Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962)

[DisneyBoy]

I finally watched this classic this past week and found myself rather disappointed. Maybe it's just that the hype has gotten so big since the release of Ryan Murphy's Feud series but this picture felt rather clunky and poorly assembled to me. I much preferred Hush...Hush Sweet Charlotte, which I think I watched about two years ago.

I suppose the film was groundbreaking for the time of its release because it starred two huge A-listers playing such deranged characters... but I didn't think the twist made any sense and I was practically rolling my eyes at how many opportunities Jane left Blanche to escape from that house. The poor housemaid who was murdered was easily my favorite character. I don't know what to think about the piano player or his attempting to convince his mother that maybe he was going to get lucky with Jane. Was everybody in this universe blind to how completely bonkers the woman in the white face makeup was? I find that hard to believe.

 

Did you guys enjoy it more than I did?

[Inquisitionist]

I agree with all of your criticisms, DisneyBoy, and could add more (e.g., how was it possible that Blanche had no regular visitors except Elvira, that house maid?), and yet there was something about the performances and the filming style that I found captivating.

[raven]

Unfortunately I saw this as a child and all I remember is being scarred by the rat, the bird and the makeup.

[psychoticstate]

I have seen Baby Jane a handful of times and I love it.  I might love it more each time I see it.

Both Bette Davis and Joan Crawford gave terrific performances - - just different types of performances. It's horrifying to think of being as BSC as Jane; equally as horrifying to think of being completely at Jane's mercy, like Blanche. 

@DisneyBoy, I think most people who came into contact with her recognized that Jane was looney tunes but didn't realize how far from reality - -and dangerous - - she was.  Edwin Flagg (the piano player) was clearly trying to make easy money as quickly as he could. I believe he knew Jane was nuts and there was no way anyone was interested in reviving her act from 1917 but he needed employment and money and she was an easy mark.   

As to why Blanche didn't escape, I don't think she realized how truly unbalanced Jane was until it was too late.  Why did she have no regular visitors?  My guess is that since Blanche had been a famous, beautiful movie actress who died at the peak of her popularity and was now in a wheelchair, she was still vain and embarrassed about being in the chair and her "useless" legs.  Remember that this was in 1962 - - long before the internet and social media.  It would have been very easy for Blanche to drop out of sight and basically disappear.   

[DisneyBoy]

...still, if Jane had already once been institutionalized, as was suggested by dialogue throughout the film, then Blanche had to know Jane was unbalanced well before things reached the tipping point and she felt it necessary to lie and hide her plans to sell the house. She had seen Jane unravel once before already, to some capacity and given that, she should have been extra careful to keep friends close by.

Why would she even consent to living under Jane's care following one of her breakdowns? Especially if she'd hated her enough to try running her down?? And why agree to live on the second floor if there's no ramp or elevator?

Blanche is an idiot. This plot makes no sense, whether it's Jane responsible for crippling her or Blanche accidentally doing it herself, it makes no sense either way.

[Padma]

Disney Boy, Thanks for discussing this old chestnut that's so often reshown. I agree with you that Blanche is an idiot. This movie is "horror-camp" which is a genre that I have to be in a particular mood for (and usually doing something else at the time.)  I also recently realized that I didn't enjoy Bette Davis' acting in a lot of her later movies--she's so mannered and so hammy, almost like she'd come to hate acting and was willing to be a caricature part rather than try to actually be a real person.

re: the makeup. I read that Davis did her own makeup and the idea was that Jane was someone who kept putting new layers of makeup on but never took off the old.)

Trying to understand its appeal, I found this at Wikipedia (never heard the term "psycho-biddy subgenre" which, though apt, sounds kind of sexist: "In the years after release, critics continued to acclaim the film for its psychologically driven black comedy, camp, and creation of the psycho-biddy subgenre. The film's then unheard of and controversial plot meant that it originally received an X rating in the UK. Because of the appeal of the film's stars, Dave Itzkoff in The New York Times has identified it as being a "cult classic".  In 2003 the character of Baby Jane Hudson was ranked #44 on the American Film Institute's list of the 50 Best Villains of American Cinema."

So I guess in answer to your question, it's a cult classic for the camp and horror, and for the two big stars. Also because Davis created a memorable villain, especially a female villain.  Blanche was no prize either, though although she presented a less monstrous appearance. I couldn't understand why they stayed together.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Padma

[caracas1914]

I think Blanche also was riddled with guilt because she had made Jane believe all those years she was responsible for the event that had made Blanche a cripple.  The twist ending is that in her own way, Blanche was more of a 'monster' for perpetuating that lie for 25-30 years.   She was responsible for what happened and she let Jane feel it was her fault.   My spin is that she felt some responsibility for Jane mental's issues and justifiably so.  However I don't think she felt any personal danger from her sister, since she knew damn well her sister had never tried to kill her.

