papeetepatrick

Yes, the masses don't. Even very intelligent and intellectual people often think it 'paleo'. But this is probably part 'great PR', part the actual future of ballet, viz., ballet will become more and more integrated into this rather virtual pop sci-fi future that most will be doing, because the old material will become affordable only to the wealthy (in fact, it already has become that, although there are different kinds of wealth, as witnessed by the fact that many cash-laden people find ballet just as irrelevant as anyone else, and bachelors like me are still in the Dark Ages.)

Just talked to my friend Julie R., who thoroughly enjoyed it and said it was the kind of film to see in a theater. I think I know what she means by a certain kind of docu that is better in a theater, even if it's very different from this one--Patrick Keillor's films 'London' and 'Robinson in Space', both narrated by Paul Scofield, were much better in Film Forum than on DVD. You need the space on screen which is so much bigger, plus the occasional sense of being outdoors is easier to feel (outdoors scenes in the films I mean) in theaters than on TV screens, no matter how big or even a private movie room, etc. But she thought Rivers was sad, but treated very sympathetically, and that the audience all liked it and laughed a great deal.

Apollo with a tattoo wouldn't even faze me. I might even like it.

Yes, that's well said. To revert to some casting preferences you brought up, I really would have liked to see Olivier instead of Robert Taylor more than replacing Gilbert (I remember when she was not going to discuss the Queen Christina matter with him from his autobio, it's funny, because he's good with phonetics and was amused with it, she apparently said 'Oh vell, live'sh a pain'. He does a House of Lords phonetic in that same volume which is equally funny.) And Olivier would have been ready for that at that point, although I suppose it never even came up. Not quite as convinced of your Sean Connery/Garbo Fantasy. She has a singular elegance, but it's not really the social elegance other high-toned types have. Csn't see her too easily with Cary Grant either. I think the major omission in leading men is with Gary Cooper (had it been possible), they'd have made much more than sparks together, and she couldn't have 'swamped him', he's the type that, as they say, doesn't have to do anything but stand there. Not that she didn't have that attitude down pat herself, but I think he'd have been able to handle her just as he did Ingrid Bergman, tough and gentle and not at all apologetic about being all-american (I loved that stuff in the movie with Bergman when he kept telling her to 'talk American'.) But I do agree she would have been great with Olivier.

A friend of mine here went just this past Friday night, but I haven't got back in touch. Will report, because I want to know what she thought about it too.

Yes, she always does have that strength in the face of adversity. I'm not sure she couldn't convey vulnerability, but she probably didn't spend much time on it. Kim Novak was a tough cookie too, but didn't have what is also a somewhat asexual aura, or of course, Garbo's streak of masculinity, Novak has 'been around', but she's basically pretty feminine in a traditional (although very cool) sense, without being silly or flouncy. Garbo can be sexy in her screen scenes with any number of leading men, but she's not often soft. There is one scene early on with Gable in 'Susan Lennox' which is very exceptional that way: She's the one who ratchets up the 'embrace decibels', not Gable, and it's quite arresting--looks a little as if she's climbing a tree. (I'm a big fan of this film, but most aren't, even big Garbo buffs. It's episodie, but very colorful and full of exotic whiffs.) or just getting the perfect Garbo 'still photo' in a film? That's cool, and it sure works. And I agree with the rest of what you say about the kind of face, that it still registers 'silent film', and I think it does this to some degree throughout the films, although it's certainly not very noticeable in the last two. I find her famous laughter in 'Ninotchka' rather sad, frankly, it's a bit painful. Her funny little guttural chuckle in the earlier films is much more the real thing, short and staccato.

Agree with some of that, but not that they're more dated--they're all dated. I think Garbo is like Suzanne Farrell, aloof and distant, maybe even sometimes a mannequin come to life, as you say. And although it probably IS based on the idea that in real life you'd never see someone that beautiful and mysterious, that illusion only works if you buy into it: I've seen and known plenty of people in real life that I thought were as beautiful and mysterious (if not more so) than Garbo (yes, onscreen Garbo even), I just think her uniqueness is being suited for these bigger-than-life roles, including her ponderously described '6 decades of documented silence.' I will say that I think that persona after retirement does give the old 'real work' more value in a certain sense. It's not as though it's a miniscule output in any case. I like your point about 'crackling with vitality', though. While I do think 'Susan Lennox' crackles with vitality, REALLY crackling with vitality is like the opening of 'The Letter', which, when Bette Davis bolts out onto the porch with the gun, is maybe my most enjoyed scene in all 'Golden Age' films. All I have to do is think about it, although I'd rather see it. Plus, you're right about Stanwyck, especially in 'Double Indemnity', when she first comes down the stairs in the platforms, and then later 'you-ah huh-ting me' to McMurray, when they're supposed to be celebrating their vicious plans for crime, but she's more than ever concerned only with the immediate sensation (in this case, minor pain.)

