West & Grant in "I'm no Angel." 1933

When I was a little kid I remember watching a movie on the late, late show in New York City. In this movie was a blond, pretty buxom woman, she had a raspy and sultry voice. The kind of voice that sounded beckoning, lulling, yet tough. This woman was getting up close and personal to a very nice looking young man. The closer she got, the more jumpy the young man got; he was putty in her hands   I remember thinking, “How does she do that?” The woman on that TV screen was beautiful Mae West, with her handsome co-star Cary Grant.

When I see Mae West today, I can’t help thinking how ahead of her day she was. She was bold, and had fun being so. It’s 1920’s New York City and Mae West is starring in a play called “Sex.” In this play she plays a tough prostitute who takes no crap from her Johns, or her pimp. There are guns, liquor, and sex, just about anything that is illicit at the time was in this play. On one of her performances, Mae had to face real life and real cops. An agreement was made that she can conclude the play on this night, but after the play, she would be arrested. She concluded her last scene, and quickly ran to her dressing room, removed her heavy make-up, put on her knee length fur coat, black cloche hat and headed out to court. She had to look her best for court. As she stepped outside many people waited to see the real show—see Mae West leave the playhouse and step into a taxi. Mae West was being charged with “unlawfully preparing, advertising, giving, presenting, and participating in an obscene, immoral and impure drama, play, exhibition, show and entertainment.” This charge carried a penalty of one year in jail. This night Mae pleads not guilty, and demands a trial by jury. She posted bail and walked out.

"When I'm good, I'm very good, but when I'm bad, I'm better."

Mae and the Bad Boy Syndrome

This was in 1927, and Mae was 33 which is “old” for a song and dance girl, but Mae not only had sex appeal, she had brains. She’d use this to her advantage. She figured that scandal would make her a star. Mae was right. Let’s just say she paved the way for many stars after her, who understood that sex, controversy and a juicy tabloid story can take a down and out, struggling, actor and make them a star. In fact, Mae said in her biography, “Censorship made me.”

Mae liked action, the more dangerous the city, the more she’d want to visit it; the tighter the dress, the better.  She said in her biography she liked…”lipstick, jazz, sex in taxis, intrigue, gun-toting bootleggers, boxers lathered in sweat and cops who read her the riot act.” Let’s just say she courted danger. Born in Brooklyn in 1893 to a prize fighter father, and corset model mother, Mae was in the spotlight at the tender age of 5. Once she experienced it, there was no turning back. Eighty years later she told an interviewer, “I ached for the spotlight, which was like the strongest man’s arm around me, like an ermine coat.” As a teenager she did vaudeville, singing and dancing, and displayed a natural talent for comedy.

She learned early on that she liked dabbling in the forbidden and extreme. She liked hanging around black juke joints, listening to sultry blues, and learning the dance of the day called “the Shimmy.” In 1918 she did the Shimmy when performing in a revue in Broadway, and she rocked the world. After her shimmy she’d give a speech, and no doubt a funny speech at that. Mae was in the habit of writing her own lines, changing lines, to suit her persona, the persona of a sexy, sassy, wisecracking, Brooklyn girl who loved men, but spurned marriage. And that persona was not too far-fetched. She did marry at 17, but soon realized, marriage was not for her. She preferred the attention of many men, than just the one. Mae loved body building men, boxers, dangerous men like gangsters, bootleggers, or the “bad boy”.” Mae refused to conform to “old fashioned limits.” She said in her 1959 memoir, “I saw no indecency or perversion in the normal private habits of men and women.”

Well, back to her play, “Sex.” It was Mae who changed the title of the play to “Sex.” She said of her theory of playwriting, “you’ve got to hit them in eye with it.”  The original version of the play was tamed; Mae added brothels, bribery, blackmail, crooked cops, jewel theft, suicide, and lots of sex.  One of her boyfriends produced the play in 1926, with some backing from Mae’s other lover, Owney Madden, a bootlegger who owned the famous Cotton Club. They rented out Daly’s theatre and “Sex” opened on April 26, 1926, and producers hoped that the scandalous play would bring in the crowd and money.

