Stephan55

It was different watching a younger Ethel Barrymore... Sorta like seeing pictures of my grandmother when she was a young girl, when I was so used to seeing her just as grandma. No idea how much MGM sunk in this film? It certainly was an elaborate costumer. Not counting what they paid for the book rights, it had to be a lot of moolah. According to Wikipedia, they only brought in $800,000 at the box office before the film was pulled due to the lawsuit. And an out-of-court settlement with MGM, reportedly of $250,000 (someone over at IMDb said it was $1,000,000?)... In any event, it does'nt look like they made much, if any money on this one.

Thanks TomJH & TopBilled for such an informative discourse. I can always learn something new from "listening" to what you have to say. It was a treat re-watching the three Barrymores together for their first and only on-screen performance. I wonder why Ethel didn't make more films with her brothers? In the scene where John & Lionel are walking together down the corridor and Lionel lets out a great belch which brings a look of bemusement from brother John with a slight grin... I wonder if that was an impromptu as it looked to me as if John "almost" broke character? I think THE RISE OF CATHERINE THE GREAT & THE SCARLET EMPRESS (both from 1934) by two great directors (Korda & von Sternberg) with two fine actresses (Elizabeth Bergner & Marlene Dietrich) in two very watchable performances, would make a great double-feature evening on TCM!!! TomJH said Collectors have never had it as good as they do now. So true.

Po tay toes - Pa taa toes... Stateside we spell it both ways, most often Vietnam

I guess "ISIS" ("ISIL") ain't got nothin' over them Boxers. But then there is nothing new when it comes to war attrocities, from any side, in any war. It's as old as mankind and History (including American history) is full of them. Your parents, grandparents, and great grandparents could probably cite examples from WW1, II, Korea, and everything in-between. In Vietnam there was the Phoenix Program which encouraged such attrocities and 'trophy hunting' as committed by the 101st's Tiger Force, and sadly, too many others. I remember the first time I saw someone wearing someone else's ears, and acting quite proud of it. And someone I served with once placed a cigarette in the mouth of a charred Iraqi corpse, and offered it a light. The idea of 'normalcy' can become quite strained during such times. All of this detracted from some sincere efforts made by a few to actually "win hearts and minds." Warning the following linked video is not for the sqeamish

One last heads up... in just a few more hours... Early Wednesday, April 15, 2015. (6:30 am Eastern time, 0530 am Central time, 0430 am Mountain time, 0330 am Pacific time), Be sure to set your recorders! 6:30 AM Rasputin And The Empress (1932) True story of the mad monk who plotted to rule Russia. Dir: Richard Boleslavsky Cast: John Barrymore, Ethel Barrymore, Lionel Barrymore. BW-121 mins, CC, My recorder is set, and I'm hoping that the cable gods will be kind...

Sorry Prince, I don't have this one. I like Richard Dix and it is on my want-to-see wish list. If it's ever on a again, and Cable cooperates, I'll make an effort to record it.

Every time it's been shown in the past it is the post lawsuit edited version. I think the only persons who saw (or will ever see) the original version were those that went to the theatres in 1932 before the film was pulled due to the lawsuit. Refer to my first post in this thread for details

From retrospective conversations with numerous veterans from WW2 to present, I can unequivocally state that "most" any soldier who has actually experienced combat hates war and only advocates the use of military force as an absolute last resort, after all points of alternative diplomacy have been fully exhausted and failed. Many want to go to war that have never experienced or seen it's horrors. I think that we and the world would be in a far better place today if the only persons allowed to make a decision to go to war were combat veterans, and the parents of children who would be called to fight it. The only persons that I know of that said they actually enjoyed war were those who equated that uncomparable adrenaline rush or "high" of combat as something that could only be duplicated when one's life was on the line, and consequently pursued high risk non-combat avenues to attempt to "recreate" that thrill, such as base jumping, etc. The circumstances of war can bring out all that is both heroic and dispicable in human beings. There are some deviants who find that in war they can be themselves, and there are those otherwise "decent" persons made temporarily deviant by the circumstance of war. Likewise, persons involved in war (combat), as in any lifethreatening circumstance, may heroically rise to the situation and, often without thinking, place themselves between death and their comrades. But I've found that not all war is righteous, noble or something to be "proud" of. When I was a naive kid entering High School, I still harbored the mistaken belief that war was a noble opportunity for personal glory that lasted on average about four years and was generally granted to every other American generation. I regreted that by the time I would graduate my "one-time" opportunity would be lost. By the time I was nearing graduation my attitude was beginning to change. John Wayne was still one of my heroes, and I still wanted to emulate his on-screen heroic acts, but along with recruiters, "Hawk" and "Dove" debates were also occuring on my campus, and I was at a point where I began to question the veracity of my government. Later... I began to unravel the truth. Years later, when an occassion arises where someone erroneously "Thanks" me for my service to "my country," or for "defending their freedom" I have to swallow hard. I appreciate the sentiment, but rather than say what is in my mind and heart I generally just nod my head and walk away. It is so sadly true that when a generation fails to learn from the mistakes of the past that a succeeding generation is destined to repeat those mistakes. Once again, I recommend "War Is A Racket," by Major General Smedley Butler, 1935 It is one very enlightening little book.

