It was a moment of serendipity that had me nearly bouncing
out of my seat.
Classic Movie Hub was looking for stories about “classic
sci-fi movies and horror and …”
I didn’t give Annmarie Gatti a chance to finish the sentence – instead, I interrupted and nearly yelled “Yes!” out of pure excitement. I may not have been born with a silver spoon in my mouth, but I came into the world with an insatiable appetite for classic horror movies. It’s true.
Family folklore has it that my parents were watching a Peter Cushing–Christopher Lee film at the drive-in when Mom was pregnant with me. She made Dad leave halfway through the film and always maintained that’s why I was so obsessed with horror films growing up. I don’t know the title of the movie – they couldn’t remember and there wasn’t a film released right before I was born – but my fate was sealed.
Did a Christopher Lee movie my mother watched while she was pregnant with me have anything to do with my love of horror films? I think so.
By the time I was 5, I was watching the “old movies” with Dad. Bela and Boris, giant insects and animals, dinosaurs and time machines. We watched them all. Occasionally Dad put his hands over my eyes during a scary part, but that made me only want to see more.
I don’t know how our little tradition started, but I do
remember sneaking out of bed and “hiding” (as if dad didn’t see me) to watch
the movies. Other nights, I waited for Dad to get me once Mom fell asleep. At
first, this ritual revolved around the Friday night Fright Night movies that
started after the late news. With the lights off, Dad sat in a chair just feet
from the TV. I was on the floor at his knee.
It was a successful night if Mom didn’t catch us. When she
did, it was off to bed for me. She once caught
us watching a Hammer film and I clearly remember her telling Dad: “She
is going to grow up with serious problems if you let her watch these movies.”
She was right: I grew up with a serious problem in that I
couldn’t find enough classic horror, sci-fi and B-movie creature features to
watch (this was well before the current endless buffet of movies offered via
cable and streaming).
The first time I tried to watch War of the Worlds on television, my parents sent me to bed. After I finally saw it, I realized they were right to do that. The film still gives me nightmares.
A few years later, the Saturday Night Movie started showing similar films – but often with the dreaded parental warning. Back then, parents listened so when the warning popped up before George Pal’s TheWar of the Worlds – a film I had been eagerly waiting to see – they turned the station. I threw such a tantrum, I was sent to bed (and I pouted for days).
Eventually, I saw The War of the Worlds (yes, it gave me nightmares) and countless other horror/sci-fi films thanks to Dad. Our favorites were “giant anything” movies like Them! (ants), Beginning of the End (grasshoppers), Tarantula (self-explanatory), It Came From Beneath the Sea (octopus), The Amazing Colossal Man and a favorite that has been passed down through generations in our family, Mysterious Island (giant bees, crab, chicken). When the creature or monster appeared, Dad and I would look at each other in awe as if what we were seeing was real.
This artwork for Mysterious Island details some of the oversized animals that gave stranded travelers trouble in the 1961 film adaptation of the Jules Verne story.
Not all the films were great, but it didn’t matter. We
affectionately called them “Herman movies” from Dad’s nickname of Herman (as in
“Munster”). When there was a particularly bad film, one of us would say “It’s a
Herman movie” (a special code we still use) and keep watching. We were having
fun.
The Amazing Colossal Man was a 1951 B-movie from Bert I. Gordon that was fun and creepy.
Dad taught me to find joy in every movie – even the bad ones – and that film education has been a gift. I learned about Universal Monsters, Hammer Films, and B-movies. Later, we added disaster flicks (thank you, Irwin Allen). The more ridiculous the better – hence our outing last year to see Skyscraper.
Before there was Google and Wikipedia to make everyone feel like an expert, Dad was a wealth of movie trivia. To this day, when we watch Tarantula (yes, one of our favorites), he reminds me that the young pilot at the end is an uncredited Clint Eastwood. I always pretend I didn’t know and respond with a variation of “wow.”
Giant creatures, like the octopus in It Came From Beneath the Sea, have been a favorite to watch with my dad since I was a kid.
We still watch these films and enjoy modern creature and disaster movies that clearly have a basis in the classics. One night a few years back, dad called and without saying hi, blurted out: “Are you watching this movie about the shark and tornado?” Of course, I was. We hung up quickly to get back to the movie. Dad just wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing out. In my family, Sharknado is the perfect father-daughter movie.
I know many classic movie fans have similar stories of how a parent or other family member helped cultivate their love for these films. In fact, it’s a topic that has come up a few times while waiting in line at the Turner Classic Movie Film Festival. I adore these tales and how they are another bond between classic movie fans. I would love to hear your story, so please share.
As I write for Classic Movie Hub, I hope you won’t mind it
will be with the pure enthusiasm of a little girl who watched these films in
the dark with her Dad and enjoyed them despite seeing the zipper on the
creature’s suit.
Toni Ruberto for Classic
Movie Hub
…
Toni Ruberto, born and raised in Buffalo, N.Y., is an editor
and writer at The Buffalo News. She shares her love for classic movies in her
blog, Watching Forever.
Toni was the president of the former Buffalo chapter of TCM Backlot and now
leads the offshoot group, Buffalo Classic Movie Buffs. She is proud to have put
Buffalo and its glorious old movie palaces in the spotlight as the inaugural
winner of the TCM in Your Hometown contest. You can find Toni on Twitter at
@toniruberto.
Celebrating Women Pioneer Filmmakers! We’re Giving Away FIVE Ida Lupino Blu-Ray Filmmaker Collection Sets!
This month we continue our Women Pioneers Filmmaker Celebration with another special giveaway! We are happy to say that we’re giving away FIVE COPIES of the Ida Lupino Filmmaker Collection 4-disc Blu-Ray set, courtesy of our friends at Kino Lorber! The set includes four newly restored classics directed by Ida Lupino: Not Wanted (1949), Never Fear (1949), The Hitch-Hiker (1953) and The Bigamist (1953).
Includes four newly-restored classics directed by Ida Lupino
In order to qualify to win one of these prizes via this contest giveaway, you must complete the below entry task by Saturday, Nov 23 at 9PMEST. However, the sooner you enter, the better chance you have of winning, because we will pick our winners on five different days within the contest period, via random drawings, as listed below… So if you don’t win the first week that you enter, you will still be eligible to win during the following weeks until the contest is over.
Oct 26: One Winner
Nov 2: One Winner
Nov 9: One Winner
Nov 16: One Winner
Nov 23: One Winner
We will announce each week’s winner on Twitter @ClassicMovieHub (or this blog, depending how you entered), the day after each winner is picked at 9PM EST — for example, we will announce our first week’s winner on Sunday October 27 at 9PM EST.
…..
