AddisonDeWitless

Oh no, it was Duvall, for sure. You can view it on youtube. Look up "Eileen Heckart Oscar."

With all the news lately focusing on the recent great white sighting around Cape Cod, and the photo out there (someone more tech savvy than me, wanna post it for me? 'cause I have the hardest time posting pics since they reformatted this site recently) of a kayaker being stalked by an ominous dorsal fin, I cannot help but reflect on a scene in the film that has always FASCINATED ME: The Estuary Scene It's the halfway mark to the film, where the real shark shows up after the kids with the cardboard fin are busted. A woman painting a seascape spots the dorsal, screams for help, is ignored until the crowd starts to mill her way. Then, so many iconic, brilliantly framed images: The shark proceeds through the pond, a brilliant shot of the littlest son of the Police Chief playing in the foreground as the massive dorsal-to-tail spread of the beast glides past in the background. We get the full scope of the shark as the chugging theme music pauses for a moment of silence, as if to say "holy s***, this f***er is BIG!" The oblivious children argue on the sailboat, and the boy scout instructor in the red dinghy asks "hey you guys okay ovah deh?' the fin cutting immediately behind him a classic example of the "Look behind you, ****!" moment in the cinema. Then: the first big reveal of the shark, even before the "chum some of this s***" scene and it's quite effective, even artful. The accurate depiction of the sideways great white, head just out of the water, taking the screaming man down before he can reach the bright red, slick dinghy- it's just been burned into my brain since the moment I saw it. I hate that Spielberg makes crap now, because this one scene in this one film has so many touches of art in it: from the use of music to the repeated motifs (the son sings Do You Know The Muffin Man? before this attack just as he did in the scene earlier where the shark eats the boy on the raft. There is also the presence of music to let us know there really is a shark this time (note the absence of any score during the cardboard fin scenes.) Not that this scene is without flaws: The Jaws Companion was very critical of it, calling it the one weak part in the whole movie. I disagree, but I do note that we've been shown and told that the shark is a night feeder, so why he is all of a sudden out to be seen by all in the middle of the day is a bit off, but (just as with the air tank) Spielberg has us by now, and we'll buy it. The scene itself has an inn-teresting history: it was originally shot with a different ending (photos of which have ended up in a lot of promotional materials) where the shark, with the victim in his mouth, goes after Brody's son, who is pushed out of the way as the shark takes the man under. Although the DVD has numerous deleted scenes in pristine order and in the "deleted scene" scetion, this scene is only available in some grainy, un-processed shots halfway through The Making of Jaws featurette that comes on the DVD. Although I think all concerned were right to not go with (it looks kind of cheesey and it's too horrific, much like Joe Alves's storyboard suggestions that Spielberg ignored) this version of the scene, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A RESTORED VERSION OF IT. Any chance it'll be on the Blu-Ray this August?

I would also cite Heckart's work in The Bad Seed as one of the best examples of someone doing an amazing job in a thankless role in a s****y movie. (See also: Marjorie Rambeau in Torch Song.) Heckart beat Shelly Winters for supporting actress in 1973; Shelley was up for The Poseidon Adventure, and I'm sure Shell was doubly **** because Robert Duvall presented and made a horse's *** out of himself by breaking into laughter after Winter's name was preceeded by that of Susan Tyrell for Fat City. (He claimed he was laughing at Jimmy Caan who was mugging in the front row, either way I say: "it's not your moment boys and you need to both shut and grow the f*** up.") I think I'm getting off topic here.

I paraphrase this from distant memory: During one of the 31 Days of Oscar broadcasts a few years (three? four?) ago, he introduced Written on the Wind and ended with what seemed like a definite diss of Dorothy Malone saying (something akin to): "and here, containing an Oscar-winning performance from Dorothy Malone, a call by the Academy that had some of us cheering, and some of us scratching our heads in wonderment for years after, is Written on the Wind." Um, "Meow!" right? 'Specially since she's still alive and it's my understanding she was not invited to attend the "Oscar Family Album" portion of the 1998 show by oversight. I also have to throw in that, silly as Written on the Wind is, she actually is fantastic in it. It's a gusty performance, and sometimes a gutsy performance that doesn't entirely come off is much more inn-teresting than a successful, but tame one. Besides, Mercedes Macambridge was so slong for the ride with Giant, Mildred Dunnock is fine in the tedious Baby Doll, but it's not an Oscar role, Patty Macormack was out of her league and Eileen Heckart- who was sensational in her brief screen time in The Bad Seed was likely seen as lucky to be in the running (although she could've/should've gotten it for Somebody Up There Likes Me from the same year ) That's as close as I can recall to anything Os has ever said that was less than glowing. Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Jul 10, 2012 2:57 PM

