TCM: The Greatest Movie Channel

[prican58]

Yes, the most perfect Hollywood musical not based on a B'Way show. I love every moment of it, although I can and do skip over the Gotta Dance business.

 

My absolute fave number is Donald O'C's Make 'Em Laugh. It actually brings tears to my eyes because he is so perfectly light and breezy. 

[Rinaldo]

After years of teaching my History of Musicals course, I've come to think that if someone has an aversion to movie musicals, the Oklahoma! film will only confirm their feelings, and the "Laurey Makes Up Her Mind" ballet most of all. I reluctantly found myself thinking one year as I screened that ballet for them, "If even I, who love this stuff, find myself feeling how distant and unconvincing this style has become, what must these kids be thinking?" Shortly thereafter, I switched to the stage video of the show with Hugh Jackman, and Susan Stroman choreography. 

 

On occasion I've run into someone (not in the class) who objects, "But people don't break into song in real life." If I know them well enough to risk challenging their viewpoint, I'll try retorting, "But you'll accept that they lead their lives onscreen with musical underscoring? with [editing] jumps through time? with shifting vantage points to see them from? and they never notice the camera that's recording their every action?" In other words, pointing out that this (or any other) dramatic medium requires us to accept some basic conventions of presentation, and it's ultimately arbitrary which ones we decide to accept or reject. So accepting people singing is no more problematic that accepting the medium in the first place.

 

But it seldom works. In the end, we all have our likes and dislikes that aren't likely to undergo big changes. I myself love musicals and never had any initial problem with them. But on the other hand I feel bored and hostile at most Westerns and sports movies that people tell me I'll love, with very few exceptions (Ride the High Country and McCabe and Mrs. Miller for the former, Breaking Away for the latter). To steal a sentence whose originator and subject I would gladly credit if I could remember who and what they were, "I'm only interested in examples that transcend the genre, and as far as I'm concerned it needs all the transcending it can get." In the end, we like what we like, and dislike what we dislike, and logic will change that only in a limited way, if at all. So I must reluctantly admit that there are just people who aren't going to like musicals, and get on with my life.

[Milburn Stone]

On occasion I've run into someone (not in the class) who objects, "But people don't break into song in real life." If I know them well enough to risk challenging their viewpoint, I'll try retorting, "But you'll accept that they lead their lives onscreen with musical underscoring? with [editing] jumps through time? with shifting vantage points to see them from? and they never notice the camera that's recording their every action?" In other words, pointing out that this (or any other) dramatic medium requires us to accept some basic conventions of presentation, and it's ultimately arbitrary which ones we decide to accept or reject. So accepting people singing is no more problematic that accepting the medium in the first place.

 

But it seldom works.

 

I hope, even if it doesn't work in the sense of turning a musical-hater into a musical-lover, you succeed at least in opening the student's mind. Because it's a great argument. An incontrovertible argument.

 

So incontrovertible, that it's frustrating a sentient human being wouldn't already understand it without being told. But maybe I expect too much.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Milburn Stone

[Charlie Baker]

I have pretty broad taste--but there are still certain styles and genres which don't do much for me.  Even with those, I can be won over by an individual piece within a style or genre. 

It wasn't always thus, but within the musical universe, the sentiment which I've seen paraphrased differently, is that characters sing (or dance) when the spoken word or realistic action doesn't sufficiently express the characters' state.  Some of us go with it willingly and eagerly, some of us allow the possibility of being swept into it, and some of us just find the whole thing a bit much.   And that's all OK.

[Bastet]

So incontrovertible, that it's frustrating a sentient human being wouldn't already understand it without being told. But maybe I expect too much.

 

I wonder if those on the receiving end of that argument need to have it pointed out to begin with, though; is the fact they are generally unwilling to suspend disbelief in this one regard an indicator they are unaware film as a medium requires us to suspend all manner of disbelief?  I doubt it in many cases.  This sentient being understands it without being told, and I imagine many others who aren't a fan of the convention of breaking into song do as well. 

 

"That's not what happens in real life" isn't the best way of phrasing the objection, certainly, but in my experience people mean it as a shorthand.  The qualifier about the basic conventions of the medium goes unsaid (and rightly so, IMO), and what's really meant by that sort of statement is, "The random bursting into song is just one step too far removed from realism that it takes me out of the film."  Which tends to be the tip of the iceberg of objections to the genre, although I know there are some people - especially among the younger set - who really do just have a knee-jerk "I hate musicals" reaction without ever examining why, or even giving a few such films a try.

