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

Recommended Posts

Olivier's stage Richard III at the Old Vic in London in 1943? really made him a Shakespearian star. He did quite a lot of Shakespeare in the 30s but was not as popular as Gielgud at that time. The latter acted with the more traditional sing-songy, "beautiful," way of delivery while Olivier favored reciting his lines in a more modern non-traditional way (re Shakespeare). The public wasn't quite ready for that and preferred Gielgud's method. Olivier's Richard III (stage version mentioned above) changed that. It was huge success. We are fortunate that he was able to make the movie 12 years later. The story of Richard is less about his conquests on the battle field and much more about simply rubbing out anyone who stood between him and the crown, including his own brother (played by Gielgud), as well as two very young nephews (children), for starters. I don't think of Ann as being a "leading lady," per se. Richard wooed her (great scene!), seduced her, married her, and then killed  her. She doesn't have that much screen time but what she has is brilliant....I wish Olivier had used this sort of rugged modernity in Hamlet (1948) but it was not to be. He seemed to revert the Gielgud method for that. Olivier's Hamlet (the character) was relatively placid as I remember in comparison of other Hamlets, so it seems to me...If Olivier's voice sounds deeper than usual in Othello, it's because he lowered his voice an octave for the role (wickedly difficult it would seem)...The King Lear (1978) was made for television and is truly a wonderful production. He gives a clinic on what Lear might/should be ... Interestingly, Olivier wanted desperately to  make a movie of Macbeth in the 60s but could not raise the money. Surprising in a way, because he was so revered by then and commanded such respect.

=

Edited by laffite
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're changing topics too fast.  

Sorry about that. I will wait till this afternoon to post today's topic, so as to allow a bit more time for folks to read and discuss recent topics. But note, although the topics are updated daily, you are not prevented from going back and quoting/replying to others on previous topics in the thread. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Olivier's stage Richard III at the Old Vic in London in 1943? really made him a Shakespearian star. He did quite a lot of Shakespeare in the 30s but was not as popular as Gielgud at that time. The latter acted with the more traditional sing-songy, "beautiful," way of delivery while Olivier favored reciting his lines in a more modern non-traditional way (re Shakespeare). The public wasn't quite ready for that and preferred Gielgud's method. Olivier's Richard III (stage version mentioned above) changed that. It was huge success. We are fortunate that he was able to make the movie 12 years later. The story of Richard is less about his conquests on the battle field and much more about simply rubbing out anyone who stood between him and the crown, including his own brother (played by Gielgud), as well as two very young nephews (children), for starters. I don't think of Ann as being a "leading lady," per se. Richard wooed her (great scene!), seduced her, married her, and then killed  her. She doesn't have that much screen time but what she has is brilliant....I wish Olivier had used this sort of rugged modernity in Hamlet (1948) but it was not to be. He seemed to revert the Gielgud method for that. Olivier's Hamlet (the character) was relatively placid as I remember in comparison of other Hamlets, so it seems to me...If Olivier's voice sounds deeper than usual in Othello, it's because he lowered his voice an octave for the role (wickedly difficult it would seem)...The King Lear (1978) was made for television and is truly a wonderful production. He gives a clinic on what Lear might/should be ... Interestingly, Olivier wanted desperately to  make a movie of Macbeth in the 60s but could not raise the money. Surprising in a way, because he was so revered by then and commanded such respect.

=

Great comment. I particularly enjoyed how you compared the differences between Olivier & Gielgud's styles as well as Olivier's different approaches when it came to depicting Hamlet and Richard III on screen.

 

By the way, I happen to enjoy Ian McKellan's version of Richard III very much.

 

TCM would have a great evening double-feature if they showed Sir Larry's and Sir Ian's versions back-to-back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Olivier's voice sounds deeper than usual in Othello, it's because he lowered his voice an octave for the role

 

It was Olivier who suggested to his then wife Vivien Leigh that she lower her voice when she was having trouble bringing the character of Blanche DuBois to life in the London production of A Streetcar Named Desire, directed by Olivier.

When Tennessee Williams saw this production of his play he was reportedly underwhelmed by Leigh's performance. 

