Joshua the Conqueror (1958)

Until recently there had been precious few films about Joshua, though for some reason when I wrote a previous post on the subject I forgot about this entry from the Living Bible Old Testament series. As I was researching for something else I'm writing at the moment I thought it was probably time I posted a few comments on it.

As always the series plays things pretty straight. In this case however that makes this little film more distinctive as it's the only film which portrays any other incident from the Book of Joshua aside from the victory over Jericho.

As you would expect the victory over Jericho is the film's high point, but it also manages to squeeze in other episodes such as the miraculous crossing of the River Jordan and Achan's sin and the resulting defeat to the army of Ai.

These films are always low budget, and I generally avoid criticising a film for that alone, however here the "miraclous" crossing of the Jordan scene really does lack any imagination. One minute we're shown a swelling, fast-flowing river, then there's a cut to Joshua, a description of the miracle and then just a close up of some feet running over some rocks. I accept that the film would not be able to match DeMille level special effects, but if you read DeMille's autobiography there's a bit in it where he discusses how in order to make the effect look right in his 1923 The Ten Commandments the entire cast and crew spent a frentic few minutes gathering bits of seaweed to scatter on the ground to make it look realistic before the angle of the sun change too much. Three's no such attention to detail here such that low budget and low creativity really make the moment laughable.

In contrast when the walls of Jericho come tumbling down there's at least some judicious cuts and thought that has gone into the process in order to make the equally low budget miracle at least look credible. It's still a little hard not to smile to oneself, but with so few versions of certain stories, where would we be without the Living Bible.

One thing that is noticeable about the fall of Jericho is that, aside from Rahab (dressed in red) and her family, we never see another of the people of Jericho. The film narrates their slaughter, but keeps them off screen. This has the effect of hiding the faces of the victims, silencing their voices and making their destruction less troubling. To it's credit the film isn't at pains to demonise them, but it does marginalise their voice and prevent viewers from empathising with them.

Finally, as I've already mentioned, this is the only film I know of which covers the incident where Achan steals some of the "devoted things" (7:1), angering God so much that he causes Israel to be defeated and then orders the Israelites stone/burn him to death. It's not hard to see why this incident might be excluded even for a team of filmmakers intent on trying adapting the Book of Joshua. Visualising it, however, only makes it seem all the harsher than reading it. I suppose though that this is the flip side of the criticism I levelled at the film not showing any dying Jericonians. Portraying Achan's brutal treatment does raise questions as to either the goodness of God's character, or the interpretation of how the vent has been recorded.

Anyway here's a scene guide for the film. All references are from the book of Joshua:

God’s Commission to Joshua (1:1-9)
Spies sent to Jericho meet Rahab (2:1-24)
Miraculous crossing of the Jordan (3:1-17; 4:10-18)
12 Stones set up at Gilgal (4:1-9,19-24)
Joshua’s Vision (5:13-15)
Processions around Jericho (6:1-14)
Fall of Jericho (6:15-25)
Achan’s Sin (7:1,21)
Defeat at Ai (7:2-5)
Achan’s death (7:6-26)
Joshua renews the covenant (8:30-35)
Joshua’s farewell speech (23:1-24:28)

Incidentally, I opened this by saying "until recently". The last few years have seen Joshua gaining higher profile than almost ever before, firstly with his escapades being covered in the History Channel's series The Bible and then with the character featuring in Exodus Gods and Kings.

David, a Young Hero and David, A King of Israel (1958)

The The Living Bible series tends to stick very rigidly to the biblical text and the three episodes that feature David are no exception, so I've not got a huge amount of comments on these films. I say "three" because the elderly David does appear at the start of the episode Solomon, A Man of Wisdom. So anyway, here's more of a scene guide to these episodes (something I wish I'd kept closer tags on as I was writing up the others in this series). N.B. Where an incident occurs in both Samuel-Kings and in Chronicles I've referenced if from Samuel-Kings.

David, A Young Hero
David playing the harp whilst shepherding (Psalm 23)
Anointing of David (1 Sam 16:1-13)
David plays for Saul (1 Sam 16:14-23)
David and Goliath (1 Sam 17)
Saul throws a spear at David (1 Sam 18:10-17)
Jonathan warns David using arrows (1 Sam 20)

Given my post a few days ago about Saul's mental health problems the one moment of this production that really stood out was the scene where David is brought in to play his harp. It's interesting that the narrator seems to provide both a natural description of the problem as well as providing a supernatural explanation. Initially Saul's problem is described as "black moods of despair" - which is notable not least because we have not been shown Saul's rejection by God. Moments later, though, the cause of Saul's problem is put down to evil spirits.

