MovieProfessor

If TCM doesn't show "Fraulein," the Fox Movie Channel will certainly be airing the film sometime in the future. The film was a pretty good and realistic drama of the Second World War, directed by Henry Koster, who became one of the best directors of 20th Century-Fox. The star of the motion picture, lovely Dana Wynter has pretty much retired from filmwork. Despite over the years Wynter's has received a few offers to make a reappearance, she has refused and stays tranquil, between her home in Los Angeles and another home in Ireland.

If anything might be remembered about this movie was making Rock Hudson Universal Pictures biggest star. In 1954, there hadn?t been as big a hype about anyone, since the days of Clark Gable. Of course, we all now know the truth behind all the imagery and publicity about Rock and his hidden agenda or lifestyle. It strikes me rather interesting that despite the revelations on Rock?s personal life, he remains one of Hollywood?s most popular stars of the past. He was truly one of the last really big superstar contract players of Hollywood, making millions for Universal and giving the studio much needed prestige. Rock loved being a movie star and understood all its trappings, which is probably the reason for his never facing up to who he really was and kept right up to the time of his death, protecting his star image. He loved the fans and always responded to anyone showing him admiration. He was on all counts a classy guy and deserves our respect for keeping alive the last vestige of what being a movie star was all about.

This movie that was based on a less than successful, typical John O?Hara melodramatic novel was directed by long time 20th Century-Fox associate, Philip Dunne. He was on all counts one of the very few members of the film community to have what might be deemed a higher education than most. He was a graduate of Harvard. Dunne came to Hollywood just at the right time, when talking pictures became the mainstream of the film industry. In no time, he began to write screenplays for some of the biggest projects at 20th Century-Fox, initially becoming one of studio-boss, Darryl Zanuck?s favorite writers. The list of films written by Dunne isn?t so numerous, but the quality sure is there! His greatest work might be considered the 1941 Academy Award winner, ?How Green Was My Valley.? By the 1950s, he continued with big studio assignments that included such titles as the cinemascope epic, ?The Robe.? Then, in 1955, Dunne was finally seated in the director?s chair with a good start, directing Richard Burton in ?Prince of Players.? In 1960, he left the movie business for a short while to concentrate on becoming a speech writer for none other than President John F. Kennedy! He was also married to actress Amanda Duff, who never really made the big time, appearing in mostly B-Movies. Dunne finally had to retire in 1966, with the demise of the studio system that had supported him so well. He even wrote about the issue of the changes in Hollywood and made a few striking predictions about the future of the motion picture business that came to pass! In simpler terms, Dunne pretty much predicted that having a career in films towards any capacity would become very difficult without a strong starting point or foundation that was the old studio system for so many who had the aspirations to work in motion pictures. Truly one of the few ?Renaissance? individuals of the movie business, Dunne proved his worth by tackling various subjects for the films he directed and wrote that weren?t exactly so common. A good example was the 1958, beautifully produced, yet somewhat technically graphic for its time, antiwar drama, ?In Love and War.? Then, in 1959 came ?Blue Denim? that dealt with teenage pregnancy. Of all his films, certainly ?Ten North Frederick? is perhaps one of his weakest or least remembered. And, let?s not forget that Dunne wrote and directed one of the very best, last dramatically good films of Elvis Presley in 1961, ?Wild in the Country.? It?s strange to me that there hasn?t been enough historical coverage on the career of Philip Dunne. But, perhaps the limited output of his work might be the main reason.

The failure of Parker to make it as a big successful movie star, stems from issues surrounding a gamble on the part of 20th Century-Fox studios and the rest of Hollywood, relying too much on a celebrity sort of hype that in the end had nothing to do with one?s acting abilities. Parker never really had any solid experience as an actress. While she managed her modeling career well enough, by the time she got to Hollywood, she wasn?t as well seasoned as was Grace Kelly, Marilyn or even Jayne Mansfield; all three of these ladies having once been models. It?s funny how stale and unresponsive Parker appears on screen. She simply couldn?t take her beauty or imagery to a higher level that pertains to being convincing as an actress and not so much a movie star. All Parker had left to deal with was the notoriety of her modeling career and good-looks to rely upon having something of a career in films and then television. Today, this method of seeking out celebrities from other fields to become film stars continues on . . . The latest one being Paris Hilton and few others who have made it to the pages of the tabloids.

