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

[caracas1914]

3 hours ago, Black Knight said:

The show's not trying to pretend it had been a decades-long feud. 

"There was never a rivalry like there's ..

For nearly half a century they hated each other, and we loved them for it...."

That's the actual opening line of the series. 

[blaase]

2 hours ago, caracas1914 said:

"There was never a rivalry like there's ..

For nearly half a century they hated each other, and we loved them for it...."

That's the actual opening line of the series. 

Sort of true from when Joan Crawford married Franchot Tone in 1935 ( who Bette Davis was in love with after filming a movie together) until Joan's Death in 1977.

[psychoticstate]

14 hours ago, Marmiarmo said:

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.

 

8 hours ago, Nashville Pete said:

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.

I think both Christina and BD are full of shit.   I don't believe either had an idyllic childhood in the sense that their mother was home, being a housewife, and stereotypically 1940s/1950s.   That would have been impossible given their careers - - and certainly back then, women could not "have it all."  Both Bette and Joan had to make a choice and they chose their careers first.  Heck, both women even admitted to this later in life. Were they the best mothers?  No. But I don't believe either was abusive toward their children.  Were they self-destructive?  Absolutely.  

Both Christina and B.D. come off like spoiled children. Both had opportunities and privileges many didn't have. 

I said this upthread but I'll say it again.  Christina's motives are suspect.  She claimed to have been in a good, friendly place with her mother not only at the time of Joan's illness and death but also when she would have been writing the book.  She didn't despise her mother so much that she didn't ask her mother to pull strings and use Joan's own contacts to get Christina acting jobs.  She didn't despise her mother so much that she didn't go to her for financial help.   At the time Joan died, Christina had a well paying job that she then quit upon hearing of her mother's passing.  I don't know exactly when she completed her initial draft of MD and when she allegedly "spiced it up" but it wouldn't surprise me if the "spicier" parts were added after her mother's death and after she found out she was excluded from inheriting.  

B.D.'s motives are crystal clear to me.  She saw how much publicity and money Christina got from MD and thought she could duplicate that "success."  Either B.D. couldn't flat out lie (as I think Christina did) about Bette being physically abusive or her editor had the good sense to realize that the public might have a hard time swallowing both Crawford and Davis as abusive monsters; either way, MMK was an epic fail. 

I also think that if Joan Crawford had been the abusive monster Christina described, Bette Davis would not only have known (because nobody could keep a secret in Hollywood), she would have said as much.  At least after Joan had died and Christina published the book.  The fact that Bette spoke out in disgust against the book should have a lot of weight. 

5 hours ago, blaase said:

Sort of true from when Joan Crawford married Franchot Tone in 1935 ( who Bette Davis was in love with after filming a movie together) until Joan's Death in 1977.

Here's the thing though.  Joan and Tone were already dating by the time Bette began filming Dangerous with him.  So if she fell in love with him, how is that Joan's fault?   That's pretty much on Bette.   Tone clearly made a choice; no one forced him to marry Joan.  So resentment over that seems pretty silly and I don't buy that Bette carried around that so-called resentment for decades.  Nor do I believe she was that in love with Tone.

 

Quote

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.

I love this quote.  Absolutely, without question, something Bette Davis would say. 

[caracas1914]

I do know that there is some corroboration re: Christina's childhood in that others are on the record with bizarre incidents that they witnessed.    I recall that June Allyson said in her autobiography that she was shook up after seeing one of the mother/daughter interactions, and Helen Hayes says the older kids (Christina/Christopher) would be slapped in front of Helen if they spoke without being asked to and her own autobio doens't paint a pretty picture of Joan as mother, and this is someone who also raised kids during the same era.  Why would Helen Hayes lie?   Betty Hutton gave the impression she thought the kids were physically abused.  While many parents were strict in those days, the accounts of these celebrities evoke at the least mental cruelty to their eyes of how Joan treated Christina/Christopher.  James McArthur , Helen Haye's son, recalls visiting the household when Christopher was tied to his bed, so the whole "it was done only at night " argument falls somewhat weakly.  

Of course, Like in every family unless you're a fly in the wall , well who knows what really happened?

As to it coming out if she had been an abusive mother, well, there were many things that were swept under the carpet for years if not decades, after all especially in the HW Golden era things were hushed up or verboten to talk about.  Just like we'll never really know which actors were closeted/gay/bi or whose children were actually born out of wedlock.   I seem to recall after almost 65 years it was acknowledged publicly virtually on her deathbed (with a Bio  authorized by her) that Lorreta Young's daughter was from an afffair with Clark Gable back in the 30's.

