traceyk65

> PS - Davis as Scarlett would have been a grave mistake, imho, throwing the film off-kilter in her direction, as some have mentioned here. > > Edited by: Arturo on Jul 9, 2013 8:10 PM > > She would have had to have a VERY strong director, to rein her in. Or maybe just acting opposite Gable would have balanced things out? Like putting Marlene Dietrich opposite someone like Gary Cooper or John Wayne or even James Stewart, someone very American, tended to tone down her exoticism a bit. >

You know that video is funny, but it would be funnier if there weren't a bunch of people in govt right now who believe it's true...not that OZ is anti-feminist, but that women need keepers. Yikes.

> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=traceyk65 wrote:}{quote} > > The first two movies aren't terrible--they were competent--nothing spectacular or special, no sense of "magic" or of entering another world like you got from reading the books. I am sorry to say that my feelings are not in agreement with yours. > > I believe the first movie is the best because it conveyed the innocence of a boy thrust into a new world. I loved that with the exception of the shaft-of-light scene when he was in the wand shop that all of the magic and special effects were subtle and perfectly believable and that this went far to making it a very special world. Well, we all have our own opinions. I just did not feel like the characters "lived" in that world until I saw the third movie. With the kids especially, it felt to me as though they were just people in costumes and not real people. In the first movie especially, I felt as though the script/director was giving us a tour of Harry Potterland "Oh look, here's the pub where witches hang out...now straight ahead you'll see the magical entrance to Diagon Alley, the magical world's favorite shopping district...on your left you'll see the famous Eyelops Owl Emporium..." I don't know--it seemed very false to me. In the third movie, it felt like everyone was more comfortable with their roles and the language (which they probably were, especially the kids) and the sets didn't feel like sets, they felt like real places that could exist. The third book was a bit of an anomaly--it's the only one that doesn't feature Voldemort as the bad guy in any form. It does give Harry a sort of inside view to his parents' lives that he didn't have before and really except for exposing Peter Pettigrew and getting Sirius out of prison, it didn;t really advance the story much.

OK, it may be completely geeky/childish of me, but I am a big fan of the Harry Potter movies/books as are my kids, so we saw/read them all. Multiple times. I think the difference in quality between the first two and the third lies, in large part, with the director. The first two movies aren't terrible--they were competent--nothing spectacular or special, no sense of "magic" or of entering another world like you got from reading the books. Pretty faithful to the actual text of the books (which is something peoplre always complain about, but it isn't necessarily a virtue) but kind of boring. And, cardinal sin in my book, the script took out much of the humor. What was left, with the exception of a few lines, was obvious, contrived and very slapstick. Then came the third movie, directed by Alfonso Cuaron, and it was wonderful. It's the only one of the films he directed and is by far, the best. Granted, the kids had become better actors and that helped, but I think the biggest difference was the director (though I could be wrong). The script didn't follow the books exactly, but there were so many added little touches that helped create that sense of entering another world that was so missing from the first two films. The sets were better and more detailed, with all sorts of activity going on behind or around the characters, who are often shown in longer views/shots for just this reason. One scene in particular really worked--near the beginning of the film there's a scene of the boys all sitting in their dorm, wearing pajamas and fooling around eating magic candy. There's no scene like it in the books, but it's funny and intimate and pulls you into the world of the film. But Cuaron doesn't linger on it--after a few seconds he swoops outside into the night, where the dementors (evil, soul-sucking monsters, for non-fans) are waiting, creating a chilling contrast between the warmth and security of the castle and the danger outside. The kids are given little lines and actions that make them seem more like the teenagers they are (like Hermione worrying about the state of her hair when they are in the middle of a crisis). Funny little touches like cheerful waltz music during a scene where Harry turns his evil bitchy Aunt Marge into a human balloon and imbuing the whomping willow (a sentient tree) with a comically nihilistic personality, I could go on and on...Here's one of the scenes I mean--there's no point to it, as far as driving the plot, but it's just another one of those little things that makes the movie enjoyable. It takes place in the wizarding inn called The Leaky Cauldron, where Harry is meeting his friends before going back to school. or Lupin's boggart class: Sorry about the length--I do get a bit too enthusiastic at times!

> {quote:title=FlyBackTransformer wrote:}{quote}About the star wars movies, in ROTJ we learn that not only Luke but Leia as well are both of them Darth Vader's kids...but didn't Lucas in actuality blow it with the first film by having Princess Leia in close physical proximity to Vader numerous times throughout starting with the rebel ship interception and continuing right up to the detention cell interrogation?...*should not Vader even then have sensed that Princess Leia was his daughter???* ] :^0 :^0...ps. and why even mention the initial event of an imperial assault team wiping out Vader's brother and wife who were Luke's foster parents. No doubt Luke's uncle was from his mother's side of the family. :^0 I seem to remember something about Leia not being as strong? And I only saw the first two prequels and have been trying to forget them ever since. I get where Lucas was trying to go with them (the redemption of Darth Vader, blah blah blah) but he did a terrible job getting there. Not to mention that using "Hayden Christianson" and "actor" in the same sentence is ludicrous...he's pretty, but he's about a good an actor as Kristen Stewart.

