classicsfan1119
-
Posts
3,078 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by classicsfan1119
-
-
Yes, Slappy...but certainly you can see by now that by starting a thread like this one, and labeling it as you did (how are we to know that it was done as "tongue in cheek"...and what's the good in that silliness anyway?), that what will always unfold is a "debate" that leads to conflict among us concerning religous doctorines and our personal identifications with them.
I vote for avoiding topics that carry the potential of dividing the unity of our group because they obviously lead us into conflicts concerning personal and private beliefs. Many of us here realize that certain topics are best kept to oneself in a group setting unless the focus of the discussion is intended to be on our individual and very personal religous or political beliefs or orientation.
I will continue to argue that these Forums are here for the discussion of film making, and anything that stretches beyond this and into the realm of political speech-making, or religious preaching, is not appropriate here. If it is your intention to discuss "censorship"...then please restrict your comments to just that topic without pointing a finger at the Jews, the Christians, the Republicans, the Democrats, the liberals, and the conservatives in your posts.
ML
-
This is interesting! Most of us here have been expressing a desire to see MORE Silents, and also to see them during times of the day and night that people are actually awake and moving around. Among "Classics" the Silents are the earliest we have, and were filmed during an era that paved the way for all film making to follow. It's my personal belief that many of them should be closely "studied" so that a proper perspective on the development of film in America can be achieved, and also a recorded History of how our County has evolved during the past century.
And, there are so many Silents that have been lost or destroyed that we'll never be able to see. For those Silents that do remain that I've never seen, I'd love to see all of them right here on TCM, and wouldn't object to a full day of the week devoted entirely to the ones TCM owns and could be showing, uncut and without commercial interruption...and very often shown with a terrific Introduction by Robert Osborne to go with them. ML
-
Hey there "Dizzy Newbie"! Welcome! Like others have said, if you really like comedy, whether it's what we call "crack-pot" or "slapstick" Comedy or Romantic Comedy, that's always a good place to start. But, in reality, anyplace is a good place to start if you truly want to become a fan of Classic films. Once you have seen some comedies, some drama's, some film noir, and some early musicals, you will find it easier to keep your eyes open for what really interests you. And, see if you can't start watching the films of the more "well-known" actors and actresses who appeared in the films between the 1920's and the mid-1950's...you will probably already recognize their names. TCM frequently "features" the films of people like Spencer Tracy, Bette Davis, and all many others in a single day...so when you see this is happening, try to watch as many as you can to get a good taste of the best films of the era's a particular star made.
For sure, please ask us about any movies you see coming up and want to know more about, and enter any discussions you see us having about the movies that TCM has shown that interest you, and keep reading through the Forums for the posts that offer the information you're looking for that will help you learn more about the Classic's and it's stars.
ML
-
You're right about that Cinemetal! I have finally started looking in my Satellite guide for the accurate time a movie runs, sometimes only found at the back of the guide rather than in the daily schedule section, and when I see that there is about a 20-25 minute gap between movies, that's when I expect to see these kinds of specials, or the lengthier One-reeler's.
I've also discovered that the best times to find specials like this are during the mornings (Eastern time), or during the middle of the night (Eastern time again), rather than during "prime time". No matter what, it's always kind of a "crap shoot" if you can catch the one you want, much less get it on tape so you can see it during more realistic hours. So...Good luck! ML
-
I see no purpose for this topic of "religion" on our boards (other than to create conflicts amoung us), so unless a discussion of the merits of the film comes of it, I will also not participate in this thread.
ML
-
Oh,wow! "Kermit the Frog", dressed like "The Little Tramp". I'd love to see it! But, like Spencer, I think the important part about what is done with Chaplin's Studio, is that it's never torn down and replaced by a parking lot, or changed in such a way as not to be recognised as having been Chaplin's. His Studio, like so many of the sets in his films, were so influenced by his memory of childhood...in this case perhaps illustrating what he dreamed of vs. how he actually lived as a child.
MGM has sold off hundreds of acres of it's original movie lots, and that "History" has simply disappreared now never to be seen again.
-
With a smile, I must say that comparing Ethel Merman to the likes of Joan Crawford is kinda like comparing "Francis the Talking Mule" to "The Black Stallion" (grin), both were adored...but for entirely different reasons.
It's kind of a "question" whether Joan Crawford, et.al, would have been popular on stage. Had some of them wanted to go into threatre, it would have been quite easy for them because most actors/actresses were at least "somewhat" schooled in the same ways that stage actors were in the early days of their careers. I tend to believe that anyone who appeared more on stage than in films during earlier eras, probably made a choice to go that direction because they prefered the climate of the stage and live performance. ML
-
You will be pleased with the numbers of CD's available now at sites like Amazon.com for singers, or original music from that and earlier era's. If Ms. Langford recorded mostly with a Big Band, you might need to do a search for the Band leader she sang with, too, but a search at the site for Ms. Langford will probably show you anything that is available on CD. I have created a very large CD library of music, bands, and singers from the 20's through the 40's....all the music I was born to love (smile). ML
-
It's been used a couple of times before, but could it be "Johnny Belinda"? ML
-
Totally a guess: "Bicentennial Man"?
