IMPRISON TRAITOR, PEDOPHILE, AND CONVICTED FELON TRUMP.
Showing posts with label Beverly Washburn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Beverly Washburn. Show all posts

Saturday, May 9, 2020

From the Mailbag...or email inbox...

Just a few odds and ends today...first, Happy Mother's Day to all moms!

Second, I was recently contacted by actress Beverly Washburn, whom we've mentioned several times over the years on this blog for her wonderful work as a child in several major films and her work on the second Loretta Young television series, but also for her interesting memoir on her acting career Reel Tears, here in this post.  It was very kind of her to reach out, and I enjoyed our email exchanges very much. Her warm and friendly personality is every bit as evident as it is in her book.

Last, I want to share with you a request from a reader who emailed me regarding a very dim memory from childhood he has of a film and asked if I could name what it was.  Unfortunately, I couldn't; so I'm passing it on to you with his permission to see if any of you can name the movie for him.  Here's what he has to say:
I just came upon your blog segment about Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here". (See this post here.)

For years I've been puzzling over a bit of a 'wayback memory, that I'm placing at 1947 +/- . I was born in 1942, and in the memory I'm just a little kid.

My parents had taken me to a movie. It must have been a double feature, but I don't recall what we had gone to see. The film ended, another started and, suddenly, my parents were very hurriedly dragging me out of the auditorium. That dragging is what locked in the memory.

What I'm remembering is two guys have been out in the woods and are finishing up a fishing trip, hiking back out. The come into a small
town, are puzzled that there doesn't seem to be anyone around, notice that there are banners hanging from all the light poles. They hear an amplified voice coming from somewhere, follow the sound, and find an
auditorium with all the townspeople inside being harangued by a speaker, again with the hall festooned with banners. That's all because then the auditorium  doors closed behind us as mom and dad dragged me away. I don't know if those banners bore swastikas or if my mind has painted them in later. Just a bit of the film's overture; very little to paint the real plot. Could it have been "It Can't Happen Here"? But you say no production ever came to fruition. Any ideas?


Please let us know if you remember what movie this is.  Thanks!


Thursday, January 18, 2018

Extras - A Life in the Background


Extras line up for a job in Meet John Doe (1941)

Spotting familiar “extras” is fascinating to classic film buffs, and is something we can’t help doing even while enjoying the screen time of our favorite stars.  They may have a minute or two on camera, a single line or none at all, but they contribute immeasurably to the look and tone of a movie.

Last week we discussed Beverly Washburn’s accepting work as a television extra as an older adult despite her early career of starring and supporting roles on film and TV in the 1950s.  Once in a great while, an unknown extra became a star—John Wayne was perhaps the most famous former-extra.  Sometimes they became stand-ins and then graduated to starring roles:  Joel McCrea was a stand-in for Valentino and for Wallace Reid in the 1920s.  Gilbert Roland once served as a stand-in for Ramon Novarro, and Ann Dvorak for Joan Crawford.

The plight of most extras, though, was far from hopeful and could be heartbreaking.  Gone Hollywood, an interesting book of classic film trivia by Christopher Finch and Linda Rosenkrantz notes that Central Casting, an employment registry for studio extras, came about in the 1920s as a response to the hordes of young people heading for Hollywood in search of fame and fortune.  There were more hopefuls than there were jobs, and the lucky ones sometimes snagged a role through nefarious means, including bribes and sexual favors.  Will Hayes, of Production Code fame, set up Central Casting to circumvent feared scandal when it appeared that a fair number of prospective starlets were actually prostituting themselves for work.

Central Casting established a pool of extras and a more appropriate and professional way for them to acquire work from the studios.  Hundreds were assigned jobs on films every day, but with as many as 15,000 on the rolls, there still weren’t enough roles.  It was also a factor of their employment that they supply their own costumes—street clothes, sport clothes or evening dress for scenes that required them.  The authors of Gone Hollywood reference a 1934 Photoplay magazine article about extras pooling their meager resources and living five and six to a room to share costumes and expenses, and that others were living in Hoovervilles around Los Angeles

They would usually earn an average of $5 per day and overtime, if called for.  The authors report that in 1936, only 58 out of 5,500 men and only 20 out of 6,500 women averaged three or more days of work per week.  One could earn a little more if they were willing to take roles which required them to get wet or fall off a horse.  Certain physical impairments might also be on demand for a particular film, and often there was a demand for extras based on ethnicity or race. 

It is harrowing to recall that, according to the authors, the average yearly income for an extra in the mid 1930s was only $131.36.  Think of this the next crowd scene you see.  Their plight, especially for older extras, was sometimes met with sympathy by some directors and producers, who would throw work their way whenever possible.  MGM casting director Billy Grady organized the Casting Directors Ball to raise money for extras who were ill or in need.

Perhaps the most famous of these not famous actors was Bess Flowers, who we’ve mentioned on this blog from time to time, known as The Queen of the Hollywood Extras. She worked in the background from the early 1920s through the early 1960s, in more than 350 films, as well as television.  She was one of the founders of the Screen Extras Guild.



 Gone Hollywood.  Finch, Christopher and Linda Rosenkrantz (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc.) 1979.


Thursday, January 11, 2018

Beverly Washburn's Reel Tears



Beverly Washburn’s memoir, Reel Tears - The Beverly Washburn Story chronicles the career and private life of an actress remembered primarily for her children’s roles and her amazing ability to cry on cue real or “reel” tears in scenes that were moving and natural.

We discussed Beverly’s appearances here in Old Yeller (1957), Shane (1953), Here Comes the Groom (1951), and the television show The New Loretta Young Show (1962-63) – which particularly showed her deft ability in both comedy and drama as a teenager. Beverly relates many anecdotes about her childhood career (which fortunately was a pleasant experience for her and which she remembers fondly) as well as the many stars with whom she worked. Jack Benny was particularly kind and was like an uncle to her.


There are two aspects to her story that I find especially interesting – first, that the roles seemed to dry up for her in her twenties. Though this is often the case for child actors – that there is a difficult transition to adult roles – it’s hard to accept how someone as talented, well-connected, and photogenic as Beverly Washburn should fall into this too-common problem. I think if I had to bet my money on anybody making a seamless transition to adult roles, it would be this exceptionally talented young woman.

The second aspect to her story that intrigues me is how in later life, after many years of being out of business, with both her and her husband supporting themselves with a string of retail and fast food jobs when employment opportunities in their own fields went scarce, Beverly returned to acting as an extra on television.

