clore

Here's one for you: In this 1948 film, Lon Chaney played the villain. In 1934, Chaney was the hero of SIXTEEN FATHOMS DEEP (note the spelling out of the numeral). The duo came from Mono, as in Monogram.

And as I've said many times to those who ignore the fact that Cohn and McCarthy personnify (sic) everything that was evil at that time in America..................... fill in the blanks. Got it yet? Good. Oh, I've got it. someone has trouble filling in the blanks and the info gaps, and it isn't me. So, Cohn and McCarthy are also responsible for such evils in America at the time as the lack of equal rights for women, minorities and gays (which in Cohn's case would be ironic). I'm not the one ignoring facts, you're just trying to convert an opinion into one. Repeating it doesn't make it true.

As I've said many times, I hope Cohn and McCarthy are locked forever in a loving embrace in the fires of hell for all time. Yes you do, and you have been reminded many times that Cohn and McCarthy had nothing to do with the HUAC investigations into Hollywood. Not that I have any love for either of them, but if you want to wish the worst upon Garfield's tormentors, pick the right ones. I'm sure that you have plenty of hate to spare.

A case of "premature ejection?"

CASSETTE / CD WALKMEN VS. IPOD'S I think Ipod's are amazing because you can fit a ton of music on one little divice. I once wanted a Ipod , but I changed my mind after a friend of mine lost all of his music when his Ipod fell and broke. He spent a ton of money and lost everything. So , to me , Ipod's only for convienence (sic). Not for a permanenet (sic) storage of music. I have the best of both worlds - a Discman that also plays MP3 recordings. I have discs with 6-7 hours of music on them. I can shuffle play, skip tracks - try doing that with a cassette player which will give you two hours at best. And the 120-minute cassettes are the most notorious for jamming. Thus, no particular advantage held over disc storage. Whether I was using cassettes or MP3 CDs, I've always made the compilation from a vinyl record or audio CD original, or else the MP3s stored on my PC. No format is permanent. Records and discs can get scratched through careless handling, tapes can jam and as they age they are prone to wow and flutter anyway. Whatever music you may have on your PC in any format is a potential victim of a hard drive failure, virus - the same as any file stored on your PC. I've got a lot of my music on my PC's hard drive, duped on an external drive and also archived on CDs that are separate from those that I compile for listening. I have had this Sony Discman unit for close to seven years. My previous Panasonic unit lasted me four years and was only replaced because it fell into a puddle while I was running for a bus. If your player was prone to skipping, you must have been using an early model. They have had antiskip protection for over a decade that can prevent that, but don't go for one with only 5 seconds of protection. When my present unit dies, I'll upgrade. What I use is apparently a dying technology, but I see no need to modernize as long as it works since I'm on a tight budget. I'll get an MP3 player when I need to, and it will just be a matter of filling it with that which I already have in that file format. You seem to write often of having problems with current technology. My only problem with it is that the manuals are thicker because devices have more features and my eyes are getting weaker. But most anyone with even moderate reading skills should be able to comprehend them if they aren't pre-conditioned to fail at anything new. As I used to remind my sons when they were younger and would get frustrated and say "I can't do it," there was a time that they said the same thing about tying their shoes but they learned through trial and error. Or as Fred and Ginger said, "Pick yourself up, dust youself off, start all over again." It's so much easier these days because one can always go online to seek advice. Speaking of which, there was a time when all of us had to learn to use a PC. But you learned, didn't you? I don't like ear buds either, I use either Koss Spark Plug in-ear phones or Phillips clip-on headphones, either of which one can find for less than 15 dollars. I find the over-the-head type fine for home use, but not practical for moving about, or having to store if I go to a pub or a movie. I don't want to carry more than I can put in my pockets. I like to travel light.

As I recall, they don't shoot from the behind the poster, they shoot at the poster when someone comes out an escape hatch that is "hidden" within Anita Ekberg's smiling face. Karim Bey tells Bond to keep an eye on her smile and the bad guy appears.

You're quite welcome David, glad that I could help. Darkblue - I'm thinking that it was about five or six years ago that it aired. If it wasn't TCM, then it was my CUNY channel that aired it. What I do recall is that it's rather crude, and that the print wasn't very good. Apparently the film wasn't made for theatrical release. Sources vary as to whether it was for GE or GM employees and their families, but the intent was to scare the heck out of those who were planning a long vacation while the country was still at war.

