MovieProfessor

I was asked about him by a member of the web site.

There was a time, when a young, aspiring actor by the name of Merle Johnson, arrived in Hollywood at around 1956. Johnson was born in New York and later on attended Columbia University. While in college, he made the rounds in various theater stock companies as a part time actor. Somehow, he managed to get to the west coast and decided on taking a stab at Hollywood. At first, Johnson was like most young performers facing the daily drudge of rejection after rejection at the various major Hollywood studios. He then settled on a chance at breaking into the movie business by subjecting himself to unaccredited appearances in some low-budget films. After a bit of the usual frustration that comes with trying to break into the movies, Johnson finally took the advice of a fellow actor and looked around for an agent to represent him. The man who came to Johnson?s aid was none other than that notorious and shady figure of old Hollywood, movie agent Henry Willson. The story of Johnson and his relationship with Willson goes along the lines that for a time, Willson had been toying with the idea of a new sort of replacement for his onetime client, heartthrob Tab Hunter. By the late 1950s, Hunter?s career appeared to have stalled and Willson was probably worried about his reputation. Willson had in a technical and business sense of thinking, already hit the heights with such discoveries as Robert Wagner, Rory Calhoun, Clint Walker and his greatest of all, the mighty Rock Hudson. With Tab Hunter?s career on the wane, Willson looked to this new, brassy, tall, blond young man to fit the bill or fill the void. Along the way to Willson getting Johnson established, there emerged a strange legend that relates to the typical Hollywood mode of changing a performer?s name. Willson had for years, toyed with his other clients to use the first name of ?Troy.? He first utilized it with Rory Calhoun and then singer turned actor James Darren; it simply didn?t work out. So, next in line came Merle Johnson and Willson named him: Troy Donahue. In no time, with Willson?s immense influence, Donahue began to get good exposure in various major films. Little by little, the studios where Donahue found work began to show interest in him. However, Donahue was for the time of his early career, appearing in B-movies. Although these films were not so dramatically imposing, they did help personify his young spirited imagery that made him standout among others. Certainly, his ?boy-next-door? good-looks propelled him into the forefront of getting noticed by those in the movie business who were looking for someone new and fresh for younger audiences to appreciate. Donahue?s first major breakthrough came in 1959, when he was given a small role in Universal Pictures remake of ?Imitation of Life.? The role wasn?t really so good as to give Donahue what would be considered reasonable screen time, but because it was a major, dramatic release, starring Lana Turner, the film gathered in a good degree of respect. During the filming, Donahue became good friends with the young actress Sandra Dee, who was just getting her career underway. Both Dee and Donahue couldn?t have guess what fate had in store for their future film careers. Agent Willson, feeling good about Troy?s progress, hoped that Universal Pictures would sign his new young discovery to a contract; the studio had already signed on Dee. Why the studio didn?t take Willson?s offer is one of those mysteries of the movies; it?s always been assumed that the studio would in later years come to regret their decision. Most likely, the reason might have been the studio already had two other clients of Willson on their roster; they were Doug McClure and Chad Everett. So, Donahue had to move on. This move proved to be a tremendous opportunity for Willson?s new young client. Warner Brothers was about to make a romantic soap opera called ?A Summer Place,? starring Sandra Dee. Quickly, Willson sized the moment for Donahue and convinced the director of the film, Delmer Daves to consider Donahue as the perfect choice opposite Dee. Naturally, Dee was all for Donahue, since they had become good friends during the time they had together at her home base of Universal. At the beginning, Daves felt he might be taking a gamble with this new aspiring actor. While Daves did have his own choice to play the young male lead role, he relented towards Donahue with the idea that he play along with the usual Hollywood game of taking some credit for a possible new discovery. Warner Brothers came to accept this scenario; there came the notion that Donahue might become hot enough for their studio to sign him on and also able to fill a spot they had in mine for television production. What an amazing moment it must have been for Donahue to realize he hit the overnight heights of movie stardom with ?A Summer Place.? The film was pretty much a melodramatic mixture of romantic intrigue between an adult atmosphere and one for the young. There could be no doubting that younger audiences who flocked to see the movie were impressed by Donahue?s imagery and style. Warner Brothers wasted no time in giving Donahue a solid contract. The success of ?A Summer Place,? swept across the country like a whirlwind, becoming one of the most successful box-office hits. Certainly, the young teaming of Dee and Donahue proved to be a sensation for 1959. Both performers were launched into the scope of major stardom; this was especially the case with the various movie magazines and tabloids that gave Dee, Donahue and the film tremendous amount of coverage and publicity. Willson had struck a gold-mine with his new young actor, who was now a symbol to the youth of America. Donahue would become so popular, that the following year of 1960, Warner Brothers decided on showcasing him in the ABC television series ?Surfside 6,? set in Miami, Florida; the ratings soared! This was amazing to say the least, because in the long run, Donahue?s quick raise to stardom affected other aspiring actors at the studio; one of them, another popular young star, Edd Byrnes became infuriated with all the fuss Donahue was getting and walked out on his contract for a period