misswonderly3

Hmm, I suppose it does seem unfriendly to start right in with a disagreement in response to a new poster. csnarzyk, welcome to the TCM messageboards ! ( People probably didn't mean to jump on you, but many tcm fans love silent movies, and after all, they don't get shown very often, certainly not usually at prime time. I think we just wanted to let you know that these are great films, you might want to give them another chance.)

I wanted to talk a little about *The Kid* and wasn't sure which thread to post it on (didn't want to start a new thread just about that one film.) This looks like a good thread to comment about this film -they wouldn't have shown it last night if it hadn't been for "Moguls and Movie Stars". I like Charlie Chaplin, but *The Kid* is one of his films I'd never seen before last night. What a sweet and charming little movie it is.. Chaplin is one of a very few directors -in silents or talkies -who can somehow get away with this kind of pathos and sentiment without it sliding into bathos and maudlin overkill. I don't know how he does it -maybe it's how he mixes in the comedy so deftly. I loved this funny little silent movie; it actually made me laugh out loud. After nearly a century, Chaplin's antics are still funny. I'ts partly his facial expressions, he can be so fastidious, almost dainty, even though his character is "just a tramp". He's like this in all his silent films, shabby but elegant. There are many scenes in *The Kid* that are similtaneously sweet and funny; one that comes to mind is the breakfast scene, in which the little boy has just made a stack of pancakes (a five-year old cook ! ) and they settle down to eat them. Charlie notices that he has one more pancake than the kid has, and he solemnly divides the extra pancake in half for them to share. Chaplin is also very funny when he's flirting. There's a scene where he starts to flirt with the woman whose window he's fixing. The physical humour involved in this bit, the goofy smirk Charlie assumes, the sly quickness with which he scrambles away when the husband appears, all contribute to the lovely goofy physical comedy which makes me laugh out loud, decades after *The Kid* was made. *I was unaware that this was not the original version -I'd love to see that, too.* Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 18, 2010 2:55 PM

Silent movies are very special, I love them. I agree with what hamradio says. "...I like to see how people lived and acted, dressed during that time frame..." That's just one reason why they fascinate me- it's like going back 90 years in time and seeing how people lived, what they wore, what buildings and cars looked like then etc. Also how people behaved, what were the social expectations back then and how they've changed . Of course, they are movies, so the "way they lived" aspect is not documentary-like, I recognize that things may not have been exactly what we see on the screen. But it's as close as we're going to get to "visiting the past". I also like silents because of the magical dream-like quality many of them have. And, as several people on this thread have pointed out, they are supremely visual -which, after all, is a huge part of what cinema is all about.

Yah, I'm all mellowed out now, mon. Looks like those chick singers were feeling pretty mellowed out too. This is one of my favourite Stones' covers, back when they were truly raw and tough, still playing old blues tunes, and Brian Jones was still able to stand up. "Down Home Girl" : Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 18, 2010 2:31 PM

There must be some movies about Hanukah. I'm embarrassed to say I'm not aware of any...can you suggest some titles?

finance, I love Eddie Cochran, and I especially love "Come On, Everybody". I was thinking of posting that song myself. He's not as well-known as some of the early rock n rollers, and he deserves to be -I think he was more recognized in Britain than in North America.

There's an odd little film by William Wellman, *Track of the Cat* (1954), starring Robert Mitchum and Teresa Wright. In a documentary about Wellman that TCM screened a year or so ago, Wellman is shown working on what he called a "colour film in black and white". Or maybe it was "a black and white film in colour." The idea was, even though he used colour stock to make the movie, he would shoot it in such a way that it would look almost as though it was in black and white. It was set in the depths of winter, with snow everywhere, so the "white" part was take care of. The only vivid colour in it was MItchum's red plaid winter jacket. Wellman was striving for a certain strange effect with all this, possibly in order to reflect the strange family dynamics at work in the story. ( just a guess) In any case, while the stark visual element of the film certainly presents itself in an unusual light, *Track of the Cat* is a dreary film; not even the presence of Mitchum, one of my faves,can alleviate the heavy mood. Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 17, 2010 7:36 PM

> {quote:title=PrinceSaliano wrote:}{quote} > Sounds a little too racy for the 1940s. ...Unless she was wearing some kind of underwear -maybe one of those Arabian -looking bras.

I actually have no objection to people saying "Happy Holidays", or referring to "the holidays" or "the holiday season". And yes, that more general term can apply to (the American) Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, New Year's Day etc. And naturally I've no problem with the notion of being inclusive. i guess what I was talking about is when people actually substitute the word "Holiday" when they formerly would have used "Christmas" . For example, "holiday" tree, "holiday shopping", "holiday" presents. Say what you like about other special days and occasions at this time of year, but I know that until about 5 -10 years ago, the word "Christmas" prefaced all the examples I gave above. And there is no question in my mind that people have become uncomfortable about using the word, and have taken to using the more generic "holiday" to get around it. BingTan, it's true that some practising Christians are the opposite, offended when Christmas is referred to in any sense other than a religious one. You wrote: "...this secular use of "Christmas" is exactly what offends people who contend that Christmas is, or should be, exclusively a religious holiday." "Damned it we do, damned it we don't." But I think those "practising Christians " who object to the term being used in a secular way have lost the battle. It is because "Christmas" is as much a secular as a religious holiday that I think non-Christians need not be offended by the use of the word. Anyway...*The Bishop's Wife* is a fine Christmas movie. I first saw it a few years ago, and remember being surprised that it wasn't as well-known as *It's a Wonderful Life* or *A Christmas Carol* (any version you like.) It's got a great cast, Loretta Young was never lovelier, the setting is deliciously wintry and Christmassy, and of course it's got a beautiful Christmas message (without being cloyingly sappy about it.) I like the way Cary Grant waves his hand over that tree he miraculously decorates, and suddenly it's sparkling with tinsel. Also fun is how he uses his angel powers to get David Niven to stay stuck to that chair.

I know I'm going to get into big trouble for this, but anyway... Why must everyone now refer to "Christmas" as "holiday" ? I know, I know, it's supposed to be politically correct to call it anything other than "Christmas", what about all the non-Christians who might feel left out and offended, etc. The word "Christmas" has long since taken on a secondary meaning from the religious one. Yes, those who are Christians can celebrate December 25th and the time around it as a religious occasion. Yes, that is where the word originated. But gradually, over the years, the term "Christmas" has taken on a second connotation: the secular one. Many people -and that includes many people who do not consider themselves as "Christian", nor do they practise any other faith, many agnostics and atheists celebrate Christmas for a fun time with decorations, a tree, music, food, family gatherings etc. You don't have to be Christian to observe and celebrate "Christmas". It no longer has just the religious meaning. And most people I know from other cultures and religions have no objection to calling this special time of year "Christmas". whether they celebrate it themselves or not. It's mostly those who grew up in this culture who have decided that the word is offensive and should no longer be used. *The Bishop's Wife* is a Christmas movie, it's about Christmas . For God's sake (no pun intended ) it's about an angel, a church minister, and a church. It makes me sad that everyone has mutually agreed to no longer refer to December 25 and the period leading up to it as "Christmas". ( I myself do not belong to any faith group, by the way, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or anything else. So I'm not some religious Christian fundamentalist who wants to "put Christ back into Christmas" or anything like that. For me, it's not a religious issue, it's a language issue. A word that was part of our common parlance is being carefully removed, and is now considered inappropriate to use in everyday speech. Must replace it with the meaningless "holiday". )

And I thought I knew everything by the Who. Well, actually, I didn't follow them that much after Keith kind of fell apart - although I see he's holding it together (in keeping with the name of the song, I guess ) in that track. Good song. :Like the Jew's harp (is it poliltically incorrect to call it that now, and if so, what is the new acceptable term for the quasi harmonica like instrument previously known as a "Jew's harp" ? ) "The Time" was some crazy funky band from the 80s who worked with Prince, and it shows. (Sorry the artist formerly know as Prince, now known as & . Or something. Although I hear he's gone back to "Prince". Aargh, I can't keep up with the vagaries of funk royalty.) In any case, "The Time " were a lot of fun. Here's something Osborne, Baldwin, Mankiewicz, and Lithgow can all do ensemble, because The Time obligingly perform very doable,very funky dance moves along to their funkalicious number here Get down with "Jerk Out" ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRr-mOsfAVE&feature=related.

Maybe he could develop a new symbol for films that were good, but too serious for the smiley face. how about :}

MFF wrote: "...Better films have delivered the same message in a better way. " There are many ways to deliver such a message. *Pleasantville* is the opposite of trite; to "colour" the characters as they made new and exciting discoveries seems to me one fo the most original ways a filmmaker could demonstrate what's happening with them. The way the film encourages us to celebrate life strikes me as innovative and ingenious. Not to be a "Polly Positive" (ok, not a SNL character, but it'll do), but I tend to really like those "uplifting" themed films, if they're done the right way. I've mentioned on another thread that Woody Allen's *Hannah and Her Sisters* is that kind of film. I'd love for you to list me some of the "better films" you're talking about, along the same thematic lines. (whether they be in black and white or colour.) (sorry, ColonolTravis, for going off-topic a bit. But the concept of colour and black and white lending visual emphasis to the theme or "message" of a movie is a broad one.)

> {quote:title=LuckyDan wrote:}{quote} > I wanted to like Pleasantville for the very reasons you list for loving it so, but it confused me. > > If feeling a passionate emotion brought color to some characters, while feeling nothing left others in black and white, how to explain the many characters who were angered by the colored people, but who remained black and white? Anger is an emotion. > > It seemed the filmmaker was so taken with his concept of color versus black and white in the same shot that he neglected to craft a message to go with it. > > So for me the meaning was unclear, other than, as a friend put it at the time, "It's a 'do-what-you-want' movie," to which I would add, consequences be damned. As I've said, I don't get why others don't get this film. It's clear to me when watching it that the emotion that triggers the "colouring" of the character has to be a positive one, a kind of joy. Anger and fear certainly are emotions, and there's no question that anger can be a very intense feeling. But if you pay attention to the movie, you'll see that the "colour moment" always occurs when the character has experienced something new, something that makes them feel good , something that awakens an awareness of the possibilities of life. Anger and fear usually don't engender such emotions. I've mentioned in another thread that the role of the suspension of disbelief is a major concept that we bring to a film when we watch it. It 's true that *Pleasantville* is a fantasy, where impossible things happen, but,( as also discussed in that other thread) the magical aspects of the film are consistent with the story; it obeys its own logic within that world. So I don't agree that the filmmaker was "so taken with his own concept that he neglected to craft a message to go with it". The message is: don't be afraid to embrace, life, to try something different, to think and do new things that open up the possibilities of what is beyond your own little town (metaphorically speaking.) Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 17, 2010 9:58 AM

I've heard that Leonard Maltin is planning to replace the stars for his rating system with smiley faces. (Or gloomy faces, if the film is bad.) eg : *Double Indemnity* *Cleopatra* (1963) For comedies, he's using "lols". The more lol's after the film's title, the funnier he rates it. Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 17, 2010 9:45 AM hey, it isn't easy devising a new rating system

That last paragraph you wrote 5 posts down is shockingly rude. Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 17, 2010 12:51 AM

Ok, I wasn't going to say anything about *Pleasantville* because I didn't want to get into one of those pointless arguments that can sometimes occur when disagreement rears its ugly head. ( Actually, why should disagreement be "ugly" ? Still, I've never heard it described as beautiful. But I digress.) I disagree strongly with you and Fred. *Pleasantville* is a lovely, funny, warm little movie about self-discovery and embracing life. Far from being "cold" , I found it to be a very sweet and pleasant (living up to its name) story. The "colouring" of the people in Pleasantville happens when he or she for the first time feels something. It is showing quite graphically the magical moment when they experience passion or curiosity or love or amazement for the first time. I find this a wonderfully imaginative idea, a most novel way to demonstrate to the audience what is going on in the character's heart and mind. It's as though the potential for joy in life is revealed to them at that moment. What triggers the "colouring' is different for every character, but everyone's transitional moment involves a sense of discovery and an intense awareness of feeling , of being alive. The film is not saying anything against former times -in fact, the brother (Tobey MacGuire) likes it there so much he decides to stay. The scenes in Pleasantville are in black and white not to indicate isolation or anti-diversity or anything negative along those lines at all. It is in black and white for two reasons: the obvious one is that it's supposed to be a tv show from the 1950s; of course it's in black and white , all television shows from that era were. The second reason is, it's a metaphor, one that works beautifully, for the flatness and lack of colour in the characters' lives. As someone else on this thread pointed out (sorry, can't remember who at this moment) they are cardboard characters, they're barely real. They have never experienced any intense emotion, never felt the passion of real life, because in a sense they're not real. When the brother and sister from the real world -which is not only real , but 40 years into the future- magically enter the 1950s black and white world of Pleasantville, they're not so much trying to change it to a 1990s world; they're not saying "our way is better than your way". Or if they are, they're not thinking so much in terms of 1950s vs 1990s as they're thinking real life vs artificial television life. Some post referred to "loud music and crass art". Whoever said that didn't "get it" at all. "Loud music"? It's rock and roll ! a kind of music that makes you feel you're alive. The "Crass art" referred to is the cafe owner's attempts to be an genuine artist, to do and feel something beyond the mundane rigours of running a coffeeshop. It's his chosen method of adding some colour to his life ! I absolutely cannot understand how such an unusual and happy concept as that behind the story of *Pleasantville* could be so misconstrued. And, aside from any other considerations, surely even those who don't care for it must give it credit for the originality and ingenuity of the plot. Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 16, 2010 7:24 PM

I'm having difficulty refraining from saying in a schoolteacher-ish fashion, "Well, here's your opportunity to learn." But don't worry, there's no homework. ( everything changed after 1984? Sounds like a book...) Edited by: misswonderly on Nov 16, 2010 6:47 PM

Threads connect ! There is a thread about black and white/colour films, and I was thinking of posting a comment about the 1954 William Wellman film *Track of the Cat*. (in which he strove to make a "colour black and white film".) Anyway, Teresa Wright plays a major part in this movie. Although I like the cast - Teresa and Robert Mitchum for sure, - and Wellman has made some successful films, I don't like *Track of the Cat.* There's something dreary and depressing about it. Teresa, who's usually "upbeat" and likable, in this film appears angry or at least disapproving much of the time. This is not her fault, of course the character is supposed to be that way, and she actually does a good job. But the film is no fun, and neither is she. (If she were, it would have been as though she 'd wandered in from some other movie.)

> {quote:title=ColonelTravis wrote:}{quote} > Purple Rose of Cairo - was the movie within the movie B&W? Can't recall, although if it was, it's not exactly what I'm looking for, because the performers within that movie were cognizant of the real world, and Jeff Daniels didn't want to go back into his film, correct? I should see that one again. *Purple Rose of Cairo* is an absolute delight, one of Woody Allen's most imaginative ventures (and this is a pretty imaginative director.) The "real" world is in colour, and the film within the film (which is also entitled, "The Purple Rose of Cairo") is , as would of course be the case in the 1930s, in black and white. (The story is set at the height of the Depression.) Woody Allen is one of the very few directors who now and then still makes a film entirely in black and white. He hasn't done this for a while, but a few that come to mind are *Manhattan* , *Stardust Memories*, ( in part an homage to early Fellini films, which were of course in black and white), *Broadway Danny Rose*, and *Shadows and Fog* ( in part an homage to German expressionist films, which were of course in black and white). I love the fact that he saw no reason to not make a film in black and white if he wanted, even though his film making career never included the time before colour was the norm. Interesting thread idea. I like and agree with what you said in your original post, "There are movies that go from B&W to color to show a different, richer world ,,," Ever since colour has been the most common film stock for making movies, the choices a director has to use either colour or black and white, or to somehow combine the two in one film to make an artistic or thematic statement, have contributed to the joys of this very visual medium.

I can't handle the Meat Puppets' name. I get this image of a beefsteak (fresh from the mine ! ) on somebody's hand, possibly talking through the marbled fat. It's not the Meat Puppets, it's me. I have a similar problem with Frank Zappa's album, "Uncle Meat". Uncle who? And I'm not even a vegetarian. However, complaints and general squeemishness with the Meat Puppets' name notwithstanding, they had a nice sound, very 90s (that's good.) finance, thanks for the reminder of how great that Marvin Gaye album is. I had the cd, and it got stolen ( ! ) a few years back, along with about half my cd collection. A traumatic experience upon which I cannot dwell. Anyway, you mentioned the other day that you were unfamiliar with a few of the songs recently posted here. Well, a few of the groups posted -I think you said you hadn't heard of some of them. I recall the day you said that was in response to a couple of postings, including something from C.B. by the Breeders. Now even I was only on nodding terms with the Breeders, but their main man (woman, actually) has an aristocratic heritage; she was one of the Pixies. I'm thinking you might have heard of them. If not, here's a taste of them. One of my favourite Pixie tunes, "Here Comes Your Man" (I on purpose avoided posting their original video, because it's kind of unnerving -typical Jack Black, a perverse kind of guy who likes unnerving people, I believe.) Sorry for such a long wordy post. Here's the song (Think "Waiting for My Man"; I think it's an "homage" to that , Jack Black is a self-confessed Velvet Underground fan.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28npWDGlh7I&feature=related

> {quote:title=TikiSoo wrote:}{quote} > Sometimes, NOT believing what's going on makes it work better, as in goofy slapstick style comedies. Some of my favorite early comedies involve stars driving out of control cars with crazy rear projection, or people climbing out onto airplane wings, pianos dropping on heads, that sort of thing. > > Knowing there is truly no danger, you can enjoy the situation and the actors reactions become funnier. Great point, TikiSoo. Actually, when I watch "goofy slapstick style" comedies, I watch them in the same frame of mind that I watch Bugs Bunny cartoons. They may be real people in those crazy movies, but in every other way the films work the same way as cartoons. And knowing that no matter what happens the people in these films will bounce back, injury free, (just like Daffy Duck or Sylvester the Cat or Coyote after they have 16 tons fall on their heads) gives me permission to forget all about belief or disbelief, and just sit back and enjoy them. ( I 'm a huge Bugs Bunny fan, by the way. I figure he's the Groucho Marx of the cartoon world.)

Has anyone mentioned *Shadow of a Doubt* ? It was her characterization of Charlie in this that changed my mind about her. I used to dislike her, now I can't even remember why. I think she gives a subtle and sensitive performance in this Hitchcock film. The nuances of facial expression Wright evinces the moment when she realizes that her beloved uncle quite possibly is a monster is an example of what a good actress she could be. Of course, it helps that she's in a great Hitchcock movie.

I'm guessing when you found that bargain vhs of *Pajama Game* it was your once-a -year day !

ALL ABOUT STEVE A handsome young film star on the rise creates havoc when several women, including a mature but still attractive stage actress, and a conniving young snippet who's competing with her, fight over who gets to ride on his motorcycle . "Come on Margo ! Try it, you'll like it ." "I don't give two Sarah Siddons awards for him, you tramp.He's trouble. What do you think I was talking about when I said "Fasten your seatbelts?"