ValentineXavier

I don't know if it is available on DVD. It used to show up on TV pretty often, but I haven't seen it in a couple of years. I'm a Danny Kaye fan, and it's one of my favorites. One of my favorite sceens is when Danny, as the 'scholarly' brother, is taking notes, with both hands, writing in two different notebooks.

Well, if we're voting, I love *Lawrence*, but find *GWTW* laughable.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote} > No arguements with me. Chaplin had good taste......... I've always said that if ever you need proof that Chaplin had good taste, just look at Paulette Goddard.

> {quote:title=ziggyelman wrote:}{quote} > If this hack didn't have that last name, he'd be unknown....How anyone can find Ben even remotely funny, or good looking...oh well...no offense...I'm sure some folks find Quasimoto quite masculine. que sera sera Quite the contrary. If he didn't have the last name he has, I'm sure he wouldn't be getting the derision he gets from a few people here.

> {quote:title=J.W.Harbert wrote:}{quote} >To Dargo and Valentine: If I was a man (which I am not, although I live in a male dominated household) I would follow Clark Gable. Most men I know do not brood so much. He faces his doubts, makes his decisions, and sticks with them. God bless testosterone!!! >Dargo wrote: >(...I think it's VX who is still kinda feelin' that there might be a group o' guys who'd follow some brooding, introspective dude to the four corners of the world...I sure wouldn't...well, unless he was a good cook or somethin' maybe!...nah...not even then!) No question, if I were one of the mutineers, I would have preferred Gable's Fletcher as a leader to Brando's. Gable was much more decisive. And, as I have said here repeatedly, but apparently not made myself clear, I realize that most people prefer the Gable style hero to the Brando style hero, and so that is the way heroes are usually portrayed. But, as a performance, I find Brando's Fletcher much more interesting. And, as DarkBlue points out, An officer in Fletcher's position would be more likely to suffer the self-recriminations of Brando's Fletcher, than the 'don't look back' Gable performance.

And even more likely to pull them.

I envy the few people with TVs that can be adjusted to underscan by the user. I do have a DVI input setting that does not overscan, but leaves a thin black margin, on all four sides.

I always check the TCM listing to see if a film is letterboxed, and check the IMDb for its aspect ratio. I often record both TCMHD and SD, then check to see if the film was really letterboxed, and presented properly on TCMHD. If it was, I save that recording. If it wasn't, I delete the HD recording, and save the SD one. This can be a PITA, but it often proves itself useful. I wish I had done it for this film.

I didn't say Gable was bad, he was good, but he was much less conflicted than Brando, who tore himself up inside, over his decision, and its effect on the crew. Was Gable "more convincing as a leader of men?" Well, maybe, but that's what I meant when I said that many prefer a more determined Fletcher, rather than Brando's agonizing Fletcher.

I know that a lot of people don't like Brando's Fletcher Christian. He "broods," as you say, he's conflicted, as I say. I like that, but many prefer a more determined macho sort of a portrayal. But, I don't see Bligh brooding at all. He is VERY sure of himself, very determined in his infamy.

I have seen that happen a time, or two. I'm assuming that the subtitles were below the frame, not in the film frame. I almost wonder if they don't have some kind of sensor, that zooms it, and doesn't detect the subs. What aspect ratio was the film? Probably 1.85:1, I'd guess. That problem doesn't usually happen with 2.35:1 films.

I don't think you understand - I wanted Brando to play Fletcher Christian to Laughton's Bligh. I liked Brando's very conflicted Fletcher Christian. I'm sure Brando could do a decent Bligh, but I was not suggesting that.