of time. Director Delmer Daves took full advantage of Donahue?s appeal, by creating an entire motion picture as a vehicle towards Donahue?s popularity, another melodrama, entitled ?Parrish.? Based on a pot-boiler romantic novel of the day, the film was another huge hit and served to excel Donahue?s career and his appeal. Between his television series and a solid film career, Donahue was without any question, one of the biggest young stars of the early 1960s. After the success of ?Parrish,? there came in 1961, another romantic pot-boiler, but Donahue wasn?t the star, actress Connie Stevens was the main showcase; in a move that was rather strange, Donahue had something of an uneventful role in ?Susan Slade.? This was another Delmer Daves attempt at creating a romantic sensation, but the film wasn?t so popular and didn?t do anything to heighten Stevens and certainly not Donahue. A few historians believe that a mistake was made in not utilizing Donahue?s mass appeal over that of Connie Stevens, whose career at Warner Brothers was just getting established. It was obvious that Donahue was brought along to aid in promoting the film or give it a bit of a punch. But, at this stage not even Donahue could save ?Susan Slade? and Stevens ended up a regular on television, in the series ?Hawaiian Eye.? Despite the disappointing box-office results of ?Susan Slade? and a first setback to Donahue?s success at Warner Brothers, in 1962 came what would be perhaps his greatest of all box-office hit, ?Rome Adventure.? If anything, this motion picture allowed him to hold on to his clout. This big success would turn out to be for a very good reason, having nothing really to do with the film itself. Donahue and his co-star Susan Pleshette had real romance that led to his first marriage. This liaison between the two stars created a wide amount of publicity that only added to the public at large going to see the film. Donahue was now as much in the news as was such stars as Marilyn and Liz Taylor; this was a feat that few have ever reflected upon. As exciting as the marriage between Donahue and Pleshette transpired in the mind of the fans, the relationship was very short lived; the two stars divorced after their second film pairing in the western ?A Distant Trumpet.? Meanwhile, Donahue ended up with a side-job on another television program, ?Hawaiian Eye,? that reunited him with actress Connie Stevens. Warner Brothers did everything they could to keep Donahue fresh and alive in the public eye; he starred in a semi-musical film ?Palm Springs Weekend? that turned out more of a joke than anything so technically serious to accept. This film simply displayed a bit of the limitation Donahue had as a performer with little or no wide range of training, especially in the music or singing field. The coming of ?The Beatles,? the ?Beach Party or Surfer movies? and the whole new psychedelic craze of the 1960s, changed the whole scope of Donahue?s stardom or at least forced him to realize his time in the spotlight was dwindling away. After his last film for Warner Brothers, ?My Blood Runs Cold,? in 1965 ended so lame, the studio gave up on him and his contract was not renewed. Like it is with numerous film stars who find themselves on the way out, Donahue fell into bouts of depression and disappointment as no decent offers came to him. He was pretty much back to where he had started from, finding himself taking on jobs in low-budget movies that are best forgotten. By the end of the decade, he was practically an after thought or a ?has been.? At the beginning of the 1970s, Donahue returned to television, this time in a daytime soap opera, ?The Secret Storm.? While this allowed him work and some exposure, his major film career was all but over. It was around this time, rumors of drug abuse and acute alcoholism began to take their toll on him. There would be a second marriage for him, but this also ended in divorce. Finally, in a most ironic twist of fate, Donahue was given a break by none other than director Francis Ford Coppola in 1974. While most film historians would laugh at or not take Donahue?s brief appearance in ?The Godfather 2? so seriously, it was something of an interesting occurrence, at least for those of us who knew of his past fame. The character Donahue played in the film, utilized his real name of ?Merle Johnson!? For many fans, this was something of a movie ?in joke? by either Coppola or perhaps even suggested by Donahue himself. Most likely, Donahue was resigned to having become nothing more than a typical working actor for hire by the time he made his appearance in ?The Godfather 2.? The years leading up to the 1980s, saw Donahue work sporadically, sometimes landing another small role in a major film, while staying amid low-budget films and some work in television. He later on showed up at movie memorabilia shows and conventions, in order to supplement his income that was by the end of the 1970s, somewhat meager. Strangely, when there was a tremendous revival of interest in the 1950s and 1960s, showcasing films about these eras, Donahue was nearly left out in the cold, only having been called upon by wacko director John Waters to appear in the zany comedy ?Cry Baby.? Talk was that most of the newer filmmakers never really saw Donahue as having anything of value to be considered so important from a nostalgic point of view; in other words, some believed he was just a passing fancy or a flash that didn?t last very long; his major film career only span six years. The last years of his life were a constant struggle as he tried desperately to get a lid on his health and financial problems. He finally gave way to a heart attack and died at the age of 65 in 2001. Throughout the web, there are sites devoted to Donahue and his short lived stardom. It?s interesting that in death, he is now more remembered then when he was alive and struggling those last years of his life. There is a paradox to Donahue. He represents a film star trapped in an imagery of their era and never went beyond it to reach a dynamic presence to having something of a productive future in the movie business. He wasn?t a failure. He just never really grew old in the minds of many fans and remains forever young.

