Interview with a Whiner
Benetna'asch
:In article <mattm-100...@melmon.apple.com>
:ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
:>>What does all this mean?
:>Good question. I bet Dolphie knows.
:I know that Helen Frankenthaler's stuff reminds me
:of sheets by Vera.
But don't we all go for that Sea and Ski look?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In as much as the pursuit of the stars | Brian D. Kane (Benetna'asch)
is our destiny, this pursuit will lead | kane@{buast7,astro,buast1}.bu.edu
to a radical redefinition of the basic | Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
thing we call "family". Change awaits. | Boston, MA 02215.|_|^|_|^|_|^|_|^|_|
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
adolphson
> sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) wrote:
> > Interesting. Abstract Expressionism got started in the
> > 1940s.
>
> Oh, *really*?
"From its origins in 1942 until its official recognition
in the Museum of Modern 1951 exhibition, "Abstract Painting
and Sculpture in America," abstract expressionism developed
into the most powerful original movement in the history
of American art."
H.H. Arnason, _History of Modern Art: Painting, Sculpture,
Architecture_, (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., Publishers,
1977), page 508.
--
Arne Adolphson "If you can't control your cleavage, your perfume,
adol...@mizar.usc.edu your walk, and your eyelashes--you'd better stay
ar...@ursa-major.spdcc.com stay out of business." -- Joan Crawford
Mike G.
In article <mattm-100...@melmon.apple.com> Matthew Melmon,
ma...@apple.com writes:
>Actually, I don't recall the "Interview" interview, but I
>would not be surprised in the least if Madonna didn't
>study Warhol's "philosophy" with respect to fame at some
>depth. She has been phenomenally successful applying
>it (certainly much more successful than Warhol was in his
>time, though if his estate really is valued at 190 million
>today - all that hype has certainly "lived up" to Madonna's
>league...).
>
>> What does all this mean?
>
>Good question. I bet Dolphie knows.
Warhol's estate was (finally, after a several-year-long battle by
executors of his trust, attorneys, his foundation board members, and the
Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh) valued via a court-ordered ruling at
$190,000,000+. I read this in last Wed, Aug 4th Boston Globe. It had been
valued at one point as high as $600,000,000 but since then the art market
has fallen flat and there have been several celebrated sales of Warhol's
work (including Fred Hughes recent failed attempt to sell 8 famous
painting privately owned by him at Sotheby's - he was roundly criticized
for this because his detractors said he blew the bottom out on the
"warhol market").
Surely you read my comment about art and it's value being the pervue of
the beholder: you are entitled to your opinion. We could argue forever on
who's right and who's wrong about his work, his talent, what *is*
talent?, Madonna's talent, etc. I'd rather not.
******"Never pass up an opportunity to shut up...."******
Mike Reaser
|> In article <mattm-100...@melmon.apple.com>
|> ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
|> > In article <248oj9$9...@fitz.TC.Cornell.EDU>,
|> > sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) wrote:
|> > > Interesting. Abstract Expressionism got started in the
|> > > 1940s.
|> >
|> > Oh, *really*?
|>
|> "From its origins in 1942 until its official recognition
|> in the Museum of Modern 1951 exhibition, "Abstract Painting
|> and Sculpture in America," abstract expressionism developed
|> into the most powerful original movement in the history
|> of American art."
|>
|> H.H. Arnason, _History of Modern Art: Painting, Sculpture,
|> Architecture_, (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., Publishers,
|> 1977), page 508.
Arne --
You, of _all_ people, should know better than to confuse the child
with FACTS.
His own perspective, on whatever that thing is that Mattie calls
"reality", would just be _too_ _threatened_.
--
=======================================================================
Mike Reaser, Hewlett-Packard N. Amer. Response Center - Atlanta
Internet: m...@hpuerca.atl.hp.com
NBCS: B4 f+ t w g+ k s+ l+ I barely speak for myself, so
#include <standard.disclaimer> don't make me speak for HP
=======================================================================
adolphson
m...@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Mike Reaser) writes:
> adol...@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
> |> "From its origins in 1942 until its official recognition
> |> in the Museum of Modern 1951 exhibition, "Abstract Painting
Should be "Museum of Modern Art 1951 exhibition".
> |> and Sculpture in America," abstract expressionism developed
> |> into the most powerful original movement in the history
> |> of American art."
> You, of _all_ people, should know better than to confuse the child
> with FACTS.
>
> His own perspective, on whatever that thing is that Mattie calls
> "reality", would just be _too_ _threatened_.
