MovieProfessor

As a whole, the 1931 film never really had any sort of original score. Most movies at this time, didn?t utilize originally written film scores; we were still just one year away from composer Max Steiner creating his groundbreaking original score for David O. Selznick?s Pacific island adventure ?Bird of Paradise.? So, Universal Pictures did what most of the other studios in Hollywood were doing at the time and that was prey upon classical music. Hollywood was still at a sort of stand still on this issue of what might work for anything musically written to create the right mood and background to a film. Universal made no bones about the fact that what music there was to ?Dracula? was written by Tchaikovsky. Audiences at the time could identify with this method and because this was the early era of talking pictures, an established musical work was a means of getting movie goers interested. In hindsight, from an historical sense, there was no musical score to ?Dracula.? But then, most fans do recognize ?Swan Lake? and the rest is simple movie history.

Until the day he died, legendary movie chief, Darryl Zanuck, head of 20th Century-Fox, always stated that while under his employ, Marilyn was never dubbed. While I do sort of agree with Darryl or at least have come to accept this scenario, what we came to realize about Marilyn?s time at the studio, stemmed from a lot of rehearsals and voice training. It is very likely that Marilyn?s voice was in fact helped along the way, but not totally dubbed. It was believed for a time that perhaps this might have occurred during her last film at the studio, ?Let?s Make Love,? in 1960. But again, no one has ever come forward to say there was dubbing done for Marilyn during this time in her career. The only time it was rumored she was dubbed was during the very early half of her career, when she was first starting out. This was probably in such films as ?Scudda-Hoo! Scudda-Hay!? and ?A Ticket to Tomahawk.? In a rare interview, the most famous voice-over artist in Hollywood history, lovely Marni Nixon explains what I have previously said . . . Check it out: [About Marilyn . . .|http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-lt1vAbtZs]

I'll go with the 1970, trashy version of the trashy novel, "The Adventurers." This piece of major trash was the result of Paramount Pictures, together with Avco Embassy, having cut a major deal to release film versions of author Harold Robbins ridiculously, overbearingly, sensationalized novels that were riddled with everything from lewd, tasteless sex, violence, stupid unbelievable political intrigue. This movie turned out to be a major embarrassment to the various stars who agreed to take the money and be in this senseless gem of junk that led to a certain amount of low esteem, if not, said to have been uselessness to the very core of filmmaking. Despite the all star international cast, nothing could save this motion picture from oblivion. Actress Candice Bergen was the first major star of the movie to cry ?foul? and that she made a huge mistake in agreeing to appear in the film. It?s believed by her and even film historians that ?The Adventurers? was a setback to her motion picture career. Later on came regrets from Ernest Borgnine, who admitted he did it for the money; Rossano Brazzi, Charles Aznavour, Leigh Taylor Young and the legendary Oliva de Havilland, all came clean by simply saying: ?Bad choice!? The biggest of all disaster surrounding ?The Adventurers? was how the film failed to make an impressive mark for European actor and star of the film, Bekim Fehmiu, who was supposed to be the next ?Steve McQueen.? Some now say the problem he most suffered from was the inability for film goers (mostly in America) to pronounce his name properly! This was a typical situation where a big movie, meant to be somewhat artistic, failed miserably, only to ruin the chances of possible stardom. The international film career of Fehmiu fizzled away as ?The Adventurers? became one of the most highly criticized films of the year and for that matter the entire decade. The failure of this film, forced its famous British director, Lewis Gilbert to return to his ?James Bond? roots. Gilbert?s directorial position hit ?dead-bottom? as a result of this massive failure surrounding ?The Adventurers.? The director?s career was saved by his return to United Artists and his revamping the whole ?James Bond? series with actor Roger Moore. It wasn?t until 1983 and thirteen years later, Gilbert managed to get back into a serious guise with the dramatic success of ?Educating Rita.? As of today, "The Adventurers" has achieved a cult following. Perhaps this is something of a success that the movie never had. It?s amazing how some major motion pictures that failed when they first appeared, become popular or are rediscovered as the passing of time changes with public taste and attitudes that might relate towards some films being considered ahead of their time. But then, I?ve also heard it said: ?Junk is junk, no matter what there is to changes in time and tastes.? Personally, I have on occasions enjoyed watching this film, because from a technical point of view, it?s a nice visual experience and director Gilbert shows something of his expertise towards creating an out of the ordinary motion picture that exasperates and well as exaggerates. Those who have come to love this movie find it as a rare tour de force of its generation, attempting to ascertain or define an era that for the most part was undergoing some chaos and perhaps this is why the film failed as a reminder of the times from which it came.

