MovieProfessor
-
Posts
1,421 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by MovieProfessor
-
-
{font:Arial}{color:black}Another {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} film that became standard viewing in the class rooms was “The Howards of Virginia.” The released prints for schools turned out to be a watered down 16mm version of the film, omitting about ¼ of the film. Starring Cary Grant and Martha Scott, the basis of the story took place during the revolutionary war and the fight for {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}America{font}{color:black}’s independence. The film turned out to be a disaster at the box-office, never showing a good enough profit. It only managed to have a second life for educational purposes, especially from an historical standpoint of viewing the film, due to the many actual events, real political figures and places presented. {font
-
{font:Verdana}{color:black}I’m surprised that no one had mentioned the 1937 short film, “The Man Without A Country." Produced by Warner Brothers and based on the classic novel by Edward Everett Hale, this little film became standard viewing in many classrooms throughout the 1950’s and into the 1960’s. The lead role of “Lt. Philip Nolan” was played by the wonderful character actor and a popular supporting player of many films, John Litel. The story was in a strong patriotic sense, quite emotional and rather heartbreaking. It dealt with an upstart US solider during the early part of the 19th Century. This solider becomes ambitious and ends up joining a plot to form a new nation west of the {font}{font:Verdana}{color:black}Mississippi River{font}{font:Verdana}{color:black}. The leader of this treason is Aaron Burr. It doesn’t take long for “Lt. Philip Nolan” to get caught and he takes the most serious fall of all the other members of the conspiracy. He receives the standard court martial, but isn't decreed to be executed. The military court decides to punish him in a very unusual way. During his trial, Nolan blatantly denounces his alliance to the {font}{font:Verdana}{color:black}United States{font}{font:Verdana}{color:black}. In doing so, the court will sentenced him to a permanent exile aboard US Naval Ships at sea! Rules to this sentencing are harsh in that no member of the ship’s crew can speak to Nolan or discuss any news of the Untied States.
{font}
{font:Verdana}{color:black}Writer Edward Everett Hale mixed lots of facts and real historic figures into the story that when first published, many readers believed the tale to have some strong, factual validity. The film was originally shot in Technicolor. However, by the time it was on a standard release across the country for schools, it was usually shown in 16mm black and white prints. Well, this issue really didn’t matter, because the film was in many ways very beautiful in conveying a sense of pride to being an American and having love for one’s country. At the end of the film, Nolan confesses to having made the wrong decision and while he is supposedly shunned throughout most of his voyages, never in sight of land, the last crew he is with comes to feel a sort of pity for him. When {font}{font:Verdana}{color:black}America{font}{font:Verdana}{color:black} is under attack by the British in 1812, Nolan heroically comes to the aid of his crew members, saving lives during a heated naval engagement. This action prompts the members of the {font}{font:Verdana}{color:black}US{font}{font:Verdana}{color:black} vessel that was under attack to plea on behalf of Nolan. The captain and crew at this point feel that Nolan should be allowed some flexibility over his sentence. Sadly, the naval officials refuse and Nolan never has any chance of reconciliation over the matter. Upon the time of his death at sea, it is discovered that Nolan has bits and pieces of little mementoes from his lost homeland hidden away in his cabin. The most cherished is a small flag; probably given to him by a shipmate during his endless incarceration. He dies with the long-suffering pain of having become an outcast for his denunciation of the {font}{font:Verdana}{color:black}United States{font}{font:Verdana}{color:black}, only to realize his life has become as empty as the vast sea that has been forced to surround him. Nolan realizes at the time he’s dying, he must have some honest justification to his heart and soul. He asks not to be returned to the {font}{font:Verdana}{color:black}United States{font}{font:Verdana}{color:black}, because in the end, he had no land or country to speak of, forfeiting that right. His body is then buried at sea. {font}
-
{font:Arial}{color:black}One issue relating to this subject is very, very certain and that is Leigh is the only actress in motion picture history, to have portrayed the two most famous of all southern belles of literature! The first was from a prize winning novel for motion pictures and the second for a highly celebrated “live” stage play translated to film! And, Leigh was also rewarded for both her motion picture efforts, winning a deserved Academy Award! There is a strange and haunting ambience surrounding Leigh that has the two famous roles she created to seemingly connect or have this troubled emotional bond. Like she had done with Scarlett, I believe that Leigh had similar emotional traits to add to the role for Blanche du Bois. This was in so many technical ways what might be considered perfect casting that relied so much on a personal level of understanding the secular, unhallowed background relating to Leigh and these two famous characters she portrayed. In my opinion, no actress in the history of motion pictures has ever exceeded this sort of interesting achievement.{font}
-
My first choice would be: LADY IN THE DARK . . . And, I think 1944 was a banner year for Color with such titles as:
THE PRINCESS AND THE PIRATE
NATIONAL VELVET
HOME IN INDIANA
COVER GIRL
THE THREE CABALLEROS
ALI BABA AND THE FORTY THIEVES
KISMET
CAN'T HELP SINGING
And the biggest Color hit of all that year:
MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS
-
You've got my vote for Jerry! B-)
-
> {quote:title=Arturo wrote:}{quote} Gene Tierney was only 18 years old. So she would not have been in the running for Scarlett. Even if she had tested, most likely she would have been considered too green and inexperienced for such an important role. This youth and inexperience mirrored another player, one actually tested, Susan Hayward.
