JamesJazGuitar

Interesting point about how Davis couldn't play the classic Stanwyck roles but that Stanwyck could of play the classic Davis ones. I can agree with that but I still rank Davis above Stanwyck because Davis did play those roles and to me they are the best performances by an American actress. I also agree with your 'enjoy' comment and I admit I find myself watching "Myrna Loy, Olivia de Havilland, Irene Dunne, and Ingrid Bergman over Davis" also. But that doesn't change how I feel about Davis. All I have to do is watch a few scenes from Dark Victory, Now Voyager, The Letter, etc to end up saying 'no one was better than Bette'. As for Brando: I didn't rank him 'that high'. He isn't one of my top 20 favorite actors based on the reasons you state (even if I feel you're overstating them). As for Stanwyck and the manly comment; I have to assume that person hasn't seen Ball of Fire or The Lady Eve.

Note that I clearly posted: Of course it doesn't mean the authors of these book are right (of course it is just their opinions), but they do take the effort to back up their opinion with substance. So what I'm looking for is some substance for how you define noir. You imply a noir movie must be in black and white but than of course all black and white films are NOT noirs so there must be some other criteria. As I have said before on this tread; I divide noir elements into 3 basic categories; visuals, plot and the nature of the characters, with the most weight placed on the nature of the characters. This is why I said that even if Black Widow had noir visuals, it still wouldn't be a noir to me since the characters were not noir type characters, especially the leading man. i.e. a noir leading man has dirty hands and Helin's character was just an everyday good guy. The two leading characters in Leave Her To Heaven are indeed noir characters and so is the plot line. Thus while the movie is lacking in the typical noir visuals it is still a noir to me for those reasons.

I'm not sure what case you are trying to make here. All I know is that muscians tend to listen to music differently than non musicians and how we judge it is often different. If that makes me an elitist than so be it. Also note that just because some music is more complex than other music doesn't make it better. (but I do admit my own personal taste are towards more complex songwriting which is why Cole Porter is one of my favorites). While I can just listen to music like a non musician I tend to listen like a musician. For example, I know each chord of the song and I list to how the players play over those chords. I do this to help myself become a better musician. i.e. certain players just approach music in ways that us everyday musicians don't. I'm getting a music leason each time I listen to how they interpet a certain piece of music. Thus I try to add that flair to my playing (subject to my limitations of course).

Well up until your latest post I would agree with you when you say "I don't think there has been a single post here "insulting" this poster".

Stevie Wonder is indeed one of the top modern era songwriters. As I discussed with a fellow musician, Sepiatone, I tend to judge songwriters by reviewing their written music just as much as I do hearing someone play it. A few Wonder songs are now what some jazz musicians call 'new standards'. The harmony (chord changes), are complex enough to make it interesting enough for jazz players to improvise over those changes. For example, when playing a typical song, a musician goes to what would be a common 'next chord' in 95% of rock blues music. That will not fit in a Wonder song since often that 'next chord' isn't an expected one but instead just a little 'outside'. These chords add a texture and depth that is 'picked up' even by a, so called, untrained ear.

Just to clarity my opinion on this; There is nothing wrong with someone saying they wished TCM didn't show XYZ type of content. No one should be mocked for having that opinion. But what got me about the OP was their shock (using their own words). Like someone else said here; this is like finding out there is gambling going on at Rick's! Sorry but I do find fault in those that complain about something when they don't take the least bit of effort to learn more about it first. So it wasn't that the OP didn't wish for TCM to show certain content, but that they were NOT aware that TCM has shown this type of content before as well as the overall nature of the TCM Underground series. Thus if the OP would of added something to the effect of; "Well I found out TCM has this Underground series and that often it will show R rated content. I don't feel this series fits TCM brand and mission". My take on that OP would of been a lot different.

Note I wasn't giving only my opinion but the opinion by those that write books on film noir since I wrote 'Leave Her To Heaven is classified as a noir'. i.e. classified by those that write about movies and film noir. For example, the book Film Noir (Ward Silver) list Leave Her to Heaven as a noir and the authors write about why they consider this color film to be a noir. I have seen other noir books list the film as a noir (as well as a few other color movies). Of course it doesn't mean the authors of these book are right (of course it is just their opinions), but they to take the effort to back up their opinion with substance. You appear to believe that by definition a color film cannot be a noir. To me that is a very narrow definition of what makes a movie a noir.

