Monday, May 12, 2008

The ABCs of Classic Hollywood



Speaking as an academic, it’s been a hard week: I gave and graded one hundred final exams. But speaking as a cinephile, it’s been a thrilling week. I revisited 4 films—Grand Hotel, The Philadelphia Story, The Maltese Falcon, and Meet Me in St. Louis—and read Robert B. Ray’s The ABCs of Classic Hollywood, the best new film book I’ve encountered in a long while. This strikingly unusual book is devoted to detailed exploration of the four films.

Ray’s starting point is this quote from Vincente Minnelli: “I feel that a picture that stays with you is made up of a hundred or more hidden things. They’re things that the audience is not conscious of, but that accumulate.” Ray proposes a fascinating and unorthodox method for discovering these hidden things. For each film, he puts together a collection of ‘entries’, one or more for every letter of the alphabet. (It’s pure chance that this blog entry follows the one on Peter Wollen’s “Alphabet of Cinema”.)

Here are some examples of entries for Grand Hotel: A for Art Deco; B for the Blue Danube waltz, which plays throughout the film; C for the great Coffin scene, which seems parachuted in from some forgotten documentary; D for John Barrymore’s Dachschund, and for Doors; F for Flaemmchen (Joan Crawford); I for “I want to be alone”; O for overhead shots; U for underwear, etc.

The entries are eclectic and omnivorous, drawing from a wide variety of sources: Roland Barthes and Walter Benjamin, the two repeatedly invoked touchstones in this book—but done so in a lucid, pedagogically plainspoken way; Hollywood histories and biographies; Surrealism; philosophers like Wittgenstein and Cavell; la politique des auteurs, etc. Most interestingly, the work is pitched as “a movie primer,” aiming perhaps to build a bridge between academic thinking about cinema and the ‘lay’ film enthusiast interested in ideas.

Ray writes that the book began for him with a single image: after returning to her room from a failed ballet performance, Grusinskaya (Garbo) sits on the floor to remove her costume.

In the midst of Grand Hotel’s creaky melodrama and steamy overacting, this image—mysterious, beautiful, unmoored from any character’s perspective, narratively unnecessary—offers a challenge: what can we say that will do it justice? The movies, of course, are full of such moments, and the discipline of film studies arose, at least in part, to explain them. That task has proved more difficult than it once appeared: “[T]he movies are difficult to explain,” Christian Metz once admitted in his famous epigram, “because they are easy to understand.”

Ray performs neither a workmanlike New Criticism-style ‘close analysis’ nor a programmatic application of the ‘semiotic paradigm’—structuralism, psychoanalysis, feminism, ideological analysis, etc. (I’m not knocking either of these approaches, only saying that sometimes they can lend themselves to mechanical, cookie-cutter analyses that forget the power of surprise.)

Here’s an excerpt from the book:

One way to think about classical Hollywood filmmaking is to imagine a process occurring simultaneously on two axes. The x axis involves a movie’s forward momentum, its equivalent of melody […]—the enigmas and unfolding actions that keep the viewer wanting to see what happens next. In the studio system, producers, scriptwriters, directors, and editors had responsibility for this domain, the film’s story, regarded as its most decisive element. The y axis, on the other hand, resembles a melody’s particular harmony: every narrative moment must be inflected by choices of set design, costumes, casting, camera work and music. In general, the Hollywood studios reserved their highest rewards for the x axis: producers and directors, in other words, made more money than cameramen and costumers. The auteur critics would retroactively insist that directors had operated precisely at the two axes’ juncture; Hollywood production records, however, undermine that claim. With men like MGM’s W.S. “Woody” “One-Take” Van Dyke completing two features in nine days, and Warners’ Mervyn LeRoy, in Thomas Schatz’s words, “quite capable of cranking out six to eight pictures per year, on schedule and under budget,” while “averaging 5’30” of finished film a day,” directors often slighted the y axis in the pell-mell process of satisfying the studios’ quota of 50 features a year. In a conversation about Van Dyke, MGM producer J.J. Cohn once bestowed the studio system’s highest praise: “God, he was fast.”

Stars, of course, proved the exception to the x versus y rule. After producers, they commanded the highest salaries, perhaps because their work actually did involve both axes: Major stars became at once narrative axioms (Garbo-as-tragic-artist, Cagney-as-hoodlum) and a story line’s mise-en-scène (compare Grand Hotel to its remake, Week-end at the Waldorf: Garbo is not Ginger Rogers, John Barrymore is not Walter Pidgeon). Replacing a star could simultaneously disable a plot (John Wayne cannot play screwball comedy) and transform a film’s mood more decisively than any change in cinematographer, art director, or costumer.

