Friday, 30 April 2021

Interviews, Patreon, and logo

It felt appropriate to take a break, so there will not be a new post of research or criticism today. But two weeks go so quickly by and then I shall be back.

Among the many things I have been doing lately is work on a project where I interview Swedish film critics, and if you can read Swedish you can check them out here:

I have also got myself a Patreon page, so you can support me there, financially, if you feel like it. Here is the link:

And I have created a logo for myself. I thought it would be fun. It looks like this:

That is all for today. See you in two weeks.

Friday, 16 April 2021

1930 to 1945 by the numbers Part III (actors)

This is my third article about the box office hits of the period of 1930 to 1945, i.e. the years in which the studio system was at its prime. The first article was an introduction and the second was about the films, the studios/independent producers, and the genres and styles, of all the 165 films that I have included. Having now gathered the names of the leading stars in those 165 films, I will today present those names. Further analysis will come later, but a couple of things are worth pointing out already. The first noticeable thing is the remarkable popularity of Wallace Beery in the first half of the 1930s, in all kinds of films of which eight ended up on the top ten lists, and then his abrupt disappearance in the second half. Today he is not someone much talked about, unlike another remarkably popular actor, Clark Gable, whose reign at the top of the box office lasted the entire period in question (with 14 films at the top ten lists), and continued after 1945 as well.

Things were organised differently around actors and stars during these years. The star might be the whole raison d'être for the film, built around his or her unique profile, the star as genre, to a much wider extent than today. It was also common with pairing up actors, such as Clark Gable and Joan Crawford in eight films, to mentioned a pair that is remembered, or Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy in eight films too, to mention a pair that is more or less forgotten (beyond some engaged fans), despite their exuberant successes from Naught Marietta (1935) to I Married an Angel (1942). These were mainly operettas, and both Nelson and MacDonald were singers first who became film stars later.

This is another thing that is different from today, that many of the big stars were not necessarily actors but singers, or dancers, or comedians, and who took their stage personas to the film screen. In that sense the films were pre-sold by the actors' fame prior to being absorbed by Hollywood.

An interesting kind of arrangement is the films when four or more of the biggest names appear in the same film, such as Dinner at Eight (1933) or Libeled Lady (1936). It is easy to understand the studios excitement (especially MGM) about putting four or five or six of their greatest stars in the same film, with their names taking up most of the poster. But these films were not necessarily more successful than those with only one or two major stars. Warner Bros. rarely did these things and were more focused on one star at a time in their films, or one male and one female star together, with some exceptions.

One of the many things that complicate the more general, simplistic view of Hollywood during this time is that how the different studios/independent producers managed and dealt with actors and stars differed. The conventional views of Hollywood are often based on how things were at MGM in the 1930s, regarding stars and many other things, and their way of doing things then is not applicable to all the studios, or to other decades. Another complication is that the discussions today about the stars is almost exclusively of it being a time of actors being under long, gruelling contracts with the studios, until Olivia de Havilland's successfully sued Warner Bros. in 1943. But throughout the 1930s there were several freelancers too. The most famous today is probably Cary Grant, but there were others such as Carole Lombard and Fredric March, and actors like Cary Cooper moving around between studios and having shorter contracts.

But all this is for later articles. Now I shall just provide all the films and all the stars. During the war years, in particular 1943, there were several films that had neither plots nor lead characters but were instead compilation films of musical numbers and such to entertain the troops. For them I have not written any names but only "multiple stars." The films marked with yellow are those I am unclear about their box office numbers but have reason to think they should be included. The top one is 1930 to 1937 and the other 1938 to 1945. How I have chosen the films, and the difficulties involved, is explained in the previous article.

Other than Beery and Gable one might also single out Gary Cooper (10 films), Spencer Tracy (nine films), Judy Garland (seven films), and Myrna Loy and Claudette Colbert (six films each). 

This is a work in progress and there will be more articles over the coming months, with more analysis.


I updated the names in three boxes as I had got Colin Clive and Clive Brook mixed up, and Jane Wyman and Jane Wyatt. Apologies!

