AndyM108

Andy, if you're saying what I think you're saying, then I agree. Do you mean the present of the actors you mention? As opposed to those actors in a costume dramas set in the past? Or do you mean................. ummm, not sure. I mean that I enjoy 90% of those actors' movies, but only when those movies are set in the present. I can't stand costume dramas of any type, even those featuring my favorites actors. Marked Woman and The Lady Eve, pass the popcorn. Jezebel and The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex, pass me my dueling pistol.

I can understand why Bonnie and Clyde was hit. I can understand why In The Heat Of The Night was a hit. I can even almost understand why GWCTD was a hit. But The Graduate mystifies me. What was it about this film that struck such a chord? It isn't anywhere near as funny as the Universal sex comedies of the early '60s -- in fact most of the supporting cast is wasted. The hero isn't a rebel, but just a blank. Did it touch on some sort of Oedipal issue? I can't stand The Graduate, either, but movies of that era that portrayed the older generation as clueless and "plastic" were always going to meet with approval from the twentysomethings of the time, no matter how vapid the protagonist. Add on the Lubyanka-level torture of that Simon and Garfunkel soundtrack, which if anything is even worse the film itself, if that's possible, and you've got a perfect cinematic storm to separate the eternal flower children from those who like their generational pandering to be a bit more subtle. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andy, you rattled off so many genres, your classic film viewing must be narrow. These are a few of my favorite things: Silents; pre-codes; gangster / mob movies; noirs; serious dramas set in the present, minus costumes; many screwballs and other comedies; honestly sentimental movies (Stella Dallas, A Man to Remember, etc.); war movies that go beyond elaborate battle scenes; about a dozen musicals (the 3 Berkeleys from 1933, both versions of A Star Is Born, My Fair Lady, Guys and Dolls, etc.); movies that deal realistically with social, racial and political issues; whodunits, especially the B-movie variety (Boston B l a c k i e; Torchy Blane, etc.). All of the above can be in any language on Earth, provided the foreign ones have readable subtitles. And then there are 90% of the studio era movies set in the present* featuring Barbara Stanwyck, Jean Harlow, Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Ida Lupino, Dana Andrews, Louis Calhern, Glenn Ford, Robert Ryan, William Powell and Myrna Loy, Warren William, Lionel Barrymore, Clark Gable, Marlene Dietrich, Rita Hayworth, Richard Widmark, James Stewart, Cagney / Bogart / Robinson, Ray Milland, Edward Arnold, Rosalind Russell, Charles Coburn, and many others too numerous to mention. The fact that I've got about 4000 movies (mostly from TCM) and enjoyed the great majority of them should tell you that there are more than enough categories of films around here for everyone to love. *That's the real dividing line for me. I can think of virtually no movie set more than a few years in the past that I really enjoy. There may be about two dozen or so exceptions at most (mostly post-1970 mob movies), and few of them would make my top 100.

After turning back to TCM from the ballgame in order to record Spione at midnight, I have to add one more set of movies that drive me to the funny farm: ANYTHING with Howard Keel in it. I've seen about 10 minutes each of about half a dozen of his films, and his singing cowboy roles remind me of everything I hate about a certain type of "family entertainment" movies. I'd rather watch Hitler do a jig with Lady Godiva's horse at halftime in the Super Bowl (which admittedly would be an improvement over the usual Super Bowl halftime entertainment) than to sit through another minute of Howard Keel's baritone bleeting. Seriously, I'm now going to have to watch Goodfellas, Pink Flamingos, and the barroom brawl between the Mafia and the Hell's Angels in A Bronx Tale just to get ten minutes of Howard Keel in Annie, Get Your Gun out of my system.

Out of over 3000 movies I've rated, these 11 are at the bottom of the list for those that are both well known and generally loved and admired Bonnie and Clyde The Graduate Five Easy Pieces Guess Who's Coming to Dinner Zorba the Greek San Francisco Bus Stop Forbidden Planet Close Encounters of the Third Kind The Miracle of Morgan's Creek The Searchers If I'd added the many movies I watched halfway through and gave up on in despair, the list would have been a lot longer, and would have likely included anything and everything made by Bing Crosby, Bob Hope, Red Skelton, Esther Williams, Elvis Presley, all "Swashbuckler" films and Bible Epics, all Costume Dramas, all "adventure" movies featuring noble whites and various dark-skinned savages, and any "Beach Party" or "Singing Cowboys" movies. The common denominator here is "When you've seen one, you've seen em all". Other than that, I'm easy.

