JamesJazGuitar

How about Charlize Theron? Producers have made movies that center around her without the use of special effects. e.g. Monsters.

None of your college students are gay men? The majority of 20 and 30 something gay men I know all know who Audrey Hepburn is. I have seen Hepburn calendars and pictures in their homes. Of course most of these guys work in the fashion industry.

I haven't seen the movie, but was the reason why she was imprison (i.e. the crime she committed as defined), relevant to the plot? If I understand you correctly here, what was NOT relevant to the plot was the angle that she was sent to prison unjustly. So if that angle didn't matter, what about her specific crime did matter to the plot? e.g. if she was in prison for stealing would that have changed what occurs after she is released from prison (I assume most of the plot is focused on her POST prison experiences).

Funny that the stable scene is being discussed. I admit that I have jumped on the bandwagon and said the Bogie was miscast and this was a weak performance for him, but secretly I didn't really know what to think! Maybe I just focused too much on the accent to see what was really going on there. That and the fact Davis is SO ON, that it doesn't matter much what anyone else is doing in the picture. Would it have changed the story much if Bogie's character wasn't Irish? I don't think so.

Dear misswonderly; I see that you have gone to a lot of effort but sadly I believe it will be wasted. We just have to take FG 'as is'. As she has said, she is very self aware and admits she likes to use an over the top style. Nothing said by others is going to change that. The good thing is that FG post are mostly interesting once one understands how to interpet her style.

Yes I agree that it would be interesting to know what criteria they use. As for Paxton; IF TCM criteria does NOT require some type of 'special' relationship with the studio era (e.g. Barrymore and Douglas being related to major studio era stars), than the only reason I can see to pick Paxton is that he is known by those that get HBO and the latest Hatfield McCoy movie, as well as other roles (but not major ones in my view) in big screen movies.

Well can you explain why he should NOT be picked? For example, do you have info that suggest Paxton knows little to nothing about classic movies? For all we know (unless you know otherwise), Paxton is actively involved in ensuring studio era movies are preserved by donating time and money to this effort. Like you I would also like to know why he was picked (what is 'special' about him compared to others in the movie business as it related to classic films).

I find it interesting you mention Bacall. For what movie role do you think Bacall should of won an oscar? When Bacall was SOTM many people took shots at her (the typical one being without Bogie she would be nobody). To me Bacall doesn't really fit in with the other names you listed. Was't her best work on the stage?

I have nothing against public surveys. They communicate what the public favors. My point was that a public survey isn't a reflect of talent or ability (per se). I knew very little about silent stars but thanks to TCM I know more about them today than I did, say 10 years ago.

I think that 'no TV' may be the biggest reason the early studio system was able to crank out 'so so programmers'. While I understood this it really hit home when I was watching the Cagney Young movie Taxi the other day. Young's roomate made a point about going out to see a movie a few times in this movie. The way she made it sound it was similar to how many today would out to a fast food place for dinner. A very, very common activity.

Well in some way your correction is more than just nit-picking since there was a lot of discussion as it related to the title of the film. Since Flynn was a major male WB star at the time (I would say #2 behind Cagney), he wanted his role to be part of the title and he asked that Essex be listed before Elizabeth. Of course Bette wasn't going to accept that so they came up with a compromise. My guess (but only a guess), is that if male role featured an actor NOT as popular as Flynn the movie would of been released with only Elizabeth in the title.

With regards to: How often do we get to see an older woman with a younger man? Well very often if one is watching any Crawford movie made after 1940! My view of Crawford: Well I really wasn't that in to her. i.e. it took me a while to 'get' Joan. But I now see her magic. She had an 'it' quality and really projects this on the screen regardless of her age (i.e. her looks fading don't dim that quality much). As they say, she was a true movie star.

Well to me Brando looked out of place in Caesar. Of course I identified so much with his Waterfront and Streetcar characters (which were similar working class guys), so that could be the reason I felt Brando was out of place. But I felt James Mason fit this role like a glove. Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Jan 6, 2013 3:30 PM

Ok, solid point. That high energy helps you make it up hills!

Again, we think a like! Yea, the Mexican guy was a crack shot. The only difference is that I would of had him shoot Clint in the head after 2 tries!

But Finance, are you dancing while listening to it??? I only ask because this is a common debate between the wife and I. I'll get into her car and I'll ask 'why are you listening to this?', she says 'hey this is good music to dance to'. I say 'OK, I agree with that but since we are sitting in a car and NOT dancing, I'm putting on jazz!'.

Poor casting is mostly due to the studio system. i.e. studio had actors under contract and they wished to use those actors. Using actor NOT under contract cost more money. Why pay to get actor "X" when the studio already has actor "Y" and can use that actor for no additional cost. Producing the best product possible was NOT the main goal of studios during that era.

My mom was a barmaid also. After my dad left the family my mom, who never had an outside job (note the choice of words here!), had to get a job. She when to a bar school and really studied. She got a good job and after a year was running the bar at a Japanese restaurant. My brother and I were teens at the time and our house because the local party house since we knew mom would be out from around 7:00 and not back until after 2:00 or so!

Sepiatone, I believe we see eye to eye here. I have no problem with people mentioning what they feel is the view of the general public (I say 'feel' since most of the time people are just assumiing what the view of the GP is). But yea, "Sounds like a dubious distinction at best" is on target.

So when discussing things like this I think the test of time (the true test of art) is important and you have to take into account what is thought about any given performer by the wider culture. Does this mean that they have the last word? Of course not. It's just part of the equation. Well said and we have a meeting of the minds here. My point from the start is that each of us shouldn't use the view of the 'wider culture' as a weapon to dismiss someone's opinion or to support our own POV. Yes, 'it' is part of the equation, but most of the time a very small part.

I agree with you that Brando's performance in Julius Caeser was weak. I also feel Thelma Ritter was a lot better actor than the majority of the stars in the movies she was in. I assume Ritter is someone the vast majority of the general public isn't aware of. Just more evidence that the view of GP is meaningless as it relates to judging talent.

Well I see one over the top statement (nobody comes close), is countered with another over the top statement (he was a joke).

Again, I wasn't clear; I tend to agree with your take on DK (i.e. that DK is largely forgotten by the current GP). Yes, the members here are NOT just random members of the GP; We are a select group with something in common that is NOT very common with the GP: We are fans of classic (what I call studio era for clarity), movies. So we agree on all that Thus what value is there in bringing up the suposed view of the GP as it relates to discussions of classic movie actors? I just don't see how bringing in the GP adds to the discussion since, as you know, the GP has a very limited understanding of classic movies and the personal from that era. Hey, maybe I misunderstood you from the start. To me it looked like you were saying DK is forgotten because he wasn't any good. i.e. that you linked the two. But I hope we can agree that how known (or NOT) a classic star is by the general public has NOTHING to do with how good or bad someone was.

Well the book Film Noir (Ward Silver), classifies Mildred Pierce as a noir. The lead characters are noir characters but with non standard noir type relationships (e.g. daughter as femme fatale but to her mom, instead of a girlfriend to noir man).

People posting at this site are members of the general public. So to me you are still very dismissive of people here that don't have the same view as you or what you believe is the general public view. Also, how do you know what this so called general public thinks? Do you have a poll on how popular DK is today? I doubt it. I'm sure many of the stars you and I feel are great are not very popular with the general public (for example, Hanks is very likely more well known than Stanwyck by the general public!). Thus to me it looked like the intent of bringing in what you assume is the opinion of the general public was just to dismiss the POV of those you were replying do. This is a something you do very often.