Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

jamesjazzguitar

Members
  • Content Count

    27,740
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    46

Everything posted by jamesjazzguitar

  1. I haven't seen the film, but I assume a ranch in rural Oklahoma was selected to communicate the type of place that might help someone with a drug problem overcome his habit. Going to Southern California, so close to Hollywood, celebrities and a place with an overall more 'active' lifestyle then most,,,,, isn't the best place to kick a drug habit! (in fact more like one of the best places to score some good stuff,, man.). If as kingrat implies this historical inaccuracy in the film did jive-with-the-vibe, then that can be problematic. If the location had an impact on Baker's ability to recover (or at least be a functioning drug user), then I would fine that as being problematic. If not, (i.e. staying with his parents helped 'ground' him, and location was mostly irrelevant), than that type of change is mostly irrelevant. At the jazz forum we were discussing the tour of Stan Getz and Chet Baker Stockholm concerts in 1983. Both were in fine form and each surprised each other. I.e. both were wondering if the other would be able to function enough to pull the event off. They each were; This is one of the last examples of how these two jazz musicians approached music, especially their solos, in much different ways.
  2. Thanks for posting this! My two favorite subjects jazz and film. Note that at the jazz forum I'm letting fellow jazz musicians know about this TCM spotlight (and TCM in general) but I have warned them about lack of accuracy. Since the folks at this forum have so much knowledge hey tend to nit-pick more so then the so called average viewer. I tell them; like music itself, focus on the vibe of the film, what it is saying about the essence of the musicians,,,,,, and not so much on trivial historical inaccuracies. (of course what is 'trivial' to one person, may not be to another and this is often the heart of the debate).
  3. I don't agree with you use of terms here; I.e. imposed does NOT belong with influence. I.e. outside groups (activist like BLM, JDL, etc...), can try to influence but they can't impose. Of course it all comes down to how one defines 'impose'; Here is the definition I'm using: force (something unwelcome or unfamiliar) to be accepted or put in place. The government can impose (force something) by use of fines or jail. Activist can only influence. Now some activist try to get the government to impose on their behalf. It is up to sound government to reject such calls for censorship and in the vast majority of the cases this is true. Sometimes politicians will talk about it (E.g. Chuck Schumer trying to outlaw an American from joining the boycott of Israel movement), but the good thing about the USA is that these typically go nowhere due and if they do, are overturned due to the 1st Amendment. PS: such influences by activist are what I'm calling capitalism at work. E.g. if one doesn't like what FETV is doing, write them a letter and don't watch them until they change their policy OR find another media outlet for Green Acres shows (e.g. purchase the uncensored DVDs).
  4. Ah, Gabor Szabo; He is discussed from time-to-time at the jazz guitar forum; E.g. he is a jazz guitarist? While I find some of his albums to be too spacey for my taste, other albums are more grounded and I like those. As for his musicianship; Twice I have seen him live once with one of the best jazz guitarist ever, Howard Roberts. Now Roberts helped start the L.A. \ Hollywood based Guitar Institute of Technology in 1977 as a ... Howard Roberts' educational philosophy into a major music school. Roberts plays on all type of albums, T.V. musical scores, etc.. he was a first rate studio-musician. He also did a bunch of commercial-jazz albums during the 60s \ 70s. I.e pop songs in a somewhat jazz style. So in the evening he would let loose and play straight ahead jazz. Well even for me some of these were too "far-out"; e.g. 15 minute or longer song with solos by the band that would lose the melody (yea, like Chuck Berry joked about!). Well once I saw Roberts with Gabor Szabo; I found this to be a very odd paring, so I didn't know what to expect; Well, it was the best of both worlds; Both were more grounded. E.g. Howard's solos on Gabor compositions. Howard didn't know these well so his solo was more melodic and not 8 minutes of licks and 'hot playing'. They played jazz standards and Gabor was really good on these; he still had his sound and somewhat outside take on these standard tunes but he played them as solid as any top notch jazz musicians. It was a great show. Below is the one of the few straight ahead albums Roberts did; It is called the Real Howard Roberts for the reasons provide above.
  5. I wonder what the laws are with regards on who has the legal right to alter content. I would think such right would be limited to only the owner of the product (who could, by permission, grant temporary rights to alter content to others). E.g. About 15 or 20 years ago some video stores were in Utah were altering movie content to create family-friendly versions. The Directors Guild of America sued these stores and won; 3rd parties had no rights to alter content (the 3rd party only had a right to place a sticker on the package warning about content). I found this funny at the time related to Orson Welles and the concept of directors-cuts. As most of us know during the studio-era most directors had no rights over the films they directed. This was the main reason Welles signed film deals with independent producers, retaining film rights (unlike RKO that had total control). Hitchcock made all sorts of legal moves over the years to gain more and more control of his films. Studio-era, under-contract directors had no such control or powers. I.e. if such a director wanted to release a 'directors-cut' they would need permission from the studio.
  6. Isn't this self-imposed 'censorship'? I.e. it is NOT due to the FCC or the government but because the content-owner or content-provider decided to censor something. I don't like any type of 'censorship' but self-imposed doesn't bug me. Government imposed censorship (the type conservatives have used for centuries), does.
  7. With regards to the topic of what-films-content-providers-show "need" historical commentary \ wraparounds. It is a valid question to ask if ALL films that show a group in a stereotypical negative manner should have such commentary. (versus just films about the black experience or just other people-of-color). E.g. my father-in-law; 15 years ago when he lived with us visiting from Italy. He lived in the USA for a decade so he understood English well. He wasn't happy that so many WWII war film featured Italians as weak, cowards, stooges for the Germans, etc..... He also wasn't happy with The Sopranos. Once a content provider goes down the road of 'for this film (or this type of film), we will have commentary,,,", what films don't have such commentary now becomes the 'issue' debated on social media.
