Happy Mother’s Day one and all, and it looks like it’s time
for another Reader Request. Yes, those two things aren’t a coincidence in this
case: For this year’s Mother’s Day gift, my own mother asked if I would review
a film for her. I agreed, since this kind of situation is one where I’m more
than happy to eschew my usual 2012-now cut-off date, but… let’s just say that I
use that cut-off for a reason. This is likely going to go even further outside
of my comfort zone than usual, as most of my own knowledge concerning cinema
involves what has happened in my lifetime; I have bits and pieces to call from
beyond that, but I honestly have a lot
to catch up on as far as older cinema goes. Add to that my previously-mentioned
hesitance in watching “classic” films due to a certain sense of cultural
obligation to like them for their status, and I’m in a bit of a weird situation
here.
Still, this is the task I’ve been set, and if I’m unable to provide my
writing for someone who genuinely wants it, then what good am I? Let’s get into
what is sure to be a bizarre pick for the day where we all give thanks to the
women that birthed us, and take a look at the 1962 psycho-thriller What Ever
Happened To Baby Jane?
The plot: After being crippled in a car “accident”, actress
Blanche (Joan Crawford) is left in the care of her sister, former child star ‘Baby’
Jane (Bette Davis). However, Jane’s jealousy at the success her sister had in
her own film career has driven her to a life of alcohol and pining for the glory
days, and she only sees Blanche as an obstacle to that dream. As Baby Jane’s
mental state continues to wither and Blanche begins to realise just how sick
her sister has become, things could turn murderous.
The histrionic legacy of both our main stars here is so
storied that pointing out just how insane things can get here feels rather
redundant. Bear in mind that my only real
experience with Joan Crawford is through the genuinely unsettling depiction of
her in Mommie Dearest, and yet even I
could point to the quite infamous stories of Davis and Crawford’s backstage
shenanigans. What makes that minute piece of retroactive knowledge feel strange
is that it honestly didn’t prepare in the slightest for the performances
featured here. All the legends about Crawford’s stranger-than-fiction
biography, in hindsight, don’t do much justice to just how tragic her
performance here is as the forcibly-secluded former star. Balancing character
history with her on-screen sister with a genuine terror at what she has become,
Crawford takes the role of hostage and sidesteps pretty much every modern trope concerning victims.
She has agency, she has character definitions beyond her place in that one
relationship, and she exudes tragedy and verging-on-uncomfortable heartbreak to
give one hell of a performance.
Davis, by sheer contrast, makes for an equally complex and
loud depiction of a domestic tyrant, someone with the capacity to exude
authority over someone else and is more than willing to do it. Beyond the very
doll-like makeup (which was provided by Davis herself), the way she plays into
her character’s place as a former child star makes for a lot of varied and
potent emotional reactions. We see mild camp in how she daintily sways to the
music, we see horror in her treatment of her sister, we see tragedy in how
connected she still is to her glory days, and the fact that a certain amount of
professional rivalry existed between Davis and Crawford in the real world
definitely shows through in how spiteful Baby Jane can get. It’s another
situation where the line between complexity and sympathy is regularly skirted,
as it’s difficult not to feel sorry for this woman given her history… but it’s
difficult to feel too sorry knowing
what she ends up doing. That poor bird.
The production that hangs over these two central
performances is ripe with the cinematic techniques of yore. The dissolve fades
between scenes, the notable uses of stark silence so that the actors could
actually… act their way through a
given scene, even the inimitably Old Hollywood orchestra in all its
dramatic-sting-heavy glory. I can’t even say the same for the black-and-white
film stock, given how the use of colour in film had been kicking around for at
least two decades prior and this wasn’t a matter of having to use the standard.
To that end, the use of a monochrome palette ends up making a deliberate
connection to the times when that was
the standard; specifically, the heyday of both Jane and Blanche. Director
Robert Aldrich even went as far as to use the older films of both actresses as
examples of the work of their characters, making an even stronger real-life
connection in the process. Considering this film features two actresses who
were at the time considered past their prime, playing the role of actresses who
are past their prime, that’s a pretty effective manoeuvre.
