Archive for March 2012

Of Carole and cigarettes   Leave a comment

Posted by [info]vp19 on 2012.03.31 at 09:25

Current mood: discontentdiscontent

This glamorous portrait of Carole Lombard, from the December 1935 cover of the Spanish-language film magazine Cine-Mundial, would be infinitely more glamorous to many were it not for what she’s holding in her hand…a cigarette. Like many of her time, Lombard was a smoker — something that today might seem to be at odds with her personality, given her love for sports and activity — but back then, few (if any) recognized the health hazards endemic to tobacco. (We don’t know when Carole took up smoking or why, though one guesses it was deemed fashionable in the 1920s for women to smoke.) Only since the 1960s has the public been aware of the dangers smoking caused.

We’ve discussed Carole’s ties to cigarettes in the past (, but a new website from Stanford University’s School of Medicine, “Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising,” provides insight into just how pervasive — and in retrospect, insidious — this practice was. The site includes a huge array of tobacco ads (, and one of the 28 categories presented are nearly 470 ads featuring celebrities from movies, TV, Broadway and even opera.

Here’s one I haven’t seen before, an Old Gold ad from late 1934 or early ’35 featuring director Cecil B. De Mille and a half-dozen stars, including Carole:

Note that all six stars, in addition to De Mille, were based at Paramount (and “The Crusades” was a Paramount production), leading one to believe that this ad was some sort of studio tie-in with P. Lorillard, maker of Old Golds. Nearly two years before this ad ran, Lombard and Lyle Talbot were shown in an Old Gold ad promoting their “No More Orchids,” a Columbia film:

And in the fall of ’34, while her Paramount film “Now And Forever” was in theaters, Carole dressed — in gold, appropriately — to hawk the smoke in magazines:

A few years later, Lombard “switched” from Old Gold to Lucky Strike. (I have no idea what brand she smoked in real life, or whether she had any brand loyalty at all. According to the Stanford site, Carole’s friend Lucille Ball was an inveterate Chesterfield smoker; in the early ’50s, when rival Philip Morris sponsored Ball’s breakthrough sitcom “I Love Lucy,” she placed Chesterfields in Philip Morris boxes during the filming of episodes.) Lombard appeared in this 1937 ad, saying that her singing coach suggested a “light” smoke (a frequent angle of Luckies ads at the time, particularly those directed towards women):

And the Stanford site doesn’t take into account cards used as premiums in tobacco packages, though to be fair that practice — at least involving film stars — was rare in America after World War I:

Just something to think about the next time you watch “Mad Men.”

Tourney update: After falling far behind early, Carole is within striking distance of Ginger Rogers, trailing 82-64; a surge can put her back into contention. Go to and vote; the deadline is 10 p.m. (Eastern) Sunday.

Link  Leave a comment

Edit   Tags   Add to memories   Share   Track

Posted March 31, 2012 by vp19 in Uncategorized

Vote for Carole!   Leave a comment

Posted by [info]vp19 on 2012.03.30 at 10:32

Current mood: hopefulhopeful

Since last we left some nine hours ago, Carole Lombard has rallied somewhat against Ginger Rogers in the Silents/1930s final of the 2012 Favorite Classic Movie Actress Tourney, whittling a 26-10 deficit down to 35-30 as of 10:30 a.m. (Eastern). Keep the momentum going! If you haven’t voted yet, do so at — and remember to get your friends to participate. Polls close at 10 p.m. Sunday.

The other finals are also set. The 1940s bracket ( has a distinct contrast of styles, as Bette Davis goes up against Judy Garland. In the 1950s final (, two royal legends go at it, as Grace Kelly battles Elizabeth Taylor; at last check, Taylor has a 17-15 edge in what should be a tense match to the finish. Finally, the 1960s bracket ( features Natalie Wood versus Jean Simmons, with Wood jumping out to an early 21-6 lead.

Please vote in all the brackets.

Link  Leave a comment

Edit   Tags   Add to memories   Share   Track

Posted March 30, 2012 by vp19 in Uncategorized

Screen Book, October 1938: Hiding out from Hollywood?   Leave a comment

Posted by [info]vp19 on 2012.03.30 at 01:20

Current mood: worriedworried

To commemorate the 73rd anniversary of Carole Lombard’s marriage to Clark Gable this week, the fine site reprinted a story that ran in the October 1938 issue of Screen Book, whose cover that month just so happened to feature Gable along with Myrna Loy from their latest film, “Too Hot To Handle”:

Inside, there was a story on Gable’s off-screen squeeze — “Why Is Carole Lombard Hiding Out From Hollywood”?

