MovieProfessor

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 . . .}{quote} Excellent . . . That's perhaps the biggest and best of all the Monroe series of soundtrack releases. One of the best songs and one very close to Marilyn's heart on the album is "Like A Woman Should." Rumor has always been, Marilyn sang the song with "Joe D." in mind. . .

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs: > }{quote}Radio talk show, 1952 . . . The radio show was excellent! Great stuff . . . Keep it going!

> {quote:title=DougieB you wrote:}{quote}As a sidebar to the discussion, I thought I 'd mention that I've had the soundtrack LP since I was a teenager and all of Marilyn's songs were sung by Dolores Grey. Correct. Marilyn did not appear on what was essentially a hybrid soundtrack alburm, because an agreement couldn't be worked out with 20th Century-Fox and even Marilyn, who really didn't care about the issue. However, years later around the late 1970's, the original soundtrack studio recordings of Marilyn were dug up and released on LP and now available on CD. There are also tunes on these various CD's cut from the movie that Marilyn does rather well. Dolores Gray was a wonderful performer, but I'd have to say she wasn't the original . . . After all, with MM and listening to "Heat Wave," Marilyn sure makes the temperature go up! Dolores just doesn't have that allure that came from the impact of having watched MM perform the numer on screen. In fact, that original first LP soundtrack from the 1950's turned out to be an enormous failure . . . Why? It's easy to surmise that enough people saw the movie to know, on first examining the record album, MM was nowhere to be heard. P.S. Oh! I almost forgot . . . That same year of 1954, there was another replacement on a soundtrack album. This time it was for the biggest hit at the box-office, "White Christmas." On the hybrid soundtrack album, Rosmary Clooney who starred and sang so wonderfully in the movie was replaced by Peggy Lee for the record release.

{font:Times New Roman}Magnificent Fred! You sure know how to track them down. What I remember about that film short was having been shot in New York City, at the old Paramount Studios in Astoria, Queens. After a period of time, with the advent of sound looming and the best music talents situation in New York or on Broadway, the studios in Astoria became renowned for their output of short film production. This even continued, by the time Hollywood had become the central hub of major motion picture business in America.{font} {font:Times New Roman}In this wonderful short you presented, watching Ethel sing one of the best “torch songs” of the Great American Songbook, she clearly has acquired the influences of Helen Morgan, Ruth Etting and Fanny Brice. It’s about this time in her career Ethel is just getting notice and hasn’t really found her niche. This was the time she was appearing in Gershwin’s big hit show, “Girl Crazy.” Now, it’s obvious that in the Broadway musical, Ethel each and every night “stopped the show” and brought the house down with her rendition of “I’ve Got Rhythm.” This is an interesting situation, in that Ethel is somewhat laid-back for the music film short, singing a tune that wasn’t exactly the style she had just made famous for herself over on Broadway. At the suggestion of George Gershwin, Ethel made a total of ten film shorts at the Paramount Studios. All of them consisted of a variety of musical styles. The best or most popular are the bright and flashy ones of such songs as, “Sing, You Sinners,” and the beautiful, rousing “Shake It!” The blues numbers and romantic ballads Ethel sings are simply copies in technique of the great torch song singers of the era; she isn’t really so original or what some would say doesn't add anything of substance. She would remark years later, “There was that time I spent trying to sound like what I heard from a record, radio or at a nightclub.” Although, Gershwin would be the one to first spur her career onto its rightful heights, Ethel credits composer Cole Porter for getting her out on the straight and narrow of what she could best represent, in terms of her musical abilities.{font} {font:Times New Roman}She was an amazing lady. There has never been a performer of her caliber to have worked with so many great song writers of the American Musical Theater! Without getting on top of a “soapbox,” and brag, I’ll just have to say: I take enormous pride in having met and known her . . . And, that’s all I’m gonna say! :8} {font}

> {quote:title=Fred, your question is: > }{quote}. . .guess the other major American movie that has a guy's name in the title, but there is no such guy by that name in the movie. {font:Arial}I'll second it: A GUY NAMED JOE . . . ? ?:| {font}