Links to the earlier articles:

You can support me on Patreon:

Friday, 2 April 2021

1930 to 1945 by the numbers Part II (films, studios, and genres)

The previous post introduced my exploration of the period from 1930 to 1945 in Hollywood. I want to do several things, spread out over several posts. One thing is to compare what prominent historians are saying about the period with what the figures tell us in terms of popularity. Another is to look at trends in moviegoing habits. Another is to compare studios in terms of how well they did at the box office and at the Oscars, and how that evolved over time. Another is to look at what kinds of films were most popular at any given time, compared with what kinds of films were nominated for Oscars, and how that evolved over time. I also want to look at the 1938 piece in The Hollywood Report that made "box office poison" a known term, and see how the actors in question were doing before and after 1938. Actors will be the focus of the next article. In this article the focus is on which films, studios, directors, and genres were the most successful.

None of this will tell us anything about the strengths and weaknesses of the individual films, or much about the art and craft of filmmaking. But it can be interesting as sociology and as history.

One difficulty is to figure out the reliability of the box office statistics. You cannot rely on just one source (such as Wikipedia's top ten lists of each year) as there are many mistakes in most, or possibly all, of them, and also different ways of measuring and reporting the numbers. A film's reported rentals are sometimes only domestic (which I prefer) and sometimes international. Some lists include only the numbers for the film's first release (again my preference) and others include subsequent re-releases. In some cases, a top ten list from a given year will only contain the films released in that year, even if a film released late in the previous year was the most popular one for the year in question. On the other hand, a list of the most successful films of 1942 might not include Casablanca, even though it was released that year, because most people saw it in the beginning of 1943. Another example is National Velvet, which opened in mid-December of 1944. If half of a film's audience is at the end of one year and the second half at the beginning of the next year, the film might be very successful yet not appear on any list.

Sometimes films are inexplicably missing from a list. I have seen a list of the most successful films of 1972 that did not include The Godfather and I have seen lists of the most successful films of 1930 that did not include All Quiet on the Western Front, despite each film being among the greatest hits of their respective years. Another summary, of the most successful films of the 1960s, did not include My Fair Lady (1964) even though it should have been.

The various studios are not equally good or reliable at reporting and/or saving their box office statistics, so, for example, figures for MGM, Warner Bros. (WB), and Twentieth Century-Fox seem more dependable than Universal, Paramount and Columbia for some reason. Another problem is that the figures for certain kinds of films, such as those with Shirley Temple, seems to be underreported. Only one of Temple's films appear in my figures, but that is not necessarily the only one that did make it into the top ten. The same is true for the films Deanna Durbin did at Universal in the second half of the 1930s. One of them appears now, One Hundred Men and a Girl (1937), but I am convinced that one or two more should be included. So far I do not have the figures to support my belief.

One reason why film historians, and especially those more interested in theory, slip up is because of these errors. Robert B. Ray tries to strengthen his tenuous arguments in A Certain Tendency of the Hollywood Cinema 1930 to 1980 by referring to box office statistics but his source is not reliable, and neither is his readings of that source. He claims for example that Josef von Sternberg's films were unpopular, and that both All Quiet on the Western Front and I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (1932) failed at the box office. Neither of these statements are true, but since his arguments to some extent need them to be true one can see why he would make them. (But I might write more on Ray's book in a later article.)

I have used several different sources myself, including Wikipedia, Joel W. Finler's book The Hollywood Story, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, an article from 1944 in The Argus Weekend Magazine, some articles from Historical Journal of Film, Radio & Television, some box office reporting in Motion Picture Almanac, and some other books and sources. I have then compared the figures from each year for these different sources to try to get as close to the truth as possible. It still remains the case that my box office lists, especially for the earlier years of the 1930s, cannot be taken as the last word on the subject, but they are interesting and relevant, and they give a good idea of what was doing well in terms of audience numbers.

Another important point to make though is that doing well in terms of sold tickets does not mean by default that the film was profitable. As regularly happens, a studio will spend too much on a film and it will not recover its costs even if it is the most successful film of the year. This happened a lot in the late 1960s as I mentioned in an earlier article, and it happened in the 1930s as well. But this too can be confusing, and one of my sources, The Hollywood Story, will illustrate it. Finler says on page 43 that The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) "cost a hefty $1.9 million and thus earned only a small profit." but on page 301 he writes "Biggest disappointment of all [for WB in 1938] was the outstanding Errol Flynn vehicle, The Adventures of Robin Hood, which was filmed in Technicolor at a cost of almost $2 million but failed to earn a profit." It cannot be true that it both made a profit and failed to make a profit. According to figures from WB.'s own records, the film took in $4 million in revenues (domestic and international) which means it took in twice the amount it cost to make it. This does not mean all that money went back to WB as there were probably other expenses as well. But working out exactly what the profit for the film was is difficult.

That is enough background and caveats for now. Let us instead turn to some statistics. The first table is the most successful films for each year from 1930 to 1945, with the name of the studio or, in some cases, independent producer included. As you will see, MGM was the dominant studio almost every year. One more clarification though. Only one of Disney's animated films are listed below and that is because, overall, they make a lot of their money on repeated re-releases. Pinocchio (1940) and Bambi (1942) are among the most successful films of all time, but that built up over the decades.

The ambition has been to put them in the order of reported rental returns, with the most successful film at the top, but as I have said it is not an exact science. For many films of a given year the reported rentals are almost the same, and sometimes they are estimates. You will often see this or that film described as "the second-highest grossing film of the year" or "it was a huge success, being the fifth most popular film of 1936" but you cannot say that with any kind of certainty. "Among the ten most popular" is usually as close as you will get. It is also rare for this period for one film to be considerably more successful than the next one. Only three stand out their respective years, Gone with the Wind (1939), Sergeant York (1941) and Bells of St. Mary's (1945). Most other films follow each other closely.

Three films, The House of Rothschild (1934), The Life of Emile Zola (1937), and Lady in the Dark (1944), are followed with ?? and highlighted in yellow, and this is because the figures for them are unclear so I am not sure whether to include them or exclude them.

Here are the number of film(s) for each studio or independent producer among the 165 titles that have been included:

Disney (1 film), First National (1 film), Twentieth Century (1 film), UA - United Artists (4 films, 3 being Chaplin's), Universal (4 films), David O. Selznick (5 films), Fox (6 films), RKO (7 films), Columbia (8 films, 5 being Capra's), Twentieth Century-Fox (12 films), Samuel Goldwyn (12 films), WB (18 films), Paramount (28 films), and MGM (58 films).

Given that MGM was the most successful company it would seem that the most successful directors were those working for MGM, but it is not quite so straightforward. This leads to a question worth pursuing. To what extent, or rather in which cases, the director could be said to be responsible for its success and to what extent a film was primarily a success due to the "genius of the system". I will not dig into this now, but as an example the successes that W.S. Van Dyke had in the first half of the 1930s might be attributed more to him personally (as the films were his ideas and made under his control) and the successes he had in the later part of the 1930s might be attributed more to MGM (as they were conceived by others in the studio and he had less control). The answer to the general question though is that it depends on who the director is, with which studio he is associated, and whether he is a contracted one or a freelancer.

Here you can see which directors made the top ten films of each year. Given the importance of Busby Berkeley, I have underlined the films on which he participated in some capacity even if it was not as director of the whole film:

There are 165 films but only 66 directors. The following have made five or more films:

Clarence Brown (mainly MGM), Frank Capra (Columbia), Mervyn LeRoy (WB and MGM), Michael Curtiz (WB), and Cecil B. DeMille (Paramount) had 5 films each. George Cukor (three studios) and Henry King (Fox and Twentieth Century-Fox) had 6 films each. Victor Fleming (Fox and MGM) had 7 films, and Van Dyke 8 films, all for MGM.

More interesting is to look at genres. I have in the document below given each film a genre categorisation. This is not easy, and many of these might be open to discussion. Some are more general, and others are more specific. "Musical" is too general for me. I have used it for 44 of the 165 films, but I have tried to specify it a bit, to "musical comedy" or "musical drama" for example. (Some of the musicals might be better referred to as "operettas" but I did not do that this time.) In one case I refer to it as a "Minnelli musical" as some films have their own particular ambiance which can be attributed to the director. Hence, I have called Steamboat Round the Bend (1935) a "John Ford comedy" and I could perhaps have used "Capra comedy" for You Can't Take It with You (1938). But you can see for yourself here:

What this highlights is the complexity of the issue of genres. It is not the case that the genre definitions or, better, suggestions, I have given are necessarily what the studios used themselves, and the critics and the audiences might probably have used other ones. And as you can also see, there are few pure genre films. It is often a combination of different things, and sometimes it is the stars that provide the genre. There is enough material here for a book on Hollywood and its relationship with genres, so a deeper analysis will have to wait for another article. This will be all for this post.

