DOLLS! DOLLS! DOLLS! BY STEPHEN REBELLO

If you were to ask me which screen adaptation, big or small, I do fancy best I probably would say TVs LACE. Nothing beats this highly expensive-looking trashy miniseries of 1984. On the other hand, if I had to choose my favorite big-screen adaptation thus far? Only one title comes to mind, VALLEY OF THE DOLLS. Oh yes, this 1967 infamous film starring three unforgettable (not always in a good way) actresses and one mean son of a bitch of a director (according to many witnesses) is right up there with the best of them. Mind you, the best for me are mostly over-the-top campy fares such as THE LONELY LADY, MOMMIE DEAREST, BEYOND THE FOREST. But there’s something about VALLEY OF THE DOLLS that surpasses them all. Call it stylish; call it gripping, call it unintentionally funny. Whatever it is, I just can’t get enough.

That’s why when I learned that BAD MOVIES WE LOVE co-author Stephen Rebello had an upcoming book about the making of VALLEY OF THE DOLLS I just couldn’t stand still. This film has been my guiding light to bad cinema ever since I first saw it back when I was still a kid. It was because of that film that I discovered later on how much involving trashy books really were, and still are since I go on running this blog decades later. In other words I was a really happy trooper. I immediately rushed to the NetGalley site in the hopes that the book would be available to review. It was. I clicked for an ARC and waited for a response. And I waited and waited and waited. After almost a month I gave up. Clearly the publisher, Penguin, was unimpressed by my request. 

Then COVID-19 entered our lives. For two weeks my husband and I were out of it. Suffice to say I didn’t even think about DOLLS! DOLLS! DOLLS! All I wanted was for us to get better. We eventually did. Then I started to see the book on social media. The itch to get a copy got to me again. So here I am post-COVID cured and ready to review this title, which I finally purchased despite having been dissed by Penguin Books (shame on you!).

I finished DOLLS! DOLLS! DOLLS! in no time. It was that good.  Like the focused film, it pulls you right in, starting with a teaser involving a star-studded cruise ship and the ill-prepared screen presentation of VALLEY OF THE DOLLS. Then it’s a quick bio of Jackie Susann which, if you have already read LOVELY ME: THE LIFE OF JACQUELINE SUSANN by Barbara Seaman, won’t be anything new to you. But once we get into the producing and financing of the film then it’s jackpot all the way. What I enjoyed most—though it was hard to pick from all the juicy chapters—was the never-before-seen round-up of the first two screenplays. I have never heard of them before and was pleasantly surprised on how different they were from the finished product, especially the first one written by famed-author and first-time screenwriter for the equally bad THE OSCAR (1967) Harlan Ellison. I really would have loved to see that version on-screen.

Then it’s the behind the scene shenanigans surrounding the many frictions between the stars and the director, and of course the day by day on-set account of what led to the firing of Judy Garland as Helen Lawson. That part is harder to take, especially if you’re a Garland fan. The way she was badly treated was, in my opinion, unforgivable. Then we come to the post production of the film and the many strategies the studio takes to get it seen. You’ll also get a kick out of finally knowing the reason why singer Dionne Warwick’s rendition of The Theme from Valley of the Dolls was omitted from the movie soundtrack album (copyright issue). Just like any common sense was omitted when it came to make and sell this lovable but accidentally silly film. But in the end it did have the last laugh, for we are still talking about it, thanks mostly nowadays to Mr Rebello who wrote one hell of a book. And praise heavens for that, for I wouldn’t be sitting here and rave about DOLLS! DOLLS! DOLLS! So do yourself a favor and get this gem. You’ll definitely thank me later.

Until next post—Martin

‘A WOMAN OF SUBSTANCE’ BY BARBARA TAYLOR BRADFORD

Barbara Taylor Bradford’s iconic first novel A WOMAN OF SUBSTANCE has always been part of my life. At least I always felt like it was. I can’t be exactly sure when I did become aware of it but I’m almost positive it was during part of a conversation I had had with a fellow book lover of mine. If not, well, it must surely have been during one of my many book hunts which, as you can imagine, have happened a lot in my lifetime. One thing I can easily say is that I have had the novel in my possession for quite a while now and only recently did I take the plunge and read it—to my pure delight, as it turns out.

