misswonderly3

Heads up for epic lovers: Sunday March 13 at 5:00pm, *My Fair Lady*. (once again.) Some good songs in this, but way too long for me, and I lose patience with the "shall we make it romantic between Dolittle and Higgins or not? What would Shaw have said? Oh, let's just drag out the ending by 45 minutes..." aspect to it. Monday March 14 at 8:00 pm: *Inn of the Sixth Happiness*, clocking in at an epic 158 minutes. For some reason missionary stories set in China (or anywhere, for that matter) depress me. Anyone a fan of this?

> {quote:title=Kinokima wrote:}{quote} > Wow Safe in Hell...what a great Pre-Code. > > I loved Dorothy's Performance. But what I was most impressed about what the sympathetic portrayal of the two black characters (besides the lawyer they seemed to be the two most decent people on the Island). > > The title was so very fitting too! Yes, I too noticed that the most likable characters were the two black people in the film.The woman in particular stood out, and she was very lovely. As soon as I saw the lawyer, I thought he seemed gay; he just "seemed" it, plus he did not ogle Gilda as the other men did the moment she appeared. I wondered if this was partly why, unlike the others, he never bothered Gilda . I loved watching *Safe in Hell*, found it absolutely fascinating. I will say, though, I find all these "better a woman should choose death than have sex with someone other than the man she loves" movies, such a common pre-code theme, rather upsetting. I know, I know, times were so different then. But that's one reason why, entralling though *Waterloo Bridge* is, I can never stand to watch it. But I digress. That topic would need a thread in itself. Another suggestion on mark's op: *Crack Up*, which I just saw for the second time. It's got everything - Claire Trevor, fake art, trains, ships, hallucinations... I love it that the bad guy does all these bad guy things because he just loves art so much ! He doesn't want the originals wasted on the "dolts" who schlep through the museum. There's something endearing about a villain who loves art that much ! Love the trains in this movie.

What a sad song. There are so many songs about break-ups, but the combination of Richard Thompson's poignant lyrics and the plaintive melody make this one of the saddest. What a guitarist that guy is, he has the most unique and effective style. Guess he's a bit too "doleful" to be as well-known as he should be. Although I hear he has quite a dry sense of humour. Maybe some rockabilly will cheer things up a bit. Carl Perkins doesn't seem nearly as worried about his beloved as the character singing Walking on the Wire appears to be. Carl and Ringo and co. rock n rollin it up with Honey Don't : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBx_D42opkI (by the way, I'm sure you were just alluding to the "bigness" of Toronto, its the financial and some would say the cultural centre of Canada. The actual technical capital of Canada is Ottawa. ) Edited by: misswonderly on Mar 8, 2011 2:40 PM Edited by: misswonderly on Mar 8, 2011 2:41 PM

Don't forget *The Oxbow Incident*. Also, he did his share of film noirs besides *Laura* : *Fallen Angel*, *Where the Sidewalk Ends*, and *Beyond a Reasonable Doubt* are solid noirs that come to mind. But yeah, he never became a household name type "star". But even when I'm watching a second-rate movie, if Dana Andrews is in it, he makes it better. And he has a good face. Oh , also, that weird little scary film , *Night of the Demon*. Edited by: misswonderly on Mar 8, 2011 10:55 AM

Well, TikiSoo baby, you have a totally different "take" on this film than I do, and that's one of the reasons these boards provide good reading for movie fans. I'd never thought of that interpretation of *Georgy Girl* as you do. I appreciate it and can understand how someone would view the film that way. But I'm sticking to my own opinion that Georgy has short-changed herself and will some day regret her decision ("maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of her life..." Oh sorry, wrong movie ) I thought she liked Joss's goofing around, his energy and playfulness were one reason she loved him. It was clear that she was more mature and more responsible than Joss, but she had a very playful side too, and in that respect the Bates character was a sort of "soul mate" for her. I'm surprised at your comment: "Georgy understood the importance of raising a child (and loving relationships) mostly from her own parental examples " , unless you mean that she felt her own parents were a poor example and she wanted to do better. Her mother was emotionally absent, and her father a sycophantic toadie to Mason who seemed to care more for his employer than his daughter. He did not seem to know his own daughter at all. There are indictations that George has second thoughts about her choice; she is very torn about her decision to leave Joss;although she does steadfastly tell him to go, she is not happy or content about it; her face is very sad and tear-filled. Also, in the very final moment of the film, when she is sitting in her bridal gown in the limo with Mason beside her and baby SaraH in her arms, she suddenly stops smiling and stares uneasily into out the window. Maybe she and Joss wouldn't have stayed together, but at least she would have had more of an independent life, she would have had a little "time in the sun" with the man she loved, and she could always have had her own baby with Joss. I don't feel that *Georgy Girl* had a happy ending, I think it was a bittersweet ending. With a touch more bitter than sweet. Edited by: misswonderly on Mar 8, 2011 10:32 AM Edited by: misswonderly on Mar 8, 2011 10:33 AM Edited by: misswonderly on Mar 8, 2011 10:36 AM sorry, little typo mistakes Edited by: misswonderly on Mar 8, 2011 8:39 PM

