gypsybangles
-
Posts
111 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by gypsybangles
-
-
I'd like to think that when Dorothy Parker said "Brevity is the soul of lingerie.", she was at a cocktail party quickly trying to extricate herself from the kind of blah, blah, blah discussion this thread has become. Forty-four postings, ...so few lists. Her next remark was probably; Which way to the bar?
I can guarantee that I am annoying and irritating to my friends and family at least once a week. I just thank God no one is shoving a microphone and camera at my face twenty-four hours a day. It gives one so many less people to which one owes either an apology or an explanation.
When Andy Warhol said everyone would be famous for fifteen minutes, the media jumped on the concept and ran with it, taking it as a mandate instead of the off-hand bon mot it might have been had not the media been present. Now it is not only "celebrities" whose every ill-advised remark been recorded for posterity, but perfectly illiterate standers-by-at-crime-scenes we must endure on our local "news" as well. And my, what droll remarks they all make! And in answer to such fascinating questions! Never in the history of the world have so many people been so famous for so little.
I confine my TV viewing to reruns of 'Law and Order', 'Jeopardy', and 'TCM,' with the occasional 'Biography' and 'Science' channel offerings thrown in.
Frankly my dears, I don't give a damn what current celebrities do, think, say, or wear. They're all a bore! "Reality" shows...spare me! The sooner we rid ourselves of this vapid scourge to the American psyche, the sooner we may actually see the kind of programming TV epitomized by the thought provoking plays of the '50's as portrayed on 'Playhouse 90' and 'Climax', etc. Unfortunately this will never be achieved if we continue to slather daily over who slept with whom. We've gone from a country that once embraced noble ideals and dignity, to one that celebrates cheap (and I mean really cheap) media thrills. There's a reason for closets. Let's use them occasionally, shall we?
Gypsy
-
RE: Donald Meek
Thanks Mongo, I look forward to it.
Gypsy
-
Quoting johnnyweekes70
> The Boston **** films were released,
> unfortunately, by Columbia, and we know how hard it
> is to see their most of their '30s and '40s stuff.
> Along with the Lone Wolf series, maybe one days Sony
> will put this stuff out.
I last saw some of the "Boston ****" series (staring Chester Morris) aired on Saturday nights on TV back in the '60's. I think the venue was called "All Night Mystery Theatre". They aired a lot of "Charlie Chan" and I think perhaps "The Shadow" and "Mr. Moto" films as well.
My question is why is it so hard to pry these old films loose from a studio such as Columbia? What is the major malfunction? For whom, or what are they "saving" them?
These B-films are dated, campy, sometimes silly and badly acted, but entertaining from a nostalgic point of view. My point is this: There is a shelf life to "nostalgia" and eventually there will be very few people who can remember, or be interested in these films. I'm the eldest (born 1948) in a family of seven siblings, four step-siblings, two sons, etc., but have never been able to successfully convey my passion for older, and especially older B&W films to any of them, and I'm not getting any younger. If "Columbia" for instance is saving them for a particular audience, their already small potential audience is, proportionally speaking, diminishing to a great degree every day.
There are so many films in the public domain, meaning that their copywrite has expired and has not been renewed. I would be interested in the status of these old films.
If there are plans in the works to restore these films: Great! If not, I'd rather see a scratchy old version than none at all.
Gypsy
-
Hi Mongo,
I guess this comes under a "better late than never" heading, but saw that Donald Meek's birthday was on 7/14. It seems the older I get the less I'm "star struck" and the more appreciative of the character actors who added such rich flavor to the films in which they appeared. Donald Meek was one of these. He essentially played one part in many movies; a fussy, easily flustered little man of small consequence whose opinion of himself was Napoleonic. He pulled it off brilliantly, and with impeccable timing in film after film. He, in my opinion, actually had star quality, as one can't take their eyes off of him in his brief, supporting scenes.
Would you be your usual kind self and give us a bio of this incredibly entertaining actor.
Many Thanks,
Gypsy
-
Thanks Katyscar11ett for your kind validation. I've seen most but not all of these films myself, but based simply on the high caliber of the actors involved, demonstrates in my opinion, a testament to their quality and watch-ability.
