JamesJazGuitar
-
Posts
35,217 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
52
Posts posted by JamesJazGuitar
-
-
On 8/10/2021 at 1:28 PM, Sepiatone said:
Well, I like her OK as an actress. But not a great one. And too, while I don't think of her as unattractive, I wouldn't, as Karger does, think of her as "glamorous".
Sepiatone
I don't view Kay Francis as a beauty (instead attractive \ fine looking) but as I told my wife last night, I find her to be one of the most glamorous actresses of her era. Thus I find Constance Bennett and Kay Francis to be two of the most glamorous actresses of the 30s. E.g. how they wear gowns, hats, how they walked, their overall style,,,,
-
3
-
-
6 minutes ago, Katie_G said:
After reading the synopsis I wondered about that too, James. It really didn't sound like a noir, so my expectations have been adjusted, but still looks pretty good. I'll report back.
The basis of the story is young interns in their journey to become doctors. The cast is first rate with many fine actors playing both young interns and the doctors at the med school training these young pups. E.g. Broderick Crawford has a small role but he makes the most of him (both Crawford and Bickford steal all of their scenes from the too low key Mitchum).
But still worth watching. There is one scene with Grahame, Mitchum and a horse, that is,,, well,,,, lets just say you may may wish to watch that one with hubby,,,, it could cause a spark! (ha ha).
-
1
-
-
I also assumed it was a producer. The show had multiple ones but the only one I could find a picture of was Dortort but I didn't post it since I didn't think it was the guy in the top photo.
One think I know for sure is that it isn't my violin teacher. He was a member of the NBC orchestra and can be heard on the Bonanza theme song. He meet all of the actors and had a photo on his wall with them. But hey, that was 50 years ago when I was talking lessons when I was 10.
-
12 hours ago, sewhite2000 said:
There was a TON of racism and racist portrayals in the history of Hollywood, and yet the vast majority of posters on these message boards seem to be way, way, WAY angrier that any TCM host reminds them this racism existed than they're angry about the racism itself. Makes me ponder whether I should continue to exist on these boards.
If you're not joking here, you really should leave this site.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Katie_G said:
Wow, they certainly DO look chummy, Dargo! Thank you, I don't know how I've managed to miss this movie before, but will be watching it later after my hubby leaves. lol
An all star cast and classified as film-noir on Imdb. Mitchum plays a doctor married to de Havilland but lusts after a "siren" we can safely assume is Grahame.
I find it hard to believe IMDB would classify Not as a Stranger as a film-noir (well maybe not so surprised), but it isn't by a mile.
Fine flawed film: it has it moments and there is some fine acting but there are also flaws, de Havilland's over-accent being one of them, as well as Mitchum being a little too low key (even for him).
Sinatra is very good in the film and kind of helps ground it with the always good Charles Bickford
-
3
-
-
I'm a fan of Kay Francis; She had real style and no one wore a gown better than Kay. She had good comic timing with her co-stars and her 30s works was very good.
Warner Bros. didn't really know how to use her in the late 30s and early 40s but she was still in a few good films.
Trouble in Paradise is my favorite Lubitsch film.
-
9
-
-
Just watched Jewelry Robbery yet again. What a wonderful pre-code film. Powell and Francis have great chemistry and this film is just fun. I really like how Francis ends the film breaking the 3rd wall. I'm going to Nice!
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, Vautrin said:
I'm not doubting there was a small town in California named Bridgeport. It's possible that Mainwaring
used a different name in the novel, though I suppose it's more likely he didn't.
Author Daniel Mainwaring was born in Oakland CA, and he was known for writing stories that featured small CA towns. So I assume he knew the Eastern Sierras well (like I do), and that is why all the sites featured in the novel (as well as film), are actual places in the area.
-
30 minutes ago, Vautrin said:
I always wondered if the town in Out of the Past was named Bridgeport because it was taken from the novel
or because it was Mitchum's hometown.
