Carole & Co.

Relatively few Hollywood marriages have divorced with more friendship than Carole Lombard and William Powell. Perhaps both should have realized that they'd make better friends than lovers, but Carole was in her early twenties, eager to get married, while Bill loved Lombard's youthful spirit and zest for life, probably thinking some of that would rub off on him at the same time that his sophistication would rub off on her.

That wasn't the case, and the rise and fall of their two-year marriage is illustrated by these two photos now available from eBay.

We'll begin with a photo issued Aug. 6, 1931 of the couple returning to the mainland after their honeymoon in Hawaii:




The deeply tanned couple are aboard the cruiseliner "City Of Los Angeles." (Ironically, Carole's ill-fated war bond rally in 1942 would begin with an eastbound journey from L.A. to Chicago aboard a train of that name. Lombard, stockings shining in the sun, looks pleased to be returning home (she was ill for much of the honeymoon), while Powell is proud to show off his new wife to reporters.

The future looked bright, but two summers later, things had changed; to borrow a line from an Everly Brothers song, so sad to watch good love go bad. In July 1933, Lombard announced she was heading to Nevada for six weeks to establish residency there and file for divorce. She was a few weeks into her domicile when this photo, featuring Carole and Bill in happier times, was issued on July 20:



Instead of the headline "HONEYMOONERS!" as in the earlier photo, this one asks the question, "ARE THEY DRIFTING APART?" The answer, of course, was "yes."

Both of these photos were from the Acme Photo syndicate, but this has the imprint of United Press International (which didn't have that name until United Press merged with Hearst's International News Service in 1958). The other one was also in the UPI files, as the seller is a former UPI employee who had been based at Tribune Tower in Chicago; one presumes he is from the South Side of town, because the seller is identified as "soxphotos" (the "Sox" in this instance being White, not Red).

The honeymoon photo is 8" x 6", with bids beginning at $9.99; bidding closes at 9:36 p.m. (Eastern) Wednesday. For more information, go to http://www.ebay.com/itm/1937-Movie-Star-William-Powell-Bride-Carole-Lombard-Honey-Moon-Tan-Ship-Photo-/150822855294?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item231dbe227e.

As for the photo announcing their separation and likely divorce, it measures 7" x 9", has the same $9.99 initial bid, but here bids close at 10:28 p.m. (Eastern) Wednesday. You can find out more at http://www.ebay.com/itm/1933-Movie-Stars-William-Powell-Wife-Carole-Lombard-Drifting-Apart-News-Photo-/150821794575?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item231dadf30f.

But as we all know, there was a happy ending of sorts. They remained close friends with minimal rancor, among the reasons Powell insisted Lombard get the female lead in "My Man Godfrey" when Universal preferred the flighty Constance Bennett or Miriam Hopkins. And Carole took care of Bill when his health was struggling, such as in 1938 when they reprised their roles on an adaptation of "Godfrey" for "Lux Radio Theater":

Lily Garland, nee Mildred Plotka (Carole Lombard) is thrilled that Broadway impresario Oscar Jaffe (John Barrymore) has placed a star on her dressing-room drawer following an opening-night triumph in the 1934 screwball comedy "Twentieth Century." Chances are even people who hadn't yet been born when it came out know it, and love it. But those chances seemingly substantially increase if one has already had his or her 40th birthday.

This doesn't refer to the people who regularly read this site; here, I'm preaching to the converted. However, many people under age 40 probably don't have classic Hollywood in their blood, even though the classic movie-loving generation before them also missed the studio era (which, for the sake of this argument, ended about 1960 or so). What's the difference? A couple of things -- mass distribution of movies on opening weekends, unlike the old days of road show exhibition and films being advertised by word of mouth instead of a blitz of commercials -- but the medium that carries most of those commercials had the biggest impact.



Television played a major role in building the cinematic literacy of the baby-boom generation, and an entry published nearly a year ago at the website Sound on Sight (http://www.soundonsight.org) explains it in detail. Written by Bill Mesce and entitled "The 'Grey Ones' Fade To Black," it examines why thirtysomethings on down as a whole don't seem to be interested in classic Hollywood; in fact, for many of them, the very idea of a black-and-white image is a turn-off (though some of the older ones in that group didn't seem to mind when B&W was used in music videos -- remember music videos?).



Mesce knows of what he speaks, since the genesis for this entry came after most students in his film class had next to no reaction for well-known Hollywood perennials such as "His Girl Friday," "Double Indemnity," the 1959 "Ben-Hur" and "Dr. Strangelove." And, he added, "Not to mention they didn’t know who Bogart was, or Stanwyck, Lancaster, Grant, Fonda, Bergman…" (We presume he means Henry and Ingrid, respectively, for the last two -- though for all we know, Jane and Peter Fonda might be included, too.)

Anyway, in the initial years of television, relatively few films were shown, aside from cheapies, British castoffs and movies in the public domain. Hollywood studios were reluctant to feed this new, young rival which had already devoured much of the industry's box-office revenue.

Things changed in 1955, when RKO, tottering under Howard Hughes' erratic leadership and nearing its end as a studio, decided to cash in, selling rights to 740 of its films (including the likes of "Citizen Kane" and "King Kong") to a distribution company for several million dollars. Other studios, noting the bonanza RKO had received and realizing their libraries were stuck in vaults doing next to nothing, followed suit.

What did this mean? New York's seven VHF stations during the late 1950s (one would become noncommercial in 1961) were suddenly bursting with old movies. Mesce quotes TV reviewer Stephen Whitty: “In the NY area…you had Channel 2 running MGM pictures, Channel 5 had Warners and old Universal titles, Channel 9 had RKO and a lot of British imports, Channel 13 ran foreign imports and silents, and Channels 4, 7, and 11 divvied up the rest.”

The menu wasn't quite as full upstate in Syracuse, where I grew up, but channels 3 and 8 ran lots of films when network programming wasn't on. (In 1962, channel 8 moved to 5 to accommodate a third station, channel 9, which also showed many movies.) Channel 3 showed films most late Sunday afternoons, especially in the wintertime; among their fare was "It's A Wonderful Life" and "The Boy With Green Hair." I don't remember seeing the two films below, however, from a Syracuse Post-Standard ad on Aug. 28, 1960. (Then again, I had just turned five and was awaiting kindergarten in a few weeks.)



The point of this all was that young people, exposed to classic film, became fans of the stuff -- one of the few things they had in common with their parents as the '60s began to swing harder, men's hair grew longer and women's skirts grew shorter.

Those films shown on local stations invariably were black-and-white and from the early '50s at the latest. The networks took the next step, acquiring the rights for newer fare, beginning in 1961 with NBC's "Saturday Night At The Movies." Rights to such films increased, but the ratings proved worth it for all three networks (remember, this was pre-Fox), even if the movies weren't always presented with the best of care. (In a famous incident, a network's telecast of "The Notorious Landlady" ran two of its three parts out of order.) By 1968, a film was on a prime-time network every night of the week. And remember, this was well before you could tape network programming and watch it later -- if you wanted to watch it, you had to be in front of your set. In short, it was an event.

The result, according to Mesce? "Those years parked in front of the TV as kids laid the bedrock for what would become the country’s first -– and perhaps last -– cinematically literate generation. As we grew older and went off to college, some of us actually studied movies, some studied how to make movies."

So what happened? Why, in this era of hundreds of TV channels, have classic movies become a niche player? Well, these cable channels don't exist to serve general audiences, just as general-interest magazines such as Life have died. According to Whitty, “TV has given up on classic movies. Yes, TCM runs them around the clock, but it’s the only station (we won’t count AMC, which mostly gave up…). And if you don’t like TCM’s theme of the day –- Alice Faye, say, or Westerns -– well, you’re out of luck. Every other station runs films from the last five years or so, which is fine, but hardly representative of the art.”



(To be technical about it, at this time last year, TCM probably wouldn't have used Alice Faye as a theme, since most of her films were made at 20th Century-Fox and generally inaccessible to the channel. But I digress.)

Mesce notes, "To cut through the clutter and capture eyeballs, cable channels have moved, over the last 30 years, from the kind of generic programming which marked the early years of the business (old movies and TV shows) to more channel-defining original programming. Those channels that still have a strategic use for movies tend to air -– and re-air and re-re-air -– those titles they know are instantly recognizable to the mass audience. And what that doesn’t include are the old classics, the black-and-whites –- what my kids, when they were younger, called 'the gray ones.'" So TBS' "Mr. Deeds" will be the one starring Adam Sandler and Winona Ryder, while corporate sibling TCM will "go to town" with the Gary Cooper-Jean Arthur Deeds.




To be sure, the element of time works against appreciation of classic Hollywood. Seven decades have passed since Lombard's last movie, "To Be Or Not To Be," was released; five decades before that film came out, there were no movies.

What can be done to rectify this? Hard to think of a solution. TCM has certainly opened the eyes of many young people to our cinematic heritage; recent films such as "The Artist," "Hugo" and "My Week With Marilyn" have provided a gateway to movie history. But none of them, despite their critical acclaim and array of awards, made much of a dent at the box office against the latest CGI comic-book adaptation. It's enough to make you want to find a shoulder to cry on.



