Daily Archives: Thursday, September 10, 2015

  • Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?

    Robert Aldrich (1962)

    Two sisters who hate each other’s guts are stuck together in a Los Angeles mansion that one of them bought when she was a star movie actress in the 1930s – decades ago.  Blanche was paralysed in a car accident at the height of her fame; wheelchair-bound, she’s dependent on her younger sister Jane, who, even longer ago, was a vaudevillian child star – Baby Jane Hudson – and who is mired in memories of her infant celebrity and dreams of reviving a performing career.  Joan Crawford is Blanche, Bette Davis Jane.  It’s hard to believe now either that the film was taken seriously by some serious critics (like Andrew Sarris) or that it was a box-office smash.   The two stars – and the situation of the roles they play in relation to their own careers – must have been a big part of the commercial success but this is a leaden movie; the lack of light and shade and the insistency are boring.  In its afterlife, Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? has acquired the reputation of a camp classic – a reputation fortified by the legendary animosity between Bette Davis and Joan Crawford in life, on set and all the way through to Oscars night in 1963[1].  But this too implies something more enjoyable than Baby Jane actually is.  Robert Aldrich’s heavy hand and the overemphatic acting of the leads have the effect of a bludgeon.  The obvious music by Frank DeVol announces when you’re meant to be scared or touched but the story is unaffecting – any reaction I had was to do with the actresses rather than their characters.  Because Joan Crawford is a pain-in-the-neck sufferer and Bette Davis has humour and vitality, you take pleasure in Jane’s cackling delight when she serves Blanche a dead rat for lunch.  In the 1930s part of the prologue to the main action, Aldrich shows clips featuring the real Crawford and Davis of the time.  Jane, unable to come to terms with the loss of childhood fame, has a serious drink problem and is meant to be a liability no sane director would cast although, since she’s Bette Davis approaching her prime, you can’t understand why.

    There’s something very wrong with Joan Crawford’s playing of Blanche.  The praise she received for the subtlety of her performance can be explained only by Davis’s being so loudly over the top.  From the film’s reputation, you’d at least expect flamboyant sparring between Jane and Blanche; there isn’t any because Crawford seems determined to be tragically noble.  Did she know she’d be no match for Davis and decide to excise any malevolence from her portrait of Blanche?  In the 1917 opening sequence, the child who plays Blanche (Gina Gillespie) watches Baby Jane (Julie Allred) from the wings in silent, brimming fury – she conveys a depth of envy that no amount of adult success could hope to counteract.  In contrast, Joan Crawford never suggests an underside to Blanche’s martyred grandeur.  There’s also something fundamentally wrong with the script by Lukas Heller (based on a 1960 novel by Henry Farrell).  Baby Jane is a monster as a child star – she’s so vilely egocentric, offstage and in front of her public, that it’s hard to believe she’d have lasted even as long as she does.  As a young woman, she’s a failure but no less a horror.  In other words, Jane seems not to have been curdled by either the disappointments of life or the effects of being widely accused of causing the ‘accident’ that paralysed Blanche.  Jane was always a nasty piece of work; it’s no surprise that, in late middle age, she’s a rancorous hag.  When Blanche eventually reveals what really happened the night a car rammed into the gates of the mansion – it was Blanche in the driving seat, trying to kill the drunken Jane but crippling herself in the process – the moment has no impact at all, and this isn’t just because Jane has, by now, gone completely bonkers.  You simply don’t believe it when she replies to Blanche, ‘You mean all this time we could have been friends?’  From what the viewer has seen, Jane was precociously malicious and this is her one quality undimmed by the years.

