Tuesday, June 15, 1999

100 years, 100 stars

---

Seriously frivolous effort to name century's greatest makes for entertaining TV

BY MARGARET A. MCGURK
The Cincinnati Enquirer

        A word of advice: Don't take this story too seriously.

OUR CRITIC'S PICS

Margaret A. McGurk voted for these actors as the century's best: Women Ethel Barrymore Ingrid Bergman Clara Bow Joan Crawford Dorothy Dandridge Bette Davis Marlene Dietrich Greta Garbo Judy Garland Lillian Gish Jean Harlow Helen Hayes Audrey Hepburn Katharine Hepburn Grace Kelly Vivien Leigh Sophia Loren Mary Martin Hattie McDaniel Marilyn Monroe Mary Pickford Elizabeth Taylor Shirley Temple Luise Rainer Mae West Men Fred Astaire Lionel Barrymore Humphrey Bogart Marlon Brando James Cagney Charles Chaplin Montgomery Clift Gary Cooper James Dean W.C. Fields Henry Fonda Clark Gable Cary Grant Buster Keaton Gene Kelly Bert Lahr Harold Lloyd The Marx Brothers Steve McQueen Laurence Olivier Sidney Poitier James Stewart Spencer Tracy Rudolph Valentino John Wayne

        We're talking here about tonight's broadcast of an American Film Institute program naming the greatest film actors of the 20th century (8-11 p.m., Channels 12, 7).

        Entertaining though the show promises to be, it is the product of a list-making exercise, an end-of-the-century fad that has overrun every field of human endeavor.

        True, coming up with best-of lists is fun, an all-hands parlor game that frees the opinionated to scratch that pundit itch. But it's far more a game than a measurement. Ignore the numbers; there is no meaningful way to rank Henry Fonda's talent against James Stewart's, or Pola Negri's against Meryl Streep's.

        That said, I have to hand it to the cunning minds at the AFI who last year set out to identify the 100 best American movies of the century via the ballot box. They touched off a raging debate over movies selected, movies omitted, the means of selection, the choice of selectors and the value or lack thereof of making such a list in the first place.

        On the whole, it was a bracing controversy, and it had the desired effect. People combed the video shelves for 40-year-old classics instead of last week's mediocrity. Thousands of film fans discovered — or rediscovered — the best that the century's dominant art form had to offer.

        Now, the whole thing is about to begin again, this time revolving around actors. Tonight's show will reveal the results under the grand label of “100 Years 100 Stars.”

        The title is a mite misleading. Only 50 stars were chosen in this survey. The other 50 are the current personalities who will introduce the “legends.”

        As in the film survey, the process began when AFI scholars drew up a list of nominees, 250 men and 250 women.

        Eligibility was tricky. The AFI limited nominees to actors or teams (such as the Marx brothers) “with a significant screen presence in American feature-length films whose screen debut occurred in or before 1950.” The only exceptions are those who have died. Thus, James Dean is eligible, even though he did not make his screen debut until 1951 (in Hill Number One).

        The nominations were sent to some 1,800 voters — movie industry insiders, film scholars and critics, including me.

        We were invited to vote for 25 men and 25 women. We were directed to chose honorees based on these criteria:

        • Star Quality: This is the most subjective measurement on the list, yet the precise factor that separates icons — Marilyn Monroe, Cary Grant — from the the merely fabulous — Rita Hayworth, David Niven.

        • Craft: Championship skills abound among the 500 nominees, from Harold Lloyd's hair-raising acrobatics to Laurence Olivier's mastery of iambic pentameter.

        • Legacy: The AFI defines this as a body of work that remains relevant to actors and audiences today. This called for tough choices; a great many fine actors built sterling careers in the first half of the century. Yet they are rarely seen or studied today, because fashionable tide turned against them and because so many early films have literally turned to dust.

        • Popularity: Certainly the relationship between an audience and an actor on screen is important, though it is an unreliable measure of talent. Keep in mind, Francis the Talking Mule was mighty popular in his day. Nevertheless, Rudolph Valentino made my list based almost exclusively on his popularity. He wasn't a brilliant actor, but he defined a new relationship between audience and actor that persists. The hysteria, the sexual longing, the mystical bond, they were his unique contribution to the culture.

        • Historical context: This is the criterion that allows the inclusion of Dorothy Dandridge on my list. Her body of work was small compared to most nominees, but her impact on the industry and on generations of African-American audiences was seismic. She was sexual, beautiful, talented and tragic. Hardly a black woman working in film today who doesn't owe a debt of inspiration to Dorothy Dandridge.

        My complete list of 50 notables accompanies this story; I'm looking forward to seeing how it compares to the results of the balloting.

        But I won't make the mistake of suggesting that a bunch of voters, whether this 1,800 or any random sample chosen from a world full of movie lovers, can reduce the history of movies to a list of all-time bests.

        Feel free to play along with the game tonight. It's a lot of fun. But it's no substitute for actually experiencing the work of the artists under discussion.

        My advice: If you love movies, see movies. Savor them, think about them, dissect them, argue about them, watch them again and again. The result, if you're lucky, is like diving into a well of dreams.

        And it's a lot better than reading a list. @tag: Margaret A. McGurk is Enquirer film critic. Write her at 312 Elm St. Cincinnati 45202; fax to (513) 768-8330; e-mail to mmcgurk@enquirer.com.