Palmerin

Many thanks for all your posts. Francois Boucher, who was much admired by Renoir because of his command of anatomy and color, fell into disfavor during the French Revolution because he had been a favorite of Louis XV and Madame de Pompadour. It took a while for his reputation to recover, but now his paintings are once again admired as objects of beauty, highly prized by collectors and popular with the public, which doesn't care about the fact that Boucher's patron, Louis XV, was hardly the best king in history. Boucher certainly is in a better position than Diego Rivera, whose art is ruined by a xenophobia that makes much of his best work utterly ridiculous to people who do not share Rivera's jaundiced view of Mexican history.

Please consider the title changed to OF ALL THE EVILS PERPETRATED BY 20th CENTURY DOGMA (regarding computers I am no more than a child that struggles to learn reading and writing). Why this title? Propaganda comes from the CONGREGATIO PROPAGANDA FIDEI=CONGREGATION FOR THE PROPAGATION OF THE FAITH--thus it referred originally to religious propaganda, a type to which most people do not object. As to cult of personality, it could be said that it applies to someone like Queen Victoria, a lady so admired in Canada that her birthday is a national Canadian holiday. The problem with 20th century propaganda is that, beginning with Mussolini in 1922 and followed closely by Stalin in 1924, it became identified with people definitely not as admirable as Queen Victoria. It is very revealing that Stalin identified, not with someone admirable like Peter the Great, but instead with the 16th century version of Idi Amin, Ivan the Terrible (very appropriate nickname). Not surprisingly, when Saddam Hussein looked for a role model, he chose Stalin, whom he followed slavishly both in style of governance and in personality cult. Political nature abhors a vacuum. Thus as religion lost much of its importance many self appointed Messiahs and pseudo religions rushed to take its place. That is how you have today the corpses of Lenin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh enshrined as holy relics, and feminism and other politically correct dogmas abusing the reputations of people like Pierre Auguste Renoir, whose art never had a political agenda, but instead was simply designed to make people glad and happy.

How can a title be changed? I can't find any EDIT button.

... among the worst is its politicization of the arts. The WIKIPEDIA article CULT OF PERSONALITY says that practically all the art and music of North Korea is dedicated almost exclusively to the glorification of the Kim clan. That, of course, started with the Soviet Union and its subordination of the arts to propaganda; the movies of such as Eisenstein may be technically masterly, but their content is totally repugnant to anybody with a soul and a mind. I once read an article about Renoir written by a feminist critic. As you surely have guessed, that lady berated Pierre Auguste for belittling women with his nudes, which supposedly objectified them. I am absolutely sure that it was not Renoir's intention to belittle or objectify women, but try telling that to someone who sees art exclusively in terms of political propaganda.

The basic situation of an English speaking country bordering Switzerland is ludicrous beyond belief. Think of it: a country founded by a knight who spoke medieval English, and which is totally separated from England. It's totally impossible that such a country would speak anything resembling modern English in the 20th century; rather, it would speak a language as different from English as Haitian Creole is different from French--and Haitian Creole only started to develop in the 19th century!

Exactly what was Bun~uel's beef with the Church? Practically every movie he made emphasized his fixation with anticlericalism, just as Oliver Stoned-Out-Of-His-Gourd is fixated with Kennedy and the Vietnam War!

The first movie that I saw in a theatre that left a lasting impression was THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. It was undoubtedly a very big impression, for I was only two or three years old when I first watched it.

The story of Desiree Clary and Napoleon is very interesting and moving, so why did the movie with Simmons and Brando come out so dull? The only thing I can praise of that bore is that Simmons looks really pretty in the fashions of Napoleon's time.

Another example of Brando being miscast! How come he was cast in so many unsuitable roles? DESIREE is one of the worst movies I have ever suffered. Not only was MB all wrong as Napoleon, but that clunker actually achieved the unbelievable feat of making Napoleon's very exciting life seem boring and without any interest.

Watching the tribute to Leslie Caron on 1 July 2014 made me realize how often she, like Audrey Hepburn, was cast as an ingénue perverse: a childlike girl who is sultry and seductive, almost what would be called today a Lolita. I find it really amazing that the proverbially straitlaced Fifties was so fond of this type of character.

I am sorry to learn that. Tell me if it isn't true that many times the non-English language movie was clearly superior to the English language one.

why is there a Foreign Language Oscar? In Panama, Poland and Portugal English is a foreign language. Which one is better: the movie in English or the movie in any other language?

Since this process is mentioned here fairly often, I would like to know its full history, particularly how movie makers finally came to the realization that the entire thing was unsuitable for filming people. The story of the troubled filming of HOW THE WEST WAS WON is quite hilarious.

Anybody remember how ,,Inspector Gerard'' was constantly dogged by people who pleaded to him in favor of Dr Kimble?

A perfect trousers role for Sarah Jessica Parker would be Charles II of Spain, to whom she bears an uncanny resemblance.

I am particularly annoyed by historical characters being ,,portrayed'' by actors who do not resemble them at all. Brando did not look like Napoleon, FDR or Rasputin, Martin Sheen does not look like Kennedy, and Anthony Hopkins and Frank Langella do not look anything like Nixon. Miguel Ferrer, on the other hand, would be perfect as Igor Stravinsky.

Not only was Brando all wrong as Napoleon and Fletcher Christian, he was actually considered for the roles of Roosevelt in SUNRISE AT CAMPOBELLO and Rasputin in NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDRA! What other outrageous examples of miscasting do you recall?

If n egro is disreputable try morocho, which is the usual term in Mexico, and moreno, the usual term in Central America and the Caribbean.

In what way is a show better if it makes an issue out of the sexual identity of its characters?

Sorrowful Mother, one of the titles of Our Lady.

Is this movie, directed by Jose Ferrer and based on a Pulitzer winning drama, really that obscure?

I am sorry that you miss so many movies. I try to watch as many as possible in order to have a conversation topic less risky than politics and religion. Regarding the A NIGHT TO REMEMBER of 1958, while still an excellent movie it's now dated as a depiction of the Titanic disaster. For one thing it fails to depict the moment when the ship cracks in two; for another it shows everybody behaving very calmly and politely thorough the event, when in fact things became increasingly chaotic and panicky as the event progressed. Cameron's movie depicts both circumstances very well.

When do you suppose it will be shown? It would certainly be a VAST IMPROVEMENT over Negulesco's pitiful 1953 potboiler, which actually shows the crew and passengers stopping everything to sing a masterly rendition of NEARER, MY GOD, TO THEE, exactly as if they were in a church service and not in the middle of a disaster that most of them would not survive.

Why wasn't THE SHRIKE shown? It would have been very interesting to watch Allyson in the kind of harridan role for which Crawford and Davis were famous.

I just called Bright House to request that it add TCM to its ON DEMAND lineup. I pray that many other viewers may make the same request.