Golden Age of Hollywood Book Club discussion

"Cleopatra"!
"Quo Vadis"!
"Raintree County"!
"Doctor DooLittle!"
"Star!"

Even when they stunk bad, they still stunk.

But an epic train wreck is still epic!

The old saying always runs true: 'You can't buy publicity like this'...

Great topic. How about:

Lost Horizon with Peter Finch
1942 directed by Spielberg
Heaven's Gate directed by M. Cimino
The Conqueror with John Wayne as Genghis Khan!!!!!
Parnell with Clark Gable

Is a flop one that doesn't make back its money or one one which is considered a lousy movie by most people?

I think it might be both. For the studio, the money is important....lose money then the film is a flop. On the other side of the coin, if the movie is hated by the public (but possibly could make money) it is a flop. Does that make sense?

Cleopatra eventually made back all or almost all its budget. Such feats can be pulled off by West Coast businessmen.

I myself might define 'flop' as a film which is preceded by huge fanfare but which in some painful, acute way the first run doesn't live up to the hoopla. It might be a combination of poor revenue, lukewarm critics, deflated media publicity, or unimpressed first-run crowds. Anything like that; anything which punctures the balloon when it first goes up.

You can get weird situations where the film simply runs way over budget and it becomes widely known by the public ahead of time.

If that one backstory hadnt been leaked, who knows what might have happened? But people's expectations were improperly raised; no matter how good the film was ...could it possibly live up to the impression raised by everyone's knowing how much it was costing to make?

'Apocalypse Now' survived this syndrome. It was as good as its notorious pricetag that seemed to spell its doom before it was even complete.

Certainly other films have escaped in the same way; but I think more often than not, a film suffers from too much advance publicity. In such cases, how can we call it 'flop'? It was never given a fair chance.

Yet, many of these type of flops often lived up to this well-known advance indicator of malaise. Spiraling budget is usually a correct sign of deeper infirmity.

Its almost as if no matter how the film does, such notoriety damns it to a hard road and a hard struggle to make good; even if it is good!

How much effect do you think critics have re: "flops". I pay little attention to them, even though I did like the late Roger Ebert because of his humor.

Good question!

There are some exceptions which offset the general principle I believe in; such as the awful harpy Pauline Kael's power to temporarily deter David Lean from filmmaking.

But in general I don't believe critics can keep a popular movie down.

Instead, I believe they are very much a positive force; raising up movies unfairly-dismissed-by-the-public and hailing the hidden talent on display --thus giving newcomers a fair shake at launching careers -- when at first pass they might have went unnoticed.

I would tend to agree. But I read a book by Dwight MacDonald (forget the title right now) but it was made up of his takes on various films. I simply hated it......he came across as a self-absorbed know-it-all who talked down to his readers. So he is in the same category with the hideous Pauline Kael.

Feliks wrote: "You can get weird situations where the film simply runs way over budget and it becomes widely known by the public ahead of time.

If that one backstory hadnt been leaked, who knows what might have ..."

Hmmmm......I might disagree with you on the "running over budget" effect on the viewing public. I don't think people really ever think about that when watching a film. I know that the hype on Cleopatra was partly about budget (even though it finally did eke out the investment), it was the Taylor/Burton affair that sent people to the theaters to see what that was all about.

And sometimes a film has to be "rediscovered" to lose the reputation as a "flop". Citizen Kane comes to mind. The public didn't seem to be interested when it was released but then, several years later it was, and has, stayed at the top of the "greatest movie" lists. Why? Was it Orson Welle's reputation and eccentric career, the cinematography that was groundbreaking, or the fact that William Randolph Hearst's nationwide newspaper empire campaigned against the film?

I've watched Heaven's Gate a number of times the last 10 years and to me it's ages better and better every time I watch it. I still don't know what all the fuss about it was when it came out, I remember seeing it and liked it then. Maybe everyone was expecting a Josey Wells type movie.

'the film that brought down a studio'...I've talked to the exec producer via email after reading his book on the downfall

the thing is, Cimino. He was a madman. Whereas, Coppola too was given to re-takes and re-takes ...Cimino was not of that caliber to indulge in the same mania.

Basically the major complaint is that it is overlong and cost too much to make. It cost too much to make so it couldn't recoup the outlay and the whole studio came tumbling down.

think of it this way: in the 1970s, the BIGGEST movies prior to 'Heaven's Gate' cost at most ...$10m. HG's pricetag was $40m.

it single-handedly killed the concept of 'art-house cinema' in the USA.

but apart from all that? yeah any movie with Chris Walken AND Kris Kristofferson should always be credible and watchable....I agree....

I haven't seen it but heard that it was so foggy you couldn't half see it. Or am I thinking of another film?

Was this a flop or just a horrible movie......Paint Your Wagon?

You mean foggy with clods of Fuller's Earth hurled into the air by the crew, during every scene featuring a horse

'Paint Your Wagon' is an interesting pick. It is bizarre to us now, but then the whole era had such lurid, effervescent, ebullient projects and they were considered quite normal.

Although it seems baroque to our timeperiod, I won't disparage it. I applaud it for its oddness.

