The Great Recasting | Barefoot in the Park (1943)

Welcome, guys, to the first day of the blogathon!! Nat and I are really excited and a load of links have already come in and we can't wait to get through them all. :) Once again, as you have your post written you can leave it on this post, or my update post, or any post really - just so long I get them. :D 

***

I went through a lot of indecision, but for my recasting I finally came to the conclusion of Barefoot in the Park (1967). A mere two years from our 1965 cutoff date, I'm sure it wouldn't be considered a "modern" movie by most, but it's still a few years off from the "studio era" (of course, Nat and I were well aware that the studio system was nearly long gone by '65, but the 60s fan in me nudged it over a bit. Hope no one minded).

Barefoot in the Park might not be five star viewing, but it's a movie I love - and have loved for quite a bit - all the while. Its stars are Robert Redford and Jane Fonda, two of my favorite actors from that interchanging period between the decline of the studio system and the dawn of modern movies. I really like the both of them and they're absolutely fabulous in the film as a "stuffed shirt" Paul and free spirit Corrie. (They're also seriously beautiful looking together.) They are supported by a very bohemian Charles Boyer and a delicate Mildred Natwick, the graceful character actress I very much love. It is directed by Gene Saks (Cactus Flower).

The plot is a prime example of 1960s fluff, and its one of the main reasons I love it. In the 1967 trailer it's advertised as "one of the happiest movies," and I couldn't agree more. This is a pick-me-up sort of movie that I can always rely on to cheer me up, one I've seen countless times with my mom, so much so that I know all the lyrics to Shama-Shama. Each time I finish watching it, I feel like I've swallowed a big gulp of fresh air and it's always guaranteed to leave me with a smile on my face. And then I feel like running barefoot through the park, too.


Jane Fonda plays Corrie Bratter, a pretty girl with a thirst for adventure and excitement. She's the type of character that'll never turn down the opportunity to do something wild, like dancing to exotic music, tasting strange foods, and appropriately, running barefoot through the park. She's madly in love with a man quite her opposite: Paul Bratter, played by Robert Redford. He's a quiet and neat attorney who likes to follow the rules, stay within the lines, and stick to the familiar. As it so often happens in romantic comedies, opposites attract, and the movie starts off with the newlyweds at the Plaza Hotel for a week long honeymoon that leaves Paul's lips "numb from kissing."

As he heads off to work on the last day of their honeymoon, Corrie rushes off to get settled in their new apartment. A small flat overlooking New York City, there are six flights (plus a steep stoop which Paul calls "that big thing out front") to reach the Bratter apartment at the top. Their apartment complex is also shared by some of "the greatest weirdos in the country," including a couple of whose sex no one is quite sure of. The bedroom can barely fit a bed and to Paul's chagrin, there's no bath, but worst of all, there's a hole in the skylight! They can't figure out how to work the radiator, and it's February, so they spend their first night in the apartment freezing as snow collects in their living room through the skylight.

But Corrie, being the free spirit she is, can't help but love the new apartment, as well as makes friends with the avant-garde bohemian that lives in the attic, Victor Velasco, played by Charles Boyer. He eats strange Japanese foods and scales the building to get into his apartment. Corrie decides to play matchmaker with Victor and her dainty mother, Ethel, (played by Mildred Natwick) who lives out in Connecticut and sleeps on a board each night - more like Paul than Corrie. Naturally, disasters occur which are exemplified by the Bratters' strange living conditions, and puts a humongous stain on the Bratter marriage. And, of course, all these events unfold in utter hilarity.

It's a super fun film. It is based off a Neil Simon play of the same name which premiered in 1963. The dialogue is truly funny, there's a dash of physical comedy involved, and the characters hit their marks. I'm sure there are those that definitely wouldn't agree with me, but in my humble opinion this is a good example of a fluffy movie that can be pretty darn excellent for its genre. To sum the movie up: it's a comical spoof on being newlyweds.

Okay, so now that I'm babbled enough about the movie - and I'm crossing my fingers you grasped the plot, but if you need some help still, check this out - let's get onto the recasting!

I have chosen the year 1943 to recast the film. Twenty-four years before the original release date, my version of the movie would have been released into World War II America, where fluffy, cheerful films were just the kind of getaway moviegoers needed at the cinema. The story is definitely a comedy, requiring a bit of physical comedy  (that mainly has to do with the six flights to reach the Bratter apartment) that, if produced in 1943, could have even resulted in a screwball comedy. That's a entraining thought. The 1967 movie came from the stage as well as by then the screwball comedy was near extinct. But in 1943, this could have easily transferred in a ridiculous romp: with Corrie's vivacious, daffy personality and Paul playing her straight man.

