fxreyman
-
Posts
3,497 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by fxreyman
-
-
Visuals.....Pacing......Sound......
Hmmmmm..........
Without a doubt your mind is starting to go.
You either have not watched enough westerns or you apparently think that Once Upon a Time in the West is one of the great masterpieces.
It is definitely not a masterpiece.
An incoherent masterpiece is what I would call it.
Especially since it takes almost three hours to get to the conclusion.
Leone should have stopped with the last "Dollars" film, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Here he just takes elements from that trilogy and with a much larger budget from Paramount. And it shows.
The Dollar trilogy did not encompass as much in the background imagery as this film does. You certainly get to see what life is like around the central characters. But this alone does NOT make a masterpiece.
The characters are interesting. Bronson as a mysterious "good" stranger. Fonda playing against type for like the first time in his long career. Robards playing a good "bad" guy. And the beautiful Cardinal (who I thought was much better in Richard Brooks' 1966's The Professionals).
If I were to apply the tag Masterpiece to a western, then there would be just a few that could be considered a masterpiece. IMHO.
And, for those of you out there getting tired of hearing this, there was really only one master of the western, and that was Admiral John Ford.
But that is another story.
What would I consider to be a western masterpiece? Here are 25 movies that could fall into that category:
1924's The Iron Horse, John Ford
1939's Stagecoach, John Ford
1943's The Ox-Bow Incident, William Wellman
1946's My Darling Clementine, John Ford
1948's Fort Apache, John Ford
1948's Red River, Howard Hawks
1949's She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, John Ford
1950's Wagon Master, John Ford
1950's Winchester '73, Anthony Mann
1952's High Noon, Fred Zinnemann
1953's Shane, George Stevens
1954's Johnny Guitar, Nicholas Ray
1956's The Searchers, John Ford
1956's Seven Men From Now, Budd Boetticher
1958's The Big Country, William Wyler
1962's Ride the High Country, Sam Peckinpah
1962's The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, John Ford
1962's Lonely Are the Brave, David Miller
1966's The Professionals, Richard Brooks
1966's The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Sergio Leone
1968's Will Penny, Tom Gries
1969's The Wild Bunch, Sam Peckinpah
1975's Bite the Bullet, Richard Brooks
1976's The Outlaw Josey Wales, Clint Eastwood
1990's Dances With Wolves, Kevin Costner
Now these few classic westerns are what I would call masterpieces.
Visuals.....Pacing......Sound......
I think any of these films could be stated to have all three of these elements in spades. IMHO of course.
Message edited by fxreyman
-
Well, I think what is going on here is pretty simple.
You have two ways that art is shown at TCM.
One way is through film. And as we all know nudity is shown in many films on this cable channel. So is the use of foul language. And many times these films are shown later in the day. In other words usually later in the evenings.
There is a reason for that. It has to do with younger people being prohibited from viewing this kind of material. And, if I were a parent, I would have no problem restricting what my child was able to watch.
As for the other way art is shown, it is through this wonderful medium we call the world wide web.
The problem with the web is that unless you are watching your children all the time, they might stumble upon something that you as a parent may not want them to see.
And I think that is what is happening here. I don't think I would characterize it as censorship, I think what is happening is that the powers that be want this place to be as "clean" as possible for the younger ones who may frequent these pages. And let's face it, there are younger people visiting this web site everyday. In fact, one of those younger folks appeared as a guest programmer last April.
I sympathize with kyle and all the rest of you who have bemoaned what has happened here, but I would not characterize what TCM has done to be censorship.
They have to be careful. You think they want a multi-million dollar lawsuit coming there way because someone's child saw what their parents' thought was a pornographic image appear on these pages?
I don't think the image was pornographic or in poor taste in anyway, shape or fashion.
But we still live in a society where certain people get all upset over the slightest misuse (in their opinion) of this website or any other website that has such a fervent following as TCM has.
