Butterfield 8 (1960) is certainly a cameraman's film. But despite the credits, I don't believe Charles Harten photographed Butterfield 8. He is also credited as one of three photographers on a Three Stooges compilation. As a matter of fact, I don't believe there ever was a Charles Harten. It was simply a name employed to cover the use of multiple photographers. If you don't believe me, you can look up Harten's credits on IMDb. They are a dead giveaway. We all know for a fact that Joseph Ruttenberg was employed. In fact, he and the mysterious Harten were jointly nominated for an Academy Award. Some or all of the brilliant deep focus effects are undoubtedly Ruttenberg's work. These effects help to cover Daniel Mann's rather static direction. For all that, however, Liz Taylor received an Academy Award for Best Actress – an award that many of us Hollywood insiders believe was really a show of support for Liz, rather than an indication of a stand-out performance. I'll admit it was certainly a quite adequate performance. It did have its moments, for sure. But best of the year? Liz was also nominated for a Golden Globe, but for that award, we critics voted a definite "no!"

I love BUTTERFIELD 8 but agree it's more good than great -- or, as the phrase goes, "great trash".I don't mind Eddie Fisher, but Harvey is too sleazy (and not in a good way) for my tastes in the role. I always recast him in my head with James Mason. I also believe Taylor very much deserved her Oscar for this, even if she didn't think so (and her bitterness stems from the fact MGM forced her to do the movie after telling Mike Todd she wouldn't have to make anymore pictures she didn't like before her contract expired in 1960). She's fabulous in this. Her "I loved it!" confessional scene is kind of jaw-dropping... And I can watch her to-period "tragic" car accident till I'm blue in the face from howling like a hyena. It's laugh-out-loud funny.Part of why the picture almost works is of course the era, that fresh, haunted, end-of-the-world, early-early-'60s thing going for it, albeit in Ektachrome or whatever the hell they were using... Funny how the pastels of the late-'50s/early-'60s were so much more vibrant: I loved the soft blue phone and the soft pink phone set against the pink bathroom tile -- those sooooo bring back childhood memories... It's hard to describe the look that these had from that period; they were almost child's playhouse floating-on-a-cloud colors. And the cars which were easter egg colors and even primary colors. Every car color has been so muted for decades now -- you never see a primary color for a car anymore.Semi-great sudser, lifted to a level of art by a defiant Taylor.

I think the best way to write about Butterfield 8 is to keep it simple and honest. And the truth is this is like a television soap drawn out to 109 minutes. The fact is, this is very dated with melodramatic acting and dialog. The story itself is tragic with a woman who has passed her time as a call girl who desperately wants to have respectability. But the acting has a fake staged feel to it. Probably better suited for a play. The most likable character, played by Eddie Fisher, has very dull dialog. There are a few scenes that have impact but the rest are marred by tired, trite, dull dialog. It's almost as if the actors deliver performances that are exactly what we would expect. Nothing new and it all has a grim feel to it.At least in "Breakfast at Tiffany's" there is a glimmer of hope that our call girl will leave her profession and marry the struggling, handsome writer who, in his own way, was offering a service to people for money also. But this story never offers even a glimmer of hope for anyone. Heavy and soapy.

BUtterfield 8 (1960) * 1/2 (out of 4) Elizabeth Taylor won her first of two Oscars for this melodrama where she plays a prostitute who begins to fall in love with a rich client (Laurence Harvey) who just happens to be married. The troubled woman also has feelings for another man (Eddie Fisher) who is attached to another woman even though he may have feelings for the bad girl. The novel that this film was based on was about a true person whose troubled life eventually had her body washing up on shore during 1931 but this tragic tale has been watered down so that MGM wouldn't have any trouble with the production code but another problem is that they wanted to add that typical MGM polish but this is one case where it really killed the picture. Taylor went on record several times saying she hated this picture and thought she only won the Oscar due to her illness at the time and after watching this movie I Must say that I agree with her. This is especially true when you look at some of the other performances nominated. With that said, Taylor turns in a good performance but for an actress of her greatness you still can't help but say this is one of her lesser performances. It's also well-known that Taylor was wanting to finish off her contract with MGM so that she could go to Fox and pick up a million-dollar check for CLEOPATRA but I wouldn't say this effected the performance any. I think the actress was smart enough to see how poor this material was and it's fair to say that everyone was hampered with the screenplay. The screenplay is a complete mess as it really never seems to know what type of story it wants to tell and there are way too many times where a door is opened and something dark is about to come forward but for no apparent reason the subject and tone changes. If you pay attention during the first scene between Taylor and Fisher you'll notice what appears to be dubbed dialogue and I'm curious if this was done because the original was too "dirty" or if perhaps it was just that bad and they had the lines changed later. Either way, the problems continue from there because the screenplay doesn't offer up a single character that you like. I don't mind this when you have a hard film telling an ugly story but that's not the case here. The characters all come off rather unlikeable and when the film wants you to feel something for them you just can't because you don't care. Both Harvey and Fisher are decent in their roles but the screenplay gives them very little to do other than stand behind Taylor. Taylor, as I said, isn't great here but she at least manages to make you keep your eye on her. The minor sexuality in the film is brought to life by Taylor who looks as beautiful as ever. BUTTERFIELD 8 is a pretty poor movie from start to finish. There's not an ounce of life to be found, the story is a mess and you can't help but with some of the MGM shine had been removed so that the film could have dealt with the real subject at hand. As it is this film is certainly only for buffs who want to check out everything that has won an Oscar.