The Taming of the Shrew (1929)

Film: The Taming of the Shrew (1929)

Stars: Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks, Edwin Maxwell, Joseph Cawthorn, Clyde Cook

Director: Sam Taylor

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2024 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the women who were once crowned as "America's Sweethearts" and the careers that inspired that title (and what happened when they eventually lost it to a new generation).  This month, our focus is on Shirley Temple: click here to learn more about Ms. Pickford (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Mary Pickford had it all circa 1927.  She was the biggest actress in Hollywood, had a storybook marriage, and thanks to her founding of United Artists, she was an early star who was actually getting the fruits of her labor, even producing some of her successful films like Sparrows we saw last week, making her a very rich woman.  But sound became her undoing.  Like many of the major stars of the era (including Greta Garbo) the studio waited to see if sound was sticking around as a trend before having Pickford in a sound film, not wanting to risk one of their bigger stars on a fad.  When it did prove permanent, contrary to legend, Pickford's first sound film was a success with both audiences & critics.  We oftentimes use a modern lens when we appraise older movies, and Coquette is (by my estimation) one of the worst movies to ever win Best Actress, both in terms of a performance & in terms of the film's overall quality, but at the time critics liked it & audiences did too.  People have accused her of "buying" the Oscar given her stature in Hollywood (she was a founding member of the Academy) and she did campaign, even inviting people to her palatial estate of Pickfair to see it, but honestly given that the Oscars have long been eager to crown the reigning queen of Hollywood (everyone from Audrey Hepburn to Julia Roberts to Emma Stone), she likely would've won anyway.  It wasn't until her next film, our film today The Taming of the Shrew, that Pickford started to see her career unravel in the Sound Era.

(Spoilers Ahead) Despite coming in at about 60 minutes, The Taming of the Shrew is a relatively faithful adaptation of at least some scenes in the Shakespearean play.  We have Petruchio (Fairbanks) challenged to tame the wild, willful Katherina (Pickford), in part so that Katherina's younger sister Bianca can marry.  Katherina & Petruchio marry, largely against her best judgment, and in the process he begins to (to use modern parlance) "gaslight" her into thinking that he's trying to do what's best for her, in the process thinking he's tamed her, and made her obedient.  In reality, she's in on the ruse, having heard him confess his plans to his dog (yeah, that's an actual scene in the movie), and winks at both the other women and the audience when she gives her speech about women needing to "obey" their husbands.

The movie ignores most of the side characters, including Bianca, keeping them only for tertiary parts, and stays focused on the superstar couple at the center.  This makes sense.  Everyone in American in 1929 would've known who Mary Pickford & Douglas Fairbanks were, as they were the first Hollywood marriage to become a tabloid staple, and this is the only film the two ever made together.  It's interesting to look at Taming of the Shrew against some of the other pictures of the era, partially because it's so grand & its look really stand out.  When comedies & gangster pictures were starting to come en vogue, this feels like a tribute to the biblical epics of Cecil B. DeMille or the gargantuan stories of DW Griffith that had started to fade.

Being out of style feels retro today, but at the time probably just read as tired, as the film was a flop.  It wasn't helped by Pickford & Fairbanks being badly miscast in the movie.  Pickford, after seeing her in multiple films this month, strikes me as a good actress, but a limited one who didn't do well getting out of her lane.  That was true here-she's never believable as Katherina, the headstrong woman, given she plays every scene like a pixie.  The only convincing scene she does is the final one, where she's supposed to be in on a joke with the audience, and the sly wink works.  Fairbanks, though, is truly bad here.  He's never believably of his time (while the side characters all feel more authentic to a Shakespearean stage play, he reads as a loudmouthed movie star), and spends half the film laughing boisterously, which initially comes across as a character trait, but, eventually reads as someone trying to remember his next line.  There's lots of future evidence that people who were lovers in real life simply couldn't translate that chemistry in the film itself...this is proof that's happened since Hollywood's beginning.

