TCM: The Greatest Movie Channel

[Rinaldo]

From comments from Emma Thompson and Juliet Stevenson about saying goodbye to him and last speaking to him yesterday, it sounds as if his professional friends have been keeping vigil recently, knowing what was coming.

[Inquisitionist]

Good on them for respecting what I can only assume was Rickman's wish for privacy.  Mr. Inqui and I had talked about re-watching Die Hard as a Christmas movie this year, but didn't get around to it.  I think we'll be firing up the DVD player this weekend.

[elle]

 

I adored & adore him, ever since the first time I saw Truly Madly Deeply as a British TV-movie

That movie was a happy "find" for me, but I have to say my crush on Alan Rickman started with Sense and Sensibility, and comment that I loved him as Hans Gruber!  (and Galaxy Quest!)

 

He reminds me of the great go-to "villains" Basil Rathbone and George Sanders, who also had sonorous voices, as well as gave us romantic, even comedic roles in which to marvel at their talents (and swoon).

Edited January 15, 2016 by elle

[voiceover]

Enjoyed the Emma Thompson night, but would've preferred Howard's End to Impromptu -- a film that has a nice premise but is so uneven as to be unbearable.

 

Also not a huge fan of Remains of the Day, just because it's so...freakin'...depressing.

[ratgirlagogo]

Impromptu is just plain bad, IMO.  Still like many films on TCM one could say that it's worth having seen for various historical reasons without being, you know, an actually good movie or anything.

 

A not really great but hugely enjoyable movie late  tonight (4:15 AM - set your DVR)  is The Devil's Bride, AKA The Devil Rides Out (based on the Dennis Wheatley novel, as adapted by Richard Matheson).  An old-fashioned movie about Satanists that believes in the power of good as much as it believes in the power of evil (unfortunately unusual in current devil-worship movies).  Christopher Lee plays a good guy for once, and this was Sir Christopher's  favorite of his Hammer films. 

Edited January 24, 2016 by ratgirlagogo

[Rinaldo]

I'm rather fond of Impromptu, and I'm glad it was included instead of perhaps more familiar Thompson titles.* As a music professor, I get an unseemly kick out of seeing all these personages whom I teach so campily impersonated. (Also it's funny to recall that Hugh Grant was the total unknown in the cast at the time.)

 

(*At least they didn't show Judas Kiss.)

[ratgirlagogo]

 

I'm rather fond of Impromptu

Okay, I'll bite.  I saw this in the theater when it came out and literally winced at the dialogue.  Tell me what I should be looking for to enjoy it - of course I always respect your opinions as you know.

[Julia]

I kind of liked Remains of the Day, for the way it acknowledged the dreary stupidity of the world the Anthony Hopkins character sold his soul for. I'm so used to movies that try to make the lost [colonial/antebellum/pre-glorious-revolution] times the noble poetic land of lost content.

[Rinaldo]

Okay, I'll bite.  I saw this in the theater when it came out and literally winced at the dialogue.  Tell me what I should be looking for to enjoy it - of course I always respect your opinions as you know.

I thought I'd already indicated why, but OK: To enjoy it as I did at the time it came out, you need to:

1. have taught the music of Chopin and Liszt, and the poetry of Alfred de Musset (never expecting to see him portrayed onscreen), for years
2. have been previously unaware of the existence of Emma Thompson and Hugh Grant, and delighted to discover them
3. be a devotee of musicals, tickled to see Bernadette Peters and Mandy Patinkin attempt period roles, and to see James Lapine (who directed them onstage in Sondheim) in charge of it all

 

In other words, you need to have been me in 1991, with my weird combinations of interests and tastes.

[Milburn Stone]

I thought I'd already indicated why, but OK: To enjoy it as I did at the time it came out, you need to:

1. have taught the music of Chopin and Liszt, and the poetry of Alfred de Musset (never expecting to see him portrayed onscreen), for years
2. have been previously unaware of the existence of Emma Thompson and Hugh Grant, and delighted to discover them
3. be a devotee of musicals, tickled to see Bernadette Peters and Mandy Patinkin attempt period roles, and to see James Lapine (who directed them onstage in Sondheim) in charge of it all

 

In other words, you need to have been me in 1991, with my weird combinations of interests and tastes.

 

I can at least tick off #3, so I'm going to look for the film.

