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!
(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!
(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.
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)
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.
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!
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!
There are a thousand different ways to see the same picture, and a million different ways to paint it. That’s why I often appreciate re-makes. Looking forward to the Bewitched and The Munstersreboots, coming soon. I’m not saying they will be as good as the originals, but it will be interesting to watch the different interpretations of the shows. Sometimes though, the re-make is better…
Here’s an example of a remake I actually think I prefer, “Miracle On 34th Street”:
1947 version:
VS.
1994 version:
Desi Arnazwas quite possibly the best wheeler-dealer, clever-minded business man there could be! If he could build a TV-empire almost from scratch, imagine what he could have done for this country! I know many folks look down their noses at any connection being made between show-business and politics, but truth be known, they are both born of the same instinctual cloth.
she became a nun!! Dolores Hart!
Try never to say or do anything that you wouldn’t want as part of a tell-all bio someday.
Different worlds exist within different people, because every person experiences the world in different ways. That’s why so much can be learned, by learning from each-other. That’s why I like biographies. : - )
Okay, it’s nice that people show some interest in the hair and make-up styles of the past. But, it’s disingenuous without the personality to match. There was a whole set of manners and social graces, way of speaking and behaving that distinguished the period too! Now, if only we could get back to that!
Here’s my movie-themed 2-cents for the day: It’s not saying much to claim that a film is “The best film of the year!” when the year has basically just began. Wait til December, then it might count.
You are not a lesser person just because you prefer movies to books. It’s a personal preference, like taking showers over baths! And, just because people do less of what they used to does not necessarily make them more irresponsible. It might just mean they have more options!
