GWTW, an “Un-classic”? “Fiddle dee dee!”

http://entertainment.msn.com/movies/moviesfeature/dvd/not-classic-movies?GT1=7701&silentchk=1&

In response to this ridiculous article from MSN a couple days ago (which I commented on–see page 32 and guess who I am), I will now go off on a tangent. (this was posted on my Lj a couple days ago)

Eh, ehem…

Reasons why Gone with the Wind will NEVER be considered an “Un-classic”

I am assuming this author put that on his “list” (and lame list it is considering how many films have been made in the history of filmdom) simply to stir controversy/get attention/get comments on his article/look stupid, but based on his explanation of why my favorite film of all time should be demoted from it’s status at the top of the pedestal of classic films, is pretty invalid. Here’s what he had to say:

Go ahead, say it: The idea that this towering totem of Hollywood’s Golden Age may not deserve the praise it’s received over the decades is downright sacrilegious, and we should be strung up for saying so. To which we reply: When was the last time you actually watched this marathon paean to the Old South? We can appreciate what producer David O. Selznick accomplished — after hearing the film’s backstory, it’s a miracle the movie even managed to get made — but this template for every bloated spectacle made since is one creaky melodrama. Vivien Leigh’s touted performance now seems drastically mannered and camp (”I’ll never go hungry again!”), set pieces such as Scarlett O’Hara’s tour of the Civil War battlefield stick out like sore thumbs amidst the overwrought “intimate” moments, and Victor Fleming’s direction never rises above journeyman level. Even Clark Gable’s charismatic Rhett Butler feels less like an actual character and more like a star simply savoring the taste of the scenery between his teeth. You can chalk up the retrograde politics to the times — still, we dare you to sit through Butterfly McQueen’s and Hattie McDaniel’s scenes without wincing — but the sheen of this capo di tutti capi of movies has worn off once and for all. For all its pomp, “Gone With the Wind” no longer blows us away.

And here are the reasons why that author needs to go back to school.

#1. When was the last time I actually watched that marathon paean? About a month ago. To assume no one watches that movie anymore is just ridiculous. I’ve seen it twice in theatres and each time there have been quite a lot of people in attendance of all age ranges. It’s shown quite frequently on TCM where it is the favorite film of Mr. Ted Turner. It has done well in every re-release it’s ever had and if you count for inflation, that marathon of a film has made more money at the box office than ANY OTHER FILM EVER MADE! Sorry, Star Wars! Even you, Titanic, haven’t blown Scarlett O’Hara’s attitude problem out of the water.

#2. The author listed several films that “deserve” their classic status–among them, Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz and Casablanca–all films you’d find at the top of any critic’s list of best films ever. But he talks about GWTW being a “creaky melodrama”. As if Casablanca isn’t overly melodramatic? As if Oz isn’t any less hammy? Give me a break, I don’t even think you can make that distinction when melodrama and hammy acting was basically the style in the 1930s and 40s and frankly, i can think of a whole barrel full of films that are more hammy than GWTW. GWTW is a melodrama in every sense, yes. It’s a weepy/woman’s picture/tearjerker/etc. It is what it is. It didn’t have pretenses of being a politically correct Civil War story, it’s the story of a woman who goes to great lengths to survive and save what’s important to her and thus audiences connected with her during the Depression and they connect with her even still today.

#3. The sheen of this capo di tutti capi of movies has worn off once and for all. No, it hasn’t. Just because this film was made in the 1930s when the computer graphics that cover up for a lot of shitty stories today didn’t exist, doesn’t mean that GWTW is not still a technically stunning film. It set the bar in 1939 for all films that came after it. You may watch it on your little tv and not think much of the craftsmanship that went into transforming the Selznick backlot into a Georgian plantation, but see this film on the big screen and it’s a whole different story. The actual story itself still holds up remarkably well because of its universal themes and its strong, fleshed out characters, otherwise it wouldn’t have made any impact and it certainly wouldn’t continue to be reintroduced to younger generations.