Well, yes, I was hoping to sneak that word past -but the Little Nicola thread people are too sharp for that ! I just used the word "project" because for one thing, King Crimson were (I believe) the most inventive and exploratory (?) of the "progressive rock" bands, and they often seemed on the experimental side. Robert Fripp appeared to be interested almost in expanding the definition of "music"-hm, that's kind of an epic statement, don't ask me to back it up. The other reason I used the word "project" (and I did acknowledge it wasn't a very good word for what I wanted to express) was that there were a lot of personnel changes in King Crimson, and in some ways it seemed more like an ongoing project than a regular band.

This is a shameless "bump" to draw people's attention to the Programming Challenge. It's voting time.There are many interesting and inventive ideas here, folks. You might want to read'em over if you get the chance. Maybe even vote for one of them.

Thanks, tracey...I really enjoy that scene. Wouldn't it be fun if we all had the nerve to do something like that at the next social occasion we attend? (well, maybe better not...) What a bunch of poe-faces that crowd was. They all should have burst out laughing and applauding Georgy; she had more life in her pinky finger than they had in their entire stuffy bodies.

Hey, that's my home town they're playing in ! (Toronto) Come to think of it, I remember hearing about that REM show, I'm pretty sure it was free. Couldn't make it though. MacDonald and Giles were two musicians who emerged from the King Crimson "project" (for lack of a better word). They were both very good at what they did, and they released one album, in 1971 I think. Every track on this album is good, but you have to be in the mood for prog rock when you listen to it. Here is a relatively short piece from the "MacDonald and Giles" recording, Flight of the Ibis. It's very pretty, actually: Edited by: misswonderly on Mar 7, 2011 2:02 PM

Folks, I find myself in the bizarre position of not knowing how to reply to my own thread ! There have been so many posts about: lists of people's favourite epics, definitions of "epic", comments on whether the term refers as much to length as to scope and subject matter - I'm overwhelmed, and can only thank people for contributing to this epic discussion (sorry, couldn't resist. I always go for the obvious word play.) "Epics" that I have never seen but would like to are *Ben Hur* (both versions, why not? Although not back to back ! ), *The Sand Pebbles* (if nothing else, I'm sure I could handle three hours watching Steve McQueen), and *Patton* (because it's a film I've heard so much about.) The thing about films that go over 2 hours (2.5, tops ) is, I tend to get bored and fed up with them. The problem is likely with me and my attention span, but I also get a feeling watching huge long epic movies that they are "showing off", that the director and producer often get caught up in making a big statement, in showing the world what they can do. Sometimes - not always, (I like to equivocate) - I feel a lack of connection to the movie because of this. Or maybe it's just that I probably would not like a real life person who sits on a horse and stares nobly into the horizon. They're just not ordinary enough for me. I dunno. I'm the same when it comes to reading; I'm intimidated by any book over 500 pages. That's not to say I've never read a long book, just that these days, I don't want to invest the time it would take to read a long novel. Now, with long movies, the most time spent would be 4 hours, so I suppose it's hardly analogous. Ok, let me put it this way: In general, I feel a story is told most effectively with economy. (Maybe I should take my own advice and edit my posts more.) A lot can be said in 90 minutes.

mark, thanks for the heads up on all the super cool and groovy flicks this upcoming week on TCM. I don't know where to start -my calendar will be a mess, with all the reminders I'll have to stick on it. Especially good to know about those Bogart pics. What would we do without you?

