I Totally F***ing Love … Ever After (1998)

When Carley, headmistress of The Kitty Packard Pictorial, announced the “I Totally F***ing Love This Movie” blogathon, it occurred to me that I have several personal favorites that could fit this bill. Most of them are classics, to be sure (I mean, DUH–remember where you are, folks). Still, despite my near-constant grumblings about the utter dreck that is 95% of the films that are released theatrically nowadays, there are a number of movies from the past thirty-odd years that I find endearing, meaningful, and just plain re-watchable, and as a change of pace, I decided to focus on a more recent cinematic love of mine for this blogathon–but then, which one? Clueless, which pretty much defined high school for me (seriously, I can still quote every single line from that movie, and I’m unashamed to admit it)? Jurassic Park (dinosaurs!)? Fried Green Tomatoes (which, like Gone With the Wind and Steel Magnolias, is practically required viewing for good Southern girls)? All great movies, all ones that I can watch over and over again, never tiring of them.

But there is one movie I feel I should write about above all others, one that I have loved since I first saw it in theaters as a teenager, one that I own on DVD and yet must watch every time it comes on cable (and which is currently sitting on my DVR even though I OWN THE DAMN THING): Ever After: A Cinderella Story, starring Robert Osborne’s current Essentials co-host/favored Twitter punching bag Drew Barrymore.

I fucking love this movie. LOVE, LOVE, LOVE THIS MOVIE. And I don’t think I can fully express just how much I love it. But I can try!

 

I love …

ever after kiss

… the way Ever After plays with the conceit of fairy tales, conflating fact and fiction by painting the traditional Cinderella trope as something historical as opposed to fanciful. The film’s central plot is framed in the “present day” of nineteenth-century France, as the elderly Grande Dame, Marie Therese, requests a meeting with the Brothers Grimm to discuss their popular “children’s stories.” She professes her admiration for their work before berating them for not relaying the “true” story behind the tale of Cinderella. After showing them a portrait of her great-great-grandmother, Danielle, and her “glass slipper,” the Grande Dame launches into the tale of her ancestor’s life. It’s a fascinating approach to the story, one that takes French storyteller Charles Perrault’s version of the tale and expands it greatly, making Cinderella much more proactive in a slightly feminist twist on the character. This film’s Cinderella doesn’t sit around in a castle and make tiny clothes for mice while trilling about dreams–instead, she makes things happen for herself. How utterly novel (she says somewhat sarcastically, thinking of the Disneyfied princess trope that makes her want to hurl despite her intrinsic love for many of those animated classics).

 

I love …

ever after drew barrymore

… Drew Barrymore’s performance as the intelligent, passionate, fiercely protective Danielle.

As I mentioned above, Barrymore gets a lot of flack these days for her appearances on TCM, where her loose, laid-back approach to commentary provides a stark contrast to Robert O.’s more schooled and genteel criticism. And I have to admit, I find it rather irritating. The appeal of the Essentials series is the chance to hear differing perspectives on familiar, beloved films. Is Barrymore a little … flighty? Perhaps. But that doesn’t make her any less a fan than the rest of sitting at home, and I’d be hard-pressed to believe that any of her critics could do a better job elucidating why these movies are so meaningful to them. Give the woman a damn break.

Getting back to her performance here: Barrymore makes for a lovely Cinderella (despite the attempt at an accent, which admittedly comes and goes at times throughout the film). She’s incredibly expressive, and I like that her Cinderella is not pristine and unapproachable in her beauty; she is somewhat plain and decidedly down-to-earth, and the prince’s attraction to her relies more on her instincts and cleverness than her ability to charm with a wink and a dance. This is a Cinderella who takes no shit–my kind of gal.

 

I love …

ever after

… the rest of the female cast, starting with Anjelica Huston as the wicked stepmother. Rodmilla is the worst kind of bitch, cold and calculating and scheming, and Huston attacks the role with verve, adding a delicious bite of spitefulness to every word she utters. Add in Megan Dodds as whiny Marguerite and the ever-underrated Melanie Lynskey as kindhearted Jacqueline, and the pitch-perfectly-cast family portrait is complete. And let’s not forget Jeanne Moreau as Danielle’s great-great-granddaughter, the Grande Dame, who beautifully anchors the film’s framing device (Jeanne freaking Moreau, you guys!). This is a movie filled with some truly great female characters, and what I find most impressive is that even though the nature of this film would invite caricature, these characters are, for the most part, fully fleshed-out and relatable, even at their nastiest.

 

I love …

ever after wings costume

… those deliriously fantastic, sometimes over-the-top costumes. Siiiiiigh.

 

I love …

ever after leonardo

… the twist on the Fairy Godmother archetype, in which renowned artist/inventor/Renaissance man Leonardo da Vinci (Patrick Godfrey) is cast in the role. Instead of being “magical,” Leonardo’s help comes in the form of advice and scientific principle–a more pragmatic approach, true, but nonetheless an interesting way to supersede the “fairy” aspect of the character.

[Whenever I watch this film, I'm reminded anew of a particular pet peeve of my art history professor in college, who cringed every time someone referred to Leonardo da Vinci as simply "da Vinci," as that was NOT his last name--it's simply an indicator that the artist was "from Vinci" (a town in the Tuscany region of Italy). The proper way to address the artist is simply "Leonardo." Who says you don't really learn anything in college?]

 

I love …

dougray scott ever after

… Dougray Scott. There’s really nothing to add here. Just look at the picture and lose yourself for a moment. Or two.

 

Yes, I do so love this gorgeous, engrossing, thoroughly entertaining movie, for all these reasons and more. In the end, though, what it really comes down to is this: it doesn’t matter if this is a “good” film by others’ standards–what matters is that it speaks to me. I’ve often been guilty of judging others for their movie tastes, whether it’s because I don’t care for most action films, or because I am only now coming to understand the appeal of genres like Westerns. Still, whatever the reason may be, I shouldn’t do that, and neither should any of us, because if a movie gives someone joy, makes them feel, entertains them … then it has worth, and value, on a personal level. And really, isn’t that the most important thing about the movies, whether you’re talking about Citizen Kane or Showgirls, Casablanca or Ever After?

