JamesJazGuitar
-
Posts
35,217 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
52
Posts posted by JamesJazGuitar
-
-
Great picture from Its Love I'm After. I loved Bette's look here. Out of the 3 stars Bette had the smaller role but this really worked since Bette isn't a great comic actress. Her parts in the movie were not as over the top as those between Howard and DeHavilland and this is just another reason the movie 'works' on so many levels.
-
Of course the issue of judging art is subjective. Duh. But I stand by my point that those only willing or able to say 'high' or 'low' are not very interesting people. One cannot have a discussion of any substance on that basis.
As for all opinions as VALID by definition, this is where I disagree.
In my view an opinion is NOT VALID just because it is someone's opinion and especially when said person isn't able to back up their POV with any substance.
Note that I'll often say 'we can agree to disagree'; This is my way of saying that I view their opinion has valid because they made a solid case to back up their POV even when I disagree with said POV.
I often note that those that lack knowledge tend to have the POV that all opinions are equally valid.
-
So you agree with the point I was making. Thanks for pointing that out.
I also assume you where raised by real mean nuns, if you felt my reply was in a reprimanding manner!
-
Your take here is on target. The movie is all about Charlotte not being placed into 'boxes'. Her mother wasn't a very wise women. IF she would of acted like she objected to the marriage than maybe Charlotte would of gone along with it.
But Eliot wasn't the man for Charlotte for the reasons you gave. Charlotte would of looked like a sap breaking off with Eliot if he didn't already have children and wasn't interested in having more. There wouldn't of been any solid reasons for Charlotte to break off the marriage and it would of appeared she had useless hope that Jerry would someday be free. But the way the plot ends the relationship with Eliot doesn't cause one to have pitty for Charlotte. I instead gain more respect for her.
As for the ending? Well I'm torn. Here Charlotte does appear to give up but it is HER wish so thus us viewers should be A-OK with that. I'm still torn. I want Charlotte to have the moon as well as the stars!
I know for a fact that Jerry's wife lives to be 94 years old and that once Tina turns 18 she runs off with a farmer and moves to Alabama!
Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Nov 18, 2011 3:56 PM
-
Sometimes classifications are defined by the industy and or makers of said products. For example, with music (back when there were record stores), one would see on a record and it would have 'file under Jazz' written on the side. In the old days there were not too many music categories. Then the category of "alterative" came out. I always loved that one! Alterative; Think about that. What does THAT tell one about the music????
David Grisman made fun of the concept. His music is a blend of bluegrass and jazz. Well he put out a record where one side was a picture of a barn and hay and the dog was dressed in a down home county way.
The other side of the record looked like a New York jazz club, where the dog was dressed in a suit with shades. This was his way of saying "don't fence me in".
This was the maker of the product providing a classification of their product. I don't buy DVDs or any movies (I just watch TCM) but I assume if one goes on-line to do so there are pre-set classifications designed for marketing purposes. For marketing purposes pre-set categories do serve a purpose but they can also be misleading.
This topic was debated a lot at the Film Noir treads. NON noir movies are labeled as noir to increase their marketing value. So while film noir is a historical perspective I believe screwball comedy is NOT. i.e. that studios DID use that term in their marketing material at the time.
-
I did reply to the other thread related to North By NorthWest, but I assume those saying you were a spoiler where joking. But on a serious note here is my take;
If a thread is about a SPECIFIC movie, one can openly discuss the content of said movie. Anyone that has NOT seen the movie and doesn't want to get a spoiler should AVOID that thread. The logic for my position is simple; I assume that when the thread is about a specifc movie, people joining this treard are there to discuss the content of this specifiic movie and thus there is no concept of a spoiler.
But in a general thread (e.g. my favorite actors), one should avoid providing spoilers and if there is a need to mention specific plot content, provide a warning before hand.
-
I think everyone see the difference between the two but to me this entire post is an example of a strawman post. The first part of the folly is that there are pre-set categories of comedies. The second part is that each comedy can then be placed into these defined pre-set categories.
For example, if there is also romance in a comedy (which there is in Nothing Sacred), then why isn't Nothing Sacred a romantic comedy?
So how many pre-set categories are there for comedies? One has to know this before one can place each comedy in it's nice little box.
My view here: Nothing Sacred is MORE OF a satire than a screwball comedy, but I really don't view satire as a pre-set comedy category.
-
You must be joking, right? Anyone that comes to a thread about a specific movie that has NOT seen the movie and then would be upset about a spoiler comment is,,, well,,,, asking to be spoiled!
Really, what do people think is discussed in a thread about a specific movie????? The content of the movie. People don't have to click on anything they see. Also, who hasn't seen this movie? TCM shows it at least 8 times a year.
-
As for the question: Does anyone think this was a tragic accident or foul play?
There is only ONE logical answer to this question; I do NOT have any idea.
Of course it could of been foul play. People get murdered, especially by their spouse, all the time.
It could of been an accident. Accident happen all the time.
