clore
-
Posts
5,535 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by clore
-
-
This was not the old Fawcett character, but a new one who had the power - are you ready for this? - to separate his arms, head, and legs from his torso by yelling "Split!"
Whew, I'm glad that they stopped right there when it came to projectile extremities.
-
Maybe the only business mistake RAFT made was not asking his old friends to make Jack Warner an "offer he couldn't refuse" in order to get some of the juicy parts that were given to BOGART and CAGNEY.
Not so at all. Raft turned down IT ALL CAME TRUE, HIGH SIERRA, THE MALTESE FALCON and ALL THROUGH THE NIGHT. All of which were done by Bogart and for this, his reward was CASABLANCA which Raft was begging to do. Hal Wallis wrote Jack Warner and nixed Raft, saying "he hasn't done a picture around here since I was a small boy."
Raft also refused what became the Garfield role in THE SEA WOLF.
It was Raft's own stupidity that set Bogart up as a star. A few years earlier, Bogart was supporting Raft in INVISIBLE STRIPES and THEY DRIVE BY NIGHT.
-
But it just makes the intros look so super planned, and not live or timely. What do you think?
It doesn't make one bit of difference to me. Personally, I find the whole "let's pretend we're watching the movie together" thing ridiculous. As long as they present relevant and accurate info, I don't care about the set or the presentation.
-
Raft was out of Warners after BACKGROUND TO DANGER in 1943. According to Jack Warner, the actor had been such a royal pain that Warner proposed settling Raft's contract for the sum of 50,000 dollars. Raft agreed and wrote out a check for the amount which Warner had cashed immediately.
It seems that Raft was such a poor businessman that he didn't realize that Warner was prepared to give him the 50,000.
RED LIGHT was produiced by Roy Del Ruth, a former WB director for UA release. The original story was written by cowboy star Donald Barry.
-
It certainly helped improve their competitive position in being able to entice some affiliates to their side. Their coverage of the Olympics in particular, something which they turned into a profit center by emphasizing new technology to showcase events in prime time.
As far as regular prime time scheduling was concerned, it wasn't until the Fred Silverman era and their first sweeps win that really caught CBS and NBC napping. There was a CBS exec named Lee Currlin who went as far as declaring that the sweeps rating methodology needed to be reconsidered when ABC claimed its first win. I had a letter printed in the NY Times back then in which I commented that CBS never had a problem with the procedures before while it was constantly ranked number one.
-
-
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:
-
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.
-
Why are clips shown where Directors slam the Pan-And-Scan process, yet it's lauded how some dude is recreating the music for certain movies that attempt to recast certain characters in a whole new light?
I couldn't agree more. After all, you don't see TCM airing those colorized versions that Ted Turner had done in the 1980s. A channel supposedly devoted to presenting classic films as they were created, should not be endorsing some person who is mangling the original. It does not matter that they'll never air one of these bastardizations, but promoting it does indicate approval.
-
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.
-
> {quote:title=MGMWBRKO wrote:}{quote}
> We check for remasters with every distributor once every 5 years. "Band of Angels" has been replaced with the newer Widescreen master and will air correctly the next time we run it. Thanks.
I can't tell you how much I appreciate that piece of info. Not just for this particular title, but for any items that may require some future "adjustments." But, just to keep you guys on the case, don't mind me if I keep mentioning hopefully situations warranting another look as they occur.
Again, many thanks.
-
Thank you for the explanation. But then, why is it that BAND OF ANGELS which has been out through WHV (not the Archive) for five years now in a widescreen format played three times in 2011 in a full screen edition?
Mind you, it is not an unmatted copy of the film, the framing of a duel between Gable and Knowles, among other scenes, makes it clear that the sides are chopped off.
-
For the record, LAFAYETTE ESCADRILLE "has been formatted to fit your screen."
That is, if you own a 4:3 screen. The Warner Archive release is apparently in the correct aspect ratio judging by the clip on their website.
-
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.
-
I see that THE H-MAN on the 22nd isn't listed as being letterboxed. It is given the U.S. run time of 79 minutes also.
-
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.
Red Light/ WB 1949
in General Discussions
Posted
IT ALL CAME TRUE and ALL THROUGH THE NIGHT were throw away films that, in my opinion, didn't do anything to further Bogart's career.
Your opinion has nothing to do with it, nor does mine. They were financially successful films and the bottom line is what they look at. Raft was also not only refusing WB films, but exercising that part of his contract that allowed him to make THE HOUSE ACROSS THE BAY and BROADWAY away from the studio. Neither was especially successful, but to his home base, it smacked of disloyalty.
I would agree that THE MALTESE FALCON was a mistake, in retrospect, but from RAFT'S point of view HUSTON *was* a rookie so RAFT had a legitimate reason for making the decision he did. If BOGART wasn't dying to be in ANY picture he might have felt the same way, but his desperation paid off.
It isn't as if Huston had never been near a film set before, he had been writing for a decade and even did some scenes for his friend William Wyler on JEZABEL. Bogart had already refused films, he didn't want to do BADMEN OF MISSOURI after Lupino had him knocked out of OUT OF THE FOG and Raft nixed him on MANPOWER. But Bogie knew Huston from HIGH SIERRA and felt quite comfortable with him. Speaking of HIGH SIERRA:
In my opinion, it is highly overrated as a gangster film and a BOGART film. Frankly, it was an IDA LUPINO film all the way, which, I guess, is why she was the star of the picture.
Again, current opinions don't matter, then-contemporary boxoffice does. Bogart was the male lead, he has far more screen time than Lupino and between the two of them, who got more out of it, Lupino or Bogart? He was supposed to get top billing, Warners reneged at the last minute owing to some bad publicity with the pre-war Communist investigations. By the time he was exonerated, the prints had gone out. Talk about politics affecting one's status.
But even after turning the film down, after seeing it become a hit, Raft still went on refusing the scripts being offered. Raft was in good company though, after he turned it down, so did Paul Muni - because he wasn't offered it first. Cagney and then Robinson also turned it down because they didn't want to play gangsters.
Look at it from RAFT'S point of view. RAFT was a major A list player at PARAMOUNT. WARNERS did nothing to build up his career by crafting the kind of A list films around RAFT the way they did for CAGNEY, ROBINSON, BOGART, and GARFIELD.
You're overlooking that Bogart supported Raft in in two films, INVISIBLE STRIPES and THEY DRIVE BY NIGHT. These were films built around Raft. There probably woudn't be a Bogart as we know him now if Raft hadn't refused those many films. Bogart had been at the studio since 1936, Raft signed in 1939 and immediately he was given a higher berth on the totem pole. He was given the chance to appear in relatively prestigious projects at the studio and he refused. These weren't Bryan Foy "B" films at WB, they were Hal Wallis films.
I still say it was politics, WARNERS didn't want someone with RAFT'S reputation as an underworld crony to be one of their major stars. They used him, abused him, and dumped him.
Are you trying to say that Raft's reputation was a secret prior to his signing with Warners? They gave him his chances, but the barely educated, sixth-grade dropout Raft, couldn't tell when he was better off.