To be an extra is to occupy the lowest tier in the acting profession. It is one not always appreciated by fans (except, of course, for classic film fans – we notice everything) or even, it seems, by the industry. Her agent, who was not happy about her deciding to go for work as an extra, told her to use her married name so that she wouldn’t be recognized. As she notes, “It’s an honest job and necessary to filmmaking, but few extras ever rise above that. It’s almost the stigma: once an extra, always an extra. And extras aren’t always treated with a lot of respect.”

Ms. Washburn, now in her 70s, still occasionally works, but has come to enjoy appearing at autograph shows, where she interacts with fans and meets old friends and colleagues – including Tony Dow, with whom she appeared as a guest on Leave It to Beaver, Paul Petersen of The Donna Reed Show, and many former child stars of 1950s and 1960s television.

The memoir, published by BearManor Media, is gentle, upbeat despite a career and life that did not always run smooth, and the “Take Two” re-issue includes quite a lot of photos, including lobby card images and even scans of her contracts and filming call sheets – the kind of ephemera particularly appealing to classic film buffs. (Which, interestingly, came from her old missing scrapbook that was recovered by a friend off eBay!)

I would have liked to have seen more detailed anecdotes about particular films and television shows in her early career, but she was only a child, and for most of us, our childhood memories are a blur of us standing center stage in a world we barely comprehend. Ms. Washburn takes a warm, friendly, unassuming command of center stage as a child; it is her adult career which left her drifting with much less control. Still, a journey that led her from being the darling fodder of teen movie magazines to doggedly continuing her craft as an extra shows a love for the profession, a rare sense of humility, and perseverance that is admirable.

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Loretta Young and The NEW Loretta Young Show - 1962-63


Today we’re going to talk about a TV show and its star.  The New Loretta Young Show (aka Christine’s Children) ran a single season, 1962-63.  It is a striking example of Loretta Young’s abilities both as an actress and as the CEO of her personal brand.  Few have displayed such a canny mastery in the managing of one’s career.

Reinventing oneself is probably one of the greatest assets to a long career and one of the most difficult to achieve. In the acting profession, where reputation is based on roles already played, it is especially confounding. Loretta Young’s career is remarkable. Longevity is only a part of her unique place in Hollywood.  This woman of sizzling Pre-Code films, polished 1930s dramas, an Oscar® for a comedy, and a long-running television anthology show, The Loretta Young Show, in the 1950s, was able to effectively change with the style of the current era and for what was suitable for her as she aged.

The New Loretta Young Show is unlike any other 1960s era family sitcom.  It is imaginative, gutsy, intense, and most refreshingly absent of trite templates of sitcoms before and since.  It is, most especially, a tribute to Loretta Young as an actress and a businesswoman in an industry famous for tossing out female stars once they hit a certain age.

Though I was familiar with her first series that ran for eight years from 1953 to 1961, I knew nothing about this second series until Kay Noske of Movie Star Makeover posted her impressions of the show and interviewed one of its cast members, Beverly Washburn, in May 2015. That interview is here.




Beverly Washburn, whom we’ve mentioned from time to time in her various childhood roles, including here in Here Comes the Groom (1951) and Old Yeller (1957), is one of my favorite child actresses.  In The New Loretta Young Show, she plays the 15-year-old daughter of Loretta Young.  Loretta plays a widow with seven children.  Celia Kaye plays college student Marnie, twins Dirk and Dack Rambo play her 17-year old sons Peter and Paul, Carol Sydes plays the hyperkinetic Binkie, then Beverly Washburn as the sensitive, intellectual and shy Vickie; followed by Sandy Descher as 13 year-old Judy, and little Tracy Stratford as the youngest, six-year-old Maria.

I was, frankly, astounded by the show’s excellence – in terms of bold story ideas, scripts, acting, and directing.  Much of it looks like film cinematography – not the usual two-camera setup of sitcoms of the period.  In style and theme, many episodes really packed a punch.

The pilot episode – innovatively funny – introduces the cast and show by way of a live TV interview program such as was popular in that era with Edward R. Murrow’s See It Now and Charles Collingwood's Person to Person.  The living room is a mass of chaos with cameramen and this family standing in each other’s way, not knowing what to do, giving the most funny, off beat answers, looking for all like reality television.  Someone’s head in profile pops up in front of the camera, getting in the way.  The old town mayor, a feisty ancient Yankee, keeps getting his rehearsed speech interrupted.  From the start, Beverly Washburn stands out in a funny double take when the harried announcer, played by Ted Knight (later famous for playing anchorman Ted Baxter on The Mary Tyler Moore Show) calls her name and she jerks her body with shock, as if wishing the floor would open up and swallow her.  She effectively, and without a word, establishes her character in only a moment. 

Here Loretta Young sets up the show by explaining her attitude toward her children and her role as a mother.  She does not believe in togetherness, which shocks and agitates the announcer, but rather she promotes individuality, confessing that her family do not always like each other.  It’s a breath of fresh air.

Throughout the series, an episode or two will focus on one of the children, but always in relation to how the other family members fit in with that character’s life.  As a twin myself, I can state that I like the depiction of the twin sons and their obvious bond with each other as blessedly positive.  The Rambo boys, and some of the other kids who were new to acting, are used very intelligently, according to their abilities and bringing them along carefully in the series.  It must have been a great learning environment for them.

Some of their experiences are harrowing.

The littlest one, Maria, wisely used sparingly, avoiding clichéd cuteness, has a strong episode towards the end of the season when she is nearly kidnapped in a bizarre and tense episode when a psychotic stranger enters the house, thinking the little girl is his deceased daughter, whose death he never accepted.  A nail biting episode.  What makes it especially poignant is that when this man tells her he is her father, she is enchanted, because her father died before she could form any memory of him.  She is the only one of the kids who cannot remember her father.

Another episode where Beverly Washburn, (unlike some of the other kids, a veteran actress of many years) wanting life experience as a budding writer, detours from her New York City trip to the eye doctor to investigate Greenwich Village and a beatnik coffee house.  But what we might expect to be a funny episode full of humorous oddballs turns quickly sinister as she is unwittingly involved in a drug deal, and is arrested for passing marijuana.  She spends the night in jail with a couple of hard customers not very much older than she, living desperate lives.  One is a streetwalker—not the kind with the funny quip and the heart of gold, but a tough young girl who makes no disguise of her trade and throws it in Beverly’s face. 

