MovieProfessor
-
Posts
1,421 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by MovieProfessor
-
-
Be on the lookout this week for a very interesting movie entitled, ?The Crash.? Produced in 1932, this motion picture is something of a typical ?studio showcase? for what was essentially a major star. In this case, ?The Crash? was one in a series of few films, starring an almost forgotten movie star, talented and exhilarating Ruth Chatterton. The story of her life and career would make for a novel or even a film in of itself! Chatterton, whose career is hardly ever talked about, let alone, has not been so clearly and deeply chronicled was one of those unique, once in a lifetime stories of Hollywood that for the most part has faded away amid more noted movie stars that managed to have a longevity that her film career never did. Like many girls starting out in show business, Chatterton made a huge impact on the live stage, becoming a sensation at age 20, in the highly popular comedy, ?Daddy Long Legs.? Her quick raise to fame and glory as an actress, at first didn?t transcend to Hollywood smoothly, due in part to Chatterton not being enthusiastic to work in silent-films. In 1928, she decided to take an offer from Paramount Pictures and began what she believed would be nothing more than a sideshow for her to consider. Fate had Chatterton make only one silent movie, ?Sins of the Fathers.? She then moved on to the new medium of talking-pictures! This was a very fascinating technical aspect in that Chatterton might be considered the very first, devoted, popular stage actress to have not had any long term career in silent movies! The medium of talking pictures would simply allow Chatterton the means to display her various skills that had made her famous; her emotional range as an actress was by that time considered one of the finest.
In no time, Chatterton was Paramount?s top dramatic star. After three successful early sound films, in 1929, she was lent to MGM, where she appeared in what many film buffs believe to be her greatest performance in the classic soap-opera ?Madam X.? This motion picture was one of the smash hits of the year, garnering for Chatterton an Academy Award nomination. At the time of this success, already there were mutterings that Chatterton was a reflection of MGM?s biggest dramatic star, mighty Norma Shearer. Yet, some film historians have countered to say that it was Shearer who actually patterned herself after Chatterton. The technical truth is that Shearer had a longer career in films than Chatterton ever did. Chatterton came late on the movie screen and it?s likely that Paramount had all along wanted to compete against MGM in this dramatic category. I myself tend to believe that Chatterton came to films based around the success of Shearer. The two women had personas that were strikingly similar, as well as their acting skills seem to compliment each other! Throughout the early 1930s, the two actresses were symbolic rivals for the admiration of the movie fans. It?s even been reported that Chatterton lost out to Shearer on receiving various roles. The most famous being ?A Free Soul,? that won Shearer an Academy Award.
The next series of films Chatterton made at Paramount were in typical melodramatic form of women who struggled to find love or emotional fulfillment. These types of films, pretty much made Chatterton incredibly popular with female audiences, who clamored for more of the same. By 1930 and in less than two years, Chatterton was a major dramatic movie star, right on the heels in popularity behind Norma Shearer. It was all too obvious that talking-pictures was key to making Chatterton a success, because unlike most actresses at the time, Chatterton understood the importance of good diction and a style of elegance that made her image on screen reap with a passion that transfixed most movie going audiences to admiring her skill as an actress. In no time, Chatteton was a highly paid movie star and the subject of everything that was fashionable to the women in America. She was making at least 3 major films a year, right up until the time she left her popular career at Paramount Pictures to sign on with Warner Brothers and First National Pictures. It was right after moving over to the new studio, she met her second husband in 1932, actor George Brent. Warner?s cleverly placed the newly married performers in a series of popular melodramas. Despite these films not being so worthy of Chatterton?s talents, they kept her career on top or at least signifying she was one of the big box-office draws of the early 1930s. During this early period working at Warner?s, Chatterton met and befriended a young aspiring actress, whom she took under her wing by the name of Bette Davis! Later on came another good friendship with another actress she influenced, Kay Francis. Chatterton gained a rather wonderful reputation of being forthright and kind to those she worked with that would be something of a trademark throughout her career in films. She never really felt threatened or have a need to be so animated, creating false imagery as a means of exploiting herself. This was one trait that undoubtedly Bette Davis learned from Chatterton.
During her marriage to actor Brent, Chatterton?s film career began to slow down, spending more time at home. By the middle of the decade, Chatterton seemed disinterested in continuing on with a steady or regularly scheduled career in movies. When her marriage to Brent ended in divorce and her box-office appeal slipped, she accepted the enviable point that time might be against her, in terms of the high fashionable style of imagery that was created for her movie star career. In 1936, she appeared in the highly praised dramatic film, ?Dodsworth? opposite Walter Huston that was her last great performance for a major Hollywood production. Chatterton would in later years feel that she became distracted by allowing Hollywood to focus more on a selling point of creating an image that didn?t necessarily have anything to do with what?s expected of a fine actress. Here again there had to be an influential connection that was passed on to Bette Davis. I?ve always believed that Bette having known and watched Chatterton those early years at Warner Brothers, she caught on to the pitfalls film stars face when a studio takes too much control of one?s artistic drive to succeed. Chatterton would once remark, ?A problem arises when you realize it?s more a business than a creative process.?
By the end of the 1930s, Chatterton was out of the Hollywood scene, having gone to England, making several films and then returning to America to reestablish a moderately good career on the Broadway stage. Then came ?live television? and within the new electronic medium she surprisingly did well, appearing in some highly praised dramatic productions. But, an even bigger surprise was Chatterton deciding on becoming a writer! She had several successful novels published, signifying a big unexpected career move that brought her back under the celebrity spotlight. Upon becoming a writer, she gave up completely on acting and she enjoyed a good third marriage. Chatterton proved that she wasn?t afraid to keep herself and love of the creative process alive and functioning at whatever extent there was to making it worthwhile. She was in so many regards a remarkable person, to have had a short, but glorified film career, accepted its changes and disappointments, only to see her reach out towards other endeavors and give her life a pleasure or even a second chance few ever get.
By the way, another factor to her life and times was that Chatterton was a good and close friend to aviator Amelia Earhart! Funny, that right now there is a major new film about the legendary aviator! Later on Chatterton became a flyer herself, making several solo flights across the country! The new film about Earhart makes no mention of Chatterton; I found this rather strange. Chatterton turned out to be a woman whose life simply knew no boundaries, thus she acquired a reputation as a fearless individual. She was in many ways a pioneer to women in general, who had a need to branch out beyond the daily confines set forth by the conventionalities of society. While Chatterton wasn?t the only actress in Hollywood to have a successful career, shrouded by a maverick image, she was undoubtedly one of the very first who represented this bold new way of celebrating her life as well as having for a short time a triumph to her endeavors. He died in 1961 at her home in Connecticut.
-
The issue with O?Toole being dubbed had more to do with the production company holding out and not wanting to admit to the fact! This bothered a few critics, who knew full well that O?Toole?s voice had been tampered with. Things got crazy, during the promotional phase for the movie. United Artists wanted the cast and crew to not address the issue if asked! Now, I will admit that this has happened in the past . . . Let?s look at Harry Cohn threatening anyone at Columbia Pictures giving away any mention that Rita Hayworth had been dubbed throughout her career at the studio! The problem for United Artists and everyone involved with ?Man of La Mancha? was that nobody in the business was going to play the old-game or even respect the wishes of a studio to let things stand and just go long with the illusion. Times had changed and no longer could a performer be so protected to not having a technical ability and have it hidden. Some have come off with a counter argument to this point being similar to an actor having a ?double? on the set for a given scene. This is a good argument, but singing I think is something very deep and personal to the issue that the voice is symbolic to everything real and unreal to a performer! In others words, a speaking voice and a singing voice should be one in the same, if a performer creates the belief they can really carry a tune. If not, then there are consequences to consider, especially since the secret can?t stand-in for the reality of the situation when a performer goes out in public or is unexpectedly asked to sing! Remember ?Lina Lamont? in ?Singin? In The Rain?? In the long run, it all boils down to the film itself and how well it?s presented or can it really be convincing, if we try to accept the idea that somebody in the motion picture isn?t really singing. The best examples I can think of are ?Gypsy,? ?The King & I,? ?West Side Story,? ?My Fair Lady? and ?South Pacific.? All of these films were a huge success, while it was openly known some of the performers didn?t sing a note. By 1972, it just wasn?t easy any longer to be so accepted or taken seriously that a major star be hired and then dubbed. After all, what most likely destroyed any reputation that O?Toole had concerning his connection to ?Man of La Mancha? was his having not been dubbed for his other big musical pursuit, ?Good-bye Mr. Chips? in 1968. What?s clear is that O?Toole didn?t actually sing in the 1968 film, having talked his way around the tunes as Rex Harrison did so magnificently in ?My Fair Lady,? or Robert Preston in ?The Music Man.? So, for O?Toole this next time around, the critics and public had some doubts about O?Toole?s abilities one way or another. It just didn?t make any sense that he be chosen from any musical perspective to play what was essentially a demanding musical role for ?Man of La Mancha.? O?Toole was wonderful in ?Good-bye Mr. Chips,? simply because his role didn?t require any musical skill, other than interpret the songs from a dramatic angle. It?s now all but obvious that United Artists couldn?t take any chances with the production of ?Man of La Mancha,? realizing that something had to be done to give a musically enhanced legitimacy that in the end backfired and created a quagmire that the film company and even O?Toole couldn?t control and have probably never fully recovered from. I don?t think the 1972 ?Man of La Mancha? is a really bad film, it?s just a bad musical.
