Blu-ray Review: Jeanne Eagles

Imprint # 311

Distributor: Via Vision Entertainment (Imprint)

Release Date: April 24, 2024

Region: Region Free

Length: 01:48:41

Video: 1080P (MPEG-4, AVC)

Main Audio: 2.0 English Mono Linear PCM Audio

Subtitles: English HOH

Ratio: 1.78:1

Notes: This is the film’s “worldwide” Blu-ray debut. It is currently available as part of the “Film Focus: Kim Novak” boxed set.

“Like Jeanne Eagels, Kim is a natural. She has that golden thing you can’t give anybody if it isn’t there; she was born with the magic called talent. We wouldn’t have made Jeanne Eagels without her. No other actress was considered for the role. Kim is also very much like Eagels. She has depth and, with it, the same kind of spirit; the freedom and abandon; the same latent ability that made Jeanne Eagels the great actress of the American theatre she was.” —George Sidney (as quoted in “Kim Novak on Camera,” 1980)

George Sidney was being honest when he stated that “no other actress was considered for the role.” In fact, this is something of an understatement. The truth is that Jeanne Eagels (1957) was developed as a “star vehicle” for the actress.

“Kim’s fine performances in three top-budget productions now prompted Harry Cohn to try her at carrying a picture on her own. Since reviewers had constantly referred to and [had] been enchanted by her smoldering ‘silent star’ aura, what better idea than to star her as a silent picture actress? Jeanne Eagels was the property, and, this time, Kim would be the propelling force and bear the burden of sustaining a film almost single handedly. It would rise or fall on her merits — a big step forward for her as an actress, and a big responsibility.” —Larry Kleno (Kim Novak on Camera, 1980)

Cohn’s decision to take Novak’s career to the next level might sound like a wonderful gift, but the truth is that it was a kind of apathetic cruelty because Novak wasn’t ready for this responsibility.

“Kim was suddenly confronted by her own inexperience. In a greedy rush to cash in on her box office power, Harry threw her to the wolves. ‘She’s not ready for this,’ Max Arnow cautioned. ‘I don’t care,’ replied Cohn. ‘Good or bad, Jeanne Eagels will make a lot of money just because Kim is in it.’

…

Until Jeanne Eagels, Kim was shrewdly guided into parts which seemed remarkably varied on the surface yet made only modest demands on her still growing resources. She had played the dizzy blonde in Phffft [1954], a small-town belle with one-dimensional emotions in Picnic [1955], and a golden-haired but shallow beauty in The Eddy Duchin Story [1956]. In each picture the pivotal acting burden fell on others such as Sinatra, Tyrone Power, and Jack Lemmon. But now she was essaying the brilliant and tempestuous Broadway deity of the teens and twenties; Jeanne Eagels.

If Kim was spooked by the role (and all evidence shows that she was), she had no choice in the matter, nor was she given any voice in the handling of the film. She got her orders and had to carry them out. Naturally, she was under a burden of emotional pressure which few young stars were called upon to bear — even in the Hollywood of the fifties. Time magazine noted, ‘Before every film Kim works herself up to a nervous, racehorse tension and often bursts into anxious tears. During any production she often worries and glooms to the point of nausea.’… Kim’s stubborn tantrums, which erupted explosively during Jeanne Eagels, had been building for a long time. And it is only fair to observe that many of her rages grew out of the fact that she had been shoved onto a soundstage before she was ready, and with little regard for her fledgling abilities. Acting still represented a martyrdom to her; she didn’t know what to do and nobody cared — not the studio… Columbia just threw her in to sink or swim. So what if she failed? There was another young actress standing just offstage in the faceless pool of talent that haunted Hollywood.” —Peter Harry Brown (Kim Novak: Reluctant Goddess, 1986)

A large part of what Brown describes as “tantrums” could more accurately be described as “righteous anger.” The most publicized of Novak’s so-called “tantrums” was actually the result of salary inequity.

“Kim came to Jeanne Eagels with a box office power that was becoming almost frightening. She had just been named the most popular movie star in the world, and a raging controversy over salary erupted when Kim realized she was being paid $13,000 while co-star Jeff Chandler took home $200,000… Before she reported for work on the film biography in 1957, she told reporters that Cohn was paying her so little ‘that I can’t get my hair done or buy dresses for parties.’ Harry phoned her in protest. ‘Dammit, Kim, you shouldn’t say things like that. It makes me sound cheap.’ Bitter words flew between the harried star and her intractable boss; words which opened a breach which would bear bitter fruit later.” —Peter Harry Brown (Kim Novak: Reluctant Goddess, 1986)

She spoke about the issue very publicly; “Jeanne Eagels reminded me I’ve got to protect my future,” the actress remarked. “How many more years will I be able to work?” Unfortunately, this only reinforced her growing reputation for being “difficult.” In “Kim Novak on Camera,” Larry Kleno insists that this reputation was an embellishment at best. Despite doubts concerning her own abilities as an actress and the overwhelming anxiety that she had about being able to carry an entire film, she devoted herself entirely to the challenge of pulling off a decent performance.