Deleted.

In order to be fair to wonderful, loving Jane, she would be the first to admit after all these years that she simply had some help in the singing department. While Jane could technically carry over a tune smoothly, she always needed help at the high tones and notes. So, in a practical and technical sense of thinking, she really didn?t do the overall singing in any of her musical films, dramas or even comedies. This was for the highpoint of her career in Hollywood, kept under raps or a closely guarded secret; especially with Howard Hughes handling most of Jane?s career at the beginning. When Jane appeared on television, nightclubs and in the recording studio, her musical repertory was mild and not as flashy and high-strung as what would appear on the motion picture screen. This isn?t to say that Jane wasn?t talented or unworthy of some respect. It simply means that she was in some regards part of the deception and magic there was to old Hollywood. What many younger fans today of classic Hollywood don?t realize is the amount of illusions and fakery that went on with numerous movie stars. It was everything from a deception to one?s height, health, intelligence, moral fiber and even such things as one?s beauty or technical prowess in whatever field they came to represent on the motion picture screen. Nothing has changed, even by today?s standards. The movies remain a place where the real world doesn?t exist. The mistake most fans make is simply falling in love and believing what they see on screen. While I wouldn?t equate this with an overall issue towards being so phony, we just have to remember that not everything and everyone we see in the movies is a perfect representation of who they are off the screen.

This title can never really been determined, because voice-over work was actually quite numerous throughout Hollywood. Marni Nixon simply became more noted, because of the major, classic films she was hired to work on. Luck and circumstance played an important part in Nixon establishing herself as perhaps the most celebrated, straight-laced voice-over performer of Hollywood. Yet, most old-timers like myself, might want to consider one person, having earned the nickname ?The Man of a Thousand Voices,? Mel Blanc as the most influential figure in the voice-acting industry. Mel's voice was heard in many other types of films besides cartoons.

While Jane did cut a well-known record album of songs from a few of her films, she had for most of her film career, been dubbed by singer Antia Ellis.

OK . . . Here's the recent report on the uncut version of A Star is Born: http://www.thejudyroom.com/asib/asib-article.html

If this is true, a serious, die hard film collector never will submit to revealing what they might have! This is because the copyright law has always stipulated that no one outright has any control or ownership to having a film, without the expressed, legal permission of whoever holds the rights. At any given moment, the original owner (in this case the studio or producer) can simply demand the film back or cease it. In the past, those private collectors who came forward with their 35mm prints, lost them in all sorts of legal battles, never to retain what they had over the course of many years. The studios or original owners to the film, offered to settle the matter on either a video version or a restore print to the collector that in this case takes away the whole allure of having the original. Most collectors refused this deal and don?t trust anyone. I myself have known various private collectors of original prints and even attempted to have the films brought out for restoration. But naturally, the resistance to coming forward is usually sparked by the fear of losing the print. Such as been the case with various widescreen films of the 1950s. These films are important from an historical value, because aside from the widescreen issue, comes with it the 4 or 6 track stereophonic sound that can be restored beautifully by today?s standards. This situation reminds me of private art collectors, who attain lost or stolen paintings, later on to displayed them in out of the way places; giving the collector a sort of pride and egomania surrounding the pleasure of having something that most everyone else would admire and prize. It doesn?t surprise me that there are still lots of lost or forgotten masterpieces out there roaming around in somebody?s basement or stored in their media room. The last time I heard of any full-length print of the 1954 ?A Star is Born? was someone in of all places, the country of Turkey, saying they had one! After a bit of research, this proved to be a bogus pursuit. It?s been reported that when the film was completed at Warner Brothers, at least a dozen original prints of the full-length version were available. But, over the years stories surfaced that these prints were destroyed. It?s likely that perhaps one or two of these prints managed to get into somebody?s hands. I can?t believe, based on my experience with this matter that there isn?t a really good, complete version of the motion picture still around. But then, amid the flow of time and circumstance, we have to hope that whoever has the film, managed to keep it under safe and good conditions.

Peg passed away in 1996.

