Above, Kim Novak as the ineffable Jeanne Eagels in the ineffable Jeanne Eagels, George Sidney, 1957.
Blogging is apt to be on the lighter side for the forseeable future, for several reasons. One, a mental health break would appear to be in order (this actually involves doing less reading, particularly of other movie blogs and writers, than it does less writing). Two, my TV is still broke, which makes it more difficult for me to enjoy/assess/write about such things as, well, the ineffable Jeanne Eagels. (I’ve been told that the “part” necessary for the set’s “repair” should be in some time this week.) Three, certain developments relative to certain freelance clients have made it not just desirable but in fact necessary for me to seek out and find new avenues of paying work, and quickly. Obviously editorial work in the realm of film would be nice, but I’ll do copy-editing, fact-checking, what have you. Also, I’ve edited major authors and stuff, you know. And I don’t act out nearly as much as I did back when I was doing that. I am extremely open to what they call “staff” “positions” as well. So by all means do write if you get, I mean have, work: glennkenny@mac.com. And many thanks to tip jar contributors. This blog’s not going away—it is, after all, paid for and stuff—but I do have to take care of business, particularly if I want to produce a blog that’s not such a fwigging drag. Anyway, thanks for the attention and kindness.
Take it easy, Glenn. We’ll still be here.
Good luck finding some way to make living, and writing, pay! Blogging less is always better than melting down more.
Don’t be gone too long, and good luck with the hunt for financially appropriate occupation.
She looks like a hairless version of Oliver Reed’s werewolf…
Good luck finding a job.
Best of luck Glenn. You’ve opened my eyes and mind to so much about film (and more).
That picture could give me a hard-on.
Good luck, Glenn!
Re JEANNE EAGELS: As one who appreciates the often unappreciated talents of George Sidney and Kim Novak, I revisited this film about a year and a half ago on TCM. My reaction remains mixed. It’s a good looking film, with fine B&W cinematography and production design. Some respectable screenwriters (Daniel Fuchs, Sonya Levien, John Fante) do what they can with the hodgepodge of fact and fiction that make up most showbiz bios. But unfortunately, the big problem here is 24-year-old Novak. Though she’s fine in the early scenes of Eagels’ humble beginnings as a hoochie-coochie carnival attraction, she’s way over her head depicting the drugged-out diva’s dramatic decline. Her voice grows huskier, her eyes get wider, the fake perspiration is more liberally applied – this could be a Carol Burnett spoof without changing a thing.
Much of Novak’s appeal comes from suggesting the storm beneath a calm surface. Here, the storm spills out, and it’s not pretty. Maybe she realized it, because she followed this with a handful of her best performances (VERTIGO, MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, STRANGERS WHEN WE MEET).
Good luck with your job search.
@ jbryant,
Is it possible, though, that Novak’s too-obvious histrionics here are intentional? She’s playing, after all, a Jazz Age stage actress with diva-ish drives – wouldn’t she play every scene, even the real ones in her life, to the rafters?
This may be wishful thinking on my part – I’m still one of those devoted souls who believes that Hitchcock WANTED the process shots to be bad in “Marnie” – but whatever the case, Novak’s performance still worked for me.
And I still howl at Agnes Moorehead’s painfully bad line (but delivered with great verve), while watching Eagels from backstage – “She has the one thing every great actor needs – TALENT!”
It ain’t no drag! (This blog.) Hope you get a brand new bag! (Whatever pleases you most…)
Stephen: Oh, I don’t doubt the histrionics are intentional, I just think a convincing portrayal of them was outside the great Kim’s range. But I’ll allow that it’s also possible that the perf put me off because it was too drastic a change from the lower-key Novak I know and love.
Fair enough. (Although, I tell you, I’d like to see a Venn diagram of that movie’s script and the real Eagels’ life. The two barely intersect, even by ’50s biopic standards.)
It occurs to me that some smart programmer ought to put on a double bill of this and Desplechin’s “Esther Kahn.”
Yes, with the added short of Ralph Edwards’ THIS IS YOUR LIFE episode of Francis Farmer.
Best wishes Glenn, hope you land on your feet (I’m sure you will). Don’t be gone too long, looking forward to your A.I./Minority Report/Catch Me If You Can piece…
Kim Novak looks a lot like Cathy Moriarty in Raging Bull here.
“Cathy Moriarty…”
NEIGHBORS POWER.
MASTERPIECE.
Could someone kindly point me to the tip jar? Thanks!
Look right on top of RECENT COMMENTS (or next to Sean Connery’s belt loop)