The original Broadway cast of the play reprised their roles for the movie adaptation of the play with the exception that Leigh (from the London cast) played Blanche because the studio wanted a "movie star" in the cast. (At this time Marlon Brando had made only one movie and was not the "star" that he would soon become.)

 

Leigh took her voice even lower in the movie THE ROMAN SPRING OF MRS. STONE, based on a Williams novella.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Toothpicks strong enough to keep my eyes open during most Shakespeare plays have not yet been developed.

 

Whenever The Bard was covered in school classes, it was NAP TIME for most of us!  I've only managed to keep reasonably awake during "A Midsummer's Night Dream"  and perhaps "Romeo And Juliet". 

 

To each their own, I guess.  Most HEMINGWAY, with the exception of "For Whom The Bell Tolls" has pretty much the same effect on me.

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mrs. Thalberg’s latest picture

 

Norma Shearer was a twenty year-old hopeful when she did a small part in a film called THE STEALERS. It may have gone unnoticed by film historians if not for the fact that Norma’s presence on screen did not go unnoticed by the man who would become her boss and eventual husband, producer Irving Thalberg.

imgres-17.jpg?w=300&h=222

Thalberg was only a year older than Norma, and he was dating one of the Laemmle daughters. But that didn’t matter. Because by the time he and Louis Mayer formed The Mayer Company, which soon evolved into MGM in 1924, Norma would be the producer’s first choice to sign to a five-year contract at $115 per week.

screen-shot-2015-02-17-at-7-57-48-am.png

Immediately Norma worked with the studio’s most important directors and male stars, including Lon Chaney and Ramon Novarro. And soon, she had made a series of hit films at the fledgling studio under Thalberg’s guidance.

screen-shot-2015-02-17-at-7-56-22-am.png

By the time they were wed in 1927, there had been four screen collaborations with Thalberg. Norma moved with ease from her ingenue phase into strong heroine roles. And as the 1930s began, Norma effortlessly transitioned from silent films to sound films. She had really hit her stride in stories as an amoral sophisticate. One of these pre-code productions, THE DIVORCEE, earned her the Oscar as best actress.

screen-shot-2015-02-17-at-8-01-09-am.png

With her husband’s continued support, Norma kept making films that resonated with audiences. At MGM she came to symbolize class, playing ultrachic characters many female viewers sought to emulate. In the mid-30s, after the production code was implemented, her roles were more virtuous. She began to portray long-suffering women in stories like THE BARRETTS OF WIMPOLE STREET; ROMEO AND JULIET; and MARIE ANTOINETTE, all of which earned her Oscar nominations for best actress.

imgres-27.jpg?w=236&h=300

She would make a picture every year or two, balancing her job as an actress with her responsibilities as the wife of the studio’s wunderkind producer. Also, she was busy raising two children. Some called her Queen of the MGM lot, not Garbo. Projects chosen for her by Thalberg were among MGM’s most prestigious and expensive undertakings of the decade.

 

But in 1937, just as MARIE ANTOINETTE was to be filmed, Thalberg died of pneumonia. Norma remained under contract with her late husband’s studio and starred in six more MGM movies, until she retired from the cinema in 1942. Undoubtedly, during her reign she had become the first lady of the screen (at least at Metro). Since her early days as Irving Thalberg’s discovery in the mid-1920s, she had appeared in 40 MGM motion pictures. Most of them were personally supervised by Thalberg, and the ones made after his death were perhaps still guided by his spirit. Mrs. Thalberg’s latest picture would bear his meticulous attention to detail, as well as his supreme attention to his wife, in every single way.

screen-shot-2015-02-17-at-7-57-03-am.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish there was a filmic record of Vanessa Redgrave's performance as Rosalind in the Royal Shakespeare Company's production of As You Like It  from the 1960s. (Olivier was not a part of this production.)

In college I listened to an audio recording (I'd often listen to CDs from the library when reading a Shakespearean play) and was captivated by Vanessa Redgrave in that part.

 

The performance was re-created for British television in 1963 but I don't think any recording exists.   

