Film_Fatale

> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote} > I wasn't referring to that. The movie is in *stereo*! Oh, right. Sorry about that. Sometimes I don't even pay attention to whether a 50's movie is in stereo or in mono.

*Poltergeist*

I don't have anything against the ephalents. It's those who are commanding them I've got a problem with. Sounds to me like someone is objecting to animal cruelty. Getting back to *It's Always Fair Weather*, you have to hand it to Gene Kelly and Stanley Donan for making such awesome use of the widescreen format. They really used it to its maximum potential for telling the story and staging all the numbers. B-)

It's a sort-of sequel to *On the Town*. I think they didn't make it an official sequel because they couldn't get Frank Sinatra.

Just caught in near the beginning of *It's Always Fair Weather*... this is such a great, and underrated musical from the MGM studio machine. I always thought it was interesting how they wanted to make it an official sequel to *On the Town*, but I think they had to change that when they couldn't get Frank Sinatra to repeat his role. That dance with the garbage can tops always seems so funny! B-)

Hey, that's OK Chip, I'll probably watch *It's Always Fair Weather* too.... maybe I'll go over to "Movie Rambles* to ramble about it... let's see if some of the people there are a little friendlier to me than they have been recently...

Kathy, it's too cute you have to re-watch it! I love the score by Henry Mancini. I didn't realize he had written that score, too. I'm a huge admirer of him and I like almost everything he ever composed. B-)

Well, I believe we started skipping "Z" after Zero Mostel came up 3 or 4 times in a row. Alec Guinness

I've been having a hard time actually deciding whether or not I want to watch the Randolph Scott movies I recorded yesterday - at least the ones that Boetticher directed. I keep thinking that they're special enough to try to watch them in a pre-recorded DVD, but I have the recordings here at home now... and it's tempting to just watch those. Sometimes life is full of hard choices.

Kathy, I've never watched all of *Hatari!*, either. I'm sure (as with most other Duke movies) a heavy dose of ramblin' will just about make it impossible to avoid watching soon!

Really? That's too bad. I tivo'd it but haven't checked it yet.

> {quote:title=ChipHeartsMovies wrote:}{quote} > hamradio, with all respect, you are CRAZY if you aren't tuned in to *The 5000 Fingers of Dr. T* on TCM right now. > > I LOVE this movie. In the 80's some demented film programmer made sure it played in a real big-screen movie theatre on Christmas night every year in NYC. > > *5000 Fingers* is Dr. Seuss, and I love it more than Green Eggs and Ham or Hop on Pop , and that's saying a lot. Too bad *Dr. T* just ended. But *It's Always Fair Weather* is coming up, and that one is also pretty good! B-)

The interesting thing about this movie, for me, is that I start out liking GG's character up until she starts wavering, and then I feel sorry for her because naturally she wants to be careful but in a way, she really does drive him nuts with her behavior. I mean, a man like that. He's obviously a loose cannon and he never really hid that about himself so she should have never got involved. But to get engaged and let him build himself up. The director never really seems to take sides so I find myself just leaning in my sympathies toward Bogie. Not that he wasn't scary, but then he was also a victim. It's such GREAT acting by him, just incredible. Good analysis of the movie... and I agree with you regarding the great acting by him.

Rose Hobart was in *Ziegfeld Girl* with Hedy Lamarr

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > That discussion that you say you want to have as it pertains to Prop 8 was never part of the mix of that thread. Neither of the threads went in the direction I would have liked. > > Just because another poster started that particular thread, there were opportunities for you to bring that discussion up and start that dialog. You could have brought the subject up in the Prop 8 musical thread you did start. > Again, that discussion started going in a direction that I didn't particularly like. I don't see how it's possible to move a discussion in the direction one would like when others keep bringing up other stuff... unless you are a designated moderator, it hardly seems possible. > But I go back to my original assertion that the two Prop. 8 threads were primarily political threads with no real discussion of anything else. Maybe you see them as primarily political threads. Again, I'd have liked for those threads to go in a very different direction. > > The point I was trying to make is you weren't the only one that got their feelings hurt or rubbed the wrong way. Others here did as well. And I would argue that the people on the other side of the discussion are not going to face the same consequences in their personal lives as will folks who are in a same-sex relationship - or those who were married in CA before the proposition passed. I'm very sorry that some folks are hurt because they face some opposition when they want to take away from others something they already enjoy themselves. > > I can only speak for myself and I'm not upset that you are so passionate about this subject. But I am just as concerned about the posters on the other side of the issue who were or still are as hurt and wounded as you. While I respect everyone's feelings, it seems hard to see how folks can be as hurt and wounded as those who had their legal rights taken away... by a small majority which didn't stand to lose that same right in an election.

> {quote:title=faceinthecrowd wrote:}{quote} > When John Dall's character -- the one with the conscience -- says, "Two people are dead so we won't have to work," we get a moral tone that was missing from BONNIE AND CLYDE, and in that respect, and others as well, it's the superior film. It is a very good point. In that regard, I do generally like *Gun Crazy* better than *Bonnie and Clyde* - although I haven't seen *B&C* in ages, and I'm hoping to check it out on blu-ray sometime soon. It is interesting, imho, that *Gun Crazy* apparently didn't cause nearly as much uproar when it was released as *B&C*. Was it because it was a UA release? Because *B&C* had the bigger stars? In any event, I think I will remain fonder of *Gun Crazy* and *You Only Live Once* than of *B&C*, which at times has seemed a bit overrated to me.

