TCM and goddamned 1939
Kingo Gondo
"wisdom".
Oh yes, without question--1939 must clearly be the greatest Hollywood film
year ever. Of course. Everybody says it, don't they?
Uh, no, they don't.
The foundation for this claim lies with two films, each of which is
supposedly so great that when you add the rest of the year's roster of films
on top, it is suppose to leave no doubt.
The first is Gone With The Wind, a nearly unwatchable, bloated chick-flick.
We've already thrown this piece of shit into the dustbin recently, so I'll
just leave it there.
The second is The Wizard of Oz. Now, as a kid, I hated this movie, along
with all that Disney horseshit. As far as I was concerned (and still am) The
Thief of Bagdad (from the following year) kicks its ass to the curb. Flying
monkeys? Fuck you, we've got a flying giant GENIE here!
I know many of you had a different childhood impression of this film, which
I actually like more now as an adult (although, again, that is not saying
very much). But try watching the thing objectively. The tornado is cool.
And there are good songs are early on. But once Dorothy hits the bricks, it
is downhill, quickly, as a musical. And as a film, God--the interim between
the first and second visits to the Wizard is just interminable. Show that
shit at Guantanamo Bay.
And the other films bandied about in their "1939" documentary? Hmmmm.....
Mr. Smith Goes To Washington--unwatchable. The upside to having cancer of
the eyes would be the certainty of never seeing this film again.
The Women--nice gimmick, works (sorta) as camp, and Crawford and Roz are
swell, but really...I can't bear Norma Shearer on a good day, and this ain't
one of them. Neither is Idiot's Delight.
Wuthering Heights--no, please, and take Babes In Arms with it. Never again
to both.
And so on.
Now, let me be clear: I am not a reckless iconoclast--there WERE some very
good films in 1939, a couple I might call great.
Goodbye, Mr. Chips (this film is pretty irresistible to me). Ninotchka
(although Lubitsch did better). Stagecoach (same for Ford). Only Angels Have
Wings. The Roaring Twenties. Gunga Din. And some lesser lights.
But did they really have to stoop to try selling us Dodge City, Union
Pacific and (heaven help us) The Oklahoma Kid? Can't we just say, yes,
Stagecoach, excellent, iconic western, without having to try to wedge these
decidedly inferior films into the same box?
I call bullshit on "1939".
william
> The second is The Wizard of Oz. Now, as a kid, I hated this movie, along
> with all that Disney horseshit. As far as I was concerned (and still am) The
> Thief of Bagdad (from the following year) kicks its ass to the curb. Flying
> monkeys? Fuck you, we've got a flying giant GENIE here!
>
I also am a fan of The Thief of Bagdad from childhood. All I can say
about The Wizard of Oz that saves it for me is Bert Lahr. That man
breaks me up and puts on a show culled from the best of vaudeville and
Broadway. You won't see the likes of him anytime soon.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Alls Quiet
> All I can say about The Wizard of Oz that saves it for me is Bert Lahr.
The movie gave me nightmares as a kid. Never watched it again.
tomcervo
You can take the movies on their own merit, but that "1939" doc was
very inconsistant. "Union Pacific" responsible for the revival of the
western? God help us. It was the same epic crap that DeMille had been
making throughout the 30's--then why not "The Plainsman"? Because no
one got on that train.
David Oberman
>I know many of you had a different childhood impression of this film, which
>I actually like more now as an adult (although, again, that is not saying
>very much). But try watching the thing objectively. The tornado is cool.
>And there are good songs are early on. But once Dorothy hits the bricks, it
>is downhill, quickly, as a musical. And as a film, God--the interim between
>the first and second visits to the Wizard is just interminable. Show that
>shit at Guantanamo Bay.
Did you see a print without Bert Lahr as a vaudevillian pussycat &
Maggie Hamilton as a saturated Lady Macbeth? No wonder your childhood
suffered!
>Now, let me be clear: I am not a reckless iconoclast--there WERE some very
>good films in 1939, a couple I might call great.
>
>Goodbye, Mr. Chips (this film is pretty irresistible to me).
Good lord. Specially drawn to Robert Donat's milquetoast for two
hours, eh?
>I call bullshit on "1939".
1934 outpaced 1939 by several laps.
Lenona
>
> > The second is The Wizard of Oz. Now, as a kid, I hated this movie, along
> > with all that Disney horseshit. As far as I was concerned (and still am) The
> > Thief of Bagdad (from the following year) kicks its ass to the curb. Flying
> > monkeys? Fuck you, we've got a flying giant GENIE here!
>
> I also am a fan of The Thief of Bagdad from childhood.
I've never understood what's so great about ToB - compared to the
SILENT version! That one had so much going for it - especially since
we didn't have to listen to the annoying American accents - or, maybe
I should say, lack of proper "accents." (I don't remember too well who
sounded like what.)
And when I want special effects in color from before 1960, give me
almost ANY Ray Harryhausen movie instead.
Granted, I saw the silent ToB when I was just old enough to read the
captions myself - in the early 1970s - so that made it all the more
fascinating. And yes, I liked it just as much again, years later.
To my surprise, there are far more movies with that title than I
thought - including a 1961 Steve Reeves flick and a 1949 animated
version - with Julie Andrews!
http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=thief+baghdad
Lenona.
william
>
> And when I want special effects in color from before 1960, give me
> almost ANY Ray Harryhausen movie instead.
>
think of a movie with Harryhausen effects that's worth watching for
anything other than the Harryhausen effects.
William
www.williamahearn.com
David Oberman
>Nice effects. Charming in their naive way. The movies suck. I can't
>think of a movie with Harryhausen effects that's worth watching for
>anything other than the Harryhausen effects.
Lots of folks here love the Bernard Herrmann score to SEVEN VOYAGES OF
SINBAD (?)
william
OK. I'll give you that but at the same time it sort of makes my case.
I grew up on Harryhausen and sometimes I watch his flicks just for the
nostalgia. That's about it.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Opry phantom
wrote:
I love Wizard of OZ. GWTW bigger than any talkie before,
and we do get the King as Rhett, and some talented Brits.
STAGE COACH, still a classic; in a world where we're lucky to get
three really good films (pox on trying to have ten nominees now)'39
was a great year!
ctlady
Just because you don't like certain movies doesn't mean the rest of us
don't like them either; some of the ones you mentioned are other
people's favorites.
TV sets have buttons for changing channels.
quote...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> Oh yes, without question--1939 must clearly be the greatest Hollywood film
> year ever.
Somebody should do a parody of the TCM doc using clips from lesser
1939 films like Zenobia, The Phantom Creeps, The Ice Follies of 1939,
At the Circus, Charlie Chan in City of Darkness, Gulliver's Travels,
et cetera.
Kingo Gondo
"tomcervo" <tomc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:390f4dc6-56c3-4050...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
REPLY:
Because, of course, they had to make the facts fit the premise.
gerry
wrote:
> "tomcervo" <tomce...@aol.com> wrote in message
By 1939, Production Code Administrator Breen had pretty much sanitized
big studio Hollywood movies so they bore little or no resemblance to
reality. The Wizard of Oz comes out best because it started out as a
fantasy. GWTW has great production values and a great cast but the
underlying love story is drivel. Just before its release, Gunga Din's
studio, RKO, removed a scene where Sgt. Cutter (Cary Grant) is
tortured.
Hollywood pre-code movies from 1932 and 1933 are far grittier and deal
with more interesting subjects. 1933's The Life of Jimmy Dolan deals
in part with economic problems regular Americans faced, even though
the main focus was boxer Dolan being on the lam. TCM's glorification
of the movies from the year 1939 is wrongheaded, many of those 1939
movies do not stand the test of time.
Kingo Gondo
"gerry" <2ger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ee158a8-73ff-4df4...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
REPLY:
I couldn't agree more.
Kingo Gondo
"David Oberman" <dobe...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:b7tu459bipruqdmq9...@4ax.com...
