SansFin

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > There are many younger people today who have told me that they think a movie made in the 1990's is old and they have no reason to watch from that time period let alone something from 70 years ago. I believe that is likely the attitude of the majority and because there are so many who feel that way there are a host of channels, streaming sites and other venues which cater to them. I do not understand how those people are relevant to a discussion of classic movies. > And as far as I am concerned, based on the amount of films being released back in the period between 1930 and 1960, there were many more clunkers made back then than today. I am sure there were more "clunkers" simply because there were many more movies made and many were done as on an assembly line where quantity was more important than quality because of the need to service the many theaters which constantly needed new material. A fast-and-dirty search whose numbers should be considered representative rather than authoritative reveals for MGM movies made per decade are: 1930s - 190 1940s - 241 1950s - 472 1960s - 273 1970s - 208 1980s - 87 1990s - 31 I doubt with great seriousness that there were sufficient great stars, great writers and great directors in the world to produce 472 great movies in a single decade. To think that one studio was capable of it is naive. > Many are right however when many of those films made back then were in many cases superior to the films of today, but clearly there were at least 50% each year on the same level of production values as of the films today. It has been proven many times that 50% of all movies are average or below average. The numbers can not be disputed. > As far as I am concerned, TCM stands for classic films. To me classic can mean from any era, not just the so-called Golden Age of Hollywood. So a film from ten years ago has about as much relevance being shown here as does a film made in 1939. I believe the most loose definition of "classic" is that it transcends the ephemeral. This is a factor which is easy to demonstrate with movies more than fifty years old since the fact that there is continuing interest in them fulfills the definition. Modern movies may qualify because of their quality or importance but their status is less obvious and it often happens that an argument must be made to justify calling them a classic. > If one were to look at the films that were being shown on TCM in the mid 1990's there were a few each month from as recently as the 1980s. Same is true today, every now and again a more recent film from about ten years ago will make an appearance. I did an analysis some time ago of the dates of movies scheduled for TCM in two months several years apart. I had expected that the percentage of movies from each decade remained constant. That is not what I found. I had to state that the percentage of movies by age was the same in both months. TCM is keeping pace by using age rather than date as one of the criteria for selection. > But the films being shown that were produced in the 70s and 80s will as I indicated before be between 30 and 40 years of age. I believe a significant factor is how much interest there is in any particular movie. We have all seen movies released with great hoopla and rave reviews and which then sank into obscurity because few people actually liked them or wanted to watch them repeatedly. We have all seen movies which reaped huge profits at the box office and were hailed as modern classics and which then sank into obscurity because they were all style with no substance. I believe each generation also has strong feelings for movies which were released when they were young but this interest is often not shared by people of other generations. The forty-year mark is proving to be a good litmus test because a movie of that age with broad interest has survived past the reviews and box-office stages of assessment and is mid-range in generational interest. I feel more comfortable using the mid-1960s as a permeable barrier because it was the major turning point between studio-era and modern methods of methodology and mentality. I believe airing any pre-1960 movie does not need justification because even if it is not of the best quality it still retains interest as a product of its era and pulls us into a different age which enhances its status as escapist entertainment. A particular post-1960 movie may be arguably better in many ways than a particular pre-1960 movie but it requires a discerning argument to support its status as a classic and justify its replacing a rare, older movie. > As Kyle and Lynn have pointed out repeatedly the studios of today have little economic concern to take older films and convert them into a digital format. There are some studios spending millions of dollars, but for the most part the older films are leaving us day by day unless something is done to convert them over to a digital format. In some cases the money just isn't there. I believe this is a strong argument for TCM keeping to its implied mandate of airing older movies as they are providing a financial incentive for owners to convert their libraries. If TCM were to air a greater percentage of modern movies there would be less in rental fees for older portions of the libraries and thus the owners would have little reason to consider major eras of their catalogs as lucrative assets which need to be preserved. I like many of the modern movies which TCM airs and I believe they have shown great discernment in their selections. I have also a long list of modern movies I wish were aired on a commercial-free channel. But I strongly disagree with the notion that TCM should air more movies which are less than fifty years old. I feel they should be rare treats to be savored rather than become a steady diet. My feelings are reinforced by the fact that most movies from the 1960s and forward are widely available in other venues while there are few other options for watching movies from the 1930s.

