The End of the Tour is a 2015 American biographical drama film, about the last days of the 1996 book tour that postmodern writer David Foster Wallace took to promote his bestselling novel, Infinite Jest, that propelled him to international stardom in the literary world, shortly after it was published. In the last days of the tour, the writer was accompanied by journalist and aspiring novelist David Lipsky, who was writing an article about Wallace for Rolling Stone Magazine. The movie stars Jason Segel as David Foster Wallace and Jesse Eisenberg as David Lipsky. Directed by James Ponsoldt, the script was written by Donald Margulies, based on the book Although of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself, by David Lipsky, a memoir about the days that the two writers spent together.

The movie starts in 2008, when journalist David Lipsky learns that novelist David Foster Wallace has committed suicide. Shocked and disturbed by the news, he goes to his room, to listen to the tapes he recorded, when he interviewed Wallace twelve years earlier. Melancholic and visibly sad, he remembers those days he spent with the now deceased writer. Suddenly, the movie goes back to 1996, when Lipsky is giving a reading of his most recent book, to a small and indifferent crowd in a bookstore. When he learns the good critics and excellent reviews about a book recently published, titled Infinite Jest, an encyclopedic novel by David Foster Wallace – a writer acclaimed all over the country –, he gets cynic, doubting that a literary work could be that good. When he reads the novel, he becomes astonished, and persuades his editor at Rolling Stone magazine to do an interview about Wallace, America’s most promising contemporary writer. When his editor agrees, Lipsky travels to the residence of Wallace, in Bloomington-Normal, Illinois, to do the interview. 

Upon learning that Wallace is a very honest and sincere person, Lipsky easily acknowledges that he is also quite reserved, evasive, and antagonistic at times. Wallace’s depression, psychological problems and loneliness are quite evident in almost everything he says, and in the way he leads his life. A very unhappy person eager for some companionship, Wallace rapidly offers one of the rooms in his house to Lipsky when he arrives, persuading him not to go to a hotel. 

In the next days, Lipsky accompanies Wallace in everything he does: from his ordinary activities at the Illinois State University, where Wallace teaches creative writing, to book readings, radio interviews and also recreational time, the two spend a lot of time together. Always recording their conversations, both find one another intriguing, and slowly, they develop a mutual understanding about each other, their respective roles as researcher and subject, and the greater goals of life. Clashing sometimes over differences of personality and character, in the end of the journey, they promise to stay in touch, and a friendship begins to develop.

The movie by no means is above ordinary. In a general evaluation, it’s average, at best. Nonetheless, the great acting of Jason Segel and Jesse Eisenberg do a lot for the movie, which is – sadly, for the most part – motionless, quiet and uninspiring. But it is in fact a very accurate representation of that part of David Foster Wallace’s life in particular: a great “success” in literary terms, which means that only a handful of intellectuals actually knew who he really was. He had a very quiet and peaceful life in the middle of nowhere, where he could read and write in peace, and occasionally go to the university, where he taught creative writing. Regardless, his personal problems are quite evident, and well explored in the movie. A deeply disturbed man, he appears to be doomed to suicide, having battled depression for almost all his life, constantly tormented by a strong feeling of loneliness hard to endure and impossible to overcome, at least as seen by his sad and sometimes almost incomprehensible perspectives on life. 

It’s not an intriguing movie. The wonderful acting of its two lead actors, rather than a great persuasive and intelligent plot, is what leads the entire story. It is interesting more as a way to understand Wallace’s sometimes incomprehensible persona, to have a good insight about his personal issues, and also as an historic moment of American literature. But as a movie per se, it has very little merits. You can fall asleep anytime in the movie, if the main subject doesn’t appeal to you. Although not exactly a boring movie, it gets close to that, all the way through. 

In the end, it is a regularly decent movie, but it is incapable of going beyond that. Two stars and a half are the best score I can give to this one.    


​Wagner       

Kidnapping Mr. Heineken is a 2015 British/ Dutch co-production, in the crime thriller genre, based on a real life event. With an ensemble cast that stars Anthony Hopkins as Freddy Heineken, the billionaire of the beer industry, the movie has Jim Sturgess, Sam Worthington and Ryan Kwanten portraying the criminals that masterminded the plan to held captive one of the most notorious man of Europe, in a high profile case that took authorities and government officials by storm. 

