daddysprimadonna

She might just consider getting a job,and stop milking the name of the dead woman by whom she claims to have been so terrorised. The other siblings seem to have managed to have done so. (Any acerbity isn't directed at you:),it's at a grown woman making a career of self-pity. If she had a story to tell,fine she did it,but grow up already.)

Or that Weebles wobble, but they don't fall down? Now you've done it,I'll never get that little song snippet out of my head. You've also reminded me of the sinister Mr Potato Head, the stuff of childish nightmares,LOL. Yes Matt,don't leave us in suspense!

Oops,forgive my cretin ignorance,but who/what are "Bumbles"? I only knew that Tigger bounces:)

Yes,strictly speaking,we are animals-what I'm saying is,we are not just another animal. We are the crown jewel of the animal kingdom. That's why we have Michelangelo,and Anna Pavlova and Alvin Ailey and Josephine Baker,and Degas, and the Wright brothers,and F Scott Fitzgerald,and saurbraten with red cabbage,and Mozart and George Gershwin and Scott Joplin,and the claymation Christmas film classics,and they don't;)

It's been obvious for a while that many people's idea of "tolerance" is the freedom to accept and agree with everything they accept and agree with.If you don't you're simply being "intolerant" Oh the irony!

One of the differences between the classic stars that are remembered today and those that are almost forgotten is the movies. Most of the greats are remembered not just for being big stars, but for appearing in great films. I love Kay Francis, but she never made a truly great film -- even her finest work doesn't belong on anyone's best movies list. Same for Blondell, Stanwyck, Loy, etc. That's true,although I don't feel that Myrna Loy or Barbara Stanwyck can be classified as "forgotten gems", they are both quite famous. Myrna Loy,for example,will always be legendary for the "Thin Man" series, and she was in at least one great film,"The Best Years Of Our Lives". But for the rest, I agree with you. The greats are "hyped", because they were great-as actors,for the films they appeared in,etc.

Well, I'm sure that you know that we are just intolerant Neanderthals for not appreciating and being converted by the beauty and nobility of anime,and learning our life's lessons by it. Why is it so difficult to understand that most of us have no desire to stamp out anime,we just aren't obligated to accept that it has a place on TCM? I don't care if people watch anime until their eyes spin,and if I cared to,I might even find something about it to like, But I'm not obligated to,anymore than I'm obligated to eat and appreciate (insert your food of aversion here,so I don't offend anyone),when I go to a particular restaurant based on their fame for a totally different type of menu. And I don't require that others love my choice of food,but I do have a right to keep them from trying to force change on my favorite restaurant in order to make me like and eat said food.

...I applaud TCM for running these movies and still don't think it ushers in the demise of TCM as we know it. In context with some other movies that TCM has been showing,I can only say,we'll see.

That's why I feel that TCM shouldn't go by a strict "majority rules" guideline,without some clarification of "classic" in place,that is true to their original intent. It would be too easy for them to turn to the large younger demographic out there,which unfortunately as a whole is NOT that interested in "classic" film. I really don't know exactly where TCM's boundaries should be set-I know where "I" would set them-but I do know that there should be some-for exactly the reason that you mention,that if they turn to trying to appeal to the "majority",TCM as we know it is history. Yes,they have to draw in new viewers to stay viable,but how do they go about doing this,and what new viewers? If TCM tries to grow too large too fast,they're going to destroy themselves as the channel that we know and love,because beyond what they have now,there just won't be that many new viewers interested in what we have always understood to be "classic" film.UNLESS they do as they doing with the programs in the schools,and try to educate and make aware,younger potential viewers of the beauty,relevance,and craftsmanship of the old classics. But they just won't be "Turner Classic Movies" after a certain point,if some boundaries aren't set. No,I DON'T believe in strict "majority rules". TCM needs to have some guidelines first of all-they need to have the integrity and the cojones to set these,staying faithful to the historical generally accepted defintion of "classic"-and then WITHIN these guidelines,which would ideally protect their original staed intent of showing CLASSIC movies,they turn to the wishes of their CLASSIC MOVIE viewing audience,and taking that into account,use their discretion. That's why I qualified my statement with "the majority of its viewers,and potential viewers who are seeking to view classic movies.

I wasn't aware of the book,so now I'll be going to find it also. Thanks for the info!

LOL! And they killed my hamster too!

Well, we depart from the beginning,as I don't subscribe to the idea that man is just another animal-I agree more with the sentiment,""What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! ". I don't agree that we're just a member of the brotherhood of animals. I do apologise if I seem sour,I certainly never meant to appear so,as I'm not:) I'm sorry your experience at the forum has been disagreeable. TCM has a long-time faithful audience of viewers who jealously watch for any signs of incipient AMCism(AMC began as a classic movie channel,and evolved-overnight as it seems because we were unwary of what they were doing-into the horrible mess that it is today). So it's really not unnatural that we,the long-time faithful viewers and fans of classic movies that Turner Classic Movies does indeed have a mandate to show,by its very title,would be en garde for anything of the kind hapening here,at TCM,the only place period that most of us can see the great old classics.

