"Thinking of You" - One of the most perfect love songs ever written

 by @DiamondHeadSDG


It is as if it is the perfect combination of words and music: direct in its message, refreshingly simple in its delivery. But to be honest, this song does hail from an era when like life, most songs were simpler and by today's standards embarrassingly romantic. “Thinking of You” is a song that was penned by the “old-school” songwriting team of Bert Kalmar & Harry Ruby. Now, you may be wondering who were Burt Kalmar and Harry Ruby? Well, they were just a couple of ordinary guys who happened to write a lot of delightful songs. And at least one song, in my humble opinion, is a most remarkable one—perhaps one of the most well-crafted love songs ever written.

Both Bert and Harry began their days in New York City (growing up within blocks of each other). And like many of us, both set out to do one thing and ended up doing another. Sound familiar? Bert wanted to become a magician. And Harry? Harry wanted to become a professional baseball player. They both ended up becoming songwriters and partners in a very successful songwriting team. However, their first loves—magic and baseball—remained a passion all their lives and were a running theme in the MGM musical biography Three Little Words (Fred Astaire, Red Skelton & Vera Miles 1950).

                                                                           

                                        

Even if “old-school” romantic songs aren't exactly your cup of mocha latte, you might warm up to a familiar Kalmar & Ruby song (written with Oscar Hammerstein II), which was featured in the 1993 movie Sleepless in Seattle, “A Kiss To Build A Dream On”.  After hearing it for years, I was delighted to learn that Kalmar & Ruby wrote this song. It is solid!

    Louis Armstrong-"A Kiss To Build A Dream On"

One of Kalmar & Ruby's more lucrative and enduring collaborations was with Groucho Marx & the Marx Brothers. Groucho's famous theme “Hooray For Captain Spalding”, was written by Kalmar & Ruby and first introduced in the 1928 Broadway musical Animal Crackers, which starred the Marx Brothers.

One of the most important qualities of a timeless song—a song that endures from one musical era to another—is the quality of simplicity. Ask any songwriter, singer or aficionado of the golden era of songs, and they will tell you that simplicity in a song is one of its most important components. For the songwriter it also happens to be one of the most difficult things to accomplish. The human brain has a tendency to want to complicate things. Yet the most beautiful songs in their purest melodic form are actually rather simple. Simplicity also shapes the songs that are easy for anyone to remember.  This gives songs the potential to be repeatedly sung and hummed and played into popularity. This is how it's always been with most popular songs. And in 1927 with “Thinking of You” (written originally for the Broadway musical The Five O'Clock Girl), Kalmar & Ruby wrote what is the example of the perfectly simplistic song, with uniquely attractive and compelling melody and lyrics. And that is one of the reasons why I love this song so much.  But there's more.

For me personally, I sense a special quality about this song on top of everything else. I cannot quite put my finger on what it is though. In interviews, songwriters (especially songwriters from the golden era of songwriting) have at times spoken of a phenomenon they've experienced while in the process of writing a song. They've described experiences that some might see as “spiritual”—where music and lyrics seemed to be supernaturally revealed to them as if coming from without rather than from within. Some songwriters have also described how they have dreamed entire songs while sleeping. One such instance was for the 1927 musical Strike Up The Band. Composer George Gershwin described how he dreamed the entire title song while sleeping. I too have had my own experiences of sleeping and dreaming songs. Whatever it is that can be surmised from these accounts, the possibility that songs...music having a spiritual side to it, can probably be one thing. Perhaps there is something about the Kalmar-Ruby song along this nature that it is I am sensing. 

                                                                         

Fred Astaire, Vera Ellen perform "Thinking of You" with Red Skelton (as Harry Ruby) at the piano, in a scene from Three LittleWords (1950)

I appreciate the ability that music and songs have to gently remind us of the ideas that matter most to us in life. Connecting with a beautiful love song, however momentary, reaffirms we are more than just our problems, we are more than our tragedies, we are more than our fears. We are the ever hopeful supporters of the very things that this harsh life tries desperately to destroy. And to that end I say, there can never be enough beautiful love songs.

 Don Cherry sings "Thinking of You"

                 

 

Harry (left at piano) Bert (on right)

Harry Ruby on Wiki

Bert Kalmar on Wiki

                                                                                

"Morning Cup of Joe"

"Morning Cup of Joe"

For the coffee lover in you! :)

lyrics by @DiamondHeadSDG

 If I seem uptight,
I'm still tired from last night.
And so to speak,
Still wasted from last week.
Moreover, I fear
I'm still shattered from last year.
So baby, don't ya know? 
Just kinda, go with the flow
And pretty please,
Don't talk to me
'Till I've had my Joe.

I can't deal with conversations
Or the news of foreign nations.
Hold the bacon, eggs and cheese...
Hold the yakking if you please...
Hold the world 'till I have had
The drink that makes me glad.
 Don't talk to me
'Till I've had
My morning cup of Joe.

And now to finish your cup, here are the Ink Spots with their classic rendition of "Java Jive"

Mel Gibson's Rants: My Review of Gibson's Passion of the Christ Film (revisited)

(Movie review on Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ) THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST: That Blood-Soaked Mel Gibson Film (my movie review originally written in March 2004) By SDG DiamondHead Tonight I joined the thousands of Americans who have made what has almost come to be, a pilgrimage to see the new highly praised and very controversial film by Mel Gibson The Passion of the Christ. And after seeing this Mel Gibson spectacle,  what I'd like now to know is, exactly what was I supposed to get out of this film? What I got was a two-hour "Let's watch ‘Jesus’ get beaten" film--oh and yes, I also got to see the "she-devil" (the character of "Satan" played by a white woman) lurking about from scene to scene like some sort of "satanic" movie director.  And what, in Mel's mind, was the little bald-headed, evil-eyed midget that the  "she-devil" was holding, meant to symbolize?  But never mind that for now. There are much more important matters to address about this film. From nearly beginning to end, The Passion takes you on one of the bloodiest, most brutal, slowly agonizing, jaw-dropping cinema rides you've ever been on. Much of the film is centered around the fact that Jesus Christ  was brutally beaten and whipped just before his crucifixion. Looking at this film, one might be tempted or even deceived into believing that it was Jesus' "beating" that saves people rather than his actual death and resurrection. So much time and “special” attention in The Passion is given to this hard to watch,  tortured side of the cross, that were it not for the sake of historical accuracy, the entire film might have more appropriately been set in the ancient Roman Coliseum (hold back the hungry lions and bring on the sadistic, meathead Roman guards!). In The Passion the character of "Jesus" is beaten (Mel Gibson-style) and I'd just bet that while watching this Hollyweird cinematic torture feature, the gospel of salvation is the furthest thing from anyone's flabbergasted mind--which leads me back to my original question which was, exactly what was I supposed to get out of this film? Just how sensible is it to watch two long hours of the very multidimensional person of Christ, being presented in such a limited, one-dimensional way? Was his beating so much more important than his message of repentance and salvation? And do we really need to sit and see a long, two-hour depiction of this very evil moment visited upon his life? YES God intended for this to take place.  And YES, HE intended the outcome of this moment in history to be for good...the good of all mankind. And YES, through Jesus Christ we are called to a personal accountability, convicted or compelled to ponder weighty issues of life, death and eternity. We are called upon to make decisions and in one way or another we all ultimately do. We are the ones who must come face-to-face with our final destiny some day. And we are the ones who God is long-suffering for. Yet, in his film Gibson focuses nearly no attention to these all-important facts of life. Not for God's sake or man's is the more weighty issue of man's redemption given the starring role that it deserves. In Gibson's Passion, the issue of redemption not only does not even take the back seat, it is kicked out of the car and  altogether hurled to the curb. Instead, the energy, focus and strength of his film, are given over to one single, solitary theme: the brutal, bloody and sadistic beating of Christ due to Jewish insistence.   Then there is also that ever-present white female she-devil.   I'm still trying to figure out Gibson's need for a white female “Devil” and "Evil Midget". Why did Gibson portray Satan as a white woman? Doesn't the Bible clearly describe Satan as male? Yes it does! Does Gibson care only about scriptural accuracy when it comes to "beating up Jesus" scenes? Why the departure from accuracy when it comes to the person of Satan? Moreover, how are women--especially white women--suppose to feel about this bizarre, inaccurate use of their gender and race? Does Gibson feel that the female is somehow more "demonic" than the male? One has to be careful with a thing like that.  I'll just assume here that most females seeing this as sexist were properly offended by it and they should be. Rosalinda Celentano (as "Satan?") JEWS The depiction of certain Jewish figures in The Passion one could argue was of scriptural accuracy, but I was left with the depressing feeling that much was also INCOMPLETE--dangerously incomplete.  It seemed that much of the bad that the ancient Jews did was shown, but nearly none of the good that they did was shown. Peter was an excellent example of this. In The Passion, Peter was shown denying Christ three times as had been foretold by Christ himself in an earlier scene.  This is in accordance with what the Bible states. But Gibson's film did not bother go beyond that, to show Peter repented of denying his friend Jesus Christ, crying bitterly over what he had done. I felt that this was way too important to have been overlooked by the film maker. What exactly was the point of showing that Peter denied Jesus, yet not show that Peter went on to repent of his sin? Maybe if Gibson had used less time showing that "she-devil" with that revolting maggot crawling around on her nostrils, he may have had time to show the importance in the act of Peter's repentance . This was too important to leave out. Gibson does take precious film time to show Judas Iscariot (the betrayer) being tormented and chased by demons--curiously who happened to possess, of all things, little Jewish children!  Tell me Mel, just where did you find THAT in the Bible? Mel also made sure we'd see the sure-fire "faith-building" act of Judas committing suicide by hanging himself. And how disappointing to this reviewer that “Mad Max” did not take the time to show the kind-hearted Jewish member of the high counsel, Joseph of Aramethia, who donated his burial tomb to Jesus Christ and petitioned Pilate for Jesus' body. This was a righteous act done by...guess who, Mel? A JEW! In scene after scene, members of the Jewish high counsel (Pharisees) are given center-screen in The Passion and are presented to viewers with their unflinching demands for Jesus' death. Even after Pontius Pilate (Roman procurator of Judea) has had the character of "Christ" beaten severely and presented covered in blood before the Jewish leaders, they still insist upon his crucifixion. "Crucify him!", the crowd of Jewish characters shouted in unison. I looked for characters depicting Christ's disciples and for the other Jews of that day who believed in Jesus Christ. But I saw only the two Mary's--one being the character of his mother (who’s expression by the way, never changed throughout the movie. Was she really portraying a Michelangelo statue?) and the character of his brother. Regardless of Gibson's handling of this point, there were Jews of that day who believed in Jesus Christ (called "Yeshua") and who followed him. The first church of believers were Jewish--comprised of Jews who believed in Yeshua.   Some of them such as Peter and Stephen, and later Paul were killed because of their belief in Yeshua.  BALANCE Even in a movie centering around the crucifixion of Jesus Christ the Jewish Messiah, more time and attention could have been given to those on earth at that time, who were closest and most important to him--his disciples. So where did the other ten disciples go in Gibson's Passion? Just so you won't stay awake all night trying to figure it out, they were given brief cameos. To depict Judas as the Betrayer, Peter as the Denier, the Pharisees as the Instigators of his death, and a mob of screaming, angry Jews as Rejecters of Christ, may be spiritually accurate enough to some, but is it BALANCED enough, FAIR enough, GOOD enough for Christians and Jews alike? What is the good of showing the unrighteous acts, without showing the righteous acts? What do we gain from this?  Why tell of Judas, without telling of John? Why tell of Peter before the cock crows, without telling of Peter after the cock crowed? Why tell of the evil Pharisees, without telling of the righteous Pharisees? Why depict the Jews who rejected Yeshua, without also depicting the Jews who accepted and believed in Yeshua? Do we not owe recognition to the very first church of Jews? Dangerously incomplete? That's what I think. IN CONCLUSION   To some, it could be easy, way too easy to come away from this movie with a kind of negative, one-sided impression of the ancient Jews of Christ's time on earth. "Christ Killers!", some of the more ignorant might exclaim, regardless of the whole true story. And just how important is it to watch a depiction of only this part of Jesus' story-- two long hours building to a climax of this horrific, bloody depiction of the character of Jesus Christ getting beaten so incredibly viciously? This brings me full circle to my first and original question which was: Exactly what was I supposed to get out of this film?                  I already know what Mel got ($$$). Sorry Mel, but all that blood and gore in your Passion was just not sensible or edifying enough for me. Earlier, I had seen the remake of Dawn Of The Dead which is a much better well-written, acted and directed blood & gore film.   Please Mel, do us a favor and leave the darn bloody sensational films to the horror film makers of the world. They're better at that sort of thing. Maybe that's because they’ve obviously got more RESPECT for the stars of their films--ghoulish though they may be.

Why Post-Racialism and Color-Blindness Are Dangerous Concepts For Minorities

“Please do not say that you’re trying to get rid of those 'nasty little race boxes’ on account of me.  Because I did not ask for it.”-- mixed race person    

Commentary by SDG DiamondHead

 
In contrast to lofty visions of a "race-less" society, I do not believe that the abolition of race is at all necessary. And I reject the ludicrous notion of some on the far right that it would somehow be “beneficial” to society to dismantle the races. Being bi-racial of Jewish/Black descent, I also resent that mixed race people have been dragged into this argument for doing away with race data collection--as if in doing so, this act would single-handedly lead us all into a new, glorious and color-blind "utopia". 

Personally do not want to see the bureaucratic dismantling of the Black or White race or Asians…any race. However altruistic on the surface this vision may appear, flip it over to the underbelly and you will discover in contrast, a vision which is at best unrealistic and at worst, very sinister. Why? Because at best, eliminating race via the discontinuation of race data collection will solve absolutely nothing.  At worst, the reality of a race-less, so-called “color-blind” society could ultimately encourage a much more dangerous and polarized society than we have ever known.

How modern technology could make a so-called “color-blind” society a more dangerous place for minorities

With the use of modern technology including non-lethal devices (internet hacking, GPS, cellular “bug phones”, tracking devices often used in connection with covert crimes), with corruption, secrecy and the escape hatch know as plausible deniability, there could literally be no end to the crimes that racists, extremist right wing hate groups and even very corrupt officials, could commit against minorities and the potential harm they could do to society.

During World War II tens of thousands of ordinary everyday citizens were willing assistants to the Nazis in the betrayal, persecution and killing of millions of Jews.  Hitler’s willing executioners of the past could become the citizen executioners of tomorrow. Indeed, some are the out of control, sadistic hate-stalkers of today, who derive some sick sense of  satisfaction from destroying the lives of innocent people.

Misguided, racist sociopaths...angry people on the fringes of our society or economy, who feeling powerless, seek to “correct” things not through seeking fair and just lawmaking but through lawlessness. Being totally misguided and exploited by political influences and hate groups, these borderline insane people seek "purpose" through participation in hate crimes.  According to private investigator and author David Lawson, some become permanently trapped in this criminal activity--held bound for life and controlled through fear-mongering and intimidation by others in their circles of hate.

Years ago in the South, thousands of so-called "ordinary citizens" attended lynchings of Blacks, where hanging victims wasn't enough.  Burning and mutilation of the victim's bodies also happened. Incredibly, some of these "ordinary citizens" even brought their young children to witness these grisly atrocities. The unspeakable crimes of the past serve as a warning to us all about what “ordinary” citizens can and will do. Therefore it is unrealistic to think that minorities can count on all Americans to be magically stricken with racial amnesia and willing to simply lay aside hundreds of years of still unresolved racial issues for the sake of a new utopist so-called, "color-blind" society.  As long as unsettled issues regarding race are in the human heart, it is in the place where it has the potential to do the most harm.  I do not believe that by simply outlawing race and race data collection, this will remove racism from a person's heart.  There has to be a better way.

A forced “color-blind” system (were it to come to fruition) would unintentionally give racists a kind of green light to treat the objects of their hate in unlawful ways. And this could leave victims with little to no means of redress.  With race data collection a thing of the past, how could there be official records of hate crimes?  And with no official way to bring these hate crimes to light, what position could that leave hate crimes victims in?  What must be considered is however well intentioned true color-blindness may seem, it is not a dream shared by all members of society. It is not a thing that everyone wants or is even concerned with.  And it is naïve to think that if it were to someday become a reality, everyone would merely agree go along with all of the unspoken rules of such a new social order.  The vicious backlash over Barack Obama becoming President gives us more than a rough idea of what we could expect.

There is a danger in underestimating the harm they would do...the field day that white supremacist groups, right wing extremists, neo-nazis and other such sickos would have in a new  “no race” America.   

With official record keeping of hate crimes no longer in place (since officially there is no race), racists and extremists could manipulate, oppress, even kill minorities members and members of various religious groups and quite conceivably get away with these hate crimes.  France’s experience may be a lesson to us on the dangers of “color-blindness”.   France’s social experiment holds a warning to us about the danger of trying to force color-blindness onto an imperfect world. After over twenty-eight years, France’s attempts at achieving equality and justice for all its citizens through a color-blind system have failed. How therefore, would America fare in such a future society where ‘racism can no longer officially be the cause of your complaint’?  Would we be abolishing accountability along with abolishing race? Again, let us look to France for that answer:   

“Something analogous is at work in France: ‘The state claims to be colorblind, [but] society still is not,’ Newsweek proclaimed, referring to France’s unwillingness to take account of ethnicity when fighting discrimination. The policy of blindness to ethnic difference, made official in a 1978 law that forbade the state to collect data on ethnic or racial origins, does indeed hamper the state in creating substantive equality for all its citizens. But the problem goes beyond the state’s incapacities in fighting discrimination to the state’s role in creating the discrimination that violates republican principles.   France’s Revolt: Can the Republic live up to its ideals? By John R. Bowen 

“This will take a revolution in French thinking about integration, but there are signs that the recent violence has begun to persuade some policymakers that they’ll have to overhaul their color-blind ideals of citizenship and face up to the existence of ethnic minorities.”--Next French revolution: a less colorblind society The Christian Science Monitor November 14, 2005    
 
In conclusion

It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out that a so-called color-blind society isn’t going to work any better in America than it has in France. There are too many fearful, racist, angry people in our country still.  And law-abiding citizens need the protection that most forms of race data collection can help provide.  In part, race data collection is a system of protection.  

Without the official existence of race, racially motivated crimes (hate crimes) would not be recorded, reported, investigated, brought to trial or in any manner addressed as they should be. Victims of hate crimes would be left without legal redress and nearly as helpless as lynching victims of the past. Unfortunately, this is precisely the kind of scenario that some people want.

Color-blindness may work well in Heaven.  But here on battlefield earth, we are light years away.

New York Architecture and a True New York Tale

I love New York.  And what I especially love about NYC are the buildings and their varied array of architectural styles, heights and times periods they were built in.  Among my favorite buildings in NYC is the Flatiron...

Edward Steichen
Flatiron Building 1904
(This file is in the public domain in the United States)

...and Radio City Music Hall.

As a former employee of Radio City Music Hall I can tell you what an amazing place with many surprising nooks-n-crannies it is--literally.    When I worked there, some rooms (dorms for the performers) seemed at that time, to be almost nearly untouched by time, with beds, sinks, fixtures and other items dating back to the 1930's.  Walking through there was like being taken back, through a time machine.  Also, having toured different areas of the Music Hall, including the sound control room which was (and most likely still is) high up near the ceiling giving spectacular views of the entire stage and seating, it didn't take me long to conclude that the entire Radio City complex, with its lower level area leading to subway and plenty of specialty shops,  was more like a city within a city.  My office, which I shared with my boss, overlooked the marquee giving us nice views of the building across the street and Avenue of the Americas. 


A True New York Tale

I began to first develop my love for New York buildings...New York architecture as a young child visiting Manhattan with my dad.  By then my parents had purchased their second house in Queens having migrated from Manhattan.  But my uncle, my father's twin brother still lived with his family in Manhattan.  With my uncle being my father's only relative living in New York, they were very close and visits to his Manhattan apartment were nearly every Sunday.  It was during these weekly visits, these Sunday drives into the city that my father would point out various buildings to me, to see and appreciate.  My father was enamored of New York architecture and one who never ceased to delight in and hold respect for those towering canyons of steel. 

Our sight-seeing on wheels became a ritual of sorts with us.  But my favorite part of it was when we had come off the 59th Street Bridge and made our way to where the Plaza Hotel was. I can recall how I would spring to life feeling energized by the sights and sounds of the Plaza, limos, handsome cabs with their tranquil horses clip-clopping along, and scores of people out walking at this busy intersection.  My father would always drive through the park (Central Park) in order to cross from the East to the West Side where my uncle and his family lived.  Once we arrived on the West Side, finding parking was always a problem which aggravated my poor father to no end.  On more than many occasions he seemed more like the Flying Dutchman in search of a landing pad.  And there were times we'd end up walking blocks from the car.  But this too gave us an opportunity to appreciate the various building structures in New York, as we walked past one type after another.

On the way home was the best part of it all.  By this time it was sunset and night time would be approaching fast.  Back through Central Park we'd go--this time from the West to the East Side.  Sometimes I would stretch out in the backseat of the car (this is at a time before mandatory seat belt laws).  I would lie down and look out of the rear window in order to see the tops of the buildings as we drove and got closer to the East Side. My father would usually have some music playing on the radio, what you might today call "elevator music", and this time we would both just quietly and contently soak in the sights and sounds of the city around us, with it's skyscrapers lit up against the backdrop of a velvet sky. 

My mother, being from Texas, would often fuss with my father to 'leave New York and move west'.  Neither one of us believed she really meant it though.  My dad would protest, steadfastly pronouncing  that he wasn't going anywhere--that he would die in New York.  Years later, being a man of his word, that is exactly what he did--right there in a Manhattan hospital among the skyscrapers. 

-DiamondHead




Here is a wonderful artist who really likes to draw New York buildings and who leaves 'no stone' unturned.

"All The Buildings In New York" work by artist James Gulliver Hancock
http://allthebuildingsinnewyork.blogspot.com/

Anna Lucasta Review/Commentary Part II "Anatomy of a Movie"

Image by FlamingText.com

"Anna Lucasta is one of the hottest properties in the history of entertainment. It was the world's first urban play starring an all African-American cast."

Anna Lucasta...

Anatomy of a Movie

(Opportunity Found, Opportunity Lost)

by SDGDiamondHead

Riding on the wings of the 1944 Broadway hit that created a theatrical sensation, Hollywood offered up its own cinematic version of Anna Lucasta based on Philip Yordan's compelling drama. Columbia Pictures paid a whopping 400,000 dollars for the rights to Anna Lucasta--a  record amount at that time. But their original plans for casting this big screen version did not include an all-Black cast at the time, as the Broadway stage hit had. If, according to box-office success, millions of theater patrons in America and in London were saying that they were ready for something different from Black actors, something other than singing and dancing, Hollywood was not convinced.

