JonnyGeetar

> {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

Wait, I'm confused. Is that looong and interesting list of titles films being shown during 31 Days or films left out (thus far) from the sched?

> {quote:title=Rickey wrote: }{quote}Sounds like the making o another ho-hum 31 days...... Big "ditto" for me. A veritable line-up of Usual Suspects. I can only hope they're working on wrangling the rights to something new. ps- not meaning to derail the thread, but as per someone else's comment's, Titanic is not a classic. I have no issues referring to recent(ish) films as "classic" but Titanic is not one that deserves that mantle. pss- oh, in my humble opinion.

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote}One year Welch and Dean Martin were jointly presenting an award. Raquel was in a va-va-voom pantssuit and Dino says "I'll bet only two of you are looking at me right now. And then she offered the envelope to him and he said "you look, Baby, my eyes are busy." Am I right?

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote} > Sure, seeing Raquel Welch in some revealing outfit (on the Oscars telecast) was enjoyable, but back then there was a mix of old and new. Y'know, I've never though much about Raquel Welch one way or another (I was born in '78) but sometime this Spring I went to youtube and watched a lot of classic scenes from classic Oscar Shows. The year that Liza Minelli won Best Actress for Cabaret, the award was presented by (oddly) Raquel Welch and some male star- exactly who I have forgotten (they used to, I think throw a bunch of names in a hat to determine the presenters, because I think Roger Moore helped present Best Actor that year, again I know not why.) Anyhoo, the Best Actress award was given almost immediately after the Best Actor award, which was won that year by Marlon Brando, who we all know sent Miss American Vampire Sacheen Littlefeather to reject the statuette- ostensibly in defense of the unfair portrayals of Native Americans in films- in one of the more idiotic moments in Hollywood history. As her companion starts to open the envelope, Raquel doesn't miss a beat and cracks "hope they haven't got a cause." Terribly innapropriate but absolutely true and rather hilarious (you can see the nominees reaction as she says this and you can tell they're all thinking: b*tch don't step on my moment.")

> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote} > > A couple of recent example are the complete blow up about the theme day of William Hopper films. Really now, it was hardly ""a complete blow-up." The tone throughout was throroughly civil, and even the OP (I believe) mentioned that the line-up had a lot of good rare titles. It ended with a long discussion on Perry Mason - past and presents- and died a peaceful death. There was another thread earlier this week mentioning that From Here to Eternity sure does get played a lot. Everyone was quite nice and we got into some long, detailed discussions of that movie, as well as the films of Fred Zinneman that I rather enjoyed. I also don't remember a "pages long diatribe" against Peter Lawford day- I recall some people were puzzled by his inclusion, it was discussed we moved on. Of course, I may remember it differently from you.

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote}Strangely enough, I never enjoyed a single book that school required me to read. But I didn't go to university - I spent those years doing 9-5 office clerking, toking at home and reading books that the school system considered inappropriate for children and the Catholic Registrar declared to be sin. A wastrel, I was. And a wastrel I truly hope you stay. Sounds to me like you got a real education.

Back to the original point I had wanted to make before I got derailed in defense of East of Eden - although, honestly it kind of ties in to that. I mentioned East of Eden was the first long novel I was able to read after a prolonged period of depression- which honestly was brought on by four utterly wasted years in college. As an English major, my love of reading was sytematically destroyed by the fact that I discussed the same 5 plays and the same 5 books in about 12 different classes. In fact, I discussed The Tempest and Beloved in seven different classes- I even recycled my term paper comparing The Tempest to Forbidden Planet for four (as permitted by the honor code of my school, believe it or not.) Anyhoo, my love of reading was destroyed by the fact that every teacher felt the need to select from the "pantheon" of acceptable classic titles- had one instructor ONCE thought to think outside the box and select, let's say Mother Night by Vonnegut or The Heidi Chronicles by Wendy Wasserstein or The Woodlanders by Thomas Hardy as opposed to The Return of the Native (which I discussed in four different classes) it would have been a godsend. So I re-re-re-re-re-reiterate, it would be wonderful if they thought to look beyond the framework of "flawless", well-regarded, well known, long-accepted, "100-Best List Fodder", everyone-and-their-mother-has-seen-them-twice movies for The Essentials- ie All About Eve, Some Like it Hot, From Here to Et...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Sorry, I fell asleep there. One of the reasons I am so grateful for TCM are the various times I have stumbled over movies I had not heard of, or were kind of "between the cracks"- not often mentioned or listed or discussed: The Human Comedy, Cluny Brown, Stars in their Crowns, Trio. I really wish there was more of an effort to include films that are less-known and not so much from "The Pantheon of Ye Great and Accepted titles," which will appeal to both us film geeks and neophytes and I wish they didn't have to be (considered) "perfect", there are so many films that are flawed or faulty, but are interesting time capsules or indicative of the Zeitgest of the times or just eye-opening in that you say "wow, I didn't know they did that back then!". I mean, you could show The Apartment AGAIN to someone who is new to classic movies, and they might like it, or you could show them The Loved One or Flamingo Road or All that Heaven Allows or Beyond the Forest or Desert Fury or The Fugitive Kind or Return of the Vampire or Tomorrow the World! or White Zombie or No Man of Her Own or The Night Digger and who knows? It might really start something.

