There are a few Vivien Leigh/Laurence Olivier films on the list. The highest ranked is Gone with the Wind, which came in at #31. Others include Rebecca (#318), and Spartacus (#77).

View the entire list

Empire is also releasing 100 different covers for this list, including Gone with the Wind, which would make a great addition to any Vivien Leigh/GWTW collection. You can purchase your copy (or any others) on the EMPIRE WEBSITE.

Sure jerked Vivien Leigh around-- " But she was mentally ill..."-- what a stereotypical dismissal of a human being. Abraham Lincoln was "mentally ill". So was Winston Churchill. SO many others.
This is an interview of Olivier-- but Vivien got a stereotyped back of the hand from 60 minutes with that glib dismissal.

Sorry, person who left that comment, but I'm going to use you as an example. Www.vivandlarry.com is about just that--Vivien Leigh AND Laurence Olivier--so I thought it would be interesting to have a sort of open forum about them as individuals and as a couple. I don't mean to get on a soap box,and I know everyone has their own opinion, but I'll share mine based on what I've read/watched/talked about with others and the perspective I've formed in doing so, and then maybe other people would like to share theirs. :)

+++++++

First, I know Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier did not have a happy ending, I know there were a lot of problems in their marriage including Vivien's bipolar disorder; and I think their problems were heightened due to the fact that they were both extremely creative and successful people in a cut-throat business, and they were both work-a-holics. I know it wasn't easy, it wasn't smooth sailing, and neither of them were perfect people. Perhaps they were destructive to each other in that relationship and perhaps I'm just a romantic, but I can't help but honestly think that they really were soul mates and they never quite got over each other. I mean 20 years of marriage in Hollywood is like a lifetime for "normal" people. That in itself has always set them apart for me from most of the couples in the business both from the past and today.

What I don't understand is when I see people on message boards or youtube--wherever--saying that he was a bad choice for her, he never loved her, he was a jerk for leaving her because she was ill, etc. He stayed with Vivien for so much longer than a lot of people would have given their circumstance (both because of their professions and their personalities, and also because treatment for mental illness in the 1940s and 50s was so primitive that Vivien really couldn't have gotten the proper treatment she needed even if she DID totally comply with doctors' orders). But more than that, she loved him; she chose to pursue him and they both chose to leave their respective spouses for each other--something he surely wouldn't have done if he wasn't absolutely over the top for her because he was from a totally religious background and even after he did leave Jill Esmond he felt guilty. So how do any of us, as fans of either or both of them, who never knew them in real life, have the right to judge either of them or their actions? And if we are going to judge, why does there seem to be such a bias view against Laurence Olivier? She chose him, he meant so much to her and she never let people shoot him down in her presence even after it was all over. So why do so many feel the need to berate him?

It sure seems to me that even though Vivien was the one who actually had the mental illness, Larry also suffered with her as being the one person who was closest to her and knew her better than everyone else, and certainly he knew her better than any of us who just know about their lives via books do or ever will. Only they knew for certain everything that went on in their relationship. Only they can attest to the feelings they each had regarding each other and regarding the break up of their marriage (and well, they're both dead). Certainly there must have been bitterness and regrets on both parts--Larry even admitted that he always felt responsible some how for Vivien's troubles and it was impossible for him to think otherwise. But I don't blame him for leaving. As Jean Simmons told him when he was trying to decide whether to ask for a divorce or not, why should he sacrifice his happiness for the sake of someone else's? In my opinion, just because he left her, it doesn't mean he ever stopped caring for her or even loving her. It doesn't mean he was a jerk because he left her when she was ill and needed him. They were both unhappy in the end. In fact from everything I've read, it doesn't seem like he ever really got over her.

I've recently been doing research about going to see the Olivier Archive at the British Library. In doing so, I was shown the link of the holdings in the collection where you can see what sorts of things are in the Archive. Among the things Larry Olivier saved are multiple photo albums, including several of just Vivien Leigh photos/studio portraits/etc. He also saved press clippings about Vivien up until the 1980s. This struck me as wonderful and it warmed my heart to read this. As you know, they divorced in 1960 and Vivien passed away in 1967. So the fact that he kept tabs on her even years after she died speaks a lot about his feelings for her, in my opinion. Don't you think that if he didn't care about her, or if he stopped caring all together after their break up, he would have somehow disposed of all that Vivien-related ephemera instead of keeping it? This archive also goes to show that there is a LOT about their relationship that most of us who haven't had the opportunity to look through all of this stuff aren't aware of. Sadly, as author Terry Coleman told me via email, most of this stuff (as well as the other half that Suzanne Farrington has in her possession) has never been published. So far, only Terry Coleman has published a book after having had access to that material, and his biography on Olivier, though it doesn't quite get to the bottom of who he was as a person, is the only one that has gone that much in depth to the obsession and passion of their relationship based on actual evidence. So I think that while there are some really good biographies on both Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier (my personal favorites would be the Felix Barker one, the Hugo Vickers one, the Coleman one and the Alan Dent one), I really don't think any of them has told the complete story.

Furthermore, both Olivier and Leigh were extremely private people in real life. Unlike some people today, they didn't go around announcing that they had sex in the limo on the way to the awards show or anything like that. There was an air of mystery about them and they only let the public see certain aspects of their relationship. I really respect people who keep the details of their private lives private as much as they can, especially when they're famous, and I think more people should take hints from these old Hollywood couples (see Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward--RIP Paul). Laurence Olivier never liked doing interviews, and even when he did so them, he was only willing to say so much about his relationship--especially what went wrong--with Vivien Leigh. In several TV interviews he makes it plain that he doesn't wish to talk about her problems, that it's hard for him to talk about it, even 20 years after she died it was still hard for him. I think him not talking about it showed a lot more respect to her than telling the whole world exactly what happened between them. As a couple, the Oliviers kept Vivien's illness as much from the public as they could. Though he did talk about their problems in Confessions of an Actor, he never went out and wrote a tell-all book trashing her name and her memory. In fact if I remember correctly, I seem to remember reading something about him being angry when Anne Edwards published her Vivien biography because she was the first one to come out and say Vivien Leigh was bipolar. I know their marriage was a rocky one by anyone's account, and the end of it was hard on both of them. As Lauren Bacall said about their relationship: "It was heaven the first 10 years, hell the second. Now it was over. He felt such concern for her and pain at the ending of it all, but he knew he had to get away. He wouldn't survive if he didn't." I'm sure that for a long time Larry harbored mixed feelings. Guilt obviously, he admitted as much, probably bitterness, anger, sadness, everything. But I also think that in time all of those negative emotions did blow away and even though he remarried and had the family he always wanted, I think it's a total credit to him that he could look back after all those years and say about Vivien, "That was it. That was real love."

