MovieProfessor

Dargo . . . You make an interesting point on the issue of DiCaprio. I do think he does bring in a good performance and is quite convincing as the vagabond artist. Yet, numerous critics and film historians have brought into question, other stars of DiCaprio's generation that could have succeeded or from the technical standpoint of the movie's massive production, initially, it really didn't matter who played the role of "Jack." This is a situation where one has to wonder, if the expansive atmosphere and scope of "Titanic" is the real centerpiece of the motion picture and not so much anybody playing the major roles? DiCaprio is very likeable in his role and his personality comes across perceptively smooth, allowing for an emotional connection that reaps the heart of the audience. In this regard. DiCaprio is wonderful and he did understand the role of "Jack;" as a means of illuminating the story, Despite what the audience knew was going to lead to a tragic circumstance, I also believe that DiCaprio's perfornance was solid enough to carry the picture and while some might think another actor would have been adequate, DiCaprio proved that he had the necessary capabilities of handling the role.

{font:Verdana}The main issue that gives James Cameron’s version of the Titanic tragedy a bit of *classic movie* status stems from several technical aspects that can’t be so easily overlooked. The first and most important one is that the motion picture was jointly produced by two major studios. The two studios joined forces in order to save the project and thus hired James Cameron to bring in a competent production. Another point that has to be considered is the overall cost that was for its time the most expensive motion picture undertaking. Add the whole box-office success of the film and you have a classic or a movie that will have some important historical value to consider. The problem that “Titanic” has as a motion picture is an acceptance from a dramatic point of view, because so much time and notoriety was spent in promoting the film from its technical perspective. This is a movie that doesn’t rely on its dramatic performances or anything of substance from the written script. In the long run, I believe Cameron knew (as did others associated to the production) that the movie’s sole basis of success relied on what the disaster came to represent and not anything so factual or even fictitious. Cameron did change what had been the possible results of the sinking, whereas he had the ship split in two and not a full blown solid sinking of the hull. Everything about “Titanic” is in its own right, big in scope and style as to give it something way beyond the usual fare expected out of most films. It’s a classic, simply because the name sake or title to the disaster movie lives up the reality of the event.{font}

While Cliff was struggling to get some sort of recognition to his film career, early on he had better luck in television. This was especially the case with his best remembered "live" dramatic appearance in the original J.P. Miller teleplay of "The Days of Wine and Roses." This 1958 "Playhouse 90" presenation was what really got things rolling for Cliff. Cast opposite leading lady Piper Laurie and supporting player Charles Bickford, Cliff gave a shattering performance as an alcoholic, destroying his marriage and alienating himself from the world around him. Despite this memorable acting achievement, in 1962 Cliff lost out on getting into the film version for "The Days of Wine and Roses." It would be Jack Lemmon selected to play the role that Cliff had originally created. Winning the Oscar in 1968, didn't exactly change Cliff's overall status, but he did managed to get identified as a serious performer and from that time on, Cliff received a lot of respect. He was also a very likeable man and kind to those he worked with.

Lately, I heard it said by a young-whippersnapper that in today's world, the whole plot element of the ladies wanting to make that desperate phone call at the time there getting ready to leave on the boat trip wouldn't or couldn't have happened with the utilzation of a celphone! I guess there is a logical coherence to feel that all three of the wives would have been calling their husbands or the mysterious," Miss Addie Ross." But then, that doesn't mean the husband in question or even Addie would answer the celphone with the caller ID signifying whose coming in on the other line! So, I believe that despite whatever new technologies have changed our world, there is still a way for the plot to keep us guessing or the wives not get through to their husbands and that mysterious husband stealing witch, or let's spell it with a capital "B!"

There has only been one major production made on the life and times of Henry Ford. It was the 1987 made-for-television movie entitled, "Ford: The Man and the Machine." Actor Cliff Robertson starred as "Ford." The reason why this production had a rather "open look" at Ford was because it was a project made entirely in Canada! Therefore, the production company didn't have to concern themselves with what the Henry Ford estate might object to in the movie. The production did have a limited sort of release over the television airwaves and has since been almost forgotten.

:0 As of this time, there is no major video release of the film. The only way to get a copy would be if TCM airs the film and you can record it. Or, some film collector who may have transfered a print to a DVD. This is a tough request, in that you'll have to risk getting your hands on what would essentially be a bootleg copy. The film is in fact, one of the very few of its kind from the early "sound era" to remain in tact or no footage having been lost. The reason for this may likely be the lenght of the film at only 57 minutes. There's no doubt that this movie is techincally terrible or one that isn't specifically well performed on a level of reality. Still, it is an interesting and important historical piece of Hollywood.

I'll go with the 1966 drama, "The Group," directed by the late Sidney Lumet. You might think of this film as a forerunner to "Sex In The City" or one of the first modern "chick flicks" of the 1960's. In the movie, there is a scene where all the principal characters are seated at a restaurant table. As the ladies in the scene chat, cinematographer Boris Kaufman skillfully has the scene shot in a constant 360* panoramic style. The camera makes several passes around the table, allowing a full vista of the interior, while the actresses play the scene. Some critics, film historians and fans have wondered about the symbolic elements of what is doubtedly one of the finest cinematic shots of its kind. Most likely the scene and its method best conveys the monotony of the characters lives, getting really nowhere to conclude at what their goals in life would have been. Instead, they just go ring-around-the-rosy, caught within a hypocriitical sense of patronizing each other, while at the same time trying to keep something of their past lives still viable to each other. The scene in the restaurant can also be looked upon as if the ladies are on a merry-go-round, like spoiled children not wanting to get off or perhaps too affraid to get off and away from the adolescence of their past and face what lies ahead.

My choice or film, during that early period of her career would be an almost forgotten little gem. It?s the 1952, Michael Curtiz directed dramatic-musical, ?I?ll See You In My Dreams.? This is an interesting film in several historical ways. First, it was strangely produced on ?Black & White? film, instead of a more appealing color film presentation that for the most part would have been considered essential for musical films. Most likely, Warner Brothers decided on investing the studio assets on other color projects, such as ?April in Paris,? (another big musical for Doris!) and the film version of the Broadway hit show, ?Where?s Charley.? Second, the project turned out to be a tribute and life story of legendary songwriter Gus Kahn. He was for that early half of the 20th Century, one of the most popular and successful lyricists of his time. Kahn died in 1940 and even after 13 years since his passing, the many songs he had helped write were still as fresh and beautiful to the fans. And third, entertainer Danny Thomas gave one of his finest performances of his short-lived, major film career, in the title role as Kahn, before embarking on a highly popular career towards primetime television. The film does have some elaborate musical numbers, but for the most part is rather low-keyed and subtle in its approach to telling the story of Gus Kahn. The movie becomes very much a human-interest story that moves along a romantic musical tone as Doris plays the role of Kahn?s inspirational wife. The film?s title is that of the last major popular tune Kahn ever co-wrote. What gives this film some substance above the usual musical film entries of the day was its wonderfully conceived script by two of the very best, Melville Shavelson and Jack Rose. The music and songs are cleverly interwoven into the dramatic side of unveiling the struggles and many show business challenges Kahn had to face. Of course, Doris was absolutely terrific in her role, both musically and dramatically. The highpoint of the film for me was when Doris sings the song, ?The One I Love Belongs To Somebody Else.? In support of Doris is once again the beloved character actress, Mary Wickes in her usual role as the housekeeper. The great James Gleason plays Kahn?s devoted music publisher and Gleason comes off with his routine job of being a loveably annoying character. The real star of the picture is probably the various well known Kahn tunes and the film doesn?t disappoint in showcasing as many as possible. One of the most provocative historical points to ?I?ll See You In My Dreams? concerns the role of Patrice Wymore. She is obviously playing a fictitious character based on singer Ruth Etting. In the film, Wymore sings one of Etting?s greatest hits, as co-written by Kahn, ?Love Me Or Leave Me.? Most diehard fans know, Doris would in only three years time, play Ruth Etting in the sensational MGM biographical film, ?Love Me Or Leave Me.? Several other Gus Kahn tunes in ?I?ll See You In My Dreams? would have their historical associations to other performers, such as ?Makin? Whoopee,? ?Pretty Baby,? ?Toot Toot Tootise,? ?It Had To Be You,? ?Yes, Sir That?s My Baby,? ?The Carioca? and ?I?m Through With Love.? The film was a surprise success at the box-office for Warner Brothers, but in years time would be overshadowed by such classics as ?With A Song In My Heart, ?Han Christian Andersen? and the biggest and greatest of them all that year, ?Singin? In The Rain.?

