list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Jazz Singer on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Jazz_Singer/17836/default.aspx Title: The Jazz Singer
Year: 1927
Director: Alan Crosland
Plot: On the verge of receivership in 1926, Warner Bros. studio decides to risk its future by investing in the Vitaphone sound system. Warners' first Vitaphone release, Don Juan, was a silent film accompanied by music and sound effects. The studio took the Vitaphone process one step farther in its 1927 adaptation of the Samson Raphaelson Broadway hit The Jazz Singer, incorporating vocal musical numbers in what was essentially a non-talking film. Al Jolson stars as Jakie Rabinowitz, the son of Jewish cantor Warner Oland. Turning his back on family tradition, Jakie transforms himself into cabaret-entertainer Jack Robin. When Jack comes home to visit his parents, he is warmly greeted by his mother (Eugenie Besserer), but is cold-shouldered by his father, who feels that Jack is a traitor to his heritage by singing jazz music. Several subsequent opportunities for a reconciliation are muffed by the stubborn Jack and his equally stubborn father. On the eve of his biggest show-business triumph, Jack receives word that his father is dying. Out of respect, Jack foregoes his opening night to attend Atonement services at the temple and sing the Kol Nidre in his father's place. Through a superimposed image, we are assured that the spirit of Jack's father has at long last forgiven his son. Only twenty minutes or so of Jazz Singer is in any way a "talkie;" all of the Vitaphone sequences are built around Jolson's musical numbers. What thrilled the opening night crowds attending Jazz Singer were not so much the songs themselves but Jolson's adlibbed comments, notably in the scene where he sings "Blue Skies" to his mother. Previous short-subject experiments with sound had failed because the on-screen talent had come off stilted and unnatural; but when Jolson began chattering away in a naturalistic, conversational fashion, the delighted audiences suddenly realized that talking pictures did indeed have the capacity to entertain. Despite its many shortcomings (the storyline goes beyond mawkish, while Jolson's acting in the silent scenes is downright amateurish), The Jazz Singer was a box-office success the like of which no one had previously witnessed. The film did turn-away business for months, propelling Warner Bros. from a shoestring operation into Hollywood's leading film factory. Proof that The Jazz Singer is best viewed within its historical context is provided by the 1953 and 1980 remakes, both interminable wallows in sentimental goo. Worse still, neither one of those films had Al Jolson--who, in spite of his inadequacies as an actor, was inarguably the greatest musical entertainer of his era. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 4
Number of Lists: 10
Number of blog posts: 2
Number of discussion threads: 2
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:48:03 GMTThe Jazz Singer1927Alan CroslandOn the verge of receivership in 1926, Warner Bros. studio decides to risk its future by investing in the Vitaphone sound system. Warners' first Vitaphone release, <a href=/films/9459/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Don Juan</a>, was a silent film accompanied by music and sound effects. The studio took the Vitaphone process one step farther in its 1927 adaptation of the <a href="/players/P___107575/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Samson Raphaelson</a> Broadway hit The Jazz Singer, incorporating vocal musical numbers in what was essentially a non-talking film. <a href="/players/P____36019/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Al Jolson</a> stars as Jakie Rabinowitz, the son of Jewish cantor <a href="/players/P____53928/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Warner Oland</a>. Turning his back on family tradition, Jakie transforms himself into cabaret-entertainer Jack Robin. When Jack comes home to visit his parents, he is warmly greeted by his mother (Eugenie Besserer), but is cold-shouldered by his father, who feels that Jack is a traitor to his heritage by singing jazz music. Several subsequent opportunities for a reconciliation are muffed by the stubborn Jack and his equally stubborn father. On the eve of his biggest show-business triumph, Jack receives word that his father is dying. Out of respect, Jack foregoes his opening night to attend Atonement services at the temple and sing the Kol Nidre in his father's place. Through a superimposed image, we are assured that the spirit of Jack's father has at long last forgiven his son. Only twenty minutes or so of <a href=/films/17836/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Jazz Singer</a> is in any way a "talkie;" all of the Vitaphone sequences are built around Jolson's musical numbers. What thrilled the opening night crowds attending <a href=/films/17836/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Jazz Singer</a> were not so much the songs themselves but Jolson's adlibbed comments, notably in the scene where he sings "Blue Skies" to his mother. Previous short-subject experiments with sound had failed because the on-screen talent had come off stilted and unnatural; but when Jolson began chattering away in a naturalistic, conversational fashion, the delighted audiences suddenly realized that talking pictures did indeed have the capacity to entertain. Despite its many shortcomings (the storyline goes beyond mawkish, while Jolson's acting in the silent scenes is downright amateurish), The Jazz Singer was a box-office success the like of which no one had previously witnessed. The film did turn-away business for months, propelling Warner Bros. from a shoestring operation into Hollywood's leading film factory. Proof that The Jazz Singer is best viewed within its historical context is provided by the 1953 and 1980 remakes, both interminable wallows in sentimental goo. Worse still, neither one of those films had <a href="/players/P____36019/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Al Jolson</a>--who, in spite of his inadequacies as an actor, was inarguably the greatest musical entertainer of his era. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide4Slightly Tagged (1-5)10223http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u42092akamh.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Jazz_Singer/17836/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/8/38088.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/8/2008 5:00:35 PM
