MovieProfessor

> {quote:title=Back_Lot_Bard wrote:}{quote} > Explain how a novel can be "promiscuous" (was every purchaser of the book sleeping with their copy?). Very simple . . . This was a story of a young girl being trained to be a courtesan!? This means she would have no life to speak of, except giving herself to the man who was willing to pay for her company. And, let?s not forget that very telling moment in the film, when GiGi tells Gaston, ?I know what you want . . . It means I?m to sleep in your bed.? If that issue wasn?t promiscuous for readers and movie goers of the day, I don?t know what else to say.

> {quote:title=clearskies wrote: I have heard, somewhere, that it was dubbed for "Say a Prayer" but am not sure if it's true or if that was the only one. Would love to put it to rest. HI Clearskies . . . I'm affraid to say that Caron's voice was in fact dubbed. A studio contract player by the name of Betty Wand handled the chore. There are however, existing soundtracks of Caron actually singing the two songs she presented in the film. I believe this was one of those rare circumstances where a major role in a musical, didn't require the performer to be so genuine. This was in many ways not a singers musical, but one surrounded by a dexterity and wit of style to the spoken word that was bolstered by the beautiful music.

There are some interesting stories behind the making of ?GiGi.? The idea of making a major Hollywood film version had been tossed around as early as 1950. This was the time of a French film version that several officials at MGM thought might make for a successful translated English version. The novel by author ?Colette? had been somewhat popular, if not, considered a bit promiscuous. Naturally, Hollywood would have other ideas around making an American film version rather tamed. Then, the following year of 1951, a straight, dramatic play was produced on Broadway, starring a young and hopeful new actress by the name of Audrey Hepburn. The play was a moderate success, but was best remembered for having introduced Audrey to American audiences. The next four years would see MGM and their staffs try and cut a deal with the estate of author ?Colette? to acquire the rights to both the novel and the original, first film version. The biggest hurdle was getting around the censorship or Code office that demanded a report on how the script would evolve. Finally, in 1955, with everything cleared up, MGM paid a whopping $125,000 dollars for the film rights. The studio then decided to go along with the notion to have producer Arthur Freed make a musical, instead of a straight-laced dramatic film. An interesting point to this time and event was that composer Alan Lerner had always been producer Freed?s choice to handle the songs and the eventual script. There had also been lurking in the background, another Broadway company attempting to produce a musical of the celebrated story. MGM quickly put an end to this idea. There was never any doubt that Vincente Minnelli would direct the new American film version. Minnelli had been with the idea from its conception. Both Freed and Minnelli had a big head start on the project, by way of their discussions and plans over the long haul leading up to 1956 and the production getting under way. What came as a stall to the film was when composer Lerner and his colleague, composer Frederick Loewe had their greatest of all musical success with ?My Fair Lady? on Broadway. This placed a bit of hold on the ?GiGi? project for MGM. But, it also gave Freed and Minnelli extra time to consider the casting for the movie. From the get go, Freed always thought of having Leslie Caron in the lead role. The two composers favored Audrey Hepburn, mostly because she originated the role on Broadway. Caron had been in a London stage version of the original play and received good notices for her performance. Some historians believe this had always been something of a ploy on the part of MGM, allowing Caron a chance to settle the matter of the casting. Freed wanted desperately to get Maurice Chevalier into the project. He sent composer Lerner to Paris to speak to the famous French icon of entertainment to consider taking the role of ?Honore?.? The interesting aspect to this time and place was Lerner wining and dinning Chevalier in of all places, ?Maxim?s!? Of course, this famous restaurant would play a very important part in the film. While in Europe, Lerner was summoned to meet with British actor Dirk Bogarde to consider the role of ?Gaston.? Bograde was hot at the time, having a series of successful films, mostly from his native England, making him an international dramatic star. Unfortunately, Bogarde was unavailable and Lerner had to look elsewhere. On top of the casting situation, a small crisis occurred, when it looked as if another director would be handed the assignment. There were two choices being tossed around, David Lean and George Cukor. The blame for this momentary obstacle has been assumed to be Leslie Caron, who didn?t want to work with Minnelli, sighting that she found Minnelli?s methods difficult to feel comfortable. This is rather strange to comprehend, when you think about Minnelli having directed her first major Hollywood