JonnyGeetar

I hope everyone is enjoying the Max Ophuls salute on right now. Having already seen Letter from an Unknown Woman, I knew he was good, but such inn-teresting films with such inn-teresting touches! I had no idea Caught existed. I had no idea The Deep End was a remake. I knew James Mason was good, but damn! And the Howard Hughes stuff! *Thank you, TCM,* THIS is why I love you. : When you trot out these lovely little obscurities pulled from betwixt the cracks of time, something we've never seen before and something which deserves to be seen so much. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Jan 23, 2012 10:46 PM

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}...and I'll bet the Hollywood community believed that Clift thought that his **** smelled like lilacs. They may well have. I don't know what they smelled like, but I imagine they were highly flammable, what kind of gas does a steady diet of pure grain alcohol produce?

Sinatra's Eternity Oscar is due far more to the dramtic comeback element of his story than to anything great he did in the film (see also: Joan Crawford in Mildred Pierce. ) As far as the 1953 Best Actor race goes: I think Holden was seen as a more sound investment to the Hollywood community- whereas Clift was thought of as a volatile, alcoholic, sexually ambiguous, pretentiously method, Hollywood-disdaining theatuh actor who would eventually give up on moviemaking someday- or would end up such a loose cannon that he'd be drummed out of the business. It's funny how sometimes Hollywood just eats up anti-Hollywood performers (Luise Rainer, Woody Allen, Ethel Barrymore, Jose Ferrer) yet when someone of that same ilk is *actually* *good* in a movie, they ignore it.

> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote}JG, you make me long to see The Thirteenth Chair -- I don't know it at all. I love Margaret Wycherly. Though perhaps best known for her role as Ma Jarrett in White Heat, Alas, I checked u-yay ube-tay and The 13th Chair has been removed. Didn't mean to whet yer appetite for naught. The only way I discovered it was an entry for it in The Psychotronic Film Guide which I keep in my bathroom- I immediately went and looked it up online and watched it. It's fascinating for Wycherly's ace performance, its status as an early talkie thriller and the rare presence of Lugosi in a good-guy role, and (as aforementioned) he has loads of dialogue, which shoots down the old rumor about his having to learn his lines for Dracula phonetically. If it ever airs again, check it out.

Yes, it is nice, isn't it? Although I wish they were playing White Zombie- as TCM always shows the nicely restored version- it's still nice to see these on tonight. A not-often-mentioned-or-shown Lugosi title I'd suggest would be The Thirteenth Chair from 1929, directed by Todd Browning and starring Margaret Wycherly (who is excellent as a bogus fortune teller and Lugosi in a straight (and talky) role as a police inspector in India out to solve a drawing-room murder.) It's very inn-teresting and a good print used to be available on u-yay ube-tay (and may still be.) Some of you may be a trifle disappointed by Rue Morgue, although it is entertaining in its own goofy way- John Huston's (possible) contributions as one of the screenwriters are (to me) evident in some of the scenes- like the two medical student roommated who become like an old married couple. The Black Cat is just weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeird. But inn-teresting in it's own weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeird way. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Jan 22, 2012 5:32 PM

Nearly all of the Oscar nominations that I disagree with, I can at least see the reasoning behind, (i.e. Jennifer Jones was nommed for her awful work in Love is a Many Splendored Thing because the film did huge B.O.; Gloria Grahame won for the least interesting performance she ever gave in the worst role she ever had in The Bad and Beautiful because she had a big year) but one (actually two) that I don't get are the consecutive nominations recieved by Jack Palance in 1952 and 1953. Sudden Fear! is such utter junk- albeit delicious and entertaining junk- and while I support Crawford's nomination (if only for the against-all-odds second comeback, she earned it) I just don't get why Palance was nominated for being so...well, he's baaaaad in it. Then there's Shane, which is a better movie, but which he is in for all of five minutes and has next to no dialogue. The second one is an utter headscratcher to me. PS- I like Palance and am fine with the Oscar he finally won for City Slickers , that was one hell of a comeback and he gave the best speech evuh ) Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Jan 20, 2012 9:20 PM

Yeah, what was the point of this movie? It was like watching Ingrid and Joseph's characters from Gaslight getting married and setting up house. Again, Bergman is terrific, but again- she's asked to play a character who is so aggravating (and miles away from the sensibilities of today) that you just want to grab her and shake her. And it's not a good example of Cardiff's work- the colors were blah and I agree with those who've noted that there was a weird blue hue cast over the whole thing that made it look dated and cheap. It has the be the least Hitchcockian Hitchcock film I've ever seen- the lack of visual flair, the blunt edits- the lack of effective music. Big "meh."

