Spoiler Alert: Crucial plot points are revealed in the interest of critical analysis and discussion
Lipstick is a dramatized exposé and social critique on the serious topic of rape in the same way that Mommie Dearest is a dramatized exposé and social critique on the serious topic of child abuse.
For all its purported noble intentions and "socially conscious" pre-release hype, Lipstick, a slick, high-concept dramatic thriller with a whopper of an identity crisis, is a film that can’t seem to avoid having its motives called into question. Since its release, Lipstick has suffered a public perception problem arising out of the cacophonous dissonance struck by the seriousness of its subject matter contrasted with the profound superficiality of its treatment.
Poised to be the first major motion picture to thoughtfully address the dual victimization women face in cases of sexual assault—the crime itself and, later, the "victim blaming" judicial system—Lipstick hoped to provoke the kind of cultural controversy and heated social conversations sparked by Martin Scorsese’s then recently-released Taxi Driver. But the only dialogue Lipstick prompted was widespread criticism for what many saw as a tasteless attempt to exploit a serious issue by using “social relevance” as a smokescreen for a routine rape-and-revenge flick.
And, indeed, audiences—unpersuaded by the film’s $3.5 million budget; team of legal technical advisors; and Oscar-adjacent pedigree…its cast included an Academy Award-winner (Anne Bancroft) and nominee (Chris Sarandon [Dog Day Afternoon]), its crew, Oscar-nominated cinematographer Bill Butler [One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest])—recognized Lipstick for what it was: an exploitation B-movie in A-list clothing.
Corner of Sunset and Larrabee
Logo design by Sandy Dvore |
Producer Dino De Laurentiis, who scored a major hit with the Charles Bronson vigilante thriller Death Wish in 1974, hoped to land another jackpot with Lipstick. A movie that instead proved that you can take the exploitation fick out of the grindhouse, but you can't take the grindhouse out of the exploitation flick.
Critics (those wholly unacquainted with feminism, anyway) were quick to label Lipstick "A feminist Death Wish," while a bemused public, tasked with trying to make sense of a film so clearly at cross-purposes with itself, fractioned off into two distinct camps.
One camp comprised exploitation movie fans who enthusiastically embraced Lipstick's post-Billy Jack /neo-Taxi Driver zeitgeist and cheered the film's extravagant tawdriness and outrageously contrived (and outrageously satisfying) violent ending.
The second camp was individuals who detected in Lipstick’s advance publicity and early plot synopsis, similarities to the real-life legal cases of Joan Little and Inez Garcia—two women at the center of two headline-making, mid-’70s court trials in which the rape victim killed her assailant—and hoped the film would be an illuminating examination of the thorny issue of violence and victim’s rights. This was the group most disappointed and offended by Lipstick, voicing the common head-scratcher complaint/query: who thought it was a good idea to make a glossy, glamorous movie about rape?
Since American culture holds the not wholly inaccurate perception that the wealthy and beautiful are shielded from life's harsh realities, I think Lipstick sought to dramatize that no woman or girl is invulnerable to the threat of violent sexual assault. But somehow, that message didn't really land.
"The built-in sensuality of the film medium presents a permanent dilemma: A director, even with good intentions, can hardly help turning a beautiful woman into a sex object, and there is always the danger that what starts out as an exposé becomes exploitation."
Molly Haskell, in her 1974 book "From Reverence to Rape: the Treatment of Women in the Movies."
Of course, there was a third camp—the word "camp" being particularly germane in this instance—who saw in Lipstick's earnest self-seriousness and heedless vulgarity a true cult film in the making. Normally, lovers of Bad Taste Cinema would have to look to the films of Andy Warhol, John Waters, or Russ Meyer to find a more preposterous co-mingling of haute couture, gratuitous nudity, sweaty-palmed villainy, flared nostril acting, and off-putting violence.
Not this time. If it can be said that Lipstick is in any way successful, I contend that it truly triumphs as an unintentional trash classic and an early contender for the title ascribed to Andy Warhol’s BAD the following year: “A picture with something to offend absolutely everybody.”
