Monday, July 4, 2016

Shameless Holiday Weekend Camp Explosion: Art Film


Carissimi, I have a shocking admission to make...

Until this weekend, I had never seen Valley of the Dolls. Or rather, as I'm a Confirmed Bachelor of a Certain Age, I'd never seen all of Valley of the Dolls, since the picture is more or less a string of Big Camp Moments highlighted in a thousand gay-bar video montages strung together with some - far, far too many, really - of the most turgid expository scenes ever put on celluloid.

But now I've seen it, and the most remarkable thing about the experience is that it actually managed to be worse (much, much worse) than I had long imagined. This may be an unparalleled example of a film in which literary dross was turned into cinematic turds, with every single element - acting, music, costumes, choreography, script, hell even the lighting - as witless, aesthetically bankrupt, and leaden as it could possibly be.

And that, of course, is the secret of its perverse genius: its very crapulence is what assures its place in the ranks of the screen immortals, right up there with Citizen Kane at one end of the spectrum and (far closer to home) Plan Nine at the other. Now, others have and at far greater length and with infinitely more wit than I dissected the hapless mess that is VotD; after all these years, there's not really all that much more to say. But herewith a few thoughts, and something like a revelation:

Poor Patty Duke really is as coarse and awful and hammy as a few clips might indicate; by contrast, Sharon Tate is sometimes lauded for her acting as the ill-fated sexpot, but surely that's only in comparison to everyone else around her. It doesn't help that she shares so many of her scenes with Lee Grant, playing her enigmatic sister-in-law.  Now, Grant really isn't bad, but she seems to have been beamed in from some far more ominous and existential film (perhaps something Russian, from Dostoevsky). Because this is the Cinema of Extremes, Duke's hypermanic performance is more than offset by Barbara Parkins as Anne Welles, who seems to be just about the most successful accidental catatonic supermodel of all time. Parkins reads her lines as if she's just been presented with the script as she came out of a sound but not especially refreshing sleep, and it's telling that she achieves the apex of her histrionic skills on the immortal line, "Neely, you're being obnoxious." Which could actually stand on its own as a tagline for the whole production.

The men are totally exiguous, unnecessary in a way that recalls The Women (although I swear I have stronger memories of Stephen Haines, Howard Fowler, or certainly Buck Winston than I do of any Valley man except possibly, from their cameos, Joey Bishop and Georgie Jessel as Themselves). Even Ted Casablanca, so infamously and endless quoted for his lack of being (and it's a word that crops up a lot) a fag, barely registers.

And then there's Susan Hayward. There's only so bad someone as much a pro and a veteran as she could be, and it can't be denied that she does every single thing she can with the lurid yet somehow underwritten role of Helen Lawson.  I was trying to figure out why, despite her formidable best efforts, it all still doesn't exactly land, and then I think I discovered the secret.

Helen Lawson, of course, is meant to be a Giant of The Theatre, and not just any ol' theatre, but Broadway, Musical Division. Think Ethel Merman (Jackie Susann certainly did, God knows). Now, Hayward acts the hell out of the idea of a tough old trouper, the kind who put the Broad in Broadway, and I especially love how, in her most famous line (about what a certain place doesn't go for), she puts the accent on the first syllable  - "So ya come crawlin' back to BROAD-way..." She also smokes up a storm, which increasingly seems as period an acting device as pulling out a fine enameled snuffbox.

No, the acting's not the problem. It's the voice.

Hayward was hired, as legend and every gay boy in Manhattan has it, after the ignominious departure from the set of Judy Garland, whose real life was messier (and infinitely sadder) than anything dreamt up to give Patty Duke an excuse to thrash clumsily about. She gave the requisite dose of star quality to a picture that sorely needed it, but wasn't quite up singing in the Mermanesque manner. Like her co-star Duke, she was dubbed. Unlike Duke (whose ersatz singing voice is every bit as raucous and off-putting as any other thing about Neely O'Hara), she was given the voice of one of the most charming and elegant interpreters of American popular song of those or any other times - it's not slumming in any form to have the voice of Margaret Whiting appear when you open your mouth.

What Whiting isn't, though, is a Broadway diva - fierce, demanding; in short, a barracuda. No; her voice is velvety, her diction incomparable, but she's just not able to do much with "I'll Plant My Own Tree," which comes off as a very distant cousin indeed to the then-popular me-me-me song that figured in so many musicals of the era (think "Don't Rain on My Parade" or "I've Gotta be Me"). With Whiting's voice, Hayward's attempts at putting over an eleven o'clock number are more mystifying than electrifying. She poses and gestures and basks, despite the presence of a wholly risible Calderesque-mobile that no real diva would have put up with for a minute, but to not all that much avail.