As for the character of Paul Bratter, I have gone with Cary Grant. Cary, my favorite actor was a flawless human being who I would be happily married to  could play anything, and he was particularly fantastic at comedy. Paul is a conservative guy who Corrie accuses of being a "stuffed shirt". Cary was a fantastic straight man to Katharine Hepburn's zany Susan in The Perfect Screwball Comedy (Bringing up Baby), so I think the casting of him as Paul would be spot on.

Then there is Corrie Bratter, a young woman with a magnificent lust for life and thirst for adventure. For this role, I have chosen my second favorite actress, my favorite Swede, that wonderful doll, Ingrid Bergman. Perhaps casting early 1940s Ingrid in this role is against type. After all, there are probably quite a few other actresses at the time who would, by studio moguls, have been considered more appropriate for the role. Though it is true that Ingrid in the 40s did pretty much all dramas (though she did get to show off her comedic flair a little in The Bells of St. Mary's), there's no question that she could do comedy. She got opportunities to do so later in her career: Indiscreet (1958) - also with Cary - The Yellow Rolls Royce (1964), Cactus Flower (1969) - which was a role that had been originally offered to my Lucy - but never in her studio system days. Which is a shame because Ingrid was fantastic at comedy. She had good timing combined with a almost nonchalant subtly to her comedy, and she was fantastic. I adore Ingrid being funny. (She also nearly worked with the Queen of Comedy, Lucy, on an episode of Here's Lucy, but due to some technical difficulties it fell through. ugh. I could DIE.)

I also picked Ingrid because as it is well obvious to anyone who has seen Notorious (1946) - and if you haven't, please go and do so - that Ingrid and Cary have really some of the best chemistry on screen, especially amazing considering they were never romantically involved in real life, wonderful friends, but never lovers. (Though, in my fantasy world, they might've been married...) They re-teamed for Indiscreet twelve years later, a movie that's far from perfect, but I love anyways pretty much because of the two of them. That's a comedy, but I did want to cast them in something when they were younger, hence the year 1943 - Cary would've been thirty-nine, maybe a little long in the tooth for a newlywed but it wouldn't have mattered, and Ingrid would've been twenty-eight - and more youthful. Corrie and Paul are a couple that's really quite in love for a great deal of the picture and Cary and Ingrid would've captured that perfectly. It's the romance of Notorious (which was spoiled when they become bitter to each because of the project, etc.) in the setting of a movie like Indiscreet.


Also, at the end of the day, it only seemed fair that Ingrid & Cary should be the main players of my be recasting, for they were what inspired this blogathon (that time I did a tumblr text post wondering what a 40s version of The Sound of Music would be like with Maria and the Captain played by these two flawless beings).

[all GIFs in this post are mine - the dialogue is from Barefoot in the Park.]

For the role of Victor Velasco, I chose John Barrymore. It was nearly obvious that I was going to have to go with one of the Barrymores for the amorous Victor. Of course, Ethel was out and I couldn't picture Lionel-Mr.Potter.-Barrymore in this type of a role at all. There was always the opportunity to resort to other male character actors of the early 40s - I mean, they were definitely plenty - but none of them deemed the perfect type for the role. John Barrymore, however, I feel would click right into it. Whenever I see John Barrymore, he's playing slightly 'lost' characters, so I could definitely see him tackling on this role. 

And as for an older lady actress appropriate for Victor's affections, I struggled with this quite a bit. All the character actresses I could think of would've sent this movie into a time warp: Thelma Ritter (who didn't seem appropriate besides; for even though I love her I think of her as secretaries and housekeepers), Mildred Natwick (well obviously not!), Mildred Dunnock, etc. All of them were all 50s. I was torn trying to find an actress of the right age. I even considered changing the character to an old maid sister. Finally, I landed up choosing Beulah Bondi. I wish I could have chosen a actress with more star power, but I suppose Bondi would round out the film making it financially possible. (I got to add here, if this film were going to be redone today - I mean, God forbid but still - wouldn't Julie Andrews be a good choice for this role? Maybe Jools is about five or ten years too old in reality, but she doesn't look it.) 

