Tuesday, December 22, 2009

How tall was Isaac Newton? 5 feet 6 inches, perhaps shorter (with a new addition regarding Isaac Newton himself on height)


This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks




Milo Keynes, M.D., (born 1924, died February 18, 2009) worked in the Anatomy Department at Cambridge University, England (where Newton himself spent 42 years). Dr. Keynes believed that Newton was five feet six inches tall. I rely heavily on his research and hereby credit him. I have added a few quotations from other sources that I have found, cited below, which corroborate Dr. Keynes views.

Dr. Keynes was the nephew of the famed English economist John Maynard Keynes and was also the great-grandson of Charles Darwin. He became fascinated with Sir Isaac Newton as a boy when a huge cache of Newton’s original handwritten papers were sent to him for safe keeping under his bed in northern England to protect them from possible destruction during the Axis bombing of London in World War II.

See: Keynes, Milo, The Personality of Isaac Newton, Keynes Notes Rec R Soc, 49 (1), footnote at page 3

Website: http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/cgi/reprint/49/1/1
footnote at page 3

Dr. Keynes went to great lengths to establish Newton’s true height. As a medical doctor and one who was expert in anatomy, we should trust Dr. Keynes assessment.

As Dr. Keynes has written:

“Sir Isaac Newton told John Conduitt, husband of his half-niece, Catherine Barton, that, when he was born on Christmas Day 1642, ‘he was so little they could put him into a quart pot & so weakly that he was forced to have a bolster all round his neck to keep it on his shoulders’, and thought unlikely to survive. He was undoubtedly a diminutive neonate, with a low birth weight more likely to have been due to poor, or improper, nourishment while in utero than due to premature birth by more than a few days and still have survived in the seventeenth century. He was short of stature at five feet six inches tall (the same as Beethoven and Napoleon), and the statue of him in the Chapel of Trinity College, Cambridge gives him a small head, which Roubiliac had sculpted using his death mask for size.”

Source: http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL0103/
birth_weight.htm

Dr. M. Keynes has stated several times that Newton stood five feet six inches.     See Keynes, Milo “The Iconography of Sir Isaac Newton to 1800” Boydell Press (February 1, 2005) ISBN-10: 1843831333 at pages 31 and 51.

See also, Keynes, Milo, The Personality of Isaac Newton, Keynes Notes Rec R Soc, 49 (1), at page 6
Website: http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/cgi/reprint/49/1/1


The Eyewitness Accounts

Under the law, direct evidence is from eyewitness accounts. These combined with the circumstantial evidence, infra, conclusively prove Newton was of short stature.

Among the eyewitnesses who knew Newton well are the following quotations:

1. John Conduitt’s Memoir of Isaac Newton. John Conduitt was married to Newton’s half-niece Catherine Newton. He saw Newton regularly and wrote a description of his appearance in which he originally wrote that Newton was of “short” stature and then changed “short” to the more charitable description of “middle” stature. It should be noted that a five feet six inches would be about middle or medium height for a man living in the 1600’s.

The full quotation from the original manuscript appears below, taken from the Newton Project online (citation noted below quote):

“He was never married,\./ sober & \He was very/ temperate in his diet but never observed any regimen he was blessed with a very happy & vigorous constitution, he was short of a \middle/ stature & in \plump/ \in/ his later years inclining to be fat, had a very \lively &/ peircing eye & a countenan \comely \&/ gracious/ aspect <13v> had a fine head of hair \as white as silver some of \without any baldness /&\// he would often appear from under his wig \& when his periwig was off was a venerable sight/, & to his last illness had the bloom & colour of a young man & never used spectacles nor lost but one \any more than one/ tooth to the day of his death”



Source: Keynes Ms. 129 (A), King's College Library, Cambridge 

Website:  http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/texts/viewtext.php?id=THEM00145&mode=diplomatic



That Conduitt was being diplomatic in describing Newton as “middle stature” and not, as he originally wrote, “short” can be safely inferred by his substituting the word “plump” instead of his original and more blunt phrase “inclining to be fat.” 