The play received mixed reviews. The New York Times, called it “crude,” the Daily Mirror called it “monstrosity.”  Others called it “dreary,” & “poorly written, poorly acted, horribly staged…the cheapest, most vulgar low show to have dared to open in New York this year.” Yet a review from Variety, said that Mae played a prostitute well enough to “fool a traveling salesman’s convention.” Despite the mixed reviews, the play packed the house and became a hit. Controversy worked. The show went on from 1926-1927 making both Mae and her backers plenty of dough. But that was short lived. Soon a bunch of citizen groups, newspapers, condemned the show and demanded the show be terminated. The show was raided and the producer arrested. The producer managed to obtain an injunction which allowed the show to go on until the case was settled. The arrests, Mae West’s court appearances, gave the play more publicity and the crowds came by the hundreds to fill the playhouse. It was said that the stories that played out in court regarding this case were a lot more hilarious than the play. I can only imagine.

Mae Goes to Jail

Mae on her way to court, notice the attention

In the end the jury found West, the producer, co-producer, and some members of the cast guilty. The judge called the play “obscene and immoral” and said he wanted to make an example of this case to the rest of the country, and prove that New York City was “the most moral city in the universe.”  Ah, NYC most moral? My we’ve come a long way since then… The defendants were sentenced to 10 days in jail, except the cast members. With that said, “she (Mae) nonchalantly rouged her lips as she rose to leave, and swaggered across the courtroom,” the Daily News noted.  The papers had a party with Mae in prison. Much like today, the media just loves a juicy story to play up. There were “horror” stories about her underwear and ugly stockings in prison. The media seriously has to get a life… Mae emerged from her prison time nine days later unscathed and held a press conference. She said that her time in prison was a learning experience, that the conversations she had with other inmates gave her enough material for 2-3 more plays! LOL

This all played out just as Mae planned, the scandal catapulted her to stardom. A year after this scandal she wrote and starred in other controversial plays, one called “The Drag,” a play about gay men in the theater world, a taboo at the time. Finally in 1932 a lover by the name of George Raft, and we all know him, lured her to Hollywood to co-star with him in her first movie, “Night after Night.” In 1933 Mae West was the highest paid woman in America, and a 40-year-old sex symbol.

Mae died at the age of 87 in 1980. By this time she saw the change in American cinema, no more censorship to fight. And maybe, just maybe, she felt she had a little something to do with that. After all, it was Mae who felt a woman could not only speak freely about sex, but joke about it as well. It was Mae who pioneered the art of using sex and scandal to advance her career. Can’t say that I agree with it all, but I got to say, the woman had guts, and was a woman way, way, ahead of her day. And yes, censorship made her and she proved the axiom that sex certainly does sell.

Trigger & Temple

I love pre-code movies for many reasons, but I think I’ve seen the best one on record this week. Watching “The Story of Temple Drake,” was the best 70 minutes I’ve ever spent.  I’ve heard all the talk about the movie and was so happy that Turner Classic Movies premiered it this week. The movie based on William Falkner’s controversial book, “Sanctuary,” was a sensation when it was first featured, and I think it is still a sensation. I have heard it said that it was this movie which introduced the Hays Code.

This gem was withdrawn by Paramount shortly after its release, which I find a little strange because although Temple was all things “sinful,” in the end she redeems herself by doing the right thing. After this movie most pre-codes were a lot more tamed. But let’s get down to the story.

Temple Drake (Miriam Hopkins) is a southern belle with all the trimmings, but is known around the small town as the town slut. But all the men know that she’s just a tease. She “fires a man up….& poof…” as one of her suitors put it. It’s a dangerous game, but Temple is having a party with it. There is one suitor, a lawyer, Stephen Benbow, (William Gargan) who thinks seriously of Temple and wants to marry her. But when he asks her to marry him, she relents; the fast and loose girl act is just too good to give up. Temple tells him, “I’m no good,” “it’s just something inside me…” Temple’s spirit is willing, but her flesh is winning the battle. She hates her “Hyde” side, but at the same time, she can’t help giving into her dark side. The battle of the ages.

Temple Drake in the barn

Temple has always gotten her way, and gotten out of trouble with no trouble at all, after all her grandfather is a judge. An old judge who can’t see past “his spectacles…” as his black maid put it. The maid goes on to say, as she irons Temple’s underwear, “If he (the judge) did her laundry, he’d know all about her (Temple).” It’s a funny scene. At a party one night, Stephen is putting the cards on the table, but Temple wants out. She just had to run from all that is good in a man, and his good intentions. She grabs one of her many suitors, who is so stoned, he can’t see straight, and goes in search of more liquor. They both get in a car and drive at high speeds and the car crashes. Little did Temple know that her life was coming to a crash as well.

