Body double and bikini


I saw this film again last night for the first time in decades and still liked it, although the direction was clumsy and the choice of stock music in several scenes was dumbfoundingly inappropriate.

Anyway, a couple of things about the two principle actresses in the movie.

First, I can't find who played the "Visitor" as her good old mutant self. Salome Jens played both the real nurse (briefly) and then the Visitor-having-stolen-her-face-and-assumed-the-nurse's-identity. But they're obviously, originally, two different women, since they're initially seen in the same scene together and (lest you think this a use of a body double), the original, stalking Visitor has an entirely different build from Ms. Jens: lithe, angular, spry, with a longer, narrower face, in contrast to Ms. Jens's more voluptuous figure, round face, different height, build, walk, etc. Clearly they are not the same woman, and the concept of the Visitor lifting the nurse's face -- literally -- while cool, would have worked better if they'd used two actresses of about the same proportions. But back to the original issue -- who played the real, lithe Visitor? Not listed in the credits here on IMDb.

On a separate subject, there was no need for any sort of body double for Joyce Holden as Claire Erling. She was a very beautiful and quietly but intensely sexy woman (and, as another thread here says, her first kiss with Bob is a pretty steamy scene for this type of film from this period). I was also impressed by her slightly sexier than expected one-piece swimsuit in her first swimming scene, but completely knocked over by her 1958 bikini in her next lagoon scene. That was very rare in those days and while the suit is tame by today's standards it was really something back then. (I didn't remember that shot from seeing this movie as a kid: where were my priorities?) She had a great body and without knowing the competiton it's little wonder she won the "Miss Los Angeles" beauty contest in 1949 (and another one as well). I've seen Joyce in a few films -- this was her last -- and I'm glad she finaly got to show herself to good advantage on screen, even in a low-budget sci-fi like this. Good actress, too, better than this film deserved. She had been signed to Universal in the early 50s and that studio wasted her for five years before dropping her option. They really had something and were too blind to see it. A shame.

reply

Did filming a drive-in movie in Florida allow for more liberal scenes? Was this movie only released in, say, the South or in bits and pieces around the country? Thus quickly closing if the American Taliban threatened to burn down the drive-in. Not being made in Hollywood would mean less interaction with censors? I'm asking. Don't know.

The boring Wild Women Of Wongo was filmed in what looks like Florida and supposedly had some nudity. Have never seen that version, if it exists.

reply

Interesting question. My guess is that, since this was an independent feature sold to AIP for distribution, and not a "studio film" as such, they probably could get away with a bit more than they could have making the movie through "normal channels". I doubt anyone in the drive-in crowd would have objected to those bikini shots.

The late actor Robert Clarke wrote in his autobiography that on his 1960 film Beyond the Time Barrier, they shot some nude swimming scenes with his leading lady Darlene Tompkins, for European prints of the movie. They filmed the scenes at night in Clarke's own pool at his house (he was also the film's producer), with the site sealed off with plywood or something to prevent curious neighbors from peering in. He and his wife stayed indoors all along and he said he never saw either the actress or the nude scenes she filmed. If they exist, I've never seen them in the US. They're not in my copy of the movie.

reply

First I must say I have not seen this title since the 60's (although I do have the trailer on a DVD) however I might propose the name of a person who might have been that body double you speak of and that would be Beatrice Gurney who held a couple of behind the scene positions.

There's no way I can prove that but since she was there and already was wearing two hats, it is possible she also wore the spangled tights of The Visitor.

This is, apparently, Miss Gurney's only credit. Whether she had ambitions of going further as an actress or in motion picture production we may never know. But if I were the Producer and needed an extra person to do a bit part, I would have asked her since she was already so cooperative working the other departments.

She, it would seem, was either wife, sister or mother of the director.

I won't go on, as this is only a guess and unless someone on the show or Miss Gurney herself were to speak up, we'll never know for sure.

reply

Maybe. An interesting line of investigation. I suppose it could've been anybody, but using someone connected with the film in some other capacity, doubling as the double, would seem a logical step for a low-budgeter.

reply

It certainly happens, even in Big Budget films.

Now, close ups stills I've seen of the Visitor surely looked like a poorly made up Salome Jens. The eyes mostly.

As I said, I have not seen the movie in ages and cannot not compare the torsos as you have.

I'll see if I can run it down. Be fun to see it.

