|
Post by topbilled on Jul 30, 2023 20:57:19 GMT
Part of my goal with these selections, in addition to showcasing Crawford's work from the 40s and 50s at several different studios-- was to show her three Oscar nominated performances...in MILDRED PIERCE, POSSESSED and SUDDEN FEAR.
But I think I like her performance in DAISY KENYON the best, because despite the occasional histrionics, she's ultimately more even keel and I really like her scenes with Henry Fonda.
It's been an enjoyable month!
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jul 30, 2023 21:05:24 GMT
Part of my goal with these selections, in addition to showcasing Crawford's work from the 40s and 50s at several different studios-- was to show her three Oscar nominated performances...in MILDRED PIERCE, POSSESSED and SUDDEN FEAR.
But I think I like her performance in DAISY KENYON the best, because despite the occasional histrionics, she's ultimately more even keel and I really like her scenes with Henry Fonda.
It's been an enjoyable month! Very much so, I really enjoy JC month.
"Mildred Pierce," no surprise, was my favorite, with "Daisy Kenton" coming in second.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 30, 2023 21:10:38 GMT
I will post my review for SUDDEN FEAR tomorrow.
And coming up in August, we have College Melodramas presented by Fading Fast. Looking forward to those selections!
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jul 30, 2023 21:15:20 GMT
I will post my review for SUDDEN FEAR tomorrow.
And coming up in August, we have College Melodramas presented by Fading Fast. Looking forward to those selections! My goal is to write and edit my review by tomorrow, but we'll see if I hit that deadline as I have to earn a living too.
And thank you for the promo - I'm excited about next month, but warn everyone, it will be a big change from the JC melodramas we just saw. I'll create the new thread on Tuesday. Our first movie, "Age of Consent," is a real early talkie, so a bit clunky, but I think it's one we'll enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jul 31, 2023 5:37:19 GMT
The "benefit" of insomnia is that you have more time to get things done, even if you are a bit groggy while doing them. Hence, the below review.
Sudden Fear from 1952 with Joan Crawford, Jack Palance, Gloria Grahame and Bruce Bennett
When Sudden Fear was made, Joan Crawford movies were a profitable cottage industry in Hollywood, but one where the viewer often had to suspend disbelief about Crawford's age as younger men tripped over themselves to sleep with her. But not in this one.
The plot here calls for Crawford to be the older woman. But don't worry, this complex story still asks the viewer to suspend disbelief at a few plot turns and during the climatic action sequence. But in truth, how many movies don't ask for a little "give" here and there?
Crawford plays a wealthy San Franciscan heiress who is also a successful Broadway playwright. As the movie opens, we see her reject the actor, played by Jack Palance, auditioning for the male lead in her new play. He angrily confronts her, but it's her play, so she wins.
Crawford, later on a train to Chicago where she'll connect to a San Francisco train, runs into young, handsome Palance, who turns on the charm. To keep seeing Crawford, he pretends he was going to San Francisco too, as he discreetly buys a connecting ticket in Chicago.
Is Palance just trying to prove he's a better actor than Crawford thought? Or is he truly falling in love with her? Or is he simply interested in marrying a rich woman? We don't really know, yet, but once in San Fran, the romance advances to marriage and all seems to be going well.
Enter noir queen and classic femme fatale Gloria Grahame, playing Palance's old girlfriend from New York who wants in on the Crawford money. It's a bit "censored," but Grahame's hold on Palance seems to be sex, as otherwise, he could tell her to just pound sand.
Plenty have killed for sex and money before, so it's no shock when Grahame and Palance plot to kill Crawford. Still, it feels off, as Palance, who appeared okay simply being the husband of a rich older woman, seems to casually accept Grahame's suggestion of murder.
He does accept it, though, which leads to both of them plotting to "off" Crawford in the next few days as they, incorrectly, believe she's about to rewrite her will in an unfavorable way for Palance. The irony is that she was planning to leave almost everything to him.
The movie is about half over and now comes a huge coincidence and a hard pivot as Grahame and Palance's discussion of their murderous plan is, accidentally and unknowingly to them, captured on Crawford's fancy home office recording machine.
