MovieProfessor

> clore . . Excellent historical point! The same might be said of my idol and mentor, the great Clarence Brown at MGM!

By the way! I just realized something very, very interesting today in this discussion relating to "Now, Voyager." It all has to do with the message I posted today on the other thread for the movie "This Earth is Mine." Well, what significance this has for me is that both "Now, Voyager" and "This Earth is Mine" were written by the same wonderful screenplay writer, Casey Robinson! He wrote the scripts for some of the most popular films of classic Hollywood! It's a most impressive list!

Here's my take on the issues to explain . . . 1. Charlotte was trapped in that house by her tyrannical mother's need for a structured emotional support and therefore Charlotte had little, if any, outside contact with the world at large. After the death of her father, Charlotte's mother used her as a cushion or replacement to fill this void in her life, believing she wasn't doing anything so wrong, because Charlotte would be in a technical sense expected to become the family patron or continue on with this lifestyle the mother had created in the house! This type of forced family seclusion creates neurotic behavor from a sense of having to face an obligation and therefore all sorts of phobias set in. She couldn't so easily break away, because Charlotte lacked a sense of self pride and the means to fit into discovering what lie outside the walls of her Boston mansion. Charlotte is made to believe over a period of time that its a duty to be with her mother and not be so prone as to drift beyond this plan. This atmosphere is then looked upon as something of a forced self-haven in order to exist amid what little contact Charlotte has beyond her family. During the course of those years Charlotte becomes a woman, she does manage to have a secret life within the house. But, there is also her human spirit that won't be kept so easily surpressed by her mother and this leads to her beautifully, hand carved ivory boxes that are in a sense the only therapeutic means she has of not going completely crazy and exprerssing something truly of value. As a girl, the quick and fiery first love affair Charlotte has on that ocean liner, always remains a strong and powerful point to keeping alive something of hope and that she has a dignity about herself that she keeps hidden away, until psychiatrist, Claude Rains shows up. 2. Jerry and Charlotte . . . This is my favorite situation of "Now, Voyager!" It's sort of interesting that Charlotte falls in love for the second and last time on another ocean cruise!! The idea that Jerry leave his wife for Charlotte, whom he comes to deeply fall in love with for the very first time in his life, becomes a situation that has social implications that could ruin him and Charlotte. For Jerry, it's about his work as an architect, besides his family that can't be so easily handled, without creating tension for him and Charlotte as well. It's Jerry that has to make the first move or decide whether or not he wants to risk leaving his wife and be with Charlotte and then possibly alienate himself from his family and blemish his good, wholesome reputation for his business. After he falls in love with Charlotte and they part, he will be wrestling with this idea. When Charlotte and Jerry meet up again, he even admits to having walked by her house and thought about ringing the door bell! Naturally, Charlotte being as much in love as Jerry, will probably accept any sort of arrangement, but it's Jerry who is trying to be civil and fair on the situation, as to not have their love fall into a hositle atmosphere from the society that surrounds them both. As much as Jerry loves Charlotte and is proud to have brought her out of a harden emotional shell, this is what really fuels his love for her! He strongly believes he's done something noble to a fellow human being, in need of something emotionally generous, but at the same time realizes there is probably some harsh price and pain to be paid if he leaves his wife for Charlotte. Just idea that Jerry's wife is also emotionally like none other than Charlotte's own mother is rather grievous and mind-boggling. If anything about Jerry is logically good, he comes to understand in a rational way that his affair with Charlotte can't be so easily led to a marriage between the two and that he break up his family, while his wife is as emotionally irresponsible as was Charlotte's mother. Charlotte too has to face certain issues and obligations, especially that aspect of being "the other woman." In the end, they both will find a means of expressing their love for each other without the need of creating the usual havoc that comes when a marriage is at stake. It's the idea that Charlotte help raise Jerry's ailing youngest daughter at the sanitarium that is the key to the whole issue of their love. This sort of makes their love affair have a positive purpose, without all the alienation that comes between people out of the broken emotional pieces that can't be so easily picked up and put back together to make any logical sense. What does make sense to "Now, Voyager" is that both Jerry and Charlotte accept the limiations of their romance that must conclude towards a value of having help each other along the way of those ruptured pathways to life all us must try to deal with. Sure, it might be wonderful to feel Jerry and Charlotte should be together, but it all boils down to that wonderful ending in the movie, when Bette says, "Why settle for the moon, when we have the stars!" Well, initially what that line means are those other factors to what has value out of their love affair and therefore they need not go into a realm that would satisfy their passion. The stars are infinite and numerous, representing all those little things we might take for granted and are waiting for us to understand, while the big bright shiny moon remains dormant and not as flexible; its actually one sided as we see it! Their love wasn't really about that bright (moonlit) passion they might have first felt about each other, but to simply help each other out in some simple and logical way that wouldn't be so demanding and critical to effect that love that couldn't go beyond where it stood from that time they first met on the ocean liner voyage.

It's always fasciated me that some fans feel strongly had Judy been able to continue and finish her work in "Valley of The Dolls," it might have save her to some extent or I guess her career. Yet, from a reality of how her life had turned out, she wasn't in any sort of physical, if not, mentally stable state of mind. This I feel is what's so devastating and overlooked to the point that most fans would always see Judy fortified by her past glories, regardless of how she had turned out. It has always been one of these strange situations where her talent overexceeded her problems make so many beleive she still had it in her to be so rewarding to creating a magic that doesn't come around very often. Judy showing up to work on this film was liken to a drunken alcoholic at a lavished party! Sure, it was her talented reputation that gave her the chance to perhaps feel she could possible renew her magic. But in the long run, anyone from those first days she arrived on the set of the movie could have easily figured out it was all a terrible mistake to consider her for the role of "Helen Lawson." The role, if not, the motion picture as a whole, hit too close to home!! As for "Mame," that was nothing more than another pipe dream that looked good on paper or as another fantasy to remember what Judy once was and for all practical purposes, the reality of her situation and life couldn't have ever made the Broadway show work. Let's face it, in the end Judy *couldn't be* a: Ginger Rogers, Ethel Merman, Julie Andrews, Barbra Streisand, Petula Clark, Mary Martin, Angela Lansbury, Betty Grable, Sally Ann Howes, Debbie Reynolds, Dolores Gray, Jane Powell, Lauren Bacall, Ann Miller, Dorothy Lamour, Janis Paige, Chita Rivera, Carol Burnett to handle a Broadway show, let alone, get back into some logical sense of her motion picture career. The strange and perhaps most paraddoxical point to Judy is that she had tons, upon tons of talent, way above most of those ladies listed!! I think to sum up Judy, it was best said by June Allyson when she once remarked, "Judy just got lost." But then, I'm also reminded of that prophetic line Susan Hayward says in "Valley of The Dolls," quote: "She never learned how to roll with the punches . . . She'll destroy herself, but *_NEVER_ _HER_ _TALENT_."* It's a crying shame that all we can now deal with is thinking about "what if" and that's the way it ususally goes around show business.

