Stephan55

jamesjazzguitar said: sadly many people, lacking limited knowledge of a historical event OTHER THAN what they see in a movie, believe the 'facts' as related in the movie. i.e. they view the movies as more than just entertainment. .... Of course, you are correct in your observation. Too often that is a sad truth. I think that discernment and "objectivity" (a rational clarity in perception), is an individual "growth" process that ocurrs in degrees as we mature. Though not all of us grow at the same rate, nor mature at the same time, and sadly, too few of us find ourselves relating to others at the same stage of comprehension. In addition, with movies, we are dealing with an unnatural medium that allows us to "witness" actions on film. To properly enjoy them we must be able to temper what we see (and hear) with the realization that what we are seeing, and hearing, is a staged theatrical depiction. I remember as a young child that I sometimes had to be assured by a trusted adult that what I was seeing on the screen, was not real. "It's only a movie." was what I was most often told. Then there came a rude awakening when I was forced to learn that "adults" were not always wiser and veracious, just because they were older. They often contradicted each other, and even blatantly lied. I found myself frequently wondering, "Whom can one believe....???" For a period of time I questioned practically everything. I was around 12 years old, and discovered that I was an agnostic. Yet, when visiting my grandparents one summer, I found myself perusing their Bible and in the Christian New Testament, my eyes lit upon the words of Pontius Pilate when he asked: "Truth. What is truth?" I finally began to grasp the intangible concept that, concerning humans, there may not be a single, absolute truth. I gradually learned to discern the difference between fiction and non-fiction. Between science fiction, fantasy and scientific theory. I learned that "historical truth," is a matter of perspective far more complex than just two sides of a single coin. There are numerous denominations and currencies, with many different and changing rates of exchange to factor in. Perception is like a many faceted diamond, with light reflecting differently to the eye of each beholder, varying upon the time of day, cloud cover, intensity, and from which angle they are observing it. This is why eye witnesses to the same event often report seeing things differently. It not only depends on what they saw, but where they saw it from, and what socio-cultural background and level of understanding tinted their view. Some time, awhile ago, I began factoring these variables in to what I see, what I hear, and what I read. (Sadly for me, too often through retrospection.) I found value in seeking out first editions, whenever possible. Finding that first hand eye witness testimonies, although biased, were closer to the event (and often the historical truth) than second, and third hand (ad infinitum) "witnesses," who wrote about what occurred generations prior, and then rehashed their stories to fit the politically correct views and biases of their day. Every author, writer, director, producer, reporter, and pundit scholar, has an agenda (some sort of personal biase), that renders them incapable of "pure" objectivity. Even "hard" natural fact and scientific evidence ends up being translated and interpreted by "experts" who may not always agree with each other... This makes knowing as much as one can about the source of "information" a priority before considering the validity of the information itself. But when viewing a movie, for the pure joy of its entertainment value, one is allowed, for a period of time, to temporarily suspend the need for "truth." With this in mind, I have learned to be less "irritated" when I encounter dramatic license in a filmed representaion of an ahistorical event. I can only wish the same sensibility to others. Lacking that, I can only attempt to calm them by saying.... "It's only a movie...."

Thanks for the family pic, Fred, and also LornaHansonForbes, I corrected the show times in my original post. 0430 was for Mountain time, NOT Eastern time as I had posted. Still early, but not quite as early for those on the East coast as the rest of us. Still, I imagine most who want to see it would be better off recording it, as it may be another 5 years before another TCM showing??? 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), 15 Wednesday 6:00 AM MGM Parade Show #4 (1955) George Murphy tours Lake Metro, where "Mutiny on the Bounty" and "Show Boat" were shot, and introduces a clip from "Good News." These clips feature June Allyson and Peter Lawford. BW-26 mins, 6:30 AM Rasputin And The Empress (1932) True story of the mad monk who plotted to rule Russia. Dir: Richard BoleslavskyCast: John Barrymore, Ethel Barrymore, Lionel Barrymore. BW-121 mins, CC, http://www.tcm.com/s...date=2015-04-01

Big_Bopper said: This movie is absolute garbage. It has nothing to do with Russia and is one of those movies made to fill out a schedule of 52 movies a year. Hollywood is incapable of portraying Russia in anything resembling real terms. .... So don't watch it then Nobody said this was a historical film, per se. Quite the contrary, there was a lawsuit based on inaccuracy. The film was pulled from circulation for decades to prevent further lawsuits. However, as pointed out, the film is noteworthy, for film buffs, not only for that very reason, but also because it is the only film in which three noted acting siblings appeared together. I long ago learned to not become to perturbed when watching a Hollywood production that strayed from historical facts, or the literacy of a story or novel sharing the same name. It is entertainment. When I want a more veracious and objective view of history on film I seek out a reputable documentary.