Body: It’s beginning to look a lot like 1991. A former Disney starlet is on track for a Best Actress nomination. One of cinema’s greatest villainous performances is a sure thing for an acting Oscar. And, due to a relatively disappointing crop of Academy Award contenders, an animated feature is being talked about for Best Picture. One major difference between now and 1991, however, is now there’s a separate Oscar category for Best Animated Feature. While that doesn’t mean Wall-E can’t be the first animated film nominated in the top category since Beauty and the Beast, it does potentially mean that it shouldn’t be. Historically, animated features have been marginalized by the Academy, though not unfairly. The first of its kind in the U.S., Walt Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarves was not adequately recognized at the 1938 Oscars, so the Academy gave Disney a special Honorary Award (in the form of one normal-sized statuette and seven miniature statuettes) in 1939 to make up for it. The official credit given to Snow White was that it was a “significant screen innovation,” that “pioneered a great new entertainment field.” Basically, but not technically, this designated animated features as a new, separate art form from live-action motion pictures. Fantasia was similarly set apart a few years later with two Honorary Awards spotlighting the film’s achievements in sound and music, yet this time credit was given to the film for “widening the scope of the motion picture as entertainment and as an art form.” Still, for almost fifty years, the closest an animated feature came to being nominated inclusively in such a scope for Best Picture were live-action films incorporating animation, such as Anchors Aweigh and Mary Poppins. It should have officially been made clearer in the 1930s or 1940s that animated features are in a class of their own. Since 1932, the Academy has differentiated between animation and live-action with its short subject categories, but no corresponding distinction was ever made for features, possibly because there weren’t enough animated features to recognize with a separate award for many decades. Even today, the Best Animated Feature Oscar is only given if there are a certain number (eight) of animated features eligible in that year. Thanks to the Best Animated Feature Oscar, though, there is greater encouragement for the mainstream production of this kind of film and also a greater acknowledgement of foreign feature animation. Some critics might argue that it seems to lower the esteem of animated features, yet the creation of the category was in fact pushed for by animators, according to the AMPAS press release announcing its inception (the animators’ campaign, spearheaded mostly by Dreamworks Animation’s Jeffrey Katzenberg, was apparently fueled by the snub of Chicken Run as Best Picture in 2001). The Academy’s error, then, was in continuing to allow animated features to be eligible for Best Picture rather than renaming that “top” category Best Live-Action Picture. Now, if Wall-E or any other animated film is recognized in that category, the Best Animated Feature Oscar will indeed appear to be a lesser honor. An unsourced claim on Wikipedia says the existence of the Animated Feature category creates a sort of psychological effect, which blocks voters from considering an animated feature for Best Picture. However, with enough campaigning from Disney and plenty of prodding from the media (blogs especially), Wall-E may have sufficient placement in the consciousness of Academy members to allow such a nomination to happen. The call for a Best Picture nod for the film has been around and growing since New York magazine’s Vulture blog first championed the idea back in June, writing that it “would be the smartest thing the Academy’s done in years.” For ratings, perhaps, but individual members themselves do not think of nor are they encouraged to consider telecast viewership when marking their ballots. As a celebration of great filmmaking, though, it would be smarter for voters to acknowledge Wall-E’s place and prestige as a front-runner in the Best Animated Feature category and then pick another deserving film, which isn’t likely to be recognized elsewhere, to nominate as Best Picture. For example, how about a popular and critically acclaimed foreign film that hasn’t been submitted for consideration in the foreign-language category, such as Tell No One or Let the Right One In? In July, Time magazine, which referred to the separate Animated Feature category as “Oscar’s cartoon ghetto,” began sampling quotes from supporters like New York and went so far as to call the film an “Obamaesque trailblazer.” In some way, Wall-E could resonate with Academy voters with relation to Obama, but perhaps only because it is one of the few hopeful, feel-good movies contending at a time when Bush–inspired negativity is supposedly no longer welcome (New York writer Logan Hill also acknowledged Best Picture candidate Slumdog Millionaire as similarly fitting the optimism bill after Fox Searchlight’s COO referred to the film as “Obama-like”). And maybe the environmentalist theme of Wall-E will be heavily supported by liberal Academy members, but ultimately the film seems even more preachy and, at times, dystopic than even The Dark Knight, let alone An Inconvenient Truth (which, by the way, had to settle on Oscar’s documentary ghetto and wasn’t considered Best Picture material, either). One significant point against the likelihood Wall-E receiving a Best Picture nomination was noted by Anne Thompson at Variety: actors tend to vote for live-action films because they feature live actors. Surely actors, forever in fear of being replaced by computer-generated characters, look at an eerily realistically rendered computer-animated film like Wall-E and contemplate the worst for their profession. Still, on the other hand, actors could actually celebrate Pixar for making an animated film that incorporates live actors (a kind of reversal of Anchors Aweigh and Mary Poppins, no?). But if actors want to pay respect to this technique, they should completely surprise Oscar prognosticators (and pay them back for another 2001 snub) by nominating Fred Willard for Best Supporting Actor. Maybe Wall-E is one of the best films of 2008, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it should be recommended for a Best Picture nomination. The Oscars are never an exact or fair measure of a year’s best in cinema, and even Oscar bloggers should be aware of the politics and logic of the Academy. This is the same organization that, for its first awards, ruled The Jazz Singer ineligible for Best Picture (or “Best Production” as it was named then) because it had the unfair advantage of being a sound film. Instead, the landmark film received a Special Award (almost like Disney received in 1939). Perhaps it is best, then, to think of animated features as also having an unfair advantage. After all, particularly with computer animation, they allow for more ease in certain aspects of direction, cinematography and special effects. In that case, let us, if not the Academy, view the Best Animated Feature category as the actual “top” category and shake off this unnecessary desire for an animated film to win “Best Picture.” Now, can we re-channel our energy into campaigning for Wall-E to be nominated in other categories, like Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Art Direction? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:00:35 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/8/2008 5:00:35 PMIt’s beginning to look a lot like 1991. A former Disney starlet is on track for a Best Actress nomination. One of cinema’s greatest villainous performances is a sure thing for an acting Oscar. And, due to a relatively disappointing crop of Academy Award contenders, an animated feature is being talked about for Best Picture. One major difference between now and 1991, however, is now there’s a separate Oscar category for Best Animated Feature. While that doesn’t mean Wall-E can’t be the first animated film nominated in the top category since Beauty and the Beast, it does potentially mean that it shouldn’t be. Historically, animated features have been marginalized by the Academy, though not unfairly. The first of its kind in the U.S., Walt Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarves was not adequately recognized at the 1938 Oscars, so the Academy gave Disney a special Honorary Award (in the form of one normal-sized statuette and seven miniature statuettes) in 1939 to make up for it. The official credit given to Snow White was that it was a “significant screen innovation,” that “pioneered a great new entertainment field.” Basically, but not technically, this designated animated features as a new, separate art form from live-action motion pictures. Fantasia was similarly set apart a few years later with two Honorary Awards spotlighting the film’s achievements in sound and music, yet this time credit was given to the film for “widening the scope of the motion picture as entertainment and as an art form.” Still, for almost fifty years, the closest an animated feature came to being nominated inclusively in such a scope for Best Picture were live-action films incorporating animation, such as Anchors Aweigh and Mary Poppins. It should have officially been made clearer in the 1930s or 1940s that animated features are in a class of their own. Since 1932, the Academy has differentiated between animation and live-action with its short subject categories, but no corresponding distinction was ever made for features, possibly because there weren’t enough animated features to recognize with a separate award for many decades. Even today, the Best Animated Feature Oscar is only given if there are a certain number (eight) of animated features eligible in that year. Thanks to the Best Animated Feature Oscar, though, there is greater encouragement for the mainstream production of this kind of film and also a greater acknowledgement of foreign feature animation. Some critics might argue that it seems to lower the esteem of animated features, yet the creation of the category was in fact pushed for by animators, according to the AMPAS press release announcing its inception (the animators’ campaign, spearheaded mostly by Dreamworks Animation’s Jeffrey Katzenberg, was apparently fueled by the snub of Chicken Run as Best Picture in 2001). The Academy’s error, then, was in continuing to allow animated features to be eligible for Best Picture rather than renaming that “top” category Best Live-Action Picture. Now, if Wall-E or any other animated film is recognized in that category, the Best Animated Feature Oscar will indeed appear to be a lesser honor. An unsourced claim on Wikipedia says the existence of the Animated Feature category creates a sort of psychological effect, which blocks voters from considering an animated feature for Best Picture. However, with enough campaigning from Disney and plenty of prodding from the media (blogs especially), Wall-E may have sufficient placement in the consciousness of Academy members to allow such a nomination to happen. The call for a Best Picture nod for the film has been around and growing since New York magazine’s Vulture blog first championed the idea back in June, writing that it “would be the smartest thing the Academy’s done in years.” For ratings, perhaps, but individual members themselves do not think of nor are they encouraged to consider telecast viewership when marking their ballots. As a celebration of great filmmaking, though, it would be smarter for voters to acknowledge Wall-E’s place and prestige as a front-runner in the Best Animated Feature category and then pick another deserving film, which isn’t likely to be recognized elsewhere, to nominate as Best Picture. For example, how about a popular and critically acclaimed foreign film that hasn’t been submitted for consideration in the foreign-language category, such as Tell No One or Let the Right One In? In July, Time magazine, which referred to the separate Animated Feature category as “Oscar’s cartoon ghetto,” began sampling quotes from supporters like New York and went so far as to call the film an “Obamaesque trailblazer.” In some way, Wall-E could resonate with Academy voters with relation to Obama, but perhaps only because it is one of the few hopeful, feel-good movies contending at a time when Bush–inspired negativity is supposedly no longer welcome (New York writer Logan Hill also acknowledged Best Picture candidate Slumdog Millionaire as similarly fitting the optimism bill after Fox Searchlight’s COO referred to the film as “Obama-like”). And maybe the environmentalist theme of Wall-E will be heavily supported by liberal Academy members, but ultimately the film seems even more preachy and, at times, dystopic than even The Dark Knight, let alone An Inconvenient Truth (which, by the way, had to settle on Oscar’s documentary ghetto and wasn’t considered Best Picture material, either). One significant point against the likelihood Wall-E receiving a Best Picture nomination was noted by Anne Thompson at Variety: actors tend to vote for live-action films because they feature live actors. Surely actors, forever in fear of being replaced by computer-generated characters, look at an eerily realistically rendered computer-animated film like Wall-E and contemplate the worst for their profession. Still, on the other hand, actors could actually celebrate Pixar for making an animated film that incorporates live actors (a kind of reversal of Anchors Aweigh and Mary Poppins, no?). But if actors want to pay respect to this technique, they should completely surprise Oscar prognosticators (and pay them back for another 2001 snub) by nominating Fred Willard for Best Supporting Actor. Maybe Wall-E is one of the best films of 2008, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it should be recommended for a Best Picture nomination. The Oscars are never an exact or fair measure of a year’s best in cinema, and even Oscar bloggers should be aware of the politics and logic of the Academy. This is the same organization that, for its first awards, ruled The Jazz Singer ineligible for Best Picture (or “Best Production” as it was named then) because it had the unfair advantage of being a sound film. Instead, the landmark film received a Special Award (almost like Disney received in 1939). Perhaps it is best, then, to think of animated features as also having an unfair advantage. After all, particularly with computer animation, they allow for more ease in certain aspects of direction, cinematography and special effects. In that case, let us, if not the Academy, view the Best Animated Feature category as the actual “top” category and shake off this unnecessary desire for an animated film to win “Best Picture.” Now, can we re-channel our energy into campaigning for Wall-E to be nominated in other categories, like Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Art Direction? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Most_Important_American_Films_Ever_Made/190/27168/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mercurial
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 4/10/2008 2:45:15 AM
Body: [quote user="dunedonkey"] The MOST IMPORTANT and WHY WAS IT IMPORTANT?Rules/Guidelines:YOU CAN'T GIVE MORE THAN 5. Five is the absolute limit.IMPORTANT means it had a profound impact on the film industry, on art, on social change, on mankind.[/quote] 1.) The Jazz Singer - Despite being horribly racist with the use of blackface, it was the first film to emerge from the silent era and feature the actors talking. That's pretty big.2.) The Wizard of Oz - Not the first film to be in color, however it remains the film that made Technicolor mainstream and future films to use all the colors of the rainbow (yeah, that was creepy).3.) Night of the Living Dead - Moved past the "Hollywood" structure and ushered in the Independent film movement.4.) Independence Day - Undoubtedly the first film to take everything to BLOCKBUSTER proportions. From starting the "holiday weekend" trend of opening the movie on Wednesday (don't quote me on that but it seems true enough), to the abbreviated title (ID4) plastered on billboards on every other block in every city, matching the events in the film to its release date, etc.5.) The Blair Witch Project - Started the viral marketing techniques now commonplace, especially with the internet. Also made using digital cameras mainstream and made studios aware of the potential of independent films thus turning every respectable film festival (I'm looking at you Sundance) into sleazy studio executive stalking grounds.
