JonasEB

Greed, like all of Stroheim's directorial career, is an American film. Metropolis, Pandora's Box, and Diary are as well known as the Chaplins, Keatons, and Lloyds - Metropolis has more IMDB votes than any of Chaplin's films and almost all of Lloyd actually fares worse in popularity than the two Pabsts. From that group, I'd rather see TCM show Prix de Beaute or one of Louise Brooks' rarely seen American films, Lang's Die Nibelungen or Dr. Mabuse, or Pabst's The Love of Jeanne Ney. Or some of the myriad American (Lucky Star, Lonesome) and European (The Dying Swan, Coeur Fidele) silent masterpieces that aren't widely seen.

The term pedophile only applies to pre-pubescent children, not adolescents. What Ray did could be considered statutory rape if the age of consent was higher than 16 at that time. Over half of all U.S. states set the age of consent at 16. Charlie Chaplin married 16 year old Mildred Harris in 1918 but we wouldn't refer to him as a pedophile. Chaplin married Oona O'Neil when she was 18 and that marriage lasted nearly 35 years - until the end of his life. If you disagree with Nicholas Ray's actions, fine, but let's keep things on the level here.

This isn't a reply to anyone in particular, just particular things I read in the thread... What is this series about? Race in Hollywood. Okay. Why do a series about this subject? To show how different groups have been portrayed by a different, mass group of people. Can we at least agree that racial stereotypes become ingrained in societies and even persist? And can we at least agree that it is desirable to talk about these things? Most Arabs are fine, decent people who aren't trying to kill you, like everyone - *this is a fact* - and it's absolutely understandable that they want people to know something real about their lives and culture. Huge Logical Fallacy: *"There are more white bad guys in movies than any other group but WE don't complain!"* - But there are an equal (actually far greater) number of positive ordinary depictions of white people in films made by white people in America. The whole point of the Race and Hollywood series is that minority groups are mostly portrayed as villains, goofy comic companions, servants, barbarians, exotic sex-pots, etc. The proportion of positive depictions of minorities was, and in some cases still is, inordinate to the negative ones by a very large margin. An individual white American may be aware of all of this and not look down on these people but for the minority individual it can be frustrating to live in a community in which you may know few people like yourself and all you see are demeaning images that have little to do with how you live your life and what you actually believe in. *"Americans don't go to Saudi Arabia to complain about how we're depicted there."* - America isn't the homogenous country that Saudi Arabia is. It's not wrong to ask questions of a country that claims to be a melting pot and inclusive of peoples from all around the world to try to be more honest about their lives especially when America produces far more material about other races and countries compared to other nationalities. How many Japanese movies do you see about Arabs? Chinese movies about Arabs? Norwegian? Polish? They don't do things the way the Americans did them and in some ways continue to do them. It would be nice if more Americans watched films made from outside the U.S., but guess what? They don't. It is absolutely justifiable for the diverse people of a country that prides itself on diversity to want to make themselves better known and understood. *"They can watch the Arabic channels on DirecTV."* - But there's a difference between Arab Americans and Saudi Arabians or Egyptians or Arabs in Europe. For a 4th generation Arab American, the situation in Saudi Arabia will have far less meaning to them than their fully American life as an Arab. If they're American living an ordinary American life but are perhaps simply of the Muslim faith, and their Arab background has an effect on how people perceive them, why should their opinion be cast aside? Can't it, shouldn't it, be part of the mainstream? *"I want multiple point of views to be voiced."* - Yes, everyone would like that but do we need that to be the case with every single piece of broadcasting? I don't care about Fox News or MSNBC advocating for a point of view using their evening commentators, I think it's absolutely fine and even desirable to have such a thing, but only if it's part of a viewer's, listener, reader's broader consumption of information. Instead of demanding some imaginary "equality" in opinions that would actually limit the wider discussion, we should be exposing ourselves to as many different types of media and points of view from differing sources (not just ideological - national, regional, ethnic, racial) instead of demanding that every single organization make a futile attempt to address every damn point in one go around. Bias is an unavoidable fact and it is nothing new - acknowledge it and don't rely on one source of information! It's that simple! You'll be much happier and better informed to boot. My problem with the complaining here is that the tone and vitriol seems to suggest it has less to do with the quality of the series or "fairness" than it does the fact that one would even broach the subject to begin with.

