What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?

Plot synopsis:
In 1917, "Baby Jane" Hudson is an adored yet ill-tempered vaudevillian child star while her older sister Blanche lives in her shadow. By 1935, their fortunes have reversed: Blanche is a successful film actress and Jane lives in obscurity, her films having failed. One night, Jane mocks Blanche at a party, prompting Blanche to run away in tears. That same night, Blanche is paralyzed from the waist down in a mysterious car accident that is unofficially blamed on Jane, who is found three days later in a drunken stupor.
In 1962 a wheelchair-bound Blanche (Joan Crawford) and Jane (Bette Davis) are living together in Blanche's mansion, purchased with Blanche's movie earnings. By now, Jane has descended into alcoholism and mental illness and treats Blanche with cruelty to punish her for stealing her spotlight. Later, when Blanche informs Jane she may be selling the house, Jane's mental health begins to deteriorate further. During an argument, she removes the telephone from Blanche's bedroom, cutting Blanche off from the outside world. Later, Jane begins denying Blanche food, until she serves Blanche her dead parakeet on a platter--and, at a later meal, a rat that she killed in the cellar.
Jane becomes obsessed with recapturing her childhood stardom and puts an advertisement in the paper for a pianist to accompany her singing, When Jane leaves the house, Blanche tries to get the attention of her neighbor, Mrs. Bates (Anna Lee), by writing a note pleading for help and throwing it out her bedroom window. Jane returns in time to notice the note and prevents Mrs. Bates from seeing it. When Jane reads the note, the two sisters quarrel again.
When Blanche's caretaker Elvira Stitt (Maidie Norman) comes to clean the house, Jane pays her and gives her the day off, but when Elvira returns later on, Jane abruptly fires her and sends her away. After Jane goes to the bank to get some cash, Elvira comes back and finds that Jane has locked Blanche in her room. When Jane returns a neighbor tells her she saw Elvira go into the house. Jane confronts Elvira. Meanwhile, eccentric and cash-strapped Edwin Flagg (Victor Buono) sees Jane's newspaper advertisement and arrives at the mansion, where Jane hires him as her accompanist. Desperate for cash, Edwin insincerely flatters Jane and encourages her to revive her act. While Jane drives Edwin home, Blanche searches the house for food and discovers Jane has been forging her signature on checks. Desperate for help, Blanche crawls down the stairs and calls their doctor, telling him of Jane's erratic behavior and begging him to come to the house. Jane returns in time to find Blanche on the phone and beats her unconscious before imitating her voice over the phone and telling the doctor not to come. She then binds and gags Blanche and locks her back in her upstairs bedroom. Elvira, still suspicious of Jane, returns the next day and discovers Blanche in a weakened and starved state. Before she can rescue her, however, Jane beats Elvira to death with a hammer and disposes of her body.
Days later, the police call upon the Hudson house and tell Jane that her maid's cousin has reported her missing. The panicked Jane prepares to leave, taking Blanche with her. Before they can leave, Edwin shows up uninvited and drunk, and discovers Blanche in her bed, bound and emaciated. Edwin flees to a drugstore where he notifies the authorities.
Jane drives Blanche to the beach and reverts to her childhood self. Near death, Blanche confesses that her paralysis is her own fault: on the night of the accident, she had tried to run Jane over because she was angry at her sister for mocking her, and ever since she has let Jane believe she was to blame for her spine being severed when the car struck the iron gate of their house. Pathetically, Jane asks, "You mean all this time we could have been friends?" With childlike joy, Jane goes to a beachside snack bar to get ice-cream cones for herself and Blanche, then succumbs completely to her insanity and dances before a crowd of puzzled onlookers, believing she is once again "Baby Jane," performing for her adoring fans. Two police officers, who have come to arrest Jane for Elvira's murder, see Blanche lying motionless in the sand and rush to her.

Tags: insanity, revenge, murder, sadist

Review:
Excellent!!!.
An excellent remake of the 1962 classic, with real life sisters Vanessa and Lynn Redgrave in the old Bette Davis and Joan Crawford roles.I am a big fan of the original film, and was pleasantly pleased when I watched the remake and it was a lot better than I thought it would be.Although based on the same story, the events in the two films are staged completely different, which was good because I can't stand a remake that is just a total rip-off of the first film.The basic story is as follows...Jane Hudson (Lynn Redgrave) is a former child star who was forgotten when her sister Blanche (Vanessa Redgrave) became famous and stole all of Jane's former success.Now middle-aged, the two sisters live together and Jane takes care of Blanche after a horrific accident leaves Blanche unable to walk.
