Happy Birthday to Ginger Rogers and Barbara Stanwyck!

Today marks the anniversary of the births of two fabulous stars from the Golden Age of Hollywood—Ginger Rogers and Barbara Stanwyck.

  Ginger cutting her birthday cake?

Ginger’s birthday this year is extra special because it would have been her 100th!

~ Barbara Stanwyck Quotes ~

“My only problem is finding a way to play my fortieth fallen female in a different way from my thirty-ninth.”

"I`m a tough old broad from Brooklyn. I intend to go on acting until I`m ninety and they won`t need to paste my face with make-up."

“Egotism - usually just a case of mistaken nonentity.”

“Career is too pompous a word. It was a job and I have always felt privileged to be paid for doing what I love doing.”

“Attention embarrasses me. I don't like to be on display.”

“I want to go on until they have to shoot me.”

~ Ginger Rogers Quotes ~

I`m most grateful to have had that joyous time in motion pictures. It really was a Golden Age of Hollywood. Pictures were talking, they were singing, they were coloring. It was beginning to blossom out: bud and blossom were both present.

"They're not going to get my money to see the junk that's made today." (1983)

"The only way to enjoy anything in this life is to earn it first."

(on being asked in 1943 what a girl needs to be a movie star) “Intelligence, adaptability and talent. And by talent I mean the capacity for hard work. Lots of girls come here with little but good looks. Beauty is a valuable asset, but it is not the whole cheese.”

“I believe in living each day as it comes, to the best of my ability. When it's done, I put it away, remembering that there will be a tomorrow to take it's place. If I have any philosophy, that's it. To me it's not a fatalistic attitude.”

"When you're happy, you don't count the years."

“Perhaps I’m old-fashioned, but black and white films still hold an affectionate  place in my heart; they have an incomparable mystique and mood. Believe me, the technique and expertise for achieving these effects were almost more challenging than the splendor of color. Certainly the result was as powerful as an Ansel Adams photograph.”

"The most important thing in anyone's life is to be giving something. The quality I can give is fun, joy and happiness. This is my gift."

~

I hope you have time today to watch one of these lovely ladies’ films and appreciate their talent and legacy!

Short Review: Tom, Dick and Harry (1941)

 
Feb. 4, 2011

29. Tom, Dick and Harry (1941)

Starring Ginger Rogers, George Murphy, Alan Marshal, Burgess Meredith

Directed by Garson Kanin

Plot: “Working girl Janie is proposed to by a conservative car salesman, a bohemian auto mechanic, and a millionaire playboy and must make a choice.” (from IMDb)

I like Ginger Rogers. I really do. She was wonderful in Stage Door, The Major and the Minor, Primrose Path, Vivacious Lady, the musicals with Fred, etc. It’s just that the last few movies I’ve watched of hers have not been my favorite. Sooo, prepare yourself for another dud review. First of all, she just acts really stupid in this. (I guess there’s not a nice way to say that.) It’s like her character has the intelligence of a four-year-old (if even). It’s not even genuine—it sounds exactly like a 29-year-old woman talking in baby-talk (which it is). I can imagine an actress like Jean Arthur or Betty Hutton (think her character in The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek) doing a much better job with this role. Ginger herself could’ve done better if she would’ve played it differently. But that’s just my opinion. Though really, a better lead would not have saved the film. The plot itself is pretty thin and there are some bizarre ‘dream’ sequences that are at best crazy and at worst downright creepy (especially with the little ‘babies’ *shudder*). Also, all three of the male leads are pretty much unlikable. I found myself not really caring much about them. I will give the movie credit in that it kept one guessing up until the very end who she would ultimately pick to marry. I really had no idea! But even when she did pick The One, I just didn’t feel satisfied in the conclusion. One has the feeling that the marriage would not go so well and Janie would come crawling back home looking for her pacifier pretty soon. What I think she should do is tell all the men ‘no’ and grow up a little, maybe go to college or travel. But of course that didn’t happen. Maybe I’m being unnecessarily cruel here. I hope not. It’s just that I didn’t care for this film (if you can’t tell). There was not one character that I can think of that I actually liked (even her family was strange—especially her sister, Butch. I’m not even joking; that was here name.) Ginger did wear a pretty dress and wrap, though, when she went to Chicago…I guess that counts for something? Honestly, that’s the best I can do for positives. Let me know if I’m missing something here!

Short Review: Once Upon a Honeymoon (1942)

Feb. 3, 2011
28. Once Upon a Honeymoon (1942)
Starring Cary Grant, Ginger Rogers, Walter Slezak, Albert Dekker, Albert Basserman
Directed by Leo McCarey
Plot: “In pre-WW2 Europe, a woman notices that wherever her husband goes, the Nazis seem to follow. Meanwhile, a charming reporter is following them…” (from IMDb)
This film is an uneven blend of serious wartime drama, romance, and comedy. Despite genuine moments in each of these genres, the film does lag significantly in parts. Add to that a storyline revolving around the serious subject matter of the Nazi over-take of Europe and deportation of Jews, and the audience isn’t sure what to think—or when to laugh and when to cry. As for the acting, although at least one contemporary critic praised Ginger as giving one of her best performances, I could not agree. She evens out as her character matures, but near the beginning she is all over the map. I am usually a fan of Ginger, but in this film she sporadically uses and drops an accent, and sometimes just acts really odd. Cary, on the other hand, was extremely charming and enjoyable in this role. It’s watching films like this—where he is so full of life and spontaneity—that reminds me why I prefer his earlier screen roles to the later, more hardened image he adopted in the ’50s and ’60s. But back to the movie… It’s not an altogether awful film, but somehow it just doesn’t mesh. 
For better old films set against the onset of the Second World War in Europe, I recommend:
For comedy: Lubitsch’s To Be or Not to Be (1942)
For suspense/drama: Hitchcock’s Foreign Correspondent (1940)
I’m drawing a blank on the romance angle, though I’m sure that there is one out there.