You know, movies are just plain fucking awesome.

 

ever after

“And while Cinderella and her prince did live happily ever after, the point, gentlemen, is that they lived.”

blogathon banner kitty packardThis post is our contribution to the “I Totally F***ing Love this Movie” Blogathon hosted by The Kitty Packard Pictorial. Check out the site to see more tributes to the films we seriously just can’t get enough of.

Blogathons? Yeah, we need some stinkin’ blogathons!

Ask and ye shall receive. The classic film blogging community has several special events coming up in the next few months, and we’re rounding up some of them for you here.

31 days of oscar blogathon banner

31 Days of Oscar Blogathon, hosted by Outspoken & Freckled, Paula’s Cinema Club, & Once Upon a Screen
February 1-March 3

In concurrence with TCM’s annual celebration of all things Oscar, the three bloggers who brought you last fall’s “What a Character!” blogathon have once again teamed up for another event. This time, it’s all about the Academy Awards–and it’s not just limited to classic film, either. For more information, check out Aurora’s post on the event at Once Upon a Screen.

 

1940s cmba blogathon banner

CMBA’s Fabulous Films of the 40s
February 17-22

The first of the Classic Movie Blog Association’s two annual blogathons will focus on a broad topic–the movies of what was arguably Hollywood’s most creative decade (feel free to challenge that in the comments), the 1940s. We will be kicking in our two cents with a piece on the 1942 George Stevens classic The Talk of the Town. More information is available on the CMBA site.

Note: this particular blogathon is only open to CMBA members.

 

blogathon banner kitty packard

The “I Totally F***ing Love This Movie” Blogathon, hosted by The Kitty Packard Pictorial
February 22-24

The lovely Carley, proprietress of the Pictorial, is hosting a blogathon to celebrate what she calls “those movies”–the ones you love unconditionally, the ones you turn to when you need a boost, the ones you’re sometimes embarrassed to admit fit that bill. More details will be forthcoming next week, so keep an eye on the site for more information about how to participate in this one.

 

john garfield centennial blogathon banner

John Garfield Centennial Blogathon, hosted by They Don’t Make ‘Em Like They Used To
March 1-4

New CMBA inductee Patti is hosting her first-ever blogathon in honor of actor John Garfield’s 100th birthday. In recognition of Garfield’s achievements and his varied filmography, Patti is looking for contributors to each tackle a different film or interesting aspect of Garfield’s career. You can find more details and sign up to participate at They Don’t Make ‘Em Like They Used To.

 

fashion in film blogathon banner

Fashion in Film Blogathon, hosted by The Hollywood Revue
March 29-30

It’s baaaack … Angela’s popular Fashion in Film event from 2011 makes a triumphant return this spring. Posts about any aspect of fashion, style, and costume design in the movies are welcome–and are not restricted to the world of classic movies. For more information, check out the Revue (and Angela’s nifty video announcement of the blogathon!).

 

cagney blogathon banner

Cagney-thon, hosted by The Movie Projector
April

R.D. Finch is hosting a celebration of gangster/hoofing icon James Cagney at The Movie Projector in April. Exact dates are unavailable, as he is still making arrangements and signing up contributors. If interested in participating, contact R.D. through the site.

 

Have we forgotten to list any upcoming events here? Let us know in the comments!

And to conclude, just a heads-up: since the winter/spring slate is pretty full, we here at True Classics are planning our own event for sometime this summer. We’ll have more details in a couple of months, as it gets closer to show time (and yes, there will likely be prizes of some sort. We know why you really come here, people).

A smile and a tear: The Kid (1921)

A young, unmarried woman (Edna Purviance) gives birth in a charity hospital. Distraught and abandoned by the baby’s father, she leaves the child in the back of an expensive automobile along with a note imploring the owner of the car to care for the new orphan. Later, she reconsiders her rash action and returns to collect her son, only to discover that the car is gone–it has been stolen by two inept thieves.

After discovering the child in the back of the car, the thieves leave it sitting in an alley in a poor section of town. The Tramp (Charlie Chaplin) stumbles upon the child and, after various attempts to pawn the crying baby off on other people, finds the woman’s note and decides to raise the boy as his own.

Five years later, little John (Jackie Coogan) and his adoptive father live happily in their tiny apartment. The woman has, by this time, become a famous, rich opera star, and travels to the poor neighborhood to donate toys to the children. On one such trip the woman unknowingly encounters her own son. She soon discovers that the boy is sick and implores The Tramp to call a doctor, which he does. But when the doctor finds out that The Tramp is not the boy’s biological father, he calls the orphanage to come and retrieve the child, setting off a chain of events that threatens to disband the tiny, self-made family.

The Kid marks the first time Chaplin stepped behind the camera to direct himself in a feature-length film. But the prolific performer did not limit himself to merely directing and acting in the film; he also wrote the screenplay, produced it, and edited it (and even then he wasn’t quite done, for when The Kid was re-released for its fiftieth anniversary in 1971, Chaplin composed a brand-new musical score to accompany it). Chaplin had a hand in virtually every aspect of this film’s production, from scouting out the filming locations in Los Angeles to casting the other roles.

