Dargo
-
Posts
23,106 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
73
Posts posted by Dargo
-
-
Golly, Slay, that's a mouthful! I wish I had the energy to discuss a subject of such gravity, but not today. Except to say that the phrase "The Lost Generation" is attributed to the great Gertrude Stein, who actually wrote some beautiful works about her experiences in World War I. There is also a book by a friend of Stein's -- Mildred Aldrich -- another American who lived in France. Aldrich's book, Hilltop on the Marne is an account of the Battle of the Marne seen from Aldrich's cottage outside Paris. When I was quite young, I wanted to buy that book. It could only be found via antiquarian book sellers and was way out of my puny budget. And now it's on Project Gutenberg! Ain't the Internet grand!
How about W. Somerset Maugham's THE RAZOR'S EDGE ? I've always thought of that as perhaps the quintessential Lost Generation story, and with its outcome having the WWI veteran protagonist for the most part rejecting the western culture of war and material gain.
-
But beyond that, I like my gangster movies to be less dependent on Ralph Lauren faces and sexual undercurrents, and more populated with lunchpail characters like Bugs Fenner or Duke Mantee or Tommy DeVito. And in that respect, Bonnie and Clyde was an epic fail. In real life, even "Pretty Boy Floyd" was rather a homely mug.
So any other questions?
Yeah, I got one, Andy!
Seein' as how there's a particular lady around here who thinks "bad boys" are really hot AND sometimes no matter their looks...well...do you think she might find Mr. Floyd there kinda hot TOO???
(...or maybe I should just ask her, huh!) LOL
-
TCM just did this last February during Oscar month. e.g. one night would be the best actress nominations for a given year.
Thanks, James. Ya know, after I entered that, the thought that TCM had done this somewhere along the line and possibly during their Oscar month series crossed my mind.
-
TCM should show this again. I remember reading in one of my film reference books that Roz Russell was considered a shoo-in for the Oscar for her role here and it was a big surprise when Loretta Young won for THE FARMER'S DAUGHTER. Maybe TCM could run both movies back-to-back on Oscar month and viewers could judge for themselves.
That's actually a very intriguing idea there Christine, but what say we take this idea to the next logical step:
Perhaps a new TCM series where it would present a block of films which feature the actors and actresses who where nominated for their performances in the same category and in the same year? Possibly including the Supporting Role categories, also? And then as you said, the viewer could decide for themselves who they thought the Oscar should have gone to.
Does anyone know if TCM has ever done this in the past?
-
No way! It was Larry Fine, hands down!
NO WAY!
(...says comedian Steven Wright)
-
And finally you have Ralph Kramden saying to Alice, "You don't love me. You've never loved me. You know why you married me? Because you were in love with my uniform."
You didn't finish the quote, Rich!
(...I think it ends with somethin' about "a trip to the moon")
-
I just did a complete scan of all posts ever made on this board, and was astounded to discover that 99% of the posts fall into one category; requests that TCM show Marie Osmond movies.
Nah, Rich. That was just me entering over and over again that I want TCM to show "I Married Wyatt Earp" as soon as possible.
(...I mean, ya gotta admit, she IS pretty darn cute!)
-
- 1,000,393 Total Posts
- 42,019 Total Members
- tzogn Newest Member
- 439 Most Online
50 users are online (in the past 15 minutes)20 members, 30 guests, 0 anonymous users (See full list)
WHOA now, mr6666! Excuse me here, but when people post somethin' like THIS, isn't it now the "correct protocol" to FIRST state that it's "News"???
(...man...I'm tellin' ya...you people are REALLY confusin' me around here lately, YA KNOW!!!)
-
1
-
So did Tom just say he could live with it (the killing), when he really couldn't or was the loss of his gal the main reason for his melt down?
To be honest with ya, I'm with Mr.R here James, and think it was more the idea that he lost Hallie to Rance because of his selfless act.
And so, getting back to Rick Blaine and how he handled himself after doing pretty much the same thing, I'll bring up the idea that at least Rick had "a cause"(a major world conflict) to then fight for, and as compared to Tom who pretty much was only left to stew over his actions on a lonely western ranch, and with the "cause" of statehood not being that major an issue in comparison.