It Had to Be You (1947)

I just watched It Had to Be You starring Ginger Rogers and Cornel Wilde, and I found it…puzzling. I kind of liked the movie. I felt like it had a lot of the elements of a fun film, I just didn’t always like how those elements were put together.

First off: Ginger. I am usually a big fan of hers so it surprised me to find her character of a flighty, babbling society girl rather annoying. I mean, I still like Ginger but she just seemed a little one-dimensional in this. Maybe that was what the movie called for, though, because it obviously doesn’t take itself too seriously. Amanda Cooper at A Noodle In a Haystack wrote a post about this film about a year ago, and I revisited it once I got the chance to finally see the film. For the most part, I concur with her thoughts. She writes:

Ginger used her “ingenue” voice for this one. She used to quite often when she was playing younger women, and it always frustrates me (to varying extents, depending on the movie). I don't think she needed it to seem young and fresh. Victoria could have been a much more interesting character if she had been allowed the depth of Ginger's real voice. Nevertheless, this is one movie where the ingenue voice doesn't bother me too much. I think if Rogers had been allowed (or maybe told?) to play Victoria as a more intelligent, mature woman, the potential of the movie would have been more fully realized.

I agree 100% with everything Amanda says in this paragraph, except for the fact that Ginger’s “ingenue” voice isn’t as annoying here. Obviously, I kind of thought it was. I like her observation that the character would’ve had more depth (yes, comedies can have depth!) if she was played differently. One of the things I really like about Ginger is her unique, REAL voice. Many actresses of the era had soft and mousy voices, stagey accents, or a shrill and high-pitched way of speaking. Thus Ginger’s natural voice (I don’t know how to describe it—kind of a tough, earthy drawl, maybe) is very refreshing and relatable. The fact that she attempts to speak in this film in the soft, breathy voice makes me feel like she was trying to be like all those other actresses. But she could’ve just done it because it seemed to fit the character or merely because the director told her to! In any case, I like her better with out it.

Okay, now that we have that out of the way…let’s get into the plot (which will include LOTS OF SPOILERS, so consider yourself warned.)

When the Indian popped up it had me scratching my head (figuratively speaking) trying to figure out what was going on. My mind was going something like this: “Is she dreaming? Is this a fantasy ? Oh, anytime now this will start making sense. He’s just a guy playing a joke on her, right? Hmm, nope, IMDb doesn’t say anything about it being a fantasy. Must not be. It’ll make sense here eventually…” You get the idea. I generally have trouble with suspension of belief type things and fantasy in general (though if it’s comedy, I find it a lot more agreeable. Bewitched, anyone?) so it’s not really a surprise that I didn’t grasp on sooner. The plot is pretty simple and that’s not what confused me. It was just a “where is this going” type of thing. And this does have a weird plot.

Cornel Wilde was fabulous in this as George McKesson. He seemed to be having so much fun with the part and his role alone is reason enough to watch this film. Notice that I only say as George McKesson, though—not as Johnny Blaine, even though Wilde played both characters. That’s because, quite frankly, I found Blaine to be sooo dull and boring. It was like a different person…well he was, (or was he?) but I mean a different actor…wow this is confusing. It seemed that all the things that Victoria liked about him were because either it was what George did or because they were just supposed to be together because they played kissing games at her five-year-old birthday party. Huh? I know… It didn’t really make a lot of sense. If she liked George why didn’t she just marry him. Oh, but I guess she couldn’t because he was some sort of spirit/cupid? But then at the end it was like she did marry George because of the moccasins…right? Or was that just Johnny with those? Because Johnny is kind of stuck-up and George is just fun. He and Victoria need to be together. The movie should’ve been more a story about them, without Johnny. And Victoria needs to get a hold of herself. What was it that suddenly just before the end made Johnny turn around and forgive her? So many questions…

I realize this probably makes no sense. And that’s because it didn’t make a lot of sense to me, either. But the movie was still fun. I guess I just tend to over critique things. :) Cornel Wilde is great (best part of the movie) before he turns into the stuffed-shirt fireman, and Ginger isn’t as bad as I say. I’m just not used to seeing her in this type of role. It’s actually a pretty fun film. Just confusing. And yes, it is a fantasy. There are also some really fun scenes: including the one where they are playing gin, just about any scene with George, the dinner party, at the baseball game…lots of fabulous scenes.

Now that the initial shock of what’s-going-one-here has passed and I am completely prepared to not take the movie too seriously, I think this is one that I could definitely rewatch with pleasure.

Wow, I wrote a lot more here than I planned on. Also check out Amanda’s review. I promise it makes more sense than this one.

Quote from the film: "You can buy a lot of honor for three million dollars."