I just got the episodes on netflix and have been watching them. Let me start out by saying that I think that this is a g
-
ecarle — 13 years ago(September 07, 2012 10:18 PM)
It was a glorious time.
A. The fist-fights: Truly a nostalgic novelty now, the idea that at least once or twice and episode, guys were start duking it out(with stunt men usually stepping in for the main actors.) I figure two audiences were being served:- Pre-teen boys. We watched Batman and The Man From UNCLE and The Wild Wild West, and those shows came to life when the fists flew. Primal pre-testosterone was being spent watching these fights.
I recall that "Batman" in its first season would only have a "BAM! POW!" fight between Batman/Robin and the Villain and His Henchmen in the second night's episode of two. But came Season Twoeach night's episode(Wednesday AND Thursday) had a big fight in it. They knew what they wanted. - "Innocent" adults. These were the adult folks watching Peter Gunn and Route 66 and The Law and Mr. Jones and evidentlyHollywood felt that they craved fisticuff action as much as their kids did. They probably did, but we're more rough and sophisticated nowa gratuitous fistfight doesn't work on a "realistic" TV show.
The show I single out for fist fights was: Burke's Law. Gene Barry's millionaire policeman would solve a whodunnit, and if the revealed-killer was maleyou could bet on a fistfight, sometimes to the death(of the killer.) If the killer was a femalethere was a gratutious fistfight between Burke and a male early in the show. "One per episode," guaranteed.
Like I say, I kind of miss these fistfights. They were too much of fantasy to be too "violent." Modernly, the world of CSI and Law and Order Sex Crimes and the like, we're awash in gore and grue and sexual torture and I saybring back the fistfights.
B. Death of Villains. Fifties/sixties TV shows were not particularly bloody and graphic in their violence, but Congress eventually decided that they were too dependent on the hero always KILLING the villain to end the story. TV network heads were called before committees and scolded. The movement shifted toarresting villains. Maybe wounding them.
Ah, I guess.
I must admit, one goes back and watches a Peter Gunn or a Wild, Wild, West where the bad guy usually dies andit looks pretty brutal today.
There was one Peter Gunn I saw about 20 years ago(not on DVD recently) that ended in a Chinese restaurant with Gunn shooting someone dead and somebody(Gunn?) throwing a meat cleaver into a bad guy's back. Violent, baby. But no blood.
- Pre-teen boys. We watched Batman and The Man From UNCLE and The Wild Wild West, and those shows came to life when the fists flew. Primal pre-testosterone was being spent watching these fights.
-
telegonus — 13 years ago(September 08, 2012 12:35 PM)
True, EC, and yet it was a strangely innocent time for TV
despite
all that violence, balanced by the Disney show,
Lassie, National Velvet, My Three Sons, McHale's Navy
, even legal shows like
The Defenders
and
Perry Mason
seldom (ever?) featured
seriously
violence scenes. Heck, the Three Stooges were controversial because of their violence and many parents groups wanted their old shorts banned or edited (but then they were pretty violent).
I remember
Burke's Law
, well but not the fisticuffs. The Hitchcock shows and most anthologies were less violent, it seems. Were the Warners detective series violent? I can't remember. My sense is that
Batman
with its
parodying
of TV violence was a factor in its decline. Never again could a show feature a fistfight of the week without reminding the viewer of Batman and Robin, with those "Bams" and "Pows". To return to
Peter Gunn
, its violent scenes tended to be stylish and relatively brief. Not quite comic relief it anticipated
Batman
in its not taking itself too seriousy for several years. -
ecarle — 13 years ago(September 09, 2012 03:30 PM)
True, EC, and yet it was a strangely innocent time for TV despite all that violence, balanced by the Disney show, Lassie, National Velvet, My Three Sons, McHale's Navy, even legal shows like The Defenders and Perry Mason seldom (ever?) featured seriously violence scenes. Heck, the Three Stooges were controversial because of their violence and many parents groups wanted their old shorts banned or edited (but then they were pretty violent).
The Stooges were probably considered ultra-violent for TV in the sixties. I can see where some would want them banned "just because."
As for the "nicely" innocent shows, they were certainly there. TV was a more innocent medium, America a more innocent country(even as very bloody wars and riots were commencing). And most of the "nicest" shows(and the primetime cartoons like Flintstones and Jetsons) were for the back end of the infamous Baby Booomer kids.)
I rather wrestle with the word "innocent"(my word) about the fistfight scenes, and I tread a tight line here: I perhaps mean the innocence(naivete?) of the adult home viewer at the time, who would accept matters being settled with fistfights as entertainment. Its a kind of childish sentiment, and all those fistfight scenes seem rather silly now(particularly as later generations came to understand the REAL, bloody, potentially lethal aspects of a fistfight.)
I remember Burke's Law, well but not the fisticuffs.
I would add that the fisticuff climaxes were mainly in the second of its two seasons. The first year Burke generally just arrested the whodunnit killer, or briefly subdued them with an armhold or something. I guess somebody at ABC said: "For the second season, we need fistfights on Burke's Law."
I recall one where the killer was Ricardo Montalban, working on his exercise bicycle in a private gym as Burke gave him "the run down on how I know you did it."
Burke: You're under arrest for murder. My backup squad is on their way.
Montalban: "On their way?" "On their way?" They aren't here then. A mistake, Mr. Burke.
Cue the fistfight all over the gym(barbells, weights, etc.)
The Hitchcock shows and most anthologies were less violent, it seems. Were the Warners detective series violent? I can't remember.
Yes, they were. A few years ago, one cable channel ran "77 Sunset Strip," "Hawaiian Eye," "Bourbon Street Beat" and I was amused by all the fistfight scenes, practically like clockwork, always with stunt men suddenly replacing the actors, resembling them little.
(Note in passing: in the late 90's, I am certain that the writers of "Saturday Night Live" saw or knew of these "fistfight shows" because they had producer Lorne Michaels and guest host Ben Stiller face off for a confrontation (with thriller music) and begin a big fist fight, played entirely, after a cutaway shot, by young stunt men who looked nothing like Michaels or Stiller at all, as the TV thriller music played along. I loved it it was such a "throwback" sketch.)
My sense is that Batman with its parodying of TV violence was a factor in its decline. Never again could a show feature a fistfight of the week without reminding the viewer of Batman and Robin, with those "Bams" and "Pows".
