#stan laurel interviews

[krumpkin]

The Great Laurel and Hardy 😊😊

They first appeared together in a short film called ( Lucky Dog ) in 1921 although they didn't appear as a partnership until a later production called ( Putting Pants On Phillip ) in 1927.

They'd signed with Hal Roach under separate contracts a year earlier in 1926. Hal had noticed an obvious on screen chemistry between the pair and encouraged them to work together which they did creating some of their most iconic roles. Sometimes I think Hal Roach's contribution gets a little overlooked which is why I've decided to include a wonderful interview he did with David Letterman. Laurel and Hardy split from Roach in 1940 but for me Universal had a little too much of a hands on approach. I felt the creative freedom Roach had given them in those early years had gone and it began to show as their later material started to look more like that of the studios than anything they themselves had created. For me the Universal years were a far cry from the heights of those wonderful classics with Hal Roach. I think Stan Laurel himself would admit to this in one of his later interviews.

I decided it might be a good idea to start off with a rare two part interview given by Stan Laurel, it's well worth a listen 😊. I'll also add the classic dance routine from Way Out West followed by Hal Roach's interview , enjoy 😁

This is a fantastic interview with Hal Roach and David Letterman where he discusses his early years working with Laurel and Hardy and others.

Hal Roach born Elmira New York ( Jan 14th - 1892 ) died Bel Air Los Angeles ( Nov 2nd- 1992 )

Stan Laurel born Ulverston United Kingdom ( Jun 16th - 1890 ) died Santa Monica ( Feb 23rd - 1965 )

Oliver Hardy born Harlem Georgia ( Jan 18th - 1892 ) , died in North Hollywood ( Aug 7th - 1957 )

May they all rest in peace , thanks for the memories 😊

[jerrylevitch]

Hi, love your blog and youtube channels! I have a quick question. What's the word on Arthur Marx's Martin and Lewis book? I think I read here that Jerry didn't like it so I was curious. I found a copy of the book but I'm hesitant to give it a try if it has a reputation for being unreliable/not credible. Thank you!

I believe some of it was credible, but he did not interview either Dean or Jerry for the book. Therefore the instances where he repeats word for word conversations between the two of them, cannot be real. He also let his dislike of Jerry, cloud his analysis of him in the book. It comes off just really negative towards Jerry, and I don't buy from Arthur Marx, that that negativity didn't at least partially stem from the feud Jerry had with Arthur's father, Groucho Marx. Jerry had a right to be upset at Groucho, because he insulted his favorite idol Stan Laurel, when he was dying.

[johngarfieldtribute]

A Golden Boy…a TRUE American Hero.

Adam McKay’s DEATH ON THE LOT podcast, episode 3 features John Garfield unjust framing by HUAC.

The guests on the podcast are ALL the people I would have selected to interview: daughter, actor and artist, Julie Garfield; authors, Robert Nott and Isaac Butler, and also a surprise—actor, Lee Grant one of the few remaining to be blacklisted in Hollywood in the 50’s. Excellent commentary by all. Good on you, Adam McKay and team!

The Red-Baiting of a Golden Boy | Episode 3 | A new generation of actors questioned the status quo; a rattled establishment fought back; dire consequences ensued. We’re talking John Garfield, Hollywood’s first method actor. LISTEN

"When I was originally requested to appear before the committee, I said that I would answer all questions, fully and without any reservations, and that is what I have done. I have nothing to be ashamed of and nothing to hide. My life is an open book. I was glad to appear before you and talk with you. I am no Red. I am no pink. I am no fellow traveler. I am a Democrat by politics, a liberal by inclination, and a loyal citizen of this country by every act of my life.”

—John Garfield’s statement before House Un-American Activites Committee (HUAC) on April 23, 1951.

All Julie wanted to do was what he did best: ACT. They took everything away from him. Despite that, he held his street cred. He gave away not a single name during his testimony. No ratting on friends and associates from Julie. Badass.

The others involved: Shameful. Shocking that Julie’s life and livelihood could be toyed with so heartlessly and carelessly. This was a man who did so much for his country. How could the ruthless, power hungry politicians ignore these examples of John Garfield’s patriotism?

During WWII, he cofounded—after bringing the suggestion to Bette Davis—the Hollywood Canteen. The Canteen operated from October 3, 1942 through November 22, 1945 (Thanksgiving Day), as a club offering free of charge: food, dancing and entertainment for service personnel usually on their way overseas. Nearly four million people were served as they were serving us!

The Hollywood Victory Caravan included Eddie Dowling, President of Camp Shows, Ray Bolger, Mitzi Mayfair, Louis Polanski, Stan Laurel, Oliver Hardy, Jane Pickens, Benay Venuta, and John Garfield serving as master of ceremonies. One of the first USO tours, Flying Showboat revue toured U.S. military bases in the Caribbean. These celebrities performed under some extremely trying conditions, as the weather was brutally hot and many of the camps were not equipped to host theatrical performances. The show must go on (!) and it did.

Julie running an event at the Canteen.

Julie entertains the troops! Audience members at the Canteen filled the hall.

Here he is selling War Bonds to support WWII efforts with Humphrey Bogart in 1943. Not sure who is pictured with them.

Julie championed the story of real life marine hero, Al Schmid bringing it to the screen in PRIDE OF THE MARINES. He read about the hero in LIFE magazine and brought the idea for a film to the studio. He stayed with Sargent Schmid and his wife for a couple weeks to portray the man respectfully and honesty.

[itcertainlyisl-n-h]

Watch "laurel and hardy extras" on YouTube

I don't know if anyone's had a chance to listen to this or not but this is pure gold to hear them talk together... I'm in the process of a new project trying to find their radio shows but this is a little interview with both of them... enjoy 😍

[una-hopeless-romantic1118]

𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐓 𝐈𝐈𝐈: 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐇𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐀 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐅𝐨𝐫 𝐃𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐬?—𝐖𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧 𝐑𝐨𝐣𝐚𝐬/𝐑𝐡𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐬

a/n: i died but im back for u hangry warren sluts<3333. following after the events of Part 2. ALSO changed the last name to Augustine bc i love the last name :3

timeline: ep. 3 

-> Part 1  

-> Part 2  

This chapter: Part 3

Part 4 

Part 5 

•─────⋅☾ ☽⋅─────•

warnings: cursing, drinking, hangovers, angsty y/n again, not proofread at all. it’s way too long than the other ones whoopsies. 

summary: a slow morning at y/n’s condo starts with warren, who makes it his mission to get to know the girl better, before pulling a “mastermind” of his own as well.

i never realized this but y/n in the first part was literally being a mastermind by taylor swift. AND WE STAN🤞🤞

•─────⋅☾ ☽⋅─────•

•─────⋅☾ ☽⋅─────•

Warren didn’t wake up to the sound of Graham’s and Eddie’s loud chatter, the loud clinking of pans as Karen prepares for breakfast, or Julia’s shrieking cries that rattled the whole house awake, but it was the waves gently crashing in the distance.

Outside, through the light blue, almost translucent, curtains of the clear sliding door, he could see the sun about to rise in the most beautiful state ever. A mixture of the shades purple, orange, and pink, and it was perfect.

It sounds like it doesn’t make any sense at all, and if someone were to ever tell him that the sky could be this pretty, he wouldn’t have believed them. He would’ve waved it off as the coke talking.

But seeing it now, just having woken from the best sleep he’s had in a while, it was real and true. It impressed him. So much so that it drove him to get up from the couch he was sleeping at to take a closer look, as if he was a child waking up early to find his backyard snowing.

He swept off the curtain for a clearer look. 

“Holy shit,” he whispered heavily under his breath that the window had fogged up.

The sky was even better with the curtain swept off to the side. It was like he was in the middle of a painting. 

It was too good to be true.

Beneath the sunrise, the waves that woke him up continued its rhythmic pattern of gentle crashes on the shore, the bubbling it leaves on the sand, and then back to the ocean to gather energy to crash again.

He could stand there and watch it for hours.

His shared house Laurel Canyon was confined, there were barely any windows, and they didn’t have the nearest access to the beach.

He managed to peel his eyes off the scenery before him to look around the condo.

Who knew a celebrity’s condo could be so comforting? It wasn’t just the outside scenery that was comforting, but strangely, it was the mess of the living room.

The loose and weirdly shaped, different colored pieces of cloth on the table in front of the couch, an even bigger mess on the tables with the sewing machines, and loose pieces of paper with sketches of colorful designs.

Stylish designs, but some of them are bolder, more uniquely colored designs, that he knows there’s more to them than meets the eye, but are all x’ed over like mistakes.

He took note that some of them were indicated to be bejeweled pieces of clothing, decorated with nothing but jewels, gems, and silver, and it completely stands out from her usual tight, petite looking designs. Some were clothing pieces that were flowy and wispy, and if one were to put their arms out at the wind, it creates that free feeling statement. 

He picks up the sketches on the floor and tables, subconsciously starting a properly stacked pile of papers and placing them on the table, making sure to make a separate pile of the ones that are x’ed out.

•─────⋅(cut to documentary)⋅─────• 

Warren: I mean, the way she was talked about back then was unbelievable. I’m not over exaggerating when I say this, but I was probably one of the only people she had over at that condo.

She had hundreds of friends and admirers, so it kinda made me question how I was welcomed in. And knowing enough about her at the time, it wasn’t because I was a rockstar and she was a hard core fan.

*he lifts himself up from his seat* Mind if I get something real quick? 

Interviewer: Sure.

*he walks out of the camera’s view and into a room in his boat. not long, he comes back with a newspaper in hand.*

Warren: This is just one of the many newspapers I saw her name in, in big, white, bold letters. *he sits back down* I never saw something from the corner of my eye and recognize it this well.

Interviewer: Why’d you keep it?

Warren: *he shrugs with a smile* It’s the little things that matter, sobrina! She still smiles seeing this every now and then.

I bought this at a local grocery store when I was walking around the town she lived at, looking for takeout to get for the two of us. After I found some, I brought four plates of the same order, two milkshakes, and headed back with this and the food.

