I hate it when her age is discussed. But I see why. If she wasn't dead, I wouldn't talk about her physical appearance.
It may have helped if she had been the only woman in the film, and the only blonde, or at least the only one with lighter hair than dark blond. But, instead, she's the only one who isn't young.
Not a good look for any star.
In the days before Judy D. and Helen M. and other women over 40 having something to do in a film other than be the old lady, it's clear why women weren't given parts like that. With all the young dancers and the fresh faced men... well, its a problem.
With the non-glamorous roles- being surrounded by the world leaders, or the natural acting of the body builders, she is better.
And some of it isn't her fault at all. Several times she has makeup that's a little green or blue. I suppose they wanted her to film white, not yellow, but it's too much and it happens for too long and in more than one scene. Also, putting her against a white background seems like it might work well, but it blends in with the color of her hair, not her face, so it makes her look a little more like bald than blond. This is absolutely the opposite, not just a little off, of what we want.
I read a biography, and a saw a wonderful YouTube video of a tour of a former assistant showing us gowns and headdresses and jewelry and it was a completely different vibe in both of those. In those, and even that tour where she actually wasn't, she's a star.
Her waist is much too thick. In her biography, I think it was Anthony Quinn (non-Mexican name like Lynda Carter, Raquel Welch and Spanish Rita Hayworth) who said in real life she was just petite but on film she photographed fat. I absolutely believe that to be true because there wasn't any back fat. Normal size women have back fat, and with what appears to be a thick waist and even a gut, what were you thinking Edith Head, what a big surprise and disappointment, from the back she's not as big. But why do I know that? Why is a star shown from the back, except of course, the time she shakes her butt.
Her costumes are above the top but her face doesn't move much and her voice is understated. That's right. Her voice is understated. There is that pitch thing she does and that vibrato thing she does, but for once I noticed that they're not as flamboyant as her lines of dialogue or her costumes, or the delicious silliness of the whole idea and its jokey parts.
There are a lot of good ententres and farcical elements. But I think it couldn't make up its mind if it was going to be slightly off color or slightly really off color. This may be splitting hairs, but the last line in the movie should be the only one that clear, or else they should have gone for it and had them all like that, but I'm glad they didn't. I think, instead that the lines should have all been on the level of the tame jokes, except for the last line.
The music too, can't decide if it's all out or if its understated. The theme is sung by a bad chorus. What a surprise. I think they should have used a Disney cartoon or Mitch Miller or Robert Shaw chorus, with flawless vocals on top of a disco background. Maybe that would have stricken a balance between the 30s snd 70s style needed to pull this off.
The other people around Mae West should have been all men, and some old men and some frumpy men and some muscle men, some dancers, some young faces- and they all fall for her with same attitude.
There is a vibe of the time with the men that falls into that Robert Wager/Lyle Waggoner/Robert Conrad/Jim West vibe- but I think it's mostly the hair and clothes of men at that time, and not something that is a fault of the movie's. I think maybe West's dialogue should have been delivered in exactly the same tone, but add some facial movements and make her singing dramatic and theatrical so there wouldn't be a contrast with her energy and everyone else's when it's time to sing and dance. She has a good thing going on but it's not showcased.
I can't tell if it was fun on the set, or fun only for the extras and those who aren't real actors. Some of that might be an excuse why the actors didn't really shine. The stars should have been either the prettiest boys they could find or the storied biggest stars they could fine. Maybe it would have been great to have all four Beatles. I can't decide if they would have been better in one scene together or with four side plots highlighting their differences. But Ringo had the exact attitude they all should have had.
George Hamilton and Keith Moon and Alice Cooper were dressed alike. And even Tony Curtis was dressed alike, but differentiated himself from the others in his acting. Each of these needed to be completely different from the others. The whole point of the movie is that every type of man that ever lived thinks they can't live without Mae West. So maybe one of the body builders should have had a bigger part and maybe an adolescent and a child and a toddler and a baby boy should have really mooned over her, not to mention a couple old men.
You can't have a movie where one fresh-faced buy follows her around all the time and then there's lots of jaunty male dancers. Instead, you need a movie where every single male does that.
And if you can't have the Real Marlon Brando, either make a stronger Mafia milieu surrounding George Hamilton or forget it. The Jimmy Carter looker makes it because there is such a clear emphasis on world peace and the conference. Brando seems thrown in.
Speaking of 007, good joke and nice reference having future Bond do some Bond stuff. The stuntman should have been a little less limber in two scenes. And Dalton should have been showcases as a stronger athlete, not just an unlike funny athlete.
The gay references make me go back to the "Hollywood is deliberately moving the culture" but how do I know the different between that, and people who accept it just writing about it? And if the culture is being deliberately moved, and I have no doubt now that Anita Bryant has been proved right- are they doing it to help people?
Why not have the short guy fall for her? Short people can't resist Miss Manners. In fact, no man can. Maybe a couple gay guys can give up on each other once she enters the room, and they rush off to stand at both sides of her.
Speaking of both sides, there was something noncommital and rushed about the way she pointed to her assets. That and the butt scene should have been more alike.
Maybe she could have had some more non-male traits. Boy, that sounds funny to say. Who is more non-male? But maybe she could move slow and everybody else move fast, or athletically. Maybe some of them could have been less soy boy or more forceful or crude. But I guess no crudeness apart from slight sexual innuendo makes the most sense.
Overall, it was hard to find facial expressions or makeup that show anything as magical as paintings of her, or many of her photographs. Too much eyeliner? Today, all the women wear eyeliner, but back then? Was it generally that prominent?
Basically I'm sick of talking about the movie. I genuinely laughed more than I would for a movie of that time and type. And I genuinely smiled at many other points. And I don't think any of it is her fault. Movies can make a crone sexy. And she wasn't even approaching cronedom.
Its easy to watch a movie and find lots of places where things could have been more consistent or in a different tone- when the camera should have held a little longer, when the line should be said differently. Those post filming thoughts are so much easier than discovering how to do them while filming. I'm fixing something. They had to create it.
I wonder how much of the film was her. The story, obviously. But how much else. Back in the day, she wanted to be seen as the star, not the producer or writer. Here, they give her credit for singing one song. Hello, she sang a few songs.
Today with all the blond sexy ladies in the former pantheons, and the cool blondes too, what is the legacy of this woman who made her own way in the world without hardly leaving the Ravenswood? I wonder how she looked in that white castle? The raunchiness was paved by her, but did she want it to stay at that level and not go further. This was after Harlow and Monroe. But we needed a little wider eyes like them, and some of their makeup tricks.
It's better to be seen as the blond then the old fat one. That's what Lydia said.
Nice hair, maybe the costumes were too old fashioned, and why was there hardly any height difference between this tiny woman and all those men? I understand not wanting the star to appear little, but maybe it could have highlighted the dimorphism which was a little lacking.
I guess maybe she was a real female since she didn't seem like a drag queen. But I'm glad she didn't go that far. I think her balance in tone was right.
I've already forgotten all the guys in the film. Except for the scene with the body builders. In that one, she's the only one in clothes, and around all that big tanness she shines.
No comments:
Post a Comment