JonnyGeetar

well...IMO the three best movies of 1949 were White Heat , They Live by Night and Gun Crazy with Gun Crazy being the absolute best- and it is to note, I most certainly would not apply the term "dated" to any one of them, each is as shocking, innovative and relevant in the world of 2011 as they were in 1949 ( Gun Crazy especially.) Three Wives , Twelve O'Clock High , and (ugh!) All The King's Men have not aged as well. Of course, if any one of those foist three films had been nominated for Best Picture in 1949, I think there would have been a kerfuffle the likes of which would have brought the AMPAS to its knees, it took years for each to gain its well-earned rep (which is why you really ought to wait as long as possible to give awards, but oh well.) (I also also note that some sources list Gun Crazy as coming out in 1950, not that it makes much of a dif since it was an itty-bitty B-flick with no major names and wouldn't have had a shot at the major awards anyhow.) I also also also note that one of my favorite films of 1949 is Flamingo Road which is fabulously dated, and that "dated" does not have to be a "dirty word." It can, in fact, be quite the compliment. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Aug 31, 2011 4:58 PM

> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote} > A LETTER TO THREE WIVES is most definitely dated ... the fact is that there are a few creaky elements in the film. But the upside is that it has a charming cast and their sparkling performances are what elevate it to the realm of a classic. Agreed, and yet it is interesting that none of those solid performances earned Oscar nominations in spite of the film doing very well at the Academy Awards that year. And I have to say, as good as everyone (well, except Jeffrey Lynn and debatably Kirk Douglas) is, no one in the film really deserved to be nominated, largely because there is no Oscar-worthy role in the film. And yet Mankiewicz won best director and screenplay for neither writing nor directing a performance that was truly one of the year's best. (In my opinion, that is.) ps- 1949 was a slightly "off" year for films, and with the exception of Olivia DeHavilland's much-deserved win for The Heiress I really don't know what the hell the membership of the AMPAS was smoking that year. pss- Again, in my opinion. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Aug 30, 2011 7:04 PM

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}Agree. The plot surrounding Sothern is rather boring. I found the Crain segments a bit tame too. It was only Darnell's segment that continues to hold my interest (I've seen the film several times now.....) Agree agree. And what was up with that quasi-afro Sothern was rocking? Was it supposed to show how harried her character was or something?, because it was not cute. The Douglas/Mankiewicz-soliloquy-on-the-faults-of-radio scenes may or may not not be "dated", but they're definitely pretentious...Which is one of the reasons I'm just not that "in" to most Mankiewicz films.

> {quote:title=cinemanut wrote:}{quote} For the 3 femme leads this was a peak that they never came close to again, in fact Sothern and Darnell would be pretty much out of pictures in about 5 years, tho they would stay busy with that new fangled invention called TV. Just a thought. And yet, as a happy note, Ann Sothern was nominated for an Academy Award for best supporting actress 39 years after Three Wives for her role in The Whales of August whilst her costars Bette Davis and Lillian Gish were snubbed. Sadly things did not turn out so good for Darnell, but that's the game of Life.

from the imdb trivia entries for this film: General [Douglas MacArthur|http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0531274/] was so confused by the ending that he had his aide write [Joseph L. Mankiewicz|http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000581/] a letter asking with whom Addie had, in fact, run off. It's funny. I've always assumed Paul Douglas was telling the truth- that he had run off with Addie and changed his mind last minute- no ambiguity for me. Especially since Jeanne Crain's husband Jeffrey Lynn is fuh-lamingly gay. "Darling, you must wear this little black number I found in a Vogue someone left on the train to the charity ball." Riiiiight. Last night was the second time I've seen Three Wives and I have to admit, I liked it better the second time around...although Kirk Douglas doesn't really come off (not entirely his fault) and some of the dialogue clunks (mostly in the first third) But Linda Darnell was great and Thelma Ritter was an absolute hoot.

Oh hah-hah, very funny. Ho-ho, it is to laugh. For the record, I picked "Jonny Geetar" because many in the Cahiers du Cinema crowd absolutely love Johnny Guitar , and I assume that is how they would pronounce it, while making hand gestures and that kissy-face thing with their lips. I have always been highly amused by the story of how Nicolas Ray and a production assistant had to pick up Mercedes Macambridge's wardrobe when a drunken Joan (allegedly) dumped it on an Arizona Highway in a fit of jealous rage. I've always wondered if Ray had one of those "meaning of life moments" whilst dodging cars in order to collect a pilgrim dress with a tire mark down the front, stopping and thinking: "damn, maybe the French'll at least like this f###ing thing." Plus "Flameengo Road" sounds stupid. ps- yes, Sprocket Man, I am sure I spelled Cahiers du Cinema and "Macambridge" wrong. Sue me. pss- No, I don't know whether the legend is actually true or not, but it's fun to think it is, huh?