motion picture that launched her career. The role of ?Aunt Alicia? was originally supposed to go to wonderful Cladys Cooper. Amazingly, this proposal was scrapped, when Freed caught a glimpse of actress Hermione Gingold, making one of her frequent television appearances on Jack Paar?s ?Tonight Show.? Gingold had a beautiful classy tone with shades of a gracefulness that adorned her persona. This impressive, ornamented charismatic style convinced Freed to let her have the role. Gingold would fit into her role so comfortably that it is without doubt, her greatest screen appearance. While she never would achieve major stardom, she did make her role in ?GiGi? immortal and perhaps set a standard for this type of film musical entertainment. It wasn?t easy getting actor Louis Jourdan to play ?Gaston.? He resisted the idea, since he didn?t consider himself a singer or musical performer. He finally relented at the sight of the cast and crew that for the most part was made up of the finest personnel any film could wish for. After finishing up with his work on ?My Fair Lady,? costume and set designer Cecil Beaton began his work for ?GiGi,? midway through 1957. Beaton, together with director Minnelli, agreed that some of the motion picture would have to be filmed on location in Paris. While MGM could have afforded to recreate the whole Paris aura as was done in the 1951 ?An American in Paris,? the premise was now to be as authentic as time and circumstance would allow. Unbeknownst to many fans of the movie, only ? of the film was actually shot in Paris, the rest ended up being polished and refined at MGM and areas around Los Angeles. This situation basically came about, because the French film studios that were available were not technically proficient and not to the liking of the MGM crew and staff. Minnelli simply took advantage of what the city could offer in terms of its beautiful and striking locations, most of which were all world famous. The best remembered locations of the city utilized were ?Bois de Boulogne,? ?Palais de Glace,? ?The Auberge de la Moutiere,? the real ?Maxim?s.? and the world renowned ?Cour de Rohan.? But, the most interesting place, where something funny happened was the ?Jardin des Tuileries? park, where the song ?I Don?t Understand the Parisians? occurred. During filming, Minnelli made about a dozen or so takes on the song. This frustrated Caron, who wondered if there was problem, while the director remained silent, simply asking for one take after another. Finally, after the last take and Caron was about ready to have a tantrum, Minnellie shouted: ?That?s it! The swans were beautiful!? Another situation of interest, concerns ?Maxim?s.? Although the MGM film crew managed to utilize the restaurants elegant interiors, there was a bit of dissatisfaction over the filming. So, MGM decided to recreate Maxim?s in Hollywood and several scenes were re-shot using this impressive makeshift set that in the end was very convincing! As of this day, most fans can?t really tell which is the real ?Maxim?s, as opposed to the fake one! As great and remarkable ?GiGi? turned out to be as a classic motion picture, the first preview of the film that took place at the Granada Theater in Santa Barbara in early 1958 was considered a terrible failure! The film simply was too long, going almost three hours. Freed?s staff had to come up with a reasonable decision on what to cut out of the film. There were also new scenes that would have to be added. Most of the principal players were then called back to Hollywood for the retakes. This added another half a million dollars to the already overextended budget. The final tally was around 3.3 million dollars to produce the film; it was the biggest and most costly film musical up to that time. Instead of one of the usual big movie houses, Freed wanted a legitimate Broadway theater for the film?s premiere. He acquired the Royale Theater on West 45th Street. This was the very first time, a major Broadway live-stage theater in the Times Square area was used for a major motion picture. It was obvious what Freed was attempting to emulate, especially since both songwriters Lerner & Lowe had their biggest of all stage hit, ?My Fair Lady? still going strong on Broadway. The big and wondrous gala opening of ?GiGi? occurred on May 15, 1958. There are fans to this day that have believed the whole concept of ?GiGI? as created by songwriters Lerner & Lowe had originally been a Broadway show; of course this was never the case. It remains one of the finest in a series of original film musicals ever devised solely for the screen. Certainly, winning a record nine Oscars was a grand achievement for ?GiGi.? This pretty much signified that Freed, together with Minnelli had raised the stakes beyond what anyone thought a film musical could achieve. The magic and success to ?GiGi? is one of those rare and once in a lifetime events that has become part of American film folklore. One has to wonder if we will ever see the likes of this type of grand entertainment again. Edited by: MovieProfessor on Mar 28, 2010 11:25 PM

What's there to expect or be so surprised about? After all, they brought back "Alice in Wonderland" in an adult, dark, gloomy note of things.

