primosprimos
-
Posts
3,054 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by primosprimos
-
-
I used to be a diehard A & C fan but now find many of their films tiresome. The Time of Their Lives still charms me for the reasons that I already stated. It is so untypical of the boys.
You may have outgrown the Three Stooges as a team. But surely you are not saying that Curly can't still make you laugh?
Like the kid in Dream On, I grew up in front of the set. The A&C show reruns, along with I Love Lucy, were manna from heaven to me and my brother. I knew all the bits, can still recite most of them, along with The Honeymooners dialogue, and someday recognizing Cavalleria Rusticana because Hillary Brooke's father liked it to hear it while eating a giant salami is going to come in handy.
Sadly, I can no longer sit through their movies either. In addition, even though I was thrilled to see Moe Howard on The Officer Joe Bolton Show a million years ago, I can no longer abide The Three Stooges for their cruelty. They (Shemp, blech) did show up in a short on a cable channel recently, as themselves, their girlfriends, and their fathers, which was odd. There was also a recent spot with them (happily with Curly) doing Niagara Falls in front of soldiers, real or costumed, I couldn't tell.
Curly still remains a favorite, no doubt because he was always put upon.
-
Ray is referring to composer Hans J, Salter, who wrote many a score for Universal. His themes were used over and over in several films. For example, take the opening theme to the Sherlock Holmes movies. That same theme appears in Son of Dracula during the scene where Chaney is about to meet his doom. I would assume that "Salterize" means using stock music from Salter, rather than creating a new score.
Ah. Thanks, scsu1975.
-
I think this is the one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CWOUK2o4Mc
Thanks, crazyblonde. I loathe Ralph Edwards, he would constantly talk over the guest star in the interest of moving the program forward. Phony as a three dollar bill. I LOVED Sid and Carl and Howard's takeoff on the show.
I don't remember the A&C episode, but they seem to be in none too excellent health. Nor were Laurel and Hardy, when they took their turn on this unctuous show.
Lou was never the same after his son drowned.
-
I would place "American" in quotes because to me their isn't a fixed American culture due to the melting pot \ multicultural nature of the nation. Using food is often an easy way to discuss culture. While there are regional American foods (e.g. southern cooking), what would be uniquely American? Unless one is talking about native American foods "American' dishes are hybids from other old world cultures. I have heard that the only things uniquely American are the patch quilt and Jazz music!
One of the things I love about living in So Cal is that there is no much variety here. To me that is uniquely American but others may feel differently.
Really? According to the Food Channel, your food trucks are legendary.
-
As for the innovative techniques new to filmmaking; If one was seeing the film when it was first released these innovative techniques might be noticed and appreciated and from that POV they 'stand on their own'.
But for someone seeing the film for the first time decades after its release, those techniques wouldn't be viewed as 'new' or innovative (since one can assume the person had seen them used in other films make after CK) and therefore they wouldn't be appreciated as being 'new' UNLESS one was aware of the art of filmmaking in general and CK place in this. So in that regard they don't 'stand on their own'.
I assume this is the case when CK is shown in a College movie class. Of course it would be best for a teacher to just show the movie without any prior discussion and than ask the students to react to what they saw instead of telling them about the history of the film beforehand.
Of course it would be best for a teacher to just show the movie without any prior discussion and than ask the students to react to what they saw instead of telling them about the history of the film beforehand.
That's a good idea, I assume some have done that. I'd be interested to hear the outcome.
I remember seeing it for the first time a thousand years ago, and having heard how 'great' it was, trying to be in awe of it. I also remember wondering who heard Kane utter 'Rosebud' before he died?
Now, finding Welles to be a big blowhard and the movie only mildly interesting, I have no more awe for it, not even a little bit.
-
Oopps, my bad. How is this-
MissW said she hates art yet defended it like it is the Maginot Line.
No, not that one, too happy. How about this one-
MissW said she hates art yet defended it like it is the Maginot Line.
Is that a terrorist smiley? better not use that one either.
MissW said she hates art yet defended it like it is the Maginot Line.
Much better, sorry for the confusion, lol.
HAH......................good try, MM.
-
Clearly that "straight face" or even the "laughing" emoticon is necessary with some people to indicate when one is joking.
See, there you go - MovieMadness is some people.
Guess you don't realize how you come across.