TCM, please stop running this series, not because it's not worth discussing mind you...I can't stand all of this ludicrous bitching it stirs up in the fickle viewer base. Seriously, this neither affects your ability to see these films, it doesn't affect your "freedom" in any way whatsoever, it doesn't do anything to you personally. If you want to watch Road to Morocco without prof. Shaheen's comments, you can watch it any of the twenty or so times TCM shows it every year...free from any of this stuff that frankly doesn't have an effect on your life at all. Give me a break...what a bunch of babies we've got here.

*"Tonite at 9:15pm (pst) Hollywoods first all synch sound feature. The very first all synch sound feature was "Siegfried" 1924. Once again Hollywood lags far behind the rest of the world in technology."* Siegfried MAY have been the first (some sources say The Covered Wagon) but more importantly, do you know where Siegfried premiered with the phonofilm process? It wasn't Germany, the track wasn't even produced there. New York. Yes, that soundtrack was an American production. *"I heard (just a rumor) that Douglas Fairbanks bought Fritz Lang's "Der Mude Tod" aka DESTINY so he could copy its magic carpet technique for his "Thief of Bagdad" 1924. Just another example of Hollywood lagging behind the rest of the world.*" Everyone borrowed from everyone in those days, there are examples of everyone lagging behind everyone. Please cut the **** attitude.

TCM has aired six Ozu films this year - Tokyo Chorus, I Was Born But..., Passing Fancy, Tokyo Story, Good Morning, and now The End of Summer. I don't believe they've ever aired Late Spring and Early Summer before. Popular and readily available as they are, I'd love to see TCM show them as well, but then I would press for any Ozu film on TCM. Equinox Flower, maybe my personal favorite, would be an excellent choice for TCM's next Ozu...but then I wouldn't want to exhaust Ozu too soon (and there are so many other great Japanese filmmakers to go through.) Be sure to watch Koreeda's Maborosi, one of the best films of the 1990s.

This is pretty much the same thing as all of the Citizen Kane threads we get on message boards... There are tons of people who wouldn't put The Rules of the Game in their personal top 10 just as there are a lot of people who don't consider Citizen Kane the "Greatest Film Ever" or even Orson Welles' best film. It's a cliche that that's what critics (genuine critics, not just press hacks) actually think. Let's move beyond this please. There are countless sources to turn to if you want to know more about The Rules of the Game. There are other more important things to talk about (Jean Epstein's Coeur Fidele just came out on Blu-ray, that's ripe for discussion - how the Germans or Expressionists wrongly get credit for techniques that are actually French and Impressionist, how heavily Murnau was influenced by the French and Coeur Fidele in particular, especially from The Last Laugh on, etc.) *"As for Game's "popularity." I don't think it's popular at all except among critics. I'd venture to say that 99.9% of the people who go to the movies have not only never seen it, but they've never heard of it.*" The exact same thing could be said about Grand Illusion. What's your point? We shouldn't be encouraging any correlation between popularity and greatness. If that's what you want, here's that "spectacular" AFI list - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI%27s_100_Years..._100_Movies_%2810th_Anniversary_Edition%29 And for the record, here are IMDB (hardly a haven for cinephiles and critics) votes for both films: Grand Illusion - 13,699 ---- Rules of the Game - 10,728 ---- Not a significant difference.

Here's something to celebrate - http://criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11465 - The titles are only listed in Russian but English subtitles are provided for every single film. _______________ Evgeni Bauer's The Dying Swan would be a great Silent Sunday choice, one of the greatest films of the 1910s. And some Boris Barnet would be nice.

*"Except, of course, those who will still insist on their DVDs"* Intelligent people have it both ways, fools choose one over the other, and idiots blather on about things they know nothing about. Any legitimate response to this yet? - http://forums.tcm.com/thread.jspa?messageID=8516347

Tom & Jerry coming to Blu-ray! http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=6764 Hopefully we'll get the true unedited, uncensored originals this time around. Maybe eventually we'll finally get the CinemaScope shorts in their proper AR.

