Intimate Exposures: Marilyn Monroe in Photographs

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the death of Marilyn Monroe, which is the perfect occasion for a reevaluation of her films and career. There has been renewed attention in MM because of My Week with Marilyn, and there was a retrospective of her films last summer at BAMcinematek in NYC, but, somehow, I expected more. I keep waiting for a bona fide biographer or film historian to put her films and career into perspective and to address her star image in a post-feminist era. For example, no biography has ever adequately discussed her decision to form her own production company in order to take control of her roles and career. During the 1950s, when the studio system began disintegrating, top male stars from John Wayne to Burt Lancaster formed their own production companies for similar reasons, a fact much discussed in film histories. But, Monroe—one of the few female stars to do so—is never mentioned.

STERN HAS PUBLISHED THE PHOTOS FROM 'THE LAST SITTING' IN SEVERAL BOOKS.

Perhaps MM is so iconic as the 20th century sex symbol that it is too difficult to see beyond the facets of her star image—blonde bombshell, dumb blonde, Hollywood victim, tragic personal life.  Part of that star image was skillfully constructed by Monroe herself, and she could slip in and out of it as easily as one of her tight white dresses. It is an image that is difficult to strip away or even analyze because it is wrapped in layers of rumors, publicity, scandals, and thousands of photographs.

Thoughts of MM have lingered in the back of mind since I wrote a three-part series on her last year for the Morlocks blog. And so, I was intrigued by a documentary that played at the Palm Springs International Film Festival on Bert Stern, who photographed Marilyn just six weeks before she died in what is now called “The Last Sitting.” Titled Bert Stern, Original Madman, the documentary chronicles Stern’s entire career from his days as an apprentice graphic designer to his glory years as Vogue’s most talented photographer. I liked the history lesson on the art of advertising that was part of the documentary, but the film will not endear viewers to the 83-year-old Stern. A chronic philanderer and commitment-phobe, he has made a pathetic mess of his personal life, which he attempts to romanticize with dramatic statements that are self-aggrandizing: “I want them [women]. And, I put them in the camera,” he says with a shrug. His ex-wife has a more accurate view of Stern’s  personality: “If someone wasn’t interested, he was determined to get her; if someone wanted him, he was aloof.”

MM CROSSED OUT THE PHOTOS SHE REJECTED, BUT STERN HAS PRINTED THEM AFTER HER DEATH BECAUSE HE FINDS THE COMBO OF THE ORANGE X's AND HER IMAGE BEAUTIFUL.

However, I was curious to learn more about the MM shoot, especially straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. When Vogue offered him the opportunity to shoot Monroe, Stern, who had first seen MM in 1955 at an Actors Studio party, realized “it was a once-in-a-lifetime event. I knew I’d never shoot her again.” Though she had been photographed by professionals since the mid-1940s, Stern felt the “iconic photo” of MM had never been taken, and he wanted to be the one to do it.  The sitting consisted of three sessions over a two-week period at the Bel-Air Hotel, beginning on June 23, 1962. Stern opted for a hotel suite because he wanted to create a personal, intimate atmosphere to put MM at ease. Monroe arrived several hours late, but, according to Stern, she was in a fun, light-hearted mood. He found her to be a free spirit ready and open to anything, not at all like the depressed, out-of-control mental patient described in the gossip columns. He wanted to photograph her draped in jewelry and scarves instead of clothing. Monroe, who had few inhibitions regarding her body picked up some of the sheer scarves and began draping them over and around her nude torso. Her hair became tussled as she sipped her favorite champagne—Dom Perignon—and posed with energy and passion.  Stern did not want to shoot her in phony studio settings or in that glamorized gauzy mode of Hollywood publicity photos. Instead, he shot in his usual style—simple concepts arranged in triangular compositions captured in sharp focus. The sharp-focused style with few props or clothes gives the photos a modern look, even today.