About the DVD: This collection includesfour Newly Restored Classics Directed by Ida Lupino — Not Wanted (1949) Starring Sally Forrest and Leo Penn, Never Fear (1949) Starring Sally Forrest and Hugh O’Brian, The Hitch-Hiker (1953) Starring Edmond O’Brien, Frank Lovejoy and William Talman and The Bigamist (1953) Starring Joan Fontaine, Ida Lupino, Edmond O’Brien and Edmund Gwenn.
…..
ENTRY TASK (2-parts) to be completed by Saturday, November 23 at 9PM EST— BUT remember, the sooner you enter, the more chances you have to win…
1) Answer the below question via the comment section at the bottom of this blog post
2) ThenTWEET (not DM) the following message: Just entered to win the “Ida Lupino Filmmaker Collection” 4-disc Blu-Ray #Giveaway courtesy of @KinoLorber and CMH #CMHContest Link: http://ow.ly/oJPc50wRKyM
THE QUESTION: Why do you consider Ida Lupino a film pioneer? And, if you’re not familiar with her work, why do you want to win this collection?
*If you do not have a Twitter account, you can still enter the contest by simply answering the above question via the comment section at the bottom of this blog — BUT PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOU ADD THIS VERBIAGE TO YOUR ANSWER: I do not have a Twitter account, so I am posting here to enter but cannot tweet the message.
ALSO: Please allow us 48 hours to approve your comments. Sorry about that, but we are being overwhelmed with spam, and must sort through 100s of comments…
…..
Please note that only Continental United States (excluding Alaska, Hawaii, and the territory of Puerto Rico) entrants are eligible.
And — BlogHub members ARE eligible to win if they live within the Continental United States (as noted above).
And if you can’t wait to win this Blu-Ray, you can click on the images below to purchase on amazon:
Silents are Golden: A Closer Look at – The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
The indisputable masterpiece of German Expressionism is The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari–both because it’s a perfect example of the style done right (which was less common than you’d think!) and because it’s just plain great filmmaking. A dark tale set in a world of bold, bizarre design, the sharp angles and painted-on shadows of Caligari are as iconic as they are unique.
The Cabinet of Dr.Caligiri (1920)
You might wonder precisely where this strange
film came from. After all, in an era when many films strived for a type of
elegant realism, Caligari stands out.
Even today, it has an edge. We might be tempted to say it was ahead of its
time–but was it?
To wrap our heads around the film, we should briefly examine where German Expressionism came from. The movement didn’t start in the movies, after all, but popped up during the wave of early 20th century modern art. In 1905 a small group of students labeled themselves Die Brücke (The Bridge) and created artwork that featured a lot of strange angles and lighting similar to what we see in Caligari. Die Brücke had much in common with other modern art movements too, and many of their new ideas began showing up in the theater. Max Reinhardt, the owner of the prestigious Deutsches Theater in Berlin, encouraged experimentation with lighting and set design and introduced many daring new trends. And thus, modern art and theater combined to form the distinct style that we recognize as German Expressionism.
An expressionist student group, Die Brücke
The term tends to be thrown around a bit today, but German Expressionism was technically a specific style of flat, deliberately artificial sets, sometimes with light and shadows painted right on them. The look was meant to echo the moods of the characters or the overarching themes. The Student of Prague(1913), The Golem(1915) and Homunculus (1916) are considered early German Expressionist films, but the full potential of the exaggerated style would only explode onto the screen once Caligari was released.
A beautiful shot from Caligari depicting the emphasis on art, design, and perspective,
Caligari has a fascinating and thought-provoking backstory. It was written by Carl Mayer and Hans Janowitz, who both had tragedies in their pasts. Mayer, a scriptwriter in a Berlin theater, had been raised in Austria by a father obsessed with creating a “system” to gambling. When the obsession led him to lose everything, he took his own life, leaving Mayer and his siblings to fend for themselves. Mayer managed to make a living in the theater, and occasionally underwent traumatic exams that tested him for mental illness. Janowitz, an author from Bohemia, had been an officer in World War I. His experiences seeing countless soldiers sent “over the top” to be slaughtered had shattered his trust in authority figures. This, coupled with haunting memories of possibly seeing a murder victim not long before her death, had left a deep impression on him.
Both men shared a distrust of authority, and both were pacifists thanks to the horrors of World War I. Becoming friends in Berlin, they would talk frequently about their tragic experiences as well as their fascination with cinema. They agreed that cinema was becoming a tremendously powerful art form–and a perfect vehicle for introducing powerful ideas. During their conversations, an idea for a screenplay began taking form. While walking through a colorful street fair one fateful night, they saw a sideshow act called “Man or Machine” where a strongman uttered ominous predictions under hypnosis. The sight of a human being performing against his will (in a sense) was the last spark of inspiration they needed–and the plot for The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was born.
Caligari lobby card
The film would deal with abusive authority figures, insanity, and duality–the themes that continually haunted Mayer and Janowitz. While neither had written a screenplay before, they wrote it in six weeks, proudly presenting it to a somewhat uninterested Erich Pommer of the Decla-Bioscop film studio. After Mayer read it out loud, Pommer was impressed enough with the script’s unusual horror elements to offer them a contract on the spot. (He also assumed it could be filmed cheaply.)
While Fritz Lang was originally Caligari’s director, he became busy with another project and Robert Wiene was chosen instead. Hermann Warm was in charge of the art design and believed a highly stylized look would be perfect for the themes of the story. He and fellow designers Walter Reimann and Walter Röhrig decided the radical new “Expressionism” would be perfect, and got permission to make their sets as fantastically bizarre as possible. The studio thought this could help draw audiences and also make the film distinct from Hollywood products.
Again, a great example of perspective in German expressionist film
Paper, canvas, and paint were used for the scenery (and faux lighting) in the film, and the somewhat small film studio forced the designers to make creative use of limited space. Some sets played with perspectives, such as the scene where Cesare appears to be standing on a rooftop, or the early scenes where small, strategically-placed merry-go-rounds give the illusion of a busy carnival. Interestingly, much of the radical design choices were the result of low budgets (being post-WWI and all), challenging the designers to make as big an impact as possible with cheap materials.
Fact: The film is included on Roger Ebert’s “Great Movies” list.
Of course, all the impactful sets in the world can’t equal a great film without great actors, and fortunately, Conrad Veidt, Werner Krauss, and Lil Dagover were chosen to play the leads. Veidt and Krauss (Cesare and Caligari, respectively) both had experience with Expressionist-style acting and felt very comfortable on the fantastical sets. Lil Dagover was used to more conventional acting, but her whitened face and darkened eyes also made an impact on screen. The look of Dr. Caligari was somewhat based on grim philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, while Veidt’s appearance was intensely Expressionistic, allowing him to fit seamlessly into Caligari’s incoherent world.
Dr. Caligari: “I must know everything. I must penetrate the heart of his secret! I must become Caligari!”
