Favorite Filmmakers | George Cukor

The series continues with Kate Hepburn's favorite and the so called 'director to the women stars', George Cukor! You can read the previous installment of this series here. 

***

GEORGE CUKOR (1899 - 1983)

George Cukor was a pretty wonderful director - even if he was against casting Lucy in Born Yesterday (and okay, fine, the movie was awesome and Judy Holliday was fantastic, but isn't everything made better with a dash of Lucy?). So, I present to you six favorite Cukor films, discounting the movies he worked on but was not properly credited for (like Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz).

THE WOMEN | 1939 | Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Rosalind Russell, Joan Fontaine, Paulette Goddard

You can actually read my review of this movie here. I actually didn't like this movie as much as I thought I would, but then you should know that I was expecting this to be a five star film. I thought some things were over the top about it, and it dragged a little too long, but over all I had to include this movie on this list because it's the prime example of why Cukor was THE premiere women's director. I have to give this movie credit for having an incredible, all star female cast (perhaps the best to date; but then there is Stage Door...) in a era which people consider male dominated. (Besides that list up there, you also have the supporting talents of Marjorie Main, Ruth Hussey, the fabulous child actress Virginia Weildler - the kid sister in The Philadelphia Story - and appearances by Hedda Hopper & Butterfly McQueen). So how can I not include this film on the list??!! You can read more about the fabulous performances in this movie (primarily Roz) in my review. It is a pretty good movie and fits well in with the year of 1939.

THE PHILADELPHIA STORY | 1940 | Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart

Okay, so really, what can I say about this movie that hasn't been said already? I can't really think of anything, except this is really cinema at some of its best, and if you haven't seen it yet you've really been depriving yourself. This is the cinematic masterpiece that conjoined the talents of three of my all-time favorite people (and three of the most fabulous actors in Hollywood): Kate, Cary, and Jimmy. This is the movie that won Jimmy Stewart the Oscar. This is the movie that won Kate the hearts of audiences - this was the film that she made after years of being called "box office poison", swearing to come back with a hit and she did. THIS. I can't imagine that you wouldn't know the plot, but basically C.K Dexter Haven (aka Cary), Tracy Lord (Kate)'s ex-husband, and a tabloid reporter (Jimmy) and his photographer (Ruth Hussey) show up for Tracy's second marriage, trouble ensues. Real trouble. Also, Virginia Weildler again! I'm sorry, but am I the only who who finds her kind of fabulous? I realize now I've seen her in all sorts of films. Anyways, if you haven't seen this one yet pull yourself out from underneath your rock and go see it. Now. 

A WOMAN'S FACE | 1941 | Joan Crawford, Melvyn Douglas

I have actually experienced three versions of this movie: the film in question, the original 1938 Swedish movie with Ingrid Bergman, and a radio program with Bette Davis. Out of all three, I have to admit to liking this one best, even though Ingrid is like my second favorite actress and I love her to bits and pieces. But this movie really clicked in all the right places for me, and tied up the loose ends that the Swedish version didn't, and Joan was actually pretty fabulous in the role. This movie is basically about a young woman named Anna Holm who was burned in a fire that killed her parents, and now her pretty face is left with an ugly scar, and she has turned herself against the world. Melvyn Douglas is the plastic surgeon that gives her another chance at life, but Conrad Veidt has other plans for Anna that would restore her to her life of crime. This 1941 American version also takes place in Sweden. It was on Youtube, but unfortunately it got deleted, but if you do happen to come across it, I highly recommend you watch it, you'd be surprised; it's kind of the black sheep on my list. 

GASLIGHT | 1944 | Ingrid Bergman, Charles Boyer, Angela Lansbury

Okay, so The Philadelphia Story and this movie are pretty much battling it out for my favorite film on the list. The other day, Bette asked me what my favorite Ingrid performance was and it basically came down to this and Notorious. This whole movie is just about near perfect, okay? I love EVERYTHING about it and am trying to get my friend to watch it just so I can see it again (she kind of loves Isabella Rossellini - long story - because of me, and I'm easing her into Ingrid now). So Ingrid plays Paula Alquist, basically forced to move into the house her aunt was killed in by her new husband, played by Charles Boyer. But he's keeping a secret, and in order to cover up this lie of his, he goes to all sorts of measures that result in Paula beginning to go insane. Angela Lansbury plays the sassy maid who flirts brazenly with Charles Boyer's character, and she doesn't make matters any better. Ingrid won her first Oscar for this, and it's so well deserved! Really, I just adore everything about her performance in here, no one could play a beautiful-lady-who-was-in-love-but-is-now-losing-everything-and-might-be-going-mad better than her. Some people say she was a little "over the top" in this, but I could never agree and positively beg to differ. She's just fabulous in this, okay? I love it all, the darting eyes and the classic Ingrid screaming, just perfect. Oh, and Charles Boyer and Angela Lansbury were pretty darn good, too. Also, doesn't this film have just one of the best, best endings ever? "Are you suggest this is a knife, my husband? Have you gone mad? Shall we try it and see?"