You sure are in for a long haul if you tackle this book for the very first time, since A WOMAN OF SUBSTANCE is more than 900 pages long. That is, if we’re focusing on the same 2005 St. Martins’ paperback extended edition which graciously harbours a place on my busy book shelf, as do the original 1979 paperback novel from Avon Books and the tie-in paperback edition from the same publishers. 

As you judiciously read along you’ll come across many detailed descriptions of beautiful things. Miss Bradford seems to revel in them and I don’t blame her since her depiction of, say, a room, a person, a scenery, is as thrilling and as invigorating as the story itself. Well, at least it is to little moi. And in truth, I can’t imagine the book being any other way. It’s part of its DNA. If exactly not, at least a part of the author’s work ethic.  

When the plot does move along, you are to embark in a story of love, courage, acceptance but betrayal as well, for Emma Harte, the central character, suffers ever-so greatly in her attempt to assert herself in a man’s world. I should also tell you that the story starts in the early 19oos during which she is a simple servant to a wealthy family in Yorkshire, England, to the late-1960s where she finally ends up becoming a rich and powerful woman. During her rags to riches ascent she will face many hardships, some that will almost kill her. But with her strong sense of will and backbone (and style) she will find a way to persevere and eventually get to the finish line. And during that time you, the reader, will be turning the pages as quickly as possible in order to follow her tumultuous journey, one that will undoubtedly leave traces in your psyche since you’ll remember this flawed heroine for a very long time.  

I’m so thrilled to have finally focused on A WOMAN OF SUBSTANCE. And there are many sequels waiting for me along the way. Six of them, I believe. I can’t wait to get my hands on every one of them then watch on my flat screen TV the three adapted miniseries based on the first three books. I mean it, this one’s a keeper. Especially, if you’re the type who adores long-winded stories of strong-willed women and the challenges they face for being who they were really meant to be. 

Until next post—Martin

US Digital Edition

UK Digital Edition

SINS, THE MINISERIES

When we prematurely had to return home from Paris because of the COVID-19 growing epidemic, my hubby and I had to self-isolate for 14 days. So suffice to say, we watched a lot of TV during that time. One of the titles we caught was the spectacular miniseries SINS based on the 1982 novel by Judith Gould and starring Joan Collins. I talked about this adaptation before in another post, so for me it was a re-visiting thing. It wasn’t for my husband, but since he had enjoyed Joan before in DYNASTY I felt that showing him this one would certainly be a slam dunk. Not so much, as it turned out.  

Basically, what he disliked most about SINS was exactly the same reason why I love it so: the over-the-topness of it all. Love, glamour, revenge...  And Dame Joan Collins to boost. Not one iota of film reel is wasted on this seven-hour miniseries. I even watched it twice that faithful day, since my hubby retired to bed early. I just popped in the disc again and voila, I was back with Hélène Junot in Paris during the Second World War.   

I don’t really need to recap the plot but if I had to I would say that SINS is all about Miss Collins and her insane changing wardrobe. Actress Catherine Mary Stewart may portray a young Joan in flashbacks but it’s Collins who really steals the show with her gowns, suits and dresses (85 of them in total), all led by costume designer Michael Fresmay. Many were sketched by Valentino himself.

As much of a sight for sore eyes she ends up being I must confess that it barely compensates for her limited acting ability. Whether in this miniseries or other highly-sought visual avenues, I usually find that Miss Collins is all looks but little substance. Oh, don’t get me wrong, she does have this star power about her that makes her must-see TV and her icon status is rightfully deserved, but an impressive thespian she is not. But in the end does it really matter when one stars in silly but highly-addictive miniseries such as this one?  

In fact, seeing her in action in SINS is almost as rewarding as catching her in DYNASTY. It’s probably the reason why the miniseries was such a smash to begin with when it aired in 1986. It was clear that Collins swam in known territory. And since she was already being held as the queen of night time television, well, you do the math. When she made another miniseries, MONTE CARLO, later in the same year, however—as DYNASTY began to slip in the ratings—it barely made the same waves when it aired and she never ventured into another miniseries after that. 

A bummer, really, for I certainly find miniseries like SINS to be quite joyful despite their imperfectness. Truth be told, they probably work as a security blanket from reality. And I’m more than OK with that. With all the shit that is going on nowadays what better way to cocoon yourself with than watching an over-produced, over-written, overact piece of fluff that delivers exactly what it sets out to do: entertain the heck out of you. 

Until next post—Martin