It is my sincerest belief that the only people who could think that Lindsay Lohan did alright in “Liz and Dick” (2012) are those who know nothing of Elizabeth Taylor or Richard Burton!

I just finished the Elizabeth Taylor biopic. And, I tried. Really I did. But, I cannot accept Lindsay Lohanas Liz Taylor. Yes, she looks the part well enough, but the film is poorly made, and it is oh-so-obvious that Lohan did not have a voice-coach (highly underrated professionals) to help her achieve the dainty Taylor sound. Very disappointing! When is this showbiz generation going to understand the importance of voice?! I don’t care if they clothed Lohan in Liz Taylor’s own dresses and had her reading from Liz’s own personal memoirs, unless they can achieve the mannerisms and the sound, it is all for naught. It’s not what you say, but *how* you say it! Movie professionals should know that better than I do. Perfect example: Faye Dunaway as Joan Crawford in Mommie Dearest. She wasn’t just dressed like Joan. She moved like Joan, walked like Joan, talked like Joan. And, that’s why it is still remembered, while in a few years from now, Liz and Dick will be forgotten. It’s the little things that make a character.

My one word of praise goes to Bowler, as I thought he was rather good as Burton. He seemed to fit comfortably in the part. The problem was that Lohan was too young, not that he was too old. Lohan made what could have been a pretty good film into an artistic failure. Throughout the film, I was questioning her acting skills, because she couldn’t even manage to make herself sound the least bit like Liz. In short, she failed to convince me that she was Liz Taylor. In fact, the whole time I watched her, it just seemed like one big costume party, with Lindsay as host. If that is the extent of her acting abilities, then I hate to say it, but she’s in the wrong business!

Shame on the producers for continuing production w/o first ridding Lohan of her signature raspy voice, and thus blocking out any true resemblance to Taylor that may have otherwise shined through!

One wonders why production was continued with an “actress” such as Lohan, knowing that she sounds NOTHING like the part. The only explanation I can think of was that Lohan was hired strictly for her notoriety, as it may help to popularize an otherwise forgettable picture.

Highly disappointing!

——

[If Lohan has any hope of ever redeeming her career after this massive flop, I suggest that next time she wants to play in a biopic, it better be for Natalie Wood! At least that’d be a part more befitting to her natural looks and sound, since she can’t seem to overcome them!]

New favorite 1930s actress: Constance Bennett!

I found out years ago that liking one movie can lead to liking a new star, which can lead to liking their whole filmography and their co-stars too!

I was never a fan of Constance Bennett, outside of her role in the lighthearted ghost comedy, Topper (1937). But, that’s all changed now, since she’s been the star of the month on Turner classic movies, every Tuesday night in November.

Last night, I saw her in the wonderful murder mystery — comedy, After Office Hours (1935). And now, guess what — I’m a fan of Clark Gable! I’m already looking forward to watching more of his films.

But getting back to After Office Hours, judging by the film reviews, I’ll admit that this movie has generally received lukewarm ratings, get to the fact that people aren’t sure whether to think of it as a comedy, romance, a simple mystery, or a murder case. But I just think of it as madcap combination of all of the above — and it’s great in being so!  

Furthermore, this being the latest of several Constance Bennett films I’ve seen lately, I have come to the glad conclusion that she is my favorite star of the 1930s (sorry, Carole Lombard…it is a close call!). And there are several reasons why: one, she wasn’t ashamed to be a cloths-horse—that is, someone proudly parading around in the latest fashions of the day, setting trends for the movie-going public. Two, the fact that she was a well-known sophisticate — even in her working-woman roles, so well-known, in-fact, that people never doubted her sophistication for a moment, and at one point in her career, she was considered the most sophisticated, well dressed woman in Hollywood. Three, the fact that the biggest bulk of her filmography encompasses the 1930s decade. So, to watch her movies is to literally sit through the entire decade of the 1930s, year by year, observing it from a uniquely decadent standpoint — which makes it a lot of fun. It’s the kind of fun that isn’t found in today’s films, because today’s actresses aren’t so readily identifiable with a certain style of acting or a certain type of film. Because the contract system ceased in the 60s, and because the studios no longer have star makers — people whose sole job it was to make you into a commodity by developing your own unique brand, people have to take pride in other things — such as what good acting skills they have. This is part of why method acting became popular, because actors and actors as her more on their own than ever, and left to their own devices.

With the freedom to choose their own projects, they lost the safety net of guarantees that the studio system brought. Constance Bennett, in all her predictability, was part of that guarantee that fans depended on. When people saw Constance Bennett on the screen, they didn’t expect to be awed or amazed, they didn’t expect to be surprised, they didn’t expect to see a breakout performance, but they expected the guarantee that Constance provided them of a familiar style — one that was her own brand. In other words, actors of today can brag about their method acting skills, while the fans sit at a distance and wonder who these people really are, but actors of yesterday could take pride in the fact that their fans knew who they were, they kept their guarantee, and the fans returned the favor in kind with a virtue that seems to be lacking more and more—- loyalty.

It has been said here in cyberspace that Reese Witherspoon is comparable to Miss Bennett, but, I beg to differ. Even if they did look more alike than they do, Constance was a star of another sort, the likes of which we haven’t seen since the studio era ended.

Constance starred in many fashion films, that is films with thin plots, designed to showcase the glamour of the star specifically for the purpose of furthering the public’s familiarity with that star’s unique style. But, because fashion designers scarcely design especially for a star anymore, that sort of publicity doesn’t exist anymore.

The closest thing we have to a Constance Bennett today is Constance Bennett herself, in all her black-and-white glory. Watch Constance Bennett this coming Tuesday, only on TCM, starting at 8 PM.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc346ihvScI?wmode=transparent&autohide=1&egm=0&hd=1&iv_load_policy=3&modestbranding=1&rel=0&showinfo=0&showsearch=0&w=500&h=375]

Intimate little details of an industry that was new, young, and excitingly innocent of its mighty potential for scandal!

HOLLYWOOD: A CELEBRATION OF THE AMERICAN SILENT FILM (1980)

“The art of arousing the audience without arousing the censor, Hollywood’s self-censorship would last over 40 years.”
—— James Mason, narrator.

“Censorship makes you think…well, all it does is make you guard your language, makes you express yourself in a wee bit different way, makes you smart enough to bypass this and let the audience see *it* without actually seeing *it*…”
—- Henry King, silent film director.

[quotes from episode 3—-Single Beds & Double Standards]

I don’t know about you, folks, but I think this 13 episode mini-series should be required viewing for all those getting an education in film-studies!

I have just been getting into this, and I have 10 more episodes to go! Each episode focuses on a different aspect of the film industry in that era—-from star-treatment, to directing, to lighting, acting, etc. 5 out of 5 stars for it’s epic depth rarely seen in a television production. This is a treasure-trove of rare interviews with the people who were actually there at the time—-from big stars like Gloria Swanson, to lessor-known, like Colleen Moore, to big directors, like Henry King, all offering their personal memories and intimate little details of the industry that was new, young, wild, and lovely as a stallion. An industry that was excitingly innocent of it’s mighty potential for trouble—- as Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. It was a time of jovial bravery, as in that time perhaps more than in any other, Hollywood was playing by its own rules.

Highly recommended, WONDERFUL documentary!

(Source: http://www.youtube.com/)