MovieProfessor

What pains me about this whole issue on ?Eliza? have more to do with the musicality then anything else. In the finial analysis it?s what gave the original 1964 version such a bad rap. I fear the same will happen with this new remake, in that as far as I can tell, Knightley has no real solid musical experience to be remotely considered a singer. While Hathaway sounds impressive and technically looks good, I have to wonder if she really ?fits-the-bill? to what the role demands in certain areas, especially the ?cockney? scenes. What I?m gearing towards which is nothing more than a fantasy of mine would be to see a ?screen test? of both actresses to make a side-by-side comparison. My test would focus upon the musical end of the sperctum that probably Hathaway would win easily from what I?ve seen of her singing. Then, the dramatic elements come next that from a strong cultural sense favor Knightley! So, either way I guess neither actress would satisfy my confidence in that the role has to be totally, across the broad along the lines of what Julie did for it. Upon reading up about the remake, I sense an atmosphere of a lukewarm response and nothing to be so excited about. But then, is there anyone else amid the actresses today who could pull it off from an artistic way of thinking? We have to ask other than Hathaway, ?who else could handle it?? Just yesterday a friend of mine remarked on the subject, ?Face it, there really isn?t anyone!?

The episode you are referring to is from 1961, entitled ?Hanover.? This ?Alfred Hitchcock? program has tremendous significance because it reunited Jayne with wonderful Tony Randall. Jayne and Tony had worked together four years earlier in the now cult favorite film, ?Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter.? You can view the entire episode on Hulu channel: http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi1574436889/ |http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi1574436889/

He is definitely in a group of old supporting actors, whose face is so recognizable. Having been in scores of television programs for over 50 years, it?s no wonder William Schallert has always had some acknowledged long lasting career. He?s still going strong at age 87! While he doesn?t work as much as he use to, anytime Schallert arrives at the scene of a shooting project, somebody always remembers him. His career for an actor in Hollywood was rather typical in the sense that he drifted from B-movies, where he?d received screen credit and then into a major film where he usually had no screen credit at all. The truth is that he?s more remembered as a major player in television and not films. His best film performance or one that I remember so vividly was in the 1952 Monogram Pictures production of ?Flat Top.? He played a naval aviator and gave one of the picture?s best dramatic performances. Although Schallert appeared in major films, his working time on the set was usually quick and almost unnoticeable. He did over a hundred unaccredited ?walk-ons,? first in movies and then television. While this would signify he was a working actor in Hollywood, he relates more to television, where he finally made his mark receiving good roles and exposure. This issue of having become more noted for the small screen, instead of the big one, points to why TCM would probably not be so interested in interviewing Schallert. There are about a dozen or so, old-timers like him still around, who have had an extensive career in television towards making them defined in that medium and not so much the movies. Schallert was just recently seen in episodes of ?Desperate Housewives? and he continues to do voiceovers for animated films and narrations for television commercials.

I believe if my sources are correct, it was Paulette Duval.

It?s not that I want to get picky, but when I think about Julie and her skills, I have to think that Knightley is nowhere near what?s really expected . . . And, that?s an overall solid interpretation of the songs in a really good, pleasant range. I have to think that Knightley getting the role is something akin to Hepburn and she will never be in Julie?s league in the first place . . . Correct?

Oh NO! I knew it! My gut feeling was right! It tells me: NO! Not again! That clip of Knightley was not impressive and if that?s a sample of what she can do . . . I?m afraid she looks like she?s going to need help . . . Like you know who, way back in late 1963, at the soundstages of Warner Brothers. Of course, I could be overstating myself about Knightley and maybe, just maybe there?s more to her than this video is revealing. I?d hate to see a classic musical get butchered on the screen. There is a feeling I have that a contemporary attempt for remake, under these conditions so far spells doom and probable failure. I wonder what the budget for this new venture would be. Certainly has to be cheaper than the first one . . . Or, will inflation change even that?

Although there might be some speculation that the character Kane played was based on a real actress in silent films, it?s actually a composite of several women that were in Valentino?s life. He had numerous relationships with various women throughout his career, even after his marriage to Rambova, he never really stopped messing around. There has never been a definitive, reasonably believable film biography on Valentino?s life. He remains a legend of the 20th Century, shrouded in so much necromancy.

