Was that Dianne Redfern?
Was that her who spoke to Vincent Price but is brushed off as he goes to speak to Laura as the party?
Does anyone know?
--
Non-sequiturs are delicious.
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Laura Discussion > Was that Dianne Redfern?
Nope. That was Anne Treadwell.
shareNope. That was Anne Treadwell.
I disagree. Anne, an older woman, was the hostess of the party.
This was some nondescript young thing (who obviously wants his attention) that Shelby gives the brush to -- subtlety revealing the coarseness of his character.
As for the OP's question, there's no indication that this was supposed to be Redfern.
share
[deleted]
Sometime later, when Shelby is working for Laura, he reminds her that she, herself, hired Diane.
Another reason I don't believe the young thing was Diane is because as a newly-hired (probably lowly) model, Diane most likely didn't run in the same circles as Anne, Laura, Waldo, and Shelby.
Laura didn't even remember her face or hiring her when Shelby showed her the ad. She wasn't a main player in Laura's life.
It would have been unlikely for her to be at Anne's party.
share
[deleted]
Nope. That was Anne Treadwell.
No, I don't mean Judith Anderson's character.
This was some nondescript young thing (who obviously wants his attention) that Shelby gives the brush to -- subtlety revealing the coarseness of his character.
As for the OP's question, there's no indication that this was supposed to be Redfern.
Yes, her. I wonder if it was the same woman in the photo. And the way the moment occurs -- so briefly and almost without notice -- really makes me wonder if it was indeed Miss Redfern.
--
Non-sequiturs are delicious.
share
Yes, her. I wonder if it was the same woman in the photo. And the way the moment occurs -- so briefly and almost without notice -- really makes me wonder if it was indeed Miss Redfern.
I think you're just guessing. As I said, there's no indication that this was supposed to be Redfern, for the reasons given above. If it was supposed to be her, I think the script, in some way, would have let us in on it.
In my opinion, she was just a "dress extra" at the party and of no significance.
share
I think you're just guessing. As I said, there's no indication that this was supposed to be Redfern, for the reasons given above. If it was supposed to be her, I think the script, in some way, would have let us in on it.
In my opinion, she was just a "dress extra" at the party and of no significance.
Well, of course I'm "just guessing." But she looks a lot like her, whether she wasn or wasn't. And as far as the script letting us in on it in some way, why wouldn't her appearance at the party, subtle and fleeting, be enough?
It's called nuance, isn't it?
--
Non-sequiturs are delicious.
share
As I said above, another reason I don't believe it's Diane, is because she was a lowly, new-hire of Laura's, that Laura didn't even recognize in the ad Shelby showed her.
Therefore, I don't believe she was in the same social circle as Anne, Laura, Waldo, and Shelby and most likely would not have been invited to ANNE'S party.
That's my opinion on it.
Was it at Anne's party? Didn't Waldo complain about the eclectic mix at Laura's party?
--
Non-sequiturs are delicious.
I think it's Diane.
--
The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.
Probably none of us can say for sure, but the party in question took place before Shelby went to work for Laura, and I believe the film made clear that Diane wasn't hired until after, which (to my mind) makes it less likely she'd have been at that party.
Poe! You are...avenged!
The girl even had on a very similar dress.
--
The most profound of sin is tragedy unremembered.
I don't think it ever occurred to me that the girl at that party could have been Diane Redfern, but you might be right.
My friend Doghouse-6 is correct that later on, when Shelby shows Laura the new ad with Diane, we learn that Diane was a recent hire at the agency. However, that doesn't preclude Shelby having known her previously -- in fact, it's entirely logical to believe that he served as Diane's entree into the agency, especially since he was secretly seeing her. Although nothing is ever explicitly stated, there's an element in their relationship that hints at their having been involved longer than her employment at the agency -- as friends at least, if not lovers.
My only issue is that I can't recall what the girl at the party looked like. We did briefly see that ad with Diane's photo, and we know that she resembled Laura, but I just can't recall the girl's face well enough to make a more definitive statement. Presumably, if it was Diane, it would have been the same girl we see in the magazine ad.
Something to check out and come back to.
...that doesn't preclude Shelby having known her previously...there's an element in their relationship that hints at their having been involved longer than her employment at the agency...Good point, amigo, and an intriguing possibility. Y'know, I must get around to reading the book. In the meantime, like some others here, I'll have to pay closer attention to the party girl upon my next viewing.
If, indeed, it's intended that she's the same girl (same actress seen in the photo), then I'd say it's odd that Preminger would call absolutely no attention to it. I won't go as far as to call his direction flat ("workmanlike" would probably be a more applicable word), but in a general sense, I think it exhibits a lack of flair, and misses some bets in moments where visual dramatic emphasis, in both photography and editing, would have better served the film.
Poe! You are...avenged! share
If, indeed, it's intended that she's the same girl (same actress seen in the photo), then I'd say it's odd that Preminger would call absolutely no attention to it.
I agree; that's logical.
As I stated above, Dianne Redfern was a minor player in the Laura, Ann, and Waldo Universe. It is unlikely that she would have been invited to Ann's, and wasn't even hired by Laura until AFTER Shelby was hired. Laura barely remembered hiring her, which would indicate to me that she was unknown to the rest of them.
There's no reason to assume "the girl" was Diane. I maintain that she was a contract player used here as a "dress extra" that got lucky enough to have a line or two with Price.
Shelby brushed her off as an indication (to the viewer) of his character.
share
There's no reason to assume "the girl" was Diane.
