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

Why not show a 1954 film, instead of a 1982 film about 1954?


FredCDobbs
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here are some 1954 films that TCM could air, in addition to the favorites TCM already airs:

 

Secret Of The Incas

The Naked Jungle

Phantom Of The Rue Morgue

Princess Of The Nile

River Of No Return

Sabrina

The Adventures Of Robin Crusoe

Arrow In The Dust

The Bamboo Prison

Beat The Devil

The Black Shield Of Falworth

Black Widow

The Bowery Boys Meet The Monsters

Cat Women Of The Moon

Cattle Queen Of Montana

The Creature From The Black Lagoon

Demetrius And The Gladiators

The Egyptian

Francis Joins The WACs

La Strada

The Long, Long Trailer

Ma And Pa Kettle At Home

Magnificent Obsession

Naked Alibi

The Shanghai Story

Three Coins In The Fountain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I have it on DVD, I would watch something like Me and Orson Welles (an excellent period film about Orson's pre-Kane stage work) as much as I would watch Citizen Kane itself. Or, for that matter, Tim Burton's Ed Wood as much as I would watch one of Wood's movies on TCM.

 

I don't see the difference or the problem with a movie about a period as any different than a movie from that period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don?t know why they made the opening setting in 1925, since the whole film looked like 1948. Maybe they did it because it was more common for people to carry guns in 1925. I?ve been to the Sierra Madre area of northern Mexico, and the jungle areas of Yucatan, and not much has changed since 1925 or 1948, except for fewer guns now. I could see mines up in the mountains in the Madres. Local groups of poor Mexicans work them to get a little gold out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a little disappointed in you Fred. 1982, *My Favorite Year* was done as a throwback movie in the style that movies used to be, when they had style. Most other movies of that time (1982) were going computer enhanced high tech, so called comedies were just getting vulgar and tasteless, etc. *My Favorite Year* was like a breath of fresh air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but there were too many anachronisms and errors in it. Too much 1930s Art Deco stuff. Also, a 16mm Ampro sound movie projectors didn?t start up or stop gradually and didn?t cause the soundtrack to waver. They started and stopped instantly. (I?ve got one in my garage.) People in 1954 weren?t loud-mouth caricatures, they were just people. This looked like an imitation Woody Allen film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original 1954 release of "Cat Women Of The Moon" was presented in the polarized 3D. It was later re-released using the color anagraph. Seeing "Cat Women Of The Moon" in 1954 would have required 3D glasses like this..

 

This is a more durable version from the paper ones used at the time. I have an antique 3D glasses from the 1950's period like that one below. Still in the wrapper.

 

Terminator.jpg

 

Edited by: hamradio on Feb 17, 2011 1:05 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you watch a film because it was released during a certain time period or do you watch a film because you want to witness great cinema?

 

I remember I once watched a 1997 film about 1948. Then watched a film released in 1948. I chuckled when I thought about the irony and timing of the scheduling of these films but I was reminded of the situation by this thread title. By the way, the 1997 film about 1948 I am referring to is "L.A. Confidential" and the 1948 film was "The Naked City".

 

I recently posted a thread about my three most hideous, psychotic film characters I have come upon: Richard Widmark's Tommy Udo character in "Kiss of Death", Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh character in "No Country For Old Men" and Bob Hoskins' Joe Hilditch character in "Felicia's Journey". I knew as I was writing the post when I stated that "Felicia's Journey" was released in 1999 that this would be a thumbs-down and a turn-off to some of you and you would not even reply to the post.

 

So again I ask do you watch a film because it was released in a certain time period or do you watch a film because you want to witness great cinema?

 

Edited by: thomasterryjr on Feb 17, 2011 1:01 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=thomasterryjr wrote:}{quote}

>

> I recently posted a thread about my three most hideous, psychotic film characters I have come upon: Richard Widmark's Tommy Udo character in "Kiss of Death", Javier Bardem's Anton Chigurh character in "No Country For Old Men" and Bob Hoskins' Joe Hilditch character in "Felicia's Journey". I knew as I was writing the post when I stated that "Felicia's Journey" was released in 1999 that this would be a thumbs-down and a turn-off to some of you and you would not even reply to the post.

 

Yeah, and without me on your thread it quickly died a lonely death. :)

 

The next time you want me to spice up your thread, just ask and I will turn up.

 

I didn?t reply to your post because you said it was going to be on the IFC channel, and that?s ok with me.

 

I watch some films on the IFC channel, but only the good ones.

