MovieProfessor
-
Posts
1,421 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by MovieProfessor
-
-
{font:Arial}{color:black}This debate, if not, controversy concerning the merits of “method acting” versus “plain technique,” didn’t get rolling with the general public until Marlon Brando arrived on the scene. The excitement for "method" began during the 1930’s with such schools as “Group Theater” and of course the most famous one of all the "Actor’s Studio.” Fact is that this practice first advocated by Russian Constantin Stanislavski had been around for a very long time. The erupting disputes over the whole idea of what exactly are the best procedures or classification to acting was in time, overshadowed by various political doctrines, especially when the communist came to power in {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Russia{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}. In other words, there was this radical background to the whole “method acting” scene, brought on in large part by a technical sort of separation between the mainstream known entertainment practitioners, as opposed to what was considered a foreign intervention to standard acting practices. Throughout the 1930’s, various performers began promoting “method” as the preferred acting style for the masses or common folks. While there has always been this thin line between “plain technique” and the Stanislavski method, both forms of performing are in fact similar to the study of a role or character. It’s just that those who practice “method” feel they go deeper into the logic and emotional range of a given role.
{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}
It’s with the whole idea of just how deep or long a study is undertaken to a role, comes the debate between the two most common forms of performing. In the years motion pictures became the biggest form of entertainment, it was certainly believed that “method” had a tremendous amount of appeal over the more assumed or masquerade style of acting; meaning little in the way of studying a role or immersing one’s personality into it. In {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}, came this division among performers, especially those who had little in the way of any training. The studios did offer acting schools and “method” was studied, but for the long haul, most performers didn’t really become such strong advocates of the “method” system, simply because it wasn’t really so necessary for motion pictures. It seems that some film historians believe, unlike the “live” stage, the somewhat form of illusionism in films can easily overcome any need to feel a performer have legitimacy in style to a role. Illustrating this point would be an actress like Joan Crawford, who had no real solid training. Joan could over the period of her early career in films, learn her craft and then create the illusion of fitting into a role or being identified with it. Many {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} stars that had little stage experience found “method” all too tedious and time consuming to deal with. Katherine Hepburn once said when asked about how Spencer Tracy felt about “method” she answered, “Spencer just went ahead and did his role.” Perhaps the best thing the great {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Tracy{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} ever said about his profession was “Don’t get caught acting!”
{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}Well, Marlon would change the whole course of acting, at least in {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}America{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}, becoming an overnight sensation to the “method” scene. More than anyone around, Marlon really was the one who put “method” on the map and made it a household word! It’s funny that there were so many other performers in films before Marlon who were strong disciples of Stanislavski, such as Paul Muni and for my money, the greatest of them all, John Garfield, just to name a few. Other than Marlon, what really pushed “method” up onto the entertainment scene, as an important standard to the profession was the advent of “live” dramatic television during the early 1950’s in {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}New York{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}. This was truly the training ground for so many performers, later to become big motion picture stars. In no time, the streets of Broadway and {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Times Square{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} were flooded with young hopefuls from across the country, hoping to land that big break. The “Actor’s Studio” was then filled to capacity! There was a waiting list to get in! Adding to the whole “method” furor of the 1950’s came when Marilyn Monroe arrived in {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}New York{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} to live and enrolled at the “Actor’s Studio!” Although some historians question the whole Monroe frenzy at the famous school, her influence was hard-felt and gave her some practical respect, despite her never being able to brush off her sex-goddess imagery. From that time on, acting coach Lee Strasberg and his associates, became entertainment icons of teaching acting to so many who walked through the doors of the “Actor’s Studio.”
{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}As to whether or not “method” or the study of it is so necessary doesn’t really matter for the movies. If somebody can have enough time working at it, they can acquire some reasonable experience, if not, be able to reach a respectable level of subsistence. A good example of this is “{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Cher{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}.” She came a very long way from her days as a wannabe rock and roll singing star to becoming a polished actress! Of course, I won’t say that “method” is a waste of time and I do hold the practice in high regard. It’s just that the list of those who never studied “method” (mostly Hollywood stars) and became great, immortal performers is long and probably longer than those who practiced “method.” Oh well, to each his own . . .
{font} -
{font:Arial}{color:black}There can be no doubt that the casting of Leo is a big marketing ploy, just as it was way back in 1974 with {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Redford{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}. One problem I feel bothered with about the 1974 version is that {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Redford{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} doesn’t really have much to say or his scenes of dialog were rather limited. There was very little in the way of any real acting on his part. Of course, this was probably a means of expressing the mystery surrounding the main character. Still, in terms of acting ability as opposed to the role or character, it will be interesting to see how de Caprio emerges as “Gatsby” in this upcoming version. Looking at de Caprio’s past acting efforts, he seems to have a reasonable amount of sensitivity, unlike {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Redford{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}, who expresses a sense of control and durability. Literary scholars have been divided over the issue of “Gatsby’s” overall emotional attributes. In the novel, his personality is caught in a cycle of one moment displaying a bit of vigor and then his character moves into the realm of lovesick despondency. This I think is a problem for any actor attempting to bring to life a complicated character out of the pages of a classic novel.
