Vautrin
-
Posts
21,175 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Vautrin
-
-
3 hours ago, sewhite2000 said:
Sadly, I wasn't surprised by the complete absence of people of color on the ship. Looks like a small group of white people decided only white people needed to continue to exist.
Me neither. I think most people realize this is a product of its time, not that that makes it alright.
When vanilla worlds collide.
-
1
-
-
I don't recall ever seeing this one before, even as a kid. Pretty good if a bit on the nuts and bolts side
with some human drama thrown in and a clunky love story. This is the type of movie that Technicolor
improves by about 10%. The religious overtones are kind of silly, but it was 1951 so what do you expect.
I was a little surprised by the absence of some Ruskie scowling and throwing sand during the UN scene.
Felt sorry for the person who was left off the ship just because the dude who was screwing one of
the big shot's daughter got a free pass. And while John Hoyt was a creep it seems kind of mean to
keep him off the ship he paid for. Too bad he shot Sam Drucker. Who's going to run the general store
after they get to the new planet.
-
3
-
-
I enjoyed your post. I was an usher for about six months while I was in high school about 25 years after
your hitch. Thank goodness we didn't have to wear pants with stripes on the side. Just regular dark slacks
with a dark red jacket with black lapels. I think we had to wear bow ties. Must have been a clip on because
I never knew how to tie a bow tie. Still don't. And of course a trusty small flashlight to guide patrons to
their seats. This was a theater in a fairly upscale town, so I guess the ushers made it more special. I think
this theater showed mostly 20th Century Fox flicks and most of them lasted for a few weeks or sometime
even longer. I still got bored after seeing the movie repeatedly, except for Joe where I first saw Susan
Sarandon do her thing. The worst was Cromwell, which ran for about two and a half hours and it seemed
to be about four. We used to chat with the candy counter girls and they were all cute. Maybe that was a
job requirement. They allowed us to dip into the popcorn holder. The popcorn was not popped fresh
but was brought out of their supply closet in big plastic bags. It still tasted pretty good. The theater was
run by a husband and wife couple who never talked very much. The assistant manager was a guy with
a bad stomach who would always send various ushers across the street to the drugstore to buy Tums.
We also had a middle age head usher named Jack. And Jack liked to take a nip every once in a while.
He usually wasn't effected too badly by that, but one night he tried to jump/hop over the velvet
rope that separated the lobby from the balcony staircase. He didn't make it which made everybody
laugh. We never had any fistfights because this was a pretty mellow crew, sometimes artificially so.
One of the best parts was that the theater was only a few minutes away from a pizza place which made for a
nice snack. And the theater was called The Rialto, which we called the Rathole, though it wasn't really
that bad. And last but not least, Ruth Roman was a major talent, depending perhaps on one's definition
of talent.
-
2
-
-
Peyton Place reminds me a bit of Picnic. Of course they both have holiday celebrations with picnics with two
boys who eat too much junk food and one falls asleep with his watermelon. There there are the small towns
that are controlled by two lunkhead company heads with two spoiled sons. Peyton Place is lot sleazier and
dangerous. Murder, rape, suicides, you name it. Lorne Greene examining Little Joe. PP is one of the best camp
classics of the 1950s. I always get a laugh out of the good doctor Swain, except when he's blackmailing people
or falsifying medical records. Way to go. I was looking at the Peyton Place review in Maltin's guide and in the
cast list he puts Diane Varsi near the end, just after Mildred Dunnock. Just because she was kind of a one hit
wonder doesn't mean she deserves that slight.
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:
Oh, if I idolized movie stars - and all the other artists whose work I love - I'd be a very disappointed person. I don't and never have.
At the risk of going off-topic, I'll give just one example: I love the Kinks, their music means a lot to me. And I recently heard that Ray Davies, their main songwriter and creative force , is in many ways a horrible person. Ok, not a murderer or rapist or anything heinous like that, but he's known to have been, at least in the past, extremely unkind to some of his employees, his first wife, and, famously his own brother (who gave back as good as he got.) This was all disillusioning, but in no way affected how I felt about the Kinks' music.
Sorry, I don't want to derail this thread about Kirk Douglas by talking about Ray Davies. I just cited him as an example of how I separate the art from the artist. And whenever Ray Davies dies (hopefully that won't happen for a long time), I would just write about what a great songwriter he was, and would not have the slightest interest in telling stories about how nasty he could be.