Then there is the director. The director of the '67 film was Gene Saks - Bye Bye Birdie, Cactus Flower, The Odd Couple, Mame. Obviously, there are many directors of the early 40s that would've been compatible with the cast and would've been fit to direct a screwball comedy (for, like I said, I can definitely see it going in that direction). So many choices! Preston Sturges, George Cukor, perhaps an early Billy Wilder - all directors I like very much, but in the end I chose Howard Hawks. Why Hawks? Well, after all, he did direct Bringing up Baby, which, as I said earlier, is my idea of the perfect screwball comedy. Obviously, Cary and Hawks collaborated together but Ingrid and him never did. And so the opportunity for these to greats to have worked together would be too awesome for me to pass up. 

Like I said earlier, this blogathon came as a result of my fantastic imagination dreaming up a 40s version of The Sound of Music with Ingrid and Cary. While that movie most likely would've turned out a hot mess, I have good reason to believe that a film like this could've, in reality, worked. Of course, the point of this blogathon was to play with your imagination and entertain your wildest fantasies - but still, I can't help but have this glimmer of hope that in all honesty, perhaps Barefoot in the Park could've worked in 1943. I mean, after all - The Hayes Code Office would've likely given a stamp of approval to pretty much all aspects of this film (of course, the shots of Corrie in a bra and the newlyweds lying in the same bed together would have to be cut, but otherwise).

And if it were to have actually been made, I could see this being a quality film. Not even the sort you like just because your favorite leads are in it, but a genuinely good movie. This is my own humble opinion of course, and it has to do a lot with the fact that I love the movie. Because, to me, as the script is actually funny, the storyline entertaining, and the score excellent, I can only see turning the decades a few back, adding Ingrid and Cary in the leads, and putting Hawks in the director's chair as enhancing a film which was pretty good to begin with!

Alas, we'll never know, for the play wasn't even written until the 60s. Cest la'vie, I suppose.

***

Okay, that's all for my side of the blogathon! :) The running list of links as they come in (as hosted by me) can be found here. The second part of the blogathon will take place tomorrow over at Nat's blog. THIS IS SO MUCH FUN, GUYS! Thanks for joining in with us!

The Great Recasting Update [IMPORTANT for participants]

PLEASE READ THIS POST IF YOU HAVE SIGNED UP FOR THE GREAT RECASTING BLOGATHON.


Before I get into the update, I want to make a very quick announcement/apology. You might be aware of the fact that I missed the movie review I was supposed to post last Sunday. I apologize for missing it. I also want to announce that the SMR will not return this Sunday, either, but the following Sunday after what will be by then a month long hiatus. I don't want to spam you with posts in the following days, and I don't want to make conflicts with the Fri-Sat blogathon. Also, within this next week I'm going to be making some dramatic changes to the interface of this blog. Lucy's birthday celebration will also begin at the beginning of August...So SMR won't be back for another two weeks.

That being said, I'll get on with the update for the blogathon. Nat, who I'm co-hosting with, did a similar post on her blog so I'm crossing my fingers that between both of our posts you will be aware of which day to post on.

As I said: this is a two day blogathon and we have split the list of thirty-four participants between the both of us. I'm hosting Friday, the 27th, and Nat is taking Saturday, the 28th. We have assigned each participant a date. If this date doesn't work for you, let us know as soon as possible so we can fix it. (Bear in mind conflicts can also be fixed with scheduling). Comments on this post or Nat's are greatly appreciated to let us know if your date will work. If not, we'll be assuming your assigned date works for you! :)

FRIDAY, JULY 27: HOSTED BY FRANKLY, MY DEAR 

Film-Classics (David) recasts Winds of War
Carole and Co. recasts Housesitter 
Who Can Turn the World Off with Her Smile? recasts The Dark Shadows
Imortal Ephemera recasts Wall Street
Lasso the Movies recasts Chinatown
Waitin' on a Sunny Day recasts Calendar Girls 
Reel Classics
Perfect Number 6 recasts There's Something About Mary
Wide Screen World recasts Pulp Fiction 
Journeys in Classic Film recasts Sixteen Candles
Shades of Black and White recasts Splash 
Let's Misbehave recasts Rocky
Bette's Classic Movie Blog
Critical Retro recasts The English Patient 
The Great Katharine Hepburn recasts Harry Potter
A Mythical Monkey Writes About the Movies recasts Ocean's Eleven

SATURDAY, JULY 28: HOSTED BY IN THE MOOD

 Marlene Dietrich, The Last Goddess
The Most Beautiful Fraud in the World
I Luv Cinema
The Hollywood Revue
Film-Classics (Bailey and Dan)
A Person in the Dark
Film Flare
(L)Azzy Blog
Best of the Past
No More Popcorn 

The Great Movie Project
Cinematic Katzenjammer
Random Ramblings of a Demented Doorknob 

Eternity of a Dream 

Defiant Success

Those that are being hosted by me can start leaving their links on this post or my own entry when it comes up on Friday. The same applies to those being hosed by Nat, except you should leave links on HER blog. If this is confusing to you in anyway please let us know.

