{"id":2314,"date":"2005-01-14T17:08:04","date_gmt":"2005-01-14T22:08:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/?p=2314"},"modified":"2022-10-09T15:43:50","modified_gmt":"2022-10-09T19:43:50","slug":"another-great-reason-to-live-in-new-york-and-it-has-to-do-with-barbara-stanwyck","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/?p=2314","title":{"rendered":"Another Great Reason To Live in New York"},"content":{"rendered":"

The restored version of Baby Face<\/a><\/i> starring Barbara Stanwyck, originally released in 1933, is going to have a run at the Film Forum, starting Jan. 24. <\/a><\/p>\n

Baby Face<\/i> tells the story of Lily, a trampy bootlegger’s daughter (who is better than Stanwyck at playing a tramp??) who sleeps her way to the top. Literally. She goes conquest to conquest, starting in the basement, in her father’s boot-legging headquarters.<\/p>\n

The interesting thing about Baby Face<\/i> is that … like Public Enemy<\/a><\/i> (well, actually, many others, too – but that one comes to mind immediately) – it was filmed in between 1930 and 1933 (before the infamous “code” descended on Hollywood).<\/p>\n

Mark. A. Vieira, author and general film know-it-all, says in that NY Times article, “‘Baby Face’ was certainly one of the top 10 films that caused the Production Code to be enforced.”<\/p>\n

Public Enemy<\/i> was another one. Public Enemy<\/i> has no restraint on it. NONE.<\/p>\n

Movies in the late 30s, and 40s had to deal with the strict censorship of the Hayes office, they knew that any blatant suggestion of sex or any other “deviance” would be vetoed – and so they had to come up with clever sneaky ways to get their message across (all of this, I might add, led to some spectacular film-making, amazing scripts – and the Golden Age of Hollywood). Censorship ain’t always bad. And sometimes the sexiest stuff is what you DON’T see.<\/p>\n

Like when Michael Curtiz cuts away after the big kiss in Bogart’s office between Bogart and Bergman in Casablanca<\/i>. She comes to him, desperate, it is night … they talk … they fight … they kiss. Fade out. It is OBVIOUS that they then proceed to have hot monkey sex, but the head-office MADE CERTAIN that neither of them had changed clothes in the next “scene” – they were in the same clothes, no hair mussed, nothing. BUT – the sneaky Curtiz put in one sneaky pesky little shot – one tiny thing which subverts the entire censorship. There’s a shot of the searchlight, swooping through the night sky. So how it goes is:<\/p>\n

— Bogart and Bergman fall into a passionate embrace. Cut away from scene.
\n— Random shot of searchlight swiveling, like a lighthouse.
\n— Cut back to Bogart at the window smoking, still in a tuxedo. He says some line which picks up (apparently) RIGHT where they left off before the kiss.<\/p>\n

What I love about the searchlight subversion, though, is this:<\/p>\n

— It implies passage of time. So the audience can think: What would happen after a kiss like that? Only one thing, of course! BED!!!<\/p>\n

— It also has a vaguely sexual look to it, somehow – that searchlight tower. Phallic. With this massive swiveling searchlight.<\/p>\n

I am SURE that that was not an accidental choice. Curtiz didn’t just show an empty cobblestone street, or a random desert landscape … He CHOSE to cut away to this huge tall tower jutting up into the sky. A tower that … er … also moved<\/i>.<\/p>\n

It says to you a couple of different things: Ahem, these 2 characters are now writhing about naked. Even though when we cut back to them, we are going to PRETEND that nothing happened. We all KNOW what has happened.<\/p>\n

I don’t know. I think it’s kind of sexy to NOT see the sex. If you know what I mean. Power of the imagination and all that.<\/p>\n

Goodness. I am a blabbermouth today.<\/p>\n

Speaking of the power of the imagination: I have to bring up Cary Grant’s performance in Only Angels Have Wings<\/i> again. That movie was made in 1937, I think? 1938, something like that. Full on into censorship. So there can be no blatant intimation that the 2 main characters fuck, there can be no suggestion of any consummation of ANY kind … and so there isn’t. But that doesn’t take anything away from the movie, the censorship actually makes it even MORE sexy, somehow. It sizzles. It pulses. (Or maybe that’s just me. Highly possible.) All you need to do to see what I’m talking about is to hear Cary Grant say to Jean Arthur, “Want to come up to my room?” and you’ll see what I’m talking about. It’s a casual line. He’s talking about showing her his family pictures. Or at least that’s what the LANGUAGE says. But it ain’t about the words. Cary Grant makes “want to come up to my room” sound like the most indecent <\/i>and dirty <\/i>proposal I have ever heard.<\/p>\n

But I digress.<\/p>\n

I remember when I rented Public Enemy<\/i> last year – and I had just been coming off an EXHAUSTING Cary Grant jag. I barely escaped from that one with my sanity intact. All of Cary Grant’s main films are made POST-code. So I decided I needed to … get AHOLD OF MYSELF AND WATCH A MOVIE THAT HAD SOMEONE OTHER THAN CARY GRANT IN IT … so I rented Public Enemy<\/i>. Public Enemy is PRE-Code. HUGE difference.<\/p>\n

And there’s one scene in particular in Public Enemy<\/i> – I think it’s the grapefruit-in-the-face scene …<\/p>\n

I mean, I know I live in the 21st century and all, but MOST of the movies I watch were made in between 1935 and 1950 … so sometimes, watching modern movies can be this weird experience, like: did they just DO THAT??? You can’t just take off your clothes, ma’am, please! Cover yourself up, you young hussy!!<\/p>\n

The scene in Public Enemy<\/i> has the two criminals shacking up (literally) in a hotel with two slutty broads. There’s no bones about it. The women are sluts. These people are not married. The women are always in slutty negligees. They are all living in blatant <\/i>sin. It’s not suggestive, like later films. It’s right there. The grapefruit scene starts with Cagney being annoyed, feeling trapped … he wants to get out of the situation with his girl (hence – the grapefruit in the face) … and you can HEAR the sounds of raucous laughing sex <\/i>in the next room. Yes. The sound of 2 people messing around. Public Enemy<\/i> was released in 1931.<\/p>\n

Pre-code.<\/p>\n

The NY Times article about Baby Face has this to say about the film (and I’ve never seen it – although I have been dying to. I’m a HUGE Barbara Stanwyck fan):<\/p>\n

“Baby Face,” directed by Alfred E. Green from an original story by Darryl F. Zanuck (who was then in charge of production at Warner), remains one of the most stunningly sordid films ever made, a standout even among the wave of risqu\u00e9 entertainments that filled American screens in the early years of the Depression. Even the cut version is a jaw-dropper; with its five full minutes of sleaze restored, it has to be seen to be not quite believed.<\/p>\n

The heroine of “Baby Face,” Lily Powers (Ms. Stanwyck), was raised in her father’s second-story speakeasy in a working-class neighborhood of Erie. Pa. Dad (Robert Barrat), apparently, has been offering her services to the local steelworkers (one describes her as “the sweetheart of the night shift”), but when he sells her in a whispered conversation with a corrupt politician (we see a greasy wad of bills passing between them), Lily has had enough. The pol tries to touch her thigh, and she dumps a cup of hot coffee on his hand; obviously a slow learner, he comes up from behind to grab her breasts, and Lily smashes a beer bottle against his forehead and knocks him cold.<\/p>\n

And that’s only the first reel.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And more and more and more …<\/p>\n

Dee-lish. Fascinating.<\/p>\n

Barbara Stanwyck – an American treasure. The lady never seemed to make a false move. I’ve never seen her be phony. Ever.<\/p>\n

She’s a real idol o’ the O’Mallster. Here she is in Ball of Fire<\/i> with Gary Cooper, my personal favorite of her movies (“I love him cause he gets drunk on a glass of buttermilk…”) …<\/p>\n

but there are SO many other indelible performances.<\/p>\n

The “missing scenes” of Baby Face<\/i> have been restored … and I am SO there. To glory, once again, in the earthy MIRACLE that is Barbara Stanwyck.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The restored version of Baby Face starring Barbara Stanwyck, originally released in 1933, is going to have a run at the Film Forum, starting Jan. 24. Baby Face tells the story of Lily, a trampy bootlegger’s daughter (who is better … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[4],"tags":[1363,347,1140],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2314"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2314"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2314\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":178243,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2314\/revisions\/178243"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2314"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2314"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2314"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}