LsDoorMat

Welcome! New blood and new ideas are always welcome!

Actually, that's when he found out he had lost it. When he jumped up on the table he had horrible pain shoot up both legs, and it was then he knew his dancing days were over. And that was a big deal because Cagney always considered himself a dancer not an actor. But he went through with the number without a hitch in spite of the pain like the pro that he was. This is from his autobiography "Cagney on Cagney".

Out of the closet, off the screen: The life of William Haines 7/10 Made in 2001, this documentary somewhat shows its age, still talking about "closeted Hollywood". How could they know that 15 years later gay men and women would openly serve in the military and be able to marry legally in all 50 states. But you can't know the future when you are talking about the past. This documentary is good because it is the only one I know of that talks about the complete life of silent and early talkie star William Haines from his birth at literally the turn of the century in Virginia to a well to do family until his death. "Billy", as he is called throughout the documentary, was very athletic, but from an early age preferred his mother's craft - interior decoration, even redecorating his own room at home. Then at age 14 he discovers his sexuality and runs away from home. The documentary follows his dance hall days in Hopewell, his partying days in New York, discovery by a Fox Studios agent in 1922 and moving to Hollywood, and goes all through not only his acting career, but his stark refusal to Louis B. Mayer's command in 1933 to get married - just for a year - and send his lover of seven years, Jimmy Shields, to Europe for that year so that the studio could have something to point to that would disprove all of the rumors of his homosexuality. It must have been tempting...just one year in return for his acting career. But he said no and was fired on the spot. With the help of long time friend Joan Crawford - they were friends for a lifetime - William Haines transformed himself into the interior decorator of the stars. First he did Crawford's house, then Carole Lombard's for free just for the publicity, and it worked. Until his death, Haines was sought out by wealthy people throughout the nation. Seven years after his death his design company was commissioned by Nancy Reagan to redecorate the White House. Oh the irony. Haines died of lung cancer in 1973. Jimmy Shields, too heartbroken to go on after what amounted to a 47 year marriage, killed himself shortly thereafter. Haines' life story should have been transformed into a biography/love story film long ago. What I didn't like? The presence of Christina Crawford as the main authority on what went on between William Haines and Crawford. Well, she WAS there, but the "Mommie Dearest" vibe is just too strong to ignore. The documentary also does get some things wrong. Haines was not demoted in talking pictures at MGM because of increasing rumors of his sexuality. Instead, like Johnny Mack Brown, Haines' voice did not quite match what people expected to hear from their once silent stars. Actually, Clark Gable replaced Johnny Mack Brown, not Haines, and it was Robert Montgomery, not even mentioned in the film, a star that had no film history prior to sound, who was slowly replacing Haines in major motion pictures at MGM. Also, how did Haines get from Fox to MGM? That isn't mentioned. As for the Great Depression starting the enforcement of a morality code in Hollywood - wrong again. There was a show of stepped up enforcement, but no real enforcement of any production code came in until 1934, after Haines was already out of films. You can find gay images in Hollywood all of the way into 1934 as a result. I'd give this nine stars for at least saying more about this unfairly forgotten star of the 20s and 30s than any other documentary I've seen. I'd knock off a couple from those nine for the inaccuracies and a couple of important details just left out. Did you know that Joan Crawford proposed marriage to William Haines to help cover for him? He graciously declined because he said such marriages on paper never work if both parties are after the same men. Of course the biggest shocker for me is that AMC hosted and aired this film back in 2001. Today nobody who works there probably even knows who Joan Crawford is, much less William Haines. They are too busy with the walking dead, who, by now, have walked so far for so long it should be The Marathoning Dead. I don't recommend AMC, but I do recommend this documentary. source: youtube

I actually wasn't trying to say that, but it sounds like a great idea. Robert Montgomery has not been SOTM since either 2005 or 2006.

Yep, I already own that one. A good recommendation. What I'd really like to see is one of the few Robert Montgomery films I do not own - "Once More Darling", also by Universal. Any 1949 film that has Anne Blythe and Robert Montgomery, not playing a married couple, in a motel room with Ann sitting on the bed dressed in a tee shirt with "KILLER" plastered on the front with her asking Montgomery "Are we safe?" has got to be worth watching.

