clore

It's obvious that Ditto never heard this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5qLkUvwG9M

Thank you for the compliment. As I mentioned, I knew the man who was in charge of ABC at the time and I heard all sorts of anecdotes that haven't appeared in the TV history books yet. For example, in those days, TV shows had to have a definite sponsor to help pick up the cost of production. This was just a carryover from the days of radio and in a decade, would pretty much be a dead conceptas far as TV was concerned. By this point, TV ownership was in over 90% of the US households and there was more demand than supply as far as ad time was concerned and there were limits then as to what the FCC would allow. Anyway, Oliver Treyz had to pitch Henry Kaiser of Jeep and aluminum fame on the show MAVERICK and the selling point was the effect that James Garner had on the women. They had to produce documentation of test screenings and the reactions. But it was realized fairly early that it would be next to impossible to have one actor as the star of a weekly hour-long series as back then they produced 39 new episodes each season. It was too grueling a workload for one actor to carry that many shows on a six-day work week. So, a guest shot by Jack Kelly as brother Bart served as a way out since the producers liked him but the sponsor was furious. He felt that he was paying for James Garner and that any other Maverick was a violation of the contract. It took some fast talking on Ollie's part to convince Mr. Kaiser to stick around for the public's reaction and they conducted telephone surveys to determine if there were variances in the ratings. This had to be done as a matter of expediency - Kaiser was not about to wait for Nielsen to compile the usual data of the sweep period. Ollie took a gamble there by promising Kaiser compensation if the numbers didn't work out as he hoped. It was a real risky proposition since he didn't really have the approval to make such an offer. But Ollie often did promise more than he could deliver and it got him into trouble in the long run. Between that and being made the ABC scapegoat for a Congressional inquiry into the amount of violence on TV, his days were numbered. Some even blame him and ABC for the demise of "the golden age of television" which refers to the anthology shows and the amount of time devoted to news programming. It's a lengthy article, one also filled with arguable points as to whether the golden age just evolved into taped and filmed events rather than live TV, and even whether we needed three networks to cover the Presidential conventions. However it is fascinating to read for anyone interested in the history of TV: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CE0QFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thebhc.org%2Fpublications%2FBEHprint%2Fv012%2Fp0056-p0073.pdf&ei=kJpmT4-EK4ry0gH62JypCA&usg=AFQjCNGrfYHu_Sm62Y-7Cu6UgthpSk68UA&sig2=Ce2yz5VDAcbw0k5ZAiHYLA

That was the 40s when Warners had the chance to buy ABC. Instead it was Leonard Goldenson and the United Paramount Theaters operation that bought it. A couple of years later, ABC as well as CBS and NBC were trying to entice Walt Disney to produce for television. ABC was willing to go one step further than their competitors to nab Disney's talents - they gave him the seed money for this crazy project he had in mind of building a theme park built around his characters. The very first episode of WALT DISNEY PRESENTS offered a preview of the new park. Even when the Disney company was at its worst in terms of features, the theme parks were the cash cows for the corporation. In that regard, ABC created their own monster. But back to Goldenson - his ties to Hollywood were still pretty solid and this gave him the chance to pitch and secure deals not only with Disney, but also with WB. Warners tried an anthology show that had TV versions of CASABLANCA and KINGS ROW alternating with a new element titled CHEYENNE which was developed for the new medium. Ironically that was the only successful one and it became its own series. ABC had a man named Oliver Treyz as head of the TV network and a man who crunched numbers better than anyone I've ever known in the biz. I knew him for the last 15 years of his life and worked for him for three of them. Ollie knew at once that what would set ABC apart was to go for the younger viewers so they had Disney create an afternoon show for the kids. They used commercial time within that show to promote the prime time fare, most of which were WB shows cast with younger performers than the former radio and movie stars on CBS.

CHAMPAGNE FOR CAESAR takes a few shots at game shows and the public's willingness to stare at a glass tube. For some strange reason though, the film starts off with a televised game show, then Ronald Colman becomes a contestant on a radio version of the same show and the end has it being televised again. It's never said that the show airs on both TV and radio but some shows were at the time, so I guess in 1950 there was no reason to explain the obvious. It is interesting to note that the first time we see a TV in the film, it's in a store window, not in a home. The crowd is standing in front of the store to watch the program. At Columbia, Harry Cohn wouldn't even allow a film to show a TV set in a household as he didn't want to promote the competition. Even when Columbia did get into the TV syndication and production end, he insisted that the company name not be used and thus Screen Gems was the name given to the new entity.

