JamesJazGuitar
-
Posts
35,217 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
52
Posts posted by JamesJazGuitar
-
-
I agree with you here; This is why I wish TCM would change it's name to TSEM; Turner Studio Era Movies.
I would still have NO problem with TSEM showing movies made from the 70s on, as long as they represented less than 10% or so of their lineup.
As time marches on I don't wish for the station to show a higher and higher percent of post 60s movies. Again, I enjoy many of those movies but when I go to TCM my expectations is to see mostly studio era movies.
-
Who would be 10 'major stars' that you feel are more deserving than Malden? I can think of 2; Leslie Howard and Joel McCrea, but 50 sounds like an overstatement.
A list of who has been SOTM is available.
-
I have to admit I have no idea what you are trying to get at. i.e. what 'way' you think I am.
I enjoy many post 1968 movies. Many. When I use the term 'more so' it means,, well 'more so'.
I like Thai food more so than Chinese. Next you will be assuming I don't like Chinese food. !
But everyone knows only Italian food is classic!
-
I consider Sinatra to be the 'greatest' singers of the American songbook but not one of the greatest actors. (I also feel Frank was the greatest entertainer of the 20th century) But I admit I don't understand your point about his weak Metro period. Someone I consider to be 'great' can have down periods and or weak work.
Note that Day and Andrews do NOT fit my criteria as one of the greatest. I only mentioned them because I feel they have more of a lasting legacy than Durbin has (I admit neither of us can back up such a claim since determining how popular someone is, isn't easy). But I don't consider those two in the same category as Garland. Hey, I may be over hyping Garland too much, but I consider her to be the best from her era (going from a teen and into adulthood).
As for Garbo, I do believe she is over hyped to some degree, but that is a discussion for another thread. But you again misunderstood what I mean by 'spotlight'. The only spotlight I care about is someone's actual work. As you know Durbin stopped making films (recordings also??), by the age of 28. All this adds to the uniqueness of Durbin. In the case of Garbo, her stopping might of added to her legacy (I think it did), but not so much with Durbin.
PS: I did edit this text when I noticed that I spelled 'believe' as 'beleive' but the spell checker available here didn't catch that one. Strange but this spell checker is one of the worst I have ever used. Oh well.
Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Feb 6, 2012 8:59 PM
-
Poland had some guns. France had some. Didn't help them much.
-
I try to avoid using the term classic since it means different things to different people.
I have no idea what 'classic' means. I also feel classic is a self serving term. Hey, what I like is classic and when others disagree,,, well they don't know what is classic!
All I know if that generally I enjoy studio era movies (1930 - 1968) more so than movies made after that. But since the studio era did crank out a lot of movies there are indeed many low quality films made in that era.
-
With regards to the "mysterious ambiguous Olivia deHavilland" a review I saw on the movie in the book The Films of Olivia deHavilland knock the movie for the fact that Olivia's character is indeed to ambigous. It isn't even very clear when she dies where she stood. It was nice to see Olivia back making movies after 3 or so years away and after her great late 40s run. Olivia looked very nice in the movie but I do see what they review was getting at.
-
If in the aggregate the athletes take in less than the owners, how are they making outrageous salaries?
Sports is very big business and takes in a lot of cash for everyone involved. I find it ironic that most of the attention is focused only on what the actual players make, when often they don't even get 50% of the pie.
-
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.
-
As you noted they "embark on self destructive lifestyles" and thus while I find it sad I wouldn't use the term tragic. I use that term for events that are unforeseen or accidents.
For example, take that women that just died doing daredevil jump skiing. I don't call that a tragedy either. She knew she was taking extreme risk. The outcome was very predictable. Thus her death wasn't tragic but if she had hit and killed someone else that would of been. But hey, most people don't agree with my take here. Maybe I'm somewhat 'off' in this regard.
-
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.
-
I'm in the same camp as you Dargo. Yea the story is sad but I don't define self inflicted pain as tragic. The same would apply to people like John Belushi and John Candy (two people mentioned by someone else), or someone like Monroe.
-
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?
-
I have to admit the first time (around 4 years ago), I watched Born Yesterday, I turned it off. Judy's voice and persona just drove me nuts and I couldn't take it. But since I read so much praise of the movie I gave it another chance the time before last time it was on TCM and now I really enjoy it and find it to be very funny. (I watched it again since it was one again a few weeks later).
I know some people feel that way about Jean Arthur. I just love her and her voice never got to me. Sometimes we just need to give a movie and or character a chance to grow on you. I'm glad I let Judy do so.
"Yes we can can!" said Little Nicola.
in Your Favorites
Posted
Well I'm one of those Americans that feel Britain should just do away with the entire royal order. To me it is just downright silly. People are not special because of birth. I would rather hang out with the guy who owns Virgin Airlines (just an example of someone that I find interesting), than the entire so called royal family.
Time to end this folly. We have the Kardashians and they have the royals! Both not worth a hill of beans.