The
“bookend” scenes were apparently added to the story at the studio’s insistence,
much to Mayer and Janowitz’s irritation. Their original script had included a
simple framework of having the main character Francis relating the tale of
happened to him 20 years prior, while the new scenes seemed to subvert much of Caligari’splot. Janowitz would later insist that he and Mayer were deeply
unhappy with the new scenes–and how they twisted their “abusive authority”
theme–and had to be talked into not protesting the finished film.
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari was a fairly successful
release in Germany, helped by a mysterious marketing campaign where posters and
ads proclaimed: “You must become Caligari!”
It did respectably well in the U.S. too, where it was marketed as
“something new” (although it thrived more in cities than small communities).
But today, its influence has reached far beyond 1920, impacting decades of
horror and arthouse films. Dependent on the distinct culture of modern art that
circulated in Germany throughout the Edwardian period, Caligari was very much a product of its time. But when all is said
and done, its value to film history has proven to be timeless.
Made before “horror” was a designated genre, this is sometimes cited as the first true horror film. –IMdB
Lea Stans is a born-and-raised Minnesotan with a degree in English and an obsessive interest in the silent film era (which she largely blames on Buster Keaton). In addition to blogging about her passion at her site Silent-ology, she is a columnist for the Silent Film Quarterlyand has also written for The Keaton Chronicle.
Noir Nook: Five Things You Need to Know About Guest in the House (1944)
Guest in the House movie poster
Guest in the House(1944) is a little-known noir starring Anne Baxter as Evelyn Heath, who has been in the hospital due to a heart ailment and, upon her release, goes to stay with the family of her doctor-fiancé, Dan. Although she appears, upon first glance, to be a sweet, guileless sort, she’s actually a she-wolf in sheep’s clothing and, once she’s settled into her fiancé’s home, proceeds to use her sociopathic wiles to wreak havoc throughout the household. In addition to Baxter, the film’s cast includes Ralph Bellamy, Ruth Warrick, Aline MacMahon, and Margaret Hamilton.
…..
In celebration of the upcoming Halloween holiday season, this month’s Noir Nook serves up five things you need to know about this creepy, atmospheric, and slightly off-the-rails noir. (Full disclosure: Guest in the House is one of my “guilty pleasures” – I wouldn’t exactly characterize it as a classic, but I get a kick out of it all the same.)
…..
Ruth Warrick and Anne Baxter in Guest in the House (1944)
ONE: The film’s original director was Lewis Milestone, who had previously helmed such well-received features as All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), The Front Page (1931), and Of Mice and Men (1939). Just a month into shooting, Milestone suffered an attack of appendicitis and collapsed on the set. He was replaced by John Brahm, who reshot some of the early scenes.
TWO: Evelyn’s fiancé in the film was played by Scott McKay, in his second big-screen performance. McKay, who also played roles in Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo (1944) and Duel in the Sun (1946), spent most of his career on the small screen. He was the widower of actress Ann Sheridan – the couple married in June 1966; Sheridan died of esophageal cancer less than a year later, in January 1967, at the age of 51.
THREE: Guest in the House was re-released in theaters as Satan in Skirts.
Anne Baxter
FOUR: Guest in the House and Satan in Skirts had several – shall we say – tantalizing taglines to attract moviegoers. Here’s my favorite: “No girl has ever been called more names! That’s Evelyn . . . the guest . . . who manages to throw her pretty shadow around where any man near must see it — and when it comes to a man she grants no rights to anyone but herself!”
FIVE: I don’t often agree with Bosley Crowther, the famously acerbic critic for the New York Times, but his take on this film was pure gold: “A more cracked and incredible tale than this quaint one of a mischief-making female has not lately disturbed the screen. As a play by Hagar Wilde and Dale Eunson, it had a moderate run, we understand, but as a film, it is openly in peril of being laughed into a quick decline. The fault is as much in the story as it is in the handling by all concerned, for the story is cheaply synthetic and about as logical as a crooner’s song . . . Nor is any help rendered by Anne Baxter, who plays the wrecker with so much coyness that anyone, shy of a blind man, could see that she was up to tricks. And Ralph Bellamy is equally ridiculous as a middle-aged Byronic beau who tries to be boyish and amorous and also solemn and wise. Miss MacMahon remains in the background, which is a happy place for one in this film, while Ruth Warwick, Scott McKay, and Jerome Cowan get entwined with the torturings upfront. Mr. Stromberg is an eminent producer, but his grip certainly slipped on this job.”
…..
If you’ve never seen this gem, it’s available for your viewing pleasure on YouTube. Check it out, some snowy night by the fire. But check your expectations at the door and get ready for a wild ride!
…
– Karen Burroughs Hannsberry for Classic Movie Hub
Karen Burroughs Hannsberry is the author of the Shadows and Satin blog, which focuses on movies and performers from the film noir and pre-Code eras, and the editor-in-chief of The Dark Pages, a bimonthly newsletter devoted to all things film noir. Karen is also the author of two books on film noir – Femme Noir: The Bad Girls of Film and Bad Boys: The Actors of Film Noir. You can follow Karen on Twitter at @TheDarkPages. If you’re interested in learning more about Karen’s books, you can read more about them on amazon here:
Hollywood is releasing a steady stream of sentimental dog movies these days, from A Dog’s Purpose (2017) and A Dog’s Journey (2019) to A Dog’s Way Home (2019) and The Art of Racing in the Rain (2019), which makes this a perfect time to revisit one of the first and best of the genre, Lassie Come Home (1943). All dog movies that have come after the Lassie films owe a debt to the original, but none of them has managed to improve on it. Lassie Come Home is a superior dog movie for several reasons, including, of course, its canine star, but subtler elements also work to make this picture an enduring classic that viewers of all ages can enjoy.
Adapted from the novel by Eric Knight, Lassie Come Home tells the now-familiar story of a loyal dog who refuses to be separated from her beloved boy no matter the obstacles. Child star Roddy McDowall and veteran character actor Donald Crisp – who had already played son and father in the Best Picture winner How Green Was My Valley (1941) – provide the main human points of interest as Joe and Sam Carraclough, whose poverty drives them to sell Lassie to a rich duke (Nigel Bruce). After Lassie returns home twice from the Duke’s estate, she is taken to Scotland, where she escapes again and embarks on the long journey home to Yorkshire.
Roddy MocDowall stars as Joe, the boy Lassie loves. Every day Lassie meets Joe in the schoolyard when classes end.
Lassie herself, played by a male dog named Pal, has become legendary, and in this first screen appearance, it’s easy to see why generations of dog lovers have fallen under Lassie’s spell. A magnificent rough collie with soulful eyes, Lassie manages to be remarkable but believable throughout her adventures. Unlike most of the current movie dogs, Lassie does not talk, and it’s just as well because her interior monologue would be very dull. “I’ve got to get home to my boy” seems to be her constant, driving thought. Lassie’s silence, however, is part of her appeal. She doesn’t have to tell us what she’s thinking because her actions clearly show it. Besides, this is not a cute, funny dog story. It’s a seriously moving story about hardship and devotion. Silence becomes it.
