|
|
Post by I Love Melvin on Aug 26, 2023 19:37:06 GMT
Some collateral damage from the problems Fox was having with Cleopatra was that the studio was shutting down at home; the lot was sitting relatively empty and services such as groundskeeping, etc. were being curtailed. The active project on the lot, Marilyn's Something's Got to Give, was causing problems of its own and was no longer on track for an early release and therefore couldn't be relied on for a quick infusion of profits. Even though Marilyn's illness has been cleared by the studio's own physician, who had recommended she have a month of rest, she was fired and the production scrapped, with the expectation that an insurance claim would provide the money that the movie's release was no longer able to promise quickly. That act was another part of what rattled Zanuck and compelled him to work his way back in. When Zanuck took control, Marilyn was re-signed to a two-picture deal, including finishing SGTG, but that was never made public before she died shortly thereafter, leaving her with the legacy of the disgrace of having been fired, which lasted for decades.
That was some good background info on Brando's behavior during the production of Mutiny on the Bounty. Yikes. The recent showing of the Robert Osborne Private Screenings hosted by Alec Baldwin reminded me of the ongoing disagreement they had about the Brando Mutiny. Alec was convinced that it should be part of The Essentials, which they co-hosted for a stretch, but Robert was having none of it. Personally, I like the Brando/Trevor Howard version a lot, though I get why his performance, played at a fey remove, could bug (or confuse) some people. He took a similar approach to his character in John Huston's Reflections in a Golden Eye (1967) and, personally, I was drawn in by both performances.
|
|
|
|
Post by intrepid37 on Aug 27, 2023 16:26:27 GMT
I get why his performance, played at a fey remove, could bug (or confuse) some people. He took a similar approach to his character in John Huston's Reflections in a Golden Eye (1967) and, personally, I was drawn in by both performances. I think the approaches were much different - as were the characters he was playing. He may have seemed "fey" in comparison to Gable's macho, but he was appropriately playing the role as a womanizing upper class playboy type - an educated career officer in opposite style to Bligh's old school narrowness. Brando's performance in Reflections in a Golden Eye (as a deeply closeted homosexual in a 1930's southern army base) was the most courageous performance of his career. An actor of his standing and reputation not only taking on a role like that, but doing so at that time in our cultural history (and with such commitment to it) was a stupendous expression of honest effort on his part at a time in his career when he was no longer known for caring much about the roles he played. That the public in general was just not ready to see him in a role like that was unfortunate - and the movie was pretty much ignored at the box office. I hold it as one of his most admirable performances. |
|
|
|
Post by I Love Melvin on Aug 27, 2023 18:17:01 GMT
I get why his performance, played at a fey remove, could bug (or confuse) some people. He took a similar approach to his character in John Huston's Reflections in a Golden Eye (1967) and, personally, I was drawn in by both performances. I think the approaches were much different - as were the characters he was playing. He may have seemed "fey" in comparison to Gable's macho, but he was appropriately playing the role as a womanizing upper class playboy type - an educated career officer in opposite style to Bligh's old school narrowness. Actually, I was thinking "fey" in comparison to Trevor Howard's macho, I think it was a strategy by Brando to color his character as non-threatening in the Captain's estimation, and as a way of subtly needling him without openly subverting authority. With the men, Brando's character was more open and direct, another actor's choice. I agree with your assessment of his performance in Reflections in a Golden Eye and by "similar" I was thinking more in terms of the "remove" than the "fey". In his Christian, the remove was a strategy used by the character; in Reflections the remove was used by Brando as a defining characteristic of the Major, who couldn't engage with the world beyond his narrow obsessions. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 30, 2023 14:11:51 GMT
Some collateral damage from the problems Fox was having with Cleopatra was that the studio was shutting down at home; the lot was sitting relatively empty and services such as groundskeeping, etc. were being curtailed. The active project on the lot, Marilyn's Something's Got to Give, was causing problems of its own and was no longer on track for an early release and therefore couldn't be relied on for a quick infusion of profits. Even though Marilyn's illness has been cleared by the studio's own physician, who had recommended she have a month of rest, she was fired and the production scrapped, with the expectation that an insurance claim would provide the money that the movie's release was no longer able to promise quickly. That act was another part of what rattled Zanuck and compelled him to work his way back in. When Zanuck took control, Marilyn was re-signed to a two-picture deal, including finishing SGTG, but that was never made public before she died shortly thereafter, leaving her with the legacy of the disgrace of having been fired, which lasted for decades. That was some good background info on Brando's behavior during the production of Mutiny on the Bounty. Yikes. The recent showing of the Robert Osborne Private Screenings hosted by Alec Baldwin reminded me of the ongoing disagreement they had about the Brando Mutiny. Alec was convinced that it should be part of The Essentials, which they co-hosted for a stretch, but Robert was having none of it. Personally, I like the Brando/Trevor Howard version a lot, though I get why his performance, played at a fey remove, could bug (or confuse) some people. He took a similar approach to his character in John Huston's Reflections in a Golden Eye (1967) and, personally, I was drawn in by both performances.
