clore
-
Posts
5,535 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by clore
-
-
> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}That was one of the most ridiculous scenes I have ever seen. The woman was frantically waving her arms as she was running. At whom could she have been waving her arms if she just ran right by the bus into the store? There was nobody else there other than Cooper.
I recall that when I first saw the film many years ago, that was the part where I thought that Sam was an idiot only because the script contrives to make him one. The gag falls flat as there was no reason for Sam to have thought anything other than that she wanted to get on the bus. To have her run right into the store was not the proper payoff. If would have worked if she was motioning to someone who is revealed to be standing behind Sam, but no, McCarey makes both Sam and the audience the butt of the joke.
Even in the end, we see him drinking and swearing off his ways, but what does he do... he trades clothes with the drunk who comes in begging for a drink. Despite getting off the hook for the mere contrivance of a banker who had a change in heart, we all know that come the next morning, Sam is going to go on being just as dumb.
-
I think that it came down more to a clash of techniques. Olivier being one of THE stage-trained masters of the old school and Monroe then immersed in the Actors Studio and with her personal drama coach Natasha Lytess at her side. For want of a better term, it's theatrical ****, like watching two people pleasuring themselves but not being aware of the other.
-
There's an interesting situation. For years I had heard that THE PRINCE AND THE SHOWGIRL had one of Marilyn's best performances. I didn't see the film until TCM aired it about a year ago. It's the only MM film as a star that I had never seen.
But while it may be a good performance relative to her others, I really had the impression that she and Olivier were practically in two different movies. To me, that's not chemistry as they're not working together. For me, chemistry is if you play well off each other, and it doesn't necessarily require that the characters are on the same side. Look at Flynn and Rathbone, an attraction of opposites in two adventure films and fellow military men in another. But they work well together despite Rathbone's far greater experience as an actor as well as in swordsmanship.
-
I think she was being polite by mentioning "chemistry", while she actually knew this dud of a film was the director's fault.
Exactly! That's why I said in my first post in the thread that she was being a diplomat. I wouldn't have wanted to offend someone like McCarey either. A next job might have been dependent on his word.
-
But she did work well with him in the realm of being a fellow performer. The scene where she was laughing while he was flirting and the neighbors were sitting there unknown to him... there was chemistry there.
As characters, no there was little there for us to believe they would be married long enough to have kids, but she worked well with him. It wasn't as if they were trying to upstage each other.
As Osborne referenced it, she was citing other actors, including Cagney. Their characters were at odds with each other in ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES and through most of TORRID ZONE. But there was star chemistry.
With what Sam was putting his wife through, even ZaSu Pitts would have been saying "Oh, dear me, dear me." She would have putting the money away where only she could get it. Here's a case where one partner had to show some GREED.
]
But Sheridan's character would have never gone off on her own, she would have taken the kids with her. She wouldn't have mortgaged their future with a dunderhead like Sam.
-
RO said that Ann Sheridan said the fault with the film was that there was no screen chemistry between her and Cooper.It was more than that.
Funny, when I heard that I could not believe my ears. While watching it, I thought that it's amazing that Ann Sheridan always managed to have chemistry with any co-star.
I think that she was being quite the diplomat when she said that. Surely the reason for the movie's failure had to be that the audience could not bear to see Cooper playing such a sap. It was one thing in MR. DEEDS where he had the millions to give away, where he didn't have a wife and family to suffer from his poor decisions. The film itself was a poor decision on the part of McCarey who should have learned from the weak reception tor IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE and Wellman's MAGIC TOWN of the previous year that the post-war audience no longer responded to CapraCorn and that imitation Capra stood even less chance.
I only watched last night as it had been about 35 years since I last saw the film. I remembered it as being celluloid torture. No wonder Cooper made THE FOUNTAINHEAD next, he had to go to the opposite extreme in the hope of attracting an audience again. At least that film is a watchable train wreck, GOOD SAM should be so good.
-
I wonder if Johnson had one of those toilet seats for which the Pentagon paid 500 bucks.
-
I find it interesting that with all this talk of the auteur theory, I don't think there's been one mention of Orson Welles.
That was a deliberate omission because personally, I believe that Welles could film himself for two hours on a toilet seat and be praised for it. I'm not even partial to TOUCH OF EVIL, a film that I find quite stylistic but so full of holes that I can't enjoy it.
I do love his 40s work and understand that much of his output later on was compromised by meager budgets and studio interference. But he's such a sacred cow that it's a subject I avoid.
-
In The Essentials, Robert Osborne said THE CAINE MUTINY would have been more effective if it were shot in b&w (or something to that effect).
