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

Recommended Posts

update this site, it stinks. You know it, and I know it.

 

I just tried to use the search facility, and NOT only does it not work, but it shut down completely on me.

 

Okay, so I have to open a NEW window, AND log in again, just to ask a freaking question.

 

Get with it, TCM, you should be ASHAMED of yourself. And don't ask me to use Feedback, you can stuff your Feedback.

 

At any rate, my question.

 

Can anyone here tell me what the block of movies on 11/14, from 10:00pm to 1:30am are? Are they silents or music videos or what, exactly? Not being able to bring up the November schedule from the main screen OR be able to search leave one little recourse other than to ask intelligent people if they recognize any of these titles.

 

But really, TCM, use your GAZILLIONS of dollars and update this freaking site.

 

How about it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

From a slight perusal of the films you mentioned, it seems I see some of the early Edison Motion Pictures which featured just real life activities being displayed, like the "NY City Ghetto Fish Market" one, and one film is by Frank Grandon, of whom I basically only know the name from a book on early silents I have.

 

The titles of others sound like similar experiments from other studios, in documenting real life actualities like Thomas Edison's joint did in the early years of the century.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stoney, I understand your frustration. Even though it takes me about 4 tries to login before posting anything, I keep coming back 'cause the people who post here are the best. The following is copied from the November schedule for the date and time that you requested. Good luck and I hope that TCM listens to your plea.

 

10:00 PM Clash of the Wolves (1925) 0m.

10:00 PM Lotus Blossom (1921) 0m.

10:00 PM What Happened on 23rd Street, New York City (1901) 0m.

10:00 PM A Bronx Morning (1931) A classic experimental documentary, a "city symphony" exploring the Bronx one morning during the early days of the Great Depression. 0m.

10:00 PM At the Foot of the Flatiron (1903) 0m.

10:00 PM New York City Ghetto Fish Market (1903) 0m.

10:00 PM A From Leadville to Aspen: Hold-Up in the Rookies (1906) 0m.

10:00 PM "Teddy" Bears, The (1907) 0m.

10:00 PM Children Who Labor (1912) 0m.

10:00 PM Concerning $1000 (1916) 0m.

10:00 PM Exhibition Reel of Two-Color Film (1919) 0m.

10:00 PM The Flute of Krishna (1926) 0m.

10:00 PM Gus Visser and His Singing Duck (1924) 0m.

10:00 PM International News: Volume 8, Issue 97(1926) 0m.

10:00 PM Now You're Talking (1927) 0m.

10:00 PM There It Is (1928) 0m.

1:30 AM The McKenzie Break (1970) Captive Nazis plot their escape from a Scottish prison camp. Brian Keith, Helmut Griem, Ian Hendry. D: Lamont Johnson. C 106m. LBX

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Odd stoneyburk, some time ago when I said about the same thing you and those other few blasted me. I agree, like I said before they ought to shut down a few days and update this site. But, like all other things, it'd never happen.

But if they did, they might throw out or place aside ALL silents going back to 1910. I mean come on, get real. And if they keep showing those ancients and viewership decreases more, well, they just might wind up being either taken over, or even shut down...Something TCM had better think about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"LEO",

 

You my friend are truly beneath contempt! That is a sick remark from a very sick mind! Big things are happening right now with new classic silent?s being restored and fresh DVD contracts signed, and you have to spoil it for us with your lack of understanding of the medium! I have been a silent fan most of my life, since I was seven or eight years of age! I am 38 today.

 

I grew up on these films via a Super 8 millimeter film projector! No scores even initially! I rapidly grew to admire the pure visual expression encountered! I loved appreciated, and respect the medium. I have introduced many to the art of silent film (primarily silent comedy, though some drama) mostly people who had no idea what to expect, all of them were amazed at how unique and varied it proved to be!

 

The Silent film at its peak by the mid 1920's, was in-fact the very zenith of visual story telling! In many ways this has never been equaled! Pantomime was in-fact a universal language on screen! The same films save for different title-cards, were seen all over the globe! You didn't have to speak any one particular language or understand that language in order to enjoy them! Furthermore, silent films are living just short of breathing history! To destroy them is asinine plain and simple! They are culturally important! They are a reflection of our past, adequately portrayed! They need to be seen!

