Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
TomJH

Zorro and Don Juan - A Great Swashbuckling Double Bill

Recommended Posts

Thank you, I'll check out that link but it was more of an empty dream, "oh if only it had been done originally in color" because I'm with you on colorization- it always looks weeeeeeeird and *tacky* . And the way the people look colorized reminds me a trifle of how the Walking Dead Women of Beverly Hills use spray paint for make-up in Death Becomes Her.

 

Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Jan 29, 2013 11:31 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

> At the time this movie supposedly took place, Los Angeles was just a sleepy Mexican pueblo of 1,000 at most. It cosisted of one story adobe dwellings, so there is nowhere room for sets to lend themselves to "grandness", except maybe in the opening scene in the Spanish court.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

I nearly always have issues with Fox Studios sets (unless it's a noir ), I just feel like they lack a certain something found in the sets over at the other studios- and there's always a "confined" feel to their sets. I just think the sets would've been something better were this a WB film or, even better, a Columbia picture (for all their purported status as "Poverty Row" they really put together some gorgeously shot , atmospheric and well-dressed-films in the early and mid-forties.)

 

*And Fox certainly didn't scrimp on the (characteristic) anachronistic flourishes in the costuming,* who knew you could get gold lame' ball gowns and men's tailored suits with bugle beads and sequins in the nineteenth century, whether in Madrid or La Pueblo de Los Angeles etc... ?

 

Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Jan 29, 2013 11:44 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>And Fox certainly didn't scrimp on the (characteristic) anachronistic flourishes in the costuming, who knew you could get gold lame' ball gowns and men's tailored suits with bugle beads and sequins in the nineteenth century, whether in Madrid or La Pueblo de Los Angeles etc... ?

 

Well, look at it THIS way, Addison...at least there were no shots of the concreted banks of the L.A. River to be seen in it, anyway! ;)

 

(...though of course THAT little engineering "marvel" wouldn't have been completed until another couple decades after this film was shot)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, TB, I guess it was too much to hope that you might back off the thread with some degree of graciousness. You just had to come back to take a shot.

 

 

 

There is nothing "desperate" about my desire to keep this thread on track with its original topic or, at least, try to keep it relatively on track. Having said that, we all know that discussions can evolve on a thread that can always potentially take it off its original subject. It happens all the time.

 

 

 

It's entirely another thing, however, when you imperiously announce:

 

 

 

*This thread draws concerns from me. . . . How come we do not get all excited about the women's pictures as much as we do about the male-dominated action flicks?*

 

 

 

That was a comment that came right out of the blue.

 

 

 

After that you state that you are a proud feminist and it becomes apparent that you have decided that it would be good if a feminist angle to swashbuckling films should be added to this thread.

 

 

 

And just who are you to decide how a thread created by someone else should proceed? If you want readers to benefit from that "rich assortment of subtopics" you talked about you can easily do it by creating a thread of your own, rather than possibly de-railing someone else's thread. By the way, I didn't notice that you did create that thread. Maybe you didn't feel that lady swashbucklers was so rich a subtopic, after all.

 

 

 

Anyone who has seen your threads knows how controlling you are of them, and how you object to those who have an opinion different from your own. Well, if you want to control your own threads, that's your business. It's something else, however, when you try to extend that control to someone else's thread. And since I objected to it when you tried to do it here, what a surprise, you resented it. I can just imagine how passively you would stand by if someone came on a thread of yours and tried to re-direct it, as your feminist swashbuckler angle would have done with mine.

 

 

 

You talk about the rudeness of some on these message boards. Well, to me, deliberately trying to re-direct or, at least, heavily influence, the direction of someone else's thread, now THAT is rude and disrespectful.

 

 

 

I guess it's a lost cause to say this but I will anyway: TopBilled, try to control your need to control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can discuss lady swashbucklers here in this thread. Why not compare Maureen's work with Ty's or Errol's? After all, they were all featured on TCM last night. This is a relevant discussion.

 

I do not think I need your permission or you dictating to me start another thread about this topic. I think it is clear that you are trying to chase me off, and when that does not work you resort to bullying which will likely cause your thread to get locked. Please refrain from doing that.

 

Incidentally, I have concerns about the Marlowe thread you started, but one fire at a time. And also, I felt it would seem like I was targeting your writing too much if I joined that discussion too. The swashbucklers topic is one that interests me more, and I see myself continuing to contribute valuable dialogue here. I hope you will be able to monitor your own reactions better. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TB, I really don't find it productive to bicker any more about this particular issue. But my point was to respect the wishes of the originator of a thread if he/she makes a request. (As long as the request is a reasonable one, of course).

 

And if that request is an expression that a new topic introduced by you will knock the thread off topic (as, I believe, lady swashbucklers would on a thread about Zorro and Don Juan), so be it. I never dictated to you to start another thread. I said that if you felt strongly enough about your topic that's where you could do it. Why cause unnecessary aggravation then by doing exactly what you did, posting a couple of pictures of Maureen O'Hara as a swashbuckler on my thread after I had requested that you not go there? You could just have easily put those same pictures on a thread of your own.