At that time there weren't many Black cinematic examples to measure success by. In the decades leading up to the 1960's, all-negro movies made in Hollywood were the rare exception and not the rule. Of those that were made, nearly all were musicals. More problematic was the fact that all-negro film dramas were not considered to be commercially successful. Unwilling to move against this current of the film industry's racial attitude, Columbia Pictures hired a cast of all-White actors for the very first film version of Anna Lucasta--a drama that had by now become synonymous with Black Broadway and touring stage productions. 

With actress Paulette Goddard in the title role, the first film version of Anna Lucasta was released in 1949. In its first film incarnation, this dazzling, powerhouse drama was a critical and commercial failure. Yet in that same year, the all-negro touring company of Anna Lucasta was still packing in audiences. They were playing in Chicago at the Shubert Theater and on tour all around the country.

                                                                                 Paulette Goddard in Anna Lucasta 1949

In Hollywood, as with most things in life, timing is everything. The time when an event takes place or does not take place is most often as important as the event itself. In the strange case of Anna Lucasta, timing could have played a pivotal role in the altering of film history. With insight and analysis, we can look back through the corridors of time to visualize how a 1940s all-Black film version of Anna Lucasta might have been the catalyst that changed the trajectory of a segment of film making, and how differently Blacks would, from then on, be depicted in the movies. Producing Anna Lucasta in 1948 as an all-Black film, may have been too big of a gamble according to some Hollywood studio executives, but it might also have been a gamble and a game-changer with significant and lasting payoffs. 

By that time, many American audiences had grown accustomed to seeing Hollywood's Black stereotyped characters. It did not exactly come as a surprise to anyone to see Blacks in these demeaning, tragic, or at best, singing and dancing roles. The feeling in Hollywood was that the White viewing public would not pay to see movies with Blacks in non-stereotypical roles. Yet in glaring contradiction, the tremendous success of the all-negro stage version of Anna Lucasta was staring Hollywood in the face as a trust-worthy indicator of exactly what White Americans were willing to pay to see. If Hollywood had acted upon this market indicator, then there may have been no real reason to fear that a 1940's all-negro movie version of Anna Lucasta would have been a box office failure. The very opposite was the most likely scenario.   

Hilda Simms Broadway production of Anna Lucasta 

Indie film maker Oscar Micheaux, with his small-budget films starring all-Black casts, was in fact already providing all of the proof Hollywood needed that White Americans did in fact have an interest in and a desire to see movies with greater diversity. Micheaux's films were regularly watched and enjoyed by both Black and White audiences--surprisingly, even in parts of the deep South. Where pockets of racism and censorship existed in the deep South, Hollywood could have met resistance with resistance, flexing its cinematic muscles to usher in a new era in Black films. It has been noted by film historians that "negro movie night" at some Jim Crow-era theaters, was actually as popular with White movie goers as it was with Black audiences. By financially supporting what were then known as "race films", scores of average White Americans regularly demonstrated their willingness to support films which did not portray Blacks in degrading roles opposite White actors.

  
All-black race film Murder on Lenox Avenue (1941)

Full Movie-Public Domain Film

                                                         

Moving forward on this trajectory, one can speculate that a 1949 all-negro film of Anna Lucasta (this exciting dramatic property that was a ready-made game changer for Black actors), may have ushered in an earlier departure from Black stereotypes and a new Hollywood era of Blacks in film. A 1940's all-negro film version of this critically acclaimed drama could have been the most viable vehicle for a crucial turning point in film, where both the images of Blacks in films and the future expectations of both Black and White audiences, would have from then on been permanently altered. Perhaps it can be said that the greatest legacy of Anna Lucasta, is that it was an important vehicle for its time because of its potential to significantly raise the bar at just the right time. In hindsight, we can see that timing is everything.

It isn't hard to envision Hilda Simms having electrified the silver screen with her style of charisma and beauty as she recreated her role of Anna. Along with the rest of the cast of Anna Lucasta, these seasoned Black actors would have given movie-goers a chance to grow...to step away from the narrow-minded conditioning of the Black stereotypes that were continuously before them.  This was actually the very dream that was envisioned by the American Negro Theatre (ANT) when they first seized the opportunity to produce this drama for their Harlem audiences.  

If only Hollywood of the 1940's had turned to the American audiences that really mattered, they would have seen that there was opportunity to raise the bar. As early as a decade prior to the release of the all-White Anna Lucasta (starring Paulette Goddard), Black audiences across the country had primed Hollywood in demonstrating their enthusiasm in seeing Black performers portrayed in non-stereotyped and even non-racial roles. Between 1936-1939, The New Deal Federal Theater Project was responsible for bringing classic drama (which had been adapted for all-negro productions), to millions of Black and White theatergoers across the country. One of the most successful of these productions was Macbeth which was directed by the great Orson Wells. Set in Haiti, Macbeth was the Shakespearean drama that positively electrified Harlem...and baffled theater critics. The enthusiasm for this Shakespearean classic was so widespread that it created a sensation wherever it went. In addition, it inspired similar all-negro productions of classic drama all across the country. The first Black production of Macbeth, which played in Harlem to packed houses at the Lafayette Theater, performed for ten weeks before going on tour downtown, then to Bridgeport, Hartford, Dallas, Indianapolis, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Syracuse.  "Black" Macbeth and similar classic adaptations, provided for Black actors that rare opportunity of performing outside of the minstrel type shows, where singing and tap-dancing were "customary" for Black actors. For Black actors then, adapted classic drama also relieved these actors of the subordinate roles of playing the  standard maid or butler roles in all-White productions.

Orson Wells & the "Black" Macbeth Harlem Production

By 1939 the winds of change began to blow as federal support for such New Deal theater programs were eliminated. This, in part, was due to hostile anti-New Deal right-wing congressmen who hated the idea that government funds were being used for theater projects. After 1939 and the withdrawal of federal funds for any Theater Project, Black actors once again found themselves pushed right back into demeaning stereotyped roles in all-White shows. Even Black technicians who had been trained by The Federal Theater Project, found that they were excluded from every single theatrical union in the United States. Once again in the annals of American history, the "welcome" mat of opportunity had been yanked from beneath their feet.

