full filmography
-
Maddyclassicfilms — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 03:35 AM)
Favourites
Dinner At Eight
Holiday
Adam's Rib
A Double Life
The Philadelphia Story
A Double Life
A Star Is Born
Bhowani Junction
Keeper of the Flame
Camille
Born Yesterday
A Bill of Divorcement
My Fair Lady
Least Favourites
Little Women
(Too stagy for me. Hepburn's performance is also very over the top.)
Gaslight
(It has its moments. Ingrid Bergman is excellent, but I much prefer the earlier British version, starring Anton Walbrook.)
Pat and Mike
Sylvia Scarlett
Go to bed Frank or this is going to get ugly
. -
Oleg123 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 09:26 AM)
from theatrical versions (and I only saw 30s and 40s) I liked Cukor version best, and it follows the book closely, and girls are semi-right age
40s version has Allyson 10 years older than Leigh and 20 (!!) years older than O'Brien. She's also too feminine,
70s tv version is great, with Dorothy McGuire and Greer Garson delightful (even though Garson clearly had face lifts) -
hobnob53 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 05:24 PM)
Ho Oleg,
A couple of notes first.
I think you mixed up two of Cukor's 60s films you put the word "fragment" after
Let's Make Love
(1960) when I assume you meant to put it beside the uncompleted Marilyn Monroe picture
Something's Got to Give
(1962). I've actually seen the 37-minute assemblage of the film spliced together a few years ago and there's really no valid way to evaluate it if any evaluation of a less-than-half-completed movie can have any meaning. Besides, if you can include this there's really no reason not to include films where Cukor took or got no credit. In any case I don't see how you can include an unfinished film of which only a portion was ever made among someone's credits.
The other note is that while The_Wesley_Crusher included several films on which Cukor did uncredited work (and you're right about
The Wizard of Oz
Cukor didn't even shoot any footage there, just made some editorial changes that other directors followed, and anyway it was common practice in the 30s and 40s for multiple directors to take part in shooting portions of some films), he missed the two most obvious ones:
Gone With the Wind
and
Song Without End
(1960). While Cukor's final contribution to
GWTW
is no more than his similar contributions to other films on which he was uncredited, he directed almost all of
Song Without End
after he was brought in following the death of Charles Vidor early in the production. But Cukor, a gentleman of the old school, refused any directorial credit and insisted that Vidor receive sole credit as director. Nevertheless the producers put in a title card in which they thank "Mr. George Cukor" for his "contributions" to the making of the picture. Although Cukor isn't the director of record, that film might qualify for his filmography, and far from being uncredited, he did receive some form of credit.
Anyway, I like Cukor as a director but am not fond of a number of his films, mainly because many just don't appeal to me because of plot, cast or some other factors. My list, after which a few remarks about his Oscar nominations.
Top favorites:
Dinner at Eight
David Copperfield
The Women
A Double Life
A Star is Born
Bhowani Junction
Second-tier favorites:
What Price Hollywood?
Camille
Holiday
The Philadelphia Story
Edward, My Son
Adam's Rib
Pat and Mike
It Should Happen to You
Guilty pleasures:
Keeper of the Flame
The Chapman Report
Overrated "biggies":
Gaslight
Born Yesterday
My Fair Lady
The rest are films that irrespective of quality (many are good) I find of limited personal interest, plus nine I've never seen (or seen in full).
ACADEMY AWARDS. Cukor was nominated five times for an Oscar as Best Director:
Little Women, The Philadelphia Story, A Double Life, Born Yesterday
and the one he finally won for,
My Fair Lady
. Off hand I can't think of any director whose nominations omit so may of his greatest films and honor some frankly not as good. I can see the first three nominations, but I've always thought that
Born Yesterday
is a predictable, rather flat comedy, pat and dull, whose plot doesn't wear well at all. To me it's a completely uninteresting, in parts even trite, movie (and play). As for
My Fair Lady
, I'm among those who think the movie is a disappointment compared to the stage play. The late film historian Ephraim Katz called it "decidedly not among [Cukor's] best films" and I think that's an accurate statement. It's adequate, but stagey and (sorry) with a badly miscast Audrey Hepburn. But there's simply nothing exceptional about Cukor's direction.
