Showing posts with label 1950s. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1950s. Show all posts

Aug 12, 2019

Lights, camera, action!: The living room as a playground in 'A Star is Born' (1954)

"Lights! Camera! Action!" So began the musical number that would be known as the Tour de Force number in 'A Star is Born' (1954).



The first time 'A Star is Born' was brought to the screen was in 1937, when William A. Wellman directed Janet Gaynor and Frederic March as the stars of the picture. The 1954 remake was devised as a comeback for Judy Garland, who parted ways with MGM and filmmaking in 1950, but was riding a high after her successful concerts at the London Palladium and The Palace in New York in 1951 and 1952 respectively.


Moss Hart, author of some of the most famous plays in American theatre, was signed to write the screenplay for the remake that was to become a musical to show off Garland's talents. As no original scripts were available, Hart started off by rewatching the 1937 version various times to outline the structure, characters and situations.


For the Tour de Force number, Hart stayed true to the 1937 film, but added a musical number. As Norman (James Mason) has been let go by the studio, Esther's (Judy Garland) star is rising. In an attempt to cheer Norman up, Esther puts on a show in their living room. As written by Hart:



ESTHER:
We started shooting the big production number — and it’s the production number to end all big production numbers! It’s an American in Paris, Brazil, the Alps and the Burma Road! It’s got sex, schmaltz, patriotism, and more things coming up through the floor and down from the sky than you ever saw in your life!

She launches into the production number, taking all the parts herself – the ballet, the chorus boys, the show girls, the director, the leading man, a burlesque of herself, singing the main song, using anything she can lay her hands on in the room for props. She leaps in and off sofas, turns of chairs — it is a tour de force solely to make him forget himself and laugh. And finally he does – wholeheartedly. She falls into his arms, exhausted. Her own laughter joining happily in his.

For this scene composer Harold Arlen and lyricist Ira Gershwin wrote a song called 'Someone at Last'. It was written as a parody on musical production numbers, but incorporating all of Hart's instructions proved to be a challenge for choreographer Richard Barstow. So Garland and Sid Luft (producer of the film and Garland's husband at the time) turned to composer-arranger Roger Edens for help. Edens had worked with Garland from the beginning of her career at MGM and played an important role in shaping her voice and teaching her how to deliver a song, sometimes underplaying her voice instead of using it at full power all of the time, as she was used to doing in Vaudeville.



In early January 1954, Garland and Edens started rehearsing the number, making an audio recording of their ideas for the number. In 10 minutes and 25 seconds they play out the number, with Edens taking on the role of Esther Blodgett and Garland singing parts of the song or providing sound effects and commentary in the background. The number starts by Esther telling Norman about the big production number they started shooting, "it starts in an Orphans home, and I'm an Orphan," says Edens. The idea was that Esther would be playing an orphan who dreams of searching for the someone for her, looking for him through mist, fog and smoke, in Paris and Japan, the jungle and Brazil, eventually become a nurse for the Red Cross in the Battle of the Bulge. "You die," says Edens in a deadpan way. But then comes the big finale: the real her, still dreaming at the washtub in the orphanage, "has finally realized she's been missing an absolute bore and starts singing the finale, but they worked it out for a big, terrific shot —the finish shot, where the camera zooms in to this tremendous close-up of me, just as she starts into the finale", finally finding that someone for her.


Using this recording as a guideline, the number was reworked by Hart and orchestrated by Ray Heindorf. This fed Barstow's imagination and he started working on the choreography for the number, using the furnishings of the living room as props. The idea of the orphanage was dropped for the final number, but many of the elements that Garland and Edens had improvised stayed in the film, with the "big, fat close up" eventually becoming the figurehead of the film.

Recording of the scene began on February 4 and took four days and two cameras to finish. In the seven minutes that the number would eventually become to last, Garland dances through the living room using virtually everything she can find as a prop to illustrate the grandeur of the production number, a true tour the force to entertain Norman. A standing lamp becomes the light, a tea cart becomes the camera and jumping up on a coffee table, she's ready for action.



