Fritz Lang: The Silent Films Review and Giveaway (December) (12-disc Blu-Ray from Kino Lorber)

Fritz Lang: The Silent Films
12-Blu-Ray Set Review and Giveaway (below)

Yay! The contest is over and the winner is: Michael J Lyons! Congratulations!

I first became ‘acquainted’ with the silent films of Fritz Lang a few years back when I was lucky enough to see Metropolis on the Big Screen. I will never forget how intensely my heart was pounding throughout the film (I was literally on the edge of my seat) — and I just couldn’t stop talking about it to anyone who would listen. It left an indelible impression on me, and gave me a renewed and profound respect for the artistry of the classic Silents. So, imagine how happy I was when an unexpected package from Kino Lorber showed up at my door…Fritz Lang: The Silent Films… a 12-disc Blu-Ray set that contains all of Lang’s existing silent films, restored.

fritz lang: the silent films blu-ray set pack shot

Now, I am certainly no expert in German Expressionism, or for that matter, in silent films, but I am a fan, and I know what I like. And I am thoroughly enjoying, and immersed in,  this box set — these films are intense — riveting, heart-pounding, and thoroughly thought provoking, with lots of ‘aha’ and ‘oh no’ moments weaved in (what storytelling!). And – I almost have to laugh here – I became aware that, yes, once again I was literally sitting on the edge of my seat while watching (this time during Die Nibelungen, which I had never seen before). Wow.

Now in all honesty, I haven’t viewed all of the content in this set (yet), but it is certainly not from a lack of will. It is simply because, with over 30 hours of content, I just didn’t have enough time in a mere few days to do so, particularly because a number of these films are epic in scope. BUT, I really can’t wait to continue watching because these are exquisite and stinging films — with flawed characters and gripping themes — and they are visually beautiful with astonishing special effects.

This set is really quite beautiful in many respects, and I encourage you all to enter this contest, because this is a set of films worth owning!

That said, I want to thank my fine friends at Kino Lorber for sending me this incredible Set of films — and for also giving CMH a set to give away to one lucky winner!

And now for the giveaway contest…

fritz lang: the silent films blu-ray set

…..

In order to qualify to win this prize via this contest giveaway, you must complete the below entry task by Saturday, December 30 at 10PM EST. One lucky winner will be randomly selected and announced on twitter and/or this blog (depending how you entered) on Sunday Dec 31 at 10PM.

ENTRY TASK (2-parts) to be completed by Saturday, December 30 at 10PM EST…

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 “Fritz Lang: The Silent Films” 12-blu-ray box set #Giveaway courtesy of @KinoLorber and @ClassicMovieHub #CMHContest link: http://ow.ly/ef8830gZ6sh

THE QUESTION:
What is your favorite Fritz Lang film and why? And, if you’re not familiar with his work, why would you like to win this Blu-Ray Set? 

*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…

…..

Gustav Fröhlich in Metropolis (1927)Gustav Frohlich as Freder (Joh Fredersen’s Son) in Metropolis

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).

fritz lang set die niebelungen BrunhildHanna Ralph as Brunhild in Die Nibelungen: Siegfried

About the Blu-Ray Set:

Fritz Lang made films for more than five decades in the two greatest film industries, Weimar Germany and Hollywood. Lang’s films drew on Expressionism, gritty semi-documentary realism, and mythical fantasy. He successfully moved from silent to sound film, producing acknowledged masterpieces in both forms, but his silent films forged his unique vision. This box set brings together all of Lang’s existing silent films in restored versions (including original tints), offering a chance to experience the unity of his work as never before possible. After WWI, silent cinema became a powerful narrative form and Lang was one of its key architects. During this ear Lang had unparalleled control over his films, engaged in every aspect from scripting, to design, to shooting, and editing. He gathered about him a talented team of collaborators, but Lang remained the authority and, by some accounts, the tyrant.

The Set includes 12 Blu-Rays in a beautiful digipak (nicely done), plus a 32 page booklet, and outer library case. There’s 30+ hours of content in all, including the 11 films (25+ hours), plus special features (about 4.5-5 hours from what I could count).

fritz lang woman in the moonWoman in the Moon

The Films:

Metropolis (1927), Die Nibelungen (1924), Spies (1928), Dr. Mabuse the Gambler (1922), Destiny (1921), The Spiders (1919), Woman in the Moon (1929), Four Around the Woman (1921), Harakiri (1919), The Wandering Shadow (1920), The Plague of Florence (1919, Lang did not direct, but wrote the screenplay which was based on Poe’s The Masque of the Red Death).

Special Features: 

  • Destiny:
    • audio commentary by film historian Tim Lucas
    • restoration demonstration footage
    • 2016 re-release trailer
  • Dr. Mabuse the Gambler:
    • The Story Behind Dr. Mabuse documentary (52 mins) exploring the musical score by Aljoscha Zimmermann, the career of novelist Norbert Jacques, and an analysis of the film
  • Die Nibelungen: 
    • The Legacy of the Nibelungen documentary (68 mins) on the making and restoration of the film by Guido Altendorf and Anke Wilkening
    • newsreel footage taken on the set
  • Metropolis:
    • Voyage to Metropolis documentary (50 mins) on the making and restoration of the film
    • Interview with Paula Felix-Didier, curator of the Museo del Cine, Buenos Aires, where previously missing footage was discovered
  • Spies:
    • Spies: A Small Film With Lots of Action (72 min.) a documentary by Guido Altendorf and Anke Wilkening
    • Original German theatrical trailer (5 min) courtesy of the Austrian Film Museum, Vienna
  • Woman in the Moon:
    • Woman in the Moon: The First Scientific Science Fiction Film documentary (14 mins) on the making of the film

…..

And if you can’t wait to win this Box Set click on the image below to purchase on amazon :)

 

fritz lang: the silent films blu-ray set pack shot 1 from kino lorber

 

Good Luck!

–Annmarie Gatti for Classic Movie Hub

Posted in Contests & Giveaways, Posts by Annmarie Gatti, Reviews | Tagged , , | 110 Comments

Barbara La Marr Book Giveaway (via Twitter in December)

“Barbara La Marr: The Girl who was Too Beautiful for Hollywood”
Book Giveaway via Twitter

“The silent film community as a whole should be thankful that Snyder was not only up to the task, but has created a work that will serve to define La Marr’s life and career for decades to come.” -Charles Epting, editor, Silent Film Quarterly.

Yay! The contest is over and the winners are: Carl, Gloria, Craig, Joan and Vickie! Congratulations!

It’s time for our next book giveaway, the last one for 2017! CMH is happy to say that we will be giving away FIVE COPIES of  “Barbara La Marr: The Girl Who Was Too Beautiful for Hollywood” by Sherri Snyder, courtesy of University Press of Kentucky, from now through Jan 6, 2018. (plus ONE more copy via Facebook and this Blog, details to follow in a few days).

barbara_la_marr_biography_250px

In order to qualify to win one of these prizes via this contest giveaway, you must complete the below entry task by Saturday, Jan 6 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.

  • Dec 9: One Winner
  • Dec 16: One Winner
  • Dec 23: One Winner
  • Dec 30: One Winner
  • Jan 6: One Winner

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 Dec 10 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!

Barbara La Marr James A. Woodbury portrait 1921Barbara La Marr (James A. Woodbury portrait 1921)

 …..

ENTRY TASK (2-parts) to be completed by Saturday, Jan 6 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 Barbara La Marr film and why? And, if you’re not familiar with the Barbara La Marr’s films, why do you want to win this book?

2) Then TWEET (not DM) the following message*:
Just entered to win the “Barbara La Marr: The Girl Who Was Too Beautiful for Hollywood” #BookGiveaway courtesy of @KentuckyPress author @_SherriSnyder & @ClassicMovieHub #CMHContest link: http://ow.ly/V19W30gZ5Oh

*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…

…..

Barbara La Marr, The Heart of the Siren, 1925Barbara La Marr, The Heart of the Siren, 1925

…..

About the Book:

In the first full-length biography of the woman known as the “girl who was too beautiful,” Sherri Snyder presents a complete portrait of one of the silent era’s most infamous screen sirens. In five short years, La Marr appeared in twenty-six films, including The Prisoner of Zenda (1922), Trifling Women (1922), The Eternal City (1923), The Shooting of Dan McGrew (1924), and Thy Name Is Woman (1924). Yet by 1925―finding herself beset by numerous scandals, several failed marriages, a hidden pregnancy, and personal prejudice based on her onscreen persona―she fell out of public favor. When she was diagnosed with a fatal lung condition, she continued to work, undeterred, until she collapsed on set. She died at the age of twenty-nine. Few stars have burned as brightly and as briefly as Barbara La Marr, and her extraordinary life story is one of tempestuous passions as well as perseverance in the face of adversity. Drawing on never-before-released diary entries, correspondence, and creative works, Snyder’s biography offers a valuable perspective on her contributions to silent-era Hollywood and the cinematic arts.