He sure is foolish, although I'd never have imagined was a fashion plate, as it took forever to figure out what was going on here: It kept reminding me of one of my nieces when she was a baby till I decided he must have on something. Definitely, the 'danger' is all in his mind! Oh my god this one is funny, and the red heels symbolism is funny. Face is funny too, looks like some actor whose name I can't recall who plays clergymen.

Of course it wasn't the same thrill, nor would it be possible for anyone to find the same thrill of anything someone else did. I did think it was exciting just to see her, I just was surprised I didn't find her beautiful--and I usually do find people I thought once were incredibly beautiful (and I do think Garbo was, esp. in 'Anna Karenina') usually so when they get older as well. She looked morose and sour, and I didn't find the scruffy clothes 'quaint and charming', just ill-fitting and boxy. Of course, she didn't care. Just sticking to Hollywood stars I've seen in real life, and not other celebs, I've seen several who were visually stunning even if I thought there talents were vastly inferior--or even their basic endowment of beauty as I perceive it: to see Lana Turner in person at 62 was a Work of Art, a near-hallucination of superbly lurid and original exoticism way beyond any look I ever saw her project onscreen. I don't know how much this has to do with 'cameras loving people' etc., as is supposed to be the case with Marilyn and others. Ann-Margret was also beautiful in person, and Burt Lancaster was magnificent with no effort at all, same with Liam Neesson. To take one non-showbiz celeb who is at least as famous as Garbo, the queen of England was gorgeous in public (1976), although she never ever photographs as well as that. The 'evidence to the contrary' would have to do with disagreement that she was 'stingy', there's really no question that she was dull--this was rendered impossible by all the things she did do to refuse what quiggin pointed out in 'not selling out her aura'--if she was solipsistic, lazy and demanding, these not particularly admirable (in themselves) qualities still served 'the act'. Since she did continue to do this full-time, that's either something one decides is dull or not. Brantley could make up his mind about that, but I don't care whether he does or not. I wouldn't agree quite with quiggin's assessment of all 'formerly elegant stars' having done some 'suburban television series', or a version thereof. Dietrich had her shows on B'way, even after the years of working with Burt Bacharach, and Kate Hepburn continued to have a singular niche as an aging star (didn't ever do the horror Gothics like Davis and Crawford), although it 'Ninotchka' comes close to corn (and I agree it does, I don't like it), then certainly 'On Golden Pond' does. Barbra Streisand is really the one who has held herself above her public from the very beginning: There were never any appearances on the Tonight Show or other TV till much much later, when she got friendlier. But she didn't have to do any more of what she didn't want to than Garbo did, and I think she's the only one comparable that way in terms of sheer power. The difference is that she does like to work sometimes, of course, and is not so withdrawn. Of course, by 'Meet the Fockers', she'd gone straight to the sewer, but it happens to everybody at some point, and she always knows how to get right out of crud and do another incredible concert. This: "Diana, Princess of Wales, had it, too, and weren’t we lucky that the royal family kept her from talking for as long as it did?" was, I thought, the most absurd thing in the piece: we weren't 'lucky' even if they had kept her shutup, her banal utterances were there from the very beginning, and continued to the end. But they didn't keep her shutup, she was always saying something tiresome like 'I wish there were more huggers', etc., and blah and blah and blah. That doesn't mean I didn't think she was a beauty, and her charisma for many was obvious, I just didn't find her very interesting, but who cares.

