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

Movies That People Tell Me I'm Supposed to Like....


Recommended Posts

The..........second..................most.................

(I'm getting there)

boring.............movie............I.....................have.............

(couple of more minutes)

ever...................seen.................is.................

(wait for it)

"Once Upon A Time In The West".

 

Most boring movie (I think it has a slightly longer run time than the piece of **** mentioned above)--"Oh Lucky Man".

 

Plus (thinking about the subject of this thread), I cannot imagine ANYONE EVER regarding "Oh Lucky Man" as something other than a waste of four (or is it six?) hours.

 

Why did I subject myself to the ENTIRE 10 hours of these two movies? Maybe I should see a doctor.

 

Rusty

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen Citizen Kane all the way through but what I have seen I couldn't stand. It amazes me so many people dislike it when I hear it talked of as one of the best films ever.

 

I have seen all the way through, and still couldn't' stand, Casablanca. It was just... not entertaining to me. I do like Ingrid Bergman and Humphrey Bogart's films but this just didn't do it for me.

 

I do like Gone With The Wind, but it was kind of a let down after everyone gave it so much build up. It is vastly overrated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too, do not like Citizen Kane for several reasons:

 

1. I don't particularly care for Orson Welles

2. All the "groundbreaking" camera work in this film was already done in Sunrise (1927) 14 years earlier.

3. It ruined Marion Davies reputation as an actress (and she's one of my favorite actresses), even though Welles said he never intended Kane to be seen as Hearst and Susan Alexander as Davies, I don't believe it. And if he really didn't what did he expect would happen?

 

I've never cared for Hitchcock's Vertigo even though everyone keeps telling me it's one of his best. <_<

 

Message was edited by:

Melly

Link to post
Share on other sites

Davies ruined her own reputation. After all, if you're going to play with matches you're going to get burned. It was well known that she was Hearst's kept woman, and that Hearst was very married, well before Welles made Kane. With the names changed, why were they so dead set against the movie if it weren't already common knowledge? Hearst was a tyrant and used his newspapers to get his way and also to get Davies roles. It's said he'd tell studios that he'd refuse to advertise their movies in his papers if she didn't get a role she wanted, which was just about every major paper in that day. Which is why Welles made the movie, to be David to Hearst's Goliath. Whether you like Davies or not, everyone's responsible for their own actions, as she is for her own reputation's demise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant Marion's reputation as an actress not her social standing. She was popular with audiences (and would have been even more so without Hearst) and her movies made money, despite the fact that she was Hearst's mistress. People assume because of Citizen Kane that Susan Alexander is an accurate representation of Marion Davies when it's not. Anyone who has seen, Show People would know that.

 

And it doesn't change the fact that I HATE that movie, and I hated it even before I knew who Marion Davies (or William Randolph Hearst for that matter) was.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but since Hearst blackmailed studios to get her roles, her social standing and reputation as an actress became synonomous. There's no way of knowing how she would have done on her own, and if she could have done just as well, she wouldn't have needed Hearst. Let's face it, if you look at Hearst who was much older and not very good looking, and married ... it was totally a financial situation with her, and a means to get roles. After all, she could have had anyone she wanted with her looks.

 

On the second disc that comes with the Citizen Kane DVD, there's a documentary about the making of the movie and the Hearst feud. It turns out that Hearst wasn't what Kane portrayed him to be in some ways. Hearst never became that lone, bitter person that Kane was in the end. Oddly enough, as Welles got older, he became like Kane himself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did it ever accure to you that she loved Hearst? If she was in it for the money, to enhance her career, she really shot herself in the foot, didn't she? Not to mention she once gave Hearst 1 million dollars to save him from backruptacy. I doubt she was in it for the money.

 

If Hearst blackmailed people into giving her roles I want proof. Marion wanted to play Elizabeth Barrett in The Barretts of Wimpole Street and Marie Antoinette in the picture of the same name, but she did NOT get either role (both went to Norma Shearer). Marion also had her own production company Cosmopolitan Pictures which produced her pictures. Hearst did however remove backing for MGM releases in his papers after Marion lost yet another role to Shearer (not because Marion wasn't talented but because people didn't like Hearst), not that that hurt the studio much.

 

I agree with you that we will never know how Marion would have faired without Hearst, but I, after viewing Show People and The Patsy, believe she would have been one of the greatest.

 

As for Welles himself, you know what they say that life imitates art. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are at least two documentaries on Marion that have been shown on TCM. It's not possible to come away from either of them without knowing that Marion had a genuine feeling for Hearst and quite a strong one at that. It wasn't the money. In time, Marion had quite a lot of money of her own and ended up bailing Hearst out at a time when he was in financial straits.

 

And it's nearly always false IMO to say that such and such a person could "have anyone they want" due to good looks. It doesn't always work that way. In fact, the reality is probably just the opposite---the one truely desired is precisely the one that proves elusive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Documentaries are made by fans and are usually subjective and biased towards the star. A lot of things are whitewashed and/or left out. I think Hearst's money was one reason in the beginning, but certainly the power to get her roles was most likely what kept them together. Of course she most likely had feelings for him, but who could say it was love. Anna Nicole Smith says she loved her husband too, and had money of her own from modeling. As for losing roles to Shearer ... the reason Davies lost out to her in those roles was because Shearer was married to Thalberg, who called the shots. Had it not been so, Davies probably would have got them.

 

My original point was, I don't think it's fair to demonize Welles for Davies' own unethical choices that led to her own fall from grace. It's one thing to admire her as an actress, but I wouldn't canonize her as a person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kiddies,

 

My 2 cents worth from what I know and what I?ve heard:

 

1) Kane = Hearst only in the newspaper portrayal and the gubernatorial running & losing race.

 

2) Kane = McCormick in the building of the Chicago Opera House to launch Ganna Walska, his mistress and awful singer, in her career.

 

3) Susan = Marion not at all except they both did jigsaw puzzles

 

4) Susan = Hope Hampton or Ganna Walska, both singers (??) who had opera careers (although farcical ones)

 

5) Mr. Hearst and Marion were very loving and fond of each other and she was very good and supportive of his boys.

 

6) His marriage was virtually over with Millicent before he met Marion and believe it or not Marion & Millicent liked each other.

 

7) Marion did give Hearst a million dollars and she built a childrens clinic in LA and paid for several peoples medical and surgical treatments over the years. So she wasn?t a very good ?gold-digger? was she?

 

8) Norma was always scheduled to do ?The Barretts of Wimpole Street? and ?Marie Antoinette?. They were Thalberg projects

 

9) Hearst wanted these films for Marion, not Marion, who didn?t think she was right for them. She may have considered, or maybe even wanted, Gladys George?s role of DuBarry, but not Norma?s.

 

 

Larry

Link to post
Share on other sites

Documentaries are made by fans and are usually subjective and biased towards the star. A lot of things are whitewashed and/or left out. >>

 

Documentaries are not always done by fans.

 

Many are produced by production companies that may or may not care about the subject matter they are covering. (Biography and shows of that ilk).

 

Others are done out of respect for the subject or to highlight a side of the story that is not widely known. Docs done by good filmmakers won't sugarcoat the subject but tell the story warts and all.

 

As for Marion Davies and WR, there are a couple of good books on the subject and show what a good business woman and good actress Marion was. She did not owe her film career to WR. And yes, she must have had a head on her shoulders to amass what in those days was a small fortune. She loaned WR a million dollars when he went belly up. So she knew how to invest her money to be able to have a spare million to loan.

 

There are alot of myths about Marion that get passed off as fact these days and it's not always easy to separate the myth from fact without doing some research.

 

Message was edited by:

lzcutter

Link to post
Share on other sites

... I don't think it's fair to demonize Welles for Davies' own unethical choices that led to her own fall from grace.

 

Obviously Welles was not solely responsible, but it's nevertheless interesting that he actually expressed regret (and quite genuinely in my view) for treating her the way he did in Citizen Kane. Quite rare for Orson to have made an admission of this sort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to say all documentaries are made by fans, only that fans do make documentaries and tend to whitewash actors. There's a great one that pulls no punches from showing both sides of the Kane War, done by PBS's American Masters. It comes with the CK DVD.

 

Hearst was responsible for her film career because she was a showgirl when he met her in NY, and he brought her to California for the sole purpose of putting her in the movies. He started a movie company and made Davies a partner, but make no mistake, he had full say over everything. He affiliated the company with MGM and the purpose was to make sure Davies got key roles. Hearst would send detailed letters dictating to filmmakers how he wanted the movies to go. Later when he couldn't intimidate MGM to give her those Norma Shearer roles, he took the company over to Warner Bros.

 

Davies was paid for her roles and her part in the movie company so she had a few bucks of her own ... but didn't need to spend it since Hearst paid for everything anyway. While she could have supported herself, she didn't have the kind of money like the $1 million she gave Hearst ... she sold a bunch of jewelry and gifts he had given her to get that money. Though she didn't have to do that, she owed him a lot and it was basically just paying him back his own money. She did owe her film career to Hearst, but also owes it to him for running it into the ground. If she had left him before that she probably would have had a great career.

 

Sure a lot of myths abound probably, but in her own words, she was a gold digger and wasn't ashamed of it. As far as Davies and Hearst's wife liking each other, Davies had to leave San Simeon whenever Hearst's wife visited, and resented it. That's when she'd have affairs out of spite with Chaplin or Dick Powell, knowing that Hearst's private detectives were following her and it would get back to him. And later, Davies was barred from Hearst's funeral by the family.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a documentary I saw, he says he regrets what happened to Davies, yet not for what he intentionally did, but that people mistakenly connected the character in CK to her. I think his regret is sincere even though he was still in denial. Then again, he regretted his War of the Worlds broadcast too ... all the way to Hollywood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember Welles a little more contrite than that, a bit more humble (if humility and Welles can survive in the same sentence). There is a long and fascinating interview done two or three years before his death during which, I believe, he made his comments. But maybe I ought to see the interview again. (Anybody else remember this?) No comparison, however, can be made between what he said about CK and Marion and what he said about WOTW. None but the most gullible could think him even remotely in earnest when asked about the latter the morning after. Though he mouthed words of apology and concern, his thinly-veiled smirk betrayed the immense joy he got over the whole thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Matt,

 

Marion Davies was a top paid actress and made her own money, although WR probably paid for most of their upkeep, yes.

But, she would have had a million dollars of her own by the time she gave Hearst that much. Mae Murray was worth $3 million when she left MGM in 1928 and Marion was every bit as wealthy, I have no doubt.

 

After Hearst died in ?51, Marion lived in Beverly Hills in a very expensive house and financed many charities with her money.

 

She may have said she was a gold-digger, but facetiously, I?m sure. She was a great kidder especially about herself. I never heard her say that though.

 

She often left San Simeon when Millicent visited as a matter of form and propriety, allowing Millicent her right to be ?hostess?. As I understand it though, Millicent preferred to stay in NYC and didn?t often go to San Simeon.

 

I have been personally present at least 3 times in LA (twice at Marion?s Ocean House and once at my grandmother?s place) when Millicent visited Marion and Nell. And once in New York City, Marion, Rose, Nell and I went for lunch at Millicent?s town house.

 

Hearst?s lawyers barred Marion from his funeral but Marion probably realized that it wouldn?t be appropriate for her to attend. This I heard from Rose Douras, Marion?s sister.

Much the same situation existed when Spencer Tracy died and Katharine Hepburn stayed away and let the family attend his funeral undisturbed.

 

Marion was hurt however by WR?s sons not visiting her, although I once talked to Randolph around 1957 at a restaurant in LA and he asked how she was doing. So, who knows what their problem was?..

 

Larry

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure he gave a bunch of interviews and said different things in all of them. No one can still for sure put his childhood together because of all the stories he's made up. I think he regrets a lot, not just about Davies, but his career went downhill because of it and he had to take parts he didn't want to pay for his movie projects, and borrow the rest. It's too bad because he only did to Hearst what Hearst had been doing to people for years. Both their assaults on each other backfired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With all do respect, if you did know her, I'm sure you'd say nothing but kind words about her anyway, as would I. I do think she was fond of Hearst and wasn't a gold digger in the end, but in the beginning was a different story. He took a showgirl and showered her with money, gifts, a movie career ... I'm sure no one is naive to think in the beginning she fell for this old man at first sight and didn't reward him for his gifts. How could that not be gold digging? I believe in her biography she said something like, this gold digger fell in love, in the end. There was another reference somewhere else where she said she was a gold digger in the beginning and wasn't ashamed of it. I'm sure she did have a lot of money of her own, but many sources corroborate her selling her jewelry Hearst gave her to give him that million. Which still she didn't have to do. I'm not saying she was a bad person at all, many actresses got to the top sleeping with producers, etc. That's Hollywood. I just wonder how she could stay with a man like Hearst who hurt many people including friends, like Fatty Arbuckle. You're judged by the company you keep often, and can be fair game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She made one movie prior to Hearst taking over her movie career, which wasn't a career at that point. It was Runaway Romany, which was financed by her first newspaper magnate boyfriend, Paul Block, and directed by her brother-in-law, in 1917. Hearst produced her second movie, Cecilia of the Pink Roses, in 1918, and then controlled everything she did thereafter. As an example of Hearst's power, when that movie came out no one liked it, yet he had all his papers print raving reviews, giving the impression it was well received, which Welles showed in CK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite his mistakes and the general controversy regarding CK, Welles career would have gone “downhill” anyway. He was obviously not a cut out for Hollywood. He wanted to make his own movies the way he wanted them. Making movies is ghastly expensive and I don’t think it’s particularly degrading that he had to take roles he didn’t want, etc., in order to fund them. Even if he had been the proverbial great guy and burned no bridges does not mean that he would have had rich friends to give him money everytime he wanted to make a film. I think there is a great deal of success in Welles career in having made the pictures that he did. Even the great Olivier tried desperately but in vain to get funding to make a Macbeth in the 60s and although no saint himself was nevertheless a vastly more established success than Welles.

 

And Welles was quite a liar all right and a self-avowed liar at that. He quite cavalierly warned his interviewers and biographers that he was going to embellish and I don’t think they doubted him, at least on that count. This does not mean, however, that he was necessarily insincere about the apologetic stance he took with regard to how he treated M in CK. Call me easy, but I still think there was something genuine there. That late interview---made in ’82, three years before his death---had a more relaxed and revelatory tone to it and may have been a bit different than some of the earlier, brasher interviews. Who knows, he may have actually told the truth in there somewhere. ;)

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
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...