JamesJazGuitar
-
Posts
35,217 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
52
Posts posted by JamesJazGuitar
-
-
I also would rather see someone new be SOTM than have someone repeat. As you note there are many stars available; Boyer, Fontaine, Leslie Howard, Joel McCrea, etc.. (note; all of these 4 would have more star billing movies for TCM to show than Lansbury).
To me Joan Blondell was a first rate star; she was the lead female actress in many, many movies. Yea, typically the movies revolved around the male star but hey, that is what generally happened to actresses working for Warner Bros (well except for Davis) during the 30s and early 40s.
My point again, is that saying someone isn't a big enough star can be a logical POV, and that case against Lansbury has merit. Saying Lanbury isn't a good actress based on all that she has done as an actor, doesn't have merit.
-
Oh, I have understood for many months what the intent was here, but thanks for making it very clear.
I stand by my POV; It is complete folly.
I cannot think of anything that would stifle the creative process as much as someone trying to make a movie so that it fits the true criteria of a genre.
Man, that sounds like a made for TV movie!!!
-
As I noted in my post she is a fine actress and she has criteria to back this up as you mention " she’s won 6 Golden Globes and was nominated for an Emmy every single year of the 12 years “Murder She Wrote” was on CBS".
But how many movies does TCM have the rights to where she is the lead female star? Very few. Thus the arguements that she shouldn't be SOTM based on the her classic movies has merit. Again, I have no problem with her being SOTM since I enjoy the movies TCM will be showing.
Gloden Globes and Tonys help back up her acting creed but not, per se, that she should be SOTM. As it relates to studio era movies she clearly isn't one of the top stars of the era. Not even close. So to me it is fair to assume TCM has her as SOTM for reasons other than her studio era movies.
-
I believe you have a misunderstanding with regards to protection under the first amendment - the protection is from the government, not employer employee relations. Your Hank Williams example is a good one. E.g. the government could NOT force the employer to fire Williams (or not use his song) but the employer can decided to do that and Williams cannot sue the employer for doing so claiming violation of his first amendment rights (but he can sue for other reasons like not fulfilling the contact terms). Thus first amendment rights had nothing to do with that case. The same would be true if Ben was fired.
As for Ben and his comments; reading all the post I now have a better understanding of the so called political comments Ben made. I don't find them offensive in the least and I really don't understand those that do. To me they are the ones making mountains out of molehills. I also question their motives.
-
Can you give an example of a current box office star or two where there have been rumors?
I do agree that even today being too open about sexuality or even politics can help one at the box office.
-
Like I posted, I haven't seen Ben do anything while hosting TCM or even while on his own time that would cause me, (if I was his employer), to take action against him.
I also feel these endless attacks on him are silly (at best). But I wanted to ensure people here understood that employers can take actions against employees for what they do outside of the workplace, that employers have done so and that employers have prevailed when challenged in court for doing so.
Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Jan 3, 2012 5:47 PM
-
That is my favorite (or at least most remembered), bit that comedy team did. My brothers and I saw this has kids and for months we would go around yelling Cotten!
It drove my mom nuts. Thanks for reminding me of this.
-
While I lean more towards Ben political POV, what you post is just not true with regards to an employee having every right to do what they please outside of work.
First that is NOT true form a legal perspective. i.e. an employer can contractually require or prohibit certain legal non work activity. e.g. pro athletes cannot ride motorcycles etc.....
Second as others like Fiance have noted, some activities or associations could be harmful to ones future employment even when they do NOT violate a contractual restriction. e.g. openly being a racist or bigot can prevent one from management positions.
One clearly has a legal right to be a bigot but that doesn't take away the employers right to fire or not promote that worker.
Now back to Ben: I also don't see where he has goon 'too far' or where is dabble in politics has in anyway compromised his ability to do his job. But I used Rush as an example for a specific reason.
If TCM was to have someone like Rush be a guess host I would be very disappointed in TCM. If TCM got too many negative responses they would have every right to make a business decision that suited them. So you ask 'who decides'; the answer is the EMPLOYER.
Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Jan 3, 2012 5:02 PM
-
As for the question of should someone in a position like Ben or Robert be 'highly' political outside of their hosting duties (i.e. outside the job), I can see where this can become a problem and impact a host's ability to do their job.
Take Rush doing Monday Night Football. Even if Rush was able to keep his political views out of the broadcast he is such a polarizing figure, that his sheer presence could turnoff a certain segment of the viewing population. Thus as a programming director I wouldn't hire someone like him in the first place.
Of course what is 'highly' political behavior is difficult to determine.
-
If TCM was to do what you request someone (e.g. director of programming), would have to make choices. Decisions would have to be made. That is what these type of threads are all about. People questioning the wisdom of these choices.
There are only 12 months in a year and there are many 'stars'. If second tier stars or character actors are part of the 'master list' (the list of choices), who to include and who NOT to becomes all the more difficult for those having to make the choices. Then we would see related threads posts like 'why him instead this guy ,,'?!?
My point??? We that respond to these type of threads have too much free time on our hands!
As for Angela; I like her but I also agree with many here that say the reason she is SOTM has more to do with her overall as a living acting personality than strictly her status as a film star.
-
Do you have examples of Ben giving political views (commentary), on TCM?
I don't ever recall him doing that.
-
Here TopBilled does raise a valid point; if the main movies a 'star' is famous for are secondary roles should they be SOTM? While I believe Lansbury is a fine actress and I find her very attractive in those early years (but I will admit she has a unique sexual attraction to me verses, say, an Ava, Lana or Rita,), it is true that the movies I enjoy Lansbury in, she is NOT the main star.
So TopBill has a solid case that Lansbury is what I call a second tier star. I would define Van Helfin as an actor I define as a second tier star. Yea, Van was the lead actor in many movies but he was typically teamed with a major female star (e.g. Stanwyck), that was a lot bigger star than he was. This is similar with Lansbury's best work.
Thus it is a fair assumption that a primary reason Lansbury is SOTM is because she is still with us and thaat she is very well known because of her TV work and long career in the industry.
While she clearly isn't a Garbo, Davis, DeHavilland, etc... since I like many of these films I don't have a issue with her being SOTM.
-
Well $50 is somewhat of a distortion since I have bundled services (phone, internet, cable).
If I only had cable with the 'extended package' that includes TCM, ESPN, Food Network etc... the cost would be $65.
-
Here is a definition of genre I found on Google:
"a class or category of artistic endeavor having particular form, content, technique, or the like".
TCM clearly believes their is a "film noir - gangster" genre since we are posting in a forum called that. Yea, TCM had to add 'gangster' to cover their bets but that just makes my point about the overlap between various genres.
Look at all the categories under the Genre Forum list. There is a lot of overlap. i.e. one could classify a specific movie in more than one of the genre categories mentioned.
To classic movies fans (e.g. the people at CFU) the term 'noir' clearly communicates films that have 'a particular form, content, technique or the like'.
I do agree that when they were making these films they didn't make them as noir movies like they would make westerns or horror movies for example (especially cheap ones). So if the main point was that noir wasn't a genre when the movies we label today as noir where made, I agree 100%.
and yea, I can be somewhat contentious. But that is only because I'm a noir type guy.
Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Dec 31, 2011 7:31 PM
-
What about Gunda Din? I know that it was filmed in the Alabama Hills outside of Lone Pine California (and I have hiked to many of the sites). Of course some of the indoor scenes could of been done back in Studio City.
-
What the the official goddess isn't Katherine Hepburn?
-
Is there anything to back up that statement by Hopper? I find it hard to believe. First the artist (e.g. the band, singer or musician), doesn't have complete control over the rights. Most of the time the record company has more control over the rights than the artist. So the artist would have to ask the record company for permission. I can see the record company granting these rights if it helped promote the artist but otherwise why would they give away the use of their product for nothing.
