ZingB

Be honest would you have paid to see Gene Kelly fully nude if you had the chance?

Even if he is charging a lot?

Jesus, that man was something else. I’ve had a crush on him since childhood. He was a manly man who danced in a very masculine way while most male dancers don’t. What a talent he was, and GORGEOUS. That body was ART.

How many men can wear skin-tight white material on their entire body and look that good?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 135March 20, 2023 2:56 AM

Wardrobe must have worked overtime to hide his junk so well.

by Anonymousreply 1December 25, 2022 9:22 PM

R1 bulge would go against censors back then. They had to use padding to tuck it in.

by Anonymousreply 2December 25, 2022 9:22 PM

His wretched, toxic personality always has left me indifferent about the parts that were well-developed. I'm not fond of white-hoofer style and his "elegant" attempts are dated and silly. He never convinces that he's connecting emotionally or intellectually with anyone else with whom he dances.

No.

A short man with a smallish cock who thought fucking hard and screwing over colleagues would make him bigger and badder? Back hams enough?

No.

by Anonymousreply 5December 26, 2022 1:25 AM

Sure. There aren't many men I wouldn't want to see naked. Even the ugly ones. I'm a voyeur.

by Anonymousreply 6December 26, 2022 1:46 AM

His ass should be in the Man Ass Hall of Fame.

by Anonymousreply 7January 1, 2023 7:34 PM

[quote] I'm not fond of white-hoofer style

Explanation please.

by Anonymousreply 8January 1, 2023 7:36 PM

He had a beautiful body, but I'm with R5.

I just never liked any of the characters he played.

by Anonymousreply 9January 1, 2023 7:53 PM

Yes. I wonder what he was like in bed considering he was such a taskmaster perfectionist on set—making Debbie Reynolds dance over & over in the rain while she had a fever!

by Anonymousreply 10January 1, 2023 7:55 PM

I had a friend in high school who was his protege for awhile. For a notoriously homophobic guy, he used to surround himself with pretty boys... A very unpleasant man by all accounts.

by Anonymousreply 11January 1, 2023 7:57 PM

Also agree with R5 -- as the other recents threads on him have discussed, he was a raging prima donna who made everyone around him uncomfortable with his ego that was at least 100 times larger than his butt.

by Anonymousreply 12January 1, 2023 7:58 PM

[quote] I'm not fond of white-hoofer style

I demand to have black-hoofer style!

by Anonymousreply 13January 1, 2023 8:07 PM

R11 I find it weird when DL mentions “homophobia” in regards to people of the early-mid 1900s.

Gene Kelly was born in 1912. Do you expect him to have been a gay rights activist in the fucking 1930s and 40s and 50s? Hell, that killed careers in the fucking 90s and 00s even. Come on now.

I hate to be that person, but they were of a very different time. Being homophobic comes as natural to most as being racist does. Or did.

by Anonymousreply 14January 1, 2023 8:50 PM

R11 it’s called being superficial. He was an egomaniac and very superficial. He wouldn’t work with people who didn’t fit a look he liked, because he himself was attractive, and was considered very attractive back in the day. A lot of straight men who are hot only hang out with other men who are hot. A lot of beautiful women are the same.

by Anonymousreply 15January 1, 2023 8:53 PM

I agree, R14.

So many Dataloungers talk like 12 year olds with NO sense of historical context.

This thread was particularly aggravating—

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 16January 1, 2023 8:53 PM

R16 you weren’t lying. I am 25 comments in and I had to stop. Reply 10 said “ It seems most people were homophobic back in those days.”

Is he serious???? Gays were being killed back then and the murderer walked free.

I swear I can’t stand how stupid some people on here seem to be.

by Anonymousreply 17January 1, 2023 9:02 PM

I wrote earlier that I did not care for Gene Kelly, although he had a great body.

But I suspect that he may not have been anti-gay. He was a well-known liberal, who supported progressive causes. Plus, he was in an industry (film) and particular niche in that industry (dance, musicals) that had a high number of gay men in it. Kelly may have had the casual anti-gay prejudices of his era. And he may have bent over backwards to prove his heterosexuality and disprove the stereotype of dancers as effete, but I bet he was accepting of gay relationships inside the industry (George Cukor). And I bet he supported gay rights as they evolved from the Sixties onward.

by Anonymousreply 18January 1, 2023 9:05 PM

So much speculation.

