ValentineXavier

> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote} > For example, what should one do when they hear shots? This has happened to be only twice in 50 years and both time I hit the ground. *Is the person that goes and runs towards the sound of the shots, instead of taking cover, innocent if they get hit by stray gunfire?* I say NO. They are a fool. OK, make that an innocent fool! > Innocent, certainly, unless they commit immoral and/or illegal acts. But, they *are* assuming responsibility, at least in part, by moving toward the gunfire. But, that would still not absolve the shooter, were they to get shot.

You're thinking of "attach" as an email attachment. In legal-speak, to attach is to take legal authority over, using a writ. It is that that we are forbidden to do with other posters.

Well, in case my reference was obscure, in Burt's best film, *Deliverance*, there is a famous rendition of Dueling Banjos. So, imagine if Burt's "dueling" partner was HAL... BTW, I go to a very nice old time traditional music festival every year, and there are plenty of banjos. I probably know at least three or four banjo jokes.

Maybe if HAL played the banjo, Gary would look more like Burt... :^0

> {quote:title=stevesan wrote:}{quote} >The "preview" states changes were made to the "acclaimed" opening sequence. But it fails to explain who made the changes and why were they made. Why was this true classic revised? After Orson saw what the studio did to his cut of the picture, he sent them a detailed 58 page memo, plead8ing with them to make changes. In 1998, a restoration based on that memo was made. That is the version usually shown now. The main change to the long opening shot was to remove the titles, and replace the music with the ambient sound track that was originally intended. Many Welles scholars consider this to be his best film, and I agree. *Citizen Kane* was a tour-de-force. *Touch of Evil* is a punch in the gut, of raw American filmmaking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch_of_Evil#Differing_versions

Welcome aboard, Michael. Some of us have already invoked the Potter Stewart Principle, as to "What is film noir?" I think the consensus around here is that we don't like to see whole threads deleted, or posts deleted, but would prefer that the thread be locked instead, if it must be. That might also provide a better learning tool, leaving an example of what isn't permitted. So, if you lean that way when you can, I think most would appreciate it. Another thing is the policy to not allow new posts to threads over a year old. This strikes most of us as kind of weird, since most forums are the opposite, preferring that old threads be used, rather than creating new ones on the same topic. Perhaps this has already been changed, as I didn't see any mention of it in the new code of conduct, but I have only skimmed it so far. If there is no technical reason why resurrecting old threads is a problem, perhaps it could be permitted. Thanks!

So, Miss W, what if they make him star of the month, but can't get Canadian rights to most of the films they pick? ] :_|

Well, I agree that Harry wasn't really responsible for Wesley's death, even though Harry thought he was. But, innocent, well-meaning people can get murdered. IMO, in order not to be "innocent," Wesley would have had to do something wrong, morally or legally. Innocent, and responsible are two different things. We could argue whether any innocent person has any responsibility for their own death, as a philosophical point. Do soldiers who volunteer for war have any responsibility for their own deaths in war? An interesting question. In this case, Wesley knew he would face danger, but not the certainty that people would be trying to kill him. So, I don't think Wesley is responsible for his own death, and, I don't think Harry is to blame for it either.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} >Can you explain "Mr. Arkadin" to me? No, but Guy Van Stratten can, if he lives long enough. If this one's too complex for you Fred, watch *The Mask of Dimitrios* a couple of times first, as exercise.

I'll still go with Lambert being closer. Thanks for posting those shots, and great job picking ones where they have almost identical expressions! If only Lambert was younger in the shot, they'd be even closer. That shot of Burt looks a bit like Garry Lockwood.

> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote} >I disageee that his friend was "a total innocent" in that Harry told him to go away and he wouldn't. > > Harry tried to get his fiiend to go away before the gang got to the boat. So to me his friend was responsible for being a busy body and that is what got him killed. Of course he was a busy body because of his concern about Harry. Thus both friends had the best interest other. > Being a loyal friend is not being a busybody. Wesley was totally innocent of any criminal intent.

