SansFin

I am very happy to see *Unfaithfully Yours* (1948) on the schedule. I have not seen it in many years and I have no easy access to it by other means. I am wondering if *Yo Yo* (1967) is one from which I saw a tiny clip when it was released. The description and stars make it possible. The rest of the schedule looks quite solid and respectable. I thank you, calvinnme, for your hard work to bring us this preview! I do not know if it is appropriate to address what many may not see as an issue. People who know little about classic films are sure to see the schedule at some point. I must wonder what they will think when they see the movie: *Mad About Men* (1954) followed by: *The Gay Falcon* (1941).

> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote} > Some people have used expressions in their posts such as "just my two cents;" or "this is just my opinion...;" or even apologizing for not agreeing about a film. I have found by accident a phrase with two benefits. I can begin a sentence with the words: "I believe" which firmly establishes that it is my belief and that I am not claiming it to be indisputable fact and it has the added benefit of putting me at the most important point of the sentence!

I have heard people say that they will not be watching the festivities on television this year because Dick Clark has passed.

> {quote:title=CineMaven wrote:}{quote} > To All You Ramblers - I wish you a very Happy New Year, this 2013. What of us Studebakers, DeSotos and Packards? I wish all here a Happy New Year no matter their make, model or optional accessories.

> {quote:title=slaytonf wrote:}{quote} > One more brianworm killed. I thank you again very much but I must admit that I am also saddened at the death of this brainworm because it means the movie holds no more mystery for me. I am in this way like a little child who is never happy until the secret of a trick is revealed and is then disappointed that there is not a real wizard behind the curtain waving his wand and speaking the incantation. Perhaps I will now have to watch the movie with more care fifty or sixty more times so I can see if there are any other subtle absurdities which I have missed in my first hundred odd viewings.

I am sorry to say that I can not be at all sure because I know only that *Rosemary's Baby* is a movie I do not wish to watch and I know much of *Muriel* but I do not remember ever watching it. A forced guess based on what I know would be that they have in common the separation of a husband and wife. In *The Thin Man* the murdered man is divorced from his wife. In *Sansho the Balif* the couple are separated when he is exiled. In *My Neighbor Totoro* the wife is in the hospital. I believe that in *Muriel* the woman is living with her step-son but I do not know what or where is her husband. I hope that you do not keep us in suspense long!

I have never understood why a certain date is a factor in when a person should begin a deliberate change in their life. I believe it is the moment that you feel it is necessary and possible that is the proper time to begin it. To delay it by even a day means it is not as important as you would like it to be and so there is little chance you will keep to it. I will continue in the new year to strengthen my resolve to ignore fools and to not let them irritate me. I have no aspirations beyond that because it is unwise to meddle with near-perfection.

> {quote:title=slaytonf wrote:}{quote} > A piece of 3/4" plywood two feet wide and eight feet long is floppy. I am reminded on the person who stated: "This is the era of safe sex which is why I will never again do it on plywood scaffolding". > Remember, she doesn't appear to be more than 150 pounds, I would add a generous amount to that. > Triangles are used everywhere in building and furniture because it is a rigid form. I thank you very, very much for this because that sentence reminded me of a thing which would explain all. I saw once a TMM in an exercise. It is a truck which carries a bridge and places it where needed for crossing streams and small rivers. It does it quickly once the fiddly bits of set-up are done. It fits the topography of the scene. It would leave no marks on the ground. It retracts in triangular fashion with the center of the span rising first so there would be no upward draft caused by its tip being lifted. It would be available for use with experienced crew for very low cost. It may not be how they did it but it would do all that was necessary at far less cost and preparation time than building items and choreographing their insertion and removal. I thank you for your persistence in this matter because if you had not continued then you would not have reminded me of a thing which the filmmakers had available to them.

> {quote:title=slaytonf wrote:}{quote} > I think you're over analyzing this. You are probably correct in your analysis of how it was done and the example you provided shows clearly what can be done with simple techniques. I am sorry to say that it does not sit well with me. I have had experience with shaky scaffolding and temporary platforms. For a person of her weight moving with no trepidation makes me believe the platform was very sturdy and therefore quite a bit heavier than could be moved with ease.