Farrah certainly should have been included. There was some fuss about Michael Jackson getting a memorial nod, since he was never really a movie star to begin with. The biggest omission in my book was lovely Ann Sothern years ago. She was a star of stage, screen and television. I have never forgotten this issue which makes me beleive the Academy doesn't do their homework on the matter.

phroso wrote: > I always assumed that the character was somewhat based on the "surprise guest" at the end of the film. WOOO! You are very, very warm! You are on the right track! I'm impressed. However, I really hate to have to reveal the real person the film is based on. I was a fan of this performer. I even knew the person! This was one of the biggest iconic movie stars of the 20th Century. So, that's all I'm gonna say!

Does anyone have any guesses on what real movie star the lead character was based upon?

It's now been over 100 years since the first time Alice In Wonderland made it to the movie screen! [First Alice ever made!|http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/showbiz/2010/03/05/1903.alice.in.wonderland.cnn]

Getting down to the nitty-gritty of things on a technical way, the 1953 version of ?Titanic? is in the hands of ?The Fox Movie Channel.? After all, the film is a 20th Century-Fox production that Fox Movie Channel now represents. While TCM has shown an occasional old film from the 20th Century-Fox vault, for the most part, it?s a touch and go situation with fewer and fewer films from 20th Century-Fox showing up on TCM. It will probably be awhile before the 1953 version will make it onto the TCM screen.

She was after all, the undisputed Queen of Technicolor!

audreyforever wrote: > Do you agree it should be the 6th Greatest Epic Movie of All-Time? This is from AFI's list. This film has every right to be included in any list of epic films! There?s been enough said about all the time and cost it took to make ?Titanic.? The technical results speak for themselves on the issue and not so much all the box-office success.

HollywoodGolightly wrote: > Box-office results may be a commercial milestone, but do you believe they would also represent an artistic milestone in and of themselves? Well, here again it's a matter of personal taste or what might be considered the majority of thinking. As of now, there is a consensus growing that the 1997 ?Titanic? is an artistic success. This equates from all the technicalities surrounding the film?s making. I don?t have any problems with this assessment, since a motion picture is a feat of some skillful enterprise. The whole concept to whatever might be said about the film in my book will always pertain to a project that almost didn?t get made and needed to be saved in some form or fashion. Well, the final end results, at least from the general public made ?Titanic? a success. As the years roll on, I do believe that whatever artistic prowess there is to the film will in time have its clear cut definition. As of now, there probably hasn?t been enough time and study to say that ?Titanic? is in fact an artistic achievement. What sets a film apart from so many others or can place it in the artistic category is that aged old issue of comparison to other films over the long haul of time. If this can be achieved and something about ?Titanic? will in time ?stand out,? then future generations will come to look upon the motion picture as a special form of filmmaking. The one single issue that surrounds ?Titanic? is it?s creation that on all counts was an enormous undertaking, sometimes even overshadowing anything else about the movie! I have to now believe that the idea of what it took to get the film made, relating to the huge expense was part of the reason that captured the public?s imagination. This was a throwback to the old days of Hollywood, when a studio spend a vast amount of money and time to present something beyond the usual standard fare at a local movie theater. This is where I believe there will always be some connection to the film having something special about it; after all, it turned out to be a ?big movie? presentation.

Dicaprio as Frank? This will undoubtedly create a bit of controversy. It stands to reason that a biographic film on Frank?s life can never really be anything created to both capture and satisfy the masses of fans. This is a task that in the end won?t or can?t be easily achieved, simply because Frank?s musical career is what holds everything in the balance of acceptance. This means that the film company should consider an actor who can sing, not so much like Frank, but at least be able to convince the audience there is a sense of strong legitimacy in telling Frank?s life story. Up to now, all the recent films about Frank have had dramatic actors, who couldn?t or didn?t sing and thus we came to the enviable issue of dubbing the voice! Whether or not this can make or break the proposed project will probably depend a lot on that old issue of ?star power?; Dicaprio certainly has this in his favor. A major film bio on Frank?s life, using a super-star will generate a lot of interest, but in the long run, everything about this project will probably end up being seen as something routine along the lines that might not be anything so innovative, let alone, surprising for us to expect.