> {quote:title=musicalnovelty wrote:}{quote} > Just sayin' that there are some who'd rather see any "bad" 1930's movie than any "good" 1970's movie. (Or a bad 1940's over a good 1980's...) I believe it should also be noted that "bad" and "good" are very subjective. I am sure all will agree that a 1930s or 1940s movie is more interesting than movies of the 1970s and 1980s because they are a new experience while the modern movies have likely been watched recently.

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote} > I realized I had nothing to add to your thoughts on the subject, and couldn't say it any better. I thank you for your kind words. I often feel the same way about many posts in this forum and I do not answer them because I do not like: "me too" posts and I can not express support as eloquently. > I always separate the art from the artist. I have no trouble doing this, and am surprised so many others do. I try in all things to imagine I have another person's views so that I may understand them better. I can not do that in this instance. It may be that I am so shallow and greedy that I will not deprive myself of watching some movies because only that one of the stars did some bad things in their life.

> {quote:title=dpompper wrote:}{quote} > I'm sure the personality = popularity formula held true in films created before I was born. I believe it may have had less impact in the past. The majority of the publicity was handled by the studios who tried to make their stars more popular. Any negative publicity was limited to gossip columns and movie magazines which were read only by those who wanted to know the dirt. It required a major transgression for any star's name to appear on the front page of a newspaper where nearly all movie-goers would see it. The situation is far different today because a star's fit of bad temper can make the evening news where it is seen by all. > On the other hand, I do think about substance abuse among musicians and vocalists. For example, I cannot listen to the amazing Billie Holiday without thinking of how her life circumstances shaped her art. Though, to me that is not the same thing as saying that I refuse to listen/watch an artist because s/he was x. I believe it may heighten some appreciation to know their fate especially if their songs in some way portend that fate.

> {quote:title=ginnyfan wrote:}{quote} > I know that I won't go to a Lindsay Lohan movie. The train wreck is just way too much in my face (and I'm beting it will be awful, anyway). I know the name only from the news. I think I have not seen any movie in which she appears. I assume from several things that her movies are not of the types I would like no matter what I think of her.

> {quote:title=movieman1957 wrote:}{quote} > I was about the only one who got the movie references. I wish I had the depth of movie knowledge that I could recognize all of the inspirations. I see in it scenes reminiscent of scenes in *Barbed Wire* (1927) and *La Grande Illusion* (1937) but I can not be positive and I am sure there are many more than I am missing.

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote} > I'd have to respond with Ronald Colman before anyone else. He was my first thought also. I believe a case could be made for Basil Rathbone. He was a stage actor in England and on Broadway and also made seventy movies in England and America.

> {quote:title=JackFavell wrote:}{quote} > I really like Steve McQueen, although I can't get through The Reivers. I love him dearly but I do not like that movie or any of his westerns. > I can't believe anyone could forget Steve in The Great Escape... That is clearly my second-favorite movie of his. He is indeed the focal point of the movie as he depicts an average soldier doing above-average things when needed. I like *Chicken Run* (2000) because it is so much like *The Great Escape* (1963).

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote} > You are apt to know more about an actor's private life than your doctor's, or broker's, or attorney's. Maybe these people have also done things that you don't like. I have heard of people who refused to have emergency surgery because the only surgeon available is of the "wrong" gender, religion, race or politics. I see in those incidents a perverse justice.

> {quote:title=LonesomePolecat wrote:}{quote} > Reifenstahl's OLYMPIA is amazing, and despite what the intention was, all that comes across to me is the glory of the Olympics in general I have more reason than most here to hate the Nazis. I am very happy I do not let that animosity deprive me of that wonderful movie. I am in awe of it. > So it seems like you have to take it a film at a time. I can think of no actor, actress or director of whom I can say that I like all of their work. It often depends on genre but I also have a healthy dislike for movies with an agenda even if I agree with the principles behind that agenda.

> {quote:title=AndyM108 wrote:}{quote} > I wouldn't shake the hand of a handful of actors. I have been in the same room with a star whom I like very much in several roles and I love dearly in one certain role. I thought to go to him to tell him how I felt. I did not because I could see plainly that he was not whom I liked. My feelings were for his portrayals and I knew I could not expect him to become one of those characters only to talk with me. > I wouldn't want to discuss politics with a lot more of them. I hesitate to talk of politics with any person at any time. It is not only that I have little interest it is also that the politics I know are so very complicated I am sure to confuse or bore the person listening.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote} > The only performer who's films I've ever boycotted was Woody Allen. I know nothing of his life but I do boycott Woody Allen films because I do not like any of those which I have seen except: *Sleeper* (1973) which I think would be much funnier if it had been done with a lighter touch.

