Neglected films...how would you define a film that's neglected?

[TopBilled]

For my New Year's resolution, I aim to watch one neglected film per day. I guess it's a noble endeavor, but it's kind of a selfish one too...because there are films I haven't seen and if I don't make a list and go out of my way to find them and watch them, I will never see them and benefit from viewing them. Yes?

But how does one define a neglected film...? We all know that if something has aired on TCM 135 times, like NORTH BY NORTHWEST has, it is definitely not neglected. So for purposes of my list, I decided that if something has been shown 25 times or less by TCM since 1994, that's basically a neglected title. Especially if it's a title in the Turner library that the programming department could have scheduled more often in the past 27-28 years and didn't.

I know titles like LETTY LYNTON (1932) are in rights limbo and cannot be shown or given a home video release, but that's not the film's fault if it is still being neglected. However, a lot of the sound films produced during the studio era (1930 to 1959) are not in rights limbo.

A lot of films from Columbia, Universal, Paramount and Republic are neglected and assigning blame won't help. Many of these titles have been restored, even if TCM does not play them, and they can be found online.

Of course there are different reasons why titles have become neglected...for instance, they may not be deemed classics (a lot of the studio programmers are just routine time fillers); they may be compared unfavorably to bigger and more popular pictures with similar themes; they star obscure actors who did not catch on with the public, etc. There are many reasons.

Anyway, I want to start focusing on neglected films and giving them a bit of attention in the year(s) ahead.

How would you define a neglected film and what are some examples that come to mind..?

[EricJ]

In my experience defending 80's films, it's sometimes one that still gets pop-criticized for an offscreen scandal, or bad box-office at the time, or bad reviews, by a generation that clearly hasn't actually sat down and watched the actual movie, but finds it amusing to hand down the pop-stories from father-to-son.

Only recently, I realized I was talking to the first generation that had to be TOLD "Clue" didn't do well in theaters, but other neglected 80's titles-by-reputation still are not so lucky today.

[TopBilled]

18 minutes ago, EricJ said:

In my experience defending 80's films, it's sometimes one that still gets pop-criticized for an offscreen scandal, or bad box-office at the time, or bad reviews, by a generation that clearly hasn't actually sat down and watched the actual movie, but finds it amusing to hand down the pop-stories from father-to-son.

Only recently, I realized I was talking to the first generation that had to be TOLD "Clue" didn't do well in theaters, but other neglected 80's titles-by-reputation still are not so lucky today.

What a great reply. Great because I think you bring up something I didn't-- that bad box office sometimes determines whether something becomes neglected (if said film does not get rediscovered and become a cult classic). 

Sometimes films perform poorly at the box office because the timing is lousy...because there is a glut of a certain type of story, or a lead star is over-exposed and a backlash occurs...but the film itself may still be worth watching.

[uncle charlie]

This isn’t a studio era film but when I was a kid (in the ‘70’s), my favorite film was “A High Wind in Jamaica” from 1965. I don’t know if TCM has aired it but it used to pop up on television from time to time. I haven’t actively looked for it but I haven’t seen on TV in at least 20 years.

[TopBilled]

9 minutes ago, uncle charlie said:

This isn’t a studio era film but when I was a kid (in the ‘70’s), my favorite film was “A High Wind in Jamaica” from 1965. I don’t know if TCM has aired it but it used to pop up on television from time to time. I haven’t actively looked for it but I haven’t seen on TV in at least 20 years.

I've seen it. It was made by 20th Century Fox in England. It does air sometimes on FXM Retro (formerly known as the Fox Movie Channel). And yes, it's quite entertaining...Anthony Quinn is excellent in the lead role. It was produced during that period in mid-60s when the production code was being abolished and the studio era was fading. So it feels like old-fashioned entertainment but also like something "newer" than was traditionally being offered. 

[TopBilled]

Okay, so as part of my resolution to look at one neglected film per day, I decided to start with a classic Paramount film from the 1940s that I had not seen before. It's never aired on TCM.

DESERT FURY (1947).

I chose this one because I had watched a video interview that Lizabeth Scott did, and she talked about the making of DESERT FURY. Her comments piqued my curiosity.

