Watching "Inside Daisy Clover" on TCM - What a Pile of Shit

Natalie Wood's character was supposed to be 15. Natalie Wood was 27 when she made the movie.

The musical numbers are soooo not 1930s musical numbers.

There's so much wrong with this movie it's hard to know where to begin.

The Way We Were had similar issues because Robert Redford refused to have his shaggy hair styled into a 1930s high-and-tight cut. Barbra also had anachronistic hair and makeup and evenwore a glamazon 70s bell bottom jumpsuit during the McCarthy era scenes. No one cared - and it was a hit film.

Even Ruth Gordon was acting like she was auditioning for her part in "Rosemary's Baby" in this one.

Robert Redford was supposed to play a closeted homo in this one, but if you blinked, you missed the reference to it.

No it was a flop. As was Penelope later in the year. Which is why Natalie took a couple of years off. The song has to be the worst ever written by Previn. It hurts my ears to listen to it. Don't know why Streisand put it on one of her albums. Redford was supposedly pissed that his character is outed late in the movie by Christopher Plummer. I believe he had no idea until the film was released. At least that's the scuttlebutt. But we do know he was very protective of his image when he had more clout. Ruth Gordon seems to be auditioning for Where's Papa.

Why they chose this to to put on bluray is incomprehensible. But I've read the film looks great. I hated it even as a boy when I saw it a couple of times on tv. They used to play it often enough on NY channels.

Natalie Wood has frosted hair. FROSTED HAIR! Who had frosted hair in 1935?

And those Twiggy-style false eyelashes! Good God!

The only historically accurate thing about this movie is the stove she sticks her head in.

She had go-go boots on in the circus number.

She blows up a perfectly great cabin. Why?

R9 The ending made no sense. It's like the movie went from a tragedy to a slapstick comedy in a minute.

It was a Warner Bros. film but that bedroom set looks suspiciously like the one used in Paramount's HARLOW the same year......with the statues and the rain......

I fucking hate that.

The novel is OK, pretty funny in parts, but the movie's a lousy botch job, although Gavin Lambert himself did the adaptation.

That circus number was cringey shit.

It was wacky!

It was just before American movies started to get it.

And move into the 1960s.

It made no sense that they would try and re-write her character's family history in the movie.

Everyone loves a rags to riches story. In reality, they'd have promoted the shit out of the fact that they found her living in a shack on the Santa Monica pier.

I love period Movies about the golden age of Hollywood's Movie industry. I can never get enough of them.

I was just looking for clips of this Movie a few weeks ago on YouTube.

R18 It's about the furthest thing from a period movie you could find. You'll be disappointed.

The novel is set in the 50s, the film in the 30s, when the family history makeover might have been more likely.

R17 Why did old Hollywood love those rags to riches stories so much back then?

Doesn't coming from an upper middle class background sound better, then coming from poverty?

I think so, but it get why people love a good rags to riches story.

R19 Your right, I've always noticed that the time period the Movie is supposed to take place in is poorly executed in the film is not good.

But I just love the subject matter and environment and industry this film is set in. I'm just fascinated by the golden age of the Movie business. So I guess it's good enough for me I guess.

Why would Warner bros make a Movie about Jean Harlow, when she was a MGM star? I thought MGM would've made a film about her life, to honor one of they're own.

I liked it. Weird and great 60s sets. And the closest case gay actor was cutting edge for the time.

R21, in a rags to riches story, the person has to have talent. If actor comes from an elite background, you assume that they got their chance based on social connections.

[Quote]Doesn't coming from an upper middle class background sound better, then coming from poverty?

[quote]Your right, I've always noticed that the time period the Movie is supposed to take place in is poorly executed in the film is not good.

[quote]I thought MGM would've made a film about her life, to honor one of they're own.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

ALL 1960s movies deliberately got 1930s-on period wrong. Guess they thought it would sell more tickets if Julie Andrews wore bouffant hair in a 1940s period movie (The Americanization of Emily), etc.

"Barbra also had anachronistic hair and makeup and evenwore a glamazon 70s bell bottom jumpsuit during the McCarthy era scenes."

Most of the time it was wigs, if Streisand had her way, it would probably look like this.

R5, that's not scuttlebutt. Redford has been quoted many times about how displeased he was that they tricked him and "made" his character a homosexual in a scene he was not in.

She was playing a 15-year old who got married. Ick.