Joan Marie wrote: ↑30 Apr 2019, 12:51
katrinka wrote: ↑29 Apr 2019, 20:51
what's good about a Bow film is always just Clara herself, never the story.
Her film "It" which became her moniker, the It Girl, is a really heavy film. It takes on the topics of unwanted pregnancy (Clara helps support a freind who is saddled with a baby that the father won't claim or help pay for), the unfair and unjust shaming of women for men's behaviours, and a few other things like workplace sexual harassment. It's a surprisingly great film with a really engaging story. And she of course she is brilliant in it. She was so much more than cute (though she surely was that.) Her performance had real depth as did her co-stars. And it was an excellent script.
It's a thoroughly enjoyable film, and yes, it takes on topics. Anyone who has seen CPS do more harm than good will also be able to relate! The intertitles are entertaining and clever, and of course Clara was brilliant in it!
What I meant by my dig at the plot is the Cinderella "poor girl meets boy, loses boy, wins him back" formula - the story is loosely based on an Elinor Glyn novella. Glyn was a kind of lightweight trash romance popular fiction writer. And B.P. Schulberg worked Clara like a slave and didn't care about getting good parts for her - he saw the films as disposable, cheap entertainment and he was going for quantity rather than quality. Actresses often had to fight tooth and nail for good parts (Bette Davis style) and Clara, spunky though she was, was ill-equipped for fighting the studio.
Imagine any other actress from that era in Clara's part - Norma Shearer, Mary Pickford, Olive Borden, Marion Davies, etc. - all competent actresses, but the film would be largely forgotten, I think. Even with the powerhouse ladies like Garbo, Theda, or Gloria Swanson, it would be a completely different film: good, but heavier, darker. Clara
sparkled. Enough to make us believe, for a little over an hour at least, that rich men marry slum girls. She's inconstant motion, fidgeting, playing with her hair, running around the set. Her face is the most expressive on film. When she's in a scene, you're looking at
her. A lot of what she does in
It is her own ad lib, things she threw in herself - the writers and director can't take credit.
That sparkle is a rare thing. Harlow had it (and later, once she got her acting chops, she could have made a great Betty Lou Spence in a talkie version - imagine Gable in the male lead.) Monroe had it, too - how many actresses from the 1950's are still instantly recognizable to literally
everyone? Just last night at work, I heard a very young girl refer to a dermal on the lower cheek as "a Monroe". Even Loren and Taylor don't have that level of recognition.
All of this goes beyond sex appeal, "it", etc. There's something indefinable, almost magical at play. That's what makes
It a great film. Take it out of the equation and the film falls flat.
Regarding Louise Brooks, I can really recommend her autobiography, Lulu in Hollywood. She was a very gifted writer and extremely sharp witted. It's an account not just of her life, but also a picture of the film industry in Hollywood and Germany in those days.
Yes!
And for Clara, David Stenn's
Runnin' Wild. He wrote the definitive Harlow biography, too. There's a longish interview with him here, in six parts. It mainly focuses on Jean, but there's mentions of Clara, too:
https://www.classicmoviefavorites.com/a ... vid-stenn/
There was talk of a Bow biopic a few years ago. I hope it gets done. I trust Stenn to get it right.
https://variety.com/2016/film/news/clar ... 201808572/
Stenn also funded the preservation of
Maytime. Clara only has a supporting role in that one, but, of course, she totally steals the movie.
https://www.filmpreservation.org/preser ... ytime-1923