JamesJazGuitar

Her majesty is a pretty nice girl but she doesn't have a lot to say.

Garbo retired and was out of the spot light for decades but her legacy is still well known by studio era movie fans. The fact Durbin was such a massive box office star but is largely forgotten today (by your own addmission), is what I find so interesting. If she was really one of the greatest musical talents (someone else posted this not you) would that be the case? As for 'greatness' I try to reserve the term for only a limited few musicians, actors, and artist. (i.e. there are many very, very good artist but only a handful of greats). I base my judgement on someone's actual performances; movies, recording, and live shows (mostly just recorded but I have seen some great performers like Kate Hepburn or Ella live). I don't care about someone being iconic or not. i.e. being iconic has nothing to do with if I just someone as one of the greatest. Monroe and Dean are iconic but I don't view either of them as one of the greatest actors of their generation. I look at Garland's body of film work, her records and tapes of her live shows (expect near the end of her career), and based on this view her as one of the greatest singing actors of her generation. Sinatra would be another. Bing? Well yes, I would include him. While a lot of his movies where lightweight, he did have some very solid performances in movies like The Country Girl. He made many fine recordings that I still enjoy (but a lot less than Sinatra I will admit). Powers, Temple, and Grable where not some of the greatest in my view. I do agree that all of them were very popular. In the case I Grable I do feel her popularity at the time does mystify me. Did the iconic poster have as much to do with this as her actual work? Powers did show his acting chops in a few movies but I believe many would rank his acting ability in the same class as Olivier or Tracy. Temple is a major icon and it is somewhat difficult to judge a child star. Her adult work was OK but nothing to write home about.

When studio era movie fans like ourselves list their top 25 or 50 movies how many Durbin films would be in that list? I think very few would list many of her films. Can the same be said about any other actor with such historical box office clout? Maybe a few other "child' stars like the ones you mentioned; Rooney and Temple. I do admit I don't know much about Durbin's recordings and thus how they would stack up to other singers from the era like Ella etc...

Check out Born To be Bad. Joan is very much a blond in that film.

I guess you are not familiar with Clooney's work in Africa. Also, how is Clooney a Hollywood liberal but Pitt isn't? Or do you only like the prettier Hollywood Libs? Neither Clooney or Pitt do anything for me.

Thanks for all the useful info. I agree with what you state here and I don't feel it contradicts my initial points. As I initially said Durbin is a very unique figure in American Film history. When you mention 'at the time'; well that is really the basis for what I was getting at. During her time she was a leader of the pack, but viewed from an historical angle her box office legacy outshine her actual film and musical output.

Yes, Treasure is Bogie's best performance but The Big Sleep is my favorite Bogie movie. The thread Classic Screen Criticism has a review of Treasure that is on target.

I have seen those two Durbin films and they are good films; light, young teen entertainment.

I wasn't comparing them, per se, but only using Garland as an example of an actress with a movie legacy that includes great movies as well as performances where Durbin none. I could of mention Julie Andrews, Doris Day or a few others that I feel are in the same league as Garland. A league Durbin doesn't qualify for in my view. So again, can you name any Durbin performance that you feel merited a best actress nomination or any of her movies that you feel are great movies? If you feel I have shortchanged her I'll check out those performances movies.

Durbin is likeable and she made some good movies but can one say she is 'great'? I mean if Durbin is great than what term should be used for Judy Garland? Are there any Durbin movies that Durbin fans would say were some of the top 10 or so films released in a given year? A performance that stood out as one of the best by an actress that year? Durbin has a unique place in film history since her movies were very, very successful, but if one looks at her actual movie legacy I don't see her being included as one of the greats.

Not sure why you mention Wyman and Leigh in the same sentence. To me Hollywood stylist really messed up Wyman. She was very attractive in her early films but then she got that helmet hair style and it made her look 15 years older. It was just a very bad hairdo and she wore it in movie after movie.

