Watch The Girl in the Red Velvet Swing For Free

Such a frustrating disappointment

People are voting emotionally.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

On 25th June 1906 Stanford White, one of America's most famous architects, was shot dead in Madison Square Gardens (a building he had designed himself) by a millionaire rail and coal tycoon named Harry Kendall Thaw. Thaw's motive was sexual jealousy; he believed that White was having an affair with his beautiful young wife Evelyn. White certainly had at one time been one of Evelyn's numerous lovers, but their relationship had in all probability ended before her marriage to Thaw. Thaw was tried for murder, but was found not guilty by reason of insanity. What made the crime one of the notorious causes celebres of the Edwardian era, apart from the fame of the victim and the wealth of the perpetrator, was the fact that Evelyn, under her maiden name of Evelyn Nesbit, had been a famous model and actress in her own right, one of America's first "pin-up girls" and an early example of what would today be known as the "celebrity culture". The film relates this story in a somewhat fictionalised form. The main change is to soften the character of Evelyn Nesbit, which is perhaps not surprising as she was still alive in 1955 and even served as a technical adviser on the film. (Thaw had died in 1947). Her relationship with White is kept rather ambiguous; the two are portrayed as having been in love, but not necessarily lovers in the sexual sense. Although White loves Evelyn, he is unable to marry her because he is still fond of his wife Elizabeth and does not want a divorce, so he treats her almost as an adopted daughter, paying for her to attend an exclusive girls' finishing school. The leading role was originally intended for Marilyn Monroe, who turned it down; it eventually went to Joan Collins, who bore a greater physical resemblance to the historical Evelyn Nesbit than did Monroe. After her roles in films like "The Bitch" and television series like "Dynasty", Collins today has gained a reputation for specialising in playing seductive villainesses, but during her Hollywood heyday in the fifties and sixties she was as much at home playing heroines, and here she plays Evelyn as a sweet and naïve young thing bemused by the passions she arouses in men, especially the obsessively jealous Thaw. (Whether the real Evelyn Nesbit was quite as innocent is another matter). Ray Milland bears little physical resemblance to the real Stanford White, who was a burly, red-headed man with a very prominent moustache. By all accounts he was a practised womaniser, with a particular liking for teenaged girls, and probably less kindly and avuncular than the character portrayed here. The film's rather odd title derives from the fact that one of White's sexual fetishes was to have Evelyn, and his other mistresses, perform for him on a red velvet swing at his home. Another change which the film makes to the facts of the real case is that Stanford and Elizabeth are here portrayed as being the same age; in reality she was considerably younger than him. The best acting contribution comes from Farley Granger as the arrogant, self-obsessed and pathologically jealous Thaw. Granger is today perhaps best remembered for the two films he made with Alfred Hitchcock, "Rope" and "Strangers on a Train", and there are certainly similarities between Thaw and Phillip Morgan, the character Granger played in "Rope". Both are spoilt young men, from wealthy, privileged backgrounds and both have an ineradicable sense that their background entitles them to have anything they want. Both are so arrogant that they literally believe that they can get away with murder, Morgan because he believes himself to be intellectually superior to anyone who might try to investigate his crime, Thaw because he believes that his wealth will effectively enable him to buy his acquittal. (He is partially correct in this belief; the verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity" means that he escapes the death penalty). The film was directed by Richard Fleischer, a versatile director who seemed able to work in virtually any genre, including film noir ("The Armoured Car Robbery"), science fiction ("20,000 Leagues under the Sea", "Fantastic Voyage"), the historical epic ("The Vikings"), and sword-and- sorcery fantasy ("Conan the Barbarian", "Red Sonja"). He did, however, also make a number of films based on real-life murder cases, including this one, "Compulsion" (loosely based upon the Leopold-Loeb case which also inspired "Rope") and "Ten Rillington Place" (based upon the career of the British serial killer John Christie). These three films are very different in terms of their visual style. "Compulsion" was shot in black-and white, influenced by the films noirs in which Fleischer had specialised in the earlier part of his career. "Ten Rillington Place" was filmed in a bleak, washed-out colour with a palette dominated by greys and dull browns and greens, giving a look appropriate to Christie's seedy lifestyle and to the run-down London of the post-war austerity years. "The Girl in the Red Velvet Swing", by contrast, was shot in a much richer, brighter colour, reflecting the glamorous worlds of New York high society and of the turn-of-the-century theatre. In its emphasis on recreating the fashions and styles of the Edwardian era it can be seen as an early example of "heritage cinema". I wouldn't rate "The Girl in the Red Velvet Swing" quite as highly as highly as Ten Rillington Place", possibly Fleischer's finest film with two particularly strong acting performances from Richard Attenborough as Christie and John Hurt as the hapless Timothy Evans. It is, however, a very entertaining account of a "true crime" scandal of sex and violence in high places. 7/10

