Hollywood History: The Real-Life "Feud" and More

[Meredith Quill]

Discuss Here!

[Drogo]

Read up on this feud and damn am I all in for this show...

Bette Davis was the favorite to win the Oscar for Baby Jane? while Crawford wasn't nominated.  When the winner’s name (Anne Bancroft for The Miracle Worker) was read out, Davis was flabbergasted when Crawford pushed past her, saying “excuse me, I have an Oscar to collect."  Joan Crawford had arranged with several nominated actresses who couldn't attend that if they won, she would go onstage to accept the award on their behalf.

And when Joan passed, Bette had this to say: “You should never say bad things about the dead, you should only say good. . . Joan Crawford is dead. Good.”

[luckyroll3]

7 hours ago, Drogo said:

Read up on this feud and damn am I all in for this show...

Bette Davis was the favorite to win the Oscar for Baby Jane? while Crawford wasn't nominated.  When the winner’s name (Anne Bancroft for The Miracle Worker) was read out, Davis was flabbergasted when Crawford pushed past her, saying “excuse me, I have an Oscar to collect."  Joan Crawford had arranged with several nominated actresses who couldn't attend that if they won, she would go onstage to accept the award on their behalf.

And when Joan passed, Bette had this to say: “You should never say bad things about the dead, you should only say good. . . Joan Crawford is dead. Good.”

Man, you can't make up shit like that.  Can't wait!

[CraftyHazel]

Read Shawn Considine's book...there's sooooooo much more!  It's my all-time favorite piece of Hollywood gossip.

[monakane]

12 hours ago, aradia22 said:

From her early roles, I've always found Crawford to be a capable and captivating actress. Her performances hold up fine for me. I think the "star first" part makes sense for JC coming up playing ingenue roles (but with a unique intensity and determination) and then transitioning into roles that relied on her star presence. It's not a perfect analogy but I guess it would be the equivalent of someone like Sandra Bullock who started in romantic comedies and then got leading roles but ones where you go see the movie for Sandra Bullock. I find Bette Davis very affected as an actress. I mean that she's bad but it's not like she was giving much more naturalistic performances than Crawford was. 

I always preferred young Joan over young Bette.  I find Bette too "theatrical" in her early work.  Joan was more natural in her early movies.  As they aged, my opinion flipped and I found Joan too mannered and Better more natural.  I loved Bette in "The Catered Affair."  She plays a plain housewife in a believable way.  It's a very different performance.

[Deanie87]

I just finished this and even though I see Lange/Sarandon as much as I see Crawford/Davis, I don't care.  This is so my jam!  I read the book that this is based on years ago and I have always been fascinated by old Hollywood and, while neither Crawford nor Davis are my favorites, both of their lives are so interesting and so...modern (for lack of a better word), that knowing more about them enhances my enjoyment of their performances.  Having said that, I HATED the movie BabyJane.  I can't get into the camp of it, I just found it so demeaning to both of them, and I turn the channel anytime I see it playing.  

Quote

It's truly sad because she was a pioneer of sorts.  She adopted a child as a single woman when it simply was not done in California.  She didn't graciously exit the industry when she hit the then dreaded age of 40 (officially or otherwise.)   She learned the names of every person working at the studio, no matter how "small" their job was, and the names of their spouses and children.  For many years she kept an open hospital room for people who could not afford to pay and she anonymously paid their bills.   She was fiercely loyal to her fans, saying that if it weren't for them, she would be back in Kansas City, working in a laundromat.  She did dress to the nines when she went out, saying that's what the fans wanted to see, and she kept them apprised of where she was (in the age before the internet, cell phones and celebrity stalking.) 

Joan's story is both tragic and uplifting, in a way.  Even though the effects of poverty and most likely sexual abuse, were apparent throughout her life (note the plastic on the furniture and the absolute tyranny against dirt), she was strong as hell.  The fact that so many people only know her through Mommy Dearest just breaks my heart.  I"m sure that she was a very flawed woman, but she was also fiercely loyal to her few true friends, a consummate professional and probably one of the most hard working women to ever come out of Hollywood.  I find her endlessly fascinating.  And she was gorgeous when she was younger, before the eyebrows and the lipstick, just gorgeous.  

Quote

 

I've read this before and I think it's true - - JC admired BD for being an actress; BD admired JC for being a movie star.  Both women admired the other but didn't want to say so.  They were definitely far more similar than either would ever want to admit.

 

I think that's true too, and the thing is that apart from their childhood's, they had a lot in common.  Neither was really very happy in their homelife, both went through multiple marriages, dealt with the difficulties not only of being women during the Hollywood contract system, but of also always being the more famous and successful ones in their marriages, and both had children who wrote tell-all books about them, that painted them as near monsters.  I loved that the pilot opened on the two of them sitting in their chairs, smoking and laughing, and it is based on a photo of them that I have always adored.  So while the whole show is obviously based on their famously not getting along, I like to imagine them enjoying each other's company, however reluctantly and however briefly. 

 

Also, anyone interested in Old Hollywood stories, should definitely check out the "You Must Remember This" podcast.  It is really good and she does a multi-episode season just on Joan Crawford which is great.  Its honest, but its sympathetic to her as well.  

Edited March 8, 2017 by Deanie87

[psychoticstate]

21 hours ago, annzeepark914 said:

There was a post a while back about Joan Crawford's dismal childhood.  I've read in several recent articles that she also was sexually abused by her stepfather.   So, no wonder she was such a miserable person (and mother!)

I don't think she was a miserable person.  I think she was conflicted and had underlying issues due to her childhood.  Being a movie star and being judged on your appearance and youth certainly did not help those esteem issues.  

It's been reported she could be very charitable (read my post above on how Joan kept a room at Cedars, I think it was, for persons who could not afford medical treatment and picked up the bill.)   Many charitable acts were done anonymously so she wasn't looking for publicity. While some in Hollywood didn't care for her, others said she was a very loyal and caring friend who was always there.  When her good friend Billy Haines was being blacklisted by Hollywood for refusing to enter into a "lavender" marriage in order to hide his homosexuality and relationship with Jimmy Shields, Joan hired him as an interior decorator, kickstarting his longtime career as a designer.   I don't think Phillip Terry (husband #3) ever spoke publicly about her but both Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. and Franchot Tone had positive things to say about her after their divorces.   

As far as the bad mother goes, I don't take Mommie Dearest as gospel.  Joan's youngest children said none of the things Christina recounted happened.  They did say their mother was strict but she was not abusive or cruel.  Joan herself said that she wasn't always the best mother but I don't think she was the abusive monster Christina described.  It's also come out in recent years that the first draft of MD that Christina submitted was sent back to her because it was boring; she was instructed to spice it up.  Christina admitted that she took liberties with the infamous "no more wire hangers" scene - - meaning that she embellished it or made it up.  That taints the entire book for me.  I do agree with two salient facts in the book - - that Joan in her later years was an alcoholic and that Christina wanted to be Joan.

