SansFin

I like this movie very much for a reason which most people will think odd: I see different symbolism in it each time I watch it and I discount most of the symbolism which I believed it had the previous time I watched it. It is nearly as if they created sixty-four slightly different versions and showed them randomly so that people would argue about the presence or lack of certain meaningful elements. These arguments would generate publicity which would be beneficial to the box office. I have no proof that they did this but it was a standard of the era to produce different endings for different regions and so it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a well-funded director and a technically insane writer might have conspired to create confusion.

Serenity (2005) Mal: This is the captain. We have a little problem with our entry sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and then . . . explode.

That reminds me very strongly of this picture:

I have watched many of the movies which he critiques. What does that say of me? The Vampire Doll (1970) is a particular example of a movie which I like very much but often feel as if I am the only person here who has watched it.

It would have had to have been a picture showing great distinction.

The anarchist in me wishes very much that I could find a copy of: Utterly Without Redeeming Social Value (1969). In no particular order: My Night at Maud's (1969) Ring of Bright Water (1969) The Italian Job (1969) The House That Screamed (1969) Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1969) Fellini Satyricon (1969) The Great Bank Robbery (1969) The Color of Pomegranates (1969) The Assassination Bureau (1969) The Secret of Santa Vittoria (1969) The Diamond Arm (1969) The Madwoman of Chaillot (1969) Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969) The Bed Sitting Room (1969) Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969)

Mother Riley Meets the Vampire (1952) I love British humour in general and have a soft spot in my heart for British slapstick. Old Mother Riley, Headmistress (1950) has long been one of my guilty pleasures. I remember watching this movie long ago and not being favorably impressed. I attributed that to my mood as it has all of the elements of the other "Old Mother Riley" movies which I like. Watching it now also leaves me a little cold. The story makes as much sense as any other movie in its lineage. Bela Lugosi's performance was quite wonderfully his trademark "this would be ridiculously over the top if any other actor attempted it" style. It is almost as if they know the jokes and action have been overdone in the other movies and have to overdo them to a greater extent in order to stand out. There is no originality at any level in any of it. There is no brisk "at least we are having fun" attitude among the actors. There is no signature joke or scene which the audience can take away with a smile in their heart. I am sad to say that it falls flat to me.

I have read much of: Dhalgren by Samuel R. Delany, 1975, Bantam Books I have come to wound the autumnal city. So ends and begins what I feel is the most accessible enigmatic book ever written. It is easy for many to dismiss it as science fiction but the simple truth is that it must be shoved into a genre because the mind rebels at the suggestion that such people and such a place could be real. It begins poetically. Plain words covey vivid thoughts. It descends into crude and lurid acts. It rises to the innate fear of loss of sense of self. It is not that I have no past. Rather, it continually fragments on the terrible and vivid ephemera of now. Much has been written about this novel and many reviewers have analyzed it. They point out that it is a circular text and has many points where loops may enter or leave. They mention the literary devices of unreliable narrator, multistable perception and distortion of social constructs. They bemoan how difficult it is to review a book when characterization and plot are secondary to the experience of reading it. I'm trying to construct a complicitous illusion in lingual catalysis, a crystalline and conscientious alkahest. You listen to that too carefully and you'll figure out what it means. Then the words will die on you and you won't understand any more. It is in basic form the simple story of a schizophrenic amnesiac visiting a city which has become invisible to the rest of the world because radio and television do not work there. He, those he meets and the city itself drift in hopes of finding a mythical stability. They do not find it. I believe this must be read several times in a person's life because it is the text equivalent of an optical illusion and the slightest shift in perception reveals entirely different meanings. It is physically the same ink on the same paper between the same covers but it bears only a vague similarity to the book I read ten years ago.

"Actor Rip Torn, who appeared in over 100 films during a career spanning six decades, has died at 88" https://ktla.com/2019/07/09/oscar-nominated-actor-rip-torn-dies-at-88-report/

I believe this is simply an example of sloppy writing to cover a plot hole. It has been many, many years since I have read the books but I seem to recall that it was not Glinda who supplied that information at that point. The screenwriter opted to telescope the witches of north and south into one character. This created problems and he could not be bothered to find meaningful solutions.

It was perhaps: Village of the Giants (1965).

