traceyk65

Battle of the Blondes (more like a rout in my book!)

Nice, Liegh! I'd not seen either of those. I especially love the music for the Ginger video! In answer...here's Robert Montgomery to "Sing, Sing, Sing." I love his crazy faces and the "bro shake" with Gable @ about 1:07 :

I have followed a number of the links and they lead to some very interesting articles about the studio system and Old Hollywwod and LA.

> {quote:title=Dargo2 wrote:}{quote}Now c'mon, dark. I'm sure Sepia meant that metafor...ummm...metophor...ummmm....he really didn't meant it literally. Well, I once followed the advice of Dorothy Parker and did NOT toss a book aside lightly. I threw a copy of Breaking Dawn across the room once. With great force. So maybe it WAS meant literally...

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote}Well, I hate to disagree, but I care and so do a lot of other fans of today's films. I think the people who do not care are people who write here on the forums who are specifically Old Hollywood fans. > > To them nothing after 1960 means anything to them. And that is alright. Heck, I'm not a fan at all of the silent era. So there. > > Some recent movies like Lincoln, Les Miserables, True Grit, even Star Trek are films to look forward to. They all have very strong supporting casts and that helps tell the story of the movie better. I think the point of this thread was that you don;t get those groups of supporting players that you could recognize, in every movie every time, even if you didn't know their names. They generally specialized in a certain "type" of character--the gruff dad/older man with heart of gold (ala Eugene Pallette or Charles Coburn), wise-cracking sidekick/best friend (ala Eve Arden or Thelma Ritter) the other man/woman who loses (ala Gail Patrick or Ralph Bellamy) the crazy/eccentric of indeterminate nationality (Mischa Auer or Sam Jaffe) etc etc. That was just part of the reality of the studio system--each studio had a staff of players of various types they could pull from (listen to me, going on like you all don;t know this. LOL) and you could expect to see certain people depending on which studio made the film. That's been lost today, as someone said, because most actors are free lance. The only time you see the kind of consistency you used to get is when a director puts together an informal "company." For example, in a Coen Bros film, you can reasonably expect to see Frances McDormand, John Goodman, Steve Buscemi and John Turturro, among others. They also have a team of creative and support people they tend to work with.

I cannot remember if there's a thread somewhere discussing terrible movie endings? If not, what do you all think are some of the worst movie endings? One that immediately comes to mind is the ending to WOMAN OF THE YEAR. Yeah, ok they get back together, but not until Hepburn has made an idiot of herself (in an admittedly funny scene) and offered to give up everything, if only Tracy will try again. And yes, she has been self-centered and has expected him to make all the compromises up to that point and yes, he dials it back and doesn;t expect her to give up everything for him, but it just sort of leaves a bad taste. (And I keep wondering what happens with the kid--do they go get him? Or do they just leave him in the orphanage?) I think the original ending, which had Hepburn's character making an honest attempt to appreciate what her husband does for a living is much more realistic.

> {quote:title=selimsa803 wrote:}{quote}I'm glad we didn't get to see that beauty parlor scene because the "reveal" of the new Charlotte on board the ship is such an iconic moment when she glances up from under that elegant, dashing hat. And yet you still feel her uncertainty, can see the waiting barriers, ready to be put back in place. And there are still moments where that uncertainty lingers, like when her sister-in-law invites her to play bridge and Charlotte hesitantly questions whether she will fit in. And when June asks if she can ever forgive her for being so horrible, Charlotte jokingly replies "Never!" with a fierce hug, but there's a real catch in her voice. It's a great performance. I read somewhere (I'm always reading something somewhere and can never remember where ) that the butterfly cape Charlotte wears in the dining room scene was symbolic of her transformation. Any thoughts on that?

> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote}I believe that movies in which story is more important than explosions still have many good supporting roles. A prime example of this is the Harry Potter series. The number of speaking roles is quite high and even the janitor gets into the act. > > Pirates of the Caribbean is a series with many supporting roles also. Depp is surrounded with a wide cast each adding their personal marks. I was just thinking of both those films! Great minds? LOL The films of the Coen Brothers also seem to have interesting supporting casts. For example, RAISING ARIZONA stars Nicolas Cage and Holly Hunter, but has pretty great supporting roles for John Goodman, William Forsythe and Francis McDormand.