…..

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):

Good Luck!

…..

–Annmarie Gatti for Classic Movie Hub

 

Posted in Books, Contests & Giveaways, Posts by Annmarie Gatti | Tagged , | 40 Comments

Pre-Code Corner: To Pre-Code, or Not to Pre-Code: What Say You, Brief Moment?

 

To Pre-Code, or Not to Pre-Code: What Say You, Brief Moment?

Have you ever watched a pre-Code that you felt didn’t quite live up to, well, it’s pre-Code potential?

That was me with Brief Moment (1933).

Brief Moment movie poster Can someone please explain that tagline to me?

Now, I don’t expect every picture produced in Hollywood from 1930-1934 to operate on the same level of moral iniquity as The Story of Temple Drake (1933) or Baby Face (1933), or come anywhere near it for that matter. But I was struck by how tame Brief Moment seemed, and it bewildered me to discover how S.N. Behrman’s 1931 play of the same name actually sounded more evocative of the pre-Code period on paper than its silver screen counterpart. Sure, I’m aware that some of the era’s adaptations still required a subdued treatment, but from the synopsis I read, the play appeared a perfectly plausible pre-Code tale. So, what happened? (Spoiler: I can’t guarantee an answer, but  I can guarantee an exploration of the question.)

Brief Moment Carole LombardThis is Abby’s expression and stance for 95% of Brief Moment. Kidding, more like 88%.

First, an overview of the two versions:

In Hollywood’s Brief Moment, wedded bliss sours for cabaret singer Abby (Carole Lombard) when she discovers new hubby Rod’s (Gene Raymond) plans for their marriage: keep the drinks flowing and continue cashing his father’s $4,000 monthly allowance checks; meanwhile, Abby wants to settle down and enjoy a life of their own making. She implores Rod to find a job to earn a respectable living, but once he discovers the labor force is no leisurely walk around the polo field, he’s right back to his old haunts. It’s only when Abby walks out on him that he gives this employment business another go – without the help of his name this time.

Brief Moment Gene RaymondRod’s attempt at employment, part 1: Real work and Rod don’t mix well.
Brief Moment Gene RaymondRod’s attempt at employment, part 2: Welcome to the Great Depression Rod! Heading to an interview or the gallows?

Encapsulated on paper, Behrman’s play takes a more vivacious and comical route: following their nuptials, “young introvert” Rod feels unfulfilled, as experienced Abby (stress on the experienced), who agreed to marry Rod even though she didn’t love him, transforms into a happy society housewife. Abby’s loyalty is tested when her former lover Cass, who once spurned her, reenters the picture and a thirst for revenge overtakes her.  From there, the drawing room comedy accelerates as lovers are tossed back and forth: Rod, seeing Cass and Abby together and believing Abby loves her ex, insists she go to him – and Abby does. But it’s not long before Cass is the one feeling rebuffed when he finds out Abby’s sneaking around… with her husband!

Which one sounds more pre-Code to you? The latter, right? Supporting characters like Sig (Monroe Owsley), Rod’s functioning alcoholic BFF, and Steve (Arthur Hohl), Abby’s former boss/protector, remain largely unchanged from stage to screen, so what happened to Abby, Rod, and the story?

Brief Moment Carole Lombard and Gene RaymondRod doesn’t understand why Abby wants to leave the party. It’s only like 3pm.]
Brief Moment Carole LombardSig is prone to making cracks about working folk, which means he and Abby could never be friends.

As far as I can tell from the picture’s Production Code Administration (PCA) file, the first script submitted to the Studio Relations Committee (SRC), which was deemed “satisfactory” from a Production Code standpoint, most likely followed the source material’s plot. I say this with 95% certainty because December 1932 SRC feedback singled out lines and comments featuring Cass, who was dropped in the movie version, and other points more in line with the play. However, notes from the second draft presented around May 1933 indicate an overhaul of the story, resulting, I believe, in the tamer version captured on film. What transpired during those five months to merit such a revamp is a mystery to me, especially considering the first script didn’t raise substantial censorship concerns.

The funny thing is, before I even knew of Brief Moment‘s stage origins, I was surprised to find the only bawdy asides in the picture refer to sex within the scope of marriage, which takes some of the pre-Code edge off, don’t you think? Cases in point:

Rod’s brother Franklin: “Do you have to marry her to adore her?”

Rod: “Yes, does that answer your question?”

and:

Rod: “I think I’m entitled to a little grasping on our honeymoon, don’t you?”

When I read play reviews from various sources, I was further confused with the modifications made. For instance, pre-Code goodies that could have easily translated to the screen from the Great White Way were either stifled or curiously left unexplored, such as hints at Abby’s past and, you know, that whole potential adultery storyline.

Brief Moment Gene Raymond and Carole LombardOne pre-Code party favor the film boasts:  a decent amount of drinking and drunkenness, which the Code fought to lighten.

What does radiate stronger in the film, at least from what I gathered from the stage summary and reviews, is one idea very indicative of the pre-Code period: a strong woman. With substantial forces against her (Rod, Rod’s father, society), Abby works relentlessly to save her husband from becoming a wastrel – a quality Rod admires in idle lush Sig! – and, in turn, preserve their union. While I found her constant struggles rather exasperating, it’s hard not to commend her tireless efforts. Abby’s persistence in rendering her husband a better man, one who understands his worth and can make her proud, is a characteristic of a type of woman brought to the forefront during the pre-Code era.

All this said, I’m still mystified as to the impetus for the renovated story, especially during a time where Columbia could have gotten away with basically all the original content. Could it be that star Carole Lombard requested changes that resulted in the tamed May 1933 redraft? That seems unlikely, considering she ironically chose the property because she recognized the respected play’s title. (Not to mention, Columbia head Harry Cohn promised Lombard he could whip the production together quickly if she wanted the part – and the ensuing five month script revamp isn’t what I’d consider quick.) Did the studio aim to boost working class morale and their worth with more emphasis on a message? I don’t know, but I’d love to! Anyone out there have any insight?

…..

–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.

Posted in Posts by Kim Luperi, Pre-Code Corner | 5 Comments

A Big Thank You from CMH: “Give a Gift, Get a Gift” Holiday Contest Promotion…

 

A Special Holiday Contest… Give A Gift, Get a Gift.

cmh-holiday-contest-miracle-on-34th-street

Greetings CMH Fans and Followers! 

THANKS to everyone for their wonderful participation. I personally appreciate it, and so do our Contributors!!! The contest is over and the winners are: 
Grand Prizes: Andres G, David H, Gloria E (in place of Vienna who was ineligible)
Runner Ups: Sara S, Brett D
Christmas in Connecticut DVDs: Andres G, Sara S, David H, Kassidy J 

And just for fun – the tally: Andres (52 comments/entries), David H (57 comments/entries), Gloria (49 comments/entries), Sara (14 comments/entries), Brett D (11 comments/entries), Kassidy (11 comments/entries)

As many of you know, Classic Movie Hub is a labor of love for me, one that I launched about five or so years ago… It started out as my final project for a web development course I took at NYU (it was just a one-page site at that time) – and has since grown quite a bit (may I say that’s an understatement?). For me, it’s been an extremely exciting adventure that has allowed me to pursue my passion, learn an awful lot — and (truly) meet wonderful like-minded fans and bloggers, many of which I now count among my friends! Not to mention the fact that it’s mind-boggling to think that we now have over 800K Facebook fans, 65K Twitter fans and 40K Pinterest fans — and that’s all thanks to you – the wonderful and passionate Classic Movie Community! (I know, I said ‘wonderful’ too many times, but that’s how I feel…)

That said, for this contest, I’d like to try something a little different… something to try show my gratitude to all our CMH fans and followers — and to celebrate our new featured columnists who are contributing monthly articles for the site…

Here’s how the giveaway will work:

This past summer, we added a new feature to CMH — new monthly columns, each with a niche classic film theme, authored by some of the best writers in the classic film community. To better acquaint you with these fabulous writers and to show them some fan love in return, this contest asks you to read as many of these featured posts as you can and leave a comment of feedback for each of those you’ve read. For every comment submitted, you get an entry into our contest. The more comments you give, the more chances you have to win!

