slaytonf

So IMDB is wrong about the 1.37:1 ratio. But showing Shane in widescreen at Radio City doesn't explain why TCM is showing it in faux-widescreen when is has previously been presented in formats approximating 3:4 proportions. We'll see in a little bit if it was a fluke.

You are being intentionally obtuse. Filmmakers in Hollywood, and around the world have always altered history to suit the conveniences of the movie.

That's the first I've heard of that. But if you look at the two stills, the pseudo-wide screen of the recent airing was created by cropping the bottom of the older 1.37:1 image. Not the reverse, the wide-screen image cropped to create a pseudo-3:4 image.

The Great Movie Buddha says: Don't get your history from movies. Movies are always about the times they are made in, not the times they depict.

From time to time I record movies I already have on DVD to see if I can get a better recording. I used to record at a lower resolution to get more on a disk. I did this with Shane (1953) the other day (Saturday, November, 9), and when I compared the new recording with one I already had, I was surprised to find the pictures were different. Direct TV offers different formats to display the picture and a choice of a standard or wide-screen TV options. Also, my TV offers a number of different aspect ratios to choose from. Altogether, it's a confusing array of settings. But no matter what combination I tried, and I did not go methodically through all of them, I could not get the recent airing of the movie to match my existing recording, or get the recent airing to display in a 1.37:1 ratio, in which Shane was shot (per IMDB). Here's a still from my existing recording: And here's one from the recent airing: Looks to me the recent airing was formatted for widescreen TVs. The bottom of the picture is chopped off to accomplish this. Strangely, it also shows more on the sides than the old recording. Was it because the 1.37:1 ratio was slightly wider than the 1.33:1 you get with a strictly 4:3 picture? Shane airs again tomorrow night. Gonna see what happens then.

How's her Brooklyn accent?

You know, it don't matter much to me whether it's on a body stocking or not. It seems more likely to inspire imagination than defeat it.

So that's, like, for getting through traffic?

Go ahead, make my breakfast. Um, wait. . . .

Yes, that was in In Harm's Way (1965).

Le Tombeau Hindou translates as The Indian Tomb (1959): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052924/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1 in which Miss Paget does her famous snake dance: Le Tigre Bengale is, of course, The Tiger of Bengal (1959): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052295/?ref_=nv_sr_1?ref_=nv_sr_1

You may find that funny. I find you scary.

Golly, lighten up.

And my point was to highlight the increasing pressure to politicize the message boards coming with the recurrent madness that possesses the country. Why these boards would be targeted is beyond me.

Not worthy of mention. One, a class act. The other a waste of film.

What talk?

You're right. It looks like it's been scrubbed from all the drop down menus on other pages except for the one on the MESSAGE BOARDS page (except on my old version of Safari, it pops up on the TCM homepage, too). But though the page comes up, the link to sign in is disabled. You will notice there is no record of recently suggested movies, either, only an error message.

Looks like the SUGGEST A MOVIE option has been discontinued. It used to be in the COMMUNITY menu, but has been replaced by a button for Fathom Events.

There is no standard, or agency that promotes one. There might be as many methods as there are people who care to measure movies. I think most would agree that a movie's time runs from the first logo to when the last credit crawls up off the top of the screen. There are different released versions of many movies, some famously, some from country to country. During the production code era states and even individual projectionists would take it upon themselves to edit out parts of movies they found objectionable, leading to myriad different prints. How many of those remain I'm not sure, but if you are attentive, you can see where bits of dialogue too racy or otherwise have been clipped out.

I see the plot for a movie. The universe is dissolving. Crusaders race to defeat the evil forces behind it befor

Things are right, then they go wrong, then they are made right.

There are four basic schematics which account for all stories that are told. The one that forms the basis for most stories is: --Things start out right, then they go wrong, then they are made right again. Two variations are: --Things are wrong, then they are made right. And-- --Things are right, then they go wrong. The first is the basis for comedy, the second for tragedy. A final schematic is the inverse of the first: --Things are wrong, then they are made right, then they go wrong. It is employed in more modern works, particularly in ones crafted to highlight the failures of contemporary society. Stories may have added elaborations and embellishments on these basic forms to lengthen the works and increase dramatic tension, but they can all be reduced to the above forms. Two final schematics are possible: Things are right, and they stay right. Things are wrong, and they stay wrong. These are rare and mainly form the basis for absurdist, nihilistic, or angry man (woman) stories.

Well you are a TCM citizen and have done your duty by acknowledging him. For which I thank you. There is certainly a lot of his work that could be cited here. (Hmm. . . .). Charlie Chaplin had a tendency to the sentimental. His great genius saved him from the saccharine. His delicate understanding of the human character makes this scene both beautiful and painful. The the impulses for generosity and selflessness, the interplay and shyness and desire for exposure, combine to make this culminating moment.