MovieProfessor

> Fred you mention: I suspect that Kodak designed its positive-image release-print film to fade, so the distributors would have to buy more prints to continue showing the film. Kodak positive-image release-print film (with prints being made from a color negative film) is just about the worst film ever invented. I myself have long suspected that the Eastman Kodak Company in Rochester, New York had all along known the color photographs would never be as realible as their Black&White prints. Of course, members of the company, oldtimers like you and I, have sworn that the problem wasn't so easily discovered until about the late 1950's. The Company claimed that instructions were issued at photo dealers to say the photographs could not be exposed to direct light over a long period of time. Company officials, at least the ones I spoke to, said that part of the problem was the use of the photographic stock, by local developing labs that in time, failed to follow some of the vital instructions to handling the chemical process. This issue proved to be delusive, when millions of people, who had stored their photographs, away from any light, in albums, already found them to be faded and turning a yellowish hue! There have been all sorts of theories centered around who or what should be blamed. Truth is that most of the Kodak color stock from the time color photography was introduced and is today still reasonably viable was first shot on Kodachrome! Most of the time, local photo labs continued to air-brushed photographs, knowing as early as the late 1940's, there was a problem with the color print stock of Kodak. The company then began to not address the issue, on just how long a color photograph could last. The issue was then placed on the matter of the consumer and how he or she had in part some responsibility to the problem. I for one, have never seen any orginial color (print) photograph from over 50 years, have any trustworthiness and stability to its color rendering. Finally, around the late 1970's, Kodak came out and admitted to the problem. From that time on, everything about the process was defined as having been a major failure! Even by that time, there was nothing Kodak could really do to rectify the process. It was only at the professional level of photography that color prints had some corrective regularity. As for the average consumer, there was never any real chance of acquiring a color print to have long term preservation. This situtaion also meant that the color negatives faded as well or could not be so efficiently redeveloped! Any old, stored negatives had to be processed using a lot of guess work. But, in recent years, the digital system of photo development has made vast improvements to solving this problem and elimating most of the presumption to the color rendering. By the way, I still have Kodakchrome slides from over 50 years. Many of these are of my days in show business that are still beautiful and haven't really faded or the color shifted. Some of these color slides have been transfered or turned into prints. I'm proud to say that all those years I bummed around show business with my little Leica camera, having cleverly decided to shoot Kodakchrome, paid off for me in a big way! At least a dozen or so of my old photos have made it to the pages of several books about movie stars. A few of my photos are the only color documented source (so far in existence) of a star at an event! The most valuable is of the mighty and legendary Marilyn Monroe. . .What this photo is should be easy enough to figure out, if you can remember or have read a posting I did about Marilyn! I won't get into any details, because it's best to stay on equal terms with everyone on the website and not grandstand about myself. And, that's all I'm gonna say . . .

You're right Fred . . . The studio somehow did a better job of storage and the handling of their Technicolor films. The same could be said of Disney. The main point to what made Technicolor superior, as well as long lasting (if properly stored) was the process. Although, the coming of Eastman Color made color production cheaper and easiler, no matter what, the Eastman Color prints just faded away or turned pink; sometimes in no less than six months!! We're lucky that digital can turn a bad, poorly faded print into a preferred presenation to what it once might have been, when first released. In today's restoration process, it is very difficult to conclude, what a print (especially an Eastman Color!) might have once appropriatley looked like. Even some restored Technicolor films have been placed under suspect as to the accuracy of their oriignal representation. While you and I might have some fond memories of the beauty and precision of a Technicolor film, the passing of time and circumstance has made it all but impossible for us to really compare the classic Technicolor three-strip process to what we have today. Some film technicians today say they can match, if not, create a print as good as what we once knew and saw. I usually laugh at that point of view, since today, I don't see any major studio or production company go through the high standards and routine of offering the highest element of production values, on all levels of motion picture composition. It's only with these recent animated films that a bit of colorful rendering seems to have a nice affect. While most live-action films are shot in a moody, dingy sort of atmosphere. This is all done to make a point from a demonstrative perspective of naturalistic means of expression. Today, the motion picture product, at least the live-action one, doesn't rely on being impressively colorful or add something bright and refreshing to view. Most everything in the movies today is characterized by a naturalism to the atmposhere being presented, as to make the audience feel they are participating. What is missing is that once proud and elaborate showmanship to what a motion picture could be. Perhaps being a member of the "Old School of Hollywood," I'm out of step with the times. But then, I won't quarrel with what would be considered a form of artistic intent to have a sense of naturalism. I just think it's sad that we lack a bit of color in live-action movies these days. And, I think you know or understand the simplicity of what I mean towards what we once knew Technicolor to be. Oh well, there's always a good, restored film on DVD or Blu-ray available for us to contemplate.

Another Fox Technicolor film to consider and it isn't even a musical is the 1945 dramatic film, "Leave Her To Heaven." Based on a popular book, the film utilized some very impressive on location filming that was for its time, the finest example of just how brilliant a three-strip negative to print could be. A lot of time and effort went into carefully reflecting upon a good amount of equilibrium between the scenes shot in a sound-stage to those scenes shot outdoors. This movie was probalby the most stunningly beautiful presentation of actress Gene Tierney. She never looked more radiant and secductively gorgeous than in this movie.