Drugs and prostitution on an early 1960s sitcom?  This show is unique not only for its subject matter for a situation comedy, but for the intelligent, sensitive, and classy way it tackles these subjects and these characters.  The topics are not tackled for shock appeal, but as real-life news encroaching upon this suburban family.

Most especially classy, forthright, and intriguing is how Loretta pursues not only a writing career, but a romance with a New York magazine publisher.


Their relationship is developed slowly, leaving no room for the audience to take them for granted, to assume where it’s going.  We really don’t know.  He could be written out next week.  He has to get used to the kids.  They have to get used to him.   But mostly, it's about the relationship between him and Loretta and their adult romance.  Toward the end of the series, his ulcer, due to stress from his job – a plot device introduced in the first few episodes  – ruptures.  Loretta finds him on the floor, passed out, blood dripping from his mouth. He is rushed to the hospital, and she pretends to be his wife so she can be at his bedside.  The doctors wink at it.  He is in critical condition and suffers a kind of stroke so that his speech is impaired.  She knows he has finally come out his coma because there are tears in his eyes, he is crying.  We see his agony and hers.  She takes him home after his release from the hospital to care for him, scandalizing the neighbors.

This is new for a sitcom.

She smokes.  She drinks.  After a particularly bad day, she confesses to her gentleman friend of not liking her children at that moment, ready to scream if they call, “Mom!” one more time.  Their romance is sensual.  They kiss, not a chaste peck on the cheek, but deeply and passionately.  They cuddle and they ache to be alone, and they leave the kids to fend for themselves more than once to accomplish this. Loretta can barely keep her hands off him.

A 1960s sitcom.  You won’t see this on Donna Reed or Leave It to Beaver, none of the shows whose living rooms we came to know as well as our own.

But the 1960s is the real-life background.  There are references to the space race, and they mention it is 1962.  The littlest girl announces she is Caroline Kennedy, at the latest in her game of changing her name.  Loretta spoofs Mrs. Kennedy’s White House Tour television special in the pilot.  It’s a period full of optimism and energy, and we can see it in this show.

Usually on sitcoms of the era, even today, we see a cast positioned precisely around a set the way a little kid might place dolls in a dollhouse – carefully, consciously, serving a purpose to the plot.  The New Loretta Young Show has a casual feel, the characters are randomly everywhere, though this is obviously skillfully orchestrated.  It’s only meant to look casual.  We see her and the kids in the kitchen one chaotic morning, then the camera pulls back and we see what we did not expect – her love, Paul Belzer, the gruff, man’s man editor, sitting off in the distance in the living room, reading the newspaper by himself.  The shot tells us he has spent the night.  He is not quite part of the family yet (though he sleeps in the boys’ room when he stays overnight), and we wonder how they will bridge the gap between them.  I really like James Philbrook in this role.  He is as strong and interesting an individual as she is.

And I like his young assistant at the magazine, played by Allen Emerson, his hard New York accent, with his goatee, very 1962, like Peter Yarrow and Paul Stookey of Peter, Paul and Mary.  He is the image of urban and hip, but with the hint of stickball in his speech.

Another surprising episode where she invites her love’s boss to dinner could have ended up the typical 1950s-60s blustering boss charmed by a home-cooked meal routine.  Instead, it’s a riveting drama where the big cheese, played by Leif Erikson, is an ass, so overbearing and mean, that his longsuffering wife has become an alcoholic.  Loretta, displaying compassion for her, sneaks vodka to her to steady herself under the evening’s onslaught of dinner conversation.  The boss is bullying to Paul, and their combative relationship will continue for many episodes, reaching a crisis point toward the end of the season.  Loretta mouths off to the boss, putting Paul’s job on the line.  There is no happy resolution. The evening ends with bitterness.  It’s actually unpleasant listening to this blowhard trample over everybody in the dining room.  One marvels at the emotional intensity for the viewer, who cannot help but be engaged in this train wreck of a dinner party.

Another, much softer, example of quite unexpected realism in the show is the way Beverly Washburn, after a discussion with her mother as the camera follows them through the hallway, gets ready for bed and casually kneels before it, making the sign of the cross.  Her sister in the next bed, already half asleep, stirs, emits an inelegant muffled grunt, and rolls over.  The prayer is not the focus of the scene, she’s not praying for anything special.  It’s just nighttime and she’s got curlers in her hair, and it’s just what she does. 

I have to say, as a Catholic, I was blown away by that.  Usually prayer in movies and TV shows is reserved for crisis, and is played up as a melodramatic moment.  Usually, Catholics are depicted as jovial priests or ditsy nuns.  The quiet, pleasant normality of this scene is charming.  (I can remember a documentary about The Nat King Cole Show, and an African American woman, recalling the moment decades later in a TV interview, said she called up her friends with the alarm, “Hey!  There’s a Negro on TV!”  I actually hollered, to myself, when I saw the scene, “A Catholic on TV!”  And not a caricature of one.)

Later in the season, we see a snippet of a Catholic wedding ceremony held in an actual Catholic church—though obviously not a High Mass.  Even many Catholics flicking the TV dial might not sit still for that.

Also of note, in the very first episode when Loretta is being interviewed by Ted Knight, he asks about the piano in the room and wants to know who plays it.  Dumbfounded, she answers nobody.  (As if to say, "Why would anybody want to play a piano?  It's not to play, it's just to have.") It is a comic moment, but then we perceive that perhaps her late husband played the piano. She speaks lovingly of him, of a piece of furniture he made, and of his work as a writer.  Much later in the series, we see her new love, Paul Belzer, sit casually at the piano and begin to play it, as if it has been waiting for him all this time.  A wonderful, subtle image of a man coming into a family that will be his, that he has a place here, that he is successfully taking the place of another.  The continuity between the episodes is very skillfully done.


Loretta also has a terrifically natural way of interacting with the kids.  She grabs them, tickles them, kisses their faces, their necks, touches them while speaking to them.  Running her hand through their hair. They flop on her on the couch, and hang on her. They appear to have a comfortable physical relationship with her.  It all looks quite real.  She nags at one girl for constantly talking too fast and mumbling her words. The girl rolls her eyes at her mother, sighing, slumping, and fidgeting, forgetting what she was about to say.  Loretta throws water in her son’s face to wake him up in the wee hours. She does not mince words when they mess up, but she is always supportive.  When she has a meltdown over her romance, she cries in bed and her oldest daughter—who transforms from college kid to new woman friend—cuddles her and comforts her in a fascinating role reversal.

