What’s in a name? Maybe a lot more than one might think! After realizing that George Clooney and Cary Grant both have the same initials in reverse, I feel like I’ve just uncovered a secret code from the universe!
So, what’s in a name? Well, apparently the destiny of stardom, and an unspoken link between two heartthrobs born decades apart!
Happy belated birthday to the late Stanley Kramer (born September 29th, 1913). The filmmaker many regarded as the “conscience of Hollywood” throughout much of the 1950s and 1960s for his socially-conscious, oft daring films—-like “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” (1967)—- would have been 99.
Because of the upcoming Lifetime original movie,Liz & Dick, starring Lindsay Lohan as the late Elizabeth Taylor, I thought that I would list all the stars that I can think of right off the top of my head who could be better at playing certain stars than Lohan would be at playing Taylor:
Angelina Jolie…
as Leslie Caron?
YES!!!
Happy Days star, Erin Morgan…
as a grown-up Shirley Temple?
YES!!!
George Clooney…
as Cary Grant?
YES!!! (They even have the same initials, in reverse!)
Hilary Duff…
as 1950s-1960s Disney starlet, Hayley Mills?
YES!!!
Lindsay Lohan…
as Natalie Wood?
YES!!! (just change her hair and giver her brown contacts)
BUT…
Lindsay Lohan as Liz Taylor?
Big, fat NO!!!
(She even sounds too different from Liz to convincingly play her! At least she and Natalie Wood have similar voices—-as-well as facial features!)
CASE CLOSED!
If anyone is interested in watching the travesty for curiosity-sake though, it premieres on the Lifetime network, November 25th.
Tonight on TCM, I saw a positively fabulous documentary on a wonderful film-maker, Mr. Arthur Freed. With such films as “Meet Me In St. Louis” (1944), “Singin’ In The Rain” (1952) and “An American in Paris” (1951), it’s no wonder then, that Joe Pasternak, admiringly referred to his unit as the “royalty” of MGM.
The one part of the documentary that probably summed Freed up the best was this (paraphrased):
“Almost the entire production-team of the Arthur Freed film, Gigi was together in one room, including star, Leslie Caron and director, Vincent Minnelli, and many others. And this lady named Hermione said, “You know, I’ve heard quite a lot about Mr. Freed, but I’m not exactly sure what his talent is. Could you tell me what some of his pluses are?” And, a fella at the table replied, “We’re all here. He brings us together.”
- Smith, who has no e-mail address and hasn’t a clue about how to find her Internet Movie Database resume, totally missed the much-viewed online clip of her greatest Downton Abbey zingers from earlier this year that was titled (Bleep) the Dowager Countess Says. It is explained to her this way: “First you put someone in their place, then you ring the bell, then you stare and sigh, then you deliver another putdown.” Her reaction: “Who would put that online? Who would assemble it?”
- She never understood the popularity of her Downton Abbey inquiry, “What is a weekend?” Smith explains: “It’s a good line, but I never thought it was that funny.” Her favorite? “Put that in your pipe and smoke it,” which was her signoff after rival Isobel (Penelope Wilton) accused her of meddling in the romantic affairs of her son.
- Talk of a sequel to The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel has Smith puzzled. “I heard that and thought, ‘It would have to be in a funeral home.’ We are all in an old people’s home. Where else would you put the sequel?”
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2012/09/17/maggie-smith-downton-abbey-exotic-marigold/70000524/1#.UFdpUWthiSM
Ethel Merman & Mary Martin Interview Part 1 (by NealeUK)
Ethel Merman and Mary Martin, two of the most beloved women of the old-time Broadway musical!
Today’s folks may know Mary Martin from her signature role as Peter Pan in the 1960 televised musical adaptation. And, one of Ethel Merman’s best known roles is that of pistol wielding Annie Oakley, in 1946’s Annie Get Your Gun, which was later made into a musical film in 1950, starring Betty Hutton as Annie.
Mary Martin was such a loving individual. Look at how warm she is to everyone, never hesitating to give a compliment or to hold a hand. I think if I was in show-business back in her day, she and I would have been friends, probably.
And, will you get a load of silent-film star, Lillian Gish! When she describes how movies were made about 100 years ago—-WOW!
JOAN CRAWFORD’S EERIE LAST WORDS:
I am in the process of reading my Joan Crawford biography, and I find her to be a very interesting character-study. She was a woman of contradictions that even she did not know. And, ya wanna hear something weird? Play this video! All those voice-mails from her. If played from beginning to end, you’ll be thinking WHOA!
(via Image detail for -Desi Arnaz Lucille Ball Lucie Desiree Arnaz)
Desi was such a natural father! I love him for that! And, that’s mostly why I can’t stand to see him get old, because I can feel what his kids must have been feeling—-that the world wasn’t just about to lose a great man, but that two lucky kids were about to lose a dear dad.
I love you, Desi!