Wow! Not bad . . . That video of Hathaway does display a good amount of versatility. While it?s difficult to judge by just one video, I would prefer to see and hear Hathaway perform something like ?I Could Have Danced All Night,? or ?Show Me.? These are two songs from the musical that require a bit of range and technique. When Hepburn wanted to do her own singing, she made few interesting test-tracks. These recordings by Hepburn aren?t all that bad for the lighter, less demanding tunes, but she could have never done anything adequate with the two songs I?ve previously mentioned. I have a bad feeling that maybe, just maybe their could be a dubbing issue lurking in the shadows . . . I don?t know, but it?s a gut feeling I have about something going amiss with this remake in the sense of lacking some solid musical legitimacy. The choice of Knightley makes me think of Hepburn in the sense of her big popular appeal, rather than being so identified as a real, bona fide musical performer. Are there any recordings of Knightley around?

Of course, not knowing anything about Knightley as a musical performer, my contention is that because she?s a real Brit, she would be more legit in the role. I also didn?t know anything in terms of Hathaway?s abilities. Johansson I know does sing, even having recorded an album, but again, I wonder if she would be up to the task. I do agree that something is rather strange about Knightley?s physique; she does appear to be very thin. What I know about the box-office take on ?My Fair Lady? is that it did take in more than double money to produce the film. The best estimated guess I?ve found is the film costing 17 million and it received a 72 million dollar return over all. While this isn?t the biggest money maker of all time, it was a respectable profit.

I saw the original with Julie and Rex back in 1956 on Broadway. I?ve never forgotten what a spectacular show it was and I was rooting for Julie to recreate the role on screen. I never accepted Audrey in the role. She was beautiful and her dramatic performance was at best, adequate. But of course, the whole idea that she really couldn?t handle the songs has stayed with me and at times hinders how I feel about the movie in general. So, I simply hedge my feelings on Rex and Stantley . . . They are the only redeeming factor for me to deal with the movie version. The movie really belonged to Rex and the great Stanley Holloway. Jack L. Warner handed in a great looking film, but in the long run what made ?My Fair Lady? the movie great was all the work and time poured onto it in order to make it a spectacle to behold. In the end, it was a big money picture that in general paid off big for the investment Warner made. In a business way at looking the situation and what finally resulted for what Jack L. Warner wanted, he succeeded. He might have proved himself right about the money angle and choosing a big name star, but he didn?t succeed artistically speaking and I think you?ll agree with me on that issue. This upcoming remake is interesting from what I?ve read. First off, can Miss Knightley sing at all? And, the idea that it?s going to filmed on location around London, in real areas associated to the period of the story is rather intriguing. Perhaps the biggest news I?ve heard associated with the remake is Emma Thompson will revamp the original script. So far, there?s talk of Daniel Craig being cast as ?Higgins? but this isn?t concrete and not confirmed. Miss Knightley is said to be glad that she will be reunited with Joe Wright, who directed her both ?Atonement? and ?Pride & Prejudice.? I understand that two major American actresses were up for the role, Scarlett Johansson and Anne Hathaway. This information on the possible casting of ?Eliza? leads me to feel that is was fit and proper to have Knightley win the role. I just hope she?s up to the task, but we?ll just have to wait and see. I wonder what?s next. The last rumor I heard was a remake of ?West Side Story.?

The only way you can get "The Human Comedy" is on VHS . . . Copies are available all over the internet. You can't even get it on import DVD from overseas. Since Turner own the rights, this is the place to ask and as far as I know there are no plans yet for a DVD release. Everyone's best bet is to use a DVR, if and when TCM aires it again. You can then get a pretty good decent copy.

You are most welcome and that was an eloquent and provocative post!