What I?ve always loved about this film is the beautiful ending . . . Perhaps one of the finest in cinema history! It was all done so exquisitely, despite what some might feel was a bit too predicable or even melodramatic. The exceptional way director LeRoy unitized the camera as Colman walked into the scene of discovering house, plus the awe-inspiring musical score by Herbert Stothart was impressive, glorious and filled with shades and tones of illustrious compassion. I?ve seen this film hundreds of times and have never tired of it. The movie will always remain one of the few pleasures I?ve had in life of realizing just how remarkable some movies can move the human spirit to realizing there is hope in the love one feels towards another human being.

According to the dictionary, here in America, the definition of "milestone" is: "A significant or important event in history, in the career of a person, etc." Of course, it might be natural to feel that anything is open to one's own interpretation, etc.

> {quote:title=primosprimos wrote: > > By the way, whose history? Define milestone. Hogwash. My . . . My . . . My! This is a very harsh feeling here . . . But, "success" is what defines the milestone of "Titanic." Anything else is a matter of personal taste.

Although the film isn?t really so connected to the classic Hemingway short story, it does have a tremendous amount of appeal along simple issues surrounding the intrigue and passion of the finished plot. The movie ignited the careers of both Burt Lancaster and Ava Gardner to such unexpected heights of interest. Both stars would for the reminder of their lives hold this movie towards a beloved regard. This was especially the case for Ava, because her career hadn?t been given much substance or roles she could expand upon. While under contract to MGM, Ava?s best films during the 1940s were away from her home studio, when she was loaned out as was the case with ?The Killers.? Despite her dramatic success at other studios, it took awhile for MGM to finally give Ava what she really deserved in terms of roles she could sink her teeth into. Certainly, ?The Killers? is an exceptional suspenseful film. This is without question, one of the best films of its kind from that era that saw so much excitement with film noir.

There should be an historical understanding that the 1997 version of ?Titanic? is a milestone in motion picture history. First off, the film was nearly scrapped and then when production started, there were uncontrollable, mounting problems. Everything from the beginning of production looked as if disaster was looming in the shadows. With so much uncertainty, it turned out to be something of a miracle that director James Cameron and his crew managed to pull the project away from its perplexity. In the final analysis, what the project simply needed was somebody who could take charge of the chaos and Cameron fit the bill perfectly. Another amazing issue to the success of ?Titanic? centers on the seldom mention fact that the motion picture owed a lot to a good amount of positive ?word of mouth? and feedback from audiences all over the world! This was a motion picture, whose success didn?t have to rely so much on standard publicity and even critical acclaim. Some critics and historians will argue that part of the reason was due to the tragic disaster itself that has remained within the consciousness of historical thinking. While I would agree the tragedy of ?Titanic? and its sinking is unsurpassed in nearly one hundred years, the basic human element of sentiment does play an important part in luring audiences to experiencing what probably happened on the fateful night in April of 1912. Director Cameron wisely decided on expanding the story around appealing, romantic fictional characters that added to the high emotion of what eventually audiences knew was going to be the outcome of the historical tragedy. This film is the only one, so far in recent history to have had the longest run or showings at local theaters across America and other parts of the globe! Instead of the usual one week or one month run at a local theater, ?Titanic? ran in some theaters as long as six months or more!! This led right up to the time of the Academy Awards! Of course, this issue will undoubtedly be viewed upon as having been the reason to making the film the biggest box-office success in history. Yet, just the idea that this movie didn?t have to rely so strongly on issues of advance publicity and lots of public relations, gives the film a mythical status, because the general public took the film to its heart and this sort of over attended attention doesn?t come along very often towards a motion picture. I wouldn?t say that ?Titanic? is in the same league as ?Gone with the Wind,? ?The Wizard of Oz,? ?Casablanca,? or even ?The Sound of Music. But, ?Titanic? does share with these other classic films an enormous representation towards its era, all focusing around a success that can?t be so easily overlooked and therefore places ?Titanic? as a film worthy of historical value.

