d120421

Hi Feaito: I own a copy of HOLLYWOOD DIVA and I agree it's an excellent read. I wrote to Professor Baron Turk to tell him how much I enjoyed it and he sent me a very gracious reply. On the other hand, I didn't care for Sharon Rich's SWEETHEARTS very much. The style was so overwrought and melodramatic I thought I was reading a Harlequin Romance or a lost Bronte sisters novel and some of her claims struck me as too fantastic to be true. I also liked THE FILMS OF MACDONALD AND EDDY, though I don't own a copy of it. I generally like the Citadel Press book series.

I like the '36 ROSE MARIE with MacDonald & Eddy better than the remake, too. Even though Howard Keel is one of my favorites and Ann Blyth was a lovely lady with a lovely lyric soprano, the remake just doesn't work as well, even with Bert Lahr and Marjorie Main as comic support. Blyth's French accent is a little hard to take, so that's probably part of the problem, and comedically speaking, she was no Jeanette MacDonald, or Deanna Durbin for that matter, also the remake doesn't have as much humor in it as the '36 Mac/Eddy version. I've seen THE FIREFLY, but not for some time. I didn't dislike it, but to tell the truth, it didn't make much of an impression on me. Allan Jones gets the best song, though, the jaunty "Donkey Serenade." Has anyone read the two books on Jeanette: SWEETHEARTS by Sharon Rich (on Jeanette and Nelson's allegedly tumultuous personal relationship) and HOLLYWOOD DIVA by Professor Edward Baron Turk (a straight biography of Jeanette). What did you think of them?

The Paramount period of her career with Chevalier, and directed by Lubitsch, Mamoulian, et. al. is actually my favorite part of Jeanette's career, though I do like her early MGM films as well. What do people think of Nelson Eddy? As usual, in threads allegedly deveoted to the duo, he seems to pretty much get the cinematic shaft from fans who focus almost exclusively on Jeanette. This is one reason that ROSE MARIE is my favorite of their films: because it provides some nice comedic/dramatic moments for him and, though he doesn't handle them with the finesse Jeanette does at her best, he's very likable in the film and gives the impression that he doesn't take it all too seriously.

Hi Ktrek: I haven't heard anything about a MacDonald/Eddy box set, but I do enjoy their films. I generally prefer their earlier ones, and my favorite is probably ROSE MARIE (1936). It's a shame it's only known even to most film buffs for "The Indian Love Call." It's actually a very well-made film with many nice comedic touches, well played by Jeanette particularly, which demonstrate that neither of the stars took the more absurd conventions of operetta too seriously and knew how to "kid" the genre without sacrificing its' genuinely dramatic and romantic moments. Actually, although it's generally cited as their poorest film, I also enjoy Jeanette and Binnie Barnes's spirited performance of the delightful "With a Twinkle in My Eye" from I MARRIED AN ANGEL (1942). Jeanette even cuts a mean rug jitterbugging with Barnes during the song...and in that floor length evening gown. It's a wonder she didn't break her leg..or both legs! The film also provides Jeanette with some fine comedic moments as the "too honest" earthbound angel and (later) her "Bad Brigitta" counterpart when she slinks back into the Banker's Banquet clad in a black lame gown and starts lying with great panache to Rodgers and Hart rhyming couplets yet!

Alexander's Ragtime Band is another of Merman's best musical films and it's out on DVD. I'd never have pictured Ethel and Tyronne Power as a romantic couple, but she does a good acting job of playing his band vocalist with an unreciprocated crush on him. She also gets to sing some great Irving Berlin songs, as does another one of my favorite musical actresses...Alice Faye. Well worth checking out if you haven't seen it already.

It's HIGH SOCIETY (1956), the musical remake of THE PHILADELPHIA STORY (1940) starring Grace Kelly, Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Celeste Holm and Louis Armstrong. The score was by Cole Porter, and it was the last movie Grace Kelly made before retiring as Princess Grace.

Hi CC: I agree that Judy's early characters tended to well up pretty quickly. In fact, it seems to me that most of her characters got pretty teary fairly easily. For example, in SUMMER STOCK even a wrecked tractor sets her off. I also agree that she played this sort of role beautifully for the most part, though I often wanted her to tell Rooney's characters (especially) off much more quickly and much more often than she usually did. It's probably not surprising if she came to think of herself as a victim and/or helpless in real life since she played this type of role so often. I love "A Twinkle in My Eye"! It's my favorite number from I MARRIED AN ANGEL too, and Jeanette does a terrific jittterbug, especially considering that floor length dress she was wearing! It's often cited as the worst of the Mac/Eddy movies, and I gues in many ways it was, though it wasn't entirely their fault. The play had been pretty racy on Broadway (an angel loses her virginity and her wings when she falls in love with a mortal) so the invariable compromises had to be made to satisfy the Production Code (and stodgy MGM, the most conservative of movie studios) when it was adapted to the screen. But I love the "Tiwinkle in My Eye" number and the scene that follows it (when Jeanette appears as the glamorous, sophisticated black-sequined "Bad Brigitta" speaking in Rodgers & Hart couplets), because it recalls the more overtly sexy and sophisticated roles she played at Paramount before she signed with MGM and was teamed with Nelson Eddy. I think she was a pretty good commedienne when she had the right material. You're right. I could see Deanna playing (and singing) Jeanette's role marvelously. She was a very deft little commedienne herself. Her films are generally much more sophisticated than Judy's and have heavy screwball comedy influences, particularly in the casting (e.g., Alice Brady, Eugene Pallette, Mischa Auer, etc.) and the settings (e.g., urban, New York, Art Decco), and she delivers that sophisticated dialogue as well as any actress I've ever seen (or heard, as the case may be) with a wonderful energy and spontaneity. For her third film, MAD ABOUT MUSIC, on astute critic noted: "Little Miss Durbin seems almost too good to be true. Now she has added a sparkling comic technique to her other talents and some of her scenes are as sure in their sense of comedy as any of those played by Irene Dunne or Carole Lombard." As for the natutralness of Deanna's and Judy's singing, I couldn't agree more. I think that was one reason they were able to be so convincing/successful in those "singing teenager" roles: because their voices were so natural and their singing styles so artless. They really were in a class by themselves!