A Rare TCM Treat: RASPUTIN AND THE EMPRESS (1932) Last shown on TCM over five years ago (January 2010), this precode gem is the only known film in which ALL Three of the Famed Barrymore siblings (John Barrymore, Ethel Barrymore, and Lionel Barrymore) appear together. Also Ethel's first "talkie." John portrays Prince Chegodieff, Ethel portrays Czarina Alexandra, and Lionel portrays the notorious Grigori Rasputin. The film is also known for setting the precedent: "All persons portrayed in this film are fictitious, any resemblance to actual persons either living or dead is coincidental..." that has since become the standard credit disclaimer in works of film fiction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_persons_fictitious_disclaimer This was the result of a 1933 lawsuit against MGM by surviving members of the extended Romanov family over their "inaccurate" portrayal in the film, forcing MGM to make a large financial settlement AND edit out the "offending" scene from subsequent releases of the film. "As a preventive measure against further lawsuits, the film was taken out of distribution for decades." This deletion results in some discontinuity in the behavior of Princess Natasha (portrayed by Diana Wynyard, in her film debut) from the first half of the film towards Rasputin vs her unexplained difference in attitude to him in the second half. "The model for Princess Natasha was Princess Irina Yusupov, the wife of Felix Yusupov, one of Grigori Rasputin's actual murderers. Attorney Fanny Holtzmann filed a lawsuit by Yusupov against MGM in 1933, claiming invasion of privacy and libel. The original film portrays her as a victim of Rasputin, and it is implied that he raped her, which (she claimed) never happened." "The offending scene was cut, which rendered Wynyard's character somewhat incomprehensible unless the viewer of the film is aware of this cut: in the first half of the film, Princess Natasha is a supporter of Rasputin, and in the second half she is extremely afraid of him for no apparent reason." Lawsuit and historical inaccuracy aside (this was 1932 Hollywood, afterall), be prepared to be entertained. The Barrymores seem to be genuinely enjoying each others company in this film (especially John & Lionel) and there are some revealing moments that appear quite candid. Produced by Irving Thalberg, and directed by Richard Boleslawski A must see for film history buffs and ALL fans of the original Barrymore clan. 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), 15 Wednesday 6:00 AM MGM Parade Show #4 (1955) George Murphy tours Lake Metro, where "Mutiny on the Bounty" and "Show Boat" were shot, and introduces a clip from "Good News." These clips feature June Allyson and Peter Lawford. BW-26 mins, 6:30 AM Rasputin And The Empress (1932) True story of the mad monk who plotted to rule Russia. Dir: Richard BoleslavskyCast: John Barrymore, Ethel Barrymore, Lionel Barrymore. BW-121 mins, CC, http://www.tcm.com/schedule/monthly.html?tz=est&sdate=2015-04-01 I'm hoping TCM doesn't cancell this one! short clip from the film

Well, I guess I fall in the minority of posters here, because I like Kevin Costner. Somebody posted that film is a tough industry to make a living at, so Kevin must be doing something right. I don't think that he is a great actor any more than I would call Sylvester Stallone a great actor, but both managed to win Oscars, and Kevin Costner has won two Academy Awards, three Golden Globe Awards, an Emmy, among other awards and a host of various nominations. I like Costner in several of his films and most of his westerns, and, against the grain, I enjoyed his sci-fi, post-apocolypse ventures (i.e. THE POSTMAN and even WATERWORLD. I thought NO WAY OUT was a good thriller, with a twist, and he was good in it. Enjoyed BULL DURHAM, and loved FIELD OF DREAMS (excellent casting all-around). I also liked OPEN RANGE and DANCES WITH WOLVES and HATFIELDS & MCCOYS. There are films of his that I've watched once, and thought that was enough, but there are others that he's been in that are good enough to deserve my repeat viewing every now and then. He's not an actor that I actively follow, but from what I've read, if he believes in a project he'll back it with his own money, and he has done well enough that he is not afraid to back some off-beat, possibly controversial projects. His new film BLACK OR WHITE sounds like it's stirring a little controversy already. I think that he's a pretty down-to-earth guy who enjoys being with his family and cares about the planet, He's actively involved in some environmental projects as well. In any event, there are enough people that enjoy films that he's in and their subject matter to allow him to continue to make a living in a very tough and competitive industry. That makes him successful, regardless of any negative comments anyone has said about him and his acting ability.

I watched another Steve McQueen film last night, also from 1966, during the Richard Attenborough tribute. THE SAND PEBBLES. Also saw this at the theater when first released. The theatrical release had an intermission/enteract with theme music and was 182 min, whereas the film shown by TCM last night was a 179 min version, without the intermission. There was also a later release called a "Road Show" version that was 196 min long, with 14 minutes of scenes that had been edited out from the theatrical release most people saw. I honestly can't remember if the version I saw in 1966 was a "Road Show" version or not (probably not). I only recall seeing this film once in 1966, and I do not recall missing scenes from last nights presentation. I do remember it was a long movie back then, and it did have an intermission, for which I was grateful. I liked the film a lot back then, and I liked seeing it again on TCM last night. I didn't like the way it ended, but it was still a very good film by Robert Wise. Just thought it merited beng included in this thread because unlike the "questionable" few altered and missing seconds of dialogue from NEVADA SMITH, the version aired byTCM of THE SAND PEBBLES was at least 3 minutes shorter than the theatrical version, and a full 17 minutes shorter than the most complete version that IS still available. Whether TCM could acquire for broadcast either of those other two versions or not, only TCM knows. And although TCM has shown other films with their theatrical intermission/enteract and full score intact (i.e. GONE WITH THE WIND (1939) & BEN HUR (1959)), there are other films ( i.e. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)), which they have not. Some may not care about seeing or listening to an enteracte, whereas others consider it part of a complete film experience which includes opening and closing overtures, along with a full list of film credits. I happen to be one of those "oddballs" that fall in the latter category. Regardless, just thought I'd use this as an irrefutable example of different edits of the same film which are still (for this moment in time) in extent. Not sure if this was a premier or not (RO didn't say it was), but I don't recall ever having seen it on TCM before, so if it wasn't a premier, then it may be one of those films TCM only shows once a decade or so? In either occurrence, it was a rare event and I'm grateful that TCM presented it. Brought back some old memories for me.

