misswonderly3
-
Posts
12,768 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
36
Posts posted by misswonderly3
-
-
An obvious one is Witness for the Prosecution.
-
Hmm -well, I'll try and give *Miracle of Morgan's Creek* another shot. I know what you mean about enjoying other aspects of a film so much that you don't worry about an implausible plot. And TCM shows it fairly often, so I will have ample opportunity.
Still, I think I'll have trouble getting past those quintuplets. It's like a whole scene is missing, or was edited out. Did Betty give all her patriotic love to her dance partner, a random soldier, or Eddie? And if it's Eddie, how come he doesn't seem to remember this event. Perhaps it was a case of immaculate conception(s).
-
Plus, check out how chubby Sellers is in *The Ladykillers*. You usually don't think about his physical appearance at all, since part of his schtick was to change so much for every role. But he's definitely sporting some baby fat in this one.
-
That's great, SansFin ! What an original idea -I bet you're the only one doing the challenge who's got that in their program !
-
lzcutter wrote:
"I don't know how many times posters have to say this before it sticks"
I am aware of the rights issues surrounding the airing of certain films in Canada. But it's so damn annoying, you've no idea, since you get to see all the interesting and unusual films TCM shows. Imagine how frustrated you'd feel if a film you'd seen only once, a long time ago, or perhaps one you'd never seen at all but always wanted to, were being shown on TCM , but not where you live.
I only post about that to vent my disappointment, not because I don't know the explanation for it.
I still think it should be something that could be easily worked out.
Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 24, 2010 10:59 PM
-
MyFavouriteFilms wrote:
I am concerned about the proletariat emotional responses to popular film. I think they contain many biases that I am not comfortable with...again, a driving factor in all my writing on these boards and in blogs I create is to really examine the way the working classes shift their film tastes down on to the next generation and perpetuate a type of 'common film knowledge' and what I see as a somewhat uneducated, unenlightened attachment to certain films and stars. I believe this taste or preference has been handed down and taught in a pedestrian sense, rather than as a critical reflection on art, culture and nature.
What does that even mean?
-
> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}
> I'm completely serious. Never heard of him.
finance, here I go again. Only this time, I'm not proud of this: Justin Beiber is Canadian. He's from Stratford, Ontario, he's about 16 years old, and he's just another teenybop singer. Although not even remotely in the same league as the others mentioned here. "Never heard of him"? You're not missing a thing.
-
Who cares about plot? Anyway, you could say the same about half of our beloved film noirs.
-
> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote}
> Well, it does not matter to me how you approach it and I'm saying it nicely. You will inevitably deal with people who want to take issues with some of your comments and you can handle that on an individual case by case basis.
Hey, bring 'em on. Not to get into a battle here, but I suspect there's more people who agree with me than with you. We're all grownups now, who wants to do homework?
I say, lighten up a little and have some fun.
Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 24, 2010 2:02 PM
-
I agree, mark, baby, *The Unsuspected* is an unsuspected gem. Claude Rains is always so watchable.
-
I don't know if anyone around here has heard of M. Ward. I think he's pretty darn good. Here is a very Sunday-ish song from him, called "To Save Me" :
-
SansFin, your comment was not inappropriate. As I said, it kind of brings things into perspective as to what something truly horrible is. You did not upset me, you just made me think about something very serious that I do not often think about. Nothing wrong with that, I probably don't do it often enough.
Your comment was also a reminder that horror films are, after all, fiction, and we shouldn't take them too seriously.
Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 24, 2010 12:26 AM
-
> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}
> MFF does have some valid points as it relates to ones viewing of movies and any and all art forms.
>
> On one side we have the 'everything is subjective' POV. This view often comes along with a 'hey, I just like it, I don't have to explain why' type of response. OK, I get where this POV is coming from but it does make for boring conversation.
>
> Then one the other side we have an academic approach. While I find this approach a lot more interesting it can be taken to a level were it gets too serious and approaches folly.
james, I don't prefer the "Hey, I just like it, I don't have to explain why" approach. That wouldn't generate very interesting conversations here "Hey, I liked it too. Whadda ya know?"
In fact, when discussing fiction, film, or music, I always like to know not only if someone liked or disliked something, but why. I want them to talk about the reasons behind their opinion of the film (or song, or book). And I expect them to have fairly intelligent answers, not just -"Oh, I don't know -I just liked it." So please don't think that's what I'm advocating here.
