"I wouldn't give up my daddy for anything."

Little Miss Thoroughbred is a campy little film from 1938. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume it was made due to Shirley Temple's success at Fox in an attempt by Warner Brother's to create their own little starlet (especially a good idea since in 1938, Shirley was 10 very obviously on the verge of her hard transition). The film puts 6 year-old Janet Chapman in the role of a 4 year-old orphan girl named Janet Smith (sigh, even the little babes in old Hollywood were subjected to the obsession with characters always being younger rather than older). Janet Chapman didn't find the success Shirley did, and I have a few guesses as to why - none of which  I would blame on her acting in this film. Indeed, she shines like an adorable little baby doll in this film! She's cutesy, but her mannerisms actually feel more real and less affected than Shirley's. There's a natural way about her and her interactions with the adults feel authentic.

At night, Janet Smith often dreams of a father who comes to visit her and take her away. Little Janet is so enamored by this ideal of a dream father rescuing her and loving her that she not only prays about it every single night, but also runs away to find this allusive father of hers. (Subtle, albeit mostly harmless, 1930s patriarchal themes here in the implication that it's more romantic for an orphan girl to dream of a father, read: man, to come rescue her than a mother, read: woman; see: Annie).

A lot of the plot here is based on the idea that, well, children aged 4 aren't always the brightest in terms of discernment and can be profoundly naive. Little Janet doesn't seem to understand the difference between dreams and reality. She dreams of a father so often, that she's convinced he must be real and must exist somewhere. So when her paths cross with petty gambler Nails Morgan (John Litel) who, through the suggestion of his best pal Todd (Frank McHugh), pretends to be the little girl's father to avoid a ticket from a cop, Janet is all raptures. It doesn't matter who this man is. For the little darling, her hero has finally come and if he says he's her daddy, then it's not something she's about to let go of.

The film is essentially a fairy tale in a contemporary package. In fact, the trailer depicted it as a romance and the theme of Cinderella and fairy stories in general come up in-film. Janet is a little Cinderella taking the initiative to find her Prince (W!) Charming. Only, in this case, she just wants a father. That's the kind of love she's after - which is a blatant recycling of the similar themes found in several Shirley Temple films (little darling girl plays opposite of an older man who is a pseudo father figure, helps him get the gal, gets a family unit), but it still works here! Janet is also essentially the little beauty that charms the hard-nosed beast.

You get the point. Janet falls in love with the idea of Nails being her father and the romance of it is that, in time, he learns how to reciprocate as well as open his heart to others - specifically Madge Perry played splendidly by Ann Sheridan.

Madge is the out-of-a-job girl across the hall from Nails and Todd. She's crazy about Nails, or at least we're told in passing, but it's obvious she hates his rough exterior and isn't about to put up with it just because she might like him. He gives her the brush off, having no time or patience for women, and she keeps her guard up in turn. But when little Janet worms her way into Nails' life, Madge falls head over heels for the little girl and isn't about to let jerkface Nails break her heart. She'd rather find a way of letting her down easy. Ann pulls it all off so well, not surprising. She brings the necessary maternal role to the film without it ever being insulting. It's clear that's not all there is to her. She might lose her heart to little Janet and want to nurture her, but it's a mama bear kind of nurture where she'd probably rip someone in half if they tried to hurt Janet - which is why her going toe to toe with Nails is extra delightful. She's tough!

Also, Todd shares in the nurturing instinct so it never solely falls on Madge. In fact, the joke is that Madge is only there to keep it from being weird for a strange man to dress/undress a little girl who isn't his daughter or buy her undergarments - legitimate reasoning if you ask me. [There's also a shout out to women working in the police force at the time; even if just for the sake of a joke, it's pretty nice since they weren't often referenced in 1938 film!]

Getting back to plot discussion - Nails has no time for sentiment and even attempts to return Janet to the orphanage, but Janet does end up sticking around when it seems like the little girl is lucky. With her around, Nails' gambling begins to actually pay off and big time! Antics follow such as Nails and Madge being backed into a corner where they have to get married, the three hauling Janet across the country and getting rich, becoming racehorse owners, getting mixed up with racehorse bookies and threatened to have their secret (having technically abducted a child) revealed, being arrested, and being forced to stand trial regarding said abduction charges (the film may be campy, but it at least somewhat addresses the legal/moral dilemma surrounding the three having kept Janet in spite of if they've learned to care for her).

