Valley of the Dolls was the most hyped movie in 1967. People who come here to read about it probably have already seen it, and also know at least some of the back story about it, so I won't belabor all that. What follows instead is my view of where this film fits in its time. If you haven't seen the movie, and if you are genuinely curious about it, read on. I have no spoilers, and I have a suggestion for you.
It's been said that 1967 was the best year ever for movies. The Graduate, Cool Hand Luke, In The Heat of the Night, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Bonnie and Clyde, and The Dirty Dozen. Remarkable films all. There might be one such notable movie in any one year. Two would be unusual. But six in one year? Extraordinary.
And, dropping down a notch, even some of the lesser known or less remembered 1967 offerings were pretty good. It was the middle of the cold war, so the spy genre dominated. Sean Connery made his 007 appearance in You Only Live Twice. But the James Bond franchise had some competition in 1967. James Coburn appeared in two, In Like Flint and The President's Analyst. And then there was the big budget spoof, Casino Royale. I'm tempted to mention Dean Martin and The Ambushers and include it on the 1967 spy movie list, but, to be honest, it's a movie that deserves to be forgotten. Beyond the spy stuff, George C. Scott was the Film Flam Man, and Julie Andrews was Thoroughly Modern Millie.
1967 was indeed a very good year for movies. It's hard to flatly state that it was the very best movie year ever, because how could one possibly measure that? It is based on pure opinion. But I can't name another year that was any better than 1967.
Which brings us back to the Valley of the Dolls, whose makers surely endeavored with it to make the very best film of 1967. It's bemusing to read or hear laments about how dreadful Valley of the Dolls is. Hello? Valley of the Dolls is what it is, and a big-budget Hollywood production of a Jacqueline Susann novel is what it is. This is what you get when you do that. What, you seriously expected something else? You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It really doesn't seem quite so awful when you think about it that way.
Or, look at it this way: compare Jacqueline Susann to Harold Robbins. Contemporaries, although Susann died way too young at 56. Both plied the epic pulp fiction trade, and both were enormously successful at it. Both followed the same basic formula, exploiting tawdry little scandalous shockers --things that pushed the envelope of moral acceptability in those more encumbered times-- shocking the world by telling the dirty little secrets of the rich, powerful, and famous, and the things that they were supposedly doing behind the scenes. And both had big novels adapted to the big screen. Does anyone lament about how awful The Carpetbaggers or The Adventurers are? Why not? Because they are good? Well, not exactly. Maybe it's because no one ever had any other expectations.
Did any studio ever spend the kind of money adapting a Harold Robbins movie that was spent on Valley of the Dolls, and then hype it to the same extent? Not that I know of. Valley of the Dolls was off the charts. The error of raised expectations, that's what happened here. And it's obvious how it happened. The studio took a monumentally best-selling epic novel, and banked on piggy-backing their way to a monumentally huge epic blockbuster. So in that spirit they poured a lot into it. As a production, the movie is first rate. Good stars and a good cast. Good sets. Fashionable fashions. Style. And a soundtrack second to none. And it all works. As best as it can anyway, given the source material.
Much of the criticism of the movie can be tied to one fundamental flaw in the basic premise. Jacqueline Susann was a woman of the 1940s and 1950s, and her story fits those times, when Judy Garland really was hooked on barbiturates and amphetamines. But Valley of the Dolls is a 1967 movie, with a 1967 setting, and by 1967 Susann's premise was old hat, even passé. This flaw in timing seriously undermines the story and the movie.
So what we have is a big-budget movie made with production values galore, but based on a cheesy quasi-romance, quasi-pulp novel, and which is out of sync timing-wise. But, hey, other than all that, it's a good movie. It does manage to rise above its problems. Its superior production values save it.
Many people view Valley of the Dolls as a curiosity, because of Sharon Tate. Okay. It is a showcase for her. Oddly it also tries to showcase Barbara Parkins and Patty Duke. All three were budding starlets who surely saw this film as a major career opportunity. Odd, because it utterly failed to boost anyone's career. Patty Duke was already famous for her Oscar-winning role in Miracle Worker, and for her own television series, still her main claims to fame. Barbara Parkins's career never really went anywhere. Sharon Tate most likely would've gone on to greater things, but never got the chance. This became her primary showcase.
For those of you who haven't seen Valley of the Dolls, I strongly recommend that you read the book first. Most of us who saw it in 1967 did it that way. I believe that the movie will be much more meaningful that way.