MM AS JACKIE KENNEDY---NOT A GOOD IDEA.

Stern sent some of the provocative photos to Vogue, but the editors did not like her tussled hair and the frank nudity. They requested another session with Marilyn. For this second session, she donned fashionable evening wear, including a black Dior gown, and dressed up like Jackie Kennedy, complete with brunette wig and pearls—an ironic guise considering her brief fling with JFK. For the final session, she and Stern opted to return to the semi-nudes and nudes. Stern and Monroe had an immediate rapport that for Stern was based in part on desire. He shot her nude in bed; he stood on top of her with his camera and shot down, reminding me of the David Hemmings character in Blow-Up. In retelling the story of “The Last Sitting,” Stern claimed that there was a “magical force” guiding everything. Monroe was so energized by the shoot that he had difficulties keeping up with her. He shot around 2500 photos during the three sessions, and those selected by Vogue were published in an issue that streeted the day before her death, at least according to Stern.

Given his identity as a lothario with a camera, it is not surprising that Stern describes the experience like an affair or a sexual encounter. He claims he would have gone off with her if she had asked. He tried to kiss the famous star, but MM said, “No.” In the documentary, Stern brags that he didn’t get her, but he got definitive photos of her, which was “better.” Obviously, he equates shooting photos with the act of sex, but the “affair” was one-sided. I don’t think Monroe felt like a notch on his photographic belt.

STUDIO PUBLICITY STILL

In researching Monroe over the years, I have always thought she was more confident and in control of her image when shooting still photographs than she was on a movie set.  She enjoyed being photographed, even for those publicity photos that her studio contracts required. Most stars hated posing for them, especially when they were unrelated to a specific film. Generic shots of stars holding Christmas presents, wearing Halloween costumes, or posing in ridiculous or cutesy settings were part of the grind of the star system, but MM took it in stride.

MM began her career as a magazine-cover model. Most male biographers emphasize her work for men’s magazines—precursors to Playboy—in which she posed in bathing suits or other scanty attire. Publications like Foto Parade advertised their “anatomical art,” while Scope offered such scintillating articles as “How the Reds Use Sex.” However, Monroe actually appeared in a variety of publications, donning costumes that helped her create a female archetype to convey the image the magazine wanted to project—a kind of “acting” in its simplest form in which she collaborated with the photographer to get the concept across. For Family Circle, she posed in a farm girl’s gingham dress while holding a lamb; for US Camera, she looked outdoorsy in capris as she waded through ocean waves; for Personal Romance, she dressed as an innocent young bride.

MM BY CECIL BEATON

After becoming a major star, MM continued to regularly pose for photographers, including Milton Greene, Eve Arnold, George Barnes, Cecil Beaton, and finally Stern. Each photographer had a different concept in mind for capturing Monroe, and she not only cooperated but contributed. Greene was her business partner in Marilyn Monroe Productions, and she trusted him implicitly, so his photos are those of a trusted ally. They show her in candid moments relaxing on and off the set; they come the closest to capturing the MM behind the image. Beaton was an old-school photographer for Vogue who became a costume and production designer for the stage and screen (Gigi; My Fair Lady).  In his photos, the subject was not the center of attention but one element in an overall decorative composition dominated by striking backgrounds. Beaton was taken aback by Monroe’s energy and free-spirited persona and was inclined to “contain” it. Though he shot a few light-hearted photos, he preferred a series of high-concept shots of MM in a white gown lying on a bed of decorative sheets holding a long-stemmed carnation. Though Monroe liked the classiness and visual sophistication, I find the series to be cold and the least revealing of her personality. My favorite photos are by the only woman photographer to shoot MM—Eve Arnold. Arnold, an agency photographer who had known Monroe since 1952, shot the star during the production of her last completed film, The Misfits. Though Arnold did her own version of sexy Marilyn shots, MM allowed the photographer to capture other sides of her as a woman who was going through a difficult period in her life.