I guess then the best thing to do would be NOT to complain, but to try and understand what TCM is trying to prevent here. They want us to be able to use this message board, but they don't want this message board to be disbanded just because some irate parent decided to sue the corporate parent because their child saw something that they themselves felt was not suitable for their child to see in the first place.
message edited by: fxreyman
-
Rey (and Kyle) - My sincere apologies if I did not make my post clear. I did not mean to criticize either of you. I am glad that you answered the OP's question. I suggested that you cut and paste your answers because it would make it easier to answer in the future, since it is a common question. I see that you were way ahead of me. So, I hope that you and I are A-OK. I did not mean to offend. - cinemafan
Of course you and I are "good". I wasn't bothered at all by your post or suggestions. And I don't think of you as a whiner either. - Kyle
I also must say that I was NOT bothered by what you wrote in your post. I guess I got a little testy with Fred not you.
You are fine.
And I want to take this moment to say "thanks" to Kyle forexplaining this whole thing, in a much better way than I did.
Rey
-
You know what Fred?
I tried doing just that. But guess what? It did not work.
So I pasted my entire posting from that other thread.
I am sorry I had to do that. But I did. As Cinemafan noted, this website / message board is sort of weird at times.
I also want to make a note here. And I do not mean to be argumentative.
Your point is well taken. But guess what?
Suppose the new member wanted to read my posting?
Does it hurt that I posted my posting from the other thread entirely?
It seems that only you and Cinemafan would think that what I did and what Kyle did was either not the right thing to do or was totally unnecessary.
I myself do not consider reposting another post unnecessary.
I think that we can all agree to disagree on your point here.
If you did not like to see my posting posted again, you DID NOT have to read again.
And furthermore, I can't help it if someone new to the boards brings this subject up time and time again.
What I can do is to say that maybe I will just stop posting on this board all-together, since it seems that there is a vocal group of old-timer posters here that do not appreciate new ideas and or other peoples' ways of doing things.
-
That's the De Niro version, right?!?!?!?!
Just kidding.......
Actually I think the ladies are giving you a hard time Frankie....You did exactly what MissG wanted you to do....and now you have to go through this????
My oh my, you'd think we were arguing over something really important.....like Mr. Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize or something.
-
Yeah, right?!?!?!
Yet you were quite able to list almost every grat horror film from the thirties on your list.
I think, Frankie you need to expand your "Lost" horizons somewhat......
-
Your kidding right????
I mean if that is NOT the greatest swashbuckling movie of all time then I will eat my dvd of it.
-
Where the heck is Robin Hood????????
-
> {quote:title=puzzled wrote:}{quote}
> I am a new member to the TCM.com pages - though I have been watching since its inception and periodically perused the site, have never been driven to post my thoughts before today.
> Sadly, it is not for complimentary reasons I find myself posting.....As I mentioned, I have been watching TCM since its inception. I grew up a couple of miles from the old MGM studio, was raised by a mother who was a true movie buff so absorbed all of the Hollywood lore and fascination with the movie industry.
> Imagine my joy to see a cable channel devoted to the classic movies of Hollywood! Thought I was in heaven. In fact, a friend asked me one day: "Do you EVER watch movies in color?" I just laughed.
> Today, I find myself so frustrated at what I have been seeing on this channel that began and was for so many years a joy to watch.
> Currently playing: Alexander Korda's "The Jungle Book". This movie was shown within the last two weeks, and therein lies the frustration.
> Not only am I seeing more and more of what I term "current" movies (that is, movies from the 1970's, 80's, 90's), but movies that are repeating ove rand over within a month time period.
> Example, two night ago was Goldie Hawn night - the first movie to be shown was "Foul Play". The problem was this was the same movie show a week ago. I could repeat this example multiple times over the last month.
> I believed that Ted Turner owned the largest library of movies in this country - hence, his initiating a channel devoted to "classic" movies. But you would never know it from what has been playing on that channel at least in the last 6 months to a year.
> My second biggest complaint are the "new" hosts - Ben Mankoweiz(sp-sorry) and that really bad actor John Lithgow. I watch a class(y) act like Robert Osborne who imparts real movie lore and then have to watch Ben and John, who seem to revel in their lack of knowledge about Hollywood introduce terrible movies.
> Return to the glory days of TCM please!
