Sepiatone
-
Posts
23,768 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Posts posted by Sepiatone
-
-
It was sometime back in the later 1990's that my hometown, Lincoln Park MI, adopted a dress code for public school students. Also a couple of other neighboring cities. This event even made the LOCAL NEWS!
The surprising thing was that several parents expressed OUTRAGE at the notion! To be fair, the news story outlined the code, and it didn't seem too severe, or that much of an expense for the parents to comply.
What WAS funny was that when one of the "on the street" reporters went around asking the kids for THEIR opinions, one young man was pulled apart from the group of friends he was hanging with. This kid had a knit cap pulled over his ears(in September!), an oversized coat, those pants that hung so low his legs looked like POPEYE'S legs, and shoes with the tongue hanging out and laces untied. It took only a second to see the group of friends he was pulled from were dressed exactly the same. This kid was against the code because, and get this...
"The dress code suppreses my ability to express my INDIVIDUALITY!"
My COFFEE almost sprayed OUT OF MY NOSE!
Anyway, the code was put in place, and as of yet nobody had DIED.
Sepiatone
-
Well, EVERYbody knows long hair leaves one incapable of doing anything but smoking dope, playing guitar and disrespecting authority!
No REAL man ever had LONG HAIR!
Except SAMPSON!
OK, except for SAMPSON, NO real man had LONG HAIR!
Well, maybe GEORGE CUSTER.
OK, then except for SAMPSON and GEORGE CUSTER, no REAL man had long hair!
So, what about WILD BILL HITCHCOCK?
alRIGHTY then...except for SAMPSON, GEORGE CUSTER and WILD BILL HITCHCOCK, no REAL MAN had LONG HAIR!!
Oops...Beginning to sound like a scene out of *Life of Brian* .
Sepiatone
-
There WERE some character actors who've had somewhat larger roles with more screen time than others. Damned if I can THINK of any at the moment. But they COULD start THERE. You know, larger roles, but STILL technically CHARACTER roles.
Sepiatone
PS: OK, one that comes to mind is both BRENNAN and TOBIAS in *Seargent York* .
-
Everywhere I looked in trying to research this has *Ullysses* and "WHN" as frontrunners for the first. I'm willing to throw in maybe one of Warhol's "blue" movies, or some other largely unseen independent film to come first(no pun intended)in this contest.
They certainly made up for lost time in the '70's, didn't they?
And now, another wrinkle...
Which actor used the "F" word more frequently and prolifically?
DENNIS FRANZ, or JOE PESCI?
Sepiatone
-
I thought, as far as the role of the King, Harrison was better at it than Brynner. Never saw the newest version. And I thought Dunne was magnificent as Anna. Always did like this movie. And always was in agreement about Cobb. I LIKE Cobb's films for the most part, but he was obviously miscast. My guess is they couldn't find an Asian actor that looked threating enough, as the character needed to look so.
All through it, I kept thinking about a story I read many years ago about the real King of Siam.
It seems he DID visit America at some point of the 19th century, and was escorted to a performance of the still fledgling yet highly regarded New York Symphony Orchestra. After the concert, which included works of Beethoven, Brahms and Menndelsohn(sic), someone asked out of curiosity which work he enjoyed the most. His reply was on the order of, "I very much enjoyed the work the orchestra was playing as we arrived. I only wish we were more punctual so I could have heard it in it's entirety."
It took a minute for someone to figure out he was talking about the orchestra's warming and tuning up BEFORE the performance!
Always loved that story.
Sepiatone
-
I'm WITH you, except one problem might arise. For instance, it would require more than a day for many of them, like CHARLES LANE and TOBIAS.
But I don't have a problem with it.
Sepiatone
-
Thanks to AddisonDeWitless, I couldn't watch this movie last night because I kept waiting for Bette to break into "FELIZ NAVIDAD". It broke my concentration.
THANKS, Addison.
Sepiatone
Edited by: Sepiatone on Jan 13, 2013 5:24 PM
-
If we broke these requirements down to the minutest criteria, then I'd have to place Judy over Durbin for one reason...naturalness.
You(markus) claim something about Durbin's "naturalness", and there might have been some of that in her screen appeal. But vocally, I don't think so. Judy Garland began as a "child" singer, and I don't know how much actual "Vocal training" she recieved since she was part of the GUMM SISTERS, but it couldn't have been to the extent Durbin required to achieve her abilities. Nobody actually comes by that operatic ability naturally.
Judy had to learn a lot of "style" and stage "presence" on-the-job over her career, and she soaked it all up like a sponge. Singing, like acting, only becomes more convincing if you can relate to the material provided. It's easier to play the role of someone who's brokenhearted IF one has actually suffered that experience, than for someone who never has. The best "blues" singers are the ones who KNOW what "the blues" are all about.
