gkeith_1
Observations, reflections and musings:Evelyn Nesbit is here, plus in the film Ragtime. In Ragtime, she is played by a young Elizabeth McGovern (mama in Downton Abbey, anyone?). In Red Velvet Swing, she is played as a young, generally innocent girl by Joan Collins (Dynasty, swanky and sexy, you betcha,). Who said that 1906 was the Edwardian Era??? In the United States, this occurred in the Gilded Age and Progressive Era. Edward was the King of England, not America. We actually have our own Eras here in the U.S., witness how we broke away from England in the 1770s. Witness our Revolutionary Era. Did we want to be British anymore? No. A resounding NOOOOOOO.A little historical background: King Edward reigned in England from 1901 to 1910. He was the eldest son of Queen Victoria, who passed away in 1901. The United States had quite a unique history during that time period. Late 19th and early 20th American centuries were the eras of steel industrialists, factory strikes, robber barons, talk softly and carry a big stick, railroad kings, oil gazillionaires, et al. This was also the American age of hordes of unwashed immigrants, bad meat being sanitized, and poor children forced to leave the factories and go to school and actually get an education. Jim Crow laws were big. The United States was still the land of freedom and democracy, not monarchichal reigns and Parliament. This is still true. In 1906 America some people were availing themselves of these glorious attributes, and building huge wealth and making tons of money $$$$$$$$. This film is about rich people, the extremely wealthy. Murder is the jealousy solution to sexual dallying or a crazed person's paranoiac ideas of same. This film is based on a true story. White and Thaw were very wealthy men. Golddiggers abounded, then as now. Jealousy and criminal revenge at high financial levels still make good press (or tabloids or sleazy "entertainment" talk shows). Great story, if whitewashed for 1950s censors and Nesbit the consultant and paid observer, plus tear-jerky heirs of White and Thaw. Mustn't try to play legal, character assassination games with heirs of the deceased(s). Farley Granger was menacing and creepy, yet smiling at other times. I consider him one of Hollywood's most handsome and dashing actors, however. Marilyn Monroe? James Dean? They were probably too expensive. Great Props: The Oscar goes to: (Drum Roll:) THE RED VELVET SWING!!!!! It was a beautiful, lush and bright red, with soft, luxurious velvet fabric covering the chains/ropes and seat, plus there was some awesome red fringe falling from the bottom of the seat. Reach for the moon, Evelyn!!!!!I am a cinematic historian, and I am involved in film studies at university. I have a Bachelor of Arts Degree in American History from that same university. 10/10
James Hitchcock
On 25th June 1906 Stanford White, one of America's most famous architects, was shot dead in Madison Square Gardens (a building he had designed himself) by a millionaire rail and coal tycoon named Harry Kendall Thaw. Thaw's motive was sexual jealousy; he believed that White was having an affair with his beautiful young wife Evelyn. White certainly had at one time been one of Evelyn's numerous lovers, but their relationship had in all probability ended before her marriage to Thaw. Thaw was tried for murder, but was found not guilty by reason of insanity. What made the crime one of the notorious causes celebres of the Edwardian era, apart from the fame of the victim and the wealth of the perpetrator, was the fact that Evelyn, under her maiden name of Evelyn Nesbit, had been a famous model and actress in her own right, one of America's first "pin-up girls" and an early example of what would today be known as the "celebrity culture". The film relates this story in a somewhat fictionalised form. The main change is to soften the character of Evelyn Nesbit, which is perhaps not surprising as she was still alive in 1955 and even served as a technical adviser on the film. (Thaw had died in 1947). Her relationship with White is kept rather ambiguous; the two are portrayed as having been in love, but not necessarily lovers in the sexual sense. Although White loves Evelyn, he is unable to marry her because he is still fond of his wife Elizabeth and does not want a divorce, so he treats her almost as an adopted daughter, paying for her to attend an exclusive girls' finishing school. The leading role was originally intended for Marilyn Monroe, who turned it down; it eventually went to Joan Collins, who bore a greater physical resemblance to the historical Evelyn Nesbit than did Monroe. After her roles in films like "The Bitch" and television series like "Dynasty", Collins today has gained a reputation for specialising in playing seductive villainesses, but during her Hollywood heyday in the fifties and sixties she was as much at home playing heroines, and here she plays Evelyn as a sweet and naïve young thing bemused by the passions she arouses in men, especially the obsessively jealous Thaw. (Whether the real Evelyn Nesbit was quite as innocent is another matter). Ray Milland bears little physical resemblance to the real Stanford White, who was a burly, red-headed man with a very prominent moustache. By all accounts he was a practised womaniser, with a particular liking for teenaged girls, and probably less kindly and avuncular than the character portrayed here. The film's rather odd title derives from the fact that one of White's sexual fetishes was to have Evelyn, and his other mistresses, perform for him on a red velvet swing at his home. Another change which the film makes to the facts of the real case is that Stanford and Elizabeth are here portrayed as being the same age; in reality she was considerably younger than him. The best acting contribution comes from Farley Granger as the arrogant, self-obsessed and pathologically jealous Thaw. Granger is today perhaps best remembered for the two films he made with Alfred Hitchcock, "Rope" and "Strangers on a Train", and there are certainly similarities between Thaw and Phillip Morgan, the character Granger played in "Rope". Both are spoilt young men, from wealthy, privileged backgrounds and both have an ineradicable sense that their background entitles them to have anything they want. Both are so arrogant that they literally believe that they can get away with murder, Morgan because he believes himself to be intellectually superior to anyone who might try to investigate his crime, Thaw because he believes that his wealth will effectively enable him to buy his acquittal. (He is partially correct in this belief; the verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity" means that he escapes the death penalty). The film was directed by Richard Fleischer, a versatile director who seemed able to work in virtually any genre, including film noir ("The Armoured Car Robbery"), science