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

Any Deanna Durbin Fans?


ERROL23
 Share

Recommended Posts

Im a big Deanna Durbin Fan.

My favorite,Christmas Holiday.(1944)Deanna,Gene Kelly and Robert Siomak seem strange together,but its still a Grat Noir with Deanna singing,Spring Will Be A Little Late This Year and Irving Berlins Always.

Other good ones.Amazing MRS Holiday(1943)

Cant Help Singing(1944)Deanna in a Western?You bet.Great Film.Jerome Kern score.

My least favorite.Three Smart Girls(1936)A little on the foolish side.The songs?Sort of weak.

 

Edited by: ERROL23 on Jan 30, 2012 7:34 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Count me in. Deanna's one of my favorite movie stars/singers. She was a remarkable talent-just and natural and deft in her acting as she was in her singing-and had a unique career. As America's first "Teen Idol, she created an immediate sensation when she debuted on Eddie Cantor's radio show in late September 1936, so much so that the Metropolitan Opera came a 'callin, requesting that she meet with them to discuss arranging an audition with the company. (She did so on her 15th birthday in December 1936...and turned them down.) Her success on radio, however, did provide a ready made audience for THREE SMART GIRLS, as movie patrons flocked to theatres to see if she was as charismatic onscreen as she had been on radio.

 

 

Unlike other musical performers, who debuted either as specialty performers in lavish musical productions or had lavish star-making vehicles crafted for them based on well-known literary sources or Broadway hits(e.g., THE WIZARD OF OZ, MARY POPPINS, THE GAY DIVORCEE, FUNNY GIRL), Deanna's films, as reflected by the many of their titles (ONE HUNDRED MEN AND A GIRL, THAT CERTAIN AGE, FIRST LOVE, NICE GIRL? HIS BUTLER'S SISTER, THE AMAZING MRS. HOLLIDAY, etc.) always featured her as the main source of interest/publicity. Audience interest in THREE SMART GIRLS, for example, was generated entirely from it being her feature film debut (a fact reflected in the film's publicity and "Coming Attractions" trailer).

 

As some film critics and historians have noted before, she was perhaps the only great musical star of that era who was not only the only musical presence in most of her films, but who almost never appeared in a true musical. She also, I think, is the only musical star of that era who was always expected to carry her films to box office success singelhandedly, never once being cast opposite a comparably popular box office star to help offset the financial burdens of her films, nor did she usually have the advantage of appearing in lavish musical production numbers. For the most part, in her "comedies with music," as Jeanine Basinger has pointed out "her numbers were usually quite simple. She just mounted a stage and sang."

 

Her success was such that she went on to become the higest paid woman in the United States (and likely the highest paid actress in the world) for several years in the 1940s, and, as many people know, she was publicly credited with saving Universal Studios from bankruptcy during the late 1930s. Though the claim is almost certainly somewhat exaggerated, a contemporary article on her career from FORTUNE magazine stated that her films were responsible for 17 percent of Universal's gross income in the late 1930s.

 

Deanna would have quite a story to tell if she ever decided to tell it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think she's great, too. But yes, she did not save Universal from bankruptcy. This has been covered in other threads.

 

W.C. Fields is the one who single-handedly saved Universal from bankruptcy. Fields had a huge radio following, too, plus his built-in movie audience from his days at Paramount. After his tenure at Paramount ended, he was back on the market so to speak. Because he signed with Universal, the banks decided not to call in the troubled studio's loans. They considered Fields in the late 30s a bankable talent. His upcoming films were thought to be guaranteed money-makers (which they were).

 

Of course, Deanna would do more for Universal than Fields over the course of the next decade, but during that crucial moment, it was Fields, a proven talent, who saved the studio from collapse.

 

It is probably easier to give a sweet, doe-eyed girl the credit instead of an irascible old coot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Durbin is likeable and she made some good movies but can one say she is 'great'? I mean if Durbin is great than what term should be used for Judy Garland?

 

Are there any Durbin movies that Durbin fans would say were some of the top 10 or so films released in a given year? A performance that stood out as one of the best by an actress that year?

 

Durbin has a unique place in film history since her movies were very, very successful, but if one looks at her actual movie legacy I don't see her being included as one of the greats.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I mean if Durbin is great than what term should be used for Judy Garland?

 

Overrated.