Terry . . . I can agree with what you just said . . . It's just that Larry Hart was a talent worth saving and this I think leads to all sorts of speculation that while Dick became fed up, he didn't do enough to save Larry from the reckless lifestyle that eventually consumed him. But then, when you read between the lines of those times long past, it stands to reason why Larry had so many demons to deal with and have to face. I heard it said that for Larry there would never be any peacefulness to his life, because 1. He was an ugly looking little man. And, 2. He was gay. In those days, that would have been enough of a burden to carry along life's beaten pathway.

Terry :0 . . . When you get to my old-age, it's sort of difficult to keep up with the keyboard. But, I have to accept the correction. I will also say that Dick (whom I knew) had to call it quits with Larry and thus the feeling among most in the entertainment community at the time was viewed as something of a "walk-out" on the partnership. Most everybody in show business admired Larry and felt that Dick could have held out, until Larry dry himself out. It's surmised that Dick just gave up on Larry. When asked about the situation by the press, Dick didn't give much in the way of any perspectives to the future of the partnership, remaining silent on various questions and thus the feeling around Broadway was that he was simply waiting for Larry to rise above his predicament. Right after their last show, "By Jupiter" in 1942, Dick was finally reunited with Oscar to consider teaming up with him. Those last two years, while Larry was in and out of rehab before his death were as difficult for Dick. He had no choice in the matter to leaving the partnership, if Dick was going to keep his career stable. The main point is that Dick never told Larry directly that the partnership was through. Larry was to find out, somewhat unexpectedly, when he left the rehabilitation center to discover that Dick had begun working on a show with Oscar. . .And, most us know what a great, smash hit that show would become. It was all a rather strange and shaky situation to consider just how Dick went about calling off the partnership. After all these years, it looks as if Dick just didn't want to really have to say "it's over," and so for a time he kept himself and his relationship with Larry in limbo, until Oscar showed up and the rest is history. In the end, no one could have ever imagined or predict what destiny awaited Dick and his songwriting partnership with Oscar!

; I have to agree with you on Larry Hart being the finest lyricist of that great generation of popular songwriters from the first haft of the last century. While the others are great in their own right, Larry had the flare, wit and sometimes a tragic pensive style to the songs he co-wrote with Dick Rogers. Oh, one more thing: perhaps you may have notice when watching "All About Eve," you can hear some of Rogers & Hart music during the segment of "Bill's welcome home party."

Raoul Walsh once surprised his many admirers, when at a film festival he said Virginia Mayo was his favorite actress!:|

For years now, there's been this argument among film buffs and fans as to which director (at MGM) Greta Garbo favored the most. This debate has Clarence Brown and George Cukor in a face off towards Greta's affection from two camps of fans. Well, I've always believed (hands down) that Clarence was her one and only favorite director. Clarence directed two of her best silent films and five of her most popular talkies. George would in later years, simply become a close confidant to Greta and nothing else so professional. Yet, George did direct her in probably her most famous of all role, "Camille." So, from a professional standpoint, Clarence worked with Greta more than any other director at MGM. Anyway, Clarence once said that all he ever had to do was to give Greta a bit of confidence and make her feel she was in control of her role. Perhaps this idea or method is the best for any director to utilize with a big movie star.