Loretta is also generous as a star, focusing the camera and the attention on her young cast mates when they are in a pivotal scene. In one episode where Beverly Washburn dissolves into tears, Loretta lets her have the scene entirely. She embraces Beverly, but keeps her back to the camera so Beverly can play out her pain in the scene as the more important person in it.  That is generosity, and also shows confidence in herself and in Beverly as a fellow professional.

Loretta Young created this character and supervised every detail of the show including the children who played her kids, the scripts, the costumes, hair and makeup—we must assume director Norman Foster at least took charge of the camera work.  It’s a great accomplishment and a splendid example of an actress of many talents, able and willing to take charge of her career in a way that allowed her to remain producing excellent work when other careers floundered according to the whims of the studio, the public, and the changing times.

Speaking of changing times, I wish this series had lasted longer.  I can only imagine the depth of story angles, the sparks as those kids came of age in the 1960s.  War, civil rights, the generation gap, I know this show would have tackled all of it.  Maybe even the ghastly and tragic assassination that happened some months after the show ended.  Sometimes we hear of something being ahead of its time.  I suppose The New Loretta Young Show was, but it was also a beautiful artifact of its time, and a woman changing and growing with the times—both the character and the intuitive actress playing her. 

In recent years, Loretta Young’s Pre-Code films have gotten long overdue attention, and a lot of raised eyebrows for their sauciness.  I hope this show gets a second look as well.  In its quiet own way, it is equally daring.  It is available on DVD, a four-disc set, including interviews with cast members.

I’d like to thank Kay Noske for blogging about the show last year, or I might never have known about it.  Next week, I’ll be posting an interview with Kay as the third entry in my year-long monthly series on the current state of the classic film fan.  Here’s what we discussed about The New Loretta Young Show:

JTL:  You have called Loretta Young your muse.   One thing I thought I’d bring up is her commanding presence in that show. It speaks a lot to the self-confidence of style.  She seems to project someone who is so totally comfortable in her own skin in a way that is elegant and “old world” and yet rivetingly modern.  There is a great strength and power in her television character that is natural and comfortable.  (Modern female characters, even the strong ones playing cops or doctors or superheroes, are usually riddled with angst.  I suppose a reflection of our times.)

KN:  I have to pause here…you said a MOUTHFUL here, Jacqueline. I’ve never been able to put my finger on why these women do NOT inspire me, but bingo, you nailed it! How can anyone be inspired by angst? Existentialism and I have never been compatible.

JTL:  Though she opens and closes the episodes with a “thought for the day”, a kind of moral to the story, she does not really lecture the kids during the show, which is refreshing.  The family has its adventure, or crisis for the episode, and any lesson the kids, and the audience, takes from it is by her example, how she faces crisis.  She simply is; her dress, her appearance, her behavior, and how she expresses herself.  Someone else’s example is the most compelling incentive we have for change in our own lives, including for self-improvement. 

KN:  EXACTLY! If we can see that someone else did it, so can we. (Unless you’re angst-y, then you assume that no matter how many others did it, you’ll be the pitiful exception to the rule. Groan!). Loretta’s fully in control of her image, her persona, and her expression. She knows what she wants, knows what’s right and knows exactly how she will present it. Since I have a similar iron-clad belief in the power of a single-minded heart, I love her for showing me how it’s done! Her strength comes from an unshakable belief that she’s RIGHT about things, that there is a right and wrong way to live, that mistakes can be corrected, that people are typically GOOD, that God’s in His heaven, and that He is a loving, good force in the lives of everyday people. That’s unstoppable in my book. I love that she uses little quotes to reinforce her position. She was/is a product of her zeitgeist, I think, too, in that she was raised in a world that believed in right and wrong. Today, the arrow simply spins in the compass and signals confusion. For Loretta, her show was a chance to express her faith in what was good and right. That’s what I believe, so, naturally, I love seeing this most elegant, warm, and lovely expression of a powerful, strong, yet utterly feminine woman.  

 ***

Come back Thursday for our visit with Kay Noske of Movie Star Makeover, and our discussion on the current state of the classic film fan, TCM, and how her interest and expertise in image consulting has its roots in classic Hollywood.

*********************


 "Lynch’s book is organized and well-written – and has plenty of amusing observations – but when it comes to describing Blyth’s movies, Lynch’s writing sparkles." - Ruth Kerr, Silver Screenings

"Jacqueline T. Lynch creates a poignant and thoroughly-researched mosaic of memories of a fine, upstanding human being who also happens to be a legendary entertainer." - Deborah Thomas, Java's Journey

"One of the great strengths of Ann Blyth: Actress. Singer. Star. is that Lynch not only gives an excellent overview of Blyth's career -- she offers detailed analyses of each of Blyth's roles -- but she puts them in the context of the larger issues of the day."- Amanda Garrett, Old Hollywood Films

"Jacqueline's book will hopefully cause many more people to take a look at this multitalented woman whose career encompassed just about every possible aspect of 20th Century entertainment." - Laura Grieve, Laura's Miscellaneous Musings

"Jacqueline T. Lynch’s Ann Blyth: Actress. Singer. Star. is an extremely well researched undertaking that is a must for all Blyth fans." - Annette Bochenek, Hometowns to Hollywood




Ann Blyth: Actress. Singer. Star. 

by Jacqueline T. Lynch

The first book on the career of actress Ann Blyth. Multitalented and remarkably versatile, Blyth began on radio as a child, appeared on Broadway at the age of twelve in Lillian Hellman's Watch on the Rhine, and enjoyed a long and diverse career in films, theatre, television, and concerts. A sensitive dramatic actress, the youngest at the time to be nominated for her role in Mildred Pierce (1945), she also displayed a gift for comedy, and was especially endeared to fans for her expressive and exquisite lyric soprano, which was showcased in many film and stage musicals. Still a popular guest at film festivals, lovely Ms. Blyth remains a treasure of the Hollywood's golden age.



The eBook and paperback are available from Amazon and CreateSpace, which is the printer.  You can also order it from my Etsy shop. It is also available at the Broadside Bookshop, 247 Main Street, Northampton, Massachusetts.

If you wish a signed copy, then email me at JacquelineTLynch@gmail.com and I'll get back to you with the details.


