Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte

Well, I loved Bette Davis' performances, as a rule. But I'm willing to bet that even NON fans of Davis would appreciate her tour in this particular movie. Following two years after "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?", "Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte" is nevertheless four times the film of its more noted predecessor. The reasons for this are four=fold. The script, though occasionally unintentionally funny, is still crisper, more believable and contains a more satisfying ending. Next, Davis' is more balanced by the performances of DeHavilland, Cotton, a more mature Victor Buono, and the great Agnes Morehead. Thirdly, we have a better set and setting, more attuned to the genre. Finally, the cinematography is several notches better, in my opinion. Adding it all up, you have an exceptionally fine example of that unique genre, the gothic melodrama. In this movie, the genre is virtually defined! If asked to name an example to a "top twenty" or "top fifty" movie list, "Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte" would definitely make the cut.

Following soon after "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane", I originally thought that "Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte" would be a letdown - far from it, in my opinion, much better due a great deal to the cast of great actors and actresses. Bette Davis was in her element in this role of Charlotte, while Olivia de Havilland in the role originally planned for Joan Crawford was superb, and was an inspired piece of accidental casting! Agnes Moorehead deserved her Academy nomination, while Mary Astor was a most welcome sight. Joseph Cotten normally seems very wooden in his parts, but does an excellent job here. The Black and White photography adds a great deal to the mood, and is far better than Colour would have been. The ending was very well planned and carried out, and you feel after the film ends there is something else that happened that the viewer never saw. Get it on Video - it is well worth the experience.

They don't make 'em like this anymore, and, sad to say, we Americans don't have as many actors and actresses of this caliber anymore today, either. Nevertheless, despite its spotty campiness, unintentional funny moments, borderline flashback sequences, storyline holes and generally predictable plot, this is a spectacular film, especially considering the era in which it was made.

All the performances are strong, intense and excellent. Perhaps the best ones, however, are given by Olivia de Havilland and Agnes Moorehead, who have been more or less associated or stereotyped in other venues. Yes, this is the same Agnes Moorehead who is probably best known as Endora from "Bewitched," but it only serves as testimony that she was one actress who could steal thunder with any role.

Overall, the story is a good one, and realistic to the location given. The story would absolutely not work, for example, in a large urban area. The film is great fun, and knowing how the whole story plays out is an excellent reason to watch it again, as you know what the characters know. Sit back and enjoy the brillant acting on all counts!

It's tough to beat this for a good, deep cast: Bette Davsi, Olivia de Havilland, Joseph Cotten, Agnes Moorhead, Cecil Kellaway, Victor Buono, Mary Astor and Bruce Dern.

My favorite character in here was played by Moorhead. She was excellent as the eccentric (but very perceptive) housekeeper. I wish Kellaway's role had been bigger. It was interesting, too, to see such a young Dern. Davis looked really grotesque, but that was the idea. Kudos for her to not care about her looks.

Speaking of looks, the best feature in here might have been the cinematography. I have not seen this on DVD but I'd like to and wonder if it looks tremendous. It sure looked good on VHS. And that theme song! It is played throughout the movie and once you hear it, as I first did in the theater over 40 years ago, you never forget it.

My lone complaint is the length of the film. At 133 minutes, I think it would have been a lot tighter and better at about 110. However, even though there were definite lulls in the story, they were never that long in length.

This film was meant to be a kind of sequel to "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?". However, this film is missing the dynamic of those dueling actresses, Joan Crawford and Bette Davis, present in the first film. Instead we have the perennial sweet thing of the golden age of Hollywood, Olivia de Havilland, playing opposite to Bette Davis. Plus Olivia and Bette were always friendly in spite of both being very ambitious at the same time and the same place - Warner Brothers of the 1930s and 40s.

As a teenager Charlotte Hollis (Bette Davis) was presumed guilty of killing her married lover. And no wonder, she wanders into the family mansion during a society ball the night the man was killed covered in blood and in shock. Her wealthy father managed to fix it so she never faced charges, but Charlotte has lived as a recluse ever since, always presumed guilty by her neighbors and the press, and therefore shunned for the past 37 years.

She is facing eviction from the family plantation since her property is in the path of a new road that is being built. Her cousin Miriam Deering (Olivia de Havilland) comes to visit during this time to try and get her to come to terms with moving. With Mary Astor as Jewel Mayhew, the widow of the murdered man, and Agnes Moorhead as the housekeeper.

Charlotte's problem besides being evicted? She has been receiving anonymous mail for years tormenting her about the killing and she is starting to see things that are not there. Or are they?

I actually liked this film better than "Baby Jane" because I always felt that film was too long and too claustrophobic. Plus for once I liked the production code ending, the twist at the end, and justice like it was out of a Looney Tunes cartoon.