Thu 10 Feb 2011
A TV Movie Review by David L. Vineyard: THIS GIRL FOR HIRE (1983).
Posted by Steve under Reviews , TV mysteries[15] Comments
THIS GIRL FOR HIRE. Made-for-TV movie, CBS, 01 November 1983. Bess Armstrong, Celeste Holm, Cliff De Young, Hermione Baddeley, Scott Brady, Howard Duff, Jose Ferrer, Beverly Garland, Roddy McDowall, Percy Rodrigues, Ray Walston, Elisha Cook Jr. Directed by Jerry Jameson
This 1983 made for television movie aired on CBS as a pilot for a proposed series about B.T. Brady (Bess Armstrong), a somewhat less than perfect female private eye with a penchant for trench coats and fedoras, an exotic mother, Zandra (Celeste Holm) who is a former B movie actress living in the past (the 40’s to be exact), and a policeman boy friend (Cliff de Young).
The plot involves a group of mystery writers, one of which — an arrogant and obnoxious fellow (Jose Ferrer) has been murdered. The writers are Hermione Baddeley (Agatha Christie more or less), Scott Brady (Spillane down to the pork pie), Howard Duff, Beverly Garland (who writes under a man’s name), and Roddy McDowall (who writes a Saint like character but is not Charteris).
In solving the case B.T. is aided by her mother’s old Hollywood contacts and haunted by a mysterious fellow (Ray Walston) of suspicious motives.
If any of this sounds a little familiar it may be because save for the actual plot, the characters, setting, and the name are all taken from This Girl For Hire by G. G. Fickling — the first Honey West novel, by a husband-and-wife writing team.
This is not an adaptation of that book — at least not officially. In fact among the army of writers on the teleplay, the characters are attributed to Clifford and Jean Hoelscher. Neither has any other writing credits; other than this film Clifford’s name appears only as an editor and sound designer on a handful of movie and TV productions.
Is it just a coincidence that this This Girl For Hire was apparently created by a husband and wife team too (Jean could be a man, but I’m guessing not) who have no other screen writing credits whatsoever?
I don’t know about you, but something stinks.
It’s not the movie, thankfully It’s nothing special, but a pleasant way to kill two hours, with Armstrong a feisty likable unlikely private eye, Celeste Holm underutilized, and Brady pretty much doing a dead on imitation of Mickey Spillane. Nice to see the old faces, and the plot isn’t terrible. Nothing great, but not terrible.
Did I mention B. T. Brady’s dad was a murdered detective — just like Honey West’s father?
If I recall this right I think she even lives in Bellflower, the Los Angles suburb Honey is from.
A much bigger mystery than any solved in this mediocre film is how they used the title of the first Honey West book with a plot so similar to it. You can’t copyright titles, but neither can you write a Civil War novel called Gone With the Wind and get away with it.
Who were the Hoelschers? Why is this their only credit? And how come no one noticed or mentioned this was so close to the original Honey West — not the later Honey, or the Anne Francis Honey, but the one in the first couple of books — who, like B.T. Brady is a bit of a klutz and a bit out of her element as a private eye.
To paraphrase Red Skelton about a joke that didn’t get a laugh — I just state the problems, I don’t explain them.
Anyone have a solution?
Is this a lost Honey West movie in all but name? A case of out and out plagiarism that they got away with? A huge unlikely coincidence? Corporate intrigue? Cosmic Karma?
Poltergeist?
I place the mystery in your hands, oh mighty bloggers on this site.
What the heck is going on here?
February 10th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
I’m awfully suspicious too, after reading all of your points of comparison, David, but I too am going to have to wait for someone else to come along with the answers.
Maybe somebody (hint) with a large collection of TV GUIDE’s can come up with some of the publicity statements made about the movie at the time.
I wish I could say I’d seen the movie, but my memory’s only so-so on that. I think I did, and if I knew about it back in 1983, I’m sure I did, because (a) it’s a PI movie and (b) Bess Armstrong is in it.
I even watched her in HIGH ROAD TO CHINA with Tom Selleck, but not, it seems, checking out her career, JEKYLL AND HYDE …TOGETHER AGAIN.