I don't think anybody is "assuming" that the girl at the party was Diane Redfern. Even the OP's thread title is a question: "Was that Diane Redfern?"
But neither is there any reason to simply assume it wasn't Diane. Why couldn't it have been?
Now, to make my position clear, I'm not saying she was or wasn't Diane; I need to see the film again to see if the girl looks like the the photo of "Diane" we see in the magazine. But some things to consider:
The fact that Preminger didn't draw attention to this party girl doesn't necessarily mean it isn't Diane, and in fact if she is Diane it really wouldn't have been necessary to draw attention to her in that scene. Everything important that we learn about Diane we learn at other points in the movie (her being hired, her photo, her being the victim, the fact she was in love with Shelby, etc.), so explicitly pointing her out at the party wasn't necessary to advance the plot.
As I stated above, Dianne Redfern was a minor player in the Laura, Ann, and Waldo Universe. It is unlikely that she would have been invited to Ann's,
There's no way we can judge whether it would be "unlikely" Diane would be invited to Ann's. We don't know enough about her to make such a determination. Conceding she was a "minor player" in Ann's universe at least recognizes she was a player -- and therefore a plausible party guest. Minor to Ann? Surely. But whether the girl at the party is Diane or not, she has to be known at least to some extent by Ann -- since she's indisputably at her party. And regardless of whether the girl is or is not Diane, she clearly knows Shelby, since she gives him a very effusive greeting. Further, from that greeting it's clear she's enamored of Shelby -- all of which at least makes it plausible she might be Diane, who had such feelings for him.
Certainly Diane was an unknown to Laura and Waldo, at least at the time of the party -- so was Shelby. But she became a larger player later on -- thanks to Shelby. In any case, none of this answers whether she was the girl at the party.
and wasn't even hired by Laura until AFTER Shelby was hired.
Right -- which goes far to indicate that she was Shelby's find (which is strongly inferred in the exchange between Laura and Shelby when he shows her the ad, though it's not certain), and may well have had a relationship with him prior to his hiring her. This is also another reason to consider the possibility the girl at the party might have been Diane.
Laura barely remembered hiring her, which would indicate to me that she was unknown to the rest of them.
Yes, but no one ever said Laura knew Diane before she was hired, and it's also clear that she only really became aware of Diane once she learned Shelby had some relationship with her.
As to whether Diane was "unknown to the rest of them," again, while it's plain she had been unknown to Laura until Laura hired her, and unknown to Waldo until he began snooping to undercut Shelby, she was certainly known to Shelby at some point earlier. Whether Shelby knew her before or after she was hired at the agency, we can't be certain (one reason we have to check out what the girl at the party looks like), but it's certainly quite plausible, if not likely. As for Ann -- that depends on whether the girl at the party was Diane or not.
Shelby brushed her off as an indication (to the viewer) of his character.
Agreed. But that's not an indication of whether she was or was not Diane. In fact, it would also be in keeping with Shelby's known attitude toward Diane, since we know Diane was obsessed with Shelby, and that while he sometimes saw her he was trying to discourage her affections. This doesn't prove the girl at the party was Diane, but the circumstances of Shelby's encounter with this girl certainly parallel his known relationship with Diane.
I maintain that she was a contract player used here as a "dress extra" that got lucky enough to have a line or two with Price.
You're certainly right that the girl at the party was just a dress extra or contract player given a quick role, but so what? That goes to the actress, not the character she played. It has nothing to do with whether she's Diane Redfern or not. The size of her role wouldn't be any different.
Bottom line: we have to see if the girl at the party looks at all like Diane as we saw her in that ad. If not, our question is solved: she's not Diane. We're lucky to have that magazine photo to be able to decide this question, because on the other information available there is no reason she couldn't be Diane, and much circumstantial evidence to indicate she might well be -- certainly nothing to definitively rule the possibility out. share
I respectfully disagree with your entire thesis. I've stated my opinion and stand by it.
I don't understand why, in so many cases, people can't accept what the screenplays GIVE US, without myriad speculation and making up entire back stories and sub plots.
Maybe they think it's "fun," but quite frankly, it drives me to distraction.
I have nothing more to say on the subject.
Gee, Gubbio, why are you so worked up and aggressive about this? You're entitled to your opinion. No one's attacking you over it. Why this edgy "I've stated my opinion and stand by it" stuff? I respect your opinion, and said you might well be right.
I also agree with you that many times people insist on assuming or believing things that clearly are not provided by the screenplay. This annoys me as well.
But that is NOT the case here.
No one is assuming or flatly stating that girl is Diane. It's merely something that might be possible. In fact, the screenplay is mute on whether the girl is or is not Diane. It doesn't say anything about it -- it certainly doesn't indicate she isn't, or couldn't be. So speculation on this topic is appropriate if and until we can establish a definite answer.
Also, one of your arguments against this girl being Diane is that you think she's just a dress extra given a line or two. Obviously; but what has that to do with whether she is or isn't Diane? As I said before, that fact in and of itself doesn't prove anything; it concerns the actress, not her character.
Again, I don't know whether the girl is Diane or not. I merely allow the possibility and offered sound reasons why, which have so far not been refuted. The screenplay says nothing about it, and in this instance I think it might be plausible. But I respect your differing view, and to repeat yet again, you may very well be right.
Maybe they just used the same actress in the two shots: first at the party (as an extra), and then in the magazine. In 1944, moviegoers wouldn't have been able to analyze the situation that carefully because they wouldn't have had the movie on DVD or VHS. Maybe it was just cheaper to get a shot of that extra and use it in the magazine.