> {quote:title=pturman wrote:}{quote} How evil is Jo Van Fleet's character in the book? As a young teenage girl she locks her parents in their house (in the middle of the night while they're asleep) & then murders them by setting fire to the house. Now THERE'S a rebel without a cause. Oh, it wasn't without a cause. It was her 15th birthday. All she wanted in the whole wide world was a BALLERINA BARBIE. What they got her was A MALIBU BARBIE! It wasn't what she wanted: she was a BALLERINA BARBIE: GRACEFUL! DELICATE! They had to go. (Addams Family Values reference. That movie's a hoot.)

Yes, Dean was 24- but his character is 16-17(ish.) Or at least we're 'sposed to imagine he is. I realize Dean looks a little long in the tooth for 16-17, which is kindasorta a problem with the movie, but I'd take a slightly too ripe James Dean over most anyone else- although I'm sure there was some unknown 17 year-old somewhere in 1955 who would've rocked the part, but that's the susiness. The whole book parallels the struggle of the paternal twin brothers to gain their father's love to the Biblical story of Cain and Abel. Two brothers- one who is embraced by their father, and one who is not- and the resulting jealousy that leads Cain/Cal to slay his brother Abel/Aron (int he book Aaron is killed in action in WWI, in the movie his fate is very oddly ambiguous- another acdmitted fault in the movie) Like I said, the movie is fine- but the book is better. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Nov 6, 2011 6:54 PM

On East of Eden: I personally like it (book and movie) very, very much...Although I totally get how some people might not like it, both because they have and haven't read the book. The book and the movie are totally different experiences, with the book being a three-part epic wherein we see how history, cruelty and mistakes can repeat themselves over and over throughout time with serious repercussions (exact same deal with Wuthering Heights- that book's second half is omitted in the 1939 version and the whole moral of the story is lost- to me, at least.) In the book, we have much more of a sense of where Kate (the Madame and mother of the two boys) is coming from, whereas in the movie it's broken down into one line: "He tried to HOLD me!" In the book she is eeeeeevil. I also feel like a lot of the Bibilical references- so key in the book- are omitted from the film when they should have been included. (Personal note: I started reading East of Eden back when I was living in California, I was dealing with some serious depression issues and it was the first long book that I was able to finish in years and I had been a voracious reader growing up. I think it's about 700 pages and I tore through it in five days- although I do admit, when I got to the last line, I was like "GREAT book, but what the f*** is "timshel?" " Julie Harris is terrific, but I get how people could find her performance odd or stilted, kind of unnatural- but to me, it works.Dick Davalos is good, but again, his character is very odd- underwritten and some of his dialogue "do you love him? I do" is weird. Ray Massey- the stiffest of stiffs- is perfect as the father, but again I see how someone could find him to be too stiff, or too unnatural, Burl Ives is wasted in a too-small throwaway role, and Jo Van Fleet is good- but I feel like her Oscar was more for her work in I'll Cry Tomorrow, made the same year,than this.) Finally, Dean is great in a singular, one-of-a-kind performance that I think is easily one of the best of the 1950's- but again, I could totally see how some people might find it off-note or hammy. It's a good movie in it's own right, three-and-a-half stars out of four (for me) but it could have been more epic and better- included more of the book and it wouldn't have hurt especially as some of the included scenes (the lettuce, the icehouse) don't add a whole lot. It also helps if you have spent any time in Salinas, or inland California, which has an "other-worldly" kind of quality to it. For a long time, the movie was not on DVD and I actually ordered a $50 VHS copy off Amazon so I could see it, so it's nice it shows up on TCM in all its Cinemscopic glory, although I think the Intro Music is completely unecessary (but so many movies of the 1950's had that, I guess they felt it was necessary.) Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Nov 6, 2011 11:09 AM

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote} > > And I believe that comments made here must weigh in also... there seem to be too many coincidences of things mentioned here and realities on the schedule happening. > Such as? (Really, I'm curious.) They're showing The Manchurian Candidate again today. Did it not recently show in almost the exact same time on the exact same day? It's not out of hate or spite that I point these things out TCM, really- honestly- it's love. And it's a terrific film, I just have to point out that the net doesn't do any favors showing it so much (the Angela Lansbury Love Affair continues.) And to weigh in on the ratings thing: I don't think ratings are a factor to TCM (or any niche cable network.) I think they do what they do out of love and I think their job has gotten increasingly hard in recent years. I personally feel there's more of a "paint by numbers" approach to filling the time slots than there is a "wow, this'll really put butts in the seats" mentality. ie: "Look, we've got Gaslight, we've paid for Gaslight, and we're going to use it to feel any spare two hours we can whenever we damn well feel the need." At least I'd like to think that's the case.

