lzcutter

The Bitter Tea of General Yen!>> Isn't this one of the films that Dobbsy has been wanting to see on TCM for quite some time now? I am really looking forward to June's line-up. I appreciate that TCM takes a month each year to look at historical topics that are not always easy. It gives us a lot to talk about here that's for sure. I am also hoping that this means some Anna May Wong and Sessue Hayakawa silents as well! Perhaps the new documentary on Anna May?

lzcutter, is it possible for a poster to plagiarize his own posts?>> No, was hoping that maybe we could keep info contained to their original threads instead of starting new ones. The reason I suggest this is because as the year goes on and someone asks for information about a movie, actor or title, it makes it harder to find the information via the search function.

Well, with only 8 days left, I thought I would remind folks that the 9th TCM Challenge is coming down to the wire. It's not too late to jump in and join in the fun! Besides the happiness that comes from having completed the challenge can come the overwhelming joy of having TCMProgrammr use your ideas in future TCM schedules.

Here's a thread about not only the Joan Crawford films you listed back then but other films from March as well: http://forums.tcm.com/jive/tcm/thread.jspa?threadID=119283&start=0&tstart=0

You're not trying to imply that swim teacher Ann-Margaret was a prostitute in "Viva Las Vegas" are you?

The toughest thing for me in regards to figuring out Hallie and her love for Ranse and/or Tom is that she never kisses either of them on the lips. Ford never shows us such affection, and I find this to be a brilliant touch. We, the audience, are never permitted to see Hallie truly linked with love. We are left to guess her feelings.>> Frankie, There is a wonderful moment when Tom brings Ranse to Pete's Place after finding him on the road. As Hallie is nursing him, in the background, on the shadow of the wall, between the two of them is the shadow of Tom's hat. I've always taken that to mean that Tom was always there between them. I believe Ranse was frustrated by the others' "who cares" attitude towards Liberty Valance and his violence against innocent people. He couldn't understand why nobody wanted to throw him in jail. Everyone in Shinbone just let Valance get away with murder. I think Ranse was right. Why doesn't someone stand up to Valance for the the community's sake?>> For the same reason that people don't stand up for what they believe in at any time. They're afraid to make waves, they think that sooner or later it will pass and if it can happen without anyone they know personally getting killed all the better. Remember, until Ranse comes along, Valance never hurts the townspeople. He does all his killing outside of town so they have no personal investment in stopping Valance. Yeah, the guy comes into town, gets drunk and shoots up the place but no one gets hurt. That changes with Ranse. Now Valance has someone who didn't die or run for the hills. Had Ranse not been brought to Shinbone to recover, Valance would have gone on with his usual routine. But, the fact that Ranse lived, is a reminder to Valance that he can't let go of. The escalation of violence in Shinbone is because of the actions put into play by Tom bringing Ranse to Pete's. Why? And we all know who could call out Valance and demand a showdown. Tom can take matters into his own hands if he really wanted to. But he chose not to. Tom truly is the sheriff of Shinbone yet he chooses not to take on that responsibility. Why? What's he scared of? Tom basically let Ranse fight what should have been his battle. Valance should have been taken out long before Ranse was attacked.>> You are correct, once Liberty calls out Ranse, it's out of Doniphon's hands. But Tom surely had his chances to call out Liberty before that time. He probably had many chances. He chose not to. He deferred.>> Tom's not the elected sheriff of Shinbone and he never deferred. Yeah, he helps keep Valance on a short leash when Valance is in town but Valance is never going to completely goad Tom into a fight because Valance knows he can't win that one and Tom is not one who is going to kill Valance in cold blood unless he has a damn good reason. And the only reason good enough to do it in the end is for Hallie. The townspeople were maybe hoping that once they had statehood, then someone would send a US Marshall to come to that part of the picket wire and clean things up. Valance wasn't the only one terrorizing folks, there were likely a number of hired guns keeping people too scared to do anything, that's how those in power (the cattlemen) stayed in power. Keep the farmer and the sheepherders out and keep everyone else too scared to do anything. How could Tom deal with Liberty? Take charge. He was the real sheriff of Shinbone. Everyone in town knew it AND Liberty knew it. Tom could have told Liberty to never show his face in town ever again unless he wanted to die. That's what a strong sheriff would do.>> But, again, Tom wasn't the elected Sheriff. That was Linc. Tom was smart enough to know that at best he could help keep the peace and keep violence out of Shinbone. Had Tom become sheriff, he would have been putting a big old bullseye on his back inviting every hired gun in the territory to come and take a try at him. The town would have been much more violent in that scenario. Plus, this way, Tom is able to go about his business and plan his life. Had he been sheriff he never could have married Hallie because she would be sitting around waiting for the day someone outdrew him.

