MovieProfessor
-
Posts
1,421 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by MovieProfessor
-
-
It?s nice to read that someone can appreciate one of the finest works of American entertainment. The original stage version as written by George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart was loosely based around the life and times of Alexander Woollcott. He was one of the country?s most important and influential critics. Woollcott even had a popular radio program that consisted of interviews and commentary. He was best remembered for the various friendships he made with famous celebrities. This is especially the case with the two writers of ?The Man Who Came to Dinner.? Both Kaufman and Hart had hoped that Woollcott himself might consider playing the role of ?Sheridan Whiteside,? but he wisely realized he was too caught up in his work and that it best not conflict with the possible success of the stage show. So, the role was then offered to the young and talented friend of Woollcott, Orson Welles. But, Orson too turned down the opportunity, realizing he wasn?t technically ready, due in large part to his age. The two writers, then turned to another good friend, Monty Woolley to tackle the role and the rest is such wonderful history. It wasn?t until the stage show became such a huge success, that Woollcott then decided on playing the role, when the show went out on tour.
Over the years, it?s been contemplated as to who the various characters in the story are based on. The list of ideas and theories keeps changing with the passing of time. The best and probably most obvious assumption is as follows:
The character of the sweet, mysterious old lady of the house, ?Miss Sedley? is based on the famous axe murderer ?Lizzie Borden!?
The wild and flamboyant character of ?Banjo? is in reference to one of the famed ?Marx Brothers.? Most of the votes on this character favor ?Harpo Marx,? but it could also be brother ?Chico.? The most famous Marx brother, ?Groucho? has received some votes, but because brother ?Harpo? joined Woollcott in the show, playing ?Banjo,? when it went on national tour, this has led to his being the basis of the character. I tend to totally agree with this theory.
The ?Beverly Carlton? character is said to be that of ?Noel Coward.? He too was a closed and trusted friend to Woollcott.
?Lorraine Shelton? is most likely legendary actress ?Tallulah Bankhead.?
When it came time for a movie version, Warner Brothers won out on the rights to film the story. It was for its time, a highly prized property. The studio decided on utilizing the immortal John Barrymore in the role of ?Whiteside.? He was in dire need of a comeback to his career. Barrymore had also been a close friend to the writers and Woollcott. The great actor screen tested and would have won the role, had he not succumb to illness, bought on by his acute alcoholism. Once again, Orson was asked if he would consider the role, but he was tied up with his own film career over at RKO Pictures. The casting for ?Whiteside? finally ended up being no contest, with handing over the role to Monty Woolley. Together with actress Mary Wickes (who played the nurse), Ruth Vivian (as Miss Sedley), they were the only original members of the stage show in the film.
The screenplay for the film version was more or less successfully translated on the big screen by the writing team of brothers Philip and Julius Epstein. These two would later go on win ?Oscars? for writing most of the screenplay of ?Casablanca.? One of the best directors at Warner?s, William Keighley, managed to bring in most of the hilarious aspects from the original stage show. The film was both a critical and financial success. As to whether it was as good as the original stage show is still a constant debate. After all, original stage versions are still being revived, both professionally and on the amateur level. The stage show has truly become one of the most popular of the 20th Century. There have also been adaptations for radio and original television productions. In 1972, Orson Welles finally got his chance to play ?Whiteside? in a ?Hallmark Hall of Fame? production on the NBC Television Network. The 1972 version was then updated for the times. Perhaps the most unusual, if not embarrassing situation concerning the original play came in 1967. A big and expensive musical version was created by songwriters James Lipton and Laurence Rosenthal. The musical show had lots of good publicity and singer Andy Williams even made a recording of the title song to the show. However, the musical turned out to be one of the biggest flops of the year. It simply didn?t translate this time into a new format. As of now, the original version for both stage and screen remains as the best offering to consider from two of America?s greatest writers.
-
aminahyaquin wrote:
> THE UCLA folks, in particular Mark Q., astounded me with extremely timely and generous offers of assistance, and sincere interest.
> I am most grateful to the folks who replied thus far for their sterling help.
I was glad to aid you aminahyaquin . . . I figured UCLA would be the place to go! Good Luck in your quest . . .
MP.
-
> HollywoodGolightly wrote:
> Is anybody watching this right now?
>
> *Short Film: One Reel Wonders: A Star Is Born - Premiere* (1954)
> Rare footage captures the excitement as Judy Garland's A Star is Born premieres in Hollywood.