Whatever.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz -
Wow, you're determined to designate me as a certain type of poster here, aren't you? All you did was completely ignore my apology (which is actually sincere) and explanation, and went right back to the earlier quote. The one that I explained was a mistake on my part.
Did you read what I said, or did you just want to respond to me a certain way, because you've decided I "tell others what to do", for some reason you like that idea, and want to run away with it.
Why would I apologize and explain that I'd not expressed myself properly if I really felt what you seem to think I did? If I were that pig-headed, why would I bother writing that explanation of how this misunderstanding occurred?
THIS is what I said:
"I apologize, my writing was not clear. I definitely did NOT mean that the Mona Lisa "should" be appreciated by anyone. Nothing "should" be appreciated by a person, that's ridiculous and I should have structured my sentence better to avoid this misunderstanding.
When it comes to enjoying art, there's no such thing as believing anyone "should" like anything.
"What I meant was, it should be (and is) possible for someone uneducated in art history to appreciate that painting. Some might like it, some might not, but however people feel about it, extraneous information around the work should not be necessary to enjoy it."
I think the above is pretty clear. How does it come across as "doublespeak"?
I'm sure if you read that carefully you'll realize you were mistaken.
happyfacehappyfacepassiveaggressivepassiveaggressive
Thou doth protest too much.
-
-
So many things make this an outstanding picture. Great script (and a lot of confusion about which was actually written first - THE TIME OF THEIR LIVES or John Cecil Holm's GRAMERCY GHOST); the inspired casting of Binnie Barnes. Even John Shelton - a B picture nobody was natural and effective. Milton Rosen's original score, interpolating patriotic themes as well as Grainger melodies (thank goodness they didn't "Salterize" the film). The unique special effects, such as Lou getting stuck in the window seat. And especially Bud Abbott's marvelous performance in a pure character part. Bud was very self-conscious about his talent and relied completely on Lou, which was too bad. He could have had a great ancillary career as a character actor. Gale Sondergaard - Universal's Spider Woman - gave me nightmares for many years with her seance transferrence.
I ran this picture at the Shadowland Theatre a couple of years ago and it got tremendous applause.
Excellent picture. I liked Donald McBride too. I don't think I've ever seen John Shelton again, and he was very good. I loved Binnie's asides. A very inspired casting.
I didn't know that about Bud, how sad. I remember cutting out the notice from the Daily News when Bud died in the Old Actor's Home in 1974. I guess it's a nice place, but I was so sad for him at the time. A&C used to be a big favorite of mine.
To think Gale might have been the Wicked Witch! Margaret was scary enough.
If I may ask, what is 'Salterize'?
-
Heads Up! it's DVR time.
one of the best Abbott & Costello movies (if not THE Best) is on tonight at 10 PM edt, The Time of Their Lives (1946).
unlike most A&C fliks, this movie has a not (too) convoluted plot (yes, there's a pretty good plot), and some interesting characterizations. Lou isn't a dumb buffoon in this one, he's just a little short on logic skills. Bud isn't always picking on Lou mostly because they're not on screen together much, and Bud comes off as a pretty good guy. Gale Sondergaard does a neat spin on a "Mrs. Danvers" type character.
this small movie is a minor revelation. it's too bad it didn't do well at the box office which forced A&C back into their standard roles.
this is a pretty good start for the "ghost" theme on Thursdays this month.
Thanks again. That scene at the end with the falling stars - how did they do that in the days before CGI? - gets me every time. Made me a sucker for ghost/fantasy movies before I learned to walk.
-
Maybe we're operating from two different conceptions of "multiculturalism"? I'm reacting to the notion as expressed in a couple posts suggesting that there is no such thing as "Jewish culture" or that it is no more than a religion, or further, that if there is such a culture, it would be better for it to melt away. So, maybe I picked the wrong term, since multiculturalism rightly construed would be in favor of having an environment for the various cultures to thrive, one beside the other without impediment or conflict. But when government gets involved in the multicultural game, pushing against the venerable old notion of the "melting pot" it can draw hard balkanizing boundaries between the cultures that get in the way of the general welfare for a more stable union.
Should the multicultural go so far as to the 'multilingual' to maintain divisions all too hard and firm between cultures that turn the Washington Monument to the Tower of Babel? There's a balance to be struck that is not aided by legislation and social engineering. It would not be good for the various cultures to melt entirely into the pot, nor for that pot of a larger American Culture containing all the various cultural spices to be forsaken for a bland stew with no uniquely American flavor at all.
