bagladymimi

Bickford was not a very happy man. From what I have read, he could be a real pain on the set if things didn't go his way. He was always professional but a bit of a grouch!

I don't think that is John Barrymore. I think it might be a very young Vincent Price or could it be Fredric March? No, I actually think it is Vincent Price.

Jane Wyman was a very smart woman with a strong personality. I think Johnny Belinda is one of the best characterizations I have ever seen. What she did with those eyes. Once you have seen this film, you watch her eyes in every other performance. She uses them to her very best advantage. And she should have won the Oscar and am glad she did. It was the role of a lifetime.

I remember this movie - was really impressed with it. In fact, it ought to be used to show how strong the support of AA sponsors can be. When I first saw this film, I was not aware of how strong a role that a sponsor could play in a recovering alcoholic's life. I don't know why it hasn't been shown more. All the actors in it are really good. Cagney of course is excellent, but Gleason shines through in his always strong supporting performances. And Gig Young deserves credit as the devious alcoholic,doing whatever he can to get a drink. I hope that this will be shown soon on TCM because it has been a long, long time since I have seen it. And I would recommend it to anyone as a really good film.

Yes, I was aware of the Vera Miles situation with "The Wrong Man" and "Psyco". I believe it was discussed in The Dark Side Of Genius. She wanted no part of his attempts to contol her. I believe Hitchcock would have controlled any actor if he could - it seems so particularly with women. From what I have read, he liked to take someone he considered unknown and "make" their career by putting him or her into a "Hitchcock" film. Of course, this was later on in his film career. In my opinion, his best work was before "Psycho." In his films before that, he worked with too many well known stars. I think he would love to have controlled Ingrid Bergman's career. And he loved Grace Kelly - but she was also too much of a star to let Hitchcock control her or her career. Working with the big names was a good thing for the director, but also for the stars' career. He had some great names in his movies - both men and women - Olivier, Herbert Marshall, Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, Ingrid Bergman, Gregory Peck, Grace Kelly, Joseph Cotten, James Mason, etc. He also had some terrific supporting actors. It looks to me as though he had the "cream of the crop" as far as stars were concerned. I think the stars got people into see his films and he then won people over with his plots, camera angles (especially close-ups), his atmospheric twists, etc. To me he was a genius. When Cary Grant walks into his wife's bedroom in Suspicion with the glass of milk (looking poisoned lit up with a light bulb in it), you just know he is going to murder his wife. And the scene in Notorious when Grant drops the bottle in the wine cellar - even though I know they don't get caught, it drives me crazy watching them try to clean it up to keep from being discovered. Hitchcock creates a tension that few other directors could pull off - his films are absolute classics. Maybe that is how his dark side came out and as he got more popular and his films became hits, he tried a little too hard to control the actors in his films. I guess we will never know for sure - that just adds more mystery to his movies and to his life.

I agree with you in that when Hedren was on screen you couldn't help but watch her. She had a commanding presence (sp.?). I could not take my eyes off of her. Her eyes in particular were fascinatingly different - I don't know if it was the light color or what. But somehow, I always felt as though she was always playing the same part. I could never get over the fact that I was watching Tippi Hedren playing a part - she never got into character. But of course that is my opinion. I am sure others thought she was great. Obviously, Hitchcock thought she was good or he wouldn't have used her again.

Hey, thanks for trying. It sounds interesting. Maybe at some point we will be able to see it here in the U.S. Mimi

Okay, I will begrudgingly give Hedren the "Benefit of the Doubt." But, I will gladly give Hitchcock that same benefit. I read and still have the Spoto book and use it as a reference now and then. When it came out in '87, I read the bit about Hedren and thought "big deal." She still became a star because of Hitchcock and if it weren't for her experiences with him, we wouldn't even know who in the world she was or is. So, she has made her mark on the film world one way or the other because of Hitchcock! And I am sorry, I can't help it - I just don't like her. Now that I have stated that, it is time for me to move on.

You of course are right. And it was a good example! Obviously I am biased in that I never thought Hedren was much of an actress.But, who knows? Hitch could have had a thing for her. I think he definitely showed a sadistic streak when he kept the birds coming at her. You have to admit - it looked as real and terrifying as it apparently was in reality. I will watch this new movie if I ever get the chance, just to see how well Hitchcock is portrayed. I don't really care how Hedren is portrayed.

I totally agree with joefilmone on this. I have read 2 books on Elizabeth Taylor with interviews of people she worked with and good friends as well. She was really close to Clift as a friend. She was also a good friend of Paul Newman's with mutual respect on both sides - but she never slept with him. For pete's sake, her husband ( Mike Todd ) had just died in a plane crash when they worked together (the only time.) I also have read in depth books about Reagan and Sinatra among countless other celebrities (authorized biographies.) I have never read anything about any of these people having an affair or even sex with Elizabeth Taylor. This new book is trash - sensationalism, just like "The Enquirer". You can read this stuff in the check-out line in any grocery store!