mark, I found NBNW wanting and turned it off. Tell me why the bad guys sent a plane after Grant, when he was standing by the side of the road, and they could have faked a pickup and shot him, movie over? Right, or they could have had the pilot spray Grant with machine gun bullets, or drench him with poison gas while he was still out there in the open. And why in the world would the pilot go Kamikaze on a fuel truck? I'm sure anyone could add to this list of improbabilities. But then if you can think of a single thriller that doesn't require a fair amount of suspension of belief, I'd like to know about it. In another Hitchcock movie, Shadow of a Doubt, "Uncle Charlie" acts like a borderline paranoid psychopath from almost the moment he shows up out of nowhere at the door, and yet we're expected to believe that nobody but the audience might ever look at this weird acting fellow as anything more than a mildly eccentric prodigal relative. I love NBNW for many reasons and found SOAD laughingly unbelievable, but like all such calls, it often depends on what you (the viewer) bring to the movie to begin with. Maybe it's just that I like Cary Grant and have always thought that Joseph Cotten was kind of creepy, and if it had been a more naturally charming actor like Clark Gable or Robert Taylor in the Uncle Charlie role, I might have suspended belief myself.

The MOVIES station plays Laura and Whirlpool a lot. Of course there are commercials but I still find myself turning to watch these movies, switching to other stations during the commercials and returning when there isn't anything better on (which is often the case). Thanks for the note, but there's just something in me that won't let me watch any movie with commercial interruptions, especially since they're so often edited to fit the time slot. Also, I get the FMC and have seen and recorded both of those movies from that station on several occasions. Conte appears out of place in Whirlpool as the clueless husband. He might of been better in the policeman role and an actor like Van Helfin as the husband. Good points, and I agree that that would've made a great movie into an even greater one.

You talkin' to me?

_frisco jenny_ (a very great movie) contains a similar plot. Yes, it does, but it did little for me, possibly because I can't stand the sight of Ruth Chatterton, whose face reminds me of Mae West's without the saving twinkle in her eye. I much prefer Madelon Claudet and Gladys George's version of Madame X, while realizing that it's all a matter of taste.

On Tuesday,.April 22 @ 11:15 am eastern, Fox will show another Preminger directed noir, WHIRLPOOL (1949), in which a mentally ill Game is led astray by conman hypnotist José Ferrer, with Richard Conte her clueless psychiatrist husband. Next to the all-time top 10 noir Laura, that'll be the highlight film of the week for me. I usually can't stand Jose Ferrer, but the extent of Evilness that he portrays in Whirlpool is off the charts, and makes it worth watching beyond Tierney's usual stunning beauty. Ironically, although Conte is almost always a solid noir actor, in this particular film "clueless" pretty much does describe him. This is a movie I've now seen three times, and it gets better with every new viewing.

YANKEES!!! What an obnoxious nasty 4 letter cuss word!! My condolences to your fanhood. The one thing I love most about Wayne movies (not a big Wayne fan) is the overall lack of sidewalks and the glorious outdoor scenery in so many of them. Sidewalks are highly overrated as scenic commodities. Nah, once you've seen one stage set tumbleweed, you've seen em all. When I want to savor the great outdoors, I like it in three dimensions and in odorama. Much better for the lungs, unless you're downwind from a factory farm. OTOH I seldom run into Jimmy Cagney or Robert Ryan when I start walking around the downtown streets of Washington. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Somebody once said that "John Wayne represents America and American values". I think that's a fair assessment. I take John Wayne in the same spirit as I take an equally popular American icon: "Here's to alcohol: The cause of, and the solution to, all of life's problems!" -----H.J. Simpson, Springfield, USA

I'm not much of a John Wayne fan either, but I like some of his movies. I don't mind Wayne all that much, but his movies bore me s t i f f*. Too many horses and not enough sidewalks. Good thing the Yankees are off to a good start as an alternative to an entire week's worth of him. *I really should begin counting the inane words that get replaced by asterisks.

Well The Devil and Miss Jones is a well made movie very funny but like many 30's movies one that explores the relationship between management and workers. Jean Arthur is great in this movie. Oh, wait, you said Devil IN Miss Jones! Never mind. That's funny, because when I first saw listings in my local TV section for The Devil and Miss Jones, I was really starting to wonder how that "porno movie" had ever slipped by the FCC censors. And in hindsight, I'd bet a fat w a d* of Franklins that the porno producers were paying a tongue in cheek tribute to Studio Era Hollywood when they gave their movie that nearly identical title. *Again, I see that the robonanny has strange ideas of scatology.

