AndyM108

For an alternative show for those who might like to see Christianity in action in real life, as opposed to the Hollywood version, at 9:00 PM EDT on Sunday there's the second part of a terrific four part documentary on the Mexican border that's showing on the Al-Jazeera America network. The title is Borderland, the episodes run an hour each, and it features a politically diverse of six Americans who follow the trail of three different illegal immigrants, from their hometowns in Mexico to their final destination in a morgue in Arizona. The Americans get paired off into three teams of two each, with a pro-immigration person and an anti-immigration counterpart in each group, and so far it's made for an eye-opening viewing experience. Much more depth to it than anything I've yet to see on any other network.

Citizen Kane is one of those "Essentials" that lies well outside the usual lines, since it's never been popular outside the repertory crowd. Unlike Gone With The Wind or The Godfather, its virtues have never been widely appreciated by any sort of a mass audience. Of course there have been other films that didn't make much of a splash upon their initial release, like It's A Wonderful Life, but once that movie got revived and re-publicized decades later, it wasn't just the art house crowd that loved it. All of which is to say that "public opinion" isn't the only way that a film may come to be viewed as "Essential". Personally I think the "Essential" Citizen Kane is more than a bit overrated, but it's also hard for me to say that any film with its level of near-unanimous critical acclaim could ever drop down into a lower category.

The Yankees and the Rays, followed by the Orioles and the Red Sox. We all have our own particular mythologies to worship.

Classics are more personal. Essentials are more public opinion. That's a good distinction, but it's also kind of circular, sort of like "famous for being famous." To be much more than that would require a far more knowledgable viewing base than we have today, which in turn would require infinitely more time to devote to acquiring a real knowledge of "classic era" films than the average person could possibly hope to acquire in his or her relatively limited leisure hours. I'll take my own case as one example of what I'm talking about. Until I closed my shop and retired from my full time job at the end of 2006, my knowledge of "classic era" films was limited to the sort of "Essentials" that run on PBS, along with distant memories of movies I saw at three local repertory theaters when I was in my 20's, many decades earlier. Back then, my idea of an "Essential" movie would have been severely limitied by the limited range of my exposure. Fast forward to the last 5 years, when with plenty of time to invest in TCM / FMC and the possession of a good DVD recorder, my exposure to "classic" era films has multiplied tenfold, and has likewise expanded my list of "Essentials" to movies I'd never even heard of before. I suppose to an extent "the wisdom of crowds", if extended to encompass all the world's critics, might overcome what I'd call this "bias of limited knowledge." But how many of these critics actually are familiar with even the "classic" holdings of the TCM library, let alone the "classic" holdings of foreign films, or the "classic" era films that never even made it out of their original nitrate state, and are now lost to the ages? Should this sort of misfortune of limited exposure really disqualify a film from the "Essential" label? I don't think so, without getting back to negative circular reasoning. And I won't even get into the biases of people who insist that movies should be "entertainment" and nothing else. ("If you want to send a message, use Western Union.") That's a whole other realm of self-imposed ignorance that eliminates many of the greatest movies that transcend "entertainment" values. All of this is probably little more than a longwinded way of saying that popularity alone doesn't determine whether a film is "Essential", becase popularity - - - or the lack of it, which is really what's at issue here - - - is often way too determined by factors that have nothing to do with a film's "essential" qualities. And maybe that's why, after digging a bit deeper than the AFI Top 100, I'm a bit skeptical of the whole idea of establishing a list of "Essential" films by consensus. To use a crude analogy, it's a bit like relying on that 1999 internet poll which rated Pete Rose and Nolan Ryan above Stan Musial and Grover Cleveland Alexander as baseball players worthy of inclusion on the "All-Century" roster.

I don't think there is anything too "hot" or "raunchy" about Song of the South. The fly in the ointment with that film is the Disney Company's complete and adamant refusal to allow the film out of the vault at least here in the States. Probably that's the case, but I'd bet a fair amount of money that the reason for Disney's position is the inflammatory racial stereotyping. Of all the major studios, Disney has always seemed the most PR-conscious of the lot, and Song Of The South apparently had all of the negative racial aspects associated with Gone With The Wind, but without a powerful dramatic story (not to mention Rhett and Scarlett) to fortify it against future assaults. But just to repeat myself, I would be strongly in favor of a TCM screening of Song of the South, if for no other reason than to see it for myself. Suppression of art is never a winner in my book.

Andy, To avoid confusion-- these films are not on TCM's upcoming Essentials schedule. Ouch! But then I guess that two of those titles we mentioned (Pink Flamingoes, Song of the South) are probably too hot (or raunchy) for TCM to handle, albeit for entirely different reasons. Paisan and The Story of Temple Drake have been shown at least several times already, and they would make terrific additions to an "Essentials" list that tried to reach beyond the stale confines of the AFI Top 100.

