Sepiatone

It would have to be someone tall and good lookin'. And of course, more contemporary(current) than Guy Madison, whose career ended around sometime in the '80's. So, my best choices would be... JOHN HAMM DYLAN McDERMOTT And those two are also starting to get long in the tooth. Sepiatone

Or not. I've seen it plenty over plenty of years, and although I do like it, I like it no more than I did the last few viewings. Sepiatone

Actually, as I recall it, the country( nay, the world) was shocked when it was revealed that Hudson was dying of AIDS and that he was indeed a homosexual. After all, his reputation was built on his appearance in so many "he-man" movie roles. Never seemed to me that he was "stifled" in any way as far as his career was concerned, so I don't get that statement. Any more than I get the statement that Grant too, was "stifled" due to HIS sexual orientation, which was straight according to all who knew him and family members. That he and another "he-man" actor Randolph Scott shared living quarters together meant nothing except to those who jumped to the wrong conclusions. That "fact" was even included in some books about one or the other at the time. But then too, both DAVID NIVEN and ERROL FLYNN shared a beach house together, but somehow no homosexual speculations were made about that. Sepiatone

Actually, I've been taking in the multi-part "mini series" GENIUS:ARETHA on NetGeo. the last few nights. It's an interesting insight to the background and rise to fame of Detroit's "Queen of Soul" pride and joy. CYNTHIA ERIVO as the adult Aretha does an excellent job with young SHAIA JORDAN, as the adolescent Aretha matching "chops for chops" with Erivo. And COURTNEY B. VANCE as Rev. C. L. Franklin rounds out a cast that's truly up to the task. So far, this long time Aretha fan isn't disappointed. Sepiatone

Ach! The closest I ever came to meeting a "celebrity" was at a local teen dance club called The Chatterbox in '67 and chatted a bit with Robin Seymore, who then was the host of a local popular teen dance show "Swingin' Time" and came to the Chatterbox with a few local music "stars". Nowhere NEAR anything like your good fortune. Sepiatone

We are in agreement Cid. Thing is, at other times when talking about this stuff with some of the people who ARE supposed to be offended, they tell me it's no big deal to them. Like concerning GWTW and the movie not showing the true abuse and brutality of slavery. As one put it, " Hell, I knew it was all just Hollywood BS. Like Wallace Beery playing a Mexican or some Swedish guy playing Charlie Chan. Nobody then ever expected reality anyway, elsewise they'd never go to the show." I'd be willing to suggest it's another case of seeing what you wish to. And that a very small minority of people who ever saw the movie, black OR white, would consider it "problematic". Sepiatone

I remember that TV flick. Not(to me) all that impressive. Neither was the score. But can't fault Gavin for any of that. With no extensive filmography, there still seems to be enough film, and enough variety of genre to put together a fair tribute. In more recent years, and also due to his good looks, I've heard some refer to Gavin as "the straight Rock Hudson". Meantime, make do with this. Sepiatone

That kind of hints in a belief that doing your own thinking shouldn't be a consideration when forming an impression about any movie. That YOU or anyone else wishes to react and consider anything about a certain movie is fine. But, it doesn't mean I have to also. And it also doesn't mean that I'm unaware of the truth about the past when I refuse to condemn a movie that's NOT an historic tutorial that displays an inaccurate representation of any certain historical period. It then maybe might mean I should also condemn many science fiction and horror movies because they don't show the truth. Sepiatone

Well sure, it goes to the "thread stray" that usually happens in message boards. As I'll point out (a-GAIN! ) The same sex law thing addresses the similarity to Stephan Douglas's apprehension that freeing the slaves might lead to white men marrying negro women to same sex marriage opposers fearing legalizing same sex marriage might actually lead to laws allowing men to marry animals like goats, sheep or whatever. You'll have to backtrack to recall who steered it all in this direction by the mention of various statues being taken down. Sepiatone

I don't understand your confusion TOP. One part of Vautrin's quote had Lincoln referring to Douglas's apprehension that Lincoln's opposition to slavery and desire to end it might lead to (*gasp*!) white men marrying negro women. Which I see as tantamount to some criticisms I've heard by those who opposed legalizing same sex marriages due to their belief it might actually lead to legalizing beastiality and marriage of men to animals( sheep, dogs, you name it). I thought you were well aware of those silly arguments. Sepiatone

What's interesting is the parts you have in "bold" expresses the Douglas type fear some had about same sex marriage. That someday it might mean it'll be OK to have laws making it legal for some men to marry goats or other animals. Sepiatone

