Barbra Streisand Newsletter
Sign-up to receive daily news on Barbra Streisand by email.
Barbra Streisand Filmography
Source:
Theiapolis
Barbra Streisand Resources
Barbra Streisand (born April 24, 1942) is an American singer and film actress, producer, and director.
She was born Barbara Joan Streisand in Brooklyn, New York and educated at Beis Yakov School and Erasmus Hall High School in Brooklyn. Her father passed away when she was only fifteen months old, and she had a lifelong turbulent relationship with her stepfather.
Following a music competition, she became a club singer in her teens. She originally had wanted to be an actress, and appeared in a number of off-off-Broadway productions, including one with then-aspiring actress
Joan Rivers, but when her boyfriend Barry Dennen helped her shape a club act - first performed in a gay bar in Manhattan's Greenwich Village - she became a smashing success as a singer.She signed to Columbia Records in 1962 and her first album,
The Barbra Streisand Album, won two Grammy Awards in 1963. From 1962 she also appeared on Broadway, first in the musical
I Can Get It For You Wholesale and then as Fanny Brice in Jule Styne and Bob Merrill's Funny Girl (1964). She built on her success with a number of television specials for CBS.
Her first film was a reprise of her Broadway hit,
Funny Girl (1968), for which she won the 1968 Academy Award for Best Actress, sharing it with
Katharine Hepburn (The Lion in Winter), the first time ever there was a tie in an Oscar category. Her next two movies were also based on musicals, Jerry Herman's Hello, Dolly! (1969) and Alan Jay Lerner and Burton Lane's On A Clear Day You Can See Forever
(1970), while her fourth film was based on the Broadway play The Owl and the Pussycat
(1970). She also starred in the original screwball comedies What's Up, Doc? (1972), with
Ryan O'Neal, and
For Pete's Sake (1974), and the hugely successful drama The Way We Were with
Robert Redford.
In 1970 she had a topless scene in
The Owl and the Pussycat. She quickly regretted the move and bought up all prints of the film, deleting the scene. When High Society magazine published the original photos of her bare breasts, Streisand sued them.
Over the years, Streisand has won two Oscars, five Emmys, and eight Golden Globes, as well as a number of other awards. Her second Academy Award was as composer of the song "Evergreen", from A Star Is Born (1976). In 1995 she received a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award.
She has produced a number of her own films, setting up Barwood Films in 1972. For
Yentl (1983) she was producer, director, writer, and star, an experience she largely repeated for The Prince of Tides (1991).
Steven Spielberg called
Yentl a masterpiece, and many critics praised the film as well as Prince of Tides, leading to much controversy when she never received an Academy Award nomination for Best Director. Some claimed that her well-known uncompromising, tough behavior was to blame for the shutout, while others felt that Hollywood was punishing her for being a woman, and if a man behaved the same way, he would have been given recognition.
She has recorded more than sixty albums, after her early work in the 1960s (
The Second Barbra Streisand Album, The Third Album, My Name Is Barbra, etc.) Many were soundtrack albums from her films.
.During the seventies, she was also highly prominent in the pop charts, with No 1 records like "The Way We Were", "Evergreen", "(No More Tears) Enough Is Enough" and "Woman In Love".
When the seventies ended, Streisand was named the most successful female singer in the US, with only Elvis and The Beatles having sold more albums.
At the end of the last millenium, she still was the No 1 female singer in the states, with No 1 albums in each decade since she had started out.
In 1991 she released a 4-album box set, entitled
Just for the Record. A separate disc, entitled "Highlights from Just for the Record" featured two dozen tracks, including live material, greatest hits, rarities and otherwise, from her early recordings up to 1991.
Around 1992, however, success was not in Barbra's favor. She was losing money, and sought advice from former boyfriend Dennen. He suggested she perform in a series of live concerts, not only for financial reasons, but to overcome her chronic stage fright, as well. The tour was one of the biggest all-media merchandise parlays in history. Dennen later wrote a book called
My Life with Barbra.
