TCM: The Greatest Movie Channel

[Rinaldo]

This evening the theme is clearly Audrey Hepburn (always a good idea as far as I'm concerned), and they lead off primetime with Paris When It Sizzles from 1964. What do others here think about this one? It uses a premise that I adore -- writers creating, and sometimes changing, the story that we're seeing -- and is specifically based on a French classic Holiday for Henrietta from 1952. (I've not yet managed to see it, but Stephen Sondheim described it as a favorite movie, and worked with William Goldman on an unproduced movie musical based on the same idea.)

But Paris When It Sizzles manages to make the whole idea as unengaging as possible, getting very little spark out of its two stars. (Despite the stories that they sparked in real life, it doesn't come across and they don't seem a good match onscreen.) George Axelrod's script manages to generate no fun or fizz. All the elements are there -- Tony Curtis has quite a large uncredited role, within the movie they're writing -- but to no avail. Or so it seems to me. I so much want to love it, and I can't.

[prican58]

15 hours ago, Padma said:

Just wanted to recommend today's TCM "Middle of the Night" a Paddy Chayevsky script with Frederic March outstanding as the 56 year old boss who falls in love with 24 year old Kim Novak.  I don't think much of Novak's acting generally, but to me this was her best performance of any that I've seen.  It's a "little" movie but you really feel like you're watching real people and March, as always, is as good as any of the more famous actors of his generation (Tracy, etc.), .

Padma, I  checked it out as well and yeah, I really like Novak in this. I actually see her appeal in this. Also knowing she's a nice person IRL and a vulnerable one lets her steal the show, almost. I do like her in Pal Joey (love that movie) . Amazing that that was what a 56 year old man looked to Hollywood. He was actually 63 when he did this film. Fredric March has always been a fave of mine. Maybe not a lot of sex appeal but I guy who stretched from the silents to the 60's has to have something. I love the feel of Delbert Mann movies and this one feels like Marty. I love Dear Heart which has a different vibe but no less heart warming.

[Padma]

1 hour ago, prican58 said:

Padma, I  checked it out as well and yeah, I really like Novak in this. I actually see her appeal in this. Also knowing she's a nice person IRL and a vulnerable one lets her steal the show, almost. I do like her in Pal Joey (love that movie) . Amazing that that was what a 56 year old man looked to Hollywood. He was actually 63 when he did this film. Fredric March has always been a fave of mine. Maybe not a lot of sex appeal but I guy who stretched from the silents to the 60's has to have something. I love the feel of Delbert Mann movies and this one feels like Marty. I love Dear Heart which has a different vibe but no less heart warming.

Prican58, Glad to see another Fredric March fan. I hadn't thought of the similarities with Marty and Dear Heart , but those are really good pairings, that kind of single, lonely character, slice-of-life realism that isn't really tragic . (Almost enough films for a "top 5" list, except I can't think of two more like them, lol,  Seems like there should be at least two more excellent slice-of-middle-aged-life films  with no big problems--alcohol, gambling, c heating, etc-  Horton Foote is that kind of writer, but the films I'm thinking of usually get more "Hollywood treatment".

 And ITA about Novak. I like her in Pal Joey, too. I think it's just that she's so odd to me because the beautiful leads may "play" shy (like Marilyn) but rarely seem to actually BE so shy to the point that they can't hide it, no matter what role they're playing (and I guess, from the TCM interview, she also suffered from chronic depression, which may be some of what comes through in her films, too.  She always seems kind of sad, shy and depressed to me, but maybe it actually works for her in the roles she has. I think "Middle of the Night" had more of an emotional range for her--including a few happy moments--than most films I've seen her in. No wonder she left Hollywood so early, when her career was still going well. I'm glad she's still around, still giving interviews. She does seem like a very nice person.  Here's a link to her paintings for anyone who might not have seen them. https://www.kimnovakartist.com/.

Edited June 26, 2017 by Padma

[Padma]

8 hours ago, Rinaldo said:

This evening the theme is clearly Audrey Hepburn (always a good idea as far as I'm concerned), and they lead off primetime with Paris When It Sizzles from 1964. What do others here think about this one? It uses a premise that I adore -- writers creating, and sometimes changing, the story that we're seeing -- and is specifically based on a French classic Holiday for Henrietta from 1952. (I've not yet managed to see it, but Stephen Sondheim described it as a favorite movie, and worked with William Goldman on an unproduced movie musical based on the same idea.)