[chitowngirl]

Mame is on now. Lucille Ball was so miscast in this. I get why they didn't use Angela Landbury since she wasn't a Hollywood star yet. But surely there was someone else. I know Lucille Ball had a lot of pull back then, but just, no. Who would have been a big enough star to pull this off?

[Inquisitionist]

There are aspects of Impromptu that I find absolutely delightful, but each time I catch it, I'm reminded that there's a lot of dreck in it as well.  Emma Thompson is one of the delights.  And I can't count the number of times my SIL or I has said "Stupid, stupid rain."  :-)

[Charlie Baker]

I was a kid at the time, but I seem to recall a lot of names bandied about for the movie of Mame before Ms. Ball was involved (and production money from her company,perhaps)  and Ms. Lansbury was low on the list, because she simply wasn't a big enough star.  The movie could have been much better, I go back and forth as to whether it's the major trainwreck its reputation has it. But maybe even back then, as much I love the character and the property, the time had passed.  For a while there was talk of a TV remake with big names attached.  Nothing came of it.  And no one's managed to pull together a big time stage revival either.

[ratgirlagogo]

 

As a music professor, I get an unseemly kick out of seeing all these personages whom I teach so campily impersonated. 

 

In other words, you need to have been me in 1991, with my weird combinations of interests and tastes.

Okay, fair enough.  I'm interested in these people (Sand and Delacroix esp.) and this time period as well, but I think the key for me was the campiness you indicated.  Generally I would enjoy that too but in this case it just annoyed me.  

 

ETA typo.

Edited January 25, 2016 by ratgirlagogo

[jjj]

I had never seen "The More the Merrier," and only tuned in to hear Sally Field on "The Essentials" (I missed her talking about "The Goodbye Girl" last week, unfortunately).  As soon as I saw the first minutes, I thought, "this is the plot to 'Walk, Don't Run'," which I adore.  And indeed, a quick search showed that "Walk, Don't/ Run" was based on this earlier film.  The resemblance is quite close, and I got a whiff of the irony of setting "Walk, Don't Run" at the Tokyo Olympics, as there was so much anti-Japanese sentiment in "The More the Merrier".  Those two little Japanese children always gravely observing Cary Grant in the stairwell have a whole new significance now, when compared to the two little children combat soldiers in "The More the Merrier". 

 

Love "The Remains of the Day," and it went up on the On Demand site today, so I'll watch it there.  Like good literature, its meaning continues to shift for me over the years. 

[Rinaldo]

I was a kid at the time, but I seem to recall a lot of names bandied about for the movie of Mame before Ms. Ball was involved (and production money from her company,perhaps)  and Ms. Lansbury was low on the list, because she simply wasn't a big enough star.  The movie could have been much better, I go back and forth as to whether it's the major trainwreck its reputation has it. But maybe even back then, as much I love the character and the property, the time had passed.  For a while there was talk of a TV remake with big names attached.  Nothing came of it.  And no one's managed to pull together a big time stage revival either.

Lest we forget, Lansbury creating the role onstage was a near thing too; familiar as she was from the movies, she wasn't an obvious choice either to take a starring role or to carry a musical. Jerry Herman really campaigned for her against the ladies who seemed more obvious choices, and she was a delightful surprise. And then the battle to be considered for the role happened all over again for the movie, but this time she didn't win.

 

I recently read a book of lengthy interviews with actresses who've starred in musicals onstage, and Lansbury was frank that although she took the high road at the time when interviewed, indicating that she wasn't really in contention for the movie anyway, she was in fact very disappointed and had hoped and tried to get it. I suspect she figured that after Bedknobs and Broomsticks, she might have enough musical-movie-star clout to be considered. She also mentions Lucille Ball coming several times to see her play Mame on Broadway, and being naive enough never to catch on that Lucy already was thinking ahead to the movie. (And though Lansbury says she admires her tremendously in general, she doesn't think the movie works with her at all.)

 

I remember all that talk of a tvmovie version, in that first wave of TV remakes like Gypsy and Bye Bye Birdie, to erase the memory of the first movie. (One of the more plausible casts I heard was Emma Thompson as Mame with Bebe Neuwirth as Vera.) As to a stage revival, there are suspicions that the big summer production at the Kennedy Center a few years back would have moved to Broadway had it been better received. I saw it: Though the scale and look of it were fine, the crucial element of casting didn't work. Christine Baranski is a fantastic musical theater performer (one of the all-time best Mrs. Lovetts), and she had the elegant-and-stylish side down. But the essential moment is the revealing of her maternal warmth when she welcomes Patrick into her home, and with Baranski there's always that bit of ironic coolness (which serves her so well in the many roles she's known for). She's really a Vera Charles.