**************************

My new syndicated column SILVER SCREEN, GOLDEN YEARS, on classic film is up at Go60  or check with your local paper.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

February is Children's Dental Health Month

February is National Children’s Dental Health Month. Most small children have some idea of what the tooth fairy looks like, but most would be wrong. She looks like this:



Jane Wyman in an off-the-shoulder evening gown with white opera gloves, wearing diamond earrings and a choker necklace. Simple, but elegant.  Grabbing your teeth right out of your head, in this case Beverly Washburn's head.

It is important to encourage proper tooth brushing and oral hygiene among children, who may not understand how vital this is to their general health. Many Hollywood stars brush their teeth.

Here, Gary Cooper demonstrates his own special technique, which he devised to reach those tough spots right in the front teeth and gums.  Notice how his left hand is cupped to hold the tooth powder.  Tooth powder was discontinued because it too closely resembled cocaine, which caused much embarrassment at debauched  Hollywood parties.  

Here, Bette Davis shows us how to carefully lean low over the sink so as not to splurt spit and dribbling flecks of toothpaste onto her blouse. This is most useful if you happen to brush your teeth at work, or in between courses at elegant restaurants.

Jean Arthur, whose craving for the taste of peppermint led to an unfortunate toothpaste addiction, and was known to just stand there all day brushing her teeth, nevertheless shows that even a bad habit can lead to good oral hygiene.

Celebrate Children’s Dental Health Month with a new toothbrush and brush your teeth like the movie stars do. If you do not, Jane Wyman will come to your home and yank your rotten teeth out with her nimble gloved fingers.



This has been a public service announcement from Another Old Movie Blog -- “Serving your old movie and dental health needs since 2007”.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Shane - 1953



Shane (1953) elevates to godlike stratosphere the beauty of restraint.

This is going to be another very long post. So much for restraint.

Continuing our look this week at two Western movies based upon the original works of novelist Jack Schaefer, we tackle what is often called one of the best Westerns ever made, a movie which influenced the Western genre ever after, but which has its roots, despite its gorgeous and emotionally moving cinematography, in a work of literary fiction. Mr. Schaefer, as we mentioned in Monday’s post on Trooper Hook (1957), never intended to write a pulp Western, having never read one. The West was the backdrop he chose to write about men and women.

But there’s enough here, too, that we would expect from a Western: the greater themes of rugged independence, the familiar story of the gunslinger, the homesteaders versus the cattlemen who are losing their range to progress and the march of time. In this sense, the film may also reflect what was happening to us in the early 1950s, more than just a yearning for the past and that sense of unbounded freedom we think we have left behind.

Director George Stevens certainly returned from his World War II experience a more serious man, who took a drastic turn from his past in screwball comedies that thrived on chaos, to wrangle some sense of order in the weirdly ominous landscape of the post-war world. Shane takes us back to another time, but it is not nostalgic. It is not a better time or a freer time. But there is sense of simplicity here that engages, and allows us to stop and think, and feel.

The score, responsible for much of the film’s magic effect, begins with the rhythmic, mournful tune as the lone rider, Shane enters from our viewpoint down into a scenic valley. There is the boldly ebullient theme played with a majestic pioneer American crescendo as Shane and Joe Starrett hack away at the tree stump. There is the soft, almost sad waltz we hear on a single violin when Shane and Marian are silently communicating to each other. And there are snippets here and there sung by the cast or played on a harmonica of traditional American tunes.

Throw in the magnificent background of the Grand Teton range of Wyoming, almost never out of sight in this film, and we have a feast for the ears and the eyes. The enormous snow-covered mountains seem to demand that we look up, and beyond what we know. We are called to a higher plane. Masterfully set up by the director to experience this film with more than our ears and eyes, with our hearts and minds, it becomes one of those movies that we live, and not just watch.

Here, in tandem with the ethereal, the ordinary becomes sublime. First, the cast of character actors we already know, including Ellen Corby, and Edgar Buchanan. Nancy Kulp, who later found a regular gig on The Beverly Hillbillies, and little Beverly Washburn, who we saw last week in Here Comes the Groom.

Jack Palance makes an extraordinary contribution to the film. He’s in the film only minutes, but he is one of the most memorable features about it.

Ben Johnson, so revered for his work in Western movies, is the first to undergo a kind of soul’s conversion because of Shane, but only after a famous fight.

Most especially, we have Elisha Cook, Jr., in probably his best role. This diminutive man who played such smarmy heavies, here plays a homesteader. For all his bantam rooster swagger and hotheadedness, he earns our sympathy and our respect.

The principals in this film are two men, a woman, and a boy, much like the configuration we saw in Monday’s Trooper Hook. Unlike that film, in Shane the only one with an uncomfortable past is Shane, played by Alan Ladd. We sense it follows him like a long shadow, but there is no discussion about it. We just know, and the Starretts know, he is a gunfighter.

The conflict in this film occurs minute by minute, and so it is not about the past, but about the present, which makes the story seem more intimate and full of action when there are really only a few action scenes. It is edited beautifully, and usually more than one thing is happening in each scene, so none of the scenes are static.

For instance, the scene where the homesteader men are having a meeting in the Starrett’s cabin and Marian and her son are eavesdropping from the boy’s room. The camera shifts between the rooms, and the eavesdroppers react to what they hear. It is more interesting than just leaving the camera at the table where the men are sitting to watch them talk.

Another such scene is when the bullying cattle baron, played by Emile Meyer, accosts the Starretts in their barnyard at night with his men to make a deal. While they talk, we see Shane and Jack Palance take each other’s measure, size each other up in a kind of threatening ritual where all they are really doing are climbing off a horse (really slow), and drinking from a dipper of water. There is so much to look at in this scene.

The script by A.B. Guthrie, Jr. follows Jack Schaefer’s novel pretty closely, with only a few changes and additions. Foremost is that the relationship between Marian and Shane is acknowledged earlier and more openly in the book. Note this passage from the novel:

From Shane - The Critical Edition by Jack Schaefer, edited by James C. Work (University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London, 1984): p. 202 “Did a woman ever have two such men?” And she turned from them and reached out blindly for a chair and sank into it and dropped her face into her hands and the tears came. The two men stared at her and then at each other in that adult knowledge beyond my understanding. Shane rose and stepped over by mother. He put a hand gently on her head and I felt again his fingers in my hair and the affection flooding through me. He walked quietly out the door and into the night. …


Gradually mother’s sobs died down. She raised her head and wiped away the tears.