The essay can be found at http://www.soundonsight.org/the-%E2%80%9Cgray-ones%E2%80%9D-fade-to-black.

1931 was a momentous year for Carole Lombard, and not only because she married William Powell. Professionally, it was a busy year, as she made six movies, all at Paramount. (Technically, it was a busy half-year, as all were released before the end of June.)

Three pictures from two of Lombard's '31 films are now available through eBay. A pair are from the rarely-seen "I Take This Woman," the first of two movies Carole would make with Gary Cooper. We'll start with this embrace between the two:



It's from old reliable Hollywood Paper, which has presented so many heretofore unseen Lombard photos in recent months. This is 8" x 10", listed in "good-" condition (there's a tear just above Coop's head). If that flaw doesn't bother you, it can be bought straight up for $59.95, or you can place a bid beginning at $49.95. In the latter case, bidding ends at 10:36 p.m. (Eastern) next Monday. All the info on this pic can be found at http://www.ebay.com/itm/CAROLE-LOMBARD-GARY-COOPER-1931-I-TAKE-THIS-WOMAN-COWBOY-SOCIALITE-/320911381352?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ab7cf1368.

"I Take This Woman" is indeed the story of a cowboy and a socialite, and when the socialite discovers her new western digs, the apprehension is there on her face:



The caption at the bottom indicates it was used as a lobby card of sorts. Its seller is "1aposters," and it's 7.5" x 9.5", with small trim on the borders. Bids for this one begin at $24.99, with bidding slated to end at 7:32 p.m. (Eastern) Monday. To bid or learn more, visit http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gary-Cooper-Carole-Lombard-I-Take-This-Woman-1931-vintage-movie-photo-13673-/221030797846?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3376765216.

It's back to Hollywood Paper for the next pic, another Lombard obscurity with an equally obscure leading man:



The seller believes the man with Carole to be Skeets Gallagher; actually, it's Norman Foster (one-time wife of Claudette Colbert). It's from the film "Up Pops The Devil," where Foster portrays a writer (hence the typewriter) and Lombard his wife, who becomes a dancer in a revue to help pay the bills.

This photo is 8" x 10" and in excellent condition. This again has the buy-or-bid option -- $49.95 for the former, $44.95 to begin the latter, which would end at 10:32 p.m. (Eastern) on Monday. Check it out at http://www.ebay.com/itm/LOVELY-CAROLE-LOMBARD-SKEETS-GALLAGHER-EXC-COND-1931-UP-POPS-THE-DEVIL-/170846878653?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27c7447bbd.

Finally, I'm a member of LAMB (the Large Association of Movie Blogs), and nominations for the annual LAMMY awards are under way. I'm not sure how many of you are members of LAMB, but I have nominated "Carole & Co." in two categories and have even created my own banner (hoping Lombard's considerable sex appeal might sway a few potential voters):



If you're a member, please consider me.

The 1932 Carole Lombard film "No More Orchids" (also featuring Louise Closser Hale and Lyle Talbot, above), was still making the rounds of theaters in early 1933, often in the lower half of double bills. But that February in Middlesboro, Ky., it played second fiddle to this:



I noted "Middlesboro's Hero" in my "Looking back: February 1933" entry a few months back, thinking it to be some sort of local curio -- and, in a way, it was. But I've since learned this was an example of a practice known as "itinerant filmmaking," something that's largely slipped through the cracks of movie history.

Looking at a fine site, http://www.mikeclinesthenplaying.com, which gives extensive information on films and theaters in Salisbury and Rowan County, N.C., from 1920 to 1979, I discovered a "Salisbury's Hero" film had been made in town in 1925. Further research showed that dozens of such "(Town)'s Hero" movies, all two-reelers, had been made.

All were the work of one man, director Don Newland:



Newland'a background, at least where filmmaking is concerned, is a bit sketchy. We know he was born in Battle Creek, Mich., in 1896, and served five months in the Army in World War I (though it's uncertain whether he went overseas). Publicity for his "Hero" films stated he had directed for Mack Sennett and producing one-reelers for Mary Pickford and early silent comedian John Bunny. However, Newland has no listing at all at the Internet Movie Database, and Bunny died in 1915, while Newland was still in his teens.

From that, it might seem as if Newland was a charlatan Prof. Harold Hill type, heading to small towns to bilk folks out of their money. But apparently his work was on the level, because I can find no accusations of scams or other unsavory behavior.

In the early 1920s, Newland began his "Hero" films, silent two-reelers (he had shifted to sound by the end of the decade). All used more or less the same script. The process worked like this: He would work in conjunction with a local newspaper to promote the film (perhaps getting some financial backing as well); the paper ran stories and even a contest to find a local leading lady (all the roles were played by townspeople).

The most popular scene was invariably a head-on "collision" between two cars (furnished by a local dealer, which of course received publicity). But no vehicles were actually damaged in the filmmaking process; as Cline noted about the Salisbury shoot, the cars had "their front bumpers touching each other. As the camera started rolling, a smoke bomb would be set off underneath the cars, which would then back away from each other. Later, when the film was shown in reverse, it looked as though the cars were moving toward each other and the smoky, head-on smashup." A little Hollywood-style camera trickery, often done in the middle of town where the home folks could watch (more promotion!).

Filming took a few days, after which Newland sent the reels to a New York lab to be developed. A week or so later, it would premiere at a local theater, usually before a huge crowd looking forward to seeing their neighbors -- perhaps themselves -- on screen. Newland made a little money, while the sponsoring newspaper (which usually kept the lone copy of the film) got some good PR. Records show Newland made such films throughout the East and Midwest.

Many of these movies have been lost, and since the film stock was nitrate, many of the others have since disintegrated. According to Wikipedia, only three "Hero" movies are known to still exist -- a silent made in Janesville, Wis., in 1926, and sound two-reelers shot in Huntingdon and Tyrone, Pa., in May and June 1934.

Newland -- who died in a Florida auto accident in 1951 -- may be the best-known itinerant filmmaker, but he wasn't the only one. Many visited small towns and made residents "stars" in locally-made productions. One was called "A (Town) Romance," which would get backing from local businesses whose stores would be shown on screen. (Parts of one such film, set in Little Falls, N.Y., reportedly survive.)

Such films enabled moviegoers to live out their fantasy of being thrust onto the other side of the screen, a la "The Purple Rose Of Cairo":




This week's LiveJournal header shows Carole, Gary Cooper and Shirley Temple near a French railway station in 1934's "Now And Forever."

For Carole Lombard, it's three pictures, two husbands in today's entry.

We'll start with two images of her with husband #1, William Powell, both of them taken by Warners publicity while Powell was a star there (and married to Lombard). The first shows Carole, visiting the Warners lot (I assume the one in Burbank; by the time Powell joined Warners' roster, few if any films were shot at its old Sunset Boulevard studio), sharing some tea with Bill during a break in production:




This comes from the files of Culver Pictures; there's an "Oct. 14" date listed, but whether that refers to the date of the issue of the magazine or newspaper in which this was published or the date it was taken, it's hard to tell. We do know that it's 8" x 10" and in fair to good condition, according to its seller, Hollywood Paper. You can buy it straight up for $59.95 or make a bid, beginning at $49.95; bids close at 10:36 p.m. (Eastern) Saturday. All the requisite information is at http://www.ebay.com/itm/CAROLE-LOMBARD-WILLIAM-POWELL-HAVE-TEA-FOR-TWO-ON-WARNER-STUDIOS-SET-/320910256842?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ab7bdeaca.

Hollywood Paper has the other Powell-Lombard pic as well, showing the couple out in public (at the racetrack, perhaps?):



This is also from Culver Pictures, though we know what it ran in -- Liberty magazine, a popular general-interest publication of the day. (Also note that on both pictures, there was a Culver stamp that featured a zip code, meaning these were kept on file there through at least the mid-1960s.)

It's 8" x 10", in good condition, and can only be bought, for $59.95 (no bidding option here). If interested, visit http://www.ebay.com/itm/WILLIAM-POWELL-CAROLE-LOMBARD-STRUGGLE-TO-KEEP-FROM-SMILING-GREAT-PHOTO-/320910025557?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ab7ba6355.

Finally, one of Lombard and Clark Gable -- but taken while Carole was still married to Powell, which of course means it has something to do with the film "No Man Of Her Own":



This shot, from the library scene in the movie, comes from a different seller than the Powell pictures, and it's 7.5" x 9.5" and also a buy-only item ($52.50). You can learn more by going to http://www.ebay.com/itm/CLARK-GABLE-AND-CAROLE-LOMBARD-FROM-MOVIE-NO-MAN-OF-HER-OWN-ORIGINAL-PHOTO-/310401894622?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item48456508de.

Finally, an announcement: I'll be participating next weekend in the first-ever blogathon devoted to classic Hollywood and horses (so, naturally, it's called the "Horseathon"!). Of course, I'll be contributing a Lombard-based entry (tentatively slated for next Sunday), not hard to do given her fondness for horses. You can find out more at http://myloveofoldhollywood.blogspot.com/2012/04/i-hope-youll-all-sign-up-for-little.html. (A good time to do it as well, especially after I'll Have Another's thrilling repeat rally at the Preakness yesterday.)

In honor of this equine event, I've created a banner:

There's a correlation among the four photos at the top of today's entry. A Hollywood icon (Carole Lombard, upper left), next to a woman who portrayed her on screen (Jill Clayburgh in the 1976 film "Gable And Lombard"). The lady at lower left is, of course, Mary Pickford, and on the lower right is actress Lily Rabe, who was recently hired to play Pickford in a biopic set to begin production in 2013.

Now, here's the twist: Rabe is Clayburgh's daughter. Rabe, who turns 30 in June, has had success on the New York stage (most recently in "The Merchant Of Venice"), has made some TV appearances (including guesting on three of Dick Wolf's New York-based "Law & Order" series) and also acted in films (of which the best-known may be "Mona Lisa Smile").

The yet-to-be-titled film will be adapted from Eileen Whitfield's biography, "Pickford: The Woman Who Made Hollywood." It's being produced by a group known as Poverty Row Entertainment, headed by Julie Pacino (yep, Al's daughter) and Jennifer DeLia, who will direct the film. Compared to the big-studio "Gable And Lombard," an attempt to cash in on the 1930s nostalgia craze of the mid-seventies, this will be art-house fare all the way, and we hope it should thus be able to tell Pickford's story of her stardom as an artist and success as a businesswoman without resorting to Hollywood cliches. (Josh Fagin will adapt the book.) For those of us who love Hollywood history, and want to clear the many misconceptions about Pickford (http://carole-and-co.livejournal.com/488815.html), this film is welcome news.

Pacino and DeLia have yet to cast other roles, including Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks and D.W. Griffith, who along with Pickford founded United Artists in 1919. (Might Josh Brolin, son of James Brolin, who played Clark Gable in "Gable And Lombard," be available? Just mischievous thinking on my part.)

According to DeLia, “Meeting Lily really sealed the deal as not only did she already know a lot about Pickford but also, we were instantly able to visually place Lily in that time, right into Mary’s shoes.”

One presumes Rabe (whose father is noted playwright David Rabe) has seen her mother's performance as Lombard -- but Lily may be unaware of Carole's ties to Pickford. She had a small, unbilled part in Mary's 1927 comedy "My Best Girl" (http://carole-and-co.livejournal.com/33953.html), and in 1937 said of Pickford, “Take business -– that’s supposed to be a man’s province. Yet I can name you the most outstanding success in the business life of the movies and that person is a woman: Mary Pickford. You can’t match her. She’s supreme in every department." That Pickford is to be portrayed by the daughter of someone who portrayed her would probably delight Lombard.

The only regret is that Clayburgh won't be here to see this; she died of leukemia in November 2010.

For the final few years of Cary Grant's life, he appeared on tour, showing clips from his films and answering questions from the audience (written beforehand on cards). I never had the chance to attend one of these shows, but I wonder if Carole Lombard's name ever came up in questions. Probably not very often; alas, the actor and actress most associated with the screwball genre never made a comedy together, though there were several near-misses. Their lone co-starring vehicle was a drama, "In Name Only" (seen above).

From all accounts, Cary and Carole were on good terms, both personally and professionally (each could commiserate over how neither really got a break at Paramount). But at the start of 1939, several months before "In Name Only" began filming, both were co-starring in another medium -- radio:



This was a promotional photo for an NBC series called "The Circle," and one would guess that Grant received even fewer questions on this than regarding some of his lesser-known films, such as "The Howards Of Virginia." Not only do we not associate Cary with radio, though he appeared on many movie adaptation shows, including a "Lux Radio Theater" version of "In Name Only" with cinematic co-stars Lombard and Kay Francis, but "The Circle" would be to old-time radio what the Edsel was to late '50s automobiles.



The concept had some promise...put a group of celebrities together to discuss all sorts of matters, and voila -- the broadcast version of the fabled Algonquin Round Table. And "The Circle's" celebrities included not only Lombard and Grant, but Groucho and Chico Marx, Ronald Colman, Lawrence Tibbett (all above) and others. Sponsored by Kellogg's Corn Flakes, "The Circle" premiered at 7 p.m. (Eastern) Sunday, Jan. 15, 1939, just before Jack Benny's hugely popular comedy program.

It lasted slightly less than six months, and by then Colman and Lombard had long left the sinking ship, replaced by Basil Rathbone and Madeleine Carroll.

What went wrong? Well, the entire series was scripted, which apparently gave it an artificial feel; at that time, sponsors ran radio, and Kellogg's probably wanted to make sure that any words coming out of Groucho's or Carole's mouth wouldn't embarrass the company. (It probably remembered what happened with Chase & Sanborn two years earlier, when Mae West made an appearance on Edgar Bergen's program and did a rather risque Adam-and-Eve skit with dummy Charlie McCarthy.) Moreover, topics were rather tepid -- this was by no means a 1939 version of "The View" (imagine Lombard being a member of that crew!). For more on this ill-fated series and other early radio appearances by Carole, visit http://carole-and-co.livejournal.com/3807.html.

But let's get back to that photo above showing Cary and Carole near the mike. It's an 8" x 10" reprint, and it's being auctioned at eBay. Bidding begins at $9.99, with bids closing at 11:15 p.m. (Eastern) Wednesday. If you'd like to bid or merely learn more, go to http://www.ebay.com/itm/CAROLE-LOMBARD-AND-CARY-GRANT-RADIO-DAYS-CANDID-8X10-PHOTO-/150818399969?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item231d7a26e1.

And if you win the bidding, you don't have to tell your friends about the flop program it derives from -- tell them it's Grant and Lombard appearing on "Lux Radio Theater." (But if they're into old-time radio, don't try it; "Lux" aired on NBC at the start and close of its 22-year run, but Lombard's "Lux" appearances were made only on CBS.)

"My Man Godfrey," arguably the greatest screwball comedy, has hilarious dialogue, a strong ensemble headed by Carole Lombard and William Powell, solid direction from Gregory La Cava, and a message that goes beyond the jokes. But have you ever analyzed it from a fashion perspective? Somebody has.



Meet Kimberly Truhler, being interviewed by Ben Mankiewicz during last month's TCM Classic Film Festival; if you recall, the theme of this year's festival was "Style In The Movies," and Kimberly knows both movies and style. She has a by-appointment showroom, "GlamAmor," at the California Market Center, and regularly writes about fashion (with a lot of movie talk thrown in!) at her wonderful blog, http://www.glamamor.com.

It just so happens that several weeks before the TCM festival, she posted an entry about "Godfrey," a film she has loved ever since she first saw it late at night some years ago. As she put it, "The aged and slightly faded film flickering in the darkness on some obscure channel did not dim its appeal. In fact, I only remember how captivated I was from its opening until closing credits, and all of the magic in between."

Much of that magic comes from its Streamline and Art Deco style, quintessential '30s, but as she noted, "it is the costume design of the great Travis Banton that will really catch your eye."

She describes his work for Lombard thus:

"He was blissfully indulgent in styling her socialite character Irene. At one point, he has her waking up in a bedroom jacket made entirely of ostrich feathers (see above). In another, he plays on Deco's fascination with foreign intrigue in designing her exotic Asian-inspired pajamas.



"And then of course there are gowns that are quintessential Banton, such as our introduction to Irene in a beaded bias-cut."



But while Banton designed Lombard's wear, here's something I didn't know: It was his assistant, also imported from Paramount, who -- under Banton's supervision -- created the outfits for the other characters. Her name? Edith Head, whose fame eventually eclipsed Banton's. As Truhler writes,

"Made very much in Banton's own style, it was she who was responsible for Gail Patrick's gowns and others' outfits in 'My Man Godfrey.' This was one of her first real shining moments of costume design on film, so it is great to appreciate these early moments in her illustrious career."

Patrick may play the "devil" to Lombard's "angel," but she looks every bit as heavenly as her cinematic sister, as this satin gown and two-piece suit with fur collar make clear:




Head's work with other characters is noted, too, such as Alice Brady, with (but not wearing) goat. (Kimberly believes that coat collar to be ermine.)



And Head also gets the chance to outfit Powell (shown with Alan Mowbray), from bum to butler to the sophisticate known to millions:



Once you read this item, you will appreciate "Godfrey" in yet another way. The entry, featuring several dozen photos -- can be found at http://www.glamamor.com/2012/03/cinema-style-file-art-deco-of-comedy-in.html. Those wonderful credits are only the beginning...

Another fabulous Carole Lombard image is now available via eBay from Hollywood Paper. This one was taken by RKO's Alex Kahle in 1939 to promote "In Name Only." It's an 8" x 10" whose borders have been trimmed, resulting in its measuring 7 1/2" x 9 1/4". While that really doesn't affect the image any, part of the snipe on the back was sacrificed in the process:



Thankfully, there's still enough information to provide a good description of what Lombard is wearing, including colors (chartreuse and rose?):



One wonders how many editors would have contributed to a fund to buy this luckless RKO publicist a typewriter with legible characters.

