Given the vast number of great films out there and the slim chance any of us have (in our all-too-brief lifetimes) of ever finding the time to see them all, one has to wonder why anyone would waste their moments watching (and re-watching) a film one already knows to be bad.
Well, first off, the term “bad,” as applied to film, is a terribly subjective signifier governed by strict classifications of rank. For example: there’s straight-out unwatchable, bottom of the barrel bad, like Adam Sandler, Michael Bay, or Eli Roth movies; then there’s the waste-of-celluloid, forgotten-even-as-you’re-watching-it kind of bad you’re guaranteed with a Matthew McConaughey or Jason Stratham film; and finally, there is the top-tier, rarefied, irresistible awfulness of a film like Valley of the Dolls.
What makes this final category of bad so special is that, unlike the sluggish product born of dull incompetence and a lack of talent, this distinguished rank of terrible is the kind of delightfully vibrant, peppy wretchedness that only the truly talented can create. It entertains, it engages, it makes you laugh, it makes you cry (from laughing) ...in short, it does everything a good movie does...but it's not. Now, that HAS to be some kind of achievement!
 |
| Patty Duke is Neely (Ethel Agnes) O'Hara: Nice kid turned lush! |
 |
| Barbara Parkins as Anne Welles: Good girl with all the bad breaks! |
 |
| Sharon Tate as Jennifer North: Sex symbol turned on too often! |
 |
| Susan Hayward as Helen Lawson: A gut, fingernail, and claw fighter who went down swinging! |
This hilariously self-serious film adapted from Jacqueline Susann's novel about three girls balancing career, romance, and pharmaceuticals in the seamy world of show business, is one of the best examples of that forgotten 60s subgenre: the glossy, career-girl soap opera. Films like
Three Coins in a Fountain (1954),
The Best of Everything (1959),
The Pleasure Seekers (1964), and
The Group (1966 ) all purported to be modern exposés on the lives of young, emancipated American womanhood, but what they really were were moldy cautionary tales warning women of the dangers of seeking lives outside of the traditional home and family.
 |
| Love Eyes. Career-girl Anne hopes to put the "double harness" on her boss, Lyon Burke (Paul Burke) |
A master's thesis could be written (and probably has) on the many missteps taken in bringing Susann's sex-filled potboiler to the screen, but any such dissection has to start with the screenplay and director. Really, who thought it was a good idea to have 60 year-old Helen Deutsh and 57 year-old Dorothy Kingsley collaborate on a screenplay about three women in their 20s? With their tin ear for sixties idioms and maiden aunt's sense of shock at Susann's yawn-inducing concept of naughtiness (spelled out in bold letters in case we are dozing — Adultery! Pre-Marital Relations! Homosexuality! Abortion! Insanity!), Valley of the Dolls has all the up-to-date urgency of an issue of "Captain Billy's Whiz Bang."
53 year-old Mark Robson, the stodgily old-school director best known for that antiseptic paean to small-town debauchery, Peyton Place (1957), directs Valley of the Dolls as if he had made a bet with someone that he could make a 1967 film that looked like it was made in 1957. A bet he would win, I might add. Looking at the film's flat, high-key lighting (that make location shots look like studio sets) and the stiff, camera-nailed-to-the-floor photography, one begins to understand why, in just a couple of years, Hollywood would be opening its doors and throwing directing jobs at anyone under the age of 30.
WHAT I LOVE ABOUT THIS FILM:
Everything. And there aren't even many "good" films I can say that about, but it's true. There's not a single thing about Valley of the Dolls I would change. It's a perfect aggregation of people capable of better delivering their worst.
Random thoughts: How did she get all of that hair into that cab?
 |
| "Well, Broadway doesn't go for booooze and dope!" |
Richard Angarola as Claude Chardot: "Art film" director and winner of the "Pepe Le Pew Award" for the world's worst French accent.
 |
| "Ted Casablanca is not a fag!" Neely asserts to sweet, emasculated, homophobe, Mel Anderson (Martin Milner); a.k.a, Mr. O'Hara. |
PERFORMANCES:
Although she gets plenty of competition, no one in Valley of the Dolls really comes close to Patty Duke, who was the reigning queen of epically bad performances until Faye Dunaway blew her out of the water 14 years later with Mommie Dearest. Hers is the film's meatiest role, but that meat soon starts to spoil once you get a taste of the risible dialog she's given ("Boobies, boobies, boobies...nothin' but boobies!"), and marvel at her tendency to bark, rather than speak it ("It was NOT a nuthouse!"). She's better than bad, she's magnificent.
 |
| Personality Plus. Sparkle Neely, Sparkle! |
THE STUFF OF FANTASY:
With its old-fashioned plot full of wheezy, show-biz clichés,
Valley of the Dolls' sole concession to modernity (60s style) is in its eye-catchingly overblown fashion sense. The wig and mascara budget for this film must have been astronomical!
 |
| Neely O'Hara...Younger than springtime- and twice as exciting! |
THE STUFF OF DREAMS:
In 2006, when Valley of the Dolls was released as a two-disc Special Edition DVD in a hot pink case loaded with camp-tastic extras, it became official: 20th Century-Fox was no longer going to pretend that Valley of the Dolls was anything other than what it was— deliciously entertaining, high-octane cheese. That moment of if-you-can't-beat-'em marketing lucidity was rather a long time in coming considering that the gay community had single-handedly kept the film alive for decades. Personally I can't recall when I began to view Valley of the Dolls through jaundiced, cynical eyes, but I recall vividly the first time I saw it.
 |
| A young Marvin Hamlisch accompanies that bundle of talent, Neely O'Hara |
It was in 1968 at the Castro theater in
San Francisco. I was 11 years-old and I went with my older sister who had seen the film the week before and raved about how good it was. Hard for me to imagine now, but at the time, I took
Valley of the Dolls deadly seriously and even cried when Sharon Tate's character took that handful of pills and expired so glamorously on that ugly orange bed. I thought Barbara Parkins was very pretty but I was kind of confused at Patty Duke's transformation into an adult with big hair and a potty mouth. I was a fan of
The Patty Duke Show, and at age 11, I don't think I was ready to see her looking all puffy and exposed in a bra and half slip. The strongest memory I came away with that day was the almost traumatizing "wig snatching" scene. Not sure why, but it scared the hell out of me.