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}I've read that Ava bio. Good, although the title is a bit strange. Wasn't it based on a quote she made at some point? I can't remember.

In honor of the 66th anniversary of the Roswell crash: a sci fi tribute featuring the Assylum Street Spankers: & another tribute featuring The Pixies:

No problem and thanks for the tip on the Ava book--I hadn't seen it. Another star autobio that was surprisingly entertaining was Shirley Temple's Child Star. I'm not sure if I buy all of it (especially the part where she finds out her father isn't exactly an honest man, but maybe she IS that forgiving) but she's very honest about her antics while in high school and so forth.

I read Ava Gardner: Love is Nothing over the winter and found her fascinating. She certainly never did anything by halves! This new book sounds a little like I'd Love to Kiss You which was conversations between Whitley Stein and Bette Davis. Boy was that ever frank! If you want another star autobiography that's pretty frank Swanson on Swanson is another good choice.

> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}Well over 3 days ago (July 2nd), I replied to you with: > > Scarlett might of become too much like Regina in The Little Foxes (but both characters were ruthless and formidable woman at their core). > > > > > > {quote:title= > }{quote} > > > > > > > > > > Sorry James! I have got to learn to reference/state myself better. What I meant about not thinking of comparing Scarlett and Regina was that I hadn't thought out the implications of an alternate storyline where Scarlett gets her way and marries Ashley. It would have eventually put Ashley in much the same position as Horace Giddons--a sort of weak but highly honorable man asked to do something that went against his principles, all for the sake of money. Thinking further about that, Ashley IS put in that position when Scarlett A) wants him to run her mill and when she uses convicts as cheap labor. He is completely against both ideas and Scarlett uses his affection (lust?) for her and his overly-chivalrous better nature to manipulate him into going along with both ideas. Julie in JEZEBEL is s similar sort of character, except she isn't after money (being rich, she's never needed it). She's high-strung, stubborn, self-willed and certain of her right to do more or less whatever she wants to do. She's sort of like Scarlett would have been if the Civil War hadn't happened and she'd never had to grub for money and go hungry and work in the fields. She shows a similar talent for manipulation--when she convinces George Brett's character that Pres has "insulted" her (knowing he's besotted with her and would do anything for her) and the two men duel. Even her self-sacrifice at the end is as much her saying "I want to nurse him back to health, only I can do it and you can't stop me!" and staking her exclusive claim over Pres as it is a loving act.

> {quote:title=j}{quote} > > {quote:title= > As for if Davis was cast it would of become a Davis film; Yes, that could of happened which is why Tracey and I mentioned that Davis would of needed a director she respected and would listen to like Wyler. Also, with Gable as a counter balance it might of worked (verses say her common male counter parts like Brett who she clearly overshadows). > }{quote} > > > > Yes! That's exactly why I would love to have seen Davis with a more substantial male counterpart (like Gable), someone who was sort of immoveable object to her irresistable force, so to speak. I don't think she ever starred with anyone who could really keep up with her, as far the sheer impact she made on the screen goes. The only male co-star Ive seen who could pull my attention away from Bette was Claude Rains in DECEPTION or possibly George Sanders in ALL ABOUT EVE, but both of those were supporting roles and not really co-stars. This could be because they both have a style of acting similar to Bette's--sort of flamboyant and over-the-top?

Spent yesterday in Toledo wishing my son, Jake, a Happy Birthday, so in honor of his birthday, here's a James Bond (sadly, the only classic type movies I can get him to watch :| ) tribute: And Happy Birthday to Janet Leigh:

Happy (late) Fourth of July! Here's James Cagney as Birthday boy George M Cohen in YANKEE DOODLE DANDY to a selection of songs from the soundtrack

