Valley Of The Dolls (1967), (1981)

 

For the first time ever, I have watched Valley of the Dolls in its entirety, and...it was an experience. Just like Mommie Dearest, it has very serious subject matter about how women were and still are treated in Hollywood, Drug addiction, Mental Illness, and Suicide but the final result of the film comes off like an unintentional comedy. But first, let's talk about the book that started it all:

I have a confession: I thought the Valley of the Dolls novel was a decent read. Now I'm not saying it was some literary masterpiece or the greatest written book of all time, it was just fairly decent. My favorite aspect of the novel is how the entertainment industry changes over 20 years and how the three main protagonists cope with those changes. I like how detailed the book is regarding the trends of Old Hollywood. From the movie musical of the 1940s, The dawning age of Television of the 1950s, The eventful fall of Old Hollywood, and the rise of New Hollywood of the 1960s. Jacqueline Susann was quite the expert since she was part of the Hollywood game but never achieved the same success as her peers. She based the three main protagonists on real-life starlets that she knew such as Neely O' Hara who is a stand-in for Judy Garland and possibly Barbara Streisand, Jennifer North who is a stand-in for Carol Landis and possibly Marylin Monroe, and Anne Welles who is stand-in in for Jacqueline herself and possibly Grace Kelly. You see the dolls in the title is a code name for pills (the uppers and downers kind). This was a common thing for young starlets to get hooked on because of the amount of pressure the studio would put on them. It is in fact the studios that would prescribe these special pills to keep them floating. One notorious example is how the head of MGM got Judy Garland hooked on weight loss and speed pills on the set of The Wizard of Oz when she was a mere sixteen. So yeah, Jacqueline Susann does not hold back on what goes on behind the scenes of Hollywood, which is all too relevant today. Another controversial element of the novel is homosexuality. This is rather tame by today's standards but since the novel came out in the 1960s, this was quite a scandalous topic, even though, homosexuality was basically an open secret in Hollywood. Even Jacqueline Susann had a love affair with Carol Landis. Speaking of, Carol Landis is a real-life tragic heroine who oddly shares similarities to Marylin Monroe, both sharing the same, complicated quest for love and acceptance, despite being the most memorable Hollywood bombshells of their time. Sadly, just like her character Jennifer, Landis commits suicide after suffering from yet another short-lived love affair. So, Jacqueline wrote this in her memory to solidify her as the kind, caring person she was and not what she was known to be. Finally, we have our central protagonist Anne Welles who shares a few similarities to Jacqueline Susann. As described in the novel, she does have a natural elegance and humility much like Grace Kelly but not too glamorous, which is why she was chosen as a spokesmodel for Gillian. Susann herself was a cosmetic spokesmodel once her acting career died down and that's where the similarities end. 

But just like Mildred Pierce, the novel also has a rather, downbeat depressing ending: So Anne has been hopelessly devoted to a man named Lyon Burke. After all, she did lose her virginity to him. At first glance, you can see why Anne would fall for Lyon Burke. He comes off as a chivalrous, charismatic Englishman but the thing is, he's a notorious ladies' man, so much so that even Anne's co-workers warn her. Before Lyon, there was another suitor named Allen (sir does not appear in the film), a mild-mannered salesman who turns out to be a millionaire. Allen even goes so far as to propose to her though Anne is less than interested, fixing her eyes on Lyon. Anne and Lyon finally do get together once Anne breaks off the engagement with Allen. Everything seems swell until Anne's mother dies. Now, in the novel, Anne loved her mother but never really liked her....it's complicated. So, Anne's emotions are a bit numb at the moment, and on top of that, Lyon has dreams of becoming a novelist. He asked Anne if they could settle down in Lawrenceville while working on his upcoming novel. Anne openly despises her hometown and refuses to go back. This, however, causes Lyon to retreat and write a freakin' Dear John to Anne, announcing their breakup where he would reside in London. This should be a warning sign right here and there because when things don't go Lyon's way, he leaves you in the dust. So a couple months pass by, and Anne is still working as a secretary for Entertainment Lawyer Henry Bellamy when an old acquaintance of Henry's appears. Kevin Gilmore, founder of the popular cosmetics brand Gillian, gives Anne an offer she just couldn't refuse: Becoming the spokesmodel for Gillian. Kevin starts to have feelings for Anne and after some time, they begin a loving but passionless relationship. For a few years, Anne had been waiting for Kevin to marry her but since he was already a married man in his early to mid-fifties, he kept brushing it off. Then as fate would have it, Lyon comes back into her life. With a few unsuccessful books under his belt, Lyon works as an entertainment journalist crossing paths with Anne while she does her infomercial special. Spark flies and before you know it, Anne and Lyon begin an affair. Kevin eventually confronts Anne, thus ending their long-term relationship. So Anne and Lyon get married but not without a little scheming on Anne's part. She works with Henry to set up a loan from him to Lyon that was secretly sent from her for Lyon to give up his mediocre writing career to marry her. Talk about some heavy stuff. So Lyon is the new owner of the agency and seems to cross paths with Neely, whose career has gone down in the dumps and isn't in the best shape. When Neely's career is on the upswing, with the help of Lyon, Anne starts to become suspicious about Lyon and Neely's working relationship, insinuating that the two must be having an affair. It turns out that Anne's suspicions were right.

Not only that, Neely is the one who reveals to Lyon about Anne's secret loan which he confronts her about. He claims he feels emasculated by what Anne did. To punish her, he carelessly flaunts his affair with Neely, living a double life. What adds more salt to Anne's wound is that Neely is a close friend. Lyon could've chosen anybody in the world but Neely? How fucked up could he be? This causes Anne to go into a spiral of addiction, trying out the dolls (pills) everyone's so crazy about. Not to mention, this all happens when Anne gives birth to her daughter, Jennifer. Lyon eventually ends the affair with Neely but this doesn't stop him from seeing other women, his most recent one is a girl that old enough to be his daughter. However, Anne numbs the pain by the dawn of New Year's Eve with a bottle of her precious, precious dolls. Holy shit...this ending pissed me off so much. Lyon is a grade-A narcissistic asshole and I can't help but feel bad for Anne, who clearly made a mistake by settling down with him. Yes, she has the money. Yes, she has a husband. And yes, she has a child. But at what cost? Since this was around the 1960s, this was a sort of thing women were facing with. Yes, really messed up but those are the facts. 

