clore

Here's another spoof of Cousins, this time it's Mark Cousins' tortoise interviewing "Guy Richtoy" on his career. Warning - the language is rough, just as one would expect from a real Guy Ritchie film: "I'm right, aren't I?"

*Dargo2 said:* *Yeah, exactly. Influenced by postwar Italian Neo-Realism and not by '30s German Expressionism? That would a major misstatement, alright.* *(...you're kiddin', right?!) * Unless it has been edited since its U.K. airing, this is exactly what it's going to say. I have a longtime correspondent over there, and two years ago when he first saw it, he wrote me about it. As this person is an industry professional who has worked on numerous WB DVD projects as a historian and producer of special features, and as a production assistant for feature films, I trust that he saw what he saw when he saw it.

*Dargo2 said* *(...I'm hoping my the time he gets to the Hollywood films of the 1940s, he'll admit that the Film Noir genre did anything BUT rely on the "happy" and "romanticized" ending to their movies...and is the reason I've going to stick around and watch of more of his film that he narrates in the FREAKIN' monotone voice o' his!!!!)* Actually, he's going to assert that film noir was influenced by Rossellini's ROME, OPEN CITY, an observation which is rather betrayed by the calendar.

*lzcutter said:* *The interview clip that Cousins used of "Karl" was from Kevin Browlow and David Gill's masterful documentary on silent films, Hollywood and the only cinematographer named Karl who is featured in that documentary (according to imdb) is Karl Brown.* Well, that clears that up, thanks. I saw the Brownlow doc many years ago, must be at least half-a-lifetime ago for me and I hit 62 next month. Good recall there.

*Dargo2 said:* *"That rare breed: The Hollywood intellectual".* As if the movie industry should have a greater percentage of intellectuals than any other industry? The early moguls might not have had the college degrees, but they were street smart and knew the potential audience better than the intellectuals who tend to make films for themselves. That's fine if you're putting up your own money, but film is a collaborative medium and that includes the money man, like it or not.

*Hibi said:* *I've had many a chuckle when reading bios about film people when they talk about a particular film or scene and how later film critics later point out this and that about a film or scene when there was no intention behind it when it was made........* Watch what happens here when Cousins tries to impose his views on De Palma and Polanski about their own films: Full disclosure here: whoever put this up did some fooling around with the clip at first, to make Cousins sound more droning, but it stops after a while and lets him make a fool of himself on his own.

Ok, what did I "learn" from watching the second chapter last night: According to Cousins, *The Crowd* was the first film to shoot extensively on NYC locations. Just counting features, Walsh's *Regeneration* predates that by over a decade. He claims that Chaplin founded United Artists - totally ignoring the operative words of the organization name meaning more than one artist was involved, and it's not as if his partners were low-profile. In fact, they supplied more releases than Chaplin ever did. While discussing *Greed*, he intros a canned interview with "von Stroheim's cinematographer Karl." Karl who? Not Freund, he was still in Germany. Find someone named Karl listed as cinematographer on a von Stroheim film of that period. Also, it's not really enough to cite the director as an abused genius and one victimized by "the system." Something should be mentioned about his extravagances (such as insisting that expensive period garments be placed in the drawers of an on-screen dresser - even though the drawers weren't intended to be opened). The second segment is about 1918-28, yet the first 20-25 minutes feature mostly clips of sound movies (in addition to shots of a Christmas bauble and contemporary trains and buses). I may watch the segments that concern the 40s and those about the post-war European scene, but my concern here will be as it is for any similar presentation - just how accurate is the information? So far, I'm not that impressed. I am impressed though by the halo effect the series is having upon TCM's schedule and that I will have the chance to see a good number of titles mentioned during the program.

*jamesjazzguitar said:* *Great stories here, but shouldn't one say Mexico instead of Mexican.* Along the same lines, shouldn't that have ended with a question mark rather than a period?

*twinkeee said:* *Assuming that Cagney was always killed by gansters, did he Ever diliberately die so he could be a hero as he did in CAPTAINS OF THE CLOUDS ?* Someone is going to have to refresh my memory if necessary, but there is one that I haven't seen in ages. I don't want to spoil it, but it takes place in WWI, about a real-life fighting unit, has the whole WB Irish Mafia in it and Cagney makes up for his earlier cowardice (that caused some deaths) by sacrificing himself at the end. I don't need to be refreshed on the title, just the sacrifice part. So don't fly back and transform this into a spoiler.

*twinkeee said:* *Not only was I not expecting that but I have never known of Cagney to die in a movie.* Whew, you have a lot of catching up to do. I won't say which ones, but of the first six Cagney films that I ever saw, he only lived in one of them.

Hitchcock cameos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Alfred_Hitchcock_cameo_appearances

*MerryPickford said:* *The documentary came across as condescending to me assuming his target audience doesn't know who Victor Sjostrom, Benjamin Christensen, or Yasujiro Ozu are by stating something similar to "Casablanca is not classical but Late Spring is classical"* That's the trouble here, Cousins put the "target" in "target audience." He's from the U.K., the series premiered there and got the bulk of its funding there, but rather than pick on David Lean or Carol Reed, his first swipe is at a man who best exemplifies the Hollywood studio system. He knocks Hollywood for not preserving the sets for INTOLERANCE, but let's face it, there isn't enough room in Hollywood to preserve all the sets built for all the films made there. Film itself has preserved them. Should we knock Broadway because it doesn't preserve the sets for a show once it closes? And what to do with the sets if preserved? Have tours, which only emphasizes that it's all a commercial venture? Early U.S. cinema may not be as "pure" as that of other countries, but then again, neither was the early U.S. population. We're a nation of immigrants with wildly diverse cultures, film had to appeal to all of them. It was totally different in Japan, or the individual European nations where the citizenry was not as diverse and thus the themes and subjects appear more unique which gives it a highbrow appeal. It was that same diverse appeal that enabled American films to reach a broader market than its own shores. This does not equate to it being better, just different. Films from any country with a broader theme, or more universal themes, did enjoy an audience outside its country of origin. It still comes down to the ability to promote world cinema should not depend on the denigration of American cinema - it should be able to stand on its own merits. However that wouldn't create controversy and controversy creates curiosity. By the way, my ex-wife's maiden name was Christensen. She and her whole family would have cringed each time Cousins mispronounced the name.

Very funny spoof posted on YouTube:

The benefit for me is the halo effect that the series has on the schedule. We'll get to see many of the films mentioned, and thus be able to form our own opinion. I've actually seen a good number of them already, but there are many who haven't and hopefully they'll find some gems worthy of their attention. Also, I expect to see some people here expressing opinions as we get to the point where Cousins discusses film noir. I won't say anything here, I don't want to prejudice anyone, but I expect some reaction.

*MrWham said:* *I must be the only one who was disappointed in this doc.* No, you aren't. But the OP of the thread seemed to indicate that he only wanted favorable responses, which makes for a dull but agreeable thread I suppose. I put my thoughts on the show here: http://forums.tcm.com/message.jspa?messageID=8791399#8791399