> {quote:title=finance you asked: }{quote}Did Fred's wish not to repeat himself extend to not repeating anything on screen that he had done on stage? Don't FUNNY FACE and THE BANDWAGON both include songs from the stage productions of the same name? In technical terms, the answer would be uneqivocally NO . . . He did not repeat himself a second time with "The Bandwagon" and then "Funny Face." This is because when Fred appeared on stage or Broadway, the musicals were very different from their eventual film versions that came many years later. Everything about the so called film versions of first "The Bandwagon" and then later on "Funny Face," had changes in the characters, songs, dance routines, in as much as the main storyline was altered to suit the current time frame. In this case, Fred never really felt he had repeated what he had performed on stage, despite how famous both musical shows had been to his career. Both film versions did have a few songs from the stage show, but overall, new or other noted tunes were added that had no original connection to the productions. Of course, just about every Broadway musical, turned motion picture will have differences, when compared to its staged counterpart. Even though "White Christmas" was an original movie musical, it was dealing with what appeared to be a legacy created from "Holiday Inn." The problem for "White Christmas" was utilizing the same formula of two "show business buddies" that had already been tried twice with Bing and Fred. Add the whole holiday spirit element and now "White Christmas" is in many ways a shadowy reflection of "Holidy Inn!" Just the main idea in "White Christmas" of heading up to Vermont and a ski-lodge that bares a striking resemblance to the tavern in "Holiday Inn," it becomes very evident the film is preying upon a previous success. I would have to feel that Fred must have felt uninspired about the idea of another "holiday musical." It was probalby the whole subject matter that wasn't so new to Fred and while he might have dallied with the idea, his heart wasn't in it.

> {quote:title=Edgecliff you mentioned: }{quote}Astaire had no problem working with Crosby. Absolutley correct! Bing and Fred would remain, good close friends, until Bing's death. One of their other best parings was for a television special and a record album they recorded during the late 1970's. > {quote:title=Edgecliff, you also go on to mention: }{quote}I thought I read somewhere that he was also not exactly happy with the script, but I cannot confirm this. I believe that it was all due to a combination of everything previously mentioned. Bing had for a short period of time, hounded Fred to consider the idea. The issue of the script could have been worked out in Fred's favor; Bing could have used his tremendous influence at Paramount to remedy the situation. Yet, always lurking in the shadows was that Fred did not like to *repeat himself* for any film he appeared in. So, it stands to reason that the idea of basically, recreating a hybrid version of an already proven successful film (and a classic!) wasn't exactly a project that appealed to Fred. He certainly didn't need the huge deal or salary Paramount was offering. What he did in order to please Bing was briefly toy with the idea that he might do it. In the process, came other issues (especially those personal ones) that in the end halted any chance he would have had in getting on board. Today, the information concering this issue of "White Christmas" and Fred has been mixed up in different directions, appearing as if to not wantonly tarnish Fred's highly respected reputation. Anyway, it was probably meant all along to be Bing's movie and keep his association to that classic Christmas song.

To give more clarification on Fred's original association to "White Christmas," from day one, both Bing and Paramount had always planned to have him in the film. Although it was actually never official, he began to work out dance routines. Along the way to this possibility, there was the impending problem of his beloved wife Phyillis, who was suffering from an incurable bout of lung cancer. This situation placed a lot of stress on Fred, while he attempted to sort out the details with Paramount to undertake his role for "White Christmas." As this trauma emotionally deteriorated Fred, he was smoking heavily, not getting much sleep and perhaps drinking a little too much. He then caught a bit of what was later believed to be a mild flu, injured himself during a rehearsal and couldn't continue on with the plans of appearing with Bing in the movie. By the end of 1954, Phyillis died and Fred was indeed devastated to the point that he might not return to motion pictures. However, by the following year, he managed to conjure up enough courage to keep his career going, only because Phyillis would have wanted him to and the rest is history. There is however, a very, very intruging point to "White Christmas" that in later years would be so closely connected to Fred's career that many fans don't catch or know about. In the eventual film, a young, beautiful starlet makes an appearance in a small role as one of the chours girls. This lovely lady turns out to be none other than the enticing dancer Barrie Chase! She would in the coming years be Fred's dance partner on all his famous and popular television specials.

{font:Arial}Well, from an historical basis, Paramount Pictures had originally planned to have Bing and Fred together again for this big 1954, VistaVision production of “White Christmas.” Some film buffs tend to feel that the movie was sort of jinxed! It was during a rehearsal that Fred had a freak accident, hurting his ankle. It was decided to ask Gene Kelly to fill in, but he was involved in another project and {font}{font:Arial}Paramount{font}{font:Arial} didn’t want to place the production on hold, even to wait for Fred to possibly heal. This led to the studio hiring Donald O’Connor, but he also took ill and had to bow out! The studio was under a desperate situation, in need of launching as soon as possible, the new widescreen process of VistaVision. This was the main reason for most everything associated to “White Christmas” as being rushed. So, Danny Kaye was brought in and he saved the produciton.{font} {font:Arial}It was so obvious from the start of the idea to make the film that {font}{font:Arial}Paramount{font}{font:Arial} was looking at something of a sequel to their big success with “Holiday Inn.” Naturally, the whole idea of having Irving Berlin’s songs (and a few new ones) once again showcased led all back to the previous block-buster of “Holiday Inn” that even by 1954 was still being released successfully in theaters at around the holiday season. This new entry of “White Christmas” was looked upon as an updated version of everything associated to “Holiday Inn.” Perhaps one of the biggest of all new changes, besides the widescreen process was the beautiful Technicolor. A lot of money was poured onto the production, as {font}{font:Arial}Paramount{font}{font:Arial} was trying to get back into the major leagues of movie musicals.{font} {font:Arial}The film opened at {font}{font:Arial}New York{font}{font:Arial}’s {font}{font:Arial}Radio{font}{font:Arial} {font}{font:Arial}City{font}{font:Arial} {font}{font:Arial}Music Hall{font}{font:Arial} to sell out showings. The lines outside the Music Hall were long and endless! Despite mixed, if not, lukewarm reviews, the film became the biggest box office hit of 1954! {font}{font:Arial}Paramount{font}{font:Arial}’s big gamble paid off better than anyone at the studio could have imagined. Yet, for all the popularity and success of the film, it has never entered the annals of a classic movie musical. The big question is whether or not Fred would have made the difference. All said and done, the film was never in the same league of “Holiday Inn!” Once Danny came on board, I have it on the best authority that the content or script was changed or had to be altered.{font} {font:Arial}I wouldn’t say “White Christmas” is a bad movie. It’s just not as lively and uplifting as was “Holiday Inn.” Even the second film Bing and Fred made, “Blue Skies” is a superior work of movie musical know-how and once again they had a great musical score by Irving Berlin! The only thing “White Christmas” has going for it, from any historical record is one of the biggest of all movie rentals for a film during the entire decade, until the movie was given over to NBC for its first television showing in 1965. And, the ratings were very high! But then, a lot of the hype probably all falls back to the whole aura of that famous, classic, holiday song . . . Doesn’t it? {font}

