speedracer5

I love Casablanca, so I won't even touch upon the discussion going on. Regarding musicals, however...I love musicals. I realize that they're not everyone's cup of tea, but I love them. I am partial to the musicals that are more dancing than singing. If the film is light on the dancing, then it better have interesting lead actors and/or fun songs. I love Gene Kelly, he's one of my favorites. I also like Fred Astaire. I found that I preferred Fred Astaire solo or with other partners other than his famed partnership with Ginger Rogers. However, after having seen two Astaire/Rogers films, I think the duo is starting to grow on me. I'll admit that I'm not a fan of the Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals. I found South Pacific so incredibly boring that it became a chore to watch. There are also musical stars like Esther Williams, Kathryn Grayson and Howard Keel that I find incredibly annoying. These are my favorite musicals: Singin' in the Rain, regarded as not only one of the best musicals ever made, but one of the best movies ever made, Gene Kelly, Donald O' Connor, and Debbie Reynolds On the Town, Gene Kelly, Frank Sinatra, Vera-Ellen and Ann Miller An American in Paris, Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron Easter Parade, Fred Astaire and Judy Garland Meet Me in St. Louis, Judy Garland You Were Never Lovelier, Fred Astaire and Rita Hayworth West Side Story, Natalie Wood and Rita Moreno Gypsy, Natalie Wood and Rosalind Russell Little Shop of Horrors, Rick Moranis A Star is Born, Judy Garland and James Mason Summer Stock, Judy Garland and Gene Kelly The Pirate, Judy Garland and Gene Kelly Three Little Words, Fred Astaire and Vera-Ellen White Christmas, Bing Crosby, Danny Kaye, Rosemary Clooney and Vera-Ellen Holiday Inn, Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire Funny Face, Fred Astaire and Audrey Hepburn Grease, John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Tim Curry and Susan Sarandon Bells Are Ringing, Dean Martin and Judy Holliday There are probably more, but this is what I've come up with so far. I love musicals, so I might be more forgiving of them.

I was thinking more about this question on my drive home from work. I think Lauren Bacall would have been a great Essentials host and it's a shame she didn't do so while she was still around. She would undoubtedly make some excellent selections and not only have the intelligence to say why a film is an Essential, but she'd also be strong enough to defend her selection to Robert Osborne if he disagreed with her. I think Bacall and Osborne could have had some very spirited debates. I loved Osborne's anecdote that he shared about Bacall about the time she called up TCM to complain that they were showing too many Elvis movies. Hilarious.

That's my pet peeve right there, people who sing along with the music in the movie. I love musicals and have seen three in the theater-- An American in Paris, Singin' in the Rain and White Christmas. While I appreciate that someone is a fan of the film and knows the music, I want to hear the star sing, not some bozo behind me. I've noticed that theaters have started releasing one or two night only "sing-a-long" versions of films. I've seen a Grease one and a White Christmas one advertised. That would be my worst nightmare. I can't even stand watching a concert and having the singer ask the audience sing. No! I want to hear you sing! Not the stupid crowd.

Agreed that actors should be put into categories that represent their role. It seems unfair to pit someone with a large part against someone with a smaller one. Sometimes this works out to the nominee's advantage, i.e. Tatum O'Neil winning Best Supporting Actress in Paper Moon even though she obviously had a lead role. Sometimes this tactic can backfire. In All About Eve, the studio wanted to nominate Anne Baxter for Best Supporting Actress and Bette Davis for Best Actress-- figuring that this would give both actresses the best chance at picking up the statue. However, Baxter, having had a lead role in that film, wanted her name submitted for Best Actress. Both Baxter and Davis ended up competing against one another and both lost to Judy Holliday. I've heard Baxter's refusal to cooperate with the studio's scheme ended up splitting the votes between the two ladies. If Baxter had put her name in for the Supporting slot, then she and Davis both could have walked away with the Oscar. I think it's interesting that the Academy doesn't have some sort of criteria as to what constitutes a supporting role and what constitutes a leading one. It would seem that if a nominee is obviously a lead in the film, they shouldn't be allowed to be entered into a "supporting race."