I have only seen clips from "Zardoz" but I would like to see the whole movie some time, especially given the OZ allegory explanation. ( In the clips it looked like a darker version of Barbarella, except with a male protagonist. Obviously, those clips were misleading! )

It really doesn;t matter if two actors like each other does it? I've read that Gable and Leigh weren't too crazy about each other, but their chemistry works just fine (not to detract from my own argument about Bette, but Vivien Leigh was great as Scarlett--I just would like to have seen Bette do it--even a screen test!) And it really doesn't matter if they have a hot affair off the set . I read that Marilyn Monroe and Yves Montand had an affair during the filming of LET'S MAKE LOVE, but supposedly their onscreen chemistry was nil (I don't know for sure, having never managed to see it) Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn had great chemistry, but they were just good friends. Same with William Powell and Myrna Loy. I do remember reading somewhere that Bette always wanted to make a movie with Gable--that she had a major crush on him.

Every movie good guy needs a villain or else what's the point? Harry Potter needs Lord Voldemort, Robin Hood needs Prince John and Guy of Gisbourne, etc etc. So here's a tribute to villains, especially attractive villains, (BTW, does anone know what movie is shown a 2:10?)

I came across this page on FB. It's got lots of interesting links to the "odder" elements of old Hollywood, as well as some interesting mainstream links. Though maybe some folks might find it interesting: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Decaying-Hollywood-Mansions/111378268883521

> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=traceyk65 wrote:}{quote} > > The original point about the direction was valid, I think I think that it was more than valid: it is definitive. It is as you said that all other factors were equal but the movies are vastly different. It is perhaps the best possible example of a series where each movie had common elements and the only difference was the directors. > > > > > > > > I tried to think of a classic movie example that fit that well--maybe one of the "series" movies, like the Falcon or Tarzan movies? I'm not a big fan of those, so I can;t really comment...Anyone?

> {quote:title=bagladymimi wrote:}{quote}Fred, I agree with you about the kissing. I really can't see them as a couple. They didn't have the right chemistry > I'm not sure how we could know about Bette and Gable, because they never did anything together, did they?

Fabulous film noir tribute (it's a little long, but worth it): Ive been having a discussion on another thread about Bette Davis as Scarlett, so here's a JEZEBEL tribute: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqqFF6f6BfM

Here's one for Friday! (BTW, if you feel inspried, please do go ahead and post something...)

In honor of his birthday, Yul and his Magnificent Chest (You have to love a man who can pull off lines like this. While wearing a skirt.) Yul with and without hair. I prefer him without...

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}I just can't imagine Clark Gable kissing Bette Davis. Errol Flynn kissed her in several movies...

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > Only when she removes these anti-glasses does her "vision" improve and she can now see the world as it is. > That same thing always happened when Clark Kent removed his glasses. I always wondered why Clark Kent's "super" eyes didn't melt the glasses with his heat vision. I like "Now Voyager" but I think "The Letter" or "All About Eve" will always be my favorite Bette.

SansFin, fair enough. You have your favorite; I have mine... The original point about the direction was valid, I think--the two movies are vastly different and the difference lies in the direction, as pretty much everything else was the same--the actors, the writer, the main producer and the soundtrack composer were the same for movies 1-3.

> {quote:title=Dargo2 wrote:}{quote}Actually tracey, that IS the very thing that MAKES IT funny....that in this day and age there are STILL people, both men AND women, who think like that, AND who go to the polls in order to elect those very people to those governmental offices of which you speak. > > So don't go solely blamin' the people who get elected, my dear. > > (...and now after this slight "correction", I think we better move away from this tangent here) Last word on politics...the fact that so many people agree is what I find so disturbing. They would watch that video and agree heartily. There. Done.

Over the past few months, my sister and I have been playing around with writing silly captions or quotes on pictures of Classic Actresses, like Dietrich and Davis, sending them to each other, etc. Anyway, I thought you all might appreciate some of them...

In honor of John Gilbert's birthday, a couple of clips--one silent from BARDELYS THE MAGNIFICENT and one talkie--DOWNSTAIRS. I like him best in the latter I think...