Comon? on now Johnm . . . If you?ve been around the movies as long as I have you?d know that business or the fear of profit comes first. Overall, Jack was just thinking about his investment. Considering the overall price Warner Brothers had paid Lerner & Lowe for the rights, which if you remember were the highest paid for any film up to that time, there must have been a lot of nail biting! It is funny that a few studio chiefs said different or felt that Jack should make some allowances, this is indeed true to form. I still stand behind my belief that while I never agreed with what Jack did in terms of how he handled the situation, had he been able to get a big name star in the role of ?Higgins? _*first*_ and this is the key, I?m convinced Julie would have been in! She was as you mentioned, on a roll of popularity! There was also her major, ?live? television concert at Carnegie Hall with Carol Burnett that pretty much should have given her some, if not, enough leverage. The fact is that there were millions, upon millions who knew who she was by way of television! I can?t doubt that it?s likely the whole issue of ?appearance? was what bothered Jack in the end, besides all the money Warner Brothers was dishing out to make the movie. In the long run, it was a decision he would never be able to get away from. I?m sure he must have had some regrets; especially the following year and you know what happened with Julie when that came about! This leads me to wonder, even after Audrey agreed to be in the film, why then did Jack feel so compelled to hire Rex Harrison? He was a known film star, but wasn?t a big a box-office draw. Enough time had lapsed since Harrison had been in the show. Once Jack got his superstar female lead, he must have felt his problems were over. My guess is at that point Harrison was lucky that no other well known box-office draw stood in his way. The issue of the original cast album is interesting as a ploy of leverage or understanding the success of the original show. However, I serious doubt there was really enough strength in that department to obviously sway Jack. The hiring of Harrison pretty much proves to me that if Jack couldn?t get a big enough male star, he then moved on to the next big thing, the female lead. That?s simple enough to comprehend. I?m not trying to defend Jack in as much as he had his reasons that we will probably never know what finally led to his decision. The fact is that he could have gotten Andrews cheap! That?s another issue that seems to be rather strange in the final analysis. It just might have always been a money issue, but perhaps in areas we just don?t know about or have never been discussed.

He produced Woman of the Year. It seems his early period as a producer was while at MGM fruitful, but he wasn't really happy sitting behind a desk at the front office.

Mankiewicz movies I would recommend: (not in any special order) 1. A Letter To Three Wives 2. Woman of The Year 3. The Keys of the Kingdom 4. No Way Out 5. People Will Talk (Incredible script! One of his finest) 6. Five Fingers 7. All About Eve 8. His documentary ?Montgomery to Memphis? 9. The Late George Apley In answer to your last questions: I knew Clarence Brown . . . He was an idol of mine and I worshiped the ground he walked on. There?s a lot I could say about him, but its best I stay with the main subjects at hand and not use this forum as a personalized area to tell stories that can?t be proven, let alone approved. And, about the bio on De Millie . . . Well, it was no secret that C.B. got ticked-off at Joe because he wouldn?t name-names or expel members of the director?s guild that De Millie felt were radical, if not, too red and far to the left! This resulted in a terrible power play in the guild that subsequently ended with De Millie getting tossed out! That was a crazy time. Everybody was living and working under a cloud of fear. Joe?s contention to this matter was to try and protect as many of his friends and colleagues as possible. It wasn't as if those who had radical leanings could overthrow the government! The big turning point came when John Ford and a few other directors supported Joe?s position. This was especially the case when De Millie tried to get Joe voted out of his presidency at the director?s guild. What a mess that was and how so many decent people suffered over nothing that really needed to be worried about.