Temple Drake & Ruby

When Temple and her drunken suitor come to, they realize they are in the backwoods of the town. A menacing figure comes out of the woods, aptly named Trigger, played by gorgeous Jack LaRue. Trigger has a friend along with him, a backwoods, half-wit young man, who is ridiculously drunk and is there at Trigger’s beck & call. Temple is alarmed, but knows she has the power to make even these dark characters do as she says. She quickly pulls out her “my grandfather is a judge,” card. Only in this case, it doesn’t work. Turns out Temple and her friend have found liquor alright, they are now face to face with harden bootleggers, and one, Trigger, is going to be sure he gets his way. He will destroy Temple forever. Temple’s games with “boys” end when she confronts “men” who don’t play that game.

The lighting, settings, atmosphere, & cinematography in this film allow the tension to build and we are well aware that something dangerous and dark awaits Temple. In the scene when she is fearfully approaching the bootlegger’s old southern mansion, there is lightening and rain, and a heavy wind that howls as if warning Temple of the horror she is to face. As the camera moved around the characters in the house, dressed in rags, drinking in excess and in a stupor, & a crying baby in a draw to keep the rats from biting him, reminded me of current day crack dens. It was gloomy and one can only imagine what the genteel Temple was thinking.  It was a world so far removed from her safe world. The evoking close-up shots of the characters will send chills down your spine.

Miriam Hopkins as the tease, turned terrorized & catatonic victim is electrifying! Jack La Rue as the stop-at-nothing predator is flawless! I have to wonder how this beautiful man with such talent didn’t land more roles. This pre-code gem is the motherload of  Pre-code films. It’s not tamed like those pre-codes that followed when the Hays Code was enforced. In this film you see drinking in excess, promiscuity, misogyny, & violence, and let’s not forget the skin, enough to shock the pants out of a depression era audience. If you haven’t seen this one, you must. It’s hard to find a copy of this gem. TCM just premiered it, and I hear it’s all around the Internet. This film will stay with you for a long, long time.

Sam & Fran Dodsworth

Guess you can say I like to be tortured, I got to watch for my 5th or 6th time the pre-code directed by William Wyler, “Dodsworth,” (1936). The story of a middle aged couple, Sam Dodsworth (Walter Huston) and Fran Dodsworth (Ruth Chatterton). Sam appears to be in his 50′s, he is a small town businessman who is now looking forward to early retirement. His wife Fran on the other hand is not quite ready to be put out to pasture. Fran appears to be in her early 40′s. In one scene she celebrates “a birthday,” and makes herself to be in her late 30′s, but we all know the real deal. Fran is restless; she wants “to see the world.” Sam is a devoted husband, and when Fran expresses her desire, he yields. They embark on a grand tour of Europe. Leave it up to the pre-code movies to make a depression era audience forget reality. Once in Europe, Fran falls for the Euro crowd and ways. She lavishes in the attentions of suave & sophisticated men, men very different than her provincial and unrefined husband. In a few scenes she squirms in her chair when her husband opens his mouth. Sam is a regular guy, although wealthy, he is an unassuming man with humble ways.  She didn’t want to appear like him, she had class, and she wanted the cafe society to know that. More and more she drifted away from Sam, she’d leave him alone as she flirted with men, and danced the night away. Finally, Fran was living and nobody or anything would stop her from being happy. It is in one of these “leave Sam alone nights,” Sam meets an American widow, Edith (Mary Astor) who befriends him and changes him forever. Before you call this a soap opera, let me tell you, it’s not. The acting and characters will captivate you so much so you’ll forget the plot mechanics.

Fran with one of her lovers (Paul Lukas)

Walter Houston gives the performance of his life in the title role. He’s the guy you can easily spot even today, a successful American businessman, who lives a simple life, and who values the traditional American way of life. And if you ever met a man who loved a woman too much, Sam is that man.  As a woman, I wanted to tell him, run, don’t walk away from this selfish woman who doesn’t appreciate you. Ruth Chatterton as his egotistical wife gives an equally grand performance. She’s the spoiled wife, one who has been given every material comfort, but one day wakes up and realizes that her crass husband is not the man she really wanted, and that he was the stumbling block which prevented her from being part of the “high society.” The high society world she wanted so bad, so much so, it hurt.

