MovieChat Forums > Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte (1965) Discussion > Pet peeve

Pet peeve

posted 12 years ago by hipdadiddy
5 replies | jump to latest

Good thing it's impossible to take this movie seriously, otherwise I'd be pretty ticked at the sheer incompetence of it all. The perfect catalog of 60's bouffant hairdos adorning all the ladies in the 1920's scenes, Aggie Moorehead's scenery-chewing performance, the long shots trying to convince us Bette Davis is 40 years younger in the flashback, then a much younger actress who looks nothing like her appearing in the medium shot a few moments later…strictly amateur night at the movies! But in a camp classic like HHSC, who cares?

That said, I AM pretty ticked at the use, over and over again, of one of my pet peeves: a character behind a fiendish plot acting as baffled as anyone by the strange goings-on--when he or she is alone! If the victim is present, fine, you've gotta act to keep them in the dark, but when it's just us, the audience (still unaware of whodunnit) and the perpetrator acting as if he/she don't know whodunnit either…well, that's just a lazy, cheating way of throwing us off the scent.

[–] moosefeathers 12 years ago

Miriam was acting baffled because things were going on that weren't in the plan. Such as Velma cutting the dress and various other things that were going on that Dr. Drew had nothing to do with, which were probably Velma. Most of the other reactions by Miriam when she was by herself were more of her being baffled by the sickness of the things that they were actually doing and how far they were going, along with the fact that she really didn't know that Charlotte was that far out there.

can you touch on any specfic scenes that come to mind to you?

Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...

[–] PrometheusTree64 12 years ago

The OP is only right about the screw up of the prologue party in the 1920s in which the partiers wore '60s hair and outfits. It's a bizarre error.

Otherwise, this film received a record number of Oscar nods for a horror film up until that time.

--
LBJ's mistress tells all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPdviZbk-XI&;

[–] moosefeathers 12 years ago

That was the same for alot of movies from the 60's. One movie, Hurry Sundown comes to mind with both hair and some wardobe, as the story was set in the 40's (I believe) and the hair and clothes had a 60's vibe to it.

Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...

[–] PrometheusTree64 12 years ago

But ALdrich did manage to get the cast into 1917 garb for the prologue of BABY JANE. So I don't know what happened on CHARLOTTE -- a picture I actually like better.

--
LBJ's mistress tells all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPdviZbk-XI&;

[–] LgPepper 9 years ago

That glaring lack of detail, to have all of the young friends of Charlotte in the 1920's party scene look like a busload of tanned 1960's sorority girl extras shipped in from a Gidget movie has ALWAYS been the only real thing that bothers me about this picture. That and the fact that not ONE of them could even fake a 1920's dance. The budget was not small and I cannot believe that Aldrich let alone the Cameraman, Wardrobe, Hair or even the Continuity person did not bother reminding him that it was supposed to be the 1920's.

The obvious voice looping of Bette's fifty something voice over the young Charlotte, "No Papa...No..." is funny as well as 50 something Bette throwing her floral bouquet at a 20 something Bruce Dern and yelling, "AH could KILL you!"