Hi puzzled, welcome to the forums
To pick up on what Holly said, she is correct that Turner does not own the library anymore, sad but true. So every film must be purchased, or rented or leased for some specified amount of time.
This is probably what you are seeing. Certain films are leased or rented from the studio film libraries and are to be shown over s pecific time period (I am guessing that this is the case). To find out more, the posters you should ask are LZCutter, Mongo, MissGoddess, Cinemaven, and FrankGrimes. They know almost everything there is to know about what goes on with TCM and they could verify exactly what TCM must do in order to show movies here.
As far as showing newer movies more often than older films I posted the following on another thread a while back on how many movies were shown over a month schedule (in this case Sept. 2009) and printed them out. Actually quite surprising since a good number of people like yourself complain that TCM doesn't show enough "oldies" anymore.
Here then is that post:
Re: Help! Looking for classic movies on "Turner CLASSIC Movies"
Posted: Sep 27, 2009 1:49 PM in response to: rover27
As we have written about this subject many times in many threads on this message board over the past few years, I think enough has been covered on this subject.
However, even though I disagree with your argument that you have stated time and time again that TCM does not show as many films from the 30's to the 50's, I think you need to perform some research on that statement.
While it is true that TCM shows more and more films from the 60's and 70's, the vast majority of films shown on this channel are from the earlier time periods.
One only has to look at this month's schedule and that bears this point out.
I did a little research for the month of September. I counted up all of the feature films that were shown (or at least I hope I did). I did not include shorts or docs.
This is what I found (and again, I apologize if I miss counted):
389 total films shown.
Breakdown by decade:
1920: 6
1930: 80
1940: 115
1950: 94
1960: 60
1970: 25
1980: 6
1990: 2
2000: 1
With this unscientific method of counting, the above numbers would indicate that approximately 76% of the feature films shown during September 2009 were films that were released prior to 1960.
So, I guess I need to ask you why you are so upset with TCM?
The channel IS showing older films, most of the time. Now my research did point out that most of the earlier films are shown during the earlier parts of the day, but some are also shown in the evenings, especially the real so-called essential films.
But the schedule does reflect an over abundance of pre-1960 films.
The main reason why you see more and more colored films in the evenings is that many of the "new" customers that TCM are going after like color films. MHO.
Most newer customers are going to want to see colored films as opposed to B/W films, especially in the evening hours. Once these new customers become hooked to TCM's own unique broadcasting choices, then I am guessing then that these newer customers will then start to watch the older, non-colorized films.
But, make no mistake, TCM's bedrock is composed of showing older pre-1960 films.
And, the other point that I think needs to be made is this:
As we get further along, further by years removed from when many of these classic early 20th century films were released, the harder and harder it will be to restore these older films.
If you really care about the types of older films being shown on TCM, and you want more pre-1960 titles shown, then might I suggest you donate to the film preservationists and help them achieve the goal of having more of these great films preserved so that one day TCM can also show these on their schedule.
Message edited by FXReyman
P.S.
I might also point out that many of the so-called classics were NOT filmed in B/W.
The Adventures of Robin Hood, 1938
Gone With the Wind, 1939
Singin' in the Rain, 1952
The Searchers, 1956
Edited by: fxreyman on Sep 27, 2009 1:51 PM
-
I've got an idea.......
Polanski suffered an early terrible life living like he had in the Krakow Ghetto, along with thousands of other Polish Jews. His father survived the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp in Austria, but his mother perished in the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Polanski himself escaped the Krak?w Ghetto in 1943, and survived the war with the help of Polish Roman Catholic families.
I don't think anyone here can really say that he did NOT suffer as a child. Who wouldn't have based on his experiences.
But to think that it was because of these experiences, that made him do the things to that young girl is IMHO quite preposterous.
Why don't we all agree that what Polanski did was WRONG. Terribly wrong.
He fled the country instead of face the consequences.
He is now been jailed awaiting and / or fighting the extradition.
A personal thought: I am getting sick and tired of hearing about ALL the celebrities in Hollywood that have signed a petition to have him released. Hollywood is not represented by average Americans. These film people obviously believe that they are above the law. It's sickening.
