“Valley of the Dolls”

Don't really really get it either OP, beyond some moderately camptastic fun. It was probably a blast in the context of its time when it was released, plus about ten years, but this late 80's/early 90's kid never really got it.

Is the novel a lot different?

Mmmm… yes. Because it covers 20 years and you get to imagine it in your head instead of having to wade through the plastic trash of the movie. Half of the movie (basically, when people aren’t deliciously overacting) is slow and boring. Barbara Parkins is a big part of that problem - she’s just dull.

As for differences, in the book Anne ends up in an unhappy marriage to Lyon and starts popping pills. And Anne has a long, twisted friendship with Helen early on.

Not everyone is born with a camp sensibility gene. It's as simple as that. For those who recognize and delight in camp, this movie is one big laugh fest. For those who don't, it's a boring, melodramatic slog.

It's 'boring camp'. You have to have some knowledge of film, pop culture, fashion, etc. to get the eye-rolling faux pas. Patty Duke and her troubles; Sharon Tate and her murder; Susan Hayward and her long career of melodramas... Bad acting; bad editing; wigs; lip-syncing; sappy theme songs; behind-the-scenes drama.

Don't be an elitist cunt, R4. People can develop a camp sensibility and still have differing experiences of it.

I love camp! It’s just that this particular film doesn’t do it for me. I get the overacting and absurdity of certain scenes, but it’s simply not enough to elicit repeated viewings. Something about the look of the film leaves me cold. Perhaps seeing Sharon Tate knowing what was coming for her irl also puts a damper on it. I will tell you, however, if Judy had gotten to do this film, it would no doubt have become a favorite of mine.

There are countless hilarious moments in the film like Neely’s necklace placement during the telethon and Miriam heating up the lasagna. The cumulative effect is camp gold.

It's brilliant and you non-fans are breaking my heart.

All right, faggot OP, start explaining.

Besides the camp factor of this film can be enjoyed merely as a period piece.

Regardless of how you feel about this one particular movie, I feel like camp is lost on Gen Z.

They're just so earnest and quite dull-witted. Just look at what's happened to comedy in the last decade.

Think about the stuff we were laughing at 15 or 20 years ago: MadTV poking fun of Whitney & Bobby and the drugs, Dave Chappelle poking fun of Civil Rights, Lisa Lampanelli talking about big black cock, Queer Duck making fun of gays getting railed by strangers, Joan Rivers joking about Casey Anthony, and even mainstream network comedies like Will & Grace sometimes pushing the envelope with the sexual innuendo and shade throwing between Karen and Leslie Jordan.

When I look at comics like Bowen Yang and his contemporaries on SNL, it just seems so sanitized and squeaky clean. There are no rough edges and there are certainly no boundaries being pushed.

There are only a few younger comics who truly get camp, one is Tim Dillon. He's gay but would never be accepted by the current crop of politically correct comedy gatekeepers. His drag impersonations of Meghan McCain and trans icon Dr. Rachel Levine are pure camp. And he looked at how Gen Z is treating Dave Chappelle over a few mild trans jokes, and said fuck you to them.

I feel like there's going the be a resurgence of camp and raunchy comedy at some point in the near future, once we stop giving Gen Z woke twitter scolds the power to shape popular culture with their anti-fun censorious bullshit.

Different generations apply different perspectives which is why what’s campy to grandpa is boring to junior

Don’t worry about junior, he and his friends have their own camp “classics” that gramps will hate

What R3 said.

My parents kept a copy of the book hidden from my early-teen eyes, and I found it (that's what kids do!) and read it perhaps hundreds of times. I'm sure there was a time when I could have recited long passages aloud. Back in those days, VOTD was pretty much soft-core porn compared to most books -- compare it to the brouhaha around the more recent "Fifty Shades of Gray." It was on everyone's lips.

I only saw the VOTD movie many years later, and while it as somewhat disappointing compared to the book, I loved Barbara Parkins (just my type!), and Patty Duke was a blast to watch when most people had only seen her in The Patty Duke Show. Plus, this was way before Mary Tyler Moore exemplified the "single girl living on her own" genre, so it was a bit of a trailblazer in that way as well.