I know, I know. I'm waiting for him to explain that
abstract expressionism is something Mary Pickford
pioneered while fooling around with watercolors in
the garage of termite-infested Pickfair.
--
Arne Adolphson "Say anything you like, but don't say I want
adol...@mizar.usc.edu to work. That sounds like Mary Pickford,
ar...@ursa-major.spdcc.com that prissy bitch." -- Mabel Normand
Mike Reaser
|> In article <24b96p$5...@hpscit.sc.hp.com>
|> m...@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Mike Reaser) writes:
|> > adol...@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
|> > |> "From its origins in 1942 until its official recognition
|> > |> in the Museum of Modern 1951 exhibition, "Abstract Painting
|>
|> Should be "Museum of Modern Art 1951 exhibition".
I wondered about that. I _was_ going to ask the difference between
a Modern 1951 museum, as compared to an Ancient 1951 museum. :-)
|> I know, I know. I'm waiting for him to explain that
|> abstract expressionism is something Mary Pickford
|> pioneered while fooling around with watercolors in
|> the garage of termite-infested Pickfair.
I thought she was fooling around with Janor Gaynor and Shirley Temple,
and the marriage to Fairbanks was just a cover for his affairs with
John Gilbert and George Arliss.
--
=======================================================================
Mike Reaser, Hewlett-Packard N. Amer. Response Center - Atlanta
Internet: m...@hpuerca.atl.hp.com
NBCS: B4 f+ t w g+ k s+ l+ I barely speak for myself, so
#include <standard.disclaimer> don't make me speak for HP
=======================================================================
:-) to the sarcasm-impaired...
Melinda Shore
>"From its origins in 1942 until its official recognition
> in the Museum of Modern 1951 exhibition, "Abstract Painting
> and Sculpture in America," abstract expressionism developed
> into the most powerful original movement in the history
> of American art."
I'm rather curious to know how Arnason came up with 1942
as *the* start date for Abstract Expressionism. Rothko
was beginning to evolve his field style in the 1930s and
Pollock did his first drip painting in 1946. DeKooning
was really only marginally gestural and didn't start
seriously breaking up form until 1945 or 46. I can't
think of anything specific to 1942 that would single it
out as *the* year the AEs came together.
OTOH, in the late 1970s the Whitney did a show on early
Abstract Expressionism (I forget the name of the show), and
in the catalog the curator tried to argue that Abstract
Expressionism as we know it was an identifiable movement
in the 1930s. I don't think he was all that successful
at making his point, but he focused more on people like
Gottlieb, Baziotes, and Hoffman than on the war horses
like Pollock.
But what I *really* want to know is what year BTO released
"Taking Care of Business."
--
Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
adolphson
sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
> I'm rather curious to know how Arnason came up with 1942
> as *the* start date for Abstract Expressionism.
I left the book at home -- it weighs about 20
pounds and I didn't want to lug it around with
me all day -- so I haven't any idea.
[ ... ]
> OTOH, in the late 1970s the Whitney did a show on early
> Abstract Expressionism (I forget the name of the show), and
> in the catalog the curator tried to argue that Abstract
> Expressionism as we know it was an identifiable movement
> in the 1930s. I don't think he was all that successful
> at making his point, but he focused more on people like
> Gottlieb, Baziotes, and Hoffman than on the war horses
> like Pollock.
Just before the sentence I quoted, Arnason wrote:
"The relations of the new movement -- to be known as
abstract expressionism -- to surrealism, and particularly
to the organic surrealism of Miro, Masson, and Matta,
are obvious. In tracing its origins, however, one must
also look to Kandinsky, Soutine, and the later style of
Picasso. American pioneers, like Marin, Weber, Dove,
Tobey, and Gorky, anticipated where they did not influence
directly."
(Not that that really has anything to do with what you
wrote, but since I had the quote handy I thought I'd
include it.)
> But what I *really* want to know is what year BTO released
> "Taking Care of Business."
Ugh. What *I* really want to know is why so many
of the most famous female performers of the 19th
century -- Giuditta Pasta, Rachel, Mlle Judith,
Mlle Nathalie, Sarah Bernhardt (and Malibran and
Viardot, too?) -- were Jewish.
--
Arne Adolphson "When I see myself on the screen, I am so
adol...@mizar.usc.edu beautiful I jump for joy."
ar...@ursa-major.spdcc.com -- Maria Montez
Matthew Melmon
wrote:
> > > Interesting. Abstract Expressionism got started in the
> > > 1940s.
