Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Possibly Lillie Langtry
Watching this Biograph short on the Youtube in a fairly decent print, decent print meaning visual clarity, I was able to run it over and over again and again just to analyze the lady. Her head is for the most part cut off mid-face until she leans over to set her garment down or to disrobe. The woman is unnamed but is familiar looking as I'm acquainted with the personalities of the era. Trying to place a name on this woman, I notice that she's older but quite attractive. So going out on a limb I would certainly say it's Lillie Langtry who had a naughty' reputation as a Victorian celebrity notably carrying on an affair with the Prince of Wales(later Edward the 7th). This film plays up to that spicy reputation that followed Langtry without telling the audience who she is. The film teases the audience (or still Kinetoscope peepshow crowd) with the question 'who am i'?
Several great Broadway Legends and future first lady ripping and running in 1904
My interest in this film lies not in it's comedic message or editing construct. My interest is who is in the film. Because the film is preserved in such a great state of clarity, faces can be recognized. No need for me to go over what the film's rundown as others have given a synopsis. I'll list the personalities appearing uncredited and in order of appearance. Edwin Porter the director doesn't always keep the ladies in numerical order. The ladies show great spirit coming out to do the film especially in heavy ankle length dresses and heeled shoes. Needless to say Fay Templeton, who is always last, ends up the victor and wins her man (Eddie Foy Sr. in disguise).
*French Nobleman: Eddie Foy Sr.
BRIDGE scene (in order of appearance): *1.Ethel Barrymore *2.Maude Adams *3.Eleanor Roosevelt *4. ? *5.Mrs. Fiske *6.? *7.Rose Coghlan *8.Fay Templeton
SAND DUNES or CLIFF scene (in order of appearance): *1. Ethel Barrymore *2. Maude Adams *3. Eleanor Roosevelt *4. ? *5. Mrs. Fiske *6. ? *7. May Robson *8. ? *9. Lillian Russell *10. Rose Coghlan *11. Fay Templeton
BUSHES scene (in order of appearance): *1. Ethel Barrymore *2. Maude Adams *3. Eleanor Roosevelt *4. ? *5. Mrs. Fiske *6. ? *7. May Robson *8. ? *9. Lillian Russell *10. Rose Coghlan *11. Fay Templeton
FENCE scene (in order of appearance): *1. Ethel Barrymore *2. Maude Adams *3. Eleanor Roosevelt *4. Rose Coghlan *5. ? *6. Mrs. Fiske *7. ? *8. May Robson *9. ? *10. Lillian Russell *11. Fay Templeton
JUMP OVER LOG scene (in order of appearance): *1. Ethel Barrymore *2. Maude Adams *3. Eleanor Roosevelt *4. ? *5. Mrs. Fiske *6. ? *7. May Robson *8. ? *9. Lillian Russell *10. Rose Coghlan *11. Fay Templeton
Kiss Me! (1904)
This film from February 1904 is from the Biograph Company (or American Mutoscope and Biograph Company). It has a series of posters plastered on a fence or wall with one poster torn open and a real or live woman standing in the space. Enough of the torn poster remains (probably intentionally) to reveal the name Rose Sydell. Upon research I discovered Rose Sydell(1865-1941) was a real person and a American burlesque perfomer. She is probably the live woman in the poster frame black space filling in the torn part. Thats the joke on the audience to see if they know Rose Sydell when they saw her. As others have described some people walk past the poster. First a young woman and her mother with the young woman being led away by the ear. Next a husband and wife with the wife continuing on walking and the husband scrutinizing the poster which seemingly blows a kiss at him. Before the husband can analyze further the wife returns and leads him away by the ear.
Three Faces East (1930)
Finding William Courtenay
One of the main reasons I viewed this film is because it is one two surviving sound films that William Courtenay appeared in. "Show of Shows" was the other. Courtenay(married to actress Virginia Harned) was a Broadway actor and star who at 20 appeared in the 1894 experimental film "Miss Jerry" and later played the lead in the long running play "Romance"(1913) with Doris Keane, later made into a film with Garbo. He appeared in a slew of silent film which amazingly several survive or survive in incomplete or fragmentary form. Of his five Warner sound films; he appeared in *"Evidence"(1928 with Pauline Frederick)-- lost, *"The Sacred Flame"(1928 again with Pauline Frederick)-- lost, *"Show of Shows"(1929) all-star-- surviving, *"Three Faces East"(1930 Constance Bennett, Eric Von Stroheim)-- surviving, and *"The Way of All Men"(1930)-- lost.
