primosprimos
-
Posts
3,054 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by primosprimos
-
-
FDR was the President in 1941, so I really don't see this discussion as way off-topic.
You're absolutely 1000% correct, james.
-
Sending the main body of the Pacific fleet from the west coast out to Pearl Harbor and building up the number of aircraft (fighters and bombers) stationed in Hawaii wasn't exactly lowering the defenses, in fact some opposed those moves because it was seeing as unnecessarily promoting a hostile attitude towards Japan. We were also strengthening the defenses throughout the Pacific region (Phillipines , Midway, Guam, etc. And as for the conspiracy theories (that FDR knew of the coming attack and kept quiet) , that's complete nonsense. Any knowledge of an actual attack would have involved too many people and keeping it a secret would have been impossible. There was a strong belief among political and military people that Japan would soon act in some aggressive manner, the question was where and when. And Pearl Harbor Hawaii was considered too far of a reach for Japan. That, of course proved wrong, simply put we greatly underestimated the abilities and the daring of the Japanese.
And as for the conspiracy theories (that FDR knew of the coming attack and kept quiet) , that's complete nonsense. Any knowledge of an actual attack would have involved too many people and keeping it a secret would have been impossible.
Ummm, sure okay, I trust the government.
-
Please let's not turn this thread another Osward conspiracy thread! Just mentioning that may get the compulsively off-topic people going...
I was taken by FDR's comment during his 1944 rally at Ebbet's Field, where the Dodgers used to play. He said as a native New Yorker he was embarrassed that he had never been there before. As a native New Yorker, I'm embarrassed that I've never visited Hyde Park or Sagamore Hill!
Why not? Have you not been on this board long enough to notice that threads devolve into anything and everything? Or do you think the Uncle Remus thread is staying on topic.
Sorry, going to say whatever I want to say, unless someone in power tells me not to.
Thanks anyway.
-
I actually liked the length and richness of the documentary. It gave the impression of an epic tapestry that couldn't be achieved in less time. Regarding PBS, I haven't been impressed with them lately -- at least our local NY-area PBS stations. Too much Suze Orman, personal improvement lectures that sound almost cultish, and those increasingly tedious doo-w op concerts during pledge drives. (Not that I don't love 60s music; I just don't like to be pandered to so brazenly.)
I felt this quote, from a review of the Roosevelt series in a UK newspaper, to be to the point:
"The combination of epic scale and, as the subtitle claims, intimacy makes this thoroughly American story Tolstoyan – with the Dostoevskian spectres of alcoholism, depression and madness looming in the background. Eyes on the Prize, the magnificent history of the civil rights movement, is, by comparison, a chronicle of events. The Roosevelts has a psychological subtlety and depth that is virtually unprecedented in television histories."
I agree. I don't know which audience PBS thinks appreciates the big mouth of Orman, or the constant repetition of the faith healing soap boxers selling their books and DVDs, but it's not the one sitting in my chair, that's for sure.
In addition, these carny hawking weeks are getting more and more frequent. I am thinking of actually going over to the dark side of Acorn to see the UK shows I crave, which was my only reason to watch PBS.
Oh well.
This documentary was very good and very enlightening - everything (well, not everything, I'm sure there was still more dirt to be had) we didn't learn in school. Maybe 50 years from now they'll tell the truth on the Kennedys, equally if not moreso everything the Roosevelts were behind the scenes, and finally let the world know that Oswald was not the lone shooter.
-
Image Michelle Obama disappearing from public view for weeks on end, and it turned out she was on a rural retreat vacation in New England, accompanied only by a friend and a gun! I'm not sure what seems more unbelievable to the modern eye, Eleanor's refusal of secret service protection or the media's respect for her privacy.
Imagine the current media, e.g. TMZ, not snapping every picture they could of FDR's withered legs.
Better now? Better then?
-
There's a line of thought that FDR was so anxious to enter the war that Pearl Harbor's defenses were lowered intentionally so the Japanese would take the bait. Although that theory wasn't addressed in "The Roosevelts," you could see what a delicate balancing act the president had to pull off before December 7, 1941.
Yup, no one can ever convince me otherwise.
-
I'm surprised the word bastards wasn't starred out. Hmmm. Maybe the
truth is more powerful than the censor. I'll take a cup of kindness now
for auld lang syne.
