TCM: The Greatest Movie Channel

[David T. Cole]

You're reading too much into this Milburn and Rinaldo. I didn't call for a split, I just changed the topic title to reflect what I was told the topic was about when it was requested (mostly about the movies) for the movies section and not the ratings/business trades stuff that can go on in the network topics. I was prompted by a couple emails asking me where the topic was.

I'm happy to move it to EETV (and I'm going to now), you can continue to talk about TCM and the movies and the middle of that venn diagram. It's all cool and groovy.

[aradia22]

I watched A Free Soul (1931) for the first time today. It's yet another pre-code film for me as well as my third Norma Shearer movie after The Divorcee and Marie Antoinette. As pre-code movies go, I found it entertaining. It was livelier that some of the others have been and it was legitimately kind of scandalous, though I think Clark Gable wasn't really the most threatening gangster. I liked him in the part and I thought his acting was solid but he didn't seem to do much. He was just kind of menacing and occasionally he pushed people. Like, come on now. I found Norma Shearer's acting way too affected and it repeatedly took me out of the film though I kind of got used to it by the end. And I know I like some actresses who are affected or theatrical like Hepburn and Crawford but Shearer strikes me as particularly artificial. It worked in something like Marie Antoinette which already felt false or The Divorcee which was theatrical and about deception anyway. But here, I just didn't buy it. She had some good line delivery at times. I'll give her that. She seemed a little old for the part, as well. I know they were kind of playing with the dynamics of the father/daughter relationship by having her act almost more like a lover at times but it just aged her. Lionel Barrymore had his moments but he also came across as a little fake to me. I don't know where the line is between a convincing drunk and someone who's merely pretending to be drunk but I thought he wavered quite a bit. Leslie Howard was better than most actors would have been as bland love interest #2. But I thought the script was pretty good. I enjoyed the fashion. I just had some issues with the performances and the way the plot hung together. But I think it's worth a watch and plenty of stuff happens to keep you engaged. It's not a movie that slows down too much.

OK, here are my questions. Do you think that Jan really loved Ace? I ask because the moment they meet she seems physically attracted to him and from that point on, it seems like she's more interested in the physical side of their relationship. They never really have meaningful conversations or seem to have anything in common. And in that scene where he is

trying to propose to her

, she keeps trying to put him off and turn his attention back to the physical stuff.

Do you think that Jan really loved Dwight? I ask because, you know, it's Ashley vs. Rhett and also it seems a little too convenient for her to

suddenly change her mind at the end of the movie. I got the impression that she was bored by him in the beginning and she suddenly loves him at the end because he was willing to sacrifice himself for her?

[Milburn Stone]

I'm happy to move it to EETV (and I'm going to now), you can continue to talk about TCM and the movies and the middle of that venn diagram. It's all cool and groovy.

I'm a happy camper. (And I love that the move was so seamless that the topic still shows up in "My Shows" even though it lives in a new forum.)

[aradia22]

I watched Born to Dance (1936) this afternoon. I'm not the biggest Cole Porter fan (I think he's highly overrated... especially by older theatregoers) outside of Kiss Me Kate but it was an enjoyable way to spend 2 hours. I'd already seen the clips of Easy to Love and I've Got You Under My Skin when I was trying to pick a song to audition for a Cole Porter musical. Anyway, I actually think these particular Cole Porter songs fit well in the mouths of less powerful singers. There's something about them that can't really handle big lush orchestrations or belter voices. My biggest problem with the movie was that the plot was paper thin. I don't mind a silly musical plot in and of itself but this one was severely underdeveloped. The dialogue started off kind of fun and then it just became something to hang all the musical numbers on. The opening number was fine. The second number with Eleanor Powell was a bit underwhelming with her singing not being great and her legs covered up. If it's tap, you've got to see their legs and feet. You can't shoot them from the waist up. Gah! I much preferred when she took over the rehearsal number (though who puts in a new number right before the opening?) when she was wearing those shimmery pants and the final number when she was in tights (though that one dragged on and on... It wasn't as bad as Gene Kelly in An American in Paris but I'm not a fan of long, unmotivated dance numbers). There were some nice moments but it all ended up falling flat because I ultimately didn't care about any of the characters. I think Jimmy Stewart did well. Virginia Bruce was fun (the only other thing I've seen her in is There Goes My Heart and she had a lot more spirit in this one). Eleanor Powell was just fine outside of the dancing. I just didn't care about them as characters. You could have summed up the plot in a few sentences and then just told me to sit there for a musical revue. This was barely a movie. It was full of unexplained musical sequences. There are the musical numbers where characters are compelled to sing and you realize that in their universe, they're not actually singing, and there are the musical numbers that are performances. This was just a musical revue where they didn't really care what the audience thought. I enjoyed the dance number with the two unnamed characters at the Club Continental. Though I thought the male dancer wasn't that great. I would watch most of the first half of the movie and then fast forward to the musical/dance numbers that catch your fancy. 

Edited to add that hearing Jimmy Stewart sing about how his lovemaking was an art made me laugh way harder than it should have. I had to pause the movie.

Edited April 17, 2014 by aradia22

[Rinaldo]

Interesting, and thank you for the report; as it happens, I've never seen Born To Dance in its entirety. I do think that Cole Porter is if anything underrated these days, but then I'm one of those older theatergoers, so what do I know. :) 

Eleanor Powell's singing was dubbed by Marjorie Lane in this movie. She was always dubbed on film, although she had sung acceptably onstage. Such was the attitude of the studios in those days, I guess. 