The only IMBD comment for this movie, as David pointed to me separately, is a fellow in England who dumped on it (3 stars out of 10) because there is no such thing as a female private eye.
To quote David, “Someone should tell Paretsky and Grafton — they’ve wasted years of their lives.”
February 10th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
I remember it as a spoof, and that I found Howard Duff the best thing about it. But then I like Howard Duff in nearly anything, even terrible movies like this one.
It is not uncommon for television to rip off other sources. Warner Brothers productions in the 50s and 60s would have writers take old WB movie scripts and use them for episodes (even using stock footage from old movies). I enjoy Glen Larson’s work but nearly all was “inspired” by the hit movie of the year before. One of my favorite TV writers of all time, Roy Huggins gave us ALIAS SMITH & JONES after BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID.
As for the plot, I have seen similar in countless TV series episodes.
Why not sued? Maybe they settled out of court, but more likely there was no profit to be had suing, since the TV-movie bombed.
To keep my foot in the door to submit spec scripts to REMINGTON STEELE series I did a writer’s guide the producers used for the show’s writers. There is a black market in Hollywood selling things such as scripts. I found out someone was selling my guide called “Book Of Steele” for ten dollars. The Steele people were not pleased and about to call for their lawyers when I told them it was just a guy selling it and not a business. Since, even if they won, it would cost the studio more to sue than any money they might get back, the entire thing was ignored.
Oh, one note of interest about this movie. Two names involved, Barbara Avedon and Barney Rosenzweig, would go on to play major roles as writer and producer of CAGNEY & LACEY.
February 10th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
I’m guessing (modesty be damned) that Steve’s hint was aimed at me.
Sad to say, I can’t help on this one.
My now-fabled TV GUIDE collection thins out noticeably in the mid-70s. From the next decade I’ve very little saved.
I do remember taping this movie when it aired, largely for the appearance of Bess Armstrong. I may even still have the tape, but I haven’t watched it in years.
I’m also not expert enough on Honey West’s prose career to help out on that end either.
Apologies all around.
I did see JEKYLL AND HYDE – TOGETHER AGAIN.
Again, mainly for Bess Armstrong.
(She looked a lot like a girl I was fond of in high school.)
(I was fond of a number of girls in high school.)
Indeed, all I really recall of this epic was Ms. Armstrong looking quite attractive in white fishnet tights.
That, and one scene in which a modern hospital’s charity ward looks like a Victorian doss house (Only sustained laugh in the whole picture.).
(Mainly, the white fishnet tights.)
February 10th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Mike
No fan of Bess Armstrong need apologize for anything!
I will now go see if I can’t find a copy of JEKYLL & HYDE — TOGETHER AGAIN on DVD.
I don’t know how I managed to miss this one.
— Steve
February 11th, 2011 at 12:08 am
Granted the definition of plagairism is pretty broad in the entertainment industry, but giving this the same name and so many plot elements of the first Honey West novel is pretty blatant, even for television.
Which leads me to wonder if perhaps the Hoelscher’s were a pseudonym for the Ficklings. It could well be the producers didn’t want the Honey West tie because of fear that vieweres would expect the Anne Francis version, while in many ways the movie itself is closer to the early books (minus th nudity and sexual tease).
The other thing that occurs to me is that the Hoelscher’s could well have consciously or unconsciouly have lifted the setup, characters, and title of the first Honey West book and no one involved noticed. There are supposed to be studio people who investigate for these sort of things, but I doubt much effort was made in this case.
It’s not like the movie was a hit and anyone noticed at the time.
I agree about Bess Armstrong, and she is pretty good here. I think she reminded everyone of someone they went to high school with — particularly guys.
Howard Duff was good, but Scott Brady’s Spillane imitation was dead on, and for me a bonus was I always thought his brother Lawrence Tierney would have been my ideal Mike Hammer.
I have this on tape, and watched it about five years ago. It’s a little better than I remember, but despite that cast nothing special.
And speaking of obscure made for television movies does anyone else recall the adaptation of Rex Stout’s HAND IN GLOVE with Crystal Barnard as Dol Bonner?