Damn. I really wish someone like you was writing the outro/introes for the prime time/weekend showings on this network. I've learned more about this one film from your two posts than all of the copy-and-pasted-from-imdb (and often error-riddled) spiels they've been handing Os and Manskie to recite for last I-don't-know-how-many years put together. Bravo.

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote} > > There was actually some footage from GUN CRAZY used in the film, just some vehicles arriving at the police station. > Inn-teresting. I made it a point to say Crime Wave was "possibly" derivative of Gun Crazy because, like They Live By Night, I've always read Crazy was barely released in 1949-50 and seen by few. But that long, fluid shot from the POV of the back seat where they pull up to the bank to launch into the heist, I was like "man, this is so Gun Crazy !!!" (Not that that's a bad thing.) Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Jul 9, 2012 8:28 PM

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}I thought (Hayden) was once (SOTM)... Maybe not. He should be......... He had a day on Summer Under the Stars last summer, I think. It was a terrific day of films. I've always known Hayden was a great actor- especially classic is his turn in Dr. Strangelove- but I don't think I've ever been as blown away by his talent as I was while watching Crime Wave last nite. The rapid-fire dialogue, the world-weariness, the physical intimidation used by his character...I was reminded of Robert Ryan in On Dangerous Ground, who plays a similar character (the world-weary, jaded cop not exactly being a rare type in the 40's and 50's) but whereas there are moments when you catch Ryan (who was a great actor) acting! I didn't see that with Hayden. He was just real, raw, bruised, angry- gnawing like a bulldog on that toothpick where many other actors (Edmund O'Brien and STEIGER! come to mind) would have chowed down on the scenery instead. Just an ace of a performance. ps- don't know if he shot Crime Wave before or after Johnny Guitar (also 1954) but I'd wager it was after. He looks like a man who has been to hell and survived. Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Jul 9, 2012 8:19 PM

> {quote:title=AndyM108 wrote:}{quote}I agree that The Bank Dick isn't one of Fields' finest, I must've phrased me response poorly because I would *definitely* say that The Bank Dick (in spite of the meandering first act) is one of the best comedies of all time and one of the best films of 1940 (a year which I actually thinks tops 1939 in quality.) As to its being on Essentials Jr. it is a thoroughly innapropriate film for children, which is why I love it to pieces.

Another one of those "never-hoid-of-it, but I liked it" pictures that TCM is so good for trotting out for us film freaks periodically. (Thanks, guys) A tidy little Warner Bros noir of the type that never stops to catch its breath, directed by Andre de Toth (whose other pictures I have found lacking a little in artistry, but not this one) starring an excellent Sterling Hayden (as good as he's ever been in anything ) and Phyllis Kirk from de Toth's blockbuster of the previous year House of Wax, as well as some *terrific* supporting actors- save the (usual) scenery chewing, teeth-baring antics of Timothy Carey, who seems to be trying to frighten a black bear crouched in the corner of the soundstage during his painfully long five minutes of screen time. What was his deal anyway? A little derivative of Asphalt Jungle and (possibly) Gun Crazy, but solid on its own account, I stayed up to see it play out even though I was zonked on benadryl and pain meds (has a little accident earlier in the week.) Rating much better than the **1/2 stars Maltin gave it, check it out if it comes on again. ps-who played "The Doctor"? He was great. Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Jul 9, 2012 9:57 AM

I agree. I wish more of Fields' stuff besides The Bank Dick (which was a pretty innapropriate choice for Essentials Jr.) and the oft-shown David Copperfield could be seen on TCM, who have come kind of close to tapping the Marx Brothers vein dry. I remember TCM when showed It's a Gift and I missed it. I was so bummed.

