77 Sunset Strip / Hawaiian Eye, etc. (4 Viewers)

[Rustifer]

Fine review. Your reviews make me laugh!

Hearing that makes me happy. Thanks, Dolly (Sherri).

 

[Gary16]

I don't know whether I've already flogged this to death, but after seeing Russ' later photo of the Baker house exterior from "Pasadena Caper," I took the Googlemobile for a ride around the backlot, and I've found the house from 2016, again quite changed from Russ' photo. Fortunately, it's one of the houses you can drive inside of, and it is definitely not the house used for the interior. It doesn't have a second floor; the ceilings are all open to facilitate lighting and sound.

Also, the street layout around this house matches that of the Baker house.

EDIT: I realize that I should mention that I have screen shots of my Googlemobile foray, and could provide documentary evidence of my assertions if desired by acclamation.

Desired yes.

 

[Rustifer]

Desired yes.

Second the motion!

 

[Rustifer]

Hey...remember when we were all excited about getting to 100 pages in this thread? Now we're a fifth of the way to 200! Over 170,000 viewings to date! You all have done such a great job of making this such an interesting platform of discussion.

How awesome are we??

 

[criblecoblis]

VIEWER'S GUIDE POSTSCRIPT
S1E23 “Pasadena Caper”
March 13, 1959

READER BEWARE: Thar be spoilers here!

As you may recall, I posted a Viewer’s Guide to “Pasadena Caper” about six months ago (a link to that post is here). This episode particularly captured my interest for several reasons, but especially because it involves a Victorian house similar to the one Wifey and I live in, right here in our home town. I have always been fascinated with shooting locations, and I did my utmost to garner every clue regarding the house’s location that the episode has to offer.

That is why I was so very pleased when, early this week, Russ posted his excellent review of the episode, and thereby revived discussion of it here. Of course, as we all know Russ shares my fascination with filming locations, and discovered that there is a 368 Sherwood in South Pasadena (which, by the way, is quite a separate town, with its own distinctive history).

That revived my own curiosity about the Baker house, and then Russ positively inflamed it by posting a more recent photograph of the house, thus verifying that at least the house used for the exterior shots was on the Warner Brothers backlot.

Now, I examined the backlot in search of the house minutely some time ago without success, but at that time it had not occurred to me that the house’s appearance might have changed drastically.

Thus ensmartened, I got back in the Googlemobile, drove through the streets of the backlot, and this time I found it. When I show you my evidence, I’m confident you all will agree that I have the right house. Moreover, I think I will also convince you that the house was not used for the interior scenes. By the way, all the screen captures of the backlot are as it stood in 2016.

Here is the front elevation of the house, unfortunately now partially obscured by trees (a complaint familiar to those who follow the Noirish Thread over on the Skyscraper Forum):

As you can see, the house has continued to evolve in appearance, but from what can be seen, the basic shape is recognizable. The porch seen in Russ’ photo is still there, with a veranda added to the left.

In order to give a clearer view of the house’s features, I took a shot of the front right quarter. Before you take a look, let me remind you that the Google street images badly distort three-dimensional objects when seen at an angle.

Here, you can see that the front-to-back aspect of the house is grossly foreshortened. The hexagonal tower in the front right corner is so squashed that it looks like a false front. To give you an accurate idea of the house’s dimensions, here is an aerial view:

Here you can see that the tower is more or less regularly hexagonal in shape. You can also see the street layout to the right of the house, which corresponds with the street layout seen when Kookie approaches the Baker house in the Kookiemobile:

Note the large, stately structure behind Kookie. There is a structure of that stature that can be seen in the aerial view in the same location, but its exterior features have also been greatly altered.

Now, let’s take a look inside the house. Here’s a shot of the entry foyer:

It seems evident that the front-to-back aspect of the image is stretched, judging by the width of the front door compared with the shot from outside. You can also see that the room has no ceiling.

Now, let’s take a close look at that foyer in the episode:

This is Peter Baker (Murvyn Vye) entering the house just before the climactic scene in his room. You can see the front door at the right of the frame, and the knob to the door of his room at the extreme left. He is just about to climb the four steps to the landing in front of his door.