]]>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 06:45:15 GMTmercurialTop 54/10/2008 2:45:15 AM[quote user="dunedonkey"] The MOST IMPORTANT and WHY WAS IT IMPORTANT?Rules/Guidelines:YOU CAN&#39;T GIVE MORE THAN 5. Five is the absolute limit.IMPORTANT means it had a profound impact on the film industry, on art, on social change, on mankind.[/quote] 1.) The Jazz Singer - Despite being horribly racist with the use of blackface, it was the first film to emerge from the silent era and feature the actors talking. That&#39;s pretty big.2.) The Wizard of Oz - Not the first film to be in color, however it remains the film that made Technicolor mainstream and future films to use all the colors of the rainbow (yeah, that was creepy).3.) Night of the Living Dead - Moved past the "Hollywood" structure and ushered in the Independent film movement.4.) Independence Day - Undoubtedly the first film to take everything to BLOCKBUSTER proportions. From starting the "holiday weekend" trend of opening the movie on Wednesday (don&#39;t quote me on that but it seems true enough), to the abbreviated title (ID4) plastered on billboards on every other block in every city, matching the events in the film to its release date, etc.5.) The Blair Witch Project - Started the viral marketing techniques now commonplace, especially with the internet. Also made using digital cameras mainstream and made studios aware of the potential of independent films thus turning every respectable film festival (I&#39;m looking at you Sundance) into sleazy studio executive stalking grounds. http://www.spout.com/blogs/wraithtdk/archive/2008/3/15/26245.aspx Post By: WraithTDK
Post To: WraithTDK Blog
Post Date: 3/15/2008 6:09:13 AM
Body: Possibly the best silent movie I've seen, The Jazz Singer a story about a timeless subject: the difficulties and pressures of growing up in a family steeped deeply in tradition. Al Jolson's character is born into a Jewish family that has produced Cantors for five generations. While Jakie Rabinowitz (who changes his name to Jack Robin) is expected to carry on the tradition, his heart isn't in it. He instead wants to be a jazz singer. This breaks his father's heart, causing him to disown Jack. Throughout the movie, Jack is torn between wanting to stay true to his family and his faith, and hiss passion for jazz. This is truly a timeless story, little different than the actor who was "supposed to be" a doctor, or the rock musician that was "supposed to be" a laywer, like their father was. As a black man, seeing Al put on black face made me uncomfortable, but ultimately, I found it acceptable within the context of the movie, that is, he wasn't actually portraying a black man, he was portraying a singer in a vaudeville act, which, historically did include black face, and even then, all he really did was sing. All in all, I'd say this movie is worth of its "classic" label. Four stars.
]]>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:09:13 GMTWraithTDKWraithTDK Blog3/15/2008 6:09:13 AMPossibly the best silent movie I&#39;ve seen, The Jazz Singer a story about a timeless subject: the difficulties and pressures of growing up in a family steeped deeply in tradition. Al Jolson&#39;s character is born into a Jewish family that has produced Cantors for five generations. While Jakie Rabinowitz (who changes his name to Jack Robin) is expected to carry on the tradition, his heart isn&#39;t in it. He instead wants to be a jazz singer. This breaks his father&#39;s heart, causing him to disown Jack. Throughout the movie, Jack is torn between wanting to stay true to his family and his faith, and hiss passion for jazz. This is truly a timeless story, little different than the actor who was &quot;supposed to be&quot; a doctor, or the rock musician that was &quot;supposed to be&quot; a laywer, like their father was. As a black man, seeing Al put on black face made me uncomfortable, but ultimately, I found it acceptable within the context of the movie, that is, he wasn&#39;t actually portraying a black man, he was portraying a singer in a vaudeville act, which, historically did include black face, and even then, all he really did was sing. All in all, I&#39;d say this movie is worth of its &quot;classic&quot; label. Four stars. http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Trivia/Re_Trivia_First_Syncrhonized_Sound_Movie/214/4019/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: MovieGuy
Post To: Movie Trivia
Post Date: 12/4/2006 6:53:22 PM
Body: Answer: The Jazz Singer Although there were many movies prior to The Jazz Singer dating all the way back to the late 1800's, it wasn't until The Jazz Singer in 1927 did we have fully syncrhonized sound. The Vitaphone process was actually used a year earlier on Don Juan, a silent film with a scored background. The Warner studio took Vitaphone a step forward by capturing not only music, but voice too, and sychronizing it to the film in Jazz Singer. As mentioned in this thread, Singin' in the Rain touched on many of the issues surrounding the implementation of sound in movies. Not only were microphones large and hard to hide, they often picked up the sounds of people on set and the film camera itself.
]]>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:53:22 GMTMovieGuyMovie Trivia12/4/2006 6:53:22 PMAnswer: The Jazz Singer Although there were many movies prior to The Jazz Singer dating all the way back to the late 1800's, it wasn't until The Jazz Singer in 1927 did we have fully syncrhonized sound. The Vitaphone process was actually used a year earlier on Don Juan, a silent film with a scored background. The Warner studio took Vitaphone a step forward by capturing not only music, but voice too, and sychronizing it to the film in Jazz Singer. As mentioned in this thread, Singin' in the Rain touched on many of the issues surrounding the implementation of sound in movies. Not only were microphones large and hard to hide, they often picked up the sounds of people on set and the film camera itself. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 313

