TopBilled

It was Lena's favorite movie. She was a fan of John Garfield. She did not appear in it. Movie stars can like other movie stars' work, right?

*RICHARD PRYOR* THE BUSY BODY (1967) with Sid Caesar & Robert Ryan WILD IN THE STREETS (1968) with Shelley Winters, Christopher Jones & Diane Varsi HIT! (1973) with Billy Dee Williams UPTOWN SATURDAY NIGHT (1974) with Sidney Poitier, Bill Cosby, Harry Belafonte & Flip Wilson THE BINGO LONG TRAVELING ALL-STARS AND MOTOR KINGS (1976) with Billy Dee Williams & James Earl Jones CAR WASH (1976) with Otis Day & The Pointer Sisters SILVER STREAK (1976) with Gene Wilder & Jill Clayburgh GREASED LIGHNING (1977) with Beau Bridges, Pam Grier & Cleavon Little WHICH WAY IS UP? 1977) with Lonette McKee & Margaret Avery BLUE COLLAR (1978) with Harvey Keitel & Yaphet Kotto THE WIZ (1978) with Diana Ross & Michael Jackson CALIFORNIA SUITE (1978) with Jane Fonda, Alan Alda, Walter Matthau & Bill Cosby WHOLLY MOSES! (1980) with Dudley Moore & John Ritter STIR CRAZY (1980) with Gene Wilder BUSTIN' LOOSE (1981) with Cicely Tyson THE TOY (1982) with Jackie Gleason SOME KIND OF HERO (1982) with Margot Kidder SUPERMAN III (1983) with Christopher Reeve, Jackie Cooper & Margot Kidder BREWSTER'S MILLIONS (1985) with John Candy & Lonette McKee JO JO DANCER, YOUR LIFE IS CALLING (1986) with Debbie Allen SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL (1989) with Gene Wilder HARLEM NIGHTS (1989) with Eddie Murphy & Redd Foxx

I like the idea of this thread very much. However, I do not agree with it. Film is one of our most collaborative art forms. If we were talking about a novel or a play, then yes, it all comes from the author and the author's muse/inspiration. But some good films have been made with lousy scripts and ideas that had been executed by writers a hundred times before. The writer is not the god of the movie universe, as the French critics who championed the auteur theory would attest, placing much of the credit on the director (and indirectly on the producer). My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is more along the lines of what Daryl Zanuck and Orson Welles believed: that a film is made or un-made in the editing. A choppy script can seem loads better with skilled editing in post-production; and a literate script can seem confusing with bad editing. And of course, some may say that editing is part of the writing process. On paper, it is. But in filmmaking, editing is the final stamp that the director and producer put on the finished product.

I've been tempted to start a thread and call it 'Put the C back in TCM.' Of course, I don't believe that we are just watching Turner Movies. It is still Classic in some regard.

*Screenplay by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala* Ruth's adaptations of A ROOM WITH A VIEW and HOWARDS END earned her the Academy Award and recognition from the Writers Guild of America.

*THE LODGER (1944)* From Agee on February 12, 1944: It is possible, I gather from many people, to be excited and scared by THE LODGER, the adaptation of Mrs. Lowndes' story about Jack the Ripper. I wish I could be. It is years since a horror picture has given me my money's worth. I feel today that only Val Lewton, who makes such B pictures as THE SEVENTH VICTIM, has occasional promising ideas how to go about it. For me the main troubles with THE LODGER are that everyone is trying for gentlemanly intelligent horror, sustained only by tricks of secondary suspense (you know from the start who the Ripper is). Also, the beautiful interiors, the sometimes beautiful streets, and the too beautiful lighting and photography draw too much attention to their own sumptuousness. The good performances of Laird Cregar, Sir Cedric Hardwicke, Sara Allgood and Merle Oberon remain a purely visual pleasure. Doris Lloyd, however, does project a moment of solid, old-fashioned fright.

*Margaret Wycherly* To John Archer in WHITE HEAT: Of course, being an old woman, I wouldn't know much about the law, but I hear you got to have witnesses to make anything stand up in court.

I have not seen 13 GHOSTS yet...

FALLEN SPARROW aired after the death of Lena Horne. Lena does not have many films to her credit, and when TCM did a memorial tribute for her one evening, they showed FALLEN SPARROW because it was said to have been her favorite picture. That was the first time I had seen it. And now every time I re-watch it, I think of Lena Horne!

June 29, 2012 *** THE SWORDSMAN is a Columbia classic from 1948. Tthe action adventure yarn about the warring clans of Scotland a few centuries ago stars Larry Parks on the heels of his success in the first Jolson picture. Filmed on a full-scale replica of a Scottish castle in Simi Valley, SWORDSMAN is a treat in glorious Technicolor, and it is mostly a fun romp. I do not think I have seen blue water glisten so beautifully as in this picture. The leading man, born Samuel Klausman Lawrence Parks, is of German and Irish descent, and he seems to fit the role of swashbuckler like a glove. *** EXPERIMENT PERILOUS is not as perilous a motion picture experience as one might expect with RKO's pairing of George Brent and Hedy Lamarr, on loan-out from MGM. In fact, it is downright enjoyable, despite a slow beginning and the painfully delayed introduction of the heroine. Paul Lukas is on hand as Lamarr's nefarious husband, and of course, we find out how truly nefarious he is. Movie-goers in the mid-1940s seemed to enjoy women-in-peril stories. Given the subject matter and the casting of an exotic foreign-born actress in the lead role, RKO seems to be emulating the formula of MGM's hit GASLIGHT (with Ingrid Bergman). The production was originally to have starred Cary Grant, and then it was slated for Gregory Peck. As much as I like George Brent, he seems slightly less effective and convincing than Grant, and especially Peck, would have been. *** Criterion recently released a restored copy of Roman Polanski's CUL-DE-SAC. I checked it out on Netflix streaming; and while not enthusiastically taken with Francoise Dorleac, whose English is basic at best, I thought Donald Pleasence was having a particularly great time as the naughty husband. Lionel Stander appears as a stranded motorist who joins the odd couple for fun and games, if one can call it that. Polanski proves in this picture, as he does in so many other efforts, that he is a master at pacing. The viewer is urged us to listen to the dialogue, as the director starts intercutting a simultaneous happening that will have direct bearing on the proceedings. It is not riveting entertainment, but Polanski's style does guarantee that we stick around for the inevitable collisions that are sure to occur.

Yes, Ray, and evidently the quality of some prints are much better than others. I don't think TCM should re-air it until they can find a more suitable print. In fact, this title would be a perfect candidate for a TCM vault offering (restored of course). Maybe if they combined it with THE GAY BRIDE, which is already in the Turner library (a rare MGM film Lombard made) and is to my knowledge not on home video yet; and one or two of her late career RKO films that are also in the Turner library, like IN NAME ONLY. It would sell like hotcakes.

Yes, much of it is subjective. But, as with any good research, a methodological approach can be used that combines the qualitative with the quantitative. In the case of Rotten Tomatoes, where percentages are calculated, or with box-office receipts where money talks and revenue determines what makes a hit movie, or four-star reviews by national and international film experts, there is data that can be applied against a film, which can correlate its appeal with what it means to be classic or not classic. It really has nothing to do with when the picture was produced; it has more to do with how it resonates with audiences. But some people are afraid to abandon their prehistoric supersitions of classic and are reluctant to flow and go with a more scientific approach.

>'Classic' to me means quality. That's not always present on some of the films shown! Agreed. Just because something has a copyright date of 1939 does not automatically render it a classic. It could just as easily be junk that was made the same year as a real classic.

Disagree. Tony and Sophia seem to really nurture each other in their scenes. There is a reason they chose to work together on a second film. They genuinely liked each other and trusted each other, and it shows on screen.

Cecil Cunningham has a memorable acting style, and she has an even more memorable name.

>Sorry folks. No classics on TCM today. Just a bunch of cheap-to-rent, low-budget 1960s sci-fi and other low-budget and worthless '60s films. Classics will return briefly tomorrow morning at 6 AM Eastern Time, with "The Letter". Excellent post, Fred. It's provocative and makes me think. I do not know if I agree with it, but I am glad you posted it. It tells me that people are scanning the TCM schedule, deciding what is junk and what is a keeper.

*Henry 'Harry' Morgan* To James Stewart in THE GLENN MILLER STORY: Still got that crazy idea in your head...that sound?

Yes, it's a good promo, though oft-played. But that's a good thing, because it means Stanwyck's movies are frequently shown on TCM, and nothing could make me happier.

I thought the print that TCM aired yesterday was in dreadful condition...lines running through the picture, unintentional jump cuts...I have a copy of the disc somewhere. I don't think it was ever truly restored, but I don't remember my copy looking so rough and virtually unwatchable. This is a great film that should be shown in as pristine a condition as possible.

Very good, clore! We can call that one Barbara Stanwyck Takes a Gamble, or Gambling with Barbara Stanwyck.

June 28, 2012 *** Bette Midler's middle name is Davis. While nobody would certainly confuse the Divine Miss M with Bette Davis, she has proven on more than one occasion that she is a seriously capable and gifted actress. Yesterday I watched a broadcast of SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE on the Flix cable channel. This is the one where she is paired with Woody Allen, though directing duties are handled by Paul Mazursky. Midler had previously worked with Mazursky in DOWN AND OUT IN BEVERLY HILLS. Again, the story is set in BH, and this time our star is a successful doctor and novelist who learns during a trip to the mall that her husband (Allen) has been unfaithful throughout their sixteen years of marriage. Of course, she has had her own infidelities, but those are not revealed initially. Maybe I am an easy-sell for this kind of story, the type that is more character-driven; and maybe I like seeing stories where middle-aged performers can share insights about life with movie-going audiences. Mazursky scripted the story with fellow writer Roger L. Simon, and despited the far-flung premise, the picture has a lot of truth in it. It has its funny moments, too; and my guess is that Allen added a few of his own comic touches. There is a rib-tickling scene where he punches out a mime played by Bill Irwin that interferes with an argument between the bickering couple. But it is Midler's picture mostly. There are traces of the Divine Miss M, but she is considerably subdued here compared to more outrageous behavior in her other movies. It occurred to me that we see a different, rarely-glimpsed side of Bette in SCENES FROM A MALL. At one point in the narrative, we discover a very insecure woman who has all the success that one could hope for in life; and while she may have previously been afraid of the ugly truth staring back at her in the mirror of life, she is able to face it directly now. There's a beauty in that kind of woman and that kind of screen performance. *** MACARTHUR. I agree with Joseph Roquemore's assessment that Gregory Peck is perfectly cast and that Ed Flanders as Truman is magnificent (doing much with what is basically a limited role). I am not sure if I agreed with the director's decision to photograph a portion of the early war scenes in soft-focus. It almost makes World War II seem romantic, and I am sure that the real MacArthur would say it was anything but that. My guess is that the soft lighting was done to make Peck appear younger, but it seems to undermine the story, which is about the battles of war. Overall, the picture has forward momentum, cramming as many facts and un-facts about the great military general into a two-hour theatrical feature as possible. I am also convinced that the film was made by liberals who are not afraid to assume a conservative stance with the title character; and to poke fun at liberalism, giving play to an ironic sense of humor. If I am right about this, then Universal has offered up a rather surprising and, for its era, unique film product.

*Catherine Daneuve & Francoise Dorleac* Real-life sisters and costars in THE DOOR SLAMS and THE GIRLS OF ROCHEFORT with Gene Kelly.

*FRANCOISE DORLEAC* THE DOOR SLAMS (1960) with Catherine Daneuve GENGHIS KHAN (1965) with Stephen Boyd & Omar Sharif WHERE THE SPIES ARE (1965) with David Niven CUL-DE-SAC (1966) with Donald Pleasence & Lionel Stander BILLION DOLLAR BRAIN (1967) with Michael Caine & Karl Malden THE YOUNG GIRLS OF ROCHEFORT (1967) with Catherine Daneuve, Gene Kelly & George Chakiris

Thanks for the info! Check for Marsha Hunt on Saturday.

*OBJECTIVE BURMA (1945)* From Agee on February 24, 1945: OBJECTIVE BURMA is the story of a group of American parachutists who, after locating and destroying a Japanese radar station, try to walk out, through difficult country thick with the enemy. I can see no unconquerable reason why this shouldn't have been a great movie. But there are plenty of reasons why it isn't. The main reason is that the players, by always saying the apt line at the apt moment, continually remind you that they are, after all, just actors and that none of this is really happening. However good they may be, known actors in this sort of semi-documentary film inevitably blunt the edge of your best hopes and intentions. The people who made OBJECTIVE BURMA are by no means specially to be criticized on these grounds. The criticism applies with equal justice to every American fictional war film I have seen. Indeed, OBJECTIVE BURMA is one of the best of them. Its actors are always actors, but in their actorish idiom they play, generally, with restraint.