"A birthday," celebration

I found myself pondering; is there a hero and villain in this story? Yes, Sam was unsophisticated, yet he was honest with his wife. He never pretended to be somebody he wasn’t.  And Fran knew full well who Sam, the man was.  I mean don’t you think that after 20 + years a wife knows her husband? How is it that one day she wakes up and decides this is not the life she wanted? She may have been bored with the life Sam gave her, but did that give her “the right,” as she put it, to take on what she thought was a better life? Did she have to cheat on him with several men? And even after she does this, Sam is willing to “wipe the slate clean,” and start all over again. Not even that moved her enough to patch things up. Eventually a younger man she falls in love with, rejects her, and she decides to run back to Sam who has finally found true love with the American widow. She pushes him away, and then wants him back when the chips fall down. She got a crash course on “the grass is greener,” and is now running home to papa. After all, she can count on Sam.  And even then Sam returns to her, but finally realizes that nothing could make Fran happy. Fran is a restless soul, a lost soul, and doesn’t really know what she wants.

So yes, and I know many women might not like my conclusion, I have to side with Sam. Fran is a selfish, immature, woman who was afraid of aging and didn’t want to accept her reality. And in the process loses the one person who’d lay down his life for her. Karma is a bitch Fran, good riddance!

Ever think of what it will be like for you when you turn 70, 75, or 80? I have. It’s sort of sketchy for me, but I have an idea of the ideal life I’d love to have at that age. “Make Way for Tomorrow,” (37) tells a story of an aging couple. Leo McCarey directed this unsung gem, and although he didn’t win an Oscar for this film, he felt it was his best film. The film done during the Great Depression will resonate especially during these hard economic times. The couple, Barkley and Lucy Cooper are played by Victor Moore, and Beulah Bondi respectively.

Lucy and Barkley are in their 70′s, it’s hard to believe that because they appear older, tired, and worn, compared to the healthier, and in many cases wealthier 70 year old citizens we have today. Their hard life is written all over. The wrinkles were many, their hobbled walk a testament to the hardships they’ve endured. Barkley worked hard on building a business most of his life, but didn’t succeed. In spite of their hardships they loved each other deeply and had five children to prove it. They made due, they managed. Enter the Great Depression, and the couple are in their 70′s, and broke. All they have is their home, the home they raised their five children in. But even that they can’t keep. The bank forecloses on their home, and the Coopers are basically homeless and broke. But not to worry, they have five children and one will at the very least help.

Our last date....

The Coopers gather four of their middle-aged children to inform them of the problem. Their fifth child lives in California and wasn’t present at this “family” meeting. When the children are told, they are shocked, and concerned. The concern wasn’t so much about how to help their parents, it was more like, who the hell is going to take responsibility? They all put up all kinds of excuses. One daughter, Nell is the only one who can take them both in, but must first speak to her insolent husband. Nell knows her husband will not do it, but plays it off like she’ll try. They finally decide to split the couple up until Nell can take them both in. Lucy goes to live with her son and his family. And Barkley goes to live with his reluctant, icy daughter. The couple is now 300 miles apart!

The meeting

We must understand that it is the depression and everyone including the Cooper children are struggling to make ends meet. They have their share of stresses. But I still can’t wrap my head around the treatment of their parents. The two burdened families soon come to find the respective parents’ presence bothersome. Nell does very little to convince her husband of having the elderly couple come live together with them. We all know Nell really doesn’t want to deal with pesky parents. Although this is all happening around these two elderly people, they hang on to believing that one day they will live together, and independently again. It was easier to believe that fantasy than face facts. In a touching scene, Lucy continues to speak of the day that her husband will find work, her teenage granddaughter bluntly advises her to “face facts” that that will never happen because of his age. Lucy’s sad reply is to say that “facing facts” is easy for a carefree 17-year old girl, but that at Lucy’s age, the only fun left is “pretending that their ain’t any facts to face, so would you mind if I just kind of went on pretending?”

The families can’t take it anymore, and decide to send the elderly Barkley Cooper to California, even farther away from his Lucy. And they decide to send their mother, Lucy to a nursing home. But before the two split, and quite possibly for good, they spend a glorious afternoon together. They reminiscence of better times when they were young, they even go to the hotel they spent their honeymoon in, and for the first time Lucy has a drink publicly. The people they encounter on this afternoon, although strangers, seem to find them a amiable couple. They genuinely enjoy their company, treat them wonderfully. This, of course, stands in stark contrast to the treatment they are receiving from their children.

Lucy and Barkley head out to the train station, where Barkley will board a train to California. They say their good-byes. Barkley still speaks of possibly finding a job, and Lucy assures him he will. Again, the couple preferring to pretend, rather than face the facts. It’s the only way to cope. But we all know, it’s their final moment.