{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}
The greatest mystery surrounding this upcoming version of “The Great Gatsby” will center on Caprio’s dimensional level of quality. Already, the talk is that his performance is highly charged; unlike in the 1974 version and {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Redford{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}’s stiff interpretation. When the new version is released, de Caprio will now have to satisfy the scholars and fans of the novel. In hindsight, the only film version rather different and perhaps close to the novel was the A&E 2000 cable television version. In a technical sense of thinking, de Caprio had an “open hand” to his attempt of bringing new life this celebrated character of American literature. One main aspect to this whole new production to remember is that the film will have a good amount of appeal to a new generation of fans; most of these will obviously flock to see de Caprio. Meanwhile, the serious, more intellectual crowd will wonder if he can pull it off. This new version of “Gatsby” has been under some criticism, while under production, probably due in large part to having the movie made totally overseas and away from any connection to the original atmosphere of the story. It’s as if the novel and all its legitimacy have been high jacked away from its American roots. But then, most movies these days are made in some very strange, out of the way places!{font}
-
> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}
> For the record, she did an audio interview on the Today show not an on-camera interview.
While I do respect Doris and her right to privacy, I believe if there was enough of say, a letter writing or web campaign of asking her to reconsider, she might just come around to the idea of a one on one interview with RO. We the fans here at TCM have that ability! This is in all regards a vital situation, since Doris is one of the last available motion picture stars of the 20th Century!!! She remains a titan among so many others who came to the motion picture screen. There is such a wonderful beauty to Doris as both a movie star and just as important a human being. She is a rarity of sorts, a phenomenon of having become an icon of American entertainment, starting out all on a mere, unpretentious idea toward becoming a monumental success. But then, she has already said enough, by way of her long ago biography, revealing so many events, places and people in her life that brought about interesting surprises. The one thing we can rely on about Doris is her never ending, high spirited, positive personality that continues on and keeps her in the hearts and minds of those who have come to know her well, something of a solid and dependable force of nature. No matter what, I will continue to love her to death! :x
P.S. Dors:
Why do I tell me myself these things that happen are all really trueWhen in my heart I know the magic is my love for you!
-
{font:Arial}{color:black}It might be that director George Stevens decided on keeping the ending of “Shane,” an open question to the extent of promoting an arua of mythical status. However, I have always believed there is a definite critical issue surrounding the circumstance of his gun shot wound that would have required immediate attention. It’s very likely he would bleed to death as he rides off. Although we can never really be sure just how severe is the wound, sooner or later he will be physically impaired. At the very last shot of the film, we do see him becoming delirious, about to probably faint and then fall off his horse.
{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}A logical scenario would be the next morning, where somebody, perhaps one of the homesteaders, finding Shane near death or his having simply expired and died during the night. Maybe, Shane’s lone horse, wandering aimlessly, will journey back to the boy’s home and that would be a likely indication to go out and look for him. Anything at this point of the film’s ending can lead to different possibilities, usually centering on a faith that Shane will somehow manage to live, if not get back to the homesteaders he saved.
{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}My opinion on whether or not he lives was long decided, coming at the very time the film first appeared: HE DIES. It’s inspiring and wonderful to feel that Shane will survive and get back to those he has aided by his last actions. Naturally, there is this enormous, honorable restitution to consider, owed to Shane by the homesteaders. Had Shane not miraculously appeared on the scene, the homesteaders would have either been killed or forced to flee. As the events unfold and this conflict over control of the land erupts, Shane is the only hope of fighting fire with fire. He and he alone, has the necessary credentials to understanding the violence that in the end must be faced.
{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}Shane’s gun slinging skill is the one thing in a lawless atmosphere that’s needed to not only protect and defend, but signifies authority. His abilities with the gun are in the long run, shadowed by a cruse he carries with him. It all boils down to his having acquired a reputation with the gun. This is the unspoken mystery of his life and past. He is on the run, hoping against all hope to finding some sort of sanctuary. Unfortunately, he has reached a point of no return to having a serene life or getting into civilized society, where he has no real solid place or chance of being a part of. He was never really meant to stay with the family and forge ahead with possibly finding a peace of mind to the past that in so many ways has been soaked in violence and death. If anything can be said of him, Shane has come to know the risks that are involved and wonders when his number will finally be up.