Hence, instead of saying Newton was “short and inclining to be fat” –as Conduitt originally wrote and which would be almost rude--we get the far more euphemistic description that Newton was of “middle stature” and “plump.” The word “plump” is almost cutesy and, obviously, this is a less harsh and more indirect way of describing Sir Isaac Newton’s weight. The inference, however, is that Conduitt was right the first time and Newton was in reality “short and fat.”



2. William Stuckley, M.D. knew Newton personally, and was a fellow member of the Royal Society. In 1752 he wrote an account of the late Sir Isaac Newton and gave this description (I found this from the Newton Project on line):

“Wm STUKELEY, M.D., F.R.S. 1752 

Being an \some/ account \of his family; &/ chiefly of the junior part of his life.
Sr Isaac was gray headed when under 40; owing, perhaps, to the infinite expence of spirits from <61> severe studys; yet he had great strength of nre, & a good constitution. tho' not tall in stature, yet strong, sinewy, & well made. ”



Source:
http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/texts/viewtext.php?id=OTHE00001&mode=diplomatic



From the above passage it is frankly stated that Newton was “not tall.” We can infer from the almost apologetic tone of the passage that Newton was likely on the short side. Thus, the phrase “not tall in stature” is introduced by the word “tho’” [though] and quickly followed by the phrase “yet strong, sinewy, & well made” as if to almost apologize for the short stature of Newton and point out that he was well proportioned despite lack of height. 

Stukeley gives another passage, which I also found on the Newton Project on line, describing Newton’s voice:

“his voice was of a deep tone, but pleasant enough, having a large chest, for one of his stature.”



Source:

http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/texts/
viewtext.php?id=OTHE00001&mode=diplomatic



The phrase, “having a large chest, for one of his stature” alludes to Newton being of small stature since it would make little sense to say he had a large chest for a large man. One would naturally expect a large man to have a large chest. Yet it would be notable for a short man to have a large chest. Hence, the phrase, “having a large chest, for one of his stature” should safely be interpreted as Newton having a large chest for a short man.

 Stukeley was a medical doctor and had a trained eye sizing up physiques. For him to say Newton was “not tall in stature” it follows that he must be credited with making an accurate, trained medical observation. 

Further, to be “not tall” in the 1600’s would mean that by today’s standards Newton would probably be a short man perhaps even shorter than five feet six inches. Both Stukeley and Conduitt, it has been conceded by Newton scholars, wrote adulatory biographies of Newton. Stukeley does not say Newton was of medium height but instead says he was “not tall.” A person of medium height would not be described as “not tall” but simply as being of average height. Hence, “not tall” could be taken as a tactful, diplomatic way of saying “short.”



3. Thomas Hearne (1678-1735) was an Oxford scholar and antiquarian renowned for his deep scholarship. Hearne knew Newton. This is his description of Newton: 

“ . . .Sir Isaac was a man of no very promising aspect. He was a short, well-set man. He was full of thought, and spoke very little in company so that his conversation was not agreeable. When he rode in his Coach, one arm would be out of the Coach on one side, and the other on the other.”


Source: David Brewster in Memoirs of the Life, Writings, and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton, page 414

See also: 
Hearne, Thomas 1727 Reliquiae Hearnianae, ed. Bliss, April 4, vol. II, p.311



See also: http://books.google.com/booksid=1UAFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA712&lpg=PA712&dq=,+and+spoke+very+little+in+company+so+that+his+conversation+was+not+agreeable.&source=bl&ots=UhxeXWuRal&sig=5wk8FM_Hi3tJdVY8fsRtiGpjngM&hl=en&ei=uY4PSqqJCpXktAPT6fmRAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA712,M1



See also: A Biographical Sketch of Sir Isaac Newton by E. F. King, page 65 at: 
http://books.google.com/booksid=5O49AAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0



Hearne bluntly states that Newton was “short” and “well-set.” For a man to be considered short in the 1600’s, Newton must have been well below modern average height for a man. Moreover, Hearne specifies that “Sir Isaac was a man of no promising aspect.” From this eyewitness observation one can conclude that there was nothing conspicuous about Newton. It follows that Newton was—as Hearne clearly states—a short man who would not stand out in a crowd. 

Hearne’s eyewitness account that Newton was “short”, combined with the eyewitness accounts of Conduitt (who originally wrote that Newton was “short” and changed it to “middle stature”—meaning “middle stature” for a man in the 1600’s which would be small by today’s standards) and Dr. Stukeley who wrote Newton was “not tall” and had a “large chest, for one of his stature” show that Newton was on the short side based on direct, eyewitness evidence.



4. Dr. Milo Keynes also cites the portrait of Sir Isaac Newton made by George Vertue (1684-1756) in 1726, after the portrait of John Vanderbank, 1725, at the Royal Society, for the engraved frontispiece of the third edition of the Principia in 1726. Dr. Keynes states that portrait shows that Newton was a short man, and had become plump by the age of 83. Since Newton died in 1727, and since this was the engraving of him on the third edition of the Principia was published while he was alive in 1726, it is likely that Newton himself saw this engraving by Vertue and approved of it. Newton was known for his attention to detail as well as micromanaging matters when he was at the Mint so it seems unlikely that Newton would not have noticed this engraving which was the first time a portrait of him appeared on an edition of the Principia. It can be thus inferred that Newton approved of this depiction of himself, a tacit admission that he was short.  

Source: Keynes, Milo “The Personality of Isaac Newton” at pages 6 and 7 http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/cgi/reprint/49/1/1

5.  ADDITION TO POST ON JUNE 4, 2013 :  Before we leave the Eye Witness accounts on height, it is interesting to see what Isaac Newton himself wrote on human height.  The following quotation is taken from the Newton Project at  http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00276

Newton is trying to calculate the dimensions of an ancient building, and concludes that the "ordinary stature of men" was about the same 3,000 years ago as it was in Newton's time, namely 5 feet six inches, which is exactly the estimate I have given for Newton's own height.

Here are the quotations from Newton himself:

"The measures of Feet and Cubits now far exceed the proportion of human members; and yet Mr. Greaves shews from the Ægyptian monuments, that the human stature was the same above 3000 years ago, as it is now. . . .
The stature of the human body, according to the Talmudists (f)[6], contains about 3 Cubits from the feet to the head; and if the feet be raised, and the arms be lifted up, it will add one Cubit more, and contain 4 Cubits. Now the ordinary stature of men, when they are bare-foot, is greater than 5 Roman Feet, and less than 6 Roman Feet, and may be best fix'd at 5 Feet and an half." [underlining added]

So, Newton himself believed that the ordinary stature of men is "5 feet and an half" or  5 feet six inches !  
Since Newton has been described by eye-witnesses as being of "middle" or "middling" height, it seems sensible that this height was around what Newton himself considered ordinary, or  5 feet six inches. Interestingly, Newton concludes "ordinary" height to be his own height.



Circumstantial evidence:



1. From Conduitt’s memoir of Newton, op cit, we have the following first hand account from Newton himself regarding his birth size as told to John Conduitt:

“ Sr I. N. told me he had often heard from his mother that when he was born he |was| was so little they could have put him into a quart pot, |not above half the bigness much below very much less than \below/ the usual size of children| & so unlikely to live that two women who were sent to My lady Packenham at North Witham \a neighbour/ for something <16> for him sate down on a stile by the way, & said {sic} \saying/ the one to the other the one to the other they need not make haste, for the child would certainly be dead before they could get back. He for some time {wore a} bolster round his neck to keep \support/ his head upon his shoulders –”



Source: http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/texts/
viewtext.php?id=THEM00165&mode=diplomatic



Dr. Milo Keynes concludes that Newton was undoubtedly a diminutive neonate, with a low birth weight. While it is of course possible that a tiny baby may grow up to be a large man, the stronger likelihood would be for a neonate to grow up to be on the short side. 
See: http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL0103/
birth_weight.htm



Conduitt also wrote, 

“he was very much below the usual size of children”



Source: John Conduitt, Keynes-Newton, MS. 10, King’s College, Cambridge.

   
See also: Keynes, Milo “The Personality of Isaac Newton” op cit. at page 5.



Not only does Conduitt say Newton was “below the usual size of children” but he prefaces it with the remark that he was “very much” below usual height as a child. Not only below average but “very much” below average. Again, the likelihood is that a small child would not grow to be tall.




2. The death mask of Newton, still extant, reveals that he had a small head. Years after Newton’s death, the expert sculptor Roubiliac carved a statue of Newton for Trinity College, Cambridge University using the death mask as a model for the head. Dr. Keynes believed that the statue is a bit idealized and probably not life-sized but it does show Newton’s head as being small. Indeed, the statute, carved years after Newton died shows the head as being in much smaller proportion to the body suggesting that the body of Newton was idealized but the head was more accurately carved since it was done from the actual death mask of Newton. The death mask is direct evidence of the probable size of his head. While it is possible that someone with a small head could have a large body it is more probable that a small head would belong to a small body.


Source: Keynes, Milo “The Personality of Isaac Newton” op cit. at page 6.


3. 

The Royal Society has kept what is reputed to be a walking stick used by Newton. Dr. Milo Keynes tested the stick. Dr. Keynes was six feet tall and found the walking stick a good six inches too short for him, further evidence in Dr. Keynes’ opinion that Newton was five feet six inches tall. Again, Dr. Keynes was an M.D. and trained anatomist; his medical opinion should carry some weight. 



Source: Keynes, Milo “The Personality of Isaac Newton” op cit. at page 6.



3. Eloge du Chevalier Newton by Bernard Le Bovier de Fontenelle. 
The Life of Sir Isaac Newton. With an Account of his Writings (London: 1728):

“He was of a middling Stature, and very lean, his Eye quick and piercing, his Face agreeable and venerable at the same Time, especially when he threw off his Peruke, and shew'd a large Head of Hair, which was perfectly white; he never made use of Spectacles, nor lost but one Tooth in his whole <28> Life. His great Name will justify the mentioning these minute Circumstances.”

 

Source --See:
http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/
OTHE00036

This is from the original manuscript of “Life of Newton.”   The published edition differs a bit, as noted infra.  



Note that “Life of Newton” was the first biography of Newton and was published just one year after his death. It states Newton was of “a middling Stature”; again, “middling” in the 1600’s would most likely be considered short by today’s standards. 

I am unsure if Fontenelle personally met Newton so this cannot be considered an eyewitness description. Nevertheless, since this biography was published so soon after Newton’s death there would still have been plenty of people alive who knew Newton personally and who could have questioned this description yet based on the extant sources no one apparently did so.

 Indeed, Conduitt uses a similar description of Newton’s height, “middle stature.” Perhaps it was reading this first biography of Newton that compelled Conduitt to change his description of Newton from “short” to “middle” echoing the word “middling” used by Fontenelle. Note that the Newton Project opines of Fontenelle’s biography, “This first biography largely shares the adulatory tone of the accounts by John Conduitt and William Stukeley” ; hence, one can infer that since the biography was adulatory, “middling stature” was a polite way of referring to Newton being on the small side.

 Note also that in the finished edition, the statement that Newton was “lean” has been changed. 

Also, later translators have changed the phrase “middling stature” to “mean stature” as in the following translation:  

“He was of a mean Stature, and a little inclin'd to fulness in his later years, of a quick and piercing eye, with a countenance at the same time venerable and engaging, especially when he would throw off his Perruque, and shew his silver Hairs, which hung down in large locks upon his shoulders. He never made use of spectacles, nor lost any more than one single Tooth during his whole life. His name will justify our descending to these minute particulars.”


See transcription by David R. Wilkins (2002) at :

http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Newton/Fontenelle/Fonten.html



Summation



There you have it: Three eyewitness accounts describing Newton. None of the eyewitnesses describe him as tall. On the contrary, he is described by Stukeley as “not tall”; by Conduitt initially as “short” (in his original manuscript description, later amended to “middle stature” –which middle stature for a man in the 1600’s would mean shorter than an average sized man today) and by Thomas Hearne who bluntly described Newton as “short”. 