“When she began filming, Kim was still seeing Mac Krim, but she soon threw herself into the assignment so enthusiastically that she refrained from dating him for the remainder of the shooting schedule. Recognizing the importance of making good, but still beset by all of her old fears, she devoted her full energies to the exacting task of presenting Jeanne. She read everything she could find on her, learning, for instance, that ‘Eagels was irrational and sensitive and all the things I sort of am, and she used to eat pickles in school like me.’

As she had done on The Eddy Duchin Story, Kim played phonograph music of the twenties to get herself into the era’s mood. Her dressing room walls were covered with photos of the real Jeanne, and she employed an accordionist for several weeks to play ‘Poor Butterfly’ during the film’s sad scenes. Nobody could say she wasn’t trying to bring realism to her role.

Designer Jean Louis created one of the largest number of costume changes Columbia Pictures had yet given a single star. Kim had forty-five, taking Jeanne from her beginnings as a carnival performer to her arrival on Broadway as a star complete with gowns, furs, and all the trappings of her life both on stage and off.

Most of Kim’s off-camera time was spent in her dressing room studying, and coworkers saw little of her between scenes.” —Larry Kleno (Kim Novak on Camera, 1980)

This tendency to spend so much time in her dressing room probably helped to encourage rumors that she was “difficult” despite the fact that it is merely evidence of her devotion to the role. More experienced actors could afford to socialize, but she felt that it was necessary to prepare and to stay in character. Luckily, George Sidney (who had previously directed her in The Eddy Duchin Story) was in the director’s seat again. He understood the enormous amount of pressure that she was under. In fact, most of the actors were also empathetic. Larry Gates (who portrayed Al Brooks in the film) would later speak about this in interviews.

“We did the picture with a loving and very understanding director, George Sidney. Big movie studios in those days often promoted beautiful people, both men and women, because beauty is an important trait for a potential star to have. Unfortunately, most of the major studio heads, like Harry Cohn at Columbia, had little or no idea of what it takes to make a good performance.

The tackling of a character such as Jeanne Eagels early in one’s career would have put an extraordinary burden on Ethel Barrymore who, as a young lady, grew up in a theatrical family and had many opportunities to learn the tricks of the acting trade before she was confronted with major responsibilities in plays or movies. Kim, at much more of a disadvantage, worked hard and well and always seemed eager for all the help she could get from the rest of us. This she, in large measure, received, but she was still playing over her head.

We who had been around longer in the business were very fond of her and, as I recall, were ‘pulling for her’ as hard as we could. Agnes Moorehead, [who portrays a well-respected drama teacher in the film], was quite helpful, I believe, to Kim…

…When we finished the picture, Kim sent me a note on lavender stationery written in purple ink. In it, she was extremely loving and thankful for whatever she perceived I had been in the picture. (Candidly, I always felt I wasn’t very good in it!) … I remember her with much fondness and have very high regard for her as a fine, sensitive and caring human being.” —Larry Gates (as quoted in “Kim Novak on Camera,” 1980)

Charles Drake portrayed John Donahue in the film, and he also disputes the legend that Novak was “difficult” on the set. “She was a quiet friendly girl who came to work prepared in her lines and performed in a professional manner,” he insisted. Drake wasn’t, however, a fan of the finished film. “My memories of the picture are not happy ones for many reasons… my part suffered badly when they cut the film. The drunk scene was much longer and built much better than shown on the screen.” However, no one could possibly blame Novak for deficiencies in the film’s editing.

Joe DeSantis also had only fond memories of working with Novak. “Kim was most kind and respectful towards me,” the actor remembered. “I had a brief moment at the carousel with her, and rode back to town with her father, a dour man who was singularly uncommunicative. Jeanne Eagels remains in my memory as an afterglow. Kim was the only star I ever worked with who wrote me a ‘thank you’ note after the production.”

The challenges faced by Novak actually went beyond inexperience and self-esteem issues. Her stress was compounded when one of her dresses caught fire during filming. Luckily, Jeff Chandler was able to extinguish the flames before they got too out of hand. By all accounts, the production left Novak physically and emotionally exhausted and in dire need of a break (a need that was ignored by Cohn and other suits at Columbia). Was the sacrifice to her health worth it?

Jeanne Eagels earned approximately $3.1 million in US rentals on a budget of $1.5 million when it was released to theaters on August 02, 1957, so it would probably qualify as a modest box-office success. It certainly didn’t set the world on fire in any significant way, and it only received mixed notices from critics. For example, Variety felt that the film was largely let down by the performances and insisted that it was “unexciting.” However, they also offered qualified praise for Novak’s work: “In the title role, Miss Novak turns in a generally fine performance. There are moments when she appears a little unsure of the characterization, but the portrayal is largely sound and penetrating and is certain to win acclaim.”

Meanwhile, a review by James Powers that appeared in The Hollywood Reporter was more complimentary.