“Hiding out,” you say? Well, during 1938 the nightclubbing Carole so popular in the film community was beginning to recede, replaced by a Lombard who was rarely on display if Gable wasn’t on hand (such as the Northridge horse show above, from that June). And many in Hollywood frankly didn’t like losing that Lombard. As the article’s writer, Frederick McFee, stated:

“Of course there have been a lot of rumors about Carole’s sudden and voluntary retirement from public life. Some of them have been unkind — some tempered with tolerance.”

If you can put two and two together, maybe McFee is saying some of those “unkind” rumors might have been the same that plagued Loretta Young a few years earlier…though no one in the nearly 74 years since this article ran has ever said anything to that effect. And Lombard was hardly reclusive during 1938; while only one film of hers was released during the year (“Fools For Scandal”), she started work on another in the fall (“Made For Each Other”) and appeared on numerous radio programs.

If you have Robert Matzen’s fine “Carole Lombard: A Bio-Bibliography,” you can read McFee’s article there. If not…well, reprinted it this week, which I thank them for. Here it is in its entirety, followed by comments from both the Gable site and myself:

Why is Carole Lombard Hiding Out from Hollywood?

By Frederick McFee
Screenbook magazine, October 1938

Big-hearted Carole Lombard has all of Hollywood worried. What happened to change the happy girl it once knew to the recluse she has now become?

Hollywood’s greatest paradox of the moment is one that has the entire film city wondering.

And you’d wonder, too, if one of the favorite daughters of your town, without any warning, suddenly decided to get away — oh, far away — from It All. That’s what happened when Carole Lombard, who has long been synonymous with good fellowship and popularity, decided to go into the Great Silence.

Popular night spots of the film town no longer ring with the beautiful lady’s hearty laughter (and that’s a great loss, because that guffaw of Carole’s can do more to instill happiness than anything else I know of!). Reporters, once Carole’s boon companions, are greeted with politeness if not cordiality (for over a year she has refused to give interviews — even on the most abstract of subjects).

Of course there have been a lot of rumors about Carole’s sudden and voluntary retirement from public life. Some of them have been unkind — some tempered with tolerance. But all rumors come back to the same moot point — why is Carole absenting herself from the Hollywood scene?

Carole’s romance with Clark Gable is perhaps one of the most publicized in the world today. The gossips have it that Mr. G. himself is responsible for Carole’s “I won’t talk” attitude. They hint darkly at dissention between the present Mrs. Gable and her spouse that prevents the usual divorce and the expected happy ending of the Carole-Clark romance. But whether it’s true or not, Hollywood resents the fact that the happy-go-lucky Lombard that it once knew is no longer part of its colorful present.

You see, Hollywood knows the girl as she really is — a big-hearted, cheerful gal who began her career over a decade ago as a Mack Sennett bathing beauty. On the screen, she may put across the idea that she is a giddy, partly irresponsible, always-wisecracking blonde. Off the screen, she has a famous—and volcanic—vocabulary; but in a town where selfishness is a synonym for self-preservation, she goes out of her way to do things for people. Gratis—impulsively—instinctively.

You have had inklings, perhaps of the Lombard big-heartedness. So have I. They led me to look for definite evidence. And the evidence accumulated not only makes a case. It makes an untold story.

This doing-things-for-people isn’t a new facet of the Lombard personality, like her recent elusiveness toward the Press. She simply has never talked about anything she has ever done for anybody. She couldn’t be bludgeoned into confessing. But if you know people close to her, and can get them to talk (you have to promise not to mention their names), you hear some amazing things about Carole. Things that have been going on for years — ever since she was a bathing girl.

That’s how she started in this movie game, as a kid in her early teens. Most people know that. But what they don’t know is this:

One of her pals on that old Sennett lot was another bathing girl, named Madalyne Fields. As insiders tell the tale today, Carole’s option was picked up and Madalyne’s wasn’t. Perhaps Madalyne would have connected somewhere else; perhaps not. But Carole wasn’t going to let down her best pal…

They were together until recently, when Madalyne became the wife of that fine movie director, Walter Lang. But as “Fieldsie,” Carole’s pal became a Hollywood legend. Anyone who knows Carole knows she seldom moved without consulting her secretary friend. And the steady sureness of Carole’s rise and the extent of her success, made the shrewd observers suspect that Fieldsie is one of the smartest girls in Hollywood.