I am sure that you are aware that you are not the only veteran, retired veteran, or Vietnam veteran who posts on these boards. I appreciate that you took me to task with the lack of clarity in my post. For clarity sake I should have inserted () or " " around "jump school" so that those which did not know what airborne training entailed would understand that they were one and the same. Or I could have said just one or the other, rather than both. My bad if that was confusing in appearance. Likewise, better wording would have been "over half a million combat AND support troops, rather than "mostly" combat troops, though as you made clear, anyone in-country was subject to combat, regardless of their MOS. However I stand by my guns with what I said in my earlier post, and for super clarity hereby elaborately support why I said what I said in brief earlier. Perhaps I should title this post most everything you wanted to know about the Special Forces, but were afraid to ask Regarding The Origin of Special Forces The Army’s premier proponent of unconventional warfare, SF traces its historical roots from the elite Army formations of World War II and the Office of Strategic Services, or OSS. The OSS was formed in World War II to gather strategic intelligence and conduct operations behind enemy lines in support of resistance groups in Europe and the Far East. After the war, individuals such as Colonel Aaron Bank, a former OSS operative, and Colonel Wendell Fertig and Lieutenant Colonel Russell Volckmann, both of whom fought as guerrillas in the Philippines, used their wartime experience to formulate the doctrine of unconventional warfare that became the cornerstone of SF. Examples of Special Operations Units in World War II In the Army’s official lineage and honors, the SF groups are linked to the regiments of the First Special Service Force, an elite combined Canadian-American unit that fought in the Aleutians, Italy and southern France. The First Special Service Force, nicknamed the Devil’s Brigade, was a joint Canadian-American unit formed on July 9, 1942, at Fort William Henry Harrison, Montana. They were airborne-qualified and intensively trained in mountaineering, skiing and amphibious operations, this First Special Service Force saw action in the Aleutians; in Italy, where the soldiers scaled the heights of Monte Le Defensa to break the German winter line; at Anzio; and as the amphibious spearhead for the invasion of southern France. The force was inactivated in December 1944 near Menton, France. Menton Day is still observed by the SF groups in honor of this elite infantry formation. The Force adopted the crossed arrows of the U.S. Army’s Indian Scouts, which later became the branch insignia of Special Forces. The Army Rangers of World War II began with the activation of the 1st Ranger Battalion on June 19, 1942, in Carrickfergus, Ireland. The 1st Battalion was nicknamed Darby’s Rangers for their commander, Colonel William O. Darby. Six Ranger battalions were created during World War II. The 1st through 5th Ranger battalions fought in North Africa, Italy and other parts of Europe. Unaffiliated with these battalions was the 6th Ranger Battalion, which fought in the Southwest Pacific Theater. The 6th Ranger Battalion was created in December 1943 at the direction of General Douglas MacArthur, who saw the need for a Ranger force to replicate the Marine Raider battalions in the Pacific Theater. The Ranger battalions were disbanded at the end of World War II. Merrill’s Marauders was the title given to Brigadier General Frank D. Merrill’s, 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional), a 3,000-man long-range penetratio n force modeled on the British “Chindits.” The Marauders fought in five major battles and 17 skirmishes in the China-Burma-India Theater. The Marauders’ greatest feat was their march through miles of thick Burmese jungle en route to the capture of the vital airfield at Myitkyina. Decimated by disease and battle casualties, the Marauders were disbanded after the battle and replaced by the Mars Task Force, a similar infantry formation that fought in Burma and China until the end of the war. While with the Mars Task Force, First Sergeant Jack Knight earned the only Medal of Honor awarded to a special-operations Soldier during World War II. In the Southwest Pacific Theater, Lieutenant General Walter K r u e g e r, the innovative commander of the Sixth Army, established an elite reconnaissance unit called the Alamo Scouts. The Scouts ran more than 80 reconnaissance missions in New Guinea and the Philippines, providing accurate, timely intelligence for the Sixth Army. In perhaps their greatest feat, the Scouts led a company of the 6th Ranger Battalion and Filipino guerrillas in an attack on the Japanese prison camp at Cabanatuan, 30 miles behind the Japanese lines, freeing all 513 Allied prisoners. Never numbering more than 70 volunteers, the Alamo Scouts earned 44 Silver Star Medals, 33 Bronze Star Medals and four Soldier’s Medals by the end of the war. In more than 80 hazardous missions, they never lost a man in action. Command Sergeant Major Galen Kittleson, a Son Tay raider, began his career with the Alamo Scouts. Lieutenant General K r u e g e r also formed the 6th Ranger Battalion to provide his Army with the capability of conducting raids behind enemy lines. Lieutenant Colonel Henry Mucci, the battalion commander, led the raid on Cabanatuan. Captain Arthur “Bull” Simons, a key figure in the early days of Special Forces, served as a company commander with the 6th Ranger Battalion. Besides these organized special-operations efforts, a number of U.S. Army officers chose not to surrender at Bataan and conducted guerrilla operations behind Japanese lines in the Philippines. Major Russell Volckmann, who later played an important role in the birth of Special Forces, escaped from the enemy and with First Lieutenant Donald D. Blackburn, formed a Filipino guerrilla band in northern Luzon, which by 1945 consisted of five regiments. Colonel Wendell Fertig raised his own guerrilla force on Mindanao that ultimately totaled some 20,000 fighters. These men organized insurgency against the Japanese and waged a classic guerrilla campaign until the end of the war. The OSS Shadow Warriors The Office of Strategic Services was the product of Major General William O. Donovan, an energetic visionary whose propensity for freewheeling activity earned him the nickname “Wild Bill.” Donovan was a tough and smart veteran of World War I who received the Medal of Honor for heroism on the Western Front in October 1918, and who made a fortune as a Wall Street lawyer during the 1920s and ’30s. When World War II erupted in Europe and threatened to engulf the United States, Donovan convinced President Franklin D. Roosevelt that a new type of organization was needed, one that would collect intelligence and wage secret operations behind enemy lines. In 1941, President Roosevelt directed Donovan to form this agency, called the Coordinator of Information, or COI, and Donovan, who had been a civilian since World War I, was reinstated as a colonel. The COI blossomed quickly, establishing operational sites in England, North Africa, India, Burma and China. In 1942, the agency was renamed the OSS. Donovan became a major general in 1944. The primary combat operations of the OSS in Europe were those of the Jedburgh’s missions and the Operational Groups. The Jedburgh mission consisted of parachuting three-man multinational teams into France, Belgium and Holland, where they trained partisan resistance movements and conducted guerrilla operations against the Germans. The OGs were 34-man elements designed to operate in two sections and perform sabotage missions and raids behind enemy lines. Other OSS operations took place in Asia, most spectacularly in Burma, where OSS Detachment 101 organized 11,000 Kachin tribesmen into a force that eventually killed 10,000 Japanese with a minimal loss of its own. Other OSS detachments operated in China and Southeast Asia. Soldiers John K. Singlaub, Caesar Civitella and Herbert Brucker were among the many former OSS members who later served in Special Forces. After the war, President Harry S. Truman disbanded the OSS, but not before creating a legacy still felt today. Many veterans of OSS were part of the cadre of the early SF groups. OSS operative Colonel Aaron Bank and Colonel Russell Volckmann, the Philippine guerrilla leader, remained in the military after the war. They worked tirelessly to convince the Army to adopt its own unconventional, guerrilla-style force. They had an ally in Brigadier General Robert McClure, who headed the Army’s psychological-warfare staff in the Pentagon. McClure convinced the Army that there were areas in the world not susceptible to conventional warfare, such as Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe, that would make ideal targets for unconventional harassment and guerrilla fighting. Special operations, as envisioned by these men, was a force multiplier: a small number of soldiers who could sow a disproportionately large amount of trouble for the enemy. It was a bold idea, one that went against the grain of traditional concepts, but by 1952 the Army was finally ready to embark on a new era of unconventional warfare. The Early Years of Special Forces Special Forces grew out of the establishment of the Special Operations Division of the Psychological Warfare Center, activated at Fort Bragg, N.C., in May 1952. The Army allocated 2,300 personnel slots to be used to stand up the first SF unit when the Ranger companies fighting in the Korean War were disbanded. The 10th SF Group was established with Colonel Aaron Bank as the first commander. Concurrent with this was the establishment of the Psychological Warfare School, which ultimately became today’s John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School. Bank assembled a cadre of officers and NCOs to serve as the foundation of the new unit and act as a training staff for the fledgling organization. Bank didn’t want raw recruits. He wanted the best troops in the Army, and he got them: former OSS officers, airborne troops, ex-Rangers and combat veterans of World War II and Korea. After months of preparation, the 10th SF Group was activated on June 11, 1952, at Fort Bragg. On the day of its activation, the total strength of the group was 10 Soldiers – Bank, one warrant officer and eight enlisted men. Within months, the first volunteers reported to the 10th SF Group by the hundreds as they completed the initial phase of their SF training. As soon as the 10th Group became large enough, Bank began training his troops in the most advanced techniques of unconventional warfare. As defined by the Army, the main mission of the 10th SF Group was “to infiltrate by land, sea or air, deep into enemy-occupied territory and organize the resistance/guerrilla potential to conduct Special Forces operations, with emphasis on guerrilla warfare.” As Bank put it, “Our training included many more complex subjects and was geared to entirely different, more difficult, comprehensive missions and complex operations.” After less than a year and a half as a full SF group, Bank’s men proved to the Army’s satisfaction that they had mastered the skills of their new trade. On Nov. 11 1953, half of the 10th SF Group was deployed to Bad Tolz, West Germany. The other half remained at Fort Bragg, where it was redesignated as the 77th SF Group. The split of the 10th and the 77th was the first sign that SF had established itself as an integral part of the Army’s basic structure. For the rest of the 1950s, SF would grow slowly but consistently. By the end of 1952, the first SF troops to operate behind enemy lines had been deployed to Korea on missions that remained classified for nearly 30 years. Anti-communist guerrillas with homes in North Korea and historical ties to Seoul had joined the United Nations Partisan Forces-Korea. Known as “Donkeys” and “Wolfpacks,” the guerrilla units and their American cadre operated from tiny islands off the North Korean coast. The partisans conducted raids on the mainland and rescued downed airmen. Under the guidance of a select group from the 10th SF Group and other U.S. cadre, they eventually numbered 22,000 and claimed 69,000 enemy casualties. On April 1, 1956, the 14th Special Forces Operational Detachment with select members from 77th SF Group, 12th, 13th and 16th operational detachments, under the cover unit of the 8251st Army Service Unit, transferred to Fort Shaffer, Hawaii from Fort Bragg, N.C., in June 1956. Shortly afterward, the 12th, 13th and 16th SFOD (Regiment) were moved to Camp Drake, Japan under the cover unit identification of 8231st Army Unit. 1st Special Forces Group was officially activated on June 24, 1957, at Camp Drake, however, the activation ceremony was held on July 14, 1957, at Camp Buckner, Okinawa. On Oct. 30, 1960, all SF groups were reorganized under the combat arms regimental system. 