JonnyGeetar
-
Posts
1,118 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by JonnyGeetar
-
-
Herbert Marshall,Gladys George, and Jan Sterling.
-
I figured someone would take me to task over the whole adultery assessment.
What inspired me to say that I personally felt the film "romanticized adultery" were the dewy blue lights and icicles and Lara's Theme on the zither playing interminably during the dreamy Sharif/Christie love scenes in the second half of the movie. It's a very idyllic portrayal of something I found to be pretty dark...and I had a hard time sympathizing for Sharif when he gets busted on the way back home. Julie Christie or not dude, you made your choice and she's back at the woodshed behind the ice palace.
Of course, maybe my mind was distracted from the overall moral of the story as I kept trying to construct some kind of allegory where the two women represent the Old and New Russia...but I think that would be reading too, too hard between the lines.
So in a small way I feel like adultery was romanticized in Zhivago. Admittedly it was while overlooking the larger moral of the whole shebang. However, as is the case with most David Lean films, there's a lot of shebang of to assess here.
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Nov 30, 2011 9:56 PM
-
I got home at about nine o'clock last night and finally watched the second half to this thing (I've tried and failed numerous times in the past.)The final verdict: s'allright.
I'm annoyed that this was featured as part of the "Battle of the Blondes"- innummerable other Julie Christie movies would have been more appropriate: Darling and Petulia come to mind immediately. Because, in all honesty, I found Christie's stunning beauty to be something of a detriment to the whole film. She's too, too gorgeous- not since Grace Kelly in High Noon has there been such an inexplicably well-coiffured character in a film. And who know beets and freezing wind could give one such a glowing complexion?
And as libertarian as I am at heart, I was off-put by the fact that it is a film that seemingly celebrates adultery...Made all the more glaring by the fact that Geraldine (?) Chaplin was no slacker in the looks department herself and was (it would seem) a pretty devoted and decent wife.
To me though, the biggest detriment of the film was this: it's a film where you always know something bad is going to happen, and it always does. Same reason I don't like war movies.
Oh- and Rod Steiger is such a ham! I would have much preferred the first choice for his role- James Mason, But then, I would much prefer James Mason in pretty much anything.
Oh, and I didn't know daffodils did so well in Russia. I kind of had to wonder where Yuri and his wife grew their crops since it seemed like they were surrounded by five acres of pure daffodils.
Oh, I get where the defenders are coming from, but the British accents were something I also considered a detriment to the story. "Oh, I say you simply must be with us Bolshies, Old Man. It's simply not cricket to be otherwise!"
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Nov 29, 2011 8:10 AM
-
Excellent. You do sarcasm so well.
(High praise from the master.)
-
> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}I can imagine how Bogart would have reacted to working with Monroe.
I genuinely believe one (or both) would not have made it out alive.
An aside: I can think of two cases where Bogart worked with terrific, ace actresses and it didn't work: Bette Davis in Dark Victory and Barbara Stanwyck in The Two Misses Carolls. In the first case, it's the studio's fault: he's badly miscast; in the second (and more shameful of the two) it's everyone's fault but his and Stanwyck's. They gave their all to a picture that (most sadly) isn't anywhere near as good as the pairing deserves, (That painting his character does of Stanwyck's is priceless though. Wonder if they let her keep it when the shoot wrapped.)
Also also: I leave out The Petrified Forest as he and Bette don't have a lot of interraction in that one- and as much as I like it (and him) he has a surprisingly small role in that one (maybe even more so than in Dark Victory. )
I've always wondered how he and Davis got along when the cameras were not rolling, They also did Marked Woman together but it's been years since I've caught that one. He also was supposed to be in the George Brent role in The Old Maid, but his scenes were scrapped. Honestly I say Thank God as he was even less suited to the role than Brent was (and that's saying a lot.)
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Nov 22, 2011 10:36 PM
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Nov 22, 2011 10:38 PM
-
> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}Did Bogart have a track record of not liking many of his co-stars?
