LoveFilmNoir

Just curious, do you ever add your own original thoughts to discussions on this site? I think the original poster asked for a personal opinion, not a fact on award wins and nods it received.

You are not the only person that technical glitch happened to last night. If you enjoy film noir or crime dramas you will like this film. By some it is considered noir, to me it is shot in a noir style but seems more crime drama. I recommend it. Why? - Carol Reed as director - James Mason in a great performance - film shot on location in Ireland, cinematography is great -plot and storyline move at a good pace - story is suspenseful. Perfect for a late night viewing so it's excellent in its time slot tonight.

The same argument he's trying to make about TCM being anti-blacklist, someone can make the same argument for TCM being anti public domain films. It's silly because time and time again a person will list the last air date of the movies called into question. Whenever some posters have anti-TCM arguments they seldom want to admit to being wrong.

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote} > *I'll admit that I have avoided it, because RR is in it.* But, you make it sound interesting, so when it comes around again, I'll check it out. I already knew Ginger Rogers was sexy... I thought I was the only one who avoided his pictures. Glad to see I am not alone. (and my reasons are not political either)

I thought that was just me. And I turned to several channels which were fine and when I came back, the film was still scrambled on my screen.

> {quote:title=JonasEB wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=johnbabe wrote:}{quote} > > why was the WofOZ on twice, anyone who likes the film, owns it...and the kids today, do not care about these films, they make their own on the computer, and they are overwhelmed by 3d and stereo and computer graphis they do not understand the work and art and genius that went into these productions, it is a losing fight...TCM give us back our films at decent times! > > Well, actually, if you expose children to older movies they tend to like them. It really has nothing to do with 3D and CGI... > > *One of the problems with society is that we don't place value on anything culturally important anymore. More precisely, we think kids will magically find the good things without any guidance (and we get mad at the wrong people when they don't.) It's not just movies, if kids aren't exposed to literature or art by their parents they probably won't take to it in school. The media certainly isn't going to help. Anything of cultural interest is tucked away in places where no one will notice them.* Bingo.

I don't think this would be a good idea. I would rather see a TV movie on some of these cheapie cable channels, local channels that have infomercials on for most of the morning, and even channels like Hallmark and Lifetime. It would probably be good if those two channels showed TV movies from the 70s and 80s that were popular/Emmy nominated or winners.

I have seen *The Belle of New York* on TCM in the last year (maybe twice even). You know TCM goes through their Fred Astaire-thons every few months. Also, The Alamo comes on Encore Westerns very often. I watched parts of it less than a month ago when flipping through the channels. Go to Encore's website and download/view the July schedule for the Western channel in PDF.

> {quote:title=danthemoviefan wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=ClassicViewer wrote:}{quote} > > I have been targeting films on TCM and FMC that are not on DVD yet and some of them may never see the light of day on DVD. I am scooping those up as much as possible. > > I don't know whether it's because of my recent request through their website, but FMC is airing Quiet Please: Murder at 1 p.m. ET on Aug. 2. I have a copy of the film that's like footage of a black bear in a coal mine: very dark. FMC's site doesn't have any stills from the film or much detail posted, so perhaps it's a rare classic-film premiere for the channel. I was thrilled when I saw this on the schedule because I remembered someone from here had made mention to it. I will definitely be recording this rare find. How exactly do you request films on their website. I get the feeling some of the films I have managed to record in the past on FMC may have been requests cause they were only shown once in forever.

deleted

> {quote:title=Ollie_T wrote:}{quote} >*For me, the basic question of "Why a day to some lesser/unknown-to-me actor" is balanced against two factors: one, Why do stations stick with Only The Top 10 of anything and exclude all others - I get bored watching the same films, over and over... didn't anyone else EVER make a film?...* > >*And two, How do we 'get to know the unknowns' unless someone shows them to us?* > >*We're not allowed to dig thru the vaults. We've got umpteen channels showing us the same old films, year after year. A day here, or a week or a month of "Unknown TO ME" seems far more >interesting than the same ol' stuff.* Well said and many channels are culprits of this. HBO and Cinemax each play the original Sex in the City movie about 10-15 times a month within their original and spinoff channels. There is usually only ONE film a day made before 1980 - and that is actually stretching it - I should probably say 1990. There are many people who I have heard of and yet I consider them unknown or forgotten because of how channels have neglected to show the popular/well known flicks. Fox Movie Channel is actually the reason why many of their long term contract stars of the 40s and 50s are somewhat unheard of or less popular today. Anyway, I am glad Anne Shirley had a day. It is somewhat refreshing when people you'd least expect to get a day of their films, or even a bday tribute.

