Sprocket_Man

They look and act like modern day. I think you miss the point. What does "act(ing) like modern day" mean, exactly? I have news for you: people in the 1930's actually acted and sounded the way people do today. What they didn't act and sound like is characters in movies made in the 1930's, which were always unrealistic (albeit often immensely entertaining) depictions of life in that era. You want the characters in a 1960's movie, then, to sound and behave as they would have in the same film if it had been made in the '30's. Such an attempt would have been laughed off the screen by audiences forty years ago, as well it should have been. Screen acting has always been in a process of evolution; the differences between what was common in the earliest days of sound film and, say, 1935 is profound; it evolved further between the mid-'30's and mid-late-1940s, all through the fifties until the 1960's when, in my opinion, it reached a particularly sweet spot where there was a fine balance between theatrical necessity and naturalism, before it finally began a decent into the Method-acting-+fueled extreme naturalism of today that results in bland, boring performances by actors trying to be too "realistic." It's particularly instructive, I think, to follow the career of Frederic March from his performances in, say, A STAR IS BORN (1937), THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES (1946), to SEVEN DAYS IN MAY+ (1964). As the years went by, March became more subtle; he went from the typically broad sort of performance of the 1930's to brilliant character actor of the 1960's. Not every kind of evolution gets you put on trial in Tennessee.

{font:arial, helvetica, sans-serif}What would of stunk more is for Hallie to marry a man she didn't love. It's "would have stunk..." You're never gonna learn, are you, James? {font}

I'm wondering if any other actor/actress ever received this kind of preferential treatment? Know of anyone else? Jean Arthur; she was adamant that the right side of her face never be photographed. Those rare instances when some part of that side were captured on film confirm that her concern as to her appearance was genuine.

Do like it (don't agree with all of it, but that's a different matter). Give my best to Ric.

Walter MURCH.

> "Franklin smoked the ground, and out sprang George Washington, fully grown and on his horse. SMOTE, not "smoked."

That's "...could HAVE killed Kathy," not "could of," James (you really do have trouble with these sentences, don't you?)

> THE FLAME AND THE ARROW...is practically a remake of ROBIN HOOD but it's very well made and it has Robert Douglas as the villain - probably the best other than Basil Rathbone. The smooth British-English-inflected villain became a staple of the Hollywood film industry almost as soon as sound came in. One can chart the most popular actors for these parts through the decades, as the mantle passed from hand to hand: Basil Rathbone = George Sanders = Robert Douglas = David Warner = Alan Rickman = Gary Oldman

LIGHTS OF NEW YORK's only real importance is that it was the first truly all-talking feature film.

> 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. My TV actually underscans slightly, to the point that the between-frame interval flickers in a narrow band at the top of TCM's frame. It's a bit annoying, but at least I know that I'm viewing 100% of the signal that TCM's telecasting.

> In the case of longer films like Land of the Pharoahs, the acts are a bit longer. Joan Collins is the change into Act 2. "Longer" films?. LAND OF THE PHARAOHS (pharaoh, not "pharoah") is exactly two minutes longer than THE WIZARD OF OZ. The problem is that the film begins with a triumphal procession that lasts about five minutes, and is arguably the most spectacular scene in the film; not only does it delay the introduction of the characters, their ambitions and problems, to the point that you're desperate to hear somebody -- anybody -- say something, anything, but it leaves little to look forward to in the spectable department (though thousands of extras building a pyramid is, of course, pretty impressive). Another little problem is that the film doesn't make a great deal of sense: why does it occur to Hamar that Vashta's design will turn the pyramid into one big. solid piece of stone so that there'll no labyrinth to negotiate and betray? And how does the "cobra always come...to the sound of the flute," since snakes have no ears?

The zooms in question are NOT "zoom shots" as we understand the term today, done on-set with the camera during principal photography. Prior to the 1950s, such shots could be achieved only by taking the processed film from principal phtography, blowing it up into stills and RE-PHOTOGRAPHING the stills one at at a time on an animation stand, with the animation camera moving in tighter (or away) frame by frame. The kind of variable-focus lens used widely from the 1960's-on was originally called the "Zoomar lens," and was co-developed by Frank Capra's favorite cinematographer, Joseph Walker, A.S.C. It took a long time to perfect, and even longer to be accepted by mainstream filmmakers. Unfortunately, indiscriminate zooming has ruined many a film.

I'm lucky; I already own a couple of the things I'd most want.

> You know you're in trouble when TCM is infected by PC. Prof. Shaheen is "shocked, shocked"--a la Capt. Reynaud--that negative images of Arab culture are depicted in a 70-year-old Road picture? Is he willing to discuss the beheadings, stonings, dismemberments, and **** mutilations of little girls that STILL goes on in the same culture? He frets over the "impact" of such images? What about the "impact" of commercial jet planes into American buildings ten years ago? > The arrogance and selective blindness of the Multi-culti crowd is beyond belief. The only context that needs to be provided is that the film is, indeed, 70 years old, and that the standard for that era was to wring as much amusement as possible from the foibles and proclivities -- real and imagined -- from groups that incuded Blacks Jews the blind cripples drunks Italians Hispanics Arabs (have I left out anyone?) The question that needs answering is how the society to whch you belong can be advanced, generous, compassionate without your possessing the same traits, something that seems in lamentably short supply in the above knee-jerk condemnation and demonization of all things Arab and Islamic. Are there barbaric practices practiced in Islamic/Arab culture? Yes, but things like forcing women to have children they don't want is pretty damn barbaric, too. PS: It's Captain Renault, not Reynaud.