I think some people here do idolize movie stars to a certain degree, not to the slobbering teenage one, but to some
place along the continuum. After all this Kirk stuff, I would love to hear about the Kinks, and there is Celluloid Heroes.
I don't know that much about Ray Davies' personal life. I suppose on the surface he seemed like a witty down to
earth guy with a longing for the "good" old days of bygone England. But I wouldn't be shocked if that wasn't the
whole of the actual Ray. My favorite band is the Beatles and my favorite Beatle is John, but John could be a big
creep and jackass, but I can live with that. I guess my point is ....I like John Lennon more than Kirk Douglas.
Whatever. Sexy Izzy you'll get yours yet, However big you think you are ah ah ah.
In the internet era, people whom one disagrees with are called trolls. I get it.
It keeps things nice and simplistic.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Dargo said:
Wait a sec here, Vautrin. Never mind my question up there.
You see, it just occurred to me that IN this theoretical "hereafter" of yours, most if not all of the inhabitants (yep, even good ol' Clarence Oddbody and after he helped George Bailey see the error of his thinking) already have their OWN wings, and so the idea of having to transit some big airport in the sky in order to travel around postmortem would be a non-issue.
(...well, UNLESS of course Kirk ends up where Don Ameche first ended up after he died in that very entertaining Lubitsch flick from 1943...YOU know, the one with the title that Warren Beatty ripped off in '78...nobody has wings down there, ya know)
I really hadn't thought too much about the details. I wasn't planning on inserting your story about Kirk's high-handedness
(surprise, surprise
) into that beyond the grave schemata, but I could certainly add it in. And as it's my hereafter I get
to make the transportation rules and regs. Maybe I could place Mr. Douglas by the baggage carousel eternally waiting for
a suitcase that will never show up. Ouch.
-
3 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:
Do you dislike Kirk Douglas so much because he was a Zionist? I certainly don't agree with that either but this part of the forum is more for the movie discussion.
Was Kirk a Zionist? I mean a dyed-in-the-wool zealous type. I don't know. I kind of doubt it. Zionists were just another
group of European colonialists come to exploit and kill the native people. But I doubt he knew much about that.
-
Robert Conrad vs. Ed Asner. I can only hope it was a food eating contest.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, misswonderly3 said:
Here's an idea, Vautrin: start a new thread about what a terrible person Kirk Douglas was. You can say all the nasty things about him you want, and you won't be interrupted by others saying, "Please don't do this, this is a thread to pay tribute to Kirk Douglas, it's not the place to dis him."
Because clearly that's what you want to do.
Personally, I don't understand why you care what kind of a person Mr. Douglas was in his private life. I don't much care what any famous person, be they actor, director, musician, writer, or whatever their reason for fame was, behaved like in their personal life. All I care about is the work they did, whether it's good or not. Kirk Douglas left us a legacy of memorable films, many of them outstandingly good. He was a really good actor. He had an exceptionally strong screen presence. He made intelligent choices in the films he decided to be in. These are the things that count about him.
If you insist on vilifying him, you're free to do so. But that's a whole different topic. So stick to the topic on this thread, which is intended to honour Kirk Douglas, not disparage him.
Okay, Kirk cheated at solitaire and he never picked up a check. I don't know if Dougie was a terrible person. Maybe, maybe
not. I found him to be a bit on the pompous side, but that's not unusual in Hollywood or a terrible sin. I've never been big
on idolizing movie stars, so that may play into some of my comments. If folks want to dis a movie star, even on a tribute
thread, that's their right. I was thinking of starting a thread titled What's the Frequency, Issur? It wouldn't be about what
a terrible person Kirk was (or wasn't). It would be about his adventures in the hereafter where he runs into many of his
old studio era pals. But that was just a passing thought.
-
3 hours ago, lavenderblue19 said:
Believe what you want, don;t know what you are trying to prove in this thread, but it isn't working. For someone who doesn't even VOTE in elections you certainly are judgmental. LOL, How would you fly around to other countries when you can't even bother to vote. You're reaching with this one, and it's laughable.
I don't think people come here to prove things, but just to discuss stuff, shoot the breeze, etc. And if it doesn't work,
that's okay, though I'm not sure what was supposed to work. As far as I know there is no connection between not
voting and flying to other countries. After all, about 45% of eligible voters don't vote in presidential elections and a
majority in off year elections. That's a rather larger number of people.