mikemcgee wrote: > As i been complaining about tcm and to tcm how they only show popular classics and barley a rarity cause they only serve the large target of casual viewers and and fans of popular film classics only not including us serious fans cause were a small to medium target and they are greedy that is time warner well the guest host of tonight tuesday proved this the singer tcm only serves her target only a popular classic film buff I think a few "periods" in between this posting would help. I myself make a few mistakes here and there. Anyway, I was wondering who are "casual viewers" to TCM? I thought most everyone here was a classic film buff? It stands to reason that TCM has to constantly rely on noted or famous films from the various studio archives, because this generates interest in acquiring as much viewership as possible. The classic movie channel has done the best they could with what rare film materials have been available. But, we must bare in mind that obscure and rarely seen films of the past won't be shown on a regular basis, due in large part to the main interest fans have in numerous favorite movie stars. Let's face it, TCM knows what sells and in this case it's the fan based poised towards the Hollywood star system that in my day was what really counted. So, in this regard TCM is doing what the old Hollywood studios did. Coming from the "Old Hollywood School" myself, I can totally understand what's going on. There will be occasional chances for us to view old forgotten movies of the past on TCM. They will just remain for the most part, out of the mainstream as many of these small, obscure and sometimes failed motion picture projects had been when they were first released.

Technically speaking, the MGM epic of ?Marie Antoinette? was a good film or production. Strangely, this was the time of Warner Brothers Pictures having tremendous success with their Historic epic films during the late 1930s. Why the MGM epic failed might have more to do with the script or that there was too much melodrama for audiences to handle or simply accept. Certainly, Shearer gave a fine performance and the film displayed the typical high production values so symbolic of MGM. There just might be reason to feel that the historic tale was too predicable and of a tragic nature for audiences to feel so compelled to experience. Not even Shearer?s strong screen persona would be enough to save the motion picture. The fact that Tyrone Power was brought over to MGM from 20th Century-Fox to co-star, lends the theory that the project was under some agitation, probably having more to do with the death of Thalberg and that Shearer needed more help than ever, while it was obvious her career was in its decline. There's never been any doubt that the enormous failure of "Her Cardboard Lover" in 1942 was instrumental in leading towards her retirement. Especially when "Mrs. Miniver" that same year proved to be such a huge success and Shearer's luck seemed to have finally run dry and out. The years after her retirement were more or less spent at MGM, usually showing up at the studio, meeting old friends and giving advice, at the same time keeping alive her movie star status. Mayer treated her with all due respects and later on even studio head Dore Schary. Shearer would for her part, aid in the process of helping new and inspiring talents for MGM. She would remain for the rest of her life, one of the last symbols of old Hollywood royalty and all its glamorous trappings.

It's no contest . . . The 1954 version remains the best and one of the finest romantic films of its kind.

> finance wrote: > If there was a rift between Mayer and Thalberg, how did Mayer deal with Norma Shearer after Thalberg's death. Did Norma's early retirement have anything to do with Mayer? The career of Norma Shearer was on the decline, when her husband and mentor Irving Thalberg died in 1936. She was for the time he was alive, the queen of the studio and Thalberg sort of designated MGM?s uncrowned leader. He was more like the ?prince of the studio,? while Mayer remained its true king. Over a period of time, most other actresses at MGM came to realize that no matter what circumstance, Shearer would always get first consideration for the best roles offered in MGM's repertoire of film projects. Most historians agree that while Shearer wasn?t exactly the best actress of her period, she did play an important part in establishing a poise and elegance to the imagery of a movie star. This was especially the case, when the ?talking picture? era arrived and Shearer proved herself worthy of her stardom into this new realm of filmmaking. Her understanding of the motion picture business was on all counts as important as her fame and whatever there might be to her acting abilities that for the most part had more to do with glamour and style than anything requiring a high degree of dramatic content. While he was alive, Thalberg controlled every aspect of her career at the studio. This of course kept her safe and her position at MGM could not falter or be so jeopardized. It?s now believed by most movie historians that Thalberg was and remains the real solid basis to her success at MGM. Thus, she became one of filmdom?s first great stars of the early sound era. There?s been a debate among various historians if her career in silent pictures has any strong merit, when compared to her work in sound. This division in opinions has led to a consensus that she was driven with an ambition to overcome her past work in silent pictures once sound arrived on the scene. It?s believed for all intended purposes that her work in silent films was good, but nothing so classical or could ever have such a strong impact to her overall film career. I tend to agree with this assessment, due in large part to the way Thalberg himself was driven in giving her the best possible opportunities. Mayer simply went along with this situation, simply because Shearer had acquired a big enough following and the success she enjoyed by way of her husband, created this sort of royal movie imagery for MGM. It was during the last year of Thalberg?s life, that Shearer faced the first biggest of all turmoil to her career. This came about, when actress Marion Davies and her boyfriend, newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst wanted to bargain for the ?Marie Antoinette? project that Thalberg all along had planned for his wife. Shearer had already interfered with Davies not getting a few choice roles. This final showdown led to Davies, with the help of Hearst, breaking off their successful contract with MGM. Davies then headed over to Warner Brothers, where her career never really got off the ground or stayed solvent. While Mayer agreed with Thalberg that Davies was wrong for the role of the ill fated French queen, Mayer blamed Thalberg for the loss of an important star and his friendship with Hearst was damaged beyond repair. Mayer and for the most part, the whole of MGM had enjoyed a lot of positive support from the Hearst newspaper chain. The loss of Davies meant a vast amount of publicity resources could not be so easily recovered. When ?Marie Antoinette? was released, the Hearst newspapers refused to review or give any coverage of the film! With Thalberg dead and ?Marie Antoinette? being designated as the start of Shearer?s box office decline, it seemed likely that the death of her beloved mentor husband had suddenly changed the course of her film career. At first, Mayer didn?t want to make any negative waves towards Shearer, now having to handle her career on her own. Mayer allowed Shearer a continued freehand to decide what film projects she might want to take on. However, this proved to be something of a disaster, when her choices didn?t exactly turn out to be as successful as her past films. In 1938, she was offered the role of ?Scarlett O?Hara? in ?Gone With The Wind.? She wisely refused and while most will say she wasn?t right to be cast in the civil war epic, she did score a good hit with ?The Women? in 1939; this film would be her last success for MGM. As the 1940s rolled in, it was becoming all too apparent that she had lost her once magical presence with movie goers. Her next series of films were major flops. Despite this situation, Mayer offered her the choice of ?Mrs. Miniver? in 1942, but Shearer tuned down the opportunity. It?s now believed that the huge success of ?Mrs. Miniver? haunted Shearer to the point of finally forcing her to retire from the movies.