It is in The Kid that Chaplin finally brings all of the elements of his Little Tramp persona together into full, breathing life. Here, we see the fullest portrait yet of the character, complete with the co-mingled heart and pathos that define Chaplin’s most legendary role. His Tramp is both a clown and a tragic figure, filled with simple dignity and subject to the whims of a fast-paced world. Yet he is savvy enough to scheme and manipulate circumstances to make a (dubious) living for himself and the foundling, with whom he bonds almost immediately. This easy, close relationship with the kid is not surprising, considering The Tramp is, in a sense, much the child himself. He demonstrates a sometimes childlike wonder about the world, and is genuinely (and frequently) perplexed by the situations in which he inadvertently finds himself, like the street brawl with a musclebound Irish combatant. The character’s innate combination of worldliness and innocence is a big part of the reason why The Tramp has remained an iconic figure well past the heyday of the silent film era.

The movie’s storyline was born out of two traumatic, real-life events that, whether intentionally on his part or not, permeate Chaplin’s performance in the film. When Chaplin was seven years old, he was sent to a workhouse; his mother suffered from mental illness and could not support the family, and would eventually be committed to an asylum due to burgeoning psychosis. Being torn from his mother at such a young age wounded young Chaplin deeply. More than two decades later, in 1919, Chaplin’s teenage wife, Mildred Harris, gave birth to a disfigured child, who sadly died three days later. Considering these experiences, it’s little wonder that The Kid stands as Chaplin’s most personal film. Looking at the movie through the lens of Chaplin’s real life, scenes such as the one in which The Tramp is reunited with John after the social workers try to take him away are made even more poignant.

The idea for The Kid emerged in the midst of Chaplin’s grief for his deceased son, as he began to wonder: what would happen if The Tramp were to be forced into a paternal role, caring for an orphaned child? Chaplin found his muse for the story (originally titled The Waif) in young vaudevillian Jackie Coogan, a precocious performer who had been pushed on stage by his father, also an actor, practically from infancy. Coogan demonstrated a talent for mimicry and a marked naturalness in front of the camera, and Chaplin immediately formed a bond with the child. When he was forced to shut down production of The Kid for a while to make an impromptu short subject, A Day’s Pleasure (1919), to appease his distributors, Chaplin cast Coogan as his son in that film, too. The Kid reveals the depths of the child’s talent; Coogan’s John is a heart-breaker, a wide-eyed, mischievous, and utterly adorable moppet who manages to be more endearing than annoying (something his child-actor successors like Shirley Temple were not always as adept at doing).

For the role of The Woman, Chaplin turned to frequent costar Purviance. Purviance had starred in more than two dozen short films with Chaplin since her debut opposite him in 1915′s A Night Out. The Kid marked her first appearance in a feature-length film, and she would appear opposite Chaplin in one more film, 1923′s A Woman of Paris, before retiring from the screen in 1927. Purviance was a wise choice for the role; The Woman (having abandoned her child at the start of the film) runs the risk of being an unlikable figure, but Purviance’s emotion shines through in a very appealing way that invites the audience’s sympathy for her plight.

The Kid is nothing short of a delight to watch. It is filled with priceless scenes: The Tramp rigging baby gear out of the things around his apartment, including a watering can that doubles as a bottle; The Tramp unknowingly flirting with the wife of his beat-cop nemesis; the kid making pancakes with the confidence of a cook at a greasy spoon; the multiple chase scenes involving police, angry Irishmen, and The Tramp’s frantic, emotional hunt to reclaim “his” boy. The one odd step in the film is the strange “Dreamland” sequence that is tacked on to the last ten minutes of the film, which is a somewhat awkward diversion from an otherwise solidly-grounded story. To a lesser extent, this move away from reality also presents an issue with the film’s conclusion; while there is a gritty realism to the scenes of The Tramp’s poverty-stricken neighborhood, the ending belies the authentically challenging world set up by the first half of the movie for the sake of an obligatory happy ending. Still, on the whole, this is a minor quibble; that ending is, for all its unrealistic expectations, nonetheless a welcome one. Seeing The Tramp find his happiness is a joyful thing, indeed, for who can begrudge our hero?

Ultimately, The Kid succeeds because of its beautiful, highly effective melding of slapstick and melodrama. As the opening title card claims, this one is “a picture with a smile and–perhaps, a tear,” and true, the act of watching the film is a kind of metaphorical tightrope walk between gales of laughter and crying jags. Despite this, remarkably, the movie never delves into the overtly maudlin, and it is ultimately the sweet sentimentality at the heart of The Kid that makes this one of Chaplin’s greatest screen efforts.

 

This post is part of a “stealth blogathon” (so to speak) being hosted today by another “kid,” The Kid in the Front Row. You can find more information and read his thoughts on this film at his site.

The early days of animation at Paramount, courtesy of the Fleischer brothers.

By 1927, Adolph Zukor, the Hollywood mogul behind the rapidly-expanding Paramount-Famous Lasky Corporation, had built a veritable entertainment empire. The studio had moved into a new, multimillion-dollar twenty-six acre lot off Melrose Avenue. They had amassed a chain of nearly two thousand theaters across the country, called Publix Theatres, in which to screen their many productions. Paramount was the home of some of the most popular films and biggest stars of the silent era–Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks, Rudolph Valentino (before his unfortunate early death in 1926), Clara Bow (star of 1927′s Wings, the first film to win the Academy Award for Best Picture), and Gloria Swanson among them. By the end of 1928, Paramount would move forward technologically with the release of their first all-talking film, Interference, starring William Powell. It was a time of success and unchecked progress, but Zukor wasn’t through expanding his empire. His ambitions soon led him to the one area Paramount had yet to conquer: animation.