{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}There is a constant fear hovering over Shane. It’s as if he’s within constant anticipation of believing he will be challenged by someone who will think they are faster with the gun. He fears the enviable of a friend or a member of someone’s family he’s killed catching up to him. Around every blend, bush, hillside, pathway and any trail Shane follows, someone will be waiting for him. The reputation he has garnered will have Shane on the move, never being able to settle down in one place. The restless, uneasy, secretive nature of his character suggests that Shane has skeletons and mishaps hidden away. He does have principles and virtuous complexity. But, this other trustworthy side to his character can’t conceal nor be kept away from the anxiety of his impetuous lifestyle.
{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}Abruptly, Shane decides he must utilize his dangerous and nerve-racking gun slinging skills, in order to save the family. This will be the one righteous thing he can accomplish, after a life of uncertainty, due to living by the gun. No one else is as proficient and competent to handle a situation that guarantees certain death. A simple, yet very moral sacrifice will be made, in order to give Shane a sense of responsibility and cleanse his soul. So, playing upon an ethical point to find some sort of honor and end the torment of his life, Shane has to die . . . He wants to die . . . He’s been waiting for this moment throughout the violent times of his lifestyle. Shane knows all too well the odds are stacked up against him. He knows this is the final chapter to a life that has known little, if any sort of tranquility. He goes to meet a fate that will promise him a conscientious outcome, regardless of the danger. I don’t think he ever believes he will walk out of that saloon without some painstaking price to pay and this expenditure will result in ending his life.
{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}Despite Shane’s past or what we surmise to be a man who has lived under a shadowy cloak of unethical circumstances, he finds his righteousness, beyond the decadence of how he’s lived his life. You see, the way that I see it, angels aren’t so perfect and come in all sorts of forms and shapes. It’s just that an angel’s time on earth isn’t long among the mortals they encounter every now and then. So, after having first arrived under the gleaming mountainous sun, at the end of the saga, Shane rides off into the darkness that represents death and perhaps a new trail to his finding eternal peace.{font}
-
Since Doris doesn't get out much now, I say RO and the whole TCM crew should pack up the gear and head out to the home of Doris and get that long awaited interview the fans would love to see! Come on now Doris . . . Just make it one more for the fans, if not the road. Please! :_|
-
{font:Arial}{color:black}The reason as I know it for the lack of clarity at what is said by the boy as “Shane” rides off is due to a simple technical problem. Believe it or not, the film was originally mixed as an early stereophonic release! Of course, this was on a limited basis. When the movie went into general release, the mono sound prints for regular theaters were poorly broken down or reproduced. Harry Lindgren who worked on the sound recording for “Shane,” said that there was not much in the form of good continuity between single soundtracks and multiple ones, during those early days they worked with magnetic tape. This is why even the beautiful music score by Victor Young, at times sounds like it’s coming out of a metal can and lacks a bit of good dynamic range. Adding more difficulty to the situation came with the dialog, later to be mixed in with sound effects and the music score all rolled into one. {font}It's likely that the print used for the DVD transfer or the one for broadcast was of poor audio quality, stemming from this remixed issue that could mean the original multi-soundtracks are lost or have been destroyed.
{font:Arial}{color:black}While some film buffs might say that {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Paramount{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} utilized their own audio system known as “Perspecta,” a form of multiple optical tracks, in favor of magnetic tape, this is not totally correct. At the beginning of the stereo craze in {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}, all the major studios that pivotal year of 1953, applied the use of magnetic recording on the filmstrip for their biggest and most prestigious movies. And, many of these films weren’t even widescreen! The best sound was undoubtedly from 20th Century-Fox. This studio took painstaking time to reproduce, with enough good clarity, a mono print of their previous stereo offerings. I’d give second place to Universal Pictures. As for {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Paramount{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}, Warner Brothers and {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Columbia{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}, they didn’t fare so well with their mono reproductions. The worst of all was RKO, just try to listen to the action/adventure “Second Chance.” In those early days, this usually meant a poorly transferred mono sound print, to have too many high tones in the frequency department, if not, some distortion that blasted throughout a theater. It would take at least another two years before things got under control and decent sound reproductions appeared on a general basis.{font}
-
I think you right, I've long suspected that Scribner's nor Paramount ever had outright control over the rights to the novel. It's interesting that when the novel was published in 1925, it was not so well received on a critical basis and was more or less a moderate success. Of course, with the passing of time situations change. Today, the novel is considered a classic and in one recent literary survey was voted the second greatest American novel of the 20th Century! It might seem strange to some, but I admire the 1974 filmed version, based around how Jack Clayton skillfully organized the production. Perhaps the greatest flaw of the movie was its main casting, except that I think Sam Waterston made for a perfect "Nick Carraway." The music score composed by one of my idols, Nelson Riddle was stimulating in capturing that period of the roaring 20's. One fine aspect that Nelson did was blending into the film Irving Berlin's song, "What'll Do?" as the main theme. Overall, it's not in any shape or form a great movie or classic, but it does in some ways deliver a posh product. Sometimes, there are films that just look magnificent, thereby giving them that one redeemable factor.