[Julia]

I so enjoy the conversation in this topic.

[3pwood]

 

(One of the more plausible casts I heard was Emma Thompson as Mame with Bebe Neuwirth as Vera.)

 

How perfect!  Is it too late?

[dalek]

Amongst my high school circle of friends, Impromptu was a big hit.  I remember finding it funny at the time.  Also, I was a big Judy Davis fan at the time.

[jjj]

I caught part of "The World of Henry Orient" today, which I had not seen for a long time.  I might have only seen the final 20 minutes or so once, but the scene in the stairwell, of the teen girls discovering their game had become very grownup, has been etched in my mind for a long time.  And wondering what happened to those teen actresses, I came across this fascinating update in the New Yorker:  http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/a-star-is-born-lost-and-found

 

My goodness, Angela Lansbury truly had some chilling, chilly roles in her career!

[Rinaldo]

I caught Henry Orient on its previous TCM showing -- about a month ago. Before that, I had been curious about it for literally half a century (I missed it on first release, only ever seemed to catch 5 minutes of it on commercial TV showings; as far as I could tell, cable movie stations ignored it completely).

 

I suppose it wasn't really that big a deal (OTOH, I was recalling it only at 5-year intervals), but it's sweet and unique, and I'm glad I finally saw it. This was the height of Sellers's popularity and he shows why. And yes, Lansbury played the hell out of the bitchy mother.

[bluepiano]

The original novel that the movie is based on is really charming and worth a read. I read it many, many years ago, and even though I was a teenaged boy and not a teenaged girl, I could totally relate to its depiction of adolescence. My memory is that the book focuses more on the two girls, and then in the movie they chose to give greater emphasis to the adults, probably because Sellers and Lansbury were the names in the cast.

Edited February 2, 2016 by bluepiano

[Rinaldo]

Ugh. I love TCM, but once in a while they do mess up in terms of communication between the programming and labeling people. (Remember when the wrong ​Walking and Talking was described a few months back?)

 

This time, I DVR'd Broadway Melody, eager to see a very early (1929) film musical, pivotal in the creation of the format and its subsequent history. I just started to play it back, and it turns out to be Broadway Melody of 1936 that they actually showed. Which I'm sure is worth seeing in its own right, and I will watch it (Eleanor Powell, after all). But it's not what I had my taste buds ready for.

[ratgirlagogo]

 

This time, I DVR'd Broadway Melody, eager to see a very early (1929) film musical, pivotal in the creation of the format and its subsequent history.

I'll be curious to know what you think of it once you do actually see it.  I'm (apparently - it ends up on Worst Oscar Winners Ever lists every year)  one of the few people  who likes it, but I like early sound pictures generally and it may be easier for me to see what a technical achievement it was at the time.  I also like the songs, even though they do get repeated too many times, and the very-much-of-its-time plot.

[Rinaldo]

I wasn't aware that it got "honored" on such lists. It seems like a cheap gesture to knock a musical made when talking pictures were barely a year old. Better they should go for something like The Greatest Show on Earth.

[Julia]

I'll go for Greatest Show on Earth. Both Charlton Heston and Betty Hutton are firmly in Ruby Keeler territory for me - I know there's something that made them stars, but I've never really understood what - and I don't think I've ever seen a Cecil B deMille project that I didn't think would have been better if someone other than Cecil B deMille had made it. Also, a criminal waste of Gloria Grahame and Jimmy Stewart. Trapeze got a lot more done with a lot less fuss.

I liked Broadway Melody enough to have it on DVD, but it's definitely an artifact of its time, and I don't think Bessie Love and Charles King have worn well. Anita Page, on the other hand, was kind of touching in a part that could have gone very badly.

I would actually make the case that it's better-acted than the 36 edition, which I find mostly memorable for Jack Benny and Buddy Ebsen.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Julia

[Wiendish Fitch]

I liked Broadway Melody enough to have it on DVD, but it's definitely an artifact of its time, and I don't think Bessie Love and Charles King have worn well. Anita Page, on the other hand, was kind of touching in a part that could have gone very badly.

 

 

Broadway Melody loses points with me for its clunkiness (though, to be fair, musicals didn't really become great until 1932 or so) and the fact that poor Bessie Love is shafted into the Eve Arden role; you know, the allegedly plain and unappealing one even though she's actually beautiful, spunky and has it miles over colorless Anita Page.