Meanwhile, in New York, the Fleischer brothers, Max and Dave, had themselves built an animation studio that garnered much acclaim for their wildly inventive cartoons. In 1914, Max invented the rotoscope, which allows an artist to trace over live-action footage to create realistic-looking animated movement. Dave would don a clown costume, and Max would trace over his movements to produce the antics of a character they christened “Koko the Clown.” This gave rise to a series of animated vignettes called Out of the Inkwell, which depicted the adventures of Koko and his companion, a dog named Fitz. The Inkwell shorts were not just animated, however; they typically began with live-action footage of Max Fleischer interacting with his characters, much in the way Winsor McCay had done with his legendary dinosaur, Gertie, in 1914. The Inkwell cartoons were initially distributed through Bray Productions, a studio that focused singularly on producing animated content, and were included regularly in Bray’s newsreel features for Paramount. By 1921, the Fleischers (along with their brother, Lou) took control of production and formed the Fleischer Studios. The move was a prolific one for the brothers, as they produced more than sixty animated Inkwell shorts between 1921 and 1926, which were distributed by several studios, including Warner Bros.

But the Fleischers’ output didn’t stop there; in addition to the Inkwell cartoons, Max had begun to dabble in combining sound and animation in a series of shorts called Song Car-Tunesbeginning in 1924. While Walt Disney’s 1928 classic Steamboat Willie is generally recognized as the first cartoon to feature synchronized sound and music (even though Paul Terry’s Dinner Time technically premiered–and failed at the box office–more than a month before Willie), it’s important to note that the Fleischers were experimenting with the combination of animation and sound years before Mickey Mouse was created. The Car-Tunes soon employed a new gimmick created by either Dave or Max (there’s some dispute as to who actually came up with the idea)–the “follow the bouncing ball” routine. As the lyrics to a popular song appeared on the screen, the ball would bounce across the words to indicate the proper rhythm and cadence of the song, so viewers could follow and belt out the tune along with the rest of the audience. The first short to utilize the technique was the 1925 entry My Bonnie Lies Over the Sea, featuring the Scottish tune of the same name.

In 1927, Paramount made a deal with Fleischer Studios to distribute their cartoons. It would be a lucrative partnership. Out of the Inkwell became Inkwell Imps, producing over four dozen more Koko-starring shorts before being discontinued in 1929. Song Car-Tunes (which ended its run by the end of 1927) was then reborn as Screen Songs in 1929, and featured appearances by Paramount-contracted entertainers like Rudy Vallee, Cab Calloway (who also appeared in several other cartoons for the studio), and Ethel Merman. At the same time, Max and Dave collaborated on a new series of shorts called Talkartoons, in which Koko’s sidekick, Fitz (now rechristened Bimbo) became a star. Max’s preferred method of rotoscoping was eventually phased out in favor of more ambitious, stylized animation, led by the talented, young animators who flocked to the Fleischer studio, allowing Paramount to compete on the same level as animation giant Disney. And one of those fresh new cartoonists–Grim Natwick–produced Paramount’s first bona fide animated star in 1930, when Bimbo was given a girlfriend named Betty Boop.

Betty Boop wasn’t just popular; she was a phenomenon. Originally starting out as a canine companion to Bimbo, in 1932, Betty was made over into a human character, a flapper girl with naughty hemlines and a heart of gold. She sang and simpered her way through dozens of adventures–usually involving a lecherous threat to her treasured “boop-oop-a-doop.” By 1932, Talkartoons ceased to exist, and Betty was given her own series, with Bimbo and Koko as her frequent companions. She remained a popular figure and sex symbol until 1934; when strict enforcement of the Production Code took effect in July of that year, Betty’s hemlines were lowered, her overt sexuality was greatly tamped down, and the endearing naughtiness that made her cartoons so appealing was essentially gone. The Fleischers continued to produce Betty Boop cartoons through 1939, but the character never regained the same wild level of popularity that she had enjoyed in the early 1930s, and the series was finally discontinued.

In 1933, a Betty Boop short was used as a platform for the animated debut of a popular comic strip character, Popeye the Sailor. The comic strip depicted the love triangle between Popeye, his “goil” Olive Oyl (originally voiced by Mae Questel, who also voiced Betty Boop), and his rival, Bluto, a buff bully. The character immediately took off, and the Fleischers gave Popeye his own series two months later. As Betty Boop’s popularity waned, Popeye’s grew exponentially, and within three years, he was Paramount’s number-one animated star, even rivaling Mickey Mouse at one point as the most popular animated character in the world. Popeye was also notable for being one of the few cartoon characters to have his own theme song, which has remained a well-known tune since its introduction in the first Popeye short, I Yam What I Yam. More than one hundred black-and-white Popeye shorts were released between 1933 and 1939; between 1936 and 1939, the series also featured three double-length color features, which inserted the Popeye characters into the Arabian Nights tales.

Max Fleischer had long sought to secure funding from Paramount to create a feature-length animated film. But it was not until the groundbreaking success of Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs that Zukor and company agreed to give the animator free reign to complete his dream project: an animated film based on Jonathan Swift’s 1726 novel Gulliver’s Travels (but only the first part–the most famous part, featuring the tale of Gulliver’s encounter with the tiny Lilliputians). The catch? Fleischer’s film would have to be ready in time to be released at Christmas in 1939, and, more importantly, he would have to sign over the Fleischer Studios’ assets to Paramount in order to secure the loan–a move that eventually came back to haunt Max.

Paramount built a new animation studio for the Fleischers in Miami, and in 1938, they left New York and took up residence in Florida to complete the work on Gulliver’s Travels. In order to complete the film by Paramount’s imposed deadline, Fleischer Studios welcomed an influx of new artistic talent, and poached animators from Disney and other animation studios. The new team faced many issues, not the least of which was rivalry between different factions of animators within the studio, creating an air of discord throughout the film’s production. Still, despite these issues, Gulliver’s Travels was indeed completed on time and released by Paramount on Christmas Day, 1939. Though it was successful at the box office, however, it did not reach the same heights as its Disney-produced predecessor, and it did not quite recoup the costs of its production. The Fleischer studio had to swallow the loss.

