clore

Does this have anything to do with what you're discussing: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CGsQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.will-moore.bismarckschools.org%2Fuploads%2Fresources%2F13061%2F3oct.-2011.pdf&rct=j&q=bismarck%20high%20school%20halloween%20costumes&ei=vWuPTsvoMYXa0QGSu9VT&usg=AFQjCNFcPBJIcXQB5zdEMSZyPvftowY6Yw&sig2=Ekh2cKH2iIt6glnCZX7SvQ&cad=rja Scroll down for some school guidelines re a Halloween celebration.

I hadn't heard that story about Wallis sabotaging Raft on Casablanca. The Wallis memo is reproduced in the Rudy Behlmer book "Inside Warner Bros" which features a wealth of such info and is highly recommended.

I don't believe that he and Fonda ever spoke to one another again. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this because I'm going by a very faint memory recall on this one. Fonda did apparently forgive and forget long enough to be part of the 1971 NBC special "The American West of John Ford" and can be seen with John Wayne and James Stewart huddled around the wheelchair-bound director in that show.

I gave up on the standard method of using the arrowheads as it hasn't been consistent since the board's "upgrade" in March. Now I just paste the text and color the quoted text in red so as to distinguish it.

TCM's own Alec Baldwin turned down the second Jack Ryan film PATRIOT GAMES and THE FUGITIVE, both of which went to Harrison Ford. Bela Lugosi said "no" to FRANKENSTEIN. Raft also refused DEAD END and ALL THROUGH THE NIGHT. The story on CASABLANCA according to Hal Wallis is that Raft wanted that one, but Wallis' memo to Jack Warner had him obviously seeking vengeance when he advised against casting Raft because "he hasn't made a film around here since I was a small boy." Raft also rejected THE STORY OF TEMPLE DRAKE and as it was a notorious flop, it may have been Raft's only wise career decision. The film didn't do Jack LaRue any favors.

I'm sure that Cagney would have loved to have shoved that grapefruit into Bucholz' face for real. To say that those two did not get along would be an understatement. Cagney's experience on the film helped to convince him that it was no longer "fun." But yes, Cagney rattles off dialogue with all the speed of more than two decades earlier when he made BOY MEETS GIRL.

Unless Lady Killer counts (and I think that's a bit of a stretch) Cagney never did do gangster spoofs. The closest that he came to a gangster spoof was the late career NEVER STEAL ANYTHING SMALL which had him as a corrupt union official. It also is a musical and was a flop upon release and not revived too often.

Sean Connery in THUNDERBALL and NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN.

Capra's RIDING HIGH had about six actors return from BROADWAY BILL so that he could match the reused footage from the older film. Forrester Harvey was in an isolated scene that was lifted intact for the first film - as he had been dead for a few years, he couldn't be called back for any additional shots. While Margaret Hamilton, Douglas Dumbrille, Clarence Muse and Charles Lane looked much the same despite the intervening 17 years, no attempt was made to match the old and new shots of Ward Bond who was a bit heavier and a lot grayer. Frankie Darro kept his head down so that the double chin wouldn't show.

Andie MacDowell Julia Louis Dreyfuss

Sorry, I meant the movie Kathy 'O, with Patty McCormick for this Christmas! I watched it not too long ago on YouTube.

Anyone who saw the film *American Madness* and found it interesting might want to look up another film from the same year 1932, *Manhattan Tower* . Thanks for the tip - I'm a big fan of Frank Strayer who made some interesting B horror films around this period and went on the Cluumbia's *Blondie* series.

LOL. Why isn't your handle "lawyer"? Then people might confuse me with my son who is an immigration attorney. I used to be in TV station marketing/research and used to tell my offspring that we had similar responsibilities. We both had to extol the good side only of our clients while hoping that no one brings up the less complimentary aspects.

Your photo is of him playing Lord Byron in Bride of Frankenstein. Yes, I realize that - it's the only other role of his that comes to mind. The other shot that you provided is definitely him as Cluett in AMERICAN MADNESS. At least he grew back his eyebrows for BRIDE.

Matthews was actually teaching speech and drama at Beloit College before he had a film career. He went from teacher to student - I wonder if he found that amusing.

It is hard to believe that this is the same actor:

I'm all for that Prince. Other than the horrors and the obscure ones that AMC aired a generation ago (NIGHT WORLD, IRON MAN, a few others), I am woefully lacking in my exposure to the early Universal talkies.

That's too difficult to decide. If anything I might lean to the later career. Whenever I've watched I DIED A THOUSAND TIMES, the remake of HIGH SIERRA and see Lee Marvin down the cast list as a thug, I wish that he had the role of Roy Earle as I much prefer him to Jack Palance. But this was 1955 and Marvin was barely on anyone's radar. In later years, Palance would be down the cast list from Marvin in THE PROFESSIONALS and MONTE WALSH. If only someone had realized Marvin's superior status earlier.