Even a poorly made movie can be an "essential" if that movie was one that heralded in a trend in movie subject matter, filming technique or screenwriting, etc. That could apply to sexploitation films. LOL While I obviously wouldn't put movies like Deep Throat or The Devil In Miss Jones on the level of any of the movies we've mentioned here, it's also true that if you were trying to get a hold of the porno culture of the 70's, those two movies would absolutely be "essential" to an understanding of the subject. That doesn't mean they should be shown on TCM, but within a certain context they're every bit as "essential" as Citizen Kane.

I think your argument weakens when you go the subjective route and say THE LOST WEEKEND was the best film about alcohol addiction. And I think that trying to say it reached the biggest audience, implying that box office makes it essential, is flawed as well. It could be said that THE LOST WEEKEND, with one airing on TCM every two or three years, is not reaching much of an audience at all these days, so its impact is slight with modern viewers. The generation where it made its largest impact is mostly deceased. Also, how do you know that THE STRUGGLE did not have staying power with those who saw it. I would guess that Billy Wilder probably did see THE STRUGGLE and was influenced by it. Just like Blake Edwards probably was influenced by THE LOST WEEKEND when he made DAYS OF WINE AND ROSES. I really want to challenge you to study films on the subject other than those that appear periodically on TCM. That is, if the subject itself is of interest to you. Otherwise, it seems like you are looking at a very narrow survey in terms of your research. For instance, look at Fredric March in A STAR IS BORN; James Dunn in A TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN (the same year as THE LOST WEEKEND, and we have another male actor earning an Oscar for playing an alcoholic); Susan Hayward in I'LL CRY TOMORROW; and Gena Rowlands in the TV movie, The Betty Ford Story. Other than My Sin and The Struggle and that much later TV movie, I've seen all the ones you've mentioned, but other than perhaps the Hayward film, I don't see alcoholism as the defining point of those movies, at least not in the way it was in the Milland and Lemmon films. But don't think for a second that I wouldn't love to see those two earlier movies. I found The Struggle on Netflix and added it to my q u e u e*, and also discovered a Fredric March film called Merrily We Go To Hell, which from the description sounds like another title for My Sin. (It's also from the same year.) After my current selection, those will be the next two Netflix films I see. Thanks for the recommendation. So though I make no apologies for being subjective in my taste, I also look at any list of "Essentials" as a continuing work in progress. And who knows, perhaps these "new old" movies may soon be added to my revised list. * Now how on Earth did that word get censored on the first try? Is it because it's F r e n c h in origin?

It sounds like you are trying to over-emphasize the importance of THE LOST WEEKEND at the expense of Griffith's earlier innovative film. Plus many films during that 17-year period featured main characters eho suffered from alcoholism-- one was Wallace Beery in the MGM story STABLEMATES. There were pre-codes, too, that treated the subject seriously. So yeah, there was no 17 year gap in the depiction of alcoholics on screen. Let me back up a minute and try to clarify . The Lost Weekend wasn't the first movie to deal with alcoholism, but at least up to that point, it was the best one. It was also the one that reached the biggest audience, in addition to being the one that has had (along with Days of Wine and Roses) the greatest staying power among critics and on TCM. And since one of the main criteria I use to mark a movie as "Essential" is its impact on public awareness of an important subject, that's why I'd choose The Lost Weekend for that designation, and not the films on the same subject that preceded it. I'd also put Days of Wine and Roses in this category. And of course I fully realize that in the above paragraph, "best" and "important" are subjective terms, but then I'm writing this in the first person, and not trying to pretend I'm speaking for anyone but myself.

I'd nominate two candidates for "Perfect Ending", one from 1932 and one from 1933. Rain, where Walter Huston's sanctimonious preacher drowns himself out of shame for his dirty old man hypocrisy. Schadenfreude isn't a noble sentiment, but it was hard not to feel it in this case. And Red-Headed Woman, perhaps the only film of the pre-code era where the "sinner" not only didn't repent her evil ways, but came out smelling like a rose with a clueless sugar daddy up one sleeve and her chauffeur up the other. If ever there were a case of an actress born to a role, it was Jean Harlow for this one.