And, lets add Lana Turner to that list of inexperienced actresses, hoping against all odds to win the role of Scarlett! Lana's test was to put it mild, simply terrible. Lana, just like Tierney needed time to finally reach stardom and receive some reasonable respect as an actress.
> One of the things that has been speculated about Leigh's portrayal, that added to it, was that she was on edge over her relationship with Laurence Olivier.
As far as I'm concern, this is absolutely true! What Selznick was looking for had more to do with a vast amount of strong personality for the role, in as much as he wanted a good actress. Leigh had many traits in her personal life similar to that of the fictional character she ended up portraying. While this isn't necessarily a requirementt for any actress, it sure as hell helps and adds something truly worthwhile! Selznick was in some regard, swayed by what he would find out about Leigh's background. After which, all he needed was a bit of acting ability or talent and everything else would simply fall into place. While Selznick did make a sort of carnival out of the casting situation, due in large part to the public interest, he had to have an actress that essentially, tore into the role of Scarlett, with no holds barred! This is where Leigh's personality fit right into the mold of Scarlett so perfectly. Even after Leigh's screen test and casting her, Selznick was still wondering if it was all going to work. It wasn't until, Selznick viewed the first rushes of film he was finally convinced his surprise decision would pay off big. Every single staff member at Selznick International Pictures would also come to quickly realize, they had a winner in their hands. The theory of Leigh's personality being key to her winning the role, comes into full circle, when it was later revealed so clearly, her numerous off-camera feuds with Clark Gable on the set, aside from her making hell for director Victor Fleming. Selznick did little to calm the situation down, because he didn't want to bruise any possible angle relating to Leigh's performance as Scarlett, knowing all too well that it takes a good, real "B" to play a "B" and the rest is magnificent movie history.
-
I've never been able to understand the reason why Zanuck decided to look elsewhere for a director. He had a pretty good roster of personnel capable of handling "The Razor's Edge." Certainly, Henry King, William Wellman, George Seaton were top-notch and my personal choice would have been Joseph Mankiewicz. I definitely could see George Cukor calling it quits, since he didn't like much in the way of any interference, especially his need to have a cast rehearse.
-
{font:Arial}{color:black}Novelist Somerset Maugham was not pleased with the way the screenplay by Lamar Trotti turned out. There were naturally a few changes made from the original content of the novel. Studio head, Darryl F. Zanuck did something rather unusual, when he hired Edmund Goulding to direct, instead of the usual 20th Century-Fox crop of noted directors under studio contract. Goulding was a competent director, having been a huge success at first MGM and then moving over to Warner Brothers where he directed some of the best films of Bette Davis. Upon signing up with 20th Century-Fox, he would remain there until his death in 1959. Interesting thing about him is that he wouldn’t move on to anything so highly creative. After his peak period of the 1930's and 40's, his directorial career began to wane into the 1950's. He simply became a typical studio director for hire and fell prey to inferior projects. His last series of films were lighthearted materials that made it hard to believe he had once been considered a topnotch {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} director. It seemed that the creative process or high production and dramatic values of his career had passed him by. In the following years, the same could be said for Tyrone Power! {font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}While the critics weren’t exactly crazy about "The Razor’s Edge," it did mark a huge success for 20th Century-Fox and Tyrone Power at the box-office. Actress Anne Baxter winning an Oscar for her performance also helped the film immensely. The success of the film, prompted Zanuck to team Tyrone Power and Edmund Goulding again, for the one film that was always close to Power’s heart, the rather radical melodrama, “Nightmare Alley.” Both “The Razor’s Edge” and “Nightmare Alley” are considered the two best dramatic films of Power’s career. However, “Nightmare Alley” proved to be a tremendous let-down for both the studio and Power. The box office failure of “Nightmare Alley” meant that Power would have to return to his stylish romantic lead parts. This was especially the case with Power in the expensive historical drama, “Captain From Castile,” released that same year. As it turned out, Power would have a rough time, trying to rekindle his once high position in motion pictures as a continued, overall box office success. Unlike other motion picture stars, who returned to films after the Second World War, Power’s career would have a rather unbalance effect towards success. His transition wasn’t a smooth one and he didn’t age well. The years of his heavy drinking and partying had taken its toll on him. For the remainder of his career, until he died in 1958, saw this unsteady flow of having only a handful of hits, while the rest of his films are not so memorable.{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}
Whatever the case, Ty Power was a great movie star. He was one of the best when it came to working under the studio system. There was for Power a tremendous love to being in the movies. Although some would say he valued the “live” stage as the true dramatic process for an actor, his motion picture career, especially at 20th Century-Fox was one of the finest ever handled by a major {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} studio. The ups and downs of his career, never really affected his star status. It’s always been interesting to me that he died on the set of his last, unfinished movie, “Solomon and {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Sheba{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}.” There are outtakes from the short time he worked on the film. Even though he wasn’t in such good shape, watching the bits and pieces from “Solomon and {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Sheba{font}{font:Arial}{color:black},” there still was a little of that matinee idol magic in him for the fans to appreciate. He was for my money, one of the best around, when it came to being a motion picture star; a true blue one! {font}
