dirac

You probably didn't miss much by not seeing them live, Mashinka. The concert scenes were so hysterical they could not be heard most of the time and although they continued to try to play as professionally as possible in those circumstances, it was hard, especially toward the end. As for giving Ringo a knighthood - considering some other recipients of the honor I don't see why not, either, but it is a bit like putting Phil Rizzuto into the Hall of Fame.

Hmm. McCartney is the most musically gifted by a long way - it took him many more years to run out of gas creatively and even now he can still gin up at least one decent song per album no matter how mediocre the rest of it is. Lennon was the better singer, in fact he has a fair claim to being the greatest singer rock has produced, and you could argue that he was a more unusual talent, perhaps.

Your informant was hardly fair to George Harrison.

At one time the Beatles were thought to be suspiciously feminine as well, what with the long hair and those Cuban heels. "A Hard Day's Night" holds up very well and to everyone's surprise Ringo turned out to be the one with the most camera-ready empathy, as evidenced in Mme. Hermine's clip. He does indeed seem to be a very nice fellow. Of course alone among the group he had no special ambitions or gifts as a songwriter or front man and he seems to have always known he was lucky to be where he was. However, he made his own special contribution to the group's appeal.

It's difficult to imagine today when the music scene is so heavily diversified the absolute dominance of the Beatles over the pop landscape. The Stones spent years one pace behind them copying almost everything they did and so did most everyone else.

64, you say? I can remember when 30 seemed unimaginably old. Oh, well.

Many happy returns of the day to the Nose, who is interviewed here.

Oh, please, not another emoticon.... No semi-apologies necessary, Drew, that was a wonderful post. I, too, have enjoyed reading all these reports.

I saw this over the holiday weekend and there are worse ways to spend ninety minutes. I would have wished for more material from the early part of Rivers' career but this was still an interesting, entertaining, and to some extent revealing movie. Rivers comes across far more sympathetically than you would guess from Dargis' review although there is no special effort to make her look good on the part of the filmmakers.

The Romeo and Juliet is nothing to write home about. Everyone is far too old, especially by today's standards. There are costumes by Oliver Messel.

An obituary from Reuters. Siepi died after having a stroke. He was 87.

Hi, canbelto, good to hear from you. You raise an excellent point about the advent of the Production Code. I think the move to fancier vehicles was a joint project on the part of husband and wife, and certainly the Romeo and Juliet of 1936 was Thalberg's present to Norma, who'd always wanted to play it. If he'd lived longer I think he would have helped preserve her career, either at MGM or at the independent company that was being discussed at the end of his life. (At the very least he would probably have nixed "Her Cardboard Lover.") As to whether the prestige pictures he favored hurt her reputation in the long run...it's possible, but the same type of movie didn't hurt Garbo's. It's true those vaunted Broadway and literary adaptations haven't generally worn well, but they performed a useful service at a time when films were not taken seriously. And a few, like Mutiny on the Bounty, were pretty terrific.

Thanks, volcanohunter.

Oh, I misunderstood the intent of your post, Patrick, sorry. It looked as if you were just offering evidence to the contrary. I don't remember exactly why Garbo and Shearer's output slowed. I would guess that both ladies became more selective because they had enough clout to do so. In Shearer's case she also had two children and a husband who was chronically ill.

Creepy perhaps, but it happens surprisingly often in real life where pretty nieces are concerned.

Patrick, what I said about Shearer's and Garbo's schedule in the thirties stands, thanks. Definitely.

You're very welcome, leonid. I agree, this article was a pleasure to read.

Thanks for posting, Helene. Assuming the information is correct, and there's no reason to disbelieve Bernheimer, RIP.

At least he's wearing long pants.

Mayer (or whoever was in charge) had the sound technicians set the machines for Garbo's voice, and Gilbert was sacrificed in the process. Gilbert's first sound pictures weren't made with Garbo, though. Do you mean that the sound technicians set the machines for Garbo and sacrificed other stars?? That's interesting, if true.

A nice appreciation by AN Wilson in The Guardian. Interesting that her publisher did not favor fiction.

I just went to the site again. The commenters there seem mostly underwhelmed.

Now playing in my area but I'm not sure if I'm ready to plunk down ten dollars - maybe if I can see a matinee....

Garbo and Shearer didn't make anything close to programmers once they were top stars, though, and by the end of the thirties both women were averaging a film every other year. Even MGM stars producing several pictures a year weren't making low rent vehicles (which didn't mean they've stood the test of time). The year Clark Gable hit it big in A Free Soul, 1931, I think he made something like ten pictures, but once he was established as a star that wasn't happening. You are right to say that the factory aspect did affect quality as well as quantity. A lot of the material that the studios once turned out migrated to television later on and much of it was no great loss.

The talk has always been that Gilbert was sabotaged by Mayer, who told the sound men to turn up the treble for Gilbert.