Jump to content

Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About lpetiti

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Classic film, art, animaiton, illustration, sewing, and gaming.

Recent Profile Visitors

417 profile views
  1. Hopefully there will be a course in 2020. I always enjoy them.
  2. I wish Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte was airing. I finally got around to seeing Baby Jane after watching Feud, which also made me interested in seeing Charlotte. I think it's on Amazon Prime?
  3. I think the global perspective matters a great deal in animation. It's not only about how an audience views media, but also what they view. Previously, we only worried about what they viewed, but now we must consider both. I think global animation is far more experimental and daring than most American animation. To a certain extent, much of American animation is limited to what we see being produced in Hollywood. While there is some amazing stuff coming out of Hollywood animation, it is often limited to family oriented films (not always but often). The independent circuit is often more experimental, but again, many times that seems to come from countries outside of the United States. If we don't consider what is coming out of animation around the world, then we are missing out on some wonderful pieces of animation exploring things that Americans don't While I agree with you about live performances, and that there is a magic that we don't see on screens, I don't agree that the fact that society views things primarily on computer/tablet/phone screens detracts from the performances and stories being told. Are they all great? Of course not, but neither were all of the films in Classic Hollywood.
  4. Very well said! I've (fortunately or unfortunately) known both types of people.
  5. Again, that is a generalization of an entire generation - two actually. While I agree that work ethics have changed and that certain things are true about certain members of my generation and the generation that came before us, do not be so quick to assume that we are all leftists with a "gimme" attitude. When people generalize about a generation, I have to ask if they know people of that generation and if the generalizations being made are 100% true of every person that they know who is a millennial or Gen-Xer. Chances are, that is not the case. Honestly (tying this back to the original post), is it any wonder that younger generations are less likely to discover the joy and/or the lessons to be learning in older films or different times in history if we are constantly being put inside what is an unfair box and constantly judged as being lazy entitled people who have trouble "adulting"? We are a classic film community should be saying things like "you've only seen Citizen Kane? What a treat you have in store for you when you discover other things that Orson Welles produced (or when you discover classic comedy, or musicals...whatever!) I could argue that older generations made a plethora of mistakes and judge the entire generation as racist, sexist, homophobic, draft dodgers, hippies, beatniks....any sort of category that some member of previous generations fit into. But that is doing a disservice to those previous generations who, like every other generation in history have both positive and negative aspects to it. So, to answer your previous question, no. We could not have built bridges because the world we live in is different than that time in history...but we can look back on those events and be inspired to create new things and push the boundaries of science, technology, engineering, film, art, etc because of the work done before us.
  6. Unfortunately, this comment seems like a great generalization of millennials. While I agree that there are many in my generation that feel this way (as well as the generation after mine...today's high school students are not millennials, yet we always seem to get grouped together), I also know many millennials (myself included) who do NOT subscribe to revisionist history, who will freely admit that there is a lot we don't know and who, in spite of having grown up in a recession and in a post-9/11 world in which we were told to do things like go to college and get a high paying job (in spite of those things not always being practical), have worked hard to try to adjust to being an adult in an ever changing world, just as generations before us have done. Are we perfect? Far from it, but I wager that every generation before us has been told by generations before them that there was something "wrong" with them as well. It's unrealistic of us to think that earlier times in the 20th century did not have things wrong with it, just as there are things wrong with our society in 2019. For example, while Gone with the Wind is in my top 3 movies of all time, I can't ignore the fact that it does portray many African Americans in a, shall we say, less than flattering light. That doesn't take away from the greatness of that film, but there are some racist elements in it (case in point, the portrayal of Prissy). Is it as racist as Birth of a Nation? Absolutely not - but it is unrealistic to dismiss the racist elements in that film, just as it is unrealistic to dismiss the film as a whole because of the racist elements in it. To parphrase Whoopi Goldberg, we shouldn't censor films like this because doing so would deny the existence of stereotypes that were common and acceptable in previous years. And as a side note, personally I've never quite understood the fascination with Citizen Kane. I adore the cinematography, but I've always found Orson Welles to be somewhat off-putting to me (not the character of Kane, but rather Welles himself) and the plot is just not as engaging as I thought it would be. Again, that doesn't take away from the greatness of the film, I just fail to see the fascination that many of my fellow film students had with the film.