You know, I am not so sure about Tippi Hedren. First of all, I don't think she was that good of an actress. Secondly, if she was so turned off by Hitchcock, why didn't she just refuse to do another movie after The Birds? I read an interview - she stated that she had a contract. Okay, I can understand that. BUT, if she had made enough of a fuss, I think he would have backed off. He ruined her career anyway - so she states. I have got to admit, I would not have welcomed any advances from the man. She says that she was mature enough to refuse him. But her reactions to the work thing confuse me. I think she has made this into much more than it was. I can't say I blame her - I just don't know how much to believe her. I don't get HBO, so I will wait until I can see this film. It sounds interesting!

I totally agree with you about The Miracle of Morgan's Creek. It was vulgar to me, too. But, it was also stupid, insulted the viewers intelligence, and not the least bit funny. I never could see why it was given such raves. As far as I am concerned, it was a waste of time, talent, and money. While I didn't think the Clock was realistic, I did think it represented how some young couples felt. I need to see it again and maybe rethink the realistic angle. Thanks for all the insight!

You know, he may not have liked women actors. I can think of only one woman who seemed to have strong roles in Ford's films and that was Maureen O'Hara. No other actress stands out in my mind as even being remembered in any of his films. I never thought about that before!

Actually, I agree with most everything said about this. Ava Gardner stands out in everything she does, even in this tired film. But what I find most interesting about this is that Gable was looking forward to working with John Ford. But Robert O. said that they didn't get along at all. In fact, by the end of the film, they weren't even speaking. Maybe Ford was tired too - that's why the film gives you that feeling that it is tired and the acting forced. And especially when compared with RED DUST which was alive with firey fun, adventure, and sex appeal. And in my opinion, Grace Kelly was just "window dressing."

I like both Hopkins and Mirren. And I am sure Hopkins can probably play Hitchcock as well as anyone. I am not so sure about Mirren as Alma. I have read a lot about Alma Hitchcock from biographies as well as the book about Alma that Patricia wrote. I don't know who I would have picked and maybe Mirren can do it, but she will have to lose the sex appeal - that's for certain (breasts or no breasts!) Neither of these roles call for sex appeal of any kind! I too, am looking forward to seeing this. I may even pay to see it in the movie theatre and I never do that!

I am so glad to hear it. And I think Ben has done a great job. He just hasn't been around nearly as long as Robert, so he doesn't have some of the individual knowledge that he will gain with time. Izcutter, I thank you so much for putting Mr O's Facebook response on this forum and like Joe, I look forward to seeing Robert upon his return. Mimi

You are right - I apologize. I don't know what I was doing. I know that this forum is for fun and knowledge and I am sorry to be so stupid and sensitive over this. It will not happen again. I hope you all will accept my apology. Sincerely, Mimi

I have been sick and not read many posts lately, so I am behind. Sorry to be off the subject, but have noticed that Robert Osborne is not been posting at night since August. I thought maybe he was taking Septiember off, but he wasn't off again tonight. Is he ill again? I hope not.

What does that mean? How old is she and what difference does that make? I am 64 years old and I hate to think that my breasts have become a cliche! What the hell difference do her breasts have to do with her great acting career?

Funny, how we all got something different as the "roses" connection. Obviously it was the poem, but it is interesting to hear what everyone draws from the storyline. I am so glad that this forum exists - it is a treasure of ideas. Thank you TCM for giving us not only the movies, but this exchange of ideas as well!

Carole Landis' life was tragically cut short on July 4th, 1948. She committed suicide over an affair with Rex Harrison. She was only 29 years old. So much talent, promise and beauty was gone way too soon. She was a beautiful person to everyone who knew her. In her biography, no one ever had anything negative to say about her except that she made bad choices in men. Rex Harrison (who was married to Lilly Palmer at the time) was "persona non grata" in Hollywood for many years after that.

I totally agree with cujas on this. Martha Raye was first of all, a great patriot. But she was also a great commedian. And when they do prospectives of comedy on TV, I don't remember anything about her many appearances in the 50's and 60's. I think she also played "Witchy-Poo" on a children's show in the 70's. I have always had fond memories of this great woman.

Obviously, I didn't remember the poem either!

I really feel stupid. I never got the "roses" connection. Thank you - it makes a lot of sense!

In my opinion, Lana Turner couldn't hold a candle compared to Bette Davis. And Bette had a compelling screen presence - I cannot take my eyes off of her. She is still the actress that set the standard.