AddisonDeWitless

That's okay, the re-creation is still pretty inn-teresting (the music is fun and the photo stills reveal a lot of the fabulous sets) I think they need to specify in the schedule write-up that it's the recreation they're showing, but whatevs. I remember finding a video on youtube that claimed to be five minutes of re-discovered footage of Chaney in London After Midnight. I clicked on it and it was an animated GIF followed by a "fooled you!" message. The replies were, deservedly, irate and the poster of the video was such a jackass taking the time to reply to every disgruntled viewer with what an idiot they were for falling for his brilliant gag in the first place. I remember a Chaney documenary where they talk to a reeeeeally old lady who remembered seeing London After Midnight in theaters in 1927 and she did not recall being impressed. In her funny little old British lady accent, she basically said "he was dressed as a bat and walking about dragging his arms...it was rather ridiculous." I wonder if maybe it's better to only wonder about London After Midnight, were the real thing ever uncovered, it might be a disappointment (and Lord knows life is full enough of those already.) ps- it's weird that Ten Little Indians is on right now. Is that the origin of your name? Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Sep 23, 2012 9:11 PM

I assume that the London After Midnight that is being shown early on Halloween morning is the re-creation using stills and production photos, yes?

I didn't find Ava's singing scene in The Hucksters quite as alluring, in large part because she was so obviously dubbed (they may as well have had Paul Robeson doing her voice it was so little like her own.) I really enjoy the between-the-films featurette that TCM shows on occasion which uses an alternate scene from Showboat where Ava does Can't Help Lovin' Dat Man in her *real* voice (which- again- wasn't used for that film either) I recall her being really terrific. Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Sep 23, 2012 3:45 PM just went and checked it out on youtube. she WAS terrific.

when I said "even when not discussing the film" I meant, as in, referring to the book as Kubrick's Lolita which extends to people I've met who actually thought Kubrick wrote the book itself, or just the notion that the story began with Kubrick himself, unaware that someone else came up with it before him. ...although they do say every story ever told has been covered by either Shakespeare or The Bible, I don't recall anything quite like Lolita in either. (Of course, I could be wrong.) *No, the 1962 film is the property of the Giant Head of Stanley Kubrick, there is no contesting that.* (But the story is Nabokov's,) Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Sep 23, 2012 11:44 AM

it's been a loooong time since I've read Lolita, but my impression on first reading it still sticks in my head, which is: it's only *ostensibly* about a man having a relationship with a 15 year old girl and in retrospect, that aspect has very little to do with the story (really.) The book is told in three parts, with each part becoming increaingly odd and abstract (something I don't particularly care for.) The first third of the book, which is the best, is the part that "makes sense"- ie it's about Humbert, Charlotte and her daughter. After that, it gets weeeeeeeeeeird, and my interpretation was that it becomes a study of how a story the author creates comes to life, becomes something beyond the author's control and ultimately the lead character actually consumes and kills the author and begins telling the story himself in some sort of weird fusion of Agatha Christie and Kurt Vonnegut. That last intriguing aspect is something they could and *should* have done in the film too, but didn't (guess Kubrick: the Great and Powerful didn't want to even suggest he could turn over the reins to anything.) It's not a novel that screams for a film adaptation, I've never gotten why they did it, but they did it. For the record, Nabokov wrote another semi-autobiographical, serio-comic and very touching novel about a lonely Russian Professor in a college town called Pnin. It is a far better, far more filmic book that Lolita that I recommend to anyone and find it odd that *it has never been adapted for either film or television.* 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. ps- Why not a Duck? Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Sep 23, 2012 9:11 AM

