MovieProfessor

I've also noticed that in the last year, the Fox Channel has not relied on regular showings, during the night or day of their classic film library from the 1930s/40s and now even the 1950s. Years ago, Fox was pretty good at showing even their widescreen films letter boxed. It now looks like everything along the lines of classic films will rest on TCM shoulders. Perhaps we can hope to see more films from Columbia, Universal, Paramount, United Artists and the mighty 20th Century-Fox on TCM. So far, TCM has managed to get a good amount of films made at these studios that are not really part of the TCM library. Let's hope that a certain amount of flexibility can be worked out, before a lot of good old movies totally disappear from sight. Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 20, 2009 2:16 AM

This is one of my favorites too! And, it sure can relate to what going on today. So, as Ginger said, "Old Man Depression you are through, you done us wrong!"

> Not matter how much you love someone, if that person has an addiction, you can only do so much. You can bang your head against the wall, over and over, trying to help. > No doubt about that . . .

You are right on the money! She was at the end, not eating properly. One time, ?Joe D.? took her out for dinner and she hardly ate only drinking wine and having an occasional breadstick. This isn?t exactly a healthy way to go about having dinner. Marilyn had earlier been dieting, having loss about 25 pounds. Add the pills and liquor to the situation and you have a time bomb waiting to explode! I?m not so sure if I can believe all the tales about her possibly being murdered, because of her state of mind and what she was going through with the diet, pills and constant drinking. When she drove about town in her Lincoln convertible, she had a small ice chest in the back seat with at least two bottles of champagne. Of course, we do have to take into account the times and the way doctors exploited prescriptions. I?ve always been haunted by ?Joe D.? not being able to help her. She must have still felt something for him, since towards the end she did take most of his phone calls and spoke to him lovingly. But, she probably went through a series of phases, one moment being level headed, while the next going off the deep end. Talk is that Marilyn was obsessed by the idea that she herself would go crazy like her mother and put away in an asylum. It?s the one truth about her that has remained unquestionable and rather clear to understand a part of her complicated nature.

I have to wonder if ?Valley of the Dolls? will ever be considered a worthwhile film. Of course, what made the movie so intriguing was the original best selling book it was based on that for the most part was trashed by the mainstream media. It?s only natural to surmise who Jacqueline Susann based the characters of her book on. The only reason why Susann was able to get her book published was due in large part to the various connections she had, both through friends and her (agent) husband. Perhaps the most pathetic situation surrounding the making of the movie was Susann originally casting Judy Garland in the role of ?Helen Lawson.? Susann may have thought that by getting Garland into the movie, she could then give her story a tremendous amount of creditability. Anyone who read the novel knew full well that one of the characters from the book was based on Garland herself! At the time, Garland was simply desperate and needed the money that was being offered. Much to Susann and the production team?s disappointment, Garland was uncooperative during her first few days on the set. After failing to get Garland in line with the shooting schedule, she was replaced by another great star, lovely Susan Hayward. Some fans have felt that Susan sold herself out by agreeing to replace Garland and appeared in what many people felt was nothing more than a pompous piece of trash. The whole Garland incident simply displayed a sort of ?no holds barred? consideration on the part of Susann and the production unit to give the project as much hype as possible. No matter how hard everyone associated to the movie tried, they couldn?t get any positive feedback or acceptance from the various show business circles. Even more chaos overshadowed the movie, when the great Ethel Merman, who was the basis of ?Helen Lawson? threaten to sue. Well, all of this nonsense did nothing but add a bit of the hype Susann wanted, but really didn?t give the movie any chance of ever being taken so seriously. I remember what one critic remarked: ?So they make a piece of trash, from a piece of trash.? It was logical to predict that the movie would go on to become a box-office success, but has since been considered nothing more than a rather destructive look at show business. It isn?t that the movie lied or exaggerated so much about its storyline; it just was all a commercially contrived piece of nonsense that in the end gave no long lasting and important meaning to be taken seriously. Beautiful Sharon Tate was obviously a ?Marilyn Monroe? type and the role of lovely Barbara Parkins was the alter ego of Susann herself! One can only imagine what might have happened on the set of the movie, had Judy Garland appeared opposite Patty Duke, who was clearly mimicking and copying everything possible from Garland?s actual career in the movies! It was from the very beginning easy to guess who the character of "Neely O'Hara," as portrayed by Duke was based on! This was the most controversial and probably most talked about issue surrounding the movie. Some fans now feel that Garland bowing out of the film was due to not being able to deal with the pressure of perhaps realizing the "Neely O'Hara role was her! That same year, actor Paul Burke, who gave what many feel was the only good performance in the movie, scored well in a superior film, ?The Thomas Crown Affair.? At least he had one good movie under his belt he could be proud of and get deserved respect. In the long run, ?Valley of The Dolls? was a piece of junk novel, turned into an even bigger piece of junk as a movie. Even though the public gave interest in seeing the movie, today the film is nothing more than a symbolic fragmented gesture to the era from which it came. It?s funny that the man chosen to direct the movie, Mark Robson, had ten years earlier directed a movie based on another famous novel, ?Peyton Place.? I would give his first attempt at bringing a famous soap opera novel to the screen high marks, while his second attempt with ?Valley of The Dolls? is a technical failure as a movie that only succeeded at the box-office because it ended up being something of a freak show. This is probably why ?Valley of The Dolls? will have a lot of cult status in the years to come.