> {quote:title=finance wrote: > }{quote}Ethel was loud and raucous. Her style played a lot better on Broadway . . . Zero Mostel was not selected for the film version of FIDDLER. His Broadway perfrormance was thought to be too loud and raucous. There's for me a "yes and then a no" to that response . . . Ethel was technically a great singer first and foremost, before the issue of her personality set into motion a perception she wasn't right for the movies. It is in my opinion correct to say, she was high-sounding, making her appear unsuitable for various types of songs that didn't require her strident style. Certainly, her voice and the way she used it was perfect for the "live" stage. Yet, I can't help but think that Judy Garland at times, could also be considered vociferous to a high degree and unlike Ethel, Judy had no discipline that makes the situation rather paradoxical from a standpoint of judging one's singing abilities. Therefore, the issue as it relates to Hollywood, means that visually, Ethel lacked the glamour and an ornamental factor so vital to motion picture production along the lines of a major star. Hollywood could have accepted her style or worked around it. After all, look at all the famous roles she created on Broadway that were later handed over to someone else for the moive version. The greatest of all travesty for Ethel came in 1961, when she was unable to recreate the role of "Mama Rose" for "Gypsy." This was for so many fans a blatant decision that never subsided to the point of accepting Rosalind Russell in the role. No doubt, the issue of being replaced by a major Hollywood star had more to do with the mystique and the singularity surrounding a beautiful persona. As for Zero, well the problem there was in a technical sense, not related to the singing, but a professional disagreement with film director Norman Jewison over the methods Zero applied to his acting. Zero had a reputation of ad-libbing and a need to experiment in order to find satisfaction with his performance. It's believed by some that Jewison felt threaten by Zero, because of the extenstive amount of time Zero had played the role on stage and therefore this might lead to disputed issues concerning the changes and new enviorment of a motion picture version. Like it was with Ethel for "Gypsy," Zero not being cast in the film version of "Fiddler on The Roof" did have some negative repercussions from the show business community, if not, the many fans who saw him create the role of "Tevye." The most important point to this issue of what Zero did for the role, resonates towards an understanding that it was Zero and no one else who later played the role, set the standard or imagery that forever shrouds how the role is presented. This I think, gives the backlash as to what was decided, its fuel and affected the overall response to criticize United Artists and the production company for not having the foresight to consider Zero, regardless of what was concluded to be an obstacle to rightfully cast Zero.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote: > }{quote}Of course she still had a great voice. Perhaps even a better voice than she had in the 1930s. I totally agree . . . {font:Arial}From 1943 to 1953, Ethel remained in {font}{font:Arial}New York{font}{font:Arial}, continuing to dominate Broadway. Her only other musical rival at that time was her good friend Mary Martin. It was all too obvious to Ethel during her early years that {font}{font:Arial}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial} was never really going to showcase her as a major star. One would have thought that say MGM would have considered Ethel, especially when the Arthur Freed unit came into being that was the finest ever devised for motion picture musicals. Despite having what most fans would have considered the greatest singing voice of her musical generation, {font}{font:Arial}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial} didn’t see Ethel as attractive enough to find or create vehicles for her talent. In the end, it was always about the the age or physical attraction in general; if a studio felt they would take the time to invest in a performer as major star material. By the late 1930’s, Ethel began to see the hand writing on the wall for any chance in Hollywood that meant a shift to receiving secondary or supporting roles. As far as Ethel was concerned, she was a star of the highest magnitude. She had already proved this the various times she triumphed on Broadway. Sometimes, it was frustrating for her, when a {font}{font:Arial}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial} studio would cast a movie star in the film version of the role she created on Broadway. Yet, Ethel always had somebody of importance in her corner. Staying on Broadway guaranteed her the necessary professional respect. In this case, it turned out to be the greatest composers of American pop music and the musical theater. The list of names would be just about everyone you could think of from the Great American Songbook! These immortal composers, always openly supported Ethel and never did anyone of them waver in their devotion to her. Most of the time, some of the most famous roles of the American musical theater were expressly written for Ethel and no one else! It’s no wonder she turned her back on {font}{font:Arial}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial} or just didn’t really need to be in the motion picture business.{font} {font:Arial}As the 1950’s rolled in, Ethel would get a few movie offers, but by that time, she was too expensive and exclusive for any major studio in {font}{font:Arial}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial} able to cut a deal. It wouldn’t be until 1953 and 20^th^ Century-Fox having no option but to cast Ethel in “Call Me Madam,” because the composer Irving Berlin, who was also one of the original Broadway producers, wanted it so! Ethel was at the time, somewhat reluctant to recreate the role for motion pictures. However, what finally sweetened the deal was the studio allowing her something of a freehand at whatever she wanted or to change whatever displeased her! There was no disputing she was show business royalty, one way or another.{font} {font:Arial}As it turned out, the 1950’s was the peak period of her career. Since “Call Me Madam” became a box office success, 20^th^ Century-Fox then felt they might strike it rich a second time with Ethel and again with her mentor Irving Berlin. Thus, the great composer and singer were reunited again for an even bigger and elaborate motion picture production, “There’s No Business, Like Show Business.” If this wasn’t enough, what had also kept her star shinning brightly were her frequent appearances on early “live” television; including a few prime time variety show spectaculars. And, her various recordings sold in the millions.{font} {font:Arial}When this second film for 20^th^ Century-Fox didn’t fare as well as the previous one, Ethel was quick and smart enough to pack up her bags and head back to the place she always knew was the real, solid calling to her success. Once back on Broadway, from that time on, she had what is considered the most superlative musical career in the history of American Show Business. Ethel was the divine Queen of our American Musical Theater. There simply will never be anyone else to take this throne away from her and what she came to represent.{font} {font:Arial}When watching “There’s No Business, Like Show Business,” I’m reminded of a main point to the film. This is to have Ethel signify the very essence and glory of popular American entertainment. When the big moment comes for her to belt out the song that is considered the National Anthem of show business, there’s no doubt to feel, her representation is complete, exhilarating and one knows this is a real pro, someone who (like in the movie itself) understands a love to uplift a spirit filled with so much harmonious value. The movie might not be so artistically grand, realistic and it’s not a classic. But, it does have Ethel and that’s saying something really big and important if you know and understand the history of American show business. Whatever other reasons there might have been to making “There’s No Business, Like Show Business,” the movie does in a very strong way, assures the audience of Ethel’s glorious talent. It’s a talent that doesn’t come around very often. It’s a talent that ascertains what the soul of show business is. So, no matter how silly or coy is the movie, Ethel is what it’s really all about. {font}{font:Wingdings}J{font}{font:Arial} {font}