> "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.org> wrote:
>
>>I know many of you had a different childhood impression of this film,
>>which
>>I actually like more now as an adult (although, again, that is not saying
>>very much). But try watching the thing objectively. The tornado is cool.
>>And there are good songs are early on. But once Dorothy hits the bricks,
>>it
>>is downhill, quickly, as a musical. And as a film, God--the interim
>>between
>>the first and second visits to the Wizard is just interminable. Show that
>>shit at Guantanamo Bay.
>
> Did you see a print without Bert Lahr as a vaudevillian pussycat &
> Maggie Hamilton as a saturated Lady Macbeth? No wonder your childhood
> suffered!
Lahr may have been great (or not) on-stage, but his film career was
virtually nonexistant. I suppose there was a reason for that.
Hamilton was a good character actress whose second most famous role was a
coffee commercial.
Let's not get carried away, Doberman. It is time to put away childish
things.
>>Now, let me be clear: I am not a reckless iconoclast--there WERE some very
>>good films in 1939, a couple I might call great.
>>
>>Goodbye, Mr. Chips (this film is pretty irresistible to me).
>
> Good lord. Specially drawn to Robert Donat's milquetoast for two
> hours, eh?
You cold-hearted bastard.
>>I call bullshit on "1939".
>
> 1934 outpaced 1939 by several laps.
Of that I have no doubt.
Kingo Gondo
"Lenona" <leno...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:371ea605-f7ff-4049...@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 4, 1:24 am, william <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 1:11 am, "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nospam_go...@gmail.org> wrote:
>
> > The second is The Wizard of Oz. Now, as a kid, I hated this movie, along
> > with all that Disney horseshit. As far as I was concerned (and still am)
> > The
> > Thief of Bagdad (from the following year) kicks its ass to the curb.
> > Flying
> > monkeys? Fuck you, we've got a flying giant GENIE here!
>
> I also am a fan of The Thief of Bagdad from childhood.
I've never understood what's so great about ToB - compared to the
SILENT version! That one had so much going for it - especially since
we didn't have to listen to the annoying American accents - or, maybe
I should say, lack of proper "accents." (I don't remember too well who
sounded like what.)
REPLY:
Hmmm...unless a film is suppose to depict English speaking characters, what
the heck is the difference about their accent in English? I suppose a severe
regional accent could seem out of place (e.g. a Cockney Jesus Christ or a
Dracula from the Deep South) but I don't recall anything that pronounced in
ToB.
The silent version is fantastic, too--it has Fairbanks, for heaven's sake.
But you are in your own little world if you think a modern audience would
find it superior to the 1940 version. The restored 1940 version just looks
fantastic in a way the silent version could never match. The Technicolor is
drop dead gorgeous.
Stone me
"gerry" <2ger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ee158a8-73ff-4df4...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There has been a trend towards gritty detail, but the results have
underlined
that in itself, it is a false goal.
Westerns have rarely strayed away from fantasy, in clothing, landscape, and
plotline, and why should they? Hollywood is about making fantasy, not
making documentaries.
More and more detail of sexual acts move films into the realm of porn,
of titlation, leaving cultual values behind.
"..1932 and 1933 are far grittier and deal with more interesting subjects."
I would go along with something of that, in that some issues involving
sex and unpopular political issues may have been suppressed.
Against that trend is the 1930 winner of 2 Academy Awards, "All Quiet
of the Western Front". This must have ruffled many feathers, yet they
did themselves proud to embrace it.
Stone me.
tomcervo
> Lahr may have been great (or not) on-stage, but his film career was
> virtually nonexistant. I suppose there was a reason for that.
The reason being that you put his name up on a Broadway marque and the
only other problem was crowd control. You could sell tickets to his
costume fittings. Now compare New York and Hollywood from 1920 through
1950--where would you rather live?
David Oberman
>I would go along with something of that, in that some issues involving
>sex and unpopular political issues may have been suppressed.
>Against that trend is the 1930 winner of 2 Academy Awards, "All Quiet
>of the Western Front". This must have ruffled many feathers, yet they
>did themselves proud to embrace it.
Would you guys please trim your references from time to time? Jesus!