Uh, the town in the film was named Bridgeport because that was the name given to it decades before the film was made.
I go there once a year for trout fishing at Walker river (the river featured in the film), as well as Twin Lakes (also featured in the film).
These are all REAL places that existed with these REAL names decades before the film was made.
The same goes for Lake Tahoe (ha ha).
PS: The first post office at Bridgeport opened in 1864.
-
1
-
1
-
-
J. Carrol Naish is a great example of an actor that was able to appear authentic playing all different types of characters and one that rarely played what he actual was: Irish.
E.g. Just saw the Bogie film Sahara (1943), and even my Italian wife asked; if the actor playing Giuseppe, Italian?
This from Wiki:
Of Irish descent, he rarely played an Irishman, explaining, "When the part of an Irishman comes along, nobody ever thinks of me."[a] He portrayed numerous other ethnicities including Southern European, Eastern European, Latin American, Native American, Middle Eastern, South Asian, East Asian, Southeast Asian, Pacific Islander—even African American, which earned him the moniker "Hollywood's one-man U.N.".[3]
PS: is Malone unaware of the studio-era and that most actors were under contract with a given studio and often receiving a weekly check regardless of if they worked or not? Why hire an independent actor of a given ethnicity when one can just say "hey, Naish, be at studio #4 at, 2:00 PM,, see the make-up department for the character you will play!".
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, tcountry627 said:
Shutoo....thanks for your response and I seen a copy on the Russian site ok.ru. I love love love that site they've got everything there. Why don't you think the studio might remaster this film? I think it would be awesome if they did. I think it's a classic JOAN gem. Anyways....thanks again and have a GREAT day!!!!!!
Sincerely,
Troy LeongI assume the studio doesn't have the source material that could be used to remaster the film. If they do, they don't own the rights to it, so why would they go to any expense.
My hope is that the surviving heirs or interests would donate what ever source material is available (whoever has it), to UCLA so they could remaster the film (assuming such source material is still intact someplace \ somewhere).
-
16 minutes ago, Bronxgirl48 said:
Thanks, Lorna! I have a new t.v., thanks to a very special person who is an angel here on Earth.
Okay, on your say-so, I'll give FAREWELL another go.
Note that I had many of the same feeling about Farewell, My Lovely when I first saw the film but that was because I was viewing the film as if I was watching a 40s or 50s noir instead of a 70's film based on the 40s. I didn't really enjoy the film until I was able to view-it-on-its-own; I.e. stop comparing it to all of those classic 40s and 50s noirs I have seen before. Of course I still can't fully do that, but I did get to the the point where my mind was on what was in front of me (the film), instead of what I had left behind.
-
3
-
-
10 minutes ago, Citizen Ed said:
Don't forget blinding it with his cigarette also. Made me wince
Sheen was a masterful villain.
Yea, Sheen was a solid villain in this film, but the good old switch-around ends up getting him in the end.
Tea anyone?
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Bronxgirl48 said:
To clarify (if that's possible, lol) Malone actually mentions that the reason Esther and Cyd are wearing this offensive make-up is because they are playing actresses in the movie who are portraying native island women. So in effect Alicia is giving an explanation for the explanation, if that doesn't already give you a migraine.
Look, I like to think I'm a fairly progressive individual who can deal with the march of history and all that, but this is just going too far....
Next Malone will be calling for a boycott of the fictional movie Esther and Cyd were native island women in. Yea, she has completely lost it!
-
1
-
2
-
-
On 8/8/2021 at 11:53 PM, Jillian Atchley said:
Yes, the duplicate posts are just the mishaps of a message board newbie. 🙃 I didn’t take time to read all the options until after I posted in the General forum, then re-posted in the forum with the more specific theme. I didn’t think about how that might mess with someone’s head. 😉 Lesson learned: Stick to one forum. (Plus, unintentional lesson learned: the General forum gets more action, by far!) Sorry for the confusion.
