MovieProfessor
-
Posts
1,421 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by MovieProfessor
-
-
There have been some great and wonderful points made about ?Serpent of the Nile.? I'm thrilled by the responses to this thread. It?s a nice surprise that I didn?t expect! Ok, to get started . . .
Finance, Her performance in ?The Killer is Loose? was one of her best, from legendary director Budd Boetticher, who had directed some of the best westerns at Columbia Pictures during the 1950s! I wouldn?t consider ?The Killer is Loose? a typical ?studio quickie? considering the cast and the reputation of Boetticher, who by that time had a solid following.
Scwu1975, Wow! I forgot about Julie! She had such a gorgeous way of movement to her body and dance. She was age 20 at the time of this film appearance, just one year away from her breakthrough role in the classic musical ?7 Brides for 7 Brothers.? You are ?right on? about the music; I also knew it was extracted from Tiomkin?s original score for ?Lost Horizon.?
DougieB, ?The Queen of Babylon? was a typical ?sword and sandal? quickie from Europe. In fact, Rhonda was one of the very first American stars who took on an option to work overseas in these presumed ancient epics, mostly of which were filmed in Italy. She would later on return to Europe to work in other films. That was a magnificent catch on the death scene! I would have to agree that it might have very well been stolen for Liz Taylor! The scene was absolutely similar in every frame and angle, especially when Rhonda asked for the basket and then picked up the serpent to die. Wow! I don?t think it?s wrong to feel there are some situations in the movies that linger right into other movies!
And finally, ?Dobbs,? let?s face it! TCM isn?t going to spend their primetime lineup on a movie like this one. We have to accept the situation that the mainstream, classic films are the ones a majority of fans would want to see. We fans, who love the obscure stuff, either have to stay up late or use a DVR.
-
To talk about Jane is to talk about a movie star that was sort of tarnished at the start of her career. As it turned out, Jane was nothing more than an attempted copy of Marilyn Monroe, but on a more flamboyant, lively level of imagery. Like Marilyn, Jane had been a model first, done some television and appeared on the live stage. She actually started out as a red head, and then became a brunette, finally settling on becoming a blonde, when her agent convinced her to go to what he termed as ?the Marilyn route.? After a few small film and television roles, this change in her imagery mixed in with her voluptuous physique, at first worked out well, especially when she landed a choice role in the George Axelrod Broadway comedy, ?Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?? This led to her getting hired by 20th Century-Fox, only because Marilyn at the time was in a dispute with the studio. The Axelrod play was actually centered on a ?Marilyn Monroe like? character and all the excessive phoniness that Hollywood creates! It was very easy for the studio to consider giving Jane a shot at major stardom, because of the success she garnered by playing a sex-symbol. So, the studio hoped that my hiring Jane, they could then convince Marilyn to come back. However, upon Jane?s arrival at 20th Century-Fox, the studio stalled in getting her career rolling. No doubt, the issue of Marilyn hovered over Jane?s fate at the studio. When it was finally decided to make a film version of Jane?s success from the Axelrod play, she was given another project instead, ?The Girl Can?t Help It.? This film was a major success, but it didn?t help Jane in the sense that the film was geared more to showing off Jane?s physical assets than any abilities as an actress or comedian. Jane had also suffered the blows of some bad publicity, when she met her first husband, bodybuilder Mickey Hargitay. He had been in a nightclub act with another big legendary sex symbol, Mae West. When Mae had her act in New York, Jane made a very flashy appearance at the nightclub, posing for photos with the various male bodybuilders in Mae?s show. This incident led to a bawl between Mickey and another bodybuilder (Mae?s boyfriend at the time) backstage over the actions of Jane showing up and taking advantage of Mae?s position.
