|
Post by geode on Apr 4, 2019 7:09:22 GMT
Finally got around to watching it and really enjoyed it. I even recognized many of the clips and got the in-joke references. Watched it with a friend who knows nothing about old movies and thereby wasn't distracted by the "where is that from ?" aspect and he liked it too. It is more fun I think if one likes old movies. When this first came out there was a standee in the lobby of the theater where I worked with a full size picture of Steve Martin as Rigby Reardon. There was a small speaker hidden behind his mouth and about once every minute he would speak. "Smile or I'll blow your lips off"...and other phrases uttered by Steve Martin.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 4, 2019 7:01:34 GMT
I saw it in first release with 4-track magnetic sound on the big screen where I worked as a projectionist. MGM soon cut it, with some of the best scenes edited out(especially with John Mills). Thank God Brando wasn't in this as he would not have been believable. The storm sequence is incredible on a big screen. i did not find MITCHUM believable. Brando was in his mid-40s so the whole plot premise would have not worked. Rosy would have been involved with two older men. Mitchum was at least the correct age for his part. Christopher Jones and Sarah Miles were the same age, making their affair logical. It would not have been with Brando.
|
|
|
KOTCH
Apr 4, 2019 6:46:26 GMT
Post by geode on Apr 4, 2019 6:46:26 GMT
If anyone else had been the OP on this thread, this statement would be challenged and so ...
Kotch dotes on his grandchild. HOW does this make him a pedophile ? I think her pedophile comment perhaps stems from a perception of changing social norms such as what is hurting Joe Biden. I don't think either Joe Biden or Joe Kotcher have motives that were meant to exploit or upset anybody.
"Here, Matthau plays an elderly bachelor who adores children. Today, he would be labelled a pedophile. When I saw this movie in a theater, there were audible gasps from the audience during one scene where Kotch delivers a playful spank to a little girl in a bathing suit."
I guess New York was radically different than California in 1971. There were no gasps by audiences in the theater where I worked in Burlingame, nor should there have been. I saw this scene play out a few times with audiences. The way the scene is played it has already revealed to us what the nature of the character is like, one who simply loves kids like a grandpa. Some mothers who see his action in the wading pool take it differently but we as an audience already know he is just innocently comforting a crying little girl. His sports analogy about acceptable cultural norms when a complaint is filed satisfies the park official and his son, but not the mother of the girl.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 3, 2019 19:15:59 GMT
I saw it in first release with 4-track magnetic sound on the big screen where I worked as a projectionist. MGM soon cut it, with some of the best scenes edited out(especially with John Mills).
Thank God Brando wasn't in this as he would not have been believable. The storm sequence is incredible on a big screen.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 3, 2019 18:24:23 GMT
Perhaps Jesus was perceived as a future threat as his movement was growing. Once again, crucifixion for anything less than crimes against state authority was unlikely. linkcruxifiction was not mandated solely for sedition but let’s pretend it was. I’m still not arguing that Jesus wasn’t convicted of sedition only that just because that was the basis, it didn’t mean his sedition was a significant threat. You have not made a case for significant use of crucifixion outside of threats to the state. My premise is that the crucifixion by itself is an indication that Jesus was considered a threat to Roman rule, a leaderof an incipient revolution. How you view his threat is not what counts, it is how the Romans at that time viewed it. Look how significant the Christian movement became just a few decades after the crucifixion.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 3, 2019 18:10:33 GMT
He did more than he was required to do to spare Christ from crucifixion, and probably more than any other Roman procurator would have done in his place, but by all means you just go on affixing guilt, why don't you? I was the first to vote "innocent"...
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 3, 2019 17:18:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 3, 2019 11:28:06 GMT
If you restrict your evaluation to the Bible as history then what you are saying here is reasonable. But the Romans used crucifixion as a means of execution for crimes against the state. They were unlikely to pay any attention to Jewish authorities asking for death over heresy oe execute Jesus for anything other that a threat to their authority. I'm looking at it pretty secularly since the Bible paints Jesus' influence as huge given that his narrative is targeted by default to a specific group - his apostles and disciples. His message is all-encompassing despite it being heavily localised. The Romans were pretty cruel and they killed people across any number of methods and crucifixion was used against more than seditionists. However, it makes sense Jesus was killed for sedition which I'm not sure the Bible contradicts anyway. Anyone that challenges Rome's right to rule would likely get the same treatment That is different from killing him because he was actually a threat to their power. Perhaps Jesus was perceived as a future threat as his movement was growing. Once again, crucifixion for anything less than crimes against state authority was unlikely. link
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 3, 2019 11:12:38 GMT
I don't think any history is free of bias, including the Bible. Looking at history through a lens of logic it seems likely that what resulted in the death of Jesus was the Roman authorities thinking that Jesus had committed sedition and was a threat to their authority. I don't necessarily think Jesus was ever influential enough to even get Rome's attention. He had to be brought to their attention. For most of his ministry he was basically a sideshow attraction for people wanting to be cured of something or wanting to hear a good story. During his tme on Earth after his resurrection, there were at best several hundred following him as disciples. By the time of Pentecost which would have had most Jews in Jerusalem, even that had dropped down to about 120. Really, considering the problems they had with Judea, a change of leadership may have benefitted them anyway. If you restrict your evaluation to the Bible as history then what you are saying here is reasonable. But the Romans basically used crucifixion as a means of execution for crimes against the state. Think about Spartacus and his followers. They were unlikely to pay any attention to Jewish authorities asking for death over heresy to execute Jesus for anything other that a threat to their authority.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 3, 2019 8:35:26 GMT
