Toto from Wizard of Oz as one of The Pirate's dogs? - Tortilla Flat (1942) Discussion

[–] pmiano100 16 years ago

It would have been better if a few non-Latino slackers had been added to the group. As it is, I don't think one Latino actor played a paisano. The film did show hard-working Latinos, but I can understand Hispanic Americans finding it offensive. BTW, the writers, maybe even Steinbeck, aren't too good with names. Torelli and Morelli are Italian names, not Spanish ones. Of course, many Italians immigrated to Latin America, but not that many to Mexico.

I have never understood why some people believe the myth that Mexicans are lazy. They take the afternoon siesta because it gets too hot to work, not because they're lazy. They are not. After it cools off, they go right back to work. They do the same thing in Spain and Italy. I haven't met a lazy Mexican yet. Quite the contrary.

reply

[–] highwaystar50 16 years ago

I hate to break this to you but this story takes place in California, not Mexico. At any rate, I'm not sure what your comment had to do with whether or not Toto being in the movie.
KS

reply

[–] pmiano100 16 years ago

Please drop the sarcasm. I know it takes place in California, but it should be obvious from the names and accents that most of the lead characters are of Mexican birth or heritage. Why do you think they call the movie "Tortilla Flat?" Yes, I know it was based on a Steinbeck story. As for Toto, one thing leads to another in these things, and sometimes we get off topic. I was merely responding to a comment in the entry before mine. He was not just talking about the dog.

"By modern standards the guys of Tortilla flat would be slackers."

reply

[–] highwaystar50 16 years ago

The reason that the actors that were in the movie were in the movie playing various ethnic people is because they were all under contract to the movie studio to play whatever parts they were given. Simple as that. There weren't many Mexican, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. people working as actors in Hollywood so what are they going to do? As to whether or not these people were represented accurately or not is a moot point as neither of us were around during that period of time to know one way or the other. Steinbeck was. You'll need to take your concerns up with him if you can dig him up.
KS

reply

[–] pmiano100 16 years ago

Your points are valid, but I think you misunderstand my position, which may be my fault. My problem is not with the actors. In those days they were all under contract and had to do and say what the studios told them to. I don't even blame the writers, who were also slaves of the studios back then. My problem is with the producers and studio owners of the time. I know things were different back then, but racism kept most Hispanic-American actors from getting many good roles and pushed stereotypes of blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other minorities. There's been a lot of change for the better since.

Were there people like that who were Hispanic? Of course. Steinbeck didn't make it all up. But there were few positive roles to counter them. I'm not a wild-eyed liberal and I'm not Hispanic, but my wife is Puerto Rican and I am glad there were positive portrayals of Hispanics on TV and movies for our kids and there will be more for our grandkids.

My criticism of the film is in no way meant to detract from the undeniable talent of Tracy, Lamarr, Garfield, and all the other cast members, who gave their characters as much dignity and character as they could. None of the film's failings were their fault. I'm sure we can agree on that.

reply

[–] highwaystar50 16 years ago

Yes, I can agree with your final point. I just wonder how many minorities there actually were during those early years that were kept from getting good roles. I'm not sure that acting was a first choice for a career for minorities until more recently. Maybe I'm wrong and need to do some research. Having said that, I'm not of the belief that an ethnic role should be filled by someone of that ethnicity just for the sake of accuracy or to fill some quota if they aren't competent enough to do the part. While competency is a relative term, it was still the job of those studio execs to make money for their studios meaning it was more or less up to them who got hired and who didn't. So, if the studio had trouble filling such a part, they'd likely change the ethnicity of the character or do what they did on Tortilla Flats.
KS

reply

[–] pmiano100 16 years ago

I'm not saying only Hispanics should play Hispanics any more than I believe only WASPs should play WASPs. Even Mexican-born Ricardo Montalban, who has played everything from Germans to Japanese, thinks that's absurd. But when any ethnic group tries to move up, entertainment and sports are among the first areas they move into. Thomas Gomez, Natividad Vacio, Gilbert Roland, Cesar Romero, Anthony Quinn, Alfonso Bedoya, and Pedro Armendariz were among a number of competent Hispanic actors active in the 1940s.

Roland and Romero often complained that in their early days, they only got dignified roles when they were cast as Spaniards or Italians. The only real Mexican hero they ever got to play was when they were both cast at different times as the Cisco Kid.

I have no problem with Garfield and Tracy, or even Morgan playing Mexicans. I agree the the studio needed talented star-power for the leads. But the studio could have done better than Alan Jenkins for a supporting role and the characters they played could have been a bit less stereotypical. I don't blame the actors for that. Times were considerably different then, and prejudice did exist. Remember, the film was made 66 years ago. Things have changed for the better since then.