20 hours ago, blaase said:

I have always loved Joan. To me she is  the first rags to superstardom story in Hollywood.

Me too!   She was the first star entirely "created" by Hollywood, that's for sure.  And she adored her fans.

3 hours ago, Deanie87 said:

I just finished this and even though I see Lange/Sarandon as much as I see Crawford/Davis, I don't care.  This is so my jam!  I read the book that this is based on years ago and I have always been fascinated by old Hollywood and, while neither Crawford nor Davis are my favorites, both of their lives are so interesting and so...modern (for lack of a better word), that knowing more about them enhances my enjoyment of their performances.  Having said that, I HATED the movie BabyJane.  I can't get into the camp of it, I just found it so demeaning to both of them, and I turn the channel anytime I see it playing.  

Joan's story is both tragic and uplifting, in a way.  Even though the effects of poverty and most likely sexual abuse, were apparent throughout her life (note the plastic on the furniture and the absolute tyranny against dirt), she was strong as hell.  The fact that so many people only know her through Mommy Dearest just breaks my heart.  I"m sure that she was a very flawed woman, but she was also fiercely loyal to her few true friends, a consummate professional and probably one of the most hard working women to ever come out of Hollywood.  I find her endlessly fascinating.  And she was gorgeous when she was younger, before the eyebrows and the lipstick, just gorgeous.  

I think that's true too, and the thing is that apart from their childhood's, they had a lot in common.  Neither was really very happy in their homelife, both went through multiple marriages, dealt with the difficulties not only of being women during the Hollywood contract system, but of also always being the more famous and successful ones in their marriages, and both had children who wrote tell-all books about them, that painted them as near monsters.  I loved that the pilot opened on the two of them sitting in their chairs, smoking and laughing, and it is based on a photo of them that I have always adored.  So while the whole show is obviously based on their famously not getting along, I like to imagine them enjoying each other's company, however reluctantly and however briefly. 

 

Also, anyone interested in Old Hollywood stories, should definitely check out the "You Must Remember This" podcast.  It is really good and she does a multi-episode season just on Joan Crawford which is great.  Its honest, but its sympathetic to her as well.  

I absolutely agree that it breaks my heart that people "know" Joan Crawford due to Mommie Dearest.  She is often colored negatively because of that book and people believe she was not a good actress.  She was actually a very good actress, all the more amazing given that she had zero background and training.  She learned on the lot and on the set.  

She was definitely a very hardworking woman. She made it her business to know not only everything about acting but also to understand how the lighting man did his job, the cameraman did his, etc.  Some of it may have been vanity but I also think it went with her desire to learn and educate herself, especially after her disastrous time at Stephens College.  Her entire life she always felt there was a part of that poor, uneducated, unwanted little girl left. 

From the many interviews with Joan (who was always brutally frank) I've listened to or read, I believe she never saw the abuse she suffered as abuse. I think she either thought it was normal or she was somehow asking for it which is horribly sad. 

Bette too was a workhorse.  Both of them had at one time carried their studios (Joan, for MGM; Bette, for Warner's.)  Both were career women when it wasn't the norm or even "acceptable" to be career driven.  Both of them desperately wanted to hold on to their careers at a time when they were supposed to just quietly go away.  Both had been married multiple times; both had been let down by the men in their lives.  Neither were with a man at the time they were filming Baby Jane; Joan was a widow, Bette had divorced  Gary Merrill the year or so before.    Both were such trailblazers, both were so similar, it's too bad they couldn't soften their equally strong personalities and become friends.  I think both of them were not only strong willed but also afraid to let the other strong personality in.   Could you imagine the stories they could tell together? 

[A Boston Gal]

1 hour ago, Deanie87 said:

Also, anyone interested in Old Hollywood stories, should definitely check out the "You Must Remember This" podcast.  It is really good and she does a multi-episode season just on Joan Crawford which is great.  Its honest, but its sympathetic to her as well.  

 

Karina Longworth is a fabulous and meticulous story teller, as well as a great film historian/podcasting guru. Love her show!

[ghoulina]

Posting to get notifications. I'm fascinated by all the info you guys have on this topic! 

[psychoticstate]

21 hours ago, A Boston Gal said:

Karina Longworth is a fabulous and meticulous story teller, as well as a great film historian/podcasting guru. Love her show!

We've hit on this podcast over at the Small Talk thread.   I love the topics but I really can't stand Ms. Longworth's narration.  Her imitations make me crazy.  I wish she'd let someone else do the narrating.  But I'm glad that so many people are interested in classic Hollywood. 

[psychoticstate]

For those that are interested I am attaching pics of Joan's Brentwood home before she sold it and her Fifth Avenue apartment in New York around 1961. 

 

 

 

It won't let me upload any more pics.  ???  I'll try again later. 

[psychoticstate]

Inside Joan's Brentwood living room in the late 1940s/early 1950s. 

Exterior shot of part of Joan's Brentwood home. 

Joan and Al Steele at home in their Fifth Avenue, New York City apartment. 

Joan at home in New York City with her dogs. 

Edited March 9, 2017 by psychoticstate

[psychoticstate]

I adore this pic of Joan on her magnificent New York City staircase.  Star power! 

Joan's dressing room in New York City.  Notice her frame photo of Al. 

A shot of Joan's New York City bedroom, taken from where her bed was. 

Joan in her later years in New York.  You can see the plastic covers on the furniture! 

[psychoticstate]

Not to be outdone, here is Bette at home at Butternut Cottage. Probably in the late 1940s or possibly early 1950s. 

[psychoticstate]

Bette at home in the 1950s. 

Bette at home in 1954. 

[psychoticstate]

The ladies with Jack Warner.

The great ones in a rare moment of humor and smiles together. 

[ThatsDarling]

On 2/16/2017 at 5:42 AM, Drogo said:

Read up on this feud and damn am I all in for this show...

Bette Davis was the favorite to win the Oscar for Baby Jane? while Crawford wasn't nominated.  When the winner’s name (Anne Bancroft for The Miracle Worker) was read out, Davis was flabbergasted when Crawford pushed past her, saying “excuse me, I have an Oscar to collect."  Joan Crawford had arranged with several nominated actresses who couldn't attend that if they won, she would go onstage to accept the award on their behalf.

And when Joan passed, Bette had this to say: “You should never say bad things about the dead, you should only say good. . . Joan Crawford is dead. Good.”

Bette Davis always maintained she was the heavy front-runner for the 1962 Best Actress Oscar, but I can't find any evidence from the time to support that claim. Geraldine Page had won the Golden Globe for Sweet Bird of Youth, Katharine Hepburn had triumphed at the Cannes Film Festival for Long Day's Journey Into Night, and Anne Bancroft was selected Best Actress by the National Board of Review (she also went on to win the BAFTA). Going into the ceremony, Davis hadn't won any of the precursor prizes.