 

All I can say from personal experience is this: When I say westerns are generally not my cup of tea, people simply say "Me neither" or "Oh, I really like them" and move on.  When I say musicals are also among my least-favorite genres, it's an even-money bet whether I'll get the same "different strokes for different folks" response or a condescending lecture on how I've just not evolved enough as a movie fan to appreciate them.  It's nice to experience more nuanced - and humorous - discourse here.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Bastet

[Milburn Stone]

I know there are some people - especially among the younger set - who really do just have a knee-jerk "I hate musicals" reaction without ever examining why, or even giving a few such films a try.

 

Among the knee-jerk musical-haters are those who associate musicals with "gayness," and have such an antipathy toward gayness and such a fear that they might be thought gay that they must distance themselves from any suspicion of it with all due haste.

 

Please understand, and I mean it, that I'm not saying that about you. I'm saying it about many others, and only because it's true.

 

It's also true that there are hetero males (like me) who don't give a rat's ass whether musicals are considered "gay" or not, we just love them.

 

Don't mean to stir up controversy, just saying that to ignore the antipathy-toward-gayness that underlies a substantial portion of antipathy toward musicals is to ignore the elephant in the room.

[ratgirlagogo]

 

Among the knee-jerk musical-haters are those who associate musicals with "gayness,"

Very true.  Although I initially came here to say that I think that for many people  it's just a certain kind of stylization that is offputting  - as with silent films, or black and white films.  For those of us who like these forms it's the very stylization that allows a kind of sophisticated storytelling that would be impossible otherwise, but it is really true that you like it or you don't. 

[3pwood]

... within the musical universe, the sentiment which I've seen paraphrased differently, is that characters sing (or dance) when the spoken word or realistic action doesn't sufficiently express the characters' state.  Some of us go with it willingly and eagerly, some of us allow the possibility of being swept into it, and some of us just find the whole thing a bit much.

 

No doubt everyone has had the experience of being at a loss for words to express feelings.  But, unlike the characters in a story, the writer isn't overwhelmed by being caught up in the moment, & can take as long as necessary to create a character's reactions.  A writer's job is to handle such situations with the tools of the trade: language, to describe the character's physical response (smile, grimace, sobs, trembling, etc.) and to state the character's emotions.  Having a character burst into song or dance instead of using words always strikes me as a cop out by a lazy or incompetent writer.

[ratgirlagogo]

 

Having a character burst into song or dance instead of using words always strikes me as a cop out by a lazy or incompetent writer.

Do you like silent films?

[Luckylyn]

I don't writing lyrics is any easier than writing dialogue.   Even in movies like Singing in the Rain or a Moulin Rouge that uses previously written music, choices about what songs to use and in what context requires thought and creativity.   They managed to make Singing in the Rain synonymous with Gene Kelly and the film.  I bet most people think it was written specifically for that movie.

[Milburn Stone]

Having a character burst into song or dance instead of using words always strikes me as a cop out by a lazy or incompetent writer.

 

People like Oscar Hammerstein II and Alan Jay Lerner (who wrote the books and screenplays for their stage and film musicals as well as writing the lyrics) would be amused in the afterlife to hear themselves described as incompetent.

[aradia22]

 

Among the knee-jerk musical-haters are those who associate musicals with "gayness," and have such an antipathy toward gayness and such a fear that they might be thought gay that they must distance themselves from any suspicion of it with all due haste.

Right. Again, not criticizing anyone here but elsewhere in the wild, untamed parts of the interwebs there is a strong (usually) young, (usually) male contingent that dislikes musicals because they are perceived as somehow the polar opposite of their heterosexual masculinity. They are against the "gayness" of it and/or the "femininity" of it whether or not they'll be so explicit as to put it in those terms. Whatever. Their loss.

[Julia]

I think acculturation has a lot to do with what people are willing to suspend disbelief for. My daughter is a big Whedon fan, and she has no problem with the convention that 5'2" women with 3% body fat are all-powerful superheroes. I want to make them all sit down with a bowl of chicken soup. I'm pretty sure I'd feel differently if it was something I'd grown up with. 

[Bastet]

"It's Guys and Dolls, not Guys and Guys."

