Bette Davis: First Lady of the American Screen

[ClassyCo]

A color photo from that infamous evening back in 1974. I think the color one looks more flattering than the B&W ones.

 

[Crimson]

Funny thing is, for a woman of 70-ish Joan looked just fine. The (now) old lady makeup and obvious wig aside, she was aging well; her face was relatively smooth and yet without the embalmed facelift look.

 

[ClassyCo]

Funny thing is, for a woman of 70-ish Joan looked just fine. The (now) old lady makeup and obvious wig aside, she was aging well; her face was relatively smooth and yet without the embalmed facelift look.

Quite true. For her age -- which is always up to debate -- Joan was looking quite well. She had aged better than Bette, a habitual chain-smoker, and some of her other contemporaries.

Here's a screen shot of Joan from the 1972 episode she did of THE SIXTH SENSE. Yes, she was aging, but she wasn't looking as bad as she thought she did.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Of that vintage, TV interviews leaned towards a formality that exacerbated Joan's hoity-toity propriety. Although even then occasional flashes of personality could be seen, as in her near double take when asked if Clark Gable was short. If she had remained active through the 70s and even alive into the 80s, it's hard to imagine her relaxing enough to chat with Johnny Carson or be grilled by Joan Rivers. (Imagine Joan to Joan: "So what's with the coat hangers?")

Ironically?, Joan Crawford was Johnny Carson's first TONIGHT guest in 1962, but the video no longer exists because those old shows used to re-use their tapes repeatedly, assuming no one would want to ever watch them again -- and certainly not 60 years later, for goshsakes!

Crawford couldn't have taken the drilling and personal questions asked by the likes of Cavett,

She never did Cavett? He was often the best of the interviewers, but he could be quite courtly and gentle if the guest needed it, and he would've been with Crawford.

Joan was looking quite well. She had aged better than Bette, a habitual chain-smoker, and some of her other contemporaries.

Joan had lots of plastic surgery all over her body, and was apparently quite honest about that -- and about how promiscuous she was --- with friends. In fact, that huge-lipped "Crawford face" we think of her having in the later decades was due to a botched face-lift she had somewhere in the early-'50s where her mug was stretched too far and she hated it... but that's why Mommie Dearest became toothier as she entered her fifties as fate demanded it.

She drank and smoked a lot too, as so many did back then semi-pathologically. But Bette Davis never had plastic surgery on principle -- in part because she knew her on-screen haggery worked.

 

[ClassyCo]

Ironically?, Joan Crawford was Johnny Carson's first TONIGHT guest in 1962, but the video no longer exists because those old shows used to re-use their tapes repeatedly, assuming no one would want to ever watch them again -- and certainly not 60 years later, for goshsakes!

How great would it be if this interview was still available? I'd love to see it.

She never did Cavett? He was often the best of the interviewers, but he could be quite courtly and gentle if the guest needed it, and he would've been with Crawford.

No, she was never on Cavett. And I'd like to think Cavett would've been courteous of her had she ever did his show. She would've needed a calm, respectful moderator, and I guess he'd pull it off.

Joan had lots of plastic surgery all over her body, and was apparently quite honest about that -- and about how promiscuous she was --- with friends. In fact, that huge-lipped "Crawford face" we think of her having in the later decades was due to a botched face-lift she had somewhere in the early-'50s where her mug was stretched too far and she hated it... but that's why Mommie Dearest became toothier as she entered her '50s as fate demanded it.

Shockingly, I don't believe I ever knew Crawford had plastic surgery, but it doesn't surprise me in the least. She was was very image-cautious and didn't want her looks to fade into oblivion, which was inevitable. What also doesn't really surprise (or does it? ... I can't decide) is that Crawford was open and bragged about her nips and tucks and her personal promiscuity.

She drank and smoked a lot too, as so many did back then semi-pathologically.

Yeah, Crawford was a heavy drinker too, but for some reason, I never envision her as a heavy smoker -- even though I know she was. It was very commonplace back then.

But Bette Davis never had plastic surgery on principle -- in part because she knew her on-screen haggery worked.

Bette embraced the more alarming aspects of her image, and she was willing to age and look haggered because she knew she'd be in-demand for talk show gigs for the rest of her life, specially if she kept gripping about what pain-in-the-rear Crawford and Dunaway were.

 

[ClassyCo]

Davis had several failed pilots for potential television shows. In 1965, she teamed up with producer Aaron Spelling for a comedy called THE DECORATOR. It was a proposed ABC sitcom that would've had Davis playing a wealthy socialite of a decorator whose clients included many of Hollywood's elite. It didn't sell, but the entire pilot is available online.

 

[ClassyCo]

Bette openly admitted that she made eight pilots during the '50s and'60s and none of them sold

Poor Bette. She tried everything she could to keep busy. FEUD takes a dive into a few of these pilots.

