ValentineXavier

> {quote:title=JonnyGeetar wrote:}{quote}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 ) I quite agree. *Touch of Evil* is Welles' best work, an excellent noir, and perhaps the best American film. Years ago I had the good fortune to meet both Welles' scholar Jonathan Rosenbaum, and Welles' last cinematographer, Gary Graver. I ventured the opinion (I thought heretical) that *ToE* was Welles' best film. They were like, 'well, duh!' like everyone knows that. To me *Kane* is a tour-de-force, and *ToE* is a kick in the gut. I also like *The Lady from Shanghai*, but to me it is sort of a B picture, with no aspirations beyond entertainment. But, it is excellent entertainment, with many Welles flourishes. Edited by: ValentineXavier on Aug 13, 2011 9:34 PM

> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}I find the rosebud and the childhood reasons why a rich man wasn't a very nice guy somewhat trite and very conventional. i.e. something I would expect from a studio head or uncreative producer as as way of humanizing Kane for general mass consumption. > > Like life the film is long and complex but I don't really need some conventional psyche 101 type of reason to justify why Kane did what he did with. I don't think my (like many others) interpretation of "Rosebud," and the snow-globe justify Kane's behavior, or even humanize him all that much. The point is that for all his wealth and power, he had no happiness whatsoever. His life was as empty as Xanadu was cold and cavernous. He missed the happiness of his childhood. The obvious implication is that what he had done with his life was unsatisfying and misguided, therefore wrong, and supremely unjustified.

> Which Star is the least frequently shown on TCM? Gummo Marx and Cab Calloway.

> {quote:title=TCMWebAdmin wrote:}{quote} >I would guess that would be a polarizing filter. Especially before the age of digital effects, but even now, filters have been a key tool in a cinematographer's bag of tricks. I'm wondering if you can point out some other films where the filters were as important to the look of the film as lighting and film stock. There are actually different kinds of polarizing filters. Radial filters are probably the most common, but there are filters that can be adjusted 360 degrees. Think of them as miniblinds, which you can turn from horizontal to vertical, so you can get just the effect you want.

Well, obviously the "We" in the thread title did not refer to you, or others who don't like 50's films. And, should someone post a "Why we like musicals" thread, it won't include me, since I don't care for musicals, with a few exceptions, like The Marx Bros. Now, whether or not you like the films/filmmakers I mentioned is of course a matter of your personal taste. But, the consensus, outside of this board, is that they are good films/filmmakers. Therefore I cited them to show the value of 50s films.

Sam Fuller's 50's output is enough by itself to like the 50s, but there is so much more. Besides sci fi, there are the JD films, Sidney Lumet films, like *The Fugitive Kind*, Welles' best film - *Touch of Evil*, *Kiss Me Deadly*, one of the best noirs, French New Wave, Kurosawa and Mizoguchi films, Fellini films, Bunuel films... so much great film in the 50s.

'Would've stunk' is a correct spelling, but it does sound like "would of."

> {quote:title=scsu1975 wrote:}{quote} > > I don't topologies for it > Finally, at least something I can talk about. Topology is an interesting subject - I took four courses in it. My favorite area of topology is Algebraic Topology. I once proved that the Fundamental Group of a Product Space is isomorphic to the direct product ot the fundamental groups of each of the factor spaces. The one-to-one and onto part was trivial, but proving that homomorphism was a pain. > > Klein bottles, Moebius strips, open spheres, epsilon balls, stereographic projections - oh yeah, I am really turning myself on now. I'm into toroids, but I don't like coffee, so I never dunk them.

*Dead Ringers*, perhaps? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094964/

Fred, here's Welles' memo, detailing how HE wanted the film recut. Read it, watch the restored version, and judge for yourself if they did as he asked, even if it was a few decades late. I'd love to read your comments. http://wellesnet.com/touch_memo1.htm

You're funny! :^0 :^0 :^0 :^0 :^0 I like some absurdity now and then.

There is the 1960 Corman classic, *The Little Shop of Horrors*, which has a plant that eats people, but I don't recall it being on a beach at any time. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054033/

> {quote:title=pturman wrote:}{quote} > Maybe it's not what Welles would have wanted but does anybody else besides me like the old version with Mancini's score better? I'm sure it probably comes down to which version you saw first--that's the version you'll like best. I definitely saw it with the Mancini score many times, before I saw the restored version. I definitely prefer the restored version. Mancini is fine, but restoring the very innovative for the time ambient sound track focuses the attention where it belongs - on the surroundings and the border crossing, how much is going on all around them.

> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote} > > I have some old photos taken of my area during the 1920's - 40's and were surprised how FEW men actually wore suits or hats in public. During hot summers, most men wore long sleeves with the sleeves rolled up above the elbow, my goodness why someone didn't invent the short sleeve back then is beyond me. My guess is that those of ordinary income, and below, couldn't afford summer-only shirts, and the wealthy wouldn't consider them appropriate. Just a guess. Probably they had short sleeve shirts then, but they weren't popular for adult males, but maybe more common on kids. Kinda like short pants.

Michael, I'm quite impressed by all your efforts on our behalf! Thanks, and keep up the good work.

> {quote:title=MovieMadness wrote:}{quote}I think the Rosebud issue was set up as cover, it really makes little sense even when it is revealed what Rosebud stands for. It is sort of like an abstract painting, it is there to allow people to see what they want. I disagree. Obviously, the film is long and complex, and it says a lot. But, I think "Rosebud," and the snow-globe, crystallize the meaning of the film.

Re: Maltin: On the money or off-target? Money *IS* the target.

> {quote:title=TikiSoo wrote:}{quote} > > BTW, we thought Mr Arkadin was terrible. Trippy weird, disjointed, non capturing story. You missed nothing. Well, YMMV, but I think it is Welles' third best film, right behind *Touch of Evil* and *Citizen Kane*. Perhaps it's because I like trippy and weird. The lighting is incredible. Perhaps *Mr. Arkadin* only ties *The Lady from Shanghai* for third place...

Michael, I think most of us knew that "attach" was a typo for 'attack,' and were just kidding around. Thanks for participating! Yeah, links to old threads is a good idea. I hadn't thought of the problem Kyle mentioned.

Yep, I agree with you and Fred. That is the meaning of the snow globe, the sled, and the film.

Ouch! It has probably been at least 30 years since I saw it. Well, I did know that Ned Beatty didn't play the guitar anyway.... :8} The tune is really titled Dueling Banjos. BTW, I've always thought that the reason the banjo playing kid refused to shake Drew's hand was because Drew took the Lord's name in vain, while telling the kid he was good.

It's not a crime to post these questions here, but the usual and appropriate place is the Information Please forum, just a couple of lines below this forum. So, if you have more to post, that would be a better place.

It was done to try to fulfill Welles' wishes, a few decades late. The link I provided below describes those responsible for the recut. Doubtless, there is more about it on the web. In previous showings, TCM has run a description of the restoration at the beginning of the film. I thought that description was part of the new edition. I didn't see tonight's showing, but perhaps that was cut off the front.

Oops! It's been so long since I saw *Deliverance*, I was thinking it was Burt with the banjo, but of course it was Jon. I plead brain f*rt. Thanks for the subtle correction.

Only if *both* were board members. Either one could post, as long as the other isn't a member. I think it's safe to say Ray isn't a member.