Carole would deny heatedly that she has ever done anything for Fieldsie. She would insist that she hasn’t done Fieldsie any favor, having her around; Fieldsie has done her the favor, staying around!

Her habit of befriending people has paid her dividends like these only this once. But Carole never has thought of that angle. She wouldn’t.

There was what she did for Margaret Tallichet, for example. Margaret had come to Hollywood to try to get in the movies, had had no luck, and, determined to stay close to them, if not in them, had got a job as a stenographer at Paramount. She landed in the publicity department.

The legend has it that Carole first saw her there. That isn’t true. One day an interviewer (this was back in the good old pre-elusive days!) had an appointment with Carole. Margaret’s boss, who was busy, sent Margaret to sit in on the interview. Carole said afterward, “I couldn’t talk. I couldn’t keep my eyes off that girl.”

She found out the girl’s name. The next day, she walked into the surprised secretary’s office and took her off to meet Adolph Zukor, head of the studio. Without any ballyhoo (Carole was against it), Margaret was enrolled in the studio’s acting school. Two months later, she was given a test. Nothing came of it. One broken-hearted girl saw herself going back to a typewriter for keeps. Carole saw something else.

She persuaded Zeppo Marx, a friend and an agent, to make an exception just once and have an unknown for a client. He interested Producer David O. Selznick in testing Margaret. Weeks passed afterward, with no word. Carole, herself, talked Selznick into making an elaborate second test.

To get “the right clothes” for Margaret, Carole raided the Paramount wardrobe department. That appealed to her sense of humor. Wouldn’t it be ironic for one studio, which hadn’t been interested, to help another to find a new star? She also bought clothes for Margaret. She talked to her by the hour, and had Clark Gable do likewise, giving her tips. Margaret was signed after that second test, given a “bit” in “A Star is Born,” then sent East by Selznick for a year’s training in little theatres and a year’s study in glamour, poise, and everything else a star should have. Margaret Tallichet is in for a big build-up — and all because of Carole!

Then, there is Alice Marble. Carole knew the pretty Californian long before Alice became a great women’s tennis champion. She tried to talk her into a screen career then. Alice, whose greatest ambition was to be the foremost net star of the country, couldn’t be interested. She’s still striving. If she does attain her ambition, then perhaps there’ll be time for a movie career — and Carole may attain her frustrated ambition to see Alice Marble on the screen!

Ambitions like that aren’t usual in Hollywood. Far from it. Few stars ever go out of their way to help, or even encourage, girls who might develop into screen rivals. Self-preservation argues against it. But does Carole think of that angel? The evidence says: “No.”

Three years ago, a picture crew was flying East for location work when their plane crashed. Some were killed. One electrician almost died, was in a hospital for months, finally recovered with a leg amputated. Under workmen’s compensation, the studio had to pay his medical expenses. But the studio went farther — it promised him that when he was able to get about again, he could have his job back. He learned how to walk with an artificial leg. Then, somehow, no one seemed to remember the promise of work. Carole heard about it. She saw red. She had one of her impulses.

At that time, she and the studio were in the throes of contract talk. She went to the Front Office and said, “I want that man kept on the payroll, given work. I won’t sign, if he isn’t.” The studio said that it was an oversight that he hasn’t been re-hired, and put him back to work.

A couple of days later, a radio gossiper broadcast the story — and the studio told the electrician, “You’re through.” Even though Carole publicly denied the story, he was idle four or five months. Now, by saying nothing, doing nothing to add fuel to the fire, he finally has his job back. But, as the studio executive who told me this inside story (in whispers) pointed out: if Carole had signed that contract, she would have seen to it that that electrician was never was fired — no matter what happened. But she had decided to become a free-lance instead. She had no weapon with which to continue the fight.

P.S. She didn’t know the electrician, except by sight.

She’s the same way, if anyone she knows is sick. She doesn’t take the simple, easy way of remembering. She doesn’t just call up her florist and have him send around a basket of flowers and consider her duty done. She’ll send flowers, yes. But she will also rack her brain to think of some present that will be really useful, something that will last.