> {quote:title=RMeingast wrote:}{quote} > But those comments of Tarantino's immediately made me think of Alfred Hitchcock's last British film: "Frenzy": (His final American film was made in 1976, "Family Plot": I feel that *Family Plot* qualifies as four bad movies by its own self because most movies are bad in only two or three ways but it is bad in nearly a dozen ways.

> {quote:title=Sepiatone wrote:}{quote} > If they were a child molester however, I'd be left to wonder how someone, like the man who made your book bag, could make something so beautiful, yet also do something so ugly. I believe that the person who can find why good people do bad things and why bad people do good things will soon be the richest psychologist in the world. > I really don't see the sense in disregarding a talented artist's work simply because they're not the kind of person you'd invite to dinner. I must wonder how it feels to love a work of art for many years and then to have to instantly hate it because you learn the artist was a bad person. I do not think I could do it. That is not part of me. > But returning to the point, for me, usually performance trumps personality. That is me also.

> {quote:title=EugeniaH wrote:}{quote} > For some people, analyzing the actor's personality or private life can take the fun out of watching the performance on screen. I must admit that I do not understand the cult of fandom wherein people feel they must know details of an actor's life. I believe a part of me wants actors to not exist except in their roles. > I would rather watch Robin Hood for what it is than say, "There's the guy who ran into trouble with those underage girls." Then a movie isn't really a form of "escape". That is perfectly my feeling also.

> {quote:title=ginnyfan wrote:}{quote} > My answer is a rock solid, "it depends". > I never boycotted Chaplin or Woody Allen. I would boycott Polanski if I had ever cared in the first place. Some actors whose politics bother me, I'm not affect by at all while I consciously avoid others. I believe it is easier for some people to set aside their distaste when it concerns actors who have passed and it will in no way benefit them to watch their work. It may be harder to disassociate when the person is alive and watching their work can provide them with even a meager measure of popularity or money as that can be seen as supporting them and giving them tacit approval.

> {quote:title=willbefree25 wrote:}{quote} >> That he was a most horrible savage did not make the delicate flowers or elegant stitching on the bag any less beautiful. > > Sorry, I disagree most vehemently with you there. As you can recall, Hitler was an artist. This for me conjures a vision of walking through a museum and saying: "I love that painting very much and feel that it touches me deeply if the artist is a good person but I hate it and feel it should be censored if the artist is a sinner". That manner of thought is foreign to me.

> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote} > But my issue is this: I think Loretta Young is a really BAD actress. And that means from the pre-codes to the late stuff. She ruins many movies for me. She is like many other stars for me in that I like her very much in some roles and I like her much less in other roles and I dislike her actively in other roles. I avoid watching a few movies I have not seen because there is an actor whom I can not abide. One of the major ones is Marlon Brando. I believe I might like some of his movies very much if he could be digitally exorcised from them. It appears to me that you feel much that way about Loretta Young.

> {quote:title=Bronxgirl48 wrote:}{quote} Ha! I would very much hate to be a turkey. She looks as if she knows how to use that ax!

> {quote:title=Bronxgirl48 wrote:}{quote} > I'm not much of a cook so the only time I eat and enjoy stuffed cabbage is when I go to one our local delis here a couple of times each month. The best Ukrainian food is simple to make. There is no fancy equipment or exact measuring. It is often that all you need is a knife to chop things, your hands to shape it and a pot to cook it in. My cousin would at times get up, make vareniki for her children's breakfast and then go back to bed. When she woke up she would fret that they had gone to school without eating because she did not remember being up the first time. I think I have never cooked in my sleep but it is quite possible. > My favorite variation, though, and the most delicious and restorative, is a bowl of sweet-and-sour cabbage soup, chock full of beets, savory meat broth, tender carrots, and succulent beef, topped off with sensuous, undulating swirls of rich sour cream. That is solyanka. It should have pickles for the sour and several kinds of sausage for the beef.

The ending of *The Thomas Crown Affair* (1968) is perfect because it is so very poignant in showing how much is lost in winning.