There was no way she was going to continue the streak she had in the mid-to-late 50s. Those high points were behind her. Imagine a 1975 Marilyn taking a lead role in a Roger Corman production. Imagine a 1980 Marilyn in a special guest starring role on The Love Boat. Imagine a 1985 Marilyn appearing in an episode of Murder She Wrote as an old friend of Jessica Fletcher's whose husband is killed and Jessica must help clear Marilyn. Imagine a 1990 Marilyn making appearances on Dionne Warwick's Psychic Friends Network.
You get the idea. That's the Marilyn we would have seen had she lived. Oh, and there would have been a bestselling autobiography and appearances on Donahue and The Oprah Winfrey Show. I don't think she would have advertised Depends Undergarments like June Allyson did, unless she was in need of money. But can you imagine if Marilyn Monroe had done that in advanced age??? |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Aug 30, 2023 14:18:38 GMT
Old studio films were showing up on late night television with increasing frequency. This was good news for viewers who enjoyed looking at movies from an earlier generation. But it was bad news for directors, writers and actors who received small residuals for the broadcasts.
In the meantime, 20th Century Fox released its much-anticipated remake of CLEOPATRA. Though the project was initially slated for studio stars Joan Collins and Stephen Boyd with a million dollar budget, the main roles ended up cast with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, and the budget was increased to $5 million. Filming took nearly three years, and during that time, studio heads rolled (Spyros Skouras and his appointees); costs zoomed out of control (forcing Fox to sell parcels of the backlot); and a real-life love story, as dramatic as anything seen on the screen, developed between the leads (causing both to leave their spouses for each other).
After all the dust had settled, Fox actually had a hit on its hands. The big budget epic needed time to earn its costs back, which it eventually did; and critics praised some of the performances– notably Rex Harrison, who reveled in his occasionally witty lines. Some of the script seemed as if it was rewritten on the spur of the moment, but reviewers noted that the scene where Caesar experienced an epileptic fit was well-staged and played, showing remarkable imagination.
Another film that hit the screen in 1963 was a romantic thriller called CHARADE. It featured a reverse May-December romance where a younger woman chased after an older man. Cary Grant initially turned down his role in the picture. He reconsidered when he learned that he would not play the chaser, but the one being chased. His pursuer was played by Audrey Hepburn, who incidentally had been on the short list at Fox to play Cleopatra. The Grant-Hepburn pairing worked with audiences, and the storyline, which borrowed heavily from previous efforts by Alfred Hitchcock and his writers, seemed fairly plausible.
With hits like CLEOPATRA and CHARADE in theaters, Hollywood was selling an average of 42 million tickets per week. Another picture that went over with the movie going public was David Lean’s LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, with Peter O’Toole in the title role. Columbia released it at the tail end of 1962, qualifying it for the Oscars, and it did strong business in the early part of 1963. When it earned seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture, it did even better.
