I stayed tuned when I saw it was a Steven Hill movie, and that Patty Duke was in it. Of course I'd seen Kim Stanley before and remembered her from television dramas of the 1950s, but LAW AND ORDER has been my go-to show for comfort because of the presence of Steven Hill as the calm, reserved, and wise Adam Schiff over the years. Hill was one of those young firebrand actors from the Actors Studio, along with Marlon Brando and Montgomery Clift, with great emotional depth and range, and too little film remains of him except for his creation of the big boss of all those young D.A's.I enjoyed this clunky film--its flashes of brilliant dialogue by Paddy Chayefsky, the simplicity of young Patty Duke's portrayal of lonely childhood, the miraculous transformation of Kim Stanley to Emily Ann Faulkner (a spectacularly bad name choice, I thought), a chattery teenager and needy adult--but even more, I loved Steven Hill's John Tower. John is neglected, as Emmy has been, but has turned inward to the point of suicide. Steven delivers the self-loathing monologues without sentimentality or melodrama, but as the monumental weight that controls his life. He simply tells his story as a neurosis-ridden introvert might. His performance is direct, uncluttered, rather like Adam Schiff's was to be.The movie is worth seeing, for the writing and for all the performances. It does not paint a picture of Marilyn Monroe--later writers and actresses would go much farther in doing that--and, knowing what we now do about Marilyn we'd hardly connect this film to her. But it is an excellent example of the kind of acting that was breaking ground in the 1950s, through the proliferation of live television dramas and the excellent teaching of the craft of acting in New York and around the country. Kim Stanley is a virtuoso, but Steven Hill was too.

Kim Stanley gives an appropriately over-the-top performance, but the story goes nowhere. The protagonist is nutso crazy from beginning to end. I kept waiting for something to happen, to take the story in a different direction, but it didn't. The movie seemed to be meant to make some point about the corrosive effects of stardom, but instead it just seemed like a slice of life of some nutjob who happened to be a movie star. I also never developed any sympathy for the lead character. It wasn't like, "Geez, I can see how she started out as a basically good person but turned out this way." Instead, I was more like, "Wow, I can see why everybody she comes into contact with wants to stay the hell away from her."

I saw this most memorable movie on television, late night, when I was about 12 or 13 years old. I was drawn into it from that time. I saw it on only one other occasion.From the start, the story compels the viewer to keep watching to the end. The combination of real acting, directing, cinematography and the riveting story that spans many years is impossible to resist.I saw this fine film about 10 years after I first saw it. I was never given the chance to see it again. I would give anything to own a copy this unique film for my own benefit.John Martin, 46, Texas

In the 1950's a small number of actresses held top positions in New York as the "most promising." These included Geraldine Page, Maggie Smith, Julie Harris--and Kim Stanley.Stanley's appearances between 1948-51 in the Philco and Goodyear Television Playhouses revealed what many were calling "America's Greatest Actress." It was a profound loss to American theater that this actress was unable to continue her work (due to personal circumstances). However, Stanley did leave us a significant legacy in 1958: an exemplary performance in the film, "The Goddess." Ably supported by the Lloyd Bridges, in a script by Paddy Chayefsky, this film is a lasting tribute to a truly fine talent. Like a great comet that briefly flashed across the sky, Stanley remains a unique actress. Thank goodness for "The Goddess."