In February, writer Tom Ambrose messaged me on X, formerly known as Twitter, to ask my thoughts on the state of present day Coronation Street. My heart was pounding! Why ask me?? Consequently, I sat down to write something, and I ended up writing 1000 words! I then sent Tom a much edited version, and I’m thrilled he found something useful to include in the nonsense I poured out into a word document. In all honesty, I have not been satisfied or happy with Coronation Street for a good number of years, and below, is the unedited version of the copy I passed onto Tom…
I’ve found it frustrating, on so many levels. I feel there’s far too much focus on younger people, far too many issues, too many characters with a cast that is bloated beyond belief, and too many characters who, frankly, are dreadful and boring. I want to pre-empt this by saying the show can’t return to “the good old days” of yesteryear. That is just not going to happen, and I see that a lot online. For instance, if I post a picture of say Bet Lynch (my all-time favourite character), someone will say along the lines of “it’s woke rubbish now” which I find tiresome.
I’ve been a viewer of Coronation Street all of my life. My first memories go back to 1998 when Anne Malone froze to death after being locked in a Frescho’s freezer, and Des Barnes dying.
I’ve also adored the older episodes, the period of 1960 to 1995 is unrivalled. When we got Sky TV in the Autumn of 1999, I stumbled across a now defunct channel named Granada Plus and discovered they were showing Classic Coronation Street which was up to 1984 at that point. And a lifelong love was born! I just fell in love with those fabulous characters and the humour (even as a 6/7 year old – I was a weird child). Tony Warren’s early scripts have been so inspirational to me, and inspired me to become a writer. This is how important Coronation Street is to me, and to so many other people.
It used to feel safe, enjoyable and comforting. More often than not, I just play games on my phone now while watching it.
Back to the present day… ITV and Coronation Street seem to have forgotten what made Coronation Street into a beloved institution that it once was. Where’s all the camp humour? Why aren’t the women at the forefront? The show was built on fabulous women! Why are the older characters so few and far between? Why are they so focused on a constant wave of issues, crime, drugs and violence? It’s not a Netflix crime series or Line of Duty! To me, they’ve substituted character and heart for issue and drama, and sometimes it does feel like issue on top of issue which can feel like its story by pamphlet, and written/produced by people who have never watched Coronation Street before.
The sheer number of characters has made the show bloated, and is probably the biggest issue for me – I’ve counted 84 (!) regular characters. There’s too many to invest in. I’ve only recently worked out why I’m so drawn to the first 35 years of the show, because there were fewer characters and we became familiar with them. Due to the filming schedules, it’s all done in blocks (the same for all the soaps) means you don’t see some of the characters for months on end. Long standing characters like Gail and Eileen have been left to linger – these powerhouses should be at the forefront of the show.
Also, the move from ITV in 2022 to have Corrie an hour long has probably proved detrimental. 60 minutes is a big commitment, and if the show isn’t up to scratch, the viewers won’t switch on. I don’t watch EastEnders, but 2023 for them was a fantastic year and had a lot of buzz and positivity for the first time in years. If they put love and care into the show, it will be back up again. Sadly, ITV is a business and to go back to three 30-minute episodes just isn’t going to happen.
There are positives though – putting Jenny (Sally Ann Matthews) behind the Rovers was a masterstroke, and for me the best landlady since Bet Lynch. Jodie Prenger (Glenda), Jane Hazlegrove (Bernie), Channique Sterling-Brown (Dee-Dee), Charlotte Jordan (Daisy) and Tony Maudsley (George) have been terrific signings in recent years, and the return of Debbie (Sue Devaney) a few years ago was fabulous – now there’s a character who should be at the forefront of the show, and should be behind the bar of the Rovers with Jenny, Daisy and Glenda. And I often thank god for Maureen Lipman and her brilliant comic timing, Evelyn is very much old-school Corrie which we don’t see enough of. I feel like the ingredients are there, they just don’t use them properly.
Re the issues side of things, I’m not saying that a soap SHOULDN’T cover an issue, of course you need to. Corrie has done this from the beginning, as well as EastEnders and Emmerdale. Even though the viewing figures for soaps are dwindling, they do have an incredible reach and can educate and inform. It’s just, sometimes, it feels like a pamphlet and it feels like they pick an issue out of a hat and say “this is what we’re doing for the next few months, and then it’ll be forgotten about later”. However, the recent bullying story featuring Liam has been very well done, and very effective as well as Ryan’s acid attack and Paul’s struggle with Motor Neurone Disease. But these have all been done within a year, it can feel too much and claustrophobic to watch (the latter half of Kate Oates’ tenure in 2018 was like this – this isn’t a recent thing). To their credit, they do research the issue-based stories extremely well, and they are extremely effective.
To sum up, I think Coronation Street and ITV have to sit down and seriously think about who they are appealing to. The long-term fans who have watched for decades, those who will abandon the show at the drop of a hat, or younger viewers who probably aren’t interested in soaps. Mostly, it feels a chore watching it, and that saddens me. It can get better, and I know it can. I just wish they’d put some love and care into the show as a whole, and come up with better and engaging stories and characters. Before it’s too late.
A few weeks ago on my Twitter account, I asked my followers this question – “what is the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Joan Crawford?” The responses were varied to say the least, and they were exactly what I expected:
“Sadly, Faye Dunaway”
“Evil woman”
“Bette Davis!”
“Wire hangers”
“Mommy dearest”
“Mildred Pierce”
“Eyebrows”
“Old school Hollywood”
“Glamour and beauty”
You can hear my groans of despair from here. Joan Crawford’s current reputation has partly been defined by Faye Dunaway’s performance of Crawford in the camp film Mommie Dearest (1981). This was an adaptation of her adopted daughter Christina’s best-selling 1978 memoir of the same name. The book caused a sensation, and consequently, has dogged Crawford’s reputation ever since. I have never seen the film, or read the book, nor do I wish to do either. Her legendary feud with Bette Davis also appears in the answers. Again, this has defined her legacy ever since, particularly since Jessica Lange’s portrayal of Joan in Ryan Murphy’s recent miniseries Feud: Bette and Joan (2017).
However, I am relieved to see glamour and her Oscar winning role Mildred Pierce appear in people’s recollections of Miss Crawford. For me, the first thing I think of when I think of Joan Crawford is glamour and beauty. Her star persona was defined by her glamour, she was MGM’s glamour girl after all! In the 1930s, she ruled in the glamour stakes along with fellow stars at MGM – Norma Shearer, Greta Garbo and Jean Harlow. I think it says it all when two influential film studies texts on stardom feature Crawford looking every inch the fabulous star on their front covers; Richard Dyer’s Heavenly Bodies: Film Stars and Society (1986) and Christine Gledhill’s edited anthology Stardom: Industry of Desire (1991). To me, this is Joan Crawford. She was the greatest movie star to have lived.
Joan was a star in every sense of the word, and never stopped being a star. We forget that Joan Crawford, the star, was a creation. She was born Lucille LeSueur, possibly in 1904 but her birthdate is disputed. She began her career as a chorus girl and later approached MGM in 1924 for work. She later signed with them, but the studio wanted to change her name. They organised a contest in the magazine Movie Weekly for readers to choose a new name… and the rest is history. Crawford masterminded her own promotion, making herself known in dancing circles within Hollywood which made MGM take notice. She starred in a number of films, including The Unknown (1927) but it was Our Dancing Daughters (1928) that made her a star. She became an example, and a byword, of the 1920s flapper. She reinvented her persona many times throughout her career whether it be her style of acting, or her wardrobe. She never let up, and was always determined. I admire that.
We can trace the trajectory of the Joan Crawford persona as thus; the jazz age flapper of the late 1920s, the MGM glamour girl of the 1930s and the respected dramatic actress of the 1940s and 1950s. It is inconceivable that Crawford, along with Greta Garbo, Katharine Hepburn and Marlene Dietrich, was labelled “box office poison” in 1938. Her mid-1930s films were poorly received by filmgoers and critics, but she made an excellent comeback with The Women in 1939. Joan’s career seemed to feature a lot of comebacks. She parted company with MGM in 1943 after a small number of forgettable films (the sublime A Woman’s Face was an exception in 1941), and consequently, signed with Warner Bros. This culminated in the storming comeback with Mildred Pierce in 1945. It is Joan Crawford’s ultimate film in my view, and a shining example of a star vehicle. Her triumph saw her win the Academy Award for Best Actress, where she received the statuette in bed as she was supposedly unwell…
An ‘unwell’ Joan receiving her Oscar in bed…
She became the Warner Bros film Queen in the mid to late 1940s, just as fellow ‘Queen’ Bette Davis saw a downturn in her career. Davis subsequently terminated her contract at the studio in 1949 after the disastrous Beyond the Forest (it’s a stinker but apparently a cult classic, I don’t think so but never mind). It’s very interesting mapping the trajectory of Bette Davis and Joan Crawford’s careers, and how What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? was a coming together of everything they had gone through in their careers:
* Bette starred in flop after flop save for Of Human Bondage in 1934 and Dangerous in 1935 whereas Joan’s career went from strength to strength in the early to mid-1930s.
* Joan was box office poison in the late 1930s and early 1940s, Bette was Hollywood’s No.1 dramatic actress.
* This reversed in the mid-1940s where Joan was one of the top dramatic actresses along with others like Barbara Stanwyck and Ingrid Bergman for example.
* Bette scored a triumphant comeback in 1950 with All About Eve after a career downturn like Joan did with Mildred Pierce.
* Joan starred in some good melodramas of the 1950s, while Bette seemed to appear in some third-rate films (I’m looking at The Virgin Queen here from 1955, it’s not great).
* Bette and Joan’s careers were both in a downturn at the time of Baby Jane.