Well, I guess "Batman" was mainly for kids, though they got some great actors to play the Guest Villains(George Sanders, Tallulah Bankhead, Victor Buono). So Bam and Pow was meant to reference comic book violence. But yeah, it was kind of a swan song for fistfights.
"Batman" reportedly killed off ANOTHER show prematurely: "The Man From UNCLE" was ordered, for its third season to "be more like Batman"both with more fistfights and more camp, more "Special Guest Villain" types, and even Nelson Riddle giving "UNCLE" the same kind of music he gave "Batman." This reportedly lost "The Man From UNCLE" adult and collegiate viewers. An attempt to "toughen up" in Season Four met with mid-season cancellation. (Replacement: Number One hippie hit "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In.")
To return to Peter Gunn, its violent scenes tended to be stylish and relatively brief. Not quite comic relief it anticipated Batman in its not taking itself too seriousy for several years.
The Mancini music and Craig Stevens(like Gene "Burke's Law" Barrya "Cary Grant clone") kept the fights sophisticated, I think. And "Peter Gunn" was a bit ahead of the 60's model, more of a fifties holdover.
Some related trivia:- A cable channel ran reruns of a 1960 series called "Johnny Staccato" a few years ago. It was clearly a "Peter Gunn" homage jazz, cool detective(John Cassavetes!), music club HQ, half hour violent plots. Didn't lastI think because Cassavetes was a bit too dangerous an actor for a TV private eye lead.
- In the midst of his "big movie career" in the sixties, after Tiffany's, Days of Wine and Roses, two Pink Panthers and The Great Race, Blake Edwards brought Peter Gunn to the big screen with the feature film "Gunn,"(1967) which got a good "auteur" review of Blake Edwards from Andrew Sarris and which
-
telegonus — 13 years ago(September 10, 2012 04:07 PM)
Well, the Stooges appeared to young children so I guess that's why they were so controversial. Two TV memories of that time: I recall hearing and reading that the dramatic series
Bus Stop
was violent and that the producers were under pressure from the FCC to change its content (or some such), which struck me as odd since never having seen the show it sounded so "innocuous", as in "how can a show about a bus stop be so controversial?". I was only about nine at the time.
Locally:
One Step Beyond
nearly got taken off the air in Boston due to extensive protests from local parents that it was giving their children nightmares. This was after its first network run, when it was shown early in the evenings in reruns. I used to watch it and it did creep me out. Most of the kids in the neighborhood were fans and indeed it frightened us more than most shows, but nightmares? I doubt it. It was strong stuff, though.
Last night I caught two
Peter Gunn
episodes, both good, with the first, set in Chinatown, concerning the theft of a fan and the murder of a shopkeeper, was excellent, highly atmospheric, and the murder, shown early on, was actually quite shocking. The series was best in these kinds of offbeat episodes set in strange places (or should I write "strange"?) such as Chinatowns. Strange to most viewers then. Also, country estates, waterfront dives, jazz clubs, fancy restaurants, museums, art galleries and the like. A surprising number of episodes
aren not
set in such places. Before I began to watch it again on MeTV my memories of the series was that nearly
all
episodes were set in such places. A fair number of entries are just crime thrillers with nothing special as to their settings.
I've yet to see
Johnny Staccato
, which I've heard great things about and which has a cult following. My sense is that it was far grittier than
Peter Gunn
[, more realistic.
Burke's Law
was sort of a Four Star (production company) follow-up to
PG
after the latter left the air, hour long, it seemed ( but probably wasn't) bigger budgeted. It certainly featured pricey guest casts and, like
Gunn
, featured a "playboy detective" as the lead. To the best of my recollection Amos Burke didn't have a "steady" like Evie on
PG
. He was closer to a small screen Hugh Hefner type of guy who just
happened
to be a police detective. The supporting regulars weren't so colorful as those on
PG
. I like Regis Toomey but he was no Herschel Bernardi, let alone Hope Emerson. The guest stars put it over and the writing was good. I really liked the episode titles, too. They featured great names.
Who Killed Snooky Martinelli?
is a special favorite of mine. The title, I mean.
Another series from that period that was extremely violent was
Cain's Hundred
, which featured Mark Richman in the lead. I remember its first episode, and indeed it was very violent. Richman had a typical career as a middling TV guest star, sometimes villain, other times not. His small screen career was similar to Brad Dillman's and pre-
5-0
's Jack Lord and pre-
I Spy
's Robert Culp. Richman wasn't particular good looking,he was rather diablical looking, I thinkwhich is probably what held him back. Also, unlike, say, Peter Falk, also not handsome, Richman didn't have a "schtick", acted like a leading man, not a character actor, thus he didn't stand out, had no "familiar mannerisms" for viewers to remember him for. He would have been wise to have taken lessons from Falk and others like him, who lucked out as character stars later on. -
ecarle — 13 years ago(September 13, 2012 06:38 AM)
Well, the Stooges appeared to young children so I guess that's why they were so controversial.
Yes, that's true. Their violence and meanness actually seems best suited to the tough teen/college male, out for a nasty laugh of physical pain.
On the other hand, the "kids movie" "Home Alone" struck paydirt with its long final sequence of burglars Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern getting smacked and burned with all manner of means by that little kidmeans that would kill the crooks in real life. It was all very Stoogian in the laughs derived from really painful violence.
Two TV memories of that time: I recall hearing and reading that the dramatic series Bus Stop was violent and that the producers were under pressure from the FCC to change its content (or some such), which struck me as odd since never having seen the show it sounded so "innocuous", as in "how can a show about a bus stop be so controversial?". I was only about nine at the time.
I've read that one particular episode directed by Robert Altman(soon to direct MASH) was the really violent one and was attacked, maybe pulled from re-broadcast. I guess "Bus Stop" did different anthology stories ata bus stop. Anyway, this was Altman's pre-MASH claim to fame.
Locally: One Step Beyond nearly got taken off the air in Boston due to extensive protests from local parents that it was giving their children nightmares. This was after its first network run, when it was shown early in the evenings in reruns. I used to watch it and it did creep me out. Most of the kids in the neighborhood were fans and indeed it frightened us more than most shows, but nightmares? I doubt it. It was strong stuff, though.
I'm not sure any horror movie or TV show ever "gave me nightmares." I seem to conjure them up from other sources, not by going to bed after seeing the show. Now a few horror movies kept me from falling asleep that night.
