109, 930-935 Dietrich & von Sternberg in Hollywood

Discuss DVDs and Blu-rays released by Criterion and the films on them. If it's got a spine number, it's in here. Threads may contain spoilers.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
kcota17
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: 109, 930-935 Dietrich & von Sternberg in Hollywood

#251 Post by kcota17 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 3:34 am

I haven’t watched all of the extras yet so I don’t know if this is ever talked about but I can’t find an answer anywhere: does anyone know if there was anything between Dietrich and Von Sternberg or anything that contributed to them not working again ever?

It’s obvious that he was in love with her, but what caused their collaborations to end? Was it as simple as The Devil is a Woman just not doing well? Did they have a falling out? Was Dietrich not fond of his affection? Did the studios not want to work anymore?

It just seems like such a blunt end to such a long string of tight collaborations that seems so unanswered.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: 109, 930-935 Dietrich & von Sternberg in Hollywood

#252 Post by knives » Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:12 am

If memory serves von Sternberg had burnt a lot of bridges by that point plus his films made no money. If you check his CV you'll see his career fell dormant not too long after their last collab.

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: 109, 930-935 Dietrich & von Sternberg in Hollywood

#253 Post by Drucker » Wed Aug 22, 2018 10:02 am

Yes, I got the impression (from the extras?) that Scarlett Empress and Devil Is A Woman both were money-losers, and then his contract was up?

Werewolf by Night

Re: 109, 930-935 Dietrich & von Sternberg in Hollywood

#254 Post by Werewolf by Night » Wed Aug 22, 2018 2:02 pm

david hare wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:40 am
For me the value is in the transfers which are wonderful to have.
Same here, and I'm sure that's where most of the budget went.

User avatar
Lowry_Sam
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 3:35 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: 109, 930-935 Dietrich & von Sternberg in Hollywood

#255 Post by Lowry_Sam » Wed Aug 22, 2018 10:39 pm

kcota17 wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 3:34 am
does anyone know if there was anything between Dietrich and Von Sternberg or anything that contributed to them not working again ever?
Can't recall which documentary or book presents the definitive take on their relationship, but I thought it was pretty well known that von Sternberg's obsession w/ Marlene was one way, as she had very little interest in him.....or any man, but only assumed the role to further her career...and The Devil Is A Woman basically sums up their relationship.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 109, 930-935 Dietrich & von Sternberg in Hollywood

#256 Post by domino harvey » Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:12 pm

If one goes by the incredible and incredibly libelous softcore porn film adaptation of Hollywood Babylon from the 70s, they both were gay and brought home men and women for each other. This is not a reliable primary, secondary, or tertiary source though

User avatar
NABOB OF NOWHERE
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River

Re: 109, 930-935 Dietrich & von Sternberg in Hollywood

#257 Post by NABOB OF NOWHERE » Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:47 am

domino harvey wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:12 pm
If one goes by the incredible and incredibly libelous softcore porn film adaptation of Hollywood Babylon from the 70s, they both were gay and brought home men and women for each other. This is not a reliable primary, secondary, or tertiary source though
Whilst most likely salacious gossip like the rest of the source material, albeit rather beguiling. I was wondering how might that work in practice?
Like you're a guy hit on by Marlene Dietrich no less but when you get back to the den there's Von Sternberg in his bathrobe waiting for you. What do you do? .... make the best of a bad job?

User avatar
whaleallright
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:56 am

Re: 109, 930-935 Dietrich & von Sternberg in Hollywood

#258 Post by whaleallright » Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:28 pm

who wouldn't?

Image

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: 109, 930-935 Dietrich & von Sternberg in Hollywood

#259 Post by zedz » Thu Aug 23, 2018 6:03 pm

whaleallright wrote:
Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:28 pm
who wouldn't?

Image
"Uh, Joe, do you mind if we turn the creepy clown picture towards the wall?"

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: 109, 930-935 Dietrich & von Sternberg in Hollywood

#260 Post by domino harvey » Thu Aug 23, 2018 6:17 pm

Pretty sure that was taken in Kristen Bell's house on the Good Place

Image

User avatar
david hare
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: WellyYeller

Re: 109, 930-935 Dietrich & von Sternberg in Hollywood

#261 Post by david hare » Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:19 pm

Image

User avatar
NABOB OF NOWHERE
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River

Re: 109, 930-935 Dietrich & von Sternberg in Hollywood

#262 Post by NABOB OF NOWHERE » Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:21 am

Well now that you mention it...

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: 109, 930-935 Dietrich & von Sternberg in Hollywood

#263 Post by Michael Kerpan » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:58 am

Why do I think ... Svengali....

User avatar
david hare
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: WellyYeller

Re: 109, 930-935 Dietrich & von Sternberg in Hollywood

#264 Post by david hare » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:20 pm

It was Chaplin who was convinced by Jo's direction of Gloria Hale in Salvation Hunters to give her the lead female part in Gold Rush. Sternberg had an unerring eye for photogenic women, and men. He waas married (heterosexually) four times so even I would not put much cred into the Bi theory. Marlene was, relatively openly, bisexual. Jo was not blind to homosexuality or to male beuaty, and after one uprarious night with Eisenstein and others during 1930-31 where EIsie showed the group his pornographic Mexican doodles the reaction was such that he comments in the autobiog, "These could obviously only be circulated amongst a very '"understanding "company.... he had a prediliction for very well-built males." Jo never seemd interested in involving gay characters in his work, having likely seen Dreyer's superb MIchael, he probably decided ther ewas simply no improving on it. I woudl like to think given most of the material circualting then homosexuality itself wouold by default become the subject of any movie which inveitably made it pathological, or a "problem". Dreyer's film is one of the few movies in history to deal with a gay milieu and gay characters in such a (still) radically straitforward way. Michael could only have been made during the Weimar era and at UFA. IN fact itu still remains unique and revolutionary.

Peter McM
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:11 am

Re: 109, 930-935 Dietrich & von Sternberg in Hollywood

#265 Post by Peter McM » Fri Aug 24, 2018 10:17 pm

Lowry_Sam wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 10:39 pm
kcota17 wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 3:34 am
does anyone know if there was anything between Dietrich and Von Sternberg or anything that contributed to them not working again ever?
Can't recall which documentary or book presents the definitive take on their relationship, but I thought it was pretty well known that von Sternberg's obsession w/ Marlene was one way, as she had very little interest in him.....or any man, but only assumed the role to further her career...and The Devil Is A Woman basically sums up their relationship.
The biography Von Sternberg, written by John Baxter, pub. 2010. Excellent book, very authoritative.

User avatar
david hare
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: WellyYeller

Re: 109, 930-935 Dietrich & von Sternberg in Hollywood

#266 Post by david hare » Sat Aug 25, 2018 9:17 pm

I would take just about everything in Baxter’s book with several tablespoons of salt. His “fatal flaw” theory has s not only crap but a distraction from the very legitimate question of WHY his career basically ended in substance in 1941.

Post Reply