Bette and Joan…
You can see the overarching similarities between them, it’s extraordinary. I wish they had been friends. Imagine how powerful that friendship would’ve been…
I thought I knew a lot about Joan Crawford and her films. Over the years I have studied online articles on her career but I realised I had never really probed deeper into her film career. Prior to this, I had only seen Grand Hotel, Mildred Pierce and What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?. All marvellous films, but not really a comprehensive look into her oeuvre. Partly inspired by the lockdown we all find ourselves in, and partly because I wanted to defend Miss Crawford’s legacy and regain a new appreciation for an overlooked star, I set about collating a good list of her films spanning the silent era to her final film in 1970.
I originally wanted to find 30 films, like I did with Bette Davis last year, but I stuck with 25 (mainly because I could only afford 25 films of her films on DVD!) They ranged from 1928 with Our Dancing Daughters to her final film Trog in 1970. A small range of her films are available in this country on DVD, but not many, so I bought a lot of films from Region 1 (USA) thanks to eBay and Amazon through Warner Archive releases and boxsets. My wallet might not like it but I hope Miss Crawford approves in that great movie studio in the sky!
This is my chance to share my thoughts on the 25 films I watched, and to rank them in order of preference. There are many more films in her filmography, this is just a small guide.
25 – Trog (1970)
Joan Crawford’s final theatrical film, and it’s not good. Joan plays Dr. Brockton, a well-regarded anthropologist who wants to get a troglodyte to surface so she can discover ‘the missing link’. It’s a silly tale really, although Joan is very watchable. The story is dire and it screams low budget. Even though I knew this was her final film, I can’t help but feel sorry for her. Her eyes look so sad, like the soul and desire has left them. Maybe she knew her career was coming to an end? Who knows. But it marked a sad end to an incredible career in film.
24 – The Gorgeous Hussy (1936)
This one was so disappointing. I read it was one of Joan’s highest grossing films and it certainly had a great cast of MGM stars; Robert Taylor, Lionel Barrymore, Franchot Tone, Melvyn Douglas and James Stewart in one of his first films. She plays outspoken Peggy O’Neal in this period drama as the daughter of a Major who runs an inn that is frequented by leading politicians. She has very good chemistry with Taylor, but that’s all I can say about it as it’s such a dull and dreary affair. Joan was entirely unsuited to period dramas I think.
23 – Torch Song (1953)
A comeback, of sorts, for Joan. This was her first MGM film since 1943 when she parted company with the studio to move to Warner Bros. She plays Jenny Stewart, a demanding Broadway diva who falls in love with her blind rehearsal pianist. Joan gives a very camp performance, wide eyes, diva-like behaviour, and incredible outfits. She makes good use of her shapely legs, showing how good a dancer she was. However, she performs a routine, Two-Faced Woman, in blackface which I found absolutely appalling and disturbing. I can see why it was intended to be a comeback, but it doesn’t really work.
22 – Sadie McKee (1934)
I was looking forward to this film. Scenes from this appeared in What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? to illustrate how successful Blanche Hudson had been (Joan’s character in that film). But I found it really disappointing. Joan plays Sadie McKee who works as a maid and later flees to New York who bags a rich alcoholic. A typical rags to riches story, ideal for Depression audiences. As Sadie, I found Joan very unlikeable and I felt sad about that. She was absolutely beautiful, however, the camera clearly adored her. But her character really let the film down, for me anyway. Such a shame.
21 – Flamingo Road (1949)
In this film, Joan is Lane Bellamy, an ex-carnival dancer whose husband wants revenge on a corrupt sheriff. She is also reunited with Zachary Scott (her Mildred Pierce co-star) who is her ex-flame. I was so repulsed by Sydney Greenstreet who played the corrupt sheriff, he actually spoilt my enjoyment of the film. Although Joan is watchable in this, I found her role a little immature, almost like she was too old to play such characters. And the structure of the story felt very weak, it could’ve been a lot better.
20 – Strange Cargo (1940)
The final film she made with Clark Gable (they made 8 films between 1931 and 1940). It’s quite bleak, very moody. Joan plays Julie, a cynical cafe entertainer (and prostitute) who is later banished from the Devil’s Island when Verne (Clark Gable) is found in Julie’s room. Julie then escapes the island and ends up on a boat along with Verne and other escaped prisoners. Joan gives a very fine dramatic performance. By this time she had grown up, and we start to see Joan the actress here. She is superb. I didn’t find Clark Gable particularly likeable, and the film was a bit too bleak for me. But Joan is still great, and was willing to not wear makeup in order to look dishevelled.
19 – The Story of Esther Costello (1957)
Joan plays Margaret Landi, a woman who, at the beginning of the film, visits Ireland who encounters a young girl, Esther Costello, who is deaf and blind after a terrible accident and living in extreme poverty. She vows to help her and takes Esther back to America to give her a better life, and to aid her in recovery. Margaret also has to contend with her estranged husband, who doesn’t help the situation (with disturbing consequences). The film follows the trajectory of fundraising, and how dark and commercial fundraising can be. Joan gives a great performance, the film was quite soapy I found but the performances were great, especially Heather Sears as Esther.
18 – Mannequin (1937)
I believe Joan was at her most beautiful here. Another rags to riches story where Joan plays Jessie Cassidy who wants to escape the squalor of her family’s apartment. Jessie eventually falls in love with John L. Hennessey (Spencer Tracy) who is a millionaire. Joan gives a lovely performance, she had terrific chemistry with Spencer Tracy and her wardrobe was amazing. Her gowns by MGM’s costume designer Adrian really highlighted her beauty.
17 – The Damned Don’t Cry (1950)
Joan in full camp mode here as Ethel Whitehead, who later becomes Lorna Hansen Forbes who uses her physical charms to go from a bored housewife into a gangster’s moll. The plot is completely unbelievable, but I found it very well-constructed and Joan, of course, was terrific.
16 – Strait-Jacket (1964)
Possibly a final hurrah for Joan as it was probably her last good film before her final picture in 1970. The image of Joan with an axe has become very well known. In this horror/thriller, Joan is Lucy Harbin who has spent 20 years in a psychiatric hospital for the decapitation of her her husband. She then lives with her brother and his family following her release and wants to strike a relationship with her daughter but still displays odd behaviour. However, a series of brutal axe-murders begins, and Lucy is the suspect… There’s a genuine shocking twist at the end of the film, which I won’t spoil, but I was shocked by the conclusion. It’s quite camp, verging on schlocky, but Joan portrays the intensity of the madness very well. An entertaining watch!
15 – Harriet Craig (1950)
I couldn’t believe this film, it was like life imitating art for Miss Crawford. We know Joan was a stickler for cleanliness and perfection (as detailed in her book My Way of Life from 1971) but I didn’t realise this picture would be defined by perfection! Joan is Harriet Craig who is a controlling, manipulative perfectionist who is obsessed with keeping her home in order much to the frustration of her servants and her husband especially. She will stop at nothing to achieve the perfect lifestyle. It was a very good melodrama, and I thought Joan was excellent.
14 – Queen Bee (1955)
Camp beyond words. I swear Joan got camper as the years went on. In this film, Joan is more like Queen Bitch than Queen Bee as the Southern Eva Phillips. Eva intimidates, and dominates, her family until she realises that she is not a nice person. Joan is so camp here, but gives a strong-willed performance. She also displays vulnerability. A good watch. I would’ve ranked it higher, but I found the ending (which I won’t spoil) very disappointing.
13 – Our Dancing Daughters (1928)
The film that made Joan Crawford a star, a silent film. It not only made her rival other flapper stars such as Clara Bow, but it established her as a symbol of 1920s modernity. As Diana Medford, Joan portrays the flamboyance with such coolness and skill. She is funny, saucy, sexy, very much the late 1920s flapper, and gives an energetic, yet wistful, performance as a woman who calls into question the love she has for one of her suitors. And she was a terrific dancer, her Charleston is fantastic! You can see why the film made her a star, a position she would hold for the rest of her life (in good films, and bad).
12 – Possessed (1931)
An early pairing with Clark Gable, Joan plays Marian Martin in this pre-code drama. Marion is a factory girl who wants to find a better life. She later begins a relationship with Mark Whitney (Clark Gable) who is a divorced attorney, and becomes his mistress who provides her with an education, money and status. The chemistry between Joan and Clark was off the chart here, they had incredible chemistry and it shows. Joan looked beautiful and commanded the screen through a mixture of sex appeal, insecurity and sophistication. I found the story a little weak, indicative of an early talkie, but it’s her performance that seals it for me. Just terrific.
11 – Autumn Leaves (1956)
Joan said this was one of her favourite films, and I had high hopes for it. Thankfully, my high hopes were confirmed. Joan is absolutely sublime as Millicent Wetherby, a spinster who falls in love with a young man who has a mental illness. It’s quite a beautiful film, notably directed by Baby Jane director Robert Aldrich. Joan gives a beautiful performance full of care and understanding as Millicent tries to help Bud (Cliff Robertson) overcome his illness. I think she deserved an Oscar nomination for this. I so wanted it to be in my top ten, but I couldn’t bring myself to remove any of the following films so it just missed out.
10 – Johnny Guitar (1954)
And onto the top ten, and this is a truly extraordinary ‘Western’ that has gone on to be hailed as one of the greatest Westerns of all time by some film makers, notably François Truffaut. Joan is Vienna, a saloon keeper whose female rival Emma Small (Mercedes McCambridge) wants to see her out of town. Vienna has no choice but to later flee, and she is eventually tracked down by Emma and have one final showdown… Of course it’s camp, of course it is. Two women squaring off against each other. But it’s more than that, it’s certainly different for the time as it blurred the lines between femininity and masculinity. We see a different Joan Crawford, a Joan Crawford who is forceful and extremely strong-willed. She still displays that famous warmth though, a real tour de force and absolutely extraordinary. She also had a feud with Mercedes McCambridge, which comes across a lot on-screen!