The main rift between Mayer and Thalberg came about due to a surge in popularity from the numerous personnel of MGM towards Thalberg. This was especially the case with the major stars of the studio. It became all too apparent that when a problem arose, most of the time, Thalberg interceded or usually solved the problem. Mayer spent too much time, playing the role of promoting himself as a father figure to his personnel. Thalberg remained a loyal and trusted friend to those he worked with. The age issue between both studio executives also played an important part on why this business and personality rift seemed enviable. Thalberg being young and about the same age as many of the major stars, had more in common to relate too their various needs or even insecurities. The one single issue that brought the rift between Mayer and Thalberg into full circle was movie star John Gilbert. At the beginning of MGM?s climb to the top of becoming Hollywood?s biggest and greatest studio, Gilbert and Mayer had a ?love/hate? relationship. It was Mayer, who usually ended up getting involved to the fullest extent in the personal lives of MGM?s major stars. Although Thalberg technically supported Mayer to some degree, he never went beyond certain limits that annoyed Mayer. When the John Gilbert issue erupted out of control by 1929, Mayer saw his chance to finally rid himself of what he believed to be the studio?s most daring adversary and a public embarrassment. It?s now believed that Mayer secretively planned the ruin of John Gilbert, when the MGM star failed to make a successful transition to ?talking pictures.? It was Thalberg who kept the hope alive that Gilbert could retain his star status. However, the years of heavy drinking and a wild life style finally put an end to Gilbert?s time at MGM. Even Thalberg had to reach towards the decision that Gilbert was all but burnt out and finished. This technical fiasco at MGM would then lead to other situations of scandal and personal mishaps involving the working relationship between Mayer and Thalberg. The next big problem for Mayer and Thalberg occurred with another major star, beautiful Jean Harlow, whose private life was always under fire and of major concern. The situation got to a point that Mayer began to confide to close friends that he blamed Thalberg for not being more iron-handed with the problematic events that besieged MGM. When Thalberg succumb to what has always been believed to be the duress and stress of running MGM and he died in 1936, Mayer was quoted as saying, ?God is good to me.? Most likely, the usual ?business fears? were always set into motion that are part of running an enterprise as big as was MGM. A collaboration between individuals running a large company usually leads to doubts, suspicions and one believing that the other will make for a total take over. Mayer for his part was always under the scrutiny of the main front office heads outside of Hollywood and he wasn?t very popular with them. Most film buffs and fans will say that Thalberg was the real brains behind the success of MGM and believe Mayer would always be haunted by this idea. In the long run, Thalberg was more human or humane than Mayer could have ever been. But then, Mayer understood lots of other business decisions that Thalberg probably never took to heart or gave importance. As to which one of these two men should be handed the credit for the success of MGM will most likely remain a constant debate. Mayer would of course go on to running the studio long after Thalberg was gone. However, I don?t think the studio was ever as bright, polished and dignified as when Thalberg was around.

