Page 65 of 67

Re: The whiny thread

Posted: August 9th, 2013, 9:07 pm
by movieman1957
That's tomorrow night. In the morning The Bride and I are going, with several friends, to see "You Can't Take It With You" on the big screen. My first chance to see Jean Arthur at 8 feet tall. It will be nice.

Re: The whiny thread

Posted: August 9th, 2013, 9:15 pm
by JackFavell
It will be wonderful! Congrats, it sounds like so much fun... a perfect movie to see on the big screen.

Re: The whiny thread

Posted: August 10th, 2013, 4:39 pm
by RedRiver
My first viewing of this classic comedy was in a Chicago theatre. I always need Chio's help, but I'm pretty sure it was The Three Penny! This is more of a Capra film than a Kaufman/Hart play. But it's fun in its own right. Glorious cast!

Re: The whiny thread

Posted: August 10th, 2013, 7:28 pm
by ChiO
RR -

I'm betting you saw it at The Parkway - Clark & Diversey. The revival theater in the '70s/early-'80s.

The Threepenny was - well - not quite Art House, but close.

Re: The whiny thread

Posted: August 11th, 2013, 1:39 pm
by movieman1957
"You Can't take It With You" was a big hit. A rather large crowd I thought. Everyone seemed to like it. A friend asked if I learned anything new from the discussion and the only thing that came to mind was not so much that Arthur had been asked by Capra to play Stewart's wife in "It's A Wonderful Life" but her reason for turning it down was she didn't really want to work with Stewart again.

I on;y batted one for two in the questions department. I had a brain fart and couldn't get Stewart's Oscar winner "Philadelphia Story out of my head but did know that Barrymore was a frequent star of the "Dr. Kildaire" series. (Who wouldn't know out of this group.)

Barrymore's cocaine/heroin addiction was agreeably funded by Louis Mayer. (It was legal then.)

I had great fun for three hours and then had to come back to real life. Dog gone it.

Re: The whiny thread

Posted: August 11th, 2013, 5:11 pm
by knitwit45
Was there a reason she didn't want to work with Stewart? And Barrymore was an addict??? Zounds!!!!! :shock:

Re: The whiny thread

Posted: August 12th, 2013, 8:37 am
by movieman1957
She didn't give a reason about Arthur's reluctance. As far as Barrymore was concerned his addiction was born out of dealing with the pain from his arthritis. Maybe a combination of the two is what finally put him in that chair for good. I don't know but someone might.

Re: The whiny thread

Posted: August 12th, 2013, 8:49 am
by moira finnie
knitwit45 wrote:And Barrymore was an addict??? Zounds!!!!! :shock:
Lionel seems to have struggled with arthritis (reportedly osteo & rheumatoid) for years, which may be why he eventually used crutches and a wheelchair after a hip break that did not heal properly. Since the treatments for arthritis were pretty ineffective in those days, stronger and stronger drugs may have been required for the actor to get some relief.

There are also reports that cannot be verified that the character lead also suffered from syphilis, with invasive syphilitic joint disease as a byproduct. The shame attached to this illness would likely have been rather unbearable, but the possibility of having such an affliction must have been terrifying for him, since his father died in an asylum from paresis as a result of this illness. The cure for this disease in Lionel's day before penicillin was often worse than the disease, which may have led him to seek relief in drugs--a possibility that could have been exacerbated by his family's rather obvious predeliction for addiction. His addiction to drugs may also have been learned at home. This problem has also been ascribed to his second wife, Irene Fenwick Barrymore, an actress who was a full blown addict to morphine as well as what we would describe as anorexia (Lionel dodged that particular bullet, though he did struggle with his weight as he grew older). Irene, whose marriage to Lionel appalled both John & Ethel Barrymore, both of whom knew her reputation (John also claimed to have had an affair with her) and they urged their brother to stay with Doris Rankin, his wife of two decades, since they believed he would have been much better off. Irene was also extravagant with money and spent flagrantly on other luxuries as well. Despite all this, Lionel was devoted to her and loved her. He cared for and nursed her until her death in 1936. All in all, poor Lionel was messed up. It's actually remarkable how much good work he managed to do despite his private problems, though I do think he appeared in too many roles and sometimes lapsed into mannerisms that reflected his overwork.

Re: Louis B. Mayer and Lionel's Addiction
According to a couple of sources, one of the reasons we saw Lionel in so many movies over the years was that MGM was constantly advancing the actor money, leading to bigger and bigger debts owed to his employers. Also, according to others, the dispensary at the studio regularly supplied Lionel with legally prescribed cocaine to keep him going under a doctor's prescription (cocaine was illegal in the U.S. without an Rx after 1914). When his needs exceeded the legal amount, Mayer reportedly found a way to supply him off the books and hid the costs to the studio. Lionel's public (and kind of over the top) admiration for Louis might stem from these favors. In public Lionel reportedly gave a heckuva stem-winder speech backing Mayer's attempts to cut employee salaries during the worst days of the Depression, despite the fact that the execs weren't affected. In print in his autobiography "We Barrymores," Lionel really laid it on, which may have been part of his gratitude to Mayer. Another darker interpretation of this symbiotic relationship between Lionel and Louis is that one of the reasons that Barrymore was assigned as director to John Gilbert's first sound films was a deliberate attempt to sabotage the actor's career, since the enmity between Mayer & Gilbert was so virulent. Barrymore, by his own admission, was not a good director and was hampered by the awkward equipment of the period and his own tendency to fall asleep in the director's chair (reportedly during the filming of Ten Cents a Dance).

