ValeskaSuratt

Thanks to these comment threads, it's fun watching this film again now (despite just having seen it a few days ago) both because the film is that good and because of all the "new" things to watch for that people have pointed out. (Like ... the score doesn't seem too loud to me at all ... ) And I'm with you, BaggarVance, that the question of it being "dated" is moot. As long as we keep fighting wars from which warriors must return, The Best Years of Our Lives will remain timeless.

> {quote:title=slaytonf wrote: > }{quote}But then it degenewates at the end to a conventional adventua/womance, like Kay Fwancis' aws. Like Kay Fwancis' WHAT ?

What a shame that this month-long tribute didn't include a showing of "Leslie Howard: The Man Who Gave a Damn." Especially since documentarian Tom Hamilton discovered hours of rapidly deteriorating home movies in Leslie Howard's daughter's basement. http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/sep/12/leslie-howard-found-footage "The reels, both colour and black and white, have been saved following their discovery by Tom Hamilton, who was making a documentary on Howard. The star's 82-year-old daughter, Leslie Ruth Howard (known as Doodie), had kept them in her basement since 1979, not realising that some of the reels had decomposed. "Hamilton recalled opening a case: 'A sight and smell to chill the heart … pungent and vinegary – never a good sign when dealing with film.' "He then spotted another box, which was filled with canisters in perfect condition. 'I uttered a silent 'thank you' to a benevolent God of film,' he said. 'As the first images appeared, I was startled by the visual quality, razor sharp with barely a scratch.' "A married Howard can be seen on the set of Animal Kingdom, flirting openly with Myrna Loy, with whom he was rumoured to have had an affair; she later said that while he was charming, she was not among his conquests. The mock romantic scenes with another leading actress, Norma Shearer, hint at further infidelities. "Hamilton said: 'You get a sense of the real human being. He's quite playful and warm in a way you don't see in his films.'" According to a blog entry on the site dedicated to "The Man Who Gave a Damn," dated April 19, 2010, "there was a scheduled TCM screening in December last year, which was mysteriously dropped as the date approached." http://lesliehoward.squarespace.com/ Whot hoppened ???

Great info, gagman66 ... Thanks mainly to that atrocious book, Hollywood Babylon, Norma Talmadge has gone down in film history as one of the casualties of sound -- because of a supposed Brooklyn "honk." But there's a clip on YouTube from a 1929 picture called A Year From Today which really doesn't seem to bear this out at all ... (It's also interesting to hear Norma singing and, at about 5:00 in, doing what she did best: eeeeemote !) HOWEVER ... You just can't talk about the great silent stars who lost their careers with the advent of sound without mentioning the sssaddessst sssstory of all -- Cecilia Sssssisssson ... YouTube clip of Cecilla Sisson: http://tinyurl.com/ca5xzme

