Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Inside Daisy Clover

Is it true that the Natalie Wood film Inside Daisy Clover was supposed to be much more biting and lots of editing took out the film's teeth?

Wasn't there supposed to be much more about Redford's character being gay and a much more scathing look at Hollywood and child stars and such?

by Anonymousreply 17207/16/2014

Yeah, they took out all the stuff about Redford being gay . Would have made for a much better film. Wrong era for presenting a gay character, who was a fun,normal guy - not a miserable, alcoholic loser, who lisps, and is a viscious killer, wearing tight pants, and a flowery shirt. Thats pretty much how any gay character was portrayed then (remember "The Detective" ? ).

by Anonymousreply 104/30/2012

Yikes! I had totally forgotten (or maybe blocked out) the Detective.

Too bad they couldn't have allowed IDC to be shown as the writers had intended. For sure it would have made for a much better film. I still like that film but it would have been so much better had they done right by it.

by Anonymousreply 204/30/2012


by Anonymousreply 304/30/2012

My favorite scene in the movie, R3.

by Anonymousreply 404/30/2012

Anyone know where the house is, on the beach, that blows up at the end ? I read it's silent film star, Barbara LaMarr's. It's not Malibu, or Santa Monica. Anyone know ?

by Anonymousreply 504/30/2012

What the fuck?

It's very clear in the movie that Robert Redford's character has affairs with men and women, which for a major studio movie in 1965 was really a big fucking deal.

by Anonymousreply 604/30/2012

R5, According to the old newspaper article at the link, the beach house was in Venice.

by Anonymousreply 704/30/2012

RE 7 Thanks so much ! Never would have known. Venice looks VERY different now. Appreciate it.

by Anonymousreply 904/30/2012

I think she says she's 15.

Was there any teen actress at that time who could have taken that role? I can't think of any. Patty Duke would not have been right for the part, I don't think anyway.

by Anonymousreply 1004/30/2012

Story I heard is Redford forced them to cut the gay stuff and was infuriated when he saw the movie and in a scene shot after he was wrapped the studio chief's wife says something like "He could never resist a young man in uniform."

by Anonymousreply 1104/30/2012

Actually, in VOTD, Patty Duke showed she could be as coarse, vulgar, and unlikeable as Daisy Clover is away from the cameras.

She might have been terrific, if her managers were willing to let her take the role. But wouldn't have that have ruined her TV ingenue image?

by Anonymousreply 1204/30/2012

What was Redford afraid of? Did he have something to hide?

I remember that his character being gay was hinted at with that one line.

by Anonymousreply 1304/30/2012

True R13. I can see that. That couple that managed her never would have taken that chance with their cash cow.

Wood didn't do her own singing in the movie, did she? I think Patty Duke actually does sing, doesn't she?

by Anonymousreply 1404/30/2012

At that time , Redford wouldn't have had any power to call the shots. He was another working up & coming actor, in films, with some name recognition, but not a star yet. That would come 2 years later with "Butch Cassidy" And remember, in between, he was the studio's choice, though not Mike Nichols (thank GOD !) , to play Benjamin, in "The Graduate".

by Anonymousreply 1504/30/2012

I vaguely remember it wasn't the gay stuff as much as Redford felt that Wade was amoral and would fuck anybody he was attracted to.

by Anonymousreply 1604/30/2012

That's questionable ! ( see You Tube, with Patti doing her own singing , in VOTD. You'll see why they dubbed her).

by Anonymousreply 1704/30/2012

[quote] And remember, in between, he was the studio's choice, though not Mike Nichols (thank GOD !) , to play Benjamin, in "The Graduate"

As I understood it, Redford turned down the Ben Braddock part, saying "Nobody's gonna believe I can't get laid".

by Anonymousreply 1804/30/2012

It has been ages since I read the book, but I thought the book was written specifically for (and to a degree about) Natalie Wood.

by Anonymousreply 1904/30/2012

[quote]Wood didn't do her own singing in the movie, did she? I think Patty Duke actually does sing, doesn't she?

Film Screen Monthly released a two disc soundtrack album (FSM Silver Age Classics) with extras galore (alternate tracks, cut tracks). This limited edition was available thru Screen Archives. Although Natalie Wood did record her songs, on screen the vocals were dubbed by Jackie Ward. Wood's tracks are included. There is even one where Wood does the intro and Ward takes over on the melody for "You're Gonna Hear From Me." Anyone who liked the movie and the musical score by Andre Previn would like this collection.

by Anonymousreply 2004/30/2012

There's also a story that in the original scene in "The Way We Were", when he screws Katie, Hubbell is supposed to not be able to get it up for her, cause he's so drunk. Apparently, Redford thought that would damage the macho image he had established, so he told Sydney Pollack, the director, he wouldn't do it that way. It was changed, so that the implication was that Hubbell/Bob is such a stud, he can fuck even while throughly drunk, and half asleep, not even knowing who he's fucking. Thats why when he's leaving, the next morning, going down the stairway, he apologizies to her, saying ' I'm sorry. I've been falling asleep everywhere these days' , implying he doesn;t remember anything that happened the night before- his dick is just so hard, even drunk, and asleep, it just slipped right into Bab's hole.

by Anonymousreply 2104/30/2012

Redford did a very fond remembrance of Natalie for TCM a few years ago, talking especially about the making of Inside Daisy Clover:

by Anonymousreply 2204/30/2012

New to DL. Could someone tell me how to reply to a specific post. Thanks guys

by Anonymousreply 2304/30/2012

Reply to Rwhatever, like to you I'd say, I think this is how you do it, R23.

Although if someone uses a name like "by Tom" you can address them by their name.