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}If you're looking for shorts that don't have the SLIGHTEST bit of humor, look no further than James Fitzpatrick's "Travel Talks". He seems to have less of a sense of humor than a frog. And you know something? I absolutely drop everything when I see the Fitzpatrick Traveltalks segments are on. To me, they are absolutely fascinating. (I will throw in that TCM seems to show the one about postwar London a lot, but even it has a watchable quality each time it's on.) Major slam on frogs, by the way. Why the frog hate?

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}Russell AND Goddard in THE WOMEN? Russell stole the film. Goddard faded into the woodwork. I beg to differ on the matter of Goddard fading into the woodwork, sometimes there's something to be said for subtlety, and I love the way her character is written, "yeah, we gotta be a mother and a pal..." Plus she plays off Norma Shearer's stiltedness* wonderfully. Check it out again if ye get the chance. Paulette was nominated for So Proudly We Hail, which I saw many, many, many years ago (back on AMC maybe?) She's good, but not it's not an "Oscar Role"- although I am glad she was nominated somewhere along the way as she was a terrific actress and a gorgeous girl. *A marvelous sort of stiltedness though.

You know, I don't find the Robert Benchley shorts funny at all (I recall That Uncertain Feeling and one where he plays a houseguest, I've seen more but didn't find them too memorable.) He's funny in The Major and the Minor and I Married a Witch though and seems like he'd've been a fun guy to know. Pete Smith's Wonderful World of Smarm though is something I find insufferable. Aye what? (slide whistle)

Sometimes receiving the nomination is ultimately no blessing whilst being omitted does wonders for ones reputation or the rep of the performance that was snubbed. A minor example comes to mind in the form of Madame Maria Ouspenskaya (sic?) who was nominated twice for two roles that are around six minutes each. in 1939 she was nominated for her terrific turn in Love Affair. Terrific, but better than Rosalind Russell and Paulette Goddard in The Women, Margaret Hamilton ( who is actually in in The Wizard of Oz for all of seven minutes, but what seven minutes!); Alice Brady in Young Mr. Lincoln, or Bette Davis in Juarez*? Eh, not to me. As a result, I' ve been kind of "Was Ouspenskaya all that great or did she just rely on that FACE and that ACCENT and that PRESENCE, along with the clout she had as a well-regarded drama teacher to earn those two nods over performers who were more deserving?" Then I saw her in Conquest last week having it out with Charles Boyer in one two minute scene. It is fabulous - the best part of an otherwise pretty mundane little period film. As such, I am totally Team Ouspenskaya now and quite frankly, she derserved a nomination for those six minutes over what she does (admittedly well) in Dodsworth. *Bette would sooner have DIED than taken a supporting nod, but that's what her role in Juarez is. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Jan 17, 2012 4:30 PM

Gregory, Gregory- my darling, my all...Forgeeve me Gregory. I have lost the cameo that you have geeven me...No no, don't be angry Gregory, you musn't be angry! No, no, don't call that girl in here to ask her about it Gregory: she despises me so. No, no, Gregory: no! Gregory: leesten to me! I do hear footsteps in the attic, I do remember Joseph Cotten coming by earlier tonight, I did see the gas go down but most of all... I SEEM TO RECALL GASLIGHT BEING ON 17 TIMES IN THE PAST EIGHT MONTHS. And here it is, on the schedule for today, January 17th...and was eet not just on earlier theese month? Oh Gregory, Gregory, Gregory!!!!!!! Am I truly insane, or is the gas still on?

These aspect ratio/letterboxing/sprocket hole/Cinemascope/VistaVision/PanandScan/34:26:34 threads are always a mile and a half over my head, so I'll just say the print was supoib, it was nice to see the three Abbott and Costello Meets on the line-up (seemingly for the first time in a rather long time, with the exception of Abbott and Costello Meet The Mummy which aired as part of Professor Shaheen's Festival of Rightous Indignation Over Arab Misrepresentations in Film back in June) Even though Osborne didn't say anything about the film I didn't already know, it was inn-teresting to hear him comment "what a funny film" at the end. I seem to recall him curling up his nose with displeasure when Baldwin mentioned it during the Essentials presentation of Out of the Past. (For the record, it is a hilarious film.) And it was *REALLY NICE* to *NOT SEE* Doctor Zhivago, Since You Went Away, Picnic, Trapeze, Elmer Gantry, Gaslight, The Heiress, From Here to Eternity, or an encore encore of Close Encounters and The Searchers in prime time. Keep it up with the new blood TCM. Thanks. ps- To Sir with Love AGAIN? What is it with that film and you guys on the weekends?

