Jump to content

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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by jamesjazzguitar

  1. Does anyone know how military bases are named in the first place? Whatever that process is, I don't see an issue with using that process for determine if there should be a name change. E.g. if the name of a military base is decided by a vote of Congress, have a vote on if the name should be retained or change. I fail to see why that would be a big deal , for either side, in what I find to be a silly debate. HAM: if a majority of members in Congress support something that means it isn't over-the-top by definition. Instead it is the will-of-the-people.
  2. I have lived in CA all my life and have followed the career of Harris; There are things I like and things I don't like (which is true of all politicians). To me she came of as phony when running for President. As you note she is highly intelligent. As for the passionate part; well that is what I see as being phony. E.g. as DA she didn't push for much police reform; I.e. she was fairly moderate. But she get on the debate stage and attacks Biden implying he and his generation of white Dems are racist,,,,, yea, that type of passionate just to score a hit at a debate,,,, not a fan of that. But I can accept Harris as V.P. In fact I'm for anyone but Trump so anything that helps ensure that clown is defeated is OK by me.
  3. I wondered if it was in color or B&W; I looked at movies that featured Houdini and the vast majority were made after the Curtis bio, and thus are in color. If we get some other 'info' we might be able to help. PS: there are some very in-the-know folks around here when it comes to these type of questions,,,, as for ME, I'm only so-and-so.
  4. Tonight's feature is Murder by Contract (1958). I have seen parts of this on MOVIES but it ran so late I never saw the entire film. Have seen a young Vince Edwards in a few films and I still don't know what to think of him. Sometimes he goes into this Mitchum type act and I just want to yell at him and say "hey,, wake up!!!", but that might be unfair since I don't feel that way towards sleepy eye Bob.
  5. I'm aware of that. What I wondered about is if Miller agreed with them; the comment in the film implied he felt he didn't have the ability to keep-up-with-those-masters. I clearly understand the concept of professional jealousy, in fact at the jazz guitar forum there is a major riff in this regard,,,, e.g. musicians that believe they have much more ability but have made 1\100 the money of so called smooth-jazz 'hacks'. (stuff like "that Kenny G,,,, is full of *^$^%!). But it is my experience that when they actually play music together these feelings generally disappear, especially from the POV of the one that hasn't made it big - They see that the other guy does have a lot of talent and ability,,,,,, but just made a business decision to create music with more of a mass-appeal, and thus MONEY.
  6. I'm not against contextualization, I just would prefer not to see it (especially more than once). But as you note it is fairly easy to just skip such commentary.
  7. Yea, sadly ending or reducing abortion and ensuring more-and-more guns are the main 'big deals' (if not only ones) for way too many ignorant Americans. But this time they will lose. I just don't see Trump winning even in my rather conservative county here in CA; E.g. On Thursday the county supervisors dropped the mask requirement because the lead county health official resigned due to death threats! These cowards didn't support their health official but instead caved to the Trumpers and their selfish asinine demands. I'll be voting for ANYONE but a member of the GOP this November!
  8. The 1936 The Petrified Forest is my favorite film (well Leslie Howard and than Bogie are my favorite actors, and Bette Davis is my favorite actress being a primary reason, but I just really love the dialog in the film): As for "one of the character lived": did you mean to say one of the criminals? Because in the 1936 version all of the hostages live (as far as we know), except for the Leslie Howard character. Anyhow, I just love this film especially the first part where Howard and Davis first meet and then later go talk on the roof. Just the way they each talk is magic to me; E.g. the way Howard says Bar-B-Q,,,,,. I have yet to see the 1955 T.V. version with Bogie (still the lead criminal), and Bacall and Henry Fonda.
  9. Ok, that makes sense to me about "convenient". I guess where I got confused was that it would have been more convenient for him if she knowingly played the role of 'beard' for him. Of course none of us can know if the marriage was platonic or not (hey, it a fictional marriage after all). This is why I said that I didn't wish to believe it was; my own personal feelings about love, partnership, marriage and sex,,, drive my perspective.