I'd like to see them run some gloomy, windswept day in November to add to their already deliciously creepy atmosphere. What fun!
Gypsy
-
Back in the '50's I spent nearly every Saturday night at one of the local drive-in theatre's with my folks; on one such occasion I saw 'The High and the Mighty', (my one and only viewing). The thing I remembered most about it all these years was the theme song. The song was hauntingly memorable and left a big impression, but other than the fact it was a movie about an airplane in trouble, and John Wayne was the pilot, I remembered no details.
Despite all the "hype", out of curiosity I watched it on AMC. Turns out it was nothing more than the precursor to all disaster films (which I personally loathe), and my first instinct at age 6 was correct; the best thing about it then was the song, and after viewing it for the first time in fifty years, my opinion hasn't changed. I did however really enjoy Claire Trevor's performance this time around.
All in all it was an OK movie, even though it's in a genre of which I'm not fond, but one still wonders what all the "hoopla" was about. It was such an ensemble piece that John Wayne's screen time was probably the least of all his films.
When films go so long out of public view that they're only remembered by a few film "buffs", then their popular appeal is considerably diminished. It therefore behooves those in control to re-issue a film while there are still masses alive to remember and appreciate it.
I always dislike being one of the manipulated masses, and feel the manner in which this movie was re-issued is a prime example. Keeping it from view for an extended period of time, not because of any real reason, but simply to whet the appetite of the public, thereby manipulating the market, smacks of the crass and the vulgar. Certainly not a new concept, but in the case of this film, as with most things over-hyped, it was "much ado about nothing". The only way to counteract this and send a message to those who falsely inflate value, is to boycott the DVD and VHS sales, and make your own copy when it appears on TCM.
Gypsy
P.S. To myidolspencer, If it was last shown in the mid-eighties, it has been twenty years.
-
Dear tcmprogrammer,
I too will add my vote to see these little shown "Andy Hardy" films, in addition to another Mickey Rooney film in the TCM library; 'Young Tom Edison'.
September 23rd, 2005 will mark the eighty-fifth birthday of this most beloved, and thankfully still with us film star. I am begging on bended knee that you will pay homage to his considerable talent by showing everything you have in the TCM library as a much deserved tribute to the man who not only captured our hearts so long ago with his constantly conflicted, but ultimately sincere Andy Hardy, but also as one of the best actors this country, or any country has ever produced. Please do him proud.
Gypsy
-
Hi Mongo,
Just read with interest your post regarding Freddie Bartholomew. Yet another sad, cruel tale of how the old studio system disposed of talented child stars rather than supporting them through what may have been an awkward adolescence, and into what could possibly have been valid careers as adults. A few made it; most notably of course Elizabeth Taylor, but none I think without scars. It breaks the heart to think of what these children must have endured to deliver their memorably poignant performances, lauded as the "darlings" of the industry, sometimes "saving" a studio, only to be given "the bum's rush" if perhaps temporarily their lustre wasn't quite as bright. The effects of this must have been devastating on young psyches, as God knows it was difficult enough for older, more hardend actors who received the same treatment.
We've long had a love affair with English actors in this country; perhaps Freddie could have been another David Niven if given half a chance, and we all could have continued to enjoy his sincere approach to more mature roles. Alas, most probably due to L.B Mayer's "chew 'em up and spit 'em out" short-sightedness, we'll never have that pleasure.
Having wondered many times over the years "whatever happened to Freddie Bartholomew?", I am happy to know he had a successful post movie life, and equally grateful to you Mongo for filling in the blanks about this beloved child star.
Gypsy
-
Hey Ya'll,
Just watched 'Hotrods To Hell' last night on TCM, mostly to see if it had any of the crappy '60's movie music to which I referred originally in this thread, (it did, bigtime) but worse than that it had the still lovely, but more mature Jeanne Crain in a movie way beneath her talents, paired with the increasingly more mushed-mouthed Dana Andrews. This was a really awful movie, but like a "visual slow-down" on I-95, I couldn't not watch.