-
You said the keyword! "Awe Inspiring" . . . That?s just what happened with the original stage version. Yet, I now have to admit, I made a technical mistake about the musical?s history! To be correct: The original show, starring a really great and underrated actor, Richard Kiley was not a Broadway production, but opened ?Off-Broadway.? It wasn?t until a few years later and with revivals that the musical would finally make it to Broadway. What made the stage version such an incredible sensation was that everyone, absolutely everyone involved with major roles sang so beautifully. The show was akin to something like a grand opera! The finale is now considered one of the greatest in musical history that has a strong spiritual outcry, connecting itself to everything about the humane philosophical world of ?Miguel de Cervantes.? Rex Harrison was the original choice to star in the stage show, but had to bow out due to illness. It?s always been believed by fans, that had Rex done the role, he may have very well been in the movie version! Of course, in over 40 years, there have been scores of famous performers in the now classic role. Richard Kiley (whose performance I saw) in later life, made a living out of reviving the role he created . . . Just as Yul Brynnerr did with ?The King & I.? One of my favorite?s versions was one I saw with Howard Keel in the title role. The last really well received major revival was with Robert Goulet, appearing in several national tours of the show. Goulet would in later years believe it was probably the finest musical show and performance of his career. Musically speaking, Goulet was probably the best suited performer in the role with such a powerful and effective voice. Kiley was surprisingly good, although he was never really considered a singer. This I think is one of the amazing things about the original show, in that a highly respected actor, who was considered more for dramatic pursuits, turned out to be sensational. That sort of show business magic doesn?t come around very often. Besides, one aspect that probably ruined the movie version?s chances to being seriously accepted was that O?Toole ended up being dubbed for the singing.
-
?Man of La Mancha,? released in 1972 is without question one of the most massive failures in movie history. Even before the United Artists epic production made it to the theaters, it was doom with some of the worst feedback imaginable. Every screening of the motion picture resulted in tons of anxiety from critics and movie industry personnel who happened to catch the film before descending in theaters for its big road-show run. This movie was one of the very last, big screen ?stage-like? presentations with an overture, intermission and exit music. The truth was that already the public had been captivated by the success of Bob Fosse?s ?Cabaret,? that although was a more deeper, sinister and moody sort of musical story, unlike ?Man of La Mancha,? managed to stay faithful to its original concept from the Broadway stage. On top of the many changes made to the film version, what I think mainly happened with ?Man of La Mancha? centers around not utilizing legitimate musically accepted performers. The whole classical aura of the original stage production had transposed itself around stunning musical performances that the movie simply couldn?t live up to or surpass. The big international cast chosen for the film was impressive, especially from a prestigious angel as movies go. But, despite actor Peter O?Toole?s high reputation and having already been well received in another musical film, the 1968 ?Good-bye Mr. Chips,? O?Toole was out of his league for this one to be cast in the role as the legendary ?Don Quixote.? Sophia Loren may have looked and acted the part of the beautiful gypsy ?Dulcinea,? but again, she too was out of her accepted environment. Actor James Coco as ?Sancho Panza? handled the comedy well, but his singing abilities were less than inspiring. All in all, the three stars of the picture were hounded, shunned, laughed at and finally nearly crucified by the critics at large.
Director Arthur Hiller took on most of the blame for the movie?s huge failure to live up to what many of the general public felt had been one of the finest musical experiences of the previous 1960 decade. To put it mildly or pun a line, ?the movie turned out to be an impossible dream!? United Artists must have felt very confident at the beginning, with just having dealt with the company?s greatest success since ?West Side Story,? the awesome musical film version of ?Fiddler on the Roof? for 1971. The millions spent to promote ?Man of La Mancha? and ending up with such unexpected disappointing results was a precursor for the company that came to full circle in 1981 and the ill fated western epic, ?Heaven?s Gate.? If anything can be said about ?Man of La Mancha,? it?s one of these memorable movies that are associated with down-right failure or just being plain bad. During the 1970s and into the 1980s, United Artists had a rather disoriented history in Hollywood with taking a lot of chances that for the most part didn?t work out. It was only ?James Bond? who has always held the company somewhat together.
-
There are numerous situations surrounding ?Riders to the Stars? that have become very interesting to both film buffs and an occasional real rocket scientist. This movie is considered a precursor to referring to the United States undertaking an eventual entry into a serious Space Program. Unfortunately, for the movie there was at the time limited facts to work with and more speculation than anything else. Producer Ivan Tors acquired all the best and available scientific information possible. But, by 1954, America?s Space Program that was in the hands of the Military still had a lot of time to go to discover just what was factual along all the scientific knowledge the movie attempted to showcase.
Despite what might be considered technical inaccuracies throughout the film, there were a few strikingly fascinating situations that would in time become realities! One aspect to ?Riders to the Stars? that today is intriguing are the various mental and physical tests that the selected space pilots have to endure. While some of the tests are real ones used by the military during that era, the script covers other areas that would in time actually be utilized by the American Space Program to come. On a technical note, the term ?Astronaut? is absolutely never used or heard in the movie! If anything makes this film seem practical is the sense that there are no exaggerated principles or scientific schemes that probably relate strongly to a typical Sci-Fi movie of the day. The method here was to give the movie as much creditability as possible.
The scientific instrumentation created for the movie that was both real and some of it imaginary was impressive and convincingly engaging. It was at least the best up to that time that a movie could have speculated upon towards what the immediate future held in store for the Space Program. All the scientific conjecture and jargon seemed for the time to make sense, but there were still a few theories presented that have now been proven to be miscalculations or misconstrued because there wasn?t any plausible data available in 1954.
Now, believe it or not, the sequence of the ?mice in space? was a real one! During the early 1950s, the U.S. Military did extensive research and studies with captured German V-2 rockets in the deserts of New Mexico. Producer Tors had no trouble using declassified government films of what was going on with the early Space Program. The mice were actually placed in the nosecone of a V-2 rocket and shot up into the fringes of space with a film camera and returned safely. At the time, there simply wasn?t a rocket yet devised to carry the payload of a human being. But, the main concern was the countless dangerous elements to launching a rocket and unpredictable consequences that the scientist in New Mexico realized they had to consider. The film footage of the rockets taking off the launch pads were real. The scenes of the earth were also authentic, all of it from the nosecone of the German V-2 rocket. That film footage would become world famous, showing up in other films, documentaries, school class rooms and even at Disneyland's attraction of "Tomorrowland!." Two years later in 1956, a newer, full color version of rocket film footage from the same launching pad in New Mexico was shown as a prelude for the big widescreen epic, ?A Around the World in 80 Days.?
