Kim Novak Appreciation Thread

[ClassyCo]

Kim Novak came out of the tail end of the studio system. She was a contract star for Columbia Pictures, appearing in many movies films that are considered classics today, such as Vertigo and Pal Joey.

I just bought the Kim Novak Collection off of eBay for less than twenty-four dollars. I noticed that her presence here is scarce outside the Falcon Crest discussions, so I decided to start Miss Novak her own appreciation page.

Any fans?

 

[ClassyCo]

Some ten years ago or more, I remember my grandmother getting some books for me, two of them being Great Movie Actresses (by Philip Strick) and Hollywood Color Portraits (by John Kobal). Both books featured Kim Novak as a top star of the 1950s, known for her icy beauty and on-screen persona.

I remember my grandmother telling me how she had always been a fan, and how she found Novak particularly attractive as a young girl going to the movies. I've seen several of Novak's movies since then, and I've always liked her.

Any favorites?

 

[ClassyCo]

Kiss Me, Stupid is one of my favorite Kim Novak movies by far.

 

[ginnyfan]

^^^I love Kiss Me Stupid as well. It's Billy Wilder's wildly underrated gem.

Kim really had an amazing run in the second half of the 50s when she truly was one of the biggest female stars of Hollywood. Even though Kim was never valued much as an actress, she did have a certain quality of mystique which makes her performances today look understated, haunting an natural at times. My favorites of her are Picnic (1955), Vertigo (1958), Strangers When We Meet (1960) and The Man With a Golden Arm (1955). She starred in a few lackluster comedies in the early 60s, and somehow her career fizzled out in the later 60s.

Of course, there is also the camp classic she made in 1968 , The Legend of Lylah Clare which redefines the meaning of bad. Kim pretty much left acting after that and seems to have spent her life happily, becoming a painter and appearing occasionally at TCM events recently.

 

[ClassyCo]

This Kim Novak Appreciation Thread has been kind of bare, so I felt I needed to dive right on in and kick-start some form of discussion by giving a review of one of her films. Ever since I've been into Classic Hollywood I've almost always wanted to have the Kim Novak Collection as part of my DVD collection. Within the past month or so I finally got it and I decided to start making my way through the movies included. I've seen both Bell, Book, and Candle and Pal Joey before, so I felt a fresh look at one of the other films would be a better place to start. I eventually decided on watching Jeanne Eagels.

First I feel like I should clarify that I have very little knowledge of the real-life Jeanne Eagels outside of the more "excessive" or "topical" aspects of her life, like her party girl lifestyle and her drug addiction that apparently caused her death back in 1929. I think my lack of knowledge on Eagels serves as a double-edged sword: On the one hand it helps me to enjoy this film without judging all the inaccuracies, while on the other, it could very well mislead me into have a false perception of Eagels and her life.

​

I'll get right to the point at the beginning and say that I thoroughly enjoyed watching Jeanne Eagels. I think that Kim Novak does charmingly well with the titular role, although I cannot deny that I had misgivings. As much as a love Novak and most of her films, I also have to acknowledge that some of her performances can be a hit-or-miss, so I didn't set my standards here extremely high out of reasonable fear that I could quickly be let down. I know that might be fair, but I just didn't want to dive into something with high hopes and they be dropped like a safe on steamy asphalt.

But let's get into discussing the movie itself. I think the story was handled, written, and executed quite well, but it certainly isn't without some glitches. Although this is definitely a Novak-centered outing, she sometimes misses the mark a little in her acting. I'm not entirely sure how much acting training Kim Novak had prior to starting her career as an actress, but it doesn't quite seem that back in 1957, when this movie was made, that she had enough discipline as a screen actress to properly portray the life of a Broadway star. Not all the time at least. I don't want to paint the picture, however, that her performance is overly bad because there are several aspects to her performance I find enduring. I definitely admire her drive to succeed this role and knock it out of the ballpark and how she is determined to make her performance as believable and realistic as possible.