She was married to
Elliott Gould from 1963 to 1971, with whom she had her only child, son Jason Gould (who later appeared as her son in
The Prince Of Tides). She briefly dated Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in the early 70s, had long-term relationships with hairdresser-turned-producer Jon Peters and tennis player Andre Agassi, and later married actor
James Brolin in 1998.
On New Years Eve 1999 she returned to the concert stage, scoring another personal triumph for giving the highest grossing single concert in Las Vegas history to date. She later toured Australia with that programm, called TIMELESS.
In December 2004 she had a procedure to remove polyps from her colon.
Streisand is known for her outspoken liberal political views, and is a staunch supporter of the Democratic Party.
Her strong, larger-than-life personality was satirized on the South Park animated series in an episode called "Mecha-Streisand", in which she tried to take over the world by transforming herself into a giant robot.
In 2004, Streisand returned to the big screen as an actress in the comedy
Meet the Fockers, as
Dustin Hoffman's wife, with
Ben Stiller, Robert DeNiro, and Blythe Danner. The film debuted at #1 and although the movie as a whole, has received mixed reviews, Streisand and her co-star
Dustin Hoffman have garnered very positive reviews. The film has so far grossed 250 million dollars, being the film with the highest take on a christmas weekend to date.
-
Filmography (selected) >>
Table of Content
Latest news on Barbra Streisand
IssuesWash. Post media critic differs with editors and reporters on paper's Obama madrassa story
In a December 3 washingtonpost.com online chat, Washington
Post media critic Howard Kurtz asserted that a November 29 Post article about discredited rumors that Sen. Barack
Obama (D-IL) attended a madrassa as a child "was [not] well
executed" and "failed to make ... clear" that the
madrassa "charge is bogus." Similarly, as Talking Points Memo
reporter-blogger Greg Sargent noted, in his November 30 "Media Notes" column,
Kurtz wrote: "I can't understand why the story didn't
mention that the official at the Indonesian elementary school alleged to have
been a madrassa -- according to an unsourced story in the conservative online
magazine Insight -- had told CNN it had always been a public school and not a
religious school." By contrast, on the December 2 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, Kurtz noted criticism of the article by "liberal bloggers"
but did not note the substance of the criticism and said, "Washington Post editors say this [article]
was actually intended to knock down the rumors." Similarly, according to
Sargent, Post reporter Perry
Bacon Jr., who wrote the November 29 article, told Sargent that he thought the article made
"clear" that Obama "is a Christian"; and the Post's Peter Baker and Lois Romano
have also defended the article as,
sufficiently, in Romano's words, "chronicl[ing] his denials."
As Media Matters
for America noted, in the November 29 front-page article on how
Obama "has had to address assertions that he is a Muslim or that he had
received training in Islam in Indonesia, where he lived from ages 6 to
10," Bacon reported that an "early rumor about Obama's faith came
from Insight, a conservative online magazine. The Insight article said Obama
had 'spent at least four years in a so-called madrassa,
or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia'
" [emphasis in original]. But rather than citing the investigative reports
by CNN, the Associated Press, and ABC News conclusively debunking the smear, or
providing his own reporting on whether the school Obama attended was, in fact,
a madrassa, Bacon reported only that "Obama denied the rumor."
Following the article's publication, according to Sargent, Bacon responded to Sargent's
criticism of the article by stating:
I thought the facts
that 1. these falsehoods persist and 2. Obama make mentions of his time living
in a Muslim country on the campaign trail as part of his foreign policy were
both worth remarking. I think the story makes clear, including in the
candidate's own words, he is a Christian.
During a November 29 washingtonpost.com online chat, a reader asked Romano, "Why is The
Post perpetuating these unfair attacks?" Romano replied:
We are getting many
questions of our story on Obama today. I'll try to address this as best I can.