But Paris When It Sizzles manages to make the whole idea as unengaging as possible, getting very little spark out of its two stars. (Despite the stories that they sparked in real life, it doesn't come across and they don't seem a good match onscreen.) George Axelrod's script manages to generate no fun or fizz. All the elements are there -- Tony Curtis has quite a large uncredited role, within the movie they're writing -- but to no avail. Or so it seems to me. I so much want to love it, and I can't.

Rinaldo, this may be my favorite failed romantic comedy.. It has everything going for it-- story of a struggling screenwriter that spoofs Hollywood, the two perfect leads, cameos including Noel Coward, Tony Curtis, Marlene Dietrich, and even a snippet of the (intentionally silly) title song sung by Frank Sinatra.  Hepburn and Holden do their best with the script, impressive how they commit to everything and are as good as ever in spite of the silliness that feels like it should all be more fun. 

Wikipedia quoted Holden (who was still in love with the married Hepburn and hoping to rekindle something but she wasn't interested), "I remember the day I arrived at Orly Airport for Paris When It Sizzles. I could hear my footsteps echoing against the walls of the transit corridor, just like a condemned man walking the last mile. I realized that I had to face Audrey and I had to deal with my drinking. And I didn’t think I could handle either situation". 

And Audrey didn't like the way cinematographer Claude Renoir was making her look and had him removed.  So lots of behind-the-scenes unhappiness that couldn't have helped either. But the main thing, imo, was it had a cute premise but the script just was kind of a mess (I'm guessing it wasn't George Axelrod's intended script left intact, as he was a very good writer even with kind of "small premise",films, like The Seven Year Itch And, of course, the adaptation of Breakfast at Tiffany's and The Manchurian Candidate). Probably a "too many cooks" issues with the screenplay--something that the "spoof" didn't even touch on in its "send up" of Hollywood, but which has ruined a lot of movies.)  This should have been cute and charming and fun, but just is kind of silly (watchable only, because it's light and has the excellent cast--and fun of catching the cameos. Good background film. For that, I'll probably watch it again. :)

Edited June 27, 2017 by Padma

[prican58]

Padma, I like some of these films from the late 50s to early 60s somewhere between Film Noir and the very light and fluffy Beach movies and Doris/Rock films. Dear Heart is a perfect example.  Your quote made me think of that.

Quote

Seems like there should be at least two more excellent slice-of-middle-aged-life films  with no big problems--alcohol, gambling, c heating, etc-

I think The Catered Affair with Bette, Borgnine and Debbie Reynolds fits the criteria.

[Milburn Stone]

2 hours ago, Rinaldo said:

But Paris When It Sizzles manages to make the whole idea as unengaging as possible, getting very little spark out of its two stars. (Despite the stories that they sparked in real life, it doesn't come across and they don't seem a good match onscreen.) George Axelrod's script manages to generate no fun or fizz. All the elements are there -- Tony Curtis has quite a large uncredited role, within the movie they're writing -- but to no avail. Or so it seems to me. I so much want to love it, and I can't.

I'm right with you. Have tried to watch it. Can't get very far.

But I do like the theme Nelson Riddle wrote for it called "Gabrielle's Theme." It seems that composers can't help being inspired by Audrey.

[Athena]

1 hour ago, Padma said:

So lots of behind-the-scenes unhappiness that couldn't have helped either.

Richard Quine the director had worked with Holden before and knew how to "handle" him but Holden was extremely drunk on the shoot. He showed up to work inebriated and was more difficult than usual probably because he knew Hepburn was there. Quine had to put him in treatment towards the end. I think it was a stressful shoot for Hepburn and Quine since Holden was making things uncomfortable for them both.

[prican58]

http://streamline.filmstruck.com/2017/06/26/ida-lupino-gets-her-due/#more-99530

 

I Love Lupino.

[Rinaldo]

3 hours ago, prican58 said:

 

Quote

Seems like there should be at least two more excellent slice-of-middle-aged-life films  with no big problems--alcohol, gambling, c heating, etc-

I think The Catered Affair with Bette, Borgnine and Debbie Reynolds fits the criteria.