In 1941, Fleischer Studios tackled another comic character, Superman, in a series of gorgeously-animated shorts. The Superman comic books were immensely popular, and Paramount salivated over the idea of cashing in on the superhero phenomenon. But the Fleischers were reluctant. The infighting among the animators had spread to Max and Dave; neither could stand to be in the same room with the other. On top of that, Paramount essentially owned the studio by this point, having called in its loans. And on top of that, they were finishing the production of their second animated feature, Mr. Bug Goes to Town. The brothers decided the best course of action would be to overestimate the necessary budget for adapting the comic book, but Paramount agreed to their terms and they were forced to undertake the series anyway. The first cartoon in the new series, simply titled Superman, debuted in September of that year, and was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Animated Short.

Mr. Bug Goes to Town had the great, unforeseen misfortune of being released in theaters two days before the bombing of Pearl Harbor. This essentially killed its chances at the box office; the film was an unmitigated flop. And it spelled the end for Fleischer Studios–Dave left to take control of Columbia’s animation division, Screen Gems, which put him in violation of the brothers’ contract with Paramount, and in return, Paramount forced the brothers out of their own studio and took full control. Fleischer Studios was renamed Famous Studios (in honor of Paramount’s origins), production was moved from Miami back to New York, and Max Fleischer joined the animation arm of the Jam Handy Corporation, producing military training films and eventually overseeing the 1944 animated version of the tale of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (which was re-released in 1948 with the addition of the popular Johnny Marks-penned song of the same name).

Without the Fleischer brothers, Paramount was unable to attain the same level of animated success. Famous Studios continued producing Fleischer creations Popeye, Screen Songs, and Superman, but the heyday of those series were soon behind them. Newly introduced characters such as Casper the Friendly Ghost and Baby Huey (whose adventures comprised a new series of cartoons under the heading of Noveltoons) were no match for Disney stars like Donald Duck and Goofy, or Warner Bros. stalwarts like Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck. In the mid-1950s, Paramount sold most of its pre-1950 animated library, excluding Popeye (which had been sold to Associated Artists) and Superman (for which Paramount’s rights had expired); many of those cartoons have been severely edited in the ensuing years, and most are now in the public domain in one butchered form or another. By the late 1950s, Famous Studios had been downsized into a smaller unit called Paramount Cartoon Studios, and the quality of production dropped steeply.

In 1967, a year after Gulf+Western acquired Paramount, the studio’s animation department was shuttered completely. By then, it was a pale ghost of what it had been under the Fleischers. But once upon a time, Paramount was a leader in the animation business, and the only serious challenger to the Disney conglomerate in the 1930s. Five Paramount-distributed Fleischer shorts appear on animation scholar Jerry Beck’s seminal 50 Greatest Cartoons list–Popeye the Sailor Meets Sinbad the Sailor (#17, 1936); Snow White (#19, 1933); Minnie the Moocher (#20, 1932); Superman (#33, 1941); and Bimbo’s Initiation (#37, 1931). It’s undeniable that, at the height of the Golden Age of Hollywood animation, Zukor’s studio empire presented moviegoers with some seriously entertaining, beautifully-drawn, and thought-provoking cartoons–animated gems that are, to this day, recognized and celebrated for their intelligent composition and artistic value.

 

This post is our contribution to the Paramount Centennial Blogathon, hosted this week by The Hollywood Revue. There have been some great contributions in the past two days, so head on over there and check them out!

What a Character: Mary Wickes

By all accounts, Mary Wickes did not start out her life with the intention to become an actress. She was a St. Louis debutante who attended college early, graduating from Washington University in St. Louis with a degree in political science with plans to attend law school–that is, until she gave in to the allure of the stage and headed to New York instead. Appearances on Broadway eventually led her to Hollywood, and she found her niche as a character actress, generally typecast as a wisecracking sidekick–nurses, secretaries, housekeepers–in a number of sprightly comedies.

Wickes certainly did not look–or sound like–the typical Hollywood starlet. Her tall, thin, somewhat gangly frame had her towering over many of her fellow actors. She had wide-set eyes and a long nose that gave her a rather patrician profile. Her voice was remarkable: loud and insistent, demanding to be heard, marked by high-pitched cracks and growls that grew more distinct in her later years. She demonstrated an impeccable sense of comic timing, and she seemed to have an almost instinctive sense for well-staged reaction shots (few could say more with a pair of widened eyes than Mary Wickes could). Everything about her was unique. Even if she never intended to be an actress, there’s no denying she was custom-made to be one anyway.

Wickes appeared in a few cinematic shorts in the 1930s, including a notable one in 1938 called Too Much Johnson, directed by Orson Welles, which she made while a member of Welles’ Mercury Theater. She finally made her feature film debut at the age of thirty-two, when she appeared in the 1942 classic The Man Who Came to Dinner. In the film, Wickes reprises her role from the original Broadway production alongside co-star Monty Woolley (who plays the main character, popular radio host Sheridan Whiteside). As the much-maligned nurse, Miss Preen, Wickes bears the brunt of the acerbic Whiteside’s sharp-tongued barbs (in addition to some manhandling courtesy of Jimmy Durante). Her reactions to Whiteside’s constant insults range from wild confusion to wide-eyed horror to, finally, a sharp-tongued rant of her own–a brilliant moment that highlights Wickes’ comedic abilities:

“I am not only walking out on this case, Mr. Whiteside, I am leaving the nursing profession. I became a nurse because all my life, ever since I was a little girl, I was filled with the idea of serving a suffering humanity. After one month with you , Mr. Whiteside, I am going to work in a munitions factory. From now on, anything I can do to help exterminate the human race will fill me with the greatest of pleasure. If Florence Nightingale had ever nursed you, Mr. Whiteside, she would have married Jack the Ripper instead of founding the Red Cross!”