I'm not saying that the allegations of Christina are all true, but to me it's hard to dismiss them all outright like you can more reasonably do with BD's account.  There are people who knew Joan who denied the charges, but others who don't seem all that surprised or shocked.  So there you have it.

Joan had a particularly (from all accounts) brutal childhood, and her legendary obsession with cleaning , (there are accounts she would literally get on her hands and knees cleaning the bathroom floors of hotels she stayed in ) stemmed in part from an aversion to the filth and squalor she grew up around.     Rumors have swirled she was sexually abused as a child, and that later she had to use sexual favors to advance early in her career (and even later with producer/directors),  if it's true, I find it hard to judge her for everything as to me she epitomized the ultimate HW rags to riches story of someone who willed herself to stardom and refused to be a victim.

Edited March 15, 2017 by caracas1914

[GATenn]

I don't dispute that Christina was somewhat of a brat; I'm sure she was, and that's been mostly corroborated.

What's also been corroborated is Joan's treatment of her and her son Christopher. It leaked from Chadwick school that Joan wouldn't pay tuition on time (if at all), and the Chadwicks allowed the kids to continue for free. Joan used to call the school drunk and screaming, according to some of the women who answered the phones. 

Her son Christopher was made a ward of the state when he was 16 years old, and she never laid eyes on him again. She turned him away when he brought his children to see her.

The younger children remember her differently, but it bears to remember that Christopher and Christina were at boarding school when they came to live with the family. Not only that, those with personality disorders tend to have "favorite" children and "evil" children (my mother did this with my sister and me), so they likely had a different experience altogether. 

While I'm sure Christina exaggerated events, and even made some stuff up for emphasis, I do believe there was some fire where all that smoke was. I also believe it would have been swept under the rug.

Regardless of where the truth lies (probably somewhere to the right of the middle), Mommie Dearest brought attention to child abuse that hadn't been there before, and she has been an advocate for victims for decades now, so at least that came out of it.

[ennui]

1 hour ago, Nashville Pete said:

The younger children remember her differently

Much like Bing Crosby's families, separated by a generation. 

[psychoticstate]

Pics of Bette and Joan solo from 1935 and with Franchot Tone.

[RedheadZombie]

On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 2:58 PM, 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. 

Uh, what? As an adopted child I must ask - Christina should be grateful her mother purchased her like a puppy?  I'm beyond tired of the belief that adopted children should be grateful.  Christina was a baby who deserved to be cared for, not grateful and accepting of what scraps Joan deemed her worthy of.  Adopted children have no right to speak of the abuse they've experienced?  I'm not sure I get your point.

And in what world is forcing children to go hungry unless they eat spoiled food, and being struck with a wire hanger simply gross?

And yes, Joan's youngest daughters were very supportive.  They were her heirs after they took her side over their siblings, and their siblings were disowned.   That is no proof that they had a loving relationship with their mother.  And Christina's charges were backed up by her brother, Christopher, who was there for most of it.  The twins weren't even alive during much of the alleged abuse, so their opinions mean little to me.  Christina was sent away when the twins were two, so they would really have little memory of Joan and Christina's relationship during that time.

[Wings]

I believe every word of Christina's book.  I don't believe she exaggerated.  Reality is perception.   Someone snaps at us, as an adult, we move on.  A child takes that in, puts it on the slate of who they are and proceeds to create their self worth or sadly the lack of it.  No grain of salt for me, it happened.  Christina has way too many behind her who saw her life.  Even the gardener spoke of Joan tearing up his rose garden.  Yes, his.  He made and tended it, it crushed him.  

Edited March 16, 2017 by wings707

[Growsonwalls]

Here's some history about Christopher Crawford:

https://www.quora.com/What-happened-to-Christopher-Crawford

https://www.joancrawfordbest.com/latimes78oct29.htm

[blaase]

I do Believe some of Christina's claims ( I sure wouldn't want to make Joan angry) and Joan's been known to have a short fuse.

I  also believe  the things Christina added to "spice" up her book after it got turned down the first time, were outright lies!  It was wrong to use those lies to tarnish your  dead mothers reputation to make millions. To me that is worse than any mother who snaps and spanks her child when they misbehave.