There is an inn-teresting 15 minute featurette on the Flamingo Road DVD called Crawford at Warners that profiles her career at the studio and how the pressures of maintaining her image, her allure, and her box office clout drove her drinking (already pretty bad) to become out of control. There really are two major Crawfords: pre- Mildred and post- Mildred . Yes, she was much prettier pre-1945 (although she did go through a scary period in the late thirties), but her material and her acting is better post-1945 (although she is great in Rain and Grand Hotel ). It's a shame MGM didn't put her in more vehicles like she had at Warners: hard, fast, heavily tinted in noir , a handgun in the pocket of every mink. As Eddie Muller says in his book Dark City: The Lost Art of Film Noir " noir and Joan Crawford were a perfect fit, it let some of Lucille LeSuer resurface." (I'm paraphrasing from memory and I'm sure I misspelled "LeSuer" for all you sticklers out there) I vastly prefer her post- Mildred period, as most of her MGM films after Sadie McKee and before The Women (and most after The Women ) are terrible; and her Warners pictures are such delightful relics of a bygone era, when a studio put money behind a slightly-past-her-sell-date STAR, her confidence buoyed by a chance comeback, ace supporting players, crack direction and production values and pretty solid scripts...at least up to Goodbye My Fancy and This Woman is Dangerous

From Flamingo Road (1949) * LANE: "I need a job. I can wait tables, I can handle customers...I can even sing a little in a pinch." LUTE MAE: "Yeah, I was afraid of that." J'adore Flamingo Road and j'adore Gladys George. *- paraphrased from memory, for all you sticklers out there (and I know there are many)

"sucked" is a harsh word. I like "dated" better. The real revelation of yesterday was The Story of Esther Costello - which was much more compelling and well-made than I expected. (I'd never seen it before.)

Shoot. I was kind of hoping it was the '47 version (it's one of those inn-teresting films, as many of Joan's post- Mildred vehicles were, that I can watch over and over and over again.) For the record: I think the 1947 Possessed originally had a different title, as I've seen pics of Joan doing wardrobe tests in her nurse outfit standing next to a clipboard that had a different title on it (can't recall it tho') The 1931 version is pretty good though, one of the few good roles Crawford got at MGM before they stuck her in the mediocre run of "comedies" and "musicals" that went up to 1938. She's terrific in it, and along with Grand Hotel , Rain and Sadie McKee it's one of her best early roles- strong-willed, feminist in the vein of something Stanwyck or Davis would've done, and she's gorgeous in it. I'm glad at least that they're not showing Mildred Pierce (AGAIN!) in the prime 8 pm slot, but the one tomorrow that I'm really looking forward to is the rarely shown The Story of Esther Costello , which I've never seen and comes from the late 50's "dry spell" Joan experienced post- Female on the Beach Anyone know if it's any good?

Someone tell me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't TCM usually show a version of The Phantom of the Opera with actual opera singing on the soundtrack during the bits where Carlotta and Christine sing on stage? I seem to recall that in the past (even a scream from Carlotta when the chandalier falls), but there was no singing in the version they ran the other night, just straight music. Am I right? ps- I liked the version with the singing better...that is, if I didn't imagine it. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Aug 18, 2011 2:52 PM

> {quote:title=TCMWebAdmin wrote:}{quote}Aw Jonny, ya gotta do better than that if you want to be locked. > > And Beat the Devil was released in 1953 in Europe. Which counts. Then why'd you lock the other thread? There was nothing offensive going on there, perfectly civil (and rather humorous) conversation. ps- It so does not count that it was released in Europe in 1953.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}I'm sure Jonny was just being his old, sarcastic self.... You win the door prize. Sorry, I did not mean to run what was an interesting, innocent thread straight off the tracks with my bitchery. I'm also wearing a chip on my shoulder from a throoughly unrelated lockdown incident that happened on the board earlier this week (and will be for some time) Believe me, no one is worse than me for getting off topic in a thread. There's a new sheriff in the town of Messageboard, population 14, and he's been pretty adament about TCM's "Thou shalt stay on topic...even if it is called general discussions" policy and he ain't afraid to use the padlock on us. But lordy, look at me, getting all Leon Trotsky again...Really, back to Dr. Phibes , VistaVision, Jan-in-the-Pan's brief film career, Mary Astor's Diesel-Dagger 'do, etc. Ps- am I allowed to say "Diesel Dagger"?