Ok...Just for the record, Donald was around 5'-6'. Therefore, from various camera angles, Marilyn wearing high heels would have given her a slight edge on camera. B-)

My, my, my . . . These are interesting responses. While I wouldn't say this was a classic sort of film musical, worthy to be right up there with some of the greatest, it was a finely made production. I figured those of you who posted are young whippersnappers, haivng not known anything about what exactly made this motion picture sort of speical. Well, let an old timer give you some insight: First off, it was the studio's biggest CinemaScope musical produciton of 1954. The presenations in most large, metropolitan cities were in 4 track stereophonic sound. The motion picture is highlighted by two, exquisitely presented musical numbers by Marilyn Monroe that since have become cult favorites to her legion of world wide fans! This is especially the case with "Heat Wave" that was for its time a sensation and added so much to the Monroe allure. After this film, some critics simply referred to Marilyn as "MM." The motion picture is the only documented record of the mighty Ethel Merman given a chance (while still in great singing shape) to belt out in a full symphonic form with all her gusto and distinctive lively style, what has become her signature theme song and the anthem of American entertainment, barring any other song of the 20th Century!. . .Need I give the title? Dance director Robert Alton, who had worked at MGM, had now moved on to work elsewhere in Hollywood. He created for Donald O'Connor, one of the finest dance routines of Donald's career, "A Man Chases A Girl." Donald displayed an enthusiastic highpoint to the film that had an elegant control to his dancing and a musical flare, signifying his mastery as one of the best dancers ever to work in Hollywood. One of the most funniest things to occur during filming was the issue of Donald's height. He was short and didn't exacly look so imposing, when paired off with Marilyn. Director Walter Lang, then politely asked Marilyn if she would consider taking her shoes off, just for a few scenes. She gladly agreed and Donald would always be grateful to her for having made him not look so childish, if not, ridiculous. As for singer Johnny Ray, his appearance in the film is of historic interest. This was the first and only film the popular singer of the 1950's appeared in! He was as we might conclude, a "One Shot Wonder." It was obvious that Johnny lacked a bit of substance and stability as an actor. He was also way out of his singing league, with his handling of the Irving Berlin songs, especially his only solo song in the movie, "If You Believe." Perhaps saddest thing of all was this movie marked the last time, Irving Berlin would work on a major film musical or have any sort of an association with film production. So, this was for its time, a big, lavished motion picture that was impressive to the audiences that were fortunate enough to see it in a widescreen presenation. The trailer for this film alone was also most impressive, when it first appeared in theaters and had a few spots over the television airewaves in good old black and white! And, there's also the tremendous finale, considered one of the most ostentatious ever devised. I believe, speaking from having lived through that era, what most everybody will always remember was Marilyn, on the verge of her superstardom, so beautifiully showcased and marked the beginning of her becoming a 20th Century icon. B-)

{font:Arial}Yes! I would agree that the 2001, “The Tailor of {font}{font:Arial}Panama{font}{font:Arial}” was a very good film. Unfortunately, the film wasn’t so widely received or even distributed. The fact that Pierce Brosnan starred, should have given the film considerable clout, since he had already done well in television and of course as that super international spy of spies, James Bond. Even though “The Tailor of Panama” received a positive critical response amid its short lived run, it has since begun to have a cult following; especially now that John le Carre’ film festivals are popping up across the country. What is fascinating about the tale is that Carre’ based it on an actual decedent that posed an embarrassment to the British MI service. Respected director, John Boorman actually co-wrote the script with John le Carre’. The screenplay had to be updated, because in the original novel, the events surrounding the eventual handing over control of the {font}{font:Arial}Panama Canal{font}{font:Arial} hadn’t occurred yet. In the original novel, the uncertainty of what would happen with the government of {font}{font:Arial}Panama{font}{font:Arial} in control of a vital means of Western commerce was the plot’s main conflict and source of all the intrigue. This turned out to be one of those strange, rare situations, where a popular novel, based around a real international controversy, had to have its motion picture plot changed, due to the actual historical outcome. Of course, when you remember or think about the actual Ian Fleming James Bond novels, the film versions were very different and aside from being updated, the films were given so much over the top hype and gadgetry for a movie audience to ponder about. At least the changes made to the film version of “The Tailor of Panama,” reflected upon the aftermath of {font}{font:Arial}Panama{font}{font:Arial} having received sovereignty of the canal. This made perfect sense to simply based the screenplay around the novel and not nearly page for page. Unlike other Carre' film versions, this film wasn't as complicated to understand or what some would grumble to be stuffy. It was an exciting sort of soap opera espionage tale that was a shade different, uncanny in its approach to unveil the schemes found in this motion picture genre. {font}