The Virginian (1929)

Film: The Virginian (1929)

Stars: Cary Cooper, Walter Huston, Richard Arlen, Mary Brian, Helen Ware

Director: Victor Fleming

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2023 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the Golden Age western, and the stars who made it one of the most enduring legacies of Classical Hollywood.  This month, our focus is on Gary Cooper: click here to learn more about Mr. Cooper (and why I picked him), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Gary Cooper's early years in Hollywood in Silent Era pictures were actually more successful than you'd think given how quickly he took off in the Sound Era.  This is partially because he was savvier & knew his value right away.  It's rare when you read about a star of this era that ended up being a big deal turning down a contract (usually that's something you lived to regret), but he did, turning down Samuel Goldwyn and signing a long-term contract with Paramount for more money, which was smart.  Cooper would star in big hits of the Silent Era like Lilac Time and Wings, the latter the first film to win the Best Picture Oscar.  But really,  while he was developing a fan base (mostly of women starstruck by how gorgeous the young Cooper was), it wasn't until The Virginian, his first sound film, that Cooper's star persona as the noble lawman was established, and that he graduated to being one of the biggest names in pictures of the early Sound Era, specifically in Westerns.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie has two men, the Virginian (Cooper) and Steve (Arlen), who are long-time friends who help run a ranch and are soon rivals for the affections of a local school teacher named Molly Stark Wood (Brian).  They enjoy playing pranks together, including one where they swap the babies at a christening to confusing (and admittedly funny consequences).  But Steve is working a side hustle for Trampas (Huston), a local cattle hustler that eventually gets him into enough trouble that he's caught stealing cattle, which is a trick that Trampas plays on his nemesis the Virginian because he knows the punishment will be Steve being hanged by the Virginian (which he is).  Initially this causes issues in his relationship with Molly, but she forgives him, agreeing to marry him...though of course we have to have one last showdown between Trampas & the Virginian to end the picture (the good guy wins).

That might sound like a standard-issue western plot, and it is, but it's worth remembering that this film (and the book it's based on) kind of created this plot.  Owen Wister's The Virginian is considered by most literary historians to be the first fictional western novel ever written, and is foundational to the genre.  This was actually the third remake of the story (the first was from 1914 and directed by Cecil B. DeMille).  It works well, honestly.  The cinematography & editing are both solid, and you can see how westerns for the next decade would borrow from this (until Stagecoach would perfect the cliches this movie wrought).  I liked some of the supporting characters the best.  Huston is great as a nasty villain, and Helen Ware is strong in a small part as a knowing old woman, giving Molly a lecture about how provincial she's being about the ways of the West, many of which she's using as an excuse not to fall for the Virginian.

Cooper is good in the part, though I will say he doesn't add a lot to it.  We're going to struggle a little bit with Cooper this month because he's such an introspective actor that I sometimes find him to be lazy onscreen, as if he's letting his jarring handsomeness, dulcet baritone, and lanky frame carry most of the work.  Cooper looks great, his eyes caked in mascara that only makes him appear prettier, and I liked his line reading of the film's most famous quote ("if you're going to call me that...smile"), but I don't feel like he creates enough myth about a figure that's supposed to be unknown.  We have a lot more Cooper this month, but my hope is that at least one movie becomes "definitive" for me about him that isn't one I've already seen.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)

Film: Juno and the Paycock (1930)

Stars: Marie O'Neill, Edward Chapman, Sidney Morgan, Sara Allgood, John Laurie, Kathleen O'Regan, Barry Fitzgerald

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Oscar History: No nominations

Snap Judgment Ranking: 1/5 stars

(Throughout the year, in connection with our 'Saturdays with the Stars' series, I am watching every gap I have in Alfred Hitchcock's filmography in what we're calling 'Sunday Leftovers.'  Every Sunday, I'll be watching a Hitchcock film that I've never seen before as I spend 2021 completing his filmography)