These are always very difficult decisions -- how to
address something that people are talking about, that has clearly become a
factor in the race, without taking a position. Part of our job is to
acknowledge that there is a discussion going on and to fact check and lay out
the facts. The Internet has complicated this responsibility because there is so
much garbage and falsehoods out there. This discussion has reached a high pitch
on the Internet and our editors decided it was in the readers interest to
address it. I have heard people say that they won't support Sen. Obama because
they read he doesn't put [h]is hand over
his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. He has denied this -- so airing some of this and giving him a chance to deny
its accuracy could be viewed as setting the record straight.
As far as the
headline -- probably not the best.
Later, replying to another reader's assertion
that the Post's
inclusion of the discredited madrassa rumor "without clearly stating it isn't true is a
disservice to journalism," Romano stated: "But we do chronicle his
denials."
In a November 30 post on the Post's "The Trail" blog, Baker further
defended the November 29 madrassa story, claiming, "Any reasonable
reading of the story makes clear they are not true. ... And yet the
bloggers seem to think readers are so stupid they will actually think the Post
is saying the opposite." From Baker's post:
The Post ran a
story on the front page this week on the whispers about Obama's supposed Muslim
faith even though he is a Christian. The reporter wrote the story because a
voter in Iowa
told him that Obama is a Muslim and he was struck that people remain so ill
informed. That sort of misinformation has been common out there and, as the
story showed, spread by some people in an attempt to taint Obama. But somehow a
story intended to debunk the false claims, trace their origin and explore the
challenge they present the campaign in trying to quash them spawned a furious
eruption among liberal bloggers accusing the Post of spreading the rumors.
Any reasonable
reading of the story makes clear they are not true. Right there in the second
paragraph, it says Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ in Chicago. In other words,
a Christian, not a Muslim. And yet the bloggers seem to think readers are so
stupid they will actually think the Post is saying the opposite. The story's
obvious intent is to clarify, which it did. If people are misinformed about a
key aspect of a major presidential candidate to his detriment, then journalism
performs a service by addressing misinformation. And if foes are using
unfounded rumors to damage a candidate, especially in a subterranean way, then
journalism should expose that. Critics can reasonably debate this or that
wording in the story, but certainly the intent is clear no matter how much it
is distorted on the Web.
By contrast, in his December 3 online chat, Kurtz
asserted that "Post editors say they were trying to knock down the
Obama-is-a-Muslim rumor, but I don't believe the piece was well executed. It
didn't read like a debunking piece." Kurtz continued:
There was too much
about Obama "denying" or "disputing" allegations rather than
just branding them false. This was particularly true in the case of the
madrassa he allegedly attended as a child. That charge is bogus, as a CNN
interview with a top official at the Indonesian school demonstrated, and the
Post story failed to make that clear, in my view.
As Sargent noted, Kurtz similarly wrote in
his November 30 column: "I can't understand why
the story didn't mention that the official at the Indonesian elementary school
alleged to have been a madrassa -- according to an unsourced story in the conservative online
magazine Insight -- had told CNN it had always been a public school and not a religious
school."
During the December 2 edition of Reliable Sources, which he hosts, Kurtz
noted Baker's assertion that the article "spawned a furious
eruption among liberal bloggers accusing The Post of spreading the
rumors." But during the broadcast, Kurtz never noted the substance of the
"liberal" criticism of the article: that the article reported only
the madrassa rumors and the Obama campaign's denial, but not the numerous
news reports thoroughly debunking the rumor. Nor did Kurtz express similar sentiment
that the article was not "well executed."
In her December 2 column, Post
ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote, "Next week: The Obama story that's
burning up the Internet."
From Kurtz's
December 3 washingtonpost.com online
chat:
San Diego: The Washington Post's Lois Romano
said Thursday in defense of the Post's coverage of the "Obama whisper
campaign": "How to address something that people are talking about,
that clearly has become a factor in the race, without taking a position. Part
of our job is to acknowledge that there is a discussion going on and to
fact-check and lay out the facts. The Internet has complicated this
responsibility because there is so much garbage and falsehood out there."
