dirac

That's so. I think it was part of Grace's function in that marriage to tidy up Monaco's image. Her efforts seem to have gone for naught. Thanks, that's what I thought. I think Caroline is now royal by marriage as the Princess of Hanover, but as her husband no doubt reminds her during domestic disputes, marrying into royalty isn't the same thing as being born royal. You're right, California. And of course the late Princess Grace was a loyal fan and supporter of the ballet.

That is one view of the matter, bart, but not everyone agrees with all parts of that statement, hence this thread. The more opinions the merrier. But my feeling is that discussions of opinion are most valuable when they take place when there is an understanding of, and agreement about, the most important facts, specifically the legal context.My post was an attempt to summarize briefly and as objectively as possible the current position of U.S. anti-smoking law, as I understand it. I suppose this does constitute my "view," but I was actually trying to avoid bringing in my own thoughts about the rights and wrongs of public smoking by focusing on what what can be verified objectively. Court decisions, whether you personally agree with them or not, are objective and verifiable. They are a matter of public record. In the matter of smoking, they are remarkably unanimous. Leaving aside the "objectively" part, bart, as I said much earlier in this thread: Smoking, or the smoking debate, is a lot of things. The legal aspect of the debate is only one aspect and consideration. Some of the others have been discussed in this very long thread. Not by definition, no. In individual instances it happens all the time. I would hope we would be able to agree to disagree at this point, but I can carry on if need be.....

Thanks for posting, Jayne. I didn't see the wedding but if they show it again I may try to catch it. The circumstances seemed a trifle, well, sleazy to me, in all honesty, but one wishes good luck to the new Princess Charlene, who is going to need it. If I remember correctly the Grimaldis are a princely, not royal, family, but I guess we can call it a royal wedding?? Mel?

You've mixed together a lot of apples and oranges in your list IMO. Some of those ordinances are just as debatable as the ones we're discussing here. As mentioned earlier it's not a balanced playing field when smokers and non-smokers are concerned when it comes to these restrictions. I also think Simon's view is reasonable. But I'm also sure that underlying the ever increasing restrictions is the intent by some of stamping out smoking and drive out smokers. Often proponents are pretty open about this. If all smoking ended tomorrow I would be delighted, but as mentioned I'm not in favor of what I view as the more excessive bans and means that we've seen in recent years (and that dancers only need to dance well for us). That is one view of the matter, bart, but not everyone agrees with all parts of that statement, hence this thread. Very true, Drew.

I explained my distinction between smoking and noise ordinances earlier. I'm sorry that the end of your nose is annoyed by smokers -- so is mine, on occasion, but I don't see that as a reason for depriving smokers to light up in public spaces as long as they are minding their own business.

Once raised, it becomes a legitimate part of the discussion. I asked for sources, because there's a lot of literature out there from both sides of the debate, and I was curious what the basis of your statement was, since there are arguments against global warming and evolution as well. You know, I am tempted to respond to that, but instead I'm going to let the provocation speak for itself. You may take my refusal to engage in any way you wish.

She certainly wasn't. I guess it should be noted in her defense that her twins, Cathy and Cindy, always defended her. (There was a similar split in Bing Crosby's family; the sons of his marriage with Dixie had a very hard time and wrote about it, while the children of his last marriage had a completely different experience of Crosby as a father.) I hadn't heard about "Slide Area," thanks. I did read "Inside Daisy Clover" (now there's a strange movie) and the Shearer bio, which is good.

Smokers, who are the objects of social shaming and reproach, as this thread demonstrates, are at a plain disadvantage in these debates. These laws are passed for reasons of health, not as matters of "personal liberty." My own feeling that if non-smokers can't be bothered to move, it might be best and safest for them to stay home..... All of the foregoing points, including mine, were raised earlier on this thread. Just sayin'. Helene, I said that was not going to be a fight I was going to start on this thread and indeed I would never have raised the matter myself and I didn't. I remain untempted to take up the cudgels. I simply pointed out that the matter was disputable. Your access to the Internet and the relevant research available elsewhere is as good as mine. Thanks, Simon.

Forgot to add that it's nice to hear from you again, sidwich.

A "given"? Perhaps not. A reasonable assumption that occurred to a fair number of people beforehand, yes. It didn't take genius - I thought of it when I read the first article I saw on the subject. Where else could people go? Most of the discussion in this thread has revolved around bans on smoking in open spaces. I think everyone sympathizes with workers whose jobs require them to stay in one place and can understand their complaints, even if the science on the health dangers was/is disputable, to say the least. I haven't brought that up because I figured that was a fight this thread doesn't need......

To me a transfer is moving the problem from a person or group's shoulders to another's. A trade-off is when a person or group deliberately agrees to forgo A to get B. I think it's clear enough what I meant. People did point out while the new laws were being considered that there would now be smokers on the street rather than inside, so presumably everyone knew what would be coming.

People have to light up somewhere, and judging by the rationales presented for the most repressive of these bans, I doubt if the behavior of smokers is really the issue, although smokers sometimes show bad manners in public just as others do. Nobody is curtailing the liberty of non-smokers. You are free to move. Yes, you may also have to wait in line for a bit or otherwise tolerate temporarily something you would rather not, but that's life in public places for you.

