johnm001
-
Posts
2,980 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by johnm001
-
-
since the conversation has evolved into one about failed movie musicals, & I keep seeing the bluray DVD release of "1776" promoted during the commercials on TCM, I was wondering if anyone here has seen it or has any opinions on it. Just from the brief clips they show and from the reviews I've read, it looks like a real dog to me, and the "digitally restored" cinematography looks really washed out (although that was the one thing for which it actually did get an Oscar nomination.)
Oh, I could write a book!
1776, when released, was horribly edited by Warner. In the age of laserdisc, a truly wonderful version was released with the pristine elements that survived, and every manner of edited piece of film that could be found. There were black and white snippets from work prints, an entire number was found, in color in a shoebox, etc. They also added an Overture, Entr'acte and Exit music, culled from music cues in the film. Fans of the musical (I am a MAJOR fan), hailed this laserdisc as, "definitive". Then, year later, lo and behold, and pristine, complete print of the films, with everything intact is found. We laserdisc fans are beyond excited to see all those ragged bits we've come to love, restored to their former glory, and what happens, the director still cuts bits out fo the DVD release. Also, the laserdisc soundtrack was glorious, uncompressed stereophonic sound, and the DVD was compressed, muffled-sounding 5.1 sound. Then 2015, they prepare a Blu-ray, and the director adds a couple of bits that he previously cut, but still leaves out 85 seconds of bits that were included in the laserdisc. Neither the previously released DVD nor the new Blu-ray release contain the Overture, Entr'acte or Exit music that was prepared for the laserdisc. I have not seen the new Blu-ray, but hear it looks magnificent. I do have a boot Blu-ray that has a high definition print, with all the laserdisc bits added in. The quality changes, of course, but its the version I love, and contains the beautiful laserdisc soundtrack. The musical is superb, in my opinion. The film's only flaw, is in the casting of Blythe Danner, as Martha Jefferson. She has absolutely no clue how to play the role (I blame the director as much as her), and her one song is completely flat and kind of dreary, when compared to the fiery performance of Betty Buckley, on stage. Thankfully, her role is brief, and the film picks up its stride. William Daniels performance as John Adams is, easily, the best performance by an actor in any film from 1972, and one of the best of all-time, imo.
-
2
-
-
Entertainment Weekly has a nice tribute to Omar Sharif in their current issue.In place of Funny Lady, I wish that TCM had scheduled THE TAMARIND SEED 1974 directed by Blake Edwards. The film costars Julie Andrews in a tale of espionage and romance. Omar is reunited with his castmate from LAWRENCE OF ARABIA Anthony Quayle.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/f42zbxeqlc9rsey/The%20Tamarind%20Seed.avi?dl=0
-
1
-
-
I think it has something to do with the multiple technologies going on now. I have an HD TV hooked to a cable box, a CRT TV hooked to a cable box and a CRT TV hooked to an antenna through a converter.
They all show pictures differently.
I think it is the process that is used to broadcast the old shows and then how the cable or dish companies send those signals. I know that I can go into the programming for my cable box and change the screen settings. Mostly size and whether or not sides are cropped to show a larger picture top to bottom.
My HD TV has no side bars on any of the "over the air" channels, but the CRT hooked to cable frequently does, especially on Cozi. The TV hooked to an antenna has no bars for a few stations and top and bottom bars for all others. The Cozi station and others from the same broadcaster has bars all around.
Regardless, I dislike the logos as well. Especially the large or colored ones.
Yes,it is, strictly how a channel broadcasts. THIS broadcasts in an aspect ratio of 1.33:1 (old TV ratio). If they broadcast in the new TV ratios of 1:77:1, then the screen would be filled, side to side, by most films made after 1953, but would not by television shows produced prior to HDTV. Zooming is distorting the imagine or cropping it at the top and bottom.
-
I admit I view dubbing as phony and not related at all to your example of 'Reeve couldn't fly'. I do understand why it might make sense when the actor casted for the part has some great qualities necessary for the role but might need to be dubbed for some of the songs. Rita Hayworth comes to mind; Casting her for her beauty and dancing ability override, so to speak, the need for her to actually sing some or all of the songs required in a film.