I'm read/heard quite the opposite. In spite of having an insanely jealous wife, Bogart got on quite well with Ida Lupino and Ann Sheridan. He also named his son Leslie after Leslie Howard, who fought for him to get his big break in The Petrified Forest, he also insisted on Edward G. Robinson getting top billing in Key Largo to assuage Robinson's ego. He also was cordial but not close with Bergman during Casablanca and I know he founded the real Rat Pack with some other celebs, most notably the mercurial Judy Garland.
And of course, we all know about him and Baby Bacall.
-
Ees fonny.
I kind of sort of watched this yesterday morning as I was doing the laundry and loading the dishwasher and various other little things. Every review I have ever read compared this movie most unfavorably to Rene Clair's 1945 version And Then There Were None. While I admit I did not devote 100% of myself to the 1966 version, I have to say I liked it a good deal better than the Rene Clair film.
As much as I like Clair (and many of the castmemembers of the 1945 version) I feel like there is far too much comedy in that version and no real suspense. It's like he's going for the "Lubitsch Touch," even though it is hardly appropriate for the suject matter (it's like trying to give The Green Berets or The Silence of the Lambs the "Lubitsch Touch.")
Oh, and since people are so touchy about spoilers I'll just say that the actor who plays the murderer in the 1945 version is very miscast.
The '66 version moved, it was suspenseful, well-shot and the music (while a tad on the DeVolish trumpet fanfare side) packed a nicely outre' wallop.
I guess my one beef would be that they in almost no real way deviated from the plot of the original- so there was utterly no mystery as to how it would all play out.
ps- was Fabian the hero or the first victim? Just personal curiosity.I'm not good as identifying my 50's pop idols.
pss- I may well have misspelled "Lubitsch." All apologies, the man was a genius.
-
Giant
in Hot Topics
> {quote:title=pturman wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=JonnyGeetar wrote:}{quote}Grace Kelly? Barforama. Rock chose right (goes to show the gays have the best taste.)
> Best taste, jonny? Truth be told he probably wanted Liz & Jimmy to switch parts! :0
No, I meant more from the (personal) standpoint that Miss Taylor was a far better actress with a much more likeable, much warmer persona than Grace "It would just be too dreadfully gauche" Kelly. Princess Grace would've fit Giant like a square peg in a round hole.
ps- I believe Taylor herself confirmed that Dean and Hudson hated one another. Whether there was anything psycho-sexual beneath that, who knows? (But I'd like to think so!)
-
Giant
in Hot Topics
> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}GIANT couldn't carry FROM HERE TO ETERNITY'S _______________.
You wanna unpack that for me, Fi? 'Cause I don't get it ('spose it's one of the symptoms of my "really not paying attention.")
ps- I enjoyed your From Here to Eternity thread from a couple of weeks ago very much. I was glad to see other people had as many issues with the movie as I do.
pss- Grace Kelly? Barforama. Rock chose right (goes to show the gays have the best taste.)
-
Wow.
I have always had this on my "want to see" list as the title is brilliant, I'm intrigued by the "disaster" genre, and I remember this used to play on Cinemax years ago...I caught some of it then, but had to go to work or something and it has always stuck with me.
For those who missed: a terrorist has planted seven bombs on a British ocean liner on a pleasure voyage in the north sea. He demands a half-million pound ransom or he'll blow up the ship (which can't be evacuated due to the rough seas) Bomb expert Richard Harris has to come in to save the day (just having your life depend on the steady hand of Richard Harris is enough of a premise to build immeasurable suspense on!)
What a wonderful film! Fast-paced, no fat, none of the "two-days-from-retirement" stereotypes, believable (with a couple of slightly dubious theatrical moments involving the owner of the cruise ship line and the representative of Her Majesty's government- which nonetheless are inn-teresting, and as resonant and relevant now as I'm sure they were then.) Crack dialogue, smart mix of scenes dealing with the action on the ship and the hunt on the ground for the terrorist bomber...THIS THING WAS ROBBED OF AN OSCAR NOMINATION FOR BEST EDITING!