But since those Edison experimental films weren't noted for any "particular skill or depth", I wouldn't consider them "Essential" for anyone other than a student of early film history, which isn't what I mean by "Essential" when I'm thinking about the subject. How do we know they were not noted for particular skill or depth in newspaper editorials of the time. They do not seem essential to you, or to me, but maybe to audiences and reviewers in those days, they were very essential. Quite possibly they were, but whatever skill or depth they had was surely in the cinematography only, for which I'd rate them "Essential" for students of early cinema who may be interested purely in technique, but not for a general audience. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ THE LOST WEEKEND hardly covered new ground. See D.W. Griffith's talkie THE STRUGGLE. Technically that's correct, but since virtually nobody saw The Struggle upon its release to poor reviews, I think that after a lapse of 17 years you'd have to give The Lost Weekend far more credit for re-introducing the subject of alcoholism to the broad public in a dramatic but non-sensationalistic manner.

The point you're making is a good one, and that's why I suggested replacing "wasn't explored before" with "explored with particular skill and/or depth". There's always going to be subjectivity involved, but I don't think that "Essential" should be equated with popularity, for the reasons I expressed earlier. But even using the Edison example, none of it was explored before, and he was developing the skills to tell stories with the new medium. In fact, all films are building on previous skills of the filmmakers-- even a cheesy low budget horror film requires that the makers explore the subject matter with some level of depth, or else it will not be coherent to audiences. So I don't think this definition exactly works. But since those Edison experimental films weren't noted for any "particular skill or depth", I wouldn't consider them "Essential" for anyone other than a student of early film history, which isn't what I mean by "Essential" when I'm thinking about the subject.

Well you're very good at straddling that fence! One other thing to note is that the play didn't do well and it wasn't really considered to be 'ace' material. So Casablanca could be the best example of mediocre material turned into solid gold by the Warner Brothers studio system. (a point similar to the one made but Arturo) That just might get it over that fence. One way of clarifying the distinction I'd make between "Inner Circle" Essentials and other Essentials is to think about the post-films discussions they might engender. In an "Inner Circle" Essential (IMO) like Make Way For Tomorrow, it's hard to imagine that a lot of Depression families wouldn't have seen variations of that superbly presented theme of intergenerational obligations playing out in their own households. And I'd be surprised if this movie didn't make at least some of those families search their consciences and see their obligations in a fresh light. This was a film that clearly transcended the "mere movie" category. Whereas by contrast, what sort of thought-provoking discussions would have been caused by Casablanca? A renewed since of identification with the European underground, perhaps, and maybe a bit of a tic upward in pro-French sentiment, thanks to the stirring rendition of La Marseillaise. But by the time that Casablanca had been released in early 1943, it's not likely to have stirred too many draft dodgers into suddenly seeing the error of their ways and enlisting in the Army or Marines. All of which doesn't mean that Casablanca isn't an "Essential" movie for film buffs and Hollywood historians. It's certainly all of that. But I don't see it as existing on any higher level, like Make Way For Tomorrow and other films that succeed in hitting home on topics that we live with every day.

I like your refined definition. I'm also glad you as well as others understood why, based on said definition, a movie like Casablanca is NOT 'essential'. I was waiting to be told 'are you crazy,, Casablanca NOT essential'! I'll probably now get in your doghouse, but I actually would place Casablanca in the "Essential" category, if not in what I'd call the "Inner Circle" of Essentials, which is what I really meant in that above statement. IMO Casablanca is "Essential" for being a superbly crafted example of the Hollywood wartime genre, featuring iconic performance by one of the best casts ever assembled. But since beyond that it's little more than a wartime good guys vs bad guys film, I wouldn't say it's "essential" to anyone seeking to understand anything more than Hollywood movie history, or the appeal of Bogie and Bergman, etc. If that sounds as if I'm trying to straddle the fence, so be it, but then this isn't always a clear cut subject.

To me, an "Essential" is a film that has an identifiable place in film history, regardless of the quality of the film. That would be covered by the third and / or last categories I mentioned, but I can't think of too many "Essential" movies by any definition that wouldn't have at least one distinctive positive quality. I don't think the problem with most "Essentials" lists is that they promote mediocre movies, but rather that they overlook too many that are outstanding.