-
Right you are Fred! I wish NBC would find the footage and perhaps have it released somehow, if it does exist at all.
-
> {quote:title=Sprocket_Man wrote:
> }{quote}Warner's doesn't own the 1974 Jack Clayon movie, Paramount does, and I think it's probably a pretty good bet that the latter studio has no interest in helping to promote a new film released by the former.
You are correct about the 1974 Paramount film . . . I misconstrued on separating the issue of the rights to the novel as that of the film. . .Once again, it was senior moment time. I assume that Warner Brothers now has the rights from Scribner's? Or, did Warner's outright get the rights from Paramount? I have to wonder why Paramount has taken so much time as to not consider a DVD release of the film. Anyway, love that "Poached Fitzgerald's West Egg" title of yours; Warner's has to some affect poached the story in that it was entirely made in a foreign country! Are we looking at a joint venture here? Or, is this really an Australian sort of production, masquerading as an American one? With this new version to be released, it will be interesting to see if the production company recreated something similar to the actual Long Island manor where the story was said to have influenced Fitzgerald. Last year, this original mansion that inspired the story, finally met its fate with the wrecking ball, torn down to build condos on the property. After years of disinterest by the community and any possible wealthy buyers to perhaps keep the old place alive, it had to face the inevitable.
-
Just for the record, there was a pretty good made-for-television version of "The Letter" in 1982. It starred wonderful Lee Remick in the lead role of the doomed, murderous wife. As far as I can figure out, there is no video release available.
-
{font:Arial}{color:black}The actor and novelist had no real private association as friends; at least from the long term of Herbert having played Maugham on the motion picture screen. He did first meet the writer, when Maugham was on a trip to {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}New York{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} and Herbert was appearing in a play. They would later on cross paths again in {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}England{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} after the war. Maugham would live the remaining years of his life in the South of France, away from his native {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}England{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}. After the publication of “The Razor’s Edge,” Maugham never wrote another book or short story. It was only after his retirement in 1944, the British film industry kept his literary popularity alive, by paying tribute to him in a series of films made up of his best short stories. These films entitled “Quartet,” “Trio” and “Encore,” continue to be popular with film buffs. As for Herbert, he would live out his life in {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}America{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}, having become a naturalized citizen and continued on with his acting career, right up until the time of his death. {font}
-
{font:Arial}{color:black}A new major film version of comic book hero “Captain Marvel” has been in the works for the last ten or so years! The most interested party or company was at one time Disney. The problem at the start of the proposed project was whether or not to create a fully animated version as opposed to a live-action one. Because the character of “Captain Marvel” is based around mysticism and magic, rather than our typical super alien human being or a realistic costumed, law enforcing caped crusader, it was difficult to decide on where to go with the “Captain Marvel” character on the grounds of what age bracket would the film be geared towards. Naturally, an animated Disney version would be more prone to children and probably not to adults. It was even thought of creating a comedic aspect to the proposed idea of a full-length cartoon! Some officials at Disney resisted the idea of “Captain Marvel,” feeling that the character was in some regards campy and childish, partially due to whole “Billy Batson” teenage issue and his dated sort of famous phrase: “Shazam!” As of now, Disney is totally out of the picture.
{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}
Well, for those of you who don’t know, read the entertainment trade papers and watch show business news on the web and television, there is some hope! Talk is that wrestling and action movie hero tough guy and star, Dwayne (THE ROCK!) Johnson is trying to get something going! He’s been making a few rounds, talking about his interest in playing the legendary, magical comic book super hero. Dwayne says he’s been a fan of the stories since he was a kid and it’s sort of a dream of his to get into a new major motion picture about “Captain Marvel.” The surprise success of last year’s “Captain America,” bringing in way over 360 million at the box-office might be what’s now hanging in a positive balance for a “Captain Marvel,” setting a pattern towards a feeling that the idea or time for a major film is right. D.C. Comics and Warner Brothers now have to cook something up, if this is going to get off the ground.
{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}
All the past and recent talk about a new film version has good old Stan Lee amused and caught in the middle of this foray of ideas. The “Maestro of Marvel Comics” would hope that there will be no confusion over what Marvel (the company) has created and especially their character of "Captain {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}America{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}.” In hind sight, “Captain Marvel” that is straight out of D.C. Comics has not enjoyed the long term popularity of other comic book heroes. This is what has led to some of the criticism about a possible new movie. Yet, because of the “name association” between “Captain America” and “Captain Marvel,” on top of just the use of the word “Marvel,” has some believing there is this connection between the characters along the line of their publishing history. Of course, you have to be a comic book fan to figure out what is technically correct. Plain and simple: These superheroes are from rival comic book companies! Stan would only like to make it clear, about the whole Marvel family of characters, there was never anything like “Captain Marvel” in all the years he ran Marvel Comics! Of course, fans of D.C. Comics would like to point out that "Captain Marvel" precedes "Captain America" by two years and therefore is a thinly, disguised version of the magical superhero even with all his "Shazam!" {font}
-
> {quote:title=Calamity wrote: }{quote}Several of the Walt Disney science programs despite being somewhat dated and sometimes inaccurate, I think these shows still have value because what we watch, listen to, and read when we're kids just has such a lasting influence on us. In many ways it affects us more strongly than what we encounter when we're older. If you can interest a kid in science or art or math enough, the better the odds that he/she'll become an adult who will still care about those subjects. And kids, wow, their appetite for and capacity for learning is amazing. That needs to be nurtured and sometimes a cartoon atom or watching four artists paint the same tree is just the trick needed to spark their interest and imagination.