I'm sure someone else can explain it better than I just did.

by Anonymousreply 2404/30/2012

I think Patty Duke would have been great and I'm not the Patty Duke troll.

I didn't care for NW in this movie.

by Anonymousreply 2504/30/2012

Well, r23, we're dying to hear what you have to say.....

by Anonymousreply 2604/30/2012

Redford gives the only good performance in the picture, in spite of his weird part. The whole thing, IMO, is so poorly paced, written, directed, etc., that it seems ridiculous to focus upon whether on not the gay theme was given properl attention. The sixties costuming posturing as thirties movie star garb is just weird.

Lostvocals (see link) has a comparison of Wood vs Jackie Ward singing "You're Gonna Hear From Me."

by Anonymousreply 2704/30/2012

[quote]As I understood it, Redford turned down the Ben Braddock part, saying "Nobody's gonna believe I can't get laid".

Wasn't that Warren Beatty's response?

by Anonymousreply 2805/01/2012

Reply to R24. Thank you.

by Anonymousreply 2905/01/2012

Redford and Wood were also in 1966's This Property Is Condemned, a minor Tennessee Williams.

I loved the original book of Daisy Clover when i was a teen - when it was made into the movie the author Gavin Lambert (gay of course) became friends with Natalie and later wrote that good biography of her before he died too. Nat was very gay friendly (Mart Crowley was her secretary) so presumably Wagner was as well.

I like the film of Daisy Clover but for a film set in hollywood in the 30s it is very under-populated, there is hardly anyone it apart from the main characters. Ruth Gordon does one of her turns as Daisy's mother - but it all ends rather suddenly. In the book Daisy moves to New York and re-invents herself as a cabaret torch singer and has a great song "I wonder what became of me?" - if only that was in the movie ! Dory and Andre Previn did her song "You're Gonna Hear From Me" which was covered a lot at the time, think I will have to watch the film again now!

by Anonymousreply 3105/01/2012

I read the book too - Daisy is kind of a young Judy Garland type, being rebellous at the studio and hating making the movies and of course falling for a gay/bi guy, as Judy did lots of times, and then becoming famous again in concerts afterwards. Pure Garland really ...

by Anonymousreply 3205/01/2012

One mistake in the film.. Daisy's film clips are in Panavision. Should have been smaller image for time period.

by Anonymousreply 3305/01/2012

The film is absolutely ruined by having no sense of the 1930s on any level.

by Anonymousreply 3405/01/2012

"Natalie Wood was so very, very wrong for a "child star"."

Honey, she WAS a child star! She made her debut at age five and at age seven was a star after her first big hit "Miracle on 34th Street." She certainly knew what it was like to be a child star, which is probably why she got the role of Daisy Clover.

The other movie Wood and Redford starred in, "This Property Is Condemned" is a very underrated movie. It was based on a one-act play by Tennessee Williams, and is very depressing. But I think Wood does some of her finest acting in it.

by Anonymousreply 3505/01/2012

Redford was HORRIFIED (and still is) that anyone would interpret his character as gay. He has repeatedly denied it and stresses that his role is of a guy that has no morals and will fuck anything. That's better than gay.

by Anonymousreply 3605/01/2012


by Anonymousreply 3705/01/2012

There was aso a part in the book where they are both doing Shakespeare. I don't think it is in the movie, but I really liked that section of the book.

by Anonymousreply 3805/01/2012

For us elders: remember when Jeremy Irons denied Charles was gay and Anthony Andrews said Sebastian wasn't gay. Remember the scene in Morocca...

by Anonymousreply 3905/01/2012

Charlize Theron declared that Aileen Wuornos was not really gay...the relationship in "Monster" was about love, not sex. See, Aileen Wuornos just wanted someone to love.

by Anonymousreply 4005/01/2012

I think Natalie also pops up for a moment "as herself" in Redford's The Candidate, or was it Downhill Racer, probably the Candidatate, as it was about politics.

Indeed what ruins Daisy Clover the film is there there no no 30s period feel at all, Daisy looks like a 50s kid.

Natalie as a child star was lovely in Driftwood, when she was about 10 - and she was the daughter of Bette Davis in The Star.

by Anonymousreply 4105/01/2012

"Daisy looks like a 50s kid"

LOL, her make-up and coiffure are pure mid-sixties, not 50s.

Natalie appeared in "The Candidate" as herself in a receiving line. The joke was that Redford's character, the senate candidate, doesn't know who she is.

by Anonymousreply 4205/01/2012

Wh cares- it was a terrible movie and ba big flop.

by Anonymousreply 4305/01/2012

charlie - shut up

by Anonymousreply 4405/01/2012

"Honey, she WAS a child star! She made her debut at age five and at age seven was a star after her first big hit "Miracle on 34th Street." She certainly knew what it was like to be a child star..."

Having been a child star still doesn't help a twenty-something play a "child" star. She's still twenty-odd!

And Daisy Clover's career doesn't make sense anyway. She's fifteen, which means she'll be grown up by the time she's made a couple of films, yet the studio seems to be promoting her as a child. I suppose she's supposed to have a career like Mickey and Judy, a thirties teenager, but 15 is too old to start a career like that, even if you don't look 25.

by Anonymousreply 4505/01/2012

R45, I think that is better explained in the book. What you said is essentially correct, and the studio in effect is trying to keep her from growing up. That is part of the conflict in the book. It is not unlike what happened to Haley Mills. Studios kept wanting her to be a girl and she was maturing very quickly.

by Anonymousreply 4605/01/2012

R46 I loved Hayley in "The Trouble with Spring" (which she made with her dad) and "The Family Way," two of her first "adult" roles. I always thought she was much more talented than her sister Juliet--though, to be fair, it's not like "Nanny and the Professor" (J's "Mary Poppins" rip-off) was exactly "Hedda Gabler."

by Anonymousreply 4705/01/2012

I thought Hayley was scathingly brilliant in The Troubel with Angels (1966) where she played a high scchool senior. (n.b., It was The Truth about Spring made the previous year.)

by Anonymousreply 4805/01/2012

The Trouble With Angels is one of my favorite movies.