I don't understand why people have the need to form an opinion on something they know nothing about. Oh, well such is the nature of humans.
-
Jean Arthur does deserve her own thread. She was in so many great movies.
My favorite Arthur movies where she is the star would be The Devil and Miss Jones.
My favorite Arthur movie with a major male star would be Only Angel Have Wings with Cary Grant.
Jean was great in screwball type comedies in the 30s as well as more serious movies like Smith Goes to Washington and Talk of The Town. In these type of roles Arthur was still funny but she could also pull your heart at the same time. So in these roles Arthur reminds me of another of our favorites; Stanwyck.
-
So are you saying since everything is subjective, all opinions are equally valid?
So I can say I'm the best guitar player ever and that somehow has merit because it is just my opinion.
I just don't agree with that POV.
-
Not sure what you mean by "the same considerations", but I'm one of those that do not support the 'everything is subjective, and thus everything is equal' POV.
The problem I see with that POV is that then there can be no intelligent discussions. Everything is on the same level. I remember when I was a teen and all of us teens would just use 'great' or 'sucks' for almost everything. i.e. there were 2 categories; great or sucks.
As one matures and one is better able to articulate, using intelligent criteria, why they like something. Why they feel X is better than Y. What is it about X that gets to them. One also moves beyond the basic black and white categories of 'great or sucks'.
As for the term 'classic' to me it has NO meaning. What is classic is subjective. But a certain level of snobbery is required to have intelligent discussions between people about art forms. Otherwise all one gets is 'I like it,,, I don't have to explain why' type of rants.
I have no problem with TCM showing Beach Blanket Bingo. So in this regard it gets "the same considerations" as Robin Hood. But I would mock (gently but not scorn) anyone that said these two movies had the same artistic merits.
-
Oh, the Fan Club Christmas Album. My best friend and I were Beatles nuts during the 70s and I was able to get that album but not in an honest way (hey I was a young 17 year old punk!).
We went to this girl's house (she was around 15), and were hanging out listening to music and we see that album in her stack of records. It was her sister's album who was away at college. We asked the girl if we could buy it. She said something like "OK, but since it is used, just give me 2 dollars". We knew this album was worth WAY more than that (since it was a limited release album only available to fan club members) but we paid the 2 dollars.
We would also go to the libraries and check out Beatles material (e.g. the 64 Life mag Beatles cover). Now one could not take this stuff home. One had to look at it in the library and then return it. So one of us would create a diversion and than the other would run off with the stuff. We lived in Southern California and we had a map of all the libraries so we could keep track of each library we 'hit'. We got a lot of stuff and something was even posted in the paper about the theft of Beatles material from these libraries. Well my friend's dad saw all of this Beatles stuff (my friends room was all Beatles posters, mags, etc....) and the article about the theft and put 2 and 2 togethere. He made us return all of the stuff.
Like I said we were punks.
-
I think the vast majority of people, like me, that are critics of Harlow's acting ability understand that she was very young. I fail to see how that changes anything; i.e. the criticism is still the same and still 'valid'.
Studios are well known for pushing young talent too far, too fast as long as that star can sell tickets. I mentioned Rita before. While she is something special to look at her acting was weak in the 40s.
I agree with your view on Monroe; She had many, many more years than Harlow to 'season' and didn't. So Harlow improved a lot quicker than Monroe, no question about that.
MGM was looking for their platinum blond and they found her in Harlow. Harlow was clearly talented enough to do the job but she wasn't a great actress. To compare her to another blond comedian, Carole Lombard, Lombard did a lot of minor roles for years (e.g. working for Hal Roach), before she got staring projects and thus she was able to grow. Harlow was so hot from the start, box office wise, MGM just keep pushing her into project after project.
-
Melvyn Douglas - A working-man's version of William Powell: I couldn't of said it better.
I like Douglas but he is a step below Powell in terms of style, charm, class and being funny. That isn't a knock on Douglas, because I only place Cary Grant in the same tier as Powell in these areas.
Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Nov 11, 2011 3:09 PM
-
Libel Lady is one of the best comedies of the 30s but it had 4 great stars. Thus I don't view it as a Harlow film (I would say she had the lesser part of the 4).
I also understand that Harlow was young and thus inexperienced. But that just supports my point; To me in many of her films this inexperience clearly shows. Like Monroe they both got better and better as time moved on but sadly died way too young.
-
Well you saved me the trouble of typings since I agree with your take here. Bette is my favorite actress but I do agree she was miscasted in this movie. While I still find early 40s Bette attractive she clearly isn't the most beautiful women in the entire city.
Thus this role needed someone like Berman or if done later Grace Kelly. I don't say Rita; Yea she was beautiful enough at the time (no question about that), but she wasn't a very good actress until the 50s.
I have seen the entire movie twice but now I always find myself watching the start and the ending. Yea, I'm a sap for that ending. Raines and Davis; is there a better pair of actors?