> Cast: Judy Garland, Jack Carson, Joan Crawford. BW-29 mins, TV-G
>
Yes! I caught the 1954 world premiere at the Pantages Theater today on TCM. It is the most complete version ever shown . . . It's even longer than the first one that appeared in the special edition DVD version years ago. Also, in the last two previous versions that have been shown, before this one today, Judy's appearance was always at the end . . . In this longer version shown today, she arrives at the premiere, midway during the program! So, the festivities at the Pantages continue on with more stars arriving! It was all so amazing to watch!
-
First of all, Mr. Osborne is no idiot. He?s been around the movie business for as long as anyone can remember. The introductions and narrative endings he gives to the films he showcases are based on general information that is easily discerned. Sometimes, he gives reflections on issues associated to the various film stars that are nothing more than the usual Hollywood tidbits. The remark about Lamar?s hair was nothing more than a tidbit, concerning her time while at MGM. It?s not an issue to be taken as factual as related to ?Ziegfel Girl.? It?s makes no real big difference if he said ?Rabbits? as opposed to ?Ducks? . . . This is nothing more than a generalization to the issue that the characters of the film, will go off and seek their happiness in some form or another.
Now, about the film itself . . . Well, MGM realized at the last minute a tremendous mistake was made by not having utilized Technicolor! This apparent discrepancy was even sighted by the various film critics of the day. Already, rival studio 20th Century-Fox had taken the lead by producing most of their biggest and best musicals in color! Despite the excitement and beauty color could have offered, when ?Ziegfel Girl? opened at the ?Capitol Theater? in New York, on April of 1941, the film was a major critical success, due in large part to the wonderful screenplay written by MGM veterans, Marguerite Roberts and Sonya Levien. The film was a Pandro S. Berman production and not by Arthur Freed as many fans have misconceived over the years. In a technical way of thinking, the ?Black & White? issue saves the film from an obvious misconception surrounding Lana Turner?s hair. While she was a blonde throughout most of her career, during the time she appeared in ?Ziegfel Girl,? her hair was actually ?dirty blonde? or darker than usual. The problem that arises when viewing the film is that Lana?s hair changes shades due to the various differences in lighting. Even more prevalent is the simple assumption that while she was called ?Red? in the storyline, her character could have simply changed the color of her hair once she became a showgirl and thus to her close friends and family, she would always remain as ?Red.?
Osborne?s commentary is at best not meant to be solidly informative . . . There simply isn?t enough time to get into so many details. His job is to add a nimble sort of background to the various films he introduces. He remains to this day, one of the last great sources to classic Hollywood, despite whatever misunderstandings there might be to the narratives he gives about the films on TCM.
Edited by: MovieProfessor on Nov 17, 2009 10:09 AM
-
Here's a good list for those of you who don't know of Saul's magnificent work:
http://www.notcoming.com/saulbass/index2.php
Edited by: MovieProfessor on Nov 16, 2009 12:37 PM
-
He was the greatest! So, hands down on this one! What's always been a prevailing issue to his career is which one of this animated film credits were the best or most memorable? Well, it usually comes down to a tie, between "Vertigo" or "Around The World In 80 Days." I myself admire the simple, yet exciting abstract method he used for "The Seven Year Itch." Certainly, Saul was for many years, in demand by some of the finest filmmakers the world has ever known! A certain amount of credit has to be given to Saul for creating a strong memorable impact to the various classic films he was associated with. It's difficult to pinpoint just which famous filmmaker, Saul should be so closely assoicated with during the height of his career, around the 1950s. Most fans will undoubtledly claim it should be Hitchcock. Whatever the case, Saul's opening or closing film credit's have a style that is easy enough to catch and have never been matched!
-
There was no way ?Charles Scribner?s & Sons? would have ever considered publishing those censored passages from the original novel. I find this whole situation rather suspect. It points to creating a bit of publicity towards an issue of censorship that doesn?t have any validity to even bother with, because while Jones could have written those sexual passages, it?s foolish to contemplate that the editorial staff would have even read it! Of course, Jones was known to have had a drinking problem and it might be likely that he passed it on to somebody at Scribner?s, but common sense tells me it was all a waste of time from the offset.
