TCM: The Greatest Movie Channel

[Bastet]

3 hours ago, freddi said:

I’m surprised that TCM does not wait until the end of the current year to issue the remembrance.  Is this the usual timing (more than a week before the end of the year)?

This was asked in another thread, and I checked the release dates of the last several years worth of TCM Remembers in response - yes, at least in recent history, this was a typical release date.

And TCM Remembers always includes non-specific footage interspersed throughout that can be and is replaced with shots of those who die between the release date and the end of the year, without screwing with the total running time/syncing to the music.  This year's offering is one of TCM's best in a while, but also a bit more difficult to edit; they can pull it off, though.

[ruby24]

I just watched Repeat Performance (1947). What an odd, memorable little movie! Louis Hayward was totally unsympathetic as the husband, you really wanted him dead. It was kind of hard to keep liking Joan Leslie for constantly wanting to stay with such a jerk.

I like the supernatural element combined with noir though. 

Edited December 29, 2019 by ruby24

[Rinaldo]

TCM concludes its "Remake Mondays" theme (which I hope it revisits in the future!) in grand fashion, with triplets of remade stories:

• A once-classic, now-forgotten comedic mystery written (as a play, and a very popular one in 1913) by the great George M. Cohan, Seven Keys to Baldpate. He himself filmed it as a silent (as did others), but here we'll have three versions from the sound era.
• Show Boat: The B&W Universal (Irene Dunne, Paul Robeson) and color MGM (Ava Gardner, Howard Keel) versions are shown often enough, but here they'll be preceded by the 1929 one, filmed as silent and then awkwardly wrenched into the sound era with concert sequences and other oddities.
• The three renditions of The Prisoner of Zenda  begin with a silent one, so we can contrast Ramon Novarro, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., and James Mason as Rupert.
• Likewise we can compare Janet Gaynor, Judy Garland, and Barbra Streisand in A Star Is Born.
• And finally three contrasting treatments (the middle one being a Western) of the same story in High Sierra / Colorado Territory / I Died a Thousand Times, which allows us to see Humphrey Bogart, Joel McCrea, and Jack Palance enact the same role.

I'm recording all 3 Baldpates, all 3 Zendas, and all of the last trio. Those are the ones I've not seen before, so by the end of the week I'll be a lot more knowledgeable than I am now.

Edited December 29, 2019 by Rinaldo

[mariah23]

13 hours ago, freddi said:

I’m surprised that TCM does not wait until the end of the current year to issue the remembrance.  Is this the usual timing (more than a week before the end of the year)?

They waited until December 14 this year.  Lyon died the day after Christmas and most of the staff is off for the holidays.

[Sharpie66]

Rinaldo, thanks for the heads-up! I am recording all of the Prisoners for comparison.

[Cobb Salad]

12 hours ago, ruby24 said:

I just watched Repeat Performance (1947). What an odd, memorable little movie! Louis Hayward was totally unsympathetic as the husband, you really wanted him dead. It was kind of hard to keep liking Joan Leslie for constantly wanting to stay with such a jerk.

I like the supernatural element combined with noir though. 

I caught the re air  this morning and while I enjoyed it overall I couldn’t understand why she wanted to stay with him either -  towards the end I kept yelling at the TV “let him go!” and I usually don’t do that.  

[voiceover]

Aaaaaiiiieeeee!!!  A perfect ending to a triumphant day on the gridiron*!  (*go Chiefs!)

More testosterone!

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse is best, and most rightly, known for Rudolph Valentino's first scene: that devastating tango in that seedy underground bar.

Maaaaaan, his Julio just swats his would-be competition to the ground, gathers the woman in his arms, and proceeds to give her the tango of her life (her life, your life, my life).  And it doesn't matter how many times I've watched this (84): my tongue rolls right out of my mouth and across the table, like I've suddenly become a Tex Avery cartoon wolf.

Afterwards he lays a devastating smooch on his dance partner, but subverts her (and our) expectations by leaving the place with his beloved grandfather instead.

As re:Zenda, I'm afraid Fairbanks Jr aces out my much-loved Ramon for "Best Performance by a Scoundrel" as Rupert of Hentzau.  Truly his best role ever, and he swipes every scene he's in.   That last duel with Ronald Colman is on par with the one waged by Flynn & Rathbone in Captain Blood.

[benteen]

Watched The Famous Ferguson Case on TCM on Demand and enjoyed it.  Pre-code.  Feels pretty relevant today with a focus on fake news.  Some of these reporters here wouldn't have been out of place in Wolf on Wall Street.  Joan Blondell is given top billing but she's a supporting character at best in it.

Edited December 30, 2019 by benteen

[Rinaldo]

On 12/29/2019 at 2:34 AM, ruby24 said:

I just watched Repeat Performance (1947). What an odd, memorable little movie! Louis Hayward was totally unsympathetic as the husband, you really wanted him dead. It was kind of hard to keep liking Joan Leslie for constantly wanting to stay with such a jerk.

