Arturo

Topbilled wrote: *Arturo is really the expert on programmers. He contributed a great post in this thread.* Thanks, TB. As I mentioned, modern-day distinctions between A and B films from the Studio Era, with no concept of "Programmer" included (or misunderstood) is one of my pet peeves, and I tend to point out when someone labels all programmers as Bs in one fell swoop. As in this post: ACROSS THE WIDE MISSOURI *is sort of like a B or an A- film. It does not really seem epic enough to be called an A film,* even though Clark Gable's in it; *and it has too good a pedigree to be labeled a B film.+* *I think MALAYA is another one of these. Compared to QUO VADIS, it is not going to seem like an A picture.* But it has Spencer Tracy, James Stewart and Sidney Greenstreet in it (a who's-who of solid performers). *It's a routine MGM drama that was blessed with excellent casting.* These comments should be enough to not even allow the B film tag to be considered for these movies. Not every A movie was, or was meant to be, an epic. These are just average studio A films, with big name talent, but nothing epic or prestigious....in short, Programmers.

During the nude calendar scandal, wasn't MM's answer to questions from the press about whether she had anything on. "Chanel No.5"? Or alternately, "The Radio".

*What are your criteria for a "hit"?* Well It isn't my criteria so much, as it's the criteria of the studio, financiers, etc....it brought in paying customers to see it in movie theaters...AND made money for those concerned. They determined that the movie was a hit when its boxoffice take was substantially more than their investment. This is a purely financial definition, and has nothing to do with artistic accomplishment. Edited by: Arturo on Nov 15, 2012 11:51 PM

*So. Casablanca is a programmer, not a B, as it is usually called.* CASABLANCA was most definitely NOT a B. It was a typical assembly-line product, seemingly a programmer in conception, but the studio seemed to sense that alchemy had somehow created gold, and its release was timed to be in the running for Oscar contention. So it's promotional budget was upped and the studio promoted it as one of its prestige items; it could no longer be considered a programmer.

*For example, THREE ON A MATCH was a short low budget film with stars. So was it a B or a Programmer?* *Wasn?t a Programmer a B too?* *What were Kay Francis films? Bs or Programmers?* In the early to mid 30s, many A films were quite short, often less than 75 minutes. Later, the length of most A films increased to over 80 minutes. TOAM, as with many of Warners' fast paced early-mid 30s movies, was a programmer, so by definition, an A movie. During Kay Francis' heyday at WB in this period, her films were all A features, whether programmmer or prestige item. Once her boxoffice pull began to wane (and she was voted "Boxoffice Poison"), but more importantly, after she had contentious contract talks at Warners (a culmination of several years of increasing antagonism between Kay and her bosses), in 1938 the studio announced in the trade papers that Kay would finish her contract doing B pictures. This was an unprecedented humiliating tactic in order, as mentioned here, to have her break her contract. She held firm, and though heart-broken, soldiered on making bona fide B movies at WB's B Unit. Edited by: Arturo on Nov 15, 2012 11:16 PM

*Could we classify "programmers" as being short low budget B-type pictures but with major stars, and classify B pictures as being short low budget films with no major stars?* Well, programmers were A pictures, on the lower end of the A budget scale; they were definitely higher-budgeted than B pictures. The main distinction was that they were usually made by the studios' A Unit, quite distinct from its B unit, with much talent, from producers on down confined to one or the other.

yes, in the 30s, movies were in neighborhood houses a day or two...a big hit might be held longer. And people went to the movies several times a week PRECISELY because there was no TV. In the 1940s, with the arrival of WW2, the need for escapism was so keen that everyone was going to the movies in the evenings...movies were held over for significantly longer periods than in the previous decade, with a commensurate and notable increase in the boxoffice take of movies.

*I wonder if Jennifer Jones was as embarrassed for appearing in this movie as I now am for her. What a sad legacy. Well, that and all her religious movies too, but that's another thread.* Quite the contrary. Jennifer threw herself into this film, feeling that the role was an important one. More to the point, it revived a career that had in the 50s consisted mostly of films -good and bad-that flopped, including the two previous ones: INDISCRETIONS OF AN AMERICAN WIFE and BEAT THE DEVIL. Only 1952s RUBY GENTRY had been a hit so far in the decade. Not only was she nominated for an Oscar for the first time since 1946 (after 4 years in a row), but she had a colossal boxoffice hit. Her next three films would also be hits: GOOD MORNING MISS DOVE, THE MAN IN THE GRAY FLANNEL SUIT and THE BARRETTS OF WIMPOLE STREET. it was only with Selznick's misguided remake of A FAREWELL TO ARMS did the winning streak come to a halt.

*Interesting bit of trivia: the "high and windy hill" in the picture wasnt in Hong Kong, but in California. No doubt the tree has been cut down and there are buildings and a parking lot there now........* Is this correct? I know that there was some location shooting in Hong Kong for a couple of weeks, featuring the stars, and incorporating as many atmospheric locations as possible, including the many hillside vistas. The script hadn't been completed, and the writer would use these background scenes and build scenes around them. Interesting about Jennifer and Bill. Ironically, he was her first choice to costar with her in TENDER IS THE NIGHT. in LIAMST, he was turned off by Jennifer's obsession with her character, and therefore wasn't attracted to her, and she didn't care for his lack of sympathy to her issues.