Travis Banton, the designer of all of Carole’s clothes, can tell you. When he was in the hospital not so long ago, she took the trouble to find out what was the most annoying thing about his slow convalescence. It was the fact that he couldn’t seem to get warm. She sent him a blanket.

There was a hairdresser (not Carole’s own) who was struck in the eye in an accident. Her eyeball was punctured. Carole heard about it. Whether or not she helped with the hospital bills, no one will ever know. But I happen to know that she can be suspected of it. I know of her taking time out to think of what might be useful to that blinded girl, in that hospital bed. She went downtown, herself, to get a bed jacket for her.

When someone is sick, she doesn’t content herself with one thoughtful gift. She spends hours, thinking of gag presents — things to make even invalids laugh. Dr. Lombard believes in the medicine of laughter.

Everybody knows Carole’s love for animals. Everybody knows, also, that her favorite pet of all times was her dog, Pushface, which played in “Love Before Breakfast,” and in whose behalf Carole at the time took out full-page ads in the local trade papers. But few people know what has happened to Pushface.

“Push,” as she called him, was very fond of her maid. The maid was crazy about the dog. So what should Carole do but give Pushface to the maid — who is the “day” variety and lives “outside.” It wasn’t easy to part with Pushface. But giving him to the maid appealed to her as a way to make both the dog and the girl happy. That’s typical of her.

Any interviewer who has ever talked to Carole for five minutes about her career has heard her say, “In ‘Twentieth Century,’ in six weeks, I learned more about acting from John Barrymore than I’ve learned from other people in all the years I’ve been in films.” She isn’t afraid to acknowledge her debts. And she has a long memory.

A few months ago, John Barrymore was let out by MGM. He went over to Paramount, doing a series of Bulldog Drummond pictures. Everybody felt sorry for “America’s greatest actor,” reduced now to featured billing — in B pictures. Everybody, that is, but Carole. To her, he wasn’t through. All he needed was a chance.

She saw a spot for him in “True Confession.” It wasn’t a typical Barrymore role. All the better. It would prove how much acting he still had in his system. She saw to it that he was given the role. Result: every other one of the comment cards from the sneak preview mentioned Barrymore. He all but stole the picture! And Carole is tickled silly. It’s “A” pictures for John from now on!

You won’t get Carole to admit that she had any hand in his getting the role. You won’t get the Front Office to admit it. But let me point out that he wouldn’t have been in the picture if Carole hadn’t wanted him there. She has a voice in the casting of her pictures.

At Paramount, making a strong comeback, is Evelyn Brent — who was a star when Carole still was pretty much of an unknown. She has had some good roles recently, but she could do with some better ones. Carole saw a spot for her in “True Confession.” She promoted Evelyn for the role. Director Wesley Ruggles argued for another girl. He finally won — for reasons that don’t need detailing here. The important point is: Carole Lombard tried to give Evelyn Brent a break.

Few stars go in for impulses like that. Most stars, if they ever think of onetime stars trying for comebacks, think, “They’ve had their day. Why don’t they give up?”

Carole, you see, can put herself in the other fellow’s place. It’s an uncommon talent, in this everybody-for-himself town.

She learned that her stand-in for a recent picture –a new girl — was planning to be married during the picture. Twice the wedding had to be postponed, because of the picture schedule. The girl set a third date. For a Saturday night. Director Ruggles, early that afternoon, decided to have the company work that night. About 5:30, Carole suddenly — and very conveniently — fell ill, couldn’t go on working. Her stand-in had her wedding.

Two other incidents, typical of Carole, happened on this set.

There was a bit player, a man, who had one line to deliver. On take after take, he muffed it. Ruggles was really a paragon of patience. He saw about six takes spoiled. Finally, he said he was going to get someone else for that “bit.” Carole took Ruggles off to one side and persuaded him to keep this player, give him six more tries, if necessary.

Few stars would have done that. Most of them would have blown up after the second take, demanded a replacement. I know; I’ve seen it happen. But Carole knew what the loss of that bit would do to that man. Even bit players’ reputations get bruited around Hollywood. He would have found it hard to get another job. Carole thought of that angle. Carole would.

Then, there was the day that two of her leading men had a difficult scene together, with Carole sitting on the sidelines. Time after time, they tried it. Time after time, something happened to spoil the take. Finally, it looked as if they had it when — somebody coughed. A prop man, somewhere behind Carole.

