MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > The Internet Movie Database...Of 1969

The Internet Movie Database...Of 1969

posted 20 days ago by roger1 (4046)
7 replies | jump to latest

Another one for my "nostalgia history tour" (and not OT):

I was reading some article the other day about "moving men"(er moving PERSONS?) and it was noted that the items that are MOST moved in the MOST volume are...books.

I can attest to a few moves with quite a few boxes of books making the move. I recall saying to one moving man the following:

Me: I'm sorry about all the books.
Him: Well...as long as you READ them.

Well, I do. I tend to pull favorite books out from time to time to RE-read them, and it pleasureable.

I've grabbed some books out of the bookcase HERE to quote them for posts.

I've lost or sold a lot of books over the years, but some "golden oldies" of my book life have managed to follow me pretty much everywhere, over a lot of years.

Two of them were seminal Hitchcock books, of course.

I've never been sure EXACTLY when "Hitchocck/Truffaut" was for sale in America. The main interview of the book was done in 1962 over only a couple of days. Hitchcock let Truffaut watch a rough cut of The Birds(not yet released.) And yet the book also has Truffaut discussing Marnie and Torn Curtain with Hitch -- these must have been "quickie phone interviews" in adavnce of the book's publication.

I first thumbed through Hitchocck/Truffaut in a book store in 1968. Psycho was forbidden but the still frames of the murders were enough for me to "break through" and "see what was not to be seen" and..those frames scared me. I sort of think those pages were the FINAL time movies would ever really scare me in my entire life. I grew up rather quickly to movie scares and violence. The Exorcist didn't scare me. Jaws didn't scare me. Alien didn't scare me. Psycho ITSELF (when finally viewed) didn't scare me.

Hitchcock/Truffaut scared me.

I eventually got a copy of Hitchocck//Truffaut as a gift in 1970. The Psycho pages were rather like "horror I kept in my bookcase" -- like the book was "tainted with evil" or something.

I remember how the (flexible paperback) Hitchcock/Truffaut, had a very rich and potent SMELL to the pages (was it Proust who wrote that scent is the great memory inducing sense?) It wasn't a bad smell...rather sweet, like old mimograph sheets(remember the teens smelling their pages in Fast Times at Ridgemont High?) I think now that the potent scent was because the book had so many still frame photographs in it.

I still have that 1970 Hitchocck/Truffaut book, and I gave it a sniff for this post. Its very, very faint, but that sweet smell IS there, still.

Also in 1970, I got my first copy of Robin Wood's "Hitchcock's Films." THAT book of criticism, coupled with Hitchcock/Truffaut were THE key package of Hitchcock books to launch a lifetime's study. Wood studied all Hitchcock movies "once over lightly" and then "zeroed in" (with long chapters) on Strangers on a Train("The first Hitchocck film," wrote Wood "to which the term masterpiece can be reasonably applied"); Rear Window, Vertigo("One of the two or three greatest films ever made"), North by Northwest, Psycho("Perhaps the most terrifying film ever made"), The Birds...and Marnie and finally Torn Curtain. Wood saw the films from Vertigo through Marnie(Marnie?) to be "an unbroken series of masterpieces." Torn Curtain got its final chapter to suggest how the Hitchcock era was, alas, finally coming to an end.

But it was not only Hitchcock books that drove me in that youthful start of the "love of films."

I'm looking right now at another book. It was gifted to me by a close relative in 1969, and I still have it.

And this is the main thing I want to impart about this book: it is the IMDB of 1969. Certain key and historic movies are in that book with ALL the cast and crew listings one finds modernly by going on the internet. There was NO internet in 1969. If you wanted a reference book on movies, this was one of the best.

It is called: "The American Movies Reference Book: The Sound Era." Of interest, in 1969, is that the silent era (Chaplin, Keaton, Griffith, Pickford) was worthy enough of honor that this book had to SPECIFY it was only about sound films.

AMERICAN studio sound films. No foreign films (though I owned another book -- now lost -- with interviews with Bergman, Kurosawa and Fellini.)

I don't open up "The American Movies Reference Book" very often. I don't NEED it, what with the IMDB available. And I don't want the pages to fall out.

But I flipped through those pages -- very delicately -- for this post and some very fine memories came back.

For instance:

The book basically covers all American studio films of the 30s, the 40s, and the 50s. What is now called "The Golden Age." But THEN the book goes farther: it covers movies of the 60s right up THROUGH: 1967. That was a big year in American movies, of course -- the coming of the Eurofilm inspired New Hollywood. And this book JUST managed to cover it.

CONT

[–] roger1 (4046) 20 days ago

There are entries for: The Graduate. And Bonnie and Clyde. And (my favorite of 1967) Wait Until Dark.

And sometimes, in lists of the movies of movie stars, there are entries for "upcoming" 1968 films as provided to the editors.

For instance, here are the final four films listed in Martin Balsam's entry:

A Thousand Clowns 1965
After the Fox 1966
Hombre 1967
2001: A Space Odyssey 1968.

OOPS. Balsam recorded the dialogue for the computer HAL but was famously replaced with the voice of Douglas Rain..a more sensitive, "pretty" voice in certain ways.

