AndyM108

John Simon is a horror of a human being. But wouldn't George Sanders have been perfect portraying him in a biopic?

I only wish that TCM would make Judy Davis a SOTM. It seems as if the only movies of hers that ever gets shown here are My Brilliant Career and A Passage to India, whereas in terms of talent she's right up there with her American namesake Bette.

Glad you said "I'm talking about the influence a movie has had in shaping the look of other movies, and the themes and ideas they address," because otherwise The Birth of a Nation would be a no-brainer for its combination of technique and influence on public events. But by the standards you're using, the first two films that would come to my mind would be Metropolis and Bonnie and Clyde. You've already stated the case for Metropolis, but Bonnie and Clyde was very influential in both technique (the use of slow motion as a cinematic cliché) and its unashamed presentation of a pair of murderers as some sort of cultural heroes. To the above I'd add that while both of these films were strong reflections of the specific society in which they were produced, in the real world there was almost a visceral public backlash against the values that were implicit in the two filmmakers' visions. Just a few years after Metropolis, the Weimar culture had been forced into exile along with Fritz Lang, and just a year after Bonnie and Clyde had been released, we had Nixon and George Wallace combining for nearly 57% of the national popular vote.

Then, there's Pauline Kael, who is the fancy restaurant on top of the hill. You know the kind, where you book reservations months in advance. A place where you really get something to chew on. I used to love to chew on Pauline Kael for her writing and her encyclopedic knowledge of films, but I'd usually leave her recommendations on the plate along with the bones. Too many Last Tangos for my taste.

To me, Leonard Maltin is first and foremost, a Disney historian, who "backed into" into a broader base of film criticism via Entertainment Tonight and his books of "mini reviews." I don't think he truly has the depth of knowledge of classic films that one might wish he had but he sure is asked to render his opinion by the mass media more often than not. Leonard Maltin's but one more example of the sort of credentialed maven that TV shows often call upon. With these type of "experts", you quickly discover that the more you happen to know about the subject on hand, the more you realize how little they know. But when you're a complete rube on the subject under discussion, they can seem like positive geniuses. There was a "book expert" I used to know who once had an NPR show called "The Book Guys". He's probably never read anything much beyond a Classics Illustrated comic book from cover to cover in his entire life, and at one point he thought that "Swiss" was an actual language like French or German. The bottom line is that a bit of media presence and a lot of surface self-assurance can go a long way in today's world.

Categorizing can be tricky; does INTERNATIONAL HOUSE go into "musicals" or "pre-codes"? If I were categorizing that film, I'd call it a W. C. Fields, since it shows up in nearly all of his retroplex retrospectives. I had to combine Katherine Hepburn, Bette Davis & Joan Crawford movies in the same box too-wouldn't they hate that? OOOOHHH, CATFIGHT!!!!

How about SOTM "Character Actors in Leading Roles"? Well, there are many so-called "character actors" who often were in leading roles, if not always on the top of the credits. Just to take two names that jump right out: Edward Arnold and Charles Coburn.

I do have three (of the four) Hepburn-Grant films on a disc-- I put the fourth one, SYLVIA SCARLETT on a disc devoted to the woefully underrated Brian Aherne. I am hoping to get the Ladd-Lake noir when TCM broadcasts them in August for Ladd's day. My favorite of those is THE BLUE DAHLIA, which I could easily include with my 'Produced by John Houseman' theme. Some of the Thin Man movies I have scattered across other themes, like I do with the Andy Hardy ones. But if they wind up on Saturdays, where TCM is going through different movie series, then I will probably re-record them and make specific discs for them. My only prayer for both of us is that our surviving spouses and / or children can make sense out of any of our filing systems.