Aren't you defining isolationism? Dangerous stuff, that.
-
What pronouncements, other than the one I just explained, have I ever made here as to what other people should or should not do?
I do believe you have taken ONE "pronouncement" I made and turned it into a generalization about my behaviour here on the boards which I feel I do not deserve.
ONE pronouncement is more than enough. Sorry, dear, all kinds of doublespeak can't explain this away:
all three of you seem unaware of the fact that this painting can and should be appreciated by anyone
At least own up to the fact that you want to tell others what to do.
-
TopBilled, on 02 Oct 2014 - 8:55 PM, said:
What is it with people demanding evidence around here? Being a TCM viewer does not require a scientific background or extensive experience with statistics or number crunching. Most posting on this site involves opinions. It seems tacky to cut down other's impressions by demanding evidence to back up their claims. A counterclaim requires just as much evidence, does it not?
Let's loosen up a bit and grant one another a bit more leeway in expressing their feelings. I think we are adult and intelligent enough to know that one person's viewpoint does not represent everyone else's.
Silly Top Billed - the most are not on trial here, those with an opinion of their own are.
You've been on this board long enough to know, Top Billed!
:D :D It's appropriate to insist sometimes to challenge a claim that might come across as unreasonable, frivolous, or just plain stupid. There are those (I have no one in mind here) who resort to this and it should be permitted to challenge them in these cases, if necessary. To your statement, "A counterclaim requires just as much evidence, does it not?" I would say, not necessarily. Often, not always, the burden of proof rests with the original claim.
I'm not playing favorites in the current argument, I'm not up to par on who represents what viewpoint ... just responding generally to the above post. It does seem like a fairly good idea to be able back up a little what one has to say, otherwise we'll have all kinds of nonsense floating around.
You can't get much more insultingly condescending than that, lf. I congratulate you, you do the most proud.
-
I dunno about that, primos my dear!
Ya see, IF that were the case, THEN I have to wonder what your grandparents would think about you havin' a case of the hots for Warren William?!!!
(...'cause not ONLY was he NOT Italian, but I don't think he was even CATHOLIC!!!) LOL
You have a point, Dargo. Then again, my mother thinks Tyrone Power was the bee's knees.
-
Heads Up! it's DVR time.
one of the best Abbott & Costello movies (if not THE Best) is on tonight at 10 PM edt, The Time of Their Lives (1946).
unlike most A&C fliks, this movie has a not (too) convoluted plot (yes, there's a pretty good plot), and some interesting characterizations. Lou isn't a dumb buffoon in this one, he's just a little short on logic skills. Bud isn't always picking on Lou mostly because they're not on screen together much, and Bud comes off as a pretty good guy. Gale Sondergaard does a neat spin on a "Mrs. Danvers" type character.
this small movie is a minor revelation. it's too bad it didn't do well at the box office which forced A&C back into their standard roles.
this is a pretty good start for the "ghost" theme on Thursdays this month.
Odds Bodkins! I can't believe I didn't see this in the schedule, thank you allthumbs, This is favorite movie of mine, Bud and Abbott or not.Lovely little film, from beginning to end. Love the evocative Melllllllody, Melody's blouse, Gale's incantations, and of course .... the end! A real treat.
BTW, it's The Time Of Their Lives.
-
If one practices the traditions of their ancestors at the same level as those that are NOT, than that wouldn't be mutually exclusive. But isn't that very rare? Anyhow, if it isn't rare (many people don't treat the traditions of their ancestors anymore highly than other traditions), that would be great. Yea, great.
Hmmmm, still not gettin' it, james. Thanks for sharing your heritage, btw. My grandparents were all from Italy, different cities, but I found their manifests on the Ellis Island website, and thought that cool. TEHO, of course, as with movies and art and all that jazz, but I think what we were is what we are.
I doubt I'll get to see where my grandparents walked, but never say never. I have no religion now either, but that is from 12 years of Satanic nuns and priests. I too like to embrace all cultures, especially their foods, but I absolutely intuitively feel that the culture of my grandparents and their ancestors have more influence on me than my 'Americanism'.
-
To wit:
Now there's a "passive-aggressive" use of that "Happy" emoticon.
By the way, primosprimos, how did you get them lined up in a row like that? I can never post them horizontally, they always end up vertical.