Amidst all this craziness, don't think I've forgotten Todd who is a pretty solid supporting character, in my opinion. He's my favorite character in the film because, what can I say? I really love Frank McHugh. Todd provides the soft-hearted humor necessary to balance Nails' harshness. Todd is obviously soft on Janet from the get-go and is in Madge's corner early on. For a while, he straddles the line between caring for the little girl and also wanting to get rich off of her being a lucky talisman for them.

But then before it's all over, it's clear that he's sentimental Uncle Todd who doesn't want to lose Janet either and who, though the comment is subtle, may even be a little bit jealous of Nails and resentful that he doesn't seem to know the good thing he's had fallen into his lap; but then he's such a good guy that he still roots for his pal and has a hopeful hunch that he'll see the light before it's too late.

I mean, Todd's such a delightfully sweet kind of guy that I can't help but wonder why Madge is goofy enough to fall for Nails instead. Call me unromantic, but when a guy roots for you to be happy and successful AND voluntarily takes it upon himself to be a doting father (or uncle) figure to your adoptive child, I don't see why you wouldn't want to try and move in on that as opposed to the emotionally constipated, misunderstood fellow. At least, I know which one I'd go for in her situation, but I digress. And nah, Nails ends up turning it around in the end and becomes quite the hard to resist man himself. So it's all good!


The film is short and sugary through and through. It's clear that some of the footage just couldn't be saved. One scene in particular becomes a sort of cliffhanger blackout where they had to fade it and leave you to guess what might have been happening to cause Todd and Madge shock. Of course, it's not impossible to guess some likely cliche scenarios either. It's an obvious B-flick that doesn't take home any awards. There's timeline flaws and, of course, logic fail galore. And obviously, you have to take the moral theme with a grain of salt. Janet is lucky to have landed in with folks who wouldn't hurt her so a definite trigger warning for anyone sensitive to plots about thematic-based discussion of child abduction.

But regardless, Little Miss Thoroughbred is one of those charming little B films that I can curl up in bed and find a little slice of sappy delight while watching. And I'm a sucker for that kind of thing.

Wednesdays With: Audrey Hepburn

Yet another series I think I want to try on this blog is my own take on TCM's Star of the Month. I want to use Wednesdays of each month to focus on a different star. For example, on the first Wednesday talk about my familiarity with the star, on the second Wednesday talk about a favorite film with the star, on the third Wednesday maybe pick a movie I haven't seen before or often to watch/talk about and so on depending on how many Wednesdays are in the month or what I feel like doing - I might change things up on occasion.

First up is Audrey Hepburn. I was inspired to choose her for the first month since she is the ultimate fave of a friend who encouraged me to actually work on this blog again. I also chose her because in the past, I haven't given her much attention because, frankly, I used to borderline dislike her as an actress.

Yes, I was one of those people who found her to be overrated when I was younger because I just didn't "get" her. Everybody seemed to love her, but I just felt like she was only an average actress whose roles didn't do much for me - and I'm sugar coating it because I was obnoxiously vocal about how much I just didn't like her and would roll my eyes at the very mention of her (ah, youth). Granted, my first introduction to her was My Fair Lady and, as a kid, I hated almost everything about that movie with or without her presence in it and didn't understand why it was praised just as much as musicals like The Sound of Music. I still can't say I'm overly fond of My Fair Lady, so that's just how much bias against her as an actress I had going into her other roles. For her other roles, well I haven't seen many, I'll be completely honest. My reason being most of them have just never appealed to me on a whole, regardless of her acting.

Of her filmography, I have seen/partially seen:

Roman Holiday
Sabrina
Green Mansions
Paris When It Sizzles
My Fair Lady
How To Steal A Million
Wait Until Dark
A Nun's Story (Partial)
War and Peace (Partial)

I'm sure I've seen small tidbits of some of her other roles, but not enough to say I've seen them partially. Some of her filmography I'm certain I've not seen any of. As you can clearly see, I have never sat through Breakfast At Tiffany's.