 

So you saw a silent or two (or potions there of) that didn't appeal to you? So what! That isn't necessarily a reflection on the caliber of the medium as a unified whole pal! You are being ignorant and stupid by allowing your closed mind to perceive them in this manner! I would like to know just what you have seen? Overall I?ll bet it doesn't? amount to much? By contrast, I have seen as many as four to five hundred silent films, both shorts and features! I know the medium, and what?s more I understand it! You on the other hand are unqualified to pass judgment!

 

Your very tone suggests that anything older just isn't worth seeing or preserving! Well is "The Constitution? worth preserving, or "The Bill Of Rights"? Their both old too right? Maybe we should just chuck them into the incinerator? Would you dare enter a museum and say, "Hey those painting's from 1910 really stink, why don't you destroy them to free up some space?" I sure would hope not? That in essence though is pretty much what your saying buddy! Well I take exception to that on the highest level! You are a closed minded individual who is not worth our time here on this forum!

 

Much of the current resurgence of interest in Silent film is directly attributable to the diligence and effort's of Tuner Classic Movies! I thank them for their recognition of the medium and bringing this ?great lost art form? to the attention of a whole new generation! As for you Leo, if you don?t like TCM or their programming, what's keeping you here anyway? ?GET THE HELL OUT OF DODGE!?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

These silents are from the American Film Institute Archives and were recently released on DVD for all you interested folks...I haven't bought it myself yet (X-mas is coming) but I do want it badly.

 

The couple I'm really hot for are Lady Windemere's Fan and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.

 

Gagman66, you and I must have been separated at birth, as I'm a big silent fan also and can't get enough of them - with a special nod to Louise Brooks and Clara Bow. Ya gotta take this Leo thing with a grain of salt. A true film fan wouldn't rip on silents, even if they didn't like them, they'd at least respect the artistry. If there hadn't been silent film in the first place, it wouldn't have later led to the marriage of film and sound. Or, film and color. Of course, some don't quite get that, do they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree with gagman66 and silentfan66 on the topic of silents. As I have said on other threads, I am not the biggest fan of the silents, but I really do respect them for what they are. They really are true classics, examples of early filmmaking at its greatest. If it weren't for silents, were would sound be, let alone color? I think you should always respect the predecessors of any medium, and the silents tell us so much about the history of movies. They truly are fascinating pieces of history. And I don't think TCM shows a lot of them. Granted, next month they will be airing large blocks of them, and I think that is great. Usually, you only get a handful a month. And if people are saying that TCM will lose viewership because of the number of silents they air, you know what, TCM is a CLASSIC movie channel, and silents are classics. I think that TCM wouldn't be doing its job if it didn't play silents; any classic movie channel that doesn't at least play some I would say wouldn't allow for a true and fair showcase of the classics.

 

On another note...

I really don't have a big problem with this website. Sometimes, the boards have not worked for me, and the search engine has been a little slow, but other than that, I've had no problem with this site. Others have given my more problems than this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

kimbo, on the reliability of this site, I don't agree. With the money that Time Warner has to throw into the movies of today that will go straight to video due to their craptastic nature, I think they can afford to upgrade this site. There are far more modest sites at which I post where my id is recognized, I don't have to log in anew every time I open a new window, the search facility works consistently, and the edit facility works on posts. Really, there is NO excuse for the poor performance of the I/T on this site, none. Hell, programmers are a dime a dozen now, thanks to outsourcing, so they can commission an upgrade and feed an entire town for a week on what it used to cost to hire a U.S. programmer.

 

On the subject of silents, more power to TCM and their programming staff. I haven't checked in to the ratio of color films to black and whites, so I can't tell if they're AMC-izing their schedule or not, but the number of tapeworthy films in November and December looks fine to me. And if they're keeping me happy with the obscure 'venetian blind' black and whites, and someone else with the color films, and still another audience member with the silents, well then they're doing their job. No matter WHAT the naysayers compose, TCM is still the ONLY station of its kind in basic cable. For that matter, I am not sure if there is a station like it in pay or satellite programming. Is there?

 

Well, I've gotta go make sure I have written this post correctly. Because I don't know about you, but I can't get the edit capability to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

stoney & others,

 

though I too am occasionally annoyed by not being able to logon to this site, I think you need to understand that TCM is an expense to Time Warner, and NOT a revenue generating entity. TCM's limited revenue comes as a (small) percentage from cable companies who buy a bundle of AOL's channels (TBS, CNN, etc.), which includes TCM.