Try reading the book just for fun, OP -- and then watch the movie again. I'm certain you'll come to enjoy the movie more afterwards.

R13 What do you think those camp classics will be for Gen Z?

Do you honestly think they understand the subversive nature of camp?

Who are the comics that they are following these days?

[quote]r5 Bad acting, bad editing…

Bad with you, good with others.

Drag queens..

Gen Z thinks all terrible or tacky things are camp. They have no actual understanding of what it is - camp can be highbrow (every Tennessee Williams play or movie) or intentional (John Waters), it's about theatrics and heightened emotion.

Black Swan, for example, SHOULD be a new camp classic but the Gen Z morons take it so earnestly.

Terrible book, terrible movie, but to find it "boring" is to self-identify as incel gamesters who lack the slight attention span needed to savor the purity of high 1960s camp flapdoodle and the slow-motion crash of an elaborate, poorly cast, howlingly written film.

But go ahead, keep posting the equivalent of "me so stoopit because me want explosions."

"Valley of the Dolls" is the precious cinematic equivalent of what would have happened if the Hindenburg traveled back in time to smack into the Titanic just before the iceberg said "Howdy!"

Jackie Susann declared it "a piece of shit" at the world premiere, which is the ultimate stamp of approval.

Susan Sontag made it pretty clear in "Notes On Camp" that it's earnestness that makes camp work. This is why intentional camp is really difficult to pull off.

Sontag herself was pretty clinical and somewhat humorless, so I think "Notes of Camp" is a good jumping off point, but her goalposts aren't really hard lines. John Waters movies are absolutely camp even though everything he does is intentional.

I always find VOD ugly to look--so cheesy. There are moments, of course--the dialogue, the acting.....but, for me, it's like bad drag--not much fun....

Yes, Waters definitely pulled it off where many others failed.

Get outta my way, I've got a man waiting for me!

[quote]r20 Terrible book, terrible movie…

I don’t know that the book is BAD. It’s a certain kind of book… kind of glossy pulp fiction. One of the things “good” writing does is hold your attention and “Valley of the Dolls” does do that (for most.) One thing in “bad” writing I can’t stand is coincidence (though Thomas Hardy certainly relied on it!) and I don’t remember VD using that kind of lazy shortcut.

The dialogue in the book is sound. There are long scenes where these backstage types are bitching at each other or talking about their pasts, and because the author really had witnessed scenes like that as a D Level actress all that stuff is quite vivid and energetic. And the characters are “well conceived” (as a story analyst would say) and very distinct from each other. The book is colorful even though there’s surprisingly little sex in it.

It was heavily edited by the publishing staff and Susann had to do many drafts under strict instruction. The first version was apparently an unholy mess. I think someone on staff finally had to write some of it himself, filling in holes and bridging sequences.

I’ve only read one book about the author. It was very interesting, though!

Ted Casablana is no fag....and I'm the dame that can prove it.

I hate to say it, but as much as I always liked Patty Duke, her portrayal of her character especially threw off the story's film version -- which, admittedly, was no piece of fine art itself. She was a bad casting choice and it really raised the movie's camp factor to a level in outer space. I'm unsure who else they might have auditioned for that role besides Patty, but somehow I felt the film would've been a bit more tolerable if someone else had place it. Also poor Susan Hayward just came off so bizarrely in this. What were the studio and producers thinking??

I’m not Gen Z, btw. I love horrible movies and movies so bad they’re good. I can watch Mommie Dearest ten million times and never get sick of it. I love films from the 20s through the 1960s, especially B and skid row films. I love John Waters, I love Showgirls, and all the Psycho Biddy movies. It’s simply this one that I’m not into. I can enjoy certain scenes for their campiness, but the film as a whole is just too drab for me, and a few campy moments are not enough for me to rewatch it. Other terrible movies that were made in earnest I can. I just wanted to see if I was alone.