1st SF Group was regimented 1st SF Group in recognition of its lineage with the First Special Service Force of World War II. By 1958, the basic operational unit of SF had evolved into a 12-man team known as the SF ODA. Each member of the team: two officers, two operations and intelligence sergeants, two weapons sergeants, two communications sergeants, two medics and two engineers, were trained in unconventional warfare, were cross-trained in each others’ specialties, and spoke at least one foreign language. This composition allowed each detachment to operate if necessary in two six-man teams, or split-A teams. By the time John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as president in January 1961, the three SF groups – the 10th, the 7th (redesignated from the 77th on June 6, 1960) and the 1st, were actively engaged in missions around the world. Under the patronage of President Kennedy, SF flourished. In 1961, President Kennedy visited Fort Bragg. He inspected the 82nd Airborne Division and other conventional troops of the XVIII Airborne Corps. As a student of military affairs, President Kennedy had developed an interest in counterinsurgency (the art and method of defeating guerrilla movements). As he gazed at the ranks of SF troops, he realized he had the ideal vehicle for carrying out such missions. With President Kennedy firmly behind them, new SF groups sprang up rapidly. On Sept. 21, 1961, the 5th Group was activated, followed in 1963 by the 8th Group on April 1, the 6th on May 1, and the 3rd on Dec. 5. In April 1966, the 46th SF Company was activated at Fort Bragg. Formerly Company D, 1st SF Group, 46th Company deployed to Thailand to train the Royal Thai Army until November 1967. President Kennedy’s interest in SF resulted in the adoption of the Green Beret as the official headgear of all SF troops. Until then, the beret had faced an uphill fight in its struggle to achieve official Army recognition. After his visit to Fort Bragg, the president told the Pentagon that he considered the Green Beret to be “symbolic of one of the highest levels of courage and achievement of the United States military.” Soon, the Green Beret became synonymous with SF. The Story Behind the Green Beret The Green Beret was originally designed in 1953 by SF Major Herbert Brucker, a veteran of the OSS. Later that year, First Lieutenant Roger Pezelle adopted it as the unofficial headgear for his A-team, Operational Detachment FA32. They wore it whenever they went to the field for prolonged exercises. Soon it spread throughout all of SF, although the Army refused to authorize its official use. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy planned to visit Fort Bragg. He sent word to the Special Warfare Center commander, Brigadier General William P. Yarborough, for all SF Soldiers to wear their berets for the event. President Kennedy felt that since they had a special mission, SF should have something to set them apart from the rest. Even before the presidential request, however, the Department of the Army had acquiesced and teletyped a message to the center authorizing the beret as a part of the SF uniform. When President Kennedy came to Fort Bragg Oct. 12, 1961, General Yarborough wore his Green Beret to greet the commander-in-chief. The president remarked, “Those are nice. How do you like the Green Beret?” General Yarborough replied, “They’re fine, Sir. We’ve wanted them a long time.” A message from President Kennedy to General Yarborough later that day stated, “My congratulations to you personally for your part in the presentation today … The challenge of this old but new form of operations is a real one, and I know that you and the members of your command will carry on for us and the free world in a manner which is both worthy and inspiring. I am sure that the Green Beret will be a mark of distinction in the trying times ahead.” In an April 1962 White House memorandum for the U.S. Army, President Kennedy showed his continued support for SF, calling the Green Beret “a symbol of excellence, a badge of courage, a mark of distinction in the fight for freedom.” Special Forces in Vietnam Nam Dong, Lang Vei, Dak To, A Shau, Plei Mei were just some of the places SF troops fought and died during their 15-year stay in South Vietnam. It was a stay that began in June 1957, when the original 16 members of the 14th SF Operational Detachment deployed to Vietnam to train a cadre of indigenous Vietnamese SF teams. The first and last American Soldiers to die in Vietnam due to enemy action were members of the 1st SF Group. On Oct. 21, 1957, Captain Harry G. Cramer Jr. was killed, and on Oct. 12, 1972, Sgt. Fred C. Mick was killed. Throughout the latter years of the 1950s and early 1960s, the number of Special Forces advisers in Vietnam steadily increased. Their responsibility was to train South Vietnamese soldiers in the art of counterinsurgency and to mold various native tribes into a credible anti-communist threat. Initially, elements from the different SF groups were involved in advising the South Vietnamese. In September 1964, the 5th SF Group was formed exclusively to conduct operations in Vietnam. The 5th Group set up its provisional headquarters in Nha Trang. Nearly six months later, in February, Nha Trang became the 5th’s permanent headquarters. From that point on, all SF Soldiers in Vietnam were assigned to the 5th until 1971, when the group returned to Fort Bragg. By the time the 5th left Southeast Asia, SF soldiers had earned 17 Medals of Honor, one Distinguished Service Medal, 90 Distinguished Service Crosses, 814 Silver Star Medals, 13,234 Bronze Star Medals, 235 Legions of Merit, 46 Distinguished Flying Crosses, 232 Soldier’s Medals, 4,891 Air Medals, 6,908 Army Commendation Medals and 2,658 Purple Hearts. It was a brilliant record, built on blood and sacrifice. Not to be overlooked, other SF training teams were operating in the 1960s in Bolivia, Venezuela, Guatemala, Colombia and the Dominican Republic. Counterinsurgency forces of the 8th SF Group conducted clandestine operations against guerrilla forces, carrying out some 450 missions between 1965 and 1968. In 1967, SF-trained Bolivian rangers were involved in tracking down and capturing the revolutionary leader, Che Guevara, in the wilds of south-central Bolivia. Southeast Asia, however, was the SF’s primary focus. Through their unstinting labors, SF troops eventually established 254 outposts throughout Vietnam, many of them defended by a single A-team and hundreds of friendly natives. But fighting in remote areas of Vietnam (publicity to the contrary) wasn’t the only mission of SF. It was also responsible for training thousands of Vietnam’s ethnic tribesmen in the techniques of guerrilla warfare. SF took the Montagnards, the Nungs, the Cao Dei and others and molded them into the 60,000-strong Civilian Irregular Defense Group, or CIDG. CIDG troops became the SF’s most valuable ally in battles fought in faraway corners of Vietnam, out of reach of conventional back-up forces. Other missions included civic-action projects, in which SF troops built schools, hospitals and government buildings, provided medical care to civilians and dredged canals. This was the other side of the SF mission, the part of the war designed to win the hearts and minds of the people. SF personnel were instrumental in the covert war against North Vietnam. The Military Assistance Command Vietnam-Studies and Observation Group, or MACV-SOG, conducted cross-border operations into Laos, Cambodia and North Vietnam to disrupt the enemy’s use of the Ho Chi Minh Trail. SF-led teams ran in-country long-range reconnaissance patrols under the Delta, Sigma and Omega projects. In one of the most daring missions of the war, 100 Special Forces Soldiers under Colonel “Bull” Simons launched a raid to rescue 70 American prisoners of war from the Son Tay Prison outside Hanoi. Staged out of Thailand, the assault was successful, but unbeknownst to the U.S., the prisoners had been relocated due to the flooding of a nearby river. The valiant attempt, known as Operation Ivory Coast, none-the-less raised the morale of the POWs and forced the North Vietnamese into improving the treatment of the captives. On March 5, 1971, the 5th Group returned to Fort Bragg, although some SF teams remained in Thailand, from where they launched secret missions into Vietnam. But by the end of 1972, the SF role in Vietnam was officially over. Hopefully I've made it clear as mud that SF units deployed in Vietnam and elsewhere during the 1960s-70s, to this day, have roots firmly planted in such unconventional warfare units of WW2 as the OSS, The Devil’s Brigade (First Special Service Force), and such Army Rangers units as Darby’s Rangers, Merrill’s Marauders, and other organized special-operations units mentioned here. (Incidently, Darby's Rangers (1958), Merrill’s Marauders (1962), and The Devil’s Brigade (1968), are all movies that TCM airs from time to time.) While it's true that todays Army Rangers trace their roots to those of WW2, both todays Rangers and Green Beret Special Forces are close branches on a limb of the same tree, and share common roots. The need and advantages of Special Forces was clearly demonstrated during WW2. When those earlier units were disbanded, like a phoenix rising from the ashes, the SF units of todays Rangers and Green Beret were reborne, built by officers and men from the former. And yes, many of their operations have been both covert and clandestine, it is in the nature of such Counterinsurgency missions that they be so. Since the focus of this post is to clarify, hopefully beyond repute, the statements of my previous post regarding the origins of the Special Forces and their role in Vietnam, I'll stop here, except to mention what I consider a point of possibly ironic interest. During WW2 the OSS (a precurser of the latter titled Special Forces) collaborated with Vietnamese nationalists in the war against Japan. After the fall of France, Indochina was controlled by the Vichy French, which were then allied with Axis Japan. It wasn't until near the end of the war that they flip-flopped in favor of the Americans and British, which were by then clearly winning the Pacific War. The far better disciplined and organized Japanese quickly put down French resistance in Indochina, but had much less success suppressing the indiginous insurgency against their authority. During the war officers from General William Donovan's Office of Strategic Services (OSS) worked closely with Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh, whose ultimate aim was to rid the region of all imperialist powers, not just the Japanese. Supplied with the simplest of stamp metal firearms and instructed in the art of improvised explosives Vietnamese nationalists were instrumental in wreaking disruptive havoc, as well as gathering critical intelligence and performing numerous feats of heroism in the rescue of downed allied airmen. Ho Chi Minh had written letters to FDR and was encouraged to believe that by helping the Americans to defeat the Japanese that his country would finally be granted it's independence after almost a century of colonial dominance by the French. Ho Chi Minh believed that America, having once been a colony, was sincere and he modeled his Declaration of Independence, for a Democratic Republic of Vietnam (delivered in Hanoi, September 2, 1945) after the 1776 American Declaration. Had FDR lived to see the end of the war, perhaps Ho Chi Minh's aspirations may have been early realized, as during the war FDR had voiced that he did not support returning Indochina to the French. Perhaps unfortunately, Truman was pressured by the British to "not rock the boat" by setting a precedent with the French that would pressure England to grant independance to her numurous colonies before they were ready to do so. At the end of the war Vietnamese nationalists were slapped in the face for their loyalty and service to America and forced to continue their fight for self determination and independence from the French, this time with aid from their historical enemy, China, and the Soviet Union. Once the Cold War began and the U.S. became embroiled in Korea, the line was drawn, and for better or worse, the U.S. found itself supporting, and eventually replacing the French in Vietnam. For further reading on this subject check out: "The OSS and Ho Chi Minh: Unexpected Allies in the War against Japan (Modern War Studies)" by Dixee Bartholomew-Feis Also a short but very enlightening little book "War Is A Racket," by Major General Smedley Butler, 1935 Gen. Butler is an extremely credible writer. Smedley Butler was a United States Marine Corps major general, the highest rank authorized at that time, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. During a long and very active military career spanning 1898-1931, he saw action in The Spanish-American War, The Philippine–American War, The Boxer Rebellion, numerous Banana Wars, World War I, and China. Gen Butler received 16 medals, five for heroism. He is one of 19 men to receive the Medal of Honor twice, one of three to be awarded both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and the Medal of Honor, and the only Marine to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions.

