misswonderly3
-
Posts
12,768 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
36
Posts posted by misswonderly3
-
-
I think I know what MissWonderly is trying to get at. While making a list does show some sort of opinion, they're often dry. Some of the "favorite" whatever lists can be informative in the sense that you can somewhat gauge a poster's tastes, but they can be dry. It's interesting to see what aspects about a particular film, star, song, etc. grab someone's attention and what is a complete turn-off for another person. These differences in taste are what leads to interesting conversation. Perhaps someone who is indifferent to a particular star will find out that such and such poster loves this film starring the person whom they're indifferent to. Perhaps they'll watch the film and find out that they do like this star after all, or perhaps the film will reaffirm why they don't care for someone. Maybe someone loves a particular film that is mediocre at best, but a particular performer or scene in the film makes it worth watching.
I have also participated in these list threads as well, because I like making lists. However, I can agree that it is interesting to see how people's tastes can vary. It is interesting to see how the exact same film, song, etc. that is the same product no matter who watches it, can be interpreted in different ways and how different aspects of something "grab" some people and repel others.
I like threads where there are lists but then conversations are ignited as the result of a list. Perhaps the conversations may go off on little tangents here and there, but it is easy to bring the conversation back to the forefront. I think allowing a conversation grow organically instead of trying to funnel it down a specific path is what makes the most interesting and viable threads. Attempting to pigeonhole everyone into a specific thought process, thus trying to control the conversation as if it were a scientific focus group, can stifle the thread. An otherwise good thread can die an early death if it isn't allowed to grow naturally.
Thank you, speedy, for understanding what I'm trying to get at here. And yes, I guess the idea behind my wanting people to cite the reason(s) WHY they include their choice (of movie or whatever) on their list is partly to "allow a conversation to grow organically".
And, just to reiterate : I do like lists. I just think they're more entertaining and enlightening to read if the list-er (made up word !) gives a reason or two about why they put their choice on their list. Otherwise, it can be, as you so succinctly put it, "dry".
-
I remember John List. Guy was a ultra straight-laced kook
who offed his family and then took off and was captured
many years later. He lived a couple of towns over from
me. I was away at the time, so I didn't hear about it until
a while later.
Davy O'List. Likely best known for playing in the Nice.
I didn't realize this, but he spent several months with
Roxy Music before they cut their first album.
Pizza--One Cheese
Ice Cream--Chocolate Fudge Brownie/Chocolate Chip
Color--Blue
Emoticon--
Oh, Vautrin, I think your favourite emoticon should be this one:
ps: Again, I know I'm in the minority here, but I don't like ice cream with a lot of "stuff" in it. All those gummie bears and Smarties and Oreo bits and even chocolate chips just get in the way of savouring the cold smooth sweet feature presentation. Ice cream is smooooth, I don't want it cluttered up with hunks of trail mix or chunks of liquorice.
-
Okay, MissWonderly.
I now understand what you were trying to say with this thread.
Sorry I misunderstood.
I came to this website originally because a friend of mine named ClassicMovieRankings joined this site.
I have stayed with the website after a few errors I made regarding how to use this site compared to other sites.
I use this site to:
1. Talk to people who are more familiar with artists from the Classic era of Hollywood than current day stars compared to others my age.
2. Meet people who love classic Hollywood from around North America
3. Talk incessantly about my favourite actors, actresses, movies, music
4. Keep my mind sharp in the games and trivia thread
5. Have fun regarding my favourites
6. Keep track of news items in the off topic threads without having to watch 24 hour news channels which both frighten and depress me.
Well, good. No worries, I imagine those reasons you list (hey ! a list !) are the same reasons a lot of people come here. Nothing I said in the post you're responding to here is in opposition to those 6 reasons for which you come to this site.