Given the film's low budget it does a good job of making an effective Goliath. By limiting the two competitors to only one shot in which they both appear some of the awkwardness about Goliath's relative size is effectively dealt with, and whilst the sound effects on Goliath's voice may lack sophistication they are certainly effective. I also like that David is clearly a late teenager/young man here rather than a young teenager/boy.

The film does end at a curious point which very much underlines the fact that this is the first instalment of a two-parter. Jonathan confirms that his father is trying to kill David and so David heads off into "the wilderness". When David returns he will be played by an older actor. Most David films change actors shortly after his felling of Goliath suggesting it is this action that turns him into a man. Here however it is his having to flee Saul and live a life of the run that ages him and matures him.

David, King of Israel
The 400 come to David (1 Sam 22)
Protection of Keilah (1 Sam 23)
David spares Saul's life (1 Sam 24)
David spares Saul's life a 2nd time (1 Sam 26)
Elders make David king (2 Sam 2-5)
The Ark Brought to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6)
Covenant with David (2 Sam 7)

It's slightly peculiar that for an episode called David, King of Israel only a third of it (5 minutes) involves David actually being king. Given the series' conservatism it's no surprise that it overlooks the troubles of his reign, not least his affair with Bathsheba and the problems with Absalom.

One other pouint that stood out for me was in the scene where David spares Saul's life for the first time. Whereas most other films tend to depict Saul wearing his coat at the time, here he puts it down on a nearby rock, a rather more plausible scenario in my opinion. That said the robe itself is more like a women's wrap than any kind of robe, and the actor playing Saul clearly seems to struggle to wear whilst giving the impression that he has not noticed a large piece of it is missing.

Solomon, A Man of Wisdom
David announces his successor (1 Kings 1-2)
David passes on his plans for the temple (1 Chr 28-29)
[rest of episode]

This film does go where most other films about David don't however covering the messy situation surrounding his successor. That said the ousted Adonijah seems rather more relaxed about David's pronouncement than the Bible suggests and the two half-brothers shake hands in a manner which in no way suggests that Solomon is about to butcher his rival. Bizarrely the next scene depicts David having sprung up from his death bed and explaining his plans for the temple. It is, to say the least, a rather odd arrangement.

Moses, Called by God (1958)

Having covered the gospels in 1951 and Acts in 1957, The Living Bible series turned to the Old Testament in 1958 with 14 episodes from Abraham to Elijah. The Moses story was given two episodes: Moses, Called by God which covered the events in Exodus up to the crossing of the Sea of Reeds; and Moses, Leader of God's People which covers Israel's wilderness years. Given that just the year before DeMille's second version of The Ten Commandments had been playing in cinemas it's interesting to see how the two productions compare. Because the latter films were part of a series, the intention behind their created was not a direct rebuttal, even if aspects of the film tries to put the record straight. That said, I'd argue that films which cover the same material as an immensely popular film very shortly after it, are perhaps those that are least influenced by it. It's too early for intentional homage, any copying would be too obvious to the casual viewer. Furthermore, any filmmaker visiting the material so soon after a major release would, in all probability, already have had their own strong ideas about how the story should be told. But a decade later, it would be likely that filmmakers would have been influenced before they started thinking through how they would shoot the story.

In this particular case, it was inevitable that the two productions would be very different. The Living Bible series typically adopted a slavish dependence on the Biblical text, whereas DeMille added in a huge amount of extra-biblical material. And then there's the budget. Whilst DeMille saves his special effects for mere a handful of scenes, everything about the latter two films suggest they were made for the smallest possible budget. There's no eerie greenish mist stealing away the Egyptians' first born, just a scene in Pharaoh's palace moments later. Heston's staff morphed effortlessly into a snake.; here there's just a cheap jump cut. Ironically, the best managed effect occurs during the parting of the Red Sea when the latter film throws aside biblical fidelity in favour of a DeMillean instant parting (although it's perhaps DeMille's 1923 version that is more the influence here than his 1956 film).All of that aside, this is one of the stronger entries in the Living Bible Series. The uncredited actor playing Moses has a few good moments and the film's pacing is very good. In particular, many films about Moses skip a plague or two, presumably to avoid monotony. But here they include all ten without things ever feeling dragged out. And there's something very refreshing in the way which this film sticks to the basic story without trying to puff up the relationship between Moses and Ramsees. In fact the Pharaoh's are never even named in this particular film.