One has to wonder if it had been a conservative director or actor who had been arrested, what would have been the response from these same Hollywood people. My guess is that there would have only been negative responses and they would have wanted this person brought back pronto.
But NOT Polanski.
The young girl (who is now an adult) WAS the victim here, NOT Polanski.
Let us all NOT forget that.
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> Well, I watched the documentary again, and one of the interesting things is that the judge in the case, Judge Rittenband, apparently liked having much younger girlfriends, like 30 years younger or so. They actually interview a couple of them (the judge was not married).
>
> While there is no indication that the judge ever had an affair with someone who was underage, I still wonder if maybe having to deal with the Polanski case didn't hit too close to home for Rittenband.
I really do not know where you are going with THIS statement. You have suggested that the judge that was presiding over this case by writing in the past on this thread that he was involved in some sort of plot to get Polanski incarcerated instead of abiding to the agreement he agreed to in the first place. You have also indicated that the judge liked to see his name in print, and in other forms of the media at the time (at least I think you did).
So, based on the documentary you have now come to the conclusion that because the judge liked to date younger women, that he must then harbor ill feelings about being "outed" by suggesting that his moral character at the time that all of this was going on was somehow wrong in the eyes of the lawyers and by then Governor Pat Brown who had appointed him to this position in the first place? And that then he must have felt compelled to throw the book at Polanski?
That is quite a leap. I don't see where the dots are connected here.
And further more we now have the retired deputy district attorney, David Wells, after the arrest of Roman Polanski in Switzerland in 2009, recanted the interview he gave the director of the documentary about advising the judge in the case in ex parte communication.
So, IMHO it is possible the judge was somewhat guilty in wanting to persecute Polanski beyond what he had agreed to, but because the judge is now deceased and the fact that Polanski fled the country, we will never know.
And you have this former DA who has now recanted what he told the film crew.
I don't know what to believe.
I will say this. There is one way to find out how this case will and should be closed. Extradite Mr. Polanski back to the US. He is STILL a fugitive. Let a new judge decide his fate.
Message edited by FXReyman
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> Finally got to watch the documentary again, and I couldn't help thinking:
>
> Here is a man who was born to Jewish parents and survived the Holocaust.
> A man whose mother was killed by the Nazis at Auschwitz.
> A man who survived communism in Eastern Europe.
> A man whose wife and unborn child were murdered by the Manson followers.
> *A man who survived all that - and who was finally done in by the American justice system.*
>
> Billy Wilder would have loved that.
Well, I have to agree with most of what you have written above, except for the last line which I have highlighted.
I don't think that he has "finally been done in by the American justice system".
He is fighting the extradition. So for now he has not been done in yet. And if he does get extradited, who really has any idea what will happen to him? Do you?
He may be given a lighter sentence or no sentence, or they may throw the book at him like so many of us think he should get.
I think that it is unfortunate for him that the authorities in Switzerland arrested him and he is now being held in jail there, but having said that as I have said before, he has no one but himself to blame for this.
All of this could have been settled thirty years ago. He should have never fled. He should have acted like a grown up like so many others have over the years and accepted his punishment. Had he done that who knows, he may have only had to serve a few months, possibly a year or two. Or maybe no time at all. Like I said, who knows?
Instead we have a media circus over this and everyone is getting all worked up over this guy about the supposed treatment he is getting now. If only he had stuck around back when all of this started, we would not be talking about this now.
What a waste.
-
"If he is extradited, then yes, it stands to reason there would be a new hearing. *However, legally speaking*, I don't believe it is possible to "start the case from scratch". And it's almost certain that the victim isn't going to testify."
As I have indicated in this reply of yours from this morning, and through out many of your comments sprinkled through out this thread, it would seem that you know quite a bit about the legal profession.
Is this an accurate statement?
Do you have some legal expertise? Or are you as perplexed about all of this as the rest of us are?
Because if you are some sort of legal expert, why not just come out from behind the curtain and tell us what you really think.
I am sure that many of us would like to know what exactly your reasons are for what you believe in this case. Considering the fact that you have written voluminous amounts on this subject.