ADAM'S RIB | 1949 | Spencer Tracy, Katharine Hepburn, Judy Holliday

I've mentioned this before, but anyways, I'll say it again: it's pretty much either this or Woman of the Year for favorite Kate & Spence movie for me; and I've seen them all! Basically, Judy Holliday shoots her cheating, chauvinistic husband when she catches him with his mistress. He didn't die, but she's sent to court. Kate and Spence play Adam and Amanda Bonner, husband-and-wife-lawyers who are perfectly happy until Amanda defends  Judy's character and Adam her husband. Obviously, things aren't so smooth after that. I don't know if I've ever said this, but I have this real fascination with court scenes in movies, I always enjoy them as long as they're played well - I love the drama and I love it when there are clever lawyers involved. This is probably one of the best examples of that type of a movie. The acting is, of course, top notch.We would all expect Kate and Spence to be amazing. Judy Holliday, despite going on to win an Oscar, is pretty underrated and I can't understand why because she's a great actress and I always enjoy her performances. Anyways, bottom line is, this is a pretty fantastic movie. 

BORN YESTERDAY | 1950 | Judy Holliday, William Holden, Broderick Crawford

So I've done a review of this movie, too. Broderick Crawford hires bookish William Holden to teach his apparently "dumb blond" lover, Judy Holliday, to be smart. All sorts of hilarious outcomes occur when Billie (Judy) proves to be a little too smart, and learns what a real scumbag her tycoon lover is, and starts to fall for William Holden. This was the movie that won Judy the Oscar, and as I mentioned back up there, I don't understand why she isn't appreciated enough because she really is a great actress. So, so, so funny in this. Everything about the character was spot on and just right and I couldn't keep laughing, plenty of hilarious scenes mostly involving Judy. Just a really great performance, to be put simply. She was so great that I can even forgive Lucy not being cast, because at least this came out of it. William Holden is also pretty cute in this nerdy character that was a step or two away from what he usually does, and Broderick Crawford played the indignant tycoon fantastically. He and Judy have great rapport, especially in a scene where the play a game of gin.

***

Once more, I trimmed that list and left out other really great movies like My Fair Lady (1964), The Actress (1953),  Holiday (1938), and Pat and Mike (1952). Oh, and if you're wondering about Camille (1936), I haven't seen it yet, and no, it's not because I have some kind of a Garbo boycott going on. I just want to read the book first, and it's only to-be-read list, right after I get through a collection of three James Cain novels. (All of the great film noirs I've already seen on screen, but so much fun to read in print!)

But anyways, Cukor did all sorts of great movies, didn't he? I mean there are other films, too - ones he wasn't credited for, so I had to leave them out.

Okay as usual, please, bloggers, check out the blogathon I'm co-hosting. I'm going to keep advertising this all the way up onto the blogathon, it's never too late to join in! And remember, you don't have to think of a film right now - I still haven't!!!

Sunday Movie Review: "Torn Curtain" (1966)

TORN CURTAIN (1966): Cast, plot details 

An American scientist (Paul Newman) publicly defects to East Germany as part of a cloak and dagger mission to find the solution for a formula resin and then figuring out a plan to escape back to the West. He is joined by his fiancé (Julie Andrews). [from IMdb - with doctoring by me]

• Paul Newman as Michael Armstrong
• Julie Andrews as Sarah Sherman

THE VERDICT: ★★★★

Though it's not the all-time best Hitchcock film, it's still an entertaining movie with plenty of suspense and it would definitely be worth a watch

This is actually a movie that is a lot less beloved than Hitchcock's other works. Critics weren't too hot about it back in 1966 and fans have forgotten it. And when you compare it to movies like Notorious and North By Northwest, sure, it doesn't come out looking like an incredible film. But if you didn't compare this movie to the other, really fantastic, amazing movies Hitchcock did, you'd actually find that this is a pretty good movie all the while. Anyways, I really did enjoy it and I wouldn't not recommend it.

The plot takes place during the Cold War and is basically about the dangers of going beyond the Iron Curtain. The occurrences while Paul and Julie's characters are there are pretty entertaining and suspenseful, as well as their escape from behind the Curtain. The scene that kept me the most on the edge of my seat, in that typical Hitchcock way, is one in which Paul Newman and & the wife of a farmer, who doesn't speak any English, silently murder a nosy communist.

