TCM PRIME TIME MOVIE DISCUSSION CORNER

[Ron S]

"Historical aside: Flynn's son (Sean, I believe) is mentioned in Michael Herr's incredible Vietnam War journalism book DISPATCHES... he was a photographer who disappeared in Cambodia in 1970 (only recently, I think, have they learned that he and his friend were executed by the Khmer Rouge). Herr's description of Sean Flynn sounds a bit like the characters his father played in movies."

and interestingly enough there is a movie (I think it's a TV movie, I saw it a long time ago and cannot remember the name) about Sean in which I think he is played by Kevin Dillon - and as I recall the movie notes that he disappeared, probably killed -

Frankie's House (1992)

[JSngry]

"May I obey all your commands with equal pleasure."

My kinda guy.

[JSngry]

Tonight's the 1932 Scarface, directed by Howard Hawks, starring Paul Muni.

Never seen it. Sounds like a winner.

Opinions?

[brownie]

The 1932 Scarface is a mustsee film. Brutal and visually effective. Produced by Howard Hughes and directed Howard Hawks. They don't come better.

Enjoy your evening!

[BruceH]

Scarface is an essential early Hawks movie.

What did you think of The Adventures of Robin Hood?

[Chrome]

Speaking of Flynn, anyone ever read his autobiography, My Wicked, Wicked Ways? This guy had some kind of life ...

[medjuck]

I love TCM. A couple of weeks ago I TIVOed Lubitch's The Merry Widow which I've never seen before. Finally got around to watching it last night. After a slow start it just takes off! A realloy good film.

[JSngry]

What did you think of The Adventures of Robin Hood?

I really dug it, somewhat contrary to expectations. Flynn's spirit was contagious. And the color, WHOA! But the main thing was the spirit - it was lively, frisky, and it pervaded the entire cast.

[JSngry]

I love TCM. A couple of weeks ago I TIVOed Lubitch's The Merry Widow which I've never seen before. Finally got around to watching it last night. After a slow start it just takes off! A realloy good film.

Yeah, that's a "problem" that Brenda and I both have with a lot of the older stuff, the "slow start". I've gotten over it, she's still working on it. Scarface nearly lost her this evening. Nearly...

What's the deal with that, anyway? Was the audience back then in need of a slow exposition, or was that just the pace of life back then? Or was it a case of the filmmakers still discovering the art and its possibilities?

Anyway, this nightly TCM thing is turning into a ritual with us. Good stuff, and sometimes a real surprise, like the one a few weeks ago, Tomorrow The World. What a trip that one was!

[BruceH]

Personally, I like a film that doesn't club you over the head in the first 10 seconds, at least as a change of pace.

Dirty Harry coming up---and someone is shot in that right at the beginning!!!

[JSngry]

Just finished w/Preston Strurges' The Miracle of Morgan's Creek, which I had never even heard of before this evening. I could say, "whoa,,,,", or, "WTF?!?!?!?!" or, "Oh...my.....GOD!!!!!!", but I'll just let our robiticon buddy express what this movie left me feeling:

UNbelieveable movie! Brilliant, audacious, and how the hell did it get made?

[AllenLowe]

in terms of early films and the slowness of exposition - I think you'll find that a lot of early movies are very much caught in the rhythms of the theater of the time - and a lot of the actors were out of the theatrical tradtion (especially as a lot of these movies were shot at Astoria in NYC) - many of the scenes use static camera work, and, you are right, the idea of editing and cutting was still in its infant stages (though some were technically far in advance, like DW Griffith and than, a little later, Renoir) -

[Michael Fitzgerald]

What about the fact that an old film was only one PART of an extended show with other feature films, cartoons, newsreels, maybe even live music? So you might NEED a slow-down after all that. Watching it nowadays, after it has been removed from its "natural environment" is different.

Mike

[AfricaBrass]

Just finished w/Preston Strurges' The Miracle of Morgan's Creek, which I had never even heard of before this evening. I could say, "whoa,,,,", or, "WTF?!?!?!?!" or, "Oh...my.....GOD!!!!!!", but I'll just let our robiticon buddy express what this movie left me feeling:

UNbelieveable movie! Brilliant, audacious, and how the hell did it get made?

Yes, that's a GREAT film. I love Preston Sturges movies.

[Shawn]

UNbelieveable movie! Brilliant, audacious, and how the hell did it get made?

I'm REALLY glad you got to see that movie Jim, that's one of my all time favorite comedies. Talk about brilliant fucking dialogue!