It's kind of hard to discuss this movie or Kim Novak's performance in it without diving a little into her outward appearance overall. She looks stunning throughout this movie. Her features seem to fit the era in which this story is set, particularly the Roaring Twenties, when Eagels was at the height of her theatrical fame. The heavy foundation and eye makeup coupled with the completely darling and face-framing hats decorate Novak beautifully. What's somewhat odd about the fashion in this film is that it can vaguely remind one of the 1950s style from the era in which this movie was made. It's not baffling to be whatsoever that Novak was able to pull off this transition ─ at least visually ─ to a 1920s stage star.

​

The rest of Jeanne Eagels, outside of Novak and her outfits, is also quite interesting. I was totally psyched when I saw that Agnes Moorehead was in it, and I couldn't have been more pleased with her performance as Eagels' drama coach. While I'm only a casual fan of Miss Moorehead at best, I do know that she always turns out good work in every single role I've been privileged enough to view. As for Novak's leading man, Jeff Chandler, I cannot give too much of an analysis on him. I am barely familiar with his work outside what I just recently watched in this biopic, although I can affirm that his performance his was very rewarding. He is handsome, and he and Novak have a good on-screen chemistry with one another. (Did they have a affair during shooting? I seem to think I remember reading somewhere that they "did" but I'm not sure.)

Like I said earlier, this biographical picture is riddled with misinformation. Now, precisely what has been delivered under false or at least semi-false storytelling I'll leave to the experts, but I can sit flat-butted in my recliner and say that enjoyed what I saw. Novak and Chandler share a good on-screen gander, and I found myself rooting throughout the movie that the two would somehow work out their differences and would live happily ever after in the end. But, in the fashion of the genre, the two are not permitted to find happiness with each other, but yet go their separate ways before Eagels' own tragic demise. It's funny that I cannot find anything concerning Sal Satori (Chandler) in the biography of Eagels' real-life, but what ever fiction the star system generated here was enjoyable for this viewer's tastes.

​

Jeanne Eagels is beautifully photographed in black-and-white. I'm not entirely sure if the studio ─ Columbia Pictures ─ felt that B&W would better suit the period story, or that they were eager to keep production costs as low as they could for what ever reason they deemed necessary. It seems that Columbia had been planning Kim Novak as the star of a movie about Jeanne Eagels as far back as 1955, even before she made her initial splash in Picnic. The studio had cemented their decision on propelling Novak to stardom, and they felt that playing in the Eagels' life story would do its part in making that happen. The reviews for the film back in 1957 were relatively mixed, with many directing sharp criticism towards Novak and her performance, although the movie would enjoy reasonable box office success.

It's easy to see why this picture is so revered among Novak's fan base. She gets top billing and certainly dominates the film throughout, unlike some of her pictures where she was basically the "second" lead to whichever male star she had been paired with. I would definitely recommend this movie to whomever wants to watch Kim Novak at the pinnacle of her popularity, and admire her as one the sexiest and classiest film actresses of the 1950s. Give it a look if you haven't already, and let me know what you think about it.

 

[ClassyCo]

@Crimson or @Snarky Oracle either of you got anything for Miss Novak?

​

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Well, I like VERTIGO.

 

[DallasFanForever]

Vertigo would be my favorite movie of hers without question. I also loved her in Picnic. Was never a fan of Pal Joey though. That movie never did much for me.

 

[Crimson]

Kim was a gorgeous lady with an evocative quality reminiscent of Dietrich or Tierney, and had a great voice to boot. I find most of her performances rather ill-at-ease, though. For years, I dismissed her as a poor actress who was occasionally heavily coached to give a good performance (PICNIC; VERTIGO). Knowing more about her experiences in Hollywood, I'm more sympathetic towards her. Unlike, say, Marilyn, Kim didn't seem capable of channeling her insecurities into her work. I'm inconclusive on whether she was a capable actress stifled by Hollywood or a beautiful lady with mediocre talent. Either way, for her own psychological health, she appeared to be in the wrong profession.