I read The Thin Man after having seen the movie and I also kept imagining Powell and Loy's characters reciting the dialogue in the book. It doesn't help that on the cover (at least on the cover of my copy) there's a man on the front (whom I'm assuming is Nick Charles) and he looks exactly like William Powell.

Well of course I'd go with my boy Errol. But, I'd also pick John Huston. He seemed like he was incredibly intelligent and he was a fantastic storyteller. He'd be fascinating. I second Orson Welles and Barbara Stanwyck.

I don't know if it was ever actually mentioned how Willie came into possession of Alva's clothing and jewelry, but I am going to speculate. Since Willie and Alva's mother abandoned Willie and moved to Arkansas (I think?) with her new boyfriend and then Alva died in New Orleans, perhaps Alva's personal effects were given to her next of kin, Willie? Or maybe after she died, Robert Redford's character gave them to Willie?

Thanks Tom. I asked the question, by the way, not Dargo. But that doesn't really matter, I appreciate you answering my question :-)

While I haven't read the book or seen the film you're talking about, I agree that sometimes the original ending can be disappointing. In the finale of the movie version of Breakfast at Tiffany's, Holly tosses Cat out of the cab. Paul (or Fred-Baby as I like to call him) then puts Holly in her place by basically telling her that she's her own problem and tosses the ring he had engraved for her in her lap. Holly has an epiphany and asks to have the cab stopped and gets out into the pouring rain to look for Cat. She finds Cat and Paul steps out and they embrace and kiss in the rain. Add in Moon River and you have a very romantic Hollywood ending. In the novel however, Paul doesn't exist and instead, there is a narrator that Holly calls "Fred." At the end, Holly loses Cat and ends up in Argentina. She does send a postcard to "Fred" but that's the last we here from her. The ending is more open and there is no real conclusion. Personally, I like the Hollywood ending, but I'm mushy like that. Lol. The Capote novel seems to have a more cynical slant.

I agree with the movie (or miniseries) whetting one's appetite to read the book. While I'm sure a miniseries can stay fairly truthful to the original source, they probably have to offer a more condensed version of the story since they only have a certain amount of time to tell the story. I imagine the same is true for the movie version as well. With a book made into a television series (i.e. Game of Thrones) they have more time to tell the story and can probably be more thorough. Except, with a television show, I imagine that situations might be created solely for the show that didn't happen in the book? Do you suppose that Hollywood's tendency to split books into two films is a money grab or an attempt to tell a more complete story? Or both? I'm suspecting the former. With Lord of the Rings, each book (long books at that) was one film. However, for some reason, The Hobbit (a small book by comparison) is three films?

I'm posting this because one of my favorite movies-- The Lady From Shanghai is airing tomorrow night at 5pm (PST). I haven't yet been able to obtain my own copy, so this will be like the fourth time I've recorded it. I always record it when it airs. Anyway, I love this movie. I'll have to admit that when I first saw it, I thought it was confusing, but not confusing in a bad way. It was more confusing in an intriguing way. The more I've seen the film, the more I've figured it out. This is one of the best noirs and definitely one of Welles' best. The famous shootout in the house of mirrors is definitely the highlight of the film. The only "lowlight" in my opinion, is the Irish accent that Welles affects throughout the film. It is inconsistent and sounds hokey. However, his wavering accent doesn't diminish my enjoyment of the film. FUN FACT: Did you know that The Lady From Shanghai was filmed on Errol Flynn's yacht? Supposedly Flynn can be spotted in a cantina scene, but I have yet to locate him. I've also heard that you can see him from the back in one of the boat scenes, but I cannot confirm. Flynn apparently skippered the yacht during the shoot. I believe the dog in the film belongs to Errol Flynn. I've found that with most of Welles' films and Welles himself, that usually people are in two camps: those who like him and those who don't. I'm part of the "like" camp. I love Welles' films because he always tries something different. Sometimes the "different" isn't successful, but I appreciate that he tries. I love how he goes more for true storytelling through camera angles, editing, sound, etc. He is a true artist in that respect and that's what I appreciate about him. It's a shame that his films were always victim to overzealous editing and budget constraints. Does anyone know if any "Director's Cuts" of his films exist? Of the films of his that I've seen, these are my favorites in order of preference: 1. The Lady From Shanghai 2. The Third Man 3. Citizen Kane 4. The Stranger 5. Touch of Evil 6. The Magnificent Ambersons I also really liked him with Claudette Colbert in Tomorrow is Forever, but he just acted in that film. He did not direct. I also loved his appearance as himself in an episode of I Love Lucy. I also just love his voice. I could listen to him narrate anything.