#4. GWTW has had a HUGE impact on pop-culture. I would even go so far as to argue that it’s impacted pop-culture more than any other film. Not only was it the first film to vastly break box office records, it won more Oscars than any other film until that time, it earned the first Oscar for an African American woman, the first Oscar for a British woman, launched Vivien Leigh into a permanent place at the top of the film/pop culture food chain, where, even if people can’t tell you her real name, they most likely can tell you the name of the character she made famous. When your two main characters land a spot on People/VH1’s list of top pop-culture icons of all time, you know you did something right 70 years ago. It’s been re-released in theatres countless times, the book sequel was the fastest selling sequel ever published, and, according to antiques/collectors’ magazines, memorabilia for that film is THE most sought after junk in filmdom–even moreso than Oz, and Oz is SUPER popular for collectors. When people are still making/buying merchandise after 70 years, you know it’s still popular–kind of like how Audrey Hepburn and James Dean and Marilyn are still popular in pop-culture.

GWTW was a case of the right film being made at the right time in history. You won’t find anyone today who can fill the shoes of clark gable and vivien leigh–so ingrained in the public mind is that film and those characters. It was popular then and it’s popular today. And despite what some people say, people still love it and always will. And that, my friends, is why GWTW will never fall into the vacuum of oblivion.

suck on that, msn, and then hire yourself a new film commentator because this guy sucks.

THE END *ROLL CREDITS”

I posted about this on my own livejournal a couple days ago but I thought it might be interesting for Vivien Leigh fans to comment on. I’m really interested in hearing other people’s opinions.

Orson’s Shadow: full of surprises?

Last week, Viv and Larry dot com contributor and awesome person, Lauren (the one who made that fabulous Vivien Christmas Tree tribute), was lucky enough to go to Pasadena to see the play “Orson’s Shadow,” which is based on incidents that occurred in 1960 when Orson Welles was directing Larry Olivier and Joan Plowright in Eugene Ionesco’s “Rhinoceros”. Here’s what she had to say on her LJ:

So my trip to Pasadena was beyond amazing, the show was great-there were a few parts where I was like WTF, that didn’t happen. But the ending made the whole play!
So Joan Plowright is explaining to the audience what happened to everyone blah blah blah…. “I’m the only one on this stage that’s still alive blah blah blah”
Blah
“Larry and I got married and had three healthy children- etc.”
“Then Larry contracted an muscular disorder-and he never returned to the stage-yet he somehow managed to make movies-to keep our family going.”

“And I can remember one night Larry was watching the tele, and That Hamilton Woman was on.” (Joan is crying at this point)
And he said ‘There! That’s true love’ and I know when he said that he didn’t see me. It was Vivien. Vivien Leigh. “

I wanted to cry then and there.
The guy that played Larry looked NOTHING like the real Olivier, but he did a very good job. And Sharon Lawrence who played Vivien pulled a great Blanche Dubois, but her Viv accent was so OFF. My mom said “Lauren, you’re too picky,” but who wouldn’t be. I know what she sounds like and if that’s not what I get then of course I’m going to complain.
We got moved down to the third row, we could see everything. Ken spat all the time I felt bad for the ladies in the front row.
Sharon didn’t look like Viv, but from the profile there was maybe something that reminded me of Viv.
The lady that played Joan Plowright looked just like her! It was so scary.
I also loved when Larry was talking to Orson Well’s and says “Orson I know you like Vivien-but you don’t understand, you don’t understand, I love her. And she’s in love with oblivion. I wish I could be oblivion.”
I wanted to cry there too.
Haha, so all in all, it appears she liked the pla. I thought I’d been to the Pasadena Playhouse–I thought it was this place in Santa Monica, but, no, it is actually in Pasedena, and that’s a bit too far for me to drive. Ah well, Lauren, I’m glad you told us about it, ad that you liked it! By the way, who’s Ken? Ken Tynan, rat-like theatrical and film critic? Or was that an actor’s name?

Lauren provided some photos from her super adventure:


Thanks, Lauren!

Read a review of the play at curtainup.com:
http://www.curtainup.com/orsonsshadowny.html

The play will be at the Pasedena Playhouse here in SoCal until Feb. 17, so see it while it’s hot!

