Another of my silly questions...

[srowley75]

What reason would you give for watching the same movie repeatedly?

I can name three:

1. Script. A good script can do wonders for a movie, especially a bright comedy script that keeps the one-liners flying, or a tightly-written drama with thoughtful dialogue. Some great scripts:

*Bringing Up Baby
*Duck Soup
*My Man Godfrey
*The Awful Truth
*The Miracle of Morgan's Creek
*His Girl Friday
*All About Eve
*The Lion in Winter (the play and film)

2. Connections - as in, I often establish connections with characters, situations, etc. that cause me to want to revisit certain pictures when I'm in just the right mood.

*Auntie Mame
*The Bank Dick/It's a Gift/The Man on the Flying Trapeze
*City Lights
*To Kill a Mockingbird
*The Miracle Worker
*Now, Voyager
*The Mating Season

3. Status - Every now and then, I do like to revisit the greatly great films to see what new insights I can derive from them. Like:

*Rashomon
*Rules of the Game
*8 1/2
*Citizen Kane
*Modern Times
*M
*Psycho

Hope those are good enough answers - after 3 straight days of working 12+hours per day, I don't think I can be expected to do much better...

-Stephen

[Hollis]

Friday night's prime time lineup begins with "The Music Man" which I don't think has ever aired on TCM before. I've got the film on DVD but haven't watched it for at least the last year, so chances are I'll be tuning in even though I've seen it at least ten times over the years. Except for the silent films, which I just can't abide (and make no apologies for) musicals are my least favorite films but there are a handful that are more than worth the time it takes to watch them. It's funny, but movies that haven't come off the shelf and into my DVD player for extended periods will somehow catch my attention when they're shown on TV and reel me in (no pun intended) every time! "The Music Man" is one of them and it happens to be my favorite musical. A couple of the replies to my original question seemed almost antagonistic in their tone, like I was challenging them to find a valid reason. Let me assure you I wasn't! There are films out there that I'll watch no matter how many times I've seen them previously. "Now, Voyager," "Pride and Prejudice" and "Red River" are perfect examples. In their defense however, those replies did originate (for the most part) from people that appear to be far more serious students of film than I am. I'm just along for the ride. Movies entertain me and I let them take me along with them, like being on a river in a rudderless boat. Sometimes it's a whitewater trip down the Colorado and other times it's tubing down the Chatahoochee through Atlanta, slow and deliberate. Strangely enough, I can sometimes go from one right to the other with no segue. A good movie is a good movie and some even seem to get better with time. I've never experienced one going sour on me.

Have a great afternoon,

Hollis

[srowley75]

A couple of the replies to my original question seemed almost antagonistic in their tone, like I was challenging them to find a valid reason. Let me assure you I wasn't!

Hey Hollis,

Sorry if I came across that way. I reread my response and I could see how you might read what I penned as somewhat antagonistic - and let me assure you as well that wasn't my intention. I guess working so much has, in fact, been taking its toll on my abilities to read and understand how I come across in some of my posts...

But I have a ton of films I watch over and over, and I understand why others would feel the same way.

[Hollis]

Stephen, absolutely no offense was taken in this quarter. I was just a little surprised, that's all. As my medical condition worsens over time, I spend more and more time watching movies. TCM for the "Classics" and NetFlix for the more modern and documentary releases. Right now, "Shadow of a Doubt" is on, I've seen it at least a half dozen times and I still find it a superb movie and watch each time it airs and I'm aware of it. Joseph Cotten has always been one of my favorite leads and Henry Travers one of my favorite character actors, so finding them together in the same film, and a Hitchcock film at that, is always a treat! Don't give my response a second thought, just keep posting. I always enjoy what you have to say, whether or not I agree with it is of no consequence, I continue to learn from what you have to say. Have a terrific holiday and thanks for your reply.

Red, white and bluishly,

Hollis

[Mr. O'Brady]

Movies don't all have to be classics to be repeaters, do they?

Certainly not in my case. I listed two great ones, but I doubt most people would consider most of my favorites among their top choices. I do, however, think all of Margaret O'Brien's films are among the greatest achievements in cinema.

[Hollis]

Pat, I wouldn't know how to begin rating films as to their significance in the history of cinema, so I can't argue with you. At the same time I can't honestly say that I agree with you, either. Does that make any sense? What I do know is that of all the child actors I've ever seen, Ms O'Brien was by far the best and most natural of them all. Her performances were well ahead of her years. It was almost as though she had a genetic predisposition to acting. How she did what she did at her age is beyond my ability to comprehend. The only other actor/actress that I would put into the same class with her would be Jodie Foster. I see Shirley Temple as something of a caricature and with all due respect to Mickey Rooney, Judy Garland and Elizabeth Taylor, I think they were all considerably older than Margaret O'Brien by the time their appearances in film could be called "significant."

All the best,

Hollis

[mrsl]

Hollis:

I agree with most of what you say, except Margaret and Shirley. Shirley was so little when she started, and from the very beginning, the way she could sing, dance, cry, etc. was amazing to me. Although her mother tried to pass her off as 4, she was really 5, but did it all right off the bat. Margaret was 7 or 8 by the time she started singing and dancing. Maybe I'm being picky but I admit I've always been in awe of Shirley Temple.