I was a bastard when it was something shameful to be, and a latch-key kid. My babysitter too often was a black & white television set. And my father figures were the old greats that used to play on the Million Dollar Movie of the Week, and on Chick Lambert's Movies Till Dawn. Back in that day Chick would come on television late at night and try to sell cars for Ralph Williams to all the insomniacs, and kids like me who couldn't afford them anyway. Chick had a beautiful German Shepherd named Storm that used to sit on the hood of whatever car he was trying to sell. Actually, over the years Chick had more than one "Storm." I remember the original, and then, when he got to old to hop up on the cars, there was Storm II, first a pup, then indistinguishable from his namesake, Storm I. Anyway, beautiful dogs. Chick only interrupted at the beginning, midde and end of each movie, as I recall, and the commercials were just long enough to go to the bathroom or a quick snack break, nothing like today's frequency. Anyway, I digress, ... So my father figures at one time or another were Tracy, Cooper, Gable, Flynn, Wayne, Stewart, Fonda, and so on.... These were in their early roles, when they often played heroic, moralistic, sometimes womanizing rascals. I maintained an adoration for these men through to my early adulthood. Refusing to listen to, or believe anything negative someone might say about them. Then, one winter, long ago, I found myself in a really remote location in Alaska. I was alone, and pretty much starved for reading material. There was a bookshelf in the cabin that was full of old paperbacks that had been bought by the pound from a used bookstore in Anchorage and flown out. I ended up reading everything on that shelf. Amidst the variety there were several actor & actress biographies... Actually more sensationalized exposes, than real biographies, but I read them along with the others. And read some things that I wish that I hadn't. However, in an effort to refute some of what I had read, when I later had an opportunity, I began doing a little research. Too often I not only verified what I had previously read, but uncovered more tarnish than had previously been written. It was pretty hard for me to learn that many of my on-screen hero's, were far less than heroic off-screen. To discover again, that Santa wasn't real. And though I still watched their movies, from that time forward, it was through different eyes. I learned that Tracy, who is still one of my favorites actors, was a very flawed human being, as were the others. We know about the alcohol, the extramarital affair/s, the drugs and self-abuse that afflicted too many of them. Those that denied their own children for fear of scandal. The less than heroic behavior when some were subpoenaed to the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) during the Joe McCarthy era. The "chicken-hawks" who never went to war, themselves, but supported and promoted it for others. And, sadly, those that went to war as a star, and returned never to recapture their former glory. Like I said, I still watch and enjoy their movies, but not through the same idealistic eyes that once adored and wanted to be like them as a child. I am glad that they were there for me when I was a boy. Growing up, fatherless, I needed them. And I guess I am glad that I found out that they were fragile and flawed humans after all, like the rest of us. Though that was hard for me to learn, it helps me to be less critical with myself when examining my own myriad of imperfections, and allows me to be gentler and more tolerant of others. It helped me learn to not place persons that I care about on pedestals. On the flip side, I also learned that some of these fragile humans, who just happened to be movie stars, were much stronger, resiliant, courageous, caring and generous, persons than I had previously known. And, yes, they were and still are persons to positively emulate in many ways. So, for good or ill, I have been influenced by these men in both positive and sometimes negative ways. Especially as a child, and growing up, when I used their characters as a model, and often made decisons based on what I thought they would have done. On the positive, I grew up having many fathers. Far from the traditional sense, for sure, but role models that an early Hollywood code allowed, more often than not, to be differentiated as white or black, good or bad. Less grey, less ambivalent, less unsure of what was right and what is wrong. So it was easier for me then, I think, growing up as a fatherless latchkey child, than it is for the far more numerous fatherless kids growing up today. For that, I am grateful. BTW, For anyone who thinks they might remember Chick and Storm here is a link to his last commercial for Ralph Williams. Some may find it amusing.

Love Tracy, one of my all-time favorite actors. Thank you so much for the heads-up!

Darkblue wrote: "Can you imagine what the 26 minutes of footage extracted from Tod Browning's 'Freaks' (1932) would be worth?....." "a very fortunate person," indeed. I have several films on my "to see" wishlist, including: The pre-code 90 min original version (if it still exists), of Alice in Wonderland (1933) NOT the severely edited 76-77 min Universal/Paramount release). also, the original early widescreen 157 min version of The Big Trail (1930) Just to name two versions of films I've never seen, as well as the forementioned complete FREAKS (1932). There are also many, many more films that I once saw long ago, that seem to be rarely, if ever broadcast anymore, and have never been digitized for purchase, for example: The 1949 version of The Blue Lagoon featuring Jean Simmons & Donald Houston, Among too many notables to mention. I could compose a huge list. But if a station like TCM can't, or won't, show them, then they'll likely never be seen again, by anyone, except those fortunate few who may have precious VHS recording stashed. Assuming that they made it to VHS....

Hi Andy, You may have already received this, but just in case not, I have sent you an email text file attachment of the TCM Dec 2014 Full schedule, as revised and broadcast by TCM. Also document of their earlier posted schedule, for comparison. I can go back to Feb 2008 for any of these if you need.