Scrolling wastes precious calories.
william
> Lahr may have been great (or not) on-stage, but his film career was
> virtually nonexistant. I suppose there was a reason for that.
>
There are reasons for everything and all of them are irrelevant to
this discussion. The fact remains that Bert Lahr's performance in the
Wizard of Oz is fantastic. Period. Doesn't matter what he did before
or after. There are plenty of actors who have one shining moment and
then end up doing lack-luster performances for a bunch of films. So
what?
William
www.williamahearn.com
Kingo Gondo
"Lenona" <leno...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:371ea605-f7ff-4049...@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 4, 1:11 am, "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nospam_go...@gmail.org> wrote:
>
> > The second is The Wizard of Oz. Now, as a kid, I hated this movie, along
> > with all that Disney horseshit. As far as I was concerned (and still am)
> > The
> > Thief of Bagdad (from the following year) kicks its ass to the curb.
> > Flying
> > monkeys? Fuck you, we've got a flying giant GENIE here!
>
> I also am a fan of The Thief of Bagdad from childhood.
I've never understood what's so great about ToB - compared to the
SILENT version! That one had so much going for it - especially since
we didn't have to listen to the annoying American accents
REPLY:
I just watched this film again, since it was on TCM this morning.
With the possible exception of Rex Ingram, who in this cast had an "American
accent"?
Kingo Gondo
REPLY:
Well, that's your version. The more common version--the far more common
version--is that Lahr's talents were better suited to the stage.
Myself, I don't care.
Kingo Gondo
"william" <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7c29368d-65c6-4da4...@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
William
www.williamahearn.com
REPLY:
Yes, when I think of the all-time great examples of screen acting, this one
immediately comes to mind.
Sure.
william
wrote:
> Yes, when I think of the all-time great examples of screen acting, this one
> immediately comes to mind.
>
> Sure.
Look, you're intent on dumping on the film because somehow you
actually read and take to heart all the nonsense about the "greatness"
of 1939. You've been poisoned by your own antidote. I can't help you
with that. If you prefer "Thief of Bagdad" over "The Wizard of Oz"
that's just jake with me. It just seems to me that you can't separate
the films from all the stupidity written about them. That's too bad.
William
www.williamahearn.com
tomcervo
wrote:
> "tomcervo" <tomce...@aol.com> wrote in message
I've read reminiscences by Broadway veterans from both sides of the
footlights. Lahr was a force of nature on the stage by all accounts.
Saying he was better suited to the stage is like saying John Wayne was
better suited to the movies.
Kingo Gondo
William
www.williamahearn.com
REPLY:
No, I just watched the Wizard of Oz again last week, not burdened with all
kinds of comforting childhood associations that many people have with the
film. As I said, I now like it MORE than I did in my youth (mainly because I
have a greater appreciation of the music), but there is awfully lot wrong
with it, an assertion for which I gave specifics.
By the way, what the hell did your last response have to do with the former
subject at hand, Burt Lahr's allegedly "fantastic" acting in the film and
the ridiculousness of such an assertion?
Kingo Gondo
On Jul 6, 12:09?am, "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nospam_go...@gmail.org>
REPLY:
I would see nothing wrong with that assertion, either. And since we are
talking about films here, the equivalent assertion about Lahr will do for my
purposes.
moviePig
wrote:
>
> ... I just watched the Wizard of Oz again last week, not burdened with all
> kinds of comforting childhood associations that many people have with the
Well, your declaration of independence should note that the most
*indelible* association for people who saw WIZARD OF OZ during their
actual childhood is fright. Even though Dorothy gets back to Kansas
comfortably intact, most little kids back then couldn't give a
flying... monkey.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Kingo Gondo
I do remember War of the Worlds frightening me, however.
moviePig
wrote:
> Sorry, never frightened me either.
>
> I do remember War of the Worlds frightening me, however.
Tom Cruise often has that effect...
Actually, the most reliably child-frightening sciFI, I think, was
INVADERS FROM MARS (1953). Zombifying needles in your parents'
cervical vertebrae. Sure, it's an improvement... but who's gonna
drive you to school?...