So after viewing "Three Faces East" and after hearing Courtenay(born in Massachusetts), he comes off sounding much like David Niven whom he favors physically. Many Broadway actors of the early 20th century tried to effect English accents as many plays originated in the UK. So you have American actors coming off trying to sound English or cultured with a mix New England accent.
"Three Faces East" had originally been a successful Broadway play later turned into a 1926 silent film produced by Cecil B. DeMille's PDC company and starring Jetta Goudal and Clive Brook.
As for the 1930 "Three Faces East" directed by Roy Del Ruth, it is a well preserved early talkie. It was later remade as "British Intelligence" by Terry O. Morse in 1940 with Boris Karloff and Margaret Lindsay. Both films were made by Warners and they both run very similarly, as if Warners just dusted off the 1930 script for the 1940 movie. If you've ever watched both versions of Warner's "The Dawn Patrol" (1930 and 1938) the similarity is close to how both "Three Faces East" and "British Intelligence" appear.
Betty in Search of a Thrill (1915)
Lost film or not
I don't know where previous poster Safarijcg saw this film(as of 2001). By all accounts it's a lost film with no known prints. If this survives, I'd love to know where I can go see it. The lead actress is Elsie Janis who wrote and stars in this comedy. It was released with several titles, ie: "Madcap Betty" and in the UK "The Merry Madcap".
Thomas and Sarah (1979)
Only John Hawkesworth was missing
How could anybody who has ever seen and loved the original Upstairs, Downstairs show not love Thomas & Sarah, the only spin-off series from the former show? In reading some of the other comments, viewers say T&S doesn't have this or didn't have that as opposed to what 'Updown' had. People!, it's not supposed to. If one remembers, the characters Thomas Watkins and Sarah Moffatt were the chauffeur and under-house on the original Updown having left at the death of Edward VII, in May 1910. This new show is about them and their adventures, or misadventures, depending on how you look at it. It takes place roughly 1910-1912, but certainly before WW1. In Updown Sarah and many of the other characters always talked about their adventures away from 165 Eaton Place, where they had been, ...for instance James Bellamy had taken Sarah to Paris near the end of series one or earlier when Sarah had first left she had been with a circus for two years. But we never see her and James at Paris, just talking about it. Here in T&S much more is played out. T&S has more location photography that only some Updown episodes had ie the trip to Scotland in the final series. In T&S we get to see the kinds of things Sarah always bragged about to Rose in Updown when they used to share the same bedroom in the first Updown series. The decision to do more adventurous stories and location work is a good extension or extrapolation from the original Updown which was more studio bound, but couldn't help to be with a much larger cast and more subplots. The decision to shoot Updown & T&S on videotape is why these two period pieces are quite viewable today.
Alfred Shaughnessy(1916-2005) is the main producer/writer T&S and in 1990s commentaries on Updown, we learn he had grown up in large wealthy houses and knew about the era just preceding his 1916 birth, the prewar era in which T&S takes place. It seems the only person missing is Shaughnessy's writing partner from Updown, John Hawkesworth. On his own and right after Updown ended in 1975, Hawkesworth produced "The Duchess of Duke Street", with as much attention to period detail as Updown and T&S. When T&S began in 1978 Hawkesworth was about to produce the excellent WW2 series "Danger UXB", so his absence from T&S is understandable. The final episode has a 'Jules & Jim' nature to it joining Thomas and Sarah with a grieving landowner named Richard De Brassey whom Sarah falls for and wants to marry. Others have commented on how this episode ends and what was later to be contemplated with a second series. The finale ends ambiguously with Thomas and De Brassey going into a burning barn. We later see Sarah at a graveside attending the burial of one of them, the name is not on the wooden coffin or is surrounded by a wreath or laurel of flowers. Just my opinion Thomas faked his death in the fire and used the opportunity to flee Sarah, leaving her to marry De Brassey, and go to America as he always wanted to seek his fortune.