 

[Crimson]

I also very much liked Bette's Emmy-winning TV movie STRANGERS: THE STORY OF A MOTHER AND DAUGHTER (1979) although Gena Rowlands -- who was gorgeous just 15 years earlier! -- is a wee bit too shrill in the role. (If only it was Meryl Streep).

Snatched this from the Top 10 thread, since that will eventually no longer be about Bette.

I've never seen the movie, but the entire film is on Youtube. For now I just skimmed through it a bit, but I'm intrigued; it appears to be one of Bette's stripped down, tightly controlled performances.

 

[Barbara Fan]

from Follies of God

All of us are largely defined by what and whom we have successfully ignored. Really important work happens in the circle of light in the midst of a lot of blind spots."--Bette Davis/Interview with James Grissom/1984/Photograph, from 1938, by Louise Dahl-Wolfe

 

[Barbara Fan]

"Regrets are bullshit. I always feel compelled to invite people to come out of their wounds and get back to work and back to living. My primary education grew out of what others might call regrets, and I wouldn't give up that knowledge for anything in the world."--Bette Davis/1984/Interview with James Grissom #folliesofgod

 

[Angela Channing]

I'm a big fan of Bette Davis and read both her autobiographies. She has appeared in a number of films that I can watch over and over however I'm curious about the title of this thread, why is Bette Davis considered to be "the first lady of American screen"?

She wasn't the first major female star to come out of Hollywood, someone like Mary Pickford possibly could own that first. Ms Davis isn't the most acclaimed actress from the golden age in terms of awards won because that would probably be Katherine Hepburn. I don't think she generated the greatest box office figures because I can't imagine her films made more money that someone like Judy Garland, for example. In terms of Hollywood power, I think Mary Pickford who founded United Artist was probably more influential in that area.

She had a long career but not the longest, her co-star in The Whales of August Lilian Gish was starring in films before Ms Davis worked in Hollywood and her career spanned about 75 years. When people think of the greatest films from that era of Hollywood they generally don't think of ones starring Bette Davis, they think if Gone With The Wind or A Streetcar Named Desire (Vivien Leigh) or maybe Casablanca (Ingrid Bergman) or The Wizard of Oz and A Star Is Born (Judy Garland).

I also wouldn't consider her to be the most versatile actress, certainly not more versatile than Irene Dunn, for example, who starred in westerns, dramas, melodramas, light comedy, screwball comedy and biopics and won awards across all those genres. As for personal popularity or being famous, would she really be bigger than someone like Judy Garland?

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I'm a big fan of Bette Davis and read both her autobiographies. She has appeared in a number of films that I can watch over and over however I'm curious about the title of this thread, why is Bette Davis considered to be "the first lady of American screen"?

She wasn't the first major female star to come out of Hollywood, someone like Mary Pickford possibly could own that first. Ms Davis isn't the most acclaimed actress from the golden age in terms of awards won because that would probably be Katherine Hepburn. I don't think she generated the greatest box office figures because I can't imagine her films made more money that someone like Judy Garland, for example. In terms of Hollywood power, I think Mary Pickford who founded United Artist was probably more influential in that area.

She had a long career but not the longest, her co-star in The Whales of August Lilian Gish was starring in films before Ms Davis worked in Hollywood and her career spanned about 75 years. When people think of the greatest films from that era of Hollywood they generally don't think of ones starring Bette Davis, they think if Gone With The Wind or A Streetcar Named Desire (Vivien Leigh) or maybe Casablanca (Ingrid Bergman) or The Wizard of Oz and A Star Is Born (Judy Garland).

I also wouldn't consider her to be the most versatile actress, certainly not more versatile than Irene Dunn, for example, who starred in westerns, dramas, melodramas, light comedy, screwball comedy and biopics and won awards across all those genres. As for personal popularity or being famous, would she really be bigger than someone like Judy Garland?

She's been called "the first lady of the American screen" as far back as the '40s, I believe. But, in this context, "first" doesn't mean first in terms of succession -- Lillian Gish and Mary Pickford were certainly stars before Bette Davis came along, but Davis was "first" in terms of pre-eminence... Davis received an Oscar nomination for five or six consecutive years in the late-'30s and early-'40s (ten in all throughout her career) and absolutely had better box office than any actress of her time, including Katharine Hepburn.

Was Bette Davis the most versatile actress out there? At the time, she seemed to be, given she arose in an era where most stars played "themselves" and most actresses were afraid to play unmitigated bitches. Decades later, Davis did slip into being overly-mannered and repeating old gestures and inflection, it's true. And she did the horror film trend of the '60s (though hers were better than most of the other actresses who'd participated in the shocker genre) while Hepburn did prestige pictures like LION IN WINTER, even into the '80s, and maintained generally "better taste" in her film choices.

But Bette Davis was the de facto Queen of Hollywood in the golden age, both in terms of commercial success and critical acclaim.

Hence, the title: First Lady of the American Screen.