Other Roles?

I saw There Will be Blood tonight starring my favorite modern actor and acting God, Daniel Day-Lewis, and it made me think how I bet he could play any part and totally excel at it, so talented is he.  He doesn’t do many films, which sucks, but whenever he does he’s just amazing.

So this got me thinking about Viv, Larry and the roles they may have been offered but had turned down, and which parts I think they would have been great in.

I know Vivien was offered the role of Alicia Huberman in Alfred Hitchcock’s thriller, Notorious (my favorite Hitchcock film), back in 1939.  According to Criterion, she had been interested, but by the time the film was made in 1944, Vivien was back in England and the role went to Ingrid Bergman.  I think Ingrid was fantastic, but I would have loved to see Viv in a role like that, especially opposite someone like Cary Grant.  I always thought she and Cary would have been amusing together.

I also think she would have done very well as Cathy in Wuthering Heights.  Merle Oberon did alright, but she wasn’t as dynamic an actress as Vivien was.  Vivien really, I think would have done well in any Victorian part, you know, anything by Jane Austen, the Brontes, any sort of period piece.  She really had the look for it and the delicacy and the charm.  She would have made a great Lizzie Benett in Pride and Prejudice, any version.  I really would have loved to see her do some more comedy, especially after she came to Hollywood because the British pre-war productions she was in really weren’t that good quality.

As for Larry, I know he was offered the role as Don Corleone in Francis Ford Copolla’s The Godfather and he turned it down.  As much as I think Marlon Brando was great in that role I would have been interested to see how Larry played it.  I wish he would have done more modern films when he was younger.  He wore a suit well, and I loved him in Rebecca, I thought he was fabulous.

What roles–classic or modern– do you think they would have excelled at, or maybe played better than the original actors?   I’d love to hear your opinions!

“It’s this from which you get your strength: the red earth of Tara.”

Review (with spoilers!): Gone with the Wind (Victor Fleming, 1939), and one girl’s (me) journey into the past.

Oh boy, where to start, where to start? I guess I’ll start by saying that this is my favorite film of all time; it is also my favorite novel of all time as well. Usually I end up disappointed with films that are adapted from my favorite books but not this time. Can you believe that there was a time when I detested this movie? I didn’t even want to try watching it. It was “too old, boring, annoying, long, and did I mention too old?” I’m sad to say that for a girl who had been in love with the movies her whole life, I wasn’t a very open-minded film nerd.

That all changed when I was 18. You see my friend, Tara, who was named after GWTW, had a poster of Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh in that famous shot where Rhett has asked her to marry him and then he plants a dominating kiss on her. I said, “Tara, what? You actually like that movie?” To which she replied, “Yeah, it’s like my favorite movie ever, it’s so good.” I was confused. How could my friend who was so awesome, like this film? But what if she was right? What if it WAS the best film ever and I was missing out for being so stubborn?

I decided to read the book first; I got a used paperback for like $4 and proceeded to read it. Within a couple chapters, I was hooked. I’d always loved to read, and adored books with intricate and detailed imagery. I like to be able to picture the scene in my mind and feel like I’m there, in another time and another place. I like to believe the characters, even if I don’t like them. Isn’t that what good books are all about? Needless to say, I finished the novel after two months feeling accomplished and sad at the same time. Accomplished because I’d read long books before, but not as long as GWTW (to this day it remians the most lengthy book I’ve ever read aside from “The Count of Monte Cristo” by Alexandre Dumas). Sad because it was over. The saga of Scarlett O’Hara and her love for the wrong man was over and then I was thrust back into reality and I wanted more. I wanted to go back to the Civil War South and stay there. Well, the next best thing to do was see the film. So my mom bought it for me for Christmas, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Gone with the Wind is the story of selfish, beautiful and manipulative Scarlett O’Hara, whose life is shaped by the American Civil War and Reconstruction. Scarlett thinks she loves the dreamy Ashley Wilkes but is sought after by the roguish Rhett Butler who seeks to make her love him. As Scarlett’s world is turned upside down by circumstance and her own actions, so are her feelings toward those who love her and those she can’t quite understand her feelings for. Once she realizes that her love for Ashley Wilkes was nothing more than a fantasy, an illusion, it may be too late to have a life with the man she really loves so much because he is so like her.

