Jump to content

The Official Movie Discussion thread


M3J
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've been wanting to watch Anchors Aweigh too, but haven't seen the DVD at a library I go to. What kind of dancing? One thing that draws me to Gene's musicals is the energy and innovation.

 

That's actually another reason why I enjoy watching Errol Flynn swashbucklers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been wanting to watch Anchors Aweigh too, but haven't seen the DVD at a library I go to. What kind of dancing? One thing that draws me to Gene's musicals is the energy and innovation.

 

That's actually another reason why I enjoy watching Errol Flynn swashbucklers!

Ballet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, what Gene does, right? I don't know much about ballet, but his dancing hasn't really felt like ballet to me, most of the time.

 

Just saw Rita and Fred together. Good couple!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way Wiki said it though, I thought he incorporated far more ballet. Your thoughts on The Thin Man? I'm gonna watch it tomorrow, I read good things on Wiki.

 

My Man Godfrey didn't seem all that funny at all to me (I found it funny, don't get me wrong), although William Powell was fun to watch. Carole Lombard was annoying, as well as in Twentieth Century, though John Barrymore did well, though I was annoyed. She wasn't bad at all in No Man of Her Own though.

 

Have you watched Ziegfeld Follies? It's entertaining, but Fanny Brice sticks out for some reason. Her face reminds me of the MAD magazine mascot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah. Yeah, Kelly's background was in ballet but there were many other dances that influenced him that are maybe a little more noticeable.

 

I haven't seen any of the movies you mentioned, although I very much want to see The Thin Man and My Man Godfrey at some point.

 

I like Carole Lombard in Nothing Sacred; very funny!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was she over the top as she was in Twentieth Century and My Man Godfrey?

 

Best thing about William Powell was how he came off as calm and debonair, the opposite of Carole. Made it funnier!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh... not a fan of those types of comedies. Will Ferrell and Melissa McCarthy are annoying as *Censored* because of how over the top they go.

 

Man, Edward Arnold is a great comedian actor, I love watching him in Easy Living and You Can't Take It With You!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? :huh: No... She didn't originate exaggerated comedic-acting. Come on. You've seen silent comedies... You've also seen screwball comedies...

 

Another thing: I don't get how you made the correlation with those actors to begin with. I don't see it at all. Their shtick typically consists on stupidity and being incredibly obnoxious. That's not how I would describe Lombard's acting in Nothing Sacred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have, and Buster and Charlie never really acted over the top and yelled constantly, or mimed that. Haven't seen a lot of classic screwball comedies with that sort of yelling either.

 

I see Lombard's acting in those two movies as obnoxious and stupid when she's yelling and going over the top, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, now I get what you're saying. It's not the general exaggerated acting (which she did not invent) per se but rather specifically the hysteria that you dislike. In that case, you may not like her in Nothing Sacred because she does that. Although, once again, I don't see the comparison to the two actors or their comedies. What's more, I think she does a fine job in her role and I still think you should check it out because it's a funny satire with a lot of bite. Plus, it has Fredric March. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frederic March? Never heard of that before.

 

Reading about the way studios operated during the Golden Era is interesting. Though, I"m glad we don't have the studio system anymore that'd force stars to be typecast into a role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spencer Tracy or John Barrymore Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?

 

I also never understood why the studios were against sound either. Did they ever imagine how much they could do with dialogues? From this book I"m reading, Warner Brothers was the only studio to take a chance on talkies. But then, isn't that the general view towards digital 3-D, that it's not good and just a temporary gimmick? I do miss black and white movies though, as out of place as they'd look now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither. It's the 1931 version directed by Rouben Mamoulian with Fredric March as the doctor/fiend. It's the only one that pronounces the Jekyll name properly.

 

I think because early sound technology was so inadequate and such a burden that studio heads didn't think it was worth the investment and development. Plus, I don't think those who were involved in the filmmaking process were particularly interested in its possibilities, at least initially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I see.

 

Can't believe they didn't realize the potential, though. Though, every generation has its fair share of nay-sayers to something that turns out to be success even now.

 

I also saw How the West Was Won few weeks ago, and the new camera style was pretty bad on the smaller screen. Though, I don't know if they had VCR or a medium back then where you could see it on a smaller screen like we do now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand where some filmmakers were coming from. Cinema is fundamentally a visual medium. If you take away the visuals, the moving images -- all you have is a radio play. On the other hand, if you take away sound... What do you have? A silent film, the purest form of cinema. So if you look at it that way, I can understand the unease and skepticism. Visuals are essential to cinema and they thought by adding sound people may lose sight on what makes the medium so unique.

 

Yup, it's one of those films that is meant to be seen on a big screen to get its full impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa. No way am I against sound. Oh, no. I made a topic dedicated to film music which I think shows some of my appreciation for it. I'm just pointing out the importance of the visuals and how some filmmakers & actors from the silent generation were a little wary of sound's impact on the art form. I agree that sound has become a vital tool for cinema, especially when used right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying that their way of thinking just makes no sense. It was an innovation majority should have embraced.

 

Out of Cary Grant and James Stewart, which one would you prefer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dunno, I still find their concern understandable to an extent. Silence and the reliance on the visual image defined a generation of cinema. Just when silent film was at its pinnacle, a new tool comes in set to redefine the art as they knew it. I think if I were in that position, I would have some anxiety initially. Just when you thought you hit your stride, everything has changed and now you have to familiarize yourself with this new (at the time) cumbersome technology if you wanted commercial success.

 

But ultimately they had nothing to worry about because what sound did was open a whole other dimension to cinema yet explored.

 

Jimmy Stewart. He showed more dynamism with the roles he took on. What about you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...