अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंStory of a Hollywood studio during the transition from silents to talkies.Story of a Hollywood studio during the transition from silents to talkies.Story of a Hollywood studio during the transition from silents to talkies.
Johnnie Morris
- Weiskopf
- (as Johnny Morris)
Walter Brennan
- Lighting Technician
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Ralph Brooks
- Studio Actor
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Edith Fellows
- Flower Girl in Movie Wedding Scene
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
Leyland Hodgson
- Reporter
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
कहानी
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाAline MacMahon created the role of May Daniels in the first tryout of the play. (Source: Moss Hart's autobiography 'Act One'.)
- भाव
Herman Gloguaer: What did they have to go and make pictures talk for? Things were going along fine. You couldn't stop making money - even if you turned out a good picture you made money.
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटThe opening credits are followed by a written message from producer Carl Laemmle saying critics had questioned whether he would use the material that "so mercilessly and so hilariously poked fun at Hollywood and its motion picture people." But, he says, laughter is needed "in times like these."
- कनेक्शनReferenced in The Flash: Be My Baby (1991)
फीचर्ड रिव्यू
Considering that it was 1932 and America was in the grip of the Great Depression, "Once in a Lifetime" just may well have been some medicine to lighten the worries of moviegoers. The then head of Universal Studios, Carl Laemmle Jr., hyped the film on that basis in a prologue that runs after the credits and before the opening scene. Laemmle says it was a daring thing to bring a hit Broadway play into a film that poked fun at Hollywood and its people so much. He said it was too funny in the eyes of the critics who thought "it would make the world laugh at us." Laemmle says, "So I decided that if I could make the world laugh in times like these, it would be a great thing to do. I now leave it for you to judge whether I have spared the movies in translating the great stage success to the screen."
Well, the U. S. box office receipts of the top 200 films in 1932 ranged from $7.8 million to $200,000, and this film didn't even make that list. So, Laemmle's hopes for lots of laughs (and a sizable profit, one can bet he was hoping for) didn't happen. This wasn't the first time, and wouldn't be the last, when a highly successful stage production bombs as a movie. And there have been some situations in which shows that were weak or mediocre on the stage, made great and successful films. In most of those situations, of both kinds, the screenplays had to be changed considerably from the stage versions.
It seems to me that there's always one thing that producers have to be especially right about. And that's audiences. There is a significant difference in audiences of Broadway shows and those who fill cinema theaters around the country. The latter includes people of all ages, all interests, all levels of education, all regions, and all income brackets. While some people of the various levels and backgrounds may attend occasional Broadway shows, the vast majority of Broadway clients are mostly affluent, white collar, college graduates, and people who work in skyscrapers. The bottom ticket price for the cheap seats of a Broadway show is at least twice the price of the average movie ticket. And better Broadway seats run, three, four and many times higher.
So, while "Once in a Lifetime" may have had the Broadway audiences laughing at the satire and farce, the movie version seems to have gone over like a lead balloon. The movie audiences didn't find the constant silliness and overly exaggerated characters, acting and situations funny. Nor is it very funny well into the 21st century, There is some witty dialog in the film, but not much. There are quite a few wisecracks, but they just don't seem funny today. And, the deliberate overacting and exaggeration seems worn out and dull in modern times.
Where Laemmle calls it poking fun at Hollywood, I think it's mostly mockery. That's a notch above, or worse than poking and jabbing. It is real ridicule. And I saw something else here that's distasteful if not downright prejudiced or insulting. That was in the character of Herman Glogauer, the head of the studio. Gregory Ratoff plays the movie mogul who speaks broken English. Many of the top studio executives of those early years were immigrants or sons of immigrants, and some spoke poor English. Other things, like the making of a star out of a girl with no talent, of staff not able to see the studio heads, and bad films getting the praise of the critics are exaggerated but not far off the mark. The trouble is, most of this acting just isn't funny in the 21st century. It's very dated to the time and place.
Most of the great comedies made during Hollywood's golden age were obviously in settings of the time. But the situations and dialog of the plots were not tied to the specific time and place. They could just as easily be in another place and time, and still be funny to audiences decades later.
I think the cast mostly did a good job with the material and plot they had. But the screenplay could have been much funnier if written subtly rather than flamboyantly. The cast earns the film five stars.
Here are the lines I think come closest to comedy.
Jerry Hyland, "Hey, May, what's a four-letter word for actor?" May Daniels, "Dope."
Mr. Walker, "We're getting out of this orange-flavored, sun-struck, flea-bitten country on the 4:30 train."
Mr. Walker, "And for six weeks I've been listening to that girl groan and grunt and yodel, and she still can't' act."
Well, the U. S. box office receipts of the top 200 films in 1932 ranged from $7.8 million to $200,000, and this film didn't even make that list. So, Laemmle's hopes for lots of laughs (and a sizable profit, one can bet he was hoping for) didn't happen. This wasn't the first time, and wouldn't be the last, when a highly successful stage production bombs as a movie. And there have been some situations in which shows that were weak or mediocre on the stage, made great and successful films. In most of those situations, of both kinds, the screenplays had to be changed considerably from the stage versions.
It seems to me that there's always one thing that producers have to be especially right about. And that's audiences. There is a significant difference in audiences of Broadway shows and those who fill cinema theaters around the country. The latter includes people of all ages, all interests, all levels of education, all regions, and all income brackets. While some people of the various levels and backgrounds may attend occasional Broadway shows, the vast majority of Broadway clients are mostly affluent, white collar, college graduates, and people who work in skyscrapers. The bottom ticket price for the cheap seats of a Broadway show is at least twice the price of the average movie ticket. And better Broadway seats run, three, four and many times higher.
So, while "Once in a Lifetime" may have had the Broadway audiences laughing at the satire and farce, the movie version seems to have gone over like a lead balloon. The movie audiences didn't find the constant silliness and overly exaggerated characters, acting and situations funny. Nor is it very funny well into the 21st century, There is some witty dialog in the film, but not much. There are quite a few wisecracks, but they just don't seem funny today. And, the deliberate overacting and exaggeration seems worn out and dull in modern times.
Where Laemmle calls it poking fun at Hollywood, I think it's mostly mockery. That's a notch above, or worse than poking and jabbing. It is real ridicule. And I saw something else here that's distasteful if not downright prejudiced or insulting. That was in the character of Herman Glogauer, the head of the studio. Gregory Ratoff plays the movie mogul who speaks broken English. Many of the top studio executives of those early years were immigrants or sons of immigrants, and some spoke poor English. Other things, like the making of a star out of a girl with no talent, of staff not able to see the studio heads, and bad films getting the praise of the critics are exaggerated but not far off the mark. The trouble is, most of this acting just isn't funny in the 21st century. It's very dated to the time and place.
Most of the great comedies made during Hollywood's golden age were obviously in settings of the time. But the situations and dialog of the plots were not tied to the specific time and place. They could just as easily be in another place and time, and still be funny to audiences decades later.
I think the cast mostly did a good job with the material and plot they had. But the screenplay could have been much funnier if written subtly rather than flamboyantly. The cast earns the film five stars.
Here are the lines I think come closest to comedy.
Jerry Hyland, "Hey, May, what's a four-letter word for actor?" May Daniels, "Dope."
Mr. Walker, "We're getting out of this orange-flavored, sun-struck, flea-bitten country on the 4:30 train."
Mr. Walker, "And for six weeks I've been listening to that girl groan and grunt and yodel, and she still can't' act."
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 31 मिनट
- रंग
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.37 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें