Overlooked Films--Great films (most of) the world missed

[Sara B]

Very nice. And as some of the positive comments said, it all seemed so simple and low-key...

[Paul029]

Did you watch any of the other video from that
poster?

Yes, I did, Lyle. Great movies, and very addictive. 
And thanks again for the link.

Here's a couple:

Jane Fonda Tuesday Weld Anthony Perkins Rock Hudson Lauren Bacall Natalie Wood Judy Garland 1965:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJzsryffz5s

Kirk Douglas Lauren Bacall Paul Newman Lee Remick Ben Gazzara Janice Rule Malibu 1965:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MsvJHwHHQg

Among the comments, the poster, Luke Sacha, wrote that:
we're trying to raise funds for the production of a doc feature showcasing [Roddy’s silent 16mm Kodachrome movies] Here's an 8 minute sample assembly including interviews with Roddy and Kirk Douglas. Hope you find it interesting: "Hollywood 1965" Offline Assembly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=230xIF7XOsA&t=0s

He apologizes for the “15 seconds of bars and tone at head” of the sample. 

[Lyle (Mooska)]

Thanks!  I missed the one at the first link!

I loved to see Suzanne Pleshette; always liked her for some reason.
(I saw her and Tom Post on together in the grocery store once.)

Knowing how many of these celebrities had health issues due to smoking,
it's disheartening to see the prevalence of it, though I remember it quite
well. It was all pervasive and almost no limit on where you could smoke.
That was something not good in "the good ol' days."

[Jeff Wrangler]

I loved to see Suzanne Pleshette; always liked her for some reason.

I did, too, Lyle, from all the way back to Disney's The Ugly Dachshund. 

I was very sad when she died.

[Paul029]

Dorothy Malone obituary
Hollywood star who won an Oscar for her role in Written on the Wind and appeared in the TV soap Peyton Place died in Dallas, Texas on January 19, aged 92.

From The Guardian:

Although the Hollywood star Dorothy Malone appeared in only a handful of works of distinction in a fairly lengthy career, they were good enough to secure her place in film history. On those occasions when the role permitted, most notably in two flamboyant melodramas directed by Douglas Sirk, Written on the Wind (1956) and The Tarnished Angels (1957), Malone revealed what a talented performer she could be, one capable of projecting a potent blend of cynicism, sexuality and intelligence. However, she was probably most familiar to the general public as Constance MacKenzie in Peyton Place (1964-68), one of the first primetime TV soap operas.

In Written on the Wind, Malone played Marylee, an oil heiress, sister of an alcoholic playboy Kyle Hadley (Robert Stack). She’s in love with Kyle’s best friend Mitch (Rock Hudson), but he’s in love with Kyle’s pregnant wife Lucy (Lauren Bacall). Jealous, Marylee convinces Kyle that Lucy’s baby really belongs to Mitch. Her wild erotic dance to a loud mambo beat, intercut with scenes of her father’s fatal heart attack, is one of the great sequences of 1950s Hollywood melodrama. “It was a miracle that I got her to do the scene,” Sirk recalled. “She was very prudish ... I even had to watch my language. If I said, ‘This scene needs more balls’, she’d walk off the set.” Malone, upstaging even Bacall, won the best supporting actress Oscar.

Sirk reunited Malone, Hudson and Stack for The Tarnished Angels, skilfully adapted from the William Faulkner novel Pylon. Stack played a daredevil pilot performing at air shows with Malone as his neglected parachutist wife. She is the film’s fulcrum – vulnerable, naïve and yet with a fierce sexuality – caught between her disillusioned husband and a run-down alcoholic journalist (Hudson). The latter reacts towards her with a mixture of lust and pity, bragging that he “sat up half the night discussing literature and life with a beautiful, half-naked blonde.”

I’ve also seen The Tarnished Angels, of course:

Rock Hudson and Dorothy Malone in The Tarnished Angels

Original theatrical trailer

Criterion review

  Full Guardian obituary

[B.W.]

