fxreyman
-
Posts
3,497 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by fxreyman
-
-
Thanks so much.
But I will share with you that before college, I really couldn't draw much more than a stick figure either. I was pretty good at drawing battleships and other warships, but not people.
Rey
-
Thanks April!
Those were very kind words. I really do appreciate it.
One of the techniques I learned while in school was how to apply shadows. And I did this drawing years before I became interested in classic film, before I knew anything about all of those great noir films from the forties where light and shadow play such a large role in those films.
Rey
-
Thanks Lynn,
You are very welcome!
I am only sorry I haven't a drawing of the Dukester from SWAYR.
Rey
-
Thank you very much!
-
Hey Kyle,
Thank you very much for the nice compliment.
I used to draw like this all the time. I even had a small freelance thing set up and I drew quite a few portraits, from FDR to Teddy Roosevelt to Jimmy Cagney to John Wayne.
But like many things in life, some times something that you love to do falls by the wayside.
I know I have the talent, but now that talent resides deep in my background someplace. And sooner or later it will be rekindled. I do know that much.
Thanks again.
FXReyman
Rey Nowlin
-
Okay, here goes. I went and found the instructions from Fred on how to download pictures and then resize them. I hope that the image size I selected from that thread will NOT be too large for others to see. Of course it would be nice to see some detail.
Keep your fingers crossed, and hopefully this newly scanned image of the pencil drawing I did of the Duke from his Oscar-winning role in True Grit will come out.
-
Just testing placing some of my original artwork here. Thanks Fred for giving us the chance to post these pictures. I found your instructions quite helpful. I just hope this photo size is not too large.
Message was edited by: fxreyman
-
Hi Kyle,
Would it be okay if I included a drawing I made of the Duke from his 1969 Oscar-winning performance in True Grit?
It is a pencil drawing I did from many years ago just after graduating from college.
-
Message was edited by: fxreyman
-
(as opposed to opinions by those reporting the news these days)
Oh, don't get me started talking about the various news organizations.
It's enough for me to puke when I hear ABC's Charlie Gibson tell a radio host in Chicago that he has heard NOTHING about the recent Acorn video tapes.
-
Really????
You think???
-
Finally!
Some stability for the Essentials.
Now, if we can just get Mr. Baldwin to select some John Wayne films for The Essentials.
Oh, wait one minute......he won't do that now will he?????
I mean his political views are pretty far to the left, and I guess that will mean no John Wayne
(Mr. Conservative) performances for a second year in a row.
Too bad.
-
Just curious MissG,
Do you watch the new dvd on a widescreen tv (flatscreen) or a regular tv?
Also a blu-ray player or a standard dvd player?
Just curious.
FXreyman
-
As I have indicated before, lets hope that whatever registration process that is being considered involves a requirement that only ONE username be allowed per poster. That in the long run will help establish decorum and truthfulness on this board and other sites throughout TCM.
-
A more deserving person to get an Honorary Oscar is Maureen O'Hara.
Now there is a body of work that far surpasses that of Bacall's.
I know that many consider Bacall a living legend. I do not subscribe to that point of view.
She is, however a fine actress. I just think that given O'Hara's body of work and the fact that she was in some of the finest movies ever made directed by John Ford, that she should have received by now a golden statue.
I guess my whole problem is with the Academy itself. Year after year they seem to present Honorary awards to people who either already possess an Oscar or to someone who has been nominated multiple times, or to someone less deserving of an award. Especially if that award is given for a body of work.
2001 was the year where I thought that the Academy sort of went beyond their scope of recognizing work by offering Honorary Oscars were to actors Sidney Poitier and Robert Redford. Now, both of these gentlemen had previously won awards (one for acting and the other for directing) but why on earth was it so important to recognize both of them again when more deserving people could have been given the award instead.
By the time of the 2001 Oscars the following actors/directors who had great careers but had never won an Oscar were still living and the Academy could have done the right thing and given awards to some of them:
(The number of nominated performances are shown after their names)
Glenn Ford (0)
Tony Curtis (1)
Albert Finney (5)
James Garner (1)
James Earl Jones (1)
Louis Jourdan (0)
Peter O'Toole (8)
Donald Sutherland (0)
James Whitmore (2)
Richard Widmark (1)
Jane Alexander (4)
Jacqueline Bisset (0)
Doris Day (1)
Catherine Deneuve (1)
Angela Lansbury (3)
Piper Laurie (3)
Janet Leigh (1)
Marsha Mason (4)
Maureen O'Hara (0)
Eleanor Parker (3)
Debbie Reynolds (1)
Gena Rowlands (2)
Jean Simmons (2)
Liv Ullmann (2)
Robert Altman (5)
Blake Edwards (0)
John Frankenheimer (0)
Sidney Lumet (4)
It is a shame that none of the above mentioned people ever got an Oscar. And yet, for whatever reason, the Academy chose other more appreciative (perceived) people to get an Honorary Oscar.
Message edited by FXReyman
-
This reminds me of a favorite memory of mine. A memory that was favorite NOT because of the movie, but just of the experience.
Showgirls was released in 1995. I am not sure if it was released at Christmas time or if it was released after Christmas, but unfortunately for me, my best friend at the the time decided that we needed to go see this movie at a local theater.
The reason I was pondering if it was Christmas time or not is that I instinctively remembered that it was snowing outside, which leads me to believe that the film had been released just after Christmas of 1995. So it was early 1996 that we saw the film. I think?
Well anyhow, it was snowing out and it was a really a cold evening (most January evenings in suburban Chicago are cold). We parked the car and went in. Once we had purchased our popcorn and drinks we went into the theater.
We found our seats and proceeded to sit down. I remembered thinking that we must have gotten there awfully early since no one else was in the theater.
Actually we were late.
The trailers started and I began to wonder if we were going to be the only ones in the entire theater. The movie started.
Enough said.
It was one of the worst movies I had ever seen up to that point. The only reason I did not get up out of my chair and leave was that my friend had driven to the theater.
The ONLY reason he wanted to see the movie was because he had thought based on what he had read that there would be gratuitous sex and nudity in the film.
Well he was right about the nudity, but it wasn't really an X-rated film in the truest sense. I think it was rated NC-17 though.
There were enough plot holes in the script that you could have driven several tractor-trailer trucks through it.
All I know is that several weeks later we went to see Nixon, and he thought Showgirls was better!!!
So if you have not seen Showgirls before, and I know you have already seen the movie now since I am writing this well past the time that you started to watch the film, I can only hope you made it through the movie.
Please, you must share with me your thoughts on what has to be IMHO considered one of the worst movies ever made.
See ya.
FXreyman
-
Nice list Miss Goddess!
But I ma not as aware of his British period of film making except for The 39 Steps, so I will present to you my top ten, mostly made in the good ole US of A Alfred Hitchcock films:
1. North By Northwest
2. Notorious
3. Foreign Correspondent
4. Rear Window
5. Shadow of a Doubt
6. The Trouble With Harry
7. Vertigo
8. To Catch a Thief
9. Rope
10. Strangers on a Train
-
You seem to be implying that there are objective criteria for what constitutes an "essential" film. To me, there is no real distinction between what one considers to be an essential film and what one considers to be a favorite film.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
Essential is something that is considered fundamental; basic, or indispensable.
Favorite is something that is something that is preferred above all others; to be partial of; indulge a liking for.
So, to answer your question:
Yes, I do believe that there is a difference between Essential and Favorite. If I were to develop a list of Essential films, they would be films that I would consider to be of a nature not to be missed, to be viewed as fundamental to the history of film, or as benchmarks in the making of films.
Films that are essential would include the following:
It Happened One Night
Citizen Kane
Casablanca
The Best Years of Our Lives
All About Eve
Now if I were to put together a list of favorite films then that list would include films I find to be quite enjoyable and really do not have any feature about them that would classify them as "essential" or fundamental.
A list of favorite films would include:
Where Eagles Dare
Ice Station Zebra
Robin and Marion
In Harm's Way
Support Your Local Sheriff!
Now some would say that films like the last five I wrote could be on someone's essential list. But I can not see how. These five are your basic everyday escapist films meant plainly to entertain. The films may have garnered Academy Award nominations, but surely they do not rank up there with the five essential films I listed. The five essential films I listed could and have been indicated as Essential films in the past. Films that have the accolades, the awards, and the respect of not only the film critics of yesteryear but of today, and more importantly they seem to always end up being included as some of the top films ever produced.
So, yes, there is a difference between essential and favorite.
Message edited by FXreyman
-
I totally agree with you.
And welcome to the boards!
The list of "Essentials" that Mr. Baldwin selected for this year I think could easily have been titled:
Alec Baldwin's favorite films.
While I disagree with you about The Guns of Navarone, many of his other picks seem to be well below the radar for inclusion as essentials.
If you look at his list there are really only about half of his selections could really be considered essential. He chose 27 films. The following in bold face are what I would consider to be essentials:
*A Night at the Opera* '35 Sam Wood
Rocky '77 John G. Avildsen
Cat Ballou '65 Elliot Silverstein
*Ben-Hur* '59 William Wyler
Take the Money and Run '69 Woody Allen
Saboteur '42 Alfred Hitchcock
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid '69 George Roy Hill
Funny Girl '68 William Wyler
*I Am a Fugitive of a Chain Gang* '32 Mervyn LeRoy
*Mutiny on the Bounty* '35 Frank Lloyd
*The Devil and Daniel Webster* '41 William Dieterle
*Battleground* '49 William Wellman
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde '41 Victor Fleming
*The Letter* '40 William Wyler
The Fortune Cookie '66 Billy Wilder
*Random Harvest* 42 Mervyn LeRoy
*Notorious* '46 Alfred Hitchcock
The Mouse That Roared '59 Jack Arnold
Tom Jones '63 Tony Richardson
*The Grapes of Wrath* '40 John Ford
The Man Who Came to Dinner '42 William Keighley
An Affair to Remember '57 Leo McCarey
*The Asphalt Jungle* '50 John Huston
Lolita '62 Stanley Kubrick
The Guns of Navarone '62 J. Lee Thompson
The Long Hot Summer '58 Martin Ritt
*Wuthering Heights* '39 William Wyler
So it would seem to me that Mr. Baldwin did pick IMHO some very well-known films that could have been selected as essentials, but that for the most part about another half of his selections seem to be very pedestrian selections, almost as if he was told that as long as he picks at least a dozen "hard core" essentials, he could then pick another 15 or so films that are more personal selections than what might be considered real essentials.