I really do like Paul Newman, I haven't seen enough of his movies as I would like to - and I'm working on that - but what performances of his I have seen I have enjoyed. This was one of those great performances, he milked the suspense pretty well in this and you were rooting for his character all along. 

Almost two weeks ago, I did a post about The Sound of Music (1965), where I was discussing how I'd forgotten how incredible Julie Andrews is and how I really needed to watch some more of her movies. Well, anyone who has been reading this blog for a few months or so will know that I fall into obsessions with actresses very quickly, and I begin watching marathons of their films until I've seen like 50% of their filmography. No joke. And then my favorites list gets all topsy turvsy - and well, the bottom line is, if you were expecting I'd fall into a obsessions with Julie Andrews from reading that bit in my post, you were right.

I couldn't help it okay. She's so fabulous. She's just really, really fabulous. So much so that I even plan to try Mary Poppins again. Just for her. Because I adore her.

She wasn't in this movie nearly as much as I would have liked her to be, it's really Paul's movie, but anyways, with the screen time she did have she was rather good as Paul's girlfriend torn between sticking with him and pretty much sacrificing herself, or returning to safety beyond the Curtain. The chemistry between her and Paul wasn't, for example, Cary-and-Ingrid-in-Notorious amazing, but it was still pretty good and that was fine considering that for a great deal of the film they're a bit cold to each other. I saw some reviews calling their chemistry (as well as Julie's acting) "wooden", I seriously don't think it was that terrible. In my opinion, that's an exaggeration. For the most part they worked well together, and besides, they were so beautiful together that to the eye they make a good couple. I mean, two pairs of gorgeous blue eyes in color?

Though this isn't the best Hitchcock movie I've seen, people would appreciate this movie a lot more if they just took it for what it is and not compare to the other works of Hitchcock's. Then perhaps, the plot would seem more suspenseful and Paul and Julie's chemistry more palpable. As for me, I can't say that I didn't like it, for that would be a lie, because I really enjoyed it.

PHOTOS & TRIVIA

• Hitchcock originally wanted Cary Grant & Eva Marie Saint for the lead roles, but the studio wanted the more popular, younger, and bankable Paul Newman & Julie Andrews.
• Apparently, this was one of Hitchcock's most unhappiest directing jobs.
• Marked the end of the companionship of Bernard Hermann's musical scores and Hitchcock films.

A MOVIE TIDBIT

***

Just so you know, guys, I've also updated my favorite actors & actresses pages!

---

Per usual - CALLING ALL BLOGGERS! Have you signed up for me and Natalie's [or Natalie and I's??] blogathon yet? You can do so now! And, as usual, thanks to those of you who have already gotten on board :) It's going to be a ton of fun!

   

Classic Hollywood: All Shapes and Sizes

A few days ago, one of my "best blogging friends", Bette, wrote this post on the subject of something called "thinspiration" and what it has to do with Audrey Hepburn. She also talked about the different body shapes of Old Hollywood stars, and since I agree wholeheartedly with what she's said, I asked her if I could do a follow up post to add in my own two cents and she gave me the okay. So here we go (and please, go check out her post if you already haven't, it's fantastic with tons of valid points).

***

34A - 20 - 34. 5"7. 103.

The above numbers are the measurements, height, and weight of Audrey Hepburn. To some girls, these numbers are inspiration (or rather, 'thinspiration') to become stick thin.

Eating disorders have become much too rampant amongst teenage girls these days. As most everyone knows, they are very dangerous medical conditions that can also wreck the mental state of a person, and result in much more disastrous consequences. Eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia can spiral out of many reasons. One common factor is the media obsession with being a "perfect size 0." It's well understood that teenagers are impressionable and quite often a little too concerned with their physical image rather that when it's inside. So when teenage girls see a photo of bikini clad model or actress as skinny as a rail, they see this as pressure to be just as thin. The modeling industry makes matters worse, encouraging girls as young as twelve to diet until they become unhealthily skinny.

Back in Audrey's day, however, things were a lot different. Curves were greatly appreciated in the modeling industry and in Hollywood - in fact, they were desired. Marilyn Monroe, for example, the greatest sex symbol of the 20th century, was a curvy girl who actually looked like a woman. I once read how when a woman suggested to a young Lucille Ball, in her twenties or so, that she could become a model (this was when Lucy was pounding the pavement in New York and needed a way to put food on her plate), Lucy was appalled. Fresh out of her youth, Lucy was tall and very slim with a 21 inch waist. She did not understood how a body like hers would ever be desired or useful for the modeling industry - so ironic today, isn't it? (The woman explained to her that her body type was perfect for modeling fur coats.) 