What amazes me is how or why Cukor
didn't
receive a nomination for at least some of the following
Dinner at Eight, David Copperfield, The Women, Gaslight
or, especially,
A Star is Born
. I'm not even a fan of
Gaslight
(the 1940 British version is infinitely better) but the film got several nominations, yet not Cukor. Most of all, the Academy's almost complete dismissal of
A Star is Born
has always been a mystery. This was a huge production, a highly regarded picture, and Judy Garland and James Mason did get Oscar nominations (Judy should have won, in one of Oscar's most egregious travesties), but it wasn't nominated for Best Director or Best Picture (and yet
Three Coins in the Fountain
was?). In my opinion this was truly Cukor's finest directing job and if he ever deserved the Oscar it was for this film. It's generally been acknowledged that his win for
My Fair Lady
was more in the way of belated recognition for his illustrious career than for a fair but unexceptional job helming a commercially successful adaptation of a hit musical. -
Oleg123 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 09:34 PM)
Thank you so much for this wonderful and interesting reply Hobnob
yes, I meant Something's Got to Give, sorry for the mistake. I think it would have been a good film. While I love Doris Day, I've only seen her version once, about 20 years ago, but I rewatch Grant / Dunne version ever few years.
Agree with 'Gaslight' being an overrated "biggie", I feel same way about 'Star is Born'. My issue with both "Star is Born" that they feature a woman who'se been a star for quiet a while, at the end of her film stardom, but we are still supposed to accept them as young girls.Off hand I can't think of any director whose nominations omit so may of his greatest films and honor some frankly not as good
I think De Mille is a clear winner here. His only nomination for director was for 'Greatest Show', and since he was a producer, he did get an award, and it was also his only best picture. By far not his best sound film, in my opinion - the weakest. -
hobnob53 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 10:46 PM)
Thank you, Oleg. But I have to say I'm a bit puzzled about your criticism of
A Star is Born
:
My issue with both "Star is Born" that they feature a woman who'se been a star for quiet a while, at the end of her film stardom, but we are still supposed to accept them as young girls.
In both versions (1937 and Cukor's 1954 film) the woman rises fairly quickly to stardom while her husband, a longtime actor now on the skids due to booze and brawling, falls. It may all happen a little fast to be wholly credible, but the actress in each hasn't been a successful one for "quite a while" it's actually only been for a relatively short time, maybe a year or so at most, with her stardom just beginning certainly not at its end. So the woman
should
be close to the same age as when we first see her.
You make a point about DeMille, but the fact that he received only one nomination in his entire career makes his lack of nominations kind of
un
remarkable basically the norm, with his lone nod for
Greatest Show
the one notable exception. DeMille was a showman more than a great director; not a single actor in any of his films was ever nominated for an Oscar, which itself is pretty remarkable considering his reputation and success.
Cukor, on the other hand, had five nominations, but not all for his best films, and the one he won was as I said more of a "life achievement" pat on the back than for anything special in his direction. He was a far more critically acclaimed director than DeMille and considering all his highly regarded films it's surprising which ones he was and was not nominated for. -
Oleg123 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 11:19 PM)
sorry, I wasn't clear.
I meant in Star is Born (1954), Garland has been a star for 15 years
In Star is Born (1937), Janet Gaynor has been a star for 10 years.
In both cases it has been closer to end of their star career, Gaynor retired the following year, and for Garland - her next film would be only 7 years later, Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) -
Doghouse-6 — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 08:53 AM)
My issue with both "Star is Born" that they feature a woman who'se been a star for quiet a while, at the end of her film stardom, but we are still supposed to accept them as young girls.