The only similarity to the actual foyer of the house used for the exterior is a rough correspondence of the windows surrounding the front door. It’s the same pattern in both, except that in the shot from the episode the top windows on each side are quarter-round, and in the 2016 view they are square. That’s not a telling discrepancy.

But in every other detail, the entry foyers are completely different, as is even more evident in this wider shot:

In fact, this isn’t even a foyer. It’s just one end of a central hall. It looks to be a mere eight feet between the front door and the door to Peter’s room. The close proximity of the two doors, combined with the lack of any intervening door, means that the bay window on the first floor is in Peter’s room.

So let’s see this part of the house used for the exterior in 2016:

This room does appear to correspond roughly with Peter’s room. The side window is in more or less the same place. It is conceivable that the closet was removed and the rear passage and window were added.

The only problem with this line of thought is that in the episode, Peter’s room was four steps up from the first floor level. There are no steps whatever in the house used for the exterior. Moreover, I went all through this house, and there is absolutely no other correspondence with anything we see of the interior of the Baker house in the episode.

Now, I don’t want to confuse mere assertions with hard facts. It is certainly possible that the house was completely gutted and re-configured between 1959 and 2016. But there is one detail that I think proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the structure used for the interior is different from that used for the exterior.

That detail is the physical relation of Stu’s room to Peter’s. I will rely upon your familiarity with the episode here, because it would take a lot of screen shots to illustrate this, and there are already far too many in this post.

Recall that we see Jeff drive up and park in front of the house with Erin O’Day (that’s Irish!). He parks the car directly in front of Peter’s room. We then see Stu and Jeff look down at Erin from the bay window of Stu’s room. We are thus led to believe that Stu’s room is directly above Peter’s.

But if you follow the path from the front door to Stu’s room, that room can’t be above Peter’s. Recall that the path leads straight in from the door to the stairs, turns right up to the first landing, turns left to the second landing, then left up to the second floor and a slight jog to the left into Stu’s room. The bay window in that room is directly opposite the door.

If you follow that path in your mind, you will see that the bay window in Stu’s room is over on the other side of the house, facing at a right angle to the bay window in Peter’s room. In other words, it is not overlooking the street, but the left side yard. Thus, Stu and Jeff couldn’t possibly see Erin from that bay window. This relative positioning is supported by the path Stu takes to Peter’s room through the secret passageway.

Recall also that the windows seen in the shots of Stu and Jeff in the bay window are leaded, and the bay windows seen in the exterior shots are not. Moreover, as I showed in my Viewer’s Guide of this episode, the leaded windows appear to belong to whatever structure was used for the interior of Stu’s room, because the part of the room visible through the windows appears to match precisely the same part of the room when seen from the interior.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I believe that when you evaluate all the evidence I have presented to you in this proceeding, you will conclude that 1) this is indeed the house used for the exterior of the Baker house, and 2) the interior of this house is not the interior seen in the episode.

* * *​

While I was taking additional screen shots from the episode for this post, I grabbed one for Russ’ particular benefit:

You are definitely correct, Russ, in concluding that the cover of the magazine was a mock-up. It’s difficult to notice in the brief shots of it, but you can see here that the actual title of Jeff’s magazine is True Detective Tales. I can find no evidence that a magazine by this title was ever published, and if it had been, it would definitely have had a racier cover in 1959. This cover looks as if it came from the 1910s.

It’s amusing that the producers were so demure in this regard, considering that just seven months later, in S2E2 “The Kookie Caper,” they were comfortable with showing Jeff perusing somewhat racier material.

In any event, we are now left to ponder exactly what was used for the interior of the house, but we can discuss this later. As you all may well assume, I have some observations upon this too! In fact, I have a great deal more to say about this episode, when the occasion arises.

See, Russ, I knew it would be productive for us both to give the same episode our individual treatments! Thank you for finally dispatching my long post-op writer’s block.

 

[Rustifer]

VIEWER'S GUIDE POSTSCRIPT
S1E23 “Pasadena Caper”
March 13, 1959

READER BEWARE: Thar be spoilers here!

