(no subject)

[shadowkat]

Okay, this is a bit weird for a television enterprise... a new FX anthology series by Ryan Murphy, entitled Feud is premiering in 2017, and the first eight episode installment will center on the infamous Bette Davis vs. Joan Crawford feud..

Although considering it's Ryan Murphy, who likes to satirize American pop culture, I shouldn't be surprised. I find his satire to be a bit over the top, often offensive and cruel to my taste, but he's insanely successful. Ryan likes to punch his audience in the stomach with his jokes. Subtlety is lost on him. As is wit.

The only two Murphy series that I was able to watch for any length of time were Nip/Tuck (until it jumped the shark and got insanely gruesome in its last two seasons and I gave up) and Glee (which I mainly watched for the musical performances in the latter seasons.) Glee was also the mildest of his series.

So not so sure I'll be watching it, except maybe out of curiously. I do remember reading about the Bette Davis/Crawford feud, which culminated with Whatever Happened to Baby Jane - a psychological horror film about a deranged woman holding her crippled sister hostage.

The intensely bitter Hollywood rivalry between the film's two stars, Davis and Crawford, was heavily important to the film's initial success.[6] This in part led to the revitalization of the then-waning careers of the two stars. In the years after release, critics continued to acclaim the film for its psychologically driven black comedy, camp, and creation of the psycho-biddy subgenre. The film's then unheard of and controversial plot, meant that it originally received an X rating in the UK, Because of the appeal of the film's stars, Dave Itzkoff in The New York Times has identified it as being a "cult classic". In 2003, the character of Baby Jane Hudson was ranked #44 on the American Film Institute's list of the 50 Best Villains of American Cinema.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Ever_Happened_to_Baby_Jane%3F_(1962_film)

I've seen the film. Found it difficult to watch - no one is likable and Bette Davis over-acted, which she did in basically all her later films.

Comments

[petzipellepingo.livejournal.com]

this is a bit weird for a television enterprise

Plus, I don't know how many young people would even care about the Bette vs Joan feud. That's ancient history as far as they're concerned.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Exactly. The person posting it on FB thought it was on PBS, they don't watch F/X. And they are in their 60s/70s.

At least the People vs. OJ Simpson was recent history - as in the last ten to fifteen years. This is old Hollywood nostalgia. How many people are going to be into that?

It's targeted at the 60-80 year old group, and they don't tend to like Ryan Murphy's style all that much. My mother can't stand him.

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

I find his satire to be a bit over the top, often offensive and cruel to my taste,

If that's the case I wouldn't look for any groundbreaking material from him. Mommy Dearest, Joan Crawford's adopted daughter's hatchet job on her mother, was despised as a movie not because it was necessarily inaccurate, but because it was so painfully and poorly overdone. Throw in Baby Jane, which I agree is painful to watch, and you've got all the material you need for a cruel and offensive film that has little to do with the real actresses.

You didn't hire Bette Davis unless you wanted a strong woman character. In an era when starlets (including Joan Crawford!) were hired to be pretty first and actresses second by their employers, Bette Davis was an exception. She wasn't the only one who could act, but if Bette Davis couldn't have acted very well she'd have never been anywhere near starring in movies. She played her roles with such personality you total forgot what she looked like. As she got old, she mostly got rolls as loud, nasty older women, but she was capable of much more. I suspect that in Baby Jane, she was only acting exactly as the director asked her to.

Patient Blanche in Baby Jane was the kind of role (though certainly not the kind of film!) Joan Crawford thrived on in her hey day; quiet, socially approved, strength as opposed to Davis' usual, dare I say, feminist strength. They may have frequently wanted the same parts, but it's doubtful the studio ever thought they belonged in the same roles. It's odd to think that both Davis and Crawford were considered for Scarlett O'hara, perhaps for mostly for one of their names on the marquee. I can imagine either in the role, but it would have been almost unrecognizably different with either!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I'd agree, Davis was better in her earlier roles. Back then, roles for older women were few and far between. And, it's true, in both film and television - the acting really is based on the direction. Often an actor can do a great performance, we'll never see - because the director edited it out and took a prior one that worked better with the lighting. Film is a director's arena, television - the show-writers (they have the final say in the editing room), and stage (actor's arena). So yeah, I think the reason Baby Jane was painful, is the director wanted campy acting and that's what we got. Crawford and Davis were actually excellent actresses...but the industry was a difficult one. It still is. You do not want to work in the entertainment industry -- it's nasty.

Baby Jane wasn't the only film they starred in together, apparently. I think they also did Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte. Both needed the money, or they'd never have done it.

I remember reading and seeing snatches of Mommie Dearest - it was a horrible movie and lampooned endlessly.

And I don't think there's much that Murphy can add to the story, but then I didn't think there was anything new he could say about the OJ Simpson story....