TCM: The Greatest Movie Channel

[bmoore4026]

19 hours ago, voiceover said:

As much as I adore Ronald Colman's intro scene in Tale of Two Cities* (desperately hungover yet able to plot out a defense strategy), I think he had me for keeps a few minutes later. 

I like to imagine Sydney and that young woman he was with fell in love with each other on the way to the guillotine.

Other great performances were Edna May Oliver (she should have been nominated for an Oscar) and Lucille La Verne as The Vengeance.  You can see why Walt Disney asked her to play the Evil Queen/The Witch in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

Edited July 21, 2017 by bmoore4026
Something occured to me.

[prican58]

Watching Deadline at Dawn. You know how you know certain actors are great actors because they just are? This film just kind of smacked me in the face in re to Susan Hayward and Paul Lukas. They are so freakin' great in this! And then I get smacked when one of my all time faves shows up...Joseph Calleia! Man, he reminds me again just why I love him so much.   

I love Lukas' voice and his gentleness. Hayward looks like Ida Lupino in this. Really liking this.  

[Padma]

Re: Wait Until Dark". Is there anyone else who would have just given them the doll as soon as she found it/ in the hope they'd go away since she was blind? Might not have worked, but I didn't understand, also why she didn't get Gloria to call the police and didn't leave the apt.   Also why she dropped the knife and the matches.  Definitely tense, though and Hepburn was excellent, .

Edited July 23, 2017 by Padma

[Rinaldo]

I remember when Wait Until Dark was first released, first-run movie theaters (from my own experience, and anecdotal reports from friends) really did heed the directive from producers to turn the auditorium lights down even lower than usual for the last 15 minutes.

I was more into having "favorites" for various Academy Awards then than I am now, and Audrey Hepburn was my favorite for Best Actress that year. (I hadn't seen Edith Evans's performance, but I did think Audrey had given a better performance than Mrs. Guess Who's Coming, Mrs. Robinson, or Bonnie.)

[Padma]

5 hours ago, Rinaldo said:

I remember when Wait Until Dark was first released, first-run movie theaters (from my own experience, and anecdotal reports from friends) really did heed the directive from producers to turn the auditorium lights down even lower than usual for the last 15 minutes.

I was more into having "favorites" for various Academy Awards then than I am now, and Audrey Hepburn was my favorite for Best Actress that year. (I hadn't seen Edith Evans's performance, but I did think Audrey had given a better performance than Mrs. Guess Who's Coming, Mrs. Robinson, or Bonnie.)

I still haven't seen the Edith Evans film (The Whisperers) but Audrey would have been my choice, too, among the rest. Actually, Katherine Hepburn's role in "Guess Whos..." would have been my least favorite performance for that award that year--plus, if it was based on sentiment, she went on to a very deserved win the next year for "The Lion in Winter".   I also thought Audrey's performance in "Wait Until Dark" was far more deserving than the role she did win for, "Roman Holiday". But the of course, Oscars are filled with examples like that--some extremely famous ones--and disagreements pro and con to go with them. :).

[Crisopera]

I was watching Woman of the Year on The Essentials last week, and it occurred to me that I don't really like it very much.  The romantic comedy part of it (before they get married) is great - the chemistry between Hepburn and Tracy is off the charts.  Then they get married, and she turns into a thoughtless, selfish jerk, while he is still a perfectly wonderful guy.  She has to be humiliated so that she can learn to be a "real" woman.  This is why I don't really love The Philadelphia Story either.  In TPS, I always think she has the right of it - Tracy's father is a philanderer (and this is somehow her fault), when she was married to C. K. Dexter Haven he was an alcoholic (and this was somehow her fault), etc.  In the Hepburn-Grant canon, I'm much fonder of Holiday. Linda is just fine the way she is and isn't humiliated into changing.  Both WofY and TPS are beautifully made and acted movies, with wonderful individual scenes - they just have an ugly undertone for me.

[Chaos Theory]

Isn't TCM having a Hitchcock week or something.  I know Rope (or as I like to call it "How To Get Away with Murder") and Rear Window played at some point.  As well as the only Hitchcock movie I have never seen is Strangers on A Train (I know but I think this is the only movie in the history of time an space where popular culture has ruined watching the actual movie for me).  I am pretty sure Birds and Vertigo are playing this week.   I have no idea about Psycho.  

Edited July 24, 2017 by Chaos Theory

[psychoticstate]

49 minutes ago, Chaos Theory said:

Isn't TCM having a Hitchcock week or something.  I know Rope (or as I like to call it "How To Get Away with Murder") and Rear Window played at some point.  As well as the only Hitchcock mom is I have never see Strangers on A Train (I know but I think this is the only movie in the history of time an space where popular culture has ruined watching the actual movie for me).  I am pretty sure Birds and Vertigo are playing this week.   I have no idea about Psycho.  

I think "Notorious" was on last week.  I DVR'd it and watched it last night for the first time.  TCM should really play "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" also, if they are doing a Hitchcock theme.  Love that movie. 

I've never been able to watch all of "Rope."  I just get bored. 

