Bette has never been stunning but boy did she look bad in this film, and she was meant to be the younger and flirty sister and she looked way older than Olivia.
Anyone else notice this?
I always thought deHavilland was beautiful. And Bette's character did look older than Olivia's.
"Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"
[deleted]
I think it was done on purpose. It shows the concept that even though the younger wild child seems appealing, the conversative grounded person is more attractive if you actually look.
shareOlivia, at the time, was 'seeing' John Huston. Jeanine Basinger mentions the 'close-ups' situation several times, but never cites this as the reason.
"In my case, self-absorption is completely justified."
Harold_Robbins: Even with that less then flattering hair-do OLIVIA completely outstripped BETTE in the looks dept. Being one of the most beautiful Women in the Golden Age of Hollywood, plus acting chomps gave her a enormous advantage.
shareHer makeup was godawful.
shareBette has never been stunning
but boy did she look bad in this film
and she looked way older than Olivia
Animal crackers in my soup
Monkeys and rabbits loop the loop
Olivia makes a lot of people look ugly. The one notable exception would be in Gone With The Wind, but clearly in GWTW they were trying to make her look less attractive so that Scarlett would seem more beautiful.
Have you seen The Strawberry Blonde (1941)? In that, Olivia makes Rita Hayworth look ugly even though Rita is supposed to be the more beautiful one. (Ok maybe not ugly, but definitely less appealing)
"Every great film should seem new every time you see it." - Roger Ebert
Unfortunately, Bette Davis was suffering from sever emotional problems due to an illness of her husband. It actually came through the camera, though. but it worked because it kind of gave her character some kind of concience.
Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...share
this thread is ironic to me,because this is the only movie(including ones she made before this)where i've seen bette davis look pretty and youthful.
shareI think the OP and most of the other posts here miss the point. The point was not how two women compare in terms of their respective static beauty, but how behavior and manner and movement and the perception men have of a woman as a complete amalgam of all such elements add up, in some cases, to overcome whatever slight difference exists in such a comparison of static appearance.
Now of course some here no doubt would say the difference between Bette and Olivia in static appearance is not slight, and I can understand that point. Olivia, and even more so her sister Joan Fontaine, are paragons of the kind of classic beauty that both wore so well. It is difficult to think of any examples of the Golden Age of Hollywood that outstrip them in that regard (perhaps Vivien Leigh, but she was really more of a star of the stage, but I digress).
But Davis on the other hand has her own more kind of particular beauty, especially when she was younger. In this film she is surely beginning to show some of the wear and tear her personal life was taking on her, as compared just a few years earlier to her beauty on display in Jezebel, or Dark Victory, or certainly in even earlier films like The Petrified Forest. But imo she still had that beauty here.
More to the point, however, her performance and her character as written had elements of appeal that at least put her in the running for being more appealing than Olivia's rather bland and even boring character.
From a man's point of view does Roy look like the candidate to make a better wife? Of course. But this film acknowledges the obvious point, that that is not the only measure of what makes a woman attractive. Davis's performance was excellent in that regard, and I am sure Huston got just the performance from her that he had hoped for.
To be clear i also thought DeHaviland was very good here, as well, as was Billie Burke in a supporting role. The men in general were merely adequate, unfortunately, although I suppose George Brent was more than that. Still, a great film, and I especially admired the portrayal of Parry Clay by Ernest Anderson.
Agree with Kenny 100%
It puzzles me that people seem to think that the only thing that attracts a man is a pretty face! There are other things that are attractive like personality.
While Stanley wasn't particularly nice, she was madly flirtatious, sexy and playful. These things will, I'm sure, make a man sit up and take notice...for a while at least.
Bette may not have been the prettiest woman, but she had presence, charisma, was sexy and frankly, I would have loved being blessed with a body like hers!!
So put some spice in my sauce, honey in my tea, an ace up my sleeve and a slinkyplanb