misswonderly3

Elisha Cook Jr.?

Yes, Cid, and please check out my response to your worries about these issues on yet another thread you posted on the same topic ("Employees' Pick".)

Right, musicalnovelty, and it's interesting you should mention a Danny Kaye film, because another movie I thought of with that theme (stuffy person too involved in their work, doesn't notice flowers, dancing, champagne, never breaks any rules, etc, -- until they fall in love ! ) - is the Danny Kaye vehicle, *Merry Andrew*. Maybe I'm pushing that theme a little in this one, but Kaye's life is all set in this story, he's going to be an archeology professor and work for his father at the staid university where his family has always taught, and marry a nice dull girl. But then he accidentally , more or less, runs away to the circus and things happen. It's not a great film, but it's kind of fun, and the Danny Kaye character does undergo a transformation.

I feel so strongly about this that I'm going to (probably) break some kind of rule here and post it all over again. Doesn't anyone agree with me? Here's my take on all the tcm complaints: > {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote} > Why are we always arguing over this stuff? At least once a week, someone posts a new thread about how they're disappointed in TCM - why doesn't it show more pre-1960 films, why does it show repeats, too many Bowery Boys, not enough Bowery Boys, Robert Osborne is an ignoramous, what about HD, why can't TCM show more films from Paramount/Universal, whatever...on and on. > > Sure, everyone has the right to express a complaint or a concern over anything, certainly over a television station they like to watch, and certainly on these forums. I just wonder why they want to waste their time doing it. TCM not showing something you like, repeating something you've already seen earlier this month? Get over it - take a walk. Literally. Read a book. Do some laundry. I love TCM too, but there are other things in life to pay attention to, and there are undoubtedly other things in life that are more worthy of complaining about. > > It's just so predictable -deal with it, folks. (now I suppose I'll get accused of being harsh, impolite, or unsympathetic to others' TCM concerns. Or a TCM "Apologist". A thousand apologies and smiley faces in advance etc... > > Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 10, 2011 1:57 PM Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 10, 2011 6:51 PM Sorry to re-post that in that way, but I really want to know if anyone else feels the same way. (chose your preferred emoticom: )

> {quote:title=Fedya wrote:}{quote} > Am I the one person here who hates, hates, hates *Member of the Wedding* ? I keep hoping Ethel Waters would strangle Julie Harris. Harris' character is what Woody Allen might have done if he played a 12-year-old girl. That sort of character is irritating when Allen plays it; and it's downright rage-inducing coming from somebody like Julie Harris I'm both gratified and really annoyed by this post. Annoyed because of your comparison of Julie Harris' character in the wretched *Member of the Wedding* to Woody Allen's. (Allen's what? Nebbish persona? ) There's a huge difference between the two, it's ridiculous to compare them. I can only think that you're referring to Woody Allen's propensity to whine introspectively sometimes (mostly in his earlier movies). And Julie Harris never stops whining and being introspective in this dull and infuriating film. But the key difference is this: Woody Allen is smart and funny. He's not boring when he does it, he's making fun of himself, or at least that whiney persona. He knows the character is kind of annoying. Allen's films, even the earlier ones, are funny. As in they make the audience laugh. Julie Harris' character in *Member of the Wedding* is whiney, self-dramatizing, and annoying -also selfish - from beginning to end. She has absolutely NO sense of humour, about herself or anything else. Which brings me to the gratifying part of your post: I too, hate, hate, hate *Member of the Wedding* . Why doesn't Ethel Waters strangle Harris' character, I'm with you there. Ethel Waters was by far the best thing in the movie, which was otherwise by turns overwrought, boring, self-important, and just plain annoying. The young girl was so selfish, so self-absorbed, so self-dramatizing, and so completely lacking in a sense of humour, or indeed in any joy in life, that she was completely unsympathetic. Now I'll get people saying, "Hey, don't you remember what it was like to be a 12-year-old, that's what they're like. They're just discovering their identity, blah blah." Ok, I concede that the film/play is supposed to be a character study of a confused sensitive adolescent girl. But it just doesn't work, it's overdone, she's a bore, and a selfish whiney bore at that. Adolescent angst has been much better done in other movies . Even in Carson McCullers' own *Heart is a Lonely Hunter*, the young girl in that is going through similar problems, but she's far more interesting and sympathetic.

