traceyk65

> {quote:title=jbh wrote:}{quote} > Tracy, I may not have clearly understood your original post, and I knew I came off really snarky. Apologies offered sincerely. I emphatically agree that people should not be knocking each other around. However, men always seem to get really turned on by girlfights, which has always seemed truly juvenile to me. I used to be horrified watching the girls on the playground in high school, rolling around on the ground, pulling each other's hair, screaming, and showing their granny panties (that dates me again). Violence seems to be the social norm these days, everywhere, so it's rather hard to ignore. As for the sex, I'm no prude. I just don't like watching others, especially teenagers, doing it. And we could really discuss these subjects for days. Again, sincere apologies. I'm really happy it's Friday. > > Sorry I did not use your screen name properly, as I see MsW did (she is very observant). I think I probably need to put on my specs for future postings. > > Edited by: jbh on Mar 4, 2011 9:05 PM That's ok. Honestly, I have glorified violence in some of my posts--I think the cat fight in Destry Rides Again is very funny, for example...I just don't think that the violence in old films should be overlooked or dismissed. It's real and its there, whether we like it or not.

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote} > tracey, I suspect what you were referring to in your post about violence outside of the usual venues in films is the way in old movies, people like Gary Cooper and Cary Grant will haul off and sock some guy who's ticked them off. It comes across as a kind of "defending their honour" thing. Often as not it' s their honour, although quite often it's the honour of their leading lady. > I've noticed that it was considered not only respectable, but almost de rigeour for them to do this. They almost never end up in jail, no one presses assault charges. It often occurs in comedies . Yeah that's part of it, but I also have a problem w/ film noir--the guys are always duking it out and worse, they seem to always be shaking or smacking the woman. Not cool. And I like film noir.

> {quote:title=jbh wrote:}{quote} > So you question perfectly respectable men settling things with any type of violence in old movies? I would much prefer that to the more recent movies involving women with all kinds of weapons pursuing vendettas (Kill Bill 1 and 2 as an example). I am a great horror movie buff, if the horror movie is great, and I don't mind the gore when it is germane. But violence for violence's sake is just rather nauseating, and as for sex, just watch prime time sitcoms and series. I get sick of seeing heteros, homos, trans, bias, and everything else rolling around everywhere; sex has been introduced into everything, even egg commercials. I realize I'm ranting here, but fade-out leaves one to one's own devices, and the imagination is much more intriguing than watching two people (whatever their proclivities) swap various and sundry body fluids on the screen. Imagine watching these things appear unexpectedly during the family hour, with your 10-year-old grandchild in the room... I could go on forever but I won't. Just had to reply, 'cause this sorta touched a nerve. Honestly, I question anyone settling things with violence. I didn't say a preferred the violence in today's movies; I was just saying that there was as much violence in old films as newer ones but the violence was just a different sort. I don't like the way men (or women) in old movies felt it was ok to smack each other around. And I'm cool with fadeouts; I just feel there are some old movies that should have let them at least get to the fadeout.

> {quote:title=exapno wrote:}{quote} > Athlete: Anybody, Anywhere who has tried to play Babe Ruth -excepting, of course, The Babe himself in *Pride of the Yankees* - William Bendix was HORRIBLE...... I dunno--John Goodman didn;t do too badly. He played him as a womanizing, hard-drinking party boy, which in addition to being a great baseball player, he was.

I keep hearing about all the sex and violence in today's movies, and yeah, there is a lot of it. But movies of the past aren;t always less violent--they're just less spectacularly violent. There are fewer fiery explosions, and there are fewer shootings. But there's quite a bit of violence; the main difference is it's personal violence. As much as I love film noir for the dialogue, the way the men think it's ok to smack the women around in those movies kinda turns me off. And everything seems to be settled between men by fistfight. And before someone jumps in and starts talking about the kind of movie made today where things are settled by gunfire, the shocking thing about violence in older movies is the way it doesn't seem to be confined to the ghetto or criminals. Perfectly respectable middle class men duke it out and no one thinks anything of it. I don;t know--is there that much difference? I'm in agreement about the sex, though I think there are some old movies that could have done with a bit more. The first one that pops into my head is Morocco --Dietrich gives Cooper her room key and it seems that these are not the kind of people who "date" but the script gives them one chaste kiss behind a fan, then he gets arrested before they even get to a tasteful fadeout.