Hi Harlow1085: It's actually not too surprising that Deanna was Anne Frank's favorite star. She was wildly popular in Europe. From 1939-1942 inclusive, she was the top female box office star in Britain. In fact, she was so popular that in 1942, they held a week-long "Deanna Durbin Film Festival" ("From the child of our hearts to the woman we love!") in which her films were shown exclusively on the Odeon Theater Circuit throughout Britain: an honor that's never been repeated for any other star, and she retains great popularity in Britain to this day. Over the past three decaes, the BBC has stated that it receives overwhelmingly more requests from the public for her films and her recordings than it does for any other star of Hollywood's Golden Age. According to novelist Eric Ambler, Winston Churchill used to run 100 MEN AND A GIRL to celebrate British victories during World War II. He thought Deanna was a "formidible" and "remarkable" talent. I must say, I think he had good taste! Of course, because she became such an iconic presence, especially here in America and suffered such a prolonged and public personal decline over several decades (and because Deanna has made clear to interested film historians that she isn't interested in having a biography written on her), there are many books written on Judy, though most, unfortunately, focus much more heavily on her personal problems than on her professional achievements. John Fricke's recent excellent books on her career have attempted to re-direct the focus to her professional legacy, but I don't think they'll ever be able to completely separate Judy's personal problems from her work, especially as her problems began to impact her performances and appearance as early as the mid-1940s. For me it doesn't make her talent any less remarkable and it (usually) doesn't prevent me from enjoying her films and recordings, but there are exceptions, such as some scenes in A STAR IS BORN where she looks so puffy and haggard that it's hard to look at her. Not surprisingly, I've seen several articles on Judy in which the authors, as admiring as they are of her later work and mature talent, openly state their preference for her earliest work, before her personal problems began to manifest themselves onscreen (or on disc, as the case may be). To be fair, I think this is also true of Deanna's later work, though to a much lesser extent. As one critic observed, in a few of her final films although her "natural and effervescent quality remains as attractive as ever, one can sometimes sense her impatience with the inadequate material she was given to work with." Still, there's no doubt that whatever pressures Deanna Durbin in her career, and I think, professionally speaking, they were often greater than those Judy experienced at MGM, Deanna handled those pressures much better than Judy did. As a fan, I'd certainly enjoy reading a well-done biography of Deanna,though I respect her right to privacy and can understand why she wouldn't want a biography done (because it would destroy the privacy she's worked so hard to maintain). Still, for such a detrminedly private former celebrity there's a good deal of commentary on her career and the impact she had on popular culture. From sociological analyses of the impact her independent screen image had on contemporary adolescents, to references to her in Cole Porter's lyrics, the writings of John Updike and those of other authors and references to her in analyses of the infamous 'Black Dahlia Murder" (she was a favorite star of the victim, Elizabeth Short), it's clear Deanna exerted a major impact on popular culture, and I'm always surprised to find how often commentary on her turns up in unexpected places. If you are interested in finding out more about Deanna, I do have a Group on Yahoo! you might be interested in. It's called DISSERTATIONS ON DEANNA and is dedicated to discussing her career and those of the performers, such as Judy, Jane Powell, Kathryn Grayson and others, whose careers were greatly influenced by her success. Pre-approval is required for membership and includes a requirement that you agree to abide by the terms of a Group Statement outlining the rules for membership, but here's the address if you'd like to check it out: http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/dissertationsondeanna/

Hi harlow1085: I've read that Deanna was Anne Frank's favorite movie star, about the pictures of her on the wall of the Secret Annex. I think there were two of them? In fact, in the documentary ANNE FRANK REMEMBERED (which I think won an Oscar), one of Anne's childhood friends re-visits Anne's room at the Secret Annex and recalls how the two of them used to collect celebrity memorabilia. The friend recalled that Anne was more interested in collecting "movie star" memorabilia while the friend was more interested in royalty. But she then goes over to one of the pictures of Deanna and says something like: "But this is the one I remember: Deanna Durbin." Did you know that Deanna was also Prime Minister Winston Churchill's favorite movie star? That Josef Stalin retained a special translator to translate the dialogue of her movies into Russian while he watched them? That she reportedly sang at several of Franklin Roosevelt's birthday parties by special request? and that Italian Dictator Benito Mussolini wrote her an open fan letter asking her to intercede with FDR on behalf of American Youth to dissuade him from bringing America into World War II? I've read that Deanna isn't interested in having a biography done of her life or in writing her memoirs, but she'd certainly have a fascinating story to tell if she ever decided to do so! That's interesting that you've only seen a few of Judy's movies, given how readily available they've been on VHS and are becoming on DVD, not to mention how frequently they're shown on TCM. Besides OZ, which of her films have you seen and what did you think of them?