Some interesting BYOOL / Harold Russell trivia for anyone interested ... From the obituary of Harold Russell (January 14, 1914 - January 29, 2002) in the Guardian: "Russell, who was born in Nova Scotia, but moved to Cambridge, Massachusetts, was working in a food market when Pearl Harbour was bombed. 'I made a rush to the recruiting office, not out of patriotism but because I thought of myself a failure,' he explained in his autobiography, Victory In My Hands (1949). He became a demolition expert, and it was while teaching recruits that a defective fuse detonated TNT that he was holding. After choosing steel hooks rather than plastic hands, he became so adept at using them that he featured in a US army training film, Diary Of A Sergeant, made for soldiers who had lost both hands. "Wyler saw the film and, although Russell had no lines, cast him in The Best Years of Our Lives. Russell, who was then attending business school at Boston University, got $250 a week, and $100 a week for living expenses. After the movie became a box-office hit, the producer Sam Goldwyn gave him a weekly bonus of $120 for a year, asking that he make promotional tours. On Wyler's advice, he then went back to college, 'because there wasn't much call for a guy with no hands in the motion picture industry.' "After graduating, Russell started a public relations business, but spent most of his time campaigning for the disabled, his main message being, 'It's not what you lost, but what you have left and how you use it.' He would joke that he could pick up anything with his hands except 'a dinner cheque.'" http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2002/feb/06/guardianobituaries On YouTube: "Diary of a Sergeant (1945) A Canadian-born, Boston-raised paratroop sergeant in World War II, Harold Russell lost both hands in a demolition accident and later appeared in this Army Signal Corps documentary in which he acted out the various phases of the rehabilitation process of an amputee. "Director William Wyler saw the film while preparing "The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)" and cast Russell as the film's disabled returning veteran. "For his performance in The Best Years of Our Lives, Russell won both the Academy Award as the year's Best Supporting Actor and a second, honorary Oscar 'for bringing hope and courage to his fellow veterans.' "He is the only actor ever to win two Oscars for the same role." [Though the voice-over isn't Russell, it shows in detail how he operated his hooks, as well as many other interesting details.] Per Wikipedia: "For The Best Years of Our Lives, director William Wyler asked the principal actors to purchase their own clothes, in order to connect with daily life and produce an authentic feeling. Other Wyler touches included constructing life-size sets, which went against the standard larger sets that were more suited to camera positions ... "In 1992, [Harold] Russell needed money for his wife's medical expenses. In a controversial decision, he consigned his Oscar for Best Supporting Actor to Herman Darvick Autograph Auctions, and on August 6, 1992, in New York City, the Oscar sold to a private collector for $60,500. Russell defended his action, saying, 'I don't know why anybody would be critical. My wife's health is much more important than sentimental reasons. The movie will be here, even if Oscar isn't.' The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has required all Oscar recipients since 1950 to sign an agreement forbidding them from selling their award; as a pre-1950 winner, Russell was exempt from this provision."

The scene when Homer shows his fiance what "going to bed" with him REALLY means -- removing his prosthetic arms, rendering him virtually helpless ... And she loves him so much that she watches and listens so carefully -- "I'LL do that!" ... And the look on his face -- like he can't believe ANYone would be willing to go through this ritual every night for the rest of their lives ... To me, that scene just about defines unconditional love.

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote: > > > > }{quote}Excuse me for not being precise enough, but I meant that unless Robert was there all the time, he can't possibly know what else transpired between those two when he wasn't around. I never claimed nor meant to insinuate that he was there all the time. Now, don't be silly ... there's no need for you to apologize for being imprecise ! For being rude, presumptuous and disingenuous, yes! But imprecise ? Nah ... Ya see, the FACT is that you're trying to dance around a couple of incredibly bizarre, baseless and insulting remarks you made upthread concerning Robert Osborne: > {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote: > > > > }{quote}*(1)* "Seemed to be" doesn't mean a thing...he couldn't have possibly been there ALL the time, not to mention that was a LONG time ago, and *(2)* no offense to R.O., but his memories from the set may not be as accurate as he might remember them to be. Did you know that Bob was a columnist for one of the entertainment industry's most valued daily trade journals, The Hollywood Reporter, *for 17 years* and that part of his job involved visiting movie sets and filing reports about what he observed ? So, that -- along with the simple logic that one need not be on a movie set 24/7 in order to form an opinion-- demolishes your first point. As for your second ... ? Well, try THIS on for size: No offense to YOU, kriegerg69, but your comments would probably sound less like a certain body part was badly CHAPPED if you didn't TALK out of it so often ! Again, no offense intended and none taken, I hope ... Of COURSE you have the right to post whatever you want here. But so do the rest of us, especially if you insist on posting ignorant, billious, curmudgeonly claptrap. Love ya, mean it, bye, "I've been fighting for the keylight for a hundred years so don't cross me, honey ... "

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote: > > > > }{quote}"Seemed to be" doesn't mean a thing...he couldn't have possibly been there ALL the time, not to mention that was a LONG time ago, and no offense to R.O., but his memories from the set may not be as accurate as he might remember them to be. A book about the making of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? called Bette and Joan: The Divine Feud seems to be in agreement with Robert's eyewitness account. Author Shaun Considine claims that Bette and Joan seemed to be cordial toward each other during the day but "the dueling divas called director Bill Aldrich every night after the shoot to complain about the other. " Also, Robert's intro contained no claim that he was on the Baby Jane set "ALL the time" so, no offense to you, but your memory seems to be less trustworthy than R.O.'s.