I am NOT trying to goad you into making a statement, just wanted to know if you are in fact some sort of legal expert. If you have ever been party to a lawsuit, that is a totally different matter and your opinion does not matter. But as I have asked, if you are in some way familiar with legal proceedings either as a lawyer or some other legal expert, then I think many of us would like to
know this.
Otherwise, as I would suspect, most of your ramblings are just that, ramblings.
And add to the fact that your name pops up on every thread here as much as possible.
Message edited by FXReyman
-
That still doesn't excuse the fact that while he was awaiting sentencing, he decided to flee the country. That in of itself makes him a criminal, a fugitive. That is what many of us here are talking about.
I could care less what was happening with the judge, or the attorneys. The fact of the matter is that Polanski for whatever reason must have thought things were NOT going to go his way. So instead of acting like a man, he acted like a coward and fled the country.
As I have indicated before, he IS a talented director and I have enjoyed his films. But that is a totally different to how I feel about him or anyone else breaking the law.
We have rules and laws in this country. And apparently the more rich and famous you are, the more differently how justice treats you. In some cases celebrities are handled easily, while others are not. I am not sure what will happen, but as far as I am concerned, Mr. Polanski has no one to blame but himself.
Edited by FXReyman
-
If you are such an apologist of this guy I have some advice for you:
Move to Europe.
-
Oh come on!
The message boards allow trolls to exist here....why not invite Kim back. I mean with the rules in place now, whatever she has to say, if it is negative will surely be deleted as fast as you know what rolls down hill.
-
*The "victim" wants it dropped.*
Of course she wants it dropped. She doesn't want to have to go through all of that again. Especially after 30 years.
But lets face it. He broke the law when he fled. And I don't give a hoot whether it WAS thirty years ago or not. Look, authorities all over the world are still hunting down Nazi's and bringing them to justice. He should be brought to justice.
*At his age, and 30 years after the event occurred, I think it's a little too late to be doing this to the man. It now seems like they're singling him out. It's not as if he's a vicious next-door neighbor pedophile who has been convicted of this act multiple times. The victim's story wasn't very much in order either.*
Of course it is late. It could possibly even be politically motivated. But lets not forget one thing. When his attorneys brought up their latest court proceedings earlier this year, they sort of questioned in open court why the L.A. County Prosecutors hadn't gone after this guy. Well, I guess they thought now was the time to do so.
*His rights have obviously been violated.*
What rights? He fled THIS country more than thirty years ago. Because he was rich, he was able to get on a plane and escape to France, where they welcomed him with open arms. Rights? Rights?
The only rights of his that were violated were caused by himself. Because he fled, he gave up the right to come back to the United States where he had a very good career going on.
*On top of it, he's suffered enough psychological damage in his lifetime.*
I guess you are referring to his childhood experiences with the Nazi's. Well, I hate to say this but that does NOT have anything to do with what he did to that 13 year old back in 1977. And as far as Sharon Tate is concerned, unfortunately many people lose their loved ones either through violent crimes or illnesses. That is called life.
Message edited by FXReyman
Edited by: fxreyman on Sep 28, 2009 11:10 PM
Edited by: fxreyman on Sep 28, 2009 11:12 PM
-
And so it may seem that Polanski's own attorneys may have prompted his arrest this past weekend, and if so, it just goes to show you that the best thing to do is to keep your mouth quiet:
L.A. NOW
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA -- THIS JUST IN
Roman Polanski attorneys may have provoked arrest by complaining L.A. wasn't serious about arresting director
September 28, 2009 | 12:43 pm
Roman Polanski?s attorneys may have helped provoke his arrest by complaining to an appellate court this summer that Los Angeles prosecutors had never made any real effort to arrest the filmmaker in his three decades as a fugitive, two sources familiar with the case told The Times.
The accusation that the Los Angeles County district attorney?s office was not serious about extraditing Polanski was a small part of two July court filings by the director?s attorneys. But it caught the attention of prosecutors and led to his capture in Switzerland on Saturday, the sources said.