BTW, has anyone watched Faye as Evita? lol

[quote] I always find VOD ugly to look--so cheesy. There are moments, of course--the dialogue, the acting.....but, for me, it's like bad drag--not much fun....

This.

Yes you’re the only one. It’s got a rating of 10.00 on IMDb and 110% on rotten tomatoes

It's much too long, and huge part of it are boring.

But there are peerless camp sequences: Neely singing "It's Im-POS-sible" with the misbehaving beads on the telethon; the "moderne" montage where Anne becomes the fabled Gillian Girl; the montage where Neely does weird exercises (in split-screen) and becomes a gigantic star; the premiere of "Hit the Sky" (with the inexplicable fingerprints over the colored Lucite mobile; and Susan Hayward doing her unusual body gestures while lipsyncing); "ALL RIGHT, FAGGOT: START EXPLAINING!"; "Nudies! That's what they are! Nudies!"; "Let 'em droop!": the catfight at the premiere of Neely's musical, with Patty Duke doing her scary deep angry voice; "They SAY I'm self-destructive... *pause*... SO WHAT!"; Nelly going "incognito"; Neely's big dramatic address to God....

[quote]BTW, has anyone watched Faye as Evita? lol

I have! It aired on NBC the same year Mommie Dearest came out.

To me what makes it so camp is that it tries to be hip and shocking but is hopelessly square. It seems like something that people who watched Lawrence Welk regularly would have thought of as "racy."

[quote]r29 Also poor Susan Hayward just came off so bizarrely in this. What were the studio and producers thinking??

Well, they had about 5 minutes to replace drunkie, pill head Judy. So cut them some slack.

Maybe Betty Hutton would have been a better choice, but she was a drunk pill head, too.

[quote]R30 BTW, has anyone watched Faye as Evita? lol

William Travilla did the clothes for that, too!

I wouldn't pay any attention to OP. You know how bitchy fags can be.

What also makes it so bad is that it's impossible to feel sorry for the characters (which the screenplay wants you to do) because the actresses aren't very good in their roles (although Patty Duke was good in other things). They all overplayed their character's negative qualities, so Anne is too passive, Jennifer is too vacant, and Neely is too nasty.

"... this film can be enjoyed merely as a period piece."

But none of the girls were on the rag. Well, maybe Neely...

The book had a racier reputation than it deserved. It was racy in comparison to popular fiction of its time, but there really wasn't much sex---I'd imagine that it opened the door for Jackie Collins and similar novels. The film is just ridiculous---you have to wonder how it was directed because people almost seem to be in different films. Parts are boring, but it is full nonsense, like that stupid "Plant My Own Tree" number. The dullness of Parkins and the inability of Tate to act make the scenery chewing of Hayward and Duke more obvious and funny. Paul Burke was fine in tv shows but he can't carry aa film in a major part. Lee Grant is the closest thing to a legit decent performer here and I love how she recognized the film as a piece of shit. The book is really about the 50s and covers a longer period than in the movie---the situations and characters don't really translate into the 60s.

It is absolutely camp and a howl throughout. If you have to have it explained why it's funny you probably won't get it. It's a mix of everything everyone above as said: it's trying to be serious and scandalous but just comes off as incompetent and conservative.

The scene of Susan Hayward singing along to I'll Plant My Own Tree is as funny for the unwiped fingerprints on the mobile, the inane dialogue 'offstage I hate her but onstage I'm madly in love with her', and the out-of-town tryouts for a turkey show taking up half the front page of Variety as it is for the musical number.

Which character could Joan Crawford have played?

Mr Bellamy's off-screen wife -- surprise twist -- it's Amanda Farrow putting VOTD and TBOE in the same universe.

Saw it for the first time back in 97 or 98 at a midnight showing at the Sunset 5 theater (the old Virgin Megastore/Crunch) with my friend. She hated it, I instantly loved it.

FUN FACT: There were only 3 of us in the theater at the showing. Me, my friend and (sitting a few rows over from us) Leonardo DiCaprio (by himself).

In my opinion Martin Milner was so good looking in this scene and movie.

