TomJH
-
Posts
19,359 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
105
Posts posted by TomJH
-
-
No problem, Lori. I created the Curtiz "heads up" because I know it's really easy to miss a film. And, yes, I would think that your Xmas present for your hubby this year may be an easy one for you to figure out.
-
RMeingast, thanks very much for providing those links to the Dunagan interviews that I couldn't locate.
I have the feeling, since he was so reluctant to talk about the Atwill incident for so many decades, that Dunagan may well sincerely believe what he says. Whether a decades-old memory of a little boy's perceptions are correct, however, is something that we will never know for sure.
Still, I think that the anecdote is clearly pertinent information for those interested in Lionel Atwill or Son of Frankenstein, or what may or may not have occured on a studio set many years ago. Unfortunately, it leads more to speculation more than it does to any kind of proven fact.
-
Just to add to the true life creepiness (if it's true) of Son of Frankenstein are Donnie Dunagan's memories if having been inappropriately touched on a number of occasions by Lionel Atwill while making the film.
Of course, there is no proof of the accusations since any of the people who may have known anything about it are all gone, except Dunagan. Atwill, of course, is remembered for having been largely obstracized within the Hollywood community after word came out of **** at his home (I know no details) and he stopped appearing in major film productions. I've never heard, however, that he had inclinations towards children. Dunagan's shocking anecdotes, should you choose to believe them, are the only reference of that kind that I've ever heard of regarding the actor.
Unfortunately, I can no longer find that Dunagan interview on the internet, much to my frustration (possibly someone else can). I've provided a link to a website that makes reference to the interview, and also provides a summary of what Dunagan said. Unfortunately, the links to the interview provided at this site are no longer valid.
http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/10667
I recall Dunagan stating that he didn't know if any of the other actors knew of the incidents but he perceived a chilling attitude on the set from Basil Rathbone towards Atwill afterward. Again, though, these are the memories of a four-year-old and there could be plenty of other reasons for Basil to not care for Atwill.
If you believe Dunagan's story, perhaps the monster should have pulled off both of Atwill's arms.
-
Beware, my friends, of *The Black Cat Hotel*,
Where the hotel cat roams,
And only he hears the screams in the night.
"Told you we should have stayed at the Motel 6."
"Heavens, a cat. I hate cats! Ssssssss . . . go away! I should have brought that flea circus of a dog I own."
"They say a cat can peer into the soul of a man. Hope he can't peer into mine. He'd be afraid, poor thing! Surely lose a couple of his nine lives, I imagine. . . . Heeeere, kitty, kitty. I want to pet you."
"Jeepers, creepers, that last one was a strange one. How come weirdos like that only show up when there's a full moon? Think I'll just stay in my room the rest of the night."
-
The girls were right. This guy is a real wolf. Maybe if I play dead he'll just go away.
-
But I tell you I don't want to learn how to swim!
-
Jeez, I really hate these driver license photos!
-
Junior! How many times have Mommy and Daddy told you: knock first before you fly in!
-
Dear Diary,
Yesterday was a TERRIBLE day. I stubbed my big toe twice. Now what could possibly happen today to make it worse than that?
-
*A man looks out his front window, and then comments to his wife:*
"Look, look, it's that new neighbour. The one who only comes out at night wearing a black cloak. Now he's crawling along the ground with a giant bat flying over his head. I have to tell you, Mildred, I'm starting to think the guy might be a little strange!"
-
I wouldn't know, finance, though I do know that Curtiz had been supportive of John Garfield getting his film debut in Four Daughters. He would not have made the final call, however. Nor do I think it makes any difference in an overall appraisal of whether a man is a great director or not.
-
Filmgoddess, since you prescribe to the auteur theory, then you place a greater emphasis upon the vision of a particular film than do I. The fact that Curtiz was merely assigned to help bring a particular project (hopefully) to life shouldn't be used to denigrate his contribution. The fact that a producer like Hal Wallis constantly turned to Curtiz for many of his big projects, however, should be noted. And the fact that Curtiz was the directorial hand behind, in my opinion, a larger collection of great films than most directors should also be noted.
