sewhite2000

There are, I think, some kind of rights issues with Ceiling Zero, which is maybe based on a play or a novel or something which has proved intractable as far as TCM obtaining the rights? Feel like I've read that on here before.

I don't remember know why this was even being discussed or on what thread, but not too long ago, I was talking about Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in America. Leone had about nine hours of usable footage. He wanted to release it as two separate three-hour films. He finally agreed to cutting it down to less than four hours, and the film was scheduled to be released in a three hour, 49 minute version. This was the version that was intended to be released as late as when trailers started airing in American theaters. But only days before release, the Ladd Co. panicked and cut the American release down to two hours, 24 minutes, it appears without giving Leone any role in this new edit or even telling him they were going to do it. The film was still released in the longer version in Europe. I've seen both versions, and the shorter one doesn't make any sense. Too much information has been removed, and you can't grasp the connections between what's happening to characters over large jumps in time. Unsurprisingly, this version did poorly at the US box office and got poor reviews from US critics. Despite stunning art direction and cinematography, not to mention Leone's direction and many great acting performances and a beautiful Morricone score, the film didn't get a single Oscar nomination. Happily, the longer version eventually came out on VHS and DVD releases, and the film got some reevaluation as a masterpiece by some critics. Roger Ebert famously trashed the theatrical release but loved the VHS release so much, he gave it a second review and was effusive in praise for it. He urged potential viewers heading to Blockbuster to check the running time on the box and only rent the movie if it was the longer version.

Joan Crawford is WAY not wearing a bra in (spoiler alert!) the scene where Wallace Beery kills John Barrymore in Grand Hotel.

In answer to your question - I don't know, and neither does the movie, and it doesn't care. Not once anywhere in the movie do any of the slaves express any unhappiness about being a slave or any self-awareness of what being a slave means. I don't think that's me making assumptions. That's just me seeing the way it's presented on screen.

I don't know if TCM ever shows that, but I watched it on YouTube a year or two ago and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Fair enough, and it's an interpretation I like, although I still think Selznick et. al. didn't intend for Prissy to have thoughts that deep. They just wanted her to be "a simple-minded ****", as Rhett puts it, for comic purposes. but maybe McQueen put some of that into her performance. Anyone who's interested can see her many years later in Peter Weir's The Mosquito Coast, if you would like to see her do something different than just play Prissy again, which she did in her earlier career.

I read somewhere that at least for one of his films, the cantankerous David Lynch refused to allow the chapter function on the DVD release, maybe more than one of them, his feeling being the film is meant to be watched from beginning to end as one uninterrupted work. There's a quote from him saying something like two hours is not so extreme an investment of a viewer's time.

I just haven't seen a lot of her work other than her very strong Oscar-nominated role in Sunset Blvd. There is another pairing of her and William Holden, a wartime romance, the title of which I'm not going to remember, which I can't remember now if I saw on TCM or YouTube. And she's the betrothed to Fred MacMurray whose wedding date he keeps forgetting in The Absent-Minded Professor, right? Anyway, very happy birthday, Ms. Olson! So few stars left from that era. Hope everything in her life is good.

My brain just exploded.

Instead of continuing to provide these links to imdb which cost money to see, how about changing them to something like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Columbia_Pictures_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Paramount_Pictures_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RKO_Pictures_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Artists_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Universal_Pictures_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_20th_Century_Fox_films_(1935–99) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_20th_Century_Fox_films_(2000–present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Goldwyn_Productions#Filmography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rank_Organisation#Select_filmography (Sorry, no complete Rank filmography appears to exist on Wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gainsborough_Pictures_films (The same thing as British Gaumont, I think) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Warner_Bros._films I suggest in future challenges, these free links be used in the OP instead of those links you have to pay for! This has bugged me for years, so I finally decided to try doing something about it.

That info in the OP has been presented unchanged for many years. It just occurred to me that you can't access these catalogs of studio outputs unless you're an imdb Pro member, which costs money after a free 30-day trial membership. Just thought people should know that!

