AddisonDeWitless

I was struck by how inn-teresting (and unique) The Feminine Touch was, watched the first thirtyish minutes of it before I had to go back to work. The quartet of Roz Russell, Don Ameche, Francis and Van Heflin was quite compelling, I'll be sure to give it a shot if it runs on another day when me schedule is more amenable. Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 22, 2012 4:12 PM

according to wikipedia: At 5'9, she was the tallest of the 1930's leading ladies. Her speech impediment caused her to be dubbed "Wavishing Kay Fwancis" She was burned by a radiator while touring with a stage play, possibly State of the Union. (what the hell a radiator was doing as a stage prop in State of the Union, I cannot fathom.) She died of breast cancer after having a double mastectomy. She left a million dollars to a training center for guide dogs for the blind and disabled. She was married five times, all divorces. She signed a contract with Monogram near the end of her career (eek!) Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 22, 2012 3:05 PM DISCLAIMER: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.

Ah, okay. I was wondering why on earth Jack Lemmon would've had a grudge against Kay Francis.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}Well, no queen reigns forever (Bette). From what I've read JL always had a grudge with Kay (oddly he didnt seem to with Bette in later years...) ).... Kay did occupy a special niche at Warners. It's too bad JL didnt appreciate what he had with better stories. Who is JL?

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}Right. I didnt care for RO's flippant tone in most of his wrap arounds. It's nice to see the Old Boy cutting loose a bit, and he did say they were "making up for the oversight" of never includng Francis in SUTS (although she was SOTM)...but yeah, I found it a trifle off-putting and I daresay Her Kayness would have been none too thwilled were she still around to hear it. Which brings me to the "R" thing...What the hell was he talking about? She said "Russia" "Rubles" and "really" a few times in Mandalay and I didn't hear anything wong with wiff how she said it (I phrase humorously, but I really mean it.) I think RO mentioned it before all three of the prime time features and it got to be pretty annoying.

I do want to say that the 1939 remake of Raffles with David Niven and Olivia DeHavilland has aired with some regularity on TCM in recent years. Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 22, 2012 10:41 AM

> {quote:title=Lazyking wrote:}{quote} I never personally (follow) reviewers (or) trust them... The ones that make a living off it are just like any other film fan, with their own taste and quirks. Maltin's issues go beyond being "quirky." He is a f***ing idiot.

Checked out Guilty Hands : mediocre through and through (and kind of odd with all the father-daughter fawning over one another in a completely unnatural manner, A Free Soul retread perhaps? Or did this come before?) All the bad dialogue, weak plotting and bland acting one would find in a re-run of Murder She Wrote with Lionel Barrymore on autopilot (Maltin review: three stars, "sharp script" "lively performance from Barrymore") Checked out The House on 56th Street- Holy Crackerjacks! Breathless, thrilling, as jam-packed a seventy minutes as I have ever seen, 30 years, 9 hairstyles, more fabulous gowns and sets than I could count. Average scene length:2 minutes (some way less, felt a little choppily edited, my only complaint) Smart script, great story, wonderful acting, fantastically feminist. My heart raced in the final scenes. Ace ending. The first time I've seen Kay Francis in something where I totally got the whole Kay Francis thing. (Maltin review: two stars, according to him "offbeat, but nothing special.") It was not offbeat, it was something hella special, and Leonard Maltin is a f***ing IDIOT.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}Charles Addams was the cartoonist who drew the old Addams Family cartoons, showing the family of monsters, vampires, etc. If I may (slightly) correct, I don't think there were any monsters per se in the Addams family cartoons, and there were no definite vampires (although the mother Morticia was a big influence on Maila "Vampira" Nurmi.) They were just sort of pre-goth spooky types, kind of a response to the unfettered avarice and clean-cut imagery of the Eisenhower Epoch. If you're into the work of Charles Addams, you may also enjoy the work of Edward Gorey, but can be found at your local bookstore or on google images. And Finance, it's nice of you to consider our delicate sensibilities, but really, I think it's perfectly acceptable to outright say "hell" on these boards. (At least I don't mind.) Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 21, 2012 9:07 PM

