Grande Dame Guignol

[ClassyCo]

I haven't seen Dark Intruder.

I had never even heard of it until I saw it in that DVD-combo with The Night Walker.

Dark Intruder was a 1965 film made to show on TV, but ended up being shown in theaters. It stars Leslie Nielsen and runs barely an hour. I've never seen it, nor did I have any desire to, but considering it's the one included in the combo, I'll give it a look anyway.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I had never even heard of it until I saw it in that DVD-combo with The Night Walker.

Dark Intruder was a 1965 film made to show on TV, but ended up being shown in theaters. It stars Leslie Nielsen and runs barely an hour. I've never seen it, nor did I have any desire to, but considering it's the one included in the combo, I'll give it a look anyway.

Is the horror haggy?

 

[ClassyCo]

Is the horror haggy?

Apparently not. That confuses me a little, too. I was hoping that it was going to be another psycho-biddy thriller to add to the rest of them. I guess the company releasing this set does not label The Night Walker under the hag horror slot, so I guess they were just looking for another low-budget shocker to make this a combo.

 

[Toni]

I have a birthday coming up in October, and I had a wonderful idea. I've gotten my fiancee and her family to buy me the remaining Hagsploitation movies that I'm lacking. I'm aiming to have a binge-a-thon of them around the time of my birthday with a large screen plastered out in the front yard, accompanied with a projector, to give us an spooky old-drive-in-type vibe. I'm very excited about it. As I get these movies, I'll watch them and pop back in here to give you all my two cents.

I can't wait.

Here's some of the titles I'm hopefully going to get:

The Night Walker
Dark Intruder
What Ever Happened to Aunt Alice?
The Nanny
Strait-Jacket
Berserk!
Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte
The Caretakers
Night Watch
Lady in a Cage
Die! Die! My Darling!
Maniac
Dead Ringer

There's always a book, entitled Grande Dame Guignol Cinema, authored by Peter Shelley, that I'd really like to get my hands on as well. It would be a wonderful little addition to my shrine of psycho-biddy sub-genre.

Strait-Jacket

You should record their reactions with your cell phone when that one is being watched...

 

[ClassyCo]

Strait-Jacket

You should record their reactions with your cell phone when that one is being watched...

That would definitely be interesting to go back and watch---their reactions.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Maniac

I haven't seen that one, either. Off to YT!

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I haven't seen that one, either. Off to YT!

FYI: MANIAC is not, technically, hag horror (and its twist ending doesn't really work).

 

[Willie Oleson]

Strait-Jacket

You should record their reactions with your cell phone when that one is being watched

Is it something special?

 

[Toni]

Is it something special?

Oh yeah. See definition #4 of the word "special" in the Collins Dictionary...

special

1. ADJECTIVE
Someone or something that is special is better or more important than other people or things.
...special
4. ADJECTIVE noun
Special institutions are for people who have serious physical or mental problems.
Police are still searching for a convicted rapist, who escaped from Broadmoor special hospital yesterday.

 

[ClassyCo]

FYI: MANIAC is not, technically, hag horror (and its twist ending doesn't really work).

I haven't seen it. In assuming you watched it on YouTube, I'll hop on over there and see what it's all about.

 

[ClassyCo]

Although my thoughts on Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte is a little fuzzy, I must say that I cannot shake the notion that I wish that Bette Davis and Joan Crawford had gotten their acts together and the title would have stayed What Ever Happened to Cousin Charlotte?

My opinions are certainly apt to shift once I revisit this film, but I feel the underlining feeling will remain fairly consistent.

I still want to see this:

But instead I'm going to see this:

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Although my thoughts on Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte is a little fuzzy, I must say that I cannot shake the notion that I wish that Bette Davis and Joan Crawford had gotten their acts together and the title would have stayed What Ever Happened to Cousin Charlotte?

Unlikely. Bette gave up her top billing to have it re-named HUSH... HUSH, SWEET CHARLOTTE, thank goodness.

As I've stated before, it might be interesting to see an able-bodied Crawford silently wandering the moors and halls of that Louisiana plantation at night in her giant choker necklaces and period beehive hairdo, but it would have given her malevolence away too early, as well as making this already terribly dark, grand guignol picture even darker in a back-of-a-dark-closet sort of way. But Olivia de Havilland brought a breezy contrast to the role which worked.

Like @Crimson, I, too, think it's the best of the hag horror genre (despite the bizarre error in hair and wardrobe for the "1927" prologue where the styles are clearly 1964 -- a mistake that BABY JANE did not make, although a lot of '60s films did).

I've actually had this framed photo in my dining room for years:

 

[ClassyCo]

Unlikely. Bette gave up her top billing to have it re-named HUSH... HUSH, SWEET CHARLOTTE, thank goodness.

As I've stated before, it might be interesting to see an able-bodied Crawford silently wandering the moors and halls of that Louisiana plantation at night in her giant choker necklaces and period beehive hairdo, but it would have given her malevolence away too early, as well as making this already terribly dark, grand guignol picture even darker in a back-of-a-dark-closet sort of way. But Olivia de Havilland brought a breezy contrast to the role which worked.