Terrific ensemble acting- wisely there is no "star" of the show, although Richard Harris takes acting honors, abandoning his guy-liner (and looking about twenty years older then he did in Camelot from seven years before this) and delivering his world-weary, slightly nihilistic lines with a downright Shakespearean flair.
Best of all, I really enjoyed the adept use of comedy- the kind of strange, ironic black comedy that comes in real life but is so hard to accurately capture in film and books.
It's laugh-out-loud, scream-out-loud, never a dull moment, don't stop for air, don't stop to ask questions, move-move-move, bang-bang highly intelligent action- in essence: everything that movies made today are not. (And what higher compliment is there than that?)
If you missed it, rent it on Netflix or check it out the next time it airs (especially those of you who are writing screenplays as it is a great example of how to present a smart story that moves, is believable, and is as entertaining as a five-alarm fire.)
Well played, all involved, well played.
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Nov 18, 2011 10:20 AM
-
Giant
in Hot Topics
> {quote:title=Sprocket_Man wrote:}{quote}John Ford won three Best Director Oscars for films that did not win the award for Best Picture.
How inn-teresting. People always mention Ford won four Oscars, but I can't recall as anyone has ever pointed out that three of those times were for films that did not win the "big one". At least though Ford (perhaps) had the ultimate satisfaction of his final win coinciding with a Best Picture victory for How Green Was My Valley. Stevens just won the two times, right?
It's got to be a funny feeling to win Best Director and not see you picture win Best Picture. I remember when it happed to Spielberg for Private Ryan he looked like he was gonna cry in the pressroom.
Of course, the flip side of that is having directed the Best Picture of the year but being told you were not the Best Director. That probably sucks more.
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Nov 17, 2011 8:47 PM
-
Giant
in Hot Topics
> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote: }{quote}until a few posts ago, this thread was activated in April, 2010, when Hopper was still alive. I wondered the same thing as you, until I checked the dates of the posts...So, he was alive...at the time this thread was started.
> For whatever that's worth, probably not much...
Actually, it's worth a lot. Shows you're much more perceptive than me and it shows how inn-teresting the life span of a thread can be. I'm always impressed by how some people dig thru the annals of the posts to retrieve or correct or add-on to something they remember from a year or two ago.
Me, I never go past page one.
Hats off to you Miss Wonderly or Miss O'Shaugnessy or whatever your name is...
(ps- I know I got that last bit wrong too.)
-
Giant
in Hot Topics
> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}With regards to how Giant was edited: It looks like it wasn't edited at all!. To me the story being told in Giant doesn't justify over 3 hours. Good movie but not great.
Agree. _REALLY AGREE_ . Agree.
When the climactic scene to your three hour movie is a fight in a diner, there's a problem. To me, the most exciting development in the movie is watching the lawn in front of the family mansion grow once Liz Taylor arrives. I do not for the life of me get why Stevens won an Oscar for this (the second time he won an Oscar for directing a film that did not win Best Picture, I'm not sure if anyone else holds this record) and (the great)) Mercedes Macambridge's supporting actress nod is another one that is a head scratcher (I just choose to believe it was belated recognition for Johnny Guitar. ) I also don't get Rock Hudson's Best Actor nod, although he was a good actor and it's nice he got some recognition for it.
The only thing about Giant that stands out to me is James Dean's performance, which is excellent but really a supporting one. I think had he been nominated for supporting instead of lead actor at the Academy Awards, he might well have won.
I've said this before, 1956 was such a BIG year for BIG movies, many of them unnecessarily so ( Giant being the ultimate example of this), but I guess they fealt the need to compete with TV and each other.
-
Giant
in Hot Topics
> {quote:title=John_Boy wrote:}{quote}Thanks would. I didn't know (Dennis Hopper) was sick. That's tough leaving such a young child.
I hate to be the bearer of bad belated news, but Dennis Hopper passed away some months ago. Sorry. (He was a terrific actor.)
-
> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote} JAWS is an exceptionally well-made film and at times even more cerebral than given credit for, but like PSYCHO, it's one of those films that is perceived as being considerably more graphic than it is.