Emily Dean wrote: Memorial Day is to celebrate all soldiers of all conflicts ... So true. Memorial Day is a U.S. federal holiday (etymology: holy day) for remembering the people who died while serving in the country's armed forces. It originated after the American Civil (as Decoration Day) to commemorate both Union and Confederate war dead. As such any suitable movie addressing any American conflict from the Civil War to present would "qualify" for inclusion in a film tribute. (though I personally would watch a film about the Revolution or before, and 1812 or after, though the former is generally relegated for the Fourth of July). In difference to Veterans Day, which originally celebrated the end of WW1 (as Armistice Day) and with successive wars evolved into Veterans Day in 1954, which is now designed to recognize the service of all U.S. military veterans. The trouble is there have been so many U.S. involved military conflicts since it's inception, many quite unpopular, and to this day some still quite controversial, that there is no way that TCM or any station could represent them all in one day, even "if" they had film access.

Thought I'd give this thread a bump, for anybody who might be interested It's still on the TCM schedule In 7 Days A must see for film history buffs and ALL fans of the original Barrymore clan. The one and only feature film with ALL three Barrymore's together! Be sure to set your recorders. Scheduled for early Wednesday on April 15, 2015. (6:30 am Eastern time, 0530 am Central time, 0430 am Mountain time, 0330 am Pacific time), 6:30 AM Rasputin And The Empress (1932) True story of the mad monk who plotted to rule Russia. Dir: Richard Boleslavsky Cast: John Barrymore, Ethel Barrymore, Lionel Barrymore. BW-121 mins, CC,