Kingo Gondo
"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote in message
news:b90da4cc-d22b-42d1...@p18g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 6, 10:03 am, "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nospam_go...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Sorry, never frightened me either.
>
> I do remember War of the Worlds frightening me, however.
Tom Cruise often has that effect...
REPLY:
I did not mean frighteningly BAD.
william
wrote:
> By the way, what the hell did your last response have to do with the former
> subject at hand, Burt Lahr's allegedly "fantastic" acting in the film and
> the ridiculousness of such an assertion?
It may be an opinion but there is nothing "ridiculous" about it. You
can disagree. So what? That doesn't diminish my -- or anyone else's --
opinion or appreciation. There are people on this ng who will assert
that John Wayne gave a great performance in "The Searchers." That I
don't agree with. To say that the assertion about Wayne or Lahr is
ridiculous just attempts to dismiss someone else's assessment of a
performance out of hand. It's hard to take that seriously.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Kingo Gondo
OK, you are king of the forest.
william
> Oh boy.
>
> OK, you are king of the forest.
If the other option is having a false indignation over idiotic film
hype, then I'll take it.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Derek Janssen
> On Jul 6, 1:19 pm, "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nospam_go...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Oh boy.
>>
>> OK, you are king of the forest.
>
> If the other option is having a false indignation over idiotic film
> hype, then I'll take it.
It's gotten slow, lately, with all the trolls dead and gone, and
everyone discussing boring old content like normal folk--
And since all Net-Curmudgeons eventually implode and turn within
themselves for lack of outside troll-community stimulus to play off of,
if it ain't Canadians, it's 1939 or TCM....
He'll probably be frothing a "What bothered me this week" lather over
geraniums or ballpoint pens next.
Derek Janssen (eh, Lewis Black did it better)
eja...@verizon.net
Kingo Gondo
Kingo Gondo
William
www.williamahearn.com
REPLY:
If it is indeed idiotic film hype, why would indignation over it necessarily
be "false", especially in a films newsgroup?
Or is that question too logical?
william
>
> If it is indeed idiotic film hype, why would indignation over it necessarily
> be "false", especially in a films newsgroup?
>
> Or is that question too logical?
First off, "logic" has no place here unless we're talking about "Star
Trek" films. The indignation is false because you can't the separate
the films from the hype. Instead of getting riled about the idiots who
write such drivel, you try and demystify or degrade the films. In the
case of "Gone With The Wind" and "The Wizard of Oz" it's just pissing
in the wind. They are what they are no matter how valid or incisive
your take on them might be. Some people love those films and some
people who actually know something about film can like one or the
other without buying into the "1939 myth" or whatever it's called.
You're beating a dead horse with the cart.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Kingo Gondo
William
www.williamahearn.com
REPLY:
By this "standard", I fail to see how we'd ever discuss any film.
I am perfectly capable of discussing these films without their "hype". I
already did. It is their advocates who cannot do so, relying (for example)
on the supposedly self-evident idea that Burt Lahr was some great film actor
('cervo) who gave a "fantastic" performance (somebody else). Oh wait a
minute, that somebody else was you, wasn't it? Apparently, you are free to
spout such drivel but contradicting the same is somehow pointless or
whatever.
Burt Lahr was NOT a great film actor, as his film resume inarguably
demonstrates, and his performance in The Wizard of Oz, while perhaps
perfectly suitable, maybe ideal, for a children's film (nothing wrong with
those, if you are child), has never been anybody's idea of some example of
great film acting. Except you, I guess.
If you don't like the topic, you are free to shut the fuck up whenever you
choose. Yet, you haven't.
william
>
> If you don't like the topic, you are free to shut the fuck up whenever you
> choose. Yet, you haven't.
All your points are pointless so all we get is the death fart of the
desperate. You don't even understand the topic. All you understand is
your self-important anger. I don't "shut the fuck up" because watching
you dig yourself into a hole is way too much fun to stop now.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Kingo Gondo
William
www.williamahearn.com
REPLY:
I don't understand my own topic. Hmmmm.