-
For sometime now, there?s been talk of creating a film on the real-life account of the events the original novel and film were based on. The real story centers on the 1932 scandal involving North Carolina tobacco millionaire Zachary Smith Reynolds and his relationship with singer/actress Libby Holman. The novel ?Written on the Wind? by Robert Wilder was published in 1945. It quickly became obvious to many what or who the Wilder book was based on. To some film historians, it?s been a mystery why it took Hollywood so long to turn the novel into a motion picture. Most likely, there had already been similar screenplays written and turned into films based on the Reynolds scandal. Most of these so-called motion picture recreations have been thinly disguised versions of the actual event. When Universal Pictures finally decided around 1955 to make a motion picture based on the Wilder novel, screenplay writer George Zuckerman totally changed the location from North Carolina to the oil rich family atmosphere of Texas. Even the original names or characters from the book were changed! How one can really say that the film version is based on the novel has led to a bit of debate, if not, controversy. Whatever the case, the movie was a smash hit and continued Universal Pictures successful launch into recreating many popular melodramatic novels of the era. Certainly, for director Douglas Sirk, the success of ?Written on the Wind? made him the studio?s most critically well received filmmaker of the 1950s. How strange it was to see Sirk suddenly leave and give up his successful film career, due to ill heath. His last film for Universal was another in a series of smash hit melodramas, ?Imitation of Life? in 1959. He returned to his native Germany, where he lived out his life and died in 1987. It?s only been in the last 30 years or so, that Sirk?s film work, especially in America, has gained a solid and devoted following. He was very much a director (one of the last) to demand and utilize all the excellence of the studio system.
-
THE ACTOR WHO PLAYED THE FATHER: He was Robert Keith. In real life, the father to Brain. I?m sure many of you will recognize him from numerous film appearances. Robert had been more noted for his stage work, before finally getting settled in Hollywood around the late 1940s. He was for his time, one of the best and most reliable character actors working in films and then he drifted over to television. Always a supporting player, he made a very good living usually playing a father figure or sidekick to a major motion picture star. Some of his best known film work is in such classics as ?My Foolish Heart,? ?14 Hours,? ?Here Comes The Groom,? ?Young at Heart,? ?Love Me or Leave Me,? ?Guys and Dolls? and of course, his role in ?Written on the Wind.? But, for many fans, Robert?s best known role will probably be as the local police officer of the small town, in the Marlon Brando classic ?The Wild One.? Also on Robert Keith?s most noted list of accomplishments was his having originated on Broadway, the role of ?Doc? in the naval comedy/drama ?Mr. Roberts.? He was in real life, like he was on screen, quiet and soft spoken. He passed away in 1966.
-
I know of an Atlas Film Company that was in business during the early part of the 20th Century. The company didn't last long and as far as I know there are no films to have managed to survive. Your best bet is to contact the UCLA Film Library or the American Film Institute. They might have the necessary information you need. If you can give me a title of a film she was in, I might be able to find it in my records and then give you some general information.
-
Strange, that Errol Flynn?s terrible movie ?Cuban Rebel Girls? is readily available on DVD, while the other film he made in Cuba, ?The Big Boodle? isn?t and it?s a way better film!
-
One important film that TCM could have shown as part of the schedule was "The Old Man and The Sea."
-
The list pretty much sums up his career. But, I wonder if Ed Wood's "Plan 9 From Outerspace" should be included.
-
> Hibi wrote:
> I never thought of the connection before but they did have similarities. I cant say I'm a fan of either actress, though I probably favor Chatterton of the two as her vehicles were more in the WB style then the arch Metro drawing room vehicles of Shearer.......Chatterton always strikes me as too stage actressy and Shearer too arch/fake. Sorry to any fans here.......
This is another observation I totally agree with. I too would give the acting nod towards Ruth. Norma was at times lovely, but I don?t think she could ever get away from the sort of animated, pushy emotional range to her acting that at times appears mechanical. Naturally, there had to be something of a stagy routine to the way Ruth presented herself or acting style, due in large part to already establishing a successful career from the live stage. Norma simply never had the range of Ruth or overall acting experience. But, even more important to consider is that Ruth influenced a whole new generation of actresses on the way up and that list is most impressive. While Norma was more the bona fide film star, Ruth was the real solid actress. There?s an old feeling amid many in Hollywood that movie stars have a better time of it, than what might be considered a prestigious performer. The movie star usually gets the best, choice roles, while the prestigious performer has to wait around for the right time and place to get into a decent project or demand one that has a meaningful outlook. Ruth was instrumental in leading the way for actresses in Hollywood to take their careers more seriously. This is an issue that from a historical level, Norma was never able to achieve.