A brilliant YouTuber, though, has figured out the problem. A real diva can put anything over, or at least make you think she is, even this nonsense about Trying Hard In My Yard. And it turns out that, given a real showstopper of a voice (the most showstoppingest of them all, if ask me), Hayward really can persuade you that she's all that.  Judy Garland, you see, before the inevitable hook sans ovation, recorded "My Own Tree." And this clever YouTuber replaced the estimable Miss Whiting with the immortal Miss G. - and now you can see what Helen Lawson's all about. Even her bizarrely angular approach to stage movement almost makes sense. See for yourself:


Anne Welles is still having none of it, but I think it's a distinct improvement.

So that's what I've been up to here in Our Nation's Capital on a distinctly gray and drizzly Independence Day Weekend. I can only hope you're up to something a shade more festive, although i can't deny I'm having fun in my own little way. And the dogs are in heaven, as I've hardly left the house.  Happy Fourth!

12 comments:

  1. It is a life-changing film! You will be quoting dialogue from it for the rest of your life. For me, VoD is all about the monstrous, rampaging performance of Patty Duke as Neely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It really is, in its way, a remarkable performance, if not in any sense at all a good one. I almost give some credence to the conspiracy theory that the director was purposely leading her astray. And God knows Travilla wasn't doing her any favors (the only person he seems to have liked at all was Sharon Tate).

      Delete
  2. My God, you're right about the voice/visuals of "I'll Plant My Own Tree." Margaret did a lovely job with the (in my opinion, rather stupid) song, but it never worked with Hayward's gesticulations. It's almost as if she filmed the scene listening to Garland and then Whiting matched the lips of Hayward after the fact or something. It is weird watching Hayward "sing" with Garland's voice, but the number as a whole does come across a whole lot better. BTW, that was quite a feat making it this long before seeing VOD!! Most of us have felt compelled to seek it out and indulge in its campy mother's milk from the earliest available TV viewings or the advent of VHS (or even Beta?!) LOL

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's quite remarkable, isn't it? Whiting's version isn't bad, considering the quality of the song, but just not a socko, knock 'em dead approach. I also wondered if maybe the number was filmed using Garland for playback - it just works so much better.

    I suppose I've had the chance to see it - over the years (although I spent the prime video years mostly on the silents through the '40s) and it's certainly been sitting there on Netflix for months - but somehow figured that having seen so many of the key moments, it would be a letdown. Whatever it was, it wasn't that!

    ReplyDelete
  4. You are not alone, my dear. I have to confess - despite revelling in the trashiness of the film, and its author, I too have never seen Valley of the Dolls in its entirety. And now I know I don't need to. Jx

    PS That clip dubbed with Judy rather than Dear Margaret is rather special...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, you probably ought to take it all in. It's terrible, but I can't say that it's not pretty totally entertaining.

      Delete
    2. I would probably need a houseful of trashy drunk queens to make it truly the "camp experience" it is reputed to be. Now there's an idea for a party!!! Jx

      Delete
    3. Indeed. I think it's best seen either in a silly crowd or alone. Watching, I was thinking how oddly embarrassing it would be to sit through with only one other person - as if it would reveal too much is both cruel and foolish in one's reactions...

      Delete
  5. Good to know I am not alone, Muscato & Jon. Until recently, I had never seen it. Like you, I've seen the obligatory moments of screaming high camp in various video bars and during clip shows. It was only this past winter that I saw it playing on TCM and decided I was overdue to give it a full go. I got about 40 minutes into it when the interwebs pulled my attention away. So while I have seen much more of it than ever before, I still haven't viewed it in its entirety. I had low expectations, and it didn't even meet those.

    I do have a friend who is a fierce champion of the flick. There was some sort of premiere of a restored version or perhaps an anniversary showing some years back. Mike was there behind the barricades to watch the notable attendees arrive. He took it upon himself to slip past the barricades and walk right in with the red carpet attendees. He noticed Barbara Parkins in the crowd, approached her, and then escorted her in and sat with her to watch the movie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's worth seeing through, although the thought uppermost in my head as it faded out was something like, "People... actually at some point... thought this was a good idea." It's entertaining, but not for a moment in the way that any of those involved intended - which is I suppose a form of inadvertent genius.

      Delete
  6. I suppose it's of a piece with the film's overarching crapulence, but I still find it astonishing that nobody bothered to wipe the smudged fingerprints of the stagehands from the panes of the mobile that threatens to decapitate our ersatz diva!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Attention to detail, to put it mildly, is not a forte of the production, start to finish. If that's the big number, imagine what the rest of Hit the Sky must have been like...

      Delete