When a TV network starts to show a season of Blanche's old movies, Jane's forgotten jealousy returns, as she has always held her sister responsible for the loss of her career...I thoroughly enjoyed the movie.
4 stars..
Interesting.
. .but unsatisfying.
My philosophy on remakes is if you can't outdo the original, why bother?
Although there are several remakes that I like, this is one of those "why bother" films.
Don't get me wrong, the cast did a decent job with what they had to work with, and it was interesting to see the characters moved into the 90s, but where the original had a little too much backstory this version didn't have enough.
But allowing time for commercials took away from the story, leaving this version nearly an hour short of the original.
It was interesting to see the characters moved into a world with video stores, prostitutes, and drag queens -- which may be the only saving grace for the remake.I saw this version when it premiered, but didn't yet know the original, thus I didn't care for it that much.
Seeing it again over 10 years later, now that I've seen the Davis/Crawford version, it made me like this one slightly better, but only slightly.
The original is deservedly a classic, and the behind-the-scenes story is just as, if not more, interesting as the movie itself.
When it comes to this version, there were no behind-the-scenes battles, being as the leads are real-life sisters.At the beginning of this version, the Redgrave sisters seem to be more friendly towards one another than Davis and Crawford were at any point of the original, but it still works.
Lynn does a descent job as over-the-top Baby Jane, but she only plays it over-the-top, unlike the schizophrenic portrayal that Davis gave.
Vanessa, on the other hand, lacked the depth that Crawford had as Blanche, which made her seem less like a victim and more like she just can't act, particularly the closer it got to the end of the film.
Case in point, the final scene.
Where Crawford gave an honest, breathless confession on the beach, Vanessa Redgrave studders her way through the dialogue as if she's reading it from cue cards perched above her head.
John Glover, taking over the Victor Buono role, did a good job with his part, though it was a little disconcerting seeing the character in drag (though Buono could have never pulled that off).At the very most, this version was interesting.
Nuff said..
Not bad in itself...but no remake of a classic!.
"whatever happened to Baby Jane?" remains a stunning,horrific story well ahead of it's time (1962) Joan Crawford and Bette Davis left memorable & nightmarish examples of how to play a role for all it will get you!
However, it's 1991 remake with the lovely and talented Redgrave sisters promised to leave viewers with the same creepy chills & thrills!
Unfortunately, this simply dosen't happen here!Don't get me wrong!
The 1991 version of "Whatever happened to Baby Jane?" holds up as it's own story: set in modern-day Hollywood with it's all-too-familiar band of groupies,druggies,drag-queens & has-beens,who will forever lurk in the video stores and back streets, hoping to meet aging or ailing celebrities in order to "break-in" to the big-time!
This TV movie actually draws the viewer in to a modern version of a hybrid between "Sunset Boulevard" and "Midnight Cowboy" But, in deference to it's original.I must confess that as the ailing,aging Blanche, Vanessa Redgrave manages to hand in an adequate if not wooded portrayal.AS the nutty Jane,Lynn tries her best to NOT imitate Bette Davis and it does work-at least her portrayal is more remorseful and concerned about her crippled sister!
In THIS version we actually FEEL for poor Jane as she's led to believe that SHE had caused the accident!
When she finally learns the truth she actually seems to have been "set free" from 20 years of guilt,depressionn & alcoholism!
Of course,it's too late now,we realize, as we watch the police chase her on the beach in the final shot!.
Hideous travesty.
Godawful, pointless remake doesn't engender sympathy or interest for anyone; it's shameless, ill-conceived and difficult to watch and so is Lynn Red-faced's performance.
Wasn't Bruce Vilanch available?
You gotta give her credit for shameless exhibitionism.
Just look at The Last of the Mobile Hot Shots, her portrayal of to Xavier Hollander in The Happy Hooker, and in Smashing Time she looked like Jay Leno in drag, but this is an embarrassment as is the whole film which destroys any sense the original,campy Gothic had, and even if you haven't seen the original this amateurish, mean-spirited remake will make you cringe.
