"Barbara Streisand is the sort of thing that starts Pogroms."
Censored line from Simon's New Leader review of "The way we were"
Other comments/reviews:
When Miss Streisand labors to appear sensitive and vulnerable, she cannot conquer our impression that, were she to collide with a Mack truck, it is the truck that would drop dead. And, as always, I am repelled by her looks; by the receding brow and the overcompensatory nose, which, unlike Cleopatra's in Pascal's famous dictum, would not, even if it were shorter, change the face of the earth — merely blot out a smaller part of it. Only very plain women, in their wish-fulfillment fantasies, could accept without flinching the dashing Robert Redford's passion for, and bedroom scenes with, Barbra Streisand.
(John Simon, National Review)
The Burt Lancaster Award that goes to the actor or actress whose performance most completely depends upon hair styling. This award is to be shared by Miss Streisand's hairdresser for The Way We Were.
(Vincent Canby, New York Times)
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Streisand Sucks - Hello Dolly
"A full close up of Miss Streisand is a truly terrifying experience, as the camera moves closer and closer you know what Sir Edmund Hillary must have felt, and there is no Nepal guide to catch you if you slip, or just reel back in horror. As for the star's acting. Machiavelli stated "I think that just as nature has given everyone a different face, so she given all a different intelligence and imagination, and each acts according to this personality".
Miss Streisand, perhaps because she lacks intelligence and imagination, is obliged to act according to her face - aggressively, smugly, and with a masturbatory delight in herself."
Miss Streisand, perhaps because she lacks intelligence and imagination, is obliged to act according to her face - aggressively, smugly, and with a masturbatory delight in herself."
Streisand Sucks - The Main Event
From John Simon's Review:
'The movie attempts to make both a shark and a goldfish out of a nasty piranha. Miss Streisand has never looked uglier or acted worse than in this movie... Streisand gets Ryan O'Neal to become (1) a terrific boxer, (2) her lover, and (3) a quitter who gives up boxing to become Barbara's love object. I live it to the reader to judge which is most preposterous.
The Director cannot be held responsible for the mess, since directing Streisand must be like getting a rogue Elephant to cross the street on a green light.
'The movie attempts to make both a shark and a goldfish out of a nasty piranha. Miss Streisand has never looked uglier or acted worse than in this movie... Streisand gets Ryan O'Neal to become (1) a terrific boxer, (2) her lover, and (3) a quitter who gives up boxing to become Barbara's love object. I live it to the reader to judge which is most preposterous.
The Director cannot be held responsible for the mess, since directing Streisand must be like getting a rogue Elephant to cross the street on a green light.
Streisand Sucks - Yentl
John Simon:
"But the problem with Streisand--especially when she is functioning as producer, co-writer, director, star, and only singer on the sound-track (nobody else is allowed one note)--is that her repertoire in love is as limited as her repertoire in acting: Though she can convey voracious love of self with revolting conviction, passionate love of books and of another being is categorically beyond her means.
The camera is almost never off Barbra's face, though that is much the least photogenic object to cross its path, and when it reluctantly tears itself away, it does so only to document Yentl's point of view. And David Watkin, that marvelous cameraman, has clearly been instructed to shoot everything as if made of spun sugar and lit up by its private rainbow (Barbra's covenant with the Lord?), so that just looking at it will give you acute indigestion..
There is a scene that attains the ridiculous sublime: Barbra reveals to Many Patinkin that she is a woman; overcome, Avigdor proceeds to touch and gush about the beauty of Yentl's various parts--forehead, eyes, mouth, skin--carefully skirting an object as unmentionable as the name of God is to an Orthodox Jew. There's a moment's pause as his hand falters, and you think, "He's finally noticed IT!" But no, he goes on to eulogize some other outlying feature--the ears, perhaps.
On top of all this comes a score that's stultifyingly ponderous enough to knock out to force out by a blow or by blows; as, to knock out the brain. But the final sequence is an apotheosis. Dressed to kill on a shabby, emigrant-crowded boat to America, Yentl has obviously bought an entire deck for herself, where, unimpeded, she performs a number parlously close to "Don't Rain on My Parade." For this parade, rain would be too good
"But the problem with Streisand--especially when she is functioning as producer, co-writer, director, star, and only singer on the sound-track (nobody else is allowed one note)--is that her repertoire in love is as limited as her repertoire in acting: Though she can convey voracious love of self with revolting conviction, passionate love of books and of another being is categorically beyond her means.
The camera is almost never off Barbra's face, though that is much the least photogenic object to cross its path, and when it reluctantly tears itself away, it does so only to document Yentl's point of view. And David Watkin, that marvelous cameraman, has clearly been instructed to shoot everything as if made of spun sugar and lit up by its private rainbow (Barbra's covenant with the Lord?), so that just looking at it will give you acute indigestion..
There is a scene that attains the ridiculous sublime: Barbra reveals to Many Patinkin that she is a woman; overcome, Avigdor proceeds to touch and gush about the beauty of Yentl's various parts--forehead, eyes, mouth, skin--carefully skirting an object as unmentionable as the name of God is to an Orthodox Jew. There's a moment's pause as his hand falters, and you think, "He's finally noticed IT!" But no, he goes on to eulogize some other outlying feature--the ears, perhaps.
On top of all this comes a score that's stultifyingly ponderous enough to knock out to force out by a blow or by blows; as, to knock out the brain. But the final sequence is an apotheosis. Dressed to kill on a shabby, emigrant-crowded boat to America, Yentl has obviously bought an entire deck for herself, where, unimpeded, she performs a number parlously close to "Don't Rain on My Parade." For this parade, rain would be too good
John Simon on Film Criticism
From His essay Movie Musings 1990:
"When you see such movies, you despair for the future of film, to say nothing of its present. And as you look at the audiences at the Festival's special screenings-ostensibly scholars, critics, distributors, and such, but actually also many rather more peripheral types-you see a lot of characters more suited to rock concerts, disreputable discotheques, late-night subway platforms, and cockfights. Was the cinema intended for the likes of them? Or were they once wholesome human beings, gradually eroded, corroded, used up by movie going.? Certainly the questions they ask during press conferences attest to an advanced state of cerebral atrophy cerebral atrophy
Nevertheless, I refuse to believe that this is the final and irreversible phase of cinema: infantilism and dotage joining hands across an abyss of stupefaction . There were in this very same festival (and I didn't see everything) three good films and two interesting ones. So all is not lost. But it must become possible to attend movies without a sense of deja vu., tired blood, the terminal exhaustion of an art form. Perhaps something truly new could come from the newly liberated countries behind the Iron Curtain-ex oriente lux.
And perhaps we are due for a new era in film criticism, beyond the raised or lowered thumbs of two television caricatures of film critics, beyond the perfunctory and insipid stuff we read in most newspapers and such magazines as deign to bother with movie reviews. If we could get film criticism on a par with the best in book reviewing in our reputable journals, we could perhaps experience something analogous to what happened in France after World War II, when a new wave in film criticism spawned a cinematic New Wave. To be sure, this was the rare case where the film critics themselves become the filmmakers.
There is one quality that more than any other could help revitalize the cinema: believableness. Characters in films must re-establish contact with social, economic, and political realities even where film style is non- or antirealistic. We should not have to ask questions such as: How come she has that much free time? Where does he get his money from? Why would they have been so purblind It may sound like rather simplistic advice, but, if heeded, it could make for major improvements. And truly persuasive critics could-maybeteach their readers to demand that much.