-
1
-
-
I thank you, gentle SansFin, for your reply here. It is, belying your modest disclaimers regarding whether you have anything interesting to say, as usual well-written and thoughtful. We all know you are one of the smartest posters on the forums here, your humble protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
I'm going to give up on this thread, anyway, because I'm still not making myself clear, and this must be my fault.
Everyone who has said that they don't add comments to support their "list" contributions avers that the reason is a lack of "knowledge" with regard to the subject, the very movie / song / director/whatever they've put on their list.
For me, a lot of the reason I come to these boards is not about "knowledge" or "information". For that I can easily look it up on an endless array of web-sites (and I'm already on -line), or consult one of the many books I have about movies (and, come to think of it, music.)
I know this is blasphemy, but I don't care all that much about knowledge. At least, not on this web-site. I'm much more interested in others' opinions, what they like and don't like, and why. And for that, you don't have to have "knowledge", you just have to have a brain.
We all know whether we like a film or not, and if we give it just a little thought, I'm pretty sure we all know why we feel the way we do about it. For this, we do not need information or knowledge, we just need to trust our heart and our gut.Lawrence and other posters here have said that they don't offer comments about the songs they put on their "Hall of Fame" list because they "don't know enough" about the singer to say anything about it. Well, hey, you know what? You don't have to. It's easy. You like the song? What is it about that song that moves you? You might not even know who sings it, doesn't matter. You are the expert of how you react to that song (or film), so it's ok to say what you like about it (like, maybe you think it's really danceable, or you identify with the emotion in the singer's voice, or you love the bass line....)
Same thing with movies. Don't worry about "not knowing enough" about a film to say why you like it. If you enjoy the weird camera angles in, say, "Stranger on the Third Floor", that's good enough.
I'm outing myself on this, I know: but truth is, I've never really understood this big deal everyone makes here about "knowledge and information". If I want that, I'll read up on the subject, or sign up for a course. I come here for fun, not for education.
-
2
-
-
deleted
-
1
-
-
Ok, I finally read that article. (Something with a certain depth to it, like the linked New Yorker article here, I need to set aside a little time to read it carefully.)
Really interesting stuff there. The history of our culture's continually changing set of standards and values when it comes to moral behaviour, and by extension, moral behaviour in the movies, is a fascinating one, and a pretty accurate barometer of what's going on in our society in general.
I especially like this bit:
" For women, the screenwriting strategies created out of the Code were a net gain. Unlike the pre-Code goddesses, vamps, and bad girls, who crooned or spoke in snarls and wisecracks, the post-Code women could talk."
It suggests to me that, as the subtitle of the article indicates, there were ways in which "the Code" actually worked in favour of women. It forced the screenwriters to come up with alternative devices to show their female characters were sexy,* other than the raunchy double entendre jokes a la Mae West, and the revealing negligees ( a la just about all pre-Code actresses.)
* How were the Code women shown to be sexy? By their wit and intelligence.
-
2
-
-
As one of the most egregious of the heinous "list-makers", I'll say that I haven't made a conscious decision not to elaborate on the topic. I often do make commentary, but it has to come naturally, I don't want to force it. Currently I regularly post in 3 list threads: the top ten movies of whatever year thread, the best performances of whatever year, and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame thread.
I don't make much commentary on the top ten movies thread because it ran its course a few months ago (as in, we went from 1930 through to 2015), and the recent postings have just been a reminder related to the top performances thread. But during its initial run, there was a lot of discussion (and not always nice!) about why or why not we liked a movie.
The performances thread gets a lot of commentary about specific roles, actors, or personal experiences related to such.
The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame thread has had some commentary (I talked about seeing Bo Diddley in concert, others have talked about their concert experiences, etc), but not a lot, and that's because in the earliest part of the proceedings, we've been talking about musicians that are perhaps not as well-known or hold much of a personal connection. As the artists get closer to "our time", the personal commentary should (hopefully) increase. I really don't have a lot to say about, for instance, Eddie Cochran, but I will about The Beatles, or The Who, etc.