  10. Well said; Yea, that scene with Farr and his assistant where the assistant doesn't need to ask questions because he know his employer is a stand-up-human-being, PERIOD, is very moving. The only thing I somewhat question in your post is: It certainly was convenient for Farr, until it wasn't. If the marriage was platonic, and Farr wasn't getting-some outside the marriage, I fail to see how that was convenient for him (for either of them). I guess that is one reason I don't wish to view the marriage as platonic; I wish to view both of them as strong healthy adults, but if she settled for a platonic relationship,, well she should have just married her brother! (and he should have got-some outside of marriage,,, discretely of course!).
  11. So private companies shouldn't own any content; i.e. all content (movies, music, art, etc..), should be part of the public domain? This is a serious questions because the only way 'we should be able to watch whatever we want to' would be if all content was in the public domain and made available to entire public without any fees (since fees can prohibit some folks from being able to 'what whatever' they want). What we in American have is capitalism. In the case of Song of the South the owner of the film, Disney, made a business decision with regards to distribution. So the government should take the film from Disney and place it in the public domain? I assume this isn't what you had in mind, but then what is so terrible here? I ask because it appears the majority here are going over the top under the assumption there is some vast conspiracy by 'them' instead of select and specific business decisions by individual content providing private companies.
  12. As for racism or any topic; when viewed from a political spectrum I find your us-verses-them non-nuanced POV to be non productive: When it comes to policy decisions one can be 'in the middle'. E.g. reparations. To me you're making my point about partisan talking points; E.g. if one is NOT for reparations they are enabling racism. Can't you see how that is related to the talking point about systemic racism; the question is asked by partisans to pigeon hole voters into supporting the vast majority, if not all, of their policy objectives. Generally I'm not interested in if one is 'against IT' (whatever the IT is), or not, but their stance on policy related to the IT; This POV was useful when discussing LGBT rights with religious Americans. I don't care if they were against it (hated gay, viewed being gay as a sin etc...), as long as they supported SSM rights.
  13. Yes, that is the impression I had, but the guest host stated the relationship was platonic. So it was this guest host that I found to be NOT forward thinking. (and he was clearly added as a guest host to give the impression TCM and he, were forward thinking). That is why I'm commenting on that.
  14. Oh, I understood the overall intentions of making the film and what it was trying to communicate (which is stressed at the very end when the blackmailer mocks the gay man when Bogarde's character tells the lead police officer that this man is a victim). The law about being homosexual was removed 6 years later in 1967. I was talking about what their intention was with the ending and having the man and wife continue on with their marriage \ relationship. I.e. is the only logical assumption that this is a platonic relationship? That is what I'm questioning. PS: maybe it would have been even more controversial to show that humans can be bisexual (with fidelity no less!) instead of just a male homosexual in a platonic marriage.
  15. Well there is another way to look at the term "systemic"; Here is one definition: relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part. What system is one talking about when one says 'there is systemic racism"? Policing? Well there is no one-system for policing. Instead there are thousands of local systems. AND within each of these systems there are sub-systems. Thus the odds all ALL systems and the various sub-systems are 'racist' is of course low or non existent. Of course when activist, the left, Dems, etc.. say 'systemic racism' they don't mean ALL systems (all police departments, all white people, all managers and employers, all landlords, etc....). They are just using this as a taking-point. AND when Trumpers, conservatives, racist, etc... say it doesn't existing they do so because they don't wish to acknowledge the degree of racist that does exist within the various systems \ various layers of American culture. Anyhow, I'm sure partisans will reject what I'm saying here since it is nuanced; in these culture war nuance is the worst position to take; one is either with THEM or against THEM. PS: with regards to the Columbus statue: well it looks like some liberal New Yorkers are tripping all over themselves. They are asking their political consultants: how many voters of Italians decent do I have in my district verses younger people-of-color? Dang this job used to be easier!
  16. I didn't watch Word is Out but I did see Victim (again, but first time for my wife). With regards to the ending and the commentary by the guest host: to me the guest host provided a somewhat dated (or many 'standard' is better) response to the question of the type of marriage the man and women had and why would decide to continue with the arrangement. i.e. that it must be platonic; that the man was gay. That he and the women got married when they were young and he didn't know himself,,,,, but since they have developed a deep platonic love,,, they will remain together in a platonic relationship. Another way to look at this is more modern (hip dare I say), view about sexuality; that it is more fluid than hardcoded, and for some very fluid; I.e. the man was bisexual, fell in love and was committed to that love and marriage and fidelity. This wasn't a platonic relationship. He was faithful (didn't have sex with either men or women), PERIOD. This POV is now being pushed by some like Kristen Steward and a Jonas bros wife. I don't know if I fully understand it but I find it interesting. Of course I have no clue what the intentions of the producers \ director where (or if they even had one,,, which is often the case,,,, but us viewers often insist on finding one).