{font:Arial}{color:black}I absolutely agree! The Disney educational films that appeared on the weekly segment entitled “Tomorrow land” were beautifully produced. My all time favorite episode was “Mars and Beyond.” The wonderful animation about speculation towards possible life on Mars was for its time, thrilling and logically imaginable along scientific lines of thinking. The one episode that was later utilized the most in school class rooms was “Our Friend The Atom” that still has scientific validity today. The most historically interesting and popular episode, because of its important influence was “Man In Space.” After watching this program, President Eisenhower decided on supporting the American space program to the utmost. Disney in one single stroke of an hourly program clearly showed how space travel could be technically achieved without any doubts. This was due to consulting with real scientists, most notably Wernher von Braun who appeared on the program and went on to help create {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}America{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}’s space program. These episodes were actually produced as film shorts, some of which did appear in theaters.{font}
-
> {quote:title=kingrat: On Florence Bates . . .}{quote}
{font:Arial}{color:black}I have to admit, the role of beloved popular character actress Florence Bates is sensational as the old, wise island woman. I have always been a fan of hers! Amazingly, she was another in a series of highly educated performers, having come to {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} and the motion picture profession, almost out of accident. {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Florence{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} was extremely special, in that she was one of the very few actresses, working regularly in films to have a certified Law Degree!! Adding to her many talents, {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Florence{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} ran a business to booth! She and her husband had a successful and well-liked bakery in Los Angles.
{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} {font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}The story of how {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Florence{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} got discovered is also sort of astonishing. She had enrolled at the Pasadena Playhouse and its school of acting. This whole idea for {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Florence{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} was just a pastime, besides the business of the bakery. Then, it was while performing in a play she made some waves of interest, discovered by none other than the mighty master of suspense, Hitchcock. The legendary director wasted no time in casting {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Florence{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} for his up coming film of “Rebecca.” This would actually be the second film {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Florence{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} would appear in having already had what was technically just a walk-on or unaccredited role in the crime drama “The Man in Blue.” She was at the time, 47 years old when she made her big splash in “Rebecca.” As her husband later commented, “She can do just about anything and now act!”
{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} {font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}During her career as a character actress, spanning fourteen years and with lots of on the job training, {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Florence{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} is what could be termed as “a natural.” She certainly found a skill and a means of creating such vividness out of the small roles she usually ended up playing. In watching her numerous performances it’s difficult to imagine that she had little, if any, technical schooling as an actress. When she was once asked about her acting career in films, she replied, “Everything for me happened so fast, I didn’t have time to really think about how well or bad I might be . . . I just had to get in front of the cameras, know my lines and take it from there!” When television arrived on the entertainment scene, {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Florence{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} embraced the new medium without any hesitation. Certainly, {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Florence{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} might have had her own TV sitcom, had she not died of heart failure in 1953. Her death was in many ways a great loss to those whom she worked with and knew her as a vital and popular figure in the world of entertainment.{font}
-
{font:Arial}{color:black}No doubt about it! “The Moon and Sixpence” is one of my all time favorite films. This is all largely due to Albert Lewin, one of my idols and an unsung hero of motion pictures. He was an extraordinary talent, a great writer, humanitarian and a literary scholar. He wasn’t exactly the type of person one might have thought would have ended up in {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}, with such a cultured, educational background. Upon arriving in the movie capital around the early 1920’s, Lewin quickly gained a reputation as a skillful script coordinator, leading right to his becoming head of MGM’s script department! His close knit friendship with the “boy genius” Irving Thalberg, led to Lewin becoming his “right hand man” and assistant to producing some of MGM’s finest motion pictures. Lewin left MGM 1937, after the death of his mentor Thalberg to work at {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Paramount{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}, where he was offered a position as one of the company’s main producers. This didn’t last long, and by 1941, Lewin began his now legendary, celebrated career as a producer/director and most important of all, screenplay writer. He became one of the few creative forces in {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}, drifting from one position to the next as a freelance filmmaker.