*"This political correctness today is a curse, and it could be a dangerous trend that stops intelligent thinking in lieu of extreme and verbose sensitivity."* Question: What sounds more like "stopping intelligent thinking in lieu of extreme and verbose sensitivity"? This project - talking about America's interest in depicting other countries and groups of people without depicting much of substance or reality, discussing what they do accomplish, while openly showing these films, making no attempt to hide them from anyone. (All this especially considering most Americans don't watch anything other than American films.) ...or... Simply keeping the idea out of mind and tossing it off as nothing worth talking about. Yeah. And lets stop it with the political correctness crap. I recently read some idiot claim that keeping cell phone use and texting outside of movie theaters is a by-product of politically correct insanity. Give...me...a...****ing...break...

*"Don't kid yourself. I see more post '60s stuff appearing in prime time, and more pre '50s stuff appearing from 7-11 a.m"* This July's primetime schedule is overwhelmingly pre-1960. Then again, facts don't matter, only the whims of the paranoid and delusional. It has been demonstrated countless times on this board that the number of post-60s films really hasn't changed in TCM's 17 years. If TCM is going for the "youth demographic" (which youth demographic, by the way?) I can tell you they're not doing a very good job. I don't see anything about TCM that is aimed at roping in teens or twenty-somethings. Furthermore, I don't know any Baby Boomers or elderly people in my personal life who watch TCM. All of the people I know who watch the channel are millennials like myself or Gen-Xers and are cinephiles. *"I remember the slow descent of AMC.*" Oh, great, the AMC sob story yet again. *"This month TCM is featuring '50s schlock, packaging these cheapies as "Drive-in" classics."* They were, and as has been pointed out, a great deal of the people here are enjoying this festival. I suppose they aren't TCM's "most loyal fans", huh? *"You might point to Silent Sunday Nights as an example of TCM's commitment to vintage film, but TCM isn't adding new titles from the extensive MGM catalogue of unscored movies anymore."* Hey, by all means, if you want to pay Warner millions of dollars to organize, fully restore or simply clean up, and telecine hundreds of films and hire people to score them, please go right ahead pal, but I suppose you'll be more content just complaining about the problem. *"Instead, we are getting newer movies that don't interest a majority of TCM's most loyal fans, and I do not view this as progress.*" Yep, adjust that tinfoil hat and keep ignoring reality.

*"To the poster (cant remember, doesnt show while replying) stating that they only get 4hrs and that is on Friday - not exact quote. I only have 1 question for you* *Is there a reason that you need to see that gore? Is both the director and writer of that movie lack vocabulary and skill to convey to its audience the story (if there was one) without the use of gore (hitchcock and others can do it right?) I felt as though you took as TCM was going to take that segment away."* I'm only pointing out how often TCM actually shows this stuff and making an attempt at explaining why it's there. This isn't the first time an unknowing viewer happened upon something on TCM Underground and posted about TCM's supposed shifting priorities. The gist of my post is that TCM really isn't changing, they've just provided this specific time slot for an interesting set of programming. TCM Undergound shows a lot of non-gore stuff as well, and a lot of esoteric, hard to find, or otherwise interesting material. That's all independent of whether or not I like whatever it is they're showing; I'll support it. As to the world's fascination with gore, that's another subject altogether. And as for its relation to story, I'm the kind of person who doesn't require a film to have a story (I'd say a "subject" is more significant than just providing a story.) A lot of Italian horror films and Gialli are thin on story; some tend towards abstract meaning, others are simply an excuse to provide scenarios for grand guignol theatrics (grand guignol - the fascination with gore isn't a new or modern thing, it's been with us for a very long time.) More pertinent to my interests as a cinephile is your statement that TCM shouldn't show many films made after 1960. TCM's definition of classic isn't restricted to any period - while the channel is most focused on preserving the tradition and history of American film, they also want to show great films in general as well as the obscure, marginal, and seemingly less significant parts of film history. Of course, Turner Classic Movies rings so much better than Turner Good Movies, Turner Great Movies, or any other possible combination. A large number of the best films of the last twenty to forty years won't be seen on other US movie channels and I (and many others) consider a film like Taste of Cherry as significant as The Searchers or The Rules of the Game. TCM is best suited to introduce such a film to people who otherwise wouldn't ever hear about it; basically, TCM is the only TV outlet left to do it. Now, for all of the people talking about that mythical Andy Hardy slasher film, this is the closest we will ever get - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105410/

