22 responses so far ↓

• 1 Mark // Nov 20, 2012 at 5:50 pm

  I dunno, John…

  I mean Eleanor was brilliant, but for sheer joie de vivre as a tapping femme, I think Annie was pretty hard to beat.

  I don’t mean to take anything away from Eleanor on her centary celebration. She was certainly one of a kind, and her machine gun taps may even have been even faster than Ann’s, but Eleanor didn’t just tap. She did all those calesthenics, splits, jumps, faux ballet moves, etc., etc. that distracted the viewer somewhat from her extraordinary tapping talents.

  By contrast, Ann Miller generally DID just tap and she did something I’d never seen any other dancing lady of the period do, she made tap dancing seem SEXY. She seemed to be having more sheer fun doing it than anyone else I’ve ever seen, including Eleanor, whose climactic full-faced close-up smiles, though appealing, seemed slightly forced to me.

  Also, Annie did something almost unheard of in the annals of the dancing movie ladies of the period…her own singing! Yes, her real talent was dancing, but her vibrant vocals added to the verve and panache of her flying feet.

  Anyway, I thought they were both brilliant, and Eleanor definitely was a pioneer in showing the public how dynamic and versatile tap dancing routines could be. She deserves all the praise that’s been heaped on her through the years for her dancing talent, and probably some that hasn’t. Her “Begin the Beguine” tapping duel with Fred Astaire has got to be one of the all time great movie musical numbers.

  It’s great that TCM is planning to salute her tomorrow by showing several of her films. I’ll definitely be recording some of them.

  PS “Congratulations!” on a wonderful job with Jordan Rich’s radio show on WBZ in Boston last weekend. I didn’t catch all of it, but what I heard was terrific. You two made a great team. Here’s hoping he has you on again in the near future.

• 2 John DiLeo // Nov 20, 2012 at 9:06 pm

  Thanks for tuning in to the radio show! It was great fun and Jordan really knows his movies.

  Thanks, too, for this lovely appreciation of Ann Miller’s gifts. How can one not smile when thinking of her? Especially in KISS ME KATE.

• 3 Mark // Nov 22, 2012 at 7:17 am

  Thank you, John! It was a great show. Jordan really does know his movies, though I don’t think he’s ever seen REMEMBER THE NIGHT.

  I think I’m the one who recommended you to him. (At least I told him how much I’d enj0yed SCREEN SAVERS and some of your blog posts…Bing Crosby bashing aside, of course.) I’m glad it turned out so well.

  Jordan really does kn0w his movies. He does “Movie Night” shows several times during the year that are alway popular with listeners. Hopefully he’ll get a chance to check out REMEBER THE NIGHT before his next one.

  I managed to record BROADWAY MELODY OF 1936 & 1938 yesterday. Didn’t get 1940 due to a cable glitch. The other two seem to have come out OK.

  Wonder why no one ever brings up Judy G’s “Everybody Sing” number when they mention her contributions to BM 1938? Granted, the song’s a throwaway, but she does a pretty good job with it.

• 4 John DiLeo // Nov 22, 2012 at 9:45 am

  Thank you SO much for recommending me to Jordan!

  Judy scores with every song in BM of 38. And you already know that the film EVERYBODY SING is my favorite of her pre-OZ pix.

  But back to Ann Miller for a sec. She outclassed Powell by miles with her talents as a comedienne. Of course, she observed the masters, simply by being in STAGE DOOR and YOU CAN’T TAKE IT WITH YOU.

• 5 Mark // Nov 22, 2012 at 11:41 am

  Don’t mention it, John. You earned it.

  Although I do it just for fun, I’ve appeared as a “regular” on Jordan’s show for some time discussing movies, music, theatre, great performers, etc., etc. I’ve read a good deal of film history/criticism and commentary and your books/blog are among the most entertaining and informative I’ve seen.

  I think EVERYBODY SING is very valuable as the best film record we have of Judy’s original “Little Girl With a Big Voice” singing style (before MGM crafted a more demure image and singing style for her), but I’ve always found the script and the comedy pretty forced.

  One reason I was disappointed in it was that it had so many top comic character actors in it (Reginald Owen, Reginald Gardner, Billie Burke, etc.) but they all came across as trying too hard for laughs, even Judy seemed a little too whiny at times.

  I’ve read that ES was MGM’s first effort to launch Judy as a star, and some advertisements for the film had her peeking out of a star shape with a tag line like: “It’s a little early for predictions but here’s one for 1938: “Judy Garland…STARDOM!” From what I remember of ES, I can understand why it didn’t make her a star.