Everything started with five friends, completely frustrated with the way their life goes – Cor van Hout, Martin Erkamps, Willem Holleeder, Frans Meijer and Jan Boellard – that together devise a curious, but functional plan to capture Freddy Heineken, and demand 35 million Dutch guilders as the price for his rescue, which was the highest value to be given for a kidnapped person at the time. Initially, everything goes along very well, and their meticulous plan is taken as exceedingly elaborated. Even the way they conceived the money to be given to them was perfectly wise and intelligent, preventing the police on following them. But as soon as they put their hands on the money, their friendship and collaboration starts to disintegrate. Unable to endure the hardships as a group, eventually they split, their lives breaks loose, and everything begins to fall apart. As the police investigators can’t be fooled for too long, the five friends rapidly disperse, and some of them soon understand that is only a matter of time until they are all captured, and sent to jail, to serve long sentences.  

An astonishing and amazing movie, centered on one of the most high-profile cases of kidnapping in recent European history, this movie is simply amazing. All four main actors, besides giving the performances of their lives, follows a decent plot and a very wise script, that makes you stick your eyes into the screen, from the very beginning, until the movie is over. Amazingly conceived and superbly elaborated, Kidnapping Mr. Heineken is one of those movies that you don’t regret seeing it. On the contrary: you soon wish to see a second time.    

With an impeccable direction, plot devices, performances and a very cohesive script, there is nothing wrong or bad about this movie. With a cohesive story, a curious unraveling of events – that really ties together all plot devices happening in the movie – Kidnapping Mr. Heineken is amazingly excellent, beyond all scores. With no negative aspects to be taken into consideration, this is a compelling thriller, that shows, all the way through, how obtaining easy money can put an individual in a whole uninterrupted set of problems, in a major scale. 


​Wagner

Being in a band can be loads of fun but when people seem to have no interest in your musical endeavors things could get ugly.  The way to success is a gruelling one, loaded with obstacles. Becoming a rock star is a lot of work and definitely not meant for everyone. A multitude of reasons can cause your dream to collapse before it even started, and guess what, the only one to blame is you... Here are a bunch of possible reasons

Don't switch genres just because they're popular. That behaviour makes you extremely unpopular. Why? Well, because it tells people that your heart isn't in music, but your wallet is. I'll give you an example (from a band I used to know, but I changed the band names).

Years ago, a hardcore band named Stone Flames played some decent sets on local stages. They were ok, but not really world changing. Soon after these first gigs, they noticed that sludge metal was becoming a big thing, changed their name to 'Fuzz Tiger" and recorded another demo. A few gigs followed and the band noticed that a lot of drone metal bands were now hip. So they changed their name again, now 'DroneCorpse' and recorded another demo. Because that didn't seem to work quite well, they disbanded, only to reform under the name 'BearAss', now playing something post-hardcore inspired. Over the years, they changed their name and style five or six times. They're still trying to make a second album under one moniker but I'm afraid another bandwagon is coming near, one on which they will undoubtedly jump again. It's just a loyalty thing I guess...

Just last night, I saw a facebook post from a singer in a small band which made me cringe. I can't find the original facebook post, but I'll explain. The vocalist demanded reposts. He wanted his friends (which he called 'fans') to repost his videos and songs. The ones who didn't, would be deleted from his friends list.

​Of course, lots of people questioned his motives and wrote some scathing comments, which I can completely understand. Fans are not promotors. They may occasionally repost something they like but it's not their job. For that kind of work, there are professionals available and most of them aren't even that expensive. Fans should be treated like clients because that's exactly what they are. Without them, you're nothing...

That - obviously - also counts for fund raising campaigns. I've seen campaigns of bands that are just so cringeworthy, like that band that needed €10.000/month just to remain a band. If they wouldn't raise the monthly wage, they would seize to exist. 'Good riddance', I'd say in such a case. The nerve of some people, right?

