[lbo-talk] more on why movies suck

magcomm magcomm at ix.netcom.com
Tue Nov 17 15:48:12 PST 2009



> That's the way Hitchock did it


>Imagine him trying to get a movie made today!

He couldn't even get the movies he wanted to make made back then.

Lew Wasserman of Universal made AH a very rich man and produced all of his last films. AH wanted to make "Mary Rose" with Tippi Hedren, but Wasserman said no. Wasserman also turned down FRENZY, and Hitchcock actually had to buy the production of FRENZY and take it to England in order to get it made. Fortunately it was a late masterpiece and revived his career so that he could make its companion FAMILY PLOT.

Joseph L. Mankiewicz could not make JANE in 1973 (one year after being nominated for an Oscar for directing SLEUTH) when he discovered that all sorts of costs were being charged to the production before he had even completed the script. He was then told that the film had gone over budget and the movie was shut down. He never made another film.

Coppola only gets to make the films he wants because he self-finances and sets up his own distribution deals. You think Scorsese wanted to make THE DEPARTED? He made it and SHUTTER ISLAND to get to do THE SAMURAI by Shusaku Endo.

As for TCM: They showed Vincente Minnelli's YOLANDA AND THE THIEF last night, god bless them.

Fox Movie Channel is also good for rare Fox films, and the Western Channel shows a lot of the great, unsung Westerns of the 1950's not made by John Ford or Howard Hawks.

Brian



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list