JamesJazGuitar

I find it interesting how intelligent people can take the same event and come up with very different interpretations: "Joan's disinheritance of her children (what kind of parental act is that?), speak to me". To some the disinheritance leads them to think the child made up lies about her mom to get even and to profit. To others the disinheritance is a sign that the mother must of abused her child. As for intuition? Well are we all Judge Judy now? She claims she has a 6 sense that can spot who is telling the truth and who is lying. That might be good for ratings but for most of us what we define as intution is only hidden bias. Again, I don't know what happened. I will always enjoy Joan Crawford movies and in some of them she really moves me. That is what I try to stay focused on.

This is just one of those situations were the truth is hard to determine. Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Mar 7, 2012 6:01 PM Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Mar 7, 2012 8:05 PM

So you agree BS is versatile just not the mosts versatile. So who do you think is most versatile? Marlene? That is a good choice and I believe I was the first one to suggest her.

Well you said ',,,usually for propaganda purposes', which implies the intent of the teacher was to show films for propaganda purposes. Now it appears you are backing off that statement.

What you have written is similar to statements I have read from people defending the Catholic church and the behavior of their priest or the Boy Scouts and scout leaders. Again, I don't know what occured between Joan and Christina. Even if someone's motives are greed, it doesn't mean what they are saying isn't true.

Even if you are correct that 'there are few films that can be shown in schools that don't have any or much of a propaganda purpose' (and I question this assumption), you still do NOT know if the reason the teacher is showing the film is for propaganda purposes. The teacher may not feel or know that a movie you believe has a 'propaganda purpose', has that purpose. i.e. the teacher could be somewhat clueless and therefore is NOT showing the movie for a propaganda purpose.

I would say John Garfield in The Breaking Point. The scene where he is in a bar and than is joined by Patricia Neal and then later on by his wife is just great acting. It isn't an overdone drunk and how he interacts with both of these gals is just outstanding.

Now this is an interesting discussion; Kate or Babs in The Lady Eve. To me your second sentence says it all and thus Babs is the better fit. The character is a criminal. She is from a family of thiefs. She is a phony. She acts like she has class but it is mostly an act. So if Kate was playing her, Kate would have to really act to pull off the first half but would fit right in as The Lady Eve. Babs is the perfect fit for the first part but not as The Lady Eve, but that is key to the plot. That she is acting and anyone that has seen the 'real her' knows it is an act (which is why Fonda's right hand man does all the silly things he does), except for Fonda because, well he is somewhat of a dunce (and of course he is in LOVE and love blinds us).

I don't agree with your comment "Hollywood films are shown in schools usually for propaganda purposes" since there is no way for you to know if this is true or not. i.e. you do NOT know why a teacher shows a film. You are only guessing why based on your own bias. Showing GWTW is an interesting choice and that movie would be a good example of a teacher showing a movie for 'propaganda purposes' since the movie is NOT very factual or realistic and thus not very historical. I wonder what area of the country the movie was shown in and the racial make up of the students and the teacher. GWTW could be used as propaganda in very different ways by very different type of people with very different points of view.

I agree with you. It is folly for anyone to claim they know what did or did not happen between mother and daughter in this case.

I agree it is silly to try to imagine another actress in a role an actress has already played. All one can do for 'most versatile actress' is to judge each actress on the actual roles they have played. I'm still sticking with Stanwyck because she had good and often great performances in multiple genres. But I can see Ginger and Judy in the running since they were better singers (especially Judy), and better dancers (especially Ginger), than Stanwyck. But to me they are less versatile than Stanwyck because the majority of their best work was in musicals.

I agree with your take here. If a teacher is going to show a movie that is based on actual people and events than they do need to point out inaccuracies to the students.

While Ginger did star in movies other than comedies and song and dance movies I don't think she was great in these (to me Kitty Foyle is overrated). e.g. Stanwyck has stellar (or should I say stella), performances in multiple genres.