February 11th, 2011 at 2:05 am
In a way, I like the idea that the Hoelschers were the Ficklings more than I think any plagiarism was going on.
But why the pen names? From what I think I know about the Ficklings, they weren’t shy about seeking publicity.
And yet, if it was plagiarism, why on earth didn’t the Ficklings themselves say something? They, all of people, would have had to have noticed.
From Wikipedia:
“Stout’s 1937 novel The Hand in the Glove was adapted for an NBC TV movie titled Lady Against the Odds, which aired April 20, 1992. Crystal Bernard starred as Dol Bonner; Annabeth Gish costarred as Sylvia Raffray.”
I remember when this was on, and I may even have taped it, but have I ever seen it? No.
Said HOLLYWOOD REPORTER:
“It’s wonderfully scripted, well-acted and thoroughly enjoyable to watch. […] [It] is constructed around a rather standard-issue plot line, and that keeps it from being quite as great as it otherwise might have been.
“Fortunately, it doesn’t spoil the overall fun.”
If I taped it, I certainly don’t know where it is. Dunderhead.
February 11th, 2011 at 3:36 am
Like you I wonder why the Ficklings did not take legal action. This was CBS and a major studio — there was clearly money inolved (unless they had optioned the character somehow).
This would clearly have been held as a violation of the fair use doctrine which gets around the fact that you can’t copyright titles, ideas, or concepts. Under fair use, you can write a book about a private eye seeking a jeweled bird, but you can’t use Hammett’s incidents, title, details, thinly disguised rewrites of his prose, or character names.
You can legally write a novel called THE MALTESE FALCON, but it had better not be about a private eye and a jeweled bird.
This clearly violates the law in regard to title, character, and detail. It doesn’t matter if the title and story are realatively generic, in this case they come close enough to the book in question to satisfy a court.
Clive Cussler and Ted Bell have both written books called THE SPY in recent years, and both best sellers and thrillers, but beyond that they have nothing in common. THIS GIRL FOR HIRE on the other hand is more than merely generically close to the Fickling book. There are enough details that match to make a good fair use violation case.
Chances are the Fickling’s didn’t see the film and no one pointed it out to them, though I still think there is just a possibility that the Hoelscher name may be an attempt to disguise the fact this property is based on Honey West and give it a chance to stand on its own (can’t imagaine the studio publicity department letting that happen though — or for that matter the Ficklings).
When you add up all the other blatant ties to the first Honey West book then add the fact both were created by an apparent husband and wife team — well, if you hear a whistle in the night and feel the vibrations, and you are in a tunnel standing on railroad tracks — chances are it’s an oncoming train.
Recall a few years ago a young woman lost a controversial case for trying to retell the story of GONE WITH THE WIND from the slaves point of view and calling it THE WIND DONE GONE. Great reviews from the NYTIMES and others didn’t help her in court. She did not plagiarize the Mitchell novel, and was never accussed of that — she lost on the fair use doctrine — she did not have the right to exploit the concepts, characters, and title of the Mitchell novel without the permission of the copyright holders.
Fair use doctrine is what ultimately took down Captain Marvel vs Superman (okay granted the fall off in sales of superhero comics and the fact Fawcett was going out of the business helped) and the underground comic AIR PIRATES vs Disney and Mickey Mouse. It’s not like it is an obscure or gray area of the law. There are some fairly famous examples of the law being enforced.
If you swipe from everybody you are an original, if you only borrow from one source you may be in trouble.
For that matter Dimitri Gat’s infamous NEVSKY’S RETURN was only a little more blatant than this in “borrowing” the plot of John D. MacDonald’s THE EMPTY COPPER SEA, and even he didn’t use the same title and a Florida boat bum ‘salvage expert’ hero.
Honey West is, and was, a valuable property (it has been optioned many times including by Reese Witherspoon not too long ago — two issues of a Moonstone comic are in print now), I find it hard to believe no one reacted to this — which leads me to think that somewhere along the line the legal niceties were observed.