Do you agree that it is part of your
job to acknowledge there's a "discussion" going on regarding every
rumor, smear, overt falsehood or piece of propaganda -- without commenting on
the veracity of the claims -- as The Post did in the Obama incident? In other
words, the fact that someone did in fact say something and created interest in
the statement on the Internet is more newsworthy then someone saying something
false and creating interest in the statement on the Internet?
washingtonpost.com: Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to
Fuel Rumors About Him (Post, Nov. 29)
Howard Kurtz: No, of
course not. But it's always a subject of journalistic debate as to when a rumor
or smear has gained enough currency that a newspaper should weigh in and debunk
it, even at the risk of spreading the original trash. I had debates in this
newsroom many times about wanting to knock down some of the Clinton scandal rumors that were gaining
currency in tabloids or British papers, and that was before the Internet was
the force that it is today.
Post editors say
they were trying to knock down the Obama-is-a-Muslim rumor, but I don't believe
the piece was well executed. It didn't read like a debunking piece. There was
too much about Obama "denying" or "disputing" allegations
rather than just branding them false. This was particularly true in the case of
the madrassa he allegedly attended as a child. That charge is bogus, as a CNN
interview with a top official at the Indonesian school demonstrated, and the
Post story failed to make that clear, in my view.
From Romano's November 29 online
chat:
Obama
and "the rumors": Lois: I object to today's story in
The Post talking about the "rumors" floating around that Obama is
Muslim. It is simply inaccurate and poor reporting to call them rumors. They
are false claims. Obama is not a Muslim; calling them rumors gives them
credence. In fact, even using the phrase "Obama's Muslim ties" is
debatable. Having a stepfather who did "occasionally attend services"
at a mosque and having a Muslim grandfather who lived on the other side of the
world are pretty slim "ties." Why is The Post perpetuating these unfair
attacks?
washingtonpost.com: Foes Use
Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him (Post,
Nov. 29)
Lois
Romano: We are getting many questions of our story on Obama today.
I'll try to address this as best I can. These are always very difficult
decisions -- how to
address something that people are talking about, that has clearly become a
factor in the race, without taking a position. Part of our job is to
acknowledge that there is a discussion going on and to fact check and lay out
the facts. The Internet has complicated this responsibility because there is so
much garbage and falsehoods out there. This discussion has reached a high pitch
on the Internet and our editors decided it was in the readers interest to
address it. I have heard people say that they won't support Sen. Obama because
they read he doesn't put [h]is hand over
his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. He has denied this -- so airing some of this and giving him a chance to deny
its accuracy could be viewed as setting the record straight.
As far as the headline
-- probably not the best.
[...]
Anonymous:"...how
to address something that people are talking about, that has clearly become a
factor in the race, without taking a position..." But Lois, you should
take a position. Not only has he denied it, but every legitimate report says it
isn't true. I assume you take a position on the earth being round, because it
is verifiable. Obama is verifiably not
a Muslim ... if only because he denies that he is.
It isn't a question
of fair and balanced when there isn't any serious foundation to the report. For
The Post to perpetuate it without clearly
stating it isn't true is a disservice to journalism, your readers and a U.S. senator.
Let's not even get into the question of the fact that it isn't a crime to be a
Muslim and run for office -- which isn't the Obama story at all.
Lois
Romano: But we do chronicle his denials.
From the December 2 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
KURTZ: I got to
break in here. You two can take this outside, hopefully without guns.
Now,
Washington Post taking some heat
this week for a front-page story. The headline -- if we can put it up --
"Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him." The story said
that the Democratic candidate has had to address assertions that he is a Muslim
and attended a madrassa as a child. Obama aides sharply disputed the initial
story suggesting that he was a Muslim.
Keli Goff, is it
news to try to explore and investigate the source of these rumors?
KELI GOFF
(political analyst): Sure. On the front pages though, I don't know that that
was necessarily necessary. And I think that what some critics take issue with
in this particular piece is the fact that it somewhat gave credence -- the lede
and the headline seemed to somewhat validate some of these rumors.
For instance, CNN
did a story on this, you know, back in January, and the headline was really
simple -- it said: "CNN Debunks False Rumors about Obama Attending Madrassa."