Dear, dear Joan ... People always said we could have been SISTERS ...

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}You forgot about Molarball. .....CACTUS FLOWER and THE IN-LAWS actually WERE dentist movies. > > > > > > > > > > Edited by: finance on Jul 20, 2012 2:15 PM That reminds me of a satirical piece written by Marshal Brickman for The New Yorker in 1977. It was called Who's Who In the Cast and lampooned the arcane biographical information found in too many theater programs. The pertinent excerpt: {font:Times New Roman}*ARNOLD BATFISH* (Author) spent several years as an advertising copywriter and burst upon the theatrical scene with a cathartic evening of one-acters: Spearmint, Doublemint, and Excremint, which won him both a Nudlicer and a Peavy. His dental trilogy, Drill, Fill and Rinse, Please, was hailed as the finest American dental writing in fifty years and was compared to Gogol’s The Overbite and Sophocles’ Oedipus in Pyorrhea. Mr. Batfish resides with his wife, Laura, and her wife, Leslie, at Nutmeat College, North Carolina, where he holds the Robert Goulet Chair of Dramaturgy.{font}

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote: > }{quote}Maybe we should start a thread about dentist movies. You mean like The Awful Tooth ... Hopalong Cavity ... The Drill of It All ... That's Dentertainment ? Sorry, but they're just too painful to sit through.

> {quote:title=cattrivia wrote:}{quote}i have my mothers greer garson coloring book1944 can't find any info on it 11 by 15? any body??? Does it look like this ? If so, there was one on eBay recently -- it wasn't in great shape and was priced at $3.99 but it didn't sell: http://tinyurl.com/7jlad9z

> {quote:title=musicalnovelty wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=ValeskaSuratt wrote: > > }{quote}*"Directed the first 'talkie' for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Alias Jimmy Valentine (1928)."* > > > > Isn't this the picture where the famous line "Take him for a ride !" is shouted at a telephone concealing a microphone ? > > > No, that was the 1928 Warner Bros. feature LIGHTS OF NEW YORK. > Unfortunately, ALIAS JIMMY VALENTINE appears to be lost. Thank you for the correction. Interesting that according to Wikipedia Valentine is lost but "a private collector in England is rumored to own a 35mm nitrate print."

> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote}I would hardly say Lana's career was stalling. True, she had left MGM but there were offers pouring in from other studios. She was in the process of reinventing herself, not making a comeback. > > > > > > > > > > Her motion picture career did not really go into decline until 1969 with THE BIG CUBE, which though I like it, probably was not the right project for her. In the 1970s, her output slowed considerably and she went into semi-retirement until a few television roles put her back on the map in the 1980s. > > > > > > > > > > But back in 1957, she was hardly washed up and hardly stalling. You're all over the map with your terminology. "Stalled" (the only term I used) is not synonymous with "in decline" or "washed up." As for the facts .. While her Technicolor debut in The Three Musketeers (1948) was a smash hit, Lana then took off for a two-year honeymoon with husband #3, Bob Topping. Upon returning, her 1950 "comeback picture" (so called at the time), A Life of Her Own, was a dud. Mr. Imperium, which followed in 1951, was a total bomb critically and financially. Of her subsequent films, only The Bad and the Beautiful (1952), The Merry Widow (1952), and The Sea Chase (1955, made on loan-out to WB) were hits. In contrast, Latin Lovers (1953), Flame and the Flesh (1954), Betrayed, (1954), The Prodigal (1955), The Rains of Ranchipur (1955, made on loan-out to Fox) and Diane (1956) all ranged from box-office disappointments to outright flops. In three years, she'd tried musical-comedy, costume dramas, a biblical epic, a fourth teaming with Clark Gable, and even dyed her famously blonde hair brown ... all without success. Then things got worse. It's not entirely accurate to say Lana Turner "left MGM." The fact is that MGM left HER. In February of 1956, after an 18-year association, MGM chose not to renew her contract. Had she been a bankable star, not even studio head Dory Schary's well-known disdain for MGM's "more stars than in heaven" business model could have pried her loose. As for film offers "pouring in," what's your source for this ? If she was really flooded with offers, why -- at a time when she had no income and owed MGM a large amount from loans they'd made to her -- did it take over a year after she left "home" at MGM before Turner set foot in front of the cameras again for Peyton Place ? Emily Toth's book, "Inside Peyton Place: The Life of Grace Metalious," may provide a clue: "By the time Jerry Wald was casting Peyton Place, Lana Turner and Lex Barker, who had become her fourth husband, were divorcing. *Twentieth Century-Fox fought Wald about Lana Turner and suggested Jane Wyman or Olivia de Havilland for Allison's mother.*" Maybe Fox thought her wrong for the part ... or rmaybe they thought she was, in your words, "washed up" ? Toth also reports that it had taken producer Jerry Wald several hours to convince Lana to even consider Peyton Place, so loathe was she to play the mother of a teenager. To me, it speaks volumes that a 36-year-old sex symbol would even consider such a drastic re-invention of her public image. It wasn't until Wald reminded her how his production of Mildred Pierce had resuscitated Joan Crawford's career that Turner finally agreed. Remarkably, the result was the same as for Crawford: Lana earned her first and only Oscar nomination as well as another full decade of name-above-the-title stardom. And if that ain't "making a comeback," I don't know what is. I provide all these details in order to explain why it's not merely accurate but even especially appropriate to describe Lana Turner's career just prior to Peyton Place as I did -- because when it stalled, she got out and pushed until she managed to get it started again. , Valeska

