MovieProfessor

This movie for all its intended purposes was a starring vehicle for Tony and Janet. After all, they were one of the golden-couples of Hollywood having been married for several years. One of the best descriptions by a critic on ?The Black Shield of Falworth? is to say it was nothing more than comic strip tripe. Any film buff has to wonder if Universal-International went ahead with the idea of making this movie, due in large part to another, big widescreen medieval epic released that same year, ?Prince Valiant.? It?s interesting that 1954 was riddled with these medieval films that for awhile at least gave the historic period some good amount of exposure. One can?t help but admit the overall cast in ?The Black Shield of Falwworth? was impressive, especially the English performers; some of them having already reached a good amount of popularity on this side of the Atlantic. As far as I?m concerned, the best thing in the whole movie was wonderful Torin Thatcher as the trainer of knights. Thatcher was once again reunited with Tony and Janet, after their successful teaming the year before in ?Houdini.?

Original, stored studio prints be they Technicolor or standard Black & White are difficult to find, if not, still be around. Most of the stock after the Second World War was transferred to non-flammable or protected cellulose. Most available negatives were also reprocessed and perhaps altered. Then, by 1951, Eastman Color came into the picture, making color films easier to market and therefore offer something a little more than what television could provide. This whole debate and discussions about the quality and methods used to produced films in Hollywood has for over 40 years been a constant topic towards what historical value can be said about everything that happened along technical lines of thinking. Today?s digital technology can produce some pretty good results. But, whether or not it?s really as good or great as the old Technicolor system has never really had any solid comparison to finally put this debate to rest. The real issue behind what the Technicolor system did was how well it stood up to the passing of time, while Eastman Color simply faded along the way. It was probably Hollywood?s greatest of all mistakes, by not taking their product more seriously. At least one studio decided on preserving their work for future generations to come: Disney.

Lana Turner and John Gavin did not appear in the 1961 version of ?Back Street.? It was Susan Hayward who costarred with Gavin. Lana and Gavin appeared together in the 1959 version of ?Imitation of Life.?

The one big issue that will always loom about Vera was her never being able to take over for Grace Kelly, when Hitchcock wanted Vera as a sort of replacement. In the process of having a private life and film career, Vera simply decided on having a family first and thus placed her career on the sidelines. This pretty much ended, what appeared to be a successful, if not, presumed association with the mighty Hitchcock. While Vera will be the first to admit she was no match, let alone the equal of Grace Kelly, she has on occasions spoken highly of the interest and admiration Hitchcock had for her and how important he was to her career.

Hollywood, Then, if PG be the case, this basically means it's not a film for kids. Looks like the speculation about this Tim Burton motion picture was correct, in that this is a whole new ball game on the "Alice" tale. I wonder what Carroll would have made of all this? But then, I have to figure Carroll would feel right at home with Tim!

> HollywoodGolightly wrote > I think some of it is probably going to be too intense for younger children, and it's possible the movie might end up being PG rated, but I doubt it will go so far as to receive a PG-13 rating. Wow! You brought up a good point! I forgot about what rating this movie will have! This issue of the rating should spell out where Disney stands on the movie.

I have to ask, if not, wonder if this new 2010 version of the Classic Lewis Carroll story is really for kids? Although it?s a Disney production, there has to be a bit of flexibility coming from director Tim Burton, who most of us know is rather flamboyant and unconventional. Talk is that this new interpretation takes the classic tale to levels unseen, let alone, unheard of and therefore the door to speculation and deeper underlying symbolic themes come into play. Over the years, even Lewis Carroll has come under fire or reason to believe he had a very strange and secretive lifestyle that wasn?t exactly normal to the point of allowing him to be so friendly to children. It?s been reported that Burton has combined elements of a fantasy story with shades of horror and paranoia. Well, this shouldn?t be such a huge surprise, considering his reputation and past film work or subject matter. It?s interesting that Burton opted to go with a ?live? cast this time around and not the ?stop-action? animation he?s been using in the past. Certainly, with the big name cast Burton has assembled, this new version of ?Alice in Wonderland, will no doubt payoff big at the box office. It?s amazing to me now, (but then times and things change) that Disney Pictures has decided to release this film and not one of their spin-off companies, considering just how wild and rather peculiar this sort of motion picture claims to be! In recent years, Disney Pictures has entered the mainstream realm of film production or at least getting away from just their lighter, softer types of materials, usually encompassing their animated film projects. If some of the critics are correct about what Burton has created for this new version of ?Alice,? then we can expect lots of talk or debate about not so much the film itself, but where exactly Lewis Carroll?s head was at or was he like some surmise is the case with people of a high intellect, simply crazy? Perhaps the funnies true story about Carroll came when the mighty Queen Victoria asked to meet the writer and then she asked him what other books of his she could read? When Carroll met with the Queen a second time, he handed her another book he had published; it was said to be his favorite. Upon receiving the book, the Queen was a bit astonished, as well as confused. The book Carroll had so pleasingly given the Queen was a book on mathematical problems! The biggest mystery to Carroll that many historians will be arguing about forever concerns what possible character in the ?Alice? stories really relates to Carroll? Naturally, most will say it?s the ?Mad-Hatter.? But, my guess is the ?Cheshire Cat!? I say this only because like the crazy cat from the stories, Carroll was always asking questions about everything or focusing upon so many things that surrounded his life that confused everyone he came into contact with, while all along he disappeared at times and he loved to pull pranks on friends and people he met.

skimpole wrote: > Anyway, what's the dance called? According to what is said in the film by beloved actor Guy Kibbee, it's refered to as "The Grand March." Later on, everyone leads into a typical old-fashion polka.

Fred Wrote: The circular motion of the people makes me think this was designed for some kind of Zoetrope . . . This is absoluley correct! Le Prince used a larger than average circular Zoetrope system. The Le Prince system didn't last long, once cellulose proved to be a better method of creating motion pictures.

This is truly a special and overlooked motion picture of the ?post war? era. It?s essentially one of the few dramatic films about the middle-class that began to spread out in various home-development projects. This was especially the case in California and Florida during the late 1950s. ?No Down-Payment? marked the successful beginning of director Martin Ritt?s distinguished career at 20th Century-Fox. But, even more important was the film being the starting-point to his long and close association with lovely Joanne Woodard; and later her husband, the great Paul Newman. Marty Ritt had known both performers during his time in New York, directing both of them in various ?live? television dramas. Marty had once been an actor, but was black-listed for his past Communist activities. He then moved over to the Actor?s Studio as a teacher, where he aided in the discovery of some of the greatest acting talents of the last century. The list of people he taught and coached is most impressive! Finally, his professional career got back on track, when producer David Susskind offered him a job to direct one the finest dramas of the 1950s, ?Edge of The City.? Marty absolutely had no previous directing experience in film when this powerful New York City waterfront drama was compared to that of a previous classic film ?On The Waterfront.? This led to his successful work in motion pictures, surrounding various social issues and being able to acquire the best young, aspiring talents available.