  Still, your high praise of Billie Burke’s performance makes me curious to watch ES again to see if my opinion has changed or if I’ve overlooked something. I do have a copy of it, so maybe I’ll dig it out and give it a re-viewing.

  As for Annie Miller, I agree that she had some real comedy flair, even when she was playing the “villainess” as in EASTER PARADE. No matter how many times I see EP, I always laugh at the scene in the restaurant when Fred Astaire walks out on her and waiter Jules Munshin asks her:
  “The gentleman is coming back?”
  AM: “You’re wrong twice!”

  In its’ review of EP, THE NEW YORK TIMES, no less, commented: “And Judy Garland gets some stiff competition from the long-legged Ann Miller. Miss Garland is a competent trouper, nimble on her feet and professional sounding vocally, but somehow we feel Miss Miller pairs better with Mr. Astaire.”

  I’m not saying I agree with the reviewer, but it’s a very impressive comment on Ann’s performance.

• 6 John DiLeo // Nov 22, 2012 at 4:48 pm

  I’m definitely in the minority regarding my high opinion of ES. Ms. Burke could sometimes push for laughs in her comedies, but I find her at her best and funniest here. She’s first-rate in TOPPER, too.

  Now that we know AM’s EP role was intended for Cyd Charisse, it makes sense that AM is cooler and snobbier than in any other film. She does a nice acting job, suppressing her good-time-gal vitality plausibly.

• 7 Mark // Nov 22, 2012 at 7:05 pm

  Well, as I said, I don’t think it’s entirely the fault of the actors. The script is kinda lame and maybe the direction was forced, and, to top it off, none of the song are very good.

  I understand the film had been considered as a vehicle for Judy as early as late 1936, but ES still strikes me as an MGM effort to duplicate the screwball aspects of the Deanna Durbin films at Universal. Certainly Judy’s role “Little Miss Fixit” role in the film is very Durbin-esque.

  It’s interesting to think what “Nadine Hale” would have been like had Cyd Charisse played her as originally planned.

  The thing is, while I don’t think I’d find it difficult to dislike the character if Charisse had played her, it’s almost impossible to dislike Ann Miller in the role. She’s just too down-to-earth and funny to hate.

  And since this blog was a salute to Eleanor Powell, I’ve also often wondered what FOR ME AND MY GAL would have been like if Powell and Dan Dailey, the original stars, had played the leading roles….

  PS Here’s wishing you a wonderful Thanksgiving, John! Hope you’ve become settled enough since your recent move to enjoy the holiday.

• 8 John DiLeo // Nov 22, 2012 at 9:04 pm

  Thanks for your good wishes, Mark. Hope you had a nice holiday today, too.

  Yes, I imagine a frostier Nadine if Charisse had played her. It’s a special treat to see Annie cast against type.

  I’m not a fan of FOR ME AND MY GAL, though Judy often makes it seem better than it is, something that Eleanor wouldn’t have been able to pull off. Dailey would’ve been just dandy as the hoofer, and Judy and Dan would’ve been a good team. Of course, the Judy and Gene chemistry was an important component of the film’s popularity.

• 9 Mark // Nov 23, 2012 at 7:40 pm

  I like FOR ME AND MY GAL. The script is pretty corny in spots, and, as with most MGM productions of the period, oppressively sentimental at times, but I thought it provided a good vehicle for Judy to begin to transition into adult roles, and to introduce Gene Kelly to film audiences following his Broadway triumph in PAL JOEY.

  The Garland/Kelly chemistry is palpable, and, as your friend Pauline Kael pointed out in her unabashed ravings on their talents (was she ever remotely critical of either Judy or Gene?), a key component of their appeal was that, unlike Astaire and Rogers, they could really sing together.

  It’s telling that, while FMAMG provides Judy with two of the finest vocal solos of her career (“After You’ve Gone” and “How Ya Gonna Keep ‘Em Down on the Farm”), and several other opportunities for song, the most memorable musical number in the film is her duet of the title number with Kelly.

  Anyway, it’s clear from watching the film that Metro was taking no chances in easing Judy into a more mature screen persona. Although the plot of FMAMG is more adult than her earlier adolescent teamings with Rooney, her “Jo Hayden” like her earlier “Betsy Booth,” “Patsy Barton,” “Mary Holden,” etc. is also a lovelorn “trouper” who steadfastly supports her nakedly ambitious male partner even while he is incapable of noticing her romantic interest.