> DougieB wrote:}{quote} > It sounds like Peg may have been someone you knew. That is correct.

Susan?s singing voice in the 1947 melodrama, ?Smash Up? was performed by singer/actress Peg La Centra. Peg began with what might be considered a successful career as a ?big band? singer in the late 1930s. Her singing later led to a stint on the radio, where she actually acquired a musical program of her own in 1939! This is a remarkable achievement, when you consider she left behind her success in broadcasting for a stab at the movies! Despite her musical success, Peg had started out as a bit player in Hollywood. She first appeared in mostly film shorts; many of these films are virtually forgotten or have been lost. With little or no offers coming her way, she settled on working behind the scenes. This led to her rather short, but interesting dubbing career. She actually only worked on three major films, all during 1947, as an inserted soundtrack singing voice. This is the reason why Peg would never become so noted in this field. The other main reason for Peg not having anything leading to a big career in films was probably due to her successful, long standing marriage to actor Paul Stewart that came first and foremost. Stewart is best remembered for having once been a celebrated member of Orson Welles Mercury Theater Group! Peg somehow continued to have something of a sporadic acting career. This was especially the case during the time of early television, appearing in a slew of ?live? dramatic shows throughout the 1950s. By the 1960s, she was making appearances on major primetime television shows. It was interesting to see a once touted popular singer, turned actress. Peg retired from show business in 1964. Meanwhile, her husband Paul continued to work steadily, between motion pictures and television, until ill health forced him to retire. Peg?s beloved husband, Paul died in 1986. Peg then passed away in 1996. She turned out to be one of these performers who ended up not so well known by the general public. Still, Peg did have what might be considered a pretty good, if not, interesting career.

I will agree with most fans, that the 1973 film version of the popular selling novel, by Mark Harris of ?Bang the Drum Slowly,? was something of a disappointment and rather stale. When compared to the original, 1956 television version, starring a young and up & coming Paul Newman, the televised version was most impressive. The television drama was part of the popular series ?The United States Steel Hour.? 1956 was a banner year for both Paul?s career and the history of ?live? dramatic television . . . Paul had already begun to make a mark for himself with his highly praised performance in ?Somebody up There Likes Me? that very same year! And, the television series was already in its fourth successful season, having already showcased other classic dramas that would eventually become transferred to film! The television version of ?Bang the Drum Slowly? has more going for it, in terms of its written structure; because of the technical limitations, the TV drama appears as a finely presented play. This relates to a deeper character study and it is also a narrative work, by way of Newman telling the story in a flashback of memories. In the cast with Newman was a young and just starting out, George Peppard in the role of ?Pinely,? The dynamic Albert Salmi, who had just come off making a terrific sensation in the Broadway staged version of ?Bus Stop,? gave what has always been considered one of the finest and unusually realistic performances in dramatic television history. It was actually Salmi, who garnered in more of the critical acclaim for his offbeat and flamboyant performance as the confused and zany ballplayer ?Bruce.? There is a rather interesting historical note to the television drama that most fans never catch or seem to notice. This is at the drama?s end, when Newman?s character of ?Henry? is narrating and he plainly and clearly makes a mistake from what was written in the script. Newman noticeably repeats himself! Such was the case many times during numerous ?Live? television broadcasts! The original 1956 version is available on video. It has always been highly recommended in comparison to the 1973 film version.

I'd say Farley's OK . . . He had a decent, if short career in the Hollywood spotlight. The fact that he's still around and manages to appear occasionally on television, says something about having stability.

The program is formatted in a certain way as to have the various segments already planned in advance. This simply means that there is a bit of scripting involved, with some limited amount of loose opinions and ideas. There is reason to believe that some of the guests on the program have very limited knowledge of movie history. There was one guest, who must remain nameless and had worked with Robert Redford. When asked a question, this person had no previous knowledge of Redford?s career, nor could they even choose a film from Redford?s repertory. Some portions of the program obviously have to be edited out and this situation on Redford is a typical one! It might be that anyone appearing on the program as a guest host might be a fan like anyone else, but usually, these days, many of the younger, up and coming stars, don?t regularly catch old movies, go to film festivals and watch TCM.

