lzcutter
-
Posts
12,344 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Posts posted by lzcutter
-
-
If I remember correctly- the film was initially released in 1969 and shortly thereafter, pulled by the studio and recut for violence (specifically, the rape scene) after critics and moviegoers complained about the graphic nature of the movie.
The recut was released a short time later and played around the country. So, depending on where you (the universal you) lived back then (movies didn't open wide the way they do now and traveled around the country in a different pattern than now) and when you (again, the universal you) saw the film could determine the cut you saw.
A number of films from back then were released with R ratings and then pulled and recut because of violence and/or the sexual nature of the material, often to get the then M or GP rating (it was with the caveat that Parental Discretion advised but, unlike the R rating, you didn't need to be accompanied by an adult if you were under 17) and a larger audience. *Soldier Blue* is another film from that era that was pulled and recut.
As with most movies that go through the process, the original version is often not available for broadcast rental or, in some cases, may only exist in the hands of collectors.
Edited by: lzcutter for clarity
-
> FULL SERVICE was my friend Movie Proffessor's thread, that got well and truly hijacked.
My apologies, you're right, it was started by MP but you were a major contributor there writing "if movie fans blindly idolize their favorite stars, without seeing that they are only human and far from perfect, then they're always going to be let down", which implies that the only reason people can't believe Bowers' book is because they blindly believe their favorite stars were saints and that's not what the majority of people who posted in that thread were responding to. Again, the thread was calling into question people's beliefs and when that happens, you can't control the discussion.
> I was invited to come over to this forum, they said it would be more topical, and they were right.
Color me confused, were you invited to come over here by members of the CFU or someone else?
-
> As for personal blogs... well, isn't that what most comments on here are anyway.
The difference really is that people will write posts to start a discussion about a topic. They do so knowing that there will be people who agree and there will be those who don't totally agree and will say so.
There is give and take, both positive and negative. Some may disagree vehemently and aren't afraid to say so, especially in threads you created like *Full Service* and *11-23-63*, especially when you post things like "whether its the JFK assassination, RFK assassination and hundreds of others, all the wars, conflicts, police actions, 9/11 and everything now, its all a lie." You are calling into question people's beliefs and you have to know that others will respond and it won't always be in agreement with your way of thinking.
Some will write to correct misinformation or misstated historical facts. Some have spent their lives studying films or working in films in one capacity or another and correct misstated facts so that misinformation isn't passed on.
You know when you post here that people will respond and it won't always be to your liking but that's the nature of message boards. You can't control the discussion.
A blog is more one-sided. You write a piece and post it (usually at the CFU) and people read it. They may post comments but there is rarely the give and take with blog pieces that there is here with threads.
You seem to be more comfortable with the blog format and that's why some have suggested that you check out the CFU.
Edited by: lzcutter for punctuation
-
> University of Wisconsin has the main Warner archive.
While the UofW has a large archive of Warner's material, an even larger archive of studio records was donated to USC's School of Cinema-Television back in 1977. The archive is housed in Doheny Library's Special Collections.
-
> The fact that TCM, even well before I arrived on the scene, had to finally go out and hire someone to monitor and referee, all the endless infighting, sniping and bullying, makes that plain enough.
HWF,
I'm not trying to "snipe' at you but did want to point out that board moderation is not new here. Board moderation, in varying degrees, has been a staple here for at least the last five years.
When it was a much smaller community, moderators weren't as necessary as they are today. Back then, both TCM and the internet was still growing.
As the internet and TCM became more popular, the site received more notice. With that publicity came a series of posters whose sole intent was to wreck havoc and break up the community.
Rather than let that happen, the community asked that TCM step in. They did and a more active board moderation was instituted. With that came a Code of Conduct that posters now have to agree to before they can join.
In this era of the internet, it seems there will always be troublemakers (see the recent spate of posts heralding all the different shows you can download for free just by clicking on a link) and there will always be contrarian posters just as there will be those who participate in a thread and watch it go off-topic.
For many who have been here since those early days, having a hands-on board moderator like Michael is definitely preferable to the community being held hostage by a couple of posters whose only purpose was to wreck havoc on the community every chance they got.
Now, with Michael here, at least there is someone who can handle the troublemakers in a swift manner.
There are a variety of classic movie forums around the web and many of them are moderated because it is preferable to have board moderation than to have a community held hostage by troublemakers.
I'm sorry you are having health issues and that you feel attacked. As mentioned earlier in various threads, you might check out the Classic Film Union as it might be of interest to you.
-
They can be made out of various materials.
They were popular in the 1940s because they kept women's hair pulled back and away from their faces in a stylish way. For working women from waitresses to Rosie the Riveters, they were all the rage.