Thank you Gentlemen, For all of your thoughtful comments and possible explanations. When we are impacted by a movie, and we see it again, I think most of us are drawn back to those particular scenes, or moments of dialogue that made those first impressions. I believe that is why when they are absent it stands out to us. As has been suggested, these edits may have occurred very early, perhaps after a limited first release in the summer of 1966. Assuming what I remember seeing, and hearing in this movie is valid, then what I saw may not have been the broader general distribution release. I would not have been aware of this editing practice at that time, but now know that it was not an uncommon occurrance. For one example, I recall growing up and watching my all-time favorite KING KONG (1933) numerous different times on television. Sometimes one stations broadcast would seriously differ from another. But, one summer, the Lamarr theatre advertized on a Saturday afternoon matinee marquee "Watch The Original Restored KING KONG." I paid my money and for the first time saw King Kong on the big-screen, along with an excited theatre audience. The film had several seconds of the goriest scenes restored. Though I did recall having seen them at different times before. None-the-less, for a film over 30 years old, at the time, it still produced ooohhhs & Ahhhhs from the audience, both young and old alike. And in the darkness of that theatre, felt like I was somehow transported back to 1933, and really seeing this wonderful film as it was intended to be seen. I since became aware that KONG had been edited, and reedited numerous times, first by the original producers, and then later numerous more times by television broadcasters to fit whatever commercial time slot was scheduled. Fortunetly most of those lost film fragments have been restored, but only a few ever saw, and fewer still alive to remember, the horrors of the lost "Spider Pit" footage, or realize that the reason those men remained to be shaken off that giant log is because not only did Kong block their advance, but an enraged Styracosaurus blocked their retreat... Post release film editing is as old as film. And likewise, sadly, is "lost" film. Perhaps I may yet luck-out and rediscover the "missing" NEVADA SMITH footage as an "alternate scene" add-in, or "deleted scene" excerpt in the Special Features section of a quality DVD or Bluray release. If that never happens, then the memories of those scenes will die out with me, and those others that can remember that they once saw them. No big loss really, in the grand or even minor scheme of things,... just another slight loss in the history of film.

Gentlemen, I know that memory can be a tricky thing, but I am not confabulating. The Lamar theatre in Manhattan Beach, California showed this film for a number of weeks, and because it was the only theatre in that town, I visited several repeat times during the showing of Nevada Smith in 1966. I cannot say if other communities across the country were seeing the exact same film as I. At this age, I am aware that during that time and before, sometimes films were slightly altered (edited) with somewhat different versions to suit certain regions that had various censorship restriction. This is also true of international releases as well. So I cannot refute anyone who says that they saw the same or a different movie version at that time in their local theatre, or whether what they remember is a match to the recent televised TCM version. And I would never mean to suggest that TCM would deliberately edit any film that they show. However, I think we all can agree that sometimes what TCM does show is not the best, or most complete version available. Though I do believe that is their intent, some previously edited versions do sometimes slip through, for whatever reason. The Lamarr theatre was seldom full to capacity, and in those days there were fewer restrictions than today. Patrons weren't evicted from the theatre after a single viewing. Tickets cost 60 cents for persons over 12 years of age and 30 cents for under twelve. Tickets were torn in half at the entry to the lobby by an usher and we retained half the stub. During my youth, the color of the stubs rarely changed. I was such a frequent movie goer and had so many stubs that I started gluing two halves together to make a single apparent ticket. Since I held one half while the usher tore the ticket in half, I always retained half of a ticket to reuse again. That allowed me to have alittle more money to spend on concessions between films. I didn't consider what I was doing as "stealing" at that time, I just thought that I was being clever. I rationalized that the theatre almost always got all of the money in my pocket when I went out, I just applied it alittle differently than what they had in mind. Now, of course, I am ashamed of my behavior from back then... In the 1950s-1960's the Lamarr almost always showed double features, and they repeated both films at least once each evening, Sometimes the main feature played three times, before the theatre closed down for the night, early the next morning. There were times when I either had nothing else better to do, or was greatly interested in a particular film, or was with some pals who wanted to see a film again, or with a girlfriend who could stay out late, that I would spend an entire evening rewatching the same movies, again, and again. There were even a few times when I was "dating" two different girls, one would be picked up by her father after a single early showing, and I would meet another after that during the same night for a later showing. Of course, I am now ashamed of that behavior from back then, as well... The first evening that I saw Nevada Smith I stayed to see it twice... Just so I could see and hear those scenes again, and see if a mostly different audiences gave the same gutteral response,... which they did. The version TCM showed yesterday was different. In the first scene I described, the word "dress" wasn't the same word that shocked us, when used in that context , in 1966. In the second scene, between Fitch and Smith, there is an obvious deletion edit. Pretty smoothly done, but still altered from the theatrical version I remember seeing. In the last scene, I "thought" I remembered Fitch tossing the tobacco pouch at Max and saying, "Your mother! Here's your mother!" But I wouldn't swear to that. It may just be a line that we thought at the time would have been more appropriately said by Fitch. When I went to the movies with my friends in those early days, before many of us had cars, or were even old enough to drive, we would walk everywhere, and we relived those movies with each other, or at least revisited the most memorable scenes, over and over again. Sadly, one guy that I used to chum around with at that time, that might have been able to confirm what we saw, is now dead, and I've lost track of the others. However, it could be claimed that all of our memories were faulty. Since making this post I have attempted to see if there was a script from Nevada Smith available on-line, but so far I've not been able to turn one up. For what it's worth, I did turn up this small snippit from WikiPedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Smith Fitch keeps a tobacco pouch containing a bit of deerskin decorated with Indian beads from Sand's mother's shirt – the tobacco pouch was made from the breast of Max's mother and Max knew this – So apparantly at least one other person shares my same "faulty" memory.... I saw NEVADA SMITH before I saw THE CARPETBAGGERS, and I can't recall if there was any particular dialogue in that movie that may have influenced or convoluted my memory about those NEVADA SMITH scenes, having seen NEVADA SMITH many times at that theatre, long before I ever saw CARPETBAGGERS. However, I did like George Peppard... having seen him in THE BLUE MAX (1966), I was happy to see him again, and Alan Ladd, from SHANE , as well as many of the other actors that I "grew up with" and enjoyed seeing in films. . Honestly, at that age I wasn't particularly interested in THE CARPETBAGGERS, except for the Nevada Smith character connection. And I'll admit that my memories of that movie are far less precise than those I have of NEVADA SMITH, of course, I just had most of NEVADA reinforced having just viewed it again.... And I didn't read the Harold Robbins book until years after I saw both movies, and my memories of that long read are not particularly noteworthy. Though it may be worthy of a repeat read from a more mature, and worldly perspective, to see how it holds up. I would still like to see both CARPETBAGGERS and SMITH, back-to-back, on TCM though. As today I can better appreciate both movies than I could as a youth. Regarding the supposition of this thread, I suppose we could talley votes as to was there or wasn't there different versions of this film, with one being as I have described... but that would prove nothing. I wish we could defer to a more authoritative source on the subject. Lacking that, I will passively seek out DVD rentals to see if I can discover one that matches my version. Of course, lacking such a discovery, still is not definitive, depending on how soon after release such an edit ocurred, and whether there are any digital tranferences of such an early, perhaps less popular, release.

