JamesJazGuitar

Well let me be the second one to thank him! I loved this line: GEORGE BRENT BIRTHDAY TRIBUTE (SO WHY DOES EVERY FILM ALSO STAR BETTE DAVIS????)

I'm not sure I understand you here. 99% of the NON 'pay per' stations (e.g. HBO), have actual commercial that interrupt their programming. TCM does NOT do that and at the same time TCM is not a 'pay per' station. So your saying that a cable company should only carry NON commercial stations? That would mean NO stations at all expect those like HBO. How else would anyone interpet your comment of: 'if people,,, are paying a cable bill then it should be a straight service'. It appears you imply that a 'straight service' would be NO commercials of ANY kind. As others have pointed out TCM is unique in that it doesn't charge a user fee like HBO but has no commercials that interrupt their programming like 99% of the other stations. Really, I'm just trying to understand your POV here. Sorry I just don't get it. Do you want TCM to become like HBO and charge a monthly service charge and then eliminate all marketing of product?

Well I did my own research and according to Wikipedia Nancy did indeed attempt to marry the son of the mean women that called her a thief. Small world I guess! Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Dec 1, 2012 9:04 PM

According to Wikipedia: ",,, she (Nancy) becomes engaged to the son (Raymond) of the woman who'd accused her of thievery,,,,". So yea, Fred, this is one of those odd coincidences, which has you noted do occur in real life but clearly occur more frequency in the movies! I guess I just like my plot idea better. Oh well.

I do agree that staying in the game (so to speak), does increase the odds an actress, artist or musician will be known by future generations. Take Davis; While a lot of her latter work wasn't half as good as her 30s - 40s work, many so-so classic movie fans know Davis for her horror type films. e.g. Baby Jane. Kate is known for Coming Home and other late work. As for Garson's TV work; Just this week I saw the YouTube videos of her in Laugh-In. So yea, she did do some TV work! Garson looked great for her age and it seeing her with those Laugh-In kooks was something.

With regards to 'are nearly given as much time on the channel as the films': do you have any actual data to back up that statement? If you read my post I have made it very clear that IF the amount of time TCM reserves for showing movies is reduced because of their marketing attempts that would be a MAJOR issue to me. But I have no evidence that is the case. As for criticism; Well I'm all for it when it is based on facts. But often all I see is speculation. For example, how do you know that TCM has been taken over by the marketing department? Has there actually been a change in management and the new management that is in charge now are all from the marketing department? Again, if people know this for a fact than that would concern me, but my guess is that people here do NOT have this inside knowledge.

What do you think about the POV that Garson might be the least known, most nominated actress of the golden (studio), era? Of course I don't have polling data but while people with limited knowledge of studio era movies know the names of Davis, Hepburn (both), Monroe, the stars of Gone With the Wind and other famous actresses of the era, I have yet to meet many that know who Garson was. But as you must know, no actress, other than Davis, was nominated for best actress as many times in such a short period as Garson. My guess is that her pictures are not as popular because mostly they are period films. So while I find Garson somewhat limited as an actress no one did the type of pictures she was known for better than Garson.

According to my map the town is Slow Low (if we are talking about a town in eastern AZ). Nice place. I went there 3 years ago. Good thing I did because there have been a lot of fires in that area. In fact when we were there we went to the east to go hiking and had to return to Slow Low since the winds were so strong one really couldn't enjoy it. A AZ town I liked better than Slow Low was Payton. That was a really nice place. Mountains and streams all around the area. What I found strange about the town was the Walmart. This store was hugh. Bigger than the ones I have in So Cal. They had everything. I remember that the prices of the bananas where cheaper than what I paid in So Cal. To save money I stock the car with goods. Well I told the wife the next time we come to this area we don't need to bring much since we will just stop at that Walmart where the prices are cheaper than at home. Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Dec 1, 2012 9:19 PM

Yes, I understand that Fred and you have a different POV and your take may indeed be the correct one, but to me it is very farfetched. i.e. that Nancy would just happen to marry into the family that her mother worked for 20 or so years ago. So while the mother-in-law to be handed her a locket that doesn't mean, per se, that it was the same locket. Either way as I said if your take is the correct one to me that is a flaw in the storyline. Just too much of a coincidence for me.

We're No Angels is a very cute movie. While not one of Bogie's best films I still enjoy the movie and it is a different type of Bogie role in that it is borderline camp. Ustinov and Ray and so good at being silly that it all works and Bogie still comes off as a tough guy; i.e. someone that could commit murder. So I'm looking forward to seeing this movie again.