HBO's not showing that WILSON -- this movie's about the disastrous political career forged by the volleyball Tom Hanks kept talking to in CASTAWAY after the two got off that island.

Though the script's title page does, indeed, call it "The House that I Live In," it's final and official title is the simplified THE HOUSE I LIVE IN.

Barrymore should be given credit for originating the game of dwarf-tossing that became a short-lived fad in the late 1980's.

> (Howard) was not a participant (in World War II). He was in a plane shot down by the Germans, who apparently thought Churchill was on board. The tragedy is that the Allies knew the Germans had targeted the plane but let it fly on its mission anyway so as not to reveal that the British had cracked the Nazi high command's secret codes.

>I've seen Yankee doodle Dandy so many times that all of a sudden I've found the american propaganda message of the time. In the first place by 1939 every american new the evils of Hitler and Mousillini and by 42 every one new about the evils of Hiriheto. I don't know why film makers think that they can persuade the audience to agree with them when they are just watching films for entertianment and not their to be educated. Conservatives and shifites are pro censroship. They believe that you and I don't know what's best for us and any thing we read and view can change our behavior against our will.The fear to the worst.unless you schitzophrenic , You know your rights and wrongs.The American propaganda films of world war two were actually truthful.They didn't lie . They told facts The enemy was lying to their people. But since many Americans new the facts our propaganda wasn't effective cause they knew any way . Americans, already knew.Well the fact that the the real Cohan had divorced, The fantasy version was only married once. The propaganda message behind this was to support the war effort for the american family. Of so many years I seen this film i did not see this message. Until this past fourth. If you had been in charge of this nation's propaganda, then or now, no one would have to fear its effect on the minds of the citizenry, because no one would be able to comprehend it, or you.

One of the reasons Oscar Hammerstein II ended his association with Lorenz Hart is because Hart had little discipline and was always late in providing the music for Hammerstein's lyrics. Unlike Hart, Richard Rodgers had the music ready when Hammerstein wanted it. While there is always a certain amount of give-and-take in such collaborations, each man's role -- composer and lyricist -- is well defined. A good lyricist can craft lyrics for an equally good tune that meet the dramatic needs of a song, and vice versa when the pair's starting point is the lyrics and not the music. So it was with Lerner and Loewe.

Why did Claude Rains never win an Oscar, or Edward G. Robinson (who was never even nominated)? When an actor gives one terrific performance after another and develops a reputation for that kind of reliability, it tends to become so expected of them that they attract less and less attention from Oscar voters, who tend to like to be surprised by the long-serving journeyman or woman who then gets the role of his or life and knocks it out of the park. Ritter has to be one of the most entertaining actors who ever lived, and I think the Academy voters simply got used to that. If she'd ever given a bad performance, the Academy might very well have given her an Oscar for that.

>What probably sidetracked Olson's chances towards solid stardom was her marriage to the celebrated, American musical composer, Alan Jay Lerner. Lerner wasn't a composer, he was a lyricist (in his most celebrated collaboration Fritz Loewe wrote the music).

>...the problem for me also is Nancy Olson. I too find her bland..." That's precisely the point: her well-scrubbed, corn-fed ordinariness is a deliberate and essential contrast to Norma's exoticism. She reminds Joe that he's exactly the same sort of Midwestern white bread who's forgotten his roots. If Betty were a glamorous Hollywood siren Joe would've jumped ship in moments and abandoned the comforts provided by Norma (remember, there's no getting away from the all-too-obvious fact that Joe's played by one of the handsomest men in Hollywood -- Brackett and Wilder couldn't cast around that. Even a struggling writer will pick up all the eye-candy he wants if he looks like William Holden. Betty's charms are more subtle, an outward sign that the romance that develops between her and Joe is clearly deeper than Joe's usual liasons). And Jonny, why do you keep writing (sic) after Olson? That's how the woman's name is spelled. Her name isn't Olsen.

> MGM's commissary was considered to have the homiest food. Studio chief Louis B. Mayer had the chefs take lessons in cooking from his wife, whom he believed to be the best cook in the world. Mrs. Mayer's most famous dish was chicken soup with matzo balls. The Mrs Mayer whose matzoh-ball soup recipe was served in the MGM Commissary was Louis B.'s mother, not his wife. And you neglect the story, recounted by Esther Williams in her memoirs, about musicals producer Joe Pasternack, the only man on earth, according to Williams, who ate spaghetti with his hands. As the tale goes, whenever Pasternnack ordered the dish news would spread round the studio like wildfire and employees would flock to the Commissary to witness the spectacle. Movie-making being the grim business it was, one can hardly fault the MGM employees for finding amusement where they could.

> 'Ruggedness and virility' are in my opinion wholly misplaced characteristics for a Prince who is a wimpy sot who must rely on the loyalty of his staff and the heroics of strangers to keep him alive. Well, the "ruggedness and virility" part referred to Rudolph Rassendyll, and not King Rudolf V; the two men must, of course, be virtually indistinguishable physically but be, of necessity, utterly different in temperament for vital dramatic purposes, not least of which is Princess Flavia's falling in love with her betrothed-since-childhood fiance for the first time, and her not really comprehending why (along with Rassendyll's growing dilemma as to what to do about her feelings for him, and his for her). All Rassendyll needs to be is romantic -- something the diffident and drunken soon-to-be-crowned king certainly is not; whether it's dreamy-romantic or rugged-romantic is ultimately irrelevant.