Filmgoddess

What may be even more surprising is that anyone would sit down and watch a movie on TV or in a movie theater without FIRST having looked up even a single thing about what the movie was about. Now, that is shocking, shocking, shocking!

Have you watched The Hallmark Channel lately? Or ABC Family? There is more nudity, curse words, and sexual innuendo on those stations than HBO. Hallmark Channel, especially at the holidays, has become "Christmas Hunk Movie Month" with one scantily clad hot man after another pursuing some uptight career woman. Heck, I'm not complaining ... I rather enjoy those!

For me, neither would be in the tribute especially not at the exclusion of such familiar faces in film such as Joyce Redman and Leonard Cimino, among others.

It might help if you name 5 movies that people have actually heard of. The last 3 are completely unknown to me and I've been watching movies for over 40 years.

When I got married -- for the second time -- I received a telegram from Jessica Tandy and Hume Cronyn that simply said "Don't Worry, Be Happy." I would never have guessed they would have known that song (the year was 1989). That is an awful song and I didn't know that it was from a movie. Which one? I want to avoid it!

Apparently, but there's such scant evidence of it that who know. One thing I know for certain is that he wasn't much of an acting. As a matter of fact, I'm not aware that he acted at all. He just played variations on himself. An artist? That's just laughable.

I don't want to start this argument again but, I'm sorry, there is simply NO such thing as a color "film noir." And if they were in black and white several of the films on this list including DIAL M FOR MURDER (romantic murder mystery) and BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK (simple drama) wouldn't be eligible either because they aren't remotely film noirs.

She was on Match Game. Wasn't she also known as Brett Somers?

I think there are some people who retired -- or died -- at just the right time (and I don't mean to be offensive although I know some will be offended). Garbo is forever fixed in our minds. Her reclusiveness makes her more interesting. I also think of JFK, Marilyn Monroe, Diana Princess of Wales. I mean, let's be honest, as sad as it was for their families their deaths at an early age were a blessing for their careers and reputations. JFK's shenanigans would have come out while he was still alive and it would be treated differently. Monroe would have probably had all sorts of bad work done to her face and would have drifted further into pills and booze and more bad films. Diana? Gosh, at 50 she'd be botoxed to within an inch of her life trolling around the world with one inappropriate man after another embarassing her dear boys to no end. Sometimes things happen at the right time. On the other hand, I would have loved to see Jean Arthur and Irene Dunne turn to characters roles rather than retire. They could have been splendid but that's the choice they made.

Exactly, so why bother complaining? It's counterproductive. I can't -- and won't -- repeat what I said that had someone's knickers in a twist (and I don't remotely blame the moderators -- they're just doing their job) but I did think ...really? Gosh, there are so many bigger problems in this world to worry about ....

I had the opposite experience. I once said something nice about George W. Bush and a friend of 20 years refused to ever speak to me again. They said, and I quote, "well, if you feel THAT way I have nothing more to say to you." At least they've kept their word But, honestly, I can't remotely understand people who behave in that manner!

One of the "classiest" films made in recent years was the 2010 Oscar winner for Best Picture -- THE KING's SPEECH -- which used, to great and hilarious effect, several "curse" words. I can't imagine that anyone would have refused to see that film on that basis. If they had, I'm sorry, but I call that extremely narrow-minded. People who won't watch films with nudity or cursing or insist on the words "bleeped out" are people I simply can't relate to or understand. What are they protecting themselves or their families from? Or those the only taboos that one needs protection from? How about people who don't eat properly or put hot sauce on all their food? I would, frankly, find that more offensive. How about people who over-eat, refuse to exercise, and are obese? I find that offensive. Yes, hyperbole to make a point. I believe in complete freedom when it comes to art. I don't have to like it but I don't want stations to have to censor nudity or curse words or anything else for that matter because I don't want human beings to decide that for me. I'm an adult. I can decide it for myself.

Your anger at the cable company is completely misplaced. The cable company gets a license from the federal/state/local government. Part of that license agreement is that they must run the random tests of the emergency broadcast system. They can -- and often do -- run any time of the day or night. I've seen them in the morning, afternoon, and evening. So your anger should be at the government. The cable company can't do anything about it. If they want to have a license they have no choice. Complain to your congressman, or the White House. But a word of advice: it ain't gonna do any good. Those warnings are not going away.

