Hollywoodland

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

watching From Here to Eternity today, the scene in Hollywoodland that was supposedly cut featuring George Reeves is in it...was that completely fictionalized in Hollywoodland?
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

Sonic Youth wrote:The cast is mostly terrific, although Diane Lane gives the type of performance Damien would call "mannered".
Actually, I think Lane is the best thing about Hollywoodland, which I saw yesterday. She brings both verve and depth of feeling to the role.

The film is, I feel, a dreary misfire, depending on a schematic theme -- the metaphysical connections between George Reeves and Brody's character -- that just never gels. The Reeves sections constituted a potentionally fascinating look at one aspect of Hollywood that hasn't been presented much in the movies -- the struggles and dashed dreams of a demi-demi-star -- but thet kept being interrupted by completely ordinary, uninteresting scenes of Brosy on the trail.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Post by Reza »

Times Herald (Newman, GA)

Hollywoodland' in Real Life 'Brent Tarleton' recalls GWTW 'twin' during visit

Published 9/25/06 in The Times-Herald

By W. WINSTON SKINNER
winston@newnan.com

In the very first scene in a film that is still beloved 67 years after it was made there were three actors ­ Vivien Leigh, Fred Crane and George Reeves.

Leigh, a British actress, came to America for her first big role as Scarlett O'Hara in the 1939 blockbuster, "Gone With the Wind." The film opens with Scarlett framed by her strapping, admiring beaux ­ Brent and Stuart Tarleton. The twins were portrayed by New Orleans native Crane as Brent and Iowan Reeves as Stuart.

Leigh went on to greatness. She earned Oscars for "Gone With the Wind" and for playing another Southerner in "A Streetcar Named Desire." She made few films, but was a memorable screen image in such movies as "Waterloo Bridge" and "The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone."

Reeves, who became best known for his portrayal of Superman in the early days of television, died under mysterious circumstances in 1959. Crane is the only survivor of the three ­ now living in a Georgia which has long since ceased to be the land of cotton.

When Crane and his wife, Terry, came to Newnan last week they met for lunch at O'Charley's with Sharpsburg businessman and GWTW collector Herb Bridges and his wife, Eleanor, and with George Terrell from Gadsden, Ala. Terrell, a college professor, has a long-standing interest in the "Gone With the Wind" phenomenon and bought several cherished items at what he calls "the Herb sale" when Bridges sold much of his holdings several years ago at an auction.

Not surprisingly, talk at the dinner table turned to Reeves, who is the topic of a new movie, "Hollywoodland." Ben Affleck plays Reeves in the dark film, which explores the circumstances surrounding his death.

The Cranes have seen "Hollywoodland." "I left feeling so depressed," she said.

Reeves' death was officially ruled a suicide, but there were many doubts at the time. Reeves had just finished a long-running affair with Toni Mannix, wife of a studio executive. He was with Leonore Lemmon, to whom he had been briefly engaged, when the shots rang out.

Reeves' mother, Helen Bessolo, never believed her son had taken his own life. Neither do Fred and Terry Crane.

Crane, who has a long career as a classical music radio station announcer after "GWTW," said Reeves felt trapped in the Superman role. "He wanted to do something better," he recalled.

"George liked the juice. He liked to have the margaritas," Crane said. He said that on the set of the Superman television series, Reeves sometimes fell asleep, and the rest of the cast and crew waited until he woke up to resume filming.

Mannix reportedly bought Reeves a home and wanted him available for her. The house "was their hideaway," Terry Crane said. The Superman role lent itself to that arrangement, but Reeves had bigger dreams.

"George wanted to be behind the scenes. He didn't want to be in front of the camera," Crane said. But Reeves' dreams of directing evaporated soon after he made a trip to New York and met Leonore Lemmon, "the woman who made him feel like a boy again," Crane said.

On June 16, 1959, Reeves was at home following recent surgery. He had suffered injuries in an automobile accident. "The brake fluid had been drained from his car," Terry Crane said.

Friends often dropped in and out of Reeves' home for drinks and socializing, and several were there that night. Reeves was sleeping and came out onto a landing to see who was there. A short time later, Lemmon went upstairs.

The guests downstairs heard three shots fired. Lemmon reportedly raced downstairs and asked the guests to say she had been downstairs the entire time. "It took 45 minutes before they called the police," Crane said.

Terry Crane related that Reeves often hid money in the house in various locations, but none of it was found after his death.

