misswonderly3

> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote} > _It's like asking if quiet children should be allowed to speak at the dinner table._ Please explain how it's even remotely like that.

Greetings, jbh. There are many here who like musicals, and enjoy discussing them. There is also a whole forum devoted to musicals in the "Genres" forums (just scroll down a ways -maybe you already know this?) Personally, I did not think *Night and Day* was a very good movie, but many others liked it, and certainly I do love the music of Cole Porter. I too am a fan of musicals, I like more than I would want to name on this post. (It would be a huge long post ) Almost all of the Fred and Ginger musicals are wonderful, great music and dancing. Some of my other favourites include *Oklahoma, The Pajama Game, Singin' in the Rain, West Side Story*, and *The Music Man.* I love dancing in musicals, but it's the music that's really important to me. If the music is lame, the rest of it doesn't matter.

Thanks for the correction - it's not the first time I've made that kind of mistake on these boards (in fact, I made one earlier today on the Westerns thread, but if you didn't notice, I'm not going to point it out -anyway, I corrected it.) I should have looked it up, double-checked the child actors in those two films. I guess I assumed there were the same actor because of the similarity of their names: both "Jackie", one Coogan, the other Cooper. hm, if I'd checked my facts or given it any careful thought at all, I'd have kind of figured out that it couldn't be the same actor, since *The Kid* was made 10 years earlier than *The Champ*. Duuh...

I watched *The Champ* for the first time today. I flatter myself that I am not a sentimental type and rarely cry at movies, but the tears were streaming down my face with this one. I don't really know why - it must have been sweet little Jackie Coogan's authentic and touching performance. It was also the struggle of the father and son to make a go of their lives, the little boy, mature for his age, forgiving his dad over and over again for gambling and drinking. The film possessed a delicate quality, a blend of sadness and hope. Of course it was reminiscent of Chaplin's *The Kid* , even with the same effective Jackie Coogan.

There's something joyful about the Marx Brothers.

No. Why would you even suggest such a thing?

There's another list in that same book; I might as well post it too, it varies somewhat from the other. This one's called "The People's Choice" : 1: *The Good, The Bad and the Ugly* (1966) Sergio Leone 2: *Once Upon a Time in the West* (1968) ditto ...............two by Sergio Leone? come on 3: *The Treasure of the Sierra Madre* (1948) John Huston 4: *High Noon* (1952) Fred Zinnemann 5: *The Oxbow Incident* (1943) William Wellman 6: *Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid* (1969) George Roy Hill 7: *Unforgiven* (1992) Clint Eastwood 8: *For a Few Dollars More* (1965) Sergio Leone ( again ? ! ) 9: *The Wild Bunch* (1969) Sam Peckinpah 10: *The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance* (1962) John Ford According to The Rough Guide to Westerns, this list was compiled from the Internet Data Moviebase (IMB). All I can say is, many people who participate in IMB polls are fools. It's just ridiculous to have three Sergio Leone films in a list of ten. So disproportionate. None of his films would figure on a list of mine; not that I hate him or anything, but there are so many Westerns that are better than anything he did. I detest *Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid*, and don't even really consider it a Western, It's more a star vehicle for Paul Newman and Robert Redford, giving them lots of opportunities to look handsome and mug good-naturedly . It gets boring fast. (I like those two actors, just not in that film.) I can see *The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance* being on the list, but maybe that's because I hold a special place for it in my heart (or my brain) because I wrote an essay on it (a long time ago.) I know a lot of people intensely dislike *The Wild Bunch*, maybe because of the violence in it, or maybe it's the type of violence, which is particularly nasty (like the children gleefully torturing a scorpion at the beginning)/ I used to hate it too - also, I always got bored about half-way through. But I have since had a " Hallelujah !" moment about it, and now I rate it very highly. I love seeing those fine old actors, Ernest Borgnine and especially two of my favourite actors ever, William Holden and Robert Ryan. *Treasure of the Sierra Madre* is on my list of favourite twenty films of all time, in any genre.Who can resist Fred C.Dobbs' honest greed: "I need dough, and plenty of it !" But I'm not sure it's a classic Western - just as much an adventure film? *High Noon* and *The Oxbow Incident* deserve to be on any top ten Western list. Great directors and casts, but what makes them stand out for me is their themes, their philosophical questioning. Although there's action in both of them, both are more about big questions, about how we make choices and how we deal with moral decisions that arise. Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 4, 2011 5:34 PM

