Cary Grant Won't Eat You

Classic movies for phobics

  • About
  • eBooks
  • Previous Blogathons
Classic movies for phobics

Joan Crawford

Dancing Lady: A Film that Subsists on Chemistry Alone

05/27/2018 by leah@carygrantwonteatyou.com 4 Comments


Let’s consider the reasons Joan Crawford is a terrible choice to star in Dancing Lady (1933), one of those films about an aspiring hoofer, Janie, who is willing to do anything but trade sexual favors to get on the stage, and who is so talented she actually makes it.

1. So talented at dancing? Look, I know about Crawford’s Charleston wins and what they did for her career. But Janie (Crawford) is supposed to be talented enough to impress a stage manager, Patch (Clark Gable), whose job is working with dancers. Any woman FRED ASTAIRE can’t make look talented ain’t anything special in the footwork department, my friends. Astaire looks flat-out bored in this film, and it’s not just because those wannabe Busby Berkeley numbers are unwatchable.

2. Torn between a man and her career? The film’s plot is pretty basic: Tod, a playboy (Franchot Tone), gives Janie an in with a show put on by Patch in hopes she’ll grant him sexual favors. Janie denies him because she wants to be a star. Check out those sexy glances when Crawford flirts with her future husband (Tone), and ask yourself: Wouldn’t this woman just go ahead and take both?



Aurora of Once Upon a Screen had it right when she wrote about a different dancing film, “Crawford had heat with most everybody it seems in the early 1930s. She seems to flirt with the typewriter in this movie….” Admittedly, with those looks, Crawford appears sexy all the time, especially when she’s angry. Check out her eyes when a judge demeans her ambitions:


Luckily, Crawford wasn’t cast as Janie because her role–or for that matter, the plot–makes sense. She was cast to make eyes at her frequent real-life lover, Clark Gable, the stage manager pining for her. MGM had already witnessed their chemistry in their three films together before this one (not to mention had to deal with their off-screen behavior), and knew the money was in exploiting it.

Because Patch (Gable) thinks Janie’s gonna take up the playboy’s offer, we get many scenes of him brooding. And seriously, who is a more sensual brooder than Clark Gable?


And like his co-star, Gable looks–if possible–even sexier when he’s angry.


After fewer than 5 minutes of dancing practice, Janie usually has a cramp, twists her ankle, etc. Of course this kind of injury-prone behavior would make her too big of a risk to helm a musical, but the screenwriters know where their bread is buttered: not with logic, that’s for sure. Instead, with scenes of Gable massaging Crawford’s muscles.


And then you get these stares of Crawford’s at Gable, and you realize those swimming scenes with Tone are kid stuff compared to the smoke she’s emitting at Gable. Makes you wonder why Tone even bothered to show up for the film.


If you’re looking for a good dancing movie, do yourself a favor and look elsewhere, or do what I do: walk away during the numbers. But if you want to see two ridiculously hot actors burning the screen into cinders, enjoy. And just for your viewing enjoyment, I’m going to give you a final shot of Gable brooding.


You’re welcome.

Share
Posted in: 1930s films, Musicals and dancing films, Romance (films) Tagged: best onscreen chemistry, Clark Gable, dancing films, early Fred Astaire films, Franchot Tone, Gable and Crawford films, Joan Crawford, onscreen chemistry

New TV Show on Bette Davis and Joan Crawford!!

05/06/2016 by leah@carygrantwonteatyou.com 2 Comments

BetteandJoanWhateverHappenedtoBabyJane
FX is bringing classic movie buffs’ favorite sparring partners, Bette and Joan, to the screen. And the leads for the pair? Susan Sarandon and Jessica Lange. How lucky are we? The show, aptly titled Feud, will also feature some amazing costars. The only downside? We have to wait until 2017.

Join me as I watch What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? on repeat to rev up excitement for its debut!

Share
Posted in: Drama (film), Feminism, Humor, TV & Pop Culture Tagged: Bette Davis, Jessica Lange, Joan Crawford, rivalry, Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?

Mad Men Meets Sex and the City: The Best of Everything

06/28/2015 by leah@carygrantwonteatyou.com 16 Comments

Baker-BestofEverything
This post is part of the Modern Era portion of the Classic Movie History Project Blogathon, sponsored by Aurora of Once Upon A Screen, Ruth of Silver Screenings and Fritzi of Movies, Silently. Previous days are covered here: Silent Era and Golden Age. Thanks to Flicker Alley for sponsoring and promoting this event.

Ever since Mad Men ended, I’ve been wondering about Peggy’s real-life equivalents, from the woman who coined “A Diamond Is Forever,” to those who paid a far greater cost for their romantic missteps than Peggy did. I’ve been curious about ’50s and ’60s movie versions of the career girl as well. Films covered single women in the city from the silent era on, but naturally, I viewed the movie based on the book Don Draper was reading at the start of the show, Rona Jaffe’s The Best of Everything.

Jaffe is an interesting figure in herself; her characters are based on her own experience in publishing, and her friends within it. She earnestly explained to Hugh Hefner (what a choice!) that her goal in writing the book was to normalize and destigmatize the experience of those girls who felt ashamed and alone in their mistakes: their dalliances with married men, the children they bore (or didn’t) as a result.

The controversial film version (1959) quickly lands us in the center of the action in a publishing company, and I was instantly hooked by the drama: the boss (Brian Aherne) who casually pinches his workers’ rears, the secretaries trying to balance social lives and unreasonable work demands, the crowded shared apartments and crammed lunch spots. (The film is given props for fashion, and deserves it. It’s a visual feast throughout.) Right away, we get a sense of what women had to put up with just to get paid, and not well.