  And, as a further inducement for audiences outside America, Hungarian soprano Marta Eggerth is tossed into the film as a temporay “rival” to Judy for Kelly’s personal and professional attentions, and to ensure its’ popularity outside the U.S.

  I agree that Eleanor probably couldn’t have given the role the uniquely vulnerable qualities Judy, but I think she could have been appealing in it. Still, as Eleanor’s popularity was declining by this time, I doubt Metro would have given her the attention they gave to rising star Judy in the film.

• 10 John DiLeo // Nov 23, 2012 at 8:34 pm

  Yep, the title-tune song and dance is FMAMG’s peak moment, the sequence in which Gene Kelly becomes a movie star.

  And Marta Eggerth is now 100!

  Judy’s vehicles between FMAMG and MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS—PRESENTING LILY MARS and GIRL CRAZY—are interesting because Judy is in an in-between phase, falling backward in these pre-FMAMG-type plots but moving forward by looking lovelier than ever and singing with an ever-increasing radiance and maturity.

• 11 Mark // Nov 23, 2012 at 9:07 pm

  Agreed. Though LILY MARS is unquestionably Judy in a “Deanna Durbin movie,” so I think of it as something of an anomaly.

  She’s more pro-active and assertive as “Lily” than she had been in any of her films since EVERYBODY SING or would ever be again onscreen, and LILY even copies the “feather on the hat as tracking device” bit from 100 MEN AND A GIRL.

  I’ve read that the role of “Lily” was originally intended for Lana Turner and then for Kathryn Grayson. It’s hard to imagine either being as effective as Judy was in it.

  Still, even with that lavish “Broadway Melody” finale tacked on at the end to ensure the film’s success, and several other opportunities for song, the most memorable musical moment from LILY is again a duet: Judy’s charming performance of “Every Little Movement” with a (dubbed) Connie Gilchrist. It shows what magic she could make onscreen with just a fine song in the right setting.

  And although Judy’s comic performance of “When I Look at You” provides a fine showcase for her considerable comedic/musical talents, in mocking Eggerth’s Hungarian dialect and mannerisms, it’s perhaps her most unlikeable screen moment. It always makes me a little uncomfortable, especially as Eggerth handles the ensuing confrontation scene with Lily with such quiet, understated grace.

  Still, Judy probably looks her loveliest and healthiest in LILY of all the films she made at Metro, and the film did confirm that she was more than ready for Metro to put the full weight of its’ considerable musical resources behind her in the wonderful MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS and the other memorable (and lavish!) Garland vehicles that followed.

  But why do y0u think it took MGM so long to promote Judy as a solo star attraction, as opposed to Mickey Rooney’s cheerleading section?

• 12 John DiLeo // Nov 24, 2012 at 9:04 am

  It is shocking that Judy’s talent could be so taken for granted after her triumph in OZ. I understand putting her in more musicals with Rooney, since they had established themselves as a popular team, but there’s no excuse for putting her in two more Andy Hardy movies. I realize that Rooney was the biggest star in the country, but Judy’s talents could have been better occupied elsewhere. Thank goodness Roger Edens was there, believing in her from the beginning, knowing what they had in her gifts.

  MGM probably didn’t trust in JG’s ability to become a freestanding star, perhaps fearful that she wasn’t beautiful enough (even though she was growing in loveliness with each successive film), still thinking of her as their freakishly talented ugly duckling. LITTLE NELLIE KELLY was a pre-FMAMG attempt at giving JG something of a challenge, at least in the first part when she’s an adult, but then it becomes mired in all that mush.

  There are great moments in these in-between, frustrating years: “I’m Always Chasing Rainbows” in ZIEGFELD GIRL, “How About You?” in BABES ON BROADWAY, “Embraceable You” in GIRL CRAZY. They knew what they had in JG once FMAMY was such a smash, but ST. LOUIS was the no-turning-back moment.

• 13 Mark // Nov 24, 2012 at 12:08 pm

  Longstanding concern at MGM about Judy’s looks may have still been an issue, but by 1939, I would think this would have been a relatively minor one.

  Her special Juvenile Oscar for her performance in OZ, and the invitation extended to her to plant her hand and footprints in the forecourt of Grauman’s Chinese Theatre at the premiere of BABES IN ARMS (an unofficial acknowledgement that a star had not only arrived, but had staying power) were strong indicators that Hollywood thought Judy had what it took to become a superstar attraction in her own right, and, as you’ve noted, she became lovelier with each successive film appearance during this period.