Except isn't there a dead son in the background there, affecting people's choices? That would count as a "big problem," I'd think. But I agree, there should be more examples. I recall Rachel, Rachel as being about midlife loneliness, but maybe I'm forgetting some melodramatic plot element? Do any of the kids die in Roughly Speaking? (I've only read about it, and one source said so, but none of the online ones mention such an idea. In Pete 'n' Tillie, the couple do lose a child, plus it's honestly not that good.)

I wonder if there are enough examples of "people write/rewrite other people's lives" to make a top 5? Paris When It Sizzles obviously wouldn't make the elite, but its source, Holiday for Henrietta, would (by all accounts). Then we have Adaptation, Stranger Than Fiction, and surely there are more? Some of the funniest sketches on The Carol Burnett Show used this premise -- someone would be typing a story while others enacted it, and each erasure or change of mind forced them to "rewind."

[prican58]

Rinaldo, I think Debbie's character has a brother who is most surely alive. I don't think he dies in it. Maybe there was another child in the past who died. Really don't remember.

[Rinaldo]

There was a son who had died in WWII. "What he would have wanted" was, as I recall, one of the weapons they used in disagreeing with each other. But I'm influenced by the musical, which I saw more recently than the movie. Maybe there are differences there.

[voiceover]

On 6/25/2017 at 3:26 PM, Crisopera said:

 So - anyone up for reviving our Top Five series of posts?  

I'd like to start by giving my Top Five Female Villains.  To be specific:  they have to commit (or abet) something actually criminal (murder, theft, etc), not just be a terrible person.  

Crisopera!!  This is a great idea!  Sorry I wasn't right on top of it, but I was a little Novarro-distracted, as I may have mentioned that evening.?

Before I trot out my list on this topic, I wanted to get some clarification.  According to your parameters, you state that she had to actually commit (or abet) "something actually criminal".  But -- how true was this of your #5, Rebecca's Mrs Danvers?

Now, I don't dispute her general creepiness.  She was hideous to the 2nd Mrs DeWinter (who frankly made it easy in the beginning), and so obviously seethed with fury over the fact that her precious girl had been replaced by a younger model.

But Joan Fontaine *didn't* jump at Danny's suggestion (accidental humor), which seemed to be an impulse of the moment anyway (I felt like, initially at least, Mrs D just wanted 2nd Mrs DeW to scram -- no crime there).

Is it the arson that makes her eligible?

(It's times like this that I wish we could live chat!)

Judith Anderson is so great in the role, and if you hadn't laid down those particular specs, my only argument would've been, Why isn't she higher on the list?

[voiceover]

7 hours ago, Rinaldo said:

 

I wonder if there are enough examples of "people write/rewrite other people's lives" to make a top 5? 

Would one of my post-1980s faves make that list?

Shakespeare in Love doesn't have that meta-rewind thing going, but the plot revolves around him writing Romeo & Juliet, and it's obvious, what he's pulling from real life to put on the page.  In fact, much of the cleverness of the script is Stoppard & co. sliding in references to Will collecting lines & characters for future works.

[Crisopera]

voiceover - yes, it was the arson that struck me as her major crime.  And egging someone on to commit suicide - isn't that a crime too?  Sort of pre-cyber-bullying?  OK, maybe not.  I remember the first time I saw The Furies (1950), where Judith Anderson plays the second wife of Walter Huston.  Barbara Stanwyck (playing Huston's unhealthily close daughter) throws a pair of scissors at her face in a fit of Freudian rage.  I was sure Anderson was going to pick up those scisssors and stab Stanwyck, but no.  Quite disappointing, actually.

[voiceover]

4 hours ago, Crisopera said:

voiceover - yes, it was the arson that struck me as her major crime.  And egging someone on to commit suicide - isn't that a crime too?  Sort of pre-cyber-bullying?  OK, maybe not.  I remember the first time I saw The Furies (1950), where Judith Anderson plays the second wife of Walter Huston.  Barbara Stanwyck (playing Huston's unhealthily close daughter) throws a pair of scissors at her face in a fit of Freudian rage.  I was sure Anderson was going to pick up those scisssors and stab Stanwyck, but no.  Quite disappointing, actually.

Fair enough.

Confession: I hadn't remembered the burning of Manderley until I was almost done with my post.  If I'd thought of it earlier, it would've been a one-question entry. 

Them's tough rules, baby!  Hard to get my head around a villainess list that doesn't include Eve Harrington. Since career-killing doesn't count?