And imagine ogling a woman's physique for "scientific reasons"!

reply

"And imagine ogling a woman's physique for 'scientific reasons'"!

They call them gynocologists.

reply

Here is a curious entry for Ms Gurney that reads "also actor"

http://www.mst3kinfo.com/daddyo/di_807.html

Unfortunately there is no mention of the source of that detail. However, I think it is a good lead.

reply

Beatrice Gurney is Beatrice Furdeaux, who is indeed listed in the cast here as "Miss Blake". The MST3K link you provided also listed her among the cast as "Beatrice Gurney, a.k.a. Beatrice Furdeaux", after giving her production credits under the name Gurney further up the page. (Esc, you didn't scroll down quite far enough!!)

Evidently she was married to Robert Gurney, and she acted in two other of his movies under what I presume is her maiden name, Furdeaux. (IMDb says she was also known as "Furdaux".) In those and his other films (about 5 or 6 in all) she was employed primarily in some behind-the-camera capacities.

I can't remember who "Miss Blake" was in the film, which I haven't seen in some years, but I do have it and can check at some point down the road. But since Miss Furdeaux/Gurney is credited in the film only under the character "Miss Blake", she probably didn't play the real nurse...though, to save money, you never know what her cheapskate hubby may have asked her to do. When I watch it again, I'll have to compare the looks and builds of Miss Blake and the real nurse to see if they could be the same actress.

Salome Jens is credited as playing both the nurse and the Terror, but it's uncertain whether that means she played the real nurse or the fake nurse. Clearly, as I've said, the real nurse seen very briefly is of an entirely different build from Miss Jens, so I take the cast list as meaning Jens played the dual role of the Terror disguised as the fake nurse, not two separate parts, which would have required her to attack herself in the woods.

(I was going to title this entry "Double Trouble", but that would have brought us back to Superman!)

reply

...the blind detective!

Good sleuthing on your part, HOB.

Let me know what you see after dusting off your copy and repeatedly hitting that pause button.

I think Gurney, aka Furdeaux the Furdax, is still a good suspect. Quite franky, the prime suspect!

"Beatrice Gurney, or whatever you call yourself...don't leave town."

reply

...because it's gonna take me a long time to roll across The Pond and wheel out a copy. Weeks, at a minimum. So bear with me, and keep after me.

Fortunately, The Terror will still be The Terror, at least for the next 2988 years.

Personally, I liked the dead radioactive mutant cat they sent back first.

reply

There was a series of collector cards from Americian - International monster movies and I remember the one of the dead 4-eyed cat in a suitcase or box. Something weird going on here!


Well, meanwhile I hope you lose no sleep over this little mystery you discovered. I think you can look forward to solving it once you get to see the movie anew.

Again, I have not seen this title since the 60's, but it seems like it is a movie with some good ideas that went awry.

What? -- am I wrong?




reply

No, this isn't a bad film, just suffers from its limited budget. It's atmospheric (radioactive and otherwise), and the notion of building a time chamber capable of trading objects with the future is a realy neat, spooky one.

My chief memory of this for decades was the Terror using her glittering fingernails to hypnotize the doctor (or whoever it is who needs the nurse), explaining the state of affairs on her Earth of the year 5000. It was still a cool sight when I finally saw it again after 40 years.

Ultimately, the only lesson the scientists of 1958 could draw was that men had to learn to live in peace, to avoid the future that Ms. Terror embodied. This was after she was safely dead, but they still had the body for such proof as it was worth. Of course, as far as their personal lives went, the people in 1958 didn't have to worry about conditions in 5000. They just shut down the time machine even more readily than we turn off the TV when an ad about destitute Bangladeshi children comes on.

The only place I've ever seen this movie for sale is Movies Unlimited, where they have it for a somewhat pricey $24.99. I guess it could be found elsewhere, but for whatever reason it's not a big title. I suppose the price reflects estimated inflation to 5000.

reply

Many time travel movies pull the "that-is-one-possible-future" card. I do not know if that is ever pronounced or hinted at in this title.

This one seems to come from a nihilist mindset. But it would seem that even the writer feels "safe" because that condition is so far into the future. He could enjoy his Jell-O and tsk-tsk the poor saps thousands of years ahead of the Year of the Edsel.

But, make no mistake, he was a visionary. He was no scientist and had to come up with some mumbo-jumbo to try and fool the audience as to how all this time travel exchange was possible, yak, yak, yak. OK, so the deus ex machina was creaky and apparently it doesn't work for the more serious minded audience member at all!