>primosprimos wrote: > > While we had to suspend disbelief over the fact that ALL of the citizens were suddenly acting out of character, no one left, and the most amazing bad luck befell all of them, the fact that Donna Reed was suddenly plain and dumpy was too much to accept. Donna Reed, a lonely, ill-dressed librarian? I don't think so. > I totally agree with your thoughts about ?Mary Hatch? and her role in the dream sequence; it doesn?t make any sense! Obviously, Capra decided on making a strong dramatic point to her role in George Bailey?s probable future. While it isn?t really an issue that becomes so prevalent to the story or film, the idea that she loses something of her strength of character is strange, if not, an oddity to see her slip beyond the means of achieving a practical outcome to her life. She is without any question, the most logical and strongest character of the story or the backbone to aiding George find himself and his purpose in life. I can?t believe for one single minute, Mary would end up in what is presumed a rather low-keyed position in life. The theory that in the dream sequence she ends up a desperate, lonely woman can be difficult to accept along the lines of how we first see her and how smart and perceptive she is to everyone around her. I have to feel she above all, would have never ended up in such a dejected situation. Capra once said that Mary was the ?soul-mate? of George and therefore what happened to him would have affected her to some extreme. I?m not buying this scenario, simply because she would have gone ahead and married someone else. With George out of the picture, Mary would have ended up living out her life to some positive conclusion in some other town or place.

Some historians have wondered if the townspeople of Bedford Falls and its community would have put up with the tyrannical antics of old-man Potter. Certainly, the big difference between Scrooge and Potter is the final outcome to both their lives. Potter was on all counts a successful businessman, while he failed at being a successful human being. Scrooge always had some hope or goodness towards his character, stemming from his childhood that underneath the inter corridors of his soul, kept open the possibility of his changing or reverting back to the positive aspects of his life and character. While we don?t know exactly what was behind the bitterness or lack of humanity to old-man Potter, he probably had a terrible childhood or nothing worth his remembering. This I think is the real big difference. Without something of a positive past, there is probably no hope for change or seeing the good prospects towards life and treating those around you with respect, if not, understanding the social problems that besiege us every single day. Old-man Potter simply didn?t believe in or have faith in anyone around him, leading towards an aged-old characteristic of a person having wealth or a sizable amount of power, thinking they would always be exploited. When an individual reaches a point that they no longer can trust in the kindness or humanity of others, they are no longer worthy members of the human race. I agree with the idea of a spin-off story or film about old-man Potter. This would certainly make for a fascinating possibility towards a continuation of not so much ?It?s A Wonderful Life,? but that of the townspeople of Bedford Falls and its presumed future. Aside from George Bailey, old-man Potter is without question, the second most interesting character to the story. No doubt, the comparisons to Dickens? ?Scrooge? make this evident. There are numerous scenarios that could be added or perceived as to what led to old-man Potter?s demise as a decent human being. One theory that I?ve heard is old-man Potter having a similar childhood to that of another famous character of the movies, ?Charles Foster Kane!? I sort of go along with the idea that Potter was a lonely child or perhaps has no dependable living relatives left to rely on. What one might also imagine is who would then inherit the vast amount of wealth Potter as acquired over the derisive years of his life? We do know that in the dream sequence George has in the story, upon returning to his past, he finds the town named after old-man Potter! This makes perfect sense, when you think about what life without the Bailey family would have been to the community. There?s no doubt, that old-man Potter represents all the negative and harsh aspects there are to the ?American Dream? or how it can get corrupted by the opportunities afforded from the freedoms and laws that allow our society to function. The second most interesting character to surmise about what their future might entail is that of the lovely and yet profuse ?Violet? as played in the movie by wonderful Gloria Grahame. It?s obvious to all of us that Violet has always been in love with George Bailey. While she is also the rival to the real love of George Bailey?s life, beautiful ?Mary Hatch,? Violet has sense enough to know her boundaries or limits to just how far she can go. This in a great sense makes her character have some understanding and a heart of gold. I?ve never believed for one single minute, Violet was the local **** of the town. She was just rather caught up in her girlish, egotistical charms. Had George not been there to keep Violet on something of a straight and narrow to her life, or at least remind her that she really counted to his life and that of Bedford Falls, we can pretty much figure out where Violet would have ended up. We see this in the dream sequence, when the police are rounding up suspects in a raid at what is clearly a ?house of ill repute? and there?s Violet being arrested! The big question is just where Violet will end up, when at the end of the story, she tells George she won?t be leaving Bedford Falls, after having planned to seek a newer and perhaps broader horizon to her life. I?d sure love to see a newly invented scenario to what will happen to Violet. She is very much like that of a soap opera character to the story, having probably had various emotional experiences in and around the area of Bedford Falls, becoming this free spirited and glamorous figure to the community. The last and most talked about issue concerning a possible sequel would relate to the children of George and Mary Bailey. There could certainly be lots of ideas here and we can surmise that somewhere along the beacon pathway of life, the children will inherit something positive and worthwhile from their celebrated parents.