-
9 hours ago, lavenderblue19 said:
Douglas and his wife were involved in numerous volunteer and philanthropic activities. They traveled to more than 40 countries, at their own expense, to act as goodwill ambassadors for the U.S. Information Agency, speaking to audiences about why democracy works and what freedom means.[104] In 1980, Douglas flew to Cairo to talk with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. For all his goodwill efforts, he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Jimmy Carter in 1981.[105] At the ceremony, Carter said that Douglas had "done this in a sacrificial way, almost invariably without fanfare and without claiming any personal credit or acclaim for himself."[124] In subsequent years, Douglas testified before Congress about elder abuse.[7
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Here are some FACTS. Obviously Kirk cared very much about world affairs, sounds like he obviously voted in elections since he and and wife traveled to 40 coumtries AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE as Goodwill Ambassadors .He received the Presidential Metal of Freedom from President Jimmy Carter on 1981.. And That's NOT A RUMOR or GOSSIP, THOSE ARE FACTS
It seems that not only was Kirk perhaps cheated out of an Oscar, but maybe a Nobel Peace Prize too. Never trust a
goober farmer from Georgia. It's nice that he flew to lots of countries, but that doesn't say much about a person to
me. If I was well off, I'd be happy to fly to other countries too. Frank Sinatra was a big philanthropist too, but in private
life he seems to have been something of an s.o.b. , so philanthropy is not always a sign of a person's morality. Too
bad that Rush Windbag has lowered the value of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I can't recall if the CIA was
involved in the U.S. Information Agency. Have to check that out.
-
17 hours ago, Dargo said:
Ah, if only not voting could be cited as a public infraction like Jaywalking is (and as not voting is in Australia), I'd be a happy camper.
(...btw, of course I don't know if Kirk actually voted in every major election...I was just being "persistent" and rather clever, if I do say so myself, by bringing that up again here, that's all...and also hoped by doing so, I'd get you off this whole "in overview, Kirk Douglas wasn't a very nice person" thing" you seem "persistent" about in this thread)
I'm glad I don't live in that land down under. I'd be broke. Thank goodness I reside in the freedom loving USA where
lazy bums like myself aren't forced to vote. He might have been a nice person or not. With the Hollywood hype
machine, who can tell.
-
One of today's episodes starred Phyllis Newman as an American Indian princess. In the other
Ida Lupino played a mad scientist who made a duplicate of West, fancy duds and all. I didn't watch
that one.
-
3 hours ago, Dargo said:
Yeah, well, say what ya want about Kirk here Vautrin, but I hear-tell HE at least voted in every major election anyway!
And in MY book, the sheer act of performing THIS civic responsibility ALONE can make up for a lot of personality flaws people might have.
(...nope, I never quit, huh!)
LOL
Persistence, my man, persistence. That's the spirit. But how do we actually know Kirk voted in every major election.
That could just be a rumor. This may be self interested, but I would put not voting far down on the list of bad acts,
close to jaywalking.
-
3 hours ago, TomJH said:
You are clearly deriving some kind of perverse pleasure in continuing to come back and pursue this subject even after a number of posters have said this thread is intended as a tribute to Kirk Douglas, not a place to discuss unproven rumours about him.
As far as I'm concerned the issue now has nothing to do with Kirk and everything to do with you.
If posters want to discuss Kirk Douglas' career, that's fine. If someone wants to discuss another aspect of his life,
that's fine also. Everyone will have their own take. I likely have a more jaded view than some posters about movie stars
and so while I enjoyed a number of Kirk Douglas films, I don't feel any particular connection to him. Besides it helps
while away the hours until Green Acres comes on.
-
3 hours ago, Bethluvsfilms said:
It doesn't make YOU look very good continually bringing up an unproven accusation on a thread designed to pay respects to him now that he has died.
Be interested in rumors all you like, but regardless of how you feel about Kirk, you could at least stay off this thread meant to pay respects after his passing and go start a new thread where you can post to your heart's content over and over again how he could have raped Natalie Wood.
And also serial adultery does NOT make one a rapist, nor does it prove one is a rapist.
