MovieChat Forums > Dead Ringer (1964) Discussion > Bette Davis + Lawford- YUCK!!!

Bette Davis + Lawford- YUCK!!!


I'm going to get slammed for saying this, but I thought Bette looked AWFUL in this movie. She looked at least 65 to me, not 55. And I gagged when she & Lawford kissed!!! Seriously? Are you kidding me? What a mis-match!!!

reply

And yet, you like her with Lark Nedlram?

Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...

reply

She was 18yrs older than Peter...
The smoking and drinking did a number on all the actresses from the Golden Age-the trivia section says Davis smokes 16-18 cigarettes in this film..crazy.
All that smoke ruined their skin and aged them alll too quickly-it was said that Lana Turner smoked over 2packs a day even after diagnosed with cancer

reply

I am formerly known as HillieBoliday....Member since May 2006:

I think the way she looked fit her character perfectly. She was a deceitful, spoiled, selfish, gold digging woman!

The chemistry between her and Peter Lawford's character was; for Him.....her husband's money; and for Her.....His prowess in bed!

He was a gigolo....and she paid him to be her lover.

"OOhhhooo....I'M GON' TELL MAMA!

reply

No amount of money would be enough for me!

reply

Bette Davis is perfect in the part. There is nothing wrong with it. Peter Lawford plays the part of a gigolo and he is only interested in money so he'll go for any woman at any age and with any looks if he can get what he wants.

reply

I am formerly known as HillieBoliday.....Member since 2006:

SusanJL.... I totally get and understand that for you personally, you couldn't or wouldn't with Peter Lawford's character. But within the context of the character of Mrs. DeLorca, it's what she wanted and didn't mind paying for! He was virile, assertive, and somewhat handsome....I totally get why she chose him! And it's soooooo obvious why he chose her....for all that money!

Remember....Mrs. DeLorca lied, cheated and schemed to marry Mr. DeLorca, so consorting with the likes of Peter Lawford's character was not a stretch for her at all. I think Peter Lawford did an excellent job in the portrayal of that role, because he made so many female viewers dislike his character....that's GOOD acting!

I suspect (within the character of Mrs. DeLorca) prior to meeting Mr. DeLorca, she was probably a woman with very questionable morals. With that being said...Mr. DeLorca was no different than any other man. No matter what their status, social standing and personal convictions......the majority of them think with the "other head" (no offense intended) if you get my meaning! Although Mr. DeLorca was in LOVE with Edie; I can pretty much figure out how Maggie hooked him to begin with...doesn't take a rocket scietist to figure that one out.

For me personally I am a fan of Peter Lawford, have followed his career for decades, remember when he was very young and handsome....and have had the surprise pleasure of meeting him and talking with him about his role in this film...and how they shot the scene with the dog attack...he was a very nice man.

Check out how handsome and fine Peter Lawford was in "It Should Happen to You" with Judy Holiday, and Jack Lemmon, 1954. Oh...he was so suave and gorgeous!

Thanks...it's been fun!

"OOhhhooo....I'M GON' TELL MAMA!"

reply

I'm with you 1000% No matter how venal and immoral Peter Lawford's character is, I cannot imagine him lusting after Bette Davis' character at this stage of her career, whether Edie or Maggie. Her hair, her skin, her rather dumpy figure, that rasp of a voice - not the least bit erotic or inviting. Whoever dressed her should be shot - she could have looked far better although it would have taken some real finesse. Better was beautiful when young and just did not age well.

reply

I am formerly known as HillieBoliday.....Member since May 2006.


mach229....maybe you cannot imagine.....or maybe you just haven't lived long enough to know, observe or even read about how some men/women don't care what someone else looks like as long as their money is looooooooooonnnnnnnnnggggggg!

I have met gold diggers of all sorts, heard a few of their stories....laughed my head off at some of them, shook my head in utter disdain at most; so I don't have to imagine....trust me; they do exist, and some of then will tolerate ANYTHING to be reciprocated with the mean-green and what it can buy! That being said, I just think all the components of this movie fit perfectly together.

Oh...and by the way....the costuming for Maggie and Edie was spot on for 1964. The scenes with Maggie's "cheating on her husband" friend, DeeDee's suits, dresses, coats, hats, gloves, handbags, etc., were to die for during that era, when women dressed with elegance, grace and self-respect.

Although Costume Designer, Donfeld, created the costumes worn in this film; You can bet your last money, honey.....that Bette Davis had final word in what she would wear. He was also C.D. for "The Great Race," and the costumes Natalie Wood wore were gorgeous! That being said....maybe you should re-think the phrase about him being....shot.



