So, after Hitchcock’s independent venture, Transatlantic Pictures, went into receivership after the belly-up box-office demise of UNDER CAPRICORN, he ran for cover with a British crime story for Warner Bros. STAGE FRIGHT is generally rated as lightly likable or less, with a disproportionate amount of attention wasted on the non-issue of whether a dishonest flashback is permissible. I think THE USUAL SUSPECTS has taken care of that question.

The movie has more than that going for it — there’s a surprising shift from whimsical Miss Marple investigation to dark psychosis and horrible death at the end, for one thing. The other most interesting element (apart from Frau Dietrich, of course) is the Britishness. The movie sees Hitchcock working with a lovely array of Brit actors of the era, giving us a little alternate-reality glimpse of what Hitchcock might have been doing if he hadn’t left for America. Given the film’s minor nature, we might feel particularly grateful that he did go to Hollywood, but then the lack of ambition is partly due to Hitch treading water in order to gain confidence (both personal and industry) after UNDER CAPRICORN’s poor reception.


Alistair Sim had been in UK films since the ’30s, supporting Jessie Matthews with comedy relief, and co-starring with Hitchcock regular Gordon Harker in a series of rather jolly crime comedies about Inspector Hornleigh, so he could easily have acted for Hitchcock a decade and a half earlier, but he didn’t. His 1948 turn as Inspector Cockrill in Launder and Gilliat’s stylish GREEN FOR DANGER (dissed by Truffaut, but don’t listen to him) showed the actor on Hitchcockian terrain (in fact, the slick murder scene halfway through feels almost giallo-like). In fact, James Bridie suggested Sim for this movie, having worked with him extensively in the theatre (there’s a disappointing TV version of Bridie’s The Anatomist starring Sim as Burke and Hare’s paymaster, Dr Knox, produced by the late Harry Allan Towers).

The cast also features grande dame Sybil Thorndyke, David Lean favourite Kay Walsh (quite brilliant), Miles “He won’t be doing the crossword tonight” Malleson, Joyce Grenfell (a celebrated English comedienne and co-star with Sim in the ST TRINIANS films), Andre Morell, a Hammer horror stalwart, and comedy turns Irene Handl, Lionel Jeffries and Alfie Bass. So the supporting cast neatly ties Hitchcock in to Ealing, Lean, Powell & Pressburger, Hammer, Launder & Gilliat. The only thing missing is a Carry On films star — although Hitch had used Charles Hawtrey in SABOTAGE and would make memorably against-type use of Bernard Cribbins in FRENZY.

From the opening titles, in which a safety curtain (ironically named, as it turns out) rises to reveal the London skyline, it’s clear that this film will explore the conjunction of real life with theatrical artifice, a favourite Hitchcock theme. Like MURDER, the film is based on a novel but deal with theatre (lots of sources suggest that MURDER was originally a play, but it wasn’t — it just feels like one). If there’s a study left to be written on Hitchcock’s oeuvre it might be on this theme.


Jane Wyman plays a drama student in London — where Patricia Hitchcock was actually studying. Pat turns up as a friend, with the unflattering name of “Chubby Bannister.” So it’s tempting to see Hitchcock family biography at work, but our heroine’s parents don’t seem a match for Hitch and Alma, and have more to do with the source novel and with the plot’s requirements. That plot has interesting connections with the thriller Hitch had planned for Nova Pilbeam to star in after YOUNG AND INNOCENT, since it deals with a respectable young girl with a slightly crooked dad, and it also calls to mind the father-daughter dynamic of NO BAIL FOR THE JUDGE, another unmade movie which got put on the back burner because Audrey Hepburn didn’t wish to do a rape scene for Hitch. Looking at FRENZY, I can’t say I blame her.


The movie begins in media res with Jane Wyman and Richard Todd (an up-and-coming British — in fact Irish — star of the day, still working now, best known for DAMBUSTERS, which Peter Jackson now plans to remake) fleeing, and then we go into the flashback, which is uncomfortable not because we later learn it’s inaccurate, but because it comes so soon in the story it feels broadly expository. We’re being told a lot of stuff before we have reason to care. But this headlong dive into plot is part of a strategy to put one over on us, so the discomfort is probably necessary, and anyhow things will soon settle down.

