AndyM108
-
Posts
4,255 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
18
Posts posted by AndyM108
-
-
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 . . .
-
Most classic movie fans seem to adulate Gloria Grahame, who had sex with her 13-year-old stepson. Today she would be considered a pedophile and would need to register as a sex offender.
But back then she eventually got around to marrying him - - - two divorces later, but whatever
- - - and they stayed married for 14 years and produced three children. -
Great tout, Tom. Here's a YouTube clip on that vodka ad:
"I suffered from severe childhood trauma. I was breastfed with falsies."
-
Great screen couples come and go, but there'll never be another one like this:
-
Thanks for the post Jake. Many Motown records, as records of most popular groups pre~Beatles, have been dismissed as a couple of hits and the rest filler. But if you are into the Motown sound, many of these records are quite good. The "filler" often consisted of songs that may have contenders for singles, but outvoted in the company's infamous "Quality Control" weekly meetings. So often the material is very good.
You couldn't be more right about that. I bought nearly every Motown/Tamla/Gordy/Soul 45 from the early 60's through the mid-60's, and spent almost as much time on B-side songs like "I'm In Love Again" (The Supremes), "Goddess of Love" (The Marvelettes), "Hot Cha" (Jr. Walker & the All-Stars), "I Truly, Truly Believe" (The Tempts), and "Who's Lovin' You? (The Miracles) as I did playing the A-sides.
If anyone wants to savor what may be the best Motown album (actually Tamla) ever produced, they should get a hold of this double LP from 1965:
-
I think he got this reputation as "pretentious" because his characters often like jazz or classical music and read philosophy. It's the American knee-jerk reaction of distrust to anything intellectual. It must therefore be labelled "pretentious".
I think it's more akin to the sort of reaction that Bob Dylan got from some of his former fans when he switched from folk to electronic rock music. When Allen switched from comedy to more serious stuff a lot of people felt that same sense of "betrayal", and the "pretentious" tag was a handy epithet to throw at him. Lots of film lovers are much more comfortable with characters and directors who find one genre, preferably in the realm of "comfort food" films, and stick to it forever.
But if the explanation for "pretentious" lies in the jazz soundtracks of some of his movies, that's rather ironic, considering that much of that music was wildly popular within the living memories of many of the filmgoers of the 70's and 80's. If you really want "pretentious", nothing but NOTHING can hold a candle to the soundtrack in The Graduate.
-
And when the storyline comes close to some of the real life.allegations, whether true or not, the creepiness someone else mentioned comes to the fore.
Except that Farrow's allegations concern child molesting, not a midlife crisis. There *is* a difference between the two.
One is criminally psychopathic. The other is often celebrated in "classic" Hollywood movies of the Breen era. Many or most of the male stars of the 50's were at one point depicted as cradle robbers in critically acclaimed films. Audrey Hepburn scarcely ever had a cinematic relationship with a man who wasn't old enough to be her father and then some.
Allen's movies often deal with the awkward relationship between his character and college age women, but what does that have to do with child molesting? Some of those movie relationships of his seem kind of pathetic, but truth be told, they're not *that* much more pathetic than Gary Cooper's role in Love In The Afternoon. This isn't exactly Roman Polanski we're talking about, and the relationship Allen began with a 19 or 20 year old girl in 1991 is still going strong when the "girl" is in her 40's.
-
As for the criticism that all his movies are the same (which in fact I believe someone else made), first, it's not really true.
By that I meant Allen's earlier comedies up through Love and Death. I haven't seen enough of his post- Manhattan films to make any gross generalization.
-
*but I've seen too many cases of "recovered memories" and vengeful spouses (mostly men, I might add)*
Nice save.
Well, I added it because while false "recovered memories"* seem to be mostly in the realm of women, "vengeful spouses" (or vengeful lovers) are every bit as likely to be men. And just because I'm skeptical about what Farrow says about Allen doesn't mean I think that all such incidents are invented.
*Not that all of them are phony.
-
In terms of Allen's films alone, Husbands and Wives is easily my favorite, and Annie Hall still holds up pretty well (thanks to Diane Keaton), as does Broadway Danny Rose and to an extent Radio Days and Manhattan Murder Mystery.
But sometime around Manhattan, I began to get the feeling about his comedies that once you've seen one, you've seen them all. I don't know about "pretentious", but there's a sameness to too many of his films for me ever to consider his overall repertory for anything beyond the mythical "Hall of Very Good". That may be unfair, since I haven't seen most of his more recent films, but at this point those movies are near the back of a very long line of movies to get to.
- - - and they stayed married for 14 years and produced three children.
Act of Violence: a great noir
in General Discussions
Posted
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.