Crawford made some better movies and was arguably a better actor but I'm still inclined to see Mommie Dearest' and the wire hangers as the linchpin of her posthumous celebrity. (I was standing in line at a repertory theater not long ago and heard a woman explaining to a younger woman I assume was her daugher who Katharine Hepburn was, but if she'd seen Mommie Dearest she would have heard of Crawford.) Fitzgerald also based "The Last Tycoon" on Thalberg, Shearer's husband, a highly romanticized portrait. I think Shearer is fun and sexy in those early talkies, and she's actually not bad in "Private Lives" with Robert Montgomery. What's really hurt her reputation is that her big prestige vehicles from the mid thirties on haven't worn well and she's not good in many of them. I happen to think she's perfect for Mary in "The Women" and her Marie Antoinette gets better as it goes along but some of those other performances are indefensible, and they would be better movies if she was better in them. Both Now, Voyager and Mrs. Miniver would have helped Shearer keep her career alive in the short term. As she admitted, she made some bad choices. But she had also been a star for a very long time and was already in her forties, retirement age for many female stars. But as you say miliosr, she was big for a long time, only dropping in popularity when she began working less, and she had huge prestige value as well.

Well... a number of people here do support social restrictions in certain circumstances but not in others. Smoking is many things. It's not a clear cut either-or. There are aspects to the issue that we haven't even begun to discuss here, not that I'm suggesting we do so. Thank you for being understanding, kfw.

I think we're all beginning to repeat ourselves again to some extent, but I can keep it up as long as anyone else. Part of sharing public space is sharing it with other people, some of whom may be annoying. "A transfer of the problem" is more or less what I meant by tradeoff. You solve the "problem" in one area but the solution has complications. That's how such things often work, most particularly in cities where there are a lot of diverse people with varying interests and needs living close together.

Movies have always played the dual role of social reflector and trendsetter. 20s films were hardly documentaries, any more than our pictures are now, but I think it unlikely that they would show young women smoking if it wasn't actually happening.

Indeed it was not considered ladylike. Viewers of “Titanic” will recall the moment when Kate Winslet shows her rebellious streak by lighting up at the table and decades later the late Princess Margaret would do likewise in real life. Karen Kain said Ashton was the best advertisement for alcohol and cigarettes one could imagine. The combination of lots of Famous Grouse and lots of ciggies didn’t work out so well for the Countess of Snowdon, however. This would be a trend without any smoking. The pressure on movie actors, especially women, to look youthful actually seems to be increasing, and plastic surgery is becoming common at earlier ages.

Respectfully, kfw, and not to start anything up again, I would find it hard to agree with that, myself. Of course, people will interpret posts differently.

I agree, Baby Jane is a classic and Crawford is good in it. You're right, however, in that Shearer would have considered such appearances too high a price to pay to keep appearing before the public, and I also think you may be onto something about Mommie Dearest. I wonder what Joan would have thought. In the old movie stars' home she began calling all strange men that. She'd clutch their arms and say "Are you Irving? Were we married?" Poor Norma. Sic transit gloria mundi, etc.

Political scandal is indeed a different animal. I think we are beginning to roam too far afield. Leave us not go further in that direction, please.

Gena Rowlands got the notices but Falk was superb in “A Woman Under the Influence.” He was also screamingly funny in “The In-Laws.” Wonderful actor. The original run of Columbo is a great, great series and the show holds up very well although it began to run out of steam in its last seasons, as often happens. It was always fun seeing Falk go up against the Powerful Rich Ruthless Guy, often Robert Culp or Jack Cassidy, as Columbo’s stumbles and fumbles elicited the Culp snarl or the Cassidy sneer. Little did they know! I never could figure out why the ubiquitous raincoat in a series set in L.A. and one wonders why the aforementioned PRRGs, presumably pretty tough customers, invariably melt down like the Wicked Witch of the West in the finale as Columbo brandishes some skimpy piece of evidence that’ll never hold up in court. Still, a classic show. I hope Columbo’s Peugeot is in a museum somewhere. Or at least the raincoat.

Pamela, I must express the respectful hope that this is an example of irony. Otherwise it stands out rather oddly in a post devoted to the theme of "live and let live." Excuse me if I am failing to get the joke.

You could argue that, sure. I’m just giving the guy the benefit of the doubt. You could also argue that he’s not the first person to drink too much on New Year’s Eve. Again, that is not at all the spirit of what I’ve been saying. And now I should follow your good example in regards to an earlier point of disagreement, and say that I'll leave it there. The remark about dancers being obligated to dance well and only that was not addressed to you personally, FYI -- it was a commentary on the "role model" exchange that had just occurred. As for giving people the benefit of the doubt, I think it's a good general principle. I've even applied it to the occasional smoker....

I don't think we have any right to expect them to be good role models, but they're in a privileged position, so they have the opportunity to be good role models in that respect if they want to be. In any case, chosing to smoke and getting a DUI through carelessness when one doesn't abuse alcohol aren't parallel. The first is a conscious choice; the second is a dumb mistake, and we all make those. Do you know that he didn't choose to drink too much and think he might be just fine anyway? A DUI is not usually considered a 'dumb mistake' or 'careless', and it certainly is not considered to matter a whit by law enforcement. And, as I said, Baryshnikov AND Martins both have talked about smoking. I know many dancers who smoke. A DUI, though, could definitely be considered 'alcohol abuse' even if it's 'carelessness'. Adding to what Patrick said - the distinction between "conscious choice" and "dumb mistake" is a bit of a stretch, surely? You don't know the motivations and the history of the smoker down the way, and one could argue that the casual drinker who has a few too many and gets behind the wheel is more culpable than the alcoholic, because the former has the judgment to know better and prepare for the contingency. Dancers are obligated to dance well. Which is certainly hard enough, we don't have to load them down with anything else. Let's just put Aurelie and Marie-Agnes in stocks in the public square and have done with it. Good grief.

Thanks for that photo, miliosr. Shearer looked wonderful until quite late in life. Sadly for her, her mind gave out before her body did. It's true that Crawford made a few pictures that have stood the test of time better than most of Shearer's - the latter is now known chiefly to buffs, as you say -- but she also owes much of her posthumous fame, or notoriety, to her daughter Christina's memoir and the subsequent movie. I doubt if Shearer would envy her that "last laugh."