Padma

We know from the past that Max can be overbearing, even physically aggressive, in rehearsal esp. with women he doesn't get along with (Amber; Hope). Whether they're also obnoxious, I don't know, but as the teacher, he should be able to stay professional and work with what he's given. I won't be surprised if "personal issues" means he didn't like Vanessa's attitude for whatever reason, had a fit and stormed off. If that's the case, they should have him gone permanently because, big personality or not, Vanessa could work with Allan, even under the stress of last minute substitution. The only excuse I'd find acceptable for Max doing this, would be if Vanessa wasn't showing up, wasn't practicing, wasn't taking it seriously. Since that doesn't seem to be the case, I'm not sympathetic to him in not being there. (I'm taking my cue about Vanessa's work ethic from Len's praise for her this week. he's called out people before for not putting in the work that's needed. In this case, he was very supportive of her which makes me think that commitment and hard work aren't the issue.)

Just saw this one. And I have a question about the way Red was playing guitar. Is that a thing? I always assume they're really playing guitar, but I've never noticed anyone do it like that before. He was so relaxed with his playing and I realized he just didn't have much guitar-wise to pay attention to. It seemed he was pretty much just strumming the top two strings (sometimes one of them was open and sometimes he made the top note with his thumb, but still strummed only one or two strings, never much more than that.) Once in a while, he looked as if he was going to make a bar chord but he didn't. I guess it doesn't matter when you have a band backing you, but I don't think we'll be hearing him just out there solo with guitar if that's all he can do. Maybe I'm wrong, but that seemed very ... unorthodox , just a few two note chords,.. Is that some kind of down-home self taught guitar thing or the way singers learn to accompany themselves or....? It wasn't impressive guitar-wise, but it certainly seemed a relaxing way to do it, esp. when you're singing. Is that a common thing?

My image of Mary Astor is from "DodsworthS, as the classy, mature, intelligent and down-to-earth "other woman". Single, attractive in middle age--and not "Mom". (Though she was good at it). Thinking of MissBluxom's Bogart* post, "The Treasure of Sierra Madre" is definitely one of my favorites, too. And its impossible for me to think that Walter Huston was that grizzled old miner....and also was Dodsworth! Among other things, he's at least a foot taller in "Dodsworth", Talk about acting ability... *Another one of those actors with too many good films for a "Top 5" list...

Miley's pretty reliable on this. She's Dolly Parton's goddaughter. From Wikipedia: "The song, 'I Will Always Love You' was originally written and recorded in 1973 by American singer-songwriter, Dolly Parton. Her country version of the track was released in 1974 as a single and was written as a farewell to her one-time partner and mentor of seven years, Porter Wagoner, following Parton's decision to pursue a solo career. Parton's version of "I Will Always Love You" was a commercial success. It reached number one on the Billboard Hot Country Songs chart twice. .... Whitney Houston recorded her version of the song for the 1992 film The Bodyguard. Her single spent 14 weeks at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 chart making it one of the best-selling singles of all time."

The Laughton character was not in the original? That is a big surprise. I've read several AC novels/stories but not "Witness for..". in any form. I can't imagine how it would be without the Laughton character because in the movie, it's really HIS story! He's the main character, this is just one of his interesting cases. It's because of this, that the otherwise melodramatic ending Christie insisted on (interesting, I didn't know that either) actually works, imo. Because it leads Laughton to something new. It works because it's not all focused on the married couple, it's about the lawyer. Also, his relationship with Elsa provides much-needed comedy and humanity,as opposed to the mystery--which is interesting, but doesn't have enough "heart" going for it alone, in my opinion anyway. I need to read the story or play now, because I can't imagine it would be as good. (Then again, for me, AC works well as a puzzle but not as character piece for the most part. "Witness For.." was a BIG exception to me and now it seems the things I think make it work better than most Christie films is something she never intended. I suspect Affleck will return to the original, though, as I'm sure he'll play the Power role and won't want to be upstaged by there being a different major character.) I always thought the wife (and although Coward gives some credibility to her not being dubbed, he also was Dietrich's great friend and I wouldn't be surprised at all if he'd keep up a deception for her. (And "The List of Adrian Messenger" cheated on the stars? I'll have to rewatch because...not cricket! For anyone old enough to remember Ruta Lee on all those 1970s (?) game shows and sitcoms, I was surprised to see that she was Diana in "Witness For...". Dark-haired, not blonde, and very young. ,