 

(Sorry, I'm probably the one person who doesn't like Garland's singing. She could act, as shown in movies like *The Clock*, but I get the impression that every time she's singing, she looks as though she's trying too hard.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't comparing them, per se, but only using Garland as an example of an actress with a movie legacy that includes great movies as well as performances where Durbin none.

 

I could of mention Julie Andrews, Doris Day or a few others that I feel are in the same league as Garland. A league Durbin doesn't qualify for in my view.

 

So again, can you name any Durbin performance that you feel merited a best actress nomination or any of her movies that you feel are great movies? If you feel I have shortchanged her I'll check out those performances movies.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I am a Deanna Durbun fan. Unfortunately she left us rather early in her career with not too much to savor. It was her personal choice to leave the spotlight when she did. I only hope she didn't waste her talents in that little French town where she now lives. I hope she contributed her gifts in helping young singers/actors as way of teaching or mentoring. Perhaps singing in the local church or community choir. If I knew what she did I would respect her more today. I'd be terribly disappointed if I learned she did absolutely nothing but being "just" a French housewife/mother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Durbin's early films were among the most admired and sought after of their time, consistently making or receiving "Honorable Mention" on "Ten Best List" films of the period, including THE NEW YORK TIMES. Her first two films, THREE SMART GIRLS and ONE HUNDRED MEN AND A GIRL, both received Oscar nominations for "Best Picture."

 

At the time there was some considerable criticism that her performance in 1937's ONE HUNDRED MEN AND A GIRL did not receive a "Best Actress" Oscar nomination, and this may have been one factor in the Academy's later bestowing a "career achievement" Special Juvenile Oscar on her at the 1939 ceremonies (an award she shared with the much more seasoned Mickey Rooney) for: "Bringing To the Screen the Spirit and Personification of Youth and as a Juvenile Player Setting a High Level of Ability and Achievement." While Rooney's award was the culmination of more than a decade in the film industry, Durbin's was the result of only four feature film appearances to date.

 

And Durbin's "great" status is predicated on more than just the tremendous financial success of her films. Her success is credited with singlehandedly awakening Hollywood studio executives to the fact that an adolescent actress could be a tremendous and enduring box office draw and a critical favorite, an achievement her friend/rival Judy Garland acknowledged in her first major Hollywood interview and continued to acknowledge throughout her life. ONE HUNDRED MEN AND A GIRL was also the first film to feature a classical music score and Durbin's success introduced classical music and singing to audiences, particularly adolescent audiences, who previously would have ignored it.

 

And, as I suggested before, several of Durbin's career achievements are unique. I don't mean to knock W.C. Fields' earlier achievement, but I would disagree with the poster who claimed Durbin didn't save Universal from bankruptcy. While the astute financial policies implemented by studio heads Nate Blumberg and Cliff Work also helped Universal to begin to regain its' financial footing, the studio was literally in receivership (or as close to it as any studio of the period came) at the time of Durbin's signing and she, as the studio's only "A list" box office star of the period, was the "public face" of the studio at that time. The enormous financial success of her films, coupled with the universal (no pun intended) critical raves they generated, proved to the film industry that, though underprivileged, Universal was capable of producing quality films that could compete on the open market with the best products other studios had to offer (and gave Universal the financial resources to produce them.)

 

To this day, Durbin may also still hold the record (much commented on at the time) as the performer singlehandedly credited with the longest string of consecutive box office hits. While her films may not have the cachet today of a WIZARD OF OZ or MEET ME IN ST LOUIS, at the time, her best films were just as admired, if not more so, and while I will acknowledge talented Doris Day appeared in a couple of outstanding films (e.g. LOVE ME OR LEAVE ME, THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH), I wouldn't rate any of her original Warner Bros musicals, not even the hugely entertaining CALAMITY JANE, as any more innovative or admired as the best Durbins were, and most Day vehicles (e.g. TEA FOR TWO, LULLABY OF BROADWAY) were considerably less so.

 

A problem with the Durbin films today is that they have been so imitated through the years (every notable studio of the period, at one time or another tried to develop its' own "Deanna Durbin," and none tried harder than MGM) that, though they (and she) retain their fresh and appealing qualities, despite Judy's presence, they no longer seem as innovative as they once were.