So Audrey Hepburn did not boast those numbers listed above because she wanted to be a poster child for something called "thinspiration" - not like it existed back then, though - or because she wanted to have a figure like a model (such a body like hers would be inadequate back then) and especially not because being quite thin was the "in" thing then. The reason for her particular weight has roots in her childhood in war torn Europe, and there were periods for days and days when she had little to no food. At the time, her weight dropped to ninety points, dangerously skinny for her 5"7 frame. Little light has been shed on this period of Audrey's life. This is what she herself said about the topic:

"Then, on the morning of December 24, my mother's widowed sister told us there wasn't a scrap of food left. I had heard that one could fight hunger by sleeping. Perhaps, then, I could sleep through Christmas - I would try - but first there were the stairs to my room. I tried, but I couldn't make it - I was too weak. My legs had begun to swell from edema, I was dangerously malnourished, and I was turning a frightful color from jaundice - my mother actually feared I would die from hepatitis." 

After the war, her weight ying-yanged. It was hard to regulate after the latter mentioned period. Did you know that at one point she was actually 150 pounds? This couldn't be considered "overweight" with her height, but it does lean towards the chubbier side. However, for most of her life (and certainly during the prime of her Hollywood career) Audrey's weight was below 110 pounds, save the occasions when she was pregnant.

The point is however, Audrey's weight was not attributed to trying to be skinny because it was the "in" thing. And the more important fact is that this is definitely not the way Audrey Hepburn would want to be remembered. She set standards for women, but not because of her weight but rather for having such a kind personality and being one of the most committed of UNICEF spokespeople. It just goes to show you that weight shouldn't define a person.

As a teenage girl, I can tell you this: girls my age could learn plenty about body image from the women of Classic Hollywood (amongst other things).

This is because, as I mentioned earlier, actresses actually looked like real women back then. While today much of the industry would encourage skin and bones for their leading ladies, in those days studios wanted meat on the movie queens. I remember reading a story about Constance Bennett. She had become rather skinny, to the point where her vertebrae could be seen. Whereas nowadays she might have been given a badge of honor, her studio in the 1930s became genuinely concerned about her and they tried to figure out why she had become so thin.

Of course, if you look at the inches of the waistlines these actresses had, you'd probably be surprised, especially if you matched them up with today's standard. They were incredibly tiny, giving most of the actresses as an hour glass shape. Audrey's 20 inch waist was quite common back then, with some waists measuring even smaller, for example, Brigitte Bardot's 19 inch. I have also heard that a young Elizabeth Taylor had an 18 inch waistline, but I'm not positive. (None the less, hers was also super small). However, despite these slim waistlines, most of the actresses back then were a perfectly healthy weight all the while. There are many reasons for this. For instance, in the 30s and 40s women were still wearing undergarments like girdles to trim their waistlines, because it was a still a time where tiny waists were considered particularly attractive and feminine. Also, as the years have passed, portion sizes in the United States have increased and as a result, the American demographic has become heavier and heavier. Also, people back then had much more exercise on a daily basis than we do today. Thus, obesity wasn't half the problem it is now and the average person from the 1940s would simply be smaller than the average person of today. In the past forty years, our waistlines have increased by four inches. So it's easy to understand why waistlines were so slim back then - and why the women that boasted them were still totally healthy.

However, waistlines withstanding, women in Classic Hollywood were an assortment of different sizes and shapes. A curvier, voluptuous hourglass figure like Marilyn Monroe's was well desired, and as shallow sounding as it may be to say it, she's good proof that you don't need to be stick thin to be adored by the male sex. There are many different measurements given for Marilyn's figure from several different sources, but her real measurements were most likely 36- 25 - 37. Besides Marilyn, there's Sophia Loren, also with a full figure. Her measurements were 38C - 24 - 38, and she herself said, "Everything you see I owe to spaghetti." Then there's Elizabeth Taylor, who grew up in movies, so audiences saw her blossom from a little girl into a young woman with a fabulously "curvy, petite" figure. But like any woman, as Elizabeth gave birth to children and became older, her figure became more womanly than it had been in her late teens or early twenties. In the 1960s, her shape was much fuller than it had been in the decade before but she was still hailed as one of the most beautiful women in the world.

Besides the hourglass shape, there were plenty of other sizes and heights boasted by the woman of Classic Hollywood. Although many of these women were the average height for their time, (5"3 - 5"6, give or take), there were certainly exceptions. How about the ever so fabulously lovely Ingrid Bergman? She was very tall, for then and for today, at 5"10. And she towered over many of her leading men. She had a larger frame and the measurements of 34 - 24 - 34, and she, too, has been considered one of the prettiest woman to exist. And she loved to eat - American ice cream, butter cookies, and crawfish particularly.

