That sounds improbable and melodramatic, but
probably not totally foolish, right?
Wrong.
It was totally foolish, for several reasons:
- The supermodel was played by a genuine supermodel, Margaux Hemingway, the face of Babe perfume. The critics
excoriated her performance. Looking back on it now and trying to
remain objective, I don't think that she did a bad acting job,
certainly not by supermodel standards, but Margaux seemed worthy of
ridicule because she had a hilarious cartoon voice that
sounded quite a bit like quacking, and she also had a pronounced
speech impediment. She did have some weak line readings, but in
some other scenes she seemed quite convincing, especially in the
scenes with her sister. That didn't really
matter, given her voice. Imagine a brutal, realistic rape drama in which the
beautiful victim talks like Donald Duck, and you'll see why the
critics had a field day with Margaux. Even with the extreme
gravity of the subject matter, it is not easy to suppress laughter
when Margaux is speaking. Her voice, the film's melodrama, and the turgid dialogue
could be viewed as ultra-high camp if it were about some subject
other than rape.
- Some scenes just came out of nowhere. Before
the last day of the trial, Margaux was at home asleep. She picked
up her phone, and heard some of the music teacher's weird,
discordant compositions. The camera then cut to the other side of
the call, revealing the naked music teacher, holding the receiver
to a speaker. I suppose that could have been worked into the plot
somehow, but it wasn't. The scene existed in complete isolation.
The next scene took place in court the next day, and nobody spoke
of the phone call again.
- A big game rifle? She was "the hottest model in
the world". I suppose some L.A. supermodels at that level might keep a
loaded big game rifle in their car, but I'd have to figure the percentage
is pretty low. Of course, they were heading to the mountains and Margaux's last name was Hemingway, so I suppose it was a family
tradition.
- What could have been her legal defense when she
killed the guy? I know that the scriptwriter wanted to see her get
off, but the film should have ended with her standing over the
body in her ball gown, still pointing her rifle. (Ending it there
would have been more cinematic as well.) Her slaying of the rapist
was premeditated, calculated murder, and to make it more
egregious, she was firing off round after round in a parking lot
and then on a major thoroughfare in downtown L.A., oblivious to
passers-by. It was only by sheer chance that she didn't kill fifty
people, because Mr Rapist was driving a car. After she fired the first
two shots, the rapist's car went out of control into a city street and flipped over. Yes, of course the guy deserved what he
got, but that's no legal defense.
I did learn something from this movie. The D.A.
played a sample of the rapist's music for the jury. Everyone in the
courtroom was instantly able to conclude that a man is capable of
murder if he can create sounds consisting of a synthesizer and ocean
noises. I hadn't thought of that before, but it's hard to disagree.
The police should go to all the candle shops in America, pick up
those "noises of nature" tapes, and add the authors to their
database of usual suspects.
The two stars of the film were virtually destroyed
by it.
- Margaux took such a critical lambasting that
she was offered only two roles in the next seven years, and one of
those was a minor part in a bad movie of legendary status (They
Call Me Bruce?). Despondent over her failing career fortunes and
two bad marriages, she suffered through a mammoth weight gain,
substance abuse, and bankruptcy. She was living in a small
apartment over a garage in Santa Monica, when she was found dead
in 1996 at the age of 41.
As
reported by CNN, the L.A. Coroner ruled that she committed
suicide. Suicide is another Hemingway tradition. Ernest Hemingway
himself committed suicide, as did his brother, sister and father. Margaux's sister Mariel disputes the
suicide conclusion in Margaux's case, arguing
that Margaux seems to have suffered an epileptic seizure
exacerbated by her substance abuse. Mariel's position is that
Margaux was a drama queen who would have left a suicide note, and
that she was found with her legs propped on a pillow and a book in
her lap, a condition not indicative of suicide.
- The rapist, Chris Sarandon (Susan's ex), had
been in only one movie before Lipstick, and had been nominated for
an Oscar. By virtue of that fact, he had to have been considered
one of the hottest young stars in Hollywood before this movie. The
tawdry Lipstick was not a good choice for his follow-up project.
|
|
There was one success story in Lipstick. Margaux's
younger sister Mariel played her younger sister in the film, and did
such a good job that she launched a highly successful acting career.
Her very next role was a major part in one of the best films in
history (Manhattan).
Mariel is a remarkably normal person, considering
her family's tragic history. The suicides only scratch the surface of
the pain and despondency which run through her family, and Mariel has
endured enough sorrow for twenty lifetimes.
|
TUNA's THOUGHTS
|
Lipstick (1976) is not a great
movie. In point of fact, it could easily have been an afternoon
special, other than the nudity of star Margaux Hemingway. Those
who read Scoop's review above already know the plot about the
rising model who is raped by her kid sister's music teacher. I
would like to weigh in on some of the controversial questions
concerning this film.
First, was the length of the
rape scene, and the nudity necessary? My answer is an emphatic
yes. The entire point of the film was that Hemingway was
violated by her rapist, then by the courts, then by the jury.
For us to see that, we needed to know beyond any doubt that she
was the victim of a vicious rape. As to her voice, and uneven
line delivery, I am not so sure it was a mistake in casting, but
rather a choice. Her character was actually two women, one, a
rising professional supermodel, supposed to be every woman's
ideal of what they would like to be. The other was a rather
quiet, naive, and trusting Catholic girl, dedicated to her baby
sister. There was a point to this duality in her character. The
jury believed the femme fatal supermodel persona, even though
that was just an act.
As for the ending, I can only think of it as fantasy. In the
real world, Hemingway would be doing time, and her sister would
be the object of a wrongful death suit. The fantasy ending did
show the writer's idea of justice. So how good is the movie?
Just mediocre. Mariel Hemingway, as the little sister, was
outstanding, the messages of the film were well-intentioned, and
it does give some insight into the mind of the rape victim. To
those who always claim that a graphic rape scene is
misogynistic, nonsense. Rape scenes that show it for the violent
violation of women that it is are pro-woman. Any attempt to show
a rape as possibly justified because she was asking for it, or
as just an over-eager consensual sex act is misogynistic. This
film generated way more controversy than it deserved, partly
because it was a story that had not been told before as
graphically. That was then. I have to question the sincerity of
those who have recently commented that the rape scene is very
disturbing.
|
|
The
Critics Vote
|
The People
Vote ...
|
The meaning of the IMDb
score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of
excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars
from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm
watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars
from the critics. The fives are generally not
worthwhile unless they are really your kind of
material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics,
or a C- from our system.
Films rated below five are generally awful even if you
like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one
and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less,
depending on just how far below five the rating
is. My own
guideline: A means the movie is so good it
will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not
good enough to win you over if you hate the
genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an
open mind about this type of film. C means it will only
appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover
appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but
will be considered excellent by genre fans, while
C- indicates that it we found it to
be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you
like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if
you love the genre. F means that the film is not only
unappealing across-the-board, but technically
inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for
fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is
recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C-
that often, because we like movies and we think that most of
them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know
that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below
C-.
Based on this description,
Scopp says, "this is a C-. One of the hardest films to rate
accurately. As bad as the script is, and as silly as Margaux's
voice is, the film is directed with a certain flair that makes
it watchable. Unfortunately, it cannot be viewed either as a bad
movie you can laugh at (because of the subject matter), or a
powerful melodrama (because of the cheese), but it is rather
fascinating, and it stays with people for decades".
Tuna says, "I
think it is worth watching for any fan of either Hemingway
sister, otherwise, there are many better choices for the same
story. C-."
|
|