Anyway, here's a run down of the scenes that the film covers:

Introduction - (Exodus 1:1-14)
Slaughter of the infants - (Ex 1:22)
Moses put into the river - (Ex 2:1-4)
Princess finds Moses - (Ex 2:5-6)
Miriam finds a wet nurse - (Ex 2:7-8)
Moses kills an Egyptian & flees - (Ex 2:11-15)
The Burning Bush - (Ex 3:1-4:17)
Moses meets Aaron - (Ex 4:27-28)
Moses before Israel's leaders - (Ex 4:29-31)
Moses asks Ramsees - (Ex 5:1-3)
Bricks without straw - (Ex 5:4-21)
Ten Plagues - (Ex 7:14-11:10; 12:29-30)
Pharaoh releases the slaves - (Ex 12:31-37)
Pharaoh changes his mind - (Ex 14:5-8)
Parting of the sea - (Ex 14:10-31)
Song of Moses - (Ex 15:2)

A Few Notes
This is the only time, at least that I can think of, where Moses's adopted mother (here Pharaoh's daughter) both recognises and openly acknowledges that the baby that has just been pulled from the Nile is an Israelite. It's an interesting angle, particularly as it leads much more naturally to the conversation between her and Miriam which results in Moses's mother being brought in as a wet nurse.

It also means that the emphasis for Moses's slaying of the Egyptian is put back on him, rather than his struggle to some to terms with a new identity or anything like that. By this point the film is only 4 minutes in, which strongly contrasts with DeMille's film. Obviously that film was around 15 times as long as this, but even as a proportion of the overall run time, this film deals with that part of the story much quicker (in the 1956 film it takes around half of the film's runtime).

The other scene that particularly interested me was the one where Moses first appears before Pharaoh. Firstly, we're told it's a new Pharaoh, but he's played by the same actor. Presumably it was cheaper to make it this way, and a strong family resemblance is certainly not unusual. But it also gives the film a bit of extra meaning. It strengthens the link between these two Pharaohs (DeMille consciously tries to break the continuity by inserting an extra, more sympathetic Pharaoh in between the one who killed the babies and the one who was on the throne during the plagues. It also could be read as a symbol of Egyptian unity, or their facelessness to the Israelites. Perhaps I'm reading too much in.Secondly, both Aaron and Moses speak to Pharaoh. In the Bible Aaron is brought in as a mouthpiece for Moses, but it's unclear whether it's he or his brother that actually speak the words to Pharaoh - If Aaron was Moses's mouthpiece then it would not be surprising if words physically uttered by Aaron, were attributed to their source, Moses. Alternatively, it may just be that once Moses was inside the palace he found he didn't need his brother's help. From a cinematic point of view, it doesn't work so well if your leading man and hero figure seems to lack the courage even to speak so the majority of films have had Moses do the speaking. One notable exception here is the 1996 Moses which actually goes as far to give Moses a stutter first time we meet him. It's also the central theme of Straub and Hulliet's adaptation of Moses und Aron, but to go into that would be a major tangent.

Thirdly, and again siding with the Bible against the majority of Moses films, Moses and Aaron's initial request is for three days time off to worship in the desert. It's never really clear in the Bible how this ends up as a request for permanent freedom - the most likely explanation lies in differences between the four sources that lie behind Exodus. Likewise here, it's unclear at what point the request changes. But it appears that rather than trying to copy the Bible's confusion, this is mainly due to the way that the plagues are shown through narrated over montage.

Finally, the cries of the Egyptian people seem to have some bearing on Pharaoh's decision to release the Israelites. Again the voices of the ordinary Egyptians generally tend to go unheard in these films; Pharaoh makes his decisions either in isolation or only in the presence of his court. This is significant, because, the ordinary Egyptians probably also suffered greatly under their rulers. Looking at the Exodus story from their point of view is fairly disturbing. Having suffered under Pharaoh's lavish building programme they suffer terribly under the ten plagues culminating in the death of their children. Whilst a lot of them would have had roles in the Egyptian hierarchy, many of them would be entirely "innocent", in a sense, and the terrible suffering they faced at the hands of this loving God should trouble us and cause us to re-examine the passages in question. Whilst the film doesn't quite go this far, like the original text, it does at least allow the ordinary Egyptians a voice unlike other films which have bypassed such difficult questions by leaving them in the wings.