I certainly didn't complain when Marlon Brando (French), James Caan (Jewish), and Abe Vigoda (also Jewish) played Sicilian-American gangsters in "The Godfather," and my ancestry is Sicilian. Jews didn't complain when Alex Rocco (Italian) played the Jewish gangster Moe Greene. They all did great jobs. But at one point, the studio considered casting Robert Redford (I am totally serious) as Michael Corleone. Now that would have been as big a disaster as when John Wayne played Genghis Khan.

reply

[–] ragreen259 15 years ago

First, you've drifted completely off topic from what the OP posted. Learn how to post, and start your own thread.
Second, it's called acting... then we'd like you to name enough big name Mexican actors to play the cast in a John Steinbeck movie made in 1942. Hell, find enough SMALL name Mexican actors to do that...
Your post is little more than a pathetic whine, using no common sense... it's pretty obvious you're a Mexican, I suggest you figure out what's going on here before continuing on... this is a board about this movie, not "a Mexican's view of Hollywood."

reply

[–] pmiano100 15 years ago

I'm not even Hispanic and I can name Arturo de Cordova, Thomas Gomez, Maria Montez, Ricardo Cortez, Ramon Navarro, Alfonso Bedoya, Delores Del Rio, Gilbert Roland, Cesar Romero, and Pedro Armendariz Sr. By the way, you are obviously a bigot and I am putting you on my ignore list. If I were a Mexican, I'd be proud. Insult me all you want. You're not worth answering. As for drifting off-topic, it happens all the time.

reply

[–] bruno-32 15 years ago

Arturo de Cordova, Thomas Gomez, Maria, Montez, Ricardo Cortez, Ramon Navarro, Alfonso Bedoya, Delores Del Rio, Gilbert Roland, Cesar Romero, and Pedro Armendariz Sr. >>

Most of the above actors were under contract to different studios at the time. In those days, studio's always used actors that were under there contract. They all did it. Edward g. robinson, a jew, played Rico an italian gangster under warner bros contract. The lists go on and on. Its only make-believe..enjoy it for what it is or was.

reply

[–] pmiano100 15 years ago

And Italian-American actors like Don Ameche and Anthony Caruso played every nationality you can imagine. That I do not deny. I am simply expressing my agreement with leading Hispanic-American actors that they were victims of racial prejudice at times. "It's just a movie," is often just an excuse.

reply

[–] mash_jay 14 years ago

As it says in Steinbeck's book Paisanos are a mixture of mexicans and caucasians (including the italian working class) and when asked where they're from they show the white insides of their hands to show their caucasian roots. So the casting isn't out of place.

reply

[–] pmiano100 14 years ago

My only disagreement is that there were talented Hispanic-American actors like Thomas Gomez and Alfonso Bedoya who would have been good in some of the more important roles. I'm not saying only Hispanic actors should play Hispanics. That's absurd. Even the late Ricardo Montalban, who played Japanese at least twice, admitted that. I am simply stating the true fact that many Hispanic actors were victims of casting discrimination back then. It wouldn't have ruined the film to put a couple Mexican-Americans in an important role or two.

reply

[–] alvink 15 years ago

trying to ignore the pianoman, or whoever it was who perverted the post with a a fun little question into a sad commentary about himself and his own inadequacies,

misterblister, have you gotten anywhere with the toto question??? i agree, this would be a wonderful movie connection, if true!!

good luck. 42

reply

[–] alvink 15 years ago

oooops. i just went to imdb/wizard of oz/ and looked up 'toto'. her name was terry, and her first flick was in '33 with shirley temple. she made around 10 movies, including a philo vance movie, but she was not in tortilla flat.

at least, she was not credited with an appearance.

but maybe her's was a cameo appearance. or maybe she was hyper-sensitive to the fact that the studio system in vogue in those days wanted her to work in a movie where an english breed dog like her would have to portray a chihuahua, clearly a racial insult to both breeds.

pianoman, you're on my ignore list, so don't bother.

reply

[–] direwolf09 14 years ago

I heard the Flying monkies never worked again after OZ- shame, Oh well that was Hollywood in the 40,s

Leave the gun. Take the cannoli

reply

[–] william-gruendler 11 years ago

Oh, tho' she wasn't credited, yes, it was Terry, or TOTO as she was officially known in 1942 who was the (named) canine character in the movie. The big hound (shorthair) went on to hunt with Penny and Jody Baxter in THE YEARLING a couple years later.
All the Hollywood dogs were Spitz Schooled. Google it. Precious tails!
'
pEEgEE

"ye must be Born Again"

reply

[–] kelkyl 7 years ago

Yes that is most assuredly Terry, the Cairn terrier, aka Toto, arguably the most famous dog in film history.
🐕🎥

Interesting trivia: after too many “accidents” her original owners sent her to Carl Spitz’s dog training school in the San Fernando Valley to get house-trained. Spitz had supplied specially trained dogs for many Hollywood films. Following Terry's training, her owners could not come up with the money so Spitz kept her.

reply