Polanski, 76, was taken into custody at the airport in Zurich, where he was scheduled to headline the city?s film festival. Details of his appearance were widely available on the Internet. Variety also reported his planned attendance in August, the month after Polanski?s attorneys had filed two separate documents with the 2nd District of the state Court of Appeal asking for a dismissal of the 32-year-old child sex case against the filmmaker.
In both, the lawyers alleged that the district attorney?s office in effect benefited from Polanski?s absence, because as long as he remained a fugitive, officials could avoid answering allegations of prosecutorial and judicial wrongdoing in the original handling of the case.
?The district attorney?s office, in the 30 years since Mr. Polanski left the jurisdiction, has not once sought to have him extradited. If it had, there would have been a hearing regarding misconduct in this case,? wrote the attorneys, Chad Hummel, Douglas Dalton and Bart Dalton, in a July 7 filing.
Twenty days later, they filed a second document and raised the issue again in a footnote. ?Combined with the fact that no effort has been made to extradite Mr. Polanski, the intent here is clear: invoke a physical absence which they caused and deliberately perpetuate in order to preserve the unconstitutional status quo and never address the misconduct head on,? the lawyers wrote.
The allegations prompted the district attorney?s office to look for an opportunity to seize Polanski, and his appearance in Switzerland, which has an extradition treaty with the U.S., provided such a chance, said the sources, who spoke to The Times on the condition that they not be named because it was an ongoing investigation.
In bemoaning Polanski?s arrest, his supporters have noted that in recent years the director traveled widely in Europe without fear of arrest and even owned a home in Switzerland.
The arrest has become an international incident, with France and Poland demanding that the famed director be released on bail and questioning why he was taken into custody.
The district attorney's office wants Polanski extradited to face charges that he sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl in 1977.
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told France-Inter radio that he and Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski asked Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that Polanski be released on bail, calling his arrest a "bit sinister."
French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand was quoted in French media as saying, "In the same way that there is a generous America that we like, there is also a scary America that has just shown its face."
Swiss authorities told the Associated Press that bail has not been ruled out, but the director would have to stay in Switzerland.
Robert Harris, a British novelist who had worked with Polanski, said in a statement that he believed the arrest was "politically motivated." "I am shocked that any man of 76, whether distinguished or not, should have been treated in such a fashion," he said.
-- Harriet Ryan and Richard Winton
-
You make some excellent points.
On why TCM seems to show more letter boxed films and more color films from the 1960's and on, that is a simple reason.
Big, widescreen films started to show up in the mid 1950's. That is when Cinerama got its start with big block-buster type movies, culminating with 1963's How the West Was Won. Cinerama used three different 35 mm cameras to film and then used three different theater projectors to show the film to audiences.
Shortly after the release of How the West Was Won, Cinerama was shelved and soon replaced by Ultra Panavision, another widescreen film process. Many of the early 1960's epics were filmed using this process.
So that in a nutshell is why you see many films using widescreen technology from the 1960's.
*Something has changed with the TCM schedules to make them less appealing to me. It's not "must see" TV for me anymore.*
Well, that is your opinion, which you are entitled to. There are many fans of TCM who are quite happy with the selections presented to them monthly. Are there exceptions, you bet!
*I also think the quality of the movies has gone downhill overall. How often do you see movies like "Best Years of our Lives"? We see lots more 60's and newer movies, but how often do you see 60s B&W movies like "To Kill a Mockingbird"? among others. Seems like most 60s and newer movies are in color and letterboxed.*
I for one would love to see more epic type films and westerns. But you almost have to take the good with the bad. Not every night is there going to be A Best Years of Our Lives type of movie.
As far as the really good 1960's B/W films that are shown, I think just this year we have seen films like Fail-Safe, Psycho, Dr. Strangelove, Night of the Living Dead, The Apartment, 81/2, Blow Up, The Hustler, Who's Affraid of Virginia Woolf, Lolita, Advise and Consent, America America, The Bedford Incident, Billy Liar, The Hill, Cape Fear, Days of Wine and Roses, Elmer Gantry, The Longest Day, Help!, Hud, Judgement at Nuremberg, Lillies of the Field, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, The Manchurian Candidate, The Misfits, The Nutty Professor, One Two Three,
Repulsion, Seven Days in May, Sink the Bismarck!, The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, The Train.