I agree about *Warlock*. I don't really think of Dmytrk as a director of Westerns (nor Nicholas Ray, for that matter, but I love *Johnny Guitar*.) It is very surprising that *High Noon* is nowhere on the list. They do share a common theme. I've always wanted to see *The Tall T* but somehow seem to miss it the rare times it's been aired, so I can't really comment on that one. For sure I agree with the others you mention, except for *The Misfits*, which, although it unquestionably has a Western setting, I have never regarded as a Western. It's a drama, a good one, about characters who are lonely, drifting, uncertain. Monroe, Gable, Clift, and even Wallach are people who are searching for something; the Western aspect plays a very background role, despite the Mustangs (who are, agreed, very important to the film.) Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 4, 2011 7:58 PM

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote} > I didn't even know that BAD DAY...... was considered a Western. Not a horse in sight. Nor even an oat.

I have a cool little book, The Rough Guide to the Western. According to it, these are the "Top Ten Westerns" (they don't state what criteria they were using): 1: *Shane* (1953) dir. George Stevens 2: *Once Upon a Time in the West* (1968) dir. Sergio Leone 3: *The Searchers* (1956) dir. John Ford 4: *Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid* (1973) dir. Sam Peckinpah 5: *Johnny Guitar* (1954) dir. Nicholas Ray 6: *Warlock* (1959) dir. Edward Dmytryk 7: *The Outlaw Josey Wales* (1976) dir. Clint Eastwood 8: *Red River* (1948) dir. Howard Hawks 9: *Bad Day at Black Rock* (1954) dir. John Sturges 10: *The Tall T* (1957) dir. Budd Boetticher Although these are all films worth seeing, there are a few that I question a little as "Top Ten". Anyway, my list would be different. Still, it's interesting to ponder the films on this list.

Really? Shirley you're just humouring my Canadian sensibility. (Actually I have heard that there is a subgroup of Americans who secretly prefer Canadian football.) Apparently there's a Canadian player on the Stealers this year. That's all I know.

Thanks for your thoughts on the whole "The Indian in the Western" issue. It definitely is a topic fraught with complications and many perspectives.

Superbowl Sunday coming up. This is the only song I could think of that mentions football: Lou Reed being oh so soulful singing Coney Island Baby :

> {quote:title=johnm_001 wrote:}{quote} > I can't say I love or hate the genre. Not sure that I love or hate any genre, per se. Although, horror comes close (love) and comedy comes close (hate). ... At the risk of taking my own thread off-topic, I have to express amazement at that statement. Not the horror part, many people, including me, are not crazy about that genre. But comedy?? Any kind of comedy? I know you don't care for the Marx Brothers, but there are many kinds of comedies out there. There's got to be something that makes you laugh. Please tell me there is (I mean, in film; I assume you laugh as much as anyone in you own life ) Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 3, 2011 9:22 PM

Fred, you say: One of the biggest problems with the film is the simple basic fact that an oil field worker can?t possibly be a concert pianist, because his hands get all messed up within a few months, working with the heavy equipment. They get scarred, broken, frozen in the winter, and all messed up in general. A concert pianist would never go to work as an oil field worker. But the whole point of the story is that this character has rejected his classical pianist career. That's partly what the film is about - he comes from a classical music background, every other member of his family plays piano (or violin, before they hurt their neck). The Nicholson character, for reasons that are never completely clear to us, has decided to abandon his classical piano playing. In fact, why he would reject such a wonderful thing is part of the puzzle of the movie; the fact that the reason(s) why are not spelled out for us makes it a stronger film; we do receive clues about this, and about Bobby's character, but we mostly are left to try and figure it out for ourselves, which is fine with me. The point is, Bobby would not have cared about the damage the oil rigg job was doing to his hands, because he was no longer playing piano. (Now, something I wondered about, in the scene where the Catherine character asks him to play something, and he launches into a beautifully rendered piece by Chopin with nary a mistake, is how was he able to play so well when he hadn't practiced for years. Never mind the ruined hands business.) As for your comment about young women and sex, that's just silly to say that the filmmakers put that part in to make female viewers "feel better" about having multiple sexual partners. They didn't need a Jack Nicholson movie for them to make a decision about their personal lives. It's more like, the film was reflecting something that had started to happen a few years earlier. It's also rather sexist of you to make an implied criticism about young women having sex outside of marriage - what about all the men who were doing the same thing? Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 3, 2011 9:14 PM

