lzcutter

Oh yeah maybe this time you'll post photos of James Garner. >> Smiley face not withstanding, what part of disengage from the fight are you not understanding? Earlier today, you were very upset that Stoneyburke was accusing you of multiple personalities. Now, here you are hours later, insinuating that SueSue is an alias for johnm. You want us to stand up for you against those who make these unfounded accusations against you (I saw your post to Klondike in Mongo's In the Spotlight thread) but you are resorting to the same behavior. You can't have it both ways.

It had been my impression that the WebAdmin had largely taken a hands-off approach but, at any rate, if thee are women who could be the subject of further verbal abuse, then don't you think they ought to at least be aware of this? For their own protection? >> Aware of what??? Over the years here, I have only been verbally abused by one poster and see below for how it was handled. I have had my hair singed a few times by both men and women here but that's part of the give and take of this unmoderated forum. Both Chris and I have suggested that you contact the TCM WebAdmin if you have received threatening PMs, been verbally abused or anything else that has made you feel uncomfortable posting in these forums. I pointed out that last summer when some of us (men and women) received threatening PMs we individually contacted the WebAdmin and the situation was dealt with. The poster came back to rear his ugly head publicly making some very vile statements about many of us before finally being given the boot by the WebAdmin. If it is unacceptable to verbally abuse women on these boards (and the majority of us would agree it is) it is just as unacceptable to verbally abuse the men. Everyone here deserves to be treated the same and singling out women for special treatment over the men will only cause further dissension around here. People are trying to tell you, Stoney and Bartlett that they have had enough. People don't come here to watch a train wreck. They come here to share their love for classic movies and making personal attacks on posters is not helping in any way shape or form. If you have a problem with anyone on these boards, follow your own advise and take it to PM and if that fails and you feel strongly enough about it, contact the WebAdmin.

To the extent that Coppola's cooperation is apparently required, let's hope they can strike some sort of agreement.>> I believe Coppola may have exclusive rights on the earlier version of Napoleon and that is why this meeting is important. Up to now, Coppola has kept the new restoration from being screened here.

Because you aren't concerned about dirty old men who like to verbally abuse women? And then you encourage them (yourself) with new conversations about movies that depict adolescent women?>> If you have been a victim of unwanted PMs or feel that you have verbally abused that is what the TCM WebAdmin is for. Last year we had a poster who crossed over the line, said vile things and sent threatening PMs to a few of us. We contacted the TCM WebAdmin and let them handle the situation. We did not continue to engage the poster in fighting or baiting or anything else. Contact the TCM WebAdmin. But if you truly want to disengage from the fight with this poster, stop bringing up the subject on this thread and others. All it is doing is prolonging the argument and trying to bring other people into the argument who aren't a part of it is not disengaging from it.

Cinemascope, There is the Coppola version with the orchestra track credited to his father. That's the one you are thinking of. Coppola holds the US rights to that one. Kevin Brownlow has spent most of his career restoring Napoleon. Since he did the restoration on the Coppola version, he has unearthed more footage and done more restoration on it. This version has a score by Carl Davis. This version was screened last year in London. It has not been seen here in the States. Coppola has kept that Brownlow version from being screened or distributed here in the States. I can't remember why. Maybe something to do with his father's score. Anyways, the fact that he and Brownlow are going to have a face to face meeting to see if they can work it out so that Browlow can bring his version (with the Carl Davis score) to the States is hopeful news.

It's just that they are being posted by a dirty old man who enjoys verbally abusing women and has not denied that these photos might be what he gets his jollies with, he probably just has a lot of photos of a lot of stars just for that.>> Perhaps, by saying nothing in response to your allegation, he is refusing to take the bait. I don't know what he said in this thread that was so vile but if you have a problem with it, do as you always suggest, take it to PM and duke it out there. To continue to take the battle to other threads and involve the rest of us only hurts us all. The continued animosity between posters is doing this forum no good. And don't say we don't have to read them. It's kind of hard when you are reading and enjoying a thread to suddenly have it go veering off into innuendo and personal attacks. I am not saying that you are entirely to blame. There is plenty of blame to go around. But to continue to bring the battle to other threads is wrong.

But how are the posting of photos in this thread any different from the photos posted in the Gary Cooper thread in the Favorites forum. I am truly failing to see the difference other than a man posted the photos of Julie Andrews and the majority of picture posts in the Coop thread are done by women. Why does it make the pictures here more offensive than the ones in the Coop thread?

Ben, Didn't he become addicted to morphine while recovering from his auto accident? I believe it became a life long struggle for him and possibly helped cause his heart attack.