It’s an indication of the freedom of movement of the book that the above excerpt is from a Grand Hotel entry called “Art Deco”. The work grew out of a 14-week course that intensely scrutinized the four films, and most of the entries are co-credited to specific students:

Far from wearing out the films under investigation, the intense scrutiny enhanced both my own and my students’ interest in them. In fact, as I wrote this book, I found myself reluctant to move on when I had finished each chapter; each movie I had been studying seemed, in turn, the richest and most entertaining of the group. (Since I took them up in chronological order, Meet Me in St. Louis now seems to me the greatest movie of all time.)


* * *

Any recent (or even relatively recent) film books to recommend?


* * *

Links:

-- At Critical Culture, Pacze Moj has been watching and blogging about early Antonioni (esp. the shorts), accompanied by lots of framegrabs.

-- Dave Kehr in a post on Edward Dmytryk's The Sniper (1952): "Alfred Hitchcock was a voracious filmgoer, and like many great artists, a bit of a magpie. Consciously or unconsciously, he would file away shots and sequences that impressed him, and years later some of them would re-emerge, reshaped by Hitchcock’s genius and fully integrated into his personal universe."

-- Craig Keller posts YouTube interview/clips of "Four American Masters": Ferrara, Cassavetes, Welles and Jerry Lewis.

-- Thom Ryan at Film of the Year: "Reflections on Cinema after Viewing Maya Deren's Ritual in Transfigured Time."

-- Robert B. Ray is also a leader of the respected rock band, the Vulgar Boatmen.

pic: Garbo removing her costume in Grand Hotel.

31 Comments:

Blogger Robert said...

Richard Brody's new biography of Godard is about as good as anything written on the subject since Moanco's "The New Wave".

May 12, 2008 2:20 PM  
Blogger girish said...

Robert, I didn't realize Brody's book was out. I just ordered my copy. I've looked at bits and pieces of Colin MacCabe's JLG biography, but need to read it in one go from start to finish.

I've just begun Dorota Ostrowska's Reading the French New Wave: Critics, Writers and Art Cinema in France (Wallflower Press, 2008), which has new (or new to me, anyway) material on the connection between the cinematic and literary avant-gardes of the period, i.e. between French critics/theorists and modernist literary figures like Robbe-Grillet, Cayrol and Duras.

May 12, 2008 6:55 PM  
Blogger Pacze Moj said...

I look forward to books more often than I read, or get to read, them; but some new ones about cinema I'm looking forward to:

Dolores Tierney's Emilio Fernandez: Pictures in the Margins

Keith Tester's Film as Theology: Eric Rohmer

Jack Sullivan's Hitchcock's Music

Unfiltered: The Complete Ralph Bakshi, by several authors.

Those were April releases. In May, there's:

Jonathan Rosenbaum's Essential Cinema: On the Necessity of Film Canons

Peter Bonandella's Italian Cinema: From the Silent Era to the Present, which may be an expansion of an earlier book.

And the Godard book.

May 12, 2008 8:13 PM  
Blogger girish said...

Hi, Pacze. I didn't know about the Rohmer and Emilio Fernandez books, and have been curious to check out Hitchcock's Music. Speaking of, I just picked up Michael Walker's Hitchcock's Motifs and Bill Krohn's Hitchcock at Work; and watched the surprisingly stylized Murder! for the first time.

I have the 1995 'expanded' edition of the Peter Bondanella book, only it's called Italian Cinema from Neo-Realism to the Present.

May 12, 2008 8:56 PM  
Blogger Ryland Walker Knight said...

I'm supposed to be finishing a seminar paper by Wednesday and an Honors Thesis by next Monday so I think once I'm done with all that I'm going to look to read a lot of fiction and leave film criticism alone for a little while. I plan to up my Netflix to 2-at-home, but I mostly want to not use my eyes in the dark as much in this fast-approaching summer. Still: I'm looking forward to that 2nd edition of Mulhall's _On Film_ and my ILL request for the Maratti book I plugged. Other than that, my list of fiction to read is ridiculously long and ambitious. Consulting my notebook...

