Geezer tag?

Cidu Bill on May 9th 2017

tosir.PNG

I belatedly thought I should add this:

Filed in Bill Bickel, Hey Geezers! Comics!, Sally Forth, comic strips, comics, humor | 69 responses so far

69 Responses to “Geezer tag?”

  1. Mitch4 May 9th 2017 at 09:05 am 1

    I think I saw the movie before the song was really established as a hit. I think we considered it a “quality” movie at the time.

    BTW, for anyone who watched “Absolutely Fabulous”, wasn’t Lulu for a while one of their celebrity clients, or something like that?

  2. Tom T. May 9th 2017 at 09:42 am 2

    Recently revived by the cast of SNL singing it to Obama upon his leaving office.

  3. Ted from Ft. Laud May 9th 2017 at 09:58 am 3

    I’m not sure how to treat it, since the reference comes from Ralph, who is a geezer. I guess the gag doesn’t work if the readers don’t get it too. But I’m not sure that “To Sir with Love” counts as geezer anyway, as the movie was only (looks it up) - oh, my god! - 50 years ago…

  4. Nathan May 9th 2017 at 10:27 am 4

    33 here, and a movie buff. No clue what this is referring to.

  5. James Schend May 9th 2017 at 11:32 am 5

    Born in 1978, a movie buff also (maybe this isn’t even a movie reference?) and also no idea.

    The comic reminded me of Mr. Holland’s Opus, though, which is a great movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB1-ASsrNQI

    After some Googling, I see the movie itself is called “To Sir, With Love” from 1967. Huh. That’s one obscure-ass movie, you’d think I’ve have heard of it.

  6. woozy May 9th 2017 at 12:05 pm 6

    A geezer tag *I* didn’t get? “To Sir with Love” is a song? But as a movie, of course. Nathan and James Schend, it is *not* obscure-ass. One of Poitier’s finest. Very well-known among movie buffs.

  7. billybob May 9th 2017 at 12:05 pm 7

    James Schend, since that was the Billboard #1 song of the year and the Variety #8 box office movie of the year, yes, I would.

  8. ja May 9th 2017 at 12:15 pm 8

    Obscure?

    It was the 8th highest grossing film the year it was released (for comparison “Mr. Holland” came in at 14th for the year it was released) and the title song not only went to #1, it was the best selling single of the year.

    “To Sir” may be old, it may be unrealistic, and it may be dated, but it is one of the more notable roles of an actor who was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

  9. James Schend May 9th 2017 at 12:16 pm 9

    Haha well I’m sure I’m not the only one. Sorry I don’t measure up to your “knowing about obscure movies from the 60s” standards.

  10. Bob May 9th 2017 at 12:21 pm 10

    It’s not a matter of knowing “obscure movies” - it’s a matter of knowing Sidney Poitier movies. If you’re truly a movie fan… enough said.

  11. DemetriosX May 9th 2017 at 12:30 pm 11

    I have some very vague memories of having seen the movie when it first came out. Of course, I was all of 5 and might be confusing it in part with Goodbye, Mr. Chips mixed with some other Sidney Poitier movie (the movies our parents used to drag us to before the days of ratings). Ralph is, these days, 10 or 12 years older than I am, so it isn’t too out character for him to ask this question. I certainly remember the song, which got lots of airplay for many years. Who knows what his students are thinking. They might have seen the SNL bit referenced by Tom T. @2, or maybe the 2006 Korean horror film of the same name. It wouldn’t surprise me if Ces knew of the latter and that would certainly put a different spin on the student’s comment (probably just a “sex with the teacher” joke).

  12. James Pollock May 9th 2017 at 12:42 pm 12

    “It’s not a matter of knowing “obscure movies” - it’s a matter of knowing Sidney Poitier movies.”

    Or music. The song went to number 1, and stayed there for 5 weeks, and was the top-selling record of the year.

    Or comics. We discussed this movie not that long ago, regarding a different comic.

  13. Ted from Ft. Laud May 9th 2017 at 01:16 pm 13

    Still, it was a number 1 song 49 or 50 years ago which is - to the best of my knowledge (almost?) never played on radio (or psuedo-radio) - even classic/oldies stations - nor have there been significant covers.

