slaytonf

You're speaking of PCs, I assume. I have a Mac. There is something recommended for us eccentrics, and it's called repairing disk permissions. I don't know if this is the same or analogous, but it gets my sluggish PowerBook running somooth. But still, what is Java for? Is it for opening documents, pdfs, and videos? like Adobe?

You know, I just occurred to me, Mel Brooks should produce "Springtime For Hitler" on Broadway. If it's as good as the little snippets we get in the movie, It should be a smash hit. Of course, there's no Dick Shawn anymore.

You are not alone.

Not her.

Yes, it does, now that you mention it. Of course, it's another fine lady.

If everyone is so down on Java, what is it's use?

I have had a cold. . . .stand back. . . .chooo!

Looks like you got her. While we wait for official confirmation:

Seems like it's taking foooreeever to navigate the pages.

Julie Andrews.

You have the system down, man. I imagined it was a photo from a pre-film career, it looked vaudvillian to me.

TCM has spotlighted this funny and forgotten comedy duo before. And it's just fine they're doing it again. Two films they're in I like are Dixiana and Rio Rita.

Hey that's right! Congrats, Dobbs!

That's her! And him?:

Here's a fine lady:

i think Mr. Dobbs meant that you can google "Conspiracy of Hearts" to see if any pics come up that resemble the movie you have in mind.

But. . . .but. . . .that's not his upper lip!

From the way I've seen Hitchcock's creative process described, you can be confident that the film you see is the film he intended it to be. Aside from the tacked-on ending for the European Vertigo discussed here, the only other instance I know of Hitchcock accepted anything he didn't plan for a movie was a similar tacked-on ending for Psycho, where we get the internal monologue of Norman Bates, which he considered superfluous. We have seen on TCM Hitchcock himself describing how he used source material. He read it for plot elements, and characters. Then he went ahead and did what he wanted to. That's why it's not necessary to worry much about the source, even if Hitchcock lifted directly from it, he wouldn't have done so if it didn't conform to his vision. A good way to see how he worked is to read Cornell Woolrich's Rear Window, and compare it to the movie. Woolrich's story is a straightforward thriller. Hitchcock adds romance, the sub plots, and the voyeurism elements.

Hey Kidd_Dabb, was I right? Is this Eddy Foy, Jr.?:

Is it? This is what I get from the source of the pic: The dog's name is in quotes, so I can't be cretain. Here's the site: http://www.playbill.com/news/article/94590-Leapin-Lizards-Annie-Is-Back-on-Tour-With-a-Fresh-Approach-and-a-New-Song

>LiamCasey: >I sure as heck don't know who is playing Sandy! Oh, c'mon, guess!

No, the dog! the dog!:

Yup. Obvious. twinkeee!

Based on how Hitchcock said he used his source material, you can depend on anything in the movie as part of his creation, whether it's in the source or not, and it can be discussed with reference to his intentions.

Thank you. I like it, too.