29 September 2013

Things That Irk Me

If you are going to take original content from this site, please cite us as a source. I consider this blog an interactive resource of Marlene Dietrich-related information, and I hope all our readers realize that we do a lot of research. Anyone is free to question, criticize, or correct our findings because I stand firmly against censorship, which isn't the case at others blogs where comment moderation is the norm. If we call you out for taking our content without crediting us, don't suppress our comments on your blog and come here to tell us that you cite your sources when you don't cite us. I will call you out in a blog post, with screen captures and all!

The offending blogger, named Ada, published "Style: Marlene Dietrich in ‘Angel’" at Classiq on January 22, 2013, which directly quoted text from "A Million Grains of Golden Caviar," published here by missladiva almost two years before--on January 31, 2011. Let's review the facts.

Ada wrote (as you can see in the above screen capture that I present as evidence):
"A Million Grains of Golden Caviar": that’s what Diana Vreeland called this beaded gown when she exhibited it at the Metropolitan Museum in 1974 as part of the Costume Institute’s ”Romantic and Glamorous Hollywood Design” retrospective. The dress, adorned with red and green cabochons, was reportedly inspired by the mastery of Fabergé,
Compare this to missladiva's words: 
A Million Grains of Golden Caviar [title] That's what Diana Vreeland called this breathtaking, beaded gown when she exhibited it at the Metropolitan Museum in 1974 as part their Costume Institute's "Romantic and Glamorous Hollywood Design" retrospective. The dress, designed by Travis Banton for Marlene to wear in Angel, was reportedly inspired by the mastery of Fabergé.
 Missladiva pointed out the plagiarism to me, and I commented on it at Ada's blog, Classiq. Of course, you don't see my comment because Ada hasn't approved it. Instead, Ada from Classiq visited us to comment, which is quite easy because we censor no one (except blatant spammers). She overlooked the text that she had taken for her article as she scrolled down to our comments section and stated, "If you happened to read some other of my Style in film posts, you might have noticed that I always credit my sources, unlike the majority of the sites and blogs writing about similar subjects." Well, she obviously doesn't cite all her sources because she didn't cite us! Tell me, do you see missladiva or Last Goddess Blog in Ada's references?

 Do you know what else I found? There's text in her article that also appears on the Vogue Italy website. Take a look at the above screen capture and note this sentence: "She would only pose for photographer Rudolph Maté, who contributed to create her sharp yet full of refined sensuality look; every photograph had to be of immaculate taste." Compare it to page 2 of this Vogue Italy article: "The German diva started right away to act in films relized by her trustworthy director, von Sternberg, and would only pose for photographer Rudolph Maté, who contributed to create her sharp image yet full of refined sensuality." Unfortunately, the Vogue Italy article lacks a date, but it's clear that someone here was plagiarizing! Oh, and by the way, that Maté information is inaccurate.

23 September 2013

Lulu or Lola?

      I think most classic films fans are familiar with G.W. Pabst's late 1920s movie, Die Büchse der Pandora (Pandora's Box). It immortalized Louise Brooks as an uninhibited, carefree erotic Lulu. But not as many know how close Marlene was to being forever remembered as Lulu, instead of Lola. Discover what I've found in Louise's biography by Barry Paris (which was itself based partly on "Lulu in Hollywood").

source: x

     The search for the actress who would be suitable to play the role of Lulu lasted for a long time. Paul Falkenberg, Pabst's assistant director, remembered that for months he had been presenting the great director with literally every possible candidate for the role, but he turned them all down.

     Eventually, it looked like the choice was made and the girl to play Lulu would be... 27-year-old Marlene. The legend has it that Dietrich was just about to sign a contract when a cable from Paramount (Brook's studio) came; it carried the information that Louise is available to play in Pandora's Box; the dark-haired flapper later realised that if she hadn't acted at once, her opportunity would have been lost.

     Everyone was shocked that Pabst has chosen an American do play Lulu. Many magazines ran it as a first-page story material, among them Film-Illustrierte and Neue Berliner. Some felt insulted that there wasn't even one German girl good enough to get the part. Others were already fascinated by the newcomer. Needless to say, Marlene was sure she would have been a better choice.

source: xx

      Why did it happen? Pabst was afraid that Dietrich would turn the movie into a "burlesque", considering her seductive manner. Louise Brooks later defended that opinion by saying that in the 1928, Marlene wasn't the sleek and sophisticated Hollywood siren, but rather the luscious starlet wrapped in satins, furs and beads... Plus Brooks was about five years younger, which was also of great importance.

     What do you think - was this really possible that Dietrich was considered to play in Pabst's movie?After all, most of film history is a great tale of who was to play/direct/produce what and why it has turned out otherwise... Anyway, could you imagine a different Lulu?