  8. I agree. I wondered if my T.V. had issues especially for some of the scenes that were 'muddy' and others that were too-dark (yea, these were night scenes but,,,,). Warner Bros film that I assume was converted to digital long-ago, so that surprised me (i.e. shouldn't be a cheap public domain copy).
  9. That is too be expected; White establishment Dems did little to nothing when they had the power.
  10. My wife has very close friends that live in Calabria and other than Sicily, the region is the one most controlled by the mafia. Nice coastal towns and setting with very fine seafood. But also checkpoints with armed guards with machine-guns (who are very nice to tourist, but less so to locals!).
  11. God doesn't decide anything, doesn't do anything, has NO impact on what happens on this planet. If he did, he is failing, big time, or he is very lazy.
  12. There is no doubt how the released 1936 version of The Petrified Forest ends. As for The Big Sleep; There were two very different versions. The first one was only released to US military personael. Warner decided to hold the film until after the war was over. When Bogie and Bacall got married Hawks was asked to make changes that focused on the romance of the two in the film (in the book Marlowe is sleeping with Eddie Mars' wife and NOT Vivian, the rich sister). Scenes were added (like the one near the end where horse racing is mentioned), others deleted and some just re-shot (e.g. the one with Eddie Mars' wife,,,,, different actress was used,,,, and the scene redone to show more caring of Marlowe by Vivian). The actual ending is the same.
  13. Curious who you believe deserved what they had coming to them in the film: E.g. all three of them?
  14. If Dave K. said that he was mistaken. The Howard character clearly dies after being shot by the Bogie character. This helps set the Davis character 'free' to go to France, see her mom,, and chase her dreams.
  15. If I wasn't an atheist I would thank god for that!
  16. Are you sure about that? Looks like the film was made about current events! We are arresting you copper,,, for not wearing a mask!
  17. I don't know if the use of the term 'dated' is good in an ad. I would have used days-of-the-week panties. Also, if a women happens to encounter Bernard "Barney" Quill and something bad happens, they can be used as evidence for when the crime occurred!
  18. Yea, there is another option somewhere between #2 and #3; use standard intros for a brief commentary (some might call this a disclaimer), and only have in-depth type treatment (commentary), on special occasions (e.g. like we saw this week with films like Victim, with a guest host). As for your last two sentences: ain't that the truth!
  19. By 'middle age codger' do you mean Frank Kennedy? (fiancé of Scarlett's younger sister?). I assume YES; I have always wondered if the book provides more details about why Scarlett had to marry him in order to pay those taxes on Tara. Say Frank had gone ahead and married Suellen. Wouldn't he had helped the family? E.g. paid off the taxes, provided jobs to family members etc.... Ok, he might want rights to some of Tara, but I assume he got those anyhow when he married Scarlett (and those rights went back to Scarlett and the O'Hara family only because Frank died). I.e. That point of: if Scarlett wouldn't have married Frank Kennedy, the O'Hara family would have lost Tara and been out on the street, is therefor bogus.
  20. I wasn't clear; I wasn't talking about the standard short intros \ outros done by the standard host, but instead longer commentary of an historical nature: and "historical" from the POV of the actual historical events a film is covering versus the historical events surrounding the making of the film (which is what the host typically covers). What I'm trying to understand is the various 'options' a network like TCM has related to a film that is deemed to be controversial (at least by enough people today to cause a cultural division). Here is what I view as those options: 1) Don't show such films. 2) Show such films but only with historical commentary. (much more than the standard host comments as noted above). 3) Show such films with historical commentary, but clearly note that in the schedule, and show such films with NO commentary (or just standard host comments). 4) Show such films like all other films; just standard host comments or NO comments at all. My gut tells me that most fairly-regular TCM viewers favor #3, but then I'm often a middle-of-fence kind of guy (so maybe most TCM viewers favor #4, and then #2?). (with little support for #1?).
  21. What you lay-down here sounds reasonable to me but I do understand why some fans-of-TCM might be miffed (and even upset), if TCM was to ALWAYS show (or ONLY show) such a film as GWTW with such historical commentary. I.e. TCM decided it would never show GWTW again unless it was with this historical commentary. I'm curious what your POV is on that: E.g. if you where head of programming at TCM you would of course show GWTW with a reputable film historian providing some specific context,,,,,. But would you ONLY show GWTW with such commentary?
  22. I agree with that and I pointed that out in a prior post when I said that self-imposed censorship by a privately owned content provider is typically easy to get-around; just find another content provider that is offering the material. The exception would be when the owner of said material decides to self-censor a given work; E.g Disney and Song of the South; Unless one wishes to view unauthorized (and thus illegal), versions, they have no other options.
  23. Uh, who are the "we" here? To me that question is at the heart of this (as it relates to movies, music and privately owned works of art). If the "we" was the government then I would be very concerned, but it isn't. The "we" is each private business making individual decisions with regards to what they define as appropriate content related to what they believe is their customers (consumers), expectations. Of course the monuments and statues are on government property and often are owned by said government, but to me that doesn't relate to the topic of privately owned content provider and whatever self-imposed censorship they wish to utilize as part of their branding.
  24. I "hear" what you're saying (pun intended). Too busy \ too much melody could have been a distraction to a scene instead of enhancing it. Yea, I wasn't expecting Joe Pass style solo guitar.
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...