-
For me, Charlie Chaplin was, and still is, able to get me laughing right out loud in many of his comedies, and I've always been aware that this man was an exceptional film maker, which included writing his own musical scores once he had his own studio. The more I see, the more I become aware of! I agree that the word "genius" has become so over-used (along with the word "hero") that it no longer holds any true meaning when it's spoken, but where Chaplin is concerned, "genius" truly applies. No one...NO ONE...accomplished what he did as a film maker. I've learned that you can't watch one of Chaplin's films just once, and see everything he accomplishes! It's impossible!
I remember being very disappointed that Robert Downey, Jr. didn't get the Oscar for his role as Chaplin, in the movie "Chaplin" (1992). He not only did an excellent job of researching, studying, and executing the character of a very complex and difficult man, he really was up to the physical demands of the part, too. I'm not sure that anyone doing Chaplin today, would go to as much trouble, nor with as much success.
The movie, as might be expected, came with more than a few flaws and inaccuracies...I have yet to see a Bio. that doesn't, but the more I watch the real Chaplin, the more I learn about film making and I have by now advanced way beyond appreciating just his slapstick.
Thank you, Spencer, for submitting a post concerning Chaplin that wasn't focused on his 'supposed' politics, and/or sexual behaviors, neither of which had anything to do with his genius as a film maker. I know now just what I would be missing hadn't I really started to study him as a film maker and story teller.
ML
-
Well, friends...here we go. In only the third month of the year a list of major losses has already started getting longer and longer. This man will be sorely missed, but who among us will ever forget him and the resonance of his voice? ML
-
I finally made it back to Mongo's Birthday thread today (it's getting later and later these days!), and saw that after I was there yesterday, you announced your Birthday! Sorry I missed it yesterday, but certainly wanted to add my "Happy Birthday" wishes to the others who offered them to you yesterday! I hope you had a terrific Birthday, ate all the cake you wanted, and will have a great year until the next March 9th. rolls around.
ML
-
I'm another one who doesn't object to TCM's month-long salute to Oscar Nominee's and Winner's, and I don't see how they could possibly reduce the schedule down to just a "couple of weeks" and give us near the quality and choice of viewing that we did get. Kinda reminds me of how AMC cuts their Classic movies to pieces...you just don't get to see "all that there is" to see, which I think of as a big rip-off. And, I especially enjoy seeing all the "in between" shorts or montages, and Robert Osborne's terrific minutes of information sharing with each movie shown. I saw and learned more during "31-days of Oscar" than I had ever seen or learned before about the movies they selected for our viewing. Thanks, TCM! I'm learning to look forward to all the special things TCM does during the year, and this is just one of them. ML
-
Hi Birchkitty. I agree with you...romantic comedies are good medicine for everyone. So many of the romantic comedies you can see on TCM are not only great movies, but lots of fun to watch. I'm glad that you're enjoying these movies, too. Please keep posting...it's awfully nice to have you with us (smile).
ML
-
Wow, Mongo...this was a hefty project for you to undertake for us, and it certainly was enjoyable to participate in it. Many Thanks! I wish that we could have a poll like this going on all the time at this site.
ML
-
I'm always very saddened to learn that another of our beloved actors has passed. And, I continue to be bothered by the fact that the actors we are losing so rapidly now that it's hard to keep up, are the actors from the Classics era that we also love. There are so few left now.
-
I haven't a clue about your question today, Coffeedan, but wanted to welcome you back and thank you for the update about your mother. She's quite a lady, isn't she? And,I hope that your building has passed inspection, and it's safe for you to be living there???
ML
-
I completely commiserate with you about this one, LTL. I always find it a shame when a Bio. is produced that is considerably more "fiction" than "fact", and then the fuel for endless falsehoods and inaccuracies about whom was being portrayed in the film. And, let's do trust this director to "do it right" like you and Path both say.
I also watched (several times, in fact) "The Cat's Meow", totally because that entire incident was one that I had never heard of before, and I really wanted to know whether it had really happened! Had you heard of it prior to seeing this movie? Well, it did happen, but the movie kinda "bent" how it happened, just a bit. Hadn't I finally located how the event really happened, I might have thought for the rest of my life that the shooting happened exactly as it appeared on film, which it didn't. Basically "The Cat's Meow" is full of the same kind of speculation as occured after the death of Thomas Ince.
In the end, what I most appreciated learning was just how powerful and influencial Wm. R. Hearst was at the time. And, I still shudder at how close the movie industry came to losing Chaplin way ahead of his time.
ML
-
Well, Patypancake...I didn't have anyone specific in mind when I mentioned that it amazes me that very often the discussions on these boards have a lot more to do with the author of the post stepping up on their own political soapbox than it does about what might be better discussed here, i.e., an actor's talent or body of work, and their worth to the film industry. Your post has just provided us with the proof. Thank you!
You have (as you too frequently do) attempted to hide your politically oriented remarks behind the mini-skirt of something having to do with movies or acting so that it can't be said that you're "off topic", or talking "politics" instead of "movies". I hope that you don't think that everyone here hasn't noticed.