  7. Two things come to mind as I'm reading these comments. First...I remember hearing a description of The Apartment and how Shirley McLain "made this black and white movie feel as if it had color" during an Oscar broadcast. That always annoys me because a statement like that implys that colored movies (or sound for that matter) lack something and therefore can't ever possibly be of the same quality as a sound film. Similarly, I once introduced my high school students to classic comedy and asked them what they thought about black and white movies. One student said they couldn't be funny because they were in black and white. Chaplin...the Marx Brothers...Jack Lemmon in Some Like It Hot couldn't be funny without color. I'll say this...the pictures weren't the only things to get smaller. I think as cinema has progressed, especially in modern years, people's mindsets of good cinema has gotten smaller, which results in people bashing older films.
  8. Makes sense. In the case of some movies, could ten even perhaps be an adequate number?
  9. That is a good question. I don't know if I'm in a position to say that, as even what the definition of a classic is is quite subjective. It's a poor argument on my part to say that I can't quite verbalize what I mean at the moment, yet it's the only one that comes to mind. I'm more interested in your thoughts on that. If you agree that there has to be a time element to a classic, how long? If not, why?
  10. Very true. I certainly think the word "classic" is overused because it evokes that sense of nostalgia we all crave on some level (in my opinion). But is it right to call something a classic as soon as it releases? In my opinion, I don't think so...a classic is something that withstands the test of time and probably has something special about it. You're quite correct in that Marvel movies and Now, Voyager are almost two completely different species. The only reason I bring them together is that, even if superhero movies are enjoyable...I don't consider them classics (yet). Will some of them be classics? Possibly. At the very least they contribute to a unique time in film history.
  11. That makes sense actually. That whole time period of the transition between silents and talkies is fascinating to me. From what I've learned (based on an MGM documentary) Gilbert and Mayer never really got along, especially when it came to Garbo? Then again, Mayer seems like he was almost impossible to get along with, period. Even if he was thought of as a "father figure", he seemed every bit the tyrant.
  12. I think that a quote from the new Fosse/Verdon series sums my opinion up for me the best. It said something along the lines of classic movies show us a world that we can escape to, where new movies (in the case of the quote, Cabaret) show us reality. I have always used classic movies to indulge in what Midnight In Paris calls "golden age thinking". "Nostalgia is denial, a denial of the painful present. The name for this denial is Golden Age thinking - the erroneous notion that a different time period is better than the one one's living in..." Yes, it's a fallacy, but it's one I'm happy to indulge in. What I like about traditional classic movies is that I can escape to a different time...perhaps it was a time that never truely existed, yes, but its a wonderful escape. Others have mentioned superhero movies in this discussion. I adore Marvel movies and eagerly wait the next one in a few weeks. However, I don't think I consider them on the same level as Now, Voyager (my favorite film). I also have trouble saying that a film made during my lifetime (I was born in the early 90s) is "classic" because to me a classic is one that was made a few decades ago. And yet this is a difficult subject to consider in general. Is a film not a classic because it was made twenty years ago rather than forty or fifty? Is a film not a classic because it portrays life a bit (or more than a bit) more real than the films made under Mayer or Jack Warner? I think we agree that none of those things are true. What I do think is true is that Hollywood has changed. I think also that many equate "classic" with a multi-million (or billion) dollar box office. Perhaps the problem that many have with applying the word "classic" to 21st century films is that the word often gets overused.
  13. For all that I've loved classic films for almost ten years now, I have never seen a Greta Garbo film so I decided to watch Queen Christina on WatchTCM. I was surprised to see John Gilbert in this film. Based on what I had learned about him through various sources and documentaries, I was under the impression that John Gilbert's career ended sooner than 1933. Obviously I was wrong. What I'm wondering is...based on my research, part of the reason that John Gilbert's career ended was that he did not have the voice for talkies. If that is true, I'm wondering why it was. So far, I don't see anything glaring wrong with his voice and certainly not his performance. If that is the case, what exactly was it that made him lose his appeal?
  14. I'm a little bit behind watching the musical,so my family and I are watching Beach Party right now actually. I am fascinated by it, having only seen Beach Blanket Bingo. I can also see why it would have been considered disruptive. The teenagers are still clean cut by today's standards for sure, but there is an openness to their sexuality that I believe hadn't really been seen before. The dancing they do is also way different than say, Fred and Ginger. I can't imagine that pair gyrating in the same way that Frankie and Annette do. What I can see is how someone like LB Mayer or Jack Warner would think this type of film might represent a major change in their old and glamorous Hollywood. It was certainly different...campy, "wild" (again, not necessarily by today's standards), and full of youthful energy.
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
  • Create New...