 

Another thing, why do you resort to groundless accusations of bullying and threads being locked up? When things don't go your way, you always seem ready to run to the administrator.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> I do not think I need your permission or you dictating to me start another thread about this topic. I think it is clear that you are trying to chase me off, and when that does not work you resort to bullying which will likely cause your thread to get locked. Please refrain from doing that.

But when the host of a thread politely asks you to not post in it any longer, and you continue to do so, that could cause you to get banned. It's called harassment. You've seen he has asked you multiple times and yet you choose to continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like you are more reasonable now. If you had originally replied with, 'Interesting viewpoint TB, but I see it this way...' then that would have been fine. But instead, you jumped all over my thoughts and opinions and really tried to drive me off the thread. If you are the author of the thread, it might help if you see others as guests and treat them the way one does when a guest comes into your home. But your tolerance level was so low in my view, and your narrow-mindedness so great in my view, that I felt like I was immediately being branded the villain. However, despite such shabby treatment, I felt like this was a thread where we could learn something. If we are afraid to learn things and discuss things rationally, then we are in trouble.

 

I just may start a thread later about lady swashbuckler films after I have had time to research the topic more thoroughly. I would create such a thread in the hopes of presenting the argument in a way that might convince TCM's programmers to either schedule an evening of Maureen O'Hara in swashbuckling roles or else show films that feature gals on the high seas in a variety of roles that play up their strength as well as their femininity. I will not create that thread today or tomorrow, but perhaps down the road apace. I think it will be a fun topic and it might become another one of my meteoric threads.

 

In the meantime, I am helping ensure that this thread remains the number one Popular Discussion on this forum. Probably because I am a magnet and people want to read what you and I are saying about swashbucklers, male and female.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not harassment, filmlover. You are saying that in the hope that I will be banned. The comments I have made and the images I have posted have been focused on classic film, film that TCM has been airing recently. You just do not like my 'take' on these films and neither does the original poster. But neither one of you has the right to tell me what to post and where to post it. That is the very definition of censorship and harassment as far as I am concerned.

 

You have also come on to threads I have created and attacked the way I have labeled TCM's daytime scheduling. I am still waiting for an apology from you about that, and I am patient enough to realize it may take quite awhile for you to come to your senses, but that's okay. I will wait. I will accept your apology when it is offered and we will be able to move forward, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TopBilled wrote:

Probably because I am a magnet and people want to read what you and I are saying about swashbucklers, male and female.

 

Please, let's have a reality check around here. The thread in Hot Topics on George Brent's butt has 35,000 views without your help. Maybe mentioning that will keep things in perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But clore, you are using my posts here and my built-in audience to advertise the other thread. So in a way, because of you now, I will have an indirect effect on those 35,000 posts. Yes?

 

On another note, I have seen increased negativity in a lot of your posts, and it makes me feel sad sometimes. But I am kind and do not tell you how to write them. I do continue to look for more positive remarks from you about TCM that I can relate to. Have I missed your more positive comments? Are they in the George Brent thread? I do not read that thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it IS harassment. If someone were to ask another person for a date, and that person said, no...but the first person continued to ask, even though they were told, 'No, quit asking"...that is harassment. You have been asked to leave this thread. You have refused. You have been asked again. You have refused again and continue to post. That is harassment. And, yes, if the moderator decides so, you can be banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*TB wrote: If you are the author of the thread, it might help if you see others as guests and treat them the way one does when a guest comes into your home.*

 

If this thread is my home and you are my guest, then you came in like a guest who disapproves of the home and announces she is going to "improve" it, her way. You should have had the courtesy to respect the wishes of the thread/home owner, and not proceed to post those pictures of Maureen O'Hara (a lovely lady that I would otherwise adore to look at - but not under those circumstances).

 

If you do decide to start a lady swashbuckler thread, that's fine. It might even be an interesting thread on its own. But NOT if you try to INFLICT those same topics on the thread of someone who has politely requested that you not do it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

filmlover,

 

You are exaggerating. That sort of analogy is rather off-base, don't you think? Have I asked anyone for a date? Have I tried to tell others to post about lady swashbucklers? No. I have just continued to contribute a subtopic or sub-theme to the overall topic of discussion. I really do not see why you cannot put my posts on ignore if they are so unwelcome by you, even though I have not posted anything inappropriate.

 

I would also ask you to look at your own behaviors and posting style in this thread and other threads and take responsibility for your own actions, too. Remember that you can be banned just like the next person. Does it really have to go there? Can't everyone contribute their opinions about TCM's schedule last night without there being all kinds of thought policing and drama? I am disappointed in your replies to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote}But clore, you are using my posts here and my built-in audience to advertise the other thread. So in a way, because of you now, I will have an indirect effect on those 35,000 posts. Yes?