Other significant British productions dotted the cinema landscape. In September, United Artists released Tony Richardson’s TOM JONES, starring Albert Finney. Produced on a budget of $1.4 million, the picture eventually earned $37 million. Its success was even more notable considering one important fact– before United Artists took over and arranged funding, the project had been rejected at every other major Hollywood studio. With a runaway hit on his hands, Richardson received many offers to work in Hollywood. However, none of his later films would do as well. |
|
|
|
Post by I Love Melvin on Aug 30, 2023 14:52:45 GMT
Some collateral damage from the problems Fox was having with Cleopatra was that the studio was shutting down at home; the lot was sitting relatively empty and services such as groundskeeping, etc. were being curtailed. The active project on the lot, Marilyn's Something's Got to Give, was causing problems of its own and was no longer on track for an early release and therefore couldn't be relied on for a quick infusion of profits. Even though Marilyn's illness has been cleared by the studio's own physician, who had recommended she have a month of rest, she was fired and the production scrapped, with the expectation that an insurance claim would provide the money that the movie's release was no longer able to promise quickly. That act was another part of what rattled Zanuck and compelled him to work his way back in. When Zanuck took control, Marilyn was re-signed to a two-picture deal, including finishing SGTG, but that was never made public before she died shortly thereafter, leaving her with the legacy of the disgrace of having been fired, which lasted for decades.
There was no way she was going to continue the streak she had in the mid-to-late 50s. Those high points were behind her. Imagine a 1975 Marilyn taking a lead role in a Roger Corman production. Imagine a 1980 Marilyn in a special guest starring role on The Love Boat. Imagine a 1985 Marilyn appearing in an episode of Murder She Wrote as an old friend of Jessica Fletcher's whose husband is killed and Jessica must help clear Marilyn. Imagine a 1990 Marilyn making appearances on Dionne Warwick's Psychic Friends Network.
You get the idea. That's the Marilyn we would have seen had she lived. Oh, and there would have been a bestselling autobiography and appearances on Donahue and The Oprah Winfrey Show. I don't think she would have advertised Depends Undergarments like June Allyson did, unless she was in need of money. But can you imagine if Marilyn Monroe had done that in advanced age??? I want to respectfully disagree with what Marilyn may have had in store for her career-wise. I have no illusion that Something's Got to Give would have rocked the world, especially, as you said, in comparison to Cleopatra and I agree that any future success would in no way approximate her 1950's notoriety and ubiquity. She was only doing SGTG as the final film on her Fox contract; her best work in recent years, Some Like It Hot and The Misfits, had been done away from Fox and her goal was to work on that level again. The variable was, obviously, her drug dependence, which would have been the determining factor for sure. But at the time of her death, she had a plane reservation to fly to New York to discuss a TV version of Somerset Maugham's Rain. Rather than imagining her with Dionne Warwick, I'd rather imagine her doing TV work on the level of Ann-Margret's and Jessica Lange's television productions of Streetcar and Elizabeth Taylor's Nicholas Roeg-directed Sweet Bird of Youth. If Marilyn could have gotten her **** together, there were people who respected her ability who would have helped her situate herself appropriately within the industry, I'm convinced. And, as I've said in another thread, her extensive musical repertoire made her a natural for Vegas. She was already familiar to hoteliers there for her ringside support of acts like the Rat Pack, Judy Garland, Marlene Dietrich and Ella Fitzgerald, whose appearance Marilyn had personally helped negotiate by promising to be there for every show. Marilyn in Las Vegas could have been legendary. It's obvious that I'm an "ardent fan" and it seems to me that you're less so, so we should probably just let this lie and not tangle over fairly concrete views, OK? No harm, no foul? |
|
|
|
Post by I Love Melvin on Aug 30, 2023 15:54:08 GMT
Old studio films were showing up on late night television with increasing frequency. This was good news for viewers who enjoyed looking at movies from an earlier generation. But it was bad news for directors, writers and actors who received small residuals for the broadcasts.
You're right to highlight this. Even though both unions had struck in 1960, the nature of the business was /is that new issues keep coming up, just like they are currently. As an interesting aside, I have a promotional postcard I got at a Boston theater for the upcoming Cleopatra. The painting on the postcard shows a reclining Liz, with Burton as Antony leaning over her from behind. Eventually, Rex Harrison insisted (sued?) on equal coverage, so an image of him was, a little bit awkwardly, added to the picture. This is the image with Rex added, looking squeezed in there, making the whole thing unbalanced. Unfortunately, I couldn't find an example of the original image without Rex. I think it shows how anxious Fox was to cash in on the Taylor/Burton scandal, so much so that Rex slipped their mind.  |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 3, 2023 14:05:00 GMT
Since Darryl Zanuck had reassumed control of 20th Century Fox, the studio’s situation drastically improved. Not only had CLEOPATRA been making back its costs at the box office, but Twentieth Century Fox Television experienced an upswing.
