AndyM108

I saw a very interesting show on PBS once about the controversy over "Amos and Andy". There were some who felt that the comic genius of Tim Moore got lost in the shuffle and others who were against it ever being shown again. I used to show bootleg 16mm prints of Amos 'n' Andy in the 70's as part of a mini-festival we called "An Evening of Nostalgia" that featured six old TV shows from the 50's. We varied the program from campus to campus, but one of the main constants we discovered was that whenever we showed Amos 'n' Andy, the African American percentage of the audience skyrocketed. And if you could judge their sentiments by their laughter and their comments as they were leaving the auditorium, they *loved* it. What I think people often forget is that the main objection to Amos 'n' Andy wasn't so much the way the characters were portrayed. After all, characters like Andy, Sapphire and the Kingfish were a longstanding part of the Chitlin' Circuit tradition. And yes, Tim Moore was an absolutely sublime actor, as were Spencer Williams and Ernestine Wade. No, the real objection to Amos 'n' Andy wasn't so much the show itself. It was the fact that this was the *ONLY* way (other than as servants in white dramas and sit-coms) that blacks were being portrayed on television. This wasn't anything like The Birth of a Nation, which for all its cinematic brilliance was little more than a racist diatribe hiding behind a thin veil of artistry, Griffith's protestations to the contrary.

Birth of A Nation is a film I recommend all people see but I wouldn't make it part of a tribute for Black History month. I might make the film No Way Out part of a tribute (but that would be a difficult decision to make). What would really make for a much *better* Black History month tribute would be to showcase movies like Nothing But a Man, Intruder in the Dust, Anna Lucasta, and Shadows, plus earlier films made by African American studios, as opposed to the Same Old Same Old selection of black actors and actresses in wholly subservient and secondary roles. No Way Out would be another good choice, as would A Raisin in the Sun, but it'd be nice to feature some different films that don't show up several times a year to begin with.

I was kind of wondering that myself when I first saw the 2 hour running time listed in the Now Playing Guide. But since TCM ran the 4 hour version in 2010 and again just last September, I have a feeling that you'll get a chance to capture the longer one before too long.

Are there really that many people who want to watch silent movies? I'm getting SO tired of all the silent movies that I guess it's time to quit TCM. As Nancy Wilson once said, "Don't let the back door hit ya where the dog should've bit ya." Maybe you should just create your own movie channel so you'll never be "forced" to watch something you don't like. Sorry to be so blunt, but these complaints about silents and foreign movies are getting more than a little tiresome. In case people haven't figured it out by now, TCM was never meant to be the home of just one narrow range of movies, and thank God for that.

George Reeves night has to include The Strawberry Blonde . He has the honor of being socked by Cagney! I have to assume that that punch broke every bone in Cagney's hand.

Sorry, Dargo, I should have made it clear that I was addressing a broader audience, and not trying to suggest that you were ignorant of BOAN's initial reception. My bad.

And btw, you're observation is incorrect about when the "racist" title was placed around Griffith's neck. This thought has been around at least since the 1970s, because I personally remember it being one of the reasons used, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, against the showing of "Birth of a Nation" in college film classes or that time. *The 70's?* Good grief. The racist message of Birth of a Nation was loudly protested right from the git-go. In virtually every big city in the North there were picket lines and protests greeting it. Of course when some people say that "nobody" paid any attention to Griffith's racism until 2000 or the 1970's, what they really mean is that few *white people* saw the racism in the movie. Given the prevalent racial views of 95% of the white population during that time, *that* statement is uncontestable. And the idea that BOAN *didn't* spur the re-birth of the **** is just laughable. The founder of the revived Klan, William J. Simmons, said he was inspired by the movie to try to make his local organization into a national one. And while blacks protested the openings of the movie in the North, the Klan paraded in front of the theaters in full regalia, passing out recruiting leaflets. None of this means that strictly on cinematic terms, BOAN wasn't a groundbreaking movie, just as was Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will. Give the Devil his (or her) due. But both the movie and its director were racist to the core, it was clearly seen that way by black people (and a handful of whites) at the time, and it most certainly *did* help the Klan in its revival. That's not "opinion", that's simply historical fact, regardless of how Griffith's apologists would try to spin it.

I think part of what The Wrong Man is about is that feeling of hopelessness, of powerlessness against "authorities" who have made up their minds. The feeling that nothing you can say or do will change the situation. One of Hitchcock's "nightmares" was this idea of being falsely accused, yet unable to prove your innocence. Henry Fonda definitely had it bad in The Wrong Man, but you have to wonder what Robert Cummings must have felt like in Saboteur, when his entire fate rested in the hands of the bearded lady of a small town circus!

I also posted on the other thread. I never made it past the intro. I couldnt stand the narrator (his accent, style of speaking and pretentious opinions) I knew watching the rest would just be torture, so I quit and erased it all. I dont need someone preaching or teaching me what to appreciate in films. Anything he would recommend I would consciencely avoid, so I'd rather not know what he approves of filmwise........ Good thing you don't like romantic comedies and musicals.

Some of us will complain from time to time about too much of this or not enough of that, but with the exception of a tiny handful of forever kvetching malcontents, the vast majority of us complainers fully appreciate what TCM is offering, and we re-state that appreciation often.

So who's the "villain" for trying to keep Milland and Turner apart? Calhoun or Milland's invalid wife? That snark aside, of the approximately 5,000 movies with this message that I've seen over the years, A Life of Her Own is one of the least contrived and most genuine. The penultimate bar scene with Barry Sullivan added a nice little touch of poignancy, and set the stage for Turner's final fadeaway down the sidewalk.

*Hitchcock cameos:* *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Alfred_Hitchcock_cameo_appearances* Clore, Just saw this link, and many thanks.

Maybe I'm confusing it with another movie, but in Shadow of a Doubt I thought Hitchcock was seen stepping in and out of a room on a train right near the start of the movie, with his back turned to us at first. His face appears only for a second or two before he disappears. Someone needs to compile a list of Hitchcock cameos. Did he appear in every movie right from the beginning, or didn't this practice begin until sometime in the 1930's?

Well, no fi, and Andy - I don't agree. We, the audience, first see him as a disturbed person, lying on his bed in some crummy boarding house, staring at the ceiling, and on the run as soon as he hears "there are two men looking for you" from his landlady. Pretty strong signals that something's not right with this guy. But Emma Newton, her husband, and children do not see or know any of that. They see a beloved family member returning for a long overdue visit. His character can be and is very charming and pleasant when he needs to be; and in fact, part of what makes the story so interesting is that on some level he genuinely does care about his sister and her family. But it's not just "we" who see much of this "disturbed" behavior. Just to cite two examples, the dinner scene and the "survey team" incident. What "we" are doing here is suspending our disbelief that such behavior would be routinely overlooked and *not even commented on behind Uncle Charlie's back,* no matter how "beloved" Uncle Charlie might be. But as I said in my first comment here, mine is obviously a minority opinion.

If you look at the chapter on "The Klan Revival 1915-1921" in Wyn Craig Wade's The Fiery Cross: The Ku Klux Klan in America (Simon and Schuster, 1987), you'll see that the founder of the "second" Klan, William J. Simmons, was inspired by the movie to revive the Klan. As I mentioned earlier, Klan members would often gather in their robes outside screenings of The Birth of a Nation, parading and passing out literature. The fact that the era was ripe for exploitation by racists doesn't mean that the movie didn't give an enormous boost to the Klan's recruiting efforts. Hell, the effect of that movie was so powerful that it led to the endorsement of the Klan by the pastor of the Harvard Street *Unitarian* Church - - - *in Boston!* You can read countless other examples of the film's influence on the Klan in this book and many others. There was a lot more than a mere "correlation" going on.

I can't really agree, Andy, that the family should have seen through the pecularities of Uncle Charley mainly because he is well established as such a beloved figure with that family beforehand. Call it the rose coloured glasses syndrome, if you wish. But as I said, it's not any one instance of acting merely "eccentric", it's a steady drumroll of instances where he's acting both erratic and creepy. I can acknowledge the fact that the family might choose to indulge his behavior, but I find it impossible to believe that they wouldn't at the very least have been talking about his behavior among themselves while he was out of their presence. It simply doesn't add up. And that whole bit with the "survey team" was so transparently absurd it's hard to know where to begin. In this case it wasn't just Cotten's suspicious paranoia about being photographed or interviewed, it was the way the survey team kept persisting about him. No reputable polling organization would operate like that, not in the face of repeated refusals. The whole thing was about as subtle as a club.

But the notion that this is an underrated( to some) movie betrays the fact that it is one of JOSEPH COTTEN'S more underrated performances. I was struck by how in ONE SENTENCE, Cotton was able to go from "nice guy, good ol' Charlie" to someone with a deep seated malevolence, then back again without skipping a beat. He became somewhat, downright SCARY. Even to this jaded contributor! See, to me all that did was make me wonder just how clueless everyone else around him seemed to be. I know damn well if someone like Uncle Charlie had popped in on my house and started acting as strangely and erratically as he did, I would have been asking him what the hell is going on. And yeah, I know that we all have to suspend belief during movies sometimes, but this was like trying to swallow six impossible things before breakfast. P.S. Sepiatone, I hope you don't mind that I corrected your spelling. Joe Cotten never done picked a bale of cotton in his life, far as I know.

I would suggest the possibility that John Ford's "The Grapes of Wrath" might've helped spur the massive western movement of Easterners to "The Promised Land" of California just before and after the Second World War. Hmmm, I can see the appeal of California, but not the appeal of how the Joad family tried to get there. I don't quite see the joys of getting your head cracked open while picking fruit for 5 cents a bushel.

But colorizing does work and DOES improve the enjoyment of B&W films like Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House, Chain Lightning, The Longest Day, House on Haunted Hill and even Plan 9 from Outer Space and that is why TCM and most of you TCM devotees are completely wrong about this. This space cadet has spoken. There's a guy I know in a baseball forum who's spent the last two years trying to convince everyone that Ichiro Suzuki isn't worthy of the Hall of Fame. Perhaps the two of you might get together to compare notes.

Interesting list by Ebert, but after BOAN, none of those other 14 films had much influence on anything beyond *OTHER FILMS.* To go beyond that limited sort of influence, and in addition to the two I mentioned below, he might have mentioned films like The Wild One and other movies with a similar influence outside the film industry itself.

I'm sure this is a minority opinion, but Shadow of a Doubt is among my least favorite Hitchcocks. It always strained my credulity that someone so obviously "off" as Cotten was in so *many* telling moments wasn't tagged much sooner than he was. But maybe that's just hindsight on my part The lengths he went to avoid being photographed was the last straw, but there were many signs before that, none of which in isolation were particularly damning, but collectively it's unimaginable that they wouldn't have had people suspecting something peculiar. Think about it: A relative you haven't seen for many years sends a perfunctory telegram from clear across the country, and then just shows up on your doorstep, with almost no explanation and no inclination not to make himself a permanent guest. He then goes around getting severely agitated over a series of trivial happenstances, more or less attempts to force everyone to cater to his peculiar whims, and then treats the "survey team" as if they were the FBI and he was Public Enemy #1, for no reason that would make any sense to a normal person. Of course that "survey team" was blatantly transparent in its own way, but to me that only added to the clumsiness and incredulity of the entire plot. Since it was Hitchcock, it could only sink so low, but I can't think of more than one or two of the many Hitchcocks I've seen over the years that I wouldn't rank well over this one.

Well, The Birth of a Nation arrived in 1914, and the second **** was founded a year later. During the movie's premiere in Atlanta, the immediate predecessor to the second ****, a local Atlanta group that had adopted its uniforms, paraded in front of the theater. And given the way that the film glorified the Klan, it's hard to imagine a better publicity campaign for the newly emerging organization, a campaign that began anew with every subsequent screening of the movie. In addition, the movie was shown in the White House before President Wilson, who reportedly gave it high praise before issuing a less noticed statement that he'd made no such comment. The express purpose of the book's author was to "revolutionize northern sentiment" in favor of the Klan. Put all that together, and it's hard not to see the direct and immense connection between the movie and the Klan revival. Of course there were underlying social factors, such as immigration and urbanization, but those factors came into play more in the 1920's, when the Klan revival had spread into the North. Now if you want a weak tea runnerup for "most influential" movie, I'd give it to The Hustler and The Color of Money, which 25 years apart produced an instant boom in the pool business. Every last person in that business will back up that statement, and they only wish that Paul Newman had decided to make a second sequel before he died. Big splash in small puddle, I know, but for direct and immediate influence, only The Birth of A Nation matches them.

And how! What are we suppose to do with Trip to the Moon? Stare at the pretty flickering? How about something more modern and more enjoyable and more up to date in Technicolor like George Pal's Conquest of Space. Of course Trip To The Moon is only one of the most important landmarks in the history of movies. Not that that should mean anything to the programmers. But what the hell, let's just run an endless loop of the 1939 Buck Rogers serials instead. Not too old and not too new! Is everybody happy now?

It's part of a salute to Telluride or some film festival. Goodness, it's just one movie. You want oldies? You'll get your wish tonight with films from the dawn of the century and I don't mean the present one either. In fact, there will be shorts from the 1890s tonight. What other channel would give you over a century's worth of film in one 24-hour period? And if our boy can hold his breath for another 23 minutes, he'll get to see the TCM premiere of Pitfall, a classic noir with Dick Powell and Raymond Burr.

*CHEEELDREN* OF THE NIGHT. . . WHAT SWEET *MYOOOZIK* THEY MAKE. . . DO THEY NOT. . . *MEESTER* POWELL?"