“Miss Novak will undoubtedly not be satisfactory to every critic and particularly to some who knew Jeanne Eagels. Miss Eagels died a quarter of a century ago and, in addition to her undoubted brilliance, there is the fact that she has become a source of romantic legend particularly dear to those who saw her in their own youth. The fact remains that Miss Novak, undoubtedly aided by Sidney’s persistence, gives a remarkable performance. Especially in the later scenes of drunkenness and despair, she is poignant and most effective . . . George Sidney was faced with an unusual problem in his story and in his leading character. The production is lavish and handsome, as it had to be to convey the period and the peculiar surroundings of his principal protagonist. He was handicapped in conveying the greatness of Jeanne Eagels by the fact that she never appeared in anything great so there could be no recreations of memorable roles such as is usually done in the biographical treatment of a famous personality. He had to suggest this incandescence through her personal life and to do it with a star, Miss Novak, who is relatively inexperienced in tragic roles. Miss Novak certainly gives a performance that justifies her casting from a popular standpoint, and for this Sidney should get credit. Jeanne Eagels may not be an unqualified success with some critics, but it should be a rousing success with audiences.” —James Powers (The Hollywood Reporter, as quoted in “Kim Novak on Camera,” 1957 / 1980)

Newsweek’s reviewer was less impressed with Sidney’s direction and complained that he “appears to have let everybody in the cast . . . run away with themselves at top speed.” Many retrospective assessments of the film would agree on this point, and most scholars agree that the film hasn’t aged very well. Axel Nissen (author of numerous actor biographies) called Jeanne Eagels an “unmitigated disaster of a film” before going on to say that Novak “is completely at sea and threatens to suck her fellow players into the void of her bottomless ineptitude.” In “Kim Novak: Reluctant Goddess,” Peter Harry Brown calls Jeanne Eagels and Of Human Bondage (1964) “classics of bad taste with deplorable writing and deplorable acting” before noting that Jeanne Eagels “would almost sink her career.”

This all feels like exaggeration. Jeanne Eagels might not be a great film, but there are worse films that never receive this sort of hostile criticism. The film is flawed and not nearly as memorable as it should have been, but it isn’t a total trainwreck. There are things in it for Novak fans to admire.

The Presentation:

4.5 of 5 Stars

Via Vision Entertainment protects the disc in a clear Blu-ray case with a dual sided insert sleeve that features artwork that is essentially a slightly altered version of the film’s original theatrical one sheet design. They have removed the credits at the bottom of the image, the credits at the side of the design have been moved up slightly, and the title has been moved up so that it appears just below these credits instead of at the bottom of the design. The interior includes a production still from one of the film’s scenes. This is essentially the same kind of case that Arrow Video uses for their releases (which is a good thing).

All of the movies included in the “Film Focus: Kim Novak” collection fit into a very sturdy box that is incredibly attractive. Of course, those who wish to own the boxed set will need to act fast because this is a Limited Edition (only 1500 copies exist).

It is worth noting that the rating label is on the plastic wrapping and not on the actual box (nor is it on any of the individual insert sleeves for the films in this collection), so it does not mar the packaging in any way.

The disc’s static menu features attractive film related artwork and is intuitive to navigate.

Picture Quality:

4 of 5 Stars

Jeanne Eagels makes its Blu-ray debut with a respectable high-definition transfer that is often impressive. Robert H. Planck’s interesting cinematography is typical of the period and can occasionally be a bit soft, but the transfer still manages to squeeze plenty of interesting detail out of it. Clarity and depth appear to faithfully represent the original image as well. While grain was evident throughout the film, it wasn’t as noticeable as one expects from a film of this vintage. There aren’t any obvious digitally introduced anomalies to distract the viewer either.

Sound Quality:

4 of 5 Stars

The 2.0 Mono LPCM Audio track is a solid representation of the film’s original mono soundtrack that isn’t marred by troublesome age-related anomalies such as hiss, hum, dropouts, crackle, pops, and other distracting elements that would hinder the listener’s ability to experience the film’s soundtrack in the manner that the filmmakers intended. There are probably people who will complain about the lack of a modernized surround re-mix, but such expectations are unreasonable. It is much more important to have a clean transfer of the film’s original audio, and this is exactly what fans are given here.

Special Features:

3 of 5 Stars

Select Scene Audio Commentary by Kim Novak and Stephen Rebello — (21:50)

For the most part, this “select scene” commentary feels more like a conversation or an interview than a typical commentary track. There is very little here that could be described as “scene specific,” but it is actually nice to hear Novak discuss the film. It seems like she is satisfied with the final result, and she even seems to remember the film’s production rather fondly.

Theatrical Trailer — (02:41)

The theatrical trailer is fairly standard with the exception of a short introduction by Kim Novak. It is interesting to see how Columbia’s marketing department sold this movie to the public.

Final Words:

Jeanne Eagels isn’t for everyone. Only occasionally does it manage to be dramatically arresting, and those who admire subtlety won’t find much to appreciate here. However, it is still of some interest to fans of Kim Novak, and this interest will no doubt be magnified by the “select scene audio commentary” that has been included.

Note: While we were provided with a screener for review purposes, this had no bearing on our review process. We do not feel under any obligation to hand out positive reviews.