And that's not exactly what this headline does. It gives some sort of validity
by putting it on the front page and exploring it as a legitimate criticism.
KURTZ: Right. And
just to elaborate, CNN interviewed the top official at the school that was
alleged to have been a madrassa. This is when he was in elementary school, when
Obama was in elementary school. And he denied that it had ever been anything
other than public school.
BLANQUITA CULLUM (conservative radio host): But Howard,
what it raises -- OK, you can have all kinds of issues coming out -- it raises,
where is the "yuck" factor? Where is the perception that we really
question issues?
For example, how
much will we tolerate whether they had mistresses, whether they had, you know,
Rose law firms, all of that kind of scandal. Where is the real bias? Is the
real bias that we are concerned truly about a candidate if they reportedly,
allegedly, have a Muslim background? And the question is: How is that going to
affect the turnout of the vote?
KURTZ: All right. Washington Post editors say this was
actually intended to knock down the rumors.
Peter Baker, a
reporter defending the piece by his colleague, Perry Bacon, said, "Somehow
a story intended to debunk the false claims, trace their origin and explore the
challenge they present in the campaign in trying to quash them spawned a
furious eruption among liberal bloggers accusing the Post of spreading the
rumors."
Let me move on now
to Oprah Winfrey. I was up in New
Hampshire this week and this got a lot of attention,
Oprah at a campaign for Obama. Let's roll some of the tape.
[begin video
clip]
JULIE CHEN (CBS
News anchor): Oprah is so accessible. She's on the air every day. I mean,
that's -- like who doesn't love Oprah?
[...]
DANA BASH (CNN
congressional correspondent): She actually is somebody who has the ability to
move mountains and change minds.
[...]
DAN ABRAMS (MSNBC
host): Realistically, Clinton
is a far more formidable force than Oprah. Yes, she's enormously successful and
influential, and I know this is heresy. But I don't know that she will actually
lead people to pull the lever for Obama.
[end video clip]
KURTZ: Keli Goff,
I've got about half a minute. Why was it such big news that an African-American
talk show host in Chicago would stump for an
African-American candidate from Chicago?
GOFF: Because
Oprah's not a celebrity; she's a brand. I mean, it's nice that people like
Barbra Streisand or Ben Affleck, you know, want to share their political
thoughts, but at the end of the day, people are paying them to be entertainers
and to entertain them.
People look to
Oprah not to entertain them, but to give her guidance on everything from what to
wear, what to read, and possibly who to vote for. She's in a league of her own.
KURTZ: A huge story.
CULLUM: However,
the problem is -- I mean, I agree with you on that, Keli, but the problem is,
if they start trying to tie in things like this perception of where his
religion lies, where his loyalty lies, does that backfire on Oprah? I have a
tendency to think that she can bring in a percentage of the base that will not
normally vote, but it's going to be iffy. It could backfire on her.
KURTZ: Well, Barbra
Streisand endorsing Hillary Clinton, that didn't seem to be anywhere nearly as
big a story.
Keli Goff,
Blanquita Cullum, thanks very much for batting these issues around with us this
morning.
Published: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:51:41 GMT - Source: Mediamatters.Org - Read the articleIssuesCLIPS: On Reliable Sources, Cullum claimed questions about where Obama's "religion lies, where his loyalty lies" could "backfire on Oprah"
On the December
2 edition
of CNN's Reliable
Sources, while
discussing talk show host Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama
(D-IL) for president, conservative radio host Blanquita Cullum stated that
"the problem" with Oprah's decision
to campaign for Obama is "if they start trying to tie in things like this
perception of where his religion lies, where his loyalty lies, does that
backfire on Oprah?" Cullum added: "I
have a tendency to think that she can bring in a percentage of the base that
will not normally vote, but it's going to be iffy. It could
backfire on her."
Cullum's comments followed a discussion about the
criticism surrounding a November 29 Washington Post article about discredited
rumors that Obama attended a madrassa as a
child.
From the
December 2 edition of CNN's Reliable
Sources:
HOWARD
KURTZ (host and Washington
Post media critic): I got to break in here. You two can
take this outside,
hopefully without
guns.
