No contest here, just a fun (hopefully) trivia question to test your classic movie knowledge! If you’re stumped and need to find the answer, you can click through to our Loretta Young bio page 🙂
…..
–Annmarie Gatti for Classic Movie Hub
No one would take a film seriously that centers on a so-called “half-caste” who uses the mystical power of suggestion and superstition to extract revenge years later upon former classmates for denying her from their sorority – and, by extension, white society. Add to that plot future perfect wife Myrna Loy as the tyrant, Ursula, and a pre-Code permissiveness, shake vigorously, and out comes: Thirteen Women (1932).
Yes, it’s that nuts. Evidence is provided below for your convenience:
On the surface this publicity still seems to cover all seven schoolmates who appear in the movie, but… never mind. Two ladies present don’t appear as sorority sisters in the film – at least to my knowledge: the woman on the far right looks like Hazel’s travel companion, and I don’t recognize the lady on the far left.Ursula mentions 12 classmates, but we only meet seven – I think: sisters May and June (Harriet Hagman and Mary Duncan), Hazel (Peg Entwistle), Helen (Kay Johnson), Laura (Irene Dunne), Grace (Florence Eldridge), and Jo (Jill Esmond). IMDb credits a Twelfth Woman (Phyllis Fraser), Thirteenth Woman (Betty Furness), and Mary (Julie Haydon), though their scenes were deleted before release, as the review runtime matches the length I saw in 2017. Curiously, 10 was the tally at least two critics landed upon; however, those counts could have included small and/or uncredited roles such as the school teacher, travel companion, and nurse. Indeed, the names of the three eliminated actresses and the three ladies playing the minor roles mentioned above appear alongside the eight main women in a Lux Toilet Soap ad that appeared in Variety on October 4th, 1932 – minus one co-star, presumably due to her tragic death. (More on that below.)
…..
Surrender…
(We take no responsibility for anything you do under the influence of these images.)Including lethal. After all, those enthralling eyes (and who knows what else) won Ursula a job with the Swami (C. Henry Gordon), enabling her to manipulate the fortunes he writes that her fellow school chums subscribe to, leading them to ruin – or death.
…..
Hmm, which ladies were next on Ursula’s chopping block in the extended version of the film?But according to AFI and IMDb, the original picture ran 73-74 minutes. How many more lives did Ursula destroy in those 15 excised minutes? Since she’s partially to blame for 4 deaths and 2 cases of insanity over the course of an hour, an extra quarter of that time would have afforded her approximately 1.5 more victims. I wouldn’t put that 0.5 past Ursula.
…..
Maybe you should sit this one out, June. That’s not a look anyone about to embark on a high flying stunt would like to see.My guess is around 4%. The perilous one that opens Thirteen Women, setting the bar high for the calamities to come, lands in that other estimated 96%. Because, obviously.
…..
Peg Entwistle certainly partook in a fair share of the film’s dramatics and calamity.Thirteen Women goes down in history as the only film credit of Peg Entwistle, the infamous Hollywood Sign Girl who dove to her death from Hollywoodland’s “H” on September 18th, 1932, a mere two days after the movie’s release. In hindsight, it’s a bit perverse witnessing the misfortune Entwistle’s Hazel encounters in her estimated three minutes of screen-time. What an inauspicious first and last picture… or maybe this movie’s got me thinking too much in terms of prophecies.
…..
Nothing to see here, just two friends attending a circus together.Apparently, Tiffany Thayer’s source novel strongly suggested that Hazel and her travel companion are lesbians. According to the film’s Production Code Administration (PCA) file, it appears that this insinuation made it into an early script but not the final picture, to the office’s relief.
…..
Is it getting a little hot in here? Crowded? Constricted?
Among other things, Ursula’s an expert at timing.Wrong, but since Loy’s assignments around 1932 consisted of a steady stream of vamps and vixens, I could see how Variety would assume as much. That was one of the more amusing statements about the picture; most were rather bleak and unenthusiastic. While the plot and acting received mixed reviews, critiques concurred on two points: the movie’s morose tone and implausible situations. Film Weekly found Thirteen Women “too morbid to be entertaining,” while Variety deemed the details of Loy’s motive “on a scale of exaggeration beyond all reason” and her revenge “little more than bait for facetious audience snickers.”
…..
It’s all spelled out pretty clearly here.According to Laura, who tries her hardest to laugh the previsions off, remain strong, and pacify the group… until she receives a prophecy about her son. Uh oh. Time to start worrying – and fight back.
…..
Don’t be a hero. Better not tempt fate/the power of suggestion/Ursula.Even if you’re trying to prove it all wrong, Helen. Spoiler alert: this doesn’t end well.
…..
This is the Cortez-iest Ricardo gets in Thirteen Women. (By the way, he’s inspecting an ill-placed sorority pin.)In his book Complicated Women, Mick LaSalle details six instances of the “oily character actor” being shot or mortally wounded – and that’s in pre-Codes alone. Here, in a picture filled with devilry, Cortez actually operates on the other side of the law as Police Sergeant Barry. But to be fair to Cortez and his usual shady reputation, the ladies – Ursula in particular – basically retain a monopoly on evil in Thirteen Women. Cortez is the one man Ursula doesn’t entrap, as the other males fall firmly and swiftly under her otherworldly spell, from the Swami to her accomplice Burns (Edward Pawley), who masquerades as Laura’s chauffeur. Even the guy who sold her dynamite without a permit crumbled under her power; as he told the cops, she gave him the “willies.” Who could blame him?
…..
A bouncy ball. What a nice gift for a child, Ursula. Oh, wait… (Is that a hint of remorse she’s showing?)
Not once, but twice. By the time Ursula’s building a bomb for a 6-year-old, Bobby (Wally Albright), we know she’ll obviously get what’s coming to her in the end.
…..