I remember a punk/ "new wave" all girl band in Toronto, in the eighties. They called themselves the "B-girls", and they were kind of fun. They dressed in retro outfits, had pouffy hair dos, etc. I like "B" anything to do with movies - budget, rating (as in "It's a "B" picture" ), girls, flop houses. The seedier the better. Glossy high budget noir films can be good, but they don't have the same feel to them. Even today, I'm fascinated by crummy old warehouses left from the 1920s or 30s that have somehow escaped the wrecker's ball - I always feel a sense of loss when those old building finally are knocked down, even though it's inevitable and often it was a safety hazard. New buildings just don't feel the same. But I digress.

What I want to know is, when are they going to show that Marie Osmund movie, *Coconuts* ? Shirley, that's a classic. (classic something...)

> {quote:title=Arturo wrote:}{quote} > Awhile back, I mentioned COME BACK LITTLE SHEBA as my "Aha!' moment. ... > Many years later, in my late teens or early 20s, I saw it again (this time all of it). It blew me away with all it's symbolism, and I appreciated it much more. What a great movie. > . > Sheba is symbolic of their lost youth. She was a flapper in the 20s, (of easy virtue as they used to say), and they and their male counterparts in the Jazz Age were know as Sheiks and Shebas. ... I did not know that. That's really interesting, and it definitely enlightens me as to the symbolism of the little dog Sheba, and the significance of her name. . hibi, sounds to me like the doggie on your street must have been named after the movie. So did your neighbourhood "little Sheba" run away too? Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 10, 2011 1:41 PM

> {quote:title=Arturo wrote:}{quote} mrroberts wrote: > *Look at the list of movies from around 1937 to 1947 (when she was in her thirties). After that string of comedies and lovable characters she got all noiry (is that a word?) on us.* +>+ > Actually, she made two of her best noirs BEFORE 1947: DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944) and THE STRANGE LOVE OF MARTHA IVERS(1946). Neither character she played was very lovable. I don't want to speak for mrroberts, but I think his adjective of "lovable" regarding Stanwyck was in reference to her non-noir characters, like Miss O'Shea in *Ball of Fire* and journalist Ann Mitchell in *Meet John Doe*. Don't think he was saying Phyllis Dietrichson was loveable. > > Actually, in 1941 Dana Andrews was just another featured player (with his contract shared by Goldwyn and 20th Century Fox); his image had not yet jelled, and so was assigned just about anything as the studios tried to find his niche in films. He only seems unexpected as a gangster in retrospect; audiences in 1941 had no expectations about his roles one way or the other. Thanks for the reminder, Arturo, that's right, Andrews han't even made *Laura* yet. Or T*he Oxbow Incident*. However, I was speaking of my own reaction to his performance in *Ball of Fire*; I was already very familiar with his more established work, and it was unexpected - for me, not audiences of 1941 - to see him in a ruthless gangster role. Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 10, 2011 1:39 PM

Why are we always arguing over this stuff? At least once a week, someone posts a new thread about how they're disappointed in TCM - why doesn't it show more pre-1960 films, why does it show repeats, too many Bowery Boys, not enough Bowery Boys, Robert Osborne is an ignoramous, what about HD, why can't TCM show more films from Paramount/Universal, whatever...on and on. Sure, everyone has the right to express a complaint or a concern over anything, certainly over a television station they like to watch, and certainly on these forums. I just wonder why they want to waste their time doing it. TCM not showing something you like, repeating something you've already seen earlier this month? Get over it - take a walk. Literally. Read a book. Do some laundry. I love TCM too, but there are other things in life to pay attention to, and there are undoubtedly other things in life that are more worthy of complaining about. It's just so predictable -deal with it, folks. (now I suppose I'll get accused of being harsh, impolite, or unsympathetic to others' TCM concerns. Or a TCM "Apologist". A thousand apologies and smiley faces in advance etc... Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 10, 2011 1:57 PM

