Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

BloodhoundMan

Members
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About BloodhoundMan

  • Rank
    Member
  1. When I logged on today, I got this serious warning message from TCM about not posting anything abusive, scurrilous, racist. It ended with some guy's signature, and an invitation to phone him if I had "any problems with this." I didn't know what he was talking about. Now I can't retrieve the message. Did anyone else find such a message?
  2. In the film Now, Voyager, there are two scenes that reveal Elliot Livingston: He becomes uncomfortable when Charlotte mentions the children that they will have ("I didn't say 'If', Elliot, I said 'When'"), and also later when Charlotte says that she would love to go out drinking, and make violent love. Why does Elliot become so visibly uncomfortable? He does have children from his late wife, so the topic of children isn't discomforting to him. What's going on in these scenes? I've seen the film many times, and I never really understood this detail. Anyone help me? Thanks
  3. If you set your monitor to "stretch," someone said that the image will fill even a new widescreen monitor. Yes, but the stretching is indeed noticeable. At least I noticed it immediately. And it was when I first got my monitor, so didn't know that it was stretching the image. All I could see was that Edward G Robinson's face was a little too wide. So the stretching isn't reaally a solution; it should be watched in "wide-pillared" format, as you mentioned.
  4. I don't understand. I posted a reply to someone last night, and I can't find it now. I can't even find the thread, which was also about Arab images in films. This site has so many problems. And I put so much effort into my comment.
  5. Oh boy; this film, as many have written, has the look of a high school production. That wouldn't be fatal if it had something interesting to say. Unfortunately, it does not. The only way I was able to get through it is because my parents came from Hungary, so I got off on various elements of the film, and it was amusing. Otherwise, I could never have sat through it.
  6. Well, I do know one important thing: Astaire believed that in order to convey dancing properly, it was essential that the camera not change its focus. That is, the camera must avoid close-ups on the feet, or on their hands, etc., and simply shoot the couple in the screen, so that the dance can be clearly seen and fully appreciated. Sooooo---if they were performing and someone made a mistake, they simply had to re-start the camera, and do the scene all over again, so there would be no noticeable cut. I think that that situation led to all the used film of dancing being discarded, as it didn't contain extra scenes that were later deleted, or other such stuff. Maybe that explains it. Also, RKO wasn't exactly rolling in money (specially after Joe Kennedy left it a shambles), and maybe they didn't have the finances to preserve and store all the outtakes. "I just received an invitation through the mails..."
  7. Ausgezeichnet! Ich bin sehr dankbar fur ihre antwort zu mein frage. Hehehe... Thanks alot, John
  8. I just finished screening The Sound of Music, which I hadn't seen in about fifteen years. In the opening credits, there was a strange credit that I didn't understand, despite my admittedly encyclopedic knowledge of American musicals (I used to play piano in a swell supper club in NYC). There is a prominent credit which reads "With the Partial Use of Ideas by Georg Hurdalek." Betcha never noticed that one. Neither did I. Anyone know who this guy is, and what he contributed to the film? Any help would be appreciated. And if no one can identify him, I guess I'll just have to send my Bloodhound. "I look up; I look down."
  9. I just finished screening SOF; I haven't seen it in at least ten years. And there's a prominent credit in the opening credits that I don't know, in spite of my encyclopedic knowledge of musicals (I used to play piano in a swell supper club in NYC). It reads "With the Partial Use of Ideas by Georg Hurdalek." Betcha never noticed that one. Neither did I. Anyone know who this guy is, and what he contributed to the film? I don't believe his name appeared in the credits to the preceding Broadway musical. Thanks for answering. "I look up; I look down."
  10. You're entering into a debate that has been going on since forever: Does one ignore the artist's personal character when evaluating his art? Wagner was a raving anti-Semite (On the Jews and Their Music), Celan was a Nazi collaborator, Ezra Pound was a Fascist traitor, T S Eliot another major antiSemite, Elia Kazan an informer on his friends, ditto Jerome Robbins, Woody Allen had sex with his lover's (adopted) daughter, Leonard Bernstein cheated on his wife continually...... In Israel, for example, it is still an unwritten rule that Wagner's music is not broadcast or played (although Daniel Barenboim performed a piece as an encore at a concert last year (the Israel Philharmonic cooperated, obviously); many in the audience walked out). I don't presume to answer this complex question here; as a matter of fact, my feelings on it change almost every time this issue arises anew. When the story on Woody Allen broke, years ago, I was so repelled, I thought I'd never watch a film of his again. Picasso's misogyny. Mr Clinton's serial adultery, lying under oath, etc. For someone who is a religious Catholic, Michelangelo's and Leonardo's homoerotic frescos, sculptures and paintings of muscular men. My point is not that everyone is guilty of some violation of societal norms, but rather, that this is an issue that is not unique to Riefenstahl. Every person must decide this for himself; I for one can never see a Woody Allen film since without thoughts about his character intruding. I can't read Pound or Eliot again. But, for some reason, I love On the Waterfront. West Side Story. I love Der Walkure. I don't think it's so unreasonable to discuss camera angles and technique in Riefenstahl's films; we do it with Citizen Kane. When I viewed Triumph opf the Will the first time, I actually started laughing near the opening, with the scenes of Nazi regalia and the adoring German public (much like the scene in Crimes and Misdemeanors where Woody screens his documentary to Alan Alda, with the voice coming out of Mussolini), and my father was a Holocaust survivor. So, this is a very personal topic: I think that everyone must make decisions for himself, and allow others to make their decisions. It's not as if, when Riefenstahl's films are viewed, the audience discusses the validity of Nazis' ideas about exterminating the Jews, Poles, Slavs. That, I do believe, would be beyond discussion. And therin lies the quandary: How can one enjoy and experience the creativity of an artist, when his personal life was reprehensible? I don't have an answer, but I don't think that either position on this issue is untenable.
  11. An excellent example of an unexplicit plot-element can be found in the film Ben-Hur. Gore Vidal, who wrote most of the screenplay, has told this anecdote many times: Vidal met with Director William Wyler to discuss a problematic issue, while writing the screenplay. The question was, "What was the motivation for Messala's complete turnaround against Judah, when he (Messala) returns from Rome?" Vidal reasoned: It cannot simply be that they are on different "sides" in Judea; that would not account for the intensity and virulence of Messala's feelings. After all, they were incredibly best friends throughout all their childhoods, their parents were close to each other (opening scene with Messala visiting w/Judah's mother and sister). Vidal felt that something deeper and stronger was needed, in order for the plot to make sense. So--he came up with this: Messala and Judah were previously in love with each other. Now, when Messala returns, he wants to resume their affair, take up with Judah where they left off. But Judah is no longer interested, so the spurned-lover motive/motif would account for the intensity of Messala's reaction. Wyler thought about it, and he agreed. But the problem was Heston. Wyler said to Vidal, "You can't say anything to Chuck; he'll go nuts." So--Vidal met with Stephen Boyd (who played Messala), and told him that, in the opening scenes, he should play the part as if he were returning to his former lover, simply with his facial expressions etc., i.e. act. And Heston was never told about this; he responded the way he did: unresponsive to Messala's eye-contact, etc. Now: this is a perfect example of a plot element which is never explicitly shown or mentioned, but which, upon careful consideration, makes the plot more understandable. This particular element is not one of the most crucial--in many films the element is far more central and important, but I couldn't think of any others right now. I know at least 5 to 10 films where the unstated plot element is central to the overrall story. Edited by: BloodhoundMan on Feb 2, 2011 6:49 AM Edited by: BloodhoundMan on Feb 2, 2011 6:51 AM
  12. I realize I'm walking into the middle of a long debate, but Triumph of the Will has indeed been aired on television a number of times. I don't know if TCM broadcast it, but I have seen it more than once on television. It is really a magnificent film; as a piece of propaganda, it must have been extremely powerful. Have you ever seen it? My father was a Holocaust survivor, but I still enjoyed watching the cinematography, and the music, etc... an immense achievement. Edited by: BloodhoundMan on Jan 29, 2011 9:43 PM
  13. I believe that you are incorrect. You seem to be writing that in order for a plot element to be in a film, it has to be "implied directly." But very frequently, even though something is never explicitly shown, it is implied through the context. It can be inferred from the story as a whole (or in part). I've come across this situation from reading various reviews or comments on a film, and I had never realized that. But when I examined the writer's reasoning, I did indeed realize that the filmmaker clearly (or not-so-clearly), and the film as a whole, are more deeply understood with an implied plot element which, although it was never explicitly shown, or stated, is intended by the screenwriter or director. How does one know? Because, I would say, the film is understood much better when one realizes that this plot element was implied, inserted, whatever word one would use. There are some films where I caught it in the viewing, and some films, I would never have thought of it until I read some writer. Of course, there are other cases where I read an intelligent and well-thought-out argument concerning an implied plot element, and I disagreed with the writer. But something can clearly be implied in a film, even if it is never explicitly shown, mentioned, or referred to.
  14. I realize it's been a long while since your posting, but Triumph of the Will has indeed been aired on television a number of times. I don't know if TCM broadcast it, but I saw it on television. It is really a magnificent film; as a piece of propaganda, it must have been extremely powerful. Have you ever seen it? My father was a Holocaust survivor, but I still enjoyed watching the cinematography, and the music, etc... Edited by: BloodhoundMan on Jan 28, 2011 10:03 PM
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...