MyFavoriteFilms
-
Posts
3,069 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by MyFavoriteFilms
-
-
The other interesting thing about him is that from 1929 to his final loanout in 1938, he was making many more films besides his MGM output. And he wasn't one of those walk-on guys with two lines in a single scene. He never appears lower than second-tier in terms of billing.
What I want to know is why Louis Mayer liked him so much. What was it about Stone's personality that struck a chord with the big boss? Did Stone's masterly work in paternal roles remind Mayer of his own father or what he wished his own father to be? I think there's a story there somewhere. But of course, Stone was not just playing dads in MGM films, he was playing judges and court advisers, too...usually roles of authority.
-
Arturo,
I admire your passion for all things Rita. I truly do. There are some actors and actresses I feel I really know because either a) I have seen all their films and television programs;
I have read almost every book on them; or c) both a & b. I think you have a deep understanding of Rita's career. Good for you.But you approach it in a way that I am carefully avoiding. Honestly, I despise the caste system of Hollywood. I think on some level, they are all equal. They all rise and fall, some more dramatically than others. They were all made and built up by the studio bosses, and eventually, they all went into decline (unless they died at the height of their career). In short, the studio could make you and break you, and they did it to everyone.
Also, it's not fair to overlook someone who may have more talent than a well-known starlet because they did not get the studio build up. We have to look at the entire filmography, including roles in television. And we have to look at notable stage performances, or if someone went on to work behind the scenes as an acting coach, a writer or a director (rare with women, but it happens as in the case of Penny Marshall).
The point is that we need to push the studio publicity aside and demystify 'star' constructs. We have to look solely at performance. This is something I am sure you can confidently do, because obviously Rita was a consummate performer, and she will no doubt stack up very high in this regard, as a talented artist...more than as a starlet or a true star or whatever other superfluous label we want to adorn her with.
-
Thanks Tiki. I love the little icon.
This thread has convinced me that whenever possible, we should cite references. It's too easy to just spout opinions. We need to support our arguments with facts. That will require a great deal more effort and could seem like writing a term paper...but I think it has to be done, or else you do risk being assailed by others. Of course, it would probably go a step further, and we will have posters trying to impinge the integrity of certain critics and theorists. But we'll deal with that when we get to it. The point is we need a more concrete foundation on which to build these arguments...otherwise we are squabbling in emotional quicksand.
At the very least, this will cause some of us to do more research and learn more about the Hollywood studio system. No one poster has all the answers.
Another thing is that we often cite wikipedia (I am guilty of this)...but the references on the bottom of the wiki page should be verified. Don't you think? Personally, I believe film studies textbooks, written by professors at renowned universities like UCLA are best. The next best source: actual interviews with directors, actors, writers and other studio era technicians. But it can't be hearsay. It has to be an actual eyewitness acccount. Also, other materials can be used like film reviews by nationally known critics and financial data with regards to box office performance, adjusted for inflation where necessary.
-
I haven't tallied the number of Robert Taylor pictures at MGM...I am sure it's a high total because aside from him working at Universal for MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION, they seldom loaned him out.
We have to remember that Lewis Stone did get top billing in a fair number of MGM programmers. His work in DIVORCE IN A FAMILY is definitely a starring role.
One thing Stone had going for him is that he was able to play leads and supporting characters. Taylor did not do supporting characters. However, I bet that if Taylor didn't die at a relatively young age, he would've eventually gone into supporting roles and character parts in the 1970s and 80s, like Sterling Hayden and other former leading men did.
Again, Stone would've surpassed the 24-year mark because he was Louis Mayer's favorite actor. Probably if Stone had lived longer, he would've seen the end of the studio era, making films into the late 50s and early 60s for the lion.