[Chaos Theory]

I just watched Caged (1950) staring Eleanor Parker on a whim because I like prison TV shows like Orange is the New Black and Wentworth. I wasn't really expecting much because I am aware of the Hays Code rules on movies and most of them requiring a "happy ending". However I was greatly surprised on the utter cynical nature of this movie. It was fantastic without being overtly political like OITNB or overly violent like Wentworth. It told a beautiful and tragic story of a young woman beaten down by the system and how it is in fact the system that created a monster. If you like prison shows you should definitely give this a try. It is in black and white and 1950's lingo but it is still worth the watch.   One of the better women in prison movies I have seen.  

Edited June 30, 2017 by Chaos Theory

[voiceover]

Danny Peary* once described The Year of Living Dangerously as "Casablanca, if Bogart got on the plane."

This is one of the coolest capsule descriptions of a film ever written, and I'm a little sad that I cannot attest to its veracity.  This is because I've never watched the damn thing all the way through.

 

* A remote possibility Pauline Kael said this.  Too lazy to check.

[voiceover]

Ugh.  I stayed up to watch Valentino, because I was sure it couldn't be as bad as I remembered.

Turns out my memory's just fine.

Felicity Kendal was a terrific June Mathis.  She -- & Mathis -- deserved their own picture.

But my poor Rudy!  Ken Russell scuzzes up everything he gets his hands on.  He should've stuck to rockers.  The Who was already scuzzy.

[Rinaldo]

8 hours ago, voiceover said:

Ken Russell scuzzes up everything he gets his hands on.

So true! I think the classical composers get it worst: Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Liszt -- all trashed horribly. And Russell messed up The Boy Friend appallingly, too.

[Milburn Stone]

9 minutes ago, Rinaldo said:

So true! I think the classical composers get it worst: Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Liszt -- all trashed horribly. And Russell messed up The Boy Friend appallingly, too.

Wait. I think there was one Ken Russell movie I liked. [Pause] It came to me. Crimes of Passion, or Crime of Passion, or something like that, with Kathleen Turner, and Anthony Perkins as a psycho killer, or something like that. And a synth score based on Dvorak's New World Symphony. You can tell I'm deliberately not looking it up to get the details straight, but nevertheless it is true, I thought it was good. Very idiosyncratic. But good.

Edited July 1, 2017 by Milburn Stone

[Rinaldo]

Crimes of Passion -- it was different from Russell's other work (except in the unabashed approach to sexuality), I'll give it that. If I saw it without knowing the credits, I wouldn't guess that he was the director. There's an interesting role-by-role interview at The AV Club with Turner, in which she has some memories of shooting that film.

[Milburn Stone]

Thanks for sharing that article, @Rinaldo. It reminded me how many good movies Kathleen Turner has been a part of.

[Charlie Baker]

Ken Russell put some of his expected bizarre stuff into Women in Love, but the original Lawrence material, the script by Larry Kramer, that amazing cast (Glenda Jackson with an Oscar win, of course, but also Alan Bates, Oliver Reed, and the beautiful Jennie Linden (WEHTH?), all strong enough to overcome it.

[Crisopera]

The only Ken Russell effort I ever really enjoyed was his BBC biopic about Isadora Duncan (1966).  I was about 8 when I saw it (we were living in England at the time). It was absolutely fascinating to me (I don't think my parents had any idea about the "ahem" romantic aspects of Duncan's life) - and its closing scene of Isadora's death (her scarf caught in the wire wheel of a car and it snapped her neck) scarred me for life.  I can still see it.

[Wiendish Fitch]

Happy Birthday to 2 lovely legends still with us today, Olivia de Havilland (101) and Leslie Caron (86)!

[voiceover]

A film buddy of mine reminded me about Olivia's bday this morning.  He also wrote that "...she's suing Fox for depicting her in Feud without asking her permission, and for insinuating that she would gossip on others as shown on the series."

 I am curious about the "depicting her...without asking her permission" -- any lawyers, or friends of lawyers, wanna comment on that?  Does that lack of permission equate to defamation?

[Milburn Stone]

7 hours ago, voiceover said:

A film buddy of mine reminded me about Olivia's bday this morning.  He also wrote that "...she's suing Fox for depicting her in Feud without asking her permission, and for insinuating that she would gossip on others as shown on the series."

I would join a class action suing the show for its clunky writing. My ears were irreparably harmed.