NO . . . :_| As of this time, there has yet to be any official video release of this 1934 RKO drama. I haven't even seen any rogue copies available, ever, over the internet. You can ask TCM if and when they might reschedule a showing of the film. . . http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/81362/The-Life-of-Vergie-Winters/

{font:Arial}Probably the greatest and most admired writer of espionage, John le Carre’ wasn’t wishy-washy when it comes to conveying a reality to his fiction. His most famous work, "The Spy Who Came In From The Cold" has remain a masterpiece of Cold War surveillance and all its rather hazardous trappings. This is a guy who had served in the British MI5 and MI6 service. How he was able to get away with lots of revelations on the Cold War activities between the West and East is somewhat amazing. There have been his critics that say Carre’ simply added more to the situation then being so factual. Despite a few rumblings over Carre’ and his subject matter, throughout his distinguished career, he has become one of these towering figures of 20th Century literature, unmatched in a style and pragmatic atmosphere that has left many of his readers believing Carre’ was and remains the virtual master of what the Cold War and the pursuits of two opposing sides to spy upon each other, shaped the paranoia that existed after the Second World War. In the process of his writings, came one of the most intriguing characters of modern 20th Century fiction, “George Smiley.” It’s with this introduction of a Cold War intelligence officer, the accepted reality to the Carre’ stores became so transfixed into the mind of what would become a legion of world wide fans and an astounding success.{font} {font:Arial}There is a complicated factor to reading a Carre’ novel, based around the technical jargon that at times may not be so clarified and then the rather sumptuous intellectualism of the various characters. The whole idea behind a Carre’ spy novel is usually the main characters facing their cerebral problems brought on by the stress and dangers involved in Cold War politics. The funny thing for Carre’ was at about the time he embarked on his spy writing career, the popular James Bond films were about to appear. Thus, this situation made Carre’ stories look a bit more sophisticated and not flashy like Ian Fleming’s super spy hero, having James Bond deal with a stylized glamorization of adventure and lots of sex. Carre’s famous character of George Smiley has never received the vast amount of popularity of James Bond. Over the course of the last half of the past century, there have been obvious comparisons between what are probably the two most famous British spies of modern 20th Century fiction. In a rather superficial way, James Bond is hasty and impetuous towards the intrigue he faces, while George Smiley is realistically prudish, decorous, but emotionally stilted and dwells in propriety of manners befitting a statesman. What I find so interesting about Smiley is that he could be mistaken for your average college professor, lawyer or a small town politician.{font} {font:Arial}None of the Carre’ films of the 1960’s, into the 1970’s had a successful box-office response with the general movie going public. Then, in 1979, an astounding event occurred, when British television produced what is regarded as the finest interpretation of a Carre’ novel, the mini series “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy,” starring Sir Alec Guinness as Smiley. The series was later a huge hit on the PBS network in {font}{font:Arial}America{font}{font:Arial}. This television venture alone, made many critics and fans feel is what finally placed Carre’ into the mainstream of acceptance to a wider audience; this was specially the case in the {font}{font:Arial}U.S.{font}{font:Arial} This success prompted Sir Alec Guinness to return, once again as Smiley in the 1981 TV mini series “Smiley’s People.” The second series dealt deeper into Cold War intrigue, creating a bit of controversy over issues that were still so prevalent during that Cold War time. As this second television series became another tremendous critical success and hit with audiences, so began a steady acceptance of major motion picture production for other Carre’ novels. Two of which have had strong showings at the box office, “The Russia House,” and “The Constant Gardener.” This has now all led to still another (newer) version of “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” released this year, starring Gary Oldman as Smiley.{font} {font:Arial}At the beginning of the Carre’ novels, turned films, the basic critical comments made were that the films or stories had a stuffy prospect. There was for a time, highbrow feelings about the Carre’ works of fiction. Today, this stuffiness has subsided and faded away, allowing a practical sense to understanding Carre’. But, his novels and films still remain for a select type of audience, usually well educated and focus upon current world events. As just how radical Carre’ might be interpreted has had its fair share of debate. There are those who say, one minute he’s waving the Union Jack and then suddenly, somebody is taking something from under the table and a knife gets stabbed in the back. Whatever the case, John le Carre’ is a master of his field, if you want to accept a bit of talkative politics, mixed in with the usual and questionable morality of Western society and its ideals that for a time were torridly protected at any cost. And, probably still is at a high cost. Nothings really changed, accept what villains there are in the world Western society believes it has to face.{font}

A lot of people in town knew that Sam hired some gag writers to help him along the lines of creating these witty quotes. So, he was clever in exploiting the means of using show business in his favor. All he was doing was creating his own upbeat persona to the business he so loved.