The responses to this thread have been interesting; especially signifying other years or times motion picture stars have died. I will have to agree that 1977 was probably the single most overwhelming year we lost some of the biggest super-stars in history! My main intent about those years from 1957 to 1961, relates powerfully towards a continuum of having the single impact of losing a major, legendary superstar each of those consecutive years! Those five motion picture stars were the biggest in their respected category of having been part of the classic Golden Age of Hollywood. Their success and careers were all linked in some form or fashion within that contemporary period that saw them become superstars. Since those five years, I don?t think there has been a major continuum of sorts, where we lost a motion picture superstar, coming from the same era for five straight years.

Early this morning there was a showing of the 1957 film version of Ernest Hemingway?s ?The Sun Also Rises.? The motion picture was aired on one of the cable channels. The film itself, together with its impressive ?all star? cast wasn?t exactly a classic, but it was for all intended purposes a box-office success that year. In hind sight, novelist Hemingway had become something of a dynamic popular cultural figure. While watching the film, I began to collectively reminisce about that particular year, especially since that year marked the beginning of the end to the lives of various iconic movie stars. The first to die that year was beloved and cherished Humphrey Bogart. Then, the following year came the death of Tyrone Power, the star of ?The Sun Also Rises.? Adding to this loss was the death in 1959 of Tyrone Power?s co-star in the Hemingway motion picture epic, the ever so flamboyant and legendary Errol Flynn. As the new 1960 decade began came the death of perhaps the biggest of all male movie star in Hollywood history, the mighty Clark Gable! His death would be finally followed by perhaps his greatest of all rival, another big legendary film star, Gary Cooper in 1961. That same year, writer Hemingway met his death. Thus came for five consecutive years, the deaths of five of the biggest male movie stars in Hollywood history. I can?t think of any other time period where so many major stars died one right after the other. But, let?s face it: they will live on forever as long as we have their films to admire and enjoy in the knowledge of what real movie stardom was all about.

I'll go with the great and beloved Frank Morgan. He is best remembered for his role in "The Wizard of Oz." Frank was without any question a major asset to the glory years of MGM. He quickly became one of the most important contract players at the studio. During the early part of the "Talking Picture" era, he did receive star billing in a dozen or so films, until his age caught up with him and he settled on playing older parts on a supporting level. He never really lost any of his popularity, due in large part to his receiving vast amounts of fan mail as huge as any major star while at MGM! A consistent performer, he worked non-stop, unitl his death in 1949, during the making of the musical "Annie Get Your Gun." His death, marked the end of an era in old Hollywood that for a period of time, had a group of supporting players as big, popular and polished as any major motion picture star! After all, when you think about it: "Professor Marvel doesn't guess, HE KNOWS!"

Let?s try and be clear on what?s official or the quintessential motion picture to be symbolic of ?Oz? and everything else associated to its original author L. Frank Baum. At the beginning of the whole ?Oz? craze, there first appeared ?live stage? versions of the stories. Baum even began to produce his own stage shows, later on moving over to the new medium of motion pictures. Movies allowed his company to create what were for its time some interesting special effects. The ?Oz? silent film series continued for a good while, until the advent of talking pictures. It?s acceptable that the 1939 MGM version became the biggest hit of anything associated with ?Oz.? One of the main reasons is the 1939 film becoming something of its own legend! The main impact and everything brought on by MGM?s version has in affect overshadowed some of the wonderful past history of those early ?Oz? films, most of which were produced by Baum himself. So, in the long run, there?s a lot more to the whole ?Oz? genre in movies than meets the eye or what most will believe the 1939 version has come to represent. Certainly, when the 1939 film appeared for the first time on television in the fall of 1956, this was enough to create and begin most of the overpowering hoopla towards the 1939 film. It?s only with the advent of video, that whole new generations of fans are discovering the old silent film versions and it?s been a long time coming!