You are very kind about that film.

My favorite film of all-time, in which the Monkees literally commit commercial suicide: Head.

Now that really is singular taste. I thought I'd heard the dizzy limit when you mentioned, 'Xanadu'.

Spencer you probably liked...'Eating Raoul' too, eh? These "outre" movies, you get a kick out of, huh? And Tura Satana?

Not demeaning, just curious...

Peter Bogdonavich's flops seem worse than they might have been, he really had some growing up to do? I've seen him in interviews and in lectures and he seemed reasonable but I suspect this is the impression that anyone of his experience could exude when necessary. I admire some things about him (like his relationship with Welles) but I have the inkling that he was probably just as pompous as everyone says, during some episodes like the one below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickelo...

I kinda liked 'Nickelodeon' but more so, after it was over, not so much while it was playing. Not much a fan of Burt Reynolds and I thought the slapstick felt 'forced'. Supporting cast not very likeable except for vavavoom Stella Stevens.

TCM has been showing podcasts (whatever they are) about Peter Bogdonavich. I think the only thing I've seen of his is 'Paper Moon.'

Well. 'Paper Moon' is fun and sweet in a way which I would think anyone would enjoy. I've never heard a bad word said against it.

"What's Up Doc?" is an homage to slapstick, has some memorable chortles in it. Really a romp; full of zany characters. Everything was kept tasteful too.

So for me, even just based on these two flicks, I like what PD generally did with his clout and his film-lore and his 'seriousness director' schtick. These are feel-good films.

'The Last Picture Show' goes in the opposite direction; it is hard-hitting and expletive and bitter. Memorable performances, but goes mighty far overboard.

'Nickelodeon' (in my opinion) is quaint and small-in-stature even though the photography is charming. It feels like a TV movie. But reading the history of it, I wish he would have stuck to the original script! Winkler and Chartoff were very good judges of material and they shouldn't have let him balkanize it!

(none of his other titles ever held out enough interest to me, to compel me to track them down ...)

I thought Paper Moon was an enjoyable films and Tatum O'Neil did her best work. She kinda' pooped out after that.

Eating Raoul is on my "to watch" list. Mary Waronov is one of my favorite factory girls.

Why do some directors have a couple of genuine classic films to their credit and everything else following are not up to the director's talent and are total flops? D.W. Griffith comes to mind. Do they become complacent or what is the problem?

I believe Griffith paid the price of being a pioneer, much as Welles did; and the industry he shaped did not treat him to an easy time of it.

I'd need to hear more of this suspected trend to comment on it. I'd almost always blame the studio.

Contrary example:
John Sturges casually tossed off 'The Eagle Has Landed' with utter disregard and sure it could have been better but its still fantastic.

John Huston said that sometimes the studio paid him for a deliberately mediocre product. That's sometimes what the front office wants.

Billy Wilder famously defended a failing director long-past-his-prime), 'you are always as good as the best work you've ever done'.

There certainly are contrary examples: Fritz Lang with his masterpieces in Germany and his fine films once he came to the US. But the extremely talented Jean Renoir couldn't make it in the US and I would say that it was the studio that held him back. Edgar Ulmer was assigned to Poverty Row films and didn't stand much of a chance except for Detour which took a few years to be recognized as a classic noir.. So I think your comment about blaming the studios is probably on target..

DW Griffith may be a different story......I think that he tried to outdo himself after Birth of a Nation by making overblown films that didn't appeal to the public.

Directors can develop blind spots especially if they've had a major hit. The syndrome of always trying to match it.

Not only directors do that. Authors are prone to that too. I suppose it's human nature to want to match or surpass an achievement. Only Max Bialystock wanted a flop.

ha! i got that reference

Me too. Only Mel Brooks could come up with "Springtime for Hitler in Germany". I loved The Producers!

I am not surprised since you two have been known to see a few films.

I am a Mel Brooks fan deluxe. His odd sense of humor makes me laugh out loud sometimes. Even when they can be in bad taste, it is harmless.

BTW it is Hedley LaMarr!!!! (Blazing Saddles). I read somewhere that Brooks and his wife Anne Bancroft sat around one evening trying to come up with a title for that film and he said that it just hit him all of a sudden. It made Annne laugh and that became the title. He then talked to the black cast members and told them that the "n" word was going to be used and asked their feelings about it. They read the script and said that it was fine with them since it fit right into the story line of a black sheriff showing up in a tiny western town. I never thought that Mel Brooks would even think about that issue, especially in 1974.

Yeah that's an odd anecdote. I wouldn't think anyone went out of their way to ask anyone's opinion during that circa; there were much different dynamic(s) going on than today. I actually think communication was better then than it is now. Folks spoke up in person when they were angry about something; they let you know ahead of time what they wanted from you. Militants got things done! Grassroots. They showed up on your turf and forced you to dialogue with them. Full participation, or else you might find your building taken over by a sit-in, or a love-in, or a 'happening'. Totally unlike today. Way more understanding with way less verbiage.

There were all sorts of other movies where edgy language was heard. 'Charley Varrick', as just one example. I'd be surprised to hear that every time it happened, cast or crew were consulted.

That makes me think about the scene in Head where the Monkees get saved from police harassment by the Black Panthers. But really the whole film is a series of "I can't believe this got filmed" moments. I wish Rafelson had done one more total nutjob movie. Though Five Easy Pieces does get pretty looney.

You have refined tastes, camrade. I designate you Cult Film docent for this discussion group!

Now that I think about it, maybe Mel Brooks, who was probably tired of the Jewish epithets that he suffered as a young man, was aware of the use of the "n" word and wanted to be sure that his actors were consulted. It was a fine gesture.

Bwahaa aha aha. Bob Hope sure made some stinkers.

"Call Me Bwana"
(egad)

"The Iron Petticoat"
(Bob Hope cut the legs out from under Kate Hepburn?? I wouldna believed it...)

I have a CD set of old radio programs and trust me, Bob Hope's humor does not hold up.....but Jack Benny's does. I think we have talked about this before but I had to say it anyway.

Back to flops.....it always amazes me that some of the worst films that probably should have been flops are still considered classics. I'm going to drop a name here which will probably cause consternation but the first film in that category that comes to mind is the 1931 Dracula. I can think of some reasons why it is probably cherished but I would like to hear y'all's opinions.

I halfway agree on Bob Hope. Very mixed bag. He's best paired with Crosby or in a good movie like "Hold That Ghost". And I loved when he turned to drama -- that film about the New York mayor which he did.

His radio shows --I find still listenable, but not really enjoyable. The rapid-fire style he used is kinda fascinating even though the jokes themselves are either corny/flat; or they are too-specific to where he was playing. For instance if he played an air base, many of the jokes are about *that* air base; and incomprehensible today.

Dracula --that version looks silly if just watching excerpts and clips but to sit down and see it through, I found it eerie and chilling. Something about it just so over-the-top as a visual experience that I get absorbed in it. Lugosi's beady-eyed gaze has been parodied so often but the actual scenes where he does this thing --whew. Effective.

Lugosi was a very tragic man and was forever stuck in those types of roles but he was a terrible actor IMO. And what about the armadillos in his castle? A stupid mistake.. The long sections of silence and the constant use of the Swan Lake music was irritating. I have seen it several time since I knew I was supposed to like it but just couldn't.

I don't take it 'seriously' but more as an experimental, or avante-garde concoction.

Armadillos and any other weirdness/quirks/mistakes; make it better than it was intended to be. Just my opinion.

I do have a favorite scene.........Lugosi on the stairway when he meets Renfrew........"I (pause) am Dracula". A great introduction to the character. But that's about it

I have never seen it as an experimental or avant-garde film (I think of Man Ray or Jean Cocteau for those films) but just a movie taken from the stage play which originally starred Lugosi (that's how he got the part even though his English as rather poor at that point) But I can see why you have that opinion

A little known flop, is Scent of Mystery. I think that Peter Lorre may have been the only known actor in that (perhaps, Diana Dors). There is an uncredited appearance by a VERY famous actress, but that wouldn't be box office pull, unless you knew the actress was going to be in it for 3 seconds at the end.

I saw its rerelease, with scents included. It was a fun flick, but SO bad.

What a total disaster! And Smell0vision wasn't the only reason. It was just not a good film even though it had some good actors in it. (Lukas, Elliot, McKern) Lorre had a heart attack during the filming and a double was used in some scenes........I wonder where they found someone who resembled Lorre!!!

Here is a gigantic flop that I had forgotten about until I saw it mentioned somewhere else. It is Parnell (1937) starring Clark Gable and Myrna Loy. It is considered the worst film that either of them ever made and I doubt if many people even know about it.

Gable was totally wrong for the part of Charles Stewart Parnell, the Irish patriot. It called for a very sensitive performance that he could just not give. I'm not saying that Gable wasn't a good actor, just that he was horribly miscast. Loy wasn't much better. I have no idea what actors should have been cast in those parts since it appears that the film was boring anyway. The public hated it, as did the critics and it lost a ton of money. Luckily, it didn't hurt their careers.

1. Bonfire of the Vanities - Made a mess of the Wolfe novel, but spawned a very good behind-the-scenes account, a book called "The Devil's Candy."
2. Heaven's Gate - Another misfire that was the subject of a "making of" book, I think it was called "The Final Cut."
3, The Bill Murray vanity version of "The Razor's Edge."
4. The Conqueror (John Wayne as Ghengis Khan)
5. The Lone Ranger (the one from the 90s)
6. Waterworld
7. Phantom of the Paradise
8. A Walk With Love and Death
9. The Wiz
10. Staying Alive

Guess that's why I haven't seen any of those, Barbara. In fact, I stopped going to see most movies in the theatre by the 80s. That's partly because I was living in NYC and they were expensive. I did see one movie a lot in the 90s,

You don't get much worse then The Conqueror. Susan Hayward as a red haired Tartar woman, and John Wayne as Genghis Khan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!......it wasn't even so bad it was good. And then everybody got cancer from shooting the film in atomic test land.