Adapting the 1957 melodrama PEYTON PLACE into a regular series with Dorothy Malone and a young Mia Farrow proved to be a good idea.
The program aired several nights each week on ABC-TV, and it was an immediate hit with audiences. Its success, combined with the popularity of another Fox-produced television show, Daniel Boone, indicated strong financial gains for the studio. By the end of 1964, Zanuck announced to shareholders a profit of $11.5 million.
Worried about taking risks on big-budget epics, most studios decided to focus on what they considered sure bets. In 1964, the sure bet was now a big-budget musical. Executives were encouraged by the fact that recent adaptations of Broadway hits like WEST SIDE STORY and GYPSY had done very well with audiences.
So Warners forged ahead with its film version of MY FAIR LADY. Though it cost over $5 million to secure the rights, the picture easily made that amount thanks to George Cukor’s direction and Rex Harrison’s performance as Professor Henry Higgins, a role he played on the New York stage.
Harrison’s costar from the Broadway production, Julie Andrews, was passed over in favor of Audrey Hepburn. But Andrews quickly bounced back by signing with Walt Disney, who made a big budget musical of his own, MARY POPPINS. Andrews would earn the Best Actress Oscar for her work as P.L. Travers’ title character.
Meanwhile, there was a shift in how studios were promoting actors. The old star system of the 1940s and 1950s had radically changed. Performers like Chuck Connors and Clint Walker who had developed substantial followings on television were now all the rage.
And actors who had done well for years in character or supporting roles were given opportunities they never had before. These less expensive “movie stars” were cast in expanded B-pictures that often used recycled scripts, and were shot in color and widescreen.
The more expensive stars of yesteryear were being eased off the big screen. They either retreated to television or into early retirement. A few of the more stubborn ones, like Bette Davis, refused to call it quits. She used what drawing power she still had left to make horror films. A new sub-genre was born– the psycho-biddy. It was a last moment of glory for the actress whose status was diminishing. Her power as a movie star was inevitably slipping away from her.
 |
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Sept 3, 2023 16:06:01 GMT
Since Darryl Zanuck had reassumed control of 20th Century Fox, the studio’s situation drastically improved. Not only had CLEOPATRA been making back its costs at the box office, but Twentieth Century Fox Television experienced an upswing.
Adapting the 1957 melodrama PEYTON PLACE into a regular series with Dorothy Malone and a young Mia Farrow proved to be a good idea.
The program aired several nights each week on ABC-TV, and it was an immediate hit with audiences. Its success, combined with the popularity of another Fox-produced television show, Daniel Boone, indicated strong financial gains for the studio. By the end of 1964, Zanuck announced to shareholders a profit of $11.5 million.
Worried about taking risks on big-budget epics, most studios decided to focus on what they considered sure bets. In 1964, the sure bet was now a big-budget musical. Executives were encouraged by the fact that recent adaptations of Broadway hits like WEST SIDE STORY and GYPSY had done very well with audiences.
So Warners forged ahead with its film version of MY FAIR LADY. Though it cost over $5 million to secure the rights, the picture easily made that amount thanks to George Cukor’s direction and Rex Harrison’s performance as Professor Henry Higgins, a role he played on the New York stage.
Harrison’s costar from the Broadway production, Julie Andrews, was passed over in favor of Audrey Hepburn. But Andrews quickly bounced back by signing with Walt Disney, who made a big budget musical of his own, MARY POPPINS. Andrews would earn the Best Actress Oscar for her work as P.L. Travers’ title character.
Meanwhile, there was a shift in how studios were promoting actors. The old star system of the 1940s and 1950s had radically changed. Performers like Chuck Connors and Clint Walker who had developed substantial followings on television were now all the rage.
And actors who had done well for years in character or supporting roles were given opportunities they never had before. These less expensive “movie stars” were cast in expanded B-pictures that often used recycled scripts, and were shot in color and widescreen.
