JamesJazGuitar

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Charles Bronson; In 1954, during the [House Un-American Activities Committee|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee|House Un-American Activities Committee] (HUAC) proceedings, he changed his surname from Buchinsky to Bronson at the suggestion of his agent, who feared that an Eastern European surname might damage his career. He took his inspiration from the Bronson Gate at [Paramount Studios|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_Studio|Paramount Studio], situated on the corner of [Melrose Avenue|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melrose_Avenue|Melrose Avenue] and Bronson Street. Now there is a reason to change one's name! Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Nov 23, 2012 2:54 PM

According to the book Film Noir (Silver Ward), the year 1950 had the most film noir releases, with 1947 having the next most. As far as decades, the 40s and 50s are about equal (I didn't count the number of movies in the appendix where they are listed by year). The late 40s had about as many as the early 50s while the early 40s has about the same (a lot less per year) as the late 50s. The consecutive years with the most noirs would be from 46 - 51.

I welcome the info you provided as it relates to the murder mystery as it relates to Weidler, the apartment she was living in and the death of a gal similar in age to her that was living in the same place. In no way do I feel this info taints Weidler or your tribute to her here. Just more info in the search of .... Virginia Weidler.

Well of course in any thread one should expect some positive feedback. We have seen a lot of positive feedback related to Young (from me as well as others). The points yet again are: that one should NOT expect NO negative feedback and that one shouldn't 'advise' users of these forums to NOT post negative comments. Based on the replies I have seen here and at other forums, I think there are more people here that feel your view is the one that is 'all wrong' as it relates to the exchanges of ideas. Yes, I'm not alone with the POV I'm presenting here, but I believe you are.

While overall I agree with you here (i.e. I focus on the performance and not the personality of actors, musicians, artist), I can see that if someone is activity in the news, in a negative way, that could impact how one 'takes in' the performance of this person in a real time way; i.e. would one go to their concert or see a movie they are in. But for me the actual negative behavior would have to be very offensive to me for it to have any real time impact. But years or decades later. No impact.

Raquel; I agree with you. When someone starts it thread about someone they like they have to expect some negative feedback. This is what makes these threads interesting. Why only want in this regard would be that the post have some substance. For example, saying 'that actor, stinks' isn't a lot of substance in my view. Also, I don't see the need to make the same negative comments over and over again. But of course people that create a thread do NOT own the thread. i.e. they don't have a right to dictate what is posted just because they started a thread. As for Young; well it is very clear that there are people out there with strong feelings, in both directions towards her. I'm a fan of her movies but not her, per se, as it relates to her persona outside the movies.

Andy; I agree with your take here. Young has some major character flaws but that prevent me from enjoying her movies. Some of these flaws can be explained based on times (the entire child with Gable ploy) while others just make her someone I wouldn't wish to hang 10 with but at the end of the day I'm still a fan (especially of her pre-code).

The other day I googled Virginia Weidler and there are links to this website and this specific thread as well as many others on her. To me this says your work (passion), is paying off. That is great. She does have a someone unique life since she quit acting at the age of 17 but sadly died at 41. As I said I knew who Virginia was since I had seen her in many movies I enjoy but I didn't make much of a connection to her as a person. Thanks to you I'm more enlighten.

The brand will not be going away. The rights will be sold to another company.

Holiday The Bishop's Wife Now Voyager

Hibi, I agree with your take here. The questions for both actors and studio heads is how 'fair' a fixed rate, 7 year contract is as time marches on. WB got it's money worth at the start of Kay's contract but clearly not as much at the end, but overall both sides got value out of the relationship. Kay signed her deal with WB while near the top of her fame. Doing so clearly favors an actor. Of course with some actors the reserve is true. i.e. an actor signs a deal when they are just getting started and thus 'accept' what ends up being a low rate a few years later when that actor is a major star. In this situation the studio holds the cards.

Isn't it a more reasonable assumption that Jack Warner had Kay cast in 'B' picture because her prior 'A' pictures were not successful? Jack's main priority, like most studio heads, was making money. The reason Jack didn't like paying Kay that 5K a week was because her movies were no longer big enough box office hits to justify that 5K a week. Warner also used Kay in the training of other actors; reading lines to them during rehearsals. That really hurt Kay's feelings but since she refused to redo the terms of her contract, Warner had to get some value out of her. It is totally understanable why Kay woudln't agree to redo the terms of her contract (hey, 5K a week is 5K a week!), but it is also understandable why WB didn't feature her in 'A' pictures once she lost favor with the general movie audiences. Also other studio's were not willing to take her as a loan out at that 5K a week price.

I agree that Lotita has some 'boring padding' but I still really enjoy the movie. There are some great scenes that I don't find boring at all with some fine, unique (strange offbeat), acting. But to each his own of course.

I agree with what you posted especially this line: How popular a celebrity of years past is today has no bearing on how talented they were. If how popular was a measure of talent (or the quality of what they left behind), than Monroe would be the most talented actress of all time. To me she isn't even in the top 25. I also welcome threads like this one of 'lesser known' stars (I hope using that term doesn't offend anyone). But we all need to be aware that just because us classic movie geeks love certain actors others may need have forgetten them. This thread uses the term 'In search of' for a reason.