> {quote:title=Filmgoddess wrote:}{quote} > What may be even more surprising is that anyone would sit down and watch a movie on TV or in a movie theater without FIRST having looked up even a single thing about what the movie was about. One of the things I like about watching movies from previous generations is that I can often approach them knowing virtually nothing about them. I find it often that I make assumptions based on what I read about a movie and I am unable to see the movie for what it is rather than as what I have come to believe it should be. I fully understand that a person who has watched TCM during the day and evening for several years would not expect to see movies beyond a PG rating to be aired on the channel. Any such revelation would be harsh and perhaps shocking if the movie in question had elements which the viewer finds particularly vile.

I wish you and all here a Happy New Year and a happy and safe New Year's Eve! We are spending the eve at home watching movies. We feel no need to see the pathetic stupidity of or expose ourselves to the dangers of amateur drinking. Neither of us like champagne so our drinks of the eve will be our usual vodka and rum but we do have some special types of it for the occasion.

*The Quiet Man* (1952) has always had a special depth for me and I have since learned that this is because the director was made to cut it. A scene early in the movie shows the priest needing to speak privately with Barry Fitzgerald. We later see that Barry Fitzgerald takes bets. I always suspected that the priest took a flutter and lost and needed to ask for time to pay. The hint that that was possible added much to the character. I have recently learned that the scene in which the priest is asking for time to pay was shot and was then not put into the final print because the movie was considered longer than it should be and the director was told to cut some scenes. I truly believe that in a strange way the movie would not be as rich for me if that scene had been included because it is as if our imaginations are allowed to fill in blanks rather that us being spoon-fed all of the background of all of the characters. This movie illustrates also why I rarely say that I do not like some actors. I do not like most movies in which John Wayne appeared but this is one of my favorite movies.

I am astounded that you had such an issue. You are definitely one of this forum's "good guys". I would merely put that other member on ignorre so that you will not see their posts and therefore you can not reply to them which is the apparent problem.

I believe that if the image is popular on the Internet then you might find your answer by using Google Image Search to find it on a variety of sites and then chose several sites which include proper attributes. Legitimate news sites, university or library archives and similar sites will nearly always list credits for all photographs which are not proprietary to their site. I often see images listed as being in Public Domain or Creative Commons License. I know there is a large body of photographs with no known photographer which are the property of a news agency, advertising firm or movie studio which commissioned the taking of the photographs as work-for-hire.

I know that there is a method to post such things so that they are within the frame of the post and do not require a scroll bar but I am sad to say that I do not know how to do it and every attempt I have made using precise and clear instructions has never worked. Here are some of my favorites: Crumb by David Fletcher Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson 9 Chickweed Lane by Brooke McEldowney

Those are wonderful cartoons! I use GoComics and Arcamax each day. GoComics has a page which they call: Sherpa which is for new cartoonists to gather a following and for veteran cartoonists to try new strips. That is where I found that Andrew Pilcher has a new strip: Smith which is about cats. He had for a long time a strip called: Millie in England. Brooke McEldowney has two strips which I like very much. Pibgorn is about a fairy but it is no fairy tale for children as one of the characters is a succubus with an attitude. That is a weak description. It is more that she is the embodiment of attitude. 9 Chickweed Lane is about Edda Burber who is a ballet dancer and has a secret fantasy life as Superlative Girl. Last Kiss by John Lustig is a favorite of mine also. B.C. is a gem! Capuchin has six books of the episodes of the 1970s. He has also some framed. One of his favorite lines to use when people ask how he is is: "With my luck I will probably live" which he stole from B.C.

> {quote:title=DougieB wrote:}{quote} > After watching the scene, it seems as though some kind of walkway may have been mounted on some kind of swivel beyond camera range, The settings could be predetermined so that it could happen rapidly? My best analysis is that approx. half of the necessary platform could have been a static structure. The other half could have been wheeled in during the time between the camera zoom in and the time she needs to step onto it. The problem lies in the return segment. There is not sufficient time to remove a sturdy wheeled platform and there are no discernible marks on what ground can be seen. The clear distance between the pedestal and any off-camera platform is so long that a drawbridge-type affair would need to be very strong and have a very large counterweight. It seems as if it would need to swing up rather than be retracted on the horizontal because there is no apparent up or down step while she is dancing and swinging up an extension of that length would surely have created a wind which would have stirred her dress. I have shown the problem to two people who are familiar with engineering and they concur that a device could be built to accommodate such action but it could not be hoped to be done for less than $250,000 which seems to me to be quite a large budget item for an effect that many viewers will not consciously notice. I am sure there is an elegantly simple solution and it is making me crazy that I can not think of it.

> {quote:title=AddisonDeWitless wrote:}{quote} > Really, some time in the gym read what the CC does to your local newscast. It's a riot. I must use Closed Captioning at home. It is for live broadcasts very much a speech-to-text program which has not been customized to the speakers. I find it amusing to watch foreign movies which have both subtitles and Closed Captioning. The translations rarely agree. It is also revealing when a character states the 'f' word which is the same in all languages because those who write subtitles and those who create the Closed Captioning often chose different substitutes.

> {quote:title=Bronxgirl48 wrote:}{quote} > I'm a comic strip fan ("For Better Or For Worse" is one of my favorites) It makes me very happy that you are a fan. My favorites are Non Sequitur, Pibgorn and Crumb but it is difficult to get through a day without a dose of Dark Side of the Horse or Broom Hilda I like also very much that the site is displaying Calvin and Hobbes as reruns. > Have you ever seen Louis Malle's BLACK MOON? It has been many years since I have watched it. The thing which I remember most is that it was very much a work of art more than it is a story. It is sad to say that I doubt it will be on TCM in the near future.

It is very possible that you are correct but it seems to me that there is not sufficient time for such action as there is less than three seconds between the moment when she is on the pedestal again and the moment that we see that the area beside it is empty. Many things can be moved in that short amount of time but a sturdy platform would by its nature be heavy and would likely be held in position by some form of registration system. I thank you for your time and consideration.

I am wondering how they could have done that. Her most subtle body language indicates she was not concerned for her footing and so the platform would have had to have been wide and very sturdy and a nearly exact match for the height of the pedestal. I have looked for signs of rails but I can find none and the topography of the site as shown in that and other shots does not indicate a level of sufficient distance for its retraction. All which I can conceive as a suitable method would require engineering at a cost far more than a movie's budget could sustain. I thank you for looking. I hope you can understand why I find it so perplexing.

I love absurdities which are done with wit and charm. One absurdity in a movie disturbs me because I do not know how they filmed it. The movie is: *Formula of Love* (1985). The scene is where a gaudy trick is being done by a con man and his assistants to impress a gawky young rural aristocrat. It can be seen at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCvfvXHnLoY&feature=youtu.be&t=1h7m18s I hope very much that this link works as it should. The scene in question begins at 1:07:18 in the movie. Two men are playing instruments while a woman on a pedestal begins to dance. The shot ends at 1:07:48. Can any person tell me how they accomplished that scene?

> {quote:title=RaquelVixen wrote:}{quote} > Perhaps that's my issue: I was operating under the impression that the art of sacrasm was akin to the patter of snarking, They are surely akin. I consider sarcasm to be when a factor of it is a hope that showing how ridiculous the target is will elicit some form of cognitive response. I consider snark to be when there is no factor other than open derision. Other people may make other differentiations.

> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote} > Happy Boxing Day to all! I wish for you also a Happy Boxing Day! I believe that with the amount of clutter to now be cleared it may be more appropriate to call it "Trash-Sack Day".

I do not know if I should be flattered or offended because my posts have not attracted action. I am very proud of my verbal abilities vis a vis sarcasm and I practice it often in writing. I do not know if my sarcasm in this forum has been so subtle that it has gone unnoticed or if it is considered so well done that the moderator grants artistic licence or if I have failed at it so miserably that it is not recognized for what it is. Perhaps I should give sarcasm a rest and try to polish my snarking skills.