 

On the one hand, it would be great to be able to buy only the cable channels we want (50 cents here, a dollar there, a dime for another) per month. OTOH, channels like TCM would likely fall by the wayside if this became a reality. I just don't believe there are enough of "us" to support the channel if it wasn't bundled with AOL Time Warner's other stations.

 

If TCM had more revenue, enough to significantly upgrade these message boards (I/T support, etc.), I personally would rather have them spend it on licensing films from Fox or Paramount to show them on the channel ... I can tolerate the "quality" of these non-revenue generating boards (which are really just for our benefit).

 

Another positive thing to consider - the effort it takes to participate here is worth it for those of us who are discussing classic film, but NOT (with very few exceptions) for annoying trolls and other message board "disrupters" that frequent other sites. In essence, by accident vs. design (at least, I think so), TCM has discouraged spammers and the like from being comfortable here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with path40a. And, saying somebody should be 'ashamed' is not a good way to influence them - though it is a common technique, unfortunately. I'm also annoyed by having to log in every time and go through 5 pages to do it, but I understand TCM's limited revenue and love what they put out on the channel. I use other, better WEBSITES to discuss classic film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I can be as 'understanding' and 'accommodating' as the next person to poor little TCM, but again, come on. I don't retract telling them they should be 'ashamed', sorry.

 

I have worked for a corporation for 28+ years, and I'm aware of every little spin that their PR department can put out, about how the little grunts have to be laid off due to there not being enough money in the budget, while the fat cats at the top are getting perks that would make your eyes roll around in their sockets.

 

So no, I don't buy this 'woe is TCM' stuff. Money loss or not, the website brings people to TCM. Time Warner has more money than they know what to do with. I understand that this website is an afterthought to their revenue projects. However, INSTEAD of redoing the graphics on TCM, which DIDN'T need redoing (if it ain't broke, don't fix it?) they COULD have apportioned a tiny sum to update this site. As I said, I know a little about the I/T industry. I know they could have fed an entire village in India with a quarter of the salary paid to a programmer in the U.S., and a programmer in India could have knocked off the changes needed to make this site work better in a week.

 

I mean no disrespect to TCM, nor to the patrons of this site. Cablevision took TEN long years to add TCM to their lineup, bless their stupid little hearts, so I'm not going to bite the hand that's feeding me. I love TCM, even with all its color films, it is STILL the one and only when it comes to 'venetian blind' black and white movies.

 

ltfripp, I don't expect to 'influence' anybody. TCM is not about to listen to me, I just wanted to vent on what was obviously a very glitch filled day in I/T land. Perhaps it was the weather. And as to the notion that the glitches keep out those who are not VERY passionate about TCM and this board, well that's a very good point. There really IS nothing not to love about TCM!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree that some films are aired much to frequently, by TCM while others are rarely seen. That could certainly be remedied. As far as more recent movies are concerned, here is the problem "Leo" most recent and current films are largely garbage! Cable/Satellite TV in general is a wasteland of Trash! The Movies are about more than just sex, violence, profanity, and computer effects!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how many times it needs to be said (and how many ways it has to be said) but I think I you're not happy with the actors/films/directors/stories on TCM then you are definitely watching the wrong channel. There are 250 more channels, many of them showing uninterrupted movies. Why not watch their programming and quit coming here to be a negative influence? Of course, I'm sure that makes too much sense. OH--I forgot--most of those other movie channels are PREMIUM channels and therefore, since this channel is offered, usually, at no extra charge, some want to make it into something it was never intended to be--HBO with a little older movies. Sorry, naysayers, go elsewhere, because you rarely will find any posters here agreeing with you. And gregelektric---I hope your girlfriend has dumped your dumb butt by now, because if you can't appreciate Natalie Wood, then you don't belong here either (he posted on Classic Actors thread.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leo, I didn't complain about the programming schedule TCM has chosen, please don't use my post on the I/T problems of this site to twist my words. Their programming suits me fine.

 

In fact, I just last night saw a film I had never seen, Fredric March's 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'. Wonderful film. Loved the skin shot of Ms. Hopkins, NOT for the skin BUT for the freedom that the movies had in 1932 not to put Ms. Hopkins in a flannel nightgown. Boy do I hate Mr. Hays.

 

Fredric March is a wonderful actor, just wonderful. So much better than Tracy in this role.

