Tuesday, March 15: High-Heeled Gumshoe
WHEN HOLLYWOOD GETS IT RIGHT
by Melodie Johnson Howe
I saw a trailer on TV about the remaking of Mildred Pierce to be released in spring as a five part mini-series on HBO. My heart sank, my stomach dropped, my chest tightened, my lips drew back, my heart, even though it had already sunk, now raced as I screamed, “Nooooooo, don’t do it.” But obviously they already had because I was watching them tell me how wonderful and creative this new film will be. And much closer to the book! But the movie, Joan Crawford’s movie, was better than the book. My apologies to James M. Cain, but sometimes Hollywood gets it right!
Again Hollywood can’t let be what they got right in the first place so they do a remake. The cast for the remake is filled with fine actors. But Kate Winslet is no Joan Crawford. Those are some shoulders to fill. In the beginning of the trailer Kate’s Mildred looks a little downtrodden. Joan’s Mildred was desperate for money but she was never downtrodden. Kate will have to prove to me that she can open a string of restaurants by selling her pies and greasy chicken. And James Pearce sporting a bushy mustache does not look like he “ . . . came from a long line of gypsies.” Zackary Scott did. And who can match the snappy one liners from Eve Arden’s Ida?
The actress who plays Veda, though beautiful, does not have the hard edges to her beauty that Ann Blyth had. Ann and Joan looked like mother and daughter. They shared an intensity of two determined women with the same strengths. One for good, one for destruction. I didn’t see a resemblance between Kate Winslet and Evan Rachel Wood, who plays Veda. Or that shared strength. But I am rushing and screaming to judgment.
One of the trailers opens with a voice over saying something like “ . . . in a time when women didn’t work.” (Meaning in the thirties.) Really? I think women worked very hard back then. Can you imagine a trailer for the original movie saying that? It makes me nervous. Joan is rolling over in her grave. In the black and white version, Veda ends up singing in Wally Fay’s (Jack Carson) dive while wearing a hula skirt. Okay, they had to deal with a morals code back then. In the remake, which is true to the book, Veda is an opera singer. (I always thought this was an odd choice Cain made for Veda’s character.)
Lip synching opera is a difficult task in a movie and if the actress is not right on she will make the audience’s toes curl. The one improvement promises to be the part of Mrs. Binderhof. Poor Mrs. Binderhof in the original was the only mistress in history that was more prim than a nun. But looking at these trailers what worries me most is that the costumes look like they are wearing the actors. This does not bode well.
Despite my bitching I’ll watch this mini series with a tiny bit of hope. And try not to notice Joan Crawford’s shadow looming over it adjusting her shoulder pads.
James M. Cain wrote a novella or very short novel called Sinful Woman about a Sheriff and a movie star thrown together to solve a crime. It is intentionally light and wonderful. I don’t think it has even been made into a movie. It would make a good one. And nobody has done it as far as I know. Now that I’m writing about Sinful Woman, I want to reread it.
Watching this preview of portending failure (did I just write that?) I was reminded of other movies that were better than their books. My apologies to another great writer, Dashiell Hammett, but the movie, The Thin Man, was better than the book. The novel was a good mystery. But Hammett’s Nick and Nora were drunks. Drunks aren’t that funny or charming unless of course they’re played by William Powell and Myrna Loy. I have not read the book in a long time, but I remember the depressing weight of a major drinking problem connecting Nick and Nora more than love or solving crime. Because the drinking was unexplored it left a pall over the book.
Another movie that was better than the book was Laura. I’m sorry Vera Caspary, but it’s true. As with the other two movies I mentioned, it is the literate script and the casting along with David Raskin’s lilting score that makes this film endure. Clifton Webb was cuttingly inspired and thin compared to Caspary’s vilian who was fat and not so witty.
L.A. Confidential was better than James Elroy’s book. The screenwriters took a wonderful sprawling over-the-top saga and tamed it into a smart script. James Pearce was great in this movie. And Kevin Spacey was brilliant , as was his death scene. And the actors wore their fifties costumes as if they belonged in them.
When Hollywood gets it right there is nothing more entertaining and satisfying. Maybe this remake of Mildred Pierce will come close. But . . .
I share your apprehension about a new version of MILDRED PIERCE, though going back to the original (as with the recent TRUE GRIT) offers a better excuse than remaking the movie version with a different cast. British TV remakes literary classics over and over again with interesting results, though I can’t imagine American TV doing that. While I agree the film of THE THIN MAN was better than the book, I listened to an audio reading of the book a while back and thought it was much better than I remembered. To me, a strong example of a movie superior to the book was TRUE CONFESSIONS, though I don’t know how many people agree with me.
I recently reread The Thin Man and found it quite engaging if completely different in tone than the William Powell/Myrna Loy films—but the missing ingredient in the book was the witty humor exemplified in the movies. The book takes itself very seriously—it’s a hard-boiled mystery featuring a very working-class detective, a tough Greek, who has married into money. William Powell plays Nick as anything but working class, or even Greek for that matter. Likewise, Hammett’s Nora is something of a rich and idle parasite, not at all like the effervescent Myrna Loy. The Nora in the book is rough rye whiskey with a splash of soda, but the Nora in the films is fine champagne.
Other movies I regard as vastly superior to their prose antecedents include The Wizard of Oz, essentially a saccharine kids’ book, and The Godfather, which is really nothing but a pot boiler.
I recently got into a discussion concerning the relative merits of the film Blade Runner compared to the book on which it is based, Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. I found the movie all style (although the style was very strong) and no substance, relying on trite plot devices and stock characterizations, and I think it completely missed the point of Dick’s disturbing dystopia. My friend, on the other hand, loved the movie but found the book unreadable.
Jon,
I grew up watching THE THIN MAN movies on TV. When I was old enough to read the book I was shocked at the differences. A lesson in transforming novels into movies. But Hammett’s writing and the mystery held me leading me to THE MALTESE FALCON, RED HARVEST, etc. It’s time for a reread.
I agree with you about TRUE CONFESSIONS. I think it’s an underrated film. DE Niro and (God, I think of the other actor’s name right now. Begins with a D!) were brilliant.
But no actress can equal my Joan’s Mildred.
James,
How could I forget THE GODFATHER. I admit to never reading The Wizard of OZ. Bones grew up reading the Oz books and I don’t think he’s ever gotten over it.
Your discussion with your friend is what I love about books versus movies.
DeNiro’s co-star in TRUE CONFESSIONS was Robert Duvall. I strongly agree about THE GODFATHER, which is a great film. The novel, though, I set down after a hundred or so pages and couldn’t understand what the shouting was about.
Really enjoyed this weeks entry and discussion. Your critical eye brings out so much more pleasure of reading. Thanks.
I must chime in here, even though I’m late to the party: I too loved the movie TRUE CONFESSIONS. What’s funny is, I liked the book until I saw the movie and found the film version to be so much better. And I swear, I think Robert Duvall has been good in every movie he ever made.
Other movies that I thought were better than their novels, besides the ones already mentioned, were DANCES WITH WOLVES and FORREST GUMP. Too many movie versions, though, fall far short of the books.
Love these discussions . . .