I cannot forgive Georgy for dumping her true love and marrying lustful old James Mason just for that baby, "SaraH", with or without the H. She could have had her own baby with Alan Bates, visiting rights to the other one. If I were to post a scene from *Georgy Girl* on youtube it would be the one where she dresses up like a trollop and sashays down the stairs, shakin' and vampin' to "It Takes a Whole Lot of Man to Keep this Baby Happy" (or whatever it's called). Priceless. However, sorry, I'm a low tech dunce and cannot answer your question. ps -anne, is this winter of ours' ever going to end? I know, we should be used to it, but I'm always more than ready for spring by now

Well, john, I freely admit that I can not clearly define "epic" either; I was kind of hoping to get some suggestions from those posting on this thread, and they've certainly been helpful. I resorted to wikipaedia, and here's their definition of "epic" as pertains to its cinematic form: "An epic is a genre of film that emphasizes human drama on a grand scale. Epics are more ambitious in scope than other film genres, and their ambitious nature helps to differentiate them from similar genres such as the period piece or adventure film. They typically entail high production values, a sweeping musical score (often by an acclaimed film composer), and an ensemble cast of bankable stars, placing them among the most expensive of films to produce. The term "epic" comes from the poetic genre exemplified by such works as the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. As popularly applied to motion pictures, the term epic refers less to a set of generic qualities than to a vague sense of "epic-ness," a quality more or less synonymous with enormity. The "epic" movie is often set during a time of war or other societal crisis, and covers a long span of time, in terms of both the events depicted and the length of the reel. Typically, such films have a historical setting, although fantasy or science fiction settings have become common in recent decades. The central conflict of the film is usually seen as having far-reaching effects, often changing the course of history. The main characters' actions are often central to the resolution of this conflict. The epic is among the oldest of film genres, with one early notable example being Giovanni Pastrone's Cabiria, a three-hour silent film about the Punic Wars that laid the groundwork for the subsequent silent epics of D.W. Griffith.[1] The genre reached a peak of popularity in the early 1960s,[2] when Hollywood frequently collaborated with foreign film studios (such as Rome's Cinecitt?) to use relatively exotic locations in Spain, Morocco, and elsewhere for the production of epic films. This boom period of international co-productions is generally considered to have ended with Cleopatra (1963), The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964), and Doctor Zhivago (1965). Nevertheless, films in this genre continued to appear, with one notable example being War and Peace, which was released in the former Soviet Union in 1968, directed by Sergei Bondarchuk, and said to be the most expensive film ever made. Epic films continue to be produced, although nowadays they typically use computer effects instead of a genuine cast of thousands. Since the 1950s, such films have regularly been shot with a wide aspect ratio for a more immersive and panoramic theatrical experience. The definition of epic has expanded over the years to include films that in general have a large scale or scope in history, time, or events. The crime films The Godfather (1972), Scarface (1983), Once Upon a Time in America (1984), and Casino (1995), for instance, could hardly be considered epics in the same way that the Cinecitta films were, but are sometimes listed as such by critics."

Patricia Hitchcock is adorable, I've always liked her. She's so helpful and funny in *Strangers on a Train* - and how 'bout that scene where crazy Bruno is "demonstrating" how to strangle someone, and he's staring at poor little Pat the whole time ( not exactly a laugh fest for the lady he's "strangling" either.) By the way, what did you mean "...i watched strangers on a train last night on the free tcm on demand channel." Did you just mean TCM, the regular TCM. or is there some special "on demand" TCM channel ?

Nick Drake, Time Has Told Me :

*The Best Years of Our Lives* clocks in at 172 minutes, therefore undeniably an "epic" if we are just speaking of its length. But I agree with you, far from having the "feel " of an epic, it feels like an intimate story about characters. Also, all the action takes place within a relatively short time ( a few months?). It is certainly one of the few films I have seen whose nearly three hour running time is not noticeable to me. I've seen it a number of times, and I"m always surprised when I realize I've been watching a movie for almost three hours. This is because despite its length it is thoroughly engaging to me, all the characters are sympathetic and interesting (except Virginia Mayo ! ) and well-played by the actors portraying them, and the film tells a good story.

No need to apologize to me, FilmAficionado. I am benignly indifferent to Mr.Heston, and am unaware of whatever were his political beliefs. I did not take umbrage (good word, that ) at your remarks about *Ben Hur* and Charlton Heston, I was merely clarifying to others that I had not posted the comment in question, you had.

TikiSoo, scrolling down the pic you posted required an intermission in itself !

I've never seen the silent *Ben Hur* , and I've only seen the William Wyler *Ben Hur* in bits, never all the way through from beginning to end. This is not intentional, it just seems like whenever I turn on the television, and there's Charton Heston as Ben, it's always in the middle of the movie. And since it's such a long film, the middle covers a lot of time ! One day I'd like to see it from start to finish; I know this can be easily accomplished as it is shown a lot on TCM -and other channels - and is readily available to purchase or rent. I've heard it's really good, but I know I'd have to be in the mood for a 212 (?) minute movie. Why is it that so many epics are "sword and sandal" stories?

> {quote:title=traceyk65 wrote:}{quote} > Yeah that's part of it, but I also have a problem w/ film noir--the guys are always duking it out and worse, they seem to always be shaking or smacking the woman. Not cool. > > And I like film noir. Hey, if we're talkin' violence in film noir it sends it up to a whole new level. Have you seen *The Big Heat* ? how about that scalding coffee Lee Marvin tosses into lovely Gloria Graham's face? Almost equals some of the nastiness in movies today. And yeah, people are always getting thoroughly thrashed, trashed, and dumped in a back alley for dead. I will say, though, that the camera often focuses more on the punchers than the punched; often all you see of them is their battered bodies slumped over the garbage cans. That's frequently the "warning" from the bad guys to "stay out" of it (whatever "it" may be.) Edited by: misswonderly on Mar 5, 2011 11:46 AM

I am nothing if not amenable to suggestion. Here, forthwith, be Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons. Let us all Walk Like a Man : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tWvYaiOmRs&feature=related

Well, actually stjohnry and jake, it was not I who posted that eulogy about Charlton Heston, but FilmAfilcionado, who said: "Many have said the chariot race sequence in 1925's Ben Hur with Ramon Navarro is superior to the 1959 version with Charlton Heston. Poor Ramon Navarro! He came to such a sad end. I know this isn't a forum for politics, but I can't help myself. I'm not sad that Heston's self-described "cold, dead hands" are finally cold and dead. Where do you suppose someone is prying guns from those hands, Heaven or Hell? I would guess the latter." I merely made a joke in response, something about the "dogs and spirituality" thread. No disrespect to Mr. Heston intended.

> {quote:title=FilmAficionado wrote:}{quote} > Many have said the chariot race sequence in 1925's *Ben Hur* with Ramon Navarro is superior to the 1959 version with Charlton Heston. Poor Ramon Navarro! He came to such a sad end. I know this isn't a forum for politics, but I can't help myself. I'm not sad that Heston's self-described "cold, dead hands" are finally cold and dead. Where do you suppose someone is prying guns from those hands, Heaven or Hell? I would guess the latter. You want the "Dogs and Spirituality" thread.

Thanks for the responses, folks ! I hadn't thought of epics the way Roger Ebert (via Film Aficionado) put it: a movie on a big scale, with big ideas and a big budget. I was thinking more in terms of the length of the film; but of course usually a film that is at least three hours long is going to be "big" in terms of its scale and scope, as well as its length. I do like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, all three, and they are undeniably "big", a very big concept ( in simplest terms, good vs evil ) done on a big scale, and each one is looong. But they don't seem long to me, because I'm never bored watching them. And here we come to the crux of the thing: I get just plain bored with many long epic movies. I get restless (and not because of Alfred Hitchcock's reason ! ) and after a certain point I just want the damned thing to end ! The other reason I don't care for epics is, I don't like movies that cover a long period of time - decades, a life-time, in three hours. It's disorienting for me. "What, I thought they just got married, they were in love, now they're divorced and are sharing visits from the grand-children ? ! ? " Ok, I made that one up, but that's how I experience epics -one moment the lead character is doing something, the next it's years later and some characters who seemed essential to the story aren't even around or even mentioned anymore. There are epics that are long but only span a few months or a year or so in time , like David Lean's *Bridge on the River Kwai*. I know this is a good movie, and I like Alec Guiness and William Holden both very much. But it's three friggin hours long! I can't seem to stay awake for it to see the whole thing through, ever ! In fact, David Lean is a real misnomer, because after about 1957, all his films were fat. It's as though he made a conscious choice to go this route -the "epic" route. Does anyone know why? I like his movies before he started doing this.

tracey, I suspect what you were referring to in your post about violence outside of the usual venues in films is the way in old movies, people like Gary Cooper and Cary Grant will haul off and sock some guy who's ticked them off. It comes across as a kind of "defending their honour" thing. Often as not it' s their honour, although quite often it's the honour of their leading lady. I've noticed that it was considered not only respectable, but almost de rigeour for them to do this. They almost never end up in jail, no one presses assault charges. It often occurs in comedies .