Our last dance...Let me call you sweetheart

This was my first time seeing this gem. I have to agree with it’s director, it’s his best. Although the movie is sad, so sad that Orson Welles said, it’d make “a stone cry,” it has a strong message, mostly about honoring our parents. We can all see the problems of caring for our aging parents quite clearly, but easily forget the sacrifices they’ve made for us. If they can’t count on us, who can they count on? There is subtle humor in the movie. You’ll love the strong love affair the elderly couple have even after 50 years! The last 20 minutes of the movie are unbearably touching. You will never forget the last shot of Bondi as she watches the train take her prince away. You can’t help notice the New York shots of skyscrapers, and fast moving motor cars, as if saying, in with the new and out with old. It’s an unforgettable film, and one that will make you call your mother, and cherish your parents always.

Thomas Edison

Well I’m excited about TCM’s “Moguls and Movie Stars, the History of Hollywood.” It’s walk through Hollywood’s history. Being a history and classic movie aficionado, it gets no better than this. This whole month starting tonight we will learn of the humble beginnings of Hollywood and how it grew into a mega million dollar empire. The series airs tonight, and every Monday and Wednesday night through December 15th at 8:00 PM EST. Movies of the respective era featured will follow after the documentary. How exciting is that? Each segment will focus on a different era of American movie history, from the invention of the first moving picture to the cutting edge films of the 1960′s.

The moguls weren’t always moguls, let’s get that straight from the beginning. In fact, many were poor immigrants from Eastern Europe who came to United States and who were running away from very harsh conditions. And like most immigrants, they were penniless, and didn’t speak English. Strangers in a strange land. But they had a dream. The story of Hollywood is a story of American ingenuity, entrepreneurship, and hard work. I like how the producer of the series puts it, “They (moguls) weren’t necessarily charmers, but what made their stories so terrific is that essentially they put on the screen their own dream of what this country was or should be.” Many came from poor Jewish backgrounds and fortunately for them they got into film at its infancy. After arriving in America many owned nickelodeans before the age of theaters and production. We will learn in the series of the “undocumented” Samuel Goldwyn who came to America via the Canadian border. And many other stories of the great pioneers of film.

Samuel Goldwyn

The series will be narrated by none other than Christopher Plummer, who, I’m sure will make this series a pleasure to see. They don’t come any classier than he. The series will have classic film footage, photographs, and color footage from the great classic movie, “On the Waterfront.” Classic movie stars will be profiled and we will learn about their relationship with the moguls. I’ve heard some horror stories, but I’ve also heard some good stories. In addition, the series will have interviews with relatives of the moguls. That should be really interesting to see.

For me, I will see it as an American story. It is a story of how anyone can make it in our great country. I am sure that many of these moguls had all kinds of problems when they first came here. But nothing stopped them. They kept at it, and realized their dream and in the process made dreams come true for so many others. Now that, is an American story.

I’ve often thought of the feuding sisters, Olivia de Havilland and Joan Fontaine. They are now in their 90′s, and still do not speak to each other! So what happened? You’d think that after decades of ill feelings, they would have reconciled. But unfortunately in this instance, that is not the case. Back in the day this was news. Nowadays you don’t hear about it much, but most classic movie fans know of the story.

In 2008 The Academy of Motion Pictures let the cat out the bag for modern audiences. At the time the Academy was having a bash in honor of Bette Davis’ 100th birthday, another grand lady from a by-gone era. Joan and Olivia were invited to the gala since they were both Bette’s contemporaries. Olivia now living in Paris, declined the invite because the trip would be too long for her. Upon hearing her sister Joan would attend, she decided that the trip wouldn’t be too long after all. After all Bette was her friend, one she worked with in movies like “Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte.” Joan gets wind of this, and decides she isn’t going! And I thought time heals wounds, ah, not in this case. I find it ironic, that Bette is somewhat responsible for the latest skirmish. Remember Bette in “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?” The macabre story of sibling rivalry comes to my mind. Of course, the story in “Whatever…” is way off base, and not the real life story of Joan & Olivia. Neither Joan, or Olivia ever lost their luster. And neither kept the other hostage and fed them dead rats, or intended to commit murder. But still I can’t help finding it all ironic.

Olivia and Joan both started off very young in Hollywood. Both rising stars at pretty much the same time. The bigger the success each got, the worse the feelings between them got. It became apparent that the raw emotions which divided the sisters stemmed from childhood. There has been other Hollywood feuds, but this feud is monumental and unique. Decades have come and gone and they still feel as if it happened yesterday.

