Jump to content

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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ihopetheresice

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

418 profile views
  1. According to TCM’s twitter they will not be offering a course this year. It would appear the sci-fi lineup in July is just a themed selection for the month. I’ve attached the link where TCM replies to someone about it. https://twitter.com/tcm/status/1131225881161216000?s=21
  2. Would it seem ridiculous to request sharing information to access the course? I don't know what harm it could cause other than someone perhaps sabotaging later film class which I would hope sounds ridiculous. I would love to comb through the material almost as if auditing the class. I love film noir and of course I've been able to take every class but the noir one. I would be willing to swap info through direct message for someone who perhaps missed one of the other classes but was able to take the noir one.
  3. I feel like it has already been established within the curator's notes on this scene, but if Streisand were to belt out this performance it would lose the emotionally vulnerability her character should be displaying. If she were to go "full Barbara" on this song, it would seem less a confession and instead would seem as if her character was acting a part as in her stage performances. One thing I did notice, for a song that is about one character's desire for another character (or any person for that matter) Streisand spends a great amount of time not even addressing Sharif's character. It's a little off-putting and almost makes me believe that she might as well have "belted" the song out for the world, or at least Sharif given his not so close proximity, to hear. Perhaps, Wyler could have achieved even greater results had she addressed Sharif with the emotion the song's lyrics suggest, but he's William Wyler so what do I know?
  4. One of the most prominent changes in male representation and performance has to be the evolution of method acting/workshopping. Prior to this time, when a person is watching a Fred Astaire or Gene Kelly film they are watching Astaire and Kelly playing the character as Astaire and Kelly with the same wonderful characteristics. Here we have an actor who inhabits the character completely so as to lose himself in the role. Also of note is the delivery of the song in The Music Man. Preston delivers the song as a sermon to the townspeople, rattling off the lines as if they are an Americana version of slam poetry. It is a far cry from the melody of the 30's. Furthermore, Preston's mannerisms and facial expressions are those of an inhabited character. They do not reflect the over the top flair of classical musicals, but instead bring story and song seamlessly together.
  5. This scene from Gypsy harkens back to the the backstage musicals of the 1930's in that it shows the inner workings of a show and one can already tell it will be the tale of a star and a stage of some sort. Although after reading the lecture notes (stripper character and double entendres), it is clear that this film will contain a subject that will skirt the confines of the production code. I should preface this statement by noting that I have neither seen Merman's portrayal of Mama Rose or Russell's (outside of this small scene). In my opinion, Rosalind Russell here seems to be playing the character as Mame, if I am remembering correctly. While Mame is free spirited and Mama Rose seems overbearing, both have over the top characteristics that demand attention on all fronts. I can't make an insightful comment on Sondheim's lyrics here, because the girl's performance is rather short and lacks a great amount of lyrical content and what one can hear is overshadowed by Mama Rose's demands and arguments.
  6. A movie is not required to maintain a similar approach throughout the entirety of the film and in An American in Paris I believe the stylized scene does well to portray the fantasy as it is intended. The break in style and form allows the audience to identify it as just that...a break in reality. Jerry Mulligan's character rises above being loathsome partly because he is simply played by Gene Kelly. Although, I would also have to argue that he doesn't seem unlikeable due to the everyman quality of Mulligan (at least in this scene). He is cordial, but not overly friendly to his fellow artists and seems irritated when a younger person criticizes his work, both relatable instances. I even read his response to Milo's request to buy his paintings not as suspicion, but rather giddy amazement that someone finally appreciates his art beyond stopping to analyze it, which is how most starving artists would respond.
  7. Gene Kelly's movements and mannerisms have been previously covered in the lectures and videos before this point and I think his pre-dance movements in this iconic scene are no different. He has an athletically musical mannerism in and out of dance that I think is equally highlighted in this scene without being over the top. On the other hand, O'Connor's mannerisms are indeed over the top and work to establish him as the more flamboyant of the two. Because of this, the segue into the song and dance seems fluid and not out of the ordinary and the viewer doesn't feel any sense of disruption present in other musicals where the songs do not fit as fluidly into the storyline of the film. The role of the straight man is to maintain serious composure amidst at times ridiculous and over the top comedy. The professor in this scene does not find any humor in the subject of elocution, while his pupils are intent on ridiculing it. His character must continue this line of behavior in order to allow the two leads to portray the humor of the scene, but it is his seriousness that ultimately heightens the comedy of the scene whether it's a simple glance at O'Connor (catching his mock interest) or the absurdity of having the entire room piled on him. As in most of his films, Kelly is the Alpha male of the group, maintaining his strength, athleticism, and confidence. His movements are concise and powerful. On the other hand, O'Connor can be seen as the Beta of the two in that he does not exude the masculinity of Kelly's character. This can be seen in their movements in that, while dancing in sync, Kelly's form seems to be tight and controlled, while O'Connor's seems to have a more feminine flair. To me, the professor falls somewhere in between although a true definition of him seems hard to place.