Wickes parlayed that memorable supporting role into a number of others throughout the next fifty-something years. In the process, she starred with some of the biggest names of the classic Hollywood era, among them Bette Davis (the aforementioned Dinner; Now, Voyager; June Bride; The Actress), Abbott and Costello (Who Done It?); Doris Day (On Moonlight Bay, I’ll See You in My Dreams, By the Light of the Silvery Moon, It Happened to Jane); Jack Lemmon (How to Murder Your Wife); Rosalind Russell (The Trouble with Angels; Where Angels Go, Trouble Follows); Frank Sinatra (Higher and Higher); Bing Crosby (White Christmas); and many, many more.

Wickes was even immortalized in animation due to her involvement in two high-profile Disney features. For the 1961 classic 101 Dalmatians, Wickes served as the live-action model for the villainous Cruella De Vil. Disney’s Marc Davis animated the character, and according to his widow, Alice Estes Davis, Wickes was hand-picked by him to serve as the physical inspiration for Cruella: ”She was very tall, slim, had good bone structure and was a wonderful comedienne. All he had to do was tell her once how he wanted her to walk and move and that and she did it.” Wickes also supplied one of the additional voices in the film.

But Disney wasn’t quite done with her after that; thirty-four years later, Wickes’ final role before her death in 1995 was recording the voice of Laverne, one of the gargoyles in Disney’s adaptation of The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996). Sadly, Wickes passed away before completing her part, and the rest of her lines were filled in by actress Jane Withers (who also voiced Laverne in the highly unnecessary sequel to the film in 2002).

Wickes also made her mark on the small screen, with a number of appearances on popular television shows. Most notably, she became great friends with a fellow comedienne, the legendary Lucille Ball, and over the years, she appeared in several different incarnations on Lucy’s various television series. Her most well-known guest role, however, was her first (and the only one she would make on Ball’s first series, I Love Lucy). In 1952, she appeared as Madame Lemond, a grand dame of a dancing teacher, in the episode “The Ballet.” That episode remains one of the most beloved of the entire series, namely for the scene in which Wickes puts Lucy through her paces:

Lemond: “I think we should go to the barre.”
Lucy: “Oh, good, ’cause I’m awful thirsty.”

When Wickes passed away in 1995, Lucie Arnaz spoke at the memorial service and recalled the many times Wickes would come over to their home while she was growing up: ”Mary was just like one of the family. If any of us were sick or even in bed with a cold, Mary would show up at the back door with a kettle of chicken soup. She could be loud and boisterous and as demanding as any of the characters she played, but she was also very loving and giving. What a lady!”

What a lady, indeed. In her eighty-five years on this earth, Mary Wickes appeared in over a hundred films and television series. She never lacked for new roles, and indeed remained a popular entertainer; in her final years, her popularity saw a resurgence with memorable roles in Postcards from the Edge, the Sister Act films (in which she played crusty, feisty Sister Mary Lazarus), and the 1994 version of Little Women, in which she played Aunt March. In the end, it’s little wonder Wickes was able to maintain a seven-decade career, because it is simply a joy to watch her onscreen. Even in the smallest of roles, she brings warmth, humor, and pure zing to each film she graces. In every sense of the word, Mary Wickes was quite the character.

 

This post is our submission to the “What a Character!” blogathon hosted by Outspoken and Freckled, Once Upon a Screen, and Paula’s Cinema Club. The blogathon concludes tomorrow, so make sure to check out all of the great characters being discussed by the participating blogs!

Hello! ma baby, hello! my honey …

The ongoing Comedy Countdown at Wonders in the Dark is in full swing, and my second contribution to the event is now up on the site!

By sheer coincidence, number 69 on the countdown is the 1955 animated short One Froggy Evening, directed by none other than the subject of our week-long animation celebration, Chuck Jones!

Head on over to Wonders in the Dark to check out my thoughts on this classic cartoon! The comments section over there can get quite animated (see what I did there?), so please feel free to add your two cents to the conversation!

*Want to enter our drawing for two Looney Tunes compilations on DVD? Leave a comment on this post!*

Gene Kelly: the prettiest shortstop in baseball.

Take Me Out to the Ball Game (1949) is one of several films to feature Gene Kelly partnered with Frank Sinatra. I am a huge fan of both performers, so I love these movies. On the Town (1949) and Anchors Aweigh (1945) are on my list of favorite Gene Kelly films, and the Gene Kelly Blogathon (hosted by the Classic Movie Blog Association) gave me an excuse (in case I needed one) to explore the third in the series. If you’re interested, there is a film collection on DVD.  What’s more, TCM’s Summer Under the Stars is honoring Gene Kelly today in recognition of his one hundredth birthday, and that just fills my heart with glee.

Take Me Out to the Ball Game portrays the adventures of Dennis Ryan (Sinatra) and Eddie O’Brien (Kelly), two baseball players doubling as a vaudeville act. They help lead the Wolves through championship years and provide musical entertainment everywhere they go. In addition to Kelly and Sinatra, this film features Esther Williams (the Million Dollar Mermaid), Betty Garrett, Edward Arnold, and Jules Munshin as the fantastic character Goldberg. Entertaining connections: Betty Garrett also plays Brunhilde Esterhazy (a cab driver who has a thing for Frank Sinatra’s character “Chip”) in On the Town, and played in Neptune’s Daughter with Esther Williams. Betty Garrett gets to spend a lot of time chasing Frank Sinatra. That’s all I’m going to say about that.

Seriously–entertainment EVERYWHERE. I really did like this number, too.

Williams plays K.C. Higgens, who has just inherited ownership of the team and knows more about baseball than they would think and has more opinions than they would like. Too bad she’s beautiful …  Yet again, we watch Gene Kelly teach Frank Sinatra about attracting the opposite sex. Naturally, Higgens and O’Brien end up falling in love and endure a complicated courtship. Ryan falls in love with her, too, but Shirley (Garrett) manages to win his affections in the end, and believe me, she earns it.