Now I may be wrong here but I do think that most of the films I listed here have been on TCM if not this past year, then in the last couple of years. I am not totally sure about that claim. But this list is pretty good, and I am sure that there were many others that were B/W and that they were also shown on TCM.
And don't forget most of the films released during the 1960's and for that matter many films from the 1950's WERE released in color. That is called progress.
And lets face, if you were living back then and you had the choice to stay home and watch black and white TV or go out to the movies and see something in glorious color, which would you have done? Most TV sets in the 1960's were still B/W. I know that my family did not get a color tv until 1970. The sets were expensive then.
And by 1970 almost every film that was released was in color.
Message edited by FXReyman
-
Here is what Harriet Ryan wrote in the L.A. Times today about the history of the case:
The arrest is the latest twist in a legal saga that has captivated and outraged the public since Jimmy Carter was president. In 1977, Polanski -- a household name both for his movies and for the Manson family murder of his then-wife, Sharon Tate -- was arrested at a Beverly Hills hotel and charged with **** and **** a 13-year-old aspiring model. The girl told police the director had plied her with champagne and a piece of a Quaalude during a photo shoot at actor Jack Nicholson's Mulholland Drive home. He then forced himself on her as she begged him to stop.
Polanski reached a deal with prosecutors in which he pleaded guilty to a count of unlawful sex with a minor and prosecutors agreed not to pursue rape, **** and other charges. A judge ordered Polanski to spend 42 days in state prison for pre-sentencing "diagnostic testing." Polanski served the time and was released. But on the eve of his sentencing in 1978, he boarded a plane for Europe, never to return to the U.S.
The court issued an arrest warrant that has remained in effect since.
From his home in Paris, Polanski settled a civil suit by the victim, Samantha Geimer, for an unspecified amount, and she publicly forgave him. He continued to direct films in Europe and married Seigner, with whom he has two children.
In 1997, Polanski tried to work out a deal with the district attorney's office to return to L.A.: Authorities would arrest him at the airport and bring him straight to court, where he would be sentenced to time served and immediately released.
That deal fell apart, with Polanski's side saying that he objected to television coverage in the courtroom.
For the next decade, Polanski made no public attempts to resolve the case. He won the Academy Award for best director for 2002's "The Pianist," but was not at the ceremony despite Geimer's call for authorities to permit him to attend.
Polanski tried to work out a deal with the L.A. County DA's office in 1997, but did not want tv cameras in the courtroom. Thus, that attempt to resolve the case failed.
He apparently thinks that if tv cameras were going to be installed in the courtroom, then possibly he must have felt that his appearance would surely elicit not very good reactions from those in the film community.
I go back to what I wrote earlier. This guy broke the law. And when the time came for sentencing, he boarded a plane and left the United States for freedom in France. Now if that is not the definition of a coward then I don't know what is. I mean, really, he may have only face a couple of years behind bars. Possibly even a reduced sentence.
But instead of facing sentencing he chose to run.
That to me means he was guilty and he is a coward.
-
Polanski is a great director. My favorite film of his is The Pianist with Adrian Brody. An excellent film which is sort of like the experiences Polanski had during his early life.
Having said that.....
*Polanski fled the United States in 1978, a year after pleading guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl.*
And with that ladies and gentlemen he is a wanted man.
Still.
He fled this country because he did not want to go to jail.
He fled this country so that he could still maintain a relatively high level of living.
He fled this country because he probably felt that the American justice system was wrong.
And he fled this country because he probably felt that even after serving some time he would never be allowed to work in Hollywood again.
These sorts of people are what I call COWARDS.
Message edited by FXReyman
-
As we have written about this subject many times in many threads on this message board over the past few years, I think enough has been covered on this subject.
However, even though I disagree with your argument that you have stated time and time again that TCM does not show as many films from the 30's to the 50's, I think you need to perform some research on that statement.
While it is true that TCM shows more and more films from the 60's and 70's, the vast majority of films shown on this channel are from the earlier time periods.