-
That 1959 "Pier 5, Havana" is so bad, that anyone can tell that the movie was shot in Southern California and not on location in Cuba! The only reason why most fans might be interested in checking the movie out is due to beautiful Allison Hayes. Only this time, she's playing it straight and not a "50-Foot Woman" or her usual role as a horror movie victim. This motion picture looks more like a made-for-television project, but has B-Movie written all over it. Many movie listings don't even carry reasonable information about the background of this film, signifying just how cheap the whole ordeal must have been. It's rather strange to see Cameron Mitchell, who was a good actor, fall so low in less than the fifteen year span of his career in motion pictures. Mitchell had begun his film career after his military service in World War Two. Even after he had acquired a few good roles at MGM, he left Hollywood around 1949 to arrive in New York and appeared in what is undoubtedly one of the greatest dramas of the English language, "Death of A Salesman." Despite having a good career on Broadway, his film career never really took off to any big notoriety. He had throughout the 1950s, what might be considered a respectable career as an actor and not so much a movie star. His last great performance was in the Martin Ritt directed 1957 drama, "No Down Payment," opposite Joanne Woodward. By the end of the decade, Mitchell ended up overseas, mostly in Italian "sword and sandal" low-budget epics. He would never again rekindle what prestige there had once been to his acting career. There have been times that fans confused Mitchell with being other actors, most notably Rory Calhoun.
-
finance wrote:
> .......although A FREE SOUL is not considered one of L. Barrymore's greatest performances. It was his extended courtroom monologue that won him the Oscar.
I couldn't agree more with you . . . While L.B. was certainly one of the greatest actors around, his performance is a bit melodramatic. Even younger brother J.B. said that the famous monologue scene wouldn't have really happened in a real court room. J.B. sometimes joked that L.B. tried playing Shakespeare or that he was a modern "King Lear." I will say the scene was beautifully written, but again, L.B. sort of harped on an emotional level that at times comes across unrealistically speaking.
-
You know, Monogram wasn't all that bad a studio. It was at least as good an operation in Hollywood as was Republic Pictures.
-
> moviejoe79 wrote:
> And just one correction regarding Norma. She didn't win the Academy Award for "A Free Soul" although she was nominated. She won it for "The Divorcee" made one year earlier.
I stand corrected moviejoe79! It was Norma's costar, the great Lionel Barrymore who won the "Oscar." Thanks for correcting my error . . . I had one of my usual senior moments.
-
Thanks, Izcutter.
Everything thing about Marilyn has always been creepy, wild and crazy. If the Poncher family can?t even get what might be considered a reasonable $500,000 dollars that was the original starting bid, then it goes to show that most people aren?t interested in acquiring a crypt at such a high price. I wonder in general what the other spaces would be worth. Does the fact that Marilyn?s presence raises the price for burial? Whatever the case, the Poncher family will now have to go another route in order to get their bills paid. They owe something in the sum of 1.8 million dollars. Had the crypt gone off for the allotted 4.6 million, their financial problems would have been more than solved and settled.
-
Does that include the so-called mysterious high-bidder from Japan? I recently read that perhaps this bid might be legit, but it's likely that the whole ordeal has led to no conclusions.
-
Just this past August 14th, bidding on eBay began on the crypt above that of Marilyn Monroe?s at the Westwood Village Memorial Park Cemetery. The item had been purchased by Richard Poncher in 1955, from Joe DiMaggio after his divorce from Marilyn. Poncher, who was a die-hard fan of Marilyn?s, probably realized early on, what excitement there was to Marilyn?s whole aura or movie star career. Poncher got his wish, when he passed away 23 years ago and rumor has it, his body was placed ?face-down? in the crypt, so he could spiritually look upon Marilyn! Since that time, the family of Poncher has hit on bad or hard economic times. So, Richard Poncher?s 80 year-old widow decided to move her husband?s remains and sell the valuable vault. Already, one of the vaults next to Marilyn?s was purchased by none other than Playboy head, Hugh Hefner. It?s believed Hefner paid almost a million for his.
On August 25, the final winning bid for the Poncher crypt, hit an all time record at 4.6 million dollars. The news wasn?t exactly spread much over the newswires, but lately there are rumors circulating as to whom the recipient of the crypt might be. So far, no information has been reveal. The whole saga and myth of Marilyn seems to continue on. No matter what, there is no let up to her hype. She continues to simply dominate the whole movie star aura of what defines a legendary film star. Looking at this recent event, it just doesn?t get any bigger and Marilyn still remains after so many years, the number one movie legend of the 20th Century!