Number of times used: 1454

]]>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:30:46 GMT8163131454Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/death/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeath
Number of films tagged: 4306

Number of people who tagged: 140

Number of times used: 526

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT4306140526Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/jewish/MemberTagFilms.aspxjewish
Number of films tagged: 452

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 60

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:51:45 GMT4522860Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/singer/MemberTagFilms.aspxsinger
Number of films tagged: 3001

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 52

]]>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:34:39 GMT30012052Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/parentchildrelationship/MemberTagFilms.aspxparentchildrelationship
Number of films tagged: 396

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 27

]]>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:08:16 GMT3961427Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/tradition/MemberTagFilms.aspxtradition
Number of films tagged: 573

Number of people who tagged: 13

Number of times used: 15

]]>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:08:16 GMT5731315Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classics/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassics
Number of films tagged: 66

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 72

]]>Sun, 11 Jan 2009 03:44:25 GMT661172Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/want-it-cant-have-it/MemberTagFilms.aspxwant-it-cant-have-it
Number of films tagged: 46

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 53

]]>Mon, 22 Jan 2007 17:30:55 GMT46953Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/temple/MemberTagFilms.aspxtemple
Number of films tagged: 162

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 9

]]>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:21:19 GMT16289Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/entertainer/MemberTagFilms.aspxentertainer
Number of films tagged: 518

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 8

]]>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:02:37 GMT51858Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cantor/MemberTagFilms.aspxcantor
Number of films tagged: 11

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:53:40 GMT1100Tag