MM BY MILTON GREENE

After becoming a star, MM had final approval over all photos. Shots that did not meet her standards were discarded. In the case of Bert Stern’s photos, she marked the rejects with big black or orange X’s. Asked why she rejected certain shots, Stern speculated that they did not “reflect her image of herself.”

MM THE ANIMAL LOVER BY EVE ARNOLD

MM had learned about still photography early in her career and what constitutes a good photo—not only in regard to lighting and angle but also in terms of content. She understood the potential potency of the right photograph by the right artist. Photographers respected her, and she exhibited a confidence for their cameras that was notoriously absent when she acted in films. She collaborated with photographers, or at least interacted with them, to produce an image or persona over which she had a large measure of control. In general, she was more mature, funnier, more mysterious, and more self-assured in her photographs than onscreen. In Hollywood, studio producers exercised control over her image and turned her into a variation of the dumb blonde, which she detested. The hierarchical nature of filmmaking made it certain that directors were uninterested in her opinions and suggestions. Directors and costars who did not understand her insecurities unwittingly made them worse with their behavior toward her. On a film set, she was insecure in her abilities, convinced she was not respected, and unable to concentrate on her lines—behavior made worse by drugs. Photographers have praised her skills and instincts, while directors and costars have criticized her or painted her as vulnerable and pitiable.

ON THE SET OF 'THE MISFITS' BY EVE ARNOLD

In this light, MM’s efforts to launch her own production company to control her star image seem a bigger part of her story than generally assumed.

Considering how impressed Stern was with Monroe and her ability to “collaborate” with him, it is surprising that he attempted to recreate “The Last Sitting” for Vogue in 2008 with Lindsay Lohan. Though I don’t think Lohan is without talent, and I have nothing against her, she is dead weight and completely without charisma compared to MM. Stern admits in the documentary that “I knocked myself off,” demeaning himself in the process. And, worse, the Lohan photos “infringed on another soul.” The Lohan photos force a comparison with the originals, and Lohan pales in comparison. But, the comparison also attests to Monroe’s special talent in still photography and proves that she was integral to the photographic process.

0 Response Intimate Exposures: Marilyn Monroe in Photographs
Posted By Lisa W. : February 6, 2012 4:17 pm

So interesting! I agree with you that the Eve Arnold photos you show here seem almost candid in comparison to the Beaton or Stern ones certainly, but somehow more intimate in a way because you seem to get a glimpse behind the persona. And that’s why I like them. We’ll never stop wondering will we? It’s a huge shame that MM does not get credit for taking control of her career the way she did because I’m sure she paved the way for female stars to come. Too bad Lohan’s life and career ran aground so soon. I agree, though, there’s no comparison to MM. Thanks Suzi!

Posted By Lisa W. : February 6, 2012 4:17 pm

So interesting! I agree with you that the Eve Arnold photos you show here seem almost candid in comparison to the Beaton or Stern ones certainly, but somehow more intimate in a way because you seem to get a glimpse behind the persona. And that’s why I like them. We’ll never stop wondering will we? It’s a huge shame that MM does not get credit for taking control of her career the way she did because I’m sure she paved the way for female stars to come. Too bad Lohan’s life and career ran aground so soon. I agree, though, there’s no comparison to MM. Thanks Suzi!

Posted By swac : February 6, 2012 6:02 pm

Funny, only yesterday I watched the documentary on cinematographer Jack Cardiff, who lensed The Prince and the Showgirl, and spoke fondly of working with Monroe, and how she had a face that was perfect for the camera, without needing the kind of lighting effects that Marlene Dietrich always called for. He also displayed some portraits of MM that he took as lighting tests, but they’re also gorgeous images in their own right, given the subject matter and the subject he had to work with.

He also shows off one of his favourite photos, taken when he had to act as a lighting stand-in for Lawrence Olivier, who wasn’t around for the set-up. Cardiff is in an intimate clinch with MM, and afterwards he got her to sign the photo. MM playfully signs it “Maybe we could have, Jack…” and below it is an autograph by Arthur Miller, with the message “Not on your life” or words to that effect. A greater memento I could not imagine.

Posted By swac : February 6, 2012 6:02 pm

Funny, only yesterday I watched the documentary on cinematographer Jack Cardiff, who lensed The Prince and the Showgirl, and spoke fondly of working with Monroe, and how she had a face that was perfect for the camera, without needing the kind of lighting effects that Marlene Dietrich always called for. He also displayed some portraits of MM that he took as lighting tests, but they’re also gorgeous images in their own right, given the subject matter and the subject he had to work with.

He also shows off one of his favourite photos, taken when he had to act as a lighting stand-in for Lawrence Olivier, who wasn’t around for the set-up. Cardiff is in an intimate clinch with MM, and afterwards he got her to sign the photo. MM playfully signs it “Maybe we could have, Jack…” and below it is an autograph by Arthur Miller, with the message “Not on your life” or words to that effect. A greater memento I could not imagine.

Posted By Kimberly Lindbergs : February 6, 2012 7:50 pm

Great photos & fascinating take, Susan. I have to agree with you & Lisa, the Arnold photos really have power. They seem more intimate and relaxed than the others.

Posted By Kimberly Lindbergs : February 6, 2012 7:50 pm

Great photos & fascinating take, Susan. I have to agree with you & Lisa, the Arnold photos really have power. They seem more intimate and relaxed than the others.

Posted By Suzi : February 6, 2012 9:28 pm

SWAC: I love that documentary about Cardiff, which I saw at Telluride year before last. Not only did I learn a lot about color cinematography, but he was such a gentleman and an artist. I remember being pleased that his comments about MM did not dwell on her habitual tardiness and personal issues.

Posted By Suzi : February 6, 2012 9:28 pm

SWAC: I love that documentary about Cardiff, which I saw at Telluride year before last. Not only did I learn a lot about color cinematography, but he was such a gentleman and an artist. I remember being pleased that his comments about MM did not dwell on her habitual tardiness and personal issues.

Posted By Suzi : February 6, 2012 9:34 pm

Lisa and Kimberly: Arnold also took some cool shots of Joan Crawford in her later years, which are very telling in regard to being an aging star. I think Arnold brought a woman’s perspective to her photos, even when doing star shots that look typical on the surface.

Posted By Suzi : February 6, 2012 9:34 pm

Lisa and Kimberly: Arnold also took some cool shots of Joan Crawford in her later years, which are very telling in regard to being an aging star. I think Arnold brought a woman’s perspective to her photos, even when doing star shots that look typical on the surface.

Posted By dukeroberts : February 7, 2012 1:20 am

I went to the contemporary art museum here in town in 2010 and saw a collection of photos of Marilyn from different photographers over the course of her modeling and acting careers. Each one was as stunning as the one before it. The camera has never loved another woman more. I felt a little dirty staring at the nudes, but hey, who cares? I paid to get in, so I stared.

As beautiful and as intimate as the Eve Arnold pictures are, they make me a little sad. It’s probably due to the fact that they are so intimate. She seems less like the glamorous movie star and more like the fragile woman she really was. I prefer that gorgeous smile. It may just be a facade hiding a deeper pain, but she sold it so well.

And Lindsey Lohan? Yeesh. She seems to fancy herself as Marilyn’s heir or something. In addition to the shoot you mentioned, she also shot a recent pictorial for Playboy modeled on the calendar photos on red velvet that were eventually published in the first issue of Playboy. Ridiculous. No comparison whatsoever.

And Suzi, why don’t YOU write the book about her starting up her own production company? You’ve already written some books. One more about one of our favorite icons wouldn’t hurt. I’ll add it to my list of books by you that I need to buy.