As you may recall, I posted a Viewer’s Guide to “Pasadena Caper” about six months ago (a link to that post is here). This episode particularly captured my interest for several reasons, but especially because it involves a Victorian house similar to the one Wifey and I live in, right here in our home town. I have always been fascinated with shooting locations, and I did my utmost to garner every clue regarding the house’s location that the episode has to offer.

That is why I was so very pleased when, early this week, Russ posted his excellent review of the episode, and thereby revived discussion of it here. Of course, as we all know Russ shares my fascination with filming locations, and discovered that there is a 368 Sherwood in South Pasadena (which, by the way, is quite a separate town, with its own distinctive history).

That revived my own curiosity about the Baker house, and then Russ positively inflamed it by posting a more recent photograph of the house, thus verifying that at least the house used for the exterior shots was on the Warner Brothers backlot.

Now, I examined the backlot in search of the house minutely some time ago without success, but at that time it had not occurred to me that the house’s appearance might have changed drastically.

Thus ensmartened, I got back in the Googlemobile, drove through the streets of the backlot, and this time I found it. When I show you my evidence, I’m confident you all will agree that I have the right house. Moreover, I think I will also convince you that the house was not used for the interior scenes. By the way, all the screen captures of the backlot are as it stood in 2016.

Here is the front elevation of the house, unfortunately now partially obscured by trees (a complaint familiar to those who follow the Noirish Thread over on the Skyscraper Forum):

View attachment 55326

As you can see, the house has continued to evolve in appearance, but from what can be seen, the basic shape is recognizable. The porch seen in Russ’ photo is still there, with a veranda added to the left.

In order to give a clearer view of the house’s features, I took a shot of the front right quarter. Before you take a look, let me remind you that the Google street images badly distort three-dimensional objects when seen at an angle.

View attachment 55327

Here, you can see that the front-to-back aspect of the house is grossly foreshortened. The hexagonal tower in the front right corner is so squashed that it looks like a false front. To give you an accurate idea of the house’s dimensions, here is an aerial view:

View attachment 55325

Here you can see that the tower is more or less regularly hexagonal in shape. You can also see the street layout to the right of the house, which corresponds with the street layout seen when Kookie approaches the Baker house in the Kookiemobile:

View attachment 55331

Note the large, stately structure behind Kookie. There is a structure of that stature that can be seen in the aerial view in the same location, but its exterior features have also been greatly altered.

Now, let’s take a look inside the house. Here’s a shot of the entry foyer:

View attachment 55328

It seems evident that the front-to-back aspect of the image is stretched, judging by the width of the front door compared with the shot from outside. You can also see that the room has no ceiling.

Now, let’s take a close look at that foyer in the episode:

View attachment 55332

This is Peter Baker (Murvyn Vye) entering the house just before the climactic scene in his room. You can see the front door at the right of the frame, and the knob to the door of his room at the extreme left. He is just about to climb the four steps to the landing in front of his door.

The only similarity to the actual foyer of the house used for the exterior is a rough correspondence of the windows surrounding the front door. It’s the same pattern in both, except that in the shot from the episode the top windows on each side are quarter-round, and in the 2016 view they are square. That’s not a telling discrepancy.

But in every other detail, the entry foyers are completely different, as is even more evident in this wider shot:

View attachment 55333

In fact, this isn’t even a foyer. It’s just one end of a central hall. It looks to be a mere eight feet between the front door and the door to Peter’s room. The close proximity of the two doors, combined with the lack of any intervening door, means that the bay window on the first floor is in Peter’s room.

So let’s see this part of the house used for the exterior in 2016:

View attachment 55329

This room does appear to correspond roughly with Peter’s room. The side window is in more or less the same place. It is conceivable that the closet was removed and the rear passage and window were added.

The only problem with this line of thought is that in the episode, Peter’s room was four steps up from the first floor level. There are no steps whatever in the house used for the exterior. Moreover, I went all through this house, and there is absolutely no other correspondence with anything we see of the interior of the Baker house in the episode.

