Here I've been giving Williams credit for my favorite thing about the music, the orchestrations!
Well, you should keep doing that as his writing style necessarily includes rigid work on orchestrations as well. Just add the fact that he's actually WRITTEN much of the score as well!
Last night, at the AFI Silver Theatre, I saw a double feature of VALLEY OF THE DOLLS and BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS. This re-created my viewing of the actual double feature that 20th Century Fox had released in 1971. As for VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, the only thing that holds up today is the musical score. The Dionne Warwick version of the theme song is iconic. The songs by the on-screen performers (all dubbed) are competent. And John Williams' adaptations and background scoring are impeccable.
The dramatics are another story, however. In my opinion, the film can't hold a candle to its 1950's counterpart PEYTON PLACE. The question is why? Mark Robson directed both, so I have trouble laying the blame at his feet. That would seem to leave either the source novels, the screenplays, or the actors as the culprits. The cast in VALLEY OF THE DOLLS seems competent enough, although certainly not at the level of that in PEYTON PLACE, which garnered five acting nominations from the Academy for their work on the film. It's hard for me to believe that a different, better cast could have elevated many of the scenes and much of the dialogue in DOLLS, which often borders on the ludicrous.
That leaves the writing. I haven't read either novel, but their literary reputations are equally shoddy, so I imagine that a decent script could have been fashioned out of DOLLS as it was for PEYTON PLACE. The screenwriter for PEYTON PLACE, John Michael Hayes, had certainly done good work prior to that film, particularly with his scripts for the Hitchcock films REAR WINDOW, TO CATCH A THIEF, THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY, and THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH. He would go on to do decent adaptations for Lillian Hellman's THE CHILDREN'S HOUR, and Harold Robbins' characters in THE CARPETBAGGERS and NEVADA SMITH. Hayes was nominated for an Oscar for PEYTON PLACE.
The screenwriters for VALLEY OF THE DOLLS were Helen Deutsch and Dorothy Kingsley. And they were equally accomplished. DOLLS was the last screenplay for Deutsch, who had done dramatic films such as KING SOLOMON'S MINES and PLYMOUTH ADVENTURE. She had been the screenwriter and lyricist for LILI and THE GLASS SLIPPER. And more recently, she had written the scripts for I"LL CRY TOMORROW (which interestingly starred Susan Hayward as a Broadway star) and THE UNSINKABLE MOLLY BROWN. Dorothy Kingsley had extensive experience in scripting musicals. For MGM she had done SMALL TIME GIRL, KISS ME KATE, SEVEN BRIDES FOR SEVEN BROTHERS, and JUPITER'S DARLING. Later, for other studios, she had done PAL JOEY, CAN-CAN, and PEPE.
So, with DOLLS' showbiz musical setting, I suppose it was natural for the producers to select two screenwriters who had bono fides in the musical arena. But musicals aren't often known for their dramatic highlights. And it's the scenes between the musical numbers that pull down DOLLS the most. (Although one "dramatic" number--Patty Duke bringing Tony Scotti out of his catatonia in a sanitarium by singing one of his songs--also brought howls of laughter from the audience.) I suppose I've argued myself into a position that the screenwriters for DOLLS, as experienced as they were, were not the right choices for a film that, at heart, is not a musical, but a sleazy soap opera. They weren't able to spin dramatic gold from Jacqueline Susann's dross.
The dramatics are another story, however. In my opinion, the film can't hold a candle to its 1950's counterpart PEYTON PLACE. The question is why? Mark Robson directed both, so I have trouble laying the blame at his feet.
That leaves the writing. I haven't read either novel, but their literary reputations are equally shoddy, so I imagine that a decent script could have been fashioned out of DOLLS as it was for PEYTON PLACE.
The screenwriters for VALLEY OF THE DOLLS were Helen Deutsch and Dorothy Kingsley.
I blame Robson for the film's lack of contemporary style, or rather its late '50s approach. He wasn't the right director for it.
You've left out, though, that the original screenwriter was Harlan Ellison. This is on the Wiki page for DOLLS:
The ending to the film was changed dramatically from the novel. In the film, Anne and Lyon never marry and do not have a child together. Rather, she leaves Lyon and returns to Lawrenceville, which is described as the one place she found real happiness. Lyon later visits her to propose but she refuses. These last-minute changes in the script, so out of keeping with Anne's established character (well known to millions of readers), prompted original screenwriter Harlan Ellison, who wanted to keep the original downbeat ending, to remove his name and credit from the film.