I?m not going to say that this petition is a foolish venture. But, once one understands the reasons why many lost films are floating around, in the hands of private collectors, who have no legal rights to possessing them, it?s then foolish to think they will so easily cooperate with authorities or who has the copyrights. These petitions and other cries of frustration by fans and film historians are like demanding the authorities break into a private collector?s domain. It?s simply too late these days for anyone to think pressure can be applied to a private film collector to relinquish what they prize. I?m all for the finding and restoration of lost, classic and important films, but the hardcore reality of this situation reveals the simple issue of mistrust and fear among those few who have what movie fans want to see. Let?s not kid ourselves on this issue and try to see the situation from a perspective of legalities, before we waste a lot of time waving banners and marching outside somebody?s house. It?s now up to the owner?s of the copyright to ?A Star is Born? to come up with some sort of reasonable agreement that can satisfy whoever is holding on to this film.

This situation is easy enough to contemplate on why Michael Arick doesn?t want to relinquish the full version of ?A Star is Born? that is rumored to be in his possession. Since the print is probably an original, from the Warner Brothers vaults, he has no legal rights to have the film! A movie in its original format, as it was distributed at the time of its release is copyrighted and therefore can be confiscated at anytime by the person or persons who own the rights; it?s all that simple. There can be no doubt that Arick is aware of what has happened in the past, when private collectors had films that were later legally taken away from them. Arick has probably already tried to work out a deal with the owners of the film. This is most likely the estate of the late Judy Garland, whose husband Sid Luft was the film?s producer and of course Warner Brothers. Until something can be offered to Arick to satisfy his needs in holding on to the original film, we will all have to simply wait to see what happens. Let?s hope if he does have the only last existing print of the full version, it?s in good shape. Let us pray . . .

As this story about Depp's supposed big salary begins to get wider coverage, it's being reported that he will probably remained in as much seclusion as possible. So far, the press and tabloids are simply waiting for the big announcement. After all, Depp hasn't really signed on the dotted line yet!

The first actor selected was Englishman, Dirk Bogarde. He had just become a hot international star from Britain and was on his way to Hollywood, when the MGM staff considered him for the role of ?Gaston.? Bogarde had in some respects, a lot going for him in terms of his good-looks, beautiful voice, adding to a pretty good matinee-idol image, plus a very good acting ability. He was being compared as the next Laurence Olivier of the movies. There was never any big deal about the casting of ?Gaston? for ?GiGi,? in that the choices were numerous, at least from an international perspective. Producer Arthur Freed, left this situation in the hands of the his casting department, not really worrying about the overall final choice, since he was more concerned about the title role; his having always wanted Caron and this made more sense to him. Minnelli also wasn?t so concerned about the choice, he was more caught up in the technical aspects of the film; he had always wanted to recreate this turn of the century world and had loved the novel by Colette. He pretty much convinced Freed to consider turning the story into a musical and boy was he right! So, several staff members of the studio flew over to London to meet with Bogarde. Naturally, Bogarde was thrilled about the offer, but he had already planned to appear in the remake of ?A Tale of Two Cities.? This conflicted with any chance of his getting into ?GiGi.? MGM thought about delaying the project on behalf of Bograde, but both Freed and Minnelli wouldn?t have any of this. Bograde had already signed with the MGM British extensional unit in England that had already made some really big films. In an ironic twist of fate, the following year Bograde ended up making his international debut with Caron through the MGM British unit in the romantic melodrama ?The Doctor?s Dilemma.? It was Minnelli who then suggested Louis Jordan, who both Freed and the director knew well. After all, Jordan was a true Frenchman and had already worked with Minnelli, when Jordan was signed on at MGM in the late 1940s. Jordan?s Hollywood career never really took off and while he wasn?t exactly what you might consider to be an exciting choice for ?Gaston,? it was a logical one. At the time he was under consideration, Jordan actually resisted the idea of being in the musical film. He felt that his singing abilities were not up to a good enough standard. It was Minnelli who explained to Jordan that he would just have to ?word the songs? and not outright attempt to sing them. A test was made and everything went according to Minnelli?s plan. It?s best to simply come to terms with the feeling that the casting for ?Gaston? wasn?t something in any high amount of jeopardy. However, Jordan gave one of his best performances and the success of ?GiGi,? rejuvenated his career in a big way. Before his appearance in ?GiGi,? he had been drifting back and forth between working occasionally in Hollywood and in Europe; never having achieved anything of a high status until 1958 and the rest is history. Louie is today retired, as of 1992 and while he doesn?t get out much, he does try to get around whenever he can.