It seems they had the love/hate relationship of many families, but the movie seems to start when Jane finally turned the corner in truly being disturbed, ie not giving Blanche food, etc.

Like many films, it hard to get the impact of "WHTBJ" when it was first released, it was among the first psychological thrillers, had a twist ending, starred two huge stars in unconventional  roles, etc, etc;  things that have been copied and imitated many times over in countless films since.

Edited April 6, 2017 by caracas1914

[psychoticstate]

What @caracas1914 said.  Not sure if that's considered a spoiler.  Suppose some may not have seen this flick.  But yes.  Guilt.  That's why Blanche stayed.  That's likely why Blanche appears to have cut off any friends she may have had in Hollywood.  And maybe some self-hatred in there too since Blanche caused what happened with regard to her accident and what followed. 

Was Jane institutionalized?  I thought that once the Baby Jane act fell out of favor, Blanche was made to feel responsible for Jane and that continued through Blanche's own career.  Once she was injured, Jane appears to have taken care of her.

[DisneyBoy]

I think there was some lines of dialogue about it happening again or about how Jane already had doctors once looking after her.

 

I totally understand the concept that Blanche would feel responsible for lying to Jane, but Blanche was also hateful enough to try and murder Jane. Even if she feels remorse over that I think the most responsible thing to do would be to distance herself from the person she wanted to kill rather than hanging around pressing a buzzer day and night.

Again, I think I get what they were going for with this movie but the setup for the premise just doesn't work. It undermines my ability to enjoy these characters on any level.

But it really must have been something to see when it first played in cinemas. I wonder how it would have compared to Lon Chaney's Phantom of the Opera in terms of spooking audiences out.

[psychoticstate]

38 minutes ago, DisneyBoy said:

I totally understand the concept that Blanche would feel responsible for lying to Jane, but Blanche was also hateful enough to try and murder Jane. Even if she feels remorse over that I think the most responsible thing to do would be to distance herself from the person she wanted to kill rather than hanging around pressing a buzzer day and night.

True.  But both Jane and Blanche were made dysfunctional from the start by their parents.  When they were children, it was all about Jane.  Jane clearly supported the family with her act. Blanche was made to feel inferior.  Heck, Jane was the light, blonde child while Blanche was the dark one.  After being treated badly by both her father and sister (something that probably happened on the regular), Blanche was told by her mother to have more understanding toward them.  We don't know what happened to the parents but clearly Blanche did - - she tried to get Jane roles in Hollywood (and the book mentions that she had a clause written in her own contract that Jane have parts in every one of her films.)   The film doesn't go into as much detail about their lives pre-accident but if Blanche is hateful, it seems she was made that way, at least by her father and her sister.  That's not to excuse what she did by any means.

I came away from the story feeling that while Jane may have been living in the past to an extent pre-accident, she really lost touch after the accident.  Blanche would naturally feel guilty about that - - as she should.  Jane was probably already struggling to cope as an adult  who simply did not have what it took to be a successful entertainer (no more Baby Jane) in the only life she had ever known.  She's a failure as a movie actress and then she's told that she intentionally harmed her sister, causing her not only to be paralyzed but also costing Blanche her successful career?   Blanche had to have seen her sister's deterioration and I think that could have caused her to stay.  She was responsible for that.   Throughout much of the film we see Blanche attempting to be kind and thankful toward Jane, even when Jane is being less than gracious to her.  The only time she really acts out toward Jane is when she asks Jane why she's treating her the way she is and that Jane wouldn't do these things if Blanche weren't in the chair.  ("But you ah, Blanche!  You ah in that chair!") 

Both characters are tragic. 

[DisneyBoy]

I agree with you completely but I think the key to help the audience understand these characters was in showing us exactly who they had become pre-accident when Blanche was at the top of her game and an actress. The film just gives a brief look at them as children and from that I'm sorry but I don't really see Jane as some monster as much as an overworked kid. Nor can I find any concrete reason why Blanche is so determined to hate her (why the jealousy? You can see showbiz is hard on your sister).

Everything you said makes sense but I feel like you have to paint that into the movie a little bit because the movie has no time to devote to actually showing it and exploring it. With just a few scenes of movie star Blanche being irritated by Jane and her realizing she's being supported by her sister, we could have had a nice lead-in to the accident that would make more sense out of everything else in the movie still to come. Maybe the book does a better job with it.

I do get a kick out of the fact that they were trying to make the title into a hit song way back when. I thought that was something only recent movies did. Wrong!

Edited April 7, 2017 by DisneyBoy

[NutMeg]

There is a mix of resentment, contempt and jealousy that Blanche feels towards Jane as a kid. It seems to culminate with the attempted murder, when she's reached the top and is celebrated by all, but her sister has become (from what we can infer) an albatross (bad attitude, cannot get or keep a job, often drinking too hard, etc.). And afterwards, I think she embarks on a lifetime of atonement for what she did that fatal night. Which might explain why she let things go too far, too long, to the point where she has no one she can (physically) ask for help when she needs it.

(Still, the way she keeps ringing that bell impatiently would have driven me crazy!)

As for Jane, she's the worst case of a child star whose star didn't survive childhood. And, because her sister became famous as an adult, she will be remembered more, both because her successes are less ancient and because they seem to have been in better vehicles for someone who is presented as having had a real talent.

Lastly, weirdly enough, I never thought Blanche died at the end, so I was surprised that the comments I read seem to hint that she does. I like it that the end, as far as I'm concerned, was left open.  

[DisneyBoy]

If Blanche survived, I'd be very surprised. She was dehydrated, beaten, barely able to move and left out in the sun on a hot day, dressed in black.

Edited April 13, 2017 by DisneyBoy

[MisterBluxom]

I was somewhat disappointed when I saw this film at age 24 because I figured it was made primarily for teenagers and they just couldn't really appreciate the film at that age. At least that is my opinion.

I think perhaps there may have been a clash between the studio executives and the producers and the actors and the audience.  The executives had one thing it mind - to make a bunch of money because the film stared these famous A-List actors.  The producers had other things in mind. They wanted to produce a quality film that people would remember for the excellent techniques employed. The audience (half of which consisted of teenagers) wanted to enjoy a horror film and to be scared by these two horribly ugly old hags. But all these various objectives just don't meet anywhere. AAMOF, they would seem to conflict. So, what the executives wanted would clash with what the producers wanted and that would clash again with what the audience wanted. It seems to me (in my non-professional opinion) the result would be a film that just could never satisfy all the various parties and would necessarily be somewhat disappointing. It seemed to work for some people in some way. But, the various objectives seemed to conflict so that the people who were trying to produce something with quality produced something that just seemed to tear itself apart by trying to satisfy conflicting objectives.

I'm not a movie-making professional and so my opinions are just really guesses. But I do know that when I watched this film at age 24, it seemed pretty clear to me that something was very wrong with this film. I may be wrong in the way I see it. But, I'm hopeful that perhaps someone else could provide a more accurate  opinion as to just why this movie seemed to fall flat. What went wrong and what was the cause? Anyone care to make a guess?

P.S. I didn't mean to suggest these two actresses were inherently ugly. I meant that with the way they were made up by the makeup artists, the intention was for them to appear horribly ugly all the better to scare the young people.

It would be very wrong to suggest there was something ugly about either of these two actresses. I remember some of the films in which they have appeared with great appreciation. I still watch the film "The Little Foxes (1941)" starring Bette Davis at least once a year and it's a masterpiece of high quality talent. Not just the acting but all the techniques needed to make a great film.

Edited April 19, 2017 by MissBluxom

[SlovakPrincess]

On April 4, 2017 at 3:13 PM, DisneyBoy said:

I finally watched this classic this past week and found myself rather disappointed. Maybe it's just that the hype has gotten so big since the release of Ryan Murphy's Feud series but this picture felt rather clunky and poorly assembled to me. I much preferred Hush...Hush Sweet Charlotte, which I think I watched about two years ago.

I recently rented both Baby Jane and Sweet Charlotte precisely because I'd binge-watched the Feud series.   I also preferred Sweet Charlotte, because I found the characters far more believable and the acting more realistic (Olivia de Havilland, in particular, was quite good).  

It was just way too much - I found myself embarrassed for the two actresses, although that may have been because Feud portrayed them as having made the movie at a time when they were desperate to keep working and I had that on my mind.  

It seemed like the movie wanted to make a statement on how the sisters' relationship became so toxic over time, but we mostly see them when Jane is already completely deranged.  So they end up telling us what went wrong, not showing it.  And as horror films go, it's just kind of sad and grotesque, not particularly scary or suspenseful.  