Eh, that's almost a given in noir, isn't it? And not just women staying with rotten men -- I can think of hapless men devoted to faithless dames too. I found the movie fascinating too, and I can see why people remembered it after all that time and wanted TCM to show it. 

Eddie Muller's background information was especially helpful in this case. The idea that the whole central couple was gender-reversed shortly before shooting is mind-boggling. (And kind of reiterates my first point.) And all because they got Joan Leslie; I'd be interested to see how it would have played the original way round, with Sylvia Sidney as planned (and Jules Dassin directing).

Muller's information about the original conception of Richard Basehart's character was also fascinating, and I was glad to hear him acknowledge that the character William Williams still reads as gay, even without any words or behavior to that effect, because that's how it struck me too. Nice subtle acting by Basehart there, and it's not surprising that they expanded his role and signed him up for more movies after this debut.

[AuntiePam]

rinaldo, thanks for the heads-up on the triplets.  I'm recording the Baldpates and the High Sierras.

Watched Edward, My Son yesterday.  Spencer Tracy and Deborah Kerr, 1949.  The DirecTV guide said something like this:  "A businessman's desire to protect his corrupt son's fortune leads to tragedy in this adaption of the British play."

Misleading -- it's the father, Spencer Tracy, who was corrupt.  Tracy and Kerr are the parents of Edward, whom we never see.  We learn in the first few minutes that Edward is killed at the age of 23.  The movie follows the family from Edward's first birthday in 1917 until 1949.  It opens with Tracy walking through a large set of doors and proceeding to tell us his story.  Tracy spoils his son terribly, and used family and love as an excuse for shady business dealings.  It seems clear, though, that he doesn't believe this himself, but he has to keep up the pretense.

I really liked this movie and would watch it again.  The dialogue is realistic, snappy, and mature, and the characters behave like real people.  Leueen McGrath as Ms. Perrin, Tracy's secretary and lover, was a revelation -- just delicious to watch.  Her bio shows five husbands, one of them being George S. Kaufman. 

Deborah Kerr is also exceptional, as the cheated-on wife who turns to alcohol.  She's very convincing as a drunk.  It would have been easy to overdo it but she was perfect.  Reminded me of some relatives, to be honest. 

[Rinaldo]

@AuntiePam, I'm tickled that you saw Edward, My Son and found it as unexpectedly enjoyable as I did when I caught it a year or two ago. Somehow I'd avoided it before, probably because (without consciously thinking so) the title made it sound like either a historical "King Edward" drama or a maudlin soap opera. It's in the vein of the "psychological plays" that were becoming popular at the time (and indeed, it began as a play), looking at the damage people's unconscious motives or, as in this case, twisted good intentions, can do.

I have a book about George Cukor that barely mentions this at all, and I wonder why; it's a fine, subtle piece of work. Except, dare I say, in the casting of Spencer Tracy. That the character was rewritten as Canadian (in an otherwise very English milieu) so Tracy wouldn't have to attempt an accent... that wouldn't be a major issue if he delivered a compelling performance. But (IMO) he didn't; he's somehow too plain and straightforward for the role. It needed an actor who can make us feel the mixture of motivations that compel him (James Mason comes to mind). But Leueen McGrath was indeed a revelation. I had seen her only in TV drama, over a decade later, and seeing her be so effortlessly suave and sexy was a delight. And I agree about Deborah Kerr. Her whole career shows what a great actress she was, but this early, to be so quietly convincing... that's really something. "Drunk acting" is so often done badly, and this is one of the best examples I know.

[Bastet]

Thirding the praise for Kerr's performance in Edward, My Son.  While lying on the couch with a cold several years ago, absolutely nothing good was on and I didn't feel like getting up to select a DVD.  The film was just starting on TCM, and didn't sound particularly appealing, but the cast meant I'd give it a go in the absence of anything else striking my fancy.

It turned out to be quite an interesting way to pass a couple of hours; it's realistically restrained in a way that wasn't the norm then.  But I agree with @Rinaldo that Spencer Tracy is miscast (not the first time I've thought this; as much as I adore Libeled Lady, it would be even better with Clark Gable in the Haggerty role as originally planned, because as Tracy plays him it makes no sense Gladys wants to be with him).  He doesn't ruin it, though; the film still works and is worth a viewer's time.

As for Kerr, playing a sad/angry alcoholic is much harder than playing a fun drunk, and something something some mighty fine actors (including my beloved Myrna Loy in Lonelyhearts) have failed to pull off quite right, but she nails it.   Had the internet existed then, some website would have had a "Best Drunk" category in its deliberately quirky year-end review of films, and Kerr would have won.

[Sharpie66]

I love that TCM has the NYE tradition of That’s Entertainment movies all night long. It reminds me of my babysitting gigs in junior high/high school on that night in the late ‘70s/early and mid ‘80s, when very few of the families had VCRs, so my go-to tv viewing was Astaire/Rogers movie marathons.

