TopBilled
-
Posts
154,044 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
376
Posts posted by TopBilled
-
-
Are all films that are x-number of years old automatically classic...?
By extension, does that mean that everything made in 2012 will be classic in 2112, just because it's a hundred years old, because it was made with today's limited technology and by artists that are probably long-since dead.
If we can empirically define classic, and if we can pinpoint the historical and cultural aspects of film using theatre and camera as voyeurist's tool into the personality and behavior of society during a given age, then we can not only find entertainment and amusement in such offerings, but we can put all this celluloid and its recorded images into proper context.
-
>But this month, you don't need to be a classic to air, you just need to have gotten an Oscar nomination or win to air.
clore,
I am going to address this. In some ways, I do not care if TCM uses its Oscar gimmick to air certain films. Especially if it means the chance to see some neglected classic films.
But since I am not a fan of the Oscars and the politics of Oscar, I am not into TCM's marketing in February. I am just interested in finding films I haven't seen or films I have seen that I think are worth watching again.
One thing I have noticed with the Oscar-related scheduling is that we get something like SCROOGE airing during a month other than December. That's a good thing. In fact, I think holiday films should air all year if they are of good quality craftsmanship and truly classic.
I hope we can get beyond the sentimentality of old film and the politics of acting awards and remember to keep classic film front and center where it belongs.
-
Sorry missw. I think we're not getting the point.
There are other implications.
Namely that sometimes it is Turner Old Movies, instead of Turner Classic Movies. We also have people that get upset when they see too many films from the 70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s on the schedule. But if this is Turner Classic Movies, then it should not matter what the copyright date is on the package, as long as the product is classic film.
-
>Personally, I didn't even consider THE INVISIBLE WOMAN to have great effects. They weren't even up to what the same John P. Fulton did seven years earlier in THE INVISIBLE MAN.
Right. There was a huge decline in quality.
INVISIBLE WOMAN borrows so heavily from: a) the original idea of THE INVISIBLE MAN;
TOPPER; and c) from classic horror formula that is hardly novel or original. What it means to me is that the writers slapped a script together with minimal preparation time. And when we combine this with the seriously lacking production values, we can see it was churned out with minimal rehearsal and recording time. Ultimate verdict: inferior product that limps by on its star-power and occasional moments of charm and humor.
-
>There seems to be a contradiction here, as to what you feel is classic: "a level of fine craftmanship" and "a bit unpolished and amateurish".
There is no contradiction.
Knight's work in it is very much a sort of fine craftsmanship, and I think that Coppola has some moments where he shines as director even if some scenes are not entirely smooth. This is because he is experimenting and including a few documentary-type aspects in a film that is otherwise a fictional narrative.
Overall, THE RAIN PEOPLE a film that has many classic aspects to it and should be considered a classic. So, to say a film is not perfect (or more accurately, not perfectly realized or understood), but yet call it a classic, that is not a contradiction.
-
This is one of the reasons why I make a point of posting those reviews from James Agee in my Classic Film Criticism thread. The reviews were written when those films were freshly released. I think contemporary critics speak best for the generation that makes and watches films when they are new.
Often we run the risk of over-sentimentalizing old films and making them classic when they are not. Or of letting time distort the truth and letting nostalgia creep in and make a performer seem greater or more legendary than they were.
Getting back to Deanna, I think she is much like Frank Sinatra. She is a timeless performer whose vehicles were obviously a product of her time. Her talent is as relevant now as it was then and it will remain relevant for those who wish to access it.
-
>All I know if that generally I enjoy studio era movies (1930 - 1968) more so than movies made after that. But since the studio era did crank out a lot of movies there are indeed many low quality films made in that era.
I was that way. But I have changed. The more I look at Peckinpah and Aldrich and Altman from the 70s, the more I am finding real classics that are post-68. In fact, I consider Robert Aldrich my favorite director. I used to reserve that honor for Hitchcock. And speaking of Hitchcock, films like TOPAZ and FRENZY appear after '68, and they are definitely classics.
Recently, TCM aired Coppola's THE RAIN PEOPLE. Granted, it is no GODFATHER...but I think Shirley Knight's work in it is excellent, and I would call it a classic, if a bit unpolished and amateurish in spots.