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote} > Keep in mind that the original James Jones manuscript was edited before publication. Apparently a lot of expletives WERE deleted and there were passages concerning gay sex going on.This original version was released earlier this year as an e-book. WHOA! I may have to finally break down and get a Kindle or Nook or whatever the hell they're called.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}Why do you think it was/is so popular? It seems boring to me. Well, here's my take: 60 years ago people actually read books (part of that is due no doubt to the fact that movies and TV couldn't be dirty, but books could be as raunchy as they liked.) Presumably quite a few people- a few hundred thousand even- had read the book when the film came out. I was at my local library a couple of weeks ago and I picked a copy of FHTE off the shelf- for curiosity's sake, opened it to a random page and read a random paragraph. Holy Moses! What I read made me blush- and I'm a sick, perverted, lonely, lonely man who does not shy away from creative uses of profanity. So, I think there was a desire from the public to see how on earth they could make a film out of something so raunchy (and believe me, the book is raunchy! ) I'm sure many were sorely disappointed with the outcome, but by then they couldn't get their nickel back.

> {quote:title=scsu1975 wrote:}{quote}And Sinatra is average, at best, in his role (he is much, much better in The Manchurian Candidate ), so his award was a joke in my eyes. Somehow, I think there is a horse's head involved in this. Again, total agreement. I think Sinatra's Oscar was one of those great "comeback" moments in Hollywood history- along the lines of Crawford's Mildred Pierce victory and Cooper's second win for High Noon. With all three, the drama of the "comeback" far outweighs anything they did in any of the films for which they won, and each gave other performances that make their Oscar-winning turns pale in comparison. And I have to say that as much as I like Donna Reed (more than once I've stumbled over a movie she did that I had no idea she was in, and she's always good) I don't think she merited an Oscar for FHTE either. Her work in that film pales in comparison to Thelma Ritter's terrific turn in Pick-up On South Street (so often Ritter was nominated for making the most out of a s***ty role, in this one she has a great role) and even (don't laugh) Marjorie Rambeau- who really made the most out of a very s***ty role in Torch Song. This was, I believe, the beginning of the Academy's love affair with actresses playing hookers. I think the fact that the Bowdlerized movie managed to be made at all in 1953- given the racy content of the book and adult subject matter, combined with the fact that it came from underdog Columbia (where Harry Cohn was known to be the sort of character James Jones could only dream of) is what pushed it ahead of the pack in 1953. That and the boffo box office.

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}A question---If the agreement between Marilyn and her boy friend was that after he killed Cotten, he would signal her by having her favorite song played on the bells, how did Cotten know to have the same thing done, to fool her, after he killed the boy friend? You ask me like I+ know? That little plothole I could forgive, it's when Cotten just happens to hijack the exact same boat that Jean Peters is on out of all the boats in Niagara Falls that he could hijack+ in the last act that I call "foul." Wouldn't it have been funny if the song they played on the Bells had been Escape (The Pina Colada Song) ?

You should try M.K. Jeeves on for size.

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}I'm not a huge fan of Marilyn, but in THIS film Marilyn is really all it needs. I am a huge fan of Marilyn, and if this film hadn't been so damn stupid- it really could have been something special. Quite frankly Unbelievable Coincidence: The Motion Picture would've been a better title. I mean, were there, what? 12 people vacationing at the falls when this thing takes place?

I could not agree more with every single thing you said. (Except I've never read the novel.) And Ray made some very eye-opening points about the lighting. Good to know I'm not alone in having issues with FHTE. PS- The attack on Pearl Harbor scene really lacks action...of course, the flip side of the coin would be Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor, which had plenty of action but no soul. Or brains. Or decency. Or class. Or subtlety. You know: like everything else he does.

and to throw one more point in: as aforementioned, A Man for All Seasons is an excellent film, easily one of the best of the 1960's. For me, it's a far better exploration of the same theme in High Noon: one man stands alone on principle- with ace mechanics and acting (compare the realness of Wendy Hiller's superb turn to that of Grace Kelly in Noon. I always expect Grace to tell Gary: "But, Darling! You simply cannot have a shoot-out, it would be just too, too gauche ")