Not that I know of, but I can dream can't I?

If you can ever find a copy, watch "Unfinished Business" starring Irene Dunne,and Robert Montgomery, made in 1941 by Universal. A close to wartime movie with not a hint of Nazis in it that seems very much like a precode. It is hard to find exactly because it is Universal. I wish Warner Bros. would by the MCA/Universal film library and put some really great gems out for people to see.

Mommie Dearest (1981) 7/10 If anybody in the universe has not seen or heard of this film, this is the filmed version of Christina Crawford's tell all book of the same name, in which her adopted mother Joan Crawford is shown as an unhinged person who really had no business raising a child - she actually adopted four, including Christina. Did she have lots of lovers? Did she overspend and drink herself into a drunken stupor occasionally, especially in the waning days of her career as she lost her looks? Did she probably have more affection for Pepsi CEO Alfred Steele in her 50s than any of her many lovers in her youth and STILL spend him into an early grave anyways? Probably yes to all of these. She also was the driven star, giving her career her all, and the proof is in the pudding for she was devoted to her fans, answering their mail personally, and in the fact that she kept a youthful figure way into her 50s. But back to the movie. So she was bound to be driven in her raising of children. Maybe she did make a point - like in the swimming scene - to point out that it was true Christina could never beat her because she would always be bigger and stronger and that life is just unfair. After all Joan grew up poor and had to get everything she got the hard way. What we don't know is if this manic depressive person who treats her daughter according to her mood was the real Joan or the revenge of a disinherited child via accusations in which the accused was as helpless to fight back after death as Christina would have been as a child at Joan's mercy. At the end of the film, and in the book, Christina Crawford openly lays out the motive for her negative portrayal of her mother - she was completely disinherited along with adopted brother Christopher, even though the film portrays Joan and Christina as having an uneasy truce once Christina reached adulthood and was out of the grasp of her mother's potential for physical abuse. Thus her total shock at being disinherited, and especially in the fact that no real reason was given by Joan in her will. Now, back to the actual film. I think Faye Dunaway did a fine job of portraying the two faced monster Christina talked about in her book. Whether or not that was the real Joan Crawford. However, Dunaway looks so much like Joan Crawford that it is uncanny. Likewise, Diana Scarwid is excellent as the teenage/adult Christina. Cautious around her mother given her behavior when she was a child, trying to eke out a living as an actress once she is an adult, accepting when Joan won't give her a dime in assistance. Steve Forrest is quite good as Joan's lover, attorney Greg Savitt, whom she cuts out of her life - and her photographs - after he lays out some hard truths to her. The cinematography and art design are top notch. It nails the 40s and 50s look and feel of the fashions, automobiles, and furnishings of the time. I'd say give it a try. The over the top parts are really in the first half, as Christina is growing up. The second half is more low key, humanizing Joan just a bit to where you almost feel sorry for her. In the words of John Waters, in reference to the wire hangers scene, "If you don't like this scene you should never watch movies." For sure, you will not be bored. Just an aside - Christina isn't the only child of old Hollywood to have mommy issues and to have them end up in print. Somebody of completely different temperament and reputation in life - Jack Benny - wrote an incomplete autobiography due to his sudden death from pancreatic cancer in 1974. It was published with the help of the memoirs of his daughter - also an adopted only child. Although she says largely good things about her dad, she really lays into her mother, Mary Livingston. An interesting parallel.

So is the Universal Vault series dead? There have been no releases since the end of 2016. Just wondering if anybody knows anything. There is so much left in their vaults.

Free and Easy (1941) 6/10 I woke up this morning, this short MGM B feature was just starting on TCM, and I realized I hadn't seen it before, so I decided to stick around. Well, at first I was getting bored. Oh no, I thought, another MGM pre-war high society comedy/drama of manners in which the production values are excellent, but the meat is just not on the bones. Well, it turned out better than I thought. The plot was engaging, although it is just a retread of "The Flesh is Weak" from the early 1930s. But at just under an hour it does not outstay its welcome. It's about a young man, Max Clemington (Robert Cummings), who is poor and is looking for a wealthy woman to wed. His dad (Nigel Bruce) is also poor and father and son are boarding in a room in a run down boarding house. But Max has a tux, gets in with a society group acting like one of them, and goes looking for said wife. Lady Joan Culver (Judith Anderson) is instantly interested and very rich, but Max can't help being attracted to beautiful widow Martha Gray (Ruth Hussey), who seems to have some kind of understanding with the obnoxious Sir George Kelvin (Reginald Owen). Well, you can't say Max isn't honest. He lets Martha know up front that he is poor and is looking for a rich wife, and she turns him away saying that is not the kind of marriage she wants. At first you think it is just because Max is lazy and looking for an easy way out of a day's work. But there is more to it than that, and at that point the film becomes quite interesting. I was pretty sure of the destination, but the voyage was full of twists and turns, and a pretty good remake for the production code era. Nigel Bruce is great as the father who means well but winds up causing quite a predicament. C. Aubrey Smith, who played Bruce's part in the original "The Flesh is Weak", plays Judith Anderson's dad who is good natured but has horse flesh on his mind. And Judith Anderson almost steals the picture as a girl who may not be great looking, but turns out to be a class act all of the way. What would I take points off for? Mainly, because I kept wishing that Ruth Hussey was Myrna Loy and Robert Cummings was Robert Montgomery (like in the original), but then it wouldn't be a B production, now would it? Plus both Loy and Montgomery were, by 1941, about 5 years too old for the parts. Ruth Hussey was always good in supporting roles, but she just couldn't carry a lead in a film IMHO.

I had never heard about the two year hiatus either, so also wondering where that information came from. I guess the point is, if this was ten years ago, Robert Osborne might have mentioned something about it. I too miss the days when we were educated as well as entertained in the wrap arounds. I realize Ben has his own style, but I do wish he would pick up more on the film history angle.

I figured out what the "long blank/black sections" were that I was seeing when I went to Firefox. In IE youtube links appear as the long blank/black sections. In Firefox they are perfectly visible as what they actually are.

The first page I see is the oldest, I can't figure out how to imbed youtube links, I can't reply to people, just to topics, and many pages have long sections of blanked out dark screen. And there is no reasonable length on sentences. They just go on forever in length until you hit return, then you have a new paragraph. Oh, but if I want an emoji, I'm all set! Maybe die hard board members will put the time and effort into figuring how to navigate all of this and circumvent what must be circumvented, but if anybody new wants to join the boards I'm sure they'll just throw up their hands and try some other board where posting is simple. Then, eventually, death or disinterest will take the rest of us, to the point where only ten people are talking to one another, and TCM management will say "Shut down the boards, nobody uses them anyways", which is probably what they wanted in the first place, just like the lame excuse imdb gave for shutting down their discussion boards ..."imdb can't have discussion boards anymore because of, um, Trump!". All along it was just a cost cutting device. End of rant. Yes TB, it really is as bad as it seems. I still can't reply. Apparently I can only start a new thread. How do you reply? There is no reply button shown after I enter text. JJG, I do not want to dig up a new browser and install it. I am perfectly OK with IE, I don't currently have Chrome on my computer. Why oh why could they not just put up a simple POST button like before???

