Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
GGGGerald

Bette and Joan

Recommended Posts

SPOILER ALERT:  I meant to add another great scene - when Joan tells her much-younger lover he's being recast.  Apparently he hadn't been attentive to her enough.

 

I think my DVR stopped before the end of the show because it cut off during the last (I think) scene.

 

i was divided on that scene. i thought Lange delivered, but I also thought the dialogue was hack.

i would not say the lover was much younger, but to correct an earlier mis-statement of mine, he was not played by Rick Rossovich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and i don't really understand the point of Zeta-Jones and Bates as DeHaviland and Blondell as "narrators" of the piece; they're fine, mind you (Bates is visibly having a blast, and really does look a lot like Blondell did)- but so marginalized in the context of the show I don't see the need for either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and also also also, not meaning to go back to Lange being too old for the role; BUT, her voice has gotten very weak with age and does not match the richness of Crawford's regal delivery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and i don't really understand the point of Zeta-Jones and Bates as DeHaviland and Blondell as "narrators" of the piece; they're fine, mind you (Bates is visibly having a blast, and really does look a lot like Blondell did)- but so marginalized in the context of the show I don't see the need for either.

 

 

DITTO. Seems like they are around to fill in the backstory. Caught part of the show last night. Will watch it in full later in the week. Unsure how they are going to drag this out for 6-7 episodes??? A 2 hr movie would be sufficient.

 

They are taking lots of liberties. Did Bette actually call Joan, Lucille? I've never read that anywhere. Also Warner seems to be actively involved in the production. I dont think that was the case. He agreed to distribute the film, I dont think he was involved at all in filming decisions.......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DITTO. Seems like they are around to fill in the backstory. Caught part of the show last night. WIll watch it in full later in the week. Unsure how they are going to drag this out for 6-7 episodes???

 

8.

and checking from the titles listed, it seems like the 6th will deal with the Academy Awards and the 7th and possibly 8th with the SWEET CHARLOTTE fallout.

 

A 2 hr movie would be sufficient.

 

Yes. Yes it would.

 

They are taking lots of liberties. Did Bette actually call Joan, Lucille?

 

I dunno, but I actually like that.

 

I've never read that anywhere. Also Warner seems to be actively involved in the production. I dont think that was the case. He agreed to distribute the film, I dont think he was involved at all in filming decisions.......

 

not sure- but i'd give anything to have less of him in this; every time Warner shows up, it gets so cringey. Stanley Tucci is a fine actor, I guess, but the character is there 100% for exposition...as I guess are Bates and Zeta-Jones, but at least they are fun to watch and not spouting eff and cee bombs left and right in a veritable Blitzkreig of profane misogyny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8??? YIKES!! I'm sure the Oscar episode will be fun. Charlotte too. It's just GETTING THERE.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

not sure- but i'd give anything to have less of him in this; every time Warner shows up, it gets so cringey. Stanley Tucci is a fine actor, I guess, but the character is there 100% for exposition...as I guess are Bates and Zeta-Jones, but at least they are fun to watch and not spouting eff and cee bombs left and right in a veritable Blitzkreig of profane misogyny.

 

But that's kinda one of the main points of the show: what these women, who should have been treated as the living legends they were at that point in their careers, still had to put up with in the era of casual sexism and misogyny. The hardships of being an aging actress, which is bemoaned all of the time now, was even tougher back then, and no one listened to any complaining about it, at least not openly.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and i don't really understand the point of Zeta-Jones and Bates as DeHaviland and Blondell as "narrators" of the piece; they're fine, mind you (Bates is visibly having a blast, and really does look a lot like Blondell did)- but so marginalized in the context of the show I don't see the need for either.

 

I assume this is just the old 'throw in celebrities people may know'.     While Bates is fine as Blondell for balance they should have had a fellow Crawford MGM star,  like Norma Shearer,  so they would have represented the times of both Davis and Crawford working for WB and MGM, instead of just those two WB contract players Olivia and Joan.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume this is just the old 'throw in celebrities people may know'.     While Bates is fine as Blondell for balance they should have had a fellow Crawford MGM star,  like Norma Shearer,  so they would have represented the times of both Davis and Crawford working for WB and MGM, instead of just those two WB contract players Olivia and Joan.   