> >
> > Oh, *really*?
>
> "From its origins in 1942 until its official recognition
> in the Museum of Modern 1951 exhibition, "Abstract Painting
> and Sculpture in America," abstract expressionism developed
> into the most powerful original movement in the history
> of American art."
>
> H.H. Arnason, _History of Modern Art: Painting, Sculpture,
> Architecture_, (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., Publishers,
> 1977), page 508.
Perhaps you might notice, in that dusty tome, some of the
earliest dates of Jackson Pollock's and Rothko's paintings.
Perhaps you might notice that they go all the way back
to the mid thirties. Perhaps you might also consider that
Abstract-Expressionism didn't just happen - and that it
was neither the first occurance of the abstract nor the
expressive. A cute little name was attatched in the forties
to what already existed, as is rather typical of every
such movement. Art movements "get started" well before art
critics are ready or able to recognize them as such.
As you, of all people, should know. Really, Dolphie. How
surprising.
*X*
Matthew Melmon
wrote:
>
> In article <24b96p$5...@hpscit.sc.hp.com>
> m...@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Mike Reaser) writes:
> > adol...@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
> > You, of _all_ people, should know better than to confuse the child
> > with FACTS.
HAR! HAR! HAR! Now the science-convention fuzz ball is an
expert in art... Oh, wait. I recall he was an expert in art
a while back, as well. Yes, quite.
> I know, I know. I'm waiting for him to explain that
> abstract expressionism is something Mary Pickford
> pioneered while fooling around with watercolors in
> the garage of termite-infested Pickfair.
Oh, please. Treating developments in art as isolated passages
in art books hardly makes you particularly insightful or
gifted. It is absurd to claim that Abstract-Expressionism
"began" in 1942 - yes, 1942 not a day before, not a day after.
1942, which is the year following immediately after 1941 and
proceeding immediately before 1943. It is not the year following
1943, but in fact the year proceeding 1943, unless one is
to look backward and then it would, indeed, be the year
follwoing 1943, but only if you were looking backwards.
Are you seriously going to maintain that Rothko and family
woke up in 1942 and said, "Wow! We're 'Abstract-Expressionists?'"
If you are, then I more than look forward to the opportunity
it shall present. You're much more interesting to mock than
that Halat fellow. Does Art History fall under your wing there
at USC? Or perhaps you're getting pointers from your friends
at that top-tier graphic design institution you mentioned a
while back. What was its name?
*X*
Melinda Shore
>Just before the sentence I quoted, Arnason wrote:
>"The relations of the new movement -- to be known as
> abstract expressionism -- to surrealism, and particularly
> to the organic surrealism of Miro, Masson, and Matta,
> are obvious. In tracing its origins, however, one must
> also look to Kandinsky, Soutine, and the later style of
> Picasso. American pioneers, like Marin, Weber, Dove,
> Tobey, and Gorky, anticipated where they did not influence
> directly."
Well, yes, that's obvious. There were particularly strong
ties between Pollock and Kandinsky, for example, and Dove
and Marin clearly influenced the field painters like Still
and noted sheet designer Helen Frankenthaler. Lots of the
AEs were surrealists before they started getting away from
a more literal representationalism (certainly Krasner being
one of the more glaring examples), and there are cubist
elements evident in the work of people like DeKooning.
It's safe to say that they didn't wake up one morning in
1942 and all simultaneously decide to change their styles,
which brings us back to the question of at which point we
can say that Abstract Expressionism came into being. For
that, I think, we have to look at the seminal works, and
they seem to have been created from the mid-1930s to the
late-1940s, with a big old burst of activity around 1945.
The only artist I can think of who was doing what we now
think of as Abstract Expressionism prior to 1942 was
Rothko, although some of Gottlieb's boxy things from the
late '30s kind of straddled the line with surrealism, not
falling cleanly on either side.
That Maria Montez quote, BTW, is my all-time favorite.
adolphson
ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
> Perhaps you might notice, in that dusty tome, some of the
> earliest dates of Jackson Pollock's and Rothko's paintings.
> Perhaps you might notice that they go all the way back
> to the mid thirties.
Mea culpa. I wasn't really following the thread, and
I assumed that you were arguing for abstract expressionism
as a product of the 1950s. Forgive me. To atone for
this most grievous sin I'll think charitable thoughts
about Mary Pickford for the next 5 minutes.
Melinda Shore
>In article <mattm-110...@melmon.apple.com>
>ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>> Perhaps you might notice, in that dusty tome, some of the
>> earliest dates of Jackson Pollock's and Rothko's paintings.