2 hours ago, blaase said:

 

Edited March 16, 2017 by blaase

[NutMeg]

Being a mom, I really cannot envision any scenario where I would disinherit a kid of mine, let alone two of them, or refuse to see them and meet their kids, and therefore I have a hard time believing that Joan Crawford loved these kids. It is possible Cristina exaggerated some points in her book, but I tend to believe the essence of their relation is there. I do agree though that how I feel, as a mother, is probably colouring my judgment.

As for Bette Davis' reaction to Cristina's book, I see it more as shock that dirty linen would be displayed publicly and damage the star image that was very prevalent at a time when the public image was very far from reality. Now if she had been close to Joan and had seen enough interactions between her and her kids to reasonably think the book was a bunch of lies, I'd revise my judgement. But it seems to me that Bette and Joan were never close enough for Bette to know for a fact that the book was a bunch of lies, hence why I think it's more the principle that she objected to.

After all, as said above by other posters, there were enough people in Joan's close circle that seemed unsurprised by the allegations. And Joan's difficult early years would fit with her becoming an abusive parent.  

[blaase]

Even Bette was on Joan's side about Christina's book, that says a lot to me.

 Bette quote, [on Joan Crawford]: 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.

 

And Joan [ in her own words on her son, Christopher Crawford] I remember most clearly when a teenage Christopher spat in my face. He said, "I hate you". It's pretty hard to overlook that. I couldn't.

 

After that I can see why Joan wouldn't take Christopher and his wife( and children) in.

[Wings]

13 hours ago, blaase said:

 also believe  the things Christina added to "spice" up her book after it got turned down the first time, were outright lies! 

I was very into this situation when her book was first released and read everything I could.  It is my understanding that the publisher asked her to fill out her experience in more detail, to allow the reader 'to be there with her.'  She was not asked to fabricate.   One example was to describe the room, the drapes, the lighting, was there music etc.  Her first draft was factual and didn't draw the reader into the scene she was sharing. 

There is so much out there now that it is impossible to sort the truth from fabrication that was done to sell the tabloids at the time.  Bette also said that she believed Christina, in one report back then. 

Edited March 16, 2017 by wings707

[psychoticstate]

On 3/15/2017 at 4:52 PM, RedheadZombie said:

And yes, Joan's youngest daughters were very supportive.  They were her heirs after they took her side over their siblings, and their siblings were disowned.   That is no proof that they had a loving relationship with their mother.  And Christina's charges were backed up by her brother, Christopher, who was there for most of it.  The twins weren't even alive during much of the alleged abuse, so their opinions mean little to me.  Christina was sent away when the twins were two, so they would really have little memory of Joan and Christina's relationship during that time.

This isn't exactly true.  Christina's book was released after Joan wrote her will and after she died.  Cathy and Cynthia spoke out publicly only after the book was released.   Apparently only Joan and her attorney knew what was in her will as all four of Joan's children were there for the reading.   So Joan's decision to include Cathy and Cynthia did not have to do with them "taking sides."  

Not only did Cathy and Cynthia speak out against MD but Cathy's son also has said that his grandmother was not the person Christina described.  Cathy also sued Christina for defamation and won (for Christina's assertions in MD that Cathy and Cynthia were not twins but two separate baby girls that Joan had adopted. Christina claimed that Joan had adopted the girls as a career boost and having twins versus just two babies would be much more fruitful, publicity wise. The girls were actually twins.)   It may seem very minor but if Christina would lie about that . . . 

I will give Christina props for bringing child abuse to the forefront.  I can't think of her, though, without remembering back to 1981 when she was doing publicity jaunts and appearances for MD (before the critics trashed it and she began distancing herself from the project.)  She would come out on stage with a wire hanger and make jokes about it.  If you were abused by someone with a wire hanger, would you really do that?   Would you actually give people a gold wire hanger as a gift?  

ETA: Since we're discussing Christina, I also want to point out that she has gone on record to accuse her mother of murdering Al Steele.  Unbelievable.  The man had a heart attack, there was never any question nor any indications that Joan murdered anyone, much less her husband.  Christina either is unhinged, looking for more publicity, looking for a way to further smear her mother's memory or all of the above.  

Edited March 17, 2017 by psychoticstate
Additional info and grammar

[CraftyHazel]

Interesting story on Joan and Christina from long before "Mommie Dearest" was published. Story

[caracas1914]

8 hours ago, blaase said:

And Joan [ in her own words on her son, Christopher Crawford] I remember most clearly when a teenage Christopher spat in my face. He said, "I hate you". It's pretty hard to overlook that. I couldn't.