It was a year later when film executives were clamoring for a film adaptation. As you may know, this was a challenging process. The first of many issues was the conflicting visions between producer Darryl F. Zanuck and his son Richard. Darryl wanted a cool, stylish 1950s melodrama while Richard wanted something more hip and contemporary. This was the battle between Old and Young Hollywood, which most likely caused the production of the Frankenstein mess, Valley of the Dolls. However, the major cause of the issues surrounding this film is director Mark Robson. The thing about Mark Robson is that he has an "old school" way of directing and would give all three of the actresses a tough time. You see, Mark Robson would have this stopwatch, and every time he films a scene, he stops it by pressing the pocket watch. It was a very annoying thing that would irritate the cast and crew and although Robson was a lauded director of his time, he was challenging to work with. 

Okay so talk about the cast and characters:

I just want to say that all three of the actresses have a star quality about them but first and foremost, I want to focus on the ultimate scene stealer. The one, the only...

Patty Duke as Neely O'Hara. In a strange twist, the filmmakers actually considered Barbra Streisand in the world but thankfully, she decided to go for Funny Girl, for which she won an Oscar. However, nobody does it like Patty Duke. It's a performance for the ages, though it does come from experience. Patty Duke was institutionalized when she accepted the role of Neely. And just like Judy Garland, Duke experienced a pretty rough childhood while growing up in the spotlight and winning an Oscar at age 16. She eventually became a teen sensation starring in her very own sitcom, The Patty Duke Show. After the show's cancellation, Duke wanted to break into more mature roles and Valley of the Dolls was just it. Although this seemed like a meaty role for her, Patty had no idea how the movie would eventually turn out, so she had to do the best she could and to me, I think she did an okay job. Sure, she was over-the-top in some scenes but I didn't think it was that bad. Besides, I want to get into the depth of the Neely O'Hara character and how she was portrayed in both mediums. In the novel, Neely is a bright, ambitious young girl of 17 who's part of a sibling Vaudeville troupe and gets a small part in a popular Broadway musical called Hit The Sky. However, the lead star, Helen Lawson, gets Neely and her vaudeville troupe out of the show for Helen to get more screen time. But with a bit of push and pull from Lyon Burke, Neely can secure her role and becomes a sensation much to Helen's dismay. Until then, Neely marries an agent named Mel, moves to California, and becomes a star of movie musicals. At this point, Neely becomes increasingly unsympathetic. She begins cheating on her husband with her costume designer, is heavily reliant on drugs (which are called "dolls" in the book), and is an overall entitled, egocentric diva. It's not to say that book Neely has her sympathetic moments when she marries her costume designer Ted Casablanca and becomes a young mom at age 22 all the while Ted is having affairs with both men and women without a care in the world. Therefore, the bright-eyed young girl at the start of the novel becomes a jaded sellout at just 28 years old, delving more heavingly into a drug-induced state. She goes to rehab, gains and loses weight, and gets a career comeback. Unfortunately, it's at the cost of her own morals. She soon has an affair with Lyon Burke, who is now married to Anne. Of course, Neely is way beyond entitled at this point and she just doesn't give a damn. But what comes around comes back around and karma bites Neely in the ass where this time a young starlet (who's also having an affair with Lyon) takes the spotlight. 

Neely in the film version is a bit tame. She is still rambunctious and full of herself but not as callous. There are only little bits and pieces of her life, which are usually done in quick montages. This time she is not part of a Vaudeville troupe because...well it's the sixties (or is it the sixties?) and Vaudeville acts at the time would be pretty outdated. So, Neely is a young upstart, maybe around 19 or 20, I'm not sure, and she's already in a relationship with Mel, who's her agent. So right off the bat, Neely gets her part cut from the Broadway play but in turn, gets a TV gig that showcases her singing talents. Thus begins Neely's rise to stardom...through a montage. The film is only 2 hours and a half so it's somewhat understandable. But during this time, Neely marries Mel, becomes a movie musical star, develops a dependency on dolls, and is already having an affair with Ted Casablanca. So yeah, the film never really recounts what year it is or what's trending in Hollywood, her career just sort of comes and goes. There is a mention of her being 26 one time, so I would think by the end of the film, she's in her late 20s or early 30s, I'm not really sure. 

Anyways, Patty Duke gave all for what she's got and she wasn't terrible, it's just the script really didn't do her any favors. I can see there is an earnesty to her performance and she really did try her best with what she's given. 

Then we have Sharon Tate as Jennifer North, who was quite good actually. Just like Patty Duke's Neely, you can see the earnesty in her performance and I can see that it came from something eternal. Mark Robson was really hard on her, which plagued her insecurities as a serious actress. But through it all, she came out golden and you really feel for her character. Raquel Welch was a runner-up for the role and she was an ideal choice but she backed out of it because she didn't want to be typecasted as a sex symbol, even though that was the grievances that her character was going through and it could've at least showed through her performance but I feel like Sharon Tate was the right actress to give Jennifer a whole new dimension. 

In the book, Jennifer is a nice girl with a lot of emotional baggage. She's a 25-year-old masquerading as a 19-year-old at the behest of her agent, has a greedy selfish mother who constantly asks her for money, and has to deal with her immature, pompous, and sex-obsessed fiance Tony Polar, and his controlling nag of a sister, Miriam. What the film left out was, that before she met Tony, Jennifer was in a romantic relationship with a schoolmate named Maria. Now given that this was the 1960s, the producers of the film weren't too keen about having a bisexual as one of the main characters. After her love affair with Maria, Jennifer gets into modeling which eventually leads her to do acting roles. She gets cast in the hit Broadway show Hit The Sky, not for her talent but for her body. So Jennifer is pressured into becoming this wide-eyed starlet who soon gets molded into a sex symbol overnight. Her agents even came up with a fake story to make her seem more exciting, which was kind of a thing in Old Hollywood. When Jennifer decides to leave showbiz behind and marry Tony, the marriage isn't quite as ideal as she imagined. Besides being unfaithful and immature, Tony also has a debilitating mental disorder that might affect Jennifer's baby. Miram urges Jennifer to get an abortion and Jennifer reluctantly obliges. After divorcing Tony, she gets involved with a French director named Claude. Claude's specialty is basically softcore erotic films with a plot and Jennifer seems to be the perfect candidate. So eventually she becomes a sensation in Europe, which leads her to get offers in Hollywood again. But to keep her appearance younger, Claude gets her hooked on plastic surgery and a certain treatment that involves some unorthodox sleep therapy. Tired of Claude's controlling ways, Jennifer moves on to date Senator Winston Adams and soon gets engaged to him. But unfortunately, Jennifer finds out that she's diagnosed with breast cancer. Thinking that Winston only wanted to marry her for her body, Jennifer sneaks out of the hospital and, in probably one of the book's saddest moments, commits suicide by sleeping pills. What makes this even sadder is that Winston genuinely loves her and is ultimately devastated by her death. 