If anything makes this movie ironic, it must refer to actor William Lundigan, who three years later in 1959, would star in his very own television ?space? series, entitled ?Men Into Space.? Also, ?Riders to the Stars? has similar aspects to the 1984 block buster movie about America?s eventual real Space Program, ?The Right Stuff.? This is specially the case about how the ?space pilots? are randomly selected in ?Riders to the Stars? Most film buffs and even scientist agree that the space suits devised for the movie are impressively vivid and true-to-life. The only thing probably irregular with the movie is not taking clear issue with gravity and its affects during space travel. Even back then, most experts weren?t really sure just how the human body would react within a gravity-free environment. Just for the record, as theoretically depicted in "Riders to the Stars," space probes have already been successfully sent to heavenly bodies of a comet and asteroid.
-
She married first and then enrolled at the University. It's never been really confirmed, but it's believed that Jayne was ahead in shcool, by possibly two grades. This would pretty much explain what for some has always been a questionable situation. Over the years, Jayne's actual birth date has been in question. Most everything about her early childhood has never been clarified to the extend that the information always seems to change or other items and dates are added. At the time of her death, reports said she was 32 and now it's beleived she was actually 37! Even in death, her life story remains as clouded and chaotic as when she was alive.
-
YEAH! Pia Zadora! That's another one! I wonder whatever happened to her?
-
A Harry Cohn fan club? Gee, this is one sort of area I thought I?d never see! I supposed one might have aspirations of wanting to be a ?Movie Mogul?? Well, I?ll throw in my two cents on the Cohn saga . . . First off, being from the old Hollywood school, there wasn?t a studio head around as ruthless, vulgar and relentless as Harry was all the years he ran little Columbia Pictures and then to most everyone?s surprise, turned the studio into one of the giant powerhouses of the business. Harry was probably partially driven by the need to face up to the big five . . . They were MGM, Paramount, RKO, Warner Brothers and 20th Century-Fox. The Cohn family suffered the slings of outrageous ridicule, when around 1924 Harry began to run what was labeled a studio on ?Poverty Row.? What brought Columbia out from under this stigma of a second rate or even B-studio image was Harry?s innovative skill at taking chances with new, untried ideas and talent that was bypassed by the major studios.
Together with his brother Jack, Harry had learned the movie business from his mentor, the founder of Universal Pictures, Carl Laemmle. When Harry and Jack moved out on their own, they had acquired lots of good experience to understand all the important logistics to the business. Originally, the company name was ?C.B.C Films Sales Company.? The ?B? stood for their other partner in the venture, Joe Brandt. When Jack decided on running the company?s front main office in New York, Harry stayed behind to govern the studio and subsequently the name was changed to just plain Columbia Pictures. It would take about ten years, into the 1930s and the Great Depression for Harry to attain the wanted professional respect that probably was the reason for his being so ?hard-headed? and driven like no other movie studio boss in Hollywood. His big turning point came with two very important acquisitions during the early 1930s. The first was with legendary director Frank Capra and the second was the discovery and hiring a comedy team that no other studio believed was worthwhile by the name of ?The Three Stooges.? With Capra giving Columbia the necessary professional imagery of a polished operation and the comedy team of The Three Stooges bringing in a vast amount of box-office popularity, Harry was on his way of taking Columbia?s image out of the confines of its ?Poverty Row? reputation. One of the main reasons for Columbia?s rather low ranking was the lack of a sizeable permanent movie star roster. Harry would have to settle on hiring big names stars from other studios for the remainder of the decade. In time, Harry came to realize that if he was to succeed in the Hollywood community, in order to elevate the status of Columbia there would have to be concessions made along the lines of what other studios had done into the 1930s. Harry did think for a time, he could not have to deal with a standard, regular ?star system? that had been the norm at other studios. This was for the early part of his running Columbia something of a technical mistake that would eventually be corrected and Columbia would join the rest of Hollywood as a major player.
What?s fascinating about Columbia is that many people got their start at the studio, only to see them become huge successes at other film companies. Good examples are such stars as Jean Harlow, Carole Lombard, Barbara Stanwyck, Walter Huston, Mae Clark, John Wayne, Jean Arthur, Joel McGrea, and Jean Hersholt. All of these performers didn?t stay very long with the studio, some not even signing any sort of contract. So, Harry relied on the system of cutting deals with the other studios, barrowing major stars for whatever big prestige picture was planned. Film historians will agree that the one single film that put Columbia on the map was the biggest picture of the year for 1934, Frank Capra?s classic comedy ?It Happened One Night.? Both stars of the picture were barrowed from opposing studios. Clark Gable was brought over from MGM and lovely Claudette Colbert from Paramount Pictures. From the start, Harry didn?t want to make this movie, but the insistence of Capra paid off, when the movie won a record Academy Awards and is today hailed as a great classic. The success of this film was what really changed Harry?s thinking on the matter of how he would run the studio. This success placed Columbia virtually at equal terms with the so-called major studios he usually barrowed personnel from!
What most film buffs and fans relate to when talking about Columbia, it all boils down to the personality of Harry Cohn. It?s interesting to note that having such a strong and willful driven personality did in many ways reflect upon the professional success of the studio itself. In other words, despite Harry?s harsh ways of doing business, the studio managed to stay on the forefront of Hollywood, being able to prove itself time and time again with a solid product that simply made many in the business see beyond the dictatorial methods employed by Harry. There was no doubt that one had to be tough to work at Columbia, while Harry placed his reins on everyone who work at the studio. He had a bevy of personally hired spies throughout the studio lot. Offices were bugged with hidden-microphone systems, many employees informed on others, creating a daily system of firing one person and then hiring or promoting another. It got so hectic that nobody at Columbia could trust anyone. When Harry walked onto a soundstage, a terrifying form of silence occurred, with the thought that somebody was going to get canned! They usually did get fired, openly and vulgarly humiliated by Harry. This became the sort of twisted legendary trademark to his governing the studio. He relished and wore this trait of his as a badge of honor! He trusted very, very few people, because he felt or had experienced a lack of loyalty in the movie business. I believe Harry was affected by past business dealings that later on related closely to his troubled working relationship with his brother Jack. Having been stabbed in the back and cheated numerous times, this led to Harry?s lack of confidence of those around him. There was this anxiety he held inside of him that because he made a success out of his business, he would forever be doubtful and suspicious of people taking advantage of him or even feeling threatened that it would all be taken away from him. He would get into a vicious tirade when discovering someone had stolen from him, cheated or attempted to lie to his face. What I respected about Harry was that he didn?t rely on having the usual staff of ?yes men? around him. He enjoyed the ploy and conflict of ?making the deal? or when a star would show some honest to God guts against him. His favorite of all adversaries was Barbara Stanwyck, who stood up to him numerous times. Their spats and series of shouting matches were a sight to behold. The conflicts between the two of them would many times turn into a verbal contest of one trying to out due the other with a series of nasty profanities. After a period of time, Harry sort of lived for this type of situation. It?s believed that these conflicts with his staff and stars kept him more closely attuned to his business than any of the other Hollywood studio heads. In some ways, Harry could cope with disagreements or if a counter point was made against him. He was just forcibly obstinate against the type of backstabbing phoniness that was so much a part of the movie business. He once fired an employee who agreed with him, only when he knew full well that the employee was actually creating a deception. Harry then simply went about his usual method of going to the person directly and confronting them with the issue. If the employee asked for forgiveness, Harry might relent to give that person a second chance, only because at that point he knew he had the individual now totally under his control and thus resulted in this atmosphere of fear so that there wouldn?t be any disloyalty or deception on the part of those who worked for him!