Well, I had a different problem. My Comcast Motorola DCX 3400 DVR fell victim to the notorious "black screen effect," so the whole recording was just a black screen, no sound. I was looking forward to this film, very much. It is not available on DVD. If we're lucky, they'll replay it, in a few months. I don't think it shows up as being on the schedule right now, so it would come after October. I had a similar problem with their first showing of Kurosawa's *Dersu Uzala*, with the subtitles being mostly cut off. The second time they showed it, the problem was fixed. Also, do you know what overscan is? Virtually all TVs, unless they have been professionally adjusted, have 3-5% overscan, but sometimes as high as 6-7%. This means that that much of the picture is cut off an edge. Usually, there will be different amounts of overscan, on the different edges. You can check this with a test disc. If you have too much overscan, and the subtitles are at the very bottom of the frame, you will not see all of them.

I liked Brando's Fletcher Christian just fine. But, I wish he could have played against Laughton's Bligh!

Maybe his driver's license has expired?

I had never seen *Don Juan de Marco*, until last year. It didn't sound like something I'd like, but with Johnny Depp, and Marlon, well, I had to see it. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. Not a great film, but those two made it believable, and they really rose above the material.

*Portrait of a Mobster*, 1961. I'm pretty sure I saw it, years ago, but can't really remember it.

I read the whole article. She also worked with Frederic March. My comment was meant half in jest, but IMO, Brando is easily the best of the lot she worked with, including McQueen, whom I like. And, who is to say which actor Mary would find most inspiring? Brando is as likely as any, more likely than most.

After reading that bio, I guess she just never found another costar as inspiring as Marlon. Certainly not Dale Robertson.

*You're a Big Boy Now* was made in 1967 *Midnight Cowboy* was made in 1969 so, they are just before the 70s, but very NYC, and gritty.

*Cotton Comes to Harlem*

I saw it on commercial-free cable a couple of years ago, but don't remember which channel. I'd rather have seen it, and *The Appaloosa* than about half the films they are showing. I already have most of them on DVD, including *Reflections in a Golden Eye*. Addendum: *One-Eyed Jacks* has my favorite Ben Johnson role, too. Edited by: ValentineXavier on Aug 1, 2011 8:43 PM

> {quote:title=Filmgoddess wrote:}{quote}Rather than an attempt, a lame one, at pithiness why not an actual response? > > Name me all those different film genres (other than drama) that Brando was so superb at. Comedy? Film noir? Musicals? Westerns? Screwball comedy? Melodrama? Anything other than an occasional fine dramatic performance and years of over-the-top, over dramatizing scenery chewing? > > Cathy in Timbuktu Well, frankly, I didn't know where to begin, you so completely panned him. First, I don't accept your premise that he has to play well in various genres to be versatile, and have range. Brando did mainly drama, but played a wide range of characters, and did so very well, IMO. His emotional and character range was rather wide. Stanley Kowalski and Marc Antony are about as far apart as two characters can get. I think his performances in both were very powerful. I didn't find him to "chew the scenery" in *Julius Caesar* any more than is the norm for Shakespeare, in fact, somewhat less. He did do several excellent westerns, directing one, *One-Eyed Jacks*. I have no doubt he would have been excellent in film noir. A few of his films at the very least leaned that way. Personally, I think my favorite film of his, *The Fugitive Kind* is a noir. *The Teahouse of the August Moon* was about as close to screwball comedy as was being made, while Brando was acting. I'll admit I'm not a fan of that film, but it's not his fault that I am not. It shows me enough to believe that he could have done a good comedy, if he had been in one. If you want to tell me he never should have taken the part of a Japanese, I'll agree, but point out that that sort of thing was the norm, then. In summary, even in the films of his I don't like, I usually find his performances fascinating. Most of his performances I find powerful, and affecting. Certainly not " years of over-the-top, over dramatizing scenery chewing."

Do you enjoy pre-three color films, where different scenes were tinted to different monochrome colors, to depict different moods? I certainly wouldn't want ALL, or even many, films to be made to have such a narrow color spectrum. But some films use this, or similar effects, and I'm fine with it. *Twin Peaks* TV show was sort of orange. I liked it. *Sin City* was mostly high contrast B&W, but with some bright color elements. I liked that. I love Kodachrome. There is no one way to make color work for a film.

Possibly *The Teahouse of the August Moon* http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049830/