It was Dick Rogers who walked out on a depressed, sickly, alcoholic Lorenz Hart and not Oscar. However, Oscar did know Lorenz during their college years and for a very short time, professionally worked with both Rogers & Hart. After Dick Rogers severed what was considered one of the greatest musical collaborations in American entertainment, and he joined forces with Oscar, not long after Lorenz died. Over the years, there have been all sorts of speculation on the issue of Dick Rogers' attitude towards Lorenz and his musical partnership with Hart. To some degree of thinking, Dick Rogers was never so comfortable with Lorenz's hidden homosexual lifestyle. Yet, because they were friends for such a long time, especially during their youth, Dick Rogers stayed devoted to the partnership, until Lorenz became too much of a burden to handle. Both Dick and Oscar did what they could to aid Lorenz. This was at about the time Dick had collaborated with Oscar for their legendary musical "Oklahoma." Upon leaving the hospital, Lorenz managed to come to see the opening of the show and then he died. It was said by some that Lorenz came to realize that evening of the show, Dick had now totally moved on with Oscar and their could never be a return to their once magnificent partnership.

Ok . . . No doubt you can get technical about that due to his collaboration with Fritz, but Alan did know how to write music. After all, Alan studied at Juilliard and one of his later college classmates was none other than Leonard Bernstein. While I will have to admit Alan is professionally credited with having been designated a great lyricist, he did compose music. I've always felt that such other greats as Yip Hardburg, Oscar Hammerstein II, Lorenz Hart, Arthur Freed, Gus Kahn, Al Dubin, Ray Evans, Sammy Cahn, Ned Washingon, Leo Robin and Ira Gershwin must have had a hand or two in the music process and therefore comes my reaction of sometimes saying they are in some effect assoicated to composing. Perhaps, I should have just said, "Songwriter" rather than composer. But then, if the overall entitlement is as a lyricist, so be it

Technically speaking, Nancy Olson didn't exactly have to screen test or audition for the role of "Betty" in "Sunset Boulevard." She was a Paramount Pictures contract player. At the time, the studio was grooming her as the "girl-next-door" type. Certainly, her wholesome good looks and girlish innocence seemed appealing enough for Billy Wilder to consider her being cast in "Sunset Boulevard" that remarkably was only her second film. Olson had little, if any, professional acting experience. She had been studying at UCLA, when a Paramount talent scout discovered her. Olson has been from an historical standpoint, compared to actress Jean Peters, who like Olson, came to films at around the same period of time and ended up with a limited or short lived, sort of major motion picture acting career. What probably sidetracked Olson's chances towards solid stardom was her marriage to the celebrated, American musical composer, Alan Jay Lerner. I thought it was rather amusing, if not, sentimental that Olson made an uncredited appearance in the Disney 1997 remake "Fubber." After all, Olson had been in the beloved original 1961 film version, "The Absent-Minded Professor." While probably somewhat retired, she still continues to make an occasional appearance, such as in the recent HBO dramatic series "Big Love." Whichever way you want to look at her career, she is considered an important source of information on "Old Hollywood" and everything that went with the studio system.

Without question for me, the character of "Addison DeWitt" is the most dynamic and has the finest dialog of any role in the film. Of course, as the main narrator or presenter to the story, he is in so many ways, the guiding force of the scurrilous reality or underlying current to the phoniest that grips show business. It's as if, DeWitt is on the outskirts of understanding how in a technical way, there are two syndromes of temperament to dealing with the chances of seeking a career and reaching for success, if not, adulation. While the reality of one's ambitions might be forthwith towards achieving a goal, there's another that schemes without rules to get what you want and then face a deep and haunting consequence to forever have to deal with trying to define its purpose on a positive or even moral level. In other words, Eve will get what she wants, but she will carry with her a burden of sorts, on how her goal was acquired. DeWitt was right about one thing in the story, when he confronts Eve to say: "Don't mistake me for those band of juveniles" referring to Margo and her gang of weakminded trusting friends. Only "Bill" and "Birdie" can see beyond what "DeWitt always realizes and decides to crack Eve's deceiving shell. He is in a distorted way, the hero of the story, because it sometimes takes a "one in the same" person to reveal a deception.