 

[Brian Kinney]

Kim Novak's performance in Agatha Christie's The Mirror Crack'd is pure camp fun. She shares most of her scenes with Elizabeth Taylor and Tony Curtis. While Taylor is too dramatic Novak finds the right tone for their scenes. It's a mediocre film but I watch it when a rerun is on TV mostly for her supporting role in it. I also thought she was perfect in The Legend of Lylah Clare which is an underrated film, a commercial but not artistic failure. Vertigo is a masterpiece and her subdued acting perfect for the pace of the movie.

Kim Novak was my all-time favourite guest-star on Falcon Crest. While it was nice to see her acting near the Golden Gate Bridge as in Vertigo I thought she was especially good in her scenes with John Saxon. Last year her husband died after being married for 44 years. I don't think psychological problems stand in a way to act. She wasn't a danger to others and she had no reputation for being difficult. And her problems weren't even known back then. But it was probably better for her to find a life outside of Hollywood's business. This year 'the Guardian' interviewed her, showing a bit of her art too.

‘I had to leave Hollywood to save myself’: Kim Novak on art, bipolar, Hitchcock and happiness​

 

[ClassyCo]

Kim was a gorgeous lady with an evocative quality reminiscent of Dietrich or Tierney, and had a great voice to boot. I find most of her performances rather ill-at-ease, though. For years, I dismissed her as a poor actress who was occasionally heavily coached to give a good performance (PICNIC; VERTIGO). Knowing more about her experiences in Hollywood, I'm more sympathetic towards her. Unlike, say, Marilyn, Kim didn't seem capable of channeling her insecurities into her work. I'm inconclusive on whether she was a capable actress stifled by Hollywood or a beautiful lady with mediocre talent. Either way, for her own psychological health, she appeared to be in the wrong profession.

Kim possessed a nervousness that was always there; in her films, interviews, everywhere. Her iciness was quite popular, especially around the time of PAL JOEY and VERTIGO, and she briefly displaced Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor in popularity polls. Columbia apparently hoped she'd be their successor to Rita Hayworth, but Novak never quite duplicated her success. She had a string of good movies, directors, and co-stars, but it just wasn't sustained. She left Columbia around 1959, and her career stalled, even though she was only in her late twenties. Certainly Novak's tastes for roles in the 1960s didn't help matters. Her independent production of BOYS' NIGHT OUT (1962) and OF HUMAN BONDAGE (1964) in Great Britain were misfires, and later efforts like THE LEGEND OF LYLAH CLARE (1968), seemed tailor-made for their camp value.

It's a shame her career fizzled as soon as it did. I've liked her in everything I've seen her in so far, even if the movie itself was bad, but she did make a good amount of clunkers.

What ever happened to Kim Novak?

​

 

[darkshadows38]

she retired from the movie business after her last film in (1991) her 50's movies are mainly what i know of her and Bell Book and Candle (1959) is one of my favorite movies of all time and the bastards are remaking it last i heard. it's gonna suck i think cause it's not gonna even touch on how good the Original was. if they want to remake old films remake the bad ones and make them good!

 

[ClassyCo]

she retired from the movie business after her last film in (1991) her 50's movies are mainly what i know of her and Bell Book and Candle (1959) is one of my favorite movies of all time and the bastards are remaking it last i heard. it's gonna suck i think cause it's not gonna even touch on how good the Original was. if they want to remake old films remake the bad ones and make them good!

I've heard nothing about them remaking BELL, BOOK AND CANDLE. I'm sure it won't be as good as the original, but I'd be interested depending on the cast chosen. It would be hard to upstage Kim Novak, James Stewart, and Jack Lemmon, however. Ernie Kovacs was good too.​

 

[darkshadows38]

i read about that maybe a year ago or so i don't remember when it exactly was but you forgot Tony Curtis as well. i dunno why they can't go after films that aren't classics but than what the hell do i know?

 

[ClassyCo]

I thought this was an interesting photo of Kim Novak. Around the time of JEANNE EAGELS, I'd say.

 

[ClassyCo]

The first picture here is in a book I have called Great Movie Actresses. The author said Kim Novak was "dressed to kill in the mid 1950s" in the photo. I'd agree, she does look stunning, but she's always liked a little thinner in the picture than I'm used to seeing her.

