Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Candy Kane




Kane Richmond, ridiculously handsome star of movie serials of the 1930's and 1940's.

Monday, September 8, 2014

Obey Thy Mommie


"Now, don't forget the attack commands, Cliquot: 'Bette' to maim, 'Christina' to kill."

Sunday, September 7, 2014

Friday, September 5, 2014

Bonus Points...


...for anyone who can spot the cute puppy dog hiding somewhere in this photo of Guy Madison.

Sunday, August 31, 2014

The Way We Were

"The best-dressed women in the world are to be found on almost any street in America. Without the small fortune it takes to outfit a fashionable woman abroad, women across the U.S. can outdress all others because of a unique $8 billion ready-to-wear industry which puts no price barrier on style. How well the American woman does is illustrated by the photograph at right. Here are 12 new American designs whose prices range from $10.95 to $1,020..." December, 1956
 
Click to enlarge!






To this we say... What the hell happened, America?!?!

Saturday, August 30, 2014

Color My World

"Last year, working as a color consultant on John Huston's Moulin Rouge, LIFE photographer Eliot Elisofon brilliantly showed how color could be used not only to heighten realism but to play its own dramatic and psychological role in a movie. Recently Elisofon visited the Hollywood studios to demonstrate how his principles can be applied to a representative group of screen beauties.

"He took a group of ranking younger stars, had them dress in all white, put them against white backgrounds and blow-ups of black and white stills from recent movies, then chose a key color for each of them. Using color gelatins on his lights (like the spotlights which shine on the stage from theater balconies) and filters on his camera to control the color balance, he matched colors to each young player's movie character..." (LIFE, June 29, 1953)

"GOLDEN GIRL, Doris Day, bouncy singing star of Warner Brothers' films, was photographed under yellow light to bring out her 'sunshine and good health.' The stagecoach is setting for her forthcoming movie, Calamity Jane."

"PINK AND PENSIVE, Elizabeth Taylor is bathed in rosy light which Elisofom chose to go with the 'tender sweetness' of her personality. In the background is a statue of Buddha from Elephant Walk, her new Paramount film."

"SPECTACULAR hair and sultry stateliness led Elisofon to drench Rhonda Fleming in bright orange light in order to emphasize her sensuous qualities. The background which he chose for this picture is a still showing sands of the Utah desert over which her locks wave in her current Paramount movie, Pony Express."

"CLASSIC calm and beauty of Audrey Hepburn, Elisofon decided, called for blue tones to bring out her poise and subtle coloring. Antique arch is from her forthcoming Roman Holiday. Hollywood is convinced that Audrey, best known for her stage role in Gigi, is one of tomorrow's great stars."

"OFF-BEAT LOOKS of Joanne Gilbert, in addition to her 'stark eyes and hot songs,' led Elisofon to pick purple for this nightclub sensation whom Paramount expects to be an equal sensation in movies."

"FLASHIEST LEGS in films belong to dancer Cyd Charisse. Photographer thought red a good choice for Cyd and background, from ballet in her MGM musical, The Band Wagon, which spoofs sex-and-sadism craze in 25 cent books."

"A TOUCH OF GREEN was added in varying degrees by the photographer to these two pictures [top] of Virginia Mayo. In this amount the light, taken together with a background which is reminiscent of Virginia's most successful sea picture (Captain Horatio Hornblower), suggests a sea-borne, free-and-easy character... AS MORE GREEN IS ADDED, the increasing intensity of the color transforms the open, pleasant effect of pictures of Virginia [bottom] into something slightly off-color and vaguely disquieting. Elisofon thinks directors can make use of color changes like this to indicate dramatic turns in the movie's story." 

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Ewwwwwww!!!!!!!

This will be a one-off, unusual post on SSUWAT, because we're not really editing this to be witty and refined. We're posting this because we're furious, darlings, and if you're a follower of this blog at all, we suspect that you'll be angry, too, once you read the link to the New York Times column which has gotten us so hot and bothered:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/28/arts/television/a-case-of-retro-tv-overload.html?_r=0

That article made us ANGRY. We're actually personally offended by it, because it belittles our taste and questions the validity of same. Not only is this writer an arse, but we're astonished and disappointed that this childishly written article appeared in the New York Times at all -- it reads more like a blog post (we know of which we speak, obviously). Everyone's entitled to their opinion, of course, and what's funny to some won't be funny to others -- but we still laugh out loud at "I Love Lucy," and its situations (in our opinion) are funny because they're timeless. You don't need to be a nostalgist to find one of those episodes funny. What REALLY irks us about this article, though, and the legitimacy bestowed upon it by its inclusion in such a respected and venerable publication, is that it's such a slap in the face to people who still get so much pleasure out of these shows, irrespective of their ages (we certainly weren't around for "Lucy" or "The Honeymooners" or "Green Acres" in their first runs), AND another nail in the coffin for people who are TRYING to restore and revive the amazing treasures in the vintage television vaults which are not nearly as widely known as the heavy-hitters this writer so cavalierly dismisses. The real question is, WHY was this article was even published in the first place? There are people, including dear friends of this blog, who are fighting an UPHILL BATTLE to preserve and restore vintage television, in the face of opposition from corporations who couldn't care less. This idiotic column is just an example of why so many priceless things remain in the vault, because "they" assume that there's no audience for, or value to them. As we said, art and comedy are subjective -- but with 700 channels on cable to choose from, how is a rerun of "I Love Lucy" infringing on this nitwit's enjoyment of contemporary television? Keep your Kardashians and Real Housewives if that's what you're into, but don't tell us that Lucy Ricardo riding a subway with a loving cup stuck on her head isn't still as funny in 2014 as it was in 1955.

Read the article. And although we never beg for comments, PLEASE, darlings, tell us that we're not crazy and not alone in our outrage. 



Our reaction to that blasphemous New York Times column.

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Monday, July 21, 2014

Monday, July 14, 2014

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Greetings From Heathrow Airport



"Western Union To Miss CHOAN Crawwwwww-fort, New York, NY Stop Saw this lit-tle item at Haaaaar-rod's Stop Knew you'd know just where to stick it Stop Love, Bette."

Share It