[ratgirlagogo]

 

Anyway, I actually think these particular Cole Porter songs fit well in the mouths of less powerful singers. There's something about them that can't really handle big lush orchestrations or belter voices.

Yes, it is a completely different vocal style from the humungoid Broadway style.  Bing Crosby rather than Ethel Merman. (Even though, go figure, Merman was Porter's favorite singer, I believe.)   I think they were written for smaller more cabaret-type revues in the first place and are better suited for intimate cabaret vocals rather than belting.  I still think they benefit from "better" voices, just not from giant belter voices.

Edited April 18, 2014 by ratgirlagogo

[Charlie Baker]

I think the stuff Porter wrote specifically for Merman, like the scores of Anything Goes and Red Hot and Blue, work very well for her voice, particularly when she was in her prime and these shows had their original stage runs.  But singers with smaller voices do very well with Porter, too.  

To change topic, I didn't intend to watch The Thin Man for the umpteenth time when it was on yesterday as part of I guess TCM's anniversary MGM tribute (?) but I did and I'm not sorry.  Powell and Loy draw me in every time. And the subsidiary characters and dialogue in that movie are just as priceless.

"We didn't come here to watch you two dance around the maypole!"

 

 

 

[ratgirlagogo]

 

To change topic, I didn't intend to watch The Thin Man for the umpteenth time when it was on yesterday as part of I guess TCM's anniversary MGM tribute (?) but I did and I'm not sorry.

Yes, The Thin Man is one of those movies for me too.  The kind that, if you turn on the TV and it's on, you end up watching the rest of it even though you've seen it a million times. Like  Stagecoach and Casablanca.

Edited April 18, 2014 by ratgirlagogo

[Bastet]

I probably watch one of the Thin Man movies at least once a month (well, less often for the last two).  I have the boxed set, and when I'm not yet ready for sleep but not in the mood to read or watch the news as per usual, a Thin Man film is one of the first things I'll think of.  I miss the marathon TCM used to do with some frequency (or at least it seemed) on New Year's Eve.  And, yes, it is one of those films that even though I've seen it a million times and can watch any time I want on DVD, I must watch it when I come across it on TV.

[Patssy Stoned]

So let me get this straight?  We  have to spoil 70 year old movies?  Seriously?

[Milburn Stone]

So let me get this straight?  We  have to spoil 70 year old movies?  Seriously?

It makes no more sense to me than it makes to you, Patssy. But that does seem to be the rule.

Now, to belabor the obvious, I don't make the rules around here, and I'm happy to abide by the rules of those who do make them. But if I were making the rules, I'd declare that posters who wish to spoiler-tag certain information, out of an abundance of concern for their fellow members, are free to do so; while posters who don't see the need to spoiler-tag information that's been available for decades are free to "divulge" it without tags. Perhaps the rules will evolve to approximate something like this. In the meantime, your understanding of the rules as they stand is correct.

[aradia22]

This is perhaps only tangentially related to TCM but I finally went out to see the 1930's fashion exhibit at the Museum at FIT. I was just hoping to see a few interesting pieces but I was pleasantly surprised to see a pair of Fred Astaire's dancing shoes (as scuffed up as you might imagine them to be), Joan Crawford's dress from The Bride Wore Red, Katharine Hepburn's dress from The Philadelphia Story, and Garbo's dress from Queen Christina (though that was part of another exhibit). Sadly, the exhibit closed today so even those of you in the area can no longer go view the pieces. I wish I'd known or I would have let you know about the exhibit sooner. Joan and Katharine had teeny tiny waists! Garbo was a little more "normal". 

[prican58]

OK, so I've made the move to p.tv  Lovely being here and especially "here". Someone recently asked me if TCM was the only channel I watched. Phhht, no. But it sure seems like it.

Just to quickly state my weaknesses: John Wayne, Myrna Loy, Bogart, Eddie G, Ingrid Bergman, Cagney, Bette Davis, Erroll Flynn, John Garfield and Don Ameche.  And just about any film by Michael Curtiz.  

Is anybody checking out Laura, now? I started watching old films  around 12-13 years of age back in the 70's. I was just thinking about the first time I saw Laura. I was so mesmerized! I figured it was because being rather young I hadn't become so blase' or jaded about movies and their sometimes predictable story lines/twists, etc. I was so intrigued by all of it. I had the same reactions seeing Wuthering Heights and any Bette Davis movie

Seeing these kind of films for the first time is always so much fun, like a kid opening presents at Christmas time. 

[Rinaldo]

I just got to introduce some undergraduates to Laura by showing them the first 5 minutes. They were intrigued enough to want to see it all on their own.

The story doesn't really hold up to scrutiny all that well, but the story isn't what captures us anyway. The wonderfully theatrical, memorable lines that the actors deliver with such theatrical conviction, the world evoked by the designs, the aura of mystery and obsession, that unique musical score... And Gene Tierney is just about the most stunningly beautiful woman to appear on a Hollywood screen.

[prican58]

I love Price in just about everything. His voice was such a strong point for him. It was so clear and precise. I think him and Henry Daniell had the kind of voices that added so much to their characters. Price could do snivelling weaklings like Shelby in Laura and evil creeps like King Richard in Tower of London from 1962.

