Omar Sharif Top Ten

 (I recognise this article is very English language focused)

1) Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

2) Dr Zhivago (1965) 

3) Genghis Khan (1965) - no kidding! Surprisingly good.

4)  Top Secret! (1984) - small role but he's very funny.

5) The Tamarind Seed (1974) - decent thriller. 

6) The Burglars (1971) - excellent as a villain in this Belmondo movie. 

7) Funny Girl (1968) - his third hit.

 8) The Last Valley (1971)

9) Mackenna's Gold (1969) - not a good film but he's strong. 

10) Oh! Heavenly Dog (1980) - look, I remember this fondly. 

Richard Burton shag list

 I’ve been listening to the TCM podcast on the making of Cleopatra (1963) where there’s the claim Richard Burton, up to the making of that film, slept with all of his leading ladies except Julie Andrews. As I’m currently watching Cleopatra and it’s four hours long (it has some great stuff in it) I thought I would fact check this. 

Unless specified it’s a movie...

* Last Days of Dolwyn - mostly male cast
* Waterfront (1950) - with Susan Shaw... yes they would’ve done it, she was wild
* The Woman with No Name (1950) - can’t imagine anything happened with no nonsense Phyllis Calvert but second female lead Helen Cherry was married to boozer Trevor Howard and might have liked a crack at Burton
* The Lady’s Not for Burning (1950) - Broadway play with Pamela Brown... yeah I reckon that happened
* Legend of Lovers (1951) - Broadway play with Dorothy McGuire... I doubt this one but you never know
* Green Grow the Rushes (1951) with Honor Blackman - honestly couldn’t say
* My Cousin Rachel (1952) with Olivia de Havilland... maybe, she could be a little minxy (had a hot fling with John Huston).. maybe something happened with Audrey Dalton who was also in it
* The Robe (1953) - Jean Simmons was in this and she was prone to flings with co stars even when married (she was with Stewart Granger at this time) so yeah I reckon that happened
* The Desert Rats (1953) - all male cast but both Burton and Robert Newton were notorious drinkers so anything is possible
* Prince of Players (1955) with Maggie McNamara - a possibility
* Rains of Ranchipur (1955) with Lana Turner - this would’ve happened 
* Alexander the Great (1956) with Clair Bloom, who he did have an affair with
* Sea Wife (1957) with Joan Collins... what do you reckon? Of course they did
* Bitter Victory (1957) with Ruth Roman... maybe
* Time Remembered (1957) - Broadway show - he did have affair with Susan Strasberg
* Look Back in Anger (1959) - he definitely had an affair with Claire Bloom
* Ice Palace (1960) - with Carolyn Jones, Martha Hyer, Shirley Knight... he would’ve had one of those

* The Bramble Bush (1960) - with Angie Dickinson... yeah I reckon that happened
* Camelot with Julie Andrews - didn’t happen

Movie review - "Mary Poppins" (1964) ***

 Catchy tunes. Beautifully cast star. Dick Van Dyke gives it all. Not a lot of story but it touches on important themes. Garish backlot. Great stomping and dancing. Goes a long time. Defies criticism really.

Book review - "Ernest Lehman: The Sweet Smell of Success" by John Krampner

 Excellent book. Looks at the short stories, novels, different drafts of scripts. Compares how he improved apparently easy jobs eg West Side Story, Sound of Music. Retrieves Lehman's contribution to Virginia Woolf from the cult of Mike Nichols and to West Side Story from the cult of Arthur Laurents and Steven Sondheim.

Affectionate towards Lehman to a degree but also exasperated. Hypochondriac, night owl, distant father, workaholic, loving husband but not around, tolerant of wife's long affair, devoted carer towards end, became a dad in his eighties, super talented, decent supervisory producer but bad hands on one, terrible director. Skill as novelist left him in 70s apparently, though could still write good essays. Probably retired at right time, I can imagine him getting kicked off Mission Impossible. Fitted in well at classy studios like MGM and Paramount and Fox. Mate of David Brown's. Should have written another original. Should have teamed more with Robert Wise, they collaborated so well together.