I wonder if Sturges ever talked to actor Wallace Ford. From Ford's IMDb bio: A stocky, friendly-faced character actor, Ford was born Samuel Jones in England and his childhood rivaled the brutality that Charles Dickens ever dreamed up. He lived for a while in an orphanage after being separated from his parents. While still young, he was sent to a Toronto branch of the orphanage. There, he began a cycle that involved living in 17 foster homes - the longest being with a farm family that treated him like a slave. At age 11 he ran away and joined a vaudeville troupe called the Winnepeg Kiddies, with whom he stayed until 1914. He then joined a friend named Wallace Ford and the two 'hoboed" their way into the United States. After the friend was crushed to death by a railroad car, he took the name Wallace Ford in his memory and found work in theatrical troupes and repertory companies.

Could it be STRANGE HOLIDAY? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038125/

Heck, just try looking up "Dorothy Malone" for schedule matches - nothing comes up. But for months, the schedule has had her film TOO MUCH, TOO SOON listed for July 10. That's only nine days from now, it used to be accurate within three months. This has happened so often for me that I don't even bother any longer.

This thread confirms it as Sydney Guilaroff: http://forums.tcm.com/thread.jspa?messageID=8552594

> {quote:title=ziggyelman wrote:}{quote}Well, why not a Paramount cartoon, like Popeye? Sturges didn't find him funny? Glad to see it bothered others...it's a shame because its really a good film...don't feel like McCrea totally bought into the belly laughs either.... *Popeye* would have served the purpose quite well, I had forgotten the Paramount origin of them as I used to deal with King Features when I was in TV programming and getting them on the air. While I will admit to considering SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS one of my favorite Sturges films, I've never really been that bowled over by a good number of them. Strictly a case of my mileage varying, there are bits and pieces that I like in most of them, but overall I can't embrace the whole of most of his films. The use of the likes of Betty Hutton and Eddie Bracken have much to do with it, but it's a matter of liking the first half of this film, or the latter half of THE PALM BEACH STORY or scattered bits of THE MIRACLE OF MORGAN'S CREEK. I do very much love THE GREAT McGINTY and the script for EASY LIVING makes it one of my favorite screwball comedies. In the case of SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS, the latter half lets me down as Sturges throws his protagonist into a prison gang which isn't quite the downtrodden poor - or, going by the end result, they are the too downtrodden. They don't exactly represent the poor working man, not as say the people and conditions that we see in MY MAN GODFREY, MAN'S CASTLE or the type referred to in the song "Remember My Forgotten Man" from ANTS IN YOUR PANTS OF 1938 - oops, I mean GOLD DIGGERS OF 1933. More on the lives of the parishioners or even just the reverend of the church would have served better than throwing Sullivan into a mix of hardened criminals. He only gets out of the situation owing to his celebrity status - were he some ordinary Joe, confessing to a murder would not have gotten him the press coverage, he would only be making his situation worse. Thus, we can say the lesson of the film is that it's better to be famous in case you get caught in a jam cuz otherwise, oh brother, where art thou? Beyond that. it's a curiously stacked film. The antics of the passengers and staff in the land yacht while following McCrea at breakneck speed seem to be the kind of thing that would have had the prisoners in stitches, so Sturges sort of makes his point already if we've laughed at the scene. If we didn't find it funny, then the sequence with the prisoners watching the cartoon isn't likely to change one's mind. It's just more slapstick, only animated this time. I tend to be more appreciative of the film for its intentions rather than its execution.

Fair enough, clore. For myself I would have prefered, perhaps, a Bugs Bunny cartoon. For you it could have been one of the silent clowns (and I can see that as well). Actually, if it were up to me, I would have gone with a clip from a Marx Brothers film and Paramount certainly had them in the library so rights should not have been an issue. But something visual, not dialogue-driven as the laughter would have drowned it out and we would be then asking how could they be laughing at something they can't hear. The mirror scene from DUCK SOUP would have been ideal. But perhaps as the Marx boys were no longer at the studio, Paramount might not want to have promoted them. Same would apply to W.C. Fields. If it had to be a cartoon, I'd definitely go with Bugs, but again, studio issues may have played a hand.

That's the problem that I've always had with the film. I guess Sturges wanted something visual as opposed to dialogue-driven comedy, but surely there were some silent comedy clips that would have worked better. OK, perhaps Chaplin held his work too close to the vest, but what about Harold Lloyd (who would later work with Sturges), Buster Keaton or some Mack Sennett shorts? I can see the prisoners going bonkers over some Keystone Kops footage given their own experience with policemen.

Someone took Rand's script in one hand and a big, black, permanent marker in the other and snuck off for a couple hours, later emerging with something less ludicrous (or at least 40 pages shorter), and... Unfortunately, Rand's contract did not allow for even one word to be changed. Reminds me of an archetect who would not allow any alterations to his building design. Imagine Rand blowing up the Warner lot and getting away with it.

