Grande Dame Guignol

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
7
 
Awards
19
Is this grande dame guignol?


Because she's healing people, not killing them (this is exactly what I want to see Krystle doing in Season 8 -- while simultaneously working as Blake's campaign manager, with Alexis having a field day with it in the press).
 

ClassyCo

Telly Talk Warrior
LV
5
 
Awards
11
Bankhead didn't like the Americanized title DIE! DIE! MY DARLING! (perhaps because it sounded too much like HUSH... HUSH, SWEET CHARLOTTE, filmed at the same time and released a few months earlier) but I think that title aged better than the British FANATIC moniker because FANATIC sounds today so indistinct after 60 years of additional cinema -- in fact, FANATIC now sounds like some low-budget '70s sci-fi shocker with boobs on display.

While I usually prefer my pre-1966 horror films in B&W, there are some exceptions, and this is one of them; I like the vivid color scheme, the locational atmosphere, the production design, and the use of varying shades of red.

Funny how, like LADY IN A CAGE, this film also has a domineering, narcissistic mama whose son is apparently gay and then commits suicide (is that what he did in CAGE?)

The film does get slightly draggy after Powers is locked in the attic -- but, frankly, so does BABY JANE.

Since Tallulah didn't really have much of a movie career, it's definitely one of her memorable performances; Stefanie give an affected to-period elocution lesson I'd never want to miss.

I always want to see Donald Sutherland deliver his 20-minute monologue from JFK with his DIE! DIE! MY DARLING! voice. I think it might have had a different impact.

-------------------------

And here's one of the best of the genre, somehow perfectly on the cusp of both very-different halves of the '60s -- whatever that means (it starts at about 2:15 , until it gets deleted):

I suppose the DIE! DIE! MY DARLING! title has aged better. It also stays within the parameters of the type of titles these "grande dame guignol" movies had -- well, the titles some of them had.

Just as you said, the film gets a little long-winded. BABY JANE, I suppose, gets a little lengthy, too, but I can overlook that because I so like the Davis-Crawford pairing.

The color camera work I think works on well for DIE! DIE! MY DARLING! and I like the British locales that give the movie a style of its own.

I think you're right about LADY IN A CAGE -- I believe the son "offs" himself sometime before the start of the story.

Tallulah didn't have much of a film career, so it is hard to judge this movie. I'd definitely say this and LIFEBOAT were her best roles, even though I've yet to see her '30s movies where Paramount wanted to groom her as an "American Dietrich" or some mess like that.

I wish Tallulah had done another "grande dame guignol" style movie in her time. But where else would she have fit?

1709518894218.png
 

ClassyCo

Telly Talk Warrior
LV
5
 
Awards
11
STRAIT-JACKET (1964) is currently free on YouTube, so I gave it another watch tonight.

Yes, the movie is sloppy and low-grade trash, but I kinda enjoy it. Joan Crawford is good, much better than the material requires, that's for sure. She gives much more than the script asks of her, which stands to prove how skilled she was to elevate weak material.

Diane Baker, as her daughter, is also good. I don't think she gets enough credit for her performance. Perhaps she would, though, if the movie itself was better.

There are many faults with STRAIT-JACKET, and I won't waste anyone's time saying that there aren't. It has such potential to be a good B-movie, but it falls short, and often miserably so. It kind be a tad boring, and even that could be forgiven if the camera work was, at least, a little more incentive.

Producer-director William Castle wanted to make this movie his classic, but it's not even close. I know he was a "B-movie maestro," but STRAIT-JACKET drops even below his standards, I think.

This certainly isn't a standout of "grande dame guignol," but I find it hard to entirely hate it. Crawford's always an enjoyable watch, and she eases the roughness of the film -- at least for me.

1709604262273.png
 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
7
 
Awards
19
STRAIT-JACKET (1964) is currently free on YouTube, so I gave it another watch tonight.

Yes, the movie is sloppy and low-grade trash, but I kinda enjoy it. Joan Crawford is good, much better than the material requires, that's for sure. She gives much more than the script asks of her, which stands to prove how skilled she was to elevate weak material.

Diane Baker, as her daughter, is also good. I don't think she gets enough credit for her performance. Perhaps she would, though, if the movie itself was better.

There are many faults with STRAIT-JACKET, and I won't waste anyone's time saying that there aren't. It has such potential to be a good B-movie, but it falls short, and often miserably so. It kind be a tad boring, and even that could be forgiven if the camera work was, at least, a little more incentive.

Producer-director William Castle wanted to make this movie his classic, but it's not even close. I know he was a "B-movie maestro," but STRAIT-JACKET drops even below his standards, I think.

This certainly isn't a standout of "grande dame guignol," but I find it hard to entirely hate it. Crawford's always an enjoyable watch, and she eases the roughness of the film -- at least for me.

Oh, yes. There's the script (far too many scenes end with lines like "You understand, don't you...?"), some of the acting (Diane Baker is a very good actress, but you wouldn't know it from this), the music score reminiscent of an early-'60s sitcom (oh, if only Castle's favorite composer, Von Dexter, hadn't been sidelined by an orthopedic disease which ruined his hands), the choppy editing, and -- worst of all -- the hapless camerawork by Oscar-winning Arthur Arling (best known for THE YEARLING and Doris Day movies with soft-filter close-ups because Day was in her geriatric thirties) because Castle's favorite cinematographer, Joseph Biroc, proved to be unavailable as he was shooting VIVA LAS VEGAS (with Elvis and Ann-Margret). Why all the flat-lighting??

Biroc was a must-have for STRAIT-JACKET if it was going to have any chance to work. He was also Robert Aldrich's favorite DP, and would shoot Joan in HUSH... HUSH, SWEET CHARLOTTE (before she pulled out of the movie) and, two years after STRAIT-JACKET, he'd photograph Joan again for William Castle's I SAW WHAT YOU DID -- a much more polished film, and far more atmospheric in that strangely cozy way so many of those early-'60s thrillers often were.

Look at I SAW WHAT YOU DID to see what STRAIT-JACKET would have looked like (or how Crawford would have looked had she remained in CHARLOTTE, with her to-period beehive hairdo and giant choker necklaces). Even if nothing else was fixed about STRAIT-JACKET, Joe Biroc -- with his deep shadowing he'd learned during his apprentice years in the silent era, and something he does in the post-production lab work where the register of the blacks & greys cause those shadows to appear conscious and staring back at you -- would've saved the motion picture.

STRAIT-JACKET has a depressing quality about it, but it's that dank, angsty thing that hovered over and encircled the era, the year Kennedy was unceremoniously removed from office by the state (STRAIT-JACKET was filmed in the late-summer of 1963), so I'm fine with that mood to the film.

But it misses the mark so very badly that I consider it a great tragedy of movie history... Again, look what unremembered (and aptly-titled) I SAW WHAT YOU DID to see how STRAIT-JACKET could have felt.

George Kennedy and Leif Ericson are just fine. And the Pepsi vice-president to whom Joan promised the role of the doctor (and apparently had trouble with his lines) is ultimately acceptable, in that his folksy demeanor mostly sells it. And Mr. and Mrs. Fields are properly cast.

Crawford, of course, is terrific.

But amongst William Castle's B-level filmography, STRAIT-JACKET is far-and-away the shittiest entry.

I re-make it, as I've said, in my head every time I see it. Her Edith Head dress in the prologue murder scene is far too dowdy, making Joan appear too flat-chested and dumpy, for the 29-year-old (chuckle!) she's supposed to be. There's the murder itself with no subjective camera view as she creeps into her house to chop up Heath Barkley and the trollop he picked up in a dive bar at the edge of town... As the face of the little girl fades into the present face of Miss Baker, I want to hear rain on the farm house's tin roof and the shadow of that rain cascading down her face as she explains to her fiancé about her mother's homicidal past.

The dimly lit scene between Lucy and Carol, after the doctor has "disappeared", set in the living room in the farm house, should have been, in a way, the spiritual peak of the movie. But it's not dimly lit enough. And when Carol screams, "Mother -- tell me!", the camera should have then moved in voyeuristically on Mom, as she yells, "The doctor's gone!!!" eight times with increasing maniacal intensity (as only Crawford could) and young Carol gasps, Oh, my God!" and runs out the front door to move the doctor's car into the garage (itself, a pointlessly shot and poorly-edited scene).

Other things: the scene in which mother and daughter first meet as adults should be much more effective: Baker, illuminated from the windows, does a slow turn as a tearful Crawford approaches... And I want the hysterical party at the Fields' house late in the film to be considerably more extreme (perhaps with Mrs. Fields actually slapping Joan when grabbed by the shoulders --- and why? It's just drama, baby). And even later, when the murders at the mansion occur, I want a thunderstorm to slip in and, after Crawford runs out of the master bedroom upon un-masking the killer, Baker pulls her axe out of the doorframe and heads through the connecting bathroom towards the study where Mrs. Fields is on the phone to the police; lightning strikes, Mrs. Fields is electrocuted and thrown against the wall, and Baker, glimpsing the phone melting and smoking on the desk (remember, it's melodrama) lands an axe-chop to Mrs. Fields' body now on the floor behind the desk and out of view of the audience, her blood splattering on the wall; then Miss Baker rushes to the stairwell in pursuit of her mother.... I also want the final "hat grabber" scene (as Hitchcock called the Simon Oakland exposition monologue at the end of PSYCHO) in the art studio to offer the badly-needed explanation that Crawford had been chemically altered (i.e., "Bill, last night I found these two drug vials amongst Carol's things. I called the hospital this morning to find out what they were -- one is a mild hallucinogen, the other a sedative. Carol must have given these to me in my food, my drinks -- my coffee, my tea -- so I would see the things she wanted me to see, and react the way she wanted me to react...") And at the final moments of the scene, when she tells her brother, Bill, that "Carol needs me -- she's needed me for a long time, but I was never there to help her.." have Joan walk towards the bust Carol created of her mother's head (and modeled the mask with which to frame her for murder) and add, "And I wasn't there because of a mistake -- a vile, dreadful mistake -- 8000 midnights ago..." (shades of SUNSET BLVD.) "... a mistake that left her paralyzed psychologically -- emotionally imprisoned --- in a kind of strait-jacket..." (as she pulls the cloth over the bust) "..... all of her life." And thus Joan has recited the film's title (which now makes more sense), the morning sunlight begins filtering through the leaves from a tree outside, and she concludes, "Now, maybe, I can help her." She hugs her brother, and walks out of the art studio, the camera viewing her through the window, over her brother's shoulder, as she strolls into the sunrise in a blustering tornado of autumn leaves. Fade to black. Decapitated 'Columbia' logo. Movie over... The way any Joan Crawford picture worth its salt should end.

Okay, okay, some of those are just my own little personal aesthetic quirks. But you get the idea.

But how did the William Castle film with the most potential wind up his very worst? Did he care too much -- and did that, perversely, have the effect of ruining it??


I SAW WHAT YOU DID versus STRAIT-JACKET:
MV5BZmE3NTU5ZWQtMjJkMC00NDllLTlmOTctNjdmY2I1ZTg4OTRkXkEyXkFqcGdeQVRoaXJkUGFydHlJbmdlc3Rpb25Xb3JrZmxvdw@@._V1_QL75_UX500_CR0,0,500,281_.jpg
881624c268de3cbdd80bcef4105edc71.jpg
 
Last edited:

ClassyCo

Telly Talk Warrior
LV
5
 
Awards
11
I SAW WHAT YOU DID (1965) is more polished than STRAIT-JACKET (1964) -- well, in terms of its cinematography at least -- but I actually like it less than STRAIT-JACKET.

Both movies are sloppy and leave a lot to be desired. The cinematography, for one, on STRAIT-JACKET just isn't appealing. Had Castle made it more visually artistic, it might've made some of the other shortcomings easier to override in one's mind.

STRAIT-JACKET really should be one of the crown jewels of the "grande dame guignol" movies, but it turns out being one of the most frustrating.

I wonder how the movie would've been had Joan Blondell been able to star as originally planned? Somehow I think Castle would've tried to infuse more comedy had she not gotten injured and stayed involved.

Imagine if someone like Hitchcock or Robert Aldrich would've directed STRAIT-JACKET or even THE NIGHT WALKER (another Castle film intended for Crawford, whose role ultimately went to her pal Barbara Stanwyck). These movies would've been so much better had someone more skilled been behind the camera, but Hitchcock had already made his cheap, B&W shocker with PSYCHO (1960) and Aldrich had already given use BABY JANE and CHARLOTTE.
 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
7
 
Awards
19
I SAW WHAT YOU DID (1965) is more polished than STRAIT-JACKET (1964) -- well, in terms of its cinematography at least -- but I actually like it less than STRAIT-JACKET.

Both movies are sloppy and leave a lot to be desired. The cinematography, for one, on STRAIT-JACKET just isn't appealing. Had Castle made it more visually artistic, it might've made some of the other shortcomings easier to override in one's mind.

STRAIT-JACKET really should be one of the crown jewels of the "grande dame guignol" movies, but it turns out being one of the most frustrating.

I wonder how the movie would've been had Joan Blondell been able to star as originally planned? Somehow I think Castle would've tried to infuse more comedy had she not gotten injured and stayed involved.

Imagine if someone like Hitchcock or Robert Aldrich would've directed STRAIT-JACKET or even THE NIGHT WALKER (another Castle film intended for Crawford, whose role ultimately went to her pal Barbara Stanwyck). These movies would've been so much better had someone more skilled been behind the camera, but Hitchcock had already made his cheap, B&W shocker with PSYCHO (1960) and Aldrich had already given use BABY JANE and CHARLOTTE.

I wasn't really praising I SAW WHAT YOU DID. It has better camerawork and is, technically, a better-produced film than STRAIT-JACKET. But most people prefer -- or even know about -- STRAIT-JACKET, because it features Joan Crawford with an axe, which seems like an infallible concept for a movie.

Both films are silly. Of course. They're William Castle movies.

But from now on, I'll try to stick to the copy-and-paste form of opinion posting (which I mostly have, frankly, as my views on STRAIT-JACKET I've expressed numerous times with minimal re-phrasing).

straitjacket1964.27835.jpg
 

ClassyCo

Telly Talk Warrior
LV
5
 
Awards
11
I wasn't really praising I SAW WHAT YOU DID.
Oh, I know. I just like it less than STRAIT-JACKET is all.

But most people prefer -- or even know about -- STRAIT-JACKET, because it features Joan Crawford with an axe, which seems like an infallible concept for a movie.
When I first started wanting to order Joan Crawford movies (some moons ago), STRAIT-JACKET was one of the movies that showed up often on Amazon.

But from now on, I'll try to stick to the copy-and-paste form of opinion posting
Snark, I could read your posts all day long -- retreads or not.
 

ginnyfan

Telly Talk Active Member
LV
0
 
Awards
5
I do love I SAW WHAT YOU DID (1965) as well, even though it's less shocking and gruesome than Strait Jacket. I like the night-time setting, creepy slasher/movie kind of atmosphere and all the random going ons in this neighborhood. Joan dragging that girl across the lawn into the car and slamming the door on her , alone, makes this one worth a watch. GET OUTTA HERE!!!!

 

Crimson

Telly Talk Enthusiast
LV
1
 
Awards
8
I re-make it, as I've said, in my head every time I see it.

Imagining what the movie could have been -- perhaps, the film Castle and Crawford thought they were making -- is about the only way I could find STRAIT-JACKET to be watchable. When people claim it's some knee-slapping campfest, I'm perplexed. It's a shabby, inept and dull film that really only has a few fleeting moments of interest. I find it much better left to the imagination that subjecting myself to watching it again.
 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
7
 
Awards
19
Imagining what the movie could have been -- perhaps, the film Castle and Crawford thought they were making -- is about the only way I could find STRAIT-JACKET to be watchable. When people claim it's some knee-slapping campfest, I'm perplexed. It's a shabby, inept and dull film that really only has a few fleeting moments of interest. I find it much better left to the imagination that subjecting myself to watching it again.

Yes, most projects that pass as "camp" are rarely really entertaining. Like VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, it's generally just boring. At least MOMMIE DEAREST benefits from Joan's overwrought persona nestled within Faye's overwrought persona.

Either way, there's an axe.
 

ClassyCo

Telly Talk Warrior
LV
5
 
Awards
11
I re-watched STRAIT-JACKET out of mere curiosity. Was it as bad as I remembered? Had my opinions changed any? Oh, and it was free on YouTube.

There's been many moons between now and my last viewing of I SAW WHAT YOU DID. I recall purchasing the DVD at Walmart for just a few dollars a few years back. I watched it when I first bought it, and I may have seen clips since, but it's been years since I've given it a full rewatch.

I want to have as many "grande dame guignol" movies scratched off my list as possible. I've recently watched NIGHT WATCH, and I want to watch DEAR DEAD DELILAH, while I feel CHARLOTTE is in need of a revisit.