>> Perhaps you might notice that they go all the way back
>> to the mid thirties.
>Mea culpa. I wasn't really following the thread, and
>I assumed that you were arguing for abstract expressionism
>as a product of the 1950s.
Before you assume that Abstract Expressionism existed as a
movement in the 1930s, I suggest you run right out and take
a look at some of the work being produced during that time
by the people who later became identified as Abstract
Expressionists, and then take a look at the dates on
seminal Abstract Expressionist works. The very beginnings
of field painting started to appear in the late 1930s, but
gesturalism, which is arguably more closely associated (at
least in the popular mind) with Abstract Expressionism,
didn't appear as anything identifiable until well into the
1940s. As I've said before, Pollock didn't do his first
purely drip painting until 1946, and it's generally drip
painting and gesturalism that taught as AE in 2d-rate
design schools.
But it's *so* *cool* to see that Melmon is reading my posts
and taking them seriously. Now if Jim Halat would just promise
not to send me any more of Melmon's posts the world would be
an ever-so-slightly happier place.
David Stevenson
>
>I know, I know. I'm waiting for him to explain that
>abstract expressionism is something Mary Pickford
>pioneered while fooling around with watercolors in
>the garage of termite-infested Pickfair.
>
Matthew Melmon
wrote:
>
> In article <mattm-110...@melmon.apple.com>
> ma...@apple.com (Matthew Melmon) writes:
>
> > Perhaps you might notice, in that dusty tome, some of the
> > earliest dates of Jackson Pollock's and Rothko's paintings.
> > Perhaps you might notice that they go all the way back
> > to the mid thirties.
>
> Mea culpa. I wasn't really following the thread, and
> I assumed that you were arguing for abstract expressionism
> as a product of the 1950s. Forgive me. To atone for
> this most grievous sin I'll think charitable thoughts
> about Mary Pickford for the next 5 minutes.
I'll take what I can get. Smooches.
*X*
Matthew Melmon
In a huff to Dolphie, I wrote:
> Are you seriously going to maintain that Rothko and family
> woke up in 1942 and said, "Wow! We're 'Abstract-Expressionists?'"
Also in response to Dolphie, _Melinda Shore_ wrote:
> It's safe to say that they didn't wake up one morning in
> 1942 and all simultaneously decide to change their styles,
Continuing, I wrote:
> Perhaps you might notice, in that dusty tome, some of the
> earliest dates of Jackson Pollock's and Rothko's paintings.
> Perhaps you might notice that they go all the way back
> to the mid thirties.
Melinda, who had originally snifed ->
> Interesting. Abstract Expressionism got started in the
> 1940s.
wrote:
> they seem to have been created from the mid-1930s to the
> late-1940s, with a big old burst of activity around 1945.
Sublime. Also known as "Cover Your Ass." And such a fine
ass it is. Oh, damn. There I go, fixating on her butt,
again...
*X*
Jim Halat
> Ugh. What *I* really want to know is why so many
> of the most famous female performers of the 19th
> century -- Giuditta Pasta, Rachel, Mlle Judith,
> Mlle Nathalie, Sarah Bernhardt (and Malibran and
> Viardot, too?) -- were Jewish.
Because their mothers were. If your father is jewish
but your mother is not, it does *not* count.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jim halat e-mail: ha...@bear.com
Jim Halat
> Are you seriously going to maintain that Rothko and family
> woke up in 1942 and said, "Wow! We're 'Abstract-Expressionists?'"
> If you are, then I more than look forward to the opportunity
> it shall present. You're much more interesting to mock than
> that Halat fellow.
Perhaps because you've failed at every attempt so far.
The *movement* did start in the 40s. AE flourished from
after WWII and into the 60s. The *roots* of the movement
started in the 30s.
Matthew Melmon
> > If you are, then I more than look forward to the opportunity
> > it shall present. You're much more interesting to mock than
> > that Halat fellow.
>
> Perhaps because you've failed at every attempt so far.
Have I? Consider, for a moment, the fact that despite your
stating quite clearly at the beginning of this thread you
weren't going to discuss anything, yet you've gone in quite over
your head on literature and art, and otherwise done everything
in your power to fulfill the title of this very thread...
"OOooohhhhHHHh, Interview with a Vampire *does* *too* have
depth, OOooooohhhHHH Helen Frankenstein *is* *too* an
important artist, OOOoooooohhhHHHH the Abstract Expressionist
movement *did* *too* start in the forties, OOOOoohhhhHHHH
you *have* *too* failed to mock me."
Whine, whine, whine.
*X*
Matthew Melmon
(Melinda Shore) wrote:
> But it's *so* *cool* to see that Melmon is reading my posts
> and taking them seriously.
Taking them at face value, anyway -> but this is the true jewel...
> Now if Jim Halat would just promise
> not to send me any more of Melmon's posts the world would be
> an ever-so-slightly happier place.
What a goober... Good Jimie! Good Jimie! Penetrate that
kill file for me! Oh, dear. There I go using the 'p'
word in the same post as the Toxic Dyke. That might
even bring Pootsie out to play...
*X*
Jim Halat
> Whine, whine, whine.
Make that every attempt plus one.
Éamonn McManus
sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
> Dove and Marin clearly influenced the field painters like Still and
> noted sheet designer Helen Frankenthaler.
*The* noted sheet designer Helen Frankenthaler. We at Queer Irish
Pedants Looking At Sentences Haughtily (founded by Rod Williams and
me) will not cease in our struggle to counter the insidious
suppression of definite articles that is being promulgated by
English-language journalists everywhere. Otherwise, where will it
end?
,
President Eamonn (Quiplash)
Tim Wilson
Eamonn (Quiplash)) writes:
We at Queer Irish Pedants Looking At Sentences Haughtily (founded
by Rod Williams and me) will not cease in our struggle to counter
the insidious suppression of definite articles that is being
promulgated by English-language journalists everywhere.
There's one other than "the"?
--
Tim Wilson
Internet: t...@ear-ache.mit.edu UUCP: mit-eddie!mit-athena!tim
Rod Williams
QuIPLASH?! I *love* it. Where's my founder's gavel?
Where's my introductory-membership-parsing-tool-belt?
What's that green pod doing over there?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san ramon, ca -=- rjw...@pacbell.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
J Church
I'm a Yorkshireman. We don't have definite articles there. Just apostrophes;
"I'm goin' to 'shops"
there's definitely something there, but only just.
Lancastrians and North Yorkshiredudes have t's.
"I'm goin' to t'shops"
Julian.
PS sorry about the un-PC Yorkshiremen. I propose that dude/dudes be used as
meaning men and/or women. Hence Yorkshiredudes, etc
--
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
ph...@uk.ac.bris.siva : julian...@uk.ac.bristol : consolidated say,
"eating animals acts as a mere enrepresentation of patriarchal values."
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Mike G.
In article <mattm-100...@melmon.apple.com> Matthew Melmon,
ma...@apple.com writes:
>That's a rather surprising number. I suspect it owes a lot to
>the valuation of paintings which have not been sold, and may be
>a tad inflated - but no matter. Warhol and Madonna are very
>similar, artistically and in modus operandi. As a singer/songwriter/
>dancer, Madonna is not particularly gifted; nor, as a painter,
>was Warhol. Yet despite this certain level of mediocrity, both
>managed to invent for themselves an unprecedented level of fame,
>though Warhol's is somewhat limited to Art Queens, whereas even
>Art Queens know who Madonna is.
Actually, Warhol was as gifted as any other contemporary painter. But
what defines painting talent. The ability to render and effect
chiaroscuro like Da Vinci or Michaelangelo or Raphel, et al?
Sometimes not just raw painterly use of the various media define talent:
an idea, or new spin on an old one define talent as well. Warhol did a
lot with the idea or repetition and repetition of
imagery in our everyday lives. In fact, Pop Art was basically a paean to
everyday images. Several of the Pop artists began by painting cartoon
figures well know (and also the work of other people...).
I guess in this day and age of lawsuit-crazed people, such plagarism
would be impossible what with copyright law being so scrupulously
monitored. Actually, Warhol was sued by a woman who did the original
flower photograph that ended up in his "Flowers" series.
adolphson
sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
> It's safe to say that they didn't wake up one morning in
> 1942 and all simultaneously decide to change their styles,
> which brings us back to the question of at which point we
> can say that Abstract Expressionism came into being.
Why 1942, you asked? Arnason writes:
"In 1942, immediately after America's entry into World
War II, the dominant styles of painting were still
social realism and regionalism. The war created a
ferment that brought on the victory of abstract and
expressionistic art and the creation of the first major
original direction in the history of American painting."
[ ... ]
> That Maria Montez quote, BTW, is my all-time favorite.