Now, Washington Post taking some heat this week
for a front-page story. The headline
-- if we can put it up
-- "Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him." The
story said that the Democratic candidate has had to address assertions that he
is a Muslim and attended a madrassa as a child. Obama aides sharply disputed the
initial story suggesting that he was a Muslim.
Keli Goff, is it news to try to
explore and investigate the source of these rumors?
KELI GOFF (political analyst): Sure.
On the front pages though, I don't know that that was necessarily necessary. And
I think that what some critics take issue with in this particular piece is the
fact that it somewhat gave credence -- the
lede and the headline seemed to
somewhat validate some of these rumors.
For instance, CNN did a story on
this, you know, back in January, and the headline was really simple -- it
said: "CNN Debunks
False Rumors about Obama Attending Madrassa." And that's not exactly what this
headline does. It gives some sort of validity by putting it on the front page
and exploring it as a legitimate criticism.
KURTZ: Right. And just to elaborate,
CNN interviewed the top official at the school that was alleged to have been a
madrassa. This is when he was in elementary school, when Obama was in elementary
school. And he denied that it had ever been anything other than public school.
CULLUM: But Howard, what it raises
-- OK, you can have all kinds of issues coming out -- it raises, where is the "yuck" factor? Where
is the perception that we really question issues?
For example, how much will we
tolerate whether they had mistresses, whether they had, you know, Rose law firms, all of that kind of scandal. Where is
the real bias? Is the real bias that we are concerned truly about a candidate if
they reportedly, allegedly, have a Muslim background? And the question is: How is that going to affect the turnout of the
vote?
KURTZ: All right. Washington Post editors say this was
actually intended to knock down the rumors.
Peter Baker, a reporter defending
the piece by his colleague, Perry Bacon, said, "Somehow a story intended to
debunk the false claims, trace their origin and explore the challenge
they present in the campaign in trying to quash them spawned a furious eruption
among liberal bloggers accusing the Post of spreading the
rumors."
Let me move on now to Oprah Winfrey.
I was up in New
Hampshire this week and this got a lot of attention,
Oprah at a campaign for Obama. Let's roll some of the tape.
[begin video
clip]
JULIE CHEN (CBS News anchor): Oprah is so accessible. She's on the
air every day. I mean, that's -- like who doesn't love Oprah?
[...]
DANA BASH (CNN congressional correspondent): She actually is somebody
who has the ability to move mountains and change minds.
[...]
DAN ABRAMS (MSNBC host): Realistically, Clinton is a far more
formidable force than Oprah. Yes, she's enormously successful and influential,
and I know this is heresy. But I don't know that she will actually lead people
to pull the lever for Obama.
[end video
clip]
KURTZ: Keli Goff, I've got about
half a minute. Why was it such big news that an African-American talk show host
in Chicago would stump for an African-American
candidate from Chicago?
GOFF: Because Oprah's not a
celebrity; she's a brand. I mean, it's
nice that people like Barbra Streisand or Ben Affleck, you know, want to share
their political thoughts, but at the end of the day, people are paying
them to be entertainers and to entertain them.
People look to Oprah not to
entertain them, but to give her guidance on everything from what to wear, what
to read, and possibly who to vote for. She's in a league of her own.
KURTZ: A huge story.
CULLUM: However, the problem is -- I mean, I agree with you on
that, Keli, but the problem is, if they start trying to tie in things like this
perception of where his religion lies, where his loyalty lies, does that
backfire on Oprah? I have a tendency to think that she can bring in a percentage
of the base that will not normally vote, but it's going to be iffy. It could
backfire on her.
KURTZ: Well, Barbra Streisand
endorsing Hillary Clinton, that didn't seem to be anywhere nearly as big a
story.
Keli Goff, Blanquita Cullum, thanks
very much for batting these issues around with us this morning.
Published: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:03:47 GMT - Source: Mediamatters.Org - Read the article
Sign-up to receive daily news on Barbra Streisand by email. See Also:
