The first 10 days of stars

[sugarpuss]

I agree with a lot of the posters in this thread: this years SUTS isn't that great. But then, it's hard for me not to compare it to last years selection, which I thought was magnificent! In comparison, I haven't recorded that many movies so far.

I am looking forward to:

Ernest Borgnine (Season of Passion, The Rabbit Trap)
Joan Bennett (The Woman in the Window, The Woman on the Beach)
Rosalind Russell (the majority of the movies, esp. My Sister Eileen. I'm also really glad they got Auntie Mame--it wouldn't be a Roz day without it!)
Ann Miller (the majority, although I'll probably watch On the Town for the hundreth time)
Ronald Regan (for Desperate Journey, a movie I've wanted to see forever)
Buster Keaton (I haven't seen many of his silents and now seems like a good time to start)
Sean Connery (Hell Drivers and A Fine Madness with the marvelous Joanne Woodward. Meteor is absolutely laughable. I love disaster movies as much as the next bad movie lover, but this one is the pits. What a crappy movie to close out SUTS with.)

I was really disappointed in the Jimmy Stewart, William Holden, Doris Day and Spencer Tracy days. I know they're the BIG stars, but it wouldn't kill TCM to bring out their little, lesser known movies. That's one of the reasons I love SUTS--you get all these strange little movies that only film buffs would be interested in seeing and this year, I feel kind of deprived of that. Ann Miller and Rosalind Russell are good examples of what a good SUTS day should be like. Their big movies AND rare ones. Perfect.

Vincent Price day was kind of a bust as well. It would have been nice if they had managed to lease at least one of his movies from Fox. I know he's known for all those AIP movies, but still! He was a fine actor in regular movies as well.

My father is looking forward to Elvis day and Roy Rogers. I never knew my father really dug the Elvis movies until now, so I'm going to tape all of those for him. So yes Virginia, someone is looking forward to Elvis day! LOL.

[markbeckuaf]

I generally agree that SUTS is not as cool overall as year's past, and my first glance at it my thought was "this kinda sucks", but I've taken a re-look at it, and as I mentioned in my first post in this thread, I've found lots to enjoy actually. Disappointing days, yes, but there are some things I'm liking too. And as I can sort of recall, that kinda seems to always be the way with SUTS, doesn't it? It's kind of the nature of the thing---some stars with overplayed films, some stars with films too much in the modern era (that part might be increasing), some stars not on TCM's library that don't get a *real* treatment, etc, etc. I seem to recall some of the same gripes in the past.

[Mr. Arkadin]

sugarpuss, If you've never seen The Hill (Sean Connery day) I highly reccomend it. One of his best films.

[MissGoddess]

Thank you for the Spence schedule, PK! You're right---"same old stuff". The only one of interest is the last, The Murder Man, which I will record.

I wonder if, besides obtaining rights to show, TCM is scheduling these usual pictures for the benefit of new viewers---folks who may not be familiar with these stars. For us who know them well, it's nothing new but there are some, I suppose, who have only seen one or two Rosalind Rusell, Spencer Tracy or Gary Cooper movies. Just a thought.

[pktrekgirl]

^ Well, I think it's a combination of trying to appeal to viewers previously unfamiliar with classic film (I think TCM's whole THRUST this past year has been in that direction, with Underground and Funday Night) and flat-out laziness.

For example, let's take Coop (lets! ), since we are both intimately familiar with his films. I would have no objection whatever to their airing PRIDE OF THE YANKEES and THE WESTERNER for about the billionth time in the past 6 months - IF they threw in a couple of things for the Coop Connoisseurs in the audience. And I don't count THEY CAME TO CORDURA because that film is readily available on DVD. I'm talking some of the more obscure stuff. Stuff that you can't see anywhere on TV or for the price of a DVD. OPERATOR 13, for example. Or NORTHWEST MOUNTED POLICE. Shoot, I'd even settle for SARATOGA TRUNK - that is WB, not on DVD, and they don't play it that often. Or what about GOOD SAM? That is RKO and not on DVD. Or maybe (*gasp*), a silent!!!!

I understand the need to attract new viewers with stuff like PRIDE OF THE YANKEES...but when you put on something like SUTS, it should not be ONLY about attracting new viewers. It should also be about keeping the ones you HAVE interested. And if every single film on Coop's day is available on DVD, what motivation do fans like me have to even tune in?

And as you know, I'd latch on to just about ANY excuse to tune in on THAT particular day!

There is just no reason for the lack of a couple of obscure items, except for laziness - to just go and look stuff up in their own vaults!

And frankly, Coop is not the only victim of this sort of thing during SUTS. Spencer Tracy, Errol Flynn, Myrna Loy...all of them victims of the same thing. Myrna Loy did about a bazillion films - many of them for MGM. So why do we need to see ALL of THE THIN MAN films on her day? Especially since they show the first 2 of them in regular rotation all the time.....

Anyway, you get the idea.

It's just frustrating to look at the days occupied by your favorite stars...and find NOTHING of interest.

[mrsl]

I'm with you all the way pktrek. On Robert Mitchums day, I was more than happy to sit and not move through practically the entire 24 hours, but they did play a couple I had never seen before, and one or two that I had only seen once, so that particular day really held my interest. But as you said, what in the heck was the reasoning in killing the whole late morning and afternoon with The Thin Man? That 7 or 8 hours could easily have been put on from midnight to morning and let the tapes roll. Even though she was good with Powell, she was also great with others, it would have been nice to see some of them. Watching Alan Ladd day, as a 20 year old today, I would think he was a favorite supporting actor and wonder why they put him in SUTS. In the same vein, I would wonder why use Broderick Crawford, and Ernie Borgnine - they were big lugs who played supporting parts almost exclusively, but both happened to fall upon one script where they starred, but that doesn't mean they could carry any other movie on their own.

Anne

[markbeckuaf]

I'm with you all the way pktrek. On Robert Mitchums day, I was more than happy to sit and not move through practically the entire 24 hours, but they did play a couple I had never seen before, and one or two that I had only seen once, so that particular day really held my interest. But as you said, what in the heck was the reasoning in killing the whole late morning and afternoon with The Thin Man? That 7 or 8 hours could easily have been put on from midnight to morning and let the tapes roll. Even though she was good with Powell, she was also great with others, it would have been nice to see some of them. Watching Alan Ladd day, as a 20 year old today, I would think he was a favorite supporting actor and wonder why they put him in SUTS. In the same vein, I would wonder why use Broderick Crawford, and Ernie Borgnine - they were big lugs who played supporting parts almost exclusively, but both happened to fall upon one script where they starred, but that doesn't mean they could carry any other movie on their own.

Anne

Here is the point where I sharply disagree. While I'm not saying that Broderick and Ernie are the best choices for such an example (personally, I'd be picking someone like Frank McHugh or Glenda Farrell or Barton MacLane, but that's me), but I actually kinda like to see supposedly "lesser" tier stars get a day on SUTS. So I can't say I'm unhappy with it, and I'm even looking forward to tons of films on those two days.

Where I do agree is that with a day devoted to a "first" tier star like Alan Ladd, a bit more work should have been done to secure at least a few more of his actual starring roles. We know that with budget limitations, we'd see a few like JOAN OF PARIS, but too many were like that on his day, agreed.

[pktrekgirl]

^ Well, I think the bottom line is that the day should contain a good representation of an actor's work.

I don't really have a problem with Ernest Borgnine - and I do feel like the day was representative. I didn't record that much...but that was because I mostly had all the films, and had seen all the ones I really had a burning desire to see at this point. But I do feel it was representative of his work.

But Alan Ladd? No way. Not a day that was representative of his work in the slightest.

And even though I loved Dana Andrews day, I kinda thought that was a bit non-representative as well. Couldn't be helped because so much of his great noir he did at FOX. But still, it was weird to see all the late horror-ish films and not see stuff like LAURA. What we got was great - it's probably been my favorite day so far. But when I think Dana Andrews, I think "Fox Noir".

[mrsl]

For some reason, this year certain things have come to light for me. They have dug so deeply for movies that have not been previously shown, that I'm learning that many of the movies I thought I had seen the original of, was not an original.

For example, My Sister Eilleen, a Roz Russell vehicle, was the original not the Janet Leigh/Betty Garret version I had seen many times before. Easy to Wed w/Esther Williams was a musical, color remake of Libeled Lady, and there was another I can't recall just now.

Also for some reason this year I'm learning what stars I really, really like, which ones I like, and which ones I can take or leave, as well as ones I don't care to watch. Some, I thoroughly enjoy seeing for 24 hours, while others, after 3, maybe 4 movies, I'm looking for something else to watch. Not that I don't necessarily care for the Star, but some of them I can only take so much of, where others they could go on for 3 days and I would be happy.

Finally, I'm seeing movies where I could see other actors in certain parts rather than the ones who made the film. e.g. I think James Stewart would have been great in Man of the West instead of Gary. Gary was good, but he was a little too old by the time it was made, of course JS was close in age so he probably would have looked the same, but actually he fit in fine with Kim Novak in Bell, Book and Candle, and Rear Window with Her Majesty. For some reason, I keep getting on Gary this week, and I like GC, so maybe I'm just seeing him in a different light, like the photographic tricks they used in Love in the Afternoon with Audrey.

Is anyone else learning new things this year, or am I the only one?

Anne

[mrsl]

Well, once again I spouted off without making myself totally clear. Although Ernie and Broderick are both supporting players, they are vital supporting actors who are on screen almost as much as the star. Both of them were lucky enough to get one script that enabled them to prove just what they could do and after that their parts were enlarged to fit their talents. After Marty, they couldn't push Ernie back into a box, and they didn't try to.

In any case Mr. Pres is bringing out a couple of films we haven't been exposed to previously on TCM, so whether he stars or not, at least we get to see something new. Crawford and Kirk Douglas don't excite me much, but I will be watching a couple of Crawfords, although I'm not usually big on prison movies. Kirk Douglas day, I'm sure there will be some stuff on my other channels to entertain me. I'm looking forward to Loretta Young and Roy Rogers, Mary Astor and Sean Connery. This has not been the best SUTS year, but at least they're trying.

Anne