Really good work.

Movie review - "Hawaii" (1966) ***

 Not sure if people think of this film at all nowadays - it was a big deal once, and a sizeable hit - but I'd just been to Hawaii so was keen to check it out. It's a smart movie, one for adults... the "hero" Max Von Sydow isn't likeable at all, he's driven, pompous, racist, principled, brave. Julie Andrews is in there for the likeability factor. She doesn't do much except be nice but you need that character.

Richard Harris pops in as Andrews' ex, a manly whale captain, who is horrible too, overruling the islanders so his men can sleep with the women. But you need characters like him too, who add dash and verve.

Jocelyne LaGarde is very good as the local queen. 

There's "epic" action sequences like storms, a few storms. It's stylishly done. I think George Roy Hill did a good job.

Movie review - "The Tamarind Seed" (1974) ***

 Julie Andrews goes back into spy territory, as a British secretary romancing a Russian diplomat Omar Sharif. They're not a bad team. I bit weird. Andrews is so sensible and mannered as usual but she is a star and she suits the character - as a sensible woman with a taste for running off with married men. Andrews is recovering from one affair, and starts another. Sharif plays his role like a Latin lover but that suits him.

The film has pleasures. John Barry's lush score, Maurice Binder's credits, both James Bond like. Smart characters. Excellent support cast - Sylvia Syms is superb as the wife of gay spy Dan O'Herlihy, Syms is shagging Bryan Marshall who works for Anthony Quayle, who is also excellent as a head spy. Russian spies include Oscar Homolka and Kate O'Mara (office girl). I like how it was set in Barbados. There's a shoot out at the end.

I enjoyed this a lot more than I thought I would. 

Movie review - "Minions: Rise of Gru" (2022) ***

 Big, loud, colorful. I enjoyed the 70s jokes - disco and what not. The plot involves a chase for a Thing. I zoned out in the last third - some were on their way to San Fransisco, others went somewhere else. It was enjoyable.  The vocal work from Jean Claude Van Damme, Dolph Lundgren and Danny Trejo felt wasted, ditto Alan Arkin's Wild Knuckles character. Julie Andrews does a voice! Still, it was fine.

Book review - "Homework: A Memoir of My Hollywood Years" by Julie Andrews (2019)

No one denies Andrews' status as a Hollywood icon but what should be a fascinating book - a look at the peak of her Hollywood career, from Mary Poppins through to That's Life! - is a hard slog. It covers what should be interesting stuff - the making of Darling Lili, for instance - and manages to make it dull.

I think it was the logistics. There's so much logistics - all her kids, and step kids, and ex, and family, and Blake Edwards' family - and dealing with homes in Switzerland, and Malibu and going on tour. She didn't make that many movies in the 70s but she seems to be always on the move, making TV specials or following Blake Edwards around or performing in concerts. She's forever worried about the kids education or what the kids are up to. It's a wearying book to read.

Andrews doesn't seem like the brightest tool in the shed though her heart is in the right place (she did a lot of charity work for Vietnamese/Cambodian orphans). She seems a fairly uncomplicated person - I could be wrong about this, but her world view seems narrow: she's spent most of her life working and performing and when she made enough to not work as hard she got drawn into this life of domestic minutae.

The book is invaluable however as a portrait of Blake Edwards - charming, charismatic, talented, self centered, selfish, adulterous (it's implied... Andrews only talks of a flirtation with Peter Sellers' wife but then admits Edwards wrote all those scripts about middle aged men tempted into adulterly), manipulative, controlling, drug addicted, boozy, manic depressive. He has a gall bladder attack than turns out to be nothing when Andrews' mother is dying meaning Andrews couldn't be with her - that sort of thing.