The love for music is a psychological process. The human brain is evolved to develop and therefore will always reject unoriginal copying. Music fans will always search for new things, things that correlate with their mindset at that moment. So if your rock sounds like the four thousand rocks people have heard before, they will throw you on the pile of rocks. I mean, why would anybody want a second Nirvana, The Cure or Cannibal Corpse?


The variations can be tiny, but make sure that there's at least a few things that set you apart from all the others. I know, in some genres it's hard to vary because that's what makes them genres. Yet, still, don't be afraid to do something strange, like throw in a banjo solo over a black metal song or something, that one definitely put Taake on the map for me.

And if you don't sound very original, look original, behave original. After all, you are one original and unique human being and so are your bandmates...

I know, Abbath got away with his corpse-paint and funny faces but that's mostly because Abbath is a comedian and not necessarily a musician. He could easily do a stand-up show looking like this, without even touching a guitar (now, that's something I'd like to see). But try not to look stupid, unless your bandname is 'The Stupid Looking Stupids' or something like that. Not everybody looks good in corpse-paint, leather and all the other clichés of your desired genre so be carefull with those things. That also leaves out spandex pants, even if you are a Motley Crue cover band (in which case you won't really become a rock star after all). Of course, gimmicks are ok once in awhile but in the end, all that matters is your music. If Metallica would have climbed on stage, dressed as lamas with an Elvis haircut, they would have been a lot less successful. And yes, I know that there are popular gimmick bands, including Gwar and Slipknot but they usually back it up by creating a solid sound and a coherent atmosphere. Oh, and because they listened to the previous tip, nobody can claim that Gwar and Slipknot are unoriginal...

Did I ever tell you about the time I called Axl Rose an egotistical maniac? It's true, at Pukkelpop 2002 (in Belgium) I walked up to him an threw a bunch of filthy names in his face. Why? Because he made me leave backstage where my then-girlfriend was having a wee. He was already an hour late for his performance so I figured a little insulting session couldn't harm. Of course, his bodyguards pushed me away and eventually threw me out. Now, fifteen years later, I still don't listen to Guns 'n Roses.

With that, I just want to say this. Don't be an asshole. Respect your fans and respect the people backstage because, once again, without them, you're nothing. In that aspect, I think Henry Rollins is absolutely correct with the little not he wrote (see below). Even Axl turned around when he got the chance to front AC/DC. I didn't go see that concert but I heard he did an amazing job, arrived on time and gave it his very best, even with a broken leg. It's all about respect.

From a music reviewer to an artist, let me tell you this: you do not suck. Don't let anyone ever tell you that you do because that's simply a matter of opinion. There are plenty of bands that make music I don't like and still they are popular. Oasis or Coldplay for example, I can't listen to them. To me they are horrible but to themselves, they're not. I'm not saying that they think they're gods (except maybe for that Gallagher dude) but they do have self-confidence. They know what they're capable of. We reviewers can hear that. It's what we call 'a hesitant' sound and it sounds exactly like someone who isn't certain of his abilities. I mean, come on, you wrote a bunch of songs, that's something millions of people on this planet have never done and probably never will. So be confident about them, be proud. Play them with pride, record them with confidence. They're pieces of you...

Playing in a band is not cheap and quite frankly, it shouldn't be. Perhaps it's another form of showing self-confidence but please do not limit yourself with cheap stuff. Don't buy the cheapest guitar + amp combination and expect to be a rockstar within weeks. There is a reason why some things are more expensive than others and that has everything to do with technical perfection. Stay away from "Made In China" stuff because it will only make you feel frustrated and angry. Besides, the cheapest things have a tendency to break down when you need them most, on stage for example, making you look like a complete ass. Simply put, better equipment makes you better. 

Of course, if you're somewhat of a genius you can always try to become a unique musical entity that only uses toy instruments or ones made out of trash. That's good too, but be aware that in those cases, you're often merely a gimmick band and those don't always last that long...

I love dark ambient, I absolutely adore it but I rarely go to concerts. Why? Well, quite too often, nothing really happens. There are a bunch of delightful drones, coming out of a laptop with the man who recorded them liking people's facebook statuses on that very same device. It is quite boring but it gets even worse when rock and metal bands have the same amount of energy as those laptop-acts. I've seen a lot of bands with members trying to hide behind a wall of sound, seemingly frozen or nailed to the stage. Do something, have fun, bang your head, raise your fist, lick your vocalist's ears, french-kiss that bearded dude on the first row. Believe me, people will definitely talk about you when you do that...

There is a natural order to be followed when wanting to become a rock star. That is why the word 'rock' comes first and 'star' comes last. Without the first, the other one will never come. So let's go over that natural order.
​
1. Make music. 
2. Find an identity (bandname and stuff)
3. Practice
4. Practice some more
5. Keep practicing
6. Perform
7. Alter your stage performance. At this point it is allowed to start thinking about a certain image, a concept or a gimmick.
8. Keep practicing.

So, you followed the order. You haven't become an absolute cunt and your music is doing pretty fine. Congratulations, you are now a most-wanted prey for the leeches of the music industry. Consider this a warning. Everyone out there is looking for a piece of your cake and you'll have to work incredibly hard to make a living out of this ànd maintain your sanity. Always make sure to read your contracts or at least hire reliable people do do your bookkeeping. If you don't, you'll be bankrupt in no time and another emerging musician will buy your expensive guitar at a local pawnshop. Be reluctant towards lawyers, record company executives, drug dealers, accountants, groupies and so on. They are not there because you are a talented musician. They are there because you are a selling musician, which is something completely different.

​The best tip: let your mother handle your business. She knows you...

Serge

Anthony Perkins was a prolific American actor, whose claims to fame rests solely and entirely on his role as the trouble minded psychopathic gentle motherly obsessed killer Norman Bates, in Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho, a movie released on September 1960, to much critical and commercial acclaim. Nonetheless, to remember Tony Perkins – as he was affectionately called by his friends, colleagues and closest associates – only as Norman Bates, although he indeed delivered a terrific performance, is to perpetrate a tremendous injustice to one of the greatest actors ever to exist in the American movie industry. Given his talent, ardent and passionate dedication to acting, his career history before [and after] he became famous, his indisputable artistic familial background, and his personal output on the characters he played, Anthony Perkins deserves a wider recognition in the history of cinema. Before Psycho, Perkins already has proved his talent in films like Friendly Persuasion, and Desire Under the Elms. Nonetheless, his great artistic achievements before Psycho, although were slowly building him a name in the business and making him a pretty well-known actor, were not yet given him a place in the spotlight. When he was cast in the role of the young, but deeply disturbed lead in Psycho, his notoriety was skyrocketed with vigor, strength and frenzy, so to speak.

Although Psycho was a huge success in terms of public opinion, box office and critical appreciation, the movies Perkins made after Psycho never achieved the same degree of success, although some of them were moderately successful. In 1962, Perkins starred as Josef K in the splendorous movie The Trial. Directed by Orson Welles – which also had the role of the antagonist – it was an adaptation of the eponymous Franz Kafka’s famous novel. A fantastic movie, it is awkwardly strange that it didn’t matched Psycho in terms of success, and that Anthony Perkins’ performance as Joseph K it is not as remembered as his role in Psycho. A marvelous adaptation, such a wonderful movie definitely deserved to be considered one of the greatest films ever made. Filmed in several locations all over Europe, it is certainly one of the few great cinematographic pearls in Perkins filmography, and remains being one of the most realistic and impressive adaptations from a work by Franz Kafka.

In 1971, Perkins shared the screen with Charles Bronson, in the movie Someone Behind the Door. Another European production, filmed in location in England, Perkins played Laurence Jeffries, a renowned physician, that takes to his home a man – played by Bronson – with amnesia. After a few minutes they arrive at the residence where Jeffries lives with his wife, does not take much for the audience to understand that the neurosurgeon has very ambiguous and mysterious intentions towards his guest. A compelling thriller, we see again Perkins on this movie playing a charming, but very dubious and obscure character, like the one he played in Psycho.      
     
Nevertheless, from the very end of the sixties to the mid-seventies, Perkins’ choices on movie roles, as well as the possibilities offered to him, were decreasing and becoming progressively narrowed. And from then on, would just become worst. Soon, although in some of these pieces Perkins had starring roles – like the very good 1970 TV movie How Awful About Allan – the actor was confined mostly to Television films and B-movies. And his luck in the industry would never become any better, for the remainder of his life. The role of Norman Bates has proved to be a very sinuous career move for Perkins: although it gave him fame, notoriety, more possibilities and a decent salary at least for some of the projects he was in, it severely damaged his reputation and career, making him typecast to a degree. A lot of the movies he was solicited to participate were merely low budget films with fragile stories, upon which he was given the role of a sadistic psychotic maniac: an easy way to say these were futile repetitions of the Norman Bates character, the only thing he could really play realistically, at the perspective of movie industry executives.

The eighties proved to be just a continuation of the downward spiral his career took in on the seventies. With sequences to Psycho being made – some of which were moderately successful – Perkins reprised the role that made him famous, also directing one of these movies. But his craft was not valued, and his name a long time ago had been forgotten as a prospective actor in any project from the big Hollywood studios, that not even bothered to know if he was alive and well, and what he had been doing. He continued to be solicited only in horror B-movies, minor thrillers and obscure dramas that very little has seen, or heard of.

From the mid-eighties, Perkins began to fight in private a tremendous personal difficulty: he was suffering from Aids, but disclosed this to the public only several years after discovering he had been infected. Even dying, and suffering from a very precarious health, he hadn’t slowed down his professional output, working vehemently until he died, in September 1992, sixty years old, from Aids related causes.

With a filmography that has more than fifty movies, Anthony Perkins not only proved his artistic value as an actor, but managed to survive – barely, unfortunately – on a very hostile and aggressive business, that treats employees as displaceable. Even with his tremendous talent and dedication, he never managed to acquire the level of success he deserved, and to earn a salary, he had to work on marginal slow budget movies that never matched his craft, passion and talent, being obliged to accept any offer that appeared on his way, to survive.

Nonetheless, his fifties and sixties career were a glorious period, upon which he worked on the most remarkable and artistic movies ever made. Although not all of these were major box office successes, a lot of them are exceedingly excellent, proverbial and poetic. If you like beautiful and astoundingly marvelous old movies like me, you certainly can’t lose the beautiful pieces of the era, especially the ones that has Anthony Perkins in lead, or secondary roles. You will certainly feel a joyful amazement, while watching it.    


Wagner  

Farley Granger was an American actor, whose twelve years Hollywood career made him famous, after starring in two Alfred Hitchcock films, 1948 Rope, and 1951 Strangers on a Train. Despite being an actor for all his life, the Hitchcock classics defined him as a star, and he is hardly reminded for his other works today. So why this talented, competent and dedicated actor, who apparently had it all to pursue a successful career in the movie industry, decided to quit work in Hollywood for good, at the height of his fame?

Well, first of all, as outsiders would hardly know, Hollywood, besides being fascinating, is also a hostile and competitive industry, and normally, doesn’t serve to the actor’s best interests. But let’s start from the beginning. Farley Granger was discovered in the early forties, when he was only eighteen years old, by two employees of the now legendary Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, a talent agent and a casting director, when both saw a play, called The Wookie, which had Farley Granger starring in a variety of roles. Extremely impressed with the talent and the convincing performance of the young actor, the talent agent, in the following day, contacted Granger’s parents, requesting an audition for a movie. When Granger attended and performed the audition, the movie producers became very impressed, and he was given the role of Damian Simonov, in his first feature, titled The North Star, although a major reason for the role being given to Granger was the fact that another soon-to-be Hollywood legend, actor Montgomery Clift, declined the role, when the producer’s offered it to him. Soon, Granger made something he would later deeply regret: signed a seven year contract with the studio. Although this would guarantee work on a permanent basis and a decent salary, he would also loose completely the power to make choices, as well as the control over his career. This was becoming already a point of major concern for actors in Hollywood, and the aforementioned Montgomery Clift was a pioneer in breaking studio–directed careers, fighting for the actor’s rights of autonomy.

Although The North Star performance at the box office was unimpressive, and the movie failed to appeal to movie critics either, Granger proved to be a talent on the rise. With other movies following, soon, the young and talented Californian actor was becoming Samuel Goldwyn’s protégée, who, by the late forties, doubled his salary, and gave him a car.          