-
{font:Arial}{color:black}Not that I want to debate the issue, but I believe Gene Tierney would have never been right for the role of Scarlett O’Hara. I say this because there are issues relating to the personality of Vivien Leigh that connect fully with what was expected in interrupting the role or bringing it to life. Leigh was on all counts, a real, hard-knocks diva; she was a spoiled child, as an actress she could be difficult to work with and always demanded she get her way and when she didn’t all hell broke loose! Gene was on the other hand, too sweet a person, venerable, yet she did have an affluent background growing up. Upon becoming an actress, Gene didn’t really have much in the way of the gutsy fortitude of Leigh that was necessary for any actress to succeed in playing Scarlett.{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}Essentially, what I’m saying is that in many ways, Leigh had a firm determination in bringing to the role of Scarlett attributes of her own life. This I think is the true high quality or mark of any actress that comes to understand a role and then transcends it to a point of attaining a reality beyond its factional characteristics. While I would rate Gene as a good, dependable actress, she really wasn’t such a great one, lacking a certain amount of skill towards advancing herself beyond what could be considered as routine to the point of a satisfactory performance. In hindsight, Gene never had the experience and lifestyle needed to successfully portray Scarlett, on the grounds that her emotional range was in some ways restrained and this I think is the key to what David Selznick was finally looking for. He was smart enough to realize his final choice in Leigh, attained that special bond that only an actress who had lived along the lines of the factional character could achieve the success and triumph beyond everyone’s expectations.
The only aspect in Gene's favor was her beauty that might have been easily enough to accept; especially those gorgeous green eyes of hers! She would have appeared lovely and fashionable in those colorful Civil War period costumes. Yet, despite her having a respectable career in motion pictures, she failed terribly to hold on to her star status, later on to suffer the foes of so much cerebral stress. In an ironic sense, both Gene and Leigh would end up psychologically drained and they never really recovered enough to stay viable over the long haul of their careers in motion pictures.{font}
-
> {quote:title=JamesN wrote:}{quote}I believe the casting of Vivien Leigh was one of the best casting choices in movie history. . .
{font:Arial}{color:black}Of course it was! The whole situation rested on a last minute deal that might have not happened, had it not been for David O. Selznick’s brother, Myron (an important agent) showing up at the studio with Leigh, on the evening of shooting the “burning of {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Atlanta{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}.” Yet, there is a sort of misconception that relates to this now legendary meeting. Selznick had already known of Leigh as a possibility to play Scarlett. Her name had been on a list, drawn up by the casting department. According to some sources, Selznick had even met her early on, during a party being held at a Hollywood nightclub! The problem at first was that he couldn’t envision an English actress in the role, fearing something of a backlash of criticism from the film community and mostly the fans. Luckily, his mind was not made up yet on the night Myron brought Leigh with him. As to why he relented to consider Leigh, when it all appeared as if the frontrunner, Paulette Goddard would win the role, has been the real unsolved or unanswered mystery to the myth surrounding everything about the casting of Scarlett. Theories abound on this issue. One of them focuses on the controversy of Goddard’s relationship and assumed marriage to Charlie Chaplin that was never proven to be legal. This created a technical hindrance for Selznick, because there had already been a possible scandal over the marriage looming in the press. {font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}In true traditional, motion picture form, Selznick played it safe by demanding Leigh have a screen test, so that his mind could compare her performance to the other contenders, especially Goddard. This was a last ditch effort to be clear over the issue and perhaps finally come to a decision. Leigh’s screen test proved that Myron’s hunch about her possibility was both exciting and definitely impressive. There was no doubt that Leigh had an overpowering, visually strikingly beauty, filling the motion picture screen. Everyone who first saw her screen test experienced something of a wonderful surprise. She came across so convincingly connecting to the role, it appeared as if she had thoroughly understood the character, beyond any of the other contenders. The big difference was as Kay Brown, secretary to Selznick remarked: she came on with a self-assurance that was just so overwhelmingly strong. Brown felt like everyone else who saw the screen test, Leigh was simply stunning beyond anyone's expectations towards an imagery that sparkled and made one beleive she was right for the role. But, I’ve always believed that lurking in the shadows was a presumption, relating to an article two years earlier, in the magazine “Photoplay” that had a drawing of Clark Gable (the undisputed choice as leading man), costumed as Rhett Butler with a presumed image of Scarlett. The drawing of the southern belle astonishingly resembled Leigh! In the article, the fans were asked to consider their choice to play the coveted role. At the time, the various choices made to “Photoplay” from the fans didn’t really visually relate to the drawing. Well, years after the whole fanfare died down about the movie, it was revealed that Selznick had read and kept a copy of the article in his office! Whether or not he was in fact influenced by the magazine article could never be proven. Still, it’s an interesting, intriguing possibility leading to his finally deciding on casting Leigh as Scarlett. Despite the sudden enthusiastic response to Leigh, Selznick was definitely taking a huge gamble that in the end was probably the biggest and most successful payoff in motion picture history! The only other one I can think of was Julie Andrews in 1963 for Walt Disney's fine production of "Mary Poppins."