[ruby24]

So tonight I watched Cavalcade (1933). Partly because I heard it starts and ends on New Year's Eve, and also because it's one of nine Best Picture winners I hadn't seen yet (eight to go!). 

It's a forgotten movie it seems like, but I thought it was pretty good. A bit melodramatic, but it was an obvious predecessor to shows like Upstairs, Downstairs and Downton Abbey. And it had one scene that startled me- when it gets to the jazz age there's all these headlines about orgies and stuff, and then the camera pans into what's supposed to be this "wild party" I guess, and it very explicitly shows what is clearly two same sex couples, one female, one male. I know it was a pre-code movie, but I can't remember too many overt instances of homosexuality like that in pre-code films- it's usually a lot more subtle, just hinted at. So that was cool to see.

Edited December 31, 2019 by ruby24

[PaulaO]

I’d rather have an Astaire/Rogers of Marx Brothers festival than That’s Entertainment.  I’m rather disappointed in TCM’s line up over the last few months, especially the choices of holiday movies.

[Bastet]

That's Entertainment does absolutely nothing for me, so that's definitely not what I'll be watching tonight.  I miss when TCM did a Thin Man marathon on New Year's Eve in prime time, but it's airing right now instead.  (I have the DVD set, so I can have my own whenever I want and it's thus a silly gripe).  Being set on New Year's Eve, After the Thin Man and Holiday are common choices, but it's whatever strikes my fancy among my DVDs.

Edited January 1, 2020 by Bastet

[voiceover]

It occurred to me (and, no doubt, subscribers to my Newsletter) during the proofread of my Four Horsemen post that I tend to...dwell (okay: swoon dead away) over the graphic bits.

So I've decided to collect these droolings and organize them into book form.

How does Sex & the Silent Movie sounds as a title?

[Sharpie66]

I do like That’s Entertainment III for all the behind-the-scenes footage it includes.

And seeing Ann Miller dancing reminds me of seeing her and Andy Rooney in Sugar Babies in Chicago in the early ‘80s.

 

[AuntiePam]

The Baldpate movies were fun.  However, I almost stopped watching the 1929 version about halfway through.  Richard Dix has no concept of personal space.  He got way too close to whomever he was speaking to.  I don't know if that was a director's choice, for framing, or something else, but it was annoying.  Mostly though, I almost stopped because everyone was acting so darn silly.  Nothing anyone did made sense.  The bad guys always moved in a group.  Fine if you're the Marx Brothers, but here it was just dumb, and it took me out of the story. 

But I'm glad I saw it through, because the silly stuff was explained. 

1935 and 1947 were much better, and Hermit stole the show in both versions.  He hates women because his wife ran off with a musician.  "She thought he played the saxophone but it was really a piccolo!"  Is that double entrendre or what?

The 1935 Hermit was Henry Travers (Clarence from It's A Wonderful Life), and he showed up again in High Sierra, which is next on the triplet list.

It was interesting to see the different takes on the same basic plot -- a writer makes a bet that he can write a novel in 24 hours.  He needs solitude to do this so goes to a hotel that's deserted in winter.  He's told that he has the only key, but people keep showing up and they all have keys.

Seeing the three movies together made me wonder why this movie was remade so many times (there are 9 IMdB listings)?  The changes are interesting.  In 1929, the ending reveals that the criminal characters who showed up at the hotel are all local actors, recruited so that the writer will lose the bet.  The producers can't keep that ending -- viewers will remember.  In 1935 we see a woman shot and presumably killed but it turns out that she ducked and wasn't dead at all.  But then in 1947, there's one real murder and a few other people getting shot.  And the 1947 was the one most obviously played for laughs., so the most violent but also the "funny" one.

I got more enjoyment out of watching the three than I would have gotten from watching just one.  Maybe an example of "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts"?  Did I get that right?

[Rinaldo]

Thanks, @AuntiePam, for writing about the trio of Baldpates so knowledgeably, so I don't have to. Just a few remarks, to expand or whatever.

36 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

In 1929, the ending reveals that the criminal characters who showed up at the hotel are all local actors, recruited so that the writer will lose the bet.

And then after THAT, there's an additional ending (called an Epilogue in the play, which is available online) which reveals that none of the events in the inn actually happened -- they're the story the writer invented as he worked steadily and alone for 24 hours. He delivers the completed manuscript as agreed, announces that its title is Seven Keys to Baldpate, and wins the bet (and the girl).

(Unfortunately, this 1929 version kills the surprise by adding a prologue in a NYC restaurant where the bet is made and the writer meets the ingenue but has to run off to the inn -- and then she reappears as one of the arrivals at the inn as if they've never met.)

This meta-theatrical double frame ("None of it was real!" "And none of THAT even happened!") must have seemed very modern and exciting in 1913, and probably explains  why it was a staple of theaters for the next decade, and why so many silent movies of it were made. Unfortunately the 1935 and 1947 versions dropped all that completely, becoming just a story of mixups (and perhaps murder) in an isolated inn. I dare say between them they killed any further interest in the material, which was probably getting pretty out-of-date by then anyway. Back in 1913 it probably seemed a funny spoof on a certain kind of mystery melodrama, but that was no longer a recognizable target three decades later.