{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}Lewin’s output of films during the 1940’s was limited, as he had to scramble here and there to gain enough support to produce what most in Hollywood wouldn’t have found so appealing. After his moderate success with “The Moon and Sixpence,” Lewin returned to his home-base of MGM and directed as well as wrote the screenplay for one of his most admired films, “The Picture of Dorian Gray.” The success of this film, might have kept Lewin at MGM and it certainly gave him good leverage for his career. But, he preferred or at least wanted to stay free from the typical aspects of studio control. He missed his years with Thalberg and felt the studio system was at this point dispersing too much authority over anyone’s creative process. As the years wore on, there would be long gaps between Lewin working in films. For the most part, he was probably considered outdated to the point of marketing motion pictures, especially back in {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}. He left the {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}U.S.{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} and in 1951 ended up in {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}England{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}, where he created what to me is another brilliant work of art, his finest motion picture, “Pandora and the Flying Dutchman.” Everything about this movie brought into full circle all of Lewin’s creative genius. Like it is with those who have high talent, intellect and precocity, Lewin would find it quite difficult to sell or promote his various ideas that focused upon literate subject matter.
{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}Overall, Lewin’s production of “The Moon and Sixpence” is low-keyed or lacks exuberance in production values. Still, it is a wonderful example of how an independent film company can with limited funds, come up with a motion picture able to create an illusion of grandeur! The narration for the film is faithfully pure to Somerset Maugham’s portrayal and inspiration of French artist Paul Gauguin. What many fans have forgotten about this movie was the printed warning on posters and various flyers handed out in theaters that read: “For the first time nude figures will appear on screen in the paintings.” In a surprise response, the Hayes Office didn’t so much as band this now famous segment. The censorship board only asked that the figures be somewhat covered with leaves and shrouded in tropical flowers. Lewin did however manage to momentary show bare breasted women and naked posteriors. When the film made it to television, the scene was somewhat omitted or cut to showing nothing.
{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}While this movie gave George Sanders one of his best roles, most agree that the highpoint of the film is the splendid performance by character actor Steven Geray! His role in the story is obviously based on Gauguin’s close relationship with fellow legendary painter, Vincent Van Gogh. Popular English actor Herbert Marshall as the narrator would go on to play Maugham a few years later in “The Razor’s Edge.” This situation of {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Marshall{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} appearing in several successful films of Maugham’s stories, have made him the virtual symbol of the beloved and respected author to motion pictures. There’s been talk recently of a possible new remake of the film or story. So far, nothing yet has started rolling, but the various names of who to play the main character of artist “Charles Strickland” is a “who’s-who” of today’s movie stars. {font}
-
Tell Fred, isn't the end in both the book and the radio version, more downbeat, excluding something of a happy ending, when compared to the film? I've forgotten about this point on where the book and radio play stand.
-
> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote}
> But, as always, your mileage may vary.
LOVE THAT LINE! :^0
-
> Ford told him he shouldn't trust the studio and should finish editing *Ambersons* before leaving the country.
>
> Welles didn't take his advise.
So typical of Orson to always get caught up in the glitz of a given situation. My guess has always been he had trouble controlling the vast amount of self-esteem that overpowered him, thinking he could handle it all or have confidence in what was a business and not so much a personal artistic endeavor.
-
Here you go Tom . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gJbaDg3I90
P.S. I can't make out what language was the dubbing!
-
> I wonder why Welles was sent to Rio? Seems like a more traditional actor or director would have been sent down. Someone Brazilians were already familiar with.
I have to argee with you Fred! It appears that because Orson was a strong supporter of FDR had something to do with this issue. Also, the State Department was putting up half the bill for this project that made it easy for RKO to consider the matter. At the time, most of the best directors in Hollywood were either too busy, didn't want to travel and were overseas helping with the war effort. Orson seemed to be the best possible choice, due in large part to some of the technical notoriety he had received after the making of "Citizen Kane," as well as being a political decision. It is very true about the controversy surrounding what has now been termed as "The Samba Movie." This is probably one of the most overlooked issues concerning "It's All True," mainly due to the footage of this segment having been lost or destroyed. This was a rather bias decision on the part of RKO to object towards Orson's method of telling the story of this traditional Brazilian dance. It's now believed that the situation was hampered by racist elements that didn't like the idea of the African heritage and therefore wanted to keep as much of a Caucasian backdrop to the Brazilian segment as possible. Orson filmed only the best dancers, who so happened to be Black and didn't see any reason to feel he was overstepping the social, discriminatory concern from an American perspective of viewing what he had filmed. At one point during his time at RKO, Orson had even wanted to make a film on the history of Jazz Music that obviously would have had its origins from African American culture. Well, the times just weren't ready for what Orson had envisioned for his various ideas to be placed on film. One has to wonder if these and other political issues were part of the reason to his downfall in Hollywood. But, I've always felt that Orson was at times, his own worst enemy, refusing to find a compromise to the situation at hand.