Interviewer: Well, what made you feel the need to stay?

Warren: Who in the right mind would want to waste their time not spending it with Y/N? *he flips the newspaper’s front to face him* I took my chance, but it wasn’t what I wanted in the first place. I just thought it’d be nice to have a friend like her and get to know her better.

*he hesitates* with a siiide of benefits, because the woman was too interesting to be someone I could just wave off into the past.

But listen to this, the most dramatic title ever *he snickered* :

“ Y/N Augustine! Her rise has been as catastrophic, luminous, and stunning as a supernova itself-! ”

I’m sorry- *he snickered behind the newspaper* I can’t, man. I don’t know how I managed to go through with showing her this, knowing damn well she would’ve laughed at it too. But I know she needed to see it. Especially at that time.

Interviewer: Would you say that that morning was the beginning for you guys? Like the rest of the band said?

Warren: *he nods with a smirk* Hell yeah.

•─────⋅(cut back)⋅─────•

Warren, with two bags of the four styrofoam containers of food in one hand, contained in one of the bags the horrible newspaper, while holding a cup holder with two drinks on the other, placed the drinks on the floor momentarily to open the door.

Just opening a small crack, he was immediately met with a blasting vinyl player. Bob Marley & The Wailers, he recognized, Could You Be Loved.

There was a spark of amusement that made Warren chuckle under his breath.

As soon as he made the small crack of the door, he squished through with the breakfast in his hands, pushing the door wider with his arm.

He marched over the counter by the kitchen to place the food, and when he turned around, he was met with a wildly haired, wide eyed short woman, with a baseball bat ready to swing his head out of his body.

•─────⋅(cut to documentary)⋅─────•

Y/N: I had to have a baseball bat. I bought it from a local Dick’s Sporting Goods because I couldn’t buy anything...else.

It wasn’t because I liked the sport. It was good enough because even if you didn’t know how to use it “the right way,” It would hurt the other person anyways.

I was just a woman who happened to be living alone. I needed all the protection I could get from bastards creeping into my house. 

•─────⋅(cut back)⋅─────•

“FUCKING BASTARD!” Y/N yelled. “WARREN WHAT THE FUCK?!”

“ME?” He yelled back. “YOU’RE THE ONE WITH THE FUCKING WEAPON. PUT IT DOWN BEFORE I SHIT MY FUCKING PANTS."

Y/N pants as she lowers the bat slowly. “I thought you...I thought you left?...”

"Geeze, woman. Really?” He exhaled out, in pure disbelief. To think he would leave after the events of last night, with so many things to talk about, he wanted all the answers he could get. 

So many things that can happen from then on. 

Her in her silk sleep dress and baseball bat was not what he had in mind at all, though.

In other words, he wanted her. He wouldn’t have gotten her all of this food if he didn’t. And that says a lot.

In the distance, the reggae music continued with another one.

“Sorry,” she winced. “I thought you were an intruder.”

Warren tries to shake off his trembling subtly. “Eh, it’s all good. I went out to get food. Milkshakes, hash browns, scrambled eggs, toast.” He drummed on the plates as he tells her.

Y/N’s eyes widen, but she proceeds to march up to the counter and salivate over the delicious smell. 

Not long after, she begins to dive in, seemingly forgetting about how she almost near blew Warren’s head open.

She also seemed to be completely ignoring Warren’s amused, yet admiring gaze on her.

She nods to him. “So, is this like, aftercare?” She grabs a fork in a drawer and begins picking at the scrambled eggs. “Back home they usually just leave.”

It takes Warren a few seconds to recover from the wild suggestion. “We didn’t...sleep together, Y/N.” He said carefully. “But if you really want to know what aftercare could be with me, then we should definitely do something about that.”

Y/N, already with a mouthful of eggs, tilt her head in confusion. “What is this all for, then?” She ignored the brave remark.

Warren sighs defeatedly into his shoulder. “Thought I’d be nice. Figured you’d have a hangover.” 

He grabs a toast. “And I thought you said you were from here? Or was that also...”

“No, I am from here,” Y/N nods. “But after my parents’ divorce when I was 10, my dad and me and my three brothers moved to France to where our grandparents were at.” She swallows the remnants of scrambled eggs in her mouth. “I moved back here after quitting 2 years of...school-” 

Warren tuts when he notices the long pause between of and school. “Tell me.”

“No.”

“Yes,” he widened his eyes at her, wagging a piece of toast in her face. “It’s the least you could do. I bought you food that could last you the whole day.”

“I never asked for this!”

“How bad of a major was it that you won’t tell me?” Warren chuckled. “What was it? Dentistry? Dance? Clinical? A foot massager?”

“A foot massager?!” She screeched.

“Holy shit! Are you serious?”

Y/N slaps his hard in his upper arm, which caused Warren to yell out. “Shit! Baby, that stung.”

“Don’t call me baby,” she gagged. “Don’t baby me!”

“But you’re so cut-Ow! Fine, geeze.” He goes to massage his arm after the second slap, now that it was sending tingling sensations, worse than the one before. “I think it’s actually making my arm paralyzed, Y/N. Great fucking job.”

“Good. I hope the paralysis reaches your brain.”

“I won’t let it,” he sighs miserably as he continues to massage his arm. “Now tell me your major, please.”

“No!” She chuckled nervously. “It’s embarrassing.”

“I won’t laugh, I promise.” He lied. Of course he’d laugh, he did just make her blush from embarrassing her.

A silent pause. “...Astrophysics.”

Warren’s hand raced to his mouth to stop himself from absolutely losing it in front of her. And she already looked embarrassed, and with the way she was clutching on to her fork looked like she want to dive it into her eye. 

“...Wow.” He muffled against his hand. “I mean...wow...”

But when a snicker escaped from his lips, Y/N frowns. “You promised!”

“I never promised anything!” He laughed out loud now. Howling laughter, that tears began to form in the corner of his eyes. “What a nerd!”

“Fuck off.” She groaned, walking to him only to push him away.

“Little French nerd!” But it wasn’t until she got up in front of his face, way too close than she intended, was she reminded of last night.

Of course Y/N remembered the kiss. And while she rarely got drunk, those rare times were always “on accident,” and would always have to be her last straw. It was always in hopes to avoid and forget, but it wouldn’t last for however she wanted. She still remembers things.

For a while, she’s been thinking about moving back to France. Back to her family, back to her friends and back to the insane craze of lover culture—anyone, to desperately get a way out of this depressing hold called loneliness.

But she knows she couldn’t just leave because she’d be leaving way too much. It’s way too important to leave for company or love. 

The kiss was nice, and made her feel nice momentarily. Warren’s nice too, bringing her breakfast and all, and cleaning her living room/primary workplace for her that she noticed as soon as she walked in, which is a tad confusing and unnecessary, especially after her little trick on him.

She’s flattered by the guy. Charmed, even.

But Y/N has been in doubt about many things, but this shouldn’t be any different. The feelings will pass, she’s convinced herself, and she will be able to get herself back on track.

So she walks back to where she was before.

When Y/N gets herself to look at him again, there’s a certain way that Warren’s face pinched that sent Y/N to feel extremely guilty.

“Why’d you drop out?” He exhaled out heavily.

“Warren...” She warned with pained expression.

“Hey, it’s just a genuine question.” He raised his hands in surrender. “How does someone go from being a super nerd to a hot piece fashionista?”

“Fuck you, I have always been a hot piece.” She scrunched her nose. “I wasn’t happy, that was it. I mean, I loved studying it and reading about it, but I didn’t want it as a job. I wish I realized it earlier.”

Warren nods. “So you were an unhappy hot piece.” He faked sympathy.

“I was an unhappy hot piece.” She nodded along.

He takes a sip of his milkshake before swishing it around his mouth. “And now?” He swallows. “Are you happier now?” 

Y/N made the mistake of saying “um...” instead of just jumping into it with a lie.

Say yes.

All Y/N could do was bite her tongue and look up.

Y/N, just fucking lie.

“Hey...it’s okay if you’re not.”

Y/N bites her bottom lip gently as she picks at the scrambled egg in front of her.

“Maybe I need another career change.” She snickered. But, no. It’s not it this time, and she knows it.

“I was hoping you would say that.” Warren wagged a finger at her before walking off to the stack of papers at one of her sewing desk.

She watches as he walks back to her with a whole, separated stack of them. “I saw your sketches earlier when I was cleaning up.” 

“Congrats,” she said with a mouthful of toast. “You’re the first person to see them.”

“No way?” He chuckled with his raspy voice. “Oh, shit. Wow...and is there, like, an award system for this? ‘Cuz I feel like I deserve some sort of…award for witnessing such, fine, art...” He made sure to look intently at her.

Y/N tried to hide her growing smile. “So about the sketches you said?....”

Warren shook his head with a small smile on his face. “They were good. All of them.”

Y/N shrugged nonchalantly, faking a blushed expression. “Top notch feedback. New York critics better watch out.” 

“Hey, I’m telling the truth,” he laughs out, “especially the crossed out ones.”

Y/N stops mid-bite of her toast. She blinks a few times, before finally meeting Warren in the eyes. 

“I mean, why are they crossed out in the first place?” He questioned, genuine curiosity in his voice. “They looked amazing.”

“They looked like shit.” She countered his compliment. 

Warren insisted for a further explanation with a simple nod.

“They’re not...normal,” she tried. “If I went through with them and made them, I would’ve wasted my time, and not to mention, embarrass the models. They wouldn’t be able to show their faces or get another modeling gig if I forced them into clothes like those.”

“Okay, well, forget about the models right now,” Warren offered, with a mouthful of scrambled eggs. “Why are they shit? Because they don’t look like it.”

Y/N shrugs as she swallows. She knows they weren’t shit, but that they were too bold of a statement. “I just don’t see the average people to wear them.”