Well call me a sap, but I think the good Nancy was NOT aware of the actions of the bad Nancy. Thus when she said Blair wasn't her ex-husband she really meant it. i.e. that good Nancy really believed she had never been married before. The good Nancy was unaware that bad Nancy was a thief etc... Thus the femme fatal in the movie is the bad Nancy (just to keep the noir theme going!). It wasn't only the lives of the men in her life that the bad Nancy destroyed but the good Nancy as well. So at the end when the good Nancy does realize there is a bad Nancy (due to the locket), the good Nancy completely breaksdown. This explains the breakdown. Because if each side of Nancy knew about the other all along, there was no reason for Nancy to have a breakdown. The good Nancy would of just covered for her 'sister'.

Ok, why don't we get back on the actual topic here; TB: What would be an acceptable level of commercialism as it relates to TCM? In others words since you feel they are too commercial, what level would be A-OK? (I assume some level is A-OK since TCM isn't a not-for-profit enterprise). Also, as I mentioned in one of my post, what would you want TCM do to instead of the marketing you believe is too much? e.g. show more shorts? Have more guest host and Q.A. with RO and Ben etc..? Note: I don't think getting rid of all TCM marketing would allow enough air time for TCM to show another full length movie each day. Is it 'too commercial' for TCM to run banners at the bottom of the screen saying things like 'to check out products TCM promotes log on to TCM.Com' why RO or Ben are talking?

With regards to The Locket; At the end when Blair and Nancy meet right before the wedding and Nancy claims to NOT know that Blair was her former husband (she admits to knowing Blair but NOT as her Ex-husband), is Nancy lying or does this 'version' of Nancy truely NOT remember that she was married to him? Also; Is the locket at the end of the picture the exact same one as the locket when she was a child. Yea, I know they look the same (as does the music box), but was this just how Nancy was seeing these items (i.e. a flashback), or where they really the exact same items? Note from a logical POV one would assume she was having a flashback (i.e. the items were NOT the exact same ones), since the odds of that being the case are very rare (i.e. that she would marry into the family where her mother worked when Nancy was a child). My view is that seeing Blair trigger her memory of events and this caused her to THINK the locket and box were the ones from her childhood. But I have been told I'm all wet on that point.

Well funny that I have been thinking about moving from So Cal to a less crowded area and have considered both Paso Robles and Prescott. In both cases I'm still concerned that the summers will be too hot so my first choice is SLO. But as noted the housing prices are a factor. As for Sedona, again the concern would be the summer months. But I visit Sedona once a year in the spring or fall. Have you ever hiked on the West Bend trail? (just off the main road that runs between Flagstaff and Sedona). It is a great and very beautiful hike and fairly easy (unless there is a lot of water in the stream since the trail crosses over the stream about 8 times before one gets to end of the hike). Funny you also mention Italy since my wife is from there. She has a house (or will have since her parents have willed her their home), but I'm not so sure I would want to live their full time since I would have to learn to speak Italian!

Well I do see the point that TCM has increase the marketing of 'stuff' in the last few years. So I can see why some migh complain about this change. What I don't know is if this increased marketing has reduce the actual number of hours TCM reserves for showing movies or not. It would be a legit complain IF the actual number of hours reserved for movies has been reduced in order for TCM to have additional air time to market more goods. But if NOT, then the question is; What do TCM viewers want TCM to show BETWEEN movies? More talk by people like RO, Ben, Drew etc.... More shorts instead of marketing? Like I posted before I typically don't turn to TCM until a minute or two before the movie starts (I often watch the food network (which is mostly repeats so I can leave a show without 'missing' anything I haven't already seen) or sports, once a movie on TCM is done and before the next one starts. Thus I don't notice the increased marketing since 99% of the time TCM is on my TV screen a movie is showing.

Well Fred and you might be correct after all; In the book Film Noir it does say 'Just prior to the ceremony, however, the locket is given to Nancy,,,'. Note it say 'THE locket' and not 'a locket'. So the use of 'THE' implies it is the same locket. One other thing; Nancy appears to NOT remember that she was married twice before. While she admits she knows who Blair is, she clearly says he was NOT her former husband. Was Nancy just lying or did she really forget that Blair was her husband as a way to put the past behind her? Anyhow if the plot was written to have the locket be THE locket I think this is a flaw in the storyline. Instead a more psychological storyline would have Nancy NOT remember her former husbands since they tie her to her past and her illness and the site of seeing her former husband along with seeing a locket LIKE the one from her past trigger her trauma.