My opinion of Audrey Hepburn took a sharp turn when I discovered the movie, Sabrina. Ironically, it was a turning point in my opinion of Humphrey Bogart as well. I was just as obnoxious in my belief that he was annoying/overrated during my childhood. So, I just couldn't understand how an actor and actress I cared nothing for could make a movie together and it become one of my favorites. But that's how it happened. After that, I was much more willing to allow myself to watch Hepburn and Bogart films, respectively, to see if there were any other hidden gems I didn't know about. In the case of Audrey, I soon after finally sat all the way through How To Steal A Million and it quickly became my second favorite of hers.

While my opinion of her has changed drastically, I still can't say I'm fond of her other films that I've seen. I would like Roman Holiday a million times better if not for Gregory Peck who, and I'm being completely shallow here, bores me to tears as an actor in everything I've seen with him. I really like the gist of the movie, but I could probably use a refresher of it just to see how I feel about it now on a whole or to pay better attention to Audrey's performance now that I've grown to appreciate her better. I think she's fabulous in Wait Until Dark, possibly the best performance out of all of the ones I've seen, but the movie is too dark, in spite of its melodramatic and just plain bad script at times, for my ridiculously campy personality and I don't enjoy sitting through it on a whole. The other movies I could easily never watch again and be just fine. Especially Green Mansions.

As an actress, however, I can no longer scoff or raise my hands questioningly when others connect with her. As a person, I can do less so. Although I fell in love with Sabrina long before, I knew little to nothing about her personally prior to 2-3 years ago other than 1. apparently she "believed in pink" (which being a huge fan of pink myself, it only annoyed me when I was younger that we had anything in common - obnoxious, I tell you) and 2. apparently Humphrey Bogart didn't like working with her because he wasn't used to the method of not getting things right in 1-2 takes and he took out several personal life frustrations on her and everyone else in Sabrina, later reportedly apologizing for this. I didn't care to know much more about her since she still wasn't a favorite. But then I met a few wonderful people online and their enthusiasm for Audrey led to me getting a lot of second hand information about who she was and even led to me going out of my way to look up some new stuff about her. What I discovered was a lovely, enchanting woman with a pretty down to Earth and relate-able outlook on life in spite of the glamorized version of her I'd only ever seen growing up (I'm talking her rehashed quotes on things in stores or Holly Golightly on everything). Suddenly, she was a real person to me. She wasn't just some highly praised actress in movies I could more or less go without seeing, but she was a woman who had a heart and quite a nice one at that.

I want to spend this month trying to reflect and nurture this recent understanding of her so that I never lose it. I may not be able to make up for my insolent youth. I may not ever love her as an actress in a way that others do. I may never even have even half a fraction of true understanding of her nature as a person as others do. But I'm glad to have the appreciation that I now have and hope to have at least a little more in the future. She truly did seem like a precious soul so I would be wrong to ever think again that she shouldn't be celebrated.

Revisiting: Desk Set

In addition to reviewing classic films as I discover them for the first time, happen to catch them again on TCM or am inspired to write about them, I want to attempt to set aside a post a week in which I specifically revisit a favorite classic film that I've watched a million times over so that I can talk about it. By revisit, I mean actually watch it and then create a post as opposed to writing from memory. In some cases, I may not have seen the film in ages and in others, I might have watched it as recently as last month.

I'm going to start this series with Desk Set from 1957 starring Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy. I'm beginning with this movie because one, I hadn't seen it in a good long while and this was a great excuse to watch it again and two, it was a very formative movie from my tween years and pretty much shaped several of my adolescent ideals/fantasies of romance (as did a lot of the classic films that were formative for me during that time period).

Desk Set finds Katharine Hepburn as Bunny Watson, a middle-aged woman working as the head of a reference library in a large broadcasting company in New York City. If you're uncertain what a reference library is, it's basically Wikipedia before the internet. In the film, people call the reference library asking all numbers of questions from the names of Santa's reindeer to specific recall of information from magazine articles. Instead of going to the library to do the research themselves, the people calling rely on the research already done by Bunny and her three female coworkers. Many of the answers they've already memorized and those that they haven't, they have memorized the right reference works to look through. They place the person on hold and go quickly research the information (the library is full of encyclopedias, almanacs, etc.) to give the person an answer. They also call actively research new information such as calling places to confirm facts, obtain facts they don't already have on reference, etc.