Whose Gaze Is It, Anyway? Mr. Stuart cools his cobblers while making an obscene music phone call |
In telling its story, Lipstick plays fast and loose with just whose perspective we're afforded. In the early part of the film, the camera's gaze is more sympathetic to the rapist's experience. Evident in how the brutal assault is shot and edited in ways protective of the assailant's modesty, yet never missing an opportunity to expose the victim's nudity in a sometimes startlingly crass tableau.
Were Lipstick even a marginally better-made film, I think I’d find it too disturbing (or offensive) to sit through. So I take it as a kind of mercy that it’s a movie that lavishes appreciably more imagination and care on its modeling sequences and fabulous disco synth soundtrack (by French composer Michel Polnareff) than on the darker implications of its central drama. It’s clear Lipstick strives for “ripped from today’s headlines” realism, but its melodramatic tone almost dares you to take it seriously.
Margaux Hemingway as Chris McCormick |
Chris Sarandon as Gordon Stewart |
Mariel Hemingway as Kathy McCormick |
Anne Bancroft as Carla Bondi |
Perry King as Steve Edison |
In a reversal of the standard ‘70s practice of made-for-TV movies borrowing the plotlines of then-current feature films, Lipstick’s plot has much in common with the groundbreaking 1974 TV movie A Case of Rape. Both films dramatizing how a woman’s thwarted efforts to put her rapist behind bars expose a judicial system that instead puts the victim’s life and sexual history on trial. But where the Emmy-nominated Elizabeth Montgomery TV film opts for a somber tone of social realism, Lipstick’s unsubtle approach prioritizes shock.
In a choice that seems to go against everything this film pretends to be about, screenwriter David Rayfiel gives Chris a brother who's a brother…or rather, a priest (played by John Bennett Perry, father of the late Matthew Perry). Given the size and inconsequence of the role, his presence feels like a tacked-on, tone-deaf signifier of Chris' virtue. The sexist "good girl" -"bad girl" moralizing behind antiquated rape laws is what this movie is supposed to be denouncing...not perpetuating.
Story: Model Chris McCormick (Margaux) agrees to meet with her 14-year-old kid sister Kathy’s (Margaux’s own 14-year-old kid sister Mariel) favorite teacher, Gordon Stuart (Sarandon), to listen to his experimental music compositions. Stuart ends up sexually assaulting Chris, but when charged with the crime, he convinces the court that it was consensual rough sex initiated by the sexually jaded plaintiff.
In the wake of the court’s Not Guilty verdict, Chris suffers losses both personal and professional. When Mr. Stuart targets Kathy in a second assault, big sister is forced to take matters into her own hands.
Despite Lipstick’s pervading tone of reality-challenged sensationalism, it does manage to make the occasional hamfisted point or two. Either by using Bancroft’s legal prosecutor character as a rape-statistics mouthpiece, or via the whittling down of complex issues into gratuitous setpiece moments calculated to provoke maximum audience outrage and catharsis.
But as a representative dramatization of what a distressing percentage of women go through, Lipstick is both too specific and too far-fetched to resonate as any sort of larger, relatable social indictment. Even the most obvious angle of social commentary available to the film—using the profession of modeling to explore the role that media and advertising play in perpetuating and normalizing rape culture—proves to be an opportunity largely squandered.
In an act of guerilla programming, filmmaker Martha Coolidge (Rambling Rose, Valley Girl, Introducing Dorothy Dandridge) released her debut feature Not a Pretty Picture—a sensitive semi-documentary about date rape—in New York on Wednesday, March 31, 1976…just two days before Lipstick opened in theaters on Friday, April 2nd. Though not widely seen then, critics hailed it for being, in execution, all that Lipstick sold itself to be.
Directed by Lamont Johnson (That Certain Summer—1972) and written by David Rayfiel (Three Days of the Condor—1975), Lipstick was released in a surge of social relevance and pop culture topicality. The latter, courtesy of Margaux Hemingway, the 6-foot supermodel and granddaughter of Ernest Hemingway whose then-ubiquitousness (appearing on the cover of Time and landing a million-dollar contract with Fabergé Cosmetics, all in less than a year) made worthwhile the gamble of handing over the lead role in a major motion picture to an acting neophyte.
I Found A Million Dollar Babe |
Cringe ads like these, promoting the dominance of the male gaze and implied proprietary physical access to women's bodies, were very common in the '70s. It was my hope that part of Lipstick’s agenda included exploring the role advertising plays in rape culture and normalizing the casual objectification of women.
Lipstick first came to my attention when I saw the movie's lip-shaped logo featured in a full-page teaser trade ad in Variety. Combining two of my favorite things—movies with one-word titles and movies with catchy slogans—I had no idea what any of it meant, but I was all in.
I took it as a hopeful omen that many of my recent favorites were movies with symbolic, single-word titles: Nashville, Smile, Shampoo. Plus, in a '70s movie landscape overcrowded with buddy films and male-centric stories, Lipstick felt like a signal heralding an emergence of more movies about women and featuring stronger female characters.
What really boosted my enthusiasm was when I learned that Lipstick was to open in San Francisco at MY theater! Which is to say, the movie theater where I’d been employed since high school--The Alhambra Theater on Polk Street. The once spacious Alhambra had been divided into two smaller theaters in 1974, and Lipstick was slated to replace Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore in Alhambra #1 (after a staggering 13 months!), while Alhambra #2 turned things into an unofficial Chris Sarandon Film Festival by hosting Dog Day Afternoon.
The only downside to this terrific news was my awareness of the Alhambra being a neighborhood movie theater (sister theater to the first-run Regency on Van Ness), and as a result, we rarely ever got the movies that the studios had confidence in.
I’m not sure if the fault lies with the actor, director, or simply how the role was written, but given that the reality for many women is that rapists look like the average guy-next-door, it does the film no favors to have Sarandon's character be a weird, twitchy, Norman Bates type. At our first glimpse of him, he's so obviously off-the-rails that we question Chris' judgment in letting her little sister near him in the first place.
With a dash of trepidation now introduced to my otherwise unbridled sense of anticipation, I was reluctant to see Lipstick in the usual manner of theater ushers…in out-of-sequence bits and pieces while standing in the back of the theater with a flashlight. Craving the full, uninterrupted Lipstick experience, I went on opening night (on my day off) and sat in a sparsely populated, virtually all (gay) male audience. The porno theater vibe of the experience was hard to ignore.
Lipstick had been booked into the Alhambra for a month, but there was no way it could survive four weeks as a solo. After the first week, Lipstick was paired with Straw Dogs (1971), then Chinatown (1974), and finally Once is Not Enough (1975).
I think I went into Lipstick expecting something perhaps along the lines of Klute…a gritty crime story built around a character study of a woman. I was way off. I sat through Lipstick twice that night, liking it more the second time when I surrendered to it being the schlock exploitationer it was. And while it was not the movie I had hoped it would be, it was somehow both better and worse than I could ever have imagined.
And if you think that sentence sounds convoluted and paradoxical, well, say hello to the two words that perhaps best describe Lipstick.
Vogue meets International Male |
WHAT I LOVE ABOUT THIS FILM
As a lifetime devotee of so-bad-they’re-good movies, and confirmed aficionado of Cinema de Strange, virtually everything I love about Lipstick stems from its outré luridness. It's so trashy! It’s like a Sidney Sheldon potboiler crossed with an Italian Giallo. And as Lipstick’s alluring but superficial gloss isn’t offset by anything more substantive in the way of writing, acting, or characters, none of it actually feels tethered to reality. Too much of Lipstick’s rape & revenge plot feels engineered to provide a visceral experience, not a contemplative one.