[quote] …I suspect … may have had …I bet … I bet … may have bent over…

by Anonymousreply 19January 1, 2023 9:08 PM

Just because you work with gays doesn’t mean you like them or agree with them r18. And just because you may meet a gay you like doesn’t mean you like gays in general or support their cause. The same way many racists have had to work with others who they hate deep down and co-exist with them. Or the same way some racists have met a black person they actually considered a “good one”. Doesn’t mean they suddenly aren’t racist.

Progressive views of the past didn’t include homosexuals. That was beyond taboo in the 80s, yet alone earlier.

by Anonymousreply 20January 1, 2023 9:10 PM

Gene Kelly NEEDED George Cukor and Minnelli.

He tried to be a director himself and the movies he directed were duds.

by Anonymousreply 21January 1, 2023 9:13 PM

On his deathbed, his soon to be widow would visit Gene in the hospital and she’d bring along her boyfriend.

by Anonymousreply 22January 1, 2023 10:45 PM

To R14 and his ilk, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing...

Of course Kelly has to be examined in his historical context. But let's examine that context. He worked in an industry with many, many gay men. He knew all kinds, from (by those days' standards) out performers to closeted moguls with casting couches. But not everyone went out of their way to disparage homosexuals -Kelly did. He deeply resented anyone or anything that connect him with homosexuality. Did the lady protest too much? I don't know. But my friend had a lot of quotes and stories about him instantly firing anyone who admitted to being gay, and spouting hated all the time. Sounds pretty homophobic to me!

You know, the diagnosis of being on the autism spectrum didn't exist until fairly recently, but that is not to say there weren't people on that spectrum throughout history. I stand by my original post: Gene Kelly evinced a fear and hatred of gays that went beyond what was typical of his generation -especially those who worked in show business. He was a homophobe -even by the standards of mid-century America. And just as racism in the past is still racism, homophobia in the past is still homophobia.

by Anonymousreply 24January 1, 2023 11:12 PM

Gene was a talent and quite an actor, dancer and performer. I watched Singin in the rain today.

by Anonymousreply 25January 1, 2023 11:21 PM

Ages ago a friend (she was daughter of an iconic Hollywood composer) reported on a sexual liaison with Mr. Kelly. She was barely in her 20s, he was in his 50s.

Her report, redacted to protect the innocent: He had a smallish cock. He left his black dress socks on. He slapped her on the ass afterwards. He left a $20 bill on the bedside table.

by Anonymousreply 26January 1, 2023 11:29 PM

R26 what a wonderful story.

by Anonymousreply 28January 2, 2023 12:02 AM

[quote] Her report, redacted to protect the innocent: He had a smallish cock. He left his black dress socks on. He slapped her on the ass afterwards. He left a $20 bill on the bedside table.

If only he’d added “move it along, toots.”

by Anonymousreply 30January 2, 2023 12:07 AM

They must have had him tightly tucked. That crotch looks like a broad in tights.

by Anonymousreply 32January 2, 2023 12:28 AM

R32 haha. Yes. He had to be tightly tucked. Almost all actors who played roles where they had to wear tights had to make sure no bulge was showing back then because that would not past censors.

It was a different world back then.

by Anonymousreply 33January 2, 2023 12:31 AM

R10 to be fair having sex in his private life isn’t the same as dancing, which was his profession. People like to shit on him for being such a dick and perfectionist, but shouldn’t we applaud him for being someone who actually cared about his craft and only willing to be associated with the best as far as dance goes.

He became a movie star but his first love and passion and craft was dancing, and he took that very seriously, especially because he was so fucking good at it.

He may have been an egomaniac, but he at least had right to have an ego about dancing. He was phenomenal.