[hamradio]

Re: NEGLECTED FILMS...HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE A FILM THAT'S NEGLECTED?

Shoved away to rot.

Like to recommend this book, got it in early 2020,

 

This Film Is Dangerous is an anthology published by the International Federation of Film Archives (FIAF) to examine and to celebrate the life, the death, the afterlife, and the mythology of nitrate film. It incorporates the papers given at the symposium The Last Nitrate Picture Show during the FIAF Congress in London in June 2000, as well as a wealth of original contributions by historians, archivists, veterans, and enthusiasts around the world.

 

I own 2 movies which were transferred (not restored) just in the nick of time.  Both has nitrate decomposition.

"Helen's Babies" (1924)

"The Bluebird" (1918)  Love the score by Jack Hardy (Grapevine Video).  Screen snapshot shows a scene with decomp .

 

 

[TopBilled]

19 minutes ago, hamradio said:

Re: NEGLECTED FILMS...HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE A FILM THAT'S NEGLECTED?

Shoved away to rot.

Like to recommend this book, got it in early 2020,

 

This Film Is Dangerous is an anthology published by the International Federation of Film Archives (FIAF) to examine and to celebrate the life, the death, the afterlife, and the mythology of nitrate film. It incorporates the papers given at the symposium The Last Nitrate Picture Show during the FIAF Congress in London in June 2000, as well as a wealth of original contributions by historians, archivists, veterans, and enthusiasts around the world.

 

I own 2 movies which were transferred (not restored) just in the nick of time.  Both has nitrate decomposition.

"Helen's Babies" (1924)

"The Bluebird" (1918)  Love the score by Jack Hardy (Grapevine Video).  Screen snapshot shows a scene with decomp .

 

 

Do you feel every film should be saved?

[hamradio]

1 minute ago, TopBilled said:

Do you feel every film should be saved?

Considering we have lost about 80% of early films, many should be saved as possible. This is just from ONE vault fire.

[TopBilled]

As I focus each day on one neglected film, I thought I would mention I am using MovieCollector's database as a reference. Again I am defining a neglected film as anything that TCM has played 25 times or less. 

TCM has been on the air since 1994, which is going on 28 years. My idea is that if something has only played 25 times, that means it is only appearing on TCM once a year, not even once a year. Many films from the studio era have played less than 10 times on TCM.

The "heavy hitters" (NORTH BY NORTHWEST and MEET JOHN DOE) have aired over 120 times and they will likely continue to be scheduled.

Yes, I know the reason some films are not broadcast often on TCM is because they are controlled by studios and production companies outside the Turner Library (Paramount, Republic, Universal, Columbia and 20th Century Fox). But they are still neglected by TCM, for financial reasons if nothing else (because they cost money to lease).

As I spent the past month going through the catalogue of films from each major studio, from 1930 to 1959, I did find a lot of titles in the Turner Library (MGM/UA, WB, RKO) that TCM's programmers do not schedule very often. There are a lot of neglected films that just do not get the exposure they deserve.

I felt like I had to create a thread about it, because I wanted to create more visibility for these films as it will increase knowledge about this part of our cinematic and cultural history. 

I also spoke with Jlewis recently. We have a long-running Essentials thread where we review titles by theme each weekend. And I told him I felt we need to do a theme called "Not a classic but not meant to be." Not every release from the studio era was meant to be a classic. Most of these films were just produced to entertain, to keep studio personnel busy, and to comment on then-current issues in society. They are there for us to watch and learn from today.

All of these films should be in equal broadcast rotation, because they are all a window into our history and progress.

[LsDoorMat]

19 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

As I focus each day on one neglected film, I thought I would mention I am using MovieCollector's database as a reference. Again I am defining a neglected film as anything that TCM has played 25 times or less. 

TCM has been on the air since 1994, which is going on 28 years. My idea is that if something has only played 25 times, that means it is only appearing on TCM once a year, not even once a year. Many films from the studio era have played less than 10 times on TCM.

The "heavy hitters" (NORTH BY NORTHWEST and MEET JOHN DOE) have aired over 120 times and they will likely continue to be scheduled.

