MovieProfessor
-
Posts
1,421 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by MovieProfessor
-
-
>ChiO wrote
> I recorded it. Bert I. Gordon caught got my attention because of *The Amazing Colossal Man* and Cyclops, but the real reason...Timothy Carey. The thought that a child would have a fantasy to be a pirate and, then, Timothy Carey would be there awaiting him is a Nightmare that demands preservation.
Tim was truly one of the great "heavy characters" of the movies. Although he didn't really have a lot of appearances, those he did have were memorable, having stood the test of time! It's amazing to see how he changed over the years, but still maintaining a rather flamboyant, yet dynamic personality that has caught the eye of many a fan to remember him. Scores of young filmmakers over the years wanted to work with Tim, even after he sort of retired from full-time work in movies to successfully teach an acting course. He was one of a kind! There's something to be said about a performer who simply "stands out" amid the stars of the movie or whatever else there is to the motion picture. Tim had that special magic and presence that made him unique and rarely seen in the movies.
-
He's truly one of the most coloful of actors. I liked him in the 1970 film, "The Traveling Executioner." On a trivia note, Bud was supposed to have a scene in the 1976 documentary "Pumping Iron" opposite Arnold. Although the scene was cut from the original release, the footage has since been restored and is now shown on a newly produced DVD of the film.
-
TCM aired today one of those rare gems of 50 years ago, ?The Boy and The Pirates.? This motion picture was for the most part, a rather lavished looking B-movie, made by one of the best exponents of this type of entertainment, producer/director Bert I. Gordon. The film career of Gordon had already been quite extensive, but he actually started out in television production, before embarking towards a career in motion pictures. The best and perhaps most common title to the film career of Gordon is to designate him as a ?Fantasy Filmmaker.? While most fans will probably consider him a popular Sci-Fi advocate, he remains constantly placed in an endless debate as to just where and how to define his status. He certainly came to understand one very important aspect to the business, pertaining to an ability to exploit and manipulate the public taste for sensationalistic, but simplistic motion pictures. His first series of film production that began in 1954, led to Gordon becoming a popular fixture in secondary feature films that usually appeared in small local theaters and the drive-in movie market. In no time, Gordon was off and running to what had to be considered a successful career in the field of B-movies. Unlike others who dwelled in this genre, Gordon clearly displayed a rather strong sense of purpose to his films, giving the best his budgets could offer. Usually, this entailed as much special effects as possible, although he had limited means of presentation. Some of the best examples of this are such films of his as ?Beginning of the End,? ?Cyclops? and his most famous of all film, ?The Amazing Colossal Man? that led to its sequel, ?War of the Colossal Beast.? By the late 1950s, Gordon had acquired a following of fans that obviously consisted mostly of young movie going audiences. His career would in technical ways influence a bevy of aspiring filmmakers to come.
There has to be a clear cut observation that Gordon was never in the same league as the great artistry of Ray Harryhausen, who some fans believe Gordon pattern himself after. While this might be credible to surmise, the fact remains that Gordon would never have a high degree of resources at his disposal. What there was available to Gordon was utilized in as best a process as possible to then give his films a respectable outlook that made him an above average B-moviemaker. Another debate is whether or not to place Gordon in the same category as William Castle or even Roger Corman. The truth is that both Castle and Corman broke away from their B-Movie status, while Gordon never did. So, in hindsight, Gordon will most likely remain fixed in the genre he made a success that warrants a good degree of admiration, if not, professional respect.
Like it is with many filmmakers, Gordon surrounded himself with a company of creative individuals that in some ways was as good as any found in major film production. Perhaps his most famous partner was music composer Albert Glasser. The music of Glasser added a good amount of excitement to Gordon?s films, creating an illusion of sophistication and high style not so much associated with low-budget motion picture production. In the years to come, Glasser acquired his own following of fans that led to recordings of his scores (mostly for Gordon) and becoming something of an underrated film composer. This partnership came to full circle, when Gordon and Glasser collaborated on ?The Boy and the Pirates.? What is interesting about the score that Glasser created for Gordon, has its roots in obvious past known works and stylized musical nuances of composers such as Korngold, Newman and Steiner. The score for ?The Boy and the Pirates? is a pinnacle in presentation for a low-budget film that otherwise would have not been so noticeable or add anything to the motion picture. It?s a good example of an illusionist process to perhaps fooling the audience into thinking they are experiencing grandeur of style so much associated with classic fantasy adventure films! Like Gordon, Glasser would never rise out his B-movie roots, but like Gordon, he made the best with what he was offered.
Upon its release in 1960, ?The Boy and the Pirates? had a good response across the country. In some of the major cities, the movie wasn?t subjected to appearing on a ?double bill.? The publicity surrounding the motion picture had an aura of what might be considered in the style of a Disney movie. Certainly, the star of the film, child actor Charles Herbert had already been known to movie audiences. He had appeared in several major films of the 1950s. By the time Herbert appeared in Gordon?s film, his career was at its crossroad, between working in television and motion picture production. After a series of successful television and motion picture appearances, Herbert?s career was about to begin a downslide cycle that comes with child stars getting old and losing their once popular appeal. His career had simply peaked in 1960, especially with the added success of his appearance in ?13 Ghosts? that same year. Nobody can really say why Herbert failed to make that all important transition to becoming a teenage performer. His options in motion picture production dried up and while there was still television to consider, he continued to lose his once high popularity of having been a recognizable child star of the past decade. He became a secondary player in various television programs, failing even to achieve a solid or steady job in a long standing TV series. The next nine years were difficult for Herbert as he drifted from one television show to the next. Along the way his personal life hit rock-bottom. As an adult, he ended up broke. Having fallen prey to drug and alcohol abuse, it took him many years of moving in and out of rehab clinics to clean up his personal life. He is today said to have succeeded in turning his life around. Herbert now lives alone, never having been married. He makes his living by personal appearances at various memorabilia conventions and sci-fi movie festivals.