I agree that Richard Dix was strange and off-putting in the 1929 film. And yes, its staging and framing is so primitive as to make us feel as if we're watching the amateurish birth of movies as a form. And yet, because it's the only one that kept those two fake-out endings, it's probably the only one I'd watch again (and then, only reluctantly).

[AuntiePam]

19 minutes ago, Rinaldo said:

(Unfortunately, this 1929 version kills the surprise by adding a prologue in a NYC restaurant where the bet is made and the writer meets the ingenue but has to run off to the inn -- and then she reappears as one of the arrivals at the inn as if they've never met.)

Yeah, that was discombobulating.  It happened so quickly.  I'm going "What?!?"  But the twists weren't what stuck with me about the movie.  I don't know if that's my failure or the film's.  I would have liked more time to think about it.  Heck, by the time I wrote the post, I'd forgotten that extra twist.  It just didn't stick.  I guess I wasn't sure of what I'd seen.  Heck, I'm still not sure.

Thanks for the insights.  I'm not a huge fan of silents and late 20's movies, mostly because of the what I see as over-acting, unnecessary body movement.  I hadn't thought that these are hangovers from stage plays. 

[Rinaldo]

From stage plays, and from silent movies, when even the subtlest actor has to use his whole body to communicate what isn't being communicated by words. Of course some people do it more deftly than others.

I wouldn't say (and I bet nobody has ever said!) that any of the Baldpate films is a landmark or must-see of cinema history. The 1929 one was made closest to the time of its real stage popularity, keeps all the framing metatheatrical devices that make this unlike other stories, and epitomizes the messed-up time of very early talkies when, in the absence of strong directors, nobody was sure how to make it work. For that reason, I'm glad I saw it. The later two just seemed like lazy attempts at "product" to keep the theaters going, cheap because RKO already owned the rights and could remake it anytime it want to, and because they could cast them without a single first-rank actor (Eric Blore perhaps came closest but he was always a supporting player; it was interesting to see the name Jason Robards (Sr.) in the 1947 cast, but I couldn't pick him out of a lineup). So that closes the Baldpate file, for me at least.

As to the three Zendas at convenient 15-year intervals: this is one time common wisdom is absolutely correct. The 1937 version, despite having been parodied and paraphrased ever since it was made, is still smashing entertainment, with a great cast (and a great score by Alfred Newman). The 1922 one is hampered by, apparently, trying to include too much from the book (the others acknowledge the popular play as an additional source, and it seems to have slenderized the narrative helpfully), slowed all the more by the abundance of titles throughout. Ramon Novarro does what he can, but his character doesn't become really active tll the last half hour, and without sound he was unable to make his momentary skulking in the earlier scenes have any effect.

Meanwhile, Douglas Fairbanks Jr. in 1937 is just a delight! How did I ever get such a wrong image of what sort of performer he was? -- he's a goofball! It's a wonderful example of spoofing what you're doing, even while doing it very well. He's already almost all the way to a Cary Elwes spin on such a character, or even beyond to Gene Wilder gleefulness. Great stuff.

And then the 1952 one is kind of a dud, which is surprising because it's a literal scene-by-scene remake. It uses the identical script from 1937, and the same music, and adds color. But aside from Deborah Kerr, always a pleasure, it's just not fun. Stewart Granger always seems like the British Rock Hudson to me: good looking, takes his work seriously and tries his best, but in the end not a major acting talent. (I know Hudson rose to the occasion a couple of times, as in Seconds, so maybe I do Granger an injustice here. But not in this particular movie. Look at him just lounging on his throne during the coronation, when he ought to be at his most proper and alert.) Even more puzzling is James Mason, who was a major acting talent: I don't know what went wrong here, but he's neither very menacing or very amusing, and Rupert needs to be one or there other, preferably both. He looks mostly uncomfortable, most of all during the sword fights. Maybe a contract trapped him in a part he didn't want, but there's still such a thing as professionalism. Anyway, this version is most interesting if seen right after the previous one, so the extent to which it's simply traced over the existing template stands out.

[AuntiePam]

Finished the High Sierra, Colorado Territory, I Died A Thousand Deaths trifecta.  Will confess to fast-forwarding Deaths, after seeing that it was going to be almost exactly the same as High Sierra.  The ending was changed slightly, but other than that, it was almost a scene-for-scene remake.  I love Shelly Winters but Jack Palance has always given me the creeps.

I thought Colorado Territory plodded along in the middle, and Virginia Mayo's off-shoulder blouse was just ridiculous after awhile.  I'm female, and something falling off my shoulder is annoying as hell.  I liked the two henchman here better than the two in High Sierra -- they were given a bit more personality.  I missed the dog, but not the stereotypical portrayals of the men who introduced the dog.  Algernon was particularly appalling. 

