3-D?

I assume MG is pretty much everybody-phobic. But I never heard (or don't recall) his anti-gay remarks way back when. What was that about? Remember when he was trying to rehab his public image after his anti-Semitic spiel four years ago? He was interveiwed by Diane Sawyer, I think for 20/20, and when she asked him about the old man, he turned cold and slightly threatening and warned her, "Don't go there, Diane, don't go there." Personally, I think she should have gone there. Mel would have roared up, decked her, called her a slut who sleeps with n------ and is probably a J-- and must be a secret l------ to boot. Now that would have made great TV!

I like some cop shows, but like anything else a show has to catch my fancy somehow. As for our 1954 movie (Dragnet), yes indeedy, Sgt. Joe Friday breaks laws left, right, center, ahead, behind, you name it, to get his man...and after all that there's a terrific spoiler ending (which I won't spoil unless you beg me!). I cite the description in Leonard Maltin's guide: "While investigating brutal murder, Sgt. Friday and Officer Frank Smith ignore 57 varieties of civil liberties; feature film version of classic TV show evokes its era better than almost anything. Highly recommended on a nonesthetic level."

It really is hilarious in a bizarre way, which is why I like it so much. And it's relentlessly entertaining, as well as incredibly sexist and commercialized. (Try to count how many packs, ads, signs, vending machines and the like of Chesterfield cigarettes you can count in this thing.) I like the film I mentioned before, L.A. Confidential, very much, and it occurred to me that, while that movie recreates 1953, this movie really is 1953 (okay, '54). When these guys drove out of the LAPD HQ, they weren't driving into a fake 1953 movie set; they were driving out into the real Los Angeles streets of 1953/54. And doing many of those neat little law-enforcement harrassments seen in the '97 film...short of the corruption, of course. (Our cops are honest cops! Oh, and speak like automatons.) Anyway, it's great to go back to a time when we could deny a crook's right to interfering lawyers, use our fists freely, and generally dispense with nuisances like Constitutional amendments, rights, and other Red stuff.

Let me put it this way: if Friday and Smith are ever tailing you, be sure you're carrying as little as possible in your pockets!

Hey, we've gotten this thread onto Page 3! D?

Mel Gibson was asked way back in the early 90s if he was gay. His response was "I don't talk or look like a f--, do I? And they walk funny too" (!!!). He then pointed his butt and said, "This is for s---ting not f---ing". "Bird on a Wire" has some disgusting homophobia (all the gay guys are hairdressers, speak in high-pitched voices and are VERY fem) and "Braveheart" has a scene where a gay man is thrown out a window to his death. It was written as tragic. Gibson (director of the film) made it seem like it was funny and the right thing to do!!!! BTW--he got death threats after "Bird..." came out and he says his car was followed. Anyways MG's career is pretty much over. Next to Tom Cruise he's the most hated man in Hollywood. I feel sorry for his kids.

You know I liked the way "L.A. Confidential" LOOKED but it was too complex. I was totally lost by the end. Also Kim Basinger looked nothing like Veronica Lake (and got the Academy Award cause then-husband Alec Baldwin called in a lot of favors). And isn't it strange that they had two Australian actors in the lead? They were good and covered up their accents but I always wondered why.

Ok yeah--page 3. Well I don't shut up when it comes to movies and actors (as u probably guessed:)).

Oh, yeah, now I remember those little anti-gay gems of Mel's from way back when. I never saw Bird on a Wire (rest assured!), but funny thing, I was just flipping across the cable channels 6 or 7 minutes ago and there was...Bird on a Wire! Mostly over, though, though I'm a bit tempted to look in on the thing sometime. But it didn't get good reviews or do well as I recall, did it? I did see Braveheart and while the King's actions re his son's all-to-obviously-gay lover in tossing him out the window may have been suggested by Mel's homophobia, it at least also seems the sort of thing such a father would do to "straighten out" (in every sense) his weakling kid in that era. The kid was pretty much of a clueless dope, so you could see something bad coming to him.

I must be really out of it, but is Tom Cruise that hated in the 'wood? I mean, more than Melvin? What's the egregious rap on him? Not that I am or have ever been a fan of any kind....

Your comment on L.A. Confidential being too complex is interesting, because the critics all said that the novel was too complex to ever be filmed successfully. I've never read it, but I thought the movie was great, and I have to say I followed it all right, though an extra viewing or two helped clear up some things. None of the girls looked like the movie stars they were tricked up to resemble, and the actress who played the real Lana Turner didn't look even remotely like her; but I suppose that's what they call suspension of disbelief.

I mentioned sexism in Dragnet (just to stay slightly on topic). I won't spill the beans, but if you ever do see it, check out the scene where the boys go to a talent agency, and the female singer there. All I can say is, my God! Things were very different then.

Preppy3, my friend, as you may have noticed, I don't shut up when it comes to movies and actors either! This afternoon my wife checked out my posts so far this year and rather admonishingly announced that I have over 1000 so far. All brilliant, insightful, necessary labors, of course. Always glad to meet a fellow, shall we say, enthusiast.

