|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 6, 2024 14:47:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 13, 2024 14:20:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 20, 2024 17:22:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Jun 20, 2024 17:30:35 GMT
From what I've read, TopBilled, he was a good guy to Norma Shearer.  |
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jun 20, 2024 19:05:59 GMT
⇧ Fading Fast looking at pic without reading glasses, "hmm, are they eating ice-cream cones," puts on glasses, "well how about that, not even close."
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Jun 20, 2024 19:10:10 GMT
From what I've read, TopBilled, he was a good guy to Norma Shearer. Cukor worked well with the vast majority of actresses. E.g. Vivian Leigh and Olivia DeHavilland really liked him as Director of Gone with the Wind, before Gable had him released. Many of the scenes involving just those two that he directed, such as the Olivia birth scene, were retained. Of course there is The Women: he was the perfect director for a film that only featured actresses. PS: Cukor directed Shearer in her final film, Her Cardboard Lover (1942), a comedy with Robert Taylor and George Sanders. |
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Jun 20, 2024 22:55:13 GMT
From what I've read, TopBilled, he was a good guy to Norma Shearer. Cukor worked well with the vast majority of actresses. E.g. Vivian Leigh and Olivia DeHavilland really liked him as Director of Gone with the Wind, before Gable had him released. Many of the scenes involving just those two that he directed, such as the Olivia birth scene, were retained. Of course there is The Women: he was the perfect director for a film that only featured actresses. PS: Cukor directed Shearer in her final film, Her Cardboard Lover (1942), a comedy with Robert Taylor and George Sanders. Not that I need remind you - you're obviously miles ahead of me when it comes to movie knowledge, jamesjazzguitar, but I thought of how George Cukor also is said to have had creative input to The WIZARD of OZ with actresses Judy Garland and Margaret Hamilton, only to give eventual way to Victor Fleming who ended up with all the screen credit... This reminded me of Sandy Koufax dubbing Phil Regan "The Vulture" for his swooping down in late-inning Dodger victories during the 1966 season. Less amusing an anecdote, George Cukor is said to have tried to get Norma Shearer to go to some premiere with him after retirement, but the threat of a camera aimed in her direction nixed the invite. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jun 27, 2024 16:40:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by BunnyWhit on Jul 17, 2024 13:22:55 GMT
Garson Kanin wrote the play Born Yesterday for Jean Arthur. For personal reasons she declined, so Holliday was cast, thus giving her the big break that would open the door to her career.
I wonder how the atmosphere of the play (and ultimately the film) would have been different had Arthur taken the roll. She was twenty years older than Holliday. That would have put her nearer Paul Douglas' age, matching them up as co-stars, but I believe it also would have created a depressing feel to the entire show. An older Billie Dawn who was that ditzy, uncultured, and unaware would have been pitiful, if not pathetic. It would have colored Harry's character as well, making him seem even more cruel. I think it would have made Billie appear to be washed up and too late to save rather than the flower waiting to be allowed to bloom that she was.
|
|
|
|
Post by I Love Melvin on Jul 17, 2024 14:36:10 GMT
Garson Kanin wrote the play Born Yesterday for Jean Arthur. For personal reasons she declined, so Holliday was cast, thus giving her the big break that would open the door to her career.
I wonder how the atmosphere of the play (and ultimately the film) would have been different had Arthur taken the roll. She was twenty years older than Holliday. That would have put her nearer Paul Douglas' age, matching them up as co-stars, but I believe it also would have created a depressing feel to the entire show. An older Billie Dawn who was that ditzy, uncultured, and unaware would have been pitiful, if not pathetic. It would have colored Harry's character as well, making him seem even more cruel. I think it would have made Billie appear to be washed up and too late to save rather than the flower waiting to be allowed to bloom that she was. That's such food for thought, Bunny. When you look at Jean Arthur in Shane in 1953, she wasn't exactly over-the-hill.  Considering that the play premiered in 1946, it's possible it could have worked, though you're right that it wouldn't have amounted to the same play. But the ditziness and the obtuseness of the character, the incessant humming and vocal scatting, with which we're now so familiar, may have been played up by and for Judy Holliday specifically once the production got underway. The character had smarts (though maybe not "intelligence") and overall good instincts, qualities I definitely associate with Jean Arthur performances, so maybe it's possible that it wouldn't have read as depressing to have them closer in age. It's possible it could have been played as more of a fair match, rather than the lop-sided relationship we see in the case of the younger Holliday, and perhaps we'd see more at stake for Billie if it felt like maybe she didn't have another one in her, whereas Holliday could obviously walk away unscathed into another relationship. It would have diminished the easily come by comedic element of having a snappy younger woman leading the older man around by the nose, but the age change might have parlayed the character's rueful awareness of her situation and likely future as being ultimately her own doing into the determination she needed to change. But where are the yuks? With Jean Arthur, I don't think you need to worry about that because she had an uncanny ability to find comedy in pathos. Forgive me, Bunny; I'm just playing devil's advocate here because I love the avenue of thought you opened up. We'll never know is the obvious answer, but I love the what-if game, especially applied to movies and stars we love. |
|
|
|
Post by BunnyWhit on Jul 17, 2024 17:06:46 GMT
Garson Kanin wrote the play Born Yesterday for Jean Arthur. For personal reasons she declined, so Holliday was cast, thus giving her the big break that would open the door to her career.