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote: > }{quote}Props should probably also go to Grace Metalious, the housewife who scored a major success with *Peyton Place* which was published in 1956. The difference between Metalious, as opposed to Susann and Robbins comes with the subject matter. Susann and Robbins wrote their fiction based around actual celebrities. Metalious was basically a typical novelist, who with some good publicity made a huge success with *Peyton Place,* having no connection to any famous people as a model to the novel.

> {quote:title=wouldbestar . . .}{quote} Grace Kelly is a very good choice at that and Susann had actually known Kelly during her trials and tribulations through those years working in early "live" television. Basically, Susann was never really clear in public about the character of Anne, but it all stands to reason by those many who knew her, the charcter was closest to who Susann was those years she sought a show business career. In a strong historical, technical sense, both Susann and Harold Robbins share the "limelight" of literary smut associated to American publishing. While their books were popular, in as much as best sellers, the two are probably the great forerunners to what most know today as block-buster popular media trash.

I will add something to this discussion by simply saying that Baldwin and I have crossed paths. The first thing I noticed about him is that he likes a lot of attention . . . He feeds upon being the center of attention . . . He uses his celebrity status whenever he can . . . The whole vantage point to him is being in control around those of us who lack any notoriety, therefore because he is widely known, whether for good or the bad, he flaunts himself constantly as a means to get his way or not be questioned for whatever he deems is appropriate for him. It's not that he loses touch with reality, he can't see beyond what reality he has created for himself to deal with and then commands an acceptance to his rules and his rules only. When the flight attenant politely asked him to stop what he was doing, he simply responded from a reaction of embarrassment that this "little person" . . . a nobody . . . dare challenge him? . . . Who is this broad? Had the young lady thrown herself at his feet . . . perhaps even licked his shoes . . . He then might have gladly accepted her request. This isn't the first time "a star" of sorts, reacts in an unpleasant manner, due in large part to an arrogance that fame and all its trimmings brings on to one's self-esteem. So now, he's asked for forgiveness. I wonder . . . I've got to wonder if he just loves being difficult . . . Sometimes, being famous and difficult is like a drug gone out of control. But then, his agent won't be so concerned with what happened on the plane. Why? Well, after all is said and done, the whole scheme of things keeps him under the spotlight and Baldwin is one who sure as hell loves being under the spotlight. Call it crazy . . . Call it dumb . . . All of this is part of show business and Baldwin loves show business . . . Whether in or out of it, he's always acting, good or bad! Catch him on a good day, he's a nice and considerate guy. It's just that for the past say eight years, he's had more bad moments than good ones. And now, he just can't get enough of what he wants out of life, in terms of a need to be flamboyant, in order to stay to what he believes is in touch with his fame, career and whatever else goes with a continued labor of not having yet decided on who he really wants to be. He doesn't have to worry so much about his status, he lost that a while back, when it became all too apparent his private life can't be so easily connected to his career. He'll never, never be a Duke Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Henry Fonda, Jimmy Cagney, Bogie, Ty Power, Gregg Peck, Frank Sinatra and the list goes on . . . So, I say: Give it up Baldwin, you'll never be a classic or have the necessary class . . . I just hope I don't bump into again, because the last time we met, you were so self-absorbed, I don't think you heard anything, anybody else standing around you said . . . What you need to make you happy is a constant script . . . I guess that's an *essential* for you . . . Get it?

FredC. . . . {font:Arial}Everything you posted about the Blimps makes perfect sense to the point that the system itself could at times be not so reliable. This meant breakdowns and problems with any sort of accident or noise that might affect a scene being shot. The Blimps simply became a necessary precaution from a technical past that was riddled with uncertainty. Director William “Wild Bill” Wellman always shot a scene twice . . . As he would say: “First for himself and the other in case something goes wrong.” In time, the system, be it for color or standard black and white improved and the Blimps faded away from the annals of motion picture history. The reason why the system of Blimps, gets little if no coverage is due to a lack of interest among film historians. They see no reason to chronicle a system that lasted less than 20 years. With constant improvements in the system, it’s been believed to not be so critical to motion picture history. Of course, there is a systematic reason to feel the era of the Blimps have some value to accept their place of importance. It just all depends upon who you speak to or those who (very few) want to mention a part of motion picture history that at times is all but forgotten. {font}

