Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/04/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]If the camera was clearly identifiable in the movie, it was not by accident. I suspect that Leica paid for the priviledge of having their camera used in the film. Dan C. someone wrote: >Mark, > >The mother was Maureen Stapleton and both she and Meg Ryan had Leicas - or >maybe it was the same one. I always figured it was because the prop master >was planning on keeping it after the film was over. Margaret Sullivan was an >actress in the 1940s who was known for having an affair with Jimmy Stewart. > >Bryan > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net> >To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> >Date: Thursday, April 01, 1999 12:45 PM >Subject: Re: [Leica] Addicted to Love, was Did you see Mighty Joe Young > > >>Paul Klingaman wrote: >>> >>> Didn't see Mighty Joe, but did anyone happen to catch "Addicted to >>> Love?" Throughout the movie, Meg Ryan's character sports an M6, taking >>> pictures of her affections. I thought Meg was sexy in "When Harry Met >>> Sally", but YEESH with a Leica up to her eye! >>> >>Again it was not Meg Ryan with the M6 in that movie it was her mother >>played by Margaret Sullivan. How you could confuse Meg with Margaret is >>Freudian to the max one might think. >>The use of the camera obscura technique sure turned my head around?! >>Mark Rabiner > > >