I can't stick around today to discuss any of these in depth, but I'm particularly glad to see these four films on the Essentials list: May 26: PAISAN I might have chosen Germany: Year Zero as an alternative to Open City, since in terms of depicting the effect of World War II on civilians it's hard to top that one. But in terms of accessibility it may be that Paisan is the most "accessible" of the three great Rossellini war triology films, and best suited for the casual TCM viewer. July 14: PINK FLAMINGOS This was the first of the great underground "Midnight Movies" of the 70's, introducing John Waters and Divine to a generation of film phreaks. I only hope that TCM doesn't cut out the last scene. SPOILER ALERT: The plot revolves around a contest for "filthiest family", and the LOSING family kidnaps teenage girls, takes them to a dungeon-like basement, impregnates them, and then sells the babies on the black market in order to finance a heroin ring that concentrates their sales on schoolchildren. So you can only imagine what the winner must do to top that! And hey, if a few of the details are a bit off, it's been over 40 years since I've seen it. August 4: SONG OF THE SOUTH I've never seen this, and I hope that we're getting the original version, because from what I've heard, the racial stereotypes in this film make Butterfly McQueen seem like Abbey Lincoln in Nothing But A Man by comparison. It's a landmark in film history, and it deserves to be shown in unexpurgated format, and fully discussed. August 25: THE STORY OF TEMPLE DRAKE In the absence of the unlikely discovery of a print of Convention City, this movie has got to be the rawest of all the pre-code films, and as such is about as "essential" as it gets. Not even the obligatory impossible ending can erase everything that went on before. Miriam Hopkins is at her Trouble In Paradise best, only in an entirely different type of role. There are quite a few other great movies on that list, but in terms of what I'd call "Pleasant Surprises", these four are at the top.

What we want is a film that can best represent a specific category , that can be used as a first step into that category. What film would be a good introduction to "Clark Gable the actor" for a young viewer? What film would be a good representation of a "30's Screwball Comedy" or a "40's Film Noir" ? How do you introduce Alfred Hitchcock or John Ford to a new viewer in a way that would encourage them to seek out other films done by those men? Think of an "Essential" only as way of encouraging the viewer to go further down that path and view other films of a similar type. That's a very good way of putting it, though in practice it often equates to "A movie is 'Essential' because it's already well-known." And yet "well-known" is in turn often dependent on how wide a distribution the movie received when it first came out, and the state of its availability since then. As a result, a list of "Essentials" becomes "essentially" a perpetual motion machine. Throw in the widespread mainstream resistance to foreign films, and the concept of "Essential" often becomes little more than an internet popularity contest. Every regular contributor here can probably think of a hundred movies that would be "essential" for any viewer with an open mind, and yet would never make the TCM cut, for the reasons cited above. It's not necessarily a problem that TCM is equipped to tackle head-on, but it is a problem nevertheless.

pretty sure he didnt blow it on nose candy. (eyecandy seemed more his thing but... ). his problem seems to have been a more common one: relatives. That makes me think of my all-time favorite comedy, Bombshell, which featured Jean Harlow in the "Rooney" role and Frank Morgan and Ted Healy as the ubermooching father and brother. Rooney was too young to have played a major part in that classic 1933 film, but maybe he should have produced and starred in a remake.

"The star of the Andy Hardy films and Hollywood's highest-paid actor in the late 1930s and early 1940s, Rooney was a product of the industry's old studio system and was not entitled to hefty royalty payments, Augustine said." If the highest paid star in Hollywood for several years couldn't have figured out a way to keep some of his money, I'm not crying any tears for him. I'm failing to see much difference between Rooney and an overpaid ballplayer who blows his money on stupid investments and nose candy. The world is full of celebrities without an ounce of common sense, and Rooney just happened to be one of them. OTOH he did what he wanted to for most of his long life, and as the old cliche goes, "You can't take it with you." He may not have been the brightest penny in the roll, but cue up Francis Albert, he did it "His Way", and on some level you've gotta respect that.

Good point, but it appears the amount of royalities Rooney received wasn't even enough to support his life style. If Mickey Rooney couldn't live on all the millions of dollars of royalties he must have received during his lifetime, I'd suggest he might have just considered finding a better "life style."

I can't find anything on the original 4/13 schedule that I can't live without, but I'd agree that tributes to deceased stars should be made far enough down the road that no pre-emptions are necessary. I'd hate to see a premiere of some long-awaited film removed, merely in order to run a film that's already been shown 50 times, as is the case with virtually any Mickey Rooney movie.

