Round 3: THE WASP WOMAN (1960) vs
THE WASP WOMAN (1995)
LK: To open, I’d just like to say that the one thing that struck me as really funny in comparing these two films is that the effects aren’t all that better in the re-make, just a lot more elaborate! But really, what is there to choose between a pathetic rubber mask and a full-size, full-breasted (and bustiered!) puppet!?
I was re-reading a back issue of Video Watchdog the other night, and what should I find inside the front cover but a full-page (if B&W, alas) reproduction of Ms Jennifer Rubin in, uh, attack mode. I nearly cacked myself!
The mag itself
had (God help us!) laserdisc reviews of the re-makes of A Bucket Of Blood (called The
Death Artist, I think), Piranha
and, yup, The Wasp Woman. It was also
quite positive about TWW, and
made the point that it was the best of the three re-makes at least partly because
it had the weakest original film. And I think that’s fair comment. TWW certainly is one of Corman’s weaker
efforts, although it does have its good points. More “mad science”, and a very good
performance by Susan Cabot. But the rest of the cast is sub-par; and the script
isn’t strong enough to carry itself; it needed stronger performances to hide
some of the holes.
CD: For me, the scene that really made me a member of the Susan Cabot camp was where the de-aging formula starts working. She suddenly becomes a completely different character, displaying an almost childish happiness and enthusiasm that was really more touching than I would have expected. Her fate would have been tragic if it weren't also so.…well, goofy.
In contrast, Jennifer Rubin just displays a slight change of tone and what might be considered a smile - not exactly approaching the height of sad, doomed hopefulness Cabot’s Janice displayed. (However, I will admit I loved the scene where Rubin’s Janice aggressively seduced the sleazy guy that compared her to his mother before – “Do you still think I look like your mother?”)
I do think, though, Susan Cabot was given more room for subtlety. In the original, Janice-1’s anguish over being an aging beauty icon is centred on just one well-delivered line – “Janice Starlin cannot be a glamour girl forever.” In the re-make, it takes two or three scenes and two “fluff” characters - a young supermodel and a sleazy guy - for us to “get it”.
LK: I was slightly disadvantaged watching the re-make because I haven’t seen Jennifer Rubin in anything else, so I didn't know what she was “supposed” to look like. She doesn't give a bad performance, but Susan Cabot’s much better.
CD: It’s kind of a small plot difference, but the thing that really struck me was that in the original Janice-1 had already walked away from modelling, and her reluctance to have done so is only hinted at; in the re-make, Janice-2 is rudely pushed out of modelling by her investors and executives. Now, it might just be a matter of plot - for whatever reason, the scriptwriter of the re-make wanted to make Janice-2’s motive more “obvious”. Yet it is possible that it was felt that a 90s audience would be more receptive to the horrors of aging than a 50s/60s one (in fact, thinking about it now, the original puts more of an emphasis on the economic danger Janice-1’s company is in than the remake does, while her return to modelling isn’t even mentioned!). I think the addition of the “Janice Starlin hallucinating that her boyfriend is cheating with that younger model” subplot also gives weight to that idea.
Of course, that’s not to say that the commentary on the pressure aging women feel from society is any less in the original. Just look at the drastic change Janice-1 goes through - she starts the movie as a slightly depressed, embittered figure who willingly gets shoved out of the limelight but, after her transformation, becomes an extroverted woman, obsessed with “how old” she must now look.
LK: Yes, in the original, Janice-1 made the decision herself to step aside – and clearly, her dunderheaded underlings don’t realise why. And then you have the doubly painful point that Janice-1 has done what she thought was right for her company, no matter how much it cost her personally, and is then told it is precisely that which is damaging her company. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t.
CD: It’s interesting that Janice-1’s metamorphosis in the first film is wrapped in terms of social interaction and self-esteem, while in the re-make it is almost purely sexual.
LK: Of course! How else were they going to get enough boobs on screen? :)
Actually, I’m surprised by how much I want to defend the re-make on this point.
While it was inevitable that the story would
be told in sexual terms, I’m impressed that they actually went to the trouble
of justifying it - it isn’t just there for no reason. So that you have Janice-2’s
fears over her aging, and the way that men/society perceive her, colliding with
the paranoia induced by her treatments, to create that state of mind where she
believes her boyfriend is cheating on her with younger women.
And I also have to say, I like the way the relationship between Janice-2 and
Alec is depicted. That he does genuinely care for her; that he’s not freaked
either by being involved with the boss, or by the fact that she’s an older
woman. There’s a hint of real pathos in the fact that Janice-2 starts
projecting society’s expectations, in the form of her brutal dismissal by her
potential investors, onto her boyfriend, who is not guilty of thinking any of
those things. Of course, all this is brought about by his one unfortunate crack
about “the #2 diffuser” - which he said unthinkingly as a professional photographer, not as Janice's boyfriend. His behaviour as her boyfriend is quite classy, I think.
CD:
I did find the character of the boyfriend a welcome addition in the remake,
especially as a good foil to the other domineering male characters Janice-2
eventually, er.…“deals” with. It also adds a new dimension to the commentary,
as you point out.
