Fedya

> To have the evening of Bastille Day devoted to five Rene Clair films, I didn't know they moved Bastille Day to June. :-p

> The challenge, then, is that you MUST incorporate at least ONE of the movies listed below in your schedule. The good news is that they don?t count toward your 10 premiere limit. Just mark them as ?LP PREMIERE?. (I?ll list them all ready for inserting into your schedule). You are free to list as many of these as you want, or even all of them, but the minimum is one of the following: > > 1. BABES IN TOYLAND (1934) Stan Laurel & Oliver Hardy, dir Gus Meins & Charley Rogers, Hal Roach 77min LP PREMIERE Aired on TCM December 24, 2012. I distinctly recall having watched it, and thankfully have the old schedule to prove it. So you can put a different movie in place of that one if you want.

> Be prepared for frustration as you find your way through this significant change in user interface. I'm told it was done to make this release compatible with "touch screens" so mouse user may suffer. Have you tried [Classic Shell|http://www.classicshell.net/] by any chance? For the record, I'm still on XP, so I haven't tried it. I'm not a big fan of everything being optimized for people who like to fondle their screens, either.

How could you not love him in colonial era clothes in a movie like *The Howards of Virginia* Gotta love that wig, too. :-D

Don't forget thte garish color palette. Gotta love that wallpaper:

> And what extra films would have been sacrificed that day to do so? All repeats: Red Dust, Age of Innocence and Where the Boys Are. In the most recent installment of the "OMG! TCM is showimg movies made after 1960!" shrieking, somebody specifically mentioned *Red Dust* as a movie that they thought TCM should show again because they haven't run it in years. (I recall looking through my schedules, which is a bit problematic on this particular movie since TCM's one-sentence synopsis of *Mogambo* specifically mentions *Red Dust*, making one search more precisely to find when *Red Dust* aired; I think the last showing was October 2012.) So if they had started earlier in the day, you would have had a different set of people ticked off.

> Ham, The Last Supper is not a movie. It is was not an image of real people photographed on 35 mm film. It is a painting that can be any size or shape the artist wanted it to be. It has nothing to do with "letterbox". I don't have the visuals handy, but: "This (wide-screen) size communicates; this (panned-and-scanned) size doesnt". Competent directors and cinematographers will use the full area of whatever aspect ratio they're working in for their images that convey whatever story they're trying to convey. (As opposed to TV, where a whole lot of stuff is still blocked for 4:3 and all those old TVs.) I'm not the one who called wide-screen a hoax.

> How many times TCM showed this thing and people still don't understand Letterbox? ****! I can't believe it took only 10 minutes for somebody to get the reference. :-)

> Wide screen in my opinion is a hoax and a failure. It is merely 4:3 enlarged, with black bars added across the bottom and top of the screen, so that we are seeing only 1/2 of a movie image, with the top 1/4 and bottom 1/4 missing. Do you really care whether you see all 12 disciples, or just 6? Either way, you get Jesus in the middle.

> PS, the "smilebox" format for TV showing has no basis in reality. If we all had viewing rooms with 145 degrees of curvature as you seem to do, we wouldn't need any tricks to imitate what Cinerama is doing. :-)

> In Fred's case, it's because he likes Lawrence Welk more. I'm reminded of a scene from the movie *It's Trad, Dad* (directed by Richard Lester, who later did *A Hard Day's Night* with the Beatles). The town fathers in the backwater English town who want to ban the sort of music the teens like are destroying a bunch of records, when suddenly one of them yells out something to the effect of, "No, no! Not that one!" The camera pans down -- to a Lawrence Welk record. *It's Trad Dad* is a really fun movie that knows not to take itself seriously at all.

I'd guess [*Life Begins*|http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023139/reference], in which Loretta Young plays an expectant mother in a "lying-in" hospital who's also a prisoner; the father of the child ends up taking custody at the end. There's a whole ward of patients, including a boozing Glenda Farrell who is in my opinion the highlight of the movie.

> Big emphasis on Documentary awards (Michael Moore blah blah blah) but nothing re: Best song or score? I'd guess music clearances. Getting the rights to air a whole bunch of music under different copyright can be a big pain. Ditto archival photos; I'd presume much of the clips of awards ceremonies here were stuff where the copyright is held by the Academy.

This is why I included a day of "pretentious foreign films" in my previous Programming Challenge schedule. It's also humorous when people complain about rarely-seen foreign films and in the same breath complain about the same stuff being shown over and over.

That is, movie reviews from Australia, not reviews of Australian movies. I was looking the other day for some information on the 1929 movie *Tanned Legs* and whether or not it was originally a Broadway show. One of the links in my Google search was to [this|http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/24696650], an Australian site digitizing newspapers. It's from Hobart, Tasmania in October 1932 about the new lineup of films hitting the movie palaces there, including *Tanned Legs*, which was on a double bill with Richard Dix's *Lovin' the Ladies*. Reading the breathless praise of *Tanned Legs* and its musical numbers, I can only imagine what the good people of Tasmania thought when they finally got to see a musical like *42nd Street* with its Busby Berkeley visuals. :-)

I live in the middle of nowhere, with I think only one streetlight within a mile. On the other hand, I've got a big blinking white light on the cell tower on top of the hill across from me....

> I find it strange that anyone that claims to be an actual football fan wouldn't be interested in seeing these two teams play. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. (Sorry I don't have the photo of Clark Gable to go with it.) I'm a Packer fan. **** Pete Carroll and Golden Tate for the way they handled the Fail Mary at the end of the game they lost ot the Packers last year. The Denver Broncos had to cheat by violating the salary cap to win Super Bowl 32. And Peyton Manning is a whiner par excellence. His whining after the 2004 AFC Championship Game, combined with his GM being on the competition committee, led to rules changes that make the game even more biased in favor of the offense. Why should I care about either of these teams?

Would you rather go back to the [Times Square of the 1970s|http://www.vintag.es/2013/04/photos-of-times-square-in-1970s.html]? ;-) Of[/i]TimesSquareinThe1970s+(16).jpeg] That's one of the clean images.

*The Dot and the Line*, of course. {ducking}

And Roz Russell as the love interest. (And Leo G. Carroll as a butler.) Young Kent Smith and his pencil moustache showed up in the next one, a decade before he fell for Nora Prentiss.

It's been done before: Edited by: Fedya on Jan 25, 2014 9:37 PM, because apparently TCM's broken software won't let me put an apostrophe in the text description of a link

> When will this madness end???? It will end [in 3 minutes, 44 seconds|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwIe_sjKeAY]

For some reason that photo makes me think of the chess scene in *The Thomas Crown Affair*.

> But I don't agree about Sirk. ( I like his films, there are good soaps and lousey ones, Sirk's are the good ones, imo) I laugh when Susan Kohner shows up at the funeral in *Imitation of Life*. By the same token, I also enjoy *Written on the Wind*, but more as comedy. I can't take much more than the first half hour of *Magnificent Obsession*, which makes *Guess Who's Coming to Dinner* look subtle by comparison. There's not much subtlety to Jenny Stewart in *Torch Song* either. That's more or less why I compared this to the work of Douglas Sirk.

I was more wondering how Graham could afford the place. It always seems that everybody in movies like this (see also *Black Widow* ) lives in a palatial apartment.