Yes, as you know, I've been following your Rock n Roll Hall of Fame List thread. And there are indeed many comments on it, by all the posters participating in it.
I seem to be having a little trouble expressing what I mean about this "list" business. And I'm afraid if I push it, I'll come across as fussy and bee-yochy and nit-picky. I realize I said, "let's have more conversation on those lists threads". So you naturally gave some examples of how there IS conversation on them.
But talking about the first time you saw a particular movie, or how great it was when you saw a famous favourite musician or band in concert, interesting though it is - I'm not suggesting we don't add these comments, they're fun - is not the same thing as talking specifically about what it is you like about the song (or movie, etc. etc.) you feel deserved to be on the list.
I don't want to single out your R n R Hall of Fame thread, because it's an interesting thread topic. Also, it's your thread and you can do what you like with it. I'm just saying (and I'll use your thread as an example, just because it's easy to do so) people could add a couple of comments about what they think makes their selection worthy of making it to the list. I'll give another example of what I mean.
Aretha Franklin:
Chain of Fools - love that reverb guitar that introduces the song, and the way it starts with "Chain, chain, chain...." It's got a "dirty", gritty feel that grabs your attention from start to finish
Respect - I always thought this was about 3 kinds of respect: for the singer as an African American, a woman, and a person. Love the way she literally spells it out
Think- this thing moves ! A nice, fast, soul track
I wrote something about all three, but hey, even if one has nothing to say about two of their choices, shirley they could come up with some idea of why they like one song on their list. I'd be happy with that.
However, I'm beginning to think I'm sounding cranky and demanding, and it seems nobody else quite "gets" what I'm talking about here, so perhaps this all just sounds like one big complaint. Didn't intend it that way.
-
1
-
-
This isn't about Van Heflin, I just made up a list about him at random to demonstrate how you can have a "list" and still talk about your choices a little.
edit: Didn't mean to sound ungracious. I do thank you for your thoughts on the "example" Van Heflin "list", and yeah, that was more or less what I meant (ie, add a few comments after the item on your list...)
Sorry, ColomboFan, I realize I sounded a bit rude. I did add a comment after that post, which I quote above.
-
1
-
-
Sure MissWonderly.
Van Heflin movies I'd love to discuss.
ACT OF VIOLENCE - I hope people who have not seen this recorded it. Ryan and Heflin have great chemistry in this and nobody is how she/he seems.
3:10 TO YUMA; This is one of my favourite westerns and Glenn Ford roles. Ford was originally supposed to play the Heflin part but Ford wanted to expand his roles to bad guys and Heflin took over as the hero. Here again, the bad guy is not as bad as he would be before the 1950s when shades of grey started to show up in westerns. Glenn really got under Van's skin and Van knew it.
SHANE: The last film of Jean Arthur's career, Van was a sharp contrast to both Shane/ladd and the violent men in the store/bar for Brandon DeWilde to see to understand what it's like to be a grown man, a homesteader, a gunslinger and a protector.
to quote myself after my Van Heflin list:
Ok, I don't want this to be a thread about Van Heflin. I just picked him as an example of how we can make a "list" thread more interesting by adding a thought or two about WHY we put it on our list. It doesn't have to be either a list thread or a discussion thread. It can be both, no problem.
This isn't about Van Heflin, I just made up a list about him at random to demonstrate how you can have a "list" and still talk about your choices a little.
edit: Didn't mean to sound ungracious. I do thank you for your thoughts on the "example" Van Heflin "list", and yeah, that was more or less what I meant (ie, add a few comments after the item on your list...)
-
As one of the most egregious of the heinous "list-makers"....
Come on, I went out of my way to say that I like "list" threads - that's why I go on them in the first place - and that I have no problem with them or the people or create them. I was just suggesting there was a way to make them a little more conversational and interesting.
Now, I never said, meant, or implied "heinous".
-
5
-
-
ColumboFan wrote:
"For me I think it depends upon the thread.