"Sign of the Times" is one that I remember not only from the radio, but also from one of those HULLABALOO appearances.That was probably my second favorite, but I do recall liking just about all after "Downtown" being at least as good if not better. What I remember about that period is that while a big fan of the Stones and Beatles, I also enjoyed the likes of Petula Clark and Dionne Warwick as well as Sinatra and Dean Martin and on NYC stations such as WMCA and WABC, you could hear all of them within an hour.

There are others, but if you know 60's music those titles should instantly cause a musical memory to begin playing in your mind. I remember them, or most of them anyway. She appeared quite a few times on HULLABALOO and THE HOLLYWOOD PALACE. I liked "Don't Sleep in the Subway Darling" most of all although my mother quipped that being British, it should be "underground" and not "subway."

I suppose it's not unreasonable for TCM to decide that age is what will define 'classic' in terms of its programming. It's certainly a whole lot simpler than using issues of quality to define the term - way too much disagreement there. If we were to leave it just to "quality" as the criteria, then somewhere around two-thirds of the studio era films will have to be sacrificed. Sorry, not everything released by the studios from the start of the talkies through to the start of the Valenti code is of equal quality. If I have to take some films made in the last decade in order to get my beloved B-series films, I'll take it. Otherwise, TCM will look like the movie version of a classic rock station with a limited playlist. I don't expect 24/7 personal satisfaction from any TV station.

That crack research staff did it again. Both before and after WOMAN IN HIDING, they had Robert Osborne refer to the film as a 1949 film. Yet the copyright displayed in the film's credits is 1950, the TCM schedule says 1950, the New York Times review says 1950 and the IMDb says 1950. Then he segued into a promo for the film as part of a package of 1950's thrillers put out by Universal and available at TCM.com. It's a minor issue, but why would one department at TCM (those who create the schedule for the online guide) and another (those who write Osborne's copy) differ?

..uh huh...and I'll betcha she wasn't NEARLY as hot as Miss Salazar was EITHER!!! No lie, she looked like Alfred Hitchcock in drag.

The other topic I hope to piggy-back on this thread is about us. How many posters here are writers, were writers ( once a writer always a writer?) , enjoy posting on these boards because they can exercise their writing chops a bit, or have aspirations to be writers? Do you guys notice good/bad/indifferent writing, here and elsewhere? I could say that I'm a writer. I was writing for a professional monster movie magazine at the age of 15 as well as doing a lot of editing on it. I was in the broadcast TV industry for 30 years (to the day) and have written plenty of promotional pieces and presentations. Thus, I enjoy this kind of forum as it keeps my brain cells and my fingers in shape. Do I notice good writing here? Sure, I tend to follow those who are the most clear and concise and avoid those with an over-abundance of affectations. One can also be a great writer in terms of putting words together, but failure to punctuate properly or overly relying on it (like three exclamation points at the end of every sentence or constant shifting from lower to upper case) has me avoiding someone's text for the most part. As my sixth grade teacher used to say "Emphasis loses emphasis when it's emphasized too emphatically." Being dyslexic also has something to do with it. I've been tested and found to be a highly functioning one, but I do have trouble with certain formats and that throws me off course. I could never get through even one panel of "The Katzenjammer Kids" in the Sunday comics, it's not the language as I was taught and thus foreign to my own way of overcoming my difficulties. I wasn't even aware of the problem until age 45.

Yes, the accent disappeared now and then, but she's so damned cute that I didn't mind. It did run longer than it should, but it wasn't as taxing for me as the same duo's SUNNYSIDE UP which TCM aired about a year-and-a-half ago. That one viewing was enough, but I'd watch DELICIOUS again. At least Charles Farrell didn't try to sing in this one - he can barely register well enough to talk.

There were several other songs such as "Welcome to the Melting Pot" and "Somebody From Somewhere." I thought it was a cute film, even El Brendel was tolerable and few can drive me away from a film as easily as he does. I thought the scene accompanied by "New York Rhapsody" with Gaynor walking around the city was visually impressive and I wished that the print was a bit better so that I could have appreciated the Expressionist touches even more.

> {quote:title=Fedya wrote:}{quote} > And the two Italian moves they showed: *War of the Planets* and *The Wild WIld Planet* are both a lot of fun, even if they're really lousy. Don't forget today's SNOW DEVILS from the same director (Antonio Margheriti) of the other two shown today. I got about 30 minutes into it without getting into it. The other two I've seen already (theatrically) and just wasn't up to seeing them again. There's a fourth one, WAR BETWEEN THE PLANETS, but I'm in no rush to see it.

I wish that I could help, but other than noting the irony of Ted Turner's getting into so much trouble over colorizing films, and TCM promoting another form of bastardization, it's a subject that I'd prefer to forget. I believe it was once in the TCM Media Room as "Soundtrack Synchronizer."