SansFin
-
Posts
10,146 -
Joined
-
Days Won
29
Posts posted by SansFin
-
-
> {quote:title=Bronxgirl48 wrote:}{quote}
> There are now three, count 'em three, tiny lizards in Mom's apartment. Normally she dispatches them with ruthless accuracy, but her aim with the broom has been a little random of late.
Perhaps you can buy her some live-catch traps for Christmas and she can then sell them! I have it on good authority from Gussie Fink-Nottle that they make good pets.
> So I went back for a cholesterol check this morning, and the LDL was up 15 points.
I have read that eating chocolate each day can lower the number significantly. It is sad to say that the amount you must eat is very small and if you eat more it may send the numbers up.
-
*The Bishop's Wife* (1947)
-
> {quote:title=markbeckuaf wrote:}{quote}
> nice to "meet" you yet again! And I wish you and Capuchin the very best!
I thank you very much for your kind words and good wishes.
> I'm just an old movie (and tv show) buff, not much to share really.
I have a mental image of you as a professor of film history who is a semi-reformed hippie sharing with your student esoteric knowledge of when and where rare classics might be viewed in the wild.
-
> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote}
> Some of us are what Ted Turner originally envisioned. We are subscribers to the ideal that classic films should have a place to be broadcast regularly so that something like CITIZEN KANE and GONE WITH THE WIND will never be forgotten. We are Ted's target audience.
> But today's TCM business model does not seem interested in Ted's idea of the preservation of classic film as much as it is interested in exploiting those films, made all those years ago, to sell new products and services related to the lifestyle of a TCM follower.
I believe that Ted Turner would have established the channel as a non-profit foundation if he were as altruistic as you allude.
He recognized a niche market which would respond to vintage movies shown with no commercial interruption. That has not changed since Time-Warner acquired it.
He used the restoration of vintage movies as a vehicle to popularize the channel and to increase revenue by renting those movies also to other channels and venues at higher rates than could be charged for non-restored movies. The only change has been that Time-Warner has been instrumental in having movies in several libraries restored rather than only the original Turner library and the revenue stream is shifting away from marketing to other channels to marketing DVDs directly to consumers. I see this as a positive step as I would rather have the opportunity to buy a movie than to rely on when it might be scheduled on some channel.
He colorized movies. I believe Time-Warner has stopped that practice.
The major difference under Time-Warner is to introduce more commercials between the movies. I do not mind such things as I rarely see them because I watch the movies and not the things between them. I might record the interstitials if I believe there might be a short movie of interest but I fast-forward through them so it can not be said that I truly watch the commercials.
Time-Warner is also branding DVDs and merchandise. I believe this has a positive effect as it makes more people aware of classic movies available and it is easy to ignore such things I do not wish to buy.
> On Demand services are going to lead to the end of the Channel as we know it now.
I believe the entire industry is in flux because of advances in technology and no person can know what the net effects will be.
> The continual mass marketing leads to an entity that is robbed of diversity and other rare treats for the classic movie fan.
I believe the opposite it true. Expansion through mass-marketing necessitates restoration of more less-well-known movies because of the need for new content to satisfy viewer demand as the viewers build their own libraries of popular movies.
-
> {quote:title=Dargo2 wrote:}{quote}
> I DO have to say however that the thought you expressed about even as a child resigning yourself to the idea of dying young, sure reinforces that old stereotype of the Russian culture being one of Fatalism, and an almost "Eeh...what's the use in tryin'!" mentality. No offense, of course.
I deeply wish I were eloquent because then I might be able to explain and have understood the differences in philosophy.
It is possible that most Russians are fatalistic. That might explain why they consume so much vodka.
I believe our view is more one of pragmatism. The most common way of saying it is: "It is what it is".
I have now spent so much time beginning sentences and then deleting them in attempts to convey properly what it means that I am at risk of having my log-in time-out.
I am sorry I have no way to explain it.
-
If TCM had not spent the money to restore and remaster the movie then they would not have to sell DVDs of it in order to recover that money.
Is what most people want from TCM is that they show only old prints of cheap-to-rent movies so there is less need for them to advertise between movies?
-
I believe they are taking advantage of the fact that the technical aspects inherent in creating a DVD made it possible for TCM to air the movie and it is likely they could not air the converted version prior to the DVD's release because of rights issue.
-
> {quote:title=Dargo2 wrote:}{quote}
> Does anyone else on the boards here who was about that age when they first watched this movie that year think to themselves somethin' like: "Holy Crap! I've only got 6 more years to live!" ???
I am within a generous frame of that age. I do not know when I watched that movie first. It was likely two or three years after its release.
I hope you can understand that I viewed such things from a perspective different from those shared by many people here. I knew at a very young age that I was going to die. Life is what it is and then it ends. I am sure I would have cared little about a date being attached to death because I was cynical also at a young age and I knew to not believe promises or threats beyond what would happen that day.
> I suppose I don't need to remind you the Cold War was nearing its height in 1960, and in MY case especially, word was to us kids that all the SoCal-based defense plants where Target No.1 on the Ruskies' list.
My perspective on this was different also. I have in my files a thing which I wrote to respond to a similar topic in a forum. I apologize for repeating it if it was in these forums where I posted it and I apologize for not writing it anew as I believe it is the best that I can do. This happened when we had to move to Russia for a year:
I had no friends in one place because I was the new one in school. I spent my after-school time exploring. I found a place in the woods where there were long trenches cut into the side of a hill. There were piles of dirt between them. It was easy to walk into one end. Their sides were very steep. They were so wide I could not touch both sides no matter how much I stretched my arms. They were so tall I remember thinking I would not be able to see over the top even if I stood on my own shoulders. It was a place of wonder. They were cool and the sun played tricks with shadows. Vines draped over the edges and wildflowers grew where they could. One day a soldier found me there and took me home and he told my mother where I had been. She told me not to play there again because that was where the dead would be buried when America bombed the city.
We knew my home-city was a primary target because it is a major port and there were naval, army and air defense bases.
-
> {quote:title=RaquelVixen wrote:}{quote}
> If what he is asking is so disquieting to you, perhaps the best option is to disengage.
I agree fully with your sentiment. There comes to all a time when they should bow out and it is to my own shame that it will at times take a very long time for me to realize that I can not have a meaningful dialogue with a poster no matter how much effort I expend and to realize that the best course for all is for me to use the "Ignore" button..
> I wasn't aware it was incumbent upon any poster to divulge personal information in order to participate in any discussion on the board.
I believe a lack of some personal information greatly hinders many discussions. I do not mean age, gender, politics or religion. I do mean what appeals to them and what they consider important in a movie.
I could list six movies which I like very much and ask for recommendations for others like them but it would have no meaning and I would receive no proper responses if I did not say also that why they touch me deeply is how the director used actor placement and camera angles to juxtapose totems of conflicting rationales to enhance character development.
I believe that what a person likes and why they feel attracted to certain things in movies is very personal information and if a poster is unwilling to share that for unstated reasons then there is little hope for a meaningful discussion.
-
> {quote:title=molo14 wrote:}{quote}
> If you haven't seen *Love Crazy* I would recommend that one highly. It remains my favorite of the films they made together.
I love that movie.
I will add also a recommendation for: *I Love You Again* (1940). The plot is very contrived but it is charming to see him wooing her in such a deviously naive way.
-
> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}
> Wow! A human cat's nest! That's amazing.I like cats, but even if my beard was big enough, I'm not sure I'd want one living in it.
It is my impression that the cat is not happy also about being there.
> For those who didn't click the link, it points out the irony of Groucho winning, since during his film career, his "mustache" was actually grease paint.
I went to the site but I read little other than their list.
I wonder if a list has been compiled of characters who lose their mustaches or beards during a movie such as happened in: *To Be or Not to Be* (1942) where his beard was pulled and a character lost their mustache while riding in an automobile.
-
I believe it would be interesting to have new actors, screenwriters and directors introduce movies which motivated them to become part of the industry.
It would be one movie for each person and it would concentrate on specific parts of the movie which resonate with them rather than a broad and balanced view of the movie.
It is my personal foible that I prefer passionate reasons to watch a movie over and above trivia concerning an actor or director.
-
> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}
> Like Garbo my wife is from Europe and she speaks 4 languages so she will pronounce foreign type of words as if they were spoken in the native language. But often many Americans will pronounce them using the English vowel sounds. e.g. I as I instead of 'E' for an Italian word.
I believe that is because most Americans learn a foreign language by looking at printed words. It is natural to sound out words using the phonetics of your native language. It is that which creates accents.
Many Europeans learn the basics of foreign languages by listening to foreign speakers before they have great exposure to printed words of that language. In this way they then grasp the proper phonetics when they see words in print which they know how to say and they can use those phonetics for words which they are learning.
I believe it was a grievous mistake in a movie to have a character hear a word new to them and then pronounce it as if they had seen it in print.
-
> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote}
> My grandfather's brother (I believe they were born in Odessa, probably in the 1870s) was sent to Siberia for attempting to assassinate the Tsar. He bribed his way out.
I do not find that surprising. Conspiracies were a pastime and finding a Russian who will take a bribe is often very easy.
-
That has long been a problem and it is becoming worse as the work is being done more often by software and no one checks it for accuracy.
A conversation in one of my favorite television programs is that a woman asks her sister if she is getting cold feet. The sister says with sarcasm: "I'm getting chilblains". The Closed Captioning is: "I'm getting chilled legs".
I have seen it also that changes are deliberate. There is a movie in German in which a character clearly says the 'f' word. The subtitle in English says: "Damn" and the Closed Captioning says: "Darn it".
I have seen it also in several Japanese television programs that the English subtitles change some of the meaning and the Closed Captioning is different also so that a person has a choice of three different things being said.
-
> {quote:title=Dothery wrote:}{quote}
> Wouldn't we all like to have a Dudley around, who would listen when we talked, help whenever it was needed, advise us perfectly when we were in a dilemma?
I believe that is the role of cats. They listen when you are saying a thing they wish to hear. They help by walking over your keyboard so that your fingers do not have to do all of the work of pressing the keys. They give advice by example. That advice is most often that most problems will go away if you sleep on it.
-
> {quote:title=willbefree25 wrote:}{quote}
>> My uncle was often in jail for showing movies which had not been approved by the state
> I wish you could share more on this,
I believe it was a matter of ideology. Foreign movies were considered decadent or subversive or both. I believe there was a procedure to have foreign movies approved for showing but it was long and expensive process and it raised questions of the motives of the person requesting it.
My uncle did not bother with that. I believe he could not have shown any movies which were truly bad in any way because he would have been sent to prison for that. It seems to me his arrests were thought to be administrative violations and not harmful criminal acts.
-
> {quote:title=Dargo2 wrote:}{quote}
> THAT'S a picture of your Ukrainian grandfather who played the dock worker in Sergei Eisenstein's *Battleship Potemkin*...RIGHT???
I am sorry to have to say that you are wrong on both counts.
It is Louis Coulon who was a Frenchman.
My mother's father was White Russian and my father's father was mostly Cossack and so they were both strongly Tsarist. I know of none of my relations who appeared in any movie.
-
It is very nice to have you return!
*The Unsuspected* (1947) is one of my favorite Claude Rains' movies. He is at his deviously charming best.
I do not understand all of Wednesday night's movies being categorized as Horror. I believe they would fit much better under Science Fiction.
Friday night is the best of the week. I do not know *Dracula's Daughter* (1936) and I am looking forward to it. I know and like all the others very much!
-
-
I believe a very important part of *The Bishop's Wife* is that all memory of him disappears when he is done. I feel this shows well that the writers knew the character so intimately that they knew he would not wish accolades for his good deeds. Having even the slightest traces of him disappear is the highest form of being an anonymous benefactor.
-
> {quote:title=LonesomePolecat wrote:}{quote}
> And you are so kind to think I'm kind. (That sounds like Dr Strangelove. "It's good that your kind and I'm kind. It's good to be kind.")
Robert Preston/Toddy in *Victor/Victoria* (1982) says to an audience: Thank you, thank you, you're most kind. In fact, you're every kind.
-
Dance music by Zirka:
-
> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote}
>> I like to watch Some Like It Hot once a year.
> What do you like about it?
I believe what I like best is that it knows it is silly. There are no pretensions of great wit or sophisticated humor. There is no attempt to make moments of drama or tension greater than the comedy which defuses them. It is meant only as mindless fun and is lives up to that mandate.
I have also a great love for the absurd and the premise is a minor absurdity played out to nearly absurd length. I feel this gives it credibility as humor.
The Annual FrankGrimes Torture Thread
in Your Favorites
Posted
> {quote:title=Bronxgirl48 wrote:}{quote}
> I thought of you during THE IRON PETTICOAT, praying you were not watching it.
I remember watching it many years ago. I wished to watch it again because I knew it could not by any means be as bad as I remember it being.
I was wrong. I must have been in a good mood and more forgiving when I first watched it or it would have gone onto my "never again" list.
I saw only parts of it as I did other things but each scene that I saw was an agony. It is sad to say that it does not even fit into the "it is so bad it is good" category.
After a night of faux Russians on TCM I feel a great need to see if there are any Aleksandr Abdulov movies on YouTube which I have not watched recently.