Patty Duke's awful performance
Does anyone think that this film would have been rated higher if they found a better actress?
shareNo. Her acting was campy just like the entire movie. I thought she slotted in very well.
share
MovieChat Forums > Valley of the Dolls (1967) Discussion > Patty Duke's awful performance
'anyone think that this film would have been rated higher if they found a better actress?'
---------------------------
It may have been rated higher--or not as criticized,rather-- if Duke made better choices, since she's an excellent actress. But, even with another actress, the other liabilities would still exist.
Patty Duke is an amazing actress
she was just miscast in this movie like a few of the others
Duke was trying (too hard, perhaps) to escape her teenager image - she said she received no guidance from director Robson.
"In my case, self-absorption is completely justified."
[deleted]
it was actually the director that was riding her. that's why she gave that performance. notice that Barbara Parkins and Sharon Tates weren't as high strung. but again also, that was sort of Neely's personality, over the top.
Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...share
I may be alone in this, but I think Duke saved this film from being a complete failure, I think she gave an amazing performance, campy or not, I think it worked, she gave a lot of depth to the character and made her believable, I don't think any actress could have done a better job with this role.
shareI tend to agree with you! I do not think the movie would be loved by so many if not for Patty Duke's performance.
shareIf it weren't for the camp, no one would remember this film at all.
Am I the only one who thinks the entire Neely plot is a foreshadowing of Lindsay Lohan's career? She even looks like Patty Duke does in this movie!
The director was very contemptible to the three actresses, which would play into some of the things discussed in this thread.
From the Trivia section here:
Mark Robson had a very combative relationship with all his actresses, particularly singling out Sharon Tate for his harsh treatment. Patty Duke hated working with him and, years later, after his death, still called him "a mean son of a bitch".share
Agreed! She's a good actress but totally miscast. Ann Margret would have been good. at least she's sexy and a good dancer.
shareI thought that Neally was not supposed to be beautiful or sexy - her main feature is her great talent. (She says something like "it's not my cheekbones..." or something like that). So she came out appropriately awkward, but very alive and the most memorable of all three. Sharon Tate is also very good - her task was the most difficult one: how do you portray an ideally beautiful woman as a human being? And she managed this perfectly, her Jennifer is unforgettable. As for Barbara Parkins - well, she is totally unremarkable... Interestingly enough, her character seems comletely tied to that bygone era of the mid-1960-s, while the other two girls transcend the time and could be our contemporaries. That's a sign of things done right.
shareAgree and her (Neely O'Hara's) insecurities are why she took the pills.
Conceive Deceive or Leave
https://disqus.com/home/channel/conceievedeceiveorleave/
'Agree and her (Neely O'Hara's) insecurities are why she took the pills'
--------------------
Neely took the pills because she was physically addicted.
Correct. Jennifer is the sexy one (Tate).
share'Agreed! She's a good actress but totally miscast. Ann Margret would have been good. at least she's sexy and a good dancer.'
---------------------
Joey Heatherton comes to mind as a perfect choice. Patty Duke + stage singing star don't go together as a casting-type. Other examples of women who actually did earn a living as that would be Sandy Duncan, Judy Carne, Liza Minelli.
Yes Ms. Duke was miscast and trying a little too hard, but her campy performance has much to do with making this movie an enjoyable bad one. Parkins and Tate while both very beautiful were also rather boring and forgettable compared to her.
shareOf the three actresses, Patty over-acted, Sharon under-acted and Barbara held her own. Only Susan Hayward was really impressive.
sharePatty Duke did the best with the material she was given. It is difficult to play an excellent role with campy dialogue and unbelievable scenarios. Patty Duke made an otherwise boring movie interesting.
share'Patty Duke did the best with the material she was given. It is difficult to play an excellent role with campy dialogue and unbelievable scenarios. Patty Duke made an otherwise boring movie interesting.'
----------------------
If she did the best with what she was given, she would not had been blasted critically, nor gone into a depression after the film was completed. Since it's difficult to play bad dialogue, she could had been understated, to not draw more attention to the already biting-lines. It was interesting only because we find it amusing, which is not what they intended. Patty admits she didn't do her best due to being non self-assured.
Yes Ms. Duke was miscast and trying a little too hard, but her campy performance has much to do with making this movie an enjoyable bad one.
I totally agree. I just saw a YouTube video of Barbara Parkins auditioning for the role of Neely O'Hara and she was much better than Duke with her more serious performance. But the movie would have been dull with her in the role. The movie needed Patty Duke's campy performance. share
I've been through the book. She did quite well. It was the movie-making that was not as good.
http://www.cgonzales.net & http://www.drxcreatures.com