That does not take away from the points you, and a few others have brought up. And those "good parts" are really the meat of the movie. The creepy parts. It wasn't meant -- I do not believe -- to be more than a horror movie for patrons of the drive-in passion pit. And perhaps not wishing to end up sounding like a frantic prophet of doom like Dr. Miles Bennell at the end of 1956's Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the story is laid out and left without comment for the alert, dateless men and women to consider.

Maybe the anti-nuclear protesters of the 50's and 60's (and beyond) were spawned by this and other movies like it.

But I won't place too much importance on Terror from the Year 5000 other than to say it was a creepy movie. And apparently the message, if it was meant to carry one, failed. Things have not changed, men have not learned to live in peace, to avoid the future presented herein.

Pass the Jell-O?

reply

Indeed.

What's interesting is that time-travel tales all seem to envision an apocalyptic future, often post-nuclear. From the 50s and 60s, Terror From the Year 5000, The Time Machine, World Without End, Beyond the Time Barrier, The Time Travelers, Planet of the Apes all have this aspect in common. It seems as though no one can postulate a rosy future. Though not a time-travel drama, Things to Come is another expression of this downbeat prognosis.

Interestingly, this is also a theme in some sci-fi films that concern not time travel, but conditions on other planets, all of which have been beset by atomic warfare: Rocketship X-M, This Island Earth, Not of This Earth. It's a rather startling commonality running between these and many other such films. It seems the future is unremittingly bleak, subject perhaps only to the occasional hopeful sign that out of calamity a new and wiser world might emerge from the ashes. (See also The Martian Chronicles.)

Maybe this is why Star Trek and all its descendants have proven so popular: the series offers a hopeful, upbeat look at mankind, having overcome his baser instincts and survived without annihilating warfare, now moving out into the cosmos spreading the word of peace and brotherhood. Yes, there's still strife and warfare (Khaaaaaaaaaaaan!!), still battles to be fought, still human problems. But it shows we can, at some cost, move ahead and bring a better future into reality.

We're getting pretty deep for a board on the site of Terror From the Year 5000! But see? Yet another hopeful sign.

reply

Once again, I must agree with you. The clean and green Star Trek universe certainly is presented as being appealing, zooming through the cosmos in a wide body rumpus room with friends watching TV, a far cry from the Do-It-Yourself world of the titles you mentioned -- and allow me to say that we would be remiss to forget Captive Women, aka, 1,000 Years from Now (1952).

I don't think we are going too far in giving this chintzy movie too much thought. May I submit that the writer may have thought about the old saw, a variation being, "If we forget the mistakes of the past, we are doomed to repeat them". Well, it seems he turned it inside out and went to the other end of time and the "artifacts of the future" point to a wasted land.

Well, that's an interesting concept right thar, Babalouie.

Everyone was terrified by the photographic evidence of the distruction of Hiroshima seen in the inescapable magazines of the 50's and the idea of ending up a festering heap dwelt in the minds of every citizen, if only tucked away in the darkest and most remote corners. Naturally it would be a topic of movies, -- good and bad.

And maybe what these filmmakers were actually saying was "These are the best of times". Right cheer, right now.

There is something to say about "Today". . And I don't mean J. Fred Muggs.

reply

J. Fred Muggs???!!! I thought I'd already mentioned Planet of the Apes.

Good lord, how could I forget Captive Women? My mind must be disintegrating.*

I do think that if Mr. Gurney & crew could have exchanged some artifact from 1958 (like an Edsel "horse collar") for a gander at what we're writing here in 2012 (not to bring up a rival movie), they'd have been chuckling with astonishment, but also somehow be bewilderingly proud.

"People 54 years from now watching and talking about Terror From the Year 5000? Owning it so they can play it whenever they want? Wanting to play it? My God -- I'm immortal!!"

Come to think of it, Mr. G. is, according to IMDb, very much still alive (88 this year). Think he ever drops in on this site?



*By the bye, you know that Margaret Field died on Nov. 6? I posted something in her memory over on the Man From Planet X board.

reply

Well, I hope he does and all those other people that get write ups on these Boards.

Maybe Mr. Gurney missed on making movies, but it is the idea that counts, all that ever really counts. The idea has survived.

Now I actually look forward to seeing this title again. Ha! We've talked me into it!

I'm sorry for the Fields family. I hope Margaret knew how much her work was appreciated.



reply