-
Ok now, here?s one for the record . . . Here?s one that probably won?t be on any list, let alone be so remembered. In talking about director?s primarily known for non-musical films, one who fits the bill would be Gordon Douglas. He certainly had a colorful career in Hollywood. He came from a bona fide show business family, having been born into the entertainment world. As a young man, Douglas ended up in Hollywood, making the usual rounds at all sorts of odd jobs. He started out as an actor, eventually ending up behind the scenes of film production. During the 1920s, he worked at MGM and then Paramount Pictures. It wasn?t until he joined the Hal Roach studios that his film career picked up momentum. This was especially the case, when Douglas was assigned to direct various short films for Hal Roach, resulting in the now famous classic ?Our Gang? series of ?kid films.? It was with Roach that Douglas settled on becoming a full time director and no longer dwelling in other areas of filmmaking, especially leaving behind a career as an occasional actor.
Hollywood?s most poignant year of 1939, was the break through year for Douglas, when he began to direct feature films on a regular basis. Throughout his early directorial career, he was never at one of the major studios for an extended period of time, always managing to drift from one motion picture Company to the next. Over the course of time and a lot of work, Douglas became a reliable, routine director for hire. He finally settled on becoming a contract director at Warner Brothers. The films Douglas made were mostly action/adventure yarn, consisting of a few westerns and then crime melodramas.
Then, in a surprise move, Warner Brothers handed Douglas two musical projects for 1953. The first was a musically inspired biography of opera singer Grace Moore, starring Kathryn Grayson. The second was what turned out to essentially be a starring vehicle for the studio?s popular blonde star, Virginia Mayo entitled, ?She?s Back on Broadway.? As far as I know, this marks the first major studio musical projects Douglas ever directed. The Grace Moore bio wasn?t all that bad, showcasing the many singing talents of Grayson, who was by that time in her prime as both a singer and movie star. The film is probably best remembered as the d?but of a young, popular singer by the name of Merv Griffin. The Mayo project was rather low-keyed and routine, never having been considered anything so major. The following year came what for me is one of the finest films in the repertory of Douglas, ?Young At Heart.? This 1954 production paired off Doris Day and Frank Sinatra for the first and only time. It was actually a remake of a previous Warner Brothers dramatic film, but was more of a semi-musical, with some really good tunes. The title tune for the movie, ?Young at Heart,? became one of Frank?s most popular recordings of the decade. The success of ?Young at Heart? paved the way for Douglas becoming one of Warner Brothers most versatile and identified directors. Historically speaking, this film marked the starting point to Sinatra?s long and close association with Douglas in the years to come
Interesting to add was the Douglas Warner Brothers film of 1955, ?Sincerely Yours.? This was another semi-musical starring popular pianist of the day, Liberace. While the movie was nothing more than capitalizing on the current notoriety of Liberace, it was a financial success. By the late 1950 decade, Douglas had fully established himself as one of the top studio directors at Warner Brothers. This allowed him consideration to receive some of the biggest planned projects. In 1962, Douglas directed Elvis Presley in ?Follow That Dream.? This movie was a "United Artists" production that was another in a series of formula oriented, sugar coated motion pictures that had the usual songs for Elvis to sing and later sell by way of the record industry. The movie itself as a stand-alone romantic/drama was pretty good. This was one of the rare good films Elvis made that allowed him a chance to play a character with some emotional depth. It must be noted that Douglas has a special designation among film historians and movie buffs. As it?s turned out, Douglas is the only film director to have held the distinction of having directed Frank Sinatra and Elvis in a successful motion picture.
Sinatra had by the late 1950s, formed a production team in connection with Warner Brothers or that the studio handled most of the films Frank produced and sometimes starred in. One of them was the all-star ?Rat Pack? romp of 1964, ?Robin and The 7 Hoods.? Frank called upon Douglas to direct and the film was the last time the famed ?Rat Pack? group of Frank?s close and trusted friends would be seen together. This movie would also be the last time Douglas directed a major musical film. Yet, "Robin and The 7 Hoods" wouldn?t mark the end of Frank?s association with Douglas, leading to the well known, if not popular, ?Tony Rome? detective movies. Most likely, the 1960s were the peak period for Douglas and his major film career. He never really had what might be considered a motion picture with enough mythical status and classic remembrance. He was however, a good, solid film director when it came time to push out a feasible, reliable product. Douglas was on all counts a ?child of the studio system? and he really understood the system well enough for as long as it lasted. It was only after the system Douglas had efficiently worked in came to its end, he also came to the end of his longtime directorial career. He simply couldn?t function outside of the system or at least good enough to continue on with a beneficial career. Towards the end, he directed some pretty bad bombs that will never be remembered. His death in 1993 went by nearly unnoticed by the various newswires. Still, along that thin line that signifies good moviemaking, he has had some value to notice and perhaps give him a little respect.
-
Who could ever forget: ?Emergo Process! ? More startling than 3-D!? Well, old Bill Castle ought to be given some credit for at least making his movies a bit fun during the late decade of the 1950s. When ?House on Haunted Hill? was released, Castle did his usual out of the ordinary stuff, by installing in various theaters throughout the country (and there were actually very few that did) that crazy, luminous skeleton! Of course, anybody who?s seen the movie knows why the theater might consider suspending a dangling boney figurine that would on cue be dragged along a wire from one end of the theater to the next! The silly thing about this Castle gimmick was that many theaters couldn't conceal the skeleton so easily. When movie goers entered the theater, there was ?boney? hanging from one corner of the curtain, waiting for his big scary moment. Well, there would never be nothing so scary, but comical with floods of reports from across the country of how audiences (mostly kids) reacted, usually throwing their empty popcorn boxes and soda cups at poor ?boney? as he made his grand entrance floating across the heads of the audience.
