Emily Dean

The one scene I look forward too, more than any other in CASABLANCA is Ingrid walking into RIck's the first time with that fabulous white dress and understated brooch. Orry-Kelly designed the dresses but I could not find any references for the jewelry. the brooch is very similar to the Peacock brooch designed by Cartier for the Duchess of Windsor which was designed for her in 1940.

William Holden agreed with the miscasting on PICNIC but was a mentor to Cliff Robertson and the movie was considered among one of his many successes, so much so, that he was on the cover of TIME magazine which at the time was a rarity for TIME to have a movie star on its cover. However Holden was quite disenchanted with the article and banned further contact with TIME because he had originally trusted them to be fair. He desperately wanted to be Bick Benedict in GIANT and was depressed at losing the role to Rock Hudson. For a look at William Holden, GOLDEN BOY by Bob Thomas, offers a good insight to Holden's career and actions, reactions to Hollywood and especially to Harry Cohn. I love to watch William Holden in his films and he is one actor who you can walk with through his career just by watching his films. Many times when it is SOTM it is nice when they feature the films in chronological order to watch the star's progression in their career.

For me it is a toss up between Lawrence of Arabia and this film....too much, too much. I would rather celebrate David Lean's films, IN WHICH WE SERVE and BRIEF ENCOUNTER which were intimate and character driven with much subtlety....thank goodness.

I watch Svengoolie almost all Saturday evenings and make believe I am 13 again staying up to watch the Late Movie. I am one of the few who enjoy his shitick and sometimes he has interesting interviews as well as the introduction of the different players. I believe I said earlier that I would love to see Svengoolie as a guest programmer on TCM introducing some resounding horror films. Last night he went into detail re: WOLFMAN make-up and its origins which I found interesting. I don't know if TCM has ever had a special devoted to make-up and make-up design and the impact of colour on the changing make-up requirements as well as the method of make-up related to lighting in both venues. As an aside, I followed up one day on researching the Westmores and their influence on the make-up industry in Hollywood. Apparently there were three brothers with Perc Westmore as the leader...oh dear I digress, sorry.

Is this really true? What would the criteria be? Number of posts, good spelling, evidence of classic movie knowledge or is this just a joke....tell me please. I love the caption on the different corporate sponsors. I have to say this is the first month in my 20 years of watching TCM that I have been totally turned off by the offerings, the way they were presented and the total lack of information, either posted as an introduction to the film or in the full schedule. I watch movies and am totally clueless as to what made them eligible for the 31 YEARS of OSCAR unless I access Google. Too much trouble.

For me it would be any cable channel news broadcast

Yes I am too. The movies presented other than GWTW were very intriguing and I especially liked IVY (I thought Joan Fontaine was fantastic) and WHIP HAND was a real gem. The interviews inspired me to buy the book and I will look at movies from a whole different perspective now. I find that many of the books (other than the coffee-table variety) really cause me to view movies from very different aspects. I read this terrific book about Hollywood extras and now I watch crowd scenes more intently, especially the ones filmed where the movie is occurring in the present time (of the movies production era) as most extras were required to wear their own clothes. The book, Hollywood Unknowns by Anthony Slide was really eye opening. I encourage TCM fans to read books on topics, especially when they begin to espouse their opinions on these boards and/or when talking about Guest Programmer or Spotlight Topics....I know the book FIVE CAME BACK really made a difference when watching September's Spotlight.

Well I imagine it is to us long-time viewers but you are able to see the management's impetus is to court a younger viewing audience (who else would succumb to a Wine Club theme of movies) and that leaves us old timer's out of luck. As someone who could watch many classics over and over (CASABLANCA) for example I am certain there are others who won't or wouldn't even fathom why they should care. I am afraid I am one of a disappearing class of movie fans.

I agree with you TB...White Heat is the best portrayal of a "mad" person than I have ever seen and I know, as a nurse, the first thing I did was notice the "mother fixation" and that intrigued me...I wonder of anyone ever did a paper on this topic in relationship to Cagney's performance. I never did like YANKEE DOODLE DANDY, it was soapy and a totally false presentation of the person portrayed, sort of an early version of that horrible Cole Porter pic with Carey Grant. I didn't like ALL THE KING'S MEN and never ever liked Broderick Crawford and am continually amazed that his mother is Helen Crawford...go figure (as the teens say). Gregory Peck was good in TWELVE O'CLOCK HIGH, but the portrayal of the PTSD was too, too ridiculous (in and out in a conveniently short time) when we know in truth the effects are much longer lasting. This years presentation of the Oscars is too confusing to me and I lament the fact that the lessor known films shown have no mention of their OSCAR status (winner and/or nomination) and for whom or what?. When less than 14% of the movies have an introduction this leaves the viewer mystified. You are able to find out but you have to rush to Wikipedia or IMBD because TCM doesn't even list them in their descriptions.