Given the success of the original stage version of Anna Lucasta, it is not hard to see how a 1940's all-negro film version of this drama might have also spawned a tremendous success, having even more widespread appeal than its Broadway predecessor. Once again, let's look at the element of timing. A 1940's all-Black Anna would have been produced at a most opportune time. Without question, this was the best time in film history, when many great Hollywood films like Citizen Cane (1941), The Best Years of our Lives (1946), The Grapes of Wrath (1940), It's a Wonderful Life (1946), Cabin in the Sky (1943), Laura (1944), Mr. Skeffington (1944), Rebecca (1940), Stormy Weather (1943), Spellbound (1945) and Pinky (1949)--to name just a few--were carving out their places in cinema history, en route to becoming part of the Golden Age of Hollywood.

A 1940's all-Black Anna would also have risen up at a time when some of Hollywood's very best writers, directors, producers, editors, composers, set and costume designers would have been there and available to apply their skills in the making of this film. You can argue that these same skills could very well have been applied to the 1940's White film version of Anna Lucasta (with Paulette Goddard), yet that Anna was a box office flop. Keep in mind, however, that the dramatic property of Anna Lucasta had not only become a popular and well-known hit with Hilda Simms and the original Broadway cast, but the name of this dramatic property had long become synonymous with all-Black performances.

Hollywood was tone-deaf.

But now moving along on our alternate trajectory, with a success in tow using Anna Lucasta as their precedent, Hollywood studios could have, with less resistance, gone on to produce more and more non-stereotyped, non-degrading dramatic, comedic, altruistic, and esoteric films with Black actors. And if those cinematic geniuses had so acted during this golden age in the film industry, the history of filmmaking in America would have taken a very noticeable and history-changing turn to the left. Without question, a 1940's Black film version of this highly popular and powerful drama could have begun to break down important racial barriers both in Hollywood and possibly society. Once again, the timing of an event is just as important as the event itself. Through this small window of opportunity, what doors might have opened afterwards?

Open windows of opportunity in areas of the arts and entertainment, where previously it had been practically impossible for Blacks to gain a foothold, have gradually opened doors for Blacks after a commercially successful all-Black production provided the impetus for doing so.  This is what Gershwin's Porgy and Bess did for Blacks in opera.

Todd Duncan & Anne Brown in original Porgy and Bess

Before Porgy and Bess, Black classical singers were nonexistent in opera houses across the country. Gershwin's 1930s opera, with its all-Black cast, provided a great opportunity. Doors which had been previously shut tight, gradually opened for Black classical singers. Opera houses began to hire Black classical singers across the country and around the world. To date, Porgy and Bess continues to be a very valuable wedge for Black opera singers---one that opens doors of opportunity into the still highly competitive field of opera.  

"The decade marked by the Great Depression and leading into World War II is remembered as Hollywood’s Golden Age. During this period, new genres were formed, new stars were born, and the studio system rose to mammoth status. The eight major studios, each known for its distinctive style and stars, collectively produced 95% of all American films. More than 7,500 features were released by the studios between 1930 and 1945 to eager audiences.  More than 80 million people took in a least one film per week at the height of the cinema’s popularity. This period also saw the introduction of the Production Code, B-Films, and the first animated feature of Snow White. Hollywood’s Golden Age began to decline in the late 1940’s due to the introduction of television, Hollywood blacklisting, and the ability of actors to become ‘free agents.’ A final blow to the industry occurred in 1948, when antitrust suits were filed against the major studios."--New Encyclopedia Britannica.  

Would that 1940's Hollywood had done similarly as Broadway had, and seen an all-negro adaptation of Anna Lucasta as a fantastic once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to raise standards in filmmaking, in time, they would have won over more audiences, transformed the movie industry and made money. The stage production of dramatic opportunity was a proven hit. and a built-in audience awaited Hollywood. All Hollywood had to do was to seize the bull by the horns and make this film well. Taking the "safe" route as they did, by completely ignoring the original all-negro Anna Lucasta, Hollywood magnificently produced an Oscar-worthy monument to the heartbreaking, self-destructive and dismal nature of the movie industry where race is concerned. Is it actually possible that 1940's Hollywood preferred to have an all-White movie that failed, rather than an all-Black one that succeeded? Well, ask Dred Scott.  Ask Jim Crow. Ask the countless of American Blacks whose lives were nullified by eugenics.  Ask countless others whose lives were nullified by the lynch rope. It was a time after the war, and yet it was also a time merely two decades removed, from what was the official beginning of the racial integrity movement in America--a movement which not only declared war upon the weak through eugenics, but inspired Hitler to do the same. And the embers of this era were somehow still blowing across America. It was a time when returning Black soldiers were not only denied jobs in the South, but incredibly, could also end up attacked and beaten for wearing their wartime uniforms. Sure; it would have been wonderful to have a piece of that "Double V for victory" (victory abroad and victory at home), offered in even a tribute as seemingly artificial as a non-racist and non-stereotyped Hollywood film. But with all of the problems Black Americans still faced in the 1940's, many would no doubt have lamented that not being so recognized was probably the least of their troubles.


