Sepiatone

JAKE; As a Michigander, I'm typically expected to be a Grand Funk fan. And indeed I was, up until the '70's. I thought their "We're An American Band" was far too plastic considering their ability, and their cover of "Some Kind Of Wonderful" was gosh-awful. My favorite from them was really(from '71) Sepiatone

Really it seems that Egan had more roles in more "A-list" films than Carey, who I thought did deserve better consideration. Sepiatone

Yep, I missed UNDERWATER for whatever reason escapes me now. I also don't recall you and Joe teasing me about Helton. I have seen him in a few noirs, but was mostly familiar with him in various old movie character parts and many TV appearances in '50's and early '60's television shows. And he is high on my "favorite character actors" list. I don't see how you could because: 1. They bear absolutely NO resemblance to each other and... 2. Part of that could be because Carey was almost(it seemed ) TWICE as tall as Egan. Sepiatone

I saw that. It could have been better but also could have been worse. But, IMHO anything with Bernie Mac in it is OK by me. Sepiatone

You beat me to it Darg. But I was going to suggest the movie hosts ignored that line( and too, a favorite of mine from that movie) because it might mean leaving their argument without any merit. I've always supposed that it all took place in the "White man's house" not because the movie maker's desire to exhibit white supremacy, but because even in proposed marriages between couples of the same ethnicity it's always been customary to approach the intended bride's family first. And it's reasonable to have the young couple seek out her parents at THEIR house, and not HIS parent's home. And I too, brought up that line in previous discussions of this movie as most poignant. and TIKI I'll again(and tirelessly) bring up YET AGAIN cartoonist AL CAPP'S reply to the question: "What's your feeling about interracial marriages?" Which was--- "Interracial marriages? I'm afraid I don't know of any. All the marriages I know of involve members of the HUMAN race!" Sepiatone

I'll welcome you here too, Jan. Good insight to the movie. Saw it when it came out and the controversy was more poignant. Some of us celebrated it's tackling of the subject matter, some I knew got angry, and still others were repelled. And still are. Here it is... If the story took place in the Prince home, no speech from either paterfamilias would have been made. Tracy's character would have been smart enough to realize any speech on his part WOULD have been out of line. And the doctor's Dad didn't seem the speech giving type. At least one that wouldn't sound more like a lecture. I too, never saw Tracy's speech to be a "superior white guy giving out instructions". That you too put that in quotes gives me the impression you've read or heard someone give that argument before. Since I never had, can you tell us where YOU got it from? If it WAS part of the post movie commentary on TCM I missed it. I didn't watch it the last time TCM showed it( was somewhere else at the time.) Sepiatone

Wholehearted agreement here! Sepiatone

Yeah, I'm one of them. Only know A SUMMER PLACE('59) and LOVE ME TENDER('56). I lkie him well enough and too would be interested in more of his work. Sepiatone

Sorry. Clicked on the empty reply box on the bottom of the page and it popped up giving me the impression that your quote and anything else hadn't been entered . So I went on from there. Sepiatone

Again TOP.... Make up your mind. I thought the issue was that the "historic abuse" wasn't presented in the movie. And wasn't it the lifestyle the plantation owners lived what was being romanticized? And NOT the "historic abuse"? A lot of the other responses here are pretty much tunnel-visioned hyperbole. And another example of seeing and/or hearing what you may wish to. "Mischaracterization of the conditions of slavery"? Sure. I'll go along with that somewhat. But as the conditions of slavery wasn't the focus nor intended purpose of the movie, including it unabashed would have proved to be too much of a distraction to it's main point of interest. And Southern audiences feeling validated somehow due to slavery's brutality being excluded from the movie is also another example of people seeing what they wish to. I'll never believe it was the film makers intention to "downplay" or "glorify" or "romanticize" Southern plantation owner's also owning slaves. Most of the rest of American movie audiences already knew full well what slavery was and it's cruelty. And besides.... Since nobody here(including me) was there when it all took place, how can anyone be sure there weren't any slaveholders who treated their slaves with some modicum of what might eek by as "decency"? After all, they were (to them) considered property. And beating or whipping ALL of them constantly wouldn't help maintain their value as property if comes a time a trade or sale is in the works. This of course, doesn't make slavery less distasteful, but still.... And BTW---- Which "other topics" did I introduce that seemed to confuse you so much SLAYTON? And JAMES----- Your comment suggesting I might think slavery had nothing to do with the cause of the civil war was surprisingly dimwitted for someone of your intellect. I don't recall ever alluding to that belief. It did however, remind me of something in the past--- Back in the '70's, at the time when Gary Gilmore demanded to be executed for his crime and started the country discussing the death penalty again, debates about it sprung up everywhere. And my wife's( the ex) sister, an avid church goer, got involved in one of those discussions at my house. Now, all I said was, "I don't know... I can't really support having the death penalty." And her response? Well, not really different than many responses to my feelings about the movie we're discussing. (Not in spirit) SHE replied; "So, you think murderers should get off Scott free." Well, I didn't recall saying anything of the sort. All I did was refuse to jump on yet another cacophonous bandwagon. Like in here. Sepiatone

