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

Every source I've found says this caricature (the gent in profile you see sitting at the table) is of Don Ameche, but I say it's supposed to be George Brent. What say you?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

Was this before or after Litvak’s marriage to Miriam Hopkins? o.O

Couple of years after.

Edit: They divorced in 39, so this would have been the next year. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, LuckyDan said:

There are many versions of the story. Some say only Anatole went under the table. Some say only Paulette. Some say both. George Schlatter told Christopher Hitchens that he was there. Hitch wrote in Vanity Fair:

". . . George was in Ciro’s on the night of the Paulette Goddard—Anatole Litvak scandale. 'If you believe the thousands of people who say they saw it, she sank beneath the table and he stayed upright and grinning.' "

With that in mind, watch the scene again. 

I think I've found our mystery diner. 

Sorry again here Dan, but no, I don't think you have, and for a number of reasons besides my earlier stated reservations about this.

I have a feeling that Litvak's scandalous incident involving Goddard happened years after 1941 and when this cartoon short was made. And I have this feeling because if you were talking about the George Schlatter of Laugh-In fame here, in 1941 Schlatter would have been all of 9 years old, and I can't image any 9 year old being admitted into Ciro's and let alone having any idea at that age of what would infer or imply oral sex.

Nope, and ALSO because during the time this cartoon short was made, Goddard and Charlie Chaplin's somewhat scandalous relationship were still the talk of Hollywood gossip, and thus once again leading me to think that this incident at Ciro's happened years later than 1941.

(...nope, once again I'm stickin' with my "Brent Theory" here)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, speedracer5 said:

but thankfully we were only subjected to her dancing in Dancing Lady.... I think.  If there are other Joan dancing movies, I don't know about them...mercifully.

In that case, open the following video clip only at your own risk (this scene was the subject of a memorable Carol Burnett parody).  By the time of Torch Song 20 years later, she had at least progressed from awkward-but-enthusiastic to determinedly, joylessly professional (although the joylessness in this case is partly written into the script). Also gotta admit, she does have great legs, which is undoubtedly the overriding raison d'être of this number:

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Dargo said:

I have a feeling that Litvak's scandalous incident involving Goddard happened years after 1941 and when this cartoon short was made. And I have this feeling because if you were talking about the George Schlatter of Laugh-In fame here, in 1941 Schlatter would have been all of 9 years old, and I can't image any 9 year old being admitted into Ciro's and let alone having any idea at that age of what would infer or imply oral sex.

Nope, and ALSO because during the time this cartoon short was made, Goddard and Charlie Chaplin's somewhat scandalous relationship were still the talk of Hollywood gossip, and thus once again leading me to think that this incident at Ciro's happened years later than 1941.

(...nope, once again I'm stickin' with my "Brent Theory" here)

 

Multiple sources say 1940 was the year of the Ciro's incident, and no matter who or what the public was talking about then, Hollywood was talking about that, and Avery's team would have been aware of it. 

Hitchens' VF piece says "George was in Ciro's ..." (I remember being in restaurants at age 9.) If you looked up his birth year, you may have also noted his bio says he managed Ciro's at one time. And he doesn't say he saw it. He says "If you believe (those) who say they saw it ... " 

My objection to Brent is the same as the objections to Ameche. He doesn't have the nose. 

The character doesn't look exactly like any of the plausible candidates mentioned so far - and I don't consider the then-little-known Cugat plausible - so an inside joke is a real possibility.

If you were setting a cartoon at Ciro's, on the heels of this rumor, could you ignore it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, EricJ said:

I'm less offended at seeing Nixon identified as Fonda, than I am at seeing Airplane II: the Sequel identified as the first Airplane.

Having seen the original Airplane about700 times and Airplane II .... once, I think, I must admit I had extreme confusion at seeing this pic being identified as being part of the original until I scrolled down and read this post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sewhite2000 said:

Having seen the original Airplane about700 times and Airplane II .... once, I think, I must admit I had extreme confusion at seeing this pic being identified as being part of the original until I scrolled down and read this post.

I understand that there are some people who can't quote Airplane II from memory, and all I can say is...ohh, cut the bleeding-heart crap, will yaaaa?

pull-the-plug-photo-u1?auto=format&q=60&

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dargo said:

LOL

OR perhaps Ruby Keeler???

(...well, SHE danced just like that TOO, now didn't she?!!!)  

OMIGOD!!!! YES SHE DID!!!

I actually had a debate with myself about whether to humorously label Frankenstein as Joan Crawford or Ruby Keeler, and decided to be self-deprecating!!!!!
 

But he has got Ruby’s moves down pat doesn’t he?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having waited to see the cartoon and read this thread till last night, I am going to go with Cugat.  I watched the cartoon first, drew my own conclusion, then read the rest of the thread only after.  Having said that, based on visuals alone, it is harder for me to imagine it is "not" him.  I think for some the HW backstories and rumor mill are taking precedence here, even though it has been acknowledged actors from different studios are mixed together here and in seemingly random fashion.  So what difference does it make if Cugat is seen seated and mingling.  What's a guy like him to do in between gigs, not socialize?  It makes perfect sense, he was well known at the time around LA, as well as NY (Coconut Grove and Waldorf Hotel respectively).  BTW, great cartoon!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

I enjoYed LEOPOLD STOLKOWSKI'S (SP?) cafeteria lady hairnet:

See the source image

Those have a real name, they are called a "Snood". Classical music people were referred to as "long hairs" until the hippie revolution.

