ValeskaSuratt

> {quote:title=dpompper wrote:}{quote}Indeed, it is a CLASSIC film. I especially appreciate the REAL scenes of New York streets from that period. Just FYI, Night and the City is set -- and was shot -- in London.

casablancalover2, You make statements like: > Our posts will illuminate the ideas we have.> When I write something, I ask myself, would this be something Charlotte could claim, "Yes, I did write that. That's my statement, and that is what I believe."> Don't be threatened by what other's expound--love your position more. I see a lot in what you posted about "me" and "I" ... but what about the benefit of one's comments FOR OTHERS ? There are so many posts in which opinions (invariably negative ones) are stated as absolute, intractable facts : "So-and-so does NOT deserve a day in SUTS ..." "Such-and-such was a lousy actor ..." or such humdingers as "I've never seen any of so-and-so's movies." (Period.) I mean ... WHO THE (blank) CARES ????? Comments like that don't further a discussion of film, they only reveal the limitations of the commenter. When *I* post something, I KNOW I can claim, "Yes, I did write that. That's my statement, and that is what I believe." If it wasn't, I wouldn't write it. But FAR more worthwhile "claims" would be things like "I'm writing this in order to share information I find interesting, in the hope that others may think so too (should anyone feel so inclined)" or "I think this is funny and I hope it will give somebody else a chuckle." I'd like to see commenters ask themselves -- BEFORE posting -- "What does my comment contribute to the discussion ?" "Why do I need to post this ?" "What good does my opinion do for anyone else ?" The world is suffering from an epidemic of selfishness ... everything's about "me, me, me" ... Is it just too much trouble to devote even a milisecond of thought to those who might READ the junk we post ?

> {quote:title=ziggyelman wrote:}{quote}Nice write-up, Valeska. I had heard of the film, but never watched it before. Usually like anything Dassin directed... Was sure since it was Noir, it had to take place in NYC, silly me! > Stanislaus Zbyszko was something else...IMDB and Wiki say he was born April 1, 1879...which means, he was 70 or 71 when this film was shot! Thanks, ziggyelman. What's amazing is that even at that advanced age, Zbyszko has a long and very exertive wrestling match with Mike Mazurki. (No spoilers -- I'll let you find out for yourself who wins.)

Garbo's Great-Nephew Is Auctioning Off Her Possessions ! http://forums.tcm.com/thread.jspa?threadID=166256&tstart=0 *GARBO at 79 (from her 1984 passport):* *Garbo's Waffle Iron & Recipe - Est. $250:*

I'd never seen it, never even heard of it, but Jules Dassin's Night and the City (1950) was a stunner -- film noir so black its 'moral center' is a London gutter. From Wikipedia: "Dassin said Darryl F. Zanuck in 1948 called him into his office to inform him he would be blacklisted, *but he still had enough* *time to make a movie for Fox*. (Gee, thanks, Mr. Zanuck ...) "Dassin was officially blacklisted during production of Night and the City and was not even allowed on the studio property to edit or oversee the musical score for the film." It's got one of Widmark's rattiest rats, Gene Tierney for window dressing, a sneeringly evil nightclub owner named Phil Nosseross, and in the supporting cast wrestlers Stanislaus Zbyszko and Ken Richmond. Zbyszko was wrestling royalty, seen here in 1913: According to Wikipedia: "Knowing that a key role in the film was a grizzled Greco-Roman wrestling legend, director Jules Dassin said he 'didn't want to pick an actor and train him to be a wrestler -- I wanted to do the opposite. I had never gone to a wrestling match, but I had an image of a wrestler from my youth.' "The wrestler turned out to be Zbyszko. Dassin said, 'I was told he was dead, but it turned out he was alive and was a chicken farmer in New Jersey.' He turned out to be 'a beautiful, cultured, multilingual man' *who looked like a graceful* *rock formation*." As for the 6'5" Richmond, he went on to win a bronze in the '52 Olympics and then became the logo for J. Arthur Rank.

> So if TCMAdmin strictly enforces all the rules, all the time, so that nobody is offended by anything, then this board will become pretty boring, pretty fast. Dahling, that's stretching it a little. #1 Were TCMAdmin to strictly enforce all the rules, someone would still be offended by SOMEthing ... #2 ... the board would not necessarily become "pretty boring, pretty fast" -- unless it's only by misconduct that people are entertained. I don't understand why the concept of personal restraint becomes warped into supposedly Stalin-esque censorship. I don't understand why asking people to be considerate of one another and to behave by a posted Code of Conduct amounts to heresy these days. But then I don't understand what all the buttons on my TV remote do. I hate being old.

*The Creature From the Black Lagoo-hoo-hoon*

Michael, Thank you for attempting to address this topic head on. It's a problem which has, on *MANY* occasions, kept me from posting and, in some cases, from even bothering to read certain threads because by title alone they seem designed only to generate arguments among commenters or offer some jaw-droppingly ignorant criticism of TCM's programmers. In the year I've been posting here in "General Discussions" and in "Hot Topics," I've become extremely disheartened that for every genuinely interesting bit of information or insightful observation, there must be at least ten pointless comments -- infantile complaints that TCM is showing movies the commenter does not like, base attacks on a star's talent, or digressions into topics specifically forbidden by the Code of Conduct. Instead of intelligent and enlightening commentary about the classic movies we're seeing, SO many threads become dominated by commenters who seem intent on derailing any such discussion. (Of particular note are the vast number of embarrassingly childish comments about George Brent's rear end which might be tolerable if they were only relegated to the thread created to discuss that riveting topic. Why they've been allowed to intrude in other threads without being deleted by TCMWebAdmin is a mystery to me.) > I really want to hear from the folks who feel they should have the right to be as mean and nasty as they want to be. For the life of me, I can't understand why. The reasons incivility is epidemic these days are many but, ultimately, unimportant. What really matters is finding a solution and it hardly seems likely that "the folks who feel they should have the right to be as mean and nasty as they want to be" will suddenly be convinced to become mature and respectful and start posting with restraint and consideration toward others.For those people, posting here has little to do with classic cinema and much more to do with getting some attention by stirring up contrived controversies. While some may find this entertaining, as one who's been "targeted for attack" with insults and snark, what should be an opportunity to discuss classic our love of movies instead becomes a humiliating and disheartening experience.*I agree whole-heartedly with Capuchin's post.* Either TCMWebAdmin takes a far more active role in policing these boards or else they should take a completely hands-off approach and allow the "discussions" here to descend even further into childishness, clique-ishness, peurile humor and bullying. Finally, any attempt to turn this conversation into some sort of attack on "freedom of expression" is farcical -- there can be no freedom without personal responsibility. Posting comments here is a privilege similar to being invited into someone's home. I sincerely doubt people would express themselves with such purposeful discourtesy and obvious intent to stir up trouble were they not able to hide behind anonymity. P.S. *Has there been any sort of outage of these forums for the last few hours*, or is it just me ? I've tried repeatedly to access any page in the TCM message boards only to have the page time-out every time.

I like the 1953 musical version, This Hand Is Your Hand.

> {quote:title=AddisonDeWitless }{quote} From the Washington Post, 8/17/12: "After 19 years, Marsha Mason is selling the farm. "The actress had racked up four best actress Oscar nods for her work in Cinderella Liberty, The Goodbye Girl, Only When I Laugh and Chapter Two when she decided to swap movie stardom for Santa Fe. She wound up running a certified organic farm, selling herbs wholesale and creating 'Resting in the River,' a line of health, bath and body products. "This was not exactly where she planned to spend nearly two decades of her life, in a place where the howl of coyotes had her so petrified that, on her first night in New Mexico, she slept with a shovel next to her bed. 'I thought, "Oh Marsha, what . . . do you think you’re doing?" ’  she reflected one day before a rehearsal for Shakespeare Theatre Company’s All’s Well that Ends Well, a reprisal of the 2010 production that STC is bringing back Aug. 23 for their annual Free for All. "In 1993, the twice-divorced Mason (her second husband, Neil Simon, wrote three of the four films that garnered her Academy Award nominations) needed a change. 'My identity had been wrapped up, really, in only being an actress,' Mason said. "As she aged, 'work began not to come as quickly as it used to. I experienced a certain amount of identity crisis.' Mason is 70, though you wouldn’t guess it to see her; she doesn’t look much older than your average Desperate Housewife ..." http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/theater_dance/marsha-mason-trades-farm-life-for-shakespeare-theatres-alls-well-that-ends-well/2012/08/17/24ca6742-e567-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_story.html

> {quote:title=ginnyfan wrote: > }{quote}So, what's more shocking? Astaire as a milkman,or the discovery the Finance apparently posts here from 1955 when there were milkmen? Cute idea, Astaire as a musical milkman ... and he rattles the bottles in time with his taps ? ... on second thought ... Congrats to finance for 1955 ... I'm struggling with 1922 ...

Thanks, mr6666 ... I'd never heard of him. Interesting info on him at the link below, including: "He’s the guy that the joke was wrote about: "‘Is he a criminal lawyer?’ "'Yes, very.’" –Dashiell Hammett, Red Harvest http://nypress.com/bill-fallon-the-great-mouthpiece-and-archetypal-amoral-criminal-defense-lawyer/

Leave ... (sniff, sob) ... Jimmy Caan ... ALOOOOOOOOOOONE !!!! :^0

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}The guy on the right looks more like my milkman than he does like Fred Astaire. Sorry ... ya lost me ... Fred Astaire delivers your milk ??? :^0

> {quote:title=smitty1931 wrote:}{quote}I noticed that Cleopatra was shown as code number 80. What was the first film released under the 1934 code? That's funny ... I had exactly the same thought last night, Smitty1931. According to Wikipedia: "An amendment to the Code, adopted on June 13, 1934, established the Production Code Administration (PCA) and required all films released on or after July 1, 1934, to obtain a certificate of approval before being released. The PCA had two offices, one in Hollywood and the other in New York City. The first film to receive an MPPDA seal of approval was The World Moves On." As for the other 78 films between The World Moves On and Cleopatra ... ? Turns out somebody's actually set up a website to compile a list of ALL films with MPPA certificate numbers ... (talk about your labor of love !) ... Certificate #2 went to Handy Andy ... #3 went to Baby Take a Bow .... http://members.chello.nl/~a.degreef/Filmnummers.html