“That’s because average people shouldn’t be wearing them.” Warren snickered. “You know you’re the #1 brand right now? Serenity’s been on cover magazines everywhere I go, with your name plastered at the top as if it was it’s own title.”

He pulls out the newspaper from the bag and faced it in front of her.

It only takes her a few minutes skimming the page to break out laughing.

•─────⋅(cut to documentary)⋅─────•

Y/N: It was such a horribly cheesy compliment *she pinched the bridge of her nose* I should’ve sued their ass back then.

•─────⋅(cut back)⋅─────•

Warren laughs along with her. “I saw it on the walk back here. Thought I’d show it to you to convince you.”

Y/N chuckles, wiping a tear forming from the corner of her eye. “Convince me that my work is as catastrophic as a supernova?” She laughs into her arms. 

He nods. “That you should go through with making the clothes. You’re amazing. And sorry for saying this, but I never pegged you to be the type of person to care what other people think.”

“Well I do,” Y/N argued, her laughter gradually dying down. “I do care.”

“You shouldn’t.”

“It’s my work. I’m supposed to.” She met his eyes again. “What do you know about it?”

“I don’t know jack shit about fashion, you’re right,” Warren agrees. He leans closer to her on the counter, “but I know if you keep pushing creativity like these to the side, the world will be missing out on a whole side of Y/N Augustine.”

“And how are you so sure it’s something they’d want to see?”

“Alright, listen,” he proposes. “They’re not shit. They’re just different. They’re never-seen-before’s, that’s why you’re scared to make them.”

Y/N still looked unsurely at the papers laid in front of her. Warren pushes them to her so that they’re closer.

He points at one of the x’ed out drawings. Under the drawing was his name written with a smiley face and a phone number.

“I gotta run. Band practice.” He tells her, before quickly pecking her cheek and beelining to the front door.

Biting back a smile, she calls out after him.“When do you want this?”

“As soon as you want to see me again.” He flashed her a smile, winked, before finally closing the door behind him.

•─────⋅☾ ☽⋅─────•

taglist (aka beautiful people): @pinkdaiisies @mlwriting5 @teletubbysteroids @linatells @stanzie @arsonkween @rexorangecouny @lisbeth122605 @cultsanrio @thatoneawesomechicka @magicalmiserybore @sourholland @sunfairyy. @lilyhw1 @viridianflowers​  @goldenjasssy​

[resowrites]

Hot Seat - oneshot.

Summary: Henry is interviewed about life post-The Witcher…

Characters: AU!Henry Cavill, Wife!OC, Interviewer

Warnings: fluff, banter/British humour, nondescript OC body type/appearance, hastily written/lightly proofread.

WC: 2817

A/N: This is something a bit different so I hope you all enjoy. Not that I should have to point it out but as with all my work, it’s pure fiction (as in completely made up) and not in any way meant to reflect reality. As ever, let me know your thoughts - R x

My work must not be copied, reposted, or translated elsewhere. Likes, follows, reblogs and comments are thoroughly welcome and appreciated! Gifs/pics not my own. I hope you all enjoy and thanks for visiting!

Hot Seat - oneshot.

My first thought upon starting my interview with Henry Cavill is that I must have got my lines crossed. Instead of the 39-year-old Jersey-born actor, the featureless wall on the screen in front of reveals a woman. She quickly introduces herself and apologises for his absence. "Our puppy got into a multipack of toilet rolls and is still wreaking havoc, but he'll be right with you." This, as it turns out, is his partner Ollie. The 33-year-old financial advisor (she politely asks me not to give her full name as apparently "the people who care already know it"), has been with the actor for the better part of a decade though it's seldom publicised. They're occasionally pictured together but Henry, known for being one of the more private Hollywood actors, has given away few details about the relationship.

This, however, doesn't stop her from graciously chatting with me while we await his arrival. Having a son with her name, I ask if it's short for something else. "No, just Ollie. My parents were fans of Laurel and Hardy," she says with a shrug. So she's not actually Olivia? "Nope, though I suppose it could have been worse, they could have called me Stan," she replies drily. I tell her my wife and I are expecting a girl in the summer. "Oh how lovely - don't give her a boy's name." Duly noted. I then ask after Kal, Henry's longtime canine companion, and she assures me he's still alive and kicking. So what prompted the puppy? "Anniversary gift," she says between sips of water, though she doesn't give a name or clarify who gifted who. Moving on, I ask if she has any tips for interviewing Henry. "Talk slowly," comes her immediate response. It's not difficult to see how he fell for her, big twinkly eyes and a throaty laugh betray a quick wit that's similar to his own. I venture to ask what it's like being in a relationship with him. "Agonising. I mean his looks alone, I'm at a loss," she deadpans before another laugh. And the fame? "Honestly, it's not something I really think about. Our day-to-day life is very normal."

As if on cue, Henry enters the room with a large and very fluffy puppy trying to wriggle free of his arms. His eyes flash briefly with concern but she gives him a reassuring smile, thanks me for my patience, and wishes me well. She then pats Henry on the chest, tells him to behave himself, and disappears with the puppy in tow. The screen now fills with his impressive frame though his demeanour is infinitely milder - if slightly harried. "My apologies John. Akita's - can't live with them, can't live without them." Much has been made of the peaks and troughs of his Hollywood career. At one point in the early aughts, he'd missed out on multiple high-profile roles (Henry Cavill: Hollywood's unluckiest actor?) Finally bagging Superman in 2013 with Zack Snyder's Man of Steel, he proved capable of big returns and even bigger popularity (Henry Cavill: Superman for a new generation).

In 2013's Man of Steel (image credit: Warner Bros.)

This makes news of his recent departure from both Netflix's The Witcher (ostensibly because of creative differences), and DC's Superman franchise (due to the recent hiring of James Gunn as the studio's creative leader), all the more stupefying. But whether or not he really is Hollywood's 'unluckiest' actor, this isn't a term that reflects his life outside of the job, something which definitely marks him out from his contemporaries. In addition to a much-protected relationship (neither he nor his publicist confirms the status of it despite appearing to wear a wedding ring), he hails from a loving family and has a close-knit group of friends. He withdrew from a recent project (for reasons unrelated to the project itself), but is now in talks to appear in and produce an adaptation of Warhammer 40, 000 after Amazon recently secured the rights to the popular tabletop game.

In 2019's The Witcher (image credit: Netflix)

It's actually not the first time I've met Henry. Our paths once crossed some years ago in a hotel lobby though this brief encounter was part of a jam-packed press tour. Today's meeting isn't scheduled for a considerably longer time, but there's more than enough to discuss. A colleague did however warn me that despite a more ingenuous nature, he can make for a difficult interviewee. For the first part of our interview, I would be inclined to agree. Though pleasant, his answers border on glib and this is perhaps unsurprising given the recent twists and turns of his career. Happily, he warms up as our fourty minutes go by and on this occasion, is more revealing about life away from the cameras…

J: First thing's first, are you watching the Six Nations (an annual international men's rugby union competition)?

H: Yeah, it's been dismal though (England won just two out of five matches)… doesn't bode well for the World Cup does it?

J: No it doesn't. Now I know you can't say much at the moment about more recent as well as upcoming projects, but I wanted to get your take on the development of IPs for modern audiences. More than ever it seems a rather precarious business…

H: I think that's a fair assessment. There's lots of competition and only a finite amount of resources, so balancing what audiences want against the financial gains is tricky.

J: So what's the solution?

H: Are you trying to get me into trouble (laughs)? It depends. I mean, you can experiment a bit more with big projects. But for niche ventures, I think it's probably better to lean on the source material and fanbases already there.

J: But do you think there's a general fatigue with certain genres at the moment?

H: Perhaps, but that's why it's all the more important to look at the project as a whole. More often than not, if a project sinks it's on the project, not the audience.

J: Surely events such as the pandemic have had a huge impact though?

H: Yeah, definitely. But I don't think it's that difficult to produce big and/or successful entertainment because if anything, the need has never been stronger. It may just require studios to slow down a bit and think harder about each stage of development.

J: Do you feel more at peace with your career these days?

H: I would say so. I mean it's not an industry you ever feel secure in because that's not really the nature of it. But I still feel the same rush and excitement. I think there's a tendency to forget that actors act for the same reason people enjoy consuming our work. We like to escape and have fun as well.

J: What has it taught you about yourself?

H: Well for one it's bettered my patience (laughs). There's also nothing like acting to improve your physique (laughs).

J: Do you still feel the same pressures to look and perform a certain way?

H: I mean to an extent it's just the expectation and I completely respect that - if you're spending millions bringing, say, Superman to life, whoever plays him must at the very least, look like him.

J: And what are your thoughts now that that franchise will be moving ahead without you?

H: Well, for one, I'm not as devastated as everyone seems to think (laughs). I had a blast making those films and I was looking forward to expanding on what was created but the workouts were something else. As were the press tours (laugh).

J: Would you say that's one of the biggest drawbacks now for actors?

H: I suppose. I mean who honestly wants to be hooked up to a lie detector and asked leading questions (laughs)? I find it a bit unfair at times. I'm not suggesting for one minute that actors aren't immensely lucky or privileged. Of course, what we do is comparatively easy. But the amount of exposure will always be a double-edged sword, no question.

J: You've said in the past you're not a huge fan of social media, do you think it's essential to what you do?

H: Perhaps not essential but it's undeniably very useful. And I have no issue in sharing parts of my life with those who find it interesting. But I also don’t see the harm in a bit of mystery, there's no need to upload and share absolutely everything.

J: More male stars are speaking up about the double standards in how they're treated by fans and the wider public. Are those sentiments you share?

H: Yes and no. I mean most of the time it's harmless and of course very flattering, but I think it's always best to put others at ease rather than risk making them uncomfortable. Of course, everyone has different ideas on how to do that (laughs) but as the old saying goes, do unto others…

J: I imagine it's different when that attention is also directed at those closest to you?

H: Oh absolutely. My friends and family didn't sign up for that but luckily they're good-natured about it.