This typical Castle gimmick was only done in the big metropolitan cities, while smaller theaters, especially drive-ins had to settle on just the movie. Still, I believe that ?House on Haunted Hill? is an underrated horror film, way above the average B-Movie material released during the 1950s. The movie has some pretty good, intriguing moments with offerings to scare one right out of their seats. Also, the script as written by longtime Castle associate, Robb White was not so bad, making one think it did have some logic that might be a little crazy, but the events could really have happened. Perhaps the best non-scary moment of the film was when Vincent Price hands out guns to his guests in miniature coffins! This adds a rather macabre, cute touch to the movie. Of all the performers in the film, it ends up with Elisha Cook Jr. stealing just about every scene he was in. This classic movie by William Castle is strongly connected to launching Vincent Price towards his legendary career of what I would consider ?high-class? horror films. While I would give the big classy nod to Hammer Films being the best in the horror movie department of the era, Castle and Roger Corman tried hard and a few times both of them came close to matching the mighty, elegant Hammer.
Edited by: MovieProfessor on Nov 3, 2009 7:07 PM
-
It definetly sounds like the 1959 best foregin film "Oscar" winner, "Black Orpheus." If there's anything to remember about this movie, it's the renown music by bossa nova legend Antonio Carlos Jobim. He wrote the songs with another great Brazilian composer and exponent of the bossa nova, Luiz Bonf?. The two most famous songs are "Manh? de Carnaval" and "A felicidade" that have since gone on to become symbolic of classic Brazilian bossa nova music. What's obvious to remember about this movie is the opening sequence of the Carnaval and the ferry boat as its sails across the harbor of Rio de Janeiro. This is always a sure give away that it's "Black Orpheus."
-
Thanks Kingrat,
It's great to know that somebody out there understands what Mankiewicz was all about. You are so "right on" about his being so prone as to focus on female characters, more so than male. It's truly one of the main factors to his career, especially centering around my all time favorite film of his, "A Letter to Three Wives." It's probably the finest film he ever made that expresses all the hopes, fears and passions of the human spirit. They just don't make movies like that one any more. And, Joe was truly an grand exponent of the spoken word.
-
drednm wrote> Mason may simply have been filming on location out of the country for his next film..... so far as I know Mason and Garland got along well....
Mason was without question in Hollywood, living in the house once owned by Buster Keaton. He was currently invovled in television production that had him hosting several dramatic programs. Of course, he may have not been around at that time in October, when "A Star is Born" was released . . . I've heard all sorts of excuses on the issue of his not showing up. At this point, he was probably more upset about how the studio handled the film. And, he did support Judy as much as he could, during the filming. But, it's usually agreed that both he and Cukor had had enough of the situation as to simply allow Judy to have the moment that evening and nothing else.
-
If there was one single event that probably began the doubts amid the Hollywood community, happened on the night of the premiere of ?A Star is Born.? That never to be forgotten night at the Pantages Theater wasn?t such a complete success for Judy. Director George Cukor and James Mason did not show up. This sent something of a message to many that signified both Cukor and Mason had faced enough traumas during the making of the movie and so the two just stayed away. Naturally, there were questions about why the co-star and the motion picture?s director were a ?no show? at what was the biggest night in Hollywood. When one watches the film footage of the premiere on the DVD of ?A Star is Born,? it?s just weird that Mason and Cukor are missing! Without any doubt, this situation connected to the obvious doom the film was about to face. Especially leading to Warner Brothers cutting and editing the film down and lots of good footage was lost. No matter what one might want to feel about Judy?s chances at winning the ?Oscar,? it was enviable that she would lose, because what came into question was her faith in the profession and without that nobody can really get recognition or will be granted something beyond the usual praise. She just didn?t realize that a lot of eyes were watching and a lot ears listening. They watched and listen to see if she could manage herself well. All she had left was the magic of her talent and nothing else to offer in the sense of showing some long term reliability, stability and that there was enough respect towards her craft. She was just lucky in the following years that the public continued to love her and want more of her magic. In hindsight, most everyone sort of came to feel a little sorry for her and that feeling is generally part of her allure. It was perhaps best expressed at her funeral, when James Mason showed up and gave the eulogy.
-
That whole 1954 Academy Award situation for ?best actress? was a tremendous embarrassment for Judy. With the idea that she was being so loved and adored at the time she started work on ?A Star is Born,? the leaked out information of her problems while making the movie began a downward spin towards what was probably the biggest disappointment among the film community. The general public seemed in full support of Judy winning the "Oscar," while the Hollywood community appeared and acted like Judy had the ?Oscar? in the bag. On the night the winner was announced, the shockwaves created have to this day continued to resonate with millions of fans. Some fans felt that a knife had been stabbed in Judy?s back and was slowly twisted by the film community that technically betrayed her. I?ve sometimes wondered about this situation, because at the time, from my vantage point, it seemed likely that Judy would win. Everybody in town talked as if they had voted for Judy. So, all we can do is surmise that while the general public and fans didn?t know all to clear what was happening behind the scenes, the Hollywood community had received a pretty good amount of first hand information to think twice on the matter and hand the ?Oscar? over to Grace.