Very soon, one of the greatest things would happen in Farley Granger’s life: Alfred Hitchcock, after seeing a movie called They Live by Night, in which Granger had a starring role, requested a meeting with him, for a film called Rope, which would be his next.  After successfully meeting Alfred Hitchcock, Farley Granger read the script, and secured the role. Starring one of the greatest Hollywood actors ever to exist, the legendary James Stewart, filming for Rope lasted twenty one days, and, although it was very troubled and difficult, given its experimental nature, it would become one of the greatest classics in American film history. With a story loosely based in a real case – the Leopold and Loeb murder case – Farley Granger and John Dall play Philip Morgan and Brandon Shaw, respectively, two intelligent, skilled and talented, but highly disturbed graduate students, who kill a former colleague, just to discover how it is to kill someone. Their main purpose is to prove to themselves that they can commit the perfect murder, and remain undiscovered and unpunished, since they felt themselves to be intellectually superiors. Soon after, they throw a party, with the deceased’s corpse inside a large wooden box, that they use as a table, covering it with a towel. Some of the victim’s family members attend the party as well. The last guest to arrive is brilliant, but cynic and sarcastic teacher Rupert Cadell, played by James Stewart. He is the one who confronts his two former pupils, after paying attention to a lot of inaccuracies they say, when both try to justify the absence of their colleague, David Kentley, who – unbeknownst to all of the attendees, except for the two murderers – is dead, and has his body concealed, inside the large wooden box who serves to all as a table.

Although a great movie (I couldn’t say precisely how many times I saw), the filming process was hard and exhaustive, given the perfectionist demand of its experimental method, since each shot ran uninterruptedly, for ten minutes or longer, giving the movie a very theater drama characteristic. This meant that the slightest mistake would imply a reshoot of the take from the very beginning, making this kind of cinematic style of moviemaking very stressful for the actors involved, since they can’t afford the luxury of any wrongdoings, at any time the camera is on.   

Nevertheless, Farley Granger succeeded to please Alfred Hitchcock, and three years later, he would star in another of his movies: 1951 Strangers on a Train. Since an Alfred Hitchcock movie always implies a very sinister premise, in this one, Farley Granger plays Guy Haines, a tennis player aspiring to be a politician. With his marriage falling apart, he doesn’t know what to do with his wife. One day, in a train, he meets the mysterious Bruno Anthony (portrayed by Robert Walker), who reveals to Guy Haines that he is having major problems with his father. Sympathetic to the man’s situation, Haines also confides him his troubles with his wife. So Bruno Anthony conceives the “great” idea that would be the solution to both problems: they will exchange murders, with Bruno killing Guy’s wife, and Guy, by his turn, killing Bruno’s father. The movie, besides being hailed as another of Alfred Hitchcock’s greatest accomplishments, was a box office success, and the first of Granger’s career.

Although Farley Granger by then was already an established and successful actor, in between movies, he was always in New York City, involved in theater and drama classes, but frequently had to return to Hollywood, whenever the studio called him with a work demand. Farley Granger’s movie career at this point was on its peak: doing successful movies with the most famous stars of his day, he started to do very well also internationally, having starred in the beautiful, poetic and impressionistic period drama film Senso, directed by renowned Italian filmmaker Luchino Visconti, in which he shared the screen with the most acclaimed Italian actress of all time, Alida Valli (who also starred in one Alfred Hitchcock movie, The Paradine Case). Released in December 1954, the movie, set in 19th century Italy, tells the story of a troubled romantic relationship between an aristocratic and beautiful Italian countess, Livia Serpieri (Valli), and an officer of the Austrian army, Franz Mahler (Granger), that rises in the final moments of the war fought by the Kingdom of Italy against the Austrian Empire. Despite the excellent dramatic performances driven both by Alida Valli and Farley Granger, originally, Visconti wanted Ingrid Bergman and Marlon Brando for the main roles.

Despite his successes, Farley Granger was feeling depressed, and unhappy with movie making. Becoming progressively more and more interested in theater, he realized he wanted to be an actor, not a movie star. In an unusual career move, the actor decided to quit Hollywood for good. In an industry that has a lot of people desperate to get in, Farley Granger was desperate to get out. Buying the freedom from his contract with Samuel Goldwyn – which left him in a serious financial situation –, in the mid-fifties, Farley Granger, having already made the decision, returned to New York City permanently, determined to commit himself full time to theater, acting classes, drama workshops, Broadway performances and Off Broadway spectacles, something he had been wishing for a long time.

From then on, Granger persevered in the stage, doing all kinds of theater productions. He also acted in television, doing series and soap operas, being at one time nominated for a Daytime Emmy Award for his part in the television show One Life to Live. In the seventies, Farley Granger briefly returned to movies, but this time in Italy, participating in several Italian language films, in a variety of genres, from police procedural to horror. Later in life, he was also a constant presence in documentaries about the Golden Age of Hollywood, and Alfred Hitchcock. He has a star in the Hollywood Walk of Fame. In 2007, Granger published his autobiography, Include Me Out – named after one of Samuel Goldwyn’s most notorious backlash sentences – co-written with Robert Calhoun. Being born just a human, Farley Granger died a Golden Era screen legend, and a great part of Hollywood history, aged 85, on March 27, 2011.       


Wagner
 

Norma (1894 – 1957), Natalie (1896 – 1969) and Constance Talmadge (1898 – 1973) were Hollywood actresses that had successful careers during the silent movie era, each one by her own right. Especially the oldest Norma and the younger Constance enjoyed considerably the benefits of stardom, being among the highest paid actresses of the period, also considered beautiful queens of the screen, and popular celebrities that were box office material, highly loved and recognized by the studios and audiences as well. Nonetheless, neither of them managed to do a successful transition to talkies, and when sound was carried into the world of motion pictures, the three sisters had no better prospect, other than quit their acting careers for good.

Natalie, the least successful of the three, had a brief career, that lasted less than a decade. Although she managed to act in some movies, she became better known as a Talmadge, and, more specifically, as a wife of Buster Keaton, a great actor of the silent era – that eventually would achieve status of a movie industry legend –, that endured severe hardships on his career, passing by a hazardous and strenuous decline as well, when movies transitioned from silent to sound.

Constance, on the other hand, was extremely successful. Considered one of the greatest female stars of her day, her fifteen years career saw her doing several successful movies. She also enjoyed her celebrity status, and had her share of the Hollywood lifestyle, being a constant presence on parties, marrying and divorcing several notorious men, using illicit drugs, and making the headlines. With quite an extensive filmography, she had more than eighty movies to her name – mostly short subjects – although only a handful of these survived for posterity. Nonetheless, like a lot of her contemporaries, she didn’t manage to make a successful transition in the industry, when sound entered into the movie world. This was an evolution that ended abruptly brilliant and promising careers, not just in Hollywood, but in Europe as well.

Norma, on the other hand – although she wasn’t able to continue her movie career with the advent of sound as well – was the most successful of the Talmadge sisters. With a lot of movies to her name, despite a brief career, Norma Talmadge in the early twenties was a star on the rise, that quickly proved she deserved a golden place in Hollywood, and earned it, with the strength of a vigorous work and a remarkable talent. Nonetheless, after her career achieved a fulminant height, decline came on the way, when sound proved to be the demise of silent films. Like her sisters, Norma couldn’t secure her place in the industry. After doing only two sound films, that were commercial disappointments, failing with critics and audiences as well, Norma quickly realized, like a lot of her contemporaries, that her acting career was over. Nonetheless, no matter how bitter was assimilating this fact, Norma accepted her fate, and retired a wealthy woman. Like her sisters, she quickly occupied herself with other ventures. Soon, she treated her acting career as a thing from the past, and rapidly dismissed everything related to it.

Doesn’t matter the way we reflect upon these facts, sound indeed finished the careers of the vast majority of Hollywood stars from the silent movie era, actors and actress alike. And this was an event that happened in an instant. This is a bitter reminder that success is an ephemeral achievement. A person can easily be famous in one day, and literally a nobody in the next week. It’s wise not to be fooled by the constraints brought by vain glories. 

Wagner