I know that a film instructor would probably fail me for this point of view, but I'm sticking by it, although I like what you had to say (as usual). To be honest with you, I agree with the reply you got about your post. Sometimes a spade is just a spade.
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
You mean, maybe they used the same actress both in the party scene and the magazine shot, but that they were not supposed to be the same girl -- Diane in the ad, someone else at the party?
I can't say not, but I doubt that very, very much. There's no logic to it, and since it's easily ascertainable (we can look at the girl at the party and compare her to the photo in the ad), if it should turn out to be the same girl (it may not be) I think the only plausible conclusion is that she is Diane Redfern in both instances.
In any event, that's supposition, not fact or proof.
It's fine that you agree with Gubbio's reply. I point out that he did not offer one scintilla of factual refutation to anything I wrote, or any facts to support his insistence that the girl cannot possibly be Diane. He criticizes others for supposedly making the assumption that this girl is Diane, but in point of fact not only has no one said that, it's he who's stating as absolute fact that the girl is definitely not Diane. Since the script says nothing either way, how can he be certain? He doesn't even allow for another possibility. That's too closed an attitude for my taste, but if that's the one you prefer, that's your right too.
Okay, so maybe that girl was Diane Redfern. I'm not dismissing it as an impossibility. The point is, even if it's her in that shot, so what? Nothing was said/done about it in the movie. She wasn't introduced to anyone in that scene. Later, when she was talked about, there was no mention of her being at the party. In other words, it's irrelevant, just as irrelevant as what Diane Redfern had to eat the same day she was murdered.
There is no reason why, back then, they couldn't have used the same actress in both shots. Today, people can fast-forward, rewind, zoom on, etc. on that scene because we are watching the movie on DVD, on youtube, etc. In 1944, the film would have been watched in the theaters only, so there was no way to really double check something like this. So why not just use the same actress?
I haven't seen this film in about a year, and I have never noticed that actress at the party. Maybe because I wasn't looking for her there. I'll look next time and draw my own conclusions.
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
No one said it was important or particularly relevant. It was simply a question.
So why not just use the same actress?
Which is what we've all been asking about. As has been obvious throughout. share
Perhaps my question wasn't clear. I didn't mean "was it Diane Redfern in both shots". I meant "did they just use the same actress for the two minor parts". It could have been the same woman, playing Diane Redfern in one scene and playing some random guest in another scene.
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
Well, I think you're confused. We're not talking about two actresses in two different scenes, at least not in the sense that they're acting in two different scenes.
If an actress actually playing Diane Redfern was in the movie anywhere it was in that party scene. However, the one scene we know we see her in is merely a photograph in the magazine Laura shows Mark in her apartment. Presumably if the party woman was Diane the same actress would have posed for the photo. On the other hand, if that girl at the party wasn't supposed to be Diane, then yes, they would have had someone else pose for the photo. I doubt very much they had the same woman in the photo as Diane playing an entirely different character at the party.
But there aren't "two minor parts" since the photograph doesn't really count as a "part".
Okey-dokey. That's what I meant, but I was too lazy to express myself properly.
I guess I would never pass a film course....
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
I agree with you completely. If Preminger had intended for Diane Redfern to be at that party, then he would have called attention to it in some way.
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
I agree with you completely. If Preminger had intended for Diane Redfern to be at that party, then he would have called attention to it in some way.
I disagree with you completely. If Preminger had intended for Diane Redfern to be at that party, then he would have never called any more attention to it than he did.
Subtlety is more effective. That's part of mystery.
--
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m127/tubesteak69/Divas_Who_Drink-1.jpg
share
Sure it's more effective to be subtle...but not so subtle that her face can't even be seen. Besides, so what if she was at the party? What exactly does it add to the story?
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
Whoda thunk this innocuous question would have provoked such lively - and long-lived - discussion, huh?
Well, maybe PrometheusTree64 did, but I didn't.
Poe! You are...avenged!
It would be a great discussion for film courses, right up there with the door swinging in The Ox-Bow Incident. That's another one which has fired up some folks in the past. (I recall a couple of threads a few years ago...)
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
I think that Diane had a twin sister who was at the party. Perhaps the twin was the murder victim.
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
Now that's a thought!
shareOkay, I decided someone should actually go to the source, check the movie and try to determine if the girl who briefly says hello to Shelby at Ann's party is or is not Diane Redfern.
First, a couple of notes by way of clarification:
**I went into this with no preconceived notions and no interest in whether the girl at the party is or isn't Diane. I had never even thought about the matter until I read the OP's question. Therefore, I am not trying to prove whether she is or isn't Diane. I'm simply trying to figure it out as best I can and to be as fair and objective as possible.
**Some have said it's unlikely Diane would have traveled in the upper-class circles that Laura, Waldo, Shelby and Ann occupied. However, this is undercut by Waldo's voice-over remark when they move to the party scene in flashback. Describing Ann's party, Waldo says, "It was one of her usual round-ups of bizarre and non-descript characters, corralled from every stratum of society." That last part shows that Ann didn't limit her guests to those from her own class, and that therefore there is no reason Diane couldn't have been at the party. This is not offered as proof this girl was Diane, only as foundation for the possibility she might have been.
**Many of us, myself included, have been making a mistake when referring to when it is we see the magazine photo of Diane. We do not see this photo in the scene with Shelby in Laura's office; in that scene he shows her an ad but it's a large illustration on a storyboard, not the photo in the magazine. We see that photo much later on, when Laura shows it to Mark after her return home; she carries the dress of Diane's she found in her bedroom out to the living room and shows it to Mark together with the magazine photo of Diane Redfern. We were all referring to the same photo, but were mis-remembering where in the film we see it.