However, somehow writer Jim Hatfield wrote a James Bond novel called THE KILLING ZONE, in which he killed off James Bond, and it was published by a mainstream (if small) paperback publisher (Charter) despite the fact that both the Fleming estate and the film interests have always been very careful of what was allowed to be done with James Bond. I don’t know that there was ever any legal action (it’s fairly expensive if you can find it, but can be downloaded for free from one of the James Bond fan sites).
Those infamous Barton Werper Tarzan novels fell to the power of the Burrough’s estate because while one might have been allowed as a pastische, a series was clearly a violation of fair use.
However, this film is not pastische, and Hatfield did not try to call his book DOCTOR NO or GOLDFINGER.
I can’t help but wonder if there isn’t something we are all missing or don’t know that explains this fairly simply.
Re LADY AGAINST THE ODDS, it was quite good and fairly faithful to Stout’s book — certainly to the characterization of Dol Bonner as a smart no nonsense investigator. It was set during the war and made some use of the fact that women were forced to take on a lot of male jobs.
Barnard, wasn’t exactly my idea of the character, but she was good in the role and fit well enough that after only a minute or two you forgot about her character from WINGS. It was good enough I wished I could have seen her in action with Wolfe and Archie or even Tecumseh Fox (Dol ties the two series together).
One last thing on the Ficklings, I don’t know what their age or health was in 1983. One or both might have been dead, and there may have been no family to complain. Author credits don’t always get displayed for movies or television productions so long as someone somewhere along the line was paid for the rights involved
The only thing I can’t reconcile is why the studio, production company, or someone involved would not have tried to exploit the Honey West connection if they had paid for the right to use the books title and some of the characters. I can’t see anyone trying to sell a television series passing up such obvious free publicity.
Having done PR work I can tell you we are not known for our subtlty or tendency to avoid any good press we can generate.
February 11th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Somewhere back in time I had occasion to write about a TV-movie called BIG ROSE, a CBS production which starred Shelley Winters and Barry Primus. Ms. Winters went on Johnny Carson to promote it and said (I believe I’m quoting her verbatim) “Basically, it’s Cool and Lam.” This was 1974 or thereabouts, only a few years after Erle Stanley Gardner’s death, and his estate was well-known for maintaining vigilant control of Uncle Erle’s literary properties.
I believe this holds true to the present day.
That said, I can’t recall if any action was taken against BIG ROSE’s producers for plaigiarism or somesuch, then or ever. I do seem to recall that BIG ROSE was only shown the one time.
From my hit-or-miss memory bank, I also recall that LONGSTREET, the ‘tec series from 1971 with James Franciscus, gave an on-screen credit to Baynard Kendrick every week, even though the only similiarity between Longstreet and Capt. Duncan McClain was blindness.
Just a year or so ago, there was THE KNIGHTS OF PROSPERITY, an absolute knock-off of Donald Westlake’s Dortmunder books, which flopped so fast (despite raves from critics who obviously weren’t familiar with Westlake) that I guess legal action would have redundant.
Note to Tise Vahimagi:
You may be looking at the start of a whole new chapter of your admirable work-in-progress.
I was unaware of LADY AGAINST THE ODDS in toto. Since TV-movies have basically fallen off the grid as far as repeat telecasts go, I guess I’m out of luck. (If anybody out there can apprise me otherwise, by all means do so (and include a price list).)
Finally, I most certainly do not apologize for my ongoing fondness for Bess Armstrong. I only regret that she’s lately been typecast as bedraggled mothers of angst-ridden teens.
(Jeez, doesn’t anybody do comedy any more?)
February 11th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
There is an old saying in Hollywood you know you have made it big when someone sues you.
If this pilot TV-movie had gone series then it may have been worth taking to court.
But who owns the rights to Honey West? Orion was a major minor TV and film studio at the time and if I remember right was later swallowed up by a major studio. It is possible the studio owned the rights. It is also possible the studio settled quietly out of court.
It is also possible, but I don’t know why, the Ficklings did not want screen credit. “On screen” credits are more from union and agent rules than truth, and IMDB is a flawed research tool with the accuracy of wikipedia, so who the heck knows.
February 12th, 2011 at 1:08 am
I do have a hypothesis for the mystery surrounding this one.