Aye.
There were what, 2mil+ 'no' votes? All the quin had to do was sell a few baubles and beads that she never paid for, and distribute a few pounds sterling (or whatever it is they're using these days) to all the 'no' voters.
Plus, the votes were on PAPER! Didja not see that? Can ye say 'hanging chad'?
Am I right, or am I right?
-
I am a wee bit disappointed, not shaken just slightly stirred, that the Scots
voted to stay with the lime eaters, but the people have spoken. And they
would still be keeping the old bag lady and her parasitic brood. Yuck.
I'm consoled by the fact that we had the smarts to give the bloody bastards
the heave ho all those years ago. Thank goodness for that.
Hoo boy, I couldn't agree more. Imagine being lorded over by that princess off'er and her inbred brood?
No thank ye.
I feel really badly that there weren't enough Scots with the ken to tell the quin to get that U-Haul up to her property in the lovely Scotland and get out, lock, stock, and barrel.
Oh well, here's hoping they'll try again, and the 'yes' vote will win next time.
-
I think your explanation may account for part of the difference, but I also think that Gentleman's Agreement isn't trying to depict the sort of anti-semitism that Crossfire is. I may change my mind when I see the entire film, of course, but from what I've seen of Gentleman's Agreement so far, I think it captures the nuances of "genteel" anti-semitism quite well. Admittedly it's preachy, but so far it also seems quite accurate in its portrayals of the country club set's "genteel" bias.
I should add that I think Crossfire is a terrific movie, mainly because Ryan captures the sheer ugliness of the face of bigotry so compellingly. What an actor he was, not just here but in every movie he was in.
mainly because Ryan captures the sheer ugliness of the face of bigotry so compellingly. What an actor he was, not just here but in every movie he was in.
I find him amazing, early on, later on, whenever. I used to mix up Ryan and Hayden before I was movie savvy, but still find them cut from the same cloth.
Manly men actors is how I see them, perhaps given to treating their women in a way of which I am not fond, but so outstanding in their craft that I am able to overlook the misogyny of the time. Unlike Pat O'Brien, who can't act his way out of a paper bag and was ugly to women in movies...............i....................m...........................o.
I'm sitting here, trying to think of a modern day peer to Ryan and Hayden..........nope, can't do it.
-
Andy,
I am going to slightly disagree. I think GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT seems more genteel because of its polished production values-- compared to CROSSFIRE which has much grittier staging (or as the French say, mise en scene).
The main problem I have with GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT is that it lacks action. A film can still have a lot of thought-provoking dialogue, but exciting things need to happen. By comparison, CROSSFIRE is much more kinetic, explosive, powerful-- because we see things going on that illustrate the reality of anti-semitism. It is much less an experiment than GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT-- more the actuality, the reality of seeing anti-semitism play out before our eyes on screen.
In the final analysis, Zanuck's Oscar winner seems like a long-winded sermon-- while Dore Schary's CROSSFIRE is a plot-driven indictment of one of society's great evils.
In the final analysis, Zanuck's Oscar winner seems like a long-winded sermon-- while Dore Schary's CROSSFIRE is a plot-driven indictment of one of society's great evils.
Excellently put, TB.
Or, as I succinctly put it, it was chock full of yada yada blather. Yes, it is good, and yes, it made a salient point. But I don't like Peck, never have, never will, but he was perfect for this movie. He would have KILLED Crossfire, however, put a stake through its heart.
I adore Sam Levene, and the rest of the cast of Crossfire was perfect. Again, as I put it, that was an inyerface kind of movie, and I mostly like those kinds of movies. If I didn't, I would re-watch Citizen Kane and The Magnificent Ambersons, which I won't.
-
1
-
-
Richard Brooks wrote the novel while he was in the Marines in WW2. He also directed the film. The original story had a homosexual as the victim. But in 1947 the Hollywood Hays forbid the mention of any homosexuality, so the victim was changed to Jewish and antisemitism was the plot.This was the first "B" picture to receive an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture. Ryan and Gloria Grahame also was nominated for best supporting and Director and screenplay was also named, but it lost out to another film that delt with the same subject, "Gentleman's Agreement" with Gregory Peck....
but it lost out to another film that dealt with the same subject, "Gentleman's Agreement" with Gregory Peck....