 

Seinfeld poked fun at the fallacy that men liking musicals is "gay".  A woman thinks Jerry and George are a couple, causing them to suddenly view everything they say and do through the lens of whether it makes them seem gay and they start attaching unintended meaning to the innocuous.  So when George gets Jerry tickets to Guys and Dolls as a birthday gift, with the intention they go together, what would have normally been greeted with an enthusiastic thanks instead elicits a hesitant, "Isn't that a lavish Broadway musical?" (which prompts George's response I quoted above).  The narrative POV is they're being ridiculous, so it's an amusing deflation of the stereotype.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Bastet

[Rinaldo]

People like Oscar Hammerstein II and Alan Jay Lerner (who wrote the books and screenplays for their stage and film musicals as well as writing the lyrics) would be amused in the afterlife to hear themselves described as incompetent.

Or any of three dozen other superb lyricists who labored long and hard to get the details exactly right (as did the composers -- after all, the musical content and structure is just as expertly aiming at a particular emotional resonance too).

 

But in fact, in answer to a question a few posts back, I'm quite content to meet someone who says "I don't like musicals" with a shrug and a live-and-let-live attitude, and not talk about it at all. The thing that gets to me sometimes is that so many of those who write about movies and TV seem to feel that way: I swear, every TWoP recap of a musical episode (on an otherwise non-musical series) started with the words "I should say in advance that I hate musicals." It just got tiresome eventually. I don't expect or want critics to agree with me (I read in order to get viewpoints other than my own), but I like them to be knowledgeable about their subject.

 

As to the "fear of perceived gayness" in the genre, no doubt you're right. I don't see much of that in my teaching of the subject, or even when the subject comes up in the other music courses I teach, but of course I'm dealing with a self-selected population -- they're interested in studying music, usually classical music in particular, and most of them have already made their peace with going against cultural norms. What's odd/interesting to me is that his whole perceived alignment is relatively recent, the last 2 or 3 decades or so. When I was in high school, everyone knew the musicals. The jocks or whoever may not have been devoted to them, but everybody knew the songs and went to the movies as they came out, and it was part of the cultural air we all breathed. Then it all changed; I suppose along with the changes and divisions in popular music in the 1960s.

[3pwood]

People like Oscar Hammerstein II and Alan Jay Lerner (who wrote the books and screenplays for their stage and film musicals as well as writing the lyrics) would be amused in the afterlife to hear themselves described as incompetent.

 

Granted, they weren't incompetent authors -- maybe just too lazy to write a whole story by using dialogue rather than resorting to songs to tell parts of it?  Perhaps I'm too shallow to appreciate the form of the musical play -- I'd rather watch a story from beginning to end & then listen to music separately, instead of having one interrupted by the other.

 

Do you like silent films?

 

Good ones with interesting stories & fine actors.  I haven't seen many other than Chaplin's -- my favorite drama is A Woman Of Affairs (1928), with Greta Garbo & John Gilbert.  In the silent films I've seen, the only music is in the background, where it belongs.

[ratgirlagogo]

 

Good ones with interesting stories & fine actors.  I haven't seen many other than Chaplin's

Well, if you've seen Chapln then you've seen how in the great silent comedies (Chaplin's, and Keaton's and Lloyd's) the stunts and routines are choreagraphed like dance - and express the emotion and story as a dance would.  All the great Hong Kong wuxia films of recent years owe a huge stylistic debt to the silent American comedies - supposedly Jackie Chan got into the movies because he was such a fanatical fan of Buster Keaton.  Again not trying to talk anyone into liking something they just don't like (and hey, I'm not even getting into my own fanatical fandom of Gene Autry and Roy Rogers, etc.  - the musicals the musical people hate and the westerns the western people hate).

Edited January 28, 2015 by ratgirlagogo

[aradia22]

 

The thing that gets to me sometimes is that so many of those who write about movies and TV seem to feel that way: I swear, every TWoP recap of a musical episode (on an otherwise non-musical series) started with the words "I should say in advance that I hate musicals." It just got tiresome eventually. I don't expect or want critics to agree with me (I read in order to get viewpoints other than my own), but I like them to be knowledgeable about their subject.

Ahem, not my recaps for trashtalktv. Even when it's not Galavant and something like Project Runway Threads, my recaps are full of musical references. But we're getting off track. It might even be time to move this onto the Movie Musicals thread.