"One of these days their gonna find your hair ribbon in an axe somewhere"

Welcome to the WONDERFUL, WACKY world of Preston Sturges! Here are the "must-see" films that Sturges wrote and/or directed:

The Great McGinty

The Palm Beach Story

Sullivan's Travels (inspiration for Oh Brother Where Art Thou)

The Lady Eve

Hail The Conquering Hero

Unfaithfully Yours

The Good Fairy

Also worth checking out, though not quite on the same level:

Remember The Night

Christmas In July

Easy Living

Diamond Jim

Enjoy!

[AfricaBrass]

The Lady Eve is available as a Criterion Collection DVD. I've got it.

Sullivan's Travels is amazing also. There's so much to like about Sturges' films.

[Joe G]

Never heard of this stuff! I'll try to find some tomorrow.

[JSngry]

Welcome to the WONDERFUL, WACKY world of Preston Sturges!  Here are the "must-see" films that Sturges wrote and/or directed:

The Great McGinty

The Palm Beach Story

Sullivan's Travels (inspiration for Oh Brother Where Art Thou)

The Lady Eve

Hail The Conquering Hero

Unfaithfully Yours

The Good Fairy

Also worth checking out, though not quite on the same level:

Remember The Night

Christmas In July

Easy Living

Diamond Jim

Enjoy!

Yiou know, I've heard the name "Preston Sturges" so much over the years, read so much about him, seen all kinds of tributes to him, etc., that I figured that I had seen at least some of his films at least once.

That list proves me wrong. Never seen (or heard) of any of them.

I feel so...so...IGNUNT!

(which is why I started this thread - I don't like being ignunt! )

Discovering this stuff oughta be BIG fun! I mean, any cat that has a newspaper headline that reads MUSSOLINI RESIGNS! "Enough Is Sufficient", says Dictator (or something very similar) in the wake of some American chick giving birth to sextuplets obviously lives on a planet that I'd like to hang out at for a while.

Edited March 6, 2005 by JSngry

[Shawn]

It is absolutely amazing that Morgan's Creek ever got made in the first place, considering the subject matter. Sturges played the Censorship board like a friggin' Steinway...they never knew what hit them...he was too fucking smart. I remember reading an article about Creek and they said that the movie was so fast that the censors weren't quick enough to notice.

One interesting note, is that Creek was filmed in 1942...but not released until 1944. I've never read any definitive reason for why this was, although the subject matter could have played a role.

Another thing. Remember the Governer of the state...and his associate? The one who dropped his cigarette in his lap, poured a glass of water on it and never missed a beat on his phone call? Those characters are "McGinty" & "The Boss" from The Great McGinty, playing cameos here.

[garthsj]

in terms of early films and the slowness of exposition - I think you'll find that a lot of early movies are very much caught in the rhythms of the theater of the time - and a lot of the actors were out of the theatrical tradtion (especially as a lot of these movies were shot at Astoria in NYC) - many of the scenes use static camera work, and, you are right, the idea of editing and cutting was still in its infant stages (though some were technically far in advance, like DW Griffith and than, a little later, Renoir) -

I hate to disagree with Allen on this, but his answer is not entirely correct. First, editing and cutting in the twenties and early thirties could, and in some cases was as sophisticated as that found today. However, audiences were conditioned to see longer scenes, with less camera movement and with less cutting than we are used to seeing today (this is known as the MTV effect). It must also be considered that in the period 1929-1931 the technical issues of sound movies were still being worked out, and this necessitated a much more static camera. (See the scene in "Singing In The Rain" with the microphone in the flowers). The costs and nature of the actual production process must also be considered, as these films were deliberately made with a very limited number of set shots. Story and stars were everything to the audience of this period, and there was little incentive to dazzle them with directorial technique or special effects. Slow takes, lingering closeups, and lengthy speeches were quite normal in American movies up until the 1970's. When I show some of these films to students they always remark on the difference in pace and rhythm in comparison to today's movies, and many find them difficult to watch because of this.

The history of film is a fascinating subject (after all this is how I make my living), and much more complicated than most people imagine. For an excellent primer, may I suggest the following book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/023...0581866-0523862

[BERIGAN]

Just finished w/Preston Strurges' The Miracle of Morgan's Creek, which I had never even heard of before this evening. I could say, "whoa,,,,", or, "WTF?!?!?!?!" or, "Oh...my.....GOD!!!!!!", but I'll just let our robiticon buddy express what this movie left me feeling:

                 

UNbelieveable movie! Brilliant, audacious, and how the hell did it get made?

JS, I can't recall if I read this somewheres, or I actually thought this up on my own, but there must have been fewer censors during the war. I have seen a few films during that era that have moments that seem right from pre-code films. (July 1934 and earlier)

Well, the only films I recall right now are I Wanted Wings (1941 actually) starring Veronica Lake, and she is soooo very clearly braless(and cold!) throughout much of the movie, I never could figure out how it didn't end up being re-shot. Murder, My Sweet has it's moments as well, but Miracle of Morgan's Creek seems quite unique to have gotten away with so much!