I am not complaining about TCM using the phrase 'commercial free.' I am trying to nail down a definition as to when TCM is commercial free (during uninterrupted film broadcasts) and when it is not (between films). Here is what you wrote in that post: In my opinion, it's erroneous to say TCM is not commercial free. It does seem like someone is in denial about their favorite channel. It seems like someone is trying to invent a new definition of commercial and commercial-free. It seems silly. Most people would agree that those spots between movies are commercials...therefore, TCM is not commercial-free between movies. Now let's analyze the situation: Does TCM claim to be commercial-free? We both know that it does. Are you claiming that is an erroneous claim? I've just documented it. Thus you are complaining that TCM is wrong. Or else you're claiming that only your complaints are valid. Or else it is open to interpretation as to whether it's a complaint - as would be anyone else's complaint. So, should we do as you do, or do as you say? Maybe the author of the post on the airing of A STAR IS BORN was just trying to "nail down" how this could have happened. Same for the person who posted about the airing of a bad print of L'IL ABNER. Regardless, you are not in the position to post and tell others: You are either a fan of TCM or you are not. And if you are a fan, you will patiently tolerate some of the broadcast issues. You don't set policy for the boards and you don't have any right to determine just who is a fan and how they should react to "broadcast issues." That statement of yours is not a matter of trying to "nail down" anything. You aren't raising a question, you are trying to control people's reactions.

So with all the many LoC rarities they could have shown we have to wonder why they ran this, a movie that's always been available and shown regularly and with nothing evidently wrong with the old copy. Heck, when they had a salute to the UCLA preservation efforts, they ran two Sherlock Holmes films. The problem was that they used public domain titles and prints, not the restored ones.

So far the logo has not shown up on HEAT LIGHTNING (a Warner Bros. Picture). Perhaps because that one is already in the Warner Archive

I watched it and actually enjoyed it tremendously. While there was a mention of similarities to ADAM'S RIB, which can't be denied, the ending of the film reminded me of THE AWFUL TRUTH where a car problem led to the couple spending the night together. Nice to see a William Nigh film at this time at night. As with his contemporary William Beaudine, there is perhaps too much emphasis written about his Monogram period and little or no mention given to the better films on his résumé.

You are either a fan of TCM or you are not. And if you are a fan, you will patiently tolerate some of the broadcast issues. Are you dictating policy now? Anyone who has a vaild complaint should be entitled to voice that complaint. Take the time that they aired the March/Gaynor version of A STAR IS BORN in which there were no opening credits and a nine-minute segment repeated itself after rapid rewinding right before our eyes. Should someone have been patiently tolerant of that, or is bringing it up to attention here actually a service as they could run the same print in the future? What about the time that L'IL ABNER aired in squish-Vision, where the top and bottom of the screen were pushed together making Daisy Mae almost as hefty as Stubby Kaye? Who gets to decide what's a valid complaint? You? In the case of the L'IL ABNER issue, there was a "thank-you offered" by TCMProgrmmr (sp?), so if the author adhered to your policy, this print could still be in circulation. In the case of A STAR IS BORN there was an apology offered and a subsequent airing was a proper print. At least TCM knows how much people care by their having taken the time to make note. It's a public forum and as long as posters are respectful, that should be enough. The admin can take care of the more aggressive complaints as they have recently with one person who was making outrageous accusations as to why the channel wasn't the way he wanted it 24/7. It's not as simple as love it or leave it. BTW - I see that you're in the thread "The Constant Logo" and are complaining about TCM using the phrase "commercial-free." If you are a fan of TCM, you'll patiently tolerate the references to "commercial-free" as well as the commercials. Edited by: clore on Sep 29, 2011 10:01 AM

Funny that you mention Joan Leslie. When I first saw YANKEE DOODLE DANDY at age six, I thought that Joyce Reynolds who was one of the teens who flustered Cohan in his hammock, looked a lot like Joan Leslie who played his wife. Flash ahead many, many years to when I saw JANIE with Reynolds in the titular role. I still thought the resemblance was there. I didn't see the sequel JANIE GETS MARRIED for a while after that, and when I did, my mind had it that I was looking at Reynolds, only to find that it WAS Joan Leslie this time playing the part. Now I'm watching this film, seeing Reynolds as sister Paula and wishing that Leslie was playing Tessa. I found Fontaine in the early scenes to be too breathy and between that and Boyer's accent, I must have missed a fair amount of dialogue. I would have preferred to see Joan Leslie and Errol Flynn does seem a more likely type to have the surname Dodd.

The second movie was black and white. It wasn't Impact. Just for the record, IMPACT was in black-and-white.