"OOhhhooo....I'M GON' TELL MAMA!"

reply

necloeman - I defer to your clearly superior and obviously insider knowledge about golddiggers (if I may, a male "gold digger" is a gigolo but I'm sure you knew that) and wardrobes. My apologies for treading on your expertise. That said, and it is just my humble opinion so please don't take offense, is it at all possible that you misread my post? I did not suggest that there were no such things as gigolos, or that Peter Lawford's character would not have happily accepted the money Bette's character had to offer. My comment was that it seems highly improbable that he would have "lusted" after her, i.e. would have been turned on physically by her appearance. See the difference?
Also, whether or not she was expertly dressed by the Edith Head of Natalie Wood's most excellent costume designers, said designer did Bette no favors. I am not impressed by the suggestion that Bette would have had the last word on her wardrobe choices, nor am I in awe of your familiarity with the elegant styles of 1964. I agree wholeheartedly with the designs for Jean Hagen - she carried off the shallow rich woman with panache in that wardrobe; but Bette just looked dumpy. The cut, the lengths, the styles just did not work for her as the wealthy sister. For the poor sister, they were perfect but there was no recognition of Ms. Davis' middle-age shape which there surely would have been for other wealthy women in her position. (I too was alive in 1964 and can picture my grandmother in her Chanel-style suits which worked perfectly with her middle-aged figure.)
I stand by my comments.

reply

mach229....No superior knowledge, just meeting and coming into contact with a few golddiggers during my life's experiences. Within the context of the film....I never thought for a moment that Peter Lawford's character lusted after Maggie's physical appearance....on the contrary....he lusted after her money. I think (within his character) it's highly probable that he would pretend to be physically attracted to her to get close to the 'DeLorca Rock Pile'...(love that clever description..lol!) Your Yuck Factor is fine with me; just enjoying....what I thought....was a pleasant exchange about one of my favorite movies.

I don't care if you're not impressed by my suggestions in regards to my speculations about possible protests to her wardrobe. My comment was made to celebrate and pay homage to the fine actress I've read and know her to be and the power she had to get directors, cast, crew, et al to see things from her point of view. Would that include a wardrobe she did or did not like? I definitely think so!

I don't need you to be in awe of my familiarity of elegant styles of
1964. I am in awe of my own sense of style, and enjoy my extensive handbag collection from 30/40/50/60's. If my recollection is correct, the elegant styles worn by Maggie and her friend DeeDee were unfortunately going to slowly disappear by 1965/66 as women wearing hats, gloves, kelly bags, etc., made way for the fastly approaching bell bottomed/flower child/hippie era of fashions; and a more casual style of every day attire.

It is my humble opinion any costume designer on this film would've found it challenging to drape Ms. Davis' straight up and down, no hips, no backside and no waist figure, without having to put her in mu mu's. I hope you were able to preserve and wear your grandmother's Chanel-style suits as they would still be very elegant and fashionable today.

By all means....stand by your comments....you even have my permission to sit down by them too!



"Ohhhooo....I'M GON' TELL MAMA!"

reply

I always thought there was a bit of a difference between a golddigger of any gender and a gigolo.. as I equated it more with a 'kept woman'. I see a gigolo more as cougar bait.

reply

I am formerly known as HillieBoliday....Member since May 2006


Very good logical and explainable differentiation.....I think you are right!


"OOhhhooo....I'M GON' TELL MAMA!"

reply

He's lusting after her money!

reply

I agree with everything you said above, Susan!

Even larks and katydids are, supposed by some, to dream

reply

They weren't romantic lovers. He was a paid gigolo. Totally acceptable that he would be, and look younger. Although Lawford's own excesses were telling by that point!

reply

In "The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone", Vivian Leigh is older than Warren Beatty and in "Breakfast at Tiffany's" Patricia Neal is older than George Peppard, but they are still attractive women! Sadly Bette Davis looks just awful in this movie.

reply

well, Susan is right: Bette looks ridiculous with Lawford [who, by this time was pretty debauched himself]; the "chemistry" was naught and even though a make-up artist tried to "paint" Davis into youth,...it didn't work. Pity.

Even larks and katydids are, supposed by some, to dream

reply

Well, it doesn't make the film any less enjoyable to me. And remember, we never see Mrs. DeLorca w Lawford, only Eadie. And she's fairly repulsed by the situation.

Davis aged fast, and was never a great traditional beauty. Unless one is just coming upon her latter day work, her appearance is hardly a shock. And unlike Crawford--whom I admire a great deal--Davis never made a habit of appearing in films with younger leading men, or accepting scripts that had her character being lusted over. She actually went in the direction, purposely making herself less attractive. She did this even as a young actress, and frankly, did too much of it.

reply

As Margaret, she did look younger than she did as Edie. After Margaret's death, we are only seeing Edie as Margaret; now way to erase two decades of hard living as opposed to Margaret's easy living... after the funeral Margaret even mentions that she quit smoking ages ago due to it's affect on the skin.

reply

The problem is that even though the story may have been that Maggie paid for this younger man to be her lover, the way Peter Lawford plays it, Tony seems to genuinely be hot for her. That's the problem.

He doesn't behave like he only cares about Maggie's money - not to mention that he seems quite ferociously angry when he confronts Edie with the truth and screams "YOU KILLED HER!" The movie gives the impression that Tony is actually in lust with Maggie (if not actual love.)

reply

With Margaret dead, short of black-mail, his gravy train is dead.... he was paid, and paid well to 'be (act) in love/lust' with Margaret. He knew which side his bread was buttered on.

reply

I think it was intentional that she should appear much older than the golf pro (or whatever he was) she was having an affair with. It was implied that the rich upper-middle-aged ladies regularly used him as a gigolo, in exchange for money and lavish gifts. It wouldn't have had the same implications if they had appeared to be similar in age.

Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!

reply

True, RRozsa, but Davis IMO looked not just older but hideous in this movie!!

reply