  8. The viewer notices the interplay of the characters, each offering their own insight into what makes "entertainment." They play off one another's ideas as well as movements. This scene differs from earlier musicals in that, instead of featuring a solo dance number or a duo either dancing in-step or step-for-step, the characters dance cohesively, weaving in and out of each other or all in line as an ensemble. I would say that their costuming, albeit different from one another, does not help one stand out from the rest of the ensemble. Even Astaire suit, while fashionable, is not flashy. I find it interesting that, instead of clothing them in similar fashions, the characters are dressed individually, but that it doesn't create a sense of separation. Instead, it reinforces the idea that, although each character is of a different background/profession, each character is a critical component in creating. Again, one has to acknowledge the interplay between the characters. At times, they are literally weaving in and out of one another and even when one character seems to be doing something it affects another character. As previously stated in the lecture and almost certainly in most of the previous posts in this thread, this helps to reinforce the idea of collaboration and community above the individual.
  9. To me, the transition from Petunia being at Joe's bedside to her at the clothesline shows her happiness in domesticity. All she longs for is a happy home with a trustworthy and respectable husband. To her, this is of the utmost importance to her self-worth. Happiness is not only Joe, but what a life with a faithful husband represents to Petunia. If this number were to have been about a child I believe it would've been more relatable or perhaps would have held up a little better with today's sensibilities. Instead, it seems a bit dated in its portrayal of a woman needing a man in order to be happy. Petunia's life is entirely focused around a husband unworthy of her devotion. Even when Petunia turns away from Joe and seems to be through with his wanton ways, it is simply a ploy to draw Joe back to her. I would imagine the reviews for this film if it were to be released in today's world would have a few things to say about this. I enjoyed this film and wish we had more documents of African American performances from this time. Unfortunately, I don't think I can add anything more on the subject beyond what has already been written/said during the lectures. Incredibly poignant and important film for its time.
  10. Admittedly, I am a bit of a novice when it comes to the musical genre. Like almost everyone else, my first experience with Judy Garland was The Wizard of Oz as a child and as one can imagine it would be years before I experienced anything else with her in it. Sadly, the number of years is almost embarrassing, but when I did finally see her in something other than Oz it was her triumphant return in A Star is Born. I was decently oblivious to the tumultuous happenings in her life and career and was taken aback by how old she appeared at only 32 years old. As a result, I fell down the rabbit hole of learning about Garland's heartbreaking life and early demise. My first impressions were initially wrapped in the wonder that The Wizard of Oz offered me as a child and continues to offer children even to this day (my wife and I watched in for the first time with our four year old daughter this past Thursday and she was enrapt). Outside of the two aforementioned films, I remember seeing her in Babes in Arms with Mickey Rooney and marveling at her talent evident outside of Oz in the same year. More so than realizing it after the two clips in our Daily Dose, I have to say I'm stunned to learn Garland did not have a dancing background. It is not an understatement when you said she held her own with Gene Kelly in For Me and My Gal and the same can be said in the scene from Easter Parade, as well. She commands the stage, not only working up to the level of the incredible dancers she co-starred with but I would argue that she elevated them to a whole new level, as well. I just watched For Me and My Gal for the first time tonight and I have to say it is easily one of my favorites, so far. I'm gushing at this point, but the singing, the dancing, and the comedic sensibility all wrapped up in an image that made people think she was the quintessential girl next door makes it hard for me to offer up anyone that could be described in the same fashion. I'm enjoying my time in this course and the films it has opened me up to seeing.
  11. From the few comments I read it would seem that a strong number of people argue that this scene doesn't present a battle of the sexes. While I am not ready to agree with that point, the battle is very subtle and miniscule. To me, it appears as mimicry on Rogers' part in the early stages of the dance and progresses to even the slightest of tap additions on Ginger's as they are walking away from the camera. Also, if you look at Roger's eyes they are sizing Astaire's character up for size and the battle is engaged by the fact that he appears to be sizing up not only her beauty but her talent. I would have to argue that it begins to distinguish itself from other musicals of the period in just the portrayal of Rogers' character in men's dress. I mean, this is same type of wardrobe that caused an uproar in Katherine Hepburn's case and would later be so chic when Diane Keaton participates in the fashion years later in Annie Hall. And while we have seen women play hard to get before in such films, I think the major difference here is that it presents itself as a one-upsmanship (sic?) between the two sexes, not as a situation where the woman needs saving or even needs affection from the male counterpart. The possible reasons for these changes can be attributed to the ever-changing need for women to have credibility and strength inside and outside of the movies. The movie is released 15 years after women are allowed the right to vote and the dynamic continues to shift although the issues is still relevant today.