This is a very interesting subject, if not, the whole idea of how this film came to be. After a series of huge box-office successes with Universal Pictures biggest star Rock Hudson, it was decided on creating something of a big dramatic vehicle, similar to Rock's biggest dramatic success up to that time, "Giant." "This Earth is Mine" was pretty much a typically lavished studio production, based from a big, best selling novel by Alice Tisdale Hobart. The original title of the book, "The Cup and The Sword" was considered by producer Casey Robinson too coy and the studio went for a change in the title. To this day, I can't figure out why in a technical sense, a change in title would have to be necessary to a noted, popular novel! Of course, some talk has been centered on the idea of the original title having a more swashbuckling or adventure lure and therefore wasn't dramatically inspiring. What's interesting here is that Rock was banking on this film to give his career a good amount of hype along a serious line of thinking. He must have been looking for the same results his success in the epic "Giant" had brought him. This would be due in large part to the similarities of the story about a powerful, rich family, squabbling over control of their fortunes. Rock had already been down to only two films a year at the studio, when that year of 1959 would see him really become a film icon with the huge success of the comedy "Pillow Talk." Somehow, Rock's hopes for "This Earth is Mine" fizzled away amid the enormous popularity the comedy film achieved and overshadowed his dramatic efforts. What is so ironic here is one of those situations, where a modest production, in this case "Pillow Talk" becomes a big hit, while an expensive one like "This Earth is Mine" pales in comparison. Universal offered Rock a really good, polished production crew that wasn't exactly such a routine at the studio. This time up, the studio hired director Henry King from rival company 20th Century-Fox. Director King had a long and distinguished record of having worked on big productions. In a move that appeared similar to what happened with "Giant," beautiful Jean Simmons was brought in to co-star opposite Rock. She had shades of imagery that could remind one of Liz Taylor from Rock's time in "Giant." From a standpoint of the script, the storyline had issues of greed and social prejudices that again fell back towards "Giant" and its various characters struggling to find their identities and values. Like "Giant," the main storyline of "This Earth of Mine" was basically about a family run business amid the secluded area of Northern California and the Napa Valley wine country. It would now be the wine and liquor business that was turned into an epic, widescreen production. Unlike most films shot at Universal, the studio wisely decided on going to the actual Napa Valley, where some stunning camera work was achieved and really gave the motion picture some praise. Even the music score by legendary (and yet fairly unknown) composer Hugo Friedhofer was outstanding; the theme song as sung by singer Don Cornell was first rate! The soundtrack album is today considered a classic and highly prized by collectors. What most fans of this film will remember is beloved Claude Rains in the role of the family patriarch; his various scenes in the movie offer a dramatic legitimacy lacking throughout most of the film. While his role isn't big and long, it does have the necessary impact to keep the movie from falling prey towards becoming an overbearing, high-priced soap-opera. One side note that hardly ever gets mentioned or even remembered about this movie is actress Cynthia Chenault. She would later be billed as Cindy Robbins throughout the rest of her career. She was in so many ways a starlet, based around the whole Marilyn Monroe aura. Robbins was certainly statuesque and beautiful to look at. Her role as one of the young, field workers of the wine valley, who finds herself "in trouble" in the family way was what gave the film a bit of vigorous sexual spice. Up to that time, Robbins had mostly worked in television and this major film could have been her break-through chance at stardom. However, what some had thought would be a new Marilyn on the horizon, didn't materialize into anything sensational for the starlet. In basic terms, she failed to make any sort of impression with both critics and the movie going public. Universal did their best to give Robbins some exposure, but she just didn't have the magic and picturesque allure of others who could succeed in this venue of creating publicity hype. The film opened in June of 1959, in San Francisco to a big premiere. This was appropriate, since the Napa Valley was just over the hills from the Frisco Bay area. About two days later, the film went into wide release. While it wasn't a critical success, the box office response was moderately good. It did however fail to give Rock the dramatic clout he was always searching for or wanted to his career. He likened himself as a new sort of "Clark Gable" and expected to receive some choice roles as he became the number one box-office male star of the late 1950's. It's rather pathetic to realize that Rock's decision making on roles were at times foolish. Especially, when he turned down the chance to be in "Ben-Hur" in favor of "This Earth is Mine." So, you can imagine what he must have felt that year when "Ben-Hur" ran away with all of the highest accolades there are to the motion picture business and Rock had to settle on only being a box-office success. Yet, I do recommend "This Earth is Mine," simply because it's a well made motion picture and worthy of some respect. The film will at some point in the future have a DVD release. It is in the works, but I can't really say when it will happen. There are some strange technicalities surrounding this film that have prevented a video release.