We are calling the contest Give a Gift, Get a Gift… The gift you’re giving is the gift of time by reading and commenting on the post(s)… The gift you’re getting is an entry (or entries) into the contest… As for me, to show my appreciation for your participation, I have tried to put together some nice prize packages — and all of the DVDs have been purchased by me (they were not supplied by any outside company)…

…..

cmh-holiday-contest-Christmas-in-connecticutThis screen grab is from one of our prizes as noted below: Christmas in Connecticut 🙂

The weekly and Grand Prize drawings:

The contest will run from now through December 23, 2017, 8PM EST. In order to qualify to win one of these prizes via this contest giveaway, you must read and comment on as many of the featured posts as you want (links below). For each comment submitted, you will gain one entry into the contest. However, the sooner you get started, the more chances you will have to win – because in addition to the Grand Prizes awarded at the end of the contest, we will also be giving away one DVD a week (as listed below). And, if you win a DVD during one of the weekly drawings, you are STILL ELIGIBLE to win one of the Grand or Runner Up Prizes at the end of the contest! United States (all 50 states) and Canadian residents are eligible this time. All prizes will be awarded via random drawings. Prizes will be shipped to our winners in mid-January.

  • Dec 2: Christmas in Connecticut DVD (1 winner announced Dec 3 at 8PM)
  • Dec 9: Christmas in Connecticut DVD (1 winner announced Dec 10 at 8PM)
  • Dec 16: Christmas in Connecticut DVD (1 winner announced Dec 17 at 8PM)
  • Dec 23: Christmas in Connecticut DVD (1 winner announced Dec 24 at 8PM)
  • Dec 23: Grand Prize Packages (a total of 5 winners… each winner will be announced around midnight on Dec 24, aka early Christmas morning)
    • Grand Prize #1: winner’s choice of 3 DVDs (listed below) + one surprise gift
    • Grand Prize #2: winner’s choice of 3 DVDs (listed below) + one surprise gift
    • Grand Prize #3: winner’s choice of 3 DVDs (listed below) + one surprise gift
    • Runner Up Prize #1: winner’s choice of 2 DVDs (listed below)
    • Runner Up Prize #2: winner’s choice of 2 DVDs (listed below)

We will announce each week’s winner on Twitter @ClassicMovieHub or this blog, depending how you entered, as noted above.

See full rules below.

…..

cmh-holiday-contest-holiday-affair

Here are the DVDs up for grabs (winner’s choice of 2 or 3, as noted above, and while supplies last):

  1. An American in Paris
  2. The Adventures of Robin Hood
  3. The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (39 episodes, 4 films) (includes TV episodes starring Ronald Howard, as well as films including The Woman in Green starring Basil Rathbone)
  4. The Apartment
  5. Breakfast at Tiffanys
  6. Bullitt
  7. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
  8. Cabaret
  9. Carousel
  10. Casablanca
  11. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
  12. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
  13. Father of the Bride
  14. Fiddler on the Roof
  15. Funny Face
  16. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes
  17. Hello Dolly
  18. Heroes of the Old West (20 TV episodes, 10 films) (includes McLintock and Santa Fe Trail, plus some episodes of The Lone Ranger)
  19. House Boat
  20. How to Marry a Millionaire
  21. John Wayne Tribute Collection (25 films plus documentary) (includes Angel and the Badman McLintock and Sagebrush Trail plus a documentary called The American West of John Ford)
  22. The King and I
  23. Life with Father / Father’s Little Dividend
  24. Ma and Pa Kettle, Vol 2.
  25. The Maltese Falcon
  26. The Music Man
  27. North by Northwest
  28. Oklahoma
  29. Paris When It Sizzles
  30. Penny Serenade
  31. Rebel Without a Cause
  32. Rio Bravo
  33. The Roaring Twenties
  34. Roman Holiday
  35. Sabrina
  36. Second Hand Lions
  37. Send Me No Flowers
  38. Singin’ in the Rain
  39. Some Like It Hot
  40. Spellbound
  41. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
  42. True Grit
  43. West Side Story

…..

cmh-holiday-contest-bishops-wife

Here are the links to the blog articles…
(enter as many times as you like… 1 comment on 1 post = 1 entry):

NOTE: if for any reason you encounter a problem commenting on any of the blog posts, 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 overwhelmed with spam, and must sort through 100s of comments every day…

…..

its a wonderful life holiday contest

Last but not least, the Rules:

  • Contest will run from Nov 27, 2017 to Dec 23, 2017 at 8pm EST.
  • Limited to United States (yes, all 50 states can enter this time!) and Canadian residents only.
  • Every time you read a column article (from the list above) and leave an eligible feedback comment, you will receive one entry into the Contest.
  • Only one comment per post/article is counted as an entry.
  • Each comment must be positive, and must be more detailed than simply “great post!” Some good examples:
    • “Karen, I really enjoyed learning about the noir gem, WICKED WOMAN. Who knew the writing/directing duo behind that film created the story of Doris Day/Rock Hudson classic PILLOW TALK?? Thanks for teaching me something new about classic film!”
    • “Ron, I never thought about how early talkies would completely change movie concessions. That was a fascinating perspective. Thanks!”
  • Yes, you can win the weekly DVD giveaway, and still be eligible to win a Grand Prize or Runner Up Prize package.
  • Spammers (i.e. using bots to make generic comments) are ineligible.
  • Updates will be posted on CMH social media channels on a regular basis.
  • Each winner will be notified by email or Twitter and will have 48 hours to respond with their shipping information or a new winner may be chosen. If any Prize or Prize notification is returned as undeliverable, the winner may be disqualified, and an alternate winner may be selected.
  • Prizes will ship after the contest period is over. Please allow up to 2 to 4 weeks for prize delivery. Classic Movie Hub is not responsible for prizes lost or stolen.
  • Family of Classic Movie Hub is not eligible for entry……

The more feedback comments you give, the more chances to win. See? Give a Gift, Get a Gift! We hope you enjoy participating in our Holiday Contest to honor this season for giving.

A Big Thank your for participating! And a Happy and Healthy Holidays to All,

–Annmarie Gatti for Classic Movie Hub

 

 

Posted in Contests & Giveaways, Posts by Annmarie Gatti | 11 Comments

From Heavies to Heroes – Exclusive Post by Authors James Bawden and Ron Miller (You Ain’t Heard Nothin’ Yet)

From Heavies to Heroes
Interviews with Classic Stars from the Golden Age of Hollywood

Ever since Humphrey Bogart went from being a gangster-type heavy in the 1930s to being a tough guy anti-hero in the 1940s, actors have been able to argue that glamour boy looks aren’t necessary to being a movie leading man and playing a bad guy doesn’t always have to get you stuck in a nasty career rut.

Consider the record of Ernest Borgnine and Lee Marvin, two famous actors who went from ultra-mean villains to Oscar-winning leading men, or Jack Elam and Victor Buono, who managed to turn their villainous screen images around and re-shape them with comic results.

In our book You Ain’t Heard Nothin’ Yet: Interviews with Stars from Hollywood’s Golden Era, all four actors explain how they re-shaped their screen images and felt much better about it afterward.

ernest borgning from here to eternityErnest Borgnine in From Here to Eternity, 1953

Ernest Borgnine, for instance, was a nasty character in almost all his early screen appearances, most especially when he threatened Montgomery Clift with a knife and brutally murdered Frank Sinatra while playing “Fatso” Judson, the arch villain of From Here To Eternity (1953). If that wasn’t bad enough, he came back the following year to torment Spencer Tracy, who was playing a one-armed man, in Bad Day at Black Rock,

Even if Bornine secretly longed for leading man roles, he didn’t mind the way movie fans reacted to him in those days.

“People used to come up to me and say, ‘Oooh, how I hated you in that last picture” Borgnine said.  “I felt honored because that’s exactly what they were supposed to think. At night, I’ll go home and say to my wife, ‘Honey, am I really that bad?’”

Ernest Borgnine and Betsy Blair in MartyErnest Borgnine and Betsy Blair in Marty, 1955

Things changed dramatically for Borgnine in 1955 when he landed the title role of the shy butcher in Marty, which turned out to be the Oscar-winning Best Picture that year and earned him the Best Actor Academy Award. Though Marty was a homely, overweight fellow whose luck with women was nil, he was a decent, loving man and movie fans loved him.

“It broke a mold that was long in the making,” Borgnine said.  “Many character actors thanked me for breaking out of type and showing that actors like me could portray a number of things—not just villains.”
That’s when Borgnine realized he felt much better about being likeable on screen. Once he took the role of Lt. Cmdr. Quinton McHale in the TV comedy series McHale’s Navy, Borgnine’s conversion to a good guy was complete.

In retrospect, Borgnine felt much better about his career once movie-goers realized he was a competent character actor and not just a mean-spirited person.

