MyFavoriteFilms
-
Posts
3,069 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by MyFavoriteFilms
-
-
How can you say THE AWFUL TRUTH from 1937 had excellent writing when it was the same writing, from the original source material, that was produced in the mid-20s. Good screwball comedy was developed on stage and back in the silent film days, even before the term was coined. I think you are biased in favor of _your_ favorite films from the 30s...but again, films from that decade do not hold a monopoly on the genre.
Personally, I prefer Marion Davies' screwball comedies from the 20s. She has been credited as being the first screwball comedienne.
-
Does anyone watch a channel called THIS? My cable provider just picked it up, and when I looked it up on wiki, I learned that it's been around since November 2008.
It's hardly a TCM or FMC, but what's interesting is that it is owned by MGM. So it gets access to a good library of classic film titles. It is commercial driven like AMC (and I know people won't like that aspect of it). But they have been airing films that do not get shown on other cable stations including TCM...and films that sometimes are not on DVD.
I don't mind recording THIS on DVR, then watching a movie later when I can bypass the ads. They also show some interesting TV movies and classic TV shows that are not on TVLand. I notice that like FMC, they have their favorite performers whose feature films and telefilms get shown more frequently.
These are scheduled in the next few weeks:
11.10
BIG HOUSE U.S.A. (with Ralph Meeker & Broderick Crawford)
RETURN TO PARADISE (starring Gary Cooper)
11.11
OPERATION BIKINI
PORK CHOP HILL (Gregory Peck & George Peppard)
THE LAST TIME I SAW ARCHIE (Robert Mitchum & Jack Webb)
633 SQUADRON (Cliff Robertson)
11.12
BEACH PARTY
I'LL TAKE SWEDEN (Bob Hope)
SALT AND PEPPER
COLD TURKEY (Dick Van Dyke & Bob Newhart)
11.13
DIARY OF A MADMAN
THE MAGIC SWORD
HALLS OF ANGER
11.15
SEPARATE TABLES (Burt Lancaster, Rita Hayworth & Deborah Kerr)
FIVE MILES TO MIDNIGHT (Sophia Loren & Anthony Perkins)
11.16
KINGS GO FORTH
A CHILD IS WAITING (Judy Garland & Burt Lancaster)
11.17 (several Burt Lancaster flicks)
FORT YUMA
GERONIMO
APACHE
THE TRAIN
LAWMAN
VERA CRUZ
11.18
GUNSIGHT RIDGE (Joel McCrea)
CANNON FOR CORDOBA
UNDERGROUND
11.19
THE BIG KNIFE (Ida Lupino & Jack Palance)
TOPKAPI
11.20
THE NAKED STREET (Farley Granger & Anne Bancroft)
11.22
BORN WILD
11.23
TOWN WITHOUT PITY (Kirk Douglas)
CAST A GIANT SHADOW (Another Kirk Douglas film)
WHAT DID YOU DO IN THE WAR, DADDY?
-
Some of them get reclusive.
Barbara Stanwyck shut herself off, too (after her home was burglarized). Greta Garbo was not the only one who wished to be left alone.
-
I don't think it's a classic. I think it's a historical document on how not to make a film.
A film like this would not be made today (politics aside), because it is reckless with demographics. You cannot market something to the widest consumer audience if you offend an entire race. So from a business standpoint, this type of film is a no-no.
-
I am going to disagree about the title change.
I am going to sound like a radical.
But I put myself into Griffith's frame of mind.
And honestly, after the film, I felt as if my own mind had been infected.
I think the title means: BIRTH OF A (BLACK) NATION. And that is what Griffith was 'warning' against.
And I am going to be just as radical with my next statement.
Ready?
LOL
I don't think this film has revolutionary camera techniques.
The camera is stationary for 98% of the shots. Only in one sequence, did he move the camera to give us a panoramic view of fighting on the battlefield.
In every other instance, the actors and animals came into the camera view. The entire thing, interiors (especially) and exteriors were very stagey.
The only thing I think this film accomplishes is that it gives us an 'epic' story in an 'epic' film. But many moments are over-punctuated and scenes are often repeated and are continually dragged out.
He does not cut to continuity. He intercuts, almost as if he is bored with the current sequence and before he finishes it, he introduces another simultaneous sequence which he then cuts in and out of with editing. Does this heighten tension? Does it make the story more interesting? I don't think it does.
My next radical statement...
Here goes:
After I watched it in normal speed (sound muted so I could concentrate on visuals),
I rewatched it on the DVR speed at 'FF 1.'
I think it plays better on a quicker speed.
LOL
Next thought:
Lillian Gish was cast because there had to be a sweet girl the good klansmen captured from the big bad mulatto (played by a German).