TCM has always included modern films as part of it's "mission statement", ever since it started 17 years ago. The Beyond was part of TCM Underground, which only airs on Friday nights and only occupies about 4 hours of their weekly schedule. It's not for everyone but TCM uses the opportunity to show different kinds of films and moreover films that probably wouldn't air on TV if not for this block. You could say they're trying to widen their viewer base but it's not in the commercialist way the other stations you've mentioned have gone about it. It's very much specialty programming and, again, not for everyone (but then silent and foreign language films are treated the same way, even by people here.) And even though TCM has aired Lord of the Rings and Titanic for their 31 Days of Oscar celebration, a large number of the contemporary films they show wouldn't have any presence on US TV without their support (IFC ruined itself last December, Sundance will follow soon enough.) In July we're getting a couple of 90s films, Maborosi and Taste of Cherry, which are as good as anything made in the prior 90 years of cinema - even better. TCM is doing everyone a valuable service by giving these kinds of films a place in the increasingly dim cultural sphere. Preserving the past is important, even the most marginal items - that's primarily what TCM does and there aren't any signs that they're going to stop in the future, but it's also important to help provide access to the best of what we have now, the good things that are obscured by all of the trivial in its way.

In Our Time (1982) - Nothing earth shatteringly great here but it's an enjoyable set of four films about Taiwan's development from the 50s to the early 80s. A children's short, a coming of age film, a college story, and a comedy about city life. It's most notable today as the inaugural piece of Taiwan's New Wave and for featuring Edward Yang's first film (segment #2, the most sophisticated of the four.) On the same token, Hou Hsiao-Hsien's Three Times (2005) - I particularly like the second part, a genuine modern silent film, not a "tribute" or a pastiche.

I don't think I've ruined a film by watching it too much but my viewing habits have changed significantly over time. In my teens I watched certain films compulsively; at 14 I was mostly focused on Hong Kong action films. I probably watched my import Drunken Master 2 VHS some 50 times over a couple of years. Looking back I can't believe I could ever do such a thing. Today I might rewatch a film twice in one year, if that often, and that's mostly restricted to absolute favorites.

It's a fine restoration for sure. J'Accuse is good but Abel Gance to me is a transitional figure in film history rather than a genuine master. French Impressionists like Germaine Dulac and Jean Epstein greatly improved the visual ideas of Gance's work and both they and the Russians put the rapid editing to much better use, dramatically, conceptually, ideologically. Despite the attempt at creating a more visually oriented cinema, J'Accuse is still bound firmly to narrative. It is very much in the Griffith mold but it's even more beholden to gauche melodrama and told with less dramatic focus. And Gance is SO excessive; his points are writ so large and they are underlined, bold, and in "all caps" (like the aforementioned skeleton dance.) So many of the intertitles could have been excised without altering the meaning or impact of a scene (in fact, they would probably be more effective without them.) An important film to be sure, a good film, but as a living work it just can't compete in the greater scheme of things like so many other films from this period can.

Jules and Jim is on at least once pretty much every year so that's a guarantee. TCM botched Contempt twice, the first time they showed it a few years ago and in early 2010 (cropped, terrible print, English language version.) Unfortunately, Adieu Philippine is unlikely since it isn't currently available on video (and I don't think it has ever been issued in America, which decreases the chances even further.) Definitely doesn't hurt to ask though. Good news about The Soft Skin - Janus Films has the rights to it and is about to circulate it in theaters. Criterion will be releasing that soon afterward so there's a great chance of that showing up on TCM. But the films that really need exposure on US TV are Jacques Rivette, Eric Rohmer, and Claude Chabrol's. Rohmer's Pauline at the Beach shows up from time to time on MGM HD, Rivette's The Duchess of Langeais and a couple of recent Chabrol films on Sundance but otherwise there's nothing. And also, I would like to see post-60s Godard on US TV. Lots to choose from - Slow Motion, First Name Carmen, Hail Mary, Germany Year 90 Nine Zero, Oh Woe is Me, Forever Mozart, Notre Musique, etc. It would be very nice to spot one of these on the TCM schedule. Edited by: JonasEB on May 29, 2011 4:44 AM