Don?t get me wrong on this subject. I absolutely adored Judy, but knowing of her trials and tribulations has always made me feel she not receive the award, because in the final analysis, competence and professional respect is what should really count. In this regard, she lost many votes that otherwise might have been different had she not gone off on a chaotic binge. This reminds me of something I once heard Kate Hepburn say, ?I?d rather have the loyalty and esteem of the people I work with and not come off so self centered.? Judy forgot one very important aspect to working in a movie. It?s a commutative effort, supported by so many others that require a thoroughly understood pattern towards what is essentially the final goal. Celebrity stardom and talent sometimes just don?t mix very well. Judy destroyed herself, but not her talent. In the end, that?s all she was able to leave behind. For some fans that might be enough, but one has to ask was it really enough for Judy? She probably wanted that ?Oscar? as much as any working actress in Hollywood. However, the lunacy that overtook her couldn?t be so easily controlled, creating a disparity between her professional life and who she really was inside. This is probably the main reason why in the end, Hollywood couldn?t be so loving as to give her a prize for a situation that didn?t warrant any qualitative results from what is expected of those who take time and effort to make motion pictures a serious and rewarding pursuit in life.
-
If at all, it?s understandable why a possible remake be planned on the basis of what can now be done with computer animation. In the twenty years since, a lot has happened to change everything about the technical end of the spectrum. After all, there?s talk of creating what is essentially virtual reality films with real classic movie stars all done in ?life-like? computer animation. There are of course lots of legal issues to consider in this area, before we start to see new films with the likes of Bogie, Gable, Monroe, Grant, Davis, you name em?! If and when this virtual reailty thing happens, a whole new era in movie making will result and the course of entertainment will radically change.
-
Of course Grace Kelly deserves to be a ?star of the month!? Although her career was short, she was a star of the highest magnitude, based around first her beauty and finally her professionalism. Her working ethic towards whatever field she chose was way above others, when she didn?t have to seek a job or prove herself to anyone. There was always a competitive spirit she acquired from her upbringing that the family wanted to least have everyone accountable to having achieved something in life. While she did have it easy to some extent or not have to worry so much about supporting herself, at times she faced resentment from those who knew she came from a life of privilege. The years she was in New York, working as a model and seeking a performing career were not so leisurely pleasant for her. Kelly received the usual rejections and doors being slammed in her face. The one thing about Kelly that gave her some respect was that she didn?t exploit her wealthy background in order to either acquire a job or create leverage for herself. She worked as long and hard as anyone else on a job. There was something of a constant fear to push her beyond the ever growing watchful eyes of those who found reason to judge her. Coming from that upper establishment, also entailed cautiousness on her part to how she would relate to those around her. This could at times be misinterpreted as arrogance, insensitivity and having an underlying frigid character.
Being beautiful and rich at the same time can be hazardous, simply because of everything from envy or suspicions as to why a person of a wealthy background be given opportunities over those whose lives have been under the woes of struggle and lack of advantages. Kelly never really had the advantages many believed helped her, once she got out into the world. This was especially the case, when she focused on a career in show business. It?s fair to state that at the beginning, she was rather raw and coy on her acting abilities. It took a lot of time and effort, mostly on her part, to realize her limitations and correct many of the flaws that early on hampered her acting career. She learned her craft upon entering the new realm of ?live? dramatic television. It was those early years, making the rounds at the various network television studios where Kelly was lucky to be able to polish herself off and find the necessary means of getting a foundation for her career and abilities. While many will always believe she was helped or pampered along the way to fame and glory, this was and will remain a terrible and stupid misconception. I was around that era . . . I saw how wonderfully dedicated Kelly became to her work as an actress during those exciting years in New York. Her venture to Hollywood was always a gamble, there was never any guarantee she would get work regularly or end up a movie star. Truth is that when she arrived on the motion picture scene, she already had a credible and reliable r?sum? behind her!
All those Judy Garland fans who have never forgiven the Academy of Motion Pictures for Judy not winning the coveted ?Oscar? in 1954 are foolish to not try and understand why Kelly won the award in the first place! Hollywood lovingly opened its arms to Judy upon her return to major films. Judy had tons of support for her big comeback in ?A Star is Born.? Sadly, the time Judy worked on the film there was simply too many personal hang-ups and hassles that overshadowed any chance of the motion picture community to feel that she deserved the Academy Award. It was one thing to be endearingly hopeful for Judy?s return, knowing that she was without question one of the greatest talents ever! But, it was a whole other affair to feel she now is awarded for a performance that was marred by a lack of professionalism and real, honest dedication to those she worked with. Judy gave what was probably her greatest dramatic performance, but it was really hitting home or was too close to what was actually happening on the set of the movie! So, the film community knowing full well of how Kelly was devoted to her worked in motion pictures and kept herself clean and on the straight and narrow, had no recourse but to pass on the award to her! After all, Kelly sacrificed her trademark good looks and it was in every respect a role that was challenging in the sense that her performance in ?The Country Girl? was that of an unsympathetic character.
I believe Kelly finally proved many of her critics wrong, especially those who were either jealous or resentful towards her becoming an actress. As far as the film community as concerned, she turned out never to be a typical rich girl coming to the movies on a fun-time basis or to make a party out of the whole ordeal. Grace Kelly deserves everything there is to be considered a serious and good actress. And, for those who will say that she only married the prince out of this ravenousness need to keep herself looking poised and special is way off the mark! Kelly simply came to realize her time in motion pictures had reached its pinnacle. Wisely, she realized that unlike others who made the movies their lifetime pursuit, she had accomplished enough to feel satisfied and now move on to an even more challenging, if not, exciting role! There was certainly nothing wrong with choosing a lifestyle most would envy beyond what she already had. She rightfully realized that becoming a princess can be far more rewarding than becoming a movie star. Kelly was smart in that she knew she wasn?t a great actress, so she turned her celebrity to where it would best work for her and as far as most can tell, she once again succeeded as she had always been able to do, without little help from any family or close wealthy connections.