R27, thank you SO much for that video.

by Anonymousreply 4905/01/2012

IDC has one of my favorite Ruth Gordon performances--mainly because she's silent most of the time. I know age had already taken its toll, but by the time she became a kind of kooky movie star in the late 60s/early 70s, it was hard to tell why she had been one of the leading dramatic actresses of the stage in her prime. And seeing her in her earlier work, such as "Abe Lincoln in Illinois," while it shows her elocutionary training, doesn't help much--she photographed oddly and seemed stagy.

BTW, Miss Helen Hayes was supposed to be a tremendous bitch to the stage crews, despite her diabetes-inducing public persona. Dame Judith (Anderson, not Dench--who may be a delight for all I know), on the other hand, was supposed to be down to earth and fun to be around, despite her Mrs. Danvers appearance.

by Anonymousreply 5005/02/2012

"LOL, her make-up and coiffure are pure mid-sixties, not 50s."

The same could be said of Faye Dunaway in "Bonnie and Clyde." No woman of that era had makeup and hair like that, and their skirts fell to the ankle, not the knee. Her look was pure sixties.

by Anonymousreply 5105/02/2012

R51- same with Julie Christie and her ratted bouffant hairstyles in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO.

by Anonymousreply 5205/02/2012

"I think she says she's 15.

Was there any teen actress at that time who could have taken that role? I can't think of any. Patty Duke would not have been right for the part, I don't think anyway."

Natalie was 27.

Liza Minnelli was 19.

Liza would have been perfect as Daisy. Moreover she would have actually sung the shit out of it, let alone done it without being dubbed.

by Anonymousreply 5305/02/2012

Love your signature, R40! (Fuck you, Leslie!)

by Anonymousreply 5405/02/2012

Correct, R51, R52. Ever see Julie Andrews 1960 bouffant in The Americanization of Emily ste during WW2? That's the way it was done then. When Funny Girl was brought to the screen, Babs was all sixties; in the sequel, she's all 1930s. She looked better 1960s.

by Anonymousreply 5505/02/2012

R55, Babs would have looked better with a bag over her head in both.

R53, I think Liza would have made a GREAT Daisy, although I don't think Liza could have pulled off the all American cutie pie thing Daisy had going. I would have FLOVED to see Liza doing Daisy's breakdown scene. I think she would have blown us away.

by Anonymousreply 5605/02/2012

I don't think Liza could have pulled off Robert Redford being interested in her, r56. Unless it was a joke.

by Anonymousreply 5705/02/2012

True R57. Sad but very true.

by Anonymousreply 5805/02/2012

I watched the movie again this afternoon, a lot of it on fast forward as the pace was so s-l-o-w - I loved the book too but the movie is maddening. The Previns' score was good though.

There is no real 30s period feel at all - the clips of Gable & Lombard, Bogart, Power etc attending Daisy's premiere does not fit in at all with the 60s look of the rest of the film, the movie is also terribly underpopulated - when Daisy arrives at the studio the only people there are Plummer and his glacial wife, Roddy McDowell as the prissy assistant says nothing at all apart from 1 line; the only indication that Redford is gay or bi is that one line by Melora, Plummer's wife.

And Daisy achieves her freedom from the studio by blowing up the house at the end! Pul-leeze ! It was over 2 hours long by that stage so no way they could follow her journey to reinventing herself in New York. Ruth Gordon though as 'the dealer' was perfect.

66 though must have been Redford's break-out year what with this and the other one with Natalie, This Property is Condemned, and The Chase - and then Barefoot in the Park with Fonda.

It also echoes (consciously or not) moments in the Garland A Star Is Born: like where he wipes the makeup off her face, her being made up like a kid - similar to that number Judy did, their running away to get married etc., and the malicious studio hack - McDowell here, Carson there. Its a fascinating oddity then.

by Anonymousreply 5905/03/2012

I don't get why Daisy didnt want to be a star and fought the studio - she sent them the recording of her voice and what else did she have, apart from the shack at Venice beach with her dotty mother. Its fun though seeing Nat at about 27 playing the 15 year old urchin.

by Anonymousreply 6005/03/2012

I wish I could articulate why this film so badly violates a look and feel for the historic period. I would certainly agree that the other 1960s examples Bonnie and Clyde and Dr. Zhivago have some terrible costumes, hairdos and makeup but Inside Daisy Clover is just the worst.

by Anonymousreply 6105/03/2012

I used to know a guy who was obsessed with this film as a kid and would rent it from his local library all the time. He could do ALL the dance moves Natalie does for "You're Gonna Hear from Me," and it was absolutely hilarious.

I never dreamed Natalie Wood was as physically imitable as he demonstrated--you could never have mistaken him for anyone else.

by Anonymousreply 6205/03/2012

The weird thing about Natalie is that the studios almost always dubbed her singing voice, which broke her heart--she wanted more than anything else to sing. But her voice is not THAT bad--had she been better trained, she would have been able to carry the songs she was given. She's actually decent on the latter parts of "You're Gonna Hear from Me."

by Anonymousreply 6305/03/2012

I actually like Natalie's singing voice quite a lot in "Gyspsy"--and there she uses her own voice.

by Anonymousreply 6405/03/2012

r25 There is a Patty Duke Troll? As someone posted I don't think PD's mangers would have let her do the movie b/c in 1965 she was still under their control. The idea of the managers running Daisy's life and career would have been to realistic,since PD's managers were doing the same thing (and treating PD's mom the same way the managers in the movie did with Daisy's mom).

by Anonymousreply 6505/03/2012

[quote][R25] There is a Patty Duke Troll?