I think High Sierra is one of Bogie's best and I'd gladly watch it again.  For a tough guy, he has a vulnerability that comes through in almost all his movies, and it was really on display here.  I do wonder why Ida Lupino had top billing though. 

 

[Rinaldo]

I've finished only High Sierra -- I'll get to the later two versions over the weekend, but I wanted to get my thoughts down now.

It's a really interesting crossroad planted in 1941, when the "gangster movie" is fading from prominence and the "noir" is rumbling into existence; High Sierra partakes of both, with the Notorious Criminal destined for a shootout, and on the way getting tangled up with a heist (that goes wrong, and ends up being a quick, casual incident) and a true-blue dame. "Noir" seems wrong because it's mostly sunlit, almost blindingly so in the mountains and rocky plains -- and set in great part among the then-new motor courts and high-roller resort hotels.

It also encompasses hints of other genres, what with the sweet girl whose disability Bogie pays to cure (the inevitable Joan Leslie) but who won't marry him (honestly, this whole subplot feels like it could lift right out and not be missed), and the adorable dog who attaches himself to our antihero. (Pard, played by Zero, definitely challenged my loyalty to Asta and Benji, though I see he made only two pictures in this one year and was seen no more. No wonder -- he was Bogart's own dog!)

23 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

For a tough guy, he has a vulnerability that comes through in almost all his movies, and it was really on display here.

Definitely. And that's really the classic Bogart combination, isn't it? If a real movie star is someone who shows us a mix we haven't seen before, that we want, and that we can't get from anyone else, that tough guy who keeps revealing his soft spots is Humphrey Bogart. (Casablanca wouldn't work, or be such a classic, without it.) And this movie is surely one of the decisive points where that persona came together. As to which:

23 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

I do wonder why Ida Lupino had top billing though. 

Billing is often a mystery (even now), and arcane matters of contracts and deals can be the explanation. In this case, though, on the basis of my cursory research it seems straightforward enough: at that particular moment, Ida Lupino was actually the bigger name, even if Bogart had the bigger role.

On his way to leading man, he played a lot of secondary parts. He had done one just the year before in They Drive By Night, in which Ida Lupino was widely perceived as stealing the picture in a big way. So she was on a roll, while Bogart was at least third choice for Roy (after George Raft and Paul Muni), and director Raoul Walsh considered him a supporting player, not a star, and didn't want him. High Sierra opened in January 1941. The Maltese Falcon opened the following December, and that seems to mark the moment after which Bogart's career was never the same again.

Edited January 4, 2020 by Rinaldo

[AuntiePam]

Quote

It also encompasses hints of other genres, what with the sweet girl whose disability Bogie pays to cure (the inevitable Joan Leslie) but who won't marry him (honestly, this whole subplot feels like it could lift right out and not be missed),

I thought about this.  I'd be okay with losing the sweet girl but I think we needed her grandpa.  Earl's interactions with Goodhue and Big Mac (the sick man who hired Earl) give us a reason to sympathize with Earl.  It adds flavor to the movie too.  The scenes aren't 100% Earl with bad guys and people trying to kill him.

I liked that.the good girl turned out to be immature and thoughtless, and the bad girl was willing to die for the man she loved.   It was subversive writing. 

In Sierra and Deaths, I was amazed at the opening scene with the two cars avoiding the jack-rabbit.  How on earth did they do that? 

That was Bogie's dog?  Well, that cements Bogie in my heart. 

Edited January 4, 2020 by AuntiePam
ETA for sense

[Wiendish Fitch]

Re: High Sierra

Incredibly unpopular, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm Team Velma. I don't think she did anything wrong. Roy paying for her operation, then basically expecting her to marry him is akin to emotional blackmail, IMO. He's more than twice her age, they barely know each other, and they've never even been on a date. Now, was Velma wrong to go back to her douchebag ex? Probably. Could she have been a little classier when Roy came to call? Sure. 

Still, I find it distressing that Roy is allowed sympathy and understanding despite being a criminal, but Velma's flaws are more harshly judged and scrutinized. Besides, I find it pathetic how Roy projects his fantasies onto Velma, and is a complete asshole once he learns that, oh no, she's not perfect after all. The idea that a woman deserves to labeled as evil just because she rejects a guy she's not interested in very distressing. I've said it before, I'll say it again: I think Velma and Marie were both too good for Roy.

I actually prefer Colorado Territory, because the Dorothy Malone's "Velma" character actually was a bad person. 

[AuntiePam]

I don't see her as "evil",  just immature and thoughtless. 

You're right though -- Roy expected too much.  But don't they all expect too much, in movies from this era?  A kiss leads to a proposal of marriage, or an expectation of a proposal, often within hours of meeting. 