Katharine Hepburn (34B - 22 - 33), too, was a tall, at 5"8. In fact, when she met Spencer Tracy, she said something along the lines of, "I'm afraid I'm a little too tall for you, Mr. Tracy." She was slim and leggy and had the shape of a natural athlete, which she was, and proud of.

There were very petite woman in Hollywood, too. If they were standing flat footed, Judy Garland and Veronica Lake would be itsy bitsy at 4"11, and other big stars like Carole Lombard and Jean Harlow 5"2. Bette Davis and Vivien Leigh, two of the most domineering screen presences, seemed very tall on screen but were 5"3 in reality, and one of my very favorites, Natalie Wood, a pint sized 5"0.

Our perception of beauty changes over time, often according to trends. Whereas ghostly fair complexions were the latest trend, today a tanned, brown tone is what's most desired. And not more than fifty years ago, tiny waists were the most beautiful, but today apparently 'waspish waistlines' are in. But one trend that I wish we could be consistent with is excepting beauty in all its different forms, shapes, and sizes. I know I sound totally and positively cliche right now, like a therapist writing in an article in a middle aged woman's magazine, but I do mean it. I don't understand how people can compare someone's beauty to somebody else's, or even have the gumption to rank them. I see lists of the 20 or 40 most beautiful Old Hollywood actresses (in a particular order) on Youtube, and I just don't get it. It's a personal opinion, certainly, but more importantly, in the way one person is beautiful may not be in the same way somebody else is. Ingrid Bergman and Greta Garbo, for example. Two totally different beauties, one's of the natural, laid-back sort and the other is of the more dramatic and vidid sort. It just doesn't make sense, or some fair, to compare.

It's not that today's society doesn't accept women's different body shapes, it just seems as if sometimes they have to make more of an effort to. Or be obvious about it. They have to make a point of saying, "Isn't she pretty for a curvy woman?" Why can't she simply be pretty? It sometimes feel our media is trying to give themselves a pat on the back for finding a woman with a fuller body shape attractive. "But skinny is best," it seems to whisper, and that's why you find so many teenage girls starving themselves to death to become just as stick thin as the model they saw on TV. No, healthy is best!

This is why I wish girls my age could look at the women of Old Hollywood. All these women are absolutely gorgeous in their individual ways. They didn't come out of a cookie cutter mold and they weren't all alike. Perhaps Classic Hollywood were fans of curves, but they weren't obsessive about this particular body shape like much of the media is today about being way too skinny, and having 'thinspiration' and all of that. I believe that as long as stars were in a healthy shape, they were appreciated by the studios and loved by the audiences alike. Nobody called Audrey Hepburn too skinny. And nobody called Marilyn Monroe fat.

I'm not trying to sanitize the studios, or say that these women were perfect people that never had any reservations about their body image, or didn't diet, etc. But I still to my guns about saying that to be quite honest, yesterday's Hollywood seemed to embrace women that looked like real people - whether they were on the  slimmer side or leaned to being curvy - a lit bit easier than today's pop culture, which oftentimes seems to act like a gun's being put to their head about the varying shapes of actresses. And I think, from this, many teenage girls could learn a thing or two. They could learn that many of the prettiest, confident, healthiest ladies came in an assortment of different body types, and they were all unique because of it.

***

Sorry if I rambled on too long, or sounded completely cliche in many ways, because I probably did. But all these eating disorders many girls have today are a big deal, it's like an epidemic, and it's wrong. I personally have never had one. So I could never give a personal account or say I know how it feels. And I'm not saying Classic Hollywood would solve everyone's problems, but it could give a little inspiration rather than thinspiration.

Per usual - CALLING ALL BLOGGERS! Have you signed up for me and Natalie's [or Natalie and I's??] blogathon yet? You can do so now! And, as usual, thanks to those of you who have already gotten on board :) It's going to be a ton of fun!

Okay, that's all for today, and please, by all means as usual, leave a comment on the discussion if you have something to say! This is one of those rarer occasions where I discuss a serious issue and I'd especially love to hear your input on it. :) Alright, be back on Sunday for the review! Ciao!

The hills fill my heart

[via]

Correction: the movie fills my heart.

I could never possibly choose just one favorite movie. I could easily tell you my favorite actress (no surprise there), or my favorite book, or my favorite song, even - but I can't just pick one film as my favorite above all. It's too hard for a film buff to answer this question. I feel that there are so many movies I love, and being asked which one I like best is like having to choose a favorite child (not like I have any children, but, you know, in the future and all).

I feel like I love certain films for particular reasons, or perhaps a movie will bring back some sort of a memory to me, and it is these sort of films that I have the greatest of sentimental attachment to. For example, Singin' in the Rain (1952) and Bringing up Baby (1938) will always be near and dear to my heart for they were the movies that introduced me to classic film - and Katharine Hepburn & Cary Grant on the latter part. It's these films I may love with more of a eager passion than another movie I liked just as well, or was just as good, because these movies I hold in such high sentiment.