When it comes the movie version of Jennifer, there are not that many changes except for the relationship between her and Tony. The filmmakers decided to turn it into a tragic love story, which makes the Tony Polar character much more sympathetic. 

The animosity between Jennifer and Miriam is also toned down. Yes, there is tension at first but when Tony's health worsens, they stick through the thick of it and make amends. It's one of the changes from the book that I really like, and just to mention, Lee Grant was a stand-out in her small role as well. So, Jennifer finds herself completely devoted to Tony, even going so far as to do "nudie films" (as Neely would like to call it) to support his medical bills. 

Jennifer goes through her own health crisis when she is diagnosed with breast cancer. After being Hollywood's bathing beauty and Tony's number-one girl, Jennifer feels that she has nothing left to offer. So she takes one last look in the mirror and swallows a bottle of pills. And I just have to say, Sharon Tate really sells this scene. You can't help but feel for her. 

Sharon Tate was defintely an underrated actress and she was indeed a star in the making. I mean sure, Valley of the Dolls isn't a perfect movie but this showcases her talents as a great dramatic actress and, it's that one final shot, with tears in her eyes, both longing and pleading, that is just so...haunting. It's an image that sticks with you and moves you. May she be missed. 

Last but not least, we have Barbara Parkins as Anne Welles, our lead protagonist in the film. Now, Anne isn't given much to do to be honest but at least Barbara Parkins gave what she got and she does capture the look of eloquence and sophistication that Anne embodies in the novel. There were plenty of actresses in the role of Anne such as Cancance Bergin and Julie Christie, but Natalie Wood seemed like an interesting choice. Just like Patty Duke, Wood grew up in the spotlight and became a teen sensation herself with the smash hit Rebel Without Cause. By then, she became one of the most sought-after actresses in Hollywood starring in classics such as Splendor in the Grass, West Side Story, Gypsy, and Love with the Proper Stranger. Wood could've been a perfect candidate for Neely if you look into her performance in Inside Daisy Clover but I think she would easily hold her own as the cool, sophisticated Anne. But Candance Bergin was also the go-to choice because she represented the cool blonde type and could easily mirror Grace Kelly. But the filmmakers ultimately decided on newcomer Barabra Parkins, the breakout star of the popular prime-time soap Peyton Place, in which Mark Robson ironically directed the film version. This was where Parkins was going to make her mark and show the world that she was more than just a TV actress. Well...the problem is, she's not given much to do in the movie and it's not a fault of her own, Barbara Parkins is a capable actress, however, the movie version of Anne comes off more bland than her book counterpart. 

In the novel, Anne strives to be an independent woman and desperately wants to escape her boring small town. So off she goes to New York to start a new life and eventually gets a job as a law secretary at an entertainment law firm. Anne was all about not wanting to be tied down, and although she wanted to be married with kids, Anne would rather build herself up and focus on a career. I mean she is 20 years old at the start of the novel. But then again, it was very common for women that age to get married and Anne refuses to be part of that norm. But somehow, the arrival of Lyon Burke changes everything. You see, Lyon represents the passion that Anne yearns for and very much well gives it to her...and then some.

The chemistry between Barbara Parkins and Paul Burke is very lacking and Lyon in the film version just comes off as another generic love interest. Although he was incredibly unlikable in the novel, at least Lyon had dreams and goals the same as Anne did. There is a mention of him wanting to write but it's never expanded upon. We never know if he's unhappy at his job or wants to explore new avenues in his life, he just...comes and goes. 

Anne doesn't fare much better either. Sure, she's seen as the film's protagonist but she seems bland and uninteresting compared to the more dynamic personalities of Jennifer and Neely. Anne just sticks out like a sore thumb. All we know of her is that she's a small-town girl at heart who loves her family, got good grades, is very sufficient, blah, blah, blah, blah. Anne in the novel actually had some baggage, probably more emotional baggage than Jennifer and Neely, and she wasn't this perfect cookie-cutter girl; she actually made some irrational decisions that often affected her. Anne in the book came off like a human being where as this version is so...vanilla, at least for the 1960s.

There aren't a lot of specifics on Anne's career as a Gillian girl spokesmodel nor her relationship with Kevin Gilmore. After her breakup with Lyon, the scene starts with her walking into the room while Henry has a meeting with Kevin. Kevin notices her and decides to hire her as his model. It just happens out of nowhere. Anne's start as a spokesmodel is put through montages, which means that she's a natural at what she does. I would've very much preferred her to be a bit nervous at first and then gradually get the hang of it once she started filming her commercials. Instead, we get a full array of montages, which I actually don't mind this sequence, it's very hypnotic and colorful, but, I wish there was more time spent on Anne's development as a model and feeling the pressures of fame. Kevin in this version is nothing more than a minor character and there's no buildup to his and Anne's relationship. He has a crush on her, but she doesn't reciprocate. Plain and simple. And wouldn't you know it, Lyon comes crawling back to her life. 

Once Anne and Lyon get back together, it doesn't explain if they're married or not, they're just living together. Also, Lyon's affair with Neely was very sudden and not fully explained. Neely just makes a phone call to meet up with Lyon and she has a sly look in her eye. Again, there is no buildup to this. During this time, Anne starts to develop a pill addiction. Once again, there is no buildup to this. Anne just starts to develop a pill addiction out of nowhere. I wish we got a scene of her catching Lyon and Neely in the act. Then once runs home, she would probably freak out and go searching for the pills to calm herself down. That would've been way more effective, and since this movie is so latched onto time and pacing, this scene would telegraphed everything so confusing in the final few moments of the movie. 

