|
Post by Fading Fast on Jul 24, 2023 19:17:15 GMT
Those are good points, James. If one of those drop dead gorgeous actors like Robert Taylor or Gary Cooper played the part the audience would think she was just infatuated with his looks, but Van Heflin could be any man so it was the man himself not any particular attributes that we can all see.
And isn't that the way it is with our friends who Fading Fast makes us think of when he says, "We've all known a woman or man completely unable to accept being rejected by a boyfriend or girlfriend?" Don't we all look at each other when we finally meet the object of such over the top affection and whisper, "Him? That guy?"
One thing I think our generation forgets when watching these old movies is how much the women of that generation gave of themselves when they committed to a man without marriage. When we first meet Joan she's obviously very much at home in Van Heflin's house, we know they are, if not living together, at least more than just dating. At a time when most women either waited for marriage or expected marriage to follow soon after, a woman in Joan's position would have definitely expected the relationship to move forward to marriage -- even if she had been warned.
It would have been a rare woman who casually moved from hooking up with one man for a short time and then someone else next month. They just didn't think that way. Van Heflin's part could have been played by a C- actor and Joan would have been just as clingy and desperate not to be pushed aside, because in her mind he belonged to her. She had given him her whole self and she was past the point of no return. These ⇧ are really smart comments. I think it's getting harder and harder for the younger generation to appreciate what Andrea is saying as, back then, it was a big deal for a woman to commit to a man. Most serious dating then had marriage as the natural goal.
I also agree that the implication, if you squint through the Motion Picture Production Code, is that Crawford was sleeping with Heflin - which absolutely was a big deal back then. I dated in the '80s and '90s and even though sleeping with someone didn't mean that much then, casual sex and the "hooking up" culture hadn't fully taken over like, from what I can tell, it has now.
Think about what the modern blowback against "slut shaming" is telling us. It's saying a woman can sleep around and she should not be embarrassed by that. I'm not arguing any right or wrong to this, I'm just saying it is, so how would a young person, unless they had a true understanding of the era, appreciate Crawford's character's position in 1947?
Also, and while the movie doesn't touch on this as, my guess, Crawford wouldn't allow it to, Crawford is no spring chicken at a time when many felt single women were washed up in their 40s if they hadn't found a man. Hence, for Crawford to find one and lose one - or be rejected for marriage by the man she was sleeping with - was a big deal (think about Rosalind Russell's character's meltdown in "Picnic").
Which is also why it was like twisting the knife in her when Heflin started dating and then became engaged to Crawford's, obviously, much-younger stepdaughter.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 24, 2023 19:33:21 GMT
Interesting points, everyone. But I still feel Van Heflin was miscast (and I know that's an overused word). The biggest problem I have with it is that his character is too much like Massey's character in terms of general demeanor, career path and looks. So why wouldn't Crawford's character have latched on to Massey in the same way? It just doesn't work for me. For the plot to work better, and be more logical if you will, the character of David has to be almost an opposite of Dean.
For one thing, I think the writers made a mistake of having David work for Dean. Obviously that was a plot device so he'd keep coming to the house and upsetting Louise. But it would have worked just as well if he was a musician or artist solely, did not work in the business world, and that he still knew the family because he had met the daughter at some concert, some art gallery or trendy club, around the same time he was involved with Louise. He could then have started visiting the house to see the daughter, getting to know Dean and Dean liking him, and all this still upsetting Louise.
I do think that he had to be more drop dead gorgeous, it had to be the physicality and the sex that she was hooked on, that made her still desire him after marrying Dean who would have been more ordinary in the bedroom, not as experimental or adventurous. I just don't buy a woman going mad over an average looking guy.
I would say the reason they cast Van Heflin is because he was an excellent actor who would not upstage Crawford in any way, and this is after all a Joan Crawford picture. If he was just as glamorous as her, like Errol Flynn, then it would have become an Errol Flynn picture just as much as it was a Joan Crawford picture...and she had to be the main star. But I still think they could have found some hunky guy on his way up, who wasn't quite a star yet, but would have still had those come-hither looks that drove her wild. Robert Taylor was cast opposite Greta Garbo to good effect in CAMILLE when he was on his way up, not yet a big box office name.