Thanks, bart, I linked that yesterday on the thread, but I can say a bit more now. I don't care for the article because, of course, there can be no 'movie star goddess' mystery like Garbo anymore, but as for 'mystery vanishing', that's false. Mystery always changes 'location', and it's still just as discoverable, including in other human beings, as it ever was. Maybe there's not a 'person on this planet who could make his heart stop the way Garbo did on Madison Avenue', but there are plenty who could excite me much more than the one sighting I had of Garbo just over from the Met Museum in her old scruffy winter coat. Of course, it's her very refusal to keep working and continue being an actress that gave her even more 'aura' than Dietrich or K. Hepburn, who did, but for many people, that's considered the dissipation of her talent. It's fine with me what she did with her life, and she had already left a unique contribution with her films, but mystery and charisma go elsewhere once they're worn out from one form or period. There aren't movie stars like that anymore, but there aren't ballet stars in the same sense as Nureyev anymore either (even if they're just as attractive and maybe, in some cases, even greater dancers). He's calling the 'six decades of well-documented silence' as making her 'the most glamorous creature he'd ever laid eyes on'. This is pure hyperbolic nonsense as far as I'm concerned. She was not even beautiful (I hate to say this) when I saw her a few years before he did. But, while I admit her stubborn silence is an interesting phenomenon and makes her unique, it also means she may have liked the 'goddess' part of the persona more than the Thespian. K. Hepburn was much less unreachable, but kept on turning out work. Edith Evans is far more distinguished as an actress (nevermind it's not in movies), although she's not as glamorous. Brantley's just a big Garbo junkie. I'm a big fan too, but there are other film actresses I like at least as well, although probably none from the Hollywood Golden Age--those being Catherine Deneuve and Delphine Seyrig. The former is far more naturally glamorous, despite being extroverted, than Garbo, and has delivered many performances I find comparable to Garbo's and to sometimes surpass them. Seyrig is extremely mysterious, and starred in two Resnais masterpieces, ' Last Year at Marienbad' and 'Muriel'. Either of these films is far greater than any film of Garbo's IMO--and Seyrig is even a better actress than Garbo, and just as luminous onscreen (more than Deneuve, which you see when the two are together in scenes of 'La Peau d'Ane'). I like to watch Garbo because she is such a singular performer, and I do think a great ACTRESS. I really don't find her very interesting roaming the East Side and exuding mystique all over the place, especially since she did not look good when I did see her. Here's the real meaning of the article, and the article is about Brantley, not Garbo, or Diana or Jackie: "When we first fall in love with people, they always seem remote, unattainable. Holding on to love after you’ve crossed the divide between you and the object of your desire is a chapter in achieving maturity; it’s what marriage is supposed to be. But there’s a part of us that needs to keep falling in love with the girl in the mists in the distance or the boy riding away on a horse. You’ve been there, I’m sure, and you know what happens when these dream girls and boys open their mouths or scratch themselves. The mystery dissolves like fog at sunrise." I think that's one of the silliest things I've ever read, it does no such thing necessarily, and sounds very much like a cognate of unrequited love. When these 'dream girls and boys' 'open their mouths or scratch themselves', they often become even more enhanced and attractive than they were before. God forbid they should let us know their humanity and that they're even available and accessible to some people who aren't concerned about pedestal vigilance. Not all of us live vicariously through these pristine idealized figures. As unattainable, it would follow that they could never be real objects of adult sexuality, which itself contains a lot of mystery, and to some of us is considerably more alluring than some eccentric silence, as it were. In any case, there are planty of books that prove she was anything but silent in private. But extreme fans are extreme fans. That's how I see Brantley. I think Garbo's long act after she retired was impressive, but nowhere nearly as impressive as he does, obviously. We do not all need to be 'denied entry' to find someone or something pristine, mysterious, or irresistible. But that is not uncommon. Obviously, there are some who really are turned on by this sort inaccessibility (in itself, I mean. It's obviously a starting place, but lots of people who do manage to get to know their idols do not love them any the less--we have some on this very board who prove that with their constant excitement about certain 'ballet divas'.) Edited to add: I also don't like that he refers to Garbo as 'dull and stingy'. She could be tightfisted sometimes, but was also generous, but she certainly was not dull, and even the very persona he worships nullifies that characterization.

I had watched 'Romance' maybe 8 years ago, and then recently watched it several times. It comes between the two 'Anna Christies', and I noticed none of the gestures associated with silent films anywhere in the performance, which is pretty talky (in the modern sense of the word) anyway. So I had thought it was a later film, maybe even 1935. Was very surprised to look at the list and find it coming immediately after this first AC. Her leading man in 'Romance', Gavin Gordon, is pretty stolid and not glamorous, but as a cleric who falls in love with an opera singer, he comes off okay. Never heard from him again, though (although I see he did do a lot of things, ending up with 'Petticoat Junction' and the like. I like this film a lot, and has marvelous costumes that befit an opera singer--and, although you never see her dubbed singing, you hear the 'operatic voice', and I can never picture her as actually singing. That's a flaw, or at least they should have tried to show her singing/dubbed, they could have probably done it (in 'grand hotel', you never see her a the ballerina, but she does seem like a Russian ballerina in some of her walks through the hotel, etc.)