-
Loreli,
This is from the FAQ for the *Now Playing* guide:
As is true with all magazine subscriptions, new orders for Now Playing take some time to process. The first issue normally takes up to ten weeks to arrive (see explanation in # 6 below). If you need programming information before the arrival of your first issue of Now Playing, please visit http://www.tcm.com, and click on the "Schedule" link in the top navigation bar.
and
Explanation #6:
There are several steps involved. First, your order is processed. Each week, all new subscriber addresses are forwarded to the printer. Once the printer receives your address, they will send you the next issue that goes into production. Depending on when in a production cycle you place an order, it could be six weeks before the next issue is produced, and then it must be labeled and mailed. Also important to note is that issues mail a month in advance of programming. If you add this up, a typical scenario would be as follows: you place an order in mid January; your first issue is the April guide, which arrives in early March.
Here's the link:
https://secure.palmcoastd.com/pcd/eServ?iServ=MDI2MzE1ODA5NCZpVHlwZT1GQVE=
The other items ordered from TCM do not have this sort of lead time.
Hope this helps!
-
> Actually....Disney created the first multi-track recording system called Fantasound around 1938, a couple of years before the release of FANTASIA.
Oops, I should have said a practical tape based multi-track recording system which Disney used on *Cinderella* and especially the song, *Sing, Sweet Nightingale* where Ilene Woods sang with herself.
-
Besides the other posts that have pointed out ovesights and misinformation, another media format overlooked is AMPEX and the way they revolutionized "taped for broadcast".
In the waning days of World War II, Jack Mullin was ordered to investigate German radio and electronics. What he found and brought back to the States revolutionized live radio broadcasts.
Bing Crosby, at the time one of the biggest names in radio, was looking for a way to pre-record his radio broadcasts and Mullins offered a way for Crosby to do that.
Crosby asked for more information and Mullin, working with AMPEX, was able to deliver.
AMPEX went to work with Mike Todd on Todd-AO sound and working with Les Paul, they created the multi-track recording system.
They also worked with Crosby to create videotape and revolutionized the television industry with their trailblazing.
I know it's Wiki but it is a good, informational read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampex
Edited by: lzcutter because it's AMPEX and they were trailblazers
-
Chief,
Perhaps this will bring the thread back on track (though if someone wants to change the direction of the thread, why not just start a new thread on that subject rather than change the course of an existing thread?), I agree that it's sad to see *Now Playing: The Show* come to an end. I really enjoyed the extended look at each month though the very early morning hours that it usually aired made me tend to DVR it.
I hope you are right about the budget for Original Programming and it will come roaring back with some new documentaries that will have us all talking.
In the meantime, I'll just keep enjoying the *Word of Mouth* and other selections from the On-Air promo department.
Congrats to all who were involved in producing *The Show*, you did a quite a job!
Edited by: lzcutter for a question
-
> It could be worse though -- Mel Torme from THE FEARMAKERS. (recently saw this)
> Nothing more horrific.
> Unless it's Larry King.
Spit-Take!!!
-
> The very fact that he IS still out there and given opportunities to appear in a public setting would (at least to me) seem to imply that he is still relevent to enough people that his appearance in the public eye DOES still hold value and serve some useful purpose.
Ro,
I totally agree! I have been fortunate to see Kirk Douglas in person at the TCM Film Festival and the crowd's reaction to him at both the screening of *Spartacus* and *20,000 Leagues Under the Sea* was just great.
Both times, he took the stage to standing ovations and the roar of the crowd.
He talked the blacklist with both Robert O and Ben M and even sang the first verse of *A Whale of a Tale* at the *20,000 Leagues" screening.
Do you have to pay attention when he speaks? Yeah, but the man had a seriously debilitating stroke that he came back from and the fact that he still wishes to share with us more than makes up for that.
Of course, as always, mileage may vary for some.
-
rewrite,
On the serious side, here's the announcement from Michael, the WebAdmin, in the Announcements Forum:
-
Suex2,
Congrats on the original recipe SueSue thread reaching 20,000 views! Everyone loves Suex2's recaps of the Film Festivals!
YAY!!!!
-
> I don't want to turn this into a political statement
Rey,
I think the thread is more dedicated to Kirk's appearance on the show and not a treatise on how any of us feel about Bill Maher.
A wonderful actor who has made a number of films we all love appeared on a talk show to promote his latest book, I am Spartacus and he talked about his life, his career and the making of *Spartacus*.
At 95 years old, he reminded us all that he still has the power to enthrall us.
But if you guys would rather talk about Bill Maher and derail the thread into politics (and likely get it locked before it burns itself out), well, you are well on your way.
-
Kirk was just great. He has such a great sense of humor. You do have to pay attention to what he is saying but it sure is worth it!
Hard to believe he is 95!
-
Roy,
Hey pardner! Something's been nagging at the back of my brain since last night and I finally figured out what it was.
While there was an outcry after *Light Brigade*, wasn't there a bigger public outcry over *Jesse James* (Fox, 1939) and the death of the horse that went over the cliff?