Okay. Now I've finished watching This Property is Condemned. Overall, I really liked it. I think Natalie Wood's mother in this film could rival her mother in Splendor in the Grass and Kim Novak's in Picnic. Good grief. I thought this was a great melodrama and it was very compelling. I understand that Tennessee Williams was unhappy with this adaptation of his story. In fact, I think the entire cast was upset with the film as they didn't have a finished script and had to ad-lib some of their lines just to get through the shoot. While I liked the film, I found the ending to be very sad, but also very poignant. I liked that Willie was wearing her sister's jewelry and party dress (even though it was in tatters). Willie mentioned that her mom moved to Arkansas with her boyfriend. Is Willie living in Mississippi all alone taking care of herself?

Oh okay. Thank you for the information about The Twilight Zone. I didn't know about Wood's cameo in The Candidate. Thanks for that info as well.

I've found that when books are made into films, there are people who refuse to see the film before reading the book. I imagine that this is to get the "real story" before seeing the Hollywood version. These people can then complain what liberties Hollywood took with the story or commend the filmmakers for staying true to the source material. While I do agree with this opinion, I've also found that having seen the movie first can help clarify plot points in the book. I read The Great Gatsby first and then saw the most recent incarnation of the film (with Leonardo DiCaprio. I really liked it, but that's another discussion). Having read the book, I was able to be one of "those people" who picked out plot points that differed from F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel. I liked the book better than the movie, but I liked the movie too. However, I saw The Picture of Dorian Gray (with George Sanders) and really enjoyed it. I especially found the sole color scene of his painting after years had passed to be very effective. Then I decided to read Oscar Wilde's novel. I'll admit that 19th century British Literature is not one of my strong points. Not that I can't read it (obviously) but I find that the way the words are written to sometimes be confusing (I have this issue with Dickens as well). Anyway, I found that having seen the movie first helped me get the gist of what Wilde was trying to say. For the record, I preferred the movie over the book. What do you think? Book first, then movie? Or movie first, then book? Or does it matter?

I'll admit it, I haven't seen To Kill a Mockingbird. I know. I know. I have read the book if that means anything. Anyway... I did know that Mary Badham was in 'Mockingbird' and it was interesting to see what she looked like older. I recognized her from an episode of The Twilight Zone that involved Badham and her brother swimming in this pool. Apparently at the bottom of the pool, there was this entrance to some other place where this woman was spoiling the kids with treats. Meanwhile, the children's parents were wondering why their kids haven't resurfaced from the bottom of the pool and are freaking out. What I remember most about this episode wasn't Badham or even the plot details, it was the horrible dubbing they did of Badham's lines. For whatever reason, Badham appears physically, but they had her lines dubbed by an adult impersonating a child's voice. It did not sound good. Very off-putting. Anyway... I'm watching This Property is Condemned right now. I'm really enjoying it. I always love the Tennessee Williams plays turned films. I'm all about melodrama. I think Robert Redford and Natalie Wood make a great team. It's a shame they only did two films together. I like this movie better than their previous effort-- Inside Daisy Clover. I do think that Wood's makeup is more in line with the 1960s rather than the Depression, but that's not really a big deal. I'm not done watching yet... so I'll probably have more to say when it's over.