> HollywoodGolightly wrote: > > Pretty impressive. Where'd you manage to watch it? At The Museum of Modern Art in New York City.

Mine would be "Leisurely Pedestrians, Open Topped Buses and Hansom Cabs with Trotting Horses," from 1889. It was by British Cinema pioneer William Friese-Greene. There is still a raging debate going on if in fact Friese-Greene should be considered the true inventor of the modern motion picture camera. The system he invented was both camera and projector! I believe that because Friese-Greene succeeded with creating a working and reliable celulose film strip, he should be given credit to the highest degree. Others will say that his motion picture camera was the best and thereby didn't suffer or was flawed as were other motion picture cameras of the late 19th Century. Yet, for all this fuss, the oldest known type of motion picture occured ironcially also in England, only one year before Friese-Greene's attempt. What's strange about this first motion picture, entitled "Roundhay Garden Scene" is that it only lasted for 2 seconds and was invented by Frenchman Louis Le Prince. He shot all his movies using paper. While some historians will feel that Le Prince shouldn't be taken so seriously, due in large part to the crude limitations of his methods, his attempts at creating true projected motion pictures are the earliest known successful means.

I?m afraid your assumption on Vera Allen is incorrect or that the famed dancer of motion pictures was not, I repeat, not the inspiration for the Mattel Toy Company?s most famous doll. The true inspiration for Barbie came in 1955, when the wife of Mattel?s president Elliot Handler, came into contact with a popular, but very provocative German doll called ?Lili.? The wife Ruth Handler then decided on convincing her husband that Mattel considers marketing a tamed, teenage version of the German doll for America. It took Ruth Handler three years to finally make Barbie a reality in 1959. There wasn?t much of a change in the look or style to the first series of Barbie dolls as opposed to their German inspiration. In fact, one can at times mistakenly think an original ?Lili? doll as being a Barbie! The name of ?Barbie? came about from the nickname of Handler?s daughter Barbara. Barbie turned 50 years old last year. It?s amazing how this little doll, with the right amount of good marketing became the premiere selling American doll of the 20th Century! It shouldn?t be such a surprise that Barbie has become a cultural icon. But wait! Barbie?s finally made it into show business! There are now animated videos of Barbie, consisting of various typical connections to classic fairy tales. There are also instructional videos of Barbie giving young girls advice and how to stay on the straight and narrow of life. No doubt, Barbie will continue on with a tradition or fad that the doll has created in 50 years of clever marketing and becoming something of a role model to millions of little girls in every part of the whole wide world.

Well, that?s a cute way to pun a question for this subject! The whole idea behind the history of ?Old Yeller? stems from the film becoming a cultural phenomenon. While Walt may have planned the entire ?Davy Crockett? novelty, it was a complete surprise to see ?Old Yeller? suddenly becoming a smash hit at the box office; including the world-wide market place. "Old Yeller" was the fourth highest grossing film of 1957. This is a pretty good record for a motion picture that wasn?t on a large scale budget and therefore was able to stretch itself beyond all expectations. As to whether or not the movie is of any considerately good or important caliber remains debatable, since for the most part, this motion picture was supposed to have something of a limited release; it was a small picture that turned out looking big. Although Disney marketed the movie well enough, at the beginning of ?Old Yeller?s? raise to motion picture glory, the feeling about the film wasn?t in terms that it could end up becoming a classic or even a symbolic icon for the Disney Company. After all, Walt?s company was geared more towards the animated field. The ?live action? feature units that Disney created were mostly on a limited budget. Up to that time, the only big movie Walt had produced was ?20,000 Leagues Under The Sea.? The whole aura of ?Old Yeller? comes into focus, when the movie?s success is generally defined as related to the reactions of ?baby boomers? that at the time embraced the movie with a loving devotion. Maybe it was just the right timing or perhaps Disney surmised he had a winner all along in producing what was essentially a routine sort of film; we will never know. What we can come to realize is that some movies, no matter how quaint or simple they might appear, can achieve a high, unexpected status and symbolize an appreciative, committed sensibility from the generation that first saw the motion picture.