Yes, I know the reason some films are not broadcast often on TCM is because they are controlled by studios and production companies outside the Turner Library (Paramount, Republic, Universal, Columbia and 20th Century Fox). But they are still neglected by TCM, for financial reasons if nothing else (because they cost money to lease).

As I spent the past month going through the catalogue of films from each major studio, from 1930 to 1959, I did find a lot of titles in the Turner Library (MGM/UA, WB, RKO) that TCM's programmers do not schedule very often. There are a lot of neglected films that just do not get the exposure they deserve.

I felt like I had to create a thread about it, because I wanted to create more visibility for these films as it will increase knowledge about this part of our cinematic and cultural history. 

I also spoke with Jlewis recently. We have a long-running Essentials thread where we review titles by theme each weekend. And I told him I felt we need to do a theme called "Not a classic but not meant to be." Not every release from the studio era was meant to be a classic. Most of these films were just produced to entertain, to keep studio personnel busy, and to comment on then-current issues in society. They are there for us to watch and learn from today.

All of these films should be in equal broadcast rotation, because they are all a window into our history and progress.

 

Some films on the moviecollector list were shown only once because they were mediocre - TCM showed lots of below average westerns in the 1990s. Some of them were shown only once because TCM made a mistake early on and aired something that they did not have the rights to. Still others were shown in the 90s but not later on because they have not been restored and today the poor quality would be unacceptable. 

Let me give you a suggestion of a Columbia film that aired only once, in January 2007, and in pristine condition. It is "By Whose Hand?" (1932).  I have no idea why Columbia restored this only to do nothing with it. I will tell you there is an obnoxious unnamed drunk who is determined to follow Ben Lyon around, and the joke gets old fast.  Fortunately,  the drunk goes away about halfway through the film. 

 

[TopBilled]

4 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

Some films on the moviecollector list were shown only once because they were mediocre - TCM showed lots of below average westerns in the 1990s. Some of them were shown only once because TCM made a mistake early on and aired something that they did not have the rights to. Still others were shown in the 90s but not later on because they have not been restored and today the poor quality would be unacceptable. 

Let me give you a suggestion of a Columbia film that aired only once, in January 2007, and in pristine condition. It is "By Whose Hand?" (1932).  I have no idea why Columbia restored this only to do nothing with it. I will tell you there is an obnoxious unnamed drunk who is determined to follow Ben Lyon around, and the joke gets old fast.  Fortunately,  the drunk goes away about halfway through the film. 

 

I don't think "mediocre films" should be kept off the schedule or away from consumers. Mainly because this is a subjective term and one person's junk may be another person's treasure, as the old saying goes! Really, though, all of these films provide evidence of how we've evolved as a society and in terms of entertainment, they denote trends in performance styles even if the films are not classics per se.

Again not every film is meant to be a classic. Should the hundreds of films released in 2021 all be considered classics 50 years from now? No. But should they be neglected and become obscure? Certainly not. They provide a window into our times for future generations to see.

The studios have vast resources and I think they should be restoring all the films they have inside their vaults (such as the Columbia title you mentioned). As Hamradio illustrates in previous posts, unrestored films are at risk of being lost to the ages and then we have even less tools to study ourselves and to see how we should progress.

[Sepiatone]

On 12/25/2021 at 4:44 PM, TopBilled said:

For my New Year's resolution, I aim to watch one neglected film per day. I guess it's a noble endeavor, but it's kind of a selfish one too...because there are films I haven't seen and if I don't make a list and go out of my way to find them and watch them, I will never see them and benefit from viewing them. Yes?

 

That's a fairly optimistic  take, as there's no guarantee  there'll BE any "benefit" from viewing them.  And "neglected".  Neglected by whom?    And why?   "Neglected" is a pretty ambiguous word as to the "who" and "why" involved in the neglect.   And for instance...

I might feel some of MY favorite movies are neglected by TCM or other movie presentation channels, but then, YOU might think most of those movies suck, so why bother showing them.  And vice-versa.   But I get it(possibly).  If those movies are neglected by movie presentation TV channels("Non-premiums" like Movies!, This etc.)  I fail to understand just how and why those in charge of those stations pick and choose which to show.  Outside of the rights issues. But I'm looking forward to reading about any "discoveries" you make during this journey.

Sepiatone

[TopBilled]

26 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

That's a fairly optimistic  take, as there's no guarantee  there'll BE any "benefit" from viewing them.  And "neglected".  Neglected by whom?    And why?   "Neglected" is a pretty ambiguous word as to the "who" and "why" involved in the neglect.   And for instance...

I might feel some of MY favorite movies are neglected by TCM or other movie presentation channels, but then, YOU might think most of those movies suck, so why bother showing them.  And vice-versa.   But I get it(possibly).  If those movies are neglected by movie presentation TV channels("Non-premiums" like Movies!, This etc.)  I fail to understand just how and why those in charge of those stations pick and choose which to show.  Outside of the rights issues. But I'm looking forward to reading about any "discoveries" you make during this journey.

Sepiatone

Thanks. Part of my resolution is not to place any judgmental labels on the films, since I think even "bad" or "mediocre" films still have value because they can teach us about the technology used to make them as well as the societal attitudes of the producers, directors and performers.

I am including "A" films as well as "B" films to ensure that I cover a broad range of neglected cinema. 

They will all be sound films from 1930 to 1959. They will all be from the major studios. And since I feel westerns are neglected by TCM's programming department, there will be one western each week.

This is my monthly formula:

British (1-2)
Columbia (2-3)
Fox (4)
MGM (4)
Paramount (4)
Republic (2)
RKO (3-4)
United Artists (2)
Universal (2-3)
Warner Brothers (4)

[TopBilled]

Anyone who wants to follow along, this is my schedule of neglected films for January 2022.

If you don't know where to view a given title online, send me a private message and I will point you in the right direction.

If/when a title happens to finally air on TCM, I will draw attention to it!

JANUARY 2022

1. DESERT FURY (1947)..PAR
2. LAST OF THE COMANCHES (1953)..COL
3. WHITE BANNERS (1938)..WB
4. STORM OVER LISBON (1944)..REP
5. BOOMERANG! (1947)..FOX
6. THE SKIPPER SURPRISED HIS WIFE (1950)..MGM
7. BLOOD MONEY (1933)..UA
8. PARACHUTE BATTALION (1941)..RKO
9. DENVER & RIO GRANDE (1952)..PAR
10. THE SPY IN BLACK (1939)..BRIT
11. SOMEWHERE IN THE NIGHT (1946)..FOX
12. THE NIGHT HOLDS TERROR (1955)..COL
13. SOCIETY DOCTOR (1935)..MGM
14. TOM DICK AND HARRY (1941)..RKO
15. CANYON PASSAGE (1946)..UNIV
16. HIGHWAY 301 (1950)..WB
17. ONE HOUR LATE (1934)..PAR
18. DOWN IN SAN DIEGO (1941)..MGM
19. WHIRLPOOL (1949)..FOX
20. THREE SECRETS (1950)..WB
21. NURSE EDITH CAVELL (1939)..RKO
22. MAIN STREET AFTER DARK (1945)..MGM
23. FORT DEFIANCE (1951)..UA
24. THE BIG BOSS (1941)..COL
25. AND NOW TOMORROW (1944)..PAR
26. JOHNNY TROUBLE (1957)..WB
27.  THE MAN WHO CRIED WOLF (1937)..UNIV
28. GANGS OF CHICAGO (1940)..REP
29. BLANCHE FURY (1948)..BRIT
30. BUNCO SQUAD (1950)..RKO 
31. RAWHIDE (1951)..FOX

[Katie_G]

Good list.  Desert Fury is a favorite of mine and a great example of neglected, imo.  Not sure if it's ever been shown on TCM or anywhere else on TV, for that matter.  I'd love to hear what Lizabeth Scott had to say.   I bought the DVD, but there's no extras or commentary.

[TopBilled]

44 minutes ago, Katie_G said:

Good list.  Desert Fury is a favorite of mine and a great example of neglected, imo.  Not sure if it's ever been shown on TCM or anywhere else on TV, for that matter.  I'd love to hear what Lizabeth Scott had to say.   I bought the DVD, but there's no extras or commentary.

Thanks. I happened to stumble across Lizabeth's Scott's interview, which someone kindly posted on YouTube in eight parts. Altogether it runs just over an hour. She was not known for granting interviews and she did not write an autobiography, so this videotaped piece is a great insight into her career. 

In the video interview conducted in 1996, Lizabeth Scott mentioned how she enjoyed working with John Hodiak in DESERT FURY. She found him very attractive. She also talked about Mary Astor (whose last name she pronounced "Oster") who played her mother in the picture. In one highly charged emotional scene, Astor has to slap Lizabeth Scott whose character has been misbehaving. The two actresses agreed it had to be a very hard, jarring slap to heighten the realism of the moment. She said she also was slapped equally hard by Victor Mature in EASY LIVING (1949).

Scott discussed working for producer Hal Wallis at Paramount, whose production unit was responsible for DESERT FURY and other films that she made at the studio under contract to Wallis from 1945 to 1957. She explained how her role in THE STRANGE LOVE OF MARTHA IVERS was not written with her in mind and that the director tried to get her fired. But by the time she made DESERT FURY (which was her next assignment), the writers on the lot were tailoring the scripts more to her particular style at Wallis' insistence.

The video interviewer asked if anything funny or memorable happened on location during the making of DESERT FURY, but Lizabeth Scott did not recall any particular hijinks. She said everyone was very professional but very serious. And they had to work 12 hours a day, six days a week, under contract to Wallis. When they were between films, Wallis would send her and his other discovery Burt Lancaster back east to promote the films with exhibitors and theater owners. And if she had any 'down time' during the making of a film (like if her scenes were finished for the day and it was still early), Wallis would send her to see Edith Head. She and Edith Head would go over all the dresses/gowns and other fashions required for upcoming scenes, and make the necessary alterations, in order to look exactly the way Wallis wanted her to look on screen.

Another interesting comment she made pertaining to DESERT FURY, is that when she first came to Hollywood, it was either 1943 or 1944 and she did her original screen test at Warner Brothers. Hal Wallis was a producer at Warners during that time. But he was about to jump ship and set up his own company at Paramount. When Wallis signed her, it was for Paramount not Warner Brothers. She recalled going into a screening room at Warners to view her screen test with her agent, a director, Wallis and some other personnel. She felt very uncomfortable watching herself on screen and decided she would never do that again.

While making YOU CAME ALONG (her first film) and THE STRANGE LOVE OF MARTHA IVERS (her second film), she refused to look at the daily footage. But when she made DESERT FURY (her third film) someone convinced her to go see some dailies. She said the experience made her self-conscious and that when she returned to the set to do her next scenes she was second guessing her choices and doing everything wrong. She decided she would stick to her original plan, never to watch herself on screen, and just perform as naturally as she could in the moment with her costars, without worrying about how she was walking or tilting her head for the camera.

[Kikiki]

TopBilled, saw this on TCM just once, it may have been shown more than that; I don’t have Movie Collector’s database, but it was surprisingly good. Not a huge fan of westerns, but I remember liking this one. 

[TopBilled]

6 minutes ago, Kikiki said:

TopBilled, saw this on TCM just once, it may have been shown more than that; I don’t have Movie Collector’s database, but it was surprisingly good. Not a huge fan of westerns, but I remember liking this one. 

Yes, great cast...thanks for mentioning this one. 

Per MovieCollector's database, THE TALL T has only aired five times on TCM. The most recent broadcast was in April 2018.

[TopBilled]

Okay, a few thoughts on today's neglected film, the classic Columbia western LAST OF THE COMANCHES (1953).

I have this one on a disc of films I recorded from the Encore Westerns channel. The title of the disc is "Out West with Brod Crawford." It includes this film, and THE LAST POSSE (1953) which was also made at Columbia.

What I like about this phase of the actor's career is that he had just won the Oscar, and Harry Cohn was keen to star him in films with strong character-driven scripts. The characters he is assigned to play are tough-minded, and you do not mess with Brod Crawford...especially in the old west!

