With all due respect, Ikpo90, I think you let the fact that there always was racism in this country and racism in Hollywood color your thinking (if you'll pardon the expression), and you miss a great deal of cinematic forest for the sake of sociological trees. Monday morning quarterbacking when viewing films from another era should be indulged in very carefully. As a film historian, I would like to point out a few salient facts you seem to have ignored, if in fact you've considered them at all.
1. THE BAND WAGON is a musical comedy; it's not BIRTH OF A NATION.
2. The star of THE BAND WAGON is Fred Astaire, not Leroy Daniels.
3. The central character in the story is Tony Hunter, not the Times Square shoeshine guy.
4. Wherever Mr. Minnelli, a master of the craft, is pointing his camera at any given moment in this number, it is intended to serve the purpose of telling the BAND WAGON story in general and creating an uplifting, joy-filled musical comedy number in particular. If there are moments when the camera is paying more attention to Astaire than to Daniels, it is not intended to downplay Daniels, it is simply to keep the focus where it rightly belongs in this number. (There is even a moment where you can't see Astaire's feet while he's dancing, either. Was this more "racism"?)
5. The fact that Daniels doesn't get screen credit means nothing, racially speaking. On virtually every Hollywood film of the classic period, there are any number of talented players of every conceivable race who don't happen to get a screen credit. (Unlike today, where there are ten minutes of credits tacked on to the end of every movie and we learn the names of every single player, plus the body double, the accountant, and the caterer.)
Minnelli discovered Daniels plying his trade at a shoestand, was impressed by his special moves, and decided, in Liza Minnelli's words, "to build the scene around him." As she points out, the whole number works because Astaire has Daniels' character to sing to, and to cheer up -- thus cheering up himself in the process. To have plucked Daniels off the streets of obscurity, and then to showcase him dancing toe to toe with Hollywood's greatest male dancer, in Technicolor on the big screen, strikes me as an act of great respect, bringing honor and glory and cinematic immortality to Mr. Daniels. By all reports, he was happy to bask in the memory for the rest of his life, (and he decorated his shoe stand with stills of that number).
A little perspective, folks -- please.
Sincerely,
Preston Neal Jones
reply
share
lkpo90
16 years ago
You know, this isn't really helpful, and the fact that a nerve was touched would indicate that I may have picked at a scab here. You can call it what you want, but when an entire dance number (not merely a 'moment') fails to show the feet of one of the two dancers in it (especially since Astaire isn't really 'dancing' in that chair), while Daniels *is* actually dancing, it's either bad cinematography or --I'll spare you the 'racism' term-- overlooking someone. So then I asked why he was overlooked? That is the topic, not whether he was overlooked. Was it racism? I don't know-- that's why I ask the question. I do know that it is bad cinematograpy no matter how you slice it, and to sacrifice good cinematography, there must be a reason-- some reason. I'll leave you, gentle reader-historian, to ponder that question and the possible answers for yourself.
You may wish to read a bit of film history on Lena Horne-- just for a little additional 'perspective'.
reply
share
iamweaver
15 years ago
I have a better recommendation for you. Watch the movie in its original format to determine whether the feet are mostly missing or not.
When movies are "edited for TV", among other things, they are referring to the way that the 4:3 image that fits your TV is cut from the original movie. It's a pretty neat process, as the 4:3 "window" is slid around the original film to focus on whatever seems important to the TV editor. In the case of movies like this, a focus on the main character means you lose the feet of the ancillary character.
There are worse things, certainly. Sometimes, the "window" isn't big enough to capture the faces of two characters conversing on the big screen, so the image has to switch between them, and we lose all of the silent character's reactions. Or perhaps the editor chooses to focus mainly on one of the characters through both speaking and listening.
In any case, your question is easily answered if you ever get to see the whole thing, that often (but not constantly) shows both partners.
This comes as no surprise.
Fred Astaire was never fond of cinematography that did not constantly capture the full bodies of both dancers, and he often had a say in how the films were made.
reply
share
lkpo90
15 years ago
Thank you so much. this is not only the best response i've gotten to this posting, but it's also the only one that even attempted to adequately address the issue. (it was getting to the point that i dreaded seeing this posting in my inbox...ablaze with flames...)
i had not thought of (or knowm about) this about the tv format, nor about astair and his insistence on the full body views.
i hope i do get to see the original movie- if i get it on dvd, do you think that would solve the problem, or would it be back to the same editing? will i need to see it in an arthouse cinema, e.g., in order to get the full original that minelli shot?
regards
c
reply
share
iamweaver
15 years ago
I just rewatched the remastered DVD this afternoon, and I have to admit, I can't remember now just how much was visible in the original version. But on the DVD, I did notice that many (but not all) of the scenes that just show Mr. Daniels from the knees up seem to be scenes where he's standing fairly still, and his upper body is doing its magic.
It might by that my memories are simply incorrect, and that we don't really see him full-view until he and Fred Astaire start dancing together (or the one scene where we see his feet, then move back up to focus on Fred Astaire, then back down briefly).
Nonetheless, I think the main question of yours is still a good one. For someone with a reasonably prominent role, the lack of credit seems vaguely disappointing, though Eva Gardner wasn't credited either :). My completely clueless guess would be that it's a combination of showing only major parts/known actors in the credits, combined with a bit of prejudice.
The only comparison that comes to mind is Cyd Charisse's role in "An American in Paris". She was credited there - but she wasn't a complete unknown.
reply
share
cameo-kirby
15 years ago
pnealjones you summed it up beautifully.
reply
share
Eightythreeyearoldguy
14 years ago
I showed it to my movie group Friday, and fail to see what the fuss is all about. Both Daniels' and Astaire's feet were shown...not all through the sequence, but definitely when the foot action rather than body motion was important.
I'm the kind of guy, when I move - watch my smoke. But I'm gonna need some good clothes though.
reply
share