"In an era of Harlow, Garbo and Crawford, it was homely old Marie Dressler that won the coveted exhibitor's poll as the most popular actress for three consecutive years" That was what was on IMDb. I don't know what 'the exhibitor's poll' is, though.

I found this to be what was so subtle, it makes sense to me to see some 'silent film acting' in her talkies, even though there's less of it in subsequent films. I'm not talking about what was appropriate for the source material, since I'm not especially concerned with it in a purist sense, so I probably see it as a Garbo performance, and this is one I particularly like. I like seeing the remnants of the earlier style, but that again is probably because the movie only interests me because of Garbo and the early scene with Marion and Dressler. I'm sure I'd feel differently had I seen it onstage first (or even ever, which I haven't.) I didn't think anybody stole scenes from her, although I thought they were all good. Do you mean in terms of box office? There were Garbo herself, and Dietrich was setting the woods on fire, Joan Crawford was also just in from silents, I don't know how famous Bette Davis was yet, from that amusing role as the Southern girl who'd 'kiss ya, but I just washed my hair'. There was also Jean Harlow and even Loretta Young (although not of great interest to me, and I don't know if she was box office or not), and certainly Claudette Colbert. Iguess Mae west didn't really get started till 1933, with 'She Done Him Wrong', and Barbara Stanwyck was already working, but not a household word. So you'd be saying that a character actress was the 'biggest female star in America'. I guess that's possible, I never thought about it, so I'm just asking. I didn't know anybody but old-movie buffs knew who Dressler was, although I agree she's good, esp. in 'Dinner at Eight'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/fashion/18mystery.html?8dpc In case you didn't see this, miliosr. Brantley uses Garbo as the 'ultimate unattainable'. I think it's a thoroughly pedestrian article, he wants 'silence', but could have started with himself, it seems. It's not even especially perspicacious, but he throws out all the cliches at once, which must be something, I guess. Mainly, just more diva worship parading as journalism, and as if it were original, rather than common knowledge.

How interesting you'd post this on a day when I was thinking just what a pleasure it would be to spend all my time inside the Met. I've got AC, but it's not as good as theirs, and I like all the big halls at Lincoln Center except the acoustics at NYCB, which are worse than the heat. Made me also think, with your 'the audience is close', how I can't stand that, even when I've seen wonderful little theater productions, and way up close as when I saw Karen Finley's hilarious Martha Stewart performance in 2004. Can't stand tiny theater with 8 rows. The only thing I dislike about going to the Met is the prices. I know an usher there who used to slip me in, but I always paid in blood, so it's not worth it. I also hated it when I was an usher, but that was then and the Met is a rude house. I know this is but I was iterested in the OP, although I never know how anybody gets these ideas to bring art to the people, except through talking about it, and TV, etc., so it was interesting to find there are organizations who are unselfish enough to go out and do this sort of yeomanry. Arcturus mentions his brother and brother-in-law, who've gone a lifetime without seeing a ballet perf. I think mine all have as well, and I don't even care. Talking about it with them would be awful. I have two sisters who see it when they can, even if it's pretty small-town, so we talk about it sometimes, and I always talk to one of them on the phone about everything I see (not enough, given ABT's incredible season just over--it sounds like the best season anybody nearly ever had, at least I got to go once, that was great.) I went to the Joyce a bunch of times this year, that's not really 'fear-inducing', nor is it very satisfying, except in rare cases like that Chinese company from Taiwan doing that long ritualistic theater-dance piece. Well, that was just as good as anything I saw in the AWESOME spaces. Never think of Kafka's 'The Castle' because haven't read, and think I won't, because I think about 'The Trial' and 'The Metamorphosis' pretty often, and probably does me no good at all. Anyway, good luck, Arcturus. By the way, one of the two or three people who got me most interested in ballet is from Portland, and I think she was always talking about Nina Raimondo and Walter, and there was, I think, some Russian teacher, but I can't remember the name. But was surprised to hear that the Portland papers had so few write-ups. I always thought Portlanders were very culture-oriented by nature, but maybe that's only the ones I've met in NYC>