The number one, most unique story of any major child star in Hollywood was that of Jackie Coogan. His tale is one of career disappointments and family greed, if not, betrayal. Coogan had for the time of the 1920s, become something of a huge star, partly due to Charlie Chaplin, who cast Coogan in the now legendary motion picture ?The Kid.? Overnight, Coogan became, at around the same time as ?Valentino,? a major star of the silent era. He was without any question, the first phenomenal success of any child in silent pictures. The payment made out to his family in only two years, made Coogan one of the highest paid motion picture performers of his generation, allowing him an international success unlike no other child star of his era. He was so popular, that Metro Pictures offered him a half-million dollar bonus to leave his established working base at First National Pictures. This deal was astronomical along financial terms, when it was revealed the contract assured Coogan at least one million dollars a year, plus a percentage of the box-office profits. While as a child performer, all this money was placed into a trust fund by his parents, never to be touched until he became an adult. Coogan only received a meager allowance from his family, that didn?t amount to anything close to what he was earning as a film star. Then, it happened: As it is with most child stars, his popularity began to slip as he grew older. By the early 1930s, he tried desperately to keep his career going as a teenager, but by that time, other younger child stars had taken on the position Coogan once enjoyed as a popular child movie star. When it came time for Coogan to get his money that was estimated at around 4 million dollars, a terrible and bizarre event occurred. He was nearly killed in an automobile accident that left his father and another passenger in the car dead. Coogan?s mother was at the time already separated from his father and married to someone else. His mother and stepfather refused to cooperate with the issue of the supposed 4 million dollar trust fund. This situation finally led to a well publicized lawsuit by Coogan against his family. It was revealed that most to the money had been tampered with and once a settlement was reached, the money had dwindled down to 252,000 dollars! In the settlement, Coogan was to receive only half of what was left. This event prompted the state of California to pass the Child Actor?s Bill, later to be known as the ?Coogan Act.? This new law would prevent any misdeeds and abuses of court-administered trust funds for child performers. Coogan was never to recovery his stardom or high position in the movie business. He only managed to have a decent comeback in B-Movies and later on television. He is today best remembered for his role of ?Uncle Fester? in the 1960s sitcom, ?The Addams Family.? Before his death in 1984, he always spoke about what had happened with his career and how his family tried to rob him of all the money he made while he was on top of the movie world. Jackie always said that part of what most fans don?t realize is just how complicated one?s career in movies can become. This is by way of all the greed and ambitions surrounding those who have a stake in what success comes your way. Upon becoming successful, most big stars have to contend with so many outside forces that meddle with the very fabric and core of one?s career. Jackie once said after all his money problems, ?I reached a point to believe, anyone who became a success in the movies meant: you could spend all the money you made to your hearts content.? When you think about it, nothing has really changed these days, we seem to occasionally read about some child star suing his parents and wanting what they believe to be rightfully theirs. If anything might be learned from this and other experiences, stems from that aged old saying: Money is the root of all evil. It?s been the usual routine that most child stars, later on in life, never seem to enjoy the fruits of all their labor.

This issue of movie star salaries seems to always comeback to connect with the one studio that became notorious with large payouts: 20th Century-Fox. In an ironic twist, the studio managed somehow, at the height of the Great Depression to have at least two motion picture stars that in terms of money, outranked the rest of Hollywood. The first was without question, little adorable Shirley Temple, who was for the time of the 1930s, the biggest box-office draw throughout the country. Under a standard studio contract, Shirley?s received a whopping 10,000 dollars a week! In today?s money this might total on an average of about 25 to 30 million dollars a film. The second highest paid star at 20th Century-Fox was ice skater Sonja Henie. It was Henie?s deal with the studio that is historically unique. She signed a 5 year contract to make one film per year at 75,000 dollars! This allowed her access to continue on with her ?live? skating shows in arenas across the country and the world before the war broke out. What?s interesting to note is that Henie made only eleven films during the span of her career in movies. Adding the sums she made from personal appearances, she became one of the richest women in show business history. Later on came the studio?s situation with Marilyn and then Liz Taylor. It?s fascinating to ponder how this one studio has managed to stay in the forefront of so much financial change throughout the film industry; this is unlike no other in movie history.