{font:Arial}Let me see if I can clarify this issue of the so called Blimp! First off, the early Technicolor cameras did require housing the size of a large refrigerator! Early on, at least by the time of talking-pictures, this system was cumbersome and at times difficult to set up and a lot of time was spent planning ahead, in order to get the best possible shots. This simply added to the expensive cost of shooting a film in Technicolor. However, and this is a very, very big HOWEVER . . . If a portion of the film be shot outdoors, beyond the confines of a sound stage, then a large-size Blimp was not such a requirement, because at the right distance, away from the camera and the use of a good lens, the noise of the camera wouldn’t be picked up, due to the sound microphones and the scene being shot placed at a reasonable distance. In a studio, it was a whole different affair, all due to the close and limited environment where sound had to be controlled. So, while some situations didn’t require a Blimp, at various times, in the studio it did!! I have this information on the best authority, a deceased friend of mine by the name of Clarence Brown. Therefore, *Fred’s photos of the smaller Blimps* *are credible* to the point that a form of flexibility came into the scheme of things, while the system was perfected along the way towards the monopack (single strip) camera. Amen.{font}

> {quote:title=wouldbestar you mentioned:}{quote} > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > {color:black}When the movie came out the roles of Neely, Jennifer, and Helen were all thought to be thinly disguised versions of stars with the initials JG, MM, and EM (*Barbara Parkins' Anne I'm not certain about).* {font:Arial}The list of the three stars you gave, who were the original prototypes for the roles in "{font}{font:Arial}Valley{font}{font:Arial} of {font}{font:Arial}The Dolls{font}{font:Arial}" is absolutely, without any question correct! Now, in reference to Barbara Parkins role, I’m a little surprised you couldn’t figure that one out! The role of "Anne" is simply based on the early experiences of novelist Jacqueline Susann herself! The character is in many ways Susann’s alter ego and this rather flagrant world that surrounded her, once she made it to the bright lights of Broadway and for that matter, {font}{font:Arial}New York City{font}{font:Arial} with all the challenges facing a young woman reaching for some sort of notoriety.{font} {font:Arial}Of course, the 1967 film was an updated version of the original novel that spanned at least three decades from the time of the Second World War. The worst thing about the movie is that no real starting point of an actual time frame is clearly presented. So, the movie audience has to simply go along with what is basically a condensed form of events. This has always been considered something of a surreal atmosphere to the film. In other words, while the movie might look logical or have some feel to reality, it’s more prone to an exposure of the emotional setbacks and experiences of the main characters. {font} {font:Arial}At the time Judy Garland bowed out of the project, due in large part to the on coming stress of realizing a segment of the film was centered around her actual career, it was simply too much for Judy to cope with and she just walked off the set, stealing the costumes she would later use on her concert tours for another two years until she died. Susan Hayward came on board, because she had just finished a film at the studio and decided the extra work wouldn’t hurt, since "{font}{font:Arial}Valley{font}{font:Arial} of {font}{font:Arial}The Dolls"{font}{font:Arial} was surmised as perhaps the biggest film for 20th Century-Fox that year. Besides, there was no other noted actress of her caliber or from her era that would have wanted to do the role, since it was a direct affront towards Ethel Merman. Susan was very provocative and rational over the questions raised on who the role of Helen Larson was exactly based upon. She pulled no punches when talking to the press and it’s all too probable that Ethel would have never spoken to or welcomed Susan with opened arms! Topping off all the fuss, Susan’s performance would receive the best reviews! {font} {font:Arial}Now, about the casting of Patty Duke . . . It all seemed like a good PR idea, since Patty would initially bring in younger audiences. She was still a popular star from television and for the movies had won an "Oscar" as a teenager. But, the most important aspect to casting Patty in the pivotal role of "Neely O’Hara" was due to her petite persona and yet high emotional range that was a dead-ringer for what everybody knew was actually Judy Garland! The natural problem Patty faced was that she was not a real singer and of course was dubbed. Adding even more of a bizarre background to this important and probably the most fascinating character was the way in which the film chronicled her rise to stardom that again didn’t really connect so easily with the current time frame or year of the film’s release. This controversy is best realized by the fact that the music industry in 1967 was being dominated by Rock & Roll. So, the film wants the movie audience to accept an atmosphere that pertains to a past era, being reversed towards the current trends and lifestyles of the late 1960’s. Although the cast is represented in a contemporary visual format, the content of the film’s show business events are straight out of the 1940’s to 1950’s! This is exactly where the novel's foundation is placed. {font} {font:Arial}When the film opened in December of 1967 as a big holiday block-buster, there was lots of fanfare and publicity galore. At the beginning of the promotional campaign, Jacqueline Susann went along with what the studio expected, giving her support. It was only after the dismal reviews and response from both critics and even fans of the original novel that all hell broke loose and Susann abandoned any open connection to the motion picture. She looked rather foolish; having gone on various late night and afternoon television “talk shows” having plugged the movie or as she first put it, "a movie of my story!" Well, today she might have a very different outlook towards the initial outcome of the film version; since it’s gone on to become something of a cult favorite with farfetched and gaudy fans. In a practical sense, the movie has succeeded in a flaunting way towards exposing a part of show business that did exist, but by 1967 the rules and styles had changed. Didn’t anybody at the studio figured this out? But no! They had to change the entire time frame and feel it was so necessary. This would be like taking "Gone With The Wind" and updating it to those turbulent times of the 1960’s. But then, as that old saying goes: "That’s Hollywood!" {font}