This story was brought up when discussing O'Neal's here about 3 years ago, or maybe even more, but I didn't read the whole thing then--it's quite interesting to have gotten all those quotes of the original owners all in one place. I never went to it except the very old days of O'Neal's Baloon, I probably saw a lot of dancers there, since I went there dozens of times, but only remember seeing Peter Martins once. I knew Cynthia O'Neal slightly, she was a patron of a composer friend of mine, and she's the tennis player in 'Carnal Knowledge', a superb small performance she gives there too--she's the best thing in the whole movie. She's also got a supporting role in 'Primary Colors' as 'Elegant Woman', because she was the very chic sort. I think she's still involved in some of the AIDS charities, not sure. Never met Patrick, and didn't know about Michael until reading the story. The food was never that good, although they had good pecan pie, but it was always comfortable, and I do remember the mural being very conspicuous. Just saw this from Michael's tnings: "As a matter of fact Michael and Ariane Batterberry of Food Arts Magazine said that “we redefined the American Bistro when we first opened forty-six years ago”. I think that might be accurate. there was a style of bistro that went throughout the 70s, at least mid-70s, that I first saw at O'Neal's Baloon and then was all over the place for awhile, but then mostly disappeared. Lots of hanging ferns and Tiffany lamps in a lot of them, and a kind of 'high hamburger joint'.

All very interesting, miliosr. I know little about Novarro's work, and only (distinctly) remember him as a not especially persuasive leading man of 'Mata Hari' (he wasn't right for that, I didn't esp. think, although he was okay. I always think Garbo needs a hard-bodied sort, because she sure is.) There is very interesting writing in the eponymous chapter of Joan Didion's 'The White Album', in which the Fergusons (or one ot them) talk of 'what they do as hustlers'. In her usual way, it's oblique, but you get some sort of insight. I'm not sure that was the case (not having the volume here anymore) that she 'followed quite closely', but Laurel Canyon does seem to have had its share of strange noir-type murders, continuing to the Wonderland Murders (I believe the first Manson Murders occurred at Cielo Drive, Benedict Canyon, Beverly Hills before continuing elsewhere in the following days.)

No, this is the painting I was thinking of, whether or not I had any idea why I was describing it as I did, but it does remind me of the stiff movements of the Siren, as if made of metals. http://www.beatmuseum.org/duchamp/images/nude2.jpg Meant to add that I imagine Villella was extraordinarily moving as the Prodigal. Thanks for remembering Farrell in it, bart, yes, I've never heard it mentioned. but I have a feeling she was absolutely sensational as the Siren.

I agree, Bart, although I think that as is in the story the protest is implied. The fact that the prodigal so little deserves to be welcomed home and welcomed back into the family gives the story it's final drama and its entire point. We are meant to identify with the prodigal, and with the prodigal receive the father's forgiveness. That's true of course. I just think the ending would be stronger dramatically, as opposed to choreographically (is that a word?), if the father didn't stand on ceremony and showed real joy and eagerness in welcoming his son home. I think it's a great ballet, and I like the ending as it is. The 'Good Son' is just conventional, he has no point that doesn't just go without saying. Isn't his message unforgiveness? In that case, is he so 'good'? It's not that the Prodigal 'so little deserves to be welcomed back', it's that most wouldn't have the grace to know how to do it. And what's nice about the parable is that the Prodigal is responsible enough to the love and forgiveness that there is not even any question of punishment. The Prodigal knows he's strayed and is chastened just by that knowledge. In such a household, which is not really imaginable in real life, there's every reason to believe that the 'good son' will also realize that this was anything but 'unfair', rather it was the real power that could be wholly forgiving, and therefore totally healing, which is the impression you get when the Prodigal is wrapped into his Father's arms. Punishment would just be the ordinary thing to do, it's easier. rg--I think that is the picture, but I've got to look at some other images of it to be sure. Thanks, and quiggin also.

The Siren's movement makes me think of Marcel Duchamp, I think there were some, maybe even including the Bride, that were to do with allegorical 'sex machines'. I once knew a specific painting I'm now recalling, but it escapes me. Quiggin probably knows the one. But this Siren choreography definitely suggests a machine, that's why it's so profound.

Fab photo, best face I ever saw for the Siren, and would have been great for Sphinxes of all kinds. Totally spell-inducing.

All that follows quite naturally from the character, as I see it. I wouldn't agree that it seems like a rehearsal, though, but rather a 'calculated performance', very professional, such as this kind of experienced 'private dancer' would excel in. 'Doesn't do' certain 'affectionate gestures', etc., just keeps to business. The calculation only seems to enhance that attitude. I've seen it fairly recently, I still like Baryshnikov very much in it. I've never thought of him as all that beautiful in the general sense, although he does look exquisite in this video. I think that the more beautiful the Prodigal looks, at least if he's smallish like Baryshnikov, the more touching--rather difficult to see Marcelo Gomes doing this part, isn't it? It's hard to see him taken in by her. I found him very effective here, although in 2004 I like Peter Boal a lot too. I ask again. Did Farrell ever do the Siren? If not, I don't know why not. She could have done an amazing Siren.