The book has entries in these categories:

The History(A long introductory article across the decades)

And then the guts:

The Players(One entry per movie star AND character actor, with one photo from one of their films, and a list of all their film credits, rom Wallace Beery to William Bendix to Sonny Tufts to Eli Wallach; from Connie Gilchrist to Veronica Lake to Gloria Grahame to Natalie Wood.)

The Films (One entry from The Jazz Singer to The Wizard of Oz to Casablanca to From the Waterfront to Psycho to In the Heat of the Night; one photo from each film and EXACTLY the same coverage of cast and crew that you would find in a modern IMDb entry -- these facts were there from the beginning and captured for posterity.)

The Directors (From the Ford/Hawks/Hitchcock/Wilder/Welles/Huston crowd on to Preminger and John Sturges and John Frankenheimer, but NO entry for Kubrick or Nichols or Penn.)

CONT

[–] roger1 (4046) 20 days ago

The Producers; An interesting bunch --producers rarely get their own lists: for instance, Alan Pakula is listed as a Producer, not the director he became later. Hal Wallis -- a perfect producer example -- gets his own entry here. As does Joe Pasternak. As does Dore Schary. As does Walter Mirsch -- a MAJOR producer with the Mirsch Brothers. And Jerry Wald. And -- of course-- Hitchcock's mentor/nemesis David O. Selznick.

Hitchcock -- who NEVER took the "Produced and Directed by Alfred Hitchcock" credit even though he WAS his own producer from about Stage Fright on -- isn't on the producer list.)

The Awards: The Oscars(winners only) and also "Top Box Office pictures of the year, each year." Marnie did not make this list for 1964 -- but Torn Curtain made the list for 1966 -- which shows how Hitchcock kept his clout even if reviews weren't so good.

And by reading those lists, and looking at those photos, and "criss-crossing actors and movies and producers and directors" -- I was able to get a much greater sense of the movie decades before 1969 and -- selectively -- to use the book to help pick "what old movies i should see" (and back then the ONLY place to find them was on local TV channels -- the Late Show, The Fabulous 52 on Los Angeles TV, some "classic movie festivals" on some channels, etc. (Came the 70s, revival theaters and college screenings helped me catch up on other classics.)

---

There was a "method to the madness" of this book.

For instance, in the section on "The Films," not EVERY Alfred Hitchcock American film got an entry. Psycho got an entry. North by Northwest got an entry. Rear Window got an entry.

But Vertigo didn't get an entry. Why? I'll guess: not big enough box office. No Oscars. Not as famous as Psycho et al.

CONT

[–] roger1 (4046) 20 days ago

However, while Vertigo did NOT get into the "Films" section, it DID get into the "Players" section. The only photo allowed of Kim Novak for the "Kim Novak" entry in "The Players" is from Vertigo: James Stewart towering over the brunette Judy in her hotel room. So these editors were clever: "Oh, Vertigo doesn't make the cut for our Films section. Put a photo from Vertigo on the..on the...on the KIM NOVAK page."

Done.

Similarly: for the Alfred Hitchcock entry in "The Directors," the sole photo allowed was from..Saboteur. Because Saboteur didn't merit a separate entry in "The Films." Too low-star a cast, perhaps? Too "almost B"?

I'm looking at that Alfred Hitchcock entry. The final four films listed are:

Psycho 1960
The Birds 1963
Marnie 1964
Torn Curtain 1966

but whaddya know, SOMEBODY(me) has written these entries in "pen ink" (sometimes black, sometimes blue):

Topaz 1969
Frenzy 1972
Family Plot 1976

It takes a second to read those three titles and years -- it took me 7 years to write them in.

CONT

[–] roger1 (4046) 20 days ago

I always like this about the organization of this book and its "Film" section:

Psycho (1960) is preceded immediately by The Professionals(1966).

My favorite movie of 1960 is preceded immediately by my favorite movie of 1966. "Side by side." It didn't have to be that way. Some movie from the 30s, 40s, or 50s could have come before Psycho. But The Professionals made the alphabetical cut.

The two movies -- and their photos -- make for an interesting contrast. The Professionals --" a men on a mission Western adventure -- macho, macho men." Psycho -- "a small little black and white horror movie with mostly regular men and women in it." (All the photos in this book are in black and white however --even of Technicolor and Panavision movies like The Professionals.)

The photo from Psycho is: Anthony Perkins facing Janet Leigh on the porch in front of Cabin One. Perkins face is -- famously -- also reflected in the glass of the window(his split personality revealed.) This is a "staged production photo." Perkins doesn't have the tray of sandwiches and milk in his hands. It is such an "modest shot" -- though in the classic "production still tradition": our two stars --one male, one female, facing each other in a two-shot.

In 1969 when I got this book -- I had still not seen Psycho -- Norman facing Marion on the motel porch seemed to me "the gateway to a movie full of gory horror." It wasn't really that way in the movie -- but it would be gory ENOUGH and that photo held the usual "grip of Psycho on my mind" in that book at that time. Good thing those macho macho men(three of the four at least -- Burt Lancaster, Lee Marvin, Woody Strode -- no Robert Ryan- in their sole photo) from The Professionals were there to protect us from such horror,

CONT

[–] roger1 (4046) 20 days ago

Noteable: the solo photo allowed for North by Northwest was a truly impressive one, and a photo I"ve never seen before or since it landed in this book:

From a slightly higher angle than in the movie itself, up and off to the side: the photo captures Cary Grant "catching" the falling dead body of UN diplomat Lester Townsend. There is a crystal clarity to the photo, as if we are RIGHT THERE as the "catch" occurs .

Impressive: the shot captures, along with Grant and actor Phillip Ober as the victim -- the photographer who is coincidentally in the scene and about to "frame" Grant for murder with his camera by accident. (And Quentin Tarantino has no respect for this great plotting. Sheesh.)

Impressive: Cary Grant always approved ALL photos of himself in his movies and you can tell he picked this one:
In "mid-catch" his body is carefully poised between strength(catching the victim) and comedy(his posture and expression), his perfectly tailored "Greatest Suit in Film History" fits him perfectly -- even his SOCKS are visible and stylish.

Now. There WERE other photos from other movies in this book and I compare the "elegant polish" of that NXNW photo to THIS one:

On the Waterfront. The sole photo allowed shows Lee J. Cobb(overacting even in a still photo) pulling his shirt open to show Marlon Brando his throat -- was he slashed there? Strangled? I can't remember. In any event, the REAL joke here is..Brando , who , compared to Cary Grant in all his tailored elegance in NXNW, looks like a short, droopy-postured, pasty white, clown-faced GOOBER just staring at the the overacting Cobb.

I think On the Waterfront IS a great movie(even though Rear Window should have beaten it for Best Picture, which would be hard since it wasn't nominated) and the Brando/Steiger taxi scene IS great(though a little overdone by today's standards) but -- that PHOTO. Brando looks AWFUL. He doesn't look like a movie star. He looks like a dweeb. Who cleared THAT photo?

CONT

[–] roger1 (4046) 20 days ago

Seeing that On the Waterfront photo today, I flashed back to my showing it to SOMEONE else -- another young guy -- back in '69. We laughed at Brando in that photo til we choked -- this book wasn't JUST for study and learning the classic movies -- it had PLENTY of photos that were good for a laugh. Production photos can be rightly -- or wrongly-- staged. Actors can look their best - OR their worst. (Brando, here.)

I recall how those photos gave me a sense of how "the movies create emotion about the stars in them." Perkins facing Leigh -- Norman facing Marion -- on that motel porch is a bit of knowing movie history now -- the sad "possibility of human connection" dashed by a mad killer on the premises.

One photo I really LOVED then, which brings me fond memories now:

The movie: Separate Tables, 1958. From a play by Terrence Ratigan.

The photo: Two of the film''s "all-star cast" -- David Niven and Deborah Kerr -- stand side by side, in some solidarity, both looking together into the distance at someone or something. I"ve SEEN Separate Tables and I can't remember what/who they are looking at.

But their characters have been "aged with make-up"(Niven) and "dowdied up with make-up"(Kerr) and we find ourselves looking at two sensitive, scared people who seem to be creating some sort of couple just because they are "outcasts together as one." That photo ALONE drove me to see Separate Tables. David Niven won the Best Actor Oscar of 1958 for this(in the year that James Stewart wasn't even NOMINATED for Vertigo) and I remember it as a poignant performance -- Niven's "Colonel" was a retired military man with a scandalous but sad secret.

CONT

[–] roger1 (4046) 20 days ago

Other photos in the book would lead to movies I would see and memories I would have: John Wayne and Dean Martin facing a saloon full of baddies in Rio Bravo. Bogie, Bergman and Sam the Piano Plyer in Casablanca. The Rat Pack in Sergeants Three(I kinda grew up on Frank, Dino and Sammy.) Richard Crenna clutching the arm of blind heroine Audrey Hepburn in Wait Until Dark.

A book that ends in the year of Wait Until Dark is now a "historical artifact" of course. The book came out in 1969, and it was a great guide to the past for me -- but look at all the decades ahead. MASH and Dirty Harry and The Godfather and Jaws and Star Wars.. Raging Bull and Raiders of the Lost Ark and ET and The Untouchables and Die Hard and Batman. Goodfellas and Silence of the Lambs and Pulp Fiction and Fargo.
And the 21st Century.

That reference book got real old real fast.

The book reminds me of this as well:

I've seen many more movies "first run in my lifetime" than I could catch up with from decades before on TV(broadcast, cable, streaming) or at revival theaters.

First run, I've seen every movie Jack Nicholson ever made from Easy Rider (1969) on.

With only TV as a source, I have NOT seen every movie that Spencer Tracy ever made...and I never will. I simply don't have the time to track them down and watch them.

So instead...I have that BOOK. With its cast and crew lists, its "canon" lists, its "singular photos, one per movie, one per star."

It goes back in the bookcase now but I did want to mention it here.

And the book every much WAS the IMDb of 1969 and several decades after for me.