Hi CC: I agree. It's a very tough choice. I like them both for different reasons. I generally think Deanna's best "comedies with music" were better films than Judy's early pre-OZ musicals and her teamings with Mickey Rooney. Not that I don't enjoy the ANDY HARDY and BABES films,or the others, but they're often very...preachy is the word I'm looking for, I guess, and overtly sentimental. Deanna's films are somewhat sentimental too, but they're generally more sophisticated, faster and better paced, and they take themselves much less seriously. Deanna was so good at projecting that feisty and impulsive "Little Miss Fixit" personality, I can see why she became such a worldwide favorite so quickly, and her voice is so pure and natural, it seems like a perfect compliment to that spontaneous personality she projects. Amazing that she makes all this seem so natural and effortless with a classically-trained soprano. You're right. It's very different from the more stylized and formal stylings of most of the movie sopranos. On the other hand, Judy's best MGM musicals, such as THE WIZARD OF OZ, MEET ME IN ST LOUIS, and EASTER PARADE are some of the best, and best-loved films in the musical genre and I do think they're wonderful showcases for her talent and the talents of gifted co-stars like Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire. Although I find Judy's "Girl No One Whistled At" roles somewhat ungrateful, I do think she does about as much with them as anyone could and she's often wonderfully appealing in them. In fact, in her films with Mickey Rooney, where she almost always had this sort of part, I wonder why her roles are usually so subordinate to his? I guess his manic energy matched the country's mood at that time. Anyway, of their joint teamings, GIRL CRAZY is my favorite, in part because Judy's now "the belle of the (Western) ball" and sparking Mickey's interest, even if they STILL manage to give her a standard "nobody loves me" torch song spot ("But Not For Me") to sing at one point.

Deanna Durbin and Judy Garland were among the most popular and successful stars of Hollywood's Golden Age, and each made a valuable contribution to cinematic history. As popular culture's first "Teen Idol" and the first child star to make the difficult transition to adult actress without losing her popularity, Deanna Durbin, who became an instant superstar with her debut performance in Three Smart Girls, not only was publicly credited with singlehandedly saving her financially ailing studio (Universal) from bankruptcy, but, with her natural and spontaneous acting style and pure, rich lyric soprano voice, introduced millions to the joys of singing and classical music. After a somewhat uncertain start, Judy Garland became one of MGM's biggest stars. Like Durbin, Garland also made the transition to adult performer with ease and, in so doing, appeared in some of the best film musicals of all time, including Meet Me in St Louis and Easter Parade. Following her departure from MGM, and, as one of MGM's most popular stars, her film successes helped pave the way for the Freed Unit's musical triumphs in the 1950s even though she had left the studio by then. Although both were unsurpassed at portraying the "Musical Girl Next Door" there were differences in their screen images/personas which went beyond their seemingly disparate singing styles. Although classical singing is often considered more formal and stylized, Deanna proved herself unsurpassed, in both singing and acting, at embodying the feisty, impulsive, independent "Little Miss Fixit" image Universal crafted for her, and although Judy was tagged in her very first MGM feature film performance in Broadway Melody of 1938 as "The Last of the Red Hot Mamas" by co-star Sophie Tucker, her star-making image was far more co-dependent and passive than Deanna's more self-reliant characters. So, which one, if either, do you prefer, and why? Please refrain, if possible from making disparaging comments about either of them. This is not intended to be a "contest." Both were remarkably talented and charismatic performers who made significant contributions to popular cuture, and both have retained popularity in the decades since they left their respective studios, so there's plenty of credit to go around for both.

Judy Garland in THE PIRATE does a first class faint (throws her neck back and falls forward) after "Mack The Black" (Gene Kelly) leaves her room. "Macoco!"...THUD. A real classic! I also seem to recall June Allyson fainting more than once in TWO SISTERS FROM BOSTON...Too bad it wasn't by an open window. (Not much of an Allyson fan.) I think there's a scene in THE GAZEBO where Debbie Reynolds runs into a room after hearing a gunshot and sees husband Glenn Ford lying on the floor. (I can't recall if he fainted but he is unconcious). Thinking he's dead, Reynolds faints on top of him.

Deanna Durbin In her feature film debut in what was envisioned originally as a minor "B" film Three Smart Girls, her work proved to be so impressive that after looking at the first few days' rushes financially strapped Universal decided to build the film into a star vehicle for her. Launching Durbin as "Universal's New Discovery" was successful beyond the studio's wildest dreams. Not only was the film a huge box office hit, but it scored an Oscar nomination for Best Picture, and when her succeeding vehicles did even better, Durbin was credited with singlehandedly saving Universal from bankruptcy. In so doing, she not only became one of the highest paid people in the world, but, as popular culture's first "Teen Idol," she proved that an adolescent could be a major box office draw and film favorite, thus prompting rival studios to develop other adolescent performers into stars such as Judy Garland, Mickey Rooney, Bonita Granville, Jane Withers and Edith Fellows, not to mention a cadre of "Teen Sopranos" including Gloria Jean, Betty Jaynes, Kathryn Grayson, Susanna Foster, Jane Powell and Ann Blyth. Doris Day Signed at the last minute by Warner Bros. for the lead in a routine musical, ROMANCE ON THE HIGH SEAS, when first choices Betty Hutton (who was pregnant) and Judy Garland (whose studio wouldn't loan her out), Day not only became Warner Bros. biggest star within a few years, but, by the early 1960s, the biggest box office draw in the country for several years in a row, and the most successful film star of those who attained stardom immediately after World War II; Audrey Hepburn Roman Holiday wasn't Hepburn's first film appearance, but it was her first important film role. Signed by Wiliam Wyler for a film project that was originally to top-star Gregory Peck, Hepburn's star quality was so apparent when he viewed the film's daily rushes that Peck insisted that Hepburn be given co-star billing. Peck later modestly refused credit for doing so, claiming that he was just protecting himself. He reasoned that Hepburn's star quality was so apparent that he was sure she'd become a star, win a Best Actress Oscar (which she did) and, if she'd only received supporting onscreen credit, he'd look like a total idiot. Judy Garland After making her feature film debut in a supporting role in the enjoyable 1936 Fox "B" musical Pigskin Parade, Garland was given a similar supporting role in MGM's big budget Broadway Melody of 1938, where her performance of "Dear Mr. Gable" launched her on a film career in which she ultimately became one of MGM's most successful and beloved stars. Wendy Hiller This 25 year-old stage actress was personally selected by playwright George Bernard Shaw and star Leslie Howard to portray "Eliza Doolittle" in the 1938 film adaptation of Pygmalion. Although she continued to favor the stage over the screen, Hiller went on to give several classic screen performances in films like Major Barbara, I Know Where I'm Going and Separate Tables for which she won the Best Supportomg Actress Oscar. Irene Dunne Signed by RKO following her successful stage appearances in touring company productions of Irene and Show Boat, in her second film appearance in the lavish Western Cimmaron she not only became a star but scored the first of five Oscar nominations for Best Actress.

