JamesJazGuitar

Dargo; I agree with you with regards to Laughton and Barrymore. Yea, as they aged more and more of their roles were as character actors instead of a leading part but both of them made many movies where they were cast in a leading part (have star billing,, name before title, not listed in the general casting but instead before hand, or listed with a larger font in the general casting). That is not the case with Levene or Gleason. Note that I feel SUTS should be used to promote the work of character actors. I would love for all 31 days to be used for that. Just call it SUTCA! (here I'm joking since I would be A-OK if the event was still called SUTS). I define a 'star' as an actor that has receiving 'star billing' at least 2 or 3 times in a major production. But as you pointed out the term 'star' doesn't reflect on their ability as an actor. Elvis and Crosby are clearly movie stars based on how I define a star.

Lori, are you really wondering why Wayne didn't serve or are you tying to start a war? If you use the search button you can see that the topic of Wayne and service in WWII has been discussed a lot. I mean a lot. Often the discussions lead to an unhappy place.

Well I would add Laura as another prime example of a painting associated with a lead character. In fact in Laura the picture was the ONLY 'view' of the lead character we got until the plot told us that Laura wasn't really dead.

Well what is there not to like? In my opinion no one ever looked better in black and white than Ava.

Mondo; Thanks for posting that lovely picture of Ruth Roman. I don't remember seeing a better photo of her. She is a knockout in that. At lot of that has to do with her more 'open' hairstyle. If only I should photoshop out the other lady, this would be my background picture on my computer. (right now it is a photo of Martha Vickers of The Big Sleep fame).

Universal; I do see a legit point here if TCM shows too many non studio era (say pre 1968), movies. The question is what is 'too many' for the majority of TCM viewers. It is my understanding that over 80% of their programming is studio era movies so to me as long as that percentage remains 'over 80%', I'm fine. But when one reads nonfactual comments related to TCM programming like 'along with some classic films' it is clear all they are trying to do is complain without any regard to the movies TCM actually airs. (the term 'some' clearly implies a minority which of course just isn't the case).

Yes, Pride of the Yankees is a first rate production. The actress that plays Lou's wife is Teresa Wright. One of those actresses that isn't a first rate star but always gives a good performance and enhances any movie she is in.

To me both Douglas and Dunne don't get the notice from movies fans as they should. Douglas is known by younger movie fans (well younger being those under the age of 50 or so), because of this later work in films like Hud. But as you know he was in a lot of fine productions and always performed well. Some call him a poor man's Powell, and while I can see that, Douglas clearly held is own. He was versatile. I just saw him in the Crawford move The Gorgeous Hussy. A movie with a top notch cast but Douglas still stands out (and yea, Crawford should have never made a period picture, she just is too modern looking for that!).

Here is my 10 ten studio era list. But note; if is very likely one can find another top 10 list I have posted that is different than this one! e.g. leaving Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, and Adventure of Robin Hood or Captain Blood out was very hard to do! {font:Calibri}The Petrified Forest (HowardDavisBogart){font} {font:Calibri}It’s Love I’m After (HowardDavisDeHavilland){font} {font:Calibri}The Big Sleep (BogartBacall){font} {font:Calibri}My Man Godfrey (PowellLombard){font} {font:Calibri}Only Angels Have Wings (GrantArthur){font} {font:Calibri}His Kind of Women (MitchumRussell){font} {font:Calibri}Footlight Parade (CagneyBlondell){font} {font:Calibri}Double Indemnity (StanwyckMacMurray){font} {font:Calibri}All About Eve (Davis){font} {font:Calibri}The Heiress (DeHavillandClift){font} {font:Calibri} {font} {font:Calibri} {font}

I believe Douglas was under contract with MGM and this could be why Dunne and him were never re-teamed. But yes, their chemistry is off the charts, and this is a very enjoyable movie. Dunne is one of the most versatile actresses of the studio era.

Lazyking; I really like all the movies on your top 10 list. I'll post mine soon. As for the Strawberry Blonde; This is favorite of mine. Cagney and DeHavilland are really good together in this movies. Rita plays a pushy gal but she looks like a million dollars. I think you would really enjoy this movie. As for Grant; I recommend Only Angels Have Wings and Holiday for a start.

Very few actresses are in the same league as Bette Davis; the best actress of the studio era in my view. She pulls of the role of Fanny but she wasn't suited for the part. This just shows how great of an actress she was. I made a similar point with regards to Cagney in the movie City For Conquest where he plays a boxer. Cagney was 40 when he made that movie. He clearly was too old for the role of an up and coming boxer but Cagney pulls it off because, well he is Cagney. Like Davis their acting is so good one doesn't pay attention to the fact the role wasn't suited for them.