[Chaos Theory]

9 minutes ago, psychoticstate said:

I think "Notorious" was on last week.  I DVR'd it and watched it last night for the first time.  TCM should really play "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" also, if they are doing a Hitchcock theme.  Love that movie. 

I've never been able to watch all of "Rope."  I just get bored. 

Interesting fact but Rope was the first Hitchcock movie in technicolor.   Since at the time it was new technicolor film came in like 10 minute rolls and "Rope" has the illusion of one long continuous shot every time something went wrong in that ten minute shot it had to be done over again.  

[Milburn Stone]

59 minutes ago, Chaos Theory said:

As well as the only Hitchcock mom is I have never see Strangers on A Train

@Chaos Theory, can you explain what you mean by this? I'm having trouble figuring it out.

@psychoticstate, TCM has already played Mr. and Mrs. Smith as part of it's Wednesday-Friday Hitchcock tribute. It was on July 12. It appears they're doing every Hitchcock movie ever, in chronological order.

I DVR'ed The Paradine Case, on the theory that all Hitchcock movies have something to recommend them. But after a promising first fifteen minutes, it's pretty rough going; I'm only able to trudge through about ten minutes of it at a time. It may deserve its reputation as nearly irredeemable. (But the scene with Charles Laughton trying to seduce Ann Todd is pretty darned creepy. Especially in light of rumors about Hitchcock trying to seduce the icy blonde stars of his movies.) I can defend Under Capricorn, but Paradine is a tougher case. A big problem is a miscast Gregory Peck. And the fact that Selznick wrote the screenplay. Oh well, I'm sure I'll get through it eventually.

[Chaos Theory]

16 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

@Chaos Theory, can you explain what you mean by this? I'm having trouble figuring it out.

@psychoticstate, TCM has already played Mr. and Mrs. Smith as part of it's Wednesday-Friday Hitchcock tribute. It was on July 12. It appears they're doing every Hitchcock movie ever, in chronological order.

 

Fat fingers?  More likely autocorrect that hates me.   Strangers on the train is probably one of maybe three Hitchcock movies I haven't seen considering that ever cop show or murder mystery has used it and  I don't know.....

correcting  original message now. 

Edited July 24, 2017 by Chaos Theory

[Rinaldo]

1 hour ago, Chaos Theory said:

Strangers on A Train (I know but I think this is the only movie in the history of time an space where popular culture has ruined watching the actual movie for me

Trust me (if you feel so inclined, of course): knowing the "gimmick" for Strangers on a Train (as indeed everyone seems to) doesn't diminish the experience of seeing it. Not a bit. In fact, the premise is laid out in the first 5 minutes, it's not trying to be a surprise or a twist. The greatness of the movie is in the details of how it plays out. The visual setpieces, and (as is not always the case in Hitchcock) the acting. There are terrific performances in smaller roles from Laura Elliott, Marion Lorne, Leo G. Carroll. And the two main guys are beyond praise: Farley Granger (at his very best here, the slight "softness" of his affect perfectly used for the story) and especially Robert Walker. Although I'd heard Walker singled out for praise, I wasn't ready for how unique his performance is here. I myself was late catching up with this movie, but it lives up to everything people say.

[psychoticstate]

2 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

I DVR'ed The Paradine Case, on the theory that all Hitchcock movies have something to recommend them. But after a promising first fifteen minutes, it's pretty rough going; I'm only able to trudge through about ten minutes of it at a time. It may deserve its reputation as nearly irredeemable. (But the scene with Charles Laughton trying to seduce Ann Todd is pretty darned creepy. Especially in light of rumors about Hitchcock trying to seduce the icy blonde stars of his movies.) I can defend Under Capricorn, but Paradine is a tougher case. A big problem is a miscast Gregory Peck. And the fact that Selznick wrote the screenplay. Oh well, I'm sure I'll get through it eventually.

Milburn, I DVR'd Paradine and I'm sorry to say that I was disappointed.  Based on ratings and reviews, I was expecting something spectacular but it just . . . wasn't. I felt like it kept building up to something and then wandered off.  I think it could have been great.  The storyline itself is not novel, at least not today.  Maybe Peck was miscast, maybe Alida Valli was miscast.  But I didn't feel that urgency on either of their parts, nor that Peck would have done anything for this woman who, I suppose, he was to have been lusting after.  For whatever reason, it just didn't gel for me.

[Bastet]

9 hours ago, Crisopera said:

I was watching Woman of the Year on The Essentials last week, and it occurred to me that I don't really like it very much.  The romantic comedy part of it (before they get married) is great - the chemistry between Hepburn and Tracy is off the charts.  Then they get married, and she turns into a thoughtless, selfish jerk, while he is still a perfectly wonderful guy.  She has to be humiliated so that she can learn to be a "real" woman. 

The original ending is so much better, and I'd like to travel back in time to have words with the test audiences who rejected it.  Like so many films of its era, Woman of the Year is a movie I like in spite of itself.  In this case, for the off-the-charts chemistry (obviously helped along by off-screen happenings), solid acting, bits of lovely dialogue, and the appealing characterization before it gets blown apart.

