Arturo

*Welcome to the TCM Messageboards, JoeLynn!* Nice sentiment for all of you welcoming him (methinks, but maybe a her) to the message board, but this thread was started in 2007, but recently resurrected NoirDame (who is probably whom should be welcomed). I made the same mistake when I first started reading it lol PS - SprocketMan ...he probably has gone away in the intervening years. Edited by: Arturo on Nov 4, 2012 11:37 PM

Good thing I have most of Tuesday's Constance Bennett's pre-codes on DVD. It'll probably be a nail-biting presidential election, and I'll feel compelled more to watch the unfolding returns than 80 year old movies. Too bad the tribute couldn't have been on Wednesdays.

VP19 wrote; *One more thing on Ms. Bennett: It's never been officially proven, but it's believed that when she signed with Pathe in the fall of 1929, she insisted no blondes who resembled her remain on the studio roster, so it suddenly dismissed two of its players -- Diane Ellis and Carol Lombard* Hibi wrote: *Maybe that applied to contract players lower down the rung, but it couldnt have applied to stars at RKO. How else to explain blonde Ann Harding, who stayed on at RKO till '36?* Ann Harding beat Constance to Path? by a few months. She, along with Ina Claire, had been wooed by the studio in order to have Broadway stars for the talkie revolution. Bennett's chic image was to help with this as well. Constance had been off the screen for nearly 4 years, when she married and became part of the "jet set" equivalent of the day, but by 1929 had become estranged from her husband. She took up with Gloria Swanson's ex, the Marquis Falaise de la...., who helped negotiate the studio contract for Connie. Anyway, as a pillar of the new direction for the studio, thy were not about the discard Ann, who was Broadway royaty, no matter how similar in hair color to Bennett's (definitely not in image nor technique).

Thanks for the heads up. While I have all of these on DVD, I always enjoy watching movies on TCM in real time whenever possible, especially when they're as utterly enjoyable as most of these are.

Thanks for the heads up. I'm especially interested in the ALFRED HITCHCOCK HOUR episode.

*You are correct in that this question can be asked about other movie actors and actresses. However, in many cases, these actors and actresses appear more to fade away due to changes in the marketplace. . .* *But when a legendary movie actor or actress like James Cagney or Cary Grant or Greta Garbo walk away when they are still at the top of their game, the question of what might have been becomes bigger than most. And, in the case of Mr. Cagney, considering the reaction that occurred when it was announced that he would appear in Ragtime, I'm fairly confident that audiences would have loved to see him on the movie screen during the previous twenty years.* Sometimes legendary actors at the top of their game don't so much walk away, but may feel pushed or nudged away, usually "due to changes in the marketplace". Times change, and the offers a Grant or a Cagney receives may not be up to his standards, and decide retirement is best rather than accept sub-par projects and cheapen their legacy. With the reaction to Cagney's return in the 80s, I think nostalgia had as much to do with the reaction it engendered. I don't know that he would have managed to stay on top in the interim, but most likely would at some point have had to compromise his star status, for "star billing" in featured roles, if he had continued to have an actively ongoing career. Which is probably why he chose to retire when he did, to avoid the almost inevitable downward trajectory. Remember, the 60s youth culture was just around the corner, and many long-time stars decided to get out at this time (Grant and Cagney....Garbo was a special case).

*Maybe one of the things about the humorous ending with the Baron and the maids toasting to the recovering Henry in Frankenstein that bothers me most is that it so does not gel AT ALL with the beginning of Bride of Frankenstein. In that movie, we see Henry being taken home, thought dead, the Baron has died and the castle is totally different- although I think they use the same actor who played Frida's father. So, go figure on that one.* *Also also, the village name and the castle/lab are totally different in all the films. No continuity there. Not a shred.* Yes, what I found jarring in the recent theatrical showings of FRANKENSTEIN and BRIDE OF was the inconsistency in continuity. I understand that if one had watched the sequel 5 years after the original, they may not be noticeable, but when seeing them back to back on the large screen, they jump out at you. While both sets of sets were impressive in their own right, the family home went to Whale's most baroque vision of Gothic imaginable, and quite different from the first. Also, the Burgermeister was very different, and I sorely missed Mae Clarke.

*Another PLOT HOLE...Henry is a doctor, so WHY would he want a hanged body, KNOWING that the neck would be broken by the hanging? He should know better.* Another plot hole is that the monster was able to wander to Baron Frankenstein's house in broad daylight, while the whole village is out celebrating the nuptials....someone should've seen him (too bad Una O"Connor wasn't in this one...she could've shieked a warning to the villagers.)