-
> The reason the film wasn't made in color is that after locations had been scouted for the film, Darryl Zanuck, producer Sol C. Siegel, director Henry King and art director Lyle Wheeler realized that in color, all the palazzos, villas and squares they'd chosen would inevitably look like nothing more than a bunch of old buildings, whereas in the less demanding medium of black and white they could pass them off as "contemporary" to the 15th century story.
>
Strange, that Zanuck and King would take the time to fly down the Technicolor cameras to Mexico for "Captain From Castile." Judging by the scenic vistas in Mexico that stood in for Spain and well as the actual on location filming for Mexico, it now appears that a mistake or reconsideration should have been made on the color issue for "Prince of Foxes." After all, the mountainous northern part of Italy is extremely colorful. Even more peculiar to this issue is that there were plenty of color cameras available in Europe to utilize. My gut feeling tells me that 20th Century-Fox just decided they wouldn?t be bothered this second time around. And, their last epic venture with ?Captain From Castile? didn?t fare so well at the box-office. Somewhere along the line, money and a lot of setup time was saved.
-
One might want to wonder if this proposed remake will be in the same format of the old ?roadshow? engagement. This would include an overture, intermission and exit music. Then, what scenes or items will be cut from the original concept of the stage show and not really having anything to do with the 1964 film version? The budget for this remake will probably not be as demanding as the original was by way of this new production going to be filmed on location, in London. A lot will be riding on just what major changes will be made that could very well spell disappointment. But then, I seriously doubt this movie can reach Block-Buster status or be anything like the 1964 original in terms of its overall success. In general, one has to wonder if there are still enough fans out there who can appreciate this sort of old, traditional entertainment. All I?m trying to say is that no matter what is said or what hype there is in attempting to get interest in this remake, it won?t work. And, frankly who really cares? This is the sort of production that a group of people get together with some money and they have the notion to produce a sophisticated film, usually based around an extended idea locked within its ostentatious desire. The problem basically is there isn?t enough known talent around to really say it can after so many years, able to be pulled off again. This is a project that has no real solid foundation to stand on; other then a contemporary fan based that probably will have a curiosity to see this movie. I just have very, very little hope in what is essentially an attempt by the other side of the Atlantic to now after so many years, throw their 2 cents into this matter. And, this is just about what this production will be most likely worth . . . 2 cents.
-
I can accept that assertion, on the grounds that he continued to be a highly praised working actor. However, in terms of finally making the grade to a reasonable degree of film stardom that he had once known in 1940s, his starring role in "The Music Man" placed him on a high pedestal of fame. In this sense, it was a comeback in terms of reaching a new stardom to heights he could have never imagined would have come his way.
-
I agree, it's time to movie on, so I'll end my take on the subject by saying . . .
Thanks! You said the key word ?entertainment.? Without doubt the movie succeeds in that category. While the following year ?The Sound of Music? may have been a bigger box-office hit, it pales in comparison to the wonderful aura surrounding ?My Fair Lady? as a form of superb studio filmmaking. It?s interesting that with all the controversy surrounding ?My Fair Lady,? the critics at large were kind to the film. On the other hand, ?The Sound of Music? received a lukewarm response from the critics that for the most part, a lot of the credit to saving the movie came with the immense popularity of Julie Andrews. Looking at both films, in terms of their technical expertise, there is nothing so grand about ?The Sound of Music.? The funny thing to ponder is that it comes across as an elongated type of ?Disney Movie,? that relies so much on a sugar coated atmosphere. Another factor that can?t be so easily overlooked from a historical point is that the original Rogers & Hammerstein stage show wasn?t critically so well received! It took sometime for the Rogers & Hammerstein stage show to get its momentum going smooth. For the first time, the composers had to rely on lots of publicity both on television and with the help of the press to fend off what might have been a major flop! Most historians agree that the stage show was the weakest production ever produced by the celebrated songwriting team.
What fascinates me is when the film opened to less than raving reviews, right away ?Life Magazine? was called into the picture, giving the film extensive coverage. That magazine issue probably did more to promote the film than any thing other than Julie. It was only after the film became the biggest box-office draw of its time that full, international coverage emerged. At that point, the huge cult surrounding ?The Sound of Music? began. Even before the Academy Awards were presented, the motion picture had achieved a record box-office take. Yet, ask anyone around the business, why the film possible was able to beat out a beautiful motion picture like ?Doctor Zhivago,? especially at ?Oscar? time, centers around a speculation that because 20th Century-Fox had been in near foreclosure and bankruptcy, the feeling around town could have been somewhat sympathetic. In the final analysis, there is something to be said about what?s really a coy movie, made to look big, while another shows its true costly effort of time and money spent.
-
Poor Norma . . . As De Millie said of her in the movie, ?You know, a dozen press agents working overtime can do terrible things to the human spirit.? For Norma there was never going to be anything as a return. Anyone who?s been out of the spotlight for an extended period of time and pops back up can?t really maneuver around what everybody in the business knows is nothing more than to _come_ _back_ under the spotlight. I love that moment when Norma has returned to the soundstages of Paramount and suddenly without warning comes the menacing microphone boom that nearly hits her! That?s why Billy Wilder so brilliantly had Norma sitting on De Millie?s chair and when the spotlight (that?s she?s craved for) comes down upon her, she?s really the one who?s come back under it, never to understand that as De Millie mentions to her, ?You know, pictures have changed quite a bit.?