9 – Humoresque (1946)
As the alcoholic, and adulterous, Helen Wright, Joan shines like the star she is. Coming off the back of the Oscar winning Mildred Pierce, this was Joan at the top of her game. Helen falls in love with Paul Boray (John Garfield), a talented violinist. Helen wants to use his talents to her advantage but eventually falls in love with him. Her alcoholism, and manipulation eventually takes its toll on Helen. I would say Humoresque displays the Crawford *look* at its fullest, the wide mouth, the eyes, glamour. Joan is every inch the star here and she handles the dramatic scenes extremely well, particularly at the conclusion of the film. Some expert direction from Jean Negulesco too, the intense violin solos only add to the unsettling feel of the film.
8 – Dancing Lady (1933)
I kept coming back to this film when I tried to compile a top 10. To me it sums up Joan Crawford of the early to mid-1930s, when she was at the height of her MGM stardom, fun, carefree and energetic. It’s a different side to the Crawford persona, certainly compared to the 1940s and 1950s where she became more ‘hard’ in her performance. I really enjoyed this film, full of spectacle as she plays Janie Barlow who ends up dancing in a show through hard work and determination. She shines so brightly, and was a terrific dancer, very light and radiant. I think that’s forgotten about today sadly, Joan started out as a dancer. Her chemistry with Clark Gable is electric and she also works well with her future husband Franchot Tone. I mean, you can see why Joan fell for both Tone and Gable… Also notable that this is Fred Astaire’s first film. A great film, and one of the biggest hits of 1933, perfect for the Depression.
7 – Grand Hotel (1932)
“I want to be alone”. The immortal words that defined Greta Garbo who was given top billing in this film. I think this is probably Garbo’s film, but Joan Crawford is outstanding and steals everything but the cameras, she’s even better than Garbo and is so much more natural. This film oozes star power, and epitomises the studio system for me. It’s like a roll call of leading MGM names – Garbo, Crawford, Lionel and John Barrymore. Joan plays Flaemmchen, the stenographer who is hired to assist General Director Preysing (Wallace Beery). Joan oozes sex appeal, she looks so cool and fashionable too and has fabulous chemistry with John Barrymore. I can’t praise her highly enough in this film. It was sad she never shared any scenes with Garbo.
6 – A Woman’s Face (1941)
Wow, wow, wow. I had a feeling this film would be a gem before I saw it, and I was, thankfully, proved right. THIS is Joan’s high point at MGM in terms of acting and is really where Joan Crawford, the actress, comes into force here. The role of a lifetime for her, and she completely storms it as the facially disfigured Anna Holm. For an actress who was defined by her beauty and glamour, this was a transformative role, and must’ve taken guts and determination on Joan’s part. Anna is not only facially disfigured, but a blackmailer who despises everyone due to her own insecurities. She has been accused of murdering someone at the film’s outset, and through flashback we find out what really happened, and how Anna eventually comes good. It has a lot of suspense, but I would’ve liked a little bit more focus on the disfigurement (it only lasts until halfway through the film) but that is a minor quibble. It is worth it for Joan’s amazing acting. She should’ve had an Oscar nomination for this. Truly outstanding.
5 – The Women (1933)
I can’t put into words how fabulous this film was, and I would say that by 1939 with this film, and especially after her ‘box office poison’ label, the Joan Crawford as we now know her arrived. Joan is Crystal Allen, the bitchy perfume counter girl who is having an affair with the husband of Mary Haines (Joan’s arch rival Norma Shearer). It is delicious to see Crystal square up to Mary, and also revel in her own bitchiness. She just doesn’t care as she snipes and schemes. Joan and Norma had their own professional rivalry. Norma was married to Irving Thalberg, the top MGM producer, and she acquired roles that Joan would’ve liked herself, and she resented that (hence the rivalry). I loved this film, and what’s more, not a single man appears before the camera. That is quite extraordinary, and there is also a divine Technicolor fashion sequence (the film is in black and white). Watch out for an immortal line Joan says, as Crystal, at the end: “and by the way, there’s a name for you ladies… but it isn’t used in high society, outside of a kennel”. I can hear the claws being sharpened from here. Absolutely delicious and I really, really rate this film. Rosalind Russell was so funny as Sylvia (the cousin of Mary), an expert comedienne.
4 – Possessed (1947)
The film that earned Joan a second Oscar nomination. Joan is Louise Howell, who is admitted to a hospital and is coaxed into recounting her life. Louise is emotionally unstable who worked as a nurse and becomes involved with two men, one she loves and one she doesn’t. Louise displays schizophrenia, with tragic consequences as she becomes obsessed with her former lover. Joan is incredible, especially in the opening sequence where we are introduced to a catatonic Louise walking the streets of New York. She highlights the severity of mental illness with immense skill, understanding and realism. Joan spent time visiting hospitals and talking to psychiatrists to prepare for the role, quite method in her approach and it certainly showed. I think she should’ve won the Oscar for her performance. Sublime.
3 – Sudden Fear (1952)
Oh my goodness, like The Women, I can’t praise this film enough. I believe this is one of Joan Crawford’s finest acting achievements. She plays Myra Hudson, a successful playwright who falls in love with an actor (Lester Blaine, played by Jack Palance) in her play. Unbeknown to Myra, Lester plots to kill Myra with Irene Neeves (Gloria Grahame) to claim her fortune. When Myra discovers their plans, Joan is OUTSTANDING. You can tell she started off in silent films as her silent film ‘training’ was perfect for the emotionally intense scenes. What follows is a well concocted plan from Myra as she plans to confront Lester, and whether or not she goes through with. A gamut of suspense, a first class film and she secured another Oscar nomination, her third and final nomination.
2 – What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962)
The film is legendary, and the feud with Bette Davis is legendary. An iconic film full stop. Joan is Blanche Hudson a disabled former successful film star trapped in a delipidated house with her sister, Baby Jane Hudson who is a former child star who believes she can be a star again. Lots of attention is given to Bette, and quite right too as she was incredible, but Joan deserves attention too. She is sublime, and her controlled performance really highlights Blanche’s suffering as Jane further descends into madness. You feel her fear as she is neglected more and more. Her hysterics when she finds out what’s for her “din din” is chilling but superbly portrayed. When I first saw this film it was Joan’s performance that stood out for me, strangely. I thought she was wonderful and still do. I would like to believe Bette and Joan could’ve been friends, as I said earlier. But the film will always be a classic, and is an essential part of Joan Crawford’s career. Outstanding!
1 – Mildred Pierce (1945)
The ultimate Joan Crawford film. Her role as Mildred Pierce proved to be Joan Crawford’s Oscar winning triumph after years of desire to have more substantial roles. This is the culmination of 20 years of hard work and determination from Joan. From flapper, to shop girl, to glamour girl, to respected dramatic actress. That is some achievement, and it takes a person of guts to transform themselves, but this is Joan Crawford we’re talking about. She *was* that kind of person, she wanted to get to the very top. And boy did she get to the top! After 18 years with MGM, Joan moved to Warner Bros. which began a sublime period in her career, beginning with this film. Mildred Pierce is transformed from dowdy housewife to savvy restaurant owner who has to deal with a selfish, spoiled daughter who despises her, and steals her husband! It’s part film, noir part melodrama but is worth it for the, yup, fuck-me pumps, incredible fur coat, *that* hat, and the famous shoulder pads as we are introduced to Mildred. Via flashbacks we find out how Mildred transformed herself and who shot her husband (which we see at the very beginning). Joan so deserved that Oscar. She proved herself to be an excellent dramatic actress. The moment where she confronts her daughter Veda (Ann Blyth) is superb – the wide mouth, fixated eyes, it’s such a triumph for Joan. She still has that carefree nature, glamour (of course) and sex appeal she was known for from her days at MGM. Quite simply, Joan is incredible in this film and made a triumphant comeback. If you want to start off with one Joan Crawford film, make it this one. You won’t be disappointed.
Just to quickly sum up, I spent 25 days with Joan Crawford. 25 films over a period of 42 years. I have grown to love and respect Joan for the actress she was, as well as being the ultimate movie star. While for some she’ll be maligned, or treated as a camp, crazy woman, I want her legacy and her filmography to be treat with respect and for others to really appreciate what an incredible actress she was. She adored her fans, and I feel like I’ve given something back to her. We were so lucky for stars like Joan Crawford, or Bette Davis, or Katharine Hepburn to have lived. The world would’ve been a drearier place without them, and we wouldn’t have their incredible bodies of work to view. Miss Crawford, I salute you!
I’ve always been fascinated by Bette Davis, ever since I discovered the wealth of classical Hollywood films six years ago doing a module at Sunderland University. I don’t know if it’s her beautiful eyes that draw you in, her voice, the way she used cigarettes as a means of power and sophistication, her masculine-like manner, her incredibly camp nature (Miss Davis was perfect for impersonators). Or, simplistically, if it was just a combination of all of those things. I suspect this is the case, as it with a lot of iconic women for me.
2019 marked 30 years since the death of this great lady. One of cinema’s greatest dramatic actresses. I had seen several of her films, notable ones being What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962) and All About Eve (1950). But I wanted to understand the Bette Davis on-screen persona throughout her long and distinguished career. She made her screen debut with Bad Sister in 1931 and ended it with Wicked Stepmother in 1989, the year of her death (although her final completed film was The Whales of August in 1987). Incidentally, The Whales of August was Lillian Gish’s (her equally legendary co-star) last film. Almost 60 years of mesmerising performances complete with 2 Academy Award wins for Dangerous (1935) and Jezebel (1938) along with 10 total nominations for best actress.