I don't know, I think Sam Elliot has a wonderful face and voice for westerns and since he is older now he tends to get the character actor roles. Another that I liked was Dennis Quaid in "Wyatt Earp", not as flashy as Val Kilmer in "Tombstone" but a wonderful character role for him. Powers Booth is another one with a great voice and look for westerns. Jim Beaver, Tommy Lee Jones, Scott Glenn, Robert Duvall and almost all of the cast of "Deadwood" are just of the ones that come to mind.

MissG, I want to know where I can find a purse that has that much money in it!

Nobody has any morals anymore.>> No, actually some of us do. That's why we keep calling you on your continued use of other people's work without proper documentation. If you have enough money, you can legally steal people's intellectual property.>> So, why does it make it okay for you to steal someone's words? Isn't that their intellectual property that you are trying to pass off as your own? How does that make you any different than those you rail against?

I would like to me contacted if a movie that I have been wanting to catch on TV is finally scheduled for broadcast. How can I do this if the movie that isn't already set for a broadcast time? I>> Marilyn, There is no way to set the reminder for a movie that has yet to be scheduled.

Often times what happens when someone donates to an archive, library, etc. is that they include specific instructions on how the material can be used. This can keep the archive from making the material available to the public. Another problem is money. Many libraries and archives simply do not have the funds available to process and restore all the material that they receive. Tightening budgets and budget crisis always bring more cuts and often that includes places like libraries and archives. As for "London After Midnight", that is not an obscure film so much as a lost film. The negative was destroyed in the MGM vault fire in the mid-1960s. As for UCLA, they have thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of feet of film footage. They are also a non-profit organization connected to a major university and the State of California and the City of Los Angeles are both in budget crisis and education funds are always being cut. That is one reason why UCLA Archives looks to sponsors to fund the transfer and restoration of films because they simply do not have the budget to pay for it themselves. Marty Scorsese and others have been banging the drum for film preservation for over thirty years now. Some people in Hollywood like Hugh Hefner understand the need and have spent thousands and thousands of dollars to help preserve our film heritage. He is one of the biggest angels that pre-code films has as he has helped restore a fair number of them over the last few years. David Packard of Hewlitt-Parckard fame is another who understands the need for preservation. But the sad fact remains that funding for the Arts (of which film falls under when most people think of it) has been on steady decline for years. Could Hollywood do more to help preserve our film heritage? Yes, of course, they could and they should. But preserving our film heritage vs starving children in Africa. Given those choices, artists in Hollywood will almost always choose the humanitarian efforts or the arts.

Hands down, George Clooney.

Scarlett, I remember when it was "Bringin' Up Baby", "Lawrence of Arabia" and "To Kill a Mockingbird". There were a few years there where those movies were in heavy, heavy rotation. Somewhere back in the Archives are threads dedicated to how many times one year "Baby" was shown.

On this message board, people copy and paste ALL THE TIME. Take a look at CelluloidKid. Almost ALL of his posts were copied from elsewere.>> The majority of posters will supply links when they cut and paste. As for CK: True, and he has been called on it as well. At least he now includes the links. Message was edited by: lzcutter because correcting that pesky indentation makes all the difference

But isn't the Trivia Forum more than trivia? They have many different threads there that require a knack of movie knowledge and the ability to put titles together like you are suggesting for this thread. It was just a thought as I thought you might get more responses there than here in General Discussion.

MF, Wouldn't this be better suited for the Trivia Forum?

Birdgirl, Not to worry. Sometimes it's not easy to understand what some posters are saying and other times their messages come through loud and clear. As for Psycho, it was released in 1960 when the Production Code was still in effect. Hitchcock had to make slight cuts to get the Code's approval. It was re-released in 1968 with a M for Mature Audiences rating because by then the od Production Code had been dismantled and the MPAA Rating Code had been instituted. It was re-released in 1984 (I think as part of build-up to Psycho 3 as I recall.) with an R Rating due to violence. Gus Van Sant did a remake of Psycho in 1998.

