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

Recommended Posts

"The Graduate".

 

It was fun to see Richard Dreyfuss in the bit part in the frat house.

 

Interesting also how different Simon's and Garfinkel's version of "Mrs. Robinson" was in the movie.

 

Noticed this too, did ya, CG?!

 

Yep, I also remember bein' a little shocked myself when I heard those lyrics, "Where have you gone, Joe Garagiola" while re-watching that flick recently.

 

(...nope, didn't remember it bein' that way at all)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Royal Hunt of the Sun" (1969)--Film about the downfall of the Inca empire in sixteenth century Peru manages to be deadly dull for the first 35 minutes; even star Robert Shaw (as Pizarro) manages to be boring and glum.  

 

Then Atahualpa, King of the Incas (Christopher Plummer) appears and Plummer shocks the movie back to life.  In the process, he gives a lesson on movie-stealing; hissing, prancing, yowling, sniffing, swooping, shrieking, he effectively makes the film His and everyone else is just annoying background noise.  Plummer is in his own Universe and I laughed so hard my stomach hurt.  

 

Even the anti- Vietnam War scene doesn't stop the laughter.  It's so badly executed characters fall before being hit, in two cases without being hit.

 

As long as Plummer's on screen, film is amusing, at the very least interesting: without him, film is Boring.  2.3/4--All for Plummer and the Incas.

 

Edit; I saw film on YT.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Royal Hunt of the Sun" (1969)--Film about the downfall of the Inca empire in sixteenth century Peru manages to be deadly dull for the first 35 minutes; even star Robert Shaw (as Pizarro) manages to be boring and glum.  

 

 

I don't know what surprises me more- that Robert Shaw was cast as an Italian or that he was ever boring in anything.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what surprises me more- that Robert Shaw was cast as an Italian or that he was ever boring in anything.

 

Add to this the casting of Christopher Plummer as the Inca leader Atahualpa.

 

But yea, Shaw being boring is unusual,  but also the portrayal of any Italian as a boring character is fairly unusual in any British \ American film since Italians are often portrayed as animated characters.     So one would think that Shaw as an Italian would end up being slightly over the top (at best).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Add to this the casting of Christopher Plummer as the Inca leader Atahualpa.

 

But yea, Shaw being boring is unusual, but also the portrayal of any Italian as a boring character is fairly unusual in any British \ American film since Italians are often portrayed as animated characters. So one would think that Shaw as an Italian would end up being slightly over the top (at best).

I'm glad he finally won that Oscar, and he's a good actor, actually a great actor - but there was a loooooooong time when Christopher Plummer said "yes" to ANYTHING. Like anything anything. It's seriously possible he showed up in a snuff film sometime in the late eighties. But he always seems to be a hundred percent committed, the same way Richard Burton was when he was doing God awful movies. And there's something about that you just have to applaud.

 

Maybe they hired Oliver Reed to play the Italian role and he ended up getting drunk and not showing up in, so they asked Shaw to step in at the last minute.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are We Civilized? (1934)

 

A curio about a country (read Germany) where the press is being censored, books are being burned, people are incited to violence ... well, you know where this is going.

 

Silent film star William Farnum plays the owner of a newspaper in a foreign country, although everyone speaks perfect English there. Farnum's son is to be married to Anita Louise, who just happens to be the daughter of some fascist (Frank McGlynn, who often played Abraham Lincoln in films and on stage). After about twenty minutes of some plot, the remainder of this 70-minute propaganda film involves Farnum giving us a crash course in history. He starts with the creation of the world, and we get to see dinosaurs and cavemen. Then it's on to Egypt and Moses, then Buddha, then Confucius, then Caesar, then Christ, then Muhammad (who looks like an aged Carnac the Magnificent), then Columbus, George Washington, Napoleon, and Lincoln (McGlynn does double duty here).  Interspersed with this lecture are scenes of books being burned and Farnum's son getting clocked by a mob. But Farnum plows on, through World War I and the threat of World War II. Will his words have any affect?

 

The film is so-so, and so is the print on youtube. Farnum, who was once the highest paid actor in film, gives it a good shot, although he is a bit over the top when he describes the stock market crash - probably because in real life, he lost his shirt at the time. However, the movie may have some interest to film buffs. Many of the historical scenes appear to be taken from silent films, and one has to wonder what these films were, and if they still exist. If they don't, this may be the only bits of them left.

 

In the journal Harrison's Reports in 1934, the film was described as "suitable for children, adolescents, and Sundays."

 

Untitled_zpstkvqr72s.png

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

When Ladies Meet

 

Last night, I was still in a pre-code mood, so I watched this movie I had recorded awhile ago.  This movie starred Myrna Loy, Robert Montgomery, Ann Harding, Frank Morgan and Alice Brady.  I thought the first half of this film was a bit slow going, but once Harding was in the picture, it got more interesting. This film was rather progressive for 1933 in that Loy was knowingly and willingly carrying on with married man Morgan.  This film reaffirmed my appreciation of Loy.  Montgomery was still hamming it up a bit like he would do 15 years later in June Bride, but he was slightly more subtle in this film.  Morgan was interesting, I was really only familiar with him in his role as the title character in The Wizard of Oz.  I really liked Harding in this film, I wouldn't mind seeing her in another film.  I've seen her in Double Harness and I didn't think much of her in that movie.  I will need to give Double Harness another try.  I will definitely look out for more of her films on the schedule.  I did not care for Brady in this film.  I thought she was obnoxious and way over the top.  From reading her bio on Wikipedia, she appeared in silent films and then in the early 20s, she left film acting to concentrate on stage acting.  She returned to films in 1933 in When Ladies Meet.  Knowing that she had recently appeared in the theater, it is painfully apparent in this film.  Her gestures, her facial expressions, everything, is just too much and it is annoying.  It's even more obvious next to the subtler acting done by Loy and Harding.  

 

SPOILERS

 

I thought that the first half of the film was slow and I actually fell asleep and had to rewind it to find out what was going on.  It wasn't until Harding showed up that things finally started happening.  I liked when she and Loy hit it off, two ladies who shouldn't be chummy seeing that Loy is "the other woman." Harding is married to Morgan, Loy's publisher and lover.  I really liked the scene where Loy is asking Harding for advice on her novel, which has a storyline mirroring Loy's current relationship.  The scene where Harding talks about her husband's repeated infidelity and then puts two and two together while Loy is discussing her book is very powerful.  I liked the twist that Harding was aware of her husband's wandering eye and had resigned herself to the fact that cheating was just something her husband did.  

 

I also liked the ending of the film where the two women realize that they were both victimized by Morgan.  The audiences should be upset with Loy and Morgan for breaking up the relationship between Morgan and Harding, but we aren't.  We're upset with Morgan for being such a cad to two lovely women like Harding and Loy.  Even though Montgomery's character seems like he should be the villain (so to speak) for trying to break up Loy and her lover Morgan, he comes across as a hero, because he knows that Morgan is all wrong for Loy.  I choose to believe that Loy and Montgomery are together at the end of the film, even though they aren't exactly lovey dovey, but more chummy friends.

 

END SPOILERS

 

I wasn't sure about this movie when I started watching it, but by the end, I was a fan of it and would watch it again.  I can't wait to start getting all the Forbidden Hollywood sets I have lined up in my ClassicFlix queue. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

LHF said about MM: She was, like, a size sixteen. Marilyn was not a tiny girl, which is fine, and on TV- you could really see: she was an actual woman.

 

I'm not so sure about that.

 

I've seen several of MM's costumes in real life and they sure do make her seem at least small, like a modern size 7-8. She does not seem to be particularly tall, maybe 5' 6". And as all of us shorter women know, any extra poundage is exaggerated on a small frame.

The biggest issue I've seen is that women did NOT routinely excersize back then. So when they did gain weight, it just adds thickness to a small frame and in MMs case, a lot goes to her chest.

 

Liz Taylor's body was like that too, she just became "stout" with an extra 5-10 lbs. Mae West was also a tiny 5' tall & every pound shows. But none of these women, including MM were a size 16.

 

MM's weight fluctuated a LOT through the years and in SLIH she definitely was "doughier" than in other films. (that's what having Shelly Winters as a roommate does for you)  

Just look at MM in the later MISFITS & notable SOMETHINGS GOT TO GIVE where she's much slimmer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LHF said about MM: She was, like, a size sixteen. Marilyn was not a tiny girl, which is fine, and on TV- you could really see: she was an actual woman.

 

I'm not so sure about that.

 

I've seen several of MM's costumes in real life and they sure do make her seem at least small, like a modern size 7-8. She does not seem to be particularly tall, maybe 5' 6". And as all of us shorter women know, any extra poundage is exaggerated on a small frame.

The biggest issue I've seen is that women did NOT routinely excersize back then. So when they did gain weight, it just adds thickness to a small frame and in MMs case, a lot goes to her chest.

 

Liz Taylor's body was like that too, she just became "stout" with an extra 5-10 lbs. Mae West was also a tiny 5' tall & every pound shows. But none of these women, including MM were a size 16.

 

MM's weight fluctuated a LOT through the years and in SLIH she definitely was "doughier" than in other films. (that's what having Shelly Winters as a roommate does for you)  

Just look at MM in the later MISFITS & notable SOMETHINGS GOT TO GIVE where she's much slimmer.

Agreed. MM was not a 16. In Some Like it Hot, she was also pregnant during filming (but later miscarried), which I'm sure would account for some of the extra weight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, her weight fluctuated greatly. (MM). The difference between The Misfits and Something's Got to Give is striking. She was a bit plump during Some Like It Hot as well. Gable spends a good amount of time in The Misfits comparing Marilyn to his daughter who is a size 12 (I think he wanted to buy a dress for her or something). I dont know if that was Marilyn's size at the time, but it sounds about right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

actually, Bette was just the right age for the role- Liz Taylor was actually "too young" to play Martha and I think Albee maybe even wrote Martha with Bette in mind (ie the BEYOND THE FOREST references.)

 

i don't think Gary Merrill was good enough to do George and hold his own against her.

 

 

Yes, it's too bad she didnt get the chance to play it. But she wasnt box office at the time. As good as Liz was, she's too young for the part and all the make up and wigs in the world couldnt make her look old enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As good as Liz was, she's too young for the part and all the make up and wigs in the world couldnt make her look old enough.

And the Fried Chicken, don't forget the fried chicken. Had she shown up when she won the Oscar, she probably should have thanked Colonel Sanders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, her weight fluctuated greatly. (MM). The difference between The Misfits and Something's Got to Give is striking. She was a bit plump during Some Like It Hot as well. Gable spends a good amount of time in The Misfits comparing Marilyn to his daughter who is a size 12 (I think he wanted to buy a dress for her or something). I dont know if that was Marilyn's size at the time, but it sounds about right.

Vanity sizing has also gotten smaller throughout the years as well. A size 12 in the 50s is probably closer to a 6 today. In "I Love Lucy," Lucy says a few different times that she's a 12, and she is definitely not a today's size 12, she's probably a 6. In the 70s, in "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," it is said a few different times that Mary is a 7/8. In today's sizes, I'm speculating that Mary would be a 4. The vanity sizes have gotten smaller in recent years, size 00 was just introduced a few years ago. I'm not sure what vintage size that would correlate to, maybe a 2-4?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It Is by no means a hill that I am willing to die on, but I SWEAR, YOU GUIZE, I very distinctly remember reading a quote from someone somewhere in a magazine that said Marilyn Monroe was a size 16, and they then correlated that to the ridiculous modern ideas of super skinny being the most desirable.

 

One position that I will not back down from tho, is that when I saw the gown on the Joan Rivers show in color, it was off the chain fug. Just not flattering to the model in the least bit, and I do recall the model was definitely a plus size model. I also want to say it was kind of Grey, but of course the important thing is that it filmed brilliantly in black and white.

 

If anyone wants to cruise around YouTube and see if you can find footage, or go to Bing Images and see if you can find pictures of the dress, go ahead. I'm not on my PC today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Though Marilyn's weight and sizing obviously fluctuated over the course of her career, her standard measurements, according to her dressmaker, were roughly 35-22-35. This accounts for why her pant and dress sizes were often listed as an 8 and 12, respectively—a dress would also need to accommodate her bust, while pants could be sized smaller based on her slimmer hips. She is often cited as having been a size 16—and she was! Kind of. But only based on British vintage sizing (a U.K. size 16 was a rough equivalent to a U.S. size 12 in the '50s). But according to today's sizing guides—which is what people generally have in mind as a reference when discussing her measurements—Marilyn would be roughly a U.S. size 6 or 8. She'd likely need an 8 for her bust, but with forgiving fabric, a 4 or a 6 would easily fit her hips. And of course, her tiny waist would certainly need a belt. 

 

 

 

Read more: http://mentalfloss.com/article/66536/what-dress-size-was-marilyn-monroe-actually

 

 

I hope this helps.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Fried Chicken, don't forget the fried chicken. Had she shown up when she won the Oscar, she probably should have thanked Colonel Sanders.

 

LOL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vanity sizing has also gotten smaller throughout the years as well. A size 12 in the 50s is probably closer to a 6 today. In "I Love Lucy," Lucy says a few different times that she's a 12, and she is definitely not a today's size 12, she's probably a 6. In the 70s, in "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," it is said a few different times that Mary is a 7/8. In today's sizes, I'm speculating that Mary would be a 4. The vanity sizes have gotten smaller in recent years, size 00 was just introduced a few years ago. I'm not sure what vintage size that would correlate to, maybe a 2-4?

 

 

LOL. Yes, I know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"An approximation of" "London After Midnight" (1927)--That's what the introductory titles call this version of the Lost horror/mystery film that starred Lon Chaney Sr., Marceline Day, and Polly Moran, and was directed by Tod Browning.

 

The only known version of LAM was lost in a fire in the 1960's.  This version was done by UCLA and others putting together surviving stills and titles.

 

The film looks sensationally effective, especially Chaney's makeup for the Vampire.  

 

Recommended.  Watching what was put together made it obvious to me why this is one of the most Wanted Lost silent films.

 

Saw on YouTube.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

"An approximation of" "London After Midnight" (1927)--That's what the introductory titles call this version of the Lost horror/mystery film that starred Lon Chaney Sr., Marceline Day, and Polly Moran, and was directed by Tod Browning.

 

The only known version of LAM was lost in a fire in the 1960's.  This version was done by UCLA and others putting together surviving stills and titles.

 

The film looks sensationally effective, especially Chaney's makeup for the Vampire.  

 

Recommended.  Watching what was put together made it obvious to me why this is one of the most Wanted Lost silent films.

 

Saw on YouTube.

 

TCM has run it. It's not very satisfying presented in slides that way.

 

As for Chaney's make-up, I've heard old people say that it provoked laughter in the theaters way back when.

 

It may be that 'Mark of the Vampire' is the better version. Still, it'd be great if a copy of the movie were to be discovered somewhere.

  • 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...