    Bette Davis’s movement is really good.  She trudges flat-footed through the decaying mansion; she gets across a girlish quality in Jane’s reprises of the dances that Baby Jane performed.  She’s amusing and likeable when she blares out contempt for the neighbours, or for Blanche herself.  But the performance doesn’t really develop – Davis just keeps it going.  This is a feat of stamina but since you don’t get any sense that Jane has been perverted by time – she’s merely got older and more strident – it’s eventually monotonous, especially as Joan Crawford gives Davis nothing to play off.   By this stage in her career, she was already losing some of her timing.  In a fright wig, her face caked in rouge, lipstick and powder that gives her the look of peeling plaster, she’s a memorable image.  But while you can admire Davis’s fearlessness in looking grotesque, there’s an unpleasant edge – not only to what she’s being asked by Aldrich to do but also in her desperation as an actress to make the most of a role that she must have feared (more or less rightly) would be her last big one.  It’s Bette Davis rather than Jane Hudson who gives off a Norma Desmond quality in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? 

    Victor Buono is consistently extraordinary as Edwin Flagg, the out-of-work musician who answers Jane’s advertisement for a piano player (to help resurrect her career).   The opening exchange between Edwin and his mother (Marjorie Bennett) is so exaggeratedly squalid – and such a weird contrast after watching Davis and Crawford for an hour – that it’s disorienting.  It’s more thoroughly camp than any other part of Baby Jane and Edwin’s sarcastic imitation of his mother’s Cockney vowels (that’s what they sound like anyway) gives the scene a nasty prickle.  Buono is physically so bizarre that he’s clammily compelling and he shows good comic timing in Edwin’s first meeting with Jane, when she performs Baby Jane’s signature number ‘I’ve Written a Letter To Daddy’.  (The tune and most of the words of the song have stayed in my mind since I first saw the movie in my teens.)  Maidie Norman as the Hudson sisters’ unfortunate home help and Anna Lee as the woman next door are OK but the actress playing the latter’s daughter is hopelessly wooden.  Her name is B D Merrill and she’s Bette Davis’s real-life daughter.  The picture ends on Malibu beach as two incompetent policemen finally apprehend Jane, just as she’s got ice creams for her and Blanche, who’s lying in the sand, presumably dead.  (She’s been kept prisoner for days by her sister, without food or water.)  A horde of people gathers and Jane, an ice cream in each hand, begins to dance – delighted to be a crowd-pleaser again after all these years.  Robert Aldrich suggests that the curious, mostly smiling people on the beach are voyeurs.   As a member of the audience of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?, you feel like one too.

    31 January 2014

    [1] Davis was nominated for Best Actress for Baby Jane.  Crawford wasn’t but somehow managed to persuade the other four nominees – all absentees from the ceremony – that, unless Davis won, she would collect the Oscar on the winner’s behalf.  When Anne Bancroft’s name was called (for The Miracle Worker) Crawford sailed past Davis – they were both waiting in the wings rather than seated in the auditorium.   Davis recalled that, ‘I almost dropped dead! … I was paralysed with shock. To deliberately upstage me like that – her behaviour was despicable’.

     

  • Inside Out

    Pete Docter (2015)

    I went to see Inside Out at HMV Curzon in Wimbledon rather than the Richmond Odeon.  The Curzon is a lot more comfortable and I guessed there wouldn’t be so many kids there.  I guessed right but didn’t expect to be the only person in the audience.  I’m used to being one of the select few at lunchtime film shows I but never imagined it would be a Disney-Pixar smash that provided my first completely private viewing at a public cinema.  When there’s hardly anyone else in the audience, I worry the management will require a minimum critical mass and, if they don’t get it, call the screening off:  this show was the closest I’ve come to having my neurosis vindicated.  As the lights went down, one of the staff came in and asked if I was intending to watch Inside Out.  When I replied yes, he said they hadn’t sold any tickets for the screening.  I’d booked online, as usual, and I produced the ticket I’d been emailed.  He apologised and went on his way, leaving me wondering if the film would have been shown to an empty auditorium – and with an unexpected sense of responsibility towards Inside Out. 

