HarryLong

*I think it's a riot that NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is playing in December* Nothing says Xmas like flesh-eating zombies.

*I seem to recall a little film entitled "Greed"...* An agreeable short subject. buit your point is...?

I thought, too, that Dekker died by self-inflicted means. (Not suicide, but accidentally strangled himself. Just checked IMDb & that's what is stated there...

Well, Deborah Kerr certainly doesn't fall out a window in THE INNOCENTS. The "father" is INNOCENTS isn't in the house (though the plot description in the OP isn't clear whether he's present or not) and there's no final revelation that someone was creating the events, as opposed to supernatural goings on. Frankly it doesn't sound like any film I know.

*According to the IMDb. ON THE WATERFRONT is supposed to be a 1.85:1 ratio.* *SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS is 1.66:1* *SEPARATE TABLES is also 1.66:1 as is MAN IN THE NET and NIGHT TIDE.* Um, yes, as I pointed out about 9 posts up.

Nothing to do with quality, son. It's just that in general MCA/Universal doesn't care a crap about their older movies unless there are monsters in them. And the Gilbert movie's performance at the box-office had little or nothing to do with MGM selling it to Paramount. That would have happened years later when Paramount acquired it in order to to remake it.

Well, it's only my opinion, of course, but I think anyone who includes phrases like: >>Cant you see THAT? You are too stupid to know the difference. Are you? in his or her posts is asking for sarcastic come-backs, whether he or she realizes it or not. That kind of attitude and language is just plain rude.

Wasn't GABLE & LOMBARD derived from Garson Kanin's book (as were a couple other films, I think)? Kanin was not that far removed... but then I haven't read his book, so any innacuracies may or may not be his fault. I do believe his book on Tracy & Hepburn was -- um -- sanitized to a great degree; Hepburn was still alive & he couldn't tell-all if if that was his inclination. As to a new book or Harlow... a book is very different kettle of amphibians.

>>Although you mentioned Night Tide, you did not specifically say it was in "fake letterbox." Night Tide is an odd case. The IMDb says it was shot in 1.66:1. However, the official commercial release, by Image Entertainment, is 1.85:1, which would be cropped top and bottom. My guess is that Sinister Cinema doesn't own broadcast rights, perhaps not even DVD rights, and has issued the film in OAR, but the people who own the broadcast rights only release the film in 1.85:1 Another likely ep0lanation is that NIGHT TIDE was shot Academy Ratio with the plan to show it matted to 1.66 (you don't really shoot in 1.66 as I understand it). The Image disc is probably over-cropped. Sinister Cinema gets a good many of their prints from 16mm & because those were designed for TV broadcast (among other things) they would be in Academy Ratio. But 1.66 is probably Curtis Harrington & AIP's intended ratio. As for the other titles mentioned by Big Bopper, IMDB has them all at 1.66 except On the Waterfront, which is 1.85. Practically no Hollywood film after 1952 or so was shown in Academy Ratio. It may ahve been filmed that way but either the prints were hard-matted or had instructions to the projectionist to mask the screen to a certain aspect.

>>Herbert Stothart music is haunting, and it took some searching to find it was drawn on Brahm's 3rd Symphony Wouldn't it be more accurate to say you're now a Brahms fan? To the best of my knowledge all of Stothat's music is derived from other composers.

>>I think she was both a great actress and a scene stealer. I like pretty much everything she's in. That's pretty much it. She is a terrific actress who had no need for scene stealing tricks, but I suspect she' was insecure & had to call attention to herself (or, more imprtantly draw attention away from other actors) by waving that damned hankerchief (shades of Zasu Pitts), or rearranging flowers or resetting clocks. This - not her bigger than life performing style - is scene stealing. But not in JEZEBEL. She isn't in it.

>>a friend named Chris Steinbrunner who worked in the programming department of WOR Now there's a name I haven't heard in years. I really liked his comic work in CASTLE OF FRANKENSTEIN. He illustrated DR. STRANGE fo a while, too, I think...

>>this and the Godzilla films on the day after Thanksgiving gave them one of their few opportunities to generate that kind of revenue. Thanks, clore. So there actually was method to this seeming madness.

I'm not sure there's ever been any film biography that's been accurate. At least not any made in Hollywood.

>>...................................................... Some periods, Mike, for your exclusive use... Good one. Lots of supposition going in that post as well. Only so many Shearer films can be shown withing a 24 hour period. Maybe it didn't make the line-up only because (as noted) it's not very good.It may have nothing at all to do with stinginess. Edited by: HarryLong on Aug 23, 2010 4:45 PM

>>Note Boris Karloff and Stanley Ridges traded parts. Actually Stanley took Boris' part, Boris took Bela Lugosi's part, and Bela got screwed.

Growing up in Pennsylvania, didn't haver access to WOR until the early 1980s. The M$M was gone by then, so far as I know, but I was still able to appreciate their truly peculiar habit of showing KING KONG, SON OF KONG and MIGHTY JOE YOUNG on Thanksgiving Day every year. Whatever was the rationale behind that tradition, I wonder?

>>Repeat after me: Ricardo Cortez is the ultimate Sam Spade. It's true! Edited by: HarryLong on Aug 23, 2010 3:21 PM

It might indeed be creepier & it has been played that way in a couople of versions. There's thye Hammer film THE TWO FACES OF DR JEKYLL where the bearded middle-aged Jekyll becomes the dashingly handsome Hyde (Jerry Lewis would later appropriate the idea) and the Dan Curtis production with Jack Palance where makeup artist Dick Smith did a subtle job on the actor, givinbg him a satyr-like appearance. The thing to remember is that the "two" charcters should not look alike. Stevenson is not terribly specific about Hyde's appearance except that he's brutish. But as the novel is constructed as a mystery - and the revelation that Jekyll is Hyde & vice versa is the big climax) - its clear that Jekyll & Hyde do not look at all like each other. Yeah, the March makeup is a bit overdone & its tough to believe any woman would be attracted - but Ivy is a prostitute & Hyde has money. The Barrymore version probably got it better. His Hyde is repellant but still human but doesn't look at all like Jekyll. The Tracy version (apart from Bergman's performance) is atrocious.

And here's another wrinkle... MGM remade the film in the early 1960s. That could affect/complicate the rights issues in that the original got bundled in to the package somehow. Then again there could be some dispute as to who "owns" the film, as there is with Abel Gance's NAPOLEON (another film in which Brownlow participated as a restorer/presenter). If Brownlow isn't willing to publicly discuss the situation, it's probably a tangled mess. DVDR it next time TCM shows it.

Precisely.

>>Sam and J. Carroll? I can totally see it! Hoo-boy! I can't. Levene is funny. Naish gets my vote as most annoying over-actor of all time. He damned near ruins BEAU GESTE & in HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, I cheer when the Monster tosses him out the skylight.

In that last photo (worthy of the Big Hair thread), Joan's beehive looks ready to slide off her head...

YELLOW SUBMARINE is one of the first, if the _the_ first DVD I ever bought. I'm happy to hear they're working on remastering it - that early release wasn't anamorphic.

>>OK. I think it's officially time for everyone on this thread to start our own production company. Tax write-off, eh?