National Film Registry Selections for 2012

[dpompper]

 

Mind if I jump in here for a quick minute, dargo?

 

 

Kevin Costner in his "Bull Durham" and "No Way Out" days was hot!! Beyond eye candy, I also liked "Dances With Wolves" and "JFK." Most of his other films could have gone straight to video, IMHO. (Just one gal's insights.)

 

 

[Dargo2]

Well dpommper, I'll give ya the "laconic"(for want of a better term) style he used in Bull Durham was true to his character, but sorry, this man's opinion here is that his voice and his whole usual demeanor in most of his films always gave me the impression that he MIGHT BE a "good average buddy" to hang with, but not someone who whenever he'd enter the room, all eyes would focus on him.

 

(...in other words, no "star power"...though as they say, "your mileage may vary", and evidently in YOUR case, it does from mine)

[DownGoesFrazier]

Maybe, then, just about "every man" could be a star. I'm taking the next plane to Hollywood..........By the way, do you know the way to San Jose?

[jamesjazzguitar]

I'm not going to comment on if Coster or Hanks for that matter were 'hot' or not but there is a need in movies for everyday type of guys because there are lead roles (characters), where the director producers don't wish the guys looks or his persona to be a distraction.

 

So in some ways Fiance is right; almost any guy could play these roles; but hey someone has to play them and these guys were the one chosen.

 

 

 

 

[Filmgoddess]

Everytime I hear that comment about Tom Hanks being the "new Jimmy Stewart" I figure another angel just ... died.

 

He makes my skin crawl. I watched SAVING PRIVATE RYAN last night and almost wanted to cheer when he died at the end. 2 1/2 hours of watching him pontificate and huff and puff and try to act. Enough already.

 

Two Oscars to Tom Hanks? The same as Tracy? And more than Stewart and Bogart? Oh, c'mon. I guess film acting really has fallen off.

 

 

[Filmgoddess]

The NFR doesn't actually "preserve" films. Read their charter. It says that even though a film is on their list "it doesn't guarantee that the film will be preserved."

 

I'm not sure what that says about their need to exist.

[Filmgoddess]

No, I just think he's a terrible actor and I can think of any number of good actors today who would have done much more with those parts. As Dorothy Parker said, his emotional range runs the gamut from A to B.

 

 

[TikiSoo]

>Addison said:The Matrix is definitely the most ridiculous selection

 

Yes, because isn't that a digital film? What needs to be "preserved"?

 

>Personally, I think film lists are dumb, as is the idea that a limited number of films must be selected every year for preservation. Film in general should be preserved, as much as is possible.

 

Exactly. I hate film lists (or any lists) because they are just a cheap shot of affirmation for the reader, a list means nothing.

I'd prefer to just see films in the worst condition be restored first, regardless of their popularity.

 

I was just mentioning to a fellow Cinefile of a fantastic "home movie" taken by an employee of Kodak circa 1905-10. The workers were filmed on the job & on their lunch break walking the park grounds in Rochester. Amazing historical footage. Would it get funding for restoration? No name recognition, so probably no.

 

And sorry about starting a Tom Hanks rant. It's not far from the Gary Cooper debate-good actor or not? Personally, I don't care for Coop's acting either, but boy he certainly was perfect as John Doe and Potsy in Ball of Fire.

 

>he possesses that "everyman" quality reminiscent of Jimmy Stewart.

 

Except Jimmy Stewart (& Coop) knew how to express his charactor with voice & body language much better than Hanks can. Hanks is just an annoying blob on screen. (ouch, sorry Tom)

 

And good defense Dargo with "He's always been more the "likeable presence" on screen" which I'd agree with. I actually liked him very much early on, was even a Bosom Buddies fan.

 

Maybe he just kind of got jaded in Hollywood & gave up trying. That's how his screen presence strikes me-dull and uninterested. Man, did any of you see The DiVinci Code? Oy.

[Filmgoddess]

 

THE MATRIX is not a digital film.