I can't stand her. It's not about wanting women to be quiet and polite either (as someone suggested last week). I'm generally turned off by loud, aggressive people, whether male or female, though occasionally, of course, someone will endear themselves in spite of it. Jennifer is always dialed up to 11, and then she gets excited and dials up to 15 or starts singing/upstaging someone. She is always loud and aggressive in her pitches and in her banter. It's exhausting. She may have good coaching tips to give, but I'd get tired of her yelling and shrieking at me. I also get the feeling she has a temper--another turn-off. For anyone who saw her in the U.K. show, was she like this? It seems like it would be even more out of place there. Was she really this loud and aggressive (and imo obnoxious) in TV-UK? I like the show, but if I keep watching, this may be the season I get a DVR. If ever there was a time to fast-forward, this is it. ETA: Thank you, Miley, for mentioning that "IWALY" was originally a Dolly Parton song, esp. as she wrote it as well as performing what, for me is the definitive version. "J-Hud's" duet just made me feel there's a lot of over-singing ahead. Oh, and please. If you love Jennifer, please enjoy her to your heart's content. But don't P.M. me as if I'm a hypocrite for finding her loud and obnoxious without saying the same for Adam. So far this season, he hasn't come close. But, jmo. I don't like her personality OR her singing and usually a coach will win me over on one, if not both of these. I missed the second night, but #1 and #3 haven't given anyone I've been all that impressed by. Good voices, but I haven't seen that "unique" performer someone who really stands out as an "artist" that's bringing something new and different to the music. I haven't heard everyone, but what I have heard sound like very well done covers. And usually the blinds seem better for me musically than the later stuff. Hopefully, the best is yet to come.

Not sure where my post went, but I really enjoyed reading this. Nice find! I saw a local production of an Agatha Christie this week--"Murder Is Announced". Today watched my favorite AC movie (replaying on "TCM On Demand", "Witness for the Prosecution". Big difference, undoubtedly helped by not just the superior plotting but also that Billy Wilder was the director and co-adaptor. I'm not sure the "twist" really works on film, but as an AC mystery on film, it holds up really well. I'm surprised that all the remakes have been for television. (Wish I'd seen the 1982 version with Ralph Richardson, Deborah Kerr, Beau Bridges, Donald Pleasence, Wendy Hiller and Diana Rigg. Although how could either Bridges or Pleasence have the Tyrone Power role?) "Witness for.." was Power's last completed film. He died of a heart attack at 44. Anyway, I was wondering why it had never been remade as a film and what do you know? Ben Affleck is working on it now. I hope they'll keep the Billy Wilder script, but they probably won't.

OMG. I tuned in a little after it started--missed Chris Weavers performance -- but got some--just some--of the shoe nonsense. Enough to realize I won't enjoy J-Hud. She's obviously someone who's come on determined to be a BIG PERSONALITY and the equal of anybody. I find her obnoxious. I wound up muting everyone but Blake because I knew he wouldn't be manic. Wow, what a waste of time (that they could have so easily edited out, saving more time for performances). Why so hyper. Even the clips upcoming Miley and Jennifer seem so overly excitable and mugging. She's constantly "on", the life of the party (only...not). It's exhausting. I've been there for every season, but one song in, and I think I'll be out for this one (or muting about half of the commentary). Why, show, why?

Well, my enthusiasm was short-lived. (And ITA about Klingons. Why? They are among the LEAST interesting aliens--and have been done to death already. Plus, the weirdness of them here doesn't work. No. More. Klingon-centered stories!) But, I digress. Klingons aside, I liked it, as mentioned earlier. I liked it enough to become a little bit spoiled. And now I'm reassessing.

I agree with all the flaws mentioned above, but liked it. My expectations were extremely low and I actually thought it was pretty good, faults and all. The controversial choice of Michelle Yeoh was just fine and I liked that her #1 was also a woman. I liked that they're not dressed to be sex symbols like Topol, and Deanna and 7 of 9 and numerous TOS women. I liked that it didn't open with gratuitous action scenes and violence. And I -really- liked the philosophical moments sprinkled throughout--and then the big one where Yeoh refuses to fire first, even if it means they all will die. That is the Star Trek idealism and principles that I love (and which has been lost in much of the movie versions). I'm so glad that they didn't take the easy route (sex and violence and non-Treky plots) that I'm willing to overlook all the areas that disappoint. Willing to even subscribe--and a week ago I didn't even plan to watch. So...good jjob, imo!