The problem with film critics, however, is that most of them aren't really critics, merely movie buffs who managed to preserve their childhood enthusiasms intact. They like movie movies, as they call them, much more than art films, as they call genres they don't care for. Can you imagine a literary critic preferring book books? Or detective stories to literature? On the other hand, can you imagine a book critic obliged to review most of what lands on his desk, the way movie reviewers are expected-indeed want to-see everything? Granted, a movie takes much less time and effort, but is that an excuse for critical omnivorousness, particularly if it results in your reading in the papers that such-and such a film must be seen, only to have you feel, as you come out of it, the victim of highway robbery?
And now visualize, please, a bunch of grown men and women whose job it is to see movies as bad as that and worse, week in, week out. Or, more likely, day in, day out. If they weren't cretins when they started out, surely they must be feeble-minded by now.
Film criticism should be protected from our so-called critics. Movies should ideally be reviewed by persons well versed in all the arts, who, preferably, are also professional writers of something: plays, essays, poetry, fiction. True, some of the silliest film criticism I have read was signed Alberto Moravia. But then take someone, as early as 1928, writing sensibly about his enjoyment of "a touching screen love story, cast with actors who must be expressive, attractive, and agreeable, and are allowed to be vain, but never unnatural." That someone was Thomas Mann."
Inherit the Wind - Fact vs. Fiction
"The Monkey Trial is a great website showing the historical truth of the Scopes Trial vs. the fiction of "Inherit the Wind" -Seems that Stan Kramer was a little loose with the truth.
Orson Welles on Igmar Bergman and vice-versa
A great post from Wellesnet; a great site about Orson Welles. As shown by following quotes from "Wellesnet" (they need donations by the way) it looks like these two giants weren't fond of each other.
***
I don’t condemn that very northern, very Protestant world of artists like Bergman; it’s just not where I live. The Sweden I like to visit is a lot of fun. But Bergman’s Sweden always reminds me of something Henry James said about Ibsen’s Norway—that it was full of “the odor of spiritual paraffin.” How I sympathize with that! I share neither Bergman’s interests nor his obsessions. He’s far more foreign to me than the Japanese.
—Orson Welles to Kenneth Tynan, 1967
*****
You could write all the ideas of all the movies, mine included, on the head of a pin. It’s not a form in which ideas are very fecund. It’s a form that may grip you or take you into a world or involve you emotionally—but ideas are not the subject of films. I have this terrible sense that film is dead, that it’s a piece of film in a machine that will be run off and shown to people. That is why, I think, my films are theatrical, and strongly stated, because I can’t believe that anybody won’t fall asleep unless they are. There’s an awful lot of Bergman and Antonioni that I’d rather be dead than sit through.
For myself, unless a film is hallucinatory, unless it becomes that kind of an experience, it doesn’t come alive. I know that directors find serious and sensitive audiences for films where people sit around peeling potatoes in the peasant houses—but I can’t read that kind of novel either. Somebody has to be knocking at the door—I figure that is the way Shakespeare thought, so I can’t be in bad company!
—Orson Welles to Barbara Leaming, 1983
*****
Now, given those kind of hostile remarks, it’s no surprise that towards the end of his life, Bergman was not very complimentary about Welles’s work as a director. Here are Bergman’s comments about Welles when he spoke to a Swedish newspaper in 2002:
*****
INGMAR BERGMAN: For me (Orson Welles) is just a hoax. It’s empty. It’s not interesting. It’s dead. Citizen Kane, which I have a copy of, is the critics’ darling, always at the top of every poll taken, but I think it’s a total bore. Above all, the performances are worthless. The amount of respect that movie has is absolutely unbelievable!
JAN AGHED: What about The Magnificent Ambersons?
INGMAR BERGMAN: Also terribly boring. And I’ve never liked Welles as an actor, because he’s not really an actor. In Hollywood you have two categories: you talk about actors and personalities. Welles was an enormous personality, but when he plays Othello, everything goes down the drain, you see, that’s when he croaks. In my eyes he’s an infinitely overrated filmmaker.
—Jan Aghed, När Bergman går på bio, from the Swedish daily newspaper, Sydsvenska Dagbladet, May 12, 2002.
***
I don’t condemn that very northern, very Protestant world of artists like Bergman; it’s just not where I live. The Sweden I like to visit is a lot of fun. But Bergman’s Sweden always reminds me of something Henry James said about Ibsen’s Norway—that it was full of “the odor of spiritual paraffin.” How I sympathize with that! I share neither Bergman’s interests nor his obsessions. He’s far more foreign to me than the Japanese.
—Orson Welles to Kenneth Tynan, 1967
*****
You could write all the ideas of all the movies, mine included, on the head of a pin. It’s not a form in which ideas are very fecund. It’s a form that may grip you or take you into a world or involve you emotionally—but ideas are not the subject of films. I have this terrible sense that film is dead, that it’s a piece of film in a machine that will be run off and shown to people. That is why, I think, my films are theatrical, and strongly stated, because I can’t believe that anybody won’t fall asleep unless they are. There’s an awful lot of Bergman and Antonioni that I’d rather be dead than sit through.
For myself, unless a film is hallucinatory, unless it becomes that kind of an experience, it doesn’t come alive. I know that directors find serious and sensitive audiences for films where people sit around peeling potatoes in the peasant houses—but I can’t read that kind of novel either. Somebody has to be knocking at the door—I figure that is the way Shakespeare thought, so I can’t be in bad company!
—Orson Welles to Barbara Leaming, 1983
*****
Now, given those kind of hostile remarks, it’s no surprise that towards the end of his life, Bergman was not very complimentary about Welles’s work as a director. Here are Bergman’s comments about Welles when he spoke to a Swedish newspaper in 2002:
*****
INGMAR BERGMAN: For me (Orson Welles) is just a hoax. It’s empty. It’s not interesting. It’s dead. Citizen Kane, which I have a copy of, is the critics’ darling, always at the top of every poll taken, but I think it’s a total bore. Above all, the performances are worthless. The amount of respect that movie has is absolutely unbelievable!
JAN AGHED: What about The Magnificent Ambersons?
INGMAR BERGMAN: Also terribly boring. And I’ve never liked Welles as an actor, because he’s not really an actor. In Hollywood you have two categories: you talk about actors and personalities. Welles was an enormous personality, but when he plays Othello, everything goes down the drain, you see, that’s when he croaks. In my eyes he’s an infinitely overrated filmmaker.
—Jan Aghed, När Bergman går på bio, from the Swedish daily newspaper, Sydsvenska Dagbladet, May 12, 2002.
Friday, August 9, 2013
Inherit the wind - A 1962 Bad Review
Astounding that a MSM magazine like Time would attack Kramer's movie. But it did. From the Review:
Thanks to Producer-Director Stan ley Kramer, Inherit the Wind has now been made into a movie that retains almost nothing of the play but its flashy, trashy script.
Instead of the hard-paced, sharp-edged direction that Herman Shumlin brought to the play, there is in the film a sluggish, confused manipulation of ideas and players. Instead of Actor Muni there is Spencer Tracy, the Hollywooden archetype of the wise old man, who as the years and pictures go by acts less and less and looks more and more as though he had been carved out of Mount Rushmore. Instead of Ed Begley in the role of Bryan there is Fredric March, who has somehow been persuaded to portray that unbalanced genius of the spoken word as a low-comedy stooge who at the climax catches a face-full of agnostic pie.
Bryan, of course, is not called Bryan in the picture; all the principal characters are given false names. But their historical identities, emphasized by the makeup department and in the script, are never in doubt, and the flagrant distortion of their qualities and motives may therefore seem all the more reprehensible to moviegoers who hold these serious and important men in memory.
Mencken, for example, is portrayed by Gene Kelly as a lip-curling, hat-tilting city-room slicker who talks the sort of typewritten tarradiddle that does less than justice to the rich, organic vocabulary of the author of The American Language.