To your original question though. I've seen Kevin Costner on one of the channels I watch lately wherein asked about his classic movies, he says :(approximately) Whenever I make a movie I try to make it applicable to current times so that in 20 or 30 years, it will still be currently important.

Anne

[Mr. O'Brady]

Hollis, I was kidding about all of O'Brien's films being cinematically awe-inspiring. MGM didn't give her the best material, but she took whatever they gave her and ran with it. I'm not a fan of most child actors, either, just her, Roddy McDowell, and Peggy Ann Garner, really. While I love kids, child actors can really get on my nerves much of the time. Few rarely come across as real to me.

As for Shirley Temple, an amazing talent, better than most adults of her time and beyond. But I do consider her more of an all-around performer than actress. The cuteness factor tends to wear thin on my cynical brain after a while, and to me, her early films had a child-pageant feel to them. But to be honest, I haven't watched one of her pre-1940's movies in at least twenty years, so I'm probably being unfair. I've become much more sentimental in my old age. Maybe I'll try to watch one again, but TCM rarely plays them.

Regarding Margaret O'Brien's singing talents, I'll hold my tongue.

[Hollis]

In all honesty Pat, I'm not very well versed when it comes to Roddy McDowell's career as a child star. I knew he started early (relatively speaking) but was unaware he was known as a child star. Your analogy to a child's beauty pageant is dead on. Shirley Temple always struck me as a one dimensional talent. I think that her appearance in "Since You Went Away" in 1944 (at the ripe old age of 16) proves my point. If it couldn't be sung (in a child's voice) or danced, her performance suffered badly. It was David Selznick's attempt to resuscitate her career that she was cast in the role at all. It didn't work. It labored to breathe from there on.

Mrsl, Margaret O'Brien was never known primarily as a musical talent and I don't think that she was ever pointed in that direction ("Meet Me in St. Louis" being the notable exception, she was 7 at the time.) She could handle dialogue on an even footing with the adult stars she appeared with. Watch "Our Vines Have Tender Grapes" (starring Edward G. Robinson, no slouch when it came to dialogue) the next time it airs on TCM and you'll see just what I mean (she was 8 at the time.) Remember too, that Shirley Temple was a star during the Depression, when 85 million people a week went to the movies because it was escapism and the only entertainment they could afford and Margaret O'Brien wasn't born until 1937 when the Depression was drawing to a close. "Perception is reality" it's been said. Even though Shirley has 45 film credits to her name, her career was all but over by the time she was 10. Margaret has but 25 credits on her resume but if you compare the two you'll see that Ms O'Brien's roles were far more varied and demanding. Check them both out at TCMdb.com and I think you'll see what I mean. To my mind, quality always outweighs quantity.

I hope you both have a great weekend and enjoyed the holiday!

As always,

Hollis

[Mr. O'Brady]

Careful, Hollis. It's a Coke-Pepsi, Aggie-Longhorn, Benny Goodman-Artie Shaw no-win argument when comparing the two! They each had their niche. One of these days I'll give Temple another chance.

[Hollis]

Pat, I'm at a disadvantage. Not being able to hear the tone of your voice or see the look on your face, I don't always know when you're kidding and when you're playing it straight! I should know better. I'm the guy that went to the dictionary when someone told me the word "gullible" wasn't listed! How easy can you be?

Seeya,

Hollis

[charliechaplinfan]

I've only ever seen Shirley temple as an adult performer, in The Bachelor and the Bobby Soxer, she was OK but she was playing with big stars Cary Grant and Myrna Loy, it's difficult to hold the camera against those two.

Margaret O'Brien, when she knocks down the snowmen and when Judy sings Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas to her, well that's part of what makes that film so perfect.

[mrsl]

Sorry Hollis:

I should have been more specific. I didn't really mean to compare Shirley and Margaret on musical talents at all.

As someone said, Shirley gave the U.S. something to smile about during a very trying time and many older folks would always be grateful to her for that. Margaret, on the other hand was a phenomenal dramatic little actress. Journey for Margaret, Meet Me In St. Louis, Our Vines Have Tender Grapes, and so many others, she could make a grown man cry with barely trying. She was the voice of WWII. She could say on film what many people wanted to say, but didn't know how. Shirley could also bring on a tear, as could Natalie Wood, along with Margaret. They were all very special in their own ways and trying to compare them is apples and oranges.

Anne

[Mr. O'Brady]

...I don't always know when you're kidding and when you're playing it straight!

That's the way I like it, Hollis, keeps everyone on their toes! Seriously, I'm so used to TCM's Message Boards that I expected someone to pounce all over your gentle criticism of Temple and turn this into a free-for-all child star bashing. After a couple of months here, I should know better. This is the civilized world rather than the jungle.

[srowley75]

Have a terrific holiday and thanks for your reply.

Red, white and bluishly,

Hollis

Hey Hollis,

Hope you had a good 4th as well. And I hope you have brighter days ahead.

-Stephen