Quote

This is why I don't really love The Philadelphia Story either.  In TPS, I always think she has the right of it - Tracy's father is a philanderer (and this is somehow her fault), when she was married to C. K. Dexter Haven he was an alcoholic (and this was somehow her fault), etc.

The Philadelphia Story is another one on my love in spite of itself list, certainly; the cast in that one turns in stellar performances, great lines abound, and the chemistry between various scene partners is remarkable.  But, good gods, the shit heaped on Tracy!  Character after character gets to tell her what a closed-minded, judgmental jerk she is -- while being closed-minded, judgmental jerks.  Something the film never acknowledges; Tracy's flaws are dissected and displayed, while everyone else's are ignored or even excused. And her father can go piss up a rope.  Everything she says to and about him is true, and everything he spouts off to her is self-justifying bullshit. 

Quote

In the Hepburn-Grant canon, I'm much fonder of Holiday. Linda is just fine the way she is and isn't humiliated into changing. 

I've raved about that unsung gem many times, and the characterization of Linda - being proved right, appreciated by those who matter, and being granted the life she desires without having to change herself - is one of the many reasons why.

[Crisopera]

Bastet - I didn't know that WotY had another ending originally!  I checked it on Wikipedia, and it sounds MUCH better.  Too bad MGM didn't stash the footage somewhere....

[Rinaldo]

17 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

I DVR'ed The Paradine Case, on the theory that all Hitchcock movies have something to recommend them. But after a promising first fifteen minutes, it's pretty rough going; I'm only able to trudge through about ten minutes of it at a time. It may deserve its reputation as nearly irredeemable. 

I've just started watching my recording myself. I had to stop after 10 minutes for unrelated reasons, but I'm not feeling a pull to go back (I will eventually, though). Maybe Simon Callow's thoughts from his Laughton biography will be of interest, given his actor viewpoint:

Quote

The trouble this time was David Selznick, the film's producer and, as it happens, screenplay writer, who had vexed Hitchcock deeply by imposing Alida Valli and Louis Jourdan on him in central roles. His interest was confined to constructing the Old Bailey settings in such a way that he could shoot scenes simultaneously from various angles. The scenes between Laughton and his wife (a magisterially compassionate Ethel Barrymore) and Laughton and Ann Todd are the ones that seem to engage Hitchcock -- presumably because of the misogyny at the heart of them, to which Laughton gives full weight. His Lord Horfield is a concentrated study of malevolent authority, both on the bench and at the supper table, threatening and mocking, the glinting monocle deployed once more to good effect (though it had to wait for Witness for the Prosecution to reach its apotheosis). Nonetheless the performance doesn't quite live. There's something soporific about it (quite possibly intentional) that does nothing to counteract the lethargy instilled by the rest of the film, an expensively half-hearted effort.

[Charlie Baker]

I am close to off topic here, but I wanted to mentioned a book I just finished which may well interest some of you TCM watchers. Little Sister is by Canadian novelist Barbara Gowdy, whom I had never heard of before reading a review of this book, but she has published seven other novels. This one is a psychological, supernatural suspense story about a woman who suddenly finds herself jumping into another woman's conscious experience whenever there's a thunderstorm.  The classic movie tie in?  The protagonist Rose and her widowed mother run a repertory revival theater and the movies they show are alluded to often--sometimes they're tangential, sometimes they comment on the story.  All of the movies I'd venture to say have played You Know Where. I liked the book a lot--it's got a nice blend of occasionally dark tension and quirky humor.  So if you're into that kind of thing...

[Wiendish Fitch]

13 hours ago, Bastet said:

The original ending is so much better, and I'd like to travel back in time to have words with the test audiences who rejected it.  Like so many films of its era, Woman of the Year is a movie I like in spite of itself.  In this case, for the off-the-charts chemistry (obviously helped along by off-screen happenings), solid acting, bits of lovely dialogue, and the appealing characterization before it gets blown apart.

The Philadelphia Story is another one on my love in spite of itself list, certainly; the cast in that one turns in stellar performances, great lines abound, and the chemistry between various scene partners is remarkable.  But, good gods, the shit heaped on Tracy!  Character after character gets to tell her what a closed-minded, judgmental jerk she is -- while being closed-minded, judgmental jerks.  Something the film never acknowledges; Tracy's flaws are dissected and displayed, while everyone else's are ignored or even excused. And her father can go piss up a rope.  Everything she says to and about him is true, and everything he spouts off to her is self-justifying bullshit. 

I've raved about that unsung gem many times, and the characterization of Linda - being proved right, appreciated by those who matter, and being granted the life she desires without having to change herself - is one of the many reasons why.

 

Massive "AMEN!" to your thoughts on Woman of the Year and The Philadelphia Story. At least Woman of the Year is kind of redeemed by the incredible chemistry between Tracy and Hepburn, but The Philadelphia Story makes me want to fly into a feral rage. I don't think Tracy was closed-minded or judgmental, I thought she was fabulous: strong-willed, spirited, opinionated, and witty. I'd go out for drinks with her in a second. I also don't think Tracy is in the wrong. At all. Her father is a gross, repugnant philanderer, and not only does he need to own that, but her mom does, too. I was able to shrug off that whole "men are weak children who can't help themselves" bull crap in The Women, but not here! Hell, at least Stephen Hanes didn't go around blaming his daughter for his wandering dick! 