‘Joe.’


He turned and started in and waited then by the door. She stood up. She stretched her hands toward him and he was there and had her in his arms.


‘Do you think I don’t know, Marian?’


‘But you don’t. Not really. You can’t. Because I don’t know myself.’


Father was staring over her head at the kitchen wall, not seeing anything there. ‘Don’t fret yourself, Marian. I’m man enough to know a better when his trail meets mine. Whatever happens will be all right.’


‘Oh, Joe…Joe! Kiss me. Hold me tight and don’t ever let go.’

In the movie, we sense there is a romantic longing between Alan Ladd and Jean Arthur, who plays Marian, but it is such a quiet presence and handled so differently than we would probably normally expect in a movie. Just as we mentioned in our post on Trooper Hook, the romance is envisioned more through tenderness and respect, as a union of soul mates. It would have been easier to convey normal lust than it is to depict a romantic union of soul mates.

Especially when, in this case, the romantic union is between three people.

Van Heflin is the third member of the triangle. He is Jean Arthur’s husband, a hard-working homesteader who hires Alan Ladd as a farmhand. They become true friends, and have such regard for each other that Alan Ladd would not presume to treat Heflin’s wife with anything but gentle respect. Heflin is aware of their attraction, and once he has made the decision to go on a suicide mission to save the settlement by shooting the bad guys, feels comforted that his wife will have a man he respects to take care of her and love her.

Jean Arthur loves and respects them both, and does not betray either of them. How, we might wonder with our modern cynicism, is a movie to carry any drama amid this polite mutual admiration society? Remarkably, however, the movie is as sensual as it is innocent.

We do not exactly know why Jean Arthur and Alan Ladd are drawn to each other or when it began. Again, in the book, we are shown plainly from the beginning that he is a novelty to her. The author tells of their introduction:

“Good evening, ma’am,” said our visitor. He took her hand and bowed over it. Mother stepped back and, to my surprise, dropped in a dainty curtsy. I had never seen her do that before.”

And she explains her appraisal of Shane to her husband:

p. 75 - “I like him.” Mother’s voice was serious. “He’s so nice and polite and sort of gentle. Not like most men I’ve met out here. But there’s something about him. Something underneath the gentleness…Something…” Her voice trailed away.


“Mysterious?” suggested father.


“Yes, of course. Mysterious. But more than that. Dangerous.”

A sense of danger that makes her concerned for him, not afraid for herself. She even asks him what he has noticed in his travels about the current fashions for ladies’ hats:

“You’re the kind of man that would notice them.”

P. 81 - “He sat there, easy and friendly, telling her how they were wearing wide floppy-brimmed bonnets with lots of flowers in front on top and slits in the brims for scarves to come through and be tied in bows under their chins.


Talk like that seemed foolish to me to be coming from a grown man. Yet this Shane was not bothered at all. And father listened as if he thought it was all right, only not very interesting.

We aren’t given such a cozy introduction to their relationship in the movie, but George Stevens’ direction adds something more to the telling by giving us plenty of mystery that keeps us engaged. We never get flat-out answers, but are tantalized by images.

We see Shane approach on horseback from a great distance away, through the antlers of a deer. It is like a foreshadowing, as if he is already in the crosshairs of a gun sight.

We switch to the homestead, where Jean Arthur croons “Aunt Dinah’s Quilting Party”, a 19th century folksong to herself while she gets supper ready.

In the sky the bright stars glittered,
On the bank the pale moon shone;

And 'twas from Aunt Dinah's quilting party,
I was seeing Nellie home.


chorus:
I was seeing Nellie home
I was seeing Nellie home;
And 'twas from Aunt Dinah's quilting party
I was seeing Nellie home.
I was seeing Nellie home.

Slow, rhythmic, comforting, almost mantra-like as she performs the same tasks she has performed a hundred times. There is a sense of freedom for her here, because the house is where she rules. (In the book, we are told it is not a cabin, but a white frame house with green trim, unusual in these parts, but built this way to remind her of her New England roots.) We catch glimpses her only through the cabin window, in the half shadow.

When the evil cattle baron’s gang comes to threaten Van Heflin off his land, Heflin stands up to them with nothing but a small rifle that belongs to his little boy and is not even loaded. Jean Arthur emerges from the shadows and, with a boldness that defies her shy demeanor, stands in front of her husband, blocking his body. We see, before they do, that Shane has returned and makes himself, and his gun belt, visible to the gang. It is as if these two, Marian and Shane, are already tag-teaming up to protect Van Heflin from the tragic consequences of his own courage. Perhaps this is the start of their unspoken bond.

I love the look of Alan Ladd leaning against the rough log cabin, looking strangely relaxed, his hip cocked like a fashion model. He is small and slender, and graceful looking. And the gang pulls back and goes away. The gun belt cinched around his buckskin shirt only accentuates his slimness, yet because of his prowess with a gun and because of his cool sense of judgment, he is a powerful man.

Stories have been repeated through the decades about how Alan Ladd, being a small man, was required to perform on boxes or other contrived camera angles to make him look taller. You can see in this film there were some scenes this was applied, but I think it was unnecessary. First, in the novel Shane is described as a small, slight man. Second, there’s no reason a man five feet, six inches can’t walk tall.

As far as appearances go, we see a few shots where Jean Arthur is filmed in soft focus. She was about 50 when this movie was made, at least a decade older than Van Heflin or Ladd, but I think the soft focus, though used in a romantic sensibility, wasn’t really necessary, either. First, she had a youthful face and figure (she just concluded a smash run on Broadway flying around as Peter Pan for crying out loud), and for much of her career was successful at playing younger.

Second, a tintype of an actual frontier woman from this period would show us a lady much older than her years, her skin aged by sun and wind, and the exhausting work of living hand to mouth. A few lines on Jean’s face would have been appropriate. Like Alan Ladd’s real height, Jean Arthur’s real age is, in this magical world of a movie set plunked down in Wyoming, irrelevant.

The lined and weathered faces belong to Alan Ladd and Van Heflin. He would never be a matinee idol, Van Heflin, would never find his face on mugs or jigsaw puzzles or kitschy trinkets like you will Clark Gable or Cary Grant, but he was one of the best actors of his era. Probably because he never became a parody of himself, like those other gentlemen. His low-key approach to this role of the workhorse homesteader allows us to feel we really know him. Jean Arthur and Alan Ladd, and Jack Palance may be mysterious, but we know Joe Starrett.