  Another factor may have been contemporary reviews of her films, especially those with Rooney, the majority of which felt that Judy’s contributions to them, while significant, were outshone by those of her co-stars, including
  Lana Turner in ZIEGFELD GIRL and, to some extent, Bert Lahr (and Bolger and Haley) in OZ.

  OZ’s qualified success on its’ first release (a popular “hit” but not a profitable one) may also have contributed to the delay.

  Then again, maybe it was just studio policy to take its’ time in developing young talent. Metro seems to have taken a similarly gradual approach to the promotion of later young stars like Kathryn Grayson, Jane Powell, June Allyson and Debbie Reynolds, despite a good deal of initial press enthusiasm to their early film performances.

• 14 John DiLeo // Nov 25, 2012 at 1:27 pm

  Then there’s the “don’t mess with a good thing” factor. The Mickey-Judy pix were very profitable and relatively inexpensive, so MGM would want the duo to be young and popular for as long as possible, with an eye on the present and not the future. And all those profits could be poured into the studio’s prestige pictures, which were often iffier prospects.

  Judy famously balked at doing ST. LOUIS because it was another teen role, but, of course, Minnelli saw her potential more than anyone else, and it was he who gave us the Garland of her remaining years at MGM. In ST. LOUIS, Judy was everything that everyone always loved about her, plus so much more, both vocally and dramatically. One could ponder what the studio would have done with her if ST. LOUIS hadn’t come along, or if ST. LOUIS had been an artistic and commercial failure. It’s hard to believe that she still wouldn’t have become a huge adult star, one way or another, but then who could have foreseen Rooney’s oblivion, especially after THE HUMAN COMEDY, NATIONAL VELVET, and even WORDS AND MUSIC, all huge financial hits. Judy found a way to be an adult on-screen, making the transition beautifully (if a bit slowly) between 1940 and 1944, but Rooney, the bigger star, had the greater baggage of being America’s favorite teenager.

• 15 Mark // Nov 28, 2012 at 8:00 pm

  True John:

  And Mickey also had to deal with the problem of serving in the Army during World War II, returning not only older (and older looking) but to a much-changed cultural landscape, in which original film musicals and “family comedies” like the HARDY series, began losing ground to more realistic, grittier films.

  It’s an interesting thing about WORDS AND MUSIC. I’ve always read that it was a big hit, but the short documentary that accompanies the film’s DVD version states that it ultimately lost money, despite being a popular success, and includes a shot of the MGM ledgers of the film to prove it.

  Anyway, as you’re probably aware, Joe Pasternak reportedly originally wanted Mickey for the Gene Kelly role in SUMMER STOCK, which he saw as an opportunity to reunite Rooney and Garland in another “Let’s Put on a Show!” musical. Kelly was reportedly assigned the role after it was admitted that Mickey was no longer the box office attraction he once was.

  And even Judy had to tread carefully in postwar cinematic landscape. While her sole non-musical venture THE CLOCK was a popular “hit,” her efforts to extend her considerable range in more sophisticated fare like THE PIRATE met with, at best, lukewarm, if not hostile, audience response, despite top flight production values, an original Cole Porter score, direction by Minnelli and a re-teaming with Kelly. I’ve read that despite all these virtues, the film hemorraged over $2 million dollars at the box office.

  And even Judy’s “Great Lady Gives an Interview” skit from 1946′s ZIEGFELD FOLLIES, while much admired by some, was later summed up by producer Arthur Freed as “Not very popular, except with a particular group.” (I understand he was referring to his own Freed Unit when making this comment.)

  This despite some reviews which raved that she displayed a talent for satire approaching that of Beatrice Lillie and Gertrude Lawrence. (Of course, there were others that opined: “The one who gets the worst flogging in the film is Judy Garland. Cast in a sketch called “The Great Lady Gives an Interview,” Miss Garland is given some mighty unpleasant things to do.”

• 16 John DiLeo // Nov 29, 2012 at 1:41 pm

  As a bigger pre-war star than Garland, Rooney certainly had more post-war baggage. After all, he represented pre-war innocence, which in 1945 must have seemed like a hundred years ago.

  I’ve seen WORDS AND MUSIC listed as the 9th highest-grossing movie of 1949. How in the world could that have not translated into a profit? And I’ve wondered why the film’s seeming success didn’t at all rub off on Rooney, its star!