“It hurts me when people describe me as a big burly brute with tremendous huge hands. I may be big. I may be burly, but I’m not a brute. I’m probably more sensitive than the ordinary person. I know how to sew. I know how to cook. I love beautiful things like ceramic pottery, antiques, good music, and sunsets. Does that sound like a brute, that I should be called a meanie?”

lee marvin the big heatLee Marvin in The Big Heat, 1952

Lee Marvin had a similar rise in movies as unsavory villains in westerns and crime stories like The Big Heat (1952) in which he threw hot coffee into the face of Gloria Grahame, scarring her permanently. Though he had played a hard-edged cop in the TV series M Squad, it only enhanced his image as a tough guy who liked to beat up on people.

Marvin made his movie debut in the war movie You’re in the Navy Now (1951) alongside another young actor who also lacked matinee idol looks — Charles Bronson, who like Marvin would work his way into leading roles after years of screen villainy.

“When Charlie and I made our first picture…, we looked at each other and knew: here are two guys who have to be heavies. I mean, we couldn’t wear an Arrow shirt in a magazine ad, right? They were still doing Tyrone Power and John Payne films then.”

Marvin believed World War II helped change Hollywood’s attitude about what heroes really looked like.

“Too many guys came home from the war and told their friends and families what it was really like, that all heroes weren’t good looking,” Marvin said. “Anyway, I didn’t have any idea about being a leading man. I was just going along with getting a job and keeping it. The bad guys were the more interesting parts anyway.”

Everything changed for Lee Marvin after he played the dual role of a much-feared gunfighter and his drunken adversary in Cat Ballou (1965). It proved he was a character actor with considerable range and it led to many roles as heroes, most notably as the leader of a bunch of heroic rogues in The Dirty Dozen (1967).

Lee Marvin The Dirty DozenLee Marvin in  The Dirty Dozen, 1967

Marvin believed the change in his career was rooted in a major change in our society that governed the way we perceive heroism.

“In love stories, both the boy and girl would have to live happily ever after in the old days,” Marvin explained.  “We did all that in the 1920s and 1930s. The real facts of life are much more evident to kids today.”

An entirely different kind of change came over the career of actor Jack Elam, whose original career was as an accountant for movie companies. A decline in his vision prompted him to follow his doctor’s orders and change his line of work. He chose acting, even though he was an unpleasant-looking guy with a shifty eye and unhandsome features. He made a deal with a film producer to do his taxes for him in return for a villain role in a western he was preparing.

“I’d been on the sets of movies like that for so long that the idea of going in front of the camera didn’t intimidate me,” said Elam. “Anyway, I think acting is nothing more than not being nervous while you’re working. I figured I could look mean and ugly on camera because I looked mean and ugly off camera.”

jack elam once upon a time in the westJack Elam in Once Upon a Time in the West, 1968

Elam was an immediate success and landed many small roles in westerns and crime pictures of the early 1950s where his sinister looks made him an ideal heavy. He especially remembered his villainy in the 1951 western Rawhide where he shot at a baby and tried to rape Susan Hayward.

His villainy went on for decades in both movies and television series, but Elam believes the natural aging process began to bring different kinds of roles to him — sometimes even more comic than they were villainous.

“It’s just the natural osmosis of getting old,” said Elam. “I don’t know that I have that much choice. And I’m not so sure I haven’t done some of those psychotic heavies in a way that turned out to be comedy when I got through with them.”

Elam’s career ultimately had him playing major roles in TV situation comedies like CBS’ Struck by Lightning and NBC’s Easy Street. He remembered three-time Oscar winning character actor Walter Brennan actually predicting that turn in Elam’s career when they worked together in Support Your Local Sheriff. By then, Brennan was mainly playing comic old guys.

“One day he took me aside and said, ‘I’m getting old. One of these days I’m gonna kick off and you’re going to start working steady.’”

victor buono and bette davis what ever happened to baby janeVictor Buono and Bette Davis in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, 1962

For actor Victor Buono, the dye for his career was cast once he was cast in a supporting role in the thriller Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? A large man of nearly 300 pounds, he was never offered hero roles in movies or TV shows.

“If you weigh more than 280 pounds, you better get out the black hat and forget about getting the girl at the end of the picture,” Buono explained. “I’ve been shot, stabbed, run over, and been pushed off of, out of, under, and over more things than you can imagine. I never get the girl. In fact, I’m not even allowed to have a friend.”

Buono didn’t worry too much about that, though he did try to diet every once in a while in hopes of losing his extra-heavy look. His efforts were genuinely fruitless.

“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve tried to lose weight in order to change the direction of my career,” Buono said. “But I always give up and shoot back up to 350 pounds or so. My tailors don’t measure me, they survey me.“

But Buono managed to add a special distinction to his work by doing everything he could to bring his own native sense of humor to his screen characters. Even when playing an arch villain like Mr. Schubert on TV’s 1977 TV series The Man From Atlantis, Buono did it with tongue in cheek.

As a result, Buono kept busy playing such comic-tinged villain roles and was in great demand as a late night talk show guest because of his easy-going persona and self-deprecatory humor.

“What else can I do but joke about it all the time?” Buono said when asked to sum up the direction of his acting career.

…..

–James Bawden and Ron Miller for Classic Movie Hub

Retired journalists James Bawden and Ron Miller are the authors of You Ain’t Heard Nothin’ Yet, and  Conversations with Classic Film Starstwo astonishing collections of rare interviews with the greatest celebrities of Hollywood’s golden age. Conducted over the course of more than fifty years, they recount intimate conversations with some of the most famous leading men and women of the era, including Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Joseph Cotten, Cary Grant, Gloria Swanson, Joan Fontaine, Loretta Young, Kirk Douglas, and many more.

You can purchase the books on amazon by clicking here:

     

 

 

Posted in Books, Guest Posts | Tagged , | 6 Comments

Mini Tribute: Garson Kanin at work

Born November 24, in 1912, Director/Writer
Garson Kanin

Garson Kanin started his show biz career as a musician, comedian and stage actor, making his Broadway debut in 1933 in the drama Little Ol’Boy. He became assistant to Broadway director George Abbot, and in a few short years, Kanin was writing and directing for Broadway. In 1946, Kanin’s play, Born Yesterday (written and directed/staged by Kanin), premiered at the Lyceum Theatre on Broadway starring none other than Judy Holliday as Billie Dawn. It had a hugely successful run through the end of 1949 (first at the Lyceum, then at the Henry Miller Theater). Other notable Broadway shows directed by Kanin include The Diary of Anne Frank (1955-1957), A Hole in the Head (1957), Do Re Mi (1960-1962), Sunday in New York (1961-1962), and Funny Girl (1964-1967) (starring Barbra Streisand of course!).

But that’s not all…

Kanin also had a successful film career as both a writer and director! He directed Tom, Dick and Harry, Bachelor Mother, They Knew What They Wanted — and my personal favorite, My Favorite Wife… He wrote the screenplay for It Should Happen to You, and co-wrote the screenplays, with wife Ruth Gordon, for Adam’s Rib, Pat and Mike, The Marrying Kind and A Double Life

So, without further adieu, here are some pictures of Garson Kanin ‘at work’…

David Niven with Garson Kanin and Ginger Rogers on the set of Bachelor MotherDavid Niven with Garson Kanin (director and uncredited writer) and Ginger Rogers on the set of Bachelor Mother, 1939

…..

Ginger Rogers, Garson Kanin (director) and Pandro S Berman on the set of Bachelor MotherGinger Rogers, Garson Kanin and Pandro S Berman (production manager) on the set of Bachelor Mother

…..

Director Garson Kanin, Cary Grant, Irene Dunne and Granville Bates in a game of jacks in between takes of My Favorite Wife, 1940 600pxCary Grant, Garson Kanin (director and uncredited writer), Irene Dunne and Granville Bates in a game of jacks in between takes of My Favorite Wife, 1940

…..

 Dir. Garson Kanin (L) w. anxious actors Carole Lombard & Charles Laughton as they view a screening of their movie They Knew What They Wanted at RKO Studios.Garson Kanin (director) with Carole Lombard and Charles Laughton as they view a screening of  They Knew What They Wanted, 1940, at RKO Studios

"We were all great pals": MGM publicity photo, at the time of  Pat and Mike,  with (from left) Spencer Tracy, Ruth Gordon, Garson Kanin, and Katharine Hepburn. (Photo: British Film Institute)Spencer Tracy, Ruth Gordon, Garson Kanin (writer), and Katharine Hepburn, MGM publicity photo during the time of Pat and Mike, 1952.

…..

Some of my favorite movies! How about you?

…..