Andrews has done a lot of psycho analysis (she meets Edwards by sharing the same analyst) but it doesn't seem to have given her a lot of particular insight - I get the impression she just liked talking about herself (I could be wrong). She talks about her shrink giving her geography lessons and what not to make up for her lack of education - that's a tutor's job! Julie the guy was ripping you off. But then I think Andrews was one of those performers who are susceptible to people pushing her around - which is why she lasted so long with Blake Edwards.

Andrews encounters with famous people are remarkably un-notable - James Garner was nice, Omar Sharif was nice, Paul Newman was nice, Chris Plummer was nice. Rex Harrison was impatient - that's about as juicy as this gets. The one surprise was that she was good mates with Carol Burnett - they should have made a movie together.

Worth readings if you are an Andrews fanatic and/or interested in Blake Edwards.

Aside: I always figured Andrews sabotaged her career in the late 60s with her choices (Star, Darling Lili)... but when you think about it what other musicals could she have been in? Camelot I guess but... Chitty Chitty Bang Bang? Bedknobs and Broomsticks? She would have been tricky to cast in the 70s.

Book review - "Roadshow! The Fall of Film Musicals in the 1960s" by Matthew Kennedy (2014)

Very good look at the explosions in big budget musicals that followed the success of Sound of Music. The big ones get their own chapter - there were genuine successes like Thoroughly Modern Millie, Oliver! Funny Girl, Fiddler on the Roof, Jesus Christ Superstar and Cabaret; half successes like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and On a Clear Day You Can See Forever; films that were okay but lost huge amounts of money: Half a Sixpence,  Camelot, Dr Doolittle, Hello Dolly; films few people remember, like Song of Norway, The Happiest Millionaire, The Great Waltz or Goodbye Mr Chips; surprise flops like Sweet Charity; legendary money losers like Paint Your Wagon, Star!, Man of La Mancha and Darling Lili; surprisingly profitable enterprises like Finian's Rainbow and Son of Norway.

My take out from reading this book:

*Musicals have never stopped being popular. They've never stopped being popular on Broadway and came back in a big way in the animated world. Many of the notorious flops in the book were among the years biggest films eg Camelot. But...

*Musicals need to be made for a price. It's astonishing how needlessly expensive many of these films were. Camelot is basically three people in a castle. Darling Lili is two people, one of whom performs occasionally in a music hall. Goodbye Mr Chips is about a man who teaches at school. But they cost too much money to ever have a real chance of being profitable. Sometimes the film's over production made it less enjoyable eg Hello Dolly, Paint Your Wagon. Part of this is because musicians and technicians used to be under contract and now they aren't... but I think also these filmmakers got panicky and threw money at problems, hoping spectacle would save them.

*Musicals need to be cast well. I don't want to be wise after the event - but the leads of musicals should be able to sing, and suit the parts. Audiences don't mind if they're not film stars - look at the acceptance of Ted Neely, Topol, Mark Lester. Absolutely it won't always work - the public didn't go to see Robert Morse reprise his role in How to Succeed in Business without Really Trying, for instance. But if you can't get a movie star who suits the part, then cast the Broadway star. There were so many better suited Hollys than Barbra Streisand; the leads in Paint Your Wagon were ridiculous, ditto Redgrave and Franco Nero in Camelot and Man of La Mancha.

*What was really killed in the late 60s was the teen musical - the unpretentious programmer, like the Donald O'Connor musicals of the 40s for Universal, or Elvis' musicals, or the Beach Party films. These seemed to dry up despite the glorious music of the time - even in the early 1960s Hollywood studios would sign up teen idols but this seemed to stop. In particular I can't believe there weren't more blaxploitation musicals.

*These roadshows I feel definitely scared off big screen adaptations that should have happened by now. I get why no one's tried to film Oh Calcutta! But it's a shame there hasn't been films of Wicked, 42nd Street (the newer version), The Book of Mormon, Avenue Q, La Cage Aux Folles, Spamalot, Matilda, Promises Promises, They're Playing Our Song, Into the Heights.

An entertaining book, full of fun anecdotes and interesting analysis.

