The actor Bette Davis described as “pure witchcraft”
There’s something so refreshing about an actor who willingly jumps into the kinds of roles that many would be put off by.
Deranged and hideous characters – the kinds which require an actor to morph into something wholly unpleasant – aren’t easy to master, but Bette Davis took to these parts like a duck to water. She was more than up for the challenge.
Davis pushed the boundaries of how women were presented on screen, demonstrating a side of femininity that could be shocking, undignified, and out of line with societal expectations – in other words, real… Her first major role saw her play an unsympathetic waitress in Of Human Bondage, a manipulative and self-obsessed character who was a far cry from the more subservient vision of femininity that Hollywood otherwise championed.
Decades on, and she still gravitated towards characters that weren’t easy to like, such as the titular character in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? Her white-painted face and ringlets, a woman-child hybrid clinging onto the past, are simply unforgettable, her unnerving smile a vision of pure terror. Davis was never going to stick to convention with the roles that she took on, and that’s what made her such a legendary star. Of course, she had the talent to lift her to the upper echelons of Hollywood, but it was her bold choice of roles which kept her up there.
It’s no surprise, then, that one of her favourite actors, her biggest inspirations, was an actor renowned for her complex roles, which similarly challenged the depiction of femininity on screen. Davis loved Greta Garbo, identifying some magic in her approach to acting. She was once quoted as saying, “Her instinct, her mastery over the machine, was pure witchcraft. I cannot analyse this woman’s acting. I only know that no one else so effectively worked in front of a camera.”
From the moment she gained fame in the 1920s, Garbo became known for her unconventional nature, often wearing trousers, which was rather unheard of for women at the time. When she selected roles, she frequently picked those which presented women outside of the confines of stereotypes – ambitious, independent, multi-faceted – pushing back against an industry which wanted to use its power to keep women subordinated. Garbo would never do such a thing.
In 1933, she shocked audiences with her portrayal of the titular character in Queen Christina, playing a royal who is at times mistaken as a man, challenging gender norms with her masculine dress… In one sequence, she kisses another woman, making it one of the earliest known on-screen lesbian exchanges, which was incredibly groundbreaking.
She represented a new kind of woman with these performances, which were so masterful, no matter the context of the film. Garbo was able to adapt to anything, but she liked a challenge, and this evidently inspired Davis, who was absolutely mesmerised by the actor’s bold screen presence.
They were both undeniable Hollywood icons who, one movie at a time, helped to change audience perceptions of femininity on screen. Yet, Davis might not have wielded this fearless ambition if she hadn’t seen Garbo do it first with the kind of power she could only equate to the most subversive association with femininity of all: witchcraft.