–Annmarie Gatti for Classic Movie Hub

Posted in Directors, Mini Tributes, Posts by Annmarie Gatti, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Hollywood at Play: The History and Use of Publicity Stills, Exclusive Guest Post by Author Mary Mallory


The History and Use of Publicity Stills

In the early decades of the Twentieth Century before the invention of television and the internet, the Hollywood motion picture industry sold itself and its products to the general public through the use of still photographs distributed to magazines and newspapers to entice consumers into buying movie tickets. As film studio photographers Elmer Fryer and Fred Archer described it in a 1928 article about still photography, “The still sells the movies.” Hollywood’s motion picture still photography defined sophisticated style, shaped personas, and created the iconic image of “a movie star” as we know it today.

As a fledgling medium in the early 1900s, the film industry developed all necessary practices as they went along, inventing the hows and whys of each step in the process of motion pictures from production through exhibition and distribution, including publicity. In the beginning, producers merely copied earlier forms of entertainment like the circus, devising eye-catching, colorful posters selling mostly company brand names and offering a bare hint of a story. By the end of the decade, scene stills further elaborated plots and action.

Mabel Normand Hartsook
Mabel Normand Hartsook

Three events around 1910 ushered in the age of publicity photographs and the beginnings of celebrity culture. Newspapers established departments to review films in 1909. After years of moviegoers asking the name of stars appearing on the silver screen, studios finally began crediting actors playing the roles in their films in 1910, with Universal’s Inependent Motion Pictures Company (IMP) the first to name Florence Lawrence as a star. Most importantly, film producer J. Stuart Blackton published the first fan magazine devoted strictly to the art of moving pictures, Motion Picture Story, in 1911.

To take advantage of these new publicity avenues, stars visited important portrait photographers frequented by theatrical performers, such as Albert Witzel, Fred Hartsook, and Nelson Evans in Los Angeles, for portrait sittings. They ordered vast quantities of prints to send to magazines and newspapers for reproduction and in so doing, create name recognition, greater popularity, bountiful box office receipts, all leading to higher salaries.

Classic Movie Posters as PublicityClassic Movie Posters as Publicity

Studios themselves employed portrait stills to build name and studio recognition and hopefully attract movie lovers to theatres. They shot star portraits to be employed as personality posters at film theatres or to sell or give away as fan photos, as well as occasionally making specialty shots requested by fan magazines. They also increased the shooting of scene stills, so that sets of eight images per film title could be employed as window or lobby displays in local movie palaces.

Anita Louise Makes Apple Strudel
Anita Louise Makes Apple Strudel

Photos acted as a recognizable and attractive product appealing to consumers and hopefully therefore to box office revenues. Renowned stillsmen Fred Archer and Elmer Fryer described these uses in an article entitled “Still Photography in Motion Picture Work” in the 1928 issue of Transactions of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers. “In the advertising field the still picture is used to illustrate and help plant the articles broadcast by the publicity department throughout the periodical world and it is used for lobby displays.”

Betty Furness Shooting Pose
Betty Furness Shooting Pose 

By the late teens, magazines and newspapers became the primary avenue for advertisers to reach consumers, as virtually every person read a daily paper or perused journals. Print outlets searched for photographs to illustrate stories and to fill extra space and pages required to fit in all this advertising, helped by the low cost to reproduce these images. In Still: American Silent Motion Picture Photography, Dr. David Shields quotes from the 1938 book Photography and the American Scene regarding their usage. “The half-tone, more than any other factor, has been held responsible for the tremendous circulation of the modern periodical and newspaper. It has, indeed, revolutionized the mechanics of journalism, for it has completed changed methods of advertising.” Motion picture studios quickly recognized the opportunity to fulfill print media’s demands and obtain free publicity in the process, creating a quid pro quo system to fulfill each other’s needs.

To satisfy the heavy demand for publicity stills, studios established full photography departments in the early 1920s to shoot and produce the images. Stillsman Donald Biddle Keyes established the first film photography gallery/studio in the early 1920s at Famous Players Lasky, and virtually every other production company quickly followed. Most photography department heads focused on portraits, while one photographer shot scene stills, another off-camera, candids or special shoots, and the like.

Greta Garbo Stills in Silver Screen 1930Greta Garbo Stills in Silver Screen 1930

Historian John Kobal describes how studio portraiture “was not merely to photograph established celebrities…but to help create something entirely new…a breed of celebrity with the extraordinary power to transfix.” The photographers’ dramatic lighting, dynamic compositions, artful negative retouching, and artistic eyes influenced the American public’s perceptions of celebrities and their personalities. Stars were defined as sexy, glamorous, thoughtful, foreboding, all through the scintillating camerawork of these often unsung and forgotten men.

Studios shot millions of photographs of actors, executives, scenes, and behind-the- scenes action, which they then freely distributed to magazines and newspapers, usually with a snipe (caption) typed on or glued to the back of the print describing the person, film, or event. A letter often accompanied these images, giving further detail on the person or film pictured and even suggesting usage in the edition. The studios required no payment or permission to run the images, just asking for a credit line if they were employed, and none of the images were ever sent to the United States Copyright Office.

Men Stars Cook 1930Men Stars Cook 1930

These images covered the gamut of subjects and departments found in newspapers and magazines so they could easily be plugged into an empty page or section. To hit women’s areas of interest, photos of fashion, home decoration, cooking, pets, religion, and even children were shot. Images of sports, travel, automobiles, and the like catered to men’s interests.

Cheesecake and beefcake images of stars in swimsuits always seemed popular. In an article about short films benefiting local exhibitors in the December 26, 1925 issue of Exhibitors Trade Review, Universal Studios President Carl Laemmle stated, “Editors know their readers like to see pictures of attractive young girls; the next time you submit a publicity still from your feature, include one or two scenes from a Century Comedy with its dozens of cuties – you’ll find the editor not only publishes it, but also gives it preferential space.”

Bob Hope how to carve a turkeyBob Hope, How to Carve a Turkey

Humorous photographs remained a steady staple, while prints illustrating Easter, July 4, Halloween, Christmas, and the like could fill out holiday pages. Karie Bible and I found enough of these stills that we wrote the book Hollywood Celebrates the Holidays just two years ago. Most print editions ran single images, but they could mix and match prints from different studios on the same subject and fill out a full page if so needed.

Over the next 50 years, photographic stills remained the most potent publicity tool of film studios in promoting their new productions and stars. Variety even reported in 1953 that Twentieth Century-Fox distributed 50,000 free stills promoting the blockbuster filmThe Robe shot in the outstanding new Cinemascope format before it opened in theatres.

The House I Live In Frank Sinatra
The House I Live In, Frank Sinatra

As trailers and then television became the main outlets for movie publicity in the 1950s and 1960s, the usage of still photography began declining at film studios. Just like the industry’s early days, stars began hiring their own photographers to shoot portraits or images for periodicals. Marilyn Monroe even formed a company with her favorite photographer Milton Greene.

Gradually new forms of media like TV and later the world wide web served as the main publicity outlets for studios and production companies. The development of social media allowed actors to bypass studio control and directly speak to their fans or promote their own projects. Stars themselves began fashioning their own publicity materials through selfies and promotional items shared on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and other social media outlets, often cutting the studio or production company completely out of the process. in an ironic way, contemporary publicity is returning to the self-promoting days of the early motion picture industry.

…..

–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:

               

 

Posted in Books, Guest Posts | Tagged , | 8 Comments

The Politics of Yankee Doodle Dandy – Exclusive Guest Post by Author Alan K. Rode (Michael Curtiz: A Life)

The Politics of Yankee Doodle Dandy

The notion for a biographical film about legendary show business powerhouse George M. Cohan had been kicking around Hollywood since the late 1930s. The father of American musical comedy claimed to be born on July 4, 1878 and began treading the boards at age eight in the family vaudeville act. During his career, he wrote more than 150 original songs, including the standards “You’re a Grand Old Flag” and the country’s most popular song during World War I, “Over There.” Cohan produced more than fifty musicals and plays.  At one point, five of his shows, co-produced with Sam Harris, ran simultaneously on Broadway. Cohan did it all: he was a playwright, composer, lyricist, actor, singer, dancer, and producer.

By 1941 he was ill and realized that his days were numbered. His ego was piqued by the notion of a movie biography to enshrine his legacy (he had already published his autobiography at the age of forty-seven), but he had serious misgivings about films. He had appeared in several silent movies that failed to capture his feisty style. After his popularity began to fade, Cohan starred in two early talkies.  His second picture, The Phantom President (1932), was a fiasco. Cohan compared the experience to a stretch at Leavenworth Penitentiary and vowed never to return to Hollywood.

Yankee Doodle Dandy posterIn his much publicized Anglo-Hungarian diction, Michael Curtiz described Yankee Doodle Dandy as “ the pinochle of my career.

But impending mortality mellowed his outlook. He negotiated with Samuel Goldwyn — who initially committed to a Cohan film starring Fred Astaire before the actor-dancer dropped out — and consulted with his close friend, the actor Edward McNamara. A former Irish cop who made more money pretending to be one, McNamara was also a pal of James Cagney. McNamara urged Cohan to consider Cagney to portray him while simultaneously pitching the project to the star. Around the same time, Variety’s publisher, Abel Green, advised Jack Warner about Cohan’s interest in a bio-musical film. Warner and Hal Wallis were intrigued. Wallis contacted William Cagney about having his older brother portray George M. Cohan and was surprised when James declined the role.

Cagney refused to play the part because of his personal feelings towards the show biz legend. Cohan had an infamous falling-out with Actors Equity in 1919 after he opposed a strike by actors from his position as an owner-producer. Cohan’s refusal to join Equity further damaged his reputation. As a charter member of the Screen Actors Guild (he would be elected SAG president in September 1942), Cagney was diametrically opposed to Cohan’s position. Cagney’s trade-unionist liberalism, nurtured by his impoverished background and accentuated by a adversarial relationship with Jack L. Warner (characterized by continual squabbles over money, movies and suspensions) fed into an instinctive mistrust of producers. Although he respected Cohan as a great performer, he couldn’t countenance portraying a man that he regarded as an anti-union reactionary.

But changing political winds convinced Cagney to reverse his decision and to reexamine some of his own positions. In August 1940 an ostensible Communist Party member named John Leech testified during Los Angeles grand jury proceedings that Cagney, along with other famous Hollywood personages, including Humphrey Bogart, Fredric March, and Franchot Tone, were Communists, members of Communist “study groups,” or contributor-sympathizers. With regard to Cagney and the others, the charges were demonstrably false, but the newspapers had a field day.

Bill Cagney, summoned to a meeting with Jack Warner, needed to rehabilitate his brother’s reputation, and fast: “[Jack Warner] told me in no uncertain terms that if my brother didn’t clean his skirts of this charge, he was going to destroy him.” James had already been moving politically right at the behest of his wife by shedding some of his extreme left-wing friends, including the screenwriter John Bright, and maintaining a more conservative social circle that included Robert Montgomery and his Irish Mafia pals of Pat O’Brien, Lynne Overman and Frank McHugh.

Jack L. Warner and Michael Curtiz looking at Yankee Doodle Dandy scriptJack L. Warner’s contributions to Yankee Doodle Dandy are best characterized by the words: “Hurry up.”

The younger Cagney contacted Martin Dies, chair of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), and arranged for James to testify. Dies, whose committee accused ten-year old Shirley Temple of being a Communist dupe in 1934, eventually issued a public statement clearing Cagney. The actor’s opposition to Yankee Doodle Dandy, as the Cohan picture was eventually titled, evaporated. As William Cagney related to the writer Patrick McGilligan, he told his older brother: “We’re going to have to make the goddamndest patriotic picture that’s ever been made. I think it’s the Cohan story.”

Yet animus persisted between Warner Bros. and the Cagneys. James regarded executive producer Hal Wallis as a front-office suit responsible for reinforcing the actor’s image as a screen gangster. The chill was mutual. “He [Cagney] and I never became friends,” admitted Wallis. “He was cold to me and I wasn’t particularly fond of him.” Wallis also brooded over being forced to accept William Cagney as associate producer for the film (a condition of James Cagney’s 1938 contract with the studio). Fully aware of the battle lines, Michael Curtiz would walk a tightrope to maintain relationships with both sides while directing Yankee Doodle Dandy.

Wallis assigned Robert Buckner to write the script. Buckner’s specialty was drama and Westerns—he had no experience with musicals or lighter material—but he did a thorough job that took more than half a year. Cohan’s contract gave him script and title approval in addition to his $125,000 fee and 10 percent of the gross receipts over $1,500,000. He also had the final say on characters and all references to his family. Cohan approved Cagney to portray him but had his own ideas about the screenplay. He wanted to expunge any romantic or personal aspects from the screenplay and stubbornly resisted any effort to portray his life as other than a series of professional triumphs.

Jack Warner, Michael Curtiz and Hal Wallis
Warner, Curtiz and Wallis:  A brilliant filmmaking triumvirate

After Cohan submitted 170 pages of script changes, Buckner, along with Wallis and William Cagney, crafted a letter that begged Cohan to allow them to take a limited amount of dramatic license in order to produce an entertaining musical biography. Using the recently successful Knute Rockne All American (1940) as an example, the trio beseeched Cohan for some reasonable flexibility. The letter swayed Cohan, who eventually compromised to a limited extent. The script was revised to introduce a fictional Mrs. Cohan named Mary, who would be played by sixteen-year-old Joan Leslie. There would be no mention of his first wife, who left him in 1907 (and would unsuccessfully sue Cohan and Warner Bros. over the film), or his second (successful) marriage. Cagney, who was uncomfortable displaying any type of sexual intimacy onscreen, would further downplay the romantic angle. Cohan’s relationships with other characters, including his family and particularly his partner, Sam Harris, were idealized. It became the story of a triumphant show-business personality living a storybook life.

But there was still James Cagney to contend with. When the star read through Buckner’s final draft (with contributions by the screenwriter Edmund Joseph) on his Martha’s Vineyard farm, he was appalled: “I read it with incredulity. There wasn’t a single laugh in it, not the suggestion of a snicker. And this was a script purporting to be about a great American light entertainer, a man who wrote forty-four Broadway shows, only two of which were not comedies.”

Cagney refused to do the movie unless the script was gone over thoroughly by Julius and Philip Epstein, who had impressed him with their work on The Strawberry Blonde (1941).  They transformed the stilted relationship between the Cohan and Mary characters into a charming romance. Comic scenes between the music publisher characters Goff and Dietz were added, and the Epsteins also built up the character of the couple’s daughter, Josie Cohan, played by Jeanne Cagney.  They also added the poignant death scene of Cohan’s father played by Walter Huston and the “Over There” coda, which concluded the film on an upbeat note.

During the production, Robert Buckner complained about the changes to his screenplay. He challenged the studio’s intention to grant the Epstein brothers equal screenwriting credit, informing Wallis that he was ready to take the issue to the Writers Guild. The Cagneys viewed Buckner as a Wallis loyalist who delivered a lousy script, attempted to undermine them, and was now trying to ace out the writers most responsible for the film’s success. Despite the friction, production would begin on schedule, even as it became shaped by bigger events.

James Cagney, Michael Curtiz and James Wong HoweThree artists at work: James Cagney, Michael Curtiz and James Wong Howe.

The morning after Pearl Harbor was the first day of production on Yankee Doodle Dandy. Rosemary DeCamp, cast as Cagney’s mother, re- called the real-life drama that occurred before the cameras rolled:

The crew was standing still with grave faces. Jeanne Cagney, Walter Huston and I, made up and elaborately costumed, were staring at a little radio emitting the sound of President Roosevelt’s voice along with a lot of static. Mike Curtiz the director and Jimmy Cagney came in through the freight dock and walked across the big soundstage toward us. Mike started to speak, but Walter held up his hand. The president finished with the grave news that we were now at war with Japan and Germany. Then, the national anthem blared forth. Some of us got to our feet and sang the lyrics hesitantly. At the end, Jimmy said, clearing his throat, “I think a prayer goes in here . . . turn that damn thing off.” Someone did. We stood in silence for a full minute. Jeanne and I dabbed our made-up eyes carefully. Mike bowed and with his inimitable accent said, “Now boys and girls, we haff work to do . . . we haff bad news . . . but we haff a wonderful story to tell the world. So let us put away sad things and begin.”  From that momentous first morning, everyone on the set understood that Yankee Doodle Dandy would be a special picture.

The outbreak of the war was certainly a motivating factor, but it was the seamless collaboration between Cagney and Curtiz that inspired the rest of the company. During Angels with Dirty Faces and Captains of the Clouds, the star and director had developed a bond of trust. Curtiz knew he did not have to explain to Cagney how a scene should be played, nor did Cagney need to tell the director how to shoot the picture. Curtiz was also on his best behavior with the rest of the cast and crew, realizing that anything less would not be tolerated.

