HarryLong

It certainly would have been different with Hope. Better or worse is debatable. Weird question: Does anyone know if the Revue lot was once a part of Paramount's property? I'd swear that the interior of the house (particularly the entry hallway) is the same standing set that showed up in a couple of THRILLER episodes ("Pigeons from Hell" and "The Incredible Dr, Markesan" at least). That show was filmed on the Revue lot which, by 1960, was owned by Universal.

*Mickey Rooney in "A Midsummer Night's Dream."* I would so love that film except for him. His scenes bring visions of prolonged and exotic methods of child abuse to mind.

*No, the film's flaw is that its resolution is utterly preposterous.* Bravo! And much of what you wrote applies to a good many other Capra films. I'm not saying SMITH, WONDERFUL LIFE, etc., needed unhappy endings, but the 5 minutes before the end 180 degree turnarounds are indeed preposterous. And they often kill the films for me. WONDERFUL LIFE, for instance features some incredibly brave work from both Capra & Stewart as George breaks down over the missing money, screaming at his family & nearly hitting his daughter. And the portrait of the town as it would have been without him is grim & gritty. These scenes are amazing... and I'd say as much for the scenes of Smith's holding forth on the Senate floor. And then Capra just throws all this away with endings that come out of nowhere and are ... well ... preposterous. And from a dramatic standpoint, it's lame that his heroes win not because they perservere or because brains or some ability carries them through. They just luck out.

*In all seriousness, El Brendel is pretty awesome.* No, he's painful. He single-handedly sinks every film I've seen him in. *Nobody REALLY sits through "The General" and laughs once....AT ALL.* I do. So your theory is junk. I think THE GENERAL is one of the Top Ten films of Hollywood's silent period.

You're right that there's more pathos for the scientist in the Paramount version (whatever Anton Differing's strengths as an actor, being sympathetic was not among them). On the other hand I do like Hammer's take that the guy who will murder just to preserve his own life just might not be worthy of sympathy. Anyway, as I said, I don't find either version perfect. And now... back to MURDER HE SAYS...

>>I would like to see another Helen Walker rarity -- The Man in Half Moon Street. The best of the mad-scientist-wants-to-live-forever films. I'm guessing you haven't seen this in a while...? I got reaquainted with it a few years ago after not having seen it in ages & found it stodgy and disappointing. And - surprisingly for Paramount - dismally photographed. The Hammer remake has its own flaws, but it's the more exciting film. A perfect adaptation of the play would probably fall somewhere between the two. I hadn't even registered that TCM's logo preceded the film, I'm so used to seeing it. But it does suggest that this has somehow become part of the TCM library. As a pre-1948 Paramount, it should be a Universal property... and indeed the VHS pre-record was on their MCA label.

Sarris' AMERICAN CINEMA represents, I think, the first wave of discoveries. And it was written in the pre-home video days. Other names have been "discovered" since then, thanks in no small part to home video and cable services like TCM (and AMC when it was still worthwhile) trotting out some titles that haven't seen the light of day in ages. I often wish Sarris would put out a revised edition, just to see which directors he might have re-evaluated. (And yet, oddly, while I disagreed violently with some of his opinions back in college when I first read the book, I now find him spot-on more often than I don't.)

Who was that masked man?

Do you really hold these outrageous opinions or do you just post them to try stirring up trouble? I thought the guy who heads up the El Brendel Fan Club was an idiot, but...

*I don't know how unsung this movie is, when all here are singing its praises, that even those who've never seen it are aware of it.* You might be right Arturo. It's always struck me as one of those films most people have never heard of. It looks to be more the case it just hasn't been shown much of anywhere in years.

I have no idea where the get their pricing from, but most of their newer releases are $24.95. It looks like CYCLOPS, MACABRE, HYPNOTIC EYE and DISEMBODIED are currently 30% off, though. And I don't really know why I'm carping, since I used to pay that kind of money to gray market purveyors of impossible-to-get-hold-of titles on VHS. And the quality was usually pretty bad, too. Yet coming from a legit company it seems like highway robbery.

*Sorry I really wasn't trying to get all technical; I just wondered if there were an 'valid' listings.* james, just ignore the snarky attempt at humor. For actors, at least, there are no "valid listings" that I know of (for directors, however, there are thing slike Andrew Sarris' book). But I think just a general impression gleaned from this or other film comment boards gives one an idea of who is or isn't recognized by a majority of the participants. And one can also judge actors by the kind of assignments they received during their years making films, can't one? Any listing or polling - as I commented earlier today in another thread - is merely going to be the opinion - or collective opinions - of thise involved. And critical evaluations change from year to year, so I'm not certain I'd consider any of them valid (or not valid for that matter). They just are. But I think we all know of actors and directors whose names aren't mentioned nearly as quickly in discussions as we think they ought to be even though they've contributed good, solid - even inspired work - in the course of their careers.