{font:Verdana}The situation concerning the “screenplay” academy award for “All About Eve” can be considered confusing as well as unclear by today’s standards. Over the years, there’s been an assumption the movie won for “Best Adapted Screenplay” from another source. However, this wasn’t the actual case at the time of the Academy Awards. There were three categories that were designated by titles that no longer exist. The first was “Motion Picture Story” . . . This was geared towards a story exclusively written for motion pictures to be translated into a film; the winner was “Panic in The Streets.” The second screenplay category was simply “Screenplay” . . . This pretty much signified a (lone) script entirely written for a motion picture, regardless from what possible source the story came from; the winner was “All About Eve.” The third category was a combination of “Story and Screenplay” . . . Everything about this designation meant both the story and script were original and not connected to any other original source . . . The obvious and deserved winner here was “Sunset Boulevard.” In the years to follow, the screenplay category began to change towards its designation as did other categories such as cinematography, music scoring, art direction and the various technical awards.{font}

Arturo . . . It's likely to feel that Margo and her entourage of friends couldn't under what we might concieve as reaility be so fooled or duped by Eve's character. Well, it's been no secret to the many fans of the film, that writer/director Joe Mankienwicz, based his script on a short story entitled, "The Wisdom of Eve." Well, the writer of the magazine tale, Mary Orr was a close friend of actress Elisabeth Bergner, who had confided to Orr of a situation concerning the actress having befriended a young fan. Later on, during the course of the friendship, the fan lived with actress Bergner, becoming her personal assistant, while all along the fan was simply exploiting Bergner's generosity to try and get into the motion picture business. Years later, Bergner made mention of her relationship to "All About Eve" from the basis of Orr's short story in her autobiography. Even before the film was produced, there was a radio drama based on Orr's short story. Still, others say the script or Mankienwicz based the film version on an incident that occurred between Broadway star Tallulah Bankhead and actress Lizabeth Scott. Then, even more intriging is a tale that had a young Lauren Bacall, having snuck into the New York hotel room of none other than Bette Davis herself! The young Bacall wanted to meet and perhaps get acting advice from Bette. This situation is rather interesting for technical reasons that relate to the finale of the film. Certainly, Joe didn't just base the script on one single incident. While he would admit the main basis was Orr's story, he simply added other tidbits from his own experiences. So, while you might feel this tale was bovine excrement, a good actress, espeically as was considered Eve, could have pulled off a deception of helplessness. It had to be somebody like her equal, the mighty sinister character of 'Addison DeWitt" to discover and know how to go about clearly seeking the truth, no matter how he went about towards its purpose. Margo and her gang were rather "self-absorbed" in enough aspects, brought about by the crazy atmosphere there is to show business. Eve, easily played upon a virtue she created that awoke a moral fabric missing from their lives. Let's face it, there are plently of people out there, rich or not so rich that can be swayed into believing somebody has a hardship or need to be helped in some form or fashion.

This film, brought on the heels of Mark Lester's huge success the year before, in the Academy Award winning musical "Oliver," did received some decent exposure when first released. Columbia Pictures once again acted as the distributor in the U.S. just as they had done for "Oliver." By 1970, it was believed that Mark Lester would be on his way to becoming a big international child star to his generation. He had already achieved some early popularity in his native Britain. Dispite all the high hopes and beautiful production values, the public, at least in the U.S. didn't really embrace this movie to any high degree of interest. Sadly, the movie faded into obscurity, until the film was leased to the CBS television network for late-night showings throughtout the 1970s. The film only had a VHS video release. So far, there hasn't been a mainstream DVD produced. There are copies on DVD floating around (sometimes on eBay) that were obviously made from a cable television presentation. This is a film that truly deserves to be appreciated and understood as a form of wholesome and inspiring entertainment. This film is in my opinion, in the same league as the 1937 classic, "Captains Courageous."

One striking issue to the whole aura surrounding James Arness was his having become a tremendous symbol of sorts, to the television era of the 1950's and into the 1960's. There can be no doubt; his legacy to the history of American Entertainment is important and forthright to leading the way for others in the television field to follow. His influences are enormous, considering how long he remained at the top of the television ratings and thus making "Gunsmoke" one of the most popular programs in the history of television. By 1957, he might have been capable of making it as a major player in motion pictures, but chose to stay fixed, within the realm and success of "Gunsmoke." In fact, Arness was the only big television star of his era that didn't accept any sort of starring role or billing in a major motion picture. Although he was asked throughout his career to consider taking on a major role in films, he was simply too at ease, if not, very well paid for his time on "Gunsmoke." He would end up, having achieved one of the highest ranking salaries of anyone in television. It's only practical to say that he and he alone will be looked upon as the one and only "Matt Dillon."

Comon' Fred! Just about any film buff knows "Daisy Kenyon" was a silly, terrible attempt at getting Joan some of that old "Mildred Pierce" imagery back under the spotlight. It's today just considered a major studio piece of junk. Anyway, like "Mildred," "Daisy Kenyon" was first, a popular adult novel. It was just that the movie version as stale and with little in the sense of having the intensity of "Mildred," let along allowing Joan some strong dimensional prospects to somehow believe the story or the role she was playing had any depth. I have to agree that had Liz been in the lead role, a lot of heads would have turned towards this movie!

> drednm. . . In answer to this question about the Academy Award nomination system, it had to do with the eligibility period that was combined for two years, starting in 1928, until 1934 and the now standard one year period for nominees. In other words, the nomination system ran as 1928-29, 29-30, 30-31, 31-32, and 32-33. The months for eligibility were from August of the first year to July of the second year. By 1934, the Academy decided on accepting the system of nomination from a full calendar year of January 1 to December 31st. Now, during the course of the Academy's double year nominating system, names were tossed around or even overlapped between the designated time periods, not signifying any solid method to distinguish exactly what year a nominee was to be placed. So, early on it became a pick and choose situation, said to be done by way of the number of votes received by the top three to five contenders. At first, only the top vote getters received the publicity of having been nominated. Later on, the rest of the voted nominees would be listed. This pretty much signifies why the system had to be changed to a single year to be clearly fair. During the late 1920's, it seemed as if the Academy attempted to be impressive, by stacking the list of nominees with as many as six names that for a time was said to be dependant upon the amount of votes and sometimes having the same actress as a doubled nominee for two different films or even for three! Those six years from 1928 to 1933 were somewhat irregular in the type of way the Academy couldn't be so solidly forthright to the system of how the names for nomination were handled, as well as for the votes for nomination. The doubled nominating years, especially for "best actress," appeared to be something of an exclusive popular Hollywood club. Usually, these were actresses known to the general movie going public that for those first six years, most of the winners came from the biggest studios. After the system of nomination went to a single year, the Academy finally began to display a sense of organization and what was strongly felt as fair-play.

If this keeps up, then I'll have to wonder about the validity of TCM and its staff. While some mistakes or errors in commentary to the program can be periodic, a certain amount of imprudence seems to be occuring at too many intervals. It's almost as if we can anticipate these inaccuracies to happen. To some fans of TCM, this issue might not seem so important or have a need to be amended. Yet, I'd like to think that with what little information we get as to the historical status of a motion picture, we are then educated along the proper lines to understanding what should be proper information. Of course, in referring to this subject, the best avenue to take now is what can possbile be done, simply to say to TCM, something said was wrong. This situation is like sitting in a classroom and the teacher gives a lesson that doesn't adhere to the facts in the text book or what the student (in this case us the fans) know to be factual. I've said it once and I'll say it again: This is just probably one of those little corrputed moments in show biz and we just have to go along with the flow and enjoy what there is to the show.

Wow! I never thought I'd hear this question about 3D! It's easy enough to explain! In a large metropolitan theater, there are always two projectors, usually one for backup if one of the units goes bad. But, for the most part, it has to do with many films having three and sometimes four reels, due to their length. So, when the first reel is run, the second projector is ready to automatically switch to the second. However, in the case of the old 3D films, that required two seperate, filmed images, there were two sets of reels. This simply meant that both projectors in the theater had to run each seperate filmed reel in order to get the 3D effect! Upon both reels finishing up, there had to be an intermission for the second segment of the film to be projected! This is why most of the major 3D studio films had to have intermissions. Later on, a single-strip 3D system of both images was able to solve the problem of the necessary intermission of having to change the two reels. In the case of "Charge At Feather River," what probably happened with the print you saw was that the original break in the film-strip was not edited out.