  The idea of reteaming Mickey and Judy for SUMMER STOCK is kind of irresistible, and it might even have been feasible if Judy wasn’t coming off the ANNIE GET YOUR GUN debacle. If she were still riding high, then they might have risked teaming her with Mickey, but unfortunately they were both vulnerable at this particular moment, with Gene coming to Judy’s rescue. I’ve always had a great fondness for this modest movie, which is often very funny, plus it’s got several great numbers.

  Seen today, it’s hard to accept the failure of THE PIRATE, one of Judy’s true high points, as well as one of Kelly’s best and one of Minnelli’s best. I guess it was a case, like YOLANDA AND THE THIEF, of Minnelli being just too Minnelli for contemporary audiences. But both stars are hilariously funny. Thank goodness it got made!

  I admire Judy in her ZIEGFELD FOLLIES segment. She managed to pull it off with panache and confidence. But I’ve also always thought that it was a waste of her talents. Of all the things she could have done in that movie, did it really have to be that? I know it was first mentioned for Greer Garson, so she could spoof herself, which makes sense, and, again, Judy knocked it out of the park, but it’s not anywhere near my favorites among her MGM musical numbers.

• 17 Mark // Dec 1, 2012 at 1:55 pm

  Well, the documentary, or, more specifically, film historian Richard Barrios, acknowledges that WORDS AND MUSIC was one of the biggest hits of 1948, but says it still lost money.

  As for Mickey, he was coming to WORDS AND MUSIC after unsuccessful attempts to revive ANDY HARDY in the postwar period, not to mention the failure of the lavish musical SUMMER HOLIDAY.

  He also, perhaps somewhat unfairly, received some very scathing reviews for her performance as Larry Hart in W & M, and, given the laughable (and dull!) plotline, I imagine much of the film’s success was attributed to its’ impressive roster of MGM musical talents socking across those terrific R & H tunes.

  I love THE PIRATE, but despite the terrific performances of Garland & Kelly, I can understand why contemporary audiences may not have warmed to it. As many critics pointed out, for all its’ brilliance in spots, it does a somewhat “aren’t we clever!” self-consciousness about it overall.

  And while I think Judy gives a marvelous performance and shows a real flair for this style of sophisticated comedy, she looks (and sings!) in a more nervous and jittery manner than she did in any of her other MGM productions, and the Cole Porter score, while often clever, is far from his best work. Although Judy gets top-billing, I think THE PIRATE really belongs to Gene Kelly who’s both funny and dynamic as the fake “Mack The Black.

  Still, I agree THE PIRATE’s a lot of fun overall, and probably deserved a better reception than it received on its’ first release.

• 18 John DiLeo // Dec 1, 2012 at 10:44 pm

  Yes, SUMMER HOLIDAY was no help to Rooney at a time when he really needed a hit.

  Isn’t it nice that with time it doesn’t really matter that a movie like THE PIRATE wasn’t well-received by the critics or the public? All that remains is the movie itself, one of the best MGM musicals of the 1940s (despite that so-so Porter score), a wonderfully offbeat and funny and beautiful showcase for two of the genre’s greatest talents. Thank goodness they took a chance and made it!

• 19 Mark // Dec 2, 2012 at 12:30 pm

  Yes, it’s great that many classic films initially considered to have been failures survive to enable them to be re-appraised and, hopefully, more appreciated than they were at the time.

  Still, as a film buff and a Garland fan, it’s intriguing to me that, as wonderfully versatile and talented as Judy was, and despite the many unvarnished raves she received from colleagues for her seemingly limitless talent, THE PIRATE and the so-so reception accorded her skit in ZIEGFELD FOLLIES strongly indicate that audiences would only accept Judy Garland in her established wholesome “Girl Next Door” musical persona.

  I mean, seen today, THE PIRATE doesn’t seem all that “revolutionary” to me, especially in the way it presents Judy onscreen. In fact, of all her MGM productions, I think THE PIRATE may most strongly echo her most iconic role as “Dorothy” in THE WIZARD OF OZ.

  As in OZ, in THE PIRATE, Judy plays a wistful, daydreaming restless orphan, dissatisfied with her constrictive narrow-minded, small-town existence. Also, like “Dorothy,” “Manuela” is being raised by a somewhat clueless aunt and uncle. Even the name of “Manuela’s” aunt, “Aunt Inez” sounds remarably similar to “Auntie Em”!