So by the end, Anne has hit rock bottom, drowning in a sea of addiction but once she stumbles out into the ocean and feels the water splash her face, then, all of a sudden...she's cured. Anne is cured of her drug addiction. Okay, nothing about this is realistic, especially compared to Neely who's having a really rough time recovering from her own addiction. I guess this was done on the filmmakers' part for Anne to have her happy ending.

Speaking of, Anne decides to go back to her hometown, which Anne in the novel will never ever do. Lyon suddenly pops back into her life again and wants to marry Anne, but she kindly rejects him and goes for a nice stroll in the woods, feeling like a kid again. The End. 

Even though I don't mind the happy ending, I love it for Anne, I just wish it would've gone a different way. Everything seemed too rushed, too sudden and there wasn't much development on the situation before Anne's addiction and after. 

However, Barbara Parkins did a great job. Sure, she had to work with a lot of stiff, bland dialogue, but that's not her fault. Barbara would hold her own as a leading lady if she was in a better movie. And in my opinion, Barbara Parkins is an underrated actress who has what it takes.

Finally, we have Judy Garland as Helen Lawson...I mean, Susan Hayward as Helen Lawson. Yeah, this is when things get complicated...and sad. First of all, Helen Lawson was based on Broadway star Ethel Merman who had a bit of a reputation of being a diva. When I look into this, it would be kind of odd for Judy Garland to play this type of role because she's not a diva type. Judy Garland was always the girl-next-door and even in her older age, she still played sympathetic characters. So for an unsympathetic role like Helen Lawson, it was definitely going to be a challenge for her.

I don't think Judy Garland was even a fan of the book or the script, but she was willing to take on the role because she needed the money badly at the time. But what made this even worse was how she was treated by Mark Robson. Just imagine if somebody like Meryl Streep, Cher, Glen Close, or Kathy Bates was treated the same way. Yes, I'm putting Judy Garland on that pedestal and she should be regarded as such. Sure, she was going through a rough time at this point but, still, she deserved better. 

First of all, this was a stunt casting attempt and the filmmakers only wanted Judy Garland on the film for her name only. Plus, since she was based on Neely in the novel, they said, "Why not?" But just like the screenplay, they really didn't look into how she would portray this character and whether or not, she would fulfill the challenge. On top of that, Mark Robson was a complete and utter jackass. One of the stunts he pulled involved a scheduling conflict. He asked Mrs. Garland to come in at 6 in the morning but the filming of her scene started at 4 in the afternoon. Judy was eager to come on time but Robson pulled a fast one on her, causing her to break down. What an evil dickwad. Incidents like this led Judy Garland to be pulled out of the film, which is heartbreaking because this was her last attempt at the spotlight. 

So in comes Susan Hayward, who starred in a few musicals and can sing, but since she didn't have the showy Broadway voice that Helen possessed, the filmmakers dubbed her instead. Hayward came straight out of retirement, whether or not she wanted the role was up for debate, but it was explained by the studio giving her a generous fee. There were other potential casting choices for Helen such as Ginger Rogers and Lucille Ball but Jacquline Susann was adamant about casting Bette Davis, however, I feel like Lucille Ball would've been the perfect candidate because of her natural stage presence and her experience with musicals and comedies, including her very own sitcom, I Love Lucy. But at last, Susan Hayward cemented the role. She reportedly became a Helen Lawson in real life, causing a growing tension between her and Patty Duke, strangely mirroring the rivalry between Helen and Neely.

Now there are some slight changes to her character in the book, such as when we get to figure out why Helen is the way she is. Just like Jennifer, Helen yearns for love and acceptance as she went through several marriages and had ups and downs in her career but, unlike Jennifer, Helen has talent and leeway in the industry. There is an infamous scene in the novel where Helen gets another actress fired from her show, seemingly because she's more beautiful and talented and has more scenes than normal. This was based on an incident where Ethel Merman had Betty Hutton fired from one of her shows. When Helen meets Anne, she becomes rather friendly with her...at first. You see, this is when Anne was engaged to Allen, and Allen just so happens to be the son of a notorious Playboy millionaire named Gino who Helen has an eye for. Anne is oblivious to this, seeing how vulnerable Helen came off to her. But as soon as Anne breaks it off with Allen, Helen suddenly turns on her, besides the fact that Gino wasn't even interested in her in the first place. Since there is no Allen or Gino in the movie, Helen is rude to Anne right off the bat, which establishes her nasty diva streak. The actress that she gets fired from her show turns out to be Neely, which also establishes the tension between them.

By the middle of the movie, we get the hilarious epic catfight between Helen and Neely. Neely eventually wins by grabbing off Helen's wig, revealing her silver-gray hair (in the novel, she's bald from chemotherapy).

She actually doesn't look half-bad and is quite striking with the silver-gray hair but I guess this is the moment where we get to see Helen's "vulnerable" side and just for a while her pride is a bit shattered. But Helen puts her wig back on and spouts out her sharp tongue, she's back to being the "barracuda" she's known to be. Unlike the other girls, she doesn't need pills to keep her afloat, all she has is her sheer willpower. 

Although many would consider her role to be on the hammy side, Susan Hayward handled the role in spades. Sure, she doesn't have the same singing vocals as Ethel Merman but her presence alone is what sets her character alight. Each of her dialogue is a like sledgehammer and she can even go toe to toe with Patty Duke, spitting out jabs and quips without a wink or nod to the camera. Two thumbs up.

Now, there is without a doubt that the screenplay is one of the worst aspects of the film. Most issues stem from the really confusing time frame. It would've helped if the movie started out in the early to mid-50s with our main protagonists starting out in their late teens and early twenties, all bright-eyed and hopeful, and once they reach the end of the late 60s, they become jaded and disillusioned.

There is one huge positive about the movie, however, which is the gorgeous cinematography by William H. Daniels. It has this cool, pop art feel that is distinctly 60s, giving the film a personality. The cinematography enhances the three main actresses' model-ready looks and stylishly dramatic costumes. Although Mark Robson was a competent director, I just don't think he was the right fit for this movie. I feel like a more in-touch director who has knowledge of the 60s counter-culture movement would've been a better choice, somebody who wasn't afraid to take risks and who could actually say something with their art. Therefore, the movie would capture the "feeling" that the novel was trying to convey. 

Despite the critical lashing, the film was a box office hit and still became popular through the years. A sequel was in the works called Beyond the Valley of the Dolls featuring Anne and her teenage daughter written by Jacquline Susann but was rejected in favor of a more tongue-in-cheek satirical parody that's unrelated to the previous movie but with similar themes. I might check out this movie for another day because it's quite the oddity. 