This movie changed my life in a very big way. I was engaged and we went to this movie together. The two guys represented a battle between style verses substance. I was more like the Brooks character and she always wanted me to be more like the Hurt character. I had meet some of her friends and they were like him. Yea, they dressed nice and looked good but they were empty upstairs and inside. So after we watched the movie I realized this relationship wasn't going to work. I just was never going to be like the Hunt character because I just don't respect that way of being. She was shocked I called off the wedding two weeks before the date.

Can you be specific about how the AFI nomination process is flawed? From what I see you looked at the final results (the actual nominations), and since you disagree with the result (i.e. the movies selected for certain years, especially more recent ones), that means the nomination process is flawed. I clearly understand you disagree with the AFI consensus of opinion (i.e. the voting result), but that doesn't make the nomination process flawed by design. So again, what part of their process is flawed? Note that just like you I also do NOT agree with many of their nominations, but that doesn't equal their process being flawed, just that I have a different taste (or view), than the consensus of AFI members (voters). What would you change to improve this so called flawed process?

Sorry to sound like a wiseguy but of course a list of the top 100 movies made in the 50s wouldn't have any films made after 1950. As I stated before, unless one is NOT going to have any movies (or very, very few), from more recent decades in a list, as time marches on, one has to TAKE from 'older' decades to 'give' to recent ones. There are only 100 choices. In the 50s that meant having only 5 or so decades to pick from. In 2007 that meant 10. Can you admit that if you did a list it would be 'bias' toward movies made before 1960 or so? I can (my list would have at least 5 Bette Davis movies alone!). The AFI members that voted for the list are movie fans not just studio era movie fans like many of us that enjoy TCM as our primary movie station. I'm not defending the AFI list but would it really make much sense if a list of the top 100 movies had only, say, 5 movies, made after 1960? I can support the idea of two list; one for the studio era and one for after with the cutoff being around 1968 (many early 60 movies feature stars from the 30s - 50s so I feel they belong there). Oh, and Raging Bull is better than GWTW. GWTW is an overrated soap opera that is as overhyped as The GodFather IMHO.

Well I still say you are stacking the deck. Yes, the pre-talking decades from 1900 - 1929 are not well represented so instead of the very general comment that AFI doesn't favor 'older' movies it is more accurate to say they don't favor pre-talking movies. As noted the data for 30s - 50s compared to 70s - 90s line up very closely. (I leave out the 60s on purpose since I consider this a transition decade). What you call the 'golden era' I like to cal the studio era, which ended around 1968, but again, I left out the 60s on purpose. The 60s still had many films that feature our beloved classic stars. The Misfits having Gable, Monroe and Monty being just one example, and all the movies with stars that got started in the late 40s or early 50s like Brando, Lancaster, Douglas, Liz Taylor, Natalie Wood, etc...... To lump all of these movies in with the crap from the later decades makes no sense to me, regardless of what so called 'many people' might think. And it clearly isn't that "selectors are either idiots or they have no idea what constitutes a great film" but that they have different tastes than you and they were raised during a different time period.

Well there is the 'bar' blog at CFU which is somewhat like a Chat room, but it is very difficult to follow the conversation based on how the text is posted. Then there is of course this site. I didn't find the 'bar' all that interesting since there wasn't any specific topic. Here at least I can pick topics I'm interested in.

Since TCM shows a lot of the Warner category, Jack Carson isn't ignored. He might not be featured in programs like SOTM of SUTS but films he is in are shown a lot. First because he made a lot of films and second, because many of them are very good films.

Well Hitchcock liked to use Grant as a cad and did so years later in Notorious. Grant treated Bergman like crap in that movie but at the end he does save her and admit he was a fool. Hitchcock liked playing with the emotions of women who just couldn't accept that someone as good looking and charming as him could be a cad. In this way Grant is perfect in the first half of Suspicion. While he is pushy and arrogant his charm and looks over come this and Joan falls hard for him. In this first half we only see a little of his bad side (selling the chairs his father in-law gave as wedding gifts, etc...) and Grant can pull that off. But in the second half Grant doesn't really pull off the role of a major cad. i.e. someone that might kill his friend for money or his wife. Here someone like Mitchum would of been better. I do agree with you that Mitchum would of been a better fit for both types of Johnnie's personality than Grant. While Mitchum doesn't have the charm and looks of Grant (who does!) he has enough to pull that part off and when it comes to menace Mitchum is way more suited.