The significance of silence extends to the main human characters. Neither Joe nor Sam talks much in the film, but their actions show what they are feeling at every moment. Donald Crisp has a particularly effective way of being very still and silent at moments when Sam is too overcome with grief to do anything else. When Mrs. Carraclough, played by the inimitable Elsa Lanchester, tries to fill the men’s silences with words, she only ends up showing how useless they are. Though she claims multiple times that she’s glad Lassie is gone, it’s obvious that she’s heartbroken, too, and it tells us more that she keeps Lassie’s bowl close at hand even after the dog has been taken off to Scotland.
Elsa Lanchester and Donald Crisp play Joe’s parents, who show their devotion to the family dog even after they are forced to sell Lassie to put food on the table.
In addition to McDowall, Crisp, and Lanchester, Lassie Come Home boasts an impressive roster of top-notch actors, most notably a very young Elizabeth Taylor in her second screen appearance. The role would launch Taylor’s career at MGM and also provide a lifelong friend in McDowall. Filling in the other supporting roles are Nigel Bruce, Dame May Whitty, Edmund Gwenn, J. Pat O’Malley, Alan Napier, and Arthur Shields, a veritable who’s who of British character actors. Whitty and Gwenn have particularly fine scenes as kindly people who help Lassie along her way, while J. Pat O’Malley has the unenviable task of being a villainous servant who mistreats her.
Elizabeth Taylor and Nigel Bruce play the granddaughter and grandfather who buy Lassie from the impoverished Carraclough family.
Too often modern movies about dogs succumb to a
temptation to be cute or clever; the going feeling seems to be that family
movies require a lot of levity to be palatable, but Lassie Come Home
avoids these traps without being mawkishly sentimental, either. We get a few
moments of humor, but jokes would not suit a story about a family so desperate
that they part with the dog they dearly love, and between the lines of the
movie we can read the wartime mood and the film’s effort to remind us how stoic
and determined the British people are in the face of adversity. As the film’s
introduction observes, the creator of Lassie, Eric Knight, was himself killed
in War World II while serving in the United States Army. There’s a seriousness
of purpose underlying the film that has nothing to do with dogs but everything
to do with loyalty, sacrifice, and perseverance, and that, too, makes Lassie
Come Home a film that endures.
If you fall in love with Lassie and her human costars, you’ll find many of them reunited in different roles in the sequels: Son of Lassie (1945), Courage of Lassie (1946), Hills of Home (1948), and Challenge to Lassie (1949). TCM has a DVD set of the original and three of the subsequent films if you’re looking to get a head start on holiday shopping for the dog lover in your life.
The Golden Age of Hollywood boasted many wonderful dancers, with some remembered more than others. While often overlooked, Hal LeRoy was one of the top dancers in early Hollywood, often appearing in early Vitaphone and Warner Brothers shorts.
John LeRoy Schotte was born in Cincinnati, Ohio, on December
10, 1913, where he learned tap dancing from an African-American friend. The two
boys sold newspapers in town and attempted to imitate the latest vaudeville
acts that passed through town. While lanky in frame and possessing a strong
overbite, LeRoy excelled in dancing and enthusiastically danced in venues
throughout Cincinnati. His first professional job would occur as part of the Hoboken
Heroes at the Lyric Theater in Hoboken, New Jersey, in 1928, thanks to his
dancing teacher, Ned Wayburn.
Later, he secured work in the 1931 Broadway show, The Gang’s All Here, and soon found
himself working for the Ziegfeld Follies.
There, LeRoy was encouraged to develop his own choreography to entertain the
crowd. As he devised routines in advance and on-the-spot, he delighted
audiences with his dancing abilities. While working on the Broadway circuit, he
befriended Bill “Bojangles” Robinson, who would invite him along to various
dancing clubs and test his skills.
Thanks to his reputation within the Follies, LeRoy soon worked in film shorts for Vitaphone in Vitaphone’s Brooklyn studio, where he would appear in musical shorts alongside other up-and-coming starlets including June Allyson and June Preisser. Throughout the 1930s, he also appeared in stage productions such as Thumbs Up (1935), Too Many Girls (1939), and Count Me In (1942). In addition, he performed regularly in reviews, vaudeville, and in the New York nightclub scene.
June Allyson and Hal LeRoy in Ups and Downs (1937)
In 1935, LeRoy found himself in a poor financial situation,
which caused him to sue his father. He found that when he married his dancing
partner, Ruth Dodd, his father withdrew $70,000, which had been on deposit per
LeRoy’s late mother. As his relationship with his father became strained, LeRoy
and his wife lived with her in-laws in the 1940s.
Despite this challenge, LeRoy continued to appear in films and in shows throughout the 1930s and 1940s at notable venues such as Radio City Music Hall, the Capitol Theatre, and more. He maintained a role in the film version of Too Many Girls but also played the title role in a series of Harold Teen films for Warner Brothers. When television arrived, he was chosen to be a featured performer for Bob Hope’s television premiere. On the side, he also appeared in summer stock and supper club productions such as Show Boat, Where’s Charley?, and High Button Shoes until he became ill.
By the 1960s, LeRoy turned to directing, as he did not
maintain the energetic physicality he needed for his dancing style. As a result,
he directed an off-Broadway show called Summer’s
Here and a musical version of The
Legend of Sleepy Hollow in 1966.
LeRoy passed away on May 2, 1985, following heart surgery in
Hackensack, New Jersey. He left behind no heirs and his funeral arrangements
were private.
To this day, not many tributes to LeRoy remain. The home he
lived in during the 1940s does remain at 495 Maywood Ave in Maywood, New
Jersey. Here is the property today:
495 Maywood Ave in Maywood, New Jersey
The best way to remember him is to not only view his films but to also enjoy the rare musical shorts in which he appeared—many of which are available to viewers thanks to the ongoing efforts of the Vitaphone Project.
Annette Bochenek of Chicago, Illinois, is a PhD student at Dominican University and an independent scholar of Hollywood’s Golden Age. She manages the Hometowns to Hollywood blog, in which she writes about her trips exploring the legacies and hometowns of Golden Age stars. Annette also hosts the “Hometowns to Hollywood” film series throughout the Chicago area. She has been featured on Turner Classic Movies and is the president of TCM Backlot’s Chicago chapter. In addition to writing for Classic Movie Hub, she also writes for Silent Film Quarterly, Nostalgia Digest, and Chicago Art Deco SocietyMagazine.
“Hollywood at the Races” We have FOUR Books to Give Away this month!
It’s time for our next book giveaway contest! This month CMH is very happy to announce that we will be giving away FOUR COPIES of Hollywood at the Races: Film’s Love Affair with the Turf by Alan Schubak, courtesy of University Press of Kentucky, from now through Oct 26.