D-n you! I fell this week and fractured a rib and it hurts to laugh. Nonetheless: *Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!* (ow)

Can't wait until they show The Bank Dick this weekend and all those parents get to explain The Black P****y Cafe to their kids. Seriously, the choices this year are the worst ever and that is really saying something.

thank you for the very thorough info and link. i stand both better informed, corrected and entertained, and how often can you say that?

My theory: The chain gang men were tired, underfed, and possibly had been able to pass around a ditchweed joint under the eyes of the un-hip guards. Given the fact they'd all sweated off about five pounds a-piece that day, the weed took more of an effect than it otherwise would have, had their stomachs been full and their constitutions less tried. Also, animation was still kind of a novelty at the time and, for all we know, some of these fellows (and poor, rural parishoners in the church) might not have ever been to a picture show in their lives. At least they weren't given one of those effed-up Betty Boop cartoons where she meets the drooling spider with fangs who chases her into the cave with all the acid-trip inspired monsters. (What the hell is that thing about anyway? Did they even have LSD in the 1930's when that thing was made?) Finally, on a sad but somewhat related note, Seth MacFarlane Re--Re-Re-cycles Materal that Wasn't Even Funny or Original to Start With (aka Ted ) was number one at the Box office this weekend, taking in *52 million dollars,* so who the hell can EVER comprehend what "the people" find funny in anything, then or now. (Or whether there is still a God, or ever was one to begin with, for that matter. ) Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Jul 1, 2012 9:33 PM

> {quote:title=casablancalover wrote:}{quote}My sympathies, Addison, on your unfortunate experience with WOMAN IN HIDING. Oh no, I did enjoy it mostly, the "nearing-her-sell-by-date-Leading-Lady-in-jeopardy" genre being one I'm partial to, and I'd been looking forward to seeing the film for a while and it's one I hope they encore on the network as it was, in spite of its faults,quite inn-teresting and compelling. On a one to four star scale, I'd give it a low three- maybe a high two-and-a-half. Maybe if the lead had been Loretta Young or Celeste Holm I would have bought the outright stupidity more easily, but I think the viewer- even one not familiar with Lupino's other work- just can't escape the feeling that our girl Ida would've handled the situation a leetle differently. (Like with a slug between the eyes.)

I think it's a combination of the satire of Hollywood not being appreciated by Hollywood itself (shocking, I know) and the film getting lost among the amazing winning streak of classic titles that began in 1939 and would continue (arguably) through 1946, However, I have to carp that while Sullivan's Travels is a FLAWLESS and TIMELESS film, the same CANNOT BE SAID for some of the actual 1941 Best Picture nominees: the trifling Blossoms in the Dust, the deeply flawed Suspicion and the solid, well-acted but somewhat didactic family drama The Little Foxes. I've never seen Tom, Dick and Harry or Tall, Dark and Handsome, which were nominated for the best screenplay Oscar over Sullivan's. Also, don't forget Sturges had won the screenplay Oscar the year before for The Great McGinty. Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Jun 30, 2012 10:21 PM