Joan Leslie, who would celebrate her seventeenth birthday during the production, remembered the collaborative synergy on the set that was unique for a Warner Bros. film: “Mike was so happy because he had everything he wanted: a wonderful script, a terrific cast, and don’t ever sell Bill Cagney short as the associate producer! He was on set every day and deeply involved in every aspect of the production. But it was Jimmy who inspired everyone, especially Mike. Jimmy suggested and added so many things and Mike would say, “Okay, Jimmy, that sounds great.” It was a beautiful thing to see.” Curtiz was delighted just to be the director of Yankee Doodle Dandy. The flag-waving jingoism and the overt sentimentality that future critics would characterize as maudlin were, to him, the picture’s most appealing aspects. Curtiz wore his American patriotism like a badge of honor— even more so with war recently having been declared.

Yet Curtiz remained Curtiz. “He was a ruthless authoritarian with an eagle eye,” remembered Rosemary DeCamp. “He could walk on a crowded set with extras and instantly spot the one with a missing earring, or twisted tights or running mascara.” Joan Leslie recalled how Curtiz continued to rely on his wife Bess Meredyth when a seemingly intractable script problem arose. “He would take it home and his wife, you know, is a very fine writer . . . and the next morning, he would come back, he’d say, ‘I know what we’re going to do.’ And we’d just bang into it and it was as smooth as silk.”

Curtiz (at far left with cigarette) directs the “Harrigan” number with Cagney & Joan Leslie with Chester Clute and George Tobias (back to camera)
Curtiz (at far left with cigarette) directs the “Harrigan” number with Cagney & Joan Leslie with Chester Clute and George Tobias (back to camera).

For Curtiz, working with Cagney was the equivalent of having a co-director. For the charming “Harrigan” number, Cagney walked it through with Joan Leslie. After glancing at Curtiz, who nodded, Cagney did a run-through followed by the first take that Curtiz immediately printed.

Curtiz conceived the remarkable staging of the “It’s a Grand Old Flag” number, writing to Hal Wallis: “This seems to me to be the most important number in the show, particularly now in view of the declaration of war. It must be sold, not only musically, but also with a dramatic setting that brings out its theme and spirit. I have discussed this idea with Bill Cagney and he approves of it. Carl Weyl has built a miniature and drawn sketches to illustrate my plan, and I can best show these to you on the stage.”  He sold it after rehearsing the rousing number in front of an audience that included Wallis and the brothers Warner. It remains the most memorable sequence in the film.

Curtiz also repurposed the “Over There” number so there would be an audience of soldiers singing with Cagney and Frances Langford. He worked out Jerry Cohan’s deathbed scene by Walter Huston after entreating the Epstein brothers to “give me the tear in the eye” sentiment. The brothers eventually complied, writing what Julius believed was pure hokum: “We thought they’d never use it. But they did and it was one of the best scenes in the film.” All told, the director submitted seven different scenes to William Cagney to include in the picture while changing and adding additional bits of business.

The behind-the-scenes acrimony was unseen by most of the cast and crew, but both Cagneys became fed up with the incessant infighting. After Wallis quarreled with Bill Cagney about setting up a third unit to film the prologue, James Cagney notified Warner Bros. that he was exercising the “happiness clause” in his 1938 contract and would be leaving the studio at the end of the picture. Jack Warner and Wallis quickly backed off and tried everything they could to persuade him to change his mind.

An immediate benefit of Cagney’s resignation was that his brother was permitted to function as an actual producer for the balance of the picture rather than as a Hal Wallis sock puppet. Jack Warner’s ritualistic hounding of Curtiz over the production schedule receded. The film proceeded in comparative harmony; it was one of Curtiz’s happiest experiences at Warner Bros.

Yankee Doodle Dandy wrapped on April 27, 1942. Curtiz brought the film in at a relatively economical $1,532,000. Jack Warner launched the biggest publicity campaign in the studio’s history. The gala May 29 premiere in New York at the Warner Hollywood Theater doubled as a war bond drive. It was the first day of what would be an incredible nineteen-week run at the Hollywood, which totaled more than $323,000 in ticket sales. Yankee Doodle Dandy would gross more than $6 million on its initial release as Hollywood’s second-most profitable film of the year.  The reviews were all raves. Curtiz would remember the debut of Yankee Doodle Dandy as one of the high points of his career.  Despite his reputation for being difficult, the director demonstrated a deftness that kept both his bosses and the star of the picture happy while turning out a memorable hit picture. Michael Curtiz would characterize Yankee Doodle Dandy in his typically mangled syntax as “the pinochle of my career.”

…..

— Alan K. Rode for Classic Movie Hub

Writer and film scholar Alan K. Rode is the author of Michael Curtiz: A Life in Film and Charles McGraw: Film Noir Tough Guy. He is the host and producer of the Arthur Lyons Film Noir Festival in Palm Springs, California, and director-treasurer of the Film Noir Foundation.

Click here to purchase Alan’s books on amazon:

Posted in Books, Films, Guest Posts | Tagged , , , | 9 Comments

Silents are Golden: Paving The Way For The Movies–A Nod To Victorian Film Pioneers

Paving The Way For The Movies — A Nod To Victorian Film Pioneers

When you study the origins of film, it almost seems to have begun by magic. For centuries there was painting and sculpture. By the 19th century there was also photography. And near the start of the 20th century, suddenly, there were films. But “moving pictures” didn’t just spring out of thin air, of course. They were not only the descendants of magic lantern shows, but they were the result of many experiments and breakthroughs by a variety of individuals, who persisted through technical difficulties, patent wars, and the use of some pretty wacky Victorian machines.

The first inklings of what would become “film” are usually credited to Eadweard Muybridge (who spelled his first name that way on purpose). The very picture of a somber Victorian professor, Muybridge was actually a creative and at times erratic individual who became deeply interested in professional photography in the 1860s. (His personal life was quite the doozy–try looking up “Muybridge” and “homicide” if you’re curious.) He specialized in landscape photos, travelling far into the Old West to capture its wide open spaces.

Eadweard Muybridge

He also specialized in incredible beards.

In 1872, he was asked to help settle a much-discussed debate that had been raging from sea to shining sea — when a horse was trotting, was there an instant when it had all four feet off the ground?! (Those 1870s debate topics, they were intense.) Muybridge decided to photograph trotting and running horses by lining up a series of cameras attached to threads stretched across a racetrack. These snapped photos when a running horse triggered the threads. After a few years of increasingly sophisticated experiments, Muybridge took his photography show on the road and gave lectures on the topic with the help of his zoopraxiscope — a kind of fast-working early slide projector. One journalist described it as a “magic lantern run mad.” (And yes, his photos of running horses with all four hooves off the ground did settle the debate.)

One man who was directly inspired by Muybridge’s experiments was Étienne-Jules Marey, the maker of many delicate and beautiful machines that measured heartbeats and muscle movement. An admirer of Muybridge, Marey wanted to take similar, rapid-succession photos of birds in flight. In 1882 he devised a “chronophotographic gun,” a camera that could take 12 photos per second on one image plate and which looked very much like a chunky, cumbersome gun. His experiments in Naples amused the locals, who dubbed the man walking around all day aiming at birds without actually shooting them “the silly from Posillipo.”

They may have had a point.

The Parisian Charles-Émile Reynaud invented the praxinoscope in 1877, where a strip of figures on the inside of a spinning cylinder blended together to create an apparently moving image. Initially devised as a child’s toy, he would continually tweak his invention and eventually figure out how to hook it up to a projector. By the 1890s he had fine-tuned his creation to the point where he could put on “Pantomimes Lumineuses,” or moving picture shows which used colored animation on moving bands (similar to film strips). In later years Reynaud would become penniless, throwing his animations into the Seine not long before passing away in a hospice in 1918. Little did he know that one day Walt Disney himself would pay him homage on an episode of the Disneyland T.V. show.

One of the world’s oldest “movie posters.”

Another key figure in cinema’s development was Ottomar Anschütz, a photographer who quickly gained an esteemed reputation thanks to his work in chronophotography in the 1880s (a bit different from Marey’s multiple images) as well as his invention of a shutter that took photos at 1/1000 of a second. He invented the tachyscope, which had a glass disk printed with images viewed by spinning a crank, and eventually upgraded it to an electrotachyscope, which used two discs and a projector. Although his work was widely admired (he even worked for the family of Kaiser Wilhelm II), he was such a perfectionist that when celluloid film strips came into vogue he ended his chronophotographic work, convinced that the new medium produced images of slightly inferior quality.

The 1880s in general was the decade when cinema made its most rapid strides. Inventors were taking notice of all the new glass, brass and wood cameras and projectors and were rapidly devising machines of their own. Thomas Edison and his assistant W. K.-L. Dickson were inspired by Muybridge, Marey and Anschütz to do experiments with “moving pictures” themselves, resulting in the invention of the kinetoscope around 1891. Edison was probably the most instrumental figure in making moving pictures a profitable business — he and his team were responsible for creating the “Black Maria,” the first film studio in the world.