You can buy this vintage photo (listed in very good condition) straight up for $89.95 or bid, beginning at $79.95, in which case bidding ends at 10:36 p.m. (Eastern) next Monday. Find out more at http://www.ebay.com/itm/BEAUTIFUL-CAROLE-LOMBARD-SITS-BY-A-WELL-1939-PHOTO-BY-ALEX-KAHLE-/320907096863?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ab78db31f.

This photo of Carole Lombard with Cesar Romero is said to be from 1937, but the key here isn't when it was taken, but where. It was snapped at the Beverly Hills Hotel, a place that figures in Lombard lore -- and a hotel celebrating its centennial this year.




It's possible Jane Alice Peters accompanied her mother, Elizabeth Peters, to some social functions at the hotel in the years after the family moved to southern California in 1914, and as Carole Lombard she likely attended some public events there. But it's probable that most of Lombard's time at the Beverly Hills Hotel was spent in relative seclusion...and that's just the way she wanted it.

For it was here that Carole and Clark Gable spent some intimate days (and nights) together before Clark was able to legally free himself from second wife Ria Langham. And they did it in one of the hotel's many trademarks...its bungalows.



Back in the day, before the hotel grounds grew quite so verdant, they probably more resembled this:




Gable and Lombard are said to have used bungalow No. 4 as their preferred hideaway. Marlene Dietrich spent several months at No. 8, and Marilyn Monroe is said to have been a regular at both No. 1 and No. 9, the latter during the filming of "Let's Make Love" in 1960. She was married to Arthur Miller at the time, and spent a lot of time at the next-door bungalow of Yves Montand and his wife, Simone Signoret...and Monroe and Montand wound up having a highly publicized affair (which Signoret never blamed her for).



For proof of the bungalows' seclusion, check out this aerial shot:



Yes, the Beverly Hills Hotel has figured prominently in Hollywood history -- in fact, for several years in the 1940s, Loretta Young and Irene Dunne were among its owners. Dietrich waged a successful battle for the right to wear slacks at what eventually became known as the Polo Lounge (so named because Will Rogers would take his celeb-laden parties there after polo matches). The hotel's Hollywood ties are played up in this collection of photos (double-click to see the images at full size):



And the hotel, nicknamed the "pink palace" (something Lombard would not have called the place, as its famed pink exterior didn't come into being until a late 1940s remodeling by famed black architect Paul Williams) is celebrating its centennial in appropriate style. This month, a book about the hotel's history, its ups and downs (it was closed briefly during the Depression) is being released, written by the hotel's official historian, Robert S. Anderson (great-grandson of the hotel's founder, Margaret Anderson); it's said to be chock-full of never-before seen photos of the famed place. You can order it at http://www.thebeverlyhillscollection.com.



In mid-June, a weekend celebration to benefit the Motion Picture & Television Fund (the charitable organization that looks after so many in the entertainment community) will be held, featuring stars ranging from Bill Cosby and Warren Beatty to Mary J. Blige. Find out more at http://www.beverlyhillshotel.com/Celebration-Weekend (but note prices for this special gathering range from $7,500 to $15,000!).

The Beverly Hills Hotel is indeed a special place, though if you aren't financially equipped to rent a room, much less a bungalow, try the Fountain Coffee Room, where a meal costs about $30, including tip -- expensive, but at least you can say you ate there. See you at the pool!

Carole Lombard was the subject of many attractive photographic portraits taken by the great George Hurrell, but the one above has a special honor of sorts. It was the first Hurrell photo to appear in Esquire magazine, specifically the November 1936 issue:



Esquire, which debuted with its October 1933 issue, was a male-oriented magazine of some refinement; at first it focused on men's fashion, but quickly expanded into other topics. Here's the cover of that November '36 issue:



F. Scott Fitzgerald contributed a short story; other notables of the time credited on the cover include Gilbert Seldes, Havelock Ellis and Princeton football coach Fritz Crisler, who shortly would leave the Tigers to coach at the University of Michigan.

Famed pin-up artist George Petty drew a cartoon for the magazine and also illustrated an Old Gold cigarette ad:



Speaking of ads, here's one for the Studebaker President, presumably manufactured at the Studebaker plant in South Bend, Ind.:



A fascinating issue of this legendary magazine.

Listed in good condition, this November 1936 Esquire currently has a high bid of $12.99; bidding closes at 6:19 p.m. (Eastern) Sunday. You can get in on the action, or simply find out more, at http://www.ebay.com/itm/1936-ESQUIRE-F-Scott-Fitzgerald-Petty-pinup-Carole-Lombard-HURRELL-Nazi-OLYMPICS-/390417750637?pt=Magazines&hash=item5ae6b61a6d.

This week's LiveJournal header is from one of Carole's most famous films, and her only three-strip Technicolor feature, "Nothing Sacred."

That's Carole Lombard and her mom, Elizabeth Knight Peters; the photo is dated 1935 (and while it looks as if the p1202 number is 1145, Lombard's hairstyle and eye makeup leads one to believe it was taken about 1932 or so).

If there was a woman Carole admired more than her mother, I've yet to learn her identity; theirs was an extremely close relationship. So in honor of Mrs. Peters, I looked through the Newspaper Archive files for items regarding her, and while there aren't many, I found a few.

When Lombard decided to divorce William Powell in July 1933, her mother became Carole's de facto spokeswoman, as these July 7 items from the Lowell Sun in Massachusetts and the San Antonio Light make evident:



That San Antonio story is a bit difficult to read, so here's what Mrs. Peters said of the split: "But in spite of the coming divorce, they are still very good friends. They just decided suddenly that they couldn't agree."



Over the ensuing years, that friendship -- both personal and professional -- became obvious to all.

Despite Carole's athleticism, she was known for her susceptibility to a wide range of ailments -- including one she may have passed on to her mother, according to the Dec. 10, 1936 Oshkosh Daily Northwestern in Wisconsin:



Lombard was likely working on "Swing High, Swing Low" at the time she caught laryngitis.

Mrs. Peters was a peripheral figure in a story in the March 9, 1939 Hammond Times in Indiana, which discusses her daughter's anticipated marriage to Clark Gable:



What's this lawsuit all about? The March 17 Wisconsin State Journal in Madison supplies a bit more information -- and a photo of "Carole's Mom" as well:



I have no idea how the lawsuit turned out...but we do know that in November of '39, the Fort Wayne Woman's Club honored Bess Peters (hey, how many women have Gable as a son-in-law?). No word on whether she was visiting old friends in Indiana and attended the event, but someone from Logansport did, and it was in the Nov. 17 Pharos-Tribune:



Carole wasn't the only child of Bess in wedded bliss. The March 4, 1940 Hayward Daily Review in California notes that Frederick Peters and his new bride were honeymooning:



On Christmas Day, the Oakland Tribune reported on how some of Hollywood's elite were celebrating the holiday, and not only did Frederick Peters and wife visit Clark and Carole at the Encino ranch, so did a newcomer to the fold, one-month-old Frederick Jr., making Bess Peters a grandma and Lombard an aunt:



Looks as if the young couple worked on a family right after the vows...or did they get a head start?

A happy Mother's Day to all, and even if your mom isn't a star, treat her like one.

Carole Lombard in a swimsuit is always a welcome sight -- especially when it's an image you've never seen before, and has a snipe to boot. Witness:




This is Paramount p1202-790 from 1934, the second Lombard portrait in as many months to emerge from the mysterious mid-thirties fan magazine Hollywood Mirror (http://carole-and-co.livejournal.com/504105.html). The markings on the back indicate it ran on page 20 of the June (1934?) issue.

Can't read the snipe? Let's enlarge it:



"You Belong To Me" was eventually named "Now And Forever," pairing Carole and Coop with an up-and-coming youngster named Shirley Temple.

You may have seen said white swimsuit (did Connie Foster design the suit, the hat or both?) in several other Paramount stills issued about this time, such as p1202-777...



...p1202-789...



...and p1202-794:



Paramount p1202-790 is an 8" x 10" original from Hollywood Paper, a treasure trove of Lombard images in recent months. It's deemed in "very good-" condition, so there are a few minor flaws, but nothing all that serious.

This is a strictly "buy it now" item, for $224.95 -- expensive, to be sure, but this is a relatively rare image that some collector of Lombardiana will want to snap up? Think you might be that collector? Then visit http://www.ebay.com/itm/SUPER-SEXY-CAROLE-LOMBARD-CHEESECAKE-1934-HOLLYWOOD-MIRROR-PHOTO-/320904519388?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ab7665edc to find out more.