Well I may be old fashioned (as is most certainly is the case) but the Golden Age of TV occurred, as I define it, is is shows from the 50's and through the 60's. I have several books on the subject. The shows I consider GATV include seldom shown such as the Sid Cesar Hour, The Jackie Gleason Show (not just the Honeymooners), Andy Williams, Garry Moore, You Bet Your Life, etc,. I don't watch the Hallmark Channel as I cannot stand all the BIG HAIR and BIG SHOULDERS included within the shows they broadcast.

I am having a hard time grasping the 360 degree thing here as some of the actors appearing in both films shown are one or two lines below the Stars. Another thing is without rushing to Google to look up the films I am unsure of their connection to an Oscar...did they win one, get nominated for and who or what was the recipient of the award, nomination,etc. I agree with other posters here, viewer satisfaction is not something current management appears to be interested in or access to loyal fans comments. The management would do well to look at the posters and comments in relationship to their frequency and quality of postings. I know I give greater accord to posters like TopBilled and others of similar caliber as they are thought out and well presented. S/he would serve us equally as well by relating common posted issues back to management. One thing for sure, the moderator does see these as I note a post several ways back was moderated for offensive language. My true wish is if s/he would moderate the Wine Club ads as offensive as well.

With a penchant these days for a faulty memory I had lined up this movie because I confused this one with BATTLEGROUND which did win two awards and there were three other nominations including one for William Wellman. I think the line up this month is atrocious and none of the classic classics appear to be on in Prime time. Also I noted yesterday that TCM is advertising the 31 Days of Oscars on other related channels which resulted in my confusion as to which channel I was watching. I don't believe I have ever seen TCM advertise itself anywhere before. I see as well that the dreaded Wine Club is back with advertisements and you can now pair your wine selection with a scheduled movie. How ridiculous is this?....

Well Ok...TB at least I got the Griffith part right. Everyone is entitled to their nicely worded opinions (and I appreciate good spelling as well). Just get tired of everyone with an ax to grind....at times just leave me in peace. However that is coming up shortly for me. Happy movie watching. But now that you mention it, wouldn't it be nice if TCM would have a month devoted to documentaries. I have never seen any of Leni Riefenstahl's work, and while it is on You Tube, it would be nicer to see with commentary. Speaking of classic movies and propaganda there were several books out one or two years ago about Nazi influence on film making which made me view some films in a totally different light. I wish more of these commentators would have a more serious bent toward topics and broaden their outlooks with some reading. Oh well!!! Dream on.

Who cares re: this or that with Lucille Ball. She entertained us, we had a great time watching her show as children, and even now as a Senior Citizen I get to watch her and her dizzy stunts. I also liked her in the movies, she was sort of the "over the top" Eve Arden and had a terrific way with the delivery of her lines. Carol Burnett shared a similar sense of comedy and delivery. Gracie Allen on the other hand is a great antithesis to George in both their movies and television show. In the end, she always won. Now for us Seniors, how about a day of "I Love Lucy", "The Burns and Allen Show", "You Bet Your Life" and "Our Miss Brooks" with a little (just a little mind you) Phil Silvers thrown in for delightful day of dog sitting and TV binging.

Oh please, please give this all a rest. Movies are entertainment, I don't need ideas shoved down my throat in the guise of entertainment, all this talk and blah blah re Oscar nominations, inclusiveness, exclusiveness etc. takes away from the basic premise that movies were supposed be entertainment. When they branch out into something else they begin to become propaganda, and from either side of the coin that is wrong. I wouldn't have too much against all of this if I believed the movie going public was educated well enough to distill propaganda from entertainment but I don't think it is. I know that there were many movies that were made in the late 30's and 40's that were intended as propaganda but you know, I look at them and see them as a force for uniting people toward a common enemy of freedom. Many of the films today as well as discussions around them seem to threaten to divide us and consequently we become weaker. I know all about the controversies of J.W. Griffiths "Birth of a Nation" but to put a movie in perspective you should go back and explore the history and factors that influenced it at the time, not from today's viewpoint. You have to remember this movie was made only 51 years from the end of the Civil War. I always thought the purpose of the movie was to discuss the history of our country up to 1916 and I believe it caught the feelings of the time, not of today.