Edited May 31, 2017 by SlovakPrincess

[benteen]

I think I might prefer Sweet Charlotte too.  It has an amazing cast from top to bottom and there's more of a storyline there.

[TigerLynx]

I first saw this movie when I was around 12.  I loved Bette Davis and Joan Crawford so I watched any movie of theirs I could find.  The twist at the end when Blanche confesses the truth to Jane was really good when contrasted with the early scene of Blanche's mother telling Blanche sometime it would be her turn to be in the spotlight, and she hoped Blanche was kinder to Jane than Jane and Blanche's father were to Blanche.

However, after seeing it a few times, I keep wondering how none of the people who dealt with Jane didn't realize how crazy and dangerous she was.  I wondered why Blanche had not had Jane put away years before (that question was answered with Blanche's confession at the end - it was because she felt guilty), but everyone else just looks dumb.  It's not like Jane was merely quirky.  She came off as deranged pretty much from the start.

[psychoticstate]

On 4/6/2017 at 8:33 PM, DisneyBoy said:

I agree with you completely but I think the key to help the audience understand these characters was in showing us exactly who they had become pre-accident when Blanche was at the top of her game and an actress. The film just gives a brief look at them as children and from that I'm sorry but I don't really see Jane as some monster as much as an overworked kid. Nor can I find any concrete reason why Blanche is so determined to hate her (why the jealousy? You can see showbiz is hard on your sister).

Everything you said makes sense but I feel like you have to paint that into the movie a little bit because the movie has no time to devote to actually showing it and exploring it. With just a few scenes of movie star Blanche being irritated by Jane and her realizing she's being supported by her sister, we could have had a nice lead-in to the accident that would make more sense out of everything else in the movie still to come. Maybe the book does a better job with it.

I do get a kick out of the fact that they were trying to make the title into a hit song way back when. I thought that was something only recent movies did. Wrong!

I don't think Jane was a monster, at any point.  When she was a child she was definitely spoiled, entitled and catered to.  I think that set her up for the future, where she was simply incapable of accepting failure or being told "no," even before Blanche's accident. 

I don't see Blanche's attitude as hatred so much as resentment.  Jane was allowed to treat her poorly and be the Golden Child for years when she was on top; now that Blanche is on top, she must provide for Jane, help her with her career, etc.   I would guess that Blanche felt that wasn't fair.  

Also, remember that at the beginning Blanche couldn't have been more than 10 years old.  No child is going to fully understand how hard showbiz is on your sister.  She's simply going to see the special treatment than Jane gets. 

On 4/11/2017 at 10:31 AM, NutMeg said:

There is a mix of resentment, contempt and jealousy that Blanche feels towards Jane as a kid. It seems to culminate with the attempted murder, when she's reached the top and is celebrated by all, but her sister has become (from what we can infer) an albatross (bad attitude, cannot get or keep a job, often drinking too hard, etc.). And afterwards, I think she embarks on a lifetime of atonement for what she did that fatal night. Which might explain why she let things go too far, too long, to the point where she has no one she can (physically) ask for help when she needs it.

(Still, the way she keeps ringing that bell impatiently would have driven me crazy!)

As for Jane, she's the worst case of a child star whose star didn't survive childhood. And, because her sister became famous as an adult, she will be remembered more, both because her successes are less ancient and because they seem to have been in better vehicles for someone who is presented as having had a real talent.

Lastly, weirdly enough, I never thought Blanche died at the end, so I was surprised that the comments I read seem to hint that she does. I like it that the end, as far as I'm concerned, was left open.  

Absolutely.  Resentment for sure.  And jealousy.   Both girls were just children in the beginning.  Their father seemed to encourage the differences and their mother didn't seem a strong enough personality to overcome that. 

Even without the accident, I would guess that Jane would have had lifetime issues and perhaps even Blanche.  They were both dysfunctional.

I always assumed that Blanche died at the end.  She certainly didn't look as though she would last much longer.  She was already weak from being tied and gagged in bed and, we would assume, without food or water. 

On 4/18/2017 at 4:16 PM, MissBluxom said:

I think perhaps there may have been a clash between the studio executives and the producers and the actors and the audience.  The executives had one thing it mind - to make a bunch of money because the film stared these famous A-List actors.  The producers had other things in mind. They wanted to produce a quality film that people would remember for the excellent techniques employed. The audience (half of which consisted of teenagers) wanted to enjoy a horror film and to be scared by these two horribly ugly old hags. But all these various objectives just don't meet anywhere. AAMOF, they would seem to conflict. So, what the executives wanted would clash with what the producers wanted and that would clash again with what the audience wanted. It seems to me (in my non-professional opinion) the result would be a film that just could never satisfy all the various parties and would necessarily be somewhat disappointing. It seemed to work for some people in some way. But, the various objectives seemed to conflict so that the people who were trying to produce something with quality produced something that just seemed to tear itself apart by trying to satisfy conflicting objectives.