Of recent times, I would have to go with the 1982 Sci-Fi epic, ?Blade Runner.? This movie has cult film written all over it. Even when it was first released, it became instantly shrouded in myths or controversies about how the film evolved. Like another great Sci-Fi film of the past, ?2001? from 1968, ?Blade Runner? was a film riddled with various mysteries and a backdrop of chaos. Whether or not it was all contrived to become a cult film is another theory that overshadows the movie. After all, several supposed different versions have been released or reedited. In the final analysis, none of the versions have made any big difference for any improvements. The film remains in a constant state of enigmatic conclusions as to say if the movie has any real meaning towards it evolution. It was one of these major projects of the 1980s that never really got off to a clear start on what the studio and its production team could agree upon. Today, a phenomenon has been created about ?Blade Runner? that although it can never really be considered a success will for generations to come be an interesting film to watch. Any movie that can achieve a cult status has more to do with a hypothesis of what might have been something great or a masterpiece. While other films that acquire cult status have more to do with their mediocrity that over time makes them popular and fun to watch. In the case of ?Blade Runner,? it?s one of these big movies that might have been great, but missed the mark at being totally accepted by fans and critics alike, only to see the film get a limited, devoted audience that relates strongly to what is designated as a cult movie.

Vidor turned out to be one of the few directors in Hollywood who didn?t accept the transition to ?talking pictures? so easily. He always said up to the time of his death that the silent movie had a visual freedom of expression, resulting in an art form that the coming of sound ruined. He even went on to state that the cameraman, using the old typical ?hand cranked? camera for silent movies was one of the main reasons for the style and imagery that made silent movies so intriguing. Vidor believed that the old system had a control that ?talking pictures? did away with, because with sound you didn?t have to really look at the visuals or the action on screen; you could now hear what was going on. This is a very interesting perspective from a successful filmmaker who felt jolted by the coming of new technologies. Of course, Vidor went on to work in sound and yet he never really felt so comfortable with the changes brought on by the medium of talking pictures. He hated the hold idea of having to deal with dialog and a working (talking) script! Throughout the rest of his career in Hollywood, he spent more time as a backup director, usually being called upon to finish a film, when a director got fired. Movie buffs have argued as to his best silent movie as opposed to his work in sound. My choices would be the 1928 silent, ?The Crowd" and then ?Stella Dallas? in 1937 for sound. Towards the end of his career, he became more commercially orientated and a lot of his innovative skill of the past was lost. He always blamed the changes brought on by sound for having restrained and narrowed his abilities. The controversial turning point for him probably came when he and producer David O. Selznick clashed during the making of ?Duel in the Sun.? It was the only time Vidor ever walked off a project and his career never really recovered after that incident. The rest of his directing career was in general rather mediocre or just plain standard major filmmaking as a director for hire. Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 19, 2009 7:34 PM Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 19, 2009 7:36 PM

There is strong reason to feel that all the pills, drugs and alcohol took its toll on the issue of her not being so level-headed on remembering her lines. She was in some ways physically frail. Yet, after all these years, all that remains for us to contemplate are theories that have only added to her long standing legend. By the time she made her last film, "The Misfits," she was totally burnt out and obviously in need of help.

At the time she appeared in "Niagara," she and "Joe D." had just started going together. It was probably her most happiest of times. That movie single handledly made her a huge international star and thus her legend began with "Niagara." One of my favortie of all publicity angles about Marilyn and the movie was the big hype about her walk. Certainly, Marilyn went along with the whole idea that was later designated as "The Marilyn Walk." She was absolutely a beautiful "knock out" in that famous red dress that Bill Travilla designed for her. If anybody should be credited with having helped Marilyn's image, it was him. Over the years, Bill would hang a huge photo of Marilyn behind the desk in his office for all to see. The photo was of Marilyn in a gown he made exclusively for her that wasn't in any film. Marilyn kept most of the gowns he designed for her . . . Especially her most famous one, from "The Seven Year Itch."

Considering that the parents face a possible fine of $500.000 dollars, they may have to cut a deal as soon as they can! Does the state of Colorado allow cameras in the court room? If so, then this story won't end so quietly. Like the local sheriff said, "they are actors and have done this sort of thing before." I guess show business always seems to get into the picture, one way or another.

Has anybody made mention of Bess Flowers?

Not to get so picky, it?s no contest! ?Treasure? is John Huston?s greatest of all work and one of the finest films ever made! Of course, ?High Sierra? is a great suspense or crime film, but it pales in comparison to the overall emotional and psychological elements contained in ?Treasure.? In a historic way of thinking Huston succeeds at creating what probably is considered the most successful film about greed and all its horrendous traits. It?s obvious that being a ?Bogie? fan will get you frustrated in choosing one over the other! The problem in trying to judge these two films all stems from the brilliant performance of ?Bogie? for both films. It turns out almost as what might have to be considered a popularity contest! These two movies that are as different as apples and oranges are connected in ways of the aura ?Bogie? created by way of his dynamic performance for both films. But, frame for frame, ?Treasure? is truly a work of art, while ?High Sierra? remains a successful commercially well produced movie.