I don't know what Turner thought of Garland after Judy's passing,but I recall reading a comment from producer Joe Pasternak (I think) about their years at MGM that went something like this: [Judy] used to think of herself as a little homely girl compared to all the beautiful girls at MGM like Lana Turner, Ann Rutherford and Elzabeth Taylor, and it never occurred to her that they might be envious of her. One day Lana turned to her and said, "I'd give all the beauty I have for your talent. The expression on your face, your singing." I can easily understand why Judy might be jealous of Lana. Although Lana was only two years older than Judy, her image was always, even from her earliest most "G" rated films, that of a beautiful, sexy, voluptuous and desireable "babe," while Judy's was that of the good-hearted, loyal "Girl that No One Whistled At" (as one Garland commentator put it. The same was true, apparently, offscreen. Reportedly while Lana's entrance on a movie set would incite wolf whistles and applause from male crew members, Judy's entrance would inspire cheerful calls of "Hiya, Judy!" I find it interesting that Lana Turner was Judy Garland's physical ideal of "beauty." Not that Lana wasn't a beautiful girl, but there were others (e.g., Gene Tierney, Ingrid Bergman, Ava Gardner, etc.) whose beauty was generally considered more extraordinary/exotic than Lana's "all A,merican curvaceous Hollywood cutie" blonde looks. I suspect that Judy's admiration/eny of Turner went beyond mere "looks" to the sexy, provocative, physically desireable image that Turner projected on and offscreen. It was the type of sophisticated image/lifestyle to which Judy (and most other "Girl Next Door" actresses) eagerly aspired, and Judy apparently made no secret of that fact. From what I've read about Judy, I also get the impression that she tended to define herself primarily as a "performer" first, and a "person" second. She seemed to be constantly trying to dissasociate herself from "Frances Ethel Gumm" (her real name) and to give primacy to "Judy Garland" (her stage name/image) and that must have created a great many problems for her.

Deanna Durbin had a dazzling smile that lit up the screen. She also had very sparkling, candid eyes. As one person noted, "She smiled with her eyes!" I also really like Judy Garland's smile, and Irene Dunne's, Margaret Sullavan's and Audrey Hepburn's.

I don't think anyone has mentioned MAUREEN O'HARA yet, filmdom's most beautiful "Irish Rose." I think she would definitely qualify for this list. (And shame on me for not mentioning her in my earlier post, but I mistakenly thought I'd seen her name among the previous nominees.)

Interesting topic. I guess I'd go with the obvious matronly/hoydenish choices like Marie Dressler, Marjorie Main, Elsa Lanchester, Dame May Whitty, Connie Gilchrist, Thelma Ritter, etc. Not that they weren't wonderfully talented actress/personalities but "sexy" is not an adjective that leaps to mind when their names are mentioned. Interestingly, I was in a bookstore a while back thumbing through some old TIME magazines from the late 1940s (I think) and there had been some poll taken and Judy Garland was judged to have the "least sexy head" in Hollywood. I thought that was very strange. Personally, I never saw anything wrong with Judy's head, at least not before her personal problems began to effect her looks.

Great choices all! I would add: Deanna Durbin Irene Dunne Gene Tierney Eleanor Parker Joan Greenwood Merle Oberon Jeanne Crain Olvia de Havilland

I always liked Sterling Hayden too. He was also excellent in THE ASPHALT JUNGLE, one of my favorite film noirs. He also had a great comment on working with Joan Crawford in JOHNNY GUITAR that always makes me laugh: "There isn't money enough in the world to make me ever make another picture with Joan Crawford...and I like money."

In SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE, Meg Ryan and Rosie O'Donnell are seen watching (and mouthing the lines to) AN AFFAIR TO REMEMBER.