 

See also: Audrey Meadows in That Touch of Mink and Betty Garrett in... pretty much every movie she made (seriously, she was cute! What's the deal?!).

Edited February 4, 2016 by Wiendish Fitch

[Julia]

Broadway Melody loses points with me for its clunkiness (though, to be fair, musicals didn't really become great until 1932 or so) and the fact that poor Bessie Love is shafted into the Eve Arden role; you know, the allegedly plain and unappealing one even though she's actually beautiful, spunky and has it miles over colorless Anita Page.

 

See also: Audrey Meadows in That Touch of Mink and Betty Garrett in... pretty much every movie she made (seriously, she was cute! What's the deal?!).

Yeah, the girl Gig Young part, poor thing. I think, though, that was considered the plum role back then. Bessie Love has always seemed to be to be sort of the poor man's Clara Bow, and I think being feisty and spunky while suffering nobly was kind of their formula. Which, if you think about it, Joan Crawford and Norma Shearer gave a better haircut and carried into talkies, I guess. I think that's why I warmed more to Anita Page, since she was a little less mannered (although I agree that the story is hella annoying).

 

I actually kind of enjoyed the clunkiness of the musical numbers. I don't know if that was state of the art back then, but it helps me buy into the idea that their best chance is Anita Page's face, because none of them are particularly talented performers.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Julia

[Rinaldo]

]I actually kind of enjoyed the clunkiness of the musical numbers. I don't know if that was state of the art back then, but it helps me buy into the idea that their best chance is Anita Page's face, because none of them are particularly talented performers.

Remembering that I haven't seen it... was this one of those musicals made before they figured out pre-recording for musical numbers? So everything had to be captured "live" on set, orchestra included? That would lead to plenty of clunkiness.

[Julia]

Remembering that I haven't seen it... was this one of those musicals made before they figured out pre-recording for musical numbers? So everything had to be captured "live" on set, orchestra included? That would lead to plenty of clunkiness.

 

You've seen at least one scene from it, I think. Didn't they use a clip of this in That's Entertainment? I think Frank Sinatra said something rude about the dancers' legs? And yeah, I think they did it all live.

[Milburn Stone]

It seems like a cheap gesture to knock a musical made when talking pictures were barely a year old.

 

That's good to remember, and it puts me in mind of a kind of reverse thought I sometimes have when watching the INCREDIBLY ACCOMPLISHED sound movies of, say, 1939-41. (Movies that have remained unsurpassed.) Namely, "Now let me get this straight. This movie, this towering achievement in cinematic art that will last for all time, was created for all intents and purposes ONLY TEN YEARS after movies with sound became the norm? How is that even possible?!?!????" (I would add several dozen more question marks and exclamation points, but you get the idea.)

[bluepiano]

It's been some time since I saw it, but I remember Broadway Melody as being enjoyable, beyond its historical value. And I don't remember there being anything to fault in the performances of Anita Page or Bessie Love. Acting styles were obviously a bit different then, but there are early talkies with much more stilted performances.

 

One actress whose appeal I have never gotten is Janet Gaynor, at least in her sound movies. She was enormously popular in silent movies, and seemed to retain her following. But for me, in A Star is Born she seems fairly devoid of "star power."

Edited February 4, 2016 by bluepiano

[Rinaldo]

.... a kind of reverse thought I sometimes have when watching the INCREDIBLY ACCOMPLISHED sound movies of, say, 1939-41. (Movies that have remained unsurpassed.) Namely, "Now let me get this straight. This movie, this towering achievement in cinematic art that will last for all time, was created for all intents and purposes ONLY TEN YEARS after movies with sound became the norm? How is that even possible?!?!????"

I not only have similar thoughts, I try to indoctrinate my students with them too. When I teach History of Musicals, I sometimes use portions of the movies made from stage musicals, and the earliest of those is probably the Show Boat made in 1936. I've found through experience that a little preparation helps, so that they don't obsess over oddities (like Irene Dunne looking rather matronly for the teenaged Magnolia) but just settle down to enjoy it. One of the things I point out is that the kind of soundtrack continuity we now take for granted wasn't yet the norm: when a few seconds were perhaps edited out before release, we can hear the musical underscoring click and then jump a few beats. 