> {quote:title=faceinthecrowd wrote:}{quote} > Veronica Lake is, well, Veronica Lake, in her short-lived prime. > She made so few movies... and many of them are still gathering dust in the MCA vaults, apparently.

> {quote:title=MissGoddess wrote:}{quote} > I also noticed many similarities, including dialogue, between RIDE LONESOME > and HONDO. In fact, Pernell Roberts repeats a story about a woman who murdered > her husband word-for-word. ("What happened?" "She got mad. The Commanches > are mad.") Well, they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Seriously, I wonder if Burt Kennedy could have been inspired by the earlier movie. He didn't start writing screenplays until 1956.

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > *Someone suggested earlier that this kind of discussion has no bearing to the appreciation of classic cinema, but I beg to differ.* > > FF, > > If you are referring to my post, I would beg to differ. Well, now that we have both begged to differ... maybe we can only agree to disagree. I don't see movies (classic or not) as existing in a vacuum. I see them as being a product of the society and the era in which they are made. Discussing the changes that are taking place in the first decade of the 21st century, imho, also adds to the contrasts that can be made when examining the ways in which our society used to be different in the 20th century. Maybe not everyone wants to put the appreciation of classic movies in this context, but I do. And I'd like to think I am not the only one. You could also compare and contrast the causes that have driven actors to participate in certain campaigns. Maybe in the 40's it would have been the war effort... it seems that in 2008, some of them thought that defending equality for all Americans was a pretty good cause. That does seem to me to be an interesting contrast. I am not the person who began the first discussion on Prop. 8 and I'd have been completely happy if it had never been discussed here. But, once a discussion is started and people start giving their opinions, well, then it seems to me it's only right that all those who wish to express an opinion should give it, just as long as they aren't saying things that are totally bigoted or homophobic. And I'm sorry if you, Kyle, or others are upset that I feel strongly about this... I would feel just as strongly if it concerned any effort to take away rights from any minority... whether on account of race, religion, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or any other group that is usually protected against discrimination in our society. This isn't just trying to be PC or something like that; it is a genuine belief in equality and a strong stance against prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance, in whichever shape they may occur.

I'm tempted to download the free trial, but I'm also wondering if you can't do the same stuff with PhotoShop (which we have). The Carole photo looks absolutely gorgeous! B-)

D'Estaing, Jules - Yul Brynner in *Invitation to a Gunfighter*

> {quote:title=coopsgirl wrote:}{quote} > I found some colorization software online (called Recolor) and I've been playing around with it. It took several tries but I finally got a pic of Gary to look pretty good. > > That looks fantastic, Angie. I take it this software is free? How long did it take you to color that beautiful Coop pic?

Julie Andrews was in *Torn Curtain* which also starred Paul Newman

> {quote:title=ChipHeartsMovies wrote:}{quote} > Virtually all people who are conservative are reasonable, and they are trying to do what they think is right --- we just may disagree on what is right. Being conservative isn't the same thing as being a bigot, and there are liberal bigots as well as conservative ones. I'm a very liberal gay man in NYC, my sister is an Evangelical Christian in a small town in the South, and we get along fine. > Personally, I don't think I've ever assumed that all bigots are conservative - or vice-versa. I do believe many people who self-identify as conservative are generally uncomfortable with change in society, though this doesn't necessarily mean they are bigoted. If you look at U.S. history, there have always been people opposed to societal changes - people who were opposed to the abolition of slavery, or to giving women the vote, or to the end of "separate but equal", or the legalization of interracial marriage, etc. Was everyone of the Americans who opposed them a bigot? No, I don't think so. But I think it's safe to assume there were at least some bigoted people among them. A big part of the problem, of course, is that people are generally against change in the status quo when they benefit from it - or when they aren't being subjected to second-class treatment, or discrimination, or hate crimes, because of it. Someone suggested earlier that this kind of discussion has no bearing to the appreciation of classic cinema, but I beg to differ. Certainly watching movies made and released before we were born can help us understand how attitudes have changed in society, how things that were acceptable many decades ago are no longer considered so, and occasionally we'll see things that appeared to have been done more politely in the past. It is difficult, if not impossible, to truly appreciate classic films without some sort of understanding about the social context in which they were made and released, imho. And understanding the ways in which people thought and behaved differently in earlier decades can also help us put the present in a different perspective. In regards to what may or may not be insensitive (let alone bigoted), obviously the threshold seems to be different depending, at least in part, on a person's life experience. For most of the past 25 years, the U.S. had a party in power that was all too happy to exploit racial fears and animosity for its benefit, usually through coded words and expressions. Fortunately, it seems that stroking racial prejudice for electoral gains has lost all or most of its effectiveness. There's a good chance we'll see a lot of change in the years ahead, hopefully for the better.