Ah yes, The Killer Shrews (1959), one of Jimmy's best, co-starring the venerable Ken Curtis. I place it right up there with former child prodigy Marjoe Gortner's The Food of the Gods (1976), with a sterling cast that included Pamela Franklin, Ralph Meeker and Ida Lupino. They just don't make 'em like that anymore. ...or do they?

The Mighty Anthony Quinn "The Mighty Quinn (Quinn The Eskimo)" "...When Quinn the Eskimo gets here everybody's gonna jump for joy..." "But when Quinn the Eskimo gets here the pigeons gonna run to him..." "...When Quinn the Eskimo gets here everybody's gonna want to doze Oh come all without, come all within You'll not see nothing like the mighty Quinn Come all without, come all within You'll not see nothing like the mighty Quinn." Lyrics from the 1968 song written by Bob Dylan, believed to have been inspired by Dylan being impressed by the title character from actor Anthony Quinn's role as an Eskimo in the movie THE SAVAGE INNOCENTS (1960). When I first saw the title of this thread I thought that it was referring to the miniscule one minute short TCM produced for it's April Star Of The Month. Sadly, Not the first time such a neglectful tribute has happened. And for a two time Oscar winner with over 150 feature films to his credit, and a career spanning 65 years (from 1936 to his death in 2001), a mere 20 seems a pittance of a tribute... but again, not the first time. At the beginning of his film career, when he married actress Katherine DeMille (adopted daughter of the Great Cecil), Anthony Quinn had leading man good looks. But the role of leading man eluded him, and he more often than not played heavys opposite leading men. Eventually he migrated more and more into playing the variety of ethnic parts that his dark, Latin ethnicity afforded him. From Indians, Eskimo's, Arabs, Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, and even a Mexican or two, he played them all convincingly and with apparent ease. He became a classic and great character actor, and like the great Muni, many found it difficult to distinguish Quinn, the sometimes almost unrecognizable actor, from the roles that he played so well. This was perhaps his pitfall, that and that few people except those very close to him understood just how much he invested of himself into those roles, and how deeply and physically some of them affected him. His last wife and widow, Katherine (Benvin) Quinn, shared how her husband would sometimes develope some type of stigmata like blemish while "finding himself" in a particular character for which he could become obsessed with great passion. Painter, sculpter, writer, multilinguist, and full of worldly knowlege, Anthony Quinn was much the renaissance man, a polymath as such and the equal of an early Brando. And, as evidenced by his 3 wives, partner, and twelve children, Quinn was quite the lover, and prolific in more ways than one. And as Bob Dylan so succinctly put in song, "You'll not see nothing like the mighty Quinn."

THE GREEN BERETS (1968) was a product of its time. Robert Lowell "Robin" Moore, Jr., who wrote the book, was a credible and prolific author and did his homework. (He even co-wrote the lyrics for SSgt. Barry Sadler's 1966 hit song "Ballad of the Green Berets"). Moore was a Harvard classmate of Robert F. Kennedy, and wanted to write a book about the Special Forces (a clandestine unconventional warfare branch of the US Army, that evolved from such WW2 experiments as The Devil's Brigade commandos, Darby's Rangers and the OSS, and became it's own acting entity in 1952). To gain hands-on background, Spec Forces founder Lt Gen William Yarborough insisted that Moore train with Special Forces. Though a civilian, Moore trained extensively with Special Forces units at Fort Benning and Bragg. Moore was in great shape and incredibly dogmatic, he completed airborne training, jump school, and the SF Q course, and then accompanied the unit he trained with for a tour in Nam in 1963. 1963.... This is the background of the book (first published in 1965)... The Kennedy administration, U.S. Special Forces ostensibly deployed as non-combat training "advisers" in South East Asia, & the controversial Ngo Dinh Diem not yet assassinated by a U.S. administration condoned, and CIA-backed, coup d'état. But by the time the movie was made, and released five years later (June 1968), the United States had over half a million mostly combat troops in Vietnam and the homefront was becoming heavily divided regarding civilian support of the "war." The Tet Offensive, occurred late January 1968. U.S. casualties were numbering in the hundreds per week, with thousands of Vietnamese casualties from both sides in the same time frame. In 1968, Lyndon Johnson refused to run again for President because of the war, political disobediance advocate Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy (who was beginning to openly speak out against the war) were both assassinated within two months of each other, and much more devisiveness was yet to come. In THE GREEN BERETS (the movie) the sun sets in the east. It holds the distinction of being the only major U.S. studio (Columbia) feature film about the Vietnam War, produced during the conflict. The film was heavily supported by the U.S. Army which provided much of the equipment, and was primarily shot the summer of 1967 at Fort Benning, Georgia. Of those primarily involved in the film's production, co-director Edgar Ray Kellogg was a Navy Lt with the OSS Photographic Branch during WW2 (where he became acquainted with director John Ford). Bruce Cabot was an Army Air Force 1Lt during WW2, saw active duty in Tunis during 1943. He was allegedly involved with a high level Air Transport Command smuggling ring shipping Nazi gold to Brazil, apprehended in Cairo Nov. 1943, transfered to a remote outpost in Mauritania, and separated from service July 1944. Aldo Ray was a Navy frogman and saw actual action at Okinawa during WW2. In the 1930's, Jason Evers quit high school to join the U.S. Army. Japanese Americans Jack Soo and George Takei were interned in US "relocation" camps during WW2. Irene Tsu was a Chinese Cold War expatriot. Screenwriter George Goodman served as a military intelligence officer with the Special Forces in the 1950s. Columbia sent Goodman to South Vietnam for additional "updated" research for the script. Robin Moore felt the final script and film betrayed the original book agreement which he had with Columbia producer David L. Wolper. Screenwriter James Lee Barrett was a Marine recruit in 1950. David Janssen served two years as an enlistee in the United States Army in 1956. Jim Hutton spent his peacetime enlistment making army training films. Following University graduation, Patrick Wayne served in the U.S. Coast Guard in 1961. Luke Askew served in U.S. Air Force intelligence during his college years. John Wayne co-directed and starred in THE GREEN BERETS In as much as I enjoy most of John Wayne's films, in my opinion, he was a "chicken-hawk" obtaining a 3-A (age and family deferment) during WW2, despite being reclassified 1-A, his military service managed to be postponed, indefinitely. The films reception was mixed. Generally those who supported the war at the time, supported the film. Those who were against the war, deadpanned the film. For whatever reason/s the film pulled in three times its cost at the box office, so one could still consider it a minor commercial success. There have been several far better, more complex, objectively more accurate, films about the Vietnam War produced since that time. A few have already been mentioned in this thread. Why TCM hasn't been able to procure them for us to view is anybody's guess???