The more expensive stars of yesteryear were being eased off the big screen. They either retreated to television or into early retirement. A few of the more stubborn ones, like Bette Davis, refused to call it quits. She used what drawing power she still had left to make horror films. A new sub-genre was born– the psycho-biddy. It was a last moment of glory for the actress whose status was diminishing. Her power as a movie star was inevitably slipping away from her.
...and about the same time Julie Andrews was showing off her Oscar the next year, THE SOUND OF MUSIC was putting the proverbial punctuation mark on her marquee value...  TopBilled, it's interesting to note that Chuck Connors' 1967 television status was such that his starring name actually preceded the title of Ivan Tors' COWBOY in AFRICA:  |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 3, 2023 16:49:53 GMT
Yes, Chuck Connors must have had a good agent!
|
|
|
|
Post by I Love Melvin on Sept 3, 2023 18:50:34 GMT
American-International Pictures was also getting a second wind by starting to saturate their teenage audience, which had basically supported them through their monster and horror phases in the 1950's and early 1960's, with a new crop of movies in the "Beach Party" vein. So many memorable titles, right? Beach Party this, Beach Party that. American-International also made use of a new process called Electronovision in 1964 for The T.A.M.I. Show, a concert recorded on high resolution videotape and then transferred by kinescope to film for theatrical showings around the country. It didn't revolutionize the film industry but it was sure exciting at the time to see all those stars up close and in front of an audience like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 6, 2023 15:25:59 GMT
More changes were occurring in Hollywood. Adolph Zukor was embroiled in arguments stemming from a takeover attempt at Paramount. The 92 year-old mogul would step down as an active chairman of the board and take on the role of Chairman Emeritus, which he held until his death at age 103. As Zukor became less involved in daily operations at the studio (a studio he helped create in 1912), it fell under the control of the Gulf+Western Oil company.
Since the slump of the 1950s, the motion picture industry was now posting significant gains. But the reporting of profits was somewhat deceptive, because much of the money being earned by top studios did not come from film production. Revenues were largely generated by sales of music recordings and by real estate deals. Or from the success of studios’ TV subsidiaries.
Speaking of television, studios were decreasing the amount of time that normally elapsed between the theatrical exhibition of films and their subsequent broadcasts on television. The period of time was now three years, which meant that films produced as recently as 1962 were now airing on TV. Networks were paying substantial fees for the biggest titles, and that was all the incentive studios needed.
ABC-TV shelled out $1 million to Columbia Pictures for the rights to broadcast THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. But most features were fetching in the ballpark of $400,000.
Meanwhile, most of the major studios were discontinuing their training of new stars…except Universal-International, which still saw a benefit in the practice. Universal continued to use a talent program and maintained its own studio star system across film and television projects, not only through the 1960s and 1970s, but also into the early 1980s. Among Universal’s “new” discoveries in 1965: Susan Clark, Michael Parks and Celia Kaye.
At 20th Century Fox, Darryl Zanuck was concentrating on hiring talent from European productions. He financed MORITURI, a war drama with Marlon Brando and Yul Brynner, as a means of exploiting the talents of its Austrian director Bernhard Wicki.
Zanuck also employed French director Serge Bourguignon to make a picture called THE REWARD. The neo-western starred Max Von Sydow and Yvette Mimieux and did not perform as well as the studio hoped. But Zanuck believed in the abilities of foreign filmmakers, and he even spent part of 1965 trying to entice Japan’s Akira Kurosawa to make a feature for Fox about the life of General Custer. |
|
|
|
Post by kims on Sept 6, 2023 23:30:21 GMT
When did actors and other film people begin migrating to Switzerland because the tax rate here was was 90%? films were already migrating to Europe for cheaper production costs. Stars like Audrey Hepburn moved to Switzerland and working in the States was limited by how many weeks a star could work here on the work visas or IRS rules for when the stars' income was subject to taxes. I read when Audrey made - I believe it was MY FAIR LADY - her contract stipulated her pay be divided into payments over 5 -7 years to be in lower tax bracket. This tax situation had some influence in bringing us foreign directors and stars at a time some actors could not work for long in the States.