    The movie was a hit at the time (though I’m pretty sure I saw it on TV years later rather than at a theater), but even then the reviews called it overly sentimental, and I don’t think it has aged well.

  14. James Schend May 9th 2017 at 02:45 pm 14

    Fine, fine, I get it, it’s not a geezer comic, I’m just a sheltered recluse. Sure.

    For the record, I have zero interest in popular music, I’ve never felt the urge to watch every Sydney Poitier movie back-to-back (gasp! Am I really a movie buff? Guess not by that standard), and I guess I missed the conversation about this movie on this website, whenever that occurred.

  15. Ted from Ft. Laud May 9th 2017 at 03:05 pm 15

    I’m actually agreeing with you that it is. The song was a pop hit, but a very long time ago, and probably hasn’t been part of any radio playlist since the 1960s. The movie itself was a (relative) hit, but as I said, it was considered a bit saccharine even in the contemporaneous reviews and (IMHO) it hasn’t aged well, and I don’t think it makes “classic films” lists the way Poitier’s other two 1967 films do.

  16. James Schend May 9th 2017 at 03:09 pm 16

    Sorry, I didn’t mean that as a reply to you, but to the few posts above yours. No threaded conversations on this blog, no offense intended. ;)

  17. Ted from Ft. Laud May 9th 2017 at 03:40 pm 17

    Certainly not offended - just thought you believed I disagreed with you.

  18. James Pollock May 9th 2017 at 03:48 pm 18

    “it was a number 1 song 49 or 50 years ago which is - to the best of my knowledge (almost?) never played on radio (or psuedo-radio) - even classic/oldies stations”

    Back when I still listened to radio, “To Sir, With Love” was in regular rotation on the “oldies” station.

    Today, radio station formats are less significant because Internet streaming lets you fine-tune the “radio” playlist… you can get an “oldies station” that plays hits from specific years, AND you can choose from hundreds of categories. If you pick one that specializes in American tunage, you’ll never hear it, but you’ll get tired of “I’m a Believer”.

    ” The song was a pop hit, but a very long time ago, and probably hasn’t been part of any radio playlist since the 1960s. ”

    It was covered on Glee, on American Idol, and then again on Saturday Night Live just this year. There are several versions on Youtube with over a million views (each).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFAogBBGgBs

    If you haven’t heard it lately, it’s not because it hasn’t been around.

    I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen the movie, but I know what it’s about.

  19. Winter Wallaby May 9th 2017 at 04:48 pm 19

    I don’t know the song or the movie. I’m sure the strip would have worked better if I was familiar with the movie, but I think the strip works OK without it - I still get that it’s about some emotional scene in a movie.

    Would have worked better for me if he had complained that no one had said “Oh captain! My captain!”

  20. Kilby May 9th 2017 at 05:30 pm 20

    I agree with WW @17 in that I would have understood the reference (as opposed to the one in the comic), but I’m not sure that the two quotes convey the same sentiment.

    P.S. I felt the ending of Dead Poets Society was somewhat flawed in that William’s character referred to the the students as “boys” when thanking them. I would have preferred it if he had said “gentlemen”.

  21. Kilby May 9th 2017 at 05:37 pm 21

    P.P.S. I’m not sure whether it’s relevant to the geezer argument, but researching the title revealed that 30 years later, Poitier did a TV sequel: To Sir, with Love II (1996).

  22. James Pollock May 9th 2017 at 05:42 pm 22

    I didn’t see “Dead Poets Society”, either. Or, before anyone brings it up, “Stand and Deliver”. Or that one with Michelle Pfeiffer in it.

    I DID see “Fast Times at Ridgmont High”, and the scenes with Mr. Hand were great, but none of them is the scene anyone thinks about when they remember “Fast Times at Ridgmont High”.

    And “Fast Times” had an awesome theme song, too.

  23. Mark in Boston May 9th 2017 at 08:06 pm 23

    “To Sir With Love” was a major, important movie when it came out.

    I guess nobody remembers “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” either.

    Or “Lilies of the Field”.

    Or “A Raisin in the Sun”.

  24. r2t May 9th 2017 at 08:40 pm 24

    I`m 40 and I cant say I am familiar at all with it but then again I was negative 10 years old when it came out. my parents were in jr high at the time.Id say definite geezer material

  25. James Pollock May 9th 2017 at 08:40 pm 25

    “’To Sir With Love’ was a major, important movie when it came out.”