 

So I admit that they'll notice that and then add, "After all, talking pictures were less than a decade old at the time, and they were still working out the kinks. What's amazing is that they were learning so fast, and the art form was growing up so incredibly quickly. In another 3 years, they had pretty much mastered everything there was to learn." And I mention one or two of the movies from that classic year, 1939. To name more would be taking too long over a side issue. But honestly, look at these titles from 1939, about a decade into the history of film with sound:

 

• Babes in Arms
• The Hunchback of Notre Dame
• Gunga Din
• The Women
• Drums Along the Mohawk
• Stanley and Livingstone
• The Old Maid
• Destry Rides Again

 

Oh, and that's before we get to the ten that actually got nominated for Best Picture:

• Dark Victory
• Gone with the Wind
• Goodbye, Mr. Chips
• Love Affair
• Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
• Ninotchka
• Of Mice and Men
• Stagecoach
• The Wizard of Oz
• Wuthering Heights

[Sharpie66]

Yes, it's pretty amazing to consider how far the movie business got with the technology after 1927. I've been watching WWI documentaries recently, and that reminds me of the fact that they were having incredible dogfights in the air above the trenches only 12 years after the Wright Brothers barely got off the ground at Kitty Hawk, let alone the fact that they were already inventing aircraft carriers before the war was over.

 

Which reminds me--I've always wanted to watch Wings. Has anyone seen this and can give a yay or nay vote for spending a few hours with it?

Edited February 4, 2016 by Sharpie66

[ratgirlagogo]

 

Which reminds me--I've always wanted to watch Wings. Has anyone seen this and can give a yay or nay vote for spending a few hours with it?

 A solid yay from me.  The dogfighting scenes were the direct model for the wingfighter scenes in Star Wars, for one thing.  Also it's just a really enjoyable movie.

 

Remembering that I haven't seen it... was this one of those musicals made before they figured out pre-recording for musical numbers? So everything had to be captured "live" on set, orchestra included? That would lead to plenty of clunkiness

In the earlier sound pictures nothing was pre-recorded.  One of the livelier and funnier discussions of this I ever read was in an old book by Joe Adamson called Groucho, Harpo, Chico, and Sometimes Zeppo (about the Marx Brothers obviously) where he talks about the technical challenges of making their first film, Cocoanuts (a musical BTW).  There is very little camera motion, because there couldn't be.  The camera itself had to be enclosed in a sound-dampening box to prevent the whirring of the camera from drowning out the dialogue (thus causing the cameraman to almost faint after half an hour or so).  Every piece of paper in the film had to be wetted down because otherwise the sound of dry paper crackling sounded as though the place had caught on fire - so that when Groucho and Chico are looking over a map it's draped over their hands as though, as Adamson says, it had been for some reason soaked in brine. Et cetera, et cetera.   

 

Compared to a lot of the early sound films I've seen, including Cocoanuts,  Broadway Melody is so much less stiff and clunky.  I kind of wonder on a certain level how it was that sound films caught on as fast as they did, aside from the obvious.  Compared to silent films, especially the silent films of the late twenties, the early sound pictures are so primitive looking, in terms of camera movement and staging.

Edited February 4, 2016 by ratgirlagogo

[bluepiano]

Compared to silent films, especially the silent films of the late twenties, the early sound pictures are so primitive looking, in terms of camera movement and staging.

 

Thanks for saying this, because it brings up one of my all-time pet peeves in regards to the movies. Almost every one I know, even those who consider themselves film buffs, has so little actual experience viewing silent movies. At most they have maybe seen a Chaplin or Keaton feature or two, or some Keystone Cops shorts. They have no idea that silent movies were just as diverse as sound movies, in terms of style and subject matter, ranging from comedies to westerns to suspense to historical dramas etc. And they especially have no awareness of the level of artistry that silent movies had attained, in terms of direction, cinematography, editing, and acting.

 

I've come to realize that many people's concept of the silent movie comes from campy take-offs on TV, or satires like Singing in the Rain. Even The Artist, which I mostly enjoyed, perpetuated the stereotype that silent movies were silly, broad entertainment for the unsophisticated masses (I won't even mention Mel Brooks' egregious Silent Movie.)

 

The idea that the movies didn't 'grow up' and become sophisticated until the advent of sound just isn't true. And in fact, because of the technical limitations of early sound, it was several years before sound movies began to have the visual complexity of late era silents. And to this day,  the best silent movies rank with the best all-time movies in terms of both filmmaking artistry and emotional impact.