> {quote:title=movieman1957 wrote:}{quote} >... They can be very basic. They are tales of good and evil and someone's ability to overcome it. A fight against the land, other people, circumstances. There is a certain bravery involved in the people just being in the land at that time. There is the adventure and action. > > It is building a life. There is little easy about it. There is a code. Sometimes even among outlaws there is some sort of respect among them. Like other genres they are people we generally are not living a lifestyle we do not. In that way westerns can be as much fantasy as realistic. You hit the horse-shoe nail on the head, movieman ! I always like to try and analyze the essence of a genre, what is it about, in what way is it universal? i thought you summed it up pretty well. Of course, there are always exceptions to the "formula". The most interesting films in any genre are the ones that diverge from a formula. Some of the best movies ever made refuse to fit neatly into any "genre", and that's often why I like them.

How do you phonetically spell the sound "AAEUUOOWW !!!' ? or maybe ""WHOOOO !!!" ? I've always liked that song, funny, cynical lyrics and a b*lls-out rocker - to be PLAYED LOUD !!!

Mayo is notorious for turning poisonous (without careful management...)

No, that was just the bass singer; his voice was a little hoarse that day.

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote} > I guess the expressions"oater" and "horse opera" represent some people's bias (and I'm probably one of them) against Westerns. I for one have never seen a single oat in a Western. Not even a bowl of Quaker's instant with raisins. And I have yet to hear a horse attempt to sing even the "Boll Weevil" song, let alone Puccini. (shall I add a couple of "lols" ? )

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > Whats this trailer trash movie thats on now? I can drive through a local trailer park and oil field to see this stuff. Come on, Fred, there's a lot more to *Five Easy Pieces* than that. Besides, to me, trailer parks and oil fields are fascinating exotica.

Thanks. I see it's scheduled for April 20th, 5:00 a.m. I'll have to make a note to record it.

Where is Dobie Grey hanging out in that song? I want to go there. Watched *5 Easy Pieces* last night, hadn't seen it in a long time. I think it's a good movie. Here's the Karen Black character's favourite song from that, Tammy Wynette reminding all us females to just look the other way if their mate misbehaves once in a while: Stand by Your Man :

Sorry about that...I did say I wasn't that familiar with either the group or the song, so it was just a guess.

> {quote:title=TikiSoo wrote:}{quote} > Since I'm a real life cowgirl & Cinefile, people are always surprised I generally don't care for westerns. (Generally) I find the plots basic, the charactors are kind of one dimensional as others here have said. Exactly, TiskiSoo, and those are the kind of Western I find boring. We share the same opinion on bad Westerns; here's what I said about them: Funny thing is, I understand why many people, especially women, don't like them. They think they're boring, with unsophisticated dialogue, overly simple plots, one-dimensional characters, and not enough female characters -or, if there are female characters, they're even more stereotypical than the males. But there are so many Westerns that are not like that at all. > I've tried really hard to like John Ford, but in retrospect, his are probably the worst to start with in "westerns" genre. The depiction of Indians is deplorable and sadly, often the only perspective modern people have of them. Spot on about John Ford. I respect all the folks who like him (and I know there are many on these boards), but I generally dislike John Ford Westerns. Yes, I know he's the primo Western filmmaker, but I almost always find them boring, even worse when he tries to inject humour into them. I think he has a terrible sense of humour, at least in his films. And he's always showing some cranky woman scolding a man. It's supposed to be hilarious that a little female person is yelling at a big strong male, and he's taking it. Not funny, not interesting. I agree with your comments about Westerns and "Indians". The "cowboy and Indian" Western is my least favourite type of Western, not only because of the negative depictions of North America's first peoples, but because they are generally boring. So, to wrap this post up, concerning both Ford and "Indians", I've tried to like Ford's famous "cavalry trilogy" (viz, *Fort Apache*, *She Wore a Yellow Ribbon,* and *Rio Grande* ) but I can't stand any of the three. They have none of the elements I like about the Western (some of which I've discussed below) and all of the ones I can't stand. Plus, the settings make me feel depressed - a bunch of tents in the middle of nowhere. I prefer those little towns, even if they are made out of cardboard.