> {quote:title=MaryLyn2 you mention: > }{quote}I must admit the purple dress that Betty Grable wore in Sweet Rosey O'Grady was eye catching. {font:Arial}One of the main aspects to all of the Technicolor films at 20^th^ Century-Fox, during the 1940’s was to have the costumer or designer, consult with the Technicolor crew. This meant an understanding of what colors could be beautifully transposed onto the film and be as bright and ornate as possible. This idea does in many ways come from the “live stage,” where a constant attempt to exhort glamour was consistent. When this method was shifted to color film, just about everything the movie star wears, be it simple or not, had an alluring affect. Naturally, besides the star of the picture, the studio was also selling the whole Technicolor process.{font} {font:Arial}The Swiss-French Costume designer, Rene’ Hubert, who created the outfits for Betty in “Sweet Rosie O’Grady” are among the finest ever made for a Technicolor film. Rene' came under the movie spotlight, when producer Alexander Korda hired him in 1935. By 1940, his career in Hollywood took off in a big way. During that time, he became one of the major desingers for 20th Century-Fox. Some of his other noted works include, “Heaven Can Wait,” “Buffalo Bill,” “Pin Up Girl,” “Diamond Horseshoe,” “State Fair,” “Forever Amber,” “That Lady in Ermine” and my all time favorite designs of his for a Technicolor film, the musical “Nob Hill.” Rene’ was truly a master of what Technicolor sometimes termed as “color awareness.” His last two great designs were for two historical dramas, the 1954 “Desiree’” and in 1956 “Anastasia,” fulfilling a career dream of his to finally dress the immortal Ingrid Bergman. His very last design work would once again be with Bergman in 1964 on the drama, “The Visit.” I believe that Rene’ was in so many ways responsible for the success of Technicolor at 20th Century-Fox. He is one of those forgotten, unsung or lesser known heroes of old {font}{font:Arial}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}.{font}

The only aspect Kalmus had in terms of understanding color was that she had once studied art and had been an artist. Later on, she became a fashion model and then married Herbert Kalmus.

> {quote:title=johnm_001 you replied:}{quote}I saw MY FAIR LADY in London, but it was Alec Clunes, not Guinness, with Julie. Julie's name was over the title. *I STAND CORRECTED!* His majesty Richard III should also have me beheaded. :8}

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote: > }{quote}I read somewhere or saw somewhere that Kalmus was reportedly difficult to work with and was considered very interfering insofar as telling how certain things should be done in a film. Yes . . . This is true. Kalmus was the estranged wife of the Technicolor company founder, Herbert T. Kalmus. While technically separated from her husband, she did have enough equity in the company to have the board at Technicolor, allow her a position as an administorator. Her status as the designated "color consultant" is now believed to have simply been a ploy by her husband to keep her away from him. She really had no authority or experience as a specialist for the company. She did play her role energetically to the point of creating a personification of a fashionable sophisticated lady, mixed in with an imposing amount of opinions to the studios that rented the Technicolor cameras. Miss Kalmus actually didn't spend a lot of time on a movie set, preferring to stay more in tune with the various studio front offices, where she exhorted to what most everybody knew was an illusion of influence and command. However, when she did arrive at the scene of a movie set, sometimes it was a bothersome situation, even for the Technicolor cameramen, who knew she had little, if any, knowledge to the business at hand. What she did know was to refer many times to classicial art work, as she was beautifully dressed and refined as possible to add something of a colorful appeal to what she wanted to believe best represented the Technicolor company. Once Technicolor lost its dominance over color filming, so did Miss Kalmus have to fade away.

> {quote:title=finance you wrote: > }{quote}I know he (Gene) was very rough on her (Debbie) during shooting . . . This indifference on Gene's part did occur, because Gene had other choices on who to cast in the role of "Kathy Selden." He wanted a polished, season dancer or someone with a good amount of experience. There was also the issue that Gene felt Debbie was a bit too young, having been up to that time identified with younger (especially teenage) audiences. The role was loosely based on how Joan Crawford was discovered. Therefore, Gene felt that Debbie lacked a bit of the tough, hard knocks image of a typical chours girl. As filming commenced, it was obvious to everyone involved that the imagery of the role had to be changed and moved into a different direction. Since this was a major musical production, guided by the mighty Arthur Freed, Debbie realized this could be the big breakthrough role she would need towards achieving major stardom at MGM. Throughout the filiming, Debbie became determinded to prove herself worthy. The results were on all counts better than expected. Nobody at the time of filming ever came to realize what was in store for "Singin' in the Rain" or how the film would be so revered with the passing of time. Years later, Donald O'Connor remarked: "I knew I was working on a good movie - Never did I once envisioned, it would become the greatest movie musical of all time." B-)

The idea for the movie wasn't all that crazy. It just appeared exceeding puerile, not written well enough to be taken so seriously. After all, this wasn't the first time a Shakespearean work has been turned into a contemporary storyline. Orson Welles and his Mercury Theater group had performed up to date versions of several Shakespearean plays. The most memorable was a modern staged version of "Julius Caesar" that turned out to be a direct affront at Fascist Itlay during the late 1930's.