Elijah, A Fearless Prophet

Having reviewed the Testament - Bible in Animation version of Elijah a couple of weeks ago, I wanted to have a look at 1958's Elijah, A Fearless Prophet.

Introduction to Elijah & Ahab - (1 Kings 16:29-34)
Elijah predicts drought - (1 Kings 17:1)
Elijah and the Ravens - (1 Kings 17:2-6)
Elijah and Widow of Zarephath - (1 Kings 17:7-24)
Elijah and Prophets of Baal - (1 Kings 18:1-2, 16-40)
End of the Drought - (1 Kings 18:45-46)
Elijah on the mountain - (1 Kings 19:1-18)
Elijah calls Elishah - (1 Kings 19:19-21)
Elijah taken to Heaven - (2 Kings 2:1-14)

Notes
The first thing to note is how similar the scene selection is to the Testament version. This is largely because the biblical material on Elijah is fairly small. But it is also noticeable that both exclude the incident with Obadiah, both exclude the incident where Elijah sends his servant to search for the clouds, both omit Elijah's marathon run ahead of Ahab's chariot, and both omit Fire from heaven burning two of Ahaziah's captains. Yet neither show Jezebel or Ahab's deaths (1 Kings 21-22, 2 Kings 9)

These exclusions are fairly significant in two ways. Firstly, they give Elijah the human qualities that are so central to his character. Elijah's hopes for the ending of the drought as he yearns for even the smallest indicator of its end. Elijah's breakdown and his complaints in 1 Kings 19:4&10 that he is the only prophet of God left, should be seen in this context. Firstly, Obadiah has already told Elijah that he has saved many prophets. Secondly, Elijah hits this low, not only after a major spiritual confrontation, but also following a run from Carmel to Jezreel (which, I believe, is about 20 miles), following a sever drought. It's no surprise given the exhaustion Elijah must be feeling that he hits such a low, and is unable to see things clearly. By excluding these two incidents both films paint his breakdown in a fairly positive light, and indeed, in both scenes Elijah seems neither that shattered or particularly suicidal.

Secondly, it exorcises the more troubling aspects of the story. The slaying of the prophets of Baal takes place off screen. The incident with Ahaziah's captains is excluded entirely. The grisly death of Ahab despite God's promise to avert the disaster he prophesied earlier. Even the notion of sending a slave/servant up and down a mountain numerous times is fairly offensive to modern sensibilities.

One additional, minor, similarity is that both films keep the material in the same sequence as the biblical accounts, and truncate it at roughly the same point. That said this film does not include Elijah and Elishah parting the waters.

In contrast to the Testament film, which used expressionist animation to potray the imposing nature of Ahab and Jezebel, this film downplays their significance. Whilst they are clearly still the prime "troublers of Israel", their appearances are fairly fleeting, and the amount of dialogue both speaks is significantly abridged from the biblical text. The concerns of this filmmaker is much more the person of Elijah, and his role in "fearlessly" following God and doing what he is told.

Finally, this film really dwells on Elijah dousing the sacrifice on Mount Carmel with water. This is shown in the Testament version, but here it's shown in some detail. Strangely the sacrifice here is totally obliterated, along with the wood and the actual stone altar. Surprisingly, this is actually following the biblical text to the latter at this point.

Living Bible on DVD

I was in discount bookshop The Works over the weekend, and noticed that they are selling a three DVD set called the Living Bible, purporting to be a multi-region version of a series of made for TV films about Jesus from 1952. I'm trying to find out more information about them at the moment. I think this may be the series I discussed way back when I first started blogging starring Nelson Leigh, but I can't be sure and there isn't much information provided on the packaging. I'm hoping that Great Music Co. who are releasing this will be able to help me with clearing this one up so watch this space.

