Jump to content

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

Tootsie ??? not AGAIN!

Recommended Posts

Personally I'd rather watch Midnight Cowboy or Z+ over any of those 1940 Oscar nominees you listed, if for no other reason than the fact that they don't get shown over and over again. But as a more general point, my take on comparing the 30's and the 70's is that there were more "great" movies from the 70's, but also infinitely more pure disasters. You can probably credit or blame the Breen code, or the lack of it, for both of those observations. Certainly neither The Godfather nor Serpico nor Animal House+ could ever have been made under the Breen Code restrictions, but OTOH we also might have been spared hundreds of embarrassments that were the cinematic equivalent of a group of teenaged boys being let loose with spray guns in a museum. You get the bad with the good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I see no reason to pretend they were not made on the cheap and that they have many flaws, if one is willing to look closely.

 

They may or may Not have many flaws, the 'flaws" do not outweight the over all quality, after all, nothing in life is perfect.

 

If one has to "look closely", then the flaws obviously cannot be too bad !

 

Twink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred, you're very confused today. None of those quotes were made to you and none of them were made related to the topic you bring up yet again in this latest post.

 

I agree with what you say about Young Frankenstein and Paths of Glory. Never said otherwise. But just because these movies were shot like 30's movies doesn't make the case that there were not a lot of cheap programmer that lacked depth released in the 30s, as well as the negative impact the Hays code had starting in 1934 (a point you made, and made well, when comparing the versions of The Maltese Falcon).

 

Oh, and ICE STATION ZEBRA is a stinker. Diner is a very good movie but I agree it doesn't fit TCM's brand (well the brand I would like TCM to have).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you take what I said out of context and than make this comment:

 

"They may or may Not have many flaws, the 'flaws" do not outweigh the over all quality, after all, nothing in life is perfect".

 

How is that much different than what I said at the start of the sentence:

 

While one can still get a lot of entertainment from movies that were made on the cheap,,,,,

 

I have said 100 times that I enjoy these cheap 30s programmers (especially WB ones). Now I have said it 101 times. Therefore there is no reason for anyone to feel they need to defend these 30s movies.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I have said 100 times that I enjoy these cheap 30s programmers (especially WB ones). Now I have said it 101 times. Therefore there is no reason for anyone to feel they need to defend these 30s movies.

 

NOBODY here has been praising any "cheap 30s programmers". You keep inventing an argument that doesn't exist.

 

Some of us have praised CLASSIC films from the 20s, 30s, and 40s, OVER bad, poorly photographed and poorly scripted films from the 60s and 70s that suck, which is about 85% of the films from the 60s and 70s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So you're like the Gene Kelly character? He was kind of a snake (but I agree with her overall POV).

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well James, while overall I'm not nearly as cynical as the Mencken-inspired character that Kelly played in that flick, I definitely identified with that character quite a bit.

 

(...and maybe why I actually love the dressing down he receives by Spence at the end of it, 'cause NOBODY should ever be THAT cynical...RIGHT?!) ;)

 

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The film that started this thread is ok, but I don't want to see it every month. Once every 10 years is ok for me.

 

One good thing about Tootsie was seeing the first time and being surprised all through the movie. Well, that works only about once every 10 years. If we see it more often than that, we remember everything that happens and it's no surprise anymore.

 

Diner might be ok for some people, but I've been to Baltimore and I don't want to know anything more about Baltimore or hear anyone talk about being from Baltimore. The subject is of no interest to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the 30s movies are referred to as "Hollywood's Golden Era" speaks for itself. No other decade in movies has ever received such accolades or been reffered to in such glowing terms. If nothing else, the acting alone was far more superior to anything we see today, as well as the lighting, the Art Deco set decorating and of course those glamorous clothes.

 

Certainly this Golden Era far outweights any of the post 60's movies, there is No camparison!