Judy, over the years, had experience "the blues" on EVERY level, and deftly was able to convey this in both her screen work AND vocal work.
To me, there's a difference. There are those, like Dunne, who could merely sing, while there's Judy Garland, who could SANG!
Sepiatone
-
Oh, I agree that they're important, Swithin. More important than most people realize. But THERE'S the operative phrase..."MOST PEOPLE". These are the ones, who on Oscar Night tune into the television production. These, of the "MOST PEOPLE" camp AREN'T avid film buffs or come even close to scrutinizing a movie the way those of us here on these forums do. THEY couldn't care less about the SOUND crews or WHO and WHAT an editor is and does. My suggestion was only to offer some solution to shorten the length of the television broadcast, a complaint most TV critics and viewers agree needs be done. But you're correct in assuming those involved would find some OTHER way to waste that time.
Sepiatone
-
Go back to WHEN? That's the hard part. Going "back" to "when things were simpler, better" isn't exactly specific. Going back may be OK in some instances(gasoline prices, grocery prices, crime levels etc.), but for anything we've LOST over those years, there's something we might have gained. And vice-versa. Usually, when someone pines for the past, what they miss the most is their own individual youth. Sometimes I think I'd like to go back to when I was 21. Not because life, or the world in general was better, but simply because I was 21! NOT 61.
Sepiatone
-
There's your answer, finance...PUT DOWN that razor! THROW AWAY that COMB! You'll be beating them off with a STICK!
Sepiatone
-
No worries, Calvin. The YOU I referred to was the "collective" you. And yes, the point I was trying to make WAS the difference in opinions. Somebody earlier wrote, "No WAY *Rocky* wins over *Network* ..." I too, was surprised, but not dissapointed. The award for *Rocky* was warranted. But had the other won, it would have been OK.
At least with ME.
Sepiatone
-
If his work is noteworthy, he SHOULD. Outside of the "Lifetime Achievement" Oscar, there's no written in stone law that says the statuette need be awarded based on SENIORITY.
But it does seem odd these occurances seem to happen more in the ACTRESS categories.
I find it odd that as of yet, nobody's flamed me for suggesting the dropping of "Sound", Sound Mixing" and "Editing" categories from the major broadcast.
Sepiatone
-
I thought *Out of Africa* and *Tom Jones* were BOTH boring. Which I guess sort of proves my point, doesn't it?
Sepiatone
-
Well, those of us who've seen much of his work certainly DON'T underrate him, but I know what you mean. I just wish more of his dancing made it onscreen.
Sepiatone
-
Hey, they blew off *Citizen Kane* didn't they? Just what are you expecting?
Just because some movie you DIDN'T like copped the statue doesn't mean it didn't deserve it. Could be the movie you would have preferred to win it wasn't thought of by the voters as that good. I LIKE beet soup, while many I know DON'T. And so it goes...
Sepiatone
-
Still going on about speech?
How about starting sentences with "I mean", which I ONLY use when offering an explanation of a previouse statement. On talk shows and other situations, I've heard people, black AND white respond to a question something like this:
"What's your view on this topic?"
"I mean, it's all a matter of personal perspective, know what I mean?"
"So, do you have a disdain for this sort of thing?"
"I mean, it really doesn't bother me."
As far as double negatives, too many people I know, again both black AND white, rely too heavily on them. I also, to my chagrin, know too many adults who STILL use "gots" instead of "have". For instance, "I GOTS some new kitchen knives". Cute for a five-year-old. NOT for a full grown adult.
Sorry, but the double negative use is NOT just a "black thang".
While we're at it, let's cover the use of "like"...
"So, he's like, 'I gots this new radio in my car. Wanna take a ride?'
And I'm like, 'No WAY, loser'
Then HE'S like, 'Then KISS MY AZZ, BE-YOTCH'
And I'M like, 'Wow, really?'"
I mean, like ain't love GRAND?
Sepiatone
-
Not THESE days, finance!
Notice how that trend of looking like one hasn't shaved for a few days is STILL hanging on? Even men wearing FORMAL wear STILL have that "two-three day growth" on their faces. Kinda rankles me.
When I was 17, in 1968 for clarity, I used to go around with that look all the time. EVERYBODY, especially the GIRLS, complained that I looked like a BUM! Unshaven face, unkempt hair. I wish I knew enough to tell them, "HEY! I'm 40 YEARS ahead of MY TIME!"
Women now see some young actor on a talk show with unkempt hair and an unshaven face and DROOL about how "hot" he looks. 40 years ago, he looked like a BUM! The guy who was the "dud" in the "Dream Date" game is NOW the DREAM DATE!