Poor Judy, she was so down and out by the time, best selling novelist Jacqueline Susann used her clout to lobby and convince 20th Century-Fox to cast Judy in the role of "Helen Lawson" for the big, lavished film version of Susann's novel "Valley of The Dolls." The novelist wasted no time in getting Judy before the publicity cameras and scores of interviews. This was big news, since Judy hadn't been in a film for about three years. During that time, she had also suffered the foes of a failed weekly television variety show. Judy had little choice but to settle on a concert hall and night club tour, that wasn't exactly as smooth or successful as it might have been, when she was in better condition and her voice fine-tuned. She was by the late 1960's, suffering from her usual bouts with depression and emotional instability. Judy spun through phases of her fans one minute in love with her, while the next minute there were the disappointments of canceled appearances and not even able at times to finish a show. As 1966 rolled in, Judy was for all intended results, broke and in need of some sort of help. The bill collectors and creditors had begun to get on her back and the talk around the show business world was to wonder if Judy could at any cost get her act together. The whole "Valley of the Dolls" deal for Judy would become the big expected break she needed. Yet, the whole idea of having Judy in the film version seemed from a technical, if not, historical aspect somewhat ironic. One of the main characters of Susann's story was a lovely little singer, whose experiences as written in the novel seemed to shadow those of Judy's real life and career. From the very start of all the hoopla surrounding Susann's book, there was no doubt that Judy was the main focal point of an entertainer having reached the pinnacle of show business success, to later on lose it over issues that were solid to the core of relating to Judy's hardships. It was no secret around the show business world that Judy getting into the production of 'Valley of the Dolls" was out of a pathetic desperation in order to save her reputation and what was left of her career. Judy was in so much trouble at the time Susann managed to track her down and coax her into accepting the idea of playing the role of Broadway superstar "Helen Lawson." This role was on all counts, a thinly disguised image of singer Ethel Merrman. Susann had once been a close friend to Merrman and the subsequent publication of the novel destroyed the intimacy of their bond to each other. As Judy arrived on the studio lot to begin filming, everyone connected to the movie was in awe of her. She was the legend, on a return to perhaps rekindling the whole aura of what had once been. Of course, all of this was wistful thinking, because for the most part, Judy appeared burnt out and not in very good shape. After only a few weeks at the studio, Judy began to display some erratic behavior. She was able to shoot one singing sequence and then a tough dramatic scene with the star of the movie, Barbara Parkins. Then, it happened! Judy began arriving very late to begin work. Upon her arrival at the soundstage, she spent long periods of time locked up in the dressing room, refusing to come out. When alone, she could be heard talking to herself loudly. Whomever she allowed inside the dressing room had to face screams and shouts of frustration that jarred the soundstage. Most of the time, Judy argued, demanding something outrageous that the production company had to consider. Throughout these rough days, Susann tried in vain to get Judy in line. Susann even sought the help of her husband and agent, Irving Mansfield. Cast and crew members, along with Mansfield and his celebrated wife pleaded with Judy. They did everything possible to make Judy comfortable, but their efforts wouldn't amount to any positive conclusion to get Judy back on track. Those times Judy did get out of her dressing room, she acted weird and nonsensical, forgetting her lines and then taking periodic breaks in the filming. As Judy created more tension than any hope of making a film comeback, director Mark Robson soon realized it was all a fruitless pursuit to have considered her to be in the movie. This idea on the part of Susann to have Judy in the movie proved to be one of the first embarrassing fiascos to befall the production. There are today, two very simple and logical reasons as to why Judy fell apart once she decided to be in the movie. The first was the obvious very direct connection she had (realistically) to the story. This centered on the character of singer Neely O'Hara. The second would have been Judy risking her friendship with singer Ethel Merman, by taking on the role of Helen Lawson, thereby acting out events related deeply to the famous Broadway star that Susann had first hand knowledge, most of which came from Merman herself as told to Susann over the years of their friendship. The famous scene where the character Helen Lawson has the young and talented (Garland like) starlet thrown out of the musical show was based on an actual incident, when Merman had a young Betty Hutton tossed out of a Cole Porter Broadway musical. Judy knew of this affair and the event came back to haunt Merman over the course of her career. Susann simply brought the whole matter out into the public eye and Judy must have wondered about and debated the consequences that might result from a backlash of having interpreted an unpleasant, painful event. Aside from already having emotional problems brought on by booze and drugs, (very much the subject matter of the film!) Judy was in some ways reliving this reality of numerous events that were based on all her problems throughout the time she was the greatest singing star of motion pictures. The strain and stress to deal with this reality, on top of playing a very unsympathetic character was too overbearing in the final analysis for her to continue. Susann tried to cover her tracks, as if to say that by having Judy in the film, she was not only offering financial help, but giving her something therapeutic towards the process of bringing back the magic of her illustrious talent. In the end, Susann's hand-out to Judy backfired terribly as this whole situation placed a huge stain on the film and made it more of a mockery and total embarrassment for everyone involved. Despite "Valley of The Dolls" considered a campy film, it is also a reminder on just how far and reckless some individuals in the business will go in order to exploit what are known hardships to those portrayed in a film. Judy wasn't even fired from the project; she just finally disappeared and never showed up again. The studio simply stopped any payment to her. At this point, nobody at the stuido front-office expected her to return. However, what made this Garland fiasco turn even more bizarre, somehow Judy managed to steal her entire wardrobe for the movie, created by famed designer at 20th Century-Fox, Bill Travilla. It was decided by the stuido to let the matter go and not make more of a mess of things. Bill then redesigned a new wardrobe for Judy's replacement, (a real solid pro in my book!) beautiful and respected Susan Hayward. It was rather dispirited and heavy-hearted to see Judy end up wearing the Travilla gowns on her last concert tour before she passed away in 1969. Some fans have seen this as a lasting dismal connection to what probably could have been her last major Hollywood film or the last one she never completed. It's funny how Susann was all a glow and participated in the making of her novel's transformation to the big screen. But, once the situation turned sour and it was all too obvious the motion picture was a foolish undertaking that didn't even accurately cover her original novel, her sentiments changed. She distanced herself from everything associated to the production! Suddenly, Susann felt betrayed and stabbed in the back. Of course, for some in the business, this was a good example of how rats abandon a ship when it's sinking.

> cujas you wrote: > In all, Astaire's stardom and art far outdistanced her success, which was limited to a deacade--the '40's, so that she remains a satelllite of Astaire. I agree, it was always about Fred first and Ginger had to play second fiddle to whatever evovled out of their partnership. Ginger always wanted to have something of her own career and despite the success she had with Fred, over the course of their working together came this frustration and friction of Ginger feeling trapped and regulated by what in time would obviously be the most remembered point of her career. They really didn't hate each other, but had different perspectives to where they wanted to be in show business. Fred would always be the "headliner" or star of their act and get most of the attention. It took time and those years they drifted seperate ways to realize that they were both indebted to each other. In one of his last interviews, Fred said of his partnership with Ginger: "Success can sometimes be measured by the diffliculties it takes to make it all work."

> markfp2 . . . No Doubt About It! I remember years back, when many old Technicolor films of the 30's, 40's and 50's could only be shown on television in standard black & white, due to the techicalites of most stations not having the facilities to broadcast in color. Throughout the late 1950's and into early 1960's, stations that didn't broadcast in color were issued prints of films with edited opening credits of having any reference to Technicolor and its personnel deleted by "black bars" over the information. The most famous was for "The Wizard of Oz" that for seven years, the CBS network refused to broadcast the movie in color. This was because the first accepted and adapted color system was regularly utilized by rival network NBC! It wouldn't be until NBC acquried the rights to "Oz" that the Technicolor portions of the film were finally broadcast for anyone with a color television set to enjoy. The basic problem here was that for a long time, only NBC affiliated television stations were the first to add color programing. CBS and the ABC network were slow to adapt. Adding to this situation was that most television markets, especially those outside of large metropolitan areas, wouldn't see color programing. The big turning point began for the 1961 season, when NBC struck two enormous deals for color broadcasting. The first was with 20th Century-Fox studios and the acquisition of their color movies of the 1950's that had many widescreen versions to be pan-scanned for broadcasting. The second was Walt Disney and the magnificent "The Wonderful World of Color" Sunday night program that really opened the door wide towards color television and its future. I've sometimes wondered whatever happened to many of those converted color prints to black & white for television? Perhaps these prints are stored somewhere or in the hands of private collectors.