Well, I think I said much the same thing. For example, I cared more that they cast Cyd Charisse and Gene Kelly in BRIGADOON, than the fact that they dubbed her in it. The piece calls for great singers in those roles, and the show has quite enough dancing already, without turning the singing roles into dancing roles. Meanwhile, I have zero issue with their casting Charisse and dubbing her in SILK STOCKINGS.
-
1
-
-
I think this is done to approximate the original dimensions of the tv shows and non-widescreen movies, since most tvs today are elongated sideways, unlike the more nearly square screens of old. If you change the view to "Zoom", the whole screen will fill up, but might crop off the top and bottom of the image.
The side bars are normal for older television shows, because they were not widescreen. It would not be normal for most films made after 1953, like SERPICO, since they ARE widescreen.
-
Wood is dubbed by Marni Nixon, Beymer is dubbed by Jimmy Bryant, Moreno is dubbed by Betty Wand in her big solo. I don't remember Chakiris singing at all. And yes Tamblyn croaks out a few notes.
You forgot that Moreno is also dubbed by Marni Nixon in the "Quintet" and Tamblyn is dubbed by Tucker Smith in "The Jet Song". So what? It's a movie. I'm pretty sure Christopher Reeve couldn't fly, but he still played Superman. Movie are nothing, if not fantasy. I have no real issue with dubbing. I think it's rather stupid to cast someone who cannot sing when someone who can is actually better for the role. I also find it silly to dub someone with a voice that sounds nothing like their voice, but, dubbing is part of film. It always has been. Even when they were going to cast a non-star as Maria (Barbara Luna), she was going to be dubbed.
-
1
-
-
Wow. Carole Landis didn't have it tough enough. Now she gets kicked in the teeth again.
and not even for Omar Sharif, but for Barbra Streisand!
-
2
-
-
More troubling than the logo is the fact that there were black bars on either side of the image. That means the film was being cropped, and that makes them far more despicable, to me.
-
1
-
-
And then there's Natalie Wood in blackface in West Side Story and dubbed by Marni Nixon. Was everyone dubbed in that one? Rita Moreno was.
Don't understand the "blackface" comment. Rita Moreno sings in "America". Russ Tamblyn sings in "Officer Krupke" and group numbers. George Chakiris is not dubbed.
-
1
-
-
They did nothing to 2001's print, other than project it. In Cinerama theaters, the screen was curved. In fact, I seem to recall many instances of really poor results, because of the placement of the projector, being too high for the Cinerama screen. I saw it in Philadelphia's Cinerama theater, The Boyd. I hated the film, and was completely unimpressed with it's claim of "Cinerama" (which, by that point, we referred to as "fake Cinerama".) It, in no way, was the equal of Cinerama. The film seemed to fare better in regular, flat 70MM projections, as I recall.
-
Mark your calendars for Monday, September 21 -- that is the night TCM has set aside to pay tribute to Omar Sharif. This replaces a Carole Landis marathon previously scheduled.
The new schedule for that night is:
DOCTOR ZHIVAGO (1965) at 8:00
FUNNY GIRL (1968) at 11:30
FUNNY LADY (1975) at 2:30
Definitely pass on this. How is FUNNY LADY a salute to Omar Shari?. Two salutes to Streisand, and one to Sharif is rather a slap in the face, in my opinion. Why the hell bother, TCM?
-
here's more:
Co-stars Barbra Streisand and Omar Sharif had an affair during the making of Funny Girl which Sharif details in his 1976 autobiography The Eternal Male. Later he told Rex Reed, "She's a monster. I had nothing to do but stand around. But she's a fascinating monster. Sometimes I just stood on the sidelines and watched her. I think her biggest problem is that she wants to be a woman and she wants to be beautiful and she is neither."