Go figure...
Sepiatone
-
All the choices are fine ones, but I also have to go with Judy.
Ginger, sure, could dance a circle or two around her, but not really that good a singer. not BAD, but not near Judy's pipes.
FAYE gives Garland the only true "run for the money" in this category.
What's being overlooked is that in the old "studio" days, the majority of those in each studio's "stable" were routinely trained in acting, voice AND dance, and roles were assigned to those whose level of talent in one, or ALL of each were the best fit. For example, some role might require the lead actress or actor to be able to do some minimally passable singing, which may be why DUNNE didn't do many musical roles. A lot of those in the "stables" were able to "carry a tune", which doesn't mean one is "great" at singing, but good enough to handle some role in some kind of musical picture, like Van Johnson in *Summertime* , I think it was.
Sepiatone
-
Me either.
for example, you have on your "Not unworthy" list, *It Happened One Night* , which DID win "Best Picture", along with "Actor", "Actress" and "Director".
Unless you're implying that some(or all) on your "Best" list DIDN'T deserve to win, in which a longer list might be called for.
This all needs some clarification.
Sepiatone
-
Yes, Lavender, you CAN see Bogey wet-eyed in *Casablanca* , and I KNOW I've seen him shed tears in other movies, although I can't bring them up at the moment. I remember an actress, name forgotten, who in a TV interview many years ago talked about doing a movie with Bogart where SHE had to cry in one scene, and found it difficult. Bogart took her aside and started giving her pointers on how to do it. And while he was telling her all that, he had TEARS rolling down his face!
We all, at first, respond to Cagney (and Bogey) on the surface. They did a LOT of "tough guy" gangster type roles, but subsequently got into deeper character portrayals that required them to be more than "cookie-cutter" hard guys. You can see it in subtle facial and eye expressions. These guys were far better at their craft than the first impressions let on. Both Cagney and Bogart were deft at showing warmth and vulnerability, and also frightening psycosis.
Many of these guys weren't obsessed with their on-screen images. I don't think any of them would pass on using the act of crying if it were integral to the story of the character they portrayed, or the storyline. In spite of what some are led to believe, or have allowed themselves to believe, it takes a REAL man, secure in his manhood, to allow himself to cry, especially if the situation warrants it. The death of a loved one, a child, intense pain. Even the "manly" Kirk Douglas has cried in more than one movie. If they have ANY artistic integrity, they'll cry if the scene requires it.
Sepiatone
-
Yeah, Hibi, that's what they say about the Golden Globes. But notice that Eddie Murphy, who won the Golden Globe for his role in *Sunshine Girls* didn't cop the Oscar that same year.
Most complaints about the Oscar programs are that they run too long. They could solve that by holding the presentations for some categories at a seperate ceremony as they do other categories. For example, NOBODY I know has ever SEEN any of the "Shorts" that get nominated. Eliminate that on the main Oscar broadcast. Same with "Sound" and "Sound Mixing". Nobody knows the difference, and most TV viewers don't care. Throw in "Editing". When was the last time any of you heard "Average Joe" rave about the way some movie was EDITED?
And WHY do the winners feel they HAVE to thank everyone from the doctor who delivered them to their DOG GROOMER? If my wife were an Oscar nominated actress, and won, I'd feel her thanking ME would be a waste of time, since SHE did all the work!
I know my suggested deletions are important to the success of a movie, and I'll likely get flamed royally for their mention, but we're not discussing the obsessive "moviephile". More than 90% of the people who tune into the broadcast are the average, occaisional moviegoer, who judge a movie on how it held THEIR interest. And those are the ones who don't go to hear how well the SOUND was mixed.
Sepiatone
-
That's not entirely true, MissW. Especially in the case of Laurie, who's "goofy" looks as illustrated by the photo you posted was largely due to affected facial expression. At least my wife thinks so. She's seen some of Hugh's earlier work, and thought he was always kind of handsome.
And it's not always true that men generally get better looking as they age. Keith Richards put THAT to rest!
And that phenomenon DOES happen with women, but in an earlier range of age. For instance, Sarah Jessica Parker got MUCH more attractive when reaching adulthood than when she was in her teens, As did Mellissa Gilbert. And some, like Ann-Margaret, Sophia Loren and Raquel Welch NEVER got "old".
There ARE exceptions to EVERY rule.
Sepiatone
-
I know I could easily look it up, but I'm here NOW.
How old would he have been?
Sepiatone
Anna and the King of Siam (1946)
in General Discussions
Posted
Either way fails to make it less tragic.
Considering the irony in both Darnell's and Wood's fate, I've started developing a fear of being killed by a jealous husband!
Sepiatone