I think he meant that Patty Duke is herself a troll.

by Anonymousreply 6605/03/2012

r66 Babs u old unemployed fool...

by Anonymousreply 6705/03/2012

That clip at r62 could be straight out of an Austin Powers movie.

by Anonymousreply 6805/03/2012

I think studios temporarily lost their minds in the mid-60's and forgot how to make movies.

And movies about movies alwyas seem to get it wrong -- in that clip of Natalie singing at r63, she would have been singing to a pre-recorded track, not live in front of the whole company.

by Anonymousreply 6905/03/2012

R69, is that what she was doing later when she had her breakdown? Is that what a pre-recorded track is?

by Anonymousreply 7005/03/2012


by Anonymousreply 7105/03/2012

Well if we're going to be technical about it, "Cleopatra" didn't look like ancient Rome and Egypt, "Camelot" didnt look like the Dark Ages and "Lion in the Winter" didn't resemble the Middle Ages.

Biblical film from the 20s and early 30s had women who looked like flappers in them.

The sixties had such a strong look that it is hard to miss. But it worked brilliantly for "Rosemary's Baby."

by Anonymousreply 7205/03/2012

Hmmm, R72. Your post made me wonder how Mia would have been as Daisy Clover. They could have as easily dubbed Mia's voice, but I don't think she can dance. She would have been very waif like and we know she has chemistry with Ruth Gordon and Redford.

by Anonymousreply 7305/03/2012

Natalie looked like she was at least 30 years old in that movie. She was horribly miscast. But the film was just soo awful. The dialogue was from hunger, dear heart.

by Anonymousreply 7405/04/2012

Whenever I see a movie as awful as IDC, I wonder at what point the cast and crew realized that they were making a real stinker.

by Anonymousreply 7505/04/2012

It was Plummer's first after Sound of Music - boy did he churn them out in those years, ditto McDowell - surely they realised what a dud they were working on.

The script though is by Lambert, who wrote the original novel, and he certainly clicked with Natalie. I think he became the pal of her secretary Mart Crowley, so maybe Lambert had a hand in the creation of Boys in the Band too.

Those scenes too of Nat and RR going out to the yacht and climbing aboard and sailing have an extra poignancy now too ...

the most glaring fault is that it is meant to be the mid 30s - the pinnacle of hollywood movies - but there is no-one at the studio apart from Swan (Plummer) and his wife - even Venice Beach and Malibu pier are deserted in the early scenes with Daisy and the dealer and that hairstyle of hers so so wrong for 1936.

by Anonymousreply 7605/04/2012

Gavin Lamebert wrote some fabulous non-fiction books about Hollywood, one of the best of which is On Cukor, a series of Q and As with Cukor on all his major films.

by Anonymousreply 7705/04/2012

Just about as hard as your heart, mama.

by Anonymousreply 7905/04/2012

This Property Is Condemned really sucked.

by Anonymousreply 8005/04/2012

Plummer plays his part as if he's auditioning for Christopher Lee's old horror movie roles.

by Anonymousreply 8205/04/2012

Give us this day, our daily bitchfest.

by Anonymousreply 8305/04/2012

Lots of clips of Natalie and other performers singing and not singing on the lostvocals youtube sites.

There is both a lostvocals6 and a lostvocals3 site. The clip below is the incredibly lame "The Circus Is a Wacky World" number from IDC.

by Anonymousreply 8405/04/2012

She'd already played a pregnant unmarried woman in Love with the Proper Stranger and sex guru Helen Gurley Brown in Sex and the Single Girl, so I don't know how anyone throught that her playing a teenager in this movie (and the next) would work.

by Anonymousreply 8505/04/2012

I remember watching this on tv and thinking they must have had a shoestring budget because the film was so deserted. It never showed a bustling studio, a proper Hollywood party. It was like Daisy was in a vacuum tube.

by Anonymousreply 8605/04/2012


by Anonymousreply 8705/04/2012

I'd like to see a stage version of this.

by Anonymousreply 8805/05/2012

Is the book really good enough to deserve a better quality film? One with a seriously populated cast and decent hairdos and costumes? And a real young star in the lead?

Could HBO do it well?

by Anonymousreply 8905/05/2012

It would actually make a great mini-series, like the recent take on Mildred Pierce - quick, get Todd Haynes on the phone, he is the ideal man for this and would bring up the gay sub-text, allusions to A Star Is Born etc.

The movie just stops with Daisy blowing up the house and walking away - the mini-series could continue the story with her moving to new york and becoming a cabaret lounge singer, as in the novel. It would be terrific.

by Anonymousreply 9005/05/2012

That circus number always creeps me out: "the circus is a wacky world! How I love it!" I'd go crazy too if I had to loop a song like that.

by Anonymousreply 9105/05/2012

"I remember watching this on tv and thinking they must have had a shoestring budget because the film was so deserted."

Same for the musical numbers, which is why they're so creepy. It's just her on an empty set, while most thirties musicals numbers featured dozens of backup dancers, if not a smiling audience.

Fred Astaire excepted, of course, but this untalented girl can't hold the screen like Fred Astaire.

by Anonymousreply 9205/05/2012

Or Myrna Loy!

by Anonymousreply 9305/05/2012

That looping booth scene is fabulous and would be a very theatrical moment if done right on stage. How about Liza in the Ruth Gordon role and Cherry Jones as the studio head's wife?

by Anonymousreply 9405/05/2012

Interesting R94. Who would you pick for Daisy and for the Redford role?

by Anonymousreply 9505/05/2012

[quote][R80] has taste up her ass. Go back to The Avengers, where you can sit in the dark and twiddle with yourself.