*I dont think Cary would've liked the let it all hang out style of movies that began in the late 60s. I think he retired at the right time. He may have still been able to act in supporting or character roles, but I dont think he would've liked that. At best he had maybe a few years left as a leading man when he retired. The type of films he made were going out of style and would die out by the end of the 60s.......* I totally agree. Cary Grant left because of what he saw as increasingly slim pickings. He wanted to protect his image and legacy; he didn't want to stretch his acting ability with challenging fare, such as some roles mentioned here. And the trend toward more permissive films was definitely not something he endorsed; certainly he would not have participated in this.

Old Larry, thanks for the correction. As I typed that I knew it didin't feel right; this morning on the way to work I realized that it was Doris Day's character, but too late to edit it.

Susan Hayward first attracted attention,even notoriety, as a scene-stealer while a featured player under contract to Paramount in the first half of the 40s. So much so that the top female stars there: Paulette Goddard, Claudette Colbert and Veronica Lake, all colluded to not have Susan cast in their films. When her contract expired in 1944, she was taken under the wing of Walter Wanger, who attained true star parts for her on loan to different studios. THE LOST MOMENT is a film she did during this period, released in 1947 (don't recall if by RKO or Universal). Financial reversals Wanger suffered caused him to sell her contract to 20th Century-Fox, where her first role there was in 1949's HOUSE OF STRANGERS. In the early 50s, she attained top stardom at Fox, becoming a Top Ten Boxoffice star and the studio's top attraction until the rise of Marilyn Monroe in 1953. Both 1951's RAWHIDE and 1953's THE PRESIDENT'S LADY came out during this period under 20th Century Fox. Unfortunately not too many of these movies are on DVD. Offhand, I can think of a handful...HOUSE OF STRANGERS under the Fox Film Noir series, biblical epics DAVID AND BATHSHEBA and DEMETRIUS AND THE GLADIATORS, Hemingway adaptations THE SNOWS OF KILIMANJARO (which sees to be in the public domain) and THE SUN ALSO RISES, SOLDIER OF FORTUNE (at the least as part of a 3-picture Clark Gable boxset), WITH A SONG IN MY HEART, possibly other Fox titles. Some of these are featured regularly on Fox Movie Channel, and some may be coming out as part of the new Fox Classic Archive series.

misswonderly wondered: *I just noticed something I'm horribly embarrassed about and it's too late to change it. I'm amazed nobody pointed this out: There's a typo in my thread title ! I 've got it as "many spendoured thing" -no "L" !* Actually, one of the earliest replies, by MovieMadness, did point it out: *"LOVE IS A MANY SPENDOURED THING" aargh!* *I like your title better, love can be quite expensive. More money is spent on love than anything else, lol, except for maybe food.*

I too enjoyed SHE when I was a kid. If I remember correctly, there was a mid-30s version of this story as well. I much prefer the sequel to the 65 version, VENGEANCE OF SHE. Don't remember the actress, other than she wasn't Andress, but also a knockout.

Zoltan (?) Korda, who produced films with Vivien from the late 30s through the 50s, was in the best position among filmmakers to have observed her mental condition. He recognized her manic absorption of her current role, and her difficulty afterward to discard said role. He did not want to offer her THE DEEP BLUE SEA, feeling that it would harm her. Afterward, he may have withheld other roles that might've seen natural for her, but this is only speculation on my part.

Well I don't think that it was common knowledge that Vivien had these illnesses, even after her Ceylon (and Hollywood) breakdown in 1953. She may not even have been diagnosed until quite late. At the very least, in the 40s and early, maybe even most of the 50s, the reasons I gave for her spotty filmmaking were the paramount ones.

Of course those were contributing factors. But apart from ELEPHANT WALK, I can't think of any role that she was not able to do for those reasons; at least, I don't remember of any she turned down because her mental illnesses were acting up.

*The only other true circus films that come to mind are The Big Circus and Circus World, both of them colourful and cliche-ridden. The circus films, including the DeMille film, will never get high marks for great originality in their screenplays. It will, instead, be the atmosphere or the casts or a certain sense of melodramatic excitement (a train crash or a big fire) that occupy the viewer's attention.* There is also CHAD HANNA, of which I had posted the following here earlier: An interesting precursor to Dottie Lamour's role in TGSOE is her performance as a circus performer in 1940's CHAD HANNA, which she made on loan to Fox. Sh played a stuntwoman riding standing on horseback, in mid-19th Century Upstate New York. Also starring are Henry Fonda as the smitten rube who follows her into the circus, and Linda Darnell as another small town runaway, who takes over Dorothy's role once Lamour is lured to a larger outfit. Quite colorful and and enjoyable, if slower paced than the later blockbuster.