According to some reports about Katharine Hepburn, while working at MGM, when she learned of Lionel's addictions, she intervened on the actor's behalf. Kate visited Lionel in his dressing room, trying to help him to face his problems and seek help. After bearding Mayer in his den, (Hepburn was never short on chutzpah--or blunt honesty when it may have been unwelcome), the mogul was said to encourage Lionel to "go public" with his addiction, but Lionel instead went into Good Samaritan Hospital for treatment, presumably under an assumed name. After this episode, Lionel's addiction was said to have been more regulated, though not eliminated. Kate, some say, set up an account with MGM which she helped to fund to treat Lionel and keep him going without letting him destroy himself, physically and financially. Hepburn was also one of the "angels" who later financed the care of Ethel Barrymore in her last days in the '50s, which gives this story about Lionel more credibility.

Most of this info comes from books such as The House of Barrymore by Margot Peters, The Barrymores by James Kotsilibas-Davis, Lion of Hollywood: The Life and Legend of Louis B. Mayer by Scott Eyman, and Damned in Paradise: The Life of John Barrymore by John Kobler, among others.

Re: The whiny thread

Posted: August 12th, 2013, 8:57 am
by JackFavell
Geez, and I thought Lionel was the normal one! Holy cow.

God bless women like Kate Hepburn and Marlene, who get a bad rep sometimes in the press. They really were helpful to those around them who had trouble with addictions. Strong women, but with a sense of duty to those they knew and loved.

Re: The whiny thread

Posted: August 12th, 2013, 3:39 pm
by movieman1957
I did find a comment somewhere that said that Jimmy really enjoyed working with Jean but they never really had any kind of off screen relationship.

Although the site listed her as a long time republican but then I saw an interview where she said if John Wayne had been anything like he later became while they were working together she probably would have shot him. She sure couldn't say that today even jokingly.

Re: The whiny thread

Posted: August 13th, 2013, 10:22 pm
by Sue Sue Applegate
Oh, so true, Chris! :D

Moira, thanks for that in-depth discussion of Lionel Barrymore and Kate's attempts to help him. Fascinating. What a gem of a tale. I thought he was the normal one, too, Knitty! :lol:

Re: The whiny thread

Posted: October 22nd, 2013, 9:26 pm
by Professional Tourist
Short-sheeted by Charmin!

We have all experienced the downsizing of retail products -- the "cup" of yogurt that is now six ounces, the "half-gallon" of orange juice that is now fifty-nine ounces -- with no lowering in kind of the prices. Or the brand/style/size of underpants you've worn for years, of which your latest purchase is uncomfortably tight -- not because you've gained weight but because they're cutting them all smaller now? I always ask myself, why can't they leave the products alone and raise the prices a bit, as necessary, instead? Why??

Well, the latest cutback feels like a last straw to me. I was running low on t.p. so while in the store last night I picked up a couple of six-packs of my favorite, Charmin Ultra Strong. I thought the packages looked a little shorter, but wasn't sure what was different. When I got home I compared the specs on the old vs. new package -- the width of the rolls is reduced, from 4.27 inches to 3.92 inches. That's .35 inches narrower! People are noticing this, I'm not the only one! There are plenty of complaints posted on their web site! Besides the loss of product, some people have the type of dispenser where the roll must be a certain width or else it won't fit, it will fall down (fortunately, I have the old-fashioned kind, with a spring-loaded spool) and they have no choice but to change brands now.

I've had it with all this product downsizing! I've had it!! :x :x :x

Re: The whiny thread

Posted: October 23rd, 2013, 5:56 am
by JackFavell
I think it's tantamount to stealing from the customer sometimes... TANTAMOUNT I say! All kidding aside, nothing gets me grumbling more in the grocery store than this kind of nasty trick to get more money. And with TP, really? One shouldn't be skimpy, if a neighbor borrows a cup of sugar, you don't give them 3/4 of a cup and expect them to remain your friend. So why be loyal to a brand that tries to rook you in this way? If they were honest, they'd simply raise the price. It's cheating to downsize like that, destroying the customer's faith. So I refuse to buy anything when the company downsizes, though it's getting harder to find brands that don't play this cheap trick.

It especially bugs me with things like molasses for baking, where there is only one brand, and I can no longer find the large size at all, the difference is a matter of almost half the amount, at twice the money.

Re: The whiny thread

Posted: October 23rd, 2013, 5:21 pm
by Professional Tourist
Only one brand of molasses in the local stores? That's terrible! :x

This might be a good item to order from Amazon. They have several brands, and different sizes: click here.