> {quote:title=Skyfall12 . . .}{quote} As far as I can tell . . . Kelley couldn't have been there, on location in Mexico, filming "The Magnificent Seven," because by 1959 to 1960, he was already an established, moderately well known actor, throughout Hollywood. He was working regularly in television, involved with at least three different programs, at the time of the movie's making. Yet, for all intended purposes, Kelley had even appeared with Steve McQueen on the weekly television series, "Wanted Dead or Alive." The actor you speak of in the film, does bear some resemblance to Kelley, but in terms of physical attributes, Kelley was slimmer, not as stocky and younger.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs . . .}{quote} > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee Marvin and Charles Bickford were also doctors. *The whole cast looked like a group of guys who would plot together to rob a bank.* Fred, you're right on the money! I'm having a good, hard laugh on what is a great emblematic point to make about the male cast! They do make better criminals, then doctors! This is especially the case if we look into the arrest records of Frank and Bob Mitchum! As for good old Charlie, well he'd probably be the old patriarch hood or retired gang leader and Lee definitely as a wise-guy hitman, ready to wack somebody at a moments notice. But as doctors? Na . . . There's just been too much water gone under their motion picture bridge for these fellows to be taken so seriously, if not, so conveniently, well-bred or cultured. Oh well, anybody in show business is worth a stab at doing something that doesn't make sense. The only thing I liked about this movie is a most logical item or an association to the movie. This is an item that has been mostly forgotten by the span of time and perhaps a circumstance that didn't lead to any long term success towards remembrance. It's Frank's recording of the theme or love song, released the following year on one of his popular albums for Capitol Records. Have to admit, it's a nice theme song, with a great arrangement by my friend Nelson Riddle: But, should we forget about the movie? . . .

Fred and Finance . . . I have to agree with both of you! This was rather outlandish casting, in terms of the projected imagery and acting abilities of the three principal actors. Yet, the film didn't do all that bad at the box-office. This was probably due to Moroton Thompson's big best-selling novel that was the rage. One critic remarked that Robert Mitchum was and I quote: "Poker-faced from start to finish!" unquote. The best reviews came for the two leading ladies, Oliva de Havilland and sultry Gloria Grahame. Because of a good amount of censorship, Grahame's role had to be toned down. One has to read the novel to get a good idea of just how sex-starved, the role of the neurotic wealthy widow is and just how crazily she manipulates everyone around her. The widow was for most readers of the novel, the most interesting and dynamic character of the story. In the film version, her imagery is rather restrained and not so vibrant at all. This was a film that from all perspectives was way different from its original source. United Artists and Robert Mitchum did a way better job that same year of 1955 with "Night of The Hunter."

{font:Arial}She is truly, one of the most beautiful ladies to ever grace the silver screen of the 1950’s. Debra did enjoy a bit of good attention, upon signing a solid contract with 20th Century-Fox. Oddly, she was never really given that big break to major stardom, in the sense of being able to become a top-billed actress to a major motion picture. At best, Debra was regularly placed as a co-star throughout her career in {font}{font:Arial}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}. The only somewhat big film that she presumably carried as a star was “Princess of the {font}{font:Arial}Nile{font}{font:Arial}.” The film has since acquired something of a cult following, especially surrounding Debra, due in large part to the skimpy outfits she wears. Interestingly enough, Debra would be loaned out to other studios, enjoying a flexibility that most other actresses at the time didn’t achieve. This situation led to perhaps her most famous moiton picture role of the delicate "water-girl" maiden "Lilia" in the epic "The Ten Commandments." {font} {font:Arial}It became obvious Debra being so beautiful and placed under the publicity spotlight, her lovely face would grace the covers of the tabloids. At the beginning of her career for 20th Century-Fox, she was paired off with many a new, up and coming actor. Notable was Robert Wagner, whom she made several films together and then the rather mysterious and virtually forgotten Richard Allan. Debra would spend a lot of time, making the many rounds of promotional appearances, especially across the country. She was from 1952 to 1959, a fan-magazine favorite. However, her career under the spotlight, took a turn for the bizarre, when her first marriage to actor {font}{font:Arial}David Street{font}{font:Arial}, lasted only four months. Then, if that wasn’t enough for the fans to swallow, in 1960, Debra’s marriage to the celebrated director Budd Boetticher, lasted a merge 22 days! This has got to be on record, one of the shortest of celebrity marriages . . . Especially, if you think about the way things have unfolded lately with a recent celebrity marriage that’s been in the news!{font} {font:Arial}Despite whatever setbacks or lack of quality there might have been to Debra’s motion picture career, she somehow survived the stress of her personal life, continuing on to later work in television and B-movies. During the 1960’s, Debra was actually a big star in {font}{font:Arial}Europe{font}{font:Arial}, where for a time she made a series of those “sword and sandal” epics. In the meantime, it would be producer/director Roger Corman who cut her a good break, when she made two popular horror films, “Tales of Terror” and “The Haunted Palace.” Even though her last series of films were considered low-budget by most standards, Debra managed herself well enough, until she gave it all up by the end of the decade.{font} {font:Arial}In case you might be interested to know what has become of Debra, well she is of course very much alive and not exactly out from under the spotlight. After her third marriage to billionaire oilman Kai-Shek ended in divorce, Debra turned to religion, becoming an active celebrity Christian. For a period of time, she had her own television program on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. It was basically a talk-show that centered on religious issues of faith and support of Christian charities. Debra hasn’t really retired, as she continues to make an occasional appearance on Christian religious programs across the country. Today, she lives content at her tranquil home in {font}{font:Arial}Huston{font}{font:Arial}, {font}{font:Arial}Texas{font}{font:Arial}. If anyone would like, you can contact Debra. She gladly receives fan mail and tries to respond to as many fans as possible. She might be gone from the screen, but she isn’t so forgotten. {font}

So much of your morphology to express . . . Such a need to regurgitate what structural means are coherent to proper communication on behalf of mankind . . . Just how frustrating can it be *Prometheus*? NO! . . . wait . . . it must be you: "Professor Higgins?" :|