Movie review - "Darling Lili" (1970) ** (warning: spoilers)

Every now and then Julie Andrews tried to "shake up her image" - she did it in her second film, The Americanisation of Emily, then in Torn Curtain, then here, then in The Tamarind Seed, then SOB. Never did anyone particularly care - while she's a perfect singing nanny, she's not remotely interesting as a sexy seductress. Here she does a strip tease (down to her underwear only, admittedly), is a spy for the Germans in World War One, seduces Rock Hudson, kisses him naked while in the shower... but she's still just good old Julie Andrews.

It's a tribute to the filmmakers that this cost so much money. There are some snazzy enough production numbers but not like teams of extras - some songs in a tavern, and a music hall (the old WWI songs are sung beautifully by Julie A, incidentally). There are some airplane stunts, which are impressive enough (b-plane action) but mostly dogfights between one or two planes - nothing on the scope of Hell's Angels or something like that. (And the plane stuff could have even be cut out, too - the movie could have worked set all indoors. Which is why it's hard to believe director Blake Edwards' claim that the movie cost an extra $5 million due to bad Irish weather.)

It's not a particularly interesting story. The set up is okay, kind of like Ninotchka - a German spy is turned via love for an Allied person she sets out to seduce, in this case Rock Hudson. Hudson is dashing and handsome enough. But Lili isn't much of a character - in Ninotchka Garbo's character was clear, she was dour and  humourless and loved communism, until converted via love and champagne to the delights of capitalism. Here Andrews' Lili is a feisty singer and super spy who works for the Germans because... um... anyway, she does, and she falls for Hudson because, um, I guess he's hot, and it's love (they have okay chemistry but not treacherous-inducing, I would have thought), so she changes sides, and gets jealous at the thought of him with someone else.

This isn't offensively bad or anything, I urge all Julie Andrews fans to see it, they'll get a lot out of it - it's just not particularly well done. There are some good things like the production design, and a strong support cast of character actors, plus pleasing photography.

Movie review - "The Sound of Music" (1965) ****

What's there left to say about this movie? It is superbly made, with gorgeous scenery, perhaps the most perfectly cast star in the world in Julie Andrews, catchy tunes, and a book that incorporates schmaltz with a deadly serious subtext. It completely defies criticism.

The decision to film most of it on location was the right one, resulting in some stunning looks of snow capped mountains, beautiful lakes, green fields and old houses. Andrews is perfect, and Christopher Plummer fine - awkward, but it works for the role; I never really believed he genuinely fell in love with Andrews, or she him - I think she read a lot of books and got caught up in the romance, and he figured this would be a good way to make sure his kids were always looked after... although that reading of it works for the movie too.

The kids aren't terribly memorable - Charmian Carr is really pretty and I'm surprised she didn't have more of a career, if only as the sexy bird in some 60s spy films (she got married and quit acting); Kym Karath does the cute thing and everyone looks their parts but I got the impression only Carr and Peggy Cartwright could act (look at their reactions in the different scenes).

Richard Haydn and Eleanor Parker's scenes feel like they're in a different movie, a Noel Coward thing, which is the point, I guess; and everything the nuns do is great. Who can resist that finale where the nuns have nobbled the cars?

I always forget re-watching this too that the last third or so of the movie (after the wedding) pretty much completely sidelines Andrews and becomes Plummer's story. You could be generous and say it's the family's story but he's the one who gets all the close ups.

A final note of appreciation for Ernest Lehman's script -screenplays for musicals are never that highly regarded, but he did an excellent job of condensing and emphasising drama, and also helping choreograph the songs.