*sigh* So, why would it be OK to you for Sidney Poitier to play African-Americans in a "stereotypical" way(ie; "aggressive-thuggish") but "The Godfather" bothers you? I suppose since we've all heard Italian names( GOTTI, LUCIANO, BONANNO, GIACOLONE, et al) tied to organized crime over the years one might get the idea of the Italian mobster as a stereotype. But then stereotypes aren't limited to just one direction. The old gag is that Italian boys grow up to become either gangsters or priests. And since the movie was unapologetically directed by an Italian-American and based on a novel penned by another Italian-American. And if they weren't that bothered, why do you take issue? BTW; It was the favorite movie of my Mom's next door neighbor( who was there while I was growing up) TONY VESPA. who never complained about it either. And did anyone mention PAPER MOON and DILLINGER yet? Sepiatone

Again TOP.... Make up your mind. I thought the issue was that the "historic abuse" wasn't presented in the movie. And wasn't it the lifestyle the plantation owners lived what was being romanticized? And NOT the "historic abuse"? To answer JAMES; Of course the civil war had to do with slavery. But the movie had nothing to do with the cause of the civil war, but the affect it had on the lives of the story's principals. Sepiatone

1. Wasn't the gist of the storyline to relate the story of Scarlett O'Hara and how her world(self centered as it was) was turned upside down and how she adapted and endured, but only to wind up not really too much changed for the better in the end? And not necessarily a condemnation of slavery? Look. By the time the book and movie hit the public, most Americans knew of the blot on America's history slavery was. And I don't think anyone with a working brain thought the movie "endorsed" slavery. And just how would displaying ugly scenes of slavery brutality support the treatise of Scarlett's tribulations? 2. Seems to me in the Antebellum South the socio-economic system was based on cotton and tobacco. Maybe a few other crops. Slavery was just(to them) a way to produce those resources cheaply. That to eradicate the practice of slavery and the slave trade was the main cause of the civil war, that had little bearing on showing the effect the war had on Southern non-combatants(you know, just plain citizens). One might have thought that the striking scene of Scarlett walking through a train yard littered with the wounded and dying bodies of Confederate soldiers, most who weren't slaveholders to begin with would have proven to people of the folly to defend such a practice as slavery. And to show how wealthy plantation owners lived in the Antebellum South doesn't mean they "laud" it. Although I can't say the same for BIRTH OF A NATION. But then it's only one example of "problematic" film history. What about westerns? and the similar(to you) silent endorsement of the treatment of women and Native Americans? Why no outrage about that? Too small of a BANDWAGON? That in many old "classic" Westerns prostitutes were "masked" as "saloon girls" who were shown sitting around looking pretty with big smiles on their faces while many smelly, drunken saddle tramps pawed them and bought them drinks(which usually meant two at a time, one for her and one for him of which he'd wind up drinking both) . And that those girls had not much other choices in order to survive? Or else become brood mares for their menfolk? It all was just another form of the slavery you're so lathered about. But they're white men and they're just women, so that makes it OK? And while everyone insists on crying over Japanese citizens being placed into interment camps during WWII(which of course WAS another blot on American history), what about the westward movement of white Europeans (originally) encroaching on indigenous native land, pushing them off as if the white guys owned it and the placing of those natives in reservations that at best were only twice as miserable as the Japanese camps. And the fostering the notion that their attempts to save and keep their land made them "murderous savages"? Who, in reality, were the real savages? But you know... Much of that doesn't bother me since a Western in which the story is of a man trying to leave his past as a gunslinger behind has no connection to the brutal treatment foisted on Native Americans by the White man . But genocide of indigenous natives doesn't, to some, seem to be as bad or worse than having slaves do all the work. Sepiatone