Posted By dukeroberts : February 7, 2012 1:20 am

I went to the contemporary art museum here in town in 2010 and saw a collection of photos of Marilyn from different photographers over the course of her modeling and acting careers. Each one was as stunning as the one before it. The camera has never loved another woman more. I felt a little dirty staring at the nudes, but hey, who cares? I paid to get in, so I stared.

As beautiful and as intimate as the Eve Arnold pictures are, they make me a little sad. It’s probably due to the fact that they are so intimate. She seems less like the glamorous movie star and more like the fragile woman she really was. I prefer that gorgeous smile. It may just be a facade hiding a deeper pain, but she sold it so well.

And Lindsey Lohan? Yeesh. She seems to fancy herself as Marilyn’s heir or something. In addition to the shoot you mentioned, she also shot a recent pictorial for Playboy modeled on the calendar photos on red velvet that were eventually published in the first issue of Playboy. Ridiculous. No comparison whatsoever.

And Suzi, why don’t YOU write the book about her starting up her own production company? You’ve already written some books. One more about one of our favorite icons wouldn’t hurt. I’ll add it to my list of books by you that I need to buy.

Posted By dukeroberts : February 7, 2012 1:23 am

And thank you so much for writing this article. You know how much I enjoy when you write about MM. Now if I could only get you to write an Elvis article…

Posted By dukeroberts : February 7, 2012 1:23 am

And thank you so much for writing this article. You know how much I enjoy when you write about MM. Now if I could only get you to write an Elvis article…

Posted By Susan Doll : February 7, 2012 12:07 pm

Dukeroberts: Sometimes you as such a sweetheart. Thanks for your kind words. I actually proposed a book on MM and on Elvis to a publishing company I have worked with a lot, and they didn’t bite. I was surprised given that it is the anniversary of her death and the 35th for Elvis.

Posted By Susan Doll : February 7, 2012 12:07 pm

Dukeroberts: Sometimes you as such a sweetheart. Thanks for your kind words. I actually proposed a book on MM and on Elvis to a publishing company I have worked with a lot, and they didn’t bite. I was surprised given that it is the anniversary of her death and the 35th for Elvis.

Posted By dukeroberts : February 7, 2012 10:46 pm

They’re obviously stupid. What was the proposed Elvis book about?

Posted By dukeroberts : February 7, 2012 10:46 pm

They’re obviously stupid. What was the proposed Elvis book about?

Posted By dukeroberts : February 7, 2012 10:46 pm

Obviously it was about Elvis, but specifically, in relation to what?

Posted By dukeroberts : February 7, 2012 10:46 pm

Obviously it was about Elvis, but specifically, in relation to what?

Posted By asuccessionofbusynothings : February 8, 2012 12:17 am

I totally agree that Marilyn was always more at ease when posing for still photos. It’s nice to see that other people prefer some of the same photos that I do. My personal favorites are the Milton Greene photos (especially the ballerina sitting), but the Eve Arnold photos are also excellent. I’ve always preferred the photos that show Marilyn in a slightly more natural state. The iconic photos that are reprinted all the time have never particularly appealed to me. Both Arnold and Greene managed to show her as something more than just a sex symbol, and they don’t feel as artificial. They feel more like they’re showing a glimpse of the woman behind the image.

Posted By asuccessionofbusynothings : February 8, 2012 12:17 am

I totally agree that Marilyn was always more at ease when posing for still photos. It’s nice to see that other people prefer some of the same photos that I do. My personal favorites are the Milton Greene photos (especially the ballerina sitting), but the Eve Arnold photos are also excellent. I’ve always preferred the photos that show Marilyn in a slightly more natural state. The iconic photos that are reprinted all the time have never particularly appealed to me. Both Arnold and Greene managed to show her as something more than just a sex symbol, and they don’t feel as artificial. They feel more like they’re showing a glimpse of the woman behind the image.