On the other hand, I still recall that radio ad in LA for Psycho on TV: "See the movie that gave the entire nation nightmares: Psycho." I guess?Last night I caught two Peter Gunn episodes, both good, with the first, set in Chinatown, concerning the theft of a fan and the murder of a shopkeeper, was excellent, highly atmospheric, and the murder, shown early on, was actually quite shocking. The series was best in these kinds of offbeat episodes set in strange places (or should I write "strange"?) such as Chinatowns. Strange to most viewers then. Also, country estates, waterfront dives, jazz clubs, fancy restaurants, museums, art galleries and the like. A surprising number of episodes aren not set in such places. Before I began to watch it again on MeTV my memories of the series was that nearly all episodes were set in such places. A fair number of entries are just crime thrillers with nothing special as to their settings.
Maybe the "strange" setting episodes were made for "Sweeps month" ratings spectaculars?
Mother's Club, where Gunn hung out and got businesswas it near the waterfront? Seemed to me maybe it was.
I've yet to see Johnny Staccato, which I've heard great things about and which has a cult following. My sense is that it was far grittier than Peter Gunn[, more realistic.
Yes..but also very similar in production values. They ran it for a whole summer a few years ago, and I watched it. I would reaffirm that John Cassavetes just seemed too rough and edgy to carry a show about a private eye. He was a fine movie actor with a sullen, surlly edgebut not TV lead material.
Burke's Law was sort of a Four Star (production company) follow-up to PG after the latter left the air, hour long, it seemed ( but probably wasn't) bigger budgeted. It certainly featured pricey guest casts and, like Gunn, featured a "playboy detective" as the lead.
And it started as a stand-alone episode of "The Dick Powell Theater," with Powell as Amos Burke. I think he was considering starring in "Burke's Law," but cancer took him and it became a Gene Barry vehicle.
To the best of my recollection Amos Burke didn't have a "steady" like Evie on PG.
That's right. Indeed, every week he had a DIFFERENT girlfriend. One of the shows many gimmicks is that Burke would get the call on the show's murder usually at his mansion while romancing his latest gorgeous pursuer(many soon to be famous TV females had these roleslike the gal who played Mary Ann on Gilligan's Island).
He was closer to a small screen Hugh Hefner type of guy who just happened to be a police detective.
And a multi-millionaire. That was the conceit: he lived in a mansion and tooled around in a Rolls Royce with Asian chauffeurbut had come up through the Police Academy to be a police captain! I often wondereddid the millionaire have to do a few years in a patrol car? Or walking a beat? Sheer fantasy.
The supporting regulars weren't so colorful as those on PG. I like Regis Toomey but he was no Herschel Bernardi, let alone Hope Emerson.
Barry was the center of everything. He was bookended by Regis Toomey as the Old C -
telegonus — 13 years ago(September 13, 2012 02:46 PM)
That was a different time, too, EC; regarding the Stooges, I mean. Children's television back then was, for the most part gentle, with very few exceptions (Soupy Sales comes to mind). The Stooges were ultra-violent comics even for grownups, and parents, accustomed to seeing their kids watch things like Disney's show, Howdy Doody, the various westerns or semi-westerns, some featuring animals, such as
Rin Tin-Tin
, others offering near super-heroes in the form of the Lone Ranger, the Range Rider, Sky King and others like them. Then there was Superman, which featured some violence, but mild, cleaned up for kids. By these standards, the Three Stooges were quite shocking indeed.
To return to violence on the small screen: I wonder if the Sexual Revolution had something to do with its ebbing after 1965. Prior to 1966 one almost never saw a woman, let alone a teenage girl, in a two piece bathing suit. Belly buttons on females were largely
verboten
on the tube (there had been a ban in feature films, too, but that was lifted a few years earlier, but not
that much
earlier). Pushing the envelope,there must have been another terms for thatsort of switched, as I recall, from violence and action to sex. Not hard core, just suggestions. They were there on
Burke's Law
, mostly by suggestion, with Amos Burke always just "making out" with the babe on the sofa, with no suggestion (to a young child) that grownups went any further than that
. To little ones that's what sex was
: making out.
Later on,
I Spy
featured some babes, often Asian or foreign, so I guess that was okay. I don't remember too many hot babes on
The Man From UNCLE
but I'm sure they were there (I only really cared for it its first season). Then, bit by bit, the damn burst; not overnight, but it did. I think that the bikini clad Goldie Hawn and Judy Carne on
Laugh-In
got the ball rolling, after which scenes of scantily clad females, often college age and teens, were becoming commonplace, especially on movies of the week, some of which, as I remember, were quite literally erotic, in a feature film sense that was closer to the European mainstream than the American one, which surprised (and delighted) me. Your typical Duke Wayne or Dean Martin or Frank Sinatra picture were more conservative, with the likes of Jill St. John or Stella Stevens in a bikini, a lot of suggestion and smirking, but of the sort aimed at
way
pre-Boomer grownups. Great for guys over thirty and forty; nothing special for teenage boys and college students of our generation.
Stephen King's
Danse Macabre
is excellent, though I often find myself disagreeing with his aesthetic, if that's the word for it. Tastes is maybe a better way to put it. As I recall (I haven't looked at it in a while), he was very "state of the art" oriented when it came to films and television, didn't care at all for Hollywood "fakery", which is to say the obvious use of back lots instead of real locations; the artifice of the studio age, as opposed to the greater realism of the post-1970 period. I found that a bit odd since he was also a big old-time radio fan, thus capable of being enchanted by art/entertainment of another era, another kind; one that requires more imagination. Still, it's a good book, and it represents a breakthrough of sorts for classic movie lovers given King's enormous popularity and his love for old horror films. King's writings on
Thriller
probably helped revive interest in the series. All for the good, in my opinion. He was tough on
The Twilight Zone
, which he often seemed to be damning with faint praise; and he was very good at it.