Abraham: Man of Faith

Abraham: Man of Faith is the first biblical story from the Living Bible Collection which was started in 1952 with a 12 half hour episodes about the life of Christ before going back to the beginning of the Old Testament and starting from there in 1958. I have previously reviewed two other entries from the Hebrew Bible; Gideon: The Liberator and Ruth: A Faithful Woman. As far as I'm aware this was only the second ever filmed version of this story after 1911's Le Sacrifice d'Abraham.

It's interesting that this is the first story from the bible that the series covers. Both the stories of Adam and Eve, and of Noah and the flood have proven popular with biblical film-makers, and the pre-cinema storytellers long before them. Two possibilities suggest themselves for this discrepancy; Either, the stories were considered historically rigorous enough (and it seems unlikely that this would be the reason), or, the budget was too small to film Noah, a flood and an ark, and the film-makers couldn't think of a way to film the Adam and Eve story "decently".

The film itself is very conservative, much like the other entries in the series, and this is highlighted in three ways. Firstly, there is very little added to the story - just the standard "Living Bible" introduction, and the occasional explanatory note. Secondly, there is very little deliberate interpretation or exploration of the text, the sub-text, deeper meanings, or alternative readings of the text. Secondly the biblical episodes which have been chosen for this film are those which highlight Abraham's strengths. Those which demonstrate his weaknesses have been excluded. Consider the scene guide below:

God calls Abram to leave his father (Gen 12:1-5)
Abram's sacrifice at Bethel (Gen 12:8-9)
Abram and Lot separate (Gen 13:7-12)
God promises Abram a son (Gen 13:14-17)
God promises a son again (Gen 15:5)
Visit of the three angels (Gen 18:1-15)
Birth of Isaac (Gen 21:1-3)
God tests Abraham (Gen 22:1-13)
God's promise to bless Abraham (Gen 21:16-18)

Note the episodes that are absent - Both occasions were Abram lies about his relationship with Sarah in Egypt, Abram's relationship with Hagar, and the sending away of her and Ishmael, and Abraham bargaining with God over the fate of Sodom. In other words every episode that makes Abraham look bad is excluded, all the stories which portray him in a positive light are included.

Perhaps the most striking example of this depiction glossing over the stories in the bible comes with the attempted sacrifice of Isaac. Isaac is the real hero here calmly accepting his fathers desire to kill him, and passively accepting his fate. There is no attempt either to show Isaac's fear (although admittedly none is reported), nor to put Abraham's actions in a context where child sacrifice is hardly out of the ordinary. Hence any Girardian notion of this act being a new revelation of the type of God Abraham was following is lost.

Finally, the production values are particularly poor in this film. The opening scene, of Abram making a sacrifice seems to be using the very same set that became Gideon's threshing floor. The acting is uniformly terrible, most notably the angel who's utterance of "Yes, you did laugh" couldn't be any more wooden if he had tried. That said there is a nice "God shot" on one of the occasions where Abraham hears God's voice (see above)

It's a shame that the first talking film about Abraham was so poorly executed, as it is truly one of the more interesting and fleshed out characters in the whole Old Testament. Thankfully eight years later the story would get a more thorough treatment as one of the stories in The Bible: In the Beginning, and later as part of the Bible Collection's Abraham (1994)

One More Film About Ruth

On Tuesday I looked at the meagre selection of films about Ruth. There is one extra "film" that I didn't cover then since it is only 15 minutes long, but given the poor selection I thought it would be worth covering. The film is called Ruth, a Faithful Woman, and it is part of the Living Bible series of films. (I reviewed Gideon, the Liberator last month. It was created by the same team that made Gideon and the rest of this Hebrew Bible series - written by Betty Luerssen and directed by Edward Dew.

The film like most in the series doesn't really attempt to offer much interpretation to the events that it depicts. There is the odd explanatory note by the narrator, such as when Boaz and his close relative sit down to discuss their field, but these films otherwise play the stories with a fairly straight bat. Obviously every film version of a written text offers some interpretation, nevertheless some do this more than others. (For what it's worth the most unusual aspect of this scene where the closer kinsman gives Boaz his sandal is pictured below). The intended audience of these films was probably Sunday School children who had little or no knowledge of these stories, and by that standard they are fairly effective.