Heflin's character in the movie Black Widow wasn't a noir man, not Heflin the actor. Of course Heflin was in at least 5 noirs (depending on one defines noir). The Prowler, Possessed and Strange Loves of Martha Ivers being some of the others.

Legally I wonder how a movie can fall into public domain status and than fall out? Really I don't think that is possible. What is more likely is that those that owned the rights to the movie authorized others to show the movie at little to no cost, until someone decided that could sell exclusive rights and made a good amount of cash doing so.

Thanks for the info. I was always a fan of the show. My violin teacher was a member of the NBC Orchestra and he was very proud that he was on the recording for the Bonanza song. Yes, it is very cool how they used some classic movie stars to play historical stars.

It appears everyone here has forgotten that Kathie had so called evidence against Jeff that he was the killer of his partner, as well as the accountant. Remember Jeff was using those papers for the IRS as a way to blackmail Whit into revealing that Kathie was the killer of his partner, but Kathie being always one step ahead of Jeff kills Whit before Whit could write something that might of saved Jeff. Thus Kathie was also going to tell the police that Jeff killed all three (partner, accountant, and Whit). Who were the police going to believe Jeff or sweet innocent Kathy (ha ha). But really this is a key noir theme; that the man will be viewed as the bad guy instead of the actual evil women. So Jeff had no way out. The best he could hope for was that Kathie would also be sentenced to murder in the death of one of those 3 and that was a long shot. So Jeff was clearly facing death at the hands of the authorities. Thus I believe Jeff wasn't going to stop the car; i.e. he wanted the cops to kill both Kathy and him. Instead Kathy got to him first but still the end result was what Jeff desired. As for the kid lying. I think that is the perfect ending. All the murders were going to be pinned on Jeff. So why have Ann continue to hold a torch for a murderer. Instead the kid set Ann free. Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Dec 31, 2012 3:17 PM

I loved Ricky and as a kid I modeled myself after him. My dad felt this was funny (he is an easy going guy), but my mom (a somewhat hard women from Japan so there were cultural differences), didn't find any humor in my actions! Hey, I felt that if Ricky could talk to his parents as he did, so could I. Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Dec 30, 2012 3:58 PM

Ok, so what do you not like about Out of the Past; i.e. what areas do you feel are weak and therefore OOTP isn't one of the top 3 or so noirs of all time? Now some people don't like all the outdoor settings. These are the people that define noir mostly by it's visual content. But since I define noir mostly from a character aspect and to me the noir characters of Jeff and Kathy are the best in the genre. Of course some people feel Jeff's new relationship and the police ex-boyfriend drags the movie down. I can see that and it might of been a better movie if that ex-cop wasn't part of the plot. What Mitchum noir do you feel is better than OOTP? I like His Kind of Women more as a movie but mostly because of the addition of the comedy by Vincent Price and not because it has more noir traits.

Well to address the question that often comes up related to an actor of Meeker's 'status'; Why wasn't he more famous? Why didn't he get more roles; Here is what wiki has to say: For his performance in [William Inge|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Inge|William Inge]'s Picnic, Meeker was awarded the New York Critic's Circle Award in 1954. [Picnic|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picnic_(1955_film)|Picnic (1955 film)] became a classic film in 1955, with [William Holden|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Holden|William Holden] and [Kim Novak|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Novak|Kim Novak] starring in the roles originated by Meeker and [Janice Rule|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Rule|Janice Rule]. {color:darkslategray}According to [Turner Classic Movies|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Classic_Movies|Turner Classic Movies], Meeker turned down the lead role because he did not wish to sign a long-term contract with the production company, and he never was offered a role of similar stature again. Here is a prime example of the studio-system and both it good and bad points; For example, if Meeker had signed a long-term contract instead of saying 'why didn't he get more staring roles' we might be saying 'how come he was miscast in so many low quality movies'.

Well that is the point I was making. If Garbo really wanted to be left alone she wouldn't of made the choice to live in NYC.

Well the only logical defense I can see for the original poster would be that they believed TCM was like the Disney Channel. i.e. they had a misguided assumption and they were shocked when they saw a movie that didn't meet this misguided assumption. I'm shocked with their misguided assumption. i.e. anyone that is a TCM fan should be aware of TCM Underground and that TCM does, from time to time, show movies with "R" rated content.

NYC wouldn't be might first choice if I wanted to be a reclusive. It is my understanding that reclusive like to sleep a lot and how does one do that in the city that never sleeps.