Whatever, bitch.

by Anonymousreply 9605/05/2012

"Who would you pick for Daisy and for the Redford role?"

The Data lounge's own Creepy Little Dakota Fanning for Daisy Clover, as an aging child star she's probably living through something similar in real life. Any young closet case actor as Whatshisname, Zac Efron or Taylor Lautner maybe.

by Anonymousreply 9705/06/2012

Natalie should have been ideal in the 1965 film, she had been a child star after all, and it was Redford's break-out year - but it just doesn't gel.

by Anonymousreply 9805/07/2012

R81 = thinks Ishtar was a classic!

by Anonymousreply 9905/07/2012

Natalie was never a child star like Daisy Clover.

For starters, she never headlined a single film as a child.

by Anonymousreply 10005/07/2012

Zac Efron would be great as Wade.

Chloe Moretz would be better for Daisy than either Fanning.

by Anonymousreply 10105/07/2012

She was the lead in Driftwood in 1947, when she was about 10 - younger than Daisy in fact.

by Anonymousreply 10205/08/2012

I just dug out the paperback of Lambert's novel, I knew it was in a box in the garage --- and here's the fascinating thing: it is set in the 1950s - Daisy's diary begins in 1951 and continues into 1952, and it is 1957 when she leaves hollywood for new york ... so why on earth did they take it back to the 1930s, Lambert wrote the script so much have gone along with what Pakula/Mulligan wanted - Natalie had the 50s look in spades as that was her era - they made no attempt to give her a 1930s look and as others said there is no 30s feel to it at all.

I have not read the book since the 60s so it will be fascinating reading it again now.

by Anonymousreply 10305/08/2012

Can I borrow it when you're done?

by Anonymousreply 10405/08/2012

I'm in London - where are you? - if Stateside, see link ...

by Anonymousreply 10505/08/2012

The Amazon "look inside" feature when you click on the book cover, at link above, shows the first few pages, including the 1951 date ...

by Anonymousreply 10605/08/2012

"Well if we're going to be technical about it, "Cleopatra" didn't look like ancient Rome and Egypt, "Camelot" didnt look like the Dark Ages and "Lion in the Winter" didn't resemble the Middle Ages."

I disagree about Lion in Winter. Why do you think the mise en scene is wrong? The setting looks like a 12th century chateau and the costumes are generally modest; there is no souped up pageantry at all.

by Anonymousreply 10705/08/2012

For that matter Julie Andrews didn't look like a 1940s nun in The Sound of Music either.

by Anonymousreply 10805/08/2012

R107. Indeed the actors were given their costumes well in advance so the costumes would look worn. (I am nor sure, but I believe the film was rehearsed as if it was a play before filming.)

by Anonymousreply 10905/08/2012

I can guartantee you that Miss Hepburn and Mr. O'Toole may have worn their costumes in rehearsal but did not personally "distress" them.

by Anonymousreply 11005/08/2012

[quote]For that matter Julie Andrews didn't look like a 1940s nun in The Sound of Music either.

Well, that's no surprise: the movie is set in 1938, the year of the Anschluss. She's not supposed to be a visitor from the future.

by Anonymousreply 11105/09/2012

Daisy Clover though would have worked better in the 50s setting - why try to recreate the 1930s if you are not going to do it properly. Its all very half-hearted in the movie as though they could not be bothered, or didnt have the budget, to do it properly.

by Anonymousreply 11205/09/2012

God that movie sucked. I'd rather watch a 3 hour infomercial on the Hair-dini. Better yet, I'd walk out of that piece of shit movie....on an airplane.

by Anonymousreply 11305/09/2012

r113, much to the relief of your fellow passengers, no doubt.

by Anonymousreply 11405/09/2012

R113, would you do it while singing "You're Gonna Hear From Me?"

by Anonymousreply 11505/09/2012

well the studio did the same thing with Valley of the Dolls. they moved from the time period of the book to the 60s.

by Anonymousreply 11605/09/2012

I read once about why the time frame was changed.

The film was released in 1965 and was too close to the previous decade. Imagine a film set in the mid-90's released now and you get the idea. The idea was that setting it in the 30's would give it a more "realistic" feel, since the target audience--young people--would think of the 50's as Elvis or Cary Grant.

Strange, strange choice. Btw, the novel is a lot of fun.

by Anonymousreply 11705/09/2012

Yes I see your point r117 - it would be too near to the present if set in the 50s - but if you are going to set it in the 1930s then they should have at least given Daisy a 1930s hairstyle and period look.

Pity they ignored the later part of the novel as Daisy with kid start all over in New York. That was surely based on Garland's comeback at the Palace.

by Anonymousreply 11805/10/2012

Lambert by the way also did the script for that camp classic The Roman Spring of Mrs Stone, with Vivien once again getting addicted to cock, particularly young Warren Beatty's !

by Anonymousreply 11905/10/2012

Natalie wears a sweatshirt in the beginning of the movie that was very 1965. All that was missing was a Snoopy cartoon on the front.

by Anonymousreply 12005/10/2012

Glad to read these comments! Was clicking around a while back, TCM was airing "IDC" and I started watching. Tried to figure it out - there were some period cars, but it wasn't clear to me when the action was taking place. Sorta bizarre. Saw a documentary of "Zhivago", a hair/makeup person said to watch hairstyles in period movies, they often reflect contemporary styles. Something about the audience being able to relate to the characters - anyone see that doc.?

by Anonymousreply 12105/10/2012

I saw the doc and the costumer was furious because Julie Christie would not appear onscreen without teased hair. A ton of authenticity went into every aspect of Zhivago and then the leading ladies refused to give up their hair bumps.

by Anonymousreply 12205/10/2012

Hollywood films didn't really care much about reality in period costuming and hairstyling until Luchino Viscounti (in The Leopard) and Ken Russell (in Women In Love) showed how it could be done with great style as well as authenticity.