His issue with Debbie was she couldn’t keep up with them and kept messing up. Yes, he was awful to her, berating her in front of everyone constantly, yelling at her and making her cry all the time, but he just wanted it to be perfect and he wasn’t gonna settle for less.

by Anonymousreply 35January 2, 2023 12:35 AM

Not PASS* censors. Sorry, just caught that autocorrect mishap

by Anonymousreply 36January 2, 2023 12:36 AM

We stopped inviting him to Nana's cul-de-sac parties because he would double-dip his potato chips and make fun of Ricardo Montalbán's gimp leg.

by Anonymousreply 37January 2, 2023 12:39 AM

Looks like Gene dresses to the right.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 38January 2, 2023 12:44 AM

This scene is one of my favorite dances from him because he’s in short shorts and watching him dance in short shorts only shows you hit beautiful his legs were. Thick.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 39January 2, 2023 1:38 AM

He was a homophobic bastard, with ugly feet.

by Anonymousreply 40January 2, 2023 2:48 AM

R40 show a pic of his feet

by Anonymousreply 41January 2, 2023 2:58 AM

R41, see the pic at R4. Most dancers have ugly feet.

by Anonymousreply 42January 2, 2023 5:27 AM

Hell no. He was an asshole.

by Anonymousreply 43January 2, 2023 9:32 AM

Dancing on screen with that big-ass grin pasted on his face, he always seemed very full of himself. I never cared for his on-screen persona in most of his films.

by Anonymousreply 44January 2, 2023 9:39 AM

He has six toes in that pic at r4.

by Anonymousreply 46January 2, 2023 6:30 PM

R31 if you don’t know you’re showing how ignorant you are about movie history.

by Anonymousreply 47January 2, 2023 6:52 PM

R21 Like Singin' In The Rain and On the Town? And don't give Donen the credit, he was usually Gene's assistant and much younger at the time.

I hear a lot about how bad Gene was on boards like this, but not that much that's actually documented, which makes me think it's exaggerated. He and his wife had an open house every Sunday and EVERYONE went - if he was an asshole, they wouldn't have. I also read an article where a few women were interviewed who had him as a dancing teacher in Pittsburg, and they only had glowing things to say about him. Gene was very charming and likeable on screen, I don't think you can fake it THAT much. He was probably a very driving taskmaster, but so were a lot of people in Hollywood.

by Anonymousreply 49January 2, 2023 7:40 PM

Some pictures of Gene in the 1950s, including one without his hairpiece.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 51January 2, 2023 8:12 PM

R50 Oh, please. That's ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 52January 2, 2023 8:25 PM

A photograph cannot lie, R52 and R4.

by Anonymousreply 53January 2, 2023 8:27 PM

R26- I'm interested in the sexual liaisons he had with well hung TOPS.

by Anonymousreply 54January 2, 2023 8:28 PM

R51- That photo is from the 1960's not the 1950's.

by Anonymousreply 55January 2, 2023 8:29 PM

That photo from the 1960's has eleven toes.

by Anonymousreply 56January 2, 2023 8:39 PM

Yes, I'd have paid. I mean....THAT ASS. (See "The Pirate.")

by Anonymousreply 57January 2, 2023 9:21 PM

R57 one of the scenes is at r39

by Anonymousreply 58January 2, 2023 9:24 PM

This fatty Asian is mesmerized by Gene’s ass throughout “The Pirate” and how tight his pants were throughout the film.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 59January 2, 2023 9:31 PM

I'd rather see Howard Keel.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 61January 4, 2023 4:39 PM

R49, not documented? The competitiveness and creepy behavior is documented in interviews and autobiographies. Debbie Reynolds was very open about how difficult he was. His wife Betsy Blair's book is kind to him, but you still can see how difficulty he was to live with,. His recent biography (He's Got Rhythm) is also sympathetic, but but make it clear why he was disliked by so many who worked with him.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 62January 9, 2023 12:47 AM

Debbie Reynolds was a nut who lived in her car, parked on side streets in her neighborhood in LA - according to her son Todd's book. Even Judy Garland never lived in her car. Debbie must have been really popular if no friend would even take her in.

by Anonymousreply 63January 9, 2023 12:53 AM

I just read this very biased article in Express - a review of the book, He's Got Rhythm.