Book review - "Paul Newman" by Shawn Levy

Was there a luckier film star than Paul Newman? Born to a reasonably well off family in Cleveland (dad ran a successful sports store); he was genetically blessed with his looks and metabolism; he kept all his hair whereas other males in his family went bald; dad was a bit distant but taught him a good work ethic, joined the navy during the war but didn't really see hard service (he was on a crew to a pilot who got an earache one day meaning Newman missed a devastating kamikaze attack) and meant he could afford to attend college where he developed an interest in acting; he arrived in New York in 1952 just as live TV was booming and Broadway was peaking, so there was plenty of work around... and within two years was starring in a Hollywood blockbuster; he was a good looking masculine guy at a time when Hollywood was looking for such actors (the established Hollywood stars were aging and the studios weren't developing talent the same way); he inherited several roles meant for James Dean; he met and married his soulmate, who happened to be one of the most talented actresses of her generation; his passion for making tomato sauce led to a multi million dollar business; a passion for alcohol and partying (he's an alcoholic basically, which was news to me) was always managed to be kept under control.

There was tragedy and loss along the way - he had to leave his wife and kids to marry that soulmate, Joanne Woodward; a son died of a drug overdose; he cheated in the early 70s (I had no idea of this). But on the whole it was a remarkable run of luck. To his credit, Newman's always acknowledged this, working very hard, consistently seeking out the best material (support actors, writers, directors), always pushing himself into new areas (directing, producing, racing), returning to the stage as often as possible, being politically involved, having a sense of humour about himself, getting heavily involved in charity (he gives away a lot), trying to keep the size of his head under control, working at his craft.

As a result he enjoyed a remarkable career and remained one of the most highly regarded, loved and respected stars of all time. He took so many chances and risks - I'd forgotten just how many flops he'd made - but he always manged to come up with a hit in time to maintain his fame.

Levy has done an excellent job of research and writing, full of top notch analysis of Newman's performances and persona in particular. However as the book went on something kept nagging at me and eventually I figured out what it was: I found Newman, for all his fine qualities, irritating. The beer, the boorishness, the practical jokes and hamburgers and being a regular guy and into the Actors Studio. Sometimes his performances grate on me too with their 60s knowingness. Maybe I'm simply just not a fan. Not Levy's fault's he's done a great job, just how I feel.

Movie review – “Torn Curtain” (1966) **1/2

No one really gets excited about Hitchcock’s last four features, except maybe for the odd sequence. This was popular at the box office when it came out but it is not remembered well. On one level, it’s actually not bad film, plenty of twists and turns. The leads are miscast – Paul Newman is too American and Julie Andrews especially is wrong, wrong, wrong. Opening the film with Grace Kelly in a sex scene is exciting; Julie Andrews is just… yeah, well, Julie Andrews. Newman is a bit better but the role really required someone a bit more tormented eg Cary Grant. He’s not helped by the fact it takes 40 minutes to reveal that he’s actually a goodie – and Andrews doesn’t find out for an hour (she sulks until then). So the first bit if the movie is a bit dour and flat with Andrews feeling that Newman has let her down (like an impatient schoolmistress).

Occasionally the piece really perks to life – the murder sequence is justifiable famous (excellent work from the supporting actors), the scenes with the fellow agents are good. The final half hour is an extended chase sequence – on bikes, a bus, with a countess, at the ballet. This is a bit too long and lacking in humour and romance.

Book review – “Mad as Hell: The Life and Work of Paddy Chayefsky” by Shaun Considine

Excellent bio on one of the few screenwriters who deserve on: Chayefsky, superstar on the small screen (he really was, TV writers got all the publicity at that time), who became a popular playwright in the late 50s and early 60s before falling out of favour, then coming back as a screenwriter-producer in the 70s. Considine’s work benefits from the extensive Chayefsky papers available as well as co-operation from Chayefsky’s son (with whom he had a difficult relationship). It uses as its central theme there were two Chayefskys: calm “Sidney” and the outrageous “Paddy”.

It’s no wonder Chayefsky was a hero to so many writers (Joe Eszterhas for one) – he was extremely talented, worked hard, fought lots of battles, was smart, earned the devotion of other writers, conquered three mediums (he also published a novel, an early draft of Altered States), had a long career, served in the war and received a purple heart, had an affair with Kim Novak, became powerful enough to sack directors from his films (Michael Ritchie from Hospital and Arthur Penn from Altered States), won three Oscars, had manic depression, told Clive Barnes to not review his new play. It seems he could be a bit of a handful at times (rampaging ego, etc) but the good clearly outweighed the bad.