> {quote:title=finance you asked: > }{quote}Did Cagney ever do a British accent (or any accent, for that matter)? I assume it would have been expected. Well, not exactly . . . As far as I can remember, he did play an Irish Commandant of the 1921, Irish Rebellion in the 1959 movie "Shake Hands with The Devil." His performance in the 1935 version of Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream," doesn't really count as a bona fide sort of English accent; at times, it might sound like he's trying, but for the most part, it's the same old recognizable, New York City, Irish-American voice the multitude of fans have come to love. There was another film, in which Jimmy was a cab driver and spoke Yiddish! As fate would have it, Jimmy was for the 1938 film release, assigned to play "Robin Hood." When he refused, the studio placed him on suspension, thus allowing Errol Flynn to have a big opportunity towards his own movie star immortality. It's doubtful that Jimmy would have even tried to come off with a British accent had he been in "Robin Hood." One of the main reasons for his bowing out of the project was a sense that he wasn't right for the role. I think it was one of the wisest decisions of his long distinguished career. Certainly, had he accepted the supporting role in "My Fair Lady," this would have brought him a whole new challenge to his acting abilities. And, there could be no doubt that Jimmy would have danced on screen, probably for the last time. This issue of Jimmy's super stardom and he hadn't been in a musical for the longest time is what prompted Jack Warner and the studio front office to get him into "My Fair Lady." Naturally, his refusing to take the role and all the money, meant the originator of the role on stage, loveable Stanley Holloway was then given the role. Holloway did his usual marvelous job. Many critics and film historians believe that Holloway was in fact, one of the best things of the movie to remember.

There was never any doubting that Audrey would be billed first or the main star of "My Fair Lady." Once she was signed on, this pretty much meant Warner's was banking on her "star power," while they now had to realize, a reasonably good male lead would suffice. There was a desperation to feel, none of the biggest other possible names at that time, could have had as big a draw as Cary Grant, had he agreed to be in the movie. Therefore, looking at the issue from Audrey's world-wide status, other than Cary, there was never anyone else the stuido would have felt be billed over her. This issue is understandable from the marketing point that was in the end, the cause to all the fuss and confusion to select the right cast. Once finally selected to revive his original stage role for the movie, Rex Harrison wasn't anything near a big, box-office draw. He was just a respected actor, known somewhat to the general movie going public. Although, he had received top-billing during the stage run of the musical, by the time of the movie, Julie had all but eclipsed him! At the time, Warner's was also looking at other, popular British actors, such as James Mason, Laurence Olivier, Dirk Bograde, David Niven, Peter O'Toole, besides Richard Burton, who had worked with Julie in the musical "Camelot" and Alec Guinness, who had appeared opposite Julie in a London staged production of "My Fair Lady." The only way Julie could have possibly been considered was what I've always referred to as "The Cary Factor." Once Cary was out, so was Julie, all based upon a need to feel safe and adequate to the point of givng the production as much big hype as possible. To consider Julie and no big enough male star to satisfy the studio, there wasn't enough of what Jack Warner felt would be the necessary hype to excite the production from a technical standpoint of a guaranteed, good box-office response. This may all sound a bit ludicrous, but it was for Warner's, all about the money being spent to not only promote the movie, but give it as much star power as possible. I won't debate the issue of Julie's stardom during this time that was viable and was a matter that shouldn't have been overlooked. It's just that when compared to other, known motion picture box-office draws, it was then a matter of an assured payoff. In a last, desperate attempt to perhaps quell the amounting criticism surrounding Jack Warner's handling of the casting, he made what was an astonishing move. He offered the role of "Alfred P. Doolittle" to none other than the immortal James Cagney! The legendary super-star Cagney had been retired from motion pictures for two years, when Jack called him to consider what was a supporting role. However, Jack upped the ante by offering Cagney what would have been the highest amount of money to a supporting player at ONE MILLION DOLLARS!! Most likely, Cagney would have been billed as "guest star" or be given a special seperate billing as has been the case in other films, when a big star takes on a secondary role. I've always felt that had Jimmy Cagney accepted the offer, this might have just opened the door of consideration for Julie and then have her reunited with Rex. Certainly, Cagney's return to motion pictures would have added a lot of the hype Jack and the studio front-office wanted to bank on. Jack even offered Jimmy 10 percent of the box-office receipts, but like Cary, he flatly refused what would have been a highly publicized deal. The difficuity in trying to make sense out of what should have been a clear cut deal to have Julie with Rex revive their roles from stage to film was simply made a victim of both Hollywood politics and economics.