So in conclusion, just because a TV program or anything similar glossed over his relationship with Vivien or dismissed her or her illness with a "stereotypical backhand," that doesn't mean that Laurence Olivier ever did the same. I personally love them both, and I just don't think it's fair that Larry gets all the blame a lot of times. Relationships are a two-way street.

FIN. Sorry that was so long! Ahhh! But I am super curious to know what other fans think of that whole situation. I always find it an interesting and often times complicated discussion because both Olivier and Vivien Leigh were complicated people (but that's why I think their story is so interesting)!

“I envy Laurence Olivier, because he seems to have endless resources in him to develop and be a different character each time,” Paul Newman said early in his career as an actor. “I feel I perhaps don’t have the imagination to change.”

Lionel Godfrey, who quotes that unsourced comment in Paul Newman: Superstar: A Critical Biography (St. Martin's, 1979) goes on to say of Newman and Olivier:

“Since one is par excellence a screen-actor and the other’s sphere, despite great film-performances, has always been pre-eminently the stage, it is difficult to compare the two stars. But in the 12 years or so since he modestly made that statement, Paul has more than proved his own versatility and the creative resources he can bring to new, unusual roles. He has often told interviewers, ‘I don’t want to die and have written on my tombstone: ‘He was a helluva actor until one day his eyes turned brown.’”

© 2008 Janice Harayda. All rights reserved.
www.janiceharayda.com

Pride & Prejudice is undoubtedly Jane Austen's most beloved novel and has been the source for many screen adaptations (for more information on these, visit my Pride & Prejudice page). The BBC's 1995 version is wildly popular and receives the most attention by Janeites the world over -- Colin Firth's wet shirt scene being the greatest BBC success of all time, apparently. :) The 2005 Hollywood version has also received its fair share of praise and criticism; but in my readings on Austen (and obsession with various Austen blogs) I have read very little on the 1940 adaptation, starring Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson, and directed by Robert Z. Leonard (Aldous Huxley was one of the writers, which I found very strange indeed, as A Brave New World and the works of Austen exist on two wildly different ends of the literary spectrum). Within the first fifteen minutes, I was able to understand why this might be. A great deal of artistic liberty was taken with the context and character personalities -- perhaps to such an extent that few Janeites find it worthwhile. When one ceases to expect pure Austenism and historical accuracy, however, it actually proves quite a pleasant film...though I do admit it took me about thirty minutes to grow accustomed to the antebellum, almost Gone-with-the-Wind-like, fashions.

1) Historical Context: Even if one is completely clueless about the time period in which Jane Austen's works are set, one can infer from the dates of her life (1775-1817) that her time ended long before crinolines and exposed decolletages were fashionable. Pride & Prejudice being one of her earliest novels, published in 1816, but written between 1796 and 1797, it would naturally fall within the late Georgian Era, or the incipient years of the Regency Era. Mrs. Bennet, at the start of the film, exclaims when she learns of Mr. Bingley's marital status, "Five thousand pounds and unmarried! That's the most heartening piece of news since the Battle of Waterloo!" Post-1815 is a far cry from 1797. Observe the following movie still:

Why, Elizabeth! What poofy sleeves you have! What strange hair ornaments you have! What a large skirt you have! And Mr. Darcy! Why, what fancy breeches you have! What shiny, pasted hair you have!

And oh! Those bonnets! -- more like elaborate halved lampshades. My heavens, they are outlandish. The 1830's saw bonnets grow to massive proportions, covering the entire face from any angle except straight on. In the 1850's and 1860's the bonnet depth shorted considerably, though height grew enormously, giving way to the spoon bonnets often associated with the Civil War/mid-Victorian years. Bonnets were steadily declining in practicality (as parasols grew in popularity), becoming almost purely ornamental, and, hence, more extravagent. 

Here are some good bonnet sources:

• http://www.victorianbonnets.com/
• http://www.victorianmillinery.com/Catalog.cfm
• http://www.missmacraes.com/hats/index.shtml
• http://bonnets.com/bonnet.html

2) The Plot: Since when is Lady Catherine de Bourgh a noble character? She was remarkably (and hilariously) true to character until the end of her visit with Elizabeth -- she returns to her carraige in an apparent huff, and we see Darcy sitting in it anxiously. Lady Catherine gives him a report of her encounter with the Bennet girl, and for a moment we are held in a state of vacillation: was she Darcy's ambassador? Or did he just come along for the ride, hoping against hope and preparing to defy his aunt's wishes should she exit with "good" news? Apparently the former. "She's right for you, Darcy," she says to him, "What you need is a woman who will stand up to you. I think you've found her!" This is a most abominable deviation from the original story, though it does add some spark to her character. The speed of the plot is rather odd, as well. From the beginning to Elizabeth's visit to Rosings seems to creep by -- but it seems that the crew found themselves surprisingly pressed for time and hurridly compressed the remainder of the film without much thought. Lydia's escapade with Wickham occurs before Elizabeth learns of Wickham's previous attempt to seduce Georgiana. Lydia is found rather quickly, and she returns home with Wickham and a retinue of servants; she has barely entered the house when Lady Catherine shows up and begins interrogating Elizabeth. She leaves the Bennet house, Darcy enters, Bingley proposes and then Darcy and Elizabeth kiss passionately. This all occurs in about 20 minutes. Whew. Oh, and Elizabeth never visits Pemberley with the Gardiners.

3) Characters: The characters are a bit off. Darcy is very open and rather friendly, making Elizabeth's extreme dislike for him seem excessive. Without his characteristic aloofness, it is difficult to see why she finds him so prideful and arrogant. Miss Bingley is wonderfully played by Frieda Inescort; she really is a bitch. We see precious little of Bingley, and his character is left in the background. Mr. Collins is sickening with his pompousness and sycophantism, but he is not Lady Catherine's vicar -- instead, they made him some employee of hers that I cannot remember. Lady Lucas and Mrs. Bennet seem terribly unfriendly towards one another; in a most absurd scene, the two race their carraiges home to be the first to tell their husbands about the Bingleys' arrival. Their blatant competitiveness and disdain for the other's daughters is a bit much for me. Charlotte is most certainly not plain, but rather very pretty. I actually thought she was prettier than Jane. Elizabeth was more biting than witty and took great liberties with her speech; she was also lovlier than her sister by far. Wickham wasn't attractive or interesting. Mr. Bennet was perhaps the only really true-to-the-novel character; funny how his character is always the most authentic in the adaptations. Overall, however, the other characters were either ignored or greatly exaggerated.

P & P 1940 is really a joy to watch when one ceases to expect pure Austen. The characters are lovely in their own right, and every scene somehow brings a smile to my face. Lighthearted, visually pleasing (for those who appreciate those extravagant Victorian styles), and refreshing, this is delightful film to add to any collection.

For more information on this adaptation and other P&P films, visit my Pride & Prejudice page.

In his interview with the Times, Bragg gives some insight on what it was like to interview many famous celebrities, including Olivier.  Here's what he had to say about Sir Larry:

One of the biggest coups was Olivier. Driving down to Brighton with the great man, Bragg remembers him “boring the lives out of us” about an article he had read about alcohol impairing memory. “This is the guy who had just recovered from cancer and was learning Lear by heart, but it was destroying his memory, he decided. He was really serious. By the time we got to Brighton to meet John Osborne, it's an awful thing to say about the greatest living actor, but I just wanted to get out of this van to stop him telling us not to drink.”

Osborne was sitting in the corner of the restaurant with a glass of champagne. Spotting him, Olivier, “in his huge Henry V voice, because he was not above drawing attention to himself when he wanted to, [said]: ‘I will never drink again... except with my great friend John Osborne! Johnny! Johnny!' And bounded over, and we went for it.” By the end of lunch “they were out of their minds. We went out to do the interview and that was probably a mistake, the sea air hitting them. Osborne was hanging on to the railings.” In the film, Olivier can barely speak for giggling.

Through his interviews with Olivier, Osborne and Arthur Miller, Bragg pieced together the story of Olivier taking the lead in Osborne's The Entertainer. Olivier had been scathing about Osborne's mould-breaking Look Back in Anger, which he said was “rubbish” about “dreadful nihilists”. But when he was filming The Prince and the Showgirl with Marilyn Monroe, Miller and Monroe stayed with him in an effort to avoid the swarms of press following her. Miller got frustrated about being cooped up and insisted on going out to see the play that everyone was talking about. Under duress, Olivier hatched a plan, involving decoy cars and blond wigs, to get the three of them to the Royal Court.

Miller and Monroe were so keen on the play when they met Osborne backstage that Olivier changed his mind about it and wrote to Osborne the next day, asking: “If you write another play and could find a tiny part for me I would love to be in it.” Osborne sent Olivier The Entertainer. Many Olivier fans were appalled at the great actor playing the washed-up thespian Archie Rice, but it became a huge stage (and then movie) hit and Olivier left Vivien Leigh for his co-star, Joan Plowright.

“The Entertainer role changed Olivier's career, helped to change the direction of British theatre and his personal life, and all because of Marilyn Monroe,” Bragg says.

For many, A South Bank Show interview is a landmark career event. Tracey Emin said that she had dreamt about it since the age of 10. According to Bragg, Spacey wanted to emulate Olivier, asking “Do you think you can interview me on the stage [of the Old Vic] where you interviewed Larry?” Bragg offered to even “put the chairs in the same position”.

I have a VHS copy of Laurence Olivier: A Life that I watch on occasion, and I find it really interesting. But I love hearing these little inside anecdotes about him and Vivien Leigh. I've read before (and seen some photos) that Larry liked drinking, liked going to the pub for a pint with friends, liked getting drunk with friends, etc. I love it, it just makes him seem somehow more human to read these little anecdotes.

Anyway, if anyone would be willing to record that Celebrating South Bank program next time it comes on and to send me a copy, I'd be really grateful, I want to see all these interviews! :D

You can see photos of Olivier drinking with friends (a particular favorite is one where he's getting drunk with John Mills in France) among many others in the Gallery at www.vivandlarry.com

It's well documented that Marlon Brando was a)openly bisexual and not at all ashamed of it  and b) kind of a man whore for lack of better word (he had what, like 10 kids by several different women?).  And granted, this book was written by someone who is trying to revive Hollywood Babylon (a book that reveals everything you never wanted to know about your favorite old stars) but making it have 10 times the shock value Kenneth Anger put in his original tell-all about the "real" dirt in Tinsel Town.  However, even if this stuff is true, I don't understand why authors feel the need to drag dead celebrities' names through the mud. I don't need to know ALL the details.