The ones I've seen thus far:
WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE?
HUSH...HUSH, SWEET CHARLOTTE
THE NANNY
THE NIGHT WALKER
DIE! DIE! MY DARLING!
STRAIT-JACKET
WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH HELEN?
WHOEVER SLEW AUNTIE ROO?
SAVAGE INTRUDER
WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO AUNT ALICE?
NIGHT WATCH

I just have a few more really. I keep an eye peeled for them to show up anywhere online. PICTURE MOMMY DEAD is on YouTube right now, and there might be a few more under my thumb somewhere.

1709736063166.png
 

Willie Oleson

Telly Talk Schemer
LV
9
 
Awards
27
PICTURE MOMMY DEAD
The daughter in that story is insufferable, I wanted her to die a thousand deaths.

Personally, I love THE KILLING KIND
1709743820292.png


Watch Barbara Stanwyck playing a fabulous and hysterical hag in Carlo Agretti's mansion.

How old does an actress need to be to classify the film as grande dame guignol?
Ruth Roman was 51 when she did THE BABY (1973) therefore I'm not sure if it counts. Let's say it looks like hag horror with a dash of "John Waters".
It's masterfully trashy.
 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
7
 
Awards
19
Watch Barbara Stanwyck playing a fabulous and hysterical hag in Carlo Agretti's mansion.

Oh, she is a hag!

Those little early-'70s TV movies, always so chock full of the same cinematic atmosphere I miss so much. And to think the caretaker BORN INNOCENT-ed the daughter a la Linda Blair at age 13. So spicey at the time!
 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
7
 
Awards
19
What grande dame guignol pictures were we lacking?? Which stars who never did one should've and what would the story be??

I always have in my head a ~1966 movie, smells like a Hammer film, in lurid color, with Joan Crawford playing twins -- one rich and evil in a beehive coif and living in a Victorian mansion at the top of a hill, and the other a saintly clairvoyant with long flowing locks attempting to bring the other to her knees. And a diva-eating hydra has to be involved, killing Evil Joan in the conservatory in the horrific final scene as the house burns... And we should call it "Hornet's Nest".

I just see it. In my head. With all the other stuff.

But Crawford did actually one of these. Okay, several.

What would it be like if Gloria Swanson did one (and she damned well should've)? She did a 1964 episode of ALFRED HITCHCOCK called "Behind the Locked Door" which would have a made a good creepy template for a film. (She also did KILLER BEES as a made-for-TV movie in 1974, posted a couple of times on Tellytalk).

Miriam Hopkins did one in the '70s (supposedly) but that was much too late. She's perfect material for the genre.

Katharine Hepburn would never have done one (her turn in SUDDENLY, LAST SUMMER was the closest she'd ever come) but what ideas would you have for her had she acquiesced to the grand dame guignol trend?

Others? Do you have star ideas for actresses who never did one? Story ideas? Prospective titles?? Resonant lines of diva dialogue, like:

"Murder starts in the heart. And its first weapon is a vicious tongue...!"
58f88c0a7802d0d48314369d2d72ce8d.jpg
 

Crimson

Telly Talk Enthusiast
LV
1
 
Awards
8
Do you have star ideas for actresses who never did one?

In order to have Grande Dame Guignol, one needs a grand dame -- actresses who would qualify as such in the '60s either already appeared in the genre (Davis, Crawford, Stanwyck, Bankhead) or would have scrupulously avoided it. Colbert and Loy were contemporaneously quoted as saying they'd rather retire than play demented old bags, although neither of them would have been well suited to the genre anyway.

The great lost opportunity with the genre is that the actresses who did make the films didn't have better material or more chances. The entire genre is two great films, a couple that are semi-interesting, and a few dull, inept duds. Crawford, in particular, should have better material. Along with Stanwyck, she's the actress of her generation who knew how to elevate lurid trash, but even she couldn't overcome incompetence.

But how about all four (Davis, Crawford, Stanwyck, Bankhead) in one movie? Old friends who haven't seen each other in decades gather in the small town of their youth for the funeral of another friend; dark secrets and old resentments abound. And, umm, there's a haunted house in the background that holds the answers.

always have in my head a ~1966 movie, smells like a Hammer film, in lurid color, with Joan Crawford

Personally, I'd rather have seen her paired with Roger Corman's AIP films. They did such a great job giving Vincent Price florid, melodramatic horror films and Joan could have fit right in. Hammer would be a strong second choice. I'm not wild Hammer to be honest, but even still it would have been a great step up from the dreck Crawford actually made.