I just realized that Virginia Wiedler was the saving grace of both The Women and The Philadelphia Story (who can forget her prancing around in a tutu and bellowing "Lydia the Tattooed Lady"?). She was just so funny and cute, one of the most likable child stars ever. What a shame she died so young. 

[Constant Viewer]

5 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I just realized that Virginia Wiedler was the saving grace of both The Women and The Philadelphia Story (who can forget her prancing around in a tutu and bellowing "Lydia the Tattooed Lady"?). She was just so funny and cute, one of the most likable child stars ever. What a shame she died so young. 

I love Virginia Wiedler in both of these as well, but my favorite from The Women has to be Paulette Goddard.

It is gross that Tracy's father blames his infidelity on his daughter. Does this happen in High Society as well?

[Milburn Stone]

@Rinaldo, re the scene with Laughton and Todd on the couch (which leapt out at me from the portion of Paradine I saw, as noted): Hitchcock really seemed drawn to these "drawing room divan" scenes around this time. I found the Callow excerpt interesting, and it caused me to immediately make a connection to another Hitchcock scene that had been lurking in my subconscious as I watched the Laughton-Todd one. And that is, the scene of Bruno and the dowager on the couch in Strangers on a Train, in which Bruno "forgets" himself and nearly strangles her to death. These scenes seem exactly the same to me, except for all the particulars, if that makes any sense.

[Rinaldo]

52 minutes ago, Constant Viewer said:

my favorite from The Women has to be Paulette Goddard.

Mine too. There are several enjoyable performances in that movie, but when Goddard shows up 2/3 of the way through, she quietly throws things into overdrive.

[psychoticstate]

On 7/25/2017 at 6:58 AM, Rinaldo said:

I've just started watching my recording myself. I had to stop after 10 minutes for unrelated reasons, but I'm not feeling a pull to go back (I will eventually, though). Maybe Simon Callow's thoughts from his Laughton biography will be of interest, given his actor viewpoint:

Those comments are spot on.  I thought Jourdan, Barrymore, Laughton and Todd were the most energetic and interesting part of the picture.  Certainly far more interesting than Peck's character or Valli's character. 

 

23 hours ago, Constant Viewer said:

I love Virginia Wiedler in both of these as well, but my favorite from The Women has to be Paulette Goddard.

It is gross that Tracy's father blames his infidelity on his daughter. Does this happen in High Society as well?

Wiedler was good.  She was an excellent child actress.

For me, the best part of The Women was Rosalind Russell.  She stole the show from everyone else.  Second would be Joan Crawford but I am a huge Crawford fan so I may stand alone there.  Regardless, the film is very nearly flawless to me.  I think the weakest character is Peggy, which is no fault of Joan Fontaine's; Peggy is just dated and weak overall. 

[voiceover]

On the UO side of my movie-lover ledger: Not a Vertigo fan.  It's not even in my Top 25-Hitchcock.  I roll my eyes at every tongue-bathing essay or intro (like tonight's on TCM).  "Best film of all time"???   Bleaaaaaaaahhhh.

Not from missing the point of it all.   I took a number of theory classes in film school, and read pages upon volumes about voyeurism, the camera, & Hitchcock.   Yet I look at it the same way I look at Citizen Kane: I see The Art, but you can't make me care about it.  None of the main characters are remotely likeable or admirable.  

Give me Un Chien Andalou's eyeball slice (or, in keeping with the current non-Hitch thread content, the kitchen scene in Woman of the Year) on a loop instead.

On 7/25/2017 at 6:00 PM, Rinaldo said:

There are several enjoyable performances in [The Women] but when Goddard shows up 2/3 of the way through, she quietly throws things into overdrive.

Nope.  Mary Boland steals it.  Give me a bromide, and put some gin in it.

Edited July 27, 2017 by voiceover

[Sandman87]

I'm watching The Birds right now, which I haven't seen before except for clips of some scenes. It's probably not a good sign that it keeps making me laugh, what with the idiot characters, the bad dialog, and all the rest of it. When Mitch's mother entered the room where her dead husband was and the camera showed a dead seagull hanging from the broken window I couldn't help but start singing "How much is that birdie in the window?"

[Milburn Stone]

2 hours ago, Sandman87 said:

I'm watching The Birds right now, which I haven't seen before except for clips of some scenes. It's probably not a good sign that it keeps making me laugh, what with the idiot characters, the bad dialog, and all the rest of it.

It doesn't make me laugh, but I do agree it's a bad movie, and have thought so ever since I saw it as a kid. Sometimes I find myself watching parts of it, though, because certain Hitchcock memes and tropes (not sure I'm using either of those words correctly) hold fascination for me. It's not the big ones in the movie that work for me (the crows on the jungle gym, the attack in the house, etc.) but the small ones: the townsfolks' negotiations over who's going to drive who home from the Bodega Bay bar; Richard Deacon looking at Tippi Hedren suspiciously as they walk through their San Francisco apartment building's hallway; and maybe a couple others. It's kind of like the one thing I like in Topaz is not the famous stabbing of the beautiful Cuban woman, but the negotiations of Roscoe Lee Browne in the hotel in Harlem.