Well, since people are coming up with scenarios, this begins to look that black-and-white 'good-and-evil' sort of business, and anyway that's what the Bible meant it to be. I think cold-hearted and cold-blooded would be about the same, and that I'd just agree that she was 'physically accessible' because she knew her profession, which is prostitution and then some, maybe. I don't care much for the story since it's so cut-and-dried that she's 'evil', when frankly, if the 'prodigal' was more savvy, he might have even gotten round to charming her into a working relationship, albeit not the societally sanctioned sort (it's been done before, think 'The Rake's Progress', but it wouldn't have to be as repulsive as all that Baba stuff.) We need her to be 'evil', so the Prodigal can 'fail', though, so she is. And although, if you want to talk about the siren having done this seduction time and time again, you could also see the prodigal as a hick who's out of his league. I mean, there would have been plenty of guys knew how to handle this dame, and probably had. I prefer to just see the steps in this one, because the Siren's choreography is marvelously 'early mannequin', but I still manage to get touched when the father gathers up his 'forgiven sinner of a son'. Not that I don't 'sympathize' with the poor guy, just that I'm sure that, as 'con artist', Mme. La Sirene has suffered her share of failed seduction-thefts as well, now that we're getting it so down-to-earth. She'd have had some, uh, co-workers to deal with, and sometimes she'd have to share the loot, whether or not she ended up setting sail after that one. How was she going to get to re-do the scene if she split? In Corinth or something? Did Farrell ever do the Siren? Because it occurs to me now she would have been stupendous in the role. The height and imperiousness would have all been things she'd have figured out how to use to extraordinary effect. With all that talk of being too tall for Baryshnikov, she would have been very effective with him in this.

Yes, indeed one does. LISZTOMANIA is one of Russell's most indulgent pieces of 'composer trash movie', and focusses on Liszt's obvious potency (there's no denying this, Liszt was generous in all ways, how can you not love Liszt, he even got sated with too much Eros and went to live in Vatican City? how original is that?). Not quite as delicately nuanced as 'The Music Lovers'... , or as subtle as the immemorable one about Mahler, but he does pull all the stops out. I went through a period when I watched almost all of Russell's movies, but I've yet to see the Valentino one with Nureyev, I should do so (maybe). Lisztomania is almost unbelievable, though, and you're left more with a general impression of relentless bombardment than a sense of any narrative or story line (after about 10 years of having seen it, I guess.) Not the Ruseell is always terrible--his movies of Lawrence are very good, in fact, and 'The Rainbow' is a wonderful movie, following on the much earier 'Women in Love'. What's also nice for ballet fans is that you see Chris Gable a good bit in Russell's movies, he's good as Tchaikovsky's lover (a count with a blonde wig), and he's wonderful with Glenda Jackson in 'The Rainbow', which really captures certain aspects of Lawrence that nobody else ever has. And, of course, perfect as 'The Boyfriend'. I don't think he's in 'Lisztomania', though, which is a constant assault by Russell on the senses in one of his insane moments. I think his best film is definitely 'Tommy', though, with the Who's super score. He's fascinated by music and musicians of all sorts. Sorry to veer so off-topic, but now I've got to confess that I don't remember Ringo very well in 'Lisztomania', but I am not sure I recommend that I re-watch it in order to savour this performance!

Was interested to hear Gilbert made that much per picture, I wouldn't have thought it. Here are two paragraphs from the NYTimes obituary of Garbo: "Garbo's movies earned her more than $3 million, a record at a time of low income taxes, and her frugality and astute investments, particularly in Manhattan real estate, increased her wealth. Her life had begun in virtual poverty." "In only two years, Garbo became a superstar. By shrewd negotiating, threatening to return to Sweden and staging a strike, she also won unheard-of raises. In only three years, her weekly salary soared from $350 to $5,000, and six years later she won a record $270,000 per movie." I would have thought she was making much more than Gilbert, but I've never researched old star salaries. That's $20,000 more, but she's still the bigger name, or maybe we just think that now. He was obviously hugely popular in a way I hadn't realized, since he's not well-known to non-movie-buffs.