I'm perfectly happy to just talk about movies or music without a list, and then there are threads - and yes, they seem to be mostly about music here - where lists are made.
I make a lot of lists on this forum.
Other times I discuss a movie in great detail.
I do make lists in the top 10 threads, RnR Hall of Fame thread, deadhead sticker thread and Favourite Performances thread on purpose.
However, other times I list things like what Robert Ryan films I was going to record but I do not go into great detail because they have not yet aired and I don't want to give away lots of the plot.
What you could do is start a thread about music with 'No lists,' Just talk in the thread title.
I set up my thread about TV detectives with tags purposely so that people knew that they could talk about any TV detective show at all. "
________________________________________________________________________
Me, in response to the above (sorry, I messed up the quote feature )
...Or, one could keep it simple, and just write a sentence or two beside the item that made it to the list.
Example: Favourite Van Heflin movies: (this topic was picked totally at random, just to demonstrate a point)
Act of Violence - a wonderful film noir with great performances from Heflin and Robert Ryan. These two leads' characters are varying shades of grey, nothing's black and white - except the fabulous cinematography, which takes us on a nightmarish ride through the back streets and seedy underground of Los Angeles
The Strange Love of Martha Ivers - another atmospheric noir. ( Van was in several good film noirs) His performance in this strikes a fine balance between rough wanderer type and tender good guy.
too fancy dancy? they don't have to be wanna-be New Yorker mini-reviews (which is good, because mine are a long way from that.) Ok:
3:10 to Yuma: I love Van Heflin in this. He really conveys the desperation of the farmer, and his reluctant respect for the man he's sending to prison. This is also one of my favourite Westerns
Ok, I don't want this to be a thread about Van Heflin. I just picked him as an example of how we can make a "list" thread more interesting by adding a thought or two about WHY we put it on our list. It doesn't have to be either a list thread or a discussion thread. It can be both, no problem.
-
4
-
-
I was going to title this "The Anti-List Thread", but I thought that would start things off on the wrong foot.
This is the crux of the biscuit: I always find these threads about lists of this or that, favourite actor, most noteworthy films of 1943, artists' best songs, best pizza toppings....
The subject matter of the thread interests me, so I jump in and start posting. But then I notice, hey, all we're all doing is, making lists. Literally. Just typing up the movies or bands or directors (or pizza toppings) that we like or think are list-worthy. That's it.
Fine. But, as John Cleese once said, upon being offered a chocolate with steel bolts in it, "Where's the pleasure in that?" If you love something - be it a song, a movie, whatever (feta cheese on pizza?) - don't you like to talk about why you love it? Isn't it more fun, more interesting, to contribute your list, and then - briefly, mind, - write a sentence or two about what it is about that movie, actor, song, etc. that makes you like it so much?
If this site is at least partly supposed to be about sharing and exchanging opinions and ideas (mostly about movies), how am I going to know what your opinion really is, what it's based on, if you just write up a post naming 5 films from, say, 1955, and don't say one word about why you like them, or why you think they're the best movies from that year?
PLEASE, those of you who create "List" threads, don't think I'm belittling or criticizing you for doing so. I wrote "please" in block caps to emphasize, I'm not disparaging posters who like to make "list"threads. These forums are and always have been rife with LIST threads. And they're fun.
But I'd love it if someone could explain to me why people don't want to talk - just a little - about the reasons why they chose the films / directors/ soul bands/ whatever that made it to their list.
We're all a pretty articulate bunch here. Most of us know very well why we like or don't like something. Isn't it more fun to share that with the other posters on the list threads, instead of just plunking down your choices with no discussion about what it is about them that you think is special?
I feel I'm in the minority here, that everyone else is happy to just contribute their suggestions to the list without talking about them. Am I the only one who thinks it's more fun to have a bit of a conversation about it?
(ps: Any hint of a whiney tone in this post is purely unintentional.)