However, as if foreshadowing how nowadays the internet and Wikipedia has made a lot of hard copy encyclopedias and reference works a thing of the past, the films drama begins when Richard Sumner, played by Spencer Tracy, comes to set up a reference computer called EMERAC that will be the new source for researching answers to people's questions (people feed in tons of information from reference works and then later type in questions for better accuracy and a quicker response time as people call in). Sumner is told by the boss not to let the girls in reference know what's going on yet because he doesn't want any of the company's notorious grape vine leaking out information that might hinder a merger in progress. Of course, this only makes tensions run high in the reference library as Sumner shadows the women and scopes the layout for his computer causing the women to suspect they are under inspection for possible termination.

But Bunny Watson is clever and she does what she does best. Research. She researches Sumner and puts him on the spot. He confesses that he's looking to place a computer in the reference library, which does little to ease fears of being terminated (a similar machine in payroll led to layoffs). Sumner also gets his first real taste of Bunny's intellect and overall prowess. It's pretty obvious he's smitten with her right away, but for all his brainpower, he's a bit of a bumbling oaf who's more at ease around machines than people. So what ensues is a pretty generic, but still cute and interesting, plot where Watson is torn between her growing interest in Sumner and her boyfriend of 7 years (a higher up in the company) as well as confused as to her fate and her friends' fate in the company in lieu of EMERAC.

This movie might not be the most definitive Hepburn/Tracy pairing or even remembered by many, but the reasons why I love this movie are many. Nostalgia has much to do with it. I fell in love with it in my youth and no amount of critical analysis or age can take that away from me now.

I once bought a silver shirt that I adored because it looked
a lot like Bunny's dress - same material and such.

First of all, I have a penchant for subtle romances just as much as outright ones (sometimes more if the outright ones are obnoxiously done). This can especially be said for me when I was younger. I loved romances that were based on battles of wits, sarcasm mingled with genuine affection, love/hate, will they-won't they, etc. In this film, the romance is placed on a low broil as the two get to know each other, respect each other, fall for each other in a realistic way, especially given their ages in the film. It's all treated in a straightforward manner. Both have their flaws and it's all very much my cup of tea. And both Bunny and Sumner have varying forms of wits about them that adds to the low broil sizzle. Sumner is out of his league with Bunny in many areas and he's efficient in areas that she isn't. This spoke to me as a tween interested in mature/realistic romances and speaks to me even more so now that I can relate to Bunny's worry of being an old maid because there's seemingly no one around who's a good match for her (played well as Katharine was good at picking roles that showed feminism in a realistic manner that didn't diminish the fact that many women, especially of that time period, still wanted marriage or companionship). The idea of that right guy finally coming out of the blue and developing a slow but sweet relationship with him is even more romantic now that I think about my own life as a single lady.

This is EMERAC, Mike Sumner's first love. And a fictional
precursor to computer technology as we know it today.

Another reason why I fell in love with the movie was the time period. I watched it during my 50s stage. Films during this period intrigued me because it was clear, on film, that the world was changing toward modernity and yet there was still the vintage charm that I love. Even in the late 90s, the idea of a reference library or computer the size of a whole wall fascinated me and the film transported me to that era of working women and business men and single adult living and so on. Now that I'm 26 and have lived to see the invention of smart phones and iPads that can do the job of EMERAC and then some on the go, the film feels even more vintage and therefore all the more intriguing for it. To pause and think about how life used to be and to see a film where technological advances are being used as a plot point while still thinking the filmmakers probably didn't even have a clue of what was really to come...well, it just gets to me deep down and settles in my bones in a way that's hard to describe.

Now that I'm an adult, I've recognized even more reasons to love this film than when I was a kid - mainly to do with the role of women in the film and the subversion of tropes that have come to exist. As a kid, I loved the movie because I loved Katharine Hepburn. I did recognize her as a talented and powerful woman whom I looked up to and wished to be like (simultaneously with Doris Day). I just naturally saw her and her characters as the "strong female" that current media tries hard to latch onto. But when I was 12 it was a role model thing while everything else was me sighing over her romantic plots. Looking back at the film, I see how progressive (at least for those who are convinced that there were no "strong females" in classic film) it was in its portrayal of women. Actually, I'd maybe not say it was progressive so much as it makes many of today's films look regressive, at the very least in terms of quantity.