Mark Richman was one of probably literally dozens of leading men (or would be leading men) who never made it on the small screen, let alone the big one. He did better than most. Of that group I'm fond of the two Rons, Hayes and Foster, though the former at least had his own series of a season. Then there were Don Dubbins, Linden Chiles and so many others. Most were good for a guest shot or two on
Bonanza
or
The Untouchables
, those big network shows; but they were billed as at best guest stars (if that), not
special
guest stars like Michael Rennie, Barbara Rush or Rip Torn. Indeed, the character actors did so much better; and in most cases they were a few years older than the better looking leading men. So many of them lucked out, even ugly duckling Telly Savalas. Carroll O'Connor, rather a second stringer among character actors, really lucked out with
All In the Family
. Jack Weston, never a star, did alright for himself. Some, like Charles Bronson, Lees Marvin and Van Cleef, made it on the big screen, including your fave, Walter Matthau. Yet based on looks and age who would have guessed circa 1963 that the then hot Richard Chamberlin, Vince Edwards amd George Maharis, to name just three, would damn near be off the radar screen ten years later (Chamblerin would soon become king of the mini-series), while many actors often billed way down the cast lists of their series w -
ecarle — 13 years ago(September 14, 2012 08:27 PM)
That was a different time, too, EC; regarding the Stooges, I mean. Children's television back then was, for the most part gentle, with very few exceptions (Soupy Sales comes to mind).
AhSoupy Sales. Hilarious to me in my kidhoodand pretty hip when I watched him on VHS years later. The way he would talk to, basicallytwo gloves with animal hands on them(the nice "White Fang" and the mean and incomprehensible "Black Tooth"). A slight Bill Cosby slur to his voice. And of coursea pie in the face.
At his kids' urging, Frank Sinatra went on "Soupy Sales" to get a pie in the face. He took Sammy Davis Jr. andTrini Lopez(Dino refused.)
Time Magazine Critic Richard Corliss devastated a modern day movie star for me recently when he wrote that current so-so star Gerard Butler looksjust like Soupy Sales. Corliss is an old guy who would remember Soupy and he has RUINED Gerard Butler for me.
The Stooges were ultra-violent comics even for grownups, and parents, accustomed to seeing their kids watch things like Disney's show, Howdy Doody,
Yes. It remains odd to me that the Stooges flourished at ALL, given the hard core violence and meanness at the heart of their act. I'm not sure who their "peer" audience was at the time of their releasethe college crowd got hip much later.
There was also plenty of violence in the Bugs Bunny cartoons, of course. Sylvester would try to eat Tweety Bird and get the holy crap beat out of him by a Big Dog called Spike or something. Wile E. Coyote nuff said. Daffy Duckfamously blowing himself up in "a trick you can only do once."
Hilarious. And with some of the greatest violent sound effects in film history.the various westerns or semi-westerns, some featuring animals,
I sometimes catch for a moment or so, Gene Autry reruns, and I recall Sky King and Roy Rogers and.talk about innocence. Here were life and death Western thrillers in which everybody just seemed so NICE and harmless. Much more inclined to sing than to fight.
Not hard core, just suggestions. They were there on Burke's Law, mostly by suggestion, with Amos Burke always just "making out" with the babe on the sofa, with no suggestion (to a young child) that grownups went any further than that . To little ones that's what sex was : making out.
Yeah. I think so. TV kept things quite chaste but I went to a few movies with the parents and determined that if I was lucky when I grew up, I would get to lie in a bed with a girl and kiss her a lot. And that's all that seemed to be going on.
Some polling was done in the mid-sixties and evidently it turned out that shows like "The Man From UNCLE" and "The Wild Wild West" were mainly loved by pre-teen boysthat famously movie-mad age group. These shows had sexy women and articulate villains and were often written at an "adult" level, but I think, maybe, the makers KNEW that they weren't really entertaining adultsbut rather giving pre-teens a taste of the sex and violence to come in their lives(the violence intended to be the draft, and war). I wasn't much of a fan, but "Star Trek" played this way too..Captain Kirk got plenty o' babes(though sometimes they were green or blue), and punched his way to peace.Later on, I Spy featured some babes, often Asian or foreign, so I guess that was okay. I don't remember too many hot babes on The Man From UNCLE but I'm sure they were there (I only really cared for it its first season).
The first season WAS the bestblack and white, with the famous theme song done "Bernard Herrmann mod and thunderous" by Jerry Goldsmith and semi-serious plots. Then came a rather steady decline into mod silliness. The theme song got jazz and rock treatments, and they were coolbut they weren't "movie-ish" like Season One.
Then, bit by bit, the damn burst; not overnight, but it did. I think that the bikini clad Goldie Hawn and Judy Carne on Laugh-In got the ball rolling, after which scenes of scantily clad females, often college age and teens, were becoming commonplace, especially on movies of the week, some of which, as I remember, were quite literally erotic, in a feature film sense that was closer to the European mainstream than the American one, which surprised (and delighted) me.
Such a time to come of age. The "R" rating at the movies, all those bikini babes on TV. I recall a TV Guide ad for a movie called "Hit Woman" (I think), with an aged but still nice Yvette Mimeux in a bikini pointing a gun. And then came "jiggle TV": Charlies Angels, Threes Company. I don't know though. I like some steak to go with that sizzle.
Your typical Duke Wayne or Dean Martin or Frank Sinatra picture were more conservative, with the likes of Jill St. John or Stella Stevens in a bikini, a lot of suggestion and smirking, but of the sort aimed at way pre-Boomer grownups. Great for guys over thirty and forty; nothing special for teenage boys and college students of our generation.
I take a LITTLE umbrage regarding Misses St. John and Stevensthey filled those bikinis pretty well a -
ecarle — 13 years ago(September 14, 2012 09:07 PM)
Stephen King's Danse Macabre is excellent, though I often find myself disagreeing with his aesthetic, if that's the word for it. Tastes is maybe a better way to put it. As I recall (I haven't looked at it in a while), he was very "state of the art" oriented when it came to films and television, didn't care at all for Hollywood "fakery", which is to say the obvious use of back lots instead of real locations; the artifice of the studio age, as opposed to the greater realism of the post-1970 period.
I haven't read it in a long time, but it was a nice, quick, comprehensive run through horror media in all its forms: short story, novel, TV, moviesand indeed, radio.
I think your take on King's take is about right. In his overview of "horror on American TV" his pretty good point was that heavy TV censorship prevented horror from ever BEING "real horror" on TV. (I guess at Exorcist levels; today we have the grue of "American Horro Story," but that's on cable.)
He found "Psycho" no more violent than a TV movie except for the shower scene. But he did cede the overall terror of the film AFTER ths shower scene set-up for suspense. (I rarely saw a TV movie scene with the brutality and sheer stylistic panache of the Arbogast murder. In factI never did.)
He covered "Psycho" mainly as per the Robert Bloch book(being a novelist himself) and traced Norman Bates back to the "werewolf" tradition in horror. (Just as he traced James Arness' "The Thing" to Frankenstein's Monster.")
