Talk:Psycho-biddy

Comment

Removed following fragment from article:

"Die! Die! My Darling stars Tallulah Bankhead as"

It's apparently been incomplete since the beginning of the article and slid along. Since I'm not familiar with the movie in question, I leave it here for others to correct. --Mitsukai 16:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Origins

Exactly who coined the phrase "psycho-biddy", wonderful though it is, and when?

User Calibanu: 12.17, 10 November 2006

It seems to be an original coinage for the wikipedia! All references on the internet lead back to this article! Colin4C 20:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I started the wikipedia article, under an anonymous IP address. When I was first introduced to the genre, a coworker defined it as "psycho-biddy"; when I asked her recently where she heard it from, she says she first heard the term used by myself! I don't think I coined it, but that's odd, isn't it? :-) Anonymoustom 05:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You deserve the credit Anonymoustom! Just don't tell the wikipedia admins or they will start foaming at the mouth and have to be put down...thus creating another Gothic genre: 'Psycho-Admins' Colin4C 20:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems almost certain that "Psycho-biddy" is an extension/adaptation/spin-off of the term "Psychobilly", a genre of music. Captain Quirk (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

_____________________________________________

The Genre's influence section is a bit of a stretch. I'm not convinced that all of the examples are relevant or influential. Kathy Bates was too young to be considered a "biddy"! ...and Requiem for a Dream really doesn't fit at all.

I'd also like to point out regarding Two on a Guillotine: Connie Stevens was NOT an old woman at the time. I don't see why this film is included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.171.54 (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

I've never used one of these talk pages, so forgive me if I'm not doing it right. I just stumbled in here while doing research for a site and saw that this page is in danger of being deleted in a few days because the phrase "psycho-biddy" isn't found outside of wikipedia. However, the phrase "Grande Dame Guignol" is pretty common, it has exactly the same as meaning as "psycho-biddy" and there's not a page on Wikipedia for it. There's a lot of great content here and I'd hate to see this page deleted, so I'm requesting a move. I'd do it myself, but I haven't had the greatest track record on this site when it comes to changing things. VinnieRattolle

• Hmmmm, interesting! If what you're saying is accurate, that sounds doable. Since we have no article by that name, it wouldn't require merging, just changing the name and some of the article contents. It wouldn't be very hard, and it's probably preferable to deletion. Any other opinions? I'll go poke around a bit to verify what you say about "Grand Dame Guignol". Not out of distrust, I'd just like to ascertain its commonality. - Vianello (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Whoops, I initially misspelled that. It's "Grande" not "Grand." There's still no wikipedia page on it though. It's easy to find by googling the phrase (more commonly found with an "e" at the end of that first word, but it shows up both ways). VinnieRattolle
  • If nobody has any objections, I'm gonna tentatively follow through on the move and some careful reformatting to make it seamless in a couple days. If you have a problem with that, or, heck, even if you agree, pipe up, please! - Vianello (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

May we see a good source for this "grande dame guignol" phrase, indicative of why it deserves an article? 86.44.27.243 (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I trust everything was ok since this article is still here but just in case. Anyone looking for a non-original source, there is a book about the subject of the "Grande Dame Guignol" - - Grande Dame Guignol Cinema: A History of Hag Horror from Baby Jane to Mother - Lochaber (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Is "Grand Dame Guignol" itself used outside of that book, or is it just somebody else's cute turn of phrase like "psycho-biddy?" Can you find examples of film historians discussing the subject? This article might be better merged into another. I think there's a more or less standard name for this kind of post-Psycho crazed killer genre. The age of the characters is not part of it, and truth be told, what we're talking about here is more of a trend that capitalizes on Baby Jane's success and provided filmmakers a way to acquire star-level talent at a discount price. It's not really a genre to itself, and the lead actress' age is the only difference between these and films like...uh, Dementia 13. Dementia13 (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible Movie Examples

• Tatie Danielle 1990 French black comedy. I hesitate to put it in because it isn't classified as a horror. But she was more twisted than some of the bona fide P-Bs. If anyone else has seen it and agrees, please add it to the list of examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vynbos (talk • contribs) 13:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't sunset boulevard a proto-example of the genre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.3.147 (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Aunt Ada Doom of Cold Comfort Farm who "saw something nasty in the woodshed" would make another comedic example, and in the 1970's there was You'll Like My Mother, but what about Mrs. Danvers in Rebecca? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EoinRiedy (talk • contribs) 04:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC) .

Is this really a genre?