Of course looking at those films now with hindsight one can clearly see the 1960s makeup and hair aesthetics creeping in, but the clothes still look pretty great.

by Anonymousreply 12305/10/2012

Blame the costumes on Edith Head!

Inside Daisy Clover is a strange film but not in a good way. I saw it the other day in glorious color and widescreen but I do not want to see it again. Everybody seems to underreact to everything. Daisy wants to be famous and then doesn't. The pace, as mentioned earlier, is so slow and creepy.

Natalie Wood made other strange big budget movies in the mid sixties that missed the mark: Penelope & Sex and the Single Girl. She's pretty and nice but seems adrift in them.

by Anonymousreply 12405/11/2012

Yes her best movies were those early 60s classics, but The Great Race, Penelope, Sex & Single Girl and indeed Daisy Clover all bombed and are not much good now either. I must see This Property is Condemned, another failure really - it was not included in that Tennessee Williams boxset some years ago - though of course it couldnt include all TW's works.

by Anonymousreply 12505/11/2012

The mid-60s is the nadir of Holywood film making because it just preceded the explosion of truly sophisticated classic hits like The Graduate, Bonnie and Clyde and In the Heat of the Night. What a difference a year makes.

by Anonymousreply 12605/11/2012

I think studios temporarily lost their minds in the mid-60's and forgot how to make movies.

With the dismantling of the distribution system, the non-renewal and termination of the seven-year studio contracts, social upheaval, and the latest assault on cinemas via color TVs, the studios seemed rudderless and lost at sea.

Luckily, as r126 mentioned, a renaissance was right around the corner.

by Anonymousreply 12705/11/2012

Natalie Wood was clearly a giant star, but she always seemed miscast in just about everything.

by Anonymousreply 12805/11/2012

She was just right in Rebel Without a Cause, and good as the virginal book author in Sex and the Single Girl.

by Anonymousreply 12905/11/2012

That other Hollywood movie "Mommie Dearest" (perhaps some of you have heard of it) was also curiously underpopulated.

There's something about Natalie's acting I can't put my finger on. She's not the worst performer, I mean she delivers her lines but her acting is somehow off.

She comes alive in the musical numbers. It's a shame she wasn't a good singer. She would have been better off in musicals with her fresh-faced charm. She's good att miming the songs. Not all actors can do that convincingly...

by Anonymousreply 13005/11/2012

Well, I just finally watched that clip of You're Gonna Hear From Me which I hadn't seen since the original run at a half-empty rainy day matinee at Radio City Music Hall.

OMG how embarrassing! Trying so hard to evoke the early 1930s musical numbers of Busby Berkeley and Eleanor Powell, it doesn't even get as exciting as a production number on the old ABC TV Hollywood Palace.

And if they were going to bother to dub Nat's voice, couldn't they come up with a prettier sound?

by Anonymousreply 13105/11/2012

If ever there were a mainstream film that sounded like a cheap porn movie, it's this one!

I didn't even finish watching it; just dreadful.

And Natalie Wood was far too old for the role and never the best actress.

by Anonymousreply 13205/11/2012

[quote]which I hadn't seen since the original run at a half-empty rainy day matinee at Radio City Music Hall.

That means there were 3,000 people there.

It must have been much less than that.

by Anonymousreply 13305/11/2012

NY Times review of February 18, 1966:

THERE have been better pictures about Hollywood, but few as triumphantly, all-round bad as "Inside Daisy Clover." The Warner Brothers presentation, adapted by Gavin Lambert from his novel, opened yesterday at, of all places, the Radio City Music Hall. So this is Hollywood. This?

Watching this dank, verbose and ploddingly cynical yarn about a jittery teen-ager, played by Natalie Wood, who becomes "America's Little Valentine" of the nineteen-thirties, a viewer can rejoice anew for success stories like "A Star Is Born." Both versions of that were real beauties, concerned with genuine talent and heartbreak and with real people.

The new picture almost has to be seen to be believed at all. It's simply the dull case history of a neurotic young beatnik type, absurdly taken over by a major studio, who rockets to fame overnight and finally collapses, just as inexplicably, from bleeding psyche. Why? Well, she's famous, rich and young ("pushing 17"), with her whole life ahead of her. Poor Daisy.

We first see Miss Wood, got up like Li'l Abner's kid sister, bouncing around the amusement pier of the Venice, Calif., beach, where she lives in a shack with her batty mother, whom Ruth Gordon plays like a cross between Lady Macbeth and Polly Moran. Miss Wood makes one of those amateur singing recordings, whimsically mails it to a studio and — bingo! — a star is born, here anyway.

In no time flat, up rolls a long car to the Clover shack, Daisy is whisked to the huge Swan Studio and put under contract by Christopher Plummer, as a bland, ogre producer. The two musical samplings of the heroine's talent, a cloud-hopping montage and another urchin newsboy number, are almost laughable. There is one bright tune, "You're Gonna Hear From Me," by Andrà and Dory Previn.

But, excluding one good scene where Miss Wood goes berserk in a music synchronization booth, there is little in the way of studio activity and actual movie preparation. Most of the time, under Robert Mulligan's brooding direction, Miss Wood pines for her mother and the beach shack or mopes around the mausoleum mansion of Mr. Plummer and his neglected, neurotic wife, Katharine Bard.