Hollywood at the Races, in stores on Oct 22
In order to qualify to win one of these prizes via this contest giveaway, you must complete the below entry task by Saturday, Oct 26 at 9PM EST. However, the sooner you enter, the better chance you have of winning, because we will pick a winner on four different days within the contest period, via random drawings, as listed below… So if you don’t win the first week that you enter, you will still be eligible to win during the following weeks until the contest is over.
Oct 5: One Winner
Oct 12: One Winner
Oct 19: One Winner
Oct 26: One Winner
We will announce each week’s winner on Twitter @ClassicMovieHub, the day after each winner is picked at 9PM EST — for example, we will announce our first week’s winner on Sunday Oct 6 at 9PM EST on Twitter. And, please note that you don’t have to have a Twitter account to enter; just see below for the details…
…..
And now on to the contest!
ENTRY TASK (2-parts) to be completed by Saturday, October 26 at 9PM EST — BUT remember, the sooner you enter, the more chances you have to win…
1) Answer the below question via the comment section at the bottom of this blog post
2)ThenTWEET (not DM) the following message*: Just entered to win the “Hollywood at the Races” #BookGiveaway courtesy of @KentuckyPress & @ClassicMovieHub You can enter too here http://ow.ly/WMge50wE4qx
THE QUESTION: Do you have any favorite movies about the races? If not, why do you want to win this book?
*If you do not have a Twitter account, you can still enter the contest by simply answering the above question via the comment section at the bottom of this blog — BUT PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOU ADD THIS VERBIAGE TO YOUR ANSWER: I do not have a Twitter account, so I am posting here to enter but cannot tweet the message.
NOTE: if for any reason you encounter a problem commenting here on this blog, please feel free to tweet or DM us, or send an email to clas…@gmail.com and we will be happy to create the entry for you.
ALSO: Please allow us 48 hours to approve your comments. Sorry about that, but we are being overwhelmed with spam, and must sort through 100s of comments…
About the Book: Horse racing was so popular and influential between 1930 and 1960 that nearly 150 racing themed films were released, including A Day at the Races, Thoroughbreds Don’t Cry, and National Velvet. This fast-paced, gossipy history explores the relationship between the Hollywood film industry, the horse racing industry, and the extraordinary participation of producers, directors, and actors in the Sport of Kings. Alan Shuback details how all three of Southern California’s major racetracks were founded by Hollywood luminaries: Hal Roach was cofounder of Santa Anita Park, Bing Crosby founded Del Mar with help from Pat O’Brien, and Jack and Harry Warner founded Hollywood Park with help from dozens of people in the film community. The races also provided a social and sporting outlet for the film community―studios encouraged film stars to spend a day at the races, especially when a new film was being released. The stars’ presence at the track generated a bevy of attention from eager photographers and movie columnists, as well as free publicity for their new films. Moreover, Louis B. Mayer, Bing Crosby, Fred Astaire, Betty Grable, and Don Ameche were all major Thoroughbred owners, while Mickey Rooney, Chico Marx, and John Huston were notorious for their unsuccessful forays to the betting windows.
Click here for the full contest rules.
Please note that only Continental United States (excluding Alaska, Hawaii, and the territory of Puerto Rico) entrants are eligible.
And — BlogHub members ARE eligible to win if they live within the Continental United States (as noted above).
Good Luck!
And if you can’t wait to win the book, you can purchase the on amazon by clicking here:
Cooking with the Stars: Gloria Stuart’s Cream Vermont
Gloria Stuart
Happy October to all of my Hollywood-obsessed readers out there! As we ease into fall and get ourselves into the Halloween spirit, it’s time to break out the chilling old scary movies and pay tribute to the screen icons who made them possible. I’ve made it a personal tradition to highlight a star known for horror films in this column each October. In the past two years that I’ve been sharing the history and recipe of stars, I’ve saluted Vincent Price and Boris Karloff. These two articles specifically mean a lot to me because my write-up of Vincent was my first original Cooking with the Stars post, and my Boris tribute was the first installment of Cooking with the Stars as a monthly series.
This year I wanted to continue my horror-themed streak, but so far, I’ve only honored men during this month! I knew that this had to change in 2019, but at first, I wasn’t sure who to write about. My first choice was Elsa Lanchester, but I was unable to find any recipes associated with the original Bride of Frankenstein. Julie Adams, the leading lady from The Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954), was my second choice, but I had to nix that idea for the same reason. However, it didn’t take much more time to figure out exactly who my first Cooking with the Stars scream queen would be: none other than Gloria Stuart!
Since I couldn’t find any suitable pictures of Gloria Stuart as a child, here she is with Shirley Temple, the most famous child star of her day.
Gloria Stuart was born under the name Gloria Stewart on July 4, 1910, on her family’s dining room table in Santa Monica, California. Her mother, Alice Deidrick, was a third-generation Californian, and her maternal great-grandmother settled in the area during the gold rush after leaving Missouri in a covered wagon. Gloria’s father, Frank Stewart, was an attorney who originally practiced law in San Francisco.
Frank, unfortunately, passed when Gloria was only nine years old after he sustained injuries from a passing car. Around the same time, Gloria was expelled from school for kicking her teacher in the leg. (“To be honest, she deserved it,” Gloria claimed later.) These two events put a strain on Stewart’s mother, who struggled to make ends meet for herself, her daughter, and Gloria’s two younger brothers, so she soon remarried a businessman named Fred Finch.
When it was time for Gloria to return to school, she adopted her stepfather’s last name, and since she was never given a middle name, she decided to give herself one: Frances, the feminine form of her father’s name in his honor. Gloria excelled in the arts during her high school years as she improved on her writing and acting skills, ultimately winning the lead role in her school’s production of The Swan. Her stormy relationship with her stepfather led to her enrolling in UC Berkeley as soon as she graduated high school in order to leave her home situation.
Gloria Stuart and Boris Karloff in a publicity photo for her first significant movie, The Old Dark House (1932)
During her time at Berkeley, Gloria continued to hone her artistic talents, majoring in theater and philosophy. Her liberal surroundings allowed her to sympathize with the plight of blue-collar workers, and at one point she even attempted to join the Young Communists League but was rejected due to her young age. It was also during this time that Gloria began signing her name as “Stuart”. During her junior year, she met her first husband, Blair Gordon Newell, a sculptor and an idealist like herself. The two began living in Carmel-by-the-Sea and adopted a bohemian lifestyle.
After settling into their new home, Gloria took on a variety of jobs, including performing at their local theater and working as a florist, seamstress, and a waitress. It was during one of her theater performances that she was chosen to fill a role at The Playbox Theater in Pasadena, which was attended by talent scouts from Universal and Paramount. The studios were both desperate to sign the blonde ingenue, and ultimately there was such a stalemate between them that they ended up flipping a coin. Universal won the toss, and Stuart was immediately signed.