Thanks to Producer-Director Stan ley Kramer, Inherit the Wind has now been made into a movie that retains almost nothing of the play but its flashy, trashy script.
Instead of the hard-paced, sharp-edged direction that Herman Shumlin brought to the play, there is in the film a sluggish, confused manipulation of ideas and players. Instead of Actor Muni there is Spencer Tracy, the Hollywooden archetype of the wise old man, who as the years and pictures go by acts less and less and looks more and more as though he had been carved out of Mount Rushmore. Instead of Ed Begley in the role of Bryan there is Fredric March, who has somehow been persuaded to portray that unbalanced genius of the spoken word as a low-comedy stooge who at the climax catches a face-full of agnostic pie.
Bryan, of course, is not called Bryan in the picture; all the principal characters are given false names. But their historical identities, emphasized by the makeup department and in the script, are never in doubt, and the flagrant distortion of their qualities and motives may therefore seem all the more reprehensible to moviegoers who hold these serious and important men in memory.
Mencken, for example, is portrayed by Gene Kelly as a lip-curling, hat-tilting city-room slicker who talks the sort of typewritten tarradiddle that does less than justice to the rich, organic vocabulary of the author of The American Language.
Worse still is the distortion of what happened at the trial. The script wildly and unjustly caricatures the fundamentalists as vicious and narrow-minded hypocrites, just as wildly and unwisely idealizes their opponents, as personified in Darrow. Actually, the fundamentalist position, even when carried to the extreme that Bryan struck when he denied that man is a mammal, is scarcely more absurd and profitless than the shallow scientism that the picture offers as a substitute for religious faith and experience.
Bonnie and Clyde - Another Bad 1967 Review
Producer Beatty and Director Arthur Penn have elected to tell their tale of bullets and blood in a strange and purposeless mingling of fact and claptrap that teeters uneasily on the brink of burlesque. Like Bonnie and Clyde themselves, the film rides off'in all directions and ends up full of holes.
Beatty, playing the lead, does a capable job, within the limits of his familiar, insolent, couldn't-care-less manner, of making Barrow the amiable varmint he thought himself to be. Barrow fancied himself something of a latter day Robin Hood, robbing only banks that were foreclosing on poor farmers and eventually turning into a kind of folk hero. But Faye Dunaway's Sunday-social prettiness is at variance with any known information about Bonnie Parker. The other gang members struggle to little avail against a script that gives their characters no discernible shape.
The real fault with Bonnie and Clyde is its sheer, tasteless aimlessness. Director Penn has marshaled an impressive framework of documentation: a flotilla of old cars, a scene played in a movie theater while Gold Diggers of 1933 runs off on the screen, a string of dusty, fly-bitten Southwestern roadhouses and farms. (One booboo: the use of post-1934 dollar bills.) But repeated bursts of country-style music punctuating the bandits' grisly ventures, and a sentimental interlude with Bonnie's old Maw photographed through a hazy filter, aim at irony and miss by a mile. And this, if you please, was the U.S. entry in this year's Montreal Film Festival.
Beatty, playing the lead, does a capable job, within the limits of his familiar, insolent, couldn't-care-less manner, of making Barrow the amiable varmint he thought himself to be. Barrow fancied himself something of a latter day Robin Hood, robbing only banks that were foreclosing on poor farmers and eventually turning into a kind of folk hero. But Faye Dunaway's Sunday-social prettiness is at variance with any known information about Bonnie Parker. The other gang members struggle to little avail against a script that gives their characters no discernible shape.
The real fault with Bonnie and Clyde is its sheer, tasteless aimlessness. Director Penn has marshaled an impressive framework of documentation: a flotilla of old cars, a scene played in a movie theater while Gold Diggers of 1933 runs off on the screen, a string of dusty, fly-bitten Southwestern roadhouses and farms. (One booboo: the use of post-1934 dollar bills.) But repeated bursts of country-style music punctuating the bandits' grisly ventures, and a sentimental interlude with Bonnie's old Maw photographed through a hazy filter, aim at irony and miss by a mile. And this, if you please, was the U.S. entry in this year's Montreal Film Festival.
Bonnie and Clyde - A bad 1967 Review
From Crowther's famous 1967 review:
A raw and unmitigated campaign of sheer press-agentry has been trying to put across the notion that Warner Brothers' Bonnie and Clyde is a faithful representation of the desperado careers of Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker, a notorious team of bank robbers and killers who roamed Texas and Oklahoma in the post-Depression years.
It is nothing of the sort. It is a cheap piece of bald-faced slapstick comedy that treats the hideous depredations of that sleazy, moronic pair as though they were as full of fun and frolic as the jazz-age cutups in Thoroughly Modern Millie. And it puts forth Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway in the leading roles, and Michael J. Pollard as their sidekick, a simpering, nose-picking rube, as though they were striving mightily to be the Beverly Hillbillies of next year.
It has Mr. Beatty clowning broadly as the killer who fondles various types of guns with as much nonchalance and dispassion as he airily twirls a big cigar, and it has Miss Dunaway squirming grossly as his thrill-seeking, sex-starved moll. It is loaded with farcical holdups, screaming chases in stolen getaway cars that have the antique appearance and speeded-up movement of the clumsy vehicles of the Keystone Kops, and indications of the impotence of Barrow, until Bonnie writes a poem about him to extol his prowess, that are as ludicrous as they are crude.
Such ridiculous, camp-tinctured travesties of the kind of people these desperados were and of the way people lived in the dusty Southwest back in those barren years might be passed off as candidly commercial movie comedy, nothing more, if the film weren't reddened with blotches of violence of the most grisly sort.
This blending of farce with brutal killings is as pointless as it is lacking in taste, since it makes no valid commentary upon the already travestied truth. And it leaves an astonished critic wondering just what purpose Mr. Penn and Mr. Beatty think they serve with this strangely antique, sentimental claptrap, which opened yesterday at the Forum and the Murray Hill
A raw and unmitigated campaign of sheer press-agentry has been trying to put across the notion that Warner Brothers' Bonnie and Clyde is a faithful representation of the desperado careers of Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker, a notorious team of bank robbers and killers who roamed Texas and Oklahoma in the post-Depression years.
It is nothing of the sort. It is a cheap piece of bald-faced slapstick comedy that treats the hideous depredations of that sleazy, moronic pair as though they were as full of fun and frolic as the jazz-age cutups in Thoroughly Modern Millie. And it puts forth Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway in the leading roles, and Michael J. Pollard as their sidekick, a simpering, nose-picking rube, as though they were striving mightily to be the Beverly Hillbillies of next year.
It has Mr. Beatty clowning broadly as the killer who fondles various types of guns with as much nonchalance and dispassion as he airily twirls a big cigar, and it has Miss Dunaway squirming grossly as his thrill-seeking, sex-starved moll. It is loaded with farcical holdups, screaming chases in stolen getaway cars that have the antique appearance and speeded-up movement of the clumsy vehicles of the Keystone Kops, and indications of the impotence of Barrow, until Bonnie writes a poem about him to extol his prowess, that are as ludicrous as they are crude.
Such ridiculous, camp-tinctured travesties of the kind of people these desperados were and of the way people lived in the dusty Southwest back in those barren years might be passed off as candidly commercial movie comedy, nothing more, if the film weren't reddened with blotches of violence of the most grisly sort.
This blending of farce with brutal killings is as pointless as it is lacking in taste, since it makes no valid commentary upon the already travestied truth. And it leaves an astonished critic wondering just what purpose Mr. Penn and Mr. Beatty think they serve with this strangely antique, sentimental claptrap, which opened yesterday at the Forum and the Murray Hill
Kael-Simon-MacDonald - 1963 Critic Round table
Scroll down to the May 14, 2006 entry for an MP3 discussion of film circa 1963 with John Simon, Pauline Kael, and Dwight Macdonald.