Ah well, Maria Montez is *my* all-time favorite. Since
I was looking things up in reference works anyway, I
took a peek at her entry in Ephraim Katz's superb _The
Film Encyclopedia_. She seems to have brought out the
fag in him:
"Pathetically unskilled at acting (or singing or dancing
for that matter), she nevertheless became immensely
popular in a string of glossy-cheap but highly profitable
color adventure yarns, often co-starring fellow camel
riders Jon Hall, Sabu, or Turhan Bey. In her heyday
she was known affectionately as 'The Queen of Technicolor.'
When her career began sinking in the sand dunes, partly
because of a weight problem, she went to Europe with
her second husband, Jean-Pierre Aumont, and appeared
in a number of French and Italian action pictures. Long
after her premature death from a heart attack while
taking a bath [in 1951; she was 30 or 31], she remains
the object of an extensive fan cult brought on by
nostalgia and a thirst for high camp."
I've only seen a few of her movies -- "Ali Baba and the
Forty Thieves", "Sudan", "Gypsy Wildcat", and "Cobra
Woman", the most hilarious camp film of all time -- and
I'd love to see more. I don't think anything of hers
exists on video. IT's a pity.
--
Arne Adolphson Chuck Henry: What's the secret of your
adol...@mizar.usc.edu eternal youth?
ar...@ursa-major.spdcc.com Catherine Deneuve: I breathe.
Matthew Melmon
wrote:
> I took a peek at her entry in Ephraim Katz's superb _The
> Film Encyclopedia_. She seems to have brought out the
> fag in him:
>
> "Pathetically unskilled at acting (or singing or dancing
> for that matter), she nevertheless became immensely
Amazing.
*X*
adolphson
There are a number of major differences between
Maria Montez, the subject of Katz's comments,
and Ms. Ciccone. Maria Montez was prettier than
Madonna, and her breasts, though lopsided, were
easily twice as large. Maria Montez was always
entertaining, no matter what she did. Such cannot
be said of the star of "Shanghai Surprise" and "Who's
That Girl". Maria Montez's coloring and features are
breathtaking in Technicolor, which is not something
that can be said about Madonna. Maria Montez never
understood the joke, which only makes her funnier.
Madonna only understands part of the joke, which
makes her smug and tiresome.
What Maria Montez could do with a line like "Geeb
me da cobra chewels!" is beyond Madonna's capabilities.
--
Arne Adolphson "If you live in the country, what are you doing
adol...@mizar.usc.edu with all those town suits and hostess pajamas?"
ar...@ursa-major.spdcc.com -- Joan Crawford
Charlie Fulton
adol...@mizar.usc.edu writes:
> I was looking things up in reference works anyway, I
> Film Encyclopedia_. She seems to have brought out the
> fag in him:
>
Superb and hideously out of date! I bought that book in 1980 and
it hasn't been updated *once* since then. Did Mr. Katz pass away?
Charlie
Paul Isaacs
In article <24gned$5...@mizar.usc.edu>, adol...@mizar.usc.edu writes:
> Arne Adolphson "If you live in the country, what are you doing
> adol...@mizar.usc.edu with all those town suits and hostess pajamas?"
> ar...@ursa-major.spdcc.com -- Joan Crawford
And I can not let this fabulous quote go unnoticed either!
Nope. Nobody can pull one over on savvy, savvy Joan!
Were there ever any films where she played a sleuth?
pauli.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Isaacs - pa...@sgi.com (415) 390-3044
adolphson
Charlie Fulton <cha...@isis.mit.edu> writes:
Yes, actually. Ephraim Katz died late last year or early
this year. He was in the process of updating _The Film
Encyclopedia_, but apparently not far enough along for it
to be published.
--
Arne Adolphson "If you can't control your cleavage, your perfume,
adol...@mizar.usc.edu your walk, and your eyelashes--you'd better stay
ar...@ursa-major.spdcc.com stay out of business." -- Joan Crawford
adolphson
stev...@netcom.com (David Stevenson) writes:
Especially in all those pictures in _Sex_ where she's
touching herself on her girlplace.
--
Arne Adolphson "When you try on a new hat, look your best,
adol...@mizar.usc.edu wear street makeup, and wear earrings."
ar...@ursa-major.spdcc.com -- Joan Crawford
Charlie Fulton
> Ephraim Katz died late last year or early
> this year. He was in the process of updating _The Film
> Encyclopedia_, but apparently not far enough along for it
> to be published.
>
That's a shame. I hope his publishers continue his work
through a committee a la the late Leslie Halliwell's still-
revised _Filmgoers_ books.
Charlie