 

From what I understood, Christopher was for all intents and purposes out of Joan's life from age 16 onward.  In fact, at 16 he didn't see her for years, only a handful of times before Joan died.  Without a doubt he had major personal issues throughout his life (ironically but unsurprising he had poor relationships with his own children) and was admittedly  a difficult child.  OTOH, Joan seems to have washed her hands of him quite  early in his life.   Again, who knows all that happened between them behind closed doors but most parents, right or wrong,  would try to reach out  to their children, because, well, they are parents.

From all accounts, Joan didn't see why Christina and Christopher weren't incredibly grateful and appreciative of their privileged childhood (as she saw it).  I find many children  don't think that way, they just react to their own environment.   Even if one discounts Christina's account, it's obvious that Joan wasn't quite temperamentally suited to being a nurturing mother, but then again, you can say that about so many parents out there.

Edited March 16, 2017 by caracas1914

[Growsonwalls]

I'm reading a book on Barbara Stanwyck right now and it sounds like her experience with adopting a child is very similar to Joan's experience with Christopher. Barbara also grew up with a mom who died early and a dad who abandoned the family. From then she was shuttled around from relative to relative. She met and married Frank Fay, who turned out to be an abusive alcoholic. To "save the marriage" they adopted a boy named Dion. Dion grew up with some issues and Barbara sent him to fat camp and then to a military school. He got caught up in some petty crime and Barbara cut him off completely. They were estranged for most of his and her life. 

And they don;t really talk about this but Nancy and Ronald Reagan were also estranged from their children for much of their lives. I think Michael used to say that the kids "weren't welcome in the house past 5 o'clock." 

Even the actors with clean reputations like Gregory Peck and Paul Newman lost children to drug overdoses and suicide. 

Yeah, I dont think the Golden Age of Hollywood was exactly the Golden Age of Parenting.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Growsonwalls

[ennui]

42 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

Barbara sent him to fat camp and then to a military school

I've heard a different version ... that it was Robert Taylor who wasn't keen on having Dion around, and it broke Barbara's heart to send him away. I don't know if that is true, but Barbara loved Robert a great deal. 

[Growsonwalls]

3 minutes ago, ennui said:

I've heard a different version ... that it was Robert Taylor who wasn't keen on having Dion around, and it broke Barbara's heart to send him away. I don't know if that is true, but Barbara loved Robert a great deal. 

I think it is true that Barbara's relationship with Robert Taylor was not exactly healthy. She tried to kill herself when she found out about his affairs and also later in life she lost much of her possessions in a fire. She was reportedly heartbroken that some letters and mementos from Robert were lost. 

And if we're going down the list of Golden Age of Bad Parenting, two of Bing Crosby's children killed themselves. Crosby was apparently abusive to both the children and his wife. Loretta Young had her daughter "readopted" and made her get plastic surgery to hide her resemblance to Clark Gable. Celeste Holm gave up one of her sons to adoption and another she became estranged from when she remarried a much younger man. We know about Marlon Brando and the tragedy of Cheyenne and Christian ...

This isn't to excuse Joan if she was abusive to Christina and Christopher. Just that in that era, examples of good parenting probably weren't that common among any of her peers. So many broken families and relationships ...

[caracas1914]

Don't forget Hedy Lammar who was reputedly the most beautiful woman in HW.  At the age of 12 she wanted to make her adopted son , James Lamar Loden, transfer out of a boarding school he was in.  He made the "unpardonable" sin expressing  his desire to stay with a family at the school.  I doubt he meant permanently.

With that she cut him out of her life and didn't see again for over 50 years.

Did I mention he was only 12 years old?

[ennui]

On 3/15/2017 at 4:52 PM, RedheadZombie said:

As an adopted child I must ask - Christina should be grateful her mother purchased her like a puppy?  I'm beyond tired of the belief that adopted children should be grateful. 

As for purchased like a puppy, sometimes I think shelter dogs are more grateful than people. 

In the context of celebrity adoptions, do you not think that some of these children plucked from poverty have somehow won Willie Wonka's Golden Ticket? You don't think that the children adopted by Angelina Jolie should be grateful on some level?

As for the children that Madonna collects from Malawi... Hypothetically, if David matures and writes a tell-all, will people side with him or with Madonna? Wouldn't some think David is ungrateful? What about the girls?

[psychoticstate]

21 hours ago, Marmiarmo said:

Interesting story on Joan and Christina from long before "Mommie Dearest" was published. Story

Very interesting article.  

