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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by slaytonf

  1. It's an involved process.  From the TCM homepage at the bottom click on the CONTACT link.  Then at the bottom of that page, click the Contact Us link.  on that page, in the 'Please choose your category below' box there is a Request a Movie option.

  2. There are a number of adaptations.  I'm assuming the one you're thinking of is the one with Stewart Granger and Eleanor Parker, made in 1952.  Since the TCM Database pages on movies no longer list scheduled air dates, the best you can do is check the Month Schedule at the start (first day) of every month.  Schedules for two or three months ahead are available somewhere, but I don't know where to access them.  Maybe someone who does can post links here.

  3. On 3/18/2021 at 6:12 PM, DickLindsay said:

    WHen I was very young (many years ago), living in New YOrk City, we always had LITTLE NELLIE KELLY on St patricks Day; Don't know why TCM doesn't show it.  its a good little film.

    Little Nellie Kelly (1940) was shown last Wednesday as 8:30 AM, Pacific.

  4. 5 hours ago, Dargo said:

    Now see, what I'm thinkin' here is that IF you just up-tempo and jazz it up a bit, use a full orchestra, AND of course translate the lyrics into English, you'd probably have a big hit on your hands!

    And then...ahem...and then....wait. 

    Now that I think about this some more...eeh, never mind.

    (...once again, sorry slayton...I JUST can't control this sort'a thing sometimes, ya know)  ;)


    You ol' incorrigible card. . . .

  5. Sorry, wrong adjective.  Extraneous.  I was trying to copy italicized text to the title.  But. Titles. Just.  Will.  Only.  Be.  In.  Plain.  Text.  Damn.

    The lady is Kay Francis in Mandalay (1934), which we saw tonight. 

    Noah Webster wasn't completely successful in eradicating French 'u's from American.

    • Like 2
  6. 3 minutes ago, Dargo said:


    (...and btw slayton...thanks so much for excising that oh so needless letter 'u' in your thread's title for me, BUT it appears we Americans ARE supposed to include that superfluous letter in the word "glamour" TOO for some dumb reason!!!) ;)

    Sorry, spurious 'that's'.  Now excised along with the superfluous 'u'.

    • Like 1
  7. Many movie songs have transcended movies and time to take a place in our consciousness, and the consciousness of the world.  I don't need to note any, and anyone could make long list.  But every once in a while I hear a song in a movie that's really good and makes me wonder why it has been forgotten.  I can think of three off the top of my head.  The first is from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968).  It comes at the end of the movie and is called "Doll on a Music Box."  Sung by Sally Ann Howes, it's a lovely, lilting, simple song, yet quite affecting:

    Another I understand why has not gone beyond its moive.  It's not too long, and tied to the action of the movie, but still, I'd like to see someone do something with it.  The song is "I Want it Now!" sung by Julie Dawn Cole in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971):

    The last is my favorite.  It's a killer song sung by the great Lou Rawls called "I'm Satisfied" from the movie Duffy (1968):


  8. 22 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

    1.   Wasn't the gist of the storyline to relate the story of Scarlett O'Hara and how her world(self centered as it was) was turned upside down and how she adapted and endured, but only to wind up not really too much changed for the better in the end?  And not necessarily a condemnation of slavery?  Look.  By the time the book and movie hit the public, most Americans knew of the blot on America's history slavery was.  And I don't think anyone with a working brain thought the movie "endorsed" slavery.  And just how would displaying ugly scenes of slavery brutality support the treatise of Scarlett's tribulations?  

    2.  Seems to me in the Antebellum South the socio-economic system was based on cotton and tobacco.  Maybe a few other crops.  Slavery was just(to them) a way to produce those resources cheaply.  That to eradicate the practice of slavery and the slave trade was the main cause of the civil war,  that had little bearing on showing the effect the war had on Southern non-combatants(you know, just plain citizens).  One might have thought that the striking scene of Scarlett walking through a train yard littered with the wounded and dying bodies of Confederate soldiers, most who weren't slaveholders to begin with would have proven to people of the folly to defend such a practice as slavery.   And to show how wealthy plantation owners lived in the Antebellum South doesn't mean they "laud" it.  Although I can't say the same for BIRTH OF A NATION. 

    But then it's only one example of "problematic"  film history.  What about westerns?  and the similar(to you) silent endorsement of the treatment of women and Native Americans?  

