Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 13 Jun 2005 06:20:49 -0500 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Dear colleagues:
This weekend I looked up the original "N Y Times" review of Hitchcock's "Murder" (NYT
10/25/30). If there might have happened a typo or other mistake in the name "Baring"
of the female lead in that film (as I implied on this board yesterday), then perhaps part
of the problem had already cropped up in that 1930 film review.
After all, even the most august and respectable NYT can slip up occasionally. In reviewing
the Hitchcock film in 1930, the NYT reviewer in 1930 reversed the names, calling the real
person (actress) "Diana Baring," and claiming that she plays the fictional role of "Norah"
or "Norah Baring." The reality, of course, was just the opposite: the real person Norah
Baring played the character "Diana [Baring?]."
Could the NYT have been the guilty party, or one of the guilty parties, in a continuing
misnaming that carries down to our own day?
Cheers,
Steven P Hill (U of IL).
_ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _
----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
|
|
|