ZaSu was truly an original! I?ve been a fan of hers all my life. Her career in movies is quite unique for several reasons. First, she was a favorite actress of the eccentric and yet creative Erich von Stroheim, especially her work in his masterpiece, ?Greed.? Second, when sound came along, she somehow drifted away from her dramatic imagery, that had been so prevalent during the silent era. Upon working in talking-pictures, she ended up exclusively cast in comedy films. Her ?two-reel? comedy shorts with Thelma Todd and Slim Summerville would have been almost forgotten, had it not been for TCM and video. Watching ZaSu perform, there always seemed to be this beautiful fragile nature to her loveable character. She could be everybody?s zany aunt, a meddlesome neighbor next door, a wisecracking witty relative or a devoted matriarch that kept a family together. There was absolutely no role throughout her acting career she didn?t tackle and always with a style of grace and a high degree of professionalism. This is why she was so respected by her peers. I think Gale Storm said it best about ZaSu, when she remarked, ?That old gal has been through all the ropes most of us haven?t even realize we have to sooner or later tackle!? Her last screen appearance, in the big epic comedy ?It?s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World,? in 1963 was something of a nice little send-off. She died right after having finished work on the film. She was the only member of the ?all star cast? to have died before the film?s release.

OH! I Get It! This means Jessie Marcel has returned from the grave or back to planet earth?

Yep! This all sounds about right to me! Looks like the story will now linger on a little longer than expected.

And the beat goes on . . . Strange, how no other female movie star at present has been able to capture the allure and status of Marilyn. So many starlets in over 50 years have come and gone and yet none have had the type of hype and glamour of Marilyn. What?s funny about all this is that Marilyn herself sort of set the standard for this type of stardom and nobody has been able to follow so directly in her footsteps. No other female film star was been able to pick up on this mantel of enticement. We?ve had nothing but foolish copies as Anna Nicole Smith and Pamela Anderson, besides scores of adult film stars who all want to claim or emulate the biggest of all blondes the movies have ever known . . . All to no avail. I remember how awful Jane Mansfield failed at getting anywhere near the status Marilyn had reached, only to become a joke and silly sideshow that in affect made Marilyn look sophisticated and superior on all grounds concerning a serious film career. Others that followed in the wake of Marilyn?s coming were Mamie Van Doren, Joi Lansing, Sheree North, Diana Doris and Barbara Nichols. While Marilyn will continue to have the largest following of fans, world wide of any past movie star, her personal life has become something of a second phase or category to her fame. Thereby, her life behind the camera has at times overtaken her movie star image. Of course, we will never get by all the innuendos and theories about who Marilyn really was or what really happened behind the private secnes. As of now we can surmise she was two people . . . The first one was a girl (perhaps in that school photo?) who should have been a simple housewife . . . The second a girl who got caught within the seduction of fame and whatever glory transpires along the way to becoming famous. I?ve never believed for one single minute that she was exploited to the point of not realizing what she was getting into. The proof is in the way she responded so unprofessionally, when she became a big star; becoming difficult and not so reliable from a working perspective. It was in a certain way her payback to a business that refused to accept her on a total serious level of thinking. All the pills and drugs she later depended upon were an escape she felt was needed to perhaps quell all the guilt and personal hardships of her short lived life. She is now nothing more than a grand symbol of something beautiful and yet so tragic. When looking at her life in general, it can almost be as if fate deemed her towards a short life, because she never found the right ingredient to make her feel so confident and happy. I remember something Susan Hayward once said, ?It?s your life away from the camera that has to workout . . . And not mix what you do on camera with who you really are.? One has to wonder if Marilyn represents the dark, horrid side of Hollywood or do you see her as a victim or doomed siren of a world that turned her into an eternal goddess? At least Garbo was smart enough to see the hand writing on the wall, packing up her movie star life and getting out of a situation that came to its final practical end. Marilyn just couldn?t see beyond all the hype that trapped her under the spotlight of being a celebrity. Most likely, she could have never coped with getting old. Too bad ?Joe D.? didn?t get there in time to save her . . . He was about the only one in her life who wanted to care or get her out from under the blinding spotlight of fame and all its hazards. If anybody knew the score, it was ?Joe D.?

I have to say that my favorite Lillian Gish movie is the 1921 ?Orphans of the Storm.? Although I?m not such a Griffith fan, due to his social thinking, I have to admit he handed in a terrific spectacle. But, the real selling point to the movie had to be the teaming of Lillian with her sister Dorothy in the title roles as the orphans, separated by class and the torrid times of the French Revolution. Certainly, this movie has a lot going for it, besides all the epic portions Griffith gave the movie. The atmosphere and mood of the motion picture has a strong formula to capturing the very essence of 18th Century Paris. Some scenes were inspired by various classic paintings of the period. This would turn out to be the last film Lillian did with Griffith. It was all too obvious that she had reached a pinnacle to her career; therefore ?Orphans of the Storm? was her breaking away point from Griffith. The noted director would never again have such a dynamic leading lady for any of his sporadic films throughout the 1920s. Yet, Gish would for the rest of her life, defend Griffith and fend off all the controversies that overshadowed him, right up to the time she died in 1993. I remember once when she was being interviewed, she mentioned that Griffith had in fact made amends for his various social prejudices, when he made the film ?The Greatest Thing in Life? in 1918. In a strange irony of fate, the movie has remained lost and no prints are believed to exist. Gish nor the 1918 film could ever change the overall feeling that Griffith was a 19th Century man, taking advantage of certain social and political events to sort of indoctrinate American society to a past traditional way of thinking. Little did he realize that while he might be considered the father of the modern movie and its virtual form of storytelling, he failed to use the motion picture medium to change society and turn back the hand of time! What Griffith believed to be of cultural importance was out of step with the times. While he will probably remain a controversial figure, Gish will be one of his best remembered, justifiable contributions to the art form of the movies. Certainly, she helped pave the way to what the movies would eventually become.