Did it really. What a shame. Crossfire was electric compared to the lukewarm water of G/A with my favorite block of wood, Gregory Peck.
Guess the Academy liked the yada yada yada blather-ness of G/A as compared to the in yer face-ness of Crossfire.
-
I am very pleased that Dr. Goldman has selected Edward Dmytryk's CROSSFIRE as part of the Jewish Image Series on TCM. It will air on Tuesday September 23.
Here is a portion of the original review in Variety:
Crossfire is a frank spotlight on anti-Semitism. Producer Dore Schary, in association with Adrian Scott, has pulled no punches. Here is a hard-hitting film [based on Richard Brooks' novel, The Brick Foxhole] whose whodunit aspects are fundamentally incidental to the overall thesis of bigotry and race prejudice.
There are three Roberts (Young, Mitchum and Ryan) all giving capital performances. Young is unusual as the detective captain; Mitchum is the 'right' sort of cynical GI; and Ryan a commanding personality, in this instance the bigoted soldier-killer, whose sneers and leers about Sam Levene and his tribe are all too obvious.
The pic opens with the fatal slugfest in Levene's apartment, when his hospitality is abused and Ryan kills him. Director Edward Dmytryk has drawn gripping portraitures. The flashback technique is effective as it shades and colors the sundry attitudes of the heavy, as seen or recalled by the rest of the cast.
Crossfire. (1947). Variety Movie Reviews, (1), 14.
Thank you for the heads up. Sam Levene, an under-appreciated actor, is beyond excellent in this movie.
Robert Mitchum, whom I have enormous respect for - despite his yummy appeal, he was married to the same woman for 57 years, no Lee Marvin for him - was excellent.
Robert Ryan, it goes without saying, is always excellent. Robert Young, not always excellent, was excellent.
I don't usually swoon over such a male-centric movie, but this one actually could have been made better had Warren William and James Gleason been in it.
-
Of course not. The only original point was to get a few people to acknowledge that some other people might sincerely find it offensive, and to further acknowledge that those who find it offensive aren't merely acting out of some sort of "political correctness". What I've seen here from a handful of people is that only those who say they enjoy the movie are capable of being honest or sincere. That's the only thing some of us have been pushing back against, this assumption that anyone who finds SOTS offensive is just trying to be "PC".
So don't fret. Nobody's trying to tell you that you shouldn't enjoy the movie.
Okay, thanks for the clarification.
So don't fret. Nobody's trying to tell you that you shouldn't enjoy the movie.
Fret?
What, Me Fret?
Nobody tells me what to do, ever.
-
I'm usually the last person to defend any modern movies, but depending on your taste, you can find decent offerings.
Anything from Philip Seymour Hoffman (more's the pity that he is gone) was good, as are most foreign films.
Obviously, CGI movies are made to appeal to the lowest common denominator, as are those with 'stars', such as the no-talent Cruise and Carrey.
If you look, you will find.
-
I'm curious, owing to the enormous popularity of this topic.
Do those who think SOTS was offensive expect to convince those who didn't find SOTS offensive otherwise?
-
Well, it appears Franklin and The Mankster have at least ONE thing in common anyway.
(...one invented the lightning rod, and the other seems to often be one around here!)
Hah, good one.
Poor Ben..............as if RO is any better.
-
She may have been 81 but she didn't look it or act it, and she was still prominently in the media limelight, rather than just gently fading away.
but she didn't look it
Ummmmmmmmmmmmm............................oh, never mind. If you don't know why she didn't look 81............
-
If one finds that their opinion is often a minority one, I can understand how they might begin to feel that there's something unfair about that.
But it's not unfair. It's just each person saying what they think; feel; prefer. Whichever "camp" one finds oneself in - minority, majority, unique - it's all just people expressing themselves and hopefully entertaining the other members.
If one finds that their opinion is often a minority one, I can understand how they might begin to feel that there's something unfair about that.
Nope, absolutely positively not at all. My opinion has been a minority opinion since I was seven. I never had any problem with it, unless I was being bullied and berated for having that opinion, and even then my problem was never ever with my opinion, it was with the bulliers. Need I say more?