Dressed to Kill |
What can you say about a movie whose apogee and nadir is the blissfully baroque image of a beautiful, statuesque model, lacquered and coiffed, racing through the parking lot of the Pacific Design Center in a glittering red evening gown while brandishing a rifle? It’s got Ken Russell written all over it.
It’s important that I not be too dismissive of Lipstick, for though it was a commercial and critical flop (one critic called it a “Tower of Trash”), Lipstick actually did influence rape laws in California. In late 1976, the California Legislature passed a resolution that prohibited the mention of a rape victim’s sexual history from being brought up in court. It was named The Margaux Hemingway Resolution No. 109 in her honor.
THE STUFF OF FANTASY
That Lipstick is a triumph of style is nowhere more evident than in the superb title sequence, which, for me, is alone worth the price of admission. The film’s opening 3 ½ minute model photoshoot economically combines a chic, music video-style credits sequence with the subtle (the first and only time that word can be applied to anything related to this movie) establishment of Lipstick’s undeveloped subthemes regarding the normalized dehumanization at the core of sexism and misogyny.
We see a woman, passive and silent, attended to by a phalanx of men devoted to enhancing her appearance. Often using the language of seduction (tellingly, the only female voice present is dismissed summarily). We're left to ask ourselves. is the woman we’re watching being glorified or objectified?
It's practically documentary: Margaux Hemingway is photographed by the man who launched her modeling career, Francesco Scavullo. Also present are Scavullo's assistant and life partner, Sean Byrnes, Way Bandy (makeup), and Harry King (hair). The only fictional addition is actress Catherine McLeod playing an ad agency executive.
PERFORMANCES
Though ill-served by a script that conceived her character as almost entirely reactive, I like Margaux Hemingway in Lipstick and never thought she was as bad as the critics made out. True, she doesn’t have much range, but she has an appealing presence and earthiness that might have been showcased to better advantage with a director more protective of her limitations (you don’t keep cutting to reaction shots of someone with so little variance in expression). Still, if you compare Margaux’s performance in this, her first movie to, say, Raquel Welch in her 13th feature film…1969s Flareup (which shares with Lipstick a similar “A woman’s outrage, a woman’s revenge!” dramatic arc), Margaux comes off looking like Liv Ullmann.
Everything that was said and written about Mariel Hemingway stealing the movie out from under everyone is quite accurate. As the most authentically realized character in the film, her performance is quite remarkable in its naturalness and sensitivity. When the failure of Lipstick signaled the end of Margaux's lucky streak, the accolades Mariel received created a rift between the sisters. Margaux was quoted as saying: “She ended up stealing the movie and deserved the acclaim, but I was upset. Because It was as if people were tired of me and gave her the attention.”
THE STUFF OF DREAMS
I can't say whether Lipstick is simply a timepiece that stands as evidence of an era when no one batted an eye that a team of men would craft a movie about rape without the creative input of even a single woman, or if it's a movie that deserves credit simply for drawing attention to a topic few major films were even willing to tackle. For me, part of its lingering legacy is the sad, meta intersection of reality and fantasy that comes with the participation of the two Hemingway sisters and all that we now know that we couldn’t have known then.
Cover Girls Cover: An item placed in front of something to protect or conceal |
It's discomfiting to watch a film about rape/sexual abuse that stars siblings who themselves faced issues concerning mental health, body image, eating disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, and sexual abuse.
Margaux Hemingway died of an overdose on July 1, 1996, at the age of 42. Mariel became a successful Oscar-nominated actress (Manhattan - 1979) and is currently a tireless advocate for mental health.
Lipstick co-stars Mariel Hemingway and Chris Sarandon went on to work together in three other films: Road Ends, 1997; Perfume, 2001; and above, a Canadian film adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's Little Men, 1998.
BONUS MATERIAL
Lipstick's fabulous opening sequence.
From Michelangelo Antonioni's Blow Up (1966) to Faye Dunaway stopping traffic in Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) fashion shoots in movies have always been a favorite of mine.