> {quote:title=clore wrote}{quote} > > > > I'm also high on HIGH NOON, a film that I've seen annually since the time it aired as a special on the day that Gary Cooper died in May 1961.To say that it owes everything to the political undercurrent is almost ridiculous. I think it owes much of its pristine reputation to the socio-historical context in which it is always looked at. Personally (and Lord knows no one ever agrees with me, and what do I know anyway?) I find High Noon to be stilted, kind of flat, and utterly false- the sets look false, the town looks false, the actors look like actors, Grace Kelly is the most immaculately coiffured Quaker woman to ever live in the 1800's- and I am not a fan of her performance (although I get that many people are; this is just me talking here.) The same cannot be said for Katy Jurado- who I just find to be absolutely awful to the point of high camp, I don't think Lloyd Bridges is right in his role, and I love Gary Cooper, but it's just not his best performance (again- to me ). Plus the thing at the end with Kelly's Quaker wife saving his life by shooting the bad guy strikes me as- well, I just don't buy it (and I'm not the only one, was it John Ford who saw that and disliked it so much it inspired him to make one of his darker westerns?) Plus I feel like Do Not Foresake Me (Oh My Darling) - great song that it is in spite of the line "gonna be my life or his'n"- gets drummed into our heads by being played overandoverandover on the soundtrack to where they may as well put the words on the bottom of the screen with a bouncing ball and end each time they play it with: "GET IT?" There's just a very tv quality to the film, it's not (for lack of a better word) very cinematic and the story doesn't compel me. Shane I buy completely, The Searchers and Liberty Valance I buy completely, Red River I buy completely: High Noon I just don't buy that it's real for one second. Now, I hope you're not frothing at the mouth reading this, and I remind you this is just me talking here, but I have watched High Noon numerous times and each time, I walk away underwhelmed. Personally. Just me. Lord knows many people love it and Lord knows no one on this site ever agrees with me about anything ever. Peace. JG PS- High Noon is about 1,000 times better than that piece of s*** The Greatest Show on Earth. PSS- All apologies to you fans of The Greatest Show on Earth in advance.

Frankly, I'm stunned there's no Elmer Gantry- someone in the programming department loves that one. I alsoalso have to point out that Sweet Smell of Success has seen its share of airtime, as has The Killers, but I like The Killers, and it's one of those films you can watch over and over. And tonight, ye olde warhorse Some Like it Hot. gets dragged out again. And may I say that they don't do these movies any favors by showing them overandoverandoverandover? There are some titles that I once liked very much, now I have come to hate them due to their constant airplay and inclusion in tributes and festivals. ( Gaslight comes to mind.) And yeah, I know I could turn the channel, but really, what else is there? Kardashiantics? Little House on the Prairie re-runs? Network television?! ( shudder! ) Maybe the money in the budget is running low as the year draws to its close. I can just see their theme for December 30th, 2011: "F*** It: 24 Hours of The Yearling."

DEAR GOD! I didn't know this was on today until I read another thread in the Hot Topics forum that said (something along the lines of:), "yeah, people never stop complaining about TCM. I'm sure someone'll post a thread complaining that Trapeze, From Here to Eternity and Seven Days in May are playing again today." Stunned, I checked the schedule, and yes: DEAR GOD ABOVE US ALL: THEY ARE F***ING SHOWING FROM HERE TO ETERNITY, TRAPEZE AND SEVEN DAYS IN MAY AGAIN !!!! Is it Lancaster's birthday? Because I specifically remember they had a BURT LANCASTER TRIBUTE DAY in SEPTEMBER, a few days after HE HAD HIS OWN DAY ON SUMMER UNDER THE STARS. And I think Eternity was on both days- and possibly on Monty Clift's day as well, it has also been on several SATURDAY AFTERNOONS. Yes, I have mentioned before that FHTE is one of the most heavily rotated titles on TCM- Good God alive, please give this movie a break! full disclosure: I don't particularly like FHTE, I don't get why it's considered such hot snot when it's not very cinematic, it looks like a TV movie, and I don't get why Clift doesn't stop in the end when the guards tell him to- quite frankly, I understand their shooting him (and I'm pretty anti-authority). Oh, and Debra Kerr is all wrong for her part and I'm not sure what Reed and Sinatra did that was really Oscar worthy. And believe me, I've had plenty of oppurtunities to re-re-re-re-re-re-re watch it and arrive at this opinion. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Nov 2, 2011 1:10 PM

> {quote:title=Terrence1 wrote:}{quote} She originally was supposed to play Agnes Gooch in "Mame". The rumor is that she was so good, that Lucille Ball had her replaced. (I don't know if that's true or not) Well, that's one bad-movie bullet she dodged!