Humble beginnings.

George Eastman figured out how to replace the usual glass plates with new, emulsion-coated paper strips in 1885. In 1888 inventor Louis Le Prince created a single-lens camera capable of recording images on Eastman’s film. His experimental shots, Roundhay Garden Scene and Leeds Bridge (both 1888), are the very oldest films that exist today, earning Le Prince the title of “Father of Cinematography.” He beat William Friese Greene to that title by a year — in 1889 Greene invented a camera that could take 4-5 frames per second on paper film. However, Le Prince’s camera was more efficient.

Brothers Auguste and Louis Lumière were comparatively late to the party when they debuted their cinématographe in 1895. However, they not only had the inspired idea of adding perforations to their film strips — so that a mechanism could “grab” the film and advance it through the camera more easily —  but they were among the earliest to give public demonstrations of their work. While the brothers (amazingly) considered film little more than a novelty, one man who attended one of their demonstrations recognized its artist power immediately — Georges Méliès.

Little did the Lumières know what they had unleashed.

While it’s easy to argue over which inventor receives the most credit for the creation of the cinema — Muybridge often gets cited, as does Edison, and I’m a Le Prince gal myself — in reality it was an informal group effort with many inventors studying and building upon each other’s ideas, lens by lens, and boxy camera by boxy camera. It took dreamers like Georges Méliès and other visionary directors to take film to the place where it is today, but the great inventors of the past will always have a massive share in its legacy.

…..

Note: To read more about these and other Victorian film pioneers, I highly recommend paying a visit to the very thorough and well-researched Who’s Who of Victorian Cinema site — a very helpful source for this article!

…..

–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.

Posted in Posts by Lea Stans, Silents are Golden | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Vitaphone View: Finding Early Technicolor Films

 

Finding Early Technicolor Films

Most film buffs know how unstable nitrate film is, and how over 90% of black and white motion pictures made before 1930 have decomposed and no longer survive.  The survival rate of films made in the early 2-color Technicolor process is even lower.

The superb and award winning book The Dawn of Technicolor 1915-1935 by James Layton and David  Pierce chronicles that attempts to create color in film was a long and difficult journey. The first feature in the red/green two-color Technicolor process was The Toll of the Sea (1922) and starred Anna May Wong.  Few other all-color silent features were made, with Douglas Fairbanks Sr.’s The Black Pirate (UA/1926) being the best known. Technicolor was largely relegated to brief inserts in otherwise black and white features such as The Merry Widow (1928)  and The Phantom of the Opera (1925). Keaton’s Battling Butler (1926) opened with a brief Technicolor scene, but soon reverted to monochrome. Shorts — especially travelogues and fashion shows — used color more often.

Recently found Technicolor fragment, lasting about 45 seconds, from SALLY (WB:'29). Ford Sterling (l) and Joe E. BrownA recently found Technicolor fragment, lasting about 45 seconds, from Sally (WB/’29). Ford Sterling (l) and Joe E. Brown.

With the coming of sound, the Technicolor Corporation saw its stock and usage rise dramatically. Because of the technology’s use in many sound musicals, more Technicolor footage was used in 1929-30 than in the previous fifteen years combined.  The demand strained Technicolor’s production and quality control capabilities, and sometime less than stellar prints were produced. Technical quality eventually improved by 1931, but by then the Depression led studios to cut back drastically on its use.

But during the peak Technicolor season of 1929-30, audiences could enjoy such all-Technicolor  features as On With The Show (the first all color/all-talkie feature), Gold Diggers of Broadway, and The Rogue Song. Other musicals used key scenes in Technicolor, as in Married in Hollywood, Show of Shows (actually almost 80% color), and Show Girl in Hollywood. Use of color dropped precipitously from 1931-33, with Warner Bros using up its contractual commitment to buy color stock from Technicolor mainly in shorts and just three features. With the perfection of three-strip Technicolor in 1932, studios again began using color more frequently as the process vividly reproduced the entire spectrum.

Technicolor fragment from ON WITH THE SHOW (WB:'29), the first all color talkie featureTechnicolor fragment from On With the Show (WB/’29), the first all color talkie feature.

Fast forward to the mid-1950’s. The Technicolor Corporation was holding the original nitrate negatives of  hundreds of two-color titles, mainly from the 1929-32 period. They notified the studios that they needed to pay for them or else they would be discarded. The major studios saw little need for negatives made in the now defunct process. Black and white negatives were kept in some cases but otherwise the color matrices were discarded.  This explains why so much Technicolor material from the early days of sound no longer exists.

Some prints of 1929-30 musicals were still “out there” however, surviving from their original theatrical runs. It fell to dedicated collectors and committed studio personnel to help find and restore whatever Technicolor footage might turn up.

Sometimes — as with the eye-popping all Technicolor 1930 Paramount musical Follow Thru – a complete 35mm nitrate print evaded the ravages of time in great shape, and needed little restoration before it was preserved by UCLA.  Eddie Cantor’s Whoopee! (1930) was found complete — but in an overseas archive. And as reported in my earlier blog, Australia produced some of the most important Technicolor re-discoveries since Hollywood prints sent there for original runs were too expensive to return.  As such, long lost color material for Gold Diggers of Broadway, Mamba and the long-lost Three Stooges color short Hello Pop! were all found “down under”.

Technicolor fragment, lasting under a minute, recently found in England. Pictured from SHOW OF SHOWS (WB:'29) Arte Frank Fay (l) and comic Sid SilversAnother Technicolor fragment, lasting under a minute, recently found in England. Pictured from Show of Shows (WB/’29) Arte Frank Fay (l) and comic Sid Silvers.

The all-Technicolor $2 million Universal production of 1930’s King of Jazz had survived in a pathetically washed out, truncated color print. The faded survivor bore little resemblance to the film’s  crisp and lush initial release. In 2012, a complete original 35mm nitrate print of King of Jazz was found by The Library of Congress. It was extremely fragile, but all there. The Layton and Pierce book cover the details of the film’s restoration, which took several years. Universal’s efforts produced, unquestionably, the most beautiful early Technicolor restoration to date.  Colors are bright and true to the process, and none of the fuzziness seen in some other color films of the period is evident. Screenings worldwide have evoked sighs and applause from audiences.

Recently, and entire, truly beautiful, Technicolor reel of the “Sisters” number from Show of Shows was located at the British Film Institute (BFI). While this footage had survived in black and white, seeing it in vibrant two-color Technicolor is a revelation. In the number, multiple actresses who (mostly) were actual sisters,  appear.

SISTERS Still from Show of Shows Dolores and Helene Costello 1929Dolores and Helene Costello in the “Sisters” number of Show of Shows (WB/’29). A beautiful Technicolor 35mm nitrate print was found at the British Film Institute several years ago.

In 2015 and again in 2016, some more amazing,  but also frustrating, Technicolor discoveries surfaced. At a small British museum, two cookie tins with 45-60 second 35mm Technicolor fragments of scenes from 1929 Warner Bros musicals were found. We believe the source of these brief survivors is from children’s toy projectors, which incredibly included some highly flammable strips of film for the kiddies to play with! The fragments were mute, as the sound was on a separate Vitaphone disk. Represented in this cache of discoveries were scenes from On With The Show, Sally, Gold Diggers of Broadway, and Show of Shows. With few exceptions, these fragments were previously unknown to survive in color.

The Vitaphone Project is now working with Warner Bros to repatriate and preserve this footage, and to ultimately get the color footage incorporated into the surviving otherwise black and white features.

With more film rediscoveries in the past five years than the previous thirty, we can only hope that Technicolor continues to be an important part of that exciting trend.

…..

– Ron Hutchinson, Founder of The Vitaphone Project, for Classic Movie Hub

You can read all of Ron’s Vitaphone View articles here.

Ron is widely recognized as one of the country’s foremost film historians, with special emphasis on the period covering the transition to sound (1925-30) and early attempts to add sound to film. As the founder of The Vitaphone Project, he has worked with Warner Brothers, UCLA, LOC and private collectors worldwide to find previously lost soundtrack discs and restore early sound shorts. Ron’s unique knowledge has  been sourced in over 25 books as well as documentaries for PBS and TCM, and commentary for “The Jazz Singer” DVD boxed set. He was awarded the National Society of Film Critics “Film Heritage Honor” for his work in film preservation and discoveries, and was the presenter of rare Vitaphone shorts at the 2016 TCM Film Festival. For more information you can visit the Vitaphone Project website or Facebook Group.

And, if you’re interested in exploring some of these newly discovered shorts and rarities, you can pick them up on DVD via amazon:

               

Posted in Posts by Ron Hutchinson, Vitaphone View | Tagged , | 11 Comments