slaytonf
-
Posts
9,210 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by slaytonf
-
-
Thanks for your list SansFin, it provides a number of examples that demonstrate the validity of the formula. I'll cite a few.
The heist isn't such a big deal in Asphalt Jungle (1950). There's the tired device of an underground access to the vault, or whatever. A little nitroglycerine, and boom. Electric eye? Pish, they scoot under it. But what's great about the movie is the collection of perverted characters involved. There's the truly perverted mastermind, whose brilliant intellect is a slave to his impulses. The backer, in over his head in a number of ways, whose desperation makes him plunge in even deeper. The seedy gambling operator of a seedier gambling operation, whose cheapness is only exceeded by his greed. The thick-headed thug, whose obsession with a lost golden world draws him to his undoing. The would-be femme fatale who nobody is hot for, pathetic, needy. It's terrific!
Rififi (1955) has what must be the most famous heist scene, if not the best. But what if the rest of the movie weren't good? We'd say, "Nice set piece," and the movie would fade into oblivion. It's the rest of the movie, with its collection of flawed semi-savory to unsavory characters that drive the story, and drive most of them into the ground.
The Lady Killers (1955). Heist? What heist? The delight of the movie is watching how all the best laid plans gang a-gley, and how the personalities of the thieves interact to lead to their own individual thud in an empty coal car so the nice old lady can get the money.
The Thomas Crown Affair (1968) involves what is really nothing more than a straight-forward robbery, but I'll be generous and allow it's a heist. It's brilliance is not in the event itself, but that it is conceived, engineered, and executed at a distance, much like NASA landing a probe on an asteroid. And the rest of the movie is the fabulous sensual and sensuous cat/mouse game between the two principals. But who is really the cat?
Bob, Le Flambeur (1956) is the best exemplar of the formula, because there's not heist in it at all! There's the conception, the planning, the rehearsal, but just when it's about to be pulled off, dang if the police don't come in and shoot just about everyone involved. Do we feel cheated? No, of course not, because all through the movie we've watched all the characters with all their flaws, their loyalties, their betrayals, their dubious, or shifting, or surprising relationships combine to create the motivation, the evolution, and the outcome of the caper. It's presented in a detached manner, with an ironic twist. The greatest irony being that Bob, the high-roller, whose streak of unremitting bad luck has led him to plan to hit the Deauville casino wins more money while killing time the night before the heist than he could ever hope to get from the job.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Dargo said:
Forgot to answer this earlier posed question of yours, slayton...
Yeah, I'd still call it a heist movie, and even though the manner and machinations of the "heist" are definitely more overt than they are covert.
(...and what is being "heisted" is a large cache of money by means of extorsion and ransom)
Weeelll, for me a heist movie is where there is something of value somewhere protected, like a bank or museum, or something, and there is someone, or some people who want to get it, and so they devise a way to defeat the protections. Kinda like an escape room in reverse.
-
Just a quick post from A Star is Born (1937). Duesenberg Model J:
-
33 minutes ago, Dargo said:
HEY now, slayton! Let's get one thing straight from the get-go here!
"Cool guys" do NOT litter beaches with their used Wet-Wipes! And no MATTER how cool James Coburn is there!
Didn't know I was such a "Greenie", did ya! This of course all started years ago when I first saw that Iron Eyes Cody/crying Indian PSA as a kid, and it worked its magic on me.
Be fair! The movie was made way before Iron Eyes Cody changed America. Duffy couldn't know it was uncool to litter (insert tongue-in-cheek emoticon here).
Is Pelham a heist movie? Nobody is stealing anything.
As for The Anderson Tapes (1971), I didn't mean to imply the heist can't be well-done or significant. In the movie, it's the action incidental to the heist that provides interest, the unexpected developments and the by-play with the residents, both comic and shocking.