Hi Lux (and Everyone Else): Apologies for getting back to you late on this one, but I've been out of town for a few days. I wouldn't bother to respond to your post at all, but your latest post in particular seems to be predicated on some genuine misconceptions and misrepresentations of my comments on this thread and, in the interest of "clearing the air," I submit the following good-natured "rebuttal": First of all, my apologies if what I viewed as my good-natured analysis of THE WIZARD OF OZ upset, hurt or offended you, or anyone else. I certainly did not intend my comments to have that sort of an emotional response from anyone, including you. Unfortunately, it can often be quite difficult to discern the nature of a commentary on the printed page, but I give you my word, I did not intend any disrespect to THE WIZARD OF OZ, which I also stated in a previous post "is a classic film and deservedly so," in making them, nor do I see anything in them that is, either by language or implication, disrespectful, unkind or hostile toward the film, your opinions or the opinions of anyone else on this forum. As far as your implication that my comments may not have been "tongue-in-cheek," or may have been "tongue-in-cheek" largely in a negative, acerbic and hostile context, I belive that the full Webster's 3rd definition of the phrase, tongue-in-cheek", which you have inadvertently mis-cited is: "characterized by insincerity, irony, OR whimsical exaggeration." In other words, it's not "and with," which would serve to join the first two terms with the third as one definition, but "or": three separate, individual meanings, each intended to convey a distinct and disparate facet of the phrase. To make my intentions clear, I intended my comments concerning the motiations/natures/legal implications inherent in THE WIZARD OF OZ as the latter ("whimsical exaggeration"), and nothing more, and, despite your heartfelt rebuttal, I stand by that appraisal. As I noted in an earlier post, I love the movie myself and certainly can appreciate its' virtues. I own copies of it on both VHS and DVD, and am able to quote passages from memory (I don't think I've watched it for at least five years) pretty much verbatim (e.g., I'm pretty sure I got the lyrics for "We're Off To See The Wizard" correct in response to a good-natured challenge by an earlier commentator on this thread while another poster, though making a valid attempt, did not). As far as my reference to my awareness that my admiration for the Witch of the West may "creep some people out," I see no reason why my open acknowledgement that some people may not view her character in the more admirable/less fearsome light I do should detract from my tongue-in-cheek appraisal of her. Clearly she's intended to be the primary, if not sole, villain of the piece, and my comments were intended to indicate that, if one takes the time to look at the film and her role in it (which lasts a scant 12 minutes of screen time, including the scenes of her "Miss Gulch" incarnation), she wasn't as bad as she's made out to be. I guess I'm missing your point here, but it strikes me as very much in the venue of "tongue-in-cheek" commentary. What I do believe can be treated somewhat seriously are the many plotholes and inconsistencies inherent in the script. In making my comments on the film, I have made a genuinely sincere effort to stick to the script as presented onscreen in the released film without making what I consider the "leaps of faith" reasoning you and some other contributors to this thread have done, such as averring that Miss Gulch was killed in the cyclone (there's no indication, other than the tenuous one of the Witch of the West's demise, in the film that she was), nor that she forged the sheriff's order simply to get her hands on Toto so she could pedal off with him and destroy him herself (as you've noted, there's no indication of this either) and my pointing out the many liabilities Miss Gulch would subject herself to had she done so was simply intended to illustrate the fallacy of such an argument. Your defense of Toto's and Dorothy's actions while on Miss Gulch's property and villification of her for defending it provide a viable illustration of the point I'm trying to make. Because the script almost certainly intends us to empathize with Dorothy and villify Miss Gulch for their respective attitudes toward Toto's behavior on her property, you and others seem to take it for granted that Dorothy is "good" (because she didn't mean any real harm in continually trespassing on Miss Gulch's property) and Miss Gulch is "evil" (because she goes after Toto for doing so and biting her). The film may succeed in doing so emotionally, but the script also spends a good deal of time to indicate that Dorothy was at fault and that Miss Gulch has every reason to feel not only put out, but furious over Toto's behavior. For instance, as the script makes plain, Toto's rummaging through Miss Gulch's garden and/or chasing her cat is not an isolated event, as you indicate it was, but one that occurs with alarming regularity. Dorothy herself acknowledges this when she states that Toto does this "once or twice a week" rather than "every day," and that she (Dorothy) "let him (Toto) go in her (Miss Gulch's) garden." In other words, it's a pattern of behavior that Miss Gulch has had to put up with for some time, so doesn't she have every right to insist that it be stopped, especially as it's undeniable (once again, according to the script) that Toto BIT her? Whether the bite "hurt" or not is immaterial. Aside from the fact that there are indeed "laws protecting folks against dogs that bite," whatever her general demeanor, Miss Gulch certainly can't be accused of encouraging Dorothy and Toto's presence on her property. The script leads us to believe that Miss Gulch has made it clear on prior occasions that she doesn't want them there and Dorothy has ignored her warnings, so Miss Gulch certainly has a right to seek legal redress for their continued unwelcome presence on her land. Hunk is right in his appraisal of Dorothy's situation: if she DIDN'T go by Miss Gulch's place, Toto WOULDN'T get into her garden and she (Dorothy) wouldn't get into any trouble. My apologies for going on at length about this issue, but in doing so I am simply attempting to illustrate, once again, my previous point that while WOZ is a wonderful movie, it is a far from "perfect", and, in many respects, potentially very flawed movie. That doesn't mean it can't be enjoyed, admired or even beloved for what it does right (the musical fantasy, committed performance elements, etc.) but it can be argued that it does not bear close or even casual scrutiny as a well-constructed, well-reasoned storyline. In attempting to create an enchanting musical fantasy (an ambition on which, I think, it does succeed quite admirably overall), it leaves mamy basic and important issues unanswered, including why the Gales don't go to the Sheriff's office to plead Toto's case and Toto's ultimate fate, why, if the "Wicked Witch of the West" is so wicked she doesn't just kill off Dorothy's travelling companions (and, if she could do so, Dorothy) long before she attempts to, etc. or glosses over others, such as why Glinda doesn't tell Dorothy at the beginning that the ruby slippers could take her home. Of course, as adults we can see that, for example, if Glinda had told Dorothy she could get home right away, or the Wicked Witch had eliminated Dorothy and the others as soon as they got beyong the borders of Munchkinland, etc. there would have been no movie, or certainly not much of one, but the manner in which the film attempts to resolve these issues is both piecemeal and "convenient" in my opinion, and doesn't bear close examination. If you re-read my first post to this thread you will note that my initial impetus for participating in it was to raise the fact that Toto's fate is never adequately (or even remotely) addressed in the movie, a fact which upset me very much as a child and still bothers me to this day, and with all due respect to the vehemence with which you and others have asserted that we're intended to believe that Miss Gulch was killed in the