> {JackFavell wrote: > > June Allyson started her career as a _bona fide dancer_. She started dancing at a young age, inspired by watching Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers movies. She danced in the chorus on Broadway before she got out of high school. > > Myrna Loy started out as a dancer as well. OK . . . About the some facts here on Allyson and then Loy: First off, Allyson & Loy started out as a ?SHOW GIRL? and not a bona fide dancer. Do you understand the meaning of what a ?show girl? is to the old days of show business? It?s not related to anything of what you might expect from watching a big Las Vegas nightclub production number. While the term might include the idea of a girl in the chorus line, it?s easy enough to conclude that dancing or any acquired skill isn?t necessary for a show girl. Allyson and Loy did have some training in dancing. But, while Allyson was in some regards able to achieve an accomplishment to having something of a career in dancing, Loy really didn?t go on to any big extreme to be remembered as such. If I were to get really technical, I would say Allyson was a lousy dancer, lacking a good amount of timing on top of a fashionable skill to acquiring a style. She was just another in a series of pretty faces that managed to get a big break. Now, if you ask me who fits the grade, well any respecting fan making a comparison of Allyson to some of the most accomplished musical performers of motion pictures, well she wouldn?t stand a chance! And, as much as I love Doris Day, she wasn't a real dancer. But, Doris was way the hell better than Allyson could have ever dreamed of being! And, that's a fact there is no way around.

finance wrote: > I wonder if Hermes Pan could actually dance as well as Astaire. Hermes was actually one of the best known dancers of his generation. He had known Fred and many others in show business early on and over the course of his long career aiding others, once the musical film genre finally got established. After Fred and Ginger split up, Hermes moved over to 20th Century-Fox. It was at that studio he is seen throughout the 1940s on a regular basis dancing in numerous Betty Grable films . . . He was usually her partner! Later on, Hermes made it a point to appear as a dancer in the films he was choreographer. Certainly, without Hermes, Fred's career probably wouldn't have been so celebrated or refined.

Some of my favorites are ?Grand Central? train station in ?The Clock? with Judy Garland and Robert Walker. Of course, cities are always the main showcase of many movies and New York City seems to have always been the ?kingpin? to this category. It?s now believed that the ?Big Apple? is the most filmed or associated location to American movies than any other city in the history of the cinema. Most of my choices for this category would essentially entail scenes around New York or Manhattan. One of the most famous of all was at the old ?Trans-Lux? movie theater, at 52nd street. This is where Marilyn Monroe had her legendary scene of standing over the subway grate and her white dress being blown by the passing train. Truth is that the scene had to be reshot back in Hollywood, but most fans have always felt the first (real) location is the one that really counts. Then there?s ?Macy?s? department store having had its fair share of exposure in many movies. The one that is most beloved is without question a great holiday classic of movie history, ?Miracle on 34th Street.? Any diehard film buff knows, just how important director John Ford was to ?Monumental Valley? in Utah. His showcasing the area in most of his best western films brought the valley more notoriety than any tour book or guide could have offered. From a sentimental standpoint, one of the finest and most remembered locations to a film is the ?Trevi Fountain? from ?Three Coins in The Fountain.? This movie did more to promote the tourist business for Rome than any other film, be it American or Italian. Some of the very best ?on location? filming of two real places consisted of first the city ?Key West? and then ?Tarpon Springs,? both in Florida, for the adventure yarn ?Beneath the 12 Mile Reef.? Sci-Fi films are no exception to this category and one of the very best to showcase a real location was ?The Amazing Colossal Man,? that had the city of Las Vegas being torn apart. The great special effects master, Ray Harryhausen had several American cities being destroyed by monsters or space aliens. In 1953, Harryhausen had the city of San Francisco being attacked by a giant octopus. Three years later came Washington D.C. attacked by aliens from outer space in ?Earth vs. The Flying Saucers.? The biggest of all destruction of a major American city in a movie for the 1950 decade was Los Angeles, in ?War of The Worlds.? But, let?s not forget ?Godzilla? rampaging through downtown Tokyo! Comedy films have had their big impact on showcasing real locations. One of my personal favorites (because I watched the film being made!) was the 1960 Jerry Lewis comedy, ?The Bellboy.? The movie was made while Jerry was staying and performing at the legendary Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami Beach. A year earlier, director Billy Wilder made what is probably his greatest of all film, ?Some Like It Hot,? at the well known Southern California resort hotel, Del Coronado in San Diego. Once again, Las Vegas and its various casino hotels played a very important part in such films as ?Meet Me in Las Vegas,? ?Ocean?s 11,? ?The Girl Rush? and ?Viva Las Vegas.? If there is one film in this category that is very interesting to mention, it is the 1963 comedy ?Forty Pounds of Trouble.? This movie that was released by Universal Pictures was about a Nevada casino manager, who takes an orphan child to Disneyland for a day of fun. This situation was for its time, rather fascinating, since here you had a rival film studio to Disney, making a major film at a location associated to the Walt Disney Company! Two of the very best films about a real ocean liner being showcased were the 1962 Disney film, ?Bon Voyage? that took place abroad the vessel, ?S.S. United States.? Most fans will probably say the best remembered ocean liner in a movie would be the ?S.S. Constitution,? for the romantic classic ?An Affair to Remember.? This film that was essentially a remake of the 1939 film, ?Love Affair,? also had for a central point of interest, the most famous skyscraper of them all, the Empire State Building. It?s amazing how the Empire State has been part of motion picture lore in some of the biggest, if not, classic films of all time. Airplanes could be considered important aspects to remembering a movie. Certainly, in war films they make up for most of the important action, if not, the main focus. But, commercial airliners have had their share of good exposure. In 1954, came a Douglas DC-6, on route to Hawaii, with an all star cast in the beloved John Wayne epic, ?The High and The Mighty.? One of the best remembered airline films was ?Airport? and the Boeing 707 that took-0ff from Chicago in a snowstorm. There are so many wonderful films to choose from!