They were the first sisters to win Oscars, and the first to be nominated for best actress in the same year. They were both very good at their art, and it seems to me, both competed against each other. In 1940 Joan was nominated for her role in Hitchcock’s “Rebecca.” The story goes that both wanted the part of the sweet and unworldly Mrs De Winter, but Joan got it. Joan lost in 1941 to Ginger Rogers. A sigh a relief for Olivia, but Joan grew more determined. Within a year, the sisters were in competition again. Joan was nominated for her role in Hitchcock’s “Suspicion,” her second role with Hitchcock. Olivia was nominated for her role in “Hold Back the Dawn.” Ginger Rogers presented the award that year, and Joan was the winner! Years later Joan said she froze as her name was called out, with her sister sitting next to her.

Joan wrote of that moment: Olivia said “Get up there,” & Joan burst into tears. All the resentments and jealousies of an uncomfortably shared childhood returned; “the hair-pulling, the savage wrestling matches, the time Olivia fractured my collar bone, all came rushing back in kaleidoscopic imagery. My paralysis was total … I felt age four, being confronted by my older sister. Damn it! I had incurred her wrath again.”

OK, so let’s just say we can pin point that what sealed the rivalry between the two sisters was “Rebecca.” That means that these two sisters have been pissed off with each other since Hitler invaded France. And if you take Joan’s account of when it all began (1920′s) they have been pissed since the Flapper cut her hair short and hemmed her dress! Here’s the kicker, in 1946 Olivia was nominated for her role in, “To Each His Own,” and Joan Crawford was supposed to present the award. Joan Crawford pulled out, and the Academy trying to make the two kiss and make up, had Fontaine present it to her sister.

You’d think, it was the moment of truth, love, and reconciliation. Not! Joan calls out her sister’s name, Olivia goes up to the podium, and the world watched as Olivia refused to shake Joan’s hand. Olivia won another Oscar in 1949 for her role in “The Heiress.” Love that movie!

Today these women are in their nineties. Olivia is the last surviving actor of “Gone with the Wind.” By-the-way, Olivia was nominated for her role as Melanie in “Gone..” but lost to Hattie McDaniel, the first black actress to be honored. I did hear say that although she lost to Hattie, she was happy that a black woman had been given the honor.

The saying, “truth is stranger than fiction,” comes to mind. In the movies all ends well, even with siblings that fight. But for these sisters, it’s too complicated, and nastier than the movies. Time is running out for both. I have to guess that these two will never reconcile.  Sisters can be close, others can be distant, or competitive. But even the ones that are distant and competitive cares for the other. I grew up with 5 sisters, I know the dynamics in the “sisterhood.” We know how to get on each others nerves, what buttons to push, and how to bring out the worst in the other. It’s in our genes. But to be as these two are, the wounds are wide and deep. And only a God encounter, or just plain humility will bring them back.

Charles Higham wrote a biography of the sisters and he assessed it like this: “Olivia never got used to the idea of a younger sister. She would, apparently, rip up her old clothes that Joan was supposed to wear as hand-me-downs, forcing her to stitch them back together. Joan is said to have resented what she saw as her mother’s favoritism for Olivia.” Now take that and mix it up with Hollywood’s “dog-eat-dog” world and you get two very angry 90-year-old women wallowing in bitterness and resentment for decades. Not a movie, it’s real life. Sad.

The year is 1896, and the world of the Victorians was one of all things genteel and moral. Well, at least, on the surface, for some. Around this time, Thomas Edison purchased the rights to a motion picture projector which C. Francis Jenkins and Thomas Armat had invented. The projector was later renamed the “Vitascope,” and on April 23, 1896 , it made its debut. The “Edison” Vitascope’s most popular film that year was the “May Irwin Kiss,” or “The Kiss.”

May Irwin was a 34-year-old Canadian actress, comedienne and singer. In 1895, May Irwin landed a starring role on Broadway in a musical comedy created for her by J.J. McNally, called “The Widow Jones.” The play had a “juicy” kissing scene, ok don’t laugh, remember it’s 1895. At the end of the play, May Irwin and her co-star, John C. Rice give each other a lingering kiss. The Victorians were scandalized when this scene was recreated for Edison’s camera the following year. They didn’t like it in the play, and they found it repulsive when this kiss was magnified on screen. One critic, Herbert Stone complained, “…..neither participant is physically attractive and the spectacle of their prolonged pasturing on each other’s lips was hard to beat when only life size. Magnified to gargantuan proportions and repeated three times over is absolutely disgusting!” Just like today, as it was then, give a movie a  little controversy, and the masses will flock to the theater to see it. “The May Irwin Kiss,” was the most popular film produced that year by Thomas Edison’s film company. This is how Edison’s catalog pushed the film, “They get ready to kiss, begin to kiss, and kiss and kiss and kiss in a way that brings down the house every time.”  Do you think Edison was playing devil’s advocate? (laugh riot).