In the next post I shall be looking at actors (which to a large extent means Clark Gable).


Part I is here:

Part III:

More about W.S. Van Dyke here:

List of all sources and resources will appear in the last article of this project.

(Shortly after publishing I updated the genre/style tables for five films for more clarity.)

You can support me on Patreon:

Friday, 19 March 2021

1930 to 1945 by the numbers Part I

I have decided to follow up on my recent articles about the 1960s and 1970s with doing something similar about the period of 1930 to 1945, i.e. from when the transfer to sound was complete and until the end of the war. It feels like a proper demarcation as the late 1940s was such a tumultuous time in which the business model changed drastically. Some scholars, myself included, thinks that the late 1940s is more deserving of the term "New Hollywood" than the late 1960s, but I would prefer if we did not use that expression at all. It has the same problem as the expression "golden age," something vague and subjective enough for it to have been used for almost any period of filmmaking.

I have written about the 1930s before (below are links to some of those pieces), and there I argued that the 1930s is yet another of those periods that are misunderstood and unknown, However, this is more understandable since, unlike the 1960s/1970s, it is not as researched and it is more difficult to work with because facts and figures are harder to come by. It is less documented, and scholars have shown less interest in it. Yet it was as exciting a time in Hollywood as any other.

What I have done so far is collecting box office figures, as far as I can, and other statistics, giving me some 250 titles to work with. I have a series of questions that I want to find the answers too, such as which studios were the most successful at the box office, and which were the most prestigious ones. A taste: of the 164 films that made the top ten box office list of each year from 1930 to 1945, 62 were made by MGM. (It was 164 and not 160 because some years two films shared a place on the list.) Which genres were most popular and how did that evolve over time? Which directors were the most successful, and the most acclaimed? What about stars? Another glimpse: in the early 1930s, films with Marie Dressler, sometimes paired with Wallace Beery, were gold at the box office.

Dressler and Jean Harlow in Dinner at Eight (George Cukor 1933)

I will not provide anything more today than this brief introduction as I have only begun gathering the statistics. The next post, in two weeks, will reveal more results. Until then, here are links to some previous pieces by me about the 1930s.

About 1930s cinema in general
About Howard Hawks and poetic realism
About Tay Garnett
About W.S. Van Dyke and Myrna Loy
About Victor Fleming and Test Pilot (1938)
About the book The Collaboration by Ben Urwand
About John Ford's films of the 1930s 
About Henry Koster at Universal Studios.

You can support me on Patreon:

Friday, 5 March 2021

New Hollywood and the box office Part III

This is the third, and last, part of a focus on the history of, and conventional wisdoms about, "New Hollywood" and should preferably be read after you have read the earlier ones. Part I is here and part II here.


Alfred Hitchcock sometimes talked about his inspirations from continental Europe, and in the 1960s he was enthusiastic about Michelangelo Antonioni and other Italian directors, saying they were ahead of what he himself was capable of doing. But Hitchcock was also one of those who in the early 1960s played around with, and tried to move beyond, a more conventional narrative and style, with Psycho (1960), The Birds (1963), and Marnie (1964). He had done this before too, it was not new, but this was his last major effort in this regard as I think his last four films were less adventurous.

Hitchcock is a good example of the fact that in the early 1960s people were experimenting and pushing the form of what a Hollywood film might be, i.e. before 1967, the year usually singled out as the birth of "New Hollywood" or the "Hollywood Renaissance." Some directors, like Arthur Penn when making Mickey One (1965), were explicitly stating their ambition of making a film in the style of the French New Wave. Mickey One is an extravagant experiment which to me feels more Fellini-esque than French New Wave, albeit with a sense of paranoia that is not to be found in Fellini's work, but is in common with a certain tradition in Hollywood, which I sometimes call "urban paranoia". Penn, John Frankenheimer, and later Alan J. Pakula are three prominent directors within that mood, working in the 1960s/1970s. Frankenheimer's Seconds (1966) is such a paranoid film that is also another experimental work (within a mainstream context) to appear before "New Hollywood." From this new generation there is also Sidney Lumet who, with films like The Pawnbroker (1964) was trying out new things, partly inspired by what was going on in European cinema. In particular, The Pawnbroker's use of time, memory, and flashbacks, some as short as a split second, makes it possible to consider it an experimental film. Other scenes are reminiscent of Antonioni, both in terms of concrete spaces and social/emotional distances between characters.