 

 

Twink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}Are you one of the big fans of ICE STATION ZEBRA? :)

To tell the truth, I'd never heard of that movie until the last day or so, and I still have no idea what it's about or who's in it. 90% of my current movie viewing is on TCM, 7% is from Netflix, 2% on the Fox Movie Channel, and at most 1% in the theaters. The last movie I saw in a theater was 42, and before that I can't even remember. Every time I see a movie written up that I think I might like, the small print almost always says "Opens today in Manhattan and Los Angeles", but unfortuntely I live just outside DC, and most of those movies never make it this far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The fact that the 30s movies are referred to as "Hollywood's Golden Era" speaks for itself. No other decade in movies has ever received such accolades or been reffered to in such glowing terms. If nothing else, the acting alone was far more superior to anything we see today, as well as the lighting, the Art Deco set decorating and of course those glamorous clothes.

>

>Certainly this Golden Era far outweights any of the post 60's movies, there is No camparison!

 

Well, of course, you are right again. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred, as I'm sure you know, the "Golden Age of Hollywood" is not limited to the 1930s, but in fact refers to a broader time range, generally, yes, the '30s, but also most certainly the 40s and 50s. What is largely considered to be the "studio era" of filmmaking. In fact, I'd say many film historians would agree that the 40s produced more great films than did the 30s. Not that we have to argue about it, they were both great decades for movies.

 

Here's a little of what a wikipedia article says about "The Golden Age" of movies:

 

 

"... *Classical Hollywood cinema* or the *classical Hollywood narrative*,^[]|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Hollywood_cinema#cite_note-1]^ are terms used in [film history|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_film|History of film] which designate both a visual and sound style for making motion pictures and a mode of production used in the [American film industry|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_of_the_United_States|Cinema of the United States]between 1927 and 1963. This period is often referred to as the "golden age of Hollywood." An identifiable cinematic form emerged during this period called classical Hollywood style...."

 

So, definitely not just the 30s. Roughly speaking, 1927to 1963.

 

Edited by: misswonderly on Jul 28, 2013 12:01 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Here's a little of what a wikipedia article says about "The Golden Age" of movies

 

Yeah, because we all know Wikipedia must be right-they wouldn't print it if it wasn't FACTUAL.....

SmokeScreen.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TikiSoo, I certainly agree that much information on the internet is unreliable, including "wikipedia". However, would you not agree with that brief paragraph I copied, that the "Golden Age of Hollywood" extends beyond the 1930s? At the very least, it is usually considered to include the 30s AND the 40s. My point, supported by wikipedia or not, was simply that when that term is used ("Hollywood's Golden Age") it is alluding to a broader time period than one decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'll play mediator of sorts here.

 

 

Fred, *Diner* is a good movie. I didn't think it was as GREAT as many critics and other viewers at the time thought, but it's passable.

 

 

And it's one of those movies that were "career launchers" for many of the cast members. Daniel Stern, Mickey Rourke, Steve Guttenberg and Ellen Barkin were largely unheard of, or never made any film appearances before it. Because of it's high critical praise, most of them found meatier film roles come their way, and some went on to respectable careers, like Stern and Barkin, or wasted their careers, like Rourke. OR went virtually nowhere, like Guttenberg.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred, *Diner *is a good movie. I didn't think it was as GREAT as many critics and other viewers at the time thought, but it's passable.

 

I'll agree that Diner is a passably good movie, but another one in that trilogy, Tin Men, is arguably one of the top half dozen comedies of all time. Dreyfuss and DeVito were born to play their roles, and even if the opening scene was right out of the W.C. Fields segment of If I Had A Million, that slight case of plagiarism doesn't diminish the film in the slightest. And in terms of atmosphere, you couldn't depict the Baltimore of the early 60's any better if you could step into a time machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>the opening scene was right out of the W.C. Fields segment of If I Had A Million, that slight case of plagiarism doesn't diminish the film in the slightest. And in terms of atmosphere, you couldn't depict the Baltimore of the early 60's any better if you could step into a time machine.

 

Love your assessment Andy.

And I love Levinson's trilogy.

They are not the stupendous films that touch every viewer beyond demographics like The Wizard of Oz, but I don't want them to be.

 

I like Levinson's story telling style and his talent of setting the atmosphere and connect with them like a "cult" film will. I especially enjoy them in contrast to John Waters' Baltimore. Unlike Fred, I identify with Baltimore and enjoy the role it plays in their story telling.

 

And omg sepiatone, you left out of your list Paul Riser!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> But as well, a Lot of post 50s movies are a joke. Isn't that why we love the 30s /40s movies so much, as they make more sense.