And this was not the first time Jean Arthur and Van Heflin were paired together. Have a look at Tuesday’s New England Travels for a post on their appearance at a Broadway-bound out-of-town tryout nearly 20 years earlier in 1934 where Jean was the star and Van Helfin a newcomer.

And then there is the boy. Brandon De Wilde is a marvel in this film. He is utterly and completely natural, seeming without any precocious proclivities or training. He wanders about his family’s homestead with the freedom and curiosity we may remember, and rejoice in, from our childhoods, and his responses and reactions are engaging without being too cute.

I love when Shane first meets him and notes that the boy has been watching him. Brandon’s face drops, horribly embarrassed, but he must confess, “Yes, I was.” His curiosity over the stranger soon turns to hero-worship, and we may remember that lovely, heart-wrenching feeling from our childhoods as well.

It is a movie of small moments made as large as the mountains outside. Jean Arthur comments softly to her husband that supper will be ready soon, but it is really a suggestion for him to ask Alan Ladd to stay. She exchanges no words with Ladd during supper, but Van Heflin notes aloud she has brought out the good dishes and given them an extra fork to eat their pie. He also notes, almost in the same breath, that she seems unsettled, and his look of befuddlement is only an instant but is comic as it is foreshadowing of a more serious conflict. All that in a look.

His mouth full, he talks about the economic advantages of raising cattle in a fenced in area rather than the old way of cattle drives and constantly moving stock to better pasture. It is our history lesson and our plot exposition at the same time. We are reminded here, and in other points of the film, that the evil cattle baron Emile Meyer is a man about to be downsized by the force of economics, and we may even pity him for it. The wheel of time turns, and some of us get caught in the spokes.

Alan Ladd, by way of returning their hospitality, starts hacking away at the enormous tree stump, and Mr. Heflin joins him, the two slashing with axes and grinning at each other. The music swells, and as nighttime falls, Heflin in his grimy undershirt and Ladd, bare-chested, the sweat on his skin glistening in the moonlight, wrench the stump from the ground at last. As the stump topples over, Ladd falls over on top of it, his body lying across the stump as he lifts himself with a pushup, glancing up at Jean Arthur. It’s as close to a carnal symbolism as we’re going to get.



The next morning, when Brandon De Wilde begs him to stay on and innocently hints of his father’s battles with the cattlemen, we see a flicker of concern in Alan Ladd’s face. Is it a premonition that he knows how it will end, with him using his gun?

When he agrees to hire on as a farmhand, and Heflin sends him to town for supplies, we have another interesting scene that frames the story for us. Heflin sits down in his son’s room to put on his boots and tells Ladd what he needs from town. Alan Ladd stands just beyond in the cabin’s common room. We see him through the doorframe.

In the other room she shares with her husband, Jean Arthur is busy making the bed, and we seen Ladd again through the doorframe. He is the outsider looking in, but in very close proximity. He calls her “Marian” almost from the start.

In town, Ladd is aghast that a pair of jeans and two work shirts will cost him $2.25. Yikes.

He is also teased by the bad guys, but takes their guff so as not to put Van Heflin in danger. He also boldly requests a bottle of soda pop for the boy. Only a real man would walk into a bar full of violent men and ask for soda.  It's something only Daffy Duck would do.

Later his forbearance will make him the disappointment of the settlement, and he excuses himself from the men’s meeting in disgrace. Jean Arthur watches him through the window as he stands in the rain, and offers comfort.

“I think we know…Shane.” She hesitates with his name and says it tenderly. We know at this point she has feelings for him, because she warns her son not to get to liking him too much. It is a warning for herself, and she blows out the lamp in her son’s room. Just a few lines, and we get the whole story. It is the beauty of economy.

The settlers band together for protection to go into town to shop at the trading post. It’s a cute scene when Jean Arthur examines the new Mason jars and wonders, “What’ll they think of next?” This is a bit of an anachronism, though. Mason jars were around since the early 1860s, and if Marian was originally from New England, she would have likely known about them.

You knew you weren’t going to get away without a little nitpicking.

Young Brandon returns his empty soda pop bottle in exchange for a huge peppermint stick. Sometimes I think I’d rather have that than the nickel.

Mr. Ladd, however, takes the boy’s empty soda bottle to the bar, in order to redeem himself in the eyes of the settlers and his new family. He picks a fight with Ben Johnson, and we get the memorable scene of a one-on-one fistfight that turns into a brawl, with Van Heflin joining in to help Ladd.

It turns into a free-for-all merely because evil cattle baron Emile Meyers needles Ladd with the remark, “Pretty wife, Starrett’s got.” It’s a fight for her honor, and standing outside with her Mason jars, she has no idea.

In the book, a similar scene has Marian chastising her men for fighting over a mere remark. “I’ll have you two know that if it’s got to be done, I can take being insulted just as much as you can.”

But both Shane and Joe are astonished and answer what better reason can a man have to fight, except for a woman’s honor?

The fight scene ends, in the book, with Shane getting the worst of it, and allowing Joe to carry him in his arms to the wagon, because, as the boy narrator puts it, his father was the only man Shane trusted, enough to show weakness and let himself be helped. The film gives us only a brief shot of Ladd slumped in Jean Arthur’s arms on the wagon ride home.

One of the best scenes is when they get home and Miss Arthur tends the wounded. Brandon flutters around the room like any excited, fidgety kid and re-lives the fight. The men are bone tired but pleased with themselves, and Jean Arthur winces herself over every cut and bruise. There is a brief comedic bit when she is about to dab Alan Ladd’s cut scalp with turpentine, and just before she can, Brandon warns, “Stings like anything.”

Jean pulls out one of her nervous, perfectly timed comedic double takes. But in another moment, she tackles his receding hairline again, crooning sympathetically, “It does smart. I know.” He yelps for Brandon’s benefit.

In another moment, Brandon is off to bed, and behind closed doors telling his mother his not-too-well-kept secret, “I just love Shane!”

We hear, and Alan Ladd hears, and he soberly leaves the cabin. Does Van Heflin hear from the other room? Another mystery. When he opens the door and Jean Arthur, agonized by her feelings for Mr. Ladd, demands Van Heflin to hold her, he does not look knowing.