Then, it happened! Around 1941, she came . . . She whom he least expected would make his studio even bigger than he could have ever wished for! The love-hate relationship between Harry and his biggest of all stars, the mighty Rita Hayworth is now of legendary portions. Rita would turn out to be not only his first, greatest of all movie star under a new contract system, but a true partner to Harry in that Rita was very much like him or determined to be outright honest about the business. Although their professional relationship had its series of harsh disputes, Rita somehow understood Harry?s temperament. As long as she stayed within her professional boundaries and showed a bit of devotion to her craft and the studio, this was enough to keep Harry satisfied. When Rita became Harry?s great ?gold mine? of the 1940s, for the very first time he treated a star with kid-gloves. He pampered her, tried to keep her happy as much as he could, even though there were times he interfered with her personal life outside the walls of Columbia. Yet, when Rita decided on marrying Orson Welles, despite the serious objections Harry made about the situation, he relented to not create such a hassle for his most important star. In the long run, it was actually a clever business decision on Harry?s part to allow Rita a free hand on the matter of who she wanted to marry. In typical Hollywood fashion, Harry then simply made a big publicity event out of the marriage and this was in some ways his keeping control over Rita. If there was any studio head who knew how to manipulate the business, it was Harry. Unlike the other studio heads, Harry took full charge of so many given situations at the studio. He personally got involved, most of the time never sending in a typical henchman to do his business or what some might call ?dirty work.?
By the 1950s, Harry?s reputation as the toughest of Hollywood moguls had reached its heights. There wasn?t anyone around the business who didn?t respect his power. But, lurking in the background had been a struggle to control the company with of all people, his brother Jack. This ploy to achieve as much control as possible between the brothers had been going on for nearly 20 years! This situation no doubt fuel the distrust and animosity Harry acquired over the years he ran Columbia and brought the studio out of the confines of a secondary film company. The entire time Harry ran Columbia, he saw his brother Jack as the main culprit to many of the problems he confronted or had suspicions about. It?s practical to feel that Jack became embarrassed and resentful of his brother?s actions and the routine of running Columbia with an iron will without usually consulting with the front office. Once Harry was able through some clever business ploys fend off his brother and the effective profitable way he ran Columbia, he finally gain total control of the studio. It was this point in his career that his enemies even found time to respect his love of the business and the success he made out of so many whom he either introduced or gave a chance at a career in the movies. His brother Jack was in some ways bothered by Harry having become the all compassing image of Columbia and often Harry being considered the real boss of the company. No doubt, professional egotism played a big part behind the rift between the Cohn brothers.
No matter how you want to look at Harry Cohn?s legacy, it?s one laced with a good amount of creative force and a resolute definition of what kept or made the movie business in Hollywood a success. It might be that Hollywood and the movies were simply a tough act to get involved with and for Harry he saw all the pitfalls and difficulties there could be to running a studio with a vast amount of egos to contend with. But then, it?s probably that way at any job. But, I?ll always remember something Harry once said, ?The only ego that counts around here is mine!? And, that?s how it once went at Columbia Pictures . . .
Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 25, 2009 3:17 AM
Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 25, 2009 3:30 AM
-
Why on earth would you want to know the names of these ladies? Did you happen to know one of them? The girls in the Busby Berkeley chorus line never got any sort of screen credit! Nearly all of the screen appearances of the chorus members changed over the course of these films made at Warner Brothers. Besides, the actual scene or opening number of ?We?re in the Money? was technically edited or cross-cut, using different girls at different times the number was shot. Anyway, the ladies are:
Loretta Andrews
Monica Bannister
Bonnie Bannon
Joan Barclay
Audrene Brier
Lynn Browning
Maxine Cantway
Margaret Cathew
Dorothy Coonan (future wife of director William Wellman!)
Kathy Cunningham
Viginia Dabney
Mildren Dixon
Shirley Dunstead
Gloria Faythe
June Glory
Muriel Gordon
Ebba Hally
Ann Hovey
Amo Ingraham
Alice Jans
Lorena Layson
Cynthia Lindsay
Mae Madison
Donna Mae Roberts
Jayne Shadduck
Bee Stevens
Anita Thomson
Renee Whitney
Pat Wing ? No relation to Toby! Who later on became a popular starlet of the studio!
A majority of these girls had little, if no, show business experience. They were usually hand picked by Busby himself when a pretty girl caught his eye. Most of the gals never refused a chance to be in a Busby Berkeley movie, only because at the height of the Great Depression they needed the money!
This list has a tendency of changing over the years, because somebody comes out of the woodwork or shadows and gives out with other names! Missing on this chorus roster are perhaps two popular members of the chorus, beautiful blonde bomb-shell Toby Wing and Anna May Clift, who was the wife of legendary ?pin-up artist? Alberto Vargas! Anna was one of the few members who had been a real, bona fide chorus girl in the Zigefeld Follies! Also in the movie and somewhere in the chorus line is a very young, teenage girl by the name of Jane Wyman . . . A chorus boy by the name of Dennis O?Keefe . . . And, briefly seen are two beloved character actors, spicy Charlie Lane and incomparable Sterling Holloway. Busby himself even has a little cameo appearance in the movie.
Is there anything else?
Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 24, 2009 11:36 PM
-
The 1982 attempt of John Huston to direct ?Annie? was something of a disaster. Everything about the original warmth and passion of the Broadway show didn?t translate at all for the film version. Whether or not Huston should be blamed for what was one of the biggest flops of that year is still in debate. The first problem the project faced was its budget that started out at a reasonable 9 million, only to see the film get grossly out of control and end up costing Columbia Pictures over 42 million dollars! Producer Ray Stark was so confident about the film becoming a huge block buster success that he was said to have boasted, ?This is the film I want on my tombstone.? One critic in response to Stark wrote, ?Funeral services may be held starting this week at a theatre near you!? Another critic sarcastically remarked, ?The sun will never come up tomorrow for this movie!? One reason that some critics and fans felt the Huston directed musical fell short was due to a drastic amount of changes that resulted in some favorite songs and scenes omitted from the movie. Anyone who saw the stage show, usually remarked how radically different the film version turned out.
Just about every movie made that?s base on a successful Broadway show has to face controversies, especially concerning casting and the replacement of beloved performers who originated a role on stage. ?Annie? may have been marred by the situation related to the original stage show having become so identified with actress/singer Andrea McArdle in the title role. McArdle had created a sensation not seen on Broadway in years, when she created the role in 1977. The stage show?s long run over the course of several years, hinder any chance that McArdle could revive the role for the screen, due to her getting older. After five years leading to the announcement Columbia Pictures would make the film version, the hype of the musical that most believed surrounded McArdle and nothing else, had dwindled and faded. Columbia then had to do a lot of revamping on the promotion for the musical. The first was an obvious big nation wide talent search for a girl to play the title role of ?Annie.? This event got some pretty good coverage. But, as the production got underway, some chaos erupted, when the original director Randall Kleiser had to be replaced. Little by little, word of mouth about what was happening with the project leaked out and it wasn?t positive. In order to save what was left, the studio decided on what was believed to be ?major damage control? by hiring legendary John Huston to sit in the director?s chair. It didn?t take long for some in the movie business to wonder if this was an appropriate choice. The great director had never handled a musical before. Most critics and historians agree that by this time, Huston was at the twilight of his career, if not, his life. Talk was that Huston wasn?t hip enough or seasoned to understand the modern directorial elements needed to handle a musical. The hiring of Huston would turn out to be the biggest publicity poly the movie really enjoyed.
With Huston on broad in a brazen attempt to save what had become an overextended and overly expensive project, most of the original planning and ideas for the production were totally changed. This was especially the case with at least three major scenes omitted, six of the fourteen songs of the original show dropped, several major characters written out and then production delays that created a lot of the cost overruns. Once Huston was able to get the production finally started, the atmosphere on the set didn?t appear so upbeat or that most everyone lacked a bit of enthusiasm to feel everything was going so smooth and they could think it was going to be a worthwhile movie. The situation rendered itself to look as if most everyone involved treated their time on the set as just a routine job and nothing so special. It became all too clear that what held things together to some extent was Huston?s legendary reputation and nothing else! Cast and crew remained in awe of him, but this sort of environment couldn?t take away the overall impending doom that many felt working on the movie was lurking everywhere. Instead of a charmingly provocative mood to the movie, everything about it appeared rather overstated, too artificial and one couldn?t really believe they were being transposed back to the era of ?Depression America.? The young girl chosen to play ?Annie,? Aileen Quinn gave a lively performance, but all the once felt hype about the musical five years earlier couldn?t really be regained, not even by the young Quinn. During the movie?s making and after its completion, the studio gave the young Quinn an enormous buildup. She made numerous television appearances, leading up to a highly rated ?Andy Williams? music special on the CBS network. The publicity for Quinn turned out to be respectably good. But, it would never translate for the long term of leading to a major career. The young Quinn had her chances at a major career, dragged down along with the bad reviews and poor box-office response. Since that time, her career has never risen very high, resulting in only sporadic appearances for occasional show business pursuits.