“Throughout his career Gene pushed people to their limit. Whether he did this out of a need to exert power or to test a person’s character is debatable.” And Kelly’s co-stars suffered more than bruised egos trying to keep up with his demands. “Cyd Charisse claimed that her husband always knew when she had been dancing with Gene Kelly if she came home with bruises and with Fred Astaire if she came home unmarked,” say the authors.

Lana Turner was another victim. In a stage fight she told Kelly to throw her down harder. He later confessed, “Like a fool, I broke her elbow.”

Cyd Charisse told this story in a Charlie Rose interview I saw - with Van Johnson and Ann Miller. She told it humorously. She wasn't bruised because Gene was abusive, but because he danced with her more physically, in a different style than Astaire. She wasn't a "victim". The Lana Turner story: The reason she broke her elbow is that she bounced off the bed he had to throw her on. And it wasn't some secret, he told the story on himself and felt bad about it. And she was the one who insisted he throw her down harder. He didn't want to.

It's amazing how language can skew stories. I'm not saying he was a saint, I don't know - but this is just twisting the truth for hits.

by Anonymousreply 64January 9, 2023 1:07 AM

Everyone knows Kelly and Astaire were very different types of dancers. They were Hollywoods top male dancers, but very different.

Both always acknowledged this.

by Anonymousreply 65January 9, 2023 1:11 AM

For a second I thought I saw Grace Kelly, Gene..... Fuck yes.

by Anonymousreply 66January 9, 2023 1:11 AM

Totally agree with R5. Too much of an asshole for me to care about his ass. Judy seemed to like him; she probably got her own piece of him at some point.

by Anonymousreply 67January 9, 2023 2:33 AM

[quote] He and his wife had an open house every Sunday and EVERYONE went - if he was an asshole, they wouldn't have.

Exactly! Being popular at parties is absolute proof you cannot possibly be a bad person!

I like that kind of adult thinking.

by Anonymousreply 68January 9, 2023 2:56 AM

Yes, a person who hosts popular parties must necessarily be a good guy!

by Anonymousreply 69January 9, 2023 2:57 AM

I thought everyone went to George Cukor's. Or maybe it was just the gays.

by Anonymousreply 70January 9, 2023 3:00 AM

R68 Are you dim-witted? First of all I didn't say he was popular at parties. I said he had an open house every Sunday, and everyone went. (Spencer Tracy, Greta Garbo, Hedy Lamarr, Van Johnson, etc.) You don't go to someone's house every weekend for a cookout and to play party games if you detest them. Everyone played "The Game" (a form of charades) at the Kelly's - it was famous.

by Anonymousreply 71January 9, 2023 4:21 AM

And absolutely everyone went (or wanted to go) to the Black & White Ball in 1966. But that is absolutely no proof that Truman Capote was not a [etty asshole.

by Anonymousreply 72January 9, 2023 4:30 AM

Yes, please. I'd also like to request Paul Newman and Gregory Peck in their prime.

by Anonymousreply 73January 9, 2023 4:56 AM

There was a story about either Cole Porter or Noel Coward at one of Kelly's open houses. The songwriter sat down at the piano and sang and everyone was delighted - except Kelly who hated that somebody else was the center of attention, so he began to dance very energetically around the room to direct attention to himself.

by Anonymousreply 74January 9, 2023 5:34 AM

[quote] Judy seemed to like him; she probably got her own piece of him at some point.

Or someone close to Judy did. During the shooting of "The Pirate," Judy was convinced that Kelly was fucking her husband, Vincente Minnelli.

by Anonymousreply 75January 9, 2023 5:39 AM

We seem to be getting away from the original topic.

Yes, OP: I would very much have paid to see Gene Kelly fully nude, and even more to have been able to fuck him. With that ass on him with that kind of body, I don't care if he had zero dick whatsoever and/or if he tortured Debbie Reynolds with an electric cattle prod.

by Anonymousreply 76January 9, 2023 5:52 AM

Gene Kelly's homophobia was so much like Robert Conrad's: completely unexpected in someone who made such a point during his career of appearing not just sexily but genuinely and undeniably homoerotically.