This article isn't well-sourced and only mentions 5 films, all of which are pretty identical with each other and were made withing a 10 year period. Does 5 films merit the distinction of "film genre"? It seems more like a craze that quickly died out. A genre is more long-lasting, more prone to variations in theme. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The only citation for this supposed term is a "Flavorwire" article; hardly an authoritative source or evidence that anyone views this as a genre in any meaningful sense of the term.Jtcarpet (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This is typical Wikipedia "let's make something up that doesn't exist and stubbornly insist it does and wear people down who object until the fact that a Wikipedia article exists makes it into a real thing." I particularly like how the article makes a claim about when the so-called genre "officially" began, as if there was some recognized authority that declares what genres exist or as if the film What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? had actually advertised as a "psycho-biddy" film. The term is silly, the genre non-existent, but Wikipedians who think it makes them cool to pretend it does and to promote it will make sure this article continues to exist. 184.162.197.45 (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@184.162.197.45: You're completely wrong. See this as a non-Wikipedia source that discusses this term in depth. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Erik, your source just confirms what I said. It only claims that "some horror enthusiasts" have used that term, hardly a ringing endorsement. But what makes the book even better proof of my previous claim is it was published in 2016. This article was created in 2005. If you think the authors of the book are not aware of the existence of the Wikipedia article and not counting that as reason to believe this is more than just a few fans with an agenda to create a term that doesn't otherwise exist you are dreaming. Find me a book published before 2005 that talks about this so-called genre and then we can talk. It shouldn't be too hard to find one if this so-called genre "officially" began in 1962, as the article claims. That gives you 43 years in which to show that it really exists independently of people who believe it because Wikipedia said so. 184.162.197.45 (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a genre that is marketed. It's more an academic classification. As a result, this does not mean that the term has to have been used at the time of the "official" first film in this classification. Regardless of your speculation, the term has been published by reliable sources, so there is nothing to do here. If there is a source saying that the existence of this Wikipedia article influenced the prevalence of this term, we can include it. Otherwise, it cannot be presumed. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

So it's merely "an academic classification" with NO sources (academic or otherwise) that such a classification existed during the 43 years between the so-called "official" beginning of the classification and the creation of the Wikipedia article declaring that it already exists. Sounds like a solid victory for Wikipedia editors who want to use Wikipedia to make something real that isn't. "so there is nothing to do here". Yes, precisely what activist editors of Wikipedia hope for. Create an article, hope it goes unnoticed long enough not to be challenged, then claim its existence gives it a presumption of validity. What a coincidence that NO source older than the Wikipedia article itself can be found to justify the existence of the term! 184.162.197.45 (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

A couple more notes: The article was created citing NO sources at all. The first source added was almost 2 years later. The site added as the first source is (1) not a website that would qualify as a reliable source and (2) an article that talked about older women actresses in horror films in general and not just as perpetrators in those films (in many they are merely the victims, thus not "psycho-biddies" at all). Then, after the article had existed for 3 years and still no other sources had been added it was nominated for deletion as being without reliable sourcing. No external sources to verify the existence of the genre or the term were found. The person who created this Wikipedia page has commented above on this talk page that either he/she or one of his/her co-workers created the term. So we have verification that "Psycho-biddy" is not a term that existed prior to the article. Finally, for the last 5 years (FIVE!) there has been a tag contesting the validity of the page. 184.162.197.45 (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Please state how the article can be improved. The topic is discussed under this term as well as others. For example, you could request a move. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Gee, Erik, that was a nice attempt at censorship. Glad you thought better and reversed it. As for a move, that was previously suggested and shot down by someone claiming that "psycho-biddy" was the most widely used term for the genre, despite no source other than Wikipedia existing at the time that ever used it. So I don't have any faith in that process. But here is a proposal for more factual accuracy and uncharacteristic honesty about this matter. How about adding this to the lead section:

"There is no know use of the term "psycho-biddy" prior to the creation of this Wikipedia article in 2005. The person who created the page has acknowledged that the term was an original creation, coined at that time. Since the creation of this page the term has gained some usage outside Wikipedia."

It is an accurate and informative bit of information that a reader of the article might like to know. The origin of neologisms is often of interest to readers, and as this page clearly violated Wikipedia policy in creating one (see: WP:NEO) it should at least be honest about that. So that's my suggestion for improvement. 184.162.197.45 (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

That would not suffice because it is not verifiable in regard to the policy. The article body was not verifiable early on, but now we need to make the content verifiable going forward. (Believe me, I don't find this article to be of good quality.) I really suggest requesting a move, but since the term is in a book and several other places, it would be stated in the article body regardless. In the AfD in 2015, Tokyogirl79 suggested moving it to hag horror as the more used term. But without a reliable source publishing coverage about the origin of this term, there is nothing we can state in the article itself. You could suggest this as a story to The Daily Dot. They wrote about Star Trek Into Darkness and the Wikipedia debate about whether or not to capitalize the "i" (yes, really). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much what I expected. The absence of any source at all was not enough to get rid of the article when it was trying to force a term into existence that did not exist, and now the fact that no "reliable" source exists (other than the complete lack of any reliable source ever having used the term before 2005 and the word of the person who did create it) means the Wikipedia page must remain silent about the fact that the page created the term. At least this much censorship of facts remains alive and well on Wikipedia. Let's hope this particular comment of mine survives someone trying to "defend the shield" as well.

