|
Post by BunnyWhit on Feb 25, 2024 21:31:33 GMT
Thanks for choosing this one, FadingFast. It was very enjoyable. I love how raw the emotions are in this.
|
|
|
Post by galacticgirrrl on Feb 25, 2024 21:33:49 GMT
Yes great fun FF. And yet we are alone in our enjoyment....
The film flopped with Depression-era audiences. It ended up $110,000 in the red.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 25, 2024 21:34:52 GMT
Yes great fun FF. And yet we are alone in our enjoyment....
The film flopped with Depression-era audiences. It ended up $110,000 in the red. So if they hadn't paid Ann Harding, they might have broken even.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Feb 25, 2024 21:35:21 GMT
Yes great fun FF. And yet we are alone in our enjoyment....
The film flopped with Depression-era audiences. It ended up $110,000 in the red. I saw that, so odd. It's not like Depression-era audiences didn't love these types of movies.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 25, 2024 21:35:28 GMT
Thanks for choosing this one, FadingFast. It was very enjoyable. I love how raw the emotions are in this. I wonder if some of the stuff with him and his father wound up on the cutting room floor.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Feb 25, 2024 21:35:45 GMT
Yes great fun FF. And yet we are alone in our enjoyment....
The film flopped with Depression-era audiences. It ended up $110,000 in the red. So if they hadn't paid Ann Harding, they might have broken even. How much did she get paid for this one?
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 25, 2024 21:38:18 GMT
So if they hadn't paid Ann Harding, they might have broken even. How much did she get paid for this one? She earned $93,000...flat fee for the film.
Supposedly William Gargan was only paid $550 per week. The film was in production from the first of October to the middle of November 1932. That means the most he could have earned would have been about $3000 if he'd been on the set the whole time. But there are scenes he doesn't appear in (he is not in any of the stuff at Harding's apartment)...so I bet he only made around $1500.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Feb 25, 2024 21:40:28 GMT
How much did she get paid for this one? She earned $93,000...flat fee for the film.
Supposedly William Gargan was only paid $550 per week. The film was in production from the first of October to the middle of November 1932. That means the most he could have earned would have been about $3000 if he'd been on the set the whole time. But there are scenes he doesn't appear in (he is not in any of the stuff at Harding's apartment)...so I bet he only made around $1500. Sounds so little compared to Harding, but still, his weekly salary is ~$12,400 in today's terms.
|
|
|
Post by BunnyWhit on Feb 25, 2024 21:40:35 GMT
Thanks for choosing this one, FadingFast. It was very enjoyable. I love how raw the emotions are in this. I wonder if some of the stuff with him and his father wound up on the cutting room floor.
This really was all that happened in the play as well. There is the part in the first act when Rufus talks badly about Tom, then there is the part in the third act with the check and Cecelia telling Tom how ungracious he is toward his father. It does seem like there is something missing. I will say that when I read the play, the part with Rufus read differently to me. In this film, he does seem irritated by Tom, but he also plays it with a sense of resignation that his son simply is a loser. To me, the play read like Rufus was angry beyond composure.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 25, 2024 21:42:04 GMT
She earned $93,000...flat fee for the film.
Supposedly William Gargan was only paid $550 per week. The film was in production from the first of October to the middle of November 1932. That means the most he could have earned would have been about $3000 if he'd been on the set the whole time. But there are scenes he doesn't appear in (he is not in any of the stuff at Harding's apartment)...so I bet he only made around $1500. Sounds so little compared to Harding, but still, his weekly salary is ~$12,400 in today's terms. Yes, a decent wage for him...the Broadway production ran for six months in the first half of 1932. I am sure he made a fraction of that amount each week on Broadway.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 25, 2024 21:45:35 GMT
I wonder if some of the stuff with him and his father wound up on the cutting room floor.
This really was all that happened in the play as well. There is the part in the first act when Rufus talks badly about Tom, then there is the part in the third act with the check and Cecelia telling Tom how ungracious he is toward his father. It does seem like there is something missing. I will say that when I read the play, the part with Rufus read differently to me. In this film, he does seem irritated by Tom, but he also plays it with a sense of resignation that his son simply is a loser. To me, the play read like Rufus was angry beyond composure. Interesting. I do think some footage was cut from the final release. Take a look at this image:
At no point in the viewed film did Leslie Howard have his tie undone. And there were no scenes with the father and Daisy in the same shot. Unless this was just them posing for a publicity photo, but it does suggest that there was a longer conversation between Tom and Daisy after she read his newest book, with the father possibly eavesdropping.
|
|
|
Post by BunnyWhit on Feb 25, 2024 21:52:10 GMT
That is very interesting.
The only sizable difference I really see is that in the play, Daisy and entourage say they'll leave, then do not. The following morning everyone is hungover from the party, and it is after some banter back and forth about last night's party that the whole scene happens with Cecelia and Tom and the check. Then Tom and Red head out. I feel the film version makes that more powerful -- Tom didn't drink, was clear-headed when he tennis shoed on Cecelia.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 25, 2024 21:57:59 GMT
That is very interesting.
The only sizable difference I really see is that in the play, Daisy and entourage say they'll leave, then do not. The following morning everyone is hungover from the party, and it is after some banter back and forth about last night's party that the whole scene happens with Cecelia and Tom and the check. Then Tom and Red head out. I feel the film version makes that more powerful -- Tom didn't drink, was clear-headed when he tennis shoed on Cecelia. I am guessing the shot of Tom outside walking down the street and seeing the announcement of Daisy's gallery exhibit was not in the play...it feels like something the screenwriters did to open the story up a bit, and to indicate the passage of time from when he had told Daisy he was getting married.
It would be interesting to get hold of the shooting script...then it would be clear what might have been cut.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 25, 2024 22:04:22 GMT
For the remake ONE MORE TOMORROW (1946), here is the cast list:
Ann Sheridan as Christie Sage (first name changed from Daisy) Dennis Morgan as Thomas Collier Jack Carson as Pat Regan (no longer called Red) Alexis Smith as Cecelia Henry Collier Jane Wyman as Franc Connors (last name changed from Schmidt) Reginald Gardner as Jim Fisk (last name was previously Fiske) John Loder as Owen Arthur Thurston Hall as Rufus Collier
The character of Grace, Cecelia's best friend, is eliminated.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Feb 25, 2024 22:15:29 GMT
For the remake ONE MORE TOMORROW (1946), here is the cast list:
Ann Sheridan as Christie Sage (first name changed from Daisy) Dennis Morgan as Thomas Collier Jack Carson as Pat Regan (no longer called Red) Alexis Smith as Cecelia Henry Collier Jane Wyman as Franc Connors (last name changed from Schmidt) Reginald Gardner as Jim Fisk (last name was previously Fiske) John Loder as Owen Arthur Thurston Hall as Rufus Collier
The character of Grace, Cecelia's best friend, is eliminated. On its own, it's an okay movie with a very enjoyable cast. But it's too butchered by the Code to even truly count as a remake, maybe it should be called a "reinterpretation." So much of the 1932 version's bite and wit is gone.
|
|