Jeff, some more info about the GWTW thing:

From a GWTW online site:

GWTW was filmed in a screen aspect ratio of 1.37:1, as all other Hollywood movies of its time were. In the 1950's, to accommodate the introduction of widescreen films, the picture was screened in an aspect ratio of 1.75:1 by simply matting the top and bottom of the picture in the projector gate. Unfortunately, during this re-issue, five shots were optically re-framed to fit this process, forever altered from the film's original state. These include the first and last pull-back shots, the shot of Scarlett running down the driveway of Tara at the end of the first scene, and the shot of Melanie running over a hillock to greet Ashley returning after the war. For its 1967 reissue, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer decided to create "widescreen" 70mm prints by cropping almost 40 percent of the top and bottom of the original image, making a 2.21:1 image. An illustration of what this looked like can be seen here, a comparison of the original frame and the 70mm chop job.



Fortunately, all television showings and all home video releases since then have used the original screen aspect ratio of 1.37:1, or only slightly cropped for television's 1.33:1 image.

___________________

It seems to me that films are always being tampered with. When MGM released GWTW in that 70mm version it was also in Metrocolor and not Technicolor. I didn't know about all these framing things and widescreen and 70mm and different color processes when I first saw the film when I was in college.  It turns out I saw a Metrocolor print and Metrocolor is a lot more stark and blue-ish than technicolor and I didn't care for it, especially on hindsight. Also, when I first saw it there was no intermission!  I knew there was one and kept wondering when it was supposed to occur!

I think people mostly just think that a film is made and then that's how it is.  Over the years I've learned in many ways that's not the case at all. And since I got up two hours earlier than I ordinarily do, I'll babble with five examples:

1.  --The GWTW example above is one. Besides some revival theatre showings of GWTW that were faded prints and looked sepia and had missing reels, I attended an AMPAS event they held in the early 80's. It was a two-day affair. They showed GWTW on Friday night, Selznick's personal print, by the way, and the next day held a several hour long seminar on the making of the film. We saw several entire screen tests and comparisons of the different color releases (Technicolor and Metrocolor that I mentioned) and how special effects were done, different sound manifestations and a myriad of things. Some people who worked on the film were actually there.  A lot of these things had never been shown or seen publicly at that time. It was, after all, before the internet and mass media, and at the dawn of vhs.  There was one screen test they showed of Paulette Goddard, who by all accounts would have gotten the role had Vivien Leigh not appeared, but the presenter lamented that the soundtrack for her screen test had been lost. It was exciting years later when I saw some program or documentary about GWTW and they showed that screen test, with the sound! It had been found!

2.  --AMPAS had a screening of The King and I (ten years ago was it?) where they showed it, the first time ever, in the aspect ratio it actually had been filmed in. I don't want to say something I don't recall properly, but...    Okay I just looked up some info to see if anything was online about it. There's this:

Paul Mayer: AMPAS and 20th Century Fox will be screening a new restoration of The King and I at the Samuel Goldwyn Theatre in Beverly Hills, Friday, August 20, 2004 at 8:00pm. They claim this screening will be the first public showing of the film in its original aspect ratio, the print having been struck from the 55mm 0-neg. A new 4-track Dolby Digital soundtrack has also been created from the original 4-track masters. I'm planning on driving down for this--a rare chance to see a film that both of my parents worked on. And to see it on a big screen in such a great theatre too!

If you're interested in tech geeks talking about these kinds of things, aspect ratios and resolutions and on and on--here's the link:
http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/f8/t003483.html

3.  --In 1994 when they restored MY FAIR LADY and had a theatrical release, I totally realized the difference between 35mm prints of a film and 70mm.
Not too long before that I had seen a 35mm version in a theatre. The restored 60mm version was so breathtaking to me that I believe I went to see it at least three times in the theatre. Maybe 5 times.

4.  --This example shocked the hell out of me.  I had never seen The Godfather when it came out in 1972 and always thought I should have seen it in a movie theatre instead of on TV by way of VHS on a pan and scan version. So, when Paramount had a theatrical release of it and showed it at the Chinese Theatre (which has a brief cameo in the film when they show a Hollywood vista) I went to see it there. I have never been one of those people who are huge fans of this film and it's one of their favorite films, it's too long for my tastes, and a bit over-indulgent, but on a film making level I appreciate it and the excitement it incurred upon release for some of it's famous scenes is not to be denied.  Which is why I attended AMPAS's screening of it in the 1990's when they were showing all of their Best Picture winners to celebrate their 75th Anniversary. At the event they said they were showing a print, the way audiences saw it when it was released in 1972. It was an archive print made in 1972. I won't have the exact specifications and wording, but apparently all of the prints were originally made by a technicolor Kodak processing company in Hollywood that closed down. Even though new prints can be processed from the original elements, this processing company's product looked slightly, if that's the word, different for reasons tech geeks could explain, but I cannot. In any event, I didn't think it would be much of a difference, but I was bowled over when they showed the film. It had a much more appealing nature to it than any VHS, TV, or the public screening I saw at the Chinese before. It was my favorite viewing of the film ever and I'm glad I saw it. Now, with computers so influencing the film industry, I wonder if it's possible to digitally duplicate that look from existing film prints. Probably is and maybe they already did.