I don't remember if Jr had any scenes with Peter Lawford -- that might have been awkward. There were several highly dramatic confrontations between the two of them at pivotal points of the movie. You just need to see the film again to refresh your memory. Every time I thought the movie was going somewhere, it seemed to retreat into a mini-cliche, but that was more a problem of the screenplay than anything else. It was still worth watching to see Sammy Davis Jr. in one of his best roles, plus Ossie Davis, Louis Armstrong, and the young Cicely Tyson in her first major role, six years before Sounder made her a mainstream Hollywood star.

There are way too many to mention all of them, but I do wish that TCM would run The Captain's Kid for the first time since 2009. I wouldn't even mind if TCM ran every single Kibbee movie they could get their hands on from beginning to end. My all-time favorite quote about Kibbee was in The Dark Horse, when the scheming political insider played by Warren William was asked to describe the amiable puppet (Kibbee) he was running for Governor: "Every time he opens his mo u t h, he subtracts from the sum total of human knowledge." That pretty much summarizes Kibbee's character in more than a few movies, but in terms of lovability if not intelligence, he's a perfect complement to another great character actor, Charles Coburn.

Nothing new in that early Cagney tribute, but they're all great fun. Having seen them all, I'd especially recommend 5 of them: Footlight Parade, Hard to Handle, Lady Killer, Picture Snatcher, and Jimmy The Gent. If anyone hasn't seen the "Shanghai Lil" song and dance number at the end of Footlight Parade, they're missing what may be the best musical scene in the history of film. Here's "Shanghai Lil" in its entireity on YouTube, which is unusual, since it usually gets removed almost as soon as it gets put up. It's the first time in many months that I've found it up there for more than a brief clip or two: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xjzpoy_footlight-parade-shanghai-lil-1933_music

!! !!

I loved the lady who introduced Witness For The Prosecution, though I may be biased because that's one of my all time favorite films. I should have stayed up for the 10 year old, but I've seen and recorded Modern Times at least twice already and the hour was getting late.

There are a few good movies getting bumped, and one great one (Bombshell), but overall this a great day to pay the obligatory tribute. I only wish that all such pre-emptive tributes to overrated and overplayed actors were as non-disruptive as this one.

And in another bow to 1961 sensibilities, the movie version "converted" Paul's character from gay to straight.

April 13th would be a great day to fill up with Mickey Rooney movies, since all the good movies scheduled for that day have already been shown a thousand times. This way a Rooney tribute will do the least damage.

Out of Muller's top 25, I wouldn't even think of choosing Touch of Evil, and I've yet to see Tomorrow is Another Day, Raw Deal, or The City That Never Sleeps. But the other 21 are all terrific, and I can see the case for any of them as a top 25. Too bad he only considers American noir, because that omits many foreign noir classics like M, Rififi, and Elevator to the Gallows. But with that constraint in mind, here'd be my top 25, as least as of today: 1. (tie) The Killers 1. (tie) Out of the Past 3. Nightmare Alley 4. Thieves' Highway 5. Sudden Fear 6. The Asphalt Jungle 7. Too Late For Tears 8. The Big Heat 9. Dead Reckoning 10. The Damned Don't Cry 11. The Big Clock 12. Road House 13. Detour 14. Odds Against Tomorrow 15. Act of Violence 16. The Killing 17. Night and the City 18. The Night Holds Terror 19. Underworld, USA 20. Life in the Balance 21. He Walked By Night 22. The Maltese Falcon 23. Shock 24. Flamingo Road 25. Nightfall Honorable Mentions: Oh, only about 100 of them. And yes, Double Indemnity would be among them, even though the ending was a bit too predictable. And then there are others that are listworthy, but I'm not sure they're really noirs: The Incident Born To Kill Murder, Inc. House of Bamboo Crossfire The Bribe Gilda And so on.

J. Edgar Hoover and Shirley Temple, testifying before the Dies Committee on Un-American Activities in 1938. Click on the thumbnail to view what they were saying to each other.

Here's a simple enough test: racist Jew EDIT: Looks like you're right. It's a Festivus miracle! EDIT #2: Unfortunately the miracle also dropped this comment to the bottom of my page, even though I was responding to the comment on the top of the page.

Here's a simple enough test: racist Jew EDIT: Looks like you're right. It's a Festivus miracle!

To me any movies that resort to blackface are almost moronic by definition. It's probably not a coincidence that The Birth of a Nation and many midcentury musicals were among the prime employers of this moronic gimmick. "It doesn't offend me as a ****. It offends me as a comedian." (EDIT: Those four stars replaced the term used for a practicioner of Jerry Seinfeld's religion.) ---Jerry Seinfeld, responding to his newly converted Jewish dentist's habit of telling "Jewish" jokes. Substitute "movie lover" for "comedian", and that's my take on any and all non-parody uses of blackface in movies. And no, I don't think they should be cut out or censored in any way, but merely taken for the moronic and often **** attitude that they entail. (EDIT: Those four stars replaced a common six letter adjective for a prejudiced individual that should be easy to infer in context.)