LAST OF THE COMANCHES has only aired once on TCM, all the way back in 2007. It really should be seen by more viewers. 

It's a remake of SAHARA (1943) with Brod taking Bogey's role basically, except it's been re-set in the west and there is a standoff with a bunch of natives in the middle of the desert, where water is scarce and everyone's on tenterhooks. 

I've never seen SAHARA, so I went into this film thinking the story was fresh and original...but even if the story had been done previously as a war flick, it works perfectly as a western. 

They've added a strong woman's role for Barbara Hale, who made a lot of good westerns before she became more famous for her work on television. She's gorgeous in this picture, filmed in Technicolor on location in Yuma. At one point Miss Hale gets to use a rifle and I found her just as convincing with a firearm as I would have if this character had been played by the other Barbara-- Stanwyck.

Another thing I like about the picture is that our leading lady goes from glamorous at the beginning, boarding a stagecoach with the other passengers, to someone that is forced to drop the frilly act and look more natural as the journey progresses. They are fighting for their lives in the middle of nowhere, and she no longer has time to worry about her hair and makeup.

One of the supporting male characters is played by Lloyd Bridges, who had played a similar role in SAHARA. I think he may have been the only one who transferred over from the original production. He's a pro as always, and he works well with Brod and the rest of the gang.

The last ten to fifteen minutes of LAST OF THE COMANCHES is quite violent, but in a way I applaud that for this type of story. I don't think it would have been realistic if most of them survived with just a few bruises and scratches. They were thrust into bloody warfare, and the outcome would be deadly for some of them.

[hamradio]

How about the neglected...better forgotten film "The Great Brain" (1978)

 

[BunnyWhit]

No Greater Glory (1934) has aired on TCM five times, most recently in 2013. Gosh, I love this film.

 

 

[Fading Fast]

5 hours ago, BunnyWhit said:

No Greater Glory (1934) has aired on TCM five times, most recently in 2013. Gosh, I love this film.

 

 

I've never seen this one, but based on your  post, I checked it out on IMDB and it looks fantastic. Hopefully TCM will run it this year. 

[TopBilled]

9 hours ago, BunnyWhit said:

No Greater Glory (1934) has aired on TCM five times, most recently in 2013. Gosh, I love this film.

I have this on on my list to look at next month. 

I agree -- it's a fantastic and unfairly neglected Columbia picture.

[TopBilled]

Today's neglected film is WHITE BANNERS, a 1938 offering from Warner Brothers.

I believe legal issues prevent it from being broadcast now, but TCM showed it often in the 1990s and 2000s. Per MovieCollector's database, it aired 19 times. The last airing was in January 2007, which is fifteen years ago.

Fay Bainter plays the main character, and she is surrounded by a great cast that includes Claude Rains, Kay Johnson, Bonita Granville, Jackie Cooper and James Stephenson.

It's another one of those tearjerkers like STELLA DALLAS and TO EACH HIS OWN where the mother gave up a child due to a set of difficult circumstances (in this case, she was unwed). And years later she comes back into her child's life, when she takes a job as a housekeeper. Bainter is very poignant in the scenes when she admits to being the mother of a boy (Cooper) that was adopted by a neighbor family.

Bainter received an Oscar nomination as Best Actress for this picture, but she also had a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her role in JEZEBEL the same year. She won in the supporting category, probably because Warners was pushing Bette Davis as the lead in JEZEBEL and it would be some sort of consolation for Bainter to not go home empty-handed. Though I think Bainter's work in this film deserved the Oscar over Davis. It's a pitch perfect performance that wisely avoids scenery chewing and over the top histrionics. 

Bainter and Rains were paired again a year later in DAUGHTERS COURAGEOUS. They play opposite each other very well.

I received a copy of WHITE BANNERS from a former poster on this site (Janet) who has since passed away. I was grateful to receive the disc in the mail from her a few years ago, because I wanted a chance to see the film very much. I think it has been uploaded online in a few places. But it would be so much better if the legal issues were resolved and TCM could air it again.