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. I agree with a lot of what you have summed up with regards to the meaning of the story. All I can add is that the speech given by Peabody relates to this clash of the two different types worlds; the west of guns and violence and the west of LAW (and also the two different types of men). This is one of my favorite westerns for this reason. I don't think Ford was trying "to rob Ranse of his dignity and worth". In the scene before this they talk about all the great things Ranse has done to build the state. Ranse was a key leader in making the state the place it was; a place where men and women could raise their families in peace and harmony. The line 'nothing is too good for the man that shot Liberty Valance' is just to remind us that the Toms of this world are ALSO important and should never be forgotten. As for Hallie you have that down pat also and her choice of men mades this clear. Of course this might be my own romantic notion but if Ranse was gunned down, I don't think Hallie would have stayed with Tom anyway. She was moving from one world type to another and she would of just found another man like Ranse. While the pickens might be slim there would be other men like Ranse as the west moved towards civilization. Violence, war, conflict,,, these are all necessary of course so there can be civilization. Both Tom and Ranse were necessary to change the 'old west'. I don't get the impression one man type was better than the other. They just served different purposes and some women love one type or another. As for my use of 'of' instead of 'have'. Bad habit and I don't mind being corrected. Hey I need it!
  2. Come on even his best friend is ashamed by Tom's actions. Buring down his own house? That isn't a childish act??? Getting drunk and having a good cry is one thing, but Tom destroyed his way of life all for a girl? Note that his friend ALSO is the only witness to Tom killing Valance. To me that is key to the plot. His friend observed Tom decent into hell and he saw him climb back out. As for Hallie; Of course she knew how she felt. What of it? Are you saying that if a man says I'll burn down my house if you don't return my love the women should say 'OK then'? Again, Tom treats romance and love like a 15 year old schoolboy. A real man would of felt sad, but moved on. What would of stunk more is for Hallie to marry a man she didn't love. But I guess to those that hero worship Wayne they cannot understand how any women couldn't love Wayne. Tom was NOT Wayne. Tom was a character in a movie and Wayne is an actor playing that character.
  3. Thanks for providing some 'criteria' so there can be a fruitful discussion. I agree with all the points you have made and these (as well as others) are the reasons I also tend to enjoy movies made in the 30s (especially pre-code), and 40s more than the 50s. Of course others have used the frist 3 points as reasons why they don't like 30s movies. 1 - The studios had such a strong style (say Warners compared to MGM), that there was a lack of distinction between many of the movies 2- Same character actors in the same movies over and over again - thus more lack of distinction. 3 - B pictures were cheaply made and sometimes it shows. Rushed production, flawed editing and other quality issues because Hollywood was just trying to crank them out. But as I noted in the "I hate 30s movies' thread while the above has merit the 30s produced so many movies that even if only 1 out of 8 were 'gems' that is a lot of gems and it is these movies that I enjoy the most. As for the hair styles? I agree with you there but really it isn't fair to site Jane Wyman, is it? That has to be one of the ugliest hairstyles of any era! ha ha. My favorites noirs were also done in the 40s but like I said the 50s still had some very good ones.
  4. I think you have too romantic of a view of the Wayne role in this movie. Wayne is a flawed hero. Now these are the roles I like Wayne in best (The Searchers, Red River), but I don't view the roles of the Steward and Wayne characters as a contest on who can be the bigger man. i.e. who is the TRUE hero. In fact the movie exposes the folly in that rather trite POV. They are just different men. Steward is willing to die for what he stands for so he cannot be labeled a coward. Also Steward didn't steal Wayne's women. There is no betrayal (well unless one thinks women are nothing more than property). Hallie's temperment is just more suited to the Steward character. The reaction of Wayne is immature and cowardly - i.e. the act of a teen age kid over losing his first love. What I see going on is that Wayne overcomes these feelings to save the life of a man that he knows offers more to his country than he ever will. This act restores Wayne's honor.
  5. What does a host have to for someone to be a 'fan' of said host? The host is just the host. They are on the screen only around a minute or so between movies and all they do is introduce the movie and provide a few details about the movies (mostly for 'so so' classic movie fans since diehard classic movie fans know most of these details). So the only think I can judge them on is their presentation ability. I really don't see much difference between Ben and Robert but I did see where some of the guest host were rather flat in their delivery.