 

When I was in high school, everyone knew the musicals. The jocks or whoever may not have been devoted to them, but everybody knew the songs and went to the movies as they came out, and it was part of the cultural air we all breathed. Then it all changed; I suppose along with the changes and divisions in popular music in the 1960s.

For real. It wasn't just people who were cast in musicals on film or on stage like Fred Astaire or Howard Keel putting out albums with Broadway standards. Many of my favorite jazz artists fully embraced standards (Nat King Cole, Ella Fitzgerald, Lena Horne, Carmen McRae). Marvin Gaye and Smokey Robinson and the Miracles. Popular music used to sound more like the music of those shows but even now when we have more pop and rock influenced Broadway scores, there are people who are so against musicals that they don't even bother realizing that there might be something they'd like.

[dalek]

I agree with ratgirlagogo that the stylization can be off-putting for people.  It's one thing when you're seeing an actual live theatrical performance where the fact that it is a set and that there are curtains and wings is very obvious, it's another thing when you've moved the musical number to a more realistically or naturalistically shot/staged medium and then the musical numbers can seem weird, unless you've shot the entire film in a very stylized manner.  It can also depend on whether the musical has been altered in adaptation in ways that are annoying or how dated or not the musical is to modern audiences.  

 

For instance, I do not like the film version of Carousel, which i saw on TCM.  For some people, I suspect the fact that the sets are not entirely realistic may be an issue.  for me the problem is the attitudes.  It's one brief scene where Shirley Jones is telling her daughter its okay to still love someone who hits you (I'm paraphrasing a bit) and this just ruins the show for me, because in my head i'm screaming "no it's not. get a restraining order, press charges and dump him." As far as I know, that was not changed from the stage version, so I suspect I would have massive problems with the stage version as well.  That's an attitude problem not a staging/filming problem.

 

On the other hand, the thing that annoyed me about the film version of Sweet Charity is that they changed the ending.  IIRC, the original stage version has a happily ever after ending where the two characters get together.  Im the film, which is probably more realistic (but which goes against the expectation of endings in musicals), the guy dumps her on the little bridge over the lake in Central Park and the text says that charity lived hopefully ever after.  I was watching the film on tv with my mom and after that I was complaining to her that I didn't see how she was going to have a hopefully ever after given that the only man who'd ever given a rat's ass about her had just dumped her and she was basically a hooker with a 4th grade education who had no good options.

 

[voiceover]

Actually, the stage version of Sweet Charity does end the same way.

 

Another take on the "Just haven't seen the right one yet" theory of genre-aversion...sometimes it's all about the leading man/leading lady. If you don't like 'em, you may not get past the genre conventions to embrace the story.   Ex.: I worship at the altar of Howard Keel -- one reason Kiss Me, Kate is my favorite film musical.  And while I've always thought Gene Kelly attractive, I  can't count any of his films in my Top 100.  I never mused much on the latter point until this thread's recent Kelly Debate.

[Rinaldo]

Granted, they weren't incompetent authors -- maybe just too lazy to write a whole story by using dialogue rather than resorting to songs to tell parts of it?  

Or maybe not. In fact definitely not, as it's vastly harder to write good music and lyrics than good dialogue. (Examples provided in most of my course lectures.) But in the end, I'm happy to leave it as a difference in personal taste, as I said before. And I should probably now leave that particular discussion alone, and move on.

 

dalek, you may be relieved to know that that part of Carousel is probably the most argued about among musical-lovers of any, in any musical ever. I'm with you -- that's just a horrible moment, and while it can be redeemed to an extent with heroically subtle directing and acting and lots of subtext, the difficulty remains, and I wish it weren't there. I can't defend it.

 

The stage ending of Sweet Charity doesn't end with the two of them together. Or at least the Broadway text, as published, didn't. It ended with her alone and the "hopefully ever after" title projected. But I know that revivals and regional productions have tried different endings, and the movie tried three different ones (a second is I believe, included as a bonus on the DVD). So I guess everybody finds that unsatisfying.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Rinaldo

[Luckylyn]

Carousel is seriously compromised because of the treatment of domestic violence.   There some songs I like, but I just can't sit through it ever again.

[elle]

On occasion I've run into someone (not in the class) who objects, "But people don't break into song in real life." 

I read that and thought "they haven't met my mom!"  She would on occasion burst into song, much to the delight of whatever young child (a cousin, a friend's child) we had with us at the time, and *much* to my teen-age world-is-ending dismay.  Even so, I do have the fond memory of her dancing with my 7 year old cousin in an empty ballroom of a house we were touring singing "Shall We Dance" .  He thought it was great!

