JamesJazGuitar

Yes, Annie did a lot of ignorant things in the movie but these actions were intentional in the movie as a way to revel her character (i.e. done intentionally by the script writer and director) . Annie wasn't a professional bank robber or practiced criminal. The reason for shooting the women is very clear and key to Annie's mindset; she killed that 'B' to get back at her for sounding the alarm. The use of a gun by Annie to even the score was just like us putting sugar in our coffee. That action finally woke up Bart, a person, that while he loved guns, didn't love killing (unlike Annie). The scene is similar to the one in Out of the Past where Kathy shoots Jeff's former partner. A wake up call for Jeff.

Very interesting sounding movie and one I had never heard about. I check for reviews and found one on a film noir website that says the movie fall flat. I have to admit that as soon as I saw that James Gleason was the police captain I wondered if the film was a comedy since Gleason rarely plays straight parts (at least in most of the movies I have seen him in). The review said that Gleason was the type of police captain clown (e.g. similar to the police captains in the Thin Man Movies?) as was Leonard as the detective. So I wonder if the film really is able to balance the suspense (i.e. the noir elements), with the comedy, or if much of the movie comes off as camp.

To really address the question related to any actor or actress on 'why weren't they a bigger star' one has to do a lot of very specific research. This research would cover areas like: Did they have a contract with a specific studio? Typically the answer is yes. If yes, what other actors had contracts with that studio at the time? Under the studio system most actors were paid whether they were making movies or not. Thus if a studio is paying a 'star' 5K a week the studio suits would "push" producers directors to use these stars as a way of getting the most 'value' out of their stars instead of an actor getting $500 a week. Yea, I know the above is stuff most people here already know. I'm just trying to remind people that the studio system was a business model and not, per se, designed to ensure the best talent (i.e. the talent best suited for specific parts) was used in each production. Often if one asks the questions like 'why didn't MGM cast actor XYZ in this movie, the answer is 'that actor was NOT under an MGM contract and the studio that did have this actor's contract wasn't willing to loam out that actor to MGM' (why should one studio help another studio unless one gets something of equal value in return). Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Dec 6, 2012 3:20 PM Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Dec 7, 2012 1:58 PM

I have to agree with you here. Even if one finds movies where Jane is too sexual (as defined by someone's taste), why assume this is because Jane wanted it to be that way. It is my understanding that it is the studio or producers that want actresses to be more sexual (e.g show more skin), to enhance the marketing value of a film (yes, folks sex sells!). For example, Lana Turner and the tight sweaters in her early movies. This wasn't because Lana wanted to bounce around but because the studio wanted to push her sexuality to sell tickets. Now Jane did make some movies with her husband that clearly pushed her sexuality, but those were made after her studio movies like the ones you site.

Yes, Brubeck was one of the key jazz artist of his generation (or any generation really). To honor him, I'll ensure that we play more of his tunes when I have my weekly jazz jam this Thursday. But I better go and practice because many of his songs are not easy to play for the reasons you state.

You must not be watching TCM much, since I'm surprised the typical posters haven't started a threat about this tribute being shown too often!

While one can feel for Merman for not getting the role, this is fairly typical in the movie industry, even when a part calls for singing. e.g. My Fair Lady. Of course in that specific case Andrews proved to be a very good actress (the irony of winning the oscar that year!) but producers cannot be faulted for going with an actress with the stature of Russell, especially after her Auntie Mame role a few years before, instead of Merman. To me the combination of Russell and Wood works, and of course they were a lot more marketable (even if the film didn't do well at the box office). Does anyone know who plays the daughter role with Merman in the play? One could say she was cheated as well.

Every book about noir I have seen classifies Ace In the Hole as noir. The characters of Douglas and Sterling are clearly noir characters. But to some noir is more about the visuals.

Yes, I got confused! There is no comparison between Merman and Woods. As for the role of Gypsy's mom in the movie, was perfect in that role in my opinion.

Yes, to me Jane Fonda is clearly one of the most sexual women of the 60s.

Well you might not be a sports fan but you're paying for sports regardless and as a recent study pointed out is the main driver of higher and higher cable cost to customers. Of course there is an alterative to an ala-cart cable pricing model and that is to make sport stations premium networks (e.g. like HBO), I believe this is what the Yankees do. If the L.A. Dodgers get a multi billion dollar deal and that deal is passed on to cable providers like the Lakers deal was, the average monthly charge for the basic plus tier (e.g. a tier with stations like TCM, food network, etc...), will go up by more than $6 just because of those two sports stations. Thus it is understandable that those that do NOT watch these stations would be upset for paying to support fans that do. As for the Iron Petticoat; Yes I'm glad TCM showed it. I watched the entire movie. How else can one judge a movie unless they do so. While I felt the movie was weak it was still great to see if from an historical POV i.e. to see Kate in such a odd role.

Well I was going to post the same thing! As for if Merman should of been cast in the role. To me that is down right silly. If that was done the odds are that the movie would of been a flop; i.e. NOT been 14 as big at the box office as a movie staring Woods, who was a hot commodity (in more ways than one), at the time.