  6. Thanks for the info. That movie was shown real late on TCM (I'm on the west coast), and I could barely stay awake but the movies was so strange I continued to watch it (well all the good looking young women in the movie helped also!). It was the type of movie where one wouldn't be surprised at what the director might throw out next.
  7. Are you joking or just misinformed? Many fine film noir movies were made during the 50s. Of course maybe you don't like that genre. As someone else also pointed out some very good westerns as well. Hey, I still like the 30s and 40s the best but the 50s still created some fine movies.
  8. He said he liked movies made after 1948 and TCM still shows more of those than any other network.
  9. How can Mike enjoy the movie since it was created by a studio and a studio was a corporation! To some people any and everything done by corporations are evil. That is the black and white world so many live in now.
  10. Well he wasn't killed. I remember seeing him in a movie made during the 60s with Steve Allen as a professer. I cannot remember the movie but it was very, very camp. The movie had a lot of younger women in it and he played the father of a gal and he believed Allen was doing things with his daughter that he shouldn't be doing. Again very camp but some of the scenes were very funny. He did have some very minor roles like that waiter in Ball of Fire but he did them well.
  11. I think your points here related to 30s movies have merit (e.g. mass production, low budget films), but I do think you have overstated the point (e.g. comments like 'on every picture' are just not true since it isn't on EVERY picture', because the credits of say Robin Hood by WB are a lot different then their 'B' picture programmers). So if your point is 'why I don't like MANY 30's movies' I get that. But to me there are still many fine 30s movies. As I said before even if I only enjoy 1 in 8 that is still a lot of 30s films that are worth viewing. Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Aug 12, 2011 7:35 PM
  12. I have to say that I was also surprised to see Ben Johnson given an entire day. Hey, I like a lot of his work but I wouldn't define him as a leading man like some that have not been featured as a star of the month like Leslie Howard, Joel McCrea and others. But it is nice to see a type of actor like Ben get his day in the sun.
  13. I have to admit I'm not one to judge movies made in the last 20 years because I have only seen about 1% of the ones released during this time period. Of course I see some of them on TV but rarely do I watch them (i.e. I might see 10 minutes of them and then I turn to either TCM or the Food network or just play my guitar). So just like the guy that claims to have watched hundreds of movies from the 30s and NOT like them, do people here really watch hundreds of current movies and after sitting and watching them determine they don't like the majority of them? Sorry, but that just sounds like insane behavior to me. i.e. if one knows the odds are low they are going to enjoy something, then why pay to watch it?????
  14. I grew up in So Cal (Seal Beach), in the 60s. Last May the wife and I went to Payson AZ. I really loved the town. How would you compare it to Prescott? (I have been there also but it was over 15 years ago).
  15. I would refine what you said here; I find it hard to believe someone would take the time to watch many, many movies from the 30s and then say that most of the movies they watched were 'crap'. That is the part that is hard for me to believe. Hey, I admit I don't like rap music. I have heard it of course (just driving around on a warm day with the window open!), and it does nothing for me. BUT if someone that did love rap asked me 'but have you heard 'this' or 'that' or ,,,,,' my answer would be NO. Out of the 100s of songs I admit I have only heard maybe 10 or so. That was enough for me. So I just find it very strange that someone would spend so much time (e.g. just that movie list of 10 per year would take about 160 or so hours to view), viewing movies from a period one does NOT like. Even someone that was in a film class wouldn't of had to view THAT many movies as part of their studies. Something fishy here. The funny thing is the general POV has merit; the 30s was a crank them out production period and there are many, many, weak B pictures. But even if one only like 1 out of 8 movies the studio system made during the 30s, that would still be a lot of movies to enjoy.
  16. You watched both version of the Big Sleep and didn't notice that Mrs. Mars was played by two different actresses? There are many more changes than this, but mostly the movie most people have seen (the 1946 release), has some additonal Bogie and Bacall scenes and they have Bacall coming on to Bogie a lot more. Note that in the book Marlow had the hots for Mrs. Mars and not the Bacall character. Hawks and Warner changed since the two got married and thus they wanted to market that. I have created my own version of the movie based on the two version. Trust me, it is the best of them all!