It really breaks my heart that Miss Crain would agree to appear in a film of this ilk. Although not an actress one would mention in the same breath as say Bette Davis, she nevertheless had a sincere and genuine screen presence. She still looked great, (especially considering she'd given birth to seven children) still seemed to be on top of her game, and yet here she was in this "groaner". Probably another example of "the mahoffs" booting an actress no longer considered an ingenue. One hopes the money she earned went to pay college tuition for one of her children, or something equally worthwhile by way of justification.
If anyone has the real inside "scoop" on why she'd appear in this piece of crap, I'd love to hear it.
Gypsy
-
It doesn't surprise me that AMC will be showing 'The High and the Mighty'.
Prior to switching from my local lame cable company and getting a "dish", mainly so I could subscribe to TCM, I watched a lot of old movies on AMC for years, and like all of you who love old films shown intact and commercial free, (with the exception of that crackpot Leo), became completely disgruntled when they began their commercial interruptions. It was also at approximately this same time that their programming became positively inundated with John Wayne movies. Rarely a day went by when at least one of his films didn't show up on AMC, and there were usually several...in a row. Not being a big fan of John Wayne, I became increasingly irritated at this flood of films constantly showcasing this one star. This went on for at least a couple of years, and only wish I had access to those old AMC programming schedules to prove my point, although finally this past year they seem to be slacking up somewhat.
I began to wonder if there were a connection between this deluge of JW vehicles and the change in the AMC format. Perhaps "a deal with the devil" (John Wayne's heirs) was struck giving AMC access to a large block of his films for BIG $$$'s. Perhaps AMC felt this would be such a boon to their film library, that they were willing to sacrifice their commercial free format to make the purchase. Perhaps part of this deal included "The High and the Mighty'.
All speculation on my part of course, but not being a big believer in coincidences, I can't help but wonder why John Wayne's heirs would finally be willing to release this much sought after film classic, not altruistically or artistically to TCM, where it could be viewed intact and commercial free, but to those hacking butchers at AMC. I $ee only one obviou$ conclu$ion. Not a very nice way to honor "The Duke", is it? But then whoever said there was "honor among thieves" hadn't come across his family.
Gypsy
-
(Booklover,I'm glad you corrected yourself for Fuster's sake, but am flattered to be confused with her.)
My Mom like me was an avid reader of historical novels, and also a lover of movies. 'Gone With The Wind' was her favorite on both counts. The first time I remember her mentioning GWTW was the summer I turned six and we were moving from PA to FL. It was a long car trip, stopping at various roadside attractions along the way. Approaching the north GA border my Mom kept talking about wanting to see the "red dirt". My younger brothers and I didn't understand her rapturous fascination, but nevertheless became caught up in it, pointing it out at every opportunity.
Over the ensuing years my mother raved about Margaret Mitchell's book and the film. So much so that by the time Christmas of my twelfth year came, the only thing I asked for was a copy of the book. Imagine my disappointment when all the presents were unwrapped, and the only thing I really wanted wasn't among them. Utterly devastated! We spent the day with my Grandparents and Aunt Mary, who wanted to know why I was being such a mope on Christmas day. Mom explained about the copy of GWTW I'd wanted, and Aunt Mary promptly produced hers and gave it to me. Oh Joy! Oh Rapture!
Needless to say I spent the entire Christmas vacation absolutely devouring this book, and was committed to finish the entire thousand plus pages prior to returning to school. I thought of nothing else, I did nothing else but read, and was completely caught up in this epic love story. I didn't know who Vivian Leigh was, but had seen Clark Gable in enough films to put his face on the dashing rogue Rhett. Alone in my room, racing against the clock the last night of vacation, I read furiously, heart beating, desperately wanting to find out what happens, (no "spoilers" from Mom, thank God), but at the same time wanted the book to go on forever.
Then the words "It seems we've been at cross purposes", and "My dear, I don't give a damn", as he leaves, and Scarlett is bereft. Stunned I read and reread the last page, turning over the end papers, hoping for another chapter, another line. Nothing...
Having only read, up until this time, books with "happy endings", it took a few moments until the enormity of this ending hit me, then I did the only appropriate thing for an impressionable twelve year old; burst into uncontrollable, inconsolable sobbing. My family came running, urgent to know the cause of my distress. "He...he...he...(sob, sob) le...le...le...(sob)...left (sob)... huh...huh...huh...HER! (an hour of heartbroken wailing follows, against a backdrop of derisive hoots from my brothers, and much rolling-of-eyes on the part of my parents).
Fast forward to my late (still impressionable) teens when GWTW is playing at a theatre in our town and my mother and I attend. It turns out to be every bit as good a movie as promoted, albeit with a couple less children of Scarlett's. Vivian Leigh is perfect, Gable also as the handsome caddish roue with a good heart, the "red dirt" is there in all its technicolor glory, and I loved every minute of it...and yet...nothing can ever diminish the sublime impact of reading that book! I thank God I read it first, if only to spare myself the embarrassment of reacting to the ending of the film as I had the book, in front of a theatre full of strangers.
Gypsy
-
Thelma Todd Having only seen her in a couple of films I nonetheless found her funny, appealing, effervescent, and a real "character". The enigmatic circumstances surrounding her death only add to her mystique. Useless to speculate how her career would have progressed, but definitely feel she had "the goods".
James Dean He did a particular thing in his films I always found very interesting. While other actors seem to live for the moment when someone says "We're ready for your close-up", he hid his face from the camera in shot after shot. In many of his close-ups his head would be down, turned away, or with his hat low over his face. It may just have been an actor's device on his part, but I never got that impression. While other actors angst about their "best side" etc., he seemed not to care, and I think it was this that added realism to his performances, making him riviting to watch, always leaving the audience wanting more.
-
Mission accomplished...glad you're back Larry.
Gypsy
-
for standing up on this issue with me. It's obvious Larry chose only to view this as an insult as evidenced by his "last post" (how dramatic by the way), but also find it rather telling that it contained his fewest mistakes, proving he can get it right when he tries.
As for those certain other posters who also don't care how badly they portray themselves in print, I wonder did they learn nothing from 'My Fair Lady'?
Gypsy
-
Hey Larry xxmass,
Anyone who owns six thousand films, owns about five thousand nine hundred and seventy more than I do. But even if you only owned one film, or none for that matter, you'd have just as much right to post here as anyone else. The problem with owning six thousand films, is that not one of them will teach you how to spell. This is where books come in real handy.
I never claim to be perfect, (if you reread my original post you'll see I state that) and also never took issue with the content of your posts, only that it was difficult to get past your typing and spelling to determine what it was you were trying to convey. I made a real **** last week regarding the content of one of my posts. Someone called me on it, I thanked them for bringing it to my attention and putting me on the right track, then went right on posting. I did not run away with my tail between my legs.
I've been an avid reader all my life, have a decent vocabulary, and for the most part believe I adhere to the basic rules of typing, spelling and grammar (although I'm sure someone well schooled in these arts, which I am not, could tear my grammar to shreds in a heartbeat). I do try though for three reasons: First I don't wish to embarrass myself, secondly I feel if I attempt as much as possible to follow the basics, I may be better able to get my point across, and lastly I feel it's only common courtesy not to inflict undue irritation on those who read what I write.
If, as you claim, your problem arises from typing too fast, then the obvious solution would be...don't type too fast. If spelling is a problem for you, then avail yourself of the "spell check" key on this site. Because of all the reading I've done over the years, I'm good at spelling, and have had calls from siblings or friends asking how to spell a particular word, which I can usually do off the top of my head. I do however keep one book close by as some would a bible; it's the dictionary. It's a wonderful book, one that you may eventually find indispensable.
I do apologize if your feelings were hurt by my comments, but you must also understand that your posts, with their constant misspellings and capitalizations are not only difficult and groaningly painful to read, but an ongoing careless insult to those who make the extra effort to convey their thoughts clearly, and not subject others to their easily correctable bad habits; not to mention what it does to ones credibility. If you wish your opinions to be taken with validity, then type and spell accordingly, otherwise you set yourself up for derision.