Can you imagine Ursula with an iPhone and internet access? That would turn Thirteen Women into a full-fledged horror flick.We don’t need Ursula to finish that sentence, and thankfully Laura cuts her off. But the picture definitely goes there, especially during this outburst, with Ursula blasting Laura and co. for tormenting her and derailing her attempts to pass as white, thus ruining her life in her mind. Obviously, she’s been through some harrowing episodes before, during, and after her school days, but her method of retribution is 100% pure evil.
…..
A tale of two bullies: then, and now.Bullying is a major concern today and, well, if you want a glimpse at the consequences of oppression and harassment, look no further than Thirteen Women. None of the women, not even Laura as the pack’s resolute leader, can be excused from the parts they played in the construction of this vicious fiend, a woman hell-bent on retaliation who uses a few pages from their own book – diabolically amplified, of course.
Moral of the story: just say no to chain letters, round robins, and bullying. Though I think we all know that by now, right?
…..
–Kim Luperi for Classic Movie Hub
You can read all of Kim’s Pre-Code Corner articles here.
Kim Luperi is a New Jersey transplant living in sunny Los Angeles. She counts her weekly research in the Academy’s Production Code Administration files as a hobby and has written for TCM, AFI Fest, the Pre-Code Companion, MovieMaker Magazine and the American Cinematheque. You can read more of Kim’s articles at I See A Dark Theater or by following her on twitter at @Kimbo3200.
Yay! The contest is over and the winners are: Brittaney B, Lisa V, Marcia T, Greg A, Janet C, Judy S, Jannette K and Julie M.
CMH continues into our 3rd year of our partnership with Fathom Events — with the 2nd of our 13 movie ticket giveaways for 2018, courtesy of Fathom Events!
That said, we’ll be giving away EIGHT PAIRS of tickets to see “TCM Big Screen Classics: The Philadelphia” – the timeless classic starring Cary Grant, Katharine Hepburn and James Stewart — the way it was meant to be seen — on the Big Screen!
In order to qualify to win a pair of movie tickets via this contest, you must complete the below entry task by Saturday, February 3rd at 6 PM EST.
We will announce the winner(s) on Twitter on Sunday, Feb 4, between 6PM EST and 7PM EST. If a winner(s) does not have a Twitter account, we will announce that winner(s) via this blog in the comment section below.
The film will be playing in select cinemas nationwide for a special two-day-only event on Sunday, February 18 and Wednesday, February 21 at 2:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. local time. Winners will be responsible for their own transportation to the Event. Only United States entries are eligible. Please click here before you enter to ensure that the Event is scheduled at a theater near you and that you are able to attend. (please note that there might be slightly different theater listings for each date)
ENTRY TASK (2-parts) to be completed by Saturday, February 3rd at 6PM EST…
1) Answer the below question via the comment section at the bottom of this blog post
THE QUESTION:
What is it about “The Philadelphia Story” that you love most? And, if you haven’t seen it, why do you want to see it on the Big Screen?
2) Then TWEET* (not DM) the following message:
I just entered to win tickets to see “TCM Big Screen Classics Presents: The Philadelphia Story” on the Big Screen courtesy of @ClassicMovieHub & @FathomEvents #EnterToWin #CMHContest link here: http://ow.ly/I4cC30hwhtE
*If you don’t have a Twitter account, you can still enter the contest by simply answering the above question via the comment section at the bottom of this blog — BUT PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOU ADD THIS VERBIAGE TO YOUR ANSWER: I do not have a Twitter account, so I am posting here to enter but cannot tweet the message.
NOTE: if for any reason you encounter a problem commenting here on this blog, please feel free to tweet or DM us, or send an email to clas…@gmail.com and we will be happy to create the entry for you.
ALSO: Please allow us 48 hours to approve your comments. Sorry about that, but we are being overwhelmed with spam, and must sort through 100s of comments…
Ruth Hussey, James Stewart, Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn in The Philadelphia StoryAbout the film: On the eve of Tracy Samantha Lord’s (Hepburn) wedding, her blue-blood ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven (Grant), returns. C.K. discovered that a national tabloid plans to do an expose on Tracy’s philandering father and has agreed to smuggle a reporter (James Stewart) into her wedding if the magazine kills the story on the elder Lord. But C.K. never expects that the woman he still loves will suddenly fall for the undercover reporter. Now, before the evening is over, Tracy will be forced to take an unflinching look at herself and to realize which of these three men she truly loves. This two-day event includes exclusive insight from TCM host Ben Mankiewicz.
Please note that only United States residents are eligible to enter this giveaway contest. (see contest rules for further information)
BlogHub members ARE also eligible to win if they live within the Continental United States (as noted above).
You can follow Fathom Events on Twitter at @fathomevents
Good Luck!
–Annmarie Gatti for Classic Movie Hub
Never a trendsetter, always a follower, motion picture still photography has evolved over 100 years, aping popular processes and styles inaugurated and practiced for decades by art photographers and journalists. Technological advancements and changing tastes in popular culture also shaped the trajectory of film stills photography, helping it move beyond static imagery and “the art of fixing a shadow,” into a potent advertising tool selling mass-produced moving pictures and studio contract players through glamorous, artistic expression.
Throughout its history, technological advances and artistic evolution have transformed the nature of photography. For the first several decades after its creation in the late 1830s, daguerrotypes remained the most popular form of biographical portraiture, a static though detailed capturing of a person’s likeness. While more artistically inclined photographers sometimes introduced varied lighting and precise posing to create special moods or effects, the vast majority of photographic workers focused on general, even lighting, simple backgrounds, and straight ahead images in their work.
Edgar Allan Poe, DaguerrotypeBy the late 1880s, photographers began experimenting with lighting and creation of effects to add flair and artistic imagery to their photographs, becoming almost painterly in their approach. Employing artifice and techniques, they began transforming photography into a more artistic medium, creating a style of imagery called pictorialism. Manipulating printing negatives by employing carbon, platinum, or other exotic combinations and then often etching the image as well, they began what English photographer George Davison called “painting with light.”