It didn?t take long for the press in general to label Jane as a reckless publicity seeker. The studio then took advantage of whatever adverse publicity there was to Jane. But, her next series of films proved not to be so successful. So, she had to settle on working sporadically and on a limited basis. This meant more and more off screen appearances, such as opening supermarkets, arriving unexpected at some plush Hollywood parties and finally what in later years turned out to be a rather stale nightclub act. Things really got bad for Jane, when her marriage to Mickey broke up in 1964. By that time, her major film career was all but over and she had to settle on crazy exploitation films and supporting roles in a few films that didn?t help her career. Some film historians have said that Jane?s film career really ended when Marilyn unexpectedly died. After all, she was always in the shadows of Marilyn and this meant an era or style of imagery had come to its end. Jane simply didn?t get the needed big break to get away from her gaudy, rather obnoxious imagery that for time was amusing, but eventually wore itself out. Her last attempt at any chance at reviving her career came when she made several films in Europe, but even overseas her career was in its decline, because of newer starlets that had caught on with the general public. In the end, Jane turned out to be a product of the 1950s and couldn?t expand into the 1960s, due to the sample fact that sex symbols grow old fast. Their time under the spotlight is limited, unless they strive towards other outlets for their career. If anything, Mae West was right about Jane when she remarked, ?She could never be like me, I?m diverse, and she?s just a quick flash in the pants.?
It was a horrible end to her life, when she died in that car accident while on her way to a television interview in New Orleans. By that time, she was working the low-budget nightclub circuit. The only really good exposure she had prior to her death was when Bob Hope cut Jane a break and gave her a segment on his annual television Christmas show. The program was aired after she had died. That was the last time she was seen on a wide basis.
-
I'm not a shame to admit that I simply love this wonderful piece of junk! But, most important is that I've been a fan of Raymond Burr all my life. He had a very respectable career.
-
Early this morning, TCM had a very rare treat! This month TCM is showcasing the films of director/producer William Castle, due in part to his many suspense and horror films for the Halloween season. Yet, TCM has even included a few other types of films by Castle. This morning marked a telecast of Castle?s rather flamboyant, sort of low budget historic costume drama, ?Serpent of the Nile.? This 1953 production from Columbia Pictures was pretty much a B-Movie that strived to look big and expensive. When you think about it, 1953 was a banner year for Hollywood, especially with the coming of biblical epics; whether they were in widescreen or not. It doesn?t take most people very long to figure out what exactly Castle?s movie was all about by way of the title! Well, what made this production rather interesting was Columbia utilizing most of the sets and interiors used in a previous major biblical film, ?Salome,? that was a starring vehicle for Rita Hayworth. This William Castle film has turned out to be one of the most forgotten projects in a list of movies about the ill fated ancient historic Egyptian Queen, the one and only ?Cleopatra.?
Now, what I don?t understand is why some film historians take time when mentioning ?Serpent of the Nile? on just how ludicrous was the whole idea of making this movie. What I think these writers tend to forget is that the movie was made for a specific market that at the time catered to local small theaters and the popular drive-in movie circuit. Castle?s movie was nothing more than a typical standard ?studio quickie? to take advantage of luring audiences into theaters with its flashy, Technicolor look. There?s no doubt that the studio decided on extending the interest in these ancient historic films that would be spurred on by the enormous success that same year with 20th Century-Fox releasing the epic production of ?The Robe? in widescreen Cinemascope. The Castle movie was in some ways a type of film that was on the way out, due in part to the tremendous onslaught from the popularity of television. In the long run, what gave ?Serpent of the Nile? an added edge to make a bit of money was the Technicolor issue that for all intended purposes was what kept these types of movies alive for the remainder of the decade. Both Columbia and Universal Pictures were pumping out these color B-Movies at a weekly rate, thus keeping many local theaters in business. In time, Castle would become one of the best in this field of creating popularity out of second-rate productions that had a nice, but restricted sort of look.