A brief reference to "Family Plot": "A Thanksgiving Turkey." I disagree.
I found that a bit odd since he was also a big old-time radio fan, thus capable of being enchanted by art/entertainment of another era, another kind; one that requires more imagination.
His radio chapter is great, especially a listen to "Arch Oboler" a radio scare meister. King wrote about a sounds-great Oboler radio play in which a dental patient is STRAPPED into the chair by the dentist, who reveals he is the husband of the patient's lover, and now "I'm going to take this drill and let out a bit of loverboy." Sound of a dental drill. Wrote King: "I always wondered WHERE the dentist let out some of loverboy."
Also: "Mars is Heaven." Astronauts go to Mars and find it an All-American heaven of sweet moms and apple pie and green lawnsuntil nightat which all this "front" dissolves and the Martians are revealed as monsters. All in our imagination.
Still, it's a good book, and it represents a breakthrough of sorts for classic movie lovers given King's enormous popularity and his love for old horror films. King's writings on Thriller probably helped revive interest in the series. All for the good, in my opinion. He was tough on The Twilight Zone, which he often seemed to be damning with faint praise; and he was very good at it.It was tortuous reading King's chapter on Thriller, The Outer Limits, and The Twilight Zone when only Zone was really available to watch. But soon they all came back on cable or DVD, and King's writings were "borne out" on Thriller. (Which, in King's estimation, WAS truly "real horror" a few times..before the censors changed TV.)
Mark Richman was one of probably literally dozens of leading men (or would be leading men) who never made it on the small screen, let alone the big one. He did better than most. Of that group I'm fond of the two Rons, Hayes and Foster, though the former at least had his own series of a season. Then there were Don Dubbins, Linden Chiles and so many others.
I love your "collectivism" of "small" male TV names, telegonus, and cheers I know who all of those guys were. I recall a mean TV Guide article that said an actor named Burr DeBenning had the "lowest TV Q"(id) of any actor. And I knew who HE was.
But I lack your comprehensive working knowledge of their actual WORK.
Most were good for a guest shot or two on Bonanza or The Untouchables, those big network shows; but they were billed as at best guest stars (if that), not special guest stars like Michael Rennie, Barbara Rush or Rip Torn. Indeed, the character actors did so much better; and in most cases they were a few years older than the better looking leading men. So many of them lucked out, even ugly duckling Telly Savalas.
Your point here is very interesting, and I'll hazard a guess, at least about males. Most of us males are NOT square-jawed and handsome. And so we react against a John Gavin or a Frederick Stafford. For a handsome leading man to really "rise," he's got to have some other things going: Cary Grant with his great voice and super-handsome looks, yes but also grumpiness and vulnerability. Gary Cooper with his sheer height and size and quietude.
James Garner rose out of his traditional good looks with a wry voice and a great comic mannerplus some mean danger when required. But he faded back from movies to TV, unable to beat the handsome guy curse.
Meanwhile, us "regular guys" CAN gravitate to charismatic guys who don't quite have the perfect looks or trim -
telegonus — 13 years ago(September 17, 2012 01:34 PM)
I'm still time strapped but caught a couple of good
PG
episdes last night: one was a revenge take with Marc Lawrence as the bad guy and a climax on a merry go round clearly inspired by
Strangers On a Train
except that there were only two people on it. A
It's a fun show to watch, especially when it featured characters that seem out of the Victorian era,a reality back thenoften spinsters or eccentric families that dress up "old-fashioned", drive, if at all, in old Packards and Pierce Arrows, speak formally in usually quasi-British accents. -
ecarle — 13 years ago(September 18, 2012 06:16 AM)
I'm still time strapped but caught a couple of good PG episdes last night: one was a revenge take with Marc Lawrence as the bad guy and a climax on a merry go round clearly inspired by Strangers On a Train except that there were only two people on it. A
Marc Lawrence was one of the great "uglies" in bad-guydom. I know he had a bigger career as a younger ugly in the forties/fifties, but I recall him in his later years as a kind of anachronism in 1971's "Diamonds Are Forever" as the mobster who throws James Bond's newest ladyfriend out a Vegas hotel window into a swimming pool ("Good aim," says Connery to Lawrence; "I didn't know there was a pool down there," answers Lawrence) and as one of old Nazi Laurence Olivier's two henchmen in "Marathon Man"(a tough killer who nonetheless turns away in disgust when Olivier goes to work on Dustin Hoffman's teeth with the dental tools.)
It's a fun show to watch, especially when it featured characters that seem out of the Victorian era,a reality back thenoften spinsters or eccentric families that dress up "old-fashioned", drive, if at all, in old Packards and Pierce Arrows, speak formally in usually quasi-British accents.
The relativity of time is its own weird thing, isn't it? Movies and TV shows of the 50's have a real "quaint" element that reflects the fact that some of the old folks watching them may well have been born inthe 1880's. Hitchcock was a spring chicken with an 1899 birthdate.
And, conversely indeed, Victorian characters(old ones or perhaps their arrested-development adult offspring) could appear on these shows.
This Victoriana sounded most in Hitchcock's "Psycho," in which (following some descriptive passages in Robert Bloch's source novel), much of the house in general and Mother's Bedroom in particular are "of another era entirely, but preserved today." -
telegonus — 13 years ago(September 18, 2012 03:20 PM)
Marc Lawrence lost his menace when he got older. He was a sinister looking guy when young, then he got blacklisted, worked mostly abroad, and by the time he returned he was just an ugly older looking guy.
As to the Victorian business, well, when
Peter Gunn
and the Hitchcock half-hour were in first run the Edwardian era, like the age of Victoria but a little different, was closer in time than we are today to those shows. In other words, shave fifty-three years off a 1959
PG
or Hitch show and it's 1906, six years before the
Titanic
sank!
I remember those Victorian homes and their old ladies on the porch, just starting wear their shawls this time of years. Indeed, the interior of those homes was very like the Bates house, which I've always found strangely,how to put this?inviting
. To my eye, that big house on the hill has a cozy familiarity to it, and, were I able to go back in time to visit the motel, if I didn't know better, I'd half-expect Mrs Bates to be just another old lady, crankier than usual, not dangerous at all. Even with all the horror movie trappings,the rainstorm, the clouds moving ominously behind the housethe setting of
Psycho
is really no scarier than your friendly neighborhood cemetery on Halloween, or a Halloween party staged for kids at the nearby elementary school.