One of the recurring themes I've realized as we have done this "Sunday Leftovers" series about Hitchcock, specifically looking at the films I hadn't seen, is that early in his career Hitchcock had a wide variety of effort that he put into what feels like (in retrospect) "director-for-hire" work.  Generally I find that some of his work that is clearly not something he was "invested in" becomes pretty generic.  This is most evident with a movie like Juno and the Paycock, generally considered to be one of Hitch's least representative films, one of his least-known pictures, and well, one of his worst.  I honestly had no idea going into the movie what to expect, but was a bit confused by the weird tonal shifts between comedy & drama the film takes, and the revolving door of main characters & focus.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie initially is centered around Captain Boyle (Chapman), who is a roustabout who lives in Dublin with his long-suffering wife Juno (Allgood), who refers to him as a "paycock" (meant to be a peacock) because he's "useless and vain."  They have two children, Johnny (Laurie) and Mary (O'Regan), Johnny being handicapped and (unbeknownst to his family) a traitor to the Anti-Treaty side of the war, as he's just sold out a supporter who was subsequently killed, and Mary being a good girl engaged to a local bloke.  Their lives change when a solicitor comes to tell them that a relative of the Captain's has left him a small fortune, which changes all of their lives.  The Captain & Juno buy fancy things for the house, they brag to all of their friends about their recent fortune, and Mary dumps her boyfriend for the handsome solicitor.  When it turns out that the inheritance isn't coming due to a clerical error, their lives are town asunder as all have lived without control in a way that only money can save them from.

This is a weird movie, because until the point of them losing their inheritance, it's intended to be a comedy, though it's not funny.  The movie is filled with long acts, with Hitchcock basically setting up a camera and filming it like a taped stage play (it is based on a play, for the record), and unless you're into a specific brand of dated Irish humor, you're not going to be into this story (I wasn't).  This all changes when the inheritance runs dry though, as it suddenly becomes a cautionary drama.  Johnny is found out by the IRA (and subsequently killed), the Captain has to give back all of his belongings & ends up in total ruin, and Mary reveals that she's pregnant with the solicitor's baby, and as he's run off, she's going to become an unwed mother.  The film ends in a bizarre place where Mary & Juno are trying to come to terms with their faith, leaving their fates to God, and basically just disregarding the Captain from their lives...except the Captain himself has not died or even left them, he's just not around for the final act.

This sort of inconsistency doesn't work for me, but it's throughout the film.  The opening scene has Barry Fitzgerald playing an assassinated orator for pretty much no reason.  Though he's the most recognizable figure in the film today, this was his first film at the time, so I get why he has a small part, but it's never really explained as to his significance to the story.  On stage, Fitzgerald played the Captain, and I kind of wish he would here as there's a lacking in charisma from Chapman in the role.  But overall, this movie reads as a genuine mess, and if there are Hitchcockian touches, I certainly didn't find them lounging in this rubble.  Next week we're going to watch a film called Murder!, which I know nothing about other than the title, but I'm going to feel much more confident this is up Hitch's alley.

OVP: Anna Christie (1930)

Film: Anna Christie (1930)
Stars: Greta Garbo, Charles Bickford, George F. Marion, Marie Dressler
Director: Clarence Brown
Oscar History: 3 nominations (Best Director, Actress-Greta Garbo, Cinematography)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

And we will see this to completion!  All week, in honor of us finally reaching the 2016 Best Actress OVP Ballot, I have decided to declare this week "Best Actress Week" on the blog, and have been reviewing daily a different Oscar Best Actress nominee that I saw for the first time during quarantine.  While we've been kind of all-over-the-board with nominations from melodramas to epic romances to action-adventures to silent war movies, today we're going to stay pretty close to yesterday's The Divine Lady in terms of timeline (just one year after), but unlike Corinne Griffith, today's star did not stay just in the Silent Era, but instead transitioned quite well into sound (in fact she did so with this film), and became a legend rather than an Oscar curiosity.  Greta Garbo was one of the last major players at MGM to transition to talkies in part because they worried about her thick accent being untenable in movies.  Garbo would prove them wrong, and would be a major star for the entirety of the decade, in part due to this film, Anna Christie, which was a big hit in 1930.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film is focused on Anna (Garbo), the daughter of a Swedish sailor (Marion) who is returning home to New York after a terrible childhood spent with relatives in St. Paul, Minnesota.  She was sent there by her father who couldn't take care of her, and while there she was raped by her cousin, and eventually found herself working at a brothel.  She comes to New York in hopes of finding a new life, and falls in love with a rough-and-tumble sailor named Matt (Bickford), who wants to marry her, but she's afraid of her past coming out & him not loving her.  In a climactic scene, Anna does tell Matt that she was the victim of assault, and because she had no money, went into prostitution to survive.  Matt rejects her at first, but in the film's final scenes, they unite, realizing that their love will conquer all.

It's a short film, based on a play written by Eugene O'Neill.  The film, I'll be honest, kind of drags.  The movie's plot is pretty thin, even if we adjust for differing sexual politics about assault and prostitution ninety years after the fact-the first twenty minutes of the film have Marion, Garbo, and Marie Dressler (as an alcoholic who has also dabbled in prostitution), drunk out-of-their-minds, saying the same sort of dialogue over-and-over.  It picks up a little bit in the boat scenes, but really the whole movie's point is the climax, where we have Garbo confessing not only to Bickford, but also to her father the disappointments of her youth, and the hatred she has projected on men since they have betrayed her all her life.

This scene basically makes the whole movie worth it, and surely was the reason Garbo got an Oscar nomination.  It's rough to watch-this is pre-Code and while there are certain things that wouldn't have been able to be said in 1930, this is not 1940 where Garbo would have used veiled euphemisms to tell what happened to her, and it's interesting to watch how her character reserves more of her hate for the way that Matt & her father react to her rape & the prostitution that followed, rather than to the actions themselves, giving an understanding to the character that might have been lacking in a less gifted actress.  The ending is sugary and unrealistic, and really other than that one scene Anna Christie fails to intrigue, but as anyone who loves live theater can tell you, one great monologue can wash away a lot of flaws, and that's what happens in Anna Christie.

OVP: Hell's Angels (1930)

Film: Hell's Angels (1930)
Stars: Ben Lyon, James Hall, Jean Harlow, John Darrow
Director: Howard Hughes & James Whale
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Cinematography)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars (5/5 for the action sequences though)

Each month, as part of our 2020 Saturdays with the Stars series, we highlight a different actress known as an iconic "film sex symbol."  This month, our focus is on Jean Harlow-click here to learn more about Ms. Harlow (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.


While we are on a completely different theme than last year with our first official installment of "Saturday of the Stars" for 2020, I do like the strange bookend aspects of going from South Pacific to Hell's Angels as we bridge the seasons.  Both films wear the badge of "classic" while also not being a film you'd instantly name-check as a "classic," and both are about war, though as this film is lensed in 1930, you might have guessed we're taking a peak at World War I.  We're also taking our first peak at Jean Harlow, and really the nation's first look at the actress.  While Jean Harlow had been working in movies for a years when Hell's Angels came around (getting bit parts in movies starring Clara Bow and Laurel & Hardy), she wasn't getting the sorts of roles that would translate into bigger work onscreen.  She lucked out, though, when The Jazz Singer required Howard Hughes to re-lense much of Hell's Angels, and his then-leading woman (Greta Nissen), had too thick of a Norwegian accent to be able to plausibly play the role that would eventually go to Harlow.  Hell's Angels ended up being a landmark, the highest-grossing film of the year (though thanks to Hughes' famously casual attitude toward spending, it sill lost money), and got Harlow a leading role in a major motion picture...though consistent work in movies was still a year or two away.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is centered on a pair of brothers, Monte (Lyon) and Roy (Hall).  Roy is the upstanding brother & Monte the scalawag, frequently finding himself in the arms of another woman, to the point where early in the film Roy is shot impersonating Monte in a duel after Monte sleeps with another man's wife (and then runs away rather than facing him in said duel).  Roy is madly in love with Helen (Harlow), a beautiful young woman whom he views as chaste & his ideal mate.  We learn soon, however, that two things are about to change the brothers lives.  The first is that World War I is going to break out, thus ending their friendship with a German student named Karl (Darrow, in an under-explored role in the picture), and the second is that Helen is no angel.  At a dance, she makes a pass at Monte, and Monte, though initially reluctant, indulges and sleeps with his brother's girlfriend.  He doesn't figure this out, however, until much later in the film, and the focus becomes for most of the next hour on planes, as is Hughes' wont, as we see epic battle after epic battle in the sky.  We get brief interludes on the ground, one of which involves Helen with another man, drunk & promiscuous, shattering Roy's illusions about her.  A final one is when the brothers are captured by Germans, and Monte decides to betray British intelligence by telling of an upcoming attack rather than be killed.  Roy tricks him, and when he cannot convince him that he must do what is best for country first, he shoots him in the back and Monte dies, with Roy certain to be killed as a result.  The film ends with the British attack a success, thanks to the two brothers' deaths.

