Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

Not wanting to disturb anyone, but there are musical stars I don't get (my problem, of course, not theirs or their fans'). Mickey Rooney (too much), Betty Hutton (too much), Ruby Keeler, Nelson Eddy (too wooden), and Kathryn Grayson. Anyone else who doesn't get why a particular star is a star?

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for your frustration Pat221.  I would agree that some of the past stars might not be so popular today.  We have to remember they were stars in a different era.  When my mother was in Highschool many of these movies came out.  I have loved Fred and Ginger and others but at the time Nelson Eddy was a major "heart throb" and all the high school girls (including mom) fell in love with him.  Different times and different tastes. I don't watch the Janett McDonald, Nelson Eddy movies much as they are not to my taste but MOM has every one on DVD but she does not have any Fred and Ginger ones.

Beats me???? 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that way about Van Johnson.  Something about that guy I don't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really can't stand June Allyson, can't figure out why she was so popular, ending up with Peter Lawford, no less.  Someone once gave me a set of June Allyson paper dolls when I really wanted the set with the pretty actress...  I was so disappointed.  And her voice is kind of frog-like.  She's definitely more of a Dance 10 (if that), Looks 3. 

Also I don't get Dinah Shore, she sounds off-key a lot to me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Triple threats" (singer/dancer/actor combo) are hard to find. And then there are those actors who don't seem to have anything going for them but they get cast anyway.

To paraphrase the line in Singin' in the Rain? "Lena - she can't dance, she can't sing, she can't act--A triple threat"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pastiche said:

I really can't stand June Allyson, can't figure out why she was so popular, ending up with Peter Lawford, no less.  Someone once gave me a set of June Allyson paper dolls when I really wanted the set with the pretty actress...  I was so disappointed.  And her voice is kind of frog-like.  She's definitely more of a Dance 10 (if that), Looks 3. 

Also I don't get Dinah Shore, she sounds off-key a lot to me. 

And I love June Allyson but never cared for the platinum blondes. My first June Allyson movie was Little Women, so that might have something to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in the genre or time period we're discussing, but Rudolph Valentino. I think it was the overdone makeup, and I noticed that in a few of the male characters in the movies I saw last week. Ugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently a lot of Hollywood hopefuls thought they needed to be "Triple threats" (singer/dancer/actor combo) in order to have a chance to get into movies.   Since I was not around in this period as many of us were not there are some Triple Threats they we may not have know existed.   I always thought Joan Crawford was this great dramatic actress who made Mildred Pierce and many other dramatic movies until recently watching an older movie on TCM I saw her singing and dancing at a much younger age.  for example see The Hollywood Revue of 1929.  I am sure there are a lot more that I don't know about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand why some of these stars were stars, but they just don't excite me. I think it's because the one thing they share is that they're not subtle. And my taste is for subtle and understated. That's one of the reasons I love Fred Astaire. Elegant, of course, and understated. But then, I also love Judy Garland, and she wasn't always undersated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heavy makeup wasn’t really an actor’s choice, it was standard in the silent era. The style of makeup, especially eye makeup, had to do with the fact that film speed (light sensitivity) was very slow and a huge amount of light was needed to expose the film. Without makeup, faces could look very pale and washed out, and what is a silent drama if you can’t see the face, or the eyes of the actors? Think of watching a movie in a large theatre in the 1910s or 20s., with screens that were much smaller than we have now. Maybe you’re sitting high in the balcony. You still want to see those faces!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...