Ah, but this is the
Peter Gunn
board! The show was cool and stylish and yet it did, like
psycho
, channel horror or at least old dark house stories, every few episodes. Indeed, Mother's place is strange and mysterious, a waterfront "dive" (but not really) for hipsters, jazz fans, the odd and the eccentric. It might look scary to what they used to call "squares", especially the street outside, but to hip people it was a neat place to go to, enjoy a few drinks, listen to some jazz, "people watch". I remember a few like that from when I was young, including some diners that didn't serve alcohol, in some
very
rundown city neighborhoods, that were great places to eat late at night, and also a nice way to watch some very offbeat people in their element, so to speak. -
ecarle — 13 years ago(September 18, 2012 09:27 PM)
To my eye, that big house on the hill has a cozy familiarity to it, and, were I able to go back in time to visit the motel, if I didn't know better, I'd half-expect Mrs Bates to be just another old lady, crankier than usual, not dangerous at all.
Indeed. This is partially the reason why Arbogast could mount the hill to that house and likely not realize that he was in a horror movie. It is a very "comfortable and accessible" kind of Victoriana. Hitchcock told Truffaut that this kind of house was actually quite common in rural California(and San Francisco) in 1960.
Even with all the horror movie trappings,the rainstorm, the clouds moving ominously behind the housethe setting of Psycho is really no scarier than your friendly neighborhood cemetery on Halloween, or a Halloween party staged for kids at the nearby elementary school.
It feels that way TODAY. I think in 1960, the accumulation of perverse horror actually built up to real terror shower scene, clean-up scene, staircase murder, fruit cellar.
BUTtodayit is a rather cozy film indeed. Not THAT scary. And it creates one one critic called "a lurking nostalgia for evil."
Ah, but this is the Peter Gunn board!
Sure, but we bring our "Psycho" magic whereever we go and "Psycho" WAS contemporary to "Peter Gunn."
Indeed, in the many Gunn episodes I watched, a suspect being interrogated by Gunn would often say:
Suspect: That's all I have to say to you. You're not the police. I don't HAVE to talk to you. Scram.
Whereas in Psycho we get:
Norman: I didn't think the police went looking for people who AREN'T in trouble.
Private Eye Arbogast: But I'm not the police.
And later:
Norman: Mr. Arbogast, I think I've talked to you all I want to. And I think it would be much better if you would leave.
Which is another way of saying: "That's all I have to say to you. You're not the police. I don't HAVE to talk to you. Scram."
(Which is why Arbogast tries a bluff about coming back with a warrant.)
Not to mention: I've always felt that stocky,short and plainish Martin Balsam may have been Hitchcock's "realistic spoof" ON Peter Gunn, and the 77 Sunset Strip cool guys. Wanna see what a REAL private eye looks like? Hitchcock was saying: behold Arbogast.
The show was cool and stylish and yet it did, like psycho, channel horror or at least old dark house stories, every few episodes. Indeed, Mother's place is strange and mysterious, a waterfront "dive" (but not really) for hipsters, jazz fans, the odd and the eccentric. It might look scary to what they used to call "squares", especially the street outside, but to hip people it was a neat place to go to, enjoy a few drinks, listen to some jazz, "people watch".
I would here like to raise a "childhood memory" of that time in TV. Unlike today when you've got 500 cable channels on HD with stereophonic sound, back then, there were really only three networks and, depending on the town, maybe a few independent channels.
So TV was a much more "lonely medium," and a prime-time-late-night show like "Peter Gunn" would kind of play out in the quietude of 50's/60's b/w TV. Maybe in a darkened living room, the light gray light of the broadcast image the only light.
Its a "feeling" that is hard to replicate in words.
I remember a few like that from when I was young, including some diners that didn't serve alcohol, in some very rundown city neighborhoods, that were great places to eat late at night, and also a nice way to watch some very offbeat people in their element, so to speak.
Yeah, I think I found a few like that. They are very interesting if you stay wary and watchful for "problem patrons" before they explode. -
telegonus — 13 years ago(September 19, 2012 10:46 AM)
Thanks, EC. I didn't mean to imply that
Psycho
was as a movie comfy and safe feeling but rather that its ambiance was, until Marion gets killed in the shower. After that there's nothing cozy about it. In this respect the first half-hour or forty-five minutes, while they have their dark moments, such as Marion's dealings with the highway cop and Charlie, I suppose Cassidy and his money, is prosaic and easy to take till the shower scene.
Peter Gunn
did play out in its own zone, and that zone has been lost due to all TV shows being made in color and the tendency to films TV series in real place, thus Mother's would probably be, today, a real bar somewhere in L.A., "borrowed" for a TV show rather than a standing set on a studio back lot. I could have sworn that a scene in one of the
PG
's I saw last weekend was set in Mrs Bates; bedroom. It had a similar shape and size, and the bed was or appeared to be the same, but not enough happened in it for me to be sure. The time was right (1959) and that master bedroom may well have already been a Universal standing set made over for
Psycho
shortly thereafter.
There was also a drive down a Uni suburban street in which a very Bates-like house was plainly visible, cupolas and all, but it was just a shot lasting less than ten seconds. They seemed to have moved sets around back then, including exertior sets. Some
Psycho
players have turned up in various episodes of
PG
, including John Anderson, who was a semi-regular for a while, sort of a fill-in Jacobi. Jeanette Nolan was in an episode a week or so ago, playing an aging spinster in a murder tale that had
Psycho
aspects to it and a very
Psycho
-like setting.
I'm trying to think of other TV series that might have been an influence on
Psycho
stylistically and/or thematically. The one that comes to mind first, naturally, is Hitchcock's half-hour show. More genteel than
Psycho
, it channeled a retro mood quite often, though it seldom turned to straight horror. That would come with the hour long Hitchcock show, definitely an offshoot of
Psycho
. -
ecarle — 13 years ago(September 21, 2012 07:56 AM)
Thanks, EC. I didn't mean to imply that Psycho was as a movie comfy and safe feeling but rather that its ambiance was, until Marion gets killed in the shower. After that there's nothing cozy about it.
A hard call, for me. In its day, nothing cozy about it. But now, through the nostalgia towards 1960 and because "Psycho" DOES pull its horror punchesthat house DOES seem kinda cozy to me.
