@@pennybourban3712 Yes, she was a very popular character actress, and she was hilarious. My favorite role of hers was Aunt Betsey Trotwood in the 1935 MGM version of _David Copperfield._ Producer David O. Selznick was a Dickens nut, and he tried to make sure the film did the novel justice. I'm another Dickens nut, and I think he succeeded.
Lucius Beebe and Charles Clague were a celebrated "couple". Gay couples were more than tolerated in high social circles, especially in arts and literature.
Did everyone notice that the film "Only Yesterday " was made in 1933, the year that "Prohibition" ended, yet it took place in 1929 & we see numerous people enjoying 'cocktails' at a party & a large bar visible in the background? At 78, I saw Franklin Pangborn in many, b/w & older films on t.v. in the 1950's & 60's & wish that they still regularly showed them, today! p;s, My deceased friend, Scott Pangborn, bore his last name & now wonder if they were related?
Prohibition was in effect until December 1933 (Beer was legalized some months before). Meanwhile liquor flowed everywhere, in some places local government refused to enforce it and left it to the feds - who had their hands full already.
It was illegal to manufacture or sell liquor, but not to consume it in private homes or private clubs. People who afford it stocked up. Movie star Mary Pickford bought out an entire liquor store before the law came into effect, for example. Though by 1929 of course this would be bootlegged one way or another.
@rongendron8705. You're a bit naive if you think Prohibition stopped people from drinking. Ever hear of speakeasies? They got raided constantly as soon as the cops found out.
At the University of Pittsburgh in the late sixties, several of us created a film club. I never quite understood why we ultimately called it "The Franklin Pangborn Film Club"... The art-house nature of our film presentation was very popular on campus for the years we were in operation.
No, just fellow cricket enthusiasts. Response to the characters (Charters and Caldicott) was so positive they were used in several other British films and radio serials.
@@justwaiting5744 There is a scene where you see it. His boyfriend comes to him while he's sitting on a couch and Ed smiles at him. You will get the idea.
@@Chanticlair47 yeah, I knew his face from somewhere (I guess it was the film Lady for a Day) and had to look it up. He seemed to have a rather unfulfilling career, from leading roles in silent films to bit parts and eventually just being an extra.
@@DavidLS1 One of the actors in this video famously played a photographer who was trying to shoot Spanky's picture in the Little Radcals/Our Gang short "Wild Poses." All through the short, Spanky kept protesting, "I don't want my picture took!" because he had overheard that he was going to be shot, and he thought it was going to be with a firearm, not a camera. ua-cam.com/video/G_3bGm_ELdU/v-deo.html
Oh really?? In 1933 they couldn’t be explicit so they used code words and situations. Here both characters are interior decorators-together. No women in sight. Think about it. And Pangborn often played effeminate, supercilious characters.
@@brapp5973 How do you figure the friend is also an interior decorator? So 'interior decorator' is the code that means 'boyfriend'? There are women at the Emmerson's. I would say Pangborn was no Wallace Beery, but not that he often played effeminate characters. Too much imagination.
@@johnnyb4187 You would say that Pangborn is “no Wallace Beery”?? Haha. That’s an understatement! Anyway, I stick to my guns that it is implied that they are more than “just friends.”
Franklin Pangborn's character even wants to show Tom the bedroom. His job (interior designer) and mannerisms are clearly coded gay for the time. This scene has been identified as having coded gay characters many times by many sources www.cinema.ucla.edu/events/2019/04/26/sign-of-the-cross-only-yesterday
Get a grip. This is a character not a real person. By the way, I think it’s pretty obvious that “Tom” IS meant to be Franklin Pangborn’s character’s boyfriend. In those days, you couldn’t say it out loud in the movies so they used “codes.” Here, they are both interior decorators. Need i say more?!
If you were straight back then, there was no need for privacy, which- if we want to be honest- really means secrecy. Same as now. There isn't one single male A-list film actor in an open relationship with another man. In a business of singing, dancing, emoting in costumes and makeup... not even one. We often know they are, but it's "private."
@@akrenwinkle No. Even straight people wanted privacy. Sex scandals happened all the time because someone was caught having premarital sex or was pregnant out of wedlock or was caught committing adultery. Interracial marriage was illegal in many states.
@@ScoobySnacksYum Of course everyone wanted privacy from whatever was considered scandalous. That's not at all what I meant. If a man and a non-pregnant woman, of the same race, without an outrageous age difference, who were not already married to other people, wanted to go out publicly, there was absolutely no reason not to. But two men or two women, even in a long-term loving relationship, had to hide.
It's fantastic to see obviously gay characters not made the butt of a joke in a classic film
And with a big budget and half-decent acting, no less. 😯
Pre-code sophistication.
And the brilliant Edna May Oliver!
I know! Isn't she wonderful? Just walked away with the whole scene tucked nicely in her weird bag.
Indeed!
What's funny is I recognize her from cartoons. She must have been very famous that they characterized her.
@@pennybourban3712 Yes, she was a very popular character actress, and she was hilarious. My favorite role of hers was Aunt Betsey Trotwood in the 1935 MGM version of _David Copperfield._ Producer David O. Selznick was a Dickens nut, and he tried to make sure the film did the novel justice. I'm another Dickens nut, and I think he succeeded.
@@pennybourban3712 caricaturizing was a thing back then, but yes she was. Even my mom had a drawing of herself like that.
"The name doesn't matter very much, but he's very thirsty."
Even then you didn't need a good name if you had a pretty face.
Always
"......that heavenly blue against that mauve trim, doesn't that excite you....."
How does a painting have "trim"?
I think he says "mauve curtain."
The frame had a gold and mauve trim. Have you never seen art displayed?
@msmltvcktl No, I haven't. Why don't you tell us all about it, including the "trim"?
Lucius Beebe and Charles Clague were a celebrated "couple". Gay couples were more than tolerated in high social circles, especially in arts and literature.
These old films are great because they authentically portray the style and aesthetics of their time - I love watching them
Once upon a time people had manners.
Lol the people desperately trying argue “they’re just friends okay!” have absolutely no gaydar and living in total denial hahaha
Edna May Oliver!
I love her!
Yes! Delightful!
Did everyone notice that the film "Only Yesterday " was made in 1933, the year that "Prohibition" ended, yet it
took place in 1929 & we see numerous people enjoying 'cocktails' at a party & a large bar visible in the background?
At 78, I saw Franklin Pangborn in many, b/w & older films on t.v. in the 1950's & 60's & wish that they still regularly
showed them, today! p;s, My deceased friend, Scott Pangborn, bore his last name & now wonder if they were related?
Prohibition was in effect until December 1933 (Beer was legalized some months before). Meanwhile liquor flowed everywhere, in some places local government refused to enforce it and left it to the feds - who had their hands full already.
The clothes were 1933.
How did you manage to stay 78 years old for two decades? Are you now 130?
It was illegal to manufacture or sell liquor, but not to consume it in private homes or private clubs. People who afford it stocked up. Movie star Mary Pickford bought out an entire liquor store before the law came into effect, for example. Though by 1929 of course this would be bootlegged one way or another.
@rongendron8705. You're a bit naive if you think Prohibition stopped people from drinking. Ever hear of speakeasies? They got raided constantly as soon as the cops found out.
Loved him as the photographer in the little rascals! Too funny!
Looks like a pretty good movie. Surprised I hadn't heard of it.
Charming clip from a pretty good movie. Not sure why people are so angry in the comments.
At the University of Pittsburgh in the late sixties, several of us created a film club. I never quite understood why we ultimately called it "The Franklin Pangborn Film Club"... The art-house nature of our film presentation was very popular on campus for the years we were in operation.
For another apparent gay couple, check out 'The Lady Vanishes' 1938
No, just fellow cricket enthusiasts. Response to the characters (Charters and Caldicott) was so positive they were used in several other British films and radio serials.
Check out Edward G Robinson in Little Caeser. He's gay.
I don't remember a gay couple in that. Is it brief?
@@justwaiting5744 There is a scene where you see it. His boyfriend comes to him while he's sitting on a couch and Ed smiles at him. You will get the idea.
@@seanconlon2773 They were funny as hell together.