I'll never be able to view Valley of the Dolls through such innocent eyes again, but I'm gratified that it has finally come into its own as a mainstream cult hit. To this day it amazes me just how durably enjoyable this is after so many viewings. Quotable, full of memorable, jaw-dropping scenes and over the top performances...this kind of bad is too good to be forgotten.
Believe it or not, I only saw Valley of the Dolls for the first time quite recently -- it really is jaw-dropping. My favourite bit: when Neely is belting out one of her awful songs, and the string of beads she's wearing around her neck somehow manages to loop around each of her boobs (you know the moment I mean!). The wig-tearing off scene: I love the artifice of it. Neely tears of Helen's bouffant auburn wig to reveal ... a bouffant grey wig underneath. It's STILL a wig!
ReplyDeleteHi bitter69uk
ReplyDeleteI kind of envy anyone seeing this film for the first time. It's a virtual treasure trove of moments like the one you mentioned (A theatrrical staging of "Valley of the Dolls" by this troupe called Theatre-A-Go-Go recreated the infamous "boob framing sequence" by having the strings of beads sewn to the costume in that hilarious formation from the start). Why they didn't go foran alternate take or choose a cutaway is one of the reasons I love this film so much. Poor choices compounded by poor choices. And perhpas you touched upon what was so weird about that wig-pulling scene...A wig under a wig!!! Yikes! Thanks for commenting!
First things first: when I read "Captain Billy's Whiz-Bang" I can only hear Robert Preston's voice saying it.
ReplyDeleteOk, now about the movie. It is a visual feast and that's why i love it. I love the hideous alexander calder stage set for susan hayward, the whole hairspray commercial sequence (the ancient artifacts!), the feathers, sequins, wigs - it's so over-the-top it's disgusting, and yet in that turns it delicious. I also enjoy looking at the broken and forgotten figurines that load up the sad little shelves at thrift stores - a great idea to someone at some time, but a disjointed and cluttery knick-knack in the grand scheme. And I guess that is why this film possesses a certain form of brilliance: most anything that tries too hard is mocked and forgotten. This film tries WAY TOO HARD, and yet somehow is timeless in its datedness, classic in its camp. I find myself watching once a year. Usually with a glass of wine. Or two. Or the whole damned bottle.
Wow! I don't know of anyone else who would have gotten that "The Music Man" reference!!!
ReplyDeleteThanks for pointing out the mobile artist's name that I couldn't recall. Sometimes it's great just hearing what particular points of blessed awfulness stand out in the minds of people when it comes to VOTD. It seems a rule unto itself. There's no reason a film this bad should be so good, but it's WONDERFUL!
This is one of my all time, hands down favorite cult films. It's so over the top bananas that it has to be seen to be believed!
ReplyDeleteNever mind that it barely resembles it's source material in that it condenses the time span. I mean, what is the actual time span this is all supposed to be taking place in? It seems all this stuffs happens in the space of a year, if that.
For a big budgeted film based on a national best seller the film was cast with actors and actresses that didn't have any box office clout whatsoever.
Parkins was a TV star vis PEYTON PLACE. Duke did win an Oscar for THE MIRACLE WORKER and had another film, BILLIE under her belt but she was primarily known for her sit-com and a big box office draw she was not. Sharon Tate was not very well known and Susan Hayward's days as a leading lady were long gone by this point.
And what about those leading men? Paul Burke?!! Tony Scotti?!! Martin Milner!!!!
WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?!!!
And yet it works in spite of itself.
Barbara Parkins bears little resemblance to the "Anne Welles" in the book (Candice Bergen would have been a better choice but she backed out at the last minute) but her interpretation of the character is dead on.
Patty Duke as Neely chews the scenery in an attempt to make everyone forget that she ever played identical cousins on television and damn near comes close to succeeding.
Sharon Tate, the lesser known and less experienced of the three manages to strike a poignancy in her character...her eyes as she stares into the mirror right before committing suicide evoke so much more than any line of scripted dialogue could ever say.
The movie works in spite of itself because it's so unintentionally bad it's good.
Could a better movie have been made from the material?Probably. But I doubt it would be as entertaining as the version we got.
Hi PamelaTiffinFan (Summer and Smoke is one of my favorites) yes, the speed with which success and downfall hits these girls might be a tad more poignant if we were given any sense of how much time transpires before they hit the skids.
DeleteThe point you make about the casting is well taken. I don't know if Fox had in mind they were going to make a film that lunched a bunch of up-and-coming stars, or if it was just bad judgement and budgetary concerns.
I had to laugh at your observation about the leading men. Weak, weak, weak!
Still, as you say, it is very very watchable, and when compared to that awful 80's TV update with Lisa Hartman (??!?), it's a masterpiece.
Oh lord do NOT get me started on the travesty that is "Jacqueline Susann's Valley of the Dolls '1981'"!!!
Delete