I'm sorry, I can't buy any of that. You've got Prissy looking back on her own situation from some great distance of time (like our own modern time) and having the ability to be aware that there was the possibility that her circumstances could be different. Robbed her of her individuality? Perpetrated an outrage on her humanity? I'm not saying these things aren't true! I'm saying Prissy would have no idea what those concepts mean. The thing about Gone With the Wind that I've never heard anyone discuss is that the war ends slightly less than halfway into the movie, and all of the O'Hara's slaves keep right on working for them in the exact same positions. Presumably they're being paid now, but who knows? It's not something the movie bothers to address, because frankly it doesn't really care about those characters.

In The Cincinatti Kid, Edward G. Robinson says he wants a new deck, and Karl Malden takes the old one and just RIPS IT IN HALF with his bare hands! What the hell? It made me think of that mentalist in the '70s who used to go on Johnny Carson and rip phone books in half. Were playing cards made out of tissue paper back then? Imagine just ripping a modern deck of cards in half. You'd need the strength of the Hulk or be on a bath salts high, maybe.

Probably a lot of people around here don't go to see all the superhero and Star Wars and other fantasy movies like I still routinely do. I've noticed a number of these are getting really bloated and posterior-numbing in their running time. That last Avengers movie was like 2:35. Ready Player One clocked in at about 2:20. Solo I've forgotten the running time, but I bet it was more than 2:10. All of these movies could have been cut back to two hours or a little less without missing anything plotwise at all. I would show a little more restraint with some of the classics. Generally, I would like to see most of them whittled down to two hours, but I would definitely look at them on a case-by-case basis. Curiously, some of the epics, I really only dig the early parts of them. Dr. Zhivago, I love about the first 90 or 100 minutes while we're still in the decadent Tsarist era, but I often turn it off after that. Lawrence of Arabia is very, very strong in the first third and the final third: we could probably do a little editing to the middle third. Same with Gone with the Wind, which I love up till about the part Atlanta burns and then again when Scarlett and Rhett get married. Some of the part in between could probably be cut. Best Years of Our Lives, however, I wouldn't cut a minute.

Hear, hear! It was Barbara Stanwyck's 111th birthday one day earlier this week, which is why I posted that seminude photo of her that got taken down! I'm unaware that TCM did anything for that. You can't have a lineup of every major star every year on their birthday. That would get boring.

I very patiently and thoughtfully stated why it might be logical to assume you were the same person based on previous experiences in my many years on this board. I'm baffled at the idea that you find that to be an "attack". I'm not trying to make enemies. I have already said I didn't intend to offend anybody, and I'm sorry if I upset you or anyone else. You continue to be very aggressive and angry and combative about it, so I'm saying sorry a second time. I don't know what else I can do.

I read pretty much all the threads on here. They're all theoretically supposed to be movie-related, which is the primary interest of most of us. And I'm definitely a Cagney fan. I don't know what I said anywhere that would keep making anyone think I'm not. I'm just trying to say there are plenty of actors who get less time on TCM than he does.

Just a feeling I have about Birth of a Nation, James. Of course, I could be wrong and actually hope I am. It's been five years since they last showed it, and as I recall, the last time they did show it, it was framed by a panel discussion about the differences between the way the film was viewed and then and viewed now. I think if they do ever show it again, it would be presented in a similar manner. You mentioned in a previous post that there has been no PC outcry on these message boards that there is any film TCM should not show; in fact, quite the opposite. People around here only seem to get angry when they think Ben M. is being too PC in the things he says when he introduces films. And I agree with all that. I do think, however, that TCM suits might want to be out in front of the potentiality of PC outrage over something, which is why I found it interesting that Ben M. last night let us know twice in the space of five minutes that an African-American intellectual had actually asked TCM to show the film this time around.

I will say I guess I no longer believe LeeDonely and CagFan are the same person, since only one of them is being aggressively angry toward me.

Yes ... a troll who's been on these message boards for 10 years and made almost 1,800 posts. You found me out! I don't understand your statement as all. Do the math? What math? I'm trying to show you the math that TCM shows a lot more Cagney films than Power films. You think they don't show enough or don't honor Cagney enough or Ben M. has some kind of Cagney hate. I don't agree with any of those assertions. That's all I'm trying to say.

I forgot about Schindler's List. So, here are the only three Best Picture winners through 2002 that TCM has not shown: The Sound of Music, Platoon and Schindler's List.

