•
Rating: There's far too much to say about Bette Davis: a legendary (and troubled) career that unfolded mainly between the '30s and '60s, starring roles in films that have made cinema history such as "Jezebel" ("La Figlia del Vento"), 1938, or "All about Eve" ("Eva contro Eva"), 1950, and 2 Academy Awards (both in the '30s). The first part of her career was marked by romantic roles and "pasionaria" characters and a twilight dedicated to grandguignolesque works that made her one of the most eclectic actresses in history. It's curious how, over time, she became remembered in the public imagination mainly for the (often bloody) roles she tackled in her "mature" age rather than those youthful ones that brought her the greatest satisfaction, both in terms of recognition and (immediate) popular acclaim. Particularly, the two films made with Robert Aldrich: "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" ("Che Fine ha fatto Baby Jane?"), 1962 and this one from 1964, which I am going to discuss, are to be considered her true spiritual testament (although she continued working, albeit in minor films, until well into the '80s) of the great actress with the magnetic eyes (here you were expecting a different link, right?)
The two mentioned films (both based on stories by Henry Farrell) fit into that psychological thriller genre (and sometimes, as in this case, with horror overtones) that in the two decades in the middle of the last century in Hollywood was very successful and, it must be admitted, hit peaks of creativity still hard to reach today: I think mentioning Hitchcock should suffice to close the matter. Besides the main actress, there are other common points that confirm that the director had thought of them, but gave up due to logistical difficulties, as a kind of American Gothic "saga" (I don't know about you but I can't help associating it with Grant Wood): for example, initially, the supporting role in both films was supposed to be assigned to Davis's historical "nemesis" (Joan Crawford) who however turned down (under circumstances never completely clarified) the second (film) leaving the role to Olivia de Havilland (here in a role decidedly different from the one that made her famous). If we then add the setting in decaying mansions (and the anxious atmospheres that derive from the always unsettling black and white), themes of fading beauty, guilt, mental distress, and the duality and rivalry between blood relatives (sisters in the first, cousins in the second), the game of parallels is almost complete. Probably the chronological order ended up making the first one more famous, at least in Italy (which presented a more "melodramatic" tone), but it is my opinion that both have the same (high) artistic value.
The Plot:
Carlotta lives, together with her housekeeper, isolated for forty years in her villa in the southern United States: as a young woman, she was in love with a married man, but the night they were supposed to run away together, he is brutally killed and mutilated. From that moment, although declared not guilty of the act, she is plagued by macabre pranks and anonymous letters that end up undermining her mental balance and making her believe she committed the murder. One day, her cousin Miriam, who was aware of Carlotta's escape plans forty years earlier, visits her to help...
Small and futile analysis:
Despite being an old film "Piano... piano, dolce Carlotta" is still able to unsettle with its morbid atmospheres and bursts (like the scene of Carlotta's lover's murder) of pure horror: as mentioned, the Gothic and Grand Guignol references abound, and moments of palpable tension are sometimes resolved by atrocious scenes that still impress today and sometimes come to nothing which, however, do not reassure. The direction is minimalistic and leaves room for photography to delve into the characters' characteristics (both Davis and de Havilland at very high levels of acting), the screenplay is skillfully crafted to lead the viewer into a psychological spiral that seems constantly misleading but eventually proves relentless.
A film from another era to rediscover a Cinema, as is less often the case today, made of talent and passion: watch it in the dead of night.
Mo.
Loading comments slowly