A film like Elia Kazan's 1957 "A Face in The Crowd" could be considered something of a subversive formula to the whole aspect of hero-worship and cult figures established from a distored view of exploitation of the mass media. Budd Schulberg, who wrote the screenplay, based it on a short story he had written entitled "The Arkansas Traveler." The story basically gave credence to fear that the new medium of visual television could be used in unsavory ways of swaying the viewing public into thinking what a popular television personality believed to be homespun truth, leading towards an extreme reactionary philosphy that is then aligned into the political arena. The film gave the Schulberg story a vision of actually predicting the comming of what we now know as everything from "Trash TV," "Reality Television," "Fox News," "MSNBC," "Greedy Game Shows" and anyone harboring nothing more than ornate imagery, based around a deceptive form of entertaining the viewing public. It is to this day, one of the most thought provocative, aggressively expressive films on just how easy it is for someone with little education, honest rationality and logic achieve popularity by a means of a symbolism that is hidden behind a basic unprincipled personality that turns power-mad, because the indiviual begins to believe in their ability to manipulate the masses. Examples to the movie's main character of "Lonesome Rhodes" have been given to such media personalities as Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, Sara Palin, Larry King, Bill O'Reilly and the man some believe Schulberg based the character on, Arthur Godfrey, who had been a strong and powerful media personality during the 1950's.

Of course, there's "Fred & Ginger." They didn't even like having to be seen together out in public. It took a very, very long time for the two of them to come to grips with their differences and finally they did manage somehow to come around to each other. It was only after old age had mellowed both of them that the hatchet they both held was at long last dropped.

> Ok misswonderly . . . I'll do my best . . . Here goes: There has always been a certain difficulty in accepting the issue of character 'Myra" from "Waterloo Bridge" becoming a prostitute in the 1940 version. In the original play by Robert E. Sherwood, she was simply an uneducated chorus girl. By the time of 1931, in first film version, she was still made a ballerina, but with a bit of gustiness and being realistically crude. The idea or original theme was of a story where two people, from different and opposite sides of the social ladder, meet and end up into a heated and doomed love affair. In the original play and somewhat done in the 1931 film, "Myra" is reckless to the point that it's very similar to the classic novel and later on a successful film in its own right, "Of Human Bondage" by W. Somerset Maugham. This is what I've always believed was the intent of director James Whale for the 1931 version. Comes 1940 and beautiful Vivien Leigh, fresh from her triumph in "Gone With The Wind," MGM couldn't resist the idea of taking advantage of her sudden raise to international movie fame. So, MGM brought the property from Universal Pictures. Naturally, with the Hayes code now into effect and Vivien such an extravagant star, the whole original concept of the story had to be cleaned up. The studio simply banked on the idea that most of the general public that was familiar with the story would accept a new and different direction, but basically utilizing the same known characters. The biggest of all change that was obviously done to accommodate Vivien's rather plush image was to make 'Myra" more of a refined looking, intelligent lovely girl, pushing away any hint of having lived a rugged life from the dark, dingy streets of London. It's this plot change of the major female character in 1940 that in a practical sense of thinking doesn't apply to make one see her fall from grace and turn towards a life of prostitution and then finally leading to suicide. The 1931 film version kills "Myra" off by an accident and not anything so melodramatic. Originally, the whole point to the male lead character of "Roy" is that he is both sexually and emotionally na?ve, making him easy prey to a woman of loose virtues. This wouldn't the case with MGM's 1940 version! After all, Robert Taylor was one of the studio's biggest of all stars and MGM wasn't about to make him look like a ridiculously lonesome guy and a victim of any ridicule. Let's face it, the MGM version is a watered down, decontaminated, lushly produced motion picture. But wait! Let's not forget about the 1956 MGM remake entitled "Gaby." It starred lovely Leslie Caron and a dashing John Kerr as the two lovers. However, and this is one of my very, very big, typical: HOWEVER'S! . . . There's a happy ending in this third version!! Need I explain? Anyway, I've been wondering over the years, why doesn't TCM simply air all three versions (back to back) in order by year? This would allow the fans to simply compare and decide which one of the three makes any good sense or has what would be termed as any reasonable "reality."

This was just another in a series of little movie companies who were what could be called: "William Castle Wanna Be's!" The big difference was that Bill Castle had something of a touch of class, even if he did try a little bit in exploiting what others had done. Everybody else who handled this sort of zany promotional atmosphere, never had the type of success Bill Castle had and he did bring lots of fans back into the movie theaters throughout the country. It was rather obvious that Bill tried at times to shadow the mighty Hitchcock, especially after the big box-office success of "Psycho" and Bill countered with "Homicidal" that very same year! The only thing that kept Bill's movies so interested with the fans were these various attention grabing gimmicks that were usually announced at the theaters and in television commericals. I do miss this type of "shock theater" or "movie trick devices" that gave audiences a little more excitement then staying at home glued to one's television set.