Hope I'm not guilty of a thread derailment here, but did anyone check out Woman in Hiding (1950) with Ida Lupino and Howard Duff last night? It was an inn-teresting noir with some inn-teresting moments and a tight first 30 minutes, but it was definitely done in by some *waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay weak writing*. The basic gyst is that Ida, in all her extra-smoky fabulousness, is the inexplicably British-accented daughter of a well-to-do North Carolina textile plant owner. He dies and Ida marries the man who it turns out killed him. She flees their honeymoon cottage after his girlfriend shows up and spills the beans, crashes her car and fakes her death. BUT INSTEAD OF RUNNING STRAIGHT TO THE COPS THE NEXT DAY SHE DECIDES NO ONE WILL BELIEVE HER UNLESS SHE FINDS THE GIRLFRIEND TO CORROBORATE HER STORY. EH? Then, ida goes into hiding- badly, AND IN THE SAME GENERAL AREA WHERE SHE VANISHED might I add, taking a job as a WAITRESS BEHIND A COUNTER at one point. She then meets Howard Duff, BUT INSTANTLY LOOSES ALL THE COMMON SENSE SHE HAS SHOWN THUS FAR (well, except for the NOT GOING TO THE G.D. POLICE IN THE FIRST PLACE) and ACTS LIKE SUCH A NUTTY, WHACKO, DELUSIONAL SPAZZ, THAT HOWARD THINKS SHE IS MAKING IT ALL UP AND SENDS HER BACK TO HER HUSBAND WHOM SHE COMPLACENTLY AGREES TO GO OFF ON A TRAIN WITH WHEN THE MAN HAS TWICE TRIED TO F***ING KILL HER AND DOESN'T SCREAM HER HEAD OFF IN THE COMPARTMENT THE MINUTE THEY ARE ALONE. She escapes from the husband in a brief and fleeting moment of common sense- then she finds the girlfriend WHO HAS BEEN VISITING FAMILY FOR TWO WEEKS THUS GIVING HER THE REASON TO PROLONG HER HIDING OUT (?!?) the girlfriend, of course, takes her right back to the f-ing husband. AGAIN. *Good writers*, the plot problems ARE IN ALL CAPS. Fix them if you can (a magic wand may be needed) Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Jun 30, 2012 9:53 PM Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Jun 30, 2012 9:55 PM

> {quote:title=clore wrote}{quote}: Imagine Rand blowing up the Warner lot and getting away with it. That would be absolutely eff-dash-dashing HEE-lair-Eous. Sometimes I wish TCM had some extra money in the budget to produce the occasional, humorous, classic-film-related parody as between-the-films bumpers because it would be AWESOME to see your idea as a short film. That and I'm getting really tired of The Making of Dr. Zhivago featurette.

I was watching one of my favorite comedies of the 1940's last week- King Vidor's laugh-out-loud, screwball take on Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. As I watched, I couldn't help but wonder what might have been if: A. Someone took Rand's script in one hand and a big, black, permanent marker in the other and snuck off for a couple hours, later emerging with something less ludicrous (or at least 40 pages shorter), and... B. John Garfield had played Howard Roark. Either would have been a wise choice, but then I 'spose a comedy goldmine would've been lost.

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}Kim Novak for VERTIGO? I've always been a fan of Kim, but...........? yeah, big ditto here. but on the same note: George Sanders Best Supporting Actor winner for Rebecca? J'adore George, and he's very good in the film (he seems to be the only one in the whole affair who is having any fun (as usual), and he really helps the picture get over the third act slump) but ...he's not as good as he is in Foreign Correspondent from the same year and not as good as James Stephenson and the unnominated Herbert Marshall in The Letter. (Why Albert Basserman got nominated for his blinkandyoumissit turn in Correspondent is something of a mystery to me though.) And for the record, Walter Brennan, one of the most maligned Oscar winners on the books, is actually pretty solid in The Westerner. Of his three winnings perfs, that's the one I get.

Hello all. Not much of a fan of most current films, but when I do stumble over an inn-teresting one, I like to tell the world about it (happens so rarely.+)+ Whilst dog-sitting for cableless friends, who do at least have streaming Neflix (which is "eh ok" at best), I checked out Alexandre Philippe's 2010 documentary The People vs. George Lucas after viewing the whole recent season of South Park (which is still genius, btw.) First off, I am not a fan of the whole Star Wars saga. I guess the first three are fine for what they are: pure sugar-crusted entertainment candy for the senses (and certainly each has astounding production values and some good acting and the story arc is legit) but all the wipes and the trite dialogue (as well as the increasingly callow performances of Mark Hamill- who years later redeemed himself with his brilliant voice work as The Joker on the animated Batman series) grate on me. And I find the "prequels" to be astoundingly awful. But this documentary is *fascinating* in a multi-layered tapestry of aspects beyond the actual movies themselves. Yes, it looks at an author and creator who- in a story that mirrors the very one for which he is so popular for telling- sells his soul and becomes the verly imperialist, impenatrable power around which his space opera is based. But it is also a film about art and artists (both legit and guerilla) and the nature of art itself. It examines the compulsive need to fix and change art. It asks "when is a work of art done?" "Does art belong to us or the creator?" There are issues of film preservation, censorship (I did *not realize how far Lucas has gone to change all the films and ensure that their original 1977, 1981 and 1983 versions do not see the light of day again)* and yes, it gets into Jar-Jar, The Holiday Special, and even takes a moment to examine and salve the then-fresh wound that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull had torn across the heart of this nation. Anyhoo, I could prattle all day about it, but really, even if you are not a Star Wars fan- if you care about the preservation of ALL FILMS in their original, non-CGI, standard, as released format, CHECK IT OUT. It's funny, it's compelling and it's quite well done.