As of now, there is no main-stream, American video release of Cecil B. de Mille?s 1949 biblical epic. This issue has to be taken under serious consideration, since the video that is available is an Asian import. Therefore, the quality, on top of the practicality of what?s offered is limited and questionable. Of course, you can wait for TCM to air the film and then record it by means of a VHS, DVR or DVD recorder. Most opinions would range along the lines that it?s simply best to wait until Paramount decides to finally release a decent, restored version of the film on DVD and HD digital.

I prefer the arrangement by Nelson, only because the song ?All My Tomorrows? ended up as part of one of Frank?s greatest of all albums, ?All The Way.? The album was one of Capitol Records biggest sellers and helped personify Frank?s image going into the 1960s. It?s initial release in 1961, also marked one of the finest stereo recordings ever created; even when compared to today?s digital methods! ?All The Way? set a new standard in the recording industry, becoming a classic and influencing a whole new generation of singers to come. Today, the album has been transferred to CD and hasn?t lost any of its terrifically inspiring harmonic allure.

> finance wrote: > I was annoyed that the forgettable "High Hopes", from A HOLE IN THE HEAD, won the Oscar, while one of his greatest ballads, "All My Tomorrows", from the same film, was ignored. You?ve hit on something really important and interesting here! During the making of the film and Frank?s work with music-arranger Nelson Riddle, it was suggested that ?High Hopes? be given the main emphasis within the storyline of ?A Hole in the Head,? because the song offered a lighthearted, upbeat mood. Most fans of Frank and those associated to the making of the film agree that ?All My Tomorrows? is the real, beautifully solid theme song to the motion picture. But, the song simply got overshadowed by ?High Hopes,? especially when Frank utilized the tune for the Presidential campaign of JFK in 1960! Frank would always say that ?All My Tomorrows? was one of his best tunes and rightly so, when you think about how easily the song itself connects to Frank?s imagine and career!

I have to agree that the one person who should be so identified with ?Jiminy Cricket? is Cliff Edwards. Of course, even before Carroll took over and long before Edwards?s death, the animated role hadn't received much attention. It was rather strange to realize that for the time Carroll was the voice of the beloved animated character, he received little, if any, mention of his work. He remained for most of his career at Disney in the shadows or behind the scenes. Most fans didn?t even realize that the assignment to handle ?Jiminy Cricket,? had already been phased out after Edward?s life and career hit rock bottom; due mostly to health and alcoholic problems. During the last remaining years of his life, Edward?s usually showed up at the Disney Studios, hanging around, hoping he might get a job. It was a sad and terrible situation for the many personnel at Disney, who gave him handouts and felt so sorry for him. It must have been painful for Edward?s to realize his connection to the iconic Disney animated figure had been planned to be passed over to someone else to handle. When Edward?s died in 1971, his death went almost unnoticed, with little, if any, news coverage by the major media. The personnel at Disney did give Edwards something of a small tribute at the studios and there was one at Disneyland. As for Carroll, he will remain for most of the fans, a simple after-thought as to who the real voice behind ?Jiminy Cricket? was and came to symbolize.

> {cujas wrote:}{quote} > Frank took on John Garfield's role in *Young At Heart*. I think he did more with it than Garfield. > > Yes, he sang in this movie--but it's not really a traditional musical. His scenes with Doris Day are among the best he has ever done. > BRAVO CUJAS!!

> finance wrote:}{quote} > Anyone who could express such emotion in his songs HAD to have acting ability. BRAVO FINANCE!!

> DougieB wrote: > One of my favorite performances is in "A Hole In The Head", though the movie itself isn't the greatest. How strange that Frank?s terrific work in ?A Hole in the Head,? never really got much attention. I?ve always believed it was an under-rated film. Especially, when you consider the picture was directed by the great legendary Frank Capra. What drew Frank towards making the movie was its dramatic content of a man, who was essentially a small-time loser, trying to hit on something big towards that coveted ?American Dream.? Frank understood the role he played to the fullest extent, stemming from his own early life and the struggles he faced. It was easy to comprehend that the main character of the tale, became too corrupted by his ambitions that in the end, he lost control to his life. All he had left was the one most important thing in life and that?s the love and understanding of his family. Certainly, for Frank, his family was everything or despite his rather flamboyant lifestyle in later life, he never lost track of his love and obligations to his family. There must have been something of Frank in that character he portrayed so vividly in the movie. Sometimes, I feel it was probably the closest role to his real-self than any other he ever portrayed on screen! The role of ?Tony Manetta? turned out to be one of his favorites. But, throughout his life and career, Frank?s role in ?From Here to Eternity,? seemed to be the one role that overshadowed any other. I?ll always feel that his role in ?A Hole in The Head? was the most symbolic to who he really was in real life or how close the role came to signifying many shades of Frank?s actual personality that couldn?t be so easily overlooked by those who knew him.

