Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

Yes, I think there were many elements of the "Hitchcock touch" in the clip. Notably, the contrast of the bright interior of the theatre and the quick transition to the dark street outside and particularly the menace of the the the two pickpockets lying in wait. The inventive use of camera also seems visible in a embryonic stage. I don't think the scene is limited by the lack of sound. Already, it seems Hitchcock was pushing the limitations of the current technology. Even though an inexperienced director, he tells the story quite well visually.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Do you see the beginnings of the "Hitchcock touch" in this sequence? Please provide specific examples.

 

Not having seen very much of Hitchcock, I’m not sure if I can comment on his specific touch present within the clip. However, I’m looking forward to identifying his touches as I see more of his work through this class!

2. Do you agree or disagree with Strauss, Yacowar, and Spoto assessments that this sequence contains elements, themes, or approaches that we will see throughout Hitchcock's 50-year career?

 

Again, I’m not quite sure. It would make sense that Hitchcock’s first piece might pave the way for his later work, but I haven’t seen enough to know specifics.

3. Since this is a silent film, do you feel there were any limitations on these opening scenes due to the lack of synchronous spoken dialogue?

 

I do not believe that limitations existed within the silent film due to a lack of dialogue. Rather, I think that the lack of language enhanced the storyline because it allowed the viewer to specifically focus on the emotions and acting of the actors and actresses in the movie. I believe that the lack of language within the film shows Hitchcock’s ability to tell a complicated story through setting, character development and camera angles and shots.

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

Daily Dose #1

Daily Dose #1: Spiralling into View
Opening Scene from Hitchcock's first film, The Pleasure Garden (1925)

 

1. Do you see the beginnings of the "Hitchcock touch" in this sequence? Please provide specific examples. 

Yes, I do. I think that the point-of-view shot is a very importante element in later Hithcock films which always tries to put the audience in the character's place at some point, in this case, clearly to make us understand that the man is loosing his mind for the dancer. Also, It is possible to identify one of the main goals of the Hithcock movies: not everything is what it looks with the curly hair moment. Finally, I would add that the presence of clever women characters in Hithcock films (now I understand that this could be rooted on the early guidance of women screenwriters) can be suggested by the way the dancer deals with the certainly ackward situation with the man.

 

2. Do you agree or disagree with Strauss, Yacowar, and Spoto assessments that this sequence contains elements, themes, or approaches that we will see throughout Hitchcock's 50-year career? 

Yes, I do. As I said in my previous answer, there are many elements that could be later traced in Hithcock filmography. I specially agree with the word "audacious" used by Strauss. There is this feeling that Hithcock is always proposing new and fresh ideas like the blurred image to identify the point of view shot, the masked sides of the screen and the leg shot. I wonder if that image had some trouble with the censorship in England, I mean was there a censorship system in England like in Ths U.S.?

 

3. Since this is a silent film, do you feel there were any limitations on these opening scenes due to the lack of synchronous spoken dialogue? 

I think that even in the sound films of Hitchcock there are many moments just focused on actions and gestures, so I do not think that the lack of syncronized dialogue was a problem for capturing the sense of the scene or enjoy it.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at this clip, without knowing it was directed by Hitchcock, you would be able to discern many similar styles prevalent in numerous silent films during that time.  However there is a slight Hitchcockian feel to the clip when focusing solely on that prerequisite.  One thing I have always loved about Hitchcock films is his use of the background or the non-central area.  He often uses it as foreshadowing, or even as an "easter egg" before the term was even coined.  Perhaps he developed this technique due to his work in advertisements, knowing he needed to get as much information across with a limited amount of time, or sound, as is in his silent film work. He does this well here, in my opinion, even within this short clip.  From what I have seen I would like to watch the entire film to see if any of the non-central items I picked up on comes back into play later on.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please excuse me for this, but silent movies are to film what kodak is to smart phones.  I really don't like them, and find this clip as painful as all silent movies, even with Hitchcock directing.  

 

Sure you might see retro scenes that reflect hitch, but without sound, voice, n color you strip out 

the essence of what Hitchock films represent to film history.  POV is about the only device working,

n is not enough to say that this is one of his.