Her career instantly skyrocketed when she was chosen alongside stars like Ginger Rogers and Mary Carlisle to become a WAMPAS Baby Star in 1932. For her first significant film role, she was chosen by esteemed director James Whale to star in The Old Dark House (1932), a thrilling work of suspense that still holds up today that paired Stuart with honored professionals like Boris Karloff, Charles Laughton, and Melvyn Douglas.
Gloria Stuart and Claude Rains in a scene from The Invisible Man (1933), one of the finest and most underrated of the Universal horror films
While she was on set for The Old Dark House (1932), Melvyn Douglas, who had become an outcast during production along with Gloria, approached her and asked her if she would be willing to help form an actor’s union with him. She was delighted to do so, and their concept and hard work eventually formed into The Screen Actor’s Guild the following year. At the same time, she was cast in film after film, such as Air Mail (1932) with Pat O’Brien, Sweepings (1933) with Lionel Barrymore, and Secret of the Blue Room (1933) with Paul Lukas.
It was due to her positive mentions in reviews for these pictures that she was chosen to collaborate with James Whale once again in one of her most well-known pictures, and the primary reason why I chose to spotlight her this month: The Invisible Man (1933), in which Stuart portrays mad scientist Claude Rains‘ love interest. Her husband grew tired of their life in Hollywood while Gloria was at the height of her career, and the two amicably split during the production of The Invisible Man (1933).
It was on the set of her film that followed, Roman Scandals (1933), that Stuart met her second husband, screenwriter Arthur Sheekman. The pair wed in 1934 and Gloria continued making movies at a rapid speed, even during her first pregnancy in 1935, when she most notably starred as Dick Powell‘s love interest in Gold Diggers of 1935 (1935). However, she received some of her first negative reviews due to her lack of singing and dancing in the film due to her pregnancy.
Gloria Stuart, shown here with Jane Withers in a scene from Keep Smiling (1938)
While Gloria still maintained an array of devoted fans, the negative reviews did not end there. After leaving Universal in favor of Twentieth Century Fox, she starred in a series of B pictures. Afterwards, she began receiving supporting roles in films that starred child actresses, such as Shirley Temple in Poor Little Rich Girl (1937), where she received the following review: “Listing Temple’s supporting players hastily then, before we forget them entirely, we might mention Miss Faye and Gloria Stuart as having been permitted a scene or two while Miss Temple was out freshening her costume.” She also co-starred opposite Temple in Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm (1938) and opposite child actress Jane Withers in Keep Smiling (1938).
Stuart made a multitude of pictures during the late 1930s, but unfortunately, the quality of these films declined, and in some reviews, Gloria never even received a mention for her work. It was after this sad streak that Fox decided not to renew her contract with the studio, though it was reported in the news at the time that Stuart left on her own free will.
After leaving Hollywood in 1939, Gloria traveled the world with her husband, wandering from Asia to Egypt, Italy, and eventually to France, right as Great Britain declared war on Germany. The coupled begged the American consul to remain in the country and join the war effort, with Stuart willing to work as a hospital volunteer and her husband wishing to be a war correspondent, but the offer was rejected and they were forced to travel back to New York.
Gloria Stuart and actress Hillary Brooke visiting two convalescing troops at O’Reilly General Hospital in Springfield, Missouri, c. 1944.
Upon her return to America, Stuart had hopes of making it on Broadway, but it wasn’t long before she realized that her dream would not come to pass. As she later stated, “I wanted to be a theater actress, but I thought it would be easier to get to New York and the theater if I had a name than if I just walked the streets as a little girl from California. When I went back to New York with somewhat of a name, they didn’t want movie actresses.” Gloria was accepted in a variety of summer stock productions on the east coast, however, and also took singing and dancing lessons in order to tour the country as part of the USO.
Stuart took on a few more parts in minor films before effectively retiring from the screen in 1946. Not long after returning to New York, Gloria discovered the studio of a noted découpage artist and fell in love with the artistic medium, deciding to fill her time by opening a découpage shop on Los Angeles’s decorators’ row named Décor, Ltd. Most of her work comprised of various decorated furniture pieces, which became a hit in Hollywood circles — Judy Garland was a noted customer and fan of her work. It wasn’t long before her pieces were being sold across the country. Stuart was eventually forced to close her shop due to the expense and time needed in order to create découpage pieces, but she continued to create art using many mediums in the following decades, and her work is still owned and displayed around the world in locations like The Los Angeles Museum of Art and The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Her most notable return to the screen following her retirement was as the older Rose in Titanic (1997), for which she was nominated for an Oscar, a Golden Globe, and finally won a Screen Actors Guild Award, which I find ironic considering her role in the Guild’s establishment. On July 4th, 2010, the Academy threw a 100th birthday tribute and party for Stuart, the only time that the Academy had ever done so for a living person. She passed away nearly three months later of respiratory failure on September 26, 2010.
Gloria Stuart’s Cream Vermont
Gloria Stuart shown cooking at her home in the January 1933 issue of Photoplay magazine.
Before I go into this recipe, I also want to mention that Stuart was a skilled cook, hosting frequent dinner parties in Hollywood. She was close friends with food writer M.F.K. Fisher, and her daughter Sylvia Thompson later wrote of Stuart’s cooking style, “My mother has never made ‘Just Roast Beef’ in her life. It wouldn’t interest her. Her style is based on the intricacies of composition. It borders on the baroque. Everyone adores it.” After tasting one of Gloria’s dishes, writer Samuel Hoffenstein composed a poem which he said was inspired by “hearing the wings of all the poets brush through Gloria’s kitchen.”
While Gloria herself never authored a cookbook, her daughter Sylvia, with the help of Fisher, penned her own cookbook and included some of Gloria’s recipes. Here’s how to make her Cream Vermont, which was featured in a lovely cookbook from the 1930s promoting the Norge freezer!
Gloria Stuart sharing some of her recipes in an advertisement for the Norge freezer, c. 1930s.
1 cup pure maple syrup
8 egg yolks
2 cups whipped cream
½ chopped nutmeats (I used walnuts)
Heat syrup in a double boiler until a slight coating forms on the surface.
Beat yolks with rotary beater until thick and lemon-colored.
Pour one-third of syrup over yolks, stirring constantly.
Pour this mixture slowly over remaining syrup in the double boiler, stirring constantly until mixture coats a metal spoon.
Place in freezer tray until frozen to a mush.
Fold in whipped cream and nuts and return to freezer tray.
Freeze without stirring. Serves 10.
My version of Gloria Stuart’s Cream Vermont!