Okay, that's it. Once again: all comments with a thumbs up are helpful because we know if you saw this post or not. If you have any questions, complaints, need to switch the date, ANYTHING, please comment now. Or forever hold your peace. 

All of that being said, Nat and I are super super excited and we hope everything's going to work out fantastic! :D

Happy Birthday, Natalie! [5 Things I Love]

Today's the birthday of one of my all time favorite people, Natalie Wood, and so today I share with you five completely random things I love about her. 

***

Happy birthday, Natalie!

"She was very smart. She read a book a week and had a wicked sense of humor. She was just adorable — one of the few movie stars I’ve met who was really worthy of that title.

“She lived a very simple life. You know who her friends were? My favorite picture was taken when I brought a new camera over to her house. At the house that day were Laurence Olivier and Elia Kazan. So I have a photo of Olivier, me, Natalie and Kazan. You look at that picture and the tragedy is you would never think she’d be the first to die.

“To go to a New Year’s party at her house was amazing. It was the kind of thing where Cary Grant came over at 12:30. She was the hub, she was the nexus. She was a child star and everybody loved her.”

- A director who worked with Natalie [x]

***

#5: She's better than you may think

I've heard Natalie been described as "fluffy", "a cute actress," and "kept around for her looks," but I hardly think so. Her doe eyes and petite figure shouldn't fool you, because Natalie Wood could be a real powerhouse of an actress. Though she did do glossy movies like Sex and the Single Girl (1964), she hardly enjoyed making them and preferred the more melodramatic works she did with directors like Nick Ray and Elia Kazan. I also feel that directors like this could coax the best performances out of her, in movies like Splendor in the Grass (1961). Her work in West Side Story (1961) is overshadowed by other elements of the famous musical but is still fabulous, and she's also incredible in movies like This Property is Condemned (1966) and Love With the Proper Stranger (1963). It's super unfortunate that she's remembered rather for her drowning than her performances.

[via; from the bathtub scene in Splendor in the Grass - I like Sophia Loren a lot, and I have yet to see Two Women, but I do really wish Natalie had won this year. She never won. Not fair.]

#4: Natalie, the child star

This is kind of an extension of #5. The movies Natalie made as a kid were not always very good, save a few exceptions. (If you're interested, you can read a spoiler review I did of the way too soapy No Sad Songs For Me, in which Natalie plays Margaret Sullivan's daughter, here. Oh, and you can also read a post about the much better Miracle on 34th Street here.) But for a young girl, her performances were most always brilliant. Natalie was never a child star in the likes of Shirley Temple or Margaret O'Brien,  more of an actress working constantly in films who happened to be a child. She was pushed into the movies by her aggressive stage mother (who apparently used to snap butterflies into two so Natalie would cry on cue). But as a child actress, Natalie was naturally sharp and her performances were excellent for her age. There were always a certain maturity to her performances and because of this she always steered clear from the sappy, sticky sweet range Shirley Temple frequently wandered into. I'm always blown away by her work in her first movie, Tomorrow is Forever (1946), where she plays an Austrian refugee child and her co-stars are the likes of Claudette Colbert and Orson Welles. She was only eight and Orson said, "She was so good she scared me." And as a child, she worked with some of the top stars of the 40s. Besides the latter mentioned, she shared the screen with: Barbara Stanwyck, Irene Dunne, and Bette Davis.

