harlowkeatongirl

> Hi HKG. It really wasn't that Keaton was an > "excellent sport" to appear in "Limelight" with > Chaplin. At the time, Keaton had totally lost his > reputation, career and property because of > alcoholism, and it was because Chaplin cared for > Keaton that he gave him exposure, and possibly a > chance for anyone in Hollywood to see and hire him > again. You are right about Keaton saying that he > "would have worked with Charlie for nothing", > however. But, Charlie saw to it that Keaton was paid > quite well for his appearance in "Limelight". > Chaplin, by the way, was well known for "helping > out" a lot of folks in Hollywood from the earliest > days who were down on their luck in later years. ML He's not dumb though. Charlie was obviously torn between admiration and competitiveness when it came to Buster. That was made completely apparent by Geraldine Chaplin in the "The Life And Art Of Charlie Chaplin" special. He didn't mind anyone liking Buster at all... he just had a hard time accepting that anyone liked him BETTER. LOL "But I was an ARTIST." **** (And what's worse is he was serious...) Buster had to know what he was possibly getting himself into, though. But he didn't mind. That's the whole beauty of it. He admired Charlie SO much he didn't care that he was literally playing second fiddle and feeding this man's ego by working for him. He also didn't fail to mention that, either. "I was an artist, I gave him work." Well.. good on ya Charlie... The whole ego thing is ridiculous... I just try to concentrate on the man's work, which is brilliant. The guy was obviously very caring and passionate about his art and that's what's important.

> I > don't know of any other filmmaker whom also scored > everything. Well The Beatles did, but I don't think "Magical Mystery Tour" holds a candle to "Limelight."

I LOVED "Limelight" last night. It was a good little story. I love the part where he's onstage talking about making an earthworm smile. ****! It's tied for 2nd place with "City Lights" for my favorite Chaplin movie. MUCH better than "The Great Dictator." I think the world was definitely robbed of seeing this movie in 1952. And the scene with Charlie and Buster was awesome. And Buster was an excellent sport to do it, knowing he was on Charlie's turf and wouldn't get his best gags in the final cut. He's quoted as saying "I would've worked with Charlie for nothing." I don't blame him. He was a fascinating guy with great stories to tell. I'll bet it was a LOT of fun working on his films. And his kids were adorable when they were young!

For one, I totally disagree with the sentiments on Katharine Hepburn. I think she deserved all four Oscars and twice as many after that. I had to shut off "My Fair Lady" because I couldn't stand the sound of Audrey Hepburn's singing OR speaking voice. Although I usually am very fond of her otherwise. lol I can only think of one specifically who is very overrated, I think, and that is Marlon Brando. I saw him on TV briefly just last night and I think he's nasty. I don't get how some people say he was soooo good looking. Whatever. And his acting leaves a buttload to be desired. About the size of what his is today, actually. Sorry, that was mean.

> Very often while watching an older film I will > fantasize that I am in a theatre at the time of the > film's release, watching it for the first time with a > contemporary audience. All it takes is a minimum > knowledge of history and a maximum surplus of > imagination. Does anyone else ever do this? That's exactly how I watch them. I think of the time period it came from and think of it from a perspective of a person living in that time period. And when you do that, you can really appreciate how people of that time could relate to those characters. And when I do that, they seem very new to me.

IMO: Debra Winger Peter O'Toole Rosalyn Russell Maureen O'Hara Madeline Kahn Tim Curry Some just off the top of my head.

> Hey moviejoe, I look at Hanks as a comedic actor who > made a very successful jump into dramatic roles. > With his start in Bosom Buddies, Splash, Big, > Bachalor Party, Volunteers, etc. Nothing in Common > with Gleason was his first shot to show he had what > it would take to do meatier roles. I may be wrong in > this view. Yes, that's the way I've always viewed him, too. Who would've thought in the early '80s the guy from Bosom Buddies would win back-to-back Oscars for dramatic roles a decade later?