Strange, that when all this happened, the father didn?t call 911 first. Instead, he called the local news media and then the airport. Can anybody logically explain this action? The father said he wanted to warn the airport and then get the help of a television-news helicopter to track the balloon? Perhaps this is the way of a would-be eccentric scientist. I wonder how the father would define good common sense, let alone being a good role model to his children. The tide of public opinion is certainly turning against the actions of the father. Any good old publicist can presumed what will be the aftermath. The phone at the house will probably stop ringing after the coming weekend.

What you are probably referring to are a series of photographs of Marilyn, taken in 1946 by photographer Joseph Jasgur. After nearly 40 years, he had dug up these old color slide photos of Marilyn that were later displayed for a gallery show and then published in a book. The one photo in question that was taken at Zuma Beach, California is clearly nothing more than a bit of extra sand at the end of Marilyn?s left foot. Later photographs by the same photographer clearly show Marilyn with 5 normal toes! This whole story is nothing more than a little urban legend created by somebody, when the photos where first published. Even Jasgur played on the issue, perhaps to get as much hype for his photos as possible. He never really addressed the issue, simply allowing all the fuss to linger on. Marilyn is without doubt the most publicized, famous movie star of the 20th Century. With so much having already been written about her, it?s no wonder a thing like this ?toe situation? only adds to her legend and so much speculation. She has truly become more than just a myth, but a true modern goddess, whose real life will forever be shrouded by an endless stream of conjecture.

There just might be more to this event than we are being led to believe. It?s likely it was all a crazy, silly accident. But, lurking in the shadows is the father?s background that relates to the recent show business past. This connection has raised a lot of suspicions. This is especially the case, when the little 6 year old boy who disappeared was on CNN last night, only to comment when asked why he did it, the boy replied: ?It was for the show. . .? His father appeared a bit stunned and a silence overtook the scene of the interview. I have to wonder if this was a performance for some type of self-promotion or hype for the family business? I gather that a few agents will descend upon the house and make some offers for appearances and maybe another cable movie of the week? The next several days will obviously tell us how this whole event will finally be defined as it plays itself out. These days, it?s not so easy to pull the rug over our eyes . . . The public can pretty much figure out where somebody is really coming from. One has to wonder why the father didn?t realize just how dangerous it is to have children in a backyard around a large air-balloon that can obviously have other hazards besides recklessly allowing a child access without proper adult supervision. Already, there are justifiable discussions on whether or not any laws or city regulations were broken. Somebody has to be accountable to what could have been a terrible tragedy.

The only one I can think of at this time is the Academy Award winning French film, "The Red Balloon." Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 15, 2009 5:45 PM