I would guess that like Conrad he was gay but completely closeted, while making his tricks tie him up and beat him. You know someone with as heavily muscled of an ass as Kelly's did not come up through dancing school and Broadway juvenile choruses unmolested.

by Anonymousreply 77January 9, 2023 6:26 AM

No but only because his beautiful body is attached to his face. Handsome or not, that goofy rictus puts me off. I find his dancing style pretty goofy as well.

Then you have Fred Astaire, homely man, skinny shapeless body yet the most graceful interesting dancer in American history.

by Anonymousreply 78January 9, 2023 6:29 AM

I can't find any screenshots online, but I swear I remember seeing a film frequently airing on either AMC (when it was American Movie Classics) or TCM in which Gene had a pretty revealing scene in which he wore pretty tight boxer shorts. I want to say he was playing someone in the Navy or Army, so that probably narrows it down. Anyone know what film I'm vaguely recalling?

by Anonymousreply 79January 9, 2023 6:42 AM

R77 “homoerotic” wasn’t a thing in the fucking 1940s and 50s.

by Anonymousreply 80January 9, 2023 4:18 PM

R79 Anchors Aweigh. His only Best Actor nomination.

by Anonymousreply 81January 9, 2023 4:46 PM

I don't get people saying he was not good looking...A lot of people have noted a resemblance to Fredric March, especially the profile.

by Anonymousreply 82January 9, 2023 4:50 PM

[quote] [R77] “homoerotic” wasn’t a thing in the fucking 1940s and 50s.

Right, honey.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 83January 9, 2023 4:54 PM

Homoeroticism in the 1940s,.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 84January 9, 2023 4:55 PM

R83 Why is that homoerotic? Wouldn't that photo have been designed to appeal to women?

by Anonymousreply 85January 9, 2023 4:58 PM

Homoeroticism in the 1950s.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 86January 9, 2023 4:59 PM

R84 I always wondered why that guy is wearing a helmet while taking a bath nude.

by Anonymousreply 87January 9, 2023 4:59 PM

Homoeroticism in the 1950s.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 88January 9, 2023 5:00 PM

R78- With a generous amount of air brushing and a well-placed head merkin, I find his face quite passable.

by Anonymousreply 89January 9, 2023 5:10 PM

I love Gene Kelly but I don't think I would have liked to have met him. Betsy Blair seemed to have genuinely liked him. There's very little settling of scores in her book and she comes off as a very intelligent thoughtful woman. She was also an admitted communist and though Kelly was not he loved her and wanted to remain married to her through her blacklisting. Kelly was not only starring in and dancing in major movie musicals he was also directing them. These people cannot but be impossibly demanding on themselves and others to the point of cruelty. At the same time I've never heard of him being intentionally cruel like pretty much everyone says about Jerome Robbins.

by Anonymousreply 92January 9, 2023 7:12 PM

Gene Kelly was tightly wound in all respects. Volatile temper. Huge ego. And an ass you could bounce quarters off all day.

by Anonymousreply 93January 10, 2023 3:12 AM

I would need to see his rosebud.

by Anonymousreply 94January 10, 2023 3:58 AM

I don't know much about his views about anything except what I've read here, and I take that with a grain of salt.

I'm ambivalent about him. I can watch Singing In The Rain and An American In Paris and enjoy them. But there's something about him that I just don't like. I think of him like I think of Jay Leno. They try too hard to make you like them. They're both kind of smarmy.

Also, from having seen most of his movies several many times, I've noticed lately that he always seems to be upstaging others. Watch him. If someone has a part in a song, he's doing something to draw your attention.

by Anonymousreply 95January 10, 2023 4:14 AM

R72 Going to a ball is not the same as going to a colleague's home week after week for a casual open house-/cookout/gathering. But that fact seems to have escaped you time and again, here.

by Anonymousreply 96January 10, 2023 6:02 AM

[quote] [R83] Why is that homoerotic? Wouldn't that photo have been designed to appeal to women?