?Old Yeller:? One of the most beloved movies of the Walt Disney archives will be shown on TCM January, 2nd. It?s best to simply say that Walt adored the Fred Gipson novel, signifying a very heartwarming story of a frontier family, set in Texas around 1869. Generally, most of the public had never heard of Gipson and his various novels mostly about life in his home state of Texas. His books were only popular to a certain type of reader, who usually adhered towards the Americana of the 19th Century. It?s natural to think that Gipson was shaped in the mold of Mark Twain and this I think adds a lot to why Disney felt so compelled to make a film version of his most celebrated story. While he was a moderately considered successful writer, Gipson had already come to the attention of Hollywood, years before Disney was the one to really put his fame into a high degree of momentum. One of his novels, ?The Home Place? was later turned into the motion picture, ?Return of The Texan,? that starred Dale Robertson and Walter Brennan in 1952. Later on came another film version of what was always considered Gipson?s finest story, ?Hound-Dog Man.? This 1959 film version turned out to be a starring vehicle for teenage heartthrob, Rock & Roll-singer ?Fabian.? In between both these films came the Disney version of ?Old Yeller? in 1957. Walt had just finished up with what was for its time, one of the biggest fads in show business history, his version of the legendary ?Davy Crockett.? After two successful films, the Crockett mania that took hold of the mid-1950s is usually believed to be the Disney company sizing the moment to finally get into the major leagues of film production and promotion of their various other enterprises, especially that of ?Disneyland.? Walt was also heavily involved with the ABC Television network, having embarked on a huge venture into a weekly broadcast of various television programs. With so much going on at the Disney Company, no one ever really thought that ?Old Yeller? could become such a sensation at the box-office, but that?s just what so unexpectedly happened! Most historians will say that Walt was able to take advantage of his promoting the movie through his television ventures. But, in keeping with the wonderful way the film was made and the response the public had towards the story, it was a motion picture that arrived at the right time and place to become such a huge success. It might have all boiled down to the current popularity of such television programs as ?Lassie? or ?Rin Tin Tin? having something to do with ?Old Yeller? getting so much attention. Still, the qualitative atmosphere of ?Old Yeller? and its fine presentation can?t be denied. I like the idea of having actor Kevin Corcoran or better known as ?Moochie? give his ?word of mouth? on TCM about the film. Corcoran gives lots of praise to the real star of the motion picture, actor Tommy Kirk, who would in years to come, be one of Disney?s most popular of child-stars. Certainly, his performance is of the highest dramatic content that has to be part of the reason that made ?Old Yeller? so memorable. This is a motion picture that isn?t so clouded by the issue or characteristics of the dog, which is undoubtedly the main ploy behind the story. It?s a wonderful film that reaches out towards those typical family values that at times keeps one focused on the human element of the tale and not so much that of the dog, which initially helps bring the family together and find the necessary compassion and solace to survive in the wilderness. There simply hadn?t been a film since MGM?s 1946, ?The Yearling? that captivated audiences, both young and old! It?s amazing how the motion picture caught on with the public to generate a success that the film industry didn?t expect to be so enormous. At the beginning of the film?s release, it was frowned upon as a little ?kid?s picture? and nothing so major. While the reviews were generally mixed, this wouldn?t stop the onslaught of interest that came the movie?s way! We might believe that Disney?s publicity machine helped the movie achieve notoriety. But, this isn?t always the case with most films or that all the advertising doesn?t guarantee any success, regardless of how much time and money is spent. This movie could have just been another in a series of Disney projects for general release. Instead, it became a huge block-buster success that proved Walt had the necessary ingredients to create a whole new genre of family entertainment on a regular basis for film production. At the time, the movie industry was suffering the woes of television having taken away a lot of the hype and interest Hollywood had once coveted. The Disney Company began to make up for the various loses that had inflicted the other studios. Walt and his film production never lost sight of the revenues that other film companies would never be able to recover. One of the main aspects to the success of ?Old Yeller? centers itself around this issue of creating a form of financial stability that was lacking around the film capital by the late 1950s. It?s amazing that this movie that was a ?one shot deal? became the biggest success for Disney up to that time! Author Fred Gipson was even hired by Disney to help in writing the screenplay for ?Old Yeller.? Gipson would later on work as a staff writer at the Disney Company. Despite the rather tragic ending to the story, the blending of so much joy, sentiment and action/adventure across the board, made the movie so beloved for its time. Yet, what will always be remembered by a majority of the fans was the tragedy at the film?s end that in a baffling way didn?t affect nor hinder the movie?s popularity or the public?s fascination to see the film and bring the entire family along. It was probably best said by Walt, when he commented: ?This movie was a learning experience for all ages. It?s about those certain things we love and hold dear in our lives that get taken away from us, forcing us to then face what consequences come from the aftermath of what we have lost.? I can?t say that ?Old Yeller? is a great film, but one that spoke to a generation of motion picture fans and has had a legacy few films in its category have achieved. Six years later, in 1963, Walt decided on rekindling the magic and success of ?Old Yeller? by producing another film version of a Gipson story, that of ?Savage Sam.? This was the last novel Gipson wrote and was turned into a film. Gipson once again participated with this second film venture having entirely written the screenplay. Disney brought back together Kirk and Corcoran as brothers in this second Disney version of a Gipson ?dog story.? ?Savage Sam? was supposedly considered a sequel to ?Old Yeller,? especially based around the teaming of both child-stars a second time. However, Disney wouldn?t have the same massive success as it was with ?Old Yeller.? Film historians actually feel that while ?Old Yeller? might be considered a classic film for its time, the 1963 ?Savage Sam? is actually a far better produced film. It?s interesting to notice from a historical point that had it not been for Disney taking interest in Gipson?s works, he probably wouldn?t have become so famous around the world. His books are now found in most libraries and are usually standard reading in the schools. Gipson passed away in 1973, at his beloved home in Mason, Texas.