It's true that in those days actors could win the Oscar without precursor awards, but Davis had several other things working against her. The 1962 Best Actress category is considered one of the strongest in the Academy's history, and voters may have been reluctant to choose Davis, already a two-time winner, over other deserving, unrewarded actresses. Anne Bancroft's film, The Miracle Worker, was also more of a prestige project compared to What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? and may have seemed like the respectable choice to an Academy that is historically biased against horror-thrillers. 

Long story short, I don't think Davis was necessarily the favorite she made herself out to be, nor do I think Crawford lobbied the Academy to vote against her (she didn't even have the clout with the organization to get herself nominated for Baby Jane). Offering to accept the award for the winner was her attempt at revenge against Davis, and she succeeded. 

[psychoticstate]

Bringing this over from the Pilot thread.

 

Quote

 

From her early roles, I've always found Crawford to be a capable and captivating actress. Her performances hold up fine for me. I think the "star first" part makes sense for JC coming up playing ingenue roles (but with a unique intensity and determination) and then transitioning into roles that relied on her star presence. It's not a perfect analogy but I guess it would be the equivalent of someone like Sandra Bullock who started in romantic comedies and then got leading roles but ones where you go see the movie for Sandra Bullock. I find Bette Davis very affected as an actress. I mean that she's bad but it's not like she was giving much more naturalistic performances than Crawford was.  

 

Quote

 

In my mind, JC is similar to a lot of her early screen roles. She's a scrappy lower class girl that you shouldn't be noticing but her beauty and the force of her personality are undeniable. She's also the kind of dame who can hang with Clark Gable. I agree that JL is playing her a little too posh instead of just with a veneer of learned elegance to cover her upbringing and background but it doesn't bother me too much because she is playing JC later in life post-Pepsi. We've gotten hints of it. I think that's enough for the pilot. 

 

I think many people who find Joan to be measured and not that strong of an actress have not seen her early roles.  Even in Our Dancing Daughters, which was a silent, she is electrifying on screen.  Given that she was not trained in any fashion, I think she turned out to be quite a good actress.  MGM was fond of putting her in "shopgirl" roles, which the public at the time loved.  She was good in them, possibly because that was her life before she came to Hollywood.   The few "serious" pictures that MGM put her in (Paid, Grand Hotel to name but two) she excelled at and she certainly held her own in Grand Hotel, where she was sharing the screen with John Barrymore, Lionel Barrymore and Garbo.   While MGM was a fantastic studio, they were also about glitz, glamour and turning out sometimes fluff pictures.   Once Joan became a big star, they mainly put her in formulaic pictures they felt worked with her fan base. 

Warners, where Bette spent most of her career, was viewed as a more "workhorse" studio and it shows.  She was also trained on the stage and came to Hollywood with her mother.  Not to take away from her talent because she had plenty.  I think she was more natural in some roles while in others, it was Bette Davis playing a part.  

Bette was respected for her talent; Joan was respected for being a movie star. 

I think both women by 1961 were terrified of losing their careers/being forgotten.  Joan, at least, in private wasn't as posh as she's being displayed on the show but in public,she was always Joan Crawford. 

 

Quote

 

She learned the names of every person working at the studio, no matter how "small" their job was, and the names of their spouses and children. 

I thought that was actually a nice touch in the episode and not the manipulative gesture Bette interpreted it as. It might have seemed casual if she'd just gotten everyone ties but she had a unique comment for every member of the crew. 

 

I know some people saw that as a very manipulative gesture but Joan was famous for doing things like that.  She allegedly would come home from a dinner party and before going to bed, would write her host/hostess a thank you note.  She was known for writing a thank you note in response to a thank you note sent to her!   So she was clearly very big on manners and courtesies. 

[psychoticstate]

3 hours ago, ThatsDarling said:

Bette Davis always maintained she was the heavy front-runner for the 1962 Best Actress Oscar, but I can't find any evidence from the time to support that claim. Geraldine Page had won the Golden Globe for Sweet Bird of Youth, Katharine Hepburn had triumphed at the Cannes Film Festival for Long Day's Journey Into Night, and Anne Bancroft was selected Best Actress by the National Board of Review (she also went on to win the BAFTA). Going into the ceremony, Davis hadn't won any of the precursor prizes.

It's true that in those days actors could win the Oscar without precursor awards, but Davis had several other things working against her. The 1962 Best Actress category is considered one of the strongest in the Academy's history, and voters may have been reluctant to choose Davis, already a two-time winner, over other deserving, unrewarded actresses. Anne Bancroft's film, The Miracle Worker, was also more of a prestige project compared to What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? and may have seemed like the respectable choice to an Academy that is historically biased against horror-thrillers. 

Long story short, I don't think Davis was necessarily the favorite she made herself out to be, nor do I think Crawford lobbied the Academy to vote against her (she didn't even have the clout with the organization to get herself nominated for Baby Jane). Offering to accept the award for the winner was her attempt at revenge against Davis, and she succeeded. 

I don't believe that Bette was the front-runner either.   Horror films such as Baby Jane are notoriously overlooked for awards; despite Bette's stellar performance, her character was dark and macabre. And may have hit a little too close to home for some of aging Hollywood. 

I do think that Joan was hurt, rightly or wrongly, that she was overlooked for her own performance. Her role was far less showy than Bette's but perhaps just as difficult, if not more so in certain aspects.  If she had been nominated, it's almost guaranteed that the two would have cancelled each other out of the running but that's neither here nor there. 

Joan absolutely agreed to accept the award for the winner knowing that it would stick in Bette's craw if Joan was the one taking the spotlight - - exactly what happened. 

[AnnieBeez]

I think Joan Crawford was lovely and a better actor BEFORE she became Joan "shoulder pad and eyebrows" Crawford. I'd never really cared for her because I'd only seen her later work. Earlier stuff presents a different Crawford. 

[RedheadZombie]

On ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 6:33 PM, psychoticstate said:

 

Joan did indeed have a very bad childhood.   Her older sister died as a baby or toddler.  Her mother worked in a laundry and Joan said later on that her mother wasn't exactly discerning when it came to men.  She questioned whether she and her brother Hal were full siblings.  Joan's mother favored Hall.  Joan was close with her stepfather Henry Cassin but he eventually left as well.  She had to work at Stephens College, where she was treated poorly by the paying students, for her lack of money and lack of education.  Joan was self conscious about that for her entire life. 

She admitted in a later interview that she became sexually active very young.  I would not be surprised at all if she had been sexually abused.  She very much valued her worth not just on her appearance but on her attractiveness to men and being in a relationship with a man.  

It's truly sad because she was a pioneer of sorts.  She adopted a child as a single woman when it simply was not done in California.  She didn't graciously exit the industry when she hit the then dreaded age of 40 (officially or otherwise.)   She learned the names of every person working at the studio, no matter how "small" their job was, and the names of their spouses and children.  For many years she kept an open hospital room for people who could not afford to pay and she anonymously paid their bills.   She was fiercely loyal to her fans, saying that if it weren't for them, she would be back in Kansas City, working in a laundromat.  She did dress to the nines when she went out, saying that's what the fans wanted to see, and she kept them apprised of where she was (in the age before the internet, cell phones and celebrity stalking.) 

She was most definitely a complex character, a sometimes difficult and troubled woman who became an alcoholic later in life, but a wonderfully fascinating woman who had one of the longest careers in Hollywood and one that started from nowhere.  (Not to take away from Davis because she too had a lengthy career but she was stage trained and had a mother that was supporting her; Crawford had neither.) 

Obviously I'm a huge fan. ;) 

Her real name was Lucille LeSueur.

 

I didn't feel well last night so I haven't watched this yet but will be firing it up as soon as I get home from work!  Can't wait!  

Well . . . . not to take away your greater point, but she's believed to have bought her children, so it's hard for me to admire her for that.  Also, if even a tiny amount of what her eldest daughter (backed up by her son) claimed about her, she should never have been a mother - adoptive or not.  It also takes away from the compassion I would typically feel about Joan's own tragic childhood.

I'm also creeped the fuck out by her relationship with Mamacita.  She also had an usual relationship with her Mommy Dearest-era maid (Carol Anne?).

[ratgirlagogo]

On 3/7/2017 at 10:27 PM, blaase said:

Personally I don't consider the silent film era as "Hollywood" and Crawford is in the league of superstardom where they are still in the public eye nearly half a century after their death not really the case with Bow.

You have a right to your opinion of course - but I choose here to exercise my right to ask you on what basis you form this opinion - as I do with the folks online who feel that Hollywood film begins with Star Wars.  Hollywood BECAME Hollywood in the silent era by definition - this is when it became, unexpectedly, a multi-million dollar international business.  This is especially apt here because Joan Crawford became a breakout star in the late silent period as a gorgeous young flapper - unlike Bette Davis whose entire film career was in sound films.    She was only two years older than Davis but came in the lowbrow blue(pink?)collar way - she was put to work early in menial jobs, was not able to have much formal education, trained and found work as a dancer, and, like so many Texas girls then and now,  came to Hollywood after winning a few beauty contests - one of which gave her the stage name Joan Crawford.

 

On 3/7/2017 at 11:01 PM, aradia22 said:

From her early roles, I've always found Crawford to be a capable and captivating actress. Her performances hold up fine for me. I think the "star first" part makes sense for JC coming up playing ingenue roles (but with a unique intensity and determination) and then transitioning into roles that relied on her star presence...

...in my mind, JC is similar to a lot of her early screen roles. She's a scrappy lower class girl that you shouldn't be noticing but her beauty and the force of her personality are undeniable. She's also the kind of dame who can hang with Clark Gable. I agree that JL is playing her a little too posh instead of just with a veneer of learned elegance to cover her upbringing and background

And don't think for a minute she didn't FIGHT for that.  She had to.  On the other hand Bette Davis was only two years younger than Joan, but never did silent films because after she graduated from boarding school she was working in - oh yes, the New York THEATRE.  She had the huge unmistakable talent of course, but also that high-toned Boston CLASS.

While not seeing it as a problem, exactly, if you were to have shown me, cold, without identifying the project,  a 30 second clip each of Jessica Lange as JC and Susan Sarandon as BD - I would have gotten Bette Davis INSTANTLY from Sarandon's mannerisms and body language, even though it's true she's not really trying to do the voice.  (I'd argue she already has the eyes.)  Jessica Lange on the other hand - I would have had no idea who she was supposed to be and if pressed to guess an older female star from this time period would have guessed Gene Tierney http://fragragenetierney.blogspot.com/2012/02/toys-in-attic-carino-amargo-pasiones-en.html or yes, Olivia de Havilland http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058283/mediaviewer/rm294260736 rather than Joan Crawford http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059297/mediaviewer/rm286854912.   What I think Lange is getting across well is Joan's need to be respected/and or, appear respectable - her insecurity.  I think the SCRIPT is kind of overwriting her neediness - as I've said she'd been fighting for her spot for decades and I think wouldn't have displayed her insecurities so openly.

Oh, and I liked Hedda Hopper calling her mansion the "House that Fear Built."   And Bette treating her fur coat like a poncho ala Margo Channing.

Edited March 12, 2017 by ratgirlagogo

[le bordel chaud]

Bette Davis was one of the most fascinating women I've ever seen. I've been watching old interviews with her on YouTube. The one with Dick Cavett from 1971 is a treasure. She's so sharp and funny. She has such so much charisma and is a joy to behold. I just love her so much.

Edited March 13, 2017 by delicatecutter
Edited to add excerpt from interview

[NutMeg]

16 hours ago, RedheadZombie said:

Well . . . . not to take away your greater point, but she's believed to have bought her children, so it's hard for me to admire her for that.  Also, if even a tiny amount of what her eldest daughter (backed up by her son) claimed about her, she should never have been a mother - adoptive or not.  It also takes away from the compassion I would typically feel about Joan's own tragic childhood.

I'm also creeped the fuck out by her relationship with Mamacita.  She also had an usual relationship with her Mommy Dearest-era maid (Carol Anne?).

I don't know much about Joan Crawford so your post got me intrigued. Can you elaborate?

Also, regarding Bette Davis, what happened with her daughter ? there was something in the episode 2 thread that referred to some drama.

[mariah23]

1 hour ago, NutMeg said:

I don't know much about Joan Crawford so your post got me intrigued. Can you elaborate?

Also, regarding Bette Davis, what happened with her daughter ? there was something in the episode 2 thread that referred to some drama.

B.D. (the daughter) got married at the age of 16, with Bette's permission.  B.D. and her husband became born-again Christians.  B.D. and her husband started a church-I saw an earlier draft of their website, OMG!  Around '85 or '86, B.D. wrote her own Mommie Dearest book called My Mother's Keeper after Bette had a debilitating stroke.  I think she thought that her mother was going to die, but she didn't.  Bette wrote another memoir called This n' That slamming her daughter's story.  Unlike Dearest, NO ONE came to B.D.'s defense.  Her mother disinherited her and her brother cut off contact with her.

[qtpye]

2 hours ago, NutMeg said:

Also, regarding Bette Davis, what happened with her daughter ? there was something in the episode 2 thread that referred to some drama.

Here is some stuff from an article:

Quote

By the late 1990s, she had turned to selling tapes of her preaching and hosting Teaching Ministry of B.D. Hyman on the Christian network Angel One. In one of several YouTube videos of her TV sermons, the blonde points at the Bible with her silver French press nails. She's surrounded by religious texts and statues of fish and swans. Her preaching served as the basis for her 2002 self-published book The Rapture, The Tribulation, and Beyond. The Hook reports it describes how the Antichrist promotes "his agenda of homosexuality" and Harry Potter introduces kids to witchcraft. "I don't care if there are biological weapons," Hyman told the magazine. "I don't care if one lands on my roof because I am protected by the blood of Jesus. And so is my family, and so are our partners. Bless God, we have our Holy Ghost Flu Shots." She goes on to claim her Christian tapes can cure AIDS: "We have partners in the ministry who were in the final stage of AIDS when... we began standing with them against this thing and praying for their healing. And they listened to tapes and got themselves built up in the Word, and they no longer have AIDS. They don't even have HIV! They have pure blood."

Edited March 13, 2017 by qtpye

[NutMeg]

14 minutes ago, mariah23 said:

B.D. (the daughter) got married at the age of 16, with Bette's permission.  B.D. and her husband became born-again Christians.  B.D. and her husband started a church-I saw an earlier draft of their website, OMG!  Around '85 or '86, B.D. wrote her own Mommie Dearest book called My Mother's Keeper after Bette had a debilitating stroke.  I think she thought that her mother was going to die, but she didn't.  Bette wrote another memoir called This n' That slamming her daughter's story.  Unlike Dearest, NO ONE came to B.D.'s defense.  Her mother disinherited her and her brother cut off contact with her.

 

10 minutes ago, qtpye said:

Here is some stuff from an article:

ey have pure blood."

Thank you both, wow.

Gossip loving me is more interested in this My Mother's Keeper book, and the response book, of course.

and I'm very surprised/shocked by the path taken by the daughter in her life afterwards - wow again.

[le bordel chaud]

B.D. is BSC. Here is an interview from when she was promoting her book in 1985. I think she was trying to cash in on her mother's name. She had given an interview to 60 Minutes not much before this praising Bette's mothering skills.

 

Poor Bette was heartbroken over this betrayal. 

Edited March 13, 2017 by delicatecutter

[psychoticstate]

I think B.D. hoped to jump on the "Mommie Dearest" bandwagon but it did not work. Christina Crawford's claims were shocking and conversation starting; B.D.'s claims sounded like a child whining.  I read "My Mother's Keeper" way back in the day and while Bette didn't always sound like the most tactile, affectionate and present mother, she was hardly abusive.  

FWIW,  I don't believe the majority of "Mommie Dearest."   Even Davis, who was hardly a fan of Crawford's and never minced words, found it distasteful and horrible that Christina would write such a thing.

 

ETA:  Here are the exact quotes Bette gave to author Charlotte Chandler:  "I was not Miss Crawford’s biggest fan, but, wisecracks to the contrary, I did and still do respect her talent. What she did not deserve was that detestable book written by her daughter. I’ve forgotten her name. Horrible."  

"I looked at that book, but I did not need to read it. I wouldn’t read trash like that, and I think it was a terrible, terrible thing for a daughter to do. An abomination! To do something like that to someone who saved you from the orphanage, foster homes—who knows what. If she didn’t like the person who chose to be her mother, she was grown up and could choose her own life."

“I felt very sorry for Joan Crawford, but I knew she wouldn’t appreciate my pity, because that’s the last thing she would have wanted—anyone being sorry for her, especially me."

"I can understand how hurt Miss Crawford had to be. Well, no I can’t. It’s like trying to imagine how I would feel if my own beloved, wonderful daughter, B.D., were to write a bad book about me. Unimaginable. I am grateful for my children and for knowing they would never do to me anything like what Miss Crawford’s daughter did to her."

“Of course, dear B.D., of whom I’m so proud, is my natural child, and there always are certain risks in adopting. Gary [Merrill] and I adopted two babies, because when we married I was too old to have our own. We were very pleased with our little boy, Michael, but our adopted daughter, who was a beautiful baby, was brain-damaged. I never have had regrets, though, because I think we provided for her better than anything else that could have happened to her, and we gave her some happiness in her life. You can’t return a baby like you can a carton of cracked eggs.”

Edited March 13, 2017 by psychoticstate

[caracas1914]

Why I don't buy into this infamous decades long feud between Bette and Joan is that they simply didn't have much opportunity to have real time interactions/conflicts/competition other then the 4 year period from 1945-49 when Joan moved on over to Bette's studio Warners.

From what I gathered, Bette Davis made a play for Crawford's fiancee(husband?) Franchot Tone at the time of 1935's "Dangerous" but I don't think that was something that simmered forever, considering Crawford divorced him by 1939 and let's face it, musical beds among married costars, directors, cast, etc isn't something Crawford herself was immune to .

It seemed during Crawford's "peak" years at MGM , which would have been the late  20's to mid 30's she was more concerned about the Shearers/Garbo's of MGM getting what she thought were the meatier and "noble" roles she longed for.  The irony is that some of Crawford's shopgirl roles hold up better than what was considered high brow acting at the time. Davis was gone from Warners by 1949 and so Crawford's own search to stay relevant in HW in the 50's was a separate battle.

On the other hand, Bette Davis didn't hit her big stride until about 1938 through 1944/45 when she was the undisputed top female star at Warners and had both commercial and critical success.  IT seems most of the time she was battling Jack Warner for better roles. It's hard to believe she was obsessed with Crawford over at MGM,who for the most part was trying to hold on her exhalted position in that studio.

What I do think was that Bette Davis despised the type of female movie star Joan Crawford represented, all glamour/glitz and playing up the whole PR image shtick  of stardom, whereas Davis thought of herself,  as she said, more of an actress than anything else.  Plus Bette, hardly seems to have thought any particular actress throughout her career was a  genuine "competititon" to herself.  It's not to say she wasn't as egocentric and driven as Crawford,but the focus seemed different.

So yes, because of their personality types and focus, it was hardly surprising that they didn't get along even socially in HW and probably had little in common, but this idea that it was an active feud for decades doesn't seem to have much teeth.  After "Baby Jane "until the "Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte" debacle it appears they were at least both willing to work together again,  though again it's hardly surprising that their egos clashed once that later film started production.

Edited March 13, 2017 by caracas1914

[ThatsDarling]

B.D.'s treatment of her mother was detestable. It should also be noted that Bette financially supported B.D., B.D.'s husband, and their children for many years, as they didn't like to work. My Mother's Keeper was a cash grab when she thought Bette (who was sick with cancer) was going to die and the gravy train would run out. 

Here's an interview with B.D. conducted shortly after her mother's death. She basically says she doesn't care that her mother is gone and that she has no fond memories of her. 

[Growsonwalls]

Michael Merrill runs Bette Davis's Facebook fan group and has not spoken to B.D. since the publication of B.D.s book. Once saw Michael Merrill in a documentary about Bette where he said that Bette was a difficult person with some issues, but she was never abusive and always a responsible mother. I'm inclined to believe Michael about this one. 

[psychoticstate]

2 hours ago, caracas1914 said:

Why I don't buy into this infamous decades long feud between Bette and Joan is that they simply didn't have much opportunity to have real time interactions/conflicts/competition other then the 4 year period from 1945-49 when Joan moved on over to Bette's studio Warners.

From what I gathered, Bette Davis made a play for Crawford's fiancee(husband?) Franchot Tone at the time of 1935's "Dangerous" but I don't think that was something that simmered forever, considering Crawford divorced him by 1939 and let's face it, musical beds among married costars, directors, cast, etc isn't something Crawford herself was immune to .

It seemed during Crawford's "peak" years at MGM , which would have been the late  20's to mid 30's she was more concerned about the Shearers/Garbo's of MGM getting what she thought were the meatier and "noble" roles she longed for.  The irony is that some of Crawford's shopgirl roles hold up better than what was considered high brow acting at the time. Davis was gone from Warners by 1949 and so Crawford's own search to stay relevant in HW in the 50's was a separate battle.

On the other hand, Bette Davis didn't hit her big stride until about 1938 through 1944/45 when she was the undisputed top female star at Warners and had both commercial and critical success.  IT seems most of the time she was battling Jack Warner for better roles. It's hard to believe she was obsessed with Crawford over at MGM,who for the most part was trying to hold on her exhalted position in that studio.

What I do think was that Bette Davis despised the type of female movie star Joan Crawford represented, all glamour/glitz and playing up the whole PR image shtick  of stardom, whereas Davis thought of herself,  as she said, more of an actress than anything else.  Plus Bette, hardly seems to have thought any particular actress throughout her career was a  genuine "competititon" to herself.  It's not to say she wasn't as egocentric and driven as Crawford,but the focus seemed different.

So yes, because of their personality types and focus, it was hardly surprising that they didn't get along even socially in HW and probably had little in common, but this idea that it was an active feud for decades doesn't seem to have much teeth.  After "Baby Jane "until the "Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte" debacle it appears they were at least both willing to work together again,  though again it's hardly surprising that their egos clashed once that later film started production.

@caracas1914, the true Crawford feud would have been with Norma Shearer more so than Bette Davis.  One of Joan's early "roles" at MGM was being a stand-in for Norma and playing the back of her head (Norma was playing twins.)  Joan always felt that Norma got the plum roles because she was married to Irving Thalberg (a statement that's really not off the mark and I say that as a fan of both Crawford and Shearer.)   Norma really got first choice while Joan would choose from her hand-me-downs.  

I don't think the conflict over Franchot Tone was really that much of one.  I think Bette likely exaggerated in later years about her "love" for Tone, just as the media/gossip exaggerated about Joan's desire to marry him as a method to keep Bette from him.   I don't think Joan would have cared much about him being involved with Bette because Bette was on the same "level" she was.  Sleeping with extras, though, is where she would have drawn the line (and apparently did.) 

When Joan arrived at Warner Bros. Bette knew exactly why Warner brought her in.  She was brought in for publicity and to keep Bette in line.  Warner didn't think much of Joan and was surprised when she wanted to be taken off salary until a proper vehicle could be found for her. 

I think that Bette despised that certain level of Hollywood glitz and glamour but at the same time wanted to be the sexy, glamorous movie star. The same way that Joan loved the Hollywood glamour but also craved being respected and taken as a serious actress.  I believe that Joan was intimidated by Bette's education, stage experience and "serious actress" cred. 

I think both of them saw similar weaknesses in the other and both were scared of that.  Not to mention that in Hollywood of that time period, there weren't unlimited roles for women "of a certain age," so Bette and Joan were both fighting for the same or similar roles. 

I think the "feud" was something created by people like Hedda Hopper, looking for something juicy to report, and both Bette and Joan bought into it.  Their respective roles in Baby Jane played into that as well, since their characters were at odds with each other.  

It's a shame that Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte didn't pan out for Joan because the roles were essentially flipped and Joan could have been more glamorous for that part.  Olivia deHavilland did a fine job but I can't help but wonder what Joan could have done with the part. 

[Growsonwalls]

I also think that especially in later years Bette Davis did a lot of talk show appearances. She was a natural -- she was a great storyteller with sharp wit and tons of personality and humor. But hosts would ask her about the "feud" and she'd say something funny/snarky and so people would ask more and so the feud took on a life of its own. But Bette wasn't just snarky about Joan -- she was funny and snarky about everyone. I remember her once saying she had a fondness for Errol Flynn because he said "I can't act, I'm just a pretty face." And without missing a beat she said "And he was absolutely right!"

I think the same thing goes for the Wizard of Oz stories. Judy Garland was another one who was just naturally funny and sharp on tv. So people would ask her more crazy munchkin stories and she'd supply them and they took on a legend of their own. 

[Arynm]

5 hours ago, psychoticstate said:

I think B.D. hoped to jump on the "Mommie Dearest" bandwagon but it did not work. Christina Crawford's claims were shocking and conversation starting; B.D.'s claims sounded like a child whining.  I read "My Mother's Keeper" way back in the day and while Bette didn't always sound like the most tactile, affectionate and present mother, she was hardly abusive.  

FWIW,  I don't believe the majority of "Mommie Dearest."   Even Davis, who was hardly a fan of Crawford's and never minced words, found it distasteful and horrible that Christina would write such a thing.

I also believe that not one person in Hollywood believed what BD said in her book, while people were split down the middle on Christina's.

Myna Loy a true friend of Joan's for 20 years even said that while she never saw Joan hit Christina, if anyone needed a good slap it was her.

I am of the opinion that Joan was tough but I don't think she was the abusive monster her daughter says she was.

I think part of the rancor was due to the fact that when Christina was working on a soap opera and had to have surgery, Joan was more than happy to step into her daughters part.  Christina was 29 Joan was in her early 60s!

[hypnotoad]

Bette Davis Will SNL

Just a bit of fun since we are talking BD. I don't know if anyone has seen this before, but it is one of my favorite SNL skits. It really cracks me up.

[qtpye]

16 hours ago, Arynm said:

I think part of the rancor was due to the fact that when Christina was working on a soap opera and had to have surgery, Joan was more than happy to step into her daughters part.  Christina was 29 Joan was in her early 60s!

I remember reading Christina's book and being horrified.  I remember watching the movie and being even more horrified.  Christina painted Joan as a drunk OCD monster who would terrorize her children and hold them to standards of perfection, that she herself fell far below.

She would hold lavish birthday parties for Christina and then make her donate all but one gift.  She supposedly had the child work for days on thank you notes for gifts she never got to play with.  Of course, we all remember the "NO WIRE HANGERS" scene vividly.

Christina and her brother were treated horribly, but Joan later adopted twin girls who loved her very much.  Of course, many people have speculated that Joan was a different much happier person when she adopted the girls, so that would have made a difference.

I have no idea if Christina's claims are true, but they definitely ruined her mother's reputation.  That being said, Christina's book did open discussions on child abuse that were very important.

I do wish the book was written during Joan's lifetime, as she never had a chance to defend herself, if the accusations were untrue or exaggerated (again, I am as confused as ever to what the truth was in that situation.).

[ennui]

On 3/13/2017 at 11:46 AM, psychoticstate said:

I think B.D. hoped to jump on the "Mommie Dearest" bandwagon but it did not work. Christina Crawford's claims were shocking and conversation starting; B.D.'s claims sounded like a child whining.  

That's how I remember it. Popular opinion was that BD was doing the cash grab, and it reflected badly on her, not Bette. 

I remember that many parents used the same tactics as Joan. A family friend would serve the same meal to her children until they ate it. My mother didn't do that (T.G.!), but we didn't really think of it as abuse, just gross. So, standards of child abuse have changed, as well. I think more people were shocked that Joan's daughter would turn on her publicly. And, an adopted child, at that.

These things need to be placed in the context of the times. 

Edited March 14, 2017 by ennui

[psychoticstate]

19 hours ago, Arynm said:

I am of the opinion that Joan was tough but I don't think she was the abusive monster her daughter says she was.

I think part of the rancor was due to the fact that when Christina was working on a soap opera and had to have surgery, Joan was more than happy to step into her daughters part.  Christina was 29 Joan was in her early 60s!

 

2 hours ago, qtpye said:

I have no idea if Christina's claims are true, but they definitely ruined her mother's reputation.  That being said, Christina's book did open discussions on child abuse that were very important.

I do wish the book was written during Joan's lifetime, as she never had a chance to defend herself, if the accusations were untrue or exaggerated (again, I am as confused as ever to what the truth was in that situation.).

 

34 minutes ago, ennui said:

That's how I remember it. Popular opinion was that BD was doing the cash grab, and it reflected badly on her, not Bette. 

I remember that many parents used the same tactics as Joan. A family friend would serve the same meal to her children until they ate it. My mother didn't do that (T.G.!), but we didn't really think of it as abuse, just gross. So, standards of child abuse have changed, as well. I think more people were shocked that Joan's daughter would turn on her publicly. And, an adopted child, at that.

These things need to be placed in the context of the times. 

To start the discussion on Christina's book, she did begin writing it while Joan was still alive.  It's said that Joan found out about the book, thanks to her friends and contacts in the publishing industry, and that is what led to the now infamous "for reasons which are known to them" section of Joan's will in which Christina and Christopher were cut out of her estate.   

I believe this to be true.  Joan had many friends in NYC.  She had written a book herself so I don't doubt that a book being written about growing up in the Crawford household, told in a negative tone, would be hot news.  Remember too that this was in 1977, long before tell-alls became the rage.  

Christina reportedly turned in a first draft that was dull.  She was requested to jazz it up, make it more exciting and it's been said that's when the more incriminating bits were added.  She herself admitted in recent years that the nighttime incident with the wire hangers never happened.   I have to believe that the events she recounted from when she was four and five years old are also suspect. A child that young would not likely remember exact conversations as she detailed them.   There have also been factual errors that have been pointed out over the years; relatively minor maybe but she recounted her mother being in a drunken rage and calling for "Tina" to bring her the axe so she could chop down a tree in the garden.  At the time Christina claims this happened, the tree in question had been supplanted for a victory garden, as it was war time. 

As @ennui stated above, Joan's parenting methods were very much of that time.  Going to bed without supper was not considered abuse.  Being served your dinner plate the next day was not considered abuse. Having children do chores and write thank-you notes was considered good parenting and good manners.  Even the harness that Christina described Christopher being strapped into was somewhat normal for the times if you had a child that either sleptwalked or got up during the night.  In the 40s people didn't consider it to be a fire hazard or anything else. 

I think that Joan was a strict parent. I think she wanted her children to realize that not everyone lived as they did and to be grateful for their circumstances.  But I don't think she was the raging monster that Christina described. 

The silver lining to that book is that people began speaking about abuse more freely and realizing that abuse can and did happen in any type of family, regardless of geography or financial situation.  

And to @Arynm's point on Joan stepping into Christina's part on The Secret Storm, it certainly seemed a casting stunt to get Joan since she was clearly not the right age.   But the acrimony went back further than that.  Christina wanted to ride on her mother's coattails; she not only wanted to use the Crawford name but I think she wanted Joan's place in the entertainment industry.  Despite Joan's efforts to help her - - which she did do to a degree - - Christina did not have her ambition or just that "it" factor that allows some to succeed.  Joan also wanted for Christina to have to earn it and Christina didn't want to do that.  I believe that Christina grew to blame Joan for her lackluster success as an actress. 

Regardless, I do have to question why Christina wrote the book, if not for fame, money and to put the knife in her mother's back.  According to Christina, as she wrote it in the book and was represented in the movie, she and Joan were in a good, even friendly, place at the time of Joan's final illness (and yet she was writing the book).   When Joan died, I've heard that Christina quit her job in the oil industry.  This was a well-paying job so why did she quit?   She had not published Mommie Dearest yet.  Joan passed away in May of 1977; Mommie Dearest was published the following year.  Could it be that Christina believed she was going to inherit a sizable estate, to be split with her siblings?   Maybe finding out she was disinherited led her to use some creative license with writing her book.  I don't know but the timing and motive is bizarre. 

[Growsonwalls]

One thing Joan and Bette did have in common was both identified as liberal Democrats. This was actually unusual in the Golden Age of Hollywood. Stars like Ginger Rogers, Barbara Stanwyck, John Wayne, Jimmy Cagney, Jimmy Stewart, Cary Grant, Irene Dunne, and Clark Gable all were conservative Republicans. This probably had to do with fear of being black-listed or named as Communist, as well as the political leanings of the studio heads. Jack Warner, Louis B. Mayer and Irving Thalberg were all die-hard Republicans. 

Edited March 14, 2017 by Growsonwalls

[ThatsDarling]

I was reading an article about B.D. and she had the following recollections:

Quote

She claims to have witnessed her mother’s ‘demonic cackling,’ watching her ‘transform into a Satanic figure, [with] a Satanic face, long claws on the end of her hands,’ scraping at the glass of a terrace door during a 1982 trip to her Davis, California home.

Quote

[Hyman alleges] her mom dabbled in witchcraft, casting spells on her enemies from her bed, and that the star’s ‘demonic’ curse on Hyman and her family led to her grandson’s bipolar diagnosis and her daughter facing terminal cancer.

She has a YouTube ministry, in which she claims the Easter bunny is demonic, vegetarian diets are witchcraft, and that Satan stole her money.  She also sells audiotapes of her preachings, which she says have cured AIDS.

Edited March 15, 2017 by ThatsDarling

[Wings]

BD is bat shit crazy. 

[Growsonwalls]

Here is Bette Davis's response to B.D.'s book. Among some of the better burns:

Quote

There is no doubt you have a great potential as a writer of fiction. You have always been a great storyteller. I have often, lo these many years, said to you, “BD, that is not the way it was. You are imagining things.”  

Many of the scenes in your book I have played on the screen. It could be you have confused the “me” on the screen with “me” who is your mother.

and:

Quote

You constantly inform people that you wrote this book to help me understand you and your way of life better. Your goal was not reached. I am now utterly confused as to who you are or what your way of life is.

The sum total of your having written this book is a glaring lack of loyalty and thanks for the very privileged life I feel you have been given.

In one of your many interviews while publicising your book, you said if you sell your book to TV you feel Glenda Jackson should play me. I would hope you would be courteous enough to ask me to play myself.

and:

Quote

P.S. I hope someday I will understand the title My Mother’s Keeper. If it refers to money, if my memory serves me right, I’ve been your keeper all these many years. I am continuing to do so, as my name has made your book about me a success.

Ouch. 

[merylinkid]

1 hour ago, ThatsDarling said:

I was reading an article about B.D. and she had the following recollections:

She has a YouTube ministry, in which she claims the Easter bunny is demonic, vegetarian diets are witchcraft, and that Satan stole her money.  She also sells audiotapes of her preachings, which she says have cured AIDS.

Earlier she is quoted as saying her family is protected because they have their "Holy Ghost flu shots."   Now she is claiming it's her mother's fault she (BD) got cancer and her son is bipolar. Guess the flu shot didn't work.   Don't most folks of her way of thinking claim that "God is testing them" rather than blame witchcraft?   

[CraftyHazel]

I frankly take both Christina's and BD's claims with a huge grain of salt.  There are many people out there who will claim there must be a grain of truth in the things they wrote, else why write them?  People claim they couldn't have created such stories out of thin air.  I know for a fact that daughters can...and do...turn on loving, supportive families without provocation.  My own daughter did.  As recently as a couple of years ago, she was telling all of her online friends that her parents and sibling wanted nothing to do with her or her children, when the exact opposite was and is true.  She has wild claims of abuse and neglect (although she was a very loved child who was given the world on a string).  She will tell you stories that are half true, and if you only believed her side of said stories, her father, her sibling, and I make Joan and Bette look like amateur abusers.  So I can believe that both Bette and Joan drank too much, neither had picture perfect parenting skills, and it's likely that Joan smacked Christina once or twice. But I think both books are full of one side only of some very complicated stories, and I personally think both daughters are pretty hateful for writing them.

[Growsonwalls]

I find it interesting that Bette and Joan were the subject of these tell-all books by their children and got so much notoriety. Meanwhile some of the Hollywood's male stars had pretty well-documented cases of being abusive to their wives/children (Bing Crosby, Henry Fonda) yet were able to maintain a clean reputation. 

[Black Knight]

On 3/13/2017 at 0:32 PM, caracas1914 said:

Why I don't buy into this infamous decades long feud between Bette and Joan is that they simply didn't have much opportunity to have real time interactions/conflicts/competition other then the 4 year period from 1945-49 when Joan moved on over to Bette's studio Warners.

The show's not trying to pretend it had been a decades-long feud. You might not have seen the second episode yet at the time you wrote this, but Blondell actually says exactly this near the start: that things didn't boil over until the '40s, when they were in their 40s. That was followed by the details about Joan leaving MGM for Warners and how that really started the issues with Davis.

Re: BD's book and Davis's rebuttal in her autobiography, I remember that she also included in the autobiography at least one critical review that had been written that was absolutely scathing of her daughter's book. I particularly remember a line the review had, about the scene that led to the final break between mother and daughter being wholly unbelievable.

I'm loving Kiernan Shipka in the BD role. Right from her first second onscreen she just exudes that aura of someone so entitled and shallow that she thinks nothing of living off her mother's money and then writing a lying "tell-all" about said mother right after she falls possibly terminally ill, just to keep the money train going. That visible entitlement and shallowness makes me want to smack BD in every scene she's in, which I expect is exactly the effect Shipka and Ryan Murphy are aiming for.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Black Knight

[MyPeopleAreNordic]

I tend to believe there's SOME truth (however small or large, I'm not sure) in Christina's abuse claims in "Mommie Dearest." I don't believe any of the abuse claims made by BD (with her sightings of her mom as a demon and the like).  BD seems like she is/was certifiably crazy. 

I also think that Joan's younger twins were raised very differently by Joan than Christina & Christopher were. 

 

Why did Bette approve of and support BD's marriage at 16? Was BD pregnant at the time (and then perhaps lost the baby) and it was a shotgun wedding to save face? Or was Bette aware that BD would just elope anyway so it looked better to support the wedding? I know it was a different time, but I still don't think most strong, well-to-do, image-conscious women would have been okay with their daughter marrying that younger unless the wedding was an effort to save face from a different scandal. I wonder what the deal was as far as Bette supporting that wedding.

Edited March 15, 2017 by MyPeopleAreNordic

[Black Knight]

I just remembered something else interesting. The author Charlotte Vale Allen, in one of her novels, Time/Steps, tells the story of a film actress who eventually has a scurrilous tell-all written about her by her daughter. It's very clearly all lies, and the other characters all dismiss the book and ostracize the daughter. The reason I mention this novel is because Vale Allen has a dedication at the start that reads: "For Bette Davis, with love - because there are more ways than one to give a life." So it's clearly Vale Allen hitting back at BD. (And yes, Vale Allen took the first part of her name from Davis's Now, Voyager character - Allen was her husband's name. She then met and got to know Davis.)

Quote

Or was Bette aware that BD would just elope anyway so it looked better to support the wedding?

It's been a while since I've read Davis's memoir, but I vaguely recollect it was basically that. She didn't like Hyman or the idea of the marriage, but viewed it as inevitable since they were set on marrying. Plus 16 wasn't as out of the ordinary then (after all, there was a time when 16 would have been considered late for a woman to marry). I'm not saying it was commonplace, but it raised fewer eyebrows. After all, BD met her husband when he was assigned to squire her around Cannes - nowadays nobody would think of assigning a man his age to squire a girl her age, but it was just fine then.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Black Knight

[GATenn]

I think BD is full of shit regarding Bette. She is batshit crazy, and stark raving nuts.

As someone with a mother who has borderline personality disorder, I can believe quite a bit of Christina's claims. Some of it reminds me of my own mother, and not in a good way.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Nashville Pete