Many memorable segments: his bromance with Bob Fosse and Herb Gardner (Fosse danced a little tap dance at Chayefsky’s funeral), the tale of Chayefksy’s tortured marriage (have a theory: sometimes writers prefer unhappy marriages, it gives them material). I think Chayefksy had issues when it came to sex – the Novak affair seems to have been the exception rather than the rule and sex is often dysfunctional in his screenplays.

There are detailed accounts of the production of all of Chayefsky’s major works, including all his plays and major screenplays. I was surprised Chayefsky wrote so many unfilmed pilots for television – what a waste. Also can’t help wishing that Sidney Lumet directed Altered States and that they’d made a film of The Hannukak Conspiracy. But a marvellous life and career.

Book review – “The Studio” by John Gregory Dunne

One of the best books ever written on Hollywood, a fly on the wall account of 20th Century Fox in 1968. At that time Fox was going through a “great romantic story” phase – the studio almost went under due to Cleopatra, but then Zanuck came back and turned it around with The Sound of Music. This, however, turned out to probably hurt the studio in the long run: they greenlighted a rash of expensive musicals, such as Dr Doolittle, Star and Hello Dolly (an original one, Tom Swift, was in planning), which almost drove the studio bankrupt again and saw the Zanucks kicked out, for good this time. 

Nonetheless, I think the Zanuck II regime was a pretty good one – anyone would have greenlighted those movies, and they picked some left-field winners, like Planet of the Apes and Patton. (David Brown, Dick Zanuck’s offsider, always thought it wasn’t the musicals which killed him and Dick Zanuck at Fox – it was a trilogy of “dirty” movies: Myra Breckinridge, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls and Portnoy’s Complaint.) 

So Dunne’s account makes an engrossing reading – it was more dramatic a year or two later but he probably wouldn’t have gotten the access then. He focuses on sections – the marketing of Dr Doolittle, filming Star, pre production on Hello Dolly, shooting The Sweet Ride, activities at the acting school, Irwin Allen shooting a TV series. Dunne is a little unfair I think on producers – he pokes gentle fun at Paul Monash and Ernest Lehmann, focusing on their little egotisms. Monash I don’t know about but surely Lehmann deserved more respect. But an excellent book overall.

Documentary review - "Broadway: the American Musical" (2004)

This six part doco starts with Julie Andrews walking to the camera and saying "Hello, I'm Julie Andrews". And you just want to say "of course you are". Who is going to watch this who doesn't know who Julie Andrews is? This is a highly entertaining doco, not in the class of a, say, Ken Burns, but still very good, which plenty of vision to satisfy musical fans, especially post-WW2. We see early TV performances of On the Town, South Pacific, etc - my favourite bit is seeing a bit where Rex Harrison throws a tantrum. It concentrates on the hits and big composers - looking at a few flops might have been fun, too. The final section concentrates on The Producers and Wicked, shows which indicated there is a lot of life in Broadway musicals, yet.

Movie review - "The Americanisation of Emily" (1964) ****

Biting satirical comedy, very 60s in the best sense, about a self confessed coward (James Garner) who desperately seeks to avoid battle duty during D Day. Although based on a novel by someone else, the dialogue bears the unmistakable imprint of Paddy Chayevsky, particularly the soaring monologues which are often very funny.

Julie Andrews is wonderful as Garner’s prim and proper lover, as are James Coburn and Melvyn Douglas. Garner always seems a little odd in his film roles – too tall and square headed or something – but he is good, too. The D Day landing scene is very suspenseful. Is it a cop out for Garner to seem to die then to come back at the end? I still can’t make up my mind – it does feel to be a little cop out but it was 1964 and not 1969.