 

I think you're right. And not just old names for the classic film fans, but Zeta-Jones for "newer" film fans. Bates and the still-unseen Sarah Paulson (as Geraldine Page) are both regulars in most of Ryan Murphy's shows, as was Lange, so their appearances were expected, and the "famous narrator" conceit may have been done to find roles for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched episode 2 this PM.  It is very entertaining, which I guess is the purpose.  Not as definite about the casting as others, whether good or bad.  Seems to work for me.

One problem is that when you are casting someone to play a famous person, it is nearly impossible to cast a famous person.  In the context of movies or TV, most viewers know both the person and the person playing the person.  Makes it difficult, at least for me.

I have a Route 66 DVD that has an episode with Joan Crawford and a Perry Mason set that has an episode with Bette Davis.  For me, both are disappointing.  In the PM episode, Bette seems to be playing Bette rather than a character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's kinda one of the main points of the show: what these women, who should have been treated as the living legends they were at that point in their careers, still had to put up with in the era of casual sexism and misogyny. The hardships of being an aging actress, which is bemoaned all of the time now, was even tougher back then, and no one listened to any complaining about it, at least not openly.

When I was first starting to study classic film, I collected books like the films of Clark Gable, Gary Cooper, Humphrey Bogart ect.

 

I would just cringe when I saw these old elderly looking men trying to make love to Audrey Hepburn, Sophia Loren, Marilyn Monroe or Doris Day-- just to name a few.

 

But it was just taken for granted that they could get away with that sort of thing because it was done in real life, I suppose.

 

But Audrey Hepburn looked ridiculous with both Gary Cooper and Humphrey Bogart.

And Gable looked like he was about to Simply Implode with age when he was Romancing Monroe in The Misfits.

 

This double standard also made the audience suffer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think Sarandon's just had better quality work, but yeah.

 

I think with Jessica, the problem is a reliance on botox and fillers, which make the face look frozen and immobile.

 

there is also the fact that Lange is 67 and Crawford was (allegedly) 57 when she made BABY JANE, so there is that too.

I think that there was a "mask-like" quality to Crawford's face in her later films, so that Lange's face has that appearance (whether due to plastic surgery or heavy make-up) doesn't really bother me.  While Crawford was a bit older than Davis, she always looked younger, and was known for her beauty regimens (and maybe she had some work done, too?).  Davis was a heavy smoker and not as vain about her looks, even to the point of taking risks of looking older and even ugly in many of her roles.  One thing I felt was inaccurate was the scene in Episode 2 where it was said that Bette rejected Mildred Pierce because she didn't want to play the mother of a teen-ager.  I find that extremely unlikely, since she had already played several older characters, such as Queen Elizabeth and Regina in The Little Foxes, or went through the extreme aging process in Mr. Skeffington.

 

I think Sarandon captures Davis' mannerisms and her authenticity (when not performing) very well.  The Yankee-ness comes through well, especially in her dress and her home.  I visited a museum in NH in the town where Davis built a home in the 40s (around the time of The Great Lie), where there were extensive photos of that home, and the set captures that New England look well.

 

I understand the use of Joan Blondell and Olivia deHavilland as "narrators," since both worked at Warners', and Olivia actually worked with Bette, and the women were good friends.  Bates sounds just like Blondell.  I'm not sure I'm wild about Catherine Zeta Jones as Olivia (too young, although she captures Olivia's mannered style of speaking).  An actress I would have liked to see in that role is British Actress Francesca Annis, whom I always thought bears a striking resemblance to Olivia, but she might be too old for the part by now.

 

Stanley Tucci as Jack Warner is perfect casting -- what a (fill in whatever rotten epithet you want)!  The misogyny and ageism is appalling and shown for what it is.  I liked the scene with Aldrich in bed with his wife, where she has some choice comments about what is being done to these women.