Robert Rossen was, like Hitchcock, one of those from an older generation who in the 1960s tried out new things, new styles, in The Hustler (1961) and Lilith (1964). The latter one in particular has a New Wave ambiance. 

There are other films and filmmakers that could be mentioned but this is enough to illustrate how, while the years before 1967 are frequently given short shrift by the conventional view on "New Hollywood," there was a lot going on in terms of stylistic and thematic developments. These did of course not appear out of nowhere; each decade has its own experimentations and developments. Some of these films, like Mickey One or Seconds, were bolder than many of the more celebrated films of 1967 and after. The reason why 1967 is given such a prominent place is instead due to the box office successes of Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate of that year.

Since the box office numbers are so important for the telling of the history of "New Hollywood," they have tended to skew the idea of the 1960s. Consider also that Point Blank (another example of "urban paranoia") is from the same year, 1967, as Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate, and is more avant garde than either of those two, but since it did not become a box office sensation it is not discussed as much, or much at all.

It is curious that the focus in the telling of the story of "New Hollywood" is on how Hollywood had changed and how this made it possible in 1967, and after, to make a new and different kind of film, even though such films had been made before. Might it not be more appropriate to talk about a change in the audience rather than in Hollywood? Maybe instead of "New Hollywood" we could talk about a "New Audience," an audience that was, briefly, more willing to watch such films than they had been before, and came to the cinemas in unusually large numbers. As I indicated in the previous post, is not the success of Easy Rider (1969) an aberration rather than a sign of a new Hollywood?


There is another issue with the association of "New Hollywood" with box office figures. The years given for the first period of it are 1967 to 1975, with Jaws (1975) often blamed for the renaissance's decline and fall. (See my first two posts for more on this.) Yet a look at the box office figures for the 1970s suggests that in 1975, the renaissance moment had already passed. It might be more correct to say that the last year in which a more alternative, experimental Hollywood film could make it to the top ten was 1972. There are few traces of such films in 1973 and 1974, although the 1975 was a better year for them.

One thing that changed was that in 1972, The Godfather and The Poseidon Adventure captured the top of the charts, and especially The Poseidon Adventure led to a shift in priorities, either in Hollywood or among the audiences. It led, as I said in the previous post, to an avalanche of disaster movies, several of which became very successful. It is sometimes said that Airport (1970) initiated this wave of disaster movies, but it is different from the later ones. In Airport there is no disaster, for one thing. There is, towards the end, the threat of one, but it does not happen, and the film does not need it. In the later disaster films, the disaster is all-encompassing, it controls both the narrative and the characters, from the title and onwards. Airport is not like that. Therefore, I think it is more appropriate to consider The Poseidon Adventure as the proper starting point for the cycle. (Disaster films first began appearing in the 1910s and one prominent cycle appeared in the 1930s, with special effects often more impressive that those in the 1970s.)

So, if going by box office numbers, one might say that the renaissance lasted from 1967 to 1972. However, if it instead refers to a certain way of filmmaking, it began before 1967 and continued for longer, beyond both 1972 and 1975. It never even went away; it just did not make the top of the box office charts any longer. And that disappearance happened two years before Jaws appeared.

But all of the above depends entirely on how you define the films in question. What exactly is a "New Hollywood" film? I think it is safe to assume that there is no consensus about this. For some films, like Easy Rider or Five Easy Pieces (1970), yes, but not for all films. Below I have listed the top ten films from 1969 to 1980 (based on domestic rentals in the United States), and colour-coded them to give an idea of the complexity of the situation. You can also see what kind of films were popular, and how what was popular evolved over time. These are just suggestions, or an opening for a further discussion, than anything definitive.


In the previous post I said I would come back to the issue of how filmmakers who were already well-established before the 1960s managed the transition into a new period. As I mentioned, it is often said that they did not do particularly well. Here is a quote from Barry Keith Grant as an example of that view: "Almost alone among the great directors of the studio era, John Ford and Alfred Hitchcock continued to make interesting films." (p. 11), and he mentions Charlie Chaplin, Frank Capra, George Cukor, and Howard Hawks as four failures. 

