Summer Under The Stars

[movieman1957]

[klondike]

I love you, man!
( 'Sokay, my wife knows.)

[jdb1]

I got to see only a few minutes of Page Miss Glory, and about half of Show People, but I thoroughly enjoyed Marion Davies, who was so good in both. Show People, especially, was quite funny and very well acted by all concerned. I loved the Davies' character's over the top screen test as a dramatic actress; I loved her "high class" persona as Patricia Pepoire (nee Peggy Pepper), with the sneering face that made her look more than a little like Gloria Swanson. Wasn't it funny when the aspiring actress Peggy saw the real Marion Davies and commented (without a dialogue card, but you could clearly read her lips) "I don't think she's so pretty."

I was also struck by how much of Lucy Ricardo was in Marion Davies/Peggy Pepper or, more likely it was the other way around. I want to see more. (And by the way, you know how sensitive I am to such things, but I didn't hear any discernable lisp.)

[myrnaloyisdope]

Show People is wonderful stuff. It's a loving paean to the dying art of silent film comedy, and the film has a documentary feel at times. I particularly like the sequence of all the stars eating lunch together in the commisary, it looks just like a newsreel.

As for Marion, well the Gloria Swanson look was intentional, as the film was designed to parody Swanson's ascent from Sennett comedies to high brow De Mille pictures. Swanson famously hated doing comedy feeling it was beneath her.

Apparently Marion really wanted to take a pie to the face, and despite the pleading of both Vidor and Marion, William Hearst refused to allow her to embarass herself. It's kind of a shame that Marion was such a brilliant comedian, but was constantly being pressured by Hearst to forsake it for more serious pictures.

The Patsy is a really funny film as well, for those who doubt Ms. Davies gifts, let this sequence change your mind:

[youtube][/youtube]

[mrsl]

Unfortunately I'm one of those people who thought Marion Davies was the fool portrayed in Citizen Kane. What a pleasure to find that she was a delight. Whyever did O. Welles do that?

Last night was one of my on and off sleep nights which means I saw three or four movies, but missed the beginning and end of them. I tend to watch the whole movie but fall sleep about 15 minutes before the ending, and wake up about 15 minutes into the next one, so most of the time I have to check to see what I'm watching, but with all of them starring Ms. Davies, it's hard to know when there is a new movie on. It really didn't matter though because all of them were great fun and a pleasure to watch. Again I have to ask if anyone knows, why did Orson portray her as a moron, or was he channeling himself? Perhaps he thought that because he was such a roue', all people who have affairs are the same, but in her case, she stayed at Hearsts' side all her life (kind of Katie Hepburnish).

Anyway, her facial expressions are priceless, and either her leading men were very tall, or she was very little making her appear even more pixie-ish. I thoroughly enjoyed the afternoon and the late night visits.

Anne

[ChiO]

Whyever did O. Welles do that? .... Again I have to ask if anyone knows, why did Orson portray her as a moron, or was he channeling himself?

It's called "fiction". CITIZEN KANE had a character named Susan (Alexander) Kane. The character was fictional. Dorothy Comingore, as well as Orson Welles and the other actors, are (were) real. They all portrayed fictional characters.

If he had been channeling himself, I'm confident the Susan (Alexander) Kane character would have been smarter...or at least a great filmmaker.

[jdb1]

I don't think Orson was necessarily aiming his Citizen Kane barb at Davies, as much as at Hearst for his pretentions, and for his insensitive attempts to force Davies into a place she didn't want to occupy. And I don't think Susan Alexander was shown as a moron -- she was a sweet, sympathetic, and eventually tragic, character. She may not have been a strong woman, but it was made clear that essentially harsh emotional treatment by Kane brought her down.

[mrsl]

Chio:

I know the characters are fiction, but instead of Citizen Kane, he may as well have called it Citizen Hearst. The characters were based so much on real people, it was almost like watching a documentary.

Judith: To me Dorothy was a lame and silly woman. If based on Marion Davies, I didn't see that same silly woman in the documentary that followed, and it just seemed to me that Orson was being intentionally nasty while writing the part.

Anne

[Birdy]

I'd never seen Citizen Kane until I knew a few Marion Davies movies by heart - so I just couldn't see her as that creepy persona. Yes, I know it's called acting, but she's so sweetly believable that I can hardly think a bad thing about her. My favorite so far (I'm more into talkies, you know) is Ever Since Eve. I love it when she throws the books out the window. Marion could change her looks so easily; I think she really could have pulled off a disguise of a wig and glasses. Like they said on the doc, she really could do it all. I really enjoyed her day and have a couple of new films to add to my collection.
Birdy

[mrsl]

Birdy:

I'm with you on knowing that it's called 'acting' which says just what I meant. Dorothy was supposed to be a play on Marion, yet Dorothy couldn't do anything. She couldn't sing, or act (in this case on stage, which normally leads to on screen), and that's what I meant. Why would Welles portray her as such an inept person, let alone being silly, or weak, or adultrous. None of that matters when you compare the real Marion and the imitation Kane's 'Dorothy'.