{font}{font:Arial}{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}For Selznick during the time of the Scarlett O’Hara casting, there was this sense of duty to give the role to an American actress. He believed as most did at the time to select one the movie going public could accept as well as identify with. However, the selection of Leigh, would instantaneously quelled most of the fears and criticism of her not being American, because she was an outsider, basically unknown and a fresh new beautiful face the audience would have a curiosity to see. Naturally, the publicity generated to find the right choice, gave the film an advantage of interest not ever seen before or since! This whole ordeal practically guaranteed instant international stardom for Leigh. This is something that doesn’t come around very often, since the time motion pictures became a standard form of entertainment on a world wide basis. The historic significance “Gone With The Wind” has in certain ways connected so vividly with the original novel, in terms of the personalities, style and atmosphere Selznick was able to bring onto the motion picture screen that became a global sensation, just as the Second World War began. Together with the long standing success of “The Wizard of Oz” that was released that same year, Selznick’s efforts have made “Gone With The Wind” a standard of motion picture quality. And, the casting of Vivien Leigh, as well as that of the mighty Clark Gable, created an inspiration and dream for those countless others who love or aspire to be part of motion picture magic!{font}
-
> {quote:title=TomJH: }{quote}
> I don't want to be negative but it has always been a little frustrating to me that a certain young method actor that made only three films of note before his untimely death in a car crash has become such an iconic figure, actually known to many modern filmgoers, yet Garfield's name remains largely unknown.
Not only the (3 picture) guy that got killed in the car crash, but not even another noted method actor, who became the rage of the 1950's, along with Marlon and co-starred in three films with Liz Talyor can hold a candle against Garfield! Many in the method acting genre believe Garfield as the supreme exponent of the method, simply because he was in many ways, the first of his generation, along with Paul Muni to create interest for this dramatic vocation. This is especially the case in terms of motion pictures.
> Robert Nott's wonderful book on Garfield was not enough to start a revival of interest in him. Let's hope that some of those in the film colony today who find Garfield so inspiring (Robert DeNiro for example) may be able to play some kind of role in helping a Garfield film biopic become a reality.
I have a problem with the mention of DeNiro possibly having something to do with a Garfield Bio movie, since he advocated for a special Academy Award be given to Elia Kazan, Garfield's arch enemy and betrayer! Naturally, DeNiro along with many other method actors who studied in New York like to associate themselves with the whole Garfield legacy. This does become a difficult issue, since many in the film community are to this day still divided on the whole "Black List" controversy that in the end, destroyed Garfield's career and I believe contribtued as much to his death.
-
> {quote:title=TomJH: }{quote}What is depressing regarding The Breaking Point is the knowledge of what happened to John Garfield soon afterward.
Very, very true . . . The real depressing factor over the whole issue of John Garfield's career is having been cut short from what could have been an actor with a long and distinguished ability, thrilling the generation of fans to come! Well, despite his tragic end, we do have something to ponder and admire about. He has been for so long, an exceptional actor that gets overlooked, while others who had shorter careers or weren't as really talented get more attention. I'm still waiting for that proposed major film about his life. Actor Johnny Depp has shown some interest in playing Garfield, as have a few other current performers who are popular today, having become knowledgeable of Garfield's work. You might say: The list goes on! But, let's get something rolling to the point that Garfield is an important part of motion picture history. This is especially the case with how he was ostracized, only to later on have a slew of admirers, who later on came to the motion picture business, all inspired by him! There is today this understanding that Garfield is for all its worth, a natural talent that has for so many years, led to this appreciation by those who strive to be performers in a profession that can be reckless, unforgiving and leave one out into the cold of desertedness. He didn't deserve what happened to him. His loss is certainly one of the most catastrophic in the history of motion pictures, simply because a performer like him doesn't come around too often. He is and will remain a "once in a lifetime" actor that invigorates the essence of a dramatic performing profession.