That a talented and distinguished performer should fall so low as to become the object of lust by dirty old men is very sad, but nonetheless, that is what appears to have happened here. >> I'm not sure what you are referencing here? The photos and the posts about them that have been posted don't strike me (as a woman) to be any different from the various threads about Gary Cooper (filled with pictures posted by women) and Cary Grant. Did I miss something? Also, I'm not sure what that has to do with my original post.

Because I love films. Silent, studio era, foreign, animated, epic, dramas, comedies, post-1959 and movies made today. TCM is the one place that I can watch them all commercial free, uncut and in their proper aspect ratio. I adore TCM's big tent approach that films regardless of when they were made are worth watching.

But that's my point, why for someone who loves films as much as you, do you only love films from the studio era and not films from all decades? I'm trying to find out what your cut off date is and the reasoning why it's not okay to call studio era films crappy but modern films are fair game. I don't follow the logic there.

Actually they were both pretty crappy.>> I may regret this but I am curious: By now we all know that you love film and that you believe each film, no matter what, can teach you something. You abhor people who call films crappy and you have taken a few of them to task for it. Yet, here you are calling these two films crappy? Is there a cut off date for your love affair with film? And if so, why? I ask because I am genuinely curious why someone who loves films as much as you, makes such a distinction.

Well at least the live-action ones have probably been rather crappy.>> Are you referring to the two Princess Diaries and the two Eloise movies she did for tv? Because she hasn't been in many live action films in the last ten years. The majority of her work in the last ten years has been as an animation voice artist.

I first fell in love with classic movies when I was sentenced to three life terms on Devil?s Island. We had movie night every Saturday night. I learned from some of the movies how to escape from the Island and I did.>> Fred, I don't know about you but after reading some of the other threads in this forum, Devil's Island is sounding pretty good right about now.

Too bad she's stuck in such crappy movies! =( >> Call me crazy, but I enjoy her very much in the Shrek series.

As many silent fans know, Francis Ford Coppola has not allowed Kevin Brownlow's restored longer version of Napoleon (with a score by Carl Davis) to be seen in this country. Word is now that Coppola and Brownlow are talking and a meeting is scheduled for them to talk in person about Brownlow being able to screen his version of Napoleon here in the states. Stay tuned!

Otterhere, In the last TCM Challenge that I participated in, I included all 13 episodes of Hollywood. In my first Challenge I included the Men Who Made the Movies episode with William Wellman. I believe that TCM is showing the Wellman episode sometime this year. So, I hold out hope that if Hollywood ever makes it out of rights hell that TCM will rebroadcast it. I agree that docs deserve their own slot on TCM. My tivo is still filled with all the wonderful docs they ran for a day last April.

Well I for one am absolutely delighted that this thread has been kept high up on the boards, maybe at least more people will know about the documentary and look forward to it next May! >> This was an interesting thread that up until this morning held the opportunity for people to learn more about Brando and to be aware of the upcoming documentary. I don't know if any of you realize that you have been bickering amongst yourselves for almost eight pages! There are not many posters who are going to read all this bickering to find the few gems about the Brando doc. The majority of posters will, as too often happens here lately, start to ignore this thread completely. Whatever animosities the three of you have with each other doesn't make it right for you to hijack a thread. If you want to argue amongst yourselves about non-Brando issues, start your own thread specifically for that but don't continue to hijack this one.

Well, again, whatever flaws they may have had as people, guys like Kelly and Donen were extremely hard-working and driven, they really worked hard and perhaps they felt they deserved some gratitude or acknowledgement... whether they had too high an opinion of themselves or were unable to share credit for collaboration is perhaps a matter of opinion; there can be no definitive answer.>> Having met Kelly and done a tribute to him back in the late 1970s, I can attest to what I wrote. Yes, they created some incredible works of art but they were human. And like all humans they were flawed. That doesn't take away from what they created. That they did not always get along is, in fact, part of the public record. Stanley Donen deserves to be recognized for refusing to bad mouth Kelly. Artistic collaborations are not always easy. There is a great deal of give and take. I have seen countless docs on Kelly that portray the man I met, warts and all. He had an incredible talent. There is no denying that. But he often refused to share credit for the work that he created with Stanley Donen. Like so many Hollywood legends, at the end of the day, he was human.

Erebus, He is wonderful in Hearts of the West a look at the silent days of film making starring Jeff Bridges and Blythe Danner from the mid-1970s. He is unforgettable in And Starring Pancho Villa as Himself, an HBO made for cable movie. Arkin is Villa's right hand man. Stars Antonio Banderas as Villa and based on stories that Kevin Brownlow collected for his book "And the Parade Passed By". Also, Arkin will bring a tear to your eye in Freebie and the Bean costarring with James Caan.

Cinemascope, Have you seen it? I ask because I consider it one of the best documentaries ever made. Listening to the men and women who made those film and made American films an industry that, while changing and adapting with each decade, is still going strong. I love that documentary.

Is there anyone out there who can answer my questions? What stance is he making against anti-depressants? Is it for adults or for ill-mannered kids who are systematically diagnosed these days as hyperactive? Also, what actresses has he bashed?>> Anne, Last year, Tom Cruise went on the Today Show and berated Brooke Shields. Shields, when she gave birth the last time, began to suffer from post-partum depression. She went public with her struggle that included anti-depression medicine. Cruise, for reasons known only to himself, took the opportunity on national television to chide her for using drugs to get better. Now, as most people know these days, post-partum depression is real and it can have serious consequences for mother and child, sometimes resulting in the child being harmed. Matt Lauer, to his credit, stood up for Shields. Cruise began to argue with him about who knew better about drugs and drugs companies. Cruise posed himself as having done so much research into the subject and became incredibly condescending in tone not only to Lauer but to the audience watching. The basic message was if you suffer from post-partum depression it's not that hard to suck it up and deal with it. Lauer was appalled as was most of America. Shields took him to task for telling her what she should have done without walking even an inch in her shoes. This happened about the time he appeared on Oprah and jumped up and down on the sofa proclaiming his love for Katie Holmes. In the last year and a half, he fired his long time publicist and put his sister in charge. Since then, he has rethought that strategy and gone back into business with Pat Kingsley. As for the whole silent birth/placenta thing? It was all a big yawn. If the couple wants to do that and Cruise wants to eat it? Who cares? The problem with Cruise is that his personal life and his personal beliefs became the story. When Pat Kingsley was in charge of his career she kept him on a tight leash. With her gone, and his sister in charge, his devotion to Scientology became the story. In Hollywood, no matter what you believe in, no matter how big a star you are, nothing is more important than the movie you just starred in and should be promoting. If people are talking about you and not talking about the movie, there's a problem. Spielberg is said to be very unhappy with Cruise's attitude towards the promotion of War of the Worlds where the focus was on Cruise and Scientology and not Cruise and the movie. Will he work again in this town. Of course he will. And Sumner Redstone and Viacom/Paramount will probably help bankroll a picture or two. But, at the end of the day, he should not have attacked Brooke Shields for seeking medical help for a medical problem that was endangering her life and her child's. But that's just my opinion.

Silent film was not just a movie with no sound -- it was an art form in and of itself. Silent epics had production values not equaled until modern CGI. The introduction of sound was actually a setback in many ways. Locking the camera in the studio meant the end of the scope and beauty obtained with complete freedom of movement. This would take decades to overcome. When Mary Pickford said "It would have been more logical if silent pictures had grown out of the talkies instead of the other way around" she had a very valid point.>> Jon, That paragraph alone makes me yearn for TCM to rebroadcast Kevin Brownlow, David Gill and David Shepard's epic "Hollywood: An Appreciation of American Silent Film" series. Here's hoping the rumors are true and that it is finally out of rights hell, coming to DVD and if so, hopefully TCM would rebroadcast all 13 episodes.

"I believe it is already on the Sunset Boulevard Special Collector's Edition dvd. This dvd has been out for awhile." As I recall it has the storyboard for the original opening, but no actual footage...>> Jack, I know I saw the footage in the German doc that TCM ran last summer (though it was a few years old). And I believe Cinesage posted that he saw it when the Academy screened Sunset Blvd last summer. But I could be wrong and he could be talking about Double Indemnity. If they really wanted to sell a lot of DVDs of both films, offer the alternates as extras. I know I would be one of the first in line to buy both films.

I am just fascinated with the professional and personal relationship between Gene and Stanley Donen. The doc had Betsy Blair saying that Donen was jealous of Kelly's talent, do I have that correctly? So, was Gene jealous of Donen's creativity? >> I think they were both strong, ego driven men who found themselves in a creative relationship where their work together was much more magical and profitable than their work apart. Kelly, by most accounts, was a hard driven perfectionist and not the easiest guy to get along with. In later years, he was not above taking full credit for work that was, in reality, more of a collaboration between the two. Don't get me wrong, Kelly was an incredible dancer, choreographer and a good actor and Singin' in the Rain, On the Town and the others he did with Donen are classic films to cherish for the ages. Donen, to his credit, in the Private Screenings he did with RO which was broadcast last fall, took the high road throughout the interview when questioned about Kelly. I give Donen major credit for taking that high road. It's not always easy but perhaps Donen found peace with Kelly and the work they did or perhaps Donen realizes that there is no honor in trashing Kelly at this late date. They did not always get along and often clashed on their films. It may have taken Donen a while to find that peace and realize that his cinematic legacy is often tied to Kelly and visa versa. I suspect it was just as hard, if not harder, for Kelly to realize. Together, they created some of the best musical films that will live on long after all of us are long gone. And I hope that both of them realize(d) that and that it brought them joy.