Edited March 6, 2005 by BERIGAN

[BERIGAN]

in terms of early films and the slowness of exposition - I think you'll find that a lot of early movies are very much caught in the rhythms of the theater of the time  - and a lot of the actors were out of the theatrical tradtion (especially as a lot of these movies were shot at Astoria in NYC) - many of the scenes use static camera work, and, you are right, the idea of editing and cutting was still in its infant stages (though some were technically far in advance, like DW Griffith and than, a little later, Renoir) -

I hate to disagree with Allen on this, but his answer is not entirely correct. First, editing and cutting in the twenties and early thirties could, and in some cases was as sophisticated as that found today. However, audiences were conditioned to see longer scenes, with less camera movement and with less cutting than we are used to seeing today (this is known as the MTV effect). It must also be considered that in the period 1929-1931 the technical issues of sound movies were still being worked out, and this necessitated a much more static camera. (See the scene in "Singing In The Rain" with the microphone in the flowers). The costs and nature of the actual production process must also be considered, as these films were deliberately made with a very limited number of set shots. Story and stars were everything to the audience of this period, and there was little incentive to dazzle them with directorial technique or special effects. Slow takes, lingering closeups, and lengthy speeches were quite normal in American movies up until the 1970's. When I show some of these films to students they always remark on the difference in pace and rhythm in comparison to today's movies, and many find them difficult to watch because of this.

The history of film is a fascinating subject (after all this is how I make my living), and much more complicated than most people imagine. For an excellent primer, may I suggest the following book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/023...0581866-0523862

Don't you think the studio that shot a film had a lot to do with it as well?? Many Warner Brothers films of the early 30's are quite fast paced, sometimes just to keep you from noticing how little plot there is.

[BERIGAN]

....

Welcome to the WONDERFUL, WACKY world of Preston Sturges!  Here are the "must-see" films that Sturges wrote and/or directed:

The Great McGinty

The Palm Beach Story

Sullivan's Travels (inspiration for Oh Brother Where Art Thou)

The Lady Eve

Hail The Conquering Hero

Unfaithfully Yours

The Good Fairy

Also worth checking out, though not quite on the same level:

Remember The Night

Christmas In July

Easy Living

Diamond Jim

Enjoy!

I'd put Easy Living and Remember the Night (Both directed by the underrated Mitchell Leisen)in the class of the first group....

I think there was a Docu. that ran on Sturges PBS a few years back, well worth checking out. He had such a great, yet sadly too short film career.

Edited March 6, 2005 by BERIGAN

[JSngry]

Intresting reading in these comments, y'all. I'm learning. Bless ya'.

[garthsj]

JS, I can't recall if I read this somewheres, or I actually thought this up on my own, but there must have been fewer censors during the war. I have seen a few films during that era that have moments that seem right from pre-code films. (July 1934 and earlier)

Well, the only films I recall right now are I Wanted Wings (1941 actually) starring Veronica Lake, and she is soooo very clearly braless(and cold!) throughout much of the movie, I never could figure out how it didn't end up being re-shot. Murder, My Sweet has it's moments as well, but Miracle of Morgan's Creek seems quite unique to have gotten away with so much!

You raise an interesting point here. There is NO indication that there were fewer censors (although I am not sure which level of censorship you mean here ... the Production Code Administration (PCA), the 13 state censors, or the approximatley 120 local municipal and county censor boards strewn throughout the country?) However, while "moral" censorship became less of a focus during the war, this was due to a combination of factors. After December 1941, Hollywood geared up for war movie production, and this shifted the emphasis obviously. (During the period 1942-1945 "war movies" averaged about 30% of all movies produced in Hollywood ... ref. Jowett, Film: The Democratic Art, p.318) .. The major concern shifted to the censorial activities of the Office of War Information (OWI), ensuring that these war films were accurate, patriotic and contributed to the war effort in a positive way. Hollywood hated this form of control and appealed directly to the president, and eventually by 1944, the OWI was emasculated by the Congress with a very reduced budget. If you go through the files of the PCA you do not get a sense that efforts to enforce the Code were any less during these years. (Joseph Breen, the head of the PCA, was not going to let a silly thing like war stop hm from enforcing his Catholic view of morality!) Just ask Howard Hughes who was trying to get approval of "The Outlaw" during this period!

HOWEVER, your comments have stirred my academic interest .... it would take some sort of fairly extensive analysis to determine whether other censorship boards were more inclined to be lax in their efforts during the war. This is a distinct possibility.

The questions surrounding the making and exhibition of "The Miracle Of Morgan's Creek" deserves a posting of it own, which I will do later today. It is, indeed, a unique film for its time ....