-
{font:Arial}{color:black}Maria has never had much in the way of a serious cult following. Unlike say Carmen Miranda, Maria didn’t really have anything so uniquely special to her personality that could lead to a strong and devoted fan base; it’s only her films that have some interest, in the way they were so beautifully produced! She was just elegant, exotic and statuesque that is something of a standard style among several starlets of that classic period; in other words, Maria wasn’t so versatile as to be comical, musical or have other talents in other areas of entertainment. This is why her career ended up being somewhat limited and she remains to this day a topic of campy nostalgia. The rather ostentatious way her adventure and suspense films came about, were elaborate enough to be successful, but from a technical perspective, they were routine along studio lines of production. Her greatest year was 1944, when she made five of her most popular films in a single year. It was by that time she was dubbed as “The Queen of Technicolor!” Some film historians like to feel that Maria should be credited as an important aspect to the promotion and success of the color film process. But, this is a debate that can’t be so easily resolved or agreed upon. She was throughout most of the 1940’s, part of what was once termed as Universal’s “Big Three!” at the box-office. This consisted of Deanna Durbin, Abbott & Costello and Maria. During the War years, Maria helped the State Department and its friendly relations policy with South American governments. She was indeed popular throughout most of {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Latin America{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}.
{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}
Probably the most obvious point to Maria and her career was its failure to attain a solid continuity and then branch out into other fields of performing during her years at Universal Pictures. What kept her in the public domain of interest was her marriage to the dashing French actor Jean-Pierre Aumont. He sort of saved Maria from totally fading away, when after her frequent bouts with a weight problem, forced her to leave Hollywood with Aumont in hand and they both appeared in films overseas. She sadly ended up worst than when she made films in {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}, starring in unforgettable, costume potboilers made for the European market. None of these films ever had extensive releases in {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}America{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}. Therefore, before she died in 1951, Maria was pretty much a {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} as-been.
{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}
Today, her following of fans are small, but they are still there to be reckon with. Around some major cities, there have been a few film festivals associated to Maria’s career at Universal. I’ve always felt that had she not left the States in the late 40’s she could have easily drifted over to television and perhaps expand her possibilities. After all these years, what Universal Pictures should have offered us long ago is a box-set of her best films on DVD! This is something that is long in the waiting for fans and everybody who loves exaggerated, fantasy type story-telling on a broad colorful basis of movie escapist entertainment. {font}
-
> {quote:title=fredbaetz wrote:}{quote} I understand that the rights to this were bought up when they were set to do the Redford version. If that's true, then it's sad. Like Disney buying up the rights and prints of the original "Swiss Family Robertson" and keeping them under wraps for years and years. Now, I hear they will do a new version and that means we may never get to see the Thomas Mitchell version except on You Tube....
{font:Arial}{color:black}This is correct . . . Paramount Pictures had the rights to the novel, when in 1949 the studio decided to produce this second version. The 1926 silent (1st) version had starred Warner Baxter. When the 1974 version came along, {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Paramount{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} withdrew any circulation of the 1949 film, wanting to promote the third version as the definitive motion picture interpretation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic tale. This happens all the time with remakes or newer versions of a previous film by either the same studio or a different one that doesn’t want a comparison or a need to reevaluate the latest version as the most incisive one.
A good example of this situation goes back to 1981 and the disastrous “The Legend of the Lone Ranger.” Warner Brothers was hoping to create a whole new series of films, around the character of the law enforcing masked man; just as they had done with “Superman.” The designated originator of the western character to millions of fans, actor Clayton Moore, who played the role first on television and then in a few movies was legally prevented by Warner Brothers to stop masquerading as the “Lone Ranger” long after he had retired and made a living showing up at entertainment memorabilia shows and conventions. Warner’s even restricted any video releases of the previous television series and films. The studio wanted a whole new outlook towards the character and what was felt to be commercial control of a product. After much legal wrangling, Clayton Moore was allowed to wear his mask! And, the 1981 film that was hoped to revive the western genre in a big way, turned out to be one of the biggest failures in motion picture history. What also destroyed the movie was lead actor Klinton Spilsbury and the revelation that his voice was dubbed! Spilsbury ended up fading away into oblivion and has never been heard of since. Well, I guess it's no secret that a new version of the mask man is on its way! Let's hope this one has some value and can perhaps give some new life or a return to the western genre of films.