While it's true that both Gaynor and Garland were past 30 at the time of their
Star
s, the 1954 Moss Hart additions to the original Parker/Campbell/Carson screenplay make a point of the length of Esther's singing career in three scenes:
Outside the club:
"Wasting my time? I'm not wasting my time. You don't know how many years it's taken me to get this far. I'm doing fine, Mr. Maine, just great."
In Norman's car:
"Winning a contest on the radiosinging in jointsI can remember my first job singing with a band, and then one-night stands clear across country by busputting on nail polish in the ladies' rooms in gas stationswaiting on tables Wow, that was a low point. I'll never forget it, and I'll never, never do that again. No matter what."
In Esther's apartment with her scrapbook:
"You know about as much about me now as I do myself. But you see how long it's taken me to get this far."
Inasmuch as audiences had more or less watched Garland grow up on the screen, it may well be that cognizance of her age figured into decisions to include such dialogue. Further, Garland's Esther is not the naive, idealistic, fan-magazine-consuming bumpkin that Gaynor portrayed; those passages of dialogue, along with the professionalism, sophistication and even cynicism she displays all indicate a been-around-the-block maturity intentionally written into the character's 1954 incarnation.
Poe! You areavenged! -
Oleg123 — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 11:06 AM)
i see what you are saying, still for me she was unbelievable.
"how many years it took me to get this far" was something Doris Day could have said at age of 24, while still being much younger than Garland (and looking young enough to play her daughter).
Plenty of youn girls worked at 16 and 17, my wife still remembers how one time whe she was 16 she worked whole night at restaraunt washing dishes, doesn't say anything about age.
For me, Garland is very over the top performer (some ppl like, some don't), and the film is just overlong. Haven't seen Streisand version, which I doubt I would like -
Doghouse-6 — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 03:27 PM)
No, of course restaurant work alone says nothing about a person's age; it's merely a part of Hart's skillfully-woven narrative in those three scenes that conveys the ups and downs of Esther's career over time, and is summed up by Danny in a fourth:
"It's taken all these years for you to get with a big-name outfit like Williams. You gonna toss it all in the ashcan?"
If you don't like Garland, you don't. There are a number of performers others love that put me off, and that's just the way things go sometimes.
My point is simply that all these quoted elements indicate that the screenplay goes out of its way to make clear that Garland's Esther is not someone we're "supposed to accept" as a "young girl," even making Garland's own maturity, as both performer and woman, a key aspect of the character she's playing.
Her style as a performer and the film's length are other matters valid enough for subjective judgement, but that maturity is an "issue" that this
Star
, as conceived and executed, puts to rest from the get-go.
Gaynor was portrayed as a dewy-eyed innocent with no more connection to show biz than the movies she sees and magazines she reads, and who goes to Hollywood with nothing more than dreams and determination. But Garland's playing a seasoned pro who has remained a nobody in spite of her talent and years of hard work, until she, as Norman says, recognizes the big chance when it comes along and grabs it.
That's another aspect of the updated screenplay that improves on the original: the first was more of a fairy tale, while the second drives home the realism of even remarkably talented performers toiling for years with little or no recognition.
Poe! You areavenged! -
Oleg123 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 09:51 PM)
very interesting, thanks. I didn't realize Cukor directed most of it.
I've seen the film several times in my childhood, before Imdb or Wikipedia, so I didn't know Cukor directed most of it.
While the real star is List's glorious music, Dirk Bogarde is great usual, Capucine almost steals the show, and nice to see Genevieve Page and Martita Hunt in bigger than usual parts. -
hobnob53 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 10:53 PM)
Next time you see it watch for the title card where the producers thank Cukor. Of course, everybody in the industry, plus critics, knew who directed it but most of the public doesn't know such things. There have been quite a number of instances of a director dying midway through a film and being replaced, and in most cases the replacement director was sympathetic and deferential and declined any credit in order to honor the deceased director by giving him full credit, even if he directed only a small portion of the picture, just as Cukor did with
Song Without End
. But it was rare in such instances for the producers to cite the substitute director for his help, as they did with Cukor in this film. -
Oleg123 — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 07:11 AM)
There have been quite a number of instances of a director dying midway through a film and being replaced, and in most cases the replacement director was sympathetic and deferential and declined any credit in order to honor the deceased director by giving him full credit, even if he directed only a small portion of the picture, just as Cukor did with Song Without End.