A few heads were placed on the chopping block at the Columbia front office, once the box-office receipts clearly displayed that the production would never recoup any of its money. A lot of people in the movie business wondered if Huston?s career, if not, his artistic reputation as one of the greatest directors in movie history was damaged beyond repair. When asked about this issue, the great director amusingly replied, ?I?ve been through this before, about 27 years ago when I made ?Beat the Devil.? Indeed, the mighty Huston knew his business well. In no time, he was back riding high two years later in 1985 with ?Prizzi?s Honor.? So, for this legendary director, who was at the twilight of his career and life and had never directed a musical, ?the sun did come out tomorrow? and come what may, Huston survived and managed for the rest of his life and career to stay above the fray!?
-
What we do know about Jayne?s education is that it was a very good one, especially for the times, because she finished high school. While growing up in Texas, her family gave her much exposure to everything from music lessons, dance, art studies and finally some acting classes. As a teenager, she worked in a local movie theater behind the concession stand and it was there her love of becoming a glamorous movie star began. Jayne enrolled at the University of Texas, but her natural beauty became a hindrance with guys constantly going after her. This led to her first (very early) marriage at age 16! When she arrived in Los Angles, she entered UCLA to finish up with her education, but this was only a side-venture, because by that time she was consumed with the ambition to become a film star. She certainly had the capacity to accomplish receiving of degree. Her marriage and family duties of becoming a mother also distracted her from what was once thought to be a far more stable pursuit to her life. Even more persistent was that living around Hollywood simply fueled her childhood dreams of film stardom. Her first husband Paul Mansfield then agreed to have Jayne focus upon a possible career in movies. It was amazing to think that with so much responsibility at home, she was able to undertake a venture that for most would have been unheard of or impossible to attempt!
The woman was on all counts intelligent from her upbringing and time spent at various studies. This I think was actually an added plus to her background. Early on in her career, her various agents exposed this issue as part of the publicity angle that would later on get so out of hand. In time, all the fuss first made about how smart Jayne was would get lost or tossed aside by the flamboyant way her career and then life ended up. The whole idea about being smart in Hollywood wasn?t about how well read you were or what educational degrees one might have had. It?s always been about how you could mentally survive, amid so many decisions that had to be made over time to face so many countless obstacles.
Jayne simply got out of control between her career and lifestyles that she tried so impulsively to make a success. She failed only because fame and all its addictive merciless traits have little, if no chance of ever showing any logical practicality to whether one is good, talented and exceptionally intelligent. A good example of a survivor or one who understood all the pitfalls and hassles was Joan Crawford. With little education and opportunities to her life growing up, Joan fought ?tooth and nail? all her life to make her career goals worthwhile. In recent years, Joan?s personal life has been under some attack. This has resulted towards a speculative direction of defining its values. Well, I?m from the ?old school of Hollywood? and for some of us what makes the big difference from a career angle is how one glows under the spotlight. Joan had no excessive nature to her career as far as creating a sensationalistic atmosphere. Over time, Mansfield must have believed, the best route for her to take was based around the image of excess and a na?ve sense around the public image she placed upon herself. The problem here is that a joke or routine that might be interesting or funny has to have its limitations or know when the situation has to move on towards something else. This I think is what?s key to having both respect and an understanding to the business at hand. What we have to comprehend is the simple hypothesis that there?s always a price to be paid for whatever extremities we take with our careers and finally our lives.
-
Well said marcco44 . . . Mansfield ended up simply playing the same role that over a period of time showed no improvement, let alone, being able to break away from it. She was lucky to have a family and children to fall back on when the going got rough. At the time of her death, colleague and fellow sex symbol, Mamie van Doren, who had been working the nightclub circuit with Mansfield, was asked to exchange their working gigs so that Mansfield could make it to a television interview. Had Mamie not agreed to it, Mansfield would have not been on that dark, dingy, foggy road that led to her horrible death. Mamie has admitted throughout the proceeding years, she is sometimes haunted about her decision.
-
IT?S FINIALLY OFFICICAL!
THE WIFE BROKE DOWN AND CONFESSED!
IT WAS ALL A HOAX.
What a crazy way to have to face fines, possible jail time and the loss and break-up of a family. If anyone got exploited, it was the four children. Somebody might love the spotlight and fame enough to do something crazy, but there are other avenues to take that while are unconventional, don?t necessarily break the laws and create a deception that has nothing to do with any talent, intelligence or simple, innocent common sense. The perpetration of a lie that was based around a probable tragedy with the involvement of children was a criminal act. I gather that the husband and wife will give the Colorado court another performance. Only this time, the two of them will have to throw themselves at the mercy of the court and the general public that the two parents deceived beyond any reasonable logic. Those four kids will now have to live with and carry a stigma that will follow them for the rest of their lives. It?s a tragedy when parents do things with their children out of desperation to what doesn?t really matter. Sooner or later all of us have to face our limitations and mediocrity or at least come to understand it. The parents just should have done the best they could to make a decent living without creating a mess out of their lives and now they have no credibility nor can the parents ever be taken seriously. It?s one thing when you try to rise above the human race and then it?s another to find yourself being kicked out of it.
Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 24, 2009 4:24 AM
-
That?s good info about ?Hollywood Babylon.? It just goes to show how the controversy about the book still goes on! From what I understand, Jean-Jacques Pauvert is a writer and publisher. The book never really had an original single writer, but was a composite of various articles and sketches that Pauvert himself edited into a single volume. In a technical way, this is the reason for him receiving some credit to have written the book.
So far, the photo I dread on seeing has not been posted. It may very well be a bit too much and revealing without some required censorship! I believe at last count, there are about a dozen or less in existence from that notorious, ill-famed evening. While it isn?t really anything so traumatic, it is a rather blatant display of Mansfield being obnoxious, reckless and about has wild an exhibitionist as anyone can get. And, just for the record, what I didn?t first mention is where the event occurred. It was at the once famous restaurant of ?Romanoff?s? in Beverly Hills. Michael Romanoff, who ran the famous celebrity ?watering hole?, was probably the only one who gained something from the event as hundreds of patrons the next couple nights, lined up Rodeo Drive to see the table where it all happened. Michael had to ask customers to please not interfere with his waiters and business, as people stood before the table and blocked the aisle to have their picture taken!
-
Hollywood Babylon! Wow! I had forgotten all about that infamous book. It?s become the main reference source for film buffs on the dark, seedy side of the movie business. I wonder why the author, Kenneth Anger decided on using Jayne?s picture on the cover? She?s about the only mild mannered individual written about in the book, whose story and escapes aren?t as bad as one might think. The book was actually first published in France, released in 1959. The original author was J.J. Pauvert and the book?s title in French read: ?Hollywood Babylone.? Anger was simply hired by the American publishing firm of Associated Professional Services of Phoenix in 1965 to then translate most of what Pauvert believed to be scandalous events. What I?ve never understood is whether or not Anger took advantage of the situation and simply added his own antidotes. It wasn?t such a big surprise that the book never made it pass two weeks from its first American release. It was banned due to several people who were chronicled in the book to still be alive, Jayne being one of them! While it was easy to get away with what was said on the other side of the Atlantic, the American, translated version was met with scores of impending lawsuits!