I recall him adding that color made it more obvious that it was a model ship out there in the storm. Well, black-and-white didn't hide the toy boats of IN HARM'S WAY.
I've seen THE CAINE MUTINY several times in black-and-white way back when all that we had was a monochrome set. I won't say that seeing it in color added anything, but it didn't detract either as far as I was concerned.
Oh - it did make Van Johnson's facial scars all the more obvious.
As for whether B&W enhances a comedy, I can't say that it does or doesn't. Laughs depend more on the actors and the script to me. Goodness, when I've gone to see comedic plays on Broadway, I didn't have the option of turning off the hues.
I remember that Siskel and Ebert had a show about color vs black and white and they showed a clip from BLAZING SADDLES in both formats. Ebert insisted that it was funnier in B&W, I couldn't see the difference. YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN works well as a B&W because the original Frankenstein series was shot that way.
But if Brooks were to spoof the Hammer Dracula series (and in a sense he did), it would be proper to do it in color. If taking away the hues of his Dracula spoof would make it funnier, imagine how funny it would be if you took the black-and-white away also. For my money, it was beyond dreadful.
-
I didn't know that the auteurists actually like a light weight effort like Donovan's Reef. If they prefer that Ford film to The Hurricane, they can only be pittied.
That's one thing about the auteurist crowd - they do their best to defend works by their favorites that were pretty much savaged by mainstream critics. How else can one explain an endorsement of RIO LOBO?
Sometimes there is an upside to this practice - neither VERTIGO or RIO BRAVO was especially well-received by critics, although the audience responded well to the Harks film.
Reading your endorsement of Michael Curtiz gave me a chuckle. It must be about 14 years ago that I was given a gift subscription to Entertainment Weekly. I can't confess to ever having purchased an issue before, but as long as it was free...
So, one cover issue promised "The 100 Greatest Directors of All-Time." Their lack of including Michael Curtiz prompted me to write very similar words in regard to Curtiz, with special emphasis of his 40s output. I closed by saying that it was incredible that with only a couple of features to his credit, that Quentin Tarantino was on the list is a relatively high position, while a man who accomplished as much as Curtiz was totally disregarded. I would not have cared if they ranked him at #99, but to pass him by altogether annoyed me.
I also demanded that my subscription be terminated and I've not looked at an issue since, not even in the dentist's office.
-
Just after the 4:00 mark, Groucho tells us it's Chick-o.
But watch the whole clip anyway as Groucho has a great comment about Dick Cavett and Diahann Carroll.
-
Funny, I can recall reading one auteurist essay that cited Ford's THE HURRICANE and Hawks' BALL OF FIRE as lesser entries because they bore too much of an imprint by producer Goldwyn to be considered major works. My reaction to that was that maybe we should expand the auteurist theory to include producers.
SERGEANT YORK must be a puzzlement for the auteurists. Since it's a bio, it's hard to find the usual Hawks trappings, yet from what I've read, it was a very personal film for him to make. He did it at the urging of Jesse Lasky, and according to Hawks, even guilted Cooper into appearing in it as the now down-on-his-luck Lasky was instrumental in launching Cooper's career. But, no the film was too "guided" by the real-life York's influence on the script, and then by Lasky and Hal Wallis as producers despite Hawks also getting a producer credit.
So, rather than applaud the film for what it is - and it is a well-made propaganda piece that also functions as an admirable biopic this many years later outside of any jingoistic intentions - they knock the film for what it isn't. That Hawks chose to make it doesn't count I guess. They've done something similar to what the studios used to do - the film factories came up with the formula and then made the films. These guys are looking at the films and trying to get them to fit a different formula, rejecting those that don't fit as they see it and over-praising those that are borderline just to force fit them into the bigger picture.
I can't think of any other reason why someone in the Hawks crowd prefers HATARI to SERGEANT YORK or the Ford fanciers might prefer DONOVAN'S REEF to THE HURRICANE. They both strike me as home movies made on vacation.
On the other hand, as much as I like Walsh, I can't recommend A PRIVATE'S AFFAIR and the Curtiz film THE MAN IN THE NET is a sad affair.
-
Forty-plus years ago when I first started reading about the auteur theory, I considered it a most interesting approach to looking at directors.
Well, I did until it began to be used as a club to the head of any director who didn't make the list. It seemed that not only was it used to extol the virtues of a Hawks, Hitchcock or Ford, but at the same time it was a knock against craftsmen such as Walsh, Curtiz, Wellman, Wyler, Hathaway, King or Zinnemann to name but a few..