--gotta finish Neal Stephenson's _Cryptonomicon_ and Karel Capek's _War With The Newts_

--really want the full-color edition of _House of Leaves_ by Mark Z Danielewski

--may read _Lolita_ again, just cuz, and I may look at _Pale Fire_, too

--Burrough's _The Western Lands_

--Michel Houellbeqc's _The Elementary Particles_ and _Platform_

--to satisfy a friend's ardent recommendation I'll give Italo Calvino another shot with _If on a winter's night a traveler_

--Melville's _The Confidence Man: His Masquerade_

--Denis Johnson's newest, _Tree of Smoke_

--finally: I'm feeling the itch to rediscover my once-upon-a-time allegiances to James Joyce and Shakespeare because I think I'd get a lot more out of both now...

How's that for a list? I didn't even list the "philosophy" I want to get to know better. Probably cuz I want to take a break from that kind of dialectic writing for a while, too, and enjoy the affective rhythms of these writers' prose.

May 13, 2008 12:23 AM  
Anonymous Jim Flannery said...

re: new wave/new novel, Girish, I've been reading Michel Butor's late 50s/early 60s essays (Inventory in english, Repertoire in french), and throughout the first section I kept finding myself thinking about contemporaneous film ... it's pretty easy to read through "The Novel as Research", replacing novel ⋙ film, literature ⋙ cinema, etc., and having it perfectly applicable. And I had to laugh whilst reading the section "Temporal Counterpoint" in "Research in the Technique of the Novel", since the simplest form he describes is the one Kael thought was so arbitrary & incomprehensible &c. in This Sporting Life...

May 13, 2008 2:56 AM  
Blogger Noel Vera said...

Would a source novel count? Seamus Heaney's spectacular translation into modern english of Beowulf, which goes to show--Neil Gaiman can clever up the plot with Oedipean subtexts, but Beowulf is really just a straightforward story made memorable by the straightforward details. It's how you present said details--either in great poetry, or mediocre CGI filmmaking--that makes the difference.

May 13, 2008 8:43 PM  
Blogger girish said...

Thanks, Ry, Jim, Noel.

Ry, I find that sometimes I neglect fiction in favor of nonfiction and need to make a conscious effort to redress this. Let me second your friend on Calvino's If on a winter's night..., which I've read more than once. And thank you for the tip on the Maratti/Deleuze book.

By the way, that conversation between Andrew Klevan and Stanley Cavell in Film as Philosophy is pretty great, eh?

Jim, I didn't know of Michel Butor's Inventory but have ILL'ed it. Thank you.

Noel, I read your comment over at your blog about Mike de Leon's Sister Stella L.. I'll pass on it, and hold out for a true De Leon film.

May 13, 2008 10:43 PM  
Blogger girish said...

-- There's a new issue of Jump Cut online.
-- Brian Darr at Greencine on "Bruce Conner's Cannes-bound - and possibly last - film," Easter Morning.
-- Dave Kehr in the NYT:
"Had it been even marginally successful, Raoul Walsh’s 1930 epic western, “The Big Trail,” might have changed the course of film history. Made in a pioneering 70-millimeter widescreen process (as well as in conventional 35 millimeter for theaters that couldn’t afford the new equipment), this story of a wagon train’s dangerous journey from Missouri to “the land beyond Oregon” makes use of techniques that would not gain currency in Hollywood until more than two decades had passed.

"Walsh makes maximum use of the width of the big screen, composing his shots so that the eye is led, as in classical painting, to pick out a series of details across the surface of the image. But he also uses the extremely high resolution of the 70-millimeter stock to create perspectives that draw the viewer from foreground details to action in the distant background, at times seemingly miles away. Nothing less is at stake here than the whole system of analytical editing within a scene, as developed by the directors of the 1910s; what Walsh is doing does not really find an equivalent until Jacques Tati’s 70-millimeter masterpiece of 1967, “Playtime.”"

May 13, 2008 10:53 PM  
Blogger girish said...

David Bordwell has an interesting overview post on film criticism.

May 14, 2008 12:49 PM  
Blogger Noel Vera said...

That Walsh sounds exciting.

girish, there are a number of de Leon films on DVD. the catch is, no subtitles.

May 15, 2008 12:19 AM  
Blogger girish said...

I just got the new issue of Film Comment and as usual made a beeline for the new dvd releases section. I've seen none of the following.

Most Exciting: Mann's THE FURIES; King Hu's COME DRINK WITH ME; Fleischer's MANDINGO; Duras' NATHALIE GRANGER; Tati's TRAFIC; Grant Gee's Joy Division doc.

Definitely Interesting/Will Rent: Assayas's BOARDING GATE; Morris Engel's LOVERS AND LOLLIPOPS, WEDDINGS AND BABIES; Sautet's CLASSE TOUS RISQUES; Honore's DANS PARIS; Stefan Krohmer's SUMMER 04; Andre Techine's THE WITNESSES.

Curious About/Sound Interesting: Paul Schrader's THE WALKER; Nadine Labaki's CARAMEL; Joseph Pevney's MAN OF A THOUSAND FACES; Mitchell Lichtenstein's TEETH; Sion Sono's NORIKO'S DINNER TABLE; Friedkin's THE NIGHT THEY RAIDED MINSKY'S.

May 15, 2008 4:21 PM  
Anonymous jmac said...

Hey Girish! I do not have a book recommendation, but I'd like to request one. :) For example, where to begin with the authors, Serge Daney and Gilles Deleuze, referenced so frequently by the bloggers? I am looking for a book that is philosophical, poetic, and French! Any recommendations will be very appreciated . . .

:)

May 16, 2008 1:46 PM  
Blogger girish said...

Hey, Jen -- I'd love to hear other folks chime in about this, but here are some recommendations. The original texts of these are all in French.

-- Steve Erickson's website has a collection of Serge Daney's writings including an introduction to them. [scroll down about two-thirds of the way]. This is an excellent place to begin.

-- Gilles Deleuze is a post-structuralist philosopher who wrote widely and prolifically, including two books on cinema, Cinema 1: The Movement-Image and Cinema 2: The Time-Image. A couple of good places to begin with Deleuze might be: (1) his book of interviews, Negotiations; and (2) the best primer I've seen on his work, Understanding Deleuze by Claire Colebrook. I find Deleuze's sensibility wonderfully inspiring, but I also find his writing to be unusually challenging.

May 16, 2008 2:23 PM  
Blogger girish said...

Oh, and the Colebrook book is originally in English and not a translation.

May 16, 2008 2:25 PM  
Anonymous jmac said...

Thanks so much, Girish! I really appreciate this info! Are you saying that Deleuze might be difficult to read on the subway? :) I just want to find a book that entrances me . . .

May 16, 2008 4:38 PM  
Blogger girish said...

Hi, Jen -- I'd call Deleuze's writing less 'poetic' or 'entrancing' than 'philosophical'. I find that I'm constantly referring back to the work of other philosophers (e.g. Bergson, Nietzsche, Spinoza) when I'm reading Deleuze. Let me offer another suggestion: Roland Barthes has a more overtly 'poetic' style than Deleuze. Barthes's favorite writer is Proust, whose writing I know you love. Barthes's late work is especially lyrical and poetic, e.g. his memoir-of-sorts Roland Barthes by Roland Barthes or A Lover's Discourse. Perhaps they might work for the subway!

May 16, 2008 9:04 PM  
Anonymous jmac said...

Roland Barthes sounds perfect! I read some of Deleuze on Wikipedia, and I'm not up for that at the moment. I'm a sensualist! :)

Thanks again!

May 17, 2008 11:22 AM  
Anonymous Dave Kehr said...

Ray's book sounds very interesting and I'll make sure to pick up a copy. The X/Y axis idea is intriguing, but if you've ever spent any time on a set, you quickly come to realize that most of the director's time is spent making exactly the kind of tiny decisions -- the color of the wallpaper, the casting of an extra -- that Ray ascribes to the technicians who propose alternatives and then carry the director's instructions. The Minnelli quote strikes at the heart of that: a film is seldom the product of a grand vision on the part of a director, writer or producer, but rather the sum of thousands of tiny decisions (in my experience, usually on the director's part) that in the end either add up to a coherent aesthetic experience or (more often, alas) fail to.

May 17, 2008 11:55 AM  
Blogger girish said...

Jen, you're most welcome.

Great point you make, Dave.
One thing I didn't get a chance to mention in my post is that because Ray's book is structured in the form of entries, he will circle back repeatedly, from a slightly different angle each time, to a certain set of questions. The "division of labor" within the Hollywood system, and the auteur critics' role in 'reading' Hollywood films, are among these questions. So, the ideas in the passage I quoted above get elaborated, speculated upon, and qualified in small, subtle ways throughout the book.

I think you'll find the book interesting, and I'd love to hear your reaction to it after you've read it.

May 17, 2008 3:50 PM  
Blogger HarryTuttle said...

I've bought Deleuze's Cinema 1 & 2 and haven't finished reading either one since last year. It's great but it's too dense, too vast to digest in one take.
When I hear that the new generation of critics is allegedly inspired by Deleuze, I wonder what exactly of his ideas have transpired to the writing published today in the press or on blogs... What is "Deleuzian" about film criticism? Not in even in Cahiers are they anything close to his insights, rigor and erudition...

May 18, 2008 2:45 PM  
Blogger girish said...

Is the new generation of critics (press, blogs) really inspired by Deleuze? I'm not sure; I'm not able to see exactly how. In the film-blogosphere (and even more so in the press) I see him as an extremely minority taste/figure, perhaps because he is challenging and his body of writings is vast. Larry Gross's Film Comment essay on Todd Haynes' I'm Not There from last year is a rare example of film criticism that takes up Deleuze in the popular (non-academic) film press.

May 18, 2008 3:39 PM  
Blogger HarryTuttle said...

I don't know for sure, but I remember this was mentioned in the last Cahiers roundtable, on the Cahiers forum, someone Dr Mabuse's Kaleido-scope, and if I'm not mistaken at a_film_by too.
Film criticism (in print or virtual) is hardly on par with traditional standards, so let alone Deleuze standards. Maybe at Trafic, Rouge or Senses of cinema (the French revue "Cinema0#" of Bernard Eisenschitz was discontinued recently by the way), but they are academic venues, it's not representative of the "reviewing" discourse (the way films are analyzed in popular culture).
Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

May 18, 2008 5:43 PM  
Blogger Andy Rector said...

Girish,
pardon my slow response!
you said: "I've never even heard of: Peter Nestler; Antonio Reis and Margarida Cordeiro; Edward Ludwig; and Harmut Bitomsky!"

...don't feel bad, almost no one has -- me, barely...

Peter Nestler and Harmut Bitomsky are German filmmakers (how little we really know of German cinema!), still living and working. I came to know their names while studying Straub/Huillet. S/H have expressed little admiration for German cinema post-Oberhausen, but Nestler's work is the exception and they've spoken about him many times. The latest film in Nestler's filmography is a short documentary on the Straubs (it's a small world) -- and it's the only Nestler film I've been able to see. Without having seen the others, and finding little writing on Nestler, I still get a sense that his work is a missing link in the conversation on documentary film. Something between ethnography, landscape film, city and country, History (big H) and history (little h). There are several essays on his work in (regrettably!!) the last edition of Bernard Eisenschitz et al's journal CINEMA (no. 014).

Harmut Bitomsky has made what one might call documentary films, essay films with great poetry. He once ran the film department at CalArts (don't know if still does). I caught 2 of his films at the Goethe Institut here in Los Angeles, with a throng of about 8 people. The 2 films I saw both dealt with film and film history directly, via video. DAS KINO UND DER TOD (Film and Death) and DAS KINO UND DER WIND UND DIE PHOTOGRAPHIE. The poetry was in the shuffle of materials, a poetry of revelation; literally Bitomsky sitting at a desk looking and speaking about photos of films, documentary material, with TV moniters and tapes of films being handed back and forth, popped in, "checked" - a kind of rotating poetic/pedagogy. Inevitably it looked a bit like Godard's video work but the sensibility was completely different. I can't sum these films up, this was years ago and copies are non-existent as far as I know, but I recall the feeling that the "wind in the trees" was just as much a death as a life, that machines (cinema and otherwise) were speeding, at various rates, towards death...His films seem to be about machines and systems: one of his slightly more well known films is on a VW factory in Germany - and more recently he made a (reportedly great) film on the history and making of B52 bombers. All his films are concerned with imperialism in one sense or another and I should say Bitomsky is also a film critic; I believe he wrote for Film Kritik; the only piece I've read from him was on Ford, unfortunately only available in the Vienna catalog '04, but well worth tracking down.

Antonio Reis and Margarida Cordeiro are Portugeuse filmmakers who only made a handful of films throughout the late 60's, 70's, and 80's. I first read about them in Daney (the "CINEMA IN TRANSIT" translations available on Steve Erickson's site) and indeed for such a small body of work, the Cahiers dedicated a significant amount of space to their work in the 70's and 80's (for both political reasons and reasons of beauty!). And though he mentions them less often than the Straubs, Costa has said his masters are really Reis and the Straubs. I believe it was Reis who introduced Costa to the Straubs' work. Anyhow, if you're interested take a look at this wonderful blog: www.antonioreis.blogspot.com ~~ it's mostly in Portugeuse and French but one can see startling still-frames from Reis/Cordeiro's films, and links to Costa's practice almost immediately.

Edward Ludwig...I've been meaning to write on the sole film of his that I've seen, THE GUN HAWK, on KINO SLANG....it's a B-western which begs comparison to Visconti! To be continued...

yours!
andy

May 18, 2008 6:37 PM  
Anonymous Peter Nellhaus said...

Girish: Of the third level of films listed from Film Comment, I enjoyed Teeth when I saw it last November at the Denver Film Festival. Night They Raided Minsky's has been unseen in over thirty years but I have nice memories of it, it is my favorite Friedkin film. Man of a Thousand Faces is a fictionalized biography, but worth seeing for Cagney as Chaney. I was able to see Come Drink with Me a few years ago at the Denver Film Fest with Cheng Pei-Pei in attendance.

May 18, 2008 9:34 PM  
Blogger David said...

Funny--Danny and I were complaining about Deleuze just last week. Maybe something (almost everything) gets lost in translation? Personally, I think he's a very great thinker and a very awful writer: I spend most of my time translating his ideas, or what I think are his ideas, into the margins, more with his film books than some of the others (though I've only read bits and pieces). This isn't the same thing as Henry James or Godard, who are vague and suggestive even when making definitive statements; there, my margin notes are like additions to what they're saying--they want you to add the particulars, and leave room for your own interpretation, or so I'd like to think. Deleuze, in English anyway, comes on like a very garbled God, but when he's lucid, he's terrific.

May 18, 2008 9:35 PM  
Blogger girish said...

"Maybe at Trafic, Rouge or Senses of cinema (the French revue "Cinema0#" of Bernard Eisenschitz was discontinued recently by the way), but they are academic venues, it's not representative of the "reviewing" discourse."

Exactly, Harry. I agree.

Andy, have I ever told you that you have a way of talking about films and filmmakers that makes one feel the powerful urge to hunt their work down immediately? Seriously, you do. Which is one of the many reasons why I always value hearing from you.

Peter, thanks for those recommendations, all of them useful. It's esp. good to know about Minsky's.

David, I envy your knowledge of French. It's completely counter-intuitive for a cinephile, but I find Deleuze's cinema books the hardest of his work to understand. Even his Guattari books, given some background in Freud and Lacan, are an easier read for me than the cinema books. Perhaps it's because of (1) my lack of grounding in Bergson and Peirce; and (2) the large number of neologism-driven concepts in the cinema books. But I value him enough to keep plugging away at them; in general, re-reading helps me. Also, even when he's opaque, I never find him unintriguing or uninteresting.

May 19, 2008 9:20 AM  
Blogger HarryTuttle said...

The Movie Mutations book contributors also claimed to be very much inspired by Deleuze. I wish Adrian Martin's website would go online so his Deleuzian reviews would become available to non-Australian readers.

May 19, 2008 6:24 PM  
Blogger girish said...

Harry, you might remember this old interview with Adrian in Cinemascope (Italy) titled ‘Guys, Did You Get Past Page 80 of Volume 1 of The Movement-Image?’. It has some comments in defense of Deleuze's lucidity.

May 19, 2008 6:33 PM  
Blogger David said...

Girish, I wish my French were good enough to read Deleuze in French! Nevermind page 80, page 5 would be quite something; that said, I haven't made it past page 80 in either language, so I am in no position to be judgmental. But yes, I've found the non-Cinema writings much easier (and, to be honest, much more helpful).

And I meant to say before--Andy, thanks for all those comments. I hadn't heard of any of those guys either.

May 19, 2008 8:50 PM  
Blogger Avery said...

Rare and vintage hollywood memorbilla, furniture, books, as well as other items from the estate of Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks, Pickfair, their legendary Beverly Hills mansion, will be auctioned off Nov.22-23. The cool thing is you can bid online at www.auctionnetwork.com/pickfair. You don't actually have to be at the auction. Thought i'd pass along to fellow old hollywood lovers!

November 21, 2008 3:56 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home