I don't think any history is free of bias, including the Bible. Looking at history through a lens of logic it seems likely that what resulted in the death of Jesus was the Roman authorities thinking that Jesus had committed sedition and was a threat to their authority.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 3, 2019 8:20:43 GMT
There's a story that the producer and/or director lost a reel or more because he was DUMB enough to take them on his boat when he was on a small lake and the reel/s fell in the water. That's why he supposedly had to put in the narration that he did. I thought the narration was mainly to take the place of dialogue since the flick was not shot with synchronous sound. There are laughable scenes where the narrator's voice actually lip syncs with a female character doing her dialogue.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 3, 2019 8:09:31 GMT
OT a bit but related, this article about Lemmon from The Guardian mentions Kotch (twice ) www.theguardian.com/news/2001/jun/29/guardianobituaries.filmnews2"During the early 1970s, Lemmon's run of good fortune continued. His only directorial effort, Kotch, was widely praised," "He also directed one feature, Kotch (1971), starring Matthau, and, via his own company, Jalem, co-produced many of his own movies, as well as the highly successful Cool Hand Luke (1967), starring Paul Newman" Never even knew he was a movie Producer as well as an actor
Some actors try directing and simply don't find it a good fit ...for instance Laughton and Brando also were one time directors. geode . Thanks for running this info down. I have kept my eyes open since 1971 about Jack Lemmon as a director and seen very little. I wonder if the trivia entry at IMDb is just conjecture? Yes, Laughton only did it once but look how good he was at it. I think his direction is almost universally praised. Brando sort of did more than one, I think a large portion of "Mutiny on the Bounty" was directed by him....rather poorly in my opinion. Lemmon's approach to "Kotch" was not showy or intrusive, but effective in a straight-foward manner. He apparently was very good with actors, I don't think there is a false note in any of the performances.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 2, 2019 21:42:36 GMT
I'm not sure that "The Andy Griffith Show" is really a spin-off of "Make Room for Daddy"....it was more a case of there being a pilot made as an episode. This was common back in that era. It isn't as if any of the characters, plot or premise from The Danny Thomas show continued into the show that was piloted. Still counts as a spin-off. Not in my world, as I have already explained. There were other pilots back then that resulted in series that had nothing to do with the parent show, like this one. If the rather dreadful Star Trek episode "Assignment Earth" had led to a series it would have borne no resemblance to Star Trek.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 2, 2019 21:33:52 GMT
Where in the world did you see this? I have been after it since the early days of home video. I saw it in first release when it played the theater in which I was a projectionist. Marlene Jobert was infinitely sexier than Mia Farrow.
It is coming out on blu-ray next week.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 2, 2019 20:56:01 GMT
Just a random question: Let's name spin-offs from the 1960s. Those that immediately come to my mind: "Trumpton" and "Chigley" were spin-offs from "Camberwick Green". All three were stop-motion animation series aired on the BBC. "Pete and Gladys" was a spin-off from "December Bride". Both were popular U.S. sitcoms that the critics hated. The sitcom "Pardon the Expression" was a spin-off from the soap opera "Coronation Street" The obscure but great crime mini-series "Spindoe" was a spin-off from "The Man in Room 17" "Bootsie and Snudge" was a spin-off from "The Army Game". Both were popular UK sitcoms "Rita and Wally" was a spin-off from "My Name's McGooley, What's Yours?" (and both were among the very few 1960s Australian sitcoms) Can you fine people name some other spin-offs from the 1960s? EDIT: Just thought of some others: "Gomer Pyle: USMC" and "Mayberry R.F.D." were spin-offs from "The Andy Griffith Show", which in turn was a spin-off from " Make Room for Daddy". I'm not sure that "The Andy Griffith Show" is really a spin-off of "Make Room for Daddy"....it was more a case of there being a pilot made as an episode. This was common back in that era. It isn't as if any of the characters, plot or premise from The Danny Thomas show continued into the show that was piloted.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 2, 2019 20:48:38 GMT
Later on in the series, Sgt. Carter became much softer--he even had a GF, Bunny, and they often went on double dates with Gomer and Luann. Yes, this is true.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 2, 2019 20:19:49 GMT
This may be in a league all its own. Dumbest monster ever to be sure.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 2, 2019 10:41:33 GMT
Theists: What's your opinion of these well known religious figures, past and present (feel free to add to this list): Jimmy Swaggart, Robert Tilton, Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Jesse DuPlantis, Billy Graham, Jim Bakker, Jerry Falwell, Mike Murdock, Peter Popoff These are just a few of the ones off the top of my head. Personally, I think they are/were scum of the earth who pray/prayed on the desperate and gullible. "If you give the Lord (i.e. ME) money, the Lord will return it to you ten fold". Many of these televangelists have their own private jets. Kenneth Copeland has his own airport. In an online Youtube video, Kenneth and Jesse Duplantis are telling how "necessary" a private jet has become. Kenneth called a commercial airline, "A long tube with a bunch of demons." What an arrogant asshole. Billy Graham was the only legit one out of that bunch. Verses like this sum up the rest of them. “and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.”1 TIMOTHY 6:5 Billy Graham was totally legit. I think Jim Bakker started out as the real thing but got corrupted.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 2, 2019 10:36:26 GMT
Did Pope Francis deny the existence of hell? link
|
|
|
Post by geode on Apr 2, 2019 10:34:14 GMT
This reminds me of all the hubbub a year ago over an interview with Pope Francis. link
|
|