*I cheated and went back and corrected the spelling of "existence" ( which I'd had as "existance") after a fellow-poster (discreetly) alerted me to the error. I hate making spelling mistakes in public !* Did I hear Robert Osborne correctly last night, that Son of Frankenstein was his favourite of the three original Frankenstein films featuring Boris Karloff? *Shirley not*. Surely you're aware that it's not Shirley, but surely . . .

*The Thin Man was a murder mystery through and through. It was written by Dashiel Hammet, after all. This holds true with other movies in which droll society types get involved with murders. This movie is strange in that it seems more that two different movies were stitched together.* You're probably right about the stitching together with AFTER OFFICE HOURS. The murder mystery element was probably worked into the script in an early attempt to reproduce the elements of TTM.

*The title that Fox film fans probably wish had been selected is CENTENNIAL SUMMER. That is a 'lost classic.' Bootleg copies of it exist on the internet, so I am guessing it did air on the old AMC..* I have a VHS copy of this, but I don't remember if I recorded it from AMC or the Hallmark Channel, which would also broadcast it in the 90s (which means I would have had to weed out the commercials). This enjoyable musical, with an all-star Fox cast, had started out as a straight drama, but at the last minute revamped as musical, both due to the enormous success of the similar MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS, and to provide a fitting vehicle for Jeanne Crain, who had just achieved stardom in STATE FAIR. I too look forward to the release of CS on the new Fox Archive Classics, and I'm am excited about SWANEE RIVER and the others now coming out.

Slaytonf wrote: *Another one I like is After Office Hours, a film that starts off as a society scandal romp and strangely morphs into a murder mystery.* Actually, its turn into a murder mystery was not unusual, but very popular at that time. After the hugely unexpected success of THE THIN MAN in 1934, many more droll society types were involved in murder mysteries, sleuthing, and the like. Many movies plied these waters at least through the end of the decade. *Not that early; Gable had delivered his Oscar-winning performance in "It Happened One Night" the year before. I sense Clark viewed it as sort of a programmer (other films he made in 1935 were heftier fare, such as "Call Of The Wild," "China Seas," "Mutiny On The Bounty" and "Wife Vs. Secretary"). Clark had worked with Bennett before in "The Easiest Way," though their scenes together were few (most of his were with Anita Page, IIRC).* AFTER OFFICE HOURS is par for most of Gable's 1934 course, at least the comedies he did with Joan Crawford. In this respect, WIFE VS. SECRETARY is of a similar ilk. THE EASIEST WAY *is* early in Gable's career, right before his breakthrough in 1931 (it's one of like 11 movies he was in that year). He has a supporting role in this one, but would soon move up the cast list; within a few months of its release he had skyocketed to stardom.

*For starters, you should at least be able to act your way out of a paper bag, which Madison and Derek could not do.* While this may preclude one from getting respect, it most certainly did not from achieving stardom.

*There were a lot of "leading men" who were handsome. There were also many good looking guys who never made the leading man status. Both the young Robert Wagner and George Hamilton were very good looking, but never quite reached the same level of "leading man" territory as did the others mentioned here, for whatever reasons.* *Someone had a thread about GUY MADISON, another handsome gent, who never made it big in that category. John Derek is another. It's hard to tell just what the public will gravitate to.* The term "leading man" is here used as synonymous to "star", which they were not. All of these men WERE Leading Men...what they may or may not have been were Stars, actually, Wagner, Madison and Derek did make it from leading men to the ranks of stars, if only among a teenage contigent and/or for an abbreviated period.

Well, another icon, Madonna, did not use the iconic white halter dress when she impersonated Marilyn; she helped herself become an icon by wearing another iconic MM dress, the pink satin sheath Marilyn wore for the "Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend" song/production number from GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES. Of course Madonna used it for her "Material Girl" video Edited by: Arturo on Oct 25, 2012 3:03 AM

finance, per the parameters of this thread, you've insulted June, her family and TCM. For shame, don't you know this is now the kinder, gentler message board? Edited by: Arturo on Oct 24, 2012 9:44 AM

I'm also watching, and really enjoying, this now. Since here on the West Coast it started at 5:45 am, and won't finish until nearly 7 am, I'm going to b late for work, since I can't force myself to even go shave until it's over.