Francesco Scavullo |
Copyright © Ken Anderson 2009 - 2024
So THAT's what this movie is about? I have to confess that I've heard of it but never seen it. I have always assumed (as you indicated earlier) it was of the "Nashville", "Shampoo", "Network" variety. A kind of satire on modeling. But I've never bothered to actually look up info on the film. (I also have long suffered under the assumption that MARIEL was older than MARGAUX...for some reason.) While I would have to watch the film to really determine this, I have to say that I have little taste for films with some kind of sexual assault as the theme. I know it's an issue that deserves attention (and films are a decent way to do this when done right) but the subject matter is so grim that I find such films difficult to enjoy.
ReplyDeleteHi Ron - It's so informative to hear from someone who hasn't seen LIPSTICK and knows little about it. Your being aware of it but not having a very clear sense of what it was about speaks to two things, I believe:
Delete#1 After it's flop initial release, LIPSTICK kind of dropped out of sight. Certainly no one involved wanted to talk about it. And I have no memories of it popping up on cable, nor do I remember a DVD release before maybe 10 years ago.
Which brings me to
#2 When LIPSTICK finlly did get a DVD release, I think the advertising and packaging is intentionally light on cluing you in on exactly what LIPSTICK is about. The DVD cover artwork calls to mind Natalie Portman’s BLACK SWAN, so in conjunction with the title, it really does look like it might be about the fashion industry and some kind of expose of it –satirical or dramatic.
Given what you write about assaults in film, I would say that LIPSTICK is probably a guaranteed pass for you. There have been many more sensitive movies made on the topic made since 1976, and LIPSTICK is more well-intentioned than sensitive.
To give you an idea of it, I have included the film’s credit sequence in the BONUS MATERIALS section of my essay, now, so maybe you can get an idea of what it’s like.
I think that sequence in LIPSTICK is very seductive and makes a person want to see it. But like that amazing title sequence for Lucille Ball’s MAME, it really promises a movie that never shows up.
I’m pleased you read my essay so soon, and I thank you for giving me some insight into LIPSTICK from a person who wasn’t eagerly awaiting its release
(I didn’t mention it in the essay, but I was attending SF Art Institute at the time LIPSTICK came out, and I was so obsessed with it, in my ceramics class I crafted a 3-D ceramic model of the lip logo that’s at the top of the page, along with a giant tube of red lipstic. There was a moster stor just off of Polk Stree calle CINE MONDE, and they put my “creations” in their window.HA! I was so into this movie before seeing it!)
Anyhow, it’s always great hearing from you. Take care, and if you check out the video clip of LIPSTIC, I’d be curious to know if it makes you want to see it, or solidifies your resolve to leave it alone. Cheers, Ron!
Thanks for the clip from the credits. First, it IS a great sequence. Margaux Hemingway is absolutely gorgeous but I really liked the subtle expressions of discomfort that briefly pass over her face when, for example, the photographer and the woman start arguing about the shoot. It communicates her vulnerability and reserve quite nicely. If I hadn't read your analysis, I would never guess where the plot goes. But on the basis of this sequence alone, I'd have found it intriguing enough to give it a try. Also, I took the time to read up on Miss Hemingway and was sad to read that her career didn't go very well after the film and that she died from an drug overdose (which may or may not have been suicide). You don't have to be beautiful for your death to be lamentable but it's thought provoking to realize that beauty and/or talent don't necessarily protect you from life's difficulties.
DeleteGlad you liked it, Ron. As you might imagine, seeing the film start out like this pitched my expectations very high. The rest of the film fails to really live up to what you rightly label as intriguing. It feels so different, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the opening sequence was shot by a second unit or something.
DeleteI liked the observation you made regarding the camera capturing that brief bit discomfort that plays over Margaux's face in the midst of the sideline bickering. It is very good, and Hemingway has a few more instances like that in the film, but the movie surrounding her is so hellbent on making money through sensationalism rather than dramatic tension, those moments fall into a void.