That would also explain the only glaring omission from the story - the episode where Ruth "sleeps at the feet" of Boaz. Many scholars consider this to be a euphemism, and I suppose that even taken literally it is hardly the kind of thing a Sunday School teacher wants to encourage her class to do. It's a shame though that of only four films about Ruth, half of them are for children, and one is so old that the emotional/relational/sexual implications of this scene are unexplored. Underneath the thick layers of cultural practice there is an interesting story, but few biblical stories are so encased in their times that they remain so impenetrable to all but the most scholarly.

Anyway, here is the scene guide:

Intro - the Women leave Moab (Ruth 1:1-5)
Orpah returns, Ruth stays (Ruth 1:18)
Naomi arrives in Bethlehem (Ruth 1:19-22)
Ruth Meets Boaz - (Ruth 2:1-18)
Ruth tells Naomi about Boaz - (Ruth 2:19-23)
Ruth and Boaz meet at night - (Ruth 3:9-12,15)
Ruth reports back to Naomi - (Ruth 3:16-18)
Boaz and the Kinsman Redeemer - (Ruth 4:1-12)
Ruth's Ancestors - (Ruth 4:13-22)

Gideon: The Liberator

As far as I am aware, there have only ever been two films made about the story of Gideon - Great Leaders of the Bible: Gideon (1965 - info. at Amazon), and Gideon: The Liberator (1958), part of the Living Bible Collection which I have just started working my way through.

It's strange that Gideon has fared so poorly in the cinema. Samson, the other major hero from the book of Judges, has featured in more films than any other biblical character, except for Jesus. Whilst it could be argued that Samson's story is given the most space in Judges, the word count of these stories is hardly in proportion to the number of film portrayals. Arguments from the structure of Judges are no more conclusive. Judges is bookended by a prologue (1:1-3:6) and an epilogue (17:1-21:25). In between the exploits of the various judges are recounted. Whilst it could be argued that, in coming last, Samson's story forms the climax of this main section, most commentators observe a chiastic structure in Judges, with the story of Gideon being of central importance. Whilst both stories feature well in Sunday schools, I suspect the reason that Samson is the more popular when it comes to dramatising the story is simply because of the love angle and the absence of any female characters in Gideon's story.

Gideon: The Liberator, however, is something of a halfway house between the two, being essentially a dramatised Sunday School story. Produced by Concordia / Family Films productions, it's mere 14 minutes of screen time suggests the story is being disseminated for those with shorter attention spans. Add to this that the battle, and subsequent rout of the Midianites is all off screen, and it's clear where the film is aiming.

Up until the battle scenes the story shows remarkable faithfulness to the text. A prophet delivers an oracle, and shortly afterwards an angel finds Gideon in a winepress, and commissions him, staying around only long enough to light Gideon's sacrifice. Gideon then destroys the altar to Baal, but is protected by his father's speech. Gideon lays out his fleeces, gathers and selects his army before creeping in to the Midianite camp to hear a soldiers dream and it's interpretation. The pre-battle sequence concludes with the army lighting their torches, hiding them under their lamps, and smashing them on the top of the hill as they run toward the Midianite camp.

The film then cuts to a very brief report of Gideon's army moping up the fleeing Midianites, with no mentions of the dispute with the Ephraimites, and the vengance taken against Succoth and Peniel. The final scene is Gideon, who has suddenly gone grey (the sign of being distinguished and wise) with his arm around his son (presumably Abimelech) refusing the kingship that is offered to him. No mention is made of the collection he requests, or the idol he makes as a result. Given that many, particularly those who consider Judges' structure to be chiastic, consider this incident to epitomise the whole book and be it's pivotal point, this omission is disappointing - if not entirely surprising.

It's a long time bug bear of mine, but I do dislike it when people make films about the three dimensional humans of the bible that God uses inspite of their weaknesses, and reduces them to one dimensional robotically obedient heroes - removing their humanity in an attempt to portray them more reverently. Whilst the story doesn't completely ignore the fact that Gideon was basically killing his enemies, it does seem to consider that a bit of a tangent from what this film sees as a story about how to follow God. When the biblical narrative diverges from that agenda, rather than that shaping "the agenda" it is truncated, sweeping such nuances and reality under the carpet. But as I said above this is just a Sunday School type of film that's 14 minutes long.

Gideon: The Liberator was written by Betty Luerssen and directed by Edward Dew. Dew directed several episodes from the series, and had starred in almost 100 films in the forties and fifties, including brief appearances in The Adventures of Robin Hood and Citizen Kane.

Matt