That photo could be entitled "Invitation to the Blow Job," a sexual activity which was much more greatly preferred (especially in 1939) by gay men than by straight women.

by Anonymousreply 97January 10, 2023 7:11 AM

IOff topic comment: I love these types of threads. I learn so much from you queens.

Thanks for all of your old Hollywood knowledge. I'm actually an LA native and movies never, ever interested me in any in depth way. Maybe because it was in my backyard. But over the years here on the DL I've grown to really appreciate it.

Thanks, you cunts.)

Now to the question: Nah. He was okay looking. Nice tank-like body. But no need to pay to see it. Especially if he had a small cock.

by Anonymousreply 98January 10, 2023 8:32 AM

Never thought him attractive at all. He danced through his thighs. Knees always bent. A look-at-me performer who did very well.

As for the alleged homophobia, did he ever say anything about the horrendous death of Danny Lockin?

Here's Danny's Hello Dolly screen test with prompting from Kelly.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 99January 10, 2023 11:54 AM

You can go to any beach and see bodies just as good. No I would not pay to see a naked body, I'm not that hard up.

by Anonymousreply 100January 10, 2023 12:04 PM

R83 that doesn’t mean it’s “homoerotic”. Homos adopting things doesn’t mean it belongs to them. They were around since before homos adopted it.

by Anonymousreply 101January 10, 2023 3:10 PM

Nobody ever said anything about Lockins' death. Streisand, Matthau, Peaker, Crawford. Not a word from any of the big names involved in the film when talking about it. Nobody has ever acknowledged him in an any way like he never even existed. Yet when he isn't being overdirected by Kelly to be so gosh gee golly he's one of the best things about the movie.

by Anonymousreply 102January 11, 2023 7:21 PM

[quote]Be honest… would you have paid to see Gene Kelly fully nude if you had the chance to kick him in the balls?"

Yes.

by Anonymousreply 103January 11, 2023 7:26 PM

And Kelly's direction of Crawford is very hurtful. Crawford comes across as being slightly brain damaged. If it weren't for Crawford's demented performance and Kidd's too often uninspired desperate choreography I'd consider it a great movie musical.

by Anonymousreply 104January 11, 2023 8:15 PM

R104 - It's still an overblown mess, but it would have been better without Crawford's demented performance and Streisand's Mae West imitation. And Walter Matthau.

by Anonymousreply 105January 11, 2023 11:03 PM

Stanley Donen was approached to direct HELLO, DOLLY first and turned it down.

by Anonymousreply 106January 12, 2023 4:34 AM

I don't know why Donen would have turned it down. It's good material. And a far better movie than the completely and deservedly forgotten Little Prince. One of those who ever would have thought these people once had talent movie musicals.

by Anonymousreply 107January 12, 2023 4:49 AM

Donen turned it down because he had set up in office in Swinging London and he did series of very offbeat movies (some gay-ish, some outright failures).

Freddie Raphael's interviews on Youtube suggest that Donen's London operations were skewed by Donen's demanding wife.

by Anonymousreply 108January 12, 2023 5:10 AM

Hello Dolly is a lot livelier and entertaining than Funny Girl

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 109January 13, 2023 1:19 AM

In 1968 who else from the Golden Age of Hollywood musicals could have helmed Dolly? Busby Berkeley was still alive!

Imagine Buzz screaming at Streisand "GOOGLE 'EM! I want to SEE YOUR EYES!"

by Anonymousreply 110January 13, 2023 1:40 PM

They were all still alive in '68. Plenty of other choices. But I have come to the conclusion after all these years Kelly did a terrific job except for a couple of bad lapses. Even Herman said he had grown to find it much better than he originally thought.

by Anonymousreply 111January 13, 2023 7:05 PM

There's a subculture of people on the internet who chastise celebs for not "not saying anything about" a particular thing. What were any of the people in this case supposed to do? Call a press conference to say how sorry they were someone died? Usually celebs say something about a performer's death if they're asked about it by some reporter.

by Anonymousreply 112January 13, 2023 7:26 PM

Gene Kelly was okay as a hoofer...but when he put on stretch pants and beret.......OH BROTHER! It was embarrassing to behold.

by Anonymousreply 113January 14, 2023 2:55 AM

Just musing - Kelly's opening number which r109 posted is terrific ...but if Berkeley has staged it, it would be as one continuous boom shot with as few cuts as possible. There are only four cuts i his ( 3:15 minute) famous Bobby Van number from "Small Town Girl" (1954) .