-
{font:Arial}{color:black}This movie has an interesting history, in that it was one of the few films Ernest Hemingway sort of admired, even though it was a total reversal on his original story. The new idea of changing the settling to {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}California{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} from the {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Caribbean{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} didn’t violate the purpose of the story. Some fans even think “The Breaking Point” to be a far superior production then the first version of “To Have and Have Not.” I’ve always believed the two films can’t be so easily compared, due to a difference in style and an atmosphere that has a different direction. Also, the lead roles are in some technicalities very different, especially the edition of Patricia Neal and Phyllis Thaxter, who are close to what Hemingway inserted into his original novel. Of course, {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Garfield{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} gave his usual terrific performance as an outcast or a rebellious man coping with society, trying to fit into the scheme of things. For all its intended purposes, “The Breaking Point” marked {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Garfield{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}’s break with his Warner Brothers contract. He was undergoing some bad publicity that resulted from his legal problems with the government and investigations to subversive activities, forcing {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Garfield{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} to branch out on his own, away from the support of the studio system. The next two years would be rough for {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Garfield{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}, as he became something of an outcast in his private and public life, leading right up to the time of his tragic death.{font}
-
{font:Arial}{color:black}The now famous “Soft-Drink” incident between Bette and Joan did have a Coca-Cola connection. When Joan arrived on location to begin shooting for “Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte,” she came with box loads of Pepsi, handing bottles out to both cast and crew. Even a few fans, who managed to hang around the shooting set, before director Robert Aldrich put a stop to it, got free bottles of Pepsi. Bette was pretty much avoiding all direct contact of Joan, when not filming. However, Joan did make a play at Bette, by having room service in the hotel were most of the cast and crew were staying, deliver cartons of Pepsi. Bette found one in her room. She was furious at the sight of what she knew was Joan making her presence known to one and all that were about to embark on making the film. Of course, Joan wouldn’t be around for long, having become ill and she left the project. There’s always been this theory that Joan bowed out not so much due to illness, but that she was intimidated by Bette, who began a campaign of gathering around her as many personnel working on the film into her corner of favoritism. Well, once Joan was gone, Bette got on the phone and called Olivia de Havilland to consider replacing Joan, in order to save the film. Olivia gladly agreed and when she arrived at the hotel, Bette had a funny surprise for her. Upon entering Bette’s room and both ladies getting cozy, Olivia was handed a drink by Bette. They both made a toast for old-times sake! However, Olivia laughed and knew exactly what Bette had up her sleeve at the moment the toast was made, because the drink was Coca-Cola! {font}
-
NormaSheaerGirl . . . You and I are on the same team!
Let’s not forget or be clear on the simple issue that Christina profited from this venture. She was able to acquire a good amount of wealth, denied to her by Joan, for reasons that Christina never made comprehensible from the standpoint of being disinherited. There has always been this hidden agenda between Joan and Christina that ultimately led to this unpleasant disclosure that to this day has been under a vast amount of arguments. It might be one thing to show your dirty laundry in public, but it’s an entirely different and serious matter, when you light a few matches and suddenly the house burns down without some rational explanation as to what went wrong. This whole ordeal for me is one that has Christina toying with the minds of those who feel so devoted to Joan and as to say to us we were all along duped, with Christina proclaiming: I’m right because I was there and lived with this woman. Well, that might be a strong case in Christina’s favor, but by going ahead with the telling of this story about Joan, her motives have to be closely scrutinized, resulting in the one main reason why she felt so compelled to write the book . . .She was broke! I can just see Christina’s publisher, asking her to sauce it up and give her story more punch. The whole idea as I see it was a person who went off on a binge of negativity in order to ensure her book would be noticed. What better way to get enough attention, by entering the realm of tabloid smut and then coming across as a tear soaked, helpless victim, at the mercy of a powerful and reckless celebrity. Oh come on now . . . Who’s she kidding? Well, it ain’t me! After all, show business is in this woman’s blood and she sure knows how to exploit it!
It’s very, very simple to understand that those last years of Joan’s life, Christina was supposedly a comfort to Joan. I can testify to this personally, having seen them on occasions throughout New York City, having what appeared to be a moderately good relationship. Christina and Joan could be seen, hand in hand, showing up at parties and special galas. This was a situation that didn’t require anyone to wear a mask! The movie version of the book, covered this situation quite well. All was fine, until the reading of the will that signified Christina would get nothing back from her mentor and mother. It wouldn’t take long for a whole new mood-swing to come into the picture and Christina was off and running towards a dark-side of Joan, with no apparently good reason to explain why she wrote her book, other than to give credence on a level of vengeance that opened this new door to areas provoking others to seek fortunes in what can be assumed as a tell-all book, filled with high degrees of tormenting behavior. The problem as I see it is there is no remorse towards an understanding or a need to clarify the motives. Christina’s story becomes too sensational and lacks a simple means to seek trustworthiness or an acceptance from the formality of the story. What we are left with is not someone who should have cried for help or been able at the proper time to escape and flee. If Joan had been so horrible, why then did Christina stick around and for such a long time? It just doesn’t make any sense, unless she was expecting a big payoff at the end of this ordeal.