[Rinaldo]

5 hours ago, voiceover said:

On the UO side of my movie-lover ledger: Not a Vertigo fan.  It's not even in my Top 25-Hitchcock.  ... "Best film of all time"???   Bleaaaaaaaahhhh.

Not from missing the point of it all.   I took a number of theory classes in film school, and read pages upon volumes about voyeurism, the camera, & Hitchcock.   Yet I look at it the same way I look at Citizen Kane: I see The Art, but you can't make me care about it.  None of the main characters are remotely likeable or admirable.  

I'm more ambivalent about Vertigo. I can see its fascination, its visual design, the polarities and themes and the swoony kind of romanticism (seen with a cynic's eye at times) that permeates it. Not to mention Bernard Herrmann's music. It would make it into my Hitchcock Top Dozen, though barely. But all of that was more enjoyable when it was a little-seen rarity that film buffs could whisper together about: "You know, you really ought to check out Vertigo if you haven't; it's kind of wonderfully weird." But now that it's been Elevated to the Pantheon (and even anointed Best of All Time by some crackpots, heaven help us), I find myself wanting to point out all the mundane ways it stumbles (and when they add up like this, they do matter): the clumsy matte shots, the plot issues (how did she vanish that one time?)... even the vibraphone player who jumps an entrance and bangs a chord surrounded by silence midway through the main titles. I wouldn't be so picky if it wasn't getting such inordinate praise. It's cool and all, but it's not that great.

I do enjoy Citizen Kane a bunch, though it's a dispassionate kind of liking. Still, The Art (to use the quoted terms) is so finely honed and focused, that's a pleasure in itself. Whatever one thinks of Pauline Kale's Kane essay as a whole, I think she pegged it right when she said that yes, it's a masterpiece, but "a shallow masterpiece" -- supremely enjoyable in a surface way, with not much going on underneath -- but when carried off on this level, that's more than enough.

To clarify where I'm coming from, I don't require characters to be likable or admirable, as long as they interest me.

5 hours ago, Sandman87 said:

I'm watching The Birds right now, which I haven't seen before except for clips of some scenes. It's probably not a good sign that it keeps making me laugh, what with the idiot characters, the bad dialog, and all the rest of it. 

Heh. That's another one about which I feel, "It can be fun, but good grief let's keep a sense of proportion about things." I feel that way about Hitchcock as a whole, actually. He did some things in movies supremely well, and good for him because that's hard enough; but it does him no service to make no differentiation between his greater and lesser achievements.

[Chaos Theory]

I don't know.  The Birds kinda creeps me out for whatever reason.  And I am terrified of heights so Vertigo works for me on an instinctual level.  

[voiceover]

5 hours ago, Rinaldo said:

 

To clarify where I'm coming from, I don't require characters to be likable or admirable, as long as they interest me.

Right.  And in the history of my thread posts, I've never referenced a character that "interested me".

[Browncoat]

I first saw The Birds in the Autumn when I was a little kid, and when all the birds were gathering in the trees to migrate south.  I was terrified for weeks.

[Constant Viewer]

2 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

The Birds kinda creeps me out for whatever reason.  

Especially when you walk by real birds and think what if they actually did start raining death from the skies! I was walking my dog once and a martin swooped down and tried to peck him and it made me think of this movie premise.

If there are any Hitchcock lovers out there you should see the comedy play of the 39 Steps. There are a lot of callbacks to Hitchcock movies.

[Calvada]

4 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

I don't know.  The Birds kinda creeps me out for whatever reason.  And I am terrified of heights so Vertigo works for me on an instinctual level.  

I first saw The Birds as a young child.  Late night TV on a Saturday, when my 15-yr. old sister let 8-yr. old me watch it when she was babysitting me.  My mom put a stop to it when I had nightmares after watching See No Evil, a movie with Mia Farrow about a blind woman who comes home to find all her family brutally murdered.  Anyway, I saw The Birds in the autumn, when the lakes in our area were a haven for birds flying south.  I was freaked out for days.  Another I watched which also has always stuck with me was The Thing That Couldn't Die, about a disembodied head that some people dig up and it starts controlling everyone.  My sister loved creepy/scary/horror type movies, and I wanted to be like her.  But I really think she's the reason I prefer musicals and screwball comedy!

[voiceover]

Calling the members of the Ronald Colman Fan Club (IIRC @Crisopera, @Padma, @Wiendish Fitch): I've brought the scones & the Earl Grey for the last night of RC month.

Awaiting Random Harvest, which I love, to cleanse A Double Life, which -- not so much.  The actor-psychosis rings true, but it's actually my least favorite of his.  Without doubt because it's couched in my least favorite genre.

[Milburn Stone]

5 hours ago, Constant Viewer said:

Especially when you walk by real birds and think what if they actually did start raining death from the skies! I was walking my dog once and a martin swooped down and tried to peck him and it made me think of this movie premise.