*I can say that Jeff was not a bona fide cross-dresser. The reason why I know this to be a fact is because he was known to have been a big practical joker! He?d do this sort of cross-dressing prank at parties. The two that I know of were at the house of Sammy Davis Jr. and then at the home Tony Curtis. It was all just a gag Jeff like to play on his friends to see if they could recognize him.* That may be, but it in no way disproves that Chandler didn't indulge in cross-dressing as a private kink, either. Nor - lest anyone interpret such from the Dan Dailey paragraph - does cross-dressing guarantee homosexuality. (And just how does one square showing up at a movie premiere in drag with being deeply closeted?)

This thread should be very interesting tomorrow when all the people who haven't yet seen this unsung gem start posting their reactions.

*I couldn't shake off the feeling that any movie directed by Bob (PORKY'S franchise) Clark has got to be lousy.* You may or may not know that Clark directed those PORKY'S films in exchange for being given the funding to make A CHRISTMAS STORY. Another Clark movie you should check out is his Sherlock Holmes film: MURDER BY DECREE.

*I read one opinion where a person said that fair use really should have more emphasis on someone making money off of the work or property of someone else vs. availability. So basically, I should be able to swap DVDs with my friends or record a movie when I want to, but it's when I start receiving money for it, then it's a problem.* Was this a legal decision or an argument made befor a judge? Or just an opinion put forth? Unless it was the first, there's no legal force behind it. If I recall the warnings on DVDs correctly, they state that bringing in an audience (aside from family members, presumably) to watch the film or making copies of it, even if not for profit, is illegal. The same copyrights that apply to DVDs apply to movies shown on TCM or any other broadcast service even if they don't preceed the film with a warning. *When you watch an NFL broadcast, there is an actual audio legal disclaimer at least once in each game broadcast about needing the written consent of the NFL to show clips of games, discuss outcomes etc. However, I don't hear one during before or after TCM films, I figure TCM's logo is basically saying "this movie was recorded off of Turner Classic Movies" if I were trying to sell it.* You won't find that on Pay-Per-View movies or on HBO or similar services either. But they are copyguarded (at least on my cable company). You may have noticed in documentaries on actors or directors that some films are represented by stills or clips from the Coming Attractions trailers. This is because whoever made the documentary couldn't clear the right (or afford it) to use actual clips from the films (trailers can't be copyrighted, apparently). Now if a minute or two of a film can't be used without permission, does that tell you how cloudy the whole Fair Use issue is? And do you really think copying an entire film can possibly be considered Fair Use? *I just have to say that the rights I think I have to my DVD-Rs comes from the cost I pay for cable. 90% of them I would have never have seen if not for recording.* The fees you pay the cable company are for the cable service. Period. They don't grant you any additional rights. Again, please don't think I'm getting on my high moral horse here. I copy films from TCM. All the time. And I'm not saying you shouldn't or that you're an evil person for doing it. But let's not get confused between what you are _able_ to do and what you have _the right_ to do. You can, without lessons or a license, get behind the wheel of a car and drive it... that doesn't make the act legal. By your reasoning, I should conclude that because I bought a film on VHS that I had a right to have a DVD copy of it. I don't. Nor, just because I paid for the sitting & the first set of prints, do I have the right to have copies made of those Olan Mills portraits of me. Similarly, if I create a painting and sell it to you, unless I also specifically pass the copyright on to you, you have no right to make prints from it; only I do. You can google your little heart out & find any justification you like, but the bottom line is that even though it's highly unlikely (knocks wood) that anyone is going to come after us about it, our DVDR libraries are not entirely legal. Some years ago Roddy McDowall had a call paid on him by the FBI & they confiscated his very large collection of 35mm film prints. He wasn't making copies & selling them, but he did have what were, shall we say, unauthorized copies. I don't recall that the FBI fined him but they certainly took the films.

FINGERS is an odd film to be coming from MGM, isn't it. It's always struck me as something that should have come from Monogram and been produced by Sam Katzman...

*This contains one of the most hilarious scenes in all of the movies I have ever seen, in my opinion anyway...I won't give it away though, for the sake of those who haven't seen it yet.* Does it involve a dinner table?

*Oh wow, I didn't get any of that from his daughter.* Oh, I did. Especially in the bit about Dietrich possibly feeling guilty afterward. But Deitrich (or Garbo, for that matter) leaving him and sound (or Louis B. Mayer) ruining his career does not alter the fact that Gilbert was an alcoholic and, as a reformed alcoholic once told me: An alcoholic doesn't need a _reason_ to drink... he just needs an excuse.