TopBilled, Thank you for shedding some light on the unsung career of Jack Conway. (I had a tinge of trepidation this was yet another "how could TCM shew movees what i don't like ???" rant before noticing you were the author.) As happens so often with a topic or personality mentioned here, I got to Googling and while it's so far resulted in a paucity of information about Conway, I did find a few tidbits of the trivia at imdb potentially revealing: ** "There is a street in Pacific Palisades named after him: Jacon Way."* Named after him, or perhaps his vastly under-rated directorial style ? It almost sounds like a buzz-phrase you'd have heard around the MGM lot in the 20s and 30s: "What way should I direct it, L.B.?" "How else, Clarence ? The Jacon Way !!" Very few auteur acolytes ever talk about the rampant and highly destructive self-indulgence so inherent in that style. An artist who squanders a patron's largesse risks only his own neck. However, from von Stroheim to Michael Cimino, auteur filmmakers have single-handedly run entire studios into the ground. That Conway cranked out hit after hit (and, in hind-sight, classic after classic) while working within the stringent confines of both MGM's bottom line AND Papa Mayer's "tastes" is as sure a sign of virtuousity as Mozart playing a flawless concerto with his back to the piano keys. ** "Starred in one of the earliest movies ever filmed in Hollywood, Her Indian Hero (1912)."* A clue to his expedience: an actor-turned-director is more likely to communicate efficiently with his cast. ** "Directed the first 'talkie' for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Alias Jimmy Valentine (1928)."* Isn't this the picture where the famous line "Take him for a ride !" is shouted at a telephone concealing a microphone ? Another of Conway's overlooked achievements: he was a technical innovator during the early days of sound. ** "His career move from acting to directing occurred after he had refused to step into a cage and wrestle a lion."* Proof that Jack Conway wasn't just a studio lackey. There WERE some things he wouldn't do ! Thanks again for the great post.

AdW, You're a breath of fresh air in a hurricane of halitosis. Malice Adams ... :^0 ! ... written by Tooth Barkington ... ?

> {quote:title=AndyM108 wrote:}{quote} > Filmgoddess, you have excellent taste in actresses.