  17. Funny you mention that because I was watching A Man Called Adam the other day and yea, there was Louis Armstrong in such a role. The film was made about 5 years before Armstrong passed and for me Louis was someone lacking his typical vibe \ energy (say compared to Paris Blues made 5 years before). He would make one more film, 3 years later, Hello Dolly. PS: I did wonder about the scene in The Glenn Miller Story where Miller makes a comment that he can't really play jazz with Armstrong and Goodman (I believe he mentions one other guy?). I wondered if that is how Miller really felt. I assume YES, and I would tend to agree.
  18. Funny you mention Ozzie Nelson because when I was listing those sit-coms I grew up with, Ozzie and Harriet came to mind,,,, but then it came to me; Ozzie is no Robert Young!,,,, he is more like Arthur Lake. So maybe Ozzie was one of the first to be star in a sit-com and be the misguided \ clueless father.
  19. I don't see where anyone is saying the songs "have to be presented in chronological order", just that to those in the know it comes off as sloppy. As we have discussed films were meant to be seen once and people did NOT have a rewind feature where they could watch something over-and-over to find inaccuracies. So yea, I doubt many moviegoers notices these things; Yes, The film was a celebration of the man's life and his music as a whole. Funny, I was going to mention something similar but relate that to GWTW. I assume one can see the connection. BUT PLEASE lets not discuss that film here. There are enough threads about that film already!
  20. WHY do so many people marginalize the feeling of those that are not like them, mocking them, and implying they are misguided fools?
  21. Funny but some say that the cultural norm of the clueless (misguided, tries hard but mostly fails, or if one is harsh 'loser'), husband started with Married With Children, continuing on with one sit-com after another like Everyone Loves Raymond (and Ray was rather 'reformed' since there was his brother to be the foil) etc.. I.e. clearly not like the dads I grew up with in Father Knows Best, The Donna Reed Show, Leave it to Beaver etc... Well before all that there was the Blondie serial. I have seen this first one and a few others on MOVIES but I like the first one best for the reason that Dagwood is more grounded. Yea, bewildered and absent minded, but not a total goofball. Of course this comedy format is known for having their "Kramer" but when that is the second lead (like Dagwood), the show becomes too much of a farce for my taste.
  22. Come on you really don't know? Finding lost children, helping recuse pets, responding to someone that see something they-think-is-suspicious that isn't a crime, etc... Funny but my wife just asked me something similar and I so we watched One -Adam-12 (Decades at 5:00 PM): typically an episode consist of a main story and 3 - 6 really short 'responding to calls' scenes and one or two of those are often "noncriminal" matters. I assume this was done to help humanize the cops, the general population of L.A., as well as the entire show; (versus a show where 90% of the non-cops are harden criminals and all the scenes are about cops versus these criminals,,,,,which would make for a really 'bummer dude' of a show). PS: one issues that leads to a lot of debate is how to handle mental health issues; sometimes a cop is needed; if a city\county changes how these are treated (first send in non-cops \ mental health professionals) and cops are called only when a situation turns violent (or to some activist 'really' violent),,,, that could lead to more harm for both the public, those living with the person with mental health issues, and the one with the issues. I.e. timing is critical,,,,.
  23. I read what Tom wrote and that is how I recall the ending; Scarlett at least says she loves Rhett. While that may be true or not, one thing we do know is that she no longer loves Wilkes. I.e. she has no plan to divorce Rhett and marry Wilkes, but instead wants to continue on with Rhett. Rhett reject her. The reason given for him ending the relationship in Tom's post make sense to me, but I wonder if they are realistic, especially to those that view Scarlett as now a strong, independent, and capable women. I.e. the wife \ partner Rhett had always desired.
  24. Of course I can't speak for how someone else reacts to a character in a movie (i.e. Ms. Johnson). Who is that analysis from? Hattie herself?
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...