Great example of the kind of movie I had in mind, tracy. I love *Bringing Up Baby*. I don't usually like "screwball " comedies, but this one is just a great comedy, period. I remember in a film class, the proff running the scene at the end of the film, the one where Kate has climbed up onto the carefully constructed dinosaur, declares her love for David (again !), David/Grant declares his love for her, and the whole damn structure comes toppling down. I also remember that prof making a lot of jokes about David searching for his "bone", and how Susan had stolen it Yes, *Bringing Up Baby* is all about a man dedicated to his work, stuffy, maybe even priggish, doesn't notice what's going on around him until he meets Susan, who not only makes him fall in love with her, but makes him wake up to the possibilities of fun in the world (including ripping Susan's gown, running after a leopard in the woods, sporting a negligee, and finding his " bone". )

I had been really looking forward to *Come Back, Little Sheba*. I 'd thought of it as a "shadow" film, one of those mysterious elusive movies I remember my parents watching on the late show, decades ago. I got up and wandered into the living room where they were watching it, and caught a few minutes of it before my mother noticed me and sent me back to bed. I was kind of intrigued by it, and the next morning asked my mother what that strange movie she and my dad had been watching last night. She said it was *Come Back, Little Sheba*, and ever since, I've wanted to see it but never could -thought I might have imagined or dreamed the whole thing, almost. Anyway, this is why I wanted to see it so much last night. And I was not disappointed, I thought it was pretty good. Sure, you can tell it's based on a play, but that was pretty common in those earnest "we must bring draah-ma to the cinema" early 50s days. I 'm with all those who say that Burt Lancaster was far too young for the role -others have suggested Spencer Tracy (whom I don't usually like, but he would have been good in this), also Frederick March or Sterling Hayden. Someone suggested that Hayden has kind of a sad face anyway, and yes, he would have been perfect as "Doc". I don't agree that Shirley Booth was "over the top". Her character was pathetic, that's how it was written, and that's how she played it. You can't fault an actor for playing a character the way they're suppposed to be played' if you dislike the character itself, that's another story. Something I found kind of interesting was, I'd seen the "trailer" for *Come Back , Little Sheba*, -TCM showed it for several days before it aired, something they often do ( I like it that they do that, by the way.) I'm pretty sure it was the original trailer, it was so hokey and overdramatic. And it was very misleading, the story and characters were not at all like the trailer suggested. I'd thought, judging from the preview, that Lancaster all but has an affair with the young boarder -and what's that she ways about his "running his fingers through her hair"? While that line does appear in the actual movie, there's no scene where Lancaster does so, it's not even implied. Anyway, I finally saw *Come Back , Little Sheba*, another childhood ambition achieved ! Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 10, 2011 10:28 AM

*Ball of Fire* is a great example of how good Billy Wilder's screenwriting was in the 40s. Every word of dialogue in it is funny and clever. I agree with Kinokima, Gary Cooper is good in this, but for me that's an exception, I'm not the biggest fan of Coop. Don't detest him or anything, more like, I can take him or leave him. But he does a great job in *Ball of Fire*. mrroberts, your'e so right about Babs. You just can't go wrong with Barbara Stanwyck, no matter what kind of film she was in. I think part of her magic is, she didn't take herself too seriously. That is, she took her work very seriously, I've heard she was one of the most professional and reliable actresses of the time. But she never seemed to think she was "above" the material she was working with -she gives it her all, no matter what. Can anyone think of other movies like *Ball of Fire*, in which an innocent, dedicated to their work, unexpectedly falls in love and overnight becomes open to all the sweet possibilities the world has to offer?

I saw Peter Tosh live, back in the early 80s (I think.) Can't remember if he did this one, but he probably did. (And the reason I can't remember is not what you may think, I just wasn't familiar enough with his music to pick out individual songs -no connection with that thread in General Discussions about something some people do to "enhance" their appreciation while watching a movie...) Anyway, here he is, Peter Tosh Comin' in Hot:

What was the "A" side of the single? (I'm not up on early Beatles "A" and "B" singles .) ..Wait a minute, I thought Atlantic City had always been a gambling town? Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 10, 2011 9:55 AM

So, LonesomePolecat, truly, not to harass you or anything, but I'm genuinely interested in what I asked you about the song in *Seven Brides for Seven Brothers*. The song "I'm a Lonesome Polecat" is a song from that musical (one of the better ones from it), and it's your screen name. So, can I assume you like both that musical and that song in particular? Or did you just think it was a cool-sounding screen name? If the latter, fair enough. I love *The Maltese Falcon*, but it's not my favourite movie, nor is the Mary Astor character after whom I named myself for these boards my favourite film character. I just like the name, perhaps that's the case with you and your "LonesomePolecat" moniker.