-
A heist movie rises or falls based on a simple formula, and that is that the heist is the least important part of the movie. A movie that depends on the heist is doomed to failure. It is everything that goes on around it that makes it succeed--even if the heist doesn't. I guess the list of great ones would be mostly agreed on, including The Thomas Crown Affair (1968), and Topkapi (1964). But my favorite is Duffy (1968). One of the few movies to capture the scene of the late sixties, including mod London. It has a super cast, including James Coburn at his smoothest and coolest, and Susannah York at her slinkiest and sylphiest. And (oh, the riches never end) one of the best movie houses ever (Duffy's pad in Tangiers), stuffed with some of the wildest artwork created for a movie. There's a hip score with a killer song, "I'm Satisfied," sung by Lou Rawls which I don't know why hasn't become a standard. Anybody who can't dig this movie is tired of life.
Here's the song:
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, NipkowDisc said:
in a few days tcm is going to be showing several versions of this old mystery none of which I will be able to enjoy no longer having tcm.
Dang.
-
I agree about the Dix adaptation, but I admire him as an actor, so I watch it occasionally.
-
Well, then we can dismiss you.
-
1
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Spritz Nipper said:
not trying to start a debate
Not being familiar with Ms. Gerwig, I cannot imagine. Do you have an explanation for the difference in treatment?
-
1 hour ago, Spritz Nipper said:
Reverse the races and you would likely see that person excommunicated from Hollywood.
I don't get what you say.
-
16 hours ago, greenpete58 said:
Yes, alluding to race, gender, and ethnicity on a social media message board is always risky business these hyper-sensitive days. But I believe controversy is good, as long as an argument is conducted with civility, and I believe in being candid, which is why I said what I said. And I stand by it. Rather than defending myself from your accusations that I’ve made “false inferences” and drawn “unsupported conclusions” and made an “uncalled-for slight,” I’ll take the high road and just say…We Agree To Disagree.
My impression is that you took my post as aggressive in some way. I was simply speaking clearly and directly. I assure you I never attack, insult, or demean anyone. I may sometimes use satire, but only to burst a balloon of pretension. Then I hope I am not hurtful. There was something worthwhile in what you posted that merited a response. My analysis, or criticism, of your comments was phrased intentionally and intended to show the flaws in your rationale. I'll give you an example of each:
As I stated, you misrepresented the character of the movies chosen for this season as being out of the ordinary for TCM, whereas even a quick review shows the great majority of them are standard fare for TCM, including highly regarded classics from all periods of the studio era.
You state in your original post that the movies for this season were chosen using race, ethnicity, and gender as criteria. Yet nowhere in the discussions between Ben Mankiewicz and Ava DuVernay did I hear any such criteria mentioned. There is no justification for making any inferences on what Ms. DuVernay used in selecting her movies. Based on her commentary, you may guess at what she used, but it would be unfounded.
I will be generous and concede the point that the movies were chosen considering racial, ethnic, and gender issues. Your conclusion that doing so would result in an inferior line-up of movies is belied by the movies themselves. Even the ones not usually aired on TCM are well-made, entertaining and engaging.
I made my observations not to belittle you, or inform you of your faulty reasoning, but to allay your fears and apprehensions for TCM and it's future. Far from breaking new ground, with Ava DuVernay's guest-hosting of The Essentials, TCM is continuing in it's tradition of highlighting marginalized populations in American culture in an attempt to raise people's awareness of injustices in the past and present, and in it's own small way work toward making it a more equitable place for everyone.
-
1
-
-
That would fit in well with Summer Under the Stars. I'd also urge the inclusion of A Cold Night's Death (1973):
http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/462546/Cold-Night-s-Death-A/
-
On 12/17/2019 at 5:54 AM, greenpete58 said:
I think it's a good idea that "The Essentials" branch out a little, and I've got nothing against Ava Duvernay (though I know little about her). And allowing knowledgeable film critics, historians, directors, actors, and fans to choose and air films that they might think are "essential" is a worthy idea, and Saturday at 8 PM EST is an ideal time to show these films. My issue is using race, gender, and ethnicity as criteria. Like someone else said, this should be a separate show. It's an unfortunate reality that so many so-called "classic" films are dominated by white males, and some are even offensive in their portrayals of women and minorities. But choosing films based on identity just exacerbates an ongoing problem in the U.S. (in my opinion). And it severely restricts the pool of movies. If TCM is going to have a program called "The Essentials," the main criterion should be the film's quality and/or significance, not the racial or gender makeup of the actors or directors, or the film's setting or theme. If TCM wants to "branch out," maybe start showing more '60s and '70s films, or alternate Essential co-hosts more regularly. I'm even open to re-broadcasting some of those great discussions between Robert Osborne and Alec Baldwin, who I thought had great chemistry.
