tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1279530091641272518.post3994538270909070001..comments2024-03-27T13:58:27.053-04:00Comments on Where Danger Lives: CALCUTTA (1947)Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07715057178983752370noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1279530091641272518.post-74325622279359099972017-08-25T19:27:51.810-04:002017-08-25T19:27:51.810-04:00I am afraid I agree that Gail Russell never reache...I am afraid I agree that Gail Russell never reached the stardom she might have. But to watch her in Angel and The Badman is to see a breathtakingly beautiful actress who was magic with John Wayne.<br />Alcohol did it's best to destroy her looks but even as late as 1956 in SEVEN MEN FROM NOW, her looks though aging were still magnificent.<br />I never fail to watch THE UNINVITED or NIGHT HAS A THOUSAND EYES just to be carried away by her vulnerable warmth. And what a gorgeous speaking voice she had.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1279530091641272518.post-13409627149050433442014-10-30T14:09:39.879-04:002014-10-30T14:09:39.879-04:00hi Mark -- Please forgive the long delay in respon...hi Mark -- Please forgive the long delay in responding to your reply. Not to make too fine a point on it, but as my friend Maureen O'Hara once said to me about billing: "if your name is above the title -- even if it is second -- you are a star." In this particular movie, I would give that "in support" billing to June Duprez. I would like to add as well that Gail Russell was given first star billing (over Diana Lynn) in both "Our Hearts Were Young & Gay" and "Our Hearts Were Growing Up". Even on loan-out for "The Bachelor's Daughters, she was billed above a couple of very illustrious actresses - Ann Dvorak and Claire Trevor. Although not a super star (like Betty Hutton), I would submit she was an important leading lady for at least 4 or 5 years. As to why Paramount dropped her, this was discussed with a Paramount producer in an interview (its somewhere on the internet) and he confirmed it was her drinking which also was affecting her appearance. FYI, she was scheduled to film "Flaming Feather" and when she refused, Paramount used that as excuse not to renew her contract. I appreciate your analysis and sites such as yours give movie fans such as myself an opportunity to contribute. Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1279530091641272518.post-13709367510753483342014-04-19T14:12:57.462-04:002014-04-19T14:12:57.462-04:00Hi there - thanks for reading and for your comment...Hi there - thanks for reading and for your comment. We'll have to disagree about Russell in this film. The reason I say that she never became a true star is because she didn't. Russell had a very brief run in A pictures, and was never asked to carry a film by herself. No film was developed specifically for her, and when she was cast as the female lead in an A picture it was invariably alongside a bankable male star around whom the film's narrative was focused. In other words, although Russell may have been the top-billed female in a few big budget pictures, her roles were always in support. And certainly it is true that Paramount very much wanted her to be a star, attempted to position her as such, and gave her a real opportunity, it didn't work out. The studio executives failed to renew her contract and moved on, and their decision had a great deal less to do with her alcoholism than with her inability to carry a film. The studios supported — and even propped up — film stars with problems every bit as awful as Russell's.<br /><br />Also: I analyze films here, just as most other film bloggers do at their sites. I don't attempt to "over-analysis" them. I also don't give certain films a pass because they lack the artistic pretensions of some prestige pictures. This is, after all, essentially a site about B-movies. Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07715057178983752370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1279530091641272518.post-29418974323804484132014-04-19T12:46:27.734-04:002014-04-19T12:46:27.734-04:00I just watched "Calcutta" and could not ...I just watched "Calcutta" and could not disagree more with most of the above review. I think it is a big mistake to attempt to over-analysis a movie which is, quite frankly, a "Terry And The Pirates" type of adventure film, with an added element of "film noir". As to the casting of Gail Russell: I thought it was inspired, primarily because with her innocent demeanor and exotic beauty, she fit the part and while she was not a "great" actress, she had great presence and made the twist ending work. As to the assertion of her not reaching "true stardom," I am not sure I know what that means. She was a star during her time at Paramount, always billed above the title. If anyone did not reach stardom, it was June Duprez, who I happen to like as well. It seems as if some movie goers of that era are only comfortable watching performers in roles they feel fit their "pre-packaged studio image". Later on, in the 1950s, Gail Russell gave a very good "bad girl" performance in "The Tattered Dress". Her personal troubles are well documented, but apparently during this period did not reflect in her work on the screen, which is what really matters on the screen. One further note: Paramount recognized her strong resemblance to Hedy Lamarr.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com