Hitchcock and Ford were great directors in more overall control of their projects than Michael Curtiz, that's true. As I pointed out earlier the studio system was a collaborative process with a producer like Wallis (who should be acknowedged) calling many of the shots. If you want to call the best of Curtiz a collaboration with Wallis, that sounds fair enough. I do NOT, however, think that Wallis would have probably been able to achieve those same results, however, as often breath taking as they were, without a great director like Curtiz to call the shots on the set.
And it's time that Michael Curtiz be acknowledged for the great film accomplishments that he helped to achieve. The auteurists can hold their nosesall they like over this as much as they like. With Casablanca and Yankee Doodle Dandy and Captain Blood and Mildred Pierce and The Breaking Point, among others, all coming with Curtiz at the helm, he more than proved his greatness to me. The problem is most people (including film buffs) don't even know Curtiz's name.
-
1
-
-
A birthday party for me? Oh, you shouldn't have.
-
*ON THE STUDIO SET, FILMING "CHAMPION":*
"Kirk, you're really into playing the part, and that's great. But you're going to have to stop head butting the camera. You're getting blood all over the lens and it's really not doing your looks any good."
-
You know, Jean, I really like you, and your family's swell, too. But is it really necessary for your brother to be with us ALL the time?
-
Honestly, Gloria, you're never going to learn anything if you don't pay attention! Bruce and I are showing you some of our best dance moves here!
-
*filmlover wrote: Flynn, in his prime, could have been good...except for one thing. His exuberance. Bond has always been more of a subdued personality.*
filmlover, perhaps you've forgotten that Flynn could often play it low key and he was, indeed, an understated actor. He didn't always play it like laughing Robin Hood.
Think of his performances in Dawn Patrol, Dive Bomber, Edge of Darkness or, even as a swashbuckler, in The Sea Hawk. I think that it's Flynn's low key acting style that makes his heroics, even when they may be larger-than-life, seem more credible and not over-the-top.
I think Flynn could have been a great Bond. He had it all in his prime: charm, good looks, intelligence and athletic credibility.
-
This has been a fun thread, filmlover. But what about idealized casting of other actors in the role of James Bond?
Flynn, that's Errol Flynn. If it could only have been. No actor who has played Bond had more charm than Flynn in his prime. And we all know that he was convincing in action scenes. I know that Ian Fleming desired suave David Niven in the lead. I say far better casting would have been Niven's old drinking buddy from his early Hollywood years, Flynn.
If Connery, the greatest Bond in my opinion, has a streak of danger about him and was more overtly macho on screen than Flynn, Flynn was at least his equal as a credible action figure and far more genuinely suave and charming. Flynn also had a sense of humour and knew how to bring a great sense of fun to a scene.
What do you think?
-
What a way to change the time!
-----
They sure don't make clocks the way they used to.
-
If Curtiz was a great team player, it's my understanding that he was one known to be a headache at times because he wanted scenes to be essentially done his way. As I said earlier in this thread, however, Curtiz should not get sole credit for his films because he was a part of the Warners team. Hal Wallis produced much of the director's best work at the studio, certainly would have made strong suggestions at to what he wanted to see on screen, as well.
Curtiz, however, was a director known to not shoot a lot of extra footage of a scene, so that afterward a producer and editor had a smaller variety of shots to work with. In other words, the scenes would usually come out with the director's vision. That, in turn, has a lot of say on the final cut.
Curtiz never had the reputation of a Ford or Hitchcock, both of whom dominated their films. Curtiz was a company man, and that very term probably has a lot to do with the fact that critics, for the most part, don't pay that much attention to his work. (Along with other studio house directors).
I think it's safe to say, however, that Curtiz was "the man" as far as Jack Warner and his various producers (in particular, Hal Wallis) were concerned when it came to assigning a director to a major product. I mean in no way to denigrate the contributions of the other Warners directors (especially Raoul Walsh, whose best films I quite love) when I say that Curtiz produced more outstanding films than any other during the studio system days of the '30s and '40s at that studio. And that says something, since much of the same team of cinematographers, editors and stars that worked with him also worked with the others.
Of course, the Billy Wilders and Preston Sturges and Orson Welles are well known for their '40s films. What I love about Curtiz, though, is not only the sheer volume of what he tackled during that same period of time when his better known counterparts were directing a handful of films, but the variety of genres, as well, along with the often exemplary quality of that final product. Therefore, I tend to resentthe often rather backhanded compliments that Curtiz may have received, just because he was a Warners' "company man."
-
I can't help it. It's just the way I am. I have to keep a head of everybody!
-
Finance, you write in vague terms. What is the reason why Curtiz does not have a bigger reputation as a director. (We've heard the auteur theory before, so I hope you're not returning there again).
-
*I am still trying to figure out who thought of the last scene in the film, with Wesley's son alone on the dock looking for his father. Was it Curtiz who came up with that ending shot, or someone else? What are your thoughts? Was Curtiz the type of director who was known for such powerful endings in dramas he did? I personally can not think of any other of his films where such a "haunting and heartbreaking" ending scene is used.*
Lori, I agree that a sensitive ending like that is certainly not typical of Curtiz films. Was it Curtiz who thought of that long shot, with that isolated little figure of the boy in the middle of it (absolutely heart-breaking), or what it his cinematographer, or the producer, or the screenwriter, or maybe they all collaborated on it. Only someone who goes through the Warners production notes (which, quite possibly, still exist) would perhaps come up with a definitive answer.
I theorized earlier in the thread that tough guy Curtiz may have been mellowing a bit. It's just a theory, though. Adding to that theory is another later '50s Curtiz production, The Proud Rebel. It's a little remembered western emphasizing (like Breaking Point) human relations. It, too, has scenes of considerable sensitivity involving a father (played by Alan Ladd) and his mute son. One scene, in particular, stands out for emotional impact - that in which the father has to tell his son that he was forced to sell their dog, to whom the boy is totally devoted. It's a scene which could also provoke a tear or two from members of an audience, I feel.
-
One of the main cases that I make for Curtiz's greatness as a director is the success that he had in such a great variety of film genres. (Just how many genres do we associate with Hitchcock, for the sake of comparison). Whether it was the exuberance of a swashbuckler such as The Adventures of Robin Hood or the melodramatic high voltage impact of a film noir drama like Mildred Pierce or the high spirits of an old fashioned musical like Yankee Doodle Dandy, Curtiz was the director of some of the most famous and memorable films that Warner Brothers made during the late '30s and early '40s.
Even after Curtiz's best years appeared to be behind him (and he no longer had Hal Wallis as producer), he then helped bring great depth to the human drama to be found in his last (and most neglected) masterpiece, The Breaking Point. Personally, I think that a very strong case can be made that Curtiz's version of To Have and Have Not has far more emotional impact than the more famous and celebrated Hawks-Bogart version. The Hawks version is fun to watch because of the interplay between Bogie and Bacall, but the Curtiz version, with John Garfield's vulnerable anti-hero portrayal, is, to me, a truly haunting film, capped by that closing shot of the little boy looking for his father.
And look at the quality of the performances in Curtiz's films: from swashbuckling Flynn, the greatest costume hero of them all, to Bogart's brooding romantic anti-hero in Casablanca, to Crawford, swathed in furs, producing a gun from underneath them in her Oscar-winning performance, to Cagney as the peak of his screen magnetism as tough little Rocky Sullivan, perhaps the most loveable of all screen hoods, in Angels with Dirty Faces.
Michael Curtiz, One of the Great Film Directors
in General Discussions
Posted
Your welcome, Arturo. As an old movie buff, it's particularly gratifying when you think that an old favourite of yours has stood the test of time well. For me, of those films I've named for this month, that is particularly true of the Flynn adventures and Casablanca. Even though The Unsuspected is a minor Curtiz film, it's still well worth watching, as well.
And I know what you mean by wanting to watch a film in real time, as it feels like a shared experience, even if you can't actually see the others watching it at the same time.
Curtiz directed some of the most entertaining films ever made, a fact that I hope more and more viewers will come to appreciate, and associate this man's name with those titles they love so well.