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=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/)

Lauren Bacall crtisizes contemporary Hollywood and gets tongue's wagging about what makes a true star

(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!

[gallery]

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.

Grand Hotel (1932)

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 *****

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzgMHP4cu8o?wmode=transparent&autohide=1&egm=0&hd=1&iv_load_policy=3&modestbranding=1&rel=0&showinfo=0&showsearch=0&w=500&h=374]

oskybledindigo:

“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).

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

Film: the highest art-form

(via Madame Grès)

After browsing images within THE RED LIST (a website devoted to the visual arts), one thing struck me like a canon—-a movie is the hub of it all!

Fashion stands alone as visual, paintings stand alone as visual, architecture, design, photography—-all visual. But, if you’ll notice, all of these visual arts can be found in film, which is, itself, a visual art. So, could it be that film is the most elevated of all art-forms? It’s quite a heavy statement to make, but I think so! In fact, dance is the closest think to matching movies in that way, being that it can be audible, visual, and narrative.

However controversial it may be to claim that film is the most advanced art-form, there is no denying that it is the most in-depth. Hence, just looking at this 1940s fashion photo by designer, Madame Gres, one can totally envision this as a movie-still!

So then, is it any wonder that films seemed to have started off more primarily concerned with visual art than with narrative? Take the comedians of the silent era, for example. The sketches that Laurel & Hardy, Buster Keaton, and Charlie Chaplin were in were designed to make you laugh. The story was secondary, a mere device which may or may not have been developed for the sole purpose of enhancing the quality of what was seen.

By the same token, when the sound era finally came along, arguably the most successful genre was the musical. Again, the story would have been comprised to incorporate elements of the visual, not the other way around.

So, what does all this have to do with the photo included  with this article? Well, the photo, along with this article, illustrates how easily we associate certain visual art with the movies, even when a certain image  is not necessarily part of  that niche.

The people of the first 60 or 70 years of the industry seemed to anticipate this tenancy and called upon all the best fashion designers, choreographers, musicians, and even cosmetologists, like the legendary Max Factor, to come and enhance the field of film. That strategy worked so well, that now, it is virtually impossible to dissociate the other art-forms from it, even when they are done independently of the medium.

One easy way to describe it is  that movies are a means-to-an-end, meant as a way of evoking all art, absolutely, once, for all, and for all time.  That is why film-preservation is so important. Because it’s about so much more than the obvious—-hence that picture up there.

But, make no mistake. I do not wish to imply that film is simply the representation of other art-forms. No, quite the contrary is true. In fact, the most important thing to remember about this whole discussion is that movies have not only benefited from the other arts, but that the other arts have benefited from them as-well. And, the fashion industry is definite proof of that—-hence, that picture up there.

So, anyone with a taste for the arts must thereby appreciate the film industry for inadvertently helping to keep all the elements alive. This, to me, is what makes it the highest art-form.

NOTE: If you’re a lover of all art-forms and would therefore like to support film-preservation efforts, you may do so here.

Classic era movie stars vs. those of today...

Regarging why classic-movie actors seem to be more respected than those of today—-even though they had many of the same faults, know this, it is not blind admiration. We are well-aware of the human flaws they had, but the difference was in how they handled them (which is a virtue in and of itself)…

(a red carpet event of the 1950s w. Liz Taylor)

They may have done the same wrong things, but here’s the difference: they tended not to flaunt their faults, they tended to be more shameful of them, a shame that is much better than the arrogant pride that many of this generation seem to have in their bad behavior or choices. That’s what makes the people of the past more admirable, because they had class enough to at least try to make their fans proud.

Vs.

(a red-carpet event these days, w/ Megan Fox)

Today, well…instead of respecting high standards, people mock them. It seems that well-mannered people are not as valued as wild and crazy, rebellious types, who are put on a pedestal for being “outside the box”. So, that alone makes this generation less sophisticated and worthy of respect—-generally speaking, because they don’t seem to want it. Whereas, back in the day, people had sense enough to at least pretend they had dignity and class—-which is better than not acknowledging those virtues at all

What we really lost when we lost the Hayes Code

When people complain of one-denominational Chick flicks, I can’t help but rationalize that most fans of this type of film have become so based on the process of elimination. In other words, for those of us who don’t like blatant displays of violence, those of us who consider full-blown love-scenes much less impactful than romantic scenarios, those of us who would rather leave some things to the imagination…it is this audience who is left with nothing but fluff.

However, there was a time not so very long ago, when this same audience would have enjoyed horror, crime, thrillers, and romance. But, not now that everything is so brash and spelled out. It’s a pity that we’ve gone this unfortunate direction, thanks to the abolition of the Hayes code in 1968. The very move that was meant to increase our options has inadvertently decreased them, by reducing our opportunity and ability to read between-the-lines, a consequence that is irrefutably connected to what is commonly referred to as the “dumbing down of society”. Yes, in a very curious way, when we uncensored the movies, we censored our minds.

A lesson in branding from "TV Land"

I get it now. I now know why TV Land felt compelled to change their logo—-it was because the old one looked to much like the one for the TV Guide Network. So, that being the case, if that was why the change occurred, then good move, TV Land; very sharp thinking!

BEFORE:

AFTER:

Also, I know people complain about the loss of old programs on your line-up, but I now understand that you are just trying to brand yourself. And, I have to admit that I respect that, especially given the current state of network TV when it comes to sitcoms. TV Land brand sitcoms are charmingly old-fashioned (using a studio-audience and the 3-camera technique) in their execution while also being refreshingly current. So, thank you! I am glad you are branding yourself as a sitcom-centered channel! We don’t get enough of that on other stations! Keep the laughs coming!

The Hunger Games (2012)

Went to the movies, w/ my grandmother, and saw The Hunger Games, which reminded me of Survivor, I Am Legend, Gladiator, and Willie Wonka, all rolled into one! Not that I ever saw the first two movies all the way through. But, based on what I’ve heard of them, yeah…

T

Lucille Ball (1911 - 1989)

‎

Rita Hayworth may have been known as “the Love Goddess” and Marilyn Monroe may have been the most beloved blond bombshell, but in my opinion (with all due
respect, of course) they all pale in comparison to that lovely red-head, Lucille Ball! To me, she was often the most glamorous woman ever to grace the silver screen, with her porcelain complexion, and sparkling blue eyes, like crystalline ponds of water, reflecting a perfect afternoon sky.

She may always be remembered as “that crazy red-head” but to me, she’s so
much more than that! That’s why i have almost all her 60-some movies on
video, and she was the first movie-star i ever liked——from way back at
the age of 5, i might add! Lucille ball was so much more than the
“First Lady of Television”—— she was “the star!” and my first-ever
favorite! Just see her here, in 1942 “DuBarry Was a Lady” My gosh! How
lovely she was!!