In the summer, I set about trying to track down as many films as I could, both on VHS and DVD. Some are not available in the UK so I decided to focus on 30 films – 1 film for every year since her passing. She made some truly exceptional films, and some films that are not so great, which she readily admitted herself. In an interview with Dick Cavett in the early 1970s, she cites Parachute Jumper (1933), In This Our Life (1942) and Beyond the Forest (1949) as examples of films she hoped late television in the USA wouldn’t show again. Beyond the Forest was dire, Bette was right!
This is my chance to share my own, brief, top 10 countdown of the best Bette Davis films.
10 – The Letter (dir. William Wyler, 1940)
Incredibly stylish and an opening sequence that hooks you right in. Bette is superb as Leslie Crosbie, the wife of a rubber plantation manager. Wyler makes great use of her eyes in the film. A simple story, but a masterful performance. Very much the lush cinematography that epitomised Warners in the 1940s; a la Casablanca (1942) and Mildred Pierce (1945).
9 – Old Acquaintance (dir. Vincent Sherman, 1943)
A total camp-fest between Bette as Kit Marlowe and Miriam Hopkins as Millie Drake, who she supposedly hated more than Joan Crawford! The two even posed together with boxing gloves as a publicity shot. The film was their second, and last, collaboration, the first was The Old Maid (1939). There are cigarettes, bitching between Kit and Millie, and examples of gender performativity with Bette’s masculine/camp manner and dress. I was aghast that this film was hard to find. Luckily, I found it on eBay and I thoroughly recommend it!
8 – Of Human Bondage (dir. John Cromwell, 1934)
The film that made Bette a star as Mildred Rogers opposite Leslie Howard. Of Human Bondage shows how Bette was willing to look awful, and to appear unlikeable. Very few stars did that for fear of upsetting the audience. For instance, the ending of the Hitchcock film Suspicion (1941) was changed to fit in with Cary Grant’s ‘heroic’ image (he was supposed to kill Joan Fontaine’s character at the end). Bette didn’t care about this. She often remarked in interviews that she was a CHARACTER actress, and by god she was. She was remarkable!
7 – The Little Foxes (dir. William Wyler, 1941)
A very good performance from Bette as Regina Giddens. You can’t help but feel sorry for her as she ends up alone despite appearing unlikeable. Superb use of her facial expressions as she gives an icy and cool performance, especially when she watches her husband suffer a heart attack and does nothing. Gorgeous use of set design too. The large house is stunningly dressed.
6 – Jezebel (dir. William Wyler, 1938)
Her second Oscar winning film. Bette OWNED this film as the spoiled Southern belle Julie Marsden opposite Henry Fonda. Very much a ‘woman’s film’, she displays a gamut of emotions from defiance to sorrow. She thoroughly deserved that Oscar. Of particular note is the scene at the ball where the attention is on Julie for wearing an inappropriate dress, and of the guilt she feels afterwards.
5 – Hush… Hush, Sweet Charlotte (dir. Robert Aldrich, 1964)
Probably Bette’s last great film as Charlotte Hollis alongside her dear friend Olivia de Havilland. A film with a very chequered history. Joan Crawford was supposed to play Miriam Deering (Olivia’s role) after the success of What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?, but Joan took ‘ill’ during rehearsals and principal shooting so Olivia took over instead. Joan claimed Bette tried to undermine her. Olivia turned an excellent performance, but Bette gives a truly masterful performance in an exciting thriller. You cheer for Charlotte as the film concludes who silently triumphs.
4 – Dark Victory (dir. Edmund Goulding, 1939)
Bette’s personal favourite film, and I can see why. She throws EVERYTHING into this film as a dying Judith Traherne, a socialite who has a passion for horses and the finer things in life (fast cars and drinking). However, Judith develops a terminal brain tumour. Undoubtedly, the film is a bit of a weepie because of this, but Bette elevates it to a great height as Judith finds strength at the end overcoming initial fear. A fabulous performance and is a must watch.
3 – Now, Voyager (dir. Irving Rapper, 1942)
Oh Jerry, don’t lets ask for the moon. We have the stars! This is Bette Davis at the top of her game, the height of her time at Warners. The stylish outfit she wears on the ship, the lines, the cigarette scene with Paul Henreid have all gone down in cinema history. Bette as Charlotte Vale went from a frump who was having a nervous breakdown, as a result of endless put-downs from her controlling mother, to a stylish/strong woman who had regained control of her life. She triumphed over adversity. It is a bit soapy, but a gorgeous film nonetheless.
2 – What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (dir. Robert Aldrich, 1962)
Bette v Joan. Davis v Crawford. The film and the feud are both legendary. The only time Miss Davis and Miss Crawford starred in a film together. Their animosity went back to the 1930s apparently over Bette supposedly having an affair with Joan’s then husband Franchot Tone. As Baby Jane Hudson, Bette looked horrendous but stole the film as we see her decline into madness. Once a child star, Jane believes she can triumph again and be a huge success even though her career ended decades before. No question, the film is a triumph. Bette should’ve won the Oscar but Joan wouldn’t let her. If you saw Feud: Bette and Joan, you’ll see why. I’ve written a letter to Daddy!
1 – All About Eve (dir. Joseph L. Mankiewicz, 1950)
Fasten your seatbelts… this is all about Bette! Bette made a STORMING comeback as the Broadway, ageing, diva Margo Channing after her disastrous 1949 film Beyond the Forest which ended her career at Warners. That film is beyond saving, a real stinker. However, All About Eve triumphs. It is acerbic, witty and filled with classic one-liners and assured performances as Margo’s life and career is subsequently threatened by a young ‘fan’ Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter). The film was nominated for 14 Oscars (a record) and, among other awards, notably won Best Picture. Both Bette and Gloria Swanson (Norma Desmond, Sunset Boulevard (1950)) were up for Best Actress and lost out to Judy Holliday for Born Yesterday (1950). An absolute travesty, there should have been a tie like with Katharine Hepburn and Barbra Streisand in 1969. Despite all this, Bette’s performance as Margo is legendary, and for me, is the ultimate Bette Davis film.
I watched 30 films over an 8 week period. As a bonus here’s the films ranked from 30-11. 30 being my least favourite, 11 being good but not enough to make my top 10:
30 – Madame Sin (dir. David Greene, 1972)
29 – Bad Sister (dir. Hobart Henley, 1931)
28 – The Virgin Queen (dir. Henry Koster, 1955)
27 – Beyond the Forest (dir. King Vidor, 1949)
26 – The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex (dir. Michael Curtiz, 1939)
25 – A Stolen Life (dir. Curtis Bernhardt, 1946)
24 – The Bride Came C.O.D. (dir. William Keighley, 1941)
23 – The Petrified Forest (dir. Archie Mayo, 1936)
22 – In This Our Life (dir. John Huston, 1942)
21 – Watch on the Rhine (dir. Herman Shumlin, 1943)
20 – Dangerous (dir. Alfred E. Green, 1935)
19 – Deception (dir. Irving Rapper, 1946)
18 – Mr. Skeffington (dir. Vincent Sherman, 1944)
17 – The Nanny (dir. Seth Holt, 1965)
16 – The Anniversary (dir. Roy Ward Baker, 1968)
15 – Marked Woman (dir. Lloyd Bacon, 1937)
14 – The Whales of August (dir. Lindsay Anderson, 1987)
13 – The Great Lie (dir. Edmund Goulding, 1941)
12 – The Old Maid (dir. Edmund Goulding, 1939)
11 – All This, and Heaven Too (dir. Anatole Litvak, 1940)
I want to pre-empt this by saying – what a day! And I also want to pre-empt this by saying Labour did not win the election. That is plain to see. And also, I am a Labour supporter/voter so forgive the bias but here are my thoughts I wanted to put down.
The first proper election I became interested in, obviously down to age, was the 2010 election. I had just turned 17 and we were faced with a hung parliament. I can still remember seeing Gordon Brown with his children leaving No. 10 and then David Cameron entering that famous building. But what was stark was the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. Remember Nick Clegg promising no more tuition fees? Yeah. Very quickly through the autumn and winter of 2010 people were riled. Students protested, Charles and Camilla’s car was attacked by activists (hahaha). And the riots in the summer of 2011. It was a pretty eventful time to say the least. And Ed Miliband became leader of the Labour Party. “Red Ed” as he was known in some quarters of the press. Up until 2014, politically, things were constant. Then the Scottish Independence reared its head. To me, that was a change of things to come. The 2015 election was the first one I could vote in. I voted Labour and got behind Ed Miliband. I liked him. He’s become very sassy and shade abundant on Twitter which is just marvellous and long may that continue. But. The Conservatives secured a majority. Labour lost, I would say very substantially. The polls had got it wrong. Oh those opinion polls. The morning I woke up to the result was just so shitty. Aargh. I accepted it and accepted that the next election would be in 2020 with Cameron staying on for five years…
Along came Jeremy Corbyn. I hadn’t heard of him until about August of that year when his name was cropping up so many times – he would return the party to traditional Labour, not the Blairite/Centrist party it had become. That’s what people wanted wasn’t it? A different party to the centrist-right Conservative Party. So, he became elected and some in the party didn’t like it. They fucking hated it. As did the press. The fucking press, oh my god. Again, like in 2015, things chundered along with until the EU referendum vote. That’s when shit hit the fan big time. 52% vs. 48% to leave the EU. Whatever side you were on, you cannot deny that a massive tinderbox of emotion had been opened, and I think that was completely unnecessary. I’ve heard of families being torn apart, that’s how massive it was! And the state of the press was disturbing, as were certain quarters on social media who backed ‘Brexit’. Initially, I was fuming with the result. But after about 4-8 weeks I accepted it and, I have to say, wasn’t really bothered. Like, what can I or anyone else do about it? Nothing.