Wait ! They are vertical. Like Hallowe'en pumpkins.
So, at the risk of generating more "happy" emoticons from you, why do you think what I said there is "hilarious"?
I actually really do think a "work of art", be it a Renaissance painting (famous or not) by an Italian master, or a giant oil by Jackson ****, (that is, P O L L A C K. unbelievable. This is the guy's name, his "proper name", and it's deleted. Dirigulous) should not need volumes of explanation to connect with a viewer. Ya either like it or ya don't, right?
I'm surprised no one has as yet said
"I may not know Art, but I know what I like". A much-mocked cliche, for sure. But kind of true.
And what about "Art is dead"? But maybe they were just talking about Arthur Kennedy.
"Hey, don't drag me into this!
And don't call me "Art" ".
why do you think what I said there is "hilarious"?
Your fondness for pronouncements of what OTHER people SHOULD do or should NOT do is hilarious.
all three of you seem unaware of the fact that this painting can and should be appreciated by anyone, even a person without one iota of artistic knowledge or art history background.
What I want to know is, is the history behind these emoticons important, or should they stand on their own?
Gotta hand it to you, that one's good.
-
Like I posted I know that most people do NOT agree with me. Most people I know feel like one should (or needs to) carry on the traditions of their ancestors. Instead I try to meet and befriend people from as many different varried cultures and backgrounds as I can, learn about them and incorporate "traditions" I feel are useful (cool if you will), into my life.
Like I posted I know that most people do NOT agree with me.
Most people I know feel like one should (or needs to) carry on the traditions of their ancestors.
Instead I try to meet and befriend people from as many different varied cultures and backgrounds as I can,
Huh? Wha? Who said the two were mutually exclusive?
Be careful with that word most, it messes up your mind. Pretty soon you'll be making pronouncements on what TCM should be or not be based on what the most have decided. Nah, just kidding, I know you're above that, but still...............................watch out, or the most will getcha.
-
As you noted there are people that have virtually nothing in common with 'their' culture ("their" being the culture of their ancestors).
In fact I'm a big promoter of trying to 'erase' the culture of one's ancestors. i.e. become an individual 'melting pot' instead of carrying on with ones' ancestor's culture. I believe this is because my parents came from two very different cultures. But most people I know wish to carry on their ancestor's culture traditions, religion, foods, riturals etc, especially when they have children of their own. The new T.V. show Blackish explores this theme pushing the point that one shouldn't lose their ancestor's culture like you appear to have done (which again, I think is great).
(which again, I think is great).
Do you? I don't.
-
You don't think that making up a movie that has TWENTY Academy Awards to its credit but is "below average" (??) so that you can use that imagined creation to equate an actual centuries-old painting to it - with a puzzling rhetorical question tacked on - is wise, do you?
Answer- Yes I do because it made my point. You seem to think the Mona Lisa is standing on its own, and I think it is standing on its history (the question seems to be quite obvious in that regard, no dyslexia required). Let's let the people reading the blog decide who is right. I imagine some agree with you and some agree with me. More on that below...
And, could you explain again how history means the painting doesn't stand on its own for you or anyone else who views it?
Answer- The history of the painting shows it was not melting hearts outside of a small circle until centuries after it was painted. So I happen to think when that amount of time passes in this case then yes it must be the history taking over.
Isn't each viewer the judge of whether a work of art "holds up" for them or not?
Answer- Yes they are and i respect everyone who loves the Mona Lisa. This is only my opinion, i thought that is why we are allowed to post here.
Or are they not supposed to enjoy a work of art unless they're knowledged in its history? It's been said that the most moving art is "timeless", after all.
Answer,- I never said that just like I would never say only those that understand the history behind a movie should actually watch them. Hollywood has used this to their advantage to rewrite history at times (No, I won't go into that one). I just posted on the YouTube thread Machine-Gun Kelly and they changed around things to make the movie. What you ask is like asking should we ban all movies that are not historically accurate? I doubt many would be left if we did that.
Now, let me ask this. If the Mona Lisa is standing on its own, do you really think if it didn't exist and was painted tomorrow, that new painting would ever receive the greatness the current one does? Let me save you the breath, No, No, and double No.