The whole thing seems like a long, unfunny joke that was completed in single takes and even Vanessa Redgrave is useless.
I think I know why this travesty is never shown..
Some Movies Just Aren't Meant to be Remade!.
The Original "whatever happened to baby jane" was such a classic.
it can be considered a timeless classic but trying to make it all modernized just ruins it.
this film was completely unnecessary.
At least in the early 1960s, they were able to pull this kind of a story off because of the camera angles and the character types.
but this film is just annoying especially with the closeup camera angles and the cheap cinematography, and baby jane looks like a clown.
the performances were weak by the redgrave sisters, they looked like they did not know what they were doing at all.
plus in the original movie, Jane plays a revenge trick on blanche by putting a bird followed by a dead rat on her cover tray which is one of the most famous scenes in all of horror history, in this film, it is a sandwich with worms on it followed by really dramatic music and then cuts off to the next scene..that was not fun at all and nowhere near as exciting as the original....there is absolutely no point in watching this movie so stick with the original classic!.
Painfully Dull and Bland.
(1991) * 1/2 (out of 4) Remake of the 1962 cult classic has Lynn Redgrave taking over the role of Jane Hudson from Betty Davis while Vanessa Redgrave takes over the role of Blanche, originally played by Joan Crawford.There's really no point in going through the plot description because I'm pretty sure you already know if if you've seen the original.
If you haven't seen the original then I'd recommend you stop reading this and go do so.
While I found the original film to be flawed in certain aspects, there's no question that it was a classic thanks in large part to the wonderful lead performances.
I'm very much pro-remakes as I think they can often be quite interesting in the new things they bring to something that is familiar.With that said, this remake just doesn't work for a number of reasons.
The biggest problem I had with the film was the fact that it was incredibly dull.
I mean, there wasn't a single ounce of life to be found in this thing as the movie gets off to a very slow start and it just becomes more and more dull as it moves along.
Director David Greene doesn't bring any sort of life, tension or atmosphere to the picture and I'd argue that everything that worked in the original film is pretty much watered down here.Another major issue is the fact that there's just no tension between the sisters.
There's not a single frame where you really feel for the Blanche character because her torments just aren't all that shocking and they contain minimum impact.
It doesn't help that both characters are extremely dull here and that's especially true for Baby Jane.
Trying to match what Davis did would be impossible but Redgrave just doesn't do anything with the part.I enjoy made-for-television films but this one here falls into some pretty bland traps through.
In case you've missed it, I've used the word bland and dull throughout this review.
WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE?
WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE?
has a couple interesting changes including the reason behind Jane's mental breakdown throughout the film.
I also liked some of the updated stuff including Blache becoming "known" again thanks to VHS.
With that said, turning Jane into a pop star was just painfully bad..
This film showcases the brilliant talents of both Vanessa and Lynn Redgrave..
This film is a masterpiece!
Vanessa and Lynn Redgrave show once again why they are both such successful actresses.
This version of Baby Jane rivals if not surpasses the original with Joan Crawford and Bette Davis.
Both actresses give astounding performances, and deserve the accolades of critics and the film industry for such a great movie.
This film deserved better coverage and a wider audience..
apples and oranges.
If the 1962 version had never been made this movie would be considered great.
It's a great, tragic story with two great stars and it's really well done.
The star quality of the Redgrave sisters is enough to carry the movie but Lynn's performance is astonishing.
Vanessa is always excellent but her part is less showy.
It's not a scene for scene remake and the characters are fleshed out a little more.
I love the original and I am Davis' biggest fan but this movie can easily stand on its' own.
It's fun to think of other pairings for the story (Elizabeth Taylor and Roddy McDowall would have been great fun) and I can understand why Lynn and Vanessa did it.
It could stand to be restored..
A Glimmer Of Hope?.
I've seen the original zillions of times but have only seen the remake once all the way through, though I seem to remember getting in on the last part a few years later when I happened to notice that it was on again.Either it was on again or else something similar to it.I can only remember seeing it once.One thing that especially impressed me about this one was that it seemed to me that the beach scene offered a glimmer of hope.Blanche told the cops that her sister was in need of professional help so to please be sure that she got it--and I also had the feeling that help just might have arrived in time that Blanche's life also was spared.This would mean that the two sisters would have another chance at a good relationship with each other instead of one being dead and the other either being permanently locked away in a mental institution or else a prison--and seen as "hopeless" either way..