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=ValeskaSuratt wrote:}{quote}RO's outro had some surprising facts ... like Peyton Place received NINE Oscar nominations ??? > Why is that so surprising? Well, in the first (peyton) place ... because from the instant the book was published in 1956, it was so widely panned as "filth" and "trash." (The link I posted above to a Vanity Fair article about Peyton Place author Grace Metalious graphically describes the controversy and its considerable scope.) Also because (per Wikipedia): "Peyton Place was the second-highest grossing film of 1958, although in the first few months of its release it did not do well at the box office, until a real-life tragedy gave it an unexpected boost. On April 4, 1958, star Lana Turner's daughter Cheryl killed her mother's abusive lover, mobster Johnny Stompanato and was placed in Juvenile Hall. The press coverage of the subsequent investigation boosted ticket sales by 32%, and the film eventually grossed $25,600,000 in the US." Luckily for Lana, the combination of Peyton Place and the Stompanato scandal only re-vitalized her stalled career. (Twenty years earlier it could well have killed it.) Ironically, Peyton Place turned out to be Lana's only Oscar nom. So ... considering the amount of schmutz contained in, swirling around, and even mirrored in real life by Peyton Place ... ? That the film was SO honored by the Academy -- with not just one Oscar nomination or maybe two, or even with three or four, but -- with a total of *NINE* Academy Award nominations ...? That's why it's surprising. Even when the same thing happened a year or so later -- when a virtually-unfilmable book combined with an actress' real-life tragedy, and near-death pneumonia helped propel Elizabeth Taylor's un-stalled career all the way to a Best Actress Oscar for Butterfield 8, causing co-nominee Shirley MacLaine to lament, "I lost to a tracheotomy !!" ... ? THAT was surprising, too ! Maybe not quite as surprising as Peyton Place but, hey, still ... surprising. Shirley MacLaine sounded surprised ... , Valeska Suratt (aka "She Whose Plastic Surgery Makes Her Appear Perpetually Surprised Even Though Very Little Actually Surprises Her Anymore")

> {quote:title=dpompper wrote:}{quote}I'd advise any Hepburn fan interested in her "early" films to instead try "Bringing Up Baby" and/or "The Philadelphia Story." Considering that Hepburn made her film debut in 1932, Baby (1938) and Philadelphia (1940) are not examples of Hepburn's '"early' films." In fact, they bookend the period she was considered "box-office poison." Her first film, Bill of Divorcement, is remarkable for her raw energy and -- especially when considered alongside the films of 1932's top female movie stars -- shows why Hepburn made such a splash. She's also a great Jo in Little Women (1933), her masquerade as a young boy in Sylvia Scarlett (1935) is what gave it cult status, and Stage Door (1937) is an absolute Must-See for those who enjoy sparkling repartee AND those who've ever heard Hepburn parodied with the line "The cala lillies are in bloom again ..."

RO's outro had some surprising facts ... like Peyton Place received NINE Oscar nominations ??? But even more fascinating is the story of the novel's author, Grace Metallious: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2006/03/peytonplace200603 "Overnight, Grace Metalious became wealthy, spending lavishly on stays at the Plaza and flirting with Cary Grant, her name and face splashed in newspapers across the nation. Eight years, another husband, and more than a million p*d-away dollars later, at the age of 39, she lay dying in a Boston hospital, in the company of a mysterious British lover to whom she had left her entire estate—by changing her will on her deathbed. 'Be careful what you wish for,' she told him in the hours before she died. 'You just might get it.'" Edited by: ValeskaSuratt on Jul 15, 2012 4:55 PM

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}Does anyone know who wrote the script? The writer's a guy named Christopher ****. Of his credits on imdb.com, the most familiar to me was a 1995 feature film called "The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain" starring Hugh Grant. Daily Beast has an article called " ‘Liz & Dick’: 8 Crazy Scenes from Lindsay Lohan’s Elizabeth Taylor Biopic." For those of us hoping to see a classy treatment of two of our idols, it doesn't bode well: http://tinyurl.com/7d8kv5q **** is, however, a Welshman like Richard Burton so maybe that'll help ... ? As for those trying to equate Lohan's personal problems with Taylor's, it strikes me as a pretty odious comparison. Elizabeth (who BTW hated being called "Liz") never sank to the depths Lohan has with her multiple drug convictions, jail time, DUI's, hit-and-run accidents, falling down drunk in public, etc. And though Taylor sought help much later in life, she faced her addictions very bravely and head-on, enjoying many years of uninterrupted sobriety as a result. Lohan has on occasion reportedly gone directly from rehab to her dealer's house. I also found it highly admirable that despite having guarded her privacy like a junk yard dog, Taylor went public with many intimate personal details of her addictions and recovery -- for the sole purpose of helping others. Lohan on the other hand griped about her community service and showed up in court with the f-word emblazoned on her fingernails. Whatever ... I don't mean to be bashing Lohan, and I hope "Liz and Dick" helps put her career back on track. But what I really hope is that she can finally find the strength to avoid joining the parade of Hollywood drug deaths that stretches from Olive Thomas and Wally Reid in the 1920s to Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson so recently. Here's Lohan as "Liz" with Grant Bowler as "Dick" ...