If I was Jack Warner and I was going to borrow a handsome actor on the way up, who wouldn't eclipse Crawford on screen, I would have gone to Fox and borrowed Cornel Wilde. That is the type of matinee idol the part required.
I am not slighting Van Heflin. I think he's wonderful and talented. But there was no real chemistry or charisma radiating between him and Crawford. It needed to be someone that Crawford would have had more electricity with on camera. And if that is there, then we go mad with her, we want her to keep going back to David, even though David is no good for her, because he satisfies her in ways that Dean can't.
I know I am probably over-simplifying this. And I run the risk of sounding shallow putting looks over the character of a man. But hormones and emotions drive some women, Louise being one such woman, and he had to be electrifying...she had to keep going up to that barbed wired with the electric current in it, touching it, and being zapped because she was helpless around that kind of man.
|
|
|
Post by Andrea Doria on Jul 24, 2023 20:23:10 GMT
Fading Fast:"Which is also why it was like twisting the knife in her when Heflin started dating and then became engaged to Crawford's, obviously, much-younger stepdaughter."
Yes! The more I think about all this, the more of a cad I think he was. He knew what he was doing to her from start to finish and did. not. care.
And yes to Topbilled, the audience might have felt her pain even more intensely if we had a swoon worthy actor.
(I've always thought Robert Taylor, as he looked in Camille was the handsomest actor I've ever seen.)
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 25, 2023 4:29:02 GMT
Another thing I wanted to add...I had forgotten that Dean had a son named Wynn. The little boy (played by Peter Miles) is shown in the scenes immediately following the mother's death, then it's like he just disappears from the rest of the story. Did I miss a part where they said he was shipped back to boarding school, or was he still hanging around the house somewhere?
Wynn functions primarily as a plot device, the reason Dean continues to employ Louise after Pauline dies...but we never really see her interact with him. Maybe something was cut from the original script. But I think they could have developed Louise a little more by showing the maternal side of her with Wynn, while she was in competition with Carol for David's affections.
The movie doesn't suffer much with Wynn absent from the narrative, but they definitely could have given us more dimensions to Louise, to Dean and to Carol if they'd used Wynn more. In fact, it would have been interesting if Wynn took an instant dislike to David, and he was an unexpected ally for Louise. There's just so much extra that could be developed here, if someone was ever to remake it as a TV miniseries.
I also think that we should have had Louise reluctant to marry Dean because that was when she started to be haunted by Pauline...just in a minor way at first, until it becomes more full-blown later on.
And am I the only one who watched Geraldine Brooks' beautiful performance as the daughter and subconsciously compared it to Ann Blyth's performance in MILDRED PIERCE..?
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jul 25, 2023 5:55:59 GMT
Another thing I wanted to add...I had forgotten that Dean had a son named Wynn. The little boy (played by Peter Miles) is shown in the scenes immediately following the mother's death, then it's like he just disappears from the rest of the story. Did I miss a part where they said he was shipped back to boarding school, or was he still hanging around the house somewhere?
Wynn functions primarily as a plot device, the reason Dean continues to employ Louise after Pauline dies...but we never really see her interact with him. Maybe something was cut from the original script. But I think they could have developed Louise a little more by showing the maternal side of her with Wynn, while she was in competition with Carol for David's affections.
The movie doesn't suffer much with Wynn absent from the narrative, but they definitely could have given us more dimensions to Louise, to Dean and to Carol if they'd used Wynn more. In fact, it would have been interesting if Wynn took an instant dislike to David, and he was an unexpected ally for Louise. There's just so much extra that could be developed here, if someone was ever to remake it as a TV miniseries.
I also think that we should have had Louise reluctant to marry Dean because that was when she started to be haunted by Pauline...just in a minor way at first, until it becomes more full-blown later on.
And am I the only one who watched Geraldine Brooks' beautiful performance as the daughter and subconsciously compared it to Ann Blyth's performance in MILDRED PIERCE..? I don't remember any explanation for Wynn's disappearance. Boarding school makes sense, but I can't say I remember it.
I didn't think about Brooks vs. Blyth, but only because they both have the same first name, I thought Geraldine Fitzgerald could have played the daughter too.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 25, 2023 16:03:49 GMT
Geraldine Brooks also has a good role as Joan Bennett's daughter in THE RECKLESS MOMENT (1949), another very good noir melodrama.
|
|