There's nothing wrong with being subjective -that's the very definition of personal opinion - but I do think it's more interesting, more fun, if you will, to give specific points about what one thinks is good or bad, in all the different aspects of movies that that can entail, when you say you like or don't like something.
What I don't think is necessary is to feel one has to back up one's opinion of a film with research and authoritative quotes etc. Not even film critics do that ! ( Film academics do, of course.)
MyFavouriteFilms said:
We can keep challenging ourselves to learn more about classic Hollywood. And we should not accept the old conventional attitudes about star-making and motion picture production.
I don't really see the need to "challenge" ourselves in the way you describe. I'll say it again, these boards encourage the contribution of a fan's knowledge, yes, but also the exchange of thoughts and opinions about all things cinematic. It shouldn't be an onerous chore to post on these threads. And I don't think I "accept the old conventional attiltudes " . I kind of take it one film at a time.
Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 23, 2010 8:09 PM
-
SansFin, I think nobody knows what to say after that last sentence in your post. It certainly brings things into perspective .
Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 23, 2010 7:34 PM
-
MyFavouriteFilms: Let me try again.
I not only love watching films, I love discussing and analyzing them. I enjoy an academic approach to talking about film. But it seems to me that what you want to do is not actually discuss the films themselves, you want to discuss the context around the film, the political, cultural, and sociological parametres surrounding each movie you see. There is certainly a place for that in an "academic" conversation about cinema, but my perception is that you want to talk about those things a lot more than any actual specific movie.
There are many ways to approach a discussion of a film. I like to do it the way I would discuss a novel or short story, bearing in mind the many additonal elements a film presents that written fiction of course does not. But, just as I would enjoy exchanging ideas about the characters, their motivations, the story (if there is one -sometimes in both film and literature there is not, at least not in a traditional sense), and of course basic English Lit 101 concepts such as irony, symbolism, etc. in literature, I enjoy looking at those analytical tools in talking about film.
In additon, with film, there are all the visual aspects to look at, and how they ( camera angle, lighting, mise en scene etc.) enhance or move forward the story. These are the elements of analyzing a movie that I enjoy; although it's always useful to consider the historical and sociological context in which the film was made, it's certainly not the only feature or even the primary feature of the film that should be considered.
All I'm saying is that my impression is that you put a much higher premium on the latter aspects of film analysis than the former, the things I am talking about. And perhaps if one does that there is a greater need for fact-checking and "backing up" one's comments than in the kind of movie discussion that I prefer.
If most of the discussions on these boards are about the exchange of opinion amongst dedicated film lovers, than I still say it should not be necessary to feel one has to do all that work.Nobody should feel they have to do " homework" to participate on these forums.
Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 23, 2010 7:09 PM
-
I do enjoy it. I love movies, I always have, Film Studies was my second major in university and I have watched films both old and new all my life. And I enjoy discussing and analyzing them, not just viewing them.
But I am not in university anymore, nor am I a professional film critic. I almost get the feeling that you think if someone does not take the same approach to assessing and dissecting films, they don't have the same passion for them as you do, they can't really "love" film. Not so. But I feel that your take on film and film criticism involves more than analyzing it as an art form, and more than discussing it as a form of entertainment. You seem to want to apply a very serious sociological perspective on it that is foreign to me.
And yes, even though I sort of enjoyed writing essays for my Film Studies classes at the time, I also thought of it as work. Now there's such a thing as work you enjoy, because you love what you're doing. Academic work and paid professional film criticism may fall into this category. But to feel that one has to look everything up and back everything up when posting on a site such as this really does feel like I'm back in school, and if I wanted that, I would go back to school. (Maybe some time -there are plenty of film courses offered in the university in the city where I live).
I don't think we should have to be so serious and work so hard on a silte such as this -sure, if you want to...but don't ask everyone to do the same. Question: if you were at a party or some similar social occasion, and everyone got into a deep discussion about some aspect of movies and cinema, would you have that same expectation? Or would you see it as the fun social interaction that it would be?
-
MyFavouriteFilms, with respect, you make it sound like so much work just to watch a movie. I think that most people on these boards like to discuss films, perhaps critique and deconstruct them a bit; depends on the film. Those who are serious about their love of this art form - and source of entertainment - enjoy talking about the films they've seen, even perhaps engaging in some friendly debate about them. I'm not saying I favour the idea of mindlessly consuming a film as you would a bag of chips (although there's something to be said for that kind of movie sometimes ) and never analyzing it.
