[gallery]

MY OH MY, HOW TIMES HAVE CHANGED!

I was watching the 1955 movie”The Big Knife”when during a particularly confrontational scene, one man said to another:

What’s that woman [Lupino] doing here?

Then, the other man said:

That lady has the right to be here.

…I’m pretty sure that’s how it went. Anyway, being a young woman of the 21st century, I have noticed that females today prefer to be called “women”, thinking of the term “lady” in a rather derogatory way. And, of course, they will give evidence of this. But, here’s some evidence to disprove that evidence—-it was a compliment!

[gallery]

bette-davis-we-love-you:

a lighthearted beginners guide to one of my queens (this is what happens when I stay up to late :/)

This is a pretty darn cool photo set—-and educational too! ;-)

[gallery]

“An actor goes for a job interview more times in 1 week than the average person does in their entire lifetime. And, when they’re being interviewed for a job, what they’re being assessed on essentially is on appearance and on who they are; their emotional experience, their look.”

—- Paul Backer, theater professor

Commenting on the struggles that lead to the final demise of mysterious young starlet, Peg Entwistle (Mysteries and Scandals, an E! Entertainment program).

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w-1eHaeoD8?wmode=transparent&autohide=1&egm=0&hd=1&iv_load_policy=3&modestbranding=1&rel=0&showinfo=0&showsearch=0&w=500&h=375]

THE MIRACLE WOMAN (1931):

Released by Columbia Pictures, directed by Frank Capra and starring Barbara Stanwyck and David Manners.

She asks him why he’s so interested in a bust of her head then suddenly realizes that *feeling* it was his only way of *seeing* her; it was love at first sight!

-

If you’re looking for an inspiring story, whatever your faith may or may not be, watch this one! The themes of seeing without “seeing” and love stronger than fear are universal!

I’ve watched a lot of Stanwyck films lately, and this is one of the best! The woman’s filmography is one of the most stellar, high-quality body’s of work I’ve ever seen from anyone in the motion picture business! Time after time, I discover another “classic” from her, and with her, the word actually fits. 

Stanwyck had a couple of things on her side though, like being the personal favorite of many of the big-shots of the business, even before they were known as such, like esteemed director, Frank Capra, for example. Another thing she had going for her was being a freelancer—-which means that along with help from her agent, she had her pick of all the best scripts from every studio, being that she was not confined to just one. Like every other leading lady, though, she still had to be under contract in order to make a film. But, her contracts were for shorter terms and therefore less confining, putting her at a slight advantage over her more restricted contemporaries. While it may have lost her political favor (she never won a competitive Oscar), it did not lose her respect.

I often wonder if other actresses would have struggled less if they adopted her system. Then again, someone had to do the lesser films of the day. But, it’s clear that someone wasn’t Stanwyck. Oh, sure she had her stinkers, but her good films far outnumbered them, it seems.

“The Miracle Woman” is a fictional film, but inspired by the most famous & beloved female evangelist of all time, Aimee Semple McPherson. It is a drama, so of course, trouble ensues, as the opening message warned, “Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep’s clothing….. Mat. VIII, 15.” Needless to say, because of sad life-circumstances, Stanwyck’s character becomes embittered and cynical, going at her work for all the wrong reasons. But, along the way, a miracle! She falls in love with a blind man whom participates in one of her shams (unbeknownst to him of the sham), and the story unfolds beautifully from there.

This is a movie about courage, perseverance, faith, miracles, and true love. This movie will leave you cooing at the sentimentality of it’s depictions of human vulnerability and sudden awareness—-a frighteningly tender awareness of self and others.There is a scene when Stanwyck’s character asks him why he is so interested in a bust of her head which is especially moving (when she suddenly realizes that learning the shape of the bust was his own way of seeing her), it was an unguarded, lovely moment.