HollywoodGolightly wrote: > When you think about it, it's kind of amazing that you didn't even need to be a professional tap dancer to be able to be in a movie back then and make it look convincing. This is an issue that is very, very true. While some performers were given a bit of dance training for their film work, the idea that they were usually technically enhanced, gives credence to feel that there was no real ability, let alone talent. Several classic stars of Hollywood, who started out having roles in the chorus of various Broadway shows, can?t be considered real, bona fide dancers. A good example are such stars as Joan Crawford, Van Johnson, Mel Ferrer, Dan Dailey, Myrna Loy, Ann Sheridan, Esther Williams, Ann Sothern, June Allyson, John Payne, Rags Ragland, Cesar Romero, Phil Silvers, Alice Faye and many others. This is not to say that numerous stars didn?t have the necessary experience, but they simply didn?t really dwell in the area of dance or made it the main focus of their careers in motion pictures.

> HollywoodGolightly wrote: > Awww.. that sort of destroys the magic, doesn't it. Well, I?ve wondered about this issue for some years. Does it in fact mean that the whole musical genre for film is of an artificial means; whereas a performer can extend themselves beyond any required talents? Certainly, most of the musical stars of classic Hollywood all had pervious experience or the necessary abilities to sing, dance and give off with adequate acting skills. Despite the illusionism that has now been brought out into the forefront, it doesn?t really equate with anything towards sleight-of-hand or tricks. Fred and just about everybody who worked at a major studio could have proved themselves, by way of their talents at any given time to a live audience. So, the idea that just simple sound effects had to be employed in this situation doesn?t at all affect the quality or legitimacy of the entertainment at hand. It was all part of what we can reasonably consider a magic of the movies; allowing us to get into the whole aura of the scene or moment we are watching what we know is someone who is really talented beyond all our dreams.

ziggyelman wrote: > I could have sworn reading in the liner notes of a 2 cd Astaire set that it mentioned him having to watch the film and match the taps...but it wasn't there. Ok . . . In terms of Fred, at the beginning of his career at RKO Pictures, the sound department had mics placed everywhere around the dance area. However, this method proved to be too tedious and problematic, with the mics picking up other sounds, if not, distortion. So, it was then decided to have Fred dance out his numbers first to be recorded for sound, usually during a simple rehearsal. Later on, the sound of Fred's tap dancing was edited onto the finish or accepted film strip. The engineers at RKO were terrific, never making a mistake or got out of synchronization, once they had to retrace Fred's steps.

It is absolutely true that many of the musical films incorporating tap dancing had the sound effects of the tapping enhanced by technical means. The best known or talked about was for Gene Kelly in ?Singin? in The Rain.? The famous dance number of Gene in the rain was all technically enhanced by the sound department. Gene had the dance number simply shot first and then the sound department had dancers Gwen Verdon and Carol Haney add in all the splashes and spattering of the sounds, all appearing as if it was coming from Gene?s footsteps! It?s only been recently that millions of fans have come to realize that hardly any of the tap dancing sounds were not naturally or so easily heard without the use of some technical help!

