"The Three Dancers" by Neil Folberg. Click here to see more of his work.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Somebody's Watching Thriller
While grabbing YouTube videos for my job application for the Department of Homeland Security, I came across this mostly black-and-white and occasionally clever video for a mash-up of classic 1980s pop tunes "Thriller" and "Somebody's Watching Me".
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Picture Perfect Wednesday: Anita Garvin
Anita Garvin is a nearly forgotten comedienne who was a frequent co-star of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy in silent movies during the late 1920s before they were a formal comedy team. She made a successful transition from the silent era to the talkies, but but by the late 1930s, she was ready to quit acting to raise a family.
Stan Laurel convinced her to delay her retirement long enough to join him in remaking one of their last silent films together, "From Soup to Nuts", as a segment in the 1940 film "A Chump at Oxford", with Oliver Hardy joining them in reprising the roles they had originally performed in 1928.
In her day, Garvin as a queen of slapstick comedy who could give any of her more famous male co-stars a run for their money in just about any area. Hers is a face and body that any fan of classic comedies is sure to admire if they keep an eye out for her.
Garvin passed away in July of 1994 at the age of 88.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
'A Chump at Oxford' is funny but infuriating
A Chump at Oxford (1940)
Starring: Stan Laurel, Oliver Hardy, James Finlayson, Anita Garvin, Forrest Harvey, Eddie Borden, Wilfred Lucas, and Peter Cushing
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars
A pair of down-on-their-luck laborers (Laurel and Hardy) receive a scholarship to Oxford as a reward for foiling a bank robbery. They are greeted with cruelty by the snobbish student body until one of them is revealed to be the long-lost Lord Paddington.
"A Chump at Oxford" is the first Laurel and Hardy film I've seen where I remember being irritated. I wanted the collection of entitled, self-important jerks who decide to make their lives Hell when the arrive at Oxford to get what they dished out ten-fold, yet they never seem to be adequately punished to my mind. While Stanley beating them up after he regains his memories as Lord Paddington is a good start, but nowhere near enough--I wanted to see them tossed out of the school, not just out a window.
The rest of the film more than makes up for it though. From the pair's attempt to work as domestics at a fancy mansion through the various bits at Oxford--even if they were mostly brought on by mean tricks--are all very funny. An added bonus for Peter Cushing fans is that you can see him in an early role as one of the cruel students... it's not a big part, but he's there. And he's the only one who doesn't get to wear a silly mustache when the gang is passing themselves of as professors to Stan and Ollie.
An interesting note about this film is that it was originally intended to be released in two versions--a 40-some minute version for the American market an a 60-some minute version for Europe. The first part of the film--where Laurel and Hardy work as servants at a fancy party--was to have been omitted in the American release.
Starring: Stan Laurel, Oliver Hardy, James Finlayson, Anita Garvin, Forrest Harvey, Eddie Borden, Wilfred Lucas, and Peter Cushing
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars
A pair of down-on-their-luck laborers (Laurel and Hardy) receive a scholarship to Oxford as a reward for foiling a bank robbery. They are greeted with cruelty by the snobbish student body until one of them is revealed to be the long-lost Lord Paddington.
"A Chump at Oxford" is the first Laurel and Hardy film I've seen where I remember being irritated. I wanted the collection of entitled, self-important jerks who decide to make their lives Hell when the arrive at Oxford to get what they dished out ten-fold, yet they never seem to be adequately punished to my mind. While Stanley beating them up after he regains his memories as Lord Paddington is a good start, but nowhere near enough--I wanted to see them tossed out of the school, not just out a window.
The rest of the film more than makes up for it though. From the pair's attempt to work as domestics at a fancy mansion through the various bits at Oxford--even if they were mostly brought on by mean tricks--are all very funny. An added bonus for Peter Cushing fans is that you can see him in an early role as one of the cruel students... it's not a big part, but he's there. And he's the only one who doesn't get to wear a silly mustache when the gang is passing themselves of as professors to Stan and Ollie.
An interesting note about this film is that it was originally intended to be released in two versions--a 40-some minute version for the American market an a 60-some minute version for Europe. The first part of the film--where Laurel and Hardy work as servants at a fancy party--was to have been omitted in the American release.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Picture Perfect Special: Welcome to 2012!