For the record, I've never seen the second or third pictures I've pasted here.​

 

[ClassyCo]

We watched THE NOTORIOUS LANDLADY yesterday. I had purchased the movie -- or so I thought -- many moons ago, but I was ultimately given the wrong DVD (what I got was a copy of PHFFFT! instead). My wife had saw this movie when she was younger, and she was anxious for my first viewing of it to be with her.

As usual, Jack Lemmon is a delight. He is easily one of my favorite Old Hollywood leading men. Fred Astaire is also good, giving a strong performance outside of his normal fare. Watching this movie makes me realize just how hit-or-miss Kim Novak can be as an actress for me. I like her in such movies as BELL, BOOK AND CANDLE and KISS ME, STUPID, but this movie leaves a lot to be desired. One wonders how someone like Marilyn Monroe or Doris Day would've pulled off this role, adding a little more humor, whereas Novak moves stiffly through the story.

One of biggest complaints about the movie was its length. I feel it got terribly long-winded and fizzled out towards the end. Everything post-courtroom could've been either erased, condensed, or at least rewritten. THE NOTORIOUS LANDLADY is an enjoyable film, and it is definitely one I will revisit in the future.​

 

[Crimson]

In an interview with PEOPLE for Kim's 90th birthday, she offers an interesting take on her acting style and how it was received by critics of the day.

"What's wonderful is sometimes movies get less appreciated later and people get less appreciated," she says. "But with me, it's worked the opposite. I'm so grateful because I've become more respected as an actress. I think my style of acting is understood now, where it wasn't then, because at that time in the '50s, I think there was some overacting, making it too broad — too obvious. I just was expressing myself as I always do, honestly and truthfully. I think that the style is more appreciated, and so my life has grown richer the longer I've been around on this earth."

I must admit, it makes me want to reevaluate her career. Her point is pretty valid; the less "actory" actors are often underappreciated. It's the reason I prefer Crawford over Davis. Joan wasn't taken seriously for much of her career because she wasn't Acting , but that's exactly why I think her work looks more natural in retrospect. (Broadly speaking. Davis could at times be subtle and natural, and Crawford was occasionally hammy.)

 

[ClassyCo]

Kim certainly wasn't as showy in her acting as some others during her heyday. When she's good, she can be breezy and effortless, and come across as cool and sophisticated. I wouldn't trade her for anything in movies like BELL, BOOK AND CANDLE or KISS ME, STUPID (a movie a like, although it gets long-winded).

She is good, of course, in VERTIGO and MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, a movie Kim has frequently singled out as her favorite. I even like her in JEANNE EAGELS, the trashy and fictionalized saga of the doomed early 20th century stage star.

Kim can, however, be a dud if not cast properly, which, I suppose, isn't necessarily her fault. She worked in the studio system and she had to do want her bosses gave her to do. So I guess it could be argued that the improper material brings forth her less-rewarding performances.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I must admit, it makes me want to reevaluate her career. Her point is pretty valid; the less "actory" actors are often underappreciated. It's the reason I prefer Crawford over Davis. Joan wasn't taken seriously for much of her career because she wasn't Acting , but that's exactly why I think her work looks more natural in retrospect. (Broadly speaking. Davis could at times be subtle and natural, and Crawford was occasionally hammy.)

It is curious about that. When I was much younger, I found Bette Davis -- as many audience members did -- fascinating due to her bitchy bravura, the Lady Hitler of the big screen. (Well, rage-acting always impresses the viewer short-term, and critics are often won over by it). In contrast, I once found Crawford kind of dull.

Not now, however. Bette's electric harridan routine, though effective in the right film, doesn't provide nearly the dramatic tension -- at least, not today -- as Joan Crawford's eternally lying lady act. Which may be why I have (somewhat to my surprise) more Golden Age films from Crawford in my collection than those of Davis.

No matter how nasty Bette Davis may get in a movie, she's often telling "the truth," more or less; but Crawford is the real spider.