MGM's Big Hit Parade of 1940 This little short greets the audience of the new MGM theatre in Cairo, Egypt. Although it talks about the films of 1940, all of these films were produced in America in 1938 and 1939. I also have to wonder about the Egyptian audience. Host Lewis Stone, who spent the last 25 years of his life at MGM, greets the audience from behind a desk, and his last words to the audience are about enjoying the trailers that are to come and then he says his farewell in Arabic. However, most of the film clips that are shown require an American viewpoint if you are going to enjoy them. They are: Block-Heads (1938) Out West with the Hardys (1938) Idiot's Delight (1939) Tarzan Finds a Son! (1939) The Wizard of Oz (1939) The Women (1939) At the Circus (1939) Goodbye Mr. Chips (1939) Thunder Afloat (1939) Broadway Serenade (1939) Ninotchka (1939) First off, remember that Britain was occupying Egypt at the time, and first the Italians in 1940 would attack Egypt, followed by Hitler's army in 1941, with Nazi forces getting 150 miles from Cairo before being beaten back. But at the time these films were made, Hitler had not made his true expansionist intentions known. Now The Marx Brothers and Laurel and Hardy have universal appeal because of their physical comedy, but Groucho's verbal sparring would go right over the head of somebody not familiar with English or American culture. "Out West With the Hardys" would require the audience to understand the American west, while "The Women" would require the audience to understand the divorce customs of the upper class, and why were all of those women who didn't like each other on a ranch in Nevada in the first place? "Tarzan Finds a Son" speaks a universal language of adventure, but non-American audiences might not understand why American puritanism required Tarzan to go find a son rather than just make one with Jane. The British living in Egypt would totally get "Goodbye Mr. Chips", and "Wizard of Oz" speaks to the fantasy loving child in everybody, but the Egyptians would have no idea why Kansas was in black and white and probably wondered if they were experiencing technical difficulties. Any British in the audience would have their feathers ruffled by "Thunder Afloat" as two Americans have to be tricked into serving in the military in WWI. Likewise the British in 1940 would find "Idiot's Delight" offensive as the film -based on a play - makes the build up to WWII sound like a trick to get profits by munitions magnates while the Nazis are just misunderstood bureaucrats. Ninotchka has timeless universal appeal, but then that was just a trademark of Ernst Lubitsch. And finally, I can't figure out why MGM would try to introduce Jeanette McDonald to Egypt with what has to be her worst film, "Broadway Serenade". The pairing of Jeanette McDonald and Lew Ayres had no chemistry to begin with, and if every time Jeanette opened her mouth to sing, American audiences expected Lew Ayres of Dr. Kildare fame to pull out a tongue depressor, I can only imagine what the Egyptians would think. One more thing - at the end of the previews, MGM summarizes who to look for in their new films as their up and coming stars. Only Lana Turner will be recognizable unless you are the most earnest of film history buffs. Virginia Grey I recognized, but she never made it out of B roles in B pictures at MGM, and left there in 1942. Rita Johnson had even less success, and then tragedy struck when she became permanently brain damaged by one of those heavy old style hair dryers falling on her head, essentially ending her career. In summary, I don't think MGM thought this through very well since they probably were not used to appealing to non-Western audiences. However, this short is a great time capsule of what American audiences liked in that narrow frothy optimistic time frame post depression and pre-WWII.

Universal Horror (1998) This documentary about the unique horror franchises that came out of Universal studios during the 20s and 30s, pretty much ending with the Wolfman in 1941, really is universal, in that the documentary makes ties from the Universal films to the German silents that were their forerunners, and even ties the Universal monsters to subliminal guilt some felt over WWI, embodied in its often deformed survivors. Maybe this guilt is one reason isolationism held the U.S. from entering WWII until it was almost too late? But I digress. The film analyzes in detail the Dracula, Frankenstein, Invisible Man, and Mummy franchises, and talks a little about the Wolfman. They entirely leave out Creature from the Black Lagoon, probably because that was the 50s, and after the nuclear bomb and the Nazis who is really afraid of a giant fish anyways? The documentary mentions that the production code and the loss of Universal by the Laemmles is what really ended the classic cycle of horror at Universal, because the new owners just never got the hang of making horror with the same insight into the public's subliminal fears like the ones from the 20's through 1936 did. Commenters include author Ray Bradbury, who says he drew some of his inspiration from these films, and James Karen, giving his boyhood memories of seeing these films in the theater as a child. He had no ties to anybody at Universal, but just seems like someone who is young at heart. He is still with us and soon to be 94. Film critic David Skal gets annoyingly enthusiastic, but maybe horror is his passion. He is being shot in a room full of horror memorabilia, but, hey, maybe he has entire rooms in his house each dedicated to a different genre of film including anime? Boris Karloff's daughter Sara, Gloria Stuart - once a Universal contract player, and Carla Laemlle also talk about their experience in and around the sets of these famous Universal horror films. Horror films from other studios are also mentioned such as Dr. Jekyll and Mr.Hyde as well as Mystery of the Wax Museum and King Kong. This film does a very thorough job of discussing Universal horror films in general, and ends with a bit of a mystery, almost sounding like a curse. Carl Laemmle Jr., head of Universal at the time the Laemmles went into bankruptcy, came down with an undiagnosable illness and lived the rest of his life as an invalid. A chilling end to a chilling and fascinating documentary. It only makes me wonder, how can a studio make such a great documentary filled with thorough understanding of their own film history, and then treat that film history so shabbily? Probably Paramount and Universal are the two worst studios about giving no care at all to their catalogue of classic films. I'd give this documentary 9/10.