 

[Crimson]

But Bette Davis was the de facto Queen of Hollywood in the golden age

And there, I think, is the important distinction. Hepburn's greatest successes came after the Golden Age was over; she won three of her four Oscars after the Studio System collapsed. In retrospect, I can understand some thinking she was the greatest female star of the era but she wasn't during the era. Truth is, Hepburn spent much of the 30s and 40s barely one step above being a second tier actress. It's worth noting that she was nearly always paired with a major male star (Grant; Tracy; Bogart; etc) because she wasn't considered a strong enough box office draw. Davis, on the other hand, was nearly always the Star of her films.

In terms of versatility, likewise there's really no comparison. Irene Dunne (who I adore) may have made a wider range of film types than Davis -- who starred almost exclusively in soapy melodramas in her prime -- but she was still Irene Dunne in every role. Davis didn't exactly disappear into her parts, as her own personality was too strong for that, but she played a far wider range of characters than was typical of stars of the time.

 

[ClassyCo]

DECEPTION (1946) reunites the production staff from both behind and in front of the camera of NOW, VOYAGER (1942), namely movie stars Bette Davis, Paul Henreid, and Claude Rains with director Irving Rapper.

I've had this movie for several years, but I just got around to watching it today. The film tells the story of Christine Radcliffe (Davis), a skilled pianist, caught in the middle of a cellist and old friend, Karel Novak (Henreid), and her sadistic mentor, Alexander Hollenious (Rains). There are lots of twists and turns in the story, secrets held, secrets revealed, and so forth. But I won't spoil them for you that might want to watch the film with fresh eyes.

DECEPTION was a film of significance to Warner Brothers. They were hoping to duplicate the success of NOW, VOYAGER four years earlier by bringing back the same three stars and director to work together again. The story of DECEPTION is fine, the acting and direction solid, and the B&W quite lovely.

Outside of Davis, who turns in a strong performance as our film's focal point, I think a great deal of this story's achievements goes to actor Claude Rains. He turns in a layered and captivating performance for a character which, in less capable hands, would be entirely one-note and bland.

DECEPTION wasn't the hit Warner Brothers had expected. Its high production costs coupled with less than expected box office returns rendered the film a financial dud. It was Davis' first film to loose money in almost a decade. The unimpressive reception rattled the Brothers Warner, who would be dealt another three years of Davis' duds before she left the studio after BEYOND THE FOREST in 1949.

I enjoyed this movie. I thought it was a little lengthy, but not without its own strengths. I won't call it Davis' best, but it's certainly not her worst by any standard.

 

[Crimson]

DECEPTION lost money at the box office; it's the film that broke Davis' long run of successful movies. The movie seemed to have a poor reputation among film writers, so I was surprised at how much I liked it when I finally got around to seeing it.

 

[ClassyCo]

DECEPTION was a turning point in Davis' career at Warner Brothers. Even so, I enjoyed it thoroughly.

The rest of her films at Warner Brothers were duds at the box office, and some historians hint that this is when her feud with Crawford started gaining some momentum. Crawford was still doing big, successful movies at Warner Brothers, even taking over POSSESSED (1947), which Davis had to bow out of because of pregnancy. Crawford also had hits like HUMORESQUE (1946) and FLAMINGO ROAD (1949), while Davis' movies DECEPTION and BEYOND THE FOREST were loosing money.

 

[Barbara Fan]

Follies of God

The conversation veered toward warning signs:
"You know you're really in for a rout when they open with how much they love and appreciate you. 'Oh, you are so loved by us all, Bette,' they begin, and you really know you're in for a battle. They are almost always preparing you for a swindle of some sort, a loosening of standards. You have to not care at all what people think of you, not notice if they love or like you. What you have to care most about is the work and the quality of the work. The work is what satisfies, not the transient love of a crew or a cast member. They'll open with the love and they'll close with a lawsuit. The love is theirs, I assure you, and the lawsuit will be mine."--Bette Davis/Interview with James Grissom/1984/Photograph of Davis by Douglas Kirkland, from 1981/

 

[Barbara Fan]

Follies of God

"Bette Davis. That's my all-time favorite. ...Balls. She was just out there. And Edith Piaf. That voice just rips your heart out. I have no idea what it was about Bette Davis, and when it happened, you know ...I want my heart ripped out. I want to sit there and go, 'Aahh.' I want those experiences. And why? Why do we want those experiences? It's part of the human condition, and it's hard to have them. Critics like it clean and ordered. And I think those two women were raw. I think it's why people love them passionately and sometimes critics don't."--Patti LuPone/From "Actors at Work"/By Rosemari Tichler and Barry Jay Kaplan/

 

[Barbara Fan]

and another

So hard to give a sh*t sometimes."--Bette Davis/Photo by Victor Skrebneski

 

[Barbara Fan]

“Every triumph is preceded by many aggravations. Rejections. Failures. Horrible disappointments. Aggravations are the gristle that creates and shines the pearl that is one’s career. You made it, thank God. You did some good work. All the aggravations leave you shining and whole.”—Bette Davis #folliesofgod