In talking about ?Serpent of the Nile,? many film buffs will concentrate on the stars of the movie. First and perhaps foremost is actress Rhonda Fleming as Cleopatra. While more noted for her beautiful red glowing hair that was a trademark, for this movie she went brunette. Wearing what appeared to be elaborate wigs, gaudy makeup, jewelry and gowns designed by Jean Louis; Fleming was rather over-the-top. Her ornate appearance that was more or less done to be as impressionable as possible wasn?t historically convincing, let alone correct. By this time in her career, she had missed the boat on establishing herself as a major star. She was now pretty much a secondary movie queen, subjected to projects that were routine. Second on the bill was another performer that never made the grade to the major leagues of filmdom. Actor William Lundigan, who played the role of the Roman solider, having once been the Egyptian queen?s secret lover, was a competent actor, but he lacked that special magic to reach major stardom and most likely never had the needed amount of good luck. Watching Lundigan act in this movie, one has to wonder if he is really taking it all serious, but he probably is under the influence of just doing his job and not have a need to be pretentious or think he?s in a movie of high caliber. The third person on the movie bill is the one most everybody will talk about. This turned out to be one of the very few times the legendary Raymond Burr received good billing. By this time in his career, Burr was getting good exposure, when compared to Fleming and Lundigan. Burr had been successfully drifting between B-Movies and major ones. Of course, in most of his major film appearances he usually received low billing. But, luck played an important part for his career, being that his skill and overall interesting persona won him numerous good roles in some classic major movies. He had already appeared in such hit productions as ?A Place in the Sun,? ?His Kind of Woman? and one of his best roles that same year of 1953, was in ?The Blue Gardenia.? His career was actually just getting underway towards finally reaching a pinnacle in the years to come that was surprising. In ?Serpent of the Nile,? Burr played the mighty Roman general ?Mark Antony!? While some fans will find this rather amusing, his appearance as the legendary Roman seemed logical, when compared to that of Fleming?s Cleopatra, especially since Burr gives what is probably the best performance in the film. Despite the rather plushy, wordy script that tries to be theatrical, if not so high-flown, Burr?s performance is interesting to watch and he almost pulls it off or gives the movie an unexpected reasonable fascination. In hind sight, he steals the picture away from the two stars of the movie!
What really makes ?Serpent of the Nile? amusing are the battle scenes. They have obviously been staged on a very limited basis. The fighting and stunts appear more like watching a B-Western than an historic film. The ancient army uniforms and weapons are about as cheap as it can get. The battering ram and catapult used by the Romans are so unconvincing; they look as if a group of elementary kids put them together! Adding even more fuel to the amusement of this movie is a sword fighting scene between Lundigan and an Egyptian solider. Lundigan?s stunt double can clearly be seen or that you know he isn?t doing most of any of the swordplay! This is a typical technical flaw that a movie like this can?t help to get away from. Obviously, this was a rather unpolished secondary stunt unit that probably never got beyond its B-Movie status. One aspect that made up for the lack of massive sets and numerous silly flaws were the pretty mantel, optical paintings use to showcase both Rome and Alexandria. While they all looked like paintings, they did have a nice, reasonable affect to make the movie at times seem plausible.
The idea of watching a movie like this on TCM stems from a historical sense of thinking about the movies and Hollywood. This was a last ditch effort on the part of the movie business to keep as many theaters across the country afloat and open for business. Today, cable movie channels with original productions have made up for this once rather prolific means of producing films for a specialized market. If anything kept these types of small movies alive and well was an innocent sort of ambitious arty attempt at giving a portion of the public something beyond the limited means of a small black and white television set. ?Serpent of the Nile? is a good example of a wonderful phoniness to movie making that has a place in the annals of movie history.
Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 20, 2009 5:10 PM
-
I've also noticed that in the last year, the Fox Channel has not relied on regular showings, during the night or day of their classic film library from the 1930s/40s and now even the 1950s. Years ago, Fox was pretty good at showing even their widescreen films letter boxed. It now looks like everything along the lines of classic films will rest on TCM shoulders. Perhaps we can hope to see more films from Columbia, Universal, Paramount, United Artists and the mighty 20th Century-Fox on TCM. So far, TCM has managed to get a good amount of films made at these studios that are not really part of the TCM library. Let's hope that a certain amount of flexibility can be worked out, before a lot of good old movies totally disappear from sight.
Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 20, 2009 2:16 AM
-
This is one of my favorites too! And, it sure can relate to what going on today. So, as Ginger said, "Old Man Depression you are through, you done us wrong!"
-
> Not matter how much you love someone, if that person has an addiction, you can only do so much. You can bang your head against the wall, over and over, trying to help.
>
No doubt about that . . .
-
Congratulations! However, Jackie wasn't the first lion used for the logo. As of 1957, today everybody usually refers to him as "Leo The Lion." So, I guess like it is in show business that was his stage name? But then, what about George? How about Tanner? After all is said and done, the real original one was an Irish lad from the Dublin Zoo!