I think the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle since both Christina's and Joan's accounts would have been biased, at least to a degree, with their own perceptions.  I also think they were very much alike in some regards, most especially being stubborn. 

I did find it of note that Christina's recollections of her childhood in this article are vastly different from those she recounted in MD.  Here, she remembers those events with joy and love and mentions how present her mother was, even as difficult as it must have been with her career and being a single mother.  She also calls Al Steele "Daddy" in one portion, saying that he was her ideal of what a father should be and she and her siblings had tremendous love for him.  Later in the article, she addresses him as "Father," a much more impersonal tone, and says that when he passed away she never really had a chance to talk to him.  It just seems off to me.  She talks of taking that trip to Europe with him, her mother and her siblings; she talks of him gifting her with the silver cigarette lighters when she moved into her first apartment and yet she never really spoke to him?  

I do agree with others that the golden age of Hollywood was not conducive to stellar parenting.  At that time, you were only as good as your last picture.  There was no DVD, no TV.  So many of the actors had to make a choice; career or personal life.  I think it was especially difficult for the women, who seemed to be fighting for their careers to begin with.

[Growsonwalls]

Well if we're getting into personal stories about adoption, I have some distant relatives who adopted a girl and then used her as a slave. She was severely abused and returned to the orphanage. So motives for adoption are not always pure and selfless. Not saying that applies to Joan, just that adoptive childrens' experiences vary.

Going down the list of bad parents, Ingrid Bergman abandoned her young daughter in the U.S. to take up with Rosselini. She did not see Pia Lindstrom again until Pia was grown. Pia has spoken about the distance and resentment she felt towards her mother. Its haunting because Pia is a spitting image of Ingrid. 

Vivien Leigh also left her daughter to take up with Laurence Olivier and had little contact with Suzanne until Suzanne was an adult. 

Then there was Merle Oberon, who might win the award for the Golden Age of Bad Daughtering. She was born to an Indian mother and she introduced her mother as her servant. That must have made her mother feel real special.

But on a lighter note, I found this delightful picture of Bette and Olivia that makes me feel all sorts of happy:

[ennui]

If you Google bad celebrity parents, there are plenty of horrors in the modern age, as well. Ryan O'Neal and Woody Allen are on the list. OJ Simpson. Jaid Barrymore. Dina Lohan. Etc.

[blaase]

3 hours ago, psychoticstate said:

Very interesting article.  

I think the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle since both Christina's and Joan's accounts would have been biased, at least to a degree, with their own perceptions.  I also think they were very much alike in some regards, most especially being stubborn. 

I did find it of note that Christina's recollections of her childhood in this article are vastly different from those she recounted in MD.  Here, she remembers those events with joy and love and mentions how present her mother was, even as difficult as it must have been with her career and being a single mother.  She also calls Al Steele "Daddy" in one portion, saying that he was her ideal of what a father should be and she and her siblings had tremendous love for him.  Later in the article, she addresses him as "Father," a much more impersonal tone, and says that when he passed away she never really had a chance to talk to him.  It just seems off to me.  She talks of taking that trip to Europe with him, her mother and her siblings; she talks of him gifting her with the silver cigarette lighters when she moved into her first apartment and yet she never really spoke to him?  

I do agree with others that the golden age of Hollywood was not conducive to stellar parenting.  At that time, you were only as good as your last picture.  There was no DVD, no TV.  So many of the actors had to make a choice; career or personal life.  I think it was especially difficult for the women, who seemed to be fighting for their careers to begin with.

I think spanking back then was just not that big of a deal, I mean I just saw a 1953 I love Lucy episode that ends with Ricky spanking Lucy, and this was the number one tv show in the country at the time.

[psychoticstate]

33 minutes ago, blaase said:

I think spanking back then was just not that big of a deal, I mean I just saw a 1953 I love Lucy episode that ends with Ricky spanking Lucy, and this was the number one tv show in the country at the time.

Spanking - - not beating but spanking - - was considered an acceptable form of punishment and a normal part of child rearing for many years.  Heck, my sibs and I were born in the late 60s and early 70s and we were spanked.  We weren't spanked very often; amazing how a little pop on the bottom, or the threat of one, can make kids listen.  

[TigerLynx]

I don't know how much of the Davis/Crawford feud was real and how much was embellished, but I could see them clashing while also getting along at times.  They were different, but had things in common to.