[Milburn Stone]

I do have the fond memory of her dancing with my 7 year old cousin in an empty ballroom of a house we were touring singing "Shall We Dance" .  He thought it was great!

 

I think it's great too. :)

[voiceover]

I agree.  More of us need to burst into song.

[elle]

Thank you!

 

Another memory I have of her, when I was older and a little less embarrassed :0), was when we took a friend's two girls to the movie "Sleeping Beauty" when it was back in the theaters for some anniversary.  I walked a couple of paces behind as she and the girls were singing "I Know You" out of the movie theater.  They got smiles.

 

I would sing Christmas Carols with her, with or without mall musak accompaniment.

[elle]

I forgot to mention that my mom would sing the "bump, bump, bump, part of "Shall we Dance" too.  A cousin recently told me how she remembered my mom singing that song when the movie first came out.

 

Back to TCM, we all have our favorite actors and must see movies.  Do you find that there are some movies that despite starring your favorite actor, you just can not watch it for some reason?  One example for me is Audrey Hepburn (love!) in "Love in the Afternoon", which is really a shame as it also stars Maurice Chevalier and was filmed in Paris.  I'd be happy if the complete cut out Gary Cooper's scenes and just kept the one between father/daughter Maurice and Audrey and all the delightful fashions and scenes of Paris in the 50s.  It is really sad, since I like Gary Cooper.  It is just creepy those two together.  He makes Bogart's Linus look good.

(An aside - I really wish that tptb at the time could have figured out a way for William Holden to play Linus and found a younger actor to play David.  I know Holden was in his heartthrob stage, but it doesn't mean he could not have played the older more serious brother and then Audrey and William could be together in the end.  At least they do get together in their other movie "The Girl who stole Paris".

[mariah23]

Elle, don't forget Holden's hair in Sabrina. Yeeeshh!

[Bastet]

Do you find that there are some movies that despite starring your favorite actor, you just can not watch it for some reason?

 

Certainly, especially since many of them appeared in some real clunkers when they were first starting out (case in point: Myrna Loy).  I'll watch anything featuring my favorites once, but some I will never return to, no matter how much I love the actor(s). 

 

I love Katharine Hepburn, I love Cary Grant, and I especially love the two of them together, but Sylvia Scarlett ... just, no.  I like the idea of the movie, and it has its moments, but it's just an odd film (in all the wrong ways) that doesn't come together.  I have Bringing Up Baby, Holiday and The Philadelphia Story pretty well memorized, I've seen them so often, but that one I think I've only seen twice.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Bastet

[Julia]

The Iron Petticoat. Katherine Hepburn is russian, increasingly less well-preserved Bob Hope is increasingly less well-preserved Bob Hope, in the kind of vaguely Ninotchka-adjacent kind of movie you'd get if you adapted the plot so increasingly well-preserved Bob Hope is someone who would steal away russian Katherine Hepburn's heart, with the kind of political jokes Bob Hope favored. Just dire.

[Coffeecup]

John Wayne. I love him in WWII movies and Westerns, except for "The Alamo." I just didn't like that movie at all. Also I didn't enjoy watching him play detectives in "McQ" and "Brannigan." He seemed too rough and blustering as a modern-day detective.

 

I didn't like Gary Cooper in "Along Came Jones" (with Loretta Young), although I usually love him in Westerns. I guess I was too used to seeing him playing strong heroic characters. In "Along Came Jones," which was a comedy, his character was a bumbling cowboy, sort of a weakling.

 

Love Peter Lorre too, but I just can't watch him again in "M."  It's a great film and he did a marvelous acting job, but the subject matter (his character was a serial killer of children) just gave me the creeps too much.

[elle]

Elle, don't forget Holden's hair in Sabrina. Yeeeshh!

Apparently I have, because I don't remember it being one way or another.

 

I can not watch "Wait Until Dark" because of the type of movie. I don't like to see people tormented.

 

Speaking of Cary Grant.  I agree with the dislike of "Sylvia Scarlet".  I also can not watch Cary Grant in "Mr. Blandings builds his dream home"  and that has Myrna Loy!   But the movie I truly come close to "hate" is "I was a male war bride".   Not a funny movie and I find Ann Sheridan just mean to Grant.