To me there is a difference between plain and wooden. Roman could be wooden but she wasn't plain. Someone like Margaret Sullavan wasn't wooden but to me she was rather plain looking. Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Mar 6, 2012 4:24 PM Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Mar 6, 2012 4:25 PM

To me Stanwyck is the most versatile actress. Dunne could do drama and comedy but she doesn't compare to Stanwyck for other genres like Westerns or Film Noir. I would also add Dietrich since she could dance, sing, do comedy and drama, but again, she wasn't as versatile as Babs. Davis was very versatile in her dramas i.e. she did frump, she did historical, she did the party gal, the loyal wife, the not so loyal wife, etc..... but of course Davis didn't do much outside of drama.

I would hope an average man wouldn't let a women force him to watch a women's picture. Why fault a women for asking a man to do watch a movie? I fault the man that is too afraid to just say "no thanks".

I agree Jane Wyman became plain. I say "became" because in some of her early supporting roles she was very good looking (also when she had a more natural and longer hair style. But one she got that helmet head hairdo she looked like a frump.

*June Allyson* is my pick as plainest women to become a star. Then there is her voice. She stared in some very good movie (e.g. Executive Suite), so I'll watch movies that she is in but I admit I'm not a fan of hers.

Yea, best song to ever come out of a movie would be impossible for me to do. Would it be a Beatles tune from one of their movies, or a song like The Way You Look Tonight (still played at every wedding I have ever been too), or,,, or ,,, (but I can say it wouldn't be a disco song!). Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Mar 2, 2012 8:02 PM

In the 31 Days of Oscar treads my advise was that TCM set aside two weeks for Oscar and two weeks for films related to black history month. But like any of TCM promos relate to racial or cultural content a black history month type of event would generate some controversy. Most of the movies made by the major studios that feature black actors feature them in stereotyped roles. Would the black community welcome that? If TCM limited the movies to those with positive black characters (e.g. no Hattie as a maid), would there be enough high quality material to show and would the general TCM audience welcome this?

Yes, the four movies Bette and Olivia made together would be interesting to show as a 'set' since each movie is very different from the other (screwball comedy, historical drama, melodrama, horror).

Sorry but I don't think The Monkey belong in the R&R hall of fame. For example, take the link you put up. All of that music was played by studio musicians. Most of their best songs were written by others. I can see putting Don Kirschner in the hall for inventing them but not these lads. Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Mar 1, 2012 12:47 PM

I don't think we really disagree here but just might view what is going on from a different angle. You are right that in the 'old days' the record companies would seek out the talent and promote it, but that is what confused me in your initial approach since you mentioned that today the corporations run things. To me the corporations (most record companies are corporations, especially ones that promoted Rock acts), had more control over what we heard 'back in the day' than they do now. i..e. one couldn't get their song played on the radio unless they had a deal with a record company (again for rock, since country and blues acts could get some local airplay in limited areas). With the Internet we have access to 'small' acts. This just wasn't possible in the old days except for local bands. Then record exec would pick up this local band and mode it into a major act. Note that Who record 'Sell Out'. My point, talent has had to 'sell out' in the old days just like they have to today, BUT today an artist does have the option of self-promotion via the internet.

While I agree with you that Gene's acting is very weak in the picture I don't think it was because the role was a "crummy, thankless, rotten role", but we do agree it was a very difficult one. I believe the reason Gene is bad is just because she was inexperienced and the role was a very difficult one to pull off, especially in the later scenes when she was an addict (yea to gambling but we really know what Poppy was on). Pulling off that type of transition isn't easy and it takes a lot of experience and Gene just wasn't ready for that type of role. This is the type of role that can make an actress, but Gene just wasn't ready. Take the scene where she is outside Omar's place and pretends to hurt her ankle. This is an acting within acting scene. One wants to look like they are faking it (since they are), BUT in a subtle way. There was nothing subtle about her performance in that scene. It was bad and it shows, but again, that type of scene isn't easy. But hey, she looked like a million dollars! Yea, that was the easy part for her. She is in my Top 10 looking great in a film category for this one; e.g. Liz in A Place In the Sun, Ava for The Killers, Rita for Gilda, etc...

Sorry but Harold Russell is a very poor example as it relates to the question, since he only made ONE movie. So of course he won for his best performance since it was his ONLY performance.