As you might expect, Ryan and O’Brien perform the famous “Take Me Out to the Ball Game” (the 1927 version, not the 1908, if you’re astute enough to know the difference. I wasn’t so knowledgeable, but I know a lot about using Google–I looked it up). My other favorite number was “O’Brien to Ryan to Goldberg,” depicting their famous double-play strategy that’s the key to their victories. The number is catchy and  entertaining, even if you are a blasphemer, like myself, who doesn’t particularly care for baseball. It’s all about the rhythm, and I tend to love Gene Kelly’s trio numbers, anyway (“Good Morning,” anyone?). They may not all be as famous as his other routines, but I enjoy them quite well.

O’Brien to Ryan to Goldberg! The triangle that trumps the diamond!

Interestingly, several songs were deleted from the film: one of Frank Sinatra crooning to Shirley (which makes me kind of sad, but it was deemed “too slow”) and “Baby Doll,” which features a bizarre dance number between Kelly and Williams that could easily have inspired the toy routine in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968) and is just plain weird in this film. Removing Sinatra crooning is just wrong, but they did spare us the somewhat awkward (in the context of the film) number that did no justice to the dancing talent. For this reason, I give the editing 3.5 stars.

Despite re-running many elements amongst each other, I love the films in this series. Each one is its own delight. Overall, I have to say I prefer the sailor films to baseball, but this is one is still a lot of fun. We get the pleasure of the singing Sinatra and dancing Gene Kelly, which is what matters most. Gene Kelly performs with his usual charm and enthusiasm. He plays a character that would be obnoxious, except that he’s Gene Kelly. He often plays these characters, and I cannot help but love them. It doesn’t seem to matter if the musical numbers are excellent (think Singin’ in the Rain) or maybe longer than they needed to be (this film did have some of those, I’m sorry to say)–watching him dance makes you want to join him. If you could keep up. Which I can’t. It’s pure joy onscreen every time.

No matter what he’s doing, you just know it’s Gene Kelly. I have strolled through a room, glanced at the television, and known that it was a Gene Kelly piece–even without knowing the film. He brings all of his “Kelly-ness” to everything. You have to appreciate that sort of thing.

This film is a winner when you want something light and frivolous. It’s a good choice for a Memorial Day or Fourth of July film that’s a little different, since it is baseball after all, and it does have some patriotic undertones and a patriotic number. Perhaps it’s cliche, but I think I would definitely recommend this one with a hot dog, chased by peanuts and Cracker Jacks.

 

This post has a double function: as a contribution to the Gene Kelly Centennial Blogathon hosted by the Classic Movie Blog Association, and as another entry in the 2012 TCM SUTS blogathon hosted by Sittin’ on a Backyard Fence and ScribeHard on Film. Share the Gene Kelly love with everyone you know today!

“That’s the way it crumbles, cookie-wise.”

C.C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon) works on the lower rungs of an insurance company in New York City. He’s ambitious, but miserable–miserable because he has agreed to loan his apartment to various executives in the company to conduct extramarital affairs, forcing him to spend his nights waiting for the temporary “tenants” to vacate his premises. One day, the personnel director, Mr. Sheldrake (Fred MacMurray), prevails upon Baxter to use his apartment to “entertain” his own conquest. Baxter agrees and in return is given a promotion and a key to the executive washroom.

Little does Baxter realize, however, that Sheldrake’s “piece on the side” is Miss Fran Kubelik (Shirley MacLaine), the comely elevator operator on whom he has a crush. When Baxter later discovers this at the office Christmas party, he is crushed–as is Fran, when she learns from Sheldrake’s spiteful secretary (Edie Adams) that she is the latest in a long line of Sheldrake’s office flings. Baxter picks up a girl in a bar and takes her back to his apartment, where he finds a distraught Fran has overdosed on sleeping pills.

Baxter nurses Fran back to health with the help of his judgmental neighbor, Dr. Dreyfuss (Jack Kruschen), who believes that Baxter is little more than a wastrel (having witnessed the parade of women entering and leaving Baxter’s apartment over time). In their time together, Baxter falls even more in love with Fran, though she is still hung up on Sheldrake. When Sheldrake’s wife discovers the truth about her husband and kicks him out, Sheldrake reignites his relationship with Fran, leading her to believe that they will someday be together legitimately. For his part, Baxter has finally had enough of the ills of blind ambition, and refuses to be a “bought” man anymore, leading Fran to realize that maybe she has put her faith in the wrong man after all.

The Apartment (1960), director Billy Wilder’s follow-up to his smash hit comedy Some Like It Hot (1959), is a departure from the screwball zaniness of that previous film. While the movie definitely has its moments of laugh-out-loud brilliance, it’s hard to classify The Apartment as an outright comedy; the dramatic elements, marked by an inescapable sense of pathos, belie that kind of catch-all categorization. In making The Apartment, Wilder seems to be taking some cues from predecessors/colleagues such as Ernst Lubitsch (Wilder’s admitted cinematic hero) and Preston Sturges in his attempt to mash up starkly different genres into a unified whole. And remarkably, it works: like those directors’ masterworks The Shop Around the Corner (1940) and Sullivan’s Travels (1941), Wilder’s Apartment seamlessly meshes an entire range of human emotion into a brilliant, singular cinematic statement.

Wilder reportedly based the story of The Apartment on a tangential thought he had while watching David Lean’s Brief Encounter (1945). In that film, married lovers Laura (Celia Johnson) and Alec (Trevor Howard) borrow a friend’s apartment for a tryst. Wilder’s curiosity was piqued. What kind of man, he wondered, would be willing to loan out his home for such a thing? Wilder and co-screenwriter I.A.L. Diamond also drew on Hollywood gossip of the day to flesh out their story—most notably the Joan Bennett-Walter Wanger scandal, in which Wanger shot his wife’s agent, Jennings Lang, in a fit of jealousy over the affair between the two. To conduct their affair in secrecy, Lang had been using an apartment belonging to one of his employees (a detail that Wilder and Diamond eventually used as the crux of their tale). The seedier elements of The Apartment–which had presented issues when Wilder first proposed the idea after seeing Encounter in the 40s–were, if not more acceptable, at least somewhat less controversial by the time the movie was produced in 1960. The gradual breakdown of the Production Code (due in large part to the efforts of envelope-pushing filmmakers like Elia Kazan and Otto Preminger in the 50s) allowed the more risque elements of The Apartment to not only pass the muster of the censors, but to appeal to a broader audience hungry for more realistic, “adult” narratives.