> {quote:title=Lori3 wrote:}{quote} > > And it was more than just Joanne Woodward's opinion or didn't you read all of my post. > > > Oh, would you like to sign my petition to get a box-set of John Garfield films made? It is just my opinion that his talent and memory deserves i > Non sequitor on the first part: You know, one thing bothers me about that "Joanne Woodward on John Garfield segment", and it's that she kind of disses Lana Turner, implying (more or less) that it would be hard to be good or genuine when acting opposite Lana Turner. that's kind of a catty thing to say when the only time the woman was nominated for an Oscar she lost to you. For the record, Lana could be a crummy actress but she does have some solid perfs and (one genuinely great one) on the books. Questions galore on the second part: What four films* would you include? If you could make it five films, what would be the fifth? Are we talking 5 DVDs or 4 titles on one DVD? (The latter might have a better chance, although I know that format isn't terribly popular 'round these parts.) *consider also Right's Issues. You might have to look strictly at his stuff at Warner's because a lot of his independent features like Body and Soul, He Ran All the Way and Force of Evil might be tricky to snag. Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Jun 17, 2012 10:40 AM

> {quote:title=Sprocket_Man wrote:}{quote}Donat winning the Oscar began an chain events that resulted in a couple of the more unfortunate results in the history of Academy voting. > > Academy voters are like baseball umpires: they're not suppoded to make mistakes, but they do -- and those are the times and plays people remember > Personally, I agree with the selection of Donat in 1939/40, but those "Whopsy! Our bad. Please accept this consolation Oscar for something less good you did in a following year while depriving someone else their deserved reward" vicious chains are a fascinating sidebar to the Academy Awards and could merit a thread of their own. Very astute quote at the end, I include it for that and for the "suppoded" typo, a rare occurence on your part but- hey- I'm playing umpire meself this morning...I think you also would say "a chain." Hope you're doing okay, such slippage is rare on your part! Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Jun 17, 2012 10:26 AM

> {quote:title=Filmgoddess wrote:}{quote}John Garfield.. was a fine actor but not, IMHO, a great one. He was a "one note" performer, not versatile like the truly great actors and stars. ... I'm sure I disagree with a lot of "Academy Award winning actresses." So what? Um, you do know that the "H" in "IMHO" stands for "humble," don't you?

> {quote:title=TomJH wrote:}{quote}*Charles Laughton as the Hunchback of Notre Dame.*. I think that Laughton's performance can easily stand next to that of any of those actors (Donat, Stewart, Gable, Olivier) nominated, and was, without doubt, the greatest performance by an actor in 1939 that did not get an Oscar nomination. As for me, my Oscar goes to Laughton. Yes, *but* it is to note (as much as I love Hunchback and Laughton) his role is pretty much supporting. While he may be the title character, there are large chunks of the film from which Laughton is missing. Now, when Laughton is on the screen, he OWNS the film but (will someone do an official tally?) I dare say his screentime may be less than half-an-hour. I also note that while Rooney, Gable and Olivier all give performances that in no way match the depth and intensity of Laughton's, there is something notable about the way each is in a BIG role (and big film) that kind of defined their personas for the rest of their careers. Each has their film on their shoulders (Gable debateably) and each does an admirable job holding it up like Atlas. Better than Laughton? No, but each is an impressive achievement in a year chock full of impressive achievments. Personally I agree with the selection of Donat as Best Actor, but I see where you're coming from- don't get me wrong. In the end, I'd rather see Hunchback earn a MUCH deserved Best Picture nomination over Dark Victory, Of Mice and Men, Wuthering Heights and (IMO) Mr. Smith Goes to Washington all pictures that it is vastly superior to. Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Jun 16, 2012 8:53 AM Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Jun 16, 2012 8:57 AM