MovieChat Forums > Mr. Skeffington (1944) Discussion > Hedy Lamarr ---a better choice

Hedy Lamarr ---a better choice


Can u imagine how great the movie would have been had Hedy Lamarr taken the part? She truly is believable as a woman who is ego centric, vain and certainly very very beautiful so that so many men would be at her doorstep every nighit. And to think what the conclusion of the movie would have been with Hedy! Seeing her age upon the screen would perhaps have been a healthy moment for Hedy, who was, afterall, full of herself, as fanny was. Bette was just too smart for that part.

reply


You're crazy - Lamarr was one of the all-time WORST actresses who ever
lived. Beautiful, yes, talented NO.

reply

hedy was extremely talented (and very very intelligent), and lately the critics have been rediscovering the talent that Hedy had. Her beauty masked the talent in acting that she had. Unfortunatley, hollywood did not had her the best scripts. She was also a comedic talent as witenssed in the Bob Hope movie about spies...can't think of the title. she stole the feature. sorry friend, u are wrong, Hedy was not only the most beautiful woman in movies, but one of the most talented as well

reply


You are correct about her stunning intelligence - THAT has been brought to
light lately about her inventions. And it IS remarkable. And I do not
believe this woman was dumb. But she was NO ACTRESS. She admitted so and
critics have concurred then and now. And please don't dig up some
half-baked compliment from Robert Osborne of TCM. That fat old windbag
has to say SOMETHING nice about the stars and usually does. It's his
job and it doesn't mean twaddle. Lamarr - on her best day - would've
never been able to pull off a role as complicated as this.

reply

"Lamarr - on her best day - would've
never been able to pull off a role as complicated as this."

I am a fan of both and tend to agree. I had my doubts about Hedy's acting ability as well, but had my faith restored a bit with "Lady Without Pasport", "Lady of the Tropics" and "Ekstase" shown last month on TCM I beleive. Others may disagree. In other films she is at least adequate IMO, or perhaps misdirected....but....(hard to express perhaps) I don't care exactly....have always liked her.

With regard to a better choice, it is often hard for me, being a non-expert to seriously recomend a replacement in classic movies, esp when discussing Bette Davis. Ida Lupino, who I also am a fan of, would add beauty as above, but again unsure if she would be good in a role as complicated.... Joan Fontaine perhaps....????

"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five."

reply


Sigh. If you aren't sure whose is "better" - Lamarr or Davis, there's no
point in even disucussing this further.

reply

I agree her acting sucks and her movies are boring and as for beauty i dont think she was beautiful at all she looks like a bland version of vivien leigh

reply

I revisited this film again last night and, being aware that Merle Oberon was offered the role and had turned it down, I thought Davis was laughably miscast. The role seems tailor-made for Merle, who not only looked ravishing in Victorian and Edwardian fashions in films like THE LODGER (1944), TEMPTATION (1946), and LYDIA (1941) but also succumbed to a London car accident in 1937 (her chauffeur was the speedy, reckless type who tried to get her to a studio fitting for the eventually aborted film I, CLAUDIUS in the shortest possible time) and cosmetic poisoning combined with an allergic reaction to certain white facial makeup during the making of 'TIL WE MEET AGAIN (1940) at Warners. In other words, Merle endured a ravaged face like Fanny Skeffington although Merle, unlike the narcissistic Fanny, was known to be an extremely generous and humanitarian lady who loved kids. Even Merle's elegant and polished Mayfair accent would have fit Fanny's refined speech in the screenplay like a glove. Heck, even Young Fanny is remains a brunette all throughout the film, giving the audience further proof that Merle would have the perfect choice for the role! All throughout my viewing of the film I continued muttering, "Merle would have been perfect for this."

It's a wonder as to why Merle turned the role down: she was probably busy working on FOREVER AND A DAY, FIRST COMES COURAGE, and THE LODGER and thought that accepting another starring role in a forth film would prove a heavy burden on her already busy schedule. Plus, she probably wanted to spend some time with her first husband, Alexander Korda, and publicly support the war effort at such places like the Hollywood Canteen. Too bad Merle didn't choose MR. SKEFFINGTON over FIRST COMES COURAGE although FIRST COMES COURAGE contains an excellent performance by Merle that makes the film worth watching.