 

However...and Leo I'm not agreeing with you on the inefficacy of any movie made before 1910, make no mistake...I just could NOT watch John Barrymore whom I love in the Silent version. It is a 'screen to brain thing' for some people, I have decided, I just can not watch silents.

 

Again, that's me, and I applaud TCM for showing all the different versions of the Jekyll...pronounced Jee-kul, it seems!...and Hyde story. THANK you, TCM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to worry stoney --I think also March was far more effective than Tracy, we do agree on another point: I can't sit, read and watch any silent either. I fail to see what the appeal is also. As for one film with subtitles; I'd love to see 'A Man and a Woman' a French film with a lovely score. Doubt they'd ever show that on tcm. Have U ever seen that one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aw, stoney, you shouldn't hate Will Hays. If you must hate somebody, hate Joseph Breen, who took over the enforcement of the Hays code in 1934 -- in fact, it was known as the "Breen office" after that. In fact, Will Hays did us a great service -- more on that presently.

 

First, a little history: The Hays Office was formed in 1922 in response to a round of scandals that had rocked Hollywood the previous year -- the death of Wallace Reid from drug addiction, the murder of director William Desmond Taylor, and the maelstrom of false rape charges against Roscoe Arbuckle. Fearing censorship by the federal government, the studio moguls set up an internal policing organization, along with a code of standards, under the leadership of Will Hays, postmaster general during Warren G. Harding's administration.

 

While studio moguls initially chafed under the Hays Office, it had a hidden benefit. Before then, all film censorship was local. Every city in the country had its own decency standards, as did many theater owners. Every one of them left a mark in scenes removed from a film. Often when prints were returned to the studios, they suffered from severe continuity problems at the hands of all those meddlers.

 

But the Hays office greatly reduced the number of hands in the censorship process, down to a central office and eight state boards. Later, scripts were submitted to the Hays Office so problems could be ironed out before the cameras began turning. While this censorship process was bothersome to the studios, it did give them greater control over the integrity of their films in distribution, so it was kind of a two-edged sword.

 

During the so-called "pre-code" years, the Hays code (revised in 1927 and 1930) was still in effect, but not rigorously enforced. By that time, Hays had left the stewardship of the office to Jason Joy, a self-confessed movie lover who did just enough to keep his job. It wasn't until the ascendancy of Joe Breen and the formation of the Legion of Decency in 1934 that you began to see really tough censorship in the movie industry.

 

As for silent pictures, I don't think it's a "screen to brain" thing so much as "brain to screen." You can't control the screen, but you can control your brain. You have to decide to watch them. In other words, silent movies are an acquired taste. I decided to acquire that taste in my teens, which probably made it easier. A silent film depends so much on its presentation -- a good quality print, the right music, the right venue, even the size of the screen. There's so much that can go wrong, but when everything goes right -- as it often does on TCM -- the effect is magical.

 

Silent movies require a level of participation that the average talkie or TV show doesn't require. If you're the type who sinks into an easy chair, turns on the TV and says "Entertain me," you're going to be disappointed by silent films. However, if you remember to pick up your imagination along with the remote, you'll be amply rewarded. There's a whole 'nother world to be discovered in silent pictures, stoney, and you'll get it if you put your mind to it. Just keep trying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post, coffeedan. I stand well corrected, and immediately transfer my hate to Joseph Breen. So it was Breen who was probably the closet pervert, eh?:)

 

As for silents, of course you make a very good point. I enjoyed both silents and subtitled films many, many years ago. I find, due to life 'stuff', that I currently do not have the patience to participate in either.

 

Maybe...some day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

stoneyburke666 - I've got some lovely books for you related to the Pre-Codes -

 

Dangerous Men and Complicated Women, both by Mick LaSalle

Sin in Soft Focus by Mark A Vieira

Pre-Code Hollywood by Thomas Doherty

 

All these make for enjoyable and informative reading. I loved the TCM doc for Complicated Women, and am eagerly awaiting them to show a doc that should come from the companion Dangerous Men.

 

Breen and his scissors made for boring dialogue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sin in Soft Focus is an amazing book on pre-codes. Very informative and it has great pictures. Complicated Women was a very good read - it read more like a novel than a non-fiction book to me for some reason - it was entertaining. I've used all of those for papers on the pre-Code period, and they are all great. I want to read Dangerous Men - I didn't know it had come out yet.

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...