-
Joe simply wanted to believe his performers were efficient and capable of their acting chores. I?ve never doubted that he didn?t take time to assess an acting situation in a given scene. In a bold way of speaking, he didn?t like being consumed with taking too much time over insecurities and a lack of confidence. His contention was never to resolve what a performer might be thinking about a role?s interpretation as long as it equated correctly along first a visual sense and then translates into the spoken word, usually pertaining strongly to the scripts he wrote for the various films he directed. It?s simple enough to comprehend that because Joe had written the script, if at anytime he felt there was in inadequate response, he would then address the situation, but not be prone to overstate what he felt was needed. He once said that in handling performers it?s a 50/50 proposition. Ava was the type of performer who had to be made to feel comfortable. Joe was never the type of director to tamper anyone he worked with. One of the reasons for this was a bit of resentment over the whole movie star celebrity imagery that Joe detested. But, let?s face the real underlying fact to what was part of Ava?s problem. This role she played hit very close to home and perhaps there were lurking everywhere sad shades of her past growing up dirt poor in North Carolina. And, let?s not forget you know who. The guy she had married and was now separated from and was a constant emotional hindrance to her. After all, her husband and Bogie were close friends and this probably hovered over the whole ordeal of her never being able to handle the role so easily.
I feel the movie is a near miss. While I?ve always loved Joe?s writing and handling of dialog, it was a pretentious attempt by him to get a sort of international feel to his already established film career. Joe simply turned out not to be suited for this sort of overseas stuff. He couldn?t be John Huston, who managed himself well once he left Hollywood behind. As for Joe, he was a product of the Hollywood soundstages and there was never any getting away from that simple factor. He was a great writer, who happened to also direct. But you know, I would always in my heart rate Billy Wilder way better than Joe, only because Billy handled performers without pretentious needs to focus solely on what he had written. Billy somehow managed his relationship with his performers more on an open sense of kinship that the work while important and serious has an air of affable feeling surround the whole idea. Joe was at times simply too serious and what he worried about first was his script and not so much the performer. While he has remained one of the best directors of Hollywood?s golden age, sometimes it just didn?t workout for him. His best films are the ones where you don't have a sense of his being so pretentious.
-
This is one of my favorite of all subjects to tackle about movies. All of us who love the whole magic and allure of Hollywood and the movies will remember and relate to those rare and special moments when suddenly and unexpectedly, a once bright popular movie star or filmmaker made a triumphant return to the movie business in some form or fashion to be so remembered, if not, cherished. There really aren?t very many special movie comebacks, in the sense of having any historic value. While some will argue in favor of a star or filmmaker be placed on that special list or category of having revived their career and popularity, the list continues to change constantly, with time and circumstance. So, I?ll give my list of favorites that have stood the test of time to have a meaningful and affectionate remembrance to what?s good and exciting about the movies. At the end of my list of comebacks, I will also list those that never came to pass or failed because of some obstacle that dimmed the light of stardom or the spotlight to fame.
Here goes and in no special order . . .
Janet Gaynor ? ?A Star Is Born 1937.? Here was a woman that can best be described as one of those quintessential figures of early Hollywood and its initial ?star system.? Janet had for a short while, been a big star during the silent era. She even won the very first coveted Academy Award for ?best actress.? Everything about Janet and her movie star fame focused upon being a passionate sweetheart to the millions of fans who clamored to see her films. Then, when talking pictures rolled in, Janet seemed adequate enough to hold her popularity, but along the way she faced a few personal problems that slowed her career down a bit. Between 1934 and 1937, these two unfulfilling years and a poor box-office response looked like she might be losing her grip. Coming to her rescue in so many ways was maverick movie producer, David O. Selznick. He offered Janet a chance to work at this newly formed studio of Selznick International Pictures. At the beginning of this new venture, a lot of predictions were made that the studio wouldn?t last a year or two against the major movie companies in Hollywood. Yet, for his first big venture or release, Selznick chose a most unique subject, Hollywood itself! He created what is today considered the definitive movie about the creation of film stardom, as well as its setbacks and pitfalls. Selznick had already tackled the subject years earlier with ?What Price Hollywood.? This second offering of his was even more beautifully told and yet so tragic. But, it was Janet Gaynor?s performance in the film that really set off the pattern to the movie?s success. She earned an ?Oscar? nomination for her wonderful performance, adding something extra to her already highly established career. For all of this praised that made her the envy of many who worked in Hollywood, she would in the following years give up her career on a full time basis and live happily with her second husband, famed MGM costume designer Gilbert Adrian. What I?ll always remember about her and ?A Star is Born? was what she said about the film: Our movie was about as accurate a story about Hollywood as it could ever get . . . It was about a girl who came from nowhere, with absolutely no training and the studio made her star!?
Gloria Swanson ? ?Sunset Boulevard 1950.? I must confess that this movie is probably my favorite of all ?movie comebacks? for obvious reasons. It?s funny that I just mentioned a great movie and performance about Hollywood and now here?s still another! But this one truly cuts deep into the dark, foreboding core of Hollywood and everything about the movie business. Director/writer Billy Wilder probably never made a film so provocative about the business he knew and lived with. Just about every film buff knows this movie and how it has for so many of us spelled out with the sad or disappointing consequences that are so prevalent to the film industry. If anything, Wilder showed the phony and unforgiving side to Hollywood. But, most fans will agree that ?Sunset Boulevard? belongs to actress Gloria Swanson, a woman who knew everything there was to know about the now classic character she played, fallen silent movie queen, ?Norma Desmond.? After all is said and done, she was once a silent movie queen herself and in that regard there couldn?t have been a finer choice! Over the years, I?ve noticed that some fans will also say that the film was just as important to actor William Holden, whose career was at the time he appeared in the film in limbo. So, we might consider two big comebacks in one single great and immortal film!