I really liked everything you wrote in your post, but I single this out as something I am in particular agreement with you on.
This is the reason why I get mad with Spielberg for Hook and War of the Worlds (which sorry, I thought was lame) and (arrrrgh!) Indiana Jones and the Quest for More Money- he is capable of so much more- I mean, (obviously) I don't know a lot about filmmaking, but to me, Jaws is one of the best examples you can site when pointing out good direction in movies.
Here he was, very young, very new, up against the odds- no budget, egotistical actors, a lame rubber shark, an actor's (?) strike looming- and he makes a very smart, well-directed, terrifiying,and intelligent film that is not all "in your face" with the direction- a great film in spite of all the reasons why it should not have worked (and there were many.)
On music alone- he and Williams trick the audience with Pavlovian intensity- cueing us to expect the shark when we hear the music, clueing us in that the shark is not really present in the scene with the cardboard fin, using the child singing Do You Know The Muffin Man? and the men singing The UCLA Fight Song (sic?) immediately proceeding the shark attacks- there's almost a literary quality to it (as is having Quint sing Farewell and Adieu (To You Fair Spanish Ladies) - the same song Ahab sings in Moby Dick. Then, near the end, he scares us shitless at least twice having the shark pop up with no music cue whatsoever- showing us all bets are off.
It's an all-round brilliant film.
-
> {quote:title=TikiSoo wrote:}{quote}I didn't bother to watch because I can't think of any director or composer I care less for than Spielberg & Williams.
Yeah, I feel you. To be fair- I would cite Raider of the Lost Ark and Jaws as two of the absolute BEST examples of a score making a film and a film making a score- going together in an absolutely brilliant synchronicity and working to evoke a mood and feel (and in the case of Jaws ) further the story in a very, very clever way.
For Williams, I would say his good scores are excellent- some of the best ever. But I think often his MUSIC is *TOO BIG *and *SWEEPING!!!! *for some of his other efforts, and I get how people say he often recycles or has the same kind of sound (the 1979 Dracula comes to mind as an example of his returning to the standard well once too often.) I got no beef with Williams though.
Spielberg on the other hand (and I know the AFI thing was a show strictly devoted to the subject of music scoring, but I don't care) is someone who *I NEVER WANT TO HEAR FROM AGAIN ON THE SUBJECT OF MOVIEMAKING.* I am about as free-thinking and non-censorship, free-speech, Libertarian as they come, but as far as I am concerned SPIELBERG NEEDS TO GIVE BACK BOTH OSCARS AND THE THALBERG, SURRENDER HIS DGA CARD AND TAKE (AT THE VERY LEAST) A FIVE YEAR SABBATICAL FROM "FILM"-MAKING.
Why the hate? I was willing to forget Hook. I'm willing to overlook the fact that The Color Purple, while a beautiful and funny film, is based on a story that was never meant to be told in a beautiful or funny way. I overlook some of my issues with Schindler's List (it's a film about Jews without a single real Jewish character.) I forgive him for The Lost World. Saving Private Ryan I like. Jaws is easily in my top five faves,
But Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull???
*NO. STEVEN SPIELBERG, WE WILL NEVER FORGIVE YOU FOR THAT. NEVER.*
(I can't add anything to that that South Park did not absolutely nail.)
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Nov 16, 2011 10:03 AM
-
> {quote:title=MontyC wrote:}{quote}There's a big difference (both in quality & subject matter) between HOARDERS and MOVIES STARS & MOGULS.
Absolutely. Hoarders is both compelling and informative.
> {quote:title=MontyC wrote:}{quote}I'm not too interested in seeing James Lipton interview Will Smith either (although you can't argue there are a lot worse things one could be watching).
Actually, I really- honestly and completely- cannot think of anything worse than watching James Lipton interviewing Will Smith...Well, maybe if he brought Jada and those damn kids along (which I wouldn't put past him.) Seriously, I'd rather watch a six hour loop of Keeping up with the Kardashians or re-runs of Mama's Family than James Lipton and Will Smith having a tet-a-tet.
(Shudder!)
-
> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote}Once again I apologize to Jonny Geetar for my unnecessary sarcasm.
Sarcasm is never unnecessary. Without sarcasm some of us would be utterly unable to get up in the morning or put one foot in front of the other. Never apologize for sarcasm! That said, my "ya'll" remark was a trifle elitist and b*tchy. I'm just that way lately.
I'm s...s...sss....(gagging)...ssss....s...
orry.
JG
-
SOME OUT OF THE BOX SUGGESTIONS FOR 31 DAYS
Seems to me as these films haven't been seen in a while:
1. Save the Tiger (1973)
2. A Touch of Class (1973)
3. The Day of the Locust (1975)
4. The Letter (1929)
5. Sadie Thompson (1927)
6. The Patriot (1929)
7. Svengali (1931)
8. Bad Girl (1932)
9. The General Died at Dawn (1936)
10. B.F.'s Daughter (1948)
11. The Sniper (1952)
12. Billy Budd (1962)
13. The Cardinal (1963)
14. Freud (1962)
15. Women in Love (1970)
I quite possibly got some of the years wrong- and I know it's top-heavy with films from the 70's. I'm not one of those that has issues with Post-Nixon era films airing.
-
> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote} Y'all, it's a RED LETTER DAY in the history of the message boards of TCM. Jonny Geetar actually said something nice about TCM. Mark your diaries & calendars. It may never happen again. I will disagree with you on the point of the trailer for Lonely Are the Brave. Didn't that just show up in the Michael Douglas tribute.
Wrong and wrong, Miss Baby.
I could cite numerous other instances wherein I have given my "programming is on the uptick/ Temple Drake/ Constant Nymph/ Vastly improved SUTS line-up/ the programmers jobs are not easy" spiel.
Someone, dig up the thread about the Lonely are the Brave trailer (yes, the whole trailer, not the clip from the Michael Douglas tribute) airing repeatedly (something like seven times) even after we found out they did not have the rights to show the film and it was not, as repeatedly promised, showing it at 11:30 on whatever night in September they repeatedly claimed it would be on.
In both cases, I'm not very good at digging through the archives but some of you who are more tech savvy and have a more relaxed shedule today than I, feel free.
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Nov 10, 2011 12:43 PM- ps, really one should refrain from using the word "ya'll" in one's correspondences, unless one is quoting from Buddy Ebsen or Gabby Hayes. But again- free country.
-
I'm sensing a growing dissatisfaction with the programming choices of late, from the new line-up of The Essentials to The 31 Days to the third Burt Lancaster tribute in four months that ran about a week ago.
One reason I say this: the last few posts dedicated to these topics have been (I must say) refreshingly free from the "Defenders of the Realm" with their "why are you so mad because TCM doesn't play what you want to see, it's not all about you; apples and oranges! apples and oranges!; how dare you besmirch the good name of TCM, don't you know how hard they try to get the permission to rent these titles, you're lucky they even show movies for you ungrateful bastids!; why all the negativity?, it reflects poorly on us as a community when you don't agree with us that nothing is ever wrong with the network" soft-shoe routine.
That said, allow me to grab my top hat and cane and do a little routine in their place:
The programming from August into this fall on the net has been a big improvement over recent years, SUTS was the best they've had in years, the Kirk Douglas and Buster Keaton months were great (although their repeatedly showing the trailer for Lonely are the Brave and not pulling it when it turned out they didn't have the rights to show the movie was pure laziness), Temple Drake was nice, and The Constant Nymph was a real treat. I know it's not easy for the programmers, with their limited budget and the tangled rights issues and the fact that a lot of studios are just plain DUMB about how they manage their catalogues, to get films to show. Also, and this is the biggee: it's November, the 31 Days sched is not complete, maybe the films listed are just a bedrock of "The Usual Suspects" on which a trove of new and thoughtful selections will be placed.
Let us keep our fingers crossed.
That said, if I may be allowed to foist a few suggestions whilst the sched is stillbeing hammered out:
1. Try showing some of the Oscar-nominated documentaries from years past. I'm not against foreign films either. Lord knows I'd prefer Rashoman or Bill and Coo or Hearts and Minds over Around the World in 80 Days.