Nobody?s ever been really sure, if the 1958, MGM revival of ?Andy Hardy Comes Home? was meant to renew the film series that had made beloved Mickey Rooney a major star. Twenty years later and what original cast members could be found, MGM decided on taking a little gamble by bringing back the whole Andy Hardy family. The only member missing was old ?Judge Hardy,? who was once in the guise of renowned actor Lewis Stone. The studio wasn?t exactly going all out with this project, since there were other more distinguished productions underway. So, in a move that was typical in marketing terms, the new Andy Hardy film was pretty much a B-movie. The film ended up in and around local neighborhood theaters and the drive-in theater circuit. It was believed this motion picture could possibly have its important fan base within ?Middle-America? and no so much the major film markets of the big city. It?s interesting that when viewing this film, one senses it has more of a made-for-television production feel to it than even a small B-movie. MGM utilized some of the original (still standing) sets or the original Andy Hardy neighborhood as conceived by the studio twenty years earlier. As simplistic as the movie appeared to most, its homespun atmosphere simply didn?t equate so well with the current movie going public. Truth was that this sort of entertainment was now for free all over television. So, why would most of Middle-America bother to pay anywhere from 25 to 50 cents a ticket? And, adding even more of a paradoxical situation for this motion picture was that the old Andy Hardy movies were being aired regularly on television. Newer, younger audiences might have found the Andy Hardy films amusing and fun on television, but most weren?t going to bother with a trip to their local theater to see this sugarcoated, rather over sentimental movie that only had a limited appeal. The motion picture would only have interest with those older audiences, who were the film series original younger fans. The original film series was the brain-child of studio Boss Louie B. Mayer. He went out of his way to sort of prove his love for the American work-ethic and good-old family values. Certainly, the Andy Hardy movies were for their time, a defining factor to American society. Whether the films succeed in any category to enlighten the public to the virtues of our American way of life is probably debatable; naturally, there is a sense of myth to the Andy Hardy films, sighting a feeling life in the town of Carvel was more a fantasy than reality. This myth comes to its full extreme, when the deceased actor Lewis Stone (Judge Hardy) is seen in a hanging portrait and a visual flashback. In fact, cleverly inserted into the movie are old Andy Hardy film-clips used throughout the entire film. An air of wonderful nostalgia hovers over this last Andy Hardy movie, creating a rather loving effect, at least for die-hard fans of the series. The plain and assertive truth to ?Andy Hardy Comes Home? is the movie being simply dated to a pronounced way of not being able to link the past with the present or maybe even the future. At the end of the film appeared: ?To Be Continued.? Well, something went terribly wrong and the series was never rejuvenated. There have been all sorts of theories as to why MGM didn?t go ahead with a sequel. Most likely, the issue was the rather lame box-office response that in the end told the story. As for Mickey Rooney, Andy Hardy or no Andy Hardy, he would never attain the glory of his once major star status. Whether this movie was aimed towards this idea is another weird and outlandish theory; Mickey?s major film career was pretty much over by the time he made the last Andy Hardy movie; he would for the rest of his career, be subjugated to a supporting player status in major film production. Edited by: MovieProfessor on May 1, 2010 11:09 PM

One individual who hardly ever gets mentioned or placed on a list of richest celebrities is Elvis Presley. While Elvis became one of the biggest superstars of the 20th Century, his net worth was not so high as a result of the movies. The fortune that Elvis accumulated came mostly from the music industry and the millions of records that were sold and made it to the top of the charts; later on came the various commercial interests. During his heyday, as he started his career in the late 1950s, Elvis made about 100 thousand dollars for his first series of films, only to see this amount multiply. By 1970, Elvis was making 500 thousand dollars a film. Several of his films that were box-office hits, gave him a percentage of the profits, most notably was ?Blue Hawaii? that netted for him his first clear cut million dollar payoff. While no one would argue against Elvis being one of the highest paid stars of his generation, he actually pales in comparison to others during the height of his fame. Over the years, a controversy has erupted over what he was worth when he died. Some say the total sum was less than ten million dollars! As of now, the whole Presley estate is said to be valued at around 300 million. This essentially means that in death, Elvis has made more money than while he was alive.

> {quote:title=gagman66 wrote: > She made Pirate Movies Too you know! > *"Colleen Speaks Her Mind!"* That's right on the money!

Of course, I image there would be cause to mention Oprah Winfrey, estimated at a net worth of 2.3 billion dollars. But, she's not a movie star. So, we have to leave her out of this equation.