MovieMadness said: "Looks like they edited the film because they were Yellah." Ha! So many great lines in this film. I can see why they may have made those edits especially for a commercial television broadcast, but I'm surprized if there isn't an unedited DVD or Bluray release, and if that is the case, why isn't that the one TCM broadcasts? The edits are so powerful, and yet so slight in time that it likely wouldn't affect the total run time, likely much less than a minute of dialogue, but I still remember the impact.

I agree with Kidd_Dabb, However, I believe that the version we saw presented on TCM today was a slightly edited one, refer to my thread: http://forums.tcm.com/index.php?/topic/51941-nevada-smith-has-been-cut/

ANYONE ELSE NOTICE THE SUBTLE EDITS IN NEVADA SMITH? Watched NEVADA SMITH (1966) again today. I consider it a great, if atypical, western. But I noticed at least two scenes that had been verbally altered on the TCM screening. In much the way that in the train dining car scene of NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959), in which Eva Marie Saint says to Cary Grant, "I never make love on an empty stomach." We see the lips move, but we never hear the originally scripted word "make." Too risque, I guess, for theatrical audiences of that, and any future day. Instead we hear a voice-over Eva Marie: "I never discuss love on an empty stomach." Cary: "But you've already eaten." Eva Marie: "But you haven't." I think that scene would have played even better if the censors left the original word in that line alone. I first saw NEVADA SMITH, at my local theater in 1966, before I saw THE CARPETBAGGERS (1964), although the latter was released two years before the former, at my local theatre it wasn't shown until later, for some reason? Then I discovered that the former was a later made "prequel" to the latter, based on a character by the same name in the popular Harold Robbins 1962 novel "The CarpetBaggers." In that book (and the movie) an aging westerner (in the movie played by Alan Ladd, in one of his last screen appearances) befriends a character not unlike a young Howard Hughs. I had inadvertantly watched these movies in their chronological order, and was intrigued as how in the prequel, the entire film (NEVADA SMITH) was developed to flesh out the adventurous back-ground of that same named character from THE CARPETBAGGERS, and the briefly aluded to relationship that the half-breed Kiowa, Max Sand (alias Nevada Smith), had with Jonas Cord (the father of Jonas Cord, Jr., the lead character in THE CARPETBAGGERS, portrayed by George Peppard. However, in NEVADA SMITH, there were a couple of critical scenes in which some shocking dialogue was altered in the televised version I saw today. Lines that reveal just how ugly the Tom Fitch character (played wonderfully evil by Karl Malden) was and is. And just how strikingly reserved the adult Nevada Smith character has learned to become. In his early more openly emotional days, as a teenage youth (believably played by Steve McQueen), the young Max Sand sets out on a trail of vengeance to track down a trio of killers (Malden, Martin Landau, & Arthur Kennedy) who viciously mutilated and murderered his father and mother. Early in the film we see Jesse Coe, one of the three killers (sadistically portrayed by Landau), as he begins to skin-alive the Indian mother of Max, while his father is forced to watch. Later, Fitch is leading a band of outlaws and reads a wanted poster with a reward for the capture of Max Sand, who had recently escaped a Louisiana swamp prison. Fitch realizes that Max is the same halfbreed who killed both of his former partners, Jesse Coe & Curley Bill Bowdre (brilliantly portrayed by Kennedy). Fitch is obviously agitated as he tosses his tobacco pouch on the table. When he notices one of his gang staring at the pouch he blurts out that this fancy piece of leather and bead was "...made from the "dress" of an injun squaw." However, as I recall the original line was "made from the "breast" of an injun squaw." That line was so horrific when I saw that film as a teenager that everybody in the theater audience made an audible exclamation when it was uttered. Still Later, when a visibly unchanged Max Sand attempts to join Fitch's gang, under the Nevada Smith alias, Fitch doesn't recognize him from the years that have past, but is suspicious of all newcomers and attempts to trap Max into revealing himself. Fitch asks if Smith has ever heard of Max Sand, and confesses that he killed the half-breeds mother and father. When a cool Smith reaches into his saddle bag to roll himself a smoke... Fitch then tosses him the infamous tobacco pouch and says "Here, why don't you use some good tobacco. What do ya think of that pouch, huh?" Smith replies, "Never seen anything like it. Where'd you get it?" Fitch responds, "Gift. Sort of a gift...." Then there is a slight incongruency where it appears that we might have missed something... and we (the audience) have. Smth says, as if trying to change the subject, and he is... "Well now look Fitch, lets get down to it. You said you could use a man like me. For what?" While Fitch briefly explains about his plan to rob a gold shipment, a composed Smith lights up a handrolled cigarette filled with Fitch's tobacco. Smith walks up the stairs to his room and a smiling Fitch stuffs the tobacco pouch back into his shirt pocket, at this point fairly confident that this unperturbed Nevada Smith could not possibly be the hot-headed half-Indian, Max Sand. In the above scene, what I remembered hearing and what was edited out, was Fitch's more elaborate explanation as to the origin of the mysterious tobacco pouch, which, if left intact , even more greatly impacts the scene, and makes the audience marvel at how Max Sand can remain so cool when confronted by Fitch's revelation. In the final scene, the showdown between Fitch and Smith, Max has Fitch wounded and cries out "Beg. Beg like my mother and father begged!" An unrepentent Fitch says, "Your mother!" and grabs for the tobacco pouch, tossing it at Max, "Here, maybe you want this! Huh!" But Max refuses to kill Fitch, crippling him instead. While Fitch yells at Max to "Finish me!" Max says, "You're just not worth killin." There is much more poignancy to Max Sands character development throughout this epic film. And once one suspends the reality that a blond haired, blue-eyed, 35 year old Steve McQueen is totally miscast as a half-breed Kiowa boy, his character matures before our eyes, not visually, but through McQueens behavior and mannerisms, from a naive teenager into a cold-hearted adult killer, practically as ruthless as the men he his hunting. There is a brillant support cast. Already mentioned, Karl Malden, Arthur Kennedy, and Martin Landau. Also such familiar names as Brian Keith, Suzanne Pleshette, Janet Margolin, Raf Vallone, Pat Hingle, Howard Da Silva, Paul Fix, Gene Evans, Josephine Hutchinson, Bert Freed, Lyle Bettger, Ted de Corsia, an uncredited Strother ("Hey look at me..., I'm in the tub") Martin, and others.... This Paramount film was produced and directed by the great Henry Hathaway Wide screen cinematography by Lucien Ballard Great story and script by John Michael Hayes With a wonderful score (that has me whistling it each time I see this film) by Alfred Newman I wish that TCM could get their hands on an unedited copy of the intact theatrical release, or a restored version of NEVADA SMITH and present it as a back-to-back premier along with THE CARPETBAGGERS, which I also cannot recall TCM ever showing before. Hopefully this will be possible. The existing edited version of NEVADA SMITH is still an outstanding production, but restoration of this diaolgue omission, though slight, to me is critical in presenting the film with the full oomph that the writer and director had intended. Like the edited (and apparently only available) version of JOHNNY GOT HIS GUN (1971) (which TCM aired one time, in July of 2009), Only those of us who saw and remember the originals will know what we are missing. As great as those films still are, they could be even more so if they were restored to their original estate. How bout it TCM? Uncut AND Commercial Free?