Alas! Now we have something to work with! Of the directors you make mention of under ?in my opinion,? only four would be considered great scriptwriters, Wilder, Brooks, Stevens and Lubitsch. All others are visual directors, not relying so much on the written word! I?m fascinated by your inclusion of Clarence Brown . . . I have a very, very big reason to ask! I?d like to know what films of Brown you find superior to that of Mankiewicz. The whole idea behind a J. L. Mankiewicz movie was always the script first and then the usual camera setups. He was a man who concentrated vividly over the spoken word. His only problems dealt with the restrictions and censorship of the times when he so creatively worked in films. He learned his craft from his older brother, who hands down, I will admit was an even better writer than J. L., even after Joe Mankiewicz reached the height of his career at 20th Century-Fox. Herman?s only problem was staying away from the booze that he often said gave him inspiration. My only response to the writer?s category is that they are all great and of course I would venture to place Joe on that list. Interesting that you mention who has to be Charles Brackett. After all, the script of ?Sunset Boulevard? that he co-wrote with Billy Wilder, that won an Academy Award was the very same year Joe?s script for ?All About Eve? won in its category! I think that ought to spell out a clear and logical conclusion as to just how high on the mantel of scriptwriting Joe was considered in Hollywood. Unfortunately, Michael Wilson getting blacklisted didn?t give him much of a chance to have a big career. He was absolutely a great writer . . . BUT TELL ME SOMETHING . . . Who directed one of his greatest of all scripts? You know, ?The Five Fingers?? Hmm? Who was that director/writer, who after Mike got blacklisted, stood behind him and allowed him a chance to work? WHO IS IT? Comon now, tell me? If there is one script Joe Mankiewicz wrote that for me is his greatest, it would be ?A Letter To Three Wives.? I only rate this script higher over his greatest success ?All About Eve? simply because Joe did a brilliant job in symbolically covering so many emotional aspects to the human spirit that even today has a strong meaning. In other words, although the dialog is peppered with innuendos and the usual metaphors necessary for the period, the whole concept of what the three woman characters of the story go through is made clear by Joe?s beautiful words and expressive direction. I don?t think there has ever been a film on screen with such modern literary beauty that spoke to its time and place. The key to Mankiewicz is what he called ?the human condition? and he certainly wasn?t afraid to tackle subjects that spoke about or centered on a central theme to what was wrong with the world or what was funny about it. For all that?s said and done, his body of work isn?t prolific, but what there is of it speaks volumes upon volumes of what our American culture, its people and spirit is all about. Yeah, I will admit that there came a time he got a bit commercial. This only happened because times changed and Hollywood changed. What he should have done was try and branch out on his own like Billy Wilder did. Joe?s biggest flaw was that he wasn?t so lucky overall as a producer. He got a bit spoiled by the studio system that would cater to give him what asked for, making him feel comfortable. He was on all counts a product or child of the studio system, together with his older brother Herman. You are entitled to your opinion, but there are some ideas, theories or expressive thought that require a little clarification to a point of debating, if not, defending. And, I just loved the 1950 movie ?Fancy Pants? with Bob Hope and Lucille Ball . . . I?m in good company!

I?ve read of a different time frame concerning the availability of Andrews. However, it?s logical that Disney and Warner?s would have been able to stretch the situation out and make it all work. About the time ?My Fair Lady? was in its planning stage, Andrews had a lot of support from the entertainment community. Most memorable were two major primetime spots on television. One appearance was on a Jack Benny Special and the other on the highly rated Andy Williams Show. Warner Brothers tried to work out something along the effect that she could only get the role, based on what male star would be selected in order to ensure a safe investment. It is clearly correct that after all these years, the one thing that held any chance of Andrews getting the role was Hepburn. It?s likely that because Andrews had lots of support on her getting cast, whatever major box-office male star received the lead role of ?Higgins,? could have very well swayed Warner and therefore this is why her chances from a technical and prestigious standpoint were always 50/50. The problem or mistake Jack L. Warner made was not referring to the old publicity game. Had he chosen Andrews, he could have very well made up for any doubts by way of a good and big promotional campaign. But then, all of this rested with who would get the role of ?Higgins.? It?s logical to think that Warner never wanted Andrews from day one, but being around the movie business, things are said one day in a certain way, to then see it all said in another way. I now believed after all years that by some miracle had Cary said yes, he would have naturally then supported the casting of Andrews! That?s the bottom line! What we have here are events that are now shrouded in a bit of conjecture and opinions that have changed over the years. I?m pretty sure in time Warner regretted how he handled the situation. But then, he did what any studio boss felt was necessary. Deep down inside, he knew that Andrews would have been the proper choice from a musical perspective. Once Andrews was out of the picture, what everyone ought to not forget is what would have happened had Warner not cast Rex Harrison? On top of everything else, one can only imagine the enormous backlash of criticism that would have created. Warner obviously made amends in that category. Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 27, 2009 3:15 PM

> Sorry if I have offended anyone with this, but surely some of you agree with me, yes? I seriously doubt any die-hard, film buff, student of the cinema, plain and simple intelligent fan, or any old-timer like me from that era would ever believe or think for one single, solitary moment the great Joseph L. Mankiewicz of ever being over-rated! Good God . . . Have you been drinking? Are you on any medications? Looking from a perspective of the times Mankiewicz worked in Hollywood, one should try and understand what restrictions there was to filmmaking and this is why Mankiewicz tried to be so articulate with his scripts. He was geared towards working with performers to a high degree of understanding the spoken word and not so much anything so visual. Of course, you must be young? Not from that era? But then, you didn?t compare Mankiewicz to whom who might feel is superior? That?s what I?d like to hear and then we?ll take it from there.

Fred, It was the "proving grounds" around "White Sands" not far from where the atomic bomb was created and then tested. It was that area after the war where most of the German scientist worked on the US Rocket program.

Oh wait! One more point. In the years following what happened with ?My Fair Lady? and the casting of Audrey Hepburn, producer Jack L. Warner said before he died, ?I would have Andrews in the picture, had Cary Grant decided to star!? Warner had from the start, wanted Grant in the role of ?Professor Higgins,? made famous by Rex Harrison on stage. Had this been done, the fate of another musical movie that same year would have been very different! It?s clear to note that Julie wouldn?t have been cast in Walt Disney?s ?Mary Poppins!? Yet, either way you look at it, be it ?My Fair Lady? or ?Mary Poppins,? Julie probably would have won her ?Oscar? anyway! Audrey simply helped speed up the process of Julie getting such huge notoriety and a lot of sympathy. It?s was all so amazing the way Julie Andrews rose to the heights of movie star fame and box-office clout. All of it resulting from a simple business decision that changed the scope and destiny of the movies. What a year 1964 was and will remain such a banner year in movie history.

You are absolutely correct from all things historical! The ?My Fair Lady? situation that was marred by Julie Andrews being by passed was later hampered even more by Audrey Hepburn having to be dubbed! The entertainment news wasted no time in exploiting the issue that for the most part was taking to task the decision to cast Hepburn, with everyone knowing full well she was no match for Andrews on a musical perspective. So, one had to wonder if the whole idea of making the movie was simply an updated version of ?Pygmalion? and the beautiful songs were to be placed on a secondary level of consideration. This I think hurt not only the legitimacy of making the movie, but was highly instrumental in creating a hassle for Hepburn. No doubt, the criticism hit her hard that although wasn?t really directed towards her on a personal level, it would follow her for the rest of her life and professional career! "My Fair Lady" was simply saved by two factors, first Rex Harrison's performance and second the 17 million dollars spent to make it one of the most beautiful movies up to that time! The problem when making a musical film and somebody gets dubbed centers around where exactly is the significant emphasis of the film that in turn surrounds a major role. While some movies get away with the issue of dubbing, this happens simply because one or two of the principal characters to the musical storyline will have what is clearly a legitimate musical performer placed in the role! Then, even if there is a good amount of dubbing to various major roles, the film itself has to carry the burden of emphasizing the overall quality of the film! A good example is a block-buster as ?The King & I,? that while Deborah Kerr didn?t really sing and for a time it was kept something of a secret, the whole dubbing issue was overshadowed by the vast beauty and scope of the film, including the incredible performance by Yul Brynner. Another example is ?West Side Story.? Here you had about five of the major roles all dubbed! But, what overshadows this issue is the real essential point to the success of the musical, its dancing!! So, somewhere along the line to success, there has to be lingering around other factors to save the movie from oblivion! By 1972, ?Man of La Mancha? had no chance of getting around the dubbing issue, due in large part to the musical being considered in the same caliber as ?My Fair Lady.? Therefore, enough memories had lingered on to feel that the legitimacy factor couldn?t be so easily overlooked. What was initially thought that might save any harsh criticisms was the idea that a good dramatic element or backdrop to the film would suppress or bypass the changes made to the original concept of the musical. In hindsight, it might have been more acceptable to have a real, qualified singer in the starring role, but movies tend to depend on other factors that relate strongly to the whole illusionary aspect about filmmaking. This is why for the longest time during the early half of the 20th Century movies weren?t taken so seriously as the ?live stage.? We have to face the facts that you can get away with it on a movie screen, but not in front of a live audience! Anyway, after all these years it now seems that filmmakers realize the need to be real or forthright about what they present on screen in terms of the performing factor to a musical. After all, with what can be done today using computer or digital effects, it?s no wonder we?ve come to this need to feel confident and admire a performance that we know is 100 percent real and whatever fantasy or deception there is comes from the natural talent we experience.

