Yes, there are people who follow the latest trends and will use a Time article (which I have never seen) to get on the latest bandwagon. That does not mean the subject of the article isn’t worth the attention. I don’t care if millions worship Louise or just a handfull appreciate her and the rest of the population never heard of her. That would change who she was–and usually such individuals are above the ability to be truly appreciated by people like yourself.

By the way, just why “should” Ray Corrigan have been cast in Stagecoach? This line seems typical of your review–a flip comment with no backup. Perhaps it is true, but I wouldn’t know it by your writing. I checked out Ray after your comment. Yeah, he’s “handsome” and likeable, in a totally uninteresting sort of way.

I’ll stick with John–and Louise.

By the way, Louise adored John–and there’s a rare photo of them dancing together at a party (perhaps the rap party for their film) and it is the only picture I know where Louise, as she is looking at him, looks vulnerable.

I think your writing, and obviously your tastes, is as shallow as the public you seem to disdain. The difference between them and you is that you have dillusions about your importance.

I believe that Louise Brooks would have her fans today regardless of what Henri Langlois said — and what future critics aped. I just don’t believe they’d be as numerous or that she’d be featured in “Time” magazine in 2006.

Norma Talmadge has her fans, too, but most people don’t know — or care about — who she was and “Time” magazine wouldn’t waste one sentence on that 1920s superstar because no influential patron has bothered to “rediscover” Talmadge for modern audiences.

If that ever happens — say, Madonna, Brad Pitt, and Roger Ebert decide that Norma Talmadge is a Goddess — “Time,” “The New Yorker,” and “Newsweek” will be discussing Talmadge’s allure, sophistication, girlish sensuality, etc. etc., and in 2057 her tens (hundreds?) of thousands of loving fans will be getting drunk in commemoration of the actress’ 100th death anniversary.

Now, I totally agree with you. It’s a form of “cultural vandalism” to — at times quite literally — let old movies rot away in vaults. Universal, for instance, owns most of the pre-TV Paramount classics, but they don’t do anything with them. At least here in the U.S. there’s Turner Classic Movies, which shows loads of MGM, WB, and RKO oldies, plus some films — including non-Hollywood productions — they lease from other film libraries.

Everyone that has been fortunate enough to see enough film to know that it didn’t all start with Star Wars, has their particular favourites that they think are under-appreciated, (mine include Ben Hecht, Carole Lombard, & Ginger Rogers as a comedienne), and I guess it’s fine to argue the toss, but to me the bigger issue is the lack of value we put on these wonderful films. It’s as if we all thought literature started with Stephen King, and Shakespeare’s plays was no longer performed. There just simply should be more cinemas dedicated to showing old films. I was fortunate as I grew up when BBC 2 regularly showed old films, even things like a season of Jean Renoir lasting over many weeks, and lived in London when Steve Wooley was running the Scala cinema, and other London cimemas like the Electric had a very wide ranging repertoire. There was even a cinema club in the Mayfair Hotel devoted to just 1930’s Hollywood, the Starlight Cinema Club. It was wonderful but nothing like that exists now. It is all so neglected now. It is almost cultural vandalism.