Thank you so much to everyone who hath replied, I was glad to see there were some folks who had the same issues as me on seeing the film. In reply to some observations here and there, more than one of you described the film as "*great*." I would *not* call it a great film, not when compared to LaCava's triumphs (a good example being My Man Godfrey, an ace ensemble piece with a definite liberal luster in its message, but it's a message that doesn't beat you over the head with hammer and sickle) and not great compared to my idea of what a great film is. I had no emotional investment with the frosty collection of chracters- did anyone feel anything when the dour character played by Karen Morley got shot? Anyone really rooting for her and Franchot to get together? I think it was a cheap way out to have no First Lady in the film. Why was Mischa Auer in this for five minutes as an expostulating reporter? Why at the end of the scene, is he left alone in the office for a lingering shot hinting there is some importance to his character when, really, there isn't? I like Walter Huston, but I did not like him in this. It was a souless film, I'd rate it (and this is harsh, but I've thought about it) *one-and-a-half out of four stars.* I also think it was *terribly presumptious* of the filmmakers to imply *that the President was doing God's will, possessed in fact by an agent of God*. *It brought to mind a quote of the Great Emancipator himself: "Let us not hope that God is on our side, let us hope instead that we are on his."* (I paraphrase from memory. Probably got the wording wrong) For that last reason alone, I would rate it a dangerous film (albeit one which *I'm grateful for the chance to see and welcome the chance to see again.* ) I also throw in that in no way do I mean to imply by calling it "dangerous" that it should not be shown or censored, people gots the right to think for themselves, you buys your ticket you takes your chances, and a film (especially one as stupid as this one was) can only do so much damage. I would love to be able to see The Mussolini doc that was mentioned. I also would love to be able to see Triumph of the Will, a film which (from what it seems) at least has some inn-teresting shots and a hint of artistry that I felt Gabriel totally lacked. Anyone want to start a "TCM: Please play Triumph of the Will " thread? I would also *love* to see the Nazi Titanic or the German Baron Munchauson (sic?) and *welcome the day either of these airs.* I like very much that TCM doesn't feel tethered by the political incorrectness of some of the oddities it drops on us from time to time, they really need to be thanked for that. (and who knows? an airing of Triumph or Nazi Titanic would soitanly cause a little con-troversy, but *any publicitay is good publicitay.* (and it seems like TCM could use some.) ps- anyone else notice they got the whole "Oval Office" thing wrong in Gabriel ? The best of my recollection all scenes at the White House were in the lobby, cabinet room or "President's Study." The Oval Office (West Wing) was existant in 1933, I believe (Theodore Roosevelt added it on, no?) Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Sep 22, 2012 10:32 AM Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Sep 22, 2012 10:36 AM Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Sep 22, 2012 10:40 AM

Even though Syndey Greenstreet was in fine form in The Hucksters, I just couldn't get into it.

Have to throw water on the party by pointing out that Maltin thought Easy to Love only rated *two-and-a-half stars* (the same as Laserblast ). It was a *three-and-a-half* *out of four* in my book. *Why* do they use his reviews in the schedule synopsis? Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Sep 21, 2012 9:18 PM

What an utter delight from start to finish, but the finish deserves a special mention. I don't think I've ever enjoyed a pre-code quite so much, in between the laughs and being shocked I was hearing some of the jokes I was hearing and seeing what I was seeing. Earlier this week, I watched Mary Astor as the scorned wife in Gregory LaCava's Smart Woman, a far less artful and witty variation on the theme in Easy to Love, and *nowhere near as successful*. Instead of getting annoyed with the leading lady for trying to hard to win a moronic philandering jackass, I got where everyone was coming from in this one. Delightful.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}LOL. Different tastes.......... No, just taste- period.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}LOL! No. I've seen South Pacific though! Why would (The Crowded Sky) be up my alley? Bad? Deliciously bad. A lot of Airplane! is based on TCS ,+ in fact, I read that the hilarious banter between the man and the woman announcers on the PA system at the start of Airplane! - wherein their disagreement over what the purpose of the "Red Zone/White Zone" is descends into an argument over an abortion- is based on a scene from the novel that TCS+ was based on. I can't believe you think John Kerr was cute. He was such a Melvin. Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Sep 21, 2012 11:29 AM Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Sep 21, 2012 11:29 AM

Gregory LaCava was a terrific director, My Man Godfrey and Stage Door would be on my top ten list of the Best Films of the 1930s in all likelihood. He also did Primrose Path in 1940, which is daringly ahead of its time- not mincing words in the story of a young girl (Ginger Rogers) whose mother (Marjorie Rambeau in a *stunning* Oscar-nominated turn) and grandmother are/were prostitutes. He also did Private Worlds (1935) which brought Claudette Colbert an Oscar nod and The Affairs of Cellini, which brought Frank Morgan a best actor nod, although it is my understanding his role is more supporting (this was before supporting awards were given though.) He directed a gazillion shorts in the teens and twenties and, oddly, one of his last titles was Unfinished Business in 1941, after which he directed only two other films (one uncredited.) *Would love to be able to finally see both Private Worlds and Affairs of Cellini, any chance of a LaCava retrospective, TCM?* As gifted, and clearly talented with handling actors as he was, there is a slightly sermonizing, pro-socialistic tone that permeates a lot of his stuff, sometimes it works (as in Godfrey ) sometimes in doesn't (as in Gabriel Over the White House and Fifth Avenue Girl ) He was clearly adept at handling disfunctional families and the bizarre oddities of life, but sometimes his pre-Billy Wilder "continental mind" view of life doesn't entirely pan out either (as in Smart Woman )

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}Didnt John Kerr go into real estate or something? I know he stopped acting and went into something else.........(good move) Oui. In 1972, he became a lawyer and practiced in Beverly Hills for many years. I can only imagine his flat, emotionless, drab closing arguments that put the jury to sleep. Have you ever seen The Crowded Sky ? It is right up your alley.