-
Okay, now I will point out some things with your post, just for illumination. You seem to be defining your own terms, like when an actress goes from starlet to true star. What is a true star? When does someone reach the category of true star? That seems like a made-up phrase to me. Can't you be a starlet and a true star at the same time? I think Marilyn Monroe was both throughout most of her career at Fox. Unless your definition is when they go from second-tier to top billing. But they may get top billing right away in a B-film. These definitions seem murky at best.
What I really was trying to get at with my use of the word 'mediocre' was that I think these are films that either were not promoted as heavily, or not as lavishly budgeted as some of the really big films. They did keep directors and actors working, especially to fulfill contract obligations and to continue pushing product out to the theatres. So my definition of 'mediocre' may apply more closely to the term 'programmer.' However, as it has been noted elsewhere, CASABLANCA is a programmer that was anything but mediocre.
I am just trying to nail down a working terminology here...and also, I want to point out that some of the 'forgotten' average films have some very above-average moments, where real artistry shines through.
-
Lewis Stone was the longest contracted player at MGM. He was on contract from 1929 until his death in 1953. However, he had worked for Goldwyn as far back as 1920 and made films for Metro in 1922 and 1923. In 1925, he worked for Metro-Goldwyn, as it was then called. And his more exclusive association with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer began in 1929.
From 1929 to 1953 Lewis Stone made 80 motion pictures for MGM. After a loanout to Paramount in 1938, he was never sent to work anywhere else for the next fifteen years. The last few years at the studio, Louis Mayer paid him a full 40-week salary though he only was required to report to the studio for 13 weeks. There is no doubt that had he lived longer, he would've continued to work exclusively for MGM.
-
My guess is it's either a TV movie or something from an old anthology series. It just does not seem like a motion picture I recognize...but what do I know...LOL
-
No idea. Sounds like it may be a film noir, so you might want to ask on that forum. Also, look at a list of film noir (on wikipedia) and if you read over a bunch of titles, something might seem familiar. If it's not a film noir, try family dramas or melodramas.
-
I know. Good for them.
-
You're right...NIGHT AND DAY was highly fictionalized. Monty Woolley's presence is the film's saving grace.
-
Arturo,
I will be honest. Very honest. I don't like what you have written at all. In order to avoid an argument, I will leave it at that. There will be no additional comments from me to you on this thread and I will keep other replies to you in other threads to a bare, and I do mean bare, minimum. LOL
The one thing I would kindly ask is that you refrain from trying to rewrite my posts and trying to redefine the meaning of my posts. I find it extremely disrespectful and counter-productive to a good discussion about a particular film topic.
-
Read the article (link provided in the original post). It explains how these films were distributed and where the surviving ones wound up.
-
Usually when there's a film festival or a theme on TCM, there is what I call a cornerstone film...like one big film that serves as the crowning achievement in a director or actor's career, or defines a genre during a critical phase of its evolution.
So we have the 'big films.' With me? And then, we get the other side of it, like the 'small films.' These are the films that were so shlock- and camp-infested, and just so badly made, that they also become revered classics.
But there is an unrecognized middle strata of classic film. I would call them 'mediocre classics.' They serve a purpose. They keep an artist's career going in between bigger pictures, and they definitely entertain an audience. But they are glossed over, ignored, not really looked at seriously by students of film and fans.
Let me give an example: ROUGHLY SPEAKING. This was not Jack Carson's best film and it was not Rosalind Russell's best or most-remembered film. It aired recently on TCM and I recorded it. I was struck by the level of artistry and craftsmanship in it. The train depot scenes at the end are very well done.
For some reason, ROUGHLY SPEAKING may not have connected with audiences in a major way. But it's still a dependable product, it's still a classic.
What are your thoughts about this?
-
Cujas,
You know what high and low means. Come on. I still feel like you are (amusingly) trying to bait me.
But I will let you 'in' on some of my thought process...
I think we can merge critical studies in film with fine arts. That's really where I'm headed with all this...and we can add some sociology into the mix.
