JarrodMcDonald

I don't know about differences in their accents, but they could easily have played sisters on film...twins even.

I'm glad they're spending a day showing her movies...I watched PSYCHE 59 earlier and thought she was very interesting in it. Pat Neal was excellent as always. SE reminds me of Katharine Ross, in terms of appearance.

I love how inventive they were with the bugs. I am sure they had fun planning that movie and filming it.

According to dictionary.com, the definition for RIB as a verb means 'to tease or make fun of' something. It comes from the Americanism of the 1920s, 'rib-tickle.' Now, in terms of nouns, the word RIB has the meaning of 'wife' which comes from Genesis in the Old Testament of the Bible. Since writer Ruth Gordon was an early feminist, we know that the title ADAM'S RIB means ADAM'S WIFE. But using the verb-based definition, we can say that the title also means ADAM'S JOKE. Is it the sport of most good men to make fun of their wives? Does Spencer Tracy's character, Adam, make fun of his wife, Amanda? Does this transcend the bounds of good taste? Does this transcend the home and find its way into the courtroom where both happen to work as lawyers and where both ultimately have a major showdown...? Who do you think really wins this battle of the sexes in terms of performance on film? Tracy or Hepburn? Or is one so busy laughing that (s)he does not take Gordon's story seriously?

Nobody's mentioned his larger-than-life role as the grandfather in THE GREEN YEARS. He was nominated for an Oscar for that film as Best Supporting Actor. His performance is just wonderful. Who wouldn't enjoy having a crazy, lovable grandpa like him! Incidentally, I just finished watching OVER 21...and I really liked it. I can see why he was chosen to play the newspaper boss...it is a continuation of the kinds of roles he did in those Jean Arthur vehicles. Again, he plays the squeaky third wheel in a love-relationship (this time with Irene Dunne & Alexander Knox) and provides some of the best comic relief the movies have ever seen.

With PICNIC? I'll have to keep that in mind!

ITA. They're both so perfect in it. I was looking at clips of the remake, and one thing that makes it a product of 1994 (not comparatively more innocent 1951) is that there are locker room shots of the men really showing off their six-packs. Beefcake is used to sell the remake, even though it is marketed as a family flick. In 1951, that was not deemed necessary.

Thanks for the reference. I will keep my eyes peeled for it.

Thank you! I think the original ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD greatly benefits from its roster of character actors: Lewis Stone, Spring Byington and Ellen Corby.

Filed Under: *STORIES OF ANGELS* Today's picks: *TENTH AVENUE ANGEL (1948)* & *ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD (1951)* Tenth Avenue Angel is a story that chronicles the life and family of a girl named Flavia Mills. It was released in 1948 and stars Margaret O?Brien. The film presents life among Depression-era folks that live on 10th Avenue in New York (a place known as "Hell's Kitchen?). O?Brien is a tenement dweller that gets involved in the life an ex-convict, played by George Murphy. But her efforts to help him go straight, and promote a blossoming romance with lovely Angela Lansbury, hit some roadblocks. (Source: Answers.com) Angels in the Outfield is a 1951 sports comedy starring Paul Douglas and Janet Leigh. It was directed by Clarence Brown. Douglas plays the foul-mouthed manager of the Pittsburgh Pirates. They are in last place. But one night, while wandering through Forbes Field, he is accosted by the voice of an angel. The angel hints at having been a ballplayer on Earth and soon begins bestowing miracles upon the Pirates. There is a condition, however: the manager must stop swearing and fighting. Bing Crosby has a cameo in the film. He was a part owner of the Pirates at the time. (Source: Wikipedia)

Good question. It's a story about injustice.

I wonder if the ants crawled under the seats during the scary parts.

I like his work in GEORGE WASHINGTON SLEPT HERE, going up against Jack Benny. Hilarious! And he also goes up against Tallulah Bankhead in A ROYAL SCANDAL. Benny and Bankhead were notorious scene-stealers but matched with Coburn, they hardly stand a chance!

Hehe..it should be a fun evening, that's for sure!