*Last week, TCM showcase the coming-of-age classic film about college students, ?Where the Boys Are? from 1960. The movie was one of the ?last hurrahs? of motion picture producer Joe Pasternak. This legendary producer had enjoyed a series of big successes while at MGM, becoming the primary rival to the mighty musical producer, Arthur Freed. Pasternak wasn?t exactly as highly respected as was Freed, probably due to a comparison to their body of work at MGM that initially brought to Freed more awards and praise. There has always been this theory among many historians that a majority of Pasternak?s films lack a bit of musical sophistication as compared to the productions of Freed. But, certainly their were enough contributions to the success of the studio and launching some of the biggest motion picture careers that make Pasternak a force to reckon with in the history of Hollywood. Pasternak?s legacy to the movie business will probably be centered on the frequent films he made geared towards younger audiences, preferably teenagers.* *Well, it was around 1959, Pasternak and MGM, hit on the idea of creating a typical ?young peoples? film of the era, based on what was a popular, but not necessarily best selling book. The novel, ?Where the Boys Are,? was in some ways instrumental in introducing the openness to young people discovering their sexuality. On top of the touchy subject matter of sex that surrounded most of the story, it didn?t look like such an appropriate subject for MGM to consider on a lighthearted sort of note to translate into a film for the young. Up to that time, Pasternak never really addressed such adult orientated issues in any of his popular films for the youth market, most of which were musicals. Instead, he chose to stay within the restricted boundaries enforced by the usual issues of censorship and a concern to not create any controversy. His contention was to remain along the lines of entertainment and not so much of having to give his motion pictures a social message to contend with. As cautious as Pasternak and the rest of Hollywood was during those years past, the times and social moods had begun to changed. Some historians will point to such famous figures as Marlon Brando and James Dean to have ignited this change in expressive, serious entertainment for young people. The third and probably most believed influential figure is said to be Elvis Presley. We might consider the whole emergence of the ?Rock & Roll? culture to be part of the reason, but I can?t really believe that just the music end of the spectrum had such a powerful or main impact to lead to this expressive openness to American youth and its society. All of these coming social changes would have happened one way or another, when you look at the way the whole world was socially moving in general.* *The movies have always had their leaders or symbols to various passing generations of young fans. Just as Elvis Presley began to make his mark in films and had dominated the pop-music world, there came onto the scene the beautiful young aspiring actress Dolores Hart. She started out pretty much like any young girl, living and working around Hollywood. The early part of her story, I personally find rather routine and not anything so unique. The only reason why she was given a performing career was due in large part to her mother. From what information can be gathered after 50 years, the mother had been an insignificant actress or one who never made the so called ?big time.? This was the typical ?stage-mother? saga that meant everything from a perspective of the parent believing strongly in a chance at establishing a performing career dream through the daughter. Even the father had once been an actor. His influences also played an important part in getting Dolores started on the road to whatever success lie ahead. The father managed to get steady work in Hollywood as a bit player, never getting beyond that status. Both parents would eventually rest all their hopes on lovely Dolores to no doubt fulfill their failed ambitions and desires. It would be difficult to say whether this was really a form of exploitation, especially with Dolores always saying later on in life that it was at the beginning all like a great adventure.* *The early part of growing up for Dolores was spent first in Chicago, where she lived mostly with her grandparents. The mother and father weren?t ever around much; they were too involved in their schemes and aspirations to achieve success in whatever venue seemed acceptable to those who strive for notoriety. The parents simply stayed away from Dolores for long extended periods of time. They were out on the road, touring in stage shows until finally the parents ended up in Hollywood. Both parents tried desperately to get a possible good break at a movie career that eventually led to hardships and the marriage breaking up. It was only after her parents divorced that Dolores at age 11, arrived in Hollywood to live with her mother. Upon getting to the movie capital, Dolores tagged along with her mother, pursuing every avenue of possibility in seeking a movie career. Time and persistence would somehow payoff, when early in 1957, Dolores won a talent contest and an agent decided on a hunch that Dolores was interesting enough to be given a screen test at Paramount Pictures. This situation turned out to be one of those miraculous, life altering experiences for anyone getting Hollywood and into motion pictures. It turned out that the screen test was linked for consideration to perform opposite the biggest new star emerging on the scene, the king of ?Rock & Roll? himself, the mighty Elvis Presley! Elvis would be the one to finally decide on the fate of Dolores and a chance at stardom. He was given the option to approve the choice of who would play his romantic lead. It?s believed that Elvis was overtaken by the lovely wholesomeness of Dolores that translated well as a beautiful ?girl-next-door? type that was essential for the role. There was at first a bit of frustration for Elvis over the situation, because another actress, Natalie Wood, who Elvis had been dating wasn?t available to star opposite him. This situation ended plainly, when that same year Natalie married actor Robert Wagner, dashing any hopes for Elvis and what had probably never been to Natalie a strong, deeply rooted romance.* *Dolores had never really been in a major film, on top of never having had much acting experience. Yet, her debut performance in ?Loving You? with Elvis was on all counts simply wonderful. It was amazing to think that this was a novice in a major film role! Right away, one could sense there was a certain naturalness to Dolores as an actress. Prior to this event, she had only been a ?bit player.? There?s no doubt that appearing opposite a major cultural pop icon was a tremendous boost for anyone?s aspiring film career. The success of the motion picture naturally prompted lots of good publicity for Dolores. This resulted in leading up to her next big appearance, in the dramatic production, ?Wild Is the Wild.? This movie was something of a big international dramatic project with Italian super star Anna Magnani, Anthony Quinn and Tony Franciosa. The role Dolores had wasn?t all that big, but enough to give her more needed exposure that fueled interest in her. With two major films under her wing, Dolores had become overnight, one of the most talked about and exciting new starlets of Hollywood. The main aspect that surrounded any interest in Dolores centered on the already well publicized imagery of having been closely tied to Elvis, both professionally and speculation was on a personal basis. Despite all the hoopla the fan magazines and tabloids made about Elvis and Dolores, their relationship from what was publicly known at the time, didn?t last long enough, either on or off the screen to transpire towards anything so intriguing to remember. Naturally, the idea of Elvis having become the idol to millions of fans world wide and having a steady girlfriend wasn?t exactly welcomed so easily by those who were running his career. This situation didn?t stop Paramount Pictures to take advantage of the publicity and another big film was planned. The second film for Elvis and Dolores, ?King Creole? in 1958 was even better than their first. But, this second big success was interrupted, when Elvis was forced to face his induction into the Army and his career getting sidetrack. In a mysterious irony, Dolores disappeared at around the same time. For almost a whole year, it seemed as if her career too had been stalled, when she only made one major film. Her only other appearances were in two, rather lukewarm dramatic television dramas, after which, she dropped out of sight. Over the years, this has led to a series of suspicions that something had gone amiss with Dolores on a personal level at around the time she finished work on the film ?Lonelyhearts? in 1959. What it might have been has remained a guarded secret for over 50 years! Later on, I will explain what has turned out to be one of the most controversial theories pertaining to the various times she disappeared during the height of her career. Her lack of prolific work in movies and television has fueled rumors and innuendos about her private life. It?s been only recently that this issue of the disappearances and its presumed reason has rekindled interest in her!* *They say in Hollywood, all that matters is whether or not you make it to your next movie! Certainly, 1960 appeared to create another miraculous event for Dolores. Just when it seemed as if she might not be so destined towards stardom, she scored a huge hit with fans and critics in MGM?s dramatic/comedy about contemporary youth, ?Where the Boys Are.? At the time of the movie?s release, it was the intent of producer Joe Pasternak to concentrate on using the motion picture to introduce singer Connie Francis, whom Joe thought could be the next big contemporary musical singing star of the movies. Connie would make for both Joe and MGM a wonderful ?first splash? that technically didn?t surprise fans and critics alike. It was more or less expected that Connie?s part would be geared towards selling the movie by way of her recording career. She scored an enormous hit for both her career and the film by way of the theme song that became such a huge success! Yet, it was Dolores, who ?lock-stock-and barrel? was the star of the picture and carried it to its technically inspiring dramatic conclusions. Her rather lighthearted, witty domination throughout the storyline seemed perfectly tailored towards the mature acting imagery Dolores portrayed for her role. This performance wasn?t so much of a girlishly All-American average female. This role had the heroine of the story as a modern Cinderella character on the verge of life?s passionate self-discovery, while at the same time becoming a symbol of youthful caution to the pitfalls that await all young people. Dolores gave what could be considered a ground-breaking performance, due in large part to the way both the script and Dolores signified a young female?s leadership role that conveyed a logical serious outlook to life. Hovering over the character Dolores portrayed was a fragile nature, affected by those basic emotions that are shrouded from falling in love. What comedy and music there was to the motion picture, turned out to be its least best remembered elements. It was rather surprising to fans and critics that Joe Pasternak embarked on such a venture as this one. But, most film historians agree that Joe saw the ?handwriting on the wall? and knew times had changed enough for his production team to take what was considered at the time a bold step. Dolores was simply perfect in her role, no matter how tripe or fastidious ?Where the Boy?s Are? might be considered by today?s standards. Whatever feelings there are today about an innocence to the movie, stem from its suggestive atmosphere that didn?t tackle the subject of sexual awakening so forthright. Judging the way in which a certain amount of maturity was involved in presenting the film, besides adding the vibrant personality of Dolores, ?Where the Boy?s Are? changed the entire direction of movies geared towards youthful audiences. There could now be no going back to a movie past of sugar coated bylines and typical whimsical trademarks to being young. Most everything about the movie meant its serious overtones would be brought out into the open in a subtle, but practical way for the times to consider.