I worked and an unpaid intern (16 years old), on a Barbra Streisand television special, and she drove everyone slightly insane. Not because she was deliberately mean or intentionally awful to anyone; but, because she seemed to exist on her own planet, with a completely different set of rules from the rest of us. When I read about her out of control ego, I cannot reason that with the person I observed those 2 days (nights) on the special. She really had no ego. She didn't seem to care what others thought of her, at all. It was her id that appeared off, to me. The very few conversations I had with her, were perfectly pleasant. However, she appeared to have been raised by wolves, as she seemed to, completely, lack any sense of decorum. She also never complained, and did everything she was told to do. She was certainly fascinating to watch. Far more fascinating, off screen, than I ever found her on. Or, on stage, for that matter. When I saw her in FUNNY GIRL, on Broadway, she was completely languid in the role. only coming to life when she sang. When I saw the show, again, when Mimi Hines took over, it was like seeing a completely different (better) show. I know millions adore her, but I just never got the appeal, and that's okay. I don't need to get it.
-
1
-
-
Being old, and having gone to the movies a hell of a lot, I pretty much have seen all the widescreen films, either during their original releases, or a re-release, which happened, often, prior to network movie airings and home video. So, I guess I'm glad I saw all the films that people say, should be seen on the big screen, on the big screen. However, for me, a truly great film transcends venue. But, it is true, that something like HELLO, DOLL! or TORA! TORA! TORA!, and other exclamation point films, certainly play better on the screen they were intended to be seen on, than on television. Although, with the advent of Blu-ray and HDTVs, and wonderful home sound systems, this is far less an issue.
-
1
-
-
YES!
Love it.
...and it's funny, because I get what they are going for in the film- the fact that the actor playing Arthur can't carry a tune even though his heart is thorougly in it; and the actor playing Lancelot has this rich, melodious, (but ironically dubbed) singing voice is really a metaphor for their characters (and the sexual prowess of each.) And Vanessa Redgrave's chic, worldly Guinevere is technically a more sensibile rendering of the character- (when Julie Andrews sings her [admittedly wonderful] rendition of THE LUSTY MONTH OF MAY, one gets the impression that her idea of "a nasty thing or two" to do is ripping the tags off a couple of mattresses; whereas Vanessa lays the sex on with a trowel.)
...but in the end: resoundingly it's a big NO!. Even what seems like a more logical portrayal of the characters just does not hold a candle to the original Broadway cast and the souffle collapses before our very eyes.
I saw the show, and it remains the greatest cast I've ever seen on a stage, all the way down to the last member of the ensemble. I think the biggest difference between the two (musical talent aside), is that the show played more magical on stage. Everyone was elevated. On film, even with blue eye shadow on the king, and fake looking trees, everyone is so base and, well, common. So, while Vanessa was very earthy in her portrayal, she really wasn't particularly special. Certainly not special enough to understand why this knight who so loved this king, would risk everything for her. He could have had any other girl in town, who was equally as ordinary. The other thing that comes to mind, is the show actually played like a fairly major comedy, for the first, at least 1/2 of it. I recall major laughs. Nothing was funny about the film. It was all rather, dreary, even when they were frolicking.
-
1
-
-
HoldenIsHere--have never seen the movie Camelot--have the original cast album with Burton, Andrews, & Goulet almost memorized. I'll have to listen to Redgrave sing next time Camelot is on TCM--Harris had quite the speaking voice--he might have turned out to be a good singer--Nero--don't remember him in any other musicals--hope they dubbed him.
They did dub him. CAMELOT, on film, plays like an overlong hippie love-in. I find it, horribly dull. To be fair, the show is rather dull, and the original production was a hit, solely based on the incredible talent of its cast. As none are in the film, nor is anyone in the film the musical equal of those in the show, the movie is, unwatchable, to me. I find Joshua Logan, completely void of any talent to direct a musical. That he was given so many to do, remains a complete mystery, to me. My guess is, had Julie Andrews accepted Jack Warner's offer, he would have been replaced.
-
Then, of course, there is the question of characters of one race playing what would historically be a character of another race. For example, in the god-awful (beside the point) television production of THE SOUND OF MUSIC, Audra McDonald (a black actress), portrayed the Reverend Mother. That historically, a black woman would not have been even a nun in a pre-WWII Austrian Abbey, let alone its superior, not to mention that there actually really was a real Mother Abbess when the story takes place, who was a white woman, was completely ignored by the producers; and, I would imagine, most of the audience watching. Now, she wasn't playing a white woman. The Mother Abbess was a black woman in this production. Is this an issue? Should stories set in a certain time and period, accurately reflect that time and period? If it doesn't matter, then, why haven't we seen a white woman playing Bess, in PORGY AND BESS? There would be an absolute outcry against it, but would that be fair? What's the difference? If anything, it adds another element to the story, that doesn't (and can't) exist with a black Bess. I only mention these as a point of discussion. I'm in the camp of anyone can and should play anything.