Frank Sinatra ? ?From Here To Eternity 1953.? This is about as big a famous comeback can get. Frank was truly down on his luck, when fate intervened and he received a supporting role in this classic World War Two film. There?s always been lots of crazy speculation upon how Frank won the role, by way of underworld connections. These stories have in some ways overshadowed his magnificent performance. But what I?ve always loved about this story was that Frank made a habit of always referring to the event and his role in ?From Here To Eternity,? signifying just how important the movie was to his life and career. It was the one single most accomplishment he relished and was most proud of having done over the course of his celebrated, illustrious career.
Ingrid Bergman ? ?Anastasia 1956.? I can?t really feel that this was such a huge comeback. What this movie signified was her return to Hollywood in a big way, but I?m convinced that she would have never failed, because the movie going public really loved her. The public for all its rage and outcry to Ingrid?s supposed scandalous private life, couldn?t last long and the movie business simply loved her. No matter what had transpired behind the closed doors of her private life that became a tabloid favorite, she rose above all the nonsense and gave a first rate performance in ?Anastasia.? It?s not really her best performance, when compared to others she did, but we can sometimes figure that she won the Academy Award as a ?welcome back? token from those who had always loved and admired her magic on screen.
Marlon Brando ? ?The Godfather 1972.? Well, its now time to dwell in that most controversial subject of what some fans and film buffs consider one of the greatest actors of the 20th Century. Marlon remains probably the most revered actor to several generations. While his ?method acting? technique might be considered animated when compared to Spencer Tracy, Paul Muni or Fredric March, Marlon stands alone in a category that in many ways placed him there due to an eccentric attitude that became his trademark. His highly praised return to major films in ?The Godfather? only proved that his magical presence or unconventional persona and style still captivated audiences enough to welcome him back as a great and inspiring actor. The thing or issue to me I see about Marlon doesn?t have so much to do with great acting, in as much as its something about his magical personality on screen that you either hate him or like him. It?s all that simple.
Orson Welles ? ?Touch of Evil 1958.? This is the only movie on my list with having both director and star one in the same. Orson hadn?t directed a film in Hollywood for almost ten years. Then, something extraordinary happened in the late 1950s. Critics and film historians suddenly labeled his 1941 masterpiece ?Citizen Kane? as the greatest film ever made in America, if not, the world! Well, all the fuss that suddenly evolved about Orson, gave him a chance to return to Hollywood, via Universal Pictures and a bit of freedom to create something intriguing. This would turn out to be a rather simple, yet bizarre crime drama. Orson hadn?t lost any of his old movie tricks, giving the film an array of strange and unusual visuals that gave off with a nightmarish effect. The film was unfortunately tampered with by the studio that feared it was too negative a subject matter to bring in a reasonable profit. So, the film was treated like a secondary release, showing up in small local theaters and drive-ins. Luckily, the fans of Orson, mostly critics and film devotees, supported the motion picture and over the years it?s now hailed as another in a series of great films that Orson both starred in and directed.
Judy Garland ? ?A Star Is Born? 1954. It?s strange to think that two films of the same name or title are on this list of mine. But, any diehard film buff would agree that perhaps the greatest ?one woman show? in movie history might be Judy Garland?s eloquent performance in what was essentially a remake of the Janet Gaynor 1937 version. Judy hadn?t done a film in four years and it was the most anticipated event when announced her return to major films. A lot of time, money and effort went into creating what was the most expensive and elaborate production of the year. Judy probably never gave such a heart wrenching performance as she did in this movie as well as never sounding better with her singing. The obvious big difference now with this film as opposed to the original was having turned the story into a dramatic musical. Perhaps the biggest of all controversy concerning this movie was Judy not winning an Academy Award. Well, the story (if you want to believe it) goes that she was a mess during the film?s making and created lots of turmoil. It?s also believed that Warner Brothers cutting down the length of the movie hurt its overall imagine. Whatever the case, Grace Kelly winning the ?Oscar? that year signified for many in Hollywood that a disciplined actress deserved the award.
Rosalind Russell ? ?Auntie Mame? 1958. Here?s another great one woman show. Roz Russell wasn?t exactly down on her luck, but unlike several actresses of her generation, her once bright popular movie stardom had diminished, by not receiving very many important roles by the late 1950s. So, she returned to the New York Broadway stage and was handled one of those once in a lifetime roles. The huge success of ?Auntie Mame? overnight revived great interest in Roz. Her creation of the character clearly displayed she had never loss that special, terrific energy for her to handle a wonderful comedic role. When it came time for the film version, nobody in their right mind could have challenged her in repeating the character on screen. Roz was in 1958, the big frontrunner to win the Academy Award, but she didn?t. She lost out to lovely Susan Hayward, who in her own special way deserved the award.
Robert Preston ? ?The Music Man? 1962. If there?s one performance from the live stage that is so identified by the performer who created it, it was Preston?s role of ?Professor Harold Hill? in the classic beloved musical of Americana. He had never really been a huge star during his years at Paramount Pictures that by the late 1950s saw him return to the Broadway stage. It was there he finally made his mark to impress upon the simple fact that he was on all counts a great talent or actor who could handle just about anything. When it came time for the film version, other actors where considered for their box-office appeal. But, no one around Hollywood wanted anyone else but Preston. He was simply lucky that Warner Brothers decided on allowing him the rare chance to revive what is essentially one of the all time great musical performances of the movies. It was for him a highly deserved comeback of monumental portions and he would never be considered a secondary player ever again.