-
6
-
-
Surely, the biggest flaw with the Maltese Falcon, is that it's a fake?
Shirley you know how to spell shirley ? (complete and unnecessary tangent: it all depends on how you pronounce "sure". If you say "shir", like I do, then this works. If, however, you say "shore" - as President Obama does - then "shirley" instead of "surely" will leave many people with blank faces. )
-
1
-
-
....Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers made two movies in 1936 - - The Fabulous Swing Time and the equalitarian Follow the Fleet.
I dislike prissy "correctors" here, and don't like to be one, but I think shirley you meant "egalitarian" ?? (I know you are a very literate lady, so probably a typo...)
Anyway, I'm not posting about that. I'm posting to defend Follow the Fleet, a Fred and Ginger movie which is every bit as "fabulous" as Swing Time. It's just as fun, and features fantastic music by the legendary Irving Berlin. Two stand-out numbers are "Let Yourself Go" (a song that for some reason, often runs through my head ) and "Let's Face the Music and Dance", this latter being one of the great musical moments in all of FredandGingerdom.
Sorry, speedracer, I realize this has nothing to do with the article you posted.
-
1
-
-
I completely understand what you're saying. I also like the look of the weathered industrial areas. I also think there's something interesting about tenements. "On the Waterfront" prominently featured the industrial, decrepit, tenement side of town which made me enjoy the film even more. Maybe it's interesting because it's so different than anything I've ever experienced in my lifetime. My hometown is the capital of Oregon, so it was a government town, definitely not blue collar.
I'm from Toronto, which like all big cities was and is a mix of all types of people and social strata. But - sorry to get a bit personal - my family background is a "nice", safe, middle-class one (my dad was a lawyer), and I grew up in what they call an "inner suburb", which means, not a new development, but not one of those inner city gritty neighbourhoods we're talking about, either.
Maybe that's partly why they hold such a fascination for me.
I'm also drawn to working class people, at least the ones you see in old movies. I love the way they speak and dress. I like the cigarette packs stuffed into the sleeves of the white T shirt some factory workers wear, on their days off.
I wish I could think of more movies like this, there are tons of them. Many are also film noirs, too.
-
1
-
-
That's a perfect description for that intro, G.D. Nicely put.
" I think the beginning instrumental is pretty and haunting, filled with such anticipation"
I wonder if the Paul Thomas Anderson film, "Boogie Nights", was titled after this song. It would be the right era.
"Carrie Anne" is such a pretty pop song, such a sing-a-long-able chorus, and that steel drum (?), giving it a bit of a Caribbean steel band sound. A unique sound, especially for the time.
Here's another sweet pop tune from another British band, but skip ahead 30 years or so. I meant to post this before, when I was talking about that second British invasion in the 90s, and the band Blur.
Now, this thing is 7 minutes long, so feel free to just turn it on and do something else while you're listening to it. But it's a good 7 minutes, it kind of gets into a groove and puts you in a trance (drug-freel, too !) It was a big hit in Britain in 1999, but didn't do much here in North America.
Tender.
-
2
-
-
This will probably sound kind of odd to a lot of people, but one reason I like movies with a "working class" setting is, I like the look of them. I like old factories and warehouses, tenements, 3 storey walk-ups, streets with seedy lower-level bars that have neon signs proclaiming their names, and rain. Ok, rain isn't the sole territory of the working class, but it always seems to be there in those kinds of films.
I like those old industrial buildings so much - I'm sure they were considered ugly in their time, but now they are softened by age and have a patina of mystery, of times long past, about them. They have these old windows, sometimes made up of glass tiles. I love it when I come across one of these old factories or warehouses; if they're deserted, so much the better. It makes me feel like I've walked into an old movie, circa 1947- or maybe just walked back in time.
Yes, I realize this sounds a bit nutty, and that most people think these buildings are ugly (not to mention magnets for rats and other creatures), and a health and safety hazard. But I love them, and I'm sad that there are fewer and fewer around. Of course they're all getting knocked down and the land they occupied developed into big box stores, blights on the landscape far more hideous than the old industrial buildings were.
