Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

ValeskaSuratt

Members
  • Content Count

    458
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ValeskaSuratt

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. > {quote:title=Bildwasser wrote:}{quote} > This is somewhat embarrassing, but a huge case of the clap > went around Tinsel Town just as 1930 began. Not challenging your facts, just curious: where'd you hear THAT ? (Ha ! I almost wrote "Where'd you pick that up ?")
  2. > {quote:title=LonesomePolecat wrote: > }{quote}Ever watch a movie and think "Man, I want that house"? OH, yes ! The Enchanted Cottage (1945) ... 2 bedrooms, 1 bath and free plastic surgery !
  3. > {quote:title=calvinnme wrote:}{quote} > I could write for days on the subject of film copyright and the convoluted mess that some films are in. While I'd hate to cost you several days of writing, I would be fascinated to hear you expound on this topic . . .I gather that Disney has spearheaded changes to copyright law in order to hold onto Mickey Mouse et al but I'd never heard about the rights saga of It's a Wonderful Life until reading this very informative thread. I've definitely never heard of a film going p.d. and then being "re-claimed" ! IAWL is hardly the only p.d. film with a tangle of other rights (like music or source material) attached to it. It also struck me as weird to see a 2012 copyright on all the Mack Sennett shorts. Yes, it's great those films have been preserved and in some cases restored, but it does seem like a situation that's ripe for abuse -- go find a print of an old movie that's slipped into the public domain, tack on some new element, re-copyright the result and -- Presto ! -- you own the film ?? For years, there was a guy in Hollywood who had a lot of p.d. footage and made what he called "stockumentaries" -- "If we have the footage, it happened ... if we don't, it didn't." Many thanks to all who've contributed to the info here -- especially to calvinnme (I share your sense of posting into a "vacuum") and lzcutter (from one who truly appreciates your generosity with both information and courtesy).
  4. Great stuff, LonesomePolecat. (I assume he's named "Harpo" because he plays the harp and never talks ?) Cats in the movies have traditionally gotten a bad rap -- too often cast as villains like Mr. Fluffy-poo in The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957) the[/i]Incredible-Shrinking-Mancatindoorwaylarge.png] If big cats count, two of my favorites as a kid were Clarence, the Cross-Eyed Lion (1965) . . . . . . and Elsa the lioness in Born Free (1966). Another of my favorite cats (though only on TV, the feature-length movie featured Lee Merriweather).
  5. > {quote:title=SonOfUniversalHorror wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=ValeskaSuratt wrote:}{quote}Batman & Robin (1997) was only rated PG-13 and it should have been rated R. > Nonsense....Why? > And what does that have to do with "Ten Most Underrated Films of All Time" anyway? Whatever you say, dahling. :^0
  6. Batman & Robin (1997) was only rated PG-13 and it should have been rated R.
  7. *Gary Cooper & Amelia Earhart, circa mid-1930s*
  8. *Lupe Velez & Gary Cooper, circa 1929* *"Hang On, Lupe . . . Lupe, Hang On"*
  9. > {quote:title=ValeskaSuratt wrote:}{quote}There's a marvelous documentary called Smoke and Mirrors: A History of Denial which describes the collusion that went on between America's tobacco industry and both the government and Hollywood to promote smoking. > > > > F'rinstance, when the "doughboys" were sent off to Europe during WWI, girls at the train stations handed out little "survival kits" which included cigarettes. Just came across this advertisement for the "Our Boys In France Tobacco Fund":
  10. > {quote:title=AddisonDeWitless wrote:}{quote} > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not a novel that screams for a film adaptation, I've never gotten why they did it, but they did it. The book was a controversial best-seller when it was published in the U.S. in 1958. From Robert R. Kirsh's 1958 L.A. Times review: "Word-of-mouth reports hinted that 'Lolita' was hot stuff and the implication was that the book was a high-class 'Peyton Place.' " > I also end with carping that it super-duper **** me off when people refer to the concept and story as "Stanley Kubrick's Lolita " even when not discussing the film, it is Nabokov's Lolita through and through, for better and for worse. Kubrick convinced Nabakov to come to Hollywood and write the screenplay but his first version was 400 pages -- or seven hours -- long. Though Nabakov came up with a shorter version, Kubrick wound up using about only 20% of it so the film is hardly "Nabakov's Lolita through and through." Countdown to the inevitable snarky, vulgarity-peppered response: 10, 9, 8 . . .
  11. TomJH, If you've not already seen it, you might enjoy a fairly in-depth blogppost called "Errol Flynn: A Colourful Fragment in a Drab World" by Matthew Coniam at Movietone News: http://www.movietone-news.com/2011/02/errol-flynn-colourful-fragment-in-drab.html In light of your considerable knowledge about Flynn, I'd be curious to hear any opinions you'd care to share about it. > TomJH said: Perhaps even more than his films, I think that Flynn would have been knocked out by the fact that his autobiography is still on sale. Over a half century after his death his name still means enough that it is still doing good business. His name . . . AND his subject matter: movies, sex, drinking, sailing, movie stars, ribald humor, chasing women, sex, movie making, hysterically funny anecdotes, sex, a good deal of remarkably frank introspection . . . and sex: "I think I can truthfully say that my behaviour in whorehouses has been exemplary." > Flynn never made a secret of the fact that he would rather have been a writer than an actor any day. I didn't know until reading the above article that Flynn wrote the screenplays for two of his later films, Adventures of Captain Fabian (1951) and the ill-fated William Tell (1953) ! > The further sad reality is that Flynn didn't think that what he did on screen, in the role of costume or western hero, was anything special. He thought that he was basically play acting and getting very well paid for it (for a while, anyway) but I don't really think that he regarded it as taking any great talent on his part. Interesting that he was pragmatic enough about it to play it to his advantage -- for his first decade of stardom anyway. According to the article, when it came to learning how to play hardball in Hollywood, Flynn apparently caught on quickly: It was during the shooting of (Captain Blood)– and not before production of the second, when the box-office reaction may at least have justified it somewhat – that he began his famous habit of withdrawing labour until his salary was increased. (According to Sheila Graham, “with every film, he would not show up for wardrobe fittings or meetings until his contract was renegotiated. It was not long before he had brought his salary to $150,000 a picture.” ) For a more or less unknown actor, being given the opportunity of a lifetime in a major studio lead, this really is breathtaking self-assertion; few others would have dared to enrage Jack Warner from such an unguarded position. And yet, though similar confrontations and mutual recrimination would ever characterise their relationship, there was affection there, at least on Warner’s part. He indulged Flynn as one would an ungrateful favourite son, equally impossible to handle and to dislike. “I was at Errol’s funeral when there was a far smaller crowd than was anticipated,” recalled director Vincent Sherman. “A lot of Flynn’s so-called friends stayed away. But Warner was there.” *Errol Flynn, Resting in Peace:*
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...