Then there was a 1981 miniseries produced by Jacquline Susann's widower Irving Mansfield. I thought I take a look at it since it was available on YouTube and...I was unimpressed. It wasn't bad or anything, I was just so bored and disengaged. Say what you will about the original, but at least the cinematography, costumes, and set designs gave it this fantastical pop-art feel while the TV miniseries fell flat. There have been some slight changes from the book and film. Of course, this is now set in modern times and the miniseries goes out of its way to reflect that with the addition of some cheesy 70s/80s soft rock. Anne and Neely are now childhood friends and since there was no backstory given to Neely in the '67 film, it's been mentioned that Neely bounced from foster home to foster home all her life, which would probably explain Neely's dependency issues. Helen Lawson is more resentful of Jennifer, a change that I found interesting since Helen Lawson is an aging starlet while Jennifer is an up-and-coming beauty. Instead of a secretary, Anne is now an entertainment lawyer and a little less naive than her book and movie counterparts. That's where I stop there. I just...I just couldn't finish it. I was so bored. I think it was trying to emulate those hit soap operas at the time such as Dynasty and Falcon Crest but this was at the time when they were still trying to get their feet wet and didn't they didn't achieve the widespread popularity they would soon gain in their later seasons. So yeah, this miniseries is kind of mediocre. It's not fun nor campy, just meh. I might return to this one day to give a full review but for right now, it's a pass.

Then there was this really obscure 1994 adaptation that was turned into a daytime soap opera. This only lasted one season and it's really hard to find now but, from what I heard about it, it's not really all that great and it's probably cheesy and not the good kind of cheesy. 

So yeah, nothing beats the original, and part of is that it's totally, unapologetically 60s. it's one of those "bad films' that has a lasting impact and when you look into it retroactively, it eerily mirrors the actresses' lives after the release of the film.

Sure, it may not be perfect but there's something about the movie that makes it a captivating, beautiful mess. 

Barbie (2023)

 

In honor of Women's International Month and Barbie's recent 65th anniversary, I've decided to review the live-film version of Barbie starring Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling. The hype for this movie was inescapable and garnered overwhelming praise, including six Oscar nominations and many, many other awards. I'm telling you, it's a whole slew of nominations on Wikipedia that I can't even count. Now for the nominations for Ryan Gosling's performance? I get it. For the production design and costumes? Definitely deserved and was one of the main highlights of the movie. Best Original Screenplay and Best Picture? No. Just no. Now I didn't think the movie was god-awful or anything but I didn't think it was this modern masterpiece. I would even go on to say that this was one of the most overrated movies of 2023. Besides all that, I thought the cast did a really good job, and I did  get a few chuckles here and there, but it's the script that really brings the movie down. There are some really good ideas here that weren't executed well or were just completely abandoned. Anywho, let's get down to the nitty-gritty because there is a lot to discuss.

The first act is really well done. The World-Building, The Set-Up, Barbie's existential crisis, it's all good so far. And just to mention, everyone is perfectly cast in their roles. Besides the wonderful Ryan Gosling as Ken, we also have Issa Rae as President Barbie and Kate McKinnon as Weird Barbie, who were definite standouts. 

Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling have amazing chemistry, and it would've been nice to see them together for the rest of the film, but....that's not how things turn out. The film falls apart for me around the middle section of the second act once Ken discovers that men rule the real world, which is ludicrous. Plus, I felt that the men in the real world were portrayed unrealistically. How I would describe them is cartoonish, bufoonish, and absolutely one-note. Ken is the only one considered a nuanced character from the rest of the male cast. And by the first third act of the movie, it becomes the battle of the sexes between the Barbies and Kens. Sure, that's fine and all, but I wish the writing was better. 

Okay, now let's move on to the characters and break them down one by one:

The Mattel executives were not needed in this, and I was taken out of the movie every time they appeared on screen. Will Ferrel was really irritating, and I know that's his brand of comedy, but it just didn't work for me. It was like the film was afraid to make the Mattel executives the villains, which would've made the movie more interesting, but since it didn't take those risks, they're just there for the most part. 

After the goofy chase scene involving the Mattel executives, Barbie runs into Mattel Secretary Gloria and her daughter Sasha. Barbie soon discovers that Gloria, not Sasha, is the lost little girl she needs to reconnect with. Now, I didn't have a problem with Gloria, and America Ferria was endearingly likable, but she just wasn't developed enough as a character. Gloria serves as the film's heart and is the secondary main character besides Barbie; however, there are only glimpses of her character arc without scratching the surface. It's implied that she's having a midlife crisis and projecting those insecurities onto Barbie. Yes, that is interesting, but the problem is, we never see Gloria struggle with that. Okay, what if she's this put-upon secretary who's gifted but usually ignored at her job. Since Gloria's husband is basically non-existent in the film, why not have her go through a divorce or kill him off. That's a little morbid, but it would've added more weight to her character arc. Therefore, her speech in the middle of the movie would've felt more earned. 

Now, we move on to my least favorite character in the movie, Sasha. Holy cow, this girl was annoying! Throughout most of the movie, all she does is bitch and complain, and oh god, it gave me such a splitting headache. She is supposed to be the typical moody, bratty teenage daughter, a character trope that has gotten egregious over time. A character like this could work if she was written better, but we never know what Sasha's damage is. She's just a self-centered, know-it-all teenager who treats her mom like crap for no reason. When Barbie meets her at her school, Sasha is framed as if she's the mean, popular girl, a character that Sasha herself would despise. And when you think about it, this might've been really good commentary because Sasha comes off as the "not like other girls" type of girl when, in actuality, she's no different from the so-called mean girls from her school. Case in point, we have Vivian Kensingston from Legally Blonde. She would be the typical brainy brunette that Elle Woods herself would look down upon, but the roles are reversed. I guess that's what the film is trying to go for, but I digress. In the movie's middle section, Sasha does come around...a little bit. I don't know. I just feel like this character was less developed than Gloria, and the film just didn't do a good job of making her the least bit likable until the end. 