A wonderful adventure back to the Old West through time travel
One of my favorite time travel movies. This is a film that's taut and well-made and probably a tad too adult for the Saturday morning kiddie type crowd. It really should appeal to the viewer who has his thinking cap on and can appreciate attention to historical detail. In late 1982 the hero, an off road motorbike racer, named Lyle Swann, unwittingly gets caught in the middle of a time-travel experiment and is transported to the Old West of 1877. In the strata of science-fiction and time travel, this is believable since he's alone in the middle of the desert and cannot ascertain that he's been transported through a time warp. As the film progresses Swann meets several people in 1877: outlaws, an attractive woman named Clare Cygne from Louisiana, a priest Quinn heading a small town and two US Marshalls. The outlaws led by Porter Reese appear to be Civil War veterans from the Confederate side when Reese makes a crack about 'General Lee would have won the war if he had Swann's motorcycle'. The filmmakers add a nice touch and nod to Mark Twain. When Clare pulls out a copy of Twain's "Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County", written in 1865, viewers paying attention to the scene will recall that Twain is the author of one of the most famous time travel stories "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" written in 1889 and which probably inspires this film. Clare asks Swann if he can read and if he's read any Mark Twain and Swann responds telling Clare he has and that "Tom Sawyer" is Twain's most famous book. Since the old-west part of this film takes place in 1877, it wouldn't have been unusual that Clare would not have heard of "Tom Sawyer" as it had only been published in 1876. Other nice touches of realism are the showcasing of a community of outlaws living in a outlaw camp. The viewer may ask what are those outlaws doing for food, for clothes, bathing, laundry altogether basic survival. When one outlaw is shot early in the film his cohorts pick his body of clothing & belongings before the vultures get to him. The priest and Clare work together bartering with Mexican locals, trinkets, guns, and food stuffs.
The film showcases several adult themes ie: profanity, gunshots, mild sex scene. It's amazing the film was released with a PG rating but remember this was 1982, two years before the Motion Picture ratings system was upgraded to include PG-13 and NC-17. The director keeps the film accurate to its 1877 time frame and shows elements in a western that are realistic such as the profanity and the renegade woman Clare who is a gunslinger, ?prostitute and adventuress. This film gets away with telling mature elements in Western that were not up to that time seen in conventional westerns especially going back to b/w films in the Golden Age of Hollywood. Had Timerider been made in the early 70s it might have been better received. If it had come out in the 40s or 50s as a film noir western it would certainly be a classic but with a compromise. There would not have been no cursing, no scrib gunshot wounds, the sex scene would not be explicit, though for 1982 the scene given is mild. More explicit sex scenes can be viewed in daytime soaps.
GRANDFATHER PARADOX An interesting aspect of this film is the application by some of the 'so-called' Grandfather Paradox. Hmmm! This supposedly applies when Clare and Lyle have sex and she questions him about the pendant around his neck. He tells her that his great great grandmother took it from his great great grandfather after an incredible night and the great great grandfather was never seen again. At the end of the film Swann is rescued by helicopter by the scientists responsible for transporting him to 1877. The head scientists tells Lyle that Clare cannot come back with them to 1982 by which time Clare snatches Lyle's pendant from his neck. When Clare takes the pendant this essentially repeats the story of Lyle's great great grandmother: END OF STORY!.....No mysterious paradox, Clare merely snatches the pendant. At this point many viewers who have seen the film think that Clare's actions reveal her to be Lyle's great great grandmother. I thought this too at one time but this is IMPOSSIBLE. Even if time-travel was real, Lyle Swann could not be his own great great grandfather or father his own great grandmother who would be the child Clare would conceive after the night of sex with Lyle. IMPOSSIBLE, even if time-travel were real a person could not literally go back in time and father his own ancestor. A person has to come from somewhere, he has to have a history. Swann could sleep with his great great grandmother, impregnate her and it would be a completely different individual. (Remember when the two of them were going over the Mark Twain books she tells Swann her real name, Clare Cygne, which if she was his great great grandmother, he should have known her name. Or it should have sounded familiar. A flag should have gone up in Swann's head as to her identity.)This puts an end to the Grandfather Paradox. ...The pendant, a seemingly valuable trinket as Lyle had been handed down to by his mother, is probably something from the 19th century and now it's returning to it's original time when Clare snatches it. If Clare is pregnant by Lyle she'll merely hand it down to her offspring and he/she will hand it down and so forth but there is no reason Lyle will ever see it again as it will be a totally different set of people and circumstances who will receive the pendant.
The film gets 3 1/2 stars out of 4.
