Grande Dame Guignol

[ClassyCo]

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.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Oh, I know. I just like it less than STRAIT-JACKET is all.


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.


Snark, I could read your posts all day long -- retreads or not.

Charmed, I'm sure.

 

[ginnyfan]

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]

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!]

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]

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.

 

[Oh!Carol Christmasson]

PICTURE MOMMY DEAD

The daughter in that story is insufferable, I wanted her to die a thousand deaths.

Personally, I love THE KILLING KIND

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!]

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!]

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...!"

 

[Crimson]

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!]

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).

Grande Dame Guignol

I'll cross my fingers that HUSH ... HUSH SWEET CHARLOTTE will get its own 60 year anniversary release, although I suspect that film's lesser renown will prevent that. Oh, I know, I know. My thoughts exactly. CHARLOTTE is the superior film, and has even more Oscar noms, but those dark-hearted...

www.tellytalk.net

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.

 

[Oh!Carol Christmasson]

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!]

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).

 

[Crimson]

except Davis and Crawford would never do it (again)

Oh, sure -- but if we're going to engage in fanciful wishful thinking, might as well go whole hog.

Well, short of including Hepburn. I think her ghost would snootily reprimand us.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

@Crimson , I'll go halvesies if you write the scripts for SLUTTY GRAMMA WITH A BLOW-TORCH.... (sure, it sounds more '70s cinema than '60s, but that's what makes it so shocking for the '60s!) and, also, the Swanson/Anderson/Astor/Hopkins/Roman project (possibly-titled SCORPIO ASCENDS, but I'm not really sure yet).

I'd write it myself but I think I'm too lazy.

I could ask @Willie Oleson to do it, but we're in the middle of an intellectual property lawsuit in which I'm accused of plagiarizing names like "Agatha" and "Ursula". And it's gotten ugly. Plus, he'll inject too much kink into it, and we can't take the NC-17 rating if we want to recoup our investment.

 

[Crimson]

I'd write it myself but I think I'm too lazy.

In a few years AI will not only be able to write it for you, but probably produce the whole thing.

I could ask @Willie Oleson to do it, but we're in the middle of an intellectual property lawsuit in which I'm accused of plagiarizing names like "Agatha" and "Ursula".

There always seems to be melodramatic imbroglios occurring on this forum of which I am unaware. I assume they occur in the DYNASTY sub, which seems appropriate.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

In a few years AI will not only be able to write it for you, but probably produce the whole thing.

And probably supply the audience.

 

[Oh!Carol Christmasson]

But I always tweak the film in my head whenever I watch it.

Tweak? Tweak?

The story is fine and the murders do have some shock value, but everything else is....words fail me.
The sets are dull and the only reason it's happening on a farm is because of the axe. None of these characters are farm people.
The cinematography and lightning are almost non-existent, resulting in one big grey blur.
Were these people "acting" at gunpoint? That makes sense because nobody would want to be in this film voluntarily. The dialogue is insipid and monotonous, and everybody looks as if they can't wait for it to end. William Castle must have really hated the film industry.
And then, after Diane Baker has already explained the why-and-how, Joan Crawford explains everything again in detail, basically retelling the whole film. As if watching the film wasn't excruciating enough.

To be perfectly honest, there was one scene that made me chuckle.

Leave me alone! I'm not guilty! It was a mistake!

Oh, she mistakenly chopped up her husband and his mistress. Well that changes everything, of course.

There's not going to be any tweaking here. We're just going to deny it out of existence. End of discussion.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Tweak? Tweak?

The story is fine and the murders do have some shock value, but everything else is....words fail me.
The sets are dull and the only reason it's happening on a farm is because of the axe. None of these characters are farm people.
The cinematography and lightning are almost non-existent, resulting in one big grey blur.
Were these people "acting" at gunpoint? That makes sense because nobody would want to be in this film voluntarily. The dialogue is insipid and monotonous, and everybody looks as if they can't wait for it to end. William Castle must have really hated the film industry.
And then, after Diane Baker has already explained the why-and-how, Joan Crawford explains everything again in detail, basically retelling the whole film. As if watching the film wasn't excruciating enough.

To be perfectly honest, there was one scene that made me chuckle.
View attachment 51947

Oh, she mistakenly chopped up her husband and his mistress. Well that changes everything, of course.

There's not going to be any tweaking here. We're just going to deny it out of existence. End of discussion.

In fact, STRAIT-JACKET was supposed to end on Diane Baker going crazy at the front door (e.g., "I love you!," "I hate you!." "You're insane!").

But Crawford was on the set that day, saw Baker's meltdown performance, and in fear of being upstaged for even 30 seconds, demanded that William Castle insert shots of herself on the other side of the door -- sobbing as she hugs a pillar -- having her own meltdown in response to her daughter's meltdown, thus neutralizing the impact of her daughter's meltdown.

Then the final scene in the art studio, where Crawford re-explains everything and becomes the de facto mental health poster-child she desires to be, was added on later. It was not in the original script.

These shenanigans did create some real tension between Crawford and Baker (who usually got along fairly well) because Joan had stolen Diane's climactic moment!

Castle didn't hate movies; he was just incompetent. I see him as like a big-screen Aaron Spelling -- good at casting and concept but not much else.

He wanted STRAIT-JACKET to be his "masterpiece" but it was perhaps his most poorly-executed movie.

I still want to tweak it, however: fix the bottom drawer camerawork and tighten the "direction" and, with a few small changes in the dialogue, you might've had yourself a little sleeper-shocker! As Judith Crist, one of the era's most objective critics, said, "...this madness-and-murder tale...might have been a thriller, given Class A treatment."

But the schism between potential and reality has damaged me somehow. Because the movie sooooo sucks.

 

[Oh!Carol Christmasson]

But Crawford was on the set that day, saw Baker's meltdown performance, and in fear of being upstaged for even 30 seconds

Ha ha! No fear of that in the rest of the film, because saying that Diane Baker's acting was wooden would be an insult to the trees.
I was a little taken aback to see how she came to life in that meltdown performance, the cheesy and hysterical monologue notwithstanding.
The Joan Crawford mask is sufficiently creepy, and also kinda ironic since Joan Crawford herself had become a mask-face.

Then the final scene in the art studio, where Crawford re-explains everything and becomes the de facto mental health poster-child she desires to be, was added on later. It was not in the original script.

Yes, it's astounding to see how she came up smelling like roses. "My daughter needs me. Me, because I am the star of this film"