Gish supposedly spent years looking for a lost Griffith film that showed a white man and a black man kissing on the battlefield.
There was a scene where two white men in this film lay down together on the field, one North and one South, and put their heads together as tho they are about to kiss.
In the lost film Gish searched for, I think it would've only damaged Griffith's reputation more. His idea is that liberty and brotherhood can only occur after war has been waged, and that the black man is the devil that must get the kiss of death.
Back to the title:
I know the original material was titled THE KLANSMAN (singular) but Griffith presents it in the plural form, so that title would've been wrong for his film to keep.
Final thought in this post:
It would be wrong to apply today's political correctness on to this film. We have to dislike it (or like it) based on its technique, more than its philosophy. If we apply political correctness on to it and expect to look at it through a modern sensibility, we are making the experience anachronistic.
Again, we need to watch it in Griffith's frame of mind. And it's a disturbing frame of mind that makes one feel rather sick afterward. And yes, he seems to use a lot of historical fact, but his presentation of it is biased, is propaganda, is fictional and is insane.
-
Most critics consider BRINGING UP BABY the ultimate screwball comedy.
Recently, I watched HOLIDAY, which is a remake and was done right before BABY. I actually prefer it to BABY. I think the supporting characters are given more to do. And there are exceptional second-tier actors like Lew Ayres, Binnie Barnes and Edward Everett Horton. I think the ultimate double feature would be HOLIDAY followed by THE PHILADELPHIA STORY.
-
Even if you can show everything and you do show everything, it should fit the theme or thesis of the film. That goes for profane language, too. We don't need to hear every character curse a blue streak, unless it's an environment where you would expect to hear that. For instance, all those war movies of the 40s and 50s have the male characters speaking in the cleanest of language. That is definitely unrealistic.
I would also expect to hear guys in a locker room scene, like in baseball dramas, use foul language. To have them speak like perfect gentlemen is laughable. There should be a few crude or suggestive remarks, especially when Vera-Ellen walks by the field in BIG LEAGUER. Or when team owner Sara Allgood unexpectedly bursts into the locker room (twice!) in IT HAPPENED IN FLATBUSH, they should be scrambling for their clothes and cussing up a storm. This is where the code interferes with logical storytelling and true characterization.
-
One of her last public appearances was in 1974 at the birthday party of her buddy Roz Russell. Both of them still looked pretty good considering their age. Joan had considerable plastic surgery done during the last ten or so years of her life but those glamorous cheekbones were her trademark up till the end. She didn't look as horrific as Bette did in later years.
-
The film THE AWFUL TRUTH, considered a quintessential screwball comedy from 1937, stars Cary Grant and Irene Dunne. It is a remake. In fact, that was the third time it had been made: previous efforts included a silent film in 1925, and a talkie starring Ina Claire in 1929. It was taken from a stage play by Arthur Richman. So, screwball really has its roots on the stage, going back to before the depression.
This story, AWFUL TRUTH, was made a fourth time. In 1953, Jane Wyman and Ray Milland did a new version called LET'S DO IT AGAIN. But we can hardly fault Columbia for reusing the formula, when it was already old hat in 1937.
-
Yes, Hughes was not as focused on RKO as he could've been...but I do think he gave it a fair amount of attention. He was usually replacing directors and re-editing films that featured his favorite actresses. Then, there were the lawsuits. It probably took up more of his time than he planned to give it.
-
Yes, Carolco had a meteoric rise and an equally meteoric burn-out. Extravagantly over-budgeted productions based on weak, underdeveloped scripts. The hits they did have were because of special effects and action scenes.
-
I think the production code was very much aligned to Louis Mayer's personal philosophy. And it was very compatible with Walt Disney's views, too. Their studios seem to really thrive during the era of the code. Their product is very mainstream and very profitable. So, the code helped them to solidify a certain brand.
On the negative side, Hollywood was not allowed to take risks with more controversial material. Those things were usually left to the stage. Film adaptations (like in the case of Tennessee Williams' plays) were usually diluted.
-
You may not have a 'hallelujah moment' if you see A MILLIONAIRE FOR CHRISTY again. Who knows. But I think it's a slightly above-average comedy that had the potential to be really great. I wouldn't go so far as to say Eleanor Parker was miscast. It was probably an experiment for her to see if the public would buy her in a light frothy comedy, and unfortunately they did not. She found success in other genres.
-
See, to me it doesn't matter if they're remakes. It means that the studio still found them profitable to keep producing in the 50s and 60s. The musical CHICAGO is a remake, but are we going to say that the musical genre was dead or 'spent' like you said and that it could not experience a resurgence?