Unnecessary.
Some films are such classics that remakes are doomed to failure before a word is spoken.
In its favour, Lynn Redgrave seems to have enjoyed herself and her version of Jane was a lot less cruel than David's.
Vanessa Redgrave seemed to be sleepwalking through the entire film.
For me, trying to modernise it while also attempting to keep to the original film just didn't work.
This is a picky point but the Redgrave sisters are very tall and watching Lynn trying to run about like a child was probably unintentionally hilarious.
I'd say just watch the original..
Redundant.
This is the TV movie remake of the classic psycho-thriller starring Bette Davis and Joan Crawford.
This low budget production obviously can't hold a candle to the original, but it does have the novelty value of casting real-life sisters Vanessa and Lynn Redgrave as the leads.
Sadly, the concoction doesn't really work successfully and the end result is more frustrating than anything else.
Lynn overacts horribly throughout and has none of the depth or sympathy of the original's character.
Vanessa is the opposite and seems almost comatose at times.
Most of the time this is a scene-for-scene copy, but there are a few changed bits, like the inclusion of a drag singer, which don't really work.
The end question is...why bother with this when the original exists?.
The Original Vs. The Remake.
Remakes are doomed from the beginning.
Even worse than sequels--remakes only have a limited way to go.
"Baby Jane" was such a startling movie in all sorts of ways.
First, you got to see two huge stars, Joan Crawford and Bette Davis, decay right before your very eyes.
That freaked some people out.
Second, you saw Crawford and Davis in the same film.
(Really, a documentary of the making of the original would have been much better than a remake).
Bette Davis hated every cell in Joan Crawford's body, and it translates well onto film.
Jane, Davis' character, despises Blanche, played by Crawford.
We don't have all that hype with the Redgraves.
Lynn plays Jane for laughs and maybe a few scares, and Vanessa doesn't do a darn thing.
One of the major differences in the two is the way Jane treats Blanche.
In Baby Jane 1, she is mean, abusive, and for the most part unforgiving.
Baby Jane 2 shows a much nicer, more pathetic Jane.
She obviously cares for Blanche (maybe being sisters helped the Redgraves out with this one), but she is still angry with her.
If Blanche gets hurt, Jane is upset.
Even if she caused the pain, she's sorry later.
I have the feeling that the makers of this version got their hands on a copy of the book (by Henry Farrell--izzat his name?).
In the book, Jane and Blanche got along better than Crawford and Davis.
(Who doesn't?!?)One good thing about the film--Lynn Redgrave looks hilarious.
She's got fried red hair that she wears in pigtails like antennae, Lynn's using her too-funny flat American accent, she's going for camp.
On the other hand, Vanessa, who can act, doesn't.
She doesn't seem to know what she's supposed to do.
Do we hate Blanche Hudson, are we sorry for her, what?
The beach scene is ruined by her stuttering, but it is quite obvious that she's very sick and COLD.
COLD makes one stutter--they should have driven that point home.
(They could have really ruined the scene by using the book--in it, Jane brings Blanche ice cream, Blanche eats in and promptly vomits.
That would be pretty awful.)  I do, however, love any movie that shows how enormously tall Vanessa Redgrave is.
When Dominic (?) picks her up, she just dwarfs him completely.Last and least, this movie is very unkind.
To the viewers, to the actors, and to anyone else who may have gotten involved.
It's unkind to give Jane a chance to live out her dream only to have it go horribly wrong.
It's unkind to be paralyzed from the waist down, as Blanche is.
It's unkind to have a watch a movie that should have been much better..
Not bad.
When I found this Nineties remake of the timeless 1962 classic "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" I was expecting something really bad.
To my surprise, it wasn't bad at all!
Sure, it'll definitely never beat the original, but for a more modern version of the story it did an okay job.
It's certainly watered down from the chilling performances of Bette Davis and Joan Crawford in the original, but at least this remake made an evident effort.
The Redgrave sisters and Glover added new faces to the main roles and a modernized soundtrack added a new element to the plot as well.
Personally I'll always love the original the best, but as far as remakes go, I've seen worse.