> {quote:title=Hudson_Hawk wrote: > > And I'd much rather see film adaptations of the works of Isaac Asimov, of where there has been exactly one, the recent, and disappointing I, ROBOT with Will Smith. > > It's all the more shocking because Asimov's books, novellas and short stories are tailor-made for adaptation into screenplays, as they're quite plot-heavy. Well, Asimov?s story ?Nightfall? has been done twice. Both film versions (One low budget and the other somewhat well made) failed to make an impression. It?s rather strange to see Asimov being hailed as one of the greatest Sci-Fi writers of the 20th Century by various filmmakers, not receive any real solid consideration for a majority of his written works being translated onto the motion picture screen. The production of ?I, Robot? wasn?t all that bad, but by now I believe the subject matter of civilization relying on mechanical slave labor has been over done. There is still plently of time for somebody in the movie business to get around to finally creating a major, well polished and informative film version of a good Asimov story.

> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote: > > {quote:title=MovieProfessor wrote:}{quote} > > But then, nobody can really pinpoint just when the whole idea of creating a film version of the Robert Heinlein classic Scifi novel will get finally made. > > Let us hope if it ever does get made, it will be better than some previous adaptations of Robert Heinlein novels. Strange . . . That none of the film adaptions of a Heinlien novel have been considered so memorable in terms of having become bona fide classics. While some of the film versions of Heinlien have been considered successful, such as "Destination Moon" and perhaps as recent as the "Starship Troopers" film series, most of Heinlien's written works have remained out of the mainstream of having become a regularly created transformed motion picture. So far, the best film version of a Heinlien work in my book is the 1994, "The Puppet Masters."

fredbaetz wrote:> There has been a script floating around Hollywood for years. Tim Minear who did screenplays for "The X-Files" and "FireFly" and "Angel" has been at it since around 2005, but as of yet, as far as I know there is no filming started.. This is absolutely correct! There has never been a film version that has gone into actual production as of yet. So far, everything is still in the talking stage and it seems that everything from who will direct to the size of the budget has made the situation stall and keep from getting underway. It's now projected a possible date for production around 2011. But then, nobody can really pinpoint just when the whole idea of creating a film version of the Robert Heinlein classic Scifi novel will get finally made.

TikiSoo wrote: > > Is the difference when a corporation goes public? Walt always had backers for his full length features, but was Disney as a whole still a privately owned company? When did the stock go public (I had Disney stock in the 70's) and did it have any bearing on Walt's "long term vision vs short term profit"? > > Or was Disney always publicly owned and the difference happened when stockholders started DEMANDING quarterly gains every quarter? Was it Wall Street that killed the beast? And when did that shift take place? From a technical, financial standpoint, things began to change for the Disney Company, when the cost to make animated films simply skyrocketed into the 1950s. Thereby, Walt had to make a shift towards new methods or visual technologies in order to save money and then make a reasonable profit. While the Disney Company always enjoyed a good box office return, what really created a few problems along financial lines was the various other business ventures Walt engaged in tackling. He was wise to incorporate a live-action feature film unit that began around the mid 1940s. This proved to be another success that some in the movie business felt wouldn?t be so profitable. It wasn?t until Walt joined forces with first the ABC television network in 1954 and his over extending the company?s interest with ?Disneyland? that things began to get tight and tough over the next ten or so years. Adding to the problems he was having with the vast amount of time it took to make a full-length animated feature film, Walt had to cut so many corners that changed the scope and destiny of not only his studio, but everything he created towards the animated feature film. The most painful result was the loss of countless jobs in the animated field that could no longer be held; due to newer and faster methods to creating the Disney animated motion pictures. In simpler terms, the company got big beyond everyone?s expectations and extensions towards other possible means of investment had to be realized. In 1961, Walt then moved over the NBC television network. He would have perhaps the most successful partnership with that network than any other in the history of American entertainment. The Sunday night program of ?Walt Disney?s The Wonderful World of Color? was and is still considered a masterpiece of creative entertainment that even by today?s standard is hard to match! In the long run, Walt?s last great masterpiece, ?Mary Poppins? was a sign of the future that is now with us today. The whole animated feature film business, that he help invent has now become so common place, but we all know deep in our hearts that Walt Disney Pictures remains in the forefront of what this type of entertainment represents.