As it turned out for Liz, her net worth is estimated at around 600 million dollars. This is due to her cleverly making the right investments over the long haul of her life and career. Liz simply didn?t spend her money so carelessly, even with all the celebrated jewelry she purchased. Naturally, her numerous husbands (the rich ones) managed to add to what is now believed to have made Liz the richest woman in show business. She is often referred to as a one-woman money-making machine. During the peak of her career, her income could average around 50 to 60 million in one year! This wasn?t in one single payoff, but a combination of deals from the various film companies and commercial interests. Also, Liz received her vast payments overseas, mostly in Europe, where the tax laws aren?t as stringent as in the U.S. Over the period of time Liz became the biggest superstar in movie history, her salary for every film project when up and up. A legend resulted out of the fortune Liz accumulated as a film star, when 20th Century-Fox offered her the role of ?Cleopatra? in 1961, At first, she flatly refused, responding by saying, ?How about for a million dollars,? thinking that the studio would then back off and stop bothering her. Well, much to the surprise of the entire world, a deal was cut and Liz was the very first movie star in history to receive one million dollars outright to appear in a major motion picture. This transaction would come back to haunt 20th Century-Fox, when ?Cleopatra? came to a whopping 44 million dollars to produce and only received a box-office earning of 26 million. The studio was nearly bankrupt by what later transpired with a crazy chaos surrounding the failure of the biblical epic movie. It took the studio about two years and luck to recoup the financial losses. In a move that proved rather feeble, the studio decided on then suing Liz for the whole ordeal of ?Cleopatra?s? failure. This was looked upon as the studio trying to acquire good publicity in their favor and not so much admitting certain boundaries were overstepped and there was no turning back; the damaged or changes to the system had been done! So, a new standard was set for movie stardom and what it could reap to those who could be fortunate enough to succeed at becoming popular.

> FredCDobbs wrote: > TORPEDOING OF STEAMSHIP "ATHENIA." > I Don't Get It? What does this have to do with Mitchell Leisen?

I?ll go with Leisen?s beautiful constructed 1944 Technicolor musical ?Lady in The Dark.? This movie was truly something to behold, when first released. If anything, Leisen was an artist or at least had a bit of experience in all fields of the lively arts. He was one of the few directors to have had a stylishly illustrious career in films, mostly at Paramount Pictures that would become his home base throughout the highpoint of his directorial career. Leisen was without question, one of Paramount?s most elaborate filmmakers, working on some of the studios prized assignments; usually with large budgets and topnotch stars. Even Orson Welles, often considered a maverick and rebel in Hollywood, found time to praise Leisen for bringing in a polished product that during the 1940s was unparalleled, when compared to most other films of the period. Leisen, together with epic director Cecil B. De Mille, gave rival MGM a good run for their money! The way to describe Leisen was as a consummate, meticulous professional, who spent a vast amount of time planning and keeping his projects stable. Sadly, with changes in management at Paramount and the post war era bringing in everything from all sorts of new technologies, especially with television, Leisen?s position in the film community began to slip. He was handed a series of lesser quality materials and scripts that not even with all his talents, he could save or make into something worthwhile. Here was this man, who at one time was considered a regal sort of figure to filmmaking, find himself facing a bit of mediocrity and he ended up directing inferior projects for television. His career in movies is in some ways a strange one, because while he had a few outstanding films, his was a promise that was in numerous ways not fulfilled or as Orson Welles once said, ?Leisen created glorious imagery, only to see him get consumed by it.?

I mentioned Liz Taylor receiving from 20th Century-Fox, what was at the time in 1963, the highest payoff of any movie star. However, just one year before this big news, Marilyn Monroe had actually signed an even bigger deal with 20th Century-Fox, after she had been fired and then returned to settle her differences with the studio. Fearing that Marilyn still had tremendous clout, the studio didn?t want to see her go elsewhere and make millions for a rival company. So, 20th Century-Fox gambled on offering Marilyn a two-picture deal at one million dollars each. Of course, this deal never came to reality, because Marilyn died that summer of 1962. This story has never really received any sort of vast amount of coverage. Some believe that the deal simply died with Marilyn and therefore shouldn?t be considered viable or of any historic value.

>primosprimos wrote: > I wonder how much Cary Grant made in his *lifetime?* Once Cary became a big star by the late 1930s, his salary was around 5,000 a week. By the 1940s, Cary was freelancing from studio to studio, earning anywhere from 8,000 to about 10,000 a week, plus a small percentage of the box-office profits. By the 1950s and his super-stardom, he had already established a terrific production company that was actually modeled after the one Katie Hepburn had created, when she and Cary starred together in "The Philadelphia Story." In fact, it was Katie who advised Cary and numerous other stars to go on their own and not be so prone as to have a standard studio contract. By the time Cary was running his career, he simply rececived a cut of the profits and nothing else. It isn't fair to assume that the many classic stars of the past would have gone the route of today's mega-media stars. I say this because in the long run, the system was still very different, in that the studio's managed to still hold on to some control. It was only after Liz Taylor received her huge payoff in 1963 for the epic "Cleopatra" that the money system began to change.