If I said no more, you would know this film is worthy of acclaim, as it’s brought to life by the same emotionally-charged, gifted director of such timeless tales as It´s a Wonderful Life, Meet John Doe, and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington —-the ever-reliable Frank Capra! But, it’s not all sugar and sap either, this film even has action and crime elements! A true sign of a good or great film, this one had me on the edge of my seat a couple times! Trust me—-his special brand of Capra “corn” could not be more yummy!

Highly recommended! 3.5 out of 5 stars!

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

Updates

I’ve just updated the Barbara Stanwyck/Bea Arthur article. It now includes photographic proof that whether or not they “faced off”, they did indeed face each-other once! Click here, to see the cool picture, along with the amusing list of comparisons between those two tough broads!

Plus, the blog now has a new, sleeker look and more streamline layout. So, be sure to visit, and check it out!

[gallery]

A CASE FOR LONG PANTS—-Herbert Marshall (23 May 1890 – 22 January 1966):

An actor whose career spanned over 30 years, Herbert Marshall was known affectionately as “the husband wives loved to cheat on” due to the roles in which he was often cast, alongside some of Hollywood’s most luminous leading ladies, including Greta Garbo (in 1936’s “Camille”), Mariam Hopkins (in 1932’s “Trouble in Paradise”), and Barbara Stanwyck (in 1938’s “Always Goodbye”).

But, no matter how forlorn he was in love, he seemed to always have the ladies’ sympathies. He was a fellow who didn’t have to prove himself to be appreciated; girls seemed to like him just the way he was, wooden leg and all!

Yes, Herbert Marshall was injured in WWI and lost his right leg. This was a secret that he was able to keep for almost his entire career, thanks in no small part to the respectability of the era and the more conservative fashion sense. I shudder to think what would happen if he were starting out today. With the kinds of revealing clothes folks wear these days, there’s almost no way he could have kept the secret, let alone the career! Or could he?

I wonder… as tolerant as we claim to be today, would we accept an actor with a wooden leg as a mainstream romantic lead? My guess is no. It’s such a paradox, though. Because even though many cling firmly to all evidence suggesting that the past was much less tolerant, it was also much less obvious what it was that folks were “less tolerant” about. In other words, while there may not have been these rousing movements about “equal rights for all” back when Marshall was starting out on the screen, people also didn’t generally go around searching for violations of those rights, either. Hence, to the average person, there was much less to fight about, or else, they fought the quiet battle. The result was that folks were less likely to get on the defensive.

But, because we have the knack for spotting such problems today, it creates potential offenders out of all of us, because no-one can play by these perfectly PC rules all the time, and the fact is that we do have our hang-ups. No matter who we are, we have them, some way, shape or form. 

So, I again wonder—-would Herbert Marshall make it as a star in today’s supposedly less prejudice society? Well, to answer this question, let’s consider the facts:

1. Today, his leg would be titanium


2. Today, he would probably be called upon to wear shorts at least once


3. Today, the sexually explicit nature of love-scenes often required of romantic leads would render his leg impossible to hide.


4. Today, the extreme likelihood of his leg getting in the way of a role would mean that he would probably be relegated to bit parts, or the even greater possibility of being ousted altogether. 


5. Today, no matter how PC we try to be, we still value the image of perfection in our stars, but we are less likely to admit it.

So, it’s clear, today, Herbert Marshall probably wouldn’t have made it as a romantic lead. Today’s Hollywood is too invasive and too revealing. It tries to be so righteous, but by not acknowledging the deeply innate desire for all our stars to be perfect, they render themselves hypocrites. Therefore, it can be said that in a very oblique, very ironic way, Hollywood of the past was much more honest, and therefore tolerant than Hollywood of the present.

At least in Herbert Marshall’s time, the industry was much more clear on what it wanted and what it didn’t want—-and non-apologetically so, which was admirable. But,  that same honesty and those same desires still exist. Only, now they are cloaked under the phoney banner of inclusiveness, which, ironically, would scarcely include Mr. Marshall, if at all.