The key to the plot’s success in this movie (apart from that flashback deceiving us) is that what seems to be happening — Todd covers up a killing for Marlene and gets implicated, turning to lovestruck Jane Wyman for help — is an effective romantic triangle, enlisting lots of sympathy for poor Jane, wrapped up in a thriller plot (with echoes of Hamlet’s “the play’s the thing”) — which is pretty effective as drama long before we realise that it’s not what’s happening at all.


This dodgy matte shot, an attempt at CITIZEN KANE faux deep focus, is a bit glaring, but it’s an interesting attempt at something. I once used that phrase to describe an odd moment in THE NUTTY PROFESSOR, and a friend suggested they should put it on his tombstone.

“Here we have a plot, an interesting cast, even a costume,” suggests Sim, pointing up the theatrical nature of the story. And so Jane must use her acting skills (and a comical cock-er-nee accent) to wile her way into Marlene’s confidence and secure evidence to clear the man she loves. Complications, as they say, ensue.


“My great aunt died over a glass of brandy… but it was her fifteenth that day.”

The most appealing complication is Michael Wilding (“an English Jimmy Stewart,” decided Dietrich, inaccurately perhaps, but it does point towards his lightness and charm) as Wilfred O Smith, that “O” being the first of Hitch’s jokes at David O Selznick’s expense. Here we learn it stands for “Ordinary.” Ordinary is certainly the most lovable policemen in the cop-phobic Hitchcock’s oeuvre. For a director of crime films, he hardly ever featured policemen as heroes (James Stewart spectacularly loses his job in Scene 1.  of VERTIGO; and then you have to go back to John Longden in BLACKMAIL I think…) Wilding’s easy appeal makes up for the fact that Todd isn’t that likable, which is unavoidable given the role he’s assigned.

“I love strange men. I mean… I’m very fond of them.”

Wyman is very sweet. It’s not at all clear where her American accent came from, what with her father being Scottish and her mother English… as welcome as Dame Sybil is, perhaps her role should have been taken by an American? But the stuffy mother and unconventional dad dynamic might have been harder to sustain that way: American women are always portrayed as free-spirited in British films. Which is a tiresome cliche, come to think of it.

Wyman apparently suffered the same affliction as Jean Arthur did, working opposite Dietrich in A FOREIGN AFFAIR: galloping jealousy. While Arthur’s insecurity manifested itself in paranoia, Wyman covertly tried to glam up her girl-next-door character to compete with Dietrich, a tendency Hitchcock had to gently suppress.

Sim always makes me want more Sim: but apart from the three HORNLEIGH films, he shunned sequelitis, doing only a cameo in the second ST TRINIAN’S film and refusing point blank to play Inspector Cockrill again. I’d welcome a whole series about Sim and Wyman, father-and-daughter crime solvers, even without Hitchcock directing.


Marlene of course is profoundly underrated as an actress, even if she’s not “real” — she can be funny (check out her cleaning woman impersonation in DISHONORED) as well as alluring, sad (TOUCH OF EVIL is a study in fatalist melancholy whenever she’s about) as well as vivacious. Her way with a dramatic scene is as unconventional and unique as her way with a song, and like her singing it foregrounds a lack of obvious “ability.” This is a pretty interesting role: in A FOREIGN AFFAIR she’s completely sympathetic despite being a Nazi, whereas here she’s totally unsympathetic, despite being only an accessory. Then Hitchcock complicates matters with the scene where she’s unexpectedly nice to Wyman, and then she has her chilling chat with the policeman at the end which is pretty much the opposite of her exit in the Wilder film: a heart of ice is revealed.

(STAGE FRIGHT makes a very nice double feature with Billy Wilder’s “Hitchcock film,” WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION, Marlene’s other London murder romp.)

That safety curtain returns, executing Todd in a rather French fashion, all the more grisly for being off-screen, and then Wilding leads Wyman away down a dimly lit backstage corridor that looks like the path from the execution cell: but the recurrence of the love theme, played earlier by Wilding on the piano, tells us what fate she’s heading for. A future as an actress seems a bit unlikely, but she’ll be a very happy Mrs Ordinary Smith.


It’s nice to have another musical through-line (Wilding, like Farley Granger in ROPE, plays an accomplished party entertainer with his ivory-tickling), since that’s a mainstay of the Hitchcock style, and it plays out again in Dietrich’s two songs, La Vie en Rose and The Laziest Gal in Town, which are not staged by Hitchcock as musical interludes but as intricate by-plays between onstage and offstage action, external performance and internal psychology.

stagvChubby Bannister, right.