 

Gary Cooper was capable of very good performances. But, boy, was he a great star. Great presence. Tom Hanks is none of those things. He's the kind of person I expect to encounter working the check-out line at Safeway. And not the likable type.

 

 

[thomasterryjr]

 

I would like to congratulate the National Film Registry for selecting "The Matrix" as an outstanding, creative, aesthically and entertaining film. This film broke so much ground and open the eyes of the public and movie-makers with the special effects and daring film making. It is a great selection and I hope the Natioanl Film Registry seriously considers selecting "The Matrix Revolutions" as well.

 

 

TCM Nation better get use to the trilogy/series films being inducted into the National Film Registry. Films such as "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, maybe the "Harry Potter" series, maybe the "Jason Bourne" series, are going to be considered for induction into the National Film Registry sooner than later.

 

 

I have a question which I would like for TCM Nation to consider about the National Film Registry: I believe the addition of 25 films per year into the National Film Registry is far too many. The limit should be about ten films per year. The inclusion of 25 films per year is streaching and reaching for films which may not be included in the final list. After a number of years on the list the title might be dropped due to other film titles taking their place on the final list of consideration for inclusion into the National Film Registry.

 

 

[dpompper]

 

<TCM Nation better get use to the trilogy/series films being inducted into the National Film Registry. >

 

 

Really, thomasterryjr? Why must I?

 

 

[jamesjazzguitar]

I disagree that list mean nothing; A list can tell us a lot about the person or group that created the list. What is included and just as important what is NOT included can provided great insight into a person and their taste.

 

For example; There was a thread about one's favorite 25 films. One person's post had NO films prior to 1954 and only that one 54 film; The rest were mostly action films from the 90s on. This person's list told us a lot about that person's interest.

 

As for film list like the National Film Registry: Of course it would be NICE if any and all films were preserved, but that just isn't going to happen and the proof is that films have been lost forever. Thus we are left to address; what films should society (as represented by the US government), preserve?

 

While I disagree with a lot of the choices I support the goal here.

 

With regards to Hanks what actor of his generation would you of preferred been used in some of Hanks most famous movie roles?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Filmgoddess]

Oh, lord, someone who thinks THE MATRIX "broke so much ground and opened the eyes of the public?" Seriously. Movies really did start before the 1990s and, in fact, there has been very little ground broken since the death of D.W. Griffith.

 

That being said, I think the LORD OF THE RINGS movies are among the finest achievements in all of film history. I'd have no problem having them on such a list.

 

But THE MATRIX is just a reasonably entertaining sci-fic film with a leaden lead actor and a lot of special effects. It's not some landmark in cinema history that needs to be preserved nationally.

[Filmgoddess]

There isn't a single Tom Hanks performance that couldn't have been done by ANY other actor of his generation. Not a single one. Heck, that soccer ball in CAST AWAY was more compelling.

 

Remember that chimp they sent to the moon? How about him?

[jamesjazzguitar]

So even Kevin Costner could of done Big? Really?

 

Hey, I'm no fan of Hanks so go ahead and knock him down, but I don't feel the POV you have expressed here represents reality.

 

 

[Filmgoddess]

What reality? I don't get the use of that word.

 

Of course, Kevin Costner would have been far too old for BIG. But who'd want to see that movie with ANYONE in it? What an awful piece of garbage.

 

The problem is that there's hardly a Tom Hanks "movie" that I'd see with or without him. Most of that stuff is just by the numbers everyday garbage.

 

But I can certainly see what a better movie PHILADELPHIA would have been without him. Denzel Washington should have switched roles. He would have brought far more depth to it.

 

Hanks is your typical bland, inoffensive leading man. There's a bunch of those of his generation -- Reeves, Paxton, Pullman, others -- any of them could do those roles. It would make NO difference.