>

> On another note, I have seen increased negativity in a lot of your posts, and it makes me feel sad sometimes. But I am kind and do not tell you how to write them. I do continue to look for more positive remarks from you about TCM that I can relate to. Have I missed your more positive comments? Are they in the George Brent thread? I do not read that thread.

>

 

Didn't I see you using this thread to tout your Loretta Young thread? You even mentioned how many views it has, so it's not as if I'm setting a precedent. I'm merely referencing another thread, hardly "advertising" it and it's not as if I authored that one. I have nothing to gain from my reference.

 

 

As far as negativity is concerned, I hardly have the patent on that and if I wish to make whatever comment I wish, positive or negative, that's within my right as it is within your right to express negatives and this thread has more than a few of them with your name on them

 

On the subject of my positive posts, there's one in this thread where I complimented TCM for airing the restored CYRANO DE BERGERAC last night. I guess you must have missed that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> On the subject of my positive posts, there's one in this thread where I complimented TCM for airing the restored CYRANO DE BERGERAC last night. I guess you must have missed that one.

 

Thank you for telling me. I will make a point to read it. I did not catch CYRANO last night, because I had other things to clear from my DVR and I had noticed that CYRANO will air again in March. Glad to hear it is a restored print.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You have disrupted this thread from the moment you entered it. You are good at giving advice but bad at taking it. If I am not welcome in a thread, I won't post there any longer. Why? Because I don't like to cause trouble, as you seem to and you do it with an ego that put Orson Welles' to shame. You are trolling.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, Maltin gives both the Fairbanks Sr. version and the Power Jr. version the same MARKs:

 

_THE MARK OF ZORRO (1920): 3.5 stars_

Silent classic with Fairbanks as the masked hero of old California; perhaps Doug's best film--his first swashbuckler. Nonstop fun.

 

_THE MARK OF ZORRO (1940): 3.5 stars_

Lavish swashbuckler with Power as son of California aristocrat in 1800s, alternately a foppish dandy and a dashing masked avenger of evil: climactic swordplay with Rathbone a swashbuckling gem.

 

Meanwhile, Cornel Wilde who appeared with Maureen O'Hara in AT SWORD'S POINT gets a lesser score from Maltin with his version of this story:

 

_CALIFORNIA CONQUEST (1952): 2.5 stars_

Film deals with sidelight of American history. Californian Wilde et al. under Spanish control help their ally against Russian attempt to confiscate the territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*TB wrote: In the meantime, I am helping ensure that this thread remains the number one Popular Discussion on this forum. Probably because I am a magnet and people want to read what you and I are saying about swashbucklers, male and female.*

 

Quite frankly, I don't have a need that any post I write be Number One. I would far rather have an intelligent or amusing exchange with a couple of people rather than all this unnecessary aggravation from you.

 

And if readers are looking here, let's not kid ourselves. It's because we're bickering. This is like Reality TV friction, and that's not what I want on these message boards. We have not had an intelligent discourse of any kind. You have NOT made a positive contribution to this thread. You've just shown your aggression and incredible ego, being the "magnet" that you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Viveca Lindfors was beautiful in The Adventures of Don Juan. She looked and acted just like a queen.

 

The color was great in this film. Old 3-Strip Technicolor is so much better than modern color film.

 

The massive sets in this film were phenomenonal, so large, especially inside the castle and in the giant stairway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with everything you've just said, Fred. And, as Tom here might agree with me and may have even intimated earlier in this thread, can not understand why this film selsom seems to be mentioned in the same breath as Flynn's earlier triumphs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad you liked Don Juan, Fred. It IS an extraordinarily handsome production, but I also really appreciate its witty screenplay. It seems like a bit more of an adult swashbuckler, so to speak, than, say, Captain Blood or Robin Hood. And I don't mean that just because the subject matter is Don Juan but also because of the relative sophistication of the tongue-in-cheek humour.

 

You're certainly right about Viveca Lindfors. She brings both beauty and intelligence to her role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>can not understand why this film seldom seems to be mentioned in the same breath as Flynn's earlier triumphs.

 

I don't know. I thought he was a very good actor in this film, and he played a good character. The whole film was interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I'm glad you liked Don Juan, Fred. It IS an extraordinarily handsome production, but I also really appreciate its witty screenplay. It seems like a bit more of an adult swashbuckler, so to speak, than, say, Captain Blood or Robin Hood.

 

I agree. At first I thought it was going to be a comedy, but it gradually turned into a good dramatic film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Dargo2 wrote:}{quote}I would agree with everything you've just said, Fred. And, as Tom here might agree with me and may have even intimated earlier in this thread, can not understand why this film seldom seems to be mentioned in the same breath as Flynn's earlier triumphs.

I'm fairly certain that it's in the Rudy Behlmer book "Inside Warner Bros" that WB did a poll around the time that the film was released. They discovered that many people didn't go see the film because they thought that they had seen it already!

It's theorized that because WB had reissued three earlier Flynn adventures to great success, that this, and the "Adventures of" part of the title, may have caused audience confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...