5.  --The Sting is my last example of films looking different or our perception of things.  This is one of my favorite films and one of the first I bought on vhs and subsequently dvd. People online kept wanting it to be released in widescreen, the way it was in theatres, and eventually it was, but in looking at different discussions online I discovered something completely interesting. The director of The Sting, George Roy Hill, conceived the film as though it had actually been made in the 1930's. That's one reason they got out the old 1930's logo that Universal used then for the beginning of the film. However, George Roy Hill also wanted to shoot the film in the 35mm look of films made in the 30's and 40's.
(The square box look of all 30's films. I believe you know what I mean.) That's the way he wanted to have the film released into theatres. I believe I recall that he wanted it to look like a picture you'd come across on tv on the late show that makes you stay up all night watching it. Universal, of course, wanted no such thing. So, the film was released in widescreen. I don't recall ever reading the details of the filming, but George Roy Hill actually filmed it in the format he wanted it to be. But, like the widescreen GWTW of the 1950's the film would be shown in widescreen by "matting the top and bottom of the picture in the projector gate." Hill knew this, I'm assuming, so he directed it like it was to be seen in widescreen so that when the film was matted and shown that way, no one was deprived of anything he wanted you to see. No foreheads cut off or props disappearing too soon out of view. What this all means, though, is that when the film was sown on TV and first put onto vhs, all that was done was that the matting was removed from the top and bottom of the picture, meaning what audiences are seeing is actually more picture, not less, than is usually the case. There is no pan & scan because the entire picture is there and "more" on the top of the screen and bottom. When I was reading people talking about this I was confused, but eventually "got it." I don't know of any other film like this, although there probably is some. So The Sting has always looked good on TV (when we all had square box TV's) because none of the picture was lost and we were actually seeing MORE picture.  Many were accustomed to wanting their favorite films to be put on dvd's in their widescreen formats as seen in theatres, so you'd get the full picture which was usually cropped on either side, so when some were trying to say that you were actually getting LESS picture by doing that with The Sting, it made no sense, even though the widescreen is what was shown in theatres. As a film tech site says, "The Sting was shot open matte in order to evoke the feeling of 1930s cinema, which had a 4:3 or "Academy standard" Aspect Ratio.  Knowing that the film would be cropped by less-aware projectionists, it was shot to work in both the original Academy and standard 35mm ratios as well as respecting the cropping margins for broadcast." It makes sense to me now, did I explain it properly so it makes sense to you?

It's amazing to see how successful "Gone with the Wind" (1939) was during its original theatrical release.  It was kind of a megablockbuster for its time.  It is such a long movie, but is an impressive piece of filmmaking.  Epic theatrical films like "Gone with the Wind", Cecil B. Demille's remake of "The Ten Commandments" (1956), William Wyler's remake of "Ben-Hur" (1959), "Doctor Zhivago" (1965), "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962) and "Spartacus" (1963)  aren't really made that much anymore, and I think it is kind of a shame.  I cannot imagine younger generations of moviegoers in 2018 who are in their 20s or 30s being very intrigued with a film like "Gone with the Wind" because many of them would probably consider the film as being "too old-fashioned" by today's standards.

[B.W.]