One of the first things that struck me after watching the film for the first time was how similar the two leads were to Margaret Mitchell’s descriptions of Rhett and Scarlett in the book. When you read about the search for the leading lady by David Selznick, the producer, you have to wonder how he must have known not to sign anyone until Vivien Leigh showed up and surprised everyone with her striking facial similarity to Mitchell’s heroine. It must have been fate. Vivien was perfect for that part, in my opinion. It didn’t matter if she wasn’t Southern, if she had a British accent, she pulled it off like a dream and it’s no wonder she took home the Oscar that year for her performance. Clark Gable did equally as well. He fit Rhett Butler like a glove, and you have to acknowledge the chemistry between those two on screen. It’s like if you lit a match, the whole place would explode, so thick was the sexual tension between those two characters. I think it’s an example of perfect timing as far as when it was made, who was cast, and audience’s sensibility to screen stories at that time. That’s why it works so well.

I think the film has lasted so long in the mind of the public was not because it was so lavish and big budget for its time; it’s because of audience’s ability to relate to the characters, especially Scarlett, and the themes presented in the story. Compared to so many womens’ roles during the 1930’s, Scarlett O’Hara was the ultimate bitch. She wasn’t demure, she wasn’t kind, and she wasn’t submissive. Maybe that is why so many actresses vied for the part, because it was so different from the norm. Everyone wanted to play the bad girl. Yet despite Scarlett’s flaws (and she’s got more than I can count) as a person, she was strong, full of vitality in the face of destruction, and, in Margaret Mitchell’s words, she had “gumption.” She adapted as her surroundings changed while everyone else (except Rhett) fell behind. She didn’t give up despite war ravishing her family, her friends and her home. She vowed to hold on to what was important to her, and even though she may have lost more than she gained in doing so, she refused to quit.

Scarlett was like a phoenix being reborn from the ashes and rising up as a new woman. And Rhett; tall, dark, handsome, sarcastic Rhett, what kind of girl doesn’t like a character like that. I’d rank him up there with your Heathcliffs and your Darcys and your Rochesters. He is my favorite character in the novel and my favorite literary crush of all time, haha. I mean honestly, who doesn’t love his blackguard ways?

Gone with the Wind is an epic film in every sense of the word, and Robert Osbourne (whose job I want) made a good point last night when he introduced it on TCM. He said it was “the movie to which all other films are held up to.” That certainly was true at the time. It stands as the pinnacle of Hollywood’s Golden Age of cinema, and I personally think that even if someone tried to remake it today, the original would not be lost from memory, nor would its leading actors.

With its stellar performances, sweeping music, beautiful cinematography, and heart-wrenching melodrama, Gone with the Wind still remains number one in so many people’s hearts and I think it will continue to be so for generations to come.

It is a film for all time. They just don;t make ‘em like that anymore.  And if you haven’t read the book but you like to read, I encourage you to do so, it’s so wonderful.  It might just change your life.  No, I’m serious, that’s how rad it is.

Rating: 4 stars

“What do they know of Heaven or Hell, Cathy, who know nothing of life?”

Review (with SPOILERS!)–Wuthering Heights (William Wyler, 1939)

Honestly, this is one of my favorite films of all time. Starring Laurence Olivier as the dark and brooding Heathcliff, and Merle Oberon as the whimsical Catherine Earnshaw, Wuthering Heights as directed by William Wyler and produced by Samuel Goldwyn, was one of the highlights of 1939–the year many historians consider to be the greatest in motion picture history. It was based on the romantic Gothic novel by Emil Bronte, and focuses on the main love story between Heathcliff and Cathy instead of branching off to include everything else from the novel. However, in my opinion, it still works.