  Also, as in OZ, in THE PIRATE Judy ultimately seeks to escape from her drab “real world” existence by becoming part of a much more exciting “fantasy” world, in this case, by joining Kelly’s troupe of performing players.

  Of course, there are some significant differences Audiences could certainly have been put off by the exotic setting and Caribbean flavored musical numbers/score. Perhaps more importantly, unlike OZ, MEET ME IN ST LOUIS and most MGM Garland vehicles, which extoll the virtues of home and family ad nauseum, in THE PIRATE Manuela rejects “Home” and elects to become part of Kelly’s troupe.

  But, all in all, I think THE PIRATE was a much less “radical” depature from Judy’s established screen persona than those attempted by Deanna Durbin (CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY, LADY ON A TRAIN), Betty Grable (THAT LADY IN ERMINE) Alice Faye (FALLEN ANGEL) and other contemporaneous musical leading ladies of the period.

• 20 John DiLeo // Dec 3, 2012 at 2:58 pm

  Yes, if THE PIRATE was in any way “revolutionary” it was more in style than substance.

  Not sure if you know my 100 GREAT FILM PERFORMANCES book, but I include Garland’s in THE PIRATE, making one passing “Dorothy” reference. I love Kelly in the movie, but I say, “For all the flamboyant flair provided by Minnelli and a mustachioed Kelly, it comes as no surprise that it is she who provides the heart and makes the story emotionally enchanting; without her soulful glow, it might look merely like a lot of showing off.”

  In SCREEN SAVERS, in my piece about THE HARVEY GIRLS, I talk about how Susan Bradley, her first adult comic role, is the prototype for all of her remaining roles at MGM, with the “same irresistibly funny mix of spunk and insecurity, the same flair for finding the humor in the erotic longings of sexually repressed young women.”

  Pardon me for all that quoting of myself!

• 21 Mark // Dec 4, 2012 at 5:50 pm

  John, I know about your 100 GREATEST PERFORMANCES book, but I haven’t read it yet. I hope to get around to it at some point.

  I agree that Judy’s contributions to THE PIRATE were invaluable…and very funny! In his 1990 NEW YORKER article on Judy pop culture critic/historian Ethan Mordden opined that without Judy “THE PIRATE would be a cult movie without a cult” and he may be right,

  Still, without Kelly’s funny and impressive phyical turn to play off of, I think Judy’s offscreen difficulties would be even more apparent onscreen and might serve to make THE PIRATE less well-regarded than it is today.

  I would date Esther Smith in MEET ME IN ST LOUIS as the first instance of Judy displaying a “flair for finding the humor in the erotic longings of sexually repressed young woman.”

  Esther may be tightly corsetted in the restrictive wardrobes of the period (“I feel like the ossified woman in the side show!”) but despite her “Boy Next Door” lament, she makes no secret of her attraction for Boy Next Door Tom Drake.

  In his recent encyclopedic tome on popular singers, jazz critic Will Friedwald sees Judy’s rendition of “The Trolley Song” (e.g., “As he started to go than I started to know how it feels when the universe reels!”) as a musical metaphor for an orgasm…and HE may have a point.

  And no need to apologize for quoting yourself. It’s entirely appropriate and who has a better right?

  Finally, since it’s December 4th, I’ll wish Deanna Durbin a “Happy 91st Birthday!” The Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto, CA is holding a month long Deanna Durbin Film Festival this December. Hopefully, she’s enjoying her special day.

• 22 John DiLeo // Dec 5, 2012 at 12:06 pm

  Good points about ST. LOUIS, but the reason I used Susan Bradley, rather than Esther Smith, as Judy’s prototype role for the remainder of her MGM vehicles, is that I don’t think of Esther as a comic role, charming and humorous though Judy is in the part. Susan, and the four big roles that followed, are opportunities for a full-out comedienne, game for the scripts’ chances for her to appear delightfully foolish and befuddled, whether barroom brawling in HARVEY GIRLS, engaging in slapstick in THE PIRATE, losing her skirt in IN THE GOOD OLD SUMMERTIME, etc., as well as in these films’ romantic entanglements.

  I’m excited that 100 GREAT FILM PERFS. came out on Kindle yesterday, without me being told about it in advance.

  Yes, “Happy 91″ to Durbin. My blog posts about her continue to receive hits. Of the several hundred posts I’ve written in the last five years, “The Universal Girl” is definitely among the most popular.

Leave a Comment