So, is the girl at the party Diane or not?
Well, unfortunately the best answer I can give is: probably -- but not certainly.
I played the DVD and compared the sequence with the girl at the party with the still photo of Diane Laura shows Mark at her apartment. That photo of Diane is at 49:00 minutes into the film. It's full face and of course posed, but as it's a photo we get a more complete and steadier look at her.
I then took a screen-capture of the photo to compare with the girl in the party sequence. (This is at 24:12 - 24:13 minutes into the film.) Of course, in that scene the girl is almost constantly moving, not still; and we never quite see her full-face the way Diane is in the photo -- at the maximum shot of her face she's still at a slight profile; we see her more from an angle, which brings some definition to her nose and chin but makes it harder to judge the shape of her full face, particularly her right side, which is farthest from the camera and remains partially obscured.
Given these issues, and since she's only on camera for two seconds or so, a full and completely satisfactory comparison isn't really possible.
That said, in my opinion (and remember I have never said this girl is or isn't Diane, only that it's possible she might be), I think the girl at the party is indeed Diane Redfern.
**First, she's got very much the same basic features as Diane that we see in the photo. Her hair, coloring, overall build and general features appear to be the same, though the hair seems styled a bit differently in the photo vs. at the party.
**Second, many specific features appear identical. Her eyes and eyebrows look the same. Though we don't see Diane's nose in profile in the photo, it also appears to be the same as the party girl's -- straight and with a firm tip, not curving upward. The distance between the bottom of her nose and her upper lip looks the same. The mouth is a bit harder to judge because in the photo Diane is smiling but close-mouthed, whereas at the party the girl has her mouth more widely open because she's speaking, but taking that into account the lips and size of her mouth seem to match the photo. Their foreheads appear to be the same.
**And this is a bit harder to tell at first glance, but their chins seem to be the same. In the photo, which we see head-on, the profile of Diane's chin is obscured, and at first I thought the party girl's chin looked too jutting or prominent to match the one in the photograph. But after repeated and long frame-by-frame examinations of the girl at the party, plus a close study of the still photo and the shadows visible on it, I concluded that the chins are the same, just difficult to tell because of the different angles we see the girl at. The overall size of the lower part of the face, from the lower lip to the chin, looks identical.
**On the less-certain side, while their foreheads look the same size, Diane's hairline in the photo looks slightly different from the party girl's. In part this is due to the somewhat different hair styles, but there does appear to be a small but noticeable difference. Also, Diane has a very round face in the photo, but the shape of the party girl's face is much harder to determine accurately. This is due to never seeing her full-face-on, as we see Diane in the photo. As best as I can tell, the girl at the party does seem to have a somewhat rounded left cheek, but with the angle and different lighting I simply can't say whether they're the same -- close, yes, but identical? Don't know. And we never get a good look at this girl's right side, so judging the overall shape of her face from what we see of her is very difficult. All I can say is that the shapes of the faces are very similar, but in the absence of better visuals I can't say whether they match precisely.
**On the other hand, nothing I saw conclusively rules out the girl at the party being Diane. Even granted the comparison problems I've mentioned, the resemblance is striking. The points of actual or near-identicalness are very strong, while the less-clear points still show a close enough similarity to be fairly deemed reasonably alike, if not irrefutably the same.
So, my conclusions, such as they are:
I think the girl at the party is more likely than not Diane Redfern. This is based primarily on the visual evidence, but also on plot points -- the fact we know she knew Shelby, plus the reasonable possibility that Diane, despite her presumed "middle class' status, could have been at the party (given Ann's habit of rounding up bizarre and non-descript characters "corralled from every stratum of society"). Taking the evidence in its totality, I think the argument for their being the same person is very strong.
However, "more likely than not" is not "is". Unfortunately while the physical similarities are extremely close, the inherent discrepancies of the two visuals -- a full-face still photo, vs. a moving target seen from an angle that obscures some aspects -- make an absolutely certain comparison difficult if not impossible. Some features do not look that much alike from what we can see. There is therefore room for doubt. And unfortunately, Shelby only calls the party girl "honey", not by name, so that's of no help. Now, if only he'd called her Diane -- or Phyllis, or Agnes, or Lucretia -- we'd have our answer.
And some final observations:
**It's important to reiterate something I said at the beginning: since I went into this with no preconceived notions and no interest in whether the girl at the party was or wasn't Diane, I am not trying to prove whether she is or isn't. I don't really care whether she is or isn't Diane. I'm simply trying to make the best assessment I can in the most reasonable and objective manner possible.
**At a minimum, any fair-minded person has to acknowledge that there is a strong resemblance.
**Given the totality of the visual evidence and what we know of the backgrounds of the characters, there is a good chance the girl at the party is Diane. With a few cautionary reservations, I think she is. But I wouldn't bet the farm on it. She might well not be.
**I suppose people who have their minds made up on this subject, on either side, will see what they want to see and use any reasoning, specious or factual, to insist that their belief is incontestably correct and that a contrary belief is absolutely impossible. One can't argue with people who have closed minds, so they'll go on believing what they wish and selectively cite whatever facts they choose to validate their opinions. Personally I don't see how anyone can conclusively, definitively and with 100% certitude claim the girl at the party is -- or is not -- Diane. The evidence isn't crystal clear either way. Unhappily.