I can?t be sure on how accurate is this list of current salaries. It?s probably changed with the Johnny Depp Disney deal. Everyone on this list has their own production company, thereby aside from the money paid upfront, comes the percentage of the box-office take that adds to the amount. With this type of payout, becoming a successful movie star is as good as finding ?gold in them-there hills!? . . . Wouldn't that be the Hollywood Hills? Gee, I wonder if anybody on this list gave a donation to save the Hollywood Sign? Will Ferrell, 40 million Johnny Depp, 37 million Ray Romano, 36.5 million Will Smith, 35 million Toby Maguire, 32 million Tom Cruise, 31 million Denzel Washington, 30 million Adam Sandler, 28 million Matt Damon, 27 million Brad Pitt, 25 million Drew Barrymore, 22 million Jennifer Anniston, 18.5 million Jennifer Lopez, 17 million Nicole Kidman, 14.5 million Jennifer Garner, 14 million Cameron Diaz, 13 million Naomi Watts, 11.5 million Sandra Bullock, 10.5 million Patricia Heaton, 9 million Julia Roberts, 8 million

OK . . . Not that I want to add more of a fiery flare to any debate, I just so happened to read that Depp?s net worth is already estimated at around 72 million dollars! The actual amount Disney wants to pay upfront to Depp is 55 million and then he reaps the rest of the profits from a percentage of the box-office take and all the associated commercial interests that will obviously guarantee him the projected amount of ending up with around 100 million dollars; and possibly even exceeding this amount. If this keeps up, we have to wonder who?ll be next to get a big paid-off due to their success in a film series. It might be understandable on what Disney feels is a good investment for their organization, especially banking on the huge popularity of Depp. But, one has to wonder what will happen to Depp?s image and career as he becomes such a huge commodity? Will this affect his ability to be a competent actor or garner enough professional respect? Or, will Depp lose out on ever being taken so serious as an actor and end up simply a high-priced movie star? These and other questions will enter the realm of historical doctrine in the years to come. Talk is that Depp doesn?t want to address this issue openly, as the major media begins to give this situation wider coverage. No doubt, he will be of most interest to the public at large as the media hacks away at whatever meaning can be deciphered to his becoming the highest paid film star to date.

> edonline wrote: > Has Hef ever been a guest programmer? I'm sure he would have some interesting film choices. He really doesn't have to since he has already produced several good documentaries on TCM. I think this issue has been overlooked for sometime of Hefner's interest in motion picture history.

I must confess that when I read certain news items about show business, I?m reminded how times have changed! I?d like to think of myself as from ?The old Hollywood School.? This was from a time past, when the movie world was in some ways simplistic, as much as it could be difficult to deal with. Well, one of the big changes that certainly makes me wake up and smell the coffee is what an established movie star can now make along financial lines. It?s being reported that the tremendous success Disney Pictures had with the ?Pirates of The Caribbean? film series has prompted somebody at the studio to act desperate enough to offer actor Johnny Depp, a whopping 100 million dollars, guaranteed if he agrees to appear in another ?pirate? movie. This payout would undoubtedly make Depp the highest paid movie star in history. Just think about it: this sum is enough to make at least 3 or possibly 4 good small movies. The reason for offering Depp this huge sum stems from the theory that while it might cost about 100 to 250 million to produce a new ?pirate? movie, the projected box-office take would triple, thus covering the cost of both Depp and whatever money spent for film production. What we?re looking at here is what Disney believes could be at least a 400 to an 800 million dollar take-back. I guess this would be a good investment on technical terms. But, we might want to have to ask is any performer or film star worth this amount of money? Certainly, one has to wonder, if Depp ends up getting this tremendous payoff would he even care about continuing on with his motion picture career? Let?s face it: money like this doesn?t come around so easily for anybody these days. But then, with the way things have become so expensive these days, it?s no wonder this payoff is likely to happen. I have to feel or say: Why bother to buy a lottery ticket? Or, send your kids to college and possibly hope they get a good job? Becoming a big, popular movie star seems like a pretty good deal and you?ll be set for life! All I know is that while in my day movie stars made pretty good money, it was still very much a typical ?9 to 5? job. If anything has changed these days, it?s the movie stars calling the shots and deciding everything. After all, when you can bring in the kind of money Depp will, you?re practically assured anything you want and not have to bend down towards anyone. Once Depp gets this money, the next time he walks down the red carpet, it won?t be the same for him and perhaps anyone else who loves and understands motion pictures. The meaning of this traditional red carpet will change. That red carpet would have changed into a very different color . . . The color green, saturated with mosaic images of American presidents and the national seal would be likely.