I think what hampered the film too was that Patty, Barbara and Sharon didn’t do any scenes where all three interacted. Sure there were ones with the three of them, but not interacting with each other. I still think the film is a laugh riot and highly watchable for repeat viewing. So horrible it’s good.

They didn’t have a single scene together. The only time you see them together is in the photo of them at Jennifer’s wedding.

It makes Neely’s line about Jennifer calling her to ask where she could get an abortion ridiculous, since it’s barely established that they’re friends.

[quote]FUN FACT: There were only 3 of us in the theater at the showing. Me, my friend and (sitting a few rows over from us) Leonardo DiCaprio (by himself).

Well, that confirms he gay.

R48, she was implying Neely was a whore and a whore would know where to get an abortion. Abortions were illegal then, and wealthy women could get them either by leaving the country, or going to some high class doctor that specialized in rich women, or get a back alley abortion that might result in death. So Jennifer asked her knowing if there was a high class doctor who gave safe abortions, Neely was the one person she knew who might know, or could find out.

[quote]R45 There were only 3 of us in the theater at the showing. Me, my friend, and (sitting a few rows over from us) Leonardo DiCaprio (by himself).

And some have to ASK if he is gay!!

[quote]R47 I think what hampered the film too was that Patty, Barbara and Sharon didn’t do any scenes where all three interacted.

In the book they’re all roommates for a time after HIT THE SKY opens. I don’t think the three are reunited after that. Anne stays friends with both, but separately.

You had to be there, OP. That's all there is to it.

[quote]R48 It makes Neely’s line about Jennifer calling her to ask where she could get an abortion ridiculous, since it’s barely established that they’re friends.

In the book, Neely isn’t fired from Helen’s show. So she and Jennifer work together 8 times a week for a whole Broadway season.

It’s another performer, a sexy redhead named Terry, that Helen gets axed for being too good. During tryouts in New Haven Anne suggests Neely (who’s in the chorus) take over the part and Helen backs her up because they’re friends. And Neely - who’s small and not obviously pretty - doesn’t seem like a threat to Helen.

While she’s still in the show Neely does a nightclub act that’s a sensation, and that’s what launches her to Hollywood. (But I’m getting off track.)

[quote] Also poor Susan Hayward just came off so bizarrely in this...

??? What? Susan Hayward is in this movie? You're getting her confused with Helen Lawson?

Helen playing herself in this flick was a huge leap forward for Hollywood (and foreshadowed the whole Reality TV craze!) Unfortunately it was decided she wasn’t Oscar eligible unless the movie was entered in competition as a documentary.

This caused bitterness all around.

Neely O'Hara was of course based on Judy Garland, but also on Betty Hutton. Hutton ruined her career with pills and nutcase behavior.

Anne Welles was inspired by Grace Kelly but also inspired by a sort of cleaned-up fantasy version of Jacqueline Susann herself, who imagined herself to be from an upper-class background.

Jennifer North was Marilyn Monroe and also Carole Landis, a 1940s starlet who Susann had an affair with.

Helen Lawson was Ethel Merman - loud, crass, coarse and obnoxious.

Tony Polar was based on Dean Martin, who Jackie Susann was acquainted with and she thought he was retarded.

It’s on TCM right now.

Neely just got the rings around BOTH of ‘em!

The screenplay is atrocious, cheesy and tacky.

The billing over the opening film title should’ve been: Starring “HAIRSPRAY”!

Sharon Taste’s looks and style we’re so ahead of their time.

I could envision even Polly Bergen In the Helen Lawson role.

Patty Duke reminds me of Eva Gabor in this.

^Woops, I must’ve written that while on whatever Patty’s character was on!

v

“Sharon Tate’s looks and style were so ahead of their time.”

Patty Duke's performance is atrocious in this. And she must've thought she was a shoe-in for an Oscar nomination when she was filming it! How embarrassing.

[quote]I'm unsure who else they might have auditioned for that role besides Patty, but somehow I felt the film would've been a bit more tolerable if someone else had place it.

Sally Field

AIRPLANE was better

The other “F” word thrown around a bit too much but its a fun movie and she was so beautiful Sharon Tate-just perfect.