So, those are my conclusions. However, for more "fun", here's something different for you:
In looking at the scene of the maybe-Diane girl at the party, I noticed an extra standing in the background, a girl talking to a man. For all the world, this woman looks like Noel Neill, of "Lois Lane" fame from Adventures of Superman in the 50s. Noel was almost 24 and in Hollywood at this time doing extra work and bit parts, and this woman is almost a dead-ringer for NN; her hair even looks like Noel's style from that period. Now, I'm not saying it is Noel -- it probably isn't -- but this woman really does look a heck of a lot like her...maybe even more than "party girl" looks like Diane Redfern. Luckily, at this writing Noel is still with us at age 94, so maybe someone can ask her.
Who knows -- if it was Noel, she might even be able to tell us if that girl was Diane Redern!
Geeze..... And I thought *I* had OCD !
You and me both!
share[deleted]
I asked the question on the noir board, and only one person replied. He said that he hadn't seen the movie in about a decade so he couldn't remember. I think that this is one of those things which a lot of folks simply might not notice. And I suspect that the director didn't really expect anyone to notice.
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
You couldn't do all that in 1944, hobnob. Why not watch the film just the way it was watched back then (beginning to end, with no pausing or rewinding or anything like that) and see if you still notice the similarities?
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
You couldn't do all that in 1944
Right. So what? We can't make use of advanced technology?
I've undoubtedly watched Laura in the "usual" way dozens of times more than you have. Even today I initially watched the relevant portions of the film as intended. Ordinarily I never bother pausing, rewinding, etc., movies, as doing so doesn't interest me. However, in this case it was the only way to try to get a handle on the question.
Of course I couldn't tell any similarities (or differences) watching it through without stopping. That's the whole point of pausing -- to examine the film to try to answer this not very important thread question. I don't see what point you're trying to make here...except that people in 1944 -- and for decades after that as well -- couldn't do the things we can do today. Meaning what -- that they couldn't have judged whether that girl was Diane Redfern? True. But again, so what? share
I've seen this film about 30 times, I'm sure.
My point is that, if the director had wanted audiences back then to spot the similarities, then in the script, there would have been something which would have connected the gal at the party with the girl in the picture. Otherwise, who would have noticed? They had to tell the story in such a way that would have been consistent with the technology of the time. Why would they have decided to have Diane Redfern present at that party...but set it up in such a way that audiences back in 1944 wouldn't have noticed? You yourself said that you aren't 100% sure about it now. You think that with 1944 technology, anyone could have been sure?
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
You're right that there was no effort made to show that this girl was Diane -- at least, none that survived into the final print. So whether it was or wasn't Diane at the party, it doesn't make any difference to the plot. It's just an interesting bit of speculation. Nothing to get worked up over.
My problem is with people who say it absolutely, 100% could not be Diane. Since the issue isn't addressed one way or another, how do they know? That's why I used our present technology to try to reach a firm conclusion. Unfortunately, even with that modern technology I couldn't come to a definite answer.
However, technology has nothing to do with the question. Even if we didn't have DVDs and the ability to slow down or stop the movie today, speculating about whether this girl might be Diane would be perfectly legitimate...as it would also have been in 1944, and ever since. The technology aspect is utterly irrelevant to such speculation, except insofar as it might provide a definitive answer...which, to me at least, it hasn't.
Okay, so maybe it was Diane. If it was, why didn't the director work it into the plot?
You're completely missing the point about the technology business. I never said that it wasn't legitimate back then to speculate about these things. I said that likely it wouldn't have been done because how would folks have been able to fast-forward, rewind, zoom in, etc.? What would they do, ask the person running the projector to rewind so that they could double check the possibility that Diane Redfern might have shown up at the party? If someone did notice the two actresses (or possibly the same one), they'd have to see the movie again to verify, and even then, if those scenes are shown too quickly, they would have missed it. Sure it was legitimate back then to discuss these things, but how often was it done, thanks to the technology of the time?
To me, this question sounds like something that some film prof might include in an assignment if he can't think of anything else to ask. Thankfully, I never bothered with film courses when I was a young adult.
Anyhow, if you feel that Diane Redfern was at that party, then by all means, go on thinking so! Who is stopping you? Me, I think that she MIGHT have been there, but it's clearly irrelevant to the story.
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
Thank goodness foe hobnob53, the voice of reason!
Also, if the girl is Diane, doing it subtly would be the best directorial choice.
--
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m127/tubesteak69/Divas_Who_Drink-1.jpg
I had a look at the party scene, and the face of the actress wasn't even that visible.
I can understand directors wanting to do things the subtle way, but if it's so subtle that one needs to zoom in on a DVD to notice it, and even then her face isn't visible, then it was for nothing. Besides, what did it add to the plot?
I think it would be best for the film instructors to battle over this. To me, this is about as "significant" as that door swinging open in The Ox-Bow Incident. Quite the discussion about that on the board for that movie (if that thread is still there). I still say that it was a filming error, nothing more.
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
MEQ,
No one has said this had anything to do with the plot. Superficially it does seem odd that she would be Diane yet no reference be made to this. But then maybe it was the original intent to show her as DF, and this was dropped during production. Then again, she might not be Diane; no one, myself included, has claimed she is, only that she might be.
The level of technology in 1944 vs. 2015 has nothing to do with anything. It is an irrelevant consideration. There is no point in continually raising this aspect.
I also see no point in more discussion on this topic. It's interesting but ultimately it really makes little difference to the movie, and we seem to have exhausted all its permutations.