But this period was a disaster for Labour. I won’t go into it as everyone knows about it but the party was tearing itself apart. Oh, and David Cameron resigned, cue a Tory leadership race, and Theresa May becoming the new Prime Minister. It was such a strange time, so much had changed in a relatively short space of time. We kept hearing ‘Brexit means Brexit’ and these unjustified slurs on those who did not vote that way. And it still goes on, “those fucking remoaners, how dare they have an opinion!”. Ugh. Anyway, September 2016 saw another Labour leadership contest. Corbyn stormed it and again people were declaring the Labour Party was dead. Me included to a certain degree.
Fastforward to Tuesday 18 April 2017. At about 10:30-11:00 in the morning. A surprise announcement that Theresa May was calling a general election. She was calling it for the good of the country despite refusing to call an election, and saying it several times. URGH. Look at the fucking Daily Mail and The Sun frontpages for god’s sake! It’s sickening. But oh so wrong…
I was not hopeful. In fact I was convinced Labour would be dead and the Conservatives would have over 400 seats. A landslide. Fuck’s sake. I think Brenda from Bristol, who has become infamous, sums it up – “NOT ANOTHER ONE?”
The campaigning started. The press began their Labour attack. But, if one looks at the campaigning now, you can see Theresa May being “weak and wobbly”. Not “strong and stable” as she was preaching. She was full of soundbites, she felt cold, stiff and almost robotic. No heart or soul in her demeanour. There were local council elections on 5 May and Labour lost so many seats. It felt like a 1983 scenario in the election. And then came the manifesto. That was a massive game changer. A fucking dementia tax? Fuck right off! That alienated many voters, hell, even people on the Mail Online tore her apart. Oh, and the vote for fox hunting. Utterly shameful and inhuman. That says it all. Corbyn on the other hand played a blinder. A manifesto that, yes, “for the many, not the few”. It appealed to people. Maybe, just maybe, something is happening. After nearly a year of fatigue with Corbyn I was changing my view. This was for me, it felt natural somehow. Looking back now, the crowds at his rallies tell a big story. Thousands at every one of them. It was amazing and it made me think, something is happening.
Strong and stable?
Corbyn’s rally at The Sage, Gateshead. Nigh on 10,000 people!
So, we come to yesterday, and today. The results, Conservatives with 318, Labour with 262. You what?! Not a Tory landslide?! Nope. I return to my pre-empts. Labour has not won this election. The Tories have won. BUT. We have a hung parliament, and Labour has done extremely well. Has the loser won? Yes! Weak and wobbly Theresa May has lost and has no mandate whatsoever for any of her policies. Strong and stable my arse. It has backfired on her spectacularly. That is why it is, sort of, a Labour win. No-one saw it coming. That is why so many are happy today including me. That exit poll last night was gobsmacking. Never did I think it would happen. The front-pages of nearly every newspaper yesterday were vitriolic in their Labour criticism. Not so in the early hours. Of course, Labour have a lot to do. We all know that, they need to come together and really fight to be a solid and strong opposition with no in-fighting. It does nothing whatsoever. Whatever you say about Jeremy Corbyn, he has played a blinder, but he has not won the election.
How newspapers can change…
However, we are all losers. We are about to enter a ‘coalition’ with the DUP in Northern Ireland. They are, supposedly (I don’t know much about them), worse than UKIP. Anti-abortion, anti-women, anti-LGBT, anti-everything. This is scary. So much for Corbyn being a “terrorist sympathiser” eh, given the DUP’s history. And Brexit talks are about to begin, ugh.
Anyway. We will look on 9/10 June as a game changer for British politics. What will happen now is anyone’s guess. There may be an election later in the year, we just don’t know at the minute. But what we do know is this…
Theresa May’s gamble has failed. She has taken the public and her voters for granted. The dream is over.
It can be said that Shanghai Express was the counterpart to MGM’s lavish Grand Hotel. Both were released in 1932 and both feature a solid ensemble of actors. This was the first Marlene Dietrich film I saw back in 2015 and I was struck by, not only it’s lavish feeling, but the incredible lighting. Sternberg really created something magnificent. Of course, the famous shot of Dietrich being lit from above is instantly iconic. I would go as far to say that that shot, along with her top hat and tails, is one of cinema’s iconic images. This truly cemented the Dietrich legend. Sadly, as she got older, Dietrich wanted to retain the image of a legend. Nonetheless, her role of Shanghai Lily in Shanghai Express is triumphant and the film is a stylish visual feast.
The film is set in 1931. China is involved in a civil war and looms in the background, and later foreground, of the film. The opening credits feature Chinese symbolism – the symbols, masks, a man banging a gong and fish in water; all evocative images. The film begins with passengers boarding the train to Shanghai which is stationed in Peking. A car pulls up at the station and Shanghai Lily walks out. This is a magnificent image and confirms Dietrich to be the major star that she was. Dressed in black with a net veil and feathers she is a beauty and you cannot take your eyes off her. Lily has loose morals. Indeed, a man comments on how “everyone in China knows Shanghai Lily”. The opening sequence is visually impressive and is testament to Sternberg’s wonderful direction particularly with a tracking shot of soldiers and workers preparing for the train’s departure. Captain Donald Harvey (Clive Brook) is boarding the train. He speaks with an upper class British accent and has courteous manners, a real gentleman. He is reunited with Lily on the train. She calls him ‘Doc’ and he knows her as Magdalen. She, with considerable frank, informs him “it took more than one man to change my name to Shanghai Lily”. There is still sparks between them. He still has the watch she gave him. Lily is very image conscious, perhaps a nod to Dietrich herself? She asks Donald “have I lost my looks?” to which he replies “no you’re more beautiful than ever”. We see, throughout the film, Lily in countless beautiful gowns.
Shanghai Lily making her entrance.
Dietrich is every inch the star.
Donald meets up with Lily again.
On board the train, Lily is sharing a compartment with Hui Fei (Anna May Wong), a Chinese woman of similar reputation to Lily. Wong deserves attention here. She achieved international stardom in the 1920s with her sex appeal and exoticism, notably in the 1929 British silent film Piccadilly. She is incredibly mysterious as Hui Fei, hardly saying a word and seems to be cold and icy. In the compartment, Lily quips to Hui Fei “don’t you find respectable people terribly dull?” The sets deserve a mention too. So much care is lavished onto the sets, they are stunning. The passengers get to know one another and, during dinner, the train is stopped by Chinese government soldiers who search the train looking for spies. They apprehend a rebel agent and check everyone’s passports. The mysterious Henry Chang (Warner Oland) sends a coded message in a telegraph office and he later questions the passengers. Later on, he forces himself on Hui Fei and she fights him off. He is sleazy and Hui Fei shows great strength by fighting him off.
A steely, mysterious Hui Fei.
Lily sharing a compartment with Hui Fei.
Gorgeous, lavish set designs.
Chang trying to force himself on Hui Fei.
The love between Donald and Lily is evident. They have another encounter at the back of the train. She is dressed in furs and is, not only sexy, but exudes power and control – a true seductress and using femininity as a power tool. They kiss and she is left feeling happy. Sternberg uses, as mentioned, stunning direction and the lighting is sensational. He highlights Dietrich’s face in several close ups indicating the importance of his leading lady further cementing the Dietrich legend. Also, a shot which sees Chinese soldiers pulling down a ramp for them to storm the train could come from both a 1920s German film, and a 1940s Film Noir. It is stunning and incredibly evocative. The Chinese soldiers storming the train is seemingly the work of Chang who, again, takes all the passengers in for questioning as the train stops. There is brutality in his questioning. Opium dealer Eric Baum (Gustav von Seyffertitz) is branded with a hot piece of metal. Lily is also questioned and Dietrich’s confidence is in abundance here. We find out more about her. While she flippantly retorts that she is travelling to Shanghai to buy a new hat. She also reveals she has been in China for 8 years, her parents have forgotten her (perhaps because of her loose morals) and has been engaged several times. She does not seem to mind that she is a loose woman, she seems to enjoy it. Donald, who is listening to this, punches Chang and defends Lily’s honour after Chang is disparaging towards her. Lily shows great strength as Donald is taken away by the officials. A shot of Lily at the window looking for Donald is not only evocative but moving and shows a vulnerable side to Lily – another wonderful piece of direction by Sternberg. We even see Lily pray as this shot dissolves into smoke billowing from a moving train.
Donald’s watch.
Lily the seductress.
They finally kiss.
Evocative lighting, superb direction by Sternberg.
Lily being questioned by Chang.
Praying for Donald’s safety.
Stunning shot of the moving train.
Lily at the window. Her face is lightened. Dietrich gives a brilliant performance.
Hui Fei is an extremely important character in the narrative. We see her thinking about suicide as she pulls out a knife, Lily quickly stops her. The knife is an important marker here. A little later on, Hui Fei emerges from the shadows and stabs Chang in the back not once but twice. Wong is calm, steely and not acting hysterical that one would expect from an actor or actress. Her dialogue is stilted and not particularly natural as she tries to reason with the officials. This is a minor criticism as Dietrich is so watchable in the film and her acting is terrific. She has been forced to go with Chang so Donald can be freed as he been detained. But as Hui Fei has killed him, Lily is also free. Again, we see her praying and she has been crying, any criticisms of her dialogue are only minor in light of this.
Anna contemplates suicide…
… and is stopped by Lily.
She emerges from the shadows…
… is behind Chang…
… and stabs him to death.
Lily showing strength and fighting off the officials.
Dietrich’s brilliant performance as an emotional Lily.
