At least, as far as I know, on film!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Darlings, when an actor signs on for a role, he or she has no idea that it could turn out to be the role of their lifetime! So, when Virginia Leith accepted the role of the talking, disembodied head of the mad scientist's fiancé, whose life he is trying to save, resulting from a car accident, in the 1962 classic "The Brain That Wouldn't Die!," she had no idea it would be her signature role!
I mean, she made her debut as the local peasant girl in Stanley Kubrick's first film, 1953's "Fear And Desire." Very promising.
But after this 1962 gem, folks thought only of her as a disembodied head. And let me tell you, in this film, the head gets the best lines!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have to see this film to believe it!
Especially since Virginia left us, this past November 4, at the age of 94!
Rest In Peace, Virginia Leith!
Your performance was decaptivating, darling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stanley Kubrick was responsible for at least two movies I wish I could un-see:
ReplyDeleteA Clockwork Orange, The Shining,
Don't forget her in "A Kiss Before Dying." She got the goods on Robert Wagner!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI saw the remake of "A Kiss Before Dying,"
not the original. Read the Ira Levin novel,
too. I am sure she was wonderful in this!
Raving Queen, I just watched "The Brain that Wouldn't Die" just because of your blog. It was great campy fun! Of course it wasn't a "good" film but a perfectly phony flick that combined the lewd and the ridiculous. Nevertheless, Virginia Leith was good -- even rather endearing -- as a doesn't wanna-be monster!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteDenise,
I agree with you on all points.
What you specifically said about
Virginia's performance makes
is what makes it so special!
There's also another very notable person in that wonderfully trash film: Eddie Carmel who played the monster in the closet. He was commonly called "The Jewish Giant" and was the subject of a photo by Diane Arbus entitled "The Jewish Giant at Home With His Parents."
ReplyDeleteI want to add that it is possible for cheap, trashy films to be to some extent redeemed by unexpectedly strong performances. That of Virginia Leith in "Brain" is a case in point; that of the tragic Barbara Payton in "Bride of the Gorilla" is another.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteDenise,
All you say is true.
Don't forget Anne Bancrfot in
"Gorilla At Large!"
An interesting coincidence: Raymond Burr had major roles in both "Bride of the Gorilla" and "Gorilla At Large."
ReplyDeleteRaving Queen, haven't we come along way fr/our Alice Crimmins back & forth?
ReplyDeleteDenise,
I had forgotten Burr was in "Gorilla
At Large." I have never seen "Bride
Of The Gorilla," though would love to.
The only great film Burr was in was
Hitchcock's "Rear Window.
Funny you should mention Alice.
I was just talking about her with
a neighbor of mine--who is a lawyer!
You can see "Bride of the Gorilla" here:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYlPPk2u2lw
A small journal called "The Hatchet" published an essay I wrote about "Bride of the Gorilla."
Did your lawyer neighbor have any opinion about Alice's guilt or innocence?
ReplyDeleteDenise,
Thanks for the info on "Bride Of The Gorilla."
I have heard of "The Hatchet," have seen it on
line, so I will look for it.
As for my lawyer friend, she asked me if I
would be ready to accept Alice only killing
her daughter. I cannot deny that is a possibility,
but there is no proof she had help. Alice did what
she did. Why would she need help.
And I still think she is a round heeled slattern!
"Bride of the Gorilla" can be seen on YouTube. My essay can be found here:
ReplyDeletehttp://lizzieandrewborden.com/HatchetOnline/LiteraryHatchet/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/LiteraryHatchet11.pdf
Re: the Crimmins case. The prosecutions's theory was that she killed Missy in a fit of anger, then called a boyfriend to explain the situation and beg for help. The boyfriend allegedly sent over a "hit man" who murdered little Eddie to silence him. According to Joe Rorech, Alice confessed, "Forgive me, Joe, I killed her." She supposedly added, "I didn't kill him, I agreed to it." When Rorech testified to this in court, Alice rose to her feet and screamed, "Joseph! How can you say this? This is not true! You of all people!" At the 2nd trial, she screamed, "You miserable, lying worm!"
IF she was guilty, she would have had to have had "help" because the bodies were found in different places and Eddie's had to be left there after she was already interacting w/the cops.
ReplyDeleteDenise,
Will check out the film and essay.