Reeves and Crane remained friends in the 20 years between the Tarleton twins and Superman's untimely demise. Fred and Terry Crane had a "simultaneous dream" about Reeves a couple of years ago. They both dreamed that Crane was introducing his wife, whom he married a few years ago, to Reeves. "I was wearing a yellow dress," Terry Crane recalled.

There was time for plenty of "Gone With the Wind" talk, too. The Cranes own a historic home, Tarleton Oaks, in Barnesville which is a bed-and-breakfast and houses a collection of GWTW items. Some of Leigh's jewelry is in the collection.

The house is currently for sale.

The Cranes brought several items to show to Bridges including a program from the 1939 film premiere signed by several cast members and by Claudette Colbert, Lawrence Olivier and Ish Kibibble. Crane also autographed photographs of an image from the first day of filming for both Bridges and Terrell.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

This is an overly competent film, fairly thinly plotted and somewhat unsatisfying on both levels it approaches: 1) the life and death of George Reeves, and 2) the labyrinth of corruption and fallen dreams a private dick encounters on his way to the bottom. By the film's end, there's nothing to take in from Reeves and you just want Brody's Louis Simo to say "#### it!" and find a more interesting case.

It is obscene to me how underrated Adrien Brody's performance has been received. The man is quite simply exceptional. Had anybody else played the role, I'd have checked out halfway through at best. Screenwriter Paul Bernbaum works overtime on writing Simo not just one but two mildly interesting B-stories to keep us with him; neither are necessary. From the get-go, it becomes abundantly clear who you want to spend two hours with, and it's not Affleck's nuanceless Reeves. I'll say this: his work in-costume is very amusing. Outside, total zero. How is this the best he has to offer? What of 'Changing Lanes'? 'Dazed and Confused'? 'Chasing Amy'? His hilarious ten minutes in 'Shakespeare in Love'? Oscar-baiting is the not the road to his redemption.
"How's the despair?"
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

I saw Hollywoodland this afternoon. Besides being excellently cast (Affleck, Brody, DeMunn and especially Lane) it provides an interesting portrait of one of many dark periods in Hollywood history. I agree with the many who have said the film would have been stronger if it had focused primarily on Reeves' life. The film had periodic points where it jarred the viewer into the flashback or out of it. It was very forced and for the most part, slow. It's an intriguing looking at Reeves' life and doesn't answer the question of whether it was a suicide or murder but a case could easily be made for both.

I think Affleck is the strongest he's ever been. Lane is great in all of her scenes (and even has a lovely Oscar bait scene where she's talking about smoke rings {my personal favorite line of the year}). Brody, who I normally dislike greatly, was tolerable and DeMunn, who plays the only character in the entire film who doesn't have a dark side, plays his part incredibly well. I think both Lane and Affleck could be serious contenders this year.

Having said that, the film isn't going to perform well, even in the tech categories. While the sets and costumes are good, there are plenty of films this year that were better. However, I do see a distinct possibility for a Makeup nomination. The hair styling and aging makeup in the film are a bright spot in the film. I blame all of the film's weaknesses on director Allen Coulter and if it wasn't his decisions for the edits, then the fault will rest squarely on the shoulders of Michael Berenbaum, editor.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Post by Reza »

Big Magilla wrote:People are reading more into Affleck's winking performance than is there on screen. As Lisa Schwartbaum says in her review: "There's something simultaneously heartfelt, wised-up, playful and fierce about the way the onetime Daredevil acknowledges that he knows that we know that he knows that we're bound to read something of the actor's own skids with fame in his expiatory portrayal of a star who couldn't quite steer his own image."
So what does Lisa Schwartbaum's tongue twisting review mean? Is Affleck in or out?
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

People are reading more into Affleck's winking performance than is there on screen. As Lisa Schwartbaum says in her review: "There's something simultaneously heartfelt, wised-up, playful and fierce about the way the onetime Daredevil acknowledges that he knows that we know that he knows that we're bound to read something of the actor's own skids with fame in his expiatory portrayal of a star who couldn't quite steer his own image."
User avatar
Sonic Youth
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8003
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
Location: USA

Post by Sonic Youth »

I quite liked Hollywoodland, but I agree with everyone's disappointment with it because ultimately the George Reeves story is a red herring. The movie's central character is really Brody's private investigator, and the film is about how his and George Reeves' spiritual despair mirror each other. How, I wasn't really sure, but the point was put across near the end of the film with the cuts between Brody and Affleck as if they were staring at each other across the room, a very striking effect. It is an unsatisfying structure, but at least the film is far more ambitious than I expected it to be. But yeah, maybe two-thirds of it are taken up by the private detective story, and why should we care about him? Was there not enough material to flesh the George Reeve story into a full blown feature film? And for all the considerable visual ideas this first time director uses, they just don't quite resonate.