Critics and reviewers labelled this as “Grand Hotel on wheels” owing to its lavishness and ensemble of actors. What follows is the most famous sequence of the film and an iconic image of cinema. Dressed in a black nightdress, Lily makes her way to Donald’s compartment. He is still very much in love with her. She returns to her compartment, lights a cigarette and turns out the light. Wrapping her nightdress around her she smokes the cigarette. At first, she seems in turmoil, almost as though she cannot believe it. Her hand is shaking. The moving train can be causing it or Donald’s love. Her face is lit from above and there are goddess connotations here – light coming from an ecclesiastical source (namely heaven) and is shining on her face as a beacon of tranquillity making her a goddess. She later smiles knowingly and is triumphant. As she smokes the cigarette smoke beacons in the frame and the shot dissolves into a montage of newspapers. It is an extraordinary sequence and memorable, a highlight of Sternberg and Dietrich’s collaborations.
Hands behind her head, feeling confident and sexy.
Goes to Donald’s compartment.
Back in her compartment with a cigarette in her mouth.
Turns the lights off.
Donald sightly bewildered by Lily.
Lit from above, a true goddess. Shaking hands.
A smile, her and Donald’s love apparent.
The cigarette smoke…
… dissolves into newspapers.
The train stops in Shanghai, it has finally reached its destination. Lily gets off the train and is attracting male attention. The passengers are relieved to be safe. Hui Fei is being questioned, still steely but she is the heroine of the film as she, so to speak, saved the day. Lily is waiting for Donald. She looks at the watches on sale in one of the stores at the station, seemingly for Donald. He walks up to her and she puts the watch on him. He won’t let her leave his side again, they are meant to be together. The watch can act as a metaphor for Lily ensnaring him, she has him, at last! They finally kiss and Donald quips “many lovers come to railway stations to kiss”.
Lily and her male admirers.
Hui Fei still steely.
Lily putting on the watch she has bought for Donald on his wrist.
They kiss, they are finally back together again.
A film of style, lavishness, beautiful lighting and romance, Shanghai Express was a massive success and was the highest grossing film of 1932. It was nominated for three Academy Awards – Best Picture (losing to Grand Hotel), Best Director for Sternberg and Best Cinematography for Lee Garmes’ work on the film. It had a well-deserved win for Best Cinematography, a triumph of lighting and direction. The image of Dietrich being lit from above will always remain an iconic image of cinema. Arguably Dietrich’s finest moment.
1932 poster for Shanghai Express.
Works Cited
Shanghai Express, Dir. Josef von Sternberg. Paramount, 1932.
Following on her from her astonishing breakthrough in The Blue Angel, Morocco was Dietrich’s first Hollywood film. Starring alongside Gary Cooper, another soon to be legendary actor, and Adolph Menjou, Dietrich as Mademoiselle Amy Jolly is an incredible screen presence and is watchable. As I said in the previous review, the camera adores her.
THE iconic image of Dietrich is in this film, and is always referred to. The top hat and tails and same sex kiss. This was astonishing for audiences in 1930, although in an era of pre-code cinema, literally anything goes and one can even argue that such occurrences were a given. You only need to see films, such as The Sign of the Cross from 1932 where Claudette Colbert baths nude in asses’ milk, to know that a lot of films were incredibly daring. But a same sex kiss? Morocco was the first American film to show this and in Queen Christina from 1933, Greta Garbo as the Swedish monarch kisses a woman. This is why Dietrich, and this film, is important from a historical point of view. While it may show something of an independence there is still the lesbian subtext there which makes this film all the more interesting.
I don’t want to provide a waxing lyrical of the above sequence, although it will be mentioned later on as it is important, the film is a joy to watch. I haven’t even got on to the top hat and tails! The film begins in Morocco with the French Foreign Legion returning from a campaign. This is an impressive sequence, soldiers are marching and drums are beating. Private Tom Brown (Cooper) is in the legion. You can see why, as Tom, he is attracting female attention. The local girls are completely enamoured with him, in part due to Cooper’s good looks. On a ship bound for Morocco is Amy, a nightclub singer and performer. She meets Kennington La Bessière (Menjou), a wealthy man who wants to help her. He gives her a card which she immediately tears up into pieces.
Gary Cooper as Tom Brown.
Dietrich as Amy Jolly.
Amy ripping up the note.
The film jumps forward to the nightclub. Amy is the headline act and is getting ready. Now I can gush over the top hat and tails! We see her in, initially, shirt and trousers and then later a jacket and top hat. Dietrich looks comfortable wearing such clothes and gives way to this level of ambiguous gender. Is it cross dressing? Or is it a performance? I would say a bit of both. It’s a confident, memorable performance that ensures her appeal to both sexes. Men to, in a somewhat negative sense, laugh at and be entertained, but for women to marvel at such confidence and to feel a sense of comfort, possibly for lesbian spectators. There are gasps, boos and applause as Amy walks on stage. She then begins her performance and sing “When Love Dies”. Tom is already in the nightclub who, completely taken with Amy, claps to drown out the jeers. Undeterred, Amy makes her way round the tables and spots another woman who has a flower in her hair. She asks the woman if she can keep the flower, to which she can, and she playfully kisses her in return. This is met with laughter and doesn’t seem unusual for the audience members. She then begins her next performance wearing a much more feminine dress, albeit extremely daring (and reminiscent to her style in The Blue Angel) of a very short black dress and long feather shawl. Her legs are on display. They are long and she looks incredibly sexy. Now, this can be a marker of power as she is proud of her femininity but can invite unnecessary male desire. Laura Mulvey in her essay ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ comments on this and argues that such desirous shots connote “to-be-looked-at-ness”. Amy’s next performance sees her carrying a basket of apples and she hands them out to the men in the audience. Tom receives an apple and he receives a key to her room.
Amy getting ready and looking in the mirror.
Ready for her performance.
That kiss.
Her second performance. Legs on full display. Sexy, confident, powerful.
Both Amy and Tom are taken with one another.
Tom is interesting, and something of a predictable and typical man. He has been in Amy’s room before, presumably with other female performers, and seems a playboy who likes women. Nonetheless, he is taken with Amy and there is chemistry between them despite awkward pauses (a negative aspect of the film generally). They muse over their lives; he asks if Amy is married to which she replies “Husband? Never found a man good enough for that”. Amy realises that she is falling for him, and seems concerned at this. A sign that he may well break her heart, just like all the other men in her past have done. She says “you better go now, I’m beginning to like you”.
Tom in Amy’s room.
The use of light and set design makes Morocco incredibly stylish, and is another marker of Sternberg’s signature. Chiaroscuro lighting is evident throughout the film, for instance when Tom leaves Amy’s room, and she follows him not long after, they are blinded by shadows of plants. It creates a claustrophobic atmosphere but beautifully stylish and unique. This is the same in the cell where Tom has been detained for assaulting two natives. It is claustrophobic but stylish and dark. Tom is dressed in a white uniform, he is handsome and one can easily see why Amy falls in love with him. Who wouldn’t fall in love with a tall handsome man in uniform?
Darkly lit exterior of Amy’s room.
Gorgeous Gary Cooper.
The darkly lit cell. Very claustrophobic.
Tom wants to desert and leave with Amy. He is tired of fighting. However, La Bessière is enamoured with Amy too. He lavishes her with an expensive bracelet and offers her marriage. Tom overhears this but he still wants to leave with Amy to Europe. Amy rushes off to her next performance leaving Tom in her dressing room. He notices the bracelet and believes she would be better off with a rich man and writes a note on the mirror saying he has changed his mind. I would argue this is a cowardly act. Amy arrives to see him leave, and spots him with other women, masking his true feelings. Interestingly, the other women go with their men. Amy thinks this is mad to which La Bessière replies “they love their men”. They do it for love. Love is powerful.
Tom and Amy in a clinch, they are in love with each other.
Tom’s note on the mirror.
La Bessière sees that Amy has been drinking “like a fish” after being badly treated by Tom. She shows him the note on the mirror and throws a glass of champagne at it. This is the first time we really see Dietrich show off her acting range. She gives a competent performance and we really feel for her. She accepts La Bessière’s proposal. She shows, yet again, her range at her engagement party. Wearing a set of pearls, she suddenly hears marching – Tom is back. She rips the pearls from her neck and runs off. Lavish set designs are shown off at their best here. You’ve got to hand it to Paramount, they really were imaginative and provided such classy designs. Running outside she frantically looks for Tom, except he is not there. Amy is anxious and is completely in love with him.
Amy throwing a glass of champagne at the mirror.
Lavish set, incredibly stylish.
Amy hears the marching soldiers.
More stylish sets.
Apprehensive Amy, she wants her man back.
Amy in dispair.
Later, she discovers Tom in a canteen with a native woman. He has been carving “Amy Jolly” on the table with a heart over her name. She discovers this. He does love her! Dietrich’s sexuality is used, somewhat strangely here. When she finds him she puts her leg on a chair. A sign of power, as if to say, you’ve missed this? Or deliberate to-be-looked-at-ness? It certainly has multiple readings but is clearly placed there. The regiment are about to disembark and leave. After saying goodbye to Tom, Amy realises that she cannot lose him again. One final exchange with La Bessière she runs after the soldiers, along with the other women, to be with her love. It is brilliant final sequence. The wind is howling and sand is shifting rapidly peppered with dramatic drum beats and marching feet. As the women walk further down, and disappear beneath the horizon of the sand, sand is all we can see. It is bleak, lonely and vast and a powerful final shot. Amy simply had to be with Tom and would do whatever she could.
Amy’s leg on the chair after discovering Tom with a native woman.
The carving on the table.
Amy can’t bear to lose Tom again.
Runs after the soldiers.
Joining the women and running after her man.
Powerful final shot. Bleak, lonely and vast.