* *Dolores was age 21 when she finally acquired stardom by way of ?Where the Boy?s Are.? The success of the movie gave Dolores the necessary career leverage any starlet could wish for. She was featured in various magazines, on radio and television talk shows and numerous public appearances to promote the movie. Yet, behind all of this success, Dolores didn?t seem so enthusiastic about her career. While she did work hard and was competent, most of the time she was indifferent and aloof to having become a movie star. After all the hoopla died down, she didn?t move on to a new film project so quickly or sizing the moment of her biggest of all success. It was the following year of 1961, that rumors began to surface about Dolores having what appeared to be something of a conservative lifestyle. This type of behavior didn?t seem so common for a majority of starlets in Hollywood. There wasn?t much of any partying or nights out on the town for Dolores. All that amounted to any publicized interest in her was the recent engagement to a Los Angeles businessman. Her public imagine for a movie star seemed strangely low keyed. The absence of glamour and even a little decent publicity began to give her movie star imagine an identity problem with moviegoers. Her career lacked what any press agent might feel is exciting or fascinating to stay under the carving public spotlight. Dolores had refused from the time she first worked with Elvis to play the typical Hollywood game. She could be at times standoffish and uncooperative about how her movie star career should be managed. There were self-imposed limits to what she would do for her film career in terms of the needed means of self promotion. While she did participate to some extent, she never went beyond certain personal boundaries she set for herself, at times refusing to make what the studios felt were necessary public appearances. There was talk that Dolores led a rather pious lifestyle that was kept private and beyond the eyes of press and public. All of this came to full circle, when she met with Pope John XXII, while she was in Italy making the religious film ?St. Francis of Assisi.? Upon finishing her work on the religious film, Dolores once again disappeared. During the following year of 1962, when possible, her next two film projects were met with little or no promotional participation. It wasn?t until 1963, after finishing her work on the romantic film ?Come Fly with Me? that she dropped what turned to be one of those big ?bombshells? that become part of movie star folklore.* *It was rather ironic to think that the biggest of all publicity Dolores would garner came in the form of announcing her becoming a Roman Catholic nun. This wasn?t exactly the first time a movie star had decided on a career change towards religious service. In 1953, actress June Haver gave up her film career to become a nun. However, Haver?s decision lasted only seven months, when in a surprising move, she left the convent to marry actor Fred MacMurray. At the time Dolores made her decision, she had already broken her engagement and her film career appeared to be in decline. Some will argue that her luck had run out, associated with choices to work in films that didn?t materialize towards any big success. Still, there is reason to feel that her lack of film output or work, when compared to other actresses was rather meager. It?s important to say that a good amount of working exposure has a lot to do with the direction and success of any acting career in the movies. In the case of Dolores, it?s just likely that she never took much advantage of the early success she achieved, by simply allowing herself more time before the cameras. Even after she had made a big success with ?Where the Boy?s Are,? she didn?t pursue the other avenue of television that might have kept to career in check; at least with the general public. Dolores was one of these actresses who somewhere along the line got caught up with situations that have never been made clear; no doubt affecting her decision to leave behind her movie career. Whatever speculation we might have about Dolores, her decision to leave the movie business came at the time she was at a crossroad in her career and probably her personal life.* *Several of the movie fan magazines decided on covering Dolores and her induction to the Benedictine Abbey of Regina Laudis in Bethlehem, Connecticut. The ironic thing about this event came with the magazines using a photo from the film ?Francis of Assisi.? In the film, the character Dolores portrayed also became a nun! The photo was from a scene where Dolores has to give up her beautiful hair, being cut by a nun! Many fans assumed this photograph was legit or that of Dolores becoming a real Benedictine member. It was as if her role in the movie had now become a reality that no one could have ever expected. Everything from ?life imitating art? was discussed. Through it all, Dolores remained laid-back, not giving very many interviews. By the time she was ready to enter the abbey, there was little, if any, press coverage of the event. From that time on, Dolores simply faded away from public interest. In 1970, she took her final vows. In the process, her name was changed to ?Sister Judith.?* *Not much was said about Dolores after completing her required vows to become a Benedictine nun. During the next 10 years, Dolores led a quiet life behind the abbey walls, usually only getting attention when she occasionally went outside and the locals noticed her. She was something of a ?mini-celebrity? to the community of Bethlehem. Sometimes, the local newspaper would report a story about the abbey and Dolores. Over a period of time, Dolores became easily accessible or she might chat every now and then with a reporter or anyone from the outside world who might have remembered her. By the time she was fully ordained, she reverted back to use her original first name. Her real name was Dolores Hicks. The remainder of the decade went by with Sister Dolores becoming something of an afterthought to what she had once been. Sometimes, fans wondered about her whereabouts or what had happened to her. Over the course of the years she has been a nun, Sister Dolores has received mail from adoring fans who usually state their admiration to her for having the courage to give up her celebrated film career, in favor of a more tranquil and spiritually rewarding vocation. These types of responses gave Sister Dolores lots of hope and determination to succeed at her new venue in life. By the late 1970s, Sister Dolores began community social work, helping with various important civic charities around the state of Connecticut. Most of the time, anyone working with Sister Dolores on a charity effort, never knew or realized who she had once been! Naturally, Sister Dolores greatly appreciated not having created a distraction to her religious pursuits and obligations.* *It might have been just plan simple fate to surmise that when one has show business in their veins, they will revert back to it in some form or fashion. Well, Sister Dolores did just that, when after a period of time living and working at her abbey, she went about on a few entertainment pursuits. The big and wonderful surprise here was the help she received from the mighty and immortal Paul Newman, whose home is around the area. In a wise business move, Sister Dolores convinced abbey officials, the best way to help with needed funding was to establish a ?lively arts center.? In no time, the art school and performing center that was successfully established gave the community of Bethlehem a needed boost of pride. Since its formation, the abbey?s performing center has staged some pretty big presentations, most of which are musicals. The presumed ?one way journey? Sister Dolores made towards a religious life has been in many ways rewarding for her.* *While Sister Dolores enjoyed a fruitful life at the abbey, without the need of any sort of notoriety, other than to help the abbey, she once again, after a near 30 year hiatus away from the spotlight was thrust back under it! This new situation in her life was typical of the exploitative publicity she had once known as a movie star. It was in 1987, out of nowhere appeared a man by the name of Phillip Stanic, who made a public claim that he was the unexpected ?love child? of Elvis and Sister Dolores. Said to have been born in 1961, in the city of Gary, Indiana, the claims this man made were rather easy to investigate. Before the local and even national press got wind of the story, Stanic took full advantage of the early period he could create a stir among the interested and devoted fans of Elvis. By this time, there had already been the ridiculous claims of Elvis not being dead, resulting in sites of him at gas stations and convenience stores across the country. Stanic?s timing may have not been so right for him to make what for some was an outrageous claim. When the national media caught up Stanic and decided to give him his ?15 minutes of fame,? he boldly showed up outside of the abbey, asking for an audience with his presumed mother! It didn?t take long for the national media and fans of Elvis to realize that Stanic had other motives behind his intention to make waves about this situation. He was already making a living as an Elvis impersonator, touring the country and performing at small clubs and town halls. He even took on the performing name of Elvis Presley Jr., opening his act with a monologue that explained what he thought was his real background. When the opportunity came, Stanic told the press that he was an adopted child. At age 21, his parents, who were originally traveling circus performers and friends of ?Colonel Tom Parker,? the manager of Elvis, told him Elvis Presley was his real father. All the parents knew was that Elvis had an affair with an undisclosed actress. Upon the actress becoming pregnant, she was then paid off to give up the child and keep the secret. Helping Stanic with this bizarre scenario was his manager, who gathered up as much information about Sister Dolores and her film career that might shed light on making the claims logical. The manager brought to light the mysterious way Sister Dolores had disappeared during periods of time she was a film star. It was proposed that the possibility of her being the real mother of Stanic had credence along the time lines of these disappearances that lasted nearly an entire year. What made the press finally give the claims of Stanic a bit of coverage came from his demands to have a blood test, from both Sister Dolores and daughter to Elvis, Lisa Marie Presley! The estate of Elvis wasn?t at all happy about more of a carnival atmosphere descending over the already controversial image of Elvis that had been tarnish by books and other outlandish claims.* *Three events would finally put an end to the absurd situation that might have been possible, but was handled in a very meaningless way. First, Sister Dolores wrote to the manager of Stanic, signifying that she had enough proof to publicly prove Stanic wrong and that the matter best be ended and not pursued. Second, in a move that was rather shocking (at least for Stanic), his real mother, who had in fact been an actress, came forward with proof! The real mother had been an extra during the making of the movie ?Blue Hawaii? and had an affair with Elvis. The actress then went to Colonel Parker, who didn?t want a public scandal and simply made the arrangements to hide the pregnancy. These revelations were shattering enough for Stanic to make an apology to Sister Dolores. This led to the third unexpected event, when Sister Dolores agreed to meet with Stanic. With no wide publicity surrounding the meeting, Stanic personally apologized to her. When the press got full wind of the apology, this prompted the real mother to write to Sister Dolores and offer her apologies for the commotion that was created. Despite all the silly fuss that resulted, Stanic was not alone in this matter, since there have been a dozen or so other claims of people saying they are rightful heirs to Elvis and possibility his estate. The Presley family stayed pretty much out of the chaos that came with this matter. All tolled, the matter really didn?t last long and Stanic, while getting some publicity, failed to get anything really big out of the venture. He remains to this day, working sporadically in small clubs of no consequence.* *What a way for somebody who had once been a movie star to get back under the spotlight! It?s been said that Sister Dolores herself, took some advantage of the situation, when she agreed to appear on national television, interviewed by Barbara Walters. Today, she is now The Reverend Mother of the Abbey! In an ironic twist, to this day Reverend Mother Hart is still an active card-carrying member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. She is the only nun who is a member of the Academy. On a sad note of things, recently it was reported that the Reverend Mother suffers from a neurological disorder. She has remained confined to the abbey undergoing treatment for her illness that has to be monitored a constant basis. Perhaps the most wonderful event to occur for the Reverend Mother came with two very special visits a few years ago. These two visits were from Paula Prentiss and Connie Francis, who had co-starred with her in ?Where the Boy?s Are.? Today, the movie has a cult following and remains one of those wonderful classics of an era when everything seemed so innocence and yet predicted the brash future to come. An updated remake of the story was made in 1984, but it is best forgotten. In the long run, Dolores Hart won?t be so easily forgotten, at least for a young generation of fans that looked to her as a symbol to their generation. While her career on film didn?t last so long, her life has endured with decisions that have made her life worthwhile and given her a purpose to look forward to and find comfort in the knowledge that deciding to give up on a film career can have it?s justifiable rewards that come in ways we least expect. There is no reason to feel or think about what accomplishments there could have been to her film career. She has made an accomplishment that relates towards self-sacrifice that few in the entertainment world have ever made. There is reason to think that she is a remarkable human being and has made a justifiable point to defining her life.* Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 15, 2009 5:01 PM