In Songs my Mother Taught Me, Brando mentions that he was attracted to Vivien Leigh and would have "taken her for a romp if it weren't for Laurence Olivier" because he admired Larry and didn't want to "invade his chicken coop".  Darwin Porter reports about a supposed letter that was sent to one of Marlon's associates about what Marlon REALLY thought of Vivien Leigh (to downplay what was said, he thought she was hot) and that Marlon actually DID have an affair with Vivien on the set.  Not only this, Porter writes, but he also had an affair with Laurence Olivier.  Do I personally believe this happened?  I wouldn't be surprised (for the record, I do adore Larry but wouldn't be surprised if the rumors about his bisexuality were true, however there doesn't seem to be any conclusive evidence that Olivier's supposed affairs with certain men--one of them being Danny Kaye--ever really happened).  But do I need to know the sordid details of these supposed affairs (along with Marlon's affairs with everyone else in Hollywood)?  NO.

Porter "quotes" Vivien Leigh as telling Elia Kazan:

"I must say this for Marlon, when it comes to couples he is an equal opportunity seducer. On many an occasion he rose from Larry's bed and joined me in mine."

Reviewers on Amazon say Porter fails to properly cite the excerpts and quotes he uses in his book, which is just stupid in my opinion anyway. If you want people to take your book seriously (or maybe that's not this author's goal?), you damn well better support your arguments with proper evidence.

Anyway, I'm rambling. The point of this blog post is that I don't understand why these authors feel the need to publish such sensationalism (obviously to earn a few dollars off of dead people's names), and to air these peoples' dirty laundry. I recently read that Olivier biographer Anthony Holden, is re-publishing his biography (which I hated, by the way, it made me angry) for the sole purpose of revealing new things about just how gay Olivier really was. This makes me sad/angry because look, authors, who CARES if these actors were gay or bi or whatever? It's Hollywood, ok? They're dead now, and by sensationalizing "facts" that you "didn't write about when he was alive out of respect," you're just making it into slander by publishing it now that they're dead and can't say anything about it. The things that are important to me regarding actors that I really admire, are the contributions they made to film and to their craft, and who they were as a person, not who they supposedly slept with and every single detail that can supposedly be dug up regarding their addictions or their dalliances. There's a point where you draw the line. What's the point of writing about someone if you're only going to focus on the scandals or even make things up? The sad thing is, whether it's true or not, people who know little about the subject and pick up a book like Brando Unzipped, are going to have that sensationalized tabloid trash as their first and foremost impression of people who were so much more than that. I hate going on youtube, for instance, and seeing comments on people's videos like "I cant believe this guy had an affair with Danny Kaye." It hasn't been proven, and even so, something like that shouldn't be the focal point of someone's legacy, and it shouldn't be the factor that determines how people who never knew these actors in the first place see them today. Instead of being reported as a factual, well researched part of someone's life story, its often presented as slander.

So dear authors,

*wait for it, these steps up to my soap box are high*

How about, instead of doing your best to air people's dirty laundry just to get people to buy your book, you instead do your best to preserve the memory of the person you're writing about. Sometimes people prefer to hold on to a bit of the larger than life image that these stars created. People like Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh did their best to keep their private lives private while they were alive, which is probably one of the reasons why they were so respected. Why do you feel like you have the right to shout it from the top of a mountain? Libel is lame.

No love,

Me.

And to lighten the mood in an extremely random way, here's Liza Minelli's greatest role in perhaps the greatest clip ever put on youtube. From Arrested Development: GOB reads the appetizer menu.

On Sunday, my friend and fellow "Team Larivien" fan Brooke, went up to Hollywood to do some sight-seeing and stupid-picture-taking.  I don't know how many times I've been there and taken the same exact pictures, but it's always fun none-the-less, especially when you have someone with you who is equally as enthusiastic about old things (Yeay Brooke!)!  We had two main goals"  to see some Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh-related places, and to find Anita Page's star on the Walk-of-fame (RIP Anita, the last silent star).

First, we went to Beverly Hills and took some photos of the houses Larry and Vivien lived in while in Hollywood in 1939.  Vivien's house at 520 N. Crescent Drive is currently up for lease, and we want to know how much it's going for (probably a lot considering the neighborhood)!  But we loitered around anyhow and Brooke tried to see if that swimming pool from those home videos of larry and Viv was still back there.  She couldn't see around to the back.  So we don't know if it's still there or not.  The house is so cute and little compared to the obnoxious mansions around it.

Then we went over to Hollywood and did the usual touristy things: took pictures by peoples' stars, chatted with the guy behind the counter at Larry Edmunds (my FAVORITE Hollywood book store), etc. It was fun! And we finally found Anita's star all the way down at Hollywood and Gower. Talk about a trek!

me (left) and Brooke

Fun!

A couple hangers --

Fiona wanted me to point out that the pounding heartbeat we hear as Jekyll transforms into Hyde in the 1931 Mamoulian DR J & MR H, was the first heartbeat heard in a movie. And this leads me to an anecdote. Stop me if you've heard this before.

My friend Lawrie Knight worked as an assistant on Laurence Olivier's 1948 film of HAMLET. Emulating the well-known Mamoulian technique, which had been much written about and praised, Olivier decided to use a heartbeat sound to accompany the first appearance of Hamlet's father's ghost, right at the start of the story. Atypically, the athletic star-director asked someone else, a lowly clapper boy, to do the physical work of running round the sound stage a couple of times in order to generate a sufficiently pounding pulse. The little lad took off, completed his laps, and settled down, wheezing and sweating, in the path of the microphone, which was then pressed to his palpitating bosom.

"Nothing but indigestion!" chortled Lawrie.

Olivier elected to use a drumbeat instead, and brilliantly added to this an optical effect whereby the image pulsed in and out of focus in response to the thumping rhythm.

Fiona also wishes it to be known that Fredric March won the Oscar for his dazzling interpretations of Jekyll and Hyde, the first time an actor won the award for a horror movie, and the last, until Anthony Hopkins scooped up a gong for SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. Strangely enough, Fredric March as Hyde makes the exact same Evil Sucky Noise that won Hopkins' Lecter so much attention.