Kael, in fact, became the template for film critics and most still approach film from her perspective. McDonald OTOH, faded from the scene rather quickly, but Simon continued to be significant players until the 1990s.
In discussion, Kael is out-classed by Macdonald and Simon. She was much better writing long winded essays outlining her likes and dislikes than engaging in the trust and parry of debate. Simon shines in this format, like his writing he's crisp and too the point. Often insulting, dismissive and funny. Macdonald seems to occupy a middle ground although he's more closer to Simon than Kael.
Kael tries to defend "Hud" as an "American" film, but of course she's really trying to defend "Hollywood" not America. She had many friends in Hollywood and like Ebert actually wokred in Hollywood in the late 60s early 70s.
Kael, in fact, became the template for film critics and most still approach film from her perspective. McDonald OTOH, faded from the scene rather quickly, but Simon continued to be significant players until the 1990s.
In discussion, Kael is out-classed by Macdonald and Simon. She was much better writing long winded essays outlining her likes and dislikes than engaging in the trust and parry of debate. Simon shines in this format, like his writing he's crisp and too the point. Often insulting, dismissive and funny. Macdonald seems to occupy a middle ground although he's more closer to Simon than Kael.
Kael tries to defend "Hud" as an "American" film, but of course she's really trying to defend "Hollywood" not America. She had many friends in Hollywood and like Ebert actually wokred in Hollywood in the late 60s early 70s.
Dana Andrews on Marilyn Monroe
You can get the greatest picture from Europe and just play it in the art houses to the intelligent people, and it'll flop and it doesn't make a star of anybody. But it is so much more gratifying to work in a good picture. It's very difficult to get such a picture made. They don't want to make a picture which doesn't appeal to the whole segment of the public. It's nearly impossible. Because actually motion pictures are strictly for money. It's a business. The men who make pictures, in my opinion, are only gamblers. They don't know very much about their business except the results of it and what it can do for them personally. They have no artistic sensibilities at all, because they're money men. They talk in terms of money, and if a little trollop off the streets comes and makes money for them, they are on her side and she's a great lady. I've seen it happen many times. Until she is that, she is just ... nobody.
On our 10th wedding anniversary, Mr. Wyler and a number of his friends were over, and his wife called and said, "We're having dinner with Johnny Hyde"--who was an agent with the William Morris agency--"and wonder if we can bring him along." I said, "Well, it's just a buffet thing, of course, bring him along." She said, "He has a girlfriend with him; could she come?" "Fine."
So this girl came. I must say she didn't look very attractive, and she didn't have anything to say, and nobody paid any attention to her. All of the other people were well known--directors, people like Preminger, people I worked with. It was not a large Hollywood-type party, a party where I didn't know anyone personally. They were all close friends. And everyone said about this girl, "Who the heck is she?" with a sort of derogatory expression on their faces. I said, "Oh, it's some friend of Johnny Hyde's." I went over and tried to engage her in conversation and didn't have much luck. She seemed shy. I thought, this is very peculiar, for her to be with Johnny Hyde, who's quite a man of the world.
f you'd been at that same party two years later, everybody would have been trying to talk to her. Her name was Marilyn Monroe.
This is the way Hollywood is. The girl was there; she was just the same as she is now, more or less, yet they weren't able to see it. Johnny Hyde saw it. He's the one who got her into pictures. "
Dana Andrews on James Dean
"These stars are built up this way. Because of the independent structure, they have to have a star. These stars are the ones already built up, and consequently they can't get rid of them. I'm sure that they would like to get people for less money, naturally, or people who could demand less. But the public does not know them, and the public is not going to get to know them, because they're not put in the pictures. The pictures they're put into aren't seen by the public. They just don't go anymore. So nobody is building stars anymore. Fox is trying. They used to tie in a large star with a secondary, somebody they were building up, who consequently would get seen. Nowadays they want both of them to be top money drawers. So you get older and older leading men
If younger ones get in, it's just happenstance. If it hadn't been for Mr. Kazan, Jimmy Dean would never have been in pictures. He saw him in New York and got him into pictures, but he was not built up by a studio. At the time of his death, he was at the top. He could have gone on till he was 50 years old, because he hit immediately. Studios as a rule can't do this anymore.
As to my present position, they have at United Artists a strict money tag on every star. They look in a book and say, "He's worth this much; he'll bring in so much money if he just plays the telephone directory." As my rating is now--of course, I'm not young--I'm a medium drawer. The top stars number not more than six or seven. I'm probably within the first dozen. That's looking at it as objectively as United Artists does. I can't think of more than a dozen within whose class I fall. I get a percentage, depending on how much I get in money. These independent deals really don't pay off; these days, box office being what it is now, a picture made for $500,000 (which used to be a small budget) has to gross well over a million dollars in order to pay off. At that time, you will get what you defer, which the government demands that you put down. You can't get half your salary. It's established by what you got in the past. I'll be frank to tell you, my price is $100,000 per picture."
If younger ones get in, it's just happenstance. If it hadn't been for Mr. Kazan, Jimmy Dean would never have been in pictures. He saw him in New York and got him into pictures, but he was not built up by a studio. At the time of his death, he was at the top. He could have gone on till he was 50 years old, because he hit immediately. Studios as a rule can't do this anymore.
As to my present position, they have at United Artists a strict money tag on every star. They look in a book and say, "He's worth this much; he'll bring in so much money if he just plays the telephone directory." As my rating is now--of course, I'm not young--I'm a medium drawer. The top stars number not more than six or seven. I'm probably within the first dozen. That's looking at it as objectively as United Artists does. I can't think of more than a dozen within whose class I fall. I get a percentage, depending on how much I get in money. These independent deals really don't pay off; these days, box office being what it is now, a picture made for $500,000 (which used to be a small budget) has to gross well over a million dollars in order to pay off. At that time, you will get what you defer, which the government demands that you put down. You can't get half your salary. It's established by what you got in the past. I'll be frank to tell you, my price is $100,000 per picture."
Dana Andrews on John Wayne
From a 1958 interview:
"As to John Wayne--I don't think anybody who observes acting as such would say that John Wayne is an actor. He's John Wayne, a big hulk of a man who has learned how to walk in a very masculine sort of way, with high boots. He can talk to some extent, but it's always the same. In Ghengis Khan, for instance, it was just ludicrous to see this cowboy speaking as Ghengis Khan. Ward Bond, a very good friend of his, said, "Just when I thought he'd had it, he became the biggest star in the business!"
This is directly attributable to the kind of character that Mr. John Ford is very able to get onto the screen, and he did that in the case of John Wayne in two or three pictures. These pictures made fabulous amounts of money, because of the type of pictures they were, because of the John Ford direction, and because of the characters that were written in there for Mr. Wayne. I think for three or four years running after that he was the top money drawer. Of course, he isn't now such a drawer, but I think he was for five or six years in a row top box office with Alan Ladd, who nobody would say is an actor. This Gun for Hire is the best thing he did, and he didn't say anything in it, much."
Welles to Heston - What is Universal up to?
Dearest Chuck:
I got a wire last night from Muhl stating that (Ernest) Nims (Universal's head of post-production), is working on the 'majority' of the changes requested in my memo, and asking me to turn up on Wednesday for dubbing. What interpretation are we to put on this?
A. They are afraid I won't come for dubbing unless they promise to make the changes.
B. A certain throbbing of war drums has reached their ears at last, and they intend to make a convincing show of cooperating with my suggestions in the hope of spiking my guns, in the event of any future battle.
C. Utter demoralization. Hundreds are being fired from the studio, and the rumors of Muhl's joining them continue to spread. In such an atmosphere of decay and despair, maybe the sheer force of energy—which they now see I am prepared to put into this fight—has awed them into momentary compliance.