I'm throwing the ball back in your court. Run away pouting if you must, but realize also there's another alternative, and it'll cost you about $10.00 in hardcover at a used book store.
Gypsy
-
Larry xxmass,
DON'T TYPE FAST!
Gypsy
-
I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with the idea of "remakes" if one feels they can artistically improve on either the original or the previous remake. The problem these days comes down to intent. If the intention is to make a better film respective of quality, direction, casting, production values, writing, editing, etc., then why not. But if it's obvious the remake is only capitalizing on the name of the former film, or playing on sentiment for same, with no regard to the above mentioned qualities, then the result is likely to be a cheap imitation at best.
Personally I think Hollywood ran out of imagination quite some time ago with the advent of money-men-conglomerates. But I'm actually amazed that some very good films came out of the heyday of Hollywood, whose moguls even then were constantly looking at the bottom line. Stars then were browbeaten, typecast, overworked, and cast aside like yesterdays trash if they didn't toe the studio line, or had a "flop". There were some "gems" that came out of that system amazingly enough, but there was a whole lot of junk as well.
In retrospect we might view them sentimentally, but not every old film is a classic, as not every remake is trash. But if the studio system was bad then, it's worse now, and in my opinion the future of film lies in the freedom and imagination of the independent movement. But just as "Sundance" is threatened with commercialism, so to is the offshoot "Indy" movement. Every time this happens, quality goes right out the window.
My grown sons have been subjected to so much techno-crap-special-effects-gun-blazing-chase-scenes, they refer with disdain to the films I watch as "people-standing-around-talking" movies. This I feel is indicative of our loss of common ground, our ability to communicate verbally with one another; we no longer discuss our problems, we shoot at them.
I was thinking of starting a thread dealing with the Congressional "Hollywood witch hunts" of the late '40's- early '50's, but we have much more urgent issues. How do we replace buzz words or phases with actual dialogue.
Speech is the only thing that separates us from the apes, and if we can only teach our children to grunt out phrases like "I'll be back" we'll be back to being apes in a lot less time than it took us to get here.
I went a "little off the rails" with this post, but am making no apologies for content, only appropriateness to the original thread.
Gypsy
-
Dear xxmass Larry,
At the risk of becoming personal, I really need to ask: What is it with you and the damn shift key?
You may have some valid points Honey, but I never get to what they are, as I can't get past you capitalizing every *&$#ing word, except when you neglect to do so at the most appropriate time; the beginning of sentences. It's really annoying, and your spelling is running a very close second.
We all make grammatical errors, errors in spelling, and typographical mistakes, but not consistently, or on purpose.
You claim to read books. Darlin' take a week off from watching movies, read one now, and look at what's capitalized, then get with the program. Please! Unless of course you're the ghost of Don Marquis and headed in an entirely new direction... then I have only one thing to say, quoting Emily Litella, "Never mind".
Gypsy
-
Hey Booklover,
Glad you didn't go 'way mad after our little Tex Ritter denouement.
I found the J.G. CD this past Christmas at either Borders or B&N. If not currently in stock, perhaps they can order it for you. It appeals to me as all the songs are from the original movie sound tracks. I know Miss Garland sang 'Over The Rainbow' many times over the course of her career for instance, but that first time in TWOO was to me the most perfect. And let's face it her voice was different at forty from that at sixteen. My favorite is 'The Man That Got Away'; just the most awesomely powerful vocal I've ever heard. It's heartbreaking to think of how badly the film was botched in editing to satisfy the distributors, costing Judy the Oscar. But at least we still have that great song.
I'm not a fan of Liza Minnelli's voice. There are small reminiscences of Judy in her voice and mannerisms, but to use an analogy, to me it's like watered down soup, just doesn't have the full flavor of the original. I do however enjoy some of her acting performances, especially in 'The Sterile Cuckoo, she was great.
Nice hearing from you,
Gypsy
-
Good Topic Fuster,
I honestly don't know how a film with Ingrid Bergman and Anthony Quinn could be little known, but I haven't seen 'A Walk in the Spring Rain' since it came out in 1970.