2. Please incorporate more from the very early years of the show- surely some of these titles are in the public domain and I don't care if they're not in pristine condition (Lord knows that's never stopped you from showing some titles before) I, for one, would rather watch an iffy print of The Letter from 1929 than view From Here to Eternity or Gaslight for the n-thousandth time.
3. End the festival with a whole day of well-reveared movies that did not earn a single nomination: Paths of Glory, His Girl Friday, The Searchers- any discussion of the Academy Awards must include the sad fact that they are, ahem, not exactly always on the money.
4. Include moments from past shows during the commercials. It would be such fun to actually see clips of these films and stars winning than to see the usual "Frankenheimer on Burt Lancaster" promo or those g-damn smarmy Pete Smith specialties. They're all on youtube, surely The Academy would not begrudge you the rights to show them.
5. PLEASE LIST WHAT NOMINATIONS A FILM RECIEVED IN WHICH CATEGORIES BEFORE YOU SHOW IT. You used to do this. WE ALWAYS ASK YOU TO DO IT AGAIN AND FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS YOU HAVE NOT. It is really annoying.
Thank you. Anyone who has anything else to add, please feel free to thow in. Anyone who wants to chastise us for being a bunch of Negative Nancies and griping about "the best darn network on TV" also feel free to speak up- it's a free(ish) country.
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Nov 10, 2011 10:24 AM
-
I am so with you on Scars of Dracula. In spite of its flaws, it is the scariest and most entertaining Dracula film ever. Hate that it's always left off the list when TCM drags out the Hammer titles- I think there must be some sort of rights issue.
-
> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote}Films that have been left off the February schedule, because we are getting the 1,000th broadcast of IN HARM'S WAY and GANDHI.
That _super_ sucks. Although, I am correct in saying we don't know the whole sched yet, right?
-
> {quote:title=Rickey wrote:}{quote}I'll probably get some flack over this, but I would rather watch 1958's A Night To Remember over Titanic.I think A Night To Remember is a good solid movie and they nailed the story of That disastrous voyage.
No flack from me, only a hearty "Amen, my brother!" A Night to Remember is 1,000 times better than Titanic: concise (the ship is sinking within 25 minutes of the beginning), fast-paced and minus the brain-dead love story and glaring innacuracies* that pervade Cameron's gawdawful 1997 atrocity- which serves only to belittle and exploit the actual tragedy of the disastrous voyage.
A Night to Remember would have gotten my vote for Best Picture of 1958 (admittedly it was a weak year.)
The director of A Night to Remember, Roy Ward Baker had a decidedly varied resume to say the least: this, Don't Bother to Knock, Quatermass, Scars of Dracula- kind of the British Robert Aldrich.
*okay- the ship goes down in one piece in ANTR, but Cameron's version portrays one of the crew (a real person, and it uses their real name) taking bribes in order to let people on the lifeboats: THIS NEVER happened. And let's not forget the priceless Picasso's which went down with the ship...Oh wait, except they didn't. I'm missing some of the other innacuracies, but feel free to consult wikapedia or imdb for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong list of gaffes in the 1997 film.
Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Nov 9, 2011 8:48 PM
DR. ZHIVAGO!
in Hot Topics
Posted
> {quote:title=Sprocket_Man wrote:}{quote}There are no zithers in composer Maurice Jarre's orchestral palette for his score, it's a Russian balalaika, the same instrument given to Yuri as a child after his mother's funeral, and that The Girl slings over her shoulder at the end of the movie ("Can she play? She's an artist!"). The instrument and its sound are a convenient symbolic and dramatic thread running through the Zhivago family, from generation to generation.
Yes, yes. I figured it wasn't a zither. "Zither" is one of those words I like to use for comedic effect, like Cucamunga (sic, I'm sure) and titmouse. I do that a lot, often unnecessarily.
Thank God the Zhivago family didn't possess an innate biological talent for playing the accordian, The movie would've had rather a different tone, no?