Kinokima

I assume (and I am sorry if I am wrong too) that she means Holiday, Alice Adams, and Stage Doors or the hits while Mary of Scotland, Morning Glory, and The Little Minister are the misses.

> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote} > I am sorry that you see this as an adversarial situation. You don't have to slam me to make a point. I am not upset about you tearing down a source, because I never claimed he was my source. LOL > > I am confident enough in my own assessment of Cary Grant and other artists to form my own impressions and judgments. It didn't have to become adversarial. The only thing is I pointed out in your opening statement not to write an opinion about Cary Grant's sexuality as fact. I am *not* disputing your right to have that opinion. In fact I am not making any judgment about Cary's sexuality at all. I also didn't slam you at all anymore than you did me. The only person I might have put down in this thread was Marc Eliot. As for whether you said or didn't say he was your source it doesn't matter. He is the one who wrote that information about George Cukor.

> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote} > I think 'hack' is a fairly strong word. And that is your assessment of him as a writer. Someone else could call Cary Grant a hack, heaven forbid. > > I don't think you understand the double standard you are affixing to this thread. But I am not going to waste a lot of time trying to convince you. You have already taken a strong stance and won't admit where you may be wrong, either. Pot. Kettle. Black. Yes? Nothing I wrote was wrong. What because I tore down your source material. Marc Eliot is known *for a fact* to write information he claims as truth without back up. That is my definition of a hack & unreliable source. If you want it is my *opinion* he is a hack but it is certainly a *fact* that he is not a reliable source. It's entirely different from claiming someone is gay when there is nothing but unsubstantiated rumor to support this as a fact. But keep on believing everything you read.

MW Grant never got the AFI Life Time Achievement Award. He received an Honorary Oscar and Kennedy Center Honors however. He was actually one of the first people considered for the AFI awards according to George Stevens Jr but Grant hated making speeches. Apparently he almost didn't want to accept the Honorary Oscar (again because of the speech issue) but I believe Gregory Peck convinced him. As for the Kennedy Honors he didn't have to make a speech so that wasn't an issue.

> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote} > Obviously your views about Marc Eliot are your _opinion_. LOL You have to love someone who can't admit when they are wrong. My views about Marc Eliot are _fact_. His books lack primary sources and he is known to write things that he cannot possibly know (like conversations people had when he was not around) and to top it all off he even get simple facts incorrect.

I don't care if Cary Grant is gay, bisexual or straight what bothers me is that you like to claim unsubstantiated rumor as fact. If you want to believe Cary Grant was bisexual go right ahead but you should not present your *opinion as a fact.* And Marc Eliot is a hack. He wrote a bunch of made up crap about Jimmy Stewart too. I really don't care what you want to believe but you should know the difference between a reliable and unreliable source. And where did I say anything about an actors/actresses looks have anything to do with their sexuality. What an absolute stupid thing to bring into the conversation.

I am sorry please show your source where Cukor said Scott admitted anything. Scott and his family have *always* denied that he ever had a relationship with Cary Grant or any other men. I think you are very mixed up or probably read something in one of those unauthorized biographies which are known to make up facts. edit: I did some digging and found out it was the wonderful HACK biographer *Marc Eliot* who made the claim that George Cukor said this. Marc Eliot claiming anything is the furthest thing from proof you can have about anything. I would trust a random person on the street more than I would trust anything he writes.

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote} > I wonder what Porter himself thought of the film. Anyone know? Well according to IMDB trivia he apparently said this: After attending the premiere of the film, Cole Porter supposedly remarked to his wife, Linda, "if I could survive that, I can survive anything." I did read that he was the one who wanted Cary to play him though.

No my problem with your post is you wrote Cary Grant is bisexual as though it was a statement of fact not opinion. Cary Grant, his family, many wives, and other people who worked with him always denied that he was gay or bisexual. Randolph Scott and his family also denied all the rumors. You are right I don't know what he did in his private life so I am not denying the possibility but writing it down as a fact is wrong and that is how misinformation spreads on the Internet.

I know I argued with you when you were using a different name. Cary Grant *might* have been Bisexual. However stating it as a fact is wrong. Rumors and what is written in unauthorized biographies do not make something a fact.

I am not exactly sure when the message was added but even in 1931 Scarface was too much for the censors (and this was before the production code) so it had to be edited and changed a lot to get past them and finally released in 1932. I am not sure if the film would have ever made it past the censors at all even after that message was added once the Hays Code was enforced. According to the link further edits were made to the content but we now see the original just with the title cards. http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG02/gangsters/scarface.html Well we can't all like the same things but I stand by my assessment that while flawed it is still the best of the 3 major pre-code gangster films.

