bbmtwist First some truths and then a review of the film itself.Evelyn Nesbit, from my own impressions of her recent bio, American Eve, and a clip of her singing from 1930, was a coarse, cheap, nearly talentless beauty of 1906 - all this faded by 1930, when she looked quite plain and homely. Stanford White was obese, a womanizer and a trafficker in underage virgins. Harry Thaw was a madman, pure and simple, protected by his wealth. He also was quite plain and homely. Evelyn's mother was also a trafficker, for her daughter - she makes GYPSY's Madame Rose look like Melanie Hamilton.Hollywood could not have produced a film true to the characters in 1955. It would never have passed the censors. You didn't touch motherhood then. GYPSY on stage was four years later.Given the basic narrative structure of the facts, and allowing for Hollywood's restrictions, THE GIRL IN THE RED VELVET SWING is for me an excellent filmization of this narrative. Beautifully photographed and given sumptuous production design as well as excellent casting, it stands as a very interesting "take" on the "crime of the century."I applaud it and its makers. For something truer to the original characters, visit the segments in RAGTIME devoted to this story. Elizabeth McGovern's turn as the passive, dim-witted Evelyn is much truer to the real woman and deservedly brought her an Ocar nomination.Shame on the Academy for denying it any noms- it deserved recognition in the Cinematography, Art Direction and Costume Design categories. Farley Granger gives his best performance as the deranged Thaw. Glenda Farrell as Mrs. Nesbit also deserved consideration in the supporting category.Interesting to note that the love theme is a blatant steal from Max Steiner's Melanie and Ashley love theme in GONE WITH THE WIND, borrowing the first two stanzas of that theme.If they ever film the bisexual Granger's fascinating life, consider Michael Ellison, the sensitive young actor of THE BEST MEN - a look alike with hidden depths.Do see THE GIRL IN THE RED VELVET SWING and RAGTIME in succession to get an overall impression of this fascinating triangle.

JohnHowardReid I often wonder where IMDb gets cast and production credits. Evidently not from the studio's Press Book. In the long run, that is undoubtedly an advantage. Many of the cast and behind-the-camera credits for this one are not listed in the Press Book at all, but, on the other hand, IMDb omits one of the most intriguing, namely that Evelyn Nesbit herself was hired as a "consultant" for the movie and was paid $50,000 for her services (which was more money than the film's director received). Miss Nesbit not only gave advice on the script, the decor and the costumes, but on the players. She thoroughly approved the casting of Joan Collins and while she made no mention of Ray Milland or Granger, she did declare that "White was the only man I ever loved. In fact, he was the most wonderful man I ever knew. As for Thaw, he was a poor thing at best. But I guess he couldn't help what he did. He was a mighty peculiar person when I married him and he just got worse and worse. I thought when I married him that he'd snap out if it, but he deteriorated. Too much money spoiled him young. It would have been better if he'd never been born!" Although the movie has its detractors, I found it fascinating. The only thing I didn't really like was Ray Milland's weary performance. He seems to be playing at half-steam. But Granger is superb, and Joan Collins fills Miss Nesbit's shoes most attractively.

RanchoTuVu Set in New York in the early years of the 20th century, a stunning Joan Collins plays the title role, in which there are actually two scenes where she is the girl in the red velvet swing, both of which are fantastic. Both scenes give a lot of credit to the director, cinematographer, set designers, and art director. The film is beautiful to watch throughout, mixing sets from early Broadway stage to crowded fancy New York restaurants. Collins' part as a teenage chorus girl whose beauty is such that she bowls over both Ray Milland who plays a wealthy and well-established New York architect and Farley Granger an heir to a fortune from Pittsburgh, who both throw tons of money her way. What starts off looking like it's going to be a musical comedy actually gets fairly involved and intense, leading to a great and ironic ending.

bob the moo In a magazine with some of his work in it, wealthy and influential Stanford White comments on the model on the cover. When he sees her in the flesh he asks that she be brought to his house. Meeting her there he talks to her and the two quickly kiss. He asks her mother not to bring her back but he cannot help himself and soon falls into an affair with her as she falls in love with him. The young and innocent Evelyn Nesbit also attracts the attention of the newly rich but arrogant Harry Thaw, who charms her despite herself. With the attentions of two so wealthy men, it is no wonder that Evelyn is affected by it and the two men are brought into conflict, neither particularly caring for the other anyway.The title made me think this film would be a light romantic comedy from the 1950's that would be distracting but not that interesting. Watching it proved to me why I should never turn away a film on the grounds of such sweeping judgements because I found it much more interesting, engaging and morally darker than I expected it to be. The plot is supposedly a true story and, not knowing the total truth of this I can only assume that it takes liberties in the way that any "true" film does – regardless though, it only adds to the value that it is based on a real case. It sees a sweet young girl be torn between two men who are both far beyond the level in society that she could have expected. The text after the titles give away that this story is leading up to a court case of some sort but the development is still good and I found the basic facts to be interesting and made all the better by the subtexts and character development that the script brought out. The character dynamics worked well but also the way the characters (specifically Stanford and Evelyn) grew and changed across the film.Responding to this the cast were surprisingly impressive. Well, perhaps that is unfair to paint them all with this brush because the person that surprised and impressed me was Joan Collins. Maybe it is because I am the "Dynasty" generation but I never really rated her as an actress, so here I was quite taken by her range, her subtlety and her awareness of her character. It is not a perfect performance but she is a big part of the material working at more than just the narrative level. Milland is not as good because his character isn't as good but he is still convincing and seems bought into his character. Granger is betrayed by the character and falters as a result – the script puts him in one place at the start and leaves him there with little to do – he is the "conclusion" to the story but other than that he is of little interest. Support is solid enough but the film belongs to Collins and, to a lesser degree, Milland, and both do well with it.Overall an engaging and interesting film that is a lot more morally complex that I expected from the period. The basic facts of the story are good but it is the character development that makes the film interesting and the main two actors respond well to it to produce a solid film that I found interesting, a bit melodramatic but well worth a look.