 

 

I loved that he recognized that some of his early work had to be re done.  That the medium

wasn't working.  

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Do you see the beginnings of the "Hitchcock touch" in this sequence? Please provide specific examples. 

Yes, one can see the beginnings of the Hitch style, the wiring of his brain - the most telling for me was the way scenes are shot- watching the viewer, slow pan across the men customers ( with the humour kick showing the sleeping woman), seeing many scenes at the same time, the backstage shot showing the whole theatre). I also notice the use of shadows and lighting- the spiral stairs, the faces of the thieves, and the very personal, and at times unsettling, POVs.

2. Do you agree or disagree with Strauss, Yacowar, and Spoto assessments that this sequence contains elements, themes, or approaches that we will see throughout Hitchcock's 50-year career?  yes, I do agree. An artist carries with themself their whole POV and it seems even at this very early chance for Hitch to bring out all the things he had been trying to do earlier as the other behind the scene positions he had occupied.

3. Since this is a silent film, do you feel there were any limitations on these opening scenes due to the lack of synchronous spoken dialogue?No, not really. I say this because as a modern film viewer one has to train oneself to be a silent movie viewer.  I have learned that really the dialogue placards are really there to make sure you , as the viewer, are on the right path - if you are watching the actors' mannerisms, facial expressions, and the body language between them, and if the score is done well, one can truly not even miss the spoken word and the dialogue placards become intrusive.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a big fan of silent films. I do enjoy Charlie Chaplin ones though. I've seen some of Hitchcock's early British work, but not this particular one. I wonder if this is on TCM's schedule for July. If so, I shall try and catch it. 

 

From that clip, I could definitely recognize some of his style from his peak days in the 40's and 50's. When I saw the picture before reading the notes, what I immediately went to was the staircase shot. What is a Hitchcock movie without a staircase shot? It was really great to see that this is something he started early on and never got rid of it. And I am glad he didn't and I'm glad he perfected it, because that is one thing I always look forward to in a Hitchcock movie: staircase shots.

 

I also caught something Hitchcock does pretty well in his movies, which is always making sure the audience knows the details of the plots with certain shots. In this clip, you could see the camera shot to the lady's purse when the gentleman is stealing her money, much like the key under the rug shot in Dial M for Murder. Hitchcock always wants you to be in the know of the plot, even the things the protagonists don't. 

 

Lovely start of what I am predicting to be an amazing course, and I look forward to learning so much more from this. I took a few Hitchcock master classes with Guillermo Del Toro a few years ago and it absolutely opened my eyes to how to watch Hitchcock movies. I can't wait til we get deep into this course so I can absorb even more as I watch more Hitch films. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1)I definitely see early Hitchcock touch here, well for one there's heavy emphasis on the blonde protagonist. For two the way the opening shot is upwards this appears in many of Hitchcock's later films. For three you can feel the troublesome dilemma the main blonde female character is going through.

2) Yes, I agree with them, again elements of despire and conflict see above.

3)I don't feel there was a restriction because of no dialogue. I think it portrays what it means in the actions, shots, and music.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's definitely interesting to read what others picked up on. For me, this is the beginning of my exposure to HItchcock, so I'm looking to learn what makes a signature scene. It'd be great to see a couple of examples and pull out some common characteristics, I'm sure that's in our new future!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Do you see the beginnings of the "Hitchcock touch" in this sequence? Please provide specific examples. 


Some beginnings noticed in this film are:


  • blondes (the chorus dancer)
  • parallel, connected scenes depicting diverging action (chorus girls backstage preening and the conversation between the character Jill Cheyne and the booth man) 
  • thievery [or a possible McGuffin] (the loiterer pick-pocketing Jill)
  • geometrical shapes / light with shadows (the spiral staircase, various lines / the stage lights, the ominous night sky with its curious inhabitants of the streets)
  • colorful music score (different sounds to convey different emotions, though this deals with silent films and other movies in general)   

2. Do you agree or disagree with Strauss, Yacowar, and Spoto assessments that this sequence contains elements, themes, or approaches that we will see throughout Hitchcock's 50-year career? 