In answer to your question about how many films, being major Hollywood productions that Mamoulain was fired from, you are correct with your list. He also had the bad luck of being involved in projects that never got made or even finished. There were also various films throughout his career, he was brought in as a last resort to direct, only to see him never receive any screen credit. Mamoulain considered himself more geared towards stage directing, then filmmaking, despite having created some innovative techniques to the whole history of the cinema. What he?s best remembered for, at least in Hollywood was his maverick ways of working, that in the end usually bothered most of the studio heads. It?s believed by some film historians that Mamoulain probably single handedly influenced a whole generation of young filmmakers, after the Second World War. This is due in large part to his film work during the early 1930s. Although he stopped working in films around the late 1940s, to later on concentrate on his various successful stage productions, his greatest of all influenced is said to have been on Stanley Kubrick! Oddly for some, Orson Welles doesn?t equate with having been influence by Mamoulain?s filmmaking, probably because Mamoulain didn?t have such a large output of film work to impress Welles. If anything, it?s been felt that Welles did copy and emulate Mamoulain?s stage work, when they both were directing important projects in New York. But, no one who has seen a Mamoulain film can argue against the rather patterned and organized way his films seem to express an artistic temperament. His movies certainly are a cut above the usual Hollywood escapist commercial productions that have dominated the history of Hollywood. P R O F E S S O R Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 10, 2009 5:13 AM