Edited February 5, 2016 by bluepiano

[Sharpie66]

ITA, bluepiano! One of the most amazing films in terms of cinematography, direction, and performance is The Passion of Joan of Arc, directed by Carl Dreyer in 1928. Just a gut wrenching film, and it is practically impossible to get people to watch it if I mention "silent" and "black and white."

[bluepiano]

Sharpie66, that's another good point. Black and white wasn't some primitive form of movie making that was replaced by color. It was a great art form, and even after the advent of color, many films continued to be shot in black and white, by choice. It's hard to imagine some of the greatest films of the '40s and '50s in color. That's why there were separate Academy Awards for black and white cinematography and color cinematography, in recognition that they were two completely different things.

Edited February 5, 2016 by bluepiano

[prican58]

Wings, is really worth your time. It's a beautifully made film and there is a certain future matinee idol in it that is just so gorgeous. Yep.

The friendship between the two male leads is absolutely beautiful. I think it's a great picture.

 

I will admit to being one who is pretty much drawn to silents starring the greats like Chaplin/Keaton, etc but I can very easily sit through any silent film because it forces me to pay attention. With sound you can maybe do something else while it's on because you can hear the dialog/action but silents don't allow you to look away. I love that.

Julia, not sure what Sinatra said but no way any of those dancers even get through an audition today. I wonder just how 'profesional' they were? Were they really A list dancers of the day/

[Rinaldo]

I find that it helps especially (as it does with all movies, but I think more crucially) to see silent films in a theater. The fact that you can't multitask or wander around serves to focus one's attention to find the subtleties and artistry that's there in the good silent movies.

 

I've been lucky enough to see two famous ones under favorable theatrical circumstances: One was Wings in a big university auditorium with one of the notable theater organists (who had an affiliation with our campus) providing the score. (He showed me his music afterward: it was a single sheet of musical motifs associated with characters and situations, out of which he extemporized his impressive musical continuity. No doubt his experience with other showings of the film helped too.)

 

The other was Gance's Napoleon in its restored form, with a big orchestra in the pit to play Carmine Coppola's score, in the old Palace Theatre in Chicago. It was a memorable experience that suggested how exciting some of the silents must have seemed to audiences when new. We were all moved to applause when for the finale the movie broke into widescreen with tricolor tinting.

[Inquisitionist]

Manohla Dargis's NY Times review of Hail, Caesar! has a shout-out to TCM:

 

And, as usual with the Coens, it has more going on than there might seem, including in its wrangling over God and ideology, art and entertainment. Some of it is familiar and satisfyingly funny, even if there are laughs and bits that seem as if they were written to amuse only the Coens and the Turner Classic Movies crowd. (Love the Loretta Young nod!)

[roseha]

I agree with all the silent film as art love above.  I've loved silents as an art form for many years, ever since discovering Keaton at a Silent Clowns show in New York at the old 8th Street Playhouse.  I didn't like The Artist, as well executed as it was, because it was a modern day film about the silent era making silent films look like something that had to be "outgrown."  There were a lot of reasons established silent stars rapidly ended their careers or fell by the wayside almost as soon as sound came in:  Many were no longer young, or the studios could simply save money by bringing new stars over from the stage for less pay.  Some did simply retire.  On the other hand, Clara Bow was actually a huge star in the early sound era, despite her hatred of talking films, and simply walked away after a few years.   Then again stars like Keaton and Lillian Gish and  Zasu Pitts went on acting for decades.  I also agree that though it's not always possible, silent films are best seen in a theater.   To this day I don't think I've even seen Keaton's Sherlock, Jr.  on DVD, because it's so amazing and special and I kind of don't want to see it any other way than in a theater.  But don't let me stop anyone else from doing so! :)

As to why silent and sound films couldn't have co-existed, I only wish they had, but the theaters apparently had to invest a great deal in wiring for sound, and the fact remained that a lot of audiences were apparently entranced by the mere novelty of being able to hear everything.  It really is a shame when you consider great films like Sunrise, or The Wind, made so soon before silents disappeared.

By the way the great Abel Gance Napoleon, mentioned by Rinaldo, which I also saw around that time, is actually coming to DVD/Blu-Ray I think next year.  In two versions.  I wonder what they will do about that three screen ending!

Edited February 5, 2016 by roseha

[prican58]

I remember when Napoleon was shown here in NYC at Radio City, I believe. (someone correct me if I'm wrong) I never did get to see it and I hate myself for that.  If I ever get another shot, I won't hesitate.