-
Roz Russell, in said film, is also miscast as a Jewish woman.
I don't think so. What is wrong with her character, is her lines; and, the fact that when she's speaking, they have stereotypical "Jewish" music underscoring her scenes.
-
1
-
-
If I may tack on, she is not just ACTING, but also ACTING, for your consideration.
Haha! Love it!!
-
I'm mad at myself for using the word "mannered" in referance to Parker's work in CAGED. It's a go-to word for too many critics when we can't find just the right (or simpler) way to say "I don't entirely buy that they ARE the character as opposed to someone playing a character in a movie/play."
Please don't think I'm saying she was a bad actress or is bad in the role- far from it- but there is a level of theatricality to her work that I think the director would've been wise to have worked with her to eliminate.
You mean how every single Meryl Streep performance strikes me? She never, ever, ever lets me forget she is A C T I N G!!!
-
Loved it. I am beyond giddy for Part 3!
-
Y'know, I watch some or all of CAGED each time it's on, and each time I come away with a slightly different impression. It is most certainly an entertaining and well-acted film (although- forgive me- I think Eleanor Parker is a bit mannered in the lead role)...the performance I usually come away most impressed with is the lady who plays Kitty Stark (I'm sorry I can never remember her name) but it's a meaty buffet of tough broad performances all around.
Still, I kinda sorta can't help but feel like it could have used a lighter hand in the script and direction, because there's a point where it makes a turn into Horatio Alger territory and becomes a little too sensational to have as much of an impact as it could.
ps- all apologies, 'cause I know there are some hardcore Caged fans out there.
I can agree with all the above.
-
3D RARITIES - Blu-ray - 2015
Utterly fascinating for the 3D enthusiast, like me! Silent shorts, from the dawn of stereoscopic cinematography, a fighting match between Rocy Marciano and Jersey Joe Walcott, film trailers, a Casper the Friendly Ghost cartoon, travelogues and more. Really fantastic, and a reminder of how much better 3D cinematography was in the early days, compared to today, where most films appear to be 2.5D.
The Blu-ray also features a 2D version of all the content, but I cannot imagine the point of watching that.
-
1
-
-
Now whaddaya mean "has become" here, John ol' boy?
America has ALWAYS been "an asylum", as in...
...and was based on the concept of it being "an asylum of victimized people" from all around this ol' world. And, some make good and some make bad in this great country of ours and once they get here.
(...and from my perspective, those who "make good" compared to those who "make bad" is just about at the same rate as it ALWAYS was)
Yes, and back then, people were too busy and preoccupied by far more important things, than inflaming something as benign as THE DUKES OF HAZZARD.
-
When THE DUKES OF HAZZARD was originally on the air, my two older sons watched it. It droned on in the background, and I paid very little attention to it. Recently, I discovered the show running on CMT. What caught my attention, was that the print was very high def-looking, and the image filled my widescreen television. I was impressed by how it look, but while watching it, I found myself laughing out loud at the ridiculousness of it. That, and how much the cast seemed to really be enjoying what they were doing. I became a fan!
America has become an asylum, run by victimized inmates.
-
2
-
BAD MOVIE ALERT: MAME
in General Discussions
Posted
Well, he knew what he liked. That's really all Pauline Kael ever wrote about. For all her plaudits, I rarely felt she had any real appreciation for the actual art of film making. I don't believe there really is any accreditation for film critique. Although there have been a few (very few) exceptions, it has been my experience that most critics write from the perspective of what they like or don't like. In reality, they should write from the perspective of genre, source, use of the medium, etc. For example, if you're going to review FRIDAY THE 13TH, you don't just dismiss it as a silly, slasher film. You review it from the context of silly slasher films, and critique how all aspects of it fare within the genre. Most professional critics do not do this, and they should. Otherwise, why bother writing a review, at all?