There seem to be many characteristics of Hitchcock that we can observe in this film that are sure to be repeated within the next 50 years, as answered in the question above.  Yet, while watching this, I did not get any overwhelming sensations that made me think of Hitchcock - some of the points above were merely far-fetched observations.  That being said, it can be seen that some strong characteristics present in Hitchcock's films make their early debut in this film.  


3. Since this is a silent film, do you feel there were any limitations on these opening scenes due to the lack of synchronous spoken dialogue?


I feel there is a great advantage when dialogue is not present in a film - the viewer is now able to chronicle their own unique diction while viewing the same visual as anyone else.  There is a certain charm with the faces of silent film actors that evokes an isolated era in film.  By excluding synchronous spoken dialogue from this, I do not believe the limitations possibly presented weigh enough to notice. 


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Do you see the beginnings of the "Hitchcock touch" in this sequence? Please provide specific examples. 

​ ---Yes, the "Hitchcock touch" is evident in this sequence from ​The Pleasure Garden​.  The point-of-view shot through the binoculars brings to mind the binoculars of Jeff in Rear Window​ and the peeping Tom nature of the monocle-wearing man would be echoed years later by Norman Bates in Psycho​.  Putting us in his seat up front make us just as voyeuristic as the leering men.

 

2. Do you agree or disagree with Strauss, Yacowar, and Spoto assessments that this sequence contains elements, themes, or approaches that we will see throughout Hitchcock's 50-year career? 

​ ---I agree that this sequence contains elements and themes that we will see throughout the career.  Strauss says that Hitchock's juxtaposition of images was "audacious."  We can see this audacity in his juxtaposition of the binoculars coming up to the eyes followed by the narrow focus on the chorus girls' legs.  Once again, we are joining the men in the front row in their sexually-charged ogling of the beautiful ladies onstage.  Spoto's mention of the "puckish humor" comes in when we see the woman on the end of the row asleep while the men to her right couldn't be more alert.

 

3. Since this is a silent film, do you feel there were any limitations on these opening scenes due to the lack of synchronous spoken dialogue?

​ ---There are no limitations to this silent sequence.  Film is a visual medium, so the story should be able to be told with images only.  Without hearing one spoken word, we can discern that the shady-looking men outside the club are up to no good, and we wonder why they have stolen the young lady's letter.  We know that the young lady, now without her letter, is in trouble and may be manipulated into solving her problem in unsavory ways.  We also can understand that the featured chorus girl, Patsy, may have a dozen such "suitors" each week; her nonchalant removal of the curl of hair suggests that this gentleman isn't the first to be so "charmed" by her.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I do see several instances of moments in "The Pleasure Garden" (1925) that Hitchcock would also use in his later features with the "Hitchcock Touch." The music hall "audience" portion might have served as an inspiration for the audience portion in the "Albert Hall" scene in Hitchcock's 1956 remake of "The Man Who Knew Too Much."  Another instance would be in the scene where the villainous henchmen secretly steal Jill's letter of introduction to Mr. Hamilton, trying to gaslight her when she tries to present the letter to the clerk inside the Pleasure Garden Theatre.  This might have served as an inspiration for the sequence in "North by Northwest" (1959) where Phillip Vandamm (James Mason) and his henchmen (Martin Landau, Adam Williams and Robert Ellenstein) are gas-lighting Roger Thornhill (Cary Grant).  

 

2. I highly agree with Strauss, Yacowar, and Spoto's connection of the sequence and the "Hitchcock Touch."  Everything from the pacing of the film, to the expressions of the actors and the cinematography are Hitchcock's own style (that he would employ in his later features).  

 

3. I don't think there were any limitations (in "The Pleasure Garden") to Hitchcock's cinematic craft and style in his British silents.  With the advancement of motion picture sound technology (sound-on-disc and sound-on-film) at the end of the 1920's, sound would serve as a greater enhancement to the work of the "master of suspense."

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. Do you see the beginnings of the "Hitchcock touch" in this sequence?