The ending as written in the book sounds a lot more interesting, but I can understand why the studio and maybe even Grant himself wouldn't want such a dark ending. But that ending is a lot more true to all the events in the plot that had taken place. Of course, as you know, a lot of movies end up with happy endings (or less dark ones), that appear to come out of nowhere. This a function of the Hollywood dream machine. What I like about most noirs is that they don't do that but Suspicion was made before WWII.

This picture hits too close to home! When I was around his age I had hair very similar to him. Now it didn't stick up in back as much as his but it did stick up. It took a lot to convince my mom to allow me to not part my hair in the middle and too allow me to dress more casual. She was from Japan where they wear very formal uniforms so she felt going to school with a tie was a standard American practice!. (and if it wasn't she was going to make it so!!!!).

Based on the stats you provided the AFI is NOT "skewed more toward more recent films". Compare the aggregate of the 2007 nominations from 30s - 50s with the 70s - 90; The totals are 155 verses 154. For chosen it is a tie at 39. The data shows that the AFI is very balanced as far as what they pick per decade. I'm no fan of the AFI (Olivia Dehavilland NOT being one of the top 25 actresses is a crime), but the data speaks for itself. Also simple logic dictates that as more decades are added, LESS movies will be picked from any and all decades (unless one has the POV that there was only 1 or 2 high quality movies released in say the decade 1990, 2000 or 2010 or 2020 etc...). Now if your point is that the AFI results should be skewed more towards 'older' (pre 1968), movies because the decades of the 30s - 60s had more higher quality films, I would agree with you. Your slam of baby boomers is also misguided in my view. They may know "what constitutes really well made films from before 1950 or 1960" but given 100 choices just decide to pick movies from multiple decades instead of mainly just the 30s - 50s, because they believe well made films were ALSO made after 1968. I admit my bias; My top 100 would have 90% of the firms from the 30s - 50s, but then some young pup could say I don't know what constitutes well made films from 1980 to today.

Why do you believe any remake would have an unhappy ending? Also if an ending is more faithful to the original source (e.g. book), how is that a bad thing? The book Suspicion was based on was written decades ago. Why didn't it have a happy ending if happy endings where the 'thing' back in the day (since it appears you are implying some type of social change has taken place with regards to endings). But Fred is right. I forgot that the Lifetime network has run TV movies of the week with the theme Fred mentions many, many times. That network clearly favors plots where the lead man is a complete and total cad and the lead women is a dummy or fool (sometimes a little but mostly a lot) that falls for him, but at the end wises up and takes revenge. This story isn't new. Gaslight is a similar story.

I'm not much of a fan of post 1968 movies (I to see a new release about once every other year and only catch them when I'm traveling for business and watching HBO in a hotel). This is how I say *Catch Me If You Can.* I liked it because it does have a 'throwback' type of feel to it and of course the time setting (I'm a Mad Man fan also for the same reason). Of course I'm sure there any many other 'modern' movies I would enjoy but typically they reflect time periods associated with studio era movie.

Wow, Requiem could be a hard movie for someone to like since it is very dark. My wife, being such a nice lady (really), often cringes at movies like this, yelling at the screen 'how could you do that to him!'. Yes, if one doesn't feel for Mountain they have no soul. The movie moves you but sometimes in ways we don't wish to be moved.

When the topic of remakes come up (and mostly by the 'I hate them all types), I use Suspicion as an example of where a remake could improve upon the original, as it relates to the ending. Keep the first half light and romantic like the original but as we start to see the true character of Johnny, make the second half darker than the original. Either have Johnny killed by his wife for being the bad egg is was or have him kill her off and end with him finding a new dame to milk. If the screenplay is tight and with solid direction there are many actors that could play the parts.