I think your definition of screwball as being applied to films from the 1930s is mistaken. The 1930s do not have a monopoly on screwball comedy. Maybe we can say the 30s gave us Depression era comedies, but not all of those were screwball comedies (like TUGBOAT ANNIE or MIN & BILL).
Judy Holliday's films are definitely screwball comedies, because they deal with social conditions of her era, in an exaggerated, playful sense.
As for Lombard, her final film was a cross between political satire and screwball comedy (TO BE OR NOT TO BE). I don't think she would've done dramas for the rest of her career. And we don't know if she would've gone into television...not everyone did. My guess is that she would've lasted till the early 60s, like Claudette Colbert did. Jean Harlow would've become a much-in-demand character actress once her youth and sexy looks faded.
-
The original script for A MILLIONAIRE FOR CHRISTY was bought in 1948. It was probably written earlier than that by Robert Harari.
Harari was turning out screwball comedies as far back as 1937. It is very possible that CHRISTY was created back then and intended for someone like Carole Lombard.
-
One thing I want to add about screwball comedy...Judy Holliday did not really burst on to the movie scene until 1949 (in a supporting role). She wins an Oscar in 1950 for a major screwball role in BORN YESTERDAY. She continued to make pictures as a screwball comedienne until 1960. So the genre did not evaporate. It's just that actresses like Harlow and Lombard had died too young, and the surviving ones were aging and heading into television or back to the stage (or into retirement).
I think we can say that Marilyn Monroe and Sheree North were doing screwball comedy at Fox in the 50s and early 60s. In fact, Sheree and Betty Grable (in Grable's last picture) are completely doing a screwball routine in HOW TO BE VERY, VERY POPULAR. Sheree is also a screwball dame in THE LIEUTENANT WORE SKIRTS.
In 1959's A PRIVATE'S AFFAIRS, there is a great deal of screwball comedy in this military picture by Fox. It is Barbara Eden's turn to carry on the tradition with Jesse Royce Landis (who is quite a bit older).
Screwball did not die in the 1940s.
Another example: Greer Garson doing screwball comedy in both JULIA MISBEHAVES and THE LAW AND THE LADY.
-
The point is that Christina considers herself a victim (and survivor) of abuse. That is how she has identified herself. Her sisters disagree with that assessment.
There are a lot of other elements to the story, though. She was competing with her mother for attention in the film and television industry. That could not have been easy, and I'm sure they had quarrels about that.
Christina's first marriage did not last very long. It's the only marriage that occurred when Joan was still alive. Maybe she feels her mother was responsible for the breakup of that marriage, who knows. There was bad blood. And she has defined her whole life by it. It's a sad story on many levels.
I think it should've been handled within the family. The public did not ever need to know these alleged details. And we don't know if Joan would've even dignified the claims with a response. She may not have gone on the talk show circuit like Bette did. She may have just withdrew more from the public eye than she already had.
-
I agree that it was not the right role for Una Merkel. I am sure she had deleted scenes. I bet there was a scene where Carlson calls the office back east to verify Parker's employment. That does not appear, it is just mentioned.
The scenes at the hotel are not bad. I liked how one minute Fred is into her, then the next minute he's a heel and is back with the other woman. That sort of works for me, even though we are guaranteed that he really loves Parker.
The scene where he smokes her out of the bathroom at the train station was trying too hard for laughs. But the energy was up again and things were moving full steam ahead until the last frame.
-
I don't think Arturo has seen all of Lucille Ball's films from the late 40s. If he had seen HER HUSBAND'S AFFAIRS, he would know that her performance as a screwball comedienne was not just limited to EASY TO WED during this period. Plus, she was cast in EASY TO WED by MGM because they considered her the heir to Jean Harlow (she was given Jean's part from the original LIBELED LADY). There was no one else on the lot who could do that kind of comedy like she could, or at least do it so well. Harry Cohn recognized that too, and when he signed after she finished at MGM, he made a point to put her in comedies (with the exception of THE MAGIC CARPET). These were not domestic comedies, they were screwball comedies.
Even if we offer a definition of screwball comedy, we will still be able to see that Lucille Ball's films from the late 40s and early 50s were of this ilk. The obvious exceptions are MAGIC CARPET and the film noir projects she did like THE DARK CORNER (though she is seen as a screwball type secretary) and LURED (truly a dramatic role).
-
I think you're wrong on this, Arturo.