On March 12, TCM will air THEM!, an early science fiction film produced by Warner Brothers in 1954. Based on an original story by George Yates, it depicts a man?s encounter with giant ants caused by radiation. THEM! was one of the original ?nuclear monster? tales. More specifically, it was the first ?big bug? film. Since its initial release by Warners, it has become known as one of the very best examples of science fiction from the 1950s. The film begins with New Mexico police investigating a series of mysterious disappearances and deaths near Alamogordo. They discover a little girl wandering the desert, mute and in a state of shock. More mysterious deaths and disappearances occur, and there seems to be no explainable cause. Then, halfway into the film, the giant ants appear. The cast includes Edmund Gwenn, James Arness (of GUNSMOKE fame), and Fess Parker (from DAVY CROCKETT). THEM! was nominated for a Special Effects Oscar.

I think you have to emote true to the character. If you're playing someone with a history of being on Prozac, then you have to give a more subdued, depressed, restricted performance. But if you are playing someone like Al Capone or Hannibal Lecter, a character with no boundaries, then you do have to chew the scenery, because that is the way he carries himself and to downplay it would not be realistic.

THE DOCTOR AND THE GIRL is a dramatic role, no comedy. He was great in both kinds of roles: serious and whimsical. I also like his portrayal in the Bette Davis-Olivia De Havilland picture IN THIS OUR LIFE. It is suggested that his uncle character has been sexually abusing his niece, played by Davis. He and Davis chew some of the scenery and swallow the rest of it whole. They are so bad they're great!

Well, in a way Selznick is right...it does sort of drag during the long funeral scene. When the women come in and cry in front of the picture, it's all a very nice sentiment, but the camera does not need to hold on them for two minutes of crying...that little bit should've been edited down to twenty seconds. Still, it was unprofessional of Selznick to suggest trimming the film, especially when Kurosawa was about to receive special recognition for it.

We sort of had a similar conversation recently about Steiger in THE BIG KNIFE. It's interesting... Let's pretend you're an actor and you get a script in which the stage direction says 'chew the scenery, go over the top.' And you go to the director, and you say, am I really supposed to go all out mad here? And the director says, yes, unleash the inner beast. So, you prepare, they call 'action,' and you do the best monster on film that ever was performed. Months later, when the movie opens, the only thing critics can say is that you didn't show restraint and control your performance. It seems like if you get this type of part, like March does in INHERIT THE WIND, you get an impossible task, in more ways than one. I remember reading that Diane Ladd was scrutinized for her Oscar nominated role in WILD AT HEART because she played it so outrageously. So, to quell the critics, and convince them she's a diverse actress, she took on a do-gooder role as Sean Young's subdued mother in A KISS BEFORE DYING. There is just as much trickery involved in playing a 'muted' role as there is in playing something from A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.

Yes, it's the whole package of illusion...the myth that a movie star's life is perfect...but easy street has potholes.

I like him in BALL OF FIRE. He's just fun. And I love his routines as the flustered restauranteur in NEVER SAY GOODBYE with Errol Flynn.

When I watch the film, I am usually busy thinking about the actors' respective screen personas. I also think about their real-life politics and religious backgrounds. All that goes into or against the casting and their ability to carry off these roles. I think Stanley Kramer gives the more liberal role to Tracy on purpose, because in real life, Tracy is a Catholic and more conservative by nature. So he has to stretch himself and situate the character a certain way in his mind as he plays it. Meanwhile, March was Presbyterian and very liberal in real life. He also seems cast against type, given the much more 'traditional' role of the bible-thumping attorney. Then, thrown into this mix you have Gene Kelly in a straight dramatic role, also cast against type. Ultimately, I think March wins the contest, because as a real-life liberal he can skillfully parody and subvert the life of a devout but narrow-minded church-goer. Tracy's own real-life masculinity prevents him from playing his character in any sort of homosexual context, which is implied in the script between his character and Kelly's serpentine reporter, with whom he shares a room.

Thanks, wouldbe, for your interesting comments. It leads one to wonder if we tend to like whatever version we see first, just because it's the 'original' time that we are experiencing the story. I have flip-flopped on my favorite version of LITTLE WOMEN. I watched the Hepburn version first and when I saw the Allyson version, I thought it was somewhat 'off.' But then I watched the remake again about six months later and appreciated it more than the first one. Maybe the way to look at HIGH SIERRA and COLORADO TERRITORY is to try and see if there are any significant changes in the way the story is told...since it is a shift in genre. But since the same director (Walsh) helms both projects, we can observe whether or not he has matured as a director and now emphasizes different aspects of the basic story that he neglected in the earlier effort.

I'm glad this came up today. Thanks for this conversation. I just called one of the individuals that handles his estate. We'll see what her investigation turns up...