As for the volume of films that were made in the studio era, there is such a thing as a classic B-film and even classic short films.
On the other hand, we have silent films from the 1920s that are definitely clunkers.
-
Sorry, Fred. I don't consider it a classic. To me, classic implies quality and a certain level of artistry. I don't find that in INVISIBLE WOMAN.
Some people would not find the films I mentioned from the 80s and 90s to be new or modern at all. You do. But some of our much younger viewers would consider them ancient.
I cite the Redford film and the Merchant Ivory titles as classics because again, they connote a level of fine craftsmanship that I think makes them truly classic. I would also put Huston's THE DEAD in this category, a film made in 1987.
-
There's a thread about this subject over on the Hot Topics forum.
-
I really don't consider THE INVISIBLE WOMAN (1940) a classic. It's an old film with some charming, silly elements that can probably still entertain a modern audience. But classic, calling it classic, is a stretch in my opinion.
Meanwhile, just because something is 'new' doesn't mean it's not a classic.
I consider ORDINARY PEOPLE (1980) a classic. I also consider A ROOM WITH A VIEW (1985) a classic. And HOWARDS END (1992).
-
She's really beaten death a few times this past year. Usually, a thread is created when a celebrity dies. Meaning that people do not discuss legendary celebrities till they're gone.
I'd much more prefer to discuss Zsa Zsa while she remains with us. And I am glad she made it to another birthday!
-
Of course, Encore Western channel seldom shows films in widescreen format. It helps when something like CHEYENNE AUTUMN turns up on TCM, as it is usually, though not always, presented in the widescreen version.
I was thinking BULLWHIP GRIFFIN aired a few years ago when they did the month-long tribute to Disney Live Action, but perhaps I am mistaken about that. At any rate, I would like to see it on TCM...any chance to see Suzanne Pleshette films on TCM is a real treat in my opinion.
-
>A very well-thought and researched OP. Although I do have to say that the film you refer to as Ruby from 1953 is, I believe, Ruby Gentry from 1952.
You're right, Jonny. Thanks for the correction. That is one of the few films that they took the time to acquire from Fox for this SOTM tribute (the other being BOOMERANG!).
I completely agree about ALL FALL DOWN. I happen to like it, but it did not need to be-aired so soon after Lansbury's tribute.
-
Great post, markus. I agree with everything you have said about Deanna. I do think that Judy and Garbo have been over-hyped in recent decades. At the same time, Deanna and her films have definitely been under-publicized in the years since she left Hollywood. It is a testament to her talent that she continues to attract new fans.
-
*MAYLIA*
SINGAPORE (1947) with Fred MacMurray & Ava Gardner
TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH (1948) with Dick Powell & Signe Hasso
BOSTON ****'S CHINESE ADVENTURE (1949) with Chester Morris
CHINATOWN AT MIDNIGHT (1950) with Hurd Hatfield & Jean Willes
-
*VOICE IN THE WIND (1944)*
From Agee on March 18, 1944:
VOICE IN THE WIND is a heartfelt shoestring quickie shot in thirteen days, and it is a pretty awful moving picture. But I was touched by its sincerity and by a number of things in it.
It is being advertised as a strange new kind of moving picture. The picture is like a mid-thirties French melodrama drenched in the Rembrandt-and-molasses manner of German art films of the early to mid-twenties. But it is also richly nostalgic if you have any affection for bad period art.
I enjoyed hearing a piece of Chopin played without interruption and with appropriate oversensitivity, while the tragedy came to a standstill, sniffling and wiping its eyes. It takes a lot of anti-commercial courage to do that in a film. However wrong most of it goes, VOICE IN THE WIND has a great deal of that sort of courage.
-
>I am sorry you did not like it. I feel as if you have missed a very fun movie.
It was rather fun to comment on a film that seems to divide its time between silliness and low production values with more than a bit of plagiarism thrown in.
-
Thanks for the correction markus. I would definitely like to see EVERY SUNDAY, and I am hoping it pops up on TCM (my guess is that it probably has in the past).