I love him in the original Tower of London from 1939 with Basil Rathbone. The drinking scene they had was outta sight, man! 

Rathbone was another one who mesmerizes. That voice! Nora Desmond said they had faces then but they sure had voices, too.

[CMH1981]

I watched the Human Comedy last night with Mickey Rooney, and I have to say I was a bit puzzled by the movie and wanted to share my views and see if anyone else had some insights to it.  I loved the slice of life story-telling of it, the different vignettes and how there was no real major storyline in my opinion.  I thought Mickey Rooney was great in this movie, as well as Frank Morgan, both did excellent jobs.  The window shop scene with Ulysses was cute and terrifying when the guy/mannequin/robot goes out of his way to scare the young boy, heck I thought they guy was frightening to begin with and when he decided to play that trick, that was just creepy.

Okay, now to my the Marcus/Van Johnson and his army buddy, Tobey.  I understood that Marcus had shared all about his family background/life to his new friend, Tobey, which was cool and all since Tobey didn't have that family life he yearned for.  The fact that Tobey started talking about Macauley family and town like it was his own was just creepy.  When he showed up at the end ready to just go into the household like he was their long lost son, and the Homer/Mickey Rooney character is okay and ready to go with that was just really odd to me.  So this family is going to have to be told their son is never coming home again yet deal with his "friend" who has shown up and wanting to be accepted into this family.  That just didn't sit right with me.

Homer ripping up the telegram was jarring to me as well, I figured the mother might want to keep that telegram.

I was also picking up some undertones that these two men, Marcus and Tobey, might have been more than just friends.  Was I the only one who was picking up on those vibes, even if they were just coming from Tobey's obsession with Marcus' family.  I don't know if it is b/c i'm a gay man myself and I pick up on stuff like that more easily, but it was just really something that stood out to me.

[prican58]

CMH, I will admit the idea did strike me but I really think it's just the times we live in. If it were being remade today with pretty much the same script I have no doubt that it would be obvious or decidedly sub text-y. There was a film I've seen before with Robert Mitchum where he came back home after after the war and found someone who I think was an army friend/aquaintance who knew so much about his life and of his wife's that he actually tried to take his place. I think Mitchum had been presumed dead. I may be a bit off in  my details as I've only seen the film once and it was quite some time ago.

 

THC is my favorite Rooney movie.

[ratgirlagogo]

 

I love him in the original Tower of London from 1939 with Basil Rathbone.

AND Boris Karloff, speaking of great voices.  Three of my crushes all together in one film.  Heaven.

Edited April 20, 2014 by ratgirlagogo

[prican58]

How silly of me, ratgirl. Karloff is the main reason for watching The Grinch cartoon every Christmas. Gee now I really want to see both Tower films right now.

[j5cochran]

For fans of classic MGM musicals, and especially of tonight's Easter Parade (1948), two of my favorite bloggers have reposted their review.  Tom and Lorenzo, who got their blogging start following Project Runway, used to have a regular feature called Musical Mondays.  And today, they've put their review of Easter Parade back on their site.  It's wonderfully snarky, but I think this crowd can appreciate that kind of humor.

http://tomandlorenzo.com/2014/04/musical-monday-easter-parade/

The comments have some interesting comparisons of the dancing styles of Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly.  Enjoy!

 

[Amello]

Speaking of musicals, I watched Footlight Parade yesterday. Did anyone else think James Cagney and Ruby Keeler had more chemistry then they should have? Near the end when they're doing the Shanghai Lil' number, I never wanted it to end, especially the bit where they dance on the bar. Really, I just wanted to see James Cagney more involved in the numbers as I'm use to him as a mobber. A really fun film though, with a lot of laughs as well.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Amello

[ratgirlagogo]

 

Did anyone else think James Cagney and Ruby Keeler had more chemistry then they should have.

Ruby's husband Al Jolson did - but of course he was a controlling jealous bastard.  So I'm told.

[aradia22]

I watched Thou Shalt Not today. I've either seen it before or I've seen a very similar documentary. It's not a great documentary but it was interesting to hear the perspective of the people being interviewed after having seen some of the movies (Paid, Baby Face, Possessed, The Divorcee, Female, A Free Soul). Though I have problems with it, I think This Film is Not Yet Rated is the superior film on restricting what you can show in films. But the movie did give me a lot of new movies to add to my list. I'm sure they'll be showing 42nd Street and Gold Diggers of 1933 soon but I'd really like to see Three on a Match and Night Nurse. 

Oh, and has anyone else seen the new TCM cruise commercials they've been airing? Is it just me or do they expect us to find Ben attractive standing on the deck of the ship in his jeans with his hair whipping in the wind? I just found it embarrassing. Everyone involved should be embarrassed.

[Rinaldo]

That made me curious, so I searched out the commercial. I don't mean to be argumentative -- we all have our personal impressions -- but I don't see where embarrassment comes into it. It looked like a pretty typical cruise ad to me. I didn't find Ben especially attractive in that shot, but I didn't get the impression that I was supposed to -- he just seemed like a regular person enjoying the breeze on deck. The idea seemed to be that we could all have fun and be informal together. Which may not be how it really is, but again it seems pretty standard advertising to me.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Rinaldo

[Bastet]

I watched Thou Shalt Not today. I've either seen it before or I've seen a very similar documentary.