 

I tried watching ?My Favorite Year?, but it was too corny. Peter O'Toole looked like he was really drunk all through the film. He looked like an old man who would have fallen off the rope had he really tried to swing across the theater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Sorry, but there were too many anachronisms and errors in it. Too much 1930s Art Deco stuff.*

 

I believe it was because the show was taped at Radio City Music Hall, in the Rockefeller Center, as was where NBC was located. The Rockefeller Center opened in the (mid?)1930s, and its style was the height of Deco. So while the movie takes place in 1954, these facilities it takes place in are ca. 1930s, and to this day are still in that style.

 

*Peter O'Toole looked like he was really drunk all through the film. He looked like an old man who would have fallen off the rope had he really tried to swing across the theater.*

 

He was supposed to portray an Errol Flynn type, who in the mid-50s was considered a wasted charicature of his former swashbuckling bon-vivant self.

 

Edited by: Arturo on Feb 17, 2011 1:41 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=thomasterryjr wrote:}{quote}

> Do you watch a film because it was released during a certain time period or do you watch a film because you want to witness great cinema?

> So again I ask do you watch a film because it was released in a certain time period or do you watch a film because you want to witness great cinema?

>

 

I too am curious about your answer Dobbsy!

 

I think many people have biases on the year a film was released, not paying attention to the actual story etc.

 

I like My Favorite Year. I am not too worried about any anachronisms. The more removed you are from an era, the harder it is to duplicate. One of my favorite series now is HBO's Boardwalk Empire and season one takes place in 1919-1920 and I am sure someone with a trained eye has scoped out anachronisms but hardly enough to make the show unwatchable for that alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I know about Rockefeller Center. I?ve been there a few times. But the film tried to use the art deco stuff as being symbolic of the 1950s, and it was out of place.

 

I know it was Errol Flynn, but it wasn?t funny. I?d rather see Errol Flynn movies. Why would I want to see a 1982 movie with a drunk buffoon trying to pretend he?s Errol Flynn in the 1950s?

 

The film winds up insulting an old Peter O'Toole, making him look like an old drunk. I don?t want to see an old Peter O?Toole looking like a drunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}

>

> I tried watching My Favorite Year, but it was too corny. Peter O'Toole looked like he was really drunk all through the film. He looked like an old man who would have fallen off the rope had he really tried to swing across the theater.

 

So you mean he was doing an excellent job of portraying the character he was supposed to be playing: A drunk washed up Errol Flynn type character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to make something clear. My post was not directed to Fred C. Dobbs. I enjoy and learn so much from Fred C. Dobbs and his contributions to our message board. The post was directed to TCM Nation. The folks who only watch and enjoy cinema to a certain year. Any film produced after a certain year is, for a lack of a better word, trash and should be ignored. Only films during a certain time period are worth watching and only if the film is presented in black and white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Kinokima wrote:}{quote}

>

> So you mean he was doing an excellent job of portraying the character he was supposed to be playing: A drunk washed up Errol Flynn type character.

 

 

No, he looked just like an old drunk washed-up Peter O?Toole, and I don?t want to see that. I?d rather remember him as the handsome Lawrence of Arabia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=thomasterryjr wrote:}{quote}

>The post was directed to TCM Nation. The folks who only watch and enjoy cinema to a certain year. Any film produced after a certain year is, for a lack of a better word, trash and should be ignored. Only films during a certain time period are worth watching and only if the film is presented in black and white.

 

I think you misunderstand.

 

I will watch any film from any year.

 

But, after 64 years of watching films (the ones I can remember), I have learned that the quality of Hollywood films dropped off sharply in the late 1950s and early ?60s, and then it fell down to almost nil by about 1968. There are very few exceptions. There were a few good films made after about 1960, but almost none after about 1966.

 

Films like ?2001?, ?Lawrence of Arabia?, ?Star Wars 1? are exceptions. I thought ?Apocalypse Now? was great. ?Patton? was a great classic biography film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}

 

>

>

> No, he looked just like an old drunk washed-up Peter O?Toole, and I don?t want to see that. I?d rather remember him as the handsome Lawrence of Arabia.

 

He wasn't trying to look like Errol Flynn he was trying to portray an Errol Flynn type character in the 50's. The fact that he looked old, drunk, and washed up means he portrayed the character perfectly.

 

It's fine that you like him in Lawrence of Arabia more or that you didn't like this movie but I am at a loss what was wrong with his portrayal. He *was* playing an old, drunk, and washed up character.

Link to comment
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
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...