Be on the lookout this week for a very interesting movie entitled, ?The Crash.? Produced in 1932, this motion picture is something of a typical ?studio showcase? for what was essentially a major star. In this case, ?The Crash? was one in a series of few films, starring an almost forgotten movie star, talented and exhilarating Ruth Chatterton. The story of her life and career would make for a novel or even a film in of itself! Chatterton, whose career is hardly ever talked about, let alone, has not been so clearly and deeply chronicled was one of those unique, once in a lifetime stories of Hollywood that for the most part has faded away amid more noted movie stars that managed to have a longevity that her film career never did. Like many girls starting out in show business, Chatterton made a huge impact on the live stage, becoming a sensation at age 20, in the highly popular comedy, ?Daddy Long Legs.? Her quick raise to fame and glory as an actress, at first didn?t transcend to Hollywood smoothly, due in part to Chatterton not being enthusiastic to work in silent-films. In 1928, she decided to take an offer from Paramount Pictures and began what she believed would be nothing more than a sideshow for her to consider. Fate had Chatterton make only one silent movie, ?Sins of the Fathers.? She then moved on to the new medium of talking-pictures! This was a very fascinating technical aspect in that Chatterton might be considered the very first, devoted, popular stage actress to have not had any long term career in silent movies! The medium of talking pictures would simply allow Chatterton the means to display her various skills that had made her famous; her emotional range as an actress was by that time considered one of the finest. In no time, Chatterton was Paramount?s top dramatic star. After three successful early sound films, in 1929, she was lent to MGM, where she appeared in what many film buffs believe to be her greatest performance in the classic soap-opera ?Madam X.? This motion picture was one of the smash hits of the year, garnering for Chatterton an Academy Award nomination. At the time of this success, already there were mutterings that Chatterton was a reflection of MGM?s biggest dramatic star, mighty Norma Shearer. Yet, some film historians have countered to say that it was Shearer who actually patterned herself after Chatterton. The technical truth is that Shearer had a longer career in films than Chatterton ever did. Chatterton came late on the movie screen and it?s likely that Paramount had all along wanted to compete against MGM in this dramatic category. I myself tend to believe that Chatterton came to films based around the success of Shearer. The two women had personas that were strikingly similar, as well as their acting skills seem to compliment each other! Throughout the early 1930s, the two actresses were symbolic rivals for the admiration of the movie fans. It?s even been reported that Chatterton lost out to Shearer on receiving various roles. The most famous being ?A Free Soul,? that won Shearer an Academy Award. The next series of films Chatterton made at Paramount were in typical melodramatic form of women who struggled to find love or emotional fulfillment. These types of films, pretty much made Chatterton incredibly popular with female audiences, who clamored for more of the same. By 1930 and in less than two years, Chatterton was a major dramatic movie star, right on the heels in popularity behind Norma Shearer. It was all too obvious that talking-pictures was key to making Chatterton a success, because unlike most actresses at the time, Chatterton understood the importance of good diction and a style of elegance that made her image on screen reap with a passion that transfixed most movie going audiences to admiring her skill as an actress. In no time, Chatteton was a highly paid movie star and the subject of everything that was fashionable to the women in America. She was making at least 3 major films a year, right up until the time she left her popular career at Paramount Pictures to sign on with Warner Brothers and First National Pictures. It was right after moving over to the new studio, she met her second husband in 1932, actor George Brent. Warner?s cleverly placed the newly married performers in a series of popular melodramas. Despite these films not being so worthy of Chatterton?s talents, they kept her career on top or at least signifying she was one of the big box-office draws of the early 1930s. During this early period working at Warner?s, Chatterton met and befriended a young aspiring actress, whom she took under her wing by the name of Bette Davis! Later on came another good friendship with another actress she influenced, Kay Francis. Chatterton gained a rather wonderful reputation of being forthright and kind to those she worked with that would be something of a trademark throughout her career in films. She never really felt threatened or have a need to be so animated, creating false imagery as a means of exploiting herself. This was one trait that undoubtedly Bette Davis learned from Chatterton. During her marriage to actor Brent, Chatterton?s film career began to slow down, spending more time at home. By the middle of the decade, Chatterton seemed disinterested in continuing on with a steady or regularly scheduled career in movies. When her marriage to Brent ended in divorce and her box-office appeal slipped, she accepted the enviable point that time might be against her, in terms of the high fashionable style of imagery that was created for her movie star career. In 1936, she appeared in the highly praised dramatic film, ?Dodsworth? opposite Walter Huston that was her last great performance for a major Hollywood production. Chatterton would in later years feel that she became distracted by allowing Hollywood to focus more on a selling point of creating an image that didn?t necessarily have anything to do with what?s expected of a fine actress. Here again there had to be an influential connection that was passed on to Bette Davis. I?ve always believed that Bette having known and watched Chatterton those early years at Warner Brothers, she caught on to the pitfalls film stars face when a studio takes too much control of one?s artistic drive to succeed. Chatterton would once remark, ?A problem arises when you realize it?s more a business than a creative process.? By the end of the 1930s, Chatterton was out of the Hollywood scene, having gone to England, making several films and then returning to America to reestablish a moderately good career on the Broadway stage. Then came ?live television? and within the new electronic medium she surprisingly did well, appearing in some highly praised dramatic productions. But, an even bigger surprise was Chatterton deciding on becoming a writer! She had several successful novels published, signifying a big unexpected career move that brought her back under the celebrity spotlight. Upon becoming a writer, she gave up completely on acting and she enjoyed a good third marriage. Chatterton proved that she wasn?t afraid to keep herself and love of the creative process alive and functioning at whatever extent there was to making it worthwhile. She was in so many regards a remarkable person, to have had a short, but glorified film career, accepted its changes and disappointments, only to see her reach out towards other endeavors and give her life a pleasure or even a second chance few ever get. By the way, another factor to her life and times was that Chatterton was a good and close friend to aviator Amelia Earhart! Funny, that right now there is a major new film about the legendary aviator! Later on Chatterton became a flyer herself, making several solo flights across the country! The new film about Earhart makes no mention of Chatterton; I found this rather strange. Chatterton turned out to be a woman whose life simply knew no boundaries, thus she acquired a reputation as a fearless individual. She was in many ways a pioneer to women in general, who had a need to branch out beyond the daily confines set forth by the conventionalities of society. While Chatterton wasn?t the only actress in Hollywood to have a successful career, shrouded by a maverick image, she was undoubtedly one of the very first who represented this bold new way of celebrating her life as well as having for a short time a triumph to her endeavors. He died in 1961 at her home in Connecticut.