    But is it a major, important movie NOW?

    I mean, there’s a handful of movies from the 1960’s that it’s reasonable to expect people under 20 years old to have seen. In theory. I’m drawing a blank of any, because I didn’t really start going to see new movies until the 70’s. All I’ve got is the Disney animated films, and Disney was fading in the 60’s. Mary Poppins gave them a taste for live-action. The Disney animated movies that followed on Jungle Book in 1967, Aristocats in 1970, Robin Hood in 1973… these seem like the best candidates off the top of my head. (2001 is pretty much unwatchable today. Yes, I said it. Kubrick’s artistic choices of really, really long shots were a zag when the film industry, and audiences, zigged.

  26. r2t May 9th 2017 at 08:45 pm 26

    actually listening to the song on youtube. I have heard this before. I never really thought about where it was from or who sang it. I wouldnt of remembered it if it wasnt brought up here. I still say its pretty geezerish.

  27. Ted from Ft. Laud May 9th 2017 at 09:14 pm 27

    Ok, I’ll admit I didn’t watch much of Glee, have never seen American idol, go to YouTube only for specific things, and haven’t watched SNL regularly (other than the opening skits this year) since maybe the 1980s, so I may not have a good grasp on what the “youngsters” watch.

    But I think your comments about oldies radio and massively specific streaming playlists really supports my view that non-geezers would have been very unlikely to hear the song that way. The people who listen to “oldies” stations (much more so than “classic rock” stations) tend to be “oldies” themselves - the number of younger people who seek out those stations (the ones that specialize in music from way before they were born and which has no currency) is quite small. (I happen to own one - a 24 year old who listens to swing/big band music - but he’s actually a musician, so not representative.) Similarly, the people who listen to extremely specific streams are almost always those already familiar with that music - I think it would be a very rare 30-something who sought out the “hits of 1967″ stream.

  28. ja May 9th 2017 at 10:05 pm 28

    James Pollock asked if “To Sir” is a major, important movie today?

    Sidney Poitier was the first black person to win a best actor/actress Academy Award. That makes Poitier important. I’m would not call myself a movie buff, but if you asked me to name some Poitier movies, I’d give you the sames ones Mark in Boston listed. And I’d probably throw in “In the Heat of the Night” and “A Patch of Blue” for good measure, and I’m too young to have seen any of them in their original theater runs. In proving a black man could be a bankable leading man, Poitier opened doors that might have otherwise been shut do a generation of black actors. “Sir,” “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” and “In the Heat of the Night” represent a trio of successful movies that address racial issues when the country was just a few years removed from the end of Jim Crow laws. “Guess Who” addressed inter-racial dating at a point where it was still illegal in some states.

    So maybe “Sir” isn’t a major movie today, but I would contend it remains a very important film. As movie making art, it may not be up there with “Citizen Kane,” but it role in cinema history should not be forgotten.

  29. James Pollock May 9th 2017 at 10:43 pm 29

    “But I think your comments about oldies radio and massively specific streaming playlists really supports my view that non-geezers would have been very unlikely to hear the song that way.”

    Duh.

    That was responsive to “it hasn’t been on the air since the 1960’s”. Yes, it has been. There’s a lot of reasons why you didn’t see/hear it, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.

    But 20 million people at a time used to watch and listen to American Idol. (I’m not one of them. There was finally a full set of nails in the coffin, and now ABC’s dug it up. I won’t be watching this one, either.). The songs from Glee not only played on TV, they were massive iTunes Hits, and not because the AARP set were buying them.

    “Sidney Poitier was the first black person to win a best actor/actress Academy Award. That makes Poitier important. ”

    Ronald Reagan was the first Hollywood actor to be elected President. That doesn’t make “Bedtime for Bonzo” an important film.

    “‘Guess Who’ addressed inter-racial dating at a point where it was still illegal in some states.”

    Not United ones. The Supreme Court tossed miscegenation laws in June of 1967, and “Guess Who” came out in December of 1967.

    “it role in cinema history should not be forgotten.”
    This statement is also true of “Battleship Potemkin” and “Triumph of the Will”. But I wouldn’t expect anyone to have seen either of those, either. See also 2001, critiqued previously.