Morocco was released to yet more success. This time, rewards were abundant. It was nominated for four Academy Awards (Best Actress, Best Director, Best Art Direction and Best Cinematography). Even though the film came away empty handed, a nomination cemented its success and regard. Indeed, this was the only film Dietrich was nominated for in the Best Actress category. Upon watching the film, it further cements the Dietrich legend of ambiguous gender and sexuality and clearly causes a stir and rouses interest. The film lacks something though. I feel as though the story limps along and the insistence of Amy wanting to be with Tom sends out a weak message and brushes away any female empowerment.
Nonetheless, the film will be remembered for a daring display of Dietrich’s gender ambiguity and same sex kiss. That is the marker of a legend, to create memorable performances. Dietrich had this in spades.
1930 poster for Morocco.
Works Cited
Morocco, Dir. Josef von Sternberg. Paramount, 1930.
Mulvey, L. (1975) ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’, Screen, 16(3): 6-18.
I really, really, want to stress how much of an extraordinary film Josef von Sternberg’s The Blue Angel is. It will always have a place in the history of cinema for several reasons. One, it is considered to be the first German sound film, two, it is full of gorgeous German expressionism, three, it has an incredibly sleazy, sexy, bleak and fantastic story, and fourth, it made Marlene Dietrich (Lola Lola) both an international superstar and a cinematic legend.
Just a note – this review is from the German version of the film, not the English version.
However, it must be stated that this film was supposed to be Emil Jannings’ (Professor Immanuel Rath) starring role. Indeed, he is given top billing on both the opening credits of the film and promotional posters over Dietrich. On viewing the film, it is definitely Jannings’ film. The tragic story of a repressed, and hesitant, school Professor full of morality who enters a sleazy world of cabaret and becomes humiliatingly dependent on Lola, and then later turned into a joke, is Jannings’ film for definite. It’s Rath’s story. But Dietrich is the star of the film as Lola. She gives an extraordinary performance that you cannot take your eyes off of her. You just have to look at her to know that, one, the camera adores her, and two, she is a goddess.
A cinematic goddess.
The film begins with a shot of sloped houses that screams of German Expressionism and cements its place in the Weimar era. Indeed, the Weimar period was due to come to end with the rise, and dominance, of Nazism. But back to the opening shots. The sloped houses look unreal, almost fairy-tale like but still full of drama. We see Rath having his breakfast which establishes his peaceful, and incredibly ordered life. The next scene is in the school. Prior to Rath’s arrival, the class is in chaos. The boys are misbehaving and are mistreating the lone good boy (the class ‘swot’). Upon Rath’s arrival, things quickly change. The class is now regimented, there is no life and there is a heavy feeling of boredom. He tries to teach the boys. The lesson is about Hamlet. After a somewhat comic exchange with one of the boys over the quote “to be or not to be” he sets them to work and wanders around the room inspecting their work. He notices one of the boys looking at a photograph (we discover a little later on it is of Lola). After confiscating it, Rath intriguingly looks at it and blows the paper skirt which reveals Lola in stockings and suspenders – highly daring for the time. This fades out to a shot, a fantastic shot, of Lola standing proudly on stage with her hands on her hips. This is a powerful image, an image of confidence and assurance. From a repressed, regimented opening the film has now come alive.
The German Expressionist opening shot.
Rigid German schooling.
Photograph of Lola Rath has confiscated. He is intrigued.
The extraordinary first shot of Lola Lola, in all her powerful and confident glory.
Lola is an interesting character, and arguably an archetype for both the Dietrich legend and of future cinematic femme fatales. Barbara Kosta, in her study on the film, quotes Marjorie Garber who adds how “Dietrich’s reputation, Dietrich’s image, is built on this structure of cross-gender representation”. According to Kosta, Dietrich has been placed “outside conventional gender definitions” which provides her with “the power of the desiring/desired object – an icon for everyone”. Lola is all-encompassing, powerful and masculine while still appearing feminine. She attracts men like a moth to flame and is very sexy. She declares “they all come back for me”. Rath, very quickly, finds himself under her spell. Enraged by the young boys’ trips to The Blue Angel club he visits the club to catch them, and meets Lola.
The young boys drawn to Lola, like a moth to a flame.
His morals have begun to vanish thanks to the sleazy world he now finds himself in. Men want Lola, as seen with an obese Captain (a grotesque figure) who clearly wants ‘a good time’ with her. Enraged at this, Rath defends her honour – a gentlemanly act. It is at this point we come to the film’s most famous sequence, Dietrich singing what was to be one of her signature songs – “Falling in Love Again” to Rath. It is a romantic, sexy, naughty, confident and powerful performance. Wearing a top hat with her legs full on display she has lured Rath further into her trap. The top hat Lola wears is interesting in its symbolism and again cements the iconic Dietrich image. To use Barbara Kosta’s words from her study, the top hat “lends an air of transgression and accentuates her sexual ambiguity”. So, while she is singing the song to Rath, and is clearly taken with him, she could very well be singing it to anyone. Dietrich was rumoured to be bisexual and this ambiguous sexuality is intriguing in this light.
Rate watching on adoringly…
…as Lola sings “Falling in Love Again” to him. An iconic image.
Rath spends the night with Lola, seemingly their only sexual experience together. This causes him to be late for class. As an act of morality, he has supposedly failed his students and resigns in order to be with Lola. His morals have now gone. Rath finds himself proposing to Lola, which is firstly peppered with a hearty laugh from her then the film fades into their wedding reception. Very quickly however, things change. He initially disapproves of her continuing to work in cabaret but then finds himself working alongside her. A notable scene sees him putting on her stocking for her. She can’t do it herself – he has to do it. She is in control of him. Is this the marker of a powerful woman? From a male point of view this is incredibly belittling for Rath, and for a time of masculine dominance he is failing at being a man.
The happy couple?
As this is set in 1925 the film jumps forward four years to 1929 with an impressive set of dissolves (for the time). He is now totally dependent on Lola and is working for her as a clown within her troupe. They return to his hometown, and return to The Blue Angel. Rath is distressed at thought of performing for people he knows, and despises, but Lola does nothing to stop this from happening. Rath is derided and berated by the crowd. It is a truly disturbing sequence. Owing to his size, where one can argue he has now become a grotesque character, he is an easy target. Lola has moved onto a new love interest – a more handsome man named Mazeppa (Hans Albers). As they eventually kiss, Rath is subject to numerous tricks performed by the conjuror (Kiepert, played by Kurt Gerron) which sees him having eggs smashed on his head and face. He is forced to make a crow noise, but upon witnessing Lola and Mazeppa kissing, he becomes hysterical and his crow noises intensify as he reacts with rage. This is a man having a mental and physical breakdown. He is now a tragic and pathetic figure. He attempts to strangle Lola, who, scared, breaks away and he trashes one of the rooms. He is put into a straitjacket to calm down.
Now a clown, both physically and literally.
Lola’s stern and unsympathetic face.
A despairing Rath.
Egg smashed on Rath’s face. The final straw and the beginning of a massive breakdown.
Rath strangling Lola.
What follows is a heartbreaking sequence. We see Lola, in all her finery, singing “Falling in Love Again” except the lyrics take on a different meaning here. “I can’t help it” and “never wanted to” suggests that even though she takes a shine to whichever man she sees, she doesn’t mean it. They are only temporary, or pawns to her game of sex and desire. Very harsh of me to say this as I adore Dietrich, but Lola as a character, while confident and powerful, is unlikeable by this point. Rath hears her singing, and after being freed from the straitjacket, he escapes and slowly makes his way to his old classroom. Sternberg’s direction, and the cinematography, is beautiful and extremely impressive in this sequence. You think of other German Expressionist films such as Nosferatu here. The low-key lighting, or chiaroscuro, lighting, is extremely all encompassing as well as dark and dingy. He makes his way to the school and is found dead while clutching his desk – the only place that mattered to him beneath his organised and repressed nature. He had been rejected and humiliated by everyone. One can argue he died of a broken heart and hope he finds some sort of peace. A tolling bell can be heard as the camera pans backwards to reveal the empty desks, dark classroom, and Rath dead. It is a disturbing sequence but beautifully directed and leaves a brutally powerful truth. No-one can help who they fall in love with, but enter the bounds of love at your own cost. As Rath was told – “all for some dame”.
Rath in a straitjacket.
Lola without a care in the world.
Low-key lighting as Rath escapes.
Rath found dead in a place he truly loves. He is at peace.
The final shot.
The film was a huge success. Hollywood were interested and Paramount, eventually, offered her a contract. They wanted Dietrich on their payroll. Under Sternberg’s encouragement, she moved to the United States under contract with the studio. They wanted a German counterpart to Greta Garbo who was, arguably, the most famous star in Hollywood. Over the next five years her place in cinema history was cemented. While Jannings’ gives a tremendous performance (incidentally, he was awarded the first Academy Award for Best Actor in 1928), Dietrich is the star attraction. Nonetheless, The Blue Angel remains an extraordinary achievement and is a film that stands up today.
I want to use a quote from Billy Wilder’s Sunset Boulevard to finish, as uttered by Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson) – “no-one ever leaves a star. That’s what makes one a star”. Dietrich’s very presence cements her legend and legacy. As will be seen in the rest of the reviews, the camera (and audiences) adored her. She was, and always will be, a legend.
German poster for The Blue Angel.
Works Cited
Kosta, B. (2009) Willing Seduction: The Blue Angel, Marlene Dietrich and Mass Culture. New York: Berghahn Books.
The Blue Angel, Dir. Josef von Sternberg. UFA, 1930.
Saturday 6 May marks 25 years since the death of Marlene Dietrich in 1992, a legend of cinema. Incidentally, Wednesday 10 May marks the 40th anniversary of the death of Joan Crawford in 1977; another legendary figure in cinema history.