It’s almost enough
to make you forget that Frank DeVol’s compositions, as nostalgic as they are,
can get not only jarring but wholly unfitting for the scene in question. It can
get a little too upbeat at times, and
when it’s used in conjunction with Crawford’s brutal performance, suddenly
cutting to a fizzy surf rock number right after seeing her suffer at Jane’s
hands is rather off-putting.
Not that that distracts too heavily from the film’s main
crux, which is looking at the acting craft and how it can affect people who
make it their life’s work. This is going to seem rather hypocritical, given how
often I make it a point to mention them in past reviews, but child actors
haven’t gotten the best historical treatment in Hollywood. Sure, some manage to
shine even into their adulthood, whether it be in the acting craft (Leonardo
DiCaprio), moving into filmmaking at large (Ron Howard), or even taking a shot
at both (Joseph Gordon-Levitt).
But those success stories don’t really speak to
the hardships that such an early career can have, both in terms of
psychological effects and the
resulting expectations surrounding said actors. When you are raised with the
world’s eye squarely fixed on you, showering you in praise (or even scorn; look
at how many people still rag on Jake Lloyd’s turn as Anakin Skywalker to this
day), that can set unhealthy expectations for later life. For as many people
that manage to persevere, there’s just as many (if not possibly more so) that
didn’t. I’d list examples here of so-called “failed” child actors, but that
would only make me part of the problem: Spending that much of your life in the
spotlight can have severe effect on people.
To that end, we have the characters of Jane and Blanche as
actors, both having spent their share of the time in the spotlight at differing
points, and the effects that resulted from that exposure between them are night
and day. Jealousy ties them together, but as far as their want to connect with
their past, their interpretations of that jealousy are exhibited differently.
Blanche, more than anything else, just wants contact with the outside world;
not as a star, but as a person, and given her living conditions, you can see
why she would want a form of socialising that didn’t involve being mortally
terrified of what’s for dinner. Seeing her scenes where she tries to will
herself to walk downstairs to use the telephone, without a hint of dialogue and
only rare whispers of soundtrack, get across a lot of apprehension and drive to escape the very Hitchcockian
predicament she’s in.
As for Jane, her depiction of an
increasingly-deteriorating psyche shows a lot of point-blank need to relive the glory days, back when
she was deemed as “important” by the celebrity world. In addition to the
questionings in regard to parents and how they influence their children (let’s
try and avoid potential Freudianisms along those lines, given my reason for
watching this film in the first place), how her want for the days of old makes
for very intriguing character analysis and, by the time we reach film’s end, we
see how the Old Hollywood ways of psycho thrills definitely have their merits,
kitschy as they may be in retrospect.
All in all, while the usual personal apprehensions surrounding
older movies still apply, this is a film that has held up astoundingly well. In
fact, given the last few years and how turbulent they’ve been for modern
Hollywood, this film’s look at celebrity and child actor psychology actually
feels even more relevant today. The
acting is legendary for a reason, as both Davis and Crawford push themselves to
the nth degree to deliver this incredibly complex sibling rivalry, the
production values give a snapshot of the last days of Old Hollywood while
highlighting the worth that such an era had on a technical basis, and as
tonally off as some of the scenes get, it still manages to work very
effectively as both a character study and as a piece of psychological horror.
It’s a definite product of its time, as there’s quite a bit of Rear Window and
Psycho to be found in the inner workings, but given the larger-than-life status
of its main stars and their
interactions beyond the frame, it most definitely stands on its own as quality
cinema.
I saw this movie for the first time about four years ago and loved it for many of the reasons you stated here. I also read the book it was based on not long after and was surprised to see how faithful an adaptation the film was. Only a few minor changes - mostly due to the people they cast looking different from how they're described in the novel and the rat scene in the movie is a dead bird in the book. (There's also another food scene in the novel.)
ReplyDeleteThe only other one I've come across that's a pretty faithful adaptation is Psycho. Other than some scenes pushed together to save time and some of the actors looking different from the way the characters are described in the book, Hitchcock's original is almost a word for word faithful adaptation.