[3pwood]

13 hours ago, voiceover said:

A film buddy of mine reminded me about Olivia's bday this morning.  He also wrote that "...she's suing Fox for depicting her in Feud without asking her permission, and for insinuating that she would gossip on others as shown on the series."

 I am curious about the "depicting her...without asking her permission" -- any lawyers, or friends of lawyers, wanna comment on that?  Does that lack of permission equate to defamation?

It's not defamation, which requires publication of a falsehood.  But if I make money by using something that belongs to you (your image, your words, etc.), then I should get your permission for my use of your property, or else pay for it.  In general, see Calif law governing the right to publicity.  I have no idea what the legal basis of her lawsuit may be, but the Calif statute's general principle seems to apply.

[psychoticstate]

My guess would be that Ms. De Havilland is citing slander.  She could state that Feud's depiction of her is harmful to her reputation; i.e., the insinuation of gossiping about co-workers.

I'm surprised that Ryan Murphy and his attorneys would not have considered getting her permission before portraying her on the show.  He obviously had no issue with Davis or Crawford since they are deceased. 

[AuntiePam]

33 minutes ago, psychoticstate said:

I'm surprised that Ryan Murphy and his attorneys would not have considered getting her permission before portraying her on the show.  He obviously had no issue with Davis or Crawford since they are deceased. 

He's quoted in an article I read (but can't recall where) that he didn't attempt contact because he didn't want to intrude on her. 

[voiceover]

15 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

I would join a class action suing the show for its clunky writing. My ears were irreparably harmed.

Look! It's Captain Obvious from those commercials!!?

 

56 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

He's quoted in an article I read (but can't recall where) that he didn't attempt contact because he didn't want to intrude on her. 

Ouch.  Guess it's biting him in the ass now.

Thanks 3pwood for the info.  Add "defamation requires publication" to the list of Stuff I Learned in School & Forgot.

[Rinaldo]

Catching up with Scaramouche over the weekend. It's been discussed here in the past, and now I've seen it. Not one for the ages, really, but the oft-discussed 6-minute swordfight is something one has to have seen. (Cary Elwes says that it's what they had to aim at topping if possible in The Princess Bride -- in virtuosity if not in length.) Eleanor Parker seems to keep turning up in what I've been seeing lately (like the middle version of Of Human Bondage), and I can't escape the impression that she was a nice mid-level contract player that her studio kept ill-advisedly pushing as a star. But in this, at least, she's lively and funny, and good company. More evidence of how period styles in movies inevitably get adapted to current ideas of attractiveness: both she and Janet Leigh are styled with rippling tresses down the back (looking incongruous on Leigh as it's supposed to be a powdered wig), and Parker's Columbine get-up is a strapless number that would have been flat-out inconceivable then. Ah well, 'twas ever thus and ever will be. Nina Foch gets yet another of her upper-crust-elegance walk-ons as Marie Antoinette.

The saga of the preparation and casting of this movie is more dramatic than anything seen onscreen.

Edited July 3, 2017 by Rinaldo

[Charlie Baker]

Last night was farm-themed on TCM.  They followed Places in the Heart with The Southerner, a movie from Jean Renoir's Hollywood days (according to Ben M, M. Renoir's favorite of those).  There are similarities with PITH--a family struggles to raise cotton on their own.  And like Swamp Water, another of Renoir's Hollywood movies, it's set in the deep South and is extremely atmospheric.  But this one is more naturalistic and gritty.  Ben M says Zachary Scott was cast when first choice Joel McCrea (who I know has fans here) fell through. McCrea would have been excellent casting.  Scott was cast kind of against type, like Dana Andrews was in Swamp Water.  And he's very good as a straightforward, hard working salt of the earth type. (Ben notes he got some of his best reviews for this movie.)  He's matched by Betty Field, as his wife, without the edge I remember her having in other roles. Some of the movie's a bit on the corny side, Beulah Bondi pushes the irascible grandmother a little, for example, but not too much.  Overall, it'works.  You want this little family (and the community around them) to make it. 

[bmoore4026]

Well, Happy 4th of July, all.

One of the movies they're playing in honor of today is Seven Brides for Seven Brothers.  Welcome to America!  Feel free to kidnap a woman and make her your wife against her will.