R1 I feel badly for your loss when it comes to this time-capsule on film. I'll get in moods where I can live through this movie for days. Usually no more than 2 in a row, but by the 3rd showing I'm singing with the whole damned thing and it's just fun.

These periods tend to revolve around medical/dental procedures that knock me out for a few days at a pop.

OP, turn in your gay card.

R43, Joan would've played a brilliant Helen Lawson.

Jacqueline Susann said if she knew Joan Crawford, while writing the novel, Helen Lawson would've been a monster.

I found it terribly sad and depressing.

My favorite camp is ‘Love Has Many Faces’,’Picnic’ and ‘Written on the Wind’. 💨

I wish someone would make a limited series of it giving the book the treatment it deserves. It should be 6 hours, max. It should stick to the period in the book, from post-WWII to the late 50s. Get a decent script some good actors, and a good director. It's not going to happen because the book (like Hollywood during that period) is too white. It doesn't work with race-blind casting.

R70, let's have a casting thread!

It was and remains a fun ride. In respect to watching the film, Once Is Not Enough!

If you don't get the high camp of Neely and Tony's duet in the "nuthouse," there's no hope for you.

When it comes to popular, best-selling novels, there’s trash.

But then there is great trash, transcendent trash, trash that is nearly sublime in its perfection. Valley of the Dolls is such trash as is Mario Puzo’s The Godfather and Herman Wouk’s Marjorie Morningstar.

I was born the same day the book was published. Finding this out answered more existential questions for me than two years of so-called transformative work. Tinker,Tailor, Toiler, Neeley. All of it meant something after all. Ah, Internet - more useful than we realize!

Rep 57: Carole Landis committed suicide in 1948 because Rex Harrison wouldn't leave his wife for her.

Lip-synching:

Patty Duke couldn't sing. That didn't stop her. She made several albums during the run of her tv show. Susan Hayward was dubbed by Margaret Whiting.

According to the poster of this video URL, Hayward did her own singing for this number from I'll Cry Tomorrow. The poster substituted the film's mono soundtrack for a stereo one from a CD. It sounds great but looks off visually from where certain instruments are placed on the soundtrack.

I agree that this would be a great limited series on Max or Netflix, but it would have to stay true to the book which takes place from 1945-1965. I have no idea who could play Helen Lawson, though.

Emma Stone is Neeley O'Hara; Dakota Johnson as Anne Welles; Sydney Sweeney as Jennifer and Anne Hathaway as Helen Lawson

Look, fun is fun, and there’s plenty of the kitschy brand to be had from the riot of late-‘60s production design and lurid plot developments. Slant Magazine Eric Henderson

Valley of the Dolls is a great movie in the very same way that Showgirls is a great movie. Rent it and howl. You won’t want to miss a word of the deliciously bad dialogue in this Hollywood tale of twisted sisters.-Austin Chronicle

There are a lot of movies that I would never sit through again like Oppenheimer, Barbie, Everything Everywhere All at Once, The Shape of Water, Lincoln, Rain Man, Rich Crazy Asians . . . but Valley of the Dolls I've seen numerous times, and I always find something new and always laugh and I'm always amazed.

I think I first saw it on network TV, maybe the first time it aired. Early '70s?

At the time it felt like a foreign film's take on America.

The one, the *only*...

I've seen VOTD so many times I know every line. And it still makes me laugh. It's such an insane and absurd movie. They were all acting like they were going for the Oscar and it turned out to be the funniest unintentional comedy ever made.

Nealy arrives at the Castro Theater

My take on Patty's Neely is that, aside from VOTD, Duke was a wonderfully talented actress, and yes, gave a horrendously bad performance, but the type of performance that only a wonderful actress could give if led astray by a horrible director.

In some interview, (maybe her book, maybe in the clip above?), Patty said that Mark Robson, the director, was the meanest man she'd ever met! So that could partially explain what ended up on screen.

After revisiting them again during the pandemic, I vowed never to watch Valley of the Dolls or Mommie Dearest again.

Life’s too short.