Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

& i

Members
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About & i

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 03/12/1983

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Mississippi

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Having seen this movie dozens of times, it's only in the last year or so I've truly come to understand the relationships between the characters. As a young girl I thought the romantic relationship was between Eliza and Professor Higgens. I was wrong. While they do enjoy a loving relationship, it is not a romantic one. (Compare even to the "original" Pygmalion from 1938.). It has become clear to me that Higgens and Pickering are in a relationship in this version. It's so blatant that I find it hard to believe that audiences in 1964 didn't pick up on this. He prefers the company of men. I mean, Let a woman in your life? https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/theater/reviews/19pygm.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=8F96C25231647F5CAD312F094A186E5E&gwt=pay
  2. Gaslight= I knew that you could do it, you did it, you did it. I knew that you could do it and, indeed you did! (Eliza clearly had nothing to do with "it". That's pure Gaslighting.)
  3. Thanks so much. This is MASSIVELY helpful! I think I first heart this term regarding Jet Li in Hero. Must have been "the symbolism in the mise-en-scene" and I've conflated those terms ever since. Really appreciate the clarification.
  4. Hey Darlene, it just takes time! It seems like these forums are probably helping you "see" movies in a different way. And I agree, I love being able to think about the foley part of a movie, which is critical, but I've never given much thought to before. I definitely think the more you talk to people about movies, the more naturally that analysis will come. My husband and I annoy everyone by talking during movies, but it's literally us analyzing movies the whole time (maybe killing the enjoyment???) and then discussing them afterwards. I'm just glad you're enjoying the movies, which is far and away the best part! Sometimes I can be too critical and it ruins the pleasure of enjoying a film. There's something really magical about seeing a movie for the first time and "suspending your disbelief." So, if you can still watch a movie like that, I'd say you're pretty lucky oh, and if your goal is to become more analytical then definitely talking about the movies is key. The forums have already helped me A TaoN! I bet by the end of this class, if you watched any of these movies over again, that you'd see things you hadn't noticed before, and you'd be able to analyze the heck out of 'em!
  5. I had always understood this term, mise-en-scene, to be tied to symbolism. Like how the literal set, costumes, etc., can reinforce themes or motifs, for example, the emotional state of the characters or the scene itself. An off-the-cuff example could be Cyd Charisse's green costume in Singing in the Rain could symbolize the jealousy Gene Kelly's character feels about her with regard to the coin-flipping gangster. Literally "green with envy" type of thing. I've always used this term with a connotation of symbolism, perhaps I've been wrong?
  6. 2. I noticed the husband/wife are wearing complementary outfits of cool gray and white, while the other two are in blue shades. I also noticed the geometric patterns, in every ensemble. Her skirt and Fred's stripes being the obvious examples. But one character has dark blue rectangles on the shoulders of his lighter blue shirt. The husband's blazer also has a subtle geometric pattern. Watching today, I sort of think this indicates the "straight" laced or "square" trope that the powers that be wanted us to think the '50s stood for. I'm sure I'm being anachronistic, but it makes me wonder. True, Nanette has a splash of red, flare if you will. But otherwise, it's not just cool grays and blues, but the structured geometric patterns that strike me. No floral prints, no organic patterns. Everything is has a structured pattern that conforms to the individual character which in turn, conforms to the larger group. They're not the same, but they coordinate. Another way to put it is that no one's outfit falls out of line. literally. It's all lines, rectangles and structured geometry. Even the diamond shape made with their bodies in the dance sequence reiterate this point. (Miles away from the paisley wallpaper we'll see in My Fair Lady.)
  7. 1. I think the beginning movements are quieter, shorter, clipped which does sync up with their singing. As they go along, the singing and movements become bigger, louder, more grandiose. He holds the big pose when he sings "Moooooooo--ses". 2. The professor is a great straight man. Watch him in the beginning- he's so pleased with himself, thinking" Yes, excellent phonetics, I'm an excellent teacher". As they go on, it's like "yes, yes, this is still phonetics." And by the end he's like "is this still phonetics? Is this thing off rails?" It's as if he thinks he's a wonderful teacher, even though his students are already masters of elocution. To the point where the students can improvise a song about the excerise they just heard. 3. The professor plays the typical straight man, academic type. Which has a type of masculinity. Donald O'Connor always seemed willing to play more "feminine" movements, batting the eyelashes, almost flipping the "hair", etc.. Both O'Connor and Kelly seem to be willing to play with gender ideas or roles, like when they play with the curtains and their facial expressions and body language. But again, they're playing off the stereotypical absent minded professor type who keeps thinking "yes, yes these are my students and I taught them excellent elocution" even though the students are clearly better with the rhythm of words than he is.