Another important difference is that the film is clearly set in the mid-to-late 1960s, whereas in the book the story started in 1945 and developed throughout two decades, much unlike in the film, where the events unfolded over the course of a few years.
I think it can probably be easily accessed that the script for VALLEY OF THE DOLLS is the biggest problem with the resulting movie and that it's adaptation to the screen was simply ill-conceived from the start.
So, although we're is left with a lousy movie from 1967, those responsible for it back then probably lost little sleep over it since it was one of the biggest blockbusters of its day. I can imagine everyone at "the studio" patted themselves on the back over it for quite a while, even if Jacqueline Susann was screaming bloody murder.
Here I've been giving Williams credit for my favorite thing about the music, the orchestrations!
Well, you should keep doing that as his writing style necessarily includes rigid work on orchestrations as well. Just add the fact that he's actually WRITTEN much of the score as well!
I'm doing my best to watch the dvd now (it's painful without an audience to snicker with), and I'm noticing the same thing. The underscore sounds more Williams than Previn, which doesn't surprise me since he was plenty-capable of doing so, and Previn might have been plenty-busy with other things. (I think I remember Previn saying he mostly only took the assignment so that his wife would have some work.)
I suppose I've argued myself into a position that the screenwriters for DOLLS, as experienced as they were, were not the right choices for a film that, at heart, is not a musical, but a sleazy soap opera. They weren't able to spin dramatic gold from Jacqueline Susann's dross.
It's plenty-common to blame the screenwriter instead of the director (which any screenwriter will confirm!).
But interesting to see the sexy Sharon Tate in one of the roles. She surely had potential as an actress before her tragic misfortune.
I suppose if Raquel Welch could have had a career in films, then Tate could have as well. I didn't think Tate was any more of an actress than RW, but she sure was gorgeous, no question.
It's very similar to his style at the time, and did - in fact - remind me of his song for HEIDI KEHRT HEIM, of all things.
Interesting. I have trouble placing the melody alongside Previn's other songs (unlike the other ones, which sound like him.) I'm unfamiliar with JW's song style in this period, so now I'm interested to hear more.
Williams is amazing at adaptation of songs. The jobs he did with the songs scores for GOODBYE, MR. CHIPS and TOM SAWYER gave those songs a stature they don't have on paper. He did a similar job on DOLLS.
Previn did an album of his songs with Michael Feinstein lately, and the DOLLS theme, which is Previn's most popular song, was not included because the notes says that Previn hates it and finds it incredibly repetitive. Hard to notice that with the amazing arrangement it gets in the movie from Williams and his team.
Incredibly repetitive? I guess he's referring to the vocal build up that leads to the greater part of the song's statement? Isn't that the structure of all songs - statement block, chorus, statement block, chorus . . . ?
I just pulled out the Feinstein/Previn CD, and Previn doesn't call the song repetitive, he just told Feinstein he hates it. According to Feinstein's notes, "Andre feels it is musically inferior and will not play it."
I just pulled out the Feinstein/Previn CD, and Previn doesn't call the song repetitive, he just told Feinstein he hates it. According to Feinstein's notes, "Andre feels it is musically inferior and will not play it."
--John
I'm seeing a pattern here. For some reason, Andre has a tendency to disavow much of his most commercially successful work. If people like it, it must not be good enough.
Could it be that Previn became disenfranchised with film scoring to such an extent he internally revolted against it and embedded himself within the traditional music establishment to recover from negative feedback gained from the film world? In other worlds, he successfully turned a negative self-destroying experience into a positively fulfilling and enlightening one.
This tale of two cities is certainly one that keeps coming back, isn't it?
I just pulled out the Feinstein/Previn CD, and Previn doesn't call the song repetitive, he just told Feinstein he hates it. According to Feinstein's notes, "Andre feels it is musically inferior and will not play it."
--John
I'm seeing a pattern here. For some reason, Andre has a tendency to disavow much of his most commercially successful work. If people like it, it must not be good enough.
Orrr......
Is there a "conspiracy" that only a nerd could find?
Namely, that he didn't compose it, but was credited with it because of some contractual thing.