Finance; You have a very valid point; Yes, Bette isn't beautiful enough for the part of Fanny but what beautiful young actress would of been? The role of Fanny was a very difficult one. So yea, someone like Lana Turner would fit the part of Fanny, as far as looks are concerned, more than Davis, but Turner wouldn't of been able to play that part into she got better as an actress in the 50s. The same is true for Rita, etc...

I feel you took my 'flop' comment out of context since I started the sentence says Elvis was the biggest talent that ended up as the biggest flop. So the use of 'flop' was a reflection of his personal drop off and NOT a measure to other artists. The early Elvis was so talented; What a voice! Yes, he was a sound musician. But I just don't see any improvement as time went on. Instead I see that he went downhill (way downhill in my view but I can see why Elvis fans might see only a small drop off). I do admit my opinion here is based on seeing him in those later concerts where he doesn't play an instrument, is dressed like a clown and often appears to be just going through the motions. If I didn't have great respect for the early Elvis I wouldn't be so disappointed in the later Elvis. As for songwriting, yea, many other singers never become songwriters but they are not called the King. My point again was that a developing artist grows. Elvis had decades to grow as an artist. I just don't see where he did.

Fred, I'm with you here. Not a big fan of Rio Bravo, but I do like El Dorado a lot (mostly because of Mitchum).

What type of movies does TCM Asia show? e.g. American studio era releases with sub-titles or 'classic' Asian movies? or?

Not sure how one should interpret ',,,the stereotype about some,,,,'. Of course no stereotype related to a group is correct for 100% of those in that group. So to me anytime a stereotype is mentioned the heart of the matter is; Does the stereotype apply to the majority in that group? So based on your personal experience, while the stereotype doesn't apply to some, does it apply to the majority? Now back to the movie here; As for Rains being handsome or not, it was always my view that he was average and in the movie Mr. Skeffington, a little less than average which would explain why a rich man would put up with someone like Fanny.

Yes, I stand corrected. There are 10 at most and often only 9 actual individuals (since TCM often has at least one "group" each year like blonde bombshells etc... Anyhow, that just makes my point stronger that SOTM is a higher honor than SUTS.

I do see your point about the 8:00 PM start, but hey I'm on the west coast so a 5:00 PM start works well for me. With SUTS, and me being a working man, I miss more than half the movies because they start at 3:00 AM EDT. I'm also bias towards SOTM because my favorite actor, Leslie Howard was the last SOTM in July. 33 of his movies shown that month (over 5 Tuesdays).

So how many movies made before 1954 would make your top 100 list?

I found this comment 'strange': SOTM is not in the same class at all. Yea, I agree but you appear to imply that SOTM is in a lower class than SUTS. SOTM features a lot more movies for a specific star than SUTS. At least 4 days (sometimes 5) for a star (yea, not an entire 24 hours), while SUTS is one day and of course there are 31 others being featured. Powell is one of my favorite actors but it has nothing to do with 'deserves a day'. There are only 12 SOTM per year and Powell was one of those 12. To me that is a higher honor than 1 in 31.

As I said related to the Top 100 AFI movie listing, the key to a person's list is what movies have they seen. Take a list with NO movies before 1954; How many movies made before 1954 has that person seen? In other words did that person see at least a thousand movies made before 1954 and decide NONE of those were in their top 50 OR have they seen very few and this is why there are no movies before 1954? Big difference in how one would judge (interpet really) a top 50 listing. (e.g. mine wouldn't have many foreign films but only because I'm not very knowledgeable about those (expect the Gabin ones thanks to TCM!).

Great info on Joan. Thanks for posting this. I have a book called The Leading Ladies. It features 6 actress; Davis, Crawford, Stanwyck, DeHaviland, Russell and Blondell. The into tells us the book wasn't about the so called greatest actresses (e.g. Kate Hepburn would likly be in that top 6 for most critics), but actresses that represent a spectrum of stars. But Blondell does stand out in this group. One can say that she never was the lead star in a great movie. She even puts down her own career, but to me she is special.

I have a specific legal question here; If someone takes public domain material and restores it, can they copyright the restored version? I assume the answer is yes. So anyone selling that restored version is using copywritten material even if the original source material is in the public domain. I assume that is what is going on here, but it would be interesting to know if that is actually the case. Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Aug 18, 2012 4:07 PM

Well how creditable can someone be when they complain about a star not being in SUTS when that same star was SOTM less than a year ago. It would interest me to know what TCM uses as the criteria for both SUTS and SOTM. For example, Kate Hepburn or James Cagney in SUTS. These two major stars are shown often since they have been in so many films with so many other actors; e.g. If Tracy is featured Kate will be also (to some degree). Note that when Blondell was featured a while back so was Cagney. So to me SOTM is more for 'major' stars (but of course what is major to some might be minor to others), while SUTS should be reserved more for what I call 2nd level stars and supporting players that left a mark.