* * *
Here?s my list of comebacks that went bust or never came about.
John Gilbert ? His heavy drinking and reckless lifestyle ruined him along the way to the changes brought on by talking pictures that also hurt his career. He died while making a film that he hoped would reignite his career in 1936.
Greta Garbo ? Although it?s been said that in 1941 Greta quit the movies while she was still popular or that she saw the hand writing on the wall and her career was heading towards a downswing, most everyone hoped she would one day return to the movies. During all those years she stayed away from filmdom, there were always little moments that popped up, when a producer or director tantalized the world with the idea that Greta would make a comeback. The closest time it ever came was with director Billy Wilder, when the two met and discussed the matter. Sadly, it would never come about and Greta would remain for the rest of her life the movie?s greatest of all enigmas.
Norma Shearer ? She was the undisputed Queen of MGM for at least 15 years. Interestingly, she quit the movies right after Garbo, sensing that her time had also come. Over a period of some 20 years after her retirement, there were always hints by some who knew her that she might return. This of course never came to pass and like Garbo, she was always invited, but stopped attending the Academy Award ceremonies after she left the movies for good.
Mae West ? This was on all counts a rather crazy and outlandish comeback in 1970 for ?Myra Breckinridge.? Mae wasn?t exactly the most terrible thing in the movie, but it was unworthy of her broad talents and wit. She was simply hired as a means of notoriety and while it worked to get audiences interested in seeing this piece of junk, she was the only reason why the movie managed to stay alive and create a bit of a biz.
Marilyn Monroe ? This might not be considered a comeback situation, but in 1962, Marilyn was at a crossroad in her life and career. After some terrible bouts with depression and unable to finish work on a film, she was promptly fired by 20Th Century-Fox. However, over a period of a month or so, the studio and Marilyn decided on reconciling their differences and a new agreement was made. She would make three motion pictures at one million dollars each! Thus, this contract would have made Marilyn the highest paid movie star of the day, beating out Elizabeth Taylor. Well, most of us know what happened by the summer of 1962, when Marilyn was found dead at her home and began what is probably the greatest of all mythical figure of the movies.
* * *
So there you have it, my list of famous movie comebacks and those that didn?t make it. What might be yours?
-
Probably the greatest of all success with a dramatic director handling a major film musical was Fred Zinnemann. He was a most unlikely choice by Rogers & Hammerstein to handle the directing chores. Yet, I believe Fred brought in a most satisfying film on all counts, concerning the whole aura of what the stage show had once been. While there were the usual changes made for the movie version, it's logical to feel that the songwriting team, who produced the movie themselves, felt confident in Fred to make the transition to the big screen so rewarding and it turned out to be a huge and respected hit movie.
-
How about Mrs. Bill Holden . . . Brenda Marshall?
-
How about beautiful Toby Wing?
-
I can agree with a lot of the criticism towards the 1964 film version of ?My Fair Lady.? However, and this is a very big HOWEVER . . . The film turned out to be a beautiful looking movie. It was absolutely gorgeous! Comon? now! It?s foolish to deny this simple fact. And, as far as Cukor goes, he was a good choice to handle this project after all the fuss and hassles about the casting. After all, Cukor was the right choice in terms of handling Hepburn. Rex was just along for the big ride that he and Stanley Holloway had already experienced on stage. Push come to shove, Warner?s did a good job from the look of the film and delivered a good film in many other departments. The music scoring by Andre Previn was sensational. The photography by Harry Stradling was first rate. The beautiful sets and interiors designed by Cecil Beaton and Gene Allen were breathtaking! Let?s not forget about the stupendous costumes by Beaton! The technical end of the film?s presentation can?t be denied and from that angel alone, Jack L. Warner succeeded. Of course, Jack failed in his casting the one major role that caught the public?s imagination. While I still stand behind what I previous have said about his decision based around the business end of the spectrum, I now feel that there was never any real gamble for Jack to worry about. But, at the time he was just able to get away with it, especially after the film became a classic one way or another.
-
In the Julius Caesar funeral scene, Richard Burton actually gave the famous "Lend Me Your Ears" speech from the Shakespeare play! Burton knew the famous scene by heart! Mankiewicz then had the soundtrack noises of screams and cries from the Roman crowd barely make Burton's oratory heard! Some fans over the years, that obvious caught on to what Mankiewicz did with the scene, say some of Burton's dialog can be understood, using headphones and played at a certain high level. Then, it's been said, that anyone able to "read lips" can decipher that he is actually performing the famous Shakespeare sermon from "Julius Caesar!" Personally, I've never been able to hear anything in that scene that sounded remotely familiar.
"Never Cry Wolf".. interesting...
in General Discussions
Posted
This is an outstanding movie, filmed entirely on location in areas of wilderness Canada. While the Disney Company gave the film some respectable support, it?s believed that it could have never been a big moneymaking film, due in part to the lack of ?star power.? Still, the magnificent way director Carroll Ballard created the film was in so many ways a breathtaking experience to watch, especially on a big theater screen. Actor Charles Martin Smith was sensational in his role as nature biologist, finding himself caught up in adapting to the unpredictable environment. And, the main thing to remember is that the motion picture itself was all based on fact or that it all really happened! In the years to come, this little movie may very well turn out to be something of a cult classic. Sadly, when first released, it wasn?t widely seen, until the film made it to video. It?s in that area where ?Never Cry Wolf? found renewed interest and gained some new life. This is one movie that should be highly recommended.