Based on this observation, it would seem almost certain that making an Evil Sucky Noise is the sure path to Academy Award glory. Which explains Tom Hanks.

Vivien Leigh, Lady Olivier (5 July 1913-8 July 1967), was an English actress. She won two Academy Awards for playing "Southern Belles": Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With The Wind (1939) and Blanche DuBois in the film version of A Street Car Named Desire (1951), a role she had also played on stage in London's West End.

She was a prolific stage performer, frequently in collaboration with her husband, Laurence Olivier, who directed her in several of her roles. During her thirty-year stage career, she played parts that ranged from the heroines of Noel Coward and George Bernard Shaw comedies to classic Shakespearean characters such as Ophelia, Cleopatra, Juliet and Lady Macbeth.

The RMS Queen Mary is a Cunard White Star Line (the same as Titanic, I believe) cruise ship/luxury passenger liner that sailed the Atlantic from 1936-1967. During WWII, the Queen mary served as a transport ship, taking soldiers across the Atlantic to the battles in Europe. At the time, she was the fastest liner on the ocean, cruising at about 35 miles per hour, much faster than actual battle ships.

After her final voyage in 1967, the Queen Mary was permanently docked in Long Beach, where she remains to this day, serving as a maritime museum and hotel. Howard Hughes' famous plane The Spruce Goose used to be on display in the dome next door the the Queen Mary, and I remember visiting both sites when I was a kid, but the Spruce Goose has since been moved to another location.

So why am I writing about this as part of my website blog, you ask? Well, before the days of trans-atlantic air travel, most people went from Europe to America and vice versa by sea, including many famous people from Hollywood's Golden Age. In December, 1938, our very own Vivien Leigh sailed from England to New York aboard the Queen Mary. It was her first trip to America. She had gone to be with Laurence Olivier who was in Hollywood filming William Wyler's Wuthering Heights, and she then landed the role that was to make her famous: Scarlett in Gone with the Wind.

Though there are sadly no photos of Vivien in the museum on board the ship, it does boast many photos of other celebrities including a giant photo mural of celebrities on board the ship that includes some of the Oliviers' famous friends such as David Niven, Clark Gable and Noel Coward. And anyway, it's a really neat tourist attraction, especially if you're a history buff like me, or a Hollywood fan in general (they filmed a famous episode of The X-Files on the ship--the one where Moulder and Scully get stuck in a time warp in the Bermuda Triangle. The Queen Mary stood in for a WWII vessel) :)

The RMS Queen Mary is open to visitors from 10am to 6 pm daily. General admission is $25. There is also a Ghosts and Legends tour (the ship is one fo the top haunted atractions in the country) for $3 more.

The Queen Mary 2 passes by its predecessor on its maiden voyage to Mexico from Los Angeles, February 2006.

Me in front of the Queen Mary, Long Beach

Clark Gable on board the ship in the 1950s

You can see more locations around southern CA pertaining to Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh HERE

Very sad news -- the great Ken Campbell has died, aged 66. Ken was an inspiration to me in many ways. As a Fortean and Dickhead (adherent of sci-fi scribe Philip K. Dick) he wrote (and performed) mind-expanding, crazy, yet beautifully structured monologues ("the structure of this one is based on the toilet plunger") which I've quoted here at least once. His tendency to be funny about stuff that most people either ignored or discussed with the hushed, intense tones of the paranoiac (UFOs, the Little People, Cathar and Albigensian heretic cults, ventriloquism, cannibalism, the making of THE EXORCIST, transvestism, Ken Dodd, nasal sex, improvisation in iambic pentameter, visualisation, invisibility, Ambrose Bierce, mysterious disappearances, and furtive nudity, to name but a few) deeply influenced my own tendency to be passionate about cinema without always taking it too seriously. I mean, I'm IN earnest, but I shouldn't BE earnest.

"You shouldn't believe anything. Anybody who starts a sentence with 'I believe' is usually a right berk. So you shouldn't believe anything. But you should be prepared to SUPPOSE *ANYTHING*."

I persuaded (he was quite happy, not much persuasion required) Ken to contribute a vocal performance to my film CLARIMONDE, a no-budget Gothic comedy. Ken plays Inspector Childers, heard at the start and end of the movie. His role was recorded in the green room of the Traverse Theatre, where he was performing his entire Bald Trilogy, about five hours of stand-up insanity. It was pretty good of him to give me his time (and voice).

In the spirit of neatness, I can connect this post to Jekyll Week -- Campbell created the Enantiodromic Approach to theatre, detailed here, which certainly ties in with old two-face Jekyll.

And here's Ken's physical apparition, speaking to you from beyond the grave, about Laurence Olivier speaking to you from beyond the grave:

Ken's film credits as actor include playing a happy flagellant in JABBERWOCKY and a drunken clown in Derek Jarman's THE TEMPEST. His obituaries are among the funniest I've ever read:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/2663891/Ken-Campbell.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2008/sep/01/obituary.ken.campbell

Delivered in 1973, the talks were transcribed for a book, but in it Bernstein insists "The pages that follow were written not to be read, but listened to," really an endorsement of the video edition. The talks are, in fact, performances. Television was always kind to Bernstein; he had magnetism and knew how to use it. To illustrate various points in his analyses, he plays the piano frequently, sings occasionally, and conducts significant works of key composers: Mozart, Beethoven, Berlioz, Wagner, Ravel, Debussy, Ives, Mahler, and Stravinsky.

Bernstein traces the development of music from its origins to the 20th-century struggle between tonality (championed notably by Stravinsky) and atonalism (represented mainly by Schoenberg). The last two talks, devoted to these composers, are particularly enlightening, but all six are outstanding. He argues persuasively that humans are born with an ability to grasp musical forms, and that rules of musical syntax are rooted in nature--in mathematically measurable relations between tones and overtones.