Any place to find the complete film?
The entire film is right here on UA-cam.
@@PaulTesta Can't wait to see it all! Thanks for the lead, Paul.
@@tangogent
My pleasure!
The boyfriend is played by Barry Norton.
Barry Norton was very cute. I noticed him before in other movies!…..I’m so gay😂🎉
@@Chanticlair47 yeah, I knew his face from somewhere (I guess it was the film Lady for a Day) and had to look it up. He seemed to have a rather unfulfilling career, from leading roles in silent films to bit parts and eventually just being an extra.
90 years later who cares what 2 people did behind closed doors
people like me who were taught to hate and kill themselves by god/ country/family?
Who cares now? Except a bunch of conservative psychos trying to destroy the country.
Everybody is dead on screen.
91 years afterwards, that's sort of to be expected.
@@zacmumblethunder7466except that his supposition makes no sense, literally or grammatically.
@@stirlingmoss9637 Oh, no. I've got so used to poor grammar in these things that I failed to notice that.
And you will be too...
@@michaelarmstrong9617 you sooner than later
But I don't *want* my picture took!!
(Props if you get the reference 😊)
I pride myself on getting references, but I don't get this one. Please help me understand.
@@DavidLS1 One of the actors in this video famously played a photographer who was trying to shoot Spanky's picture in the Little Radcals/Our Gang short "Wild Poses." All through the short, Spanky kept protesting, "I don't want my picture took!" because he had overheard that he was going to be shot, and he thought it was going to be with a firearm, not a camera.
ua-cam.com/video/G_3bGm_ELdU/v-deo.html
The more things change...
Crisis, what crisis?
always thought it was a bit camp!!!!
Franklin Pangborn is Jerry and his friend is Tom. Nothing in the scene suggests he's a 'boyfriend'.
Oh really?? In 1933 they couldn’t be explicit so they used code words and situations. Here both characters are interior decorators-together. No women in sight. Think about it. And Pangborn often played effeminate, supercilious characters.
The friend has a gay job too? Guess I didn't catch that, and no women in sight! 😅@@brapp5973
@@brapp5973 How do you figure the friend is also an interior decorator? So 'interior decorator' is the code that means 'boyfriend'? There are women at the Emmerson's. I would say Pangborn was no Wallace Beery, but not that he often played effeminate characters. Too much imagination.
@@johnnyb4187 You would say that Pangborn is “no Wallace Beery”?? Haha. That’s an understatement! Anyway, I stick to my guns that it is implied that they are more than “just friends.”
Franklin Pangborn's character even wants to show Tom the bedroom. His job (interior designer) and mannerisms are clearly coded gay for the time. This scene has been identified as having coded gay characters many times by many sources
www.cinema.ucla.edu/events/2019/04/26/sign-of-the-cross-only-yesterday
So? Can't somebody have a private life without everybody else getting in their business?
Get a grip. This is a character not a real person. By the way, I think it’s pretty obvious that “Tom” IS meant to be Franklin Pangborn’s character’s boyfriend. In those days, you couldn’t say it out loud in the movies so they used “codes.” Here, they are both interior decorators. Need i say more?!
If you were straight back then, there was no need for privacy, which- if we want to be honest- really means secrecy. Same as now. There isn't one single male A-list film actor in an open relationship with another man. In a business of singing, dancing, emoting in costumes and makeup... not even one. We often know they are, but it's "private."
@@akrenwinkle No. Even straight people wanted privacy. Sex scandals happened all the time because someone was caught having premarital sex or was pregnant out of wedlock or was caught committing adultery. Interracial marriage was illegal in many states.
@@ScoobySnacksYum Of course everyone wanted privacy from whatever was considered scandalous. That's not at all what I meant. If a man and a non-pregnant woman, of the same race, without an outrageous age difference, who were not already married to other people, wanted to go out publicly, there was absolutely no reason not to. But two men or two women, even in a long-term loving relationship, had to hide.
@@brapp5973 the imagery portrayed by your explanation is somewhat comically graphic.
Don’t see it ..sorry.
And that's why we're so good at hiding it from our Hetero Friends!😎