Let?s be clear about one aspect to Frank?s career that usually gets overlooked or misunderstood. It?s the simple fact that Frank worked long and hard to learn the craft of becoming a competent actor. Upon arriving in Hollywood, Frank was serious about making a success in motion pictures and this meant little, if any, party time. Those early years in Hollywood were sort of rough for Frank, because a lot of people thought he was just a passing fancy, or fad and wouldn?t last the decade of the 1940s; this led to his harden or outspoken personality that in the following years would become something of a trademark. Well, by the 1950s, this fading away of Frank?s motion picture career almost happened. Most of us know the story of his enormous comeback in 1953 and this gives Frank and his film career important historical value. It might be that Frank will always be remembered as a great pop-singer first, while his motion picture career was something of a gaudy sideshow. But then, what an elaborate sideshow it was and how everything turned out for Frank! In the process of everything that happened, Frank pretty much quelled all his critics over the long haul of his celebrated show business career; and this is in both music and films. Towards the zenith of his career, during the late 1950s and into the 1960s, he might have been a bit difficult to deal with, acquiring a reputation of defiance. Yet, in the end, he always came through with flying colors or he got the job done. By the twilight of his career and fame, he ended up having everything ?his way.? Thus, Frank became one of the supreme figures of American 20th Century entertainment. He once said, ?In this business you can?t let your guard down for one moment . . . You have to try and be as constant to the love of what you want to do, just as it was on that first day you decided you wanted to do it.? They just don?t come around like Frank very often.

> {clearskies wrote: > Thanks so much for the info, it's much appreciated. This brings to mind that I saw Jeremy Brett introduce Gigi a million years ago, somewhere (AMC?), in which he stated that while we all knew that AH's voice was dubbed he then admitted that his was too. I had watched his breathing while singing "On the Street..." & it was from the diaphram as a trained singer would do, so I had always felt it was his voice. That brought me to another thought in that I have always felt that the voice was a bit pompous, perhaps overtrained, & it didn't really suit the character. Do you know who dubbed him? Ok Clearskies . . . The dubbing of actor Jeremy Brett was handled by classically trained singer, Bill Shirley. He had been around Hollywood for a bit of time, handling chores that consisted of voice-overs, narrations for radio commercials and background singing. During the 1940s, he began a film career, appearing in mostly B-Movies, some of which are in fact well known. Some of Shirley?s best known films are ?Sailors on Leave,? ?Flying Tigers,? ?Abbott & Costello Meet Captain Kidd,? and Shirley?s biggest starring role of all, in the Republic Pictures biographic epic B-Movie, ?I Dream of Jeanine,? based on the life of 19th century American composer, Stephen Foster. When his motion picture career never really got off the ground, he compensated his sparse work in Hollywood, by having a side career on the live-stage. Later on came his work in television, as a voice for hire, leading straight to his first big dubbing assignment in 1959, as ?Prince Phillip? in Walt Disney?s animated epic ?Sleeping Beauty.? Five years later came ?My Fair Lady.? Shirley stayed pretty much quiet on the issue of ?My Fair Lady?s dubbing, until about fifteen years later, when Jeremy Brett finally came to admit in public that he was in fact dubbed. But, he also never named Shirley as his singing voice for ?My Fair Lady.? Most likely, Brett never knew who had performed the singing for him at the time ?My Fair Lady? was being filmed. Having lived most of his professional life in Hollywood, Shirley died in 1989. His body was returned to his beloved home town of Indianapolis, Indiana for burial. Despite not having been a major star, he remains one of the honorees of his local high school of Shortridge Senior High. This is an interesting story, because this special honor bestowed by his community and school, came about early in Shirley?s career, when it appeared as if he might get that all important big break. Of course, it wouldn?t happen, but I?m sure somebody from his hometown was and probably still is proud of him.

Well, the movie was in some logical ways rather tamed, when compared to the novel. Yet, the whole issue seems to stem from this word or phrase I used. So, if using the term promiscuous is not to your liking, then I'll go with: licentious. How does that sound?