No, not in the political or economic sense, but in terms of Groucho and Harpo. Here's Carole Lombard with the two Marxes and Jackie Cooper in a midget car race on the Paramount lot in 1933:



We bring this up because another photo from that event has surfaced, a 4" x 5" candid of Carole with Harpo, taken by veteran Hollywood fan magazine photographer Hyman Fink. It's part of a contact sheet, so we'll show it twice -- first as it was probably meant to be seen, and secondly as it is currently being auctioned:



It appears that "Stage 3" (or possibly "5") is in the upper background of the photo, which helps us pinpoint precisely where at Paramount this was shot. That's because yet another photo taken that day (possibly also by Fink) shows the opposite angle:



The "ESS" in the background, not to mention the array of clothing people are wearing, leads one to believe it's a dressing room for extras and supporting players. Examining a recent Paramount studio map, assuming no major functional changes have been made since 1933, gives the impression it was taken here (a cut-in of the map, with the famed Bronson gate in the lower right-hand corner)...



...along what is called "Avenue M," which looks wide enough to fit three midget auto racers.

The rare pic of Lombard and Harpo is being auctioned at eBay, with bids beginning at $49.99; bidding is scheduled to end at 10:32 p.m. (Eastern) next Thursday. If this photo of two comic icons catches your fancy, bid or find out more at http://www.ebay.com/itm/CAROLE-LOMBARD-HARPO-MARX-Rare-Original-1930s-Candid-4x5-Photo-/370612311596?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item564a37162c.

Finally, let's turn the tables on Mr. Fink and show him being photographed...or, should we say, a photograph of one of the people he would photograph photographing him. Confused? This is from Oct. 7, 1936, and shows Clark Gable, Fink second from left, Joan Crawford (who would attend Fink's wedding in 1940) and Jack Albin, Hollywood photographer for Hearst's International News Service:

The latest batch of "new" Carole Lombard photos from eBay is a mixed batch -- three pics from three different studios, and all of them charming. We'll start with this, from RKO photographer Fred Hendrickson:



The seller (Hollywood Paper) says this photo, of Carole leaning on a fence at her Encino ranch, is from 1939, and it well may be even though there's a May 15, 1941 stamp from the NEA syndicate. No matter when it was taken, it's beautiful, showing Lombard's ethereal casual beauty (though she probably did some touching up before the session). It's an 8" x 10" in good condition.

You can buy it straight up for $139.95 -- that is, if somebody doesn't bid on it first. Bids start at $119.95, and bidding would end at 10:39 p.m. (Eastern) next Tuesday. Curious collectors can find out more at http://www.ebay.com/itm/BEAUTIFUL-CAROLE-LOMBARD-ON-HER-RANCH-1939-PHOTO-BY-FRED-HENDRICKSON-/320902826237?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ab74c88fd

There certainly were some horses on the ranch she and Clark Gable called home...and speaking of horses, here's a pair of Oct. 6 babies using a horseshoe for luck:




This is Lombard and director Mitchell Leisen, precisely 10 years her senior, on the set of "Swing High, Swing Low." They brought along a horseshoe to ward off superstition on Friday the 13th...and a check of the calendar indicates this was almost certainly taken on Nov. 13, 1936. (This became Paramount's most profitable film for all of 1937, so the equine luck must have worked!)

This original 8" x 10", which looks to be in good condition, is being sold by The Photo Archive, and its minimum bid is $49.95. Bids close two minutes earlier than for the first photo. You can place a bid, or simply learn more, by visiting http://www.ebay.com/itm/30s-Candid-Director-Mitchell-Leisen-Carole-Lombard-Swing-High-Swing-Low-353P-/380437439168?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5893d6a2c0.

Finally, a publicity photo from Carole's first film of 1936, Universal's "Love Before Breakfast," showing her with Cesar Romero:



Also from The Photo Archive, this measures 7.5" x 9.5" (there was some trimming on the corners), a possible reason it's going for a substantially cheaper price than its two brethren on this entry. Bidding begins at a mere $9.99, with bids closing at 10:35 p.m. (Eastern) on Tuesday. Depending upon the interest, this looks like a vintage Lombard pic that can be purchased for a fairly inexpensive price. If this interests you, check out http://www.ebay.com/itm/CAROLE-LOMBARD-1936-LOVE-BEFORE-BREAKFAST-VINTAGE-PHOTO-G502-/200756797759?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ebe09a13f.

It's entirely possible that when Carole Lombard and John Barrymore appeared in "True Confession" at the just-opened Centre Theater in Salt Lake City at the tail end of 1937, it was the first movie ever seen by some Utah youngster whose parents took him to this new downtown picture palace. It begs the specific question, what was the first movie you ever saw, and more generally, how did you become a classic film fan?

Before you supply your answer, let me supply mine.

The first actual movie I ever saw -- in a theater -- likely came at the very end of 1960 or early '61, when I was five years old. It was a comedy called "The Facts Of Life," starring two legends of laughs, Bob Hope and Lucille Ball, and even featured credits designed by Saul Bass (the film was black-and-white):




None of that really meant anything to me, though by then I had probably caught glimpses of both Hope and Ball on TV. Nor did I make the choice to attend this, plunking down what little change I had to the ticket booth (provided I could reach that high, which this kindergartener probably couldn't). No, I was taken by my older (17 at the time) sister Helen, who likely was on Christmas break from her parochial high school and decided to see a movie, taking me along so mom could spend some time with my younger brother, a month away from turning three. (She also took me to a cartoon festival at RKO Keith's, but I'm not sure whether or not that took place before or after seeing "The Facts Of Life.") We took the Valley Drive bus downtown, walked across South Salina at Jefferson, and entered the theater.

I honestly can't say I understood the movie, a marital comedy in which Bob and Lucy play part of two couples; stranded by themselves, they discover they're attracted to each other and are tempted to stray. There were some funny bits, including one I remember where their car is stranded in a rainstorm and they have to find shelter.



Over the years, your memory plays tricks on you. Perhaps because I always associate Bob Hope with Paramount, I thought I saw this at the now-demolished Paramount theater in Syracuse, N.Y. But a check of the Syracuse Post-Standard from Dec. 30, 1960 proved me wrong on two counts -- it was a United Artists production, and it was shown not at the Paramount, but one block up South Salina Street at Loew's...a palace that's still around today as the recently renovated Landmark Theater, but shown below as the Loew's for a movie released earlier in 1960:




I don't recall whether we saw the second feature; I would guess not, because Helen really wasn't into westerns. I doubt that she would have remembered...and sadly, I say "would have" because Helen passed away last October at age 67. I miss her.

I bring this story up because throughout May, the blog "True Classics" run by a lady named Brandie (http://trueclassics.wordpress.com) is running people's recollections of their first movie experiences. You can discover how this idea started at http://trueclassics.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/recalling-those-memorable-moving-shadows-on-the-screen-a-month-long-event.

So far, memories have been gathered from a Mississippi lady whose movie memories date back to the 1930s (http://trueclassics.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/mississippi-movie-memories-from-the-1930s-and-beyond); a woman from Texas whose first movie memory was seeing "Airplane!" in a drive-in at age five (http://trueclassics.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/b-movies-and-busting-ghosts-in-texas); a New Yorker who grew into a classic film buff in the 1960s (http://trueclassics.wordpress.com/2012/05/04/a-budding-cinephile-in-1960s-new-york-city); a woman whose early movie experiences include "Grease" and "E.T." (http://trueclassics.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/memories-of-dancing-hot-dogs-and-cuddly-aliens); and a 27-year-old woman who also "began" with "E.T." but gradually graduated to classic film (http://trueclassics.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/the-growth-of-a-classic-film-fan). Wonderful stuff, and since May isn't even one-third done, we can look forward to plenty more movie stories...perhaps yours among them.

On May 6, 1933, the "Rambling Reporter" column of the Hollywood Reporter wrote that "Carole Lombard may sign up with Columbia." It didn't turn out that way, of course -- Lombard remained at Paramount, a larger studio, through 1937 -- but few would have blamed her for making the move.

Carole made five films for Columbia. One, "Twentieth Century," turned out to be the pivotal movie of her career. Another, "Virtue," is rapidly gaining favor as Lombard's best performance prior to that film, and arguably her best work in the pre-Code style. The other three movies made for Harry Cohn's company weren't classics, but all were superior to what she was making at her home studio.

One of them was "Brief Moment" (above, with Gene Raymond), released in the fall of 1933. Two other original stills from that film are now available via eBay from Hollywood Paper, which has been selling or auctioning many rare and wonderful Lombard photos of late.

Carole portrayed a torch singer in "Brief Moment" (although all of her short "singing" scenes were dubbed), and here's a picture of her plying her trade, as well as the back of the photo:



This is listed as in "very good-" condition, meaning there is some wear as well as a few flaws. You can buy it straight up for $119.95 or make a bid beginning at $107.95; if the latter option kicks in, the auction ends at 10:39 p.m. (Eastern) Monday. Buy, bid or learn more at http://www.ebay.com/itm/SEXY-GLAMOROUS-CAROLE-LOMBARD-WITH-PIANO-PLAYER-KILLED-IN-PLANE-CRASH-/320902100587?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ab741766b.