Roy put his hand over Velma's and left it there, the second time they met.  Velma didn't move her hand.  In 1940's movie behavior, that means she's open to more.  She let him hold her hand.  That's not first base but it's up to bat.  We could see that she did it thoughtlessly, that she wasn't thinking of him romantically, but Earl didn't see that.  I was surprised that she didn't move her hand.  Maybe Earl was too.  I wonder if that's what encouraged him. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Re: High Sierra

I actually prefer Colorado Territory, because the Dorothy Malone's "Velma" character actually was a bad person. 

Wasn't she awful?  I didn't recognize her as Dorothy Malone.  My only other exposure to Malone was in Peyton Place.   

I like that Marie recognized why Wes was attracted to Julianne. 

[Rinaldo]

Yeah, I didn't see anyone here saying Velma should have accepted him. (Or that Roy was a misunderstood swell guy, either.) I do agree with @AuntiePam that there was some nice nuance in the writing, that just as in life, nobody's 100% good or evil. A basically nice girl could have her thoughtless and shallow side (she could have expressed a commensurate degree of gratitude for the really huge gift he gave her; but she didn't owe any more than that), that a person with a disability isn't necessarily a saint, and that even a career criminal can have a yearning toward a different life, even as he kind of knows he isn't going to get it. In fact, the latter sort of combination, the softness within the hard guy, was kind of the Bogart specialty, wasn't it?

That "yearning toward a different life" was the undercurrent of the Velma subplot, which I didn't acknowledge above, or perhaps really understand until I saw Colorado Territory (which I've now done), where I think that thread was handled better, his hope not unraveling till the last minute (but truly shattered then, by her venal behavior). And having Dorothy Malone meant that there was more texture in her character.

The two make an interesting pair for comparison. Overall, I do find High Sierra the more classic statement of the story, but certain elements are handled better in Colorado Territory; and even when they aren't, it's refreshing to see a remake that was intelligently enough made (same director, Raoul Walsh) to rethink details appropriately for the new period and situation. Both movies can live side by side very well.

I'm not sure about Joel McCrea as a trade for Bogart. I'm on record as being a fan, considering him underappreciated for the sparkle he brought to Sullivan's Travels, The More the Merrier, and especially The Palm Beach Story. But he spent the majority of his long career in Westerns, and in the ones I've seen, I miss the leavening of humor that completes him for me. (Though he finished strong, in the magnificent Ride the High Country.) There's a repeat cast member from the first movie, but not as the same character. Henry Hull, the doctor who arranged the operation on Velma, shows up 8 years later looking younger and healthier as Julianne's father. The former role sported some of the most unconvincing old-man facial hair I've seen, so I was relieved to discover that it wasn't his own, just bad makeup.

Also, after what @AuntiePam said, I couldn't help noticing Virginia Mayo's insistence (really her director's, of course) on pulling her blouse off one shoulder all the damn time. I was also delighted to see, as the "literate" henchman, the great dancer James Mitchell, pulling off a straight acting role with total aplomb.

I may take a little break before I Died a Thousand Times; there are other things I want to see, and Jack Palance isn't a huge magnet for me. But I've watched the main titles, and one curious feature already stands out to me as a musician: it was scored by the same composer as Colorado Territory, David Buttolph (using the same orchestrator, too). So I assumed that Warners was just economizing, reusing the same tracks -- but no! at least the main title music is totally different in all respects. Is there a story there, or just coincidence?

[Wiendish Fitch]

23 minutes ago, Rinaldo said:

Yeah, I didn't see anyone here saying Velma should have accepted him. (Or that Roy was a misunderstood swell guy, either.) I do agree with @AuntiePam that there was some nice nuance in the writing, that just as in life, nobody's 100% good or evil. A basically nice girl could have her thoughtless and shallow side (she could have expressed a commensurate degree of gratitude for the really huge gift he gave her; but she didn't owe any more than that), that a person with a disability isn't necessarily a saint, and that even a career criminal can have a yearning toward a different life, even as he kind of knows he isn't going to get it.

 

A fair point, but from all I've read about High Sierra, Velma is constantly described in scathing, almost villainous terms. Before I saw the movie, I assumed Velma was a femme fatale putting on a "sweet girl from the country" act to ensnare Roy, get him to pay for her operation, then dumping him. But when I finally saw it, I didn't get that impression at all. I just thought she was a normal, flawed person who didn't show enough gratitude because Roy blindsided her with a marriage proposal. It's not entirely her fault that things are awkward between them now. I've also read how Velma shows her true colors as a trashy vixen after her operation because she... dances in her own damn house with three other people to medium volume music. Um, what a bitch?

Velma's not a saint, but neither is Roy. 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Wiendish Fitch

[Rinaldo]

OK, but isn't that pretty much what we're all saying? I don't see any real disagreement among us here.

Edited January 5, 2020 by Rinaldo

[chitowngirl]

Since Xfinity/Comcast moved TCM to a different tier, I have been trying many ways to get the channel without paying an extra $120/year for it. I have Apple TV, but when I downloaded Watch TCM, you needed your TV provider, which is Xfinity, so that didn’t work. We have free Hulu because we have Sprint cell service, but it seems TCM is not on that tier either. ☹️I’d cut the Comcast cord, but it’s cheaper to bundle TV and internet than just internet alone and Xfinity is the only internet in my area.