fiction ("20,000 Leagues under the Sea", "Fantastic Voyage"), the historical epic ("The Vikings"), and sword-and- sorcery fantasy ("Conan the Barbarian", "Red Sonja"). He did, however, also make a number of films based on real-life murder cases, including this one, "Compulsion" (loosely based upon the Leopold-Loeb case which also inspired "Rope") and "Ten Rillington Place" (based upon the career of the British serial killer John Christie). These three films are very different in terms of their visual style. "Compulsion" was shot in black-and white, influenced by the films noirs in which Fleischer had specialised in the earlier part of his career. "Ten Rillington Place" was filmed in a bleak, washed-out colour with a palette dominated by greys and dull browns and greens, giving a look appropriate to Christie's seedy lifestyle and to the run-down London of the post-war austerity years. "The Girl in the Red Velvet Swing", by contrast, was shot in a much richer, brighter colour, reflecting the glamorous worlds of New York high society and of the turn-of-the-century theatre. In its emphasis on recreating the fashions and styles of the Edwardian era it can be seen as an early example of "heritage cinema". I wouldn't rate "The Girl in the Red Velvet Swing" quite as highly as highly as Ten Rillington Place", possibly Fleischer's finest film with two particularly strong acting performances from Richard Attenborough as Christie and John Hurt as the hapless Timothy Evans. It is, however, a very entertaining account of a "true crime" scandal of sex and violence in high places. 7/10
Icons76
All other reviewers have largely,and, from very different prospectives, told us all about we needed to know about the story,a lurid 1910's upper Manhattan's scandal, its acute sensationalism and the 3 principals, all victims of their 'so typically' scandalous,yet, "attractive" misfortune, one of the most famous classic American tragedies in a way! But,plot aside, what bothers me the most, by reading even too patiently, all the other reviews posted so far, is how terribly quickly, all the other people poorly rated this movie. with no consideration nor understanding of the different times,immediately labeling this movie, as mostly outdated, annoying, ridiculous, boring,and even badly done! This is just an outrage! An outrage to the greater Hollywood of the Golden days: are people unable to understand that a movie filmed actually in 1955, is still a great movie,today, certainly without CGI or the visuals generated extravaganza's to which we are compulsively used (or addicted,rather?) today? I am a huge Old Hollywood films buff, but,i do indeed recognize very often a film's limits,which here are only a different narrative, that is still extremely effective, even if paced differently, and told without all the (natural) progress and maturity that the art of the craft of filmmaking has achieved, yet loosing something else forever, and that is, if i may say, that magical quality those movies, then truly owned, and, that some may still recognize today, especially, if watching such material, properly, in a restored wide screen print, and on the silver screen,where they belong! People may then be surprised of what a show they could still admire, while, also having a whole different version of a story still developed with a lot more depth, talent, and visionary creation, than what is barely left today to our always more formulaic, more modern, and more all the same, films we get, certainly, more attuned to our standards, but without any wiser basic execution! And, on top, like a few did,it is very unfair, almost a bit vulgar to me, to critique, the magnificent directorial work of true iconographic master director Richard Fleischer, his very cinematic rendition of this classic tale of American classic icons: if someone had to say something, i would ask then who could direct today with taste,such a disturbing study like this one? The direction here is exquisite, and, yes, filmed in gorgeous CinemaScope and De Luxe Color (and not Technicolor!) a more pastel version of the saturated color film stock then in use, but, primarily a classic exclusive of 20th Century Fox throughout the 1950's and 1960's up to the 1980's believe it or not! The cinematography,the rich costumes, accurate set dressing, production design, hair and make up, are all stunning, the acting adequate, with great professionals! Wooden? No. That was the way people would act before the advent of the Actor's Studio and of the new American Cinema that came a decade later, completely changing the style and the Studios themselves, and, as a proper evolution of our Time! And, Monroe pledged for the Collin's part, and with the new look for her recreated by Milton Greene, I am sure she would have been quite a sensation, believe me, i only wish i could watch today,how Monroe, with her new, and ,more adequate make up, hair, and with the direction of a better director,could have played Nesbitt! I think she would have made probably a Classic of this one, and absolutely a stunner! And, especially, as it was supposed to be, if the Granger's role, would have then been played by James Dean (Yes, did anyone know??) who'd said to be extremely interested in portraying what was in fact a juicy and perfect role for him, a part he could have brought to even higher sinister weights! While, giant Frederic March, had been rumored for the part who eventually went to Milland, and that is, when Fox, "as usual stupidly" aggravated with Marilyn for having left Los Angeles, promptly nixed to Monroe the role! A role,of course, they knew she wanted, but, almost to dictate who had the power, they said no to Marilyn, knowing that so they'd be having both Dean and March to withdraw immediately, when, gorgeous, yet virtually unknown (then) Collins was to play the lead! Fox basically spoiled an unique occasion, a memorable film just to punish the star: they were mad, since MM, after refusing to make 3 pictures, one after another (one of them,co-starring Frank Sinatra,Eve Arden,and Robert Wagner "Pink Stockings" to be directed by Hathaway, was already almost in production, and quite honestly possibly a decent romantic comedy, but, Marilyn's opinion was that Nunnally Johnson had again built an almost basically decorative role for her, without any substance in it!) had left Hollywood, preventing Fox to banquet on her! But her commitment to studying was so incredibly strenuous, that when she finally came back to work at Fox an year later,for the melancholic BUS STOP, with the patient and wise direction of the great friend Joshua Logan, a true clever director,Marilyn delivered such an incredibly modern,touching,layered performance,only the Academy of those grim years refused to acknowledge, while, even her most stubborn of her detractors, had at long last, to admit that "the Lady could act, and not just being a tramp!".