Today is the annual playing of The Devil's Disciple (Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, and Lawrence Olivier in the same movie together?  How has this not inspired more fan pairings), The Scarlet Coat, and 1776, which won't be on until late, just in time for fireworks.

Also on today is West Side Story (which deconstructs the hell out of the American Dream) and, late at night, The Music Man, which serves as the counter argument and beat out the former for Best Musical at the Tony Awards.  *dry cough*

[Milburn Stone]

26 minutes ago, bmoore4026 said:

Also on today is West Side Story (which deconstructs the hell out of the American Dream) and, late at night, The Music Man, which serves as the counter argument and beat out the former for Best Musical at the Tony Awards.  *dry cough*

Whenever this fact comes up, there are those who say that as great and groundbreaking as West Side Story was, The Music Man deserved the Tony that year even up against competition as awesome as West Side Story. I'm going to be that person this time. :)

I never held that opinion until I saw a production of the show up at the Stratford Festival a few years ago. But the genius of the show hit home for me then. I can believe that many Tony voters gave the nod to The Music Man only after careful consideration (i.e., they fully knew how great West Side Story was, and felt that in any other year they'd give their vote to it--so at least for these voters, it wasn't necessarily a case of "how could they have been so blind, what were they thinking?!?").

Edited July 4, 2017 by Milburn Stone

[Rinaldo]

1 hour ago, Milburn Stone said:

Whenever this fact comes up, there are those who say that as great and groundbreaking as West Side Story was, The Music Man deserved the Tony that year even up against competition as awesome as West Side Story. I'm going to be that person this time. :)

Oh, there's going to be at least one more, and that's me. :)

And I used to be one of those insufferable grad-school snots (I'm talking about myself and my fellow music majors, not anyone here) who would publicly moan about The Music Man beating West Side Story for the Tony award (even though I actually know and liked both shows and had stage-managed TMM, I thought of it as "shallow" somehow). And then I really started paying attention to both, and came to understand that they both achieve greatness in their own ways. The Music Man is one of the best dramatizations of a central American myth: the apparently cynical phony who unknown to himself can really do what he presents to do. Under the pretense (to himself) of ripping off a town, he in fact brings joy -- and music, which we learn is joy -- to everyone in town, including himself. And at the same time we get a cornucopia of period American musical styles.

Plus the movie is as perfectly cast and directed as such things get. Now, when I think about the Tony voters that year, I think, "What a privilege, and what a year, to get to choose between two beautifully contrasted supreme masterpieces."

Extra-Credit Essay Question: We're told that Harold Hill has worked his boys'-band scam multiple times, and is notorious for it. How is it profitable for him? Where does he make his money?

Edited July 4, 2017 by Rinaldo

[bmoore4026]

39 minutes ago, Rinaldo said:

Oh, there's going to be at least one more, and that's me. :)

And I used to be one of those insufferable grad-school snots (I'm talking about myself and my fellow music majors, not anyone here) who would publicly moan about The Music Man beating West Side Story for the Tony award (even though I actually know and liked both shows and had stage-managed TMM, I thought of it as "shallow" somehow). And then I really started paying attention to both, and came to understand that they both achieve greatness in their own ways. The Music Man is one of the best dramatizations of a central American myth: the apparently cynical phony who unknown to himself can really do what he presents to do. Under the pretense (to himself) of ripping off a town, he in fact brings joy -- and music, which we learn is joy -- to everyone in town, including himself. And at the same time we get a cornucopia of period American musical styles.

Plus the movie is as perfectly cast and directed as such things get. Now, when I think about the Tony voters that year, I think, "What a privilege, and what a year, to get to choose between two beautifully contrasted supreme masterpieces."

Extra-Credit Essay Question: We're told that Harold Hill has worked his boys'-band scam multiple times, and is notorious for it. How is it profitable for him? Where does he make his money?

Gary, Indiana?

[Milburn Stone]

A word about WSS (I'll pretend I'm talking about the movie, to make it belong in a TCM thread)...One thing I myself have to remind myself is that Bernstein/Sondheim/Laurents/Robbins were asking something very difficult of the audience, something which there's no way for us to directly appreciate the difficulty of. (We have to "project" ourselves back there in our imaginations.) They were making a show that asked audiences to identify with, and appreciate the humanity of, characters that were inherently frightening and objectionable to that audience. That's the part that's difficult for us to grasp now, because the real-life "juvenile delinquents" of the fifties seem (to us) so mild in comparison to the far worse threats to public safety that were to come later. To the theater-going audience of 1957, the real-life delinquents of the time must have been repugnant. 