The short film directed by William Heise for Thomas Edison was deemed “culturally significant” in 1999 by the US Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the National Film Registry. The film was long thought of as the first film to be shown publicly, however, a competing company Lumiere Brothers Cinematograph had featured another film publicly a month before. We can however say, it is the first screen kiss in cinematic history.

So what ever happened to America’s first film actress? Not only was she an actress, & singer, but she was a shrewd investor. Her shrewd ways made her a very wealthy woman. And in addition to her singing and acting, she also wrote lyrics for her songs. She recorded some songs;many of these recordings exist today. In 1914 she appeared in a silent movie called, “Mrs. Black is Back.” Still photos of May Irwin in this movie still exist today. Irwin’s buxom figure was “in” at the time, and her charming ways didn’t hurt her climb to fame. She was one of America’s most beloved performers for 30 years. She died in 1938 at age 76. Not much is known about what became of her co-star John C. Rice.

Of course we all know, times have most certainly changed. There are some scenes on screen today that would make the Victorians turn in their graves. I thought the woman to look older than her years. The flirting & lingering kiss was “steamy” for the day. Although, by today’s standards, not sexy at all. The scene shocked the Victorian society to its core, but little did they know, it was only the beginning of all things anti-Victorian.

Clara was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1905.  She was born to an unstable woman, and a drunken father. She didn’t have a chance. When she was born, her mother thought she was born dead, as the baby didn’t make a sound. Her grandmother spent several minutes shaking the baby until they realized she was alive. Clara’s childhood was miserable, her father was never gainfully employed, drank, and played the disappearing act, on and off. But of the two parents, Clara cherished her dad most. Her mother was a deeply disturbed woman who suffered from epilepsy and psychotic fits, reportedly due to a fall which injured her head. It was also reported that Clara’s mother was a prostitute and a small Clara was exposed to things, no child her age should be. Throughout her life, her parents made it perfectly clear that she was a mistake, and an unwanted child. In fact, they never even bothered to file a birth certificate as if to wish her away.

Growing up in Brooklyn’s poor area, and run down tenements was filled with trauma, abuse, and poverty. She was teased by the girls about her “plain,” “unattractive” looks, and her carrot top hair. She resorted to being a tomboy, playing all the “boy” games and being “one of the boys.” To escape her miserable existence, she’d go to the movies. She’d do whatever she needed to do to scrape the money to go to the movies. She loved stars like Wallace Reid and Mary Pickford, and she wanted to be like them. She wanted it so bad, she could taste it. Anything was better than what she was living. The screen would be her protection from the world.

During this time many young women submitted photos of themselves to the Motion Picture Magazine. Each year the magazine would have a contest, designed to discover new actors. It was much like “American Idol” is today. Almost every star-struck girl in America dreamed of winning this contest and of being transported to the magical land of Hollywood. Clara borrowed the money from her father and submitted her photo in 1921 and she won.

Her first break was in a movie titled, “Beyond the Rainbow.” (1922) which disappointed her because her sequences were cut. In fact , one review of the movie in “Variety,” didn’t even mention Bow as one of the “beauties.” But Clara kept at it and eventually got a small role in “Down to the Sea in Ships (1922) which paid her $50 bucks a week, “more money than I knew there was in the world,” Bow said in a Photoplay article. Although she had done, “Beyond the Rainbow,” this film was her first on screen appearance. Clara’s professional life was at an up swing, but her home life was falling apart. Her mother’s mental state got worse, and she didn’t like that her daughter was now an actress. Her mother would rather see her dead, and she attempted to kill Clara. Clara escaped, and her mother was institutionalized. Her mother died shortly after her admission.

Although the death of her mother haunted Clara, she managed to garner strength and determination to pursue her acting career. She landed a few more small roles in 1923, and bigger roles in 1924, eventually gaining more recognition and popularity due to her wild and vivacious personality. Her real breakthrough came in 1925, when she appeared in “The Plastic Age.” In this movie she played the “easy” girl at an ivy-league college. The studio promoted Clara as “the hottest jazz baby in films.” But when 1927 rolled around she got a role in a movie titled, “It.” Clara is forever immortalized as the “it” girl. Thus she is known as the quintessential “flapper.” The girl of the jazz age. The “it” girl  represented, unrestrained sexuality, vivacious personality, and an exuberant love of life. This movie makes Clara the biggest star in Hollywood.