My stupid satellite receiver decided to have an issue about ten minutes into it, so that's all I got on my recording.  I know I've seen it before, but I barely remember it.  I hope TCM airs it again.

I'm also recording this afternoon's special about 1939 as Hollywood's greatest year, because there sure were a lot of good films that year.

[aradia22]

Rinaldo, maybe it was the contrast between Robert standing straight in his suit with every hair in place and Ben awkwardly leaning back and trying to smile with the aforementioned wind and jeans. Or maybe I'm reading too much into it and Ben is just awkward and it happened to be windy when they shot his portion of the commercial. 

[Milburn Stone]

Rinaldo, maybe it was the contrast between Robert standing straight in his suit with every hair in place and Ben awkwardly leaning back and trying to smile with the aforementioned wind and jeans. Or maybe I'm reading too much into it and Ben is just awkward and it happened to be windy when they shot his portion of the commercial. 

 

In general, Ben plays the "approachable real guy" persona on TCM to Robert's "old-school gentleman" persona. This may reflect to some extent their actual personalities (I suspect it does), but whether it does or not, it is an impression the network has carefully cultivated. How he comes across in this spot is consistent with that branding. I didn't see any attempt to make him into a glamour boy. As far as how successful the branding continues to be the cruise spot, it worked for me.

 

FWIW, I saw Ben "in action" on a number of occasions at the first annual TCM Film Festival in LA, and he impressed me. I think he's the real deal. Which is why the branding is successful. (It's based in truth.)

Edited April 23, 2014 by Milburn Stone

[Mr. Simpatico]

So I finally found where the TCM on TWOP thread went! 

 

I just got to introduce some undergraduates to Laura by showing them the first 5 minutes. They were intrigued enough to want to see it all on their own.
The story doesn't really hold up to scrutiny all that well, but the story isn't what captures us anyway.

 

 

I love Gene Tierney (such a sad life story) and like Dana Andrews, Judith Anderson, Vincent Price and Clifton Webb. And the Laura theme song but its not a movie that stands up to too many re-viewings because the plot holes (the gun was placed where?).

 

I also thought Andrews's detective character, Mark McPhererson, is pretty much a creep, a stalker with a crush ("falling" for Laura without knowing her, basically bullying Laura to give up even defending Vincent Price within hours, giving her the third degree at the station just so she can admit its over between her and Shelby for his own satisfaction) and I dread to think what their future relationship would be like. In my mind Laura, given the character we've seen from her in the movie, dumps Mark quickly after the action of the movie when he gets too possessive. 

 

In the same way, Gilda, makes no sense and yet we watch it for Rita and Glenn Ford. Yet when we examine the characters none of them are particularly likable and its hard to actually see them staying together happily after the movie is over.

 

There was a film I've seen before with Robert Mitchum where he came back home after after the war and found someone who I think was an army friend/aquaintance who knew so much about his life and of his wife's that he actually tried to take his place. I think Mitchum had been presumed dead. I may be a bit off in  my details as I've only seen the film once and it was quite some time ago.

 

I'm pretty sure this Desire Me, 1947 with Greer Garson, which pretty much destroyed her career as MGM's #1 "English" actress (especially with Deborah Kerr in the wings). I think it's the only MGM film of the Golden Age where there is no credited director since, according to the TCM article on the film, both George Cukor (who was fired/quit) and Mervyn LeRoy (who took over) didn't want their names on it.

 

Did anyone else think James Cagney and Ruby Keeler had more chemistry then they should have? Near the end when they're doing the Shanghai Lil' number, I never wanted it to end, especially the bit where they dance on the bar.

 

I thought so too. But maybe that's because Cagney (both the character he was playing and Cagney himself) were such good actors? Its tough to find any leading lady he didn't have chemistry with. And I wonder if Ruby Keeler would have a better reputation nowadays if she wasn't always paired with Dick Powell (who got better as he got older but in the 30s was still in his lightweight stage) and had a charismatic actor like Cagney to work against.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Mr. Simpatico

[prican58]

Yes, simpatico. It was Desire Me. I'll pretty much watch anything Mitchum is in. The big lugg. i never did think of Kerr being "the next" Garson but she was, wasn't she.

I think Cagney's chem with Joan Blondell in the films they made together is the best of all. Though perhaps it's neck and neck with him and Ann Sheridan. Not sure about Keeler's rep because I am hardly ever taken with her. Sweet enough but no weight.

Cagney was probably the best actor in the 30's along with Eddie G. Those two could do anything and do it convincingly (except maybe that film Cagney did with Bogart, The Oklahoma Kid. Really, two guys from NYC playing cowboys? No wonder Jimmy fought so hard to get better roles.

I love the John Wayne tribute concept in theory. But I like when I can spread out my Duke watching over several weeks. No way could I have a Ford/Wayne binge-a-thon on a work week. Sometimes I don't want to record stuff for later. But it's ok. It isn't like I can't ever see any of those films again. 

[stormy]

CMH 1981:  Wierdly, I finished reading The Human Comedy a week before it aired on TCM.

There were parts of the book cut from the movie, as expected, but some of that explains what was going on in the movie.

I loved the book and I thought the movie was good. I would recommend reading it.