I could never trust or believe anyone who cries “Wolf” to then sell the dead carcass of the Wolf to the highest bidder, to put it on display and show-off all its horrible fangs that were alleged to have slaughtered the poor little sheep! And for what? Well, I guess the public likes a good horror story or it just makes for a good seller! If anyone can’t figure that one out, then I guess they want to see the world through rose colored glasses! My blatant defiance of this woman is due to her making Joan a villain to the point that she must be owed something in return, because of the torment Christina claims Joan placed her through, while for years she remained close to Joan? The interesting thing about Christina is the way in which she’s even changed her story, especially during television interviews, thereby not sticking so closely to her written accounts in the book. She’s even added more spice to this tale, making Joan a wild and out of control alcoholic. If anything has been added to this story, it’s Christina’s excuse of Joan being a heavy drinker and therefore leading to so many more abusive events. Every chance Christina gets, she paints a new picture of Joan and it’s never pleasant. It’s become her livelihood and this is where she gets into deep trouble with all the criticism launched against her; and I’ve always been one of them in the forefront to speak up about how she has handled her story! Of course, I’m aware that after all these years, it doesn’t surprise me she hasn’t found any need to stop with this routine. . .Why? Well, her bankroll just keeps getting bigger and bigger, greater and greater than even what wealth Joan had. Perhaps the time hasn’t yet come for Christina to finally say, “I did have the last word!” Or, “Vengeance is mine!” Or, even still, she’s turned out like the out-of-control mother she wrote about? I guess the apple doesn’t really fall far from the tree?
-
> {quote:title=kriegerg69 you wrote:
> }{quote}Then again, MP, you have no idea what really went on behind closed doors when the children were younger, do you? That's just the Joan you knew later in life, and how she presented herself in public, to her fans, or to you.
I simply do not believe all of Christina’s claims. . .PERIOD. I feel, had this woman received something suitable or acceptable to her satisfaction from Joan’s estate, there wouldn’t have been the book and she would have gone on her merry way, disappearing from sight! But then, maybe Christina should feel proud that because of her, there was launched a whole industry of smutty books, written by children of celebrities. The way I see it, she is nothing more than a two-faced, greedy, self-absorbed, lazy, emotionally problematic woman, who reminds me of a witch, spelled with a capital “B”. She had her chance years ago to make her claims so public, while Joan was still alive! Of course, she must have realized while she was sponging off of Joan, she wouldn’t have stood a ghost of a chance to stand up against Joan. It’s all too obvious to any one with any common sense that her timing to the revelations she spoke of in her book, speak for themselves towards a lack of legitimacy as far as I’m concern. It’s rather sad that she felt so compelled to cash in on Joan because she was broke and needed some extra pocket money that later turned itself into a major jackpot. I wonder if she has ever realized the difference between making a good honest living on her own and what I see in her case as taking: BLOOD MONEY.
-
I would have to agree that the whole “Mommie Dearest” controversy, stems from an issue of money. After all, Christina received very little, if nothing, from Joan’s estate. The best thing said about this whole ordeal was ironically from actress Faye Dunaway (having played Joan in the movie version!), who remarked: “It was a book, written out of revenge.” Faye, pretty much came to realize that Christina was driven to the point of shattering certain myths and perceptions of Joan. This was especially the case, when one considers the popular, positive imagery that Joan herself promoted from a perspective of family values. Joan was in some aspects of her life, a tyrannical, hard-knocks individual, determined to succeed towards keeping her career and star status at the highest level possible. In the process, Christina and the other children Joan adapted had to play a secondary role to this need of Joan holding on to something she fought so long and strenuous to achieve.
Joan was for all intended purposes, a great star! There can be no disputing his issue, from all the technicalities and clearly known aspects of Joan’s career. Whether or not she was a terrible mother or parent, we will never know for sure. The opinions on this issue have now fallen into the confused realm of an urban myth! These various accusations about who she really was have drawn a line between two opposing sides that pretty much relate to certain periods of time in her career, as well as her personal life away from the spotlight of movie stardom. Joan being so devoted to her profession, came to symbolize an extreme effort towards learning all she could about the motion picture business, until there wasn’t an actress around Hollywood who could hold a candle against her over this issue! This is why it’s difficult to judge Joan on the basis of a respect she garnered from many in the motion picture business, who felt that despite her tough reputation and a possible ruthless form of parenting, she remained up until the time of her death, an admired motion picture icon.
Christina Crawford has over the course of time, made her case or her side of the story to be dealt with, for all of us to decide where we want to stand on what she has proclaimed is a portion of Joan’s life that isn’t so pleasant for any of us to accept. Yet, what I don’t understand is why, during those last ten years of Joan’s life, Christina remained attached to her adapted mother? Given all the accusations of child abuse, Christina was with Joan, right up to those last moments of the great star’s life. There might be strong reason to feel a hypocrisy looming in the shadows; one of being caught by the overwhelming atmosphere of a comfort brought on by wealth and fame. We might assume there was a security that Christina latched onto, regardless of the pain she suffered from any abusive attitude on the part of Joan. Upon becoming an adult, she simply didn’t take flight from what she claims was this abusive atmosphere. Then, when Christina didn’t receive compensation for what she believed was owed to her, she openly and forcibly turned on Joan to practically destroy her legendary star image.
Christina will probably continue to profit from what she has said about Joan. It’s interesting to me that her story will be a legacy towards a sort of negativity that she in turn will never be able to find any relief from or justification to what she says was a terrible time in her life. It’s easy enough for her to have finally made her fortune on the grave of Joan, dancing over the beloved dead star’s now tarnished imagery as a situation lacking some humane aspects to be concerned about. The question now is what morals or human values does Christina place over everything she has written and said relating to her deceased mother? She might feel a certain form of forgiving Joan, but it’s now too late, because she began her quest under a cloud of a rampage that left little rationality to find a personal peace and a finality of understanding the true meaning of her life with Joan. The outcome of this ordeal, as written by Christina is now plain and clear. She sought to smear and effectively change Joan’s imagery that for the most part has in some ways come back to haunt Christina! This is only because by telling her story, she had a price to pay and that now means she will forever remain an enigma, a shadowy figure behind the bright light of a great star, who could be rough, but understood certain aspects of life that Christina failed to mention or didn’t want to reflect upon.