Poor The Color Purple, it seems to have taken quite the fall in terms of reverance in the twenty-five years since its release, and I certainly understand why. Spielberg took what is a dark, brutal, humorless novel with a strong lesbian theme and turned it into a gorgeous, sunflower field of a film replete with some questionable comic relief that harkens back to moments from Our Gang shorts. He changes the ending (although arguably for the better) and the lesbian stuff is truncated to one small rather non sequitor scene- I totally get why he was snubbed for best director at the Oscars that year. Yet, for all those faults: it is not an unwatchable film by any means (quite the opposite, in fact), and is one that (in spite of truncating the lesbian thread) has found fans galore among the gay community. It is also one of his best acted films, with Whoopi Goldberg giving what is unquestionably her best performance (before she became an outright **** for the money), a pre-insufferable Oprah: excellent in a supporting role, Danny Glover: good in a thankless part, and Margaret Avery who is fantastic and who sadly evaporated completely after her role in this film. Flawed but inn-teresting. Oh, and 1985 is nowhere near the worst year for film. I'd rate 1996, 1999 or the years 2003-present waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay lower. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Jan 16, 2012 9:50 AM

if you get the chance, do check out The Sea of Grass (1947.) It's so different from their other pairings, other MGM films, other films of the time, even other westerns (which it kind of is) it's really worth checking out. I don't know if it's on DVD or youtube, but TCM did air it a few months(ish) ago. P'raps they shall do so again.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}Van Helfin? You mean Van Johnson? DAMMIT! I ALWAYS DO THAT. Apologies to the Vans.

State of the Union makes an interesting companion piece to The Sea of Grass (and to some degree Keeper of the Flame ) not just because they're the least known of the many Tracy/Hepburn pairings, but because it's not really romantic comedy. It's about a real couple having real issues with infidelity, and things may not work out for them in the end. (For the record, I really like Sea of Grass which deals with a lot of ahead-of-its time issues and is not at all a frothy romance. It's a little-seen Elia Kazan-helmed film that deserves to be aired out more, even though Kazan himself disparaged it solely because it used projected screens and was not filmed on location.) I agree that the ending to State of the Union is typical "rah-rah, let's put on a show and take it to 'em in the last half" Capra-corn to the Nth degree. It is inn-teresting up to the fumbled ending though, especially since it's a non-detrimental and somewhat affectionate look at the Republican (!) party circa 1948 (following, what? 16 years of Democrats being in charge.) I think dissatisfaction with Truman tempered that somewhat, combined with the natural desire to root for the underdog. I think Van Heflin takes acting honors, but Lansbury was excellent, 'specially in her spaghetti-strap evening gown delivering her Alexis Carrington moment with relish "if you do not vote the way I want, I shall fire you all on the spot and replace you." She seems to really tap in to something when she plays b*tch-goddess, shame it did not happen more. Did I hear something somewhere about Lansbury and Hepburn clashing on set? Something about Hepburn resenting the younger Lansbury? Oh- and I read Colbert backed out over the whole "don't shoot me from the left side" phobia that plagued her over the years, as well as not wanting to work overtime. I think Hepburn does a superb job, maybe Myrna Loy or Irene Dunne would've been as good, but I don't think either would capture the prickliness The Great Kate delivers in spades. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Jan 13, 2012 9:12 AM

Mr. Kreiger responded pretty well to most of yer gripes about Bride, (the factoid about Elizabeth's original fate is especially fascinating and something I had not heard before.) As far as Frankenstein being the superior film of the two, uh no. It is the more problematic, plot hole laden and contrived of the two by far. Gaffes in Frankenstein (1931) 1. Why does the woodsman assume the little girl has been murdered? From the evidence it would seem she drowned. 2. Why does the monster come to the house after escaping? He has no idea where Henry lives or where to find him. 3. Why does Henry lock Elizabeth in her bedroom? 4. The disembodied moan from the monster that clues everyone in to the fact that he is in the house during the wedding is a very weak plot device. 5. The comic relief end where the Baron and the bridesmaids toast to "The House of Frankenstein"" is a bit non sequitor. 6. Why do the villagers totally assume the girl has been murdered along with the woodsman? Again- no evidence. And I am forgetting something about Edward Van Sloan's death that is also a gaffe. Combined with the cheap sets and lack of mood courtesy of the glaringly absent score Frankenstein rates no better than a *B* in my book whilke Bride (or all its various inconsistencies mostly due to some heavy editing) rates a solid *A*. Oh, and *ERNEST THESINGER* is the funniest thing in the movie. (All respect to Kreiger's opinion and Una O'Connor.) Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Jan 12, 2012 8:47 AM Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Jan 12, 2012 8:50 AM