Erik, if you think the title of the article should be changed then by all means suggest it. But don't be surprised if Wikipedia inertia insists we continue to pretend this isn't just something Wikipedia made up. Good luck. 184.162.197.45 (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I was suggesting action to take because otherwise this is just venting, which is why WP:NOTAFORUM is applicable here. This topic could easily be under any of the other terms and ultimately downplay the prominence of this particular term. If Tokyogirl79 is right with "hag horror" being more prominent, then "psycho-biddy" can become just one of several terms tied to this topic. But yes, there is no grounds to discuss Wikipedia's role here. It's not impossible to do that; it happened with Alley Cats Strike, amusingly enough. I am not as vested in this topic to strive to polish the article, though I admit this discussion has been rather interesting. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

What about "Lady In A Cage"?

Over the last few years, I've tried twice to add Lady in a Cage as another example of the genre, only to have my edit undone twice.

Lady In A Cage features a mentally unstable woman of advanced years with a somewhat glamorous past. And the premise of the movie is that she is in mortal jeopardy, with another party attempting to drive her to mental instability and possibly kill her.

Any thoughts as to why this movie doesn't fit? PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you provided a reliable source that links the film with psycho-biddy? DonIago (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Therein lies the rub. I guess that I feel like saying that Lady In A Cage is of the psycho biddy genre is like saying that Christina Hendricks is full-figured. It's seems that it's self-evident by looking at it/her and comparing it/her to the definition. It doesn't need a source. PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Content that purportedly don't need a source should mean it is so universally and readily verifiable that a source is easily found (like the director of a film). We as Wikipedia editors cannot label a film a specific way if it has never been done by anyone before. We follow sources, provided they exist. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. I guess that where I struggle with this is that a connection like this can be made in multiple not-considered-credible-on-Wikipedia sites (blogs, tribute pages, etc.) and not be sufficient, yet if just one hack writer on CNN calls Lady In A Cage a psycho-biddy movie, then it's worthy of Wikipedia. PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I rather think that if there was sufficient evidence that the CNN writer was indeed a hack then their claims would subsequently be considered lacking in credibility. DonIago (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Article has been tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert the below material with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Definition, themes and influences

The subgenre features a mentally unstable, dangerous, or insane woman of advanced years with a somewhat glamorous past, living a life of relative wealth. In some cases, the woman may be in jeopardy of some sort, with another party attempting to drive her to mental instability. Often (but not always), there are two older women pitted against one another in a life-or-death struggle, usually the result of bitter hatreds, jealousies, or rivalries that have percolated over the course of, not years, but decades. These combatants are often blood-relatives. The character is often brought to life in an over-the-top, grotesque fashion, emphasizing the unglamorous process of aging and eventual death. Characters are often seen pining for lost youth and glory, trapped by their idealized memories of their childhood, or younger days, and the trauma of a past episode that haunts them.

History

Baby Jane set many trends and more-or-less defined the genre: the theatrical performance, the trappings of wealth and Hollywood, and psychologically complex melodrama. Jane goes quite insane over the course of the movie, torturing her crippled sister and venting long-pent up hostilities and guilt. At the end of the film, Blanche makes a confession which details and admits of her own complicity in the whole affair. The film was quite successful, garnering Academy Award nominations, including one for Davis. Crawford then starred in director and producer William Castle's Strait-Jacket (1964) as Lucy Harbin, the accused axe-murderer of her husband and his mistress, who is released from the asylum for the criminally insane after 20 years to be reunited with her beloved daughter and other friends. When a new string of axe-murders begins, it is naturally assumed that it is Lucy committing them. The two actresses were reunited again with director Robert Aldrich for a Baby Jane "follow-up", Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte (1964), despite a hyped, somewhat exaggerated feud. But genuine mutual dislike between the two actresses led to Crawford bowing out. She was replaced by Olivia de Havilland, who knew how to get along with Davis. Veteran actresses Agnes Moorehead and Mary Astor also appeared in the film. In Charlotte, Davis was not only the one going insane, but was the "officially" sympathetic character, who is gaslit by her cousin (De Havilland) and her doctor, the cousin's lover (Joseph Cotten). In this movie, Davis' character is again haunted by guilt, though this time the ante is upped: instead of believing herself responsible for a crippling, she believes she is responsible for the murder of her lover. Charlotte is one of the most successful examples of the genre, and is noted for using Southern Gothic atmosphere.