The issue with O?Toole being dubbed had more to do with the production company holding out and not wanting to admit to the fact! This bothered a few critics, who knew full well that O?Toole?s voice had been tampered with. Things got crazy, during the promotional phase for the movie. United Artists wanted the cast and crew to not address the issue if asked! Now, I will admit that this has happened in the past . . . Let?s look at Harry Cohn threatening anyone at Columbia Pictures giving away any mention that Rita Hayworth had been dubbed throughout her career at the studio! The problem for United Artists and everyone involved with ?Man of La Mancha? was that nobody in the business was going to play the old-game or even respect the wishes of a studio to let things stand and just go long with the illusion. Times had changed and no longer could a performer be so protected to not having a technical ability and have it hidden. Some have come off with a counter argument to this point being similar to an actor having a ?double? on the set for a given scene. This is a good argument, but singing I think is something very deep and personal to the issue that the voice is symbolic to everything real and unreal to a performer! In others words, a speaking voice and a singing voice should be one in the same, if a performer creates the belief they can really carry a tune. If not, then there are consequences to consider, especially since the secret can?t stand-in for the reality of the situation when a performer goes out in public or is unexpectedly asked to sing! Remember ?Lina Lamont? in ?Singin? In The Rain?? In the long run, it all boils down to the film itself and how well it?s presented or can it really be convincing, if we try to accept the idea that somebody in the motion picture isn?t really singing. The best examples I can think of are ?Gypsy,? ?The King & I,? ?West Side Story,? ?My Fair Lady? and ?South Pacific.? All of these films were a huge success, while it was openly known some of the performers didn?t sing a note. By 1972, it just wasn?t easy any longer to be so accepted or taken seriously that a major star be hired and then dubbed. After all, what most likely destroyed any reputation that O?Toole had concerning his connection to ?Man of La Mancha? was his having not been dubbed for his other big musical pursuit, ?Good-bye Mr. Chips? in 1968. What?s clear is that O?Toole didn?t actually sing in the 1968 film, having talked his way around the tunes as Rex Harrison did so magnificently in ?My Fair Lady,? or Robert Preston in ?The Music Man.? So, for O?Toole this next time around, the critics and public had some doubts about O?Toole?s abilities one way or another. It just didn?t make any sense that he be chosen from any musical perspective to play what was essentially a demanding musical role for ?Man of La Mancha.? O?Toole was wonderful in ?Good-bye Mr. Chips,? simply because his role didn?t require any musical skill, other than interpret the songs from a dramatic angle. It?s now all but obvious that United Artists couldn?t take any chances with the production of ?Man of La Mancha,? realizing that something had to be done to give a musically enhanced legitimacy that in the end backfired and created a quagmire that the film company and even O?Toole couldn?t control and have probably never fully recovered from. I don?t think the 1972 ?Man of La Mancha? is a really bad film, it?s just a bad musical.