The film centers on one main female character, yes. But Bunny Watson is surrounded by three strong supportive female characters. In fact, there are a total of 4 women with substantial roles, a 5th borderline substantial role toward the end, a 6th woman with a handful of speaking parts and a 7th who is a regular presence if not for speaking or anything beyond laughs. This compared to only 3 men with substantial roles, a 4th borderline substantial role who has quite a few lines when he does speak, but who isn't in the film for more than 6-8 minutes altogether, and a young errand boy with some lines. You'd be stretching to count the nameless suits who I believe might get a few disgruntled statements or a guy whom the 6th woman as listed above is kissing who makes a very quick statement about them getting back to kissing or something like that (he's that forgettable). The point is, it's pretty balanced with men and women, but it's very obvious that the women are the forefront of the film. It's all about the women in the reference library and their everyday job and the fate of their jobs.

Four beautiful and bright women of varying ages and sizes.
The only thing missing is color diversity, unfortunately.

To say the women of this film pass the Bechdel test with flying colors is an understatement. They interact with each other about everything. Work, love, shopping, money, research, their lives, random people, etc. They also have a penchant for looking out for one another. They offer advice and support to one another, Bunny training a newcomer for example. There's even a secretary in a higher up position who immediately contacts her fellow women to give them a heads' up on things or what have you when it pertains to them. There's only one woman whom they treat harshly because of a big misunderstanding and it's painted in a way that it's clear that none of them are behaving in a way that they should be, at least that's what I take from it, and they do a good job of making you feel sorry for this outsider while also sympathizing with why the other women feel threatened by her to the point of cattiness. Furthermore, none of these women are shown to be incompetent or lesser than the men who get to do the actual running of the company. In fact, Sumner calls the group of women in the reference library "the big leagues" and it's repeatedly pointed out that they are extremely competent, intelligent, etc. Bunny herself, being the brightest because she's the star, is so intelligent that she has a flash memory and is good enough at reports that her boyfriend actually depends on her to look over his stuff which aids in his eventual promotion.

On the other hand, the men have a much more passive role. Bunny's long time boyfriend, Mike Cutler, is depicted as non-committal, dependent on her, somewhat archaic and wrong for having ingrained misogynistic beliefs and so on. He seems to have some feelings for Bunny, he is jealous of Sumner after all, but it's obvious he doesn't love her enough for a romantic relationship to ultimately work and it's obvious in Bunny's body language that she's more in a relationship with him because there's really nobody else and not because she's in love with him. But at the end of the day, Cutler also concedes to the fact that Bunny has chosen Sumner over himself and even leaves them roses he had bought for Bunny himself. Again, there's a lot of charming complexity to the various roles and it plays well, in my opinion.

Along the lines of male vs. female in the film, I also like pointing out that the major trope of gossipy women is really subverted in the film. While the women do spread the word of things or chit-chat or worry, it's implied that it's the entire building regardless of gender and more because of it being a natural progression of things in a big business (water cooler mentality). Additionally, there is one notorious gossip spreader, eavesdropper, etc. in particular with a substantial enough role who is...male. He's so bad that he takes all the gossip home to his wife and mother (or mother-in-law, can't recall).

Overall, I just really enjoy this film. It's not as high on my list of favorites as it was when I was much younger,
but I'll always revisit it with joy and count it as a formative film of my youth as well as just a hidden gem that more people should view. It might not be riveting, Oscar-worthy material, but it's charming and fun. If for no other reason, an older, but still vibrant and gorgeous Joan Blondell is a great reason to watch it. When I was younger I loved her character, Peg, but didn't know it was Joan (whom I love). I'll admit it wasn't until very recently that I made the connection and kicked myself for several days thereafter.

Humble Beginnings

Some of my earliest childhood memories involve the Golden Era of Hollywood. I was fed a steady diet of animal crackers and soup and I wanted nothing more than to make it over the rainbow. 