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote} > I 've noticed a lot of people on these boards have it in for the Coen brothers. They always cite violence and swearing as two evils perpetrated by the Coens in their filmmaking. I really don't understand this; they do have violence in many of their films, but they also have quite a few with no or very little violence whatsoever. ( *O Brother Where Art Thou?*, *Intolerable Cruelty*, *A Serious Man* ...) > When they have a lot of cursing, as Kinokima observed, it's because of a certain character given to cursing. > I do acknowledge that the Coens are not for everybody's taste, and I will be the first to concede that they've made their share of failed movies (I hesitate to use the word "bad"), but it seems that it's always the Coens who are brought up as the whipping boys for concerns over excessive violence in current cinema (nobody can accuse them of graphic sex scenes). There are other respected filmmakers who have used violence in their films that's at least as graphic and disturbing as the Coens, but nobody mentions them eg, Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino. > > All three of the filmmakers I've named above do often use graphic violence in their movies, sometimes excessively and unnecessarily. But I would argue that these same films are about a lot more than violence, that all three of these directors tell good stories, feature three-dimensional characters , and examine serious issues. And sometimes they're funny, too. Not to mention Raising Arizona--the main characters, even the escaped convicts don;t swear much at all. What violence there is is there for a reason. And it's a very funny movie.

> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote} > FredCDobbs wrote: > << Quite a lot of people stopped going to movies in theaters when they gradually turned into mostly trash. >> > > After seeing this advertised on TV, you got a very good point. Even a Rated G movie can be suited for the dumpster. I'm simply speaking of the *quality!* > > > > Edited by: hamradio on Mar 2, 2011 11:37 PM My goodness. That's my husband up there...LOL

> {quote:title=johnm_001 wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=FilmAficionado wrote:}{quote} > > I > Look at all the awards *Cabaret* won over the years in different versions. Clearly, it's no "flash in the pan!" The only musical that comes close in popularity and longevity is *Show Boat* (1927). > > > > > > What?!?!?!?!? If you love CABARET, that's certainly fine and dandy, but to make statements such as the above, as if there was anything even remotely available to back it up, is just odd. There is nothing (not cast album sales, not Broadway tickets sold, not motion picture box office receipts, not television ratings, not movie rental fees, not show licenses leased) - NOTHING to support that statement. OK, no sales reciepts, but here is the IBDB page. It ran for 1165 prformances first time around. That's pretty successful, I think: http://www.ibdb.com/production.php?id=3348

*Birthdays Today:* *Jean Harlow:* Red Dust: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VajWLwilD58&feature=related Libeled Lady: *Tragic Hollywood Deaths:* James Dean: Carole Lombard: Marilyn: Valentino:

My favorite number from the film: My favorite number NOT in the film:

> {quote:title=FilmAficionado wrote:}{quote} > > Then came the Broadway play I Am a Camera. Julie Harris played Sally Bowles and was awarded a Tony for Best Actress. John Kander and Fred Ebb wrote the musical score. The songs are considered among the best ever written for a musical comedy. > > Julie Harris?? As in Member of the Wedding and The Haunting of Hill House??? I can't picture her int his role...

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote} > How about O Meets Othello, and makes him forget Desdemona... as long as he brings enough toys...

*Birthdays today:* *Dr Seuss:* Green Eggs and Ham: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-OPnBz6ctU&feature=channel The Sneetches: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh1qWZWNGGE&feature=channel The Lorax: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T9vw0jnGOg&feature=watch_response The 5000 Fingers of Dr T: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcwAymlCB1k *Desi Arnaz* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOymiA_-vSk&feature=related Babalu! With Lucy: *Jennifer Jones*

*Birthdays today:* *Leap year baby Michelle Morgan:* Le quai des brumes: *Les actrices francaises:* *Jane Russell, RIP:* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOyWh2q60og&feature=related Holding ?The French Line?: Gentlemen Prefer Blondes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvTLFy2i5jc&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pthokb18V7U&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=MLGxdCwVVULXegcabHEN-SO9egd9o32Z8P Making an impression at Grauman?s:

Is this _The Story of O_ ? Or _Othello_ ? 'Cause I hope it's the latter...

*No birthdays today so here?s a salute to drunks in film:* W C Fields: Humphrey Bogart: *Comedies:* Nick and Nora (Myrna Loy and William Powell): Desk Set (Katharine Hepburn and Joan Blondell): Philadelphia Story (James Stewart): Ninotchka (Greta Garbo and Melvyn Douglas): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCsu_s8K9K4&NR=1 All About Eve (Margo Channing): *Not-so-comic:* Notorious (Ingrid Bergman): Who?s Afraid of Virginia Wolfe? (Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, George Segal and Sandy Dennis): The Lost Weekend (Ray Milland): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pApq8aN-VS0&feature=related

*Birthdays today:* *Franchot Tone* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLGkWRzQ9WQ *Liz Taylor* *Joan Bennett* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RChdOVycoXk Dark Shadows: *Joanne Woodward* And Paul Newman: *William Demarest* Miracle at Morgan?s Creek: ?What?s in the Box?? in the Twilight Zone with a seriously grumpy Joan Blondell and seriously creepy Sterling Holloway. Watch the other 2 parts?this is a goodie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F179RjEYNE&feature=related