I wasn't trying to shoot down your theory, hobnob. Yes, that girl might be Diane Redfern. So could other women who had their backs to the camera. I'm all in favour of the subtle way of telling a story (which is why I love classics so much), but if it's so subtle that it can't be verified, then what's the point? I had to rewind my DVD to double check the girl's face, and I couldn't make out if it was Diane Redfern. So who back in 1944 would have noticed? How could they have noticed?
Yes, the level of technology IS relevant to the conversation because films back in 1944 were made with 1944 movie watching technology in mind.
I'm not saying that the girl couldn't be Diane Redfern. She could be, but so what?
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
I don't have a "theory", MEQ. I said only I think the girl might be Diane Redfern, but with some doubts. It was an assessment based on observation, one which may well be mistaken.
Relative technological levels are not -- repeat, not -- relevant. If the girl wasn't supposed to be DF, it doesn't matter. Even if she was, since it doesn't have any bearing on the plot it would be nothing more than a curio. Maybe Preminger intended people to pick up on it in retrospect. Maybe he threw it in there as an "inside" aside known only to him and maybe a few others. There are all kinds of reasons why it could have been DF but this fact not brought out in the movie. The technical ability to assess this, in 1944 or 2015, makes no difference.
You seem to believe that something has to be evident to an audience for it to be in a movie in the first place. Why? Many movies have minor asides and inside jokes that don't bear directly on the plot but are tossed in for one reason or another. The only difference with Laura is that Diane is relevant to that film's plot. If she were the girl at the party it would show that Shelby knew her when he met Laura. But since we learn he does know her at some point -- which is key to the plot -- whether he knew her at the time of the party doesn't matter. It's just an intriguing aside, and it wouldn't matter if people in 1944 (or '54 or '64 or '74, or today) would pick up on it or not. And who can say whether some people in '44 or since did wonder whether that girl was Diane? I'm sure the OP isn't the first person in 71 years to raise the possibility.
hobnob, films are made for the general public. Why would a director put in something that he knows no one will pick up on because of the way it's filmed? Having Diane at the party sounds like a good idea, but her face should have been made visible (even briefly) to the viewers. That is the fair way of telling a mystery. Of course, if people aren't paying attention, then they won't catch on. I have no sympathy for those who are texting while watching the film. They will miss out on key parts and that's their problem. But for those who are watching it carefully, well, I think that they are being cheated if they can't see the character's face and later the director says that he intended for that character to be so-and-so.
I'm fully aware that Diane is very relevant to the film's plot, and that Shelby knew her. So maybe she was at the party. A pity that we couldn't see her face to know for sure. The audiences back in 1944 had no opportunities to be rewinding and zooming in on the film to verify this.
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
hobnob, films are made for the general public. Why would a director put in something that he knows no one will pick up on because of the way it's filmed?
Are you kidding? Directors do that all the time -- put in "inside jokes" they know the public could almost never get.
--
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m127/tubesteak69/Divas_Who_Drink-1.jpg
share
Well, I guess I'm just not as smart as the average lover of classics. Maybe when I turn 40 I'll smarten up. I'd better leave this intelligent discussion to those who know what they are talking about (or those who can recognize an actress without seeing her face), and I'll just stick to my 1930s whodunits and 1940s film noir.
This discussion is best left for film courses. Same goes for the discussion about the swinging door in The Ox-Bow Incident.
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
You seem to be having a separate conversation.
--
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m127/tubesteak69/Divas_Who_Drink-1.jpg
I'll just say that I've seen/read enough classic mysteries to know what authors/directors will include in the story. I am capable of spotting subtle clues in mysteries.
Just because some folks think that they have made some great "discovery" about a film (like the analysis of the door swinging open in The Ox-Bow Incident), doesn't mean that they have a greater understanding of the movie. I see a lot of those kinds of threads on the boards, and frankly, I think that some of these people are just making up stories to sound important.
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
I see a lot of those kinds of threads on the boards, and frankly, I think that some of these people are just making up stories to sound important.
Oh, boy.
And some people are just claiming to have "seen/read enough classic mysteries to know what authors/directors will include in the story" so they are "capable of spotting subtle clues in mysteries" in order "to sound important."
See how easy that was?
Jesus, the question of this thread was a reasonable one, and, yes, sometimes filmmakers and authors will inject little, brief inside jokes or subtleties which wont be noticed by most people --- and stop pretending you know the parameters of that and what that might or might not include.
You don't have that intellectual authority, MrsElleryQueen1976.
Who knows if that actress was supposed to be Diane Redford or not? It's a plausible question, and most of us understand that we don't have the answer to that.
Sadly, you seem to think you do!
--
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m127/tubesteak69/Divas_Who_Drink-1.jpg
share
Maybe it was Diane Redfern. Maybe the guy in the corner with his back to us was Diane's brother. And the guy next to him is Laura's long-lost brother. The woman standing near them is Waldo's secret lover, and the woman next to her is her lesbian lover....
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
OK, my reply wasn't nice. I'll just make a quiet and graceful exit from this thread....
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
Actually, that was pretty funny.
--
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m127/tubesteak69/Divas_Who_Drink-1.jpg
Hey, if you celebrate Easter, I hope it was a good one for you!
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
Thank you, PrometheusTree64. I've been called a number of things here on IMDb, good and bad, but yours is a new one!
And you're absolutely right, if the girl is Diane, doing it subtly, even not calling any attention to it, would bet he best choice.
And if she isn't, so what?
I think that you're the voice of reason as well, but what would have been the point of doing something so subtly that no one would have noticed back then? Why didn't they at least show her face?