 

I'm  enjoying this series tremendously.  The dialogue is great.  Both my husband and I were laughing out loud at some of the barbs, which I'm afraid I can't repeat in this forum because they're kind of racy!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a program I watch sometimes where they show tribute bands, (people who pretend to be the real rock band). One night the act was pretending to be Jimi Hendrix Experience. Now, should I expect this man to play guitar as well as Jimi did ? Or even close ? Of course not. I watch for the entertainment of it.

 

That's how I see this program. As entertainment that salutes old Hollywood and puts a spotlight on a golden era of film. An era I obviously have interest in. It its just too easy to nit pick some details here and there. But, I see it from the other side. I'm happy a show like this even made it to air. No superheroes, reality stars or pawn shops in this one. Veteran actors doing what they do so well.

 

I don't think the portrayals are about "becoming Joan nor Bette". Who could do that ?? My hope is that they encourage new fans to go see the real actresses play in the real movies that made them famous in the first place.

 

As far as the casting, they could have done a lot worse. Do we really want to do to Ms. Lange what was done to Kim Novak in recent years ?

What was done to Kim Novak in recent years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was first starting to study classic film, I collected books like the films of Clark Gable, Gary Cooper, Humphrey Bogart ect.

 

I would just cringe when I saw these old elderly looking men trying to make love to Audrey Hepburn, Sophia Loren, Marilyn Monroe or Doris Day-- just to name a few.

 

But it was just taken for granted that they could get away with that sort of thing because it was done in real life, I suppose.

 

But Audrey Hepburn looked ridiculous with both Gary Cooper and Humphrey Bogart.

And Gable looked like he was about to Simply Implode with age when he was Romancing Monroe in The Misfits.

 

This double standard also made the audience suffer.

Cooper, Bogart, and Fred Astaire. I just saw FUNNY FACE this weekend. She should have balanced the scales by being romanced by Tony Dow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cooper, Bogart, and Fred Astaire. I just saw FUNNY FACE this weekend.

I could tolerate Astaire with Hepburn because his movement gives him a youthful quality.  Funny Face is one of my favorite films.  Cooper and Bogart were both ill when they apeared with Hepburn, so physically they were indeed very old (and perhaps dying) men.   The same is true of Gable and Monroe.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cooper, Bogart, and Fred Astaire. I just saw FUNNY FACE this weekend. She should have balanced the scales by being romanced by Tony Dow.

I disagree about Fred Astaire. I didn't put him in that category because he doesn't belong in that category. Any man who can outdance a young girl who can dance with great youthful exuberance certainly has a right to be in a film with her as a romantic equal.

 

And Fred Astaire put up the same excellent performance opposite Leslie Caron.

 

Fred Astaire still had it and he proved it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree about Fred Astaire. I didn't put him in that category because he doesn't belong in that category. Any man who can outdance a young girl who can dance with great youthful exuberance certainly has a right to be in a film with her as a romantic equal.

 

And Fred Astaire put up the same excellent performance opposite Leslie Caron.

 

Fred Astaire still had it and he proved it!

I agree that it was to a much lesser extent. But I still cringed a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only other man who absolutely looked great with Audrey Hepburn when he was in his sixties, as well as being sexy also with Doris Day, was Cary Grant.

 

It's an understatement to say that Cary still had it in Charade and That Touch of Mink!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only other man who absolutely looked great with Audrey Hepburn when he was in his sixties, as well as being sexy also with Doris Day, was Cary Grant.

 

It's an understatement to say that Cary still had it in Charade and That Touch of Mink!

I believe Grant was in his late fifties for those films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Grant may have been a lot older than his co-stars, but he looked a lot better than Cooper, Bogart etc.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Grant may have been a lot older than his co-stars, but he looked a lot better than Cooper, Bogart etc.......

If they wanted older men for Audrey, they should have paired her with Robert Cummings, who took, like, 100 vitamins a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only other man who absolutely looked great with Audrey Hepburn when he was in his sixties, as well as being sexy also with Doris Day, was Cary Grant.

 

It's an understatement to say that Cary still had it in Charade and That Touch of Mink!

Fra--You're right. Cary was still in his late fifties--58 for Mink and 59 for Charade.

 

Fred Astaire was born in 1899 so he was in his late fifties when he made the movies with Leslie Caron and Audrey Hepburn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


© 2019 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...