May be. I can't find any info about any other movies on the subject. Sepiatone

My issue on this is; It seems(to me) that since some people at TCM( and too, some viewers) feel some of these films are "problematic" for them then they think they should be "problematic" to EVERYONE. I never had any "problem" with GWTW, it neither left me thinking that slavery wasn't as bad as it was or any other such crap. And I'm willing to bet that maybe dozens of people who had no issues with the movie now do because they feel OBLIGATED to because the "experts" delivering their problems as a misguided belief as intent say so. It's kind of like that scene in MIRACLE ON 34th STREET when Alfred tells Kris Kringle that he's been seeing the store "psychologist" Sawyer for regular evaluations. Alfred, at one point says, "I didn't know that I hate my Father. But Mr. sawyer says I do, so it must be true." Or words to that effect. Anyway, it all strikes me as something like this--- Sepiatone

So, maybe it was just me, but yesterday morning while watching SHOW OF SHOWS('29) It seemed to me that in several scenes with FRANK FAY, that Mr. Fay did remind me somewhat of the late ROBIN WILLIAMS. Mostly I think, due to Mr. Fay's facial and speech mannerisms in the film. Best example I could find is---- Sepiatone

As you did point out, that was, "in Jimmy's script." which I doubt HE wrote. And.... Had you seen any of the very early filmed musical pieces shown yesterday morning you'd have noticed several of the chorus girls WERE slightly overweight. In early movie musicals it was pretty commonplace for many of the female dancers to be somewhat chunky. And again, I don't think Frankie was speaking "off the cuff", but like Jimmy, repeating what was scripted. And both are actually factual statements. A lot of very good silent actors(and actresses) had their film careers go up in smoke due to their naturally unintelligible speaking voices. And as I just pointed out, a lot of early movie musical women dancers were "slightly overweight". And it's not insulting if it's true. Sepiatone PS: Watch "Singin' In The Rain" for the voice thing.

In BRITAIN, according to Webster's. Last I looked, we're in The United States. Where we pronounce a certain word "GIRL", and not "GELL." And by the way---- The "u" hasn't been excized from every dictionary source I've searched in. In Merriam-Webster it's "Glamour" but in the "free dictionary" it's "Glamor". And the latter spelling gets the attention of my spell-check(that red squiggly underline). Sepiatone

You know, Actors and actresses and lots of others in "the biz" like giving lip service to the notion that awards like the Oscar aren't important(though they never state that opinion unless they don't win ) and I'd like it a whole lot if the membership on these boards adopted the same attitude. A lot ACT as if they too, think the award isn't that important, but seem to never hesitate to point out that some movie either won or didn't and opine on which movie or actor SHOULD have won. Sepiatone

Still bears explanation. Like, source of this viewpoint. Sepiatone

Yeah, well... My favorite made-for-TV movie from the '70's is still DUEL. Not the only one I liked, but the fave for sure. Sepiatone

Well, I'd say his taking the job in the turkey SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION('71) and then later in THE REINCARNATION OF PETER PROUD ('75) probably didn't help. Not HIS fault those flicks were horrible though. But that's how it is in "the biz". And notice nobody included those two flicks in the " '70's classics" thread. Sepiatone

Sorry, but Annie was never presented as a "Mammy", And as many women of color worked as maids and housekeepers in those times and even still up to these days, I don't see an African-American woman as a housekeeper in a classic movie as "problematic". After all, the movie CLAUDINE was made in the '70's. And yes, while Potter's "garlic eaters" remark was a negative characterization of Potter, he made the remark in reference to a particular demographic of Bedford Falls. So. like others have been known to do with me, I'll assume you'd not have a problem with Potter using the word "ni**er because it would be a negative characterization of Potter, right? Sepiatone

Well, I thought it was because the academy is a sucker for "feel good" fulla fluff musicals. Sepiatone

I agree that the constant droning on about race and gender has taken on "chicken little" proportions, but it takes so little time out of the day, one can just tune it all out. Sepiatone

Odd, but I don't seem to recall, after seeing THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT several times where Sinatra and Stewart made any comments like that. Must've been to the head at the time or whatever.... Or maybe those comments were said as dialog of their characters in some movie in which case means the OP really had no reason to complain about the actors in the first place. I dunno. If perhaps a clip of those two saying those things that can attribute them as having been said as part of an interview can be shown, it might clear things up. Sepiatone

OK sure... I might understand the Columbus and Washington thing(to some limited degree). But LINCOLN? What's the beef with him? And that last sentence up there bothers me because "some of their books/articles may have contained somewhat offensive language towards a certain group." That's assuming all use of that "somewhat offensive" language was intended to offend when indeed it just may have been to illustrate how certain people (or book characters) thought and spoke in the times or instances of the writing. Like, Mark Twain's use of racist slurs to bring attention to certain characters in a few of his books wasn't because of any inherent bigotry on his part. But the characters saying those things were that bigoted. Oh, and here in Detroit they recently changed the name of COBO HALL/CENTER and Arena because the fact that the past mayor the center was named for was racist came to light. (Albert E. Cobo/mayor of Detroit 1950-'57) Built in 1961, the center's name was changed to TCF center within the last couple years. Sepiatone