{font:Arial}Over the years, I heard many opinions made on why the career of John Gilbert failed at the coming of “talking pictures.” Of all the viewpoints expressed on Gilbert’s motion picture collapse, the one that seems to get some attention is a theory that the great romantic leading man was stopped, dead in his tracks by none other then studio boss, Louie B. Mayer himself. In this regard, it’s believed by some historians and even fans that Mayer, had undermined Gilbert, by allowing the primitive sound system not be adjusted or corrected to at least give Gilbert a fighting chance and not look so ridiculous. Others will say that Gilbert was his own worst enemy, by not trying to understand and regulate himself towards a massive technical change in the motion picture business. In defense of Mayer or against a probable sabotage of Gilbert’s career, it wouldn’t have made sense for MGM to destroy one of their top stars and money makers. Despite the financial issues, there was at the time, a monstrous hatred between the two that leads down the pathway to this theory of Mayer so wanting to rid himself of what he deemed as a reckless and obstinate movie star, refusing to confirm to studio policy; or presumably Mayer’s rules. One event that has fueled the Mayer destructive theory is that by 1933 and Gilbert’s fine performance in “Queen Christina,” there was nothing wrong with his voice. Whether or not it was all due to the technical improvements made by that time, we will never know for sure. But, it was by that time all too late to save Gilbert’s career. Already looming in the shadows was a determined Clark Gable and Gary Cooper, ascending towards a new vision of the matinee idol. Be it not for talking pictures, it’s possible to say that perhaps Gilbert’s era was over anyway. Gilbert’s last motion picture, “The Captain Hates the Sea,” must have been something of a tremendous frustration for him, as he ended up placed in a secondary role. It is easy enough to see the physical stress he was carrying at the time he appeared in the film. There is a sense of apprehension to his performance that blends in with a sadness of spirit. Gilbert looks uncomfortable and trying to fit into the scheme of things. His is a perception of a beaten man, a grand performer of the silver screen, facing the enviable point of his career going nowhere. Gilbert is the greatest of all symbolic anxiety of a motion picture star, whose brightness dimmed all so quickly. {font}

> {quote:title=lavenderblue19 you ask: }{quote}MP, do you happen to know what happened to the fabulous Hot Pink gown he designed for Marilyn for the Diamonds Are A Girls Best Friend number? Travilla was a Genius. I totally agree that Bill Travilla was on all counts, when it came to costume design, *A Genius*. {font:Arial}In talking about that hot pink dress, well, this leads us down a path towards a bit of controversy. The now famous pink dress worn by Marilyn in “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes” is believed by reliable sources to have deteriorated while it was in storage at the 20th Century-Fox vaults. The gown as a whole was never meant by Bill Travilla to have an after-life as a marketed item. The reason for this was because Bill sort of custom built the dress specifically around Marilyn’s body. This was one of the rare times he referred to an item he created as a “costume” and not a real gown or garment to be regularly worn by any woman. It was as he once said, “a specialty.” The best available black-felt was stitched and glued within the silk satin strapless{font}{font:Verdana}{color:black} {font}{font:Arial}dress, in order to give it an almost seamless, stiff appearance. At times, it appears as if Marilyn is something of a statue or manikin come to life! Adding the wonderful lighting and Technicolor, it’s no wonder the gown glowed and simmered on screen.{font} {font:Arial}In 2010, a dress appeared at auction, said to be the famous pink one from “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.” There was never any clear cut proof or information available to say where the dress had actually come from. What bothered many experts and authorities on costume design was that the material and colors hadn’t really faded much with time. This made some feel the dress was suspect and may have been a good copy. The estate of Bill Travilla didn’t interfere with the authenticity of the dress, only to say that could have been an extra one made, as was the case for some films, due to fear of damage and to save time, without the need to wait for a new one to be sewn. One very, very interesting point to this dress at auction was that the black-felt lining was missing from within the gown. This gave the big reason to feel that Marilyn probably never was in the dress! The issue of the black-felt lining is important, because without it, Marilyn couldn’t have kept the costume on comfortably enough to keep it from either ripping or simply slipping off! One expert at auction remarked, “All we need to do is measure the damn thing from the inside and see if it matches Bill’s size measurements for Marilyn at the time the dress was made!” This was not done and simply added to the speculation over whether or not the dress was indeed real enough to have been actually worn by Marilyn.{font} {font:Arial}The dress sold at a price of 310,000.00 dollars. There is also one other pink dress known to be in existence, in the hands of a private collection. While it’s possible the other dress might be a legit copy, made by Bill, the dress is also rather bright and clean looking, thus suspect to be designated as the one and only, original item worn by Marilyn in the film! Each dress or garment made at a studio is given a lot number or catalog code. Both known pink dresses have what appears to be credible, attached tagging from 20th Century-Fox. Although, this point of the tagging might have made the auction sale, with its winning bidder not look so questionable or ridiculous, the simple element of time and circumstance didn’t appear to have shrouded the dress. I’m reminded of a classic painting that with time has a few cracks and fades of color here and there. Of course, sometimes an item can look as good as it did when first created. But, we have to really ask ourselves: “Is it really supposed to look so new?” Is it conceivable, if Marilyn wore the dress on that one day she shot the scene, only once, it might be practical to feel, if properly cared for, the dress might not disintegrate, lose a few stitches or fade and perhaps the material not have a typical shift from its once obvious fresh scent? I’m not an authority on this subject, except that a famous designer once told me, quote: If Grace Kelly had worn a certain, beautiful dress in a movie . . . It’s fair to say that years later, the dress will absolutely never look as clean and smell as good as on that first day, I sewed her into it,” unquote. B-) {font}

OK . . . I believe the film you are looking for is the 1964, romantic drama, entitled "The Young Lovers." The two principal romantic players are a young Peter Fonda and the lovely Sharon Huqueny. Also in the cast is Nick Adams, once a popular teenage idol, who later had to drift over to television, where he had some success, only to see him sink into low-budget films before he passed away from a drug overdose in 1968. Adams best remembered role on television was in the western series "The Rebel." Sharon Huqueny never really made it big, when at 17 she married producer and studio boss Robert Evans. She ended up a regular guest star over the television airwaves, until she died of cancer in 1996. An interesting point to what initially happened to "The Young Lovers" was that despite being a fine little film, it was overshadowed and out classed that same year by another, heavy handed passionate romantic film, "Love With The Proper Stranger," starring Steve McQueen and popular Natalie Wood.