 

Well at least you did not say "ALL" post 1950s movies are a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> I thought that the 60s was a very good decade for films. That's why when I hear the phrase classic era I think up to and including 1969. The 70s, 80s, and 90s had their moments, but they did not have the quality control of the decades before.

 

I would agree. The 1960's era was a transition of film in more ways than one. With the elimination of the Hays Code in 1968, filmmakers were free to explore topics and themes that were not possible before 1934.

 

Many continue to argue that the Golden Age of Hollywood should be the "only" time period allowed on TCM. The only problem with that is that the mission statement of TCM clearly states that films through the 1990's are now available for showing on TCM.

 

And I am sure that once TCM has their 20th anniversary that staement will include the "2000's".

 

As far as the 70's, 80's 90's having quality control issues... I would say that based on everything I have ever read about the stranglehold the studios had on films and actors back in the 1930's through the 1950's that the studios had much better quality control then than they do now. There are so many more filmmaking studios and or entities producing films now, that each one has to make up their own set of quality control. As far as actors are concerned, they can now move freely between any studio and work wherever their talent is needed.

 

My own opinion is that even though the quality of films from 1970 to now has at times not been the best, I would also say that each year has brought very well-made films that have endured. And more and better films are being produced each year.

 

Not every film produced today is good, but the same can be said of the Golden Era of Filmmaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Showing films from the 1930s through the 2000s now waters down what I originally subscribed to TCM to receive, which was mainly the best classic films from the 30s and 40s, with some from the 20s and 50s.

 

Well let me ask you something then Fred. And that is this:

 

When you first signed up for TCM did you NOT notice the films from the 1960's, 70's and 80's being shown on TCM? The way you make it sound is that you found TCM one day, you looked around and saw many 1930's, 40's and 50's films on the channel and deduced that this is the channel for you.

 

What you don't say is that you also must have noticed the films being shown on the channel made after 1960? Because in the schedule for January 1995, there are over 25 films from the 1960's on the schedule. You must not have seen those listings?

 

> I prefer films that used the old style of photography, lighting, sets, music, background sounds, etc., such as the style Mel Brooks used to film YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN.

 

I guess then you would like to have seen or see in the future the following Black and White films: Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid, or maybe, Schindler's List, or possibly Manhattan, Paper Moon, The Last Picture Show, The Elephant Man, Raging Bull, Ed Wood, The Man Who Wasn't There, Good Night and Good Luck.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The B&W movies post 1960 that you mention do not compare to the 30s/40s B&W Movies.

 

i.e. CITIZEN KANE, where Orson Welles had the forsight to engage cinematographer, Gregg Toland. In nearly every scene, the foreground and background are in sharp focus. This is due to a special lense that he used. Also, an optical printer was used to layer one piece of film over another. This is what gives us that unque look to the movie as well as the lighting they used back then, neither of which is used in post 1960s b&w movies.

 

So you see, there just is No comparison !

 

Twink

 

Edited by: twinkeee on Jul 28, 2013 2:48 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least you didn't say ALL post 50s movies are a joke.

 

No, not ALL post 1950s movies are a joke,... But the movie DINER certainly was a joke !

 

Twink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>When you first signed up for TCM did you NOT notice the films from the 1960's, 70's and 80's being shown on TCM?

 

It didn't matter back then because they were very few in number and we also had Old AMC, so there was always a pre-1960 movie on my TV, night and day. :)

 

Then Old AMC died, and gradually over the years TCM began increasing the number of post-60, post-70, and post-80s movies they show, and they moved most of the 1930s and 40s films to the hours of midnight until 6 or 7 AM. Which is where we are this month. And TCM has become an all-decade movie channel, with more emphasis on the 60s, 70s, 80s, and some into the 90s. If that's what you want, then that's what you've got. Who wants to see those silly old black and white films anyway, with those long skirts and funny hairstyles.

 

Anyway, I recently upgraded my DSL speed and a lot of the old classic movies that Old AMC and Old TCM used to show, are now on YouTube. And some new inventions allow for the sending of computer downloads directly to our LCD TV screens, and more old classics are becoming available over the internet. Time changes everything. It always has. It always will.

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  

© 2019 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...