darkblue
-
Posts
22,191 -
Joined
-
Days Won
38
Posts posted by darkblue
-
-
If Turner is laying off employees they certainly can't afford to operate another station.
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!
-
1
-
-
Not sure if everyone who posts here checks TCM's Facebook page on a regular basis...
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.
-
Well, if they ever film a Jack Benny biopic, there's the man........Can you see Denzel Washington as Rochester?
No. He's too tall and lean.
-
Murphy's Law is ever-lurking.
-
As YOU might say, "How so"?
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
-
and that is my point, always has been, and that is in making the kind of scheduling and programming decisions they have and are, tcm is playing to a skewed audience, an audience that likes and prefers films that they like but...BUT may not be quite indicative of the preferences of the vast majority of cable viewers in america and canada. and since tcm is meant for public consumption by american and canadian cable subscribers, mine is and must be the winning argument. I mean it's not like tcm was ever meant to be a greenwich village euro-slanted public access channel.
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.
-
This, I believe, was Gazzara's film debut. It could have also been Peppard's.
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?
-
We have to remember that Rodney toiled for many years before "success" finally came his way. He was close to 50 years old when he finally got his break and became a headliner act. And his movie career didn't happen until he was almost 60. "When I was born the doctor took one look at me, and slapped my mother!"
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.
-
Why you ignored the lengthy explanation I gave you and then chose the post where I spoke of what the MOST WOULD HAVE ME DO is beyond me.
La di da. And so it goes.
Maybe if you started talking like a normal person and gave up these idiotic terms for people you'd not run into these situations.
-
she apparently, according to you, adds an extra "e".
Not according to me, according to her member name - which is twinkeee
-
Somewhere, Twinkee is smiling.
Of course she is - she's goofy as a puppy. She spells her name with three e's.
-
I've now been branded as a nasty judgmental one.
Feels good, doesn't it.
Probably not as good as the one using the branding iron, though.
-
Of course it would be best for a teacher to just show the movie without any prior discussion and than ask the students to react to what they saw instead of telling them about the history of the film beforehand.
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.
-
1
-
-
I think it does make it clear as I explained ad naseum below. If it was painted today it would never achieve the popularity it currently has so that pretty much proves it isn't standing on its own. if you want to prove me wrong then try to argue that point, i think you will have an impossible task.
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".
-
Aren't you defining isolationism? Dangerous stuff, that.
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.
-
ONE pronouncement is more than enough. Sorry, dear, all kinds of doublespeak can't explain this away:
all three of you seem unaware of the fact that this painting can and should be appreciated by anyone
At least own up to the fact that you want to tell others what to do.
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
-
Answer- Yes I do because it made my point.
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.
-
2
-
-
So now do you understand how I can say "The Mona Lisa is kind of like a below average movie with 20 Oscars to its credit- If it had to stand on its own could it?"
So in a strange way the Mona Lisa does prove my point that the history does matter to some of us, much more than some want to admit. I know the history matters to me, it does with movies. With paintings the Mona Lisa proves it as well. Not so foolish now, eh?
You don't think that making up a movie that has TWENTY Academy Awards to its credit but is "below average" (??) so that you can use that imagined creation to equate an actual centuries-old painting to it - with a puzzling rhetorical question tacked on - is wise, do you?
And, could you explain again how history means the painting doesn't stand on its own for you or anyone else who views it? Isn't each viewer the judge of whether a work of art "holds up" for them or not? Or are they not supposed to enjoy a work of art unless they're knowledged in its history? It's been said that the most moving art is "timeless", after all.
-
Not if that should occur due to political pressure.
Political pressure is no match for profit-making. If a studio thinks it can make money, that's the reason it continues to print copies. Political pressure - in the form of protests, consumer boycotts or lost associations - become an expense that negates the expectation of profit and very possibly incurs losses.
It's always about the money. If you have enough of it to buy up the rights to a movie and produce more copies for consumption, you can do so. There's no law requiring you to care about how anyone specific may feel about it. You just have to be willing to lose money if there's enough blowback to cause such loss.
Rodney
in General Discussions
Posted
I told my wife I wanted to have sex. She left the room to give me some privacy.