It?s been surmised by various famous filmmakers that GWTW isn?t really such a powerful, dramatic film to contemplate upon. I believe it was as Clark Gable had always said about the movie being ?A Big Woman?s Picture.? He knew from the time he was cast to be in the film, how the final outcome would be viewed upon in general. There are also elements along the way of this most famous Hollywood production receiving a lengthy list of legendary occurrences that have forever placed the motion picture in the annuals of total supremacy over all other films of the 20th Century! We can think and say that other great movies of Hollywood?s Golden Age had more things going for them both artistically, if not, dramatically. But, GWTW scores on points that have more to do with the sure purity of ?high end? escapist commercial entertainment. It?s not really anything so artistic, in terms of how the film was made, but does deliver itself towards an imagery of extremely poignant production values that are difficult for most other films of its time to match. I?ve always broken down, what for me are the various reasons for GWTW achieving it?s legendary status beyond the reality of what initially was a major commercial Hollywood enterprise. This wasn?t so much a motion picture made to create a new sort of standard in cinematic history. The movie was made in terms of sizing upon a moment in time, when the best selling novel had taken hold of the public?s imagination and forced itself upon challenging the best Hollywood had to offer. Well, lucky for the novel, its writer Margaret Mitchell and the public at large, producer David O. Selznick took on a vast amount of responsibility to live up to the public?s demand on treating a motion picture version as something unique and unparalleled. After all, this was probably the very first major Hollywood film, where the general public played an important part in the movie?s creation. So, without further a due, here?s how I see what made GWTW so special and remains the pinnacle of motion picture production in Hollywood . . . 1. The novel?s popularity was obviously the very first item to consider. While the book became so famous across the country, right away the idea of a film version popped into the heads of numerous first readers. It was a subject that for about three long years, from 1936, took hold of the public?s notion about a motion picture being made. At first, the major players in Hollywood all felt a Civil War movie wouldn?t be financially successful. What they failed to realize was that the novel wasn?t so much about the war, but this obscure, brazenly outspoken woman, who affected everyone who came in contact of her audacious character. What made the novel successful wasn?t the whole Civil War aura, but that of ?Scarlett O?Hara? and her numerous escapades throughout the story. Next came that all important male lead or character in the guise of ?Rhett Butler,? who pursued the southern belle and kept the novel under its fiery atmosphere. At the time, no other movie star other than Clark Gable was considered to play the role of the dashingly flamboyant Rhett Butler by a majority of the public. It was this situation of demanding Gable that actually was a setback for the movie getting made. At the beginning of all the hoopla about GWTW, Clark?s studio of MGM had no interest whatsoever in producing a film version on behalf of the public. Yet, behind all the early obstacles, delays and difficulties surrounding a possible film version, the idea of Clark as ?Rhett? and who possibly would be cast opposite him as ?Scarlett,? fueled what was a never ending desire to have a motion picture made. 2. Without any question, the key to finally getting GWTW so beautifully made was all due in a huge way to producer David O. Selznick and his clever sense of creating good publicity. He must have known from the off start, he had a winner on his hands! He had just begun his own film production or studio in Hollywood. His new company of Selznick International Pictures was one of the few independent film operations in the movie capital of America. The idea here is that Selznick and his studio were never really considered major players in Hollywood. While he was part of the movie business all his life, from the time he started out working first with his father?s film company and then branching out to work at other major Hollywood studios, Selznick remained for most of his career an ?outsider? or maverick, not ever wanting to stay part of the mainstream of film production. It was always his dream to become a major player in Hollywood on his own terms. He hoped that GWTW would give him the needed edge to finally be taken seriously. But, in the end, he had to rely heavily on the typical ?Hollywood machine? or utilizing the help of his competitors. Most notable was finally MGM, that only allowed Gable to be in GWTW, by way of cutting a deal to be the film?s distributor. Also, Clark only agreed to be in GWTW, after Louie B. Mayer, head of MGM (who was Selznick?s father in law!) offer Clark a bonus to sign on and could then cut a deal of his own to pay off his current wife for a divorce, so he could marry actress Carole Lombard. 3. The casting of ?Scarlett? was what would initially give GWTW such a huge legend behind its creation. This was handled in a masterful way by Selznick, who waited almost up to the last minute to finally make up his mind and cast English actress Vivien Leigh. While most of America expected a currently known movie star to play the southern belle, Selznick wisely bided his time carefully, sometimes deciding on whom to cast and then suddenly change his mind. Just about every film buff knows the legend behind the casting of this most famous role for any actress in Hollywood history. But, it should also be realized that Selznick wasn?t knocked out so strongly by Vivien Leigh on the night he first met her. He went about in typical studio fashion by giving her a screen test; he compared her to all other contenders; until he could feel she was the safest, if not, the best choice. She didn?t so easily win the role as has been the case of many tall tales or hearsay about the matter. Selznick?s decision on Leigh proved that his instincts over the course of his many years growing up in the movie business were unequaled by any producer in American film history! He could have very easily given the role to a popular American star, but instead chose a fairly unknown actress that gave the movie a high incentive for the fans of the novel to see the motion picture. This is truly an aspect of the movie that remains so vivid and important to Hollywood history and the success of the film. It?s believed that Selznick may have not known that all the excitement created around the role of ?Scarlett,? he set a publicity standard for all film companies to follow in creating necessary hype or interest. This situation clearly overshadowed even the idea of Gable getting cast, because Selznick knew the real pivotal factor was always ?Scarlett? and not so much ?Rhett.? 4. I?ve already mentioned that Selznick utilized a lot of help from various departments throughout Hollywood. This factor makes GWTW very important from a technical standpoint, because in the final analysis, the production was a joint or commutative effort by the best combined talents in Hollywood. Despite the financial help Selznick received from MGM, he went about on a frenzy of determination of getting the best personnel in town he could get his hands on for GWTW. This was totally across the whole technical board in every single category! There has never been any major, big movie made in Hollywood from that classic era that had so much talent in all fields, single handedly placed in one movie. Even while the film was being made, Selznick called upon scores of talented people to make various changes or improve upon the film?s overall production. This created a bit of frustration and chaos, but somehow Selznick?s guiding force kept GWTW from faltering or losing its clear cut direction. He was a ?hands on? producer and kept up with every single little aspect of the movie?s making, never once allowing himself not to know every detail that he felt was necessary or could prove to be crucial. 5. The Technicolor issue. Let?s face it, if one aspect to GWTW makes it very special, it?s the sure fact that Selznick spared no expensive to create what was at the time the best color produced movie of the era. Nobody ever questioned this factor of Selznick going totally out of his way to give GWTW its important and great colorful atmosphere. He could have certainly saved lots of time and money and gone ahead with standard black and white film. But, he was also a visionary and realized that major color production was the immediate future of the movies! There is no doubt that even by today?s standards, GWTW still holds up as a beautifully produced motion picture in all its Technicolor glory. You simply can?t overlook the whole ?color issue? and this I think adds to the movie?s tremendous legendary status. 6. The length of the film is one aspect that gives its legend so much excitement. Here we have a production that can?t be treated as standard Hollywood fare or what you might expect at the local neighborhood theater. The length of GWTW alone, guarantees its high-end status and that it required to be shown as a big, spectacular presentation. Certainly, when first viewed at a major theater in a large metropolitan city, audiences knew they were experiencing something way special. The opening overture, intermission and exit music were enough to make GWTW such a cut above any other film at the time of the film?s release. Also, the rather exorbitant, first-run admission price of over a dollar was for its time extremely special. In the best theaters or movie palaces, Selznick even offered a beautiful and extravagant program; most of which are today rare and priceless collector?s items! 7. Hattie McDaniel . . . The first African American actress to win an Academy Award. She gave the motion picture such warmth and intensity that movie audiences all over the world came to love her. Her role as ?Mammy? is almost as famous, if not, popular as that of ?Scarlett.? Hattie?s performance opposite the mighty Vivien Leigh is on a purely magical and sincere level of style, grace and dignity that has remained one of filmdom?s greatest performances. Hattie ended up becoming one of the most sought after supporting players in Hollywood. Her name on a movie billboard was as important as any major star! One story behind GWTW that has its painful reality to the times concerns Hattie not allowed attending the movie?s first big premiere in Atlanta. When Clark got wind of the situation, he spoke up and refused to go to Atlanta in protest. Hattie intervened and pleaded to Clark to attend the premiere for the sake of the movie?s success. 8. The world premiere being held in the city where the story took place was on all counts a publicity boost for everything involved. Adding to all the excitement was author Margaret Mitchell giving her blessing to the film?s making and attending the motion picture?s opening. Selznick, working together with the city of Atlanta, made a spectacle of the premiere that received scores of newsreel coverage and a live radio broadcast across the country! There was a three day festive atmosphere that held the city of Atlanta under its grip. It?s amazing that Selznick could have very well had the movie?s premiere in New York and Hollywood first, but wisely chose Atlanta, because this kept a solid and close connection to the novel and everything it stood for or what author Mitchell had envisioned. 9. The cruse of GWTW. Most seem to forget that Selznick was still pretty much considered a young man when he set out to make the Civil War epic movie. The movie would for the remainder of his career and life, overshadow everything else he ever produced. As successful as the film was for Selznick, it also spelled doom for his future, because later on he could never overextend himself as he had done with GWTW. The movie and its huge success was a ?one time deal? for Selznick and his career. He would go on to make some pretty good movies in years to come, but nothing as elaborate and beautiful as was the vision and style he had for the Civil War epic that in turn made Selznick a legend and perhaps considered the most creative producer in Hollywood history. 10. When you finally put all the pieces of the puzzle that is GWTW together, you can realize so easily that it?s all a once in a lifetime production. In fact, I don?t think there?s ever been any movie, in or out of Hollywood that has had the type of hype and magical presence that is GWTW. It will remain the finest example of pure movie creativity beyond anything so routine, simply because nothing was left to chance, while Selznick never once let up on his constant attention towards the movie?s outcome. At the end of production, he nearly had a nervous breakdown, as did some of the personnel involved in the movie?s making! But then, it?s that way with all great creative people, who suffer from their ambitions and a drive to be the best at what it is they do in life. One final observation to make on GWTW relates towards a striking misconception that comes from fans or audiences that love the movie. While the film has come to represent the epic proportions of film production, there is very little in the way of big scenes or scores of extras, large armies and no battles. This is something of an illusion the movie has created on its own behalf that doesn?t really equate with other epic films in terms of the vast amount of time and resources spent to make a big production. The movie?s expansive amount of scope and style is based upon its personnel and this magical, yet technical way the film fools you into thinking it?s on an overall grand scale or visual sense, when most of the film is actually done by way of tricks and typical movie wizardry. Most of the standing sets used to make the movie were from other films and not so much of it was made from scratch or new. In fact, it shares a lot in common with another classic film that same year of 1939, that based its imagery or making on mostly special effects, ?The Wizard of Oz.? Still, GWTW will be cherished and remains one of the biggest, if not, greatest milestone of Hollywood history. There has never been any film to have caught the imagination of the movie going public. It has lasted longer than any film of the 20th Century, other than perhaps ?The Wizard of Oz.? Interest in the movie still goes on! This I think is what really makes GWTW so famous. And, while it might not be so artistically minded, the movie is simply too beautiful to pass up and can be something of a guilty pleasure for anyone who has found fault with or believes the movie is overrated.

Jean's Shepherd's "A Christmas Story." I watch this movie every year on the foundation of having once had a special sort of holdiay, when I had the same experience of receiving a gift (as a child) to always remember, unlike no other. While this motion picture has at times been viewed as being a bit too explicit and grotesque in some ways towards the holidays, there is a warmth and poignancy to the main theme, that in the end directs itself towards so much sentimentality. It's the movie's overall American outlook and a reality that we can relate too and come to understand that while the movie does have a bit of bizarre family attitudes, it speaks from the heart and soul of a child wanting and hoping to have that all important gift at Christmas time. It's about a moment in time that will later on define the character and life of that child; having longed for something that takes their imagination to heights and unexplected places beyond the simple daily realites.

> {drednm wrote: > He was not a movie star.... Even though I'm from the old Hollywood School of thinking . . . And, it's nothing personal towards Mr. Jackson . . . I'm in total agreement that he was not a bonda fide movie star. After all, he only had the one big major musical film and bascially he never pursued a career in films. So, from a technical standpoint as TCM sees it, Jackson must be omitted from any consideration as a major player in motion pictures. Music videos simply don't count, as does having a major recording career, with little or no work in the movies. After all, who would you count next on this list? Somebody like Paris Hilton or Britney Spears? Being a noted celebrity isn't what being on the "TCM Remebers" list is all about.

> joefilmone wrote: > What I really would love to see is that Mexican produced "Santa Claus". How could any self-respecting film buff ever forget that famous, south of the border Christmas epic, made in 1959 by Azteca Cine! This is probably the most famous ?bad? Santa movie ever made; it?s actually worse than ?Santa Claus Conquers The Martians.? Here we have the idea of bringing on the legendary character of ?Merlin the Magician? to team up with Santa and fight an evil red devil in this south of the border piece of junk. Although this idea might have some originality, somewhere along the way of watching this film (and its badly dubbed) it becomes all too confusing and about as cheap as one might expect. For about ten years, this movie had constant showings, until the local movie theater circuit died out and the film vanished. That was until video appeared on the scene and now ?Santa Claus? has found renewed life and interest. Of course, this interest is nothing more than a joke to watch a film that has no solid validly to a logical thinking mind. But, a child between the ages of 4 to 6 might find this film intriguing enough to believe it has some merit or even makes sense. Some film historians now say viewing this motion picture exposes one to a portion of the legendary "Moctezuma's Revenge!"

By now, this gem of junk has received a huge cult following. It?s become one of the most laughed about movies in history. It?s a film that many simply rent or watch for the sure enjoyment of seeing something made on a shoe-string budget, trying to look big and exciting. In fact, this movie, together with Ed Wood?s ?Plan 9 From Outer Space? has had more articles and theories written about, than the best of motion pictures. There is something amazing to wonder about this film, since it?s achieve a status that will forever keep it within abounding historical interest that has more to do with just how bad and cheap some motion pictures end up. The film has even become the subject of classes at various film-schools and universities. In studying this movie, it comes to represent the time, when various small film companies found a lucrative market based around the Saturday Afternoon matinees that kids flocked to at their local neighborhood theater. What fascinates me is how the movie got made in the first place! It was all planned by a bunch of unemployed film and television personnel, mostly living on New York?s Long Island. An empty Long Island airplane hanger served as the make-shift studio. The budget was around $200,000 and over the years it?s been assumed that by now, the film has made a hefty profit. By the late 1960s, the Dell publishing company made a deal to distribute a comic book that sold rather well. The comic book kept the movie alive for another few years, before all those beloved drive-in theaters and local small movie houses that had showed the motion picture began to disappear. Then, with the coming of pay-tv and of course video renewed interest came the movie's way. Just as bad or poorly written as the movie, might be considered its theme song, ?Hooray for Santa Claus.? Even this has reached cult status. Most movie buffs would agree that film starlet Pia Zadora, who became noticed around 1981, in the potboiler drama ?Butterfly? gave ?Santa Claus Conquers the Martians? even more curiosity, since she appeared in the Christmas Sci-Fi fantasy as a child! Some fans have surmised that because her career would never take-off towards any high degree of attention, she was cursed from ?day one? for having been associated with the children?s Sci-Fi film than anything else! In other words, the Sci-Fi kid's movie was about as high as she could ever get. This has continued to make her career seem more like a joke and scam that to this day still haunts her.