Ironic that this thread should pop up just as the Daily Telegraph had a feature yesterday on 20 actors who should have received an Academy Award but didn't and listed the roles they should have been considered for...I noticed in the several lengthy lists here no one addresses the fact that Joseph Cotten never received any award and I just cannot understand this. His roles were essential and without his performance the movies would have lacked the overall resonance of the film, such as: The Third Man Shadow of a Doubt and Portrait of Jenny. Look for him this week in "Love Letters" another outstanding performance with Jennifer Jones. Other TCM classics who were overlooked and mentioned were Peter Lorre (would the "Maltese Falcon" and "Casablanca" be the same without him) and Myrna Loy (The Thin Man would have been just thin without her) and Edward G. Robinson for his role in "Double Indemnity".

Well you know recently TCM had a tribute to Charles Walters....an MGM man of great repute and a dancer. I wonder if TCM as ever had a tribute to Busby Berkley and others (please not Gene Kelly) who did such great work in the early musicals. Maybe a Guest Programmer spot would be delightful. By reading history you can understand what his outlandish productions accomplished with audiences of the 30's and early 40's during the height of the Depression. They delivered absolute magic.

Well I for one participate on these comment boards to review and read information that enlightens my knowledge of classic films and their presentations. I withstand a constant barrage of negativity from other sources and don't need to have negativity thrown in with comments about classic films. Maybe Sven is silly but it is entertainment, not a film studies course.

I am all in favour of morphing SOTM into Actor of the month so TCM incorporates other greats into a program of films where there characters, skills add to the movie and without their presence the movie would have been much less. Think the following: Eve Arden and Jack Carson: Mildred Pierce George Sanders: Picture of Dorian Gray Charles Coburn: The More the Merrier Herbert Marshall: The Letter James Gleason: A Guy Named Joe Dame Edna May Oliver: Pride and Prejudice I could go on and on, but no need to bore the reading public

All I can state to you Svengoolie naysayers is this...if you don't like Sven then don't watch. The last time I noticed most TVs have channel changers. I thought this discussion group was for the purpose of letting TCM viewers there was an alternate available for little seen films on other channels. I noticed in the remarks reference to those movie hosts of the late 50's and 60's on local channels that presented the BIG MOVIE and referenced their childhood or adolescence and I truly think that is Sven's intention. Like I said don't like it, don't watch it.

I think the point of Svengoolie is to emulate the way movies were presented in the 50's and early 60's. All I can say is if you don't like Svengoolie, don't watch. I watch because I enjoy the schmaltz and a chance to see movies that are NEVER, NEVER on TCM. Svengoolie would make a great Guest Programmer on TCM with the best of the best of Sci-Fi, other than Frankenstein etc.

Excuse me here...I thought movies were for entertainment, not political posturing or other non-entertainment related topics. Everyone these days finds offense at everything, pretty soon you won't be able to voice an opinion on any topic on the off chance you will offend someone. The movies, the characters, the actors, the topics are all subject to the feelings and beliefs of the times in which they were made. Regardless of who or who does not get an Oscar nomination, I truly thought they were to recognize talent and not devised for political statements. When I looked at the list, there was not one movie I was enticed to view, on the other hand I happily pay for tickets to see big screen showings of movies such as THE MALTESE FALCON, and what I would not do to see CASABLANCA on the big screen. The point of films, books etc. is to entertain or educate, depending on the topics you choose. I use the word "educate" loosely here as when watching documentaries you have to have a two sided perspective as many documentaries are there to foist a certain viewpoint, as are most news casts. I cannot help but believe that in this country we are slowly losing our freedom of speech and would rather be defending that right than the right to bear arms. After hasn't been long said that "sticks and stones can break my bones but words cannot hurt me". Guns can hurt me but words cannot.

I believe Joan Fontaine was offered the part after several others turned it down, including her sister Olivia De Havilland.

Kona-Rose: I agree with your sentiments as they are exactly mine. I now get to watch TCM during the day and see many movies I haven't seen before because they were not Prime-Time material but they meet my desires. I will miss it when TCM leaves the 30-40's behind. I believe one reason I am drawn to them is because they are most likely movies my parents watched. I know this is a fact for sure in British films of that era for my Mom. Secondly I enjoy the fact that they are not films with realism thrown in...I have plenty of that in the news each day. When they talk about the golden era of movies, I could not agree more.

I became very curious about Menzies and really believed that the information passed along by Mr. Curtis was quite scanty (not his fault, not enough time given by host) so I succumbed to consumerism and purchased the advertised book. It is very good and now I wish I had read it prior to the Spotlight series. IVY is a prime example of Menzies talents so watch closely for the tracking shots in the beginning and the use of black, white and grey. I should learn for future Spotlights to read the book if it is associated with a publication and along the line of my interests. I did that with Five Came Back and it made the movies and documentaries more significant and enlightened.