JamesJazGuitar

If you took the time to read my posts you would see that I'm one that hopes TCM decides to stay mostly with studio era movies (mostly being at least 90% of the programming). BUT if TCM is going to show post studio-era movies I want them to choose the movies they feel are the best ones. Period. I do NOT wish for TCM to NOT play a post studio era movie just becuase it has some nudity or profanity. The quality of the product has to be the top priority not trying to shield some people from specific content. (I have the same opinion when it comes to racist content in studio-era movies). Note that TCM supplies the ratings. Those people that don't wish to view certain content need to do their homework to avoid that content. TCM also only shows movies with that type of content in the late hours.

Well I find it hard to believe any actor would "pretty much had his own way in movies" in the studio era. The producers had the control and then the directors. Even a star like Bette had to give in to the director. So the fact all of the ladies were in love would Brent wouldn't change his role in those films much. In many of those Davis movies all of the male parts were secondary to her role. Thus even if an actor with more flair or standing had played the male role they still wouldn't shine as bright as Bette. When a movie Davis was in had a strong male part (e.g. Watch on the Rhine), WB used an actor other than Brent.

Well Bogie was up for The African Queen and Hollywood felt they owed Bogie an Oscar and thus the award went to Bogie.

I grew up in So Cal in the 70s and the jr High school coach in our PE class would threaten to cut the hair of guys. Everyday he would say something nasty about it. Well I talked to my dad and he meet with the school. He told them he would sue them if they even put a hand on me or any other kid with long hair.

Like you I would of hoped that some could see that their rudeness isn't 'cool', but that clearly is not the case. I mean when someone replies to a post were they were told their prior post was 'uncool' with "Wow. Talk about someone who might need to be on a couch!", well, it would be silly for me to expect much of a change. Again, I don't want anyone banned. I just wished they didn't feel the need to be so 'in your face'. Oh, well I guess it really is a mad, mad, mad, mad world!

I found this statement interesting: Her dramatic roles in CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY and LADY ON A TRAIN suggest that at a different studio--and perhaps with a different level of ambition on her part--Durbin's career would not have been truncated so abruptly. I agree with the statement but at the end of the day we can only judge (rank if you will), the actual output of a performer. Durbin's career being 'truncated' impacts how I judge her compared to Dunne and Garland (for example), since with both of them there are many 'adult' performance for us to evaluate.

Well if you want you can use the report abuse freture and try to get the admin to 'police' certain people or just put them on 'ignore'. I just don't go down those paths. I'm hoping peer pressure will work! (yea, but I was hoping the SeaHawks would win the Super Bowl so what do I know).

Anyone that was trying to understand wouldn't need it explained to them twice.

Well said Valentine. Yea, the use of profanity in a film doesn't make or break a movie. It is just one part of the movie. As I said; sometime a movie is more realistic by using profanity. Of course the use of profanity can be overdone, but this is just a sign of poor screen writing or direction. Good film makers know how profanity in a film can increase the realism of a movie and thus it's artistic value.

It would take an entire movie to explain "but why do you need to cast aspersions". One needs to just get used to it. Trust me the reply to you wasn't the first time and it will not be the last!

Well the last time this was discussed I made a point somewhat similar to the point Swithin is making with regards to days honoring character actors; that any 'tie in' between movies can be difficult (odd), other than the character actor being honored, and the theme of the honor is lost. Note I made this point when they had the Joan Blondell day for SUTS (and Joan wasn't a character actor in these films). But since many of Joan's best early films were with Cagney and these movies were Cagney films more so than Joan films, the day looked more like Cagney day than a day for Joan. The same thing might happen with honoring a character actor (especially if the role isn't a key one). But starting with bigger roles for a character actor might work. i.e. by doing so, the movies would appear to feature that character actor and NOT the leads in those movies, and thus the theme of the day would still be intact.

Interesting take on why Raft was wooden. Now I know the reason some claim why the other George, Brent, was wooden; as to ensure co-stars like Bette Davis got all of the spotlight in her 'women' pictures. But Raft was the lead in those films where he was wooden. Also WB didn't mind that Cagney was a very emotional actor (this is being discussed on another thread related to him crying). So why not Raft? So I wonder if Raft was really advised by Jack, producers or directors to be soooo low key.

How about Destination Tokyo? The movie stars Cary Grant and John Garfield. Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Jan 13, 2013 3:54 PM

Can you think of anything in the movie that would support the POV that for PC reasons TCM had a decision NOT to show the movie (instead of the more logical and standard reason of cost to obtain access rights). Does the movie show some group in a very negative light? (some here believe TCM doesn't show Charlie Chan movies for that reason).

Yes, welcome to the message boards. Lot of interesting discussions on classic movies. Just don't say anything negative about Barbara Stanwyck! (long story but if you stick around you'll find out what I mean).

There are no old movies; only movies we haven't seen before. As for your nickname; I took it as being that your a 'bella' that is communicating to the world via cyberspace. All About Eve and The Third Man as also two of my favorite movies (but very safe choices if you know what I mean). So welcome back!

Ethel was a really good singer but as far as an actress or having a good persona for films. NOT. The only thing I found funny about the Ethel and Milton scenes is that she plays his mother in law. They were the same age.

The Big Shot is the last Bogie 'programmer'. I assume Jack Warner already had this movie lined up and ready to go and so even after hits like High Sierra and The Maltese Falcon (where the light had to go on it JW head to know that he had something special in Bogie), JW decided to waste Bogie in this average crime drama.

Hey, I'm not trying to harass you, just understand your point of view here. I don't see a very strong political message in The Spoilers (but it has been a while since I've seen the 42 version). So I just wonder what you feel TCM's programmers would find NOT PC for them to supress the showing of this movie.

What 'Babs' are you a fan of? I assume Stanwyck, but if so, than I wonder why your favorite classic films (I say Studio era), didn't you list a Stanwyck movie?

Well I agree that when I view Douglas in this film it is hard for me to forget the later Douglas persona. As I asked before I wonder if this somewhat 'odd' paring was done on purpose as it relates to the plot? e.g. did the plot require an older women married to a young man (a well worn plot line e.g. All About Eve,,,), or an intense man with a subdued gal? As mentioned by TP and you the Douglas Darnell relationship was a standard one (rich, average looking man with poor young beauty wanting to get away from the streets), so I wondered if the Douglas Sothern relationship had one. I don't remember much about the 'issues' with their marriage as portrayed in the movie. Thus when one says the pairing 'works', to me this is defined by what the producers where trying to convey. i.e. were they to convey an odd match that, regardless, have a strong marriage? If yes, than, yea, it sure works.

What does 'in public' have to do with the use of curse words in movies? Hey, I agree one shouldn't use certain words in public; i.e. it is the polite thing to do, but I don't see how that is relevant to movies or what movies TCM decides to show. But generally when there is cussing in films it is realistic. e.g. the scene is showing working men talking, people talking at their home, or teen talking to each other etc.... Thus using your own example, if a film maker wanted their film to be realistic and the film was about teens in the 50s there should be cussing. Thus those 70s movies you dislike so much are more realistic and true than, say a movie like Rebel WithOut A Cause. As for my use of the term 'adult', it was just my lazy way to express the showing of nudity and cursing in a film as 'adult content'. It looks like you went out of your way to misunderstand my intent.

Do you have anything to back up your claim TCM doesn't show The Spoilers because of politics? I'm wondering who the real "fake, phony, frauds" are here.

lz; I agree with you. Like with any brand I have a certain expectation of what the product will offer me. With TCM that is mostly studio era movies, but I have no problem with TCM showing post studio era movies, or with any adult content those movie would have. The only complaint I have with TCM programming is that I wish they would show less 'repeats' and show studio era movies they haven't shown before (or in a long time). Reading about studio era movies I come across hundreds I haven't seen and that I wished TCM would show. But I do understand the issue about obtaining rights to those movies.

Fred, I admit I didn't understand your comment about 'not missing anything' either. I admit I have missed a lot of modern movies (i.e. have NOT seen them). Maybe there were some gems that I didn't see. Do I regret this? Well I can't say since I didn't experience them.