 

"The Iron Petticoat" should be in the same category with "Jet Pilot" with Janet Leigh as the Soviet pilot and John Wayne as the American to win her over (to our side), talk about an age difference!

[Athena]

I can not watch "Wait Until Dark" because of the type of movie. I don't like to see people tormented.

 

Audrey Hepburn is probably my favourite actress. I've seen almost every single one of her movies that I could get a hold of, but I chose not to watch Wait Until Dark as well. I don't really want to see her blind and tormented. I know the ending, but I can't bring myself to watch it.

 

Love in the Afternoon is a sweet movie except the Gary Cooper/Audrey Hepburn age difference is just a bit too big at times. It is nice to know they became good friends on set and the movie has so many lovely Paris moments and shots.

[Milburn Stone]

Audrey Hepburn is probably my favourite actress. I've seen almost every single one of her movies that I could get a hold of, but I chose not to watch Wait Until Dark as well. I don't really want to see her blind and tormented. I know the ending, but I can't bring myself to watch it.

 

This movie is weird to me in one way. Which is that as a highschooler, I took my girlfriend to it on a date, and we were both in incredible suspense! But now when I see it, it feels so formulaic that I can't imagine why. I don't think it's just that I know how it comes out. I think maybe on the big screen, Audrey Hepburn's Audrey Hepburness was just so great that she could make you buy anything.

[Charlie Baker]

I'm with Bastet--I will catch a favorite actor in anything at least once, but there are some that I wouldn't revisit. And Myrna Loy is a fine example.  Saw a couple latter day Barbara Stanwyck melodramas on TCM that would absolutely not hold me a second time through.  And William Powell in Reckless with his beloved Jean Harlow--just a bad movie all around. 

 

Last night wrapped up TCM's Friday Night Spotlight on Neil Simon.  The one I hadn't seen was The Prisoner of Second Avenue--with a somber, just about grim subject matter: Jack Lemmon finding himself unemployed in middle-age and feeling oppressed by living in NYC and suffering from a nervous breakdown.  It didn't skirt the dark aspects, but didn't dwell on them, either, and there were some honestly huge laughs in it.  Lemmon and Anne Bancroft as his wife who keeps it together longer than most people would before she too just about flies apart were both excellent. The movie's forty years old, and still kind of timely, especially if you have first hand experience of the day-to-day of living in NYC.

[Rinaldo]

now when I see [Wait Until Dark], it feels so formulaic that I can't imagine why. I don't think it's just that I know how it comes out. I think maybe on the big screen, Audrey Hepburn's Audrey Hepburness was just so great that she could make you buy anything.

I think it's more than that. For one thing, we're used to seeing the formulas subverted and exploded now -- we expect it. But that was still a period when we could take them straight, so to speak. Also, it's different if you're seeing it in a movie theater: you're trapped along with her and you can't take time out or direct your attention elsewhere, as we can at home. (During its initial run, which is when I saw it in my college town, theaters were directed to turn off any remaining auditorium lights for the last 20 minutes to make us feel extra trapped-in-the-dark.)

[Wiendish Fitch]

I love Wait Until Dark, because I think it's Audrey Hepburn's finest performance, and she doesn't have to rely on Givenchy to make her look fabulous…er. Heck, she even looks close to dowdy at times (though Hepburn could never look bad). Still, I admit I really have to ignore my aversion to Idiot Plot contrivances, because, hoo boy, is Wait Until Dark guilty of them. Namely, that Suzy's problems could have been avoided if she had just locked the damned door and called the police!

Edited January 31, 2015 by Wiendish Fitch

[Rinaldo]

I love Wait Until Dark, because I think it's Audrey Hepburn's finest performance, and she doesn't have to rely on Givenchy to make her look fabulous…er. 

I like it too, but my favorite Audrey, which also dispenses with Givenchy, is Two for the Road. I'm just a sucker for nifty structural devices, and that one's stellar in that respect. Albert Finney, Stanley Donen, and Henry Mancini are all at their best in it too. I love introducing people to it.

[Charlie Baker]

A most hearty second for Two for the Road.

[Athena]

I like it too, but my favorite Audrey, which also dispenses with Givenchy, is Two for the Road. I'm just a sucker for nifty structural devices, and that one's stellar in that respect. Albert Finney, Stanley Donen, and Henry Mancini are all at their best in it too. I love introducing people to it.