There's still the smoke (produced by fervently puffing on Norman's cigarette), the music of harps (a stool with its pillow removed) and voices of angels. Then in Paris Esther becomes a traffic leader, a burlesque dancer covering (and then exposing) her breasts with two leaves taken from the vertical garden on their living room wall and a can-can dancer using a ruffled pillow as skirt. In the recording Garland and Edens also improvised Edith Piaf singing "the eternal tragedy of woman", but Piaf didn't make it to the final version.

All of a sudden they are in Asia, mimicking traditional dances and donning a lampshade as a surrogate for a traditional hat. They don't stay in Asia for long, though — within a few seconds they are in Africa, with Esther grabbing the leopard skin rug off the floor, dragging it to the vertical garden and then emerging from that jungle on hands and knees with the rug draped over her back. When she arrives in Brazil, Esther runs towards the tea cart that had previously functioned as camera and shakes the salt and pepper mills as if they were maracas and tosses the salad wildly.

With the push of a button the living room turns dark and a projection screen emerges from the floor. Dancing in the stroboscopic light of the projector, Esther turns herself into a rotoscope animation and suddenly finds herself on the front line of a battle scene. She ducks and shoots from behind the couch, then sits next to Norman and urges him to "shoot!", with his second shot killing Esther. This prompts Esther to hit Norman on the head with a pillow, resulting into a pillow fight that does honor to the term "throw pillow".



Obviously in a better mood than before Esther's supper show, Norman pulls her behind the couch with him for a small make out session far more enjoyable to them than the big finale of the production number could have ever been.

Credits:

Produced by Sidney Luft, Vern Alves (associate producer) & Jack L. Warners (executive producer); Directed by George Cukor; Screenplay by Moss Hart; Music by Harold Arlen; Lyrics by Ira Gershwin; Cinematography by Sam Leavitt; Production design by Gene Allen; Art direction by Malcolm C. Bert; Starring Judy Garland and James Mason.


Sources:


  1. Cukor, George. A Star Is Born. Warner Brothers, 1954.
  2. Garland, Judy, and Roger Edens. Somewhere There’s A Someone (From “A Star Is Born”). Vol. 3. CUT! Out Takes from Hollywood’s Greatest Musicals. Out Take Records, Inc., 1977.
  3. Goode, Bud. “Judy’s Painting the Clouds with Sunshine.” Photoplay, November 1954.
  4. Hart, Moss. “A Star Is Born,” October 7, 1953. Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (Core Collection).
  5. Haver, Ronald. A Star Is Born: The Making of the 1954 Movie and Its 1983 Restoration. Perennial Library, 1990.
  6. Schechter, Scott. Judy Garland: The Day-by-Day Chronicle of a Legend. Rowman & Littlefield, 2006.
  7. “The Making of the 1954 Masterpiece A Star Is Born Starring Judy Garland and James Mason.” Accessed April 28, 2019. http://www.thejudyroom.com/astarisborn.html.
Read More

Jan 14, 2016

There's No Place For Them Here: Home, Order and Independency in Harriet Craig (1950)

In last week's post I mentioned how Rebecca's bedroom (in Hitchcock's Rebecca, 1940) had become a shrine, with a place for everything and everything in its place. This surely counts for the Craig's household as well. Harriet Craig (played by Joan Crawford) is the perfect mistress of the house, with a talent for running a household.

At the beginning of the film we see a beautiful house with the servants running up and down the stairs. We hear the mistress of the house being irritated because the tissue paper she asked for is taking so long. Then we find out what all of the commotion is about: Mrs. Craig's mother has been moved to a sanitarium and she wants to catch the next train to visit her mother. The shouting for tissue paper is forgiven, because we all know the stress of catching a train, and especially to visit a parent in a sanitarium, although the majority of us probably doesn't stuff every shoe and dress with tissue paper. This is just a lady that takes really good care of her possessions: she's immaculately groomed, her wardrobe looks perfect, she packs her luggage with care and she is leery about her interior. For when everything looks nice, it is nice and it will be loved.

We soon learn that Harriet values her home to extremes. She knows the place by heart; every painting, every coffee cup and every lamp has been put in its place by her, and in its place it should remain. When entering a room, Harriet scans the interior for changes—in other words: traces—to map out the movements that were made during her absence.