[via]

#3: Candid camera

Well, not always 'candid', but all the while, I felt the need to mention that photos of Natalie were always incredible. Natalie was obviously gorgeous with her dark, Russian beauty; however, even the most beautiful of people don't always photograph well, but Natalie was utterly photogenic. I've never come across a photo of her where she didn't look amazing. Photos of Natalie were taken mostly in the 1960s, so they all contain a fun, retro spin on them. I can't really explain it, but the photos of her are always the prettiest, candid or posed. Anyways, here are six good examples:

#2: Natalie as a mom

This is a part of Natalie that I think has been less discussed. When I was reading her biography, however, I really got the image that she was a good mom. She had two daughters, Natasha (b. 1970) and Courtney (b. 1974). They were seven and eleven, respectively, when she died - which is of course, terrible. However, in the time she did have with them I'm sure she must have been a wonderful mother. When she had them, she slowed down her career and wouldn't accept a film unless she knew her husband, Robert Wagner, could stay with the children while she was working - or vice versa. She loved to take them on trips on the boat and let them bring friends along. I think Natalie was very much deprived of a childhood, and her mother was just terrible (whilst reading her bio, I wanted to slap her mother... several times..). A real heartbreaking story is the day before she left for Catalina, Natasha begged her not to go because she had a feeling something might happen to her mom. Natalie was tempted to, but others convinced her not to spoil Natasha and to go, so she landed up taking the trip - and she drowned that weekend. Isn't that so sad? Ugh.

#1: The other side to Natalie

This one is hard to describe, but I suppose it's just a quality in Natalie that makes me love her - that I can't explain. When you watch her on screen, you don't want anything bad to happen to her. When you read about her life, it's completely intriguing and oftentimes sad - but there's never a dull moment. From getting to know her, what I have extracted from her personality is that she had a lust for life and an excitement for living, which I think it makes it all the more terrible her life was cut so dreadfully short. I think there were two sides to Natalie: this glamorous movie star named "Natalie Wood", and this fun, playful lady who went by her childhood name of "Natasha" and cooked great Spanish eggs and loved to time spend with her children and read plenty of books and listened to Bob Dylan and watched Vivien Leigh movies. I guess this fine line between the two sides to her are the reason I love her; and I feel almost as if I get the best of both worlds by loving Natalie.

    

    

    

[via]

***

So that's all! However, considering it's Natalie's birthday, I'd like to plug this little clip I stumbled upon on Youtube a year ago and it nearly knocked me over. It's Natalie, in the late 70s, being interviewed by Lucille Ball and her son. I KNOW. I ALMOST DIED. Anyways, it's a lot fun to watch, so I'm leavin gi there. Try to get some Natalie in your day today! :)

One full year of blogging

Deborah can't believe it's been year.

So, believe it or not, today marks one whole year from the day I opened up my blog - and wrote my first post!

Part of me can't believe it's been a full year already, and another part feels like I've been doing this forever. :) A lot has happened since then.

For one, I think I've gotten a little better at blogging and discovering how the interface works. For this post, I was scrolling through my earliest blogs and shaking my head because it seemed as if I barely understood anything about how blogging works. (Also, I had like zilch followers so it made my nearly daily posts all together stupider, but hey, I did have a blogging addiction.) For another, blogging has done something fabulous: it's encouraged me to branch out and check out lots of new actors. My favorite list has changed so much in the past year. Some things have been constant, and will always be (*cough cough* Lucy), but I've also discovered a lot of other fabulous people. Remember my Greer Garson epiphany? My wake up call to Deborah Kerr? And most recently, Julie Perfect Andrews? I kind of wonder if this would have happened if I didn't have this blog. Writing posts and reading other blogs have made me want to check out new people, and my followers are absolutely fantastic with recommendations and such.

Perhaps the best thing about blogging is discussing classic film with people who understand how you feel about it, and by this I mean you, followers! I'm almost ten followers away from reaching 100, which is a long way from when nobody followed me. I have also especially made great blogging pals like Bette and Natalie and we've collaborated on things and discussed movies and it's incredible to know that there are actually people my age who love old movies like I do. And there are so many awesome blogs on here to read, just look at my blogroll.

And I have gained extremely faithful commenters and silent readers as well, and it's all really fabulous. I've gotten some tag awards, I did a survey and now I'm actually doing a blogathon (a year ago I would've been like what???) and it's all so much fun.

So now I'll take the time to say it: thanks so much for following me, it really does mean a lot to me that you actually take interest in my blogs and enjoy my writing, it really does. It's incredible that you take time to leave me a comment with your opinion or encouragement, it just makes me happy that someone takes the time to do that. I love blogging, I know I'm not around as much as I used to be lately, but I do love it to bits and pieces and I especially love that you guys are there to listen to me. Yep.

Well, that's about it, I know this post was kind of short but I did want to mark this milestone on here. Here's to some more follows and many more years of blogging and all of that, okay? I'm going to be sticking around for a while, so I hope you will too.

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!