In case any Bogart fans haven't seen Nicholas Ray's "In A Lonely Place", it's a film noir murder mystery, with an excellent Bogart performance, probably my favorite. Gloria Grahame is good as the love interest. Louise Brooks said Bogart's character is the closest to the man she knew than any other role--probably not such a good thing, but he certainly understands all the elements of it beautifully. One of those few times when a good film came out of making radical changes to a good book.

That was a very good list to read, particularly as I recently realized that Marilyn Monroe is one of my favorite actresses (may even be at the top of the list). I didn't realize she had been in 29 films (many small parts). I thought the writer had some good observations, including how often her character is written and directed in a condescending or even dehumanizing way (didn't use that word) and how she always--even from the tiniest bit parts in the earliest films--rose above the material. Also how, regardless of the failures of writing, directing or co-stars she was always very good in her part and brought something special to it, whether it was comedy or drama--(and its hard to tell, looking back at this list, which she would be considered best at. You'd really have to say "both".) I was surprised that I've not only never seen, but never even heard of #4 on the list, "Don't Bother to Knock", described here as "the 1952 noir [where] Monroe plays a mentally ill babysitter caring for the daughter of guests at a New York hotel where all the action takes place." The writer's comments about "Some Like It Hot" also caught my eye with this description of the very unusual mix of qualities that she brought to the screen: " 'Some Like It Hot' has everything I love about Monroe, and film itself, really — it spotlights her entrancing charisma, sensuality, melancholic undertow, and beguiling physicality, which is an unparalleled concoction of sensuality and nervous vulnerability. The blonde bombshells to come in her wake often mimicked the sexuality part, heightening it to ridiculous levels, but missed these other attributes that made Monroe feel startlingly real, not just a studio product to be packaged and sold."

Good point. It is really SADLY lacking in diversity--and all the "blondes" just add to it. A hot Latin man or woman would add nicely to the mix. Asian. AA. The show really should look different than it does. I think diversity would help the choreography and interest level at this point, too. Something. Different. I'm sure Keo is a very charismatic presence IRL and he seems likeable and, as said above, trying really hard. It just doesn't translate well on television. And definitely agree with others who wished Sasha got the nod over Gleb. Glad Alan got his chance, although I'm sure we'll have to hear weeks of Maks razzing him, just because.

Very happy to see Mark will be back. For years I thought it interjected himself too much i just the dances (like I feel Keo does now) then he stopped, and I found he was t he choreographer I most looked forward to every week. Too bad Len always discourages the kind of dances he does. I wish they had more POC, but I just can't get on board with Keo. Not sure how to put it, but he's too dynamic in a way--his movements are so stylized and energetic that it detracts from the dancing. Also, his choreography just isn't as good as many others. (For weaker ones like Alisan and --for sure-- Gleb, I wish they'd just try new people. I really-really- can't stand Gleb's "sexy" take on every dance. It's always so overdone and not erotic, if that's what he's going for. I know he's very good looking but...meh. Maks v. Peta doesn't seem interesting. I do like Emma and Whitney. Val of course. I think some old hands will be getting some surprisingly weak pairings. Just a guess.

Now that you mention it, it would have made perfect sense for Hitchcock to have told him to play it as if he's guilty -- trusting in Grant's acting to not make it so heavy handed that there'd be no ambiguity later (or, maybe even worse! Seem so much like a murderer that we wouldn't like him any more. Even in his darkest moments, I just love how he keeps us guessing. One of my favorite scenes is the dinner party where no one looks like a murderer but...they look at Cary...hmm...wondering. His expression then, before and after, is just perfect. I've never thought before that some of that "keep us guessing" could have been, as you say, that he himself might have been so desperate he even wondered if he could kill his wife or friend. That interpretation works too, not that Joan misunderstands him, but that he really IS struggling with his own worst impulses, even if just briefly. He gives such a tremendous performance. Yes, its hard to get awards for comedy and he was just as good at that as drama, maybe even better. And I saw "Walk, Don't Run" for the first time yesterday and enjoyed him in that, too, intentionally refusing to still play the romantic lead at his age, but still holding the whole picture together and making a nice (if premature) transition to a character actor or supporting actor. (And I loved him as the grizzled crotchety old boat captain in "Father Goose", but I guess his fans just couldn't accept it, even though there still was a romance. He could do everything. I read that, too. Not that Hitchcock thought he couldn't pull off a role as a killer but that audiences just wouldn't accept it. (And, while I usually like movies to keep the novel's ending, I think Selznick was right on that one. The movie ending was a lot more satisfying to me the way Hitchcock -had- to end it.)

re: Cary Grant day. It's pretty hard to believe that Cary Grant never received an Oscar for any of his 76 film roles. Watching Suspicion yesterday, he was the one who made it work imo, not Joan Fontaine. She was fine, did what most good actresses could do--look loving, look fearful, look worried, look ill. But Grant was great at keeping you guessing. Were those worried looks or sinister ones? there were moments when he seemed menacing--or was it actually loving concern? He kept you guessing right until the end, where Hitchcock could -still- have gone either with the ending as written for the movie, or (as he wanted) with the original ending in the novel. Two very different conclusions, showing completely different kinds of men. Yet Grant's performance made you believe that either one was possible. Yet Joan Fontaine won an Oscar for her performance and he wasn't even nominated. I liked Ben M reading Joe M's letter he sent to Grant after he was passed over for "The Philadelphia Story" while the producer, director and ,writer, plus 3 of the 4 main actors--Hepburn, Stewart, and Hussy--received Oscar nominations (Stewart won as Best Actor). Mankiewicz made it clear he considered Grant a great actor whose performance had been essential to the film and that he, Joe M. was disappointed his work hadn't gotten the recognition it deserved.

You got my interest with this! So that meant Wikipedia. The list of actresses Howard Hawks wanted before Russell was a distinguished one: Carole Lombard was first, but too expensive. "Then there was Katharine Hepburn, Claudette Colbert, Margaret Sullavan, Ginger Rogers and Irene Dunne who all turned it down, Jean Arthur was offered the part, and was suspended by the studio when she refused to take it. Joan Crawford was reportedly also considered." "...During filming, Russell noticed that Hawks treated her like an also-ran, so she confronted him: "You don't want me, do you? Well, you're stuck with me, so you might as well make the most of it."[5] ,,,,In her autobiography, Life Is A Banquet, Russell wrote that she thought her role did not have as many good lines as Grant's, so she hired her own writer to "punch up" her dialogue. With Hawks encouraging ad-libbing on the set, Russell was able to slip her writer's work into the movie. Only Grant was wise to this tactic and greeted her each morning saying, "What have you got today?'"

Really enjoyed seeing "Kid Galahad" for the first time--Elvis in 1962 as a boxer, with excellent support from Gig Young and Charles Bronson. Enjoyable. Also saw "Elvis On Tour" for the first time. A decade later, and Elvis has gone the flashy route, gained some weight, but still looking and sounding good. Lots of songs, not just clips, and you can see what a hard worker he was. Its hard not to just want to see him alone on a stage with a guitar or, at most, a backing trio. Nice film, that only hints at the downside (including his "circle"). Doesn't get nearly as much attention as "Elvis::That's The Way It Is" (1970) but I enjoyed this one much more (including the clips of Elvis on Ed Sullivan in 1957, before music had become such a job. (One of the nicest moments is when he and the band are singing gospel together in the rehearsal room, just because they "grew up with it" and like it still. Just singing.)

I can't disagree with anything said about The Seagull. Redgrave and Mason were excellent, but the rest of it was disappointing (particularly David Warner in a key role). Lumet was an odd choice and didn't do well with the challenges. Compared with The Seagull, Uncle Vanya was clean and clear--appropriately restrained--not great, but a decent production that is very watchable and gives a legitimate sense "of Chekhov". Re: my favorite "star day" so far,... For me, Marilyn Monroe's films were the best (and also most enjoyable) when taken overall for their variety and quality. (And she may have driven Olivier crazy on "The Prince and the Showgirl", but it's his performance that ruins it, not hers.) I saw Ricardo Montalban in Don Juan in Hell, too, and its sad he's one of those actors with talent and charisma to burn who never got very good movie roles. His best to me was in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan", even better when you consider he had to act his bad guy v. good guy scenes to a blue screen or a stand in.

There are lots of foreign films that I like (or haven't seen and would like to watch.) And many many that would fit both of those categories except that I've never heard of them (yet). I must admit the TCM foreign programming has b een off my radar. That could easily changed by an interesting post here or there, especially drawing attention to an upcoming favorite. Good idea. Hope you'll post more and share your responses (once TCM returns to regular scheduling). (And although its OT, I've caught some of the History of Comedy on On Demand lately and liked it more than I thought I would. E ven though its pretty scattershot, there's great value in all the interviews with comedians and some of it sheds some light on comedy and careers in it. I thought it would be more about the history of comedy writing and more of an analysis chronologically of comedians, but what I've seen is fine, too.)

I know what you mean about Granger being too soft (shallow note--he did age very well! The last time I watched it I had learned that Wm. Holden was Hitchcock's first choice and I kept imagining when Granger spoke how different the lines would be with Holden's authority, smarts and toughness (plus just generally better acting). Granger didn't spoil it for me--I still think its one of Hitchcock's best-- but I think Granger's part of the reason that Bruno becomes the main character so quickly. With Holden, I think there would have been an imbalance at the beginning--Holden brushing him off on the train, seeming so superior to Bruno that routine courtesy was about all the relationship warranted. Then the balance would gradually shift until we realized he was caught in a trap and all his smarts and confidence was no match for the scheming craziness of Bruno after all. I still think its a very good film as is, but I'm pretty sure I would have liked it much more if Hitchcock -could- have gotten Holden as the lead.. (Then again, I like him in everything). As for actors I hate and will not watch ever, Nicholas Cage is at the top of the list. That's not so much an acting thing, but because many years ago I read a profile of him in the LA Times and during the interview he picked up his cat and swung her wildly by the tail. (Does he have a drug problem? I thought perhaps so at the time). Anyway, ever since reading that I've pretty much loathed him and avoid everything he's in.

I agree with you about Uncle Vanya. I appreciated their commitment to the play-as-a-play and how it was an opportunity to enjoy what they were all putting on at the same time elsewhere. I was surprised that Yelena, the woman with such great beauty and charm, seemed to give a rather flat performance, but that may have been a fault of the time and costuming (the dark, modest clothing made the women look as if they were in mourning so not the glamorous appearance being repeatedly described. Also reminded me of other Chekhov where things happen but then, at the end, everything is pretty much unchanged. I appreciate what he brough to drama of the times, though, (and also that after Unvle Vanya flopped on stage he cut the 24 characters down to 8 or so. (Stanislavsky's restaging made it a big hit later, and he also acted as Uncle Vanya. That would have been a version to see! And, "trivia alert", Chekhov married the woman who played Yelena and, in Franchot Tone's version of the play, Tone married the actress playing Yelena as well. )

I guess I'm with Peter in the sense that I wouldn't do something like propose marriage (or accept a proposal) that I wouldn't do in real life. And there's no way I would expect to find someone to actually commit to marriage with in this timeframe and with dating all these men. It could happen (like Trista and Ryan, which I totally believed) but that would shock me, as a contestant. It would never be something I would expect. Just my opinoion, but it would seem too weird to find a deep lifelong commitment on a show like this! (Even though, yes, we've seen it happen.) I'd actually consider coming out of it with a real "we're serious" relationship that lasts a year to be a huge success. (One of many reasons I would never be chosen for this show!) That said, I agree completely with you that Rachel's not thinking like I do. She knows what she wants and didn't want. Peter was frank about what he wanted and didn't want--and it was clear they were miles apart. He was honest. She might have wanted more of him but you can't force it and she's not entitled to HAVE what she wants from him, so I don't get the angry. I guess he could have withdrawn, but then you look bad (and will never be TB) so I think he just tried to make it clear that, by her standards, he just wasn't that into her. If she really preferred him, she either should have gone like Brad and chosen no one. Or agreed to date, maybe to "go steady". But clearly they weren't suited for each other. I think Peter dodged the bullet, but in terms of Rachel's needs, he was wrong for her (obviously) so she should have been glad to know it.

No one owes it to you to fall in love with you, especially on your timetable. No one owes you a proposal. I don't get what Rachel's so angry about. No one led her on. No one cheated on her or lied to her. Peter didn't want to marry her. There's nothing to be angry about. Why does she feel so entitled? What am I missing? (Also, even..even...not all really, really SERIOUS love affairs end in marriage, Rachel. It's true!.)

I've gradually been watching less and less. Missed the last two weeks completely and didn't feel like watching them after reading the comments here. Rachel started out as a good b-ette, but her insistence on a proposal coming out of this show is ridiculous to me. Would she have the same expectation after a few nights and a sleepover IRL? I hope not. Maybe she hasn't seen much of the franchise. There've been seasons where the winner just got a one-way plane ticket to "come and visit". You're not a failure if you don't get a proposal. It just depends how you deal with it. I can tell I will be completely turned off if I watch, so..thanks all. Here on PST, I don't have to.