    Why no outrage about that?  Too small of a BANDWAGON?   That in many old "classic" Westerns prostitutes were "masked" as "saloon girls" who were shown sitting around looking pretty with big smiles on their faces while many smelly, drunken saddle tramps pawed them and bought them drinks(which usually meant two at a time, one for her and one for him of which he'd wind up drinking both)  .  And that those girls had not much other choices in order to survive?   Or else become brood mares for their menfolk?  It all was just another form of the slavery you're so lathered about.  But they're white men and they're just women, so that makes it OK?   And while everyone insists on crying over Japanese citizens being placed into interment camps during WWII(which of course WAS another blot on American history), what about the westward movement of white Europeans (originally) encroaching on indigenous  native land, pushing them off as if the white guys owned it and the placing of those natives in reservations that at best were only twice as miserable as the Japanese camps.  And the fostering the notion that their attempts to save and keep their land made them "murderous savages"?   Who, in reality, were the real savages?   But you know...

    Much of that doesn't bother me since a Western in which the story is of a man trying to leave his past as a gunslinger behind has no connection to the brutal treatment foisted on Native Americans by the White man .  But genocide of indigenous natives doesn't, to some, seem to be as bad or worse than having slaves do all the work.  


    It seems you are using a three-prong strategy of micro-analyzation to obscure the issue, introducing other topics to confuse the discussion, and a tide of words to overwhelm the reader.  All for what?  All to maintain you position that it's wrong to criticize Gone/Wind (1939) for racist content because it takes place in slave times.  Or that it's a love story.  Or that its the story of Scarlett O'Hara.  My comments aren't focused on the movie, but like others it has overt stereotyping, mis-characterization of the conditions of slavery, and, through it's portrayal of plantation society, gives tacit approval of the system.   This allowed southern audiences to feel validated and others to overlook the abomination of slavery due to their racism. Silence gives consent.

    • Like 1
    • Sad 1
  9. 12 hours ago, mrswbw said:

    I am asking that the hosts of TCM not use their platforms to push cultural and/or progressive political agendas.  Please let the viewers enjoy an old film for the simple entertainment value and let the viewer make their own decisions as to what may be offensive to them.  Keep TCM a cherished archive of beloved films of all genres for all people.  Please keep this channel family friendly and in line with the intent to entertain and uplift, as when people walked out of movie theaters on a Saturday afternoon upbeat and forgetting their cares.   As we watch our nation slowly sink into the abyss of moral decay and government control, preserve for us these treasured glimpses into years that are forever lost.


    • Like 2
    • Confused 1
  10. 23 minutes ago, TikiSoo said:

    And txfilm fan said "They (slaves) weren't considered people" is incorrect.

    To consider it possible to own someone is to not consider that individual a person.

    25 minutes ago, TikiSoo said:

    Ashley says (cringe) "We (the Wilkes) never treated our dark-ees that way." 

    An example of the white-washing of plantation system by southern apologists.

    1 hour ago, UMO1982 said:

    How ironic that people today are so upset about our history (you know, that thing in the past) as it is portrayed in old films, yet sit and watch states like Georgia pass laws aimed at suppressing the vote (you know, making it harder to register and actually cast a ballot), laws that mostly impact Black voters. Gee, anyone would think this sort of voter suppression is a relic of the old slave days (you know, those days of yore we get so upset about when they're shown in old movies).

    It's hard to follow your point.  Perhaps you're trying to say people are being hypocritical.  That they are not justified in criticizing racism in movies if they don't criticize voter suppression.  How do you know they don't?  Or perhaps you are trying to distract the argument by introducing elements outside the focus of this forum.

    • Thanks 1
  11. 6 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

    I don't think the purpose was to intentionally "glorify" slavery, but maybe....just MAYBE.....

    Just read the introductory to Gone With the Wind (1939).  You won't find any movie set in the slave-era that condemned the plantation system.  At the least they tacitly endorsed its sanitized portrayal, at worst lauded it.

    6 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

    he perversions and horrors of slavery had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STORY???  

    It had everything to do with the story.  Just like it had everything to do with the Civil War.  It was the basis for the southern way of life.  The entire socio-economic system was based on it.  It was not discussed directly because that is the dictum of the apologists of the southern culture.  To maintain its legitimacy, they obscure it bestiality.

    6 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

    And it's easy for me to believe that a number of slaves at least gave the impression to their "Massa's" that they were complicit.  Particularly if it meant less whippin's.    Kinda like Luke "gettin' his mind right." (but not really, eh?)

    Ah, now you're being facetious.  It's unworthy of you, and shows you know the weakness of your position.




© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...