You mischaracterize the make up of the schedule of movies Ava DuVernay chose, make false inferences about about the criteria for selecting her movies, and draw unsupported conclusions from them.
The Essentials for Ava DuVernay consist mainly of standard TCM movies from early and late in the studio era, including Cabin in the Sky (1943), Rashomon (1950), Pather Panchali (1955), The Diary of Anne Frank (1959), Sounder (1972), and Dog Day Afternoon (1975). The movies that are not in high rotation or, I believe are new to TCM can be seen as expanding the pool of movies, not restricting them as you claim. If there is a discernible bias in her selection of movies, I would say it is to be expected, as guest hosts are invited to bring in their ideas about what is essential. Ava DuVernay has brought in a new and fresh perspective on what is essential. All of the movies she has chosen I do not think are all that essential, but you know what?, I thought that about a lot of the movies chosen in all the previous years when they only featured movies from the heart of the studio era, too. If Ava DuVernay has used criteria such as social inequity, ethnicity, activism, and the like to choose her movies, that does not mean she has sacrificed quality. She is a great filmmaker, with a thorough understanding of her craft. She would hardly choose movies that would fail to meet her standards, and the list of movies for this season is evidence of that. For you to say otherwise is an uncalled-for slight on her professionalism.
-
1
-
-
Georg Solti was one of the greatest orchestra conductors. He was a longtime institution at the Chicago Symphony.
You have a lot to say about everybody but Sammy Davis.
-
1
-
-
-
24 minutes ago, hamradio said:
Film critics in 1982 complained the quality of animation was no better than the ones on TV.
Disney wasn't any better then, either.
-
1 hour ago, hamradio said:
"Ode To a Rat" by Sammy Davis jr
Evidence of his tremendous talent. It comes through even Disney's wretched animation.
Sorry, I just saw it wasn't Disney who did the animation. It was Hanna-Barberra.
-
So you know what 99% of humans think!
-
Ok, I guess Janis Joplin is just as good, but she wasn't in movies. It was his race and the social structure in this country that prevented him from assuming his natural place in movie and cultural stardom:
See him:
- THAT'S DANCING! (1985) DECEMBER 31
- ROBIN AND THE 7 HOODS (1964) JANUARY 22
-
1
-
So you spend your time watching movies you don't like. . . .
-
According to my memory, and MovieCollector's invaluable list, Samson and Delilah (1949) has been shown quite a number of times, though not recently. This is probably because it's a Paramount production, and I learn these are difficult movies for TCM to get. You might have to wait for one of its stars, or Cecil B. DeMille to be featured in something for it to be shown again. Or you can watch it in segments here:
Or you can pay to watch it on YouTube or elsewhere.
-
My impression is the Request a Movie function was retired with the inception of the Backlot. Now TCMites must pay to have input on programming.
-
2
-
-
Ok, I think we have it all settled now. Just one question. Wasn't William Shatner in it?
-
I'm not an adherent of conspiracy theories, but the tone, laundry list of issues, and message of all these threads are so consistent that it is hard not to see them coming from one source. Everything about these posters makes me think they are insincere, and are posting not about the things they mention, but are simply aiming at the provocative and inflammatory. The only thing that gives me reservations is what I've said before. And that is why would anyone go to the trouble of doing something like that here?
That's a nice car!
in General Discussions
Posted
I know I can always count on your good taste.