A movie review dated August 12, 1949 reads:  

"Although it is a faithful adaptation of Philip Yordan's play, "Anna  Lucasta" has lost most of its electricity in film form. For the people  now appearing on the Capitol's screen in this pitiless exposition of  human wretchedness are not nearly as spirited or convincing in their  acting* as the Negro group that brought the play to Broadway five years  ago this month.  As the picture's producer and co-author of its screen play, Mr.  Yordan has kept the dialogue surprisingly pungent, considering  Production Code restrictions. However, he and Arthur Laurents might have  compressed their thoughts somewhat. There is so much talk going on most  of the time that, despite the able directorial assistance of Irving  Rapper, a heavy, static quality pervades the production.  "Anna Lucasta" was not written as a Negro drama. It was originally  conceived as the story of a sordid, impoverished Polish family in a  small Pennsylvania town and emerges as such on the screen. Mr. Yordan  writes with keen observation of a voracious pack of lower class "little  foxes." Externally the Lucastas are truly represented on the screen, but  somehow their actions don't appear genuine and this observer, at least,  could not get more than fitfully interested in the distasteful details  of their life."--Source, New York Times

Whatever the untold story is for Hollywood's refusal to follow through with the all-negro movie, Anna Lucasta, the fact remains that the original Anna Lucasta continues to stand as a unique drama--originally written for White actors, popularized by Black actors, then denied a timely arrival onto the silver screen with a Black cast. It is for these reasons and others, that the all-Black stage production of Anna Lucasta, is clearly one of the most historically important properties of American theater.

Anna Lucasta:
The All-Black Movie of "1958" 
The 1958 film version of Anna Lucasta teeter-totters somewhere between hilarity and high drama.

As the movie begins, we follow Anna walking the empty, nocturnal streets of the Port of San Diego. Except for the horn of a distant tugboat, the night air is filled with the lonely quiet of ships at sea. There isn't a sailor around to fill Anna's nighttime hours. She stops to light a cigarette. Then, with the weariness of a lost soul who has repeated this routine a thousand times before, she climbs the stairs to Noah's Bar and makes her usual nightly entree.

Anna in Noah's Bar

In 1958, an all-Black version of Anna Lucasta had finally made it's way to the silver screen.  United Artists obtained the rights to the film and decided to give it an all-Black cast. During the preceding decade, all-negro films had not grown any more popular with White audiences and few opportunities for dramatic, non-stereotyped parts were available to even the few Black film stars of the time. Considering the incredible shortage of opportunities for Black dramatic actors, it is surprising that the movie was cast with the stage and nightclub performers as follows: Eartha Kitt (Anna) and Sammy Davis Jr. (Danny Johnson). Although Eartha and Sammy Davis were certainly well-known for their wide-ranging versatility as stage performers, neither were experienced dramatic actors. The role of Rudolph Slocum went to a relatively unknown actor of the time named Henry Scott. Several of the supporting roles were played by actors of the original Harlem-to-Broadway production--Frederick O'Neal (Frank), Rosetta  LeNoire (as Stella) and Georgia Burke (as Theresa).

Sammy Davis Jr.

The  second version of Philip Yordan's drama fared little better than the first. That the later all-Black film version of Anna Lucasta was a commercial failure, may be due in part to its late arrival. Or perhaps as Philip Yordan felt, perhaps it was because both film versions of Anna Lucasta were miscast and misdirected. It is little wonder that Philip Yordan hated both films.

Incredibly, as with the White Anna Lucasta, history once again repeated itself. While the later Black film version of Anna Lucasta was flopping at the box office, simultaneously the all-Black stage version of Anna Lucasta was a hot theatrical property across the country. In the 1958 film version of Anna, the setting for the Lucasta household was changed from Pennsylvania to Los Angeles. Noah's Bar had been transplanted from a Brooklyn waterfront to a wharf in San Diego. From the beginning of this all-Black film version of Anna Lucasta, what is glaringly obvious is the hopeless miscasting of the lead parts of Anna (Eartha Kitt) and Danny (Sammy Davis Jr.). The type of onscreen chemistry these two had in Anna more closely resembled their off-screen relationship. Kitt and Davis were good friends off-screen. However, one aspect of their friendship was competitiveness between the two of them. This competitive energy, more than anything, is what comes across on the screen as these two move from scene to scene in the movie. The two seem to be trying to outdo each other--to the point where they appear more like Olympians sparring in a major competition than believable screen characters.

Kitt's love interest in the film, Rudolph Slocum (actor Henry Scott), does not quite jive with Kitt's onscreen personality either. Theirs is an underdeveloped, under directed, cardboard cut-out paper doll relationship onscreen. Even though it is evident that both actors are trying to make it work, in place of passion, what we really get is "romance lite", and the emotionless read-through of a brother and sister-ish relationship rather than a husband and wife-ish one.  This is most noticeable in the "dating scene" where during an evening stroll together in a park, Anna finds the courage to confess to Rudolph that she has lived the life of a prostitute. She recounts the story of her father's maniacal fury against her and how he finally kicked her out of their home. (Great way to spend a date, right?) Okay. Hand on chin, Rudolph listens attentively to her (looking here very much like the "Thinker" statue). Next scene: With grave concern, like a "big brother", Rudolph is proposing to Anna that "they should marry". He claims to love her any old way, and that the prostitution thing doesn't matter to him at all.  Next scene: Upon returning home, Anna's mother Theresa (delightfully played by Georgia Burke), sees them kissing and overhears that Rudolph has proposed marriage to "her little Anna".  She bursts out of the house and what follows is this rather interesting and sobering heart-to-heart amongst the three of them on why Anna must marry Rudolph.

Henry Scott, Georgia Burke & Eartha Kitt

Now, very interesting...here the emotional and tearful Anna is being urged (in what seems more like a good ole' preachy down home sermon than dialogue), by Theresa and incredibly, Rudolph, to not let this wonderful opportunity for happiness slip through her fingers.

Honestly, whenever I see this scene, I feel like through some strange trick of cinematic magic, I've been suddenly transported through the ages to an old movie palace where an Oscar Micheaux feature is playing on "colored" night. Anyone who is familiar with the dialogue in Micheaux's sermonizing "race films" will know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm sure that the stage version of this delicate and highly emotional scene must have played out far better than the 1958 film version's did. What were they thinking?

To continue...