OK never saw "Braveheart" but I had friends who did. A few actually walked out after that scene! I don't care how many Academy Awards it won--I don't think homophobia is funny. (BTW I am gay so that has a lot to do with it.) Sometimes, in older movies, you see it as a sign of its time (like "Boys in the Band") but "Braveheart" came out in the 1990s. "Bird on a Wire"--take a look. No one liked it, it bombed and co-star Goldie Hawn HATED the movie while making it but she was too much of a professional to back it. She DID refuse to promote it however.

As for Cruise he's controlling and a Scientologist and took it upon himself to lecture EVERYBODY on how badly they were leading their lives. He actually had the gall to tell Brooke Shields that she should not take drugs to deal with post-partum depression. I mean WTF??? She didn't ask his opinion and what does he know about having a baby? Also his (third) wife Katie Holmes is ALMOST young enough to be his daughter! His movies bombed, celebrities told him off, Paramount dumped him (no more "Mission: Impossible" movies for him) and his partner on his productionm comapny walked off the job. Since then he's been in damage control mode. He's not hated like Gibson but his controlling nature came through loud and clear.

I tried to read "L.A. Confidential" (James Ellroy is a good writer) but critics are right--it's WAY too long and gets needlessly confusing. His "The Black Dahlia" is very good though. (However the movie didn't even follow the book!)

Sexism in "Dragnet". Well hey it was the 1950s!:) U gotta expect that. It DID pop up on TCM a few months ago but I missed it. I'll keep an eye out for it.

So--your wife isn't too thrilled that you have 1000 posts? You could point out that it's better than being an alcoholic or cheating on her:) (NOT that u would do either).

I actually liked Braveheart well enough, though it was a bit too long and repetitive in parts. The character of Longshanks's son is obviously supposed to be gay, or at most bi with a gay preference, and this is in fact historically accurate: the son was both gay and a nasty, vicious, spoiled weakling, and his presumed lover (they're never shown in any kind of sexual activity; it's just inferred) does come off as something of an arrogant know-it-all. The king arranges a marriage for his son to the princess of France for political reasons, but interestingly both she and the boy's friend are both pushing him to stand up for himself and be tougher. The son's real lover gets tossed out the window because he's expendable from the king's p.o.v., and obviously because the king dislikes their relationship, but it must be said that the kid behaved arrogantly and interfered where he had no business. He should have realized he was treading on thin ice with a murderous monarch and kept a low profile. Anyway, this gay subtext is, I must say, pretty incidental to the main story and is not at all stressed or made much of, and does have an historical basis in fact. I'm sure MG is homophobic but in terms of the story and its period it's a believable, indeed basically accurate, plot element; in fact, the real son was apparently a far worse person than he is depicted in the film, so if anything Gibson made him a slightly more sympathetic character. I could as easily see an unprejudiced filmmaker shooting the same thing, as it's another revelation of the king's own depravity, and it was true. The audience may think the lover was acting like a fool, but their sympathies are clearly with him vs. the king.

Yes, I'd say Cruise is disliked and dismissed more than "hated" in the way Gibson seems to be these days. His arrogance and religious [sic: if one can call Scientology a "religion"] zealotry are bizarre and have obviously (and deservedly) hurt his career and reputation. Just the other day I heard some TV head speaking on this very subject, about how he's had a good run of almost 30 years, but things are slowing down for him now. I never understood how supposedly rational or educated people could believe in Scientology: Cruise, Kirstie Alley (okay, I'm stretching the "rational" point a bit here), Anne Archer, several others. I don't know if you watch South Park, but a couple of years ago they had one of the characters (Stan, I think) stumble into a Scientology headquarters, where the people inside explained the basis of the "religion". As they went on about the beings from the planet whatsit and all that other psycho talk, along the bottom of the screen they flashed the phrase, THIS IS WHAT SCIENTOLOGISTS REALLY BELIEVE, just to make sure the audience knew that the cartoon's creators hadn't made this stuff up! Total insanity. I think the Germans and others in Europe are right in refusing to recognize this scam as a "religion". No one should be persecuted for his beliefs, but neither should they enjoy the protections accorded real religions to be used as a tax dodge or operating a cult. That South Park episode was briefly yanked from being run because Viacom owns both the Comedy Channel and Paramount, with whom Cruise had a contract, and they were terrified of offending him. But this quickly got out and such was the outcry over corporate censorship that they ran it the following week. History has proven that decision right.

No homophobia in Dragnet, though. Interestingly, remember when Anita Bryant was shooting her mouth off against gays in the late '70s? Who of all people should have spoken up in denouncing her but Jack Webb! I knew he was fairly conservative and, considering Dragnet and its macho cop culture, just assumed he would have been anti-gay, or at least not pro-. But he strongly denounced Bryant and her ilk, said he didn't understand how anyone could support any form of discrimination (against gays or anybody), and that he would not permit her group to rent an auditorium one of his companies owned somewhere (I want to say Kansas City, but I probably misremember that). I remember being really (and pleasantly) surprised at his positive attitude, and his stock went up with me right then and there. You never know about people, do you?