Portrait photographers began practicing some of the same techniques in their work, aiming to capture not only the personalities of their sitters but to also display some of their own talents as well. Early Los Angeles film photography pioneers like Albert Witzel, Fred Hartsook, and Frank Hoover originally shot portraits of well-to-do and theatrical figures employing simple black or white backgrounds and focused on close-ups or “head shots” of their movie star clients that Joel Finler points out could be easily reproduced on postcards for distribution to fans or movie theatres.
Mabel Normand (Fred Hartsook, photographer)Within a few years, emulating the work of artists, movie photographers began employing Rembrandt and chiarscurro lighting and their studios began etching negatives to create lovely, romantic backgrounds to images. Most of the work producing these gorgeous tableaux fell to unknown and unsung women such as actress Nell O’Day’s mother, who created shots that featured simple forests and outdoor scenes. Stars themselves often sent these stills to newspapers and magazines in hopes of stoking their fan base as well idealizing their image.
Gloria Swanson, Male and Female, 1919 (Karl Struss, photographer)In the teens, avant-garde artists and surrealists began introducing more elaborate forms of manipulation in the creation of images, blending elaborate lighting and production design, mechanical reproduction, and exotic effects like double printing, overexposure, and use of mirrors to expand the artistic expression of photography. Renowned American photographers Alfred Stieglitz and Karl Struss blended technical and artistic achievement in creating stunning images. James Abbe, famous New York photographer himself, shot both scene and portrait stills for such films as D. W. Griffith’s “Way Down East” and even for Mack Sennett productions. Edward Steichen created works of arts in his stylized portraits of celebrities for Vogue and Vanity Fair.
Hedy Lamarr (George Hurrell, photographer)Struss himself employed some of these same practices in Hollywood portraiture in the late teens and early 1920s, creating romantic, idealized images of stars like ones of Gloria Swanson in Cecil B. DeMille’s “Male and Female” in 1919. Producer Jesse Lasky had urged just this sort of thing for marketing purposes when he asked directors and photographers to supply “such attractive, unique and artistic photographs as will materially assist our work.” At this time, motion picture studios began organizing their own photography studios to maintain quality, output, and control of images selling their products, films and stars.
Judy Garland, Halloween stillAs lensmen like Max Munn Autrey, Erbest Bachrach, and Eugene Robert Richee began practicing these techniques, they produced the glamorous, sensual iconography of the motion picture star employed by film studios from the 1920s through the 1940s, the hey day of Hollywood’s stunning photography work. George Hurrell manipulated and retouched negatives to create stunning, sophisticated portraits of film stars. Other stillsmen employed as much production and lighting design to their images as Cedric Gibbons sketching a luxurious MGM set, producing stunning images of beauty and power, perfect eye-catching tools for theatre lobby displays, fan magazines, and newspaper layouts.
Migrant Mother (Dorothea Lange, photographer)With the advent of the Depression, photojournalists began documenting hard-edged reality, warts and all instead of creating a whitewashed image of conditions or situations. Walker Evans, Margaret Bourke-White, and Dorothea Lange shot telling images of struggling workers in California, with Lange’s iconic “Migrant Mother” revealing both the dignity and despair of such people. Combat photographers like Robert Capa and Joe Rosenthal captured both the horror and glory of World War II, and in New York, Weegee (Arthur Felig) became renowned in the 1940s and 1950s for his dramatic crime photographs.
Grace Kelly (Howell Conant, photographer)Hollywood film studios shifted their focus to more telling realism in the late 1940s and 1950s as well, influenced by these events and the darkening mood of the country following the war. After the landmark 1948 anti-trust Paramount decree, which forced film studios to divest themselves of their theatre chains, studios began shrinking, cutting their workforces and reducing their output. Dark times and less employees also helped push stills in a more naturalistic though idealized direction. Stars agreed to be photographed without makeup, in natural lighting, with independent photographers like Howell Conant, Douglas Kirkland, Phil Stern, and John Engstead leading the way.
Tony Curtis and Burt Lancaster, Sweet Smell of Success, 1957By the 1960s, most studios maintained skeleton stills departments, and photojournalists, freelance photographers, and fashion lensers took up the slack. They continued advancing away from the studios’ traditional forms of stills photography into more adventuresome and popular avenues, often at the behest of stars they were shooting. Today, while some major photographers like Annie Leibowitz craft portraits for entertainment purposes, most stars rely on more personal and direct images they shoot themselves and post to Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook, cutting out the middleman, and often the art, as well.
…..
–Mary Mallory for Classic Movie Hub
Mary Mallory is a film historian, photograph archivist, and researcher, focusing on Los Angeles and early film history. She is co-author of the book Hollywood at Play: The Lives of the Stars Between Takes (with Stephen X. Sylvester and Donovan Brandt) and writes theatre reviews for The Tolucan Times and blogs for the LA Daily Mirror. Mallory served on Hollywood Heritage, Inc.’s Board of Directors, and acts as a docent for the Hollywood Heritage Museum. You can follow her on twitter at @mallory_mary.
Books by Mary Mallory:
Yay! The contest is over and the winners are: Jason K, David H, Mark, Emma and Billy S.
And now, we are happy to announce our first Blu-Ray giveaway for 2018, courtesy of Kino Lorber. This time, we’ll be giving away FIVE copies of the 30th Anniversary Special Edition of The Whales of August on Blu-Ray.
In order to qualify to win one of these Blu-Rays via this contest giveaway, you must complete the below entry task by Saturday, Feb 3 at 10PM EST. However, the sooner you enter, the better chance you have of winning, because we will pick a winner on four different days within the contest period, via random drawings, as listed below… So if you don’t win the first week that you enter, you will still be eligible to win during the following weeks until the contest is over.
We will announce each week’s winner on Twitter @ClassicMovieHub (or this blog, depending how you entered), the day after each winner is picked at 10PM EST — for example, we will announce our first week’s winners on Sunday Jan 7 at 10PM EST.
ENTRY TASK (2-parts) to be completed by Saturday, Feb 3 at 10PM EST— BUT remember, the sooner you enter, the more chances you have to win…
1) Answer the below question via the comment section at the bottom of this blog post
2) Then TWEET (not DM) the following message:
Just entered to win “The Whales of August” 30th Anniversary Special Edition Blu-Ray #Giveaway courtesy of @KinoLorber and @ClassicMovieHub contest link: http://ow.ly/ASe430hwgC9
THE QUESTION:
Why do you want to win this Blu-Ray?
*If you do not have a Twitter account, you can still enter the contest by simply answering the above question via the comment section at the bottom of this blog — BUT PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOU ADD THIS VERBIAGE TO YOUR ANSWER: I do not have a Twitter account, so I am posting here to enter but cannot tweet the message.
ALSO: Please allow us 48 hours to approve your comments. Sorry about that, but we are being overwhelmed with spam, and must sort through 100s of comments…
…..
About The Whales of August: Screen legends Bette Davis (All About Eve), Lillian Gish (Duel in the Sun) and Vincent Price (Tales of Terror) unite their iconic talents in this beautifully photographed, intensely emotional drama that offers unexpected and quite marvelous rewards. Libby (Davis) and Sarah (Gish) are widowed siblings who have vacationed for half a century at a seaside cottage in Maine. Now in their eighties, the sisters have unexpectedly arrived at an impasse: While Sarah embraces change and the possibility of romance with a courtly Russian suitor (Price), the stubbornly bitter Libby rages at the inevitability of death. As the summer months wane, can Libby and Sarah rediscover the powerful bonds of memory, family and love? The stellar cast includes Ann Sothern (A Letter to Three Wives) in her Oscar-nominated performance, Harry Carey Jr. (3 Godfathers), Mary Steenburgen (Melvin and Howard), Margaret Ladd (TV’s Falcon Crest) and Tisha Sterling (Coogan’s Bluff). The Whales of August features a wonderful screenplay by playwright David Berry (G.R. Point) based on his play and top-notch direction by the great Lindsay Anderson (O Lucky Man!, If….).
You can visit Kino Lorber on their website, on Twitter at @KinoLorber or on Facebook.
Please note that only Continental United States (excluding Alaska, Hawaii, and the territory of Puerto Rico) entrants are eligible.
And — BlogHub members ARE eligible to win if they live within the Continental United States (as noted above).
For complete rules, click here.
And if you can’t wait to win, you can click on the image below to purchase on amazon 
Good Luck!
–Annmarie Gatti for Classic Movie Hub
Yay! The contest is over and the winners are: Joan O, Javier V, Billy S, Laurie C, and Vickie G.
Happy New Year to All! It’s time for our next book giveaway, the first of many for 2018! CMH is happy to say that we will be giving away FIVE COPIES of “Miriam Hopkins: Life and Films of a Hollywood Rebel” by Allan R. Ellenberger, courtesy of University Press of Kentucky, from now through Feb 3. (plus ONE more copy via Facebook and this Blog, details to follow in a few days).
In order to qualify to win one of these prizes via this contest giveaway, you must complete the below entry task by Saturday, Feb 3 at 10PM EST. However, the sooner you enter, the better chance you have of winning, because we will pick a winner on five different days within the contest period, via random drawings, as listed below… So if you don’t win the first week that you enter, you will still be eligible to win during the following weeks until the contest is over.
We will announce each week’s winner on Twitter @ClassicMovieHub, the day after each winner is picked at 10PM EST — for example, we will announce our first week’s winner on Sunday Jan 7 at 10PM EST on Twitter. And, please note that you don’t have to have a Twitter account to enter; just see below for the details…
If you’re also on Facebook, please feel free to visit us at Classic Movie Hub on Facebook for additional giveaways (or check back on this Blog in a few days) — because we’ll be giving away ONE MORE cop via Facebook/Blog as well!
…..
ENTRY TASK (2-parts) to be completed by Saturday, Feb 3 at 1oPM EST — BUT remember, the sooner you enter, the more chances you have to win…
1) Answer the below question via the comment section at the bottom of this blog post
THE QUESTION:
What is one of your favorite Miriam Hopkins films and why? And, if you’re not familiar with her films, why do you want to win this book?
2) Then TWEET (not DM) the following message*:
Just entered to win the “Miriam Hopkins: Life and Films of a Hollywood Rebel” #BookGiveaway courtesy of @KentuckyPress & @ClassicMovieHub #CMHContest link: http://ow.ly/KQb830hwfLd
*If you do not have a Twitter account, you can still enter the contest by simply answering the above question via the comment section at the bottom of this blog — BUT PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOU ADD THIS VERBIAGE TO YOUR ANSWER: I do not have a Twitter account, so I am posting here to enter but cannot tweet the message.
NOTE: if for any reason you encounter a problem commenting here on this blog, please feel free to tweet or DM us, or send an email to clas…@gmail.com and we will be happy to create the entry for you.
ALSO: Please allow us 48 hours to approve your comments. Sorry about that, but we are being overwhelmed with spam, and must sort through 100s of comments…
…..
About the Book: In the first comprehensive biography of this colorful performer, Allan R. Ellenberger illuminates Hopkins’s fascinating life and legacy. Her freewheeling film career was exceptional in studio-era Hollywood, and she managed to establish herself as a top star at Paramount, RKO, Goldwyn, and Warner Bros. Over the course of five decades, Hopkins appeared in thirty-six films, forty stage plays, and countless radio programs. Later, she emerged as a pioneer of TV drama. Ellenberger also explores Hopkins’s private life, including her relationships with such intellectuals as Theodore Dreiser, Dorothy Parker, Gertrude Stein, and Tennessee Williams. Although she was never blacklisted for her suspected Communist leanings, her association with these freethinkers and her involvement with certain political organizations led the FBI to keep a file on her for nearly forty years. This skillful biography treats readers to the intriguing stories and controversies surrounding Hopkins and her career, but also looks beyond her Hollywood persona to explore the star as an uncompromising artist. The result is an entertaining portrait of a brilliant yet under-appreciated performer.
…..
Click here for the full contest rules.
Please note that only Continental United States (excluding Alaska, Hawaii, and the territory of Puerto Rico) entrants are eligible.
And — BlogHub members ARE eligible to win if they live within the Continental United States (as noted above).
Good Luck!
And if you can’t wait to win the book, you can purchase the on amazon via the below link (click on image):
…..
–Annmarie Gatti for Classic Movie Hub
For classic film fans, the holiday season represents a time to wax nostalgic over those classic films that pop up this time of year. Everyone has his or her own must-see favorites. Perhaps you prefer a mainstream flavor like White Christmas or It’s a Wonderful Life, or perhaps you go for something a bit under the AMC radar like Holiday Affair or Christmas in Connecticut. Personally, I like them all.
Recently, as I was watching Barbara Stanwyck flipping flap jacks with S.Z. “Cuddles” Sakall in Peter Godfrey’s Christmas in Connecticut (1945), I was reminded that this is not only a beloved holiday gem, it’s also a female-driven Screwball Comedy that deals with feminism head-on. This film makes the holiday lists, sometimes it makes the Screwball lists, but rarely the Feminist Film lists. So which is it? Let’s look at the clues.
Barbara Stanwyck and SZ Cuddles Sakall “Watch now. I show you how to flip-flop the flop-flips.”For those unfamiliar with this film (Spoiler alert: here comes some plot reveals but I’m not here to share a full review), Barbara Stanwyck is Elizabeth Lane, the 1940s version of Martha Stewart, Food Network’s Giada De Laurentiis and HGTV’s Joanna Gaines all wrapped into one pretty domestic goddess package. Except, as it turns out, she’s not. She’s a phony. She writes a popular magazine column that features yummy homespun recipes and portrays her as a happy housewife in hyper-drive in an idyllic Connecticut farmhouse vision.
The recipes belong to Hungarian restaurateur pal Felix (Cuddles) and the farmhouse belongs to her architect beau, Reginald Gardiner as John Sloan. She can’t cook. She lives in the city. She’s a childless, single, career girl. WW2 sailor Dennis Morgan as Jefferson Jones, recovering from being adrift at sea after a German U-boat attack, is a big fan of her column and dreams of feasting in Connecticut at her farmhouse. Media publisher Sydney Greenstreet as Alexander Yardley sets up a visit for publicity. It all goes topsy-turvy when city mouse Elizabeth goes well past her comfort zone in the pretty countryside, pretending to be an ideal wife, mother and chef… and serendipitously finds love along the way.
…..
Stanwyck and Dennis MorganWhile the plot doesn’t deal with the holidays as straight-forward as some, it does take place at Christmas time and the word ‘Christmas’ is in the title, after all. Additionally, Elizabeth falls for hunky vet Jeffrey when he sings Christmas carols to her, as she’s trimming the tree. How romantically Christmassy is that?? There are romantic, wintery scenes abound when we see the farmhouse covered in snow, which is as pretty as a holiday card and reminiscent of other snowy sets such as Holiday Inn (1942). Plus a romantic sleigh ride looks perfection as Stanwyck gets cozy in a mink fur coat with a shimmering scarf, delicately framing her locks. Finally, Yardley breaks fourth wall to the audience with, “What a Christmas! Ho, ho, what a Christmas!” in his typically hardy laugh.
So, does it qualify as a classic holiday film? Most definitely.
…..
Reginald Gardner as fake fiancé SloanIf you read last month’s CMH’s “The Funny Paper” column I wrote on ‘Surviving the Holidays with the Screwball Leading Ladies’, you may recall the signature hallmarks of a Screwball Comedy I listed. Christmas in Connecticut meets many of these.
1) Female-driven: This film is centered on Barbara Stanwyck’s character as the focus of the entire film.
2) Mixed-up identities: We see mix-ups everywhere. Elizabeth is not who she says she is (and the multiple role mix-ups that ensue)- even babies get mixed-up, too.
3) Gender switch-ups: We see that played out in diaper dilemmas with the babies
4) The less-dominant male in a love triangle: Fake fiancé Sloan is not exactly the strong, assertive male, although he may be in his career ambitions. The chemistry between Gardiner and Stanwyck is ZILCH, which conveniently allows a clear path for sparks to fly with Dennis Morgan. The only reason she’s finally agreeing to marry Sloan is for the sake of keeping her cover to protect her career. Let’s not kid ourselves here; no one believes John ever had real interest in marrying Elizabeth, except to serve as a cover for being ambiguously gay. Obviously not directly stated, but there are clues beyond his prim Brit demeanor that subtly hints at Old Hollywood code for gay:
Elizabeth Lane: “Oh, it’s Yardley. He’s sending me a sailor for Christmas.”
John Sloan: “Oh how nice… a sailor!”
5) Madcap pace: We see this briefly, in moments of trying to get secretly married and other scenes of attempting to hide the truth.
6) Wealth: Elizabeth is no eccentric heiress, but that farmhouse is big money. And as we all know, Connecticut is a favored geography for Screwball comedies.
So, is Christmas in Connecticut a Screwball Comedy? I’m convinced.
…..
Dennis Morgan, Barbara Stanwyck and baby…Finally, is there a core value message addressed in this film dealing with feminism and/or women’s roles? What’s interesting about this film in the context of 1945, it asks the question if women can/or should do it all? We are introduced to a woman who appears relatively realistic in her life as a single, city girl. Culinary expertise equals boiling water. She pretends to be a domestic goddess because who has the time to balance a successful writing career in addition to all of those roles in glossy magazine cover style?
When we see her attempt domestic skills, she’s very awkward and unsure. It’s war-hero Jones that feels more at home in the stereotypical maternal roles, such as bathing a baby. Unlike many films at that time that would poke fun whenever men were shown performing basic parenting skills like diaper changing, this film shows this image of equality in a positive light.
The flirting between Lane and Jones dances along the post-code enforcement censorship lines because she is very direct as a married woman seducing a man who isn’t her husband. Granted, the audience knows she’s not actually married, but I’m surprised this was so overt.
In the end, I believe the message is that the domestic goddess image as a goal for women is a fictional, unrealistic one. She is offered the opportunity to have it all – keep her job, with a raise, and still find bliss in love… domestic duties optional. If she chooses to keep Cuddles handy, and Jones appears to make an ideal hubby for parenting, who needs to learn how to cook and run a farm, anyway?
So, is it a feminist film?
Perhaps it’s not the strongest feminist definition, but it does project a more open-minded view for its time by simply asking the questions regarding women’s roles, even if it doesn’t take a firm stance on the answers. And by default as a Screwball Comedy, it plants the female lead into the driver’s seat. I think that’s a good start.
Ultimately, I truly enjoy Christmas in Connecticut, more so every time I watch it. Barbara Stanwyck is in her romantic comedy prime. Plus the setting is pure Christmas classic schmaltz, which I never tire of especially this time of year. Whether you consider it a holiday classic, a Screwball Comedy, or even a film that takes a chance in 1945 to question traditional gender roles, it’s got something for everyone.
…..
–Kellee Pratt for Classic Movie Hub
When not performing marketing and social media as her day gig, Kellee Pratt writes for her own classic film blog, Outspoken & Freckled (kelleepratt.com). Kellee teaches classic film courses in her college town in Kansas (Screwball Comedy this Fall). Unapologetic social butterfly, she’s an active tweetaholic/original alum for #TCMParty, member of the CMBA, Social Producer for TCM (2015, 2016), and busy mom of four kids and 3 fur babies. You can follow Kellee on twitter at @IrishJayHawk66.
In celebration of my mother’s birthday today, I’m sharing a YouTube clip of an interview with my mom about her lifelong love of classic movies and her classic movie memories. First she is interviewed by my fabulous friend and classic movie colleague Aurora from Once Upon a Screen (aka @CitizenScreen) — where my mom talks about what it was like going to the movies ‘way back when’ (sorry Mom), the old NYC Movie Palaces like the NYC Paramount, her favorite actor (not telling who), Elvis, Cagney, Frankenstein and more. Then about halfway in, I chat with my mom about her favorite actors, her desert island movie picks, seeing Streisand on Broadway (I’m all verkelmpt!), and more…
As I’ve mentioned many times before, my parents both shared classic movies with me when I was a kid, and that is a gift I will treasure forever…
This video is posted on our ‘Classic Movies and More’ YouTube Channel…
Thanks for watching!
…..
–Annmarie Gatti for Classic Movie Hub
We’ve all seen clips of early, scratchy films showing a woman dancing or blacksmiths at work, films more like experimental documentaries than anything else. But have you ever wondered: what were the top 10 earliest films ever made?
It’s not an easy list to make, anymore than it’s easy to decide which of the many Victorian inventors receives the most credit for the cinema (Marey? Edison? Muybridge? Friese-Greene??). First, we must determine what counts as “film.” Before the use of light-sensitive paper and celluloid, several photographers had invented cameras capable of taking photos in quick succession, capturing, say, an animal’s movements one shot at a time. (Eadweard Muybridge pioneered this method.) But it’s usually agreed that the earliest bona fide films were the ones shot on light-sensitive strips of material, much the way they are today (or were, until digital started taking over).
It can also be tough to determine an exact chronology for the earliest films, so the following list should be considered a little less Gospel than guideline. In some cases where a “series” of brief films were shot by the same studio in the same vague timeframe, I’ll be counting them as a single entry.
So with that in mind, let’s start with the very oldest film in the entire world:
1. Roundhay Garden Scene (1888)
The one that started it all. While in Leeds, England on October 14, 1888, French inventor Louis Le Prince decided to try out his stubby-refrigerator-sized camera in the garden of his parents-in-law Joseph and Sarah Whitley. We see Joseph, Sarah, friend Annie Hartley, and Le Prince’s brother Adolphe apparently strolling in circles just to give Louis some action to shoot. (Sarah’s laughing and walking backwards.) Only 52 frames survive, but I’m sure you and I can agree that we’re grateful for those two seconds or so of footage!
2. Traffic Crossing Leeds Bridge (1888)
This was the second film shot by Le Prince, probably not long after Roundhay. He filmed from an upper window of what was then called Hicks the Ironmongers. Today the light-colored brick building is an estate agency, and bears a blue plaque commemorating Le Prince’s day of filming.
3. Accordion Player (1888)
The third work by–guess who?–our friend Le Prince. This was the last film of his that survives and depicts his brother Adolphe playing an accordion by Joseph Whitley’s front steps. Why is this the final Le Prince film? Not long before he was to embark to the U.S. for a promo tour of his new camera, he got on a train to Dijon, France, and…was never seen again. This disappearance remains a mystery to this day (theories range from regular ol’ murder to the very dubious idea of fratricide).
4. Monkeyshines No. 1 and 2 (1889) Thomas Edison and W.K-L. Dickson
Filmed in Thomas Edison’s famed Black Maria (the world’s first film studio), the two very warped, scratchy Monkeyshines films are essentially camera tests a few seconds in length. No. 1 shows a figure in white gesturing against a black background, and No. 2 shows the same figure waving his arms and bending from side to side. A third Monkeyshine (the word for “mischief making”) is lost. Some historians dispute whether the films were made in 1889 or 1890, but they do seem to be the very first ones made in the U.S.
5. London’s Trafalgar Square (1890)
This tiny documentary, shot at 10 frames per second, is not only one of the world’s oldest films but is the earliest footage ever shot of London. Interestingly, filmmakers Wordsworth Donisthorpe and William Carr Crofts decided to capture the action with a circular frame over the lens of their “kinesigraph.”
6. Mosquinha (1890)
Étienne-Jules Marey used his chronophotographic gun, a camera which looked, well, exactly like a chunky gun, to take this closeup shot of a fly taking flight. Marey’s invention took sequences of photographs similar to the famous ones by Muybridge. By 1890 he figured out how to operate it with film strips, making him officially one of our earliest filmmakers..
7. Dickson Greeting (1891)
Inventor William K-L. Dickson, one of Edison’s most skilled employees, created this little film to demonstrate Edison’s kinetograph–making it the first American film to be screened for the public. Three seconds of it survive today, showing the mustachioed Dickson passing his hat from one hand to another. Apparently in the original film he also bowed, smiled and waved at the camera.
8. Duncan films (1891)
James C. Duncan was a member of Edison’s staff and “starred” in several of the earliest Black Maria experimental shorts: Duncan Smoking; Duncan and Another, Blacksmith Shop; and Duncan with Muslin Cloud (all 1891). The titles are pretty self-explanatory.
9. Newark Athlete (1891)
A teenaged boy, apparently an athlete of sorts, does an Indian club-twirling demonstration for the camera, although we only see a few seconds of it (these clubs were popular for strength-training exercises). This was yet another Edison product, and we can assume the original probably showed a longer demonstration.
10. Je vous aime (1891)
Georges Demenÿ was an assistant to Étienne-Jules Marey, and was perhaps the earliest filmmaker to pursue the commercialization of moving pictures (rather than just using them for scientific purposes). Hector Marichelle, professor and director of the National Deaf-Mute Institute in France, had asked Demenÿ to make films that would help instruct deaf and mute students how to lipread. Demenÿ took this closeup of himself saying “je vous aime” (“I love you”). The experience lead Demenÿ to feel that commercialization was a part of cinema’s future, which lead to a break with Marey. You might say that Demenÿ was the more prophetic one.
While these films were merely very simple, no-frills exercises in the new motion picture technology, they are incredibly important pieces of our cultural history. We can only imagine–and hope!–that as the decades and centuries go by, their value will become nearly incalculable to future generations.
…..
–Lea Stans for Classic Movie Hub
You can read all of Lea’s Silents are Golden articles here.
Lea Stans is a born-and-raised Minnesotan with a degree in English and an obsessive interest in the silent film era (which she largely blames on Buster Keaton). In addition to blogging about her passion at her site Silent-ology, she is a columnist for the Silent Film Quarterly and has also written for The Keaton Chronicle.
“I loved the farm. It was my favorite time of the year.” -Betty Garrett
No musical cast is complete without fabulous supporting cast mates, and Betty Garrett was one of the best. Hilarious, unfailingly energetic, and lovely, Betty was the perfect addition to many an MGM musical.
Elizabeth “Betty” Garrett was born in St. Joseph, Missouri, on May 23rd, 1919, to Curtis and Elizabeth Octavia Garrett. While she was born in St. Joseph, most of her childhood was spent in Seattle, Washington, where her family relocated not long after her birth. There, her mother worked as the manager of a sheet music department at Sherman Clay & Company, a retailer of musical instruments as well as a publisher and seller of sheet music. Her father was a traveling salesman but struggled heavily with alcoholism and an inability to manage the family’s finances, which eventually led to the couple’s divorce. Her father would pass away in 1921, leading Betty and her mother to live in various hotels while they tried to regain control of their finances.
Betty was roughly two years old when she moved to Seattle with her mother, but also spent time back in St. Joseph on a farm situated on the outskirts of the town. Her father previously lived there and she would stay with his relatives over the summers — a time she remembered fondly, according to a 1989 interview with the St. Joseph News-Press. Moreover, she was also close with her aunt, Catherine Pike, a highly active St. Joseph resident. Despite turning 80, Catherine practiced yoga and accomplished worldwide travels, which inspired Betty to be just as vivacious as she.
When Betty turned eight, her mother married a former boyfriend and the three of them settled in Regina, Saskatchewan, where Betty’s stepfather worked for the meat-packing industry. Unfortunately, the marriage came to an end when Betty’s mother learned of her new husband’s relationship with a male assistant. In response, she and Betty moved back to Seattle, where Betty carried out her education.
Betty enrolled at the Annie Wright School in Tacoma, Washington, with a full scholarship. The school had no drama department, so Betty decided to organize musicals and plays for special occasions throughout the academic year. Upon her senior year performance in Twelfth Night, Betty was urged by others to consider a career on the stage. Her mother’s friend also coordinated an interview for Betty with American modern dancer Martha Graham, who was in town for a concert tour. Graham recommended Betty for a scholarship at the Neighborhood Playhouse in New York City, New York.
By 1936, Betty and her mother resided in Manhattan, where Betty began to take classes for dance, drama, music, and classics. Betty felt that she would become a dramatic actress and typically avoided comedic roles.
Betty GarrettBetty performed throughout the Borscht Belt during the summers, where she grew her singing and dancing skills. She joined Orson Welles‘ Mercury theater as an understudy and performed with Martha Graham’s dance company. She also found work as a singer and appeared in various satirical and political revues. During this time, she joined the Communist Party and performed at fundraisers for its causes.
In 1942, Betty debuted on Broadway as part of a revue called Of V We Sing. In the same year, she was also cast in a revue called Let Freedom Sing, which producer Mike Todd saw. Todd enjoyed Betty’s performance and hired her both as an understudy to Ethel Merman and as a small role in Cole Porter‘s Something for the Boys (1943). When Merman fell ill, Betty was able to carry out her role for a week. She was spotted by producer Vinton Freedley, who cast her in the musical, Jackpot. Though the show closed soon after, Betty toured the country with a nightclub act. She returned to New York and became an acclaimed actress after performing in Call Me Mister.
As her act toured the country, Betty was invited to perform as part of a comedy sketch for the Actor’s Lab in Hollywood. Larry Parks was producing the show and it wasn’t long until they fell in love during her two-week stint in Hollywood. Parks was determined to marry her, though she soon left for Chicago with her nightclub act. He quickly joined her in Chicago and introduced her to his mother, as Parks and his family were from nearby Joliet, Illinois. Parks returned to Los Angeles to work on a film, while Betty left for New York to work on a show. Before her rehearsals began, she called Parks and proposed. On September 8th, 1944, Betty and Parks were married four months after they met, with Lloyd Bridges standing as best man. Betty would later be godmother to Lloyd’s son, Jeff Bridges.
After their honeymoon, the couple lived apart for two years to further their careers. They had two sons–Garret and Andrew–and remained married until Parks’s death in 1975.
Betty with husband Larry Parks and son GarrettParks enjoyed success after portraying Al Jolson in The Jolson Story (1946), with the film being extremely popular in the United Kingdom. He and Betty toured the United Kingdom with a nightclub act before audience interest in the novelty of television eventually created a gradual decline in live entertainment.
By 1947, Hollywood called for Betty and she signed a one-year contract with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. She made her film debut as a nightclub performer in Big City (1947), co-starring George Murphy and Robert Preston. When her contract was up, Mayer renewed it, leading Betty to appear in a string of musicals, including Words and Music (1948), On the Town (1949), Take Me Out to the Ball Game (1949), and Neptune’s Daughter (1949). One of her more notable performances is in On the Town (1949) as cab driver Brunhilde Esterhazy, who is in hot pursuit of Frank Sinatra’s character, Chip. Betty worked with her husband once again when the two of them temporarily replaced Judy Holliday and Sydney Chaplin in Broadway’s Bells are Ringing.
Betty Garrett as Brunhilde Esterhazy in On The Town, 1949While both of their careers were on the rise, past affiliations with the Communist Party became a problem for Betty and Parks. Both of them came under the scrutiny of the House of Un-American Activities Committee, though only Parks was called upon to testify. As a result, Parks was blacklisted, and both he and his wife had a difficult time finding work in the entertainment industry. Eventually, Parks founded a successful construction business and the couple owned several apartment buildings in the Los Angeles area, with Parks profitably serving as landlord.
Though Betty and Parks sometimes performed in various live acts in Las Vegas, summer stock shows, and as part of Broadway touring companies, Betty’s career transitioned towards television. In 1973, she appeared as Irene, an Irish-American wife and new neighbor to the Bunkers, in All in the Family, winning a Golden Globe for her performance. When performing a one-woman show called Betty Garrett and Other Songs, she also took on the role of landlady Edna Babish on Laverne & Shirley. She left the series to join the cast of The Supporting Cast on Broadway, but the show closed quickly and Edna Babish was already written out of the show.
Cindy Williams and Betty Garrett in Laverne & ShirleyNonetheless, Betty made appearances on Murder, She Wrote, Grey’s Anatomy, The Golden Girls, and many other television shows. She also continued acting on the stage in various productions, including carrying out the role of Katie the maid in Meet Me in St. Louis. She fondly recalled her aunt Catherine Pike from her St. Joseph days and decided to take on the role in memory of her. Well into her 70s, Betty’s portrayal of Katie included performing a dance on a tabletop, singing two song, and advising the other characters in the show.
Betty remained active as a performer all the way until her passing on February 12, 2011. She even attended Turner Classic Movies‘ first Film Festival with co-star Esther Williams. The pair attended a poolside screening of Neptune’s Daughter (1949), the film in which “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” was introduced. Ricardo Montalban serenades Esther Williams, while the roles of “cat and mouse” are reversed in the second half, with Betty serenading Red Skelton.
While there are no direct tributes to Betty in her hometown, the farm on which she spent her summers remains privately owned at 1819 E. Jule Street in St. Joseph, Missouri. Here is the property today:
1819 E. Jule Street in St. Joseph, MissouriOne of Betty’s Seattle residences in 1930 was at 1014 Minor Ave. This is the property today:
1014 Minor Ave, Seattle, WashingtonThe Annie Wright School that Betty attended continues to function as a private school. It is located at 827 N Tacoma Ave.
Annie Wright School in Tacoma, WashingtonFinally, when Betty and her mother moved to New York in 1940 for Betty to begin taking various classes relating to the performing arts, they resided at 243 E. 39th Street in New York, New York. This is the property as it stands today:
243 E. 39th St, NYCThough Betty is no longer with us, audiences can still enjoy her boundless energy preserved through her many performances.
…..
–Annette Bochenek for Classic Movie Hub
Annette Bochenek of Chicago, Illinois, is a PhD student at Dominican University and an independent scholar of Hollywood’s Golden Age. She manages the Hometowns to Hollywood blog, in which she writes about her trips exploring the legacies and hometowns of Golden Age stars. Annette also hosts the “Hometowns to Hollywood” film series throughout the Chicago area. She has been featured on Turner Classic Movies and is the president of TCM Backlot’s Chicago chapter. In addition to writing for Classic Movie Hub, she also writes for Silent Film Quarterly, Nostalgia Digest, and Chicago Art Deco SocietyMagazine.