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
That's why they call it mystery. Not a Susan Harris sitcom from the '80s. :)
--
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m127/tubesteak69/Divas_Who_Drink-1.jpg
As a lover of mysteries, I know that all the clues have to be shown clearly to the viewers. I've seen plenty of mysteries from the 1930s and 1940s, and anything relevant to the story is made very clear in the movie. It's up to the viewers to catch onto it. The business of Diane at the party is cheating the audience simply because her face isn't visible. I don't see how it would have been possible to have caught on back then. Besides, what exactly DOES it add to the mystery? What EXACTLY?
As for the comment about the sitcom of the 1980s, was that meant to be an indirect reference to my age? Sure I grew up watching 1980s sitcoms (no Susan Harris ones), but I haven't seen them in years. Mostly I watch 1930s mysteries and 1940s film noir noir. I've loved the film Laura for about 11 years now and I've seen it dozens of times. I just never picked up on who was at the party and even when I took a close look, I couldn't make out that woman's face. Okay, so maybe it's Diane Redfern. If so...so what?
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
Not to get into this topic again, MEQ, but the OP couldn't have been making a comment on your age since you have not mentioned anything about or revealing of your age and no one could possibly know it.
Until now, of course. As Ronald Reagan said, there you go again.
I think the OP was just making an analogy. But I'll let him speak for himself.
Can we drop this subject, everyone? I mean, all these subjects?
As Diane Redfern said to Shelby Carpenter, "Don't worry, darling -- I'll get the door."
That put a stop to things. At east as far as Diane's hopes of finding out whether it was her at the party by living long enough to check out the DVD went.
I'll have a look at your other reply (I have the email notification) and wrap up the discussion. I'll stay away from this thread from now on.
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
I hope you won't think ill of me for dredging this up again; it's just that I happened to be watching Laura last night for the first time since jumping in on the thread last Oct.
I remained equivocal on the "was that Diane" question, but after having paused the DVD and gotten the best look I could at the actress in the party scene (and there are several frames in which her face is pretty clearly seen), I've firmly concluded this much: that actress isn't the same one in the magazine photo of "Diane." Quite different faces: hers appears much more angular than the apple-cheeked one in the photo.
From this, it's difficult for me to imagine that Preminger - or anyone else - intended that the party girl was Diane.
Poe! You are...avenged!
From this, it's difficult for me to imagine that Preminger - or anyone else - intended that the party girl was Diane.
That's been my opinion all along, although I haven't run the film since this discussion started.
I just didn't feel she was intended to be Diane. I think Shelby's bush-off of her was to give us an insight to his character, nothing more. She could have been anyone.
share
Then you can consider me officially off the fence, and on your side of it.
Here's something interesting I stumbled upon just today: a blog with quite a few pages dedicated to various aspects of Laura, one of which focuses on scenes either eliminated before shooting, or shot and then cut (accompanied by stills). The seventh photo (they're clickable) down on this page...
http://premingernoir.co/2014/01/23/lauras-cut-scenes/
...shows the actress in question posed just behind Vincent Price (I checked it against the DVD, and the dress in the still matches that of "the party girl").
Lots of fascinating stuff there, including a detailed examination of a very different alternate ending.
Poe! You are...avenged!
Then you can consider me officially off the fence, and on your side of it.
I consider you sane!
Thanks for the link; looks interesting.
share
Well, I just looked at Doghouse 6's link and the girl in the photo at Cut #7 -- third from the left, number 3 of 4 -- does look to me like the photo of Diane Redfern we later see in the ad. Certainly, as Doghouse says, she seems to be our infamous "party girl".
In any event, to use Al Haig's phrase, as I caveated before, it's impossible to say with absolute precision whether the two girls are the same, so maybe it's Diane or maybe it's not. It really doesn't make much difference. One argument I don't fully go along with is that if this was supposed to be Diane, Preminger would have made something of it. Maybe, but not necessarily -- though I agree this can be an argument against her being Diane (if she were, it might seem logical to have pointed her out as Diane).
Anyway, this topic has been re-exhausted yet again. As for sanity, I'm as sane as the two of you -- which may not be saying much -- but this discussion is certainly enough to drive one over the edge. Where's that clock of mine...?
I agree with you, Doghouse-6. If he wanted that girl to be Diane, why not make it more clear to the audience? I know that some folks on this board have said that sometimes directors will put in "inside jokes" and subtle parts, but if it's so subtle that no one except those involved in this project know about it, then what's the point? It's virtually impossible to tell if that girl is Diane without pausing the film and taking a good look. Obviously in 1944 they couldn't do this.
And to those who are convinced that the girl is Diane: so what if it is Diane?
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
Doghouse - Thanks for the great info. I remember on another board there was a question of a photo identity. Iirc, it was Dark Passage with Bogart and Bacall. Someone asked if the "before " photo was actually Bogie or another actor. No one knew for sure. However, after years, someone identified the actor in the picture, and it was not Bogie. The only way to know the answer to this interesting Laura query by the OP, would be to get cast names for the woman in the picture and the lady with Shelby at the party. I don't know if that would even be possible.
Edit to change title above to Dark Passage.
I don't know if that would even be possible.Could be on some long-forgotten call sheet buried deep within archives of Fox or Preminger documents at the Margaret Herrick Library or some university (or who-knows-where). I doubt anyone would take the trouble.
But when you think about all the movies from all the studios in all the years in all the world (to paraphrase Rick Blaine), the amount of info imdb pulls together on each one is pretty impressive.
P.S. Are you sure it was Dead Reckoning? I ask only because it was Lizabeth Scott in that one (not Bacall).