D. Another possibility is that the very evident constructive spirit of my memo amounts to a strong weapon which they do not wish to have used against them…
E. The last possibility (and, I think, the least likely!) is that they have all been genuinely converted to the suggestions in the memo and are hastening to put the 'majority' into effect.
Obviously, at this point, our cue is to play it straight. They deserve no thanks for their expressed willingness to follow the main lines of the memo. If, in fact, they do so, it will not constitute a personal favor to me; nothing but the good of the picture has ever been at issue. I shall make my loops and wait and see. It’s up to them. The big question, of course, is just what the 'majority' will really turn out to be. In fact, there were no bargaining points in that memo of mine. It represented my notion of the minimum number of improvements necessary. It's my fear that their execution of these changes will leave something to be desired, since they may be acting without much enthusiasm, but most importantly, because they will be working in great haste.
Much love,
Orson
I got a wire last night from Muhl stating that (Ernest) Nims (Universal's head of post-production), is working on the 'majority' of the changes requested in my memo, and asking me to turn up on Wednesday for dubbing. What interpretation are we to put on this?
A. They are afraid I won't come for dubbing unless they promise to make the changes.
B. A certain throbbing of war drums has reached their ears at last, and they intend to make a convincing show of cooperating with my suggestions in the hope of spiking my guns, in the event of any future battle.
C. Utter demoralization. Hundreds are being fired from the studio, and the rumors of Muhl's joining them continue to spread. In such an atmosphere of decay and despair, maybe the sheer force of energy—which they now see I am prepared to put into this fight—has awed them into momentary compliance.
D. Another possibility is that the very evident constructive spirit of my memo amounts to a strong weapon which they do not wish to have used against them…
E. The last possibility (and, I think, the least likely!) is that they have all been genuinely converted to the suggestions in the memo and are hastening to put the 'majority' into effect.
Obviously, at this point, our cue is to play it straight. They deserve no thanks for their expressed willingness to follow the main lines of the memo. If, in fact, they do so, it will not constitute a personal favor to me; nothing but the good of the picture has ever been at issue. I shall make my loops and wait and see. It’s up to them. The big question, of course, is just what the 'majority' will really turn out to be. In fact, there were no bargaining points in that memo of mine. It represented my notion of the minimum number of improvements necessary. It's my fear that their execution of these changes will leave something to be desired, since they may be acting without much enthusiasm, but most importantly, because they will be working in great haste.
Much love,
Orson
Welles to Heston - Don't cooperate with the Suits
Dearest Chuck:
The way I hear it, you and Janet are growing more cooperative by the minute. The fact that the dialogue you are speaking is not absolute hogwash—the fact that your director is not, after all, a certifiable incompetent and above everything else, the fact that all this added work is involving a great quantity of close footage on both of you bums—I suppose makes this cheeriness inevitable.
This is to remind you that what is happening over there is still the ruination of our picture. The spoiling process may be a bit less obvious than we expected, but the essential fact remains, and I beg you not to permit the merry stimulation of work to interfere with that air of reticence you had sworn to maintain.
There's this character—(known an loved by all)—he might be called "Cooperative Chuck"… he is not merely well disciplined in his work, but positively eager—even wildly eager—to make things easy for his fellows on the set and for all the executives in their offices… In a word, he's the Eagle Scout of the Screen Actors Guild.
The purpose of the communiqué to beg him to leave his uniform and flag in the dressing room…
There's nothing I can do about meeting the excitations of the close-up lens, but I can implore you to curb your peace-making instincts and to maintain an aloof and non-committal silence. That goes for Janet, too, damn it.
In a word, keep your yap shut.
Much love,
Orson
The way I hear it, you and Janet are growing more cooperative by the minute. The fact that the dialogue you are speaking is not absolute hogwash—the fact that your director is not, after all, a certifiable incompetent and above everything else, the fact that all this added work is involving a great quantity of close footage on both of you bums—I suppose makes this cheeriness inevitable.
This is to remind you that what is happening over there is still the ruination of our picture. The spoiling process may be a bit less obvious than we expected, but the essential fact remains, and I beg you not to permit the merry stimulation of work to interfere with that air of reticence you had sworn to maintain.
There's this character—(known an loved by all)—he might be called "Cooperative Chuck"… he is not merely well disciplined in his work, but positively eager—even wildly eager—to make things easy for his fellows on the set and for all the executives in their offices… In a word, he's the Eagle Scout of the Screen Actors Guild.
The purpose of the communiqué to beg him to leave his uniform and flag in the dressing room…
There's nothing I can do about meeting the excitations of the close-up lens, but I can implore you to curb your peace-making instincts and to maintain an aloof and non-committal silence. That goes for Janet, too, damn it.
In a word, keep your yap shut.
Much love,
Orson
Welles to Heston - They are wrecking "Touch of Evil"
Dearest Chuck:
I want you to read this before we talk—there are some points that should be made as unemotionally as possible, and I'm afraid I don't quite trust myself to keep the exposition of them as cool and clear as I'd like.
Your telegram has arrived in which you speak of yourself as "legally bound" to the studio. But this is the advice—not of your own lawyer—but "the legal department of MCA."
Even if I were not available, don't you think it would be sweetly reasonable on your part to insist on a certain standard of professional capacity and reputation in the choice of an alternate director?
UNLESS THE STUDIO IS STOPPED THEY ARE GOING TO WRECK OUR PICTURE—AND I MEAN WRECK IT, BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE KIND OF ONE-TWO-THREE, ABC VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCT THAT CAN BE SLIGHTLY WRECKED. WITHOUT MY HELP THE RESULT WILL BE VERY MUCH LESS SATISFACTORY THAN THE MOST ORDINARY PROGAM ITEM, THE RESULT WILL NOT SIMPLY BE SOMETHING LESS THAN YOU HOPED. THE RESULT WILL BE GENUINELY BAD.
You must realize that if you have a financial interest in the picture, I have a professional one. If I were now directing another picture—or about to direct one—and if I hadn't been away so long, I might be tempted to write off my own investment as a bad loss. But as things are with me in this industry I simply cannot afford to sustain such a blow.
I'm heartsick at the though of having to involve you. But you really cannot avoid some involvement—now or later.
If you are tempted to think of yourself as the helpless victim of sinister Hollywood forces, over which you have no control, I must tell you that you're wrong. You aren't helpless at all, and it's well within your own power to save much of a rather large investment of time, money and—yes—love.
You can do this by getting a little tough now.
Much love as always,
Orson
Wellsnet has a fascinating post about Heston's relationship with Orson Welles. Its based on Heston's diaries.
Interesting fact, Heston turned down Paths of Glory to do Touch of Evil.
___________
I want you to read this before we talk—there are some points that should be made as unemotionally as possible, and I'm afraid I don't quite trust myself to keep the exposition of them as cool and clear as I'd like.
Your telegram has arrived in which you speak of yourself as "legally bound" to the studio. But this is the advice—not of your own lawyer—but "the legal department of MCA."
Even if I were not available, don't you think it would be sweetly reasonable on your part to insist on a certain standard of professional capacity and reputation in the choice of an alternate director?
UNLESS THE STUDIO IS STOPPED THEY ARE GOING TO WRECK OUR PICTURE—AND I MEAN WRECK IT, BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE KIND OF ONE-TWO-THREE, ABC VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCT THAT CAN BE SLIGHTLY WRECKED. WITHOUT MY HELP THE RESULT WILL BE VERY MUCH LESS SATISFACTORY THAN THE MOST ORDINARY PROGAM ITEM, THE RESULT WILL NOT SIMPLY BE SOMETHING LESS THAN YOU HOPED. THE RESULT WILL BE GENUINELY BAD.