> {quote:title=slaytonf wrote:}{quote} > Well, then, do so. Say how "The Fountainhead" has influenced films and filmmakers. Influence is a juvenile focus, a poor way to measure the quality of anything. It doesn't matter if a film has actually deeply changed filmmaking, it only matters if it is artistically true to itself, that it uses the right tools to express itself. But if you want an example - Martin Scorsese loves the film and The Aviator is a clear descendant of King Vidor's The Fountainhead. When was the last time you actually saw a new Lewton-esque picture? > Say how anything in its use of camera angles, its framing, the composition of the pictures, its use of sound, or lighting, or art direction, or editing, or anything else has affected the way any films have been made. You can't see all of the charged eroticism (the famous jackhammer and the elevator ending), the very apparent architectural and material obsessions, the deliberateness of Gary Cooper's performance? > Or identify any filmmaker who has referred to it as an inspiration. Martin Scorsese but it didn't have to influence anyone. It isn't surprising that anyone would like The Fountainhead, it has been popular with cinephiles for a long time. > I don't think it is possible, because, far from being innovative, the movie is distinctly derivative. It uses well-worn and trite conventions to communicate its story and themes in a clumsy, heavy-handed, and pretentious manner (Ayn Rand can claim a certain amount of credit--or blame--for that). How is this derivative? What are these well worn and trite conventions? I'd be willing to bet that you like a ton of films with "well worn and trite conventions." The images are heavy handed and often ridiculous or "pretentious" because that's what The Fountainhead is. As a visual extension of the ideas it is superb. The problem with The Fountainhead is that people can't separate what the film is about with what the film itself is. Everything Vidor does is true to the book. It is a visual explication of the ideas in the book. You can take it or leave it but it is as cinematic as anything out there. It perfectly depicts what Rand's vision of power is (particularly masculine power, an ideal she held.) Vidor had depicted similar expressions of individual power before in entirely different ways so he clearly has a grasp of what is required for different kinds of material. To do The Fountainhead any other way would have been dishonest. > B-movie does not mean Bad movie. Low-budget does not mean low quality. The restriction of resources often results in innovation and creativity that would not occur had there been money to pay for conventional techniques and practices. What does this have to do with my post?

> {quote:title=slaytonf wrote:}{quote} > Nothing similar can be said of "The Fountainhead," or films like it. Of course there can, and The Fountainhead obviously isn't conventional big-budget Hollywood fare. I like both.

To make a history film isn't to simply pick a famous event to shoot and accuracy doesn't necessarily achieve the essence of an event or period of time. To make history "entertaining" in and of itself, regardless of whether or not it's accurate, isn't particularly interesting to me. That's why John Ford, Roberto Rossellini, and Hou Hsiao-Hsien are great; they all deal with the iconography of history, the mix of truth and lies, and attempt to make some kind of sense out of it. To explore and discover is the goal.

August Criterions New titles... The Complete Jean Vigo (A Propos de Nice, Taris, Zero de Conduite, L'Atalante) Cul-de-sac The Killing (with Killer's Kiss) Secret Sunshine (I've heard a lot about this. Can't wait to check it out.) Eclipse 28: Koreyoshi Kurahara (Intimidation, The Warped Ones, I Hate But Love, Black Sun, Thirst for Love) Updates of... Battle of Algiers Orpheus If.... Whole lotta stuff here. Sixteen films!

Nick Ray once said that if Luis Bunuel's Los Olvidados had been made earlier, he would have approached Knock on Any Door differently. But I don't think Knock is a bad film, Bogie's performance alone is enough to keep it afloat. Of course, several years later Ray made up for it with Rebel Without a Cause.

That score was bad, even worse when I noticed pieces of canned music used in History Channel documentaries towards the end. Valentino and Swanson seemed fine enough but the material is just too generic and I didn't see any effort put into any other facet of the production. No attention to space, flat lighting, basic camera placement, perfunctory editing. I think Charles Rosher said in The Parade's Gone By that Sam Wood paid no heed to the artistic elements of film production; it definitely shows here. It tired me out. Oh, I'd seen Horsemen and The Divine Lady before, so I skipped them this time out. The one I hadn't seen was The Conquering Power. It's okay but it has little in common with Eugenie Grandet and I don't think it established much of a path of its own. Balzac requires a very different treatment, the mainstream Hollywood cinema of the time is just too antithetical to his style.

I really enjoyed this. A couple of weeks back on Valentino day, Beyond the Rocks left me with a very bad hangover. This is the tonic I needed. A very nice romantic comedy.