*AndyM108 said:* *I find it impossible to believe that they wouldn't at the very least have been talking about his behavior among themselves while he was out of their presence. It simply doesn't add up.* Back in the mid 70s, I was employed as part of an office support team and the newest hire was a young man who was flamboyantly gay. So, on the second day or so, we're all in one close area and the new hire goes off to fill in some papers - the usual new hire protocol. When he came back, he storms in and says "And I'll just bet that you all had a few words to say about me while I was gone just because I'm different." I looked at him and said "Haven't you realized yet that most of the time that you have three or more people together that the first one who leaves the immediate space will be discussed by the remaining people? It's especially likely if the absentee is any kind of eccentric individual." To change the subject, and not that it's happening here, but on another web site I was engaged in a thread by someone who was proclaiming STRANGERS ON A TRAIN to be Hitchcock's best. I mean really engaging heavily in the use of "masterpiece" and "art." I mentioned that I enjoyed the film, but that I had qualms with the climax with its trigger-happy cop shooting into a location crowded with children, injuring an innocent bystander and setting a carousel into motion at a speed that no carousel on Earth is designed to go. My sister is an expert on the subject of carousels, and I had long ago inquired about the film's depiction. The original poster then came back to tell that I was taking it all too seriously, that I should calm down (not that I was excited anyway) and that Hitchcock would be the first to tell me "it's only a movie." I responded that I was now quite amused that while earlier he was calling it a masterpiece and the greatest example of Hitchcock's art, suddenly in the face of my comments, it's "only a movie." I then added "If that's all that it is, then why shouldn't I be able to question it?" Perhaps it is similar to the guy who complains that these Japanese monster films are unrealistic because there's no way that the city of Tokyo cold be completely rebuilt in the one year between chapters of the series. A fire-breathing dinosaur - that's acceptable, but rebuilding the city isn't.

I will say that watching it on TCM is preferable to watching it on DVD where one didn't have the option of subtitles rather than listening to Cousins. No, it's not his accent - I've got enough family members who speak with a strong Irish accent. It's that he has a monotone delivery (except for the quirk of making almost every sentence sound like a question) and often sounds as if he can't finish the sentence without a long pause to catch his breath. He's also rather dismissive, taking a shot early on at CASABLANCA doesn't bother me, that's one of those films that's been a target for years simply because it is so loved. But if the purpose of it all is to promote awareness of world cinema, dismissing 30 years of Scandinavian films as worthless is rather pompous. So much for the likes of Gustaf Molander. And please - at least wear some socks and comb your hair. The guy looked as if he slept in his clothes.

He referred to it as Hitchcock's first talkie and made mention of the lead actress needing to be dubbed because of her accent.

It's part of a salute to Telluride or some film festival. Goodness, it's just one movie. You want oldies? You'll get your wish tonight with films from the dawn of the century and I don't mean the present one either. In fact, there will be shorts from the 1890s tonight. What other channel would give you over a century's worth of film in one 24-hour period?

It's the SUTS schedule (minus the first few days) but labeled September. This place gets worse by the day - but at least it's turquoise!

*traceyk65 said:* *Well maybe not of the century, but but for a couple of years in the early 70's, songs by Cassidy and Partridge Family were on the top of the Billboard charts and as far as the teen idol set were concerned, David Cassidy was the hottest thing around. Sad, but true.* True, but it's also the same century that produced Elvis, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton... David Cassidy might be on the same level as Fabian.

Dargo2 said: (...and thus for a person of her age to confuse a "century" with "15 minutes of fame" might be somewhat understandable, wouldn't you say?!) Given her fascination with his endowment. maybe the word "rock" was a typo.

*Hibi said:* *Among other things, she talks about the size of Jack's organ, her sons and stepsons organs and her **** rituals.* But apparently she doesn't talk of her present husband's organ, but she does say that she loves that he makes her laugh. For his sake, I hope this doesn't happen when he disrobes. She also refers to David Cassidy as "the rock star of the century." She must be doing some very high grade weed.

I started to watch it, but got a phone call and never came back to it. From what I did see, the credits were surrounded by a black border on all four sides, so was the start of the film. I got maybe ten minutes into it, wondering if it was going to snap to the proper format. The call came, and my brother can talk, so by the time that I got back to the film, it was filling my screen and I have no idea when the switch occurred. I was going to post about it on that day, but since it seems that board traffic has lessened with the blue makeover that has brought us back to the stone age otherwise, I figured that it wasn't worth the trouble. So, maybe the interns who made the board changes have now moved into the control booth at the station to improve things there.

*AndyM108 said:* *Not having watched The Fugitive on TV when I was growing up, David Janssen was a first time experience in Twenty Plus Two.* That film could not have been saved even if Bogie or Mitchum had the lead. Did you notice how much time was spent with expostionary exchanges going on during telephone conversations? It seemed as if one-third of the film had Janssen on the phone.