As for Alice, on paper it plays out, and I
can picture the whole thing happening as
described; I am just not quite ready to accept
it. Even if she only killed Missy, infanticide
by a mother is heinous, and she should suffer
the rest of her life for that! Tramp!
Guilty or innocent, she HAS suffered a great deal because of her children's death. She sobbed uncontrollably in the courtroom as their bodies were described. There is no question she was affected by their deaths.
ReplyDeleteAgain, it was the PROSECUTION that alleged that she killed Missy and "agreed to" the killing of Eddie.
Of course, it is also quite possible -- at least IMO -- that she is innocent. The kids could have been enticed out the window by a pedophile and murdered after being sexually abused (or at least one of them). That abductor wouldn't have to have been a stranger to the kids. It's possible that one of Alice's multitude of dates had a thing for children and, after having his fill of Alice, decided to come back to abuse Missy and/or Eddie. As I said, I just don't know what happened but I think an abduction for molestation is quite possible.
ReplyDeleteDenise,
I have to agree that all you lay
out is plausible, and makes sense.
There is just no way--especially now--
to prove it. And Alice refused to
talk once she was released. Only she
holds the key.
If there was a pedophile in the neighborhood,
I am sure the Crimmins kids would not have been
the first, and word would have spread.
Had it been one of Alice's dates, there still
might have been a history.
But none has ever been found.
I know you lean toward Alice's
innocence. Then Alice needs to step
up and say something now, while still
alive. Though I doubt she ever will.
I tend to view her as a precursor to Susan
Smith, or Casey Anthony.
Actually, I believe there's at lest a 50% possibility that Alice does NOT "hold the key" because she doesn't know what happened to her kids. Quite simply, she didn't know the person who abducted her kids or did know him but didn't know he was the one who took them. It should be noted that, even after she was proved, she tried for vindication but the court ruled she could appeal no further. Since legal vindication was impossible -- and she knew that a book or newspaper couldn't legally clear her -- she decided to just become a private person again.
ReplyDeleteI tend to believe that the pedophile murderer -- assuming there was one -- just took off for other environs after the case broke. That is, if he didn't commit suicide or get incarcerated or committed. I don't know what happened and don't rule out the possibility that she was guilty. However, if she was NOT guilty, her talking at this point would clear nothing up. I believe we'll just never know what happened to those poor little children.
Actually, I believe there's at lest a 50% possibility that Alice does NOT "hold the key" because she doesn't know what happened to her kids. Quite simply, she didn't know the person who abducted her kids or did know him but didn't know he was the one who took them. It should be noted that, even after she was proved, she tried for vindication but the court ruled she could appeal no further. Since legal vindication was impossible -- and she knew that a book or newspaper couldn't legally clear her -- she decided to just become a private person again.
ReplyDeleteI tend to believe that the pedophile murderer -- assuming there was one -- just took off for other environs after the case broke. That is, if he didn't commit suicide or get incarcerated or committed. I don't know what happened and don't rule out the possibility that she was guilty. However, if she was NOT guilty, her talking at this point would clear nothing up. I believe we'll just never know what happened to those poor little children.
ReplyDeleteDenise,
I have to agree that we probably will never know,
as you said. What amazes me is that, with improvements
in forensic science, technology and DNA, nothing can
be found out.
Had the happened now,greater certainty might well be possible. The case has been officially closed for many years. Additionally,much of the physical evidence has degraded with time.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteDenise,
Well, that clinches it.
If the physical evidence has
degrades with time, and I agree
with you there, then not much can
be done.
Which will always leave me to wonder....
Are you interested in my Trip to Willoughby essay?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteDenise,
I would love to read it.
Send me an email and I will send it to you
ReplyDeleteIt is a long essay. I can't very well just post it in a comment -- or can I?
ReplyDeleteHow should I send it to you?
ReplyDeleteDenise,
I have no doubt it is
lengthy; there are myriad
things to cover. Not sure
how you should send it;
I will have to get back to
you on that one.
Does the start make U want 2 read more?
ReplyDelete“A Stop At Willoughby” Exposes Horror Possible In the Male Role and Nostalgia
One of TZ’s most effective episodes was “A Stop At Willoughby” that first aired May 6, 1960. It opens in a boardroom. At the head of the table is Mr. Misrell (Howard Smith). The camera focuses on anxious looking Gart Williams (James Daly).
Speaking to Gart, Misrell observes, “We’re still waiting for your Mr. Ross.”