It occurs to me that Pat Hitchcock is so good in this — her very funny sheer lust at the sight of Michael Wilding is a comic high point — and she does an English accent far better and more consistently than Wyman — that it’s rather a shame she didn’t get the leading role (as enjoyable as Wyman is)… But that would be taking a big risk, and Hitchcock wasn’t about to do that with this film. I think also the responsible father didn’t want to expose his daughter to criticism in such a way. Nevertheless, we can see this as a film for and about Pat.

Hitchcock DVD Collection – Dial M For Murder / I Confess / Stage Fright / The Wrong Man / Strangers On A Train / North By Northwest


40 Responses to “Curtains”

  1. Pat Hitchcock stole scenes like nobody’s business in STRANGERS ON A TRAIN.

    STAGE FRIGHT, for me, is all things considered and tabbed…Hitchcock’s worst film. It’s still interesting and watchable but there’s nothing in that film that I’d want to watch again. Alastair Sim, Marlene Dietrich and Kay Walsh are all that’s worth offering for this film.

  2. Gee, have you SEEN The Skin Game?

    It’s hard to calculate these things, since the weakest silents and early talkies are still fascinating for the way they struggle to be interesting or to overcome technical or structural problems. But there’s none of that in Stage Fright, it’s just a little limited in its ambition. I’d say it’s completely successful on its own modest terms, and includes numerous little bits of Hitchcockian invention. And it’s a lot of fun. Something like Topaz can’t hold a candle to it, as entertainment or as art or as technique.

  3. ——————————
    It’s hard to calculate these things, since the weakest silents and early talkies are still fascinating for the way they struggle to be interesting or to overcome technical or structural problems.

    Well those problems were solved and corrected by the masterpieces he made between then and STAGE FRIGHT.

    But there’s none of that in Stage Fright, it’s just a little limited in its ambition.

    It’s not the smallness of the film that bothers me, it’s that Hitchcock is totally uninterested in it. There’s very little life in the camera movement, the cutting and the storytelling. The script is weak and the leads aren’t better cast but Hitchcock just went ahead with these weaknesses and made a very mechanical film. The reason I feel it’s bad is that it’s a totally impersonal film even if it brings him back to England. You can tell he was bored doing it. Though I suppose he liked Marlene Dietrich and Sim.

    I shall offer a magnificent defence of TOPAZ in due course. I have Wim Wenders and Bill Krohn on my side, both think it’s pretty good.

  4. Check out the scene where Todd goes back to hide the evidence of Marlene’s crime — some magnificent movements in that! And then there’s the subjective effect of Sim imagining the bloodstain on a doll’s dress, the smoke rising from under Marlene’s veil, and lots of fascinating lighting and music effects.

    The miscasting is solely that Wyman’s American. Apart from that it’s a little underpowered in the leads but quite reasonable. I think Hitch is overcompensating slightly for UC’s perceived lack of humour, plus being back on UK soil where he really knows the comedy style, he has a lot of fun with that. And despite the overall lightness, the resonances with Hitchcockian themes are enormous: musical motif, theatre, romantic triangle, transference of guilt, it’s all there. Topaz by contrast seems like the impersonal film. But I look forward to discussing that one at the time.

  5. Stage Fright falls short because Hitch can’t really work up much audience interest in Wyman’s character — who seems pathetic rather than driven. The lying flashback only makes this worse, for as we lurch towards the climax our main question is “What was the point of all this again?” Further audience identification difficulties arise from the very presence of Marlene. Yes she’s playing a “Bad Woman” — who as we learn isn’t as “Bad” as we first imagined. But her overwhelmingness washes everyone else off the screen. After her rendition of “The Laziest Gal in Town” who cares to see or hear anything else?

    Michael Wilding = Jimmy Stewart? Sorry Marlene. Elizabeth Taylor would beg to differ.

  6. “What was the point of all this again?” is precisely why I dislike lying flashbacks. Hitchcock was right to put down this thing as a narrative gimmick.

    The issue about lying flashbacks is that the “flashback” is invariably shot in the same visual style as the rest of the film. And the true confession of Richard Todd is done with expressionistic lighting with no flashback. The objectivity of the moving image before the camera is undercut by verbal narrative in this instance and in THE USUAL SUSPECTS. This is profoundly dissatisfying, it is saying that the images and the actors don’t matter what matters is the narrative exposition. Cinematic suicide.