These talks are a key document. They coincide chronologically, as cause and/or symptom, with the movement of America's leading composers back from Schoenbergian forms toward a tonal orientation. Bernstein predicts and promotes this movement, which is still in progress. He is clearly an advocate of tonality, but he discusses atonal music with sympathy and understanding. --Joe McLellan

The Unanswered Question - Six Talks at Harvard by Leonard Bernstein is available at Amazon for $99.99. To Order click here
Amazon Product Pages contain a lot of other details on this product as Customer Reviews, Sales Ranking, Special Offers, Alternate products that customers are going for and much more.Want to read these details? click here

Want to get some other Format / Binding / Version? You can search for them from here

Other Products of Interest

• Leonard Bernstein - Young People's Concerts / New York Philharmonic
• The Leonard Bernstein Concert Boxed Set
• The Unanswered Question: Six Talks at Harvard (The Charles Eliot Norton Lectures)
• The Making of West Side Story - Leonard Bernstein
• The Joy of Music Leonard Bernstein

This year at the Edinburgh Fringe the story of iconic British actress, Vivien Leigh, along with her tumultuous relationships with Lawrence Olivier and her other lovers will be told on stage for the first time ever.

Written and directed by Samantha German, Vivien is an exciting piece of new writing performed by Chimera – a young, talented new theatre company founded in 2007. Set behind a visage of 1950s glamour and fame, Vivien is a story of love, madness and desire.

Astoundingly, despite numerous biographies, a television show and two ‘one-woman’ plays, the story of Vivien Leigh and Lawrence Olivier has never been told through the medium they themselves were most famed for: the stage. Vivien puts them back under the spotlight, capturing a life out of control in which the lines distinguishing ‘acting’ from ‘reality’ are blurred. Vivien also explores Vivien Leigh’s relationships with Peter Finch and Jack Merivale as well as her close friendship with Noel Coward.

We live in a world fascinated by troubled heroines such as Britney Spears and Amy Winehouse, and obsessed with celebrity couples like Posh and Becks. Vivien portrays the life of the stage’s original troubled heroine and first celebrity couple.

Samantha German’s previous accolades include 2006 Pick of the Fringe (The Spectator) for Wasted as well as repeated NSDF recognition. Reviewing her adaptation of Lewis Caroll’s Through the Looking Glass at last year’s Fringe, which also starred two Vivien cast members, Three Weeks stated that “it is a rare thing to see this amount of natural talent. The future of theatre is in good hands.” The cast of Vivien includes acting students from Drama Centre, London as well as alumni of the University of Nottingham’s acclaimed New Theatre – the only student run theatre in England which this year received a special award from NSDF for promoting student theatre.

Vivien runs from 11^th-23^rd August (not 17^th) at The Space On The Mile @ The Radisson (Venue 39) starting at 20:10.

ENDS

For more information contact Samantha German on 07733 004653, or visit www.chimeratheatre.com.

...THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN.

Yes! This week we watch all the Terence Fisher Hammer Productions about Baron Frankenstein and his varied creations.

This means omitting EVIL OF FRANKENSTEIN, which isn't a Fisher and doesn't fit the continuity of the other films (indeed, it seems to go all-out to destroy all coherence) and HORROR OF FRANKENSTEIN which stars Ralph Bates instead of Cushing and likewise isn't a Fisher.

Most of the Fishers are written by Jimmy Sangster, Hammer's prime creator of thick-eared dialogue and inventive plotting, a very important figure in the development of the Hammer style. While the cast may have despaired of Sangster's speeches (Christopher Lee grumbled about having no lines and Cushing told him to be grateful), he was instrumental in stripping away the niceties of Universal's gothic tales, substituting brutality, villainy and nihilism.

Of course, part of the Hammer approach is catchpenny hucksterism, beginning with the title of this one -- there's no curse mentioned in the movie. (Similarly, the later VIKING QUEEN has no Vikings, but a line of dialogue has been helpfully added to appease pedantic Scots like me: "She is our Viking Queen!") Hammer obviously wanted a title distinctly different from Universal's, because they were nervous of lawsuits. I don't see any evidence that Sangster ever read Mary Shelley's original novel (try it, it's perfectly readable and entertaining), but he probably glanced at it, borrowing the notion of referring to Lee's mangled creation as "the creature" rather than "the monster", which again was useful in differentiating the new film from its predecessor.

Despite the fear of being seen as an unlicensed remake, Sangster cooked up a few references to the first two James Whale movies -- at one point, a small boy and a blind man are introduced. The boy immediately heads to the shore of a lake, where he sits and picks something off the ground, immediately recalling Boris Karloff's encounter with the flower-picking little girl. Meanwhile, the blind man, a direct swipe from BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, meets and is immediately attacked by the creature. Hammer films are setting out their store: there is to be no pathos and no sentimentality here, just nasty surprises all the way.

The other classic horror film that seems to inform this movie is Murnau's NOSFERATU, both in the cut of Lee's coat, and in his pose when spying on Hazel Court through a skylight. Images like this show Fisher's flair for this kind of storytelling. Robbed of the dreamlike somnambulism of Murnau, CURSE picks up the pace and delivers muscular thrills and punchy delivery. Fisher is helped enormously in this by his cast.

First, Cushing. Influenced by his admiration for Laurence Olivier, Cushing delivers an energetic and highly physical performance, throwing himself into the action sequences with abandon (see how he mimes getting a stitch in his side after running upstairs to fight the monster-- sorry, "creature"). Baron Frankenstein may be a man of science, but he's also a MAN. Sangster has also added an illicit affair with the French maid, so that from the very first film, Cushing's Baron is morally tainted by more than his zeal for medicine. MOST of his crimes are motivated by a desire to achieve greatness in science, but he's also perfectly capable of beastly behaviour for purely selfish ends.

Cushing is so perfect for this film, and this genre, and somebody was smart enough to realise it. He goes with the generally vigorous style of the movie (vigorous in a slightly stiff way, like Lee's energetic yet ungainly creature) but adds cultivation and a believable intelligence. He's also adroit at getting away with Sangster's more boggling lines of dialogue, such as "We hold in the palms of our hands such secrets that have never been dreamed of." And when handed a nice gag, like "Let him rest in peace -- while he can," he underplays magnificently.

Playing the juvenile version of Cushing is Melvyn Hayes, whose presence can be distracting to some: he's famous in Britain for playing a transvestite bombardier in a campy sitcom about a military "concert party" (troupe of entertainers) in WWII Burma, called It Ain't Half Hot Mum. Imagine OBJECTIVE, BURMA! only with more songs and dragging up. But Hayes is a very good actor and, unlikely as it seems, a resonably plausible physical embodiment of a juvenile Cushing. (Irrelevant sidenote: Cushing was dressed as a girl by his mother, a reaction perhaps to so many boys being lost in WWI.)

Second lead: Robert Urquhart, as the Sensible Friend. "I bet nobody talks about him because they're all too busy looking at Cushing," says Fiona. "But he's GOOD." It's true. Playing straight man to Frankenstein can be a thankless role, but Urquhart (good, unpronounceable Scottish name) espouses the morality without becoming priggish or boring. Whenever he's given the chance to loosen up a little, he takes it, breathing life into the character as surely as he restores respiration to a dead puppy. Plus he gets that great end scene, betraying his old friend in the hour of his greatest need -- Hammer's moral characters often tend to be even nastier than the villains, and Urquhart's cold-bloodedness here prepares the way for horrible heroes like Van Helsing (what an appalling man!).

(Side-note -- the best perf in Kenneth Branagh's Francis Ford Coppola's MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN is Tom Hulce, in the tedious role of Sensible Friend. He should be a bore, but he winds up the only character you'd care to have a pint with. Hulce, the miracle-worker.)

Talk about thankless parts: Hazel Court has little to do save remain in ignorance throughout. Seeing her in something like MASQUE OF THE RED DEATH or THE RAVEN shows what a capable, sexy and witty performer she could be: Roger Corman always gave her enjoyable parts. She's in lots of Hammer films but rarely got any interesting business: she doesn't even get vampirized. Not once.

Then there's Christopher Lee, of course. I think it's fair to say, with no unkindness intended, that the man was cast for his height, here. The part nearly went to Bernard Bresslaw, another tall man, who had to content himself with fleshing out the role of Rubba-Teetee the mummy in CARRY ON SCREAMING instead. Lee's one-off perf as the creature -- he couldn't return in sequels because Sangster had, perhaps shortsightedly had him dumped in an acid bath at the end of this film (having already been shot and set alight) -- did, however, lead him to the role of Dracula, which he made his own and got a whole series out of. Indeed, a whole career (262 screen roles listed on the IMDb, and still going strong).

Lee's creature is devoid of any of the nobler qualities of the Karloff monster, but the performance is not without detail. "Looking like a road accident" in Phil Leakey's gruesome slap (crude but effective would be a polite way to describe it), Lee plays the character as brain-damaged and confused. The encounter with the blind man is particularly interesting for Lee's odd movements and posing. This creature isn't evil, as such, just bewildered, and he lashes out in violence at everything he doesn't understand -- which is EVERYTHING. It took some effort, but I was able to find him sympathetic at some level, although the character/behaviour is a bit too close to that of some school bullies I recall. At least the Lee-creature has an excuse: the jar with his brain in was smashed against a wall. His brain's probably full of broken beaker (his revival is prefigured by a sound of smashing glassware: Fiona wonders if this is the sound the creature makes when he thinks). "Why didn't Frankenstein just get a new brain?" asks Fiona, agitated. "Even a bog-standard brain would be better than a genius brain that's full of broken glass!"

Lee gets the film's coolest shot (quoted by Kubrick in LOLITA! I should write a whole piece about Kubrick and Hammer films' odd synergistic relationship) is Lee's unmasking. Lurching about in muslin wrapping, he's discovered by Cushing just as he raises his hand to the bandages swathing his lumpy kisser. The hand clutches the cloth, and just as it pulls away the covering, Fisher's camera switches from 24fps to something more like 6, and we track in impossibly fast, Lee swooping forward at us in all his milky-eyed awfulness, his small movements suddenly insectoid in their inhuman speed.

"Hold your horses, I'm thinking with GLASS, here!"

It's fascinating to me how Sangster and Fisher get away with delaying the monster's appearance until about halfway through, with only a bit of medical grue and gallows-robbing to sustain the tension until the big reveal. Of course there's something else at work: anticipation. Mary Shelley gets her monster onstage faster, but she was telling the story for the first time. Hammer realised they could rely on the audience already knowing the basic premise: they await the monster with eager dread. The tactic was to deliver a monster more unpleasant than expected.

The whole thing goes like a train, with the monster escaping, running amok, getting shot in the head, brought back to life, killing the French maid (as arranged by the Baron, since she's outlived her usefulness and grown inconvenient) and finally escaping AGAIN and attacking Hazel Court. Time for the first of Hammer's patented overkills (never JUST shove a stake through Dracula -- try throwing holy water in his face, causing him to fall from a belfry into a pit with a stake in it, then poke him with a shovel just for good measure: DRACULA A.D. 1972), as Cushing shows more of his physical dexterity:

"I've created a monst -- I mean, creature!"

Not only a great actor, also a great SHOT -- right into the lens! The slung lantern sets Lee alight, and he falls into the convenient acid bath. Every home should have one. Except -- not so convenient. Now there's no evidence the monst creature ever existed, so Cushing's going to be executed for the creature's crimes. Which is fair enough, really.

A missed opportunity! As Cushing is led off to be executed (it suddenly occurs to us to wonder how he was convicted of the French maid's murder, since presumably he dissolved her remains), we cut to the guillotine, its blade cranked up to the highest position. The credits roll...

And then -- nothing! Fade to black. When it's obvious to any gorehound that the blade should descend with a sickening SHOONK after the last credit has crawled off the top of the screen. THAT would be showbiz. Perhaps Hammer were already thinking about sequels, already regretting melting their creature like an Alka Seltzer. Using Cushing's Baron as the constant feature of the films that followed, rather than his first creation, makes the Hammer FRANKENSTEINS delightfully different from their Universal forebears.

As we shall see.

O site MovieFone pergunta o que seria do cara bonzinho sem um brigão que ameace a virtude, incomode os inocentes e frustre os melhores planos, não é mesmo, minha gente? Por isso eles fizeram uma lista dos 25 homens e mulheres que amamos odiar no cinema. O Coringa de Ledger nem estreou ainda e já está lá.

1. Lorde Voldemort da série Harry Potter, 2005-2007 [Ralph Fiennes]
2. Darth Vader da série Guerra nas Estrelas, 1977-2005 [James Earl Jones, Hayden Christensen]
3. A Bruxa Malvada do Oeste de O mágico de Oz, 1939 [Margaret Hamilton]
4. Hannibal Lecter de O silêncio dos inocentes, 1991 [Anthony Hopkins]
5. Coringa de Batman - O cavaleiro das trevas, 2008 [Heath Ledger]
6. Goldfinger de 007 contra Goldfinger, 1964 [Gert Frobe]
7. Chigurgh de Onde os fracos não têm vez, 2007 [Javier Barden]
8. Hans Gruber de Duro de matar, 1988 [Alan Rickman]
9. Max Cady de Cabo do medo, 1991 [Robert De Niro]
10. A Rainha de Branca de neve e os sete anões, 1937 [voz de Lucille la Verne]
11. Harry Powell de O mensageiro do diabo, 1955 [Robert Mitchum]
12. Michael Myers de Halloween - A noite do terror, 1978 [Tony Moran]
13. Freddy Krueger de A hora do pesadelo, 1984 [Robert Englund]
14. Mrs Iselin de Sob o domínio do mal, 1962 [Angela Lansbury]
15. Tom Powers de Inimigo Público, 1931 [James Cagney]
16. Anne Wilkes de Louca obsessão, 1990 [ Kathy Bates]
17. Dr Christian Szell de Maratona da morte, 1976 [Laurence Olivier]
18. T-1000 de O exterminador do futuro 2 - O julgamento final [Robert Patrick]
19. Joan Crawford de Mamãezinha querida, 1981 [Faye Dunaway]
20. Lex Luthor de Superman, 1978 [Gene Hackman]
21. Alonzo Harris de Dia de treinamento, 2001 [Denzel Washington]
22. Cruella De Vil de Os 101 dálmatas, 1961 [voz de Betty Lou Gerson]
23. Frank Booth de Veludo Azul, 1986 [Dennis Hopper]
24. Khan Noonie Singh de Jornada nas estrelas: A ira de Khan, 1982 [Ricardo Montalban]
25. Agente Smith de Matrix, 1999 [Hugo Weaving]

Leia também: "O Melhor dos Vilões".

Peter Hiley is survived by his wife Susan, the daughter of George Hope, whom he married in 1955, and by their son.

Text from The Daily Telegraph

It all happened three years ago at Book Soup on Sunset Boulevard in LA. It was St. Patrick's Day and my roommate and friend Liesl and I had trekked up to Tinsel Town to get my copy of "By Myself and Then Some" signed by Lauren Bacall herself. Unfortunately we didn't know you had to have tickets in advance to get in to the signing. Fortunately some nice old people took pity on us and let us stand in line and pretend we were with them. here's this guy I'm talking to and he's telling me all about how he's a prolific film memorabilia collector and had met all sorts of fabulous people like Myrna Loy and Ingrid Bergman. Just hearing him was almost enough to make me pass out from all the awesome that I, sadly, never got a chance to take part in.

Then came the big moment: BETTY HAD ARRIVED! She was so classy and regal and intimidating. I had read her book and knew she had once been good friends with my favorite old Hollywood couple. I was so excited to see her and I remember peering through the window and babbling to my friend in Texas over the phone about how awesome it was that Betty Bacall was just on the other side of that window (Hi, Laura, remember that? Haha). The line was progressing and soon we were up near the front. My roommate, Alex, went first, told Lauren how she loved her movies, then Leisl went, said the same, and got a "Thanks, sweetie" in return. Then it was my turn. I placed my book nervously in front of Ms. Bacall and waited as she signed it. I had planned to say something like "Wow, I just adore you and Bogie," or, you know, something related to HER. But nothing came out. Just as I was waslking away after thanking her, I said to myself, "Kendra, when are you going to get another chance to meet a Hollywood legend? There are so few left!" So i spun around and said the first thing that came to mind:

"You knew Larry and Vivien."
Lauren: 'What?"
me: "Larry and Vivien Olivier. You knew them."
Lauren: 'I can't understand what you are saying." (for the record, when i'm nervous, I smile a lot and talk really fast, so no wonder. Plus she's like 90.)
*Lauren Bacall's assistant leans over and whispers in her ear to clarify what I was saying.*
Lauren: "OH! Yes, we were good friends!"
Me (smiling): "Okay!"

My friends were laughing so hard! I was so star struck that I couldn't think of what to say and that's what came out! I was so embarassed and she probably wanted to call security on me. Who says that anyway?? here I am talking to Lauren 'Harper's Bazaar Sensation" Bacall, LAUREN "You know how to whistle, don't you Steve?" BACALL, and all I could talk about was Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier. I heard her say to the man behind me in line: "I couldn't understand what she was saying, she was smiling so much!" and the man said, "She was really excited to see you."

Boy was I ever! And that's the random story of how I embarassed myself in front of a living legend. I wasn't even star-struck when Tom Hanks made some kind of joke to me and my roommate at a play last year. Just imagine how star struck I would be if I ever had the chance to meet Larry or Vivien 40+ years ago.

The point of this blog post is that I love the Oliviers and their classy celebrity posse.