Certainly, for Joan Crawford, an anniversary of 40 years is such a long time. Especially when there are still stars from the classical era still alive, namely Olivia de Havilland and Kirk Douglas who both turn 101 this year. I’ve always been fascinated with Dietrich and Crawford, particularly with the former. Dietrich was beautiful. She was sexy, glamorous, vulnerable and mystifying. Similar can be said of Crawford. Female stars of the classical era have this effect on me, more so than me. Although Paul Newman comes pretty close – good god almighty! Now he was beautiful. But, of course, this effect a star can have on a spectator is more than just looking good. There’s acting, or performing, voice, aesthetics such as lighting and the relationship between the star and the camera. The camera can simply adore a star, and for Dietrich and Crawford, the camera loved them.
To commemorate these two legends, I want to provide a retrospective of some of their key films. What I don’t want to do is to turn this into an academic essay. Mind you, it will be very hard not to suddenly drop a quote from a book, or a journal article, into these posts. Old habits die hard! No, I want to basically write how I interpret each film and how fabulous these two legends appear. Because they were pretty fabulous it has to be said.
It would be nigh on impossible to watch every film they appeared in. Some aren’t even available anywhere in the world. Here are the films in order of release:
Marlene Dietrich
The Blue Angel
Morocco
Shanghai Express
Blonde Venus
The Scarlet Empress
The Devil is a Woman
Desire
Destry Rides Again
Witness for the Prosecution
Joan Crawford
Grand Hotel
Mildred Pierce
Humoresque
Possessed
Johnny Guitar
What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?
These retrospectives will focus on representation, sexuality, ageing, female empowerment, performance and acting, aesthetics (lighting, camera) and the meaning that is created. There may even be criticisms of Dietrich and Crawford. Criticisms? Of these two legends?! Quite possibly.
These retrospectives will begin on Friday 5 May with Marlene Dietrich’s films, and on Wednesday 10 May I will move on to Joan Crawford.
Ever since Strictly Come Dancing began in 2004, I have watched it and loved it. The 2009 series was the series I properly began to get invested in it. Dodgy series really, it seemed old hat compared to The X Factor which was wiping the floor with it. The celebrities comprised of a lot of soap stars, Alesha Dixon joined the panel and there was a racism row. It just seemed all meh. But in 2010 things stepped up a gear, the dances were of high quality, the celebrities were fantastic and you really rooted for them (apart from vile Tory Ann Widdecombe of course). The costumes were gorgeous, the music was gorgeous, the dances were gorgeous. Everything was fabulous.
But since 2014, things changed. Producer interference has ruined this once fantastic show. Dancing is being compromised for favouritism and pure entertainment. I mean, I have no evidence of this but in my eyes the judges adhere to a script essentially written by the producers. It is all so predictable. You can predict the scores they will give. You can predict who are the ones heading for the dance off, i.e. thrown under a bus. The producers WANT certain people to do well. 2014 saw the DIABOLICAL Around the World week which was just, well, beyond parody. But ‘entertainment’ becomes jarring after a while. Surely the whole point of this show is to see some spectacular dancing? Not dancing with props, or themes, or dancing set to horrendous music. Dancing with fantastic music, and moods created by such music. Oh and THOSE FUCKING BACKING DANCERS. They add nothing.
See, this is my problem with the whole thing. Because The X Factor has gone under the radar, Strictly has got bigger and is trying too hard in creating entertainment. Less is more. But 2016 has been the final straw. Overmarking to purposely save couples is a joke and is farcical as is the belief that bigger is better. However, as long as it gets the ratings things will stay the same, and get worse. Producers, you are ruining a once wonderful show. You will sabotage your own success.
I will always watch Strictly but now I have lost heart, and interest. The soul has been ripped out of Strictly Come Dancing.
I feel so sad writing this. Late last night we all heard with such sadness that Jean Alexander passed away yesterday at the age of 90. She had turned 90 only three days before. It has been so touching to read tributes to Jean across social media and in the press. She was, and is, held in such high regard – a marker of a legend and an icon. Hilda Ogden, to which Jean will be eternally known for, is one of Coronation Street’s most iconic characters as well as television’s most iconic creations. To me, Hilda was part of my own “Corrie quartet” which featured Ena Sharples, Elsie Tanner and Annie Walker. Four fabulously strong women who have gone to that Rovers Return in the sky.
Hilda was way before my time. As a child, I was completely unaware of the Corrie greats. But thanks to the Granada Plus repeats (a channel which should never have closed down), aged 6 I discovered a wealth of incredible characters – Hilda being one of them. One of the first episodes I saw was Stan’s funeral. I still have that episode on a well-worn VHS that I taped from the repeats and it was beautiful. Of course, as the years have gone by, DVD’s of classic episodes have become available as well as hundreds of episodes uploaded onto YouTube so I’ve been able to see Hilda in her full glory.
But how can I sum up such an iconic character? It’s funny seeing Hilda in her earliest episodes. Joining the show in 1964, Hilda, along with hubby Stan, were COMPLETELY different. They were common as muck for the existing residents of the street, shouting and arguing but very quickly they settled in and as Elsie remarked in Hilda’s first episode from July 1964 “they’ll fit in here like a glove”. And they did. Hilda quickly got a job as the Rovers cleaner, a job she would keep for the next 23 years so she instantly became part of the fabric of the show.
Hilda as she appeared in 1964.
Not only this, Hilda provided vital, and fantastic, humour to the show with her singing, malapropisms, nosiness and life with her beloved Stanley. Several moments stick out for me. The famous Muriel on the wall is always mentioned, and deservedly so. But the Oggies looking after some chickens in their back yard thanks to lodger Eddie Yeats’ crackpot schemes is wonderfully hilarious, especially with Hilda coming back to no.13 after visiting son Trevor to find a chicken on the table! Another moment sees Stan and Hilda enter a Mr and Mrs contest at the Rovers. Hilda is convinced they’ll win but, as usual, Stan puts his foot in it and they lose to Gail and Brian (the first of Gail’s many doomed marriages). To the modern viewer, these stories may seem uneventful, or maybe even boring. But they are funny, natural and well written. And the moment where Hilda holds a seance in 1977. It has to be seen to be believed, exceptionally hilarious.
Hilda and a chicken, 1979.
Hilda, Eddie and Stan. The impeccable trio.
But it is not just humour that made Hilda a legend – the drama also played a vital part. Jean was an incredible actress and her acting range was shown through many incredible episodes. Two stick out in my mind. First, in October 1976, when Hilda discovers that Stan has been stealing money from her gas and electric tin. Prior to this she has, again, become the laughing stock of the street when her “red rotten mac” has been used on a guy for fireworks night. Jean gives a masterful performance. She is wretched, the anger is evident in her voice and she can’t stomach the sight of Stan any longer. For all of their ups and downs, and there were lots, this is the most powerful. Stealing from Hilda’s tin, money that she had slaved over for weeks on end, valuable money that the Oggies desperately needed in order to survive had been squandered to give Stan beer money – a disgusting act on behalf of Stan. But, despite this, Hilda adored him. And when Stan died in November 1984, Hilda was now alone for the first time. Those entire November ’84 episodes is Jean’s acting masterpiece. Stan became extremely ill and was taken to hospital. Hilda couldn’t bear the idea of Stan being in hospital and was frightened he would never come out; which sadly turned out to be true. For all of his faults, Stan was her life and her world. His funeral episode is a masterpiece in both drama, script and acting. Throughout the episode Hilda is strangely calm, something Ivy and Vera both remark on, and it is obvious she is putting on bravado for the neighbours. At the end of that day, and when son Trevor hurriedly leaves, she is completely alone in a house full of memories. Fiddling with a package of Stan’s belongings from the hospital, she takes them out one by one. She then comes to his glasses case but there are no eyes behind them. Stan has gone and the glasses are just another object. She breaks down having kept her tears in all day. This scene earned Jean a prestigious Royal Television Society award and is a scene that has gone down in television history for its simplicity and emotion.
The Oggie’s celebrating their ruby wedding, 1983. They adored each other.
While her performances made her an icon, the image of Hilda is the most iconic. She had a voice like a foghorn and an equally grating singing voice which was always met with disdain from the street’s residents. I’m reminded of Bet shouting “Hilda belt up chuck there’s a good un!” while she cleaned out the Rovers select in 1983 (for her own anniversary party!) and singing at the top of her voice, proud to have marked her ruby wedding anniversary with Stan. But this sparrow-like woman with curlers, a pinny and a scruffy mac always seemed to act as if she was a cut above the residents. She always bragged about something whether it was cleaning for the Lowther’s or acting refined while staying at a posh hotel for the Oggie’s second honeymoon in 1977. Ah that famous line. “Woman Stanley. Woman!” Legendary. But let’s not forget that Hilda could be judgemental, which often caused several arguments, as well as ruthless and was fiercely protective of Stan; even spitting on the Rovers floor in 1972 after Stan was accused of being a peeping Tom. She was a sad character underneath it all; lazy husband, endless bad luck, a son who wanted nothing to do with her or Stan. Jean’s acting ability made Hilda a three dimensional character and we always sympathised with her even when she was being a nosy cow!
Hilda had a cultured eye for art…
Despite this, she was deeply loved by the residents and the affection and love for Hilda was apparent when Stan died. The neighbours rallied round helping Hilda and gave her love and support. And when the time had come for Hilda to leave the street, on Christmas Day 1987, the residents threw her a surprise party. They had come to see her as a massive part of their lives and were used to her being there. And even when she sang ‘Wish Me Luck as You Wave Me Goodbye’ they all cheered and joined in. Hilda had them in the palm of her hands, a captive audience at long last.
Christmas Day 1987, Hilda’s leaving party and an audience at long last.
Hilda is up there with Ena, Elsie and Annie; forever locked in time as television greats. Dickens could’ve created Hilda Ogden – a tragic, comic heroine who audiences come to love and adore. With the death of Jean Alexander, for me, the old Coronation Street has died with her.
Horizon of a Hound of Love 