Hollywood life was good, but again, her personal life was falling apart. Her emotional state became fragile much to the concern of her producers and directors. They coined her, “Crisis-a-day Clara.” The media  had a field day with Clara, complicating her professional life. Stories of her many love affairs, orgies, etc, were front page news. Hollywood began to see her as a “disgrace,” and “lowlife.” But despite this, Clara continued on the road to fame. She was granted a more serious role in Academy Award winning, “Wings,” in 1927, unfortunately, this would turn out to be her last great picture. Then came the talkies and Clara worried she wouldn’t be good. She made only a few talkies, and many think her Brooklyn accent was the problem. I’ve heard her, and I still don’t understand what the fuss was about.

The pressures of Hollywood got the best of Clara and she decided to leave it for good in 1933. It became clear to her that her career ended when the Jazz age ended. She settled down and married actor Rex Bell and had two children. They lived in a remote ranch in Nevada, but even this didn’t keep the scandals from coming. In 1949 her mental state continued to decline and she was diagnosed with Schizophrenia. She never appeared in the limelight again. She died at age 60, alone, in her home in Los Angeles on September 27, 1965. And although, we see her laughing and dancing on the screen today, remember what she once said, “ All the time the flapper is laughin’ and dancin’, there’s a feelin’of tragedy underneath..”

Have you ever watched a classic movie and wonder how on earth some of the actors or actresses were able to keep up with lines. The witty lines and the speed by which they said them has always impressed me. Now, do you ever think of your favorite classic stars as making mistakes while on the set? Can you ever imagine any one of them cursing on the set when bloopers were committed? I suppose we are all tempted to believe that the starlets of old were flawless, curse, nah! Hey, they were human, just like we are and yes, they got pissed off when it took several takes to get one line right, or became hysterical when they or their co-star delivered corny lines. I thought this video below to be funny, revealing and enlightening. See the human side of stars like Bogart, Edward G. Robinson, Bette Davis, and more.

The second horror movie I recommend you see is the silent horror movie, “Nosferatu.” Although it was done back in 1922, it is still gripping. Out of all the vampire movies I’ve  seen, I find this one to be the scariest. The movie takes place in an eerie and sleepy town in Germany. The story is based on Bram Stoker’s novel, “Dracula.” There were some copyright issues and so a lot of the names of Stoker’s characters were changed for this movie.

A young married man, Hutter played by Gustav Von Wangeheim is summoned by a monstrous looking Knock (Alexander Granach) to pay a visit to Count Orlock  (Max Schreck) in Transylvania. Count Orlock wants to buy a house in Transylvania and it is Hutter’s job to help him do that. Knock dispels all rumors of phantoms, and ghouls in hopes of convincing Hutter to go and make this sale. Hutter however, didn’t need any real convincing, he wants to make money, and this is the deal of century. He goes and leaves his wife behind with relatives.

Here is when the movie gets dark and gloomy. Hutter’s trip to Transylvania builds up suspense as he gets closer and closer to Orlock’s lair. He stops at an inn and the locals warn him of what will happen to him should he continue on this journey to Orlock. They are full of dread and horror, but Hutter wants to make the dough, and laughs it all off. He proceeds on the journey but the coachman drops him off ways away from Orlock’s castle because he was afraid to get too close. Even this did not convince Hutter to turn around. Greed has taken him over.

When Hutter arrives, the castle is nightmarish, dark, and dank. The count does not look human, and his love of blood is spine tingling. Hutter realizes he’s walked into something so evil and there is no out. Hutter becomes Orlock’s meal. While all this is going on, Hutter’s wife is having horrible nightmares back home. Orlock beckons Hutter’s wife in these dreams. Orlock manages to get to her, will she escape his grip, or will she forever be with him in the world of the dammed?

Contemporary movies portray Dracula as an accomplished, enigmatic, and handsome seducer. This film, which I feel is a lot closer to the story than most, portrays him as a ghoul. F.W. Murnau’s film is a classic and masterpiece. Nosferatu is a scary, evil, and nightmarish ghoul who walks the earth looking for whom to devour. The movie devoid of today’s bells and whistles is gripping. The use of shadows, lighting, are visually impressive. One scene that sticks in my head is the one with all the rats running out of the coffin—truly unforgettable.