I think Brody deserves much more credit than he's getting. His was the sort of role that could have been played by any wan actor (like... Josh Hartnett?), but I really like Brody's craggy authority. The cast is mostly terrific, although Diane Lane gives the type of performance Damien would call "mannered". But Ben Affleck... is everyone putting me on? Oscar Guy is right. That Best Actor trophy does change impressions. It changed my impression about festival juries. There is nothing there. Nothing at all. There is no charisma. There is no personality. There is no charm. All there is, is a mildly ambiable disposition. I've often praised performances in foreign language films only to be told by posters from the country of the film's origin that it's considered a terrible performance where he/she lives. This has led me to conclude that - along with regional references and humor - bad performances don't translate well. It's the only reason I can think of as to why he won the Venice award.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Post by FilmFan720 »

I'm surprised at the extremely low box-office for Hollywoodland. I saw it Friday night with an almost full theater. And I echo what everyone else has said here exactly. A sad start to the post-Labor Day film season.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

The new trailer for Flags of Our Fatherts, which accompanied Hollywoodland, looks a lot better than the old one circulating on the web. In it, Adam Beach as Ira Hayes, appears to be the emotional center of the film. Although it is clearly an ensemble piece, he, and not top-billed Ryan Phillippe, is the most likely to emerge as the primary acting contender. While I agree he is more likely to be positioned as supporting, a case could be made for either category.

Forest Whitaker was an early favorite for best actor, but his handlers may be getting nervous in wake of the likely win for O'Toole and may want to give him a better chance by placing him in support. Still, a heavy villain like Ida Amin doesn't carry a lot of sympathy and placing him in directr conflict with Beach as the tortured Ira Hayes may not be a smart move, either.

By the way, the failure of Hollywoodland to register at the box office (a mere $6 million in its opening weekend) could signal the death knell for Affleck's chances. The audience for this film skews older and word-of-mouth among us oldsters has not been good. A sad year for Superman.
VanHelsing
Assistant
Posts: 745
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:24 am
Contact:

Post by VanHelsing »

Based on the reviews, it can be argued that James McAvoy is more of the lead in The Last King Of Scotland. But still, I think Fox Searchlight will push Whitaker for leading instead of supporting. Both Beach & Pitt would most likely be considered supporting.
With a Southern accent...
"Don't you dare lie to me!" and...
"You threaten my congeniality, you threaten me!"

-------

"You shouldn't be doing what you're doing. The truth is enough!"
"Are you and Perry?" ... "Please, Nelle."
Reza
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10031
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Post by Reza »

Big Magilla wrote:
OscarGuy wrote:From what I've heard Affleck's gotten terrific reviews for his performance, so he's still a contender. And, so far the Supporting Actor field seems ill-represented so far this year.

I suppose he could take the Matt Dillon slot this year, but the supporting actor field is beginning to fill. With Peter O'Toole fast emerging as a surefire winner in the best actor category, actors who could be slotted either as lead or supporting are scurrying for the the supporting category. Among them are Forest Whitaker in The Last King of Scotland.....

I thought Whitaker is clearly the lead in The Last King of Scotland? Is it one of those films where he appears merely in flashbacks while someone is relating his story?

I was quite content with Whitaker winning the best actor gong but with O'Toole emerging as a possible nominee it would be great if the Academy gives it to him instead. The honorary award is great but does not seem right when won by stars like Fonda, Newman, Douglas and O'Toole. These stars deserve to win in competition. With the Academy doing it right in the cases of Fonda and Newman, it would be most satisfing if O'Toole wins too. Sadly Douglas' stroke has made it impossible for him to turn in a winning performance anytime in the future.
VanHelsing
Assistant
Posts: 745
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:24 am
Contact:

Post by VanHelsing »

After his Venice win, I'm keeping him in my predictions list. Problem is, will he now be pushed for leading?
With a Southern accent...
"Don't you dare lie to me!" and...
"You threaten my congeniality, you threaten me!"

-------

"You shouldn't be doing what you're doing. The truth is enough!"
"Are you and Perry?" ... "Please, Nelle."
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

It might help the box office, but Oscar will have more choices than Venice. Affleck was the best thing about the film, but that's not saying a whole lot. Still, he did beat Michael Sheen in The Queen and all the actors in Bobby, but I don't expect any of them to be Osar finalists either.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

The Best Actor trophy from Venice, however, may change impressions. It's bound to get him a LOT of press and could be a factor come nomination time.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Post Reply

Return to “2000 - 2007”