-
Securing rights to use 'hip' (popular), rock music might have been an issue. One idea I had is that the melody of rock songs are often carried only by the vocals; i.e. without the vocals there isn't a very strong melody. For background music vocals often get in the way (i.e. are too much of a distraction and can clash with the dialog).
For example, it is very common in the pre-rock era for a song to be introduced with a vocal (e.g. the lead actress, even if not much of a singer, sings a song), and then for an instrumental of this song to be played as background music during much of the film. i.e. they get the melody in your head using the vocals (which is the easiest way for most, even musicians), and then carry this theme or mood on by playing the instrumental.
Related to retaining rights, one simple reason might just be money. Studios purchased the rights to use songs and often they could use them in movie after movie for a certain period of time without having to pay much in royalties. So it saved money to use the same songs over and over again.
-
I assume you are joking but if not that is an interesting concept. Start off the new year with a bunch of disasters; thus the rest of the year can only get better!
I would recommend TCM show movies where some of the plot occurs on New Year eve or day. e.g. Its Love I'm After with Howard, Davis, and DeHavilland is a very funny movie that all takes place on those two days.
-
Well I have found that if I focuses on what I feel they were really trying to communicate instead of pointing out the folly associated with their bombastic comments, the odds increase that there can be some type of fruitful discussion.
You are right that they have little to defend (as it relates to bombastic comments), but often they do have very valid points if one takes those comments with a grain (or lump!), of salt.
-
Sorry I don't understand your point or what you are trying to communicate when you say that there is 'no real Genre for Film Noir'.
Are you saying there is a real genre for western, or comedy etc..? As soon as one uses the term 'real' I find folly.
Again, who defines what the real genres are and what the criteria is for these real gernes?
Noir is a genre just like westerns, drama, romantic comedy, etc in that a genre has certain characterizes, BUT, there is wiggle room related to these characterizes in any genre. There is also a degree of overlap. I saw this in the discussion about screwball comedies and romantic comedies.
I believe one can do what you are doing with Noir for any genre; Come up with specific criteria and then say these are movies are the true to this criteria and those that are not. I do find all of this interesting but it has noting to do with determining what is real or not unless a specific 3rd party source is named (e.g. AFI defines a western as ,,,,,,), and even then this is just the opinion of one group.
-
Yes, welcome to the site and happy new year. I have been here a few years now and I love it. First one learns a lot about classic movies. Now compared to the average Joe I'm an expert of films from the 30 - 60 but once I got here I found a lot of people with more knowledge than me. So one learns a lot about movies they were NOT aware of, or gets insight into a film they have seen.
Second everyone has an opinion. So it is interesting to heard what other classic movie fans like or dislike. Yea, like any family we have disagreements but typically they are keep under control.
-
I'm sure you are aware that people here just like to make over the top statements with no basis of truth.
Comments like "TCM only mostly show Post 1960 movies" or "all post 1980 movies are garbage" etc...
I really don't think doing research would help, since I'm assuming the poster knows they are posting over the top statements; i.e. they do NOT really believe what they are posting, but only use terms like 'mostly' or 'all' to push their point. Sadly this is a very common method people use in discussion, polices especially. They wish to be heard and feel using over stated terms is more likely to be heard.
Often I just ignore those terms and try to focus on what I believe they are trying to communicate. e.g. that TCM shows too many post 1960 movies or that a majority of post 1980 movies are garbage. I'm not sure they wish to be "pleasantly surprised" by facts; they just want to be angry and heard. But keep up the effort. Maybe some of it will stick.
-
I'm somewhat surprised to see anyone remember Yes. I like the band and they were a transition band for me - taking me from rock to jazz a few decades ago.
Their songs are not easy to play.
World's Oldest Profession in movies
in General Discussions
Posted
I would add Shirley Jones in Elmer Gentry.
As for Pretty Women being a "really good movie" I have to disagree with that. It is a corny and silly movie in my view. Yea, it is romantic but only if one forgets that the gal is a prostitute. Of course maybe that does make it a great movie; i.e. a movie that gives viewers a specific vibe (romantic), while the core of the plot is anything but.