Cascabel, I'm with you (and others) who would prefer that posters supply links to the articles that they are cut and pasting here. One, sometimes the information is intriguing or useful enough that I would like to read further about it and having the link either enables me to do it or since most articles come with links to other info I could follow the links. Two, sometimes the articles are so well written I would like to read more by the author. But without the cited link, I will never know who the original author is. Third, passing someone else's work off as your own was considered a big no-no when I was growing up and is still considered so by the majority of people today. It does not take that much more time to cut and paste an article here that includes the link to the original material. If you are going to go to the trouble of cutting and pasting, go the extra mile and include the link. Many of us here would appreciate it.

Does Feltenstein's move to WB mean TCM is no longer doing anything in the same line? Because will WB be interested in documenting people from other Studios? MissG, I believe it was originally funded by Ted Turner (thus the name) but the interviewing still goes on. Even though Mayer and Feltenstein are no longer connected to TCM (and Feltenstein is connected to WBros) the project still interviews people every year regardless of which studio they worked for. Mayer and Feltenstein are long-time advocates of film preservation. Mayer received an honorary Oscar a few years ago for his work in film preservation. Feltenstein started as an assistant editor. One of his early credits was working on "That's Entertainment" and the sequels. Perhaps, that's where he discovered the importance of interviewing those from the golden age. I agree that it would be great to have the interviews on-line for people to listen to. Maybe as we get further into the digital age that will be a possibility?

Is this the correct address? Normally TCM does their posting of schedules in three month blocks, and I would have thought that May's schedule would be up by now. If the website keeps its current format it would have to be up by Saturday, March 1. I hope the delay doesn't portend something ominous, like even MORE modern movies coming to the schedule.>> Calvin, The May schedule will likely unveil itself on March 1st. Sometimes, monthly schedules are unveiled early and sometimes they go down to the wire. Has less to do with more modern movies coming to the schedule and probably more to do with the Web guys day-to-day schedules. It may also have something to do with the Programming guys. Perhaps they are waiting on last-minutes okays from legal regarding new titles that have been rented or leased. And by new, I mean classic era films from other studios.

Re: Why Does Psycho (1960) get an R rating? Posted: Feb 27, 2008 9:04 AM in response to: lzcutter>> Then, perhaps, you should be more careful in hitting the reply button because I certainly thought both by the "in response to" and the content of your post that you were, indeed, talking to me.

Jack, A few years ago I discovered (I can't remember how or where now) information about the Turner Archive Project. This is a filmed oral history project that has been going on for quite some time. The goal is to interview people from both in front of and behind the camera and those who worked at the studios (from front office execs to the typing pool, etc) from the golden age of Hollywood. Roger Mayer and George Feltenstein were, as I recall, two of the important movers and shakers behind this. I can't remember when it started but I believe it has been going on for at least the last 15 years. Every year, they choose x number of people to interview. Today, the Turner Archive Project is under the care of Warner Bros (where Feltenstein is involved in Home Video and the preservation and restoration of Warners Film Library) and so the project continues. The oral histories are housed, I think, at the Academy Library. I believe that many of the Word of Mouth and some of the other "filler" we see on TCM of actors recounting certain stars or films use footage from the Turner Archive Project. Message was edited by: lzcutter

The PG-13 rating DID exist in 1984.>> Which is why I said upon it's release, meaning initial release in 1960. I also stated that the MPAA Rating System wasn't invented until the mid-1960s,. So, yes, I know that PG-13 rating did exist in 1984. I never disputed that.

Psycho couldn't have gotten an R rating upon its release as the MPAA rating system was not yet invented. That didn't come about until the mid-1960s. The old Production Code was still in effect, though it was slowly being dismantled by filmmakers, when Psycho was produced.

Victor, There are at least two threads on this very subject in Hot Topics: This one is Brad specifc http://forums.tcm.com/jive/tcm/thread.jspa?threadID=123703&tstart=0 This one includes discussion of the faux-paux along with other discussions: http://forums.tcm.com/jive/tcm/thread.jspa?threadID=123661&tstart=0