You said the keyword! "Awe Inspiring" . . . That?s just what happened with the original stage version. Yet, I now have to admit, I made a technical mistake about the musical?s history! To be correct: The original show, starring a really great and underrated actor, Richard Kiley was not a Broadway production, but opened ?Off-Broadway.? It wasn?t until a few years later and with revivals that the musical would finally make it to Broadway. What made the stage version such an incredible sensation was that everyone, absolutely everyone involved with major roles sang so beautifully. The show was akin to something like a grand opera! The finale is now considered one of the greatest in musical history that has a strong spiritual outcry, connecting itself to everything about the humane philosophical world of ?Miguel de Cervantes.? Rex Harrison was the original choice to star in the stage show, but had to bow out due to illness. It?s always been believed by fans, that had Rex done the role, he may have very well been in the movie version! Of course, in over 40 years, there have been scores of famous performers in the now classic role. Richard Kiley (whose performance I saw) in later life, made a living out of reviving the role he created . . . Just as Yul Brynnerr did with ?The King & I.? One of my favorite?s versions was one I saw with Howard Keel in the title role. The last really well received major revival was with Robert Goulet, appearing in several national tours of the show. Goulet would in later years believe it was probably the finest musical show and performance of his career. Musically speaking, Goulet was probably the best suited performer in the role with such a powerful and effective voice. Kiley was surprisingly good, although he was never really considered a singer. This I think is one of the amazing things about the original show, in that a highly respected actor, who was considered more for dramatic pursuits, turned out to be sensational. That sort of show business magic doesn?t come around very often. Besides, one aspect that probably ruined the movie version?s chances to being seriously accepted was that O?Toole ended up being dubbed for the singing.

?Man of La Mancha,? released in 1972 is without question one of the most massive failures in movie history. Even before the United Artists epic production made it to the theaters, it was doom with some of the worst feedback imaginable. Every screening of the motion picture resulted in tons of anxiety from critics and movie industry personnel who happened to catch the film before descending in theaters for its big road-show run. This movie was one of the very last, big screen ?stage-like? presentations with an overture, intermission and exit music. The truth was that already the public had been captivated by the success of Bob Fosse?s ?Cabaret,? that although was a more deeper, sinister and moody sort of musical story, unlike ?Man of La Mancha,? managed to stay faithful to its original concept from the Broadway stage. On top of the many changes made to the film version, what I think mainly happened with ?Man of La Mancha? centers around not utilizing legitimate musically accepted performers. The whole classical aura of the original stage production had transposed itself around stunning musical performances that the movie simply couldn?t live up to or surpass. The big international cast chosen for the film was impressive, especially from a prestigious angel as movies go. But, despite actor Peter O?Toole?s high reputation and having already been well received in another musical film, the 1968 ?Good-bye Mr. Chips,? O?Toole was out of his league for this one to be cast in the role as the legendary ?Don Quixote.? Sophia Loren may have looked and acted the part of the beautiful gypsy ?Dulcinea,? but again, she too was out of her accepted environment. Actor James Coco as ?Sancho Panza? handled the comedy well, but his singing abilities were less than inspiring. All in all, the three stars of the picture were hounded, shunned, laughed at and finally nearly crucified by the critics at large. Director Arthur Hiller took on most of the blame for the movie?s huge failure to live up to what many of the general public felt had been one of the finest musical experiences of the previous 1960 decade. To put it mildly or pun a line, ?the movie turned out to be an impossible dream!? United Artists must have felt very confident at the beginning, with just having dealt with the company?s greatest success since ?West Side Story,? the awesome musical film version of ?Fiddler on the Roof? for 1971. The millions spent to promote ?Man of La Mancha? and ending up with such unexpected disappointing results was a precursor for the company that came to full circle in 1981 and the ill fated western epic, ?Heaven?s Gate.? If anything can be said about ?Man of La Mancha,? it?s one of these memorable movies that are associated with down-right failure or just being plain bad. During the 1970s and into the 1980s, United Artists had a rather disoriented history in Hollywood with taking a lot of chances that for the most part didn?t work out. It was only ?James Bond? who has always held the company somewhat together.