You must realize that if you have a financial interest in the picture, I have a professional one. If I were now directing another picture—or about to direct one—and if I hadn't been away so long, I might be tempted to write off my own investment as a bad loss. But as things are with me in this industry I simply cannot afford to sustain such a blow.
I'm heartsick at the though of having to involve you. But you really cannot avoid some involvement—now or later.
If you are tempted to think of yourself as the helpless victim of sinister Hollywood forces, over which you have no control, I must tell you that you're wrong. You aren't helpless at all, and it's well within your own power to save much of a rather large investment of time, money and—yes—love.
You can do this by getting a little tough now.
Much love as always,
Orson
Wellsnet has a fascinating post about Heston's relationship with Orson Welles. Its based on Heston's diaries.
Interesting fact, Heston turned down Paths of Glory to do Touch of Evil.
___________
The Dishonesty of Spielberg's Lincoln
The more I think about it, the less I like the Movie "Lincoln". The movie makes three wrong assumptions/assertions and since Kushner knew they were I wrong, they deserve the label "dishonest".
First, the 13th Amendment was not necessary to destroy slavery. Slavery was already on its way out. The Emancipation proclamation, the ending of slavery by state action in Missouri and Maryland, and the arming of almost 200,000 black men shows that the Slavery Humpty Dumpty wasn't going to be put back together. Weirdly the movie has two Missouri white crackers tell Lincoln they're against "all this freedom nonsense" even though Missouri had already emancipated its slaves! The 13th Amendment wrapped it all up in a nice constitutional bow, but Slavery was on its death bed in January 1865. Even had the SCOTUS found the Emancipation proclamation unconstitutional, the Radical Republicans would've worked around it or reshaped the SCOTUS to suit themselves, just like they did on other issues.
Second, the movie exaggerates the opposition to ending slavery. The movie ignores that (i) all the opposition came from Democrats/Unionists and that 32 of the 72 Democrat representatives (almost 1/4 of the house) were lame ducks, having been defeated in the 1864 election. Further, they'd been elected in 1862 not to support slavery but because of Lincoln's mishandling of the war. In March 1863 40% of the House was Democrat/Unionist. in March 1865 it would drop to 21%. All 56 votes against the Amendment were Democrats/Unionists. Finally, I wonder how many people watching Lincoln think the 13th Amendment had failed to get a MAJORITY (as opposed to 2/3) in the July 1863 vote.
Third, there is absolutely no evidence the Confederates in 1865 would've made peace to "save" slavery. In fact, just the opposite. Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis were considering emancipation in order to keep the war going and save the Confederacy. A bill promising freedom to any slave who joined the Confederate army was passed in March 1865. And Secretary of State Benjamin had been lobbying Davis for years to free the slaves in return for foreign recognition.
First, the 13th Amendment was not necessary to destroy slavery. Slavery was already on its way out. The Emancipation proclamation, the ending of slavery by state action in Missouri and Maryland, and the arming of almost 200,000 black men shows that the Slavery Humpty Dumpty wasn't going to be put back together. Weirdly the movie has two Missouri white crackers tell Lincoln they're against "all this freedom nonsense" even though Missouri had already emancipated its slaves! The 13th Amendment wrapped it all up in a nice constitutional bow, but Slavery was on its death bed in January 1865. Even had the SCOTUS found the Emancipation proclamation unconstitutional, the Radical Republicans would've worked around it or reshaped the SCOTUS to suit themselves, just like they did on other issues.
Second, the movie exaggerates the opposition to ending slavery. The movie ignores that (i) all the opposition came from Democrats/Unionists and that 32 of the 72 Democrat representatives (almost 1/4 of the house) were lame ducks, having been defeated in the 1864 election. Further, they'd been elected in 1862 not to support slavery but because of Lincoln's mishandling of the war. In March 1863 40% of the House was Democrat/Unionist. in March 1865 it would drop to 21%. All 56 votes against the Amendment were Democrats/Unionists. Finally, I wonder how many people watching Lincoln think the 13th Amendment had failed to get a MAJORITY (as opposed to 2/3) in the July 1863 vote.
Third, there is absolutely no evidence the Confederates in 1865 would've made peace to "save" slavery. In fact, just the opposite. Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis were considering emancipation in order to keep the war going and save the Confederacy. A bill promising freedom to any slave who joined the Confederate army was passed in March 1865. And Secretary of State Benjamin had been lobbying Davis for years to free the slaves in return for foreign recognition.
Lincoln (2012)
Just saw it and was bored. Although I'm a Civil War buff "Lincoln" is not my kind of movie. Too much talk, talk, talk and parliamentary procedure. "We must pass the 13th Amendment , "No, Abe its too risky! What about the war?" "No, its the right thing, Slavery must End!". Blah, Blah.
However, the acting is excellent and Sally and DDL deserve Oscars. If you liked "Amistad" or long-winded (to me) Biopics like "Gandhi" you'll probably like "Lincoln". Otherwise not.
Political films, of course, can be done well and be entertaining, see for example: "The Best Man", "The Last Hurrah", or "Advice and Consent". But "Lincoln" isn't one of the them.
Also, I was puzzled why Lincoln - in the movie - is so obsessed with passing the 13th Amendment in January 1865. Historically, everyone knew that in early March 1865 the Republicans would've passed the Amendment in the House of Representatives, no matter what. And that ratification was a sure thing. By January 1865, Missouri and Maryland had freed their slaves, and Slavery was on its way out in Kentucky and the South. Even Jefferson Davis was proposing giving slaves their freedom if they'd don a Confederate Uniform.
But despite my boredom, my hat's off to Spielberg. At least he tried to do a quality movie about a Great historical topic instead of "ET-Part II" or "Private Ryan goes to Okinawa".
However, the acting is excellent and Sally and DDL deserve Oscars. If you liked "Amistad" or long-winded (to me) Biopics like "Gandhi" you'll probably like "Lincoln". Otherwise not.
Political films, of course, can be done well and be entertaining, see for example: "The Best Man", "The Last Hurrah", or "Advice and Consent". But "Lincoln" isn't one of the them.
Also, I was puzzled why Lincoln - in the movie - is so obsessed with passing the 13th Amendment in January 1865. Historically, everyone knew that in early March 1865 the Republicans would've passed the Amendment in the House of Representatives, no matter what. And that ratification was a sure thing. By January 1865, Missouri and Maryland had freed their slaves, and Slavery was on its way out in Kentucky and the South. Even Jefferson Davis was proposing giving slaves their freedom if they'd don a Confederate Uniform.
But despite my boredom, my hat's off to Spielberg. At least he tried to do a quality movie about a Great historical topic instead of "ET-Part II" or "Private Ryan goes to Okinawa".
The Ten Best Academy Award "Best Actors"
Of all the Oscars for "Best Actor" here are the top 10.
1) William Holden - Stalag 17 - It made Holden a superstar and propelled him out of mediocre films. Wilder only considered Holden after Kirk Douglas and a few others turned him down. His blend of toughness, charm, and intelligence is hard to beat. Most actors including Douglas couldn't have pulled it off. Holden's character really isn't that likable and its only Holden's charm that allows us to root for "the crud" in the early part of the movie.
2) Brando - On the Waterfront - His second best, after Streetcar, but this one won the Oscar. The role fit the young Brando like a glove.
3) George C. Scott - Patton - A great performance Scott is Patton, even Patton's daughter was impressed. Scott was at the bottom of the casting list. Supposedly, every star including John Wayne, Heston, Lancaster, Douglas, and even Lee Marvin turned it down before Scott was given the role.
4) Cagney - Yankee Doodle Dandy - Again, Cagney is George Cohan. He signs, dances, and even acts. Another movie where the best actor dominates from start to finish without a misstep.