Great write-up. However, your avatar is a wolf. Would you raise the rating because you admire cats or because you want to eat them?

"Winter Kills" (1979) 10:15PM EST Friday - Browsing imdb, the rating is not that high, but if what one reviewer says is true, this is truly a film that another film about "the making of" would be truly fascinating. imdb reviewer wsherett wrote the following in July 2005: "Condon wrote a magazine article about this movie production around 1980 that makes it ten times as strange as the story itself. Among other details: The movie was financed with money from cocaine dealers. When the production went over budget, the executive producer brought in additional "financiers", then was able to keep the crews working for two weeks - in New York - with no pay. Jeff Bridges and Tony Perkins both offered their salaries as collateral. After the film was finished, the studio was purchased by a bigger studio which then ultimately declined to release it. At one point, at a test preview at Grauman's Chinese Theatre, passers by were being offered $1 to watch the movie. A few months later, the executive producer was found in a New York hotel room, handcuffed to a bed, with two bullets in his head." On a lighter note, Saturday morning there is a John Barrymore film that I have never heard of or seen before, "Long Lost Father" (1934) with Donald Cook and Helen Chandler. I doubt it's a TCM premiere, but perhaps somebody can shed some light on when this one was last televised on TCM. I've been noticing that lately TCM has been attempting to beef up weekends with odd premieres and seldom shown films rather than the same old chestnuts.

I would suggest tonight's Silent Sunday Night entry "The Phantom Carriage". It's not really horror - it's more of a morality tale about a wastrel who for some reason, for a dying Salvation Army Sister, is "the man she loves". This guy is married AND a complete waist of flesh and her Salvation Army compadres have no problem with this? Maybe there is a mistranslation in the subtitles but this has always confused me. The film has to do with the last person dying for the year - or maybe it is the first person dying in the new year - has to drive "The Phantom Carriage" which collects the souls of the newly dead for the next calendar year. Now this thing collects the souls of all of the dead, so maybe it would be a horror movie for a Muslim soul to have to ride in - or even wind up driving - this phantom carriage which is covered in Christian symbols. I wonder how that worked? The other film I would recommend is tomorrow night at 8pm there is a rare showing of 1930's "Madam Satan", the second of three films De Mille made at MGM. It's a musical! It's a precode! It's a costume ball on a blimp! And it is as weird as they come! By the way, do NOT buy the Warner Archive DVD. I bought three and they were ALL bad! Just record it off TCM and you will probably get a lovely copy and commentary from the hostesses of the "Trailblazing Women Festival". I'm also going to be recording "Snow Devils" (6:15AM) and "War of the Planets (3:15PM)" tomorrow, just because I have never seen them. But with imdb ratings of 3.6 and 2.7 respectively, I'm not holding out too much hope for quality here. Maybe they'll be so bad they're good.

But what Irena believed was true, and Kent Smith believed it all by the end of "Cat People". Plus I just love how he teaches his daughter that lying is rewarding by telling her that if she tells him that she sees Irena in the garden he'll punish her. She tells the truth - she sees Irena - and he spanks her. Wow this guy is just as bad as a father to his daughter as he was a husband to Irena.