Ruggles whirled around, with dire in his eye. Somebody was going to get a verbal blistering. Maybe somebody was going to lose his job. Maybe somebody was going to be murdered!

Carole spoke up, to say: “I’m awfully sorry, Wes. I couldn’t help it. I couldn’t hold it any longer.”

There have been rumors of late that Carole is beginning to come out of her shell. As a publicity gag for her new David O. Selznick picture, “Made for Each Other,” she became head of the publicity department, and had herself a grand time planting yarns with all the leading columnists and writers. According to rumor, she was all set to call up such varied personalities as Mrs. Roosevelt, the Duke of Windsor and George Bernard Shaw to find out what they thought of the casting of “Gone with the Wind” (also a Selznick production) until forcibly called off. When, for another publicity stunt, she was made mayor of Culver City, Carole promptly called a public holiday for all studio employees. Selznick tried to remonstrate with her, whereupon the original Miss Lombard, emulating that famous Eastern mayor, said forcibly, “I am the law!” (And she got away with it!)

That would indicate that eventually Hollywood will soon see the return of the gay, laughing Carole that it used to know.

Maybe she’s learned that she shouldn’t hide away from the town that loves her!

Some thoughts on the article:

* Tallichet never quite became a star, but attained Hollywood royalty just the same. That’s because she married director William Wyler in 1938, a marriage that lasted until his death in 1981 and produced four children. Tallichet died in 1991 at age 77.

* Brent’s career really didn’t get a push from Lombard, but she kept working at lower tier studios throughout the 1940s, alongside ’20s and early ’30s cohorts such as Neil Hamilton, Lee Tracy and Jack Holt. She effectively retired from acting in 1950 and died, age 79, in 1975.

* According to the Gable site, Pushface was not given to a maid, but died at about the time this story reached print. Moreover, in Jean Garceau’s book, she claims the dog was stuffed.

* While Lombard was certainly generous towards others in the industry, this story sort of singles her out and makes her a candidate for cinematic sainthood compared to her peers — something she would tell you was hardly the case. Many of Carole’s contemporaries, including Gable, Marion Davies and Jean Harlow to name a few, looked out for the “little people” on the set and won the praise and gratitude of those they worked with.

Nevertheless, the story explains why Lombard was so beloved in filmland (though it doesn’t really answer why she was “hiding out” from Hollywood).

Tourney update: Team Carole is off to a sluggish start — that is not good. As of 1 a.m. (Eastern), Lombard trails Ginger Rogers, 26-10, in the finals of the Silents/1930s bracket of the 2012 Favorite Classic Movie Actress Tourney. I know Lombard has plenty of fans in cyberspace…but they need to vote for her! Go to, cast your ballot, and get her back in the race. There’s still plenty of time, as voting closes at 10 p.m. (Eastern) Sunday. Spread the word and vote for Carole!

Link  Leave a comment

Edit   Tags   Add to memories   Share   Track

Posted March 30, 2012 by vp19 in Uncategorized

Crawford conquered — now time to face Ginger!   Leave a comment

Posted by [info]vp19 on 2012.03.29 at 22:11

Current mood: excitedexcited

It took Carole Lombard some 87 years, but she finally beat Joan Crawford — not in a dance contest at the Cocoanut Grove, but in the semifinals of the Silents/1930s bracket of the 2012 Favorite Classic Movie Actress Tourney.

Crawford got the first vote Sunday night, but from then on, it was all Carole, and as the match drew to a close, the question was whether Lombard would maintain her roughly 2-to-1 edge. She did, posting a 170-82 triumph.

Now it’s on to the finals against Ginger Rogers, who dominated her semifinal by a slightly greater margin, routing Greta Garbo, 177-78.

This isn’t going to be easy for Lombard, as Ginger has a formidable following; as of 10 p.m. (Eastern) Thursday, Rogers has a 15-9 edge, so it’s time for Team Carole to mobilize en masse (but only one vote per person, please). Go to; voting runs through 10 p.m. (Eastern) Sunday.

As the host of that site says, “Tell your friends, family, blog pals, Twitter followers, Facebook mates and the guy on the bus.” Above is a reason to vote for Carole — an endorsement from good friend Alice Marble, who with backing from Lombard, became the 1939 winner at Wimbledon and a four-time U.S. Open champion.