One only has to look at this month's schedule and that bears this point out.
I did a little research for the month of September. I counted up all of the feature films that were shown (or at least I hope I did). I did not include shorts or docs.
This is what I found (and again, I apologize if I miss counted):
389 total films shown.
Breakdown by decade:
1920: 6
1930: 80
1940: 115
1950: 94
1960: 60
1970: 25
1980: 6
1990: 2
2000: 1
With this unscientific method of counting, the above numbers would indicate that approximately 76% of the feature films shown during September 2009 were films that were released prior to 1960.
So, I guess I need to ask you why you are so upset with TCM?
The channel IS showing older films, most of the time. Now my research did point out that most of the earlier films are shown during the earlier parts of the day, but some are also shown in the evenings, especially the real so-called essential films.
But the schedule does reflect an over abundance of pre-1960 films.
The main reason why you see more and more colored films in the evenings is that many of the "new" customers that TCM are going after like color films. MHO.
Most newer customers are going to want to see colored films as opposed to B/W films, especially in the evening hours. Once these new customers become hooked to TCM's own unique broadcasting choices, then I am guessing then that these newer customers will then start to watch the older, non-colorized films.
But, make no mistake, TCM's bedrock is composed of showing older pre-1960 films.
And, the other point that I think needs to be made is this:
As we get further along, further by years removed from when many of these classic early 20th century films were released, the harder and harder it will be to restore these older films.
If you really care about the types of older films being shown on TCM, and you want more pre-1960 titles shown, then might I suggest you donate to the film preservationists and help them achieve the goal of having more of these great films preserved so that one day TCM can also show these on their schedule.
Message edited by FXReyman
P.S.
I might also point out that many of the so-called classics were NOT filmed in B/W.
The Adventures of Robin Hood, 1938
Gone With the Wind, 1939
Singin' in the Rain, 1952
The Searchers, 1956
Edited by: fxreyman on Sep 27, 2009 1:51 PM
-
Before Mr. Wise became a director he was a very good film editor. In many ways being a film editor would lead him to become one of our most enduring and quality directors.
Editor:
The Iron Major (1943)
The Fallen Sparrow (1943)
Bombardier (1943)
Seven Days' Leave (1942)
The Magnificent Ambersons (1942)
The Devil and Daniel Webster (1941)
Citizen Kane (1941)
Dance, Girl, Dance (1940)
My Favorite Wife (1940)
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939)
5th Ave Girl (1939)
Bachelor Mother (1939)
Sound Department:
Top Hat (1935) (sound effects editor) (uncredited)
The Informer (1935) (sound effects editor) (uncredited)
The Gay Divorcee (1934) (sound effects editor) (uncredited)
Of Human Bondage (1934) (apprentice sound effects editor) (uncredited)
-
Totally agree with you Kyle!
Makes me wonder if all of those youngsters running the current studios have any idea of an original thought. Don't get me wrong, I think Hollywood and / or the independents do make some wonderful films these days. But when you factor in that a film has to appeal to a young audience and then that film MUST make $200 million dollars to make a profit, all originality falls by the way side.
There has been a handful of films released in the past few years that were remakes that I would consider to be good. But the one remake or maybe I should say retelling that was really well made came out this summer. And that was JJ Abrams Star Trek reboot.
Now there was a story that was begging to be told. And he told so much differently and more imaginately than anyone could have done so.
Rey
Western Movie Rambles
in Westerns
Posted
Happy belated birthday Chris!
I hope you have a great birthday weekend!!
My wife Annie and I are heading out today on a great western adventure.....
Eight days and seven nights exploring the deserts of Arizona, Utah and western Colorado on our annual October vacation.
Taos, N.M., Santa Fe, Petrified Forest Natl. Park, Sedona, Zion Natl. Park, Bryce Canyon Natl. Park, Moab, Four Corners, Monument Valley, Mesa Verde Natl. Park, Durango-Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad, and finally Pagosa Springs.
Many chances to remember all of those great John Ford films...........
The car leaves at 12 noon today......
All-aboard!!!!
Take care,
fxreyman
Rey