Now, I don’t want to confuse mere assertions with hard facts. It is certainly possible that the house was completely gutted and re-configured between 1959 and 2016. But there is one detail that I think proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the structure used for the interior is different from that used for the exterior.

That detail is the physical relation of Stu’s room to Peter’s. I will rely upon your familiarity with the episode here, because it would take a lot of screen shots to illustrate this, and there are already far too many in this post.

Recall that we see Jeff drive up and park in front of the house with Erin O’Day (that’s Irish!). He parks the car directly in front of Peter’s room. We then see Stu and Jeff look down at Erin from the bay window of Stu’s room. We are thus led to believe that Stu’s room is directly above Peter’s.

But if you follow the path from the front door to Stu’s room, that room can’t be above Peter’s. Recall that the path leads straight in from the door to the stairs, turns right up to the first landing, turns left to the second landing, then left up to the second floor and a slight jog to the left into Stu’s room. The bay window in that room is directly opposite the door.

If you follow that path in your mind, you will see that the bay window in Stu’s room is over on the other side of the house, facing at a right angle to the bay window in Peter’s room. In other words, it is not overlooking the street, but the left side yard. Thus, Stu and Jeff couldn’t possibly see Erin from that bay window. This relative positioning is supported by the path Stu takes to Peter’s room through the secret passageway.

Recall also that the windows seen in the shots of Stu and Jeff in the bay window are leaded, and the bay windows seen in the exterior shots are not. Moreover, as I showed in my Viewer’s Guide of this episode, the leaded windows appear to belong to whatever structure was used for the interior of Stu’s room, because the part of the room visible through the windows appears to match precisely the same part of the room when seen from the interior.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I believe that when you evaluate all the evidence I have presented to you in this proceeding, you will conclude that 1) this is indeed the house used for the exterior of the Baker house, and 2) the interior of this house is not the interior seen in the episode.

* * *​

While I was taking additional screen shots from the episode for this post, I grabbed one for Russ’ particular benefit:

View attachment 55330

You are definitely correct, Russ, in concluding that the cover of the magazine was a mock-up. It’s difficult to notice in the brief shots of it, but you can see here that the actual title of Jeff’s magazine is True Detective Tales. I can find no evidence that a magazine by this title was ever published, and if it had been, it would definitely have had a racier cover in 1959. This cover looks as if it came from the 1910s.

It’s amusing that the producers were so demure in this regard, considering that just seven months later, in S2E2 “The Kookie Caper,” they were comfortable with showing Jeff perusing somewhat racier material.

View attachment 55334

In any event, we are now left to ponder exactly what was used for the interior of the house, but we can discuss this later. As you all may well assume, I have some observations upon this too! In fact, I have a great deal more to say about this episode, when the occasion arises.

See, Russ, I knew it would be productive for us both to give the same episode our individual treatments! Thank you for finally dispatching my long post-op writer’s block.

Frickin' awesome, Rob!
I bet if we watched a number of WB movies, we'd find that same set interior in one of them.
Fascinating interior shots of the backlot house, though!

 

[criblecoblis]

Thanks, Russ! I'm glad you enjoyed it.

I bet if we watched a number of WB movies, we'd find that same set interior in one of them.

Russ, I entirely agree. All things considered, I think that by a small margin it is most likely that the interior was a standing set on one of the soundstages, built for some '30s WB A-movie and discovered by Montgomery Pittman, who according to EZ was intimately acquainted with the contents of every soundstage on the lot.

I also suspect that Pittman, uncredited, performed extensive rewrites of N. B. Stone's teleplay.

In any event, I keep hoping one of us will watch that particular '30s WB A-movie and recognize the interior of the Baker house.

 

[Rustifer]

See, Russ, I knew it would be productive for us both to give the same episode our individual treatments!

Agreed! Although I think it works best when our individual reviews are several months apart from one another. I'd hate for us to simultaneously post the same episode as if in competition--I would pale in comparison!

Sure glad you're back in a writing mood.

 

[Bob Gu]

The clue might be in the wall paper. But on the other hand, it would not have taken much work for the studio carpenters to take a standing staircase out of storage and put up a wall and door or two up.

I found it interesting that the de la Vega Hacienda patio set from the ZORRO series was an indoor set for all the half hours. And probably taken apart and put in storage when the series ended. But when they, later, made the 4 hour long episodes they reassembled the patio set outdoors. (When the entry door was left open, the outdoor town set could be seen nearby.. In the story, the town should have been miles away from the Hacienda.)

Great backlot photos, Rob.

 

[criblecoblis]

The clue might be in the wall paper. But on the other hand, it would not have taken much work for the studio carpenters to take a standing staircase out of storage and put up a wall and door or two up.

Bob, you make a good point. Anything is possible on a movie lot. I still think that the interior is all of one piece and separate from the exterior, for a number of reasons. The evidence is not all in my favor, I will admit, but the vast preponderance of it is.

That's a fascinating story about the hacienda set! I'm a big fan of Zorro, but hadn't noticed that detail about the hour-long episodes.

 

[criblecoblis]

Speaking of the WB backlot, here's a massive (165 images) slideshow that reveals just how often we've seen the "New York Street" area without knowing it.

 

[RBailey]

Speaking of the WB backlot, here's a massive (165 images) slideshow that reveals just how often we've seen the "New York Street" area without knowing it.

Thanks for posting this. Some Incredible pictures. I've followed the photographer on Twitter and this type of location photography is an ongoing project for him. Any Twitter users should check out Jared Cowan … @JaredCowan1

 

[Rustifer]

Episode Commentary
"Nightmare" (S4E40)

Mark Wade (Peter Breck) has bizarro dreams, the kind that are usually fueled by experimental drugs or some really crappy vodka. His fantasy includes killing a girl named Lisa in a park in the dark with an ax among leafless trees. Did I mention it was bizarro? Mark's a magazine illustrator (my old profession) and has the ability to sketch the girl (Lisa) of his dreams--which turns out about as useful as a handleless shovel in trying to identify her.

Jeff Spencer is hired by Mark's shrink Dr. Althea Ryner (Anna-Lisa) to investigate whether Mark has actually killed anyone. I would say that this is where the story line jumps the shark of credulity. Mark takes to walking the deserted streets at night looking for the illusive Lisa who seems just a tad out of his reach. This happens over and over, driving Mark to the brink of catatonic drooling.
Jeff shows up at Mark's studio at 1:00 a.m. to discuss the situation, just as Mark comes back from his walk.
"Why were you out walking at one o'clock in the morning?" ask Jeff.
Mark's logical answer should have been, "What the hell are you doing here at one a.m.??" Mark is as earnest as a month of Sundays.

Peter Breck, Anna-Lisa, Diane Bourne with her actual husband of 50 years--Mr. Breck

Jeff spends time trying to track down a Lisa Colyer (Diane Bourne) via Charmaine DuBois (Andrea King), a chatty gossip who feasts on indiscreet tidbits and reveals that Lisa is married to a jealous lout, but has been missing for two weeks. To further desecrate any propriety associated with the Psychiatry profession, Jeff sits in on a session with Dr. Ryner to listen to Mark babble about Lisa, his home town, preferences in food processors and other nonsensical musings--as if some sort of useful clue will emerge from these mindfarts.

Lisa's husband Clinton and his Lurch-type valet have also been searching for Lisa--who, turns out, was stabbed by her husband and has been missing on purpose to avoid the jerk. The whole story comes to a head in a park, in the dark, with Dr. Ryner posing as Lisa. Clinton chases her and for his efforts gets accidentally run over by his own valet.

This episode probably ranks in my bottom ten of the series. The script is confusing, senseless and absolutely preposterous. The background score is just weird. Norwegian Anna-Lisa, while being touted as the next Ingrid Bergman, has the acting ability of a concrete block and deservedly had a limited career in a few WB properties. She eventually returned to Norway and found employment as a puppeteer.

Randoms:
Probably the most interesting character in this episode was played by French-born Andrea King, a capable actress in film and TV. The most interesting aspect of Andrea's life was her mother, Belle--who was an ambulance driver in France with J.P. Morgan's daughter riding shotgun, and a dancing disciple of Isadora Duncan. Belle divided her free time between a Washington diplomat and a daring French aviator. When Andrea was born, Belle gave no clue as to who was the actual father of the child. Belle fell deathly ill after giving birth, and was nursed back to health by the daughter of Louis Pasteur. Apparently, Andrea's mother was no stranger to some famous folks.

Andrea King

 

[criblecoblis]

Episode Commentary
"Nightmare" (S4E40)

When I saw this episode roll by on our DVR, I had the premonition you would be doing a review of it. And here it is! Another fine read.

This is an edgy episode that is easy to dislike, but it works for me better than it does for you, because I like Peter Breck and it's fun to see him in a different sort of role. Also, Andrea King is a hoot!

One sidelight about this episode: Breck and Anna-Lisa played opposite each other for two seasons of the show Black Saddle, also starring Russell Johnson.

 

[Rustifer]

This is an edgy episode that is easy to dislike, but it works for me better than it does for you, because I like Peter Breck and it's fun to see him in a different sort of role.

Thanks, Rob.
I must admit that I, too, like Peter Breck. I just think he got stuck in a less-than-average script. Written by Robert Dennis, who also scripted the likes of Legend of Leckonby and Terror in Silence, I would have expected something with a bit more ingenuity and sparkle.

Speaking of the WB backlot, here's a massive (165 images) slideshow that reveals just how often we've seen the "New York Street" area without knowing it.

Wow! I can't begin to say how much time I burned up going through those photos. There's a lot of Hollywood history stored up in that back lot! Great job, Rob, for posting that for the rest of us.

 

[criblecoblis]

Wow! I can't begin to say how much time I burned up going through those photos. There's a lot of Hollywood history stored up in that back lot!

Oh, I spent a lot of time as well, and I plan to go back. It only served to increase my admiration for filmmakers, who can bring these buildings to life and make them look like pretty much any city in the world.

It was especially instructive to see what the "Embassy" building looks like in real life. There's actually not much to it, but we see it a hundred times on 77SS, and it always looks huge. There is a lot you can do with focal length and framing!

 

[Rustifer]

It was especially instructive to see what the "Embassy" building looks like in real life. There's actually not much to it, but we see it a hundred times on 77SS, and it always looks huge. There is a lot you can do with focal length and framing!

I think this is the building you're referring to on New York St., and you're right---we've seen it many many times on 77 SS as a hotel, Broadway theater, government building, department store, etc. etc.

Sure would love to be able to take a golf cart tour of the entire back lot.

 

[criblecoblis]

I think this is the building you're referring to on New York St., and you're right---we've seen it many many times on 77 SS as a hotel, Broadway theater, government building, department store, etc. etc.

View attachment 55458

Sure would love to be able to take a golf cart tour of the entire back lot.

Yes, you've got it--the building closest to the camera on the left (not the building with the marquee).

You know, they do give tours of the backlot. . . .

 

[MartinP.]

Oh, I spent a lot of time as well, and I plan to go back. It only served to increase my admiration for filmmakers, who can bring these buildings to life and make them look like pretty much any city in the world.

Yes, I very much enjoyed this link as well. I remember when I saw the film The Little Princess and found out afterwards that it was entirely filmed on the Warner Bros. lot. I was flabbergasted.

Sure would love to be able to take a golf cart tour of the entire back lot.

You know, they do give tours of the backlot. . . .

Warners has three different tours, one of them a 3 1/2 hour "classics-themed tour focusing on Warner Bros. Golden Age of Film and TV."

Yes, it won't be focused on a 77 Sunset Strip theme, but any time I've been able to be on a Hollywood backlot, I find it worthwhile.

 

[MartinP.]

Has this been seen on here before?

It was on a German language forum and had a date of 1958, but I don't know anything
else about it.

Edit: Some research indicates "Kookie's Close Call" was a 1960 comic book. The link below has scanned the entire color comic book pages, I'm certain there must've been some ads in it...those weren't scanned. If the above was in it, that wasn't scanned either.

http://davycrockettsalmanack.blogspot.com/2018/10/77-sunset-strip-kookies-close-call-by.html