I had earlier said to the Monkey of a Lombard-Rogers final, “It’ll be what King Kong vs. Godzilla would be like if they were glamorous blondes with good legs.” Let’s hope these titans don’t wreck too many scale-model skyscrapers.

Link  Leave a comment

Edit   Tags   Add to memories   Share   Track

Posted March 29, 2012 by vp19 in Uncategorized

For Carole and Clark’s anniversary, three pictorial presents   Leave a comment

Posted by [info]vp19 on 2012.03.29 at 01:03

Current mood: hopefulhopeful

It was 73 years ago today that Carole Lombard and Clark Gable eloped — something most observers expected once Gable received a divorce from his second wife, Ria Langham — and took their marriage vows in Kingman, Ariz. As far as I know, no pictures of Carole and Clark on their actual wedding day have surfaced, but the day after (March 30, 1939), they met the press at Lombard’s home on St. Cloud Road in Beverly Hills. Above is one of the many photos taken at that gathering; in fact, I don’t believe I’ve seen this particular pose. It’s one of three rare Gable-Lombard photos (none of which I’ve previously seen) that a seller is making available at eBay.

One year later, March 29, 1940, Gable and Lombard celebrated their first anniversary at the MGM studios in Culver City. This particular image looks as if it was taken in Clark’s dressing room, not at the studio commissary.

Here’s one of Carole playing caddy in 1939 for Clark, his close friend Spencer Tracy and MGM “fixer” Eddie Mannix, the Fort Lee ruffian who along with publicity chief Howard Strickling helped keep the studio’s stars in line (and covered up for them when they weren’t).

All these photos are sepia 8″ x 10″ originals, and all have a starting bid of $19.99; as of this writing, the first two each have one bid for that amount. Bids close on all three between 9:08 and 9:19 a.m. (Eastern) Friday, so time is of the essence.

For the day after the wedding photo, go to For the anniversary photo, visit The golf photo with Tracy and Mannix can be seen at

Hey, and while we’re at it, how about a Lombard portrait as a bonus? We know it’s her because her name is on it; that face and figure, and those legs, confirm the deal:

Like the others, bidding begins at $19.99 (no bids have been placed as of this writing), and the auction ends at 8:57 a.m. (Eastern) Friday. You can bid, or simply learn more, at

Tourney update: As of 1 a.m. (Eastern), with 18 hours left in voting, Lombard is having a surprisingly easy time of it with one-time dance rival Joan Crawford, leading, 152-73. In the other semifinal, Ginger Rogers is even more dominant, routing Greta Garbo, 158-63. The finals of the Silents/1930s bracket will, barring the unforeseen, be a Lombard-Rogers battle. If you haven’t voted yet, visit

Link  Leave a comment

Edit   Tags   Add to memories   Share   Track

Posted March 29, 2012 by vp19 in Uncategorized

Two vintage p1202 for you   Leave a comment

Posted by [info]vp19 on 2012.03.28 at 00:48

Current mood: nostalgicnostalgic

The beauty of mid-thirties Carole Lombard is on full display in two Paramount portraits up for auction through eBay. We’ll kick things off with p1202-1432, along with a crop of the back of the photo:

We see that the photo was received on Oct. 1, 1936, but it didn’t run until the March ’37 issue of a magazine called “S.P.”; I’m guessing that stands for Screen Play magazine. part of the Fawcett Publications family, which had Merle Oberon on the cover that month:

Screen Play breathed its last in December of ’37 and was merged into a sister Fawcett magazine, Screen Book.

Getting back to the Lombard photo, it’s similar to p1202-1431:

It’s apparent in both photos that Carole is not wearing a bra, though her status isn’t blatant.

Make the last digit in “1431” the first, and you have Lombard’s next portrait, p1202-1143 — probably again sans bra:

There’s no information on the back of this one; all we know is that it’s Lombard circa 1935, and she looks darn elegant.

The same seller is handling both 8″ x 10″ portraits. Bids on p1202-1432 start at $314.95, with bidding scheduled to end at 10:08 p.m. (Eastern) next Monday. To place a bid or get more information, visit×10-Photo-/140731194962?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20c43b9e52.

As for p1202-1143, its minimum bid is a comparatively inexpensive $249.99, with its bidding ceasing at 9:33 p.m. (Eastern) next Tuesday. You can check it out at×10-Photo-/140731678399?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20c442febf.