Anna surrenders. She agrees to marry Rudolph. Okay, stop right there! Let's roll our cardboard cut-outs back out. None of the emotion that one would think is usually associated with the kind of deep love that would draw a man to marry a woman with Anna's past, is brought out in their performances. This very important aspect in this drama, between these two characters who are supposed to be deeply in love, was simply brush-stroked--and lightly so! There was no real tender meeting and greeting of the lips (their kissing scenes were too awkward, devoid of passion and uncomfortable to watch). There were no inspiring terms of endearment and no sense of a love-struck desperation on the part of Rudolph who, despite being handsome, loaded with "a wallet that makes him walk lop-sided", and being a good catch, WANTED Anna. Instead, we get cardboard paper dolls.

I guess my biggest problem with the onscreen romantic relationship of these two characters, is that I feel their romantic relationship was infantized. This reminded me of how for years, Black actors were stereotyped as sexless characters who should not be allowed to "offend" audiences by actually showing love and physical affection. Whether this outrageous stereotype slipped into the film or it was merely bad direction, remains to be known. But the subject matter of this deep love of a man forgiving a woman's unfortunate past (like cancelling out a debt) and loving her to the point of marriage, is a subject that should be acted and directed to the max. 
                                                                         

Henry Scott, Eartha Kitt & Sammy Davis in scenes after wedding

With the exception of a change of setting, from the East Coast to West Coast, the 1958 Anna   Lucasta, keeps intact the original plot and underlying theme of alcoholism and incest.
Veteran stage actor Rex Ingram, suffers more than a "lost weekend" in this movie. Playing the incestuous father driven out of his liquor-soaked mind because of his secret desire and his dirty shame, what Ingram's character suffers is more like unconsciousness. He performs for most of the movie from the inside of a bottle of cheap liquor (not that expensive liquor would have been better).

Rex Ingram ("De Lawd" from 1939's The Green Pastures) gives a gut-wrenching performance in Anna that reaches to operatic proportions. Coping as best as he can with bad direction, Ingram goes above and beyond the call of duty as a dirty coot who cannot tell the difference between his wife and his offspring. The hell-bent and hell-bound old bastard is intent on destroying the happiness of his daughter, rather than destroying the happiness of the director who is really the one driving him to drink!

John Proctor (as Stanley), Earth Kitt and Isabel Cooley (as Katie)

One of my favorite characters is the character of Frank played by Frederick O'Neal. O'Neal does a masterful job tempering drama with just the right touches of comic relief. The man is a scream with such ridiculous one-liners that he'll have you eagerly awaiting more. What is so funny about Frank's character is that he has a great comeback for everything, mixed with pseudo-wisdom, historical revisionism, male chauvinism and just plain ridiculousness. Most of us probably have somebody in our family like Frank.

Rex Ingram (Joe Lucasta) nukes Anna's wedding cake in this scene from Anna Lucasta (1958).

Frank is the antique dealer-son-in-law of Joe Lucasta, who can't seem to make a dime from the junk he tries to sell on the family's front lawn. And with a baby on the way, he is definitely hard up for cash. The horribleness of Frank adds brightness and comedic color in scene after scene.
Here, in this dialogue from the film, is an example of what I mean:

Frank: (to his father-in-law Joe)  "You ain't done too good by Stella, either.  I had a hard job housebreaking that woman." (his pregnant wife)

Another scene---Frank explaining his take on "democracy" to brother-in-law Stanley and to wife Stella:

 Frank:  "That ain't democracy. Democracy is all for all and one for one."

Stella: (chimes in) "And you're the one."

Frank: (sarcastically) "I was until you had to go and make it two."--(saying this as if he had nothing at all to do with his wife becoming pregnant.)

In this scene, a dinner table conversation takes place over a letter from Joe's old friend, who is sending his son Rudolph to California with plenty of money, and wants Joe to find his son a decent, God-fearing woman for a wife:

Stella: "What does that farmer think? That you can buy a woman like you buy a pig?"

Frank: "Sometimes pigs are a better buy."  

And wherever Frank went, hilarity was sure to go!

One of the unexpected surprises of this 1958 version of Anna Lucasta is the movie's theme song entitled "That's Anna". It was composed by one of Hollywood's top composers, Elmer Bernstein, and with lyrics by Sammy Cahn.  To put it simply, this song has a lilting melancholic beauty that commands encores. It is heard at the beginning of the movie sung to perfection by Sammy Davis Jr. If you love great movie themes from a time when film scores were still composed with sentiment and with heart, then this song alone is worth seeing the movie for.

The 1958 Anna Lucasta might be described as an opportunity found and an opportunity lost.   Yet it is certainly one of the most unique and significant disappointments in the history of African-American cinema. Coming perhaps too many years too late, it still radiates a curious afterglow of a bright falling star that might have shone in Hollywood many years before, as well as illuminating others to do the same. The production of this 1950's all-Black film based on the highly successful all-Black stage production, was at least an effort on the part of many involved. And in my opinion, although it is a movie with glaring imperfections, it is still a film worth watching. I understand that the film rights to Anna Lucasta have once again become available for production. If Hollywood ventures into a third remake of this drama, it will be quite interesting to see how it is cast and directed, considering the unusual history it has had.  If done, maybe the third time around will be the charm which brings to the screen all of the passion and drama which made the very first all-Black Broadway production of Philip Yordan's play such a sensation and a success!

 Dramatist/ Screenwriter Philip Yordan

Anna Lucasta trivia... Joan Crawford has brief fling with Republic cowboy star Don "Red" Barry. When he attempts to finance the play "Anna Lucasta" using Joan's name as collateral, she dumps him."

My own personal trivia and six degrees of separation... 

Rosetta LeNoire ("Stella") was also the founder and artistic director of AMAS Repertory Theatre , an artistic and interracial community theater in Manhattan, where I had the great pleasure of studying acting for a time and meeting the very kind Ms. LeNoire.  AMAS is responsible for many original productions, including the Broadway hit "Bubbling Brown Sugar" (book for show by author/playwright Loften Mitchell, who along with his sister Gladys, were also good friends of our family.)   

For Part I of my review/commentary--Hilda Simms and the Original Anna Lucasta please click here.

Thank you for stopping by and reading my review/commentary~!