  30. Cidu Bill May 9th 2017 at 10:56 pm 30

    By the way, if you have fond memories of In the Heat of the Night, do not read John Ball’s original novels or its sequels. The first book not so much, but the sequels will make you cringe with their condescension: OMFG, look what this Negro can do!

    Okay, nobody in the books actually said “OMFG,” but you get the idea.

    And I should point out that I say this based on reading the books almost half a century ago, not even from a 2017 perspective.

  31. Big Chief May 10th 2017 at 12:31 am 31

    Leaving movie history aside, and concentrating on the punchline, why are the students ” not allowed ” to sing the song anymore?

  32. James Pollock May 10th 2017 at 12:41 am 32

    “why are the students ” not allowed ” to sing the song anymore?”

    They don’t know it.

  33. Big Chief May 10th 2017 at 01:09 am 33

    “Not allowed” implies an outside agency forbidding the singing. That’s different from a punchline reading: “we don’t know it”, or “we never heard of it”. Who is not allowing it?

  34. Arthur May 10th 2017 at 01:16 am 34

    Big Chief @ 31:

    They don’t want to sing it because he’s not that kind of
    teacher. Because he’s not that kind of teacher, they also don’t
    want to tell him that. So they come up with the excuse that
    they’re not allowed to.

  35. James Pollock May 10th 2017 at 01:27 am 35

    “May 10th 2017 at 01:09 am 33

    “Not allowed” implies an outside agency forbidding the singing.”
    Does it? Or does it imply that the speaker is embarrassed to admit the truth?

  36. Kamino Neko May 10th 2017 at 01:47 am 36

    No, ‘not allowed’ doesn’t imply that an outside agency forbids the singing, it, to coin a phrase, explies it.

    Without the ‘they’re lying’ idea, ‘not allowed’ is stating directly that it’s forbidden by an external force.

  37. Big Chief May 10th 2017 at 04:05 am 37

    O K , it didn’t occur to me that their excuse would be a passing-the-buck kind of lie. How old are the students? I’m usually O K with Sally Forth, but if it takes 37 posts to nail down the joke ( and I take responsibility for only four of them ) this is way, way too obscure.

  38. Big Chief May 10th 2017 at 04:22 am 38

    And Kamino Neko, just out of sheer curiosity, and not to be an asshole, I googled the antonym of implied, and “explied”, although it’s not listed, is as good as any of the words that actually were listed, “declared” being about the best of their lame lot. You may be the originator of a neologism.

  39. Olivier May 10th 2017 at 05:37 am 39

    They’re not allowed to because of peer pressure (the ultimate external force, isn’t it?): teenagers singing a geezer song? How embarrassing!

    By the way, I’ve watched “Battleship Potemkin” in junior high (history class). Not “Triumph of the Will”, but “Night and fog” instead.

  40. yellojkt May 10th 2017 at 06:16 am 40

    The song was featured prominently in one of the episodes of “Glee”.

  41. Andréa May 10th 2017 at 07:51 am 41

    @29: “Not United ones. The Supreme Court tossed miscegenation laws in June of 1967, and “Guess Who” came out in December of 1967.”

    BUT - how long BEFORE June 1967 was the movie in production? I doubt anyone would say, “Gee, the laws have been tossedt, so let’s not release the movie.” Besides, just throwing out the laws doesn’t mean attitudes and mind sets have changed.

  42. Andréa May 10th 2017 at 07:54 am 42

    . . . and it’s SIR Sidney Poitier. Ninety years old . . .

  43. Rasheed May 10th 2017 at 10:44 am 43

    Turner Classic Movies is your FRIEND

  44. Winter Wallaby May 10th 2017 at 11:57 am 44

    I’ve never seen the movie, but from the Wikipedia description, a female student sings it to the inspirational teacher when dancing with him. So I thought the students weren’t allowed to do that because they have stricter rules about student-teacher interactions than we had 50 years ago.

  45. ja May 10th 2017 at 01:39 pm 45

    Re: “Ronald Reagan was the first Hollywood actor to be elected President. That doesn’t make “Bedtime for Bonzo” an important film.”

    No it doesn’t. Nor was that anywhere close to the argument I was making. Even if we somehow pretend that that it would be appropriate to compare the obstacles of being an actor to winning the Presidency were somehow comparable to the obstacles that a generation of black actors and actresses faced in breaking through to play something other than supporting roles in movies as slaves or servants, the fact that Reagan succeeded in becoming President is not in anyway an indication of the the quality of his work as an actor. In sharp contrast, Poitier’s Oscar WAS directly in recognition of his work as an actor.

    Re: “Not United ones. The Supreme Court tossed miscegenation laws in June of 1967, and “Guess Who” came out in December of 1967.”

    Spencer Tracy died on June 8, 1967: two days before the SCOTUS decision on Loving v. Virginia. “Guess Who” was conceived, written, cast, and shot in its entirety before the decision. So I stand by statement that the movie addressed inter-racial dating at a time when there were still anti-miscegenation laws in the U.S. Regardless, the point was that it was timely exploration of what was still a divisive issue.

    re: “This statement is also true of “Battleship Potemkin” and “Triumph of the Will”. But I wouldn’t expect anyone to have seen either of those, either. See also 2001, critiqued previously.”

    I never said I expected anyone to have seen “To Sir.” I’m not even sure I’ve seen it in its entirety. However it is my expectation that someone who is a movie buff would have at least some degree of awareness of Poitier and his major roles, just like I would expect a baseball buff to have at least a passing knowledge of Jackie Robinson. Or like I would expect that a US history buff would have at least an inkling that something kind of important once happened in a place called Selma, and a guy named Martin Luther King, Jr., might have been involved, and not dismiss the event as as an extremely obscure historical footnote.

    FWIW, I agree that “2001″ didn’t age well, and I don’t recommend that anyone watch it, but I still would think that someone with a significant interest in movies would likely be aware of its existence.

  46. Ted from Ft. Laud May 10th 2017 at 05:36 pm 46

    Like WW, I took it to mean that they aren’t allowed to “love” the teacher any more. (They never were, but the teachers are more likely to go to prison over it these days…)

  47. Cidu Bill May 10th 2017 at 05:37 pm 47

    Winter Wallaby, I added a clip to the original post.

  48. narmitaj May 10th 2017 at 06:41 pm 48

    I’ve watched 2001 in the cinema about every years since it came out… early 1969 in York, when I was 11 (and loved it, and was looking forward to Apollo 11); about 1985 in London; in 2001 in France (but not in French); and last year in Bristol.

    Sure, some things look old-fashioned now, like the haircuts and the space furniture. Not to mention the enormous amounts of open wasted space inside the space station (though that was a problem in the recent The Martian too, and any space film where they don’t want people to look like they’re jammed in a submarine or the ISS). The Cold War element was old-fashioned in 2001 (the real year rather than the film), though now it is coming back into fashion again. And some of the effects look a bit dated - one shot of a pod coming fast towards camera is just a zoom or track in on a still of the pod, so the headlight has no changing flare.

    But still, there is a lot to get out of each viewing. About families and communication, for instance - actual ability to communicate is inversely proportional to the advance in technology; the ape family huddle together and groom intimately, but the astronauts heading to Jupiter have such a long delay with earth there’s no meaningful contact with their parents. Talking in a friendly fashion without revealing much information, as the Russians and Americans do.

    I like the scene where they’re skimming the surface of the moon in a flying buggy with big windows - but everyone is looking inwards, trying to figure out what sandwiches to eat, and not out at the landscape. Someone has made an argument that food and its consumption is a key sub-theme in the movie - people are always eating, or talking about eating, or using tools to get food, whether stone-age weapons or 21st C dispensers.

    And plenty of the effects of flying spaceships and the enormous central wheel on the Discovery still do hold up well.

    I aim to see it again in about 2023, again in a cinema! If such things exist. Or indeed if I do.

  49. narmitaj May 10th 2017 at 06:42 pm 49

    Oops, 2033 I mean.

  50. chuckers May 10th 2017 at 09:51 pm 50

    I am a bit younger than the film “To Sir,” but I have seen. Probably because my father was a teacher. At one time, I had a video tape of it I had recorded off of HBO I think. I have long since lost it, I am sure. The googles should be able to find a copy of it for me.