I wonder how the atmosphere of the play (and ultimately the film) would have been different had Arthur taken the roll. She was twenty years older than Holliday. That would have put her nearer Paul Douglas' age, matching them up as co-stars, but I believe it also would have created a depressing feel to the entire show. An older Billie Dawn who was that ditzy, uncultured, and unaware would have been pitiful, if not pathetic. It would have colored Harry's character as well, making him seem even more cruel. I think it would have made Billie appear to be washed up and too late to save rather than the flower waiting to be allowed to bloom that she was. That's such food for thought, Bunny. When you look at Jean Arthur in Shane in 1953, she wasn't exactly over-the-hill. Considering that the play premiered in 1946, it's possible it could have worked, though you're right that it wouldn't have amounted to the same play. But the ditziness and the obtuseness of the character, the incessant humming and vocal scatting, with which we're now so familiar, may have been played up by and for Judy Holliday specifically once the production got underway. The character had smarts (though maybe not "intelligence") and overall good instincts, qualities I definitely associate with Jean Arthur performances, so maybe it's possible that it wouldn't have read as depressing to have them closer in age. It's possible it could have been played as more of a fair match, rather than the lop-sided relationship we see in the case of the younger Holliday, and perhaps we'd see more at stake for Billie if it felt like maybe she didn't have another one in her, whereas Holliday could obviously walk away unscathed into another relationship. It would have diminished the easily come by comedic element of having a snappy younger woman leading the older man around by the nose, but the age change might have parlayed the character's rueful awareness of her situation and likely future as being ultimately her own doing into the determination she needed to change. But where are the yuks? With Jean Arthur, I don't think you need to worry about that because she had an uncanny ability to find comedy in pathos. Forgive me, Bunny; I'm just playing devil's advocate here because I love the avenue of thought you opened up. We'll never know is the obvious answer, but I love the what-if game, especially applied to movies and stars we love.
I think the statement I highlighted in your great remarks really hits on the way I was feeling about it. I worry that had Billie been played by an older actress -- lovely though Jean Arthur was at that age -- it might have smacked of desperation on her part to be with a wealthy but insensitive man. It might read as a once-chorus girl (though Billie is quick to remind us she had two lines!) who knew her expiration date for love was fast approaching, and that would cast a pall on the story. Instead, with the younger actress we can forgive her choice of Harry and chalk it up to Billie's inexperience, and as you say, hope that she will "walk away unscathed."
No matter who had been cast as Billie, her choice of Paul over Harry was 100% the right one, as in my book brains trump brawn every single time! |
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Jul 17, 2024 19:20:43 GMT
Garson Kanin wrote the play Born Yesterday for Jean Arthur. For personal reasons she declined, so Holliday was cast, thus giving her the big break that would open the door to her career.
I wonder how the atmosphere of the play (and ultimately the film) would have been different had Arthur taken the roll. She was twenty years older than Holliday. That would have put her nearer Paul Douglas' age, matching them up as co-stars, but I believe it also would have created a depressing feel to the entire show. An older Billie Dawn who was that ditzy, uncultured, and unaware would have been pitiful, if not pathetic. It would have colored Harry's character as well, making him seem even more cruel. I think it would have made Billie appear to be washed up and too late to save rather than the flower waiting to be allowed to bloom that she was. That's such food for thought, Bunny. When you look at Jean Arthur in Shane in 1953, she wasn't exactly over-the-hill. The character would have been much different as played by Arthur (my favorite studio-era rom-com\comic actress), and I don't think it would have worked as well as the type of performance a younger, more clueless acting Holliday, was able to provide. Arthur was born in 1900, and yea, she was able to maintain a youthful look, as well as her high energy and spunk, into her late 40s. But even if she was able to pull off playing a woman in her late 30\early 40s the play \ film wouldn't have had the same type of vibe as what a much younger Holliday was able to provide. As for Shane: While I agree Arthur looked OK in that film (but color does bring out aging and one can see it here), she was at least 20 years too old to play a frontier woman and mom of a young boy. Shane was the only color film Arthur was ever in. Shane was the biggest box office hit of her career so from that POV I'm glad it is part of her film legacy, but I still don't understand why Stevens cast her. The role didn't call for her comedic talents. |
|