I think Buster Keaton would be a good choice, and I've already put in a request for it. So few of his works are seen on TV, really. He's always passed over for the more eccentric stars of the day - Chaplin, Laurel and Hardy, The Three Stooges, etc. He may have been one of the top names of his time, but today it's a shame that he's virtually overlooked on most programming schedules. And even sadder than that? His films stand the test of time better than many other comedy acts of his generation. > Perhaps those who've had TCM for ten years will know > best about the range of players who've been featured > as Stars of the Month over time, but after seeing > Judy Garland chosen for this in April, I was just > wondering if there isn't a certain sameness to the > choices for this monthly celebration. > > Okay, I do appreciate the phenomenal > talent of Judy Garland and I'm sure that there are > alot of striplings who've never seen her work--BUT, > please, TCM, don't you think some lesser known > classic actors and actresses deserve to be featured > more often? Ms. Garland's work will live forever but > her films always seem to get airlplay. To be > truthful, I also don't want to hear the sad and > sordid details of the poor woman's > life--again. I realize that since MGM's > library constitutes a lion's share (idiomatic pun > intended) of TCM's treasure chest of film, all her > films are readily available for exhibition on TCM, > but there are a ton of others who NEED > exposure to educate and entertain your audience. > > For example, how about considering highlighting the > excellent work of someone such as Mary Astor as a > Star of the Month? Or Ruth Chatterton? Or, for that > matter,a character actress such as Fay Bainter or > even Marjorie Main? What about a Warren William, > Walter Huston, or Fred MacMurray as Star of the > Month? In the character men, I'd love to see Claude > Rains or Edward Arnold featured, among others. > Actually, I'd love to have a panoply of character > actors featured as Star of the Month. Whaddya say? > Couldn't we broaden the criteria for a "Star" just a > little beyond the obvious? > > Okay, I'll climb off my soapbox now and wait to catch > heck. Please excuse my small rant...love TCM, just > want it to explore the depths of its library a bit > more.

Entertainment has really changed in the last 100 years. I think these days, with all the new technology, things are more spectacular than ever. Who would wanna watch a silent when you can watch all the cool effects in "Lord Of The Rings"? Answer is: I would. I think, depending on what kind of entertainment you're enjoying, you have to adjust yourself to that certain thing. I know when I sit down to watch a silent, it's going to be a visual and observing experience. It's not the kind of movie where I'm going to be able to watch and do dishes at the same time. LOL And then you have to remember that slang was different back then... people's views were different back then... You just have to adjust your way of responding to it and your expectations of it, before you sit down and watch it. If you sit down and watch something like "The Sheik" and expect to be blown away in the same way you were when you saw Lord Of The Rings, then sorry. You'll be disappointed. But if you're looking for great entertainment based on the standard of what was offered at a given time in history, and are able to fully appreciate that, then you're gonna have a ball.

> One of my favorite films. HK girl I agree > whole-heartedly about Jon Lovitz. I LOVE it when he > tells the cow, "Will you SHUT UP!!!!!???" I know it > doesn't look funny in print, but I dare anyone to not > break up when they see the scene. He tells KIt, that > the salary would be (I forget the amount)$100 aweek. > "We only make $40 at the dairy" she says... "Well > then, this would be MORE." ****!! I know what you mean. His tone of voice is hilarious yelling at the cow. Like the damn thing help it. Every other thing he said made me wanna crack up. I love when he brings the girls to Harvey Field and he says, "I'm just gonna go home.. grab a shower and a shave.. give the wife a little pickle tickle and I'm on my way."

Um, Groucho Marx? LOL That's all I can think of.

I just mentioned casually to other fans that I enjoy writing and hope to be published one day. Then a couple days later, I was offered the chance. LOL! I'm not directly in the paid fanclub, so I have no idea what people usually write about in there, but I'll give it a shot. And I suppose it's a great excuse to get around to paying for a membership. BTW --- I cannot wait for "Limelight" on March 31st. I think it sounds like a good one. Have you seen it, Carley?