 

5436d5f8a5c64c16227dd69ac1f7d47c.jpg

Vanessa%20Redgrave%20-%20As%20You%20Like

I would love to see recordings of Katharine Hepburn's turns as Shakespearean heriones. She played in As You Like It, Taming of the Shrew, Much Ado About Nothing, Measure for Measure, Twelfth Night, Anthony and Cleopatra, and the Merchant of Venice all through the 50's at the American Shakespeare Theatre in Stratford and on an Ausrailian tour. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic films have a reason for existing

 

Often, I will watch a film and ask: what was the studio thinking or trying to accomplish here? Was it strictly financial the reason Film X was made, to fulfill a contract or to bring home a paycheck? Or was it artistic or politically motivated to make the film, even if the results came up short?

51ynt7d0bjl-_ux250_.jpg?w=660

The late film critic Roger Ebert once said that if a film does not have a solid reason for existing, then it probably should not have been made.

 

A lot of people feel some remakes should not be made. Would a new version of GONE WITH THE WIND or CITIZEN KANE have a reason for existing? Perhaps someone could justify re-filming those stories in order to take advantage of the latest technologies. But I can think of plenty of films, remakes and non-remakes alike, that do not seem to use the technologies available to them in any real significant or meaningful way.

screen-shot-2015-02-17-at-8-56-16-am.png

I would like to recommend two films I feel have a great reason for existing. The first one is THE MORTAL STORM, which was produced by MGM in 1940, before the U.S. became officially involved in World War II. I don’t want to give away the plot, but the storyline about the Nazis’ rise to power is starkly honest and striking to watch.

screen-shot-2015-02-17-at-8-57-05-am.png

The other film worth recommending is CROSSFIRE, what I consider to be the best studio era classic. The film’s anti-Semitic tale is not preachy, but instead uses action (and violence) to underscore what happens when ignorance and hate crime begins to ruin an established American institution like the military.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see recordings of Katharine Hepburn's turns as Shakespearean heriones. She played in As You Like It, Taming of the Shrew, Much Ado About Nothing, Measure for Measure, Twelfth Night, Anthony and Cleopatra, and the Merchant of Venice all through the 50's at the American Shakespeare Theatre in Stratford and on an Ausrailian tour. 

 

traceyk, have you seen Maggie Smith as Portia in The Merchant of Venice?

It's included as part of the DVD collection Maggie Smith at the BBC

All the performances in the DVD set are fantastic, but Smith "one person show" in Alan Bennett's Bed Among the Lentils is mesmerizing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first time I saw IWUP I was surprised by the use of Over the Rainbow as background music.    As the movie is an early noir film (noir mainly due to the obsessive nature of the police detective),   to this seasoned noir fan the music really stood out.

 

But maybe audiences at the time wouldn't have felt the music was so out of place.     

 

LOL  The first time I read about it, I had read what some online commentors had to say about it.  Then when TCM played it, I was more happy than I should have been to see it.  My favorite noir is The Woman In The Window (1944).

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're changing topics too fast.  About the Songs in Movies there was something that lead me on a wild goose chase.  I was trying to find out what was the very nice song in the Anastasia Dating commercial..  Well it only last 15 SECONDS!.   :( Ever had that happened to anyone?

 

http://m.tvadsongs.com/player.php?song=AnastasiaDate_-_Nothing_Comes_Close

 

I'm not alone who got tricked

http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=68459466&f=27&o=0

 

I am O.T. and late for last light's dinner with this one, but they are usually just studio musicians hired by the ad agency, sometimes even work in-house.  There was one that got my attention about a year ago, and I tracked it down to a studio producer who was just doing something really different and out of the ordinary.  There were oodles of online comments though, mostly from people that wished he would actually finish it and turn his song fragment into a completed song and release it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Classic films have a reason for existing

 

Often, I will watch a film and ask: what was the studio thinking or trying to accomplish here? Was it strictly financial the reason Film X was made, to fulfill a contract or to bring home a paycheck? Or was it artistic or politically motivated to make the film, even if the results came up short?

51ynt7d0bjl-_ux250_.jpg?w=660

The late film critic Roger Ebert once said that if a film does not have a solid reason for existing, then it probably should not have been made.

