Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

slaytonf

Members
  • Content Count

    8,308
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by slaytonf

  1. It was a choice of accepting those roles or not working. No you don't. The movie is a satire of racist stereotyping, breaking them and turning them on their heads. That is what Mel Brooks made the movie to do. Well, that makes it all right.
  2. The only ones allowed to do that being conservatives. Right-wingers, already knowing everything, can't be educated.
  3. Which naturally makes repudiation of prejudice in movies illegitimate. So unless you mark every instance of prejudice in movies in criticism of it, you cannot criticize it at all. I expect that would take about five years of solid programming to accomplish that goal. Though it would probably be difficult to tell the difference from regular programming.
  4. That's good to consider. It's true you have director's and art directors and costumers and such. You also have to think about his input on the dance sequences. Dancing and singing was his core identity, and I'm sure whether it's Hermes Pan, or George Stevens or whoever he's working with, Fred Astaire was the controlling authority. His popularity was huge, and so was his power. As an illustration, consider his requirement that he always be shot in full while he was dancing.
  5. June Christy is the best evidence I know of the existence of angels. What else but an angel come to earth to grace us could account for her voice? The song is titled "This Time the Dream's on Me": The movie is about rekindling something that used to be, but ended because of--what?--someone not holding up their end, or not being where they should have been. And that someone regrets being undependable, and not having understood the value of what was. And there's the sense of the promise that things can be set right. And maybe they don't end up together. . . .hey, wait. That'
  6. Indeed. The rubric of which should be, that it is not what you think of it, but what the object of the practice (any practice) thinks of it.
  7. It's because of the tribute to Bill Robinson with Astaire in blackface, and uncharacteristic (for Robinson) garb.
  8. You can watch it on the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/AlfredHitchcockNotorious1946_201904 or dailymotion (probably with commercials): https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x21hehg or YouTube (one of many postings): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IrJTsewjD0
  9. It's a good thing Madeleine Carroll is so beautiful, otherwise she would have been upstaged by her dresses.
  10. What's not to like about Karl Marx's head coming out of the mist vomiting guns?
  11. At least you have Charlotte Rampling to wait the Covid out with.
  12. The man is not kissing her head, but resting his against hers. The woman looks like Joan Fontaine. And the chin looks like Robert Mitchum. But they never appeared in a movie together. The pic of Telly Savalas is from The Dirty Dozen (1967). The woman is Dora Reisser. The man in the cap looks like Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. to me. But don't hold me to it.
  13. No need to defend John Agar. He was a solid actor with a number of good roles. But even John Wayne made some bad movies.
  14. Moses to Pharaoh: Let my people go. Pharaoh to Moses: You will have to pry them from my cold, dead hands.
  15. Maybe it was Agar who needed the paycheck. But seriously, how did you do that copyright symbol? So cool.
  16. You can search the other actors' names and find photos of them to see which is the one you are looking for..
  17. We don't see his movies so much now as some years ago. Weren't most of his movies at Paramount? Maybe that's why. I'm sure lots of them can be seen on other venues, paid or not.
  18. Wasn't he always cookin'?
  19. Another movie, like Frankenstein (1931), that is a victim of its own success. It spawned an entire genre of take-offs and sequels, fun enough to watch in their own right, but which were essentially campy exploitation that robbed the original of due respect for its more sober elements. A fine movie, exciting, well-crafted, and at times moving. The identification of the scientist (Dr. Serizawa) who develops the doomsday weapon with the monster, who both share the same fate, sends a powerful cautionary message. Its open discussion of atomic weapons and parallels with Hiroshima and Nagasaki mu
  20. With so much anxiety-inducing wokeness all around, it was regrettable you were expending any on a false perception. It was my aim to ally your fears so none of your anxiety would be wasted on faux-wokness, so that you may more appropriately direct it at real sources of woke concern.
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...