Safe biopic for those not familiar with Lovelace's true background
Maybe Lindsay Lohan had a point of bowing out of this sh##. This biopic came off pretty much like I expected. A paper-mache treatment of Linda Lovelace's story peppered with her alleged tales of victimhood. I remember watching an episode of Sally Jessy back in the 90s and the topic was Lovelace and as a guest was Harry Reems. Stupid Sally Jessy got to the end of the show and asked Reems if he was 'gonna apologize to Lovelace'. Reems said, '...for what?' Sally's question and Reems response pretty much sums up Lovelace's picture of herself as victim. This movie concentrates on Lovelace's Deepthroat movie but ignores the numerous loops she appeared in before DT and the one porno after DT called Linda Lovelace for President. As others have mentioned Lovelace had sex with dogs on film and also liked getting urinated on by men and/or women. Strong stuff for sure but on the 35th anniversary DVD rerelease of DT former porn great Eric Edwards(one of the guys who got to pee on her) said that Lovelace would seek him out to be a sex partner in films with her. She also performed in loops with Chuck Traynor, her dirtbag mentor and the guy who is accused of abusing her.
The casting of this movie really doesn't work. Amanda Seyfried is too 'Little Bo-Peepish' to play Lovelace, though imho Lindsay Lohan wouldn't have worked either. Seyfried would have been a lot better cast as Carol Connors the goofy blond assistant to Reems in Deepthroat. Today Connors is known as the mother of legit actress Thora Birch. As cast Seyfried is too wide-eyed and innocent and visually doesn't resonate the hellish life Lovelace had lived by age 22 when DT was made. Lovelace had had an illegitimate child(given away for adoption) and was a veteran of numerous stag-loops and as such comes off world-weary. The recreation of some of the key scenes in DT are the only amusing, though momentarily, thing about this timewaster.
White Tiger (1923)
White Tiger 1923
Fortunately this 1923 Universal film by Tod Browning survives for us to view and evaluate. Made right after Browning's OUTSIDE THE LAW this film has all the feel of "Outside the Law" even to the point of looking like it re-uses some of the "Outsidethe Law" sets. Browning's stars in this film are perhaps his favorite muse, Priscilla Dean who appeared in "Outside the Law" and many other Browning films, Wallace Beery, Raymond Griffith and Matt Moore. Even the same cameraman William Fildew is on hand. If you're familiar with Tod Browning's films you'll recognize that he's treading on territory that he would later use at MGM in such films as THE UNHOLY THREE, THE MYSTIC and THE SHOW. In fact Raymond Griffith has a mustache and is dressed wearing a familiar striped shirt almost identical to John Gilbert's in 1927's "The Show". So one gets the feeling that Browning is never really finished saying what he wants to say where as many of his films, such as "White Tiger", keep returning to the same theme. Sources state that "White Tiger" was made in 1921 but not edited and released until 1923 which is probably why it bears such a striking resemblance to "Outside the Law". As in "Outside the Law" and the later "Unholy Three", the story in "White Tiger" has three to four criminals on the run after a jewel robbery, held up in a claustrophobic environment, each having to deal with the other's foibles. In "Outside the Law" it was an apartment on Nob Hill in San Francisco and in "White Tiger" it's a log cabin in western New York. The sense of mistrust amongst the criminals is just as tense as it is in both the 1925 "The Unholy Three" and it's 1930 sound remake.
The Notorious Lady (1927)
I Figure I Had to Comment
The Notorious Lady(1927): This film is a well shot and preserved late silent, 1927, from the First National Studios and before they were absorbed by Warner Brothers. As many silent lovers know, much First National material is lost. This film has a nice cast led by Lewis Stone and Barbara Bedford. Others in the cast are Lloyd Whitlock, Earl Metcalf, Ann Rork, E. J. Ratcliffe and Francis McDonald. A tidbit of info, both Lewis Stone and Francis McDonald had appeared in First National's NOMADS OF THE NORTH in 1920, a still surviving film. Without letting too much out of the bag on the scenario, the story is about a man running from a manslaughter/murder sentence after an affair concerning his wife. He goes to Africa, has a native girl fall in love with him and catches what looks to be malaria. The film plays like any one of the MGM Tarzan films from the 1930s, just without the Tarzan. Buxom Ann Rork, whose father produced this film, as the native African girl did only a few films like the lost First National THE BLONDE SAINT and she's made up almost exactly the same. In fact her makeup is reminiscent of Raquel Torres Polynesian girl in MGM's WHITE SHADOWS IN THE SOUTH SEA. Rork of course later married into wealth into the Getty oil family. All in all this is a decent King Baggot directed drama film from the close of the silent era.