 

Even so, there are other reasons besides "Great Films" for acknowledging a great and significantly influential performer. For instance, it can be argued that Shirley Temple doesn't have any "Great" films in her filmography either, but no one would deny that, even today, she is an iconic presence from that era and is still recognized as the most widely known pre-adolescent film star of all time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Top Billed:

 

They didn't play sisters. They played friends who worked to save the "Sunday in the Park" concerts given by Durbin's grandfather from being discontinued by the town council. They succeeded when each girl (first Deanna, then Judy) mounted the stage and sang a song in their respective styles, as park guests flocked to hear them. After Judy finished her song ("Americana") the two girls joined voices in a duet of the song to finish up their performance.

 

"Every Sunday" has often been cited as something of a public screen test produced by MGM to test the audience appeal of Durbin and Garland. In fact, by the time the short was produced in late June/early July 1936, Deanna, whose contract with MGM had expired in late May 1936, had already left MGM and been signed by Universal. She appears in the short because a provision of her MGM contract allowed Metro to call on her services for up to 60 days after her contract was terminated provided she was not working on a new project at another studio. Since production on THREE SMART GIRLS was not scheduled to begin until September 1936, Deanna found herself back on the MGM lot making ES with Judy.

 

Although both girls received favorable comments for their performances in ES when it was released to theatres in late 1936/early 1937, it was Deanna, with the sensation she'd created on the Cantor show and the tremendous favorable buzz surrounding THREE SMART GIRLS (released in early 1937) who figured more prominently in publicity for the short.

 

Incidentally, since you had mentioned liking THREE SMART GIRLS GROW UP quite a bit, novelist Graham Greene, working as a London film critic at the time noted of Deanna's performance in this film: "There can be no doubt any longer of Miss Durbin's immense talents as an actress. Any undertones there are in this astute, witty and sentimental tale are provided by her."

 

TSGGU also created something of a media firestorm when Universal chose to advertise it as Deanna's "First Glamorous Role." Even THE NEW YORK TIMES slammed Universal in a special editorial for suggesting such a thing. This must have been somewhat frustrating to Deanna, as, like most Girl Next Door actresses, including Judy, she was eager to play more mature and sophisticated roles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the useful info. I agree with what you state here and I don't feel it contradicts my initial points. As I initially said Durbin is a very unique figure in American Film history. When you mention 'at the time'; well that is really the basis for what I was getting at. During her time she was a leader of the pack, but viewed from an historical angle her box office legacy outshine her actual film and musical output.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your response and clarification of your viewpoint.

 

 

It seems it all comes down to how one judges "Greatness" as a performer. You allege Deanna Durbin wasn't a "great" simply because she didn't appear in what are now regarded as a handful of "Great" films, as Judy did.

 

I disagree, because, whether one feels any of Durbin's films satisfy the criteria for "Greatness" or not (and no one would deny that they were extremely influential films that had a major impact on the industry overall in many ways), Durbin was not only a hugely popular, much admired star/talent, but she made several uniquely significant and enduring contributions to Hollywood, and by extension, film history, that even Judy Garland did not match.

 

So I stand by my original assessment that Deanna Durbin more than deserves her designation as both a "Great Star" and a "Great Performer/Talent."

 

But, if necessary, we can agree to disagree on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When studio era movie fans like ourselves list their top 25 or 50 movies how many Durbin films would be in that list? I think very few would list many of her films. Can the same be said about any other actor with such historical box office clout? Maybe a few other "child' stars like the ones you mentioned; Rooney and Temple. I do admit I don't know much about Durbin's recordings and thus how they would stack up to other singers from the era like Ella etc...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But even among Studio Era movie fans, how many can actually claim to have seen any of Durbin's films, or to have known much about her and the impact she made on film history? Unlike Garland's films, which have been readily available for public viewing and dissertation for more than half a century, Durbin's have not (despite retaining enduring popularity among those who have been exposed to them.) How many have you seen? And, prior to your participation in this thread, how much did you know about her career?

 

Also, unlike Garland, who lived her life in the public eye until the day she passed away, Durbin retreated almost completely from public life when she retired, after avoiding living a "controversial/tragic" life during her career, so her legacy is not as well known, even to film buffs, as Judy's.

 

To be truthful, I'm not exactly sure what your criteria for "Greatness" is? I'll be the first to agree that Judy Garland was a great talent and she has appeared in some iconic films, but even these required years of exposure on television and other venues to attain their iconic status.

 

As for comparably popular performers of the time satisfying the criteria, to mention a few examples, would any of Bing Crosby's films make your list? Tyrone Power's? Shirley Temple's? Betty Grable's? From what little I can discern of your standards, I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the correction markus. I would definitely like to see EVERY SUNDAY, and I am hoping it pops up on TCM (my guess is that it probably has in the past).