I think you'd be very impressed with Mariel's performance, which is so impressive for a first-timer. I always wonder if she wasn't so good, would critics have been so hard on Margaux.
And yes, Marguax's Hemingway is tragic in a way that repeats so often in pop culture. Her ascendance was so rapid, it appeared as though she'd led a charmed life. I remember the sharp decline took me by surprise; one day she was everywhere, the next, gone virtually overnight.
So appreciate your stopping back to share your thoughts on that sequence. Thanks, Ron.
So awesome to find that you've taken (metaphorically) pen to paper again here! My eyes bugged out when I saw that the topic was "Lipstick" as it isn't discussed too much as far as I can tell (though I don't get out much!) I examined it myself about 14 years ago, though naturally with far less erudition. Sort of fascinating the way studios would suddenly turn advertising around when movies failed to perform as intended! I appreciate that you demonstrated that. (And I had no idea that Mariel and Chris S. reunited on screen several times after this!) Perry King, who only barely registers here at all, was apparently coerced into taking the part because he was under contract to Dino de Laurentis and it was either take part in the "Mandingo" sequel "Drum" (which he didn't want to do) or this (which he *probably* didn't want to do! LOL) Jeff Bridges had been signed to the Chris Sarandon role, but bailed out after thinking about the script. I wonder if that, along with being in a movie as this one turned out, planted a seed in Anne Bancroft's mind when she was signed for "Mommie Dearest" and took a similar hike over that script?! As always, great pics, info and commentary. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteHello, Jon!
DeleteIt really has been a while, hasn't it? Thanks for stopping by.
I remember reading your piece on LIPSTICK several years ago, so now that I have this one in the can, I need to revisit it.
I don't know where LIPSTICK falls on the film enthusiast landscape, which may explain why it's not talked about much. It's not one of those cult favorites like "Ms. 45", and it lacks the credibility of a serious film.
The copy I have has a commentary track that I haven't listened to yet; perhaps it will provide a little clarity on where LIPSTICK in the eyes of the public.
Thanks for providing some backstory as to why Perry King looks as engaged in this film as a guy waiting for the subway! ANY film would be better than appearing in that sequel to the ludicrous "Mandingo"!
I'd read about the Jeff Bridges thing and can well imagine anyone looking over the script and deciding its story had the potential to be very problematic.
After so many years of researching movies and reading about how difficult it is to sign name male actors to any movie where a woman has a dominant role, I wonder if any of that came into play as well.
And as for Bancroft, I wonder, too, if the flop of this film played any part in her Mommie Dearest cold feet. I love Bancroft, but in her latter career, she wasn't exactly the most subtle of actresses. I always wonder what her Crawford would have been like. I think she could give Dunaway a run for her money in the scenery-chewing department!
Always great to hear from you, Jon! Thanks so much for your complimentary words and for commenting!
Hi Ken, I was just checking in here to look for a new post and here we are. And what a coincidence because just a few days ago I was telling a co-worker about the film. I bought the dvd at its initial release many years ago and it’s a film I’ve always enjoyed. One reason I like it so much is its link to my childhood. I was 12 years old in 1976 and I remember the days when Margaux seemed to be everywhere. I was fascinated by her covers on my mother’s Cosmopolitan magazine, particularly the one you featured here in her red dress. I also remember the Babe commercials as well. I thought she was just so beautiful and as a budding movie follower I was very much aware of the campaign preceding the film’s release. Of course at that age there was no chance of my seeing it upon its initial opening, but a year later I got lucky.. On a family vacation my sister (2 years older than me) and I were given our own hotel room and we managed to order it on the hotel’s pay per view system. Oh, my mom was fit be tied when we checked out and she saw it on the bill! I did not like the rape scene at all, looking away through most of it, but I did enjoy the film’s revenge aspect. I was really taken by Cathy’s flight through the unfinished building and I absolutely loved Chris’ raging growl when she realizes what’s happened to her sister, and the following shot of her flying through the lobby barefoot and hellbent.
