JamesJazGuitar

From an educational POV I can see showing a silent films from one of those directors you mention and then a talking picture, as well as showing a silent film and then the talking picture "remake".

I agree that it looks like Richard Basehart. It is Richard Rober. I know him from the noir films I Married a Communist (Women on Pier 13), Backfire and The File on Thelma Jordan. I don't see Hanks at all.

I'm curious how TCM moving to L.A. would impact your TCM experience. Of course it wouldn't change how one views a film and the odds are very low such a move would impact what films TCM programmers select. Thus I really just don't understand how such a move would "about tear it" for anyone. But hey, to each their own.

Are you saying TCM should show more silent films than what they already show? E.g. increase the number of silent films shown on Sunday evening, or add another time day \ time slot for silent films? I do wonder if TCM has conducted any surveys on this; again, my gut tells me the vast majority of TCM regular viewers do not wish for more silent films, and this is even more the case with the occasional TCM viewer. But hey, maybe I'm wrong here. I just know I don't wish for TCM to increase the number of silent films they show, from what they already show.

I could see TCM moving out of Atlanta Georgia for political reasons. L.A. would be a logical choice; Texas would not.

I would go to Hollywood and revival theaters to see Bogart films like The Big Sleep, Casablanca and Dead Reckoning. As for a memorable experience: I went to Dead Reckoning with a girlfriend; When the driving scene where Bogie tells Liz Scott that he wishes he could shrink women so that he could put them in his pocket and then make them bigger when he had a use for them, the women in the audience booed, while the men clapped.

I'm not sure, but my understanding is a lot of silent films are now lost; i.e. they were never converted to a digital format. But if there is a public domain digital format of a film in the public domain then anyone can show that film, and that supports my point that PBS or other type of public broadcasting is the best place for such films. I don't think a network that need to break-even (if not show a profit), can afford to show silent films since there isn't enough of a market willing to pay for them.

To me this poster communicates less of what the movie is about than the Spanish one. While the robot is silly at least there is what looks like a computer keyboard: some reference that a computer was part of the storyline. You're on-target that the US poster makes it looks like the film is just about romance and a Christmas office party. If the target audience was mostly women, that would make more sense, from a PR point of view, than implying the film had anything to do with computers.

In the UK the film was released as "His Other Women". I always wondered why the film was called Desk Set in the USA. I would have called the film Pink Slip since to me the main theme of the film is the fear that technology will replace workers, and there are scenes in the film related to pink slips since that was a common term used when employees were terminated. But this being a Tracy \ Hepburn film and one where they do end-up-together, I can see the need for the title (and posters), to reflect that. Thus I'm surprised Fox went with such a generic title as Desk Set.

Funny but I just re-looked at the photo I posted of Joan and asked myself "why is Joan wearing an orange for a broach?". It took me a second to realize it was an orange or lemon wedge on her drink!

True; I just wanted to show Hibi some support in her quest to keep this topic fresh and active: TCM - please,,,, Make Joan Bennett Star of the Month. We are not going to be denied! Here is Joan saying "what did I ever do to deserve this".

I was around 8 when One Million Years BC came out. Like a lot of young boys I was really interested in dinosaurs so I told my dad this was a must see film. I also asked that he get me a film poster. He just blew me off and I never got a poster. It wasn't until years later that I understood mom was the one that vetoed the idea. Dinosaurs weren't the reason my dad and older brother wanted to see this film!

TCM has to lease films, even from their parent company Time Warner. That original Ted Turner library of films no longer exist. Also, my understanding is that library didn't have a lot of silent films. It is much more likely U.C.L.A. will be able to preserve (restore\maintain), more silent films than anyone else. But even if that was the case who would present them? Sadly there just isn't much of an audience and networks like TCM do have to maintain a certain customer base. Public broadcasting is likely the only option (where films are donated so there is no up front leasing cost).

I wonder if this was a poster used for PR purposes but only in the southern states. This is one of the main reasons for some "odd" (at best), posters; E.g. black actors wouldn't be shown. Oh, and great topic. I just have to do some homework!

When I read about the overall story line for 3:10 to Yuma I asked myself why Glenn Ford was cast in the film, but after I saw it I felt Ford did a very good job (since the outlaw was understated as written). Mitchum and his type of screen persona would have worked perfectly. Widmark: by this stage of his career he had toned-it-down so I can see that working but still not as well as Mitchum. But one thing I have always pondered was if the roles of Ford and Van Heflin were reserved. My gut tells me that would have been better casting. Van Heflin, comes off as more shifty and devious than Ford.

Wow, very nice photo of Joan and one I can't recall seeing. Such style and class.

Requiem for a Heavyweight (1962):

I haven't seen The Big Bluff and you know how much I enjoy Martha Vickers. I'll have to catch this one on youtube. Thanks for the tip.

Oh, yes. She is already planning it and assuming things are back to "normal" it will be a major bash with at least 70 people.

"sometimes you need to shoot more"? My understanding was that for "A" production films during the studio-era for the vast majority of films the director shot way more footage then "required"; E.g. 3 or more hours of film that ends up being a 90 minute movie. (not including re-takes where the editor might splice multiples takes of one scene into what becomes the final one). I find the editing process to be one of the fairly hidden treasures of film making.

Have you see the first adaptation of the story: Here Comes Mr. Jordan? This 1941 film stars Robert Montgomery and Evelyn Keyes, with Claude Rains as Mr. Jordan. James Mason is great in Heaven Can Wait (and many other films), but since you asked your question, Claude Rains does an excellent job in the same role. There are many differences in the story so it makes both films worth watching. PS: Cannon was married to Cary Grant but it didn't last long.

With regards to Shepherd and The Last Picture Show: TCM shows the full scene, right? Anyhow, if when the other poster used "they" to represent TCM that poster is dead wrong; I.e. TCM does not edit films. They may show a film that has been edited but when that is the case it was an official-edit. I.e. the copywrite owner did the editing. As for this topic: I see about 3 - 4 different ones related to "cutting scenes". The first one being that when a movie is created it is not about what scenes to "cut" but instead what scenes to include, what take of what scene to include and if a scene should be have parts "cut" from it. I.e. the final product is a result of many, many different "cuts" that are stitched together. (this should be obvious but I get the impression some people think a move starts as some type of whole product and then scenes are altered, cut, changed). E.g. the same user used The Big Sleep as an example of a film being "cut"; That is incorrect. Instead there was an initial version that Warner's released but only for overseas consumption by US service personal. Warner held on to the film not wishing to release it until the war was over. During this waiting period Bogie and Bacall got married and Warner had Hawks redo a lot of the movie. I view both version as two separate products and both "original" in their own right. (or the war version as a pre-release). Once a film is release to theaters this because what is know as the "original" release but even here there can be different versions; E.g. different ending for the overseas market. These versions are also each "original" in their own right. Now we get to were using terms like "cutting" can take place: removing scenes that were part of the original release to theaters. This was done to pre-code films re-released to theater after July 1934 (e.g. Mati Hari being a prime example). It was done when films were shown on T.V. It was tried by Mormons in Utah (but they were sued by the Directors Guild and told to stop their nonsense). As for Directors-Cuts; I see that some people view these as the "true" version and that the original studio release is the "cut up" version. This is nonsense. A Directors-cut version is just another version.

A jingle is offensive?

Yes, we have discussed this before (which explains the wink to others): James Craig give a good performance. But he wasn't so good towards the Mickey.

Today (September 7th), is my 24th wedding anniversary. But we really have two: one where we were official married here in the USA in a very small US family setting, and the other on the 21st where we went to Italy and were married in her hometown where I was welcomed like Patton was in the film when he entered Italy. E.g. Many people out on their balconies throwing flowers and filling up the streets outside the 800 year old church.