-
You are right on the money! She was at the end, not eating properly. One time, ?Joe D.? took her out for dinner and she hardly ate only drinking wine and having an occasional breadstick. This isn?t exactly a healthy way to go about having dinner. Marilyn had earlier been dieting, having loss about 25 pounds. Add the pills and liquor to the situation and you have a time bomb waiting to explode! I?m not so sure if I can believe all the tales about her possibly being murdered, because of her state of mind and what she was going through with the diet, pills and constant drinking. When she drove about town in her Lincoln convertible, she had a small ice chest in the back seat with at least two bottles of champagne. Of course, we do have to take into account the times and the way doctors exploited prescriptions. I?ve always been haunted by ?Joe D.? not being able to help her. She must have still felt something for him, since towards the end she did take most of his phone calls and spoke to him lovingly. But, she probably went through a series of phases, one moment being level headed, while the next going off the deep end. Talk is that Marilyn was obsessed by the idea that she herself would go crazy like her mother and put away in an asylum. It?s the one truth about her that has remained unquestionable and rather clear to understand a part of her complicated nature.
-
I have to wonder if ?Valley of the Dolls? will ever be considered a worthwhile film. Of course, what made the movie so intriguing was the original best selling book it was based on that for the most part was trashed by the mainstream media. It?s only natural to surmise who Jacqueline Susann based the characters of her book on. The only reason why Susann was able to get her book published was due in large part to the various connections she had, both through friends and her (agent) husband. Perhaps the most pathetic situation surrounding the making of the movie was Susann originally casting Judy Garland in the role of ?Helen Lawson.? Susann may have thought that by getting Garland into the movie, she could then give her story a tremendous amount of creditability. Anyone who read the novel knew full well that one of the characters from the book was based on Garland herself! At the time, Garland was simply desperate and needed the money that was being offered. Much to Susann and the production team?s disappointment, Garland was uncooperative during her first few days on the set. After failing to get Garland in line with the shooting schedule, she was replaced by another great star, lovely Susan Hayward. Some fans have felt that Susan sold herself out by agreeing to replace Garland and appeared in what many people felt was nothing more than a pompous piece of trash. The whole Garland incident simply displayed a sort of ?no holds barred? consideration on the part of Susann and the production unit to give the project as much hype as possible. No matter how hard everyone associated to the movie tried, they couldn?t get any positive feedback or acceptance from the various show business circles. Even more chaos overshadowed the movie, when the great Ethel Merman, who was the basis of ?Helen Lawson? threaten to sue. Well, all of this nonsense did nothing but add a bit of the hype Susann wanted, but really didn?t give the movie any chance of ever being taken so seriously. I remember what one critic remarked: ?So they make a piece of trash, from a piece of trash.? It was logical to predict that the movie would go on to become a box-office success, but has since been considered nothing more than a rather destructive look at show business. It isn?t that the movie lied or exaggerated so much about its storyline; it just was all a commercially contrived piece of nonsense that in the end gave no long lasting and important meaning to be taken seriously. Beautiful Sharon Tate was obviously a ?Marilyn Monroe? type and the role of lovely Barbara Parkins was the alter ego of Susann herself! One can only imagine what might have happened on the set of the movie, had Judy Garland appeared opposite Patty Duke, who was clearly mimicking and copying everything possible from Garland?s actual career in the movies! It was from the very beginning easy to guess who the character of "Neely O'Hara," as portrayed by Duke was based on! This was the most controversial and probably most talked about issue surrounding the movie. Some fans now feel that Garland bowing out of the film was due to not being able to deal with the pressure of perhaps realizing the "Neely O'Hara role was her! That same year, actor Paul Burke, who gave what many feel was the only good performance in the movie, scored well in a superior film, ?The Thomas Crown Affair.? At least he had one good movie under his belt he could be proud of and get deserved respect.
In the long run, ?Valley of The Dolls? was a piece of junk novel, turned into an even bigger piece of junk as a movie. Even though the public gave interest in seeing the movie, today the film is nothing more than a symbolic fragmented gesture to the era from which it came. It?s funny that the man chosen to direct the movie, Mark Robson, had ten years earlier directed a movie based on another famous novel, ?Peyton Place.? I would give his first attempt at bringing a famous soap opera novel to the screen high marks, while his second attempt with ?Valley of The Dolls? is a technical failure as a movie that only succeeded at the box-office because it ended up being something of a freak show. This is probably why ?Valley of The Dolls? will have a lot of cult status in the years to come.