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}I'm curious about the point of Thornhill always mentioning to others how close he was to his mother. The mother (Jesse Royce-Landis) is my favorite thing about NbNW. Honestly: it's the closest representation of anything on film that I've ever seen to my relationship with my own mother, although my mom was in her mid-thirties when she had me, whereas Mrs. Thornhill apparently concieved little Roger while she herself was in the womb. I'm willing to bet, the casting of the mother in NbNW reflected Grant's own insecurities about his advancing age. It brings to mind Robert Osborne talking about how Rex Harrison toured with My Fair Lady into the eighties, and they had real trouble finding an actress to play his mother then (probably had to go to the Victoria and Albert and borrow one of the mummies.) My own favorite line in the movie? When Grant's on the phone with her in the police station, trying to explain why he's both pickled and in a pickle: "Mothah, you see Mothah, I was kidnapped. And these men, they poured an entire bottle of Bourbon down my throat....What? No they didn't give me a chaser!"

> {quote:title=RMeingast wrote:}{quote} > Thanks, ADW... Reminder of how important it is to watch how one puts words together into a sentence... Obviously, I didn't get my meaning across clearly... My bad...What I meant was a good movie review that wasn't positive... > Good because instead of just stating, "This movie sucks!" ... the critic goes into details... There's a synopsis of the film, historical background, criticism of actors... > > > > > > No problem at all. I appreciated the historical perspective in which the author put the film, and I liked that he did not bow at the altar of Brando at his prime (which people do too often) I did think the plot summary was a little too detailed (hate it when they do that!), I admit I skimmed that part deliberately as I hope to see the movie one day and I like to have the occasional surprise in life that doesn't involve death or finance charges. And don't negate that wonderfully simple, yet heavily packed phrase "this movie sucks." There are quite a few films out there about which reams and reams have been written, all of which could've been boiled down to "this movie sucks" thus saving the lives of any number of trees who gave their lives just so someone could point out the mind-bogglingly innumerable flaws in Titanic. (a real tragedy) And quite frankly, those three little words are about all the discussion some ventures merit.

> {quote:title=RMeingast wrote:}{quote} > Nothing wrong with being Greek. Greece is the cradle of civilization and it's too bad we're not all of Greek origin... Yes, especially for the hair removal industry. They'd own the world by now if we were all Greek. ba-boom!

Actually, Without Reservations is pretty bad too. Sometimes I wish they would skip the tributes if it means padding the schedule with films that would send said deceased star spinning straight from Forest Lawn to China if they knew they'd be aired as part of a "career retrospective." But... Every time I get kinda peeved with the scheduling choices, I do remind myself that the past 18 months have seen a real improvement in quality on TCM, a lot of Fox (and Universal) films have been injected into the mix, there seems to have been some backing off on the heavy reliance on "the usual suspects" (or at least, they've aired more during the graveyard shift hours) and (most especially) there have been *a lot of premieres of heretofore rare and unseen titles that I never thought I'd get the chance to check out.* Someone in the programming and/or legal departments has been working really hard in the past year and a half, and even if 90% of the SUTS choices this year are repeats from previous years, there have been a lot of premieres and fresh choices contained therein: from Night Flight during Lionel Barrymore's day to Mohammed (sic?) last night for Anthony Quinn day, to the fact that Marilyn Monroe was finally included for the first time in this festival on the 50th anniversary of her death. Also also, remind yourself that TCM does what they do with no ad revenue, which is something I become increasingly grateful for every time I'm flipping around the other channels to see what else is on and- without fail- run into *nothing but commercials*. (Also also, have you noticed how obnoxiously invasive online advertising has become?) There's one thing TCM could do to cut costs and free-up some revenue for more new stuff, but every time I bring it up, major-league kerfuffery breaks out, things go off the tracks and padlocks get snapped faster than you can say From Here to Eternity... I will say this though, I do wish the people who wrote the copy for Osborne and that other guy to recite in their intro/outros would step up their efforts, work some new information in and FACT CHECK on occasion. Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 21, 2012 8:45 AM