It was Bette who did it. I didn't watch it last night, but I have seen it.

Hitch does it again in FRENZY when Rusk is trying to retrieve a tie pin. Fritz Lang did it in THE HOUSE BY THE RIVER as Louis Hayward attempts to get the bag in the river in which he's hidden the body of the housemaid whom he killed. He's afraid that he didn't close it well enough and that the contents may rise to the surface. OK, the movie is about to start - enjoy it once again.

> {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote} ...and a bit of comedy. That's the way that I recall it. It's been about 40 years, but I seem to recall getting a laugh out of a scene where she's wheeling a dead body around town. As with Bruno trying to retrieve his lighter in STRANGER ON A TRAIN, we're sorta rooting for her to succeed despite her being on the wrong side. But I'm also known for having a distorted sense of humor.

Goldwyn supposedly turned around, saw Leigh standing there and declared, "SHE'S THE ONE!" Don't know how true that is... Not too likely since Goldwyn had nothing to do with the film. You're probably thinking of David O. Selznick, whose brother Myron (an agent) supposedly brought her to the set and told David that "this is the one." How much of that is apocryphal I don't know, but it makes for a nice story.

Man, not again. I have to add SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS to the list. In 2012 alone, it's listed for every month through the May schedule.

That little boy standing alone on the dock. Years after having seen this film I couldn't get that image out of my mind. Curtiz underscores the theme of the film there. The kid hasn't got much of a future because "a man alone has got no chance."

And, really, what higher compliment can you pay a film than that? Well, I've already said that I'm 60, so I know where you're coming from. I do enjoy some of the later Curtiz films, although they may not exactly be classics. THE EGYPTIAN gets a lot of flack, it's a film that Brando refused to make and Bella Darvi's acting is the subject of negative comments. However, she is well cast here, Purdom isn't Brando, but he's not THAT bad and there's still Simmons, Tierney, Mature, Ustinov, some startling production design and a score that united Herrmann and Alfred Newman. WE'RE NO ANGELS is a dark Christmas tale and all the better for it. Plenty of dry humor, Bogie seems to be having a good time and Ustinov is restrained as he is in the above. KING CREOLE may just well be my favorite Presley film and THE PROUD REBEL is Alan Ladd's last class film with a great supporting cast and wonderful cinematography. Too bad that I've yet to see a decent DVD issued. They're all either faded or pan-and-scan or both.

Why is this film not more revered/discussed/ appreciated? It's not even mentioned in the discussions of great Curtiz films, great film noirs (which it most certainly is) to great Garfield performances to great Warner Brothers films. I've lived in NYC for all of my sixty years and until TCM started airing this, I haven't seen the film since 1971. We had plenty of revival houses prior to the era of home video, but for some reason this film rarely saw a projector. For decades I would mention my preference for this over the Hawks version. Of course I had to hear from most that not only hadn't they seen it, but that since Hawks was an auteur and Curtiz was considered a studio hack, that the Hawks film is automatically superior. Not that I knock the Bogart film, but it's really a cross-pollination of elements from ONLY ANGELS HAVE WINGS and CASABLANCA. PS - The Don Siegel version titled THE GUN RUNNERS isn't too bad either. The Warner Archive has a 5/50 sale going on until Sunday at midnight. I'm finally going to break down and buy a copy.

This film is just too depressing. It may be depressing, but hey, THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE isn't exactly an Andy Hardy movie. Sure, they have a good laugh at the end, but I doubt that there are too many who in such a situation would react in such a manner. What I do find interesting is that TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT is Hemingway as told by Hawks with a lot of influence by way of the Curtiz film CASABLANCA. Bogie doesn't want to get involved with the plight of a bunch of refugees or the Resistance movement - where did we see that before? We have a piano player too and much of the pic is set in a bar. I love the Curtiz take on Hemingway in THE BREAKING POINT. I've been raving about this film since I first saw it 40 years ago and I'm glad that it has come out of hiding for it to be appreciated.

In THE MERRY FRINKS Aline MacMahon really tested my devotion as this time Kibbee was her no good Uncle and Hugh Herbert was her husband. Herbert is someone who is even less appealing than Kibbee. What a limited and annoying act he had. That he had me wishing for more Kibbee (he doesn't get much screen time) and less Herbert ought to tell you something. The family in this film made the Bundys look like the Hardys.

