Filmgoddess
-
Posts
772 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Filmgoddess
-
-
I was talking about the general public not about a few film fans on a classic movies blog. Big difference. Surely, you see that, right?
-
Infinite: I'm sorry that you don't know what your talking about. I've written 8 books on film history and taught it for over 20 years. NOT all films are dated. If you think all films are dated, I'm not sure why you have any interest in TCM or film at all.
As for Mr. Kaye, I've done quite a bit of research on him for 2 books I did about film comedy. I found near-universal disdain for him as a person including the use of words I can't type here from the likes of everyone from Mildred Natwick to Barbara Stanwyck to Celeste Holm and others. I was relating that experience.
As for Mr. Kazan. If one looks at the tape of that event, you'll see that at least 50% of the audience rose to salute. Others, prominent in the audience (like Ed Harris and Spielberg) chose to stay seated and sit on their hands. A rather permament and shameful blot if you ask me about one of the greatest directors the American cinema and theater has ever known.
-
Janet: in all the hateful things one occasionally sees on message boards, that takes the cake. I feel very sorry for you that that's the only level of discource you know how to engage in.
-
Loretta in a pre-code is such an amazing metaphor! Who would have thought she took the code so seriously and actually submittied herself to their approval? One day, she was a "good-time gal" and then 1934 rolls around and she become a virgin again
-
TCM should show the films because that's their mission not to "remind us" we were all racists once. That would be like showing Holocaust films in Germany all the time in order to remind Germans that they were racist murderers at one time. Totally ridiculous.
-
But they WERE pressured, and that's the point. They probably would have faced a boycott or worse so, at best, it was a practical decision based on intimidation and coercion. Not exactly open-minded.
The problem with someone "deciding" what is racist and what is not is that everyone has a different opinion. Quite some time ago, NBC ran a program hosted by Bryant Gumbel about whether or not one was a racist or not. They asked various questions and the answers were "scored" and totalled which told whether or not you were a racist. The problem is that some of the questions that indicated you were a "racist" were along these lines:
If you are walking down the street and a group of black youths are behind you do you cross the street and walk a different way? If you answered "yes" then that counted as you being a racist.
I'm sorry but stuff like that is ridiculous. Most people would think it was a practical thing to do and didn't make you remotely racist.
But that's the problem when human beings decide things like that.
I'd rather the programs and films air unfiltered and unaltered and people can decide themselves if it's something they wish to watch or not.
-
It all depends on how you set-up your HDTV. It will display it any way you choose.
-
The greatest movie series of all-time most would probably agree. Table for one, sir?
-
I could easily come up with 10 nominees for Best Picture and still feel that I had left something off the list. This was, IMHO, a very good year for motion pictures.
-
The rules state they can have "up to 10 nominations for Best Picture" -- just like in the 1930s and early 40s but it usually ends up being 8 or 9.
-
And she as a true hero whose story should be better known!
-
There isn't a single film with LY in it that you couldn't safely delete and have missed anything. And think how much of your life you'd get back?
Is it February 1st yet?
-
That was true of many sequences in films of that period where black performers had featured roles. It seems so ridiculous to us today. I sure hope I would have found it ricidulous had I been alive back then!
-
If Danny Kaye was so popular, can you explain why Hollywood sat on its hands when he received that Honorary Oscar from the Academy? Not a single person stood up. At least half they auditorium stood up for Elia Kazan and many hated him. So why did everyone just shrug? Because he was deeply unpopular and disliked in Hollywood because he was a pain in the ....
It's not Danny Kaye bashing. It's called being critical and it's no different than those who praise someone to the skies. What is that called?
And it's time to stop repeating that he was Bob Hope's favorite comedian. That's sheer nonsense that has been repeated again and again although no one has ever been able to come up with any quote from Hope on that subject. It simply isn't true.
Danny Kaye had talents that are now dated and, at one time, he was very popular. But that popularity is today non-existent and he is completely forgotten by the public at large. That's not "bashing" it's a simple, stated fact.
I'm glad he made some people laugh. So do the Three Stooges and kittens caught in trees. So what?
-
You must not have seen ARGO because it's not a thriller. Some would argue it's a far better film than LINCOLN which is good but rather conventional with the usual Spielberg cliches. I liked both films but -- apart from Daniel Day Lewis' performance -- there isn't anything particularly special or unique about LINCOLN. It's just a well-crafted old film. ARGO, to me, also has some problems mostly related to the opening and closing narrative pieces which are both a) way over-simplified and
unnecessary (the second one in particular).I'm still not sure what film I'll vote for.
No one thought CHARIOTS or CRASH would win either, but they both did. You never know what might happen.
-
The Academy Awards producers have announced that they will present a special salute to the James Bond franchise on its 50th anniversary (which was actually last year) on this year's awards telecasts. No word on who is involved.
So, what are the chances of getting Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig -- all of the actors who have played Bond in the Bond franchise films -- together on one stage for an appearance?
My guess is slim ... and none. But I'm hopeful!
-
As I said, she was a lovely woman and a good dancer. I just don't think that the critical consensus is that she was among the greats. But everyone, obviously, is entitled to think differently.
I just don't appreciate words and thoughts being put into my mouth and head by others. It's unpleasant.
-
Of course, that makes perfect sense but that's because older TV programs -- until about a decade ago -- were filmed in 4:3 while today most programs are filmed in 16:9 to fit the new widescreen TVs.
But if TCM telecasts most films made after 1953 in widescreen and letter-boxed, then I don't see how there'd be any difference.
Oh, and recording to your DVR and taking up more space has nothing to do with aspect ratio or filling more of the screen. It's simply that HD itself is filled with much more information and uses that much more space to broadcast. It's really that simple.
As an experiment, record a 1940 B&W film from your TCM SD and and the same film from you TCM HD. You'll see that the HD recording takes up twice as much space even though there is no difference at all in the actual film.
But definitely enjoy your new toys!!!!
-
I mentor a lot of young college students and 70% of the young black students I encounter say "axe" instead of "ask." I always patiently try to explain to them not just the correct pronunciation of that word but the connotation that it has in broader society. I often get stiff resistance but, more often than not, I get understanding that wasn't there before. The reality is that most of the America that does the hiring in this country finds the use of "axe" cringe-inducing. I've interviewed a lot of hiring managers and, when being completely candid, they tell me that they simply won't hire anyone who pronounces that word that way (and by the way, it isn't necessarily a color issue but a socio-economic class issue). Whenever I ask why, there response is "I associate mispronunciation of that word with laziness."
Now, that may not be fair but it certainly is reality. As I say to my students, we have to deal with things as they are, not as we wish them to be.
It's often an eye-opening experience for all concerned, including me.
-
I don't mind drawing viewer's attention to such things but I'd object if it is referred to by the presenter as "racist" because they're leaving out the intent behind the number. "Racism" was almost never intended in films like HOLIDAY INN or BABES IN ARMS. And we sometimes forget that some of the most popular "black face entertainers" were actually black themselves!
The NAACP has kept Amos and Andy off of TV for years despite the fact that studies showed it was the most popular show among black audiences during the 1950s.
I think all this banning and censoring is completely ridiculous.
Sometimes the numbers make you cringe, sometimes you want to turn away. But they exist in certain films and TV programs and trying to excise them or warn people or just dismissing them as racist is really a "head in the sand" approach which basically denies history. Put them in their historical context don't try to ban or censor them.
-
lydecker: please point to a single word, phrase, or sentence I used which indicates that I "loathe" Vera-Ellen. You won't find one because they don't exist.
I find it painful to watch her when she wears shorts or sleeveless shirts because of her obvious illness which was sad and ended her life far too soon.
She was a good dancer; she isn't -- and no one before you has ever claimed so -- a great one and doesn't rank among the great female dancers on screen.
For you to "go off" on my supposed dislike of her because of her weight issues -- well, you're making that up out of whole cloth. I don't dislike her one bit. I feel sad when I see her -- and I've only made this point 3 or 4 times already -- because she died too young and it's obvious back then what was going on which makes it only sadder.
I get the same feeling every time I see a film when Natalie Wood in water.
Perhaps you just don't understand.
PS: I don't think Kaye has any chemistry with Vera-Ellen at all because he never seems to notice his co-stars (a problem he had) because he's too busy being a complete narcissist.
-
Of course, I embarassed to admit that I rarely watch TCM. With a movie collection on DVD of over 7,000 films there is rarely something on that I don't already have. I do like the documentaries and special programs and the occasional rarity I don't have. But I do support what they're doing wholeheartedly!
-
That's odd. I wonder if that has something to do with your cable system and how it telecasts? On my TCM SD and my TCM HD, the picture is exactly the same.
-
Lzcutter: you might want to look at the headline of the thread. That's what I was responding to.
I can't believe that Sally Field would even be nominated. She's 20 years older than the part she plays and looks every minute of it. She's just Sally Field, a role she's been playing for 35 years.
I think Daniel Day Lewis is amazing but I left him off my Oscar ballot (although I realize it won't make a difference) because I feel he's won twice and that's enough. Plus there are a few other performances this year I'd rather see rewarded, in particular, Jackman's turn in LES MIS and Bradley Cooper's terrific performance in SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK.
I also left DJANGO UNCHAINED off my ballot. I hated it. So overrated and just not my cup of tea. I suppose the 20 and 30 somethings who think film started in the 1990s will love it.
I do think that LINCOLN, Day-Lewis, Spielberg and Hathaway are the favorites. I'm guessing that Best Actress will come down to Jessica Chastain and Jennifer Lawrence -- hard to choose they were both good -- but if she makes it to the final ballot I'll be casting my vote for Emmanuelle Riva in AMOUR who is simply amazing.
Supporting Actor looks interesting and I'm sorta hoping for Tommy Lee Jones who was marvelous in LINCOLN.
But as others said, I wouldn't be surprised if LINCOLN doesn't win. But I'm hearing that some think that LINCOLN and LES MIS will duke it out and that will give ARGO a chance to win. Sort of like what happened when REDS and ON GOLDEN POND fought it out and CHARIOTS OF FIRE won.
Whatever happens, we are almost guaranteed a crappy show with presenters most of us have never -- or don't want to ever -- heard of. There'll be no one on the show or maybe just one who made a film before the 1980s.
Thank god I go to an Oscar party where you can drink and eat and chat so you miss all the bad parts.
unnecessary (the second one in particular).
Off topic threads, PMs, etc.
in General Discussions
Posted
Correct, but if you set your TV to show a 4:3 aspect ratio, it won't show it in 1:18. You have to set your TV correctly in order to receive the HD signals that your cable/satellite provider is sending you. Same is true with DVDs. I know people who set their HDTV to show everything in 16:9 so they watch old movies from 1941 like that! Everyone is short and fat!