I'm not a movie-making professional and so my opinions are just really guesses. But I do know that when I watched this film at age 24, it seemed pretty clear to me that something was very wrong with this film. I may be wrong in the way I see it. But, I'm hopeful that perhaps someone else could provide a more accurate  opinion as to just why this movie seemed to fall flat. What went wrong and what was the cause? Anyone care to make a guess?

 

 

 

I don't think the execs thought Baby Jane was going to make a ton of money.  I don't think anyone connected with the movie thought it would make a ton of money.  Bob Aldrich wanted to direct A list pics, which this was not, and took this job in the hopes that it would lead him to more quality work. Both Bette and Joan wanted to work - - and needed to, for financial and personal reasons.  I think the studio and execs thought they might make a little profit but never thought it would do as a

Maybe it's personal taste but I didn't feel the movie fell flat.  I thought it was quite good and appreciate it more with each viewing.  It's infinitely superior to some of the films both Bette and Joan were in later on.

51 minutes ago, TigerLynx said:

However, after seeing it a few times, I keep wondering how none of the people who dealt with Jane didn't realize how crazy and dangerous she was.  I wondered why Blanche had not had Jane put away years before (that question was answered with Blanche's confession at the end - it was because she felt guilty), but everyone else just looks dumb.  It's not like Jane was merely quirky.  She came off as deranged pretty much from the start.

I tell myself it's due to the times, 1962 and earlier.  Back then, it was considered proper to mind your own business.  Jane would probably have been considered a family issue and Blanche would handle it.  I would also imagine that Blanche made excuses for Jane and tried to deal with her on her own. Unfortunately. 

[ennui]

On 5/30/2017 at 6:40 PM, SlovakPrincess said:

 And as horror films go, it's just kind of sad and grotesque, not particularly scary or suspenseful.  

It's horror for the time period. Slasher films came later. 

On 4/6/2017 at 0:02 AM, Padma said:

I couldn't understand why they stayed together.

They were sisters. Most families sense an obligation to care for each other.

My take is that I think Jane was considered eccentric by outsiders, but not dangerous. I think Jane tipped when she found out Blanche was planning to sell the house; things were probably okay before then.

[Blergh]

I found it odd that Blanche seemed to have virtually zero friends or former colleagues who bothered to visit her. We know that she revealed herself to be no saint yet why wouldn't at least one of her onetime costars or friends have attempted to stay in touch. There was no evidence she hated outsiders or didn't want friends (and it seemed that Blanche HAD made some contact with the next door neighbor at an earlier point). I mean the legendary silent star Mary Pickford (Miss Crawford's onetime stepmom-in-law) spent the last decade of her life as an alcoholic recluse at Pickfair with her last husband Buddy Rogers running interference for her yet even SHE had friends from her earlier life who still stopped by and visited.

[psychoticstate]

15 hours ago, Blergh said:

I found it odd that Blanche seemed to have virtually zero friends or former colleagues who bothered to visit her. We know that she revealed herself to be no saint yet why wouldn't at least one of her onetime costars or friends have attempted to stay in touch. There was no evidence she hated outsiders or didn't want friends (and it seemed that Blanche HAD made some contact with the next door neighbor at an earlier point). I mean the legendary silent star Mary Pickford (Miss Crawford's onetime stepmom-in-law) spent the last decade of her life as an alcoholic recluse at Pickfair with her last husband Buddy Rogers running interference for her yet even SHE had friends from her earlier life who still stopped by and visited.

I believe the book was different.  It seems that in the movie they wanted Blanche to appear more isolated and therefore, in more danger.  

[DisneyBoy]

See, in the stage version of Sunset Boulevard, they do the same thing - set all of Norma's scenes, except a very important one, in her mansion. It makes her seem completely isolated. The original film version, however, shows her at least playing cards with other former silent stars on a regular basis, and therefore raises the same question of "wouldn't others have noticed her mental decline?"

Edited June 9, 2017 by DisneyBoy

[RealHousewife]

I thought this film was quite interesting. I love a good old movie and dysfunctional family story though. That may not be everyone's cup of tea. I heard years ago that there were similarities between the Richards sisters on the Real Housewives to these characters, and I totally see it.