*she might have been ancouraged to make more films than the scant and tragically few that she did.* It's just the way things worked out. In 1941, the Oliviers felt their patriotic duty to be in England while it was at war. Despite entreaties from MGM to return to Hollywood, she preferred remaining at home for the duration, and much preferred the stage to filmmaking,both during the war and afterwards. She wouldn't go to Hollywood unless Laurence was going also; usually they accepted film offers when they needed an infusion of cash for their theater production company.

*There's commentary on the Criterion Collection release of "Rebecca" (1940) about finding "I," who ultimately was played by Joan Fontaine. The commentary suggests that there's no need to actually "see" the Rebecca character because in our collective mind's eye, she looks exactly like Vivien Leigh.* *Think about it . . . the flowing dark locks, the self-satisfied expression, the beauty, married to Olivier . . . Makes a lot of sense and it works for me.* At this time, Vivien desperately wanted to co-star wth Olivier as often as possible. Not only did she want the lead in WUTHERING HEIGHTS, she tested for REBECCA. Selznick nixed it, feeling this worldly woman would not be able to pull off mousy, and that it would damage her image. She also wanted to be in PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, and wanted Olivier in WATERLOO BRIDGE. In the event, the first time they co-starred together on film, after achieving international fame, was in THAT HAMILTON WOMAN. Later, in England (and occasionally on Broadway), they were in many plays together, but she would be bitterly disappointed when it was felt she was too old to be his leading lady in films like HAMLET and RICHARD III.

*I think 20th Century Fox originally produced THE DEEP BLUE SEA. Leigh took the part after Marlene Dietrich turned it down.* If I remember correctly, This was a Korda production distributed by 20th in the States. Korda reluctantly offered Vivien the part after Dietrich turned in down, since he told playwright Rattigan that it would de harm to her; in nearly two decades of working with her, Korda realized that she took on some of the persona of her current character, and had a hard time ridding herself of that afterward. Vivien didn't get along with co-star More, who had wanted his original stage costar for the movie....but he was not yet a name to be reckoned with, and therefore had no clout. Terence Rattigan was a confidant of Vivien's in the 50s, along with a strong working relationship with Olivier; their paths intersected professionally a number of times. Besides TDBS, he had written "The Sleeping Prince" for them; Olivier later directed and starred in the film version with Marilyn Monroe-THE PRINCE AND THE SHOWGIRL. They also turned down the film version of his "Separate Tables". Vivien confided a personal anecdote to Rattigan, who later incorporated into his V.I.P.S screenplay.

*I especially liked when fave Dorothy Lamour comes out riding an elephant and the band plays the theme from her breakout film The Jungle Princess!* An interesting precursor to Dottie Lamour's role in TGSOE is her performance as a circus performer in 1940's CHAD HANNA, which she made on loan to Fox. Sh played a stuntwoman riding standing on horseback, in mid-19th Century Upstate New York. Also starring are Henry Fonda as the smitten rube who follows her into the circus, and Linda Darnell as another small town runaway, who takes over Dorothy's role once Lamour is lured to a larger outfit. Quite colorful and and enjoyable, if slower paced than the later blockbuster.

Yep ginnyfan. Couldn't agree more. It's not a bad film, but by far the best film of 1952 was the timeless classic that featured a certain athletic dancer dancing around in a downpour. And ironically, a film not even nominated for Best Picture that year. (...*but "of course" the Academy couldn't have a movie made by and starring that guy win twice in two years, now could they?!)* Well, Joesph Mankiewicz won Best Writer and Best Director two years running, for 1949's A LETTER TO THREE WIVES and 1950's ALL ABOUT EVE....so it wasn't inconceivable for Gene Kelly. It was more along the lines that musicals per se were seldom nominated for Best Picture,.

*Not counting GWTW which was a co-venture with MGM and Selznick, this marked the last time that MGM loaned Gable to another studio. He was too valuable to loan.* Actually, in the spring of 1936, Gable filmed CAIN AND MABEL with Marion Davies at Warner Brothers. And another loan-out of Gable's services, to 20th-Century Fox, for IN OLD CHICAGO was arranged in 1937. However, Jean Harlow was also to be loaned for the role of Belle Fawcette in this film, and when she died unexpectedly, the whole arrangement was scrapped . . . to the everlasting gain of movie fans, as the trade off was going to be MGM borrowing Shirley Temple for THE WIZARD OF OZ.

*I wonder why she never made it bigger.* I would be so happy if these feminist actresses were around today, they would be validated *and they would be paid much, much more for their craft.* Only, of course, not as much as their male counterparts Actually, she made it to the very top in the early 30s. . . she just didn't remain there for very long; reasons for this have been given here-or the links provided. The late 30s resurgence in her career playing screwball comedy did not last; by the 40s her career was on the wane. At the height of her popularity,she was the highest paid actress...$25,000 a WEEK, this in the depths of the Great Depression. Joan was never as big a star as Connie, but lasted longer at the top.