> {quote:title=willbefree25 wrote:}{quote}Yes, Babbitt! It was horrid. > > Did you make it all the way through? I made it thjrough BABBITT, but only because of Aline MacMahon. Most of the films they had selected that day did pair MacMahon and Kibbee, so I was really proving my loyalty. They made ten films together and they aired about six of them. I will admit that THE MERRY FRINKS was the most severe test of the batch.

clore and Swithin, please accept my apologies for putting words in your mouth. No problem, if I didn't respect you, I would not have diplomatically asked for you to respond. Plus, I was open to the possibility that there was perhaps some error or ambiguity in my statements that could have caused you to say what you did. My pencils have erasers also.

I don't agree with SprocketMan or Swithin or clore that there's something worthwhile to be derived from every movie-watching experience we have. I never said that. If you would do me the courtesy of showing exactly that which I had said that could possibly have been misconstrued that way, I'd appreciate it.

So far I've uncovered that they both recorded a song titled "Little Light" but I can't find anything on the authorship. Scratch that idea, she's not the composer. I'll keep digging. Edited by: clore on Mar 6, 2012 4:42 PM

Was it BABBIT where he played the title character? BIG HEARTED HERBERT is another. A few years ago, TCM saluted Aline MacMahon's b-day and most of the titles aired had her paired up with Guy Kibbee. But I like her enough to have suffered with watching him.

And that reminds me to add his name to the list, even if he is more of a character actor. I've long thought that they missed the boat, Kibbee should have been in horror films. There's something ghoulish about him for my money. As if he should have played in some version of the Burke and Hare story, perhaps teamed with Dwight Frye. Happy Birthday anyway Guy.

The worst sin is to have too much zither music in inappropriate places. Actually, when I saw the thread title, "boring" was the first thing that popped into my head. Regardless of whether there is a concensus on a particluar movie being boring, I just find that if it doesn't interest me, it's not likely to get a second viewing ever. I should say that I consider there to be a difference between being boring and not being entertaining. For example, the Costa Gavras film *"Z"* does not entertain me, but it's never dull and I can watch it repeatedly. But *Resevoir Dogs* while also not entertaining me, and also not being dull, is not likely to get a second viewing because I don't want to have to spend time with those characters again.

I remember when *Gone With the Wind* came out on VHS. People must have thought they were getting a bargain since it was two cassettes for 90 dollars. I got that *Godfather Saga* for a mere 20 bucks. I had a friend who worked at Paramount and he could get tapes at a huge employee discount.

You're not kidding - I just looked it up on Amazon. Here are the product details: h2. Product Details * *Actors:* [Tommy Lee Jones|http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-alias=dvd&field-keywords=Tommy%20Lee%20Jones], [Ed Flanders|http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-alias=dvd&field-keywords=Ed%20Flanders], [James Hampton|http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-alias=dvd&field-keywords=James%20Hampton], [Tovah Feldshuh|http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-alias=dvd&field-keywords=Tovah%20Feldshuh], [Lee Purcell|http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-alias=dvd&field-keywords=Lee%20Purcell] * *Directors:* [William A. Graham|http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-alias=dvd&field-keywords=William%20A.%20Graham] * *Writers:* [John Gay|http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-alias=dvd&field-keywords=John%20Gay] * *Producers:* [Roger Gimbel|http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-alias=dvd&field-keywords=Roger%20Gimbel] * *Format:* NTSC * *Language:* English (Dolby Digital 2.0 Mono) * *Subtitles:* English * *Region:* All Regions * *Aspect Ratio:* 1.78:1 * *Number of discs:* 1 * *Rated:** Unrated * *Studio:* LIONSGATE * *Run Time:* 2 minutes Two minutes? I needed that laugh this morning.

I bought the first *Godfather* film on DVD a couple of years ago for seven bucks. I see that Amazon has the first sequel for $7.49 now, so I'll probably order that before the week is out. I just have to do some creative packaging to bring the order up to 25 dollars to get the free postage. I have a commercial VHS of *The Godfather Saga* which is as NBC aired it in chronological order, but with all of the profanity and violence intact. I see used copies of this going for 300 bucks on Amazon - mine has only been played once.

The soonest that THE GODFATHER films will be available is January 1, 2020. AMC has the exclusive until then.