But it seems to me that the approach you take to movies, films, call them what you will, somehow takes the colour and fun out of them. I often get the feeling that if I were to think about films the way you do, it would be a chore rather than a joy. I get pleasure out of watching movies and, yes, discussing and analyzing them . There's nothing wrong with an academic approach, up to a point.
For me, that point comes when it's all taken so seriously that the fun's gone out of it. And these forums are supposed to be as much for fun as for anything else.
-
It is widely held by critics that Luciano Pavarotti performs the definitive version of Bo Diddley's
Who Do You Love.
You sure know your country singers. They all look so pleasant and well-dressed as they sing their pleasant and well-performed country songs. I've never heard of half of these guys. Those dudes in your last post look like they're wearing the fore-runners of nudie suits.
-
Fred, this is an example of the problem with duplicate threads. I didn't see your thread about the Alec Guinness films tonight until after I'd posted on the other one.
Anyway, I'll just repeat: these great British Alec Guinness comedies are not being aired in Canada tonight, and I am experiencing my usual frustration about this. Why can't these rights issues be resolved? Especially because they usually involve films that don't have much money-making potential anyway.
I've seen the others (they're great ) but I'm especially upset over not being able to view *Captain's Paradise* , one of those elusive films I've wanted to see all my life.
Aargh.
Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 23, 2010 1:58 PM
-
I can't handle this. Every time it happens I go crazy with frustration. Those Alec Guinness films are great -clever, funny, original. There's no actor like Guinness. And while I've at least seen two of them, I have never seen *The Captain's Paradise*, and always wanted to.
In Canada they're showing a bunch of Robert Mitchum films - I don't follow the logic. You'd think they'd try to at least find some Alec Guinness movies , preferably comedies (kn keeping with tonight's theme) that can be aired in this country. I love Robert Mitchum, but I've seen all those films several times.
Life can be tough.
-
Well, it's Saturday. If anyone out there is entertaining this (or any) Saturday night, and they find that their guests are staying too late, you want them to go, but you want to be polite about it, just give them a gentle hint and play this song. This is Blossom Dearie's version. She's kind of an acquired taste -when I first heard her, I thought her voice was too little-girlish to be taken seriously. After a few listens I came to like her style ( perhaps a Hallelujah ! moment ) and now I'm a fan.
At the next social gathering you host, when you're tired and want them all to go, let them know that
The Party's Over :
Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 23, 2010 1:51 PM
because I originally accidentally typed "lessons" instead of "listens". She's not that hard to like.
-
Nothing like old Irish folk songs. I was thinking of one the other day, She Moved Through the Fair.
It's a very old song originally from Ireland, but many performers of other nationalities have covered it (kind of like Who do You Love in that respect -hmm...). I love this song not only for its graceful haunting melody, but for its eerie lyrics - I think it's about a ghost. This is Fairport Convention's version:
(Sorry there doesn't appear to be a live performance of it by them; still, it's an interesting album cover.)
-
Second City TV was a very funny Canadian television show that launched the careers of several wonderful comedians, many of whom were Canadian. ( I must try and be a little less jingoistic.)
-
Looks like *Curse of the Demon* is on TCM this Friday at 6:00 pm. This is one I'm going to not only watch at the time, but record. I try to record every Jacques Tourneur film that gets aired. I always get him mixed up with Val Lewton, but I guess there's a reason for that.
Tourneur is a fabulous example of a "horror" director that I like a lot. (Sorry to put "horror" in quotation marks, but as we've seen on this thread, there are several different definitions and different kinds of horror films.) *Cat People* and *I Walked With a Zombie* are both great examples of his style of horror.What I like about this style is the overall atlmosphere of undefined fear; people are afraid without even knowing quite why. They're uneasy, and therefore we're uneasy watching them. This is the kind of suspense in horror movies that I like the best. There's something strange going on in an otherwise seemingly ordinary world. Tourneur's and Lewton's films possess (no pun intended, *Exorcist* fans ! )
a special quality of eeriness and mystery. They're my kind of horror film.
The best LEGAL DRAMAS...?
in General Discussions
Posted
*Judgement at Nuremberg* comes to mind as most definitely a trial based on actual events. However, maybe because of the scope and serious nature of the case, it belongs in a "post World War ll justice" category.