[dpompper]

 

<There isn't a single Tom Hanks performance that couldn't have been done by ANY other actor of his generation. Not a single one. Heck, that soccer ball in CAST AWAY was more compelling.>

 

 

Actually, FG, "Wilson" is a volleyball.

 

 

[Filmgoddess]

LOL. You can see how closely I was paying attention. The film had me asleep in minutes. Volleyball, soccerball, goofball. I couldn't tell one from another.

[DownGoesFrazier]

I kind of liked Hanks in FORREST GUMP. I don't think any actor could have played that role.

[filmregistry]

{font:Times New Roman}Terrific thread on the 2012 selections to the National Film Registry! Sorry to arrive at the party so late. First, let me encourage you to participate in the Registry process and submit nominations for 2013. Obviously, no list will make everyone happy, and the Registry includes a variety of films that may not fit your definition of American classics. Its goal is to ensure that a representative body of American film created over the past 120 years by amateurs, students, big studios and independent artists, whether fictional narratives, documentaries, home movies, or avant-garde works of art, are safeguarded for the next 120 years and beyond. I started responding to some of your questions, but found my response growing longer and longer. Not very appropriate for a web forum! So I encourage you to visit our website, {font}{font:Times New Roman} and in particular the FAQ I just posted and will continue to develop. Please send me your specific questions and I’ll answer them directly and add them to the FAQ. Thanks for the great input.

 

Donna Ross

National Film Registry

Library of Congress

{font}{font:Times New Roman}dross@loc.gov{font}

 

Edited by: filmregistry on Dec 31, 2012 4:26 PM

[filmregistry]

You mention a great piece of actuality footage from the Eastman Kodak company and ask, "Would it get funding for restoration? No name recognition, so probably no." That is not necessarily true, thanks to the work of the National Film Preservation Foundation (NFPF). Each year, the NFPF funds the preservation hundreds of "orphan" films at archives, libraries and historical societies around the country. The lack of name recognition or bankable stars need not be a criteria for a film or even a film fragment to be preserved. Check out the amazing work the NFPF has funded over the years at http://www.filmpreservation.org/

 

 

[Filmgoddess]

Finance: you're right. What actor would want to play that role? Gosh, I really hate that film. It's one of the few films that actually makes my skin hurt. Woody Allen did it better in ZELIG without Tom Hanks and without all the treacly, maudlin bits thrown in.

[filmregistry]

True, the fact that a film has been named to the Registry does not GUARANTEE it will be preserved, but that is the ultimate goal. It is a safe bet, though, that master elements or at least a pretty darned good print will be conserved at the Library of Congress, meaning that it will be housed in clean, non-rusty film cans, stored at the proper temperature and humidity levels, cataloged to ensure its existence is known and its pertinent metadata is recorded, and inspected periodically for deterioration. Preservation, in particular the striking of master preservation elements or a projection print or even a digital intermediate, is a very expensive undertaking, especially for color films, and consequently can take years to complete. Also, to be clear, just because a film has been preserved doesn't mean it immediately will be accessible to the public on TCM or any network. Nor does it mean it will be screened at your neighborhood revival house. Or film festival. Or released as a DVD. Or streamed on NetFlix. The Library of Congress does not control the licensing or distribution of films on the Registry, with the exception of those whose rights the Library has acquired or those that are in the public domain. And the quality of a film aired on television -- whether it's public television, the big five networks, or even a cable network as stellar as TCM -- depends on that broadcaster. Same with DVD distribution. Many of these decisions are based on the potential return on investment to make new broadcast or DVD masters. Like many things, it all comes down to money, and there simply is not enough to preserve all the films that deserve to be preserved and to make available all those we may want to see. Fortunately, new distribution methods are making it more cost effective all the time, while many rights holders are voluntarily allowing greater access to their materials. I believe there is more access to more varieties of classic film than ever before, and I'm optimistic the trend will continue.

[RMeingast]

Thanks for commenting, Donna.

[DownGoesFrazier]

My guess is that shrimp is not one of your favorite foods. Nor are chocolates.