Saw two over the holiday that are worth seeking out.  The first, and best, is "Un Amour a Taire" ("A Love to Hide"), which is available on DVD from Picture This! Home Video.  Not a perfect film by any means but one that addresses an arcane subject: the reeducation by Nazis of homosexuals in Vichy France.  It's extremely brutal, but it features a superb performance by Jeremie Renier, who is getting a lot of buzz this year for his role as a teenage father who sells his own baby in "The Child."  Also noteworty, but probably a matter of taste, is a 3-part TV miniseries from Britain, "The Line of Beauty," on BBC Video, which is based on the Booker-prize winning novel by Alan Hollinghurst.  If you know anything about Thatcher's England in the 1980s, a period of excess that included the introduction of AIDS and the Falklands War, this might appeal to you.  But the characters are mostly unsympathetic, and the story lacks cohesion (as in the novel).  Nick Guest (get it ?) comes to live with the family of an up-and-coming Tory politician who lives to please "The Lady."  Nick's entree into this world is the politician's straight son Toby (this thread goes nowhere), but he stays on to look after Toby's dysfunctional sister, Cat (whose name may as well be short for catalyst as well as Catherine).  There are some grand moments, as when Nick takes Thatcher for a turn on the dance floor, but it all leaves a pretty sour taste in the mouth.  Nick goes on to live with the Feddens for four years, at the end of which he is sadder but probably no wiser.  The actors do a fine job, and there are some pretty weighty issues bandied about, but you'll have to decide for yourself whether you want to invest three hours in the lives of these, ultimately, unattractive people.

Did anyone else besides me see the theatrical documentary film "Paragraph 175" (2000) about the persecution of homosexual men by the Nazis during the Holocaust?  I've heard of the theatrical film "Bent" (1997) that deals with the romantic relationship between two gay men in a concentration camp, but I have never seen it.  Having been raised as a Jehovah's Witness, I knew about the persecution of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Jews by the Third Reich during World War II, I was always fascinated by the story of famed Holocaust victim Anne Frank, but I didn't know about what the gay men went through.  How many gay men died during or managed to survive the Holocaust exactly, does anyone know? Personally, I thought "Paragraph 175" was a bit too short and felt that so much more could have and should have been said about the horrors that LGBT people faced from the Nazis.  The last openly gay male survivor of the Holocaust died a few years ago, I believe.

[gattaca]

Yes, I've seen Bent (1997) - Clive Owen is one of the leads.  It's tough to watch.  There is one particular scene which is sort of famous on YT -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc_c8gq0Eok

Not seen Paragraph 175... 

V.

[Lyle (Mooska)]

I saw Paragraph 175 and agree with your assessment of it as a film. While much of the information is interesting, the documentary isn't really all that compelling.

As for Bent, I saw a stage production of it that was so wonderful it's lingered in my mind for a long time. I had high hopes for the film, but compared to what I thought of the stage version I saw, it just disappointed me immensely and I've had no desire to revisit it.

[oilgun]

I saw Paragraph 175 and agree with your assessment of it as a film. While much of the information is interesting, the documentary isn't really all that compelling.

As for Bent, I saw a stage production of it that was so wonderful it's lingered in my mind for a long time. I had high hopes for the film, but compared to what I thought of the stage version I saw, it just disappointed me immensely and I've had no desire to revisit it.

I saw Bent on Broadway in 1980! Richard Gere and David Dukes played the leads. It really affected me. I was somewhat disappointed with the film. I thought at the time that it was a mistake to include Mick Jagger in the cast. But then, I only saw it that one time so I should give it another go.

[Lyle (Mooska)]

Gil, I seem to recall you mentioning that before!  You got to see
the original cast on Broadway!  Nice!  In the late 70's, too, when
movies and perhaps plays, with LGBT themes were not as prevalent!

(Unfortunately, I always think of David Dukes as the would be rapist of Edith Bunker now.)

[gattaca]

An appropriate listing.  Check out that "Enemy" is on the listing.

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/05/30-singular-films-watch-quarantine/611956/

[oilgun]

Back in November I watched a 2010 film I had never heard of called PEACOCK. It's not really a great film but it was definitely overlooked. Apparently is went straight to DVD despite the impressive cast.. It stars Cillian Murphy, Elliot Page, Susan Sarandon, Bill Pullman, Josh Lucas and Keith Carradine. What a strange film with vibes of Hitchcock's Psycho. Murphy plays John , s solitary bank clerk with mother issues and his alter ego Emma who the folks of the town of Peacock assume is his wife. Interestingly, even though the film was made way before Page announced that he was transgender he is listed as Elliot in the credits.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1188113/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_29

[Lyle (Mooska)]

Interesting find, Gil!

[BlueAmber63]

Just heard of the death of William Hurt. I kinda fell in love with him in
"Children of a Lesser God". I do hope they show it in tribute to him.
He was very picky over what movies he made. The movies he did make
never seem to get shown much on TV.
R.I.P. William.