http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/ajax.html?t=10705672#page:showT hread,10705672
-
davcar-1 — 11 years ago(August 24, 2014 05:33 PM)
The thing is that while critically the film wasn't well received. But the film made 39 million internationally at the box office with the budget was only about five million. If I was investor, I wouldn't be completely unhappy with the return.
If I was Dunaway, I would be more unhappy appearing in the Movie
Supergirl
. On a budget of 35 million it made 13 million at the box office. Which really would have made studio's skeptical about you're box office muscle. -
-
InherentlyYours — 10 years ago(April 04, 2015 11:33 PM)
' incompetent director whose previous directing experience was a handful of hammy melodramas'
Not true. The director was well=acclaimed and directed some excellent films. Why he didn't take rein of this one is unkwnosn
-
PrometheusTree64 — 10 years ago(April 04, 2015 08:10 AM)
It was Faye's infamous on-set behavior that ruined her career. Not EYES OF MOMMIE DEAREST.
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m127/tubesteak69/Divas_Who_Drink-1.jpg -
cookiela2001 — 10 years ago(August 22, 2015 09:26 AM)
Why?
For the most part, unfair as it is, there is an accent on youth and physical desirability in an actress' career that isn't as important in an actor's. If they make wise career decisions, male actors can go on seemingly forever, playing opposite younger and younger actressesor often not opposite actresses at all, as most screen roles are written for men, with a token female love interest thrown into the mix.
Occasionally there's a hit movie like
Steel Magnolias
or
The Devil Wears Prada
where the cast is predominantly female, but that's unusual in the broader scheme of things.
Another thing to remember is that while Dunaway was an A-list star, she wasn't necessarily a "people's star". She was a special type, in special, intelligent films. Even her looks (cool, willowy and angular) weren't as approachably embraceable as say, a Jane Fonda or a Jessica Lange.
As the New York Times review for
Eyes of Laura Mars
(1978) noted, "Miss Dunaway is perfect for her role, but it's beginning to look like the only role she cares to play. Hysterical jitters, countered by fits of extreme hauteur or assertiveness, have constituted so many of her recent performances that it's hard to remember what else she can do. In any case, high-minded artistic fluttering the kind Diane Keaton attempts in "Interiors" comes so naturally to Miss Dunaway that Tommy Lee Jones, as a down-to-earth, soothing cop, is not just a good foil but an indispensable one."
Also, post Oscar, and when Dunaway adopted her son, she squandered a key period by accepting smaller roles that paid very well
The First Deadly Sin
(1980),
The Champ
(1979). These weren't even hit movies. Then to make things worse, she moved to England, which even further limited the work she could accept.
Her comeback role was in
Barfly
(1987) and she's excellent in it, but by then the ship had sailed for her to stay on top as a major star, in Hollywood terms.
All this was combined, as noted above, with a reputation for being difficult and sometimes unprofessional to work withas well as carting around a substance abuse problem, to boot. There were simply easier options for producers to pick from, rather than hiring Dunaway.
. -
InherentlyYours — 9 years ago(May 02, 2016 02:40 AM)
'actresses start losing work when they hit 40.'
Not on TV. Why is TV always dismissed or not considered? I don't get it. Most roles in Tv films seem to go to women. And TV films don't cast lightly, to anyone who comes along. There is very stiff competition when casting them, and most go to a certain circle of established actresses. But you never stop hearing it: "women over 40, women over 50". Men over 50 don't book as many feature films either.
-
jefgg — 10 years ago(August 14, 2015 04:40 PM)
My bro thinks "Mommie Dearest" ruined Faye Dunaway's career. He thinks a movie star can play a heel once in a while but not a monster.
Many actors and actresses have made big comebacks. How come Dunaway didn't? -
LetThemEatCake01 — 10 years ago(October 01, 2015 09:39 PM)
That is the myth yes, that Mommie Dearest somehow ruined her career, but having done research into it, I don't think so. The movie was NOT a failure, it made no loss whatsoever, in fact it was a bit of a hit so it can't be credited with ruining her box office clout. I think the problem is that she quit Hollywood. I don't know how career oriented Faye Dunaway really is, it seems she's more a consummate artist than career obsessed but after Mommie Dearest she moved to London and stayed there almost 10 years, and THAT ruined her career. Then she came back and decided to star in the most horrific films ever made, films that made her look ugly and that were ugly like the handmaid's tale, barfly, and all the other crap she does now. It's shocking. I don't blame Mommie Dearest.
-
LoneWolfAttack — 10 years ago(December 20, 2015 11:26 AM)
It was Faye's biggest box office hit in the '80s. How does a big moneymaker ruin one's career? Do you understand how business works? If anything ruined her career, it was "The Wicked Lady" and the multiple flops she followed that up with - all of which, coincidentally, branded her box office poison. If anything else beyond consistent failure ruined her career, it was her horrible diva antics on every set. People will put up with personalities like hers until the point where they stop making them money, and then after that point they won't anymore.
-
InherentlyYours — 10 years ago(February 29, 2016 09:36 PM)
'It was Faye's biggest box office hit in the '80s. How does a big moneymaker ruin one's career? Do you understand how business works?'
I know what you mean, but tell that to Patty Duke who starred in the second-biggest grossing film of 1967, yet the critical pan was the issue (detracting credibility as an actress) That's how business works- do you understand? -
rascal67 — 9 years ago(May 02, 2016 01:49 AM)
I know what you mean, but tell that to Patty Duke who starred in the second-biggest grossing film of 1967, yet the critical pan was the issue
Duke starred in an ensemble and was not a lead carrying the picture like Dunaway was. Both films got critically panned yet made money, and both are now cult classics. How their careers panned out, have nothing to do with these films. They deservedly have their following for attempting to be serious and sincere, yet only ended up being polished cheesy 'B' graders. Even if that wasn't the intention, the entertainment value and notoriety is still there.
Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata: -
TMC-4 — 9 years ago(April 24, 2016 12:14 AM)
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000007/thread/256401222
A hilarious film about child abuse comes across as an oxymoron until you see it and realize why. Because the film is steeped in kitsch and dialogue which could only come from someone who takes human emotion from the outrageous, you get a film which is too risible to be taken seriously and Faye Dunaway is the prime ingredient:
overacts, chews every piece of scenery she can find
including wire hangers, cleaning powder and a ax yet you can't take your eyes away from her, she gives a performance which is as brilliant as it is awful and you never get tired of it. -
InherentlyYours — 9 years ago(May 02, 2016 02:07 AM)
'yet you can't take your eyes away from her, she gives a performance which is as brilliant as it is awful and you never get tired of it.'
That is exactly the reverence for Patty Duke in Valley of the Dolls, being the lead, though billed second since the story is Parkins' character point of view. I can see them excising Parkins' dreary scenes to insert more of Duke (but her career only died due to box office for her next two films) That is why VOTD looks lopsided; the top-billed is not the lead.
Faye/Patty are both burning with this raw powerful rage in these films, but it's not tempered.
Lesson learned: be careful what role you desperately campaign for, you might just get it.