Disney films were a guiding light of my childhood, as is the case for most children, and being born in 1987 gave me the advantage of having most all the pre-Renaissance films on VHS to watch over and over while I also got to experience first hand the Renaissance period of Disney. But Disney heroines weren't the only females inspiring me to do great things. In terms of characters portrayed by real people, Judy Garland was basically the love of my life thanks to being introduced to The Wizard of Oz before I was even 3 or 4. Shirley Temple also had a strong hold on my heart since my grandmother owned a good portion of Temple's filmography. My grandmother's nickname for me was even Heidi for a brief period of time. Meanwhile, I was very much in love with the Disney films of the 40-60s, which bear a strong influence of the classic studio era in which they were made - my favorites at the time being Cinderella, Lady and the Tramp, Peter Pan (and other, slightly later ones, sneaking in there such as The Jungle Book and Robin Hood). Another form of Cinderella was my light and life for a long time when I was little and that was the Lesley Ann Warren telefilm adaptation of Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella. I didn't know it yet, but it would influence me greatly in my love of musicals in general as well give me an early introduction to the spectacular Ginger Rogers and to a lesser extent, Walter Pidgeon. One other notable mention was my love for the Don Bluth sequel An American Tale: Fievel Goes West. It was the strangest thing and I didn't know how to explain it as young as I was, but I loved, loved, loved the sequence with Tiger and Wylie Burp. The scene itself was a bit boring for my young attention span, but Wylie Burp's voice. There was just something so intriguing about it. Little did I know that it was a precursor to my eventual love affair with James Stewart. It's as if it was predestined. 

So, as you can see, I was introduced to old films just as readily as new when I was little. And this continued throughout my childhood as I watched many old films thanks to my parents' love for them (not that I enjoyed them all). Judy Garland was eventually usurped by Doris Day and Katharine Hepburn in my tweens and by that time Jimmy Stewart had become the champion of my heart although I had made room for others such as Tony Randall, Cary Grant, Mickey Rooney and a few others. My love for classic film only increased when I was formally introduced to Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers (I'd heard/known of both prior of course) by way of The Barkleys Of Broadway. I was in heaven. Boy oh boy did they just change my world. As did Myrna Loy and William Powell a few years later. 

I wouldn't trade my steady diet of pre-80s films for anything in the world. Some of my fondest memories growing up were watching those films with my family as if they were as brand new and shiny as a recent release. The above examples are but only a few and I'm constantly remembering the first time I came across a film or had a phase where an actor or actress was my favorite (I was recently reminiscing my Debbie Reynolds phase, actually). I can look back with earnest and see just how so many of these films and actresses and characters helped make me who I am today. My wit, my intellect, my interests, my taste in music, style, etc. and more are almost all entirely a reflection of that influence. To take away classic Hollywood films from me then, I would not be who I am now.

As I've grown, my love of old Hollywood has only deepened. TCM is the channel my television is on most frequently. I'm always searching for new films to appreciate. I'm always looking to deepen my knowledge of the stars I've already loved for so long. I'm always wondering how old scripts could be, properly, adapted to film today. I'm still fawning over the stars of that era and wondering what it would be like to be even remotely as talented. I'm still mourning the fact that at least 80 percent of the men I crushed hard on, am still crushing hard on, passed on before I was born or when I was much younger. 

This blog looks to be an extension of my love. A place to write about my favorite era of film (30s-60s). A place to share my thoughts on films I've seen a million times or have only recently discovered. A place to fangirl shamelessly for the bright stars that made the era what it was. A place to further inspire and develop my passion for and knowledge of classic film. 

As a caveat, I am not a skilled critic or elitist. Thoughts presented here are my own and come from my own experiences, positive or negative. There are films and stars that are considered great by popular opinion that do nothing for me, personally. I can acknowledge that, critically speaking, the praise makes sense in a lot of cases, but if I don't enjoy something, I'm honest about it - though I try not to be cruel since what doesn't work for me can be the light of somebody else's life. Furthermore, I like a lot of films that you maybe have never heard of or enjoy films that were considered flops. That doesn't by any means make me better. It just means I have a different taste. On the flip side, I also enjoy a lot of critically acclaimed films and "mainstream" celebrities/films - you know, the ones that everybody and their uncle Bob loves. The point that I'm trying to make is, I am not a special snowflake and I am not a sheep. If you think my opinion is wrong at any point, just remember, subjectivity is what it is.