*an OPINION does not make it a FACT. RAIDERS was a fun action picture, but not a CLASSIC, far from it* Hmmmmm........ How does one reach the "fact" of a classic, anyway? Seems to me that a classic is determined by an accumulation of positive opinions on a film. And while I'm in the camp of "extremely well-made fun picture" (not that there's anything wrong them), there are quite a few out there who consider RAIDERS a classic... and not all of them would append that with "of its kind." The only fact is that CITIZEN KANE (for instance) lands at the top of numerous lists because the majority of those polled for the list think it belongs there. And the top spot in those polls changes periodically.

*For something or someone to be underrated doesn't there have to be a rated listing in the first place* Well, if you want to get all semantical & technical about it... But I think being ignored is a form of rating, too. And second the idea of Wliiam (Wilhelm) Dieterle as being under-valued. Edited by: HarryLong on Oct 13, 2010 4:05 PM

Why would Esther Williams make that up? (It... er... came out in her memoirs, no?)

*If it's not legal for me to copy a film from a studio, why was the VHS machine as well as DVD ever sold to consumers?* Wow. Is that a question that could prompt a book-length answer. Ultimately deals were struck, but movie companies... and record companies before them, were initially opposed to tape & then disc recorders. Now I wasn't really aware of what might have been going on in the very early days of Betamax & then Beta to VHS, but I do recall that the recording industry tried -successfully for several years - to prevent a CD recorder from getting to the home market and a similar situation was in play with the movie studios & DVD recorders. In both cases the first machines were ruinously expensive, which kept the general public from buying lots & lots of them. But the marketplace being what it is, cheaper & cheaper models were introduced within a few years. Now I don't think any kind of copyguard was ever added to CDs (and there are those who will aver that the main reason Beta machines "lost" the market war is because they didn't recognized copyguards & the main reason Laser Discs "lost" their market war is because CG could not be added). Antyway, the old slippery slope was in place (I predict in about 5 years there will be BluRay recorders). Both VHS and DVD recorders also function with cameras, don't forget & that's undoubtedly one reason they finally were made available: home movies. In any event, they were. And as for copying off-air, as the court case cited above notes, it's not illegal to do it & it's now widely recognized that many people will time-shift some TV program or event that's broacast when they are not home (or when they're watching something else) for later viewing but there are some legal restrictions about sharing those recordings, as you noted. I suspect that the film geeks who build their own libraries (a gray area) and trade or make other copies for friends (decidedly illegal) are such a small segment of the population that the owners of said films just turn a blind eye. But I'm under no illusion that my several thousands of DVDRs are "legal" or that I have any "right" to them.

*I just did some googling and yes, it is illegal to make copies of films (lots of gray area though and big words) from cable and satellite programming. However, there are laws that say it is not illegal to purchase a copy yet it is illegal to sell one. Makes me wonder how these internet sites selling "rare" classics are still in business. I guess I did get lucky with either DirecTV or my Toshiba and I am willing to buy a "Veeblefetzer" if need be.* There's really no gray area at all. It's they're property not yours. Period. Now don't think I'm getting all moralistic. I do copy movies from TCM (& obviously I've availed myself of a copyguard buster). I do purchase from those gray-marketeers you refer to... and most of them survive by trading only in obscure items or titles that have fallen into public domain. Some are bolder. Some have, no doubt, been visited by the FBI. My favorite bootlegger disappeared without a trace a few years back. In fact he had four tables (or whatever) set up at that year's Monster Bash & simply did not show up. I write about classic films, and there are times I need to have access to a title that is not available legally, so god bless TCM and everything I cribbed from AMC and all the bootleggers. But let's be very clear regarding the comment earlier about having the "right" to copy films from TCM. No. You. Don't. But it is their right to prevent you from making copies.

*However I did experience problems copying from VHS tapes I made of TCM films previously before I got my dvd machine. After 15 minutes a red flag message warned me I am unable to record and it stopped the process. I fooled the machine by starting over a second time and was able to complete recording but it was frustrating. The VHS tapes must have picked up some signal.* I had a similar problem B.V. (Before Veeblefetzer - yes, I was a fan of MAD magazine many years ago) with some, but not all, tapes I'd made from AMC. I suspect it was some signal between the cable company's computer & AMC's, but it set of the DVD recorder's security detection. Starting over didn't work, either. On one tape (and this one is still baffling me) it aborted the DVD recording at completely diffrent spots on three separate attempts.