-
After some extensive work in staging musical numbers for several big MGM movies, Vincente Minnelli was finally handed the director?s chair in late 1942. His first film, ?Cabin in The Sky? was in so many ways a break-through motion picture. At the time Minnelli was assigned the project, no other directors really wanted to work on the film. It was probably enviable that when MGM decided on acquiring the film rights to one of the first major African-American Broadway shows, there would be disinterest or resistance by some at the studio. Still, the producer of the movie, Arthur Freed, knew that if there was one person on the studio lot who could make a big difference, it was Minnelli. The main reason why Minnelli was perfect for this movie, stemmed from the simple fact he knew most of the chosen cast and had even worked with them before. There would also be a somewhat limited budget, despite the fact that this would be for its time, the biggest and most expensive movie consisting of an all African-American cast and story.
Everything for this directorial d?but fell right into place, with Minnelli taking his limited resources and creating what essentially turned out to be a big sort of looking motion picture. Certainly, the cast and wonderful way Minnelli expanded upon the original Broadway show was exciting and joyful. In remarkable technical terms, the motion picture was made around a reasonable sum of $600,000 and paid off at the box office, grossing almost over one million. While this wasn?t the usual block-buster results for a typical MGM musical, it was rather respectable when you consider the times and all the hassles, restrictions and social criticism both Minnelli and Freed faced upon embarking on making the motion picture. In usual form, the film was banned throughout parts of the Deep South, usually only showing up in African-American run movie houses. Together with another big African-American movie musical of that same year, ?Stormy Weather,? the release of ?Cabin in the Sky? marked the beginning of African-American stories and films getting into the mainstream of motion picture production.
-
No . . . No . . . It contains: "The Stuff That Dreams Are Made Of!"
-
You?re in for a special sort of treat! Most fans that have read Flynn?s posthumous autobiography find it intriguing. Upon the book?s publication some fifty years ago, it?s been said that this memoir has become the basis for all other written materials questioning numerous claims supposedly made by Flynn. The memoir is believed to have resulted from notes and the transcripts of interviews with Flynn, during the last five years of his life. It?s agreed by many fans that have read the book that the best parts are about his wild escapes with booze and various love affairs. These descriptions of his personal life that are in some ways graphic and bold, lead to the point of wondering if in fact the events all really occurred. The book?s publisher, Putnam, hired writer Earl Conrad to pretty much put the bits and pieces of Flynn?s believed recollections together. So, in hind sight, this has created a controversy on whether or not the source material can ever be proven to really be from Flynn.
The first edition was a run-away best seller, released at the end of the year, making the memoir a hot item to check out during the holiday season of 1959. Those items or stories believed to be disreputable and of ill repute, later on brought havoc for Putnam and a reedited version was released. Flynn?s first wife, actress Lili Damita led the way to threatening legal action against what was first written. The success of ?My Wicked, Wicked Ways,? also led to yet another book, written by Flynn?s second wife, Nora Eddington, entitled ?Errol and Me.? This book added still more fuel to the flamboyant legendary lifestyle of Flynn. In recent years, it?s believed that Eddington?s accounts of her life with Flynn have a good amount of credibility over the Putnam published memoir. Until her death in 2001, she had lived long enough to become a reliable source on what Flynn was like privately away from the soundstages of Hollywood. One aspect is very certain and that is anything that has been written about Errol has never had a dull moment!
The Day They Robbed the Bank of Peyton Place
in General Discussions
Posted
That?s an interesting analogy you make with the town in ?Violent Saturday? with that of ?Peyton Place.? There has been from a historical standpoint, a comparison made between ?Violent Saturday? and MGM?s production of ?Bad Day at Black Rock.? Here we have two films, about a small town crime and both released the same year of 1955. While the films aren?t exactly so similar, they do share a common link connected to the happenings and atmosphere that go on in remote places. Technically speaking, the most obvious connection between the films is actor Ernest Borgnine and Lee Marvin appearing in both films. ?Bad Day at Black Rock? remains the superior film. Despite a rather flamboyant and excessive sentiment to its storyline, ?Violent Saturday? does have some really good aspects to its plot and a few nice performances.