Yeah, The Return of Dr. Phibes is not good at all. The original is great though. Are we getting off topic? I'd hate for someone to come in and lock us down for wandering off the path a bit, as that seems to be the new policy.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote} > LOL. I didnt know that was Count Yorga. I never did see that movie, though I did want to at the time.......... As much as you like oddball, campy ****, you should check out Yorga and its much better, but weirder, sequel The Return of Count Yorga It just occurred to me what would have helped this movie: le switcheroo. Jeff Hunter should've played RJ's role, RJ should've played Hunter's role, Virginia Leith should've been the idiot murder victim sister and Joanne Woodward should've been the lead. (I guess it was all determined by agents politics and "name" recognition, but really, it works out better my way, doesn't it? Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Aug 17, 2011 2:22 PM

No, I was being completely serious. The refrain of the score in AKBD sounds just like the main theme from Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein . At least to me, and I have no musical inclinations. The remake has this awful, tacky scene when Matt Dillon pushes Sean Young off the roof, the camera follows her all the way to the ground and does a tight shot of her head cracking on the pavement and blood spurting everywhere, guess the director had issues with women (as many guys who direct films do,) That's the only thing I remember about it. I think Joanne Woodward did a pretty decent job playing someone who is A COMPLETE AND UTTER MORON. That fall down the bleachers is just...God, it's badly directed. And I'm hard pressed to think of two less physically similar sisters in all filmdom than Leith and Woodward, maybe Olivia DeHavilland and Bette Davis in In this Our Life come close. Were they supposed to be half-sisters in the script and I missed it? I still say Leith stinks. Bad. Way bad. ps- Mary Astor should've filed criminal charges against whoever gave her that haircut. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Aug 17, 2011 1:01 PM

Did anyone think the score to AKBD sounded a whole lot like the one from Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein ? (That is, if any of you remembers it.) SPOILERS REGARDING THE BOOK:: The book is much, much better than either movie- largely because it uses an ingenious plot twist you could only use in the medium of writing: you can't physically see the characters, so it turns out that someone we don't suspect, who has been right in front of our eyes (so to speak) reveals himself to be the killer in the second half- even though we "witnessed" him killing the sister in the first. It's really brilliant (hard to explain, but brilliant)- plus it has a better ending (which I won't reveal, but it would've been much more expensive to film. It's one of the few times the climax of a book is much grander than that in a film adaptation of said book.) It's VERY easily Ira Levin's best novel (no, I don't like Rosemary's Baby ) Man, Virginia Leith was a crummy actress. I get why Fox dumped her. Enjoy her greatly as "Jan in the Pan" in The Brain That Wouldn't Die

You know, I prefer Joan Fontaine to Olivia DeHavilland.* Grapes of Wrath was John Ford's best film, that said I don't want to sit through it again.* Herbert Marshall was such an underrated actor. * (*I figure someone ought to say something about "films and filmakers" lest someone deem it as having "no need to continue" and LOCK IT.)

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote}Sometimes I suspect that we're all a bunch of nerds. Your suspicions are well-grounded. Manksy-Poo just ended his outro of The Awful Truth by noting that Ralph Bellamy plays the guy who loses the girl in that movie, His Girl Friday and The Wolf Man. Um, no. In The Wolf Man Bellamy doesn't have a single exchange of dialogue or significant scene with leading lady Evelyn Ankers, in fact he doesn't have a romantic role of any kind- just straight supporting. Patric Knowles has the "Ralph Bellamy" role in that one, while Bellamy has more of a "Lionel Atwill" role. (Or the "Basil Rathbone" role if you will.) Jeez Ben, they pay you, can you at least watch this stuff?

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}Any chance that it was"made" in 1951 and released in 1952? ...did you just return from the hairsplitters' convention? I DID as a matter of fact, and let me tell you it was awful ! They gave you only four hand towels at the hotel instead of six, they had turkey bacon but not sausage and the welcome brochure said "its a great day for hairsplitting" using no apostrophe . Unacceptable The Roman Numerals during the credits for No Highway in the Sky had one I at the end and not two II's, and all other sources list it as 1951. I have a slightly Rain Main - esque ability for film years, even ones I have never seen so I spotted the gaffe instantly. Plus I admit I have it out for The Mank. Yes: it is a bitchy little moan on my part, thoroughly influenced by my rancor for that sack of potatoes in a pin-striped suit. Personally, I thought it was cute when Osborne goofed numerous times over the last year- saying for example that Joel McCrea was in Cabaret and not Joel Grey- which is a pretty big entry in the Goof Department even I must admit. But you know why I tolerate it from Os? I like RO and the dude has gobs of credentials and clout, plus he GENUINELY knows his stuff (even if the files have gotten a little mixed up with time, which the Good Lord knows happens to the best of us.) I'll take any goof he makes in stride, because he's earned the right to be the keeper of The Classic Movie Candy Store that is TCM. But not Manksy. No way, no how, not today, not tomorrow, not ever. ps- it is fun to imagine Joel McCrea dolled up in decadent mascara and cupid's bow lips, dueting with Liza on Money! Money! Money! pss- Please come back soon R.O. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Aug 14, 2011 8:25 PM

> {quote:title=scsu1975 wrote:}{quote}I guess it's only a matter of time before we get a "Ben Mankiewicz Blows It Again" thread. It would never lack for posts.