-
Yeah, I think you needed the word 'with' in the thread title for that! LOL
-
Hi cujas,
I am sorry but I don't feel as if you are trying to engage in a two-way conversation. I feel like you want me to lay down some terms and definitions so you can dispute them. I will detour around that.
I still stand behind all my earlier comments about high and low art. These are unalterable views.
-
Hi Arlene,
What I meant is that HUAC was putting pressure on him. If he had not been "friendly," it would've no doubt turned against him and he surely would've been one of their targets.
-
You're right, I completely forgot about that film. Thanks for correcting me on such an obvious mistake.
-
Her name was Violet Rutherford. She appears in the first season. But as the series evolves, she practically ceases to exist.
-
Remember that Connie appears on the Fox Movie Channel on November 22 in THE AFFAIRS OF CELLINI with Freddie March, Fay Wray and Louis Calhern (pictured below).
-
Yes, she died at the age of 60, from a brain hemorrhage in 1965.
In '61, she did a pilot for CBS for a weekly sitcom. It was planned as a spinoff from the Ann Sothern Show. Anso and Desilu were producing partners. I am sure that Connie was cast based on her friendship with Ann and Lucy, from their old RKO days together. The pilot did not get picked up but the episode is part of the Ann Sothern Show package, called 'It's Always April.' In it, she plays a retired actress whose young daughter wants a career in show biz, but she and her husband try to dissuade the girl from pursuing a difficult profession with lots of heartbreak. Of course, friend Katy O'Connor (played by Ann) encourages the girl to follow her dreams.
-
Welcome back to TCM and your TCM buddies.
-
Interesting observation. By comparison, Ozzie seems more outgoing than Ward. Although we can safely assume that June and Ward did have a group of friends...it's just they were on the periphery as stories tended to focus on the kids.
With regards to the Ozzie & Harriet series...I read Ozzie's autobiography (written near the end of his life). He said they wrote three kinds of scripts for the show, in its later years, after the boys had grown up a bit. They had stories that involved the whole family (including the boys' wives); they had stories that focused on just one of the boys (like a college fraternity or job-related type episode); and then they had what he called the 'old posse,' stories that focused on Ozzie, Harriet and their friends like the Randolphs. He said it made it easier from a production standpoint, because turning out over 30 episodes per year could be grueling on any one actor...this way they didn't all have to carry the weight of the series in each episode, and it gave the viewers some variety. I think it was a winning combination. It also led them in several different story directions, especially since they were covering all those age ranges and bringing in all those extra supporting characters (such as the Randolphs and the boys' friend Wally and Wally's girlfriend Ginger).
-
AS YOUNG AS YOU FEEL is from the early 50s...she has lost some of her looks, but she's still fairly glamorous and her acting is as good as always.
These films airing on TCM today are from RKO...it should be easy for the programmers to access these titles and show them more often.
I have read almost every book on them; or c) both a & b. I think you have a deep understanding of Rita's career. Good for you.
Spotlight: Tonight on TCM
in General Discussions
Posted
Tonight, TCM is airing several Alec Guiness films. I am particularly excited about *THE CAPTAIN'S PARADISE* since it features Celia Johnson who regrettably did not make many films. It also features the wonderful Yvonne de Carlo in the prime of her motion picture career.
A description of the plot from wikipedia:
Captain Henry St. James (Alec Guinness) is in front of a firing squad and then learn of the curious chain of events that brought him to his fate. He was a prosperous seafaring man, is a bigamist, maintaining households at either end of the route his ship takes every few days. On Gibraltar, he lives with quiet, very domestic Maud (Celia Johnson); he comes home to find his pipe and slippers ready for him, and his adoring wife in the kitchen preparing his dinner. He sits cosily in his armchair, reads the papers and relaxes. In Morocco on the other hand, his wife Nita (Yvonne de Carlo) is a hot-blooded, exotic lady, who shuns housework and prefers to be taken out to noisy, crowded restaurants, where they lead a loud and wild lifestyle..
The film was adapted into a Broadway musical comedy five years later.