Milburn Stone

No one to my knowledge defines movie musicals that way. You do raise an interesting question, though, since there are movies no one would consider "musicals" despite that they contain musical numbers. Here's a possible working definition. If the movie wouldn't work without the musical numbers (or be worth a damn), it's a musical. If the movie would work perfectly well with the musical numbers extracted, it isn't.

I would like that, too. There's something anthropological about Old B-Movie Dreck. I sometimes feel I'm learning more about the society and culture of the era than I can learn from the excellent films, which are by definition exceptional.

It's been forever since I've seen the movie, but I saw a stage production at the Stratford Festival in '08, and I couldn't believe how fresh, inventive and ground-breaking it was. I'd always thought of it as kind of corny, because, you know, Iowa. No. When people first hear that it won the Tony over West Side Story, their initial impression is to consider that a travesty of justice. I had to reconsider that opinion.

I'm with you that "orchestra of 28" is the dealmaker. I hope I get to see this. The famous recent example of acceptable orchestra size being reason enough to see a show was Lincoln Center's South Pacific. But I'd add to that the 2009 revival of Finian's Rainbow. The production was full of pleasures, but none took second place to the sound of the full, actually-adequate orchestra under the direction of Rob Berman. (And I know you understand that in the current environment, "actually-adequate" is one of the highest compliments available, since inadequate has become the almost universal norm.)

The last time I saw Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (which was recently), I had a new appreciation for it. Previously I'd seen it as a musical that Howard Hawks was ill-suited to direct. (Seeing it as a musical is natural, of course, since that's what it was on the stage.) This time I saw it not as a musical, but as a Howard Hawks comedy that had musical numbers in it. And it clicked.

And aradia, very appropriate that your theatre thread here references a television musical.

Following it!

She had two major assets. If you know what I mean. Nudge nudge, wink wink.

Great article. Thanks for sharing it! However, this quote raised my eyebrows: "Falk hand-selected Columbo’s permanent wardrobe—including the legendary raincoat as well a tie and shoes from his own closet…" It may have been Falk's raincoat, but it certainly wasn't his idea. I know this because the predecessor of the Columbo character is quite clear. He's the detective in the 1955 French suspense film Diabolique--who, just like Columbo, wore a beat-up raincoat, smoked a cigar, and always had "just one more question" as you thought he was heading out the door.

The movie has many pleasures, but to me the greatest of them all--and far more than slight--is the gorgeous Warren-Gordon song "Friendly Star," Garland's performance of it, and Charles Walters' direction of it.

I think I'm changing my "vote." I have been on the side that spoiler-tags in this thread are ridiculous--and I still feel that way. However, if there are even a few posters who appreciate certain plot points being spoiler-tagged--and there do seem to be a few--then I think their innocence should be protected. How I feel right now is, I'm willing to put up with the pain in the ass that thoroughly unnecessary (IMO) spoiler-tags represent if it means others will enjoy the thread more.

To make an analogy, the death of Romeo and Juliet packs a wallop for those who see or read the play for the very first time, but it is generally accepted by society that we are free to discuss Shakespeare without the need for spoiler alerts.

+1

It's pretty much a judgment call. If it's some twist that would ruin the film for someone who'd never seen it--I don't know, somebody dying who you'd never expect to die--you probably ought to spoiler-tag it. With lesser stuff, most posters seem to find it not necessary to do. (My own feeling, which is that spoiler tags should never be required on a thread like this, is irrelevant.) I suggest you go ahead and participate in the conversation using your judgment based on this guidance, and if you make a mistake, someone will point it out to you, you'll learn from it, and it won't be the end of the world.

Of related interest, just stumbled across this YouTube of the opening twenty minutes of the 1970 Oscars. It begins with a historical montage of actors of the past and near-present of 1970 (including many of our favorites, Doris among them) arriving on the red carpet, sitting at their tables, etc.--working its way chronologically from the earliest footage forward. (Then, there's a Bob Hope monologue which is…interesting.) http://youtu.be/hEnAY6tqSBA

Mostly I agree but the one Doris movie in which I think he breaks out of the Ken mold and shows real comedic chops is Send Me No Flowers. He's quite convincing and funny as a 24-carat gold neurotic. Even Tony Randall comes off more well-adjusted than he does!

Yeah, it's the contrast between the two-shots and the close-ups that's really striking. You'd think things like this would have been obvious on the big screen (I mean the big movie screens of the time) compared to home screens. But I think it's the reverse. Today's high-res picture and sound make it far easier to observe discontinuities than the technicians of the past had any reason to expect. What I'm trying to say is that the tricks-of-the-trade by technicians back in the day, which seem ridiculous, were not ridiculous, given the exhibition realities of their day. They were correct that visual discontinuities would largely be ignored or overlooked by audiences in large auditoriums, and audio discontinuities (like changes in ambience, looping, etc.) would be totally lost inside the acoustics of large auditoriums.

This goes back to a (pretty confident) speculation I made over at TWoP (must have made it there, because I don't see it here) when Armisen's participation was first announced--namely, that it couldn't last on a regular basis, that it made no sense for him to play an ongoing second-banana role given his current place in the fame structure, and (maybe most important of all) that there'd be no reason on earth he'd want to take on the difficult and time-consuming day-to-day responsibilities and sheer behind-the-scenes work of being an actual musical director on an actual nightly network talk show. It was funny as a goof--and I'm one of those who did think it was funny--but it could never have been real.

Maybe before the next episode is through.

Yes, it could go in the What I Learned from Watching Television thread: Handy home tips for dealing with that nasty little bear trap kerfuffle.

Very good point. I still think that regardless of what you or I might think, Gus had a hard time forgiving himself for letting Malvo go that first time, and felt that he and only he could be the one to make it right.

We don't disagree. I'm talking about how Gus feels, and his belief about what he must do to set himself right with the universe. Not whether he actually caused the mayhem that followed the traffic stop. (If I could rewrite my post, I'd change the phrase "in a real way" to "it can be argued that," or something along those lines.)

I totally agree with your first paragraph (and tried to say much the same thing myself), and have a small quibble with your second paragraph. I don't think Gus' courage came only from protecting Greta and Molly. I think it also came from his self-recrimination over letting Malvo go at the traffic stop way back in the beginning. In a real way, all the destruction that followed was his fault. If redemption for that was available, it could only come to him by his being the guy that took Malvo down. I think that was very much on his mind.

I agree with you about what "gender split" means in this case, but disagree as to what's in Louis' head. (About which we can only speculate, obviously, but nevertheless have our own opinions regarding.) I think Louis is well aware that most guys will look at it one way, most women another. And that's what interests him, and why he wants to explore it. But the key word is explore, not teach. I don't think he's saying, "Guys, you're wrong, and women, you're right," and I don't think he's saying the opposite, either. I think he's saying that relations between the sexes are far more complicated even than we usually acknowledge them to be.

Where is the podcast? I've read Tara's printed piece on the episode and the season but would like to hear the podcast. (Partly because I agree there might be a gender split.) As for Pamela…In real life I'd run away from a woman like that as fast as my legs could carry me. And I guess I don't understand why Louie, a man in his forties, doesn't have the sense to do that. But then, maybe that's why the show is uniquely great. Because in real life, people do make choices that can only bring them pain.