What would it be like if Gloria Swanson did one (and she damned well should've)?

SUNSET BOULEVARD isn't really Grande Dame Guignol of course, but I think of it was the classy forefather of the genre in much the same way PSYCHO presaged the slasher films of the 70s.

Katharine Hepburn would never have done one (her turn in SUDDENLY, LAST SUMMER

Not even in my wildest imaginings can I picture Hepburn slumming in the way some of her peers did. She would have packed up to Connecticut before appearing in horror or sitcom guest shots. Maybe she'd have deigned to appear in a tony ghost story, ala THE INNOCENTS being based on a literacy classic, but even then I think her snobbery would have gotten in the way.
 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
7
 
Awards
19
But how about all four (Davis, Crawford, Stanwyck, Bankhead) in one movie? Old friends who haven't seen each other in decades gather in the small town of their youth for the funeral of another friend; dark secrets and old resentments abound. And, umm, there's a haunted house in the background that holds the answers.

That sounds a lot like my suggestion I've mentioned -- except Davis and Crawford would never do it (again). I wanted Swanson, Miriam Hopkins, Mary Astor, maybe Crawford, maybe Ruth Roman, in an identical scenario as you've described.

B&W. Smells like 1964.

I'd call it SCORPIO RISING, the name of their estate, but Kenneth Anger coopted that title the same year (the irony being he wasn't Scorpio Rising).


The entire genre is two great films,

I assume you mean BABY JANE and CHARLOTTE. For my money, I just can't leave out THE NANNY.
 
Last edited:

Willie Oleson

Telly Talk Schemer
LV
9
 
Awards
27
What grande dame guignol pictures were we lacking?? Which stars who never did one should've and what would the story be??
A great GDG film needs to be absolutely fearless because it's about suffering and sacrifice. That's why BABY JANE works and why QUEEN BEE doesn't.
Looking for an actress with divinity status (and "how to lose it in a brilliantly hysterical horror"), Marilyn Monroe - had she not died - would have been the self-explanatory #1 choice.

To make the story as on the nose as possible - subtlety is for great movies - I want our star to be a has-been movie goddess who's working on a big comeback but this only fuels her feelings of loss and insecurity. Lots of bitching with her younger co-actresses, one being a confident slut (and gets horrifically killed in a freak "accident") and the other one the pure, meekly-mousy heroine that you're going to hate. Which will make the bitchy insults all the more satisfying.

The grande dame tricks the potential Film Hunks into casting couch auditions, she really doesn't have the authority to do so but these men need to be stupid and as naked as possible, and every time it happens it needs to be as humiliating as possible for both the famous actress and the pretty-stupid young actor.
"Why can't you love me anymooooooore! You son of a bitch!" *grabs knife*

But the last one turns out to be her son who she had given up for adoption, because without incest it wouldn't be sleazy enough.
She doesn't know who he is, but he has always known - the obligatory actress-goddess film posters on the bedroom wall - and the irony here is that he's the only one who truly loves and desires her.
For the sake of a Plot Twist! it turns out that he had killed the young slut actress in such a very, very horrific way.
Once the grande dame realises who he is, the script pulls out all the stops with toe-curlingly over-the-top histrionics, resulting in a fire that ruins the set of the Victorian mansion, killing both mother and son on the grand staircase.
But then....in the "six months later" scene, who is the mysteriously veiled person lurking around the set of the new film, starring the pure and lovely young actress that we all hate so much? At least it ends with the promise that she'll never make it to the Oscars.

I was thinking about black & white but that would undermine the shameless exhibition of hunk flesh during the casting couch scenes.
Besides, the brutal colours would contrast the B&W dignity of the movie star's heyday very nicely, I think.

That's it, for now.
 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
7
 
Awards
19
That sounds a lot like my suggestion I've mentioned -- except Davis and Crawford would never do it (again). I wanted Swanson, Miriam Hopkins, Mary Astor, maybe Crawford, maybe Ruth Roman, in an identical scenario as you've described.

B&W. Smells like 1964.

Oh, and Judith Anderson, of course! (Bette & Joan might be too obvious).
 
Top