While they might claim that Walsh, Curtiz and Wellman had disappointing final decades, they would bend over backward to find virtues for something such as Hawks' RIO LOBO or Hitchcock's FAMILY PLOT. Suddenly, constantly going to the same well was a virtue because it showed how the director was able to impress a greater and more personal unifying theme to his works.
Not that I'm knocking any of the directors mentioned, any of them can have an off day or months rather - the months it takes to put a film together. While it is true that those who were placed in the acceptable camp did tend to have greater control over scripts, often involved in the development of them, something must be said for those who could be handed a script on Friday and told to start shooting on Monday. That's closer to the studio model and to have been able to make even a slightly above-average film under those conditions is in my book a considerable accomplishment.
-
Every time that I see the subject line of this thread in with all of the others on the forum page, I have to remind myself that there is no beauty contest for "Miss TCM" and thus the thread is not about some former winner recalling her moment of triumph.
-
I have to get the new book on Walsh. His own book was fun to read, but there are huge gaps when it comes to talking about his incredible productivity. He's one of my favorite directors of all time and I'd like to find out more about those many films for which he didn't take credit. The stories vary on just how great was his involvement with something such as THE ENFORCER and I'm hoping that the new tome settles some of that.
-
I think that his performance as Soames was a carefully decided one on Flynn's part. It may appear wooden, but he is playing a rather stuffy character. Maybe I'm overcompensating, but I do honestly believe that it was intentional although Bennett may not have been of much help. But Flynn so turns off the charm and swagger that one can actually believe that Robert Young of all people can steal a woman away from him.
Not to diminish Young, of whom I would have to call underrated in the spirit of this thread. He could rise to the occasion when necessary and I've never really seen a bad performance from him. But at MGM, with Gable, Taylor and Montgomery standing in line in front of him. he rarely got a break.
Yes, Flynn was quite good in DAWN PATROL and Goulding was exceptional at getting solid performances from some others who may not have gotten the respect they should have received. For me, Joan Crawford's best work is in GRAND HOTEL, Tyrone Power showed he had the chops in NIGHTMARE ALLEY and Bette Davis was never more appealing than she was in DARK VICTORY.
SILVER RIVER may actually be my favorite Flynn western as it does give him a solid part as opposed to the "boys will be boisterous" nature of DODGE CITY and VIRGINIA CITY. Sure, Alan Hale and Guinn Williams are fun to watch, but the films aren't exactly based on characters, they're closer to caricatures. Those films are entertaining for certain, but hardly a challenge for an actor.
-
It's particularly impressive in this case because Flynn had had so little acting experience when he made this film. Critics throughout his career, however, didn't seem to think that it had much to do with talent.
I watched CAPTAIN BLOOD when it last aired while suffering a bout of insomnia. Thus, it was late at night and there were no distractions. I've seen it several times before, but it did serve to confirm my thought that he was really one of the most under-appreciated actors of his generation. As you noted, it did strike me that this was a real baptism by fire for the young man, a major production that weighed heavily on the shoulders of a relative newcomer.
There he was, thrown up there on the screen with people such as Atwill and Rathbone who both had decades of experience but there he was, perhaps riding more on charisma than proven talent, but nevertheless, holding the screen, indeed commanding it in a part that would have intimidated many others.
It's a shame that when cast against type, that audiences of the day did not respond to the likes of GREEN LIGHT, FOOTSTEPS IN THE DARK or CRY WOLF. There was a real actor there, someone who must have wanted to be accepted for something more than what the public allowed. I think that one of his best performances came in THAT FORSYTE WOMAN, where he wasn't the charmer and didn't perform any derring-do with a sword or a rifle at his side.
How different his life could have been, how much else he was capable of were the critics, the studio and the public more open minded. In Flynn's case it was a curse, even if he himself hadn't hastened his own short life by trying to live up to off screen what the public saw on screen.
We didn't really get to see him mature as a performer. The potential was there based on THE SUN ALSO RISES and TOO MUCH, TOO SOON. In Flynn's case, it was too little, too long, he didn't get the acknowledgement he deserved until he was too far gone.
-
There aren't many actors who could recite a line such as...
"Up that rigging, you monkeys! Aloft! There's no chains to hold you now. Break out those sails and watch them fill with the wind that's carrying us all to freedom!"
...and not appear ridiculous.
-
I did read it and have responded. I agree, let's move on with no hard feelings.
-
What are you doing? Checking up on his daily writings? So I am to assume that you know how often Infinite1 posts here? I am just as courteous as the next poster.