  17. I tend to see the 30s like you do; Yes, a lot of movies were made and many were just 'cranked out' and are thus of low (lower), quality but there were many fine movies made and care was taken on these movies - i.e. they were A pictures and not just low budget B movies made in a few weeks.
  18. As John Lennon said in the song Ballad of John and Yoko; You don't take nothing with you but your soul,,, THINK! Now that is a sound message and one I respect.
  19. Yea, those stinken professors get their mits on too many things. I'm sure there are some in DC. Everyone knows that we need less intellectual people in this country and especially DC! As for The Big Sleep 1945 version. It is my understanding that this is NOT a restoration but instead a completed version. It was shown overseas to the US troops. For marketing reasons Warner decided to wait until WWII was over to release the picture. During this time Bogie and Bacall took off as an "IT" couple. So Warner asked Hawks to re-shoot some scenes to bump up the romance between the two in the movie and the ad campaign's focus was on B and B.
  20. I find the rosebud and the childhood reasons why a rich man wasn't a very nice guy somewhat trite and very conventional. i.e. something I would expect from a studio head or uncreative producer as as way of humanizing Kane for general mass consumption. Like life the film is long and complex but I don't really need some conventional psyche 101 type of reason to justify why Kane did what he did with.
  21. I agree that it is sad that Crosby's music has mostly been left behind and clearly Sinatra his student in many ways passed him in terms of popular culture. Crosby's relax style did work very well with jazz and he had a lot of respect for jazz musicians. He deserves to be one of the incons of 20th century entertainment and he is in my book.
  22. I believe Crosby's film career does eclipsed his musical career in the minds of most people today. How many people today go and buy Crosby's music, say compared to Sinatra? One can say that not many go and buy Crosby's movies either but because of the Road pictures, award winning movies like The Country Girl etc... his movies are more well known than his hit records, excluding White Christmas of course. As for as comparing Monroe and Elvis; both are icons and each more famous today because of factors OTHER than their actual work. Both produced some very good work but the icon status is based mostly on their personal lives and not the legacy of their work in my opinion.
  23. Well whoever owned the rights to the picture had to give their premission to make this so called 'director's cut'. I would hope they did this only for artistic reasons but with two versions there is more money to be made.
  24. I agree that there are some good philosophical points related to what defines an 'innocent' and I'll admit I have a rather harsh POV on this. For example, what should one do when they hear shots? This has happened to be only twice in 50 years and both time I hit the ground. Is the person that goes and runs towards the sound of the shots, instead of taking cover, innocent if they get hit by stray gunfire? I say NO. They are a fool. OK, make that an innocent fool! Now Wesley wasn't a fool but instead just concerned and I would never go as far as saying he was responsible for his dead. Both the actions of Harry and Wesley laed to Wesley's death and the very sad part is all because Wesley cared so much for Harry.
  25. Do you know if actual short story adds anything as to WHY Wesley did wander down to the boat? In the Bogie version his friend, Eddie doesn't just wander down. He hides out on the boat. I.e. he was at the boat to watch out for Harry because he knew Harry was in trouble. Eddie's actions were deliberate. So I just wonder if the actual short story adds anything. I find it hard to believe Wesley just decided to wander down. It is more logical to assume Wesley didn't follow Harry's 'order' (request), to stay away on purpose. Thus his being there wasn't just 'poor timing' but poor decision making (but of course because he believe his friend needed help). In the Bogie version Harry also makes fun of his friend for tagging along. Bogie keeps making fun of his friend with comments like 'happy that you came along'. Of course in the Bogie version the error in judgement by Eddie doesn't result in his death but only a good scare. I can see where Harry cost Wesley his life in that he didn't give him a strong enough warning (in the Bogie version Bogie slaps Eddie and acts really mean to protect Eddie). But the odds are that the more Harry told Wesley the MORE involved Wesley would of got (instead of less). So in some ways that makes your point; that as soon as Harry got involved with killers he had to know someone close to him would be harmed.
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...