  51. James Pollock May 10th 2017 at 10:26 pm 51

    You can get it from YouTube for $2.99

  52. Tom T. May 11th 2017 at 08:49 am 52

    Here’s the SNL tribute from January.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFAogBBGgBs

  53. Brian in STL May 11th 2017 at 01:41 pm 53

    I believe Ralph teaches college, not high school, so probably not illegal in most cases. Highly likely against school policies. That being said, that was my take as well.

  54. James Schend May 12th 2017 at 12:38 pm 54

    I know it’s been a couple days, and the thread’s probably dead, but I gotta reply:

    #48: I could probably name a few dozen obscure movies you’ve never seen or heard of that I’ve seen. Dragonhead, for example. Maybe I’ve never seen that particular Sidney Poitier film, but I have seen every single film Buster Keaton made and I’m sure a lot of self-proclaimed “movie buffs” can’t say that.

    Point is: I don’t think there’s a “set list of movies” one needs to see to be called (or to call themselves) a movie buff, and if there were, I highly doubt To Sir, With Love would be on that list. I think you’re making the argument that all movie buffs ought to have seen it because it came out during your lifetime, and you have a particular connection to it.

    If someone who had seen literally every American and important foreign film from 1960 - 1970 *excepting* To Sir, With Love called themselves a “movie buff”, would you still question them?

    (And BTW, careful what you ask for. A lot of older people tell me The Graduate is a classic film. So I watch it. And yes, while it’s certainly well-made and has a good soundtrack, the actual *message* of that film is: “if you stalk a girl long enough, she’ll eventually fall in love with you”. Which I found completely distasteful. Try to tell a “geezer” that, though.)

  55. Winter Wallaby May 12th 2017 at 01:19 pm 55

    James #54: I’m not a movie buff, and until now, had never heard of “To Sir With Love.” But it seems to me that you’re conflating having seen a movie, having heard of a movie, and liking a movie.

    I would certainly not expect every self-proclaimed “movie buff” to like The Graduate. I would expect most “movie buffs” to have seen The Graduate, and have an opinion on it. But if they said “Oh yeah, I watch a lot of movies, but somehow I never got around to that one,” I wouldn’t be shocked, and wouldn’t try to rescind their “movie buff status.” But I would question whether they were a movie buff if they had never even heard of the Graduate. (I express no opinion as to whether “To Sir With Love” falls into a similar category, since, as already stated, I am not a movie buff.)

    BTW, while I agree that Benamin’s behavior in The Graduate is troubling, I am not sure that Elaine is actually in “love” with him at the end of the movie, or that the movie implies that either of them will be happy.

  56. James Pollock May 12th 2017 at 01:55 pm 56

    What I spect of a “movie buff” is knowledge of those films which were either A) influential on history or the popular culture, or B) influential on other movies. There are a LOT of movies I haven’t seen, but I know they were significant

    (Note that there is a difference between “important” films and “popular” ones. These categories can overlap, but they don’t necessarily do so. And either one can have subspecialities. Optimist that I am, I keep watching science-fiction movies, even though Hollywood generally doesn’t do them very well. (Apparently, the market for bad SF is bigger than the market for good SF).

  57. Cidu Bill May 12th 2017 at 02:11 pm 57

    James Schend (54), I’m pretty sure I’d qualify as a geezer, but I’ve always thought of Benjamin as a stalker.

    And for that matter, I always saw Mrs. Robinson as a creepy predator.

  58. ja May 12th 2017 at 06:33 pm 58

    I don’t have any particular fondness for “To Sir” nor does it have any particular significance in my life. I don’t think seeing it should be a prerequisite for movie buffs, or anyone else for that matter. I don’t think it is a great movie. I just don’t think **ANY** post-WWII, top-ten grossing film (for its release year) starring an Academy-Award-winning actor qualifies as obscure.

    I’m not sure what a reasonable standard for “all important movies from 1960-1970″ would be, but if we could agree on one, I would imagine that if we could assemble the first 100 people we could find who had seen all of them, no less than 95 of those people would at least recognize “To Sir” as a Poitier film and to at least have an inkling on the plot summary (that’s the one where he’s a teacher, right?) After all, the American Film Institute ranks Poitier #22 on its greatest actors list; while “To Sir” may not be a great movie, it is one of Poitier’s better known roles.