Ten years later, in 1975, Simon & Schuster took up the option to finally get the book released. Even though most of the celebrities were now dead, the publishers were still met with problems concerning copyright infringements and accusations of slander. Just about every known, big Hollywood scandal was covered in the book. While most of the interest was centered on various mysteries of murdered movie stars and secretive sexual lifestyles, the book preyed upon and even created myths that to this day haven?t been or can never be proven. Jayne?s segment in the book pretty much revealed what was already known about her excessive lifestyle that corrupted and eventually destroyed her. ?Hollywood Babylon? turned out to be quite a success, becoming a favorite piece of information among fans world wide. The success led to a sequel published in 1984, "Hollywood Babylon II." Whether any of it was true or not, the conjecture that some critics felt was the core of the book became the main intriguing reason for millions to read it. Certainly, creating doubts and mystery are an intoxicating means of getting a massive amount of public interest in reading a book. As to the historical value of ?Hollywood Babylon,? it stands to reason that the book has become in over 40 years, a remainder to issues that have affected our nature of thinking about the movie business. The real truth behind the book is that "nothing ever changes" and we will forever be indoctrinated with all the glamour and rough side there is to what appears to us to be so magical and yet can be predictably dangerous.
Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 23, 2009 9:13 PM
-
There has been talk of a reedited version with new or extra footage, but this probably means what is usually the term, ?director?s cut.? However, no word or gossip has come out of the Stanley Kubrick camp that might shed some light on what could possible been done. There have already been petitions by fans on this issue of a new release that would be considered the final, definitive version of the film. The last video release that was re-mastered, in anamorphic (16:9) and said to be a special edition is what TCM will probably show. So, there is reason to feel a bit of wishful thinking on the matter.
-
This next possible rumor might be a bit too much for some film buffs to take! It seems a rumor is circulating that a possible new version of the classic modern ?Romeo and Juliet? story of Americana, ?West Side Story? is being tossed around. The main reason for this is the musical?s original author of the script, writer Arthur Laurents. He is currently behind a new expanded version on Broadway that has received a great amount of praise. A major change was done to this newly running stage production that writer Laurents claims he wanted all along for the original. The big difference comes with all the songs and dialog for the Puerto Rican cast sung and mostly spoken in Spanish! This is a very radical departure from the original that Laurents says adds a sense of logical and dynamic intensity to the musical. As well as the changes in interpreting the songs in Spanish, this new Broadway version is almost operatic in its style. I can?t help but have to say one other interesting aspect to this new stage version is that the actor who plays the tragic role of ?Bernardo? bares a striking resemblance to the original actor who played the role on film, Academy Award winning George Chakiris! Most fans might agree that the biggest draw for the Broadway show has been movie star and actress Jennifer Lopez in the role of ?Anita,? originally played by Academy Award winner and fellow Puerto Rican, wonderful Rita Moreno.
It?s not clear if a ?remake? really means another major movie. The new stage version has been recorded on video and it?s likely that this may very well be the direction or final outcome, since most stage shows are now recorded on video for prosperity. With all this speculation, already some are thinking up current big names to appear in a possible new version of the classic musical. While it?s still too early to really tell what, if anything, might transpire to this idea of a remake, it is getting some attention and the speculation simply amounts. My bet is on a cable production and then there is PBS. I doubt that any major film company will take a chance at recreating such a popular and classic movie. But then, anything is possible in this day and age. If it does come to pass, there will certainly be repercussions heard everywhere. One has to wonder, ?What?s next?? Already on Broadway there have been several stage versions of popular Walt Disney films and they have been highly successful. The biggest of all surprises with this was a nicely produced stage version of ?Mary Poppins.? It stands to reason that the recycling of past successes has been a regular routine on a wide basis these days for the stage, screen and even on television.
Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 23, 2009 1:03 AM
-
One issue I?ll always be puzzled by is Audrey insisting that she be given the opportunity to sing the songs in ?My Fair Lady.? I would have thought that she realize from a professional standpoint that she wasn?t in any shape or form able to be in such a singing league! Her voice wasn?t all that bad, but truthfully, Julie Andrews and other accomplished singers, who had done the role on stage made Audrey?s chances look extremely slim, if not, ludicrous to think she could handle it. Certainly, the dubbing issue must have been a great blow to her ego, if not, her professional pride. Those "test soundtracks" that exist of Audrey?s singing some of the songs from "My Fair Lady" are for the most part, unimpressive and rather routine. Rumor has it that she would have wanted to be partially dubbed. Whereas, she would have wanted to handle the tunes that weren?t so demanding such ?Just You Wait,? ?Wouldn?t it Be Loverly? and the big number, ?The Rain in Spain.? Looking at these tunes, she may have been able to handle it, but at the insistence of Lerner & Loewe, the songwriters convinced Jack L. Warner not to take any chances with their greatest of all musical work. It was enviable that the great Marni Nixon was finally hired to make what was then the biggest musical project in Hollywood totally right and at least give the musical a clear and precise professional atmosphere. While overall, Audrey gave a first rate performance, the whole idea of her getting role, based on a need to have a safe and reliable box-office investment, didn?t payoff for her, with the backlash that came when she agreed to take the role of ?Eliza Doolittle.? Most likely, any actress at the time that would have replaced Julie Andrews would have suffered the same outrageous strains of criticism. In some regard, Audrey showed some courage in facing up to what she must have known wouldn?t be such a popular decision for her to consider.
Well, in the end, the movie was an enormous success and I think Audrey played a large part in making it so, hook-line-and-sinker. There?s no disputing that from the technical side of her straight-laced performance, she simply pulled it all off. It was only in that all important musical side to the whole idea that she wasn?t up to par. At least she was able to handle one half of the film on her own, without any help. After all the fuss and hoopla about her died down, she didn?t respond to the criticism about her getting role until later years. It was only then she openly stated that she was the reason Julie Andrews won the Academy Award! And, as they have said countless times: That?s Hollywood . . .
Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 22, 2009 11:24 PM
-
I don?t want to sound so critical or negative about Mansfield. It?s just that I was around at the time her career got off and rolling. There is one story about her I have first hand knowledge on. It was an event that I believe spelled doom for her. It occurred back in 1957. As to why it all happened was simply a miscalculation on Mansfield?s part and probably those who were advising her. It had to do with of all people, the one and only, mighty Sophia Loren! You see, Sophia had come to Hollywood, after having just finished up work on her very first American production by 20th Century-Fox, ?Boy on A Dolphin.? Most of the film was shot overseas, on location in Greece. So now, she was in the US to start with the promotion of the film and most of all to start work in Hollywood. Besides Sophia, the movie starred Alan Ladd and one of my favorite of all 20th Century-Fox members of the studio, the grand and wonderful Clifton Webb. The studio pulled out all the stops to give the movie and most of all Sophia a big send-off. So, a typical Hollywood studio press party was organized. A lot of money and time was spent to put the big gala together. Even though it was an inauguration for a big upcoming movie, it was more geared around a celebration for Sophia coming to America.
Every major press organization, columnist and many of the Hollywood elite attended this gathering. Mansfield was of course on the roster of invitees to party, being that she was at the time under contract to the studio. I don?t think there was anyone who didn?t think Mansfield would miss this big and important assemblage with so much press and coverage. At first, everything about the party went surprisingly smooth. A short film about the movie was shown. In the background was a nice band and some speeches were later made by studio officials and members of the cast. The director of the movie, Jean Negulesco handled the narrative part of the proceedings, after which, everyone settled down to have a great dinner. Later on would come those typical after-dinner drinks and dancing. Sophia sat at her table with co-star, Cliff Webb, taking in all the fuss and gossip of the evening. The two had naturally become good friends during the making of ?Boy on a Dolphin.? While they sat enjoying the evening and receiving the usual congratulations and well-wishes, suddenly and without any warning, Mansfield came over to the table with a photograhpeher in hand, stuck herself in between Sophia and Cliff, bent herself down to have a provocative photograph taken, especially displaying her rather exposed cleavage!
The surprise of Mansfield interrupting Sophia and Cliff caught the two of them totally off guard. Sophia looked to Cliff in a state of confusion and she was startled, simply because the evening had been under control and without any immediate, abrupt interruptions. It appeared as if both stars felt they had been violated! Once the photo was taken, this gave a sort of signal for other photographers to join in. Mansfield then stood there, between Sophia and Cliff, smiling and edging on a group of photographers to shoot pictures. The area of the table was then surrounded by the sound of popping bright flashbulbs that began to cover and saturate the floor! In typical paparazzo form, the situation got a bit out of hand. Cliff sat there furious, refusing to give any acknowledgement to Mansfield for her action. Sophia also became agitated and while she smiled, one could really tell she wasn?t at all pleased with the sudden, unexpected arrival of Mansfield. Finally, a few studio officials came over to take charge of the frenzy created by Mansfield. The officials asked Mansfield to ?cool-it,? but she took her time and didn?t stop so quickly or easily. After about five or so minutes of this blinding light of photo taking that had surrounded the once nice tranquility of Sophia and Cliff, Mansfield then allowed herself to be escorted away and back to where she had been originally seated. It was all too obvious who this photo session was for! Everyone who witnessed the occurrence, pretty much agreed that Mansfield had taken advantage of the proceedings on her own behalf, without any clearance or arrangement. The festive evening that had started out on a courteous, cordial manner, had been affected by a bizarre and outlandish incident, that couldn?t be so handily forgiven or even accepted on the bylines of getting any type of publicity for the evening.
The next day, the photo of Mansfield at the table showed up all over the newswires across the country! This behavior suggested plain and clear that she was showing herself off and not acting like she was being so gracious to Sophia and Cliff. The most obvious problem with Mansfield?s action was her gown that simply revealed too much of her and it was rather explicit that she wasn?t wearing any undergarments! This was something of a blatant action that had never been done before at what was thought to be a refined sort of atmosphere for a studio party. 20th Century-Fox didn?t protest or take Mansfield on about the matter, probably because she had two up coming movies about to be released! The publicity of this event might have been big for the studio to consider, but the Hollywood community was displeased, troubled and disgusted by one movie star, taking advantage of another?s deserved moment in the spotlight. It just wasn?t Mansfield?s night to make a photo fest out of a party that wasn?t for her. This situation finally began what later would become Mansfield being barred and not invited to numerous important Hollywood gatherings. This was especially the case with private parties. The more she exposed herself out on the deep-end of things, the more she became a high-risk case for any one to invite over for a party or even simple drinks. After a period of time, the studio had to stop having her go around town with a photographer that she later on hired herself! Once this situation of Mansfield showing her true colors became definite, after being shunned, she then took matters into her own hands by crashing parties and showing up where she had not been invited! It was all that simple.
There is on a historical note a plain fact that while nobody, absolutely nobody would slam the door on Marilyn, Mansfield turned out to be an entirely different subject! As the phone at home stop ringing and the invites were less and less, at least the ones that really counted, her marriage to Mickey began to feel the pressures and a lot of discontent. In those days, there were rules and regulations that had to be obeyed. While some think Mansfield might have been a pioneer in this gaudy way of self-promotion, in the end it didn?t evolve to anything positive for her career. Those last years of her life, when she had to work overseas in Europe, get work in shady strip clubs and then end up in mostly cheap exploitation films, only Bob Hope gave her some decent exposure, when he called upon her for his annual USO shows. It was only in that limited department that she managed to keep something of her dignity, while all along she could never get back into the mainstream of things in Hollywood, at least on a regular basis.
I now only ask that: Please! Nobody post that horrible photo of her at the party! I know it?s on the internet and for me it just brings back some sad, if not, bad memories of a night that displayed some recklessness by a gal who was said to be smart, but ended up appearing dump, selfish and without any logical circumstance to help herself and her career. I only posted this story, probably because in the long run, I feel sorry for the woman. She really allowed herself to slip low. Mae West was right about one thing, when she said: ?I?m vulgar and tacky, but I?m not dirty.?
Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 22, 2009 9:46 PM
Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 22, 2009 11:15 PM
-
I will have to say that back then, for a beautiful woman it was tough to juggle a career between getting exploited and hoping for success. The choices many girls made in Hollywood in order to believe it might be able to get them that big break were few and far in between. Mansfield took her career goals towards creating hype about herself, therefore making it easy to cut corners and eventually get into the studio front office. While acquiring publicity isn?t something so immoral, it does get out of hand and can reach a point that overshadows everything else about one?s career. Today, the publicity game is still the same, nothings changed much, except the rules tend to get stretched a bit and there is little, if any, protection if the situation gets out of control. Mansfield spent a lot of time on the publicity binge that she believed would keep her under the spot light to seek that control over one?s career everybody in the business feels is essential. She simply didn?t know when to stop and the end results hurt her chances at getting taken seriously and being cast in what would be considered a respectably good film project. At one point in career at 20th Century-Fox, Mansfield had hoped the studio would allow her a chance to be cast in a movie about her idol, movie star Jean Harlow. It was Mansfield who offered the studio the idea of a biographical movie about a film star she believed to be connected to in both a spiritual and career sense of thinking. This was an interesting perspective to the goals Mansfield had set for herself. She had even campaigned to be cast in the comedy/drama ?Bus Stop? that was later given to Marilyn. Then, she tried to win the lead role in ?The Prince and The Show Girl,? only to see her once again lose it to Marilyn. By the time Marilyn had settled her differences with 20th Century-Fox, Mansfield was nothing more than placed on ?stand-by? for lesser, more economical film projects that never helped her seek the goals she had hoped for. Around 1960, the studio began to ignore Mansfield with the coming of newer, modestly polished starlets, such as Hope Lang, Diane Varsi, Carol Lynley, Diane Baker and Suzy Parker. Mansfield began to get out classed in various categories that drove her to become something of a comedic sexual siren of the movies. In a bold move, Mansfield began to copy Mae West, creating something of an updated, flashier version of a gaudy sex symbol. This ploy proved to be a bad joke in public. Trying to take advantage of the Mae West routine backfired in displaying Mansfield?s rather reckless methods of acquiring publicity that in the end, showed that it was Mae all along who had the real solid skill at carrying off a tinseled, adorned sexy image that could be respected and not so much annoying. This situation was probably Mansfield's first big mistake for her celebrity image, if not her film career! The more Mansfield exposed herself in public, the more her film career suffered, because her impetuous celebrity image took over any possible angle at being considered an actress, let alone a competent film star. Whatever intelligence Mansfield had got overtaken and striped away by her methods of self-promotion. She was talented in a simple way of thinking, but her abilities were focused in areas that have no lasting qualities and in this case it was her sexual prowess that placed her in a fragmentary position, not allowing her any chance of breaking away from it. Like Marilyn, she fought the studio system as long as she could, but unlike Marilyn, she failed simply because she had become as corrupt as the system she was fighting.
-
It's obvious that this video release comes on the heels of the new updated film version that has been launched. I've often wondered if films like this one and say, "Saturday Night Fever" should be considered really musicals? Naturally, all the pop music and some dancing seems to give these movies a musical backdrop, but the overall reality to the storylines tends to make me feel otherwise. It's not that these movie should have a "happy ending" or such an upbeat mood. They just don't have that special transitional magic of song and dance that you usually get from most musicals. There is simply no intermediate structure between the songs and dances in these films. Still, the original Fame was a well made film, powerful in its depection about a striving temperament of those who reach towards what they hope will be the stars of fame and all its glories. My take is that Fame should be designated as a "music/drama."
-
Today, TCM had an airing of a British film that few people, at least in the US have ever seen, let alone heard of called ?As Long as They?re Happy.? The movie was adapted from a successful London stage show from the early 1950s. The show was basically a romantic musical comedy that some historians believe was the basis for another big hit musical, the American Broadway show of ?Bye-Bye Bride.? The star of the movie version was the ever dashing and flashy star of British stage and film, Jack Buchanan. He had been somewhat known to American audiences during the early half of the 20th Century, appearing in various stage shows, while maintaining a rather small film career. The only one big impression Buchanan had made with American audiences was in 1953, when he co-starred opposite Fred Astaire in the now classic MGM musical, ?The Band Wagon.? This 1955 British musical, for both stage and screen, had in some technical ways signified that the British were trying to catch up with the American musical industry that pretty much dominated the whole world market of entertainment. There simply weren?t very many British movie musicals being made that could compete with Hollywood. But, ?As Long as They?re Happy? appeared to be one of the rare exceptions to this rule.