  8. I agree! I totally got into The Broadway Melody because I recognized so much from Singin in the Rain. Having watched this movie so much as a kid, I think it really helped me connect with the '30s musicals. Turns out I love the '30s musicals. So great full to take this class to be able to appreciate movies I've never seen before. Oh, and Dr. ament being a foley artist and speaking on perspective of the challenges of that subject immediately made me think of the scene in SitR where her necklace beads are being picked up by the mic. And subsequent takes with varying degrees of disaster/hilarity. It's so fascinating to think about movies from different perspectives within the industry. I think Modern Romance with Albert Brooks' was the most recent movie that made me aware of foleying as an art. Super cool that our prof. really did this and has an awareness of this art form and technical side that she's shared with us.
  9. Thank you for bringing up South Pacific because I LOVED this movie as a kid. Although I haven't seen it in like, twenty years. I was reading about it a while ago and that's when I realized it was offensive! I think I was so caught up in the romance of the whole thing that the larger, cultural issues probably escaped me when I was younger. I'd really like to watch it again and wish it were playing on TCM. (Think this has something to do with the distribution rights, as mentioned in other threads.) Your thoughts here make me reiterate the notion that things can still have merit or value, even if it lacks certain virtues. Aesthetically, I think this has the most "atmosphere" of any musical I've ever seen. And perhaps the rejections of racism that were powerful at the time, aren't as forceful today. BUT, perhaps these are ideas that were needed at the time to continue the evolution of cultural inclusivity. Like, they were as powerful as they could be at the time, until things evolved and messages could become even more direct and powerful? Wondering what you think. I could never shame anyone for liking this movie, there's too much shame and not enough empathy in the world! My sister and her husband have spent the last six months in Southeast Asia and I wonder if they'd have a different takeaway than I do. And I wonder what I'd think if I rematches it today.
  10. I just want to say that I appreciate you fellow TCM fans for the thoughtful discussion here. I feel like TCM is the one place where anyone of any group can come together and appreciate Classic movies in a respectful, thought provoking manner. As a millennial (I still prefer to consider myself Gen Y haha) I've recused myself from all other social media, it's too vitriolic. Just to say, I really appreciate the TCM forum and this course for its civility, even dealing with topics of race and gender equality which can be hard for people to talk about. Of course people are emotional or passionate about these issues, yet we can still love old movies (We don't have to love them all.) Its also really hard to think about things in the lense of yesteryear versus today. I agree SOTS shouldn't necessarily be banned (noted it's not banned, just buried in the vault for reasons y'all discussed) and I have this vague recollection of seeing it once as a kid, though that would have been the late '80s or early '90s. I think someone said it was re-released twice, though Wikipedia says Disney hasn't released it for home viewing since its initial release. I'm sure someone's already mentioned that some of the songs are available as clips, even if the whole movie isn't. I do remember reading the B'rer Rabbit stories in schools and loving them, mainly because he was always getting out of tricky situations and I liked rabbits. B'rer rabbit stories have African origins and was later published by Robert Roosevelt, then later Joel Chandler Harris. Then adapted for screen by Dalton Reymond, a Southerner, and Maurice Rapf, who was Jewish and initially hesitated the offer to write the screenplay, fearing it would be offensive. As an adult, I realized SOTS is offensive today. Wonder if this is due in part to being adapted, several times, by non-African Americans? Whether you like the movie or whether it has aesthetic merit in spite of the stereotypes are different issues to explore. Can a movie like this still have cultural or aesthetic merit in spite of stereotypes? (Not having seen it in years, except for clips I can't speak to this movie specifically.) I believe they talk about SOTS in the PBS documentary on Walt Disney, I can't remember if it's part I or II. Apparently Disney wanted King Vidor to direct the live action sequences. I read that Disney didn't even want to watch the film with an audience due to "unexpected" audience reactions. That said, it's probably staying in the Disney vault for a while. Again, previous commenters discussed the reasons for this. I think the idea of the movie being offensive at the time of release is totally a valid one, especially taking into consideration the segregation laws at the time which were obviously objected to by people. James Baskett wasn't even allowed to take part in the premiere festivities since it premiered in Atlanta. Similarly, Hattie McDaniel didn't attend the Atlanta premiere of GWTW several years earlier. Obviously, people picketing outside theaters makes me think at least some people found it offensive. I also wonder if there is a difference of view, not just in race, or in age, but in cultural demographic (North/South) that makes people find it inoffensive or offensive? Also, if you saw it as a kid you might have different feelings about it.