That doesn’t happen until the 4th of July picnic, also the day of their wedding anniversary. Jean searches her old trunk for something to wear, and pulls out the dress she wore at her marriage ceremony. Edith Head just had to have something in this movie to put her teeth into.

The settlers serenade the Starretts with a chorus of “Abide With Me,” and at the conclusion of their celebratory kiss, she looks back to where Ladd and Brandon are standing. Her face is turned away from us. Is she looking fondly at her boy, or at Ladd? Another mystery.

Van Heflin dances awkwardly with his wife, and seems to be counting his steps. Ladd takes a turn with her in a modified formal contra dance to the waltz tune of “Goodbye Old Paint.” He is graceful. From behind the corral fence, Van Heflin grins at them, then slowly his expression turns to cold realization that they are in love. Curiously, there is no anger or jealously in his face, only stupor, and a sense almost that he is looking upon something that is none of his business.

Brandon De Wilde dances with little Beverly Washburn.

The romantic trio keep us wondering, not because of their emotions, but because of how they handle them. Van Heflin is not a brute, just less intuitive than Ladd. Ladd is not more heroic than Heflin, only more adept at fighting evil. Both are gallant, and both would die for her. Both will have the chance soon.

Evil cattle baron Emile Meyer hires himself a gunslinger, Jack Palance, to rid himself of the settlers. Palance makes an indelible impression in this film as the oily, sinister, remorseless symbol of brutality. He practices first on Elisha Cook, Jr., and the scene of Mr. Cook getting flattened into the deep mud of the main street in town by the force of gunfire is stunning. Another settler, the mild Shipstead, played by Douglas Spencer, has the sickening job of dragging Cook’s body through the mud under Palance’s amused stare, terrified he will be next. When he takes Cook’s body back to the settlement, he hollers the news from a long distance, and we know the cabin dwellers can’t hear him, but we know what he is saying.

We hear “Abide with Me” again up on Cemetery Hill at the funeral. It is clearly an all-purpose hymn, “In life, in death, oh, Lord, Abide with me…”

The harmonica player who earlier teases former Confederate soldier Elisha Cook with snappy renditions of “Marching Through Georgia,” now plays “Dixie” slowly as a requiem. Like Royal Dano’s gray kepi we mentioned in our post on Monday about Trooper Hook, we are reminded that the West is a place of new beginnings.

Now it’s showdown time, and Van Heflin has decided to rid the settlement of Jack Palance and hopefully chase off Emile Meyer. He has a quiet moment with Jean Arthur, trying to explain to her in a heartfelt conversation that sounds like a last will and testament, that he is leaving everything, including Shane, to her. He says it without self pity or rancor, but with a tender satisfaction that all is somehow for the best.

“I know I’m kind of slow sometimes, Marian, but I see things.”

Too late, though, Alan Ladd has put back on his buckskin and his gun belt, and he’s taking on Palance himself. Van Heflin and Ladd fight in the barnyard to see who will go on the suicide mission. We see shots of them through the horse’s legs, as the terrified animals stampede around them. Van Heflin is the stronger man, so Ladd must whack him on the skull with his gun.

They slump together against the stump that had bound their friendship.

Jean Arthur looks horrified at the gunslinger she had forgotten was a gunslinger and asks with some guilt, “Are you doing this for me?”

It’s another interesting scene with more said than unsaid, and exquisite camera angles. “Please, Shane…” she says, and seems as if to start toward him, but Brandon calls to her, and she hesitates. We will never know what she intended to do. Embrace him? Kiss him? Go with him? Instead she extends her hand for a chaste, albeit very lingering, handshake.

Alan Ladd rides to town in the darkness, with Brandon running after him.

“Your days are over,” he tells evil cattle baron Emile Meyer, another history lesson for us. Or, is it an economics lesson?

“My days? What about yours, gunfighter?”

“Difference is I know it.”

Jack Palance takes up the challenge. You can’t keep your eyes off Palance. He is not instinctual, like gunfighter Alan Ladd; he is machine-like, a craftsman.

Even the dog, clearly a Method actor, slinks away as they prepare to draw.

The dog scene is one which many devotees of this movie love to discuss, and the strange shot of Palance’s first entrance in the saloon that seems like time-lapse photography, and the curious look Brandon De Wilde wears after he calls to Shane, “Mother wants you. I know she does.”

All tiny fragmented mysteries. For decades, people have come up with their own answers.

On a personal note, I first saw this movie when I was in my late teens or early 20s, on TV. My father, then in his 60s, put the movie on, settled himself on the couch with a root beer, and said the title of the movie, Shane much in the same loving way Jean Arthur repeats the name. When Jean Arthur first came on screen, he said her name, with the same manner, and I think he was a little in love with her.

I think Father wanted me to like the movie. He kept looking to see my reaction. But he soon stopped urging my interest and lost himself totally in the film, and I’ll never forget the kick I got out of watching him. When Van Heflin and Ladd are chopping away at the stump, I knew Father saw himself there, too, a third man with an ax.

When they fought in the saloon, I knew Father was slugging it out. He pulled his attention away from the screen briefly at Jack Palance’s entrance to make sure I was still following the movie as avidly as he wanted me to, and he grinned when Brandon De Wilde called “Shane!” for the last time. I can never watch this film without recalling his total absorption in the story, and seeing him, as I'm sure he saw himself, in those scenes.

It is not the same for everyone, however. Marc Simmons, who wrote the foreword of the edition of the novel Shane from which I’ve quoted in this essay had a much different experience at a college film festival in the late 1970s.

p. xi “I recall attending a showing of Shane twenty-five years after its release, during a film classic series on a university campus. I was not surprised that it now appeared a bit dated and that some of its original luster had faded. But I was wholly unprepared for the reaction of the young audience. Throughout, they laughed at serious moments, jeered at Shane’s deference toward women, and hooted at Bob’s open admiration for his hero. Without making too much of that single incident, it seems to me at the very least that some of our youth have capitulated to the doctrine that the world is without serious purpose, chaos is our destiny, and serious thought is a pointless exercise in futility.”

For yet another, more personal, recollection of the film, have a look this blog post on “Compass Rose” .


*********

Jacqueline T. Lynch is the author of Ann Blyth: Actress. Singer. Star. and Memories in Our Time - Hollywood Mirrors and Mimics the Twentieth Century. Her newspaper column on classic films, Silver Screen, Golden Memories is syndicated nationally.

Related Products