The story behind ?As Long as they?re Happy? was interesting, if not, a bit over-the-top or just plain zany to say the least. It was all about a London stockbroker, whose three teenage daughters get into a crazy mix-up with an American singing star, who has come to England on his first tour. The three daughters become infatuated by the American crooner, who in turn, charms everyone else he meets and creates a frenzy of excitement. In the role of the singer was actor Jerry Wayne, who most everybody today never heard of or will probably forget. He had an interesting career in show business, but one that was rather irregular or never one that had a good amount of exposure. The three daughters were played by lovely Janette Scott, Susan Stephen and the real standout, wonderful Jeannie Carson. In later years, Carson would come to America and have her very own television sitcom! She was about the only really solid musical performer in the movie, besides Jerry Wayne. Buchanan, who was known as a musical performer, didn?t get as much of a song-and-dance routine that he was noted for. Instead, he played his role of the stockbroker more towards comic relief than staying closely connected to his musical experience. In supporting roles were well known Brits, such as Brenda de Banzie as the wife of Buchanan and comedian Joan Sims as the maid. There are also wonderful comic performances from David Hurst, as the German psychiatrist. The biggest surprise in the movie is an appearance by the ?Marilyn Monroe of British Movies,? Diana Dors. She really shows off the curves of her physique, pretty much proving she could compete head-on with any blonde ?bomb-shell? from the other side of the Atlantic! Throughout the movie, there are also some cameo appearances by noted British performers of the day.
What makes this movie intriguing is the simple fact of how the British are attempting to adopt this American style of what was then modern popular musical entertainment. There are moments it works, while most of the time its rather ridiculous and difficult to understand the British mentality as it tries to relate to what we know on our side of the Atlantic as pop culture. The real connection to our side of the ocean comes at the moment Jerry Wayne?s character of the crooner, sings the once big hit song ?Cry? that was made popular by singer Johnny Ray. This was more or less satirizing the whole pop culture scene of the day. Wayne?s role and even performance has been considered rather animated or cockeyed to the point of annoying. In the overall music department, some of the original tunes as written by Sam Coslow were not bad. Especially nice was the musical dream sequence as performed by Jeannie Carson that while wasn?t anything to rave about in comparison to Hollywood, did add something tuneful and delightful to watch. This movie appeared more like a big all-star British attempt to make something hip for their audiences that at the time were immersed in everything American when it came to contemporary entertainment. It?s doubtful that songwriters Strouse & Adams, who wrote the songs for ?Bye-Bye Bride,? might have been influenced by this British film. However, there is a strong connection throughout the storyline, that can?t be so easily overlooked and in over 50 years has made many feel suspicious about the issue. Many film buffs who discovery this movie, might be amazed to realize it was directed by J. Lee Thompson. In the years to come Thompson would direct another uncanny sort of film, that some feel is connected to this one: the 1963 all-star cast comedy, ?What a Way to Go.? One aspect to consider about ?As Long as They?re Happy? is that we won?t see this movie anywhere else except on TCM! So, if you?re a fan of the obscure and seldom seen (forgotten) movies as I am, then TCM is the place to be and make yourself right at home!
Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 21, 2009 11:16 PM
-
> {quote:title=Ascotrudgeracer wrote:}{quote}
> By the way...it's *Jayne.*
I've been making that mistake for over 50 years. It's never really sunk in . . . The same goes with Barbra Streisand, when I refer to her as "Barbara."
Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 21, 2009 2:44 PM
-
No doubt that Jane?s performance in ?The Wayward Bus? was her best and last of any good consequence. Her peak period at 20th Century-Fox only lasted three years. As her prospects dried up, so began her going off on these desperate publicity frenzies. Her ravenous desperation for publicity ruined her marriage with Mickey. Despite the hardships they both endured, even after their split up, they remained devoted to each other. The relationship was almost reminiscent of ?Joe D. and Marilyn.? Jane was also a little lucky in that she always had the support of family, especially having had children. That was something Marilyn never had.
Jane?s singing career was something of a deception, because she never could really sing, unlike Marilyn who could usually carry a tune. There was for Jane the typical studio electronic trickery that consisted of over-dubbing her voice with various instruments, musical backgrounds and other voices to quell her inefficient singing range. In several of her Hollywood films, where she supposedly sang, she was dubbed! The most notable dubbing she received was from singer Connie Francis for the film, ?The Sheriff of Fractured Jaw.? Once word leaked out that Connie had done the singing, Jane?s reputation was somewhat damaged and therefore she couldn?t be taken so seriously. It was one of the first times Jane received a backlash of insulting publicity. This event probably got her started on some of those ridiculous publicity stunts, appearing as if she had to prove herself worthy and special. Towards the end of her life, all she had left was her zany and erotic celebrity past to fall back on. At age 32, she still managed to keep herself in shape, but she was struggling with a diet that kept her constantly frustrated and she began to drink heavily. Perhaps the strangest thing happening in that last year of her life was getting involved with the occult from everything to ?devil worshipers? and holding s?ances. She had pretty much gone off the ?deep-end.? One of the last people she spoke to before she was killed was Mickey. She had called him long-distance to say her astrologer said he?d be back into her life. Mickey pleaded with her to stop the tour, get cleaned up and rested. But, tragedy was waiting on a dark, early morning fog covered road, on the way to New Orleans. Strange, that Jane?s life ended just like Marilyn?s, in such a grievous way.
Musicals directed by (primarly) directors of dramas
in Films and Filmmakers
Posted
You are absolutely correct from all things historical! The ?My Fair Lady? situation that was marred by Julie Andrews being by passed was later hampered even more by Audrey Hepburn having to be dubbed! The entertainment news wasted no time in exploiting the issue that for the most part was taking to task the decision to cast Hepburn, with everyone knowing full well she was no match for Andrews on a musical perspective. So, one had to wonder if the whole idea of making the movie was simply an updated version of ?Pygmalion? and the beautiful songs were to be placed on a secondary level of consideration. This I think hurt not only the legitimacy of making the movie, but was highly instrumental in creating a hassle for Hepburn. No doubt, the criticism hit her hard that although wasn?t really directed towards her on a personal level, it would follow her for the rest of her life and professional career! "My Fair Lady" was simply saved by two factors, first Rex Harrison's performance and second the 17 million dollars spent to make it one of the most beautiful movies up to that time! The problem when making a musical film and somebody gets dubbed centers around where exactly is the significant emphasis of the film that in turn surrounds a major role. While some movies get away with the issue of dubbing, this happens simply because one or two of the principal characters to the musical storyline will have what is clearly a legitimate musical performer placed in the role! Then, even if there is a good amount of dubbing to various major roles, the film itself has to carry the burden of emphasizing the overall quality of the film! A good example is a block-buster as ?The King & I,? that while Deborah Kerr didn?t really sing and for a time it was kept something of a secret, the whole dubbing issue was overshadowed by the vast beauty and scope of the film, including the incredible performance by Yul Brynner. Another example is ?West Side Story.? Here you had about five of the major roles all dubbed! But, what overshadows this issue is the real essential point to the success of the musical, its dancing!! So, somewhere along the line to success, there has to be lingering around other factors to save the movie from oblivion!
By 1972, ?Man of La Mancha? had no chance of getting around the dubbing issue, due in large part to the musical being considered in the same caliber as ?My Fair Lady.? Therefore, enough memories had lingered on to feel that the legitimacy factor couldn?t be so easily overlooked. What was initially thought that might save any harsh criticisms was the idea that a good dramatic element or backdrop to the film would suppress or bypass the changes made to the original concept of the musical. In hindsight, it might have been more acceptable to have a real, qualified singer in the starring role, but movies tend to depend on other factors that relate strongly to the whole illusionary aspect about filmmaking. This is why for the longest time during the early half of the 20th Century movies weren?t taken so seriously as the ?live stage.? We have to face the facts that you can get away with it on a movie screen, but not in front of a live audience! Anyway, after all these years it now seems that filmmakers realize the need to be real or forthright about what they present on screen in terms of the performing factor to a musical. After all, with what can be done today using computer or digital effects, it?s no wonder we?ve come to this need to feel confident and admire a performance that we know is 100 percent real and whatever fantasy or deception there is comes from the natural talent we experience.