> {quote:title=geraldrobertson wrote: }{quote}But as anyone can clearly see, Ben is aging at an accelerated rate, what with all of his challenging hosting duties, learning to read the scripts laid down for him while sounding very natural and folksy in his new-found "knowledge," Yes, and that knowledge is as infallible as ever. Twice last night he claimed No Highway in the Sky was made in 1952. It was made in 1951. A minor gaffe, I admit, and one I would tolerate from someone who had an iota of charisma and any kind of cred...But not Manksy-Poo.

> {quote:title=johnm_001 wrote:}{quote}Who cares who hosts? I watch TCM for the films, not the hosts. The beauty of watching everyting via Tivo, is you can easily skip the nonsense, or not. I commend you Mr. 001. That is the best, healthiest, sanest viewpoint to have on the whole thing. However...(Whipping out my nine iron to beat the dead horse at every chance I get) Mankiewicz makes money (how much I know not, but by now it's got to be a good chunk of change as he's been on the net for at least 10 years) to record those superfluous, ham-fisted intros and outros wherein he merely regurges the imdb and/or wikipedia trivia entries for the films and brings no one new to the network (really, does anyone watch for Ben?) And whether that MONEY comes from a "talent" budget or not, it is MONEY that could and should go to acquiring some new titles (My GOD, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was on for the 32nd time this year this morning!), restoring classic films, promoting the net in PRACTICAL ways and guaranteeing that what is essentially a niche network will be on the air, commercial free for years to come. Go ahead and lob your kunquat/orange/apples/and pears metaphors at me: but times are tough, the guy isn't qualified and HE SERVES NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO DRAIN REVENUE AND TEST THE MUTE BUTTON ON MY TELEVISION (and the mute buttons of countless others.) Really, if he at least had a screenplay produced or something to give him some cred, I'd leave him alone. He doesn't do anything any one of us couldn't do (and quite possibly better) I mean, I don't care for Baldwin, but at least the guy has CREDENTIALS and quite possibly DOES ENTICE PEOPLE TO WATCH WHO WOULD NOT OTHERWISE WATCH. WHACK! WHACK! WHACK! (beating the dead horse.)

I'm completely confused. I'll start by saying, with Touch of Evil I don't personally think it's the sum of the parts that matter so much as the parts themselves- which are all (IMO) ace filmaking. There's any number of ways you could throw it all together in the end, but the basic story, plot, camera movements and performances (especially those of Welles and Dietrich) are all top-drawer, no matter how you slap it together. I believe the "restored" version is the only version I've ever seen and, honestly, I got no beef with it, Maybe that's 'cause I've seen Evil in no other form. (side note: back when I lived in Hollywood I actually got to go to a studio screening of the film on the Paramount lot; I saw it on a big screen, it was the first time I saw it and it has always remained one of my fondest memories and favorite films.) Now what the hell is all this about Dennis Weaver? IMDB lists him as playing "the Mirador night manager" and as many times as I have seen the film, I have no recollection of this character. Does this mean the geeky guy who manages the motel Janet Leigh stays at and is assualted at, or what am I missing here? I'm drawing a total blank, so someone PLEASE fill me in. (On other discussed matter: the two versions of The Big Sleep : the DVD has two versions of it, one claims to be a 1946 pre-release, I've watched them both and can tell almost NO difference other than one scene with Bacall (the one where he brings Carmen home after finding her drunk at the house on Laurel Canyon) is cut. I dunno, both films are in themselves such puzzles, there's so many ways you could put them together- I still say scene for scene, no matter the order, they're CRACKERJACK; whereas you could take a film like, oh let's just say Come Back Little Sheba edit it all out of order full-Tarantino style and- scene for scene- it would all still suck. (Now I'm gonna get the Shirley Booth fans after me.)

I like Lady from Shanghai too, I just think Evil is such a crackerack film: from the dizzying opening shot to Marlene Dietrich's delicious supporting role, to Mercedes McCambridge's sicko cameo, I think it is the ultimate film noir (maybe shares that distinction with Double Indemnity ) The Trial with Anthony Perkins is also really good, has the same mix of black comedy and thrills that Arkadin does I've always wanted to see Chimes at Midnight/ Falstaff too, never made the time to do so. One of Welles' unsung greatest triumps though is the radio version of Dracula he did with the Mercury group. (It's available on youtube.) It's a shame he never did a filmed version, 'cause he really nails the spirit and the best points of the novel and gives a nice twist to the ending- it's the best version of the oft-oft-oft told tale (although that's not saying too much when you compare it to the Coppola (ugh!) or Browning (zzzz) versions- but really, it rocks.)