I am kicking myself that I missed Passing Fancy. I went on a ski trip with some friends and completely forgot it was on so I missed recording it.

> {quote:title=talkietime wrote:}{quote} > AMC "remade" The Prisoner as a six-part mini-series that was shown in November 2009. I watched about half of these and gave up on the rest. I did edit out the commercials before high-speed dubbing them to DVDs but I haven't watched them. The best part about that is AMC was running the original Prisoner On Demand so I watched that instead of the remake.

Now the film I really want to see that was a big improvement on early talkies is Mamoulian's *Applause* in 1929. Of course I am not saying City Streets was not innovative. Mamoulian was a very innovative director in the 30's. The whole voice over thing was really cool even though it is used too much now to see when it was first used is something special. But I do think some people aren't giving other 1931 films enough credit. I just don't find other 1931 films so static in comparison to City Streets.

Actually apparently Capone was a fan of Scarface. Scarface is actually my favorite of the early 30's gangster films (followed closely by Public Enemy). Some of the acting of minor characters isn't that great but I think Muni is fantastic. I like George Raft too as his second & Boris Karloff. And the film wasn't trying to be preachy. They had to add that message to get it past the censors.

Hmm I feel I did see many films from 1931 and this one does not stand up to those films. Although I did like the moment in the film when Sidney comes out of the shadow and is given the gun. The parts in the jail were also good. As I said before she was my favorite part of the movie 1931 films I think were better made than this: Little Caesar Public Enemy The Smiling Lieutenant Monkey Business Jekyll & Hyde (also Mamoulian although this came out at the tail end of 1931) M (from Germany) Frankenstein

I agree Cody. There was some interesting moments in the film, individual scenes I enjoyed and I really liked Sylvia Sidney. It was also interesting to learn that was the first time that type of voice over was used in the film. However while I don't regret watching it all I thought compared to films like Scarface, Little Caesar, and Public Enemy it was a weaker effort. One of my main problems was besides the two female actresses (Sidney & Gibson) no one really made me think gangster in the cast. I also think Mamoulian did much better with his other earlier efforts like Jekyll & Hyde and Love Me Tonight. This type of film did not seem to be his forte. Although as I said hearing about the voice over was really neat.

There is one like this already http://www.amazon.com/Scene-DVD-Game-Classic-Channel/dp/B000XW7HF6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=toys-and-games&qid=1295622603&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Scene-DVD-Game-Classic-Expansion/dp/B000GPYLEK/ref=pd_sim_t_2 Edited by: Kinokima on Jan 21, 2011 10:11 AM

The Social Network is pretty much sweeping all the awards. It's definitely not my favorite of the year but I would be surprised if it doesn't come home with the Best Picture Oscar. I do think Colin Firth has a good chance of winning Best Actor (which I am really hoping for). Actually I feel it would be an upset if he doesn't win. Natalie Portman also seems to be the favorite for Best Actress (although I have heard positive things about Michelle Williams in Blue Valentine which I have not seen). I will be rooting for Hailee Steinfeld for Best Supprting Actress. Although this is really a cheat because she was really the lead and that might count against her in the end.

> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote} > I had a feeling my post would be taken wrong, but that's okay. I should not need to validate every little remark. The point is that NIGHT AND DAY served Warners' purposes at the time. And it is still being re-aired x number of decades later. So before we are quick to slash it to shreds, we might want to rethink how the fabric has held up. A few loose threads does not mean we should discount or discard it. I was just saying in my personal opinion I don't think it is a good film so I didn't think your comment was necessary. Of course other people might disagree with me today and back then. At the same time there are plenty of films that audiences eat up today that I also think are dreadful.

It definitely sounds like him to me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7UwoPT_Xd4

So what are you saying we should only judge movies based on audiences opinions in the 1940's? Then I guess all the films they disliked back then are really bad films. Give me Bringing up Baby & Holiday which audiences didn't really appreciate in 1938 compared to Night and Day which apparently they considered a good film.

I think Gail Patrick would have been good, although I don't know what studio she was a part of.

I also dislike Night and Day. Even ignoring the fact that it is completely inaccurate it is not engaging at all. The only thing I like about it is when Cary Grant sings You're The Top

Mark, He is actually talking about something different. I noticed the same problem. On the actual schedule the themes of the day used to be listed on the schedule. For example on Thursday is Peter Sellers day. You used to see this on the actual schedule in yellow. Now you don't. I miss when you could see what theme was on the schedule. I was wondering if anyone else was having the same problem but I was too lazy to ask. And I checked using both Firefox and Chrome so I know it is now a Browser issue.