5) Bogart - African Queen - He was better in Treasure of Sierra Madre, but funny, pathetic, charming, and brave as "Charlie". He even makes us believe he's in love with Spinster Hepburn.
6) Harrison - My Fair Lady - The movie itself is a too literal adaptation of the play but Harrison's performance will live forever as the definitive "Professor Higgins".
7) De Niro - Raging Bull - An incredible performance that makes a bleak, unineresting movie come alive.
8) Olivier - Hamlet - The definitive performance.
9) Nicholson - One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest - Jack makes us root for a selfish psychopath. Like RAGING BULL this is a one man show.
10) Scofield - A Man for All Seasons - No one could have done better as Sir Thomas More.
The Ten Best Academy Award "Best Actresses"
See Ed Copeland's. for his 10 best Oscar winning performances. Here are mine:
1) Vivian Leigh - Gone With the Wind - She dominates the film from start to finish. She is Scarlett O'Hara, and no one could have done a better job.
2) Audrey Hepburn - Roman Holiday - This is the movie that made the world fall in love with Audrey Hepburn. Not one wrong note, she is beguiling, charming, and always the Princess.
3) Vivian Leigh - Streetcar Named Desire "A harrowing study in human frailty and incipient madness, Leigh’s performance is, at times, almost unbearable to watch; the viewer can’t help but want to reach out and save Blanche — mostly from herself."
4) Grace Kelly - Country Girl - Grace Kelly was not only beautiful she could act. Sadly, some have never forgiven her for taking away "Judy's Oscar". Cast against type as Bing's dowdy, controlling, wife she makes it work.
5) Maggie Smith - The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie - She made a middle-aged, Mussolini loving Fascist, irresistible. Now that Acting.
6) Meryl Streep - Sophie's Choice - Well, its Meryl Steep
7) Jule Andrews -Mary Poppins - Its impossible to imagine anyone else in the role.
8) Anna Magnani - The Rose tattoo - A force of nature. She takes a so-so character and brings her alive.
9) Liz Taylor - Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf - Another Beauty playing Dowdy but Liz actually not only undergoes a physical transformation, she's a hurricane. Quite different from the subdued beauty of What I Saw last Summer.
10) Susan Hayward - I Want to Live! My mothers favorite movie. It always left her "limp as a dishrag". Yes, Susan lacks a little subtlety but she drives the narrative forward and makes you root for this killer to escape the Gas Chamber.
Five Worst "Best Actress" Academy Awards
Again working off Ed Copeland marvelous post. And also excluding the "Lifetime achievement" Oscars. The Academy is terrible at giving this award. They constantly give it to the wrong person or to the right person for the wrong role. Page for example, was nominated 4 times but only won in 1984 when the Academy gave her a "Lifetime Achievement" Oscar. Louise Rainier won 2 Oscars while Vanessa Redgrave has never won a "Best Actress".1. Luise Rainier - THE GOOD EARTH (1938)- Amazingly this was her 2nd Oscar. The first Oscar came for a minor B+ performance in "THE GREAT ZIEGFELD". Her performance as the Chinese peasant O-Lan is unconvincing in every way. She says very little and rarely changes expression. I guess she was going for "Stoic" and succeeded. Up there with Mickey Rooney's Japanese photographer in "BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S" as the worst Caucasian actor playing an Asian.
2. Judy Holiday - BORN YESTERDAY (1950) - One of those crazy situations where the weakest nominee wins because everyone splits their votes. Holiday beat Davis and Baxter in "ALL ABOUT EVE" and Swanson's role of a lifetime in "SUNSET BLVD". To my eyes, Holiday simply repeats her dumb blond persona from "ADAMS RIB". Here she becomes tiresome as she says all her lines in nasal Brooklyn accent. I found the dialog annoying and unfunny. I've never been a Holiday fan although I liked her in small doses. Harry Cohn (who called her a "fat, Jewish Broad") cast her the movie over Monroe and Hagan.
3. Cher - MOONSTRUCK (1987) - What can I say - I mean Cher "Best Actress" - what were they thinking?
4. Elizabeth Taylor BUTTERFIELD 8 (1960)- Liz hated the movie and did it only because of her contract. Everyone agrees she didn't deserve to be nominated let alone win - but she was very ill so she got a sympathy Oscar. Self Styled Siren states:
"Even wronged wife Debbie Reynolds voted for her. To her immense credit, Taylor has always said she knew she didn't deserve the award. Unfortunately, she was right. Granted, Gloria Wandrous is a ludicrous projection of misogyny, possibly unplayable as written. Plus there's the problem of Taylor's leading man, of whom Jane Fonda said, 'Acting with Laurence Harvey is like acting by yourself. Only worse."
5. Kate Hepburn ON GOLDEN POND (1981) - Very old Kate Hepburn plays a very old women who bears an uncanny resemblance to a very old Kate Hepburn. Not much acting required. Like her other Oscar win "GUESS WHOSE COMING TO DINNER" Kate doesn't do much except support the old male star. They should have simply hired Martin Short and saved a lot of money.
Five worst "Best Actor" Academy Awards
I've excluded the Oscars given as substitute lifetime achievement awards. We all understand that John Wayne "True Grit", Henry Fonda "on Golden Pond", Paul Newman "The Color of Money", didn't win for their performances alone. Hollywood just wanted to reward them for the whole careers.
1. Paul Muni "THE STORY OF LOUIS PASTEUR" Sally Box says it best:
"In one of our collections of New Yorker cartoons, a woman on a radio quiz show says,'I don’t know what he did, but Paul Muni played him in the movie."
Muni was the 30s idea of a "Great Actor." Between 1930 and 1938 he was nominated 5 times and won for "Life of Louis Pasteur." Not a bad actor, but looking back its hard to see what all the fuss was about. Muni always seems to be "acting" - either too pious/noble when playing great men or hamming it up when playing less heroic roles. I wont even mention his horrible Chinese/Russian/Mexican impersonations.
2. Paul Lucas "WATCH ON THE RHINE" - Josh R says:
"An earnest, monochromatic performance neither good nor bad enough to qualify as memorable - this win only really begins to piss you off when you recall that the competition included Bogart in Casablanca (Oscar wasn't quite ready for the anti-hero yet). It's difficult to make impassioned sermons on the tyranny of fascism work without something in the way of dramatic fire - Lukas drones on like a high school history teacher reading from a textbook. We're supposed to believe that this dude is dynamic and inspiring enough to single-handedly liberate Europe - something that would only make sense if he were planning to pull it off by boring the Nazis to sleep."
3. Jose Ferrer - "Cyrano de Bergerac" - Hollywood considered him a great actor for a couple years in the early 1950s and then his career went into free fall. Ferrer isn't bad in the role but he's really one-note johnny. Ferrer is fine at making speeches or sword-fighting but his romancing of Roxanne is embarrassing. Despite the script, Ferrer is as romantic as E.G. Marshall in a business suit.
Ferrer was a very limited actor. Highly intelligent, physically unimpressive, and blessed with a rich baritone voice. But his great voice could only play a few notes. An accurate opinion: "Like Burgess Meredith or Hume Cronyn, Ferrer is one of those actory actors who never spoke a believable word in his life."
4. AL PACINO (SCENT OF A WOMAN) - Everyone's favorite bad Pacino performance. This started Al's decent into self-parody. Per Isaac Bickerstaff:
He's blind and he yells.
Look! He dances the tango!
I wish I were deaf."
5. Richard Dreyfuss (THE GOODBYE GIRL) A truly amazing choice. Richard Dreyfuss plays Richard Dreyfuss in a mediocre movie based on mediocre Simon play. Dreyfuss was a character actor thrust into Stardom for some reason in the 1970s. Appealing but limited. Belushi's 2 minute SNL takeoff is more memorable than the whole movie:
John Belushi: Okay, okay, you know. I know you don't do TV. You know, I just thought you lost your place on the cue cards, that's all.