I'm just discussing this aspect of Mr. Douglas as other people discuss other aspects of his life. Opinions will differ
as they often do. The rumor about Natalie Wood was brought up on the first day of the post by someone else so
it was already in the air so to speak. My point was not that serial adultery makes one a rapist, only that the adultery
was a fact, the rape was a rumor.
-
3 hours ago, LawrenceA said:
Perhaps people were hoping you'd have some consideration for what others may find appropriate. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should.
Then again, it's also possible that you were simply looking for the attention that this has given you. Stirring the pot, as they say.
Calling attention to oneself goes against everything Kirk Douglas stood for.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Bethluvsfilms said:
How many times do you have to be told that a thread about the passing of a legendary actor is NOT the time nor the place to bring up such an ugly rumor?
As already mentioned the Natalie Wood story is NOT part of Kirk's story because it's never been proven as 100 percent true. What part of this don't you get?
Rumors become part of an actor or really any celebrity's life, not a major part but they trail around them. It's really
another aspect of the Hollywood hype machinery, which works both ways, good and bad. And movie stars are part
of the machinery, good and bad. Some folks are more interested in some rumors than other folks. I find nothing wrong
with that. And while Natalie's story is a rumor, Kirk's serial adultery, which apparently was okay with his second
wife, is fact and doesn't make him look very good.
-
10 hours ago, lavenderblue19 said:
He'd walk away like a gentleman. He wouldn't waste his time on rumors like a little gossip, he'd look for more honorable battles to pursue.
I don't know. The general Douglas screen persona was a guy who didn't take too much and was ready to charge
ahead with fists flying. Of course he didn't play that type of character all the time, but I think that was the way
many fans saw him.
-
16 hours ago, jakeem said:
I always took it to mean they had little black books with names and addresses for every port.
Possibly. Sometimes at the end of an episode one or the other would produce a little black book and the
other would try to get it away from him. But considering they spent so much time fighting egomaniacal
villains it must have been difficult to find the time to get dates. I also wondered how the regular cowboys took
West's dandified clothes. Oh no, here comes that pretty boy James West. Conrad did look sharp in those
outfits, though they seem a bit unsuited to the business at hand.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, jakeem said:
Maybe the original version was too wishy washy. Were they trying to say that West's sexual attraction was so potent, he could make a woman think twice about killing him?
I always took it as West was such a chick magnet that one kiss knocked her over. Why they changed it into a punch
I don't know. Just a humorous bit of trivia. I always got a laugh out of the ending of so many episodes where West
and Gordon would have two lovely ladies on the train for a dinner and theater date. Was the Secret Service running
some kind of escort service or something?
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, lavenderblue19 said:
Right On Sista. Vautrin, give it up. No one in this thread agrees with you and the reaction to your posts are NOT GOOD. Please, let it go.
I'm gonna have to pull a little Kirk here. If somebody told the old boy to stop it, give it up, let it go, nobody agrees
with you, your posts are not good, well you know how Kirk would likely react. 'Nuff said.
-
3 hours ago, speedracer5 said:
Mitchum's pot bust is a fact. It would be mentioned because it's part of his life and story. These unsubstantiated rumors about Kirk are not fact and should not be mentioned as part of someone's story. These types of rumors are meant to slander someone's legacy and reputation.
As I've previously mentioned, rumors are a part of Hollywood. They are part of a star's story, which may be unfair, but
that's the way it goes. Some of them are of interest to some folks. Others are not. To each their own.
-
3 hours ago, Bethluvsfilms said:
You seem to miss the point completely. It's about paying tribute to a great actor (regardless of his flaws, which no doubt he had, just like you and I do), acknowledging his contributions in cinema, NOT continually attacking the man or slandering him over a story that has nothing but unproven speculation to back it up.
Mitchum never made any secret of the fact that he did pot and did jail time for it. You can't compare his 'scandal' to the one you keep insisting on bringing up with Kirk when Kirk is no longer here to defend himself.
I get that it's about paying tribute to a good actor, but many actors have rumors concerning them and those rumors
often become part of their bio, for better or worse. It twas ever thus in Tinsel Town. The Mitchum example was the first
that came to mind. It is lacking in that it was factual, so chose whichever rumor you like. Charlie Chaplin, W.C. Fields,
Bob Hope, et al. Somewhere along the line when these folks are discussed, the rumors will show up too.
Women In The Movies In Bathtubs
in General Discussions
Posted
Which one?