They're all neurotic, in fact, and the crowning touch is Miss Wood's unsuspecting marriage to the studio's top glamour boy, a homosexual, personably played by newcomer Robert Redford. At least "Harlow" got there first with a wedding surprise.

Coming from a town that has yielded some fine self-appraisals, the Hollywood of Daisy Clover is cold, null and void.

The Music Hall's stage show is a Tahitian revue, featuring the Islanders, the Bora Bora Dancers, the Three Olympiads, Eugene Slavin and Felix Caballero, the Rockettes and the Corps de Ballet.

by Anonymousreply 13405/11/2012

Jeez, the NYTimes movie reviews were anonymous then?

by Anonymousreply 13505/11/2012

The review at r134 is spot on. The dubbing scene in the soundbooth is good. The song about the circus stands for the movie business and how glossy and fake it is. We get to see Daisy transfer her vocals to film like some singer had to do for Natalie in her musicals.

Maybe the filmgoing public in the 1960s lost interest in Natalie Wood when she starred in musicals like West Side Story, Gypsy and Daisy Clover when she couldn't hold a tune. She was presented as a singing star when she used someone else's vocals.

by Anonymousreply 13605/12/2012

Thanks for the NY Times review - it is spot on. I like Natalie though in GYPSY, but Daisy is just all wrong in every respect. If only they had stuck to the 50s setting of the novel.

by Anonymousreply 13705/12/2012

Inside Daisy Clover (first as a novel)was written by a good friend of Natalie's, Gavin Lambert. The story itself could well have been inspired by Natalie, whose story is somewhat similar. In the book the Robert Redford character seems very much the same as on screen... closeted or conflicted. Of course, it has been 40 plus years ago that I read the book.

by Anonymousreply 13805/21/2012

Was she good in "Marjorie Morningstar"? I enjoyed the book but have never seen the movie. She seems like good casting for that role.

by Anonymousreply 13905/21/2012

Especially, R138, since Nat's husband way gay/bi in real life and she walked in on his doing it with another man!

by Anonymousreply 14005/22/2012

I support Natalie in all her work. Fuck the NYTimes.

by Anonymousreply 14105/22/2012

I'm sure she appreciates it, R141.

by Anonymousreply 14205/22/2012

On March 3, 1966, William Frawley (Fred Mertz) collapsed of a heart attack while walking down Hollywood Boulevard after seeing a movie, Inside Daisy Clover.

by Anonymousreply 14306/12/2012

The house in the film owned by Raymond Swan, played by Christopher Plummer was then owned by Warner's head Jack Warner. It is now owned by David Geffen.

by Anonymousreply 14406/12/2012

RE 144- You're wrong.It was not the Warner home, but the house used in the film has a facinating past. It was built in 1937 by Hilda Bolt Weber, widow of a wealthy Cincinnati glass manufacturer, who moved to Bel Air, with her chauffeur - who also became her lover, then husband, to try and break into LA's high society. She built Casa Entada, on 9 acres, with 61 rooms, and 35,000 sq. ft. - main home was 2 football fields in length. It cost what in todays $$$ would be $40,000,000 - amazing for that time. She had 19 servants. And after all that, she was still not accepted in the moneyed upper class. Her fortune soon began to dwindle, and by 1950, she was forced to sell the home, at a ridiculous $225,000, to Conrad Hilton. He kept it until his death, in 1980, when it was sold to Dole mogul, David Murdoch. for $12.5 mil. He kept it till 2000, when Gary Winnick, a wall street crony of Mike Milkin, and a huge crook, paid $95,000,000 for it, while he declared his own co., Global Crossing, bankrupt. Only in corrupt America. he still owns it. It is still considered on of the top estates in Los Angeles, and has not been used for filming, since the days when Hilton had it.

Meanwhile, poor Hilda eventually went completely broke, and ended up sliting her own throat.

by Anonymousreply 14506/14/2012

145, J'Accuse! The Hilton house has a view and a different set of columns. I was reading "The Operator" while watching IDC and flipped back to the photo of the Warner House. It was the same, but they do have very similar facades. Like everyone and everything in LA!

by Anonymousreply 14606/14/2012

R145 and R146 need to learn how to reference a prior poster! Stupid twats...

by Anonymousreply 14706/15/2012

[quote]This Property Is Condemned has always been one of my favorite films. Highly underrated IMHO.

Trashy, and no work of art, but I thoroughly enjoy it and try to catch it whenever it's on.

by Anonymousreply 14806/15/2012

So her cause of death has officially just been changed from "accidental" to "undetermined," stating that "bruises on her body were inconsistent with death by drowning." WTF?

by Anonymousreply 14907/07/2012

Boy, my mother had excellent gaydar cause the first time we saw the movie she got that Wade was gay much earlier. It was the moment Roddy showed up in the film. RR is hugging NW and Baines(Roddy)is called in by Melora and RR reaction to Baines' name caused my mother to say, "Oh, Wade's a queer."

by Anonymousreply 15007/07/2012

well since they didn't think of Patty Duke for Daisy when the movie first came out, if they ever make a remake Patty Duke could play the mother.

by Anonymousreply 15107/07/2012

Wow..I just watched this...or rather, tried to watch this on TCM and Natalie is just totally miscast in this. She can't sing, can't dance...and the acting is, well....just bad. I gave up after the dubbing booth scene....

by Anonymousreply 15207/12/2012

"Oh..the circus is a wacky I love It !

by Anonymousreply 15307/12/2012

You're gonna love me!

by Anonymousreply 15407/13/2012

Just watched parts of it again on TCM the other night. Once again, I'm struck by how dreadful the dialogue writing is--I mean, Natalie Wood was never the most naturalistic of actresses (she hit her peak in "Miracle on 34th Street," in my opinion), but Duse couldn't have made some of the lines about "The Dealer hasn't been herself since Mr. Clover took a powder" or whatever the exact line is sound like anything other than a stiff attempt to approximate how street-wise waifs (17?) out of Horatio Alger sounded.