I can see both points of view. I don't think it has anything to do with "our community" but the nature of the internet in general. I have participated in groups that were academic in nature, some that were rareified in their subject matter, and yet there was still name-calling and all of that other stuff. It's the internet, most people are anonymous, and people feel free to say anything because they believe there are no consequences. I seriously doubt that much of what we see would be said if you were having a conversation on the phone or in person. There have been some interesting questions raised in this thread and I have a question of my own to post to the group. How many people here have actually complained to the administrator about someone else's post or post(s)? The answer for me, personally, would be ZERO. I can't imagine that there is anything here that would offend me enough to complain to someone else about it. I'm sorry if this sounds judgmental but that strikes me as childish, immature, and indicative of a someone who has far too much time on their hands. I don't envy the moderator of a site that gets those kinds of complaints on any regular sort of basis. If I saw something I considered vulgar or whatever, I would just move on by. I wouldn't whine about. I've had only one experience -- that I'm aware of -- where someone was offended by something I posted here and sent me a private e-mail about it. The problem with the obtuse message I received from this person (they've been mentioned in this thread already so I won't mention them again) was it as a message along the lines of "tsk, tsk, tsk" and was very sort of catty but didn't tell me to what post of mine they were referring. I made the mistake -- in hindsight -- of writing them back and simply saying "what are you talking about?" I received no response but a couple of days later I received a message from the moderator asking me to be more careful about what I posted. I've taken math, I can add two and two. That's fine. If there is a guideline I've not followed, I'm happy to either do so or not participate. That's the deal you make when you join a moderated blog. The even funnier thing is -- from my perspective -- is that my offensive comment was made about myself! But I wonder about the maturity level of some people who are offended by every little thing no matter how mild or who can't take a joke and get all huffy. Life is short, sometimes I think people need to take a chill pill and just relax a bit. No one is curing cancer here. PS: I don't envy anyone who has to moderate an internet site. It's like being on a co-op board. I thought I'd enjoy it but after six months of hell, I got the heck out of Dodge!

It's been my experience on the internet that unmoderated sites are best. Otherwise, there is no way that anyone who moderates might not play favorites or lean one way or the other. We all know that there are people in our daily lives who we like and care about who can do something we'd normally find wrong that we'd support but when that same thing is done by someone we don't know we call for them to be punished. That's human nature. I'm not saying that happens here but I'd always lean on the side of not banning or punishing people for expressing themselves no matter how much we might not like what is being said. But that's just my two cents.

It doesn't take a genius to over-act, it just takes a ham. Brando was the biggest -- figuratively and literally -- ham of them all.

Why would anyone find it strange that no one agreed with the original poster when most reasonable agreed that the complaint was ridiculous? Should one agree just to show support for an opinion that I think most would find unsustainable? That's like saying "oh, I'm going to say George Raft was a great artist because no one else is expressing that opinion." Maybe no one else is expressing that opinion because no one else thinks it's true?

All of those things might be correct -- and that's debatable -- but the poster has no right to complain to TCM about things that were all within their control. Always, blame someone else. How appropriate for our times. Take some personal responsibility and don't blame the TV station for showing something you didn't like. Also, this 2012, not 1941. I seriously question what it is about the "F" word and a little nudity that someone thinks is going to scare their family in some way. I, mean, c'mon, give me a break. I'm willing to be that little Johnnie and Susie hear and see far worse every day in school, on their smartphones, and in from their classmates than they will ever see on TCM. To expect TCM to be some sort of personal censor -- and how the heck are they supposed to know what offends you in the first place -- is one of the most ridiculous and narrow-minded things I've heard here. And that's saying a lot ....

Swithin, even a clock is correct twice a day, right?

I find the notion that George Raft was an "artist" yet alone that he matured absolutely ludicrous.

Unfortunately, I think the rights were bought by the Abomination Movie Channel (aka AMC), so that's the only place to catch it unless you own a copy like me and many others. Yes, that house is terrific! And did you know it had double insulated pipes? And all that plumbing .... "dear, when you kiss me could you not talk about plumbing?" "What should I talk about?" "Do you have to talk at all?" LOL.

At first, I thought this might be the kind of "shock" that Claude Rains registered in CASABLANCA, then I thought the original poster might actually be serious. I'm afraid the latter is probably correct. I don't know how to phrase any of this without seeming rude or insulting ...so I'll just plow ahead. Seriously? You were exposed to a little nudity and the "F" word and you're upset? In a world with famine, war, racism, death, you name it ... it's nudity and the "F" word that has you so upset? C'mon, let's all get a collective grip on ourselves. I must have missed the rule book that said a classic movie can't have nudity or the "F" word. There are lots of classic movies with nudity and the "F" word. It's Turner Classic Movies, not TurnerWe'llNeverOffendYouMovies. At 3 am in the morning, no matter what station I turn on, if I don't see some t and a and someone swearing a blue streak, I'd be surprised at that, not the opposite!

"His characters usually had a flaw or two." With the possible exception of St. Bernadette, I can't think of a single character in the entire history of cinema that didn't have a flaw or two. I'm just saying, Helen! I'm talking about Astaire playing a heel for the first time on film. A real heel. He didn't do that too often. He's so breezy and sophisticated and it is musical comedy but when you really think about it, Ted Hanover is a pretty unlikeable character. I think that scene where he says to Walter Abel "brother, now I go to work" is almost chilling in how manipulative it is. That's not "edgy", that's downright bad.

"Dedicated to making people happy with our feet." "Were you happy? Then your father was a very successful man." "You could melt that girl down to butter, if you'd only turn up the heat." "I'm LINDA Mason." It's been 72 years since Bing Crosby first sat down at that piano in front of the fire and sang "White Christmas", for the first time, to Marjorie Reynolds. It was then, and it remains today, one of the most beautiful and heart-warming musical moments in film history. As hard as I try not to you, I always tear up. I was watching something the other day and heard Bob Beckel (who ran the Mondale for President campaign) say that he "can't listen to Bing Crosby at Christmas because he was a thug who beat up his kids." Not only was I stunned but it shows you how lies and garbage can pervade our culture when there is nothing to stop it. It, ultimately, saddened not just because I think the comment is completely wrong and unfair but it puts away in a box for all time one of the greatest entertainers of the 20th century. Well, enough about that. So you take the greatest singer of his day and combine him with the greatest dancer of his day and mix in the songs of the most American of all our songwriters and what do you get? You get HOLIDAY INN. It's not strictly a "Christmas" movie" or it would be my number one as it revolves around several holidays but Christmas is certainly a recurring theme. It can be seen any time of the year but I tend to watch this time of year. Like so many films of the golden age, it's perfectly paced, never a dull moment. It's always moving forward. So many things to touch on. It's beautifully sentimental, funny, and the musical moments are pure joy. It's funny to think that "White Christmas" was not expected to be the big hit of the film that was "Be Careful, It's My Heart" which is a beautiful song and a wonderful number for Astaire and Marjorie Reynolds. That song is now forgotten -- a shame -- as "White Christmas" has completely overwhelmed it (and every other song written in the 20th century). There's also Astaire's fantastic Firecracker number. One has to mention the "Abraham" number which, I suppose, will make the politically-correct cringe and want to boycott something or other. That's too bad. I try to look at it as part of the times and I don't believe for a minute that any offense was meant. It's a good number actually although even I'll admit when Reynolds comes jumping out in those pigtails and the enormous white lips I shudder just a bit. Mention must be made of two performances by character actors Walter Abel and Louise Beavers. Abel is just slightly more masculine than Franklin Pangborn in this role but he's fun to watch. Beavers is an absolute delight and her Thanksgiving scene with Crosby is one of the highlights of the film. One thing that may jar audiences seeing this film for the first time is just how unlikeable Astaire's character is. I think this may have been his first time playing such a heel on film and I don't think he did it again until TOWERING INFERNO in 1974. I could be wrong. He steals Crosby's girl -- two different girls -- twice, and after they're engaged! And, in the end, he still plays the victim. How appropriate that would be for our times! When Bing Crosby died in 1977, he was the most successful recording artist in history. On top of that he was a multiple Oscar nominee, had won Best Actor, had the number 1 radio show and had been the number 1 box office attraction of the 1940s. He also was extremely successful on TV. It's hard to think of anyone today who has come close to that record. When Astaire died in 1987, he was, quite simply, the premiere musical performer of the 20th century (to steal a phrase from George Stevens, Jr.). It's not likely that we will ever see their kind again. This film will show you why. Just enjoy it.

I just see it slightly differently. I just think audiences today just "don't get it" and it isn't that inherent values have changed; they've stayed the same since the beginning of time. It's that today's audiences want something different and they also suffer from a lack of understanding of anything that's different from what they perceive today. I think it's more a case of ignorance than values changing. They're unable to understand anything outside their own experience which is kinda sad since today's audiences have more access to things than any in history and yet they've become narrower and narrower. I think it's more complicated than "dated." But that's just my two cents.