J: It seems the lines are becoming more and more blurred though…

H: Yeah, and that's a shame. But it's also why you need to be prudent about how much of it you elicit and engage in.

J: But do you take issue with the amount of gossip? I imagine it's hard knowing it's out there when there's not much you can do about it.

H: I try and look for the silver linings, I mean if people are that invested it means you at least have some relevance still. Besides, I have a very happy, successful life outside of what I do and that makes all the difference.

J: I am curious to know how you've managed to make that work…

H: Well I don't want to give the impression that it's easy because it's not. Spending so much time away from the people you love is easily the worst thing about this job and it's something I'm always trying to improve.

J: You're also approaching 40, has that caused you to stop and take stock?

H: Thanks for the reminder (laughs). Nah I'm in a good place about it actually. Well, for now… (laughs).

J: Are there any roles, in particular, you still wish to play?

H: Not really. I think most people see me as an action star and I'm happy to remain so. It seems to be what I excel at though I've also enjoyed branching out into more comedic roles. More of those would be nice.

J: So you've no burning desires for the future? What about regrets?

H: I wouldn't say that (laughs). There's some stuff I've yet to get around to, as for regrets I've very few.

J: Such as?

H: Well, some of the films I've made for starters (laughs). Although that's not really fair as there's always something to take away from those experiences.

J: What about personally?

H: Um (pauses), nothing springs to mind. I wish I'd met my better half a lot sooner. But we've been together for over seven years so I can't complain.

J: If I remember rightly you'd just started seeing each other the last time we spoke.

H: That's right! God, where's the time gone?

J: How were the lockdowns for you both?

H: You know, as scary and traumatic as that time was, I can honestly say it reaffirmed to me that I'd made the right choices.

J: Did she feel similarly?

H: Perhaps not at first (laughs).

J: You certainly seem to share the same sense of humour. You know she introduced herself as the maid?

H: (Looks around) I hope you didn't fall for it… (laughs). And she's far more warped, trust me. She's just better at hiding it (laughs).

J: Care to give some examples?

H: Oh God, where do I start (laughs)? To be honest I'm not sure I can without making her look completely mad… though that wouldn't be an unfair assessment (laughs) (slight pause). She's a nightmare to text. Her idea of messaging me usually involves repeating a word until I manage to guess what on earth she's on about (laughs). I was in London a few days back and I messaged her asking how her morning had gone and she just kept responding with the word 'log' (laughs). So there I was, in a meeting with my business manager, trying to figure out at the back of my mind what she meant. Did she want to log a complaint (laughs)? Was I supposed to bring home a chocolate log? Did we need more firewood (laughs)? Turns out she'd just tripped over one while walking the dogs. See? Mad (grins).

J: My wife's like that but with GIFs.

H: Yeah, I get those less often but to maximum effect (laughs). Like I remember when I was getting fitted for the suits I wore in The Man from Uncle. I sent her a picture of my favourite and she immediately winged back a gif of Sterling Archer (from FX's 2009 animated sitcom Archer) (laughs).

J: Is she indifferent to what you do?

H: It's not that she's indifferent, she's just not taken in by it and thank God because it helps keep me sane.

J: So she likes to keep you on your toes?

H: Oh yeah, our life's never dull (laugh). The last time I was away filming, I'd stupidly warned her beforehand not to go anywhere near this rare Warhammer figurine that a friend sent me. So cue the photos of it in the dust container of the Dyson, at the edge of Kal's food bowl as his face was in it… she even sent me one of it in the washing machine just as it was filling up with water. That one warranted a phone call (laughs).

J: Oh dear. Did it survive?

H: Annoyingly it was absolutely fine… she's done worse (laughs).

J: Such as?

H: Er, well there was the time I was in New Zealand shooting the helicopter sequence for Mission Impossible: Fallout. I've talked about it before so I'm not going to rehash it but the conditions were extreme so everyone was pretty miserable. What made it worse was that a few weeks before, she'd broken her hand - the story of how she did that is actually funnier than the one I'm about to tell—

J: What happened?

H: … No, I can't say. She'd kill me (laughs). Anyway, being halfway across the world I couldn't get back to her and was in a bit of a state about it. So to cheer me up, one afternoon she sends me a video of her at the physio's office and in it (laughs)… she's wearing one of those old-fashioned prosthetic split hooks (laughs). What's amazing is how she somehow managed to rope the physio in, like as soon as he comes into the room she puts her phone down so as not to film him (laughs).

J: Where on earth did she get a split hook?

H: I know right? She told me Etsy but God knows… apparently the physio provided the arm it was attached to (laughs). So there I was, suspended above the Southern Alps, laughing the hardest I've ever laughed in my life.

J: Did you show it to Tom Cruise?

H: Oh yeah.

J: And what did he say?

H: She's a keeper (laughs). I'd play it for you but it got deleted when I changed phones a little while back.

J: Well, that's disappointing. What happened to the hook?

H: When I finally came home we had some champagne to celebrate and when I went to the drawer, I found she'd chucked it in there with the bottle openers (laughs).

J: Are there any more stories you can share?

H: Yeah, but I think I've said enough (laughs).

J: What makes the two of you such a good match do you think?

H: She's got a long fuse which certainly helps (laughs). We were just meant for each other (shrugs).

J: Did it feel that way quite early on? I know it did with my wife.

H: Oh yeah, almost instantly. When you know, you know.

A week after we meet I receive a gift at the office - a box of homemade cookies (which are heavenly) and a beautiful baby blanket. Accompanied is a note which first apologises for the gift's tardiness 'Henry ate the first batch,' thanks me for a good interview and then encourages some skepticism of the tales told as 'they're only mostly true.' Either way, I concede that he is indeed a lucky man.

Enola Holmes 2 is on Netflix.

To be updated on when I post please follow @resowrites and turn on post notifications.

@elizabetharegina @fanfictionaddiction99 @luclittlepond @caffeinatedfestivalsheep @summersong69 @ushijimbo

[21secondsofchristoph]

This is probably the longest interview I've ever read.

"Why do you have to be happy all the time?"

Photo: Peter Rigaud/laif

Oscar winner Christoph Waltz in a long interview - about gold and dirt in Hollywood, careful filming, his role as a management consultant in "The Consultant", and the question of what Lufthansa did with his new Rimowa suitcase.

Interview by Alexander Gorkov

February 24, 2023

A long afternoon with coffee, cognac and cake. Christoph Waltz, visiting Berlin from Los Angeles, is always excited and attentive – he pauses between sentences and then always continues to formulate it ready for publication.

SZ : Management consultant Regus Patoff ostentatiously smells the young people who will report to him in the series “The Consultant” upon his arrival. He cuts his fingernails and nose hair in the office, he calls his people at three in the morning, monitors them...

Christoph Waltz: The fact that the young employees line up and I memorize their respective smells is a scene that immediately made sense to me when reading the pilot episode.

SZ: Which made reading fun?

CW: That's the thing about joy. Some things are fun, which then turn out to be rubbish. No, obvious, in the sense of light rising. Incidentally, at first I only knew the script for the pilot episode.

SZ: The books for the eight episodes weren't ready when it started?

CW: No, just the pilot. Then, after the whole production was okay, Tony Basgallop sat down and continued writing. Always in increments of two episodes. So when we were filming episode three, we didn't know what episode six was going to be like.

SZ: What about the Writers' Room, 20 authors, you imagine that would be more complex for a US production with an Oscar winner?

CW: That's already there. But that was not the case with the “Consultant”.

SZ: How much of it was created while shooting, i.e. spontaneously, also with regard to the character Regus Pattof?

CW: I can't say any more. Afterwards it might not matter anyway.

SZ: Jennifer Coolidge recently said she worked with the crew to develop this somnambulist of her character in "White Lotus" while we were shooting. Could these be signals that a certain desire for spontaneity and creativity is returning after rather bleak years in films and series?

CW: It would be nice anyway. Maybe word would slowly get around again that the fixation on algorithms and pie charts, i.e. on this alleged readability of the swarm behavior of viewers, does not tell any stories that could be worth experiencing for the viewer. So if there were no swarm at all. That filmed stories should be produced by film companies, not tech companies. With the unavoidable risks and side effects that always have an effect anyway.

SZ: The character of Regus Patoff, as diabolical as it is, is sometimes reminiscent of the characters of great comedians of yesteryear, whom one could, so to speak, watch while thinking...

CW: Thanks... Is the comparison possibly a bit bold?

SZ: There is a scene in "Sons of the Desert" in which Stan Laurel bites into an apple which he steals from what appears to be a fruit bowl - but it is not a real apple, but a decorative apple made of wax. And he thinks, and you can see it: Oops. So without making a grimace.

CW: Well...he doesn't think, "Oops!" He draws the viewer into his complication of recognition. He doesn't demonstrate clumsily how B follows A because that's what the script says. Rather, he involves himself and the viewer in an extremely complex process.

SZ: Namely?

CW: He bites into what he must think is a real apple because it looks like a real apple. Any normal prankster would now make a number out of the sudden recognition - spit out, suffocate, disgust, whatever the repertoire has to offer. But Stan Laurel sticks to the process: put to use as a real apple, the assumed reality now intensifies. He keeps chewing!

He calmly bites off more pieces, chews, swallows.

Under explainable difficulties. Which he still wonders about.Especially since he always secretly takes the apple from the fruit plate and puts it down again after biting into it. He doesn't want to get caught. And so he gets more and more involved and can't find out anymore. He has to eat the wax apple whether he wants to or not, even though the truth seems to be dawning on him.

SZ: You go nuts while watching...

CW: It's awesome. And to play that, this knowledge behind the lack of understanding - that requires very deep understanding, very deep knowledge. An insane intelligence too. But we're not just talking about a comedian here.

SZ: Rather?

CW: Genius...? Can one know?

SZ: Are we talking about the funniest two minutes in movie history?

CW: What would then be the second funniest and the least fun? I definitely want to avoid ranking, especially with a phenomenon like Stan Laurel. This perpetual ranking...blunt quantification. We thereby lose the ability to discuss the qualities.

SZ: Basically?

CW: Basically, of course. It takes constant attention, practice, and refinement, and it's tedious and tedious at times... I don't give a damn what rhetorical platitude any self-proclaimed expert can squeeze onto the internet about whatever.

SZ: But back to the faint hope of spontaneity and creativity...

CW: All I can say is that filming The Consultant was, of course, also an industrial process as a whole, which, however, miraculously relied largely on the non-industrial contribution of the individual. In this respect, this shooting differed significantly from what the series is about. Talented adults of different ages make their constructive contribution to the whole to the best of their knowledge and ability. It doesn't get much better than that... It's very different than, for example, checking in a suitcase at Lufthansa with childlike trust!

SZ: With the result?

CW: That I'll never see him again. And at Lufthansa, trying to get your suitcase back is a completely depersonalized and utterly industrial process.

SZ: Happens?

Happens.

SZ: Los Angeles – Frankfurt?

CW: Not at all! Munich – Berlin. I checked in the suitcase on December 16, 2022 – in the meantime, in the literal sense, in the box. I never saw the suitcase again. Not until today. A brand new Rimowa with nice things you've come to love inside.

SZ: How is the complaint made?

CW: Industrial. According to quantifiable measures. There has been a Property Irregularity Report, reference number BER-LH-33385, for more than two months. The Rimowa was originally supposed to be delivered to Berlin from Munich on December 30, 2022 with flight LH1934. I know all the numbers by heart. Some of the advisers at Lufthansa's complaints center also look familiar to me.

SZ: At least there's that.

CW: Yes, they are all very friendly, I have to say. They chat very understandingly, are diligent, give advice, and so one slips unnoticed into a labyrinth. You mutate into a process.

SZ: After all, one is a process. Isn't that a form of recognition?

CW: But on the contrary! You are fed into a digital metabolism and digested by the algorithm. The metabolic consequences do not deserve credit.

SZ: It is reminiscent of Kafka's trial. This is also possibly because the suitcase hasn't turned up again for two months.

CW: One is isolated, waiting, wandering around, lost in a digital labyrinth. For weeks, for months you think: where is my suitcase? I checked it in at a modern German airport with a leading airline on December 16th, 2022 to be returned to me at another modern German airport about an hour and a half later the same day.

SZ: With the result?

CW: Why result? It wasn't any of the two. Neither modern nor handed over.

SZ: Part of the fascination here is certainly that you ask yourself: What could be the reason for the apparently complete disappearance of the suitcase?

CW: For example, someone from Lufthansa recently told me that the weather was bad on December 16th. In the winter? In Munich? Snow and ice? For real?! That's why the train that my wife and I had originally booked was already cancelled... So did the suitcase fall out of the plane? It's a kind of conjecture industry, depending on which of the always friendly people at Lufthansa I'm talking to. Everyone suspects something different.

SZ: It may have been stolen.

CW: Even very likely - after all, a very personal and analogous twist of the story. Or it just got lost. Also analogue. If it were a medical emergency, I would have been dead weeks ago.

SZ: How about appearing as a sadist to Lufthansa and becoming unpleasant?

CW: I've thought about it. But nobody cares anyway. Because the friendly Lufthansa people are the biological extensions of the algorithm. It's definitely in the contract of employment.

SZ: Is Regus Patoff a sadist in The Consultant?

CW: I see it more as an attempt at correction. Or an excommunicated Archangel. A Knight of the Grail. He also does a job.

SZ: Which?

CW: He appears in the gaming company "CompWare" and confronts the young programmers with the ruthlessness of his methods with, how to put it...

SZ: ... oneself?

CW: Yourself and each other, yes. You then ask yourself a few essential questions: Am I still capable of making qualitative distinctions or only quantitative ones? So am I doing things for their quality or for their usability? By fixating on the short-term, quantitative usability of my work, am I anticipating obedience, an obedience that no political dictatorship forces me to? Do I still use my brain, which was made for the most complex tasks, or will I become a kind of task-specific artificial intelligence and will therefore soon be replaced by one? So in the end do I subordinate everything to this one and supposedly essential condition – usability, short-term economization?

SZ: A series about conformity?

CW: A hopefully entertaining series about conformity. Our business is entertainment. And yes: about conformity and what it takes to question it.

SZ: What does it take, courage?

CW: Courage is a jargon word. Everyone has courage - or thinks they have it, no? Even the heavily subsidized think they have guts. I can't really hear the talk of courage anymore.

SZ: So what does it require?

CW: Rather, does it require... effort, effort? It requires a brain, an on-going one. Our brain can distinguish between quality and quantity, it doesn't take any courage to do that. The brain can do it just like that - if it is reasonably well fed.

SZ: On the other hand, when since 1968 were some young people noticeably less conform than they are today? They demonstrate for climate protection, are language-sensitive, gender-sensitive, against racism, against ...

CW: So so ...

SZ: Yes, yes.

CW: Yes, yes, yes.

SZ: No?

CW: But. Naturally. And rightly so.However, I cannot understand that these sensibilities would be new apart from their preparation and the jargon. People haven't always thrown mush at paintings and blamed Vincent van Gogh to feed the networks spectacle, that's true. Since the Club of Rome report in the early 1970s, however, people have been demonstrating against environmental destruction, in Wackersdorf they did it in the mid 1980s, since the 1970s at the latest it has been about the rights of gays and lesbians, in the 1980s against discrimination against people infected with HIV , in the early 1980s half a million people ran through Bonn against the retrofitting – in the lead the Greens party, which is particularly active in this context today. Apropos - few figures in Germany fascinate me more than the Panzergrenadier from the Greens ...

SZ: Anton Hofreiter?

CW: Excellent material for a comedy. A transport expert does not become Minister of Agriculture after the election. So he stiffens, turns tomato red with anger – and is an expert on armament issues. boom.

SZ: At the same time, speaking of conformity, young people today are more likely to ask themselves the question of work-life balance, i.e. quality of life rather than pure income quantity .

CW: Can you balance yourself prophylactically? Even before it really starts to wobble? I don't know... In France, 17-year-olds are demonstrating against pension reform, right?

SZ: Well, a man from a leading management consultancy in Munich recently told me that highly qualified people have recently been telling him more often during job interviews: They are more interested in a four-day week than in more money, the competition is offering them that.

CW: This is initially understandable from the point of view of the consumer. The producer certainly has a different perspective because he might sooner or later lose the consumers, right? Which then makes the four-day week absolutely necessary. But then it is no longer a profit. So who is balancing what then? Or who? And could these job interviews be more of a European phenomenon?

SZ: Aren't the mindfulness consultants in the greater California area eager to proclaim this inner pendulum?

CW: Yes, maybe... And why? Voluntarily? The American person has to constantly make money, so does the mindfulness consultant with her web shop. The American man defines himself economically. In my area, with actors for example, especially those who have big plans, is it about work-life balance? They need follow-up contracts, they want to be part of a possible second season, the health insurance has to be paid for, school, kindergarten have to be paid for, life has to be paid for – not to forget the entertainment, i.e. the distraction from all of that also has to be paid for become. Not glamorous. Both parents work, not for reasons of social progress, but like crazy, and because there is no other way. Withoutwork no life , so work is better then – that would be the balance .

SZ: What's wrong with not getting gutted?

CW: Nothing! On the contrary. It is important not to be left out. Among other things, "The Consultant" is about. Of being literally gutted behind that mindful facade of colorful booths and walking around barefoot to feel yourself, and all that horrific, humiliating gibberish. About how the so-called creative people in particular completely subordinate themselves to economic success. And also from letting yourself be gutted. With what I am saying, I am only describing reality as I perceive it: economic success is the quality that constitutes the collective subconscious of the United States par excellence. Ranking makes this measurable. And tangible. I'm not saying that in a haughty manner, but up to a certain point as an equal among equals. In my first 35 years as an actor, I usually said, when someone came up with an offer: “Work? I'll do it! shit work? I do too!“

SZ: So shit movies.

CW: Why shit movies?

SZ: So the movies that...

CW: No! That was my life, with all due respect. Should everything that was good just be dropped now? There was some very good stuff there, thank you very much.

SZ: Forgive me.

CW: Clearly this was also training. Everything is always training. This is where the brain comes into play again. If it's allowed: mine. I always kind of knew why something was "shit". This is an immeasurable treasure, a treasure called experience.

SZ: Tempi passati.

CW: I am deeply grateful that my circumstances have largely changed over the past 15 years. But it doesn't change the fact.

SZ: Especially since one is usually wiser afterwards...

CW: Of course: You don't look forward to it while you're still in it. But you don't spend your life with gold alone. Nobody does that. I've actually worked on stupid films with the greatest colleagues from time to time. Here as there. But it is also about participating in life by doing. And with what? With good reason! For example, because you have a family and earn money, a very, very honorable process.

SZ: But this work does not really make you happy at the time of its creation.

CW: Why do you have to be happy all the time? Who invented the compulsion to be lucky? Everyone must always be happy... No wonder no one is happy. Except for the happiness industry.

SZ: The right to happiness - "the pursuit of happiness" - is one of the "inalienable human rights" in the USA! Since 1776!

CW: But not the right to be happy . The Right to Pursue Happiness ! pursuit ! Logically, this means, especially when it comes to forming a society, that I also allow others to strive for happiness to the same extent, not that I only try to enforce mine by force of arms.

SZ: Like I said, an American...

CW: The right to be happy only exists according to the mindfulness coaches just quoted, and those from 2023, not 1776. Those who make money by looking happy on Instagram. happiness industry. It's gotten tough in America. Hard and unforgiving. Europe is still a bit shy in this regard, but it will catch up.

SZ: Also in Hollywood, does that also affect the film industry there?

CW: yes sure, maybe not? But like I said, one can hope. I at least hope that something is changing for the better right now. If I'm not an optimist, at least I'm naive! But in terms of the years I've been living there now: the fixation on quantity, the fixation on the measurable, on pie charts, tools for reading users - it's not obvious that the parts of the brain where creative people used to be their Quality awareness suspected, meanwhile dry up?

SZ: That means you make everything ready for the user, so to speak?

CW: Do you have users or readers at the Süddeutsche ? If you still have readers: never consider them users... my non-authoritative advice. The technical means of spreading nonsense have never been available on this scale, and a repulsive figure like Donald Trump could only become President of the United States of America because there was fire from all channels, both digital and analog: He won't, will he? Will he?

SZ: Well, he ran for the post. Should you ignore that?

CW: Why should one ignore him - but hysterize for months? Because it sells? Trump as a repulsive figure was very old hat long before his presidency became more likely. He has been an obnoxious, vile phenomenon for decades. That was impossible to miss. But Trump, Brexit, all these dystopias from 2016 and after, they exist because they were spread , no longer communicated, and it's being disseminated for commercial reasons, while not conveying that each and every individual could care to expose Trump as a lie or to expose Brexit as a lie. We can all take a good look at our own noses here, with what we write, send, spread or help spread ... No feuilleton, for example, has to deal with Prince Harry.

SZ: Oh...

CW: Because it clicks? But does it make sense beyond that ? The sensitivities of a prince, apparently not the brightest candle on the candlestick, who publishes a tearful, post-pubertal commissioned work? Because daddy is always so mean? And why is he publishing it? Because you can make a lot of money with it and with a supposed "documentary". And the feuilleton sacrifices its integrity?

SZ: It also depends on how you reflect it.

CW: Reflecting does something quickly. Especially the so-called reflection is always extremely useful commercially and socially. Never looks bad either. The supply creates the demand.

SZ: Often there is also a demand that first ...

CW: Forgiveness! In the meantime, it often has features of self-incapacitation! And from the side of those who should know better! The lesson, by no means only in Hollywood, from the last few years: the so-called people are possibly much smarter than those in the know would like to give them credit for, and people have a flair for jargon and stupidity. They want to be entertained, of course, but not fooled. They often even want to be challenged, but not fooled. You smell the intention and you may not be upset right away, but you're always upset. The intention is always perceptible. For anyone who wants to take a look.

SZ: From this point of view, a fascinating, coherent but long scene like the beginning of “Inglourious Basterds”, in which an Austrian named Christoph Waltz, who was relatively unknown in the USA at the time, drinks milk as SS man Hans Landa and fills a meerschaum pipe, would hardly be seen today more possible, right?

CW: It might not even be attempted by most. Although, of course, there are still a select few who make great attempts. I now embrace every sincere eccentric I meet.

SZ: The scene lasts 20 minutes, an eternity by today's standards.

CW: 18 minutes ... It's all a matter of consciousness, the '68ers were right about that. And if my consciousness as a so-called creative person is solely geared towards the mercantile advantage, then this is communicated unmistakably. Basically, "The Consultant" tells from the guts here. anticipatory obedience,Timothy Snyder taught the right lesson: If you value our values, in a democracy, under no circumstances be hasty obedience. It's by no means all dirt that can be streamed or, rarely enough, seen in the cinema - but the sheer mass of what is produced may have reached a tipping point. The unconditional subordination to economic expectations is perceptible as such. Since the mouse bites from no thread. But is that really reason enough to watch the whole thing?

SZ: The thousand tiles of the streaming services, predictable plots and trigger points everywhere?

CW: And jargon instead of content! Everyone has been busy throwing themselves on the audience's laps over the years. Whatever you want: we do it, it will be delivered - in the desired jargon. Like the drug dealers and pornographers. But it's an unfounded claim. The intention is clear and therefore also clearly recognizable.

SZ: Ten years ago, after “Breaking Bad” and other fantastic, complexly told series, we were still talking about the golden age of television.

CW: And then streaming completely turned the entire film industry inside out. Everyone wants to do the business or at least not leave the business to the competitor alone.

SZ: Why didn't you continue to make series with complex narratives?

CW: Because industry has always embraced the avant-garde and then turned the tide. You then no longer trust the idea, certainly not the eccentric idea or even an intention that goes beyond the economic. But the stitch that you knit from it. This is how the mainstream has evolved for centuries. Today the algorithm works. The core business of the streaming service is the share price. Ergo: The decisive factor is the number of subscribers. But the subscription is not a single film. They are all films that can be squeezed into the offer. Ergo: the algorithm. The algorithm feeds only on the density of the mass. This mass of information only arises if the audience simply gets everythingcan be thrown to the table, the gold like the shit. The carpet bomb principle. Most bombs don't hit, the duds don't matter anyway, and some hit is bound to be there. It has to do enough damage to justify the whole rug though.

SZ: To the chagrin of those involved. So not just the viewer.

CW: Writers, directors, actors, many great people, not just young people with great ideas. And with fantastically functioning brains. Used to make the background look populated - quality swallowed up by quantity.

SZ: A black hole. How do you escape this?

CW: I'm not at the higher decision-making level, I'm just an actor, so I'm offered what's out there and what I'm eligible for...

SZ: ... at least in Hollywood.

CW: After all, why in Hollywood? It's the same everywhere. And certainly not only in film and television. All right, Hollywood, if that sounds better. I always want to go beyond this binary yes or no decision with an inquiry; So is the idea and possible design of a film or a series the rub or the dog buried? Is the idea worthwhile in qualitative, narrative terms, for example to spend a year or two of my life on? Who are the people to spend these two years with?

SZ: What is the reaction then?

CW: I often hear: "We are very interested in your input!" ... a shameless lie.

SZ: Fun.

CW: It's going ok. Little is discussed, little discussed or, God forbid, criticized. For speculating and calculating.

SZ: Movies have always cost money, have they not?

CW: Of course, it's nothing new that film costs money. The director John Boorman wrote a wonderful book about it a number of years ago, which is perhaps more relevant than ever: "Money into Light". No money, no film.

SZ: Which isn't bad per se.

CW: Yes,why? You don't even have to wish for anything else. But should the discussion in advance, when it doesn't cost anything and can be endless fun, only revolve around quantities and not at all about whether it's worth it from a qualitative point of view, i.e. literary, cinematic, artistic? Is there only one single intention? Money without Light ? One does not exclude the other! I don't want to understand how you can miss the really exciting, rewarding part of it all. Well, unfortunately I already understand. Everything is delegated somewhere intangible, where no one needs to answer questions.

SZ: As in the complaint case "Rimowa" and Lufthansa.

CW: In the film industry, when you have an idea, you say: “We could get that done .” Or: “I can’t get that done. That's actually mostly true, especially in the negative case. The result is films or series full of inauthentic stories, inauthentic speech, inauthentic images, underlaid with soapy, inauthentic music. They are films that are made because they are made.

SZ: Plus test screenings?

CW: Depends. I've seen a very, very ugly producer come close to flawless beauty after a successful test screening, simply because he was so happy. Why? Because 98 percent of test-watchers had ticked that they had just seen the best movie of their lives... this test-screening hit turned out to be a flop of historic proportions.

SZ: Now that's funny.

CW: Yes, yes.

SZ: Of course, our curious readers are curious to know which film it is. Will they find out?

CW: No.

SZ: And should we see an apple tree towards the end...

CW: Not necessary at all! Like I said, maybe something is changing. Perhaps the business model is reaching its limits in these excesses. Something has to change in order for it to continue. Streaming was a revolution, for sure, but the revolution can't eat its grandchildren.

SZ: Is Los Angeles still the right place then?

CW: I really, really like living in Los Angeles. Just in case it didn't sound Californian enough by now.

SZ: It wasn't always like this, was it?

CW: Not to that extent, no. But I love living there now more than ever. It's a unique collection of people, ideas, opportunities. Plus this beauty of nature. I don't want to miss that anymore. Incidentally, neither do the manners. I'm from Vienna, I like it when people follow the rules to some extent, even if it's just for reasons of a clearly distanced politeness that makes our everyday life a little easier. I'd rather be politely lied to.

SZ: Certainly interesting to come to Berlin in between.

CW: It's not interesting. It's horrible. Especially in winter.

SZ: Oddly enough, this fixation on making money goes hand in hand with great sensibilities, doesn't it? Fear of assault, wrong choice of words, all of that. Is it true that you have to take part in mandatory seminars before you start shooting?

CW: Yes. I don't do that.

SZ: Can you evade that?

CW: I don't know.I withdraw.

SZ: How?

CW: I don't need coaching to behave properly. I lead by example as I follow good example. I was brought up in such a way that I behave much better towards minorities and, by the way, also majorities, than the consciousness of the seminar leader is even able to assess. I could teach the seminar leader good manners .

SZ: Well, a privileged attitude, because of course, keyword economy, you won't do without Christoph Waltz in the end, does he attend the damn training course or not...

CW: In this sense: heartfelt thanks.

[kevinpshanblog]

An interview with Stan Laurel’s daughter.

[talkingtea]

I don't know y'all. The more I keep seeing other people point out Leanne's problematic behavior towards other fandoms like the Laurel stans, the more I'm side eyeing her. She's publicly shared her love for and defended Westallen and Iris, but at the same time, remains besties with DP. And now, with Grant and La's weirdness in the mix about a grandice interview, I just don't know. No one seems to be who they seemed to be anymore.

☕️☕️☕️

[detrixsta]

"Tit for Tat" is a 1935 short comedy film starring Stan Laurel & Oliver Hardy. It is their follow-up sequel film to "Them Thar Hills" which was released the previous year & includes the same two supporting characters, Mr. & Mrs. Hall, portrayed by Charlie Hall & Mae Busch.

Release Date: January 05, 1935 27" X 41" (rare) One Sheet theatrical Poster

There is a bit of "cockney rhyming slang" at work here. A "tit-fer" refers to "hat" as in "Tit-for-tat". (This is why Stan tips his hat.)

Stan (in a later interview), had said that he'd put special jokes "in for England".... I had often wondered what he meant by that & over the years; I have spotted a few things--In the films "Perfect Day" & "Way Out West" Stan & Oliver both say "Oh! me apple!" Also, the film title "Towed In A Hole" (1933) suggests a play on "toad in the hole" a name for a dish consisting of sausages baked in batter. There are possibly other examples!

The regal lady the boys are tipping their hats to has been identified by Richard Bann as their co-star of the silent days; Viola Richard. She was listed as an extra in the film, but isn't seen in the finished cut of "Tit For Tat".

THE 8TH ACADEMY AWARDS |Thursday, March 05, 1936

Stan Laurel attends the Awards banquet at the Biltmore Hotel.

"Tit For Tat" was nominated for an Academy Award as Best Live Action Short Film (Comedy) of 1935, although it did not win. (For the record, Robert Benchley's "How To Sleep" won.)

[murdoch-histories]

The newest episode of Murdoch Mysteries was totally hilarious, and of course, it’s not Murdoch Mysteries without some cameos by famous comedians! Buster Keaton was a relatively small role compared to that of Charlie Chaplin and Stan Laurel, but it was still a great shoutout to one of the most influential figures in cinema. 

Buster Keaton was born as Joseph Frank Keaton on October 4, 1895 in Piqua, Kansas to a family who was already in the vaudeville business. The story of how he got the stage name “Buster” varies on who’s telling it: for example, an actor friend named George Pardey saw the eighteen month old Joseph fall down a flight of stairs without injury. When the little boy stood up and shook it off, Pardey remarked that he was a “regular buster”. However, according to Keaton in a 1964 interview, he claimed that this happened when he was six months old and it was Harry Houdini who witnessed this. (And thus historians have been arguing with each other over which story was true ever since.)

At the age of three, Keaton was already part of his parents’ vaudeville act, and they became known as The Three Keatons. Like was shown in the episode, he was known for goading his father into throwing him around the stage and sometimes even into the audience. Despite concerns, Keaton always gave evidence that he was perfectly fine afterwards. However, as laws were passed banning children from performing in vaudeville, Keaton eventually left for New York, where he began his extensive film career. 

In 1917, Keaton landed his first role in The Butcher Boy with another famous comedian, Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle. It was such a smash hit that he would go on to appear in another fourteen shorts with Arbuckle, until 1920. 

Keaton moved on to feature films, such as Sherlock Jr. in 1924, but what most people know him for is 1928′s Steamboat Will, Jr., which featured the famous sequence where the façade of a house fell upon him, yet he emerged unscathed through a small window (which was parodied in the Murdoch Mysteries episode). He would go on to make a vast number of films for the next forty years, his final film being A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Forum in 1966, passing away from lung cancer that same year. 

Interesting fact: 

Perhaps what Keaton is most famous for is his stoic expressions on film, despite all the funny things happening around him, earning him the nickname “Stoneface”. (In fact, Charlie Chaplin references this in the episode.) He came up with this technique during his vaudeville days, claiming that when his father tossed him around stage, he would actually start laughing himself, but he noticed that drew little laughs from the audience, so he decided to stick with minimal reactions instead. 

[jerrylevitch]

I recently watched the Martin and Lewis 2002 movie and not having read that much about them yet, I was wondering. Like in the parts where Jerry's faking stomach pains for attention or stealing Dean's lines on the CCH — I know these were likely dramatised, but I was wondering if you could help clarify to what degree they were true (love your blog btw)

Thank you :)

The bit with Jerry having stomach pains was real, but whether they were fake, or a pain brought on by stress or something psychological, is unknown. He certainly did have an ulcer later on at the end of their partnership, and his heart issues. Some people who witnessed his stomach pains after Dean said something funny, thought that he couldn't stand Dean being funny. Jerry clearly thought that Dean was funny, and would laugh at his jokes and funny stuff on stage, yet there was also the contrast to that, when his jealous kid side would come out. There are moments where Jerry makes a comment that he's doing the jokes, which could be both a joke and him being jealous momentarily. It's hard to tell sometimes. Then you have Jerry telling reporters that he and Dean are both comedians, and should be mentioned as such. There are always contradictions with these two, especially Jerry.

Someone who worked on CCH said Jerry stole Dean's ad lib, and that made its way onto a short doc about their work on CCH and the movie. The movie showed a specific ad lib, which didn't make sense because they had used that line before. One documentary gave the Turkey dinner sketch as an example of Jerry stealing the ad lib about sweat dripping down and the wishbone missing, but that wasn't possible since that clearly was all in the moment. I don't think those examples should be taken literally, as I don't think anyone remembers what line Jerry supposedly stole from Dean. Dean did a good job of being seamless and not reacting to it whatever it was, unlike the strange example in the biopic movie as I recall, where Dean is clearly surprised by him stealing the line. That doesn't happen in the actual footage of the show PERIOD. That's why it annoys me.

Also the part where they have Jerry plotting on the side and looking vengeful "to get back at Dean" while he sings That's Amore. No that did not happen at all, and the whole thing is clearly a prearranged bit. It's similar to the stuff they did in the 1951 episode, with the Singing in the Rain bit. Jerry literally says as he walks off, that he is going to get him back, and that is his way of getting Dean back within the skit. In the movie, they purposefully cut that part out where he says on stage that he's coming back to get him, to create unnecessary drama. Now when Jerry was grabbing Dean's hair, I believe he did go too far in the skit, and Dean was clearly annoyed at the end, but I think Jerry just played too rough, and that's all it was. He wasn't plotting to take Dean down on tv, and hurt him. He just got carried away with the bit, that's all. Jerry did that a few times in skits.

All in all the biopic movie aggravates me for quite a few reasons, not just those. The book Everybody Loves Somebody Sometime Especially Himself was used as a main source of information for the film, and it wasn't all accurate. Arthur Marx also hated Jerry, most likely stirring from the feud between Groucho Marx and Jerry. Groucho said crap about Stan Laurel, Jerry's idol, and Jerry let him have it. Arthur Marx said he didn't want to interview Dean or Jerry for the book, so how is he there for these private conversations between the two of them, where no one else was around?

Hope this clarifies some stuff!

[makeitquietly]

Hi there, I would like to know which books are the best or definitive ones to read on the boys. There seem to be plenty of them, and I don't really know which ones are legit or not on facts and what not. Could you give me a list of where to start, please? Thank you.

Hi! To be honest, I don't think there are plenty of books on Laurel and Hardy, especially if you mean biographies, and none of the existing ones, as far as I know, are even recent. And who knows about legit or about facts? I'd just like something that doesn't repeat the same old same old because someone once said so in an interview or whatever without the author bothering to do any thinking of their own or offering explanations for why they believe all that's been said before. I'd also like nuance when Stan and Babe's relationship is described, likewise for the wives/girlfriends. And when there are different versions of events etc., I'd like them all included. While waiting for such a book to be written (somebody let me know if it already exists), I'll just rec these three:

Simon Louvish's "Stan and Ollie: The Roots of Comedy" (mine is a translation) is two decades old and not free of errors, the kind even I can spot, but he's being delightfully nuanced compared to everybody else I've read.

Skretvedt's book is newish (2016) and mostly about the movies. Everything they made together has its own entry and there are lots of useful facts and details about the movies and everybody involved in the making of them, if you're interested in that sort of thing. There's also biographical stuff, especially about events affecting the movie-making. Very good companion if you watch a specific movie and want to know more about it. Mind you, he's quite "old school" mostly, which can be annoying, and I don't like the "childlike innocents" interpretations and general coyness.

Sanders' interpretations use a much bolder approach to the characters and movies and make for a nice antidote for the likes of Skretvedt. The book is from the 90s, when it was fashionable to detect misogyny in everything, so there's too much that in it though.

[thatskepticalbitchcara]

Another very funny thing about Haylor that Taylor & team got wrong is I Wish You Would. Harry bought a house in LA around the block to where Taylor’s house was. That is correct. Taylor mentioned that “an ex” did that and he would drive past her house blah blah. Okay, the gist?

The paperwork for the buy is online, tabloids reported on it and linked it. He bought it in March 2014. Very very tight timeline for Taylor to write a song about it. Especially considering Harry had tour rehearsals in the UK and tour in South America very shortly after buying that house. Meaning he couldn’t realistically spend that much time in it before Taylor had to wrap 1989. Make matters even worse? Harry bought TWO houses in LA at the same time in 2014. One of them he bought with an LLC and no one, not even the stalkiest fans, found out he bought it until January 2021 because he was seen in the front door with Olivia (she was followed there from set in December and paps stalked the front of the house for weeks to get a picture). Once those pics came out, fans dug up the paperwork and it was acquired at the same exact time than the other house and it’s under his personal assistant’s name (she’s usually in the paperwork of his stuff for privacy, he used the same method when he bought his 8 million dollar apartment in TriBeCa in 2016). This house is in Laurel Canyon, nowhere near Taylor’s house.

This house is much more his style and the fact that he kept it a secret for 7 full years explains why he was so rarely papped in LA. The other house had its entire fucking address online from the moment he bought it but no one spotted him even NEAR it once. Some friends from LA told me they think he bought it to rent it out (which is also what he did with the TriBeCa apartment). All this to say: Taylor saw the headline about him buying a house next to her house and made an entire song and dance about it. Whether the song was about something else and she repurposed it to be “about Harry” or she just made the whole thing up I don’t know, but the story she told is verifiable BS. Lmao.

yes!! i knew this one bc TW i was super into investigating all the gaylor stuff during the pandemic. am pretty damn agnostic now and honestly don't really care but fair warning i do love the queer subtext in taylor's music and i don't care if it isn't her intention for it to be there. it still is! which is a valid literary analysis!

now that THAT is out of the way!

yes i knew about this one and i agree it doesn't make much sense. the timeline just doesn't add up. correct me if i'm wrong, but the song was actually written in 2013 before harry had even bought the house. i think she described it originally as more of a ~story but then ended up allegedly saying it was about harry/an "ex" in either secret sessions or an interview somewhere.

fact of the matter is... haylor was either basically nothing or a.. not very deep fling used for absolute max publicity. the vast majority of what taylor said and did during haylor/1989 was to promote this crazy, intense love story that. didn't really happen that way. it was clear to anyone with like eyes that their chemistry wasn't exactly anything worth writing home about and harry didn't seem at all emotionally torn up over the breakout especially compared to, say, his relationship with camille. and his team... and harry himself... kept skirting around questions or just straight up denying taylor's teams claims. it's genuinely embarrassing to stan/ship haylor i'm sorry bestiess 😭

[silent-era-of-cinema]

Theda Bara (born Theodosia Burr Goodman; July 29, 1885 – April 7, 1955) was an American silent film and stage actress.

Bara was one of the more popular actresses of the silent era and one of cinema's early sex symbols. Her femme fatale roles earned her the nickname "The Vamp" (short for vampire),[a] later fueling the rising popularity in "vamp" roles that encapsulated exoticism and sexual domination. Bara made more than 40 films between 1914 and 1926, but most were lost in the 1937 Fox vault fire. After her marriage to Charles Brabin in 1921, she made two more feature films and then retired from acting in 1926, never appearing in a sound film.

Bara was born Theodosia Burr Goodman on July 29, 1885 in the Avondale section of Cincinnati, Ohio. She was named after the daughter of US Vice President Aaron Burr. Her father was Bernard Goodman (1853–1936), a prosperous Jewish tailor born in Poland. Her mother, Pauline Louise Françoise (née de Coppett; 1861–1957), was born in Switzerland. Bernard and Pauline married in 1882. Theda had two younger siblings: Marque (1888–1954) and Esther (1897–1965), who also became a film actress under the name of Lori Bara.

Bara attended Walnut Hills High School, graduating in 1903. After attending the University of Cincinnati for two years, she worked mainly in local theater productions, but did explore other projects. After moving to New York City in 1908, she made her Broadway debut the same year in The Devil.

Most of Bara's early films were shot along the East Coast, where the film industry was centered at that time, primarily at the Fox Studios in Fort Lee, New Jersey.

Bara lived with her family in New York City during this time. The rise of Hollywood as the center of the American film industry forced her to relocate to Los Angeles to film the epic Cleopatra (1917), which became one of Bara's biggest hits. No known prints of Cleopatra exist today, but numerous photographs of Bara in costume as the Queen of the Nile have survived.

Between 1915 and 1919, Bara was Fox studio's biggest star; but, tired of being typecast as a vamp, she allowed her five-year contract with Fox to expire. Her final Fox film was The Lure of Ambition (1919). In 1920, she turned briefly to the stage, appearing on Broadway in The Blue Flame. Bara's fame drew large crowds to the theater, but her acting was savaged by critics.

Her career suffered without Fox studio's support, and she did not make another film until The Unchastened Woman (1925) for Chadwick Pictures. Bara retired after making only one more film, the short comedy Madame Mystery (1926), made for Hal Roach and directed by Stan Laurel, in which she parodied her vamp image.

At the height of her fame, Bara earned $4,000 per week (the equivalent of over $56,000 per week in 2017 adjusted dollars). Bara's better-known roles were as the "vamp", although she attempted to avoid typecasting by playing wholesome heroines in films such as Under Two Flags and Her Double Life. She appeared as Juliet in a version of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Although Bara took her craft seriously, she was too successful as an exotic "wanton woman" to develop a more versatile career.

The origin of Bara's stage name is disputed; The Guinness Book of Movie Facts and Feats says it came from director Frank Powell, who learned Theda had a relative named Barranger, and that Theda was a childhood nickname. In promoting the 1917 film Cleopatra, Fox Studio publicists noted that the name was an anagram of Arab death, and her press agents, to enhance her exotic appeal to moviegoers, falsely promoted the young Ohio native as "the daughter of an Arab sheik and a French woman, born in the Sahara." In 1917, the Goodman family legally changed its surname to Bara.

Bara was known for wearing very revealing costumes in her films. Such outfits were banned from Hollywood films after the Production Code (a.k.a. the Hays Code) started in 1930, and then was more strongly enforced in 1934. It was popular at that time to promote an actress as mysterious, with an exotic background. The studios promoted Bara with a massive publicity campaign, billing her as the Egyptian-born daughter of a French actress and an Italian sculptor. They claimed she had spent her early years in the Sahara desert under the shadow of the Sphinx, then moved to France to become a stage actress. (In fact, Bara never had been to Egypt, and her time in France amounted to just a few months.) They called her the "Serpent of the Nile" and encouraged her to discuss mysticism and the occult in interviews. Some film historians point to this as the birth of two Hollywood phenomena: the studio publicity department and the press agent (later evolving into the public relations person).

A 2016 book by Joan Craig with Beverly F. Stout chronicles many personal, first-hand accounts of the lives of Theda Bara and Charles Brabin. It reveals a great dichotomy between Theda Bara's screen persona and her real-life persona. Included are Bara's surprised responses to the critical reactions to her screen portrayals from a sector of the community. The author was befriended by Theda Bara and Charles Brabin beginning when she was a young girl. Craig's photographic-like memory paints an important picture of how they lived, where they lived, and what they said and did, even to the point of describing in great detail most of the rooms of their house. The book describes how Bara, who learned pattern making and wig making from her mother and father, designed and created most of the costumes and gowns she wore in her films, including the striking costumes she wore in Cleopatra.

Bara married British-born American film director Charles Brabin in 1921. They honeymooned at The Pines Hotel in Digby, Nova Scotia, Canada, and later purchased a 400-hectare (990-acre) property down the coast from Digby at Harbourville, Nova Scotia, overlooking the Bay of Fundy, eventually building a summer home they called Baranook.[15] They had no children. Bara resided in a villa-style home in Cincinnati, which served as the "honors villa" at Xavier University. Demolition of the home began in July 2011.

In 1936, she appeared on Lux Radio Theatre during a broadcast version of The Thin Man with William Powell and Myrna Loy. She did not appear in the play but instead announced her plans to make a movie comeback, which never materialized. She appeared on radio again in 1939 as a guest on Texaco Star Theatre.

In 1949, producer Buddy DeSylva and Columbia Pictures expressed interest in making a movie of Bara's life to star Betty Hutton, but the project never materialized.

On April 7, 1955, after a lengthy stay at California Lutheran Hospital in Los Angeles, Bara died there of stomach cancer. She was survived by her husband Charles Brabin, her mother, and sister Lori. She was interred as Theda Bara Brabin at Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetery in Glendale, California.

Bara often is cited as the first sex symbol of the film era.

For her contributions to the film industry, Bara received a motion pictures star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in 1960. Her star is located at 6307 Hollywood Boulevard.

Bara never appeared in a sound film, lost or otherwise. A 1937 fire at Fox's nitrate film storage vaults in New Jersey destroyed most of that studio's silent films. Bara made more than 40 films between 1914 and 1926, but complete prints of only six still exist: The Stain (1914), A Fool There Was (1915), East Lynne (1916), The Unchastened Woman (1925), and two short comedies for Hal Roach.

In addition to these, a few of her films remain in fragments, including Cleopatra (just a few seconds of footage), a clip thought to be from The Soul of Buddha, and a few other unidentified clips featured in the documentary Theda Bara et William Fox (2001). Most of the clips can be seen in the documentary The Woman with the Hungry Eyes (2006). As to vamping, critics stated that her portrayal of calculating, cold-hearted women was morally instructive to men. Bara responded by saying "I will continue doing vampires as long as people sin." Additional footage has been found which shows her behind the scenes on a picture. While the hairstyle has led some to theorize that this may be from The Lure of Ambition, this has not been confirmed.

In 1994, she was honored with her image on a U.S. postage stamp designed by caricaturist Al Hirschfeld. The Fort Lee Film Commission dedicated Main Street and Linwood Avenue in Fort Lee, New Jersey as "Theda Bara Way" in May 2006 to honor Bara, who made many of her films at the Fox Studio on Linwood and Main.

Over a period of several years, filmmaker and film historian Phillip Dye reconstructed Cleopatra on video. Titled Lost Cleopatra, the full-length feature was created by editing together production-still picture montages combined with the surviving film clip. The script was based on the original scenario with modifications derived from research into censorship reports, reviews of the film, and synopses from period magazines. Dye screened the film at the Hollywood Heritage Museum on February 8, 2017.

[spongebob-connoisseur]

Random thoughts:

Spongebob has had numerous controversies over the years about his sexuality for years which is wack since he's a sponge. But I don't have any logic so we are gonna talk about it.

I'm not going to be discussing his sexuality itself since idk there's nothing much to say about it. He's canonically asexual, has been described in interviews and by writers as being pretty aromantic and also a lot of people view him as gay and some as having gender nonconforming tendencies.

That stuff being said, I think this topic gets interesting if you take into account the characters he was based off of.

The inspiration for spongebob was the squeaky clean nerdy manchild archetype. Specifically Stan Laurel from Laurel and Hardy, Peewee Herman, and Jerry Lewis (also fun fact, its said that Stephen Hillenburg got the idea from watching the Laurel and Hardy short "towed in a hole" 1932 with Tom Kenny while coming up with ideas for spongebob)

And all these characters had at one point have been thought to be possibly gay. Specifically Laurel from Laurel and Hardy because they are always together, sleep in the same bed, had an episode where they had raise an orphan child like a married couple, and more.

Or how peewee was seen as more feminine, having episodes in peewees playhouse that had crossdressing.

I can't say much about the characters jerry lewis played since he's homophobic anyways but that doesn't prevent the characters he played of the goofy slightly feminine manchild character had some moments. He's not really as important here since I can say more about Stan Laurel and Peewee Herman.

I just think its interesting because I can see some elements in spongebob. I think the orphan episode from Laurel and Hardy was really similar to rockabye bivalve but instead with spongebob and patrick.

Idk some food for thought. If anyone has something to add then feel free to.