One of the reasons why I chose to make this recipe, aside from my desire to honor Gloria Stuart and her work, was because I had never even heard of Cream Vermont before. Apparently, neither had the internet. Making something that had been seldom attempted before, if at all over the past few decades, was highly intriguing to me, and I felt like a Claude Rains-esque mad scientist myself as I prepared this dish in the kitchen.
For a dessert that contained only four ingredients, the actual preparation of this Cream Vermont was still complex and required a lot of technique and fast work. I don’t want to toot my own horn, but I don’t usually struggle with the average recipe anymore and I can usually work with whatever’s thrown my way, but this time I couldn’t get the mixture to fully combine until it was frozen into a mush. Even the finished result still had a bit of a swirl to it as opposed to being one solid color.
My theory going into this recipe was that it would have some sort of an ice cream taste and consistency, and I wasn’t too far off. The flavor was really good, and while it felt like ice cream, it tasted purely like maple syrup and whipped cream. As you might imagine, the egg yolk and walnut were completely masked, and the finished product was WAY TOO SWEET. Just ONE spoonful gave me an instant headache and I worried that I’d go into a diabetic coma.
When my boyfriend heard my reaction, it made him instantly want to try it because he claimed that he could tolerate any sweetness level. He ended up eating about a quarter of a bowl and also woke up with a horrible headache the next morning. I can’t give this too low of a rating because the flavors were still nice and I didn’t hate this dish, but to me it’s essentially inedible, so I’ll go ahead and give it three out of five Vincents despite the fact that this is not for the faint of heart and I wouldn’t really recommend it.
Stuart’s Cream Vermont recipe gets Three Vincents!
…
–Samantha Ellis for Classic Movie Hub
Samantha resides in West Chester, Pennsylvania and is the author of Musings of a Classic Film Addict, a blog that sheds light on Hollywood films and filmmakers from the 1930s through the 1960s. Her favorite column that she pens for her blog is Cooking with the Stars, for which she tests and reviews the personal recipes of stars from Hollywood’s golden age. When she isn’t in the kitchen, Samantha also lends her voice and classic film knowledge as cohost of the Ticklish Business podcast alongside Kristen Lopez and Drea Clark, and proudly serves as President of TCM Backlot’s Philadelphia Chapter. You can catch up with her work by following her @classicfilmgeek on Twitter.
Win tickets to see “TCM Big Screen Classics: The Godfather Part II” on the Big Screen! In Select Cinemas Nationwide Sun Nov 10, Tues Nov 12 and Wed Nov 13
“My father taught me many things here – he taught me in this room. He taught me: keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.”
CMH continues with our 4th year of our partnership with Fathom Events – with the 13th of our 14 movie ticket giveaways for 2019, courtesy of Fathom Events!
We’ll be giving away EIGHT PAIRS of tickets to see “TCM Big Screen Classics: The Godfather Part II” on the Big Screen — starring Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton and Robert De Niro.
In order to qualify to win a pair of movie tickets via this contest, you must complete the below entry task by Saturday, Oct 26 at 6pm EST.
We will announce the winner(s) on Twitter on Sunday, Oct 27, between 6PM EST and 7PM EST. If a winner(s) does not have a Twitter account, we will announce that winner(s) via this blog in the comment section below.
Godfather Part II won six Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Supporting Actor (De Niro)
ENTRY TASK (2-parts) to be completed by Saturday Oct 26 at 6pm EST…
1) Answer the below question via the comment section at the bottom of this blog post
THE QUESTION: Although not officially a classic-era film, what in your opinion makes “The Godfather Part II” a classic? And, if you haven’t seen it, why do you want to see it on the Big Screen?
2) Then TWEET* (not DM) the following message: I just entered to win tickets to see “TCM Big Screen Classics Presents: The Godfather Part II” on the Big Screen courtesy of @ClassicMovieHub & @FathomEvents – you can enter too at http://ow.ly/w1L750wE4mO
IMPORTANT: If you don’t have a Twitter account OR if your Twitter account is private, you can still enter the contest by simply answering the above question via the comment section at the bottom of this blog — BUT PLEASE ENSURE THAT YOU ADD THIS VERBIAGE TO YOUR ANSWER: I do not have a Twitter account (or it is private), so I am posting here to enter but cannot tweet the message.
NOTE: if for any reason you encounter a problem commenting here on this blog, please feel free to tweet or DM us, or send an email to clas…@gmail.com and we will be happy to create the entry for you.
ALSO: Please allow us 48 hours to approve your comments. Sorry about that, but we are being overwhelmed with spam, and must sort through 100s of comments…
Al Pacino as Michael Corleone, 1974. (Photo by Paramount/Getty Images)
About the film: In what is undeniably one of the best sequels ever made, Francis Ford Coppola continues his epic Godfather trilogy with this saga of two generations of power within the Corleone family. Coppola, working once again with the author Mario Puzo, crafts two interwoven stories that work as both prequel and sequel to the original. One shows the humble Sicilian beginnings and New York rise of a young Don Vito, played by Robert De Niro in an Oscar®-winning performance for Best Supporting Actor. The other shows the ascent of Michael (Al Pacino) as the new Don. Reassembling many of the cast members who helped make The Godfather®, Coppola has produced a movie of staggering magnitude and vision, the film received eleven Academy Awards® nominations, winning six including Best Picture of 1974. A timeless classic best revered on the big screen, time tested fans and newcomers alike won’t want to miss this special event featuring exclusive insight from Turner Classic Movies.
Please note that only United States residents are eligible to enter this giveaway contest. (see contest rules for further information)
BlogHub members ARE also eligible to win if they live within the Continental United States (as noted above).
The new film is bound to cause controversy among classic movie fans but Zellweger’s performance is Oscar-worthy.
Winter 1968: Showbiz legend Judy Garland (Renée Zellweger) arrives in London to perform in a sell-out run at Talk of the Town. It’s been decades since she shot to global stardom in The Wizard of Oz and many other MGM classics and if her spectacular voice has weakened, its dramatic intensity has only grown.
As Judy prepares for the show, battles with management, charms musicians, and reminisces with friends and adoring fans, her wit and warmth shine through. Even her dreams of romance seem undimmed as she embarks on a courtship with Mickey Deans (Finn Wittrock), her soon-to-be fifth husband. And yet Judy is fragile. After working for 45 of her 47 years, she is exhausted — haunted by memories of a childhood lost to Hollywood and gripped by a desire to be back home with her kids. Will she have the strength to go on?
Being a classic movie fanatic, I admit that I was skeptical about this film, but I have to say that British director Rupert Goold has created something quite remarkable. There are definitely some factual items that Judy’s diehard fans will take issue with along with some timeline inaccuracies, but as far as I’m concerned, Renée Zellweger’s performance is one for the ages. She captures late 1960s Judy Garland in a way I never dreamed possible, tapping into Garland’s humor, intelligence, and pathos with exquisite sensitivity and compassion.
