A Virgin in Hollywood

A Virgin in Hollywood (1948)

** (out of 4)

Silly exploitation film about a female news reporter who travels to Hollywood so she can get the scoop on what really happens in the dirty town. The film starts off with a few good laughs and I was expecting things to get even better once we hit Hollywood but that's where the film fell apart. Even by 1948 standards this exploitation flick is rather dull and tame without too much going for it. There are a couple scenes where women almost drop their towels or bathing suites to expose some nudity but that's about it. The "secrets" behind Hollywood are also rather lame. Oh well.

Also known as SIDE STREETS OF HOLLYWOOD, this is basically an extended series of silent 1940s girlie shorts narrated by Dorothy Abbott, who plays a midwestern reporter assigned by her editor to go to

Hollywood and get "the REAL story" about what goes on there. What mostly goes on in the Hollywood of this film is a series of "artistic" cheesecake photo sessions that our intrepid reporter stumbles across. In the middle of the film is a 3-D sequence that you need "eyescopes" to see in 3-D--my guess is that this was added to the 1953 reissue of this film (first released in 1948)--it is crudely spliced in and doesn't match the rest of the film. Later in the film, she answers a few personal ads and we see her meeting a few clownish guys whose routines are right off the vaudeville stage...or a third-rate 1930s Educational Pictures comedy short. Abbott, who I believe appeared in some DRAGNET and LEAVE IT TO BEAVER episodes, is a distinctive looking lady I'd like to see in a vehicle that is more worthy of her. Without ever really showing any nudity or sex, the film does has a sordid feel--a requirement in films of this type--but the reliance on narration, even in some scenes where Abbott appears, slows down the pace considerably. However, there is just enough plot to keep things going and the occasional lowbrow humor (surely the makers of this film are from a burlesque background!) helps too. This film should appeal to any follower of z-grade Los Angeles-based exploitation films of the 40s/50s. I dig out my copy every year or two and enjoy seeing it again. (note: East Side Kids fans will recognize the canned music used during the scene of the date with the hammy actor)

Aside from the low-budget production and horrible at times acting etc... This is to some people a very interesting piece of history. When our intrepid reporter "gets lost" in the Hollywood hills, she ends up at this "Photo Ranch". This place is called The Hacienda in certain circles. There is Arline Hunter, Playboy Playmate August 1954 swimming in "THE LITTLE POOL". This was an ACTUAL place where photographers and models did their work! This is not a made up movie plot. This was a (then in ruins), ranch with arched patios, and cobble stone drive and walkways, and buildings. "The Hacienda was built by a Pasadena millionaire in 1927, and served as the backdrop for even more photos than the Spiderpool during the heyday of 1950s cheesecake photography." This is a quote from a web-page on the Hacienda and the Spiderpool. Another photog/model place.

Well here I was just watching this piece of Schlock when it suddenly became VERY interesting to me. The place is a piece of Seamy Hollywood History! Other than that and a few funny moments it is nothing.

As far as I know, the only way you can see this movie is to get a copy of the Alpha Video DVD. Unfortunately, the quality of the print is pretty bad--though I can't see any reason for anyone to try to restore this mess.

When this movie begins, you are told that this movie is based on a book by Darla Stone and it's about her TRUE experiences in Hollywood. You see an actress (Dorothy Abbott, playing Stone) back East--talking with her boss about heading to Hollywood to find out if it REALLY is a den of iniquity. For much of the film, Abbott wanders about the city like it's a cheap travelogue. Then, she wanders, accidentally, into a den of sin where glamor photographers try to get women to undress. From here, it leads to a burlesque theater where practically nothing happens. Sure, there are strippers--but strippers who only strip down to their underwear. For 1953, this was hot stuff--seen today, you can't help but think of how disappointed folks were and how most of the time they were hoping against hope that they'd actually see something. Teeny, tiny peeks are all you'll get in this one and the film is pretty much PG.

Most of the film is silent--with voice-over by Abbott and cheesy music. As for the voice-overs, Abbott seemed to have a lot of trouble reading the script--perhaps due, in part, to the inanity of the lines. I can't blame her completely, as most of the 'actors' in the film show they are equally talented in their deliveries. Overall, there isn't a lot of plot--much of it shots of strippers doing their act as filler as well as ladies in bikinis and underwear. There also is a few odd sequences about blind dates in which burlesque comics show their routines--why, I have no idea! One even chased her around the apartment with his whip! It has nothing to do with the film and made no sense at all--and was about as much fun as a trip to a sewage treatment plant. There's also an inexplicable sequence involving a cross-dresser! This entire mess is all strung together sloppily into an exploitation film that hardly exploits anything--and ends with the lamest cat-fight in film history! Believe it or not, they managed to make it all seem pretty boring and I would assume audiences would have left feeling very frustrated and angry.

My mention of "Plan 9 From Outer Space" is because although many consider this among the worst films ever made, at least it had a plot--a dumb one, but a plot. As for "A Virgin in Hollywood", there is hardly any plot at all and the acting and direction are no better than the "Plan 9" variety. It is, however, good for a laugh--if you love bad movies. My wife couldn't stand it--I thought it was kind of funny--though I have a VERY high tolerance for horrible cinema. And, if I had a list of the 50 worst films in Hollywood history, I would probably include this one...though there are so many deserving exploitation films! Also, in an unusual touch, look at the IMDb credits for the film--such as BAD BURLESQUE COMIC, REALLY BAD BURLESQUE COMIC and EXTRA BAD BURLESQUE COMIC! A cute touch!

With a title like that, you won't be surprised to learn this is a soft-core pornographic movie, in which Dorothy Abbott got her only lead. Based on a book by Darla Sloan, Miss Abbott portrays the author as a small-town reporter who is assigned by her editor to dig up the dirt on Tinseltown. When she says she doesn't have the experience, he leers and says she has the equipment. So off she goes and we get some of the dirt: the modeling, the burlesque shows, the collection of crackpots available for dates in the personals, and the catty lingerie models.

A lot of it is shot wild, with Miss Abbott providing a droning voice-over which shows she learned nothing of the art from five shows playing Jack Webb's girl friend on Dragnet. This was produced by the owner of a small chain of "Pussycat" movie houses, but the smut factor is all but unnoticeable to someone who is fond of pre-code and 1970s movies. True, you get to see the navels of some of the burlesque dancers, but there's no sign of any costumes being removed. There's a brief sequence of the 'dancers' in three-d, in which they throw stuff at the camera. I like to imagine the audience was throwing stuff at the movie screen at the same time.

Klaytan W. Kirby was generally a very poor director for this movie, but one of the dance numbers shows some competence. It is a harem-fantasy Apache sort of dance, with some bondage and sadism thrown into the mix. I'd like to call it a highlight, but in the Death Valley of the rest of the production, I cannot muster the enthusiasm.