As a young girl, Cathy Earnshaw lived with her father, housekeeper Ellen, and brother Hindley, at Wuthering Heights, a middle-class house on the moors of northern England. The children are spoiled, but when Mr. Earnshaw brings home a beggar boy he found on the streets of Liverpool (whom he calls Heathcliff), the children must learn to share what they have with “those less fortunate.” While Hindley grows to detest Heathcliff, who becomes a stable boy after their father dies, and sees him as some sort of rival for first, their father’s affection, and later as master of the house), Cathy befriends him and eventually falls in love with him.

From a young age, Cathy and Heathcliff take refuge from life’s troubles by climbing up to Penistone Crag, and there they fashion an imaginary kingdom in which they reign as king and queen. It is at Penistone where they can be together as well as the place where Heathcliff declares to her that she’ll “always be my queen.” As much as flighty Cathy loves Heathcliff, she is soon torn between her loyalty to him and the class difference that separates them. Once, out at Penistone Crag, Cathy hears music coming from the neighboring estate, Thrushcross Grange, where the wealthy Lintons are throwing a party. Heathcliff and Cathy go to investigate, and as circumstance has it, Cathy becomes involved in this wealthy sphere while Heathcliff is shunned.

Cathy then falls for Edgar Linton (played by David Niven), but just as she turns her back to Heathcliff’s undying love, causing him to flee Wuthering Heights, she discovers that she and Heathcliff share the same soul. However, by then it is too late–Heathcliff leaves and Cathy marries Edgar Linton. Heathcliff does return, however, after having found his fortune elsewhereand having become hard and bitter, and he vows to have his revenge. At this point, the story enters a love quadrangle when Cathy’s sister-in-law, Isabella Linton, falls head over heels for the newly made “gentleman” that is Heathcliff. Cathy tries to dissuade Isabella from trying to be with Heatchliff because she knows Heathcliff is just using Isabella to punish her for being disloyal. Heathcliff eventually marries Isabella but still loves Cathy, and upon learning that Cathy is dying, he curses her even in death.

Having read the novel in high school and not liking it very much, I first saw the version starring Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche, which I also hated. It wasn’t until I saw the 1939 version that I both fell in love with the film concept of Wuthering Heights and with Laurence Olivier. Many will agree that Olivier is the quintessential Heathcliff. He defines tall, dark and handsome, but the thing that I love most about his portrayal is his sensitivity and the emotion that he is able to convey from those deep, intense eyes. His voice is also wonderful–very powerful yet capable of being soft as well. This film launched Olivier as an international heartthrob, and deservedly, I think. He was nominated for his first Oscar for his role.

I like David Niven as Edgar (actually I like David Niven in just about anything) , and Merle Oberon made a decent Cathy, although I don’t think she was a huge talent and she falls flat during the end scene. Rounding out the cast are Flora Robson as Ellen, Geraldine Fitzgerald as Isabella (in an Oscar-nominated performance),and Donald Crisp as Dr. Kenneth. Alfred Newman’s beautiful score and Gregg Toland’s wonderful cinematography help make Wuthering Heights a lasting classic and a four-kleenex weepie.

Sadly, it’s not available on DVD in the States but you can get it on import through Amazon.

Final Rating: 4 Stars.

“My vanity saved me.”

A couple days ago I finished reading the book Self Portrait by Gene Tierney. It was very interesting 9too bad it’s out of print but I found it at the library), well written and a harrowing first-hand account of what it’s like to live with a “fractured mind.” Gene and Vivien Leigh could have been some kind of sisters from another mister; they both went through what seem like similar experiences. They were both beautiful, both privileged, and both were romantically involved with really famous handsome guys (Gene dated JFK before he became president and Tyrone Power was in love with her). Though stemming from different circumstances, both Gene and Vivien suffered from mental illnesses. Gene never really identified herself as being strictly bipolar, she might have had a different disorder, but she talked about going through manic depressive spells, being in and out of asylums before she was 40, losing a child (Daria who had to be given up because she was born severely mentally handicapped), and living with the knowledge that something wasn’t quite right in her brain.

Gene felt completely lost, and no one seemed to understand what was wrong (save for Humphrey Bogart during their film together in the early 1950’s. Bogie’s sister had been mentally ill and he knew the signs, so he told the studio chief and producers that Gene needed help immediately); she even nearly attempted suicide by trying to jump off a building–her vanity saved her, she said–she couldn’t bear to think of herself splattered on the pavement. At one point she even mentions seeing the same psychiatrist who treated Vivien. He did nothing to help her, she said. He simply sat down, asked her some questions, decided nothing was wrong, got up and left. She had shock therapy, just like Vivien–it erased parts of her memory, she said, and she regretted having to go through with it.

It makes me wonder, if Vivien had written her own autobiography, would she have talked about the same things? Would she have been candid about her illness, and would she even have overcome her demons? Do you even think Viv was aware of what was wrong? Gene apparently did. She understood what was wrong and made a solid effort to “get better.” However, it certainly wasn’t easy for her. As anyone who has ever been diagnosed with some level of clinical depression (I have) knows, the feeling of emptiness and pervasive numbness is scary and frustrating, and it takes a lot of effort to get up and get over it. But for Gene and for Vivien and others with a lasting disorder that they couldn’t control even with treatment at the time (think Sylvia Plath or Ernest Hemingway who didn’t make it), I can’t even imagine what it must have been like. In reading this book I really thought that it must have been similar to what Vivien had gone through.

What do you think she would have talked about has she written her own autobiography? What would you have liked to know about her that you haven’t read in other books?

WARNING: Viv and Larry would NOT Approve

Dear vivandlarry.com gallery users,

I wasn’t sure where else to put this as it may get lengthy, so I’m doing it here and hopefully people will read it because I think it’s very important.

I was perusing the Vivien Leigh contents of ebay.com today and found something that made me pretty angry. There are currently two listing up for auction–two hand colored photos–that can be found in the gallery at vivandlarry.com. One of them was specifically hand colored for this site by a personal friend of mine. I know this for a fact. She did not find it anywhere else online…not worth1,000, not someone else’s website, she spent time and effort hand coloring a photo another user graciously scanned and donated from her personal collection specifically for this site.

To see this photo up for auction on ebay, to be sold for profit by someone who got permission neither from myself nor the person who’s work went in to coloring that photo for other people’s enjoyment (or the person who’s collection it originally came from for that matter), really pisses me off. Now, I don’t know if this seller personally registered for the gallery here, saw it, and thought it would be nice to print out and sell, or if someone else found it here and passed it along. Either way, it’s pretty shady if you ask me and I don’t appreciate and neither does my friend. Visitors to vivandlarry.com’s gallery can print any of the photos for their personal collection for free and get better quality than they would buying a repro. of a photo that is originally smaller than 8×10 on ebay. Smaller photos blown up=shit quality.

It’s one thing to put a photo on another website (something that pisses most web people off anyway), but it’s entirely something else to try and make a profit off someone else’s creativity. I think the fact that the photo was hand colored by a visitor to the site sets it apart from other photos someone might buy or reproduce from archival negatives, original prints, or anything like that. I see a lot of reproduced photos on ebay that can also be found in the gallery here and that can be purchased or downloaded anywhere on the internet, but not photos like this, which I consider to be “original”, sort of on the same level as graphic design or print work, which is why I’m angry. You just don’t do that.

Long story short: I really don’t want to take down the gallery or take out special contributions to the site. Th e goal of the site in general and the gallery specifically is to have the most rare/HQ photos; I don’t want to have the same photos every other site has. However, I don’t want to see other people’s creativity for sale without permission. Therefore, if this happens again, I might have no other choice but to take down the gallery completely (and what’s the website without the gallery?). It’s up to you.

I would also ask you not to bid on or purchase that particular photo on ebay. If you want a glossy of it for your wall or something, just print it out from the website for free and save not only image quality but money as well.

Happy holidays.

More of Lauren’s Tree

By popular demand, here are more photos of Lauren’s Vivien Tribute Christmas tree. Another super cute idea she had was to make gift bags with photos of Vivien on them, which people picked up. See a picture of the bags here:

http://www.kern.org

Lauren picked out and printed the cream of the crop of gorgeous Vivien/Larry photos and used pink boas, feathers, beads and other objects reminiscent of Blanche DuBios to give her tree a great accent. Here are some photos she provided.

It looks so gorgeous, Lauren, thank you for sharing!!

Olivier Statue Finally Unveiled

Actually, it was unveiled about a month and a half ago, BUT, vivandlarry.com visitor and awesome girl, Mariana, from London, went out to take photos last week! The statue shows Larry as Hamlet from his 1947 Oscar winning film, and it is located jut outside his National Theatre on the South Bank, not far from Waterloo Bridge. It was commissioned by Larry’s son, Tarquin, sculpted by Angela Connor, and unveiled for the thespian’s centeniary this year.

Photos copyright Mariana, November 2007.

Thanks Mariana!

Vivien Leigh Tribute–Toast of the Town

Here’s something really cool and worth mentioning! Vivien Leigh fan and vivandlarry.com frequent visitor, Lauren E., has landed her name on the front page of her local newspaper this past November 15! Lauren participated in the annual Christmas Tree decoration exhibit at the Kern County Museum in Bakersfield, CA. Her design, “A Tribute to Vivien Leigh,” was a creative and beautiful way of paying homage to her favorite actress!

The article read as follows:

Magic lights night
The Bakersfield Californian | Thursday, Nov 15 2007 8:15 PM

The holidays are under way at the Kern County Museum.

Photos:
Photo by John Harte
A Tribute to Vivien Leigh by Lauren Enriquez is among the cleverly-designed Christmas trees on display at the Kern County Museum. The exhibit, which opened Thursday night and is titled Clock Tower Holidays 2007: Movie Magic, features an assortment of movie-themed trees, ornaments and wreaths.
Thursday night, it was the lighting of the decorated Beale Memorial Clock Tower. Visitors also saw holiday trees with this year’s Movie Magic theme.

+++++++++

Lauren was nice enough to answer some questions on livejournal about her design and ideas and why she was inspired by Vivien.

What made you decide to make a tree dedicated to Vivien? I wanted to make the VL tree because I was impelled to show my adoration for Vivien, because I can’t make a website or have the best/biggest collection but it felt like I was taking to much and I had to give back to show everyone how much Vivien does mean to me.

How did you get your inspiration? My inspiration actually came from myself; I designed and decorated the entire tree by myself; I did get some help from my aunt putting up the star lights, and my friend Carolina helped me with this thick clear crystal looking material that we wrapped around the tree. But I went into the project experimenting the entire time, it was like making Gone With
The Wind I didn’t know what I was doing, but that I wanted it to be explosive. I experimented over and over, and got great ideas from various people. I do have an artistic side to me; I’m in intermediate art and I’ve always been told I’m talented but I just don’t do art projects that often so most people don’t know, sometimes even I forget.

What did you hope other people would see in it? I want other people to fall in love with Vivien when they saw my tree. And to get her out into modern society; to let everyone know that a woman as talented and gorgeous as Vivien did exist. Another goal of my tree was to show those who know who Vivien was that she was more that just the star of Gone With The Wind (which I love don’t get me wrong!) But I wanted the people who see my tree to see the woman, and ALL of her accomplishments; her versatility, the different ways she could be beautiful. I wanted all the things that make her so real to us die heart Viv fans to be reflected in my tree.

If you’re in the Bakersfield area, stop by the museum and see Lauren’s tree along with other movie tributes!

Here’s what’s coming up at the museum, 3801 Chester Ave.:

Movie Magic: See the trees 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Saturday and noon to 5 p.m. Sunday through Dec. 30 (closed Nov. 22 and Dec. 24-25). Admission: $8 adults, $7 seniors (ages 60+) and students ages 13-17, $6 students ages 6-12, $5 children ages 3-5.

She had been talking about this tree for months, so it’s really cool to see her dedication payed off!  GREAT JOB, LAUREN! Viv would be proud of your efforts!