It's a tale of seduction, betrayal and cultural differences set against a lush rural Appalachian background. Sensually mesmerizing and evocative.
-
Bonjour Fuster,
Merci for the job recommendation mon ami. Quel hoot! Heady company Truffaut, Rohmer, Godard, et al. But in spite of quoting Voltaire, my French is so abysmal I know just enough to get myself to la bibliotheque, or else in Big Trouble.
Speaking of trouble, we've gone so far afield of the original thread, anyone tuning in now would be lost. So just to prove I'm not a complete scatterbrain, thought I'd mention that 'The Impossible Years' about a father dealing with his teenaged daughter is showing on TCM Sunday 6/19 at noon. I don't think I've seen it, but as it was made in 1968, might possibly have some Really Annoying Movie Music...etc.
Au revoir for now, et bon chance,
Gypsy
P.S. I love the barmaid in 'Shadow of a Doubt'. In that small scene she creates such a complete character of sad, weary, hopelessness with just those few lines, one could almost imagine another film starting right there about her.
I think 'Vertigo' is almost perfect, but for me there is one glaring piece of bad acting on the part of Kim Novak that bothers me. It's during her "Judy" part when Scotty is making her over, and she gets miffed and walks away with her hands behind her back pouting, and something about the way she does it just seems so over-acted and false, I'm surprised Hitchcock didn't have her do it better. You must be thinking what a nitpicker I am, but it's one of those teethgritting feelings I get when I watch it.
I'm not familiar with Bunuel (if subtitles are involved I usually pass; can't really enjoy the film while reading the dialogue) or Sirk. But fill me in.
When I really get my wits about me, I'll publish my "perfect" movie list on a separate thread for your perusal and critique.
-
Hi Fuster,
I can "imagine your horrors" as the same thing happened to me watching 'Sullivan's Travels' one afternoon. It was over twenty years before I ever saw the end of the film. Very frustrating!
It's funny you should mention the second Mrs. de Winter not having a name. It's been many, many years since I read the book and can't remember if it occurred to me at the time, but after watching the film again a few days ago, it popped into my mind that no one referred to her by name. I really think it was a symbolic device to reinforce the idea that she was a mousey, little nonentity compared to the glorious, larger-than-life Rebecca with her distinctive signature and large "R's" emblazoning her personal items, in addition to her name being mentioned constantly. Personally I think Maxim was an insensitive clod to simply plunk her down in the midst of Manderley knowing how ill equipped she was, and without any support from him. But this was also obviously intended to make her that much more vulnerable to the deliciously menacing Mrs. Danvers.
I always enjoyed the story I heard related by Peter Bogdonovich regarding the artistic differences between the subtle Mr. Hitchcock and the sometimes too obvious Mr. Selznick. Hitchcock was furious as at the end of the film Selznick wanted the camera to pan up above the flames of Manderley, following a wisp of smoke as it curls into a giant "R" in the sky. Hitchcock's comment, (at his British snootiest) "Can you imagine?" is priceless.
I haven't seen the film 'My Name is Julia', but it sounds right up my alley, and will look for it, thanks. I've only ever caught bits and pieces of 'The Chalk Garden' unfortunately, so hope one of these days to see it entirely. BTW, did you know Enid Bagnold also wrote 'National Velvet'?
As always nice chatting with you Fuster,
Gypsy
-
I've always thought Priscilla Lane and Bonita Granville looked like sisters.
And at certain ages I see a definite resemblance between Paul Newman and Richard Dreyfus. They could be older brother/younger brother.
-
Hi Kimbo,
Thanks for setting me straight regarding the film 'Suspicion'. Picking it up from a list on IMDb, I never read further than the title, not realizing it was a TV series.
I too like her novels, but unfortunately haven't read all of them. I consider it kindness rather than rudeness to put someone on the right track.
Gypsy
Annoying & Irritating Celebrities
in Hot Topics
Posted
3. Yes. 2. In spirit yes, monetarily no. 1. Almost completely flattered, but never again, thank you.