Did you mean to put a 'not' in the second sentence? "But I recognize that Greer Garson's films are widely known and widely shown,,,". I feel Garson was great at playing a certain type of role and she is very successful in that role genre. It is just that for me (and other guys here), this type of role genre isn't something we are drawn too. But I have seen all of her major movies and I enjoy them. They are well crafted movies and find productions, often based on very classic stories. Garson has a unique screen presense and vibe that any classic movie fan should be able to appreciate. Now you just had to compare her to Stanwyck! I would hope we could agree that Stanwyck was a lot more versatile than Garson (at least Garson in her American movies). e.g. does Garson have a role like Babs in Ball of Fire, The Lady Eve, Stella Dallas, or any noir? As I also noted Garson had a run of fame that is only second to Bette Davis during the time of 38 - 46 (or so). Thus one would like she would be one the most well know actress of that era. But today I don't think many classic movie fans (especially male ones like myself), view Garson in the same light as Davis, Stanwyck or even Kate Hepburn. But as you noted a lot of that has to do with Garson getting her start 'late' in life and NOT continuing to make movies (even weak ones), like these other stars.

RM: You made some reasonable suggestions. Anyone that pays for a cable package, which typically provides 60 or more stations, BUT only watches TCM (this is what some people here have implied), are wasting their money. i.e. they would be better off dropping cable and using some of the techniques you suggest. As for ala-cart cable; Well the L.A. Times just ran a major story on how sports is the main reason cable bills continue to go up. Billion dollar deals like the type the L.A. Lakers just signed with Time Warner add a lot to cost of a packaged cable tier. As more and more of these type of very expensive sports deals are made with cable companies, politicians will be under pressure to support ala-cart type cable packages. (of course politicans being under pressure doesn't mean that they get something done!).

I watch the first three movies and what the morlocks had to say about them (not into Sci-Fi that much), and yes, these people really knew these films and the stars and they were very interesting. But as others have noted the Gabin movie was shown before but RO acted like it wasn't and that he wasn't that familar with it. That is what puzzled me.

They should of used the same tune in the Liz and Dick movie!

You are so right Dargo as it relates to Joan Rivers. Note I watch her show Fashion Police. Now I'm NOT known for fashion, but I watch the show because Rivers is very, very funny. Yea, 90% of the jokes are attacks on celebrities but since I'm not a fan of the vast majority of these celebrities, it doesn't bother me. Also, they show a lot of beautiful women.

I try NOT to use the term 'classic' since it is too fluid. I use the term Studio era. This is the era of American movies that ended around 1968, as you noted. As you also note, with the term 'classic' one has to then define what is 'old enough'. Often what is 'old enough' depends on the age of the person. e.g. to someone 20 years old, a movie like the Godfather, made more than 20 years before they were born is 'old enough'. To someone that is 60, the Godfather isn't that 'old'.

I have to agree with you; I have seen O'Hare 'lose it' in a few films. When one of her roles calls for her to be angry I wouldn't want to be around her if she had a loaded gun!

I'm sorry but this statement is NOT factual: I pay my cable company a lot of dollars each month, solely for the privilege of watching TCM WITHOUT commercials. Unless one's cable company offers TCM as a separate station (i.e. a premium network), and the charge from the cable company is $60, JUST FOR TCM, than one is NOT paying 'solely for the privilege of watching TCM without commercials'. The fact that one might not watch any station OTHER THAN TCM for the $60 you pay is a BIG difference than paying 'solely' for a specific station. BIG DIFFERENCE. Unless one's cable company offers ala-cart options, one pays for a package (group) of stations. In most cases the majority of that $60 is for sports stations like ESPN. One may not like this but those are the facts.

I would only consider Holiday Affair a noir if FNF considers a Robert Ryan movie NOT considered a noir previously, a noir. Like I posted with regards to The Locket, I'll stretch the definition of noir to ensure MItchum remains the king of film noir (the actor with the most noir roles).

To me The Breaking Point is a film noir. But then it all depends on if one wishes to defined noir more by it's visual style or more by the plot and the situations the characters find themselves in. I tend to lean towards the latter.

TB: The question I asked wasn't a rhetorical question. But it does appear to be one you don't wish to answer and to me the question is key to the discuss here. So based on a lack of any reply to the question one is left assuming that you wish TCM to NOT be a premium type of station (e.g. HBO), but also NOT be commercial station (like all non premium stations). i.e. you want a third type of station; a station with no commercials or marketing of products of any kind, that doesn't change a separate user fee. While I can see the appeal in that (I'm the type that doesn't respond to any marketing), it appears based on the replies that many TCM fans feel the marketing TCM is doing is actually a service to classic movies fans.

Poor George. Even after 50 years Bette is stealing his thunder! I have to assume the programmer(s) who did this were in on the joke.

Well I just read about Time Warner and they own both HBO and TCM. They now also own the rights to the my Lakers broadcast. My cable company (Cox), just signed up to offer the Lakers' station. The deal cost Cox around $3 a subscriber, and the station shows commercials (I have yet to get my monthly cable bill from Cox to see if the cost of my basic Plus service has gone up by I expect that it will). So to me out of all the TV products Time Warner offers TCM clearly treats the viewer the best since there are NO commercials and no per service user fee. Of course I wish all the stations I enjoy (e.g. Food Network), where commercial free. Duh. But that just isn't realistic. I assume (yes, assume), that Time Warner as the parent company has put pressure on TCM to make more money. Well if the extra marketing that TCM is doing meets the needs of Time Warner, that is a good thing. All the alternatives would be worst in my view.