​We are brought into the world of the theatre from the audience prospective, but then the camera focuses on the audience from the chorus' view.  The woman who was snoozing while the men were so engaged was a hoot.  We are brought backstage by the gentleman who wants to meet the blonde chorine.

 

2. Do you agree or disagree with Strauss, Yacowar, and Spoto assessments that this sequence contains elements, themes, or approaches that we will see throughout Hitchcock's 50-year career?

I've noticed Hitchcock takes ordinary people and puts them into extraordinary circumstances.  I believe the pick pockets are an early use of the McGuffin.  The theft makes us sympathetic to the girl who had the letter of introduction.

 

3. Since this is a silent film, do you feel there were any limitations on these opening scenes due to the lack of synchronous spoken dialogue? 

The acting and shots are expressive enough to allow you to follow the story even though there is no sound.

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. As to Hitchcock's style, you have a form of his familiar shot/reverse-shot of an observer with the front row of leering men.  The point-of-view going so far as to include an out-of-focus shot to match the spectators adjustment from monocle to opera glasses (similar to Raymond Burr when attacking the flash-bulb wielding Jimmy Stewart in Rear Window). There are also the comedic touches, of the spectator stepping on the others foot, and the dancer's removal of the admired curl. Then criminal intrigue (which the audience is made aware of, but the character is not), as the young innocent is victimized by a pick-pocket, changing her planned fate.  And then Hitchcock's frequent visual symbolism, which is better described for #3.

2. I agree with the assessment that one sees motifs and methods which Hitchcock always used.   In general, that the visual as the primary conveyor of information - which has its roots in silent cinema.  You don't need title cards to describe everything.  The visual was Hitchcock's desire for 'pure cinema'.

3. Considering silent film was the only form of cinema, the only method film-makers knew, and that Hitchcock was an artist of the visual frame, I don''t think silence was a limitation to him.  (Not that he wasn't ready for sound, as exhibited with the talkie version of Blackmail.)  In this clip, you have the female performers' spiral 'descent' to the stage, 'lower' themselves to be objectified, leered at and hit on by the male patrons.  As previously mentioned, the shot/reverse-shot to see what a character sees, then see their reaction. Later, you have the manager, smoking in front of the 'No Smoking' sign, showing he is in control, he makes his own rules.  

In case it doesn't show, I love Hitchcock! :-)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely feel the lack of synchronous sound when we see the girls dancing and the music doesn't match what they are doing, especially when the focus moves to the lead singer. The medium shot of her makes it easy to see that she is singing, we could almost lip-read, and the men are reacting to her singing, but the lack of sync-sound makes it frustrating, especially for the modern viewer. It doesn't help that the soundtrack at that point (which is probably a modern addition, not anything Hitchcock chose; in 1925 the music with the film would have been live) is completely out of rhythm with the singer's performance.

I didn't miss dialogue, though. The blond-with-a-curl's performance comes across loud and clear without it!

 

I agree with the people who pointed out Hitchcock's penchant for dramatic irony. In this opening sequence, his camera is distant, lighting briefly on this character or that (on the wealthy old theatre patron whose impotence and harmlessness is implied by the fact that he can't even see the girls on the stage unless he uses a monocle or binoculars) and the inserted closeup shots from the perspective of the pickpockets. Although these are POV shots, the emotional perspective is from the narrator, who is saying "see the bomb under the table? See it, see it?" Described in narratological terms, the omniscient camera sets the scene, swooping down to give us a sense of this minor character and that one, until we are finally put into Patsy Brand's emotional perspective and we know the story will be about her and the wannabe ingenue.

 

(As an aside, it's clear that Josef von Sternberg saw The Pleasure Garden, as in 1930 he took the minor character of the old man infatuated with a chorus girl and made him into a tragic figure in The Blue Angel, the film that made Marlene Dietrich into a star).

 

The first true emotional perspective shot is  when Patsy sees the wannabe ingenue about to be accosted by the two shady men in the back of the theatre and is moved by her plight (the end of this sequence). We know from the emotional impact of this shot that the rest of this film will be about these two women.

 

Many of the POV shot devices used here had been used in the earliest silent films. For example, the POV shot through the binoculars and the monocle, the masking of the shot to look the way it looks through the monocle clearly refer back to George Albert Smith films from early 1900s such as As Seen Through a Telescope (even including "the money shot" being a close-up of a young lady's ankle) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_Seen_Through_a_Telescope

See the film here:

 

and Grandma's Reading Glass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandma%27s_Reading_Glass

see the film here:

 

 

I could see from the end of the scene, where the experienced chorus girl sees what is happening to the wannabee, that Hitchcock had seen and remembered Alice Guy's film The Great Adventure from 1918 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Adventure_(1918_film) where a veteran theater actress prevents a young ingenue's virtue from getting ruined. In Alice Guy's film, the veteran actress was "too far gone" to find love herself, but she makes sure the ingenue finds it. I haven't seen the rest of Pleasure Garden yet, but it seems that Hitchcock takes the opposite approach in Pleasure Garden (based on Wikipedia plot summary)

https://onceuponascreen.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/hit.jpg

hit.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Do you see the beginnings of the "Hitchcock touch" in this sequence? Please provide specific examples.

I noticed the blondes but nothing really led me to believe it was a Hitchcock movie. It kind of reminded me a bit of slapstick humor because the man stepping on toes to get to the end of the row and the lady pulling her curl out because the gentleman was feeding her a line about how the curl drew her to him.

 

2. Do you agree or disagree with Strauss, Yacowar, and Spoto assessments that this sequence contains elements, themes, or approaches that we will see throughout Hitchcock's 50-year career?

Maybe but I'm new to Hitchcock so I'm not really sure. I feel like if he thought it was a worthy trait he would continue to use it in his films.

 

3. Since this is a silent film, do you feel there were any limitations on these opening scenes due to the lack of synchronous spoken dialogue?

Maybe a little. I could tell what was going on and the placards helped. It did hold my interest and I am curious what the lady who had the introduction letter was and what she was doing at the theater.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can definitely see the beginnings of the Hitchcock style, including multiple story lines that tie together.  The spoken words are not needed in this particular case as the emotions are clearly defined in facial expressions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if there's one thing I like/hate about this boards is that people don't rest. Things move at breakneck speed  :lol:

 

Anyway, to the topic at hand,..

 

1. Do you see the beginnings of the "Hitchcock touch" in this sequence? Please provide specific examples.

 

Yes. Most of the examples have already been mentioned, but to recap... voyeurism, theater/stage, blondes, staircases, quirky pov shots, strong women. In some ways, 

 

And expanding on the film, which I just saw today, another thing that I noticed was how Hitchcock started to tread on topics that are now familiar to us on his filmography. The Pleasure Garden was only one of two of his silent films that I hadn't seen and I was surprised to see here many of the same themes he explored later on his other silent films like infidelity (The Ring, The Manxman), the and the price of fame (Easy Virtue).

 

2. Do you agree or disagree with Strauss, Yacowar, and Spoto assessments that this sequence contains elements, themes, or approaches that we will see throughout Hitchcock's 50-year career?

 

Yes, I agree. See above. The topics of infidelity, the dark side of fame, as well as guilt and murder are all known staples of Hitchcock. I was actually surprised at how dark the film was, particularly for a debut film of the 20's.

 

3. Since this is a silent film, do you feel there were any limitations on these opening scenes due to the lack of synchronous spoken dialogue?

 

Not at all. Hitchcock once said...

 

"if it's a good movie, the sound could go off and the audience would still have a perfectly clear idea of what was going on."

 

 

I believe this is true of these film. Even the dialogue cards are few and sparse cause there's a clear idea of what's going on. Silent actors and directors were pretty good at conveying their emotions with their eyes and body language and I think Virginia Valli and Carmelita Geraghty use theirs neatly.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a number of Hitch's tells in this short clip, from the fixation on the blonde, the juxtaposition of the man with the cigar puffing away in front of the "Smoking Prohibited" sign, to the use of the camera and lighting to direct the viewer's focus.  But the formative idea shown here is the idea of voyeurism-who's being watched and who's doing the watching.  The chorus line performs and expects to be watched by the audience in the scene, but we also get significant time as ourselves watching from the wings.  That view opens up a sense of vulnerability because the dancers are oblivious to our presence. 

In addition, the watcher who succeeds in meeting his fixation suddenly becomes incompetent-he sweats and he throws out a terrible line.  He was much more comfortable and powerful as a spectator than as a participant. This could be the seed of the theme of the everyday man thrown into circumstances for which he is dreadfully unprepared, as in The Man Who Knew Too Much or North By Northwest.

The idea of the watcher and the watched of course shows up as a major theme in Rear Window, but also consider young Norman Bates peering through the peephole much as our tuxedoed gentleman peers through his binocular. 

Hitch's art background serves him well-he needs no dialogue to support the imagery in telling the story, nor do we have any difficulty in determining where in the frame to devote our attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the third TCM class that I have taken, and I have never participated in the online discussions. I find it difficult to express any new thoughts that haven't already been posted. With so many voices speaking about the same questions posed, I feel like I am just a parrot.

That said, I haven't seen a Hitchcock film in years, so trying to say that this shot or that theme is one that he will develop over the years is what I expect to learn in this course.

These are my thoughts. Although it feels like I am talking to myself.

ELigner- Every participant is helping by sharing ideas and thoughts. We all are learning from each other. Keep at it- you're doing fine. Thank you for participating. It gets easier.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. One thing that stuck out to me in this scene was the pan of the faces in the audience and their reactions. I've noticed this in other Hitchcock films where the camera will pan and focus on different faces in a setting. You'll learn a little about each person even if they don't end up being part of the main action of the scene or even having dialogue, but details are given to their reactions and nonverbals. I'm specifically thinking of Torn Curtain where you see the various riders in the bus ride sequence and some of the scenes in the Birds where the townspeople are gathered in the restaurant. 

 

2. What Spoto says about the rapid cuts from the observer to the observed also makes me think about The Birds when you see the cuts from Melanie to the action of the fire and the birds at the gas station.

 

3.  I don't feel that the lack of sound detracts. I am always curious if the viewing experience would have been different in a theater with an organ vs watching a silent movie with music that has been added later on. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with much of what is posted here. One hitchcockian device I noticed in the clip was character not being aware of a dire situation. We saw the woman's pocket had been picked- but she did not know this. It reminded me of the scene in "The Birds" when Tippi Hedren is sitting on the bench, the kids are singing the creepy little song, and the birds are gathering on the jungle gym.We see the birds Gathering but Tippi Hedren's character does not I believe the scene in the clip is in very early form of that plot devicdevice.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Do you see the beginnings of the "Hitchcock touch" in this sequence? Please provide specific examples.

 

It seemed a bit slapstick of sorts. Nothing made me believe this was a movie by Hitchcock. Knowing now what he is so well know for I didn't see the "Hitchcock touch".

 

2. Do you agree or disagree with Strauss, Yacowar, and Spoto assessments that this sequence contains elements, themes, or approaches that we will see throughout Hitchcock's 50-year career?

 

I think it was so early on his career that I didn't see the the typical Hitchcock elements that he is so well known for.

 

3. Since this is a silent film, do you feel there were any limitations on these opening scenes due to the lack of synchronous spoken dialogue?

 

No I don't think there err any limitations. You can grasp the sense of what is going on in the scene and gather vibes from the audience. Facial experiences say plenty without having to have words accompany them. I like others would like to know who these,en was at the end of the scene and why she was there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitchcock has great comedic timing and a wonderfully dry wit. The comedic moments Hitch puts into his films always seem to fit the scene without breaking the flow of the action and suspense. I think we see an attempt at that here, but because it is a silent film, it comes off as bad slapstick. I enjoy slapstick, but it should be left to the professionals like Chaplin and Keaton. For a Hitchcock film, it felt awkward to me.  Perhaps if I had the context of the full film, my concerns would be lessened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...