Posted By Susan Doll : February 8, 2012 12:43 am

Dukeroberts: The MM book proposal focused on her films–the director and his style (she worked with some of the best), her character and its relation to her star image, and other info that would help readers see them afresh. I had two suggestions for the Elvis book proposal–one focused on the very beginning of his career (1954-55); the other on 1956 only, which was the year he became a national sensation.

Posted By Susan Doll : February 8, 2012 12:43 am

Dukeroberts: The MM book proposal focused on her films–the director and his style (she worked with some of the best), her character and its relation to her star image, and other info that would help readers see them afresh. I had two suggestions for the Elvis book proposal–one focused on the very beginning of his career (1954-55); the other on 1956 only, which was the year he became a national sensation.

Posted By dukeroberts : February 8, 2012 12:54 am

I would buy those. Although the early years of Elvis’s career have been covered many times, I would still buy them. I would like to see an in depth book about Elvis’s movies. Not that his movies were deep, but they were a cultural thing that could be examined thoroughly.

Posted By dukeroberts : February 8, 2012 12:54 am

I would buy those. Although the early years of Elvis’s career have been covered many times, I would still buy them. I would like to see an in depth book about Elvis’s movies. Not that his movies were deep, but they were a cultural thing that could be examined thoroughly.

Posted By maroon5gurl88 : February 9, 2012 2:02 am

Beautiful photos, Marilyn never took a bad picture! I did an entire Month of Marilyn movies for my blog and having seen all her movies, she shined in them regardless of quality

Posted By maroon5gurl88 : February 9, 2012 2:02 am

Beautiful photos, Marilyn never took a bad picture! I did an entire Month of Marilyn movies for my blog and having seen all her movies, she shined in them regardless of quality

Posted By vp19 : February 9, 2012 11:56 pm

I too prefer the more natural Monroe poses, the ones capturing both her luminosity and likability. Unfortunately, I doubt any of them would be blown up five times life-size (the mega-Marilyn statue that has appeared in Chicago), which is the way marketers want us to remember her — a larger-than-life “sex symbol,” not a human being who had her faults and foibles, but from all accounts was a pretty good person who rose from a difficult environment and evolved into a solid actress. (She also aided others, helping Ella Fitzgerald get a gig at the Mocambo, a Los Angeles nightclub that heretofore wouldn’t hire black performers. They became friends for years.)

I’ve always maintained that Monroe rose to stardom at arguably the worst time for actresses, at least in the classic Hollywood era, as the studio system — which carefully built its female stars and often gave them input into building their careers — was on the decline. As the administrator of a site dedicated to Carole Lombard (http://carole-and-co.livejournal.com), I’ve regularly done entries on portrait photography in the 1930s, and stars such as Lombard, Marlene Dietrich and others made certain they learned all they could about cinematography, camera angles, lighting and other aspects of the business, both for films and for stills.

All those accoutrements were beginning to disappear in the 1950s, and many actresses had to fend for themselves. Add the growth of television, leading to a smaller, less representative film audience than before World War II, and the inflated gimmicks of the industry — widescreen, 3-D, stereophonic sound, etc. — and many women on screen found themselves reduced to bust, waist and hip measurements. Monroe, an avid Jean Harlow fan in her youth, would have loved to have had roles as good as Jean’s, and to her credit rejected many of the exploitative vehicles Fox sent her way. Had Marilyn been born 20 years earlier and found herself at a studio that treated her with genuine care, there’s no telling what she could have achieved.

Posted By vp19 : February 9, 2012 11:56 pm

I too prefer the more natural Monroe poses, the ones capturing both her luminosity and likability. Unfortunately, I doubt any of them would be blown up five times life-size (the mega-Marilyn statue that has appeared in Chicago), which is the way marketers want us to remember her — a larger-than-life “sex symbol,” not a human being who had her faults and foibles, but from all accounts was a pretty good person who rose from a difficult environment and evolved into a solid actress. (She also aided others, helping Ella Fitzgerald get a gig at the Mocambo, a Los Angeles nightclub that heretofore wouldn’t hire black performers. They became friends for years.)