-
Of recent times, I would have to go with the 1982 Sci-Fi epic, ?Blade Runner.? This movie has cult film written all over it. Even when it was first released, it became instantly shrouded in myths or controversies about how the film evolved. Like another great Sci-Fi film of the past, ?2001? from 1968, ?Blade Runner? was a film riddled with various mysteries and a backdrop of chaos. Whether or not it was all contrived to become a cult film is another theory that overshadows the movie. After all, several supposed different versions have been released or reedited. In the final analysis, none of the versions have made any big difference for any improvements. The film remains in a constant state of enigmatic conclusions as to say if the movie has any real meaning towards it evolution. It was one of these major projects of the 1980s that never really got off to a clear start on what the studio and its production team could agree upon. Today, a phenomenon has been created about ?Blade Runner? that although it can never really be considered a success will for generations to come be an interesting film to watch. Any movie that can achieve a cult status has more to do with a hypothesis of what might have been something great or a masterpiece. While other films that acquire cult status have more to do with their mediocrity that over time makes them popular and fun to watch. In the case of ?Blade Runner,? it?s one of these big movies that might have been great, but missed the mark at being totally accepted by fans and critics alike, only to see the film get a limited, devoted audience that relates strongly to what is designated as a cult movie.
-
I was wondering if two questions about the MGM lion have been already asked? They are:
1. Does anybody know what film did "Leo" not roar at the opening?
2. What film was "Leo" colored tinted for the first time and not seen in natural full color?
And, here's a clue that will probably make it easy to give it all away . . .
Both films were released the same year and were huge block buster hits!
-
Vidor turned out to be one of the few directors in Hollywood who didn?t accept the transition to ?talking pictures? so easily. He always said up to the time of his death that the silent movie had a visual freedom of expression, resulting in an art form that the coming of sound ruined. He even went on to state that the cameraman, using the old typical ?hand cranked? camera for silent movies was one of the main reasons for the style and imagery that made silent movies so intriguing. Vidor believed that the old system had a control that ?talking pictures? did away with, because with sound you didn?t have to really look at the visuals or the action on screen; you could now hear what was going on. This is a very interesting perspective from a successful filmmaker who felt jolted by the coming of new technologies. Of course, Vidor went on to work in sound and yet he never really felt so comfortable with the changes brought on by the medium of talking pictures. He hated the hold idea of having to deal with dialog and a working (talking) script! Throughout the rest of his career in Hollywood, he spent more time as a backup director, usually being called upon to finish a film, when a director got fired. Movie buffs have argued as to his best silent movie as opposed to his work in sound. My choices would be the 1928 silent, ?The Crowd" and then ?Stella Dallas? in 1937 for sound. Towards the end of his career, he became more commercially orientated and a lot of his innovative skill of the past was lost. He always blamed the changes brought on by sound for having restrained and narrowed his abilities.
The controversial turning point for him probably came when he and producer David O. Selznick clashed during the making of ?Duel in the Sun.? It was the only time Vidor ever walked off a project and his career never really recovered after that incident. The rest of his directing career was in general rather mediocre or just plain standard major filmmaking as a director for hire.
Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 19, 2009 7:34 PM
Edited by: MovieProfessor on Oct 19, 2009 7:36 PM
-
There is strong reason to feel that all the pills, drugs and alcohol took its toll on the issue of her not being so level-headed on remembering her lines. She was in some ways physically frail. Yet, after all these years, all that remains for us to contemplate are theories that have only added to her long standing legend. By the time she made her last film, "The Misfits," she was totally burnt out and obviously in need of help.
-
At the time she appeared in "Niagara," she and "Joe D." had just started going together. It was probably her most happiest of times. That movie single handledly made her a huge international star and thus her legend began with "Niagara." One of my favortie of all publicity angles about Marilyn and the movie was the big hype about her walk. Certainly, Marilyn went along with the whole idea that was later designated as "The Marilyn Walk." She was absolutely a beautiful "knock out" in that famous red dress that Bill Travilla designed for her. If anybody should be credited with having helped Marilyn's image, it was him. Over the years, Bill would hang a huge photo of Marilyn behind the desk in his office for all to see. The photo was of Marilyn in a gown he made exclusively for her that wasn't in any film. Marilyn kept most of the gowns he designed for her . . . Especially her most famous one, from "The Seven Year Itch."