The Joan Crawford I came to know was quite a lady, in terms of how she conducted herself about her career and the respect she received from those who knew her well enough to say: “A tough gal, but with a heart of gold that couldn’t be so easily overlooked.” I was introduced to Joan, during those last years of her life, when she lived alone and was sometimes bored in her New York apartment. She seemed at the time a rather simple sort of woman, appearing not so much caught up within this means of being obsessed by her glamorous past. Joan did cherish and accept the adulation of the fans that noticed her on the streets of New York City; as she gave back her thanks to those who came to appreciate everything she once represented under the spotlight. Never once did Joan ever turn away a fan, always prepared to accept the numerous wonderful things said to her from people who simply remembered her star status. There might have been an egomania behind her personality to keeping alive this movie star imagery, but she was to my mind of thinking, sincere to this love and admiration she received. More than any movie star I ever had the pleasure of knowing, Joan has always been to me, the most affective, concrete, reliable individual to this situation of understanding what it takes to be a star and attempt to juggle one’s life around the spotlight of fame. It might have not been easy for anyone involved with Joan’s personal life to see her under a positive light, but we have to be fair as to what we can accept as both the truth and what benefit there is to Christina’s side of the story. It’s this issue that really bothers me about Christina’s book and the subsequent film that resulted in a tremendous amount of disagreement over who was the real Joan Crawford. And, to profit over an amount of nastiness and assumed pain also adds to a questionable definition to the motives of the story that has little in the way of a creditable outcome to say the book had any validity. I guess for Christina it doesn’t really matter, since she has made her fortune or been compensated in a rather strange and unconventional way.
Years ago, after Joan’s death, I was at one of these motion picture film festivals. While standing in the theater lobby, Christina Crawford walked in alone. A friend of mine asked, “Hey look, don’t you know her?” I replied, “Yes, I did meet her once.” My friend then asked, “Why don’t you go over and say hello?” I didn’t hesitate to say, “She ain’t got nothing to say to me and I ain’t got nothing to say to her!” End of story.
-
{font:Arial}{color:black}Speaking from the nitty-gritty, I’m afraid Barbara Stanwyck doesn’t really count for this category. Technically, she only appeared in one silent film, “Broadway Nights.” She was unaccredited in a “walk-on” sort of role. Most fans today can’t even recognize her as a nightclub dancer in the movie! All the other major performers listed in this category, had either star status or had reasonable billing as a supporting player during their time in silent films. Stanwyck’s only silent film was a production shot entirely in {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}New York{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} and not {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}. She was at time, appearing in various Broadway stage shows, attempting to get a big break. It took her about two more years to make a sensation on Broadway and in 1929 she successfully co-starred with Rod La Rocque in her very first talking-picture, “The Locked Door.”
{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}
Point here is that Barbara (or Miss Ruby Stevens) didn’t have any long-term experience in films. This is why I have never looked upon her having any interesting impact to the field of silent motion pictures. And, just for the record, Barbara’s one scene in “Broadway Nights, dancing with her in the chorus was another, up and coming actress, (also unaccredited) lovely Ann Sothern! Amazingly, this also marked the only time Ann appeared in a major silent film!! Like Barbara, she was on the verge of show business notoriety. Ann had been painstakingly making the rounds on Broadway. Unlike Barbara, her specialty was musical comedy.