Even if you are a non-Treki, like myself, there was no way you could be on the internet yesterday and not know about Star Trek’s 45th anniversary! As one of my Facebook friend’s statuses informed me, Google was in on the party in its usually unique way, with a special Google sign, designed just for the occasion:
Needless to say, my friend was bowled over by excitement, after she saw the fun graphic honoring one of her very favorite shows. And, although I am not a Treki (Star Trek fan) myself, I must admit that this anniversary means a lot to me, too, thanks to a little bit of history calledDesilu!
In case some of you aren’t aware, Desilu was the name of the television production company ran by Desi Arnaz (company president) and his wife, TV comedian, Lucille Ball (vice-president). And, according to A Book by Desi Arnaz as-well as several other sources, the company was, at its peak, the biggest, most active TV production studio in the world, producing more programs and more episodes than any other company! So, it should come as little surprise that it was this very same, successful studio that first brought Star Trek into people’s homes 45 years ago!
That’s right, I may not be aStar Trekfan per se, but I am a Lucy-Desi fan, all the way! So, I am very proud of them for helping to launch such timeless programs asStar Trekall those years ago. And, even though the studio was eventually sold to Paramount, at which time it was renamedParamount Television Studios, the history ofStar Trekand other shows pioneered there will keep the memory of its original incarnation alive.
So, as you think ofStar Trekon its 45th anniversary, don’t forget to rememberDesilutoo—-the place where it all began.
Happy 45th, Star Trek fans!
(one indicator that Bacall holds tight to the past is that her style hasn’t really changed throughout the decades. But, when you originate from an era of style as classy as hers, I’d say that’s a good thing.)
Ms. Bacall has a good point when referring to old Hollywood. She’s not so much saying that current Hollywood isn’t as good as her era, she’s saying that current Hollywood doesn’t present or portray itself as well as in her era. Hollywood was all about fantasy, dreams, escape. You didn’t see the scars, scabs, and dirt because there was little. And when there was any, you had publicity people that cleaned you up fast. Your career depended on it.
Ms. Bacall has a good point in that respect. Current Hollywood wears their scandals and improprieties like a badge of honor. It’s become the norm to assume that any “trash” can become a star and surely everyone is finally getting their 15 minutes. You can get out of your car with no underwear, flash your cuter and it’s become the norm. You can father 10 kids from 10 different women and as long as you pay your child support, you’re a great guy. Stars are no longer people we look up to and aspire to be. They’re us now. They’re no different than you and I except they assume they exude glamour because some whoring designer dresses them for an award show. They get to be crappy people publicly and feel no backlash.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000002/board/nest/66876164?p=4
And, I would also add that there was something iconic about all the big actresses of Bacall’s day. Now, it seems that the only way to be iconic is to be a pop-star, and the badder, the better. Oh, I know that there are a few iconic folks in the movies today, like Julia Roberts, who’s 1,000 watt smile is known the world over. But, there is a definite reason why during Julia’s episode of INSIDE THE ACTOR’S STUDIO (in 1997?), she was introduced by professor/host, James Lipton, as a real movie star, following his statement that the era of *movie-star* had ended somewhere in the 1950s (though I think it ended in the 1960s). Why? Because the real movie star, with that special *star quality* is so hard to come by today, that when one is found (like Julia) who possess that certain something, we just know.
Back in Lauren’s time, they took it for granted that if you weren’t a starlet or character-actor/actress, then you were a star, and that was that. But, today, we unfortunately see that that isn’t the case. Not anymore.
If there is any good to come from our modern understanding, it is the recognition that true stars are now farther and fewer between than ever before. By knowing what a true star is, we can hopefully rebel against what a star isn’t. And, that’s the point.
If anyone wishes to contest this point, just look at reality TV, and the “stars” it churns out! That’s proof of the problem, of not just showbiz, but of societal taste. For, after-all, Hollywood is but a micronism of society as a whole and a reflection of its virtues (or lack-thereof), for the most part. So, I propose charm-school and style-lessons for everyone!
People have remarked how much the late British actress, Natasha Richardson (seen here in sills from the 1998 remake of the 1961 Disney classic looks like fellow Brit star, Emma Thompson. And, as you can see from the Emma image below, they are quite right.
But, I’d like to take this comparison a step further and say that they both sound almost identical! I was listening to Natasha talk about her favorite sorts of movies on a 1990s AFI WOMEN IN FILM special, chronicling the different types of characters women have traditionally played in movies, and how those representations have changed through the decades, (located here, in-case anyone is interested), and I swear, every-time she uttered a word, I either thought of Jennifer Saunders or Emma Thompson—-and no, it’s not just because they’re British. I mean, I certainly wasn’t thinking of Julie Andrews, Maggie Smith or Emma Bunton!
Both lovely women, with very lovely, very distinct voices! And, I tell you true, the more I see of this Natasha Richardson, the more I like her! The Parent Trap turned me on to her, and now, I am a fan. Too bad I was such a late bloomer in that regard, though… I wish she was still with us.
