars of the board. I am pinpointing a particular
> person.
Exactly. And this person can go right on laughing his butt off every time he succeeds in getting us all riled up, just like it's happened right now.
-
What does being a "free country" have to do with it?
-
> Well said otterhere.
>
> The point is still being argued by those who think
> they can control these boards, and yes it is about
> control.
I don't know of anyone who thinks it's about control.
> You who want to valiantly label those who dislike TCM
> -- and sorry, your argument about an arsonist won't
> wash, I am no arsonist but there were many here quick
> to label my posts 'Chicken Little' -- as 'arsonists'
> simply because they may indeed be trolls are missing
> the point.
No, we aren't missing any point. We're simply suspicious of people who may have no other objective but to stir up trouble.
> Yes, those who post a negative thread and then don't
> bother coming back to defend their opinion may indeed
> be another of the ids that Snarfie is fighting, but
> sorry, even they have the right to post here and then
> leave if they like.
It doesn't mean we have to like it.
> Let me ask all you starry eyed TCM defenders
> something
I am not a "starry-eyed TCM defender" or know anyone else who is. TCM shows more of the movies that I like to see, but I am not under any delusion that they are under any obligation to show these movies, or that Time Warner is under any obligation to always have a channel to show such movies. Since they have no obligation to us, I'm happy with what I *do* get, which is more than nothing.
> So get off the moral high horses and admit you are
> trying to control this board. And there are still
> some of us who don't like it.
For the love of God, why won't you understand that it is impossible to "control" something that is there 24 hours a day and open to everyone? Is that truly so hard to understand? The best some of us can hope for is to try to restore some balance to the forums so that they don't become saturated with troll-like "sky is falling - TCM is the next AMC" threads.
That's not control, that's simply exercising the right to voice our opinion.
-
Yes, otter, and I think it's no big deal when they show a few newer movies during Oscar month, because otherwise they might as well grab any old schedule and just use it without any changes every year during Oscar month.
If TCM *did* change and turn into another AMC, well, there'll be nothing we can do, and that's that.
Now, as filmlover just said, the constant negative threads being started by a first-time poster who soon disappears and then possibly comes back under another username is more like a forum arsonist who just like to stir up trouble.
But, if you think *that* is a good thing, then nothing anyone says to you will make any difference.
On The Waterfront
in General Discussions
Posted
I just wanted to say that until TCM showed it letterboxed, I don't think I'd ever seen it in the proper aspect ratio. To the best of my knowledge, this movie was filmed "flat" but shown with some matting, and most video versions are of the unmatted version.
I think it looks better letterboxed, with the compositions looking better framed.