I’ve always maintained that Monroe rose to stardom at arguably the worst time for actresses, at least in the classic Hollywood era, as the studio system — which carefully built its female stars and often gave them input into building their careers — was on the decline. As the administrator of a site dedicated to Carole Lombard (http://carole-and-co.livejournal.com), I’ve regularly done entries on portrait photography in the 1930s, and stars such as Lombard, Marlene Dietrich and others made certain they learned all they could about cinematography, camera angles, lighting and other aspects of the business, both for films and for stills.

All those accoutrements were beginning to disappear in the 1950s, and many actresses had to fend for themselves. Add the growth of television, leading to a smaller, less representative film audience than before World War II, and the inflated gimmicks of the industry — widescreen, 3-D, stereophonic sound, etc. — and many women on screen found themselves reduced to bust, waist and hip measurements. Monroe, an avid Jean Harlow fan in her youth, would have loved to have had roles as good as Jean’s, and to her credit rejected many of the exploitative vehicles Fox sent her way. Had Marilyn been born 20 years earlier and found herself at a studio that treated her with genuine care, there’s no telling what she could have achieved.

Leave a Reply

Current day month ye@r *

MovieMorlocks.com is the official blog for TCM. No topic is too obscure or niche to be excluded from our film discussions. And we welcome your comments on our blogs and bloggers.
See more: facebook.com/tcmtv
See more: twitter.com/tcm
3-D  Action Films  Actors  Actors' Endorsements  Actresses  animal stars  Animation  Anime  Anthology Films  Art in Movies  Autobiography  Avant-Garde  Aviation  Awards  B-movies  Beer in Film  Behind the Scenes  Best of the Year lists  Biography  Biopics  Blu-Ray  Books on Film  Boxing films  British Cinema  Canadian Cinema  Character Actors  Chicago Film History  Cinematography  Classic Films  College Life on Film  Comedy  Comic Book Movies  Crime  Czech Film  Dance on Film  Digital Cinema  Directors  Disaster Films  Documentary  Drama  DVD  Early Talkies  Editing  Educational Films  European Influence on American Cinema  Experimental  Exploitation  Fairy Tales on Film  Faith or Christian-based Films  Family Films  Film Composers  Film Criticism  film festivals  Film History in Florida  Film Noir  Film Scholars  Film titles  Filmmaking Techniques  Films of the 1980s  Food in Film  Foreign Film  French Film  Gangster films  Genre  Genre spoofs  HD & Blu-Ray  Holiday Movies  Hollywood history  Hollywood lifestyles  Horror  Horror Movies  Icons  independent film  Italian Film  Japanese Film  Korean Film  Literary Adaptations  Martial Arts  Melodramas  Method Acting  Mexican Cinema  Moguls  Monster Movies  Movie Books  Movie Costumes  movie flops  Movie locations  Movie lovers  Movie Reviewers  Movie settings  Movie Stars  Movies about movies  Music in Film  Musicals  Outdoor Cinema  Paranoid Thrillers  Parenting on film  Pirate movies  Polish film industry  political thrillers  Politics in Film  Pornography  Pre-Code  Producers  Race in American Film  Remakes  Revenge  Road Movies  Romance  Romantic Comedies  Satire  Scandals  Science Fiction  Screenwriters  Semi-documentaries  Serials  Short Films  Silent Film  silent films  Social Problem Film  Sports  Sports on Film  Stereotypes  Straight-to-DVD  Studio Politics  Stunts and stuntmen  Suspense thriller  TCM Classic Film Festival  TCM Underground  Television  The British in Hollywood  The Germans in Hollywood  The Hungarians in Hollywood  The Irish in Hollywood  Theaters  Thriller  Trains in movies  Underground Cinema  VOD  War film  Westerns  Women in the Film Industry  Women's Weepies