> {quote:title=Stephan55 wrote:}{quote}Jeesh guys, as Freud (perhaps one of, if not the biggest, promoter of subliminal Idish messages -- next to TopBilled ) once confessed, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a bed is just a place to sleep." okay, I added that second part. But seriously guys (and gals) I think some of us are really reaching on this topic for, quite frankly, messages that only exist in the individual viewers mind/s. > > Sometimes a bed is hard to come by... case in point, the time when a couple of our founding fathers were once forced to share a coveted bed, or sleep on the floor.... > > In 1774, on a way to a meeting, Franklin and the committee spent a night in New Brunswick, New Jersey. The Inn was so full that Benjamin Franklin and John Adams were forced to share a bed. The result was a somewhat farcical matter recorded by Adams in his diary which gave a delightful glimpse of Franklin's personality and the odd couple relationship he had over the years with Adams.... > > > http://www.highminds.com/Franklin_Allegory.php Well said, Stephan55, and great link. Heck, sometimes even the STARS weren't sure ... *Stephen Boyd, Charleton Heston and Army Archerd (the big blabbermouth)*

> {quote:title=Lori3 wrote:}{quote}Another great picture. I am pretty sure this is from Cover Girl, 1944, the alter ego dance. One of the hardest ones Kelly said he ever did. It least that is what I remember reading. > > > > > > > > > > Lori Bingo, Lori. I'd love to see it blown up to life-size.

*Gene Kelly side by side*

*LET'S MAKE LOVE ...* *. . . when we finish our coffee . . .*

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}Can somebody post photos of Astaire and Hermes Pan side by side?

My other favorite site, Letters of Note, today posted Ingrid Bergman's first communication with Roberto Rossellini, reprinted from her autobiography. In April of 1948, she sent him a somewhat flirtatious fan letter: "Dear Mr. Rossellini, "I saw your films Open City and Paisan, and enjoyed them very much. If you need a Swedish actress who speaks English very well, who has not forgotten her German, who is not very understandable in French, and who in Italian knows only 'ti amo,' I am ready to come and make a film with you. "Ingrid Bergman" His response is long-ish, but includes a rough outline for Stromboli as well as the brief but moving encounter he had with a Latvian woman in a detention camp which inspired the film. "Shall we go together and look for her ? Shall we together visualize her life in the little village near Stromboli, where the soldier took her ?" http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/shall-we-go-together-and-look-for-her.html

THANK you for that link. A most stunning excerpt: {font:Times New Roman}“The Rossellini-Bergman liaison, like the Fatty Arbuckle scandal of the 1920s, so incensed many Americans that one powerful senator introduced a bill in Congress that would have certified all film actors, producers, and directors with licenses rescindable for moral turpitude.{font} {font:Times New Roman}“The bill’s sponsor, Colorado Senator Edwin C. Johnson, chairman of the Interstate Commerce Committee and a Joe McCarthy emulator, demanded ‘a method whereby the mad dogs of the industry may be put on a leash to protect public morals.’ {font} {font:Times New Roman}“*He called Rossellini ‘vile and unspeakable’ and Bergman an ‘apostle of degradation.’*”{font} My, weren't HIS panties in a wad ...

> {quote:title=lavenderblue19 wrote:}{quote}Meingast and Valeska, you are both menches. I couldn't agree more, and I know many on this bd feel the same way. There are always a few rotten apples that live to be negative in every post. It's pitiful. I'm not annoyed anymore, I just feel sorry for them. I think everyone has the right to post whatever they want to -- within board regs of course. I don't condemn "negativity" ... I just prefer discussing *classic movies* and especially sharing fun trivia (rare clips, photos, articles, etc.) that helps contextualize what we're seeing. An example: Watch Judy Garland's Get Happy *without* knowing her story ... ? And it's wonderful ... *But ...* imagine watching it AFTER finding out the behind-the-scenes story ... ... that Judy had been very plump all through production but she started slimming down when she finished the picture ... Tthen MGM decided the film needed another number so she came back to the studio all rested and slimmed down and on top of her game again and she cranked out this *spectacular* numbo in about day .... But what does MGM do ? Fires her tuchas off Annie Get Your Gun ... her personal troubles wind up splashed all over the headlines ... and she ends up slashing her throat ... !! *NOW* ... watch Get Happy ! That's the fun of context, baby ...:

> {quote:title=RMeingast wrote:}{quote} > > I referred to some Guy Maddin flicks in the other Bergman thread. Especially the short film made by Guy Maddin with Isabella Rossellini about her father... You've probably seen them, I'm sure... > > Sorta neat seeing her playing her mother in that film... > > > I want to go back in time, grab that &$%#@& U.S. Senator by the scruff off the neck and show the old poop some Isabella Rossellini movies ... "Evil ??? Did you say 'EVIL' ... ???" Sublime is more like it.