Now Hedy Lamarr would have been a bad choice, in my opinion, because her Viennese accent, however lovely and pleasant it is to my ears, would have conflicted with the image of a New York society girl. But it's a shame MGM turned down MR. SKEFFINGTON for her anyway because it would have been wonderful to see Hedy act alongside the great Claude Rains for the first time in a film. Nevertheless, I love both actresses and I have 19 Merle films and 18 Hedy films to prove it.

By the way, Merle and Claude appear together in the fine Universal Pictures romantic melodrama THIS LOVE OF OURS (1945).

"I do write my music for people, not for computers." - Dr. Miklós Rózsa (1907-1995)

reply

<< It's a wonder as to why Merle turned the role down >>

I was thinking when I was watching this that I doubt a truly beautiful woman would ever want to play this role. There's something very uncomfortable about it...as it implies beautiful women have nothing inside. Beautiful women have always had to deal with this dismissive perception.

As to Oberon specifically, in her autobiography Irene Selznick remembers she was once called right before a dinner party by the actress, who informed her she had a pimple. "Yes?", said Selznick, confused. "I can't attend. It mars my beauty," said Oberon.

So I don't think an actress who wouldn't attend a social event when she had a pimple would leap at the chance to appear practically disfigured in a film.

reply

Too bad "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" hadn't been made yet, or she could have fixed it up in a jif with Windex.

reply

I've seen this film many times, and every time I have to agree with you---Davis was completely miscast in this part; it just doesn't work.

reply

I'll say one thing

BD overplayed every part.

HL underplayed them.

reply

Bette davis was well aware of her physical limitations in the beauty departmnet. She was assured by the producer/director that she would appear well on film. There was more to casting this type of role than looks though. Bette Davis had the talent and personality to do this role and it was not the first time she played a character like this. Check out Jezebel.

reply

Hedy Lamarr was indeed a beautiful woman. She also, as had been duly noted, had very bright and scientific mind. As an actress, I've always felt that her acting was usually on the surface. If she wasn't drop dead gorgeous, there wouldn't be much to the value of her portrayals in my opinion.

reply

When I think of the greatest beauties ever to grace the silver screen, Hedy Lamarr is always at the top of the list. But she was NOT a great actress (however, she was a great brain, developing patents when she wasn't acting). Although she could have pulled off the vamp of the first half of the film, she simply would not have been able to do the wretched has-been who has lost her beauty in the second half of the film. That needed Davis (whose performance seems to me like a pre-quel of Baby Jane).

reply

I never thought that Bette Davis was a great beauty but she was an excellent actress. I do think that another actress who could have pulled this off and was a rare beauty would be Gene Tierney.

reply

While Lamarr had the undeniable grand beauty, the stuff of which legends and myths are made of (I think it's a pity she didn't portray Helen of Troy in her prime!)...she lacked potent magnetism, her charisma factor was low. Though she had a charm about her, she was missing that *spark*, that energy, and thus came off as still and static. She just seemed unanimated and rather lifeless, like a gorgeous mannequin without depth and complexity behind the beautiful surface. To paraphrase Judy Garland's remark re Lana Turner ("talking to her is like talking to a beautiful vase"), watching Hedy is like watching a beautiful vase. Lovely to look at but that's about it, not stimulating, undynamic, missing vigor.

Besides which, a hefty performance like this was not Lamarr's forte and more than she could handle; she was out of her depth apart from lightweight, fluff sort of roles.

Oberon, who's name has been oft-mentioned, had more vitality and spark than Lamarr, but she too had that still-life painting quality. Whereas someone like Tierney, a cool and elegant mannequin beauty like Lamarr and Oberon, differed in that behind the seemingly tranquil, mask-like exterior, there was a lot churning under the surface, she had that edginess and depth, that "still waters run deep" factor; whereas Lamarr and (to a lesser extent) Oberon, were "still water".

reply

Lamarr is beautiful. Her intelligence is fascinating. Olivia de Havilland, Gene Tierney or Maureen Ohara are gorgeous actresses who would have done great job. Bette did very good at the acting even if she isn't beauty.

reply

Lamarr was a model with passable acting ability and very little charisma. There's a reason she is remembered almost entirely for her supposedly transcendent beauty--that's about all she had going on, as far as her movies were concerned. There is no way she would ever have been a better choice than Bette Davis, in any role.

reply