I agree with what you say about this 1997 film version of the tragic (real life) story. It?s natural to feel that many TCM fans will feel this motion picture is too contemporary to be showcased as an old classic goes. However, I think 12 years is a pretty good length of time to consider airing this film on a classic movie cable channel. Certainly, no one can argue or believe the 1997 ?Titanic? shouldn?t be given classic status. While it might not be so dramatically impressive or even artistic as some award winning films go, the movie does have a high degree of polished accomplishments in numerous other categories, thus giving the film so much historic value. Movies like the 1997 ?Titanic? just don?t come around very often these days. It?s all a through-back to the old days of a big, roadshow engagement at a large movie house that many of us old-timers remember. Today, there just aren?t very many films made big or to look so extravagant. If anything makes the 1997 ?Titanic? special, has to do with the way the film connected so strongly to a movie tradition that was once so common in and around the old Hollywood studio system.

For all its intended purposes, this is a tough issue to decide upon which of these two films is superior to the other. Certainly, ?Rebel?s? call to fame is the ?star power? of James Dean and initially becoming a symbol to his young generation of fans. One can only imagine what might have been, had he not been killed in that auto accident that took his life away and thus created the legend he is today. I now believe that part of the hype behind ?Rebel? is all the fuss and notoriety of Dean. In a dramatic sense of thinking, ?Blackboard? has a lot going for it, since it covers more characters and emotional territory. It?s interesting that both films have a connection surrounding kids at a local high school. It?s with these two films that juvenile delinquency or the term of it came into the mainstream of our American culture, thus becoming an intricate part of our society and understanding a subject that hadn?t been so documented nor focused upon in films. While some fans might not want to compare one film to another or make an all out choice to say which of the two is the best representative motion picture of its subject matter, it stands to reason that both films have something important and vital to say. I?ve sometimes imagined that had ?Blackboard? been shot in color, it would have lost its overall impact and its intense atmosphere. Yet, while ?Rebel? was shot in color, it too has enough intensity to carry it over and make some solid sense to the pains and frustrations facing the teenagers of the story. The famous ?chicken run? car race of ?Rebel? was an outstanding segment to the film, creating an exciting and yet perilous outlook to what sometimes kids did when trying to find something to do or what was termed then as ?kicks.? In ?Blackboard? we?re treated more to the struggle to finding a means of reaching out and helping troubled teens. The idea that the main story of ?Blackboard? centered on a high school teacher, trying to convey a sense of reason and logic towards two of his students (one white and other black) was groundbreaking. It might be that ?Blackboard? had more of a creative reality behind its telling than ?Rebel? ever did, because for most of the public, the intercity was where this trauma of teenage crisis seemed to be documented. What might bother some fans about ?Rebel,? if we are to compare it to ?Blackboard? is the subsequent ?happy ending? that has an air of last minute brazen romanticism. This I think adds to the overall allure towards Dean and his becoming such a big superstar overnight. There has to be an understanding that with ?Rebel,? it?s really about a starring vehicle for Dean and his emerging stardom. The issue of Dean becoming the general focus and success of ?Rebel,? I think actually gives ?Blackboard? a dramatic edge, because while Glenn Ford might have been the chosen star of ?Blackboard,? the whole concept of the film is overshadowed by the script and its overall handling of the teenage characters. We are given a variety of characters in ?Blackboard? to find interesting, while ?Rebel? is the story of just one troubled teenager. I find the performance of Dean in ?Rebel? pretty good, especially since this film marked his second attempt at receiving a major screen role; the first having been ?East of Eden.? It?s amazing how quick and fast his imagery and characteristics took hold of the youth in America, unlike no other young star before or since! The whole idea behind Dean these days is the influence he had on at least three generations of up and coming young performers, who looked upon him as their idol. In the final analysis this is what ?Rebel? has come to symbolize; it?s a one man show, while ?Blackboard? speaks to the inter-core of troubled youth. I seriously doubt I can really choose one film over the other. The reality for me will always be that both films have something good going for them and in the end it?s too close to call.