I’m done venting, carry on! 😁

Edited January 5, 2020 by chitowngirl

[VCRTracking]

The thing I took most from High Sierra was Ida Lupino should ALWAYS be first choice! It's crazy to look up she was only 23 and Joan Leslie was 17 when they made the movie. Bogart wasn't even born in the same century!

 

[Cobb Salad]

@chitowngirl do you have Verizon FIOS available where you live?

TCM is available through multiple packages with them:

https://www.verizon.com/info/channel-lineup/

I subscribe to the Preferred tier through FIOS (switched to them from Comcast almost 2 years ago when Verizon was retiring the copper lines in my area) and while Verizon has moved a couple of channels to other tiers since, they don’t seem to do it as often as Verizon.  While a Comcast subscriber I lost a couple of channels that I’d watch once in a while to higher tiers so I know what a frustrating experience this is.  

[chitowngirl]

23 minutes ago, Cobb Salad said:

 

@chitowngirl do you have Verizon FIOS available where you live?

 

We do not. ☹️

[VCRTracking]

45 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

The thing I took most from High Sierra was Ida Lupino should ALWAYS be first choice! It's crazy to look up she was only 23 and Joan Leslie was 17 when they made the movie. Bogart wasn't even born in the same century!

 

Adding I have theory in why Bogart became a star at such a relatively older age is because he looked like how America felt by 1941. He was a man who looked like they've been through a World War, a Prohibition and a Depression!

[Rinaldo]

I've now made it through I Died a Thousand Times, and I would call it the least of the High Sierras, despite the advantage of color and widescreen for those mountain vistas. It is, rather to my surprise, a very close remake of the Bogart film -- not shot-for-shot (which some websites claim), but following the same scenario and using all the same character names (even including Pard -- who, by the way, is a perfectly nice dog but doesn't inspire the same affection as his predecessor). The biggest departure, probably, is the beginning, which catches Roy en route to the west, weaving the Goodhue family in early and leaving us to learn about the pardon in quick references later. The motel caretaker trades in one ethnic stereotype for another; the character Chico might be marginally less bothersome if only the music didn't keep jumping in to underline his movements.

The biggest reasons it doesn't work are the script and the star. But I said the script wasn't changed much? Right, and there's the problem. Where Colorado Territory reimagined all the details in terms of a different time and situation, IDATT leaves most details intact, though it's all happening 14 years later (14 crucial years in terms of travel, economics, attitudes, and so on). And the hotel heist just doesn't feel believable in the 50s, even in terms of movie make-believe -- the brilliant plan is just to walk in without masks or disguises, in front of staff and guests, empty the strongboxes, and leave all those witnesses behind?

As for Jack Palance, he just doesn't convey the layers, the constant mixed emotions, the futile wishes that he could have a different life; he just a stone-faced tough guy who gives us no reason to want to see what happens to him.

There are incidental pleasures, though. A whole raft of the Intense Young Actors of the 1950s are on hand, and it's at least diverting to spot them all: Earl Holliman and Lee Marvin as the henchmen, Richard Davalos, Nick Adams, Dennis Hopper. And if we must have the Poor Crippled Girl story line, I much prefer Lori Nelson's take (abetted by some good rewriting, for a change). She's an ordinary nice kid at the start, then when Roy visits during recuperation her Velma knows how to express proper gratitude, but conveys awareness that Roy may be about to propose and she wants none of it -- she hesitates a moment before putting on a convincing happy face and accepting a kiss on the cheek. But when the proposal comes, she's (properly) unhesitating about shutting him down. And later when he shows up while she's dancing with friends, she's really had enough and lets him know it. Which isn't as nice as she might have been, but is very human and real. Good work, Lori Nelson!

I'm glad I saw all three for the sake of comparison and general movie-savvy, but despite nice elements here or there in the later two, it's High Sierra original brand for me. If I'm going to watch it at all.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Rinaldo

[elle]

8 hours ago, chitowngirl said:

Since Xfinity/Comcast moved TCM to a different tier, I have been trying many ways to get the channel without paying an extra $120/year for it. I have Apple TV, but when I downloaded Watch TCM, you needed your TV provider, which is Xfinity, so that didn’t work. We have free Hulu because we have Sprint cell service, but it seems TCM is not on that tier either. ☹️I’d cut the Comcast cord, but it’s cheaper to bundle TV and internet than just internet alone and Xfinity is the only internet in my area.

I’m done venting, carry on! 😁

Just include the phone line and that is the package I have.  I've been able to access TCM demand by typing "TCM" or 826 on the remote.  Also, though it is not TCM, I have been able to get my classic fix from a channel called "MOVIES!" .  Commercials and can but repetitive in the selection of movies but they have a Thursday night noir series and recently had a movie musical marathon, so it is not bad.

