I was introduced to "Mildred Pierce," first seeing the classic Joan Crawford movie. At the time, I was too young to be reading James M. Cain, even if a copy of his novel could have been found. The initial impact of the movie, on me, was that celebrated opening upward shot, of Joan, perched on the bridge, contemplating suicide, and, of course, daughter Veda, the bitch my future gay self could recognized as one I could relate to, and wanted to be. Ann Blyth just captivated me!
As the Cult Of Joan grew, and the camp fondness for the film, Cain's novels were reissued in print. This is the edition of "Mildred Pierce" I own, and if I put the front and back covers together, it becomes one revealing, panel, saying all about the story. Who could imagine that Monty, played so dashingly in the film by the great Zachary Scott, could be so seedy??????????
Well, surprise, surprise!!!!!!!!!!! If you think the book and movie are the same, think again.
Let's start with what is similar. The younger daughter does die. Though here she is called "Ray," (because everyone in this book is too uneducated to correctly pronounce her actual first name, which is Moire. Reminds me of the Jewish word, "moil!!!!!!!!!!") not "Kay," as she is in the movie. And her death is caused by the flu, not pneumonia. Mildred and Bert do get divorced, but their emotional connection remains. Their last words, which I will discuss, are a hoot!
No one get killed in this novel. But Mildred certainly gets around. Sure, that scene in the movie, at Monty's beach house, with the record playing "Now, Voyager," and then, later when Mildred catches Monty with Veda, implies something, but Cain goes much further. I mean, not to the level of Harold Robbins, but pretty close. And she sleeps with Wally, who here is given a different last name than Fay--Burgan. I mean, when I read this, all I could picture was Joan and Jack Carson naked--Ewwwwwwwwww!!!!!!!! Yes, Veda extorts money from Mrs. Forrester for supposedly being knocked up by her son, but by this point, she has married up, to a film director, and is no longer "Forrester." Veda's trampy friend, Elaine, is transformed into Miriam Ellis in the movie, played so memorably by Veda Ann Borg.
Yes, Veda and Mildred have that famous fight we all know and love from the movie. But the dynamics are different. There is this constant pull of love and hate going back and forth between them, through the novel. Like each cannot pull away from the other. In the movie, it was only Mildred who feared severing ties. As for Veda, Cain loses the gist of what makes her a campy bitch which the movie gets right--she is so haughty, but has no reason to be, because of what she came from, and is reduced to working in Wally's club, where I am sure he slept with her. Even Monty in the movie has it right, when he tells her "You really don't think I could be in love with a rotten little tramp, like you!" Right on, Monty! He, like everyone, has been on to Veda from the start.
Veda in the movie does not realize she is a walking paean to mediocrity, and that prison actually is the only place for her. What a surprise in the novel to find out Veda actually has musical talent, enough to make it as a second tier opera singer, and, when the novel ends, she runs off, with Monty, to pursue this career, with Mildred back with Bert, tossing back drinks, and saying, of Veda, "To hell with her!!!!!!!!!" Can you believe it? If this had been developed in the movie, Veda would have had to be played by either Deanna Durbin, or Gloria Jean. Can you imagine?
For me, the most surprising difference is the character of Ida Corwin. Though portrayed, in the novel, as someone shrewd and sarcastic enough to rattle off the lines Eve Arden does in the movie, the novel's Ida has no warmth. She and Mildred are not close, nor is Ida her right hand woman. Instead, Ida screws Mildred out of business so she can buy a restaurant for herself. And she says none of the witty lines from the move.
Some lines remain. Like my two favorite Veda remarks; the one about Mrs. Biederhof being "distinctly middle class," and "Aren't the cakes and pies enough? Do you have to degrade us?"
Veda is a better bitch in the movie, because she fails to realizes she will never be but one step beyond Goat Alley, and she does get her comeuppance.
Though, it seems she does not, in the novel, it is just possible, that she might, as Cain suggests. Where do she and Monty run off to? New York City! A place which is known to eat aspiring artists, alive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I should know, darlings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THAT"S the stick in the eye I couldn't remember: Veda as an opera singer!
ReplyDeleteI've been wracking my brain recently, trying to remember why exactly the ambitious, classy 2011 HBO remake of "Mildred Pierce" with Kate Winslet and Even Rachel Wood didn't quite come off. At first, I thought perhaps the otherwise-superb Wood was miscast: ironically too good of an actress for the Veda role, which requires a touch of clueless vanity and ineptitude to pull off.
But you've put your finger on the crux of it by reminding me of the "Veda becomes an opera singer" subplot: THAT is precisely what drives the remake off the rails. While it reads well enough in novel form, that is partly due to Cain's brilliance at incisive brevity on the page. Also, at the time it was written, "opera singer" was still seen as a credible, elite cultural goal to aspire toward (and even the denizens of goat alley could comprehend the superiority of it).
Realized on film today, despite being a period piece, that subplot is not only completely risible and unrealistic but dramatically inert and DOA. Approaching the adaptation as a miniseries instead of a movie inevitably led to bloating, and the "Veda becomes a third-rate Maria Callas" storyline comprised most of the dead weight. Every time they allude to this, the whole shebang comes to a grinding halt and the viewer begins to doze off. It doesn't help that Wood is physically frail-looking and tiny: its impossible to take her seriously as a Kate Smith-class belter (she seems more like a forest nymph who wandered in from an adjoining "Midsummer Nights Dream" soundstage).
Throw in Winslet's misguided, dour, thick-waisted Mildred interpretation, and Mare Winningham's book-faithful dull Ida, and you're left with nothing to hold your interest beyond Todd Hayne's trademark flair for period costumes & set design. Melissa Leo, as usual, goes all in with her Lucy Kessler, but even she can't save this torpid misfire of a production.
HBO could have cut the running time in half by sticking to the wise alterations made in the Crawford adaptation. Sadly they did not, succumbing instead to the pompous trap of "we're going to be 100% faithful to the book, right down to every "and" and "the," so it will be so much better than that trashy earlier version". The exact same mistake made by nearly every remake in cinema/tv history. "New Hollywood" never learns: despite constant claims of butchery and hackwork back in the old days, the "crass" studio system perfected the art of translating book to screen. Slavish faithfulness to the page rarely makes for an entertaining or gripping visual work (someone really needs to get thru to Stephen King on this point, so he stops trying to remake all previous adaptations of his own horrendously bloated novels).
ReplyDeleteMelissa Leo as Lucy Kessler?
Now, that might be worth watching.
Cain's brevity was a virtue, and so
was Warners pairing down the story.
The movie made better use of Ida,
and it made sense to have Wally
screw Mildred over, business-wise.
I must say I am curious to read
Cain's other two works, comparing
them with their film versions.
And he has one, whose title alone--
because of the whole Alice Crimmins thing--
makes it worth it--"The Cocktail Waitress!!!!!!!!"