I also have say the HBO "Mildred Pierce" is not a remake. It's a totally new version (very faithful) to the James M. Cain novel. This new version is a cable network TELEVISION MINI-SERIES. The 1945 Joan Crawford version is a (limited in length) feature film. Therefore, any comparison wouldn't be technically decisive or significant. This is because the HBO series has an unlimited amount of time to span numerous events of the original novel, not seen nor even referred to in the 1945 motion picture version. Interestingly enough, several characters in the 1945 film version are actually composites from the original story that now are fully and understandably clear and different for the HBO version. For instance, the role of "Ida" that wonderful Eve Arden played in the 1945 film version was combined from two characters into just one. The 1945 film technically eliminated the interesting character of the next door neighbor, "Lucy" and gave many characteristics of the deleted role to that of "Ida!" In this day and age, it's natural to feel that there are "no holds barred" in the new HBO version of "Mildred Pierce." Everything of a raw and gusty nature that was the original James M. Cain novel is now fully covered by the HBO version. There are a few disturbing issues that the 1945 film couldn't reveal, simply because of the old censorship situation of the era. Yet, the 1945 Michael Curtiz directed classic is in its own right rather strong in a suggestive format to make even the audiences of the 1940s feel the motion picture was daring. I wouldn't want to exactly compare any of the roles from both versions, but the most striking and certainly most emotionally hellish is that of "Veda." In the HBO version, all I'll say is that she is without any mistake, a child of the devil! It's a bit frustrating to imagine, lovely strong-hearted Mildred having to face a reality that no matter how hard she struggles to give her daughter as much as she can, the girl is subjectively corrupted in some form of having lost something of a humble, rational soul. So far, the new HBO version that started off a bit slow and uneventful has begun to pick up the steamy mood of the original novel. Most everyone who is watching this cable series is probably waiting with a great amount of anticipation (as I am) for actress Evan Rachel Wood, as "Veda" to have her big show-down with Kate Winslet as "Mildred." This is what has to be considered one of the great conflicts of both fiction and classic motion pictures. I have to at this point, from what I've already seen, recommend the new HBO version. Certainly, the principal actors are exceptionally good or at least give the original concept of the novel a sense of reality that the 1945 film version lacked along the restrictions that had to be obeyed. Still, if you've read the original novel, then I doubt you'll find fault with the HBO version. There's nothing so wrong with the old 1945 film version, it's just different and moves in areas that express a simple melodramatic abstraction to what was the original novel. However you want to look at both these versions of "Mildred Pierce," they are both sharing this intense atmosphere of the human element striving to find contentment and a purpose of value. It's a shame to think that the story of "Mildred Pierce" has its roots in the American dream and all its hopes, falling prey to the insecurities of life that are so prevalent to what there is to being human.

> "Noah's Ark", coming up next! Yay! I got Fred! I recorded it last night to my DVD! Great Looking Copy! Shall now add it to my silent film collection. Can't thank TCM enough for having the foresight to airing a rare and beautiful film! They just don't come around like these very often.

> finance . . . You Mentioned: > How about "Change Partners and Dance?" GREAT CATCH!

> markfp2 you wrote: > Not to knit pick, but I do believe that there is a small amount of actual color film used in the series.I say that because I have seen some of that film used in other shows that didn't colorize footage You are probably right. I would guess most of the real color footage woud be of the Pacific Theater and then that of Europe showing scenes after the war. I say this because I did feel that a few scenes also looked familiar to me. Did you know that the original footage of the attack on Pearl Harbor of the Battleship Arizona being blown up was in 16mm color? The film was then transfered to countless newsreels in Black & White. This continued until most of the original color footage was lost. Only fragments of the original print have managed to survive.

OK . . . Let's get down to business . . . Here's my list of Favorite dances: Title Dances . . . The Carioca The Continental The Piccolino The Yam Famous Routines (By way of title song) . . . "Night and Day" "I Won't Dance" "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes." "Isn't it A Lovely Day" "Cheek to Cheek" "Let Yourself Go" "Let's Face The Music and Dance" "Pick Yourself Up" "Waltz in Swing Time' "Never Gonna Dance" "They All Laughed" "Let's Call The Whole Thing Off" "Shall We Dance" "I Used to Be Color Blind" "Swing Trot" "Bouncin' The Blues" "My One and Only Highland Fling" "They Can't Take That Away From Me" If I've missed any, than give an opinion on it!

> misswonderly you mentioned: > Well, those aren't the most memorable of the Fred Astaire dance routines, but they have their place. The " gimmicky" ones are almost always just Fred without a partner -dancing with a coat rack, a hat, his own shadow, dancing on the ceiling, etc. *Absolutely Correct!* There was never anything so-so gimmicky about Fred & Ginger dancing together. While they were a bit on the elaborate side, the dances they did and gave names to became standards among the public and ballrooms throughout the country.

While we're on the subject of colorizing Black & White film, the television Military Cable Channel has a series underway entitled, "World War Two In Color." Well, the series can be viewed as being sort of deceptive, because all that was done was the colorization of old Black & White documentary footage, shown for years on television! No actual color film from that time period of the War has been utilized. One has to wonder about whether or not it was really necessary to undergo this new means of documentation of historical world events!

> joefilmone you wrote: > La Taylor was unique and there will never be another studio movie star like her again. La Angelina is the closest we have in a modern movie star. El Brad is not close to Burton but more like Tony Curtis. I'll go along with that assessment. It does make perfect sense in terms of Brad vs. Richard in the acting field or even experience. So far, I don't think Angelina has really had a type of classic dramatic role, so memorable and long lasting. There's still time for Angelina to get into something deep and artistically moving. As for Brad, he's not a bad actor, but not as distinguished as Richard was when you consider all the angles of show business Burton covered.

*I SECOND THE MOTION OF FRED! TRY AND WATCH THIS FILM OR RECORD IT IF POSSIBLE!* *THIS IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF HOLLYWOOD PRODUCTION VALUES AT THEIR HIGHEST!*

*COMON' NOW EVERYBODY . . .* We know full well what this is all about . . . It's just Angelina picking up the old publicity hype from Liz and nothing more. Somebody has to carry the torch for a new generation of hungry, bored, "no life," "no account," gossip hordes. Both ladies are linked by the "husband stealing" issue and loads of silly controversies that are the rage for supermarket shoppers to crave. It's all just part of the game we call show business. Some make it through the fray as did Liz, while others fall prey to it. Only time will tell for Angelina, if she can make it work for her and acquire some respect.

> finance . . . You make a good point about that need element of chemistry! Certainly, Fred & Ginger had it and unlike other performers who were paired off, their teaming remains the most famous or popular of Classic Hollywood. There might be something to be said about the idea that two people performing together don't necessarily have to like each other. As Fred usually said, "It's important to just get the work done!"

> jbh you ask . . . > Where (Connie Steves) is she now . . . Well, here's some very, very interesting news: Connie, who at times could be seen selling items on the HSN cable network, came back into the main stream of her profession. Believe it or not, in 2007, Connie cowrote and then even directed a feature film entitled "Saving Grace B. Jones." As of now, the film hasn't had a general release, but was seen at various film festivals. It's expected to be out at the end of this year, if not in theaters, probably on video. At age 72, Connie has now embarked on a new career! She will be planning to direct a second feature film this year. She is also the mother of actress daughters Joely Fisher and Tricia Leigh Fisher from her marriage to singer Eddie Fisher. What a gal!

When Rock heard about this project and read the script, he desperately wanted to be in it. Paramount had planned to have Lawrence Olivier star or at least that's what producer Edward Lewis wanted. Rock then campaigned heavily to be considered, even taking a salary cut! It would be his overall star clout that won him the role. Unfortunately, the film didn't do as good as was hoped for or even expected. Yet, today it is considered one of the high-points in Rock's career and that of a first rate thriller. Certainly, the director John Frankenheimer was at the time one of the very best in this field and that of dramatic content. Today, "Seconds" has had resurgence of interest and close to being considered a classic in its genre.