    Neither the commercials beforehand nor Lava, Pixar’s curtain-raiser short, prepares you for the novelty of Pete Docter’s latest feature.  The commercials seem par for the course.  Every second advert was promoting Inside Out and/or spin-off merchandise.  It evidently doesn’t matter that the Inside Out artefacts that kids are being enticed to collect include Sadness, Anger, Fear and Disgust:  association with a hit movie trumps the potentially lowering effect of their negative essences.  Lava is about a lonesome volcano.  To the accompaniment of a ukulele, he sings of his loneliness and gradually sinks under the sea.  He doesn’t realise that a female volcano, also a singleton, is responding to his song:  she starts off underwater but, over the aeons, rises up.  I haven’t seen enough animated films to know whether the sentimental anthropomorphising of geological formations is novel but Lava doesn’t feel at all original.  Its protagonist is a foolishly amiable (seeming) no-hoper – familiar, in human or anthropomorphised animal form, from plenty of other cartoons.  I wasn’t sure what happened to the cute dolphins in the ocean when Lava’s climactic volcanic explosion enabled the romantic leads to meet each other halfway.

    These preliminaries threw into relief the inventiveness of Inside Out.   With a screenplay by Docter, Meg LeFauve and Josh Cooley, the film is about a girl called Riley and the personified emotions that dominate her eleven-year-old mind.  It begins with a quick run-through of Riley’s birth and childhood in Minnesota; the main story is triggered by Riley’s moving with her parents to San Francisco when her father gets a job there.  An only child, she misses Minnesota, where she especially loved playing ice hockey, and struggles to adapt to her new home and school.  The five dominant emotions inside Riley – Joy, as well as Sadness, Fear, Anger and Disgust – inhabit Headquarters, Riley’s conscious mind, where they influence, through a control console, what she does and feels.  Riley’s recent memories, contained in coloured orbs sent into storage at the end of each day, may either persist or fade.  The destination of the ones that fade is a Memory Dump.  Unalterable ‘core’ memories, housed in a hub within Headquarters, generate and sustain the five ‘personality islands’ of Riley’s psyche.

    The self-appointed leader of the emotions is Joy; as a result, Riley’s life to date has been predominantly happy but the move to San Francisco threatens to upset the established order in Headquarters.  To Joy’s consternation, Sadness begins touching and thereby saddening happy memories.  On Riley’s first day at her new school, Sadness causes Riley to cry in front of her class and this creates a sad core memory.  Joy attempts to prevent its reaching the hub but, in a struggle with Sadness, destabilises the other core memories.  As a result, the personality islands are disabled; Joy and Sadness (and Riley’s core memories) are sucked, through a ‘memory tube’, out of Headquarters. They find themselves in the storage area of Riley’s long-term memories, from where they embark on attempts to return to Headquarters.  During what proves to be a tortuous journey, they meet up with Bing Bong, an imaginary childhood friend, who wants to renew his friendship with Riley.  Bing Bong tells Joy and Sadness they can get back to Headquarters by riding the Train of Thought.  The trio gets on the train but it’s derailed by the crumbling of a personality island.

    In the world outside her head, Riley is planning to leave San Francisco and her parents and return to the Minnesota home where her heart is.  As she prepares to board a bus, Joy tries to get back to Headquarters using a ‘recall tube’:  the last personality island disintegrates, destroys the tube and consigns Joy, with Bing Bong, to the Memory Dump.  There, Joy finds a sad memory in Riley’s life that became happy – when her parents and friends comforted her over the loss of an ice hockey match.  This discovery is a eureka moment.  After her persistent efforts to suppress the influence of Sadness, Joy perceives the value of her antagonist.  Attempts to escape from the Memory Dump using Bing Bong’s wagon rocket are stymied by the combined weight of Joy and, mainly, Bing Bong.  He self-sacrificingly ejects, enabling Joy to escape alone.   Joy then deploys tools from Imagination Land to get herself and Sadness back to Headquarters.

    In their absence, the control console has been left in the incapable hands of the other three emotions.  Anger, who inspired Riley’s thoughts of returning to Minnesota, has managed to damage the console but Sadness, encouraged by Joy, repairs it – removing the offending idea from Anger that jammed the works and prompting Riley to think again about leaving home.  She returns to her parents, who comfort and reassure their daughter that she’ll grow to like her new life in San Francisco.  A year later, Riley has adapted to her new home:  Joy and Sadness have joined forces and Riley’s major influences now all work together, enabling her to lead a life emotionally more complex than before but one with which Riley is content.  The facing-up-to-reality aspect of Inside Out is a natural development of Pete Docter’s Up, six years ago, in which aging and loss were important elements of the story; Inside Out‘s putting away of childish things also resonates with the curiously high mortality rate in Disney’s live-action Cinderella earlier this year.  Even so, it still feels remarkable in a film carrying the Walt Disney name that, of the five dominant emotions in Riley’s life, only one is, on the face of it, positive – it’s almost as if Inside Out is advising Disney Studios, as well as Joy, to learn the error of their coercively optimistic ways.  Yet the film, while subverting Disney tradition, also places itself within that tradition.  Inside Out promotes the importance of emotional balance and maturity with as much moral certainty as Pinocchio inveighed against the evils of juvenile hedonistic fecklessness.

    As well as being technically ingenious and a cleverly constructed story, Inside Out has plenty of verbal wit.   When Joy and Sadness board the Train of Thought, Bing Bong exults in the mental panorama before them:  ‘You can see everything from here – déjà vu, inductive reasoning, critical thinking, déjà vu …’  There are jokes for cinephiles:  in a sequence set in ‘Cloud Town’, one cloud says to another, ‘Forget it, Jake, it’s …’.   Much as I enjoyed these things, they do underline the large disjuncture between what children and adults are likely to get out of Inside Out (albeit parents will obviously enjoy seeing and hearing their kids enjoying the film)The cleverness of the emotion personification conceit tends to encourage you to take issue with some of the details.   Joy is something of a misnomer:  she’s really Positive Thinking.   Whereas she and Sadness work effectively as polar opposites, the dynamics of Fear, Anger and Disgust aren’t so well defined. (Pete Docter and his co-writers realise that and relegate them to supporting roles.)  Disgust introduces herself as the representation of the infant Riley’s feelings about broccoli but she’s assigned her nature for the sake of this one good joke:  her subsequent behaviour characterises her as Sarcasm rather than Disgust (and all the more incongruous as a key player in the head of someone as young as Riley).  The film’s cleverness also made me feel stupid, though:  I didn’t understand the relationship between personality islands and the dominant emotional forces.  We’re not only shown the counterparts to Riley’s ‘humours’ in a variety of other psyches (those of her parents and, as part of a witty and entertaining finale, canine and feline psyches too).   We’re also given a preview of what’s in store for Riley and her generation as adolescence kicks in.  The implication of the preview is that the main emotions will continue to change – but they seem not to have changed at all in the first eleven years of Riley’s life.   I wasn’t clear, given the moral of the story, why Nostalgia didn’t emerge, at its conclusion, as an important newcomer in her head.

    The volcanoes in Lava are visually unappealing (to put it mildly).  In Inside Out, the contrasting shapes and clashing colours of the five personified emotions are fine but the untextured faces and disproportionately large heads of Riley and her parents aren’t easy on the eye:  Pixar’s simulation of human movement is so expert that the from-the-neck-upwards difference between their creations and real people is jarring.  The voices heard in the film are impeccable, though.   Amy Poehler is outstanding as Joy, an indefatigably cheerful bossy-boots, and Phyllis Black’s Sadness complements her perfectly.  The aural cast also includes Bill Hader (Fear), Lewis Black (Anger), Mindy Kaling (Disgust), Richard Kind (Bing Bong), Kaitlyn Dias (Riley), Diane Lane (Riley’s mother) and Kyle MacLachlan (Riley’s father).  As in Up, the music is by Michael Giacchino.   Since I usually complain about Jonathan Romney, I should note that his piece about Inside Out in the August 2015 Sight and Sound is excellent.

    6 August 2015

     

Posts navigation