There were movies earlier (even going back to the thirties) that attempted to gain understanding for the root causes of delinquency, to make the case that these were just good kids who didn't have a chance, etc. Still, it had to be a tough sell to get a Broadway audience to see beneath the daily threat to its existence posed by street violence, and the threat to civilization itself--1950s-level threats which we can't feel because the real-life threats of that time seem almost humorously benign to us now. The creative team must have known the resistance level would be high. So their achievement in humanizing these characters--characters which the audience must have been inclined to loathe upon entering the theater, even if some felt differently upon leaving it--has to be saluted. The equivalent today would be a musical that made us identify with terrorists.

P.S. Which Sondheim would basically later do, if you consider the terrorist category to include presidential assassins. The degree of difficulty in the task can be judged by the fact that, as extraordinary as Assassins is (and I think it's fabulous), it has never been a roaring success. But he does seem to have a predilection for "tell me who the most loathed people are, and I will make an audience care about them."

Edited July 4, 2017 by Milburn Stone

[Crisopera]

Rinaldo - the scam works because he orders the uniforms and instruments, collects the money from the suckers, and skips out with their money (probably several hundred dollars), usually before the uniforms and instruments arrive.  This time he "got his foot stuck in the door."  (And fellow traveling salesmen - except for Charlie Cowell who has a personal grudge -  wouldn't be likely to publicize his nefarious ways - they were already suspected by the public.)

I am also a person who prefers the stage version of TMM over WSS.  I don't like the book for WSS very much  - that for TMM is much better, IMO.  Mind you, the WSS score is one of the greatest ever written.

Edited July 4, 2017 by Crisopera

[Rinaldo]

3 hours ago, Crisopera said:

Rinaldo - the scam works because he orders the uniforms and instruments, collects the money from the suckers, and skips out with their money (probably several hundred dollars), usually before the uniforms and instruments arrive.

But he must pay the vendors he ordered the uniforms and instruments from. If he stiffed them, he could only work the scam once. So he's basically running a legit music business. The only cheat is that he promised lessons and hasn't provided them -- but he hasn't been paid for them either.

I'm in a bad position to be objective about the West Side Story movie. It happened to come out (in one of those special "road show" releases, playing only one theater in the Chicago area, complete with intermission [and souvenir program, for a price; I still have mine]) just when I was starting high school and the right age to be swept away by its theatricality and visual flash. And music (which I was just discovering was my special passion). And that impression has never gone away for me.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Rinaldo

[voiceover]

Eh, I'm not a fan of either one of 'em.

But yayyy!!! 1776!   I found the Scholastic Books paperback copy of that libretto on the shelf in my 8th grade Unified Studies classroom.  Laughed all the way through it.  As much as I loved history, my 13-year-old mind was blown at this warts & all view of the Founding Fathers ("Rhode Island? (pause) Second call: Rhode Island?" "I believe Rhode Island's out visiting the 'necessary'." "Rhode Island passes.").

And is there a better musical punchline than "Saltpetre, John!"?

[Padma]

16 hours ago, Rinaldo said:

Extra-Credit Essay Question: We're told that Harold Hill has worked his boys'-band scam multiple times, and is notorious for it. How is it profitable for him? Where does he make his money?

Me, me!!! How about, "He collects his $17 from each family before riding out of town--that's $10 for the instrument and practices, $5 for the uniforms and a cool $2 he's absconding with that these cheapskates are furious about because they feel they didn't get anything for their money!" Seriously, as scams go, it's not putting food on the table, probably just enough to get the train to the next town. I guess Willson didn't want him to be TOO much of a louse.

If I'd been a voter that year, I probably would have chosen WWS because it's dark and it's obviously ART (Bernstein, Sondheim, Jerome Robbins, social commentary and a "serious" unhappy ending.) Plus successful updated inspiration from Shakespeare--with great music. How could I not vote for that kind of innovative musical, vs. a fairy tale about small town America (albeit with great music, a superstar performance, clever script and a happy (corny? pat?) ending--plus romance where the couple gets together instead of dies!)  I'll bet a lot of people criticized the voters that year (1957) because it seemed that people voted for a happy musical fairy tale about small town America over a more serious musical urban drama with social commentary.