Edited by FXreyman
Rey
-
patful, I don't believe this is our troll. This is a troll, to be sure, but just a mere hit-and-run troll who seeks to stir up trouble. I have fought the real troll here for years and that post just sounds like some teenager trying to flame the thread. If anything, it sounds like the troll who would put in all those plugs for Donny and Marie movies.
Are you speaking of the troll from Monday night's little diatribe?
-
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
To TCMWebAdmin,
I am very sorry to see the turn that this thread has taken, in regards to personal attacks and harassing posts. I would not have imagined anyone would react that way, and it surely was not my intention to cause such a reaction. In addition to removing posts that might violate the Code of Conduct, please feel free to lock the thread if you deem it necessary, or to pull it altogether.
This is a common thing with you isn't it?
First, you come out with this statement about how you have this disease, a mild form of it at least, then instead of talking about the disease, all you want to do is talk about how having this disease has affected you and how you have been affected by comments from the rest of the on-line community here.
Then you go and bring in the FBI and how your civil rights have been abused.
What in the world does this have to do with the fact that you have this "mild form" of the disease?
And of course you then go and say what is highlighted above. You bring up all of these things and then after reading what others have written, you then hit the panic button and go the the moderators to ask them to remove posts, lock the thread or just shut the thread down.
All so convenient for you isn't it?
Makes me wonder if this was just all some sort of trap to get as many of your fellow, not so friendly posters to come in and share their displeasure with your opening statement. Then I am sure that because you have cultivated a nice, warm relationship with the new moderators, your desire wold then to be to get these posters eliminated from the boards.
Not a bad strategy Holly. Or should I say Film_Fatale.....or Cinemascope.....or who the heck cares.
-
I don't think it hurts to try to speak out about what it is like to face a disability. I don't know the exact number of people worldwide who may suffer from this and related conditions, but if there is anything someone can do to try to educate others a little about it, perhaps it is worth the effort.
I for one do not need to be told about the effects of a crippling disease or affliction, especially from someone like yourself Holly or whatever the heck is your name.
I have been living the affliction curse for years now. My wife Annie has the following:
Epilepsy
Sjogrens Syndrome
And Lupus, which, thank god is in remission.
So please, if you are going to tell us about your disease, at least tell us about the disease and not just how others treat you, however painful that treatment you think deserves to have a hearing right here on the TCM boards.
-
We will know the truth of the new moderators when they decide to pull the plug on this thread.
Will you do this, new moderators?
Will you stick up for the one poster on this board who you seem forever to protect.
I encourage you to go back through the years and look up instances where Film_Fatale, Cinemascope, and all the rest of his / her aliases have practically ruined this board.
As I have said many times, it does not take a wizard to figure out what HollywoodGoLightly is trying to do here. Manipulate this board's members, and the new moderators.
As far as you the new moderators are concerned, she / he is doing a pretty good job of convincing you that she / he is right and all the rest of us are wrong.
As the new moderators, if you don't believe us go ask the previous moderators what they think of this situation. I am sure you will then understand what has been taking place all of these sad years.
And then, maybe then you will have the courage to do the right thing and do it forever.
For the sake of this board.
Message edited by Fxreyman
Portraits - A Companion Gallery
in Your Favorites
Posted
MissGoddess wrote:
Isn't it marvelous how the word photography, which roughly translates "painting with light",
really reveals it's most dramatic side in black and white imagery? To me, it becomes
closest to drawing/painting in that format, as oppposed to color (with of course, wildly
wonderful exceptions).
I'm getting interested in black-and-white still photography, and I hope, if I pursue it
in earnest, to get a good grasp on light and shadow play.
I am glad that you are interested in B/W photography. Who knows? You might be the next Ansel Adams! But be careful. It can be an expensive hobby. You might even want to invest in a quarterly class at a junior college in your area (if there is one) or look into taking a class at a local studio. If you were in Chicago, I could ask a few of my professional photographer friends to give you some pointers.
You know you bring up several excellent points here. The Painting with Light could easily be applied to the masters of black and white film.
Just look at how Ford had his cinematographers paint with light all of his great outdoor films and many of his interior films. Or how Welles employed Gregg Toland to paint with light.
B/w drawing is really as difficult to master as b/w film photography and more importantly b/w photography. That is why I have always believed that any photography shot outdoors is so much more difficult to do than indoor photography. Indoors, YOU can control the light. Have you ever noticed how hard it is to shoot outdoors. Mother nature is vary hard to control.