Ok . . . I think we have to be somewhat clear on issues pertaining to why Ingrid won the Oscar. Of course, she was absolutely terrific and worthy of winning. But, let?s face the truth that she had been away from American filmmaking for six years, having been shunned due to a silly personal love affair. This tabloid sensationalism, created so much fuss and a hassle for Ingrid that it all looked as if she would never be able to come back and make films in the U.S. Well, upon her return to Hollywood and the success she garnered from ?Anastasia,? it appeared as if the public at large had never really abandoned her and she always remained popular in the minds of so many countless fans; worldwide! Her return to major American films was met with a whirlwind of excitement, not seen since the other major return of Judy Garland to filmdom just two years earlier. There?s no doubt, that the hype and acceptance Ingrid received by her return to Hollywood meant she was going to get more than just all the admiration and love of both the fans and her peers. It was simply ?no contest? once all the enthusiasm about Ingrid surfaced and she would be assured the Oscar win. Now, I don?t want to make it sound like I feel there was a fix here or that she didn?t deserve to win. As I see it, the other actresses in the field were all fine and deserving, but this win for Ingrid was on all counts a sympathy vote in her favor. It was the movie community welcoming her back with wide open arms and this I think is instrumental in understanding that sometimes an award has deeper meaning than what it?s suppose to represent; at least to those who vote on the process and might be swayed away by emotional issues. After everything about the 1956 Oscar?s died down, Ingrid was proud and gratified to have won the Academy Award. But, she knew in her heart that her win was based on an emotional response to her personal life and that she need not ever again fear the wrath of anyone in Hollywood. During the time of the voting, it?s believed that Ingrid was always the frontrunner, with the young Nancy Kelly a close second. Most likely, because Kelly was a newcomer, this meant that most of the film community would pass on her. Carroll Baker never had a chance at winning . . . Her film was too controversial and not so popular in Hollywood. Nobody at the time ever thought Katie would have a chance, since her performance and ?The Rainmaker? didn?t really make such big waves in Hollywood and was considered a typical pretentious routine transfer of a successful stage play. As for Deborah, well a majority pretty much felt she didn?t deserved the award, especially since most of Hollywood knew her singing voice was dubbed and quite simply she was overshadowed by the solid performance of Yul in ?The King & I.? In the end, Ingrid proved to be the right choice, regardless of all the sentiment that came with her return to American cinema. Ingrid in ?Anastasia? was truly a class act and this I think is what really exceeds the point of her winning the Academy Award over the other contenders. Even if there hadn?t been so much sentimentality for her in Hollywood, she probably would have ended up winning, simply because she also displayed a new and intense quality to her acting abilities. Audiences would now have a new and interesting Ingrid to see up on the movie screen. This I think is what makes ?Anastasia? so intriguing as to where it would later take Ingrid and her career, never to once ever have to look back and wonder what the hell happened as has been the case with some who have failed to make a decent return to the big screen. In Ingrid's case, there was no luck involved here to her winning. She had that award in the bag from the moment she first set foot on the soundstages of 20th Century-Fox!