There?s a lot that could be said about this obscure, almost forgotten film from 1969. There is a devastating issue behind this movie that is seldom mention, in that it?s commonly believed, director/writer Richard Brooks, pretty much created an autobiographic tale of his relationship with his actress wife and star of the motion picture, Jean Simmons. While the movie isn?t exactly a bold-faced outline or expos? of their lives together, it did cut close to home on issues they both shared during their marriage. Simmons would in later years, after her husband?s passing, admit to the pitfalls and frustrations that occasionally beset their lives. Yet, she never would really refer to ?The Happy Ending? as a retrospective to what might have happened all those years she shared her life with director Brooks. Simmons only hinted and gave clues to any real association the movie may have had with her life. In the long run, she would later on admit to her acute alcoholism and a dependence on various medications throughout her life and career. Her marriage to director Brooks ended up being documented as rocky for Hollywood. Despite her attempts at having happy marriages, Simmons always remained a bit on the edge, due in large part to the pressures and demands one has to face when working in motion pictures. Perhaps there was some sort of understanding during her marriage to Brooks that kept them together for a period of time, until they divorced in 1977. It?s believed by some in Hollywood that it wasn?t such a huge and unexpected surprise that Simmons would receive an Academy Award nomination for her performance in ?The Happy Ending.? Rumor has it that there were enough people around Hollywood who knew of her plight and battles with depression. So, the movie simply added new light and perhaps artistic understanding towards accepting the reality she faced and therefore she could have very well been rewarded for facing up to what was an open secret in ?Tinseltown.? Simmons and actress Maggie Smith were probably the two big front runners to win the ?best actress? Academy Award. The problem for Simmons not winning and Smith going home with the ?Oscar? was the simple fact that Smith?s film, ?The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie? had received tons of notoriety, while ?The Happy Ending? got little, if any, good exposure and enough publicity. Even though the reviews were decent for ?The Happy Ending,? the rather moody, gloomy laden atmosphere of the script didn?t go over so well with the public at large. Besides Simmons and her wonderful performance, what gave ?The Happy Ending? a bit of an extra push was the beautiful theme song, ?What are You Doing The Rest of Your Life,? by Michel Legrand. The song was also nominated for an Academy Award and was a front runner in its category, losing out to ?Raindrops Keep Fallin? on My Head.? Perhaps the most interesting side note to ?The Happy Ending? was the other cast members. They were pretty good, if not, important enough to be considered big and first rate. In the film was a remarkably good performance by singer/actor Bobby Darin; probably his last best screen appearance. Today, it?s rather ironic that for both Richard Brooks and Jean Simmons, this motion picture would mark their last great hurrah in the movie business. The two of them would never again have anything so big or serious to their celebrated careers. There is a feeling among some in the business that with ?The Happy Ending? came an ending of sorts to the once held prominence Simmons and Brooks had to their respective film careers. Director Brooks would for the remainder of his career, take a very commercial turn, never again really taking any bold new step or chances with subject matter. As for Simmons, she drifted into semiretirement, only making sporadic film appearances and in a few television movies. Her last great accomplishment was taking over the major starring role in the stage production of the musical play, ?A Little Night Music.? It was rather nice and nostalgic in 1995, to see Simmons have a small but good role in the drama ?How to Make an American Quilt.? This 1995 movie was her last major film role of any importance. If anything might be said about what ?The Happy Ending? comes to represent, it has more to do with an honesty not seen in the motion picture business, in terms of relating to issues that hit home; especially with those involved in whatever there is to the movie?s story. While the film wasn?t exactly about Simmons? life in general, it did mean something important to making a defining statement or moment to her life and how her husband came to reflect upon various issues they both dealt with or had experienced. It was most likely disappointing that the efforts made with this last movie they worked on together wouldn?t generate enough interest nor ignite the flames of their past dramatic glories. It?s now taken a bit of time for the film to find its justifiable meaning and an artistic acceptance after so many passing years. Time and circumstance have a way of finally giving a voice or definition to a movie. As it is with ?The Happy Ending,? its meaning and value has taken time to find its rightful place among those good films that get tossed away and sometimes forgotten. There is a certain pain to the way some films finally get their deserved respect, simply because there is in the end an undisputed connection behind what the film really represents. Today, after the various revelations behind the lives of those involved with this movie, it now makes perfect sense to realize what was really behind the camera and an artistic outcry that today can be clearly understood.