Actually, that is one film I do not have in my collection. So it's funny you pick that one as an example. If I chose to include BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK, I would probably put it as part of a Spencer Tracy theme, since he seems to dominate the picture and he is the first thing I think of when I think about that particular film. That would be easy to remember. And in case I forget, then I go back to the master list on my computer. Also-- sometimes I will intentionally make a duplicate recording if a film seems like it can work as part of more than theme. I do this so I do not have to guess where to find it-- and because it may be a film I like so much I don't mind having more than one copy of it (as a back up). Okay, I'm just glad to know that your memory is only human, and I'll never object to making duplicate copies of movies I particularly like. In my case I like to have all of my "favoritest" movies on separate SP disks, but then I also like to group them into a mini-theme on one LP or EP disk. Examples of that would be the Rossellini war trilogy, the three Grant/Hepburn comedies, the three Ladd/Lake noirs, all three versions of A Star Is Born (beginning with What Price Hollywood?), or the entire Thin Man series, which I have on two EP disks with three movies each. This way when I feel like seeing an entire mini-theme at once, I don't have to dig out multiple disks from multiple boxes.

When I switched to DVD recordings, I figured that it made better sense to organize the DVDs by theme and then organize the themes alphabetically. As I said in an earlier post, all my westerns are under 'Out West with ________,' so I just go to the bin with the 'O' discs in them, and I can quickly find any western I want. I don't even have to go to my master list on the computer, to try and find out which number it is. It saves time. The only problem I'd have with a system like that would be that in many cases there's a fine line between themes, and I'd often have trouble trying to remember which category I'd put the movie in. To take but one example: Bad Day At Black Rock. Is that a "Western" just because it takes place in the West, even though the setting is after World War 2, and it has nothing to do with cowboys and Indians or cattle rustling? But if it's not a Western, then what category (or theme) would you place it in? And more to the point for me, how would I remember a year down the road what category I put it in? All I can say is that your memory must be a lot better than mine.

Interesting response, primosprimos, and it makes perfect sense, given your preferences. My take is based on several factors: 1. DVDs are dirt cheap, and a good DVD recorder is a relatively inexpensive one time expense. 2. DVR monthly charges are not cheap at all, at least not with FIOS. 3. I'm a very impatient person, and the extra step of having to transfer films from a DVR to a DVD would kill my patience and dampen my enthusiasm. 4. I do like owning movies and gradually building up what is becoming a fairly coherent collection of both classic and (somewhat) modern films, about 3000+ in number so far. 5. Since I maintain a constantly upgraded Excel file of my DVDs, finding them is quick and easy. The real criticism is implied in the question "Am I really going to watch all those movies?" Since I usually make it a point to watch what I've recorded within a day or two after recording it, I can truthfully say that the answer is mostly "yes". And for the same reason I have a personal library of about 8000 books, I like the idea of having access to my favorite movies without having to rent them one at a time. (I do rent, but not that often.) I'm not a fan of reading books on a kindle or watching movies on my computer, and I'm not interested in connecting my TV to my computer so that I can take full advantage of streaming. Obviously this isn't for everybody, but for someone in my situation the difference between a DVD recorder and a DVR is like night and day. I probably spend less on all the DVDs I use in an average month than I'd be spending on those FIOS monthly DVR charges alone, without having anything to show for it in the end with that DVR box.

Unless you've just got an aversion to owning DVDs or don't have enough room to put them, I've never understood the advantage of DVRs over DVD recorders, which are (1) much cheaper in the long run, and (2) allow you to get an instant permanent copy of a movie without a "middleman". Okay, I do see one other DVR advantage: You can record on one channel while watching another channel. But since 95% of the most interesting TCM movies seldom if ever conflict with major sporting events, I don't think I've had any serious scheduling conflicts on that score more than a handful of times over the years. Think about it: How many prime time TCM movies are never shown again?

When I read the obits today in the Times and the Washington Post, I immediately went to YouTube and had myself a Jeffries mini-festival, beginning with and his biggest hit, , both recorded with the great Duke Ellington. What a voice, and what a life. R.I.P., "Bronze Buckaroo" Anyone notice the second billing here, the actor later known best in the role of Andrew H. Brown.