 

Supposedly Mayer did want to keep Deanna, but he was out of the country and his executives let her contract lapse. It was a lucky break for Universal.

 

I think if Deanna had stayed with MGM, she would definitely have done flashier roles in huge Technicolor musicals like Judy did. Also, I think some of the films Judy did like PRESENTING LILY MARS would probably have gone to her.

 

Lastly, I would add that Deanna's defection probably paved the way for Kathryn Grayson and Jane Powell, since MGM was looking to fill that void when Jeanette MacDonald's popularity declined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You're welcome, TB:

 

I think you can see EVERY SUNDAY on Youtube, at least you could a couple of years ago.

 

You can also hear the clip of 13 year-old "Edna May Durbin's" national radio debut on Metro's SHELL CHATEAU HOUR in November 1935. She's introduced by Wallace Beery and sings the title song from Columbia's ONE NIGHT OF LOVE. Met soprano Grace Moore, who introduced the song, heard the performance and reportedly remarked: "That little girl is a better singer than I am."

 

It would make sense if Mayer did want to keep Deanna, since he was reportedly partial to classical singers like Jeanette MacDonald and Miliza Korjus. Also,he was impressed enough by Deanna that, though he was out of town on the day of her audition, studio executives had her sing to him over the phone and he ordered them to sign her to a contract immediately.

 

In any case, though Metro didn't get flack for keeping Judy (nor should they have), there was a lot of press commentary through the years about their mistake in letting Deanna go. That's probably one reason why so many young sopranos were tried out by MGM. Not just the ones who made the grade at the studio like Jane Powell, Ann Blyth and Kathryn Grayson, but unsuccessful candidates like Betty Jaynes (SWEETHEARTS, BABES IN ARMS) and Maureen O'Connor (BOY OF THE STREETS). Metro also signed Susanna Foster but dropped her before it put her in a film.

 

As one film critic observed: "Every studio wanted a Durbin, but no one wanted one as badly as Louis B. Mayer."

 

I've always thought of LILY MARS as a "Deanna Durbin film" that happens to have Judy iin it. I've read that it was originally planned as a straight dramatic film for Lana Turner, then thought of as a musical with Kathryn Grayson before Judy was given the lead.

 

I like the film a lot, and think Judy gives a delightful performance. The character of "Lily Mars" is very similar to the ones Deanna was playing at Universal and the film even borrows the "tracking the heroine by the feather on top of her hat" bit first used in Deanna's ONE HUNDRED MEN IN A GIRL.

 

Still, even in this relatively minor Metro production, Judy had many advantages beyond her own contribution in helping to sell the film to audiences that Deanna at Universal, did not.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Garbo retired and was out of the spot light for decades but her legacy is still well known by studio era movie fans. The fact Durbin was such a massive box office star but is largely forgotten today (by your own addmission), is what I find so interesting. If she was really one of the greatest musical talents (someone else posted this not you) would that be the case?

 

As for 'greatness' I try to reserve the term for only a limited few musicians, actors, and artist. (i.e. there are many very, very good artist but only a handful of greats). I base my judgement on someone's actual performances; movies, recording, and live shows (mostly just recorded but I have seen some great performers like Kate Hepburn or Ella live).

 

I don't care about someone being iconic or not. i.e. being iconic has nothing to do with if I just someone as one of the greatest. Monroe and Dean are iconic but I don't view either of them as one of the greatest actors of their generation.

 

I look at Garland's body of film work, her records and tapes of her live shows (expect near the end of her career), and based on this view her as one of the greatest singing actors of her generation. Sinatra would be another.

 

Bing? Well yes, I would include him. While a lot of his movies where lightweight, he did have some very solid performances in movies like The Country Girl. He made many fine recordings that I still enjoy (but a lot less than Sinatra I will admit).

 

Powers, Temple, and Grable where not some of the greatest in my view. I do agree that all of them were very popular. In the case I Grable I do feel her popularity at the time does mystify me. Did the iconic poster have as much to do with this as her actual work?

 

Powers did show his acting chops in a few movies but I believe many would rank his acting ability in the same class as Olivier or Tracy.

 

Temple is a major icon and it is somewhat difficult to judge a child star. Her adult work was OK but nothing to write home about.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Garbo wasn't as out of the spotlight as you suggest. As Jeanine Basinger noted in her chapter on Durbin in her book THE STAR MACHINE:

 

Deanna Durbin is the real Greta Garbo. Garbo left show business partly by accidentand spet the rest of her life hanging around famous people, sitting in her apartment and starring in the role of Very Public Recluse. Durbin, however, disappeared into a farmhouse in rural France and that was the last that anyone has seen of her

 

More importantly, as was the case with Judy and the other stars we've discussed, whether the venue was television, video or DVD, Garbo's films have been readily available for public perusal, comment and analysis for over 60 years, while neither Durbin nor her films have had that "advantage."

 

Nor is Deanna as "forgotten" as you may believe. Despite her own determination to avoid the spotlight since her retirement and the lack of ready availability of her films for many years, her films are often the most requested of any star among classic movie fans. To cite a few examples, the late film historian David Shipman, who conducted Durbin's one "official" post-retirement interview in 1983 stated that the basis for Deanna's agreeing to the interview was her enduring popularity with fans:

 

She was Deanna Durbin and she is now Deanna Durbin David. But recent showings of her films on British and American television and reissues of six LP records have persuaded her to become Deanna Durbin again for just one evening. The British season came about when a BBC radio programme devoted to the public's comments on that corporation's output, established that it received overwhelmingly more requests for her films and records than for those of any other star.

 

Durbin's legacy exhibited a similar enduring popularity here in the U.S. in the early 1980s when her films were first shown on Public Television (which is where I first saw several of them.) The station I watched them on (out of New York) often scheduled Deanna's films during their end of the year fundraising drives and during the ubiquitous pledge breaks, the station manager would announce that the fact that they were showing her films was evidence that they listened to requests from the public,because people had been requesting her films be shown for years, but they had not become available for broadcasting until recently.

 

Other examples would include the release of Durbin's films on VHS by MCA/UNIVERSAL in the 1990s. MCA later announced that the "Deanna Durbin Collection" of films was the best selling set of classic films in the company's history, outselling similar collections devoted to stars like Crosby, Bob Hope, Abbott and Costello, Claudette Colbert and other major classic stars. (You can hear a reference to this in the introductory comments to the second set of Durbin VHS films which states that the company was releasing more films due to the "unprecedented success" of the first set.)

 

Around the same time, AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS obtained a few of Durbin's films for limited broadcst. In the introductions for these films, hosts Nick Clooney and Bob Dorian stated several times that the channnel received more requests for Deanna's films than for those of any other star.

 

I would also note in passing that there have been far more CD compilations released of Deanna's recordings through the years, than of those devoted to the work of other contemopary talented classical movie sopranos like Kathryn Grayson and Jane Powell.

 

As Shipman noted further of Durbin's reasons for granting that one interview:

 

She is finally breaking her silence because she is deeply touched by the reactions of old...and new fans. I doubt whether any other star of her generation has held the love of her fans quite so surely: so many people, hearing that I was about to visit, made me promise to mention their affection.

 

Finally, while I appreciate your criteria for bestowing "Greatness" on a performer, it seems too all-encompassing for a movie forum.For example, would you really consider Sinatra an iconic movie actor based on his performances in the lighhtweight Metro films in which he appeared from say, 1944-1949?

 

Judy Garland, for example, is undoubtedly one of the iconic figures of 20th century entertainment, but it's an appraisal that undoubtedly would include her post-MGM concert film and television career one that was many years in the making. Ye despite the many accolades to her talent through the years, during her tenure at Metro, she had a hard time of it when it came to equalling or surpassing Durbin as a beloved and influential movie star/performer, and, it can be argued that even at the height of her MGM popularity, she never did equal Durbin's impact at the height of her career as a genuine "phenomenon."

 

And, out of curiosity, why would Doris Day and Julie Andrews (both of whom you mentioned earlier) fit your criteria? Mind you, I'm not saying they shouldn't, I'm just curious....

 

Edited by: markus21 on Feb 6, 2012 6:43 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post, markus. I agree with everything you have said about Deanna. I do think that Judy and Garbo have been over-hyped in recent decades. At the same time, Deanna and her films have definitely been under-publicized in the years since she left Hollywood. It is a testament to her talent that she continues to attract new fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thanks Top:

 

While I think Judy and Greta Garbo are rightly considered iconic figures of 20th century entertainment, neither started out that way. For instance, for many years we have (understandably) considered The Wizard of Oz an iconic film and Judy's role/performance as "Dorothy," the main factor in making it so.

 

OZ certainly succeeded in enabling Judy to graduate from starlet to star, but I was surprised when looking at contemporary reviews of OZ on its' first release in 1939, to discover that many critics didn't think her performance was its' greatest asset. For example THE NEW YORK TIMES review stated:

 

Judy Garland's Dorothy is a fresh-faced miss with the wonderlit eyes of a believer in fairy tales But it's when her three travelling companions, the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion are on the move that OZ is at its' best.

 

And TIME magazine, didn't even reference her performance in its' review, but did state that the film was at its' best in the OZ sequences rather than the Kansas ones where, as everyone knows, Judy gave her definitive performance of "Over The Rainbow."

 

On the other hand, Deanna's performance in the same year's Three Smart Girls Grow Up netted the following rapturous commentary from the TIMES:

 

With the singular muddleheadedness of

their tribe, the advertising geniuses at Universal have been

ballyhooing THREE SMART GIRLS GROW UP as the occasion of Deanna

Durbin's 'first glamorous role' - as If that were what we wanted of

Miss Durbin, Praise be, it isn't so, and we have never contradicted

an advertiser with greater relief. For Miss Durbin, in her new film,

is still her delightful self, a joyously half-grown miss with a fresh

young voice, clear eyes a coltish gait and the artless art of being

as lovely, refreshing and Springlike as nature has made her.

 

To suggest that this 'teenish miss is glamorous, with a leer ringing

the word, is not only simply stupid but obscene; if we had any

authority over the matter we'd wash the culprit's mouth out with soap

and make him wait an hour for a rinse. Deanna is as glamorous as a

field of daisies, or a morning breeze freshening the waters of the

bay, or-or a tomato plucked at dawn with the night-chilled dew upon

it and the pungent scent of the vine to give it flavor. That-

gentlemen of Universal-isn't glamour, but it's the quality that makes

Miss Durbin the nicest person on the screen today.

 

To be fair to James's side of our debate, I don't think anyone will deny that Judy gave a one-of-a-kind, wonderful performance as "Dorothy," (I certainly wouldn't) and critic Andrew Sarris, for one, while agreeing that Deanna was "talented and charming," opined that she couldn't match Judy in "spirit or range," but I'm not sure that I'd agree with that assessment.

 

It certainly wasn't the prevailing opinion at the time the two girls were under contract to their respective studios. And I think it says much about Deanna's talent and appeal (I think she's the only major enduring child star of that era who didn't come to films as a "showbiz kid," that she could seriously challenge Judy's success as a uniquely appealing and talented child performer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the reasons why I make a point of posting those reviews from James Agee in my Classic Film Criticism thread. The reviews were written when those films were freshly released. I think contemporary critics speak best for the generation that makes and watches films when they are new.

 

Often we run the risk of over-sentimentalizing old films and making them classic when they are not. Or of letting time distort the truth and letting nostalgia creep in and make a performer seem greater or more legendary than they were.

 

Getting back to Deanna, I think she is much like Frank Sinatra. She is a timeless performer whose vehicles were obviously a product of her time. Her talent is as relevant now as it was then and it will remain relevant for those who wish to access it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider Sinatra to be the 'greatest' singers of the American songbook but not one of the greatest actors. (I also feel Frank was the greatest entertainer of the 20th century) But I admit I don't understand your point about his weak Metro period. Someone I consider to be 'great' can have down periods and or weak work.

 

Note that Day and Andrews do NOT fit my criteria as one of the greatest. I only mentioned them because I feel they have more of a lasting legacy than Durbin has (I admit neither of us can back up such a claim since determining how popular someone is, isn't easy). But I don't consider those two in the same category as Garland. Hey, I may be over hyping Garland too much, but I consider her to be the best from her era (going from a teen and into adulthood).

 

As for Garbo, I do believe she is over hyped to some degree, but that is a discussion for another thread. But you again misunderstood what I mean by 'spotlight'. The only spotlight I care about is someone's actual work. As you know Durbin stopped making films (recordings also??), by the age of 28. All this adds to the uniqueness of Durbin. In the case of Garbo, her stopping might of added to her legacy (I think it did), but not so much with Durbin.

 

PS: I did edit this text when I noticed that I spelled 'believe' as 'beleive' but the spell checker available here didn't catch that one. Strange but this spell checker is one of the worst I have ever used. Oh well.

 

Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Feb 6, 2012 8:59 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...