God, I've read the reviews.I know I'll be lambasted for accusing amateur critics for being totally rubbish. BUT can any one get to the realization that this movie (made in 1955) was based on real people with real lives over 100 years ago (as I write - 1 May 2008!!).That is amazing in it itself - Let's let a few things go. The movie was made 49 years after the murder. I'm writing about it after 102 years - and it's still a great, and terribly sad story. Who could tell it now!? We think we're the first generation to be totally liberated with sex scenes. We're so smart that we watch Sex in the City (and the amazing swing scene). However, this movie was made in 1955 and is based upon a very real and very sad story. Evelyn Nesbit was one of the first and greatest Hollywood actresses - up until 1930 she and others like her were sometimes freely allowed a sexuality that is still, to this day, considered sometimes pornographic.However, regarding this movie and (real) story in particular, what is most amazing is how a small town beauty in the first decade of the 1900's (correct - 100 years ago) allowed herself to be caught between two powerful men (infact there was a third - actually in the middle - John Barrymore) and that her life eventually became a Hollywood thriller. Only in the United States of America.Good God! Elizabeth Nesbit was 16 when she met the 47 year old Mr. Standford White - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Nesbit. She was a "silent actress" - never made a speaking role in her life. However perhaps she was the first sell out. She was special adviser to this film... why wouldn't she be - she was central to it. She IS it!!! But even by 1930 (yet alone 1955) Evelyn Nesbit was a total has been. According to Wikipedia, largely because of her third husband - the Mr.Thaw that killed Mr. White - her opportunities to act as the "Vamp" she once had, ended. The reason Thaw fell in love with her was the very reason she couldn't act on the screen that made her a 20th Century legend. Looking back however, even if the transition from the movies to the talkies allowed it (and it rarely did), Evelyn was always going to be something from a by-gone age - "The Vamp" - a segment from the curiosity shop - the "silents" - and, allegedly, a witness to a murder of a former lover - in a time when men still wore spats, and top hats and long tails... It all seems so romantic now - except that this was real, 102 years ago a man was shot in the face for love or lust or jealousy, somebody actually was really murdered. I doubt it was romantic - in any way, shape or form.What do you think - would a 2008 version do these people and especially Evelyn Nesbit more justice, or should we just let people rest? After all in 1955 the story was only 49 years old...

An age-old tale, based loosely on fact, where a young and innocent girl gets taken up by older man purely on her beauty and allure. Evelyn Nesbit was still alive when this film was made, which presumably accounts for the fact that she comes out of it very well - causing the death of one man and the internment of another for insanity just looks like carelessness! Joan Collins was not the first choice for Nesbit - that was Marilyn Monroe, but she was on suspension and out of favour, allowing the British starlet to step in. There's no denying she's pretty, but she doesn't have Monroe's mix of wide-eyed innocence and plain sex appeal. You kind of understand why Ray Milland's architect gets distracted, but not enough to become an obsession.Meanwhile, pouting Farley Granger, never the world's greatest actor, is jealous and unhinged as Henry Thaw, who goes from giving flowers to showgirls to brandishing a gun in Madison Square Gardens as if it is the most natural thing in the world.In support as Nesbit's mother is spiky Glenda Farrell, who at least is a distraction from the humdrum storyline. There's nothing special here, 'The Girl in the Red Velvet Swing' is simply a time-filler with nice colour and a nice line in showgirls.

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.