> {quote:title=musicalnovelty wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote}I'm not the world's biggest *I Love Lucy* fan, so I didn't watch much yesterday. > I guess you know we're in the minority, but I agree...I'm not a Lucy fan either. Just never got the big deal about her. She's okay in a lot of the old movies, but too often annoying on her TV shows, especially with that obnoxious crying thing she'd do. I'm not a big Lucy fan, either. I watched her when I was a kid, and liked her well enough. But, as an adult, I don't care for her TV character. I do think she was very talented, and made some good films. Like Clore, I also like the Lucy/Harpo ep.

I don't have photos to post, but while watching *Julius Caesar*, I noticed that in some shots, Brando looked a lot like Christopher Lambert, nose and eyes, especially.

Most importantly, it worked for the realestate agent.

The write-ups I found on it made it sound very good, ahead of its time.

I think that Flynn was a fine dramatic actor, in a variety of roles. Even in 1958's *Roots of Heaven*, he turned in a decent performance when he had not long to live. Ironically, he was a dissipated man, playing a dissipated man. He did a good job in costume dramas, war films, and suspense films. I do think he should have gotten some more challenging roles, and that he would have done well in them. But, clearly, his best, most memorable roles were his early swashbucklers.

> {quote:title=pturman wrote:}{quote} > No reason why we can't disagree & remain civil at the same time. Definitely. Judgments on production values can be objective, but how a film affects a person is totally subjective, and personal.

I had to see the film twice, to really appreciate it. The first time, I expected to see the Bogart/Bacall film, but with Garfield instead. Of course it is totally different, in most every way, from the first version. The second time, I wasn't looking at it through the lens of the Bogart/Bacall film, and could appreciate it for the rather unusual, dark masterpiece it is.

Funny, yes. Thanks for posting it. And, my theory may still be true...

Well, nutrition, health, and even genes, have made us taller, but obviously they were a bit off. maybe by 3000.

> {quote:title=Capuchin wrote:}{quote} >This next week is certainly going to be busy! SansFin left strict orders for me to record these movies for her -- > Monday -- *Trent's Last Case* and *Mr. Arkadin* Please note that the TCM schedule lists the running time of *Mr. Arkadin* as 106m, but the schedule slot is 105m. So, be sure and bracket the recording well, on both ends. 106m is the running time of the restored version of *Mr. A*, while the running time of the print shown for many years is 99m. I do hope we get to see the restored version of this great film! Also, I would recommend that Welles fans who have never seen it be sure not to miss *The Immortal Story*, a rarely shown film. I'm certainly looking forward to *Trent's Last Case*, since I have never seen it.

So, corporations are just out to make a buck? Who would have believed it? Now, that's news! :0

I agree with you about the great, witty dialog in *The Adventures of Don Juan*. What follows are a couple of my favorite exchanges, which take place with quite some time between them, in the film. Of course, seeing in context, in the film, makes them delicious... >*Duke de Lorca:* Next time I shall cut you deeply. > >*Don Juan:* Next time I shall wear my old clothes. >*Duke de Lorca:* [preparing to fight Don Juan] I warned you, senor! This time I shall cut deeply! > >*Don Juan:* [unintimidated] This time I'm wearing my old clothes! And then there's this, where Don Juan implies (in front of the King and Queen) that the Duke is seeking the throne: >*Duke de Lorca:* Tell me, Don Juan, do you hire men to spread the words of your romantic conquests. > >*Don Juan:* No, Your Excellency, that's a service that's always been done for me free of charge. > >*Duke de Lorca:* You have a ready tongue. It's a pity it's been used in such idle pursuits. > >*Don Juan:* A matter of opinion, Your Grace. Some men prefer the conquest of beauty to the conquest of the throne.

> {quote:title=johnm_001 wrote:}{quote} > > http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y136/Johnm_001/?action=view&current=MarilynElvis-1.jpg OH, well, another perfectly good theory shot - unless that was photoshopped!

I don't recall seeing *Portrait of a Mobster* on TCM, but it's a WB film, so maybe they show it, or could. I'm pretty sure the other film you are talking about is *Hell's Five Hours*. I don't believe I've seen it, but it does sound good. Seems it was made by a small, independent studio, so broadcast rights might be hard to pin down. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051714/ http://www.allrovi.com/movies/movie/hells-five-hours-v94750