ML
-
Same point that I would have made, Mongo...but you did such a good job of it that I won't have to (smile).ML
-
CJ, we've been through this "had they lived" stuff before in another thread you started. I'm fairly certain that anyone here who replied to you then (there were very few of us) will want to do it again. These kinds of questions make no sense, and are therefore impossible to answer. Sorry.
ML
-
I'm only going to pick out one thing to reply to, and help you to know that Ethel Merman most certainly did "make it" on the silver screen, or in Hollywood, as they say. Her career covered all the decades between the 1930's to the 1990's, and she appeared in many successful musicals and comedies. In 1953, she was awarded a Golden Globe for "Call Me Madam". All together she made 26 movies...not nearly enough for this great talent, but enough that it can't be said that she "didn't make it" on the screen.
ML
-
Hi, Littletramplover, and thanks for your post which is informative, well-written, and based on the reality of Chaplin's ideals concerning the plight of many human beings living in America at that time. He was a whole lot more interested in reaching the poor and perhaps even the wealthy and powerful with a message of obvious inequality through his humor, than in expressing his "political" views, which were actually not nearly as malignant as many people tried to make them appear...and it's not hard to figure out who those people were.
Any discussion of Chaplin and the films he produced has to take into account the changes that were taking place in the Democratic and Republican policy platforms up to and through that time in America's history. Sometime between the presidential administrations of Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, the Democratic party realized that it's richest pool of voters wasn't Nebraska farmers oppressed by the gold standard, but in fact rested with urban industrial workers, immigrants, and minorities, united in their desire for better pay, shorter hours, better working conditions and greater job security. These were the people Chaplin could identify with and accurately portray through his films through comedy or satire.
Big Government, public works, high taxes, social welfare...these policies followed inevitably as the mechanisms the government needed to deliver the goods, and it was through his willingness to dare to have his finger on the pulse of "the common man" in this country, and the ability to identify with people living in poverty or working under adverse conditions that he had survived himself, that he felt he could bring laughter to and reduce some of their suffering. In truth, he was considerably more in touch with the times and the political climate and issues of Americans than people gave him credit for. The title of this thread could more rightfully be Chaplin: the 1st. Hollywood Humanitarian.
Chaplin truly was a Humanitarian way ahead of his time in Hollywood, and that was a fearful thing for the wealthy in America, because they could not tolerate seeing such obvious divisions between their wealth and the poor being portrayed in his films. I'm reminded of DeNiro screaming back at Tom Cruise in a movie, "You can't handle the truth!" In many ways, the wealthy and powerful in that time in our history, couldn't handle it either.
Chaplin held no "disdain" for America...but he could and did relate to America's poor purely as a Humanitarian. Any "comments" he made were much more closely related to being "social" comments than "political" comments, but it was harder for a man to be run out of a country for making social comments than for making political comments that could more easily be correctly or incorrectly molded to appear Communistic...the definite grounds for exile.
Anyone attempting to tag being a "liberal" or a "leftist" on Chaplin is more closely related to expressing their own political orientation than his, and I continue fail to see why that is necessary on these Boards. Why we continue to discuss Chaplin's personal sex life (not that I agree with it, because I don't) and his films in these supposed "political" terms rather than focusing our discussions to his worth as a film maker is beyond me. No one was ever able to prove he was a Communist, or that he was making films supporting that party and attempting to sway others toward it. Why are we still trying to, especially here where we might be looking at his film making on it's own merits? The man wrote, directed, acted in, composed the musical scores for, and produced his films. Isn't this sufficient for discussion here?
ML
Your Favorite Barrymore
in Your Favorites
Posted
Gosh, Moviejoe, it's really hard for me to decide which of the three Barrymore's I like the best. Each of them almost seemed born to play certain kinds of roles and characters, and each of them was different from the other. There is no question of John's talent, and his good looks made certain that his career would flourish. Women still swoon.
I also consider Lionel to be the best co-star or supporting actor of the three, but again, there is no question of his talent and range, which often proved him worthy of the male lead in which he gave several wonderful performances.
Ethel was primarily a lady of the Theatre, but I find her to be the most spell-binding in those films where the degree of her acting ability comes as kind of a surprise, especially in her later films. She was perfect for roles that called for a "sophisticated" or "matronly" woman, only because she knew how to create and develop those roles, and not just that she was basically an "uptight" actress. I found her to be well cast, and delightful in her role in "That Midnight Kiss", for example. And, of course, she was fantastic in a good drama, too.
I'm sorry, but I have to mention Drew, even though we were asked not to, because I've started to really notice as Drew matures, just how much she resembles Ethel in just the right lighting, or camera angle. It makes me realize just how pretty Ethel must have been at the same age Drew is now. We tend to remember Ethel only in her later years, so I love being able to "imagine" her in her youth through seeing her resemblence in Drew.
Which one is my favorite? Well, I like all of them together as the best theatrical family this country will ever know, but I suppose that I will have to go with Ethel, whom I find more exciting and interesting to watch, for some reason.
ML