 

That one and A Nun's Story are my favourites of Audrey's critically acclaimed things. Though for comfort viewing, it's still Roman Holiday for me.

[aradia22]

 

I agree.  More of us need to burst into song.

I frequently hum to myself and I have been known to amuse myself by singing out when the train screeches by so no one notices.

[Milburn Stone]

I frequently hum to myself and I have been known to amuse myself by singing out when the train screeches by so no one notices.

 

You're almost there! Now just work on singing out when the train isn't screeching. :)

Edited February 1, 2015 by Milburn Stone

[magicdog]

Just caught, "All Quiet On The Western Front" (1930) last night.  I'd read the book in HS, but never got around to seeing any version of the film.  I never realized this version was a silent film!  The print was clear as a bell and there were some extra sound effects making one think they were added at the time of release (like the sound of the soldiers marching).   It definitely plays much better than if the film had been made with the sound technology of the time. 

 

Much of what we see in the film still rings true today.

[voiceover]

Tomorrow: Ronald Colman as Sydney Carton in Tale of Two Cities...*swoons*...one of my favorite movie character intros, ever, and Colman gets to be a rogue before he goes all noble over a dumb blonde.

[Wiendish Fitch]

Tomorrow: Ronald Colman as Sydney Carton in Tale of Two Cities...*swoons*...one of my favorite movie character intros, ever, and Colman gets to be a rogue before he goes all noble over a dumb blonde.

 

Ronald Colman is one of my faves. And, I agree, and I never understood what Sydney ever saw in that little idiot Lucie. Dude, look in the mirror, listen to your own voice, you'll find someone more worthy! Trust me on this!

[Julia]

I DVR'd The Great Lie. I'm not generally a huge fan of Noble Bette Davis, but wow, this was bizarre. It's not just that Mary Astor's character is a caricature supervillain of lack of femininity, George Brent's character is so awful that I can't imagine why either one of them wanted him.

 

And when he told the wife who was raising his child thinking she was a widow to share her insecurities with him? And then told her that sure, he still wanted the other woman, but he was going to stay, because he had a son? I would have nobly renounced his smug ass and let Miss Brandy change diapers until she bolted, probably in a week or so. I'd be willing to bet the happy couple would have returned the kid before his room got dusty.

[Charlie Baker]

Yes, The Great Lie is a strange one.  I read that Bette Davis and Mary Astor both felt the script was terrible, and did some rewriting of their own scenes, and essentially turned the role into a showcase for Ms. A that won her the Oscar. (She had a good year, with that and The Maltese Falcon.) Could just be Hollywood folklore or could be some truth to it.  But this movie just plays really oddly today. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

Yes, The Great Lie is a strange one.  I read that Bette Davis and Mary Astor both felt the script was terrible, and did some rewriting of their own scenes, and essentially turned the role into a showcase for Ms. A that won her the Oscar. (She had a good year, with that and The Maltese Falcon.) Could just be Hollywood folklore or could be some truth to it.  But this movie just plays really oddly today. 

Yeah, The Great Lie is overwrought and hokey, even for the time. Isn't hilarious though, how Mary Astor is forbidden from eating pickles and onions while pregnant, but smoking is A-OK? Ah, the 1940s...

[Rinaldo]

And wasn't there some legend about Mary Astor deciding on a very extreme (for the time) haircut, just to try to make the movie seem interesting?

[bmoore4026]

During the introduction to A Tale of Two Cities, tonight, Robert Osborne spoke of how some bemoan that many movies nowadays are adaptations of video games and television.  Osborne point out that the creators of these movies watched TV and played video games and kids and, thus, feel like making adaptations of such things.

 

He said that Selznick read the classics as a child and felt like adapting them into movies.

 

Even though I do like my superhero movies, I can see why people would lament the lack of classic literature movie adaptations.  In fact, I'm watch A Tale of Two Cities rather than Marvel's The Avengers on FX because I like the former more than the latter.  It's quieter, better acted, and has guys in 18th Century period costume.

 

But one thing I realize as I'm watching is that we don't see enough adaptations of classics because they're extremely tame nowadays, lacking in super-profanity, megavulgarsex, the good old ultra violence.  Quiet films like A Tale of Two Cities would not bring in the audiences today like they did eighty years ago (unless they emphasize the beheadings and include a scene of Charles and Lucie getting it on  Regency era style).