Tourney update: As of 12:45 a.m. (Eastern), Lombard leads Joan Crawford, 127-66, in the semifinals of the Silents/1930s bracket of the 2012 Favorite Classic Movie Actress Tourney. Barring a major surprise, Carole will face Ginger Rogers (who has a 128-61 edge over Greta Garbo) in the finals. Voting in this round concludes at 7 p.m. (Eastern) Thursday; to vote, visit

Link  Leave a comment

Edit   Tags   Add to memories   Share   Track

Posted March 27, 2012 by vp19 in Uncategorized

‘The Lot’ to be concerned with   Leave a comment

Posted by [info]vp19 on 2012.03.27 at 10:25

Current mood: distresseddistressed

Tourney update: As of 10 a.m. (Eastern), Carole Lombard had a 100-55 lead over Joan Crawford, retaining roughly the same vote edge she had throughout Monday, although her percentage is down to 64%. If you haven’t voted for Carole yet, please do so at

Flirty sales girl Lombard looks stunned after Buddy Rogers spurns her advances in “My Best Girl,” the 1927 Mary Pickford comedy in which a teenaged Lombard had a small, unbilled part. Now, the lot where that scene was filmed is being threatened with substantial changes that would undermine much of its history.

Today, it’s called “The Lot”; it straddles the West Hollywood-Los Angeles border, at Santa Monica Boulevard and North Formosa Avenue:

The studio dates back to 1918, when it was founded as the Hampton Studio. Four years later, the site was purchased by…we’ll let this picture answer it…

Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks, the film colony’s first couple, had been among the co-founders of United Artists in 1919. Now, they had their own lot to help create their films. Here’s a view of what it looked like in 1923:

In 1924, this was among the studios Jane Alice Peters visited when she was trying to break into the movies for good. But as Carole Lombard, she would be welcomed back three years later for her small part in “My Best Girl,” perhaps her first movie work following the 1926 automobile accident that left a scar on her face and caused Fox to drop her contract.

By the late 1920s, other United Artists production companies were using the studio as well, including Samuel Goldwyn, and it eventually became known as the United Artists Studio. Lombard would have likely worked here in 1931 on the Goldwyn production “The Greeks Had A Word For Them,” had illness not forced her to drop out of the film (

Pickford and Fairbanks owned the land, but most of the facilities were owned by Goldwyn (who had bought out Joseph Schenck’s share in 1935). When Fairbanks died in 1939, Pickford took his share, so she and Goldwyn had joint ownership of the property. Much to Mary’s dismay, Goldwyn — who had left UA in 1940 — renamed the site the Samuel Goldwyn Studio. However, it still rented space to United Artists producers, and was probably where Lombard shot what would be her final film, “To Be Or Not To Be”:

One of Robert Coburn’s publicity photos of Carole may well have been taken at the studio entrance:

Eventually, the lot was put up for auction, and Goldwyn outbid Pickford. Many independent companies used it, and classics such as “Some Like It Hot” and “West Side Story” were filmed there. After founding the Reprise label in the early 1960s, Frank Sinatra used its soundstages to record several albums.

In 1980, Warners bought the site, renamed it the Warner Hollywood studio, and used it for film and TV production for nearly two decades. A private company purchased it in 1999, renaming it “The Lot.” It is this company that is seeking to raze many of the buildings on the site dating back to the 1920s, replacing them with glass and steel structures that would continue to be used for movie and TV production and provide substantially more space.

Film editor Doug Haines, one of many who have affection for the place (he worked on several movies there), told the Los Angeles Times, “You really had a sense of history when you worked there. Another glass building — that certainly says ‘Old Hollywood,’ doesn’t it?”

Efforts are being made to preserve the site; however, West Hollywood officials have already approved the changes, and demolition of some of the buildings — the project’s initial phase — could begin as early as next month. The ghosts of Pickford and Fairbanks, who have already seen their beloved Pickfair bite the dust, can’t be happy over this news.