A Hollywood Reporter article claims that two film industry unions, SAG and IATSE, are investigating the Liz and Dick production for working the cast and crew such long hours that they may have exceeded union regulations and/or state labor laws: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/Lindsay-lohan-liz-dick-elizabeth-taylor-339543 On Saturday, Lohan tweeted that she'd worked 85 hours in 4 days ... no word yet on whether she succeeded in getting into character or not ...

Sepiatone, How lucky zat you actually get to SEE zis tres horrible *Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter* prior to her June 22nd release so you could raise ze battle cry ! (Eet IS safe to assume you actually SEE ze movie before trying to "drive ze stake through his heart," oui ? For eet would just be tres ABSURD to -- how you American say ? -- "judge ze boook by his title" ... n'est pas ?) If you would be so kind, please you will describe what is ze most "un-American" scenes ... ? Zis would be of beacoup help with ze drafting of zis long-overdue law -- ze "Un-American Movie Muzzling Mandate" (or UMMM .... ) Merci beaucoup for your vigilance, monsieur ! Few know better ze dangers of associating with ze vampires zan a girl like I !!

Congratulations and thank you, TCM, for a thoroughly enjoyable celebration of Judy's 90th ! I thought the comments from Garland-expert John Fricke were fascinating and illuminating, the playlist was (for the most part) excellent, and the whole tone of the day's tribute was both respectful and honest -- not an easy combination when honoring one of our more "tortured" show biz greats. The obligatory commenter's quibble: while I know it's not possible for financial reasons, I wish some of Judy's talk show interviews could have been included because they prove what so many who knew her have claimed: that Garland was as great a story-teller and raconteuse off the screen as she was a singer and actress on ... (the screen). My favorite example is her riff about Marlene Dietrich during a 1964 TV appearance with Jack Paar. Despite the cattiness and her obvious inebriation, I think it's hilarious. Not the greatest quality video, but better than nothing:

Miss Wonderly, Sorry for that formatting problem. I finally fixed my post, but that problem occurs so often when I use the "Quote Original" feature. I don't know why, I just know that I HATE IT. And thanks much for checking, but no snootiness detected. Had there been, however, the fault would have been mine for trying to concoct a little joke which only fell flatter than a shell-shocked souffle. What I was TRYING to suggest is that The Browning Version is sort of the "British reserve" version of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf ? On the surface, comparing the Taylor-Burton warfare to Richardson and Jean Kent's is like comparing WW II to a feverish game of tiddlywinks. Still, I think the two films are strikingly similar. Both explore the theme of unhappily married couples playing corrosively cruel power-games, both utilize the setting of teachers and schools, and in both the wife is an adulterous schemer and the husband an ineffectual lump. (Though yes, TBV does contain a sprinkle of Goodbye, Mr. Chips which WAVW lacks.) It seems like the main difference between the two is how the "marriage games" are played in American versus British culture. And while I've long admired WAVW, the more subtle savagery in TBV hits me much harder. I mean ... the scene in which Kent tells Richardson the "truth" about his student's gift ??? That she KNOWS she's emotionally eviscerating her husband and yet treats the information as so trivial and obvious that she smiles condescendingly while revealing it is SO devastatingly cruel it makes me squirm ! Sorry to say, I can think of no similarly affecting scene in Virginia Woolf despite all of George and Martha's ferocious mud-wrestling One of the hallmarks -- and joys -- of classic British films is seeing just how much it takes before that proverbial "stiff upper lip" starts to quaver.