Poe! You are...avenged! share
Doghouse - my goof, it was Dark Passage. Holy hell, that post of mine makes no sense. I am going to edit.
shareAhh, cool. Thanks. 'Course, with the edit, now mine makes no sense. But I'll leave it as it is just to confuse everyone.
Dark Passage is interesting, more so for style than for story (and its gimmick succeeds where the same one fails in Lady In The Lake). Some great San Francisco location work, too.
Poe! You are...avenged!
DH - I love movies that show the old locations and cars. It's something I look for, especially those boat-like cars with the big tail fins, haha. Interestingly, I went through the cast of Laura, and was surprised to find Cara Williams in the mix. I didn't notice her at all.
shareJust happened to be checking email and saw your reply, and it's funny you should mention Cara Williams. Every time I've watched the film, I've thought one of Laura's coworkers (who crowd around when Waldo comes to her office) resembled her, but never got around to checking the cast list. I noticed her name on it for the first time earlier today.
If you haven't seen it, The Lineup is a very taut thriller filled with great San Francisco locations from start to finish (including a climax on the still-under-construction Embarcadero Freeway, which collapsed in the '89 Loma Prieta quake). It was made in '58, smack in the middle of the big fin era, so it should be right up your alley. Directed by Don Siegel, written by Stirling Silliphant and with great performances by Eli Wallach and Robert Keith (Brian's father).
Poe! You are...avenged!
And to those who are convinced that the girl is Diane: so what if it is Diane?Well, the world would immediately come to an end, of course.
Or not.
Poe! You are...avenged! share
What I meant was....if it's Diane, then why didn't the director follow up on this plot line? Why not mention it later in the film?
It costs money to film each scene, so why would he waste time and money to include something that could be, but won't be, referred to later in the movie?
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
I getcha (and said something similar myself a while back).
I was just kiddin' around.
Poe! You are...avenged!
Yes, I think you did. I'm glad that at least one other person here understands my point of view.
~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍
Doghouse:
Yes, thanks for the info on Premingernoir . . . most interesting . . .
Throughout the movie Diane is muted, downplayed . . . the way the producer wanted it . . . (there is a reason, of course) . . .
Doghouse - Thanks for the recommendation. The Lineup sounds terrific, and surprisingly one I never even heard about. I had no idea Brian Keith's father was an actor. See, I learn something every day on here. It helps keep my mind alert.
Cara Williams, like Lucille Ball and Jackie Gleason, were three I watched on Tv as a kid, but had no idea they were in movies until years later. The same thing with Ward Bond, who I only knew through Wagon Train. I was amazed at the number of films Lucy was in, and of course discovered Ward Bond was really known more for movies. I like coming upon these little bit parts of stars I sort of recognize, then being able to look them up on imdb. Before I had to scour my film books, hoping I might find the name of a barely-there player. It's so handy to have that ability at my fingertips now.
From the two weeks or so of footage shot by Rouben Mamoulian and that shot but unused by Preminger, they might almost have been able to construct an entire alternate version of the film.
I'm sure all the negative and daily prints from that footage was junked long before the film ever saw the light of day, but it would be fascinating to see.
Poe! You are...avenged!
Well, their always finding lost footage from countless films . . . could it be possible that there is some lost footage from Laura that could show up? Masterfully done movie!
shareI still have all my film books too, many dozens of them, but I hardly ever have to crack 'em anymore. As a viewer of classic film and TV, you've probably seen Robert Keith a number times without realizing who he was (I did for years). When you see The Lineup, you may very well say, "Oh...him!"
After an arresting and intriguing opening, it continues briefly as a rather dry and straightforward law enforcement procedural piece, until introducing its fascinating collection of complex and multi-layered "bad guys" who propel it the rest of its increasingly suspenseful way.
Poe! You are...avenged!
I just watched it over the weekend and I remember Shelby showing Laura a soap ad just before they went out for dinner and she didn't seem to know who the model was and Shelby replied that Laura had just hired her. Anyway, it was Ann's party and Ann wouldn't have invited Diane - who, again, hadn't yet been hired by Laura - even if Ann did corral guests from every possible strata of society. 😃
"No, I don't like to cook, but I have a chicken in the icebox, and you're eating it."
I am definitely going to check out The Lineup, and even though I think I never heard of it, I have a funny feeling I must have seen it before. Once in a while I will turn on a movie, then part way through it begins to look familiar, kwim? Two other father/son actors that I accidently discovered were Bruno Kirby (When Harry Met Sally), and Bruce Kirby (he must have dozens of credits in Tv and movies) . My husband and I remember Bruno well, as he played young Clemenza in Godfather II. While watching a Tv show, the other day, I pointed out Bruce to hubby, who recognized him immediately. I think Brian has greater name recognition than Robert, and think the same with Bruno versus Bruce.
The other father/son actors are James Earl Jones and Robert Earl Jones. Robert played Hooker's partner in The Sting. Wow, do James and Robert resemble one another, both handsome with great flashing eyes, and those terrific, exquisite voices.
Thanks. I hadn't known about either the senior Kirby or Jones, but realize now I've seen both many times. I, too, always learn new stuff here!
Poe! You are...avenged!
So maybe the girl was Diane, dead but projecting her hologram into the party from the future.
--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA
"I like party crashers." Alicia Huberman
"No, I don't like to cook, but I have a chicken in the icebox, and you're eating it."
It might've been Diane.
--
So, you're saying you think it's Diane, too?
--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA
Hey, Gubbio!
"No, I don't like to cook, but I have a chicken in the icebox, and you're eating it."