AndyM108

Most men are ATTRACTED to bimbos, like kids are to candy. But they couldn't live on a steady DIET of them. Which is why I always thought Paul Newman was eventually attracted to Joanne Woodward. Sepiatone Bingo. And that's yet another example of why Newman was always a cut above the average movie star.

And you hold a tongue-tied neurotic who dresses pretty weird (not to mention asexually) as some sort of everyman's ideal? As for not knowing who those actresses are, I guess movies of the 70's are not your thing - except the ones with Diane Keaton of course. Wrong on all counts, but who am I to ruin a good narrative?

So Andy. after that "most men prefer bimbos" line of yours, does this mean you're now down one more of that supply of little winky emoticons of yours??? 'Cause I HOPE you once again just forgot to use one of 'em, 'cause I HOPE you know that that latest statement of yours was about as overblown as that previous one about Diane Keaton and "not loving life"! Let's just say I've always found the *screen personae* of the Diane Keatons (in Annie Hall, at least) and the Ida Lupinos and the Liv Ulmanns and the Judy Davises a lot more appealing than those of the Marilyn Monroes and the interchangeable Playboy centerfold clones. Obviously this is simply a matter of taste, and not some sort of moral judgment, and equally obviously this has a lot to do with the quality of the movies they're cast in. I'm not trying to play St. Peter here.

Bimbos? Like who? A contemporary of Keaton at the time of 'Annie Hall' was Cristina Raines - who I found to be very attractive. Would she be a bimbo? How about Jessica Harper (another actress I found to be very attractive) - also a bimbo? Kathleen Quinlan? Theresa Russell? Anne Archer? Never even heard of any of them except for Jessica Harper, and I couldn't pick her out of a police lineup. But as a general point, I'm talking about screen personae, not real life. For all I know, the real Marilyn Monroe was every bit as much of a genius as some of her posthumous critics want to make her out to be.

So here we have yet another case of someone (Andy), assuming a consensus when one doesn't actually exist. I learned this lesson in the June Alyson thread! Tell you what: Here's a week's supply of emoticons to be used whenever it seems appropriate. Sorry I didn't use one when I made that remark about not loving life. Don't get me wrong. I love Keaton in Annie Hall, but I'm enough attached to Earth to know that most men gravitate towards the bimbos.

I agree mostly with your Hitch picks aside from Marnie, Parradine and Rope. I'm fond of Shadow of a Doubt........ Well, with Hitchcock there's something for everyone. I sure don't claim to speak for critics, although I think Marnie's reputation has been creeping somewhat upward as of late. Tippi Hedren is just fabulous in that complicated role. And as for Shadow of a Doubt, I'm well aware that WRT to that film I many be in a minority of one. So be it.

Oh, and Act of Violence is a solid noir. Heflin, Ryan and Astor; that is a strong crop of noir actors. It sure is, but if it weren't for Astor's role in The Maltese Falcon, all three of those fine actors would barely be remembered today outside of TCM circles. Which is why it's so important to keep TCM around for another 500 years or so.

Milland may be a little more well know than some of those "second tier" stars you mentioned because of the films he did late in his career. I know a few people that know next to nothing about studio era films and stars but they have heard of the movie The Man with Two Heads. Staring in a really bad camp color movie is one way to distance yourself from the rest of the pack! (he was also in the sequel to Love Story,, my point being that color films made in the 70s may have been seen by NON classic (studio) era movie fans). When was the last film Milland made where (a) Milland was the lead; and ( the film is seen as "iconic"? Being vaguely "remembered" is only part of the equation, and even with that, you'd have to be 50 to have seen even his *last* movie first run as an adult, being as how it was made in 1984.

I'm a Milland fan. My two favourites are probably The Big Clock and Ministry of Fear. Two of the absolutely greatest noirs ever. I could watch The Big Clock every year for the next 30 years (if I live that long) and never tire of it.

Not to drag out the discussion, but you rate Dial only 2nd to Vertigo? I think you'd have a lot of naysayers on that one..............I dont think it would make my top 20 Hitchcock. If I've got a lot of naysayers on that, then what about my opinion that the greatest movie of all time is Angi Vera? Followed by Kapo. You might want to lock me up in the Funny Farm and throw away the key. I would hope it would be clear by now that our preferences in films aren't (or shouldn't be) dictated by either critics or critical consensus, but rather by how a movie speaks to our own peculiar and individual taste. Among my favorite other Hitchcocks, I'd add Marnie (vastly underrated), The Lady Vanishes, Rear Window, The Man Who Knew Too Much (the Stewart version), North By Northwest, Psycho, Stage Fright, and The Paradine Case. The only ones I don't care much for are Shadow of a Doubt (vastly overrated by Hitchcock himself) and Rope. I consider him among the best of the "entertainment" directors, though not on the level of a Kurosawa. How all that corresponds to critical consensus: You tell me.

Anyone who doesn't love Diane Keaton in Annie Hall doesn't love life. There are some female characters that are (or should be) plain irresistible to any sentient male, and Keaton's Annie Hall has got to be high up on such a list.