We all know this is the season when we are inundated with the usual business of holiday movies, currently appearing in the local theaters and of course on television. Of all the films ever devised for a holiday release, none was probably more successful or popular than the 1954, Paramount production of ?White Christmas.? While it really isn?t the best in a series of films about the holidays, it has become a beloved film, simply because a musical with song and dance can have an everlasting impact; especially if the songs are good. Well, this movie certainly has what is considered the most famous of all American holiday song, written specifically for a major motion picture. The song ?White Christmas,? used for the 1954 film?s title has remained one of the biggest selling and popular tunes of the last century. Yet, the song itself was actually written for another highly successful and popular musical film of the holidays. It was twelve years earlier in 1942 that the song first appeared in another big Paramount musical production entitled ?Holiday Inn.? The song would become synonymous with the career and legend of entertainer Bing Crosby, who first introduced the song in the motion picture. ?Holiday Inn? was something of a major entertainment milestone, because costarring with Bing was the great Fred Astaire. Then, in 1946, Bing once again sang the beloved classic tune in a second teaming with Fred for the musical film ?Blue Skies.? The whole idea behind the 1954 film was to reunite Bing and Fred a third time for another big holiday musical spectacular. Only this time, Paramount had decided to really pull out all the stops and introduce the new widescreen process of ?VistaVision? with the release of the proposed holiday film. The studio had been the only major hold-out in Hollywood, refusing to adapt to the Cinemascope process that had dominated the other major studios. So, with Bing and Fred on board to appear in what was at the time the biggest planned major project for the studio and the promotion of a new widescreen process to booth, everything seemed assured that ?White Christmas? would be a smash hit at the box office. It was very obvious (even to the fans) that the studio was banking on the past successful teaming of Bing and Fred, especially Bing?s big connection to the title song. This made it very necessary that the studio bring onto the project, the immortal Irving Berlin, who wrote the songs for ?Holiday Inn? and then add something new to this second attempt to create a big holiday film. Then it happened! Fred took ill and had to bow out. This was for the most part a major disappointment. It was a setback that now placed Paramount Pictures in a desperate situation to resolve. The studio then called upon the younger and vigorous Donald O?Connor as a replacement. However, fate managed to once again intervene, with O?Connor also succumbing to illness and wasn?t able to stay with the production. Finally, the studio banked on Danny Kaye to get the project rolling and the production began to find its momentum. There was also something new added to the whole idea of ?White Christmas? with the chosen director. He was the Academy Award winning Michael Curtiz, who was recognized for nearly 30 years as one of the best and most respected directors at Warner Brothers. This film at Paramount marked a series of motion pictures that Curtiz began to work on away from his established position at Warner Brothers, where he made such great films as ?Casablanca,? ?The Adventures of Robin Hood,? ?Mildred Pierce? and scores of other highly successful feature films. Certainly, Curtiz was a good choice to handle ?White Christmas,? despite all the setbacks that had besieged the project, prior to things getting underway. Lovely Rosemary Clooney as the female lead came about, only because Curtiz and the stuido couldn?t get the first choice, Doris Day. Rosie was a terrific singer and had become a Paramount contract player. The casting of Rosie opposite Bing was pretty much routine, since she had already appeared with Bing on his radio program and television specials. Paramount couldn?t have chosen a better gal for the dancing department than lively Vera-Ellen. While Rosie and Bing covered the singing department, Ellen with Danny Kaye delivered adequately with some of the dancing. However, the best dance numbers came with Ellen opposite dancer John Brascia, in what were some spectacular numbers. A lot of the credit here must go to choreographer Robert Alton, who had once been a long time member of the classic MGM musicals. Alton, like Curtiz had now branched out on his own. One of Paramount?s best producers of musicals, Robert Dolan was in control of this new ?White Christmas? enterprise. Dolan knew full well that a comparison would be made to his first production of ?Holiday Inn.? In keeping with the success of the 1942 classic motion picture, he decided to stay somewhat close to the ?show business premise? of ?Holiday Inn.? Therefore, this has always led to a clear assumption that in a technical regard (even without Fred being in ?White Christmas?) the fans were being treated to a sequel or that the roots of ?White Christmas? stemmed from the previous success Dolan and Paramount had with ?Holiday Inn. Even as the cameras at the soundstages began to roll, the feeling around Hollywood wasn?t exactly so upbeat about this idea to revamp an already established point by way of the success ?Holiday Inn? had and even the classic title song. Some movie-insiders and fans felt that without Astaire teamed up again with Crosby, the project was a fruitless pursuit. There was at the time a persistent theory that ?White Christmas? was a kind of ?overkill? to the whole issue of once again having Bing appear on screen, singing a song that was obviously the signature tune of his career. But, some fans and film historians feel that the time was right for a new outlook towards a major holiday film, based around a musical background. Dolan clearly defended his position and the studio by signifying this had become a motion picture tradition. The new added tunes written by Irving Berlin, were quite good, but only one song, ?Count Your Blessings Instead of Sheep? was the real new solid standout. The Paramount art department did their best to fill the soundstages with some pretty impressive standing sets, some of which were made new. The motion picture was mostly shot in the soundstages of Paramount, except for the outdoor scene of a train station. This turned out to be typical Hollywood magic that had reached its peak during the ?widescreen? era of the mid 1950s. This is a good example of how the film itself is almost considered a transfer of a big ?live stage? musical. And, in an ironic twist of fate, there?s now even a new Broadway version of ?White Christmas" going strong! From all possible angles, Paramount veteran screenwriters Norman Krasna, Norman Panama and Melvin Frank knew they couldn?t fail or at least see that this idea had unlimited possibilities of success. There attitude towards creating a new version of an already tried and successful formula rested more with the music, songs and dance. While all three writers were considered members of Paramount?s skillful comedic department, they really didn?t write much in the way of anything so humorous or zany as they had been known for exposing on screen. A few new rewrites came about, in the hope of giving Danny Kaye a bit of flexibility, but for the most part, the script didn?t stay prone towards a comedic background. One has to wonder had Fred been in the film, would he have had the same comic treatment as was given Danny? Well, the filming of ?White Christmas? went smooth enough for most to consider. Paramount then did the usual big publicity build-up, leading towards a big premiere, first in New York and then in Hollywood. The only strange thing to ponder about the release of the film was that it first appeared in April! The main reason was due to the promotion of the VistaVision widescreen process. It was a major release at New York?s Radio City Music Hall, that eventually ran right into the holiday season at the end of the year! Here we have a technical or business decision that had the studio wanting to cleverly achieve as much box office response as possible. Later on, the studio would then have an even bigger publicity push that led to the primary October release, essentially guaranteeing an above or higher profit margin beyond any estimated amount. Upon the film?s release, the critics weren?t exactly kind or pleasant about the movie. The response was lukewarm as the overall rating for the motion picture was fair and nothing so overwhelmingly good. As far as most of the critics were concern, ?Holiday Inn? would remain the superior holiday musical film of Paramount. Despite the rather low keyed critical response, the public saw things very differently, when the final box office tally was taken. An estimated $12,000,000 gross made ?White Christmas? the biggest smash hit of 1954. This financial success, led Paramount to schedule a yearly showing of the film in various large metropolitan cities. The film had an annual showing at New York?s Radio City Music Hall for many years. It was in 1964, that Paramount allowed the NBC television network the first national broadcast of the film. It was a huge primetime ratings winner for about four years on the NBC network. Today, the film is still annually shown as are other famous holiday classics. The AMC cable network will have an ?all day? broadcast of the movie on Christmas Eve. So, the cycle of success for ?White Christmas? continues, regardless of whether or not it was ever considered a real, bona fide artistic success or even classic. And, this goes for video as well as the current Broadway version of the musical. One has to wonder if this movie is really in the same league as ?It?s A Wonderful Life,? ?A Christmas Carol,? ?Miracle on 34th Street,? or ?Meet Me In St. Louis.? Whatever the case, the film remains popular with fans; while not the critics or a certain artistically minded crowd. I will always rate ?Holiday Inn? the better film, while ?White Christmas? is just a form of typical, high-minded escapist movie material, without much to offer in terms of anything so memorable or classic. The problem as some historians see it is that the motion picture was a vehicle for Bing and then the new widescreen process. This wasn?t exactly a film made out of the confines of so much originality and perhaps banked too much on the past glory of another movie. Or, was it the title song itself that assured something of its success? Many film buffs while loving the movie, do see and feel there is something of a quagmire about ?White Christmas.? I once heard a film buff say about the movie, ?There?s something phony about it, yet it?s a nice film.? It might have more to do with blatant Hollywood commercialism, succeeding on the foundation of pure star power, a classic song and the right time of the year to create a good amount of hype that the public seems to love about that time of the year when we are all so festive. Perhaps these types of holiday movies can never really become overall failures. They simply play upon the virtues of what?s within our hearts and what makes us feel good about the world at large. Well, I?ll now just say: Happy Holidays Everybody and a Happy New Year. MP.

