"Flowers In The Attic" revisited - Last Year's Blu-Ray Release and my thoughts on the Lifetime Remake

In response to my earlier post regarding the 1987 film version of "Flowers In The Attic" and the changes that were made to the film before its release, I feel it's time to share my thoughts on the 2014 television remake. I mentioned that I was disappointed and that was an understatement. I admire that people tried to make an effort to produce something that was closer to the book and could delve into the more taboo side of the story.  However, something was lost in translation. In the next few paragraphs, I will explain what I'm referring to. 

The casting could have been better in most respects. I felt that Kiernan Shipka was wrong for the role of Cathy - her voice was flat and monotonous, and her narration was nearly robotic. Mason Dye gave probably the best performance of the younger actors, but even he seemed stiff.  Cory (Maxwell Kovitch) and Carrie (Ava Telek) were pretty much non-entities - and didn't serve much of a purpose other than to annoy their older siblings - and the viewer.  In all fairness, there was not much to their roles so they cannot be blamed for that - they were background characters more than anything, whereas the original film gave the twins more screen time and you got the sense that they really were siblings and shared a close bond - the same with Kristy Swanson and Jeb Stuart Adams as Cathy and Chris. While they were too old for the roles, their performances were much better and more natural; the same goes for Ryan Ben Ganger and Lindsay Parker.

Heather Graham as Corrine - where do I start? She's an actress that I neither like or dislike, she's given some decent performances in the past. Here, well, I'm not sure what she and director Deborah Chow were going for, but it falls unforgivably flat. While Victoria Tennant's take on the character is not without its problems, she was much better at playing a mother and eventually, a conniving murderess who wants her inheritance more than her offspring. Graham, on the other hand, comes off as robotic, like she belonged in the Stepford Wives' club. Granted, Lifetime's version does retain the 1950s time period, but Graham's Corrine simply does not come off as a mother and she seems like she's reading her lines off of cue cards. Whether this was a "blank slate" intention or just a poor performance is hard to determine, but it's hard to feel anything about the character. She's so lifeless that you can't even hate her as you could Victoria Tennant's Corrine. 

The gown that Corrine wears to the party her father gives in her honor to re-introduce her to society is described in the novel by Cathy. "Her long formal gown had a skirt of flowing chiffon; the bodice was a deep green velvet, cut low to show a lot of cleavage." The color and style, of course, showed off not only Corrine's figure but also her blonde hair and fair skin to great advantage. While Corrine's dress in the 1987 movie is not an exact replica, great care was taken to create a look similar as described by Cathy in the book. On the other hand, Lifetime had Corrine wearing a champagne-colored dress in a style that seemed to fit the 1930s or 1940s. It blended in with Corrine's skin and hair. Yes, Heather Graham wore it well but it doesn't really have the effect that it's supposed to.

Louise Fletcher and Ellen Burstyn are both Best Actress Oscar winners, and both of them give stand-out performances as the grandmother; however, Burstyn's portrayal was not enough to save the TV movie, as she was completely miscast. The grandmother is described as a giant of a woman, at least six feet tall (which seems even taller to small children), menacing, terrifying and fanatically religious; Louise Fletcher fits the bill. Burstyn, despite walking away with the best acting honors, looks more like she's ready for a Miss Marple Mystery rather than terrorizing innocent children. Moreover, her character (named Olivia Foxworth in the novel) is far too sympathetic and even shows a small amount of compassion for her grandchildren, which Olivia does not do in the novel or the 1987 film. You don't get the sense as to why the kids are afraid of her. She just doesn't come off as intimidating or powerful.

The locations are superior in the original film, representing the gothic, frightening and hauntingly beautiful feel of the book; much of the TV movie appeared to be closer to a CGI type look, which doesn't help the story in terms of the Foxworth Hall almost as a character in of itself.

The sets feel and look authentic in Jeffrey Bloom's take on the story; even when soundstages were used (such as for the attic) it looked and felt as real as the rooms of the New England mansion (the Crane Estate) that was used for location work. Lifetime, however, used sets that not only were obviously sets, but everything looked too clean, glossy and pretty. It's supposed to be an estate that's been in the Foxworth family for many years, but it just looks like a newly constructed mansion. This takes away from the feel of the story, the tragic, heartbreaking and romantic aspect.

There's no getting around the fact that Lifetime was able to portray the incestuous relationship between Cathy and Chris more overtly (though it was understandably toned down), and didn't have a studio breathing down the director's neck and didn't have to worry about interference. Having said that, the inclusion of the incest does not make the TV film superior to the original; it's so poorly executed, so rushed and so undermining that it really doesn't have the impact that it should have had. The absence of chemistry between Kiernan Shipka and Mason Dye is part of it, but the director's lack of flow in building tension is apparent. While the majority of the scenes depicting the incest in the original film were cut before its official release, some hints were left, and Kristy Swanson and Jeb Adams had a very strong on-screen rapport that was noticeable and helped their scenes together, even if the more obvious aspects of their characters' incestuous longings ended up on the cutting room floor.

Both films suffer from time constraint issues, but Lifetime made the rather bizarre decision to cram two years of captivity (over three years in the book) into the 90-minute running time. This rushed pace is one of the things that really hurt the story, especially in view of the fact that there are only a few scenes where the kids look paler than when they arrived, but certainly nothing else that suggests that they have been locked away for more than a few months. Director Jeffrey Bloom condensed the children's confinement to about a year, but the effort that was made to show their sickly pallor and dulled eyes were far superior and gave the viewer the impression of just how long being sunlight-deprived is for young children. Of course, the 2014 presentation left the door open for a sequel (and in fact, produced three sequels from the author's Dollanganger series) whereas the first film suffered due to a studio-inserted ending which angered fans.

Despite the problems with the 1987 movie, I have to say that so much about it is more memorable and superior. The acting, chemistry, location, atmosphere and the hauntingly beautiful and tragic musical score by Christopher Young elevate it above the Lifetime effort.  You also connect with the characters and feel for them - something that the 2014 re-working didn't achieve. While the former suffers from studio changes and as a result, doesn't follow the source material as much, it still is the kind of film that will linger in your memory. 

Happily, in March of 2018 Arrow Film released a special edition Blu-Ray of "Flowers In The Attic" (1987), which contains special features, including commentary by author and editor-in-chief of Diabolique Magazine Kat Ellinger, who is clearly a fan of the film and of the author of the novel, V.C. Andrews. There is also a behind-the-scenes photo gallery including storyboards and reshoots, the original shooting script, the script penned by Wes Craven that was ultimately rejected; the original theatrical trailer, interviews with composer Christopher Young, production designer John Muto, cinematographer Frank Byers, and actor Jeb Stuart Adams (Chris). He talks about his experience in making the film and his disappointment that the incestuous relationship between Cathy and Chris (which according to him and Jeffrey Bloom, who was interviewed for the liner notes, was mild and modest and not graphic) ended up cut from the final film; he feels that the movie would have been better had the scenes remained. However, the most anticipated bonus is one of the original endings, which was shown at the 1986 test screening; taken from an old VHS master, the quality isn't the greatest but it does present a very interesting alternative and would have made a sequel possible. As this Blu-Ray is Region B (UK) and as of this writing there are no plans for it to be released in North America, if you live outside of the UK you will have to purchase a region-free Blu-Ray player in order to view it, but if you are a fan of the film it is well worth it! Perhaps one day the other deleted scenes will surface or maybe the film will be cut as director Jeffrey Bloom intended. 

UPDATE: The Arrow Blu-Ray special edition of "Flowers In The Attic" (1987) will be officially released in North America in November 2019. It is available for pre-order at Amazon.com.