I first noticed Robert Redford in 1969. My local theater played Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid for 13 consecutive weeks, and I used to go to the movies every week on Saturday nights. (Friday nights were reserved for the local dance at the Moose Lodge). I saw that movie so many times that I knew the entire thing by heart, back then, even the Spanish lines. But I still kept going back to the theater week after week, after all, it was a favorite place to meet girls. About that time I also tried growing a "Sundance Kid " mustache,... I don't know why.... After that I started paying attention to movies that had Robert Redford in them. I realize that he was kind of a "pretty boy" at that time, and I felt that too many of the early films tried to exploit that and not his underlying talent, which every now and then was allowed to shine, I think most often in films he did with Sidney Pollack. JEREMIAH JOHNSON (1972) and THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR (1975) are films that I watch whenever they're on, as much for the subject matter as for the casting. I thought THE CANDIDATE (1972) and ALL THE PRESIDENTS MEN (1976) were (and still are) timely films to watch. Didn't know much about Redford, the man, but I did sort of think that his films kind of represented a chunk of my generations growing distrust with the status quo. I eventually grew to respect Redford, as I did Paul Newman, when I discovered that there were brains inside those attractive exteriors, and I appreciated how they used them, i.e. "Newman's Own," "The Sundance Film Institute," etc. And then Redford got behind the camera and began producing masterpieces. He is not as prolific an actor or director as some others, but it is apparent that he is interested in quality over quantity. There are films that I personally thought he was wasted in.... perhaps he was in them more for the money, perhaps to finance the projects that he was more interested. I thought that it was outrageous when I heard that he was paid a million for the small part he played in A BRIDGE TOO FAR (1977), a bit part that could have been played by another for much less. But it was one of those big-name, huge budget productions, so I suppose it was apropos for he, and the others to be cast at that time. BTW, I still enjoyed the movie, I just thought RR was overpaid for his part in it. But I don't begrudge him for it, because in the 70s he founded the Sundance Film Festival & non-profit Sundance Institute, and in 1980, he directed ORDINARY PEOPLE , and in 1984 he starred in THE NATURAL, which were both perfect for him. I agree with those who have posted that as a Star-Of-The-Month TCM Film Tribute, that there are more of his films as both a star and as director that I would like to have seen made available for the TCM audience. I also agree that a 1 minute snippit for him is very light, when he did a 5 min tribute to Natalie Wood for TCM. I know Natalie, Newman, and Pollack are no longer with us, but surely someone notable could have given RR a decent short film tribute, if not Jane Fonda, then even Robert or Ben... So yes, as a TCM SOTM he does appear to be a bit on the "light" side. I would even agree with those who would say that Robert Redford is not a "great" actor, in the sense perhaps of Brando, or Olivier... But others have been SOTM that were not Brando, or Olivier (and few would deny that even those two were in a few "stinkers"). And RR has been in some great films, perhaps not with the broad appeal of Cary Grant, in his day, but critically "great" films none-the-less. He has been in the film industry at least since 1959, and has been a thespian much longer. As Robert Osborne pointed out, Mr. Redford is an actor, director, producer, businessman, environmentalist, and philanthropist. It is apparent to me that he is a man who has used his gifts to give back, in an effort to make the world a better place through his art, talent, and money. And I'll personally admit, that my knowing these things about Robert Redford, the man, likely influences me in wanting to see him in everything that has been archived on film. To watch how he has evolved on the screen. He has become a "person-of-interest" to me. At 78, Robert Redford is no longer the "pretty-boy" that he once was, though he has aged well. It makes me wonder about what someone like Tyrone Power may done with his later life and career had he been blessed with longevity? So I most definitely do not agree with those who have posted a dislike for him, for whatever reason, or, if they had it in their power, would deny him this months TCM tribute, however slight. TCM spans the age of film. There have been tributes to those involved in the industry from the silent era to present. It is just one channel, and only 24 hours to the day. Given the broad appeal of the TCM audience there are bound to be actors and films, et al, that are not well represented. But, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, "You can "please" all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot "please" all the people all the time."