No problem. Fairly common with newbies. I like your taste in films from the studio-era as well as your knowledge and it is always good to have new blood at this forum.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Eucalpytus P. Millstone said:
Speaking of which, I seem to be on a psychedelic trip myself. Sometimes I see three pages and more than 50 responses to your My Top 10 post. Other times I see only one page and a little more than a handful of responses. Weird City!
There are two My Top 10 threads at two different forums. That might be the reason for any psychedelic trip.
-
26 minutes ago, nakano said:
Young and Willing 1943 Directed by Edward H Griffith William Holden Susan Hayward-in early leading roles.83minutes A Paramount production one of the Paramount productions that was sold to United Artists in the early-40's when U.A. was having trouble meeting their exhibitor contracts because of lack of product, mainly due to their loss of production in England. Screwball comedy has its moments but is forgettable Florence MacMichael has a support role-she had a talent for voices but she is irritating -she talks like a chipmunk (for real) and her part is quite important... 6/10 Good tv print by Motion Pictures on TV Cie,sold to tv.
It is odd that the actress with Holden is Martha O'Driscoll and not Hayward. Here is a photo of O'Driscoll.
Maybe this poster was redone as part of the re-release of this film after both actors made-it-big.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, tcountry627 said:
Hi James....I mean when you tune into the channel...next to the film title the year of the film is always listed. The channel isn't doing it anymore. Sometimes it's there....sometimes it isn't. It's a sporadic problem. Thanks.
I believe such info doesn't come directly from the channel but instead the cable company or company that is providing the overall T.V. service.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, tcountry627 said:
Hi TCM & TCM Fans,
I was wondering if anyone knows the exact date when Letty Lynton will be able to be seen and released? I know there was a big trial over it many years ago and supposedly the copyright infringement is expiring. Was wondering if MGM plans to clean up the print and do a dvd / bluray release of this film. It's one movie of Joans I've never seen. Thanks so much!!!!!
Sincerely,
Troy LeongI would have hoped that the after all of these decades (the film was released in 1932), that any copyright infringement would have expired but that doesn't appear to be the case:
Letty Lynton has been unavailable since a federal District Court ruled on January 17, 1936 that the script used by MGM followed too closely the play Dishonored Lady (1930) by Edward Sheldon and Margaret Ayer Barnes without acquiring the rights to the play or giving credit. On July 28, 1939, the Second Circuit awarded one-fifth of the net of Letty Lynton to plaintiffs Sheldon and Ayer Barnes in their plagiarism action against MGM.[6] This case was incorrectly said to be the first copyright decision ever to direct the apportionment of profits on the relative basis as in patent suits where a patent has been appropriated.[7] A previous similar decision had been made in 1921 in the case of the plagiarism case regarding Al Jolson's song Avalon (see Avalon (Al Jolson song).
On November 7, 1939, MGM petitioned the United States Supreme Court to overturn the Court of Appeals ruling, stating that the questions arising in the suit were predicated solely upon the copyright laws of the U.S., and not the patent laws. However, MGM did not prevail in this latter action, and the film is unavailable even to this day save for some bootlegged copies.[8]
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Bronxgirl48 said:
Agree, it's an accurate statement about March but why would he even bring it up? That's what turns me off about Ben. Snark for snark's sake, not appealing.
You really don't have a clue why Ben would bring up March related to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde? This came up with my wife last night who was unaware of the seven A&C serial films with "meets" in the title, starting with A&C Meet Frankenstein. She sees that the film has the wolfman, played by Chaney, and Dracula, play by Lugosi, and asks me "what, they couldn't get Karloff for Frankenstein, and he is the only one in the title?". I make a joke that Universal saved Karloff for the next film in the series; A&C Meet The Killer, Boris Karloff.
Then we see A&C Meets Captain Kid and I tell her that has Charles Laughton who was Captain Kid in an adventure film made in 1945.