Like @Crimson, I, too, think it's the best of the hag horror genre (despite the bizarre error in hair and wardrobe for the "1927" prologue where the styles are clearly 1964 -- a mistake that BABY JANE did not make, although a lot of '60s films did).

I've actually had this framed photo in my dining room for years:

Bette gave up?

I was under the impression that Joan had secured an alphabetical billing agreement in her contract, which naturally put Crawford before Davis. Of course, this was said to have infuriated Bette (who always thought of herself as the better actress than Joan, and indeed she was), and that's why the production team tried to sweeten Bette's deal; she got the title change, an executive credit, and naturally a larger salary.

So you have this exact picture in your kitchen? It think that's neat.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Bette gave up?

I was under the impression that Joan had secured an alphabetical billing agreement in her contract, which naturally put Crawford before Davis. Of course, this was said to have infuriated Bette (who always thought of herself as the better actress than Joan, and indeed she was), and that's why the production team tried to sweeten Bette's deal; she got the title change, an executive credit, and naturally a larger salary.

So you have this exact picture in your kitchen? It think that's neat.

Bette balked at Joan getting top billing, but agreed not to fight it to get the title changed.

Dining room, not kitchen.

 

[Willie Oleson]

But instead I'm going to see this:

What is the title? Is it on YouTube?

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

What is the title? Is it on YouTube?

I think the reference is to WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE?.

 

[Crimson]

Like @Crimson, I, too, think it's the best of the hag horror genre

I do indeed.

I like JANE; I think it's a nifty little film, but also a bit meager. I mean, really, not much happens: an old bag engages in mostly petty, inconsequential torments on her crippled sister. In my crabbier moods, I lean towards it being a bit dull.

CHARLOTTE is more ambitious -- a Grand Guignol Southern Gothic -- and pulls off those ambitions. Not just the best of its very slim genre, but a darned good film of the era.

I'm torn in whether I would have preferred Crawford. I adore Olivia, far more so than Joan and Bette; I was also genuinely surprised by the twist with her character the first time I saw the movie, as I wasn't expecting her to be a villain.

On the other hand, I'm not really convinced Joan would have given an obvious performance. That was Bette's assessment, I think, and I kind of don't believe her. For one, I think Bette was wrong about Joan's performance in JANE. She grumbled about Joan wanting to have nail polish or whatever, as if that was just Joan's ego. Maybe it was, or maybe Joan understood the character more than Bette gave her credit for. Blanche was a former film star and even an invalid shut-in can cling to small vanities. I like to think Joan, even in her reclusive last years, still put her eyebrows on every morning.

Joan wasn't typically an actress of heavy-handed obviousness; and if anyone could pull off phony graciousness, it was Joan Crawford. The modern perception of her as a raging bitch is looking back through the filter of Faye Dunaway. Audiences in the mid-60s would have had little reason to suspect Joan as an obvious villain; she rarely played them. If there was even the slightest chance of her giving a performance similar to her later turn in NIGHT GALLERY, once the character's nature was revealed -- what a loss! (And while I think Joan would likely have been good in CHARLOTTE, she probably wouldn't have reached the heights of NIGHT GALLERY. I have no idea what kind of sorcery Spielberg summoned to draw that performance out of her.)

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Some things would be fun to fix, and with today's technology, perhaps we could --- except that I have zero competence with anything technical. I mean, it's like jaw-dropping what I'm unable to do..

Anyway, STRAIT-JACKET is one of those movies I want desperately to fix. Great concept, great star, crap execution. I re-direct it, re-edit it, frame by frame, every time I watch it. It's so obvious what's wrong with it.

Oh, and Carol's hunky boyfriend has got to be a Cancer Rising.

 

[Crimson]

Great concept, great star, crap execution

STRAIT-JACKET is one of those films that is far more fun to think about, or read about, than actually watch. It's remarkable just how poor it is -- not even something strong and definite, like "bad". I know some profess to enjoy it has a campy romp, but I don't see it. It has its moments, but they're fleeting; mostly, it's drab and inept. Other than the brazen chutzpah of a 60 year old Joan, sashaying around like the hottest young thing in f*** me pumps.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

STRAIT-JACKET is one of those films that is far more fun to think about, or read about, than actually watch. It's remarkable just how poor it is -- not even something strong and definite, like "bad". I know some profess to enjoy it has a campy romp, but I don't see it. It has its moments, but they're fleeting; mostly, it's drab and inept. Other than the brazen chutzpah of a 60 year old Joan, sashaying around like the hottest young thing in f*** me pumps.

Castle supposedly wanted it to be his masterpiece -- the star of BABY JANE and the wrier of PSYCHO (the book, unfortunately, not the movie) and yet he turns in the tackiest, laziest film he'd ever done -- and that's no small feat, given how meager the talents of William Castle were.

So many scenes just trail off with pointless lines like, "You understand, don't you?," in classic B-movie stupidity.

And no subjective camera leading into the prologue murder of Heath Barkley?? Talk about a director not being engaged!