> {quote:title=RichardKimble wrote:}{quote} >> > I would like to have seen Cagney in the role. Forget the Southern accent -- Cagney had the charm as well as the menace. His take on Long, A Lion Is In The Streets, was unfortunately a mediocre movie and the Long character was made into an outright villain. Perhaps if he'd played Willie Stark the character would have been more evenly shaded. > > I also think Spencer Tracy might have done well. The Ford-Tracy Last Hurrah is an interesting version of a Longish character (if heavily romanticiized from the much more cynical novel). I've never really thought a lot about this film (not one of my faves) but I think you;re right about Cagney. He'd have been impressive in the role. Tracy might have pulled it off too, if he called on his early gangster roles to recapture the edge. He managed it for the movie State of the Union, for a while he seemed like the corrupt politician he was supposed to have become, but then he did a 180 and became Mr All American Spencer Tracy again. I know the script called for it, but I thought it was too abrupt--he's been stomping on his wife's feelings for months and then suddenly in the final 5 minutes of the movie, he changes? Just because she finally tells him what she thinks, then goes on the air to support him anyway?

If we're going to discuss remakes, how about the two versions of Holiday ? I have to say I prefer the 1938 version with Hepburn and Grant, just because I like the two of them, with their chemistry better than Ann Harding and whoever her co-star was (can't remember his name to save my life). I also love the way Lew Ayres plays the brother--he has just the right balance of sardonic and sadness to make you believe and want to save him. And I like that they expanded edward Everett Horton's role and added a part for Jean Dixon--I like her and they are funny, without the sometimes nasty edge that Hepburn's humor has (not her fault--it's written into the part, I believe). I do however, like Mary Astor as Julia better than Doris Nolan--she's prettier and sweeter-looking and I can beleieve Johnny fallin in love with her on a purely physical level better. Nolan looks so hard, I can;t believe Johnny would fall for her. (I think Aster vs Nolan was discussed on another thread somewhere?)

One of the better reasons, which misswonderly mentioned, to watch High Society And one I don;t think she mentioned, Louis Armstrong...

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=FilmAficionado wrote:}{quote} > I've never seen the original *Maltese Falcon*, just the John Huston version. Would like to check out the other two you mentioned. I've seen the Bette Davis-Warren William version, Satan Met a Lady (1936)--in fact I think it played on TCM a while back. It's interesting, if you are a Davis or Warren fan, but not as good I think. They play it as a comedy (sort of) and changed the names to protect the not-so-innocent. Alison Skipworth takes over the Sidney Greenstreet role, which sort of works, but the chemistry between Davis and Warren is just not good enough to make it work. Though the more I think about it, the more I want to see it again. I kept comparing it in my mind to the 1941 version and that's not really fair--they may be based on the same story, but handle it very differently. Hmm... Edited by: traceyk65 on Feb 26, 2011 9:27 PM

Had a thought about Suddenly Last Summer--the way Violet says, "Sebastian and Violet, Violet and Sebastian," besides being creepy--is it some sort of sideways reference to Twelfth Night? In that Viola and Sebastian are twins and are mistaken for one another at one point?

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote} > This seems to be a new trend, re-thinking Shakepeare with a female playing a lead male character. At the Stratford Shakespeare Festival ( in Stratford, Ontario) they are featuring a new production of Richard III, with a woman playing the villainous title role. I'm still trying to decide if I want to see it or not. Prospera, ok, that's doable, even interesting , especially with Helen Mirren. Even a female Lear or Othello would work. But Richard III is based on a real person. How can they gender-bend that?

> {quote:title=ChorusGirl wrote:}{quote} > It can be horribly distracting. After reading about the brief Norma Shearer/Mickey Rooney affair, I cannot watch either of their films without having to visualize that truly bizarre sexual pairing--and wondering what the hell Norma was thinking. (its in Rooney's autobiography, and also in Gavin Lambert's book on Shearer) > Ewww. Of course, maybe ole Mickey has something going for him that we'd never suspect--he did manage to get Ava Gardner to marry him (along with 7 others women) plus he was linked (maybe by studio publicity?) to Lana, Carol Landis, Betty Hutton Gloria deHaven and a host of others. "Sure, I love the chicks. I love 'em all. But when you're nuts about too many, how can a guy settle down to one?"

> {quote:title=annelovestcm wrote:}{quote} > I am more disturbed by celebrities doing commercials than anything else > after that I cannot stand them anymore > they should do what they are famous for > they are already paid too much money why do they have to do commercials??? > let some unknown get their shot They've been doing them since there were stars and commercials, beginning with magazine ads. Nothing's changed that way.