Oh yes, obviously. Thanks.
Derek Janssen
>
> All your points are pointless so all we get is the death fart of the
> desperate. You don't even understand the topic. All you understand is
> your self-important anger. I don't "shut the fuck up" because watching
> you dig yourself into a hole is way too much fun to stop now.
>
>
> Oh yes, obviously. Thanks.
Well, actually, yes, NTHMI:
You came on to claim that a TCM documentary was silly, tried to make it
troll-sexy by showoff-deconstructing all of 1939 MGM, and ended up in a
heated debate over Bert Lahr's movie career.
And it still sounded fake, but then, most bored-provocateur spec posts do.
Derek Janssen (remember, focus, FOCUS!)
eja...@verizon.net
moviePig
By all means, pound him into pine sap for his misbegotten iconoclasm
about 1939. But, on either n.g., is there really such a glut of on-
topic, grammatical, properly spelled posts?... so many that we can
crucify, on suspicion of Insincerity, *any* that stimulate substantial
and equally on-topic response. Who cares if 1939's been mentioned
before?... isn't it on a permanent three-way rotation with THE
SEARCHERS and "those damned black bars on my screen"? Who cares if
the opening salvo was colorful?... isn't this Usenet, where extreme
language is appreciated, and seldom implies the poster's actually with
a razor's reach of self-mutilation over the issue? If you guys are
roasting Gondo for *past* wrongs, then I'll bring marshmallows in the
name of Original Sin. But, hell, now you've got me afraid to post my
paean to 1968...
Kingo Gondo
--
DJ is a permanent state of war with me for a variety of reasons. One, he
likes to believe this is his newsgroup, so he can tell us what on-topic film
subjects we can talk about. Simply skipping threads that don't interest him
is somehow impossible.
He is also annoyed because I have previously mocked his infantile religious
beliefs. Now, you might say "I see... well, that is sort of nasty sport,
maybe you DO deserve some blowback, however misdirected". But the kicker
is/was DJ has/had no problem himself mocking the idiocy of the religious
beliefs of others. So, for example, while he is perfectly happy to dump on
the evangelical losers, if, perchance, in doing the same thing someone ELSE
expresses some generally atheistic notion, well then--he is all in a
dither!. Don't threaten the existence of the Great Sky Daddy! (only the
more obviously moronic permutations that others have on Him.). Sort of like
the Great Oz, no?
This really gets us full circle because the common thread is that adults
cannot easily shake the vestiges of the their childhood. So, if you threaten
or belittle those beloved things that they received from mommy and
daddy--whether it is a cherished MGM musical or "The God Bullshit We Believe
In This House"--they are going to get extraordinarily pissy on you.
So it goes.
william
But, hell, now you've got me afraid to post my
> paean to 1968...
>
Any chance you could do it in couplets?
William
www.williamahearn.com
David Oberman
>This really gets us full circle because the common thread is
>that adults cannot easily shake the vestiges of the their childhood.
>So, if you threaten or belittle those beloved things that they
>received from mommy and daddy--whether it is a cherished MGM
>musical or "The God Bullshit We Believe In This House"--they are
>going to get extraordinarily pissy on you.
Hey now!! The reasons I love OZ stand independent of my childhood
vestiges!!
If I were arguing instead that Eddie Bracken's performance in HAIL THE
CONQUERING HERO is comic perfection, you wouldn't ascribe my opinion
to the vestiges of childhood!!
The things I'm praising Bert Lahr for in OZ are characteristics that
children don't even understand!! They aren't responding to the
vaudeville traditions & delivery & even the radio-play tricks, & they
aren't responding to the verbal gags of the screenplay ("I want to see
the crowned heads of Europe." "What? Do you know any?" ... "What makes
the Hottentot so hot?" ... "You, my friend, are a victim of
disorganized thinking.").
And what other MGM musical screenplay better exemplifies the beauties
of zeugma?
"I hope my strength holds out!"
"I hope your tail holds out!"
It's as funny as Groucho's zeugma: "Time flies like an arrow. Fruit
flies like a banana."