Please Don't Eat My Mother! (1973) When Women Had Tails (1970) The Grapes of Death (1978)

I love that movie very much! I saw it with some regularity in a variety of venues. It was often paired with: Volga, Volga (1938) when shown on television. It was due to my searching for that movie on-line that I discovered that Mosfilm had placed a great many of their movies onto YouTube.

I watched so many movies from the time that I was a baby that they all blend together. It is impossible to even denote which one was the first that I remember. Many were from other countries and I was so young that I could not have read the subtitles if they were present. I do remember watching my very first pornographic movie. I marveled at how well the cameraman managed so often to catch my good side.

It is my understanding that AMC was generally leasing movies which were categorized as being suitable for family audiences. Some fraction of these had been edited for content so that television stations did not have to differentiate between versions suitable for afternoon airing when children might watch and versions suitable only for late-night airing. I believe that AMC showed the edited versions both day and night rather than renting both versions. TCM's approach to showing only original versions which had not been edited for content may have been novel at the time because it meant not being able to air some movies during the day if they had content not deemed suitable for children. Making a determination for when each movie could air must have been a considerable amount of work and produced even more work for the scheduling department. I know that at least one movie shown on AMC was edited. It was: The Scarlet Pimpernel (1934). I discovered this when I was transferring some of my insignificant duther's VHS tapes to DVD. It was the scene wherein Leslie Howard is reciting the infamous poem to ladies of the court. That scene was missing from AMC's broadcast. It is fortunate that he had recorded it on a different date from TCM.

I am afraid that my GoogleFu is inadequate to find a post of yours in any previous thread on this topic. I admit that I am choosing the low-hanging fruit by searching only for: "first movie" on this site while there may well be many other phrases which were used to express the same concept. It seems also that there isare gaps in the years for which threads and posts may be found. I have found this on previous searches and must wonder if it is due to changes in forum software.

The easy ones to find are: 2005 - http://forums.tcm.com/topic/5201-what-was-the-first-movie-you-remember-watching/ 2007 - http://forums.tcm.com/topic/12917-first-movie-you-saw/ 2008 - January - http://forums.tcm.com/topic/16447-the-first-movie-you-ever-saw-try-to-remember/ 2008 - February - http://forums.tcm.com/topic/17363-what-was-the-first-movie-you-ever-saw/ 2010 - http://forums.tcm.com/topic/28566-do-you-remember-the-very-first-movie-you-ever-saw/ 2012 - http://forums.tcm.com/topic/40813-what-was-the-first-old-movie-you-ever-seen/ 2014 - http://forums.tcm.com/topic/51133-what-was-the-first-film-you-saw-in-the-theater/ 2017 - http://forums.tcm.com/topic/127620-which-is-the-first-movie-that-you-ever-watched/ It is interesting to look through them and see posters who are no longer active in the forum. It is interesting also to check the usernames and find so many who: "Last visited: Never" as it makes me conjure visions of people who were delivered the questions and answered them while never bothering to come to the site.

I am sorry if that seemed very much like mansplaining. I know of no way to make it interesting to read.

I believe that to "finger" someone had a distinctly different meaning in the 1930s than it does today.

Pencil leads are a mixture of graphite and a binder. The clay used as a binder in cheap pencils would dry when exposed to the air. This meant that the first line would be as if you are trying to write with a brick. It would not mark well or it would be crumbly and might fall off the paper. Licking the end caused the particles of clay to separate and go into suspension so that they would come off the point with ease and carry the graphite particles with them.

I believe that any discussion of architecture in movies must include mention of the Bradbury Building. There are eighty-three movies and television episodes which used this for location filming listed on imbd.com. They range from: China Girl (1942) to Pushing Daisies (2007–2009). I feel it is only fitting that the building might be listed "appearing as itself" in the documentary: Los Angeles Plays Itself (2003). My favorite movies in which it appears are: The Unfaithful (1947), D.O.A. (1949), M (1951), Marlowe (1969), Chinatown (1974) and Blade Runner (1982).

Was it perhaps: http://forums.tcm.com/topic/382-movie-books/ I have not read entire thread but Mary Astor's "My Story" is mentioned on page five.

You might decompress by watching: Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (1990). Ian Richardson's Polonius does not have the verve of Hume Cronyn's portrayal but it is adequate considering its abbreviated nature.