cyclone and all's right with the world, I (good-naturedly) challenge you or anyone else to cite a point in the film where the script resolves this issue in any definitive maner. On the issue you raise of its' being implied that Miss Gulch is deceased because her Oz counterpart, the Witch of the West is, I submit to you that, since the script fails to address this issue in any conclusory manner, isn't it just as reasonable, if not more so, to conclude that Miss Gulch is alive and well? The film indicates that Dorothy's Oz journey is a dream sequence inspired by Dorothy's being knocked out by a flying windowpane. I see nothing in the film which indicates it should be considered anything but that and nothing which proves Miss Gulch is deceased because Dorothy imagined her Oz counterpart was. Unlike the three farmhands who were not only close to Dorothy but work/reside on the Gale farm and had taken shelter in the storm cellar when the cyclone hit, Miss Gulch, who is not friendly with the Gales and neither worked at nor resided at their farm, would have no reason to be present at Dorothy's bedside other than her desire to re-claim the dog, but her absence certainly should not be considered conclusory evidence that she's gone to the Great Beyond, and, particularly as a child watching the film, wouldn't it be just as reasonable for myself or other children to conclude that she's still alive based on the "evidence" provided onscreen? Whether one is able to concede this point (that Miss Gulch is still alive to re-claim Toto) from viewing the film I think one can see OZ very much as a "coming of age" tale, and not simply "a sweet fable about getting home." Indeed, for those like yourself who believe that Glinda was justified in keeping from Dorothy the fact that the ruby slippers could take her home when she first landed in Oz, I think it's hard to see Dorothy's sojourn in Oz as anything but a "coming of age" tale. In its' establishing Kansas scenes, the film goes to some length to paint Dorothy as a (mildly) disaffected adolescent who's seeking "some place where there isn't any trouble," and subsequently hits the road in search of it because she feels none of the adults at "home," including the three farmhands, listen to or understand her. (Just to make sure we don't miss this point simply by watching Dorothy's story unfold, the script has Prof. Marvel mouth Dorothy's plaint when he's trying to divine her background, i.e., "You're running away...They don't understand you at home. You want to see new lands, etc.") Then via her "dream" Dorothy gets her "wish" by being transported to Oz. While, as Dorothy soon discovers, even Oz is far from a care-free paradise, by the film's conclusion it can be argued that, however inadvertently, through her intervention/participation it has become so. Not only has she eliminated the two most (allegedly) "evil/wicked" influences (the Witches of the East and West) leaving only the allegedly "Good" Witches of the North and South to influence Oz's affairs, but she's managed to expose the charlatan isolationist "Wizard" as a good-natured (and departing) "Humbug" and to install in his place a benevolent public ruling Triumvirate (Scarecrow, Tinman, Cowardly Lion) as the primary governmental force in the land. But how has Dorothy accomplished this? Through her sojourn from Munchkinland to Oz: a quest she's reluctant to undertake initially but is compelled to do so because, according to Glinda, only the Wizard of Oz can send her home and Dorothy must ask him for help in person. In other words in Oz, Dorothy can't just run away from her problems, she must confront them, as well as her doubts, fears, etc. if she's going to get home. Viewed in this context, Dorothy's Oz journey is not only partially, but PRIMARILY about forsaking "the charmed existence of the child for the responsibilities of the adult." Nevertheless, afraid that we won't get the "message" through the actions of Dorothy et. al. alone, Dorothy's final scene in Oz contains a good deal of moralizing to re-emphasize this point and make it clear to viewers. By her final scene in Oz, Dorothy now has her perfect utopia, but she STILL wants to go home. She gets her "wish" here too, but not before being required to acknowledge to Glinda, et. al. that "Home" will never be the "place without trouble" she was seeking: "I think it wasn't enough just to want to see Uncle Henry and Auntie Em again, and if I ever go looking for my heart's desire again, I won't go any further than my own backyard. Because, if it isn't there, I never really had it to begin with." Based on the storyline and the dialogue, it seems to me that if we're going to give the film any validity at all, we must accept that the Dorothy who wakes up from her Oz dream is a changed kid who has learned to both accept and appreciate the realities, both good and bad, of the hardscrabble life on the ramashackle Kansas farm she shares with Uncle and Aunt, even when, as in this case, one of those "realities" concerns an angry neighbor who wants to have her dog euthanized. Of course, I realize you don't agree with this intepreation, but it strikes me as a more than valid, and in the script, pervasive, theme just the same. The whole point of Dorothy's "lesson" which she states just before clicking her heels together and blowing Oz off, seems to be that she has learned that a land "where there isn't any trouble" is very much a fantasy and "Home," i.e,,"reality" is what we make of it, warts and all. As for such "coming of age" stories being done in a "more realistic and conventional vein," while I don't for a moment claim that they are to be considered on the same level as WOZ artistically, to cite just three examples, how dissimilar were the basic themes of such oft-screened seasonsal favorites as RUDOLPH THE RED-NOSED REINDEER (the yearling Rudolph runs away from home after being shunned/teased by his contemporaries, but the adult returns when he grows up and realizes you can't run away from your troubles"), HERE COMES PETER COTTONTAIL (the perpetually prevaricating Peter Cottontail almost loses he appointment as the new Easter Bunny to the "villainous" Iron Tail because he lies his way out of everything. Only when he's forced to go on a quest back in time to correct his mistakes with Truth, Courage, Loyalty, etc. does he get his "reward") and THE LITTLE DRUMMER BOY (following the murder of his parents by desert vandals, the Drummer Boy Aaron hates all mankind until a personal odyssey to seek out the newborn Christ child gives him a new, more humane outlook). Although OZ is a greater work of art than these seasonal cartoons, the themes that all of them espouse (e.g., courage, heart, friendship,etc.), particularly that of having to exchange the child's charmed existence for the responsibilities of the adult, strike me as universal to all of them. Finally, on the issue of Judy Garland, yes I was speaking of her screen image and not of her talent, and no offense, but given that I made that quite clear in my previous posts, I'm puzzled as to why you took my comments as a disparagement of Garland's offscreen talents and abilities. In the first post in which I raised this issue, I stated: <> (Emphasis added.) And in my most recent prior comment on the same issue, I began the paragraph with the following phrase: <> (Emphasis added.) Suffice to say, at no time did I intend this commentary as a denigration of Judy Garland's undeniable and exceptional talents as a singer/actress, whether through comparisons to the other actresses and films I cited or otherwise. If you go back and read my previous posts, you'll note that I stated my opinion that no one ever played this type of passive screen persona "more appealingly/engagingly" than Judy. I also cited her performance in WOZ as "wonderful" among other highly admirable commentary. That said, I do believe that the sort of passive screen image MGM crafted for Judy is inherent in WOZ (her "activisim" in the film is confined to the fantasy sequences) and has largely disappeared from contemporary film. That's not intended as a disparagement of Garland or her talent, but I do think that with some isolated exceptions, it's the case. 'Nuff Said

