Why did they make this?
I haven't seen this film, but why did the same director, scriptwriters and actress make a so similar film 2 years after "What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?" ?
shareBecause Baby Jane was such a huge "sleeper" hit. Jane was made on a small budget and shot in three weeks. It made a huge profit and proved to be a major hit. The money men wanted another film to re team Davis and Crawford. This was the result.
But...Crawford doesn't play in "Hush"...
Well, I understood that they made "Hush" because of "Baby Jane's" success, but what I really wanted to say, is HOW could they make a so similar film with the same contributors? It's such a "sell out" that these great artists did something only for money and success. They take advantage of their work of art to make more money.
Well, I guess that at least this is better than the "sell outs" they do nowadays!
But, of course, I better see the film. Maybe it's not so similar after all.
[deleted]
Yes, I consider Charlotte to be a superior film to Jane.
shareYes, CHARLOTTE is one of the great grand guignols of all time.
BABY JANE was merely a good movie which started a genre.
--
Not at ALL - "Baby Jane" is a much more superior film to "Hush", and is remembered as THE grand guignol film - all the rest were only copycats that are no where near remembered as much.
shareNot at ALL - "Baby Jane" is a much more superior film to "Hush", and is remembered as THE grand guignol film - all the rest were only copycats that are no where near remembered as much.BABY JANE is only seen as superior by indiscriminant queens.
Not that I mean you or anything. It's just a general observation.
--
share
BABY JANE is only seen as superior by indiscriminant queens.
Not that I mean you or anything. It's just a general observation.
Really?...Mention the titles of "Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte", "Die, Die, My Darling" and "Whatever Happened to Aunt Alice?" and most people have no idea what you're talking about.
But "Baby Jane" is a film known by many people in many walks of life. I think it's the other 'grand guignol' films that are primarily known only to queens.
share
Oh, no. It's just queens who insist BABY JANE is the superior film.
And, quite obviously, "Die, Die, My Darling" and "Whatever Happened to Aunt Alice?" were never nominated for 7 Oscars.
--
BABY JANE is only seen as superior by indiscriminant queens.
Not that I mean you or anything. It's just a general observation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not hardly.
HUSH was a colder, more remote film,and not as memorable. Has nothing to do with queendom.
Oh, no. It's totally just about the queens.
--
HHSC is a very entertaining movie that can easily stand on its own. Bette overacted like mad here, but for the movie, it wasn't inappropriate. She was better in "Baby Jane". Agnes Moorehead is wildly memorable and too much fun. The atmosphere in "Charlotte" beats "Baby Jane" and I thought the ending here was more poignant. Olivia De Haviland plays a very good evil bitch. I love both movies, though.
shareOh, no. It's totally just about the queens.
That's not true. I've mentioned both of these films to people for years, and only 2 out of ten people have even heard of "Hush". However, more than half the time people I mention "Baby Jane" to know it well. - I'm talking about heterosexual men and women who aren't movie buffs.
For instance, I once mentioned "Baby Jane" to a very heterosexual man in his 50's. He readily knew of it and referred to it as a "psychological horror".
"Baby Jane" leave a better impression in people's mind than "Hush" does.
In my experience "Baby Jane" is a much more broadly known film than "Hush".
I didn't even know about "Hush" until well after seeing "Baby Jane".
The only people who seem to regard "Jane" as campy or a 'gay film' is the gay community itself.
"Hush" is a better known film in the gay community than it is in mainstream, unlike "Baby Jane".
Aside from that, "Hush" has some snags that pull it down which caused it to not be remembered as well as "Jane".
1. I love "Hush", but overall, it's not a very original film.
Aldrich ripped off "Diabolique" too much, and should have stuck to Henry Farrell's original story more closely.
Too many irons were in the fire on "Hush" and the result was a botched film.
2. The film itself is just too long. It drags in several places, and could have been shortened. This aspect itself causes viewers to not remember it well.
3. The accent and acting is bad on the part of Bette Davis.
Agnes Moorehead is great, but Bette Davis overacted badly throughout the film.
Bette was great in "Baby Jane" - though, her performance did border overacting in a few scenes.
"Baby Jane" has it's faults - there's some rough editing in it, but that's because of the lower budget and quick editing job in order to get the film ready for Halloween. However, the story in "Baby Jane" is much more solid and original. Also, it's a better paced film, with terrific acting from everyone.
share
Oh, no. It's just the queens. The pro-Crawford queens.
--
should have stuck to Henry Farrell's original story more closely
What are the differences?
Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...share
[deleted]