LK:
Naturally, in the original, it is taken for granted that Janice-1
(being a businesswoman in 1960) has neither a husband nor a boyfriend.
The scary thing for me in watching these two films is how little things have changed for women over the years in terms of physical expectation. In fact, it’s actually got worse. In Janice-1’s time, it was enough to be “attractive”; now you have to look like a freaking supermodel!
CD:
Very true! It’s also telling, as I mentioned already, that the
original almost downplays Janice-1’s own insecurities in her looks (at least until
the transformation occurs).
At least the re-make made a more thorough attempt to point out that Janice-2’s
anxieties were groundless. Besides the loyalty of the boyfriend, there is also
the fact that it is made very clear that Starlin-2’s “rival”, the blonde
supermodel, lacks what Starlin-2 has in abundance: class and a powerful
personality. Starlin-1 just seems stuck in a very bad situation. A big difference
between the movies seems to be that, while Starlin-2 can continue to run the
company successfully through her business savvy, Starlin-1’s aging will doom
the company as well.
LK: One interesting point: I checked the IMDb. Susan Cabot was thirty-two when she made The Wasp Woman, and played forty-one and twenty-three equally convincingly. Jennifer Rubin was thirty-one and, while they never specify Janice-2’s age, she’s supposed to have had the company “for twenty years”. As you point out, Susan Cabot’s shift in age is conveyed as much through her acting as through her make-up, while Jennifer Rubin’s is almost wholly a make-up job.
I suppose Maria Ford was in with the production team or something (besides being very willing to flash her boobs), but to me - without wanting to join the ranks of these films’ age-bashers! - she looked too long in the tooth for the part. To crank up Janice-2’s paranoia, the new model should have been played by some fresh-faced seventeen-year-old, not someone who looks almost the same age as Janice-2 herself.
Which I guess brings us to the Deep Social Commentary part of these films: the fact that both Janices fall victim to a system they have helped create. They both deal in unrealistic expectations, and are brought down by trying to live up to them.
Whoa.... :)
CD: One thing that I had a question about is: was Janice-1 conscious of her actions? The re-make makes it very clear that she is, although to justify her actions there was some dialogue about the anti-aging formula pulling people’s minds around the bend, but, to me at least, the original makes it a bit more ambiguous. It’s implied that she in fact can't control it and may not even remember her attacks, but also the plot seems to want to take things in the direction that she is aware, if unwilling.…
LK: I'm not sure either. I don't think she “knows” what she's done, but I think she eventually puts two and two together.
Another mark for the re-make: at least Janice-2 keeps a larder! Unlike Janice-1, we're not supposed to believe she has completely devoured so many victims in so little time!
CD: And the fact that in the re-make Janice-2 makes her transformation usually while topping her...er, “studs”? - special effects convenience, or does it also have symbolic value?
LK: Both! Another instance of the re-make managing to have its cake and eat it. Uh, so to speak!
CD: What are your thoughts on Zinthrop being regulated to the sidelines in the re-make? In the original he was perhaps the second most major character, but in the re-make he’s not much more than a plot device. (It’s also interesting that he seems much sleazier in the re-make - more of a fancy drug dealer than a mad scientist, really!)
LK: In a sense that was a shame - they came up with another interesting variant there, the pioneer who oversteps the limit and is banned from “society” - you get that line from Janice-2 about how one of his patients died, but she’s interested in the ones that were cured. But then he’s just brushed aside - they may have been under a restriction as to running-time, and if it was a choice between Mad Science and Gratuitous Sex Scenes, well.... :)
And Zinthrop-2 is a doctor, not a scientist!
CD:
Ah, that's another shift I forgot about, sorry.
LK:
No, no – that’s just me on my soapbox! I’ve delivered many a lecture
on how most Mad Scientists are actually Mad Doctors....
But his being a doctor works better, I think, because the wasp extracts are
referenced more as “treatments” than as “cosmetics” - and both films certainly
have a drug addiction subtext (which was pretty daring for 1960).
CD:
That’s a really good point. Both Janices do display the symptoms of drug
addicts and both end up overdosing.…
It’s interesting that Zinthrop-2 is seen as a sort of a failed genius, while Zinthrop-1 is a scientist who, in the beginning, runs afoul of capitalism but later learns how to use the system to his advantage (and then there’s a comment one of the alpha males makes about how Zinthrop-1 can't be trusted because he doesn't want money!).
LK: Okay – we should probably try to wrap this up now. This has been a good talk, and a good tag-team, I think, because it’s a case of both films having their particular strengths and weaknesses. And speaking of weaknesses - since I opened this debate by expressing my opinion of the relative special effects, perhaps you'd like to close by expressing yours?
And I sincerely hope you’ve managed to grab some screenshots of Ms Rubin in action!
CD: Well, I think both “Wasp Woman”-s (“Wasp Women”?) prove that
no matter how much special effects technology improves and becomes cheaper,
cheesy special effects are timeless!