DIALM is second-tier Hitchcock. THE LOST WEEKEND is first-tier Wilder. If you guys are marginalizing THE LOST WEEKEND because it's a "black and white" film, you are also marginalizing most of the films starring Gable, Cagney, Cooper, Stewart, and all the other first-tier actors that are much-better remembered than Milland. Once again I guess I wasn't making myself clear. 1. I love Ray Milland as an actor. I love most of the films I've seen him in, from the better known to the obscure. I'd rather watch his films than those of many of those actors (Spencer Tracy, Astaire, Wayne, Cooper, etc.) who are much better remembered by the casual "movie buffs" of today. 2. The Lost Weekend undoubtedly has more social significance than nearly any movie made by Van Heflin, Dana Andrews, or most any other actor, for that matter. Along with Days of Wine and Roses, it's in a class by itself in terms of dealing with alcohol addiction. 3. All that said, Ray Milland simply isn't remembered today to nearly the same degree as the Gables and the Cagneys and the Bogarts and the Coopers. That's *not* a knock on Milland; it's a knock on the way non-TCM venues give short shrift to his films in favor of the Same Old Same Old classics like Casablanca and Adam's Rib. It's got nothing to do with Ray Milland's well deserved reputation among critics and knowledgeable film buffs. I hope that at some point this distinction I'm making will get through. 4. And what I said about black & white films has solely to do with the current generation's dismissal of them. They'll make exceptions for a tiny handful of "iconic" films like Casablanca, but no more than a few dozen at most, and more like about half a dozen for a lot of people. Me, I'd guess that 70% to 80% or more of *my* favorite films are B&W, but then I'm almost 70. And P.S.: IMO Dial M For Murder is second only to Vertigo among Hitchcock's films, and I've seen nearly all of them at least once, including his recently discovered silents. But then we all have our own subjective criteria for making such ratings.

I don't want to get all sociological on you, but THE LOST WEEKEND is far more sociologically significant than any other film mentioned on this thread, That's not to say that sociology is a prime area of daily conversation among the under -50 set. No question about that, but it's still not what I was talking about. The average member of the under-50 set today isn't much interested in serious drama of any type, let alone some "ancient" black and white "sociology" movie from their grandfather's time.

And Glenn Ford? Hm, that's tougher. Well, again in terms of even light-weight movie lovers, don't most of them know about *The Big Heat*? I'm not sure about that, but Gilda is another story. (By the way, I don't think I've ever used the term "film-fanciers" on these boards before. Ok, I've tried it out but I don't think I'll use it again. It sounds kind of silly, like we're talking about dogs or something. "The typical poodle-fancier likes to trim their doggy's fur.") When I used to scout books in England in the late 80's , one of the shops put my books in a plastic tote bag that read "I Read The Racing Pigeon - - - "Britain's only weekly for pigeon fanciers." I "fancied" that bag so much that when I got back to Washington I had 5000 of them made for my own shop, and somewhere around the clutter of the house I still have one left.

But just THE LOST WEEKEND alone gives Milland, IMHO , legendary status. None of the other actors on your list has a role anywhere close to this in impact, visibility, and remembrance. I think that just says more about your age than anything else, and I'm almost certainly older than you are. I'm not doubting the significance of The Lost Weekend, but it's been 67 years and it's not Casblanca. or Meet Me In St. Louis, or even (God help us) To Kill a Mockingbird in terms of the number of people today who are likely to have seen it. That's all I'm talking about. It might elevate his *critical* stature above a Heflin or an Andrews or a Ford (though definitely not above Ryan's), but in terms of remembrance he's still way below all those other stars I mentioned below. Now personally I'd much rather watch most of Ray Milland's films than those of Astaire or Gene Kelly or Spencer Tracy, and I'd rather watch paint dry than watch another movie with Gary Cooper, but again, I'm simply talking about current name recognition.

Including Milland in this group of names seems a bit of a disservice to him. I think he had a higher profile during his life and today. Just barely, if at all. Outside the TCM circles, how many Milland movies has anyone under the age of about 70 likely to have seen? The Lost Weekend and Dial M For Murder, perhaps, but what else? I'm not talking about movie buffs, but the generic PBS viewer who loves "old movies" but "doesn't have the time" to go much beyond the obvious inner circle of films. Milland has the two abovementioned films, Andrews has Laura, Ford has Gilda, and any or all of them may be still known for an iconic western that I've never seen, but none of them are nearly on the *current* visibility level of Gable, Cooper, Stewart, Wayne, Bogart, Cagney, Tracy, Astaire, Gene Kelly, Brando, or other stars of that ilk. And Ryan, who may have been the best actor of them all, is barely a blip on the radar outside the realm of true movie buffs. It's partly what he got for accepting one complicated bad guy role after another and eschewing easy romantic lead parts.

Heflin's one of the many first rate actors from the midcentury era who never quite had the charisma to carry their names forward after their deaths. You might say the same thing about Ryan, Dana Andrews, Ray Milland, and Glenn Ford. They were all superb craftsmen who could play many roles from romantic leads to bums, but they never had the "kevorka" that surrounded the Gables or the Stewarts or the Cagneys. IMO the beauty of TCM is that we get to see these great "craft" actors with the depth that they richly deserve.