Crawford, alone in the office the next morning, hears the recording, naturally freaks out and, then, being an author, plans an incredibly elaborate scheme to protect herself and exact revenge on Grahame and Palance.
It will be up to each viewer to either accept or not that Crawford didn't do what most people would do at this point: go somewhere safe and contact her longtime friend and lawyer, played by Bruce Bennett, to divorce Palance. But then there wouldn't be much of a movie.
We get, instead, a second half of intense drama as Crawford, worrying she'll be killed by Palance at any moment, attempts to execute on her insanely complex plan to eliminate both him and Grahame.
If you just go with it, it's fun, even if it's often hard to believe. There are so many coincidences involved, small clues that could give her plan away and near misses that would spoil it, that it almost becomes camp, but it (maybe) doesn't quite cross the line.
If it doesn't, it's because Crawford, Palance and Grahame, acting pros, sell the story hard, as they never let you think for a second that everyone's life isn't on the line. The climax goes all in on the drama, but again, the three leads try to keep it from spiralling out of control.
Credit also belongs to director David Miller who had to make this unwieldy plot work, which for the most part, he does. His final action scene is a bit hard to believe, but if you suspend a little more disbelief, it's a fun and even tense sequence.
Being a Crawford film, Sudden Fear is a professional effort from the first frame to the last. The black and white cinematography makes wonderful use of San Francisco's noir-perfect backdrop. It's a world you want to live in, sans the threat of murder of course.
There are better and there are worse Crawford movies from this period in her career. Still, Sudden Fear, if you forgive it some excesses, is a fun enough murder melodrama held together by Crawford's indomitable acting will along with big assists from Grahame and Palance.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 31, 2023 6:46:39 GMT
Strong review. I agree that Palance falls under Grahame's spell a little too easily, in terms of agreeing with her to murder Crawford. Perhaps that part of the plot would have worked better if she was his cousin or sister with an incestuous vibe, where she'd grown up with him and knew how to manipulate him. And if we'd been told they'd killed someone else before, so none of this was really an out-of-the-ordinary thing for Palance to do or go along with...
Also, I think your review has a good suggestion that Palance might very well have pursued Crawford to prove he's a better actor than she gave him credit for...yet he does fall for her and is content with being a kept man for a rich older woman...and is genuinely happy for a while...until Grahame shows up and brings out a darker side in him. Yes, some of this is implied, but I think the script could have been a little more overt in this regard, so that we saw a more conflicted man, not just one who quickly changed to suit the plot.
Crawford and director David Miller would team up again for THE STORY OF ESTHER COSTELLO (1947).
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jul 31, 2023 11:34:40 GMT
Thank you for the compliment.
When Grahame first showed up and clearly had some leverage on Palance, I thought she was going to be his wife, which would, of course, invalidate his marriage to Crawford. The script did have Grahame mention something about $5000, but I either (and probably) missed the explanation or it wasn't explained.
I also didn't buy Palance's speech about how he wanted to tell Crawford he was laughing at her the whole time as it never seemed that way. Like you, I thought he felt a lot for her, plus he liked her money - many successful marriages have been built on that combination of motives. If it was true that he felt nothing for her, a good director and/or a good actor would have shown the audience a hint of that before Grahame showed up, so that his change felt consistent.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 31, 2023 14:18:51 GMT
Thank you for the compliment.
When Grahame first showed up and clearly had some leverage on Palance, I thought she was going to be his wife, which would, of course, invalidate his marriage to Crawford. The script did have Grahame mention something about $5000, but I either (and probably) missed the explanation or it wasn't explained.
I also didn't buy Palance's speech about how he wanted to tell Crawford he was laughing at her the whole time as it never seemed that way. Like you, I thought he felt a lot for her, plus he liked her money - many successful marriages have been built on that combination of motives. If it was true that he felt nothing for her, a good director and/or a good actor would have shown the audience a hint of that before Grahame showed up, so that his change felt consistent. I think the reason Grahame couldn't be his wife is because then he'd be plotting to kill her (which he ironically did at the end), instead of plotting to kill Crawford. Grahame could've gone to Crawford and exposed the marriage, invalidating what Crawford had with Palance, then Palance's life on easy street would have been over. So I can see why the writers didn't go that route. But yes, Palance's character seemed a bit inconsistent at times.