To those who may want to cite that Mr. Marshall’s wooden leg being a secret is proof of the intolerance of the times in which he lived, I tell you—-we are more intolerant today, for not allowing such a secret to be kept. At least back then, he was able to keep that secret and thus, keep working. But, today, in our [false] openness and tolerance, he would be expected to proudly divulge that secret, and we would be expected to cheer him on as a great role-model, ignoring when the offers come less and less…

What’s worse?

If ever there was a case that shows the benefit of distinguished style and old-Hollywood ideals, this is it! Long pants, anyone?

Old Hollywood Questions

1. Audrey Hepburn or Grace Kelly?
Audrey Hepburn

2. Gene Kelly or Fred Astaire?
Fred Astaire

3. Sunset Blvd or All About Eve?
Sunset Blvd.

4. Marilyn Monroe or Jayne Mansfield?
Marilyn Monroe

5. Cary Grant or Clark Gable?
Clark Gable

6. Bringing Up Baby or My Man Godfrey?
My Man Godfrey

7. Bette Davis or Joan Crawford?
Joan Crawford

8. James Dean or Marlon Brando?
James Dean

9. Carole Lombard or Myrna Loy?
Carole Lombard

10. Joan Fontaine or Olivia DeHavilland?
Joan Fontaine

11. James Cagney or Humphrey Bogart?
Bogart

12. Ernst Lubitsch or Billy Wilder?
Billy Wilder

13. Greta Garbo or Marlene Dietrich?
Garbo

14. Frank Sinatra or Bing Crosby?
Sinatra

15. Casablanca or Gone With the Wind?
Casablanca

16. Howard Hawks or Preston Sturges?
Sturges

Now, movie buffs! Let us know what you like, by answering this questionnaire yourself!

Two Tough Broads: Barbara Stanwyck and Bea Arthur face-off!

Though they were polar-opposites politically, these two stars would have probably been shocked to learn how alike they really were!

No, they weren’t sisters! So, what does one “Golden Girl” have in-common with the star of “Golden Boy”? As it turns out, quite a bit!

An amusing list of comparisons between the two of them, proves that Barbara Stanwyck was the Bea Arthur of her day, and that Bea Arthur, whether unwittingly or not, emulated her own brand of Stanwyck style.

SOME MAJOR THINGS THEY HAD IN COMMON:

• Both their professional first-names begin with the letter ‘B’.


• Both were actresses from NY.


• Both became well-known TV stars (Stanwyck on THE BIG VALLEY and Arthur on MAUDE and later, THE GOLDEN GIRLS).


• Both had two failed marriages.


• Both let themselves go gray with no wish to cover it up.


• Both became mothers through adoption.


• Both adopted son(s) and had no daughters.
  


• Both were famous for their wise-cracks and wit on-screen.


• Both portrayed women who are often thought of as “tough broads”.


• Both had their own kind of deep, rather husky voice.


• Both were known to “swear like a sailor” depending on who they were around and both were famously outspoken.


• Despite being outspoken about causes they believed in, both were intensely private.


• Both came alive on-camera but were rather shy off-camera.
  


• Both rarely ever gave interviews.


• Both were known for being modest about their status and achievements.


• Both requested to have no funeral.

So, with having so much in common, what’s the biggest difference between these two broads? Well, aside from perhaps the most obvious being that Babara was a star while Bea was more of a character actress, the next most obvious thing is probably their politics. Barbara was a dedicated Republican and conservative, while Bea was a loyal Democrat and liberal. Hence, while they were both alike in many ways, put them in a room together, and they would have probably ended up “facing-off”, indeed! But, great entertainers that they were, I can’t help but be amused at the thought!

And hey, they even met each-other at least once!:

Catch Barbara Stanwyck on TCM; visit the website, for a monthly schedule. And, when you run out of Stanwyck movies to watch, check out Bea Arthur’s classic sitcom, “The Golden Girls” which may be seen, weekdays on THE HALLMARK CHANNEL.