{font:Arial}As a point of interest, Audrey Hepburn’s actual (full) singing voice can be heard on two tracks of the Special Edition home video version. These are the two songs: “Wouldn’t It Be Loverly” and “I Could Have Danced All Night.” She had technically recorded most of the songs to be later dubbed. Naturally, Audrey wanted to think that she could give her own or different sort of interpretation to the songs, pulling in her obvious “star-power” in order to achieve an authenticity to the whole idea of being in a musical. She had already done one successful film musical in 1957, “Funny Face,” allowing her to actually sing. However, it was all too evident that for “My Fair Lady,” she never had the training or singing range necessary to achieve adequate musical results.{font} {font:Arial}This issue of the casting of the motion picture has been for a very long time, one of the most debated aspects over the TCM Forums. There’s been for sometime, a lot of finger pointing here and there as to who should take the blame or why wasn’t Julie cast in the role she so skillfully created for the stage. Well, I think after all these years one of the main reasons that usually doesn’t get mentioned pertains to Jack L. Warner desperately wanting Cary Grant in the role of “Professor Higgins.” Like it or not, agree or not, had Jack been able to get {font}{font:Arial}Cary{font}{font:Arial}, Julie would have been in, lock-stock-and-barrel. When he couldn’t get {font}{font:Arial}Cary{font}{font:Arial}, he became rather bitter over the issue. At any cost, he always wanted a big “male lead” star, along with the female lead. In a frustrated move, he then had to turn to a big female lead star, in order to quell this dilemma that while it was all happening, the backlash over the casting was already underway! This turn of events, opened the door for Rex Harrison to be cast, especially when {font}{font:Arial}Cary{font}{font:Arial} made it publicly known, he wanted Rex in the movie!{font} {font:Arial}Julie may have been well known enough, but Jack was always looking at the bigger picture of how things might turn out in the hope of a block buster response at the box-office. Then, if not the casting of Cary, there came another issue seldom mentioned that had to do with negotiations over the contract. By that time, career events meant Julie should get top billing over Rex Harrison, based upon her then highly publicized status from both television and records; aside from the stage. Although, Rex was somewhat known to the general movie going public, he wasn't any more block-buster material than Julie was to be considered for a major, *world-wide* distributed film. This problem was simple enough to figure in “movie terms” or how things were done in Hollywood, in that Jack and the board at Warner’s felt Julie had never been in a major film; especially one about to be the most expensive musical undertaking in Hollywood at a whopping 17 million dollar cost. At the time, the risks seem too great, even while Julie began to negotiate with Walt Disney to be in “Mary Poppins.” {font} {font:Arial}Of course, I have come to realize that Jack made a bad gamble in not allowing Julie her rightful place to be in the motion picture version. Despite the success of “My Fair Lady,” there would always be this terrible and annoying historical backlash of what happened with the casting. Audrey would be the one to suffer the most, while Rex Harrison at least gained positive recognition for his efforts in recreating his role from the stage to film. Even after the film won the Academy Award, as the years followed, it was a situation that Jack never fully recovered from. Meanwhile, Julie did have the “last laugh” becoming the biggest box-office sensation of the entire decade. Years later, when the tension and “bad blood” between Jack and Julie settled down, he remarked to her, “You know, I should really get credit with making you a big motion picture star! – You know what I mean?” Julie replied, “Yes, I would be in agreement with you – Sometimes, the lack of compromise leads to success, one way or another.” B-) {font}