I feel SONG OF THE SOUTH can be grouped as an essential based on it's being a fine example of the "clueless" nature of film makers in those times concerning racial representation in movies. So, by that criteria, GWTW also is an essential. And that sort of brings us back to defining what "essential" means in these sort of discussions. Is it the directing? The story? The writing? The acting? The cinematography? All of these? Or something else? I think it could be any or all of those things. IMO the "Inner Circle" of Essentials would consist of great stories, well directed and acted, with or without Brand Name actors, that focus on topics of lasting human concern. These topics would include political and / or social issues that have been with us forever and will never go away, plus the eternal human drama among generations and between the sexes. Two examples among many: Kapo and Make Way For Tomorrow. Below that, but still "Essential", would be the very best "entertainment" movies, chosen for their dynamic cinematic qualities and the presence of charismatic performances. Two examples among many: The Wizard of Oz and Singing In The Rain. Alongside that, you'd have the great "breakthrough" movies, where the totality of the viewing experience takes the audience where it's never been before, even if the acting is sometimes more than a little crude. Much as it makes me cringe, The Birth of a Nation may be the best example of this category. And on an entirely different scale, there's Shock Corridor. And then you'd have the many hundreds of "Essentials" that are the cream of a particular genre, like screwballs or pre-codes or musicals or noirs or westerns (etc.) These would be the sort of "entertainment" movies that don't go much beyond that in terms of objectives, but the story and the acting and the directing are so compelling that they'd still be considered "Essential" by nearly all movie buffs. Random picks here would be films like The Lady Eve, The Story of Temple Drake, Guys and Dolls, Nightmare Alley, and The Naked Spur. All of these are great movies, but by non-cinematic standards they're also "just movies", and IMO not quite on the same level as the first category, even if I'd still call them "Essential". And needless to say, all of the above is just one person's subjective take on the subject.

My definition of an essential movie would be that it was ground breaking either technically or that the plot explored a subject or theme that wasn’t explored before. As much as I want to like this definition, I cannot fully accept it. Because using it, we could say that all of the experimental films that Thomas Edison shot in the 1890s would be essential (since he was the first person to explore filmmaking and early concepts in story-telling)...and I don't think all of his efforts are essential. The point you're making is a good one, and that's why I suggested replacing "wasn't explored before" with "explored with particular skill and/or depth". There's always going to be subjectivity involved, but I don't think that "Essential" should be equated with popularity, for the reasons I expressed earlier.

Unfortunately The Racket has already begun, since this precursor of the 1951 Robert Ryan remake may be the best of the lot. But there's another great Louis Wolheim performance at 11:30 in Gentleman's Fate. Wolheim's early demise just when the sound era was dawning is one of the great tragic losses in movie history. The 8:30 film, Paid, may be Joan Crawford's best (or at least rawest) early performance this side of Rain. And where was the ACLU when she needed it? Don't miss this movie if you can help it. Finally, The Sin of Madelon Claudet (at 1:15) gives us one of Helen Hayes' more memorable roles, a tearjerker to be sure (about a mother separated from her son, who doesn't know who she is), but one played with conviction. It's just about on the level of Gladys George's pefomance in Madame X. I haven't seen War Nurse (at 10:00), but any film with Robert Montgomery and a backup cast like that has to be worth checking out.

My definition of an essential movie would be that it was ground breaking either technically or that the plot explored a subject or theme that wasn’t explored before. With this definition the number of essential movies would be small. Movies like Baby Face, The Lost Weekend or Pinky. Replace "wasn't explored before" with "explored with particular skill and/or depth", and I think you're getting closer to a better definition of "Essential". And I definitely agree that those three films you cited fall into the "Essential" category in a way that Casablanca doesn't, great a movie as it is. --------------------------------------------------------- For example: If someone wants to watch essential... Alfred Hitchcock -Psycho -North By Northwest -The Birds Hitchcock without Vertigo ???!!!! Of course the problem is that with the very top directors like Hitchcock and Kurosawa, and with the top actors and actresses who weren't merely playing the same character over and over, you could pretty much name 50% or more of their films as "Essentials". Barbara Stanwyck, for example: --The Miracle Woman --Night Nurse --So Big --Baby Face --Stella Dallas --Remember The Night --The Lady Eve --Double Indemnity --The File on Thelma Jordan --The Violent Men --These Wilder Years (her most underrated movie, with James Cagney) --There's Always Tomorrow --Walk on the Wild Side Seriously, how could you ever narrow down a list like that? More likely, you'd have to add significantly to it in order to do her career full justice.