-
Considering that the parents face a possible fine of $500.000 dollars, they may have to cut a deal as soon as they can! Does the state of Colorado allow cameras in the court room? If so, then this story won't end so quietly. Like the local sheriff said, "they are actors and have done this sort of thing before." I guess show business always seems to get into the picture, one way or another.
-
Has anybody made mention of Bess Flowers?
-
Not to get so picky, it?s no contest! ?Treasure? is John Huston?s greatest of all work and one of the finest films ever made! Of course, ?High Sierra? is a great suspense or crime film, but it pales in comparison to the overall emotional and psychological elements contained in ?Treasure.? In a historic way of thinking Huston succeeds at creating what probably is considered the most successful film about greed and all its horrendous traits. It?s obvious that being a ?Bogie? fan will get you frustrated in choosing one over the other! The problem in trying to judge these two films all stems from the brilliant performance of ?Bogie? for both films. It turns out almost as what might have to be considered a popularity contest! These two movies that are as different as apples and oranges are connected in ways of the aura ?Bogie? created by way of his dynamic performance for both films. But, frame for frame, ?Treasure? is truly a work of art, while ?High Sierra? remains a successful commercially well produced movie.
-
ZaSu was truly an original! I?ve been a fan of hers all my life. Her career in movies is quite unique for several reasons. First, she was a favorite actress of the eccentric and yet creative Erich von Stroheim, especially her work in his masterpiece, ?Greed.? Second, when sound came along, she somehow drifted away from her dramatic imagery, that had been so prevalent during the silent era. Upon working in talking-pictures, she ended up exclusively cast in comedy films. Her ?two-reel? comedy shorts with Thelma Todd and Slim Summerville would have been almost forgotten, had it not been for TCM and video. Watching ZaSu perform, there always seemed to be this beautiful fragile nature to her loveable character. She could be everybody?s zany aunt, a meddlesome neighbor next door, a wisecracking witty relative or a devoted matriarch that kept a family together. There was absolutely no role throughout her acting career she didn?t tackle and always with a style of grace and a high degree of professionalism. This is why she was so respected by her peers. I think Gale Storm said it best about ZaSu, when she remarked, ?That old gal has been through all the ropes most of us haven?t even realize we have to sooner or later tackle!? Her last screen appearance, in the big epic comedy ?It?s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World,? in 1963 was something of a nice little send-off. She died right after having finished work on the film. She was the only member of the ?all star cast? to have died before the film?s release.
-
OH! I Get It! This means Jessie Marcel has returned from the grave or back to planet earth?
-
Yep! This all sounds about right to me! Looks like the story will now linger on a little longer than expected.
