Review: The Bad and the Beautiful

The story of a manipulative, ruthless, and selfish Hollywood film producer (played by Kirk Douglas), and the people he used and abused along the way. Making up the latter are director Barry Sullivan, troubled star Lana Turner, and author/screenwriter Dick Powell. Walter Pidgeon plays the schlock producer Douglas and Sullivan start out working for, Gilbert Roland plays a Latin lover star, Leo G. Carroll plays a fussy British director, and Gloria Grahame plays Powell’s wife.

 

One of the best films of its type, this look at Hollywood from 1952 was directed by Vincente Minnelli (“Brigadoon”, “Lust for Life”) and written by an Oscar-winning Charles Schnee (“Red River”, “Butterfield 8”), who must’ve had some real-life figures in mind when writing this script. It’s certainly a commendable look at movie-making from a time that was still very much a part of the Golden Years of Hollywood. One is immediately impressed with the music score by David Raksin (“Laura”, “Kind Lady”, “Jubal”, “Separate Tables”), not really known as one of the top film composers, but undoubtedly doing a great job here. The opening really is wonderful, including the first shot of Barry Sullivan doing that director/crane movement thing you always see in films about movie-making, but it’s really well-done here. Lana Turner, meanwhile looks immediately edible. Yes, I really am going to let that statement stand on its own. It’s a really nifty way Minnelli and Schnee have managed to introduce is to most of the main players so early on. I was also really impressed by the excellent, noirish lighting throughout the film by B&W cinematographer Robert Surtees (“Intruder in the Dust”, “The Sting”), a definite highlight of the film.

 

The film boasts several good performances, but by far the most impressive is Kirk Douglas. Playing a slick, self-serving producer apparently meant to represent producer David O. Selznick, it’s one of the great, passionate actor’s best-ever performances. This guy is monumentally manipulative and a little creepy, really. He does some truly horrible things throughout, and yet Douglas doesn’t play this out in any kind of hammy or showy way. It’s a fantastically measured performance. I’ve always found Lana Turner to be a phony, melodramatic actress, but in this film she’s really, really good. And really, really sexy. B&W really seems to work for her, if you ask me. The only flaw in her performance, and it’s the only false scene in the entire film, is a silly, borderline psychodrama-level hysterical, car-driving meltdown. It’s the only trace of the Lana Turner I know and dislike, and it’s an aberration on an otherwise pretty believable film for its time. I’m not sure I like Turner getting top billing over Kirk Douglas, though. Both were stars at the time and Douglas has the lead role, so what gives?

 

I believe Turner, Douglas, Surtees, and Raksin all deserved Oscars for their work here. Surtees was the only one of the four to do so (it’s a gorgeous film), whilst Douglas lost to Gary Fucking Cooper for the overrated “High Noon”, and Turner wasn’t even nominated, which is insane. Of all the Oscars the film did actually win, some seem surprised that femme fatale specialist Gloria Grahame won Best Supporting Actress for playing the rather superficial, southern belle wife of screenwriter/author Dick Powell. Grahame’s an acquired taste and doesn’t really have a terribly large range (and even then “The Big Heat” was her obvious high point), but here she’s actually going a bit outside that range. At least, the way I read her character. ***** SPOILER ALERT ***** Every review you’ll read of the film refers to her character running off with Gilbert Roland to have an affair. This may be true, but that’s not how I saw it. The way I read the film, she died in the plane crash on her way to somewhere with Roland before anything had necessarily started between the two. Look at the grieving Powell, he clearly doesn’t buy his wife cheating on him, and on the evidence we’re presented with, I’m not sure I buy it, either. I think it’s left up in the air. So in that sense, I don’t see Grahame as playing her usual vampish part at all, and it’s the only time I’ve not been distracted by her bizarre, quivering lip. ***** END SPOILER ***** Is she anything memorable in the part? Not especially, and I honestly think she won the Oscar for her body of work, as well as for something that happens to her character in the film, and even then it’s a bit of a surprise that she was the one to win an acting Oscar in this film. Especially considering she only enters the damn film with about ½ an hour left to go. What the hell? Did Jack Palance read out the wrong name at the Oscars? Actually, Oscar does have a tendency to sometimes give awards to the least impressive performer in the cast. Beatrice Straight in “Network” springs to mind (Though at least in that case Faye Dunaway and Peter Finch won for their excellent performances too). I’m surprised Turner wasn’t even nominated at all given at one point she even gets sloshed, pretty startling to see.

