[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.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqGiPiDnA4c?wmode=transparent&autohide=1&egm=0&hd=1&iv_load_policy=3&modestbranding=1&rel=0&showinfo=0&showsearch=0&w=500&h=375]

BALL OF FIRE (1941)

starring Barbara Stanwyck and Gary Cooper. Released by R.K.O.

I just saw this movie and consider it the “crowd-pleasing” kind. It entertains as it exaggerates the stereo-types of it’s era. From the 1940s, and all about style—-of speech. It’s a comedy-crime-romance about a group of daffy professors living together like the 7 dwarfs in the story of “Snow White” because they are hard at work, writing new encyclopedia entries. And, one of them decides to write about the funny slag words that many were using at the time, and to do this, a shady, wise-cracking club singer becomes his subject of study. It’s almost like a 1940s twist on the “Snow White” fairy-tale, except funnier and with jazz music!

NOTE: In addition to the excellent stars of this film, it is worth seeing for it’s top-notch supporting cast, featuring some of the finest character actors of the time! One even went on to become the voice of Droopy the dog in the MGM cartoon shorts, if I’m not mistaken.

8/10.

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

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

MEET JOHN DOE (1941)

starring Barbara Stanwyck and Gary Cooper, released by Warner Bros.

December isn’t over yet, so one last Christmas movie is in order! I recommend Meet John Doe, starring Barbara Stanwyck and Gary Cooper. It’s the 1941 predecessor to It’s a Wonderful Life and the perfect alternative! In fact, I like it 10 times better!

Yes, MEET JOHN DOE is without a doubt my new favorite movie (excluding my childhood fav, Mary Martin’s Peter Pan, of course) the film I love the best, top’ a the list, number one!! The full film is here, for those of you who are all burnt out on the better known classics.

I think if you like movies with a message of love, movies that make you smile, those that resonate with human longing, and enthusiasm, and reconciliation, you’ll love this! And, if you are a Stanwyck fan as I am, this is a must-see!

1941 was a big year for Stanwyck, who starred in three of the most well-received hits of her career—-Meet John Doe, The Lady Eve, and Ball of Fire. So successful was this string of movies that they caused Miss Stanwyck’s career to hit a high that wouldn’t be topped until three years later, with the release of Paramount Pictures’ film-noir triumph, Double Indemnity.

Meet John Doe was the second of that 1941 trio of hits, and the most heartwarming. So, keep warm this winter the movie way, with Meet John Doe!

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

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKrrAa2o9Eg?wmode=transparent&autohide=1&egm=0&hd=1&iv_load_policy=3&modestbranding=1&rel=0&showinfo=0&showsearch=0&w=500&h=375]

DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944)

Double Indemnity = one of the best films of all time! Barbara Stanwyck, Fred McMurray = great leads! If you like beauty, if you like mystery, if you like rainy nights and lovely Spanish-style homes, if you like twists and turns, and a touch of sweetness through all the trouble, watch this, watch this, watch this!!

WARNING: This film is accompanied by a wonderfully fitting musical score that is so smooth and yet dramatic, that it will even haunt your daydreams!

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

80 Years, 80 Movies: The Project

How eclectic are you in your movie-watching?

How familiar are you with the distinctive styles of each respective decade that characterized the movie-making of the times?

What’s *really* your favorite movie-making period? Do you have one?

You can answer these question for yourself by considering all the movies you can remember ever seeing and when they were made. And, from there, list one movie per year, and you will begin to discern just how historical your viewing habits are.

NOTE: Because there are so few Silent-era films available for viewing, start your list at 1930—-the first year of all “talkies”.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE 80 years, 80 movies PROJECT:

1. Make a list numbered from 1 to 80 (and from 1930 to 2010)

2. See which years are missing movies, watch movies for those and fill-in-the-blanks.

3. Once your list is full, share it with your friends,

3a post trivia about one film a day, starting from 1930 onward. You can post on Facebook, your blog, anywhere!

3b To get the trivia, visit IMDb or other movie sites, like TCM.

4. Once you reach 2010 again, you will have taught yourself and others a wonderful lesson in cinema, covering 80 years in less than 2 months!

So, let’s get started! Re-blog this, to inspire your friends to get started too!

[Look for my own posts for the project, beginning later this week.]

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/)

Star Trivia

BETTE DAVIS’ WITCHY FAMILY TREE

Did you know that Bette Davis was a direct descendant of the women of the Salem Witch Trials? That’s right! She sure was! 

According to a fascinating documentary on Bette Davis called Stardust: The Bette Davis Story, she was related through her mother to the SWT. 

So, the next time you think about those bewitching “Bette Davis eyes” or the next time you find yourself enjoying one of her haunting chiller classics, just remember—- you may just be under her spell!

SPAM ALERT!!! Please read!

Is anyone else having trouble with anonymous Tumblr message saying “You’re not going to like what they said about you on TumblrPic.com”?

Well, like a silly, I followed the link, concerned that I may have committed a copyright infringement with a picture on my page or something. And, I got nothing (or what seemed like nothing). No other website came up, just Tumblr telling me to sign in. And, well… I just logged in to Tumblr again to find a pornographic Halloween picture seemingly posted by me—-except that it wasn’t me!

How embarrassing! Now I know that when I clicked on that link and *I thought* it took me to nowhere/did nothing, what it really must have done was steal my info, i.e. password/username.

So, first of all, don’t click on links from anonymous users. And, secondly, if, after clicking on a link,  you are asked to sign back in to Tumblr, do not  do it!!

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

HALLOWEEN MOVIE RECOMMENDATIONS: “Straight Jacket” (1964)

This chilling, creepy movie starring the iconic Joan Crawford will amuse you and confuse you. It will disturb you and unnerve you, as you start to realize what Fay Dunaway may have based her portrayal of “Mommie Dearest” on. And, it will relieve you as you entertain the thought that maybe Christina Crawford is actually Joan’s biggest fan after all? Hint-hint…

Low-budget bravado; simple, mellow, campy, fun, tacky movie-treasure! And, all in glorious black & white! Why is that significant? Well, as the lovely Hitchcock beauty, Ava Marie Saint once said in an interview (paraphrased), “Black and white is art. B&w films can be beautiful and are particularly suited to the horror, suspense and thriller genres, because the color’s contrast to reality protects the viewer from getting too carried away, thus acting as a protective shield between fantasy and reality, keeping the viewer nicely relaxed and entertained at the same time.” 

I think it’s safe to lament that the days of the A-grade, sophisticated horror  film generally ended with the end of black and white. In fact, I would venture to say that the late 1950s to 1960s was the only period in film history when the horror genre could be enjoyed by general audiences (with some parental supervision, of course). And, it was also the only period in which the genre could be described as eerily beautiful rather than repulsively grotesque.

Fortunately for us though, those horror gems still exist in various formats for us to enjoy. So, when you get a chance, treat yourself to a viewing of “Straight Jacket”—-you’ll love it!

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

Thanks so much for following! I love your URL! :)

Thanks! I figured if we are what we eat and all that jazz, then we are what we watch too—-esp. when we love it! By the way, you have a lovely blog!

Here's to one of the greatest inventions of the 20th Century!

If television didn’t exist, I’d probably be one of the folks working to invent it. I love me some TV!