[Milburn Stone]

A couple of weeks ago I DVR'ed TCM's showing of The Iron Curtain, a rare post-WW2 Cold War film with Dana Andrews and Gene Tierney, telling the story of a Soviet "sleeper cell" working in Ottawa to obtain nuclear secrets from Canadian and U.S. scientists. I think it may have been the first time TCM showed it; but it's a film that doesn't deserve obscurity. It builds suspense well, and has a bit of a pseudo-documentary film noir feel. (1948 Ottawa in winter looks as bleak, forbidding and foreboding as any repressive Russian city possibly could.) Directed by William Wellman and written by Milton Krims (screenwriter of the earlier Confessions of a Nazi Spy, which made him an expert in this sort of thing), the spectacle of ordinary "Russian embassy officials" and highly-placed Canadian government workers and "respectable" private Canadian citizens secretly doing espionage for the Soviets inevitably reminds one of The Americans, and in surprising ways The Iron Curtain doesn't suffer by the comparison. One performance in particular--by a mostly radio and stage actor named Berry Kroeger as the Ottawa mastermind--has tremendous, quiet, creepy power. One can't help being put in mind of how an Orson Welles of the period would have played the part, Kroeger is that good. (When I later looked up Kroeger on the imdb, I wasn't at all surprised to learn he'd worked with Welles in radio.) I've never encountered Kroeger's work elsewhere, even though the imdb shows him in about 30 films after this one, some of them small roles in high-profile films; he's such a standout in this movie that he deserved a more prominent film career, and certainly deserves to be better known today.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Milburn Stone

[ratgirlagogo]

 

he deserved a more prominent film career, and certainly deserves to be better known today.

Good analysis of The Iron Curtain, and couldn't agree more about Berry Kroeger.  Part of the problem, hell, the main problem,  is that he did work so extensively on the stage and on radio.  And radio of course, as Fred Allen pointed out, is a Treadmill to Oblivion.

http://www.radiogoldindex.com/frame1.html

Above link is the Berry Kroeger entry in J. David Goldin's radio index, i.e., his catalog of his own extremely large radio collection.  (It's not complete, but maybe the biggest catalog of this kind online.)  179 radio appearances!  And that's not a complete listing!  Note how many of them are in the prestige drama shows like Escape, Suspense, Words at War, etc.

Edited to add:  oh, how annoying.  I can't link directly to the Berry Kroeger entry, just to the front page.  But if you click on Search by Artist and go to K you will find his name and there's his page.  Sorry.

 

http://www.digitaldeliftp.com/DigitalDeliToo/dd2jb-The-Big-Story.html

About halfway down this page about the radio show The Big Story you will find some nice pictures and articles about Berry Kroeger. 

Edited April 26, 2014 by ratgirlagogo

[Milburn Stone]

Thanks for these links, ratgirl. I particularly liked the stills of Kroeger as he appeared in five Perry Mason episodes. Of course he was on Perry Mason! His slimy, slithery, sophisticated manner was perfect for playing the Effete Sleazeball role on that show! The producers obviously agreed, since the imdb shows him appearing in no less than seven episodes over a span of eight years.

[aradia22]

So I sat down to watch Easter Parade for the first time today. These are my thoughts.

 

Well, it's certainly pretty to look at. The costumes and sets are marvelous and colorful.

The hat shopping number was a weird way to start. It was very repetitive and while I always enjoy ridiculous hats, it ended up reminding me of that silly Lawrence Welk sketch from SNL, especially with the Happy Easter refrain.

The drum crazy number was great but it Astaire almost makes it look too easy. I remember watching this in one of those clip specials where the context really gave me the sense of the difficulty of doing a number like this but it just didn't have the same impact in the movie for some reason.

The dance number with Ann Miller and Astaire was fine. Nothing spectacular but her dress looked fabulous (I love pleated skirts that billow out like that) and they had decent (if not fantastic) chemistry. I just think they didn't do a good enough job selling them as a couple. Unless they had just crazy passionate chemistry this number wasn't going to convey anything this early into the film. Props to Ann Miller though for trying to fight her way through all that makeup (so much blush!) and a bright orange dress (You could count on one hand the number of people who look good in bright orange). Also, the choreography and that dress invited comparisons to Top Hat as it reminded me of the Cheek to Cheek number.

Judy Garland's Michigan number was pleasant but pointless. I did like the humor we got in the next few scenes with her not knowing left from right, making the face to prove she could get attention walking alone, and their first dance on stage together. It made me think of the awkwardness of Dirty Dancing but even worse.

The umbrella number with Lawford and Garland was also pleasant but pointless but it was quite adorable so I didn't mind. 

The film started to have slow moments after Judy and Fred's dance montage. It slowed a lot with that bit with the waiter. It felt slow during the dinner at Don's house. It started to slow again when the second dancer came in for Stepping Out With My Baby. A Couple of Swells was also very slow. It felt like something from Cover Girl. I wouldn't say it was ever as indulgent as a lot of Gene Kelly movies but as tends to happen with a revue of recycled songs, you could have trimmed a lot to spend time on the plot.