> {quote:title=TomJH you mentioned:}{quote} *. . .* I'm just interested in the historical accuracy of what the "real story" is behind Brooks' film. {font:Arial}The one theory I would consider about what happened with Mel Brooks and “My Favorite Year” was just a mixture of facts, dates and exactly where he was at the time he professes the encounter with Errol occurred. You see, it’s easy for Mel to just mix up the events, time and places associated to what actually happened, now that enough time has passed, most everybody who was there is dead and the records or authenticity can’t be so easily verified. Those who are still alive and were there would probably not want to say anything out of respect to Mel and just let him have his glory. So, in the process of all that has happened, he decided to just let the matter play out for itself, probably not expecting anyone or at least, most of the fans to bother with examining what’s real and what isn’t. What I believe might have happened was that he tried to get Errol to the television studio and unlike what happens in the movie, Errol just never made it. This I think is the reality to the story, even backed by several important personalities of that era! The film gives us the happy ending Mel was probably hoping for, instead of the crazy week he spent up in Errol’s hotel room, with booze, probably some drugs and a few happy hookers. This leads me to feel that Mel in his consonant wisdom felt it was better to sort of clean up the story (for the movie version) and just add a little spice, with lots of exaggerated wholesome plot devices.{font} {font:Arial}Mel didn’t really do anything so wrong with the interpretations of events showcased in “My Favorite Year.” Where he does get into trouble is not trying to set something of the record straight to say, “Well, I did sort of mess around with Errol, but the movie is in so many ways a fantasy. I believe Mel combined what happened in 1954 to another time period of 1957, while throughout that time he was working with Sid Caesar. After 1954, Sid dismantled the popular “Your Show of Shows” comedy program, in favor of a more elaborate variety show. It wasn’t until 1957, Errol finally made his appearance with Sid on the program entitled “Caesar’s Hour,” and that year was the last season of Sid’s second comedy program! So, we have a gap of about three years, between two actual events. This situation creates a difficulty for Mel to clarify his claims to the caper with Errol. But again, I say what really happened is a combination of two time periods associated to attempting to get Errol on the television program. The first attempt was a failure and the second a success, probably having nothing to do with Mel being involved, once Errol finally made it to the NBC studios! Mel simply won’t admit to this issue, preferring to allow the time frame be blended into one solid event and year. So, I might want to ask, “Mel, what was that favorite year with Errol?” {font}

> {quote:title=lavenderblue19 you mention: > }{quote}I don't know how Ethel Merman felt or treated Marilyn Monroe, but I've always felt while watching the film that Ethel Merman and Mitzi Gaynor really liked each other. . . Well, there is a positive and then a negative to that situation, concerning how Ethel and Marilyn got along during the making of the film. To be foreright, along with what was said or known at the time, Ethel for her part, simply ignored Marilyn, when off camera. This wasn't so much interputed as being hositle or Ethel feeling threatened by Marilyn, but from a practical sense, Ethel and for that matter, the rest of the cast members, knew Marilyn really had no interest to be part of the film. She only agreed to be in the movie, after the studio brought the rights to film the hit comedy Broadway play "The Seven Year Itch" and offer the lead role to Marilyn. Had 20th Century-Fox not acquired the rights to the play, it's surmised Marilyn would have walked out on her contract and face suspension. Eventually, this contractual despute occured again, after her appearance in "The Seven Year Itch," ending up on suspension, when she continued to refuse a co-starring role, opposite Frank Sinatra in the proposed musical "The Girl in Pink Tights." One interesting tidbit during the making of "There's No Business Like Show Business," Marilyn had a series of three fainted spells on the set! This led to all sorts of rumors that she might be pregnant. The studio didn't want to play up on this possibility, while the film was being made. Yet, word did get out to some members of the press, wanting to create lots of hoopla about America's hero baseball player (Joe D.) and his movie star wife about to have a family. Joe D. would have welcomed the idea that he and his glamorous wife were expecting. However, Marilyn held a quick, impromptu news conference to deny any pregnancy. During filming, only Donald O'Connor and singer Johnnie Ray conjured up a slight friendship with Marilyn. Dan Daily had already worked with Marilyn, when he was a big studio contract player in the late 1940's and she just a "walk-on" or bit player. Mitiz Gaynor was polite to Marilyn, giving her all the professional courtesy expected, but like Ethel, she didn't have much to say to her off camera. While this movie might have been a big new widescreen vehicle for Ethel, it was Marilyn who brought in most of the publicity or interest from the press and that's usually how it was or to be expected. The biggest fuss and publicity made about this movie, turned out to be the beautiful, white sequined gown Marilyn wore for the number "After You Get What You Want." The Bill Travilla design was quite unique, as its under-lining was flesh-toned and then loosely covered, with sliver-white flowered patterns placed as patches over the various areas of Marilyn's beautiful body that gave off with a highly suggestive point towards appearing as if there wasn't any lining underneath the gown at all! Although, Bill Travilla's most famous gown for Marilyn would be another white, beautified garment for "The Seven Year Itch" and most fans know which one it is, Bill did an exquisite job in dressing Mairlyn for "There's No Business Like Show Business." After the movie was released, his dress shop in Hollywood was overwhelmed with orders. But, his biggest of all year would come next, when he created for Marilyn, what is probably her most iconic of all imagery: The white dress, she wore over the sidewalk subway vent for "The Seven Year Itch." And, just for the record, I was there at 1:00 in morning, on that fateful September date, standing across the street, in front of the Trans-Lux theater, when about thousand people showed up and witnessed an event that is now one of those strange and unexpected, cultural phenomenas of the 20th Century. As special as that early morning turned out to be, unfortunately for director Billy Wilder and the crew, most of us standing there made too much noise and the scene had to be scraped and then reshot back in Hollywood. No matter what, most everyone refers to the scene as it was first shot on location and not the retake that appears in the movie. Oh . . . and as to what happened to the original dress (not one of the extra copies), Marilyn kept it until she died. Years later, actress Debbie Reynolds, who had been collecting Hollywood memorabilia for a museum she created purchased the gown. Then, just this year, the gown was placed at auction and sold for a record breaking, 5.52 million dollars. This is rather funny, when you come to realize, the auction purchase was higher than the entire budget of the original movie! And, that's all I'm gonna say. . .