> {quote:title=solarblast wrote:}{quote} > Regarding my ability to convert recorded movies via DirecTV, there is a wrinkle with short features. They take a good bit of work to say put 10 30 min movies onto a DVD. There's not ability to say put all 10 separatedly onto a DVD. Sort of like chapters. All I could get is a continuous unbroken stream onto ad DVD. I can suggest only that you look in your owner's manual or the on-screen menu for a "divide title" feature. On four of our five DVD recorders that allows us to record several movies as a continuous operation and then split them apart so that each appears as a separate title in the disk menu. It is also possible to do that on the recorder which does not have a dedicated "divide title" feature but it involves removing all chapter marks and then putting in a chapter mark where we wish a division and then putting that chapter mark into the menu under its own name.

There is currently discussion in the thread for Loretta Young being Star of the Month concerning what kind of person she was in real life. I have seen similar discussions concerning other actors. Some people feel very strongly that a star's personal life should be a factor in judging their performances. I admit that I have a disconnect. A good performance means that I am not seeing the star as themself and I am instead seeing them as the character. I believe this is crucial indeed to calling it a good performance. I would likely not like Robin Hood if I associated him with underage sex but Robin Hood is not that person: that person disappeared from the world as soon as Robin Hood swung onto that tree limb and that person reappeared only when the movie ended and he was out of sight to us. It is much the same with Marianne in *Massacre Harbor* (1968). I believe she is brave to help the Allies and even more brave to sing in front of an audience when some of them are armed. She is not the same person as had an affair with the married attorney who defended her for causing the death of a handsome hot-bod skier. A star's personality and behavior in real life are of no matter to me also because of a thing when I was a child: Most of my classmates and I used cords or belts to tie our books together to make them easy to carry between home and school. Those who had special cloth bags for their books were envied. My uncle knew a man who knew a man and so was able to get for me a leather bag. Every bit of it was tooled and dyed with pictures of berries and flowers and scenes of a farm. My name was dyed on the straps and the letters were outlined with gilt. The stitching was three lines in differing colors which wove back and forth to look as if they were braided. It was soft and strong and beautiful and it looked gloriously expensive. I was very proud of it and I loved it dearly. There was a fad when I became a teenager to have leather coats which looked like tunics. I asked my uncle if he could have the same man make for me such a coat. It is sad to say it could not be done because to make it properly the man would need to fit it to me but he was never allowed to have children visit him because he had raped and beaten his grand-daughters. It had been against strict prison rules that he had been told my name when he was making the bag for me. I believe that was my first cogent realization that you can not assume what a person is like by looking at their work nor judge their work by what kind of person they are. That he was a most horrible savage did not make the delicate flowers or elegant stitching on the bag any less beautiful. The fact that a star was so socially acceptable that they were not put in prison or an institution and that other people desired to work with them means they could not have been as evil as some people seem to want us to believe. Many stars were ostracized by the Hollywood machine because their behavior was unacceptable. Some stars lost their careers because of having to go to prison. A few stars may have died because it was thought that murdering them was better than letting them drag all of Hollywood into scandal. Those who worked steadily and were nearly always in demand could therefore be no worse than people in any other profession. Does any person care if their coffee-maker was assembled by an adulterer? Does any person care if their favorite work of art was painted by a transvestite? Does any person care if their web browser was designed by an egomaniacal thief? I see no difference in those from caring if a character in a movie is named in the credits as being portrayed by a person I would not welcome into my home because of their moral, political or sexual values. Your Mileage May Vary

It is sad to say there are far greater horrors in the cupcake world. Emma Thomas aka Miss Cakehead created anatomically correct icing to depict venereal diseases. They have been nicknamed: "clapcakes". I will not post an image because they are disturbing but here is a link to an article with images: [ http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4604750/std-cupcakes.html] Here are some cute cupcakes: http://www.toxel.com/inspiration/2009/03/31/21-unusual-and-creative-cupcake-designs/

> {quote:title=MissGoddess wrote:}{quote} > There must be a recipe for making Twinkies without the chemicals. I posted in the Favorite Recipes thread three links to online recipes for ersatz replacements for those who need to wean themself off of their Twinkies habit. > But aren't the chemicals what gave those snacks their flavor? I am sorry to say that I found them to have little flavor of any kind. > Those cup-cake places are dotted all over anorexic Manhattan. Who is eating them, I'm not sure. I see lots of skinny people in them and I can only imagine what they do to "make up" for the sin of eating a cupcake. Perhaps they need to discover bublyky. They must be healthy because I have never heard of a good Cossack dying from a thing he ate!