When I watch a movie from a commercial DVD, I never watch the previews or ads or whatever, I just press the "top menu" button or the other "menu" related button (I can't remember what it's called... "pop menu" maybe?) and it skips all that and moves right to the main screen. Sometimes you're able to use the fast forward button that allows you to quickly switch from one preview to the next before it gets to the title screen. I'll try that on my next Netflix film, though SansFin seems to think it may not work. I like having all my movies showing on a shelf, spines out so I can quickly grab something. I would be overwhelmed having to remember which 4 movies are on which disk. But that's just me. I file my DVDs in chronologically arranged (by the date I recorded them) slimline jewel case boxes, 200 to a box with the range of dates marked on the outside. I can get to any title within a minute by simply looking at an Excel file that also has them listed by recording date. If I want to find a particular film, I use the "find on page" function within the Excel file, and the title along with the date of recording pops right up. It does require a bit of attention to keep the file current, but at most it's a few minutes a day. What's exciting here is that everyone is basically able to acquire vast collections of movies that they can forever have at their fingertips whether it be recording them from TV or popping a disk into the DVD or Blu Ray player. Gone are the days (except for if you're wanting to record a specific movie from TCM) of having to wait for the annual viewing of "Wizard of Oz" (for example). Now you can basically watch any movie whenever you want. It certainly beats having to find a warehouse to store all those 16mm films.

It's one thing to rate movies and advise children or your parishioners not to watch them, but it's another thing to impose your personal beliefs on everyone else's choices. It wasn't "on everyone else". It was for the majority of movie-goers. But after the "Legion of Decency" (via Pope Breen) got put in charge of the Production Code enforcement, movie-goers who wanted to see classic films like Baby Face, Rain, Red-Headed Woman, The Story of Temple Drake, and scores more like it were simply out of luck. I haven't been to a movie in a theater in 15 years because the bad stuff suddenly turns up with no warning or notice. Why would I want to pay to see someone puke, p-e-e, p-o-o-p, or cut someone's head off? At least a warning list should be posted with each film, along with the timeline where I will know when to close my eyes. Of course you might read the reviews and pretty much figure out whether a movie is likely to offend you, but maybe you're just better off sticking to Andy Hardy and Doris Day.

I don't like seeing movies in which the crazy mean bad loco killer goes free at the end, after killing a bunch of nice people. I like to see killers either shot by their victims, the police, or maybe fall off a cliff at the end of a movie. It's one thing if the criminals are really criminals in any real sense, and not the victim of a frameup. But in how many Breen era movies did we see a clearly good guy "criminal" get killed or sent off for a long stretch in the slam simply to satisfy the production code? In these modern times, if we want to go out to see a movie, we must put up with being forced to see the "views of morality" of all the slasher film producers and directors. No thanks. I didn't go see The Exorcist because I didn't want to be forced to see some actor puking in a color film close-up. No thanks, not for me. I don't want to see anyone puke, p-e-e, or p-o-o-p on film. I don't like any of those movies, either, but whereas in the post-Breen era I can choose (and have chosen) to stage my own private boycott of them, under Uncle Joe I wouldn't have had that choice. It's one thing to rate movies and advise children or your parishioners not to watch them, but it's another thing to impose your personal beliefs on everyone else's choices.

I'm Catholic, and I still refer to what the Catholic Church has to say about films. I find it very helpful. That's fine, but the problem with the "Legion of Decency" and the Breen Code was that they forced their personal views of "morality" on everyone else who wanted to see a movie. When 90% of the crime and romance dramas had nearly identical endings (criminals dead or in jail / wedding bells ringing), it's kind of hard to imagine that the art of storytelling was being enhanced much beyond the Sunday School level. A lot of the Hollywood movies of that era still managed to be great in spite of it all, but it was often like watching an Olympic swimmer trying to strut his stuff in a wading pool. Uh, uh, sister....Uncle Joe's watching you!