One of my "stray thoughts" about Psycho is that if one were a lone MALE traveller say a travelling salesman who checked in at the Bates Motel and found Norman reading on the motel porch, you might be able to have a great, amiable, friendly conversation with Norman. Notice how pleasant he is in his initial chit-chat with Arbogast before it becomes a quasi-interrogation.
Lonely Norman might ENJOY a male visitor sitting on the porch and shooting the breeze.
Cozy.
In this respect the first half-hour or forty-five minutes, while they have their dark moments, such as Marion's dealings with the highway cop and Charlie, I suppose Cassidy and his money, is prosaic and easy to take till the shower scene.
A bit, but I find those first 30 minutes or so oddly unnerving, "off-kilter." Especially Cassidy he's creepy.
There is something "nightmarish" about the first 30 of "Psycho" to me in the very REAL way that a nightmare feels, NOT abstract and wild, but as if the real world is just "off" in some way(and the cop AND "California Charlie" ARE "off.")
I just saw "The Birds" this week on the big screen and I was taken by how lackadaisical ITS first 30 minutes or so areeverything was much more odd and creepy in the "normal" beginning of "Psycho." Maybe the b/w photography helped. Probably the casting of menacing Mort Mills and Lincolnsque John Anderson.
Peter Gunn did play out in its own zone, and that zone has been lost due to all TV shows being made in color and the tendency to films TV series in real place, thus Mother's would probably be, today, a real bar somewhere in L.A., "borrowed" for a TV show rather than a standing set on a studio back lot.
Yep. "Peter Gunn" harkens to a time in television when "everything was shot on the backlot" and viewers were invited to suspend their disbelief when the same "downtown street" and same houses showed up in different locales every week.
There is this "street alley with an arch over it" on the Universal backlot that I SWEAR was used for scenes in EVERY 60's Universal contemporary show Ironside, Name of the Game, McCloud. You'd see the arch and chuckle..oh they are THERE. BUT: the arch also appears in movies: "Torn Curtain" and (decades later) in the 1984 Eastwood/Reynolds vehicle "City Heat."
I could have sworn that a scene in one of the PG's I saw last weekend was set in Mrs Bates; bedroom. It had a similar shape and size, and the bed was or appeared to be the same, but not enough happened in it for me to be sure. The time was right (1959) and that master bedroom may well have already been a Universal standing set made over for Psycho shortly thereafter.
Entirely possible. These are the "mysteries of filmmaking." Some of the Psycho sets may well have already been built for Universal-Revue TV series("Psycho" WAS cheaply filmed why NOT use existing interiors?). Some of the "Psycho" sets were used AFTER "Psycho" in TV shows.
But eventually the sets were struck, destroyed, decayed. Hollywood sets weren't really built to last.
And many PROPS were reused,too. I have visited prop rooms at Universal and Warner Brothershuge warehouses with tagged lamps and statues and paintings. "Psycho" stuff probably reappeared elsewhere, and they found some of those props years later for "Psycho II" in 1982.
There was also a drive down a Uni suburban street in which a very Bates-like house was plainly visible, cupolas and all, but it was just a shot lasting less than ten seconds. They seemed to have moved sets around back then, including exertior sets.
Yes, they did put 'em on wheels and drove 'em whereever needed on the lot.
Some Psycho players have turned up in various episodes of PG, including John Anderson, who was a semi-regular for a while, sort of a fill-in Jacobi. Jeanette Nolan was in an episode a week or so ago, playing an aging spinster in a murder tale that had Psycho aspects to it and a very Psycho-like setting.
Hitchcock's movies from 1958 to 1964(Marnie) pretty much use a lot of the actors available at the time, actors you'd see on TV a lot and in movies a little.
Interestingly, from "Torn Curtain" on, Hitchcock rather eschewed "the usual suspects" in American studio casting. Only a handful of familiar American studio faces made it into Torn Curtain, Topaz, and Family Plot, and Frenzy was an all-British cast.
I'm trying to think of other TV series that might have been an influence on Psycho stylistically and/or thematically. The one that comes to mind first, naturally, is Hitchcock's half-hour show. More genteel than Psycho, it channeled a retro mood quite often, though it seldom turned t -
telegonus — 13 years ago(September 21, 2012 01:29 PM)
Dramatically,
Psycho
is off key during those first thirty minutes (give or take). It was probably my familiarity with the film that caused me to describe it as feeling somewhat cozy in those scenes. Not really, as you point out. There are those surreal, near Kafkaesque moments, beautifully timed by Hitch, written by Stefano, that make the newbie to the movie fear for Marion on a number of occasions. Cassidy is weird, the highway cop a little too solicitous, Charlie too knowing (he acts like he knows exactlty what Marion is up to, even though he doesn't, and we "fee Marion's pain" in those scenes).
Hitchcock did use those TV regulars starting more or less unofficially with
Rear Window
, what with Raymond Burr, occasional TV players like Wendell Corey and Thelma Ritter, Frabk Cady, later Mr. Drucker on
Green Acres
. There are a number of soon to be familiar TV faces in
The Wrong Man
, some one has to not blink in order to recognize.
Vertigo
and
North By Northeast
have their share of "TV faces", especially the latter. One can only wonder if Hitchcock did this deliberately.
Checkmate
is a show I remember well, had Hitchcock vibes, as if an offshoot of Hitchcock's own series; and it was filmed on the same lot.
The same could be said for many of the more offbeat
Peter Gunn
episodes as well. In this one could argue that
Psycho
's aesthetic, such as it can be described, was basically a TV one, ramped up to the level of art
.
The movie does, more than probably any other in the Hitchcock canon, seem to derive much of its power from its small screen-like intimacy on the big screen,
not
a Hitchcock trademark before or after. Its supporting cast only seems to back this up. No Leo G. Carroll or John Williams or Jessie Royce Landis or Cedric Hardwicke. No, we get Vaughn Taylor, John Anderson, Mort Mills and Simon Oakland. With all due respect to these talented players, there's not a "prestige" name in the bunch. I believe you mentioned previously that Hitchcock had become quite the TV fan by the time he came to watch
Psycho
, had become as familiar with the conventions of the small screen as the average American viewer. -
ecarle — 13 years ago(September 21, 2012 10:14 PM)
Dramatically, Psycho is off key during those first thirty minutes (give or take).
I would like to note that Marion reaches the Bates Motel at almost exactly the 30 minute markher opening "journey" is not as arbitrary in its timing as it might have seemed(indeed, Hitchcock cut a scene at a gas station, possibly to keep things within 30.)