It's simple enough to click on his name and see the pattern. It is after all the holiday season, maybe he has other things to do
You and I have had run ins before. And usually the run in has something to do with how I have written something about a fellow poster. If you seriously have issues with me then I suggest you do the following:
You got upset with me twice when I cited errors made by Robert Osborne through the lack of accurate research by his staff. It was not over another poster.
Now, maybe you and others here have a different way of looking at trolls, but to me and others like me, we have no use for trolls on this message board, or for that purpose anywhere else.
No, our perspectives aren't that much different. But in this case you are citing someone as a troll just vbcause you didn't get a response in two days. I could of course throw your own words back at you - if you have an issue with infinite1 being a troll, instead of trying to provoke him into a response by calling him a troll, why didn't you:
1. Contact the administrator.
2. Report what he has written as an abuse.
3. Place him on Ignore.
In actuality, what you did was prove his point, you started throwing around the word "troll" with regard to infinite1, all because he did not give you what you consider a timely response.
As far as me wanting him to respond to me? I could care less if he responds to me. I just wanted to make a statement and I did.
Do you read your own posts? Your whole response of earlier today IS a complaint that he has NOT responded to you:
But in this case I would have thought that by now I would have received some sort of response back from Infinite1. But who knows, maybe he is off at some troll convention himself and can not tear himself away from those important meetings and other happenings that go on at a troll convention.
That's not just making a statement, it's accusing the guy of being a troll after expressing annoyamce that he has not responded to you yet. It sure does appear that contrary to your claim, you do care about his not responding, enough to try to provoke him into a response.
I do not think I was flame-baiting him at all. Just like he was trying to express himself, so was I.
And in what manner of his expressing himself did he insult you personally?
By the way, you do realize the position that we're now in. Because you start moaning about not being responded to in a quick enough fashion, this exchange may never end. I have to consider that you may start in citing me as a troll if I don't get back to you fast enough, and you now may want to consider that I may come back to "just express myself" by insulting you if you abandon the exchange or don't respond quickly enough.
Not that I would - don't perceive that as a threat. I'm just "expressing myself" about the irony of it all.
-
While Scott and McCrea decided at about the same point in time to devote themselves to westerns (although McCrea made one exception with SHOOT FIRST), yes, McCrea was in far more "upscale" films that Scott comparing the first halves of their respective careers.
Considering what should be relatively easy for TCM to access as they're in the corporate family, there are enough RKO, WB and AA titles to generate a whole month's worth. The only issue should be whether there are digital copies available. It's not as if other cable outlets are beating down the doors with counter-offers.
-
I missed the first part. What did Laughton do, steal Milland's money, kill him, and bury him in his yard?
I don't want to be accused of spoiling the film, but the TCM synopsis will answer your questions:
http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/1704/Payment-Deferred/
Click on the "full synopsis" link.
-
Guess what? I can be as sarcastic as I want to be.
Yes you can, but that doesn't mean that someone else can't call you on it when the person that you are targeting did not treat you in the same manner. One can be as courteous as one wants to be also. Given his lack of daily posting, he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Then again, stop and consider that your post may just be enough to drive him off the boards in a manner similar to what you claim has happened in the past to other posters. If trolling is in the eye of the beholder, what was there in your post to him that should encourage him to respond rather than not dealing with it?
I am not someone who goes around posting idiotic, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages on this message board.
Are you making that claim about infinite1? If not, how is that a defense in regard to your sarcasm toward him? How is claiming that he must be at a troll convention on topic?
And on top of that I have never felt the need to post as several user names on this message board like so many others have felt the need to do. I have maintained one user name for the past four years here.
Again, what does that have to do with infinite1?
I have no need to hide behind creating multiple user names just so that I can create havoc here abouts.
One doesn't need multiple names to cause havoc.
It is possible that infinite1 just felt that he said what he had to say and that there was no need to say anymore on the subject despite your response of a few days ago. Are you going to tell me that you've never done the same? I'll bet you money that I can prove otherwise, yet no one came back to provoke you into furthering the conversation by insulting you.
What you did to infinite1 today is known as flame-baiting. Web etiquette frowns on such things and there's even a term used for people who engage in such tactics.
-
But who knows, maybe he is off at some troll convention himself and can not tear himself away from those important meetings and other happenings that go on at a troll convention.
Maybe he's just being consistent in his pattern of skipping a few days between board activity. That doesn't give you license to be sarcastic.
Miscegenation in Hollywood
in General Discussions
Posted
Perhaps we should also mention the gay bar scene in *Anatomy of a Murder*, where the presence of one African-American customer may be the most progressive thing about the whole film.
Are you sure about that or are you thinking of Preminger's "Advise and Consent?"