Sepiatone said: "Always like to be reminded of how cute Silvia Sidney was, how good an actor Joel McCrea was even back then, and how promising the Dead end Kids were, and saddened at how they ended up( as the Bowery Boys and doing all those God-awful movies)." My shared sentiments on all points, exactly!

Looks okay at my end.... When squirrelly things occur that I can't quickly remedy on my PC, often a quick shut-down and reboot will remedy the situation. Not sure, but may be likewise with your cell phone?

I was watching THE PRIVATE LIVES OF HENRY VIII (1933), which featured the Great Charles Laughton and his lifelong wife and love, Elsa Lanchester, and was reminded of a poem I read that he had written. Laughton and Lanchester were married in 1929, and remained together 33 years, until his death in 1962. I remember walking along the strand late one evening in Southern California, around 1969-1970. There were a few psychedelic head shops that I passed along the way. They sold the expected paraphenalia, as well as posters, incense, and various knick-knacks, along with books of poetry. Though this particular store was closed at that late hour, the front window was lit, displaying some of their wares. Among which were several frameable onion skin sheets with inspirational and thought provoking poems that could be read, such as 'The Road Not Taken' by Robert Frost, 'A Different Drummer' by Henry David Thoreau, 'No Man is an Island' by John Donne, and poems by Kahlil Gibran, D.H. Lawrence, Walt Whitman, John Keats, Yeats, Shelly, Robert Browning, Lord Byron, Emily Dickinson, and a particularly lovely poem by none other than Charles Laughton, dedicated to his wife, Elsa. I cannot remember the exact poem, but it addressed in so many descriptive adjectives that a woman becomes all beautiful women to the man who's in love with her.... It was quite eloquently written and impressed me to such an extent that I returned the following day, during business hours, and purchased several of these sheets of poetry, including that one by Charles Laughton. I have long since lost all of my books, and collected works of poetry from those days, but that poem remained hidden, sleeping within the recesses of my mind, waiting to be reawakened. I cannot remember the title or exact words, and have googled and googled, but cannot bring anything up that is specific to poetry written by Charles Laughton. I wished to include it here, in this thread, for those of like mind and interest to appreciate, but alas, I now find myself requesting assistance from TCM board members in trying to locate this beautiful poem. Anyone whose in love, or ever been in love, will likely appreciate and relate to it. And, perhaps as I, be equally impressed by the actor, the man, the husband and lover who formed such words for his lady love. Does anyone know of this poem, or can anyone assist me in the quest to find it?

Topbilled said: "...I understand he's probably playing a guy who is supposed to be in his late twenties. But regardless, Main just doesn't look old enough to be his mother...." If I remember this film correctly, there was a scene in it where Bogie's character said "They call it plastic." explaining he's had plastic surgery, which may have been a way to explain his aged look, not mentioning I imagine that his character has lead a pretty rough life. There was another later film (DARK PASSAGE 1947, with Lauren Bacall) in which Bogie's character also had plastic surgery, to make him look older and unrecognizable.

Like many have already commented here, I likewise sit till the credits and music have ended and the isle lights brighten before standing up to depart. If it's a good movie, that's "moved" me, I want to hear the complete score, and catch some of those little informative details that may only be found in those end credits. When my daughter used to sit on my lap in the theater she learned from me that this was part of the complete movie experience. When I infrequently go to the theatre with someone these days, I warn them beforehand that I stay till the end. I abhor the practice described here on comercial television, which is one of the reasons why I seldom watch it. I'd say that over 99 percent of my television viewing is on two channels, PBS and TCM (which receives the overwhelming lion's share of my sit-down time at home). I cannot comment on the theatrical run time of THE ARTIST, which others have said had sped up credits, as last night was the first time that I saw it. (see RayFiola's thread: http://forums.tcm.com/index.php?/topic/52370-the-artist-on-tcm/ ) However I do have commercial DVDs of the other TCM premiers and I can say that the DVD run time of THE KING'S SPEECH was 119 min, whereas TCMs broadcast was 115 min. That's about a 4 min difference in sped up credits. The DVD run time of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN was 122 min, the same as the TCM broadcast. And the DVD run time for THE QUEEN was 103 min, also the same as the TCM broadcast. Although TA was French, and both TKS & TQ were British, I believe that all four films were afiliated with Miramax Films. Miramax is an American entertainment company known for distributing independent and foreign films. It was founded in 1979 by the Weinstein brothers with current headquarters located in Santa Monica, California. Disney controlled Miramax from 1993-2010, and the Weinstein's continued to run it until 2005. Some of the other films shown this week (SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, CHICAGO,) were also from Miramax. Throughout Miramax's history there have been many affiliations, including Paramount, Lions Gate, Dimension, Buena Vista, Marvel, Touchstone, StudioCanal, Alliance, Disney, & Warner (to name a few). And the Weinstein's have been criticized for "reediting" some of "their" foreign films before distribution. It appears that TCM cut a deal with Miramax to gain access to a few of these titles from their library for us to see. Apparently the first two films shown primetime last night had their end credits "edited" for commercial television speed, though the last two films apparantly were not. It is doubtful to me that TCM had anything to do with this themselves, though whether or not the TCM film acquistion dept and programers were aware of these "edits" before broadcast is anyone's guess. We've had this discussion before, in other threads, and the end conclusions have always been that TCM doesn't do this themselves, and their "goal" is to present the most complete "unedited" version of whatever they show us. I believe that for the most part they are successful in achieving this goal. However, because TCM does not control every film that they broadcast they are sometimes at the mercy of the distributors as to the condition of what they show. There have been budget cut backs, and though the cuts to TCM staff have apparently been the least of those experienced by the Turner Broadcasting system (controlled by Time Warner), none-the-less, some staff has been lost, so perhaps oversight has been affected more than previously. Regardless, every now and then the dedicated and astute TCM viewers become aware that the films they are seeing on TCM are sometimes "not quite all there." Some of us become quite alarmed, fearing that this may become a trend, and that TCM is going the way of her sister networks. While the majority of us take these relatively infrequent occurances in stride, and adapt a "wait and see" attitude. No policy is written in stone and nothing lasts forever. No one can be certain of what the future might one day bring, but I feel quite confident that if a time comes that these occurrances become the "rule" rather than the "exception" that there will be a general cry of alarm from most everyone on these boards. In the meantime, I will be appreciating what I have, for as long as I have it, and be grateful that TCM is able to do the job that it does, as well as it does, with the staff that it has. Fortunetly, when these "mishaps" do occur, no lives are lost and no one is maimed. As Hitchcock used to say in perspective... "It's only a mooovee."