 

I think it's definitely worth a watch and I'd watch it again now knowing I don't really have to pay attention to the plot and that I can just watch it as a revue. I just don't think it holds together well as a movie with a narrative. Astaire looks like Garland's dad and I never bought them as a couple. I think it's telling that it feels more natural for him to kiss Ann Miller after the first performance of It Only Happens When I Dance With You while he hugs Judy Garland. She had much more chemistry with Peter Lawford, who was possibly even more charming than he was in Little Women. But both Lawford and Miller were kind of misused. They really only entered to create complications or further the plot. They were more plot devices that characters. It's all well and good to just sketch out the plot in a revue but the arrows can't all be pointing in different directions. Ann Miller's character was never Lina Lamont. I couldn't get a handle on whether she was supposed to be a villain or sympathetic. You could make a case for her being selfish and wanting to be a star and wanting Lawford's character for his inheritance. But you could also make the case that she had fallen out of love with Astaire's character, genuinely loved Lawford, and wanted to do what was best for her career. The problem is that it wasn't ambiguous, different scenes were communicating different things. It was like she was whatever character was required at that moment. Lawford was a viable love interest that the film never allowed to be compelling.

I would have loved a switch where Judy fell for Lawford and Fred and Ann realized that they did love each other but instead we got Judy and Fred awkwardly pairing up and Lawford making a phone call that suggested, well, I'll just settle for Ann then. 

Edited April 27, 2014 by aradia22

[Rinaldo]

I might disagree on this or that point, aradia22, but that's not important -- I do feel as you do that this is not one of the really great Fred Astaire movie musicals. (And I'm devoted to him as to few others.) He and Garland, two of the greatest things that ever happened to musicals, are not really a great pairing. I know we only have it because Kelly broke his ankle (and we have other movies that prove the Kelly-Garland pairing worked nicely) and begged Fred to step in; but what's here is here. It's not one of the real Fred debacles like Yolanda and the Thief or Let's Dance, but it just doesn't come to life as it ought. Partly, as you say, because the story logic hasn't really been worked out so that all the pieces fit. (A recurring problem in his 1940s movies -- he behaves like a jerk all the way through Holiday Inn and we're not supposed to notice.)

 

There are at least some good Berlin songs, but I'll confess to some issues with staging, which may be purely my own. I dislike the sort of sooty-faced makeup that the two of them use for "A Couple of Swells" -- I just don't enjoy seeing it (my problem). And numbers that depend on technological trickery like "Steppin' Out with My Baby" leave me cold; I know it couldn't be happening like this in front of an audience, and Fred could create magic without such intervention.

 

All this seems harsher than I mean. I still enjoy some of the movie, and there's always the unintentional entertainment of when they throw away the conventions of 1912 to make it look stylish or sexy according to 1948.

[Milburn Stone]

It's not one of the real Fred debacles like Yolanda and the Thief or Let's Dance...

 

My affection for Yolanda has grown some over the years. On my first viewing I found it excruciatingly dull and off-puttingly weird. But now I think the screenplay is actually pretty witty, and I enjoy all the performances, not just of the leads but also of the character actors. Lucille Bremer suffers in our minds today for two reasons: 1) She didn't have all that much charisma or talent, and 2) We know the only reason she's there is because she was Arthur Freed's girlfriend. But if you subtract (2) from the equation--if you can just forget for a minute that Arthur Freed was trying to make his girlfriend a star, and stop resenting her for that--and just look at what's there on the screen, what's there on the screen ain't half bad. Anyway, I now find the film a charming fantasy.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Milburn Stone

[aradia22]

Oh, one thing I forgot to add about Easter Parade is I loved all the animals. I have a soft spot for animals. Even though these weren't trick animal actors I still aww-ed over the kitten, pug, and bunny rabbit. It also went a ways to make Ann Miller's character seem more sympathetic.

 

Also, I know it was made in 1948, but it was such a 1950's musical. I don't know how they expected anyone to seriously believe it took place in 1912. I have this problem with a lot of movies, especially modern ones that take place anytime from the 1930's through the 1960's, partially because I watch so many older films. It's like filmmakers think audiences have forgotten what the world (and in some cases) film looked like at the time. Forget the costumes and sets and dialogue. The way a movie is shot can go a long way towards believability.

 

There are at least some good Berlin songs, but I'll confess to some issues with staging, which may be purely my own. I dislike the sort of sooty-faced makeup that the two of them use for "A Couple of Swells" -- I just don't enjoy seeing it (my problem). And numbers that depend on technological trickery like "Steppin' Out with My Baby" leave me cold; I know it couldn't be happening like this in front of an audience, and Fred could create magic without such intervention.

I'm with you on the soot makeup. Sometimes it works but that greasy, sooty look takes me out of West Side Story completely (in addition to a lot of other things including the terrible dubbing). I was already cooling on Steppin' Out by the time the second dancer was working her way through the number (it would have been fine if they ended after he danced with his first partner) but yeah, I agree that something like the drum number in the beginning is much more entertaining than watching that weird slow-mo thing they were doing. Leave that to the commercials.

[aradia22]

I watched The Glass Slipper today. It's not unwatchable but it's not high up on the list of movies you need to see. I didn't fast forward at all but if you do decide to watch it for the first time, I'd say this is definitely one you can fast forward through. Watch all the Estelle Winwood scenes. Definitely watch the dream sequence ballet when she still thinks that the prince is the son of the cook. Leslie Carron's dancing is beautiful. Ballet is not easy and she makes it look effortless and graceful. I would also watch the part of the second dream ballet when the prince leaves with the Egyptian princess and Cinderella "falls" down the stairs. Aside from that, I would watch a little bit of their initial meeting and the ball but that's really it. 