    The only sensible formal explanation is that it is not the flashback that is lying but Richard Todd has become deranged under pressure of being a police suspect and pictures himself as having committed the murder and is murdered as such by the police. And then you can have the cops find out the truth and realize that the man they killed was innocent after all. It would be wonderfully surreal.

  7. could not disagree more Arthur–I think the flashback makes the film–how can you not have sympathy for Wyman, once you learn that you’ve fallen for the same ruse that she did?

    I think the director shows a lot of interest in documenting Todd’s edgy game of deception–and in giving us wonderful comedy scenes with Alistair Sim… I don’t think anyone would argue that this is top-drawer Hitchcock–but I concur with DC’s appraisal of it as entirely successful, on its own terms.

  8. david wingrove Says:

    Saw STAGE FRIGHT again recently on TV and thought it was a delightful and vastly underrated film. I do agree with David E that it’s hard to pay attention to anybody other than Marlene – but that’s a problem in just about every movie she ever made.

    Her playing of the duplicitous stage star makes you realise what a truly superlative actress she was – not in a boring and Method-y Meryl Streep sort of way (frankly, I can live without that most of the time) but in terms of sheer magnestism, conviction and transcendent star power!

    Everything that Dietrich does or says on screen (however ludicrous in terms of motivation or plot) is instantly believable and utterly compelling. On top of that, “The Laziest Gal in Town” is my own all-time favourite of her musical numbers.

    Just ask yourself…if being Marlene Dietrich for 90-odd years wasn’t a triumphant piece of acting, what on earth was?

  9. ———————————
    could not disagree more Arthur–I think the flashback makes the film–how can you not have sympathy for Wyman, once you learn that you’ve fallen for the same ruse that she did?

    But that’s precisely the point. A flashback is meant for the audience to see. She has to take his word for it and she had no reason not to, at that time. The false flashback as such is a formal cheat to misdirect us for no reason especially.

  10. You seriously underrate Meryl.

  11. But that’s precisely the point. A flashback is meant for the audience to see. She has to take his word for it and she had no reason not to, at that time. The false flashback as such is a formal cheat to misdirect us for no reason especially.

    A flashback–like every other film technique–is meant for the director’s use!

    and Hitch had every reason to employ it in this way–it commits us to Wyman’s subjective understanding of her quest (and without that commitment, the film falls apart)

  12. My experience has always been that the flashback does not undercut my belief in the rest of the film. If I felt it did, I would regard it as perhaps a mistake (unless that was the intention, and given the invasion of “real life” by the theatrical and phonied-up in this movie, it could well be). Clearly, it amounts to directorial sleight-of-hand, since no other presentation of Todd’s story would convince us so thoroughly. If the movie began with him being spotted at the crime scene (presumably the first true event in his account) and continued in chronological order, we’d rightly assume him guilty. So it’s necessary. And I don’t see how it’s any more unfair than Kim Noval vanishing from a hotel in Vertigo or Robert Walker inserting his entire arm down a drain, like the X Files’ Eugene Tooms, in Strangers on a Train. Hitch bamboozles with every breath he takes.

    I believe David W does appreciate Streep, but he prefers her in show-off mode rather than in all the worthy vehicles she got Oscars for. Her lighter side maybe begins with Death Becomes Her but she keeps getting better at it. May favourite in that film is Isabella.

  13. The problem is Wyman’s character is weak and lackluster. She believed the wrong man. She had no other stake in what happened. Hitch is on much firmer ground with “guilty” heroes — like Farley Granger in Strangers on a Train — or “less than wholesome” leads like Jimmy Stewart in Rear Window or Cary Grant in Notorious.

  14. Meryl, for all her “great lady” roles is at heart a clown. The woman would kill for a laugh — off screen as well as on. She delights in talking about how she’s upset method-prone Philip Seymour Hoffman during the shooting of Doubt by going right out of character and back to her wisecracking self the nanosecond the take was over.

  15. ————————-
    And I don’t see how it’s any more unfair than Kim Noval vanishing from a hotel in Vertigo or Robert Walker inserting his entire arm down a drain

    What’s unconvincing about Robert Walker’s arm? Kim Novak’s vanishing is easily explained by…the receptionist was paid off and she was hiding in the bathroom at the time…but it would be totally banal if in the sudden flashback of Judy, Hitchcock also shows her telling her to do THAT!!! It also creates the dreamlike atmosphere of the film.