  59. Winter Wallaby May 12th 2017 at 06:46 pm 59

    Bill #57: It seems difficult to disagree with the characterization of Benjamin as a stalker. I think the harder thing to pin down is the degree, if any, to which the film portrays his behavior as reasonable, or at least acceptable.

  60. Cidu Bill May 12th 2017 at 06:47 pm 60

    In a way, The Bedford Incident was a more important film: it’s beleved to be the first movie in which a black actor had a starring role but his race was never refered to.

    Yes, non-geezers, in 1965 that was a VERY big deal.

  61. James Pollock May 12th 2017 at 08:27 pm 61

    “Yes, non-geezers, in 1965 that was a VERY big deal.”

    Heck, that was the year that said in the future, everything would be all integrated and stuff… and the black lady would be the switchboard operator. Hailing frequencies open, captain!

    1967 was also the year where the U.S. Supreme Court decided that black people marrying white people shouldn’t be a crime.

  62. Mark in Boston May 12th 2017 at 08:31 pm 62

    There are movies that are “important” for the same reasons as “To Sir with Love” and “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner” but are NOT forgotten. For instance, “To Kill a Mockingbird.”

    Are Poitier movies not relevant any more? Or will the studio not release them to video?

  63. James Pollock May 13th 2017 at 04:10 am 63

    “To Kill a Mockingbird” is required reading in high-school English classes. I think more people read the book than see the movie (although, of course, there will always be people who watch the movie instead of reading the book they’re supposed to be reading.
    There’s a movie version of “The Grapes of Wrath” that falls in the same category.

    And yes, some movies are “important” because of the music they gave us. “Holiday Inn” gave us “White Christmas”, Frozen gave us “Let it Go”, and James Bond movies have given us a number of musical gems like “Skyfall” and “Live and Let Die” (though, of course, also “A View to a Kill”… ) “Fast TImes at Ridgmont High” introduced us to the Go-Gos. Elvis had 83 movies, and the Beatles had 3 (plus the Magical Mystery Tour) Neither the Beatles films nor Elvis’ are particularly notable except to their fans.

    Then, there’s the movies that are “important” because of how bad they are, or how unsuccessful. Heaven’s Gate. Plan 9. John Carter.

  64. Andréa May 13th 2017 at 12:48 pm 64

  65. ja May 13th 2017 at 10:59 pm 65

    >>Fast TImes at Ridgmont High” introduced us to the Go-Gos.
    he Go-Go’s biggest hit (”We Got the Beat”) peaked on the charts (at #2) four months before the release of “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” and was in heavy rotation on MTV> In fact, of the Go-Go’s four top 20 hits, the first three all cracked the top 20 before the release of “Fast Times.” After “Fast Times,” it would take them almost two years to crack the top 20 again.

  66. Cidu Bill May 14th 2017 at 12:41 am 66

    I’m pretty sure Lulu’s still waiting.

  67. ja May 14th 2017 at 01:52 am 67

    Lulu almost made it back to the US top 20 in 1970 with “Oh Me, Oh My”, and did make it to #18 in 1981 with “I Could Never Miss You.” In the UK, she had a long string of hits after “To Sir” (which was a b-side in the UK), including 8 top tens. The most recent was in 2002.

  68. James Pollock May 14th 2017 at 09:20 am 68

    After they split up, Belinda Carlisle did OK with “Heaven (is a place on Earth)”

  69. Meryl A May 17th 2017 at 12:41 am 69

    “To Sir” was on last week it seems to me, on Turner Classics. It is not on “constantly” like some movies are, but is still shown on RV.

    It is a very important film due to the subject matter - that of a black teacher (in England) with white, lower class students who do not respect him at all at the beginning of the film. (Spoiler alert) during the film you see that he works harder at actually trying to teach/teaching the students than the other teachers who just consider themselves to be getting the students through school and out. He is looking for his students to be actually able to work when they get out, as well as to have respect for themselves as well as others.

    Two important scenes are
    1 - when he is out on the street and a woman is treating him poorly and her daughter appears and, embarassed at how her mom is acting, says to her something along the lines of “but mom, that’s sir”.

    2- the end of the film and the students time in school there is a dance and the students want him at the dance and one sees the difference he made in their lives.

    It is an important film on race and class relations, as well as a good film.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply