Ginger Rogers

Shall We Dance: The Life of Ginger Rogers
$19.95
I'm in full agreement with the one-star rating of this malevolent book. If there was a grounding in fact, of the author's numerous attacks and harsh judgments, I would be among the first the make a reassessment of Ginger Rogers's career. With his Oxford education, one could ask of the Junior Morley, what ever happened to the intellectual instinct for solid research?

From the front cover itself, picturing Rogers AND Astaire, the Junior Morley insults the achievement of Ginger Rogers, who had a distinguished career apart from Fred. From his very first statement concerning the famous "high heels" quote...which was NOT Ginger's quote, the Junior Morley has it wrong...

To his assertion that "Swing Time" was rejected by 30s audiences....In fact, it had the longest run at Radio City Music Hall of any film to that time, and today, is ranked 90th on the AFI list of great films. "Swing Time" was highly profitable, and of the hundreds of films made at RKO, Astaire/Rogers's films earned six of the nine top spots in profitability. The correct statement would be that "Swing Time" was slightly less profitable than "Top Hat" and "Follow the Fleet", and indicated a gradual loss of profitability. The reason was NOT a loss of popularity, asserted by the Junior Morley. It was the increasing production costs of musicals...which by 1939 were four or five times those of regular features. At twenty five cents a head, they just were no longer profitable to Hollywood producers.

To his snide repeating of a belittling attack even on Fred Astaire....As the greatest dancer of the 20th century, according to Balanchine, and Nureyev and Fonteyn, he was (and is) regarded with great reverence, by dancers all over the world, including Gene Kelly...who the Junior Morley brazenly uses to diminish Astaire...and hence Fred and Ginger's achievement.

To his closing "ad hominem" attacks on Ginger's personal life....His simple-minded, ignorant, and unresearched opinions on her marriages, her politics, and her mother. All of this...and I could go on and on...is a bald faced attempt to smear.

Other things are used to damage her memory....Kate Hepburn's statement about Fred bringing Ginger class, and Ginger bringing Fred sex..is uncritically related...in fact, the Junior Morley considers it "astute".....when major film critics like Roger Ebert and Mick La Salle, both consider it just too simplistic. In fact, Ebert goes so far as to correct it with a quote of his own..."They both had class, and sex was never the point.".

In regard to her other films....He gives complete short shrift to the high quality of her acting...which helped establish the screen credibility of Astaire...and which was evident in so many comedic and dramatic roles...that all added to her beloved status with American and international audiences. And, as to her Oscar in 1940 for "Kitty Foyle", the Junior Morley promotes the idea that it must have been a fluke.

This book is so unremittingly unfair, and at times so overtly pernicious, that's it's hard for me to understand how the publisher could print such an error filled book. It must have been the money, and a determination to ignore its cash-for-trash content.

It's true that inevitably Ginger's career faltered, and parts diminished, as with many actresses of the era. But she had the spunk to regain some measure of success with "Hello Dolly" and "Mame". It's also legitimate to explore the nature of her film acting talents...and, despite some occasional successes, how she eventually lost her knack for box office triumphs...and how age, scripts, separation from work, luck, casting, desire, and direction, had something to do with this...all this is very legitimate. But to employ difficult periods in her career to fortify his denigrating assessment of her great successes, THAT is really pretty low.

It's also true that, in later life, Ginger...like Fred, to some extent...developed a hard shell of skepticism against critics, some of whom, were genetically incapable of getting any fact of her life right. The Junior Morley, in his writing, proves her to be amply justified in this attitude.

In one salvo, Morley writes of his "favorite story" of Lela reminding Ginger in London, during her "Mame" visit: "You should be thankful that they still remember you.". Well, in Anette Kuhn's "Dreaming of Fred and Ginger: Cinema and Cultural Memory", Britisher Kuhn proves, by survey, that Morley (and Lela) were wrong, for, of all the great American stars, it is Fred and Ginger who are today remembered THE MOST in England.

As for her alleged extremist politics....Unlike the mal-treated, delusionist, liberal saint, Dalton Trumbo, Rogers was a staunch anti-communist...just like Harry Truman, who had a day for her in Independence, Missouri. Something to keep in mind, when in 1948 the bloody mass murderer Stalin, was still in office, and Trumbo, was a committed and card carrying member of the CPUSA. And Ronald Reagan, that other staunch anti-communist? Oh yes, fighting off his own right wing, he negotiated with Gorbachev to help hasten the end of the Cold War. That's right, Ginger, invited to the White House several times by Reagan, and unlike liberal darling, Kate "I am a communist" Hepburn, was a staunch anti-communist. There's nothing to be ashamed of there. Being anti-communist, especially in the 1940s, is a positive, not a negative. I, for one, am glad she lived to see the victory of her convictions. Hers was also an international victory, over the "gilded cage", sanitized, world view, that characterizes Hollywood to this day.

As for the Junior Morley himself, readers should know that he was a child of privilege, (quite unlike Rogers and Astaire), a depressive, the son of a famous writer father, who found a ready niche in that same privileged familial world. One of the characteristics remembered today, about the Junior Morley on the London theater circuit...is that he was prone to fall asleep, during performances...after which his reviews would be unremittingly positive.

It doesn't say much for his professionalism. Clearly, it does show that he was at least as prone to human imperfection as Ginger Rogers...and with a significantly lower level of achievement...in spite of all the advantages of his birth.

The Major and the Minor (Universal Cinema Classics)
$14.98
I have always loved this movie. Can't afford the full train fare, so you disguise yourself as a child? Delays on the way, and an overprotective eligible man takes you under his wing? Too totally unbelievable to be true? Then let's make a comedy that we can come back to time and again.

Every now and then, over the years, I would catch this movie on the TV, but never remembered the name. Well, I've finally found it, immediately got myself a copy, and find that my memory of it isn't even as good as the movie. Although even as a child I couldn't figure out why anybody would mistake Ginger Rogers for a child, the story was well done, with a number of memorably humorous scenarios (especially like the young scientific girl -- the only one who figures out that Su-su wasn't who she said she was; and the devious nature of the young (all male, in those days) cadets for cadging a kiss). I also loved Jerry Lewis (You're Never Too Young) when it was done again several years later, but The Major and the Minor will always remain my favourite version.

Ss

Top Hat
$19.98
There are two theories about human evolution. One is that we are moving forward - mankind has gone from using stone tools to computers and air conditioning. The other theory is that we are going backwards - the fall of the Roman Empire idea. If you subscribe to the latter, point of view, then you may not want to watch the movie, "Top Hat." It may only confirm your worst suspicions.

Filmed in 1935, the movie is not far off from being 100 years old.
That makes it as much of a time capsule as a movie! And although it is certainly tough to skip over your "Transformers II" DVD from NetFlix, you may find yourself rewarded for having another look at this old, old movie.

Let's consider it from a cultural standpoint.
Today, where I live in Florida, the "uniform" for men is cargo shorts, flip-flops, a t-shirt (hopefully with a pocket to make it more dressy) and a baseball cap. Back then, it wasn't even a suit and tie, it was a tuxedo, and not just a tuxedo, but a tuxedo with tails. And a fancy collar for the shirt. And a vest. With a pocket watch. And pocket squares. And cuff links. And shoes that were not just polished, but were patent leather, with these cool white things that fit over the top of them that I don't even know the name for, and I have a pretty decent vocabulary, if I do say so myself. And black buttons for the shirts. With hair not just groomed but sculpted and slicked back. You get the idea.

And as for the women, well, they wore hats, and I mean hats that were designed by artists and made by craftsman. Hats that could easily be in the museum today... not as historical artifacts, mind you, but as works of art. Someone sat there and thought these hats up, then made them, then women took the time to pick them out, and wear them. Not to mention the women's hairstyles, which were quite elaborate. I can only think the effects were achieved with curlers, which of course got a bad name when housewives started wearing them to the grocery stores in the 1950s. One more loss. Oh well.

And what did men argue about after having a martini and dancing (ballroom dancing, that is) till one in the morning? Things like whether it was permissible for a bow tie to have tapered rather than squared edges! Today most of us men could not even tie a bow tie.

Men don't wear hats today, we wear "caps."
Not only did men wear real hats back then, like fedoras, they sometimes even wore top hats. And they didn't just wear top hats back then, they named movies after them. Think about that for a second. How would that go over today? Now showing, "Die Hard 4," "Transformers 2," and "Top Hat." The studio marketing guys would cringe at the thought... script writers would lose their jobs at the mere suggestion of that for a title.

And of course, less we think this is all just make believe, that it was never really like that, that it was just a movie, there is Fred Astaire, plain to see through the magic of celluloid, who could dance like no one can today. As though to say, all this is no illusion: We really were at a level of culture then that cannot be even imagined today. Any more than we can imagine naming a movie, "Top Hat."

But don't despair. Today we have all kind of wonderful new things they didn't have back then - like McDonald's, the Internet, and ... blogging. Curtis

Ginger Rogers Paper Dolls
$12.00
I eagerly awaited this new paper doll book of my favorite movie star, Ginger Rogers. Her costumes were out of this world! Most paper doll books come with a page or two of the paper dolls themselves. In this case I assume you cut the dolls out of the covers, back and front, as there are no Gingers in the inside of the book. Ginger's most famous dress (I think) is the famed Feather Dress from the movie Top Hat. There is only a little sketch of it on the cover. I would have loved a larger version of it. Besides these things the rest of the paper doll book is wonderful with many of Gingers other costumes nicely done. There are little black and white photos of Ginger scattered throughout the book which are a nice touch and a biography of her on the inside back cover.