I don't know, my first impression is the face looks like Bela Lugosi:

bela-lugosi-personal-portrait-late-1920-

But no mustache. Looking at the pic below, I'd say it's Brent: the nose, the arching eyebrow, fuller face & round, weak chin:

9VkG13C.jpg

People definitely connected Ameche with the telephone, but in this case I think the animators would have drawn Ameche as more a "glamor boy" handsome type with emphasis on his smile. Definitely would not have given him that prominent nose.

They had a harder time caricaturing women because it's harder to add lines to a woman's face without looking like wrinkles. The Garbo is horrible. She was a tall gal and consequently had larger feet. Everyone zeroed in on that feature of hers because she was so beautiful...having big feet was her only beauty "flaw".

Def NOT Warren William, as his most distinct facial feature is the deep bridge of nose between his eyes. An artist would zero right in on that unique facial feature (and why I love WW's face)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

Those have a real name, they are called a "Snood".

Even though I’ve informed my husband that the proper term is snood, he calls it a “hairbag.”

I’m always on “hairbag” lookout in classic movies. 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

It occurred to me last night that Carol Lombard’s death in 1942 probably squelched this cartoons chances for being Rereleased. 
 

(She is not featured in it, as I recall, but Gable is and in a way that could seem insensitive.)

It was reissued in 48 as a Blue Ribbon. 

HollywoodStepsOut_TC.png

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, speedracer5 said:

Even though I’ve informed my husband that the proper term is snood, he calls it a “hairbag.”

I’m always on “hairbag” lookout in classic movies. 

back when my hair was getting loooong in Quarantine (I made it to about eight inches!, I would have considered a snood, a hairnet, even a lacy mantilla to keep that **** out of my way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, scsu1975 said:

5bEG6z1.png

I knew you wouldn't let me down here, Rich. Thanks!

(...and just wondered how you'd be able to fit your boy Tor in it, that's all)  ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LuckyDan said:

If Clark and Carole had been depicted together, that would have been awkward.

well, seeing as how she allegedly died flying back to HOLLYWOOD on a USO Plane because she suspected he was cheating on her with LANA TURNER, it's still a little awkward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

well, seeing as how she allegedly died flying back to HOLLYWOOD on a USO Plane because she suspected he was cheating on her with LANA TURNER, it's still a little awkward.

You're a much more considerate person than I am. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LuckyDan said:

Multiple sources say 1940 was the year of the Ciro's incident, and no matter who or what the public was talking about then, Hollywood was talking about that, and Avery's team would have been aware of it. 

Hitchens' VF piece says "George was in Ciro's ..." (I remember being in restaurants at age 9.) If you looked up his birth year, you may have also noted his bio says he managed Ciro's at one time. And he doesn't say he saw it. He says "If you believe (those) who say they saw it ... " 

My objection to Brent is the same as the objections to Ameche. He doesn't have the nose. 

The character doesn't look exactly like any of the plausible candidates mentioned so far - and I don't consider the then-little-known Cugat plausible - so an inside joke is a real possibility.

If you were setting a cartoon at Ciro's, on the heels of this rumor, could you ignore it? 

Another couple of reasons I don't buy that it's Litvak here Dan is that first, I don't think it's ever been completely established that the hatcheck girl is actually supposed to have been drawn by the cartoonists to be Paulette Goddard. I think this right here is something that has been speciously ascribed to this cartoon character over the years. I believe the hatcheck girl's image and persona were really meant to represent any cute young working girl to be found in such a job at the time, and that her voice which mimics a strong Brooklyn accent and supplied by vocal artist Sara Berner was to make it seem exactly that. And not to mention the thought as to why the cartoonists would portray an establish star such as Goodard as a mere hatcheck girl in the first place.

Secondly, I also don't think the Termite Terrace boys would have purposedly had the gentleman in question here turn his head so the audience could see who he was supposed to be IF it were supposed to be Litvak, as Litvak's visage would have been completely unrecognizable to the public and as were almost all movie directors who worked behind the camera back then.

And I also don't believe the Termite Terrace boys would have added Litvak as any sort of "inside joke". Nope, I think their use of their W-B animation dept. bosses Binder's and Schlesinger's  visages were the only inside jokes they included in this short.

(...nope, I still think those boys were attempting to caricature one Mr. George Brent there)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For you Cugat die hards, I'm not sure if any of you have mentioned a good argument for his being the mystery diner. He was a caricaturist himself, so it's possible Avery's caricature artist included a drawing of him as a hat tip. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LuckyDan said:

For you Cugat die hards, I'm not sure if any of you have mentioned a good argument for his being the mystery diner. He was a caricaturist himself, so it's possible Avery's caricature artist included a drawing of him as a hat tip. 

Good point.

(...but it's still ol' tubby butt George Brent here, ya know)  ;)

LOL

  • Haha 1
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
© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...