Given the same choice to vote on today, I'd still choose WWS for all those reasons, particularly because it seems more innovative  BUT I wouldn't begrudge it if TMM won (and its also the movie I can watch over and over, not WWS. Which is another way of judging.)

(I liked Ben M. saying in his intro tonight, "If I had to watch just one musical number for the rest of my life it would be 'Trouble'.")

ETA I missed seeing most of the above discussion in overcoming some computer glitch. Now, too late to revise. So just will add re: 1776, Tonight was the first time I've seen it--don't know how I've missed it as a history buff.  I enjoyed it overall, both as a musical and as history esp. showing how much real drama and conflict and tension was involved in getting to independence and Jefferson's great document. But... John Adams really -wasn't- said to be obnoxious and a jerk (except, later, in his own description of himself which I don't think we should take literally). He was actually quite well-respected.  (I know, I know, dramatic license and all... But he -was- a real person so, kind of too bad to be immortalized like that for people who might never know much else about him.). And Franklin seemed like kind of a goofball.  Still, it was an ambitious and successful effort that, and no one would make into a movie today. Made me appreciate--once again--TCM.)

Edited July 5, 2017 by Padma

[Crisopera]

Rinaldo - I believe that the salesmen didn't have to pay for the stuff they sold upfront - the companies trusted them to send the money once the items were delivered (on the Wells Fargo Wagon!).  I would guess that most of the salesmen were honest enough and sent in the payments (minus their commission).  Or that's what I want to believe (fingers in ears, lalalalala).  Of course, I imagine that there were more than a few con men who worked scams like Harold Hill. 

[Rinaldo]

Sure -- but once Prof. Hill hadn't sent in his payments from one town, would the companies trust him again the next time?

[voiceover]

6 hours ago, Padma said:

But... John Adams really -wasn't- said to be obnoxious and a jerk (except, later, in his own description of himself which I don't think we should take literally). He was actually quite well-respected.  (I know, I know, dramatic license and all... But he -was- a real person so, kind of too bad to be immortalized like that for people who might never know much else about him.). And Franklin seemed like kind of a goofball.  

The John Adams of 1776 was actually a mix of John & his cousin Samuel, which accounts for the "obnoxious & disliked" edge.

Much of Franklin's quippy character appears drawn from his "Poor Richard's Almanack" [sic] but there's also a line about how he might have been skating by on his "Great Man" rep.  While they're arguing over cutting the slavery part of the D-of-I, Adams snaps: "Don't wave your [anti-slavery] credentials at me! Perhaps it's time you had them renewed!"

Edited July 5, 2017 by voiceover

[Crisopera]

Quote

Sure -- but once Prof. Hill hadn't sent in his payments from one town, would the companies trust him again the next time?

You got me there.  Shakes fist - Damn you, logic!

[SusieQ]

5 minutes ago, Crisopera said:

You got me there.  Shakes fist - Damn you, logic!

Okay, maybe I'm really a cynic but I always assumed that Hill just took the money and didn't order the instruments and uniforms. Told the folks that the stuff would arrive soon and high tailed it out of town before the date he gave for arrival.

[Rinaldo]

But we SEE them all being delivered. The arrival of the instruments on the Wells Fargo Wagon is the big midpoint climax of the movie. And the band is wearing their uniforms when they show up to play in the classroom.

[Padma]

He fills out the order forms and then later collects his $17 after they get everything. I don't actually think he's much of a conman, but hypothetically, couldn't someone get them to fill out--and sign--order forms without reading carefully, get the stuff...pay him...he leaves town....

....only then the instrument and uniform companies send them the bill since he ordered -for- them either cash due later or on an installment plan that he starts for them and leaves them to pay off while he takes their money and splits? It's easy to see how River City folks could trust a con man and sign whatever he gave them.

[SusieQ]

2 hours ago, Rinaldo said:

But we SEE them all being delivered. The arrival of the instruments on the Wells Fargo Wagon is the big midpoint climax of the movie. And the band is wearing their uniforms when they show up to play in the classroom.

I'm an idiot. I guess I was thinking that this was the one time he actually purchased the stuff. I truly never cared about the actual scam. I just love the show so much. And I'm so happy that Wilson insisted that Preston reprise his role or else no movie. (I've never gotten over TBTB replacing Julie Andrews in "My Fair Lady".)