How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying was my personal favorite 1967 movie. Just an opinion. I believe it captures the times the best. Valley of the Dolls is out of time, but is still worth seeing.
It's been said that 1967 was the best year ever for movies. The Graduate, Cool Hand Luke, In The Heat of the Night, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Bonnie and Clyde, and The Dirty Dozen. Remarkable films all. There might be one such notable movie in any one year. Two would be unusual. But six in one year? Extraordinary.
And, dropping down a notch, even some of the lesser known or less remembered 1967 offerings were pretty good. It was the middle of the cold war, so the spy genre dominated. Sean Connery made his 007 appearance in You Only Live Twice. But the James Bond franchise had some competition in 1967. James Coburn appeared in two, In Like Flint and The President's Analyst. And then there was the big budget spoof, Casino Royale. I'm tempted to mention Dean Martin and The Ambushers and include it on the 1967 spy movie list, but, to be honest, it's a movie that deserves to be forgotten. Beyond the spy stuff, George C. Scott was the Film Flam Man, and Julie Andrews was Thoroughly Modern Millie.
1967 was indeed a very good year for movies. It's hard to flatly state that it was the very best movie year ever, because how could one possibly measure that? It is based on pure opinion. But I can't name another year that was any better than 1967.
Which brings us back to the Valley of the Dolls, whose makers surely endeavored with it to make the very best film of 1967. It's bemusing to read or hear laments about how dreadful Valley of the Dolls is. Hello? Valley of the Dolls is what it is, and a big-budget Hollywood production of a Jacqueline Susann novel is what it is. This is what you get when you do that. What, you seriously expected something else? You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It really doesn't seem quite so awful when you think about it that way.
Or, look at it this way: compare Jacqueline Susann to Harold Robbins. Contemporaries, although Susann died way too young at 56. Both plied the epic pulp fiction trade, and both were enormously successful at it. Both followed the same basic formula, exploiting tawdry little scandalous shockers --things that pushed the envelope of moral acceptability in those more encumbered times-- shocking the world by telling the dirty little secrets of the rich, powerful, and famous, and the things that they were supposedly doing behind the scenes. And both had big novels adapted to the big screen. Does anyone lament about how awful The Carpetbaggers or The Adventurers are? Why not? Because they are good? Well, not exactly. Maybe it's because no one ever had any other expectations.
Did any studio ever spend the kind of money adapting a Harold Robbins movie that was spent on Valley of the Dolls, and then hype it to the same extent? Not that I know of. Valley of the Dolls was off the charts. The error of raised expectations, that's what happened here. And it's obvious how it happened. The studio took a monumentally best-selling epic novel, and banked on piggy-backing their way to a monumentally huge epic blockbuster. So in that spirit they poured a lot into it. As a production, the movie is first rate. Good stars and a good cast. Good sets. Fashionable fashions. Style. And a soundtrack second to none. And it all works. As best as it can anyway, given the source material.
Much of the criticism of the movie can be tied to one fundamental flaw in the basic premise. Jacqueline Susann was a woman of the 1940s and 1950s, and her story fits those times, when Judy Garland really was hooked on barbiturates and amphetamines. But Valley of the Dolls is a 1967 movie, with a 1967 setting, and by 1967 Susann's premise was old hat, even passé. This flaw in timing seriously undermines the story and the movie.
So what we have is a big-budget movie made with production values galore, but based on a cheesy quasi-romance, quasi-pulp novel, and which is out of sync timing-wise. But, hey, other than all that, it's a good movie. It does manage to rise above its problems. Its superior production values save it.
Many people view Valley of the Dolls as a curiosity, because of Sharon Tate. Okay. It is a showcase for her. Oddly it also tries to showcase Barbara Parkins and Patty Duke. All three were budding starlets who surely saw this film as a major career opportunity. Odd, because it utterly failed to boost anyone's career. Patty Duke was already famous for her Oscar-winning role in Miracle Worker, and for her own television series, still her main claims to fame. Barbara Parkins's career never really went anywhere. Sharon Tate most likely would've gone on to greater things, but never got the chance. This became her primary showcase.
For those of you who haven't seen Valley of the Dolls, I strongly recommend that you read the book first. Most of us who saw it in 1967 did it that way. I believe that the movie will be much more meaningful that way.
How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying was my personal favorite 1967 movie. Just an opinion. I believe it captures the times the best. Valley of the Dolls is out of time, but is still worth seeing.