Thank you, Your Highness, I always enjoy reading your replies. John Kerr is also bad in The Crowded Sky (1960) which is one of the most deliciously bad movies I have ever had the priviledge to see. Twas on TCM a coupla' years back: memo to the network: *please show it again.* He also also is very bad in The Pit and the Pendulum- I know it's presumptious to assume what an actor is thinking onscreen, but he seems in every frame of that movie to be thinking "I'm better than this" and openly refuses to act with an outward hostility. I've always though he resembled Oscar Levant, so it was weird to see them both in the same picture ( The Cobweb ). I agree on Tea and Sympathy, although it IS a grogeously shot movie. Bacall and Minelli reunited a year after The Cobweb for Designing Woman, so I guess she (remarkably) didn't hold a grudge. (I would've) I wonder sometimes if Minelli wasn't really an "actor's director"- although four of his films feature Oscar-nominated performances (and Gloria Grahame won best supporting for The Bad and the Beautiful under his direction,+ which maybe explains why she's so un-tethered in The Cobweb ), it's notable that some of his most respected (and honored) works ( Gigi, An American in Paris, Meet Me in St. Louis, The Bandwagon, Bells are Ringing ) got no acting nominations (although Margaret O'Brien did win an honorary award for her work in St Louis+ ) The lack of direction in The Cobweb shows most in the performances.

Why was it even called The Cobweb? The Drapes of Wrath would've been a better title.

Feel compelled to chime in that Curtiz *was* a great director, while Niven has never impressed me as anything more than a serviceable actor in anything I've ever seen him in (and that includes Seperate Tables )

Oh my. Thinking though that it was more a term for seafaring folk than a racial slur. Maybe The Salty Ones would've been a better title.

LMREO?

Nice. BTW, loved your assessment of Gabriel Over the White House. Bosley Crowther couldn't've summed it up better himself.

The **** ?!?! Are you being serious? I like Pauline Kael, she was a wonderful writer- although she *really* liked a lot of sh***y, sh***y films. Me personal favorite film critic would probably be the long-gone Libby Gelman-Wexner (sic?) of Premiere fame.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}Since you were watching, was there any arguing over the furniture? No, it was strictly the drapes. Seriously, four minutes did not go by in the film without the words "drapes" being mentioned. It would make a great drinking game for anyone who is a raging alcoholic.

I was very proud of my Grand Hotel comparison by the way.

I don't always agree with Crowther, but he's on the money in this review...although, I have to note that his semantics kinda sorta imply that Hemingway wrote Key Largo too. He didn't, it was (also verrry liberally) adapted from a play by Maxwell Anderson.

I'm the one who brought up the whole drapes thing in the foist place, I simply re-watched half of it last night to make sure my mind had not exaggerated it. Sadly, it had not. It's still inn-teresting to see Gloria Grahame in technicolor, John Kerr is one of those actors I love to hate (seriously, how did he EVER get work?) and there are yuk-worthy moments throughout...plus y'know, Boyer and Gish are in it, even if they have pretty much nothing to do (ditto Bacall, she's in the background for the first half hour and HAS NO LINES!) It's fasciniating as a Big Studio train wreck, I don't think there's anything you could've done to save it. Watching it, you would have no idea a director of any talent at all was at the helm, it's so fractured and poorly told. You learn as much (if not more) from watching the bad ones than you do the good.

> {quote:title=Sprocket_Man wrote:}{quote} Interesting that you're able to find it both "pro-Fascist and "peacenik liberal bullcrap."Covering all our bases, are we? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fascism is taking things too far, either to the right or the left, forcing your view on others and suppressing liberty- to me it's a term that goes beyond mere political beliefs- it's about saying "I'm right, you're not, and if you don't like it you can suck it." The left can take things waaaaaaaaaaaay too far to the left, just as the right can take things waaaaaaaaaaaay too far to the right. In the end, no one is helped. Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Sep 20, 2012 9:35 AM