One of Harriet's most prized possessions is an Early Ming Dynasty vase. She notices when the vase is just the tiniest bit too close to the edge of the mantle or when it's not perfectly centered. She proudly tells a party about the old custom of filling the vase with rice from your wedding feast to protect the home. One of the ladies replies that "it takes more than rice these days."

On the train back home from visiting her mother in the sanitarium, Harriet confesses to her cousin: "I don't like trains. I don't like the feeling of being rushed along in the darkness, having no control, putting my life completely in someone else's hands." This confession comes rather out of the blue and is followed by her rational approach to marriage. "The average woman," she says, "does completely put her life into someone else's hands; her husband's." But not Harriet, independent as she is, for marriage is merely a "practical matter" to achieve security; she becomes a wife to get a house.

Upon arriving back home, the first trace that is out of place is spotted before even entering the house: the newspaper is still outside. She leaves it there and enters the house, eager to find out what has happened. She stands still and takes in the view, carefully registering every object that is out of its place. Quickly she maps out a scenario of what has happened the night before.


The house looks like a rather wild party has taken place: The furniture is out of place, there's beer bottles on the floor and on the piano, the lampshade is tilted, the blinds aren't closed (they should be closed by 11 a.m. to prevent the sun from fading the colors in the room) and a full ashtray indicates that people have been smoking heavily indoors. A closer look at the ashtray reveals a cigarette butt with lipstick and then there's a vase full of Mrs. Frazier's roses. Hadn't Harriet clearly told Mrs. Harold, one of the servants, that there was no place for them here?

Mrs. Frazier is the "scheming widow" who lives next door together with her little boy. She can always be found tending her roses. Innocent as she may seem, she's a threat to Harriet's controlled household: she's friendly, her house is being lived in (with traces to prove it) and she's got a son, which is one of Walter Craig's biggest wishes. Naturally Harriet wants to keep Mrs. Frazier from invading their private lives by keeping her roses out of her home and out of her husband's sight.


As a contrast to Mrs. Frazier's cozy home, the Craig's house takes aesthetics over comfort. From the first glance it is clear that a lot of thought has been put into decorating the house. Symmetry can be found everywhere and all of the rooms have the same oriental influences. Throughout the house figurines are displayed, either in glass showcases or as lamp bases. When it comes to the furniture: aesthetics over comfort, once again. This becomes painstakingly clear when we see Walter trying to become comfortable on the sofa, without success, not even when rearranging the throw pillows. Harriet, however, seems perfectly at home on the sofa the way it is. She is comfortable with keeping up appearances.

In reviews of Harriet Craig, Harriet is often written about as the bitch of all bitches, with not a good cell in her body. Indeed, Harriet isn't a warm person and she does some heartless things like feigning infertility, or preventing her cousin from being loved. It's inexcusable, but it doesn't make Harriet heartless.


Early on in her childhood Harriet was hurt by her father when she caught him with "a vulgar blonde". The father left Harriet and her mother alone to make ends meet. From this moment on Harriet decided that no man can be trusted. The only person a woman can rely on is herself. Every part of her life is carefully planned and thought about as if it were a game, and she is playing it by the rules.

Harriet doesn't have to build walls around her to protect herself from getting bruised again for the house provides them for her. Decorated with hand painted oriental wall hangings, it becomes a lovely facade. The house is her safe haven, her territory, so when somebody disrupts her household, it disrupts her. A vase too close to the edge isn't just any object put in a different position, it is someone endangering the security of her home.


When Mr. Craig finally rebels against Harriet, he takes it out on the house, for that is the only way to hurt her. He smokes inside, throws the stub on the carpet and finally finds a way to be comfortable in the sofa; by rearranging the pillows and reclining with his shoes still on. He is taking back control. This is where the importance of the Ming vase and all it stands for comes back. Walter carelessly takes the vase from its pedestal and pours out the rice that was supposed to protect their home. He then smashes it.

H: "What was that?!"
W: "Nothing very much."
H: "What do you mean 'nothing very much'? It sounded as though the whole house fell down."
W: "Maybe it did."
[...]
H: "Why would you deliberately destroy a beautiful thing like this?"
W: "I didn't like it."

He has smashed Harriet's safe haven and broken down the facade. Their marriage is over, but "you can keep the house." And so Harriet remains alone in the house. The films end with Harriet drying her tears and straightening her back, trying to repair the facade with all her might. The last shot is of her ascending the stairs, before fading to black.