Link  Leave a comment

Edit   Tags   Add to memories   Share   Track

Posted March 27, 2012 by vp19 in Uncategorized

Two stunning pics, plus a fast start in the tourney   Leave a comment

Posted by [info]vp19 on 2012.03.26 at 00:26

Current mood: optimisticoptimistic

First of all, some good news for Carole Lombard fans: She’s off and running, with a 28-7 lead over Joan Crawford as of midnight (Eastern) in one of the Silents/1930s semifinals in the 2012 Favorite Classic Movie Actress Tourney. (In the other match, Ginger Rogers has a 26-13 edge over Greta Garbo.) Don’t get complacent, though; cast your vote for Carole at before 7 p.m. (Eastern) Thursday.

Now, some memorabilia news, specifically about two original photos available through eBay. We’ll start with one from “Nothing Sacred”:

This portrait — which was also used as part of an ad for Elizabeth Arden cosmetics — measures 8″ x 10″, and is listed in very good to excellent condition “with a few light pinholes on the top center border,” according to the seller.

If you’re interested in this glamorous shot of Carole, you can buy it straight up for $150 or make an offer. Find out more at

The other image is from 1935 and is one I’ve never seen before, p1202-1057:

It’s an 8″ x 10″ doubleweight of Carole in crinoline, and it apparently lacks a snipe (same with the other one). The seller calls it in “very good condition except for some wear along the top edge.”

Bidding on this begins at $9.99, but the price will likely increase substantially before bids end at 7:12 p.m. (Eastern) next Sunday. If you’re interested, check it out at

Link  Leave a comment

Edit   Tags   Add to memories   Share   Track

Posted March 25, 2012 by vp19 in Uncategorized

Back to the Grove: Carole vs. Joan has begun!   Leave a comment

Posted by [info]vp19 on 2012.03.25 at 20:39

Current mood: hopefulhopeful

Carole Lombard and Joan Crawford are battling again — but this time, their competition isn’t taking place at the Cocoanut Grove in the mid-1920s, but in cyberspace today ( And they aren’t dancing, but vying to reach the finals of the Silents/1930s bracket of the 2012 Favorite Classic Movie Actress Tourney.

Lombard, winner of the “Funny Ladies” division, is facing Crawford, who won the “Tough Broads and Pre-Code Babes” division. The other semifinal pits “Singers/Dancers” winner Ginger Rogers against Greta Garbo, the last one standing in the “They Had Faces” division. Voting goes on through 7 p.m. (Eastern) Thursday.

Carole had some tough earlier outings against Jean Arthur and Myrna Loy, and she knows Crawford won’t be an easy foe — especially since Joan was one of the icons of the late 1920s. So that’s why Lombard decided to take the flapper-era route in her latest banner, proving she had her own share of hotcha:

The 1950s and ’60s matches are also already under way, while the ’40s matches will start Monday morning.

1940s (
Gene Tierney vs. Judy Garland
Bette Davis vs. Lucille Ball

1950s (
Grace Kelly vs. Debbie Reynolds
Elizabeth Taylor vs. Janet Leigh

1960s (
Jean Simmons vs. Ann-Margret
Catherine Deneuve vs. Natalie Wood

We look forward to your vote for Lombard!

Link  Leave a comment

Edit   Tags   Add to memories   Share   Track

Posted March 25, 2012 by vp19 in Uncategorized

Party with Carole, Marlene, Lili and Errol   Leave a comment

Posted by [info]vp19 on 2012.03.25 at 09:59

Current mood: accomplishedaccomplished

Many of you may understandably be tiring of our coverage of the 2012 Favorite Classic Movie Actress Tourney (and Carole Lombard’s participation in it), but we aren’t ignoring other topics — memorabilia, for instance. Here’s a photo we’ve run before, but never at such outstanding size and clarity:

That’s a shot from Lombard’s famous June 1935 party on the Venice Pier, and she’s flanked by Paramount cohort Marlene Dietrich, actress Lili Damita and her husband of about a month, Errol Flynn, a newcomer at Warners. This was the party where Dietrich bruised her legs on the rides after deciding not to wear her usual trousers (

Moreover, the photo is not only an original, but features a snipe on the back:

Note Damita’s first name is spelled “Lily,” even though she had made several films at Paramount (including Cary Grant’s movie debut in 1932, “This Is The Night”).

You can buy this photo straight up for $349.95, or place a bid beginning at $299.95. Bids end at 10:30 p.m. (Eastern) Saturday. If you’re interested, visit

Link  Leave a comment

Edit   Tags   Add to memories   Share   Track

Posted March 25, 2012 by vp19 in Uncategorized