Well, John Wayne is a whole other situation, because after Batjac was formed, he called the shots on his pictures as producer. If we want to apply the auteur theory here, it would work because Wayne has considerable authorship when it comes to his post-1950s movies. That's the understatement of the year. To quote the review in today's New York Times of The Duke's new biography: John Wayne put it more simply: ?I?ve found the character the average man wants himself, his brother or his kid to be,? he said. ?It?s the same type of guy the average wife wants for her husband. Always walk with your head held high. Look everybody straight in the eye. Never double-cross a pal.? Later in his career, he would turn down roles ? like that of the conniving and corrupt Willie Stark in ?All the King?s Men? ? that violated his belief system. ?He intended to play only men,? says Scott Eyman, the author of a new biography of Wayne, who ?mirrored his own beliefs, his own values, either partially or completely.? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/books/john-wayne-the-life-and-legend-explains-a-stars-power.html

I couldn't agree more about Act of Violence. Anyone who hasn't seen it doesn't know what they're missing. It's one of Ryan's signature roles, and while I won't deal with the specifics of the plot, I found it to have a certain amount in common with the great Richard Widmark / Richard Basehart court martial film, Time Limit, in that complexity of character and ambiguity between good and evil are central to both movies, and both films do an exceptional job of portraying the tension between them. To digress only slightly, I find it somewhat disheartening that even many organizations like the AFI and PBS seem to play along with a "winner take all" mentality, in concentrating their attention in "classic films" to a relatively small handful of brand name stars, to the exclusion of equally great actors like Ryan. PBS in particular is guilty of this, as practically every film they show seems to be taken from the AFI's top 100 list. It'd be nice to see films like Act of Violence or Crossfire on PBS for a change, instead of the 10th time around for Casablanca or Adam's Rib.

I think your distinction is a good one, but since Woody Allen is by far the most recognizable name associated with The Front, most of us think of it as a "Woody Allen" movie, even if strictly speaking that's not the case. Even today, Woody Allen remains a household name among moviegoers, whereas it's likely that few people outside the TCM orbit would have any idea who Martin Ritt was.

*I like Stockwell, too, but SOTM? Let's get real. 78 of his 103 feature movies were made after 1969. If TCM were going to honor someone from that era, I can think of lots of better choices, beginning with Al Pacino and Robert De Niro.* De Niro and Pacino are good, but their films are all over the place. I'd prefer Stockwell, as his films are seen much less. If by "all over the place" you mean on Neflix and a few premium priced cable channels, then sure. But in the five years I've been covering TCM's schedule like the dew covers Dixie, I've seen five DeNiros and two Pacinos. I understand *why* we haven't seen classics like *A Bronx Tale, Glengarry Glen Ross, Sleepers,* and *The Panic in Needle Park,* but an unconstricted SOTM tribute to either of those actors would be on the level of a tribute to any actor ever so honored to date. And if the reason for not running either of those two actors for SOTM is that their career is topheavy with "late" films, I'll repeat that stat about Stockwell: 78 of his 103 features came in the 70's or later. If we're going to see tributes to non-"star" actors who simply have long repertories, there are literally hundreds of actors from the 30's through the 50's who would be infinitely more deserving. We can begin with George Sanders and Edward Arnold and take it from there.

I like Stockwell, too, but SOTM? Let's get real. 78 of his 103 feature movies were made *after* 1969. If TCM were going to honor someone from that era, I can think of lots of better choices, beginning with Al Pacino and Robert De Niro.

My feelings were based on the Soon-Yi behavior only. He set himself up as some sort of moral arbiter in many of his films or the films' themes in themselves made judgements. His "I've done nothing wrong" statements during the affair turned me off totally on him. I wont pay to support his career.......... I can see that as an initial reaction, and I could see it even more if Allen had just been treating Soon-Yi as some sort of plaything, and had subsequently ditched her for another woman. But after 17 years of seeing Allen and Soon-Yi in a stable marriage, when she's now in her 40's, don't you think it might be time to consider that your initial reading might have been off, and that there might have been something genuine underneath the surface? I'm not saying you shouldn't refuse to see Allen's movies in theaters if even today that's your honest response to their relationship. I'm just wondering at what point "the facts on the ground" have a chance of making themselves heard in your mind over the initial "yuccck" factor.

I dont know if the sexual abuse charges are true or not..... Okay, but then you say I havent paid to see a Woody Allen film since he ran off with Soon-Yi. Husbands and Wives was the last. I realized he was a moral fraud and a hypocrite So is Allen a moral fraud because he married a much younger woman, to whom he's remained married for 17 years and counting? Or is he a moral fraud because underneath it, you really believe Mia's charges? And what's "hypocritical" about any of this? Did Allen ever go on record as condemning other May-September pairings? Did he ever come out against miscegenation? I can understand a visceral reaction against the idea of a mid-50's man and a 19-year old woman, but I can't see the "moral fraud" or "hypocrite" bits.

If we're now including classic one movie pairings, then there are and last but not least . . .