*Topbilled wrote:* *It is disappointing. We are reading comments from people who do not share good feelings about a star that TCM's programmers feel should be honored. The thread is about celebrating her achievements along with TCM. It is very disappointing when other posters see the thread as an opportunity to say unkind things and silly, disrespectful things that would be better left unsaid. Every negative comment about Miss Young is a slam against her fans, her family and against TCM which is devoting a large part of its January programming to her legacy. I am going to make sure that all my future posts in the thread are enthusiastic and positive to counter-balance the other remarks. And I want to say thank you to TCM for choosing Loretta Young as the Star of the Month in January.* Wow, this is a epiphany I guess. I remember back a year or so, and you were one of the most vehement detactors of Loretta Young here. You felt she had no talent, gave nothing from the screen, and was interested only in a role for its glamorous aspect. As a fan of Loretta's, I'm glad you've "seen the light", but as with new true believers of all types, you seem to have no tolerance for those who haven't yet to "see the light". Are you repenting for the many posts of yours where you slammed Loretta, her fans, family and TCM? Anyway, as a long-time fan of hers, I've realized that she brings out many detractors, remember? AddisonDitless wrote: *Also, like Crawford, there are two Loretta Youngs- (arguably) pre-Oscar Loretta and post-Oscar Loretta (you can also say pre-Code and post-Code Loretta, I accept either.)* *Unlike Crawford, Loretta refused to stray from the ****-elegant bit, no Damned Don't Cry! or Flamingo Road for her- athough she would've rocked in either one of those if she'd wanted* This is what Topbilled once believed, and is incorrect. Loretta did not go for glamorous roles only; post-Oscar she did roles like THE ACCUSED and CAUSE FOR ALARM, which were anything but glamorous, but offered solid acting opportunities.

*Loretta trivia:* *(Not too hard for her fans, I'm sure):* *In what film did Loretta appear with all three of her sisters?* Being a fan, that is easy of course: THE STORY OF ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL.

*And don't you also love that great oldie, "Moondance" by Van Halen?!* I thought the oldie's name was Van Winkle.

*I think the term comes from old Europe. Either from Spain, Portugal, Italy, or all three, but not, generally, from Mexico.* Well, it's not a term like "loo" or "lift", as used in Britain and not the US. Paisano is understood by everyone in the Spanish-speaking world, whether they use it or not. It is not a word confined to some regions but not others; nor is it an archaic term. *I've been in 7 Mexican states, plus DF, plus 6 Central American Countries, and I've never heard the term outside of this movie and as a street name in El Paso. But I've never heard the term used in the US, El Paso, Juarez, or anywhere else. Not in Mexico or Central America.* Just as you would normally address someone you know as Friend before you would say Countryman, likewise it would have been very rare to hear someone in a given town in Latin America to address someone else in that same town as Paisano; the concept does not lend itself in that situation. However, if those two individuals were to have emigrated to the US, and lived in close proximity here, chances increase dramatically that they might greet each other as Paisano, whether you ever heard them or not. The thing is they are now confronted with the everyday fact that they are immigrants in another country, which intensifies their identification as from somewhere else. So someone originally from that same somewhere else is viewed as a fellow countryman, a Paisano. Growing up in Southern California in Mexican immigrant communities, with people from many parts of México, and basically having always lived in same, I have often heard people address each other as Paisano; however, as I've stated, this was usually addressed to someone from the same state or general area in México, not to just any other Mexican.

*Finance wrote:* *Wasn't Curtiz generally just a director for hire, rather than an"auteur"?* He was NOT a "director for hire", he was under contract to Warner Brothers. You don't have to be an auteur to be a great director. For me, Curtiz' hallmarks are the results he gets from his actors and his cameramen. The editors probably worked as much with Wallis, Blanke et al as they did with Curtiz. It's all about intensity, movement and pacing. *I think the snobbery surrounding auteurism is tiresome. *A finely tuned machine can do just as well as a single skilled artisan. Warners proved it many times over. Amen to that! I couldn't have said it better. Although the "Auteur Theory" holds that auteur directors are "Artists" and all others "artisans" (if you're generous) and "hacks" (if not). Edited by: Arturo on Oct 17, 2012 6:53 PM

Well, growing up Mexican in a Mexican immigrant neighborhood, I often heard someone use the word "paisano"....usually it meant someone from the same state in México, or the same region of a state in México, whether addressing that person as such, or referring to someone as such. PS - I'm way after Steinbeck's time also.

*I never found Young to be a particular beauty as advertised. Certainly not in the league of Tierney, Gardner, Lamarr, Hayworth, Turner,Garbo, Bergman et al.* IMHO Loretta Young was one of the most spectacular beauties of the movies EVER....especially when she was young. Look at any of the pictures posted here, silly hats and all, and it's self-evident.

Great News! However TB, you had me drooling with the last list-all those 20th comedies from the last half of the 30s!-then I saw its heading-*NOT FEATURED!* Edited by: Arturo on Oct 17, 2012 3:29 PM because my eyes are playing tricks on me...