Most Oscar nominations ever for a horror film…
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Film and Television Discussion
PrometheusTree64 — 12 years ago(September 06, 2013 10:12 AM)
up until that time, at least: 7 Academy Award nominations. (Later surpassed by THE EXORCIST at 10 noms, and then SILENCE OF THE LAMBS).
CHARLOTTE didn't win any of them. But Joseph Biroc's B&W cinematography probably should've. (I think NIGHT OF THE IGUANA won that category for 1964). -
MammothPicturesReturns — 12 years ago(September 08, 2013 12:12 AM)
He should have won. And Bette Davis, Olivia de Havilland, and Agnes Moorehead all gave Oscar worthy performances. As did Mary Astor. Her part was small, but she was great in it!
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. -
PrometheusTree64 — 11 years ago(September 07, 2014 12:23 PM)
What made CHARLOTTE chilling wasn't the "gore" but the creepy early-'60s mood that CHARLOTTE exemplified (with help from Joe Biroc's camerawork).
Today's bloodbath thrillers have never come close to capturing the unnerving end-of-the-world eerieness of the late-Eisenhower/JFK era.
They can't. They don't know how.
The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered. -
-
Trax-3 — 9 years ago(December 03, 2016 08:52 PM)
And Bette Davis, Olivia de Havilland, and Agnes Moorehead all gave Oscar worthy performances. As did Mary Astor. Her part was small, but she was great in it!
I don't know. Davis and Moorehead were outrageously hammy. De Havilland a bit less so. If anyone deserved it in this film then Astor for that scene with Kellaway.
What Bosley Crowther had to say:
And Agnes Moorehead as her weird and crone-like servant is allowed to get away with some of the broadest mugging and snarling ever done by a respectable actress on the screen. If she gets an Academy award for this performancewhich is possible, because she's been nominated for itthe Academy should close up shop!
http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9F03E3DF1730E33ABC4C53DFB566838E679EDE -
PrometheusTree64 — 9 years ago(December 08, 2016 07:40 AM)
I find myself agreeing with him more often than not.
That's unfortunate. Crowther didn't review films and wasn't insightful; he dished snobbish hyperbole about any movie he reviewed.
Even when the movie he was trashing was indeed bad, his rhetoric was bogus. -
rahrah14 — 11 years ago(September 23, 2014 02:03 PM)
It's quite surprising to me that this film got as many Oscar nominations as it did (and not just because horror films didn't get much serious critical attention, especially in those days). To me, it's just not on a par with Whatever Happened to Baby Jane (the easiest film for me to compare it to). They are both kind of "sordid" in subject matter but Baby Jane, in my opinion, has better performances, better writing, and better direction. I don't know, Charlotte just leaves me with an icky feeling after watching it, haha. I can't even get any camp enjoyment out of it. Was 1964 a weak year for Hollywood movies?
Sweet merciful crap!
It's just tea! sips Needs more gin. -
PrometheusTree64 — 11 years ago(September 24, 2014 02:58 PM)
To some of us, CHARLOTTE is actually the better film, more hauntingly macabre with better performances, better writing, and better direction.
BABY JANE is good, and it started the
grande dame guignol
genre, but nowadays it seems to be mostly for queens.
And the queens seem to prefer Joan as a rule.
The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered. -
rahrah14 — 11 years ago(September 24, 2014 06:16 PM)
The queen thing doesn't apply in my case (at least I don't think so). I actually like Olivia deHavilland much better than Joan Crawford (Olivia is one of my favorite actresses) but that's the only part of Charlotte I prefer over Baby Jane. The last time I watched it I skipped to her scenes and Mary Astor's great scenethose are my favorite parts of the film anyway.
But, again, that's just my opinion. Still surprising it got so much Oscar attentionit would be interesting to read some contemporary reviews of the film.
Sweet merciful crap!
It's just tea! sips Needs more gin. -
markedjuan — 11 years ago(April 01, 2015 01:34 AM)
Charlotte was more than just a horror movie for Fox. Baby Jane had won five Oscar nominations and because of the positive reviews, Fox released Charlotte in a limited number of theaters in December '64 to qualify for the Oscars and pushed it as the studio's major contender for the year. The previous year, Fox snagged several nominations for the disastrous Cleopatra, including Best Picture. The studio would later perform a similar miracle for its other bomb, Dr. Dolittle, which also won a nomination for Best Picture.
Charlotte went on wide release in the spring of '65, roughly the same time it premiered The Sound of Music. (It's probably why Bette Davis was a prominent guest at the World Premiere of The Sound of Music.) It's interesting to note that at Oscar time, Andrews won Best Actress for Mary Poppins in a race that omitted Davis, Olivia de Havilland and Audrey Hepburn (for My Fair Lady). Hepburn's omission was controversial and both My Fair Lady and Mary Poppins hogged the limelight. The two musicals eventually won most of the awards. So contrary to what a previous poster implied, the 1965 Oscars was a very exciting race. -
raphael65 — 11 years ago(April 05, 2015 09:50 AM)
Also, in 1964 Bette was great playing identical twins in Dead Ringer. For that matter, although, as a person, I dislike Joan Crawford (and not just based on Christina Crawfords book, but also on her artificiality in interviews), in the same year, her performance in Strait-Jacket was superb. (I have both on DVD.)
P.S. One my favourite Davis films is The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex, with Errol Flynn (1939). Bette displays a magnificent range: imperious, arrogant, jealous, bitter, tender, and conflicted and heartbroken at the end an absolutely fantastic performance. She was so dedicated to her role that she had her hairline shaved. I honestly think that, instead of Bettes performance in Dark Victory (though that was excellent), she should have been nominated for Elizabeth and Essex. -
InherentlyYours — 10 years ago(April 28, 2015 10:12 PM)
I agree; I can rewatch BABY Jane repeatedly, but not HUSH. The scene I do enjoy watching more than once is Agnes Moorehead with ailing Bette
"that's some kinda drug"
"Now, I'm gonna go and tell the authorities what you been up to" -
rascal67 — 10 years ago(April 28, 2015 10:44 PM)
I can rewatch BABY Jane repeatedly, but not HUSH.
I have only seen HUSH once and while good, I have never felt inclined or desired to readily watch it again. Found it to be a bit of a sludge to sit through, compared than BABY JANE and it was like it is was trying too hard, to be some atmospheric mood piece. I didn't feel so concerned for Charlotte, as I did for Blanche and she was played by the indomitable Crawford. The characters in HUSH, while excellently acted, didn't appear as compelling or interesting. In JANE, you had this brazen and out of balance character right from the start and she was fun to watch. Maybe that's it.HUSH wasn't as much fun.
-
rascal67 — 10 years ago(April 28, 2015 11:44 PM)
Too long at 134 min.
BABY JANE, was the around the same length; but you wouldn't really know it, as all the sequences worked in well with the narrative. Even the scenes with Edwin and his mother, were an interesting diversion and still relevant.