ReplyDeleteLike you, I accept the movie’s flaws and missed opportunities, and I agree that she’s not nearly as bad as she was made out to be. I like the scene where she cries out that she hopes her assailant is raped in prison. And it’s odd to think that Chris’ career is harmed by her pursuit of justice just as Margaux’s career was upended by her participation in the film. I pull the movie out every few years, viewing it as a kind of time capsule, and as a chance to see again how beautiful she was at her peak. But I always fast-forward through the attack scene! Thanks for another great essay—you never disappoint. Rich
Hello, Rich –
DeleteIt's been a very long gap between posts, so I can't tell you how gratifying it is to hear that you check in now and again to see if a new one is up. Thank you!
How coincidental that you were speaking of this film and its one you own. Based on comments I've received on other social media platforms, LIPSTICK is one of those films a lot of people have heard of, but few have seen.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on LIPSTICK, especially the amusing anecdote about how you and your sister took advantage of hotel pay-per-view to check out a movie you were too young for. It sounds SO like something my sisters and I would have done.
I'm not sure about how it is for young people now--what with new releases available for nonstop streaming mere months after their initial release—but old movies I think of fondly are almost always linked with memories of the time of their release. I see that's true of you and your associating the film with your 12-year-old impressions of Hemingway, her pop culture ubiquitousness, and LIPSTICK's advertising campaign.
I also relate to the way you feel about the rape scene. I, too, skip past it any time I watch the movie.
The more genre-related aspects of the film are precisely the things that worked when Paramount shifted away from high-minded advertising and just pitched the movie as a revenge thriller like WALKING TALL, BILLY JACK, MACON COUNTY LINE, or JACKSON COUNTY JAIL (Boy, there were a lot of them, weren’t there?)
I think it’s a beautifully shot film, and the ending sequence is effective in exactly the ways you mentioned (They make great use of the unfished Pacific Design Center…very cinematic).
I’m not truly aware of how contemporary audiences respond to LIPSTICK, but for me it’s a great time capsule of the 70s and 70s LA (you can see the sign for the old Ah Men clothing store in West Hollywood in one shot).
I had a great time reading your contributed comments, Rich, and I’m very pleased you enjoyed the essay. Thanks, and cheers!
Loved your description here about Sidney Sheldon crossed with a Giallo. Seems perfect for this movie. Not heard of this one, and it looks like it could have easily been one of those trashy TV mini series. The posters don't really
ReplyDelete.. work nor does the title.
ReplyDeleteHello, Gill!
DeleteI think this one should be on your list. Its asserted '70s vibe and aesthetic is so intoxicating (earth tones! pukka shell chokers! synth music!) it makes up for the somewhat convoluted perspective of the narrative.
It really has all the earmarks of what would be the kind "woman in peril" thing the LIFETIME movie TV network used to major in before they went into the grind-'em-out-like-sausages Christmas movie business.
And yeah, LIPSTICK proved a challenging film to market. I was never very crazy about the hard-sell posters, but that title for me is epic. It suggests a more subtle and thoughtful film than LIPSTICK turned out to be.
I think the Bruce Dern -Maud Adams film TATTOO came out the following year. I loved that title too, but truly hated the film.
Great to hear from you, Gill. Thanks for reading this post and commenting. Cheers!
Woman in Peril should read Donna Mills in peril... ah now if this ha been made a wee bit later... no doubt there would be a Barry Bostwick role too. If you read any of my monthly round ups you'll note my husband discovered a back log of these particular Lifetime movies... luckily not a Christmas one in sight... (hope this continues, the lack of Xmas ones not the endless Lifetime films)
ReplyDelete"Donna Mills in peril" Ha! Your instincts are pretty much on the money here. Take away about 2 million from the budget and without changing a single word of dialogue (but plenty of edits for profanity and skin), I can totally see LIPSTICK as a Donna Mills Lifetime movie with Bostwick cast in either the Chris Sarandon or Perry King roles.
DeleteCount me in with a tag if you ever review this...
Delete