>kingrat wrote: > Just as some of the classic era films have their coded gay moments, this film is "coded Jewish." The main character works in the garment industry in Manhattan and his parents were immigrants, which will suggest to some of the audience that his family is Jewish. This is absolutely correct. At the beginning of Paddy?s writing career in television, there was a bit of resistance towards some of his subject matter that dealt with religious or ethnic groups. Most notable was the first teleplay that Paddy had written in 1952 entitled ?Holiday Song,? that was about Jewish culture. The script was passed around for the longest time, until the network managed to find a producer to convince a reliable sponsor to back the project. Paddy never really forgave producer David Susskind for refusing to handle ?Holiday Song.? Susskind had been instrumental in aiding Paddy?s early career in television. As close friends as the two became, the noted producer didn?t want to make any controversial waves about a subject that he felt was not necessary or so vital to translate onto the television screen. For the rest of their lives and friendship, Paddy always reminded David (especially after Paddy became a big success) of having passed up what was on all counts a wonderful teleplay. The original ?Middle of The Night,? came the year after Paddy scored with such huge praise for his television drama of ?Marty.? The 1954 ?live? television version of ?Middle of The Night,? featured E.G. Marshall in the role of the older garment worker and lovely Eva Marie Saint as the office receptionist. The television drama came about the time Saint had just scored big in the classic film drama ?On The Waterfront? that would win her a deserved Academy Award. Paddy was never so satisfied with the results of the original teleplay and this led to his expanding the material and its content for a more stylized and explicit stage version in 1956. The Broadway version was considered quite bold for its time, focusing upon social as well as ethnic issues that were related to American Jewish culture. A great classic star was chosen for the lead: the mighty Edward G. Robinson; this was a choice that at the time no one in their right frame of mind could argue against. Newcomer to the acting scene, beautiful Gena Rowlands was the real solid sensation of the drama. Gena virtually triumphed over the original performance by Saint and Novak in the film version could have never held a candle to what Gena had done for the role of the heart broken office receptionist. The play was considered a moderate success and was important to Paddy?s career since it was a subject he knew well and could relate to so clearly. This stands to reason when one reads the script or sees a staged version of the original play. The 1959 film version was somewhat watered down and most historians feel that the time just wasn?t right for this type of subject, since censorship played a heavy hand in altering lots of points that Paddy made in the ?live? stage version. At best, the film turned out to be more of a vehicle for Kim Novak than anything so dramatic. The film version wasn?t as big a dramatic success as Columbia Pictures had hoped for and while it did received some good and respectable reviews, it failed to make a reasonable profit or what the studio felt should be considered an overall success.

Only a handful of fans can really recall the original 1953 television version of ?Marty.? It?s natural to surmise that 1955 film version has all but eclipsed the ?live? television drama that was so vividly written by the great and immortal Paddy Chayefsky. The truth behind ?live? television drama of the 1950s was that it gave many individuals a chance at a show business career that ordinarily would have passed them by and not get them to the Broadway stage or the movies. I can remember those days back in New York, when the area around Times Square was saturated with television studios on just about every block. All four major networks had a 24/7 operation going strong! You might be walking down a street and in one studio might be Julie Harris working on a teleplay and just next door was Eli Wallach; right upstairs on the next floor was Richard Kiley; working in a makeshift basement studio would be Leslie Nielsen; in what was once an old warehouse turned TV studio was Paul Newman or Maureen Stapleton rehearsing in what was once a movie theater! Running down a narrow side street, heading for an audition might be actress Lee Grant, together with Eileen Heckart, Eva Marie Saint, Betsy Palmer, Geraldine Page or Joanne Woodward. The biggest thrill of all would be running into an already established star, like Helen Hayes, Mary Martin, Mickey Rooney, Walter Pidgeon or Paul Muni. The best place to be was the coffee shop in the old Astor Hotel, where so many show business personnel found time to hang-out and discuss the latest projects or their careers. It was a world filled with so much talent and excitement that the likes of it will never be seen again!! The essence of the original ?Marty? or what it came to represent was television reaching the pinnacle of respect that for awhile seemed reserved for only the ?live stage? and serious motion pictures. In one single stroke of a live broadcast, Paddy Chayefsky changed the entire scope and destiny of television and what the electronic medium could finally achieve towards respect. Part of the credit for the beauty of the original television drama should also be paid towards the wonderful actress Nancy Marchand, who is now being designated as a great, but mostly forgotten actress of her time. Certainly, director Delbert Mann having directed the original television version couldn?t be denied another chance and would be brought back in 1955 for the film version. Mann?s handling of the film version, while more flexible than the television drama, simply couldn?t totally transcend to the intensity of the original. The performance of Rod Steiger and his presence is what gives the original television version its passion and sympathy towards an immense feeling you are watching something special and extraordinary that is even today a once in a lifetime experience of a performance! It was a drama that every single serious student of acting at the time clued themselves to a television to watch Steiger create his incredible magic. If anyone was watching the original ?Marty? that evening, the majority of the audience was most of the show business community that had come to both admire and praise Steiger as their unsung champion of ?live? television drama. Rod had only appeared in one film, the 1951 MGM drama ?Teresa.? This experience for him didn?t seem to work out and he headed back to New York. It would take another three years before the movies would call upon Steiger again and the rest is such inspiring show business history. P.S. Just for the record, if you happen to watch the original ?Marty? on DVD . . . Check out closely the scene of the ?Waverly Ballroom? . . . Lurking in the background are a few actors and actresses as extras, who will later on become stars in their own right! As to who they are . . . Well, you?ll just have to get your hands on the DVD and check it out! I won?t give out the names!

HollywoodGolightly wrote: > > The movie definitely has a strong star-making role and Rock gives a truly memorable performance; the movie might not have worked with some other actor in the lead. I have to agree with this assessment. Like it is with many movies, Rock wasn?t the first choice for the role of ?Bob Merrick.? Universal was banking on an already established male lead star for the role. When this couldn?t be arranged, producer Ross Hunter, who became a close friend to Rock, convinced the studio to take a gamble and cast Rock with the idea of a build-up to Rock?s already rising career status. Producer Hunter wisely realized that Rock could fill a certain void that two other stars at the studio, Jeff Chandler and Tony Curtis were incapable of handling. The key here was for a new and striking dramatic leading man, in the guise of Gable or Cooper and not so much an action/adventure star. The success of ?Magnificent Obsession? is a very good example of how Rock?s time of study and training in Hollywood paid off big for him. He simply came to understand the whole complicated routine there was to having a major career in motion pictures. Once Rock?s career got off and running big, there was no obstacle he couldn?t handle, until his health came into question. He was as popular with his peers as he was with the fans that to this day have never really deserted him, regardless of his hidden past.