That?s an interesting analogy you make with the town in ?Violent Saturday? with that of ?Peyton Place.? There has been from a historical standpoint, a comparison made between ?Violent Saturday? and MGM?s production of ?Bad Day at Black Rock.? Here we have two films, about a small town crime and both released the same year of 1955. While the films aren?t exactly so similar, they do share a common link connected to the happenings and atmosphere that go on in remote places. Technically speaking, the most obvious connection between the films is actor Ernest Borgnine and Lee Marvin appearing in both films. ?Bad Day at Black Rock? remains the superior film. Despite a rather flamboyant and excessive sentiment to its storyline, ?Violent Saturday? does have some really good aspects to its plot and a few nice performances.

It?s nice to read that someone can appreciate one of the finest works of American entertainment. The original stage version as written by George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart was loosely based around the life and times of Alexander Woollcott. He was one of the country?s most important and influential critics. Woollcott even had a popular radio program that consisted of interviews and commentary. He was best remembered for the various friendships he made with famous celebrities. This is especially the case with the two writers of ?The Man Who Came to Dinner.? Both Kaufman and Hart had hoped that Woollcott himself might consider playing the role of ?Sheridan Whiteside,? but he wisely realized he was too caught up in his work and that it best not conflict with the possible success of the stage show. So, the role was then offered to the young and talented friend of Woollcott, Orson Welles. But, Orson too turned down the opportunity, realizing he wasn?t technically ready, due in large part to his age. The two writers, then turned to another good friend, Monty Woolley to tackle the role and the rest is such wonderful history. It wasn?t until the stage show became such a huge success, that Woollcott then decided on playing the role, when the show went out on tour. Over the years, it?s been contemplated as to who the various characters in the story are based on. The list of ideas and theories keeps changing with the passing of time. The best and probably most obvious assumption is as follows: The character of the sweet, mysterious old lady of the house, ?Miss Sedley? is based on the famous axe murderer ?Lizzie Borden!? The wild and flamboyant character of ?Banjo? is in reference to one of the famed ?Marx Brothers.? Most of the votes on this character favor ?Harpo Marx,? but it could also be brother ?Chico.? The most famous Marx brother, ?Groucho? has received some votes, but because brother ?Harpo? joined Woollcott in the show, playing ?Banjo,? when it went on national tour, this has led to his being the basis of the character. I tend to totally agree with this theory. The ?Beverly Carlton? character is said to be that of ?Noel Coward.? He too was a closed and trusted friend to Woollcott. ?Lorraine Shelton? is most likely legendary actress ?Tallulah Bankhead.? When it came time for a movie version, Warner Brothers won out on the rights to film the story. It was for its time, a highly prized property. The studio decided on utilizing the immortal John Barrymore in the role of ?Whiteside.? He was in dire need of a comeback to his career. Barrymore had also been a close friend to the writers and Woollcott. The great actor screen tested and would have won the role, had he not succumb to illness, bought on by his acute alcoholism. Once again, Orson was asked if he would consider the role, but he was tied up with his own film career over at RKO Pictures. The casting for ?Whiteside? finally ended up being no contest, with handing over the role to Monty Woolley. Together with actress Mary Wickes (who played the nurse), Ruth Vivian (as Miss Sedley), they were the only original members of the stage show in the film. The screenplay for the film version was more or less successfully translated on the big screen by the writing team of brothers Philip and Julius Epstein. These two would later go on win ?Oscars? for writing most of the screenplay of ?Casablanca.? One of the best directors at Warner?s, William Keighley, managed to bring in most of the hilarious aspects from the original stage show. The film was both a critical and financial success. As to whether it was as good as the original stage show is still a constant debate. After all, original stage versions are still being revived, both professionally and on the amateur level. The stage show has truly become one of the most popular of the 20th Century. There have also been adaptations for radio and original television productions. In 1972, Orson Welles finally got his chance to play ?Whiteside? in a ?Hallmark Hall of Fame? production on the NBC Television Network. The 1972 version was then updated for the times. Perhaps the most unusual, if not embarrassing situation concerning the original play came in 1967. A big and expensive musical version was created by songwriters James Lipton and Laurence Rosenthal. The musical show had lots of good publicity and singer Andy Williams even made a recording of the title song to the show. However, the musical turned out to be one of the biggest flops of the year. It simply didn?t translate this time into a new format. As of now, the original version for both stage and screen remains as the best offering to consider from two of America?s greatest writers.

aminahyaquin wrote: > THE UCLA folks, in particular Mark Q., astounded me with extremely timely and generous offers of assistance, and sincere interest. > I am most grateful to the folks who replied thus far for their sterling help. I was glad to aid you aminahyaquin . . . I figured UCLA would be the place to go! Good Luck in your quest . . . MP.