John Wayne won his Academy Award ten years before he died of cancer. He did not have cancer when he won the award. Instead I think that it was the kind of "Body of Work" award the academy hands out when they think this may be their last chance because they don't know if the nominee will retire, never have another competitive role, or die. They did that with DeMille in 1952 and "Greatest Show on Earth", definitely not the best picture that year if you look at the competition. I'm not going to argue the fact that Wayne had less range than other actors of his generation - Cary Grant for example. But John Ford was hardly a benefactor. If Wayne had not had the right stuff Ford would have dumped him. I can't see anybody but Wayne carrying the roles he did in "The Quiet Man", "The Searchers", or "The Shootist". I am thus going to argue that I think some of you are wrong in characterizing Wayne as a complete hack and a one note player when what is probably coloring your viewpoint is how he was such a supporter of the Communist witch hunts of the early 50s. I never understood Wayne's politics either. As for George Clooney, some of his films I like, some I do not. I don't think he particularly "makes" any of the good films he is in. I am not familiar with the work he did behind the camera. If he indeed made "Batman" in 1997 just so he could collect a big salary and thus afford to pick his projects I would like to know why he picked "Men Who Stare at Goats" or "The Perfect Storm ("We're Gloucestermen! We don't need no stinking meteorologists!"). Just my two cents. Sorry so late, but I've been working a heavy schedule.

Love how you nailed "The Innocents". What got me was how Kerr's governess character was so absolutely darned sure about every step necessary to deal with the ghosts when she is obviously making this stuff up as she goes along, and that last look of horror when she realizes she has so underestimated the evil powers she is fighting.

I just watched "Cat People" (1942) AKA "She was a cat, he was a dog". First off SPOILER warning as I completely (almost) spoil the film. Boy (Kent Smith as Oliver) meets girl (Simone Simon as Irena). Except boy is one of the few men between 20 and 60 who is not in the military, and the girl has bizarre fantasies about being one of the "cat people" - people descended from a group of witches and warlocks in Europe that escaped the sword of King John when he came to cleanse their village of wickedness. Oliver and Irena eventually admit their love, and Oliver proposes marriage. Irena has doubts because of her feelings that there is evil in her, that she is one of the "cat people". Oliver poo poos such nonsense and basically says"Forget that cat people nonsense babe and marry me anyways, it will make no difference." But it does. Irena doesn't want to consummate the marriage. Oliver says no problem he'll wait. Irena goes to see a psychiatrist, Oliver says no problem he'll wait. Irena wrestles with her cat people identity problem until a few months later she tells Oliver she has decided to put the past behind her and be a real wife to him. Not so fast Oliver says. He now loves Alice, a girl at work and he wants a divorce. So Irena, a troubled soul to begin with, has a husband who thinks "Until death do you part" is just a saying people kick around at weddings and has completely overestimated his patience, while Alice, a woman who has said she was Irena's friend has been that shoulder Oliver can cry on at work until she steals his heart. Also, the psychiatrist has ulterior motives too as Tom Conway rips a page from his brother George Sanders' playbook. Last line of the film - Oliver saying "She never lied to us". Yep, but ALL of you - the doctor, Oliver, Alice - essentially lied to HER. I'd like to turn into a big cat and eat the three of them if I were in Irena's circumstances. Don't think I don't love this film - I do. It uses atmosphere and what you don't see where the 82 version just used cheesy sex scenes and lots of gore. I'd give it an 8/10.

Getting a bit OT here, but I'll add just this. TCM has been getting more Universal/Paramount/Fox/Sam Goldwyn centric too. TCM's parent company now owns the distribution rights to Paramount's classic film library starting from 1950 to an end date I am not aware of, and also owns the distribution rights to just about everything in Sam Goldwyn's library. That is probably why Ronald Colman as SOTM was even possible since Colman was under contract to Goldwyn from 1929 into the 1930s. Also Fox Movie Channel decided to become "New Fox Movies Everybody has seen and the Dreck Fox made circa 1960 that Enabled Darryl F. Zanuck's Return" alias FX channel. Thus no more old FMC and thus so many Fox golden age movies are showing up on TCM. Finally Universal has made some kind of agreement with TCM, so more of their stuff is showing up on TCM, most obvious from this month's schedule. TCM DID have access to Columbia's film library in the early 2000's up to about 2010. During that time TCM showed many rare old Columbias, but I do not think "Let's Get Married" was one of them.

When I asked why this film was not better known I was wondering why it isn't among Columbia's better known films of the 1930's and thus better known today. Obviously it never took off or was always meant to be a second bill film, and that is why I had to hunt to find it.

Not on TCM, but on HBO at 8PM EST tonight, October 7, there is a new 147 minute documentary about Steven Spielberg that was produced by HBO films.