Richard Dreyfuss: I don't use cue cards, John, and when I'm doing Shakespeare, actors who do Shakespeare do not use cue cards, you know?
John Belushi: [sarcastically] Ooooo, Shakespeare! Well, What do I know, huh? I'm just a sleazy, late night TV actor, is that it?
Richard Dreyfuss: No, no, I didn't mean that--
John Belushi: No, no, what do I know about Shakespeare, huh? Mr. Oscar, Mr. Best Actor. Now, Richard Burton, now there's an actor. When he did Hamlet, when he did Hamlet he was great. He didn't have to use any pauses. But it takes one drink, and Hollywood
blackballs him! Huh, Mr. New Hollywood Establishment? You know? At least when George C. Scott won the Oscar, he didn't accept it! You know? Marlon Brando
sent up an Indian! Now, you could've sent up an Indian, but nooooo! You run up there, you "whoo-hoo-hoo, I could stay up here all night." Maybe I'm just a struggling TV actor, right? Maybe I didn't win the Oscar, you know? Maybe I have to work every week just to keep my family in clothes and drugs, you know? Maybe I don't know that much about Shakespeare, you know, or about pausing or England. But I know one thing, [takes the Oscar from Richard] you didn't deserve this Oscar. [John punches Richard in the stomach and walks offstage. Audience applauds. Stage lights dim again as Richard tries to restart his performance]
Richard Dreyfuss: To be, or... [pouting] I don't wanna do this anymore. [Takes off Hamlet wig] We'll be right back. [Walks out of the spotlight as audience applauds]
10 Worst Academy Award "Best Pictures" 1930-1990
There were a lot of candidates. Until I sat down to write, I didn't realize how many bad/mediocre movies have received Best Pictures. The only problem was narrowing the list to 10. So, to cut down the candidates, I excluded pre-1934 and post-1990 movies. First, the pre-1934 movies were products of their time and can't be judged by today's standards. Secondly, post 1990 for the most part suck. Including them would mean all ten slots would be filled by the likes of Crash, Shakespeare In Love, American Beauty, etc.
1. Driving Miss Daisy (1989) She's a rich Jewish lady of the South, high-toned, spoiled, stubborn to a fault, He's a black illiterate chauffeur, wise, patient and in need of a job. And me, I was bored silly.
2. Around the World in 80 Days (1956) This endless, bloated, tedious travelogue was sheer torture. Maybe its better on the big screen but I doubt it.
3. Gentleman's Agreement (1947) Gregory Peck takes on anti-semitism in this 1947 snooze fest. Another sermon from Hollywood in movie form. Its very serious and responsible, they just forgot the "entertainment" part. Peck pretends to be Jewish in the film - and does about well as you'd expect. Later, Peck played a Nazi in "THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL". What range! Is there any role Peck couldn't play?
4. The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)- The only thing I dislike more than the Circus, is movies about the Circus.
5. You Can't Take it with You (1938) Painfully long and unfunny Capra comedy. With Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur. Love all three - but not in this movie.I came to laugh but fell asleep instead. Full of Capra corn, hokey, and slow. I'd write more but I couldn't finish it.
6. Kramer vs. Kramer (1979) A TV Movie of the week.
7. Midnight Cowboy (1969) Imagine "Dumb and Dumber" as an X-rated drama and you have "Midnight Cowboy". Voight and Hoffman are wasted in this unbelievable story about two men in 1969 NYC. One's a naive male prostitute the other his sickly friend. Both struggle to survive on the streets of New York City. Both are incredibly stupid.
8. All the King's Men (1949) From Robert Penn Warren's pretentious, boring novel about a fictional Huey Long comes this pretentious, boring movie about a fictional Huey Long. Like George Wallace, Long was someone everyone in elite America disliked. So of course Hollywood had to make a "brave" - but low budget - movie attacking him. Lots of hokum about "power corrupts." The plot is predictable, Crawford is arrogant and full of bluster. and everyone else is boring or charmless. BTW, the real Huey Long could charm the birds off the trees and had some good ideas as well as some bad ones.
9. Life of Emile Zola (1937)- Another boring, 1930s prestige pictures put out by WB and rewarded with an Oscar. Frankly, I didn't know much about Zola before watching this and now - I've decided to stop while I'm ahead. Dreyfus, Zola, it all seems as unimportant and Boring as the 1858 Tariff debate. Muni fills the screen with his usual brand of owlish importance and wears a beard.
10. Terms of Endearment (1983) Manipulative, shallow, chick flick. Like Kramer v Kramer, it reminded me of a Lifetime TV movie of the week. Jack and Shirley overact shamelessly. Maybe, I wasn't the target audience for this film.
Honorable Mention: Rocky, Rain Man, Silence of the Lambs, Dances with Wolves, Tom Jones, Mrs. Miniver, West Side Story.
1. Driving Miss Daisy (1989) She's a rich Jewish lady of the South, high-toned, spoiled, stubborn to a fault, He's a black illiterate chauffeur, wise, patient and in need of a job. And me, I was bored silly.
2. Around the World in 80 Days (1956) This endless, bloated, tedious travelogue was sheer torture. Maybe its better on the big screen but I doubt it.
3. Gentleman's Agreement (1947) Gregory Peck takes on anti-semitism in this 1947 snooze fest. Another sermon from Hollywood in movie form. Its very serious and responsible, they just forgot the "entertainment" part. Peck pretends to be Jewish in the film - and does about well as you'd expect. Later, Peck played a Nazi in "THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL". What range! Is there any role Peck couldn't play?
4. The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)- The only thing I dislike more than the Circus, is movies about the Circus.
5. You Can't Take it with You (1938) Painfully long and unfunny Capra comedy. With Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur. Love all three - but not in this movie.I came to laugh but fell asleep instead. Full of Capra corn, hokey, and slow. I'd write more but I couldn't finish it.
6. Kramer vs. Kramer (1979) A TV Movie of the week.
7. Midnight Cowboy (1969) Imagine "Dumb and Dumber" as an X-rated drama and you have "Midnight Cowboy". Voight and Hoffman are wasted in this unbelievable story about two men in 1969 NYC. One's a naive male prostitute the other his sickly friend. Both struggle to survive on the streets of New York City. Both are incredibly stupid.
8. All the King's Men (1949) From Robert Penn Warren's pretentious, boring novel about a fictional Huey Long comes this pretentious, boring movie about a fictional Huey Long. Like George Wallace, Long was someone everyone in elite America disliked. So of course Hollywood had to make a "brave" - but low budget - movie attacking him. Lots of hokum about "power corrupts." The plot is predictable, Crawford is arrogant and full of bluster. and everyone else is boring or charmless. BTW, the real Huey Long could charm the birds off the trees and had some good ideas as well as some bad ones.
9. Life of Emile Zola (1937)- Another boring, 1930s prestige pictures put out by WB and rewarded with an Oscar. Frankly, I didn't know much about Zola before watching this and now - I've decided to stop while I'm ahead. Dreyfus, Zola, it all seems as unimportant and Boring as the 1858 Tariff debate. Muni fills the screen with his usual brand of owlish importance and wears a beard.
10. Terms of Endearment (1983) Manipulative, shallow, chick flick. Like Kramer v Kramer, it reminded me of a Lifetime TV movie of the week. Jack and Shirley overact shamelessly. Maybe, I wasn't the target audience for this film.
Honorable Mention: Rocky, Rain Man, Silence of the Lambs, Dances with Wolves, Tom Jones, Mrs. Miniver, West Side Story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)