I also also also note that Quinn's first Oscar in 1952 was also seen as a major upset (at least according to Inside Oscar and the Daily Variety poll conducted before the awards.) The projected winner for the 1952 Best Supporting Actor Oscar was Richard Burton in My Cousin Rachel - which is the only performance I can think of in the entire history of the Academy Awards that earned a supporting nomination despite the fact that the actor playing the role is onscreen for 100% of the film. Inn-teresting how Quinn managed to slip in again with (what I assume) is a less substantial role than that of his competition. Again, that Oscar can be a curse, because it is entirely possible I resent Quinn for besting Anthony Perkins, Mickey Rooney, and Richard Burton, three actors whose career arcs (for better and for worse) are a lot more inn-terestIng (to me at least) than Quinn's and who each (sadly) never earned a Golden Guy of their own. Of course, who knew that would be the case in '52 and '56? That hindsight, she is such a b*tch. Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 20, 2012 10:21 PM

> {quote:title=ginnyfan wrote:}{quote}The old "some people say" trick. Without further derailment, how does A FACE IN THE CROWD fit into this political judgment of Kazan? It strikes me as a later film with a liberal viewpoint, or am I off base? Well, some people say ... Heck, I dunno what some people say on that one. My own viewpoint on Face is: no matter what the political persuasions and personal perfidiousness of the people involved in its production, it is one of the most prescient films ever made. As true and relateable now as it was then, and frankly, I don't see politics in it at all so much as a very astute dissection of The Cult of Personality. Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 20, 2012 10:27 PM

I also also have to note that I unintentionally left out the name of Anthony Perkins from the list of actors Quinn vanquished in 1956-7 when he won his second supporting Oscar. Perkins was nominated for his splendid (and borderline-lead) role in Friendy Persuasion. Interesting that three of the actors Quinn beat with his eight-minutes-of-glory in Lust for Life were in major roles that tottered on the brink of being leads (Robert Stack, Don Murray and Perkins), could that have led to a cancelling out of their chances?

Actually, the Levy review of Zapata! was none-too-positive, pointing out all the whitewashing and historical flubbery contained therein...It is also interesting that the author says (something to the effect of) "critics often cite that this film was a launching point for liberal political views", mind you, he doesn't say what he thinks on the matter, just nameless, un-cited "critics." (to be fair, I often do the same thing) Poor Kazan, those choices he made during the early 1950's forever threw shadows on his work that I'm sure he neither appreciated nor (perhaps) intended. Much ink has been spilled decrying On the Waterfront as secretly anti-union, while Zapata!, Pinky and Gentlemen's Agreement are dismissed as simple-minded, sepia-toned liberal tubthumping....It seems like there has been a rush to negate the viewpoints of those films as a result of the actions of Kazan (and I have to say, I see where that argument comes from.) But then again, I'm just citing what "the critics" have said. (irony intentional)

> {quote:title=ginnyfan wrote:}{quote} Wait until that series is deemed old enough to be a classic and the seasons are reedited into two hour movies...I see birthday tributes!!!! I can only pray mass warfare, famine and/or the giant asteroid has taken us all out before it comes to that.

> {quote:title=RMeingast wrote:}{quote} > > And I wonder what Hispanics think about Brando and Quinn playing Hispanic characters in "Viva Zapata"? Are they offended? > Dude, I totally thought Quinn was Hispanic. Shows what I know...about anything...ever.... But, if we're going to discuss non-Hispanics playing Hispanics, the ne plus ultra of incredibly tasteless and offensive turns just HAS to be Wally Beery in Viva Villa! Wally sends the arrow on the Offense-O-Meter well into the red with that one. ps- I had the worst problems with the formatting of these last two posts, so if there's a bunch of gibberish that makes no sense, my bad, but I'm getting annoyed trying to straighten this out. Also, it was this post I meant to give the "feelthy peeg" title to, whatever. Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 20, 2012 8:08 PM it's all in red now. Whatever.