> {quote:title=AndyM108 wrote:}{quote} (Leslie) Howard made only 34 films, and the great majority of them are either played all the time anyway or aren't really all that special. A couple of years ago Grace Kelly was SOTM. She made somewhere between 12-14 films, one of which ( Fourteen Hours ) features her for less than five minutes.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}Agree. Hatfield is the weak link in the film....... And I don't think it's just you and me who think so. If you check out his filmography, he got the big MGM roll-out with Dorian and Dragonseed, but then it seems like he made a pretty quick shift to B-Stuff and supporting parts in stuff like Tarzan and the Slave Girl. and the disastrous 1948 version of Joan of Arc. This is followed by a dry spell of eight years without appearing in any films until he returns in small parts in stuff like King of Kings and didn't really set the world on fire from there on out. I'd hate to think he was actually a dynamo, ace-actor who was told by the director of Dorian Gray to be as lifeless and flat as possible- you know, like a portrait on a canvas- and as such he went down on the books as "nice face, can't act." Oh well. His first love was probably the theatuh anyway.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote} Her nomination for Picture of Dorian Grey is much more deserving. Her performance always leaves me teary eyed. One of those characters that viewers remember long after her exit from the film.......... Absolutely, especially since (forgive me, but it's my opinion) Hurd Hatfield is *so bad* in that movie it's embarassing. The fact that everyone else (not just Lansbury but Sanders and Reed as well) are as good as they are when acting opposite him is a testament to their strengths. Maybe the director told Hatfield to be as bland and plasticene as he could manage, and it's not his fault that it's like watching a blank cassette tape in the role. I know Hatfield and Lansbury became great friends and he appeared a coupla' times on Murder She Wrote, but no matter who was at fault, he is just lousy in a film that in all other respects is aces- so bad the picture goes from an A in my book to a B+ I think had Lansbury had a better actor to work off of (I don't sense chemistry in their scenes, which she excels at in spite of) and had her character not been dismissed within the first third of the movie, she might well have won that time out at the races. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Jan 6, 2012 10:10 AM

Believe it or not, I actually watched Gaslight last night, even the intro and outro with the tiresome retread of how it was Lansbury's first film, first Oscar nod, how she was working at an L.A. area department store wrapping packages at the time, how she was only 17, how she was 18 inches taller than Charles Boyer and had to stand in a ditch for their scenes... (kidding on the last one) My impression of Gaslight for the 15th time is the same as my impression of it the first: Boyer's is really the best performance in the film and- though stylish- the movie is SERIOUSLY HINDERED by an actionless, anemic finale and not enough of a comeuppance for Boyer's character (which the whole film has been building up to.) Compare it to how a couple other Victorian-era pieces from the same time, the excellent The Lodger and Hangover Square , end- quite literally with a BANG! As for Lansbury, she's fine- but her role is not a character, it's a question mark. She does the most possible with an ambiguous, potentially thankless role (didn't she always?), but it's not Oscar-caliber- even though she does hold her own with Boyer and Bergman and makes the most of her first go at the races. I think the nomination was its own reward. I have to admit to being a bit perplexed by the oft-aired bumper wherein Lansbury herself talks of how she was glad she didn't win the award as it would have meant "being put on a shelf." Honey, I love you but: A. No one was going to beat Ethel Barrymore, dreadful as None but the Lonely Heart is- she had the kind of name cachet (and disdain for Hollywood) that Hollywood just eats up with a spoon. B. Um, you kind of did end up on a shelf for quite some time. I mean, you made the most out of your eight minutes apiece in State of the Union, National Velvet, Samson and Delilah etc. but it was eight minutes and pretty much the same character each time. C. (again) the nomination was the reward. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Jan 5, 2012 3:43 PM

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}Yes, she seems to get no respect. She isnt as well known as she should be, sad to say...........RO seems to like her, but TCM doesnt give her the push they do for other stars.......... I presume you're talking about Teresa Wright, right? In which case I agree (sometimes during Oscar month they do show her talking about her experience the year she was double-nominated, but other than that, there isn't much love for Teresa down TCM way.) There may be rights issues with some of her stuff like The Men and The Little Foxes -the latter title being one that I don't know that I've ever seen on TCM- although it can be seen for free on u-yay ube-tay. Casanova Brown and Pride of the Yankees as well as Shadow of a Doubt, Miniver, and BYOOL do get pretty regular airings though. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Jan 5, 2012 10:55 AM

> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote}Hilarious! Just note that I did not write the word 'soon' in my earlier post. Though you are probably right...the 1000th broadcast of GASLIGHT '44 will air soon enough. Yes, I admit I modified for comedic effect. For the record, I tried to non-italicize the "soon" but no dice. A year ago they showed The Murder in Thornton Square aka Gaslight the 1940 (?) version with Anton Walbrook that MGM tried to destroy when they did their version. It's not as good, but it was still a refreshing change of pace.

> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote: (soon) }{quote}GASLIGHT will have reached its thousandth airing on TCM. Tsk, tsk Paul-uh. You are ee-magining theengs again. Zee footsteps in zee attic, zee gas going down, Gaslight being on ev-er-y month for zee last five years. Really Paul-uh, you know eet only shows on occasion. You really are starting to go mad, I think. Edited by: Sergis Bauer on Jan 2, 2012 10:05 AM