|
|
|
|
Post by intrepid37 on Sept 6, 2023 23:52:27 GMT
Based upon my own personal experience, 1965 was a stupendous year in movies - one of the most popular years ever. That was the year I began a 5-year stint as a movie theater usher. I was 15 at the time but lied and said I was 16 to get the job. Because cable television hadn`t been invented yet and movies made for TV was in its infancy, attendance by the public at our theater was always excellent - full houses on weekends, at least half houses Monday to Thursday. We were a second run theater - first runs were in the downtown core, we were located in a thriving residential/industrial west-end community - and double features in our theater were the norm. I can attest that the town's population was at its most enthusiastic over my 5 year career (1965-1970) in the year 1965. 66 and 67 were also still very popular, it would be difficult to notice any difference - and 68-70 still didn't have cable tv bleeding away too many patrons. It was the last of the glory years for neighborhood theaters. Mall theaters hadn't yet gotten the neighborhood movie houses closed down, malls had just begun to be built.
So, I remember 1965 as one of the happiest movie-going audience periods ever. Just a few of the movies that enjoyed enormous popularity in our theater were:
Doctor Zhivago
The Cincinnati Kid
Help!
The Flight of the Phoenix
Ship of Fools
The Agony and the Ecstasy
Cat Ballou
Once a Thief
Thunderball
The Sound of Music
Darling
The Loved One
A Thousand Clowns
A Patch of Blue
The Collector
Shenandoah
The Great Race (the very first movie I ushered, what a wonderful memory for me)
The Naked Prey
That Darn Cat!
The Ipcress File
For a Few Dollars More
The Hill
How to Murder Your Wife
Sands of the Kalahari
Mirage
The Spy Who Came in from the Cold
The Nanny
In Harm's Way
and dozens more that may have been lesser-regarded critically but were nonetheless hugely enjoyed by patrons.
And, in addition, because we were a second run house, many of 1964's best movies and later-in-the-year releases also played our theater in 1965 (My Fair Lady, Sex and the Single Girl, Zorba the Greek and so forth).
I regard 1967 as a watershed year in movies, but 1965 may be the happiest year I've ever experienced for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Sept 7, 2023 0:12:52 GMT
Based upon my own personal experience, 1965 was a stupendous year in movies - one of the most popular years ever. That was the year I began a 5-year stint as a movie theater usher. I was 15 at the time but lied and said I was 16 to get the job. Because cable television hadn`t been invented yet and movies made for TV was in its infancy, attendance by the public at our theater was always excellent - full houses on weekends, at least half houses Monday to Thursday. We were a second run theater - first runs were in the downtown core, we were located in a thriving residential/industrial west-end community - and double features in our theater were the norm. I can attest that the town's population was at its most enthusiastic over my 5 year career (1965-1970) in the year 1965. 66 and 67 were also still very popular, it would be difficult to notice any difference - and 68-70 still didn't have cable tv bleeding away too many patrons. It was the last of the glory years for neighborhood theaters. Mall theaters hadn't yet gotten the neighborhood movie houses closed down, malls had just begun to be built. So. I remember 1965 as one of the happiest movie-going audience periods ever. Just a few of the movies that enjoyed enormous popularity in our theater were: Doctor Zhivago The Cincinnati Kid Help! The Flight of the Phoenix Ship of Fools The Agony and the Ecstasy Car Ballou Once a Thief Thunderball The Sound of Music Darling The Loved One A Thousand Clowns A Patch of Blue The Collector Shenandoah The Great Race (the very first movie I ushered, what a wonderful memory for me) The Naked Prey That Darn Cat! The Ipcress File For a Few Dollars More The Hill How to Murder Your Wife Sands of the Kalahari Mirage The Spy Who Came in from the Cold The Nanny In Harm's Way and dozens more that may have been lesser-regarded critically but were nonetheless hugely enjoyed by patrons. And, in addition, because we were a second run house, many of 1964's best movies and later-in-the-year releases also played our theater in 1965 (My Fair Lady, Sex and the Single Girl, Zorba the Greek and so forth). I regard 1967 as a watershed year in movies, but 1965 may be the happiest year I've ever experienced for them. |
|