The result was a film that volleys between farce and heartbreak, delicately balancing the lighter and darker elements while utterly reveling in the chance to reveal the seamier side of life. It’s not a happy story; nor it is an entirely sad one. The ending is somewhat anticlimactic, yet fitting. Everything that probably shouldn’t work about The Apartment ends up working beautifully. Wilder worshiped the notion of the “Lubitsch touch” (as did many of his contemporaries), but as this film demonstrates so aptly, the “Wilder touch” was nothing to sneeze at, either.

Take, for instance, one of the first scenes of the film, which establishes the “other” use of Baxter’s apartment. As he walks home down the shadowy city street, he glances up at the brightly-lit window of his apartment, resigning himself to the fact that he’ll have to wait before he can get inside to get warm. He lights a cigarette and smokes nervously. Meanwhile, inside, Sylvia (Joan Shawlee) emerges from the bedroom, humming and dancing, to greet Al Kirkeby (David Lewis). It’s very obvious that the two of them have just finished having sex; there is no question that they have “shattered the Commandments” (to borrow a phrase), but at the same time, the characters make no apologies for what they have done. Their behavior is not secretive or shameful; they are almost nonchalant in their attitudes about adultery (Sylvia: “You mean you bring other girls up here?” Kirkeby: “Certainly not. I’m a happily married man”). Wilder switches between a shot of the careless lovers, cozy in their nest, and the shivering, increasingly frustrated Baxter outside. When the couple finally leaves, Baxter is left to clean up their mess, tossing empty booze bottles in the trash and fielding Kirkeby’s request for vodka, vermouth, and “little cheese crackers.” The juxtaposition here between the couple and Baxter brings up an interesting question: who should feel more guilty–the illicit lovers, or the man who provided their love nest at the cost of his self-respect and personal dignity?

The strength of The Apartment lies in the performance of Jack Lemmon. This marks the second of seven collaborations between the actor and director (the first of which was the year before, in Hot), and it presents what is undoubtedly the best role Wilder ever wrote for Lemmon. As an actor, Lemmon was a type of Everyman, highly relatable and sympathetic in a wide variety of roles, and Wilder instinctively knew how to take full advantage of that quality by crafting Baxter to Lemmon’s strengths. C.C. Baxter is many things: desperate, lonely, ambitious, love-struck, calculating, put-upon … he’s a multifaceted character if there ever was one, and Lemmon brings him to glorious life, juggling Baxter’s constantly-shifting emotions with aplomb and making the audience empathize with him in the process. [If I have only one complaint with Lemmon's performance, it comes from the unforgettable scene in which Baxter strains spaghetti with a tennis racket--and then rinses the pasta. Eek! We good part-Italian girls know you NEVER rinse the noodles!]

The supporting cast is just as strong as their leading man: Shirley MacLaine, here playing one of the original Manic Pixie Dream Girls, is lovely, lost, and conflicted; Fred MacMurray, playing against type as the sleazeball Sheldrake, is a deliciously diabolical cheating bastard; and Edie Adams, as Miss Olsen, Sheldrake’s disillusioned secretary/former mistress, is great in a small but pivotal role. Jack Kruschen turns in an Oscar-nominated performance as Dr. Dreyfuss, Baxter’s nosy, concerned neighbor (“Be a mensch,” he admonishes Baxter). And for those of us who grew up watching Bewitched reruns, how weird is it to see “Larry Tate” (David White) playing a cheating executive at Baxter’s company? (Okay, it’s not so weird–Larry Tate was an asshole, after all.)

The Apartment is the highlight of Wilder’s partnership with Diamond, which spanned a dozen films over two decades. Diamond’s contributions to the latter half of Wilder’s career cannot be discounted; while Wilder brought a more caustic, world-weary sense to their screenplays, Diamond infused them with a great deal of heart. It is safe to assume that, had Diamond not contributed to the script for The Apartment, the sweeter elements of the story, particularly the lovely chemistry between Baxter and Miss Kubelik, would have been dulled, if not lost entirely. Compare The Apartment to 1950′s Sunset Blvd., which Wilder co-wrote with Charles Brackett and D.M. Marshman, Jr.: not a drop of sentimentality to be seen, resulting in a harsher, more unrelentingly bleak tone. And while some might argue that such sentiment in The Apartment blunts the satirical message about ambition and business culture in America, I would in turn argue that the “fuzzier” elements of the story have their merits, as one of this movie’s most important themes is the triumph of hope and integrity over cynicism, embodied by Baxter’s moment of self-realization in the end and Fran’s no-nonsense, downright unsentimental acceptance of Baxter’s declaration of love (“Shut up and deal”).

The Apartment was a hit, both with critics (well, some of them) and at the box office. It won five Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Screenplay. Today, it is remembered as one of Wilder’s best, if not the best product of his career, with one of Jack Lemmon’s most iconic performances. If you’ve never seen this movie, you are depriving yourself of a truly wonderful experience. You’ll laugh, you’ll tear up, you’ll cheer, you’ll marvel at the general moral depravity of humanity. What more could you ask for from a single film?

 

This post is an entry in the ongoing “2012 TCM SUTS Blogathon” hosted by Sittin’ on a Backyard Fence and ScribeHard on Film. Share the Lemmon love and check out all of the other “juicy” (sorry, couldn’t resist) entries being posted today.