 

I’m not a fan of Barry Sullivan or Walter Pidgeon and his permanently pursed lips, but both are fine here. In fact, this is probably Pidgeon’s most interesting performance alongside “Dark Command”. I rather liked the early scenes of Sullivan and Douglas finding their way in the industry via Pidgeon’s schlock pictures, which are somewhere in between stylish Val Lewton chillers and William Castle cheapies. When faced with an embarrassing costume for a schlocker called “Cat Men” (possibly a reference to Lewton’s excellent “Cat People”) Douglas’ character interestingly stumbles upon a very important asset to horror films: Darkness. You can see why Barry Sullivan was never a star, he’s a walking stiff in a lot of his films, but he’s fine enough here, and Pidgeon is more than capable in his role, too.

 

Apparently British character actor Leo G. Carroll is meant to be playing Alfred Hitchcock here, but to be honest, I didn’t really see it, though it’s interesting to note that Carroll was a frequent co-star of the man’s films. To be honest, he could be playing just about any finicky, tech/gimmick obsessed-filmmaker (And director David Lean worked for Selznick too, remember), and he certainly doesn’t look or sound anything like Hitch, though if Douglas is indeed meant to be Selznick, I suppose it makes sense. I was a bit disappointed that more wasn’t made of Carroll’s character, partly because I’m a fan of the reliable actor. Similarly, Paul Stewart doesn’t get much to do, though he never quite did get the meatiest of roles. He always gave his best, though, and this is no exception. Gilbert Roland is amusingly cast in the film as a dashing lothario matinee idol…pretty much playing himself really, and doing it perfectly. It’s a pretty good showcase for him, actually. Truth be told, I think there’s not much point to playing ‘Guess Who?’ with every role here, as the character of Von Elsteen could easily stand in for Preminger, Von Stroheim, Von Sternberg, or even Fritz Lang, really. Who the hell knows? Does it even really matter? But I did kinda suspect that Turner was playing a version of Selznick’s wife, actress Jennifer Jones, though other sources list Diana Barrymore, whose father John Barrymore was a notorious alcoholic, which certainly fits. Maybe it was a mixture of both (Hell, the father could’ve easily been Errol Flynn, too).

 

Poor Dick Powell really only comes into focus in the film in the last quarter of the film. He sure smokes a mean pipe, though. Unfortunately for him, Grahame acts him right off the screen, which isn’t hard because he’s the most wooden actor in a film that already has Barry Sullivan and Walter Pidgeon. Truth be told, the pipe was a more impressive actor and there’s plenty of other more interesting options out there if you ask me who could’ve done more justice to the role, small as it is (Dana Andrews, Joseph Cotten, Harry Morgan, Wendell Corey, hell even Whit Bissell would’ve been more impressive). Look sharp and listen closely for a young Barbara Billingsley as a costume designer in an uncredited cameo. The voice of Mrs. Cleaver is unmistakable. Special mention must go to Elaine Stewart, who steals her every scene as Lila, the film’s femme fatale.

 

Honestly, the only real problem with this film is its narrative structure. It’s done in such a flashback-heavy way that you only deal with one of the characters’ story/POV at a time, and the other actors are mostly absent until it’s time for their story. It’s not the most satisfying way to unfold a story, I’m afraid and it holds the film back from being even more than it is. The flashback structure is unworthy of this film. I also think the ending rings just a tad bit false to me. Only a tad, though.

 

Overall this is a very fine film, and you can definitely see the influence this film has had on the likes of “The Player”, “Bowfinger”, and even “Ed Wood”. It’s a fascinating film and a pretty strong drama with a more cynical and harsh view of Hollywood and movie-making than a lot of films of its era and beforehand. I mean, this is a film about the Golden Years of Hollywood (albeit focussing largely on films perhaps just a shade or two below A-grade Hollywood at the time), made while the Golden Years were still pretty much going.

 

This is a very good but not quite great film. The flashback structure robs the film of the power it might’ve had if done linearly. Still, it’s damn good, and features particularly strong performances from Lana Turner and especially Kirk Douglas, as well as a more than solid supporting cast. Definitely a must for film buffs, it’s one of the best films of its type and darker than you might be expecting.

 

Rating: B+