That's because(let's say in the case of GWTW) slavery HAS nothing to do with the story. The intent of the movie's narrative wasn't any attempt to whitewash how slaves were treated, but relate how the lives of over indulged Southern gentry was radically changed due to the war. And centered on how it affected one person in particular(Scarlett). What makes your "Jewish lovers" example inane is that you have it going on through the '30's and '40's. When ALL Jews were affected by the holocaust. But if perhaps that movie I'm supposedly directing were about two LUTHERAN lovers in Germany in the '30's and '40's, the plight of the Jewish might get some mention, but not be the focus of the movie., so no horrific holocaust scenes would be necessary. Because the movie is about the LOVERS, and NOT the holocaust. Your SPARTACUS argument is also apples and oranges due to the main character of the story WAS a slave. And in those other pre civil war movies..... If the story was about how heinous the rich white Southerners treated their slaves, then slavery would have something to do with the story. OR if those movies were about the SLAVES and NOT their owners, it would figure in too. And where's this outrage when seeing rich snobs treat their maids and butlers dismissively and speak down their noses to them as second class citizens in old British movies? And let's too, address the popular mini series ROOTS... Many of the characters in the series ( FIDDLER and CHICKEN GEORGE for instance) that were slaves weren't treated perverse or horribly. And too, supposedly these characters were supposed to have been actual persons. Would you insist that they were fictional in an attempt to somehow glorify slavery somehow? Or conclude that despite how slaves were treated overall in the South, that maybe not all slaves were despicably treated? Sepiatone

I'd put THE GODFATHER on a list due to it's quality as a MOVIE. And don't think for a minute most people believe that all Italians are mobsters due to this movie. One would need be an IDIOT to believe that. Fact is, most(if not all) major crime syndicates at the time WERE made up of Italian families and acquaintances. I'll also toss on THE FRENCH CONNECTION ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST THE TAKING OF PELHAM ONE, TWO, THREE SERPICO JAWS CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND BLAZING SADDLES ROCKY CLAUDINE SOUNDER Anything else I'd choose had already been mentioned. Sepiatone

Well DARG.... Back in the day, we used to do all sorts of "popping" at parties! I guess I don't have to illuminate as to "popping" what, and so I'm assuming you possibly meant "pooping" out? Which brought us this little ditty? Sepiatone

I don't think the purpose was to intentionally "glorify" slavery, but maybe....just MAYBE..... The perversions and horrors of slavery had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STORY??? And it's easy for me to believe that a number of slaves at least gave the impression to their "Massa's" that they were complicit. Particularly if it meant less whippin's. Kinda like Luke "gettin' his mind right." (but not really, eh?) Sepiatone

But we here all know that in music, as well as movies, popularity doesn't always translate into quality. "Blurred" is right, in the discussion of late '60's and 1970's AM and FM radio. Labels would send versions of popular "underground" tunes to AM stations edited for the "three minute rule". It's why one had to buy the LP to hear The Door's full 7 minute version of "Light My Fire". It's also how we wound up hearing abbreviated versions of "Magic Carpet Ride"(Steppenwolf), "Inna Godda-Davida" (Iron Butterfly), "Time Has Come today"(Chambers Brothers) and Zeppelin's "Whole Lotta Love". on AM radio. And those were but a few. And KINGRAT----- You forgotTHE OHIO EXPRESS. of THIS heavy duty rocker! I'll be nice and NOT mention the word we used to replace "love" with in making fun of the tune. Sepiatone

Make up your mind. Is she a MISS or a MRS.? Sepiatone

ACH. Couric's OK, but only temporary, so I can put up with her. Besides, easier on the eyes than Jennings. And I missed last night's game due to Detroit's mayor giving a State of the City address, which played on three channels, including the NBC affiliate. Have to wait until this evening to see if that Livonia, MI woman is still there. Sepiatone

No pun intended, eh? Sepiatone

I think that Heinz 57 thread was before my time too, as I don't recall it. I probably would have thought it was about the breed of dogs I wound up owning when I was a kid. And what was he screen name of that nurse who used to be on these boards and died I guess about 2012 or 13? And whatever became of the guy from Philly who was so taken with "spinning" and went by FINANCE then changed it to DGB(Down Goes Fraiser)? I still have Madigan2 in my e-mail address book, but she was 80 or so when I put it there and that was several years ago. Sepiatone

Thanks. I've read that somewhere years ago and brought it up in here a few years ago and nobody seemed to believe it. Sepiatone

Used to hear country tunes too on mid '60's "rock" stations, and too, in the late '60's those same AM "rock" stations also used to play tunes by ANDY KIM, THE 1910 FRUITGUM CO. and THE COWSILLS. You're not suggesting THEM TOO, get inducted as well? I mean, I like Ms. Warwick. Lovely woman with a lovely voice. But I'm with JAMES. Not what most would call Rock'n'roll. Might as well include THE ARCHIES. Sepiatone

For that, Leo would have to be... Sepiatone