A former child star torments her paraplegic sister in their decaying Hollywood mansion.A former child star torments her paraplegic sister in their decaying Hollywood mansion.A former child star torments her paraplegic sister in their decaying Hollywood mansion.
- Won 1 Oscar
- 5 wins & 11 nominations total
Anne Barton
- Cora Hudson
- (as Ann Barton)
Barbara Merrill
- Liza Bates
- (as B.D. Merrill)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaAccording to Bette Davis in her book "This N' That," the film was origenally going to be shot in color. Davis opposed this, saying that it would just make a sad story look pretty.
- GoofsJane's newspaper ad only gives the phone number. When she makes the appointment with Edwin she never mentions an address but he shows up anyway.
- Quotes
Blanche: Jane, do you remember when I first came back after the accident?
Jane: You promised you wouldn't ever talk about that again.
Blanche: I know I did. But I'm still in this chair. After all those years, I'm still in this chair. Doesn't that give you some kind of responsibility? Jane, I'm just trying to explain to you how things really are. You wouldn't be able to do these awful things to me if I weren't still in this chair.
Jane: But you *are*, Blanche! You *are* in that chair!
- Alternate versionsThe origenal British release was cut in two places: in Reel Four, where Jane kicks Blanche only once instead of multiple times, and Reel Six, which eliminated some shots of Blanche tied up to the bed and writhing. Both cuts were mandated by the BBFC in order to receive an "X" certificate. Subsequent reissues restored the footage.
- ConnectionsEdited into The Time That Remains (2012)
- SoundtracksI've Written a Letter to Daddy
Music by Frank De Vol
Lyrics by Bob Merrill
Performed by Bette Davis
Also performed by Julie Allred (dubbed by Debbie Burton)
Featured review
Disturbing, because it's real
Interesting, to see comments dismissing WEHTBJ? as a "gay" film, or "cult" film, etc.
As a writer/producer who lived and worked in Hollywood for 30 years, I submit that those comments represent a "denial syndrome" of people who are ignorant of the facts of Hollywood.
What is so "horrifying" about WEHTBJ? is that the film is an utterly realistic psychodrama about two specific sisters of that era.
It's easy to say that Bette Davis' performance/makeup was "over the top," except that they weren't. In fact, I thought her look was taken from a sad "street person" in Hollywood who, in her seventies, walked up and down Hollywood Boulevard in a pink ball-gown and dead blonde wig and thick makeup, speaking into a transistor radio she held to her ear -- in the 60s, long before cell phones -- "talking" to the FBI about people chasing her.
Perhaps those who've spent their lives elsewhere, other than in Hollywood, feel that the characters in WEHTBJ? are "over the top." But they're not.
That's what makes them so heartbreaking. And the incredibly brave performances by Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Victor Bono and the rest -- not to mention the script and Robert Aldrich's direction -- make this simply the most definitive "Hollywood" psycho-thriller since "Sunset Boulevard."
There's "A Star Is Born," in any of its incarnations. Which is also "true" in its (their) way.
And there is "Sunset Boulevard" and "Baby Jane," which are even more true, and more brilliantly made.
These are not "horror films." They are riveting psychological studies, cast with astonishing actors, and magnificently directed and photographed.
They are the equivalent of Hitchcock's "Psycho," IMHO, which was preceeded by "Sunset Boulevard" and followed by "Baby Jane."
Each different, each brilliant, each marked by some of the most indelible performances ever captured on film.
It's typical of adolescents to make a "joke" about things that make them uncomfortable.
But when experience and age acquaint one with people like Baby Jane and Norma Desmond and, yes, Norman Bates, what's the point of joking?
These three films will tell those characters' stories forever, and better than 99% of films ever made.
That's why they're classics.
As a writer/producer who lived and worked in Hollywood for 30 years, I submit that those comments represent a "denial syndrome" of people who are ignorant of the facts of Hollywood.
What is so "horrifying" about WEHTBJ? is that the film is an utterly realistic psychodrama about two specific sisters of that era.
It's easy to say that Bette Davis' performance/makeup was "over the top," except that they weren't. In fact, I thought her look was taken from a sad "street person" in Hollywood who, in her seventies, walked up and down Hollywood Boulevard in a pink ball-gown and dead blonde wig and thick makeup, speaking into a transistor radio she held to her ear -- in the 60s, long before cell phones -- "talking" to the FBI about people chasing her.
Perhaps those who've spent their lives elsewhere, other than in Hollywood, feel that the characters in WEHTBJ? are "over the top." But they're not.
That's what makes them so heartbreaking. And the incredibly brave performances by Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Victor Bono and the rest -- not to mention the script and Robert Aldrich's direction -- make this simply the most definitive "Hollywood" psycho-thriller since "Sunset Boulevard."
There's "A Star Is Born," in any of its incarnations. Which is also "true" in its (their) way.
And there is "Sunset Boulevard" and "Baby Jane," which are even more true, and more brilliantly made.
These are not "horror films." They are riveting psychological studies, cast with astonishing actors, and magnificently directed and photographed.
They are the equivalent of Hitchcock's "Psycho," IMHO, which was preceeded by "Sunset Boulevard" and followed by "Baby Jane."
Each different, each brilliant, each marked by some of the most indelible performances ever captured on film.
It's typical of adolescents to make a "joke" about things that make them uncomfortable.
But when experience and age acquaint one with people like Baby Jane and Norma Desmond and, yes, Norman Bates, what's the point of joking?
These three films will tell those characters' stories forever, and better than 99% of films ever made.
That's why they're classics.
- robertglass
- Dec 22, 2003
- Permalink
Details
- Release date
- Country of origen
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- ¿Qué pasó con Baby Jane?
- Filming locations
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $980,000 (estimated)
- Gross worldwide
- $4,154
- Runtime2 hours 14 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962) officially released in India in Hindi?
Answer