It's just each person saying what they think; feel; prefer.
If only.
it's all just people expressing themselves and hopefully entertaining the other members.
Okay, if that's how you see the most, you're entitled to your opinion.
See how that works, most?
-
I don't see it as anyone telling anyone else what to think.
No matter what the topic, if the way one person thinks is different from what another thinks, each wishes to represent by posting. It's only fair.
dark, I can't ask you if you've been here much, 'cause I know you have. Fair doesn't enter into any of the manner in which the most post.
-
I watched The Smiling Ghost on TCM the other day. Willie Best is in the cast. Yes his character is a stereotype. Yes he was a very good actor and should have had more and different opportunities. Yes that sort of stereotyping would not happen in a film today.
Every time one of those old movies shows up or is discussed, the same conversations take place here. No new insights. Posters repeat the same arguments. Will this ever stop. Obviously we can repeat this discussion every time, just changing the name of the film under discussion, with the usual lack of sensitivity and understanding from ALL sides, but what's the point?
We can't go back and change those films. We can enjoy what good there is in those films. We can, to the best of our abilities, live our lives so that the things we complain about in the films, which were of another time, don't happen in our time, or in the future.
Bears repeating:
Every time one of those old movies shows up or is discussed, the same conversations take place here. No new insights. Posters repeat the same arguments. Will this ever stop. Obviously we can repeat this discussion every time, just changing the name of the film under discussion, with the usual lack of sensitivity and understanding from ALL sides, but what's the point?
What an EXCELLENT observation, Swithin. Isn't it incredible? And the same most who want to tell the others what to think instead of those most leaving everyone to their opinions trot out their same dictatorial nonsense, thinking: well, my bellicosity might work this time and I just might, this time, convince everyone that censorship is a wonderful thing.
Amazing, ain't it?
You are SO right, Swithin.
-
Lol. You can never see too many episodes of I Love Lucy. I've seen every episode a million times and have the entire series on DVD. It never gets old.
Never, speedracer. And it never will get old, unlike just about every so-called modern comedy.
I can also quote every episode of The Honeymooners, albeit there are only 39 important ones.
I too would lock any of my Warren's co-stars in that utility closet (remember the one?) with the bucket and mop, and take their place.
-
Same here. I just couldn't stand the husband role as written and Colbert's wife role was only slightly better. Yea, this is a comedy but one I didn't find funny. Reading above I guess the husband grows up and figures out using threats isn't a way to a women's heart. Oh, boy! To be fair to the filmmakers this type of plot was fairly common during that era but that doesn't mean I have to watch the film.
To be fair to the filmmakers this type of plot was fairly common during that era but that doesn't mean I have to watch the film.
Spot on, james. Been there, lived it growing up. No thank you.
-
It also depends on whether your Jewish or just German. In German, Mensch (capitalized because it's a noun) is just the word for a person, or in compounds like Menschenrechte which means "human rights".
Alternatively, Mensch is this:
Italian here, not Jewish. Grandmothers the same in both cases.
I learned all my Yiddish from television and movies. Wish I knew German, but I don't.
Infidel has the funniest instruction on how to be Jewish I've ever seen. Oy.
-
Two films they left out- and it's a damn shame they did- Murder on the Orient Express and The Shootist. Both were later-in-life films, and both were good roles- in fact, in Orient Express, Bacall is really the central figure around which the others in the celestial all-star cast revolve. She's very good, giving it the right amount of theatricality, but not overplaying the pivotal moments, I like her better in it than I do Ingrid Bergman, who won the Oscar for her two scenes.
Orient Express is also a film that there is not finite amount of times I can watch. It's one they could play monthly and I wouldn't whine about it a bit.
I agree. I actually liked it better than David Suchet's religious fanatical version, and I hated Finney in a hair net!
I like all of the actors, especially Bacall. I can't believe Bergman, much as I like her, got an Oscar for her part? Wow.
LornaHanson, did you like Death on the Nile, with Ustinov? Again, heresy for me to admit I liked it, since Suchet is the one and only Poirot, but these star-pa-loozas were a lot of fun.
The Roosevelts: Ken Burns' brilliant documentary
in General Discussions
Posted
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Good one, james.