Okay, I want to get this out of the way. I thought Gloria's husband was so irrelevant in this movie. He's basically a punchline, and his whole schtick is that he's a white guy trying to learn Spanish. I...just don't get the joke. It's absolutely cringeworthy, and I hate it. Sure, I know the actor was America Ferria's real-life husband. Sure, that's sweet and all, but he was not needed in the story. Like I said before, why not have Gloria go through a divorce or kill off the husband. This brings back the focus on Sasha. Maybe the reason why she's angry all the time is because she doesn't know how to grieve, whether it's through the divorce of a parent or the death of a parent. Then, when we get back to the scene where Barbie goes through her depression mode, SASHA is the one who convinces her to break out of it ("Don't give up," "I still believe in you"). Therefore, Sasha confesses that the reason why she rejected Barbie is because of societal pressures or her so-called friends in high school who keep telling her that Barbie is a bad representation of women and feminism. Then, Sasha confesses to her mom about her growing pains, Gloria makes her speech, and Mother Gloria and Daughter Sasha reconnect again. All I'm saying is that Gloria's husband was not needed, and the plot would've been better for it. 

Now, let's talk about Ruth Handler. I just want to get this off the bat: It's kind of disrespectful of the filmmakers to puppeteer a dead woman to serve a plot. There is a case of honoring one's spirit, but I wish they had handled it better. Oh yeah, and second of all, Ruth Handler, in real life, wasn't the typical grandma who made tea and baked cookies; she was a level-headed businesswoman who wanted to break the code. There is nothing against Rhea Pearlman; she did well with the role, but I would've imagined somebody like Glen Close or even Meryl Streep in a role like this. Also, I don't see Ruth in this quaint little kitchen sipping tea, oh no. I see her decked out in a sharp white suit in this slick white office with all the Barbie posters and all the collectible Barbie dolls prepped up like statues. The whole setting would be omnipresent and very cool-looking. Oh, what a missed opportunity that would've been, but the movie has plenty of missed opportunities, trust me.

But let me focus on the positives and talk about the two wonderful leads:

Ryan Gosling was just ah-dorable as Ken. I never knew that he knocked it off the part the way he did, but he totally sold it. Ken's story arc was actually well-developed. I mean, it wasn't perfect, but the one aspect I liked was how he was underappreciated by Barbie and felt inferior next to her. Sadly, I felt his story arc didn't come full circle. Sure, the film takes a turn and makes Ken the antagonist, but I wish the movie would dig deeper into Ken's insecurities and portray them in a way where it's both funny and sad. Okay, for example, Ken turns on the TV and shows Barbie how popular he's become in a scene in the movie. Okay, here's my what-if: What if GI Joe or a GI Joe-adjacent character becomes popular instead. Hell, John Cena made a cameo in this movie; he would've played this GI Joe-type character. On top of that, another good casting choice would be Zac Efron as Max Steel (I'm pretty sure some millennials know about this toy line). Okay, so Ken turns on the TV, and the announcer goes, "Now introducing GI Joe and his sidekick, Ken!" Ken would throw this massive bitch fit and say something like, "Oh, I'm always second best, but at least I'm better than you, Barbie!" that would've been a really good joke. And get this, the part where the Barbies pit the Kens against each other, what if Barbie was forming a faux love triangle between Ken and this GI-Joe character and the Max Steels, of course. Then, the I'm Just Ken sequence would be more palpable. I'm pretty sure there were some kids who had Barbie leave Ken for GI Joe, and that also would be ripe for comedy. This would make Ken feel he's not masculine enough compared to the more muscular, manly GI-Joe doll. So many missed opportunities. So many glorious missed opportunities. Besides all that, Ryan Gosling did a stellar job, and he's an absolute comedic genius without missing a beat. Although Ken is supposed to be the antagonist, you can't help but like the character, and that's due to Ryan Gosling's impeccable charm. And I must say, the man has a clean set of pipes on him. This guy is a massive triple threat. He can sing, act, and dance! Just an absolute treasure. Ryan Gosling's performance is truly the best thing about this movie. 

 

Speaking of, Margot Robbie as Barbie was just darling—truly, truly darling. Not only does she look like Barbie herself, but I also think she captured her spirit and put a lot of heart and soul into the role. As far as Barbie's story arc goes, it's a bit all over the place. Okay, so Barbie is having an existential crisis. Good, that's a nice setup for a character like Barbie. Then, her mission is to find the little girl playing her, who's obviously going through a depression. So, Barbie actually has a purpose, but sadly, it falls flat in the end. There are some aspects of Barbie's character that I did like. I like that she's an empath, representing Barbie as a whole. When you look into it, Barbie is empathic, and Greta captured that well. But I wish her story arc was more compelling. Okay, just to clarify this, I didn't like the ending. Why, oh why, would you end the movie with Barbie seeing a gynecologist. She deserved a better ending than that. What if it ended with Barbie taking control of her image and Mattel as a whole. What if she was the co-founder and Gloria was the new CEO. Then, it ends with Barbie, in a slick black and white striped business suit similar to her 1959 bathing suit, doing an advertisement on the newly revamped Mattel in which she says these words, "Hi, I'm Barbra Handler, the CFO of Mattel. And we girls, we can do anything!" I find that to be a much better ending than we got here, and it gives the whole women empowerment message a new light. But oh well, that's another missed opportunity. However, Margot Robbie did an amazing job, and I can't picture any other actress playing this part other than her. Bonus points for her being the producer of this movie as well. Margot Robbie is a definite class act.

The dialogue in the film is quite strange. I know that Greta Gerwig is trying to make a comedy here, but real people don't talk like that. There are instances where the dialogue could've been sharper and witty, but that's not the case here. Some of this did work in the first act, such as the "Beach You Off" scene. However, this scene goes on a little too long. That's actually the problem with most comedies these days: The jokes go on for too LONG. Will Ferrel does his improv schtick, which would've worked back in the early 2000s, but it's really egregious here. There's also too much of explaining the joke, which makes it less funny. Then you have Sasha's dialogue, which is basically social media buzzwords. Teenagers don't talk like that; they just don't. And that's one of the reasons why I found Sasha unlikable and annoying.  So yeah, the delivery of the dialogue was not that great.