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 114January 14, 2023 3:40 AM

He was a perfectionist. People like that are always called "unlikable" and "difficult."

by Anonymousreply 115January 14, 2023 3:44 AM

No only women are called that.

by Anonymousreply 116January 14, 2023 7:04 AM

[quote] He was a perfectionist. People like that are always called "unlikable" and "difficult."

Name for me a likable and easy perfectionist.

by Anonymousreply 118January 14, 2023 7:08 AM

Many can be likable in their personal lives r118. Their perfectionism tends to be about their work.

by Anonymousreply 119January 14, 2023 2:49 PM

When a man won't do a bad scene that's integrity. When a woman won't do it, she's temperamental!

by Anonymousreply 120January 14, 2023 4:50 PM

he and MGM were both a perfect combination and a weird combination. Because Louis B. Mayer thought the key to having movies sell well was manufacturing wholesome happiness, the studio loved Kelly because he had that big cheesy smile, and encouraged him to do it all the time.

"An American in Paris' was considered very artistic (in a wholesome middlebrow way), and that's why the studio got so many awards for it. it is a good movie, but it's shameless in its cheesiness (I always have to skip the "I Got Rhythm" he performs with the children).

Minnelli knew how hot Kelly was, and loved showing off his body--either in this sheer bone-colored outfit or in the slutty pirate's gear he wears in "The Pirate." I don;t think Kelly was as interested in selling his own sexiness, though--he wanted to show off his artistic side.

by Anonymousreply 121January 14, 2023 5:10 PM

Kelly did whatever was required and asked of him, and he was someone who wasn’t gonna half-ass it. He took his work very seriously and wasn’t willing to settle for anything less than great, and that included the work of those he shared scenes with.

Was he an asshole? Sure. But you have to respect someone who takes their art and craft seriously and is only willing to give the best he can, and expects that from the people he works with too.

As for his sluttier outfits in films, he never chose those outfits, those were chosen for him by someone else. He himself always dressed appropriately in real life and any films he dressed himself he was fully clothed in clothes that actually fit him. He had an amazing body and was considered very handsome. He had a massive female fanbase.

by Anonymousreply 122January 14, 2023 5:21 PM

R121 you must not be familiar with old films. They were almost all wholesome. The rating system was “Pass”. That’s it. R and PG etc. didn’t exist yet. You either passed the censors and were released, or you didn’t pass and weren’t released until edited or filmed again.

by Anonymousreply 123January 14, 2023 5:24 PM

[quote] [R121] you must not be familiar with old films. They were almost all wholesome.

MGM's were famously more wholesome than the other major studios (cf. the Andy Hardy films Mayer adored), especially those for Warner's, which were edgier and darker.

Frankly, it actually sounds like you don't know that much about them since you didn't even know that.

by Anonymousreply 124January 14, 2023 5:27 PM

MGM was heavy on musicals and family films.

by Anonymousreply 125January 14, 2023 5:33 PM

[quote]"An American in Paris' was considered very artistic (in a wholesome middlebrow way), and that's why the studio got so many awards for it. it is a good movie, but it's shameless in its cheesiness (I always have to skip the "I Got Rhythm" he performs with the children).