First day on the job

First day on the job

Newcomer to  the city Caroline (Hope Lange) rooms with coworkers Gregg (supermodel Suzy Parker) and April (Diane Baker) in a miniscule apartment, and the three instantly become tight friends despite having little in common: Gregg is the adventurous bombshell/aspiring actress, April the innocent, and Caroline, the sophisticate who is trying out work until her fiancé returns to the U.S. and marries her.

Single roommates in the city

Single roommates celebrating

Caroline and Gregg talk about lovers with April

Caroline and Gregg talk about lovers with April

The three unite in hatred of Amanda Farrow, the harsh editor who has chosen success over marriage, and scorns the secretaries who didn’t have to go through as much as she did to advance.

JoanCrawford-Farrow
She has a smidgen of Miranda Priestly of The Devil Wears Prada in her, but there’s pathos and empathy to Farrow too. She may fail to support her many secretaries’ ambitions, but she tries to save them from her romantic fate, from awful men. And The Best of Everything is full of them.

The Sex and the City ladies might have faced a lot of freaks, but at least they had some personality; the men of The Best of Everything are as interchangeable as the vice presidents in American Psycho. A recent play of the book even used cardboard cutouts of men to emphasize the point.

What’s puzzling is what these interesting women see in these duds. Effervescent April (Baker) falls for a guy who is so obviously a sleaze he might as well be wearing a signboard to announce it. Hope’s fiancé announces he’s married a rich girl instead of her—over the phone—and then expects her to sleep with him afterward. And get this: dazzling Gregg (Parker) falls so hard for a director (Louis Jourdan) that she goes into a crazy, stalking tailspin when he dumps her. (Yes, nothing inspires sexual obsession so much as heartthrob Gigi‘s Gaston. What??)

JourdanBestofEverything
Since the men are so patently lacking in any redeeming qualities but sleep inducement, the film’s attention to them rather than the workplace and roommate dynamics is disappointing, as the latter, when they’re the focus, are well developed and fascinating. Caroline advances quickly to the rung above secretary (a reader), but is accused by an alcoholic friend, Mike (Stephen Boyd), of faux ambition, just to avoid her romantic life (by the way, this is the love interest we’re rooting for).

Ambitions attacked

Ambitions attacked

Yet between the romantic interludes (and their sad repercussions) are intriguing signs of the second wave of feminism to come: Farrow (Crawford) leaves the marriage she impulsively makes with an old flame, returning to work, and we have the sense that she’s better for it. Caroline is promoted again. Abortion is presented as the fault of men who are careless with the hearts (and bodies) of naïve women—not the deserved end for loose ones. Female solidarity* prevails throughout, as when one of our heroines slaps a faithless boyfriend of the other. (*In one brief, funny exception, the secretaries all try to pass off work on one another.) The workplace even has moments of startling modernity, as with the hilariously painful bonding “picnic,” with its forced fun and workers getting drunk in self-defense. There’s enough worth watching in the film, in short, to get viewers through the unearned suds of these worthless romances.

Single women have fled to New York for all kinds of reasons, in all kinds of ages: post-Civil War belles, without men or funds; rural women leaving farms for factories; aspiring starlets, hoping for a berth at the glamour-girl dorm, The Barbizon Hotel (an upscale Footlights Club, a la Stage Door). These women certainly didn’t find the “best of everything.” But they still managed to live out enough of the excitement of the big city to keep other women coming, to keep dreamers hankering for if not the best of everything, the thrill of aspiring for it.

Share
Posted in: 1950s films, Blogathons, Drama (film), Feminism, Romance (films) Tagged: city, Joan Crawford, Mad Men, Sex and the City, single girls

Recent Posts

  • 100 Years Later, Still Scary: Dr. Caligari
  • Escaping Out of the Past (1947)
  • A Weeper for Those Who Love Jerks
  • Thank You, Academy, for Not Infuriating Me
  • Challengers (2024) Is a Bad Movie

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

  • 1920s films
  • 1930s films
  • 1940s films
  • 1950s films
  • 1960s films
  • 1970s films
  • 1980s films
  • 1990-current films
  • 2020s films
  • Action & Sports Films
  • Anti-Romance films
  • Blogathons
  • Childfree
  • Comedies (film)
  • Drama (film)
  • Feminism
  • Femme fatales
  • Film Noir/Crime/Thriller & Mystery
  • Gloriously Silly Scenes
  • Horror
  • Humor
  • Mae West Moments
  • Musicals and dancing films
  • Oscars
  • Random
  • Romance (films)
  • Romantic Comedies (film)
  • The Moment I Fell for
  • Turn My Sister into Classic Movie Fan
  • TV & Pop Culture
  • Uncategorized
Share
Classic Movie Blog Hub Member

Recent Comments

  • leah@carygrantwonteatyou.com on Meg Ryan’s Fate Foretold in Joe Versus the Volcano
  • Ryan on Meg Ryan’s Fate Foretold in Joe Versus the Volcano
  • leah@carygrantwonteatyou.com on 100 Years Later, Still Scary: Dr. Caligari
  • The Classic Movie Muse on 100 Years Later, Still Scary: Dr. Caligari
  • leah@carygrantwonteatyou.com on 100 Years Later, Still Scary: Dr. Caligari

Archives

  • November 2025
  • September 2025
  • May 2025
  • March 2025
  • January 2025
  • November 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • May 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • September 2022
  • July 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • December 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • November 2018
  • September 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2025 Cary Grant Won't Eat You.

Church WordPress Theme by themehall.com