-
5
-
-
I love "working class" movies. I agree, speedy, there's something about them. I don't know if you've read any posts I've written on other threads about this, but I've said more than once that my favourite kind of movie is one in which I'd like to be in the "world" of that movie. There are many movie "worlds" I like, and the blue collar working class milieu is one of them. There's something fascinating about them.
A relatively recent (2005) "working class" movie that I really like is North Country. It stars Charlize Theron, who plays a young woman who gets a job at a mine after discovering she'll make much more money there than at the hair salon she was working at. Once hired, she experiences incredibly nasty sexist treatment. The film is about how she deals with this, and her efforts to make changes in an almost all-male workplace.
This might sound kind of dull, but it's not. And while of course I'm interested in Charlize's character's fight for justice for women in a sexist environment, what I really enjoyed about North Country was its working class setting, all the details of a day in the life of a miner, and even what these folks do in their spare time (take their kids to hockey practice, hang out in the local bar, average stuff...)
-
4
-
-
I know what you mean about certain movies hitting too close to home so that they are difficult to watch. Many films that are famous titles I try to see at least once - if they have a good quality of print available. The Godfather movies are all dark and in need of restoration, so I would not watch them as they are anyway.
I've never been able to watch any of the Godfather movies because - despite watching lots of gangster movies from the golden age of Hollywood especially those starring Bogart or Cagney - the Godfather movies make being gangsters look like fun.
I understand that the first and second film are well made movies. But I don't want to watch them. Even being only 25% Italian, I do not want to watch them. If they are restored, maybe I can see me watching them.
Honestly, I'm not trying to tease or "bait" you...but if you have not seen the Godfather movies, how do you know whether they make "being a gangster look like fun" ?? I have seen all three films, several times, and I assure you, the characters are not having fun. Let me amend that: they're not having any more "fun" than the characters in older gangster movies.
(It's true, the scene where they make spaghetti, while planning the murder of one of their enemies, is kind of fun.)
-
I may be casual in my viewing. I'll take an opportunity to watch the movie more closely. Do you think Spade and O'Shaughnessy hook up? There is an opportunity.
Well, yeah. Of course they do. (It's the Hayes Code, remember? They just can't show it.)
-
....So here's Sam Spade, who's having an affair with a woman. And it's made clear what's going on between them. And it's an affair with a married woman. And the married woman is his partner's wife. Not that his partner is any angel, as Spade well knows. And here is Brigid O'Shaughnessy, who it's less clearly, but no less certainly made known, has had affairs of her own. But it's O'Shaughnessy that takes the fall, and it's Spade who's the hero. Of course, there's the matter of a murder or two, but isn't Spade setting the wrong moral compass? How could the Hays Office have allowed an adulterer to be the hero of the movie? That is, without having something really bad happen to him, like going to jail? This sounds an amoral note. In fact, the whole movie is rife with amorality. Does Sam Spade go to all that trouble to search for the killer of a valued friend and partner? No, he does it to maintain his creds as a private eye.
Well, first, Sam Spade is a man. We all know that, then and even now, promiscuous and "immoral" sexual behaviour is tolerated much more in men than in women.
Second, although you say "there's the matter of a murder or two", you do sort of dismiss the enormity of the crime of murder, a crime that is shirley a much bigger sin than sexual philandering. And Sam did not murder anyone; Brigid did. And in cold blood, too. I think this warrants a harsher punishment from the Code than having an adulterous affair, especially when the culprit is male (we all know how women usually end up when they've had an adulterous affair.)
Third: It's irrelevant whether Sam considers his murdered partner a "valued friend" or not. Miles Archer was his partner, and, as Spade tells Brigid as he's sending her down to take the fall, when someone kills your partner, "you have to do something about it." And he did.