About three weeks ago on the Chicago lakefront an *sshole sea gull swooped down from behind me and attacked my head exactly like the one did to Tippi Hedren as she was crossing Bodega Bay in the skiff. The only difference is this one didn't draw blood. And yes, even before I knew how badly or not badly I was hurt, I immediately thought of The Birds. (Fodder for a movie buff joke: "You know you're a movie buff when...")

Edited July 28, 2017 by Milburn Stone

[Willowsmom]

• I was at the beach off season with a friend. We were sitting on the sand talking when I looked up and we were completely surrounded by seagulls. Needless to say, having see the movie we got up and just about ran away from those evil creatures.

[Crisopera]

voiceover - couldn't agree more about  A Double Life (and Random Harvest, for that matter).  It's lovely that he won an Oscar, but why couldn't it have been for Random Harvest? Or A Tale of Two Cities?

[Rinaldo]

Over the decades, I've come to feel that I'm glad if the people I like (onstage as well as in movies) are awarded for something, so they're in the record books. To ask that it be for the right thing is just too much to ask. (I mean, I remember how everyone "knew" that Rod Steiger won for In the Heat of the Night because he didn't get it for The Pawnbroker a couple of years earlier -- when Lee Marvin had won for Cat Ballou because he finally got a real leading role and nobody knew he could be so funny. And nobody thought The Color of Money was Paul Newman's best performance, but he had lost so very many times in the past, and it was now or probably never.) 

[Calvada]

I sense a theme for next year's 31 Days of Oscar - each day the featured actor is one who has never won an Oscar.   A day for Peter O'Toole, James Garner, Charlie Chaplin, Judy Garland, Angela Lansbury, Barbara Stanwyck, Carole Lombard, and Myrna Loy, just to name of few of my personal favorites.  They can call it the "Hey Academy!  WTF?  Month"  

It also would be interesting to show the various nominated performances for a certain year & category, and then have a group discussion of TCM fans about where the Academy went wrong.  However, it would really need someone with the historical knowledge of a Robert Osborne, to tell us that this person didn't get it because they had just gotten a divorce which offended TPTB in Hollywood, or this person got the Oscar because they didn't get it the year before when they really should have won it.

[enoughcats]

On 7/27/2017 at 3:59 PM, Browncoat said:

when all the birds were gathering in the trees to migrate south.  I was terrified for weeks.

And nowadays if you live in the southeastern US, the fall gathering of the black birds in flocks of tens of thousands are really flash backs to Hitchcock.  Starling flocks and redbird flocks in my part of the world are dense enough to show up on weather radar.  We have a long broad hill slope in front of our farm house and seeing one starling every square foot intimidates me.  (And the cats come inside or hide under the front porch.  

 

Edited July 29, 2017 by enoughcats
a picture is worth ten thousand starlings

[voiceover]

6 hours ago, Calvada said:

  They can call it the "Hey Academy!  WTF?  Month"  

You should check out Danny Peary's Alternate Oscars.  He relitigates the Academy choices (Actor/Actress/ Picture)through the 80s.

Watching Frenzy, which is in my Hitchcock Top 20.  Maybe 15.  Most thrilling moment: the potato truck reveal.  

Alec McCowen's Chief Inspector Oxford put me in mind of Robert Donat's younger brother.  Love the scenes with his wife (He assures her that, after living through prison food, the hero might not have a problem with her cooking).  Hitch could do some quite believable married couples!  

He also got to deliver that ohsoBritish last line to the villain.  Perfection.

Edited July 29, 2017 by voiceover

[Charlie Baker]

Frenzy is definitely the peak of later day Hitchcock.  And Torn Curtain is probably the least--I haven't seen Topaz in many years, but I watched Curtain last night for the first time in a good long while, and I'm willing to venture Topaz is superior.  Curtain does have that prime Hitchcock killing in the farmhouse in it--and some other effective sequences--but overall it's pretty flat.  The stars look sensational, but despite that extended under the covers scene in the beginning, not a lot of heat between them.  (Hitchcock was maybe looking for Grant/Saint NBNW type interaction and didn't get it.)  The pacing flags, Lila Kedrova, as fun as she is, looks like she's from another movie.  And I know Hitchcock and Bernard Herrmann parted ways over this movie, and the score that was used is often obviously inappropriate.

[Milburn Stone]

2 hours ago, Charlie Baker said:

Frenzy is definitely the peak of later day Hitchcock.  And Torn Curtain is probably the least--I haven't seen Topaz in many years, but I watched Curtain last night for the first time in a good long while, and I'm willing to venture Topaz is superior.  Curtain does have that prime Hitchcock killing in the farmhouse in it--and some other effective sequences--but overall it's pretty flat.  The stars look sensational, but despite that extended under the covers scene in the beginning, not a lot of heat between them.  (Hitchcock was maybe looking for Grant/Saint NBNW type interaction and didn't get it.)  The pacing flags, Lila Kedrova, as fun as she is, looks like she's from another movie.  And I know Hitchcock and Bernard Herrmann parted ways over this movie, and the score that was used is often obviously inappropriate.