Hell's Angels, if it's remembered today, is remembered both for Harlow's breakthrough (neither of the two leading men would approach her fame in later years) and for the staggering aerial shots in the movie.  The effects in this film are kind of impossible to believe.  While Hughes didn't actually take down a full-sized zeppelin for the fight between the brothers and Karl midway through the picture, he still created a 60' replica of one and used it on a lot in Arcadia for the scenes, eventually literally burning the expensive model in one glorious take to simulate the kamikaze-style destruction of the blimp when a British soldier crashes into it when he runs out of bullets.  Combined with the final action sequence, where Hughes blows up what looks to be several farms and has aerial tricks that would make the Blue Angels nervous, Hell's Angels earns its spot in film history as the first great action movie of the Sound Era; that its sole Oscar nomination is for Cinematography makes sense considering the risks & techniques involved to make this, and I'm kind of baffled how it lost.  It also earns a place in infamy as one of the most violent offscreen movies ever made.  Four people died during the filming of the picture, including three pilots, and Hughes was seriously injured when he attempted a trick that all of the pilots refused to do since it seemed certain to end in death (it didn't-Hughes got the shot, but he also crashed and got a fractured skull to go with it).

Harlow is really only in three extended sequences of the movie despite her high-billing (though she's got a substantial supporting part).  She's fun-Hell's Angels doesn't care much for dialogue (though Helen gets the immortal line "Would you be shocked if I put on something more comfortable?" in all of its racy pre-Code glory), but this film is celebrated for its action sequences, not its acting.  Still, there's something glorious about seeing Harlow in this movie.  Hughes paid to have the dance/seduction scene in Technicolor, making this the only movie Harlow would ever do in color (it's honestly the only time I've ever actually seen even a picture of her that's not in black-and-white), and it's jarring.  Frequently when you think of old-time actors, they age more in your head, but Jean Harlow was only 18 when this movie was made, and the youth in her skin and eyes is jaw-dropping in the sequence.  She's the best part of the acting in the movie (the brothers are playing one-dimensional versions of themselves), but she doesn't get the sparkling comedy that she'd be known for later in her career, and so we start out with a movie where she's largely upstaged by the explosions.

OVP: Their Own Desire (1929)

Film: Their Own Desire (1929)
Stars: Norma Shearer, Robert Montgomery, Lewis Stone, Belle Bennett, Helene Millard
Director: E. Mason Hopper
Oscar History: 1 nomination (Best Actress-Norma Shearer)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

If there's any period in film history I find the hardest to review, it is surely the early talkies.  Coming out of the Sound Era, the marvel of films from this period was more along the lines of "wow, you can actually see someone talk" and not about, exactly, what they were saying itself.  As a result, I usually sit in puzzlement in how to handle these early films with my "born literally decades later" self.  Grading them on a curve is essential, but more to the point I have to sort of change how I'm looking at a piece of work.  By doing so, I can kind of get, for the first time, the appeal of Norma Shearer, a woman who was a massive hit with Oscar in the first decade of his existence, even if I don't know that I'd ever subscribe to giving her the Oscar (at least not yet-I've got some nominations left to go).

(Spoilers Ahead) Shearer, it's worth noting, is proof that not all screen stars are remembered equally and that even the brightest of an era get lost to film history if they aren't careful (I'm talking to you, Jennifer Lawrence).  While Joan Crawford's campy divadom is still relevant enough today that she's the subject of a new TV series and Greta Garbo has become synonymous with reclusive stardom, Norma Shearer is at best remembered as a famous actress of the 1930's, no movie in particular being her calling card.  And yet she was nominated for 5-6 (depending on how you handle, oddly enough, this film) Oscars, a huge number that puts her in the same vein as someone like Amy Adams or Elizabeth Taylor in terms of Oscar.  For this reason, it's worth looking at her early acting style as she was one of the biggest names in the 1930's.

This movie centers around Lally (Shearer), a smart-talking young woman born to a rich writer who is appalled when he finds out that his father is leaving her mother for a more "rouge-using" woman.  She is aghast at him, but soon finds herself in a predicament as she falls for John (Montgomery) a charming young man who also happens to be the son of her future stepmother.  The two of them fight their attraction to one another, but to no use (even if it means her mother is wildly unhappy), and after nearly dying in a storm (a scene that is weirdly edited-we don't even get a hint that the two might be alive until we randomly see them in a cave, killing all suspense), they end up living their happily ever after.

This film is a strange one for a number of reasons, but I want to single out two.  One is the length-this is an extremely short movie, potentially the shortest film ever to win an acting nomination (I can't prove that, but at 65 minutes it's certainly the shortest I've ever seen...if I'm wrong, the comments are there).  That leaves us with an unusually compact script, even if it's predictable, and very little time wasted.  This isn't a bad thing-I quite liked the chemistry between Shearer and Montgomery, and though the acting is a bit dated, I didn't hate the politics if you ignored some of what Montgomery said, and they seem like a couple that would actually fall for each other rather quickly.  The second is that this film has a weird spot in Oscar lore.  This was back in the days of actors getting nominated for multiple films in the same nomination, which normally would have meant that Shearer would have won her Oscar for this and The Divorcee combined, but in reality she just won it for the latter.  This is a pity as I actually liked this performance better-Shearer is more vivacious and interesting, and I feel like the romance works better, but it begs the question of how to count this as a nomination-was she up six times and lost here, or did the Academy not feel a 65 minute film was worthy of getting the Oscar alongside the Best Picture-nominated The Divorcee?  Something to ponder, but Shearer is good but not great here.

Those are my thoughts-how about yours?  Anyone out there already seen Their Own Desire?  If not, share you thoughts on Shearer-what is the performance that will win me over?

OVP: Romance (1930)

Film: Romance (1930)
Stars: Greta Garbo, Lewis Stone, Gavin Gordon
Director: Clarence Brown
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Director, Best Actress-Greta Garbo)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 2/5 stars

There have been many great actors in the history of cinema, but far fewer are the ranks of movie stars.  It's a rare breed, and something difficult to qualify.  After all, what makes a movie star?  Is it simply someone who is a leading actor, someone with great longevity, someone who transcends any era?  Is it an extinct species of Hollywood's Golden Age (this, I definitely disagree with-the likes of Julia Roberts, Tom Cruise, and even younger movie stars like Ryan Gosling could rank alongside the best of the 1940's and 1950's)?  Perhaps the best way to describe a movie star is o take a quote from Justice Potter Stewart out of context: "it's hard to define, but I know it when I see it."  And when I see Greta Garbo, I know I'm looking at a movie star.

One of the weird side effects of movie stars, since they always appear ageless, is that they also occasionally appear older than they actually are in their initial films, and so it's difficult to comprehend that Garbo was barely 25 when this film came out.  At the time, she had just finished her first talkie and was the toast of MGM, alongside Norma Shearer and Joan Crawford.  Her place at the top of the cinematic heap is evident with the confidence she exudes in this role, laughing and smiling gaily as she plays a "lost" woman, a beautiful opera singer torn between an older (Stone) and younger (Gordon) man.

The film is not what you'd call "strong," even by the melodramatic metric of the time.  The moral code of Gordon's character especially is horribly dated, and the fact that (SPOILER ALERT) Garbo ends up leaving him and becomes a nun is evident that the film was clearly made in 1930 and not even 1960.  And yet, Brown, a largely forgotten director now despite having six Oscar nominations to his credit, knows how to use his greatest asset, Ms. Garbo.  Every scene he lights her up with a glowing aura, as if a goddess has descended onto the screen and he only has a few moments to capture her before she fades.  It's a truly remarkable thing, and even as Garbo tosses out lines so heavy-handed they'd make John Keats look cynical, you don't particularly care.  You just want to stay on her, absorbing the magic this screen star (there's no other word for it) is radiating.

I'd write more, but I'm actually going out in a few minutes and the film is terribly short (at only 76 minutes, it's one of the shorter films to ever compete for Best Actress), but I have to end with a few questions for thought.  What do you think defines a movie star?  Was there or is there another Garbo, or was she one for the ages?  And what's your favorite of her many (largely unseen by the general public) films?