-
And the beat goes on . . . Strange, how no other female movie star at present has been able to capture the allure and status of Marilyn. So many starlets in over 50 years have come and gone and yet none have had the type of hype and glamour of Marilyn. What?s funny about all this is that Marilyn herself sort of set the standard for this type of stardom and nobody has been able to follow so directly in her footsteps. No other female film star was been able to pick up on this mantel of enticement. We?ve had nothing but foolish copies as Anna Nicole Smith and Pamela Anderson, besides scores of adult film stars who all want to claim or emulate the biggest of all blondes the movies have ever known . . . All to no avail. I remember how awful Jane Mansfield failed at getting anywhere near the status Marilyn had reached, only to become a joke and silly sideshow that in affect made Marilyn look sophisticated and superior on all grounds concerning a serious film career. Others that followed in the wake of Marilyn?s coming were Mamie Van Doren, Joi Lansing, Sheree North, Diana Doris and Barbara Nichols. While Marilyn will continue to have the largest following of fans, world wide of any past movie star, her personal life has become something of a second phase or category to her fame. Thereby, her life behind the camera has at times overtaken her movie star image. Of course, we will never get by all the innuendos and theories about who Marilyn really was or what really happened behind the private secnes. As of now we can surmise she was two people . . . The first one was a girl (perhaps in that school photo?) who should have been a simple housewife . . . The second a girl who got caught within the seduction of fame and whatever glory transpires along the way to becoming famous. I?ve never believed for one single minute that she was exploited to the point of not realizing what she was getting into. The proof is in the way she responded so unprofessionally, when she became a big star; becoming difficult and not so reliable from a working perspective. It was in a certain way her payback to a business that refused to accept her on a total serious level of thinking. All the pills and drugs she later depended upon were an escape she felt was needed to perhaps quell all the guilt and personal hardships of her short lived life. She is now nothing more than a grand symbol of something beautiful and yet so tragic. When looking at her life in general, it can almost be as if fate deemed her towards a short life, because she never found the right ingredient to make her feel so confident and happy. I remember something Susan Hayward once said, ?It?s your life away from the camera that has to workout . . . And not mix what you do on camera with who you really are.? One has to wonder if Marilyn represents the dark, horrid side of Hollywood or do you see her as a victim or doomed siren of a world that turned her into an eternal goddess? At least Garbo was smart enough to see the hand writing on the wall, packing up her movie star life and getting out of a situation that came to its final practical end. Marilyn just couldn?t see beyond all the hype that trapped her under the spotlight of being a celebrity. Most likely, she could have never coped with getting old. Too bad ?Joe D.? didn?t get there in time to save her . . . He was about the only one in her life who wanted to care or get her out from under the blinding spotlight of fame and all its hazards. If anybody knew the score, it was ?Joe D.?
-
I have to say that my favorite Lillian Gish movie is the 1921 ?Orphans of the Storm.? Although I?m not such a Griffith fan, due to his social thinking, I have to admit he handed in a terrific spectacle. But, the real selling point to the movie had to be the teaming of Lillian with her sister Dorothy in the title roles as the orphans, separated by class and the torrid times of the French Revolution. Certainly, this movie has a lot going for it, besides all the epic portions Griffith gave the movie. The atmosphere and mood of the motion picture has a strong formula to capturing the very essence of 18th Century Paris. Some scenes were inspired by various classic paintings of the period. This would turn out to be the last film Lillian did with Griffith. It was all too obvious that she had reached a pinnacle to her career; therefore ?Orphans of the Storm? was her breaking away point from Griffith. The noted director would never again have such a dynamic leading lady for any of his sporadic films throughout the 1920s. Yet, Gish would for the rest of her life, defend Griffith and fend off all the controversies that overshadowed him, right up to the time she died in 1993. I remember once when she was being interviewed, she mentioned that Griffith had in fact made amends for his various social prejudices, when he made the film ?The Greatest Thing in Life? in 1918. In a strange irony of fate, the movie has remained lost and no prints are believed to exist. Gish nor the 1918 film could ever change the overall feeling that Griffith was a 19th Century man, taking advantage of certain social and political events to sort of indoctrinate American society to a past traditional way of thinking. Little did he realize that while he might be considered the father of the modern movie and its virtual form of storytelling, he failed to use the motion picture medium to change society and turn back the hand of time! What Griffith believed to be of cultural importance was out of step with the times. While he will probably remain a controversial figure, Gish will be one of his best remembered, justifiable contributions to the art form of the movies. Certainly, she helped pave the way to what the movies would eventually become.
-
Strange, that when all this happened, the father didn?t call 911 first. Instead, he called the local news media and then the airport. Can anybody logically explain this action? The father said he wanted to warn the airport and then get the help of a television-news helicopter to track the balloon? Perhaps this is the way of a would-be eccentric scientist. I wonder how the father would define good common sense, let alone being a good role model to his children. The tide of public opinion is certainly turning against the actions of the father. Any good old publicist can presumed what will be the aftermath. The phone at the house will probably stop ringing after the coming weekend.
What director gave the best performance?
in General Discussions
Posted
Orson Welles is my choice, simply because he acted in most of the films he directed. Also, Welles had what was perhaps the greatest acting range of anyone who ever directed and acted in a single movie. Woody Allen might be a good choice, but he stays restricted only to comedy. The same might be said for Jerry Lewis or even the immortal Charile Chaplin. In recent times, certainly Barbra Streisand could get lots of consideration in this category.