All we needed to know is that Grahame had some dark psychological hold over Palance, and that they'd pulled off crimes before, possibly even a previous murder. So that when she suggests their killing Crawford, it's more plausible for him to go along with it, despite his increasingly genuine feelings for Crawford.
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 31, 2023 14:34:38 GMT
Joan Crawford was one of the screen’s most versatile, durable stars. Maybe her success can be attributed to her real-life ambition, but I think it’s an indication of her talent. She specialized in risky parts that other actresses were afraid to take. She didn’t mind alienating the audience by playing against type and shattering everyone’s expectations of her. She was bold.
The performance she gives in SUDDEN FEAR is without question one of her boldest. There’s a sequence where she realizes her husband is a murderer and plans to make her his next victim. It’s a master class in on-screen emotion, and she uses all the tricks she learned during the early part of her career in silent films.
The casting of Jack Palance, who is not quite a conventional romantic lead, works to the film’s advantage. Originally Crawford wanted her old MGM pal Clark Gable for the lead, but he was deemed too old and she was talked out of that choice. She was persuaded to go with Palance, which she agreed to do after she screened his performance in PANIC IN THE STREETS. I think having the husband be a younger scheming man makes the story stronger.
A scene where Crawford goes to Palance’s place and tells him she needs him (right before they are married)– uses the same stairwell we’ve seen in CITIZEN KANE when Kane confronts Boss Jim Gettys about exposing his affair with Susan Alexander. SUDDEN FEAR was an independent production, distributed by RKO, and the producers used RKO’s facilities to film the interior scenes.
While Crawford had final casting approval on the picture, she was somewhat stuck with Gloria Grahame, who at that time worked under contract at RKO. She found Grahame to be rather unprofessional, so she had her banned from the set when they were shooting scenes in which Grahame was not appearing.
Grahame was having an off-camera affair with Palance, meaning Palance and Crawford did not sleep together (Crawford occasionally slept with her leading men). And perhaps that sort of tension– with him actually involved with Grahame, whom Crawford disliked– gives the film an extra dimension, especially in those later scenes where Crawford is supposed to be hurt and jealous, and she really has a reason to dislike Grahame on screen.
In my opinion, the best scene in the movie is the lengthy scene at the 43-minute mark where Crawford plays the recording and hears the two lovers conspiring against her. To me, this is the actress’s finest cinematic moment. Even more powerful than her work in MILDRED PIERCE or POSSESSION (1947) for which she was also nominated. She has no dialogue in this long extended scene, it’s just her listening and reacting.
It’s brilliantly performed and could only have been done by an actress who started her motion picture career in silent films. By this point, 1952, we get an accomplished actress, with years of experience under her belt. She gives a skilled performance all the way through– most especially in this sequence, where the plot takes a 180-degree turn and her character’s life is suddenly turned upside down.
We then see her put a plot in motion to outfox Palance and Grahame. Even if she has no guarantee that Palance will find a note she plants inside his pocket.
When she does the sprained ankle routine, and the others leave the house and she is all alone with Palance in the bedroom, he could just as easily kill her and then stage a burglary. He’s running out of time and needs to get rid of her, so she is taking a huge risk that he won’t just dispose of her right then and there. Of course, if he did that, we wouldn’t get the great climactic finale with her back at Grahame’s place.
The ending of the film is set up very smartly. We see Crawford making a timetable, detailing how she intends to get revenge on her husband and his mistress. She makes rather elaborate plans for Palance to die, and for Grahame to take the fall for his murder.
There is a very good shot of her after she makes the timetable…where she has a vision of how her plan will be carried out with Grahame being convicted. We see Crawford’s face, and we hear the pendulum of the clock swinging…then the camera moves in for an extreme close-up of her eyes. She blinks once then holds a very long, vengeful stare.
There is pure horror in that fixed expression– the horror of what’s being done to her, and the horror she intends to inflict on the others. It’s a truly intense performance…and the way she conveys fear, which is what this movie is about, puts her on a level that actresses seldom reach in the movies.
|
|