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

HITS & MISSES: Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow on TCM


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

Friday, December 15/16

Not much for me to choose from this day.

Annex+-+Davis%252C+Bette+%2528Man+Who+Ca

2 a.m. The Man Who Came to Dinner (1941).  With Bette Davis and Monty Woolley.

 

We watched this the other day and my wife wondered how that blouse with no bra look of Ann Sheridan got passed the censors.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rayban said:

How could "Wanda" have made the National Film Registry?

It is such a repulsive film.

 

Itg 

I think "Wanda" made the Registry for several reasons, rayban.  It is of social/historical value because there weren't a lot of low-budget films by women in this time period (1970) and not many films dealing with women in these dead-end circumstances such as the character of Wanda.  I don't find it repulsive, but it is a downer and certainly not to everyone's taste.  I think it's important and merits being included in the Registry.  The Registry should include independent, low budget, off-the-beaten-path types of movies as well as the classics.  There are/were women like Wanda and their stories are worth telling.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

We watched this the other day and my wife wondered how that blouse with no bra look of Ann Sheridan got passed the censors.

 

There are a lot of movies where the women are obviously not wearing a bra and it got past the censors--especially the 30s movies where women are wearing very thin, unforgiving fabrics like satin and silk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, ChristineHoard said:

I think "Wanda" made the Registry for several reasons, rayban.  It is of social/historical value because there weren't a lot of low-budget films by women in this time period (1970) and not many films dealing with women in these dead-end circumstances such as the character of Wanda.  I don't find it repulsive, but it is a downer and certainly not to everyone's taste.  I think it's important and merits being included in the Registry.  The Registry should include independent, low budget, off-the-beaten-path types of movies as well as the classics.  There are/were women like Wanda and their stories are worth telling.

I agree completely with this.  In the These Amazing Shadows documentary (which originally aired on PBS) that preceded the evening's films, many of the National Film Registry board members stated that while they do select the classics like Casablanca, Gone With the Wind, etc. they also expand the scope of their preservation efforts to all types of film, whether it's independent film, documentaries, short subjects, commercials, music videos, etc. their goal is to preserve film that demonstrates American culture, aesthetics, etc.  They showed a clip of someone's home movies (which the owner ended up turning into a small film) showing their family's life in their Japanese internment camp.  This era was a bad time in United States history, but it did happen and it was a major event during the United States' involvement in WWII. The National Film Registry's goal isn't to just preserve classic films persay, but to preserve American culture--so that real filmed footage of people living during the Great Depression, for example, will always be available. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

Friday, December 15/16

Not much for me to choose from this day.

Annex+-+Davis%252C+Bette+%2528Man+Who+Ca

2 a.m. The Man Who Came to Dinner (1941).  With Bette Davis and Monty Woolley.

 

Are those Harvey Weinstein's hands on Ann?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, speedracer5 said:

There are a lot of movies where the women are obviously not wearing a bra and it got past the censors--especially the 30s movies where women are wearing very thin, unforgiving fabrics like satin and silk.

The thing is - and this is just my personal observation - the films of that era usually seemed to do this in a 'classy' kind of way, that still left enough to the imagination to avoid being overtly exploitative (or set off MPPC alarm bells).

hqdefault.jpg

5 minutes ago, scsu1975 said:

Are those Harvey Weinstein's hands on Ann?

He'd have to have an impressive reach through space and time...

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

We watched this the other day and my wife wondered how that blouse with no bra look of Ann Sheridan got passed the censors.

 

If you look closely at movies from this period, it appears bras were not worn in many of them.  I don't believe there was a rule requiring them.  Also appears that a lot of movies featured backless gowns so audience would assume women were not wearing bras.  Although there are some bras especially made for backless dresses.

Personally I wonder how her hat got past the censors.

Regardless, it is a very good movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheCid said:

If you look closely at movies from this period, it appears bras were not worn in many of them.  I don't believe there was a rule requiring them.  Also appears that a lot of movies featured backless gowns so audience would assume women were not wearing bras.  Although there are some bras especially made for backless dresses.

Personally I wonder how her hat got past the censors.

Regardless, it is a very good movie.

Regardless,  it is a very good movie????   Uh,  it is a very good movie because of this.   :lol:

(yea, I know bras were often not worn,  but for my wife to notice this (it was in a original promo WB created) means that something stood out,,, since the fabric (silk?),  was so sheer).

WB was doing their best to promote the Oomph Girl in all of her glory.   

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Regardless,  it is a very good movie????   Uh,  it is a very good movie because of this.   :lol:

(yea, I know bras were often not worn,  but for my wife to notice this (it was in a original promo WB created) means that something stood out,,, since the fabric (silk?),  was so sheer).