It was probably my familiarity with the film that caused me to describe it as feeling somewhat cozy in those scenes. Not really, as you point out. There are those surreal, near Kafkaesque moments, beautifully timed by Hitch, written by Stefano, that make the newbie to the movie fear for Marion on a number of occasions.
Yes, I think so. Part of it is that we KNOW "Psycho" is heading towards what a 60's critic called "a nightmare of horror" at the Bates Motel and thus if we KNOW thatthe early scenes are a "gateway TO horror." But part of it is how Hitchcock films the scenes, the actors he chooses and HOW they act, and oh, most certainly the timing.
Cassidy is weird, the highway cop a little too solicitous, Charlie too knowing (he acts like he knows exactlty what Marion is up to, even though he doesn't, and we "fee Marion's pain" in those scenes).
Andwe feel Marion's paranoia"they are all onto her"but they AREN'T.
Hitchcock did use those TV regulars starting more or less unofficially with Rear Window, what with Raymond Burr, occasional TV players like Wendell Corey and Thelma Ritter, Frabk Cady, later Mr. Drucker on Green Acres. There are a number of soon to be familiar TV faces in The Wrong Man, some one has to not blink in order to recognize. Vertigo and North By Northeast have their share of "TV faces", especially the latter. One can only wonder if Hitchcock did this deliberately.
The epic NBNW practically has a TV guy or gal once per minute Ed Binns(12 Angry Men) and Stanley Adams(Star Trek The Trouble With Tribbles) and Ed Platt(Get Smart) and Ned Glass(Charade, Peter Gunn!), the guys at the auction
Even in Hitchcock's late sixties "international" period, some TV guys slip in: David Opatashu in "Torn Curtain," John Van Dreelen and Ben Wright in Topaz.
But he did seem to jump ship on hiring from TV after "Marnie." We just didn't see some of those familar faces like Jack Weston and Roger C. Carmel, etc.
Checkmate is a show I remember well, had Hitchcock vibes, as if an offshoot of Hitchcock's own series; and it was filmed on the same lot.
A "team" of detectives: Owlish Sebastian Cabot, swarthy Anthony George, young Doug McClure. I believe the credit sequence (with swirling b/w paint and scary music by "Johnny Williams" who would score "Jaws" and "Family Plot") can be watched on YouTube.
The show was produced byJACK BENNY(on his agent's recommendation) and Benny actually appeared as a famous comedian(not named Jack Benny) on one episode: "They are trying to kill Jack!"
I saw one episode as a kid with Lee Marvin sinking in quicksand. I saw it at a motel exactly like the Bates. Word.
In this one could argue that Psycho's aesthetic, such as it can be described, was basically a TV one, ramped up to the level of art .
Yes, for all the talk of Clozout and Castle, Hitchocck was ultimately using his TV facilities to make a movie. THAT was the experiment.
Seeing those "TV images" blown up on a big movie screen was disorienting to 1960 audiences, let alone now. And yet: Dwight MacDonald's pan "its just one of those TV shows, but padded" doesn't hold at all. NO Hitchocck show has a scene as intricate as the Shower and Staircase murders.
The movie does, more than probably any other in the Hitchcock canon, seem to derive much of its power from its small screen-like intimacy on the big screen, not a Hitchcock trademark before or after.
That's true. Compare it to the scenes in "North by Northwest" one year before, often with teeming crowds or small groups of people(like the detectives and folks at Glen Cove with Roger.) In "Psycho," it is usually just two or three people, and often in big, big close-ups. Just like on TV.
Its supporting cast only seems to back this up. No Leo G. Carroll or John Williams or Jessie Royce Landis or Cedric Hardwicke. No, we get Vaughn Taylor, John Anderson, Mort Mills and Simon Oakland. With all due respect to these talented players, there's not a "prestige" name in the bunch.
Afraid notnot verus the others you named. Its really a "weird" supporting cast when you think about it.
I believe you mentioned previously that Hitchcock had become quite the TV fan by the time he came to watch Psycho, had become as familiar with the conventions of the small screen as the average American viewer.
Yes. Hitch went home at night and watched TV, like the rest of America. Except he was CASTING all the time.
A casting anecdote from the book I have finished on "Frenzy." When Hitchocck went to cast the film in London, his office was besieged with offers from unknown actors; they got a form letter signed by Hitch's assistant, Peggy Robertson.
But Hume Cronyn(Shado -
telegonus — 13 years ago(September 22, 2012 01:03 PM)
The paranoia is quite strong in those first thirty minutes of
Psycho
. It's almost as if Hitchcock was filming it as an intense entry in his half-hour anthology TV series.
Could it be that Hitchcock deliberately chose a "TV friendly" cast for
NxNW
to make the film more accessible, more familiar feeling than his other films? Just a thought. Even Eva Marie Saint and James Mason had appeared on the small screen; while Leo G. Carroll was by then probably better known as TV's Topper than for his work in films.
Interestingly, the only other Hitchcock film to really channel a TV mood is
The Wrong Man
, which plays, like
Marty
and
12 Angry Men
, as a big screen adaptation of a television play (which it wasn't).
In his later films for Wasserman Hitchcock went more Hollywood than ever, it seems. One may not like the look and feel of many of those Universals but they're movies all the way, don't have a TV "vibe". -
ecarle — 13 years ago(September 22, 2012 06:20 PM)
In his later films for Wasserman Hitchcock went more Hollywood than ever, it seems. One may not like the look and feel of many of those Universals but they're movies all the way, don't have a TV "vibe".
Agreed. And three of those Wassermans made over a ten-year period had a strong "international/foreign" bent. With "Torn Curtain" and "Topaz," Hitchcock shipped foreign actors TO Hollywood(practically everybody other than Paul Newman in "Torn Curtain", including Julie Andrews; and Noiret, Piccoli and the others in "Topaz.") For "Frenzy," Hitchcock went to England and essentially made a "pure British" movie. (In the 1972 edition of "Films in Review," a comprehensive Encylopedia of all films released that year, "Frenzy" was in the "foreign films" section.)
The return to America for "Family Plot" found Hitchcock eschewing a lot of the usual American TV talent in suppporting roles. Many of the actors(like the guys playing the FBI guys and the chopper pilot) were practically unknown Yanks.
I believe that somewhere in this later period Hitchcock himself said he was tired of "all the familar faces" in the supporting casts of American films.