    The fake flashback ruins the entire foundation of the film’s style.

  16. Walker’s arm always struck me as a cheeky cheat — he can barely insert his wrist. But with huge effort he manages, then shoves his arm in up to the elbow. The strain is unbearable… he can’t reach any further… and then he does! I’d need to ask an American to try this out but I’m pretty sure it’s impossible and I don’t want to be responsible for somebody getting jammed halfway down a sewer.

    The hotel thing is explainable, but how do you explain the explanation — ie, WHY was the receptionist paid to lie? No explanation is possible!

    I think the flashback simply confirms Wyman’s total faith in Todd, which is a key plot point. I’m just watching THe Mollycoddle with Douglas Fairbanks. He worries that New York is “awfully rough” — cut to his imaginary view of the city as a wild west frontier, men in cowboy costume on horseback shooting each other amid the skyscrapers. I see no problem with this. In Stage Fright it’s quite clear that Todd is telling Wyman this story, and we see what he describes. It’s not actually presented as his memory.

  17. Christopher Says:

    I watched this just last sunday and found it pretty fun ..not suspenceful..just entertaining..Theres mention on the Commentary about the false flashback at the beginning and that hitchcock hated it after it was pointed out to him how it wouldn’t work..It was apparently too late to change it after this..I didn’t worry too much ,but sat back to enjoy the local color..Sims a big favorite around here at Christmas tim with his SCrooge film getting watched abot 5 or 6 times..Hes a blast in this..My fave scene is at the Garden party Wnen Wyman phones Sim up to come payoff the blackmailing Maid..and when he arrives shes poked her head out of the tent and is trying to get them to notice each other milling about out front..great little bit..and there the “Lovely Ducks” shooting gallery bit..

  18. Who said this?
    “As I passed imperceptibly from a beautiful child to a strong and handsome lad, I wanted more than anything to be, of all things, a hypnotist. I practiced on gentle dogs.”

  19. Christopher Says:

    sounds like it cold a come from Whirlpool(the Gene Tireny-Premminger film)..I saw that this weekend too..

  20. Was it Sim? Sounds more like Bunuel. Although I would call either man exactly handsome.

    Hitchcock isn’t totally to be trusted when it comes to his likes and dislikes (nor is any filmmaker). The exploding child in Sabotage (recently quoted in Inglourious Basterds) is another example of something he came to dislike, but in this he was influenced by adverse criticism at the time.

  21. Sounds like Rupert Everett.

  22. Alistair Sim (Wikipedia).

  23. I had to throw this out there, only because the last sentence, about the “gentle dogs”, made me laugh out loud. The thought of trying to hypnotize a vicious dog delivers the point home.

  24. Christopher Says:

    Marlene Dietrich’s Laziest Gal in Town had me thinking of Madeline Kahn as Lili von Shtupp in Blazing Saddles doing I’m know Kahn’s Dietrich is supposed to be her in Destry Rides Again,but surely Brooks had this song in mind too..

  25. Tony Williams Says:

    I would not say THE SKIN GAME is H’s worst film. Certainly, it is stage bound with all the vices of RADA acting but the director’s fascination with the plight of the guilty woman (played by Phyllis Konstam) and his continuing distaste for John Longden makes the film worth watching.

    Significantly, Todd appeared in another dark male fantasy the year before- INTERRUPTED JOURNEY with Valerie Hobson and Christine Norden as British cinema’s underused femme fatale. This film also had an alternative narrative and I wonder if H. had seen it before casting Todd in STAGE FRIGHT?

  26. Laziest Gal was clearly an influence.

    The Skin Game does come to life in the psychological moments — that floating face! — but much of it is shot as “coverage,” with Hitch trying to cram as much dialogue into each set-up as possible. It isn’t “photographed from inside the play,” as he said of The Farmer’s Wife.

    The point is, you can generally find something of interest in a Hitchcock film. If you couldn’t, that would in itself be interesting. But what’s your nomination for the worst, Tony?

    I win! Because I mentioned Sim as a suspect. “Handsome”?

