misswonderly3
-
Posts
12,768 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
36
Posts posted by misswonderly3
-
-
*Caught* ! ? Thank you, Jonas, I've been trying to "catch" that film for years. I just asked TCM to email me a reminder for it. Robert Ryan, James Mason, and a rare major role for Barbara Bel Geddes !
A bona fide film noir ! Great stuff !
-
There's a version of the Beatles doing Kansas City, and Paul forgets the words at some point, so he just goes "And it's a one two three four, *five six seven eight nine* !!" It works fine.
Still cold, still snow, lots of it. Makes me think of the Pixies' cover of the Neil Young song, Winterlong. I found one or two live versions of it, but not only does Francis look a little over the hill and I like young, mean Pixies, but (and this was my main problem, I don't care if Francis and Kim are a tad tubby now) it wasn't loud enough. So you'll just have to put up with the record cover and the original Pixies take on this tune:
Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 11, 2011 2:15 PM
miss-spelled "Neil" as "Neal"
-
Go, filmlover ! Good luck - some people, even our beloved Fred, just love to find something to get cranky about. (sorry Fred, but the TCM statement on "Classic" makes sense to me. )
-
I guess this is a little off-topic, but someone brought up *Member of the Wedding* earlier on this thread, so what the hell:
Fedya wrote:
The earlier Allen movies (before Annie Hall at least) aren't bad, although parts of them get really grating. Sleeper, for example, goes off the rails when they get the the plot involving the leader's nose.
But that's when it starts to get really funny.
Julie Harris' character in *Member of the Wedding* (what was that kid's name, anyway?) and Woody Allen may both display signs of "obnoxious neurosis", but as I said, Allen is fully aware of it and he's kidding about it, making fun of it. Plus almost everything he says in reference to it is a joke (whether you think a funny one or not.) The Julie Harris creature goes on and on, her speeches are way longer -and more boring- than Woody Allen's "neurotic" asides ever were.
Still, leaving Woody Allen out of it, at least we agree about this. This is what I said (in part) about the wretched *Member of the Wedding* :
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.
Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 11, 2011 1:24 PM
-
What's disgraceful, the films, or the fact that you haven't seen them?
No point making yourself watch something you're pretty sure you won't enjoy, just because you think that as a serious movie fan, you "ought" to. Look at all the other great movies there are out there that you probably will like. As I said in my original post, the only reason I started watching Westerns at all was because I had to (was taking a film course that included a segment on Westerns, and I didn't want to end up with a D in the class.)
So many movies, so little time.
-
I agree, healthy debate is always a good thing. I don't want to hush anybody up. And yeah, the criticisms of TCM programming do make me wonder if these people remember a time when tcm did not exist and you had to comb the tv guide, as you say, to find something good .
Actually, I only write in a complimentary way about TCM because I'm hoping to win a date with BEn Mankiewicz. I don't know what's the matter with these TCM officials, I've been clamouring for this for months. I'm a loyal fan of both TCM and Ben, and I've promised I'll dress up for the occasion. So far, no response. Now that's something to complain about !
-
Hey, look at all those noir films - films in general, as a matter of fact - where the guy takes the girl out to "dinner", and it turns out to be a hot dog stand. And they usually have a great time !
-
Best "classic" Westerns: (in no particular order)
*Shane*
*Stagecoach*
*High Noon*
*Red River*
honourable mention: *The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance* (but its focus is on how the "wild west" is changing, how law and order are gradually but inexorably coming to the West, Stewart's lawyer vs Wayne's gun slinger , so it's not "traditional" the way the other three are.)
Some would want to include at least one Western about Wyatt Earp, probably *My Darling Clementine*. Sure, fair enough, Somehow the Earp story has never really grasped my imagination the way it's supposed to, and I always get bored watching *My Darling Clementine*. Plus, Henry Fonda always seems to look kind of sulky in this film (actually, in quite a few films).
But I suppose we ought to include *Clementine*; not a personal favourite, but I can see a case for its being on this list.
Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 10, 2011 10:56 PM
-
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.
"BALL of FIRE" and other flames
in General Discussions
Posted
Nice pic, kyle. I'm a heterosexual female, (I think ) and even I'm going "huba huba" at the sight of Babs there.
I did think of *A Foreign Affair* , it is another great example of the theme I was talking about. Seems to be a pet theme of Billy Wilder's.