Thank you fredbaetz & Notan for your comments. With the web sources that I had checked I, too, could find no indication of a longer running version anywhere. Sometimes we hear about a director that had a longer cut originally in mind that wasn't practical for theatrical release. Generally those are released later, usually on DVD or Bluray. Didn't know if director Sydney Pollack had any such thoughts or had left any notes to that effect before he passed away, and thought maybe somebody in the industry might be able to verify. Lacking that, I would go along with Notan's suggestion, which makes perfect sense, that before VHS & DVDs, there were likely many films that may have had some kind of intermission that we would not think warranted today. Not based on film length, but on the added opportunity they provided for concessions, which is still a major part of theater (and then drive-in) revenue. BTW, a drive-in was where I first saw JEREMIAH JOHNSON, back in 1972, with my future ex-wife. Growing up in the day of double & even triple features, with fill-in cartoons, shorts, screenliners, and a host of previews, I should have thought of that myself. Thank you Notan, for bringing those memories back to me. As a side thought, I remember that when I first saw this movie, in 1972, I thought that Delle Bolton, who played Swan, the Flathead girl that Johnson was coerced into marrying, was very plain, and kind of unattractive at that time. But when I viewed her with older eyes, she had metamorphed into a naturally beautiful, and quite attractive young woman. I've noticed this change on quite a few of the actresses that I once thought were not very attractive when I was much younger. Somehow, as I've aged, they've become younger and more lovely that I had once thought they were.... strange???

In watching Fritz Lang's METROPOLIS (1927) again, I found myself entranced with Brigitte Helm's dual roles. I found the evil robotic Hel's Mata Hari **** dance to be strangely erotic, though not as mezmerizing as Lang's male film audience apparently did. I wonder if this film was considered risque for the day? edit Is H-O-T-T-I-E a forbidden word on these boards?

Catching up on Luise Rainer films today. Really enjoying her. So far, the most "fun" film I've watched was BIG CITY (1937). I really enjoyed the chemistry between Luise and Spencer Tracy. Luise was so cute and her "acting" so spontaneous, they appeared to be really enjoying each other. And watching them interact made me smile a lot In most of the other films she seems typecast into the "long suffering wife" role like she played in the second half of "The Great Ziegfeld" (1936). Though I have enjoyed her interaction with William Powell, as well, with Tracy in BIG CITY it was like watching a loving couple that really enjoyed playing games and each others company. R.O. said in his intro that Germany was her native country? I always thought she was French? Anyhooo, hope she is having a great time watching herself on TCM today, whereever she is.

Was there/is there a longer version of JEREMIAH JOHNSON (1972)? Watched again Tueday night (1/6/2015). Noticed that 77 minutes into the film there was an Intermission/Enter Acte. This seems a bit unusual to me for a movie that is less than two hours (approximately 115 minutes) long, with credits. Near the end of the movie there was a brief, 50 second montage, with excerpts of several scenes illustrating at least half a dozen additional mano-on-mano, Jeremiah vs Crow warrior, encounters that were not fully shown in the theatrical release. Was wondering if director Sydney Pollack had originally planned a much longer film, that might have benefited from an intermission midway through, but later decided to edit out most of those battle scenes, while leaving the originally planned intermission break? Does anyone know if Sydney Pollack left director notes on an extended non-theatrical version of Jeremiah Johnson? I think the film plays well as edited, and a long string of fights may have become monotonous, but I'm always interested whenever there is a director's cut, and if an extended version of this film shows up I sure would be interested in seeing it.

misswonderlytoo said: "As I recall, Three Days of the Condor is pretty darn good. A genuinely original and intriguing premise makes this an unusual espionage/thriller, and Redford strikes just the right note of (justified) paranoia." As I recall, when I first saw THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR (1975), and every time I have watched it since, is how prophetic the MGuffy plot line is.... Secret Government agencies that "no one" knows about... Going to war for oil.. How about for food, .. and water? Actually, now that I think about it I guess that's just common historical sense. Mankind has always warred over limited precious resources, against nature and his fellow man. Over food, water, and what-have-you. Still Condor is still quite relevant today, though if remade would probably update the technical savvy to the internet age. Still one of my favorite Robert Redford films.