Okay, let's discuss the film's writing, which is one of the movie's weakest points. Most of this stems from when Barbie enters the real world and encounters some unsavory men. There's a part where Barbie and Ken are at the beach, and this random guy slaps Barbie on the butt. Barbie, in response, punches him straight in the nose. It's obvious that the guy committed a crime, and sexual assault is a crime. Yet Barbie is the one who gets arrested, and Ken is too? But I guess the film is trying to hone in on the message that the real world is ruled by the patriarchy, and women who get assaulted can't stand a chance. I mean, really? It's clear that there is not any ounce of subtly in this portion of the movie. On top of that, you even have police officers coming onto Barbie. Get real. It would've been nice if they had a female police officer that said, "Hey, that outfit looks great on you." And Barbie would've said, "Oh, thanks." This would probably lighten things up and hone in on the fact that in the real world, some women hold the same power as men yet still look out for other women at the same time. This would've made Barbie's story arc more palpable and added more of the women supporting women message that the film is going for. 

The concept of the real is like watching a parody of a lifetime movie. I just couldn't get past it. So, Ken is apparently brainwashed by real-world patriarchy and brings it over to Barbieland. This could work if it was just a small group of men in the real world to give Ken this mindset instead of, you know, the entire state of California populated by men. Again, it's just ludicrous as hell.

The other thing I've noticed is how the Kens treat the Barbies. There's nothing that indicates, "Oh, this is bad." Dressing the Barbies in maid outfits and being subservient to the Kens can be degrading, but I wish there was more conflict with this. Like if the Kens acted like stereotypical obnoxious frat boys compared to their usual sweet selves. Then, we see how Barbie, Gloria, and Sasha get Barbie back to their matriarchy, and...it's really dumb. You see, they get the Barbies to act helpless toward the Kens to lure the other brainwashed Barbies out of their captivity. Then, they have the Barbies to make the other Kens jealous, and then, the whole fight battle and the (the very long) "I'm Just Ken" sequence begins. Therefore, the Barbies get their power back, the Kens get their equality, and all is well. Yeah, sure.

It's weird how this all reminds me of better movies. There would've been many instances when Barbie entered the real world, and the humor could've been similar to The Brady Bunch movies. You have this family who are straight out of a sitcom from the early 70s, yet they're placed in a 90s kind of world. Also, there are movies like Legally Blonde, where Elle Woods, a stereotypical ditzy blonde, tries to make it into Law School, of all places. Lastly, you have the 2004 version of Stepford Wives. Now, I do not find that movie to be good at all, but it's still about these powerful women brainwashed into captivity and later breaking out of that. This sort of thing could work, but it just didn't. It fell flat for me, and it seems that the writers or whoever was running out of ideas at this point. 

Lastly, I would like to discuss Greta Gerwig's lack of history concerning the Barbie lore. In her interviews, Greta mentions that her mom forbade her to play with Barbie because...wait for it...she was a poor representation of women. So, Greta's lack of knowledge about Barbie really hindered the film, in my opinion. She seems to forget that Barbie and Midge are very best friends, and Midge is supposed to be married to Alan. But for some reason, they're not a couple in this movie? Barbie also had friends like Christie, Teresa, and Kira. Not to mention her little sisters such as Skipper, Stacie, Chelsea (formerly known as Kelly), and baby Krissie. Even Ken was friends with Allan, who had a friend named Steven and a little brother named Tommy. For some reason, all these characters were left out of the movie. There is a mention of Skipper, and we have a Skipper-like doll, but I don't think she's supposed to be related to Barbie. I get that there were already a lot of characters in this movie, but then again, why not have Chrissie be president of Barbieland, Kira be the physicist, or Teresa be the Nobel Prize Winner. So many missed opportunities. And she seems to forget that there are women on the board of Mattel in real life, and again, there's another missed opportunity with that as well. Wow, this aspect of the movie is really, really disappointing, and it would've worked if they had a Barbie superfan as the creative consultant. It would've definitely enhanced the movie a bit more.

Whew! This was a long review, and it took longer than I expected. But I felt like this movie had so much wasted potential. I didn't hate it, but I didn't think it was great either. And if you like it, that's fine. However, this movie would've been so much better. 

I would say one positive about Barbie. At least it feels like a real movie—maybe not a perfect movie, but a movie nonetheless. First of all, the movie is COLORFUL, and it was nice to see practical effects again. I would definitely like to see more of it. It's crisp, clean, and pristine, and not at all fake-looking without shitty CGI. Second of all, it's not some long-extended episode connected to some stupid cinematic universe. And, third of all, Barbie had a beginning, middle, and end, wrapped up in a neat little bow. No sequel hook in sight, and it was so REFRESHING. I can see why this movie was so successful because it was an actual goddamn MOVIE. This is what the audience wants. They don't want a sequel, a prequel, a remake, a reboot, a reimagining, or even a whole goddamn franchise, including a cinematic fucking universe. They want movies with a clear hero's journey. That's what makes a movie successful, and whoever's running these studios needs to understand that.

Okay, here's my final word: it's not great, but at least it's watchable. 

 

Mommie Dearest (1981)

 

And now the moment you've all been waiting for... the review of Mommie Dearest. Once a upon time when I was a wee little lad, this movie used to play on TV A LOT. I've always thought of Mommie Dearest as this prestige Oscar-bait film but as the years went by, people kept saying how much of a camp classic it was. I didn't get it at first, but upon watching the film a couple of more times, I can definitely see why. The subject matter is pretty heavy. It's about Child Abuse and Child Abuse is not a laughing matter at all. But what most people found funny about the film is Faye Dunaway's over-the-top performance as Joan Crawford, who is a real person by the way. But I don't think it's entirely her fault. It's more so the direction of the film and how it was presented. Well, let's take a deep dive shall we?

The movie is based on the 1978 autobiographical novel written by Christina Crawford, Joan Crawford's adopted daughter. I feel like the filmmakers really missed the point of the novel. It seems as though they were exploiting Child Abuse instead of making a more grounded psychological film. The novel did a good job of depicting what it was like living with a narcissistic parent. The manipulation, the guilt trips, the humiliation, it doesn't hold back and it's kind of tragic. So it baffles me as to why the filmmakers didn't get this right. At least, Christina Crawford acknowledged her mother as a real person while the filmmakers turned her into a cartoon villain. But I feel like Christina was the one who got screwed over in the end. This novel was written in her words, based on her experiences, whether true or not, and to have the film deviate so much from its source material is downright disrespectful.