Just saw Howard Hawks' *Ball of Fire*. I hadn't seen it in years, and had almost forgotten how good it was. In fact, I enjoyed it more this time around than the first time I saw it. It's a flawless little comedy, not a thing wrong with it. The cast is wonderful, everyone is note perfect in their role. Gary Cooper gives one of his most likable performances, and proves that he can do comedy. The seven academic gentlemen are all a hoot (hoots?) , special mention to Oscar Homolka, S.Z. Sakall ("Cuddles" ) and whoever played the widowed professor, the one who gives dubious connubial advice to Gary Cooper (anyone knows his name, please let me know -he was hilarious ! ) I also got a kick, as usual, out of Dan Duryea's characterization as Andrews' top thug. And Dana Andrews himself in a somewhat unexpected role for him, makes it work as Joe Lilac the hearltess gangster. But the icing on the cake has got to be Barbara Stanwyck, delightful as always, putting in a fine comic and sexy performance as "Sugarpuss O'Shea". This is my idea of a really good comedy from that era - it's funny, it's sweet, it's got gangsters, dancing, encyclopaedia scholars, and newly-discovered love. And while it pushes those disbelief boundaries a little -as most comedies do, nothing wrong with that - it never shows the characters doing dumb things just to set up something in the plot (a pet loathing of mine in many older comedies). Bonus treat: Gene Krupa and his band setting the place on fire with "Drum Bogie". I'm including it here for anyone who wants to take five minutes to watch Babs and everyone else having a ball with this number: *Ball of Fire* also got me thinking; there are a lot of movies, usually comedies, with a similar theme. ie, stodgy, straight, inexperienced person thinks they are married to their duty, only to fall in love and be seduced, not only with the beloved, but also by all the pleasures of life they have been hitherto ignoring (pretty clothes, dancing, wine, etc.) One example is *Ninotchka,* but there are many others. It's a fun theme. Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 9, 2011 4:46 PM Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 9, 2011 4:48 PM sorry about all the editing -that's what happens in a long post Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 9, 2011 4:57 PM

*Woman in the Dunes* is all the good things that have been said about it, but I feel as though I ought to like it, rather than genuinely liking it. I know it's not supposed to be taken literally, but still, it makes me feel so damn claustrophobic, both physically and psychologically. It's depressing, and I remember being soo relieved when it was over.

What's amusing about that performance is, you can kind of tell that they weren't quite sure where they were going with it...probably because, by all accounts, they couldn't hear themselves and often in live performances were a little confused as to where they were in the song (any song they were playing, not just "I'm Down". ) The screaming fans, the poor acoustics of the venues where they played, and the old school sound equipment all contributed to this phenomenon. Funny thing, it didn't matter, nobody seemed to notice. Except the Beatles themselves, which is one reason they finally quit playing live (not the only reason though, or even the main one.) Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 9, 2011 4:40 PM

Hey, Valentine, I recorded a bunch of Kurosawa films almost a year ago, when tcm was having that month (March? ) celebrating the great Japanese director. Anyway, one of them was *Stray Dog*, and I finally got around to watching it the other day. Did it ever deliver ! I can't believe how good it was, and also how noirish it was. I loved everything about it - the story, the noirish settings (who knew 1950 Japan was so noir looking?) , of course the acting. Japanese noir? Oh yeah !

> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote} > ... Ok, I can understand that a western is very "American" and thus why there are more of them than other periods in US History, but the sheer number of them, during their *hay-day* is a little too much. Is that a pun?

Heard the other day that the White Stripes had officially broken up. They were an interesting band and will be missed. Here's a charming little song from their "White Blood Cells" album. I remember driving through Detroit on my "road trip" last fall and being amazed and delighted to see that there actually was a "Hotel Yorba", although it looked like it had seen better days. But then I like seedy old buildings, they're so film noirish. Anyway, here's to The White Stripes and the Hotel Yorba :

What do those terms "A" film or "B" picture signify? I always thought it had something to do with budget.

Sounds like a dog to me.

Good thing the Midnight Plowboy didn't try out that same bad cafe, otherwise all those wilted greens might have affected his, shall we say, performance.