darkblue

Works wonderfully, doesn't it. I'd rather watch this several more times than most of his other recent work (like 'The Departed' for example). Schmidt is one of his most "real" characters.

Last time I mentioned that there was an older demographic like that I was accused of wanting it dead. One member who no longer posts under the name got so incensed about it that they got themselves put on administrative something or other.

I told my wife I wanted to have sex. She left the room to give me some privacy.

But just think of how many MORE people they'd have watching if they'd have a channel that showed ONLY pre-60's black and white movies! The mind wobbles!

Never do. Although I set up an "account" with facebook, it was for the sole purpose of looking for a long-lost friend - who I didn't find there - and I haven't bothered with it since.

No. He's too tall and lean.

Murphy's Law is ever-lurking.

It's the stance, the folded hands, the stillness of the head and body, the bemused facial expression, the slight turning of the head as if he's thinking about what's been said and trying to process it. And with his head-shape and hairline, and the jacket and tie and shoulders, I'm reminded of Jack Benny.

Depending on who the guest programmer is, the selections are fantastic. Unusual even. Here's hoping that David is that kind of programmer.

Sometimes, when I see Kevin Spacey on Letterman, or Colbert, or shows like that - I'm reminded of Jack Benny.

dispute the allegation that much of the literature of the sixteenth century was moribund

If I owned a cable service movie channel like TCM, I'd schedule what suits me as well. Who gives a crap about the great unwashed? They've already got a hundred and fifty channels serving them.

It was for both. In Gazzara's case, the lead character that he plays - Jocko De Paris - was originated by him on Broadway, so it was perfect that he would play the part in the movie. He's brilliant in the role. The first time I saw it, I was about 14 - and I didn't know the name of the movie as I'd stumbled across it on the late show a few minutes in. But I was immediately riveted by the offbeat-ness of the people I was seeing. When, after a commercial or two, I realized the movie was called 'The Strange One', I was then perplexed as to whom the title was referring - was it De Paris? Simmons? Cockroach? Like I posted earlier - it's a fascinating little movie. I've only seen it twice in my life, and I'm ready for another viewing. In what other movie can rare car enthusiasts see a Messerschmit KR175 automobile being driven?

First time I heard that one was on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. Joan Rivers spoke it thus: "I was not a pretty baby - when I was born I was so ugly the doctor slapped my mother". Wonder who used it first - her or Rodney? I never actually heard him say that one. Carson must've really liked Dangerfield. Seems like he had him on hundreds of times. I remember someone joking with Johnny that Rodney was going to be competition for Carson's clothing line - said Rodney was rolling out a new line of all-black suits.

TCM showed 'The Strange One' with Peppard and Ben Gazzara a few years ago. Fascinating movie for its time (1957). Really would like to see it on the schedule for a repeat showing.

Maybe if you started talking like a normal person and gave up these idiotic terms for people you'd not run into these situations.

Not according to me, according to her member name - which is twinkeee

Of course she is - she's goofy as a puppy. She spells her name with three e's.

Feels good, doesn't it. Probably not as good as the one using the branding iron, though.

Absolutely. Great advice for anyone. We have our whole lives to find history and discussion - we only get one chance to watch a movie the first time, and unspoiled seems like the optimal viewing for that.

Well, you got the nauseum part right (though not the spelling). Would anything that was painted today achieve the popularity of any of the old-world art pieces? No? I guess that proves that none of them stand on their own. I'd tell YOU to "try to argue that point", but I'm actually afraid you'll try - and I'm already nauseous enough from reading your other monotonous "points".

Isolationism is the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc. - seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities. So, no - he isn't defining isolationism. He is citing the practical difficulties that may arise from trying to manage a multi-cultural nation.

So you think when she said "anyone" she meant "everyone", do you? What kind of "speak" is it when a reader deliberately gives written words incorrect meanings - presumably so they can use it as an excuse to accuse, as is their habit?

M. Ward sings Charles Holly

Your point that one cannot find a painting "stands on its own" unless other people agree; unless it's famous enough; unless one knows its history? Or your point that history, fame and agreement are falsely declaring that a painting "stands on its own"? It just seemed like you were taking a disparaging shot at the Mona Lisa - likening it to a bad movie that's famous, but the point of doing that doesn't make it clear one way or another whether a painting or a movie does or doesn't stand up for a viewer - or, as the thread title inquires, why it does or doesn't matter if the history behind a production should dictate whether or not that production stands up for a viewer. I don't know anything about the history of many, many things that I've seen and appreciated. You think that should matter to my appreciation? You think that fame has anything to do with whether or not I appreciate those things when I see them? Trust me - it doesn't. Art is a movie, a painting, a poem, a symphony, or many other creations. The ONLY thing that decides whether or not it "stands on its own" is whether it stimulates me. To feel that it's meaningful; beautiful; comforting; thought-provoking; educational; mirthful; disturbing - these are what determines whether it stands on its own. That's not to say that the art piece that one finds moving at one point in one's life will always be so. The viewer will change with time and experience, and those changes may alter the responses the viewer has towards the piece. But, it's the history of the viewer that matters - not the history of the movie (or painting). If the history behind the art is causing one to have expectations of the art - that's a bad thing. One should never have expectations of art - one should experience art as the finished expression it is; respond to it for what it makes you feel. If it bores you, if you feel nothing, if you dislike it for how meaningless it is to you, then it doesn't stand up - for you. Everyone else in the world may think it stands, but if you don't think so, it doesn't.