WB was doing their best to promote the Oomph Girl in all of her glory.   

 

 

My comment meant that it is a very good movie regardless of what Ann Sheridan wore.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TheCid said:

My comment meant that it is a very good movie regardless of what Ann Sheridan wore.

Man you must lack any sense of humor.  Of course I understood that!!!   My JOKE was that it was a very good movie BECAUSE of what Ann Sheridan wore.       Next time I'll use more than one emoticon.    :blink:;):lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2017 at 7:07 AM, rayban said:

How could "Wanda" have made the National Film Registry?

It is such a repulsive film.

If yer askin', might want to look up These Amazing Shadows (2011), if it's not the documentary in question TCM is showing anyway--A darn good rental-suggestion fest on what films get picked for the National Film Registry for the sake of education and preservation, exactly who picks them, and why.

All it takes, we're told, is someone on the board to stand up for them and make the case to the judges.  And those responsible do make good cases for why "Rocky Horror Picture Show" and the Zapruder JFK film were added, as well as the original "Let's all go to the lobby" commercial. 

As for why "The Goonies" was added this year, I could tell you stories of the difficulty I've had telling starry-eyed 80's-mythologizing kids of how, dear gods, we all hated that unholy hot-mess when it came out in theaters.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Man you must lack any sense of humor.  Of course I understood that!!!   My JOKE was that it was a very good movie BECAUSE of what Ann Sheridan wore.       Next time I'll use more than one emoticon.    :blink:;):lol:

Use all you want, but your comment inferred that the only thing that made it a good movie was because of what she didn't wear.  Perhaps if you had contradicted my comment?

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Use all you want, but your comment inferred that the only thing that made it a good movie was because of what she didn't wear.  Perhaps if you had contradicted my comment?

You inferred what you did from my comment because you have no sense of humor. 

Anyhow the film is a fine comedy with great performances by all in a film where Davis isn't the center of attention.    Davis asked for the role since she wanted a break after doing The Little Foxes and other dramas.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reminder...I think I've already seen THESE AMAZING SHADOWS, but my library has it so I just requested it to refresh my memory. Film preservation is the only charity I support, no matter how bad a year I've had. (my business is restoration too)

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, EricJ said:

 

As for why "The Goonies" was added this year, I could tell you stories of the difficulty I've had telling starry-eyed 80's-mythologizing kids of how, dear gods, we all hated that unholy hot-mess when it came out in theaters.

Sadly, not ALL of us.  I have a brother in law that just LOVES that "steaming heap".

I remember going to the show to see it because the HYPE was so positive.  And I recall MY favorite part of the movie was the CLOSING CREDITS because it meant the movie was over! ;)

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

Sadly, not ALL of us.  I have a brother in law that just LOVES that "steaming heap".

I remember going to the show to see it because the HYPE was so positive.  And I recall MY favorite part of the movie was the CLOSING CREDITS because it meant the movie was over! ;)

Sepiatone

Same here for me....but unfortunately I have nephews and nieces who love the darn film.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2017 at 7:22 AM, Bogie56 said:

Friday, December 15/16

Not much for me to choose from this day.

Annex+-+Davis%252C+Bette+%2528Man+Who+Ca

2 a.m. The Man Who Came to Dinner (1941).  With Bette Davis and Monty Woolley.

 

I watched this again and I have to say I love Ann Sheridan's top - especially the hands in the front.  She's very funny in this as is Jimmy Durante.  Lots of references to famous people in the 1940's; I wonder how many go over the heads of today's audience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 9:24 AM, Bogie56 said:

Saturday, December 16

lugosi+005.JPG

3:45 a.m.  Island of Lost Souls (1933).  Are we not men.

Anyone ever see the 1996 version & *Brando in what is probably his most bizarre role?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChristineHoard said:

I watched this again and I have to say I love Ann Sheridan's top - especially the hands in the front.  She's very funny in this as is Jimmy Durante.  Lots of references to famous people in the 1940's; I wonder how many go over the heads of today's audience.

Very good (***1/2) but stagey

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bogie56 said:

Sunday, December 17

81vNGndoE4L._SX657_.jpg

10 p.m.  Modern Romance (1981).  Albert Brooks' brilliant breaking up film.  Don’t forget to check out George Kennedy’s feet and never jog broke.

 

Albert Brooks is among the few that can still make me laugh in our era & was an *Academy Award contender for '87's "Broadcast News" (TRIVIA: His brother is Super Dave 0sborne)

Who also caught his even better 1985 "Lost in America?"

  • Like 1
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...