> {quote:title=RMeingast wrote:}{quote}Well, think Quinn plays his character in "Ride, Vaquero!" (1953) like he did in "Viva Zapata"(1952), for what that's worth... Which is nothing (to me at least), because I havena' seen it. But I'll keep an eye out for it. I've seen just about all of Kazan's films except for America, America and Viva Zapata! ; it seems to me as if Zapata! and The Sea of Grass (1947) (which I think is excellent ) are the "red-headed stepchildren" of Kazan's filmography- not screened or discussed much a-tall: Sea perhaps because Kazan (unfairly) disparaged it in his bio; Zapata! I've always (unfairly?) assumed was because Brando plays Me-hee-can with the same subtletly, sensitivity and quiet dignity that he brought to his role in Teahouse of the August Moon- which is to say NONE AT ALL. Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 20, 2012 8:04 PM

Television, retail, the supermarket checkout line, gossip sites, news sites...I was SO hoping these boards could be *the one place left on earth* where I did not have to encounter the name of Kim Kardashian. I know attempts have been made heretofore, but really, if we as a nation unite and agree to look away, the snake will eat itself. At least I so hope.

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}That was no coincidence. They were following Thornhill. When he got on that train, Eve Kendall followed him onto it. She managed to get seated in the diningcar before he got there. all right, I'll let that one slide.

I really would love to see Viva Zapata! I am not really a Kazan fan, but his films always merit watching. When is the last time it showed on TCM? One gripe I often have with SUTS is that they don't always pick the best films to showcase said star's abilities, often settling for that they can get, which many times are films that are either not great or feature said actor for not a whole lot of time. Anyhoo, in imdbing Quinn, I see he's done a lot of stuff I haven't seen, although I want to say I have seen parts of Shoes of the Fisherman (that's the one where he becomes the Pope, jes?) And *really,* I did not mean to imply that he was a *bad actor,* just that the brushstrokes show a little more than I think is required, or let's just say I tend to admire subtle work more- there's a real challenge to not drawing attention to one's self (and yet getting the attention nonetheless, think Spencer Tracy.) He was a laborious actor, one who is always acting! but nowhere near as hammy as Lee J. Cobb, Steiger or Lionel Barrymore (at his worst), he had undeniable presence and you have to admire the fact that he worked steadily for five, six? decades, and succeeded in an industry in a time when it was not easy to do so for "ethnic" types. Although it certainly didn't hurt that you could slap a Cher wig and some war paint on him and presto!: Cochise. In the end: those Oscars are a blessing and a curse for everyone who takes one home. I think it is quite likely I would have warmer feelings towards Quinn if he hadn't won that second gong for his reallybrief turn in Lust For Life not bad work at all, but Lord! Loudness does not equal greatness. It just galls me the tiniest bit that Quinn's eight minutes in a two-hour-plus movie beat out Robert Stack who is in 80% of Written on the Wind (and is good, even if the film is a trifle stupid), Don Murray who was in 98% of Bus Stop, and Mickey Rooney (I have never seen The Bold and the Brave (sic?) but at that stage in the game, I think some reward for his career was called for, no matter how awful he had become to work with.) Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 20, 2012 3:10 PM

I know this wasn't the original purpose of the thread, but I feel compelled to just chime in with the fact that, in spite of always giving 110% (even in his later, sadly Steigeresque post-heyday career) all I can ever muster up with regard to Quinn's work across the board is a dispassionate meh. I cannot help but think of all the wonderful actors- Cary Grant, Paul Newman, Joel Macrea (sic?), Sterling Hayden, and Mitchum come to mind immediately- who were either never recognized or had to wait a looooong time to be recognized by critics, historians, the Academy, etc. because they made what they did look so damn easy. They were effortless, natural, relaxed- they may have been trying to steal every scene they were in, but (like the best of sneak thieves) you could never quite catch them at it... Then there's Quinn. Raging to the back row, growling, snarling, bellowing, doing everything but beating a kettledrum and saying his lines into a Kazoo to steal the scene...I admit, rarely in a film was he bad, but even more rarely do I find Quinn to be genuine, and that Oscar for Lust for Life is a joke. ps never seen Viva Zapata! but I've seen a lot of his other stuff. It's not like I'm being flippant with my indictment of him.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}Time to give Kate Hepburn a rest. 7 TIMES??? ...and I daresay if ye looked up the schedule for all seven of those times, most (if not all) of the same titles would show up, possibly even the exact same line-up, air times and all. Look, TCM, I'm not saying I don't understand how hard it is to make the schedule, I'm not even saying you're not allowed to reheat and reserve on occasion, I understand... But by now, the mystery is solved: we all know who's coming to dinner, rally we do. Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Aug 20, 2012 11:34 AM