{font:Arial} > {quote:title=Scottman wrote:}{quote}The Kevin Brownlow/David Gill HOLLYWOOD series (you can find it on YouTube) is really excellent . . . This is to me, what I would consider the greatest of all documentaries, ever made about the movie business in {font}{font:Arial}America{font}{font:Arial}. Produced in 1980, as a British “Thames Television” series, beautifully narrated by James Mason, it is also known as “{font}{font:Arial}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}: A Celebration of The American Silent Movie.” No expense was spared in acquiring as much available information, filmed interviews and film clips as possible. The list of those who contributed is about as huge as it could get! Every single aspect of motion picture production, some of which was showcased from its infancy was covered and given important insight. The documentary became so momentous, it has since become one of the foremost sources of information concerning {font}{font:Arial}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}’s past. Consisting of 13 hour long episodes, each one was given interesting titles that were technically placed along the time span relating to how the movie industry in {font}{font:Arial}America{font}{font:Arial} evolved. At least several of the episodes have become classics in their own right or considered the finest documentation ever to give a clear cut understanding to the mechanics of motion picture history. These episodes are:{font} {font:Arial}Episode 7: “The Autocrats.” This episode gave an astounding comparison of two great directors, Cecil B. DeMille and Erich Von Strohiem. This chapter to the documentary, showed the basic differences between one director, who could work within the studio system, while the other couldn’t or failed to continue on with a successful career.{font} {font:Arial}Episode 8: “Comedy - A Serious Business.” Here is what might be considered the most excellent example of going deeper into what skill, talent and perception there was to the careers and intentions of what is essentially the greatest gathering of comedic talents in motion picture history; baring none!{font} {font:Arial}Episode 11: “Trick of the Light.” The cameraman has never been given such an illustrious point of view in any other documentary before or since! This is truly a very informative segment, linking the importance of a mechanical aspect to motion pictures that was for the most part, usually overlooked.{font} {font:Arial}Episode 12: “Star Treatment.” No doubt, this chapter of the series is easy enough to comprehend and isn’t so typical as one might think about what the "star system" was all about or how this “movie star” system was created. What makes this episode so informative are the interviews that clearly bring to focus, how some individuals were able to sustain their imagery, while others fell from grace, never to rekindle their motion picture glory.{font} {font:Arial}Episode 13: “End of an Era.” This is my personal favorite chapter of the series. This is where a famous “catch line” associated to the movies became finally noticed and famous: “The Demon Microphone.” Of all the episodes, this is also a painful one to watch, as so many magnificent careers of the silent era would be vanquished by “talking pictures.” Yet, there is also what I believe to be the finest disclosure (many of these aspects shown for the first time!) of the technical means by which {font}{font:Arial}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial} adapted to a major change in its presentation of motion pictures.{font} {font:Arial}Now, I have to gather that many of you reading my post will want to know, “Where can I get this series on Home Video?” Unfortunately, there was only one official video release of the series on VHS and then Laser Disc, in the mid 1980’s. Since that time, the series has yet to be released on the now standard DVD. The reasons are centered on the usual copyright entanglement that has been going on for sometime. So many fans of the series have been for years, clamoring for a release on DVD and now even Blu-ray. At the moment, a few bootleg copies have appeared, but are usually and quickly placed out of circulation, once the copyright holders get wind of their appearance.{font}

> {quote:title=mrroberts . . .:| }{quote} {font:Arial}I can’t for the life of me, understand why Audrey Dalton failed so blatantly to hold on to her major motion picture career. She was both beautiful and certainly talented, way ahead of many other starlets making the rounds in {font}{font:Arial}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}. There she was all signed up with 20^th^ Century-Fox and what do they do? They loan her out to {font}{font:Arial}Paramount{font}{font:Arial} for what was supposed to be a big showcase for her entitled “The Girls of Pleasure Island.” The craziest of all things was {font}{font:Arial}Paramount{font}{font:Arial} sort of promoting her as the next big thing in movies and she wasn’t even signed on with the studio! Finally, 20^th^ Century-Fox gave her what would subsequently be the one film role she would be so remembered for in “Titanic.” Even after the success of the ocean liner tragedy, she was sent back to {font}{font:Arial}Paramount{font}{font:Arial} for one more film, but the results and the publicity just wasn’t impressive enough for {font}{font:Arial}Dalton{font}{font:Arial} to leave an impact with the general movie going public. She now moved into a state of limbo, until 20^th^ Century-Fox sent her off to MGM for a big budget biblical fizzle, “The Prodigal.” Right after this failure, {font}{font:Arial}Dalton{font}{font:Arial} was about through with any chance at making it for a major career. Except for “Titanic,” the remaining offers just weren’t up to the standards she had trained for at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts. She did audition for various roles that other more established actresses in {font}{font:Arial}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial} would end up winning. Her time in {font}{font:Arial}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}, pretty much signified a career of trial and circumstance that never got off the ground. Maybe she had a bad, uninspiring agent, maybe there was just too much competition, maybe it was her personal life or maybe she just refused to play the A-Typical Hollywood game? Well, for all intended purposes, she was able to keep the flames of her acting abilities going for television, despite her never able to become a big, bona fide movie star. {font}

> {quote:title=mrroberts wrote:}{quote} > . . .If TCM does a night of Titanic films (especially *A Night To Remember* ) it would really be great if David McCallum could be on as guest to Robert Osborne. He woud have insight to the movie and he certainly is very knowledgable about the actual event. Aside from McCallum, there's also the lovely actress Honor Blackman, still alive today and she could also give insight to "*A Night To Remember*." Of course, for "*Titanic*" from *1953*, there's Robert Wagner and actress Audrey Dalton. They are the only *major* *players* from the 1953 film alive. Interestingly, the beautiful Dalton was on the verge of having a big career, when she appeared in "*Titanic*," having undergone some pretty good publicity. Somewhere along the way, luck didn't play enough of a role to allow Dalton's star to shine on for a movie career. She then simply drifted over to television, where she would work steadily, until she retired around the late 1960's. However, another consideration from the 1953 motion picture (still alive) would be actor Harper Carter. He played the teenage boy "Norman," in the role of the son to actor Cliff Webb and actress Barbara Stanwyck. B-)