With regards to your question: I wondered the same thing! Your question was the very reason I pulled out the book Film Noir (Ward Silver), to see if I could get an answer from the book (e.g. the names of the characters having the same last name or something like that ), and I couldn't find anything. I think that Nancy only sees what she believes is that original locket and cigarette music box. i.e. the locket and box are different but because of the trauma she sees what she believes to be the original locket and box. To me this makes more sense than those actual items coming back into her life all those years latter. What I did find out from the book was that Olivia DeHavilland and Joan Fontaine's mother was in the movie. Lilian Fontaine played the role of Lady Wyndham (the women whose necklace was stolen). Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Dec 1, 2012 2:16 PM

Was this a repeat or was this the first time TCM had show these movie morlock intos outros? I only ask because when they showed *Touchez Pas Au Grisbi* RO acted like this was the first time TCM had shown this movie. I know I saw this movie on TCM with the last year or so. Hey, I'm glad they showed it again (I missed the first 5 minutes or so last time), and I really love this movie, but RO comments surprised me. Maybe he was on his leave of absense the last time TCM showed this? e.g. Ben did the intro?

I agree with Andy and you as it relates to Garson and the genre movies she made. Not really my cup of tea, but I will say that when I see a Garson performance in one of these period movies I cannot think of another actress that does this type of role better than Garson. Only Bette Davis had a better run of best actress nominations than Garson. I also see the point Fiance is making; My wife saw Garson and commented on how beautiful she was. Why I can see the beauty there is also a lack of sex appeal. I used to think this was mostly because of the period settings and associated costumes but even in a modern role like in Adventure with Gable, I found Blondell a lot more sexy than Garson.

I hadn't seen Dracula's Daughter before and I was impressed by Kruger. First time I can remember seeing him in a staring role. I of course know him from Murder My Sweet and HItchcock's Saboteur as well as many other movies. But you must like your men on the older side. Kruger was born in 1885 and made his first movie in 1915! So by the 50s he was in his mid to late 60s. Gloria Holder was perfect for her role as well. The only thing I wondered about was how an arrow killed her. Didn't Van Helsing say it took a stake to kill a vampire. Oh well. As for The Locket; I agree with those that say this is Day's best performance. I felt the comment RO made about her (something like being beautiful but boring ), was on target, but in The Locket we see her display more emotion and of course when the part called for that frozen face look Day had that down pat.

The book Film Noir (Ward Silver) includes The Locket. But in the write up about the movie it says 'The Locket is an unusual psychological melodrama in the visual style of RKO'. It then goes on and mentions the use of "flashbacks within flashbacks" and compares the movie to Hitchcock's Marnie. So others here might be on to something; Maybe this movie is classified as a noir mostly because Mitchum is in it. Hey, they needed to give him one more noir movie to ensure he remains ahead of Robert Ryan in the king of noir challenge!

Well TVLand is now showing what I believe is the first season after Roberts (Adam), left the show. I have seen them mention Adam in a few of these episodes but only a very, very brief mention; e.g. Ben talking about his sons mentions all three by name. I wonder if they did this with the idea that Roberts might come back. I assume so, otherwise why not just kill him off and be done with the character.

Thanks for posting this; Many movies I haven't seen or even heard of. e.g. Kathy O' - I feel Duryea is an underated actor and screen persona and we also get Jan Sterling and bad seed Patty McCormack. They Knew What They Wanted: I know about this movie since I have the book The Films of Carole Lombard but I have never seen it. Stella: Just read a movie review of this one and it says Ann is very good in it. A black comedy with noir elements. Thunder In the East; A Ladd Paramount movie with Kerr and Boyer. Sounds interesting at least.

Misswonderly; Well said and bravo. Good TCM be improved? Of course, but overall, I get more 'bang for the buck' from TCM than I get from any of the other stations I get with my cable package.

Thanks for taking the time to provide these details. I have seen all of the movies you mention and I tend to agree with your comments as they relate to some of the flaws in these films but at the end of the day I still would rate Humoresque as a very good movie, and Golden Boy as a little above average. The other movies are weak and while they but do feature some fine actors the plots are all based around overwrought drama. i.e. what to me is drama for drama sake. As you noted Humoresque is some of Crawford's best work and Garfield's persona is built for this part, so that being said I cannot put this movie in the 'sucks' category. Golden Boy's story does bog down but I enjoy Menjou and Stanwyck since they always work well together. The other movies are downers; Kelly is miscast as the country girl (yea, like one cannot see the beauty underneath those glasses), and the only value in None but the Lonely Hearty was a therapy session for Grant (he should of started to taking mushrooms in the 40s' instead of making this stinker!). But darkest movie ever? More so than Virginia Woolf? (yea, splitting hairs here). As for The Big Knife; Well if one views this movie as camp, one can get some enjoyment from it.