In light of my earlier post about film-restoration, brought on by my recent viewing of Grand Hotel (1939), I feel compelled to elaborate on the film itself.
Some films made in the 30s are timeless — such as the Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, and others. But this film preceded them all. And, glory, hallelujah! This is one of those rare surviving gems from Hollywood’s pre-code days (aprox. 1920s-1934), which, by certain measures, makes it even more special!
But, as mentioned in my previous post, one thing that struck me, unfortunately, was the annoying background sounds — the fizzing, the muffled sentences, the loud and soft speaking voices of certain characters, all these things that could only be attributed to one problem — decay. I’m referring to film decay — the process by which an old film deteriorates. And, while this film certainly isn’t the only one to suffer from such a condition, the brilliant cast and modern design of the film make its considerably warn condition all the more noticeable. Yes, I’d say Grand Hotelis in need of a grand renovation!
Make no mistake about it though, this was (and is) a high-quality film, with a great intricate story, and fine pacing. There was scarcely a chance to get bored, if one pays attention to the characters. That said, it is impossible not to realize that the noise interference does impose upon the enjoyment of the movie quite significantly — this is especially true if you have a keen ear for music, voices, and the above average appreciation for beautiful sound. But, luckily, this is the type of movie from which almost every one of us can find something to appreciate.
Grand Hotel (1932) has everything, including romance, drama, comedy, and crime! All depicted in a rather light-hearted, feel-good way. Highly recommended!
**** out of *****
Just a shout out to let all you lovely folks out there know that if any of you are classic movie fans, if you think Turner Classic Movies is possibly the best channel on TV, if you actually enjoy black and white films and think they are beautiful and highly artistic, and if you worry about the state of our arts and fashion today, then this blog might be right up your alley!
Follow me to keep up, cause I plan to update often! (^_^)
“That’s queer rough talk for a nice girl the like of yourself..”
“Decent? Who told you I was?”
Is it just me or does Greta Garbo look a whole lot like British comedian, Jennifer Saunders—-especially Jennifer in this clip! They have almost the same bone structure AND they seem to be the same with privacy and dealing with the press and fanfare; Saunders is well-known for her ardent disdain for interviews and being around crowds of fans (though no big star has quite broken Garbo’s record for that as yet).
I must confess, sometimes it hurts to be a classic movie fan—-sometimes, it really, really hurts…
I was watching a Greta Garbo movie the other day, called “Grand Hotel” (1932).
The film starred Garbo, Joan Crawford, Lionel Barrymore, and John Barrymore. And, while I would highly recommend the film as one of the finest of the 1930s (considered Hollywood’s first true ensemble film, and believed to be the inspiration behind many Robert Altman films from the 1970s to now…), my enjoyment of it was somewhat disturbed by the fizzy sounds of background static that has developed as the result of neglect and subsequent deterioration. This is perhaps the most prominent burden that a classic film fan must bare—-sitting through a movie that is so much less enjoyable than it could be—-and worst of all, for reasons that were (and are) preventable!
Do you know the harrowing details?! According to The Film Foundation, “Half of all American films made before 1950 and over 90% of films made before 1929 are lost forever. ” I think it is of the utmost importance that every film lover learn the harsh facts—-as heartbreaking as they are. Because if we want to keep our films around indefinitely, then we mustn’t go along our merry way enjoying our beloved movies without taking the proper steps to also save them.
And, please, whatever you do, do not make the mistake of believing that those endangered films are of little interest to fans of mainstream Hollywood movies. Because sadly, quite the opposite is true. In fact, I can think of quite a few big-name stars whose films have fallen victim to this tragedy:
(Carole Lombard)
(Gloria Swanson)
(Jack Benny)
(Irene Dunn)
And even…
…just to name a few! These are all well-known stars of Hollywood’s Golden Age and the silent era, and to think, there are films of theirs that we can’t even know about! This is truly unacceptable! And, we must not let these horrible percentages climb.
As a movie lover, films are of extreme importance to me. So, it literally makes me want to cry, thinking of all that has been lost! Yet, there is a bright side to all of this, starting with the fact that some movies thought to be lost not long ago have been found. So, there is hope for many others as-well. And, with movies more readily available than ever before, there is more of an awareness of the issue than ever before, and much effort is being made by many non-profits to combat it. However, it is also up to us individual fans. And, this is the second most significant burden we must bare.
So, how can we do our part? Well, it starts with being a fan. So, be a fan—-but, be a “friendly fan”. Share these movies with your friends. Educate them on what they’re missing. The more they know, the more likely they’ll be to eventually support crucial foundations, such as the one mentioned above. And, this leads me to burden number 3—-taking action. Support the film foundation in any way you can by becoming a financial contributor or a spokesperson for the cause, and this leads right back around to being a fan.
Yes, there is a lot to consider when it comes to being a classic film lover. And, sometimes, it’s quite a burden indeed. But, as a fan, it’s a burden I’ll gladly bare.