The other pic shows Lombard with Raymond, who plays a wealthy, drunken playboy that marries Carole's character but refuses to change his fallow ways, despite her pleading:




This photo was property of Culver Pictures, which filed it under "kissing"; perhaps it was occasionally used as an illustration of osculation in addition to a general photo of either Lombard or Raymond. Whatever, this has a few more flaws than its counterpart, and as such is merely rated in "good+" condition.

Unlike the other photo, you can only buy this one, not bid on it -- the price is $59.95. Interested? Go to http://www.ebay.com/itm/SEXY-CAROLE-LOMBARD-HANDSOME-GENE-RAYMOND-KISS-1933-BRIEF-MOMENT-/320902374051?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ab745a2a3.

Had Carole ended up at Columbia, might Cohn (whom she actually got along with, something that couldn't be said of his relationship with virtually every star actress of that era) have given her the "queen of the lot" treatment, as he did with Rita Hayworth in the 1940s? Or would she have tired of his crassness, too? We'll never know...but as this part of a "Brief Moment" poster proves, Columbia gave her the full glamour treatment:

Aside from mediocre reviews for "Supernatural" (this still is indicative of her enthusiasm for the project), which by now was making the rounds of theaters nationwide, not much was going on in Carole Lombard's life during May 1933. Not to say Paramount wasn't giving this horror hokum a push, as evidenced in this ad from the May 10 Zanesville Times Recorder in Ohio:



Other marketing specifically focused on Lombard, playing up the "Jekyll-and-Hyde" angle (seen here in both an ad and a blurb (two columns to the left) from the Corsicana (Texas) Daily Sun of May 30:



An ad in the Greeley (Colo.) Daily Tribune cast Lombard in a more macabre light:



There was another new Lombard film in theaters that month, though she only figured in it tangentially. It was the World War I epic "The Eagle And The Hawk," and note that the Film Daily review of May 6 doesn't list her at all, aside from cast detail:



On the 27th, the Syracuse Herald praised the film, but noted, "For the sake of a feminine name on the program you briefly see Carole Lombard in a sexual moment which well might have been omitted."



"Sexual moment"? That sounds like something from a Tijuana bible. Carole was essentially playing the equivalent of Jean Harlow's character from "Hell's Angels" three years earlier, albeit with substantially less impact.

Louella Parsons' Hearst-based syndicated column featured several mentions of Lombard during May. On the 1st, she noted that Carole and husband Bill Powell were among the film folk who traveled to the Hearst ranch (William Randolph Hearst always preferred that term to "Hearst Castle") on the publisher/film producer's 70th birthday. (Others included Harold Lloyd and his wife, as well as Constance Talmadge.) On May 3, Parsons said Paramount was trying to get Powell, who had just left Warners, to co-star with his wife in "The Big Executive":



Two days later, Parsons reported RKO had beaten Paramount to the punch, and signed Powell to appear with Ann Harding in "Double Harness." Paramount substituted Cary Grant for the male lead, but then Carole herself dropped out, stated the May 12 Hollywood Reporter, replaced by Helen Twelvetrees:



When "Big Executive" hit theaters that October, neither Grant nor Twelvetrees were the leads. Those honors instead went to Ricardo Cortez and Elizabeth Young; the latter made only four films, including a supporting part in Greta Garbo's famed "Queen Christina," and was the wife of Joseph Mankiewicz for three years. A Bryn Mawr alumna (like Katharine Hepburn), she died in March 2007 at age 98.

The Hearst-Lombard connection continued in Parsons' column on May 26; the two segments of it are separated in some terrible newspaper design (I'm a copy editor -- I know these things):



Lombard and the younger Hearst had known each other since the mid-1920s, so this wasn't done to ingratiate herself with the media mogul's family. (Note that Clark Gable and his wife at the time also attended.)

Remember the "phantom" Lombard film, "Billion Dollar Scandal," that we discussed in "Looking back: April 1933"? That movie (in which Constance Cummings actually had the female lead) resurfaced in May at a theater, and in a location, I'd never heard of:



This was from the May 18 Delta (Pa.) Herald Times, and since the theater's location is Cardiff, Md., it's appropriately named the Pen-Mar ("The House Of Perfect Talkies"). Cardiff is in Harford County, northeast of Baltimore. The Pen-Mar -- destroyed by fire in the 1950s -- was a converted Masonic hall; for more about this unorthodox venue, visit http://www.kilduffs.com/PZA_Pen-Mar.html.

Paramount's publicity department sent items of studio news that newspapers often ran as filler. The Charleston Gazette in West Virginia ran two such items on successive Sundays, noting stars' vacation plans on May 7 (Lombard and Powell "have almost decided to take their vacation in Mexico City")...



...and stars' pets on May 14 (Carole owns a dachshund and husky):



Note that underneath the former column was a note about Lombard appearing in "Gambling Ship," for which she had been removed the previous month, while the latter column claimed that Kathleen Burke, the "panther woman" of the hit "Island Of Lost Souls," has "a real pet panther." Stuffed, perhaps, but certainly not a real one.

Carole's picture was used in the May 22 Syracuse Herald to promote an appearance at E.W. Edwards department store...no, not by Lombard, but by Corinne Janes of Max Factor, lecturing on "The Magic Art Of Make-Up."



With the name "Janes," I thought she might have been related to the Janes family of Hollywood Boulevard mansion fame, and she might well have been, but a Google check revealed similar department store appearances in Schenectady and Niagara Falls, so I'm guessing she was the company's upstate New York representative. (As a native Syracusan, I well remember Edwards, an attractive store with a nice restaurant where I regularly enjoyed chicken fricassee in my youth.)

Perhaps the most interesting display concerning Lombard that month was another ad, one that ran only in western newspapers such as the Butte Standard in Montana on May 18:



The ad, for Best Foods Mayonnaise, is dominated by a full-length image of Carole in a two-piece swimsuit, showing off her "glorious, supple figure" (it lists her measurements as 34 1/2-24 1/2-35). But rather than an outright endorsement by her, the ad appears to be speaking to her ("Change to Best Foods Mayonnaise, Carole Lombard...if you want these 6 extra health benefits added to every salad"). Weird.

This week's header is from one of Lombard's more obscure films, 1932's "No One Man," the first feature where she received top billing. Clad in a slinky, metallic dress, she has turned away from Cortez, one of her two co-stars.

Last Aug. 28, movie fans got to see not only "My Man Godfrey," but 14 other Carole Lombard films when she was honored for the second time in Turner Classic Movies' annual "Summer Under The Stars" presentation. She's not part of SUTS this year (and probably won't return until TCM and Universal come to some sort of rights agreement regarding more pre-1948 Paramount product that Universal owns), but the list for 2012 is now available. Here it is, with SUTS first-timers marked with an asterisk:

1. John Wayne
2. Myrna Loy
3. Johnny Weismuller*
4. Marilyn Monroe*
5. Claude Rains
6. Van Heflin*
7. Sidney Poitier
8. Rita Hayworth
9. Toshiro Mifune*
10. Lionel Barrymore*
11. James Mason
12. Ginger Rogers
13. Deborah Kerr
14. James Cagney
15. Lillian Gish*
16. Elvis Presley
17. Katharine Hepburn
18. Freddie Bartholomew*
19. Eva Marie Saint*
20. Anthony Quinn*
21. Kay Francis*
22. Jack Lemmon
23. Gene Kelly
24. Irene Dunne
25. Tyrone Power*
26. Gary Cooper
27. Jeanette MacDonald*
28. Ava Gardner
29. James Caan*
30. Warren William*
31. Ingrid Bergman

Thanks to members of TCM's message boards, who track this stuff down with the diligence of China-watchers during the days of Chairman Mao and the Cultural Revolution, for finding all this.

An intriguing list, nearly half of them first-timers to SUTS.



Of course, the biggest name among the newcomers is Marilyn Monroe (shown above in "Let's Make Love"), heretofore unavailable to TCM except in limited doses because most of her films are property of 20th Century-Fox. But the recent shift of the Fox Movie Channel, de-emphasizing classic-era content, gave TCM an opportunity to procure Monroe, and her films will be shown on Aug. 4, near the 50th anniversary of her death (an event that should be well-publicized). Until this year, Marilyn was the only top 10 member of either gender's top 25 classic star list from the American Film Institute not to be featured on SUTS. (Lillian Gish, rated 17th among actresses, is also a first-timer.) Another Fox stalwart, Tyrone Power, gets his first SUTS date on Aug. 25, following in the footsteps of Gene Tierney last year.



To be sure, there are some old standbys on the list. Katharine Hepburn (who's overused on TCM promos as it is) regains the overall lead with her seventh appearance (she's shown above in 1936's "Mary of Scotland"), while John Wayne ties Cary Grant and James Stewart for second place with six. But it's hard to believe that many of the first-timers have never received the honor before -- Lionel Barrymore, Anthony Quinn, Kay Francis, Jeanette MacDonald. (Alas, MacDonald's fare largely will be her "iron butterfly" MGM films, not her more interesting, and sexier, work for Paramount.) And Eva Marie Saint, one of TCM's best friends (and beloved by its fans), gets honored for the first time, too.



TCM tends to throw some surprises our way with SUTS, and 2012's list is no exception. Johnny Weismuller gets his day in the sun Aug. 3 (mostly in Tarzan films, of course), and filling the role of "international" star, done last year by Jean Gabin, is Japanese legend Toshiro Mifune. Want a child star? There's Freddie Bartholomew. A '70s star? James Caan. A stalwart of pre-Codes? Warren William (shown above with Loretta Young in "Employees' Entrance"), who's became quite popular with TCM viewers in recent years.



And as a Myrna Loy fan (seen above in "Penthouse"), I am not only pleased to see her honored, but that it comes on Aug. 2, the 107th anniversary of her birth.

The tentative schedule (with a few films yet to be scheduled as of this writing) can be found at http://forums.tcm.com/thread.jspa?threadID=164583&start=15&tstart=0. (Note that it's at the bottom of the thread.) I know people who try to take time off from work to match their favorite stars' SUTS days.

It leaves you wondering who might be in TCM's plans for 2013, the 10th anniversary (and 11th year) of the SUTS format. Could Loretta Young be honored on her centenary (if she doesn't get Star of the Month that January)? Who would be the child star (Shirley Temple has never been part of SUTS)? The silent star (Mary Pickford's never been in SUTS, either)? The pre-Code star (how about Richard Barthelmess)? The '70s star (possibly Goldie Hawn)? We'll find out about this time next year.

Yesterday, we examined Carole Lombard memorabilia that can be bought rather cheaply; today, we'll go to the other end of the spectrum, two posters whose combined price is slightly less than a late-model used car.

That slinky, skin-tight gown Carole is wearing was replicated in a French-language poster for the 1933 Paramount potboiler "White Woman" (here named "Le Fou De Iles," or "Fool Of The Islands"), right down to the hint of nipple:



Co-star Charles Laughton looks sleepy, rather than aroused, as if he had taken an antihistamine an hour or two before and the effects were beginning to kick in...but it fits the overall goofy tone of the film.

This is no ordinary 22" x 28" half-sheet, folks -- this is a colossal 47" x 63", more than 20 square feet, that would dominate most walls by its sheer size. Such a giant poster understandably demands a giant price, and $4,900 is definitely appropriate. You can get all the details at http://www.ebay.com/itm/WHITE-WOMAN-CAROLE-LOMBARD-STUART-WALKER-1933-PERON-MOVIE-POSTER-48-/140748256493?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20c53ff4ed.

Now we go to a film from a few years later, and a country a bit northeast of France (it's from the same seller, too):



You can easily recognize the image (it's from "My Man Godfrey"); it's more difficult to pin down the language. Fortunately, the seller notes it's from Sweden, and the title "Godfrey ordnar allt" translates into "Godfrey, Arrange Everything." (Well, that was his job...and as it turned out, he did some other arranging, too.)

This poster isn't as overwhelming as the other, although at 27" x 41" it's nonetheless considerable. Its price is less overwhelming as well, although at $3,920 it's far beyond the reach of most mere moviegoing mortals. Learn more by visiting http://www.ebay.com/itm/MY-MAN-GODFREY-CAROLE-LOMBARD-GREGORY-LA-1936-FUCHS-MOVIE-POSTER-69-/150809764108?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item231cf6610c.

If those two items are out of your league, here's an attractive consolation prize:



This is a never-mailed postcard, measuring 3 1/2" x 5 3/8", issued in 2000, and the image is almost certainly from "Sinners In The Sun" (Carole wore a swimsuit of that design in the film). Clear and beautiful (her eyes are amazing!), the seller defines this as "modern glamour" -- and 80 years after this was taken, it's still (somewhat) modern, still (definitely) glamorous.

But what's best about this, for the collector, is its price -- 99 cents for an opening bid. You can bid on this postcard through 9:33 p.m. (Eastern) next Friday, and even after a few bids, this should still be at a reasonable price. Place a bid, or learn more, by going to http://www.ebay.com/itm/CAROLE-LOMBARD-movie-star-actress-MODERN-GLAMOUR-photo-postcard-/230786167069?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item35bbed711d.

If you're a collector of Carole Lombard photos, some interesting news has just cropped up. You can now own up to 29 Carole pics -- including the one above, p1202-606 -- for $1 per photo, as part of four different lots being sold on eBay.

They're prints, not vintage originals, so some of you might not be interested. For others, however, it's the image that counts, not the age.

According to the seller, last year these were sold for $9.99 each, but the seller is going into other endeavors and wants to sell these quickly. There's no bidding; you buy them now.

We'll show you each batch; note that some of the photos are duplicates, and light is reflected on many of the pics. Most of these are from Lombard's Paramount days.

Here's lot one, five pics for $5 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Carole-Lombard-Asst-Movie-Photo-Lot-01-5-Photo-Wholesale-Lot-/180874929324?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a1cfc64ac):



Now lot two, 10 pics, $10 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Carole-Lombard-Asst-Movie-Photo-Lot-02-10-Photo-Wholesale-Lot-/180874929833?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a1cfc66a9):



Lot three has five pics for five bucks (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Carole-Lombard-Asst-Movie-Photo-Lot-03-5-Photo-Wholesale-Lot-/140747644801?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20c5369f81):



Finally, lot four features nine photos for $9 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Carole-Lombard-Asst-Movie-Photo-Lot-04-9-Photo-Wholesale-Lot-/140747645136?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20c536a0d0):



Again, bargain hunters should hurry.

Before May is out, you'll see our regular monthly Carole Lombard "looking back" feature for May 1933, but this week we're examining two long Sunday newspaper articles on Hollywood that ran that month. Tuesday, we looked at kissing; today, what often happens after a kiss (or two, or three, or...)

Yep, it's sex. And since the spring of 1933 was the midst of what we now call the pre-Code era, it was causing controversy. So much, in fact, that syndicated writer Dan Thomas discussed it with two industry notables -- director Cecil B. De Mille and producer Samuel Goldwyn. The finished product ran in a number of newspapers, including the Lima News in Ohio on May 21, 1933:



The quotes from De Mille and Goldwyn both run so long that I sense Thomas didn't go to their offices and actually interview them, but instead requested they type their thoughts on the topic, which Thomas then converted into an article.

The story, called "So The Movies Are 'Getting Away From Sex.' Well, Well, Well!", has its share of intriguing observations. De Mille noted that during the late 1920s, when the U.S. was prosperous and in a good mood, sexy pictures were popular -- and then things changed.

"But a change of conditions also brings a change of thought. Hunger is our first sense, sex, our second. When a man is hungry he seldom evinces much thought in a beautiful woman. He might take to drink but femininity rarely proves attractive."

De Mille also noted that films dealing with hard economic times have to soft-pedal it, since "the public demands diversion, not education." And Thomas pointed out that "in a vast number of recent pictures sex has been played up rather than down."

One of the pictures he referred to was "No Man Of His Own" (seen above) where sex dominates the Lombard-Clark Gable tale. In that and the Jean Harlow films "Red-Headed Woman" and "Red Dust," Thomas wrote sex "has been literally thrown at the audience."



And, as a picture of Claudette Colbert from "The Sign Of The Cross" made clear, "De Mille himself has not yet abandoned the sex motif."



Of Mae West's "She Does Him Wrong," Thomas said the sex angle was "handled in somewhat better taste than the others" (perhaps because West was in her early forties and thus didn't show off skin, as well as that she wrote her own material), but the film was still flaunting sex.

Now the thoughts of Goldwyn, and no, you won't find malaprops here but some thoughtful observations. Sex wasn't necessary in pictures, he wrote, but it would continue to be the foundation for the majority of stories, as "it has since Shakespeare." He added:

"The word 'sex' covers a vast territory. It can be beautiful or it may be ugly.

"I am very much opposed to the type of pictures we ordinarily term 'sex films' and would not produce one if I thought it would make all the money in the world. On the other hand, I believe that sex rightly handled is a decided asset to any production."

Well, Sam, what about the Goldwyn Girls, seen in productions such as "Roman Scandals"?



"While the girls wore scanty costumes, they were attractive and the girls themselves were carefully selected for their beauty and shapeliness, thus making a combination entirely pleasing to the eye."

Romance is important too, Goldwyn noted, but added, "the very basis of romance is sex. ... I believe that while sex is not a necessary element in every film, it is necessary to motion pictures as a whole." (Unlike today, where CGI is necessary for motion pictures as a whole.)

Thomas concluded by noting that some "sex films" were so deftly handled, they were never burdened with the tag. "Practically all of Ernst Lubitsch's films come under this heading," he wrote.

But in the third paragraph of his story, Thomas makes a prediction that indeed came true: "Within another year or two pictures which flaunt sex unnecessarily will be few and far between." However, it wasn't changing tastes or an improved economy that led to the change, but infiltration from within, as Joseph Breen of the industry's Studio Relations Committee -- working clandestinely with religious groups -- helped set up boycotts in early 1934 that led to the imposition of a far tougher Code (as well as an organization, the Production Code Administration, led by Breen himself). It would play a role in Hollywood filmmaking for a third of a century.

To see the Thomas article in its entirety, double-click on each of the images below:

It's been more than two months since Angelina Jolie caused a furor by extending her right leg (and thigh) wearing a slit dress at the Academy Awards. Actresses have long known a glimpse of one leg is often more seductive than seeing two, and Carole Lombard was no exception. Here's proof -- a promotional photo for "Lady By Choice":



Snipes from Carole's Columbia film portraits are relatively rare, so its presence is appreciated. This purports to have been taken at Lombard's Hollywood Boulevard house while she was "enjoying a bit of privacy and relaxation...until the photographer walked in." We assume that it was someone she knew, that he'd already made an appointment -- and that he was going to want some leg art...



This is yet one more rare Lombard pic from the folks at Hollywood Paper; it's an 8" x 10" listed in "very good-" condition (they define "very good," without the minus, as "Fairly nice condition, shows some wear, has a few to several flaws"). You can buy it straight up for $119.95, or you can make a starting bid of $106.95; if the latter option is chosen, bidding expires at 10:38 p.m. (Eastern) Monday. Buy, place a bid or find out more at http://www.ebay.com/itm/BEAUTIFUL-CAROLE-LOMBARD-SHOWS-HER-SEXY-LEG-1934-LADY-CHOICE-/320898217431?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ab70635d7.

That "sexy leg" is her left one, but Carole didn't discriminate. Five years before "Lady By Choice," Lombard made her first all-talkie, "High Voltage" for Pathe. One of the photos gave a glimpse of her right leg, wrapped in a rather thick winter stocking:



The seller didn't show what the back of the photo looks like, though it was stamped "HIGH VOLTAGE key set." Like its counterpart above, it's also 8" x 10" and in very good condition (aside from slight corner wear), but it should be substantially cheaper. As of this writing, only one bid has been made, for $9.99; bidding ends at 5:02 p.m. (Eastern) on Sunday. Interested? Visit http://www.ebay.com/itm/Carole-Lombard-ORIGINAL-1929-scene-portrait-High-Voltage-/270965145540?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f16c7ffc4 to place a bid or get more information.

So, which Lombard leg do you prefer? To make a better comparison, here are both of them, displayed as equitably as I could find:



Of course, to go water skiing -- or even to give the illusion you're water skiing -- you have to set both legs far apart.

For some reason, Lombard never managed to make a movie with Joel McCrea, but he worked with many of the great leading ladies of Hollywood -- six films with Barbara Stanwyck, five with Miriam Hopkins, four with Constance Bennett. Like Gary Cooper, he was a native of the west (born in southern California in 1905) who was comfortable in just about any role. He loved westerns, and made more than his share of them; in fact, from 1953 on, that was the only genre he worked in.



TCM salutes this fine and likable actor in May. McCrea is the channel's Star of the Month (something many have been clamoring for on TCM message boards for quite some time), and you'll be able to see him each Wednesday, beginning tonight. Things kick off with two of his Preston Sturges-directed movies, "Sullivan's Travels" at 8 (Eastern) and "The Palm Beach Story" at 9:45. (At 4:15, if you can record it for later, is the saucy pre-Code "Bed Of Roses," above, starring McCrea, Bennett and wisecracking Pert Kelton. And at 7 a.m. is 1929's "Dynamite," a film from which Lombard was fired by Cecil B. De Mille; it features McCrea as a supporting player.) The last two Wednesdays in May will be dominated by McCrea's westerns.

For more on this popular star, visit http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/480406|0/Joel-McCrea-Wednesdays-in-May.html.

So tell us, Carole Lombard, who was better at kissing -- William Powell or Clark Gable? (For all we know, if she was in a candid mood, she might say "George Raft.") Let's turn it around and ask, what was it like to kiss Lombard?

For this, we have an answer, and I found it collecting items for my "looking back" entry for May 1933. Two full-page stories seemed worthy of separate entries, and here's one of them.



This ran in the May 7, 1933 Oakland Tribune, as actor Walter Byron -- "the man who has touched the lips of forty beautiful screen stars" -- discusses the whys and wherefores of on-screen osculation in "What I Know About Kisses," written by Alice L. Tildesley of the Philadelphia Public Ledger syndicate, who had conducted an intriguing interview with Carole in 1932 (http://carole-and-co.livejournal.com/212286.html).

Who is Walter Byron, you ask? He was a native of England, born in 1899, who began making films in 1926, progressed to leading man roles (albeit as a complementary type rather than a star), and continued making films throughout the 1930s, although his last eight screen appearances (in 1941 and 1942) all went uncredited. He died in 1972.

Byron worked with Lombard in "Sinners In The Sun," though in this shot his character appears too tired to kiss. (They must have done it in another scene.)



Here's what he had to say about her:

"Carole Lombard is charming. She has her feet on the ground and there's no nonsense about her. She never holds back; she never says, 'You may kiss me here, but not there'; she never seems to remember that she is a star and I am the leading man or the heavy or whatever it is; she doesn't argue about camera angles and whether or not I have the best one."

Very complimentary.

Byron is too much the gentleman (and probably also cognizant of future employment) to rank actresses' kissing ability, but he does note that Jean Harlow ("the kind of girl any man would like to hold in his arms"), Clara Bow, Loretta Young and Joan Crawford rate as "torrid" kissers, ready to perform love scenes with abandon.



He also spent 18 months off and on with Gloria Swanson on the troubled production "Queen Kelly" (shown above), but said of her, "For charm, sweetness, sportsmanship, sense of humor and unselfishness, Gloria Swanson is the finest woman on the screen."



For all the kissing talk, Byron issued this caveat near the end of the article: "Glamorous love isn't something you can stand as a continuous affair. You must have time for conversation and shopping and prosaic everyday affairs."

Good advice.

You really can't do an entry about kissing and not conclude with this -- Betty Everett's original version of "The Shoop-Shoop Song (It's In His Kiss)," a top 10 hit in the spring of 1964. (Cher later redid it for the movie "Mermaids.") Here's some great Chicago soul, girl-group style:

In Carole Lombard's final film, "To Be Or Not To Be," she plays an actress converted into a member of the Warsaw underground after Germany invades Poland. But imagine a considerably altered universe, one where Lombard (the plane crash never happened) participates in a Hollywood underground after the Nazis conquer the U.S.

Not a universe any of us would want to live in, certainly, though it might be an intriguing premise for a "what-if" novel ("Stars take on the Nazis -- but this is no movie!"). However, one of the potential settings for this concept has its roots in reality, and to find it, you simply have to go up in the Pacific Palisades, near Rustic Canyon, above Will Rogers State Historic Park and its polo field:



Ironically, Rogers unknowingly set all this in motion in 1933, when he sold a tract of land in the hills. The owners, mining engineer Norman Stephens and his wife Winona, had come under the Resputin-like spell of a German known only as Herr Schmidt, who claimed to possess supernatural powers.

Schmidt persuaded the couple that he had foreseen an eventual German victory over Europe, throwing America into chaos. He suggested they build a compound in the hills for a German sympathizers' retreat, one they could use as a place to rule once the U.S. was conquered.

The Stephenses took him at his word, and spent $4 million (with German interests likely adding money of their own) on an infrastructure for a small village, including a terraced hillside, sprinkler system for watering plants, water tank and power station. More was planned, including a four-story mansion. (Ironically, Mrs. Stephens asked noted architect Paul Williams -- who was black -- to create blueprints for the mansion after the initial group's plans were rejected.) Here's what the entrance looked like:



In the late 1930s and the start of the '40s, many Nazi sympathizers and fascists in southern California actually used the area as a weekend retreat. However, on Dec. 8, 1941, in the wake of Pearl Harbor the day before, federal agents stormed the compound, arrested Schmidt and confiscated many items, including a shortwave radio that supposedly could transmit to Germany.

After the war, the Stephenses -- who apparently were not charged -- sold the site to the Huntington Hartford Foundation, which turned it into an artists' colony (one of those who used the site was author Henry Miller of "Tropic Of Cancer" fame). It eventually was abandoned, with the power generators donated to Loyola Marymount University, and fell into further disrepair after a fire in 1978.

The graffiti-strewn ruins are still there, since the city of Los Angeles doesn't have funds to raze them. They present a weird sight.





Had the unthinkable actually happened and the Nazis defeated the Allies, would Adolf Hitler -- who committed suicide in his bunker 67 years ago today -- have used it? In real life, he spent little time in conquered territory (a few hours in Paris after France fell, and that was it). On the other hand, Hitler, chief propagandist Josef Goebbels and other Nazi officials were both fascinated by and fans of Hollywood movies...a topic we'll more fully explore one day.

This week's LiveJournal header is from Columbia's 1932 "No More Orchids," as Louise Closser Hale washes Carole's feet, enabling all to feast their eyes on those shapely Lombard legs. (Universal used a similar tactic four years later for "Love Before Breakfast.")