Earlier this month I again watched LIBELED LADY, a 1936 screwball comedy directed by Jack Conway, with Jean Harlow, Myrna Loy, Spencer Tracy, William Powell, & Walter Connolly, as the lead actors. The story was by Wallace Sullivan, with screenplay by Maurine Watkins, Howard Emmett Rogers, & George Oppenheimer. Now this is a thoroughly entertaining film, that I always enjoy, no matter how many times I've seen it. But there is one particular scene in it that strikes me with deja vu. William Powell is trying to ingratiate himself with Myrna Loy and her father, played by Walter Connolly, who is an avid fisherman. Powell plays a man who has absolutely no experience with a rod, and is reading up on the "sport" and practicing, so that he can be convincing as the "expert" fisherman that he has pumped himself up to be. Powell, Loy & Connolly are out on the river, and Powell distances himself from Myrna and her dad, so that he can review the fisherman's guidebook that he has stashed in his fishing basket. While doing so, seated on a rock, with his line dangling in the water behind him, he inadvertantly tantalizes a big one to take his lure. The fish, a monstrous trout with a name, runs with such force as to drag Powell backwards into the water. Powell never let's go of his pole and the two do battle, splashing and alerting Myrna and Walter, who are thoroughly convinced that William is the fisherman that he claims to be..... Fast forward 28 years... to 1964. MAN'S FAVORITE SPORT? A romcom directed by Howard Hawks, with Rock Hudson, Paula Prentiss, Maria Perschy, John McGiver, & Roscoe Karns, in the lead roles. Based on the story "The Girl Who Almost Got Away" by Pat Frank, with a screenplay by John Fenton Murray, & Steve McNeil Aside from Hudson pretending to be the expert outdoorsman and fisherman, which everyone assumes that he is, and which he is anything but... The plot lines of these two films differ enough, to be original. To quote a past copy of the TCM schedule: Rock plays Roger Willoughby, a fishing gear salesman for Abercrombie & Fitch who's ordered by his boss to participate in a fishing competition. There's only one problem: Roger's never worked a rod and reel in his life! So what does Rock do? He reads his own book full of ideas he's snatched up from talking with the expert fishermen who have come into his store, and begins a crash course on 'how to fish.' Then follows a scene, this time on a lake, where Rock does the exact same thing as Powell did above (in LIBELED LADY) and snags a record trout for the fishing tournament. Anyone familiar with Howard Hawk's other screwball comedies (i.e. BRINGING UP BABY, 1938) will recognize his formula for laughs here! But borrowing past proven formula's from yourself doesn't count as "stealing" in this thread. So I will not address those similarities of Hawk, borrowing from Hawk. However...... Nowhere in the credits is given for the idea of the above scene taken (as far as I can reckon) directly from LIBELED LADY. Not counting REMAKES Was wondering if anyone out there in TCM land is aware of any other films that displayed one or more uncredited acts of obvious larcenous plagiarism from another film??? Or at least unexplained similarities in specific scenes???? If so, please at least minimally share the films titles, and describe the scene or scenes with enough detail so that those of us who have seen (or will see) these films, will be able to remember or recognize those scenes. Your participation is appreciated!

I first saw THE RED BALLOON (1956), when I was a kid at school. It was one of those dreary, grey and rainy days. Someone set-up a projector in the cafeteria and instead of going to the playground after lunch, we all gathered in the cafeteria and watched this fascinating little film about a boy and his "pet" balloon. Endowing this inanimate object with the personality of a dog was somehow unquestionably believable to me as a child. The kids in the film were the same kids from anywhere. We all acted the same, and could become most insensibly cruel when in a gang. Somehow, Pascal, the boy befriended by the "red" balloon, was like most lonely children. And his relationship with the balloon made him special. With the death of his "friend" and the gathering of all those balloons that came and carried him away... to who knows where... (RO said there was a sequel, which I haven't seen) we are left with fanciful wonder that such a thing could happen. But the memory of that little film stuck with me, until not that many years ago, I ordered the DVD from Amazon, just so I could revisit my childhood and see it a second time. Sometime after that, in 2011, TCM showed it, and I watched it for a third or fourth time. And on Saturday, Feb 14, 2015, TCM showed it again, and I watched one more time. It is still a very special, timeless little fantasy, worthy of a rewatch, especially with a child, or grandchild, on your lap. As to the "moral" of the tale... Not sure I will ever know. But, for a long time after I first saw it, I was never cruel to any balloons that came my way...

Please refer to my last post (2/18/2015) where I discuss my review of the differences between the two film versions. http://forums.tcm.com/index.php?/topic/52022-all-quiet-really-is-quiet/?p=1065152 slaytonf reported: ...examination shows that while both movies show recruits marching, followed by a band, the scenes are different. The silent version has tubas at the front of the band, while they are absent from the sound version. There is also in the sound All Quiet a man in a light coat, arm raised, next to the left window about center. In the silent, he is closer to the center of the picture. The differences in the two movies is not due to parallax. These are two separate shots. ...although the camera angle is identical, the recruits are obscured by the rain in the sound version, and the interior wall is lit differently in the two movies. This is not just a difference in the exposure of the same negative. What looks like a lamp in front of a mirror has a highlight on it, with a dark wall in the silent picture, while the sound has a light wall and no highlight. The soldiers in the silent version are also formed in neater ranks. You can see differences in how the actors are posed, and even their clothing. The two scenes are different also in content. In the sound movie, Kat (Louis Wolheim) uses a photo as a prop for some dialog. This is missing from the silent movie. These are not only two separate shots of the same scene, but two differently written scenes. I haven't looked carefully at all of the two movies, but it seems safe to conclude that a lot, if not most of the sound and silent pictures were shot separately. This extends to shots that would seem, just from economy's sake, could have been used in both, There are some times when the same action appears in both movies, but it is the same shot that is used, not two shots of the same action. So what are your conclusions, based on the above? Do you believe that these are two seperate films, with seperate staged shots, ruling out the use of two camera's used simultaneously scene for scene??? My deductions (based on my own, similar analysis), is that had I not read the report of two seperate "side-by-side" cameras used in each scene (one for the international sound "silent" hybrid version & one for the English speaking "talking" version) I likely would not have suspected it. I have noticed many of the same things which you have discussed, as well as some very obvious differences (see link to my post in the other thread discussing the films) In addition, to the differences and similarities of what we can see, there is another powerful contributing variable.... We are looking at a reconstruction by the LoC from existing severely edited film stock from the two versions that were originally presented in 1930. From an original run time that may have been close to 180 minutes in two seperate, differently edited film versions. Down to 100 minutes, and "restored" by the LoC to the current 133-134 min versions which we are now examining. That is a lot of missing film footage, that has been cut, censored, edited and reedited since the original release. Even the "experts" at the LoC are not sure how close they are in their restorations to the originals with possibly 47 min of "missing" footage presumed lost. Director Lewis Milestone wasn't alive to comment (one way or another) on the of the 1998 LoC restoration. I contend that there is a possibility that both film versions originally may have been very close, scene for scene, but have been "redirected" over the decades (due to all this editing) and with what we have today, there is no way to be absolutely certain just how close or different the originals actually were to each other, in the director's original cut of the films.