The circumstantial evidence is equally powerful: The engraved portrait that appeared on the 1726 third edition of Principia, published while Newton was still alive and likely seen by Newton, shows Newton to be a short man according to medical doctor and anatomist Milo Keynes. The death mask reveals a probable small head. Newton himself told John Conduitt that he was a very tiny baby, and that he was very much smaller than other children suggesting that he would grow up on the short side. Fonetelle’s second-hand description of him is that he was reportedly of middling height for a man in the 1600’s. The walking stick attributed to belonging to Newton is for a short man according to Dr. Keynes. 

Newton himself wrote that 5 feet 6 inches was the ordinary height for a man which, more than coincidentally, was Newton's own height.  Newton was probably five feet six inches tall and perhaps shorter.

Saturday, December 19, 2009

More on the greatness of Frank Capra, preeminent American film director

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks



NOTE: Everything that follows is hereby clearly labeled as opinion as I am Constitutionally allowed to have an opinion under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The director John Cassavetes once asked, "Was there ever really an America or was it just Frank Capra?" The point of the question is that all that U.S. Americans see of themselves --their humor; moral strength; values; individuality and dignity-- are embodied in Capra films. Capra established the enduring template of how Americans behave and what we are. Americans seem to subconsciously emulate the heroes of Capra films. When we think of what it means to be American -- the best of America-- we fall back on depictions from Capra. One cannot ever say too much about the genius of Frank Capra, definitely the preeminent film director in all of American history.

One of the more outrageous distortions and, in my view, outright falsehoods, is a review I read at the Amazon website which called Capra a "misogynist." Nothing could be further from the truth. Has this reviewer ever seen a Capra film? Every Capra film has the woman effectively in charge and ALWAYS treats women with the utmost respect and dignity.

N.B.: SPOILER ALERT. POSSIBLE PLOT POINTS REVEALED.

Don't believe me? Watch "Meet John Doe." Barbara Stanwyck is clearly the brainiest person in the film. She is calling all the shots; she is a strong, independent, gutsy woman. It is poor dumb Gary Cooper who is constantly befuddled. Stanwyck's portrayal is one of the most powerful portrayals of a woman in all of cinema history. Just watch the movie! Stanwyck is in charge! She calls the shots! Gary Cooper as "John Doe" is not nearly as bright or capable as Stanwyck's character.

Or take another example: "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." The greatest U.S. political film ever made.

What does Jimmy Stewart, as Senator Jefferson Smith, say of Jean Arthur? He goes out of his way to remark on how capable, bright and intelligent she is. Jean Arthur plays a woman who is obviously more savvy and shrewd than the naive Senator Smith.

Or another example: "It's a Wonderful Life." Who saves the day? Who is the hero/heroine?

It is Mary Daily. She gathers the town folk of Bedford Falls to save Jimmy Stewart. She is the one who is level-headed. She is the heroine of the picture. Donna Reed herself repeatedly stated in public that she was happy with being chosen to play Mary Daily and it was one of her favorite performances. She plays a beautiful, strong, intelligent woman. Indeed, it was one of Donna Reed's best and most memorable performances.

Is this misogyny? I cannot think of another motion picture director who was more pro-feminist and pro-women than Frank Capra; maybe there are those who were AS MUCH pro-feminist but none who were MORE. In other words, there may be those directors who equalled Capra's pro-female depictions on screen but NONE who surpassed them.

Thank goodness for the Internet. In the old days, pre-Internet, there were only a handful of people who were allowed to publish their views. In effect, it meant that only one side was ever heard. This one-sidedness stifled the truth. Falsehoods could easily be perpetuated. As Jacques Attali once observed, the loudspeaker was used to effectively stifle and drown out other opinions. Frank Capra even alluded to this in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" when one of his characters comments on how powerful interests could manipulate the mass media. Now, in the Internet age, others have a voice. The greatness and artistry of Capra can now be truly manifested and false conclusions can now be corrected.

Friday, December 18, 2009

Frank Capra, a great director

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks




I saw "American Madness" directed by the great Frank Capra on television recently.

What a terrific film! Walter Houston was magnificent. Capra keeps the pace moving along quickly and a subject that would on its face seem boring (banking) turns into a riveting film about money, personal faith and how a panic can begin. To think that the picture was made in 1934, in the depth of the Great Depression, and is as topical and watchable as any film made in 2009!

One wonders if this film is being suppressed in our current, tough economic times. It was only playing on TCM in the very early morning hours, around 2 A.M. It is rarely shown on television. Perhaps a story of bank runs and public panic hits a little too close to home right now.

Note: I hereby label what follows as opinion as I am Constitutionally allowed to have an opinion under the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In light of this obvious talent, it is all the more wonder how Mr. Joseph McBride could write such a mean-spirited biography on Capra. Of course, Mr. McBride tacitly acknowledges Capra's genius otherwise he would not have devoted such a hefty tome writing about Capra's life. Still, any chance to take a pot-shot at Capra does not go unexpressed. Reading between the lines of his book, Mr. McBride inadvertently makes the case for Capra not only being a great film director but a great patriot, too. For example, Capra volunteered for Army service in World War II even though he was exempt from military service both because he had already served in World War I and at age 42 he was too old for the draft in World War II. That's right: Capra served in the U.S. Army in both World Wars. Also, Capra enlisted in the Second World War when he was middle aged and a father. Even more astonishingly, Capra turned his back on a very lucrative Hollywood career. How lucrative?

In 1938, TIME magazine featured Capra on the cover noting that he was the highest paid motion picture director in the world, receiving a salary of one million dollars a year. Now, even today a million dollars is a lot of money but back in the Depression it was a staggering sum.

Capra was still working steadily in Hollywood when the U.S. entered the Second World War. Indeed, he had just finished shooting "Arsenic and Old Lace" and a few years before Pearl Harbor, at the 1939 Oscar ceremony, Capra picked up his third Best Director Academy Award [copyrights for "Oscar" and "Academy Award" duly noted and fair use at their being mentioned as part of the historic public record hereby claimed.] He gave up a top spot in the motion picture industry and a fat salary to go VOLUNTARILY into the U.S. Army.
Even the less than kind Mr. McBride is forced to admit that Capra was one of the very, very few Hollywood directors to serve in World War II.

Think of that for a moment: in the biggest war in history, a fight literally between good and evil, with the Allies facing a horrific force, wherein it was NOT a foregone conclusion that good would prevail, and in a war where he was exempt because of age and prior military service, Capra is one of the very few among Hollywood directors to enlist. That speaks volumes about Capra the man and Capra the patriot.
Not only did he serve but he emerged from the war a decorated veteran. So impressed was five star General George Marshall by Capra's service that General Marshall insisted on personally decorating Colonel Capra with the Distinguished Service Medal. A photograph memorializes the moment when General Marshall pinned the medal on Capra's chest.

Nor was Marshall alone. Prime Minister Winston Churchill (surely you have heard of Winston Churchill, Mr. McBride?) insisted on meeting Capra face to face in order to thank him for his service to the Allied cause. Churchill went on to issue an official public citation thanking Capra for his series of documentary films, "Why We Fight", made during the war.
Of course, later on other movie directors have received awards but none during World War II for military service. To my knowledge, Capra was the only film director to be decorated for his war service during the war or immediately after the war.

It is not enough that Frank Capra made memorable films. He was a good, loving, idealistic, brave and smart man. His was among the greatest American success stories ever told. He came to America not even speaking English. He put himself through college --Caltech no less--working as a janitor; got his degree from Caltech and fought to get into the movie business; then fought again for proper credit of film directors. He became the most famous film director of his time with his name above the title of his films. He picked up three Oscars and a fabulous salary. His films are still watched, studied, and admired by millions to this day. What politician in the United States has not seen "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"? Capra furthered the careers of Clark Gable; Claudette Colbert; Jimmy Stewart; Gary Cooper; Barbara Stanwyck; Jean Arthur and worked with film legends Katherine Hepburn; Spencer Tracy; Cary Grant; Bette Davis and a host of others.

So before anyone subscribes to the Joe McBride view of Frank Capra just ask yourself who else of his generation in the film business did as much as Frank Capra?

Monday, December 14, 2009

A quote for today

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/_YGz8o6wwks




"I cannot fiddle but I can build a great state from a little city" Themistocles, a Greek philosopher