And I'm way old and know a tractor-trailer-load about old movies, and adore Katherine Hepburn, but I've never heard of Break of Hearts. Giving it a look right now, it appears to be one of those "classics are good for you" lesser efforts the studios used to put out (like "Humoresque" and a multitude of others with John Garfield, Elizabeth Taylor...)
shareI'd never seen it, either (although I had heard of it), despite being an old-film buff and a musician.
Strikes me more as a "musicians are bad for you" movie. :-)
Possibly due to it being a relatively short film, "Break of Hearts" has been shown on the Chicago metro area frequently over the years. Though it was released when Ms. Hepburn was considered "box-office poison", it's a pretty good film, and Mr. Boyer is a wonderful co-star. Definitely worth watching.
shareThe "box office poison" phase wasn't until a few years later (1938), when the Independent Theater Owners of America published a list including her, Astaire, Dietrich, Crawford and others. It was shortly afterward that she obtained her release from RKO and went back on the stage with The Philadelphia Story.
Poe! You are...avenged!
It's interesting how all the names you mentioned as having been on the list are now known to us as the greats of their time. When I started hearing recently that some of the early Hollywood era actors suffered serious valleys in their careers, I was surprised.
I never imagined anyone could survive that under the studio system. Then again, maybe that was the reason they survived. They were contracted to the studio so they used them anyway. Some of them fought their way back by lobbying for roles that paid off or they took smaller roles but I'm still surprised they were able to do it. It would have been a huge financial risk for the studios to do it.
I'd never heard of this movie either. I suspect they shelved a lot of riskier movies, like Break of Hearts, then later packaged and sold them off. That's my guess; of course, I have no idea.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]
Some other names appearing on that list were Greta Garbo, Mae West, Norma Shearer, Luise Rainer, Kay Francis, John Barrymore and Edward Arnold. Inasmuch as it was compiled by exhibitors, their short-term bottom-line considerations were, pardon the pun, paramount.
The last two above strike me as odd ones to include; both relegated almost exclusively to supporting roles at that point, their names wouldn't be considered marquee-value draws under any circumstances. I won't infer any cause-and-effect, but it's interesting to note that by '41, Garbo had retired; the following year saw the retirement of Shearer and the death of Barrymore; '43, the retirement of West and Rainer.
But Hepburn, Astaire and Crawford regrouped and hung in, and it could be said that most of their greatest years were ahead of them.
Poe! You are...avenged!
It's all very interesting and a good reminder that even the people who seem to have had it made often struggled in their careers. The sad truth is the names we know are the ones who endured. The others often were devastated by the abrupt end of their careers. Even if or especially if they hadn't made it big.
The more I watch these movies and then read the bios of early Hollywood actors the more problems I see. There were suicides; drug use and abuse, excessive drinking, poverty, premature deaths from freak accidents or other unusual circumstances, etc. These occurrences seem out of proportion to the rest of society and very similar to what happens still today in tinsel town.
There are also lots of people who transitioned out into other lucrative and successful careers so it can be done and it's not all bad but I feel a sense of sadness sometimes watching old movies because I know sometimes I'm watching the person at the best time of their life. When I know what lays ahead it can interfere with my enjoyment of the film. I might have to stop reading those bios. I don't read them until after I've seen the movies but these same actors appear in a lot of movies. There are sometimes disadvantages to knowing too much.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]
If there's any consolation, it might be found in the long and reasonably happy lives that the majority of "the ones who endured" lived. Even those retirees I mentioned lived out the remainders thereof in comfort and on their own terms. And those who persisted - Astaire, Hepburn, Crawford - never actually suffered any disruption of steady screen employment, except by personal choice.
And the structure of the studio system of the time, when the majors cranked out 40 to 50 films each per year, made those "financial risk(s)" to which you referred easier to bear.
I don't envy fame, though. Most of us have only to please one or perhaps a small group of bosses, but when your livelihood depends on the continuing ability to please often-fickle millions, it puts a rather high-stake and precarious spin on a career.
Poe! You are...avenged!
Doghouse-6 If there's any consolation, it might be found in the long and reasonably happy lives that the majority of "the ones who endured" lived.You're right and I appreciate you pointing that out but they often share the screen with the tragic figures; within the same movie there are the sad stories I spoke of and the happier ones to which you're referring.
I don't envy fame, though. Most of us have only to please one or perhaps a small group of bosses, but when your livelihood depends on the continuing ability to please often-fickle millions, it puts a rather high-stake and precarious spin on a career.I totally agree and have always felt this way throughout my life. Every time I see what celebrities have to deal with I'm glad I don't have a talent in the arts. If I did I'd probably have a passion for it and feel the drive to do what I do publicly but I suspect I'd be really miserable. I like who I am today but seriously doubt I'd be the same person if my life were lived in the spotlight.