My sincere thanks and appreciation to the Board Member who was kind enough to send me a copy of the silent version of ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT (1930). I received it yesterday, and began watching it last night. This was a recording of the September 28, 2011, TCM Premier broadcast of the 1998 Library of Congress "restored" SILENT version, with TCM guest host Leonard Maltin (filling in for Robert Osborne, when he was on his extended leave during 2011) and co-hosted by Patrick Loughney (the director and chief of the Library of Congress Packard Campus of the National Audio-Visual Conservation, film restoration unit). During the brief intro and end commentary they discussed the restoration of this early "silent" hybrid with synchronized sound version that was filmed simultaneously with the early "talking" sound version. I have been comparing the two versions (this "silent" version with a recording of the 1998 LoC restored "talking" version) and, based on what I am aware, they are different. I've noticed different camera angles, and scene editing, as well as some scenes that are missing from the silent version that are present in the talking version, and vice versa. For instance, In the scene where Paul is in the foxhole with the French soldier. Editing is different, with some silent footage that is NOT present in the talking version. And the scene where Paul wakes up after spending a day and most of the night with the dead Frenchman, and goes crawling out of the foxhole, and later talks with Kat about his experience, is entirely missing from the silent version. And there are additional, similar examples of such differences, some slight, throughout both films. As these films are presented, they are two very similar but different films. The differences can possibly be explained by the fact that there have been so many cut down & censored edited versions of this film from an original run time that may have approached 3 hours in the 1930 Road Show version, down to a 100 min run time, and finally the current 133-134 min (1998) Library of Congress restoration (from whatever existing film was available to them at that time). The restoration was made from different existing previously "edited" prints of both the silent and the talking versions. NOT just a reconstruction from a single talking version, which was then converted to a "silent" hybrid version. Perhaps the original 1930 films' were identical both in length (run time), and scene for scene shots, with the same, or very similar original editing (albeit slightly different film angles, due to seperate cameras). But with what we presently have available, we can never know for sure. This movie has long been one of my all-time favorites, and I really appreciate getting a chance to review this silent version. I can't even imagine what that original, epic 1930 screening must have been like to experience. Director Lewis Milestone was not alive in 1998, to comment on the "restoration" of his work. But with so much of the original footage "missing" and presumed forever lost, I cannot believe that we are getting anywhere near the impact of what the director had originally intended for his audiences to see. For such powerful film/s (silent & talking versions), as we do have, I can only dream how much more potent the original uncensored director's edit must have been.

Error deleted

Yep, this February is pretty drab... so many already seen, and too few TCM premiers to watch... I think, with the exception of : THE FOUR MUSKETEERS (1975), THE HUSTLER (1961), BARRY LYNDON (1975), THE GREAT SANTINI (1979), 10 (1979), THE VERDICT (1982), THE EMMIGRANTS (1971), RUNNING ON EMPTY (1988), A CRY IN THE DARK (1988), A FEW GOOD MEN (1992), THE FISHER KING (1991), And, in In early March (1, 2, & 3) we have: LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL (1998), CHICAGO (2002), SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE (1998), THE CIDER HOUSE RULES (1999), THE SWARM (1978), THE LORD OF THE RINGS (2001-2003) Trilogy, THE ARTIST (2011), THE KING'S SPEECH (2010), NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (2007), and THE QUEEN (2006), that, I've probably seen everything else on TCM at least once or more before. THE RED BALLOON (1956), though shown in Feb. 2011, is still a rare nostalgic treat (for me anyway), and THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING (1975), last seen March 2012, and NIGHT MUST FALL (1937), last shown Oct. 2009, are infrequent enough seen to be worthy of a re-watch. Sadly DELIVERANCE (1972) has been replaced, but viewers who missed THE SAND PEBBLES (1966), last month, will have another opportunity to see it, this time perhaps one of the longer versions??? Hopefully all of the others I've listed will still be shown? As for the rest on the schedule, I've noticed some of the more often seen TCM showings are being broadcast this month from what appears to be fresh digital transfers that are very crisp and clear, and are a pleasure to see again. Though it's true for anyone who has watched TCM with any sort of regularity for three or four years, that they will notice TCM repeating many of their line-up. And, some of the loyal regular viewers (at least some of those who post on these boards) may even grow so bored as to decry TCM for their frequent showing of such films. Those that have watched TCM regularly for the last decade, or longer, will also know that there are some films that TCM has only shown once, and may wish that TCM did show those a bit more often. I think that it can be easy for those of us who do watch TCM regularly, to forget the wonderfulness that TCM is. I remember when I first saw TCM, long ago now, how much younger both Robert Osborne, and myself were at that time. And what a treat it was for me to see some of those old films that I hadn't seen since my childhood. Gradually, I found myself turning to TCM more and more, and other channels less and less, for my television pleasure. There were films broadcast byTCM that hadn't been on my repertoire, before I began watching TCM. I like'n it to when I was a child, and my mother would put something new on my plate to try. If it didn't look familiar to me I didn't trust it. But she encouraged me to at least take a bite, and afterward, if I didn't like it, I wouldn't have to eat anymore. Surprizingly, more oft than not, it tasted good, and I eventually grew to like it, if not all the time, at least every now and then. So too, TCM introduced me to the joy of silents, foreign films, rare oddities of film history and many old staples from the 1930s, 40s, and 50's that I likely would never have watched anywhere else. Not only that, but I began to take an ever greater interest in film history and trivia, encouraged by Robert and a young hipster Ben, as well as a bevy of co-hosts who would share with me about such things. TCM gradually became My Channel. I claimed her. And though she belonged to me, I'd sometimes turn other people on to her. I'd even have some people, who amazingly didn't know that she existed before my introduction, come up to me later and actually thank me, sharing that they were now regular TCM watchers too! Because TCM is my channel, I sometimes get irritated with her when she serves me too much of the same old fare, and not enough of those special treats that I've a craving for. That's when I have to remind myself that she is not exclusively mine. I have to share her with millions of others, some who love her as much as I do. And many that are just getting to know and love her. For them, she is a new experience, as she once was for me. I have to tell myself that many of these often shown movies are a brand new treat for many someones in the TCM audience. When I do reflect on that fact, I gain an even greater appreciation that this one, unique channel, is able to please so many people at the same time, that I scold myself for being so selfish in my attitude toward her and find myself becoming more patient with her, whenever something that I've already seen, perhaps many times before, is shown again. Also, too many times, when TCM has shown something that I really wanted to see and record, and I was afraid I had missed an opportunity to do so because of poor timing or cable interuptions, etc. and TCM did play it again.... Oh how glad I was! Well, there are many others who feel the same way. Maybe several times a day. Every day...