Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by JamesJazGuitar

  1. 16 hours ago, lilypond said:

    Oh, agreed, MISSWONDERLY3,  he was all that for sure.   That was a worthy effort to get McCrea launched as Star of the Month, good for you!   I could be wrong, but I think that those who don't perceive him the way we do, sort of lump him in with certain more "stolid", conventional, good-looking leading man types.  What they're missing is that sometimes mischievous charm that you reference, and the endearing boyish quality and latent humor he has.

    And in those earlier roles, there was an irresistible youthful ardor about him.   Heart-throbby, but subtle... 

    Which was not one bit diminished as he matured, I'm confident you'd agree!


    I wouldn't assume that users of this forum (especially old-timers),   undervalue Joel McCrea.        Such an assumption of how others perceive him is mistaken (based on what I have seen over the past decade at this forum).

    Instead I'm assuming most users view McCrea like MissWondererly,   you and I;    solid,  charming actor with a fine film legacy. 

    McCrea might appear to be ignored\undervalued at this forum only because noir is likely the #1 topic here and McCrea wasn't in any films one could say are noir  (since he became a major western star after WWII and during the entire classic-noir era.





    • Like 2
  2. 1 hour ago, ElCid said:

    The bag missed him, so he was not in anymore danger at that point.  Also there is no evidence of what the bag contained.  I would guess urine might be more likely than a Molotov cocktail.  Doesn't a Molotov require hard impact such as in a glass bottle or jar rather than a floppy bag?

    If he had shot him before he threw the bag, maybe then self-defense, but after unless he was holding more bags.

    The problem I have, and so will others, is that Rittenhouse came across state lines with a buddy who was also well armed and apparently looking to shoot someone.  You don't go out with loaded assault type weapons unless you plan to shoot them.

    The fact that deceased #1 was shot in the back is  likely the best evidence the prosecution has with regards to a manslaughter charge.


    • Thanks 1
  3. 31 minutes ago, ElCid said:

    Rosenbaum threw a bag at Rittenhouse and missed.  They then moved across the parking lot and Rittenhouse shot unarmed Rosenbaum.   Unarmed Huber tried to detain Rittenhouse or defend others from him and held onto his skate board while doing it.  Rittenhouse shot him.

    With regard to the bag:    It is my understanding people that night where throwing bags that were home-made-bombs (molotov cocktails).   If that is true,  it doesn't matter what Rosenbaum was actually throwing or what was in the bag.       The legal bar is if one has a reasonable-fear that they face bodily harm:     IMO it would be  reasonable for someone to fear bodily harm if someone throws a bag at them when others have been throwing bags that night that were home-made-bombs   (or even bags that contained rocks,  nails or other hard substances).



  4. I keep reading that the Deceased #1 had a plastic bag with him when he was shot:   Don't the authorities know what was in this bag?    E.g.  a flammable liquid?     If they did,  wouldn't that info be release to the public?     

    Isn't part of the self-defense claim,  that deceased #1 was trying to start cars on fire?     I'm also interested in if there was an flammable liquid residue found on deceased #1's hand,  clothing,  etc....  


  5. 1 hour ago, mr6666 said:

    "I still say it should be  called Critical Majority Theory. "

    or simply BALANCED HISTORY ?


    like 'defund the police' could be  FAIR POLICING ?

    or ban the word 'socialism' and say TAX THE RICH ?

    or NO climate change, just SAVE THE EARTH

    (gotta keep it short & simple)


    If CRT was CMT it might go over better with white Americans especially with teaching this in schools.

    The focus would be that the majority culture\race\religion\ creates systematic bias and discriminations in the justice system,  institutions  and society in general.     Teacher could use examples from other societies to illustrate the theory instead of only what whites have done to non-whites in the USA (the latter should be cover but again,  not the only example).


    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  6. 4 minutes ago, ElCid said:

    I found the below on Critical Race Theory which seemed to be about as informed piece as I could find.   There may be more objective sources, but this seems about neutral to me.   The problem is that the Republicans, knowing their audience, have picked up on CRT as being inherently evil - no matter what it is about.  Another example of how they use messaging and catch phrases to drive "their people" to do what they want.


    I still say it should be  called Critical Majority Theory.       Of course here in the USA that majority has been white people but historically it really was white, Christian,  males.   White females,   non-Christian whites,    non-Christian-black,   etc...   were subject to many of the same biases that black people were (but not to the same degree).


    • Thanks 1
  7. 58 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

    I want to mention something about lead actresses and death scenes. I don't think Crawford was being a diva when she told Warner "Joan Crawford does not die in her movies." I think she was informing him that audiences were accustomed to her playing women who prevailed and survived, despite their life's circumstances. In fact that may be why she had such a large following. She was not going to upset the formula and alienate fans.

    I would say this is why Katharine Hepburn turned down the lead role in DARK VICTORY, because she played plucky heroines that did not succumb to anything horrible. 

    Bette Davis on the other hand was not afraid to play women who got killed. Not only did she die in DARK VICTORY, she also died a year later in THE LETTER. Barbara Stanwyck took this to the extreme, playing unsavory women who were offed in DOUBLE INDEMNITY, THE STRANGE LOVE OF MARTHA IVERS and THE FILE ON THELMA JORDON.

    Then we have someone like Shelley Winters who made a career out of playing women who died on screen. But I think she had those opportunities because stars like Joan Crawford and Katharine Hepburn turned down such roles.

    Note that another film where Joan dies is the film Humoresque (1946).     Another good film she made after coming to Warner Bros.      (I believe we discussed her MGM verses her WB film legacy and we both prefer the latter).







    • Like 2
  8. 2 hours ago, Vautrin said:

    To me supernatural noir  is sort of a contradiction in terms. Yes, an eerie  supernatural movie can have many of the visual

    aspects of a  noir film, but  the supernatural theme is opposite to noir's concentration on the  human elements of  the

    story--alienation, paranoia, jealousy, ambiguity. Bringing  in the  supernatural  seems  like  a cop out. 

    I agree with this:   like you said many of the visual aspects can have a noir vibe but the overall themes and what motivates  the main characters are different.


  9. 3 minutes ago, sewhite2000 said:

    He was the first name that came to my head. He certainly gets called a character actor by some, though as you say, it may not be an entirely accurate label. '39 was a big year for him. He was also in Gone With the WindMr. Smith Goes to Washington and Only Angels Have Wings.

    Like I said I may just be splitting hairs because of how much I enjoy the acting of Thomas Mitchell and the sheer number of fine films he was in. 

    • Like 2
  10. 18 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

    I love this film and am glad you spotlighted it.

    Interesting trivia-- Bogart's wife was supposed to be played by Joan Crawford. The part ended up going to Rose Hobart, because Crawford told Jack Warner she liked the script but "Joan Crawford does not die in her movies."

    I have never heard of that,   but the timing is right with Crawford joining WB fairly recently after her long time at MGM.

    I do wonder if another reason was because Crawford didn't wish to play a character where her husband kills her off for another,  much younger and prettier women.   I just don't see Joan taking on such a role.       Of course Crawford did play a character that does lose her husband to a much younger and prettier women that same year (1945) in Mildred Pierce,  but that women was her daughter instead of her younger sister.    (and maybe once was enough for Joan?).

    Also,  do you know if the WB producers ever considered Crawford for the role in The Two Mrs. Carroll's?    Crawford would have been interesting in such a role (not that Stanwyck wasn't),   and she wouldn't have had to die!


    • Like 1
  11. 19 minutes ago, Thompson said:

    Love is in the little bitty shorts of Sissy Spacek. 

    All I can say is too each their own.       I do believe she is a fine actress.


    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 1
  12. 3 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

    I don't agree with your perception of things at all, but there you go.

    i think the progressives have been utterly pragmatic and have signalled that they are willing to  sign the reconciliation bill that they thought Manchin and Sinema had agreed to - whatever that is.  Their only stipulation was that the two bills go in tandem and that is because they don't really trust Manchin and who can blame them!

    So it is the two 'right wing' democrats that are the problem.  Not the 300 or so other Democrat lawmakers.  IMO, of course.

    You said many weeks ago at this forum that both bills would be passed and that progressives would not block anything.  Both bills are still up in the air. 

    Of course you blame the two moderate Senators also calling them "right wing".      I hope you don't keep score of your predictions.     You're batting less than .100.


    • Like 1
  13. 3 hours ago, Hibi said:

    Pelosi has not been able to order progressives around so far. Maybe they'll cave.

    I didn't say progressives will follow Pelosi's orders but only that she will give them.   She made a half-A attempt when she told them last week to not embarrass Biden before he went to Europe,  but the progressives did anyway.

    Now that the DNC fears major losses in 2022 (not just losing their majority in the house but being the minority party by over 30 or so seats),    Pelosi will use stronger tactics.

    I believe this time even A.O.C.  and the squad will see the light,  but who knows.     


  14. On 10/29/2021 at 3:11 PM, Arturo said:

    Just wait until GOP pols try to act like they were in favor of this to their constituents, once average Americans see the benefits to their lives.

    Uh,   that bill is DOA.     The vast majority of Dems pols in DC know this.   Biden knows this.    The Dems in DC have to get something done after their poor showing in yesterday's election and that something will be a much more moderate and scaled down bill that Pelosi will order the progressive to support  (and even A.O.C. will see the light I believe).

    Man,  even the CNN progressives on their panel last night admitted that.         

  15. 1 hour ago, ElCid said:

    Maybe so, but still fairly valid.  The more Republicans in office, the more enabled Trump will be.  If GOPers do well in 2022 in state elections and Congressional, it will embolden Trump to run in 2024 since more voter suppression laws will be passed.

    The other side is that there are many, many GOPers in office who do support Trump and Trumpism.  So in 2022 there may be more.

    Not sure what you mean by "still fairly valid";  I.e.   what is "still fairly valid?":       clearly what is NOT valid  is that Dems can win elections with a strategy of "don't vote for GOPers because of Trump".    (that was the point progressive Van Jones was making and trust me he looked pained while making it).

    Dems have to offer something that voters want,  even Dem voters,  or they will vote for GOP candidates or not vote at all.      We see this in Virginia and New Jersey where Dems that voted for Biden in 2020,  or the Dem running for Governor in the prior election,   decided to vote for the GOP candidate this time around   (as well as many independents).

    As for your last sentence about the other side: I agree with that,  and  CNN's panel covered  this also - that there wasn't a GOP primary in either state but of course there will be GOP primary challenges of House members that are not Trumpers (or as we see with Adam Kinzinger,  sane GOPers just drop out since they know they can't win in the primary).      In purple or slightly blue districts a sound Dem candidate should be able to retain their seat or even beat a Trumper GOPers even if the Biden admin and DC Dems continue to look incompetent in the fall of 2022.



  16. 2 hours ago, ElCid said:

    This is bad news for the Democrats. 

    Most of the polling indicates that the inability of the Democrats to accomplish much in Washington, the conflicts between Manchin/Sinema and the Progressives and McAuliffe's really dumb statement re: parents having no input into what is taught their children really hurt him.  

    Of course, historically, the Dem was supposed to loose this race, but they also lost two other state-wide races and probably the House of Delegates.

    Added to this was the ability of the GOP to get out the vote and the severe lack of voting by Democrats.

    Last I heard NJ hangs in the balance and that should have been a win for the Dems. 

    On CNN Van Jones said that yesterday ended the use of the a-vote-for-any-GOPer-is-support-for-Trump Dem tactic to try to guilt voters into voting a full Dem ticket. 

    Of course Van Jones was a champion of this topic but since it no longer will work (his POV now),   he advises Dems to not try to use it in 2022.


    • Like 1
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...