Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ClassyCo" data-source="post: 354371" data-attributes="member: 7">I don&#039;t recall us mentioning QUEEN BEE in this thread, but I know we&#039;ve discussed it a little over in the Joan Crawford thread.I&#039;ve never seen the movie, other than clips (including the one you attached), so I cannot say for sure how I&#039;d classify it. Judging solely by the clips, I hesitate to call it full-fledged grande dame guignol. It seems a little too A-list-reaching and snootily melodramatic in a very mid-&#039;50s fashion. What clips I&#039;ve seen make me think of QUEEN BEE as a poor man&#039;s PEYTON PLACE more than anything.Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps if I watched the movie, I&#039;d think about it differently.What I do know is that Crawford was using that B&amp;W cinematography to her advantage. You can tell shadows have been strategically placed on her to try and &quot;disguise&quot; her age. What was she here --- around 50 or so? In frankness, she doesn&#039;t look too bad, but she needed to do something different with her hair. That chopped off look isn&#039;t flattering to her age or her features.I recall in the TCM &quot;Ultimate Movie Star&quot; documentary on Crawford discussing her behavior on the QUEEN BEE set. Betsy Palmer remarked how &quot;sweet&quot; she found Crawford&#039;s attentiveness to newcomer Lucy Marlowe, only to later see how openly mean she was to her once filming actually started. Palmer theorizes that Crawford &quot;must&#039;ve been disappointed&quot; in young Lucy Marlowe not having the talent &quot;she thought she had&quot;.I believe even Christina Crawford pops in and says how QUEEN BEE was basically her at-home-life glamorized for audiences.[ATTACH=full]43880[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ClassyCo, post: 354371, member: 7"] I don't recall us mentioning QUEEN BEE in this thread, but I know we've discussed it a little over in the Joan Crawford thread. I've never seen the movie, other than clips (including the one you attached), so I cannot say for sure how I'd classify it. Judging solely by the clips, I hesitate to call it full-fledged grande dame guignol. It seems a little too A-list-reaching and snootily melodramatic in a very mid-'50s fashion. What clips I've seen make me think of QUEEN BEE as a poor man's PEYTON PLACE more than anything. Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps if I watched the movie, I'd think about it differently. What I do know is that Crawford was using that B&W cinematography to her advantage. You can tell shadows have been strategically placed on her to try and "disguise" her age. What was she here --- around 50 or so? In frankness, she doesn't look too bad, but she needed to do something different with her hair. That chopped off look isn't flattering to her age or her features. I recall in the TCM "Ultimate Movie Star" documentary on Crawford discussing her behavior on the QUEEN BEE set. Betsy Palmer remarked how "sweet" she found Crawford's attentiveness to newcomer Lucy Marlowe, only to later see how openly mean she was to her once filming actually started. Palmer theorizes that Crawford "must've been disappointed" in young Lucy Marlowe not having the talent "she thought she had". I believe even Christina Crawford pops in and says how QUEEN BEE was basically her at-home-life glamorized for audiences. [ATTACH type="full" width="384px" alt="1676905540117.png"]43880[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]

Verification

Who played JR Ewing?