Was there/is there a longer version of Jeremiah Johnson? Watched again on Tues night (1/6/2015) Noticed that 77 minutes into the film there was an Intermission/Enter Acte. This seems a bit unusual to me for a movie that is less than two hours (approximately 115 minutes) long, with credits. Near the end of the movie there was a brief, 50 second montage, with excerpts of several scenes illustrating at least half a dozen additional mano-on-mano, Jeremiah vs Crow warrior, encounters that were not fully shown in the theatrical release. Was wondering if director Sydney Pollack had originally planned a much longer film, that might have benefited from an intermission midway through, but later decided to edit out most of those battle scenes, while leaving the originally planned intermission break? Does anyone know if Pollack left director notes on an extended non-theatrical version of Jeremiah Johnson? I think the film plays well as edited, and a long string of fights may have become monotonous, but I'm always interested whenever there is an director's cut, and if an extended version of this film shows up I sure would be interested in seeing it.

I found this *Private Screenings* segment most enlightening. For some reason I've never googled Robert Osborne to find out more about him. Perhaps it's because, though I've never met him personally, that after having him into my home practically every night for a number of years, I consider him a friend, and, as silly as it may seem to some, for me to google a "friend" is something that I think invasive. So I was very grateful for this wonderful opportunity to have Robert share of himself on such a "personal" level. Well, certainly more personal than I have ever been privy to hear, anyway. Regardless of what I may, or not personally think about Alec Baldwin, in this Private Screenings I think that he did a good job as an interviewer with Robert Osborne, and considering their camaraderie, it was apparent that Robert enjoyed having Alec sitting opposite of him in the role of a "grand inquisitor." Whenever good things happen to good people I feel a sense that something is actually "right" in the world, and Robert's self effacing modesty in attributing the lion's share of his success to "luck" or providence, belies the fact that such opportunity only comes to those whom are prepared & willing to grasp it. It seems apparent that Robert was born to play the role he enjoys on TCM. It appears his entire life was a series of events, circumstance, & preparation that ultimately groomed him for it. And Alec was astute enough to point this out in his closure... Were Robert not the man that he was & is such opportunities would not have come his way. It is the combination of such skill and knowledge on Roberts behalf (which most any motivated person could aquire) that prepared him for his position in life, but it is also something much more that cannot be so acquired... The innate character of a person, which, in Roberts case created a personality that draws people to him with such a unique sense of trust that they feel free to openly share of themselves. That is Robert's gift & talent, without which such success undoubtedly would not have come his way. George S. Patton believed that he was born to play the part in which his whole life groomed him to play during WW2. He once said: *"A man must know his destiny. if he does not recognize it, then he is lost. By this I mean, once, twice, or at the very most, three times, fate will reach out and tap a man on the shoulder. if he has the imagination, he will turn around and fate will point out to him what fork in the road he should take, if he has the guts, he will take it."* After listening to Robert Osborne, I believe that his life is analogous, with perhaps the exception of having "fate tap his shoulder" on more than three such occassions. It is a rare feat to reach such an achievement to be able to make a successful career of doing what you passionately love for a living. As an assistant guide, I once sat on a remote hill on Kodiak Island. While glassing the great bears and the wondrous primordial beauty of such a pristine place, I felt so incredibly fortunate, priviledged & blessed to be where I was. I looked at my partner who must have been feeling the exact same emotions at that moment. Scotty spoke first and uttered my identical sentiments... *"And to think we actually get payed to do this."* At that time in my life I must have felt like Robert Osborne does whenever he leaves his door for the TCM studio.

Was watching the third of the "Flapper Trilogy" last night & as usual I was admiring the period detail, among other things. In "Our Blushing Brides" (1930) there was a scene where the Edward Brophy character had just purchased a new Ford (likely a Model A 4 cylinder as they were first released in 1928). Joan was there to provide support as Edward Brophy stripped gears in an effort to learn how to manage his new muscle machine. A proud Brophy blurts out that his new car gets great economy at 30 miles per gallon... This struck me... The year was 1930 and modern cars of the day were getting 30 MPG. I know this to be a fact as I had an acquaintance (now passed away) that was still driving an unmodified 1928 model A that his mom bought new that year. We would take it for a spin around town and He told me that he could drive his A all day long at 45 miles per hr and never get less than 33 miles per gallon. Now this was during the day when the Lincoln highway was still a fairly recent acheivement and most of our roads were quite rough, so vehicles such as the T & A were solidly built for endurance & reliabilty. The A was built like a tank by todays standards with a heavy bumper & heavy sheet metal. And yet it acheived 30 MPG. By the way, the 4 cylinder T's also acheived similar fuel economy..... My Greatgrandfather still had one when I was a kid. I drove cars in the 70's that got better than 40 MPG and still have a 3 cylinder non-hybrid that that I've tweaked 59 mpg on cross country trips at 60 miles per hr avg cruise speed (BTW that was not the most economical model available then). But today, in the year 2014, automakers rave at what fantastic fuel economy the modern gasoline car engine acheives when their 20 plus thousand dollar vehicles are rated at 35 mpg. We haven't come very far at all at getting the fuel economy that we really should be getting today when, by contrast in 1929, 30-33 mpg was a common reality. Granted horsepower has increased dramatically, but at what cost fuel economy?

"*Turner Classic Movies presents the greatest movies of all time, from the 1920s through the '80s--[& '90s] featuring the silent screen, International pictures, as well as all of Hollywood's genres--commercial-free, uninterrupted, 24-hours a day*." Great post Rey, thanks for reminding us