Bound for Glory (1976)
The early life of Woody Guthrie as a vagabond folk singer.
Director: Hal Ashby
Writers: Robert Getchell (screenplay), Woody Guthrie (autobiography)
Stars: David Carradine, Ronny Cox, Melinda Dillon
@edgarblythe,
It's based on fact loosely on fact; but has done little for the real reason for the Civil War. Why did the North start blockading the Southern Ports just before the War began?
@edgarblythe,
Judgement at Nuremberg was actually fiction. That is, all the major characters and specific events in the story were made up. The only "true story" aspect here is that the action is imagined as part of Nazi war criminal trials at Nuremberg after the War. Marlene Dietrich was great in her role here imo.
@G4Racer,
The real reason for the American Civil War was the institution of slavery. If you disagree with that or wish to argue the point, please do it here:
http://able2know.org/topic/145429-1
@Lustig Andrei,
Another thing about the place where they held the trials in Nuremberg was something most people are not aware of but there is a prison behind that building where they held the prisoners. On one of my trips to Nuremberg, our bus passed by there. Talk about Nuremberg jiggled some of that gray stuff.
@Lustig Andrei,
I think, then, it should be removed from our list.
@edgarblythe,
As you know, we can't remove past posts, but I wanted you to read this article about the movie that has a message that's accurate not only after WWII but also after that war. The movie did win many awards which speaks to its social value for movie goers and the message is timeless.
Quote:Judgment at Nuremberg, which reenacts the third of 13 infamous 1948 war-crime trials, is most powerful for its subtle and shaded characterizations of both victim and victimizer. There are no easily identifiable evil enemies: the bad guys seem an awful lot like you or me, which is one of the film's central points about the rise of the Nazis. Riveting performances distinguish the movie, especially Montgomery Clift, Judy Garland, and Burt Lancaster in the showiest parts (which they make the most of). Spencer Tracy anchors the proceedings with a reliably level-headed performance. The script, which presents complex moral and philosophical issues quite well, is not quite as cutting, bitter, or angst-ridden as the subject demands. The subject matter guarantees some intensely emotional moments; however, the script occasionally fails to use them to challenge viewers to look more closely at their own self-satisfaction. Instead, we get some rather windy speechifying. Visually, the film is somewhat static (as courtroom dramas often are), though the dramatic power of the historical subject often makes it easy to overlook this flaw. Nominated for 11 Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Director for Stanley Kramer, and acting nominations for Tracy, Garland, and Montgomery Clift, the film won for Abby Mann, who adapted the screenplay from the stage play, and Maximilian Schell, who plays the Nazi criminals' defense lawyer. ~ Dan Jardine, Rovi
Read more:
http://www.answers.com/topic/judgment-at-nuremberg#ixzz3Bqhp7lvq
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
I think so too. If I had filmed Lincoln, I think I would have given the ending more time to develop.
Apparently Richard Attenborough wanted to make a biopic of Tom Paine. The scriptwriter was interviewed on Radio 4 yesterday and he said the Hollywood producers weren't interested. When
Lincoln was cited as a good example of a Hollywood historical biopic, his response was that it didn't make enough money for Hollywood.
Prick Up Your Ears was very good.
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Your nomination here, Edgar, reminded me of Paths of Glory...a sensational film in my opinion...based loosely on true events.
Great movie...and supposedly great book (I never read it so I cannot say with certainty.)
I literally watched it last week. I still need to return the copy of the DVD to the Brooklyn Public Library as it's burning a hole in my book bag right now. I already love Kubrick as a director but even I am shocked how well and sensitively he tackled the project and kept it from being a typical jingoistic Hollywood war movie so known for its contemporary peers.
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
I think so too. If I had filmed Lincoln, I think I would have given the ending more time to develop.
It's already a pretty long movie. How much longer does it have to be?
@tsarstepan,
I just thought the way they filmed the final scenes were rather abrupt, after the movie moved so deliberately to that point.
@Frank Apisa,
I see the point you are making, but I still like my idea better.
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Kubrick was a genius at movie making.
I hear he was very, very difficult to work with. His perfectionism often required take after take after take...and actors are known to hate that. But Kubrick was willing to trade spontaneity for what he saw as the "ideal take."
I never realized he was American...I thought he was British, and he did do most of his work over in the UK.
(Born in da Bronx!)
Kubrick and I went to the same high school. He was there before me. See, I'm not the only pain in the ass to emerge from the Bronx.
Another Bronx kid, Jake LaMotta, was the subject of a powerful film--Raging Bull. DeNiro was beyond great.
Lust for Life (1956)
The life of brilliant but tortured artist Vincent van Gogh.
Directors: Vincente Minnelli, George Cukor (uncredited)
Writers: Norman Corwin (screen play), Irving Stone (based on the novel by)
Stars: Kirk Douglas, Anthony Quinn, James Donald |