> {quote:title=selimsa803 wrote:}{quote}So many of these posts mention Scarlett's "great beauty" when the first line of the book is "Scarlett O'Hara was not beautiful, but men seldom realized it when caught by her charm as the Tarleton twins were." And then goes on to describe a rather sharp-faced woman. > > It's also interesting that Bette's Julie is most often compared to Scarlett when her Regina Giddens is more Scarlett's spiritual sister. Julie is an aristocrat through and through and operates as one. Scarlett and Regina come from more questionable backgrounds. Regina from a working class family on the make, while Scarlett's father was an immigrant who left his own country on the run from the law. Their gentility is only a thin veneer. While all three women have determination and drive, Julie's is based on a firmer footing and in the end, her breeding wins out over her natural tendencies. > > I actually think Regina almosts presents a portrait of what Scarlett would have become had she been able to cajole Ashley into marrying her. > > That said--as a huge Davis fan--I am still glad she wasn't cast as Scarlett because I think it would have become a "Bette Davis" film instead of the film it is. Not a bad thing, necessarily, but I do like the film it is, which isn't a Vivien Leigh film or a Clark Gable film, if that makes sense. > > And if you think the Rhett in the film is wimpy, oh lord, don't ever read Donald McCaig's Rhett Butler's People, kind of a combo retelling and sequel from Rhett's POV in which Rhett is an unrecognizable lovesick schoolboy, drenched in so much poetry and nobility, even Ashley Wilkes would have gone "Whoa, dude. Dial it back." Exactly! Scarlett was NOT pretty, she just acted it and that's exactly what Davis does in JEZEBEL and MR SKEFFINGTON. And oh my goodness! I didn;t even think of comparing Scarlett to Regina, but you're soo right! I can see Scarlett doing that, becasue there were taxes due on Tara, because Ashley is a lot like Horace--honorable and unwilling to go against his beliefs and morals even if it means losing a big pile of money (whihc is something neither Scarlett nor Regina could tolerate).

> {quote:title=bagladymimi wrote:}{quote}Tracey, what part in the Glass Menagerie did Hepburn play? Dorothy McGuire played Laura in the film I saw with Kirk Douglas and Arthur Kennedy. I never saw a film in which Katherine Hepburn played that role. I would be interested in seeing it because I think that a toned down Hepburn might have done it justice. While McGuire did an okay job, the film clearly belonged to Douglas. > > Edited by: bagladymimi on Jul 4, 2013 1:18 AM > It was a TV movie in 1973. Hepburn played the mother with Sam Waterson and Joanna Miles as the brother and sister. Michael Moriarty was the gentleman caller. She does a respectable Southern accent, I think. Her tremors had started by that time mar it slightly, but it still works.

> {quote:title=VP19 wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}They aren't so much lost as not easily available. Most of her output (at least during the 30s) was at Paramount which is owned by Universal now. They don't turn up too often on TCM...... > Neither do most Claudette Colbert or Carole Lombard Paramount programmers. Fans of these three legends say: "Get with it, Universal!" YES! And they need to get on expanding the available DVD (for R1 anyway--you can get them for R2).

As long as they don't start reality programming...

In SW Ohio, we eat Cincinnati-style chili on our chili dogs. Skyline is probably the best. If you like that sort of thing and are travelling through, try a Skyline cheese coney or a 3 Way (chili and cheddar cheese on spaghetti).

I know Hepburn can do a Southern accent (The Glass Menagerie shows off her skill pretty well) but as much as she may have wanted the role, I can't see her in it (though I'd have loved to see her with Gable at least once). Goddard is too...modern a star to me. Ive watched her audition (and Jean Arthur's) and can't picture either one in the role (not to mention that Jean was probably too old). One thing the casting of Vivien Leigh as Scarlett (or at least her interpretation of Scarlett as flighty and a little silly at times) allowed was a victory for Rhett, aka Gable. After all the hell she put him through, he sort of had to come out the victor or the audience would have totally lost all respect for him. Bette would probably have fought him to at least a draw, regardless of the director.

Happy Birthday George Sanders! (I didn't know he sang! Did you know he sang? Guess I should have--Ive seen Jungle Book...) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJKYey6B91A ...and one for "All About Eve"

You might be right--a "serious" Scarlett would have been harder to take, while the lighter way Vivien Leigh played her sort of de-fanged the character (who, while having the emotional depth of a teacup, was actually a pretty ruthless and formidible woman). With the right director, say William Wyler, who could control her and rein in her excesses, I still think Bette would have made an awesome (if sort of scary) Scarlett.

Since it's one of my favorite genres...Pre-code tributes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDTdQJdkLhk&feature=related

Thank you both!

Ive read several different versions of why Bette didn't get to be Scarlett, but I'm not entirely sure which one is the truth. The one that seems to ring truest (to me anyway) is the one in which Jack Warner tells Bette that he has a great script for her and she turns it down sight unseen, so Warners passes on the film and Sleznick snapped it up. Does anyone know what actually happened? Anyway, the point of this post is to say that everytime I watch JEZEBEL, I become more and more convinced that Bette would have played the hell out of Scarlett O'Hara (not that I didn't like Vivian Leigh in the role, mind). Just throwing it out there...