Agree Torn Curtain is pretty awful. And I don't like most of the John Addison score, and would give anything to see the Herrmann score restored. (You can listen to it on CD but I'd love to see it against picture.) But I do kind of like Addison's "classical" alto sax theme (I mean, the instrument is played as a classical musician would play it, not a jazz musician) under the bus escape sequence.

On first viewing long ago I thought Topaz was awful (with the exception of the Roscoe Lee Browne sequences in Harlem) but a recent viewing made me change my mind some. I actually felt anxiety for the middle-aged Cuban couple who were spying for us, and Dean Wormer (I mean John Vernon) was an interesting villain.

[voiceover]

1 hour ago, Milburn Stone said:

 Dean Wormer (I mean John Vernon) was an interesting villain.

Poor John Vernon!  Eh, there are worse fates than being forever linked to your role as a great comic villain.

I remember when he showed up as Sophia Loren's husband in A Special Day...I couldn't get past it ("He's Italian??").

[Rinaldo]

7 hours ago, Charlie Baker said:

And I know Hitchcock and Bernard Herrmann parted ways over this movie, and the score that was used is often obviously inappropriate.

Anyone interested in this topic should definitely spend an evening in an armchair with Hitchcock's Music by Jack Sullivan. He devotes a substantial section -- often a whole chapter -- to each of Hitchcock's sound films and the music for it. (A few of them, of course, use mostly "source" music heard by the characters, but that's of interest too.) It's interesting to discover which portions of scores ostensibly by one composer were lifted from the work of others, and it's fascinating (if not indeed infuriating) to read Selznick's memos on how he knew more about music than the music department did. Good stuff.

[ratgirlagogo]

22 hours ago, enoughcats said:

birds in flocks of tens of thousands

are nothing compared to the flocks of passenger pigeons that once darkened North American skies for days at a time.  

17 hours ago, voiceover said:

Watching Frenzy, which is in my Hitchcock Top 20.  Maybe 15.

Yet another vote from an opinion I respect that makes me think I should revisit this one.  Though I don't know when that will happen.  This is one of the only movies I've ever seen that upset me so much that I walked out on it - it was in a Hitchcock festival the university was running (in the late 70's) and apparently this was such a common reaction from the female viewers that the (female) curator of the festival pushed the refund into my hand and apologized before I even finished saying why I was angry.  It was the scene where he rapes and then strangles the woman in the office - I felt that the woman's reactions to her own rape and murder  were portrayed in such a comic, mocking way that I completely lost my shit.  I know this may seem odd to those of you who know my enthusiasm for violent grade Z drive-in/exploitation movies.  But honestly this got to me in a way that I Spit On Your Grave and Maniac and Snuff never did - mostly I suppose because Hitchcock is taken so completely seriously as an auteur that I felt more attacked as a woman - nobody involved in making or exhibiting things like Ilsa She-Wolf of the SS took anything about it seriously.

[Padma]

Will have to catch Frenzy, which I've never seen. I just saw Rope for the first time this week. It was sadder than I expected,  with them having the body in the room whit the boy's parents not knowing and everyone wondering where he was. but the theme was kind of daring--the challenge of the "superior intellect" committing the perfect crime (and the flawed definition of "superiority" that went with it. Better than I expected.

Agree with others about the flawed Hitchcock. I think The Birds is an over-the-top horror movie, and don't see any chemistry between Tippi and Sean (chemistry always helps Hitchcock, imo), but it really stays with you. Once seen, you'll never forget it.

Anyway, there are plenty of bad and so-so Hitchcock.  So I was wondering what people's favorite Hitchcock is -- not "the best" necessarily, but your favorite. My list narrowed down to these, and I tried to ignore the fact of having seen some so often.  It came down to mostly "story + cast + would look most forward to rewatching".  If I chose "best movie" it would be "Shadow of a Doubt". But just per the above, "North by Northwest", which has a great cast, inc. support, is visually strong and moves along nicely story-wise.  (For some reason, I thought "Niagara" was Hitchcock, too, but it's Henry Hathaway. Another good noir, though, and similar to some of the below.)

North by Northwest

Shadow of a Doubt

To Catch a Thief

Suspicion

Strangers on a Train

Dial M for Murder

Rear Window

Rebecca

Notorious

ETA: @voiceover. So glad you mentioned Random Harvest. Can't believe I've never seen it--and now really looking forward to it as its "On Demand" this week.

On ‎7‎/‎28‎/‎2017 at 7:56 PM, enoughcats said:

And nowadays if you live in the southeastern US, the fall gathering of the black birds in flocks of tens of thousands are really flash backs to Hitchcock.  Starling flocks and redbird flocks in my part of the world are dense enough to show up on weather radar.  We have a long broad hill slope in front of our farm house and seeing one starling every square foot intimidates me.  (And the cats come inside or hide under the front porch.  

 

Is this a photo! That's amazing. Our bird population has diminished so drastically in the past five years that I can't even imagine a sky like this. We used to have lots of crows, but now its a special event to even see a couple. ICanadian geese use to winter here, but not any more. s there any particular reason for this pattern of flight? It's pretty incredible.