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Out with the Old, and In With the New (or visa-versa?)
It's a new year in Krazy Kat's "heppy land, furfur away"! (Click on the cartoon for a larger, more legible version.)
Friday, December 30, 2011
Puttin' on the Ritz!
It's almost 2012, but here at Shades of Gray, we're gonna party like it's 1929! :)
Here are some party tips from Clark Gable
And Harry Richman has a little advice/demonstation ready for us as well.
Here are some party tips from Clark Gable
And Harry Richman has a little advice/demonstation ready for us as well.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Celebrating Wonder Woman, Part Four
A few more images of the Amazing Amazon, as the year of her 70th birthday comes to a close.
 |
| By Mike Sell |
 |
| By Brandon Peterson |
 |
| By Chris Samnee |
 |
| By Geoff Isherwood |
 |
| By Al Rio |
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Two careers cross in 'King of the Underworld'
King of the Underworld (1939)
Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Kay Francis, James Stephenson, Jessie Busley, John Eldridge, and Raymond Brown
Director: Lewis Seiler
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars
When her husband (Eldridge) is killed in a raid on a gangster hide-out and is revealed to have been their physician of choice, Dr. Carole Nelson (Francis) has her reputation tarnished and career destroyed when no one believes she was ignorant of his activities. When she discovers the gang is hiding in a small town, she relocates there as well, in the hopes of finding the means to clear her name. When Carole discovers the megalomaniac gang-leader (Bogart) has kidnapped writer Bill Forrest (Stephenson) to force him to write his biography, she knows that more is now at stake than just her reputation and livelihood--the gangster is not going to let Bill live once the book is finished.
When "King of the Underworld" was made, Humphrey Bogart's star was on the rise, and Kay Francis' was quickly falling and burning out. Some sources indicate that this film was cast as it was because Warner Bros. executives were trying to force her to abandon her contract because of the non-glamorous nature of the part, and because she was given second billing to an actor with a far lesser stature than she had obtained. But, like the character she portrays in this movie, and like the strong women she had built her career on playing during the 1930s, Francis kept plugging on against the odds and in defiance of those who would bring her down. Despite the best efforts of studio suits, Francis still comes across as every bit the movie star that she was.
Part of the reason that Francis comes off looking so great in this movie is that Bogart's character, Joe Gurney. is a stereotypical, brutish and socipathic gangland thug with the mildly interesting character quirk of being obsessed with Napoleon Bonaparte, and considers himself the French general's modern-day intellectual counterpart. Of course, Joe doesn't really understand half of what Napoleon did during his lifetime and some houseplants are smarter than him, but what he lacks in intelligence he more than makes up for in animal cunning and brutality. Joe's gang isn't much smarter or classier than he; at least "Scarface" had George Raft playing a gangster possessing an air of class and intelligence... Joe Gurney's gang seems is a collection of dim bulbs with Joe merely being the smartest and toughest guy in a collection of idiots. He is so dumb that I kept expecting one of the other gang members to shoot him and take over when it became apparent their hideout had been compromised.
As a launching pad for stardom, this was not the greatest of choices... but, for Bogart, "High Sierra" and "The Maltese Falcon" were just around the corner, and with them finally came the great parts he'd been begging for.
Francis, on the other hand, portrays a character whose only flaw is that she is a little too trusting of the people close to her. She is brilliant, sensitive, and possessed with an unwavering sense of personal honor... and a sharp mind married with a drive to succeed with her honor intact that the likes of Joe Gurney wished he had. These traits not only let her outsmart petty "community leaders" in the little town she relocates to, but also outsmart Joe and gang in a clever, if mildly far-fetched way.
The best part of this movie, in fact, is the interaction between Joe and Carole. These are very tense and suspenseful scenes, because both Bogart and Francis were great acting talents and they both conveyed their characters so strongly that viewers have a sense throughout those scenes that this could all end very badly for Carole at any moment.
Francis' Carole is so stubborn that her drive to clear her name won't be stopped. Bogart's Joe is such a vicious monster that when he is being gregarious it feels forced and that he would rather kill someone than walk across a room. Each scene they have together feels like the unstoppable force is about to collide with the unmovable object with all the disaster that would follow such an event.