Having worked for several years on a book with Meredith Ponedel about her aunt, Dottie Ponedel, Judy’s personal makeup artist and one of her closest friends, I have been steeped in first-person stories of Judy and I believe those stories mesh beautifully with the woman I see in this film.
I was delighted to sit down with Rupert Goold for Classic Movie Hub to talk about the joys and challenges of telling this story.
Danny Miller: In my classic movie circles, Judy Garland is hallowed territory. How nervous were you about taking on someone who is so revered by so many people?
Rupert Goold
Rupert Goold: Oh, quite nervous, I assure you! Judy Garland is also very disputed territory. I recognized that Judy has this aura among many people as being kind of like a secular saint. And there are definitely these Calvary-like qualities in this last period of her life, someone who feels abandoned at the hour of her departure. But I tried to move away from the idea that we were making a movie about the mythology. I had to. When I approached Judy as a character to be developed it finally helped me stop losing sleep over questions like “What if we don’t get the voice right?” “What if the hair is wrong?”
And yet the recreation, while not exact, is phenomenal, I thought it really conveyed the essense of Judy.
We had many extremely talented people in the tapestry working very hard to get their bit right: the costumes, hair, voice, makeup, posture. We figured all that out, but there was so much more we had to do. I remember one of our tests when we had finally all those pieces in place, and Renée was great — but I could see her kind of doing an impression of Judy. We worked to get away from that. In the end, we both felt that we needed to make this person a human character and not feel enslaved to a specific representation.
Which is why I think her performance is so extraordinary. As much as she gets Judy’s look and mannerisms down, in my view she never succumbs to the stereotypical depictions of the myth, she seems like a real person with that wonderful humor and intelligence and vulnerability intact. It’s such a remarkable performance. I wondered if all of your work with Shakespeare in the theater may have informed your work on this film.
Oh, that’s an interesting question. I think it may have in the sense of how Shakespeare looks at life. To see a great life on the wheel and those who bear witness to it.
Maybe it’s the other way around — maybe your work here will inform your future Shakespeare projects.
Yes, I think it might! (Laughs.) Working on this film certainly made me think of the years I spent in rehearsal rooms with great actors. It’s a weird thing when you direct opera or theater — you see things in the rehearsal room that you may never see on the stage.
Like a certain kind of vulnerability as the actor strives to find the character?
Yes, and also just extraordinary performances. In my opinion, no performance is greater than one of discovery. I remember doing a Pinter play with Michael Gambon a few years ago. We were all a bit worried, Mike was getting on a bit, and then I remember one rehearsal where the room just collapsed, I couldn’t believe what I was watching. It’s such a privilege to bear witness to that. For me, a big motivation for doing this film was that I wanted to make a love letter to what it means to be a performer. No one knew how to do that better than Judy Garland.
Director Rupert Goold working with Renée Zellweger on set
For all the problems she was having at this point in her life, magic could happen when she was out on that stage.
Absolutely. It’s so fascinating to me. I remember some doctor once did this study with heart monitors and he concluded that when someone goes out to perform in front of an audience it’s the equivalent of going through a 40 mile-per-hour car crash. My favorite line in the film is when Renée finishes her incredible opening night performance at Talk of the Town and Jessie (Buckley, who plays her London assistant Rosalyn Wilder) tells her how great she was and Renée turns to her and says, “What if I can’t do it again?” That’s based on something Olivier said to Ralph Richardson, and it’s something I think most performers can relate to — the fear and the bewilderment about why it worked that night.
Yes. I don’t think I’ve ever seen in any film the alchemy that is shown during that first performance at Talk of the Town. Judy is absolutely terrified and not on the top of her game, and then we slowly see her being fed by the audience to the point of giving an electric, killer performance. Renée did such a fantastic job in that scene. How nerve-wracking was that to shoot?
Oh God, there was a pin in that day for the whole schedule. I knew that if we didn’t get it just right, we didn’t have a film.
And I assume she was performing that live on the set?
Yes, it was a live vocal. We ended up doing nine takes which was pushing it, and quite exhausting. Everything about it was challenging. We built the whole scene around this very complicated crane shot but when we got the crane in, we realized it was too heavy for the floor. We lost the first three hours of the day figuring out how to make it work. Renée had the orchestra playing in her ear and during one of her best performances the feed cut out. She sang perfectly but the timing was just a bit off so we couldn’t use it. It was a very difficult day.
And yet the take you use in the film is just extraordinary. I was one of the people who was initially horrified that you weren’t using Judy Garland’s actual voice. But after seeing the film, I think I was wrong. It didn’t matter that Renée didn’t sound exactly like Judy Garland, what mattered was the overall performance and her relationship to it.
Exactly. And one thing I kept saying to Renée is that I bet Judy herself would have gone out on that stage in 1968 knowing that she no longer sounded like she used to. She only had about an octave left at the end of her life, it really wasn’t the voice people were accustomed to back in the day.
But because of her amazing performances and the history she brought with her, I imagine people listened to her through their own memories of what that voice was. It was still incredibly powerful and emotional, and wildly entertaining, just like Renée’s performance in that scene. But what a task she had for that day. Was Renée very nervous going in?
Oh, extremely.
But, of course, in this case those emotions could be used in the scene.
Absolutely. It was a bit of a risk doing that song because Renée sings Garland’s bluesy repertoire much better. She sang the hell out of “The Man That Got Away” even though we didn’t end up using it in the film, and she also sang “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” so beautifully, some of those songs fit her range perfectly. But I really wanted to use “By Myself.” It has this aria-like quality to it and I just loved the lyrics.
Every word of that song has a double meaning to where Judy was in her life at that time.
Definitely. It builds and builds and is wonderfully theatrical, but it was a real stretch for her, we rehearsed the hell out of it!
I can totally see both Judy AND Renée saying after that scene, “What if I can’t do it again?” I was quite nervous about her performing “Over the Rainbow” before seeing the film, it almost seemed like some kind of sacrilege, and yet I admit my wife and I both sobbed during that scene, she so perfectly nailed the emotions in that moment.
Yeah. I remember the orchestrator really wanted to put strings in the song and I resisted. We had a bit of a wrestle about it, I just felt it would be too synthetic, too MGM for this moment which needed to feel more delicate, more intimate.
I’m glad you won out. It was more about that exact time in her life.
Yes. And, in a way, the impossibility of hope that we still cling to. Renée was very nervous about doing that song, of course, from the beginning. But I think it helped that it came right off of “Come Rain or Come Shine.” Her adrenaline was pumping and then she just went down into it. I remember when she got to the line “That’s where you’ll find me” she was reaching for the note and it came out a bit cracky. I found that so moving.
I thought it was perfect. I think when Judy Garland sang that song towards the end of her career it had a different emotional resonance every single time based on what was happening in her life.I think Renée Zellweger did Judy proud with that rendition.
,