As production began, the narrative swayed further and further from Christina. So, it's without a doubt that the true star of the movie is Joan Crawford herself. To add more salt to the wound, Christina Crawford had no involvement in the film, which would've helped it a little bit, I mean these were her experiences. But I guess the filmmakers were more concerned about making a Joan Crawford Biopic instead. There were plenty of actresses up for the lead role but Anne Bancroft, who Joan Crawford accepted the Oscar on her behalf, was the main attraction. Even Mia Farrow was up for the role of adult Christina. But all that fell through when producer Frank Yablans took over. He had his eye on Faye Dunaway. At this time, her career wasn't what it used to be after her Oscar win but she was very much in demand and wasn't afraid to take on risker roles. Faye was sure she was going to win another Oscar nomination for this role. Oh boy, Mrs. Dunaway was going to be in for a surprise. She wanted to go for a more methodical approach to her acting. There's nothing wrong with that persay, but I guess this is one of the reasons why her acting is...a bit over-the-top in certain moments. 

I would like to focus on three memorable scenes. Now just to let you know, these scenes are either totally exaggerated or didn't happen in the book at all, but I would talk about these scenes with an analytical view:

First, we have the "gardening" scene. Now according to Christina, Joan was a little OCD towards her gardening but I didn't think she took it to that level. In the movie, Joan has this reaction when she gets let go of her contract from MGM. But in real life, It was only a month later when Joan signed on to Warner Bros. So it seems as if Joan was just OVERREACTING. I mean geez, she had enough star power at the time to sign better deals. But I guess the filmmakers wanted to use this chain of events as dramatic effect.

Then there's the infamous wire hanger scene. Holy shit, this used to scare me as a kid. To this day, I find it hard to watch because it's something straight out of a horror film. The shadowed lighting, Joan's BOOMING voice, and the most horrifying of all, Joan's makeup. Holy crap! she freaked me out. At first, I thought she was a witch. There is absolutely nothing funny about this scene...

Well, except for this shot...Lol, why is Faye Dunaway making that face? But to be fair this was a really tough shot for her and she almost lost her voice. The scene was actually a compilation of a series of events in the novel. The wire hanger scene was treated subtly, still hard to read but subtle. While the "Cleaning" portion of the scene happened on a separate occasion. The filmmakers decided to combine these two incidents into this long drawn-out scene to accommodate Faye Dunaway's Oscar moment. Like I said this scene would've been effective if Faye Dunaway dailed it down just a notch. 

And lastly, we have the "strangulation" scene, you know, with the "BARBRA PLEASE!" line. This is supposed to be another harrowing scene where Joan almost KILLS Christina but, again, it comes off unintentionally funny because of Faye Dunaway's cartoonish expressions and, oh boy, this scene is by far her most over-the-top moment. Good god, this woman blows it over. These were actually two incidents compiled into one from the novel. The first incident was when she was caught with a stable boy at age 11 or 12. Yes, she was that young, so that would've been really inappropriate and downright uncomfortable to show on film. The second incident was when Christina became close with the headmaster and his wife, seeing them as a second family. Joan was not having it and pulled her away from school immediately, which is why Joan lied about Christina getting expelled just to spite her. 

The movie makes it look like Joan simply overreacts about her teenage daughter getting caught making out with a boy her age. According to Rutanya Alda, Faye Dunaway took this scene really seriously to the point where she injured her and co-star Jocelyn Brando. Again, somebody had to tell Faye to dial it down but I get the feeling that filmmakers were enjoying this too much. 

There was a lot of information that out from the book such as the twins Cathy and Cindy, in which they had a very loving relationship with Joan, and most of her early childhood that would become integral to her headstrong nature. If they had at least shown a small portion of her childhood and her climbing out of poverty, it would added more dimension to Joan's character instead of, you know, making her into this maniacal dingbat. Case in point, the whole reason Joan freaked out about the wire hangers is that it was a symbol of her traumatic childhood, working in shop factories and living in poor conditions. If the filmmakers would've added a bit of context to the wire hanger scene instead of just a random event. 

In the more subtle scenes where, you know, Joan is portrayed like an actual human being, Faye Dunaway does some pretty good acting. There was actually a scene where Joan tearfully confides to young Christina at a beach to soften her a little but the scene was cut for some reason. I guess the filmmakers thought it would be more "entertaining" to focus on the shocking, sensationalized moments of the screenplay. 

What I've also noticed about the film is that it has a unique style to it. It does this thing where in each time period the film sort of emulates the style of the movies from within that time period. That's cool and all, I appreciate the effort but what I liked about the Mildred Pierce miniseries is that although it was set in the 1930s and 40s, Todd Haynes went with a gritty, realistic style of the 70s. Since this was made in 1981, I feel like this kind of style would benefit the movie a bit more. 

Even though most of the movie is inaccurate, this incident was very true. You see, Christina tried to make it as an actress herself, and she eventually landed a role in a soap opera called The Secret Storm. When she gets sick, Joan steps in to take over her role. Christina mentions her character is 28 while Joan is way past that age. This is so wrong on so many levels. What parent takes their child's acting job? I feel like this was the moment that broke the camel's back for Christina but that's not even the half of it. But Joan is not to blame here, believe it or not. I blame the producers wholeheartedly. They were probably starstruck by Joan's presence and signing her on into the role, even though she was too old to play the part. From what I gather, Joan was at least in her sixties and was in no condition to film because she was drunk on her ass. So yeah, shame on the producers. 

The movie becomes a little understated after except for the "DON'T FUCK WITH ME FELLAS!" line. But besides all that, it's pretty low-key. 

There's the part where Christina makes an exceptional speech at Joan's televised tribute special and Joan, while lying on her death bed, is deeply touched. It's actually kind of sweet...well, not for long.

By the time she arrives at Joan's funeral and reunites with her brother Christoper, Christina goes to the hearing to see if Joan left a will. She doesn't. When Christoper says, "She always has the last word. Christina stares ahead with fury in her eyes, "Does she? Oh does she..." Thus begins the revenge of Christina Crawford.

Now do I think this is a terrible movie? It has some merits and I can see what the filmmakers "attempted" to do but the result fell flat. As I said, Faye Dunaway is not to blame here, she takes it too far with her acting and she did cause some tension on the set but she is not the one to blame for this movie's failure. It all weighs down on the filmmakers who instead of making a complex psychological drama turned it into an exploitative romp. It's kind of a shame because it was all there. I don't know what the filmmakers were thinking but at least this film will go down in history as a camp cult classic.