Supposedly Mayer did want to keep Deanna, but he was out of the country and his executives let her contract lapse. It was a lucky break for Universal.
I think if Deanna had stayed with MGM, she would definitely have done flashier roles in huge Technicolor musicals like Judy did. Also, I think some of the films Judy did like PRESENTING LILY MARS would probably have gone to her.
Lastly, I would add that Deanna's defection probably paved the way for Kathryn Grayson and Jane Powell, since MGM was looking to fill that void when Jeanette MacDonald's popularity declined.
-
Thanks for the reply clore. I do like this thread a lot, but I am a bit flabbergasted why people are spending so much time beating it to death. Obviously, TCM is not going to do everything perfectly or to each individual viewer's satisfaction.
I think you are right about the mission statement. If they continue to violate it or enact a change in policy, then they will have to either drop the old statement or reword it. They do have to be fair about that, especially since they advertise themselves that way.
My biggest issue with the TCM currently, as I have gone over in the Karl Malden SOTM thread, is that they neglect titles that would promote their programming themes. Instead, it is the same batch of oft-played (translation: over-played) titles from the Turner library. One gets the impression they are just using certain actors or cultural issues (like race in Hollywood) to trot out the same catalogue and replay it endlessly with a new monthly gimmick. It's wearing out fast.
-
_MARCH 7 & 8_
THE SELLOUT (1952) with Walter Pidgeon, John Hodiak & Audrey Totter
RUBY (1953) with Jennifer Jones & Charlton Heston
BABY DOLL (1956) with Carroll Baker & Eli Wallach
PHANTOM OF THE RUE MORGUE (1954) with Patricia Medina & Steve Forrest
DEAD RINGER (1964) with Bette Davis & Peter Lawford
PARRISH (1961) with Troy Donahue & Claudette Colbert
MURDERERS' ROW (1966) with Dean Martin & Ann-Margret
*He is topbilled in BABY DOLL and PHANTOM OF THE RUE MORGUE. He is seventh-billed in THE SELLOUT. They should've aired FEAR STRIKES OUT instead, where he's second-billed with Anthony Perkins.*
_MARCH 14 & 15_
A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE (1952) with Vivien Leigh, Marlon Brando & Kim Hunter
ON THE WATERFRONT (1954) with Marlon Brando & Lee J. Cobb
TIME LIMIT (1957)...as director only...with Richard Widmark, Richard Basehart & Dolores Michaels
COME FLY WITH ME (1963) with Dolores Hart & Hugh O'Brian
HOTEL (1967) with Rod Taylor, Melvyn Douglas & Merle Oberon
BILLION DOLLAR BRAIN (1967) with Michael Caine & Ed Begley
*He has a bigger role in Brando's ONE EYED JACKS which is not being aired.*
_MARCH 21 & 22_
ALL FALL DOWN (1962) with Eva Marie Saint, Warren Beatty & Angela Lansbury
THE HANGING TREE (1959)...co-direction...with Gary Cooper & Maria Schell
NEVADA SMITH (1966) with Steve McQueen, Brian Keith & Suzanne Pleshette
HOW THE WEST WAS WON (1963) with Debbie Reynolds, Carroll Baker & Lee J. Cobb
BOOMERANG! (1947) with Dana Andrews & Jane Wyatt
*He has reduced screen time in HOW THE WEST WAS WON. This is filler programming and instead they should've shown CHEYENNE AUTUMN, a western with almost the same running time where he has much more to do. Or else, PATTON would've worked well in this long time slot where he is second-billed with George C. Scott. He also has very little screen time in BOOMERANG! though that is the first time he worked with Kazan on screen and is an important film for him.*
_MARCH 28 & 29_
I CONFESS (1953) with Montgomery Clift & Anne Baxter
TAKE THE HIGH GROUND! (1953) with Richard Widmark & Russ Tamblyn
THE CINCINNATI KID (1965) with Steve McQueen, Edward G. Robinson & Ann-Margret
GYPSY (1962) with Rosalind Russell & Natalie Wood
BOMBERS B-52 (1957) with Natalie Wood, Marsha Hunt & Efrem Zimbalist Jr.