Then comes A&C Meets Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde; so what does the wife ask me: Hey, is Spencer Tracy or Fredric March in this one?
Thus it was 100% logical for Ben to bring up March in the context that he did: these "meet" films did tend to use actors from the original \ serious version of the films that featured these characters.
Hey, I understand if you didn't find the joke funny, but to question "why" just doesn't make any sense.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, tcountry627 said:
I'm a huge TCM fan . I love movies of the 1940's & 50's and was wondering why TCM isn't posting the year of each film when your looking at the tv? They used to do this all the time but aren't doing it now. I think classic film fans like seeing the date the film was made / released.....it's a plus for us. Hopefully this will be fixed. Thanks for reading my post.
Sincerely,
Troy LeongWhat do you mean by "when your looking at the tv"? I've been watching TCM for decades and I have never seen such a year listed while "looking at the tv".
I do see the year on the on-line TCM Schedule and if there is an intro the host will usually comment about the year the film was released.
So I'm confused what you're expecting here.
-
22 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:
Why would you not be able to watch The Usual Suspects "because of Kevin Spacey" ? The things Spacey is alleged to have done ( and probably did) in his personal life have nothing to do with the films he was in, nor his performances in them. I just don't get this thing some people have where they can't watch a movie because one of the actors in it did something in their private life that was bad. The work they did is a separate thing from their private actions.
While I'm also able to view someone's work separate from their private actions, I have seen people at this forum that do "boycott" a person that is alive and their reasoning is that they don't wish to enrich that person. While I understand this reasoning, I still believe it is over-the-top; E.g. How much money does an actor like Spacey receive when someone watches a movie made many-years ago that he was in? I suspect not much, if anything at all.
-
2
-
-
16 hours ago, Toto said:
Absolutely! Betty Davis quotes are the best. Here's a quote from Beyond the Forest (a story of a married woman sick of small town life scheming to run off with a rich businessman). Bette's character is so rotten in this film and she's so good at being bad. Her character shoots a porcupine out of a tree and she says "I don't like porkys, the irritate me".
Great Bette Davis quotes go all the back to the start of her career; Here she is in 1932 with the "like to kiss you" line:
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, riffraf said:
It is very distressing to see a company like TCM which for so many years prided itself on showcasing the rich heritage of classic films unedited and uncensored to start doing so apparently out of pressure for political correctness. Only because TCM vowed to screen films as they were meant to be seen in the way the creative artists made them to be seen have I been a staunch supporter of the channel.
I have always thought that TCM goes to great lengths with their own creative talents and artists to promote and introduce this huge library of films from all over the world representing so many different cultures, ideologies and talented film makers in clever and artistic ways. In particular the opening intro for the early morning movies using a well made three dimensional "popup" book with scenes from a number of classic films with still pictures (cutouts) and some put in motion. Very clever and very unique. I loved it!
Being a devoted, well versed and dedicated fan of classic cinema and thus a long time follower/supporter of Turner Classic Movies I could not help but notice that one of the black and white stills from a classic John Ford/John Wayne western (the cavalry trilogy) showed a very small Confederate flag which has since been removed. The only reason I can imagine it was removed would be some sort of political/racial "correctness" as if TCM would not want to be thought of as promoting "racial hatred". Seriously? And yet TCM has bent over backwards to express disclaimers before and after many films that may contain any controversial content that could be considered offensive to some. Why start censoring now? What comes next, blurring out or removing any scenes containing the Confederate flag in Gone With the Wind? Now I am offended. And I am sure that a number of your viewers, particularly the older folks who lived through a time when censorship and book burning was a very real threat to democracy, civil liberties and for that matter all of humanity. Very disappointed.
TCM doesn't edit any content. They can't since they don't own the rights to the films they lease.
How can you spot good direction?
in Films and Filmmakers
Posted
I said something similar in March (to someone else) about directors and so called "good direction": Your post reminds me something I heard related to sports about referees and umpires: One knows they are doing good work when one doesn't notice them.