But wait! . . . A new version of "Gatsby" will be released at the end of this year! It is being produced this time by Warner Brothers, who now have the rights to the novel. Interestingly, the 1974 version has yet to have a decent video release on DVD! One has to wonder if Warner Brothers will hold back on the 1974 film, while this latest version makes it way to theaters. Anyway, we can look forward to seeing Leonardo Dicaprio as "Gatsby." It might be an insult to injury for fans to realize that the entire film was shot in Australia and not the United States. Oh well, that's the way of the motion picture world these days. It's cheaper to make a movie someplace else, instead of the real place or the good old U.S. of A! {font}
-
It is now concluded that the original, "Rio version" of "Ambersons" was probably left behind at the make-shift studio Orson used or even at one of his hotel rooms. If he did bring the film out of Rio with him, it probably ended up at his home in Spain, where years later, actor Robert Shaw and his family were invited by Orson to live. Then, as fate would have it, mysteriously a fire broke out at Orson's house, destroying most of the property and everything else therein. Except Shaw and his family did manage to escape unharmed. There is a possibility that for years, Orson secretively kept the film, but this is just one in a series of speculative ideas, spured on by fans and friends of Orson.
-
{font:Arial}{color:black}Well, I have to say that I believe Orson is partially responsible for the demise of “The Magnificent Ambersons.” After the poor box-office showing of “Citizen Kane,” officials of RKO Pictures decided on restricting the creative freedom of Orson, fearing that all the time and money he spent on “Ambersons,” might result in another debacle at the box-office. The overall commercial failure of “Citizen Kane,” despite great reviews, haunted and frustrated Orson. Upon finishing up with “Ambersons,” the film ran a striking 148 minutes. Orson wanted to at least keep most of its content in tact, realizing that some cuts would have to be made. However, Orson had already agreed with RKO Pictures to embark on making the semidocumentary about {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}South America{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}, “It’s All Ture” for the state department. When he left for {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}South America{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}, he didn’t have any sort of supervision over the final editing and outcome for “Ambersons.” He tried in vain to work out the editing with Robert Wise back in {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}, taking with him to {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Rio de Janeiro{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} a rough cut of the film. What obviously made this situation so futile was the distance and time it took, while Orson was working on the documentary.{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}During his time in {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}South America{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}, it was reported that Orson was having a rather flamboyant, frivolous experience with his RKO production crew. Reports had Orson and his staff, spending lots of time at the beach, dinning with dignitaries and enjoying {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Rio{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}’s nightlife, despite the fact that there was some film work for the documentary having been accomplished. The RKO front office began to wonder if the South American venture was under any solid control. The longer Orson and his crew stayed south of the border, the more “Ambersons” and all his creative process and collaboration slipped away from him. Technically, Orson might have not lost his artistic grip on “Ambersons,” had he not been in {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}South America{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} or perhaps return to the {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}U.S.{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} soon enough to oversee the editing. Orson would end up returning to RKO and {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} in disgrace, many believing he had squandered studio funds and his time, since he never really completed the documentary, returning with only three workable segments. {font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}
Adding to the dilemma of Orson juggling the two films at once, there occurred in {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Rio{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} this terrible tragedy. This occured during the reenactment of filming a famous 1000 mile coastal raft voyage of a poor Brazilian fisherman. Shockingly, the raft overturned at the entrance to Rio's harbor and the fisherman was drowned. The old fisherman had been a national hero to the Brazilian people. His death created a firestorm of controversy in the Brazilian press, forcing Orson and his crew to abandoned further filming and return to the {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}U.S.{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} By this time, back in {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}, Orson faced the wrath of a corporate power struggle at RKO, losing out on any support he once had. “Ambersons” was then cut down to about 90 minutes or less, allowing the studio to utilize the film on a double bill and not the proposed longer, special road-show presentation Orson had envisioned for his film. The failure of both “Ambersons” and “It’s All True,” pretty much ruined Orson’s major motion picture directorial career or at least stalled it for almost 15 years! {font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}
As for “It’s All True,” that project ended up getting totally shelved! The studio then created a watered down sort of musical interlude, showcasing the various South American cultures through their music. It would take many years later, to find the film footage to what Orson had originally shot and put it all together. Today, his documentary efforts are considered a superior achievement and the film (what there is of it) is available on video. What TCM could have done is right after “Ambersons” show “It’s All True.” This I think would have been historically and technically interesting to displaying a continuity of sorts from that time long ago.{font}
{font}
method acting and the movies
in General Discussions
Posted
Comon' now Johnbabe . . . Cher's already proven on more than one occasion on screen she can handle it! The point is that she can and knows, quote: How to Act!. . .Unquote. Another example (perhaps the greatest of them all) of someone getting into films with little experience, but learned along the way of their career was Gary Cooper; he pretty much just started out on his good looks and height! And then, you have those "first timers" or people who had no experience in acting at all and had to be given a crash-course, such as Harold Russell, Red Buttons, Burl Ives, Tatum O'Neal, Haing S. Ngor, Whoopi Goldberg, Mark Whalberg, Sean Connery, Cameron Diaz and the list can go on and on! Having training or some know-how does help, but at times it isn't so necessary, if he or she can be a natural at the profession and there have been in the past so many, who just popped up one day at an agent's office or a studio casting call and the rest is just plain, good ole movie history! B-)