These two great screen talents are what makes this movie worth seeing, as it emerges as proof of the fact that great actors can transcend the material they are working with. It features Francis' last great role at Warner Bros. even though it was intended to be a bad part, and Bogart takes a bad part and makes it spectacular.
This review is part of Forever Classic's Humphrey Bogart Blogathon (Bogarthon?). Click here to see links to other entries.
Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Kay Francis, James Stephenson, Jessie Busley, John Eldridge, and Raymond Brown
Director: Lewis Seiler
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars
When her husband (Eldridge) is killed in a raid on a gangster hide-out and is revealed to have been their physician of choice, Dr. Carole Nelson (Francis) has her reputation tarnished and career destroyed when no one believes she was ignorant of his activities. When she discovers the gang is hiding in a small town, she relocates there as well, in the hopes of finding the means to clear her name. When Carole discovers the megalomaniac gang-leader (Bogart) has kidnapped writer Bill Forrest (Stephenson) to force him to write his biography, she knows that more is now at stake than just her reputation and livelihood--the gangster is not going to let Bill live once the book is finished.
When "King of the Underworld" was made, Humphrey Bogart's star was on the rise, and Kay Francis' was quickly falling and burning out. Some sources indicate that this film was cast as it was because Warner Bros. executives were trying to force her to abandon her contract because of the non-glamorous nature of the part, and because she was given second billing to an actor with a far lesser stature than she had obtained. But, like the character she portrays in this movie, and like the strong women she had built her career on playing during the 1930s, Francis kept plugging on against the odds and in defiance of those who would bring her down. Despite the best efforts of studio suits, Francis still comes across as every bit the movie star that she was.
Part of the reason that Francis comes off looking so great in this movie is that Bogart's character, Joe Gurney. is a stereotypical, brutish and socipathic gangland thug with the mildly interesting character quirk of being obsessed with Napoleon Bonaparte, and considers himself the French general's modern-day intellectual counterpart. Of course, Joe doesn't really understand half of what Napoleon did during his lifetime and some houseplants are smarter than him, but what he lacks in intelligence he more than makes up for in animal cunning and brutality. Joe's gang isn't much smarter or classier than he; at least "Scarface" had George Raft playing a gangster possessing an air of class and intelligence... Joe Gurney's gang seems is a collection of dim bulbs with Joe merely being the smartest and toughest guy in a collection of idiots. He is so dumb that I kept expecting one of the other gang members to shoot him and take over when it became apparent their hideout had been compromised.
As a launching pad for stardom, this was not the greatest of choices... but, for Bogart, "High Sierra" and "The Maltese Falcon" were just around the corner, and with them finally came the great parts he'd been begging for.
Francis, on the other hand, portrays a character whose only flaw is that she is a little too trusting of the people close to her. She is brilliant, sensitive, and possessed with an unwavering sense of personal honor... and a sharp mind married with a drive to succeed with her honor intact that the likes of Joe Gurney wished he had. These traits not only let her outsmart petty "community leaders" in the little town she relocates to, but also outsmart Joe and gang in a clever, if mildly far-fetched way.
The best part of this movie, in fact, is the interaction between Joe and Carole. These are very tense and suspenseful scenes, because both Bogart and Francis were great acting talents and they both conveyed their characters so strongly that viewers have a sense throughout those scenes that this could all end very badly for Carole at any moment.
Francis' Carole is so stubborn that her drive to clear her name won't be stopped. Bogart's Joe is such a vicious monster that when he is being gregarious it feels forced and that he would rather kill someone than walk across a room. Each scene they have together feels like the unstoppable force is about to collide with the unmovable object with all the disaster that would follow such an event.
These two great screen talents are what makes this movie worth seeing, as it emerges as proof of the fact that great actors can transcend the material they are working with. It features Francis' last great role at Warner Bros. even though it was intended to be a bad part, and Bogart takes a bad part and makes it spectacular.
This review is part of Forever Classic's Humphrey Bogart Blogathon (Bogarthon?). Click here to see links to other entries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