  27. david wingrove Says:

    David E – I agree with you totally that Meryl Streep’s true gift is for comedy. In fact, a friend of mine nearly got ejected from the cinema for laughing out loud during the Grand Dramatic Climax of SOPHIE’S CHOICE.

    If only Meryl had done THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA early on in her career, when I was a budding gay youth, she might be my all-time idol today. In truth, I love her recent work and can just about forgive her for all those ghastly years I spent suffering through all those ludicrous accents in all those ponderous films. (“VONSS I HAT A FAHM IN AH-FRI-KAH!” God almighty, where is Vera Hruba Ralston when you need her?!)

    I discussed this, in fact, just recently with my best friend…who has spent most of her adult life disliking Meryl even more vehemently than I have. We both agreed that we now love her and she is now ‘officially fabulous’ – just don’t ask us to watch any of her 80s movies ever again!!

  28. I’d need to ask an American to try this out but I’m pretty sure it’s impossible and I don’t want to be responsible for somebody getting jammed halfway down a sewer.

    Don’t bother, it can’t be done in any I’ve seen. The widest sewer and storm drain grates are much too narrow to pass anything larger than a small child’s arm.

    To me it’s a funny scene just because of that implausibility, and grates like that usually are easily removable (at least in my city they are, I’ve had to do just that a few times to clear a flooded streetcorner in my neighborhood). Keaton lost a watch down a sewer grate in Seven Chances, and the watch just barely fit between the grates. So it is a cheeky joke in SoaT and the scene is better still when I realize I’m pulling for Bruno to get the lighter.

  29. Yes, that’s the real joy of the scene, it reverses our moral compasses. The parallel cutting with Farley failing to play tennis convincingly should make us root for them both at once, which would be weird. In fact, Walker’s situation is more tense, somehow, perhaps because it’s more immediate.

  30. Meryl has had a fascinating evolution. When she started out she was getting acolades for serious “Great Lady” type Oscar-Bait roles. So she got her Oscars. But she didn’t stand still. As she’s available “for a price” she’s worked a lot. This is quite unusal in an industry dominated by men and disdainful of “chick flicks” ie. anything with a woman in the main role. Now at a time when most acressses are being shipped off to the glue factory (in commercial terms) she’s livelier than ever.

    To me she always conveys, particularly in comedy, a sense of total joy in acting. Watching her running amok in Death Becomes Her reminds me of Gilda Radner at her most inspired, in terms of performing energy.

  31. I think the first time I saw a clip of She-Devil I thought “Oh dear” — they few times she’d had a lighter moment in her earlier work it had been rather good, but this was definitely NOT. But she’s really gotten into it, and it’s enlivened her work in the serious films too.

  32. How reassuring to know I am not the only person to have got into trouble for their reaction to a Meryl Streep performance of studied worthiness. In my case it was Out of Africa when, surrounded by weeping women, I laughed aloud at the film’s climax. (I’ve always found it hard, in any case, to take seriously any film in which Robert Redford appears who – whatever the part – looks like he’s just come from modelling for a knitting pattern.) And I can’t agree she has found her niche in intentional comedy. Just watch her in A Prairie Home Companion trying to outdo Lily Tomlin in giving an impression of unscripted naturalism. It’s painful.

  33. Well, you go up against Tomlin at your peril.

  34. Tony Williams Says:

    jadean, Redford is also a very boring director and, as Brad Stevens once said, “Hell is ORDINARY PEOPLE!”

  35. There’s something inherently dull about Redford and his view of the world as it comes out in his movies. But as an actor he has these rare surprising moments. Maybe it’s the side-benefit he gets for being so tedious most of the time. When he describes his phony backstory in The Great Gatsby — hilarious! And he works rather well in The Candidate, where his blandness is an asset. There’s a moment where he keeps corpsing which must have been very hard to do.

  36. I think he’s at his best in The Way We Were where he has Babs on hand to drink in his handsomeness and drive herself right up the wall over his political obtuseness. His character was based on (drumroll please )

    Farley Granger!

    Babs needless to say is Arthur.

  37. Wow, it all links up!

  38. david wingrove Says:

    I had always fondly imagined that Farley was brighter and more interesting than that. Oh dear!

    Oh well, actors tend to be a dumb lot. I know – I used to be one.

  39. Christopher Says:

    actors become actors because they are inept at doing anything else..and now they want us to listen to their politics ??…Hee haaaww..hail the conquering jackass!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: