When Universal released Gable and Lombard in 1976 the reaction from heavyweight critics was vicious enough to become its own scandal: Vincent Canby lambasted the picture as a 'fan‑magazine movie' that trafficked in clichés; Roger Ebert dismissed it as a 'mushy, old‑fashioned extravaganza' that prioritized pratfalls over insight; and Gene Siskel went further, accusing the filmmakers of 'desecrat[ing] the memory of great, dead actors' and comparing the audacity of the recreation to putting Lenin in a theme‑park display. The central artistic offense in the critics’ view was the casting and performance approach — James Brolin’s imitation of Gable and Jill Clayburgh’s modernized Lombard — which, they argued, produced impersonations rather than probing dramatizations. The moral and cultural outcry that followed became part of the film’s legacy: more than a box‑office or review failure, it was treated in the press as an ethical misstep in how filmmakers resurrect Hollywood legends, sparking debate about responsibility to real stars and the limits of biopic license.
Preparing the daily feature…
AI concept artworkArchive Record · 1970s
A Film Critics Declared a Desecration: The 1976 Firestorm Over Gable and Lombard’s On-Screen Resurrection
Gable and Lombard (1976) / James Brolin & Jill Clayburgh portrayals / 1970s
When Universal released Gable and Lombard in 1976 the reaction from heavyweight critics was vicious enough to become its own scandal: Vincent Canby lambasted the picture as a 'fan‑magazine movie' that trafficked in clichés; Roger Ebert dismissed it as a 'mushy, old‑fashioned extravaganza' that prioritized pratfalls over insight; and Gene Siskel went further, accusing the filmmakers of 'desecrat[ing] the memory of great, dead actors' and comparing the audacity of the recreation to putting Lenin in a theme‑park display. The central artistic offense in the critics’ view was the casting and performance approach — James Brolin’s imitation of Gable and Jill Clayburgh’s modernized Lombard — which, they argued, produced impersonations rather than probing dramatizations. The moral and cultural outcry that followed became part of the film’s legacy: more than a box‑office or review failure, it was treated in the press as an ethical misstep in how filmmakers resurrect Hollywood legends, sparking debate about responsibility to real stars and the limits of biopic license.
The daily feature is taking an intermission. There’s still an entire archive to explore.