Capra and Chaplin did only make one film each in the 1960s, so they had their best days behind them, even though Chaplin's A Countess from Hong Kong (1967) has its defenders. I personally love three of Hawks's films of the 1960s, Hatari! (1962), Man's Favorite Sport (1964) and El Dorado (1966), and I like Red Line 7000 (1965), so I disagree with Grant's idea that Hawks was a failure, but as I said earlier we cannot base our view of film history on what we like or dislike. More relevant is that Hawks continued to be reasonably popular at the box office, his films were recognisably his in terms of theme and style, and within the context of Hawks's development as a filmmaker they are interesting.

Cukor is interesting too, partly because, unlike Hawks, he was trying new things and adjusted his style to the times, such as with The Chapman Report (1962) and Justine (1969), while also making one of the definitive blockbuster musicals of the decade, My Fair Lady (1964). I am not sure that Hitchcock's films are by default more interesting, even though they were more successful. (Cukor struggled a lot with studio interferences and such.)

Then take William Wyler. He made one of the most successful films of the decade, which is also perhaps the most critically acclaimed of the blockbuster musicals, Funny Girl (1968), and the glossy and glamorous How to Steal a Million (1966), with Audrey Hepburn and Peter O'Toole. But he also made The Children's Hour (1961) that shows how he had appropriated some new ideas. Especially the last 30 minutes or so are "modern" in its style. He also made The Collector (1965), saying no to an offer of doing The Sound of Music (1965) in order to make this peculiar film, that is more in line with "New Hollywood." It is also a reminder of the influence British films, music, and art in general, had on Hollywood and the United States in the 1960s.

Some, like Billy Wilder, did one fine film after another, showing no signs of a loss of creative capabilities, even if financing became more difficult. He eventually had to seek his money from Europe. Anthony Mann was another one who struggled with Hollywood and instead went to Europe. There he made two massive productions in Spain, El Cid (1961) and The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964), produced by Samuel Bronston, and those epics are among Mann's finest films.

Robert Wise on the other hand thrived within Hollywood in the 1960s and 1970s, and adopted well to the new realities. But I will not list all filmmakers. Suffice to say that, while taste is subjective, it is difficult to defend a position that most of them failed, whether creatively or at the box office.


There were major shifts in how Hollywood functioned, and in the style of filmmaking, and with regards to censorship, in the late 1960s and early 1970s. But that is almost the norm in Hollywood. The breakthrough of sound in the late 1920s, the tightening of censorship in the mid-1930s, the Paramount Decree in 1948, the rising power of the agents, the package-unit deals in the 1950s, and so on. The ground was often shaking under the studios, and the way films were made, how they were financed, and how Hollywood was structured, evolved and erupted persistently, as did the style and themes of the films.

As is often the case, there is not much in the conventional story of "New Hollywood" that holds up, and it is too often told by a combination of ignorance, confusion, romanticism, and letting one's personal likes and dislikes get in the way of historical accuracy. That this is not unique for this period is not a secret, but it is perhaps the one period where this is most obvious.


The quote above is from American Cinema of the 1960s: Themes and Variations (2008), edited by Barry Keith Grant.

New Hollywood and the box office Part I:

New Hollywood and the box office Part II: 

You can support me on Patreon:

Here is a selection of 35 films from 1960 to 1966. They are different in ambition, in budget, and in theme and style, and some are better than others, and some are among the best ever made, but they all exemplify the scope and vitality of American cinema then. There are other titles that could be included as well.

A Fine Madness (1966)

Advise & Consent (1962)

Behold a Pale Horse (1964)

Cape Fear (1962)

Cry of Battle (1963)

Hell Is for Heroes (1962)

Lilith (1964)

Lonely Are the Brave (1962)

Marnie (1964)

Merrill's Marauders (1962)

Mickey One (1965)

Psycho (1960)

Ride the High Country (1962)

Seconds (1966)

Seven Days in May (1964)

Shock Corridor (1963)

The Apartment (1960)

The Collector (1965)

The Courtship of Eddie's Father (1963)

The Hustler (1961)

The Intruder (1962)

The Killers (1964)

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

The Misfits (1961)

The Naked Kiss (1964)

The Night of the Iguana (1964)

The Pawnbroker (1964)

The Pink Panther (1963)

The Shooting (1966)

The Train (1964)

Two Weeks in Another Town (1962)

Underworld U.S.A. (1961)

Wild River (1960)

You’re a Big Boy Now (1966)