My entire movie collection is all purchased movies-- I have a couple bootleg movies, but I plan on upgrading them to "real" copies eventually. I like having the box, cover art and special features. I just finished watching 12 Years a Slave from a commercial Netflix rental DVD, and it reminded me once again why I much prefer recording myself. It literally took me five minutes to navigate through all the legal warnings, previews of other movies I couldn't care less about, and screen flashes naming all the subcategories of the studio that actually made the movie (I think it was Fox), before I could finally get to the actual beginning of the film. With commercial DVDs, you can't simply hit fast forward and zip through all the extraneous blabber, because all you get when you try that is a big fat forbidden symbol. You feel like a captive audience in your own living room, with a salesman who won't go away. By contrast, when I record a movie, I wait until the original opening studio logo appears before pressing the "record" button, so I can view the film exactly as it was presented to the original movie audience. I always find it kind of jarring when an independent studio's film is preceded by some modern studio logo with a website at the bottom, since that's the last thing I want to see before watching the movie. And if it's an overnight recording, a few seconds of fast forward cuts through to the movie's beginning. I'm a big fan of simplicity in technology. The other advantage to home recording is the space saving. One DVD in a slimline jewel case can hold up to six hours worth of movies, whereas a similar amount of film on a commerical DVD would almost always take up at least twice as much room. As for the extras, they're nice, I guess, but they're not worth the extra expense or room they take up.

I have thousands on vhs, and several years ago, started the whole process again on dvd,...so now I have thousands on dvd. I also have thousands i recorded from AMC and FMC, most on vhs, but have replaced many from FMC on dvd. Even though I'm sure it caused me to miss recording some movies that TCM hasn't repeated in the past five years, I'll still be eternally grateful that I didn't start my obsession until I got a DVD recorder. Those 3000 DVDs take up about half of a linen closet and are easily accessible by date coding and an Excel file, but if the same number of movies had been recorded on VHS tapes, I can't even imagine where I could find room to store them. And while in 2009 there were plenty of good commercial free films on IFC and the Fox Movie Channel, IFC is now loaded with commercials, and the FMC's commercial free 12 hour days are now little more than an endless loop of repeats. So now I'm down to TCM and a handful of the American Experience documentaries on PBS. Commercials have no place in the middle of a movie.

Probably about 3000 features and several hundred shorts since late in 2009, all on DVD. TCM is going to be in my will.

What particularly saddened me was the removal of Sybil Jason's Warner Brothers movies, not only the full features but even most of the clips, such as her unforgettable street urchin renditions of "Little Big Shot" and "I'm Rolling in Money". I somehow missed recording The Captain's Kid with Jason and Guy Kibbee when it was shown on Jason's 80th birthday tribute, and after seeing it for a few weeks after that on You Tube, it disappeared and hasn't shown up again since. It's been four and a half years since it's been on TCM, and I sure wish they'd give it another screening. Jason was every bit as good as Shirley Temple, but never got the promotion that she deserved.

I wish Hollywood made movies for the mainstream but many today are driving a political agenda. That's a noble sentiment, but what exactly is "the mainstream" in a country that's been politically divided down the middle for nearly 50 years? Or is "the mainstream" just a euphemism for "family" films?

There are a couple of good anti war WW1 movies made but I can't think of a real anti-war movie made during ww2 years by US studios? Anyone else think of any top movies done that were anti- WW2 at the time? As Fred points out, there were no anti-war movies made during the first World War. All those movies came along well after the last soldier had been buried, but from then until sometime in the late 30's, it was hard to find any movie about The Great War that wasn't implicitly or explicitly anti-war. What may have been the first U.S. "anti-war" movie made during a war was Samuel Fuller's early Korean War film, The Steel Helmet. Not that it was "anti-war" in any direct way, and it began with "This story is dedicated to the United States Infantry", but the complete lack of rah-rah compared to the scores of movies made during the Second World War made for quite a contrast. It was definitely not a favorite of the Pentagon.

6. Betty Hutton (I think she was very attractive in the 1940's) When I see Betty Hutton in the 40's, I think of Kathy Griffin on Seinfeld in the 90's. Out of control but okay in small doses.

Well, since Veidt died in '43 and Ruman was still doing it 10 years later in Stalag 17... Good point, and so I guess that "Concentration Camp Ehrhardt" wins the Hollywood Iron Cross. It's also interesting to note that while they both played Nazis, Ruman's Face of The Enemy was usually one of farcical ineptness, whereas Veidt's was usually the Nazi version of the villain who tied the girl onto the railroad tracks, cackling and twirling his mustache as he left her there to die.