> {quote:title=Arturo wrote:: > Maybe Marilyn Monroe's singing was dubbed into A Ticket To Tomahawk, where she was a chorus girl, but in Scuddah Hoo Scuddah Hey, she only had one (spoken) line, which was left on the cutting room floor. > > In her first lead, 1948's Ladies of the Chorus (made at Columbia after 20th didn't pick up her option the first time under contract to them), if I recall correctly, it was her own voice; Marilyn did perform her own singing in "Ladies of The Chours." But, Marilyn had a bad time and short stint at Columbia Pictures, due in large part to studio boss Harry Cohn never having taken her seriously; there were also concerns of Marilyn's rather risque reputation. She then returned to 20th Century-Fox. During her return, Marilyn was promised something of better exposure. So, in both her early films, "A Ticket To Tomahawk" and "Scuddah Hoo Scuddah Hey" there was more than just a film clip of her or a small walk-on role; this was especially the case with "A Ticket To Tomahawk." For years, people have been searching for whatever lost footage of Marilyn might exist from both these films. It's likely that by now, this issue is something of a myth, because it's doubtful any film footage will ever be found.

I say "Bravo!" to Bette Too!

Just to be clear on Jane?s situation, she was never fully dubbed, but was in fact enhanced as were numerous other film stars, who couldn?t handle certain notes and portions of a tune. All one has to do to realize Jane?s limitation is to hear her actually sing. One very good and clear example of this is her singing appearance in the 1964 film, ?Fate Is the Hunter.? Jane sings a mild ballad, originally done by Alice Faye entitled, ?No Love, No Nothin?.? This performance clearly displays her voice being somewhat restrained along what you would consider an accomplished singer could expand upon or convey a sense of solid harmonic style. Even more interesting is to watch or hear Jane?s voice in such early films as ?His Kind of Woman? and ?The Las Vegas Story;? from a musical standpoint of thinking, you might notice that the voice or style of the tones are not the same in both films; naturally, one might say that the songs are different between these two films, but the style or sound of her voice should remain the same; well, it simply doesn?t! It?s easy to understand this if you watch or listen to such accomplished singers as lovely Doris Day, Rosemary Clooney or Shirley Jones; what you get here is straight-out consistency; it?s all that simple. While Jane?s voice was never really uncomfortable to listen to, it did lack a solid musical identity; in this case, the idea that she could go beyond consonant restrictions her voice was limited towards undertaking. Of course, this doesn?t really mean Jane couldn?t sing, it meant she could have never sang with a ?big band,? been in the concert hall and while she did make nightclub appearances, seeing her perform live could pretty much signify to anyone, she was ?moonlighting? . . . Definition: The practice of holding a second regular job in addition to one?s main job. Now, don?t get me wrong, I absolutely adore Jane! It?s just that there have always been lurking issues about the careers of various movie stars that could warrant some clear cut revelation. What?s so obvious to me is what Marni Nixon says in her interview of various movie stars not even realizing they were helped along the way of whatever singing ability they had. Certainly, Jane would be the first to agree with this assessment, because she did have help and her voice was electronically heighten throughout her career in motion pictures. I don?t think this is a straight out conveyance to pronounce Jane was dubbed. It simply means she was definitely no real singer. But then, most everybody loves to sing or sometimes believe they can carry a real tune.

There is reason to believe that because the 1931 ?Dracula? was based on a staged version, music wasn?t so prone or to be so suggestive in conveying anything of a background mood. While this issue is debatable and opinions widely range towards the idea of having a music score to a motion picture, there is credence to feel that it wasn?t such a necessity in 1931, since the emphasis was on the visual, if not, the sound or in this historical case: dialog. After so many years of having been indoctrinated by the sheer dark, foreboding moodiness of the 1931 film version, a music score now seems rather odd and out of place from what there might be towards the film?s originality or the taking away of it. Certainly, for many a diehard film fan, this will be looked upon as tampering or an alteration to the fabric and substance of the motion picture. While it might be considered nice or interesting to have a fully composed, original music score accompany the film, it simply isn?t necessary and won?t add anything other than a new curiosity to once again see or experience the movie. Perhaps this is worthiness and good intend of keeping something alive towards a classic film. But, anything that is considered a classic need not be changed or alliterated due to the passing of time and changes in the public taste or that of new technologies able to add something fresh and new for the generations to come. Movies seem to be one of the few things of the past that can be either changed or meddled with, because in the end the motion picture media has always been a technology that is able to sustain flexibility and exist amid dynamism that can?t stay so easily fixed.