How can you not be amused by THE WIZARD OF OZ, Kingo. I'm ashamed to
call you my pal.
Derek Janssen
> "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This really gets us full circle because the common thread is
>> that adults cannot easily shake the vestiges of the their childhood.
>> So, if you threaten or belittle those beloved things that they
>> received from mommy and daddy--whether it is a cherished MGM
>> musical or "The God Bullshit We Believe In This House"--they are
>> going to get extraordinarily pissy on you.
>
> Hey now!! The reasons I love OZ stand independent of my childhood
> vestiges!!
>
> children don't even understand!!
(Unless they made the connection with the old Hanna-Barbera Snagglepuss
cartoons early on--
It was easier to remember Lahr's shticks in the 50's and 60's, what with
him doing those potato-chip commercials and all, but kids today have to
make the usual "Oh, a *lion*, I get it!" head-thump.)
> They aren't responding to the
> vaudeville traditions & delivery & even the radio-play tricks, & they
> aren't responding to the verbal gags of the screenplay ("I want to see
> the crowned heads of Europe." "What? Do you know any?" ... "What makes
> the Hottentot so hot?" ... "You, my friend, are a victim of
> disorganized thinking.").
>
> And what other MGM musical screenplay better exemplifies the beauties
> of zeugma?
>
> "I hope my strength holds out!"
> "I hope your tail holds out!"
Noel Langley wrote the Alastair Sim "Christmas Carol".
Noel Langley wrote "Northwest Passage".
Noel Langley directed "Pickwick Papers".
Noel Langley cleaned up MGM's loopier "star-studded extravaganza" Oz
ideas, brought the movie back to book formula, artificially replicated
better Baum dialogue than L. Frank could, and even wrote in
text-faithful cameo characters for Frank Morgan.
...No attention-starved shtick-beating jerk picks on Noel Langley in my
neighborhood. :)
Derek Janssen (it's called "desperation", Dave, just ignore it)
eja...@verizon.net
Kingo Gondo
"David Oberman" <dobe...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:lg5555pf8dmb97phl...@4ax.com...
> "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>This really gets us full circle because the common thread is
>>that adults cannot easily shake the vestiges of the their childhood.
>>So, if you threaten or belittle those beloved things that they
>>received from mommy and daddy--whether it is a cherished MGM
>>musical or "The God Bullshit We Believe In This House"--they are
>>going to get extraordinarily pissy on you.
>
> Hey now!! The reasons I love OZ stand independent of my childhood
> vestiges!!
>
> If I were arguing instead that Eddie Bracken's performance in HAIL THE
> CONQUERING HERO is comic perfection, you wouldn't ascribe my opinion
> to the vestiges of childhood!!
Well, there you go. Bracken just doesn't work for me, but I prefer him in
The Miracle of Morgan's Creek if I have to have him.
I want a divorce.
moviePig
> On Jul 6, 6:36 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> But, hell, now you've got me afraid to post my> paean to 1968...
>
> Any chance you could do it in couplets?
Sure. Unless, of course, you mean 'non-zero'...
(Besides, by 1968 we're sort-of moving into Anglicized haiku.)
moviePig
> In article <v_-dnbZ8J6Lfmc_XnZ2dnUVZ_hmdn...@earthlink.com>, "Kingo Gondo"
>
> <kingo_nospam_go...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Sorry, never frightened me either.
>
> >I do remember War of the Worlds frightening me, however.
>
Then the volume was too low. It was supposed to destroy your
hippocampus region...
berk
But what of 'Zardoz'?
berk
Kingo Gondo
"berk" <bayar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:220d2915-d894-4926...@g7g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> But what of 'Zardoz'?
>
>
> berk
A terrible blemish on an otherwise superb movie year.
David Oberman
>Well, there you go. Bracken just doesn't work for me, but I prefer him in
>The Miracle of Morgan's Creek if I have to have him.
>
>I want a divorce.
No need. See the following:
http://www.beethoven-haus-bonn.de/sixcms/detail.php//startseite_digitales_archiv_en