Sorry but I do believe the premise as related by that book is indeed a very naive suggestion. First it assumes that each side does NOT understand the other. I question this very basic premise. Generally I think each side does understand where the other side is coming from. But if they don't then of course I agree each side needs to take a deep breath and really understand where the other side is coming from; what drives their POV etc.... But to me it is folly to assume that with a better understanding there would be more good will. It fact it could lead to inverse. i.e. instead of just thinking the over side is misguided, one can now classify the other side in a harsher light. Take the current issue in the news now; Gun control. Yea, people from various sides should be able to sit down and have a friendly discussion (e.g. unlike the one Morgan on CNN had with his guest!). But at the end of this friendly discussion it does come down to tangible black and white areas concerning what each side would define as their freedoms. Again, the Morgan discussion illustrates this; That discussion broke down very, very quickly into a fight because Morgan pushed for actual reforms (i.e. new laws), right from the get go. It was silly and very naive for Morgan to expect gun right advocates to view these proposed reforms in anything but a very negative way. So yea, I agree; let's stick to movies.

The Devil and Miss Jones is a great Jean Arthur movie. Very funny and one of her best.

While it is always nice to play nice it really isn't practical when the issues being discussed relate to control of one's behavior. Each of us has a right to push back, and push back hard, when someone wishes to deny us what we feel are our rights. When we go into a voting booth we only have 2 options; Yes or NO (or this person or another person). By design these are hard, no compromise, choices. Does that book advise people NOT to vote?

There is no argument, you're simply mistaken. Leave Her To Heaven is classified as a noir. A noir is NOT only about the visuals. To me the better discussion isn't about black and white and color, but about visuals, plot and the nature of the characters. i.e. for a film to be a noir must it have all three and which of the three are the driving force? I think the nature of the characters is the driving force in noir, but based on what I read at forums like this I believe most people feel the visuals are the driving force. As for plot; yea most noirs have a murder, or some type of crime but crime dramas and gangster pictures are not noir by definition so to me plot is the least important of the 3. As I said before even if Black Window was filmed in B&W it still wouldn't be a noir to be because Heflin wasn't a noir man and while Nancy was a noir women this fact was NOT known to Heflin until after she was dead.

Well I fall into that middle ground (but I wonder if you got that impression from my prior post), and it appears you do also (or at least can see that Brando slacked off after the 50s). Like I said Brando did some really fine work. Who can ignore his performances in Waterfront and Streetcar. But he also gave some very bad performances especially after the 60s. So we tend to agree about Brando. What is funny is that in a discussion about Bette Davis and Barbara Stanwyck, I rank Davis #1 and Stanwyck #2. Here I picked the quality of a few performances over quantity; i.e. Davis has the best performances but Stanwyck has more versatility and more really good performances over a longer period of her career (while Davis clearly has more stinkers). When I compare actors like Tracy and Brando it looks like I pick consistently and quantity (many really good performances), over the quality of the 3 or 4 really great Brando ones.

Yes, I meant to say 'wasn't' instead of 'was'. I like your example of that scene in the police station. It was very static and that made it lose some of it's impact. I also agree with you that Heflin assaulting Nancy's fried was out of character. Heflin like us in the audience, had to decided one of two things; Either Nancy lied to her friend or the friend was lying to protect someone else like her brother. Since Heflin character was a gentle intelligent man one would assume he wouldn't resort to violence as soon as he entered the room.

Since you mention 'most of his colleagues', I'll mention the different generations of movie actors. i.e. Brando's colleagues were different than Spencer Tracy's. While I think Brando gave some of the best performances of any actor (from any generation), his overall output of high quality movies is lacking in my opinion. Either way I don't use the term 'greatest', but instead favorite since I don't know how one measures greatness as it relates to the profession of acting.

TB: Well I didn't show agreement with the original poster because what they related in their post made no scene and they were NOT being accountable for their own actions. IF they have just posted something to the effect of: "I wish TCM wouldn't show movies that use 4 letter words, have nudity and excess violence", I would be 100% OK with that. Even if I didn't agree I would get where they were coming from. But the original poster was mislead by their own family member (the one that taped the program), and BEFORE watching the movie the poster had a duty to themselves to ask questions about what they were going to watch. To top it off once they saw what this movie was about (which they should of figured out after the first 10 minutes or so), they could of just turned the movie off.