Gart goes to a phone where he calls someone and asks questions about Ross. After the call, Gart grimaces. There is a knock at the door. Gart answers. Someone hands him a letter. Gart says, “This is a communication from Jake Ross. . . . He’s resigned, moving to another agency -- and taking the automobile account with him.”
Misrell explodes, “Your pet project backfired!. . . This is a push-push-push business!”
“Pushed” passed his limits, Gart screams, “Fat boy, why don’t you shut your mouth!” Gart flees the room, entering a secretarial pool.
A worker asks if Gart wants anything. “A razor and a chart of the human anatomy showing where the arteries are,” he replies, bitterly joking about suicide. He goes into his personal office.
Serling states: “This is Gart Williams, age thirty-eight, a man protected by a suit of armor, all held together by one bolt. Just a moment ago, someone removed the bolt, and Mr. Williams’ protection fell away from him and left him a naked target. He’s been cannonaded this afternoon by all the enemies of his life. His insecurity had shelled him, his sensitivity has straddled him with humiliation, his deep-rooted disquiet about his own worth has zeroed in on him, landed on target, and blown him apart. Mr. Gart Williams, ad agency exec who, in just a moment, will move into The Twilight Zone in a desperate search for survival.”
Excellent acting helps make the forgoing scene powerful. Daly is sympathetic as the stressed-out executive; Smith plays the overbearing boss perfectly. The name “Misrell” suggests “misery.”
The next scene finds Gart on a commuter train. The middle-aged conductor (Jason Wingreen), asks Gart how he is. Gart fibs, “In the absolute pink.” The two chat about the winter weather; the audience sees snow through the window.
Misrell’s “push push push” plays through Gart’s mind. Gart blurts, “That’s enough!” Gart is embarrassed to realize he has said it aloud.
Gart takes a nap. Awakening, he is puzzled to see an oddly old-fashioned lamp on the ceiling. An elderly conductor (James Maloney) calls out, “Willoughby!” At the time he makes this call, the train is deserted except for the conductor and Gart.
Looking out the window, Gart sees a scene bathed in sunshine: people wear late 19th Century clothing, a dog barks, two boys (Billy Booth and Butch Hengen) walk holding fishing poles, and carriage driver (Max Slaten) waves at Gart.
Gart asks the conductor, “Where is Willoughby?”
“That’s Willoughby right outside,” the conductor answers.
Gart says he cannot understand the sunshine in November. The conductor says it is “July 1888.” Gart again inquires about Willoughby and the conductor explains, “It’s really a lovely little village – peaceful, restful, where a man can slow down to a walk and live his life full measure.”
Gart awakens a second time. He sees the original conductor who is calling, “Westport Saugatuck!”
Baffled, Gart asks, “You ever hear of a town called Willoughby?”
The conductor states, “There’s no Willoughby on this line.”
ReplyDeleteDenise,
Yes, you have got me hooked. There are
still plenty of Missrells, and I have
experienced some. They are hateful.
However, I hope you stop to realize that
the real villain of the piece is that Janie,
his wife. Just like women who are still out
there today--going to college just to get an
MRS degree, and then expect to get everything
they want and supply a few children along the way.
It was more common during this story' s time, and
it is still relevant now.
I was so happy when Garth told off Missrell.
He should have told off Janie, too. He should
have gone home, smacked her across the face,
then thrown all her clothes into the street, and
her with them
Actually I have always wanted to write a sequel
where Janie gets her comeuppance. It would go like
this. After the funeral, she is not left with much,
since it was a suicide. She downsizes, is forced to
live in some cheap walk up above a bar, where she
becomes a regular. Eventually, she becomes a
prostitute, and one night she is found dead in
the snow...like Garth? Is it murder or suicide?
Janie deserves this. I have been where Garth is at
many points in my life. Thank God I never considered
suicide an option. But I get his yearning for a simper
life!
I discuss Janie's villainy in my essay. However, there are layers of ambiguity in her character that I also discuss. If you wish to read the essay in its entirety, please email me -- FROM an email -- at denisenoe@aol.com and I will send it to you.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteDenise,
Kudos for discussing Janie. However, I don't
know about ambiguity. One thing I will say for
her--she is very straightforward, and one
knows what one is dealing with, right away.
Of course I will send from an email, but I
must discuss this with my husband. I worry
about ethics.