  11. oh, and I wanted to touch on Lover-o-classics mention of Yul Brenner. I agree his performance is great, and to my mind he's the best version of this character I've seen. The version with Rex Harrison as the king felt really weird to me. Much as I love Rex I just can't love this movie. Maybe it's because I saw The King & I before Anna and the King of Siam. I have a hard time believing Rex Harrison is from Thailand.
  12. Interesting topic. I agree about Paul Muni and Luise Rainer. Myrna Loy was originally cast as "exotic" in a number of early films, a fact that I think puzzled her. And I Totally agree about Mickey Rooney's (mis)casting in Breakfast at Tiffany's. A musical we haven't discussed in class, South Pacific, has an African American actress, Juanita Hall, playing Tonkinese character, Bloody Mary. Apparently she was personally chosen for the role by Rodgers and Hammerstein in the original stage production. Curious that her singing voice is dubbed for the movie version. She also played a Chinese-American character in Flower Drum Song. Side-note,you get to see Marni Nixon in The Sound of Music as a nun. Her dubbing for Audrey Hepburn in MFL caused a bit of a scandal, since people were surprised Julie Andrews wasn't cast, having played Eliza Doolittle on stage.
  13. I'm just getting into these older musicals, thanks to the class. Grew up watching my Fair Lady, Singing in the Rain, Whit Christmas, South Pacific, etc.. Through the this course I've gone to notice the performers' strengths. So, Fred is dynamite (never seen him before a few months ago on TCM.) Forget the line "Can't act. Slightly balding.Also dances," the guy oozes charisma!!! What I find interesting is the talent Poole. Who dances wellvs sings well, vs Acts, well? Fred is a triple threat. His looks have grown on me as he's suave AF and can tap out a tune. I always loved Gene Kelly, but seeing Fred makes me reconsider my line-up. Gene sings better, acts better, is better looking. But, yes lacking that ja na sais quoi Fred's got. seems like you're either a singer or a dancer +actor, and only the rarity does it all well. freds the best dancer bings the best singer franks the better singer gene can sing, dance, act, he's dreamy but a you know what judys the best singer but she can dance ethel waters sings like an ang l, better even than judy ginger can hoof her socks off rita hayworth ---who knew she was a dancer.. And was she agrees favorite little key I read on Wikipedia? i read a story that during filing of Singing in the Rain, Debbie Reynolds was crying on set be Gene had been a court to her and insulted her dancing abilities. So, she's crying and fried just happens to be on the lot that day and sees her crying and asks what's up. She tells him how rud gene was to her and Fred Astaire personally gives her a dance lesson, right there. Can anyone corroborate this? Marica? i also read they want d Fred and Donald oconnor in White Chrismas. By luck if the universe, Danny Kaye was cast to perfection alongside Vera Ellen, Holly woods skinniest waist. But she could dance. Again in that movie, Bing and arosemary are the singinging talent, while Danny and Vera dance. Fascinating.
  14. Um, what musical as Russ Tamblyn in? I just finishe Twin Peaks and would Love some suggestions. Thanks!!!
  15. #1 so many here have answered so well, but my two cents is this: Whether Petunia is kneeling at Joe's bedside or hanging laundry, or folding it, or washing dishes, her conscious mind is preoccupied with Little Joe. To wit, lil joe is not the be all end all motivation for Petunia. Petunia's motivation, salvation, preoccupation, is God. But on Earth, she cares for little Joe and his immortal soul. Joe brings her happiness, but to her that happiness is a manifestation of Gods love. It is not degrading, or demeaning, that she does laundry or keeps a house. It's an honest job and she works herself to the bone to provide for hers. Point is, she's a hard worker and whatever action she's performing, she finds happiness in it just thinking of Lil Joe. one moe point here: remember in the movie how luscifur Jr. Gets Lil Joe to rest instead of fixing the ceiling. Well, idyll hands are the devil's playground, as they say. So, Petunia constantly working reiterates she's a Godly woman. #2 i wonder if the song would change and how. Their relationship is almost like mother and son- in the sense that Petunia is mothering Little Joe. Again, reiterating his name is Little Joe. This is way before the our modern conception of "man child" but that's basically what Lil Joe is to petunia. She washes his clothes, watches over his immortal soul. This is not a "Romantic" relationship where one is swept off their feet. It's not passionate, it's not sexy. It's the life of a good woman, caring for her man. And as many downsides as that may have for Petunia, she's all in. Petunia basically plays the Madonna trope in this film. #3 Aside from the segregated services and Japanese internment camps, there is a signifying unity of Americans. Perhaps this is the era that give us "black Americans" as a bomafide group who are free and fight for our collectivecountry. (With obvious echoes back to the past in wwI, etc.). Example, all African American VAs start to pop up. Black Americans go to Europe and see what atrocities a nazis are committing against people. American audiences are waking up to that too and perhaps want to be more inclusive. Even so, studios, many with members who've just narrowly averted persecution in Europe, want to send the message that the US is a safe haven for people under siege. Many of these same folks, who united the US during the war against fascist propaganda, would be blacklisted as communists a decade later.
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...