Wasn't that when the Humane Society started to really get involved and level fines to the studios for the cruelty to animals during productions?
-
> Star Errol Flynn clashed with Curtiz over the treatment of both stuntmen and horses. Warner Brothers was fined by the American Humane Association over this, and the use of the "running W" was banned.
If my memory serves me right, the Running W wasn't banned after *Light Brigard*. It was in use until the 1970s. *The Wind and the Lion* in 1975 was one of the last films to use it before it was banned.
-
> If you disagree, or take offense, write my direct. I'm always civil, and I won't ridicule you.
Hollywoodfan,
I'm just looking for clarification, if anyone disagrees with something you have written in one of your threads, you would prefer they PM you rather than post that disagreement here?
Won't that make for a rather one-sided thread where no one should raise a dissenting point of view?
The very nature of message boards is for posters to enter into a conversation/debate about a subject.
If what you're looking for is to share information without others commenting contrary to what you've written, the TCM Classic Film Union may be a better fit for you.
-
1968,
I agree that finding critics on the caliber of Sarris and Kael is not easy these days.
Up through the 1980s and the early 1990s there were a few I would follow and read.
Today, too often (as in the past with some) it is more about recapping the plot and giving away major plot points than actual analysis and because of that, I tend to stay away from reading those writing today.
I do enjoy reading pieces by Kenneth Turan, the film critic for my beleaguered Los Angeles Times (I do believe, I do believe that some day soon it will be a great paper again, I do believe, I do) but I don't go to the lengths that I did for Sarris or even Kael.
Thanks to the internet it is easier to find Turan when I am away from my beloved City of Angels than it was to find the Village Voice in Las Vegas circa 1970 but I still learned more from reading even modern Sarris than I have from any recent critics.
But, as always, mileage may vary and there may be some critic out there that I am just unaware of.
Forty years ago, hell even twenty years ago, my life centered around film- I tended to live and breath film. The last 15 years, my life has grown in different ways. I still love film, love reading about, talking about it and learning about it but I don't always have the time to devote to it as I did when I was younger.
But back then, especially in the late 1960s and the 1970s when Sarris and Kael were in their heyday, we as a culture and even Hollywood placed more value on films and the film-going experience.
We were passionate about film, those who wrote about film were passionate and those who made the films were passionate about the stories they were telling.
But times change, culture evolves. I don't want this to turn into one of those then vs now, all Hollywood movies are crap threads. Sarris wouldn't want that and neither do I. I want this thread to celebrate him and that passion for film that defined so much of his writings.
So, good critics could be out there, I just may not know who they are.
In the meantime, Sarris left some mighty big boots to fill.
-
Mark,
Thanks so much for the link to Leonard Maltin's remembrance. Maltin and I came of age a few years apart but it sounds like we had similar reactions to discovering films and discovering Sarris.
It was a heady time to come of age in the late 1960s and the 1970s with so much happening in film. So many terrific films came out of that era and Sarris' column in the Village Voice was mandatory reading (though finding the VV in Las Vegas wasn't always easy) as was his "feud" with Pauline Kael (finding the New Yorker was easier than the Village Voice).
In this modern age of the web and the internets
finding film reviews online is easy but finding a film critic the caliber of Andrew Sarris is now much harder. -
Mark,
Thanks so much for the link to Leonard Maltin's remembrance. Maltin and I came of age a few years apart but it sounds like we had similar reactions to discovering films and discovering Sarris.
It was a heady time to come of age in the late 1960s and the 1970s with so much happening in film. So many terrific films came out of that era and Sarris' column in the Village Voice was mandatory reading (though finding the VV in Las Vegas wasn't always easy) as was his "feud" with Pauline Kael (finding the New Yorker was easier than the Village Voice).
In this modern age of the web and the internets
finding film reviews online is easy but finding a film critic the caliber of Andrew Sarris is now much harder. -
Roy,
I agree, he was a terrific critic. I didn't agree with his auteur theory all that much (mainly because in the rush to re-examine classic era filmmakers, directors like Wild Bill Wellman, Michael Curtiz, Raoul Walsh and many others got the short end of that stick) but, my lord, he did love film and that love of film was apparent whether he was talking, writing or teaching.
Like mongo, I have some of his books on my bookshelf and now I need to reread them and think about getting some more.
The flicker of film criticism shines a little less brightly tonight.
-
> Is the "House Of Mirrors" in The Lady From Shanghai at an amusement park or just a boardwalk arcade?
Chief,
That House of Mirrors was actually shot at the long-gone but fondly remembered (especially by our buddy JackBurley) amusement park, Playland-by-the-Sea in San Francisco.
It's also called Playland by the Beach by some.
finding film reviews online is easy but finding a film critic the caliber of Andrew Sarris is now much harder.
HOLLYWOOD ON PARADE
in Hot Topics
Posted
The ! point goes directly before the http not before the www.