 

A lot of people feel some remakes should not be made. Would a new version of GONE WITH THE WIND or CITIZEN KANE have a reason for existing? Perhaps someone could justify re-filming those stories in order to take advantage of the latest technologies. But I can think of plenty of films, remakes and non-remakes alike, that do not seem to use the technologies available to them in any real significant or meaningful way.

screen-shot-2015-02-17-at-8-56-16-am.png

I would like to recommend two films I feel have a great reason for existing. The first one is THE MORTAL STORM, which was produced by MGM in 1940, before the U.S. became officially involved in World War II. I don’t want to give away the plot, but the storyline about the Nazis’ rise to power is starkly honest and striking to watch.

screen-shot-2015-02-17-at-8-57-05-am.png

The other film worth recommending is CROSSFIRE, what I consider to be the best studio era classic. The film’s anti-Semitic tale is not preachy, but instead uses action (and violence) to underscore what happens when ignorance and hate crime begins to ruin an established American institution like the military.

 

TB, I usually agree with the late Mr. Ebert, but sometimes, after a film has existed long enough, it is just great to have around because it is a window into another time or is just a GOOD example of BAD filmmaking. Look at the film "Back Pay" from 1930. It is the only record we have of Corinne Griffith in a talking film before her initial retirement - I could be wrong on this. It is also an example of absolutely everything that could go wrong with talking film in the early days of the talkies - I know I am right on this one.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

TB, I usually agree with the late Mr. Ebert, but sometimes, after a film has existed long enough, it is just great to have around because it is a window into another time or is just a GOOD example of BAD filmmaking. Look at the film "Back Pay" from 1930. It is the only record we have of Corinne Griffith in a talking film before her initial retirement - I could be wrong on this. It is also an example of absolutely everything that could go wrong with talking film in the early days of the talkies - I know I am right on this one.

Thanks for the reply. Well, that's an interesting perspective, calvin. Yes, I do think film provides us with historical and cultural references, windows into the way people lived (even across fiction). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Classic films have a reason for existing

 

Often, I will watch a film and ask: what was the studio thinking or trying to accomplish here? Was it strictly financial the reason Film X was made, to fulfill a contract or to bring home a paycheck? Or was it artistic or politically motivated to make the film, even if the results came up short?

51ynt7d0bjl-_ux250_.jpg?w=660

The late film critic Roger Ebert once said that if a film does not have a solid reason for existing, then it probably should not have been made.

 

 

Ebert's statement comes across to me as a bit pedantic.  Some may disagree, but if all films were treated like a scientific thesis or research paper, then we would be without all the quirky fun movies that have surprise endings.  But I get the point.  Besides that, most of the time when movies were remade in the same or similar time period as the original, the essence of the movie was not lost.  More modern remakes just aren't.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

traceyk, have you seen Maggie Smith as Portia in The Merchant of Venice?

It's included as part of the DVD collection Maggie Smith at the BBC

All the performances in the DVD set are fantastic, but Smith "one person show" in Alan Bennett's Bed Among the Lentils is mesmerizing.

No I haven't. I love Maggie Smith--she's the main reason I watch Downton Abbey--and I enjoy her performances in every movie Ive ever seen her in. I will have to look for that DVD. Is it available online somewhere?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can a film's reason for existing be solely because it entertains in some capacity? I don't specifically mean entertain in the sense that the film was funny, or happy, or what not.  I mean it in the sense that someone watched it from beginning to end and liked the story, whether or not it was sad, happy, scary, whatever. 

 

With this definition, I think every film has a reason to exist.  No matter how horrible and awful you might think a film is, someone, somewhere, likes it.  I absolutely loathe Apocalypse Now, but many people like it.  In "my world," that movie does not exist.  I hate it.  However, just because I hate it, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have a reason for being.  I'm sure someone out there lists Apocalypse Now their favorite film of all time.

 

During the studio system, with the exception of a few films (I'm thinking mostly Orson Welles', but I'm sure there are more), films were made for the sole intent to make money.  If your name is headlining the film and it fails, or if subsequent films your name headlines fail, then you're out and deemed "box office poison."  It'll take a lot of effort to be a headliner again.  In the financial sense, almost every film has a reason to exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can a film's reason for existing be solely because it entertains in some capacity? I don't specifically mean entertain in the sense that the film was funny, or happy, or what not.  I mean it in the sense that someone watched it from beginning to end and liked the story, whether or not it was sad, happy, scary, whatever. 

 

With this definition, I think every film has a reason to exist.  No matter how horrible and awful you might think a film is, someone, somewhere, likes it.  I absolutely loathe Apocalypse Now, but many people like it.  In "my world," that movie does not exist.  I hate it.  However, just because I hate it, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have a reason for being.  I'm sure someone out there lists Apocalypse Now their favorite film of all time.

 

During the studio system, with the exception of a few films (I'm thinking mostly Orson Welles', but I'm sure there are more), films were made for the sole intent to make money.  If your name is headlining the film and it fails, or if subsequent films your name headlines fail, then you're out and deemed "box office poison."  It'll take a lot of effort to be a headliner again.  In the financial sense, almost every film has a reason to exist.

Some films are vanity projects. Such as a star financing a pet project, to show their acting chops and hopefully win an award. And there are films made by wealthy men who want to put their girlfriends or wives on screen and turn them into movie stars. Pia Zadora's husband probably didn't care if her films turned a profit (since he was footing the bill)-- he just wanted her name and face known by the public. (It must have worked, because here I am mentioning her and anyone reading this probably knows who Pia Zadora is.)

 

As far as entertaining, I think that's a simplistic answer. Simple entertainment isn't enough of a reason to get a movie made or for it to be popular. Watching a kid ride a bicycle for the first time can be entertaining, but we don't need to make a move about it. 

 

I think we need to go back to what Ebert was saying-- especially if we have an increasing volume of films (a glut) being made each year-- these films do have to exist for strong reasons, with all kinds of competition in the film marketplace-- or else they will be skipped over and ignored by audiences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No I haven't. I love Maggie Smith--she's the main reason I watch Downton Abbey--and I enjoy her performances in every movie Ive ever seen her in. I will have to look for that DVD. Is it available online somewhere?

 

The Maggie Smith at the BBC DVD set can be purchased online from Amazon.

It is probably also available to check out from your local public library.

 

In addition to The Merchant of Venice and Bed Among the Lentils, the set also includes Suddenly, Last Summer, featuring Maggie Smith as Mrs. Venable (Sebastian's mother). It's the only Maggie Smith performance available on video (that I recall) where she played a character who spoke with any kind of an American accent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Maggie Smith at the BBC DVD set can be purchased online from Amazon.

It is probably also available to check out from your local public library.

 

In addition to The Merchant of Venice and Bed Among the Lentils, the set also includes Suddenly, Last Summer, featuring Maggie Smith as Mrs. Venable (Sebastian's mother). It's the only Maggie Smith performance available on video (that I recall) where she played a character who spoke with any kind of an American accent.

Great! Thanks. I bet she is fantastic as Mrs Venable!  She could probably out-Venable Hepburn when she's in Diva mode.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t mess with Ann Sheridan

 

rko_studios.jpg

When Howard Hughes took over RKO, there were mass firings. The new boss was unhappy with key personnel that had made deals he did not approve of…one of the greatest casualties was producer Dore Schary who had many successes at RKO, suddenly jumping ship to MGM. But the shake-ups were not only at the top.

 

Hughes was not enamored with some of the starlets on contract and sought to rid himself of them. For example, he wasn’t particularly fond of Barbara Bel Geddes, who had recently triumphed under Schary’s guidance with the nostalgic favorite I REMEMBER MAMA. The new movie mogul quickly loaned her out with Robert Ryan to MGM for its Max Ophuls-directed noir CAUGHT (which ironically featured a main character modeled on Hughes himself).

screen-shot-2015-02-01-at-3-36-40-pm.png

But Bel Geddes wasn’t the only actress Hughes had taken a disliking to when he took charge. His other castoff was proven A-list star Ann Sheridan, who had just finished a long association at Warners and was now freelancing. Her agent negotiated a plum deal for her to star in her next picture at RKO. This deal was likely brokered by Schary, just as Hughes was assuming control.

ann_sheridan_4.jpg

Sheridan had many perks in her new RKO deal. She was to get paid $150,000 for a romantic drama called MY FORBIDDEN PAST, plus 10% of the profits. She also had approval over casting, the script, and other important items like who would direct. Robert Young, who was under contract with RKO at this time, was originally chosen as her costar but he was forced to drop out. Sheridan gave Hughes a list of five acceptable male costars. One of the five was Robert Mitchum, who did take the male lead.

 

screen-shot-2015-02-01-at-3-32-25-pm.png

But Hughes had something else in mind. Not only would he replace Young with Mitchum, he would replace Sheridan with Ava Gardner. He felt that Sheridan was not sexy enough and convinced MGM to lend Gardner to him for the picture.

screen-shot-2015-02-01-at-3-32-54-pm.png

As a result of the switch, Sheridan was now suddenly out at RKO. Except, unlike Bel Geddes, she had a much more ironclad contract. She and her agent waited until MY FORBIDDEN PAST had completed principle photography with Gardner, then they sued Hughes and the studio for breach of contract at $300,000, which was double the original amount.

 

Meanwhile, Sheridan starred at Fox in the hit comedy I WAS A MALE WAR BRIDE with Cary Grant. She followed it up with a sharp satire called STELLA, then went to Universal for a film with director Douglas Sirk. So her movie career was not harmed by feuding with Hughes.

 

screen-shot-2015-02-01-at-3-29-54-pm.png

Hughes and his high-powered attorneys fought Sheridan, but they did not succeed. The actress prevailed and was paid for not appearing in MY FORBIDDEN PAST (the Ava Gardner picture lost money at the box office so there was no percentage of the profits to award Sheridan). Then, for the other $150,000 sum, RKO was ordered to put Sheridan in a new picture. So two years later she finally did go to work at the studio in an action adventure called APPOINTMENT IN HONDURAS with Glenn Ford and Zachary Scott.

screen-shot-2015-02-01-at-3-34-09-pm.png

 

 
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t mess with Ann Sheridan

 

 

rko_studios.jpg

When Howard Hughes took over RKO, there were mass firings. The new boss was unhappy with key personnel that had made deals he did not approve of…one of the greatest casualties was producer Dore Schary who had many successes at RKO, suddenly jumping ship to MGM. But the shake-ups were not only at the top.

 

Hughes was not enamored with some of the starlets on contract and sought to rid himself of them. For example, he wasn’t particularly fond of Barbara Bel Geddes, who had recently triumphed under Schary’s guidance with the nostalgic favorite I REMEMBER MAMA. The new movie mogul quickly loaned her out with Robert Ryan to MGM for its Max Ophuls-directed noir CAUGHT (which ironically featured a main character modeled on Hughes himself).

screen-shot-2015-02-01-at-3-36-40-pm.png

But Bel Geddes wasn’t the only actress Hughes had taken a disliking to when he took charge. His other castoff was proven A-list star Ann Sheridan, who had just finished a long association at Warners and was now freelancing. Her agent negotiated a plum deal for her to star in her next picture at RKO. This deal was likely brokered by Schary, just as Hughes was assuming control.

ann_sheridan_4.jpg

Sheridan had many perks in her new RKO deal. She was to get paid $150,000 for a romantic drama called MY FORBIDDEN PAST, plus 10% of the profits. She also had approval over casting, the script, and other important items like who would direct. Robert Young, who was under contract with RKO at this time, was originally chosen as her costar but he was forced to drop out. Sheridan gave Hughes a list of five acceptable male costars. One of the five was Robert Mitchum, who did take the male lead.

 

screen-shot-2015-02-01-at-3-32-25-pm.png

But Hughes had something else in mind. Not only would he replace Young with Mitchum, he would replace Sheridan with Ava Gardner. He felt that Sheridan was not sexy enough and convinced MGM to lend Gardner to him for the picture.

screen-shot-2015-02-01-at-3-32-54-pm.png

As a result of the switch, Sheridan was now suddenly out at RKO. Except, unlike Bel Geddes, she had a much more ironclad contract. She and her agent waited until MY FORBIDDEN PAST had completed principle photography with Gardner, then they sued Hughes and the studio for breach of contract at $300,000, which was double the original amount.

 

Meanwhile, Sheridan starred at Fox in the hit comedy I WAS A MALE WAR BRIDE with Cary Grant. She followed it up with a sharp satire called STELLA, then went to Universal for a film with director Douglas Sirk. So her movie career was not harmed by feuding with Hughes.

 

screen-shot-2015-02-01-at-3-29-54-pm.png

Hughes and his high-powered attorneys fought Sheridan, but they did not succeed. The actress prevailed and was paid for not appearing in MY FORBIDDEN PAST (the Ava Gardner picture lost money at the box office so there was no percentage of the profits to award Sheridan). Then, for the other $150,000 sum, RKO was ordered to put Sheridan in a new picture. So two years later she finally did go to work at the studio in an action adventure called APPOINTMENT IN HONDURAS with Glenn Ford and Zachary Taylor.

screen-shot-2015-02-01-at-3-34-09-pm.png

 

I've always liked this story about Sheridan. A couple of comments, but first a correction: It was Zachary Scott, not Taylor. If I remember my US history, Zachary Taylor was a US president a hundred years before this film.

 

MY FOOLISH HEART was known as "Carriage Entrance" during production. As was common during this time at RKO, Hughres held up the release of the finished film, in this case for a couple of years.

 

Ironically, STELLA had been offered to, and rejected by, Susan Hayward, then recently arrived at 20th Century Fox. The studio offered it next to Ann, after her huge success there with I WAS A MALE WAR BRIDE, as well.as her desire then to focus on doing comedies. Unfortunately, it didn't do too well, and Fox didn't offer Ann any more roles.

 

While Sheridan won an estimable victory over HH, she might've held out for a better film than APPOINTMENT IN HONDURAS, a not too distinguished action programmer. Ann herself thought it was bad, but had decided to get the litigation over with, and accepted this film for that reason. It didn't do anything for her career, and she made.no more films for some three years, and forced to turn to TV in the meantime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MY FOOLISH HEART was known as "Carriage Entrance" during production. As was common during this time at RKO, Hughres held up the release of the finished film, in this case for a couple of years.

 

 

Do you mean MY FOOLISH HEART, or MY FORBIDDEN PAST? MY FORBIDDEN PAST is the one that Ann was supposed to do, before Hughes gave the assignment to Ava.

 

According to a note on the IMDb, Polan Banks the writer of Carriage Entrance also sued Hughes over the casting of Ava Gardner. Sounds like he expected the main character to be played by Ann Sheridan.

 

I don't think scripts were too good under Hughes. So maybe APPOINTMENT IN HONDURAS was the best of the batch that Ann had to choose from...and with Glenn Ford as the leading man, and Jacques Tourneur attached as director, maybe she felt it might be a modest hit. Probably if she hadn't selected it, it would have been given to Jane Russell. In fact, it feels like it was probably written with Russell in mind-- it's the kind of material she was getting in the mid-50s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oscar night 2015

 

The Academy Awards are being presented tonight, and I have been invited to a party hosted by Oscar. The envelope just says Oscar on it. At first, I thought the invitation might be from Oscar Mayer, but it’s not. And I knew it couldn’t possibly be from Oscar the grouch. Turns out it’s a different Oscar– my good friend Oscar Madison.

 

The only problem is that it’s been a year since I’ve last seen Oscar. And he’s changed. In fact, he’s changed quite a lot over the years.

 

In the late 1960s he looked like this:

imgres-113.jpg?w=660

Then in the 1970s he looked like this:

screen-shot-2015-02-21-at-10-47-44-pm.pn

He underwent a major change in the 1980s:

screen-shot-2015-02-21-at-10-34-45-pm.pn

And now he looks like this:

imgres-28.jpg?w=660

Well, I better get ready for the party. I have a new tux, and I am going to splash on some Oscar de la Renta cologne. My date for the evening is someone I’m crazy about– Neil Patrick Harris. He reminds me of another friend I have named Felix, who doesn’t look anything at all like this guy:

screen-shot-2015-02-21-at-10-50-15-pm.pn

 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

My oh my.all.those MY titles.......yes I definitely did mean MY FORBIDDEN PAST, not MY FOOLISH HEART. The latter.was also filmed.at.RKO in 1949,.and.starred Susan Hayward.and.Dana Andrews. Maybe because I was thinking of Susan in relation to STELLA,.which I mentioned she turned down.

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