-
Hi Obrienmundy,
The idea of defending your women seems to have a strong appeal in wartime, and has been often used for enlistment and propaganda purposes by all nations. I've also observed that many women turn very hawkish in wartime, goading their men to serve and challenging them with questions like: "Why aren't you in uniform?!". Women of all countries have been known to do this.
I've always felt that there is a close relationship between sex and war. Gender roles get bent or reversed, lot of marriages take place, lot of quickie liaisons and a lot of babies get born. Men lose their inhibition against proposing marriage, and women lose their inhibition against quickie" hookups". I'm by no means the first to have noted this!
Yep. In fact, one of the scenes early on in THE BIG PARADE shows John Gilbert's American girlfriend saying to him after hearing the U.S. had declared war on Germany, "Isn't this exciting?! You'll look so handsome in an officer's uniform!"
And then of course you have Virginia Mayo saying to Dana Andrews after the next war and when she sees him in civilian clothes for the first time saying something to the effect of him "not looking like himself".
-
1
-
-
There's an excellent example of that in the DVD Director's Cut of Billy Bob Thornton's 'Sling Blade' (1996). This is a wonderful movie - deeply felt, and in its theatrical cut is perfect. The necessity of cutting some of the more drawn out takes to make it more suited to daily showings and selling more popcorn was a good thing in this case. It made Thornton tighten up, remove some of his more superfluous artistic-ness. But he put it back in for his director's cut - and it's noticeable. The movie runs 13 minutes longer and it's worse for it. The pacing is not quite so perfect. The movie is his personal statement, so I understand that he was in love with the longer takes and the additional artistry.
Fortunately it's such a good movie that either version is terrific to see, but this is one case where the theatrical cut is better.
Yep, and THEN there was the "master" of this: Michael Cimino, and his "masterpiece" of this "syndrome", HEAVEN'S GATE, an otherwise fascinating tale of late-19th Century America bogged down in too many places by scenes which should and could have probably have been shortened by a minute or so, and once the point being made within the shot had been expressed!
I also always felt this way about Jack Nicholson's CHINATOWN sequel THE TWO JAKES. A possibly much better film IF he just would have edited it better.
-
What? No "Prince Valiant"? Leigh was so exquisite as Princess Aleta in this 1954 film that I've begun to wonder if she looked that good in real life!
Here's ya some little known Hollywood trivia:
The wig RJ is sportin' there is the same one his wife would later use in "Gypsy"!
(...betcha didn't know THAT, now did ya?!)
-
I hope Lynn is around to help clear this up; If Tom really says something to the effect of "I can live with it', then why would Tom give up his guns. Why didn't he become a lawman or some other noble profession where his talents would be useful?
So if Tom really said 'I can life with it', he was kidding himself. Clearly he could NOT live with it (killing Valance in cold blood), OR the reason things went bad related more to losing Hallie then the killing.
Yes James. Mr.R is correct. Wayne definitely says "I can live with it" to Stewart in the movie. I remember it well.
(...though I can't recall if he added "Pilgrim")
-
Funny how one can see a movie for a dozen or more times over the years and remember bits and pieces of the movie, and yet maybe draw some wrong conclusions about the story. I don't have a tape/recording of " Liberty Valance", mainly because it has been aired rather often over the years. So I go by memory here; when Tom confronts Rance in the back room at the convention and tells Rance the real story of what happened that fateful night, Tom admonishes Rance for feeling guilty over the killing of Liberty Valance. I'm paraphrasing here, Tom says "you didn't kill Valance, I did, and I can live with it. You made promises to Hallie so make her proud and go back in there and take that nomination" . So Tom shares the secret with Rance and it is in the interest of both men to keep that secret. The only other to ever know the truth is Pompey, Tom's friend, and he would never talk.. So Rance goes on to his long, successful political career (with Hallie as his wife) and Tom is stuck in Shinbone to brood about what could have been (marriage and life with the girl) and never gets over it . He dies a lonely recluse, and Rance is the only one to really understand why that happened.
Well, he DID always have Pompey ya know, Mr.R.
(...well, OTHER than that stretch of time Pompey enlisted in the U.S. Army and went by the name of "Sergeant Rutledge" anyway!)
-
First, yes MissW, I think you've started a great idea for a thread here.
Secondly, among many of the insightful replies you've received here so far, I found James' observation below interesting...
I think pacing has a lot to do with if one finds a movie boring or not. Pacing may have more to do with ‘if boring or not’ then content (the plot, dialog, if there is a message).
Take many 30’s programmers; if one was to read the plot\storyline in many cases one might not find much that interest them since there isn’t a lot of substance there. Due to that lack of substance directors would quicken the pace of the film. This gives the impression there is a lot going on when there isn’t. Of course they would also throw in action sequences that didn’t advance the plot.
Great topic BTW.
...as I believe he's picked-up on a factor of film-making which I have occasionally noticed contributes mightily to if I will find a certain film drifting into my "boredom scale"...pacing and editing.
There have been many times while watching a film in which I sense the director is attempting to push the narrative toward the "artsy"(for want of a better term) and done by staying much too long(IMO) with a particular scene and long after the "point" of the scene has been grasped by the audience, and as if the director wants us to grasp every little significance from it. I've always felt this sort of thing begins to slide toward pretentiousness by calling attention to itself and also needlessly slows down the pacing of an often otherwise interesting story premise.
-
So I was too harsh as it relates to my judgement of Tom; His actions were NOT driven by the loss of Halle. Instead that is only a secondary factor. The main factor is the guilt from the killing.
Yes James, I believe you were...being too harsh with your judgement of Tom, that is.
However, and no offense here my friend, I have to add that I find the reason you've "softened" your view of him a little, the idea that the emotion of "guilt" instead of "loss" makes him somehow more "noble", to be of questionable reasoning for such, as it IS only human for people possessing many various degrees of "nobility" to succumb to fits of depression when their lives contain either emotion, be they once a "hero" or not.
-
He was also betrayed by the man he lost Hallie to. Ranse Stoddard makes a big deal about how "no one fights my battles for me" but in the crucial battle of his life, he did just that.
He knew, perhap not immediately. but shortly thereafter, that he didn't kill Valance.When they meet , years later, in the courthouse at the meeting for statehood confirmation, Tom finally confirms what Ranse has known all along- that Tom was the man who did the actual killing.
But caught up in the hero worship that everyone bestowed upon him and with Hallie choosing him over Tom, Ranse made no endeavor )until years later when he realizes that he might lose Hallie forever) to set the record straight, made his career on that lie and lived the life that Tom Doniphon, the man who actually shot Valance, should have had.
I can see how such thing could make Tom Doniphon a bitter man towards Stoddard.
Hmmmm...ya know Lynn, I've never gotten the impression that Ranse knew or even had an inkling he wasn't actually Valance's killer until that statehood convention years later. And, then once he found this out, what good would it have been to disclose this bit of information to anyone while Tom was alive, as it could have resulted with Tom being brought up on charges of murder.
I also got the impression that Ranse never used his notoriety as the man who shot Valance for political gain either, as it seems to me his character would have always downplayed that, plus the idea that he was one of the few people in that territory and then state who had experience with the law and lawmaking, and thus I would think the voters would have taken that more into consideration when they voted.
(...aah, but then again, I think we all know the many facile reasons many voters vote the way they do...and so maybe not, eh?!) LOL
And secondly, the manner in which this story unfolds, Tom's actions are actually very similar to what Rick Blaine does for "the common good" in CASABLANCA, as he too goes out of his way to protect the man who would eventually take away the love of his life.
-
Wayne starred in some very good if not great movies but in my favorite Wayne movies he doesn't play a very nice or decent person.
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, The Searchers, and Red River for example. Stagecoach is a solid movie and Wayne is good as a man outside of the law. I assume the characters Wayne plays in these fine movies doesn't remind you of the behavior of your brothers or father. So what Wayne movies do?
Okay James , while I agree with you about Wayne's characters not being "very nice" or "decent" in "The Searchers" and "Red River", I always thought of his role as Tom Doniphon in "Liberty Valance" as being a fairly decent sort. I mean, putting aside the question of if "bushwhacking" Valance from the alley is a "decent" thing to do(or as Edmund O'Brien once says in this film, "You call Liberty Valance A MAN?!") , you must remember that IF he didn't do that, then the little town of Shinbone probably would have(not "would of" btw..wink, wink) been under the tyranny of Valance and not fit for "decent people" to live in for a much longer time than it would otherwise. In fact, for most of this film, Wayne pretty much acts as the sole "enforcer of decency" in Shinbone.
In other words, as that train conductor says as the final words of this film, "Nothin's too good for the(actual) man who shot Liberty Valance"!
-
I really enjoyed AQOTWF, especially when they feast on the extra food issue. I did try to watch The Big Parade after that but there was no sound, just music.
ND, just a suggestion here, but the next time you attempt to watch "The Big Parade", I've found that to take special note of King Vidor's highly imaginative use of the camera(especially for its time) goes a long way towards helping one appreciate this classic film.
-
I see that as more of a caveman impression. I was going to say the Monster from Frankenstein (because as well all know, the Monster is not named Frankenstein, that is the name of his creator) but the more I thought about it the more I don't recall the Monster ever talking in the classic 1931 movie, though he may have talked later.
Anyway, I digress and it would not be right of me to derail a thread when so often we remind people to stay on topic!
Regardless, let's all play nice folks.
While I certainly loved and appreciated the manner you took in reminding people to "be nice" around here Mr. Admin(and btw, I think a better alternative to my "Jay Silverheels" joke to darkblue would have been to think of and use Tarzan's manner of fracturing the English language and not Frankenstein's Monster) I would like to ask you a question about this whole "going off-topic" thing in this thread.
You see, I've just went back to the OP's original post in his thread and re-read it, and I while I COULD be wrong here, I got the impression that his thread was primarily started to just call attention to his being the originator of so many threads which receive a high number of "viewings", and not so much the question as to "what do thread views mean?".
And so, as it seems to me that his thread title's "question" was offered up more in a rhetorical manner, and thus not apparently in an attempt to discover an answer to this query, I'm wondering here why going "off-topic"(and hopefully in a humorous fashion as I know you know I'm prone to around here) in this particular thread would or could be considered either "rude" and/or an "affront" to the OP or anyone else who's taken the time to reply in this thread?
(...thanks in advance for taking my query seriously and responding to it...oh, and yeah...if you'd like to use a little humor in your reply, that would of course be viewed by me as an "added bonus" TOO!)
-
2
-
-
Of course. I was being semi-facetious. On the other hand, I wonder if the teleprompter had directions on it, like "move your right hand every so often to let viewers know you're alive."
LOL
Yeah, well, it COULD have been worse, ya know Rich!
(...uh-huh...at least the General is a LITTLE more animated and at least uses a LITTLE more inflection in HIS voice than did little Matthew Broderick when HE hosted HIS Friday Night Spotlight series, RIGHT?!) LOL
-
Yes, I noticed that too. Which begs the question, which is more serious? Mr. Osborne making a mistake about a film, or a retired general who does not know his military history?
Actually Rich, while I think the General's statement could have been more clearly stated, I have to say I don't really think he was implying the thought that Germany was "an enemy" of the U.S. during the time AQOTWF was filmed and released, but more the idea that for a major Hollywood film to portray "The Great War" from the POV of a U.S. enemy during that conflict was somewhat of a groundbreaking proposition.
In more modern times, perhaps a correlative thought might be Clint Eastwood's 2006 "Letter From Iwo Jima" and his presenting the same POV aspect from Japanese soldiers' perspective and how even in the 21st Century still seemed to mildly jar the sensibilities of some American moviegoers who would view that film upon its release.
-
Me still no understand. Me have big problem with who are many people who let thread go away? Me think see obsession very much in fx man.
Now THAT'S gotta be THE worst Jay Silverheels impression I've EVER heard!!!
(...okay okay...read)
-
Dang. Well, I guess great minds think alike.
Yeah, that works for me too!
Though I might add that I thought your words about the Middle East being in "the fix" it is in today because of the great western powers' postwar political maneuverings was especially well observed, and thus the reason I've always found that particular aspect of the often shown "Lawrence of Arabia" the most intriguing part of that film.
-
1
-
TCM Messageboards Closing in on the 1,000,000 Post Mark
in General Discussions
Posted
Why, haven't you HEARD, Ham???
(..."we're scarin' 'em away"!!!) LOL