HOT MILLIONS (1968) with Peter Ustinov & Maggie Smith
*His biggest role in this group of films is the second-billed one in BOMBERS B-52.*
Overall, these are fairly much the oft-played titles from the Turner Library. Significant films that are missing include: OPERATION SECRET (1952); DIPLOMATIC COURIER (1952); FEAR STRIKES OUT (1957); POLLYANNA (1960); ONE EYED JACKS (1961); BIRDMAN OF ALCATRAZ (1962); CHEYENNE AUTUMN (1964); THE ADVENTURES OF BULLWHIP GRIFFIN (1967); BLUE (1968); PATTON (1970); WILD ROVERS (1971); and CAT O' NINE TAILS (1971) where he is topbilled.
-
Some of you are very critical of TCM in terms of this issue. Now I can see why they started airing that recent disclaimer before movies. I wonder why so many folks over-analyze this when it is much easier to just get widescreen copies on Netflix. Maybe I am missing something...? LOL
-
I didn't particularly care for this film. I thought it squandered Barrymore's talents and showed how badly his career was sliding at the end. Also, what a thankless role for Virginia Bruce. After the first fifteen minutes, she is not seen again until the very end. The majority of her performance is a voice-over.
John Howard was very wooden, especially in scenes where he was supposed to be animated with her invisible figure. At least Barrymore pantomimed those moments better. The only one I liked in this film was Margaret Hamilton who always gives 100%.
As for the production values, the special effects were like a rotten slice of cheese, and much of the film's tone and manner seemed like a ripoff of TOPPER.
-
*BEN COOPER*
WOMAN THEY ALMOST LYNCHED (1953) with John Lund, Brian Donlevy, Audrey Totter & Joan Leslie
THE FIGHTING CHANCE (1955) with Rod Cameron & Julie Bishop
A STRANGE ADVENTURE (1956) with Joan Evans & Maria English
DUEL AT APACHE WELLS (1957) with Anna Maria Alberghetti & Jim Davis
OUTLAW'S SON (1957) with Dane Clark, Lori Nelson & Ellen Drew
CHARTROOSE CABOOSE (1960) with Molly Bee & Edgar Buchanan
GUNFIGHT AT COMANCHE CREEK (1963) with Audie Murphy & Colleen Miller
ARIZONA RAIDERS (1965) with Audie Murphy, Michael Dante & Buster Crabbe
-
*A TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN (1945)*
From Agee on February 17, 1945:
I think it a more interesting and likable movie than most. It concentrates on poverty, on some crucial aspects of early puberty, on domestic relationships, and on life in a big city, which are rarely undertaken on the American screen, with considerable enthusiasm, tenderness, discipline and intelligence. It even presents and accepts the idea, unpopular enough even in contemporary fiction, that some antagonisms and inadequacies are too deeply rooted to be wholly explicable or curable.
It also develops a main love interest between a little girl and her father. It presents a drunkard, the father, for once without moralizing about him or reforming him. The agencies concerned about this are doubtless satisfied with his death.
The tenements sets and city streets of the movie are as lovingly and exhaustively detailed and as solid-looking as any I can remember. I was especially moved and impressed by James Dunn as the father and by the ways, visible and sometimes stammering though they were, in which Peggy Ann Garner and director Elia Kazan handled what I take to be her rigidity as an actress, turning it into a part of her personal and visual charm, and of the role she is in those respects so well suited for.
A TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN also contains single moments or shots so extraordinarily good that they make me wonder why the rest, granted the same eye that made or saved these, need have fallen short. And in a screen play so obviously careful, I don't understand the virtual absence of the symbolic tree of the title, which could have been accounted for in about three extra shots.
TOPPER; and c) from classic horror formula that is hardly novel or original.
Just because it's old doesn't mean it's a classic
in General Discussions
Posted
What if we were living in the year 1939 and GONE WITH THE WIND had just come out...would we say that we have to wait fifty or a hundred years before we can call it a classic? I think that film was immediately a classic when it was viewed by its very first audience.
Similarly, if something as epic as that premiered today, couldn't we go ahead and label it a classic without it having to age? Let it be vintage right out of the bottle.