I also prefer talkies to silents, only a handful of silents has held my interest because I don't get quite as deep into meanings as some of the great writers we have here.

Anne

[myrnaloyisdope]

Even if Susan (Kane) isn't meant to be Marion (Davies), the damage has been done.

Marion has been associated with Welles' Susan Alexander, and as a result her reputation has been damaged severely. That to me is problematic.

Obviously if Welles felt compelled to apologize for the damage done to Marion Davies' reputation by his characterization of Susan Alexander, his film had some influence.

The very fact the 70 years later we are here debating Welles' impact upon Davies' reputation speaks to how pervasive his characterization has been.

Let it be said once again, Marion Davies was a brilliant comedienne, a talented actress, and a devoted lover. She was popular amongst her Hollywood brethren and a humanitarian. She was beautiful, talented, and a loving women. In short she was a remarkable gal, worthy of the utmost respect. Someone ought to tell her true story, she's absolutely worthy of our respect.

[klondike]

Personally, I believe Marion Davies got off easy, from society, from the press, and especially from the pen of Orson Welles.
The character of Susan Alexander at least condemns herself to misery by becoming Charles Foster Kane's wife, thereby never needing to foist a secret love child off on a sibling to raise in false identity, so that she could go on openly playing house with a married millionaire until he died, while dazzling enraptured fans with her bought & paid-for roles.
Talented yes, admirable, no.

[mrsl]

Klondike:

You are obviously more aware of Hearst/Davies than I am, but recently reading a few biographies, I find they are not for me so I'll take your word for it, as I usually do since you're 99% correct most of the time. I don't know where the heck I picked up 'dorothy' in place of susan - I must have been tired and not realized it.

I still adore Bob Mitchum but some John Wayne type should have taken him in tow one day and told him that even big, handsome movie stars have to have a social conscience as to how to act when in public and having a good time with the 'good ol' boys'. As for Ava Gardner, she was a slut no matter what way you cut it and if some folks thought she was beautiful, that's fine, a friend lent me her bio and I read it but it made a so-so fan (that's me) into a non-fan at all.

Sorry I got off track but I wanted to explain my remark about biographies.

I must be a really weak character because after swearing I was not interested in TCM last night, I decided I was going to watch The Mentalist and Royal Pains, I ended up taping them, and watching Meet Me in St. Louis. Since I was 12 I have loved that movie, that makes 52 years now, and I still get a big lift out of it.

Judy looks and sounds wonderful, Mary Astor is a terrific turn of the century Mom (more so than a femme-fatale as in The Maltese Falcon), Leon Ames is the absolutely perfect Dad of all times, and if I ever wanted a housekeeper and cook, it would be Marjorie Main. So off I go to watch the Mentalist and Royal Pains.

Anne

[ChiO]

Someone ought to tell her true story, she's absolutely worthy of our respect.

Her memoirs (not to imply that memoirs = true story) were published shortly after her death.

Orson Welles wrote the introduction.

One (code for "At least I") wonders if less supposed damage would have occurred if Hearst had not engaged in such a blatant attempt to destroy CITIZEN KANE. Some viewers of the era might have still known that portions of the character of Charles Foster Kane were based on Hearst, but would viewers today be as aware of certain similarities but for Hearst's efforts and the story that generated?

By the by, some film analysts have made the case that Welles is responsible for making the Susan Alexander Kane character less like Marion Davies (and, as has been pointed out, the character is not Ms. Davies) than the character as written in Herman J. Mankiewicz's draft. But, of course, the Welles vs. Mankiewicz back story is a whole other matter.

[klondike]

Klondike:

You are obviously more aware of Hearst/Davies than I am, but recently reading a few biographies, I find they are not for me so I'll take your word for it, as I usually do since you're 99% correct most of the time.

Anne

Anne, darlin', your confidence in me is flattering, but that 99% pennant snapping in the breeze is probably pretty nontypical for the ol' Sleddog; most days I settle for being, at best, a "4/5" guy (and I do know a good fifth when I spot one) . . as for the life-events I ascribed to the delightful Ms. Davies, one has only to peruse the thumbnails recorded at IMDb. I've found those items referenced & footnoted elsewhere over the years (perhaps most often in biographic pieces about Joe Kennedy, Sr. & the founding of RKO), but IMDb's little boil-down is perfectly serviceable to catch most of the big chunks. Anyway, having gulped my own foot clear to the calf more times than be counted on one hand, I try to quote from my compendium of Hollywood obscura very cautiously, especially given the acumen of some of my fellow devotees here at the Oasis.
As for actors' personal lives, I never let them affect my enjoyment of their performances . . and according to my idle research, now & again, the majority of them each had some pretty severe skeletons in their personal closets . .
So please don't misunderstand me, friends & neighbors; I would never stand in judgement of Marion Davies' skill as a star of vintage American cinema, nor seek to underestimate her landmark contributions to the enrichment of the 20th century movie-going experience . . but I do believe that, as one private citizen speaking about another, philanthropy & true humanitarianism, just like charity, must begin at home - and the celebrities who resided at San Simeon never seemed to me to be very kind, or charitable, or honest, or moral, or humane.