At some point the first book in the Honey West series was optioned. This was separate from the option of the character that was the basis for the television series with Anne Francis (not unlike the situation with James Bond where the production company responsible for the Bond films did not have the rights to THUNDERBALL and CASINO ROYALE or the character Blofield and his organization SPECTRE).
The Hoelscher’s came up separately with the idea of a young woman private eye who is the daughter of a murdered cop and whos mother was a B movie actress and sold the idea to the films production company
Someone realised they had the rights to the first Honey West book (very likely CBS legal department that clears all such productions), THIS GIRL FOR HIRE, but not to the Honey West character as developed in the Anne Francis series, and decided to exercise that option, but without the direct Honey West tie to avoid legal squabbles. That gave them legal cover to use the story and characters so long as they did not call the character Honey West or imitate any aspect of the television series (which is pretty far from the first book).
Actually, none of this would be all that unusual.
Of course that is just a guess, but as good as any.
Re BIG ROSE,that’s not quite the same thing as THIS GIRL FOR HIRE, since there is no law to keep you from imitation (CANNON’s first season was a rip off of radio’s THE FAT MAN and a pilot for the FAT MAN earlier a Nero Wolfe rip off). However there is a law to keep you from doing a movie using the title and characters from an A. A. Fair book even if you do not call them Cool and Lam.
There are very specific laws to keep you from violating copyrights or fair use doctrine, and THIS GIRL FOR HIRE violates them under any definition. This isn’t a case of someone coming up with the idea of doing Lassie as an alien and then suing Speilberg when he films E.T. — this was the actual use of the Fickling’s title, characters, and scenario.
The difference between this and BIG ROSE is this was not only actionable, but would have been a cakewalk. No judge or jury in the world would have held for the plaintiff in this case. There are no gray areas here. They use the title, the three main characters, and their histories from the Fickling’s book.
That is far more than a casual rip off — even in Hollywood.
But I do suspect something like the hypothesis I suggested is at the heart of this mystery. I really don’t think any deliberate or even accidental plagairism was indended. For whatever reason they either did not want the Honey West connection known, or were legally restrained from use of the character of Honey West, but not the elements of the first novel.
I find this far more likely than the mighty legal department at CBS television completely missing such a major violation. Chances are everything was legal and above board — even if it wasn’t made public.
February 12th, 2011 at 8:19 am
Have not seen the TV version of THE FAT MAN, but the movies were based on the radio show created by Dashiell Hammett (reportedly he wrote the first episode) based on the Continental Op.
February 12th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Michael
The TV pilot called THE FAT MAN was not based on the radio series, but merely had the same name. It was a Nero Wolfe wanna be. You can read about it and see some images in the archives in this blog.
If THE FAT MAN was ever truly based on the Continental Op, it didn’t really last all that long in that format. By the time the series ended the main character was a prosperous gourmet with a partner who was almost a valet and lived in a very expensive apartment — a long way from the OP.
The first season of CANNON ‘borrowed’ many elements of the radio series including the hero being a gourmet chef and living in an upscale apartment.
THE FAT MAN movie with radio’s J. Scott Smart and an early role for Rock Hudson isn’t bad, and it’s faithful to the radio series.
‘Borrowing’ is, as you and others have pointed out, common in film and television where no one wants to risk money or originality, but while borrowing can come awfully close to violating the laws in question, it’s not as close as this particular piece comes.
By the time a project like THIS GIRL FOR HIRE gets on the air they usually have been vetted by a small army of studio legal experts and researchers, and it seems unlikely no one would have noticed the comparison to Honey West — unless for some reason there was no problem because they had the rights.
February 12th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
To save everyone the trouble of finding this blog’s previous reference to the FAT MAN TV pilot David refers to in his first paragraph, here’s the link: https://mysteryfile.com/blog/?p=1190
I think from the photos and the discussion there it’s clear that this movie (still not listed on IMDB) is what David says it is, an obvious homage to (if not ripoff of) Nero Wolfe.
February 17th, 2011 at 3:28 am
For those interested. Lady Against the Odds is available for streaming on Netflix.
February 17th, 2011 at 3:29 am
For that matter, so is This Girl for Hire (available for streaming on Netflix)