I believe my post was honest. You call Sepiatone out for having an opinion that most people don't know who Virginia Weidler is. You then go on to say this opinion is bogus and that one shouldn't form these type of judgement since they cannot be backed up. I agree with that part 100%, but than you go on with your opinion that many people know who she is. A POV you cannot back up anymore than Sepiatone can back up his. I found that to be very ironic and that was the point I was making.

I know 4 Rocco's and 3 of them are cooks. The other one: He is a criminal and was deported, but he wasn't a hit man. My wife's Italian family is made up mostly of guys with the name Vince, Rocco, and Vito. They have some custom where they have to name the male sons after a relative. Thus when we get together the number of guys with the same first name is out of this world. The good thing for me is that if I forget someone's name I have a 1 in 3 chance my guess will be right!

I see more of these 'why they can't' questions. TCM could air more recent movies. TCM chooses NOT to. It really is that simple. I for one hope they stick to their brand; i.e. showing mostly studio era movies. So to me, yes, asking TCM to show more non studio era movies is too much to ask for.

Yes, Constance Bennett pre-codes over election results anytime. Since I'm in CA creditable state and local election results are not known until way after my bedtime. So watch Constance. I have seen a few of her later popular movies (e.g. Topper, Two Face Women), but not any of these pre-codes where the focus is mostly on her.

, but general public consensus about Virginia Weidler and her talents would be very enthusiastic in many quarters. Says who? I think that is a very biased statement with no factual evidence to back it up. ************ Unless one has specific polling data one is only guessing with regards to any 'general public consensus'. Typically one's guess is based only on their own opinion knowledge. As for Virginia, well a majority of the general public cannot even name who the current VP of the USA is (based on a very informal 'man on the street poll), so my guess (but only a guess), would be Virginia is known only in a few very selected quarters. For example, I'm a big time studio era movie fan (I would think I know more about studio era movies than say 99% of the general population and note CFU doesn't represent the general public but big time studio era fans), but I didn't know Virginia by name. Now as soon as I saw her picture I remembered her and some of the movies she was in. Either way I'm glad to see that Virginia still has big time fans. I came to this site so I could learn more about her. As others have noted sometimes us studio era fans give too much attentions to just the 'stars' and not enough to the other great talents of the era.

As for the movie Son of Frankenstein, I enjoy the movie and thus fall into that camp. Yea, I get that the movie isn't as good as the orignial and Bride but to me it is still a very enjoyable movie for many of the points you (as well as others), have noted. e.g. Ygor, Basil (ok a little over the top but hey, this is a horror film), the setting and how that is filmed (e.g. the house with all the shadows etc..). Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Nov 5, 2012 4:48 PM

Both are in the same category (as it relates to this discussion), *only* because of 'Whether any of this is true or not' and NOT because of the gravity of the accusations. I agree 100% that one accusation is a lot more serious than the other. Of course this raises another question; Is it A-OK to form judgements, based on little to no tangible information, when the accusations are minor? (and thus it is NOT A-OK when the accusations are major). I say it isn't A-OK in either case, but I can see why others are willing to form opinions when the accusations are minor in nature but not when they are major. I will add that when I see comments like 'both should be hanged' this to me implies a false equivalency. But of course I wouldn't make such a comment. Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Nov 5, 2012 3:13 PM Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Nov 5, 2012 3:14 PM

RMeingast; I'm not sure you fully understood the point I was making but I do agree with the points you're making. In cases like these (ones with no tangible evidence one way or the other as you noted) I don't render a judgement, PERIOD. My point still is that even if Hitchcock and Atwill (for example), were alive and thus able to say the charges were not true (assuming this is the stance they would take) I would still NOT render a judgement, one way or the other, since I wouldn't learn anything tangible, one way or the other, from what the accused has to say. Other imply that if the accused is alive this would help them determine judgement. It is that point that I say is folly (unless the accused has some unknown to the public actual tangible evidence of course). While many people will say to me 'well you have to have an opinion, one way or the other', I say NO, that isn't the case. To me the only wise thing is to NOT have an opinion.

Related to the Hitchcock move The Girl and now the comments about Atwil, people keep mentioning that the accused isn't alive to defend themselves, with the implication that this makes it harder to determine the truth. i.e. what actually happened. But to me this POV is flawed. Unless the accused is going to say 'yea, I did it', most of the time nothing more is learned by talking with the accused. The point being that the amount of salt these stories should be taken with doesn't change because the accused is alive or dead.

Do you really think anyone here at this forum can answer questions like 'why does TCM not show XYZ movies'? There are only two possible answers; either TCM doesn't have the rights to certain movies OR TCM just doesn't wish to show those movies. Note that TCM has shown some of the movies you listed during Oscar Month (February) in prior years. But you're never going to get an answer to these 'why' type questions.

TCM has shown The Unfaithful a few time in the last year or so. To me the movie falls flat. One key difference is that Ann's character doesn't love the man she killed, but instead loves her husband. Also it is unclear if Ann's claim of self defense is true or not. The movie plays it like she had to act in self defense. Of course this changes everything. Instead of the character having a dark side Ann's character is just a foolish women. I can see the plot change where the women really loves her husband and thus kills the guy she had an affair with so that no one would find out about the affair, but the changes made with The Unfaithful make the movie just a sappy women done her man wrong picture.