That said, I recently visited relatives who get TCM.  I didn't realize how much I missed those intros like the mousetrap-like "roll film" the one with the ball), those charming bits that made you know you were watching TCM.

[voiceover]

One of my Top Five (@ratgirlagogo:"Drink!") Silents airs tonight.  Another Rafael Sabatini novel brought to vivid, riotous, sexy life by John Gilbert as the title character in Bardelys the Magnificent.

Jack charms the King, the Court, and every woman in sight.  A climactic chase scene is heart-stopping: Gilbert can't take credit for all those stunts but by halfway through you don't even care.  Plus as a compensatory draft pick, he gets the punchline for that sequence.  

If the title doesn't ping, you may recall the most famous clip: our hero making love to Eleanor Boardman while their boat glides ...forever...under a willow tree. 

That's Chapter 5 in my upcoming book.

[Milburn Stone]

22 hours ago, chitowngirl said:

Since Xfinity/Comcast moved TCM to a different tier, I have been trying many ways to get the channel without paying an extra $120/year for it. I have Apple TV, but when I downloaded Watch TCM, you needed your TV provider, which is Xfinity, so that didn’t work. We have free Hulu because we have Sprint cell service, but it seems TCM is not on that tier either. ☹️I’d cut the Comcast cord, but it’s cheaper to bundle TV and internet than just internet alone and Xfinity is the only internet in my area.

I’m done venting, carry on! 😁

Watch TCM via Apple TV is terrible. If that's any consolation.

[mariah23]

Bravo to former TCM Researcher Alexa Foreman for her documentary on Mary Astor.  Guess who's it's dedicated to?

[Milburn Stone]

9 hours ago, mariah23 said:

Bravo to former TCM Researcher Alexa Foreman for her documentary on Mary Astor.  Guess who's it's dedicated to?

I have no idea, and I bet I'm wrong, but I'm going to make a wild guess that it's either Preston Sturges or John Huston.

[Charlie Baker]

The documentary is very worthwhile--and I love the story of  how Ms. Foreman was finally able to complete the film and obtain the expensive rights to clips from Dodsworth.

[elle]

15 hours ago, mariah23 said:

Bravo to former TCM Researcher Alexa Foreman for her documentary on Mary Astor.  Guess who's it's dedicated to?

My guess is that it was Robert Osbourne. I hope that this will be offered on demand.

Edited January 7, 2020 by elle

[Milburn Stone]

3 hours ago, elle said:

My guess is that it was Robert Osbourne. I hope that this will be offered on demand.

I'm changing my guess to be the same as yours. 🙂

[Rinaldo]

7 hours ago, elle said:

My guess is that it was Robert [Osborne]. I hope that this will be offered on demand.

It was, and it is. I just watched it. Inevitably at this date, most of the interviews have to be with people who, however expert in their own fields, are repeating only what they've read and heard (and I personally could do without psychologists analyzing motives from 80 years ago). But they did have Astor's daughter, and William Wyler's son, and some insightful film experts, and the newspaper clips from the time.

The film Dodsworth emerges as central to this story. I'm astonished to recall that before last summer I had never seen  and had barely heard of it. It's now one of my all-time favorite movies, and Mary Astor's performance (along with Walter Huston's) extraordinarily fine.

[AuntiePam]

I love seeing old newspaper clips on TV.  I always pause the picture and try to read the other articles on the page -- all the politics and crimes and natural disasters. 

I also have new appreciation for Dodsworth.  One of the commentators talked about Mary giving Edith some self-awareness.  I'd seen that as a flaw, or misdirection -- Mary being allowed to go out of character.  So next time I watch, it will be knowing that this was on purpose.

Also, the pun from that one commentator about Thorpe's lovers "tramping" around the house -- he could hardly contain himself. 

 

[Ohwell]

I'm sorry I missed The Shop Around the Corner for Christmas.  Darn it.

[voiceover]

Buck Henry died.

Just re-posting what I wrote before, because, reasons:

Darling Buck!!!  Just for writing the single greatest expository speech in cinema history, you deserve heaven: Ryan O'Neal as Howard Bannister spoke it during the courtroom sequence of What's Up, Doc?:

Howard (Ryan O'Neal) "...the one who's not my fiancée  is also the one who's not my wife...is that clear?"

Judge Maxwell (Liam Dunn): "No, but it's consistent!"

 

Thanks for all the times you made me laugh so hard that I didn't even make a sound.

[Rinaldo]

Here is a brief tribute to Buck Henry from Sheila O'Malley's blog. Also, coincidentally, involving What's Up, Doc?

"There needs to be one more bag."

[Sharpie66]

As a child of the ‘70s, for me, Buck Henry will always be one of the best SNL hosts. His appearances as Belushi’s customer in the samurai sketches were always hilarious, and his Uncle Roy was notorious and creepy and extremely memorable. 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Sharpie66