That's great,thank you, I will try Amazon first:) I just really love this movie,and I already told my favorite scenes,LOL. I can tend to over-analyse things,but I've wondered if there wasn't a sub-text in this movie regarding the political situation between Ireland and England? There are many ways that that seems to fit. The whole movie is just seamless,to me,and the role is a departure in a way for John Wayne. And he acted it beautifully. He and Maureen O'Hara are a great team,and Victor McLaglin is great as the brother-I also love him with John Wayne in "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon". I also think that Barry Fitzgerald is great. The setting is gorgeous-it was filmed on location in Ireland,and just exemplifies the Ireland of everyone's dreams,including the "characters". What characters!

Judecca,please may I ask,in all sincerity,where have I flamed you? Flaming is irrlelevant name-calling and ad hominem attacks,amongst other things. Where have I done that? I most studiously avoid doing that to people,as it doesn't have anything to do with the point and what I want to try to explain. I've tried to debate,as best I can,and make my case. But flaming,no,please tell me where I did that to anyone.

Is she the dark haired lady who sings with the deadpan facial expression,except for an abrupt gesture or eye movement now and then? If so, I don't know that I could yet say that I LIKE her,but I find her fascinating in a bizarre way. When she's on, I can't help watching,because the strangeness is kind of riveting.She sounds like she had a good voice that she didn't use to its maximum potential.

Thanks gwtwbooklover:) It seems that the brother is interested in the lady,and they seem to have had some kind of unspoken understanding,but he is so gauche and uncouth as to assume and to announce it as a done deal at his sister's wedding before paying her the respect of really courting her and asking the question.So she is indignant and insulted that he took this for granted and being apparently a lady of some culture and delicacy,humiliated that he just blurts it out like that in public before going the formalities.That's what I gathered anyway. Some of the other villagers(at the horse race scene)have sympathy for the plight of Sean and Mary Kate,and conspire to make the brother believe that since he won't let them marry,that Sean is interested in the lady that the brother wants to marry.They also tell him that if he(the brother) marries the lady,it won't work anyway with two women in the house,which makes him more inclined to allow Sean and Mary Kate to marry. I love the whole dragging back from the train depot and the fight scenes. I know that the one scene is utterly politically incorrect now,but I don't care-I feel that I can understand it. It's not that Sean is being violent to Mary Kate,it's that she has goaded him and goaded him to be a man in the way in which manhood is understood in that time and place-to stand your ground and fight. She wants him to be a man to her brother,to her,and to himself. So she finally succeeds in goading him into the thing that helps him get rid of his angst and withdrawal. I can't really tell if she kind of planned it that way or not,but I could tell that she was pleased with the result. Who wouldn't be,with John Wayne in that beautiful Irish village setting?

Thanks lzcutter:) My own definition of the classic movie era does indeed seem to end with the end of the studio system.

I just watched this movie,and I love it,I'm buying the DVD(if that exists).The ending was great! Is there a more suitable place to discuss this,so I don't give the movie away?

I can't let Leo take the blame for that one,it was me, Melanie:0

Well that's different,and understandable. I can always give a little more credence to a more three dimensional portrayal of a person,than when someone tries to act like the innocent bystander,especially once they're an adult,in writing about a famous parent. Christina Crawford really PO'd me by waiting until Joan was dead to write that garbage. I've read that she actually had begun the book and had a publisher lined up before Joan died,and Joan knew about it. And that had a lot to do with Joan leaving her out of the will-not the other way around,as Christina put forth. The two younger daughters-who have indeed been proven to be twins-completely deny the worst allegations,and will have nothing to do with Christina(who for the twentieth anniversary of the book,went on a road tour to hype the book,accompanied by a drag queen made up as Joan,wielding wire coat hangers.You'd think that someone so supposedly traumatised by that,wouldn't go around parodying it). > Melanie-- > Maria Riva's Dietrich bio isn't a "Mommie Dearest" > thing. It's more that she had mixed feelings about > her mom, I think. I don't think she thought much of > her mother as a mother, though she admired her as an > actress and performer. She also seems to have some > issues over her parents treatment of her father's > mistress and her mother's endless affairs, especially > those with women. > > You can get any number of recordings both on cd and > vinyl on ebay. > > Tracey

I thought it was good and very amusing:) > I?m so embarrassed. In fact, I?m > downright humiliated.

Using the criterion that it's a classic movie if it moves someone,regardless of era or genre,I have known people who were "moved" (hehe) by the classic porn flick "Emmanuelle",so maybe TCM needs to consider adding it to the programming line-up;)

I'll be headed to Amazon then. I wonder if any of her recordings are still in release? I'll check Ebay too,in case they're not. I really like that post-WWI Berlin cabaret atmosphere her voice has.

I will look for the documentary,what caught my attention was the it was so well done on its own merits,besides the fascinating subject. In the documentary,her daughter seemed close to her-I do hope that her book isn't one of those awful "Mommie Dearest" type things. I will watch "Foreign Affair", and I just remembered that I have the tape "Judgement At Nuremberg",in which she was great. The documentary tells how she had to have a talk with Spencer Tracy in order to say the line"We didn't know",the national justification of Germany immediately after the war and the discovery of the death camps. She was so disgusted at the line,and the whole excuse,that she couldn't bear to say it.

LOL! I think that the "story of your life" would make a fine picture,and when you're rich,you can support your guilty movie habit! No wait-I can see dancers-Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse,say-doing the story as a mini-musical within a musical-now that'd be something different!