Carley - I had no idea we were the exact same age. Avoid The Clap, Shyla (harlowkeatongirl) > harlowkeatongirl, I love you forever for bringing up > one of my favorite movies! It's a gem, to say the > least, and since this movie came out when I was I > believe twelve years old, the spirit of the 1940s > captured in that film (as Mongo stated) is really > what made me first realize, 'Carley? You were really > born in the wrong era.' > > My favorite thing about it I can sum up in eight > words: > > "I loved you in the Wizard of Oz."

Did anyone watch last night? I put it on timer record. I taped it years ago when it first premiered on HBO, but I lost it soon after. It was nice to get it on tape in widescreen, too. I scanned it this morning (to see if it actually recorded!!) and notice much more of the scene in certain parts is visible, which was cool. Like when Doris and Betty "Spaghetti" are talking on the bus... when you watch it in widescreen, you can see Kit in the scene chatting w/them, too. I think it's very much a modern classic that really seemed to capture the early '40s well. At least I think they did, I wasn't actually there. Correct me if I'm wrong '40s people. lol A few of my favorite scenes are: *Dottie and Jimmy giving opposing signals to Marla at the same time. *The dance scene at the nightclub and Marla singing. LOL *The black woman who throws the ball back, reminding the audience that while it was a great opportunity for white women ball players, it wasn't for minorities. *The final game. *Jon Lovitz' performance. What do y'all think?

Or... "Fat guy in a little coaaaaaat.."

LOL That's okay... Sometimes people read a little too much into things, no? I wouldn't have gone into such a lengthy explanation of why I liked Keaton, because I didn't think it needed it. But apparently Gagman66 needed a better explanation (haha) so I gave one -- no holds barred. Bottom line is, you just prefer what you prefer. It's rare that you have to put it into words. And having never thought about the "whys" much before... it was interesting not only to read other people's opinions of why they like what they like, it is also great insight into yourself! This might be an interesting thing to write for the Keaton Chronicle. Something along these lines - What makes us like Buster Keaton? I have some great ideas. And since I was graciously granted the opportunity to write for them, w/out them having seen any of my previous work, I want to write something that really clicks on people's invisible light bulbs (and actually entertains at the same time! lol That's the tricky part.) > oh and harlowkeatongirl, yes, I totally > understand where you find the difference!! And this > is such an interesting discussion, because when I > watch Chaplin, I feel the exact same way as you do > about Keaton!! with Chas I *am* there right with > him and loose contact with everything else for those > wonderful six reels! > > And that's why I'm glad the Prof brought up that > thing about art being subjective, because that is the > wonderful truth of the matter. > > (I have to tell this to my Art History Professor-- at > start of term she was always drilling us "art is > subjective" when we launched into our heated > debates... and now I'm compelled to go crawling on my > hands and knees Monday morning and tell her 'you were > right...)

Well, said Littletramplover... That post definitely woke me up on an early Saturday morning while eating my cereal. Overall, it's just a matter of preference. I enjoy Chaplin's comedy, but I prefer Keaton's because I'm such a huge fan of improv. I'm delighted as a pig in slop when someone tells me "Oh, did you know that scene was improvised?" That, to me, is just so cool. And he did a LOT of it. I'm sure Chaplin did it, too, but much more than Keaton's, Chaplin films were very rehearsed. The thing about Chaplin's films is, for as good as the comedy is, as good as the camera work is... I'm always acutely aware I'm watching a movie. Whereas Keaton tends to transport me more. Because so much is improvised, it comes across very real... the kind of comedy that could happen to anybody on a daily basis. You see where I find the difference? For me, it's very difficult to distinguish what was in the script and what was made up on the spot. Keaton had his crew trained well to keep the cameras rolling at all times even when something unexpected happened. With Chaplin, when he made people laugh, it was like he was pulling things out of his bag of tricks... (and thank God it was a damn good bag of tricks!). With Keaton, it's like the comedy was just THERE. Just as naturally as breathing. Never forced. But again, that's not to say I don't adore that kind of "milking it" kind of comedy. And I don't consider the phrase "milking it" a put-down. Chris Farley milked it. Probably more than anybody else. LOL And I think he's one of the greatest. Same w/Jim Carrey. There are different brands of comedy. I just like Keaton best, because in my opinion, he was the most unique. Ok, .02 completed.