  12. The props do well to give insight into Count Renard's character. For instance, upon discovering that the gun the woman has used to "kill herself" is a fake, Renard quickly stashes it in a drawer containing a multitude of other guns, alluding to the fact that this has happened to him a number of times. Furthermore, when discussing how the government cannot continue to support his sexual behavior, Renard argues that he is not a lothario at all while brandishing a woman's garter in his hand. The staging further enhances this by showing how easily Renard can zip/unzip a woman's dress, while the husband of said woman struggles. As for sound, the scene has very little examples of it. Outside of the diegetic sounds of the husband as he comes into the room, the dialogue between characters, and the gunshots, we have very little sound. Instead, we hear the white noise familiar of the early sound era until the suspenseful music plays as the spurned husband approaches Renard with intent to kill. Afterwards, we return to a scene without music once the gunshot has been fired and discover through comedic means that Renard is alive and this isn't his first foray into similar circumstances. Again, we find ourselves immersed in lavish hotel rooms with equally lavishly dressed characters furthering the escapism of the era. Also, we see the emergence of the screwball comedy that would come to dominate the theaters for years to come (as stated by Gehring in his exploration of Top Hat).
  13. The interaction between Sgt. Bruce and Marie seems to flip in the two scenes. In the canoe scene, Marie is initially seen as disinterested in Bruce's advances, but seems to soften towards him when he is serenading her before realizing how interchangeable her name is with any number of other girls. Later, in the saloon while Marie is singing, she is embarrassed by the fact that she has "cheapened" herself by singing for money in such a place, but Sgt. Bruce seems to be embarrassed for her much like one would be embarrassed if the object of their affection found themselves in such a embarrassing situation. Again, their stances seem to flip and, while Bruce still seems interested in her, Marie does not hold the power or confidence she held in the first scene. This type of romantic staging is typical for the era and seems to be the staging of any number of romantic comedies to this day. However, it is important to note how the man maintains his masculinity and confidence while the woman seems to be floundering in a public situation. This sets her up to be "rescued" by Sgt. Bruce it would seem (I'm basing this solely on the clips as I have not seen the movie in its entirety, yet). It is also important to note that post-code it is clear how the other female performer should be seen by the audience. She exists in direct and bawdy contrast to the morally staunch character of Marie to the extent that she is used as an immoral figure of the post-code era.
  14. I would have to say that this film, or at least the clip shown in Monday's lesson, does present a brighter perspective considering it was during the Depression era. For instance, money does not seem to be on the mind of many of the performers, even despite the running subject of Ziegfeld constantly needing financiers to back his projects. Instead when the doorman informs Ziegfeld that he handed him a greater amount of currency than the doorman expected, there is the pun about weight but also the frivolity with which Ziegfeld handles his money despite the times. As for overarching themes/approaches of other Depression era musicals, I anticipate the focus being on escapism for the American viewing audience instead of focusing on the hardship running rampant during that time. It seems like many of the musicals of this era center around the staging of productions (Broadway Melody series, The Great Ziegfeld, Footlight Parade, etc.). Had The Great Ziegfeld been made prior to the implementation of the Production Code, the viewer would see a greater number of costume changes being shown on screen and the dresses would be much more revealing as opposed to the knee-length (or longer) gowns throughout the post-code movies.
  15. 1. I counted three visual examples of "criss crossing" in the scene. I counted the intercutting shots of the two men exited the cab and walking towards the train as one, because they appear to be heading in opposite directions towards one another. I also noticed the crossing of the legs, first by Bruno and then by Guy, which causes the third "criss cross" when their toes bump into one another. 2. Hitch contrasts the two men, at first, by their style. Bruno exits the cab wearing flashy pinstripes and wingtip (I believe that's the term) dress shoes, while Guy is seen in a much more traditional solid black cover with "normal" dress shoes. Bruno also wears a tie clip with his name, which seems par for the course considering his "loud" tie and shoes. 3. Tiomkin's score is played with a full orchestra and seems quite loud during the credits, but seems to calm down for a bit until the two men are walking towards the train. It is during this sequence, that the score seems to pick up a bit, building suspense, until we get the full flourish again during the train tracks shot. It then returns to a calmer tune with a sudden burst when the two characters' toes touch. Then, the music stops abruptly to enable the dialogue between the two men. All of this adds to the suspense of the scene and creates a mood of foreboding.
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
  • Create New...