I really wanted to see the Donald Bogle intro and outro with this particular viewing. I did watch the intro but just couldn't stay up four hours to watch the outro. I couldn't help but notice Ben M. made the point twice in just a few minutes that Bogle had picked the night's lineup, including GWTW, as if wanting to get out in front of the "why is TCM showing this movie?" question. "Hey, everybody, an African-American scholar actually wants you to watch this movie, so it's okay!" he seemed to be saying, and he made a point of saying Bogle did not seem to be in favor of the idea of never showing the movie again. And Bogle made a point that even in his day, Selznick was highly self-conscious of not wanting a Birth of a Nation on his hands, which I suspect is a film TCM will never show again. I was fascinated to learn the lengths Selznick actually went to reach out to the African-American community for feedback during production. Clearly, he thought at the time he was being highly sensitive in his portrayal of black characters, and I suppose he was given what else you can see in some contemporary films, though it appears less sensitive with the passage of 80 years. Although TCM began its existence by showing GWTW two times back to back (oh my God!), they have been reasonably restrained over the past quarter century in airing it. It's never been on as frequently as say North by Northwest or Adventures of Robin Hood. I suspect its airings will be even less frequent in the future, as the network probably feels it needs to be shown from now on as part of some larger theme or context. It's only been on twice this year that I'm aware of, the first movie shown as part of Leslie Howard's SOTM tribute and now last night with the Slavery in Film theme. Maybe it was on during 31 Days as well, which would give it three airings tops in 2018.

Well, every moment they stay in that house, the Yankees are getting closer, and Prissy wastes a lot of time going off to find Dr. Meade and not succeeding, so that then Scarlet has to go off and do the same thing. I don't know what would actually happen in the Yankees came across a house full of unarmed women. I would like to think they wouldn't just kill them, but as we see later in the film when Scarlet encounters the deserter on the staircase, there was evil intent on his mind, rape possibly, or worse. I did notice for the first time ever almost a look of contempt on Prissy's face as Scarlet goes off to find Dr. Meade, but I don't think it was the intent of McQueen of the filmmakers to show Prissy as any kind of subversive, fun as the idea might be to a modern viewer. She was just there for comic relief, I think.

Actually not ridiculous at all. Hopefully my above post explains why.

It is not my intention to be disrespectful. I actually don't think I am being disrespectful to suggest three people in the single digits of total posts all popping up on the same thread to say the exact same thing might actually be the same person. It's happened before. Nothing personal intended. If you are really separate people and you're all brand new to these boards, you can't possibly know how incredibly rare such a thing is around here. And when it has happened before, all these supposedly different posters usually end up disappearing and never posting again. So, it actually very logically raises my suspicions. Sorry if that causes any of you to be upset. I am actually not especially a Tyrone Power fan. My point, as I'm sure all veterans of these boards know, is most of the movies he made are not part of the TCM "library", since they were made at 20th Century Fox, and therefore do not get shown much or ever on TCM. Whereas many of the films Cagney made ARE part of the "library" and get shown on TCM a LOT. For a bunch of people to come on here all at once and very passionately say Cagney doesn't get enough airplay on TCM just struck me as really weird and blatantly false, and Lawrence and I have both tried to provide data showing this to be so. Granted, these numbers are relative. 20 airings in 25 years is not a lot relatively, but it's a lot more than the zero airings of a lot of Power's films. I agree TCM tends to focus on certain movies from big stars again and again, I assume the ones the programmers think will be more popular with viewers or which attained more of a "classic" status over the years. Hence, Yankee Doodle Dandy gets shown a lot more than any of Cagney's early films. Now, the "don't let TCM turn into AMC" concept is a very old chestnut around here. It's something I've seen dozens or maybe hundreds of people say over the years. There still doesn't seem to be any danger of that, as far as I can tell. While I have my complaints about TCM just like everybody, I suppose I tend to get defensive when newbies come on here and are passionately angry that TCM's playlists are unsatisfactory to them. I think the network all in all does an extraordinary job in providing us access to all kinds of movies that certainly aren't playing with any regularity anywhere else on television, and possibly I get overzealous in defending TCM sometimes.