While I'm not gay I have a lot of gay friends (and I don't mean that in the condescending Mel Gibson sense of "I know lots of Jews"; it's just a basic fact) -- I own a house on Fire Island -- and could care less about anybody's lifestyle, sexual preferences, whatever. I just hate discrimination and bigotry. So on the subject of never knowing where people stand on things, last year I had some exchanges on another IMDb site with someone who loudly proclaimed he was gay, and who claimed that Gore Vidal was the first openly gay man to run for Congress (in 1960). This was inaccurate; Vidal is gay but he absolutely did not run as a "gay" candidate, nor did he make his sexuality known, which would of course have been suicidal back then; and I guarantee he wasn't the first gay individual ever to run for office in America. I pointed this out and we began an exchange of a couple of months, eventually going the PM route. I quickly learned that this very vociferous gay man, who loudly denounced any form of discrimination against gays, was in fact also a far-right religious bigot, someone who hates Hispanics and is almost violently anti-immigrant (especially illegals), a proto-Tea-Partier, Sarah-Palin aficionado, and someone with a litany of other hates. I told him he held a lot of bigoted beliefs, supported racist or prejudiced candidates for office (far right Republicans), and took him to task for his hypocrisy, pointing out that if someone took off against gays the way he did against illegal immigrants, he'd be out there denouncing them as homophobes. He did not take well to such criticism, and ended up denouncing me as some gay-bashing lefty, an odd confluence if ever there were one. So prejudice and stupidity, just like tolerance and openness, can appear from all kinds of unexpected quarters, can't they?

Added note for visitors to this thread: preppy-3 and I have taken our conversation the PM route, so please feel free to resume any pertinent discussions as to Dragnet (1954)! Thank you. 8/12/10.

Looks like this has become a two-sided conversation, but I have to but in for a moment.

As hard as it may be to believe after watching the 1967 version of Dragnet, the young Jack Webb was quite the experimenter when it came to cinematography. Some of the things Webb did in the 1950's version of Dragnet just knock me out. He was far ahead of his time when it came to photography for television.

Given the chance, I think it would have only been natural for Webb to experiment with techniques for filming for the big screen. He may very well have been attempting to blaze new trails for normal (2-D) films. Still photographers have been experimenting for years in attempts to add depth, or a 3-D feeling, to their photographs.

I just think that the young, brash, innovative was trying new things in his film. I don't think 3-D had anything to do with it.



"He was running around like a rooster in a barnyard full of ducks."--Pat Novak

You're not butting in; as I said, we've taken our conversations off this thread.

I somewhat agree with what you say, and somewhat not. I do think that for the film Webb was trying to open up his TV show for the big screen (obviously), and to that end he was using styles and techniques that he couldn't use on television. On the other hand, I would never characterize Jack Webb as "young, brash, innovative" because fundamentally I don't think he was that at all, save for his famous dead-pan, "just the facts, ma'am" approach used so successfully in Dragnet (the TV show), and, to a much lesser degree of success, in other films and series to follow. I think his movie experience prior to beginning Dragnet on TV did influence him in ways you suggest, in terms of pushing the new medium of TV along pictorially to bigger things sooner than it might otherwise have done. But even in that sense I think he was more properly someone who more readily grasped the possibilities of television and moved ahead of most others in the medium, rather than being an innovator (in the sense of actually inventing things) as such.

In Dragnet (the movie), Webb used the more open nature of film (and more permissive attitudes in movies than what you could put on TV back then) to give Dragnet a fresher, more real and substantive, look and feel than he could achieve on television. Hence: color, location shooting, franker dialogue, more raw violence, and an overall tougher approach to his story. (Plus, something he did in the movie that he never did on television, either in the 50s or 60s: in the film, the audience actually saw the crime being committed; never before or after did Webb ever show the crime in Dragnet on TV -- Sgt. Friday and his sidekick were always called in after the incident had already happened.)

But as to "new" things in this film? No, I disagree. There was nothing in the movie that was in any way "new" or "innovative" compared to other films. Webb was offering something different from what you saw on TV, but that was not being innovative in terms of motion picture technique in itself. It's also pretty clear that his film was made with 3-D in mind; there are far too many shots obviously designed to show off that process (and similar to shots in other 3-D films of the period) for this not to have been originally conceived as a 3-D production. Had the craze lasted, Dragnet almost certainly would have been released in the process. But it was over by the time the film was being readied for distribution, so was released flat.

Either way, the film is well-made and fun to watch: the real L.A. Confidential, though with honest (actually, too good to be true) cops.

""Braveheart" has a scene where a gay man is thrown out a window to his death. It was written as tragic. Gibson (director of the film) made it seem like it was funny and the right thing to do!!!!"

You are badly misreading this scene. I'm no fan of Mel Gibson, but the point of the scene is that Edward I is a thoroughly awful person -- which is the way the part is written and Patrick McGoohan plays him. It's bad enough his son is queer; he doesn't like having the boyfriend hanging around. So he pushes him out the window. I fail to see anything "funny" about it -- other than the fact that scenery-chewing villains sometimes come across as campily comic.

PS: If Mr Gibson thinks all homosexuals are "fags" and walk funny, I'd be happy to introduce him to queer men who, in every regard, are considerably more masculine than he.