Many years after both ladies became big motion picture stars, they met on the MGM studio lot. At the time, both were appearing in separate projects; Barbara was appearing in “To Please A Lady,” having been reunited with Clark Gable after so many years and Ann was co-starring in the musical “Nancy Goes To Rio.” While Barbara and Ann were under a hectic schedule, they managed to have lunch together at the studio commissary. These two grand ladies hadn’t really seen each other in a very long time. It was only natural that they came to reminisce about those tough, early years of their careers. It must have been a remarkable reunion. They had both come such a long way and they deserved all the admiration and respect that comes to those who can make it and survive. Here we had one gal born in the back-streets of {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}New York City{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} and the other from the rolling back-hills of {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}North Dakota. {font}{font:Arial}These two ladies had to be as tough as nails and their long-term success in show business surely proves it.{font}
-
The woman is CRAZY . . . Plain and simple: *CRAZY!*
-
{font:Arial}{color:black}Ok, the way I see it is to have two box sets, in a volume one and two, made up of five films per box set. My choices would be for volume one:{font}
{font:Arial}{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}“They Made Me A Criminal”{font}
{font:Arial}{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}“Dust Be My Destiny”{font}
{font:Arial}{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}“Castle on the {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Hudson{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}”{font}
{font:Arial}{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}“Sea Wolf”{font}
{font:Arial}{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}“Out of the Fog”{font}
{font:Arial}{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}Volume two:{font}
{font:Arial}{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}“Tortilla Flat”{font}
{font:Arial}{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}“Pride of the Marines”{font}
{font:Arial}{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}“The Postman Always Rings Twice”{font}
{font:Arial}{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}“Body and Soul”{font}
{font:Arial}{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}“He Ran All the Way”{font}
{font:Arial}{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}While I know there are other titles of Garfield’s career that could be placed into this double volume box set, I decided on going for a comprehensive selection along the lines of good dramatic diversity. To create a box set of {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Garfield{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} can be difficult, based around the subject matter, because most of his best films are of a criminal nature or that of a rebellious character on the outskirts of society. My list is made up of films that I find his performances to be first rate, while the list pretty much reflects upon his specialty of being an outcast to most of the roles he played. Rather than go with the usual TCM, four film box set, I added an extra film. Perhaps even a sixth film would be more flexible towards expanding on the subject matter.{font}
-
Just for the record, there was no recipient this year for The Irving G. Thalberg Award. All three major awards, given in this special category are not annual. This refers to The Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award, The Lifetime Achievement Award and of course, The Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award, presented periodically to a creative producer whose long time work reflects a consistently of high quality to motion picture production. These awards are voted upon by the Board of Governors from the suggestions and opinions of the Academy members. It is a shame that the segment or presentation has been excluded from the progam.
-
Thanks Swithin. I'll have to do more surfing than expected.
-
*{quote:title=Hibi You Asked: }{quote}Speaking of obituaries, does anyone know when Ben Gazzara died? I missed that one........*
*WELL, LO-AND-BEHOLD! SOMEONE NOTICE . . .!!*
{font:Arial}{color:black}I waited and waited to see if anyone on this website would post a thread about Ben’s passing and there’s been nothing that I could find on the site to signify his death of cancer on February 3, in New York. I should have posted the notice myself, but I’m usually late or somebody gets there first. I find it rather strange, he was overlooked here! After all, this was a guy who had been there and done that and had a pretty good career. Of course, he did have a limited amount of film exposure or it was sparse, because Ben didn’t like the whole {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} game and he never could fit into the scheme of things. So, he remained pretty much fixed on a stage career and then managed to accept a role in television, on the series “Run For Your Life.”{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}Just for the record, at the time Ben created a sensation on Broadway, he was celebrated as the heir apparent to Marlon Brando, having had a tremendous amount of successes, one after the other in some great dramas. Once Marlon got to {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} and never looked back at his stage career and then Jimmy Dean died, it was all in the hands of Ben! During the early part of his career, Ben and Jimmy actually roomed together. They both went out making the rounds on Broadway, trying to get a break. It would be Jimmy who scored first on television and then having a short lived stage career on Broadway, leading him right to {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} and he like Marlon, never looked back! It was from 1953 to 1958, Ben ruled Broadway in a dramatic sense of thinking. But, most historians seem to agree that he waited too long to ignite a career for films and subsequently suffered the consequences of never getting into the mainstream of things or the offers just passed him by.
{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}Before his death, Ben said in an interview: “Today, the kids getting started don’t even think or look too closely at a stage career. It’s now all about going to an acting school and then getting an agent to put you in television and hope you might score a deal for a movie. In my day, it was all long, hard work to the point of having good options on Broadway. Now, hardly anyone thinks about the theater. It’s too expensive and the great writers, producers are all but gone and the business as I knew it is all dried up.” Ben was proud of his legacy, in that he spent these last years of his life, showing up at the Actor’s Studio, giving advice and inspiring a few kids here and there that might see the specialty of what he knew about show business.{font}
-
{font:Arial}{color:black}Since the edition of the mermorial segment of the program, there have been certain beloved performers overlooked or just plain forgotten about. In 2002, the Academy and its memorial segment, did not give tribute to actress Ann Sothern! She had died the previous year, in {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Ketchum{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}, {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Idaho{font}{font:Arial}{color:black}. There was certainly enough time for the Academy to notice her passing! After all is said and done, she was a major star in {font}{font:Arial}{color:black}Hollywood{font}{font:Arial}{color:black} for three decades and later went on to have a long term career in television. She has two stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, one for motion pictures and the other for television! This incident by the Academy was inexcusable. So much so, I wrote to the Academy and they sent me back a nice apologetic letter, signifying that Ann’s death that happened earlier in that year didn’t get much coverage and therefore the staff failed in their research.{font}
{font:Arial}{color:black}I have to agree that actor Harry Morgan deserved recognition for his long time career. It’s a shame that some performers get bypassed, probably due more to a popularity contest than anything so technically logical to remember the value of their contributions. {font}
Edited by: MovieProfessor on Feb 27, 2012 10:03 AM
Movies in 8th Grade History Class!
in General Discussions
Posted
Several of the Walt Disney science programs that were originally part of the "DisneyLand" television series of the late 1950's, made it into the class rooms. They were shown complete and in 16mm color. These episodes are today somewhat dated, but are available on video.