[enoughcats]

54 minutes ago, Padma said:

Is this a photo! That's amazing.

Sometime google images blackbirds on radar.  There are some great photos there that will give you more of a feel of how these flocks move.  

Midwinter we get flocks of robins, maybe twenty or thirty.  

We are not on  a flyway, but have over a hundred acres of woods as well as our fifty acres of hay fields and neighbors' hay fields as well as  river running by us.  That gives some habitat diversity that you won't see in dense woods in the east. 

Re the Birds:  Sea Gulls come hundreds of miles inland and the closer you get to the sea coast the bigger the sea gull flocks become (Trash dump density helps).  That so many of us had seen sea gulls in land made The Birds all that more scarey.

[Rinaldo]

1 hour ago, Padma said:

I think The Birds is an over-the-top horror movie, and don't see any chemistry between Tippi and Sean (chemistry always helps Hitchcock, imo)...

I agree, but I think that hurts Marnie more than The Birds, no? ☺ (No criticism implied -- I do this sort of jump all the time, and have done it so often on this thread that it must be my trademark.)

Anyway, favorite Hitchcock?

The 39 Steps

The Lady Vanishes

Rebecca

Rope

Strangers on a Train

Rear Window

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

North by Northwest

I would have liked to include Vertigo, Psycho, and especially Shadow of a Doubt too, because they do fascinate me (and everyone should know them, and decide for themselves), but I have enough niggling mundane reservations about them to bump them just off my list. I might say the same about The Man Who Knew Too Much, but the way it puts music in the foreground (in two separate ways) bumps it back on again.

Rope was a recent first viewing for me too (about a year ago), and I was surprised by how affecting I found it. From the descriptions my father (also a director) would give, I'd assumed it was mostly a technical stunt, but it has an atmosphere all its own. I find North by Northwest a nearly perfect piece of entertaining suspense, and Rebecca a very satisfying literary adaptation. But if I'm going to pick one as my top place? Strangers on a Train.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Rinaldo

[Milburn Stone]

7 hours ago, Rinaldo said:

Anyway, favorite Hitchcock?

I like all your picks, and started to think if there were any others I would add to the list. And I did come up with two or three (like Notorious) before realizing that my list of "favorite Hitchcock" would encompass most of his movies! (Or close to half of them at least.) If I put aside the handful since the early mid-thirties that were really awful, I end up with the personal maxim that inferior Hitchcock is more interesting than most directors' best.

[Wiendish Fitch]

My Hitchcock picks:

Vertigo/Notorious (tie): Yeah, I know ties are cheap, but I really do love these two equally. I love Vertigo's permeating weirdness, the twisted layers of James Stewart's character, and its exploration of female archetypes (intentional or not, I'll never know). Yeah, the plot is ludicrous and there are plot holes that could swallow a tank, but everything else works so well, that all is forgiven. I love the steaming hot (if deeply problematic) romance in Notorious, the complexity of the leads, the unbelievable tension during the dinner party scene, and the presence of Claude Rains. 

Rear Window: Influential as hell (for better or worse), and my favorite Grace Kelly performance (besides High Noon).

Shadow of a Doubt: Despite relying a bit too heavily on Idiot Plot contrivances, this is a deliciously grim slice of Americana, with an antagonist and a protagonist who are-GASP- equally well-written and interesting!

Rope: I know it's become really divisive, but I'm firmly in the "love" camp. I don't mind "gimmicky" films as long the gimmick works, and it does here. The antagonists are wonderfully hate-able, and I love how the theme of Rope blows the lid off bullshit, nihilistic philosophies that nasty human turds love to twist around in real life as well as fiction.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956): One of the few remakes that, IMO, improves on the original (I'm sorry, I find the original dry and kinda boring). Terrifying if only because it can happen in real life. I know Doris Day's passive character rubs people the wrong way, but her singing "Que Sera, Sera" rips my heart to shreds.

Rebecca: Stylish as hell, and a good "how-to" guide on how to adapt a book. Plus, Mrs. Danvers is one of my favorite movie villains.

[Athena]

Favourite Hitchcock:

The 39 Steps: Love Robert Donat so much and this book and movie is so well done all around.

Rear Window: Very cool design and "one room" thriller. Love Stewart in this

Rebecca: Another wonderful adaptation of a book.

North by Northwest: My first Hitchcock film so only memorable for that.

 

Like/Meh/Indifferent:

To Catch a Thief: Another early Hitchcock. Love the scenery, the cast, but the plot is weak.

Vertigo: I agree with that Kim Novak lets this down for me. I read she was uncomfortable throughout the whole shoot because of her own inexperience as an actress and Hitchcock didn't help. Liked everything else about this film because it is strange.

Psycho: It's fine as a horror flick. Not a horror person.

Notorious: Not sure why but I was seriously bored and can't remember much from this. I need to rewatch it.

 

I have not watched Rope and Strangers on a Train. I need to get on that. I don't want to watch the Tippi Hedren/Hitchock films including The Birds after reading how harassed she felt working for him. I have mixed feelings with Hitchock as a director in general. I can't always separate art from the artist or at least every piece any way.