Though now I cannot choose just one film for my life as my favorite, a few years ago this question had a simple, easy, answer and I was always happy to be asked because I knew exactly what to answer. The Sound of Music (1965), which I fell in love with as a little kid. I know I have mentioned this before, but all the while: I abused our DVD player watching this movie over and over nearly every day. I knew the lyrics of all the songs by heart, and all the lines, and the names of all the characters - "Even the butler," I boasted to my dad. The movie was my life, no question, and there was no greater movie in the whole cinematic word than The Sound of Music.

As I got a bit older, and I got into classic films, movies quite a few years older than my revered The Sound of Music, I began to take such akin to these films that I decided maybe it was okay to add a few more films to my favorites list, and so it grew and grew beyond comprehension to the point where I'm now so fuddled up, I would only be able to furrow my brow and list just a few of my favorites, but not all, probably only what came to my head at that moment you would've asked me.

However, even though I no longer watched The Sound of Music everyday, and there were other movies that filled my heart with equal contentment, I still loved it. But as you get older and get more homework and less down time and there are so many other new movies to watch, you have less time to see a three hour movie you've watched millions of times yet again.

So I was surprised a few weeks ago upon realizing that it had probably been two to three years since I had seen The Sound of Music in its full, three hour completion. It actually made me quite upset. And remembering that I'd been gifted the DVD from one of my best friends for my eleventh birthday, I dug it up and made a date to watch the three hour movie one of these weekends with my dad. And so, I rewatched it this past Sunday.

Before rewatching it, I stopped to wonder, just a little bit, if I would love the movie with so much passion as I had when I was a little kid. After all, when I first saw this movie, I had been Brigitta's age. Would anything have changed over time? I was sure I would still find the movie great, but I wondered if I would love it as wholeheartedly as watching it when I was little, or would certain flaws sick out to me here or there - or would some things come off across as corny? It wasn't that I was doubting my love for the film, but rather would it be so monumental of a cinematic experience as when I was little and impressionable?

Well, I was silly to have any doubts, because watching it again, I felt all the same emotions when I was little, from the helicopter shot panning across Maria twirling in the gorgeous hills, to the final scene where the Von Trapps are climbing every mountain as they cross the border to safety in Switzerland. It was just as wonderful and beautiful as I had remembered it being seeing it for the first time, and I felt stupid to have ever doubted that I could "outgrow" the passionate love I had for this, dare I say, perfect movie. It's a film that you could watch for the beautiful scenery of Austria alone, but for the warmth it fills us with and the feeling of security is provides.

  

  

[via]

Things I remembered: A little - all the lyrics of the songs. I was upset that I couldn't get much farther than the first few lyrics of the title song, but of course I hadn't forgotten anything of Do Re Mi, My Favorite Things, and Sixteen Going on Seventeen. And I could still plodder through Edelweiss pretty well, which is funny considering when  I was little I thought most of the song was in German. Okay, don't laugh, the Captain sings very quietly and I was a little kid who had grown up in America and had never heard of this mountain flowering plant on the other side of the globe. (It's actually kind of creepy looking, take a look). I also, of course, remembered a great deal of what certain characters said and when, more than I thought I would, which I was very happy about. I guess if you watch a three hour movie nearly everyday for a portion of your life, certain things stick with you. For example, I  always always think of the Baroness (Eleanor Parker) telling the Captain with misty eyes, "I'll pack my little bags and return to Vienna, where I belong - and somewhere, out there, there's a lady who I don't think will be a nun."

Things I'd forgotten:  How funny this movie is! I was laughing until my sides hurt when watching the scene where Maria first meets the Captain & the Von Trapp children. So funny, all sorts of clever lines with the Captain's obsessive use of his whistle and the seven different signals he has for the kids. And the children are fantastic too in their navy esque uniforms as they do military-style verbatim introductions for their new fraulein. But best of all is when the Captain whistles his ridiculously long, hilarious sounding signal for Maria, and her reaction, and when she asks the Captain, "But, sir, what am signal am I supposed to use for you?" This scene is all the more cute and amusing when she later tells him, "I knew I loved you from the first time you blew that silly whistle." This scene, too, is so funny. I hadn't forgotten much else except something really important, which is the fact that Julie Andrews is a wonderful actress. Like, fabulous, really. 


(Let me explain that a bit. Okay, brace yourselves: I. don't. like. Mary. Poppins. Are you still breathing on that other side of the screen? I watched Mary Poppins twice, and neither my dad or I cared for it both times, but I actually don't want to give up on it yet and I think I'll try to watch it one more time and perhaps the third time will be a charm. Anyways, I don't think it was Julie's fault that I didn't like the movie, and I never blacklisted her because of it, for, after all, The Sound of Music. Still, though, I've really never paid her much attention in the past few years, though I always knew she was fabulous in this I've barely seen her in anything else but The Princess Diaries - which is actually like my favorite modern movie. Don't judge me, okay? IT'S CLEVER - which is really dumb. Because she's pretty wonderful. And her nose is really adorable. Anyways, I've got Torn Curtain coming in the mail and I'm really welcome to suggestions on where to go from there, but I don't think I can do Victor/Victoria just yet...;D. Also, if you don't believe Jools is awesome, just look at this.)


I'm not sure I could pick just one favorite song from this movie. Perhaps it's the title song, for it's so beautiful. But then again, My Favorite Things always cheers me up and my best friend and I once made a music video for Sixteen Going on Seventeen. So I really couldn't pick just one. But aren't the songs in this simply fabulous? They're just good songs, end of story. And the choreography as well, there is not all together that much of it but where there is some it's fantastic. Like Liesel and Rolf's little dance in the gazebo, I was always impressed by the way they jumped all the benches, though Charmain Carr got injured doing it. 

And so how about a favorite scene? I do think I have actually have one. It's during the glamorous ball that the Captain is throwing for the Baroness, and Maria and the children are loitering outside the dance hall in the courtyard. The orchestra begins to play an Austrian waltz, and Maria tries to teach Kurt how it goes, but he's no twinkle toes and in fact has two left feet and is fumbling all over the place. The Captain sees this, and smiles, and cuts in and this is what it entails:

[via]

Then this happens, and Brigitta steps in to point out the obvious: that Maria is blushing all over, and the Baroness cuts in on the scene. I love this part because the waltz is so very gorgeous, and I think it's the turning point in the movie about the Captain and Maria's feelings for each other. Everyone sees it: the couple in question, and the children, and the Baroness, of course, who decides it's time to do something about it.

I love the subtleness of the built up feelings that the Captain and Maria harbor for one anther. When I was little, I didn't notice it coming until the above scene. Watching it on Sunday, I picked up on the little glances between the Captain and Maria. Their love for each other grew silently, and their relationship is delicate, but if you pay attention you pick up on the small, sweet things, and this is probably one of my favorite things about the whole movie. The tiny moments that bring them together: like Maria shedding light on the Captain's stern attitude to his children, or the Captain playing Edelweiss with his guitar as he thanks Maria with his eyes for bringing music back into the house.

If you feel that this movie is overly sweet, I will concur that it's well balanced because of THE Baroness: Baroness Schraeder. Oh, the Baroness, who stands on center stage in some of the most memorable scenes in the movie. Like the one where she plays this irritably boring game with the children which involves each player having a number and tossing a ball to one another. When Kurt pleads with her to the end the game because "they're tired," the Baroness saunters off to Uncle Max, and taking a sip of pink lemonade simpers, "Boarding school." The Baroness is the ruiner of the fun right before the Intermission by sending Maria away simply by stating the obvious:

[via]

She's like the Wicked Witch of the movie, and Eleanor Parker played her so wonderfully she added that extra element of a dash of spice that the movie needed. Oh, sure, we take a sigh of relief when she tells the Captain that she's leaving for good, but you have to admit, she tried her level best and it was even a bit fun to watch the snobbish b*tch give it her all.

Lastly, the fashion freak in me must mention the costumes. Many of them are so pretty, and I'm not talking about the play clothes Maria makes for the children out of her drapery (I wonder if she's been taking notes from Scarlett O'Hara) but these four in particular:

• The blue dress Maria wore when, according to the Baroness, the Captain couldn't keep his eyes off of her
• The floaty pink dress Leisel wears when dancing in the gazebo with Rolf
• The glamorous cream colored gown the Baroness wears at the ball
• Maria's wedding dress

Once I remember seeing a movie survey where the first question was, "A movie you love with a passion." Well, at the time I was unsure of how I would answer it, thinking I love all my favorite films with a passion - I mean, that's why they're my favorites. But now I think I do understand it, and I'm positive I would answer that question with this film. Why? Because, The Sound of Music was the first movie I ever saw that filled me with absolute cinematic ecstasy. It was the first movie I appreciated on a level that was greater than being "just a movie." And it's the first movie that showed me the real splendor of cinema in all its glory, and how wonderful it is to love and indulge in it.

It is corny? Yes, perhaps, however with a plot like that it's bound to be. But it doesn't matter, because I will always love and appreciate this movie, and always have a spectacular experience viewing it. I could never imagine my life without this movie in it to give me that little burst of confidence to climb every mountain. I simply love this film with a desperate passion. 

Sunday Movie Review: "Waterloo Bridge" (1940)

I am on a bit of a Vivien Leigh high at the moment, probably because I just finished Margaret Mitchell's Gone With the Wind and while reading all 950 pages I could not help but constantly think of Vivien, and became even further convinced (as if I needed anymore convincing) that no other actress on the planet could have played Scarlett O'Hara.

I mean, it's not like she didn't know that already.

Oh well any excuse to post flawless Vivien GIFs. Anyways, here's my Waterloo Bridge (1940) review for you.

***

WATERLOO BRIDGE (1940): Cast, plot details

On the eve of World War II, a British officer, Roy, revisits Waterloo Bridge and recalls the young man he was at the beginning of World War I and the young ballerina named Myra he met just before he left for the front. Myra stayed with him past curfew and is thrown out of the corps de ballet to survive on the streets of London - but her undying love for Roy keeps her spirits high. Then, a misunderstanding jeopardizes everything. [from IMdb - with slight doctoring by me]

• Vivien Leigh as Myra 
• Robert Taylor as Ray Cronin
• Virginia Field as Kitty, Myra's best friend

THE VERDICT: ★★★★ 1/2 

Bittersweet romance with a convincing chemistry between the two leads - a beautiful movie, give it a watch.

I'm really late on seeing this movie, aren't I? Especially being a Vivien Leigh fan and all. But this is a movie that is sadly not for rent on Netflix, and it wasn't until a few weeks ago that I stumbled upon it on Youtube. Anyways, I'm really happy I did. I'll tell you straight off, I really enjoyed this movie, if you can't tell already.

The plot is a little old fashioned and I supposed it isn't one that ages all that well. I can't say much more without giving away the plot, but for those who have seen the film will understand. But anyways, all the while, I enjoyed the plot very much. The chemistry between Vivien Leigh and Robert Taylor very believable, and I enjoyed the spontaneity of their relationship a whole lot. 

Vivien Leigh was simply marvelous in this, as she always is. I absolutely loved her character throughout the whole movie and felt entire sympathy for her no matter what she chose to do. Of course, it broke my heart just a bit to see the innocent ballerina transform into a woman torn by guilt and the realities of war. But Vivien played her to perfection, oh, just as wonderfully as she had played Scarlett O'Hara two years earlier, and I can barely think of any flaws in her performance. She's such a wonderful, wonderful actress, and of course, totally gorgeous too (like you didn't already know that). She photographs particularly beautifully in this movie. This was a very fragile character, but Vivien's performance made me empathize with her through and through.

Then there is Robert Taylor, who I have barely seen in anything. But I must say, he really won me over with this movie. His love for Vivien was convincingly palpable and though it would be hard to keep up with Vivien's stunning performance in this, he does very well, perhaps not equalizing her (because, it is very much her film) but still giving a very great performance. While watching, you feel his sorrow as much as you feel hers.

Dance, Girl, Dance (1940) is a movie from the same year starring Lucy, and two actresses from that movie I also found in here: Virginia Field and Maria Ouspenskaya. I actually can't remember what Virginia Field was doing in Dance, Girl, Dance (1940) but anyways, I liked her a lot here as Myra's resilient best friend, who takes to the streets of London with her when she gets kicked out of the troupe defending her. And Ouspenskaya who was notorious for playing madams of all sorts (in Dance, Girl, Dance a burlesque madam and in this one an uppity, Russian madam of a ballet troupe), was terribly annoying to bits and pieces in this, I just wanted to slap her across the face - but that is what the role was supposed to be like, anyways.

The bottom line is: I really, really enjoyed this movie and the performances within it. I want to check out the pre-code 1931 version of it as well, and if you haven't seen this one yet, I really encourage you to do so. Don't deprive yourself for as long as I did and watch it.

PHOTOS & TRIVIA

• This was the personal favorite film of both Vivien Leigh & Robert Taylor
• One of the earliest Hollywood films to include World War II in its plot, as the US had not yet entered the war and Poland had been invaded only a few months before the film's premiere. 

A MOVIE TIDBIT

You should really go watch it, though, and you can do so here. As for now I'll leave you with the most gorgeous scene in the movie that should win your heart over. Just saying. 

***

I know I wasn't around last week, but hey, forgive me, I've been reading Gone With the Wind! I have a few posts already written up for this week, though, so I don't think my promises thin and frivolous, dear readers, they haven't been in vain.

ALSO! All bloggers - we have had a wonderful response for our "Great Recasting Blogathon," but we're always looking for more, so if you haven't signed up already, you can check out the details here. Remember, you don't have to choose the film now. (I haven't even decided yet, and I'm co-hosting this thing!) And don't forget to grab a banner for your sidebar to get the word out. Thanks to those who have already joined us! :)