However, here is the sticking point. There are some classic movies that if they were made today would receive the greatness that they currently show. Actually quite a few I would imagine. Those movies have greatness that transcends history itself. Yes the history may help these movies to be even more appreciated, but I think they could stand on their own today if they had to. The Mona Lisa, no, no and double no.
So now does all this make sense? I hope so, lol. As we see some here love the history behind the movies and say they enjoy that as it adds to the viewing experience, then some say it doesn't matter. Maybe both are right and one adds to the other when you look at the overall interest in a movie.
Answer- Yes they are and i respect everyone who loves the Mona Lisa. This is only my opinion, i thought that is why we are allowed to post here.
Of course you are correct. If you believed the mosts, you would be one of them.
Maybe both are right and one adds to the other when you look at the overall interest in a movie.
Bingo.
-
misswonderlytoo, on 01 Oct 2014 - 5:48 PM, said:
Now, while both jamesjazzguitar and TopBilled have offered "explanations" for the Mona Lisa comparison, all three of you seem unaware of the fact that this painting can and should be appreciated by anyone, even a person without one iota of artistic knowledge or art history background.
Hilarious.
-
Apparently the Mona Lisa was not widely known before it was stolen, so it was not standing on its own. Now it is like it has 20 Oscars to its credit and everybody knows about it. And yes Oscars are used to influence the popularity of movies they want to promote, anyone who doesn't see that is possibly "blind".
Anyway I made an easy comparison that all of us could relate to. I didn't think I was opening the debate up to the quality of the Mona Lisa. I do not think the Mona Lisa could stand on its own though, but it is impossible to prove other than it was not apparently well know until it was stolen.
Sometimes this has happened with movies that did poorly at the box office and later became popular for whatever reason. I don't think the Mona Lisa is an example of this as the painting itself is of an "average unknown" person and is hardly breathtaking in appearance. There are many other paintings that blow it away, sorry.
Now let's take this a step further, do we judge movies by what the critics say are the best or do we rate them on our own? Should I just take the fact that the Mona Lisa is considered so brilliant and "popular" or rate it myself on what I think and leave their opinions out?
I do, and think some of Da Vinci's other paintings are brilliant, many times better than the Mona Lisa.
So now do you understand how I can say "The Mona Lisa is kind of like a below average movie with 20 Oscars to its credit- If it had to stand on its own could it?"
So in a strange way the Mona Lisa does prove my point that the history does matter to some of us, much more than some want to admit. I know the history matters to me, it does with movies. With paintings the Mona Lisa proves it as well. Not so foolish now, eh?
So in a strange way the Mona Lisa does prove my point that the history does matter to some of us, much more than some want to admit. I know the history matters to me, it does with movies. With paintings the Mona Lisa proves it as well. Not so foolish now, eh?
Well, history does matter and it doesn't matter. But you are correct, the concept of history matters only to the viewer.
It matters to those who buy and sell these famously famous works of art, but it doesn't matter to me if I don't like the art. I am not plebeian enough to like dogs playing poker, but more power to those who do. I weep in front of Hieronymus Bosch, but the Mona Lisa left me meh. Rodin gave me chills, but I hate all of Picasso's art, and when I found out he was a misogynistic prat, I felt vindicated.
Same with movies and television. Time sometimes alters reactions. I couldn't get into Twin Peaks or Eraserhead, but having seen David Lynch, I now adore him and like his work. The man is a charming freak. I still hate Lee Marvin and Robert Blake and always will, and work I previously liked of theirs is now on my **** list. I still hate the actors on sight that I have hated since I first saw them, and still love those I loved 50 years ago. I love my opinion, and don't give a flying fig what the mosts think of my opinions.
No opinion is foolish, MovieMadness, especially when it applies to an arbitrary field such as art. Only those mosts who have the temerity to call others names and denigrate their posts are foolish. Oh, and emoticons are there to be used:
-
Thanks Nipkow. Please keep posting those notes about Svengoolie's shows. I like to know what's coming up on Saturday nights, and I am sure others do as well.
Hear, hear, NipkowDisc! Ignore the mosts, you keep saying what you want to say. If the Mod is okay with it...............well, just ignore the mosts.
Luvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv those silly emoticons!
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
The Jewish Experience on TCM...
in General Discussions
Posted
My mistake, you posted:
One of the things I love about living in So Cal is that there is no much variety here.
Which could either mean 'there is not much variety here', or 'there is so much variety here'.
MEA MAXIMA CULPA for not asking first.