-
So you believe that TCM should be able to use electronic media to promote itself and draw in younger people and thus retain, if not increase their market share? Note I say retain because I assume TCM's current market share is made up mostly of people over the age of 50, if not 60, and the natural aging process means that in, say 20 years, many of these fans will no longer be on this earth).
Having a strong presense and drawing in new fans are two very different things. Anyhow I hope you are correct. e.g. that 20 years from now the same percent (if not more), of people will be interested in movies from the studio era.
As a jazz fan I know that this is NOT the case; i.e. sales of jazz media and tickets for jazz shows has declined to a level where only a very, very few of the top (and more pop type jazz muscians), can make a living playing jazz.
I would also point out that as time marches on there will be more and more available content (both in music and movies). Say good quality media is available starting around 1930. Well by 2030 there will be 100 years of good quality media to pick from. That is a lot of media.
So someone that is, say 25, in 2030 will have a lot of options. What are the odds they will spend much time on movies from the 30s - 60s, or jazz from the 50s and early 60s (the classic jazz era in my view).
Like I said I just don't have much faith but maybe I underestimate the power of these great art forms to fine new fans from generation to generation.
-
Since you 19 and at least aware that TCM exist and I assume watch it from time to time, do you think there are ways to get others from your age group to enjoy classic movies?
In all eras there have been people like yourself that have wider interest than just what is popular at the time but the percent of people like that remains fairly constant from generation to generation in my view.
-
The leason here is to not have heros and idols. One can learn from others and respect them but to me part of the maturing process is to understand the concept of heros and idols is for children.
To tie this to movies, I had mentioned something along these lines related to hero worship of actors. e.g. John Wayne. With actors it is fairly common for people to mix the ROLES an actor plays with the actual person.
Check out the song Celluloid Heros by The Kinks. Yea, there are true heros in the movies but they are celluloid heros. Real people all have faults.
Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Nov 10, 2011 8:06 PM
-
Yes, in an MGM crime drama when the male stars gets mugged and thrown to the ground he doesn't need to have his suit taken to the clearners. In a Warner or RKO crime drama the guy needs a new suit!
-
Yea, I was going to mention Facebook and Twitter but I didn't since I admit I just don't have much faith that TCM can keep up even their current market share as classic movies fans age and pass on.
Again, I use Jazz as an example. The percent of people that are into jazz has declined since other music genres became more popular. Jazz, movies from the studio era, classical music, etc...will never die but their market share is very likely to remain flat since most people like what is popular and these art forms are just not pop in the minds of most people.
As for TCM on Demand: Well this is what I hope does NOT happen. i.e. that TCM's market share declines to the point where my local cable company isn't willing to pay TCM their fee and thus TCM is dropped as part of my 'extended' (non basic), cable package.
-
I think Harlow's acting in her early pictures is very forced. When I watch one of her key comdy senses It clearly looks like to me that the sequence of events is this:
Harlow did a take.
Director told her to do MORE and to try THIS, and THAT.
Harlow does but and thus it just doesn't look natural
I find Lombard to be a more natual comedian than Harlow. Harlow did get better as time moved on. When she was STOM a while back I saw most of the films shown and I enjoyed her more than I did before that, but I still think she is somewhat overrated in terms of acting talent and clearly in the beauty department. Not just compared to Young. I wouldn't rate Harlow as one of the top 10 most attractive actress of the golden era. Hey, just my POV but I'm not a big fan of blonds and that has something to do with it.
-
I would be good to have a poll where people here would rank their favorite studios. I do NOT think MGM would be ranked first. The question was asked (but only about 10 people replied), and MGM was listed third or forth behind Warner, RKO or Paramount. I believe Warner came out on top BUT that could be because to me Warner is on top.
The main reasons given was related to genre. Film Noir is one of the favorite genres for classic movie fans here at CFU and MGM did make many great noir movies.
MGM is clearly the studio of glamor but many would rather have grit and realism than glamor. As for MGM had the best star? While I could agree that MGM had the best LOOKING stars I wouldn't say they have the best talent. E.g. Gable or Taylor compared to Bogie and Cagney. I go for the Warner guys.
I agree with you that TCM should not favor any one studio. That would be boring.
Anyone else noticed morals slipping on TCM ?
in General Discussions
Posted
It appears you don't understand the point I'm trying to make her. Sure any "idiot" (your term, not one I would normally use) can have an opinion. The actual opinion doesn't determine if I think the person with the opinion is an idiot or not. What does determine if they are an idiot or not is how they back up their opinion.
I don't have to agree with the criteria or information they use to back up their opinion. That isn't the point. The point in a forum like this is to have an intelligent discussion. It isn't possible to have an intelligent discussion with someone that is either unable or unwilling to back up their opinion. It also is NOT about 'winning' (i.e. getting someone to change their opinion), but sharing of knowledge.
For example, I have had discussions with people who say certain movies or genres 'suck' but when asked why, it is clear they have NOT even seen the movies. To say their opinion on that topic is equally valid to someone that has seen the movies is folly. I have to wonder if you get it yet.