 

The Helen Rose costumes are beautiful but I can't deal with the look of the film. The sets feel very static and the film has this kind of grainy, blurred look. Cinderella works because she tends to be a sympathetic character regardless of the adaptation but in this one she was horrid. I get wanting to write a spirited Cinderella. I love Ever After. This Cinderella seemed emotionally and intellectually stunted and quite childlike. It was disturbing to see Leslie Carron paired with Michael Wilding when she both looked and acted so much younger than him. Also, what insane person thinks it's romantic for him to be attracted to her sadness? That's some crazy Twilight nonsense. I also missed the sense of magic. They bumbled the writing of the fairy godmother. I could see what they were going for with the village outcast who horror of horrors "read books" but then they wanted to make her a comedic figure and kleptomaniac. Oh, and they ruined a big part of the story since the prince knew who she was from the beginning and never needed to search for her. And while the stepsisters and stepmother weren't exactly good people they weren't that horrible either. So, fantastic. No magic, no obstacles, no hunt for the owner of the glass slipper and instead I get a dysfunctional romantic relationship and a klepto fairy godmother. 

[Rinaldo]

I remember seeing The Glass Slipper years ago and liking the prettiness of it, but not remembering much about it beyond that. So it didn't make much impression on me. I do like to see different versions of the Cinderella story, though. Ever After was an enjoyable, quite different one, with one of Drew Barrymore's best performances. Hoping this isn't veering too far off topic -- I don't think these appear on TCM but the Cinderella discussion most intelligibly would stay here -- the very first of the 3 TV productions of the Rodgers & Hammerstein Cinderella (the kinescope with Julie Andrews) is by far the best in my opinion -- it's the funniest as well as the most heartfelt. 

 

aradia22 (or anyone), how do you feel about the 1970s musical film, The Slipper and the Rose: The Story of Cinderella? It's overextended, I guess, and has a few songs too many, but I have a soft spot for it. I love the musical arrangements, the filming around real castles, Annette Crosbie as the fairy godmother, Margaret Lockwood as a delicious wicked stepmother, Gemma Craven as Cindy, Edith Evans in her very last performance as the dowager queen, and Richard Chamberlain in one of his most enjoyable performances as the prince.

[aradia22]

I love Cinderella. More than any other fairytale, I think there's a solid structure there that really lends itself to being adapted. I enjoyed the Julie Andrews version of R&H's Cinderella but I only saw it once so it doesn't stick out very strongly in my mind. I watched the version with Brandy and Whitney Houston a ridiculous number of times when I was little so I love it in spite of its problems. And I've never seen the Lesley Ann Warren version but I do want to look it up one of these days. I also saw it on stage with Lea Salonga.

 

Rinaldo, I've never seen that Cinderella adaptation.

[Julia]

I don't really resent Lucille Bremer for that, Milburn Stone. I kind of pitied her. She probably would have done really well making homey little musicals for the Pasternak unit, but Freed Marion Davies'd her into roles she was not strong enough for or not suited to.

I thought Minelli did a good job on Yolanda, and the supporting cast was fine, but I never thought Astaire did well with partners who didn't provide the sexual chemistry, and, well.

[Rinaldo]

I never thought Astaire did well with partners who didn't provide the sexual chemistry

Speaking of Betty Hutton....

[Milburn Stone]

I don't really resent Lucille Bremer for that, Milburn Stone. I kind of pitied her. She probably would have done really well making homey little musicals for the Pasternak unit, but Freed Marion Davies'd her into roles she was not strong enough for or not suited to.

I thought Minnelli did a good job on Yolanda, and the supporting cast was fine, but I never thought Astaire did well with partners who didn't provide the sexual chemistry, and, well.

 

I agree with one part of your post, Julia, and have to take exception to another. I share your feeling of pity for Bremer, and my mild resentment of her (which comes from thinking how good the movie could have been if only the female lead had been cast better, and that we were denied this better movie) is definitely mixed with pity. (I re-assert that she's not that bad--not bad enough to ruin the Yolanda that exists--but she does seem a little in over her head, and your observation that Astaire needed a partner with sexual chemistry is astute. In her other famous role, that of the older sister in Meet Me in St. Louis, she gives a performance that could hardly be bettered.)

 

The part of your post I must take exception to is that in which you analogize her to Marion Davies. Marion Davies was not Susan Alexander (the character in Citizen Kane widely presumed to have been based on Davies). Unlike the untalented Alexander, Marion Davies was supremely talented and would likely have been a success without William Randolph Hearst in her corner. Once you have seen The Patsy (one of Davies' silent comedies that TCM has shown) you will know this. She gives a performance of astonishing skill and modernity. (Her gestures work just as well for a present-day audience as they did for 1928; "ahead of her time" is the phrase that keeps coming to mind.) Orson Welles said that the one thing he regretted about Kane was its implication (or the inference drawn by others) that Susan Alexander was Marion Davies, because he knew this was deeply unfair to Davies.