{font:Arial}Ok . . . I want to be fair and as clear as possible, about what is for me a very controversial and questionable subject. Perhaps, somebody reading my post can come up with some definitive information that up to now is still shrouded in lots of hearsay and no practical solid proof of Errol Flynn having appeared on an episode of “Your Show of Shows,” supposedly in 1954. The problem that has erupted about this issue concerns the simple fact that if you look up the official NBC network record of all appearances on the program, Errol does not, I repeat, not appear or listed in any of the five seasons the popular comedy variety show was on the air. I feel somewhat frustrated over this situation, since Mel swears and has said countless times in interviews, the event occurred. What is factual or was widely known by enough people at the time and some are still alive is that Mel did spend a week or so with Errol at his Waldorf Hotel room, trying to get him sober and ready for the eventual guest spot on the highly rated program. This leads me to ask was the program really "Your Show of Shows," because Mel had worked on other programs and was the year the event happened correct? Of course, most of the antics, according to Mel that occurred were showcased in the highly successful and popular comedy film, “My Favorite Year.” Mel co-produced the movie and while he did receive some support over what he claimed occurred in relation to “Your Show of Shows,” there was one very important and famous detractor to Mel’s presumed event.{font} {font:Arial}Just as the film was released, Milton Berle came forward to say, Mel did not get the story right and utilized what had initially happened to {font}{font:Arial}Milton{font}{font:Arial}, as Errol had to face the NBC staff, trying to get him on the straight and narrow for a gurest appearance on {font}{font:Arial}Milton{font}{font:Arial}’s “Texaco Star Theater.” {font}{font:Arial}Milton{font}{font:Arial} always insisted that what happened with Errol had been spread around {font}{font:Arial}Times Square{font}{font:Arial} and that enough people got wind of his caper involving Errol. One of the biggest and most gossipy spreader of {font}{font:Arial}Milton{font}{font:Arial}’s caper was none other than Phil Slivers! At crowded bars and restaurants in and around the theater district, word of {font}{font:Arial}Milton{font}{font:Arial}’s crazy, mixed up encounter with Errol became the talk of the town. But, in another ironic twist, there is no official record or documentation from NBC that Errol was on {font}{font:Arial}Milton{font}{font:Arial}’s show! What is very, very possible is that {font}{font:Arial}Milton{font}{font:Arial} had guest stars appear at the end of the program, to simply take a bow and perhaps give a plug for a movie or show they were appearing in. This is what I think happened in the case for {font}{font:Arial}Milton{font}{font:Arial}’s side of the Errol caper. {font}{font:Arial}Milton{font}{font:Arial} was after all, the biggest thing on the tube and an appearance on his show, meant a good amount of exposure and prestige. From the get go, I’ve always believed Milton’s account of the event, even if his records don’t exist, simply because he always kept a keen eye and a strong memory to his career. Yet, I can't help but have to think, actual records and documents can get lost or forgotten about. {font} {font:Arial}There has also surfaced other issues and controversies about Mel’s tale, in that Errol had made numerous other appearances on popular television comedy shows. In this regard, Errol made a lot of rounds from one network to the next, while he remained not easy to handle. I’m reminded of the story, wonderful Martha Raye told me, when she had Errol for a guest star on her television show. Martha said that there wasn’t a television network in {font}{font:Arial}New York{font}{font:Arial} that didn’t face hassles with Errol showing up late or somewhat intoxicated and messing around with cast and crew. While I won’t dispute Mel’s week at the hotel with Errol, I have never seen any sort of visual proof in the guise of photos, a written account of Errol listed to be on the program (find me an old TV guide!) or if possible an old kinescope! And, perhaps the strangest thing of all about this whole ordeal is that I’ve never heard anything said about what happened from Sid Caesar, Carl Reiner and Woody Allen. All of these three were there at the time this event was said to have happened. So, I remain a bit skeptical on just how Mel’s story evolves. I won’t say “My Favorite Year” isn’t worthy of praise and respect. But, so far I just don’t feel its structure and foundation is solid enough to be considered based on overall facts or a week of frolic misbehavior by one of the greatest of all movie icons. Or, should I say from another famous movie: SHOW ME THE MONEY! . . .{font}

Keep them coming Fred! Great stuff for us to see! B-)