By the end of the film it is safe to say the house is the center of the film, the main protagonist even, for Harriet is her house: beautiful, but deserted.


In an article in People Weekly (May 30, 1977) Doris Lilly recalls Joan Crawford once telling her that
"there's a little bit of Harriet Craig in all of us." Crawford was known to be a fastidious housekeeper and she didn't shy away from branding herself as one. Next week's post will be about how Joan became known as the Queen of clean.

Question to you:

What I can't seem to figure out is why the interior is so oriental. As far as I know orientalist decor went out of style in the 1930's, so why would Harriet go for something outdated?

Credits:

Produced by William Dozier; Directed by Vincent Sherman; Based on play by George Kelly; Screenplay by Anne Froelich & James Gunn; Cinematography by Joseph Walker; Art direction by Walter Holscher; Starring Joan Crawford and Wendell Corey


Sources:

  1. “A ★★★★ Review of Harriet Craig (1950).” Accessed January 3, 2016. http://letterboxd.com/overbreakfast/film/harriet-craig/.
  2. Basinger, Jeanine. A Woman’s View: How Hollywood Spoke to Women, 1930-1960. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2013.
  3. Bruno, Giuliana. Atlas of Emotion: Journeys in Art, Architecture, and Film. Verso, 2002.
  4. “Harriet Craig (Sony Choice Collection).” DVD Talk. Accessed January 3, 2016. http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/61509/harriet-craig/.
  5. “I’m Not Patty: Are Harriet Craig and Beth Jarrett Just Ordinary People?” Accessed January 3, 2016. http://imnotpatty.blogspot.be/2010/03/are-harriet-craig-and-beth-jarrett-just.html.
  6. Matt. “Films Feminism Forgot: HARRIET CRAIG (1950).” Ruthless Reviews. Accessed January 3, 2016. http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/20730/films-feminism-forgot-harriet-craig-1950/.
  7. Matthews, Glenna. “Just a Housewife”: The Rise and Fall of Domesticity in America. USA: Oxford University Press, 1987.
  8. “Self-Styled Siren: Harriet Craig (1950).” Accessed January 10, 2016. http://selfstyledsiren.blogspot.be/2011/08/harriet-craig-1950.html.
  9. Sherman, Vincent. Harriet Craig. Drama. Columbia Pictures, 1950.


Read More

Dec 31, 2015

Hollywood Amuses Me*

Laura’s portrait as the investigator’s main obsession. (Laura, 1944)

On the 3rd of October 2015, around 8PM I wrote this:

Research working title: At Home in the Movies: Artificiality of Home in (Classic) Hollywood.

In all honesty I didn't know whether Classic Hollywood or Classical Hollywood was the correct term. In even more honesty; I still don't know which is correct. And whilst we're making confessions, I'd also like to mention that I'm no expert by any means on the subject, I'd just like to become one, eventually.

On this blog the main focus will be how the home is depicted in Hollywood during the golden years, either in films (The Wizard of Oz (1939), Laura (1944), Auntie Mame (1958), and many others) or in the lives of the stars.

How does the set design reflect the part the home or the house plays in the film and what techniques or tricks do they use to make the set look like it does? How do they make something so artificial look like a lived in home? Why should a character have a specific wallpaper in their house? Or how do they decide which flowers would suit the character?

Of course these homes were constructed for the film, but so were the off-screen personalities of these stars. As part of the Star System the film companies controlled the way the domestic lives of the stars were depicted to the public. The lives of the stars were literally as constructed as their onscreen characters and the sets the characters lived in. Can I also learn from —and use— the techniques the studios used to construct these stars?

This research is part of an artistic project about artificially creating domestic traces, but I won't go in details about that. Not yet, at least.

Please don't shy away from comments, for they can be highly educational to me and thus will be appreciated very much.

The next post will be about the presence of Rebecca through her monograms in Rebecca (1940) directed by Alfred Hitchcock and starring Joan Fontaine and Laurence Olivier. It will be published Thursday January 7.

* The title of this post is part of a quote by Grace Kelly that goes:

Hollywood amuses me. Holier-than-thou for the public and unholier-than-the-devil in reality.









Read More