Me too, Stoneyburke666: I took it for granted that the comments were tongue-in-cheek until the intense flare ups of some of the comments this morning. I mean, heck, you're talking about a woman who lives in a soap bubble and takling trees for pity's sake! lol! Although I don't think WOZ is a perfect movie, I do think it's a classic movie, and deservedly so. I admit that I'm somewhat serious in my opinion that Metro fashioned a passive, dependent image for Judy Garland and my belief that her role as "Dorothy" conforms to that image, but my comments about OZ itself were made purely in fun.so. That said, I agree with Sue that the continuous re-running of OZ on TCM (and the WB) a couple of times every year can be irksome, but I solve that problem simply by choosing not to watch these broadcasts. If I want to watch the film, my DVD or VHS (yes, I have it in both formats) suits me fine.

I really haven't had the chance to see much of Bogdanovich's commentary on THE ESSENTIALS, though I can understand why his very dry commentary would irritate some listeners. Personally, I'm glad that he picked a film like IT SHOULD HAPPEN TO YOU over BORN YESTERDAY to salute Judy Holliday and Lubitsch's THE MERRY WIDOW for a classic musical over the omnipresent SINGIN' IN THE RAIN. Given other commentary I've read on Bogdanovich's musical tastes, I suspect he may cite THE MERRY WIDOW as the best musical film ever made. That said, I do wish that, whoever the host/hostess of this continuing TCM feature may be, they'd have a greater variety of films to select and choose from. I'm not knocking the ones that have been shown. Most, if not all, are undeniable film classics, but many have been shown ad nauseum in other contexts on TCM (e.g., "Star of the Month," "Birthday Salute," "Movie Themes," etc., etc.) and I'd like to see some other films (and studios besides MGM and Warners) get what I consider some much overdue recognition on this series.

Hi Elinor: Not meaning any disrespect, but please, if you don't like the film of THE WIZARD OF OZ and you're sick of it, then may I most kindly suggest that you simply ignore the thread on the movie. I believe you're taking all of these comments much too seriously. Love it or hate it, THE WIZARD OF OZ is a clasic American film, according to some reports, through its' annual screenings on television, etc. it has been seen by more people than any other film in history, that alone would qualify it for the sort of good-natured hypothesizing that has characterized this thread. As I said before, although I don't think OZ is a "perfect" film by any means and has been the subject of serious cinematic analysis on other occasions, these comments are meant to be taken tongue-in-cheek. Of course, you have every right to read the comments on this thread and to post your own if you wish, but I don't understand why you continue to do so given your pointed dislike for and/or weariness over the film? I mean, it's not as if you were duped into checking the thread out by a misleading title. The title of the thread is the title of the movie, so, if it upsets you, just ignore it. As I'm sure you're aware, there are dozens of other threads on this forum along (and many other forums devoted to Classic Movies) on which you could participate without going through an emotional meltdown.

Hi Lux: <> All of this is meant to be "tongue in cheek," (hence my "lol!" notation in my first post on this thread). My apologies if you took it otherwise, but please don't continue to take it so seriously. As you've noted yourself, it's only a movie. Still, it's a clasic movie and one of the enjoyable aspects of discussing a classic can be noting all the inconsistencies/unresolved issues, etc. that the filmmakers apparently never considered important enough to address, or disregarded because it did not fit their concept/vision of the film. That said (and keeping in mind that this is "tongue in cheek"), as an attorney myself, from all the evidence I can recall in the film, I think your efforts to implicate Miss Gulch as a forgerer of the order which enables her to take Toto is an unsupportable leap of faith. Had Miss Gulch attempted to do what you've charged her with (forging the sheriff's order to take the dog, etc.) she would leave herself open to a host of very serious charges including, but not necessarily limited to: Forgery (a felony), Obstruction of Justice (another felony), Perjury (another felony for submitting an unauthorized affidavit in support of the Sheriff's order she presents to the Gales) and Petit Larcey (for unlawfully "stealing" the Gale's property, a.k.a. Toto). In fact, it could be "Grand Larceny" should Toto be a valuable (from a monetary standpoint) dog, but as he's owned by the harscrablle Gales, I assume this isn't the case. Miss Gulch would also potentially incriminate herself through her statements to the Gales concerning the Sheriff's order and her right to take Toto. If you recall, when Aunt Em asks if the Gales could resolve the matter simply by keeping Toto confined ("tied up"), Miss Gulch grudgingly acknowledges, "Well, that's for the Sheriff to decide," therefore, she has stated before three witnesses that she intends to bring the dog to the Sheriff's office. Whatever else one may say "fer er agin'" Miss Gulch, nothing in the movie leads one to believe that she's not doing so when Toto jumps out of the basket and heads for home. On the "poor doomed dog" issue, my comment referred to the Gales' utter lack of action after Miss Gulch takes Toto. It's true that Miss Gulch has a valid Sheriff's order to take the dog, but there's nothing to prevent the Gales from going to the Sheriff's office themselves to plead Toto's case. The Gales' inertia means that the only evidence the Sheriff will hear will be from Miss Gulch, who csn hardly be considered an advocate for the dog. Assuming she can prove her case (e.g., that Toto trespassed regularly on her property, chased her cat, ruined her garden, and bit her), it's quite likely that Toto will not be "long for this world," especially as the Sheriff can reasonably conclude that the Gales don't care enough about the dog to stand up for him. As you know, this issue remains unresolved at the film's finale. Perhaps we're lead to believe that Dorothy's Oz dream has given her the wherewithal to challenge Miss Gulch now, but at best she's got an uphill fight on her hands. The movie ended without resolving the issue, which, as I said before, I think is a a valid criticism of the film, but there's no reason to believe that Miss Gulch couldn't come back and take Toto to the Sheriff's office again. I also think there's a good deal of evidence in the film to indicate that Miss Gulch is telling the truth. First of all, even before Miss Gulch appears, Dorothy acknowledges in her breathless spiel to Aunite Em that Toto chases Miss Gulch's cat and gets into her garden "once or twice a week," (granted Dorothy states that Miss Gulch claims this is a daily occurrence, but Miss Gulch's claim still seems a legitimate one. Further, at no time after Miss Gulch appears with the Sheriff's order and insists "There are laws protecting folks against dogs that bite," does Dorothy deny that Toto bit her, which logically, even an adolescent child would have the wherewithal to do. All Dorothy does in response is to admit her own culpability ("It's my fault! I let him go in her garden. You can send me to bed without supper?" etc., etc.) but at no time does she say, "She's lying! Toto didn't touch her! She hit him with a rake!, etc., etc.) Miss Gulch would also have to provide evidence of her injury (and as I said before, probably swear out an affidavit under penalty of perjury) to prove her claim, but the fact that she has the Sheriff's order indicates she's at least taken the first proper legal step to have her case heard and adjudicated in her favor. And why not apply principles of law and rationale to Dorothy's dream? The magical dimensions of Oz aside, the land has many of the same aspects to it that our world does, including a local elected offical (The Mayor of Munchkinland), and government (the Coroner and the town officials who elect Dorothy to the community's Hall of Fame) and local businesses which have, apparently, unionized (the Lullabye League, the Lollipop Guild), so it's not as if Oz is untouched by our "reality." In fact, the charlatan Wizard makes a clear contemporary American rference to his own status in Oz. When explaining his background to Dorothy and the others he notes that he "is an old Kansas man" himself and was proclaimed "Oz, the First Wizard Deluxe" after his balloon failed to return to its' mooring while he was working for a local carnival. In a pointed reference to the then-current economic Great Depression he also notes: "Times being what they were, I accepted the job!" At very least (since there's no indication that they were ever stolen) I find it perfectly valid to believe that the ruby slippers belonged to the Witch of the East and should have gone to her sister, the Witch of the West, upon the Witch of the East's demise. I also think it's safe to conclude that the Wizard ruled through fear and intimidation. While he may not have been a slave driver, given that he never allowed any residents of Oz to apepar before him (and tried to scare off those who did as Dorothy and her friends discover), he clearly couldn't be bothered with any of his subjects. Moreover, if one believes the Witch of the West is "evil" (as the Wizard apparently does) he eagerly sends Dorothy and her friends off on a "suicide mission" to retrieve her broomstick. This will undoubtedly solve his "problem" one way or the other (either Dorothy et. al. will kill the Witch, thereby solidifying his power base), or they'll be killed by her, in which case he won't have to bother with them), but what does it say about his alleged compassion and concern for his subjects? Answer: He has none (or very little). Even after the Tinman timidly points out that they'll have to kill the Witch to get her broom, the Wizard's (floating head's) only reponse is to order them out of his chamber. Yet what is Glinda's response to Dorothy's query about the Wizard ("Is he good or is he wicked?"). She readily replies, "Oh very good, but very mysterious." What's good about a ruler who devotes all his energy to avoiding any contact with his subjects? At very least Glinda should have told Dorothy that she didn't know what the Wizard was like, or that he was an out-and-out fake, but she readily lets Dorothy believe the Wizard is a benevolent and caring ruler, which isn't the case at all. Even the Wizard himself ultimately admits this to Dorothy when she reproaches him for being "A very bad man!" ("Oh no, my dear, I'm a very GOOD man. I'm just a very bad Wizard!") As for the trees grumbling about having their apples picked, while I might not care about how a tree feels if I was the "Picker," if I was the "Pickee" (i.e. the tree) I think it's quite logical that it could hurt and that I might feel quite differently about the matter. Although Dorothy didn't mean any harm, she did yank off part of the tree's body without even asking him and the tree rightly was upset about it. On the issue of who considers Oz a "coming of age" story, one notable espousal (among many) of that interpretation is popular culture historian Ethan Mordden, who, in his 1990 article on Judy Garland wrote of OZ: "In the end, 'The Wizard of Oz' is yet another classic American fable about, growing up, about exchanging the child's charmed existence for the responsibilities of the adult." Mordden ruminates on this theme at some legnth in this article, but this excerpt is the gist of his interpretation. Finally, concerning Judy Garland's passive screen image, at no point did I ever say that her screen characters lacked admirable qualities, but independence and self-suficiency isn't aren't among them. In the vast majority of Garland's MGM vehicles, she NEEDS a Rooney, Kelly or Astaire to both validate her talent and to promote it/find a proper venue to bring it to an appreciative public. Unlike the screen images of more pro-active Garland contemporaries like Deanna Durbin and Doris Day, vestiges and elements of which can be seen in recent films like Sandra Bullock's WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING, Julia Roberts' PRETTY WOMAN and Ricki Lake's MRS. WINTERBORNE, Garland's "wistful wallflower" "reflection of a man" screen image is one which appears to have all but disappeared from contemporary film and popular culture in general.