I rather like Christopher Plummer and Katherine Bard--at least, as Martin Balsam says about Holly in "Breakfast at Tiffany's," they're REAL phonies.

by Anonymousreply 15507/13/2012

I was reading part of a Redford bio the other day and it told how he refused to play his role in IDC as gay. He interpreted it as pansexual, a narcissist who would do anything and anyone if it meant glorifying himself. As has often been the case in his career, there was a lot of haggling about it. Redford's ever-skittish attitude about gays has always been an annoyance to me, but even more than that I hate how he takes parts and then applies his own unyielding sensibilities to them even when it is at odds with the director and the writer and when it is at the film's expense.

by Anonymousreply 15607/16/2012

Natalie was a generous friend to Redford in the early days of his film career, but when she tried to obtain the mother role in "Ordinary People", Redford would not even return her calls.

by Anonymousreply 15707/16/2012

Did girls have frosted hair in the 30's? That always bothered me about this movie. Yes, I am an eldergay theatre and film queen who saw this at age 16. Always loved the soundtrack album.

by Anonymousreply 15807/16/2012

Wow. THat's fascinating to think of Natalie in Ordinary People. I never heard that before.

by Anonymousreply 15907/16/2012

"Natalie was a generous friend to Redford in the early days of his film career, but when she tried to obtain the mother role in "Ordinary People", Redford would not even return her calls"

I never heard that. I wonder if it's true. At any rate, she would have been wrong for the role. She looked too young and glamorous; her looks and demeamor did not fit the persona of the chilly, emotionally closed off mother.

Wood DID really try to get the lead role in the tv mini-series "Sybil", but was turned down because she was a well-known movie star. It was thought that a lesser known actress would suit the part better and of course that turned out to be right; Sally Field was perfect as Sybil. Again, Wood did not suit the role.

by Anonymousreply 16007/16/2012

But r160 you could apply all the same things to Mary Tyler Moore. And Mary had a far more familiar and warm image to combat in the mid-70s than Natlaie did. Natalie was very off the public's radar by then.

by Anonymousreply 16107/16/2012

R161, Mary Tyler Moore's real personality was well known in the industry. The character in Ordinary People is a lot closer to the real MTM than Mary Richards was. On the other hand, Natalie Wood would have to act.

by Anonymousreply 16207/16/2012

[r162] Very interesting considering that in RL MTM's son committed suicide.

by Anonymousreply 16307/16/2012

R163, Yeh I know...

by Anonymousreply 16407/16/2012

It's absolutely true that Natalie lobbied for the role of the mother in "Ordinary People", and she was deeply hurt when Redford ignored her attempts.

They were close at one time, apart from the films they appeared in together, her second husband, Richard Gregson, produced "Downhill Racer" and Redford was best man at their wedding.

She turned down the Faye Dunaway role in "Towering Inferno" and the Elizabeth Taylor role in "The Mirror Crack'd" . . . her performance in the television movie in the early 1980's, "The Cracker Factory" as a woman becoming unstrung was excellent.

by Anonymousreply 16507/16/2012

This book was my sidekick for a long time. Found it and read it as a teenager in the 90's. I love it. Then when I watched the film I was so disappointed. I love Natalie, but not in this. The film did not capture the characters or the story IMO.

by Anonymousreply 16601/17/2013

I loved this book and movie. I know the movie is flawed but it is a guilty pleasure.

Isn't the Dealer her grandmother. I thought Daisy wanted to become a star because she thought she could take care of her. But then the studio and her sister/aunt tried to get the old lady out of the way and control her life and that is what caused her to become disillusioned.

by Anonymousreply 16701/17/2013

"Redford was HORRIFIED (and still is) that anyone would interpret his character as gay. He has repeatedly denied it and stresses that his role is of a guy that has no morals and will fuck anything. That's better than gay."

I'm confused by your logic.

The guy does fuck anything that moves.

He's a narcissist and doesn't care whom he hurts.

If Redford has the intelligence, taste and wisdom to describe the character as not gay, but rather a narcissist who simply longs for attention from anyone, then he's not only right but he's making a rather gay-positive statement.

by Anonymousreply 16801/22/2013

WELL, just watched Daisy, again, on TCM. Such a frustrating movie. Love Natalie but not very convincing as a 16 yr old. Plummer is chilling, Ruth is divine, Redford is gorgeous, Roddy is bitchy and Nat gets to have a nervous breakdown. Now, this is my idea of a Friday night.

It would have been nice had they tried to capture the 1930's instead of making everyone look like it was 1966 (which it was).

Just read on IMDB that Elizabeth Hartman and Patty Duke were considered for the lead. Had Patty done it she could have kept her BILLIE hairdo.

by Anonymousreply 16905/24/2013

I love when great old threads like these are bumped and I can reread all my insightful posts with trolldar!

Since the thread originally appeared I found the novel at a second hand book store. I'd forgotten about it but now I'll look forward to reading it this weekend.

by Anonymousreply 17005/24/2013

It should be remade with Chloe Moretz and Zach Efron. Maybe with John Hamm in the Plummer role?

by Anonymousreply 17105/25/2013

I think this wonderful thread deserves a good BUMP!

by Anonymousreply 17207/16/2014
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!