 

That said, I have not seen a lot of Davies' work in the sound era, and if there are examples of Davies being "Susan Alexandered" into some of these later roles by Hearst, I defer to your knowledge.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Milburn Stone

[Mr. Simpatico]

I agree with one part of your post, Julia, and have to take exception to another. I share your feeling of pity for Bremer, and my mild resentment of her (which comes from thinking how good the movie could have been if only the female lead had been cast better, and that we were denied this better movie) is definitely mixed with pity. 

 

I remember reading a quote from Ann Miller that basically said that MGM never gave her a lead and always put her as second banana in every film she made for them and so she never got a break-out "star" role. It would have been interesting how Yolanda would would be regarded today if Miller had been the female lead instead of Bremer (and if LB had taken some of the lesser demanding secondary roles that were given to AM).

 

That said, I have not seen a lot of Davies' work in the sound era, and if there are examples of Davies being "Susan Alexandered" into some of these later roles by Hearst, I defer to your knowledge.

 

I think anytime you see Marion in any of those historical dramas Hearst had her star in, you can definitely see her being "Susan Alexandered" since she is clearly out of her comedic element. The most obvious one I saw on TCM was "Hearts Divided" from 1936 where she played the historical Betsey Patterson and Dick Powell (!) as Jerome Bonaparte and Claude Rains as Napoleon. It's not a comedy, it's not a musical! It's straight drama with a major change in history (the real Jerome dumped a pregnant Betsey on his brother's orders, married a German princess and never saw his first wife again - but you would never know that by watching this movie!). It's dreadful and a far, far cry from Marion's winning turns in "Show People" or "The Patsy". I remember reading once some critic saying that if anything Hearst did more harm than good to Marion's career and she could have been an bigger star without him.

[Julia]

FWIW, what I meant by "Marion Davies'd" was WR Hearst's insistance that Davies play heavy drama when her talent was for light comedy.

[Milburn Stone]

FWIW, what I meant by "Marion Davies'd" was WR Hearst's insistance that Davies play heavy drama when her talent was for light comedy.

 

Understood, Julia. Also appreciate your reply, Mr. Simpatico.

 

I assumed you were devaluing Davies' talent, Julia, because so many often do! The "cliffs notes" version of her career, believed by those who have not seen her in the vehicles in which she shone but have seen Citizen Kane, is that she was the real-life Susan Alexander. This view is all too prevalent.

 

As for Ann Miller's quote, I don't get it, because Bremer was the female lead in Yolanda and the Thief. If she had been great in it, that would have been her break-out star role. The sadness for her career is not that she stank in Yolanda (nor that the studio denied her a starring role in a musical, since that is patently not so) but rather that she delivered a highly competent performance in it when highly competent was not enough to cut it.

Edited April 29, 2014 by Milburn Stone

[Julia]

Not that I didn't enjoy Carole Lombard, but I think Marion Davies would have had a completely different career if she'd been allowed to play her role in My Man Godfrey, or some of the society comedies that went to Claudette Colbert.

Offscreen, I've always thought well of Davies for giving back all the jewelry Hearst gave her when he was in financial trouble. I don't think she gets enough credit for that.

[Mr. Simpatico]

As for Ann Miller's quote, I don't get it, because Bremer was the female lead in Yolanda and the Thief. If she had been great in it, that would have been her break-out star role.

 

The quote from Ann was about herself. MGM never gave her a starring lead even in a b-picture despite the fact that before signing with them she had headlined several Columbia b-picture musicals.

[Milburn Stone]

The quote from Ann was about herself. MGM never gave her a starring lead even in a b-picture despite the fact that before signing with them she had headlined several Columbia b-picture musicals.

 

Oh! I get it now.

 

I guess that's true (that MGM never gave her a starring role). But do you think she's correct that she would have ascended to a higher level in the cinema firmament if they had? I have my doubts. I try to think of a single MGM musical that Ann Miller would have been better in than whoever did get the lead, and I can't come up with one. (Not even Yolanda.) She made an indelible impression in the second banana roles because the second banana roles were her perfect niche. (And there are second banana roles I'm glad she didn't get. One might think her "slightly coarse dame" act would have been perfect for the role of Lina Lamont, but I'm awfully glad Jean Hagen got the part instead.)

 

I'll tell you which MGM talent I really wish had been given one star role in an A-musical, because I do think she could have ascended to the next level on the basis of it. Virginia O'Brien.

[Rinaldo]

I'll tell you which MGM talent I really wish had been given one star role in an A-musical, because I do think she could have ascended to the next level on the basis of it. Virginia O'Brien.

 

Interesting thought! And I'll name another, who maybe wasn't movie-star material but was a fascinating talent whom I'd have liked to see given the spotlight: Tommy Rall. He brings new meaning to "triple threat": He had an early start in ballet, and his onscreen dancing had a balletic quality though he could do other things as well. He of course was part of MGM's stable of dancer-boy juveniles (we get all three of them in Kiss Me, Kate). When that sort of work dried up, he worked onstage, and was valued as a singer as much or more than for dancing: Juno, Milk and Honey, Cry for Us All. Then he started appearing in opera, and in leading tenor roles: Painter in Lulu, Don José in Carmen, Cavaradossi in Tosca, the juggler in Massenet's opera. He would still turn up once a decade in a movie bit: Fanny Brice's joke ballet parter, hoofing alongside Steve Martin in Pennies from Heaven. And he's still alive, in LA. He deserves an hourlong TCM retrospective, at least.