-
2
-
-
Let's not forget the unintentionally hilarious scene in SHOCK CORRIDOR where the moronic hero wanders into the part of the loony bin where they keep the dangerous women who have the condition we're discussing.
That's right, kingrat ! A really great example, I'm surprised no one mentioned it before.
-
1
-
-
Cries and Whispers (1972). If you're sick of the current trend of having movies use a mostly teal color palette with orange for the explosions, then this is the movie for you. Ingmar Bergman and his inematographer Sven Nykvist use a palette of red, red, red, red, and red as a backdrop for their story of three sisters in circa-1900 Sweden. Agnes (Harriet Andersson) is dying of cancer, and her two sisters Karin (Ingrid Thulin) and Maria (Liv Ullmann) come to comfort her in her final days. Not that they're much comfort, since the whole family is dysfunctional for reasons that are never clearly delineated. And they all have bizarre sexual hangups.
I'm sure I'll be in the minority, but I found that when it comes to dysfunctional families, this movie pales in comparison to Bergman's later Autumn Sonata. There, the characters are real people and it's easy to identify with them. Here, they seem like little more than ciphers standing in for basic human emotions. It doesn't help that the film is grindingly tedious when it isn't being gratuitously creepy (in the creepy old uncle way, not in the horror movie way). What was the point of the "dream" sequence toward the end, anyway?
5/10 for the story, 9/10 for the cinematography, which won Nykvist an Oscar -- it's not just the overwhelming use of red that makes the cinematography interesting.
Cries and Whispers was a thoroughly horrid movie-watching experience from beginning to end. I would call it "harrowing". And I usually like Ingmar Bergman.
-
Ok, "HATEJOANCRAWFORD", it's been over 24 hours since you started this thread, and you have so far not returned. And I have a feeling you won't. I don't even know if you're going to bother to read the very thread you started, let alone post on it again yourself.
But, assuming that maybe you're "lurking" somewhere, reading this, I'm going to say, ain't nuthin' wrong with stating your opinion here, that should be what it's all about. I remember when I first started here, years ago, I made the mistake of emphatically announcing that I really disliked Katharine Hepburn. Oh my goodness, I had to pay for that for weeks !
So I don't have a problem with that - your flatly saying that you couldn't stand those three famous actresses, and were sick and tired of their frequently aired films. Fine, I'm not going to argue with you.
But as I said earlier on this thread, I do find your broadside against silent movies annoying, not because you don't like silent movies, but because you made an obscure statement, and no one can figure out what exactly you meant. You did not qualify your complaint about TCM's airing silent films on Sunday night by saying that, if at least they showed silents that you liked, you wouldn't mind so much. You said they aired "BAD" silent movies, but you didn't explain what exactly you meant by that. I infer that you simply meant you just dislike silent movies, ergo, they're all "bad".
Even that I wouldn't care about that much, if you were to come back here and defend / explain what you meant. But, as another poster here remarked, it seems unlikely that you plan to come back here and post here again, elaborating on what you meant and why, with regard to both Crawford, Davis, and Garland, and silent films.
This is the essence of what p ! sses me off about "newbie" posters like you; you have one or two very specific complaints about TCM, you decide to vent about it, you go to all the trouble to enrol as a member, you write your angry post, and then poof ! you vanish never to be heard of again. What's the point?
If you prove me wrong and come back to talk about your views on those actresses and on why you dislike silent movies so intensely (or, if I'm mistaken and you do like some, which ones you consider to be "bad" and which ones "good" ), I'll be both impressed and very surprised.
-
9
-
About Lists
in General Discussions
Posted
Hah ! I think you're the first person here who's come out and said you don't like lists. Unlike you, I like them all right, provided, as I've said a bunch of times here already, the list-provider gives the reasons why they've put their choices on the list. I think this kind of addresses your concern about a movie being "lost and forgotten for lack of distinguishable endorsement".
In fact, it's that very "distinguishable endorsement" that I'm advocating here.