I know for a fact that THE WRECK OF THE MARY DEARE aired 2 weeks ago on TCM. On the weekend I believe. Anyway, you have a very interesting list. I have noticed more and more that I have been recording films that have never seen a DVD release even if I am not very interested in them. Usually upon reading up about them and viewing, my interest is peaked-----and if the movie is extremely awful or extremely good, I am hooked. I am still looking into getting Netflix....I have a fully loaded DVR with films I recorded and have yet to watch.

I just saw that *Springtime in the Rockies* will be playing on September 8th at 10PM. This must be a premiere. Either way, this is a somewhat rare Grable film and is not available on DVD (although a very good print exists and is played ever so often on cable. I can't wait to record and add it to my library of her films that haven't seen a DVD release.

> {quote:title=Big_Bopper wrote:}{quote} > tcm is showing some pix this morning. he was working low budget at prc, rko , eagle-lion, and dore schary hired him at mgm. the mgm pix are bad. why is that? Because its MG freakin M the worst studio! they can take a winner & just by osmosis turn him into a loser. gutless dreck thats MGM. > Dreck for dreck's sake. So I take it you don't really care for MGM?

> {quote:title=Arturo wrote:}{quote} > ClassicViewer wrote: > *But you can't have someone pouring the schmaltz on in a Technicolor musical one moment, then have them be a femme fatale or murderer in a gritty black-and-white crime drama. It's too dramatic a jump for the audience to accept.* > > Actually, you could if your image allowed it. Once Grable was locked into her run of Technicolored musicals, she resisted all efforts to alter the formula. But Ann Sheridan and Rita Hayworth (to name but two examples from that same period) were more versatile, and their films were as well. They ran the gamut from musicals to noirs and back, toching on most of the other genres in between. I agree. I think Grable already proved her abilities for the noir/drama genre in 1941's I Wake Up Screaming. Her stubborness or insecurities about her own acting range really had her missing out on some decent roles. I particularly love the noir and dramas Fox put out between '47-55. The studio had really come a long way from the cheesy fluffy musicals during WWII. I respect actresses like Bette Davis standing up for herself when it came to the mediocrity of scripts, but some of these actors and actresses that turned down very good roles for various reasons, or had silly clauses in their contracts really missed out. It is silly to me in 2010 that Grable may have refused to do *Pickup on South Street* yet she did *How to be Very, Very Popular* . If musicals is what she wanted to continue doing only, then her best bet would have been to leave Fox after *Meet Me After the Show* and sign a contract with MGM.

> {quote:title=Big_Bopper wrote:}{quote} > My thinking is TCM is into lame mgm stuff. I like low budget. People with no money have to really care about a story to film it. > Somebody mentioned Naked Edge with Gary Cooper & Deborah Kerr. I have this movie & its a disappointment. It does not make sense. Maybe that is why it isn't seen often. I'll take another look at it soon. > TCM had scheduled Before I Hang & then deleted it. This is the one good Karloff pic I don't have. Hopefully they'll reschedule that. > if TCM can understand a very simple fact: > the only Old movies that are still watchable are the crime/horror pics. all that romantic dreck is unwatchable. While this comment may be filed under "unpopular opinion, I have to say that beyond a few actors who I collect all of their work, my library is mainly for film noir - now with a heavy focus on getting copies of rare noir and crime films that finally get their showing on TCM. I should also add that the ONLY horror I can watch is what comes on TCM...anything "recent" is a huge no.

> {quote:title=ClassicViewer wrote:}{quote} > It would've been better if Clifton were the bachelor uncle in CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN. I know it's based on a real family, but the script really doesn't call for him to be all that romantic with Myrna Loy (thank goodness!). He is almost too prissy to play a hard-boiled villain in LAURA...he's good, but I think it would've been even better if they had put Vincent Price in that role. I do love Clifton in SITTING PRETTY and the other Belvedere films, that's the role of a lifetime for him. Agreed. It is his "love of art" that make him memorable and good in his two noir roles in LAURA and THE DARK CORNER so technically he is utilized well, even if some may feel he was miscast. Just as long as Webb wasn't ever cast as "the guy who gets the girl" then I can sleep at night.

> {quote:title=Arturo wrote:}{quote} > ClassicViewer wrote: > *It was a good year for her. It looks like her output slows in 1954 with RIVER OF NO RETURN, but she rebounds in 1955 with SEVEN YEAR ITCH, which was another top-ten hit.* > > Both RIVER OF NO RETURN and THERE'S NO BUSINESS LIKE SHOW BUSINESS were big grossers (if not among the top twelve), which shows the pull Marilyn had back then, since they were both pretty lousy movies. It was against this type of exploitative role in inferior movies that she rebelled against that year, fleeing for New york and turning down THE GIRL IN PINK TIGHTS, THE GIRL IN THE RED VELVET SWING, HOW TO BE VERY, VERY POPULAR, and THE REVOLT OF MAMIE STOVER in the next two years. THE GIRL IN THE RED VELVET SWING wasn't bad but I could see her not wanting to do it because of the subject matter (would she have had to gone brunette too?). The same with THE REVOLT OF MAMIE STOVER, I don't think it would have been that bad (although REVOLT didn't seem to have a strong script). I can't understand why a 38 year old Betty Grable with such classics under her belt would sign on to do HOW TO BE VERY, VERY POPULAR. It's a silly film more appropriate for someone who was at least 10 years younger.

> {quote:title=ClassicViewer wrote:}{quote} > I'm not saying that gay actors can't play straight parts and vice-versa. But a performer's sexuality (the more general term of human sexuality) does come across, and a casting director does take that into account...they look at how much chemistry an actor exudes during a screen test around certain other types of performers. You can't have a sexless personality playing the lead in LOLITA, nor can you put an oversexed personality into a demure, Pollyanna role. LOL This is exactly why at first thought, Darryl Zanuck did not want to cast Clifton Webb in *Laura*.....and later why the idea of him being the "dad" in *Cheaper By The Dozen* is unrealistic to some.

Eleanor Powell was in THOUSANDS CHEER with Gene Kelly

> {quote:title=arlenemccarthy wrote:}{quote} > Gotta love those redheads ! Yes and especially a darn good one. She played in the episode "Stage Struck" on Murder She Wrote in the late 80s - her 2nd to last screen appearance.

They showed HANGOVER SQUARE last year when they had an evening for Laird Cregar. I would LOVE to see Linda Darnell get a bday tribute....and I am keeping my fingers crossed for the first person who did a majority of their films at Fox to get the SOTM treatment.

your best bet is www.archive.org. They have a detailed library of PD films. Rather watch it streaming from the internet than owning a copy. The print is not impressive (but would be incredible restored).

> {quote:title=C.Bogle wrote:}{quote} > Even his wandering eye makes him an average guy. It's hard not to sympathize > with him. While the plot is fairly straightforward, on a first viewing you really have > to keep track of things to get all the details. Forgot to mention one of the nastiest > hired guns-Chester, played by Neville Brand, especially that grin on his face every > time he pokes Frank in his very sensitive stomach. But Chester got his. > > I think Mickey did pretty well as the guy whose every move trying to get out of the > mess just get him further into it, as others have mentioned. In general, his small > stature isn't too much of a problem, except in certain shots where it's obvious and > rather humorous. Good observations. Another unlikeable protagonist for me in Lizabeth Scott in "Too Late for Tears"....to watch how evil her character is over money is shocking. She has a colder heart than the person whose money it belongs to! At certain points in the film I found myself wanting her sister in law to double cross her and frame her or Dan Duryea's character to get away with the money....but of course, in 1949, bad guys always got caught or died.

> {quote:title=C.Bogle wrote:}{quote} > Of the noir protagonists who immediately come to mind, Frank Bigelow is one > of the most ordinary and average and likable. Stopping for a beer with > your girlfriend on a hot day, that's John Q. Public all the way. That makes it > all the more tragic that he is tripped up, perhaps by nothing so grand as fate, > but by mere randomness. One thing that always makes me laugh is the sound > effect that appears after he checks into the hotel and spots a number pretty women. > > > Quicksand is a nifty little noir, with the one damn thing after another theme. > The only "problem" is that Mickey Rooney is so short, that in some shots he > looks like he's a teenager out after curfew. There is one medium shot of > Jeanne Cagney and Mickey walking more or less side by side, and he looks > more like her little kid brother than her boyfriend. Re: Bigelow - I agree, and it is one of the reasons why D.O.A. is my favorite noir. He represents average likable. I love the scene when he is in the hotel and sees that he is amidst celebration and joins in....so when he falls ill and finds out he is poisoned and will die, you immediately root for him. I think O'brien was well cast, the acting was solid, the script was simple and the film seems to have stood the test of time. Re: Quicksand - I have several opinions of the film - more on the motivations of Rooney's character. However, I noticed that at the arcade when Rooney sees the two women he knows and is walking between them, he immediately comes off as Andy Hardy. Next to Jeanne Cagney, he still comes off as AH and it looks like ANDY HARDY AND THE LOUNGE SINGER instead of the film at hand. I want to say Rooney is miscast, but I don't think it is fair to him. He does come off as a likable protagonist, but at the times when his character comes off as pathetic and desperate, he seems unlikeable. I think it was up to the director to do some illusion work for his height.