> it wasn't until Lucille > Ball, and then Carol Burnett came into thier own that > we now have female stars famous around the world for > their wit and comic sensibility. Might it have been > that 20s movie moguls still thought women shouldn't > go around kicking people in the arse, jumping up and > down, etc. Marion Davies was also considered a "light > comedian" but today she's nowhere near as famous as > our three men. Marie Dressler could be hysterical but > she did everything--not just comedy. I've only go one > Mabel Normand movie--The Extra Girl--and she's > fabulous. Another great trait of Chaplin, Keaton and > Lloyd is that they preserved their movies like > treasures. Even today, they look crystal clear, like > they were filmed yesterday. Mabel Normand's output is > virtually unseen. Marie Dressler was probably the master funny woman of the early days. She is one of my all-time favorites. I love Mabel Normand, too. She's probably the first woman director... or one of the first. And interesting you should mention Lucille Ball. Keaton was one of her mentors.. and taught her all he knew about physical comedy. I believe he even mentioned to people at MGM how good she was.

> I also like the > fact that Buster Keaton's women usually don't care > one way or another whether he succeeds or not and he > doesn't stick his chest out when he does! I think that has to do w/the fact that they see women differently. Chaplin sees them as these sort of ethereal creatures on a pedestal, and Keaton sees them as allies. That scene in "The General" where he drenches Marion Mack the second time was improvised. She wasn't supposed to get it the first time so the surprise on her face was real... and the look on HIS face is like "Oh no!" and he goes to fix the water spout, KNOWING it's placed directly over her, and then pulls the string again, like he's got no idea where the end of the spout is. **** (But earlier in the movie, he got drenched, too!)

I watched "The General" again last night late after I got home, because I was offered the chance to do an article for the next Keaton Chronicle and I have a good idea for it. I was laughing my butt off all over again. The whole scene where he's on The Texas... OMG.

> I have a connection to the Tramp and > his resolve to maintain his dignity no matter what? > even though this fella hasn?t a cent to his name, he > still finds a way to scrape together his dignity. He > picks himself up and brushes off the dirt and walks > on his way insouciantly twirling his cane. That's what I love about The Tramp, too, Littletramplover. His clothes are shabby, his pants and shoes are too big, but he's still so proud. Still the perfect lil' gentleman.

> If laughter is your sole criteria "Harlowkeatonfan" > than Harold Lloyd easily takes the crown hands down! No, laughter isn't my sole criteria. Maybe I should've said Keaton "entertains me more." (But he does make me laugh more, too .) And I'm probably jumping to conclusions... but I feel like you're "watering down" my reasons for liking Keaton. I think we 'Damfinos' have many a good valid reason for loving him best. I've seen Lloyd's stuff, but not in a very long time. At the time I was too young to appreciate silent movies and didn't think ANY comedy silent star was funny. That's why I'm looking forward to seeing him again soon when TCM does the Harold Lloyd day.

Well if I could, I've love to sit down w/the entire cast of Dinner At Eight! Just one character though... wow. Tough one. *sits here twiddling mah thumbs* Garrett Breedlove from Terms Of Endearment would be interesting!

I've gotta go w/Dudley Moore in Arthur...

Jean Harlow. lol Sorry, not a big fan of either. But I admire Marilyn for her strength and thought she was a fascinating icon. She DID make a few good films, but nothing I'm overly impressed with. I enjoy her, though. As far as Jayne Mansfield goes.. I actually prefer her daughter Mariska Hartigay, from Law and Order. LOL