Perhaps body dysmorphia? That's what Michael Jackson apparently suffered from.

Errol Flynn's Immigration Form Olivia de Havilland's Immigration Form Click on the attachments to read the forms. That Errol, boy knew how to take a good picture.

Multiple personalities: The Three Faces of Eve Sybil

Tom, I don't know if you'd know this or not (sorry to go off topic a tad), but did Decker paint Flynn's portrait that hung in his living room at the Mulholland House?

Thanks for the information. Hopefully when I get around to watching it on Netflix, it'll be a decent copy. I'm looking forward to it. If it's as good as Woman in the Window, then it'll be worth the wait.

I haven't seen either of the noirs you mentioned. "Scarlett Street" is on Netflix Instant, I should try and watch it before it disappears. I remember the "Scarlett Street" vs "The Woman in the Window" discussion from last summer when TCM aired the two back-to-back. At the time, I hadn't seen either, so I was more lurking than participating. Now I've seen 'Window' I should try and watch 'Street.' I really liked 'Window.' Some parts of it reminded me of "Laura." I'll keep an eye out for "The Big Heat." Thanks for the tip!

You gotta go for the throat and triple dog dare her! Then she'll have to do it

Great Schedule Barton. I love the noir day. I'd be all over that. I also liked the great title sequences theme.

I think the actors specific to genre went out when the studio system disappeared. During the studio system era, actors were pigeonholed into whatever genre delivered box office receipts. Cagney/Robinson/Bogart- Gangster films Flynn- Swashbucklers/Adventure films Davis- "Weepies" Grant- Screwball comedies/Romantic comedies Garland- Musicals Etc. When actors appeared in films outside their "accepted" genre, i.e. Flynn appearing in screwball comedies, many times their films did not do well at the box office, because fans wanted to see Flynn (for example) swinging a sword. James Cagney was known for his Gangster films but wanted to do more musicals. In fact, he won an Oscar for his musical, Yankee Doodle Dandy. I believe Cagney only made 4-5 musicals versus however many dozens of gangster films he appeared in. Cagney's gangster films made money, his musicals were not as successful, which is why he appeared in so many gangster films. Also, during the studio system, specific studios were known for churning out a certain type of film. Warner Brothers, for example, was mostly known for their Gangster and Adventure films, with the occasional drama to suit Bette Davis. MGM was known for their musicals for Judy Garland, Mickey Rooney and Gene Kelly. When the studio system dissolved in the 1960s, the actors were freelance and studios seemed to produce whatever type of film was brought to them by outside producers. I could be wrong, but I don't believe that studios had writers, producers, etc. on the payroll anymore to churn out screenplays and scripts. In the current system, I believe that production companies rent out soundstages at studios to produce their films. An actor could do one film at Warner Brothers, the next at Paramount and the next at MGM. It's hard to say which system I prefer. With the studio system, I find there to be a higher quality of the overall product. The actors seem better suited for their roles, mostly because their role was probably written with them in mind. Sometimes however, it can seem like the overall story (dialogue, actor's performance, etc.) can be hampered by the rigidity of the production code and the studio's desire to maintain a specific image for their actor. It's the studio system films that skirt the rules through innuendo and other tricks that prove to be the most interesting. However, with the current system, it seems that films are allowed to take more risks. Some "risks" are a little less savory (gratuitous sex and profanity, for example) and others make the films fun and interesting. The freedom that actors have to fully immerse themselves in their role and not worry about ruining an image of them allows them to grow more as performers. I think both systems have their pros and cons. I can't state a preference for one system over another, because I just love movies in general. Both types of systems have produced tons of great films and tons of not so great films.

In Sorry Wrong Number, Barbara Stanwyck is an invalid due to a psychosomatic illness.