Would be interesting to know other such instances -
hobnob53 — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 06:16 PM)
There was a thread around several months ago in which I provided a list of such directors who died in the midst of filming, but it's long since disappeared as shall all these posts in two weeks and of course now that you ask I can only recall five other examples:
A Dandy in A****
(1967) Anthony Mann died in the middle of filming in 1966; the star, Laurence Harvey, stepped in but refused credit.
That Lady in Ermine
(1948) Ernst Lubitsch died after just eight days' filming in 1947 and was replaced by Otto Preminger, who also insisted Lubitsch get sole credit.
The Lost Missile
(1958) B-movie director-producer William A. Berke directed for just one day when he died; his son Lester William Berke replaced him but gave his father sole credit.
The Viking
(1931) Canada's first sound film was being shot in the Arctic when the ship aboard which much of the cast and crew, including director Varick Frissell, were filming abruptly exploded, killing all 26 aboard. The survivors on shore made it home over the ice or were picked up by other vessels. The film was completed b George Melford, who did get credit (I think sole credit), although Frissell remained listed as producer. Very ungracious of Melford.
Such Men Are Dangerous
(1930) Director Kenneth Hawks (brother of Howard) was filming this WWI airborne drama in a airplane over the Pacific off Long Beach on January 2, 1930, when the two planes one with Hawks and the crew, the other the one being filmed collided, apparently due to sun glare. Both planes plunged into the ocean, killing all ten persons aboard both. I don't know who completed the film but apparently Hawks got sole credit. Howard Hawks always claimed his brother would have been a more successful director than he was. Maybe, but I have my doubts.
If I think of any others before IMDb closes shop I'll let you know, Oleg! -
Oleg123 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 11:29 PM)
What amazes me is how or why Cukor didn't receive a nomination for at least some of the following Dinner at Eight, David Copperfield, The Women
Amazing indeed. To be fair director nominations (and wins)for most of the 30s were a bit strange - 1932/33 Cukor was nominated for Little Women, but he could have been nominated for 2 films, Academy back then did it several times for actors, and in 1938 for Michael Curtiz (no Robin Hood wasn't one of them !)
Looking at the list - many notable omissions in the 30s - 1935 has Hathaway for Bengal Lancer, but not Curtiz for Captain Blood, 37 had Dieterle for awful 'Emile Zola' but not Wyler for Dead End, etc.
for 1939 - I agree with nominations of Fleming, Ford, Wyler, Capra - and my only issue is Sam Wood -
rudeboy_murray — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 06:35 PM)
Discounting his uncredited films:
Favourites
The Philadelphia Story
Camille
Holiday
David Copperfield
Liked a lot
A Star is Born
Dinner at Eight
Adam's Rib
Gaslight
Not bad
Les Girls
Born Yesterday
Two-Faced Woman
Little Women
Not so hot
Pat and Mike
My Fair Lady
Of those I haven't seen - too many, of course - The Actress is one that I am particularly keen to watch. -
pad264 — 9 years ago(January 31, 2017 10:06 AM)
I can't say I think too highly of him. I've seen six of his films and none of them have really made an impact on me. Though interestingly enough, my ratings for his films have created a great poker hand
- My Fair Lady 8
- Born Yesterday 7
- Dinner at Eight 6
- Gaslight 5
- The Philadelphia Story 4
- Adam's Rib 3
"My only enemy is time." - Charles Chaplin
http://paulopicks.blogspot.com/