I've always found the climactic ballet to be a bloated, pretentious and interminable bore. I guess it looked like "art" to enough people for the movie to win the Oscar as best picture, but I think it deserved that award only slightly more than "The Greatest Show on Earth" deserved its best picture award.

by Anonymousreply 126January 14, 2023 6:51 PM

It also came out in the 1940s. You’re thinking of it with a modern mindset. At the time it was artistic.

by Anonymousreply 127January 14, 2023 6:55 PM

Kelly's biggest regret was not doing the film of "Pal Joey" which made him a Broadway star. The story of a hot nightclub performer (Kelly) being the 'kept man' of a wealthy older woman (Vivienne Segal) was considered too gamey for Hollywood . even too sordid for Broadway the 1940 New York Times review, Brooks Atkinson wrote "If it is possible to make an entertaining musical comedy out of an odious story, Pal Joey is it. John O'Hara has written a joyless book about a sulky assignation. Under George Abbott's direction some of the best workmen on Broadway have fitted it out with smart embellishments. Pal Joey offers everything but a good time, whether Joey is a punk or a heel is something worth more careful thinking than time permits. Although Pal Joey is expertly done, can you draw sweet water from a foul well?"

Interestingly Joey established Kelly's Hollywood persona as a heel who gradually comes around, and nobody could have played it better. After Kelly had a smash hit with Rita Hayworth in "Cover Girl" (1944) , Harry Cohn bought it for Kelly to re-team him with Hayworth and Segal. MGM wanted Rita in return for a second Kelly loan out to Columbia, and Cohn foolishly refused. No Rita for MGM? Then no Kelly again for Columbia and "Pal Joey". Columbia did not make the Pal Joey film until 1957 with Sinatra, Kim Novak and Rita, now cast as the older rich socialite.

Regarding Rita at MGM...i can't help but think that Arthur Freed might have 'penciled her in' his mind (should Cohn have lent her) for "Yolanda and the Thief" with either Kelly or Astaire.

by Anonymousreply 128January 14, 2023 8:45 PM

A number of big MGM melodramas are very dark. They might have happy endings but getting there is filled with grief and pain. Off the top of my head Mrs. Miniver, Random Harvest, The White Cliffs of Dover, The Postman Always Rings Twice, The Green Years. Honestly have you people seen any MGM films other than A Date with Judy?

by Anonymousreply 129January 14, 2023 9:32 PM

I love An American In Paris. Maybe I saw it at the right age. I was about 16, I saw it on the CBS Late Movie, I think. I read Kenneth Tynan's interview with Louise Brooks (silent movie star) and was suprised she named AAIP, The Wizard Of Oz, and Pygmalion as her three favorite films - because they were also mine. Brooks said she probably like them because all three are about wish fulfillment.

Anyhow I have always thought MGM should have made a musical remake of The Philadelphia Story not with Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra, but with Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly, who were much better suited to the roles. They should have made it earlier, in the 40s, maybe with Betty Garrett as Liz Imbrie, but I'm not sure who could have played Tracy Lord. Maybe Hayworth. If only for the dancing.

by Anonymousreply 130January 14, 2023 9:42 PM

Kelly is terrible in High Society. For some reason only Hitchcock could get her beyond amateur level. She really is terrific in his films. Why is she so awful in everything else?

by Anonymousreply 131January 15, 2023 12:30 AM

Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire on The Tonight Show. Both come across really well and it's an enjoyable half hour.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 132February 18, 2023 4:28 AM

His body was tremendous. A very sexy guy too. A lot of charisma and swagger. And arrogance.

by Anonymousreply 133March 20, 2023 1:49 AM

Proof of teeny peenie? One minute I'm reading a post that discusses how they had to strap his meat down to pass the censors, the next, I'm reading how his dick was a disappointment. Can anyone clarify this for me?

by Anonymousreply 134March 20, 2023 2:49 AM

[quote] Can anyone clarify this for me?

Nobody on Datalounge can "clarify it" for you because no one on Datalounge ever saw his penis. I've never heard any Hollywood gossip about his penis either, no comments from people claiming to be his lover saying it was big or small. Why should anybody care, anyway?

by Anonymousreply 135March 20, 2023 2:56 AM

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7pa3TmqOorZ6csm%2BvzqZmraCimq6le5JraWxxZG5%2Fbq7EZp%2BoppWowWaRkV5vaV1xa3q4u9Slm2axn6p6qa3VnmSpmZmZerW7jKycnmWXmrumecqeo6WxXZvCrbjYZqWunJVitqd52KisZqCRmXq1tMRmmqGZnpiybg%3D%3D

Lorie Orum

Update: 2024-05-19