Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

sagebrush522

TCM_allow
  • Content Count

    157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About sagebrush522

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. Tracy never made as much as $800,000 while under contract with MGM. He might have gone as high as $400,000 per year. Ariel
  2. You shouldn't take what you read at IMDB.com that seriously. The actors under contract to MGM never made that kind of money. Generally, the stars were making in the $200,000 to $300,000 range in the 30s, 40s and early 50s. By 1955 MGM had dumped virtually all of its contract actors. There after they were paid on a per film basis. Ariel
  3. Taylor was never paid $35,000 per week at MGM. What is your source for that? The top anyone, under contract to the studio, made was no more than $10,000 per week and usually a lot less. Ariel
  4. As a group, I am wary of all gay celebrity biographers since most of them do have an agenda. That's simply a fact. It's not homophobic to say so and I see no reason to be politically correct for your benefit. There are exceptions, of course, and I've pointed out one and I've also pointed out why he is an exception. It's not hard to figue out. It's really offensive to use shoddy research, rumor and invention to claim that virtually every actor or actress of Old Hollywood (who are all conveniently dead) was gay. Have you read any of the "biographies" by Darwin Porter? Now there's an u
  5. Yes, in his Haines book Mann said that Haines had sex with Gable and Mann tells us that Joan Crawford confirmed this which she, undoubtedly, didn't. The difference between McGilligan and Mann is a matter of intent and methods of research. McGilligan writes books about film. Mann writes books about gays. As for the rest of your post, I have no idea what your point is. Ariel
  6. I got a copy of Behind the Screen from the library and I've looked through it. I also have read Mann's biography of William Haines. I know exactly what kind of writer Mann is. He's a gay writer who spends endless pages in his books claiming that this or that actor was gay. And if they weren't gay, he describes random homosexual encounters that they have. In the Haines book he claims that William Haines had sex with Clark Gable and by sex, he doesn't mean oral sex. Apparently, in Mann's world, just having gay sex is enough if you can't pin the label of being gay on someone. Needless to s
  7. Do you believe Simcha Jacobovici produced his documentary Hollywoodism, along with his many other productions, to make himself feel better about being Jewish or was he simply trying to enlighten people? ____________________ I didn't know who Jacobovici was so looked him up. Hollywoodism "discusses how major American films in Hollywood were influenced by the Eastern European Jewish culture that most of the major movie moguls, who controlled the studios, shared. Through clips of various films, the filmmakers illustrate the dominant themes like that of the outsider, the outspoken American
  8. I'm not normally one to drag things out, and I think I've gone off on a rant here, but richardny4me reminded me of a point I don't think I made that I probably should. I think anyone these days should take offense to a comment that "all gay biographers....come to their subjects with a gay agenda which means they tend to ignore...real research or providing sources for their opinions." This suggests a person's sexuality determines whether or not they are capable historians, which is an outrageous accusation. To me, that also implies gay filmmakers should be avoided because they come to their sub
  9. As you know, we were talking about books about films not about the films themselves. Do you always have so much trouble staying on topic? The original poster said "I'm looking for some books that have biographies of the movie stars of the 40's and 50's. I don't want the fluff, but the actual lives they lived." Why recommend to that person trash like Hollywood Babylon? I haven't read Higham's book on Flynn but I'm willing to bet that Higham didn't do much of a job relating the story. It's was well reported in the newspapers. Did you compare Higham's account to the newspaper accoun
  10. "Mann doesn't cite Hollywood Babylon at all in Behind the Screen. He does cite Turner Entertainment, Kevin Brownlow and James Curtis, whom you approve of, among others (unfortunately, Higham's Kate is one of them)." You're right. Mann cites Hollywood Babylon I AND II in his book about William Haines but not Behind the Screen. However, I think that you can appreciate that anyone who cites such a book in any of his own books, is not in any sense credible. "I'm not trying to stand up for the book, and I am well aware of the problems in referencing other suspect books, but I come from
  11. To begin with, you are making a common mistake which is assuming that if something is sourced to another book, it's fact. How do you know that the other book got it right? What is that other book? As I recall, Mann cites Hollywood Babylon a lot? Do you figure that what's in that book was properly documented? I can assure you it wasn't. I think people have been reading this garbage for so long that they forget, or never knew, what a properly documented biography is. Among the things that are not proper documentation are oral histories that weren't recorded (preferably tape recorded) and
  12. Mann is a great one for using 'pseudo' sources. They look like legitimate sources but they are mostly 'he said/she said' statements that no one can corroberate. Have you read his book about William Haines? Some of it comes from actual newspaper articles but then he 'quotes' articles that it turns out don't exist. For instance, in the book he claims that in a L A Times gossip column Carole Lombard was quoted saying something about the sexuality of a male actor. I knew that those kinds of statements weren't published in newspapers (or anywhere else) in Lombard's day and I have access to the
  13. Don't know who you're interested in but I've read two excellent books lately, Dietrich by Ean Wood, and Behind the Screen - How Gay and Lesbians Shaped Hollywood 1910-1969 by William J. Mann, that represents fascinating reading, particularly Mann's work that highlights what really went on behind the Hollywood of the Golden Age, with much detail about the 1930s and 1940s--figures like Mitchell Leisen and Laird Cregar. Goldwyn by A. Scott Berg is a virtual history of Hollywood and a very enlightening glimpse into one of the giants of the period. There's so many of them but, as you allude to, the
  14. >>It's appropriate to say here that the star designation, by AFI or anyone else, has more to do with the ability of the presumed classic star to flog magazines,or column-inches or some such than it does with films and their making.<< Comparing actors is pointless. However, I would like to point out that one thing Kate Hepburn didn't do during her long film career was "flog magazines, or column inches". Quite the contrary, she was very well known for refusing to cooperate with the press. Ariel
  15. No, but when did that ever stop the AFI? They've been **** their award and 'best' lists for years. Ariel
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...