The whole situation concerning Jackie?s real name is easy enough to clear up from a technical standpoint. Before he became a fulltime actor, he had done a comedy routine on the live stage, in nightclubs and then on radio as a disc jockey. He actually used several different names for each different career. The story of the starlet having the same name has been tossed around for many years. While this actress has since gone into the shadows of oblivion, most fans believe it?s doubtful that the vague starlet had anything to do with his first screen name. The theory that the ?C? came via his New York nightclub act, conceived by Jack L. Warner, might be logical from a press agents side of thinking, but it?s never been confirmed to any high degree of proof. Then, there?s another story that says the ?C.? was due to not wanting to be confused with the well recognized, dramatic actor, ?James Gleason.? When Jackie first made it to Hollywood, he was sometimes confused with being related to the famous dramatic actor. I sort of lean towards this theory being the most logical one to consider. But there was also the issue that Jackie wanted to ?start anew? with his acting career in movies. So, he decided on doing what most everyone in the movie business did anyway and that was change or modifies their name to some extent. Jackie?s career in show business had been from its beginning in a constant sort of transitional phase. In other words, when changing any of his show business angles to the next, he changed his name. It?s so strange that even after he had some good exposure in films, he ended up not even getting ?screen credit? for his later films during the late 1940s. He pretty much ended up being subjected to screen "walk-on's." It was almost, right up to the time he made it in television, that his film career seemed somewhat unavailing and getting nowhere. You might have to conclude that Jackie was saved in a big way by his career in television. After all, television finally gave him the chance to utilize his many diverse comedic talents. From that time on, he would remove the ?C.? in his name and the rest is all such wonderful, enjoyable, fruitful history. As of today, it doesn?t really matter if in fact the ?C.? stood for something or someone. We can just remember him as ?The Great One? and ?How Sweet It Is . . .? P R O F E S S O R Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 9, 2009 7:50 PM

Yes Sandy K. . .Most of these classic movie sets are all gone. Some were changed or modified, especially those on the Universal Pictures backlot. Then, to add more disappointment to this subject, there was a big fire recently at Universal that destroyed most of what was left from those bygone years. Even the various European motion picture companies that American production units utilized during the 1950s and 60s are also all gone. Though it's interesting to note that the grand Roman Forum set in Spain, built by Samuel Bronston, stood abandoned for many years, until finially getting dismantled. It's logical to say that most movie sets, at least those created on a Hollywood backlot, were always changed or modified for whatever new movie project came along. Real estate for any studio became a valuable commodity. I think Universal was the best studio as far as keeping their backlot somewhat recognizable. There were also a few sets around Culver City, that were constantly in used and rented out. Many famous television programs and movies utilized these facilities. The Culver City sets also recently caught fire and now have to be repaired or brought back to life. It's funny how most of the studios in Hollywood have all suffered from fire damage. . .Strange. MP.