Colbert and Loy had aged and were taking on more matronly roles. Audiences would no longer believe them as daffy heroines. But Lucy was someone they still bought the shtick with, due to her immense popularity in those pictures with Bob Hope around this time (FANCY PANTS and SORROWFUL JONES). Also, Columbia was selling Lucy in vehicles like HER HUSBAND'S AFFAIRS, MISS GRANT TAKES RICHMOND and THE FULLER BRUSH GIRL. Lucy was hitting her comic stride and this was a very successful phase of her career. Lucy was also doing a hit radio sitcom called My Favorite Husband, which became the basis for her first television series.
The other thing that was happening is that screwball comedy was not dying, it was simply transferring over to TV. I Love Lucy is about a screwball chick's hijinks to get into her husband's act. It did not become a family comedy until the baby was born and the landlords were more integrated as an extended family unit. Nonetheless, Lucy never lost her tendency for screwball comedy and those zany antics kept coming.
Roz Russell was trying to find more serious, stage-based properties. However, she did do an occasional screwball comedy in the 50s...A WOMAN OF DISTINCTION also happens to feature Lucy in a comic cameo bit. But Roz would've been wrong for A MILLIONAIRE FOR CHRISTY. This female lead is supposed to come across as a loose cannon and someone whose sanity is questioned. Roz specialized in feminist roles and was always self-assured.
Jean Arthur was heading back to the stage, because she was afraid she no longer photographed well. She would only do one more feature, and it was a western, not a comedy.
The only other person I can see working in CHRISTY, aside from Lucille Ball, is possibly Hedy Lamarr.
However, I think Columbia should've bought it and remade it later in the decade with Judy Holliday. It would've been a hit for her and Jack Lemmon.
-
When I said 'big' I meant as famous as Monroe and Taylor. I think you are taking the word in another direction. LOL Hughes was not the first nor the last mogul to exploit female stars and sell cheesecake to audiences.
I think we agree that Hughes lacked vision and was not able to structure RKO for long-term success.
Some of the films made during his time at the studio were very good. When I watch them, I enjoy the fact that they could not have come from any other Hollywood honcho.
The one mistake I think he made, which others will disagree, is that I don't think he should've edited THE FRENCH LINE to appease the censors. He's the one with that crass attitude and ballsy showmanship that should've bent the production code into a pretzel.
-
I know you didn't mention Bette...I was trying to discuss a few points that had been recently posted in the thread. Sorry about that.
I am sure Joan went too far in the disciplining of her kids. Supposedly, Bing Crosby did, too. We weren't there. We don't know the extent of it. But I do think it's a raw deal to say Joan was harsh on the older ones and treated the younger ones differently. There was probably a lot of confusion and frustration in that household. And Joan probably shouldn't have adopted so many, since she had Hollywood, husbands and a soft drink company to worry about in addition to parenting.
I did read some information on Christina Crawford. She seems like she's had some struggles in life. Beyond life with her mother. She has three failed marriages. She lost some high profile jobs. She had a stroke when she was in her 40s and took five years to recover. She spent her later years running a business in Idaho. She's gotten involved in regional politics. In short, she sounds like she is her mother's daughter...a survivor, who has worked her way up on her own terms. And that is how it should be.
-
Maybe I liked it because I was feeling a bit depressed yesterday and I needed a good laugh.
The bathroom scene was an excuse to separate them long enough for Carlson to whisk him off to the wedding. And of course, for her to follow them and break up the marriage before it even happened.
I agree that the voice-over scenes where she heard Una Merkel's character goad her into pursuing a rich man were a bit silly. But I think that's because Una was cut out of the rest of the film and she's rather high-billed in this film. I think some of her scenes may have wound up on the cutting room floor, so they kept repeating that voice over to keep her character alive a bit longer. It could've been eliminated. It should've been more on Parker's character being caught up in the moment and letting things go too far before telling them about the inheritance.
-
I am going to disagree about Tierney and Power in these roles. I think Fred is perfectly cast. It's a throwback to the types of films he did with Carole and Claudette. He is well within his element.
When I watched this film I kept thinking about how Carole Lombard's career may have been if she had lived a long life. What kinds of films would she have made in the early 50s? I am sure she would have had more screwball comedy scripts tossed her direction.
With Harlow and Lombard dead, Lucille Ball was the heir apparent to this type of material. Not Eleanor Parker. But Lucy was under contract to Columbia at this time and she was getting ready to have her first baby. She and Fred would work together later in the 50s on an episode of The Lucy-Desi Comedy Hour.
Eleanor Parker..No Actress for Comedy
in General Discussions
Posted
No, Arturo. HOLIDAY is considered a screwball comedy as well as a romantic comedy as well as a comedy-drama. It encapsulates several subgenres and genre-hybrids. You are right that it was produced after she left RKO, for Columbia.
A film does not have to be completely 'manic' to be classified as a screwball comedy.