[Milburn Stone]

I didn't like The Artist, as well executed as it was, because it was a modern day film about the silent era making silent films look like something that had to be "outgrown."

 

MMV, but I got the opposite feeling, precisely because the film was so delightful. The "unspoken" communication (no pun intended) was, "Wow, if a film without sound could engage and delight me and be so fully enjoyable for its entire length as this one is, then I finally get what silent film can do."

 

(Not that I didn't know what silent film can do, because I've seen Sunrise, but The Artist was one more delivery of that message, even with tongue in cheek.)

Edited February 5, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[Padma]

Just wanted to mention to anyone who hasn't seen this week's Essentials "The Nun's Story" (as I hadn't), it's On Demand and is a great Zinneman film. As usual, it still includes the intro by Sally Field and Osbourne (mostly the former; I didn't get the feeling Osbourne saw it with the same enthusiasm). In any case, I completely agree with her about Audrey Hepburn's wonderful performance --she is so believable, her struggle  for humility in the service of God so convincing and uncliched, and the film has so much emotion even in its most quiet moments.  Very beautiful film that, as SF observed, would never get made today except, perhaps, as a smaller budget independent film or by a European filmmaker--again, perhaps the same story but not the same film. It's a great reminder of what TCM does                       by            connecting us with a kind of great filmmaking that just doesn't exist any more.                                                                              

[Rinaldo]

Thanks for the tip, Padma. I had missed this broadcast (though I did see a previous non-Essentials TCM airing last year -- my first chance to see it, I think, as it just doesn't come up on the cable circuit or in the revival movie houses when we had them), and I was sorry to have missed what Sally Field had to say, so I was glad to catch up. I think she's dead-on: Not just in the unlikelihood of its being made (even back then, as Osborne remarked, it wasn't easy to convince a studio to undertake it), but in terms of what it says about Audrey Hepburn's legitimacy in the ranks of great dramatic actresses. Just as she says, the simplicity that's never empty.

 

On at least one occasion, Pauline Kael remarked that yet another new movie had used Hepburn for her appeal and charm (which of course she had in abundance) without writing a rewarding role for her, and asked "What about Hepburn the actress, the one who gave a magnificent performance in The Nun's Story?"

[elle]

The one and only Zsa Zsa Gabor is 99 today - what movie would you recommend to someone who wanted to see her act.  I would suggest Lili, she is set up as the "villain" but actually comes off more sympathetically than one might first expect.

 

Also wanted to mention, missing the lovely Abe Vigoda, who passed away last week.  Best known to many of us as "Fish" from "Barney Miller", movie fans may remember him from The Godfather.

[Julia]

I don't know if I'd say recommend, because José Ferrer in Very Important Movie mode* makes my teeth hurt, but she was very effective in Moulin Rouge.

*Obviously except for Cyrano. Otherwise, the character based on him in The Band Wagon amuses me more than is entirely kind of me, I think.

[Charlie Baker]

I would think Moulin Rouge would be the best thing ZZG did on film--has anyone seen Death of a Scoundrel, which she did with her one-time husband George Sanders?  I never did.  Supposedly when they were married ZZ thought she should be in All About Eve--as Phoebe or maybe Miss Caswell.  I think she was pretty effective in Lili.

While she didn't have a spectacular career either, I think Eva Gabor was the better actress of the sisters.  Zsa Zsa had her share of bottom of the barrel stuff like Queen of Outer Space and Picture Mommy Dead.  How do I know these films?  Don't ask.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Charlie Baker

[jjj]

Just wanted to mention to anyone who hasn't seen this week's Essentials "The Nun's Story" (as I hadn't), it's On Demand and is a great Zinneman film. As usual, it still includes the intro by Sally Field and Osbourne (mostly the former; I didn't get the feeling Osbourne saw it with the same enthusiasm).                                                                             

Thanks for mentioning the Sally Field introduction is On Demand -- I had missed her comments, and will be sure to watch before it goes away today.  "The Nun's Story" is one of those films I can't step away from, once I start watching, even partway through (just saw the final hour last week).  Maybe it is all the talk here of silent films, but I think I could mute "The Nun's Story" and it would still be as compelling. 

 

Feeling so old that so many 1980s movies are on TCM today!  But ugh, I hate, hate the scene in "Running on Empty" when they just leave their dog on the street.