I don't think Bette abused BD.  I believe the truth about Crawford and Christina lies somewhere in the middle.  It seems Joan Crawford was an abused child as well, but she didn't see it that way as there was no such thing as child abuse when Joan was a child, or when she was raising her children.

With Bette and BD, from all accounts, friends, husbands, other children Bette probably indulged BD to much.  I saw an interview with Bette where she talked about her father being very cruel to her mother, and her mother doing everything she could to make sure Bette and her sister didn't go without.  Bette said once she started working she was determined to be successful and make sure her mother never had to work again.

Bette Davis is hilarious in interviews.  Someone asked her once if she had had plastic surgery, and she told them, "Don't you think I would look a hell of a lot better than this if I had had cosmetic surgery."

When the casting was being done for The Letter, they were originally trying to cast one of the leading men in Hollywood to play Bette's husband.  She told them they were idiots that one of those guys should play the guy she cheats on her husband with.

The guy who wrote All About Eve told Bette he was thinking about doing a follow up with Margo Channing after she got married, and Bette told him, "Don't do that.  I lived that story, and it did not end well."

[MonicaM]

7 hours ago, ennui said:

As for purchased like a puppy, sometimes I think shelter dogs are more grateful than people. 

In the context of celebrity adoptions, do you not think that some of these children plucked from poverty have somehow won Willie Wonka's Golden Ticket? You don't think that the children adopted by Angelina Jolie should be grateful on some level?

As for the children that Madonna collects from Malawi... Hypothetically, if David matures and writes a tell-all, will people side with him or with Madonna? Wouldn't some think David is ungrateful? What about the girls?

Whether adopted or born into the situation, any child should be grateful on some level if they have a family where they are loved and nurtured.  Adopted children don't owe any more gratitude than anyone else.  Also, whether adopted or born into the situation, no child owes a bit of gratitude to parents who are abusive and neglectful, even if those parents are rich and famous.  

[Growsonwalls]

I'm really not defending abuse in any way, but we also have to be mindful that in the 1940's some manuals and "conventional wisdom" on how to raise children would be cringeworthy today. Dr. Spock's book was mind-breaking because it advocated mothers forming a natural bond with their children, and showing them affection. At that time it was recommended that mothers let their babies cry rather than hold them because it would just teach their babies to cry more. Also recommended things like keeping to a rigid feeding/cleaning cycle regardless of the child's immediate needs. Even Dr. Spock recommended things that we'd look at as harsh today, like tying left-handed childrens' hands behind their backs so they could be rid of the "bad habit." 

Joan sounded like the type of woman where being affectionate didn't come naturally to her. Most of her intimate acquaintances were her staff. That along with her own childhood being rather hard and deprived, and her being a busy career woman, plus a drinking problem, all just sounded like a recipe for misery. Not really surprising that the twins have a kinder view of her, because she was probably in a much better place when she adopted the twins. 

[enoughcats]

If you were to read the definitive biography/autobiography of each, which would you chose?

Our library has several of both women, but I really don't feel like reading fictional accounts of perfect people.

[ghoulina]

^^^

Thank you. This show/thread has inspired me to look into this as well, but there are sooo many on Amazon. It's hard to know which one to choose. 

[Lorna Mae]

On 3/16/2017 at 7:42 PM, Growsonwalls said:

I'm reading a book on Barbara Stanwyck right now and it sounds like her experience with adopting a child is very similar to Joan's experience with Christopher. Barbara also grew up with a mom who died early and a dad who abandoned the family. From then she was shuttled around from relative to relative. She met and married Frank Fay, who turned out to be an abusive alcoholic.

Speaking of which, I've read that Stanwyck escaped Frank Fay's house (it was that level of abuse, that she had to "escape", not just leave) and Crawford, her near neighbor, took her in. That would have been the 1920s or 1930s; at any rate, at a time when spousal abuse was another issue most people looked the other way on. The typical response would have been "Go back and try not to cause any more trouble," but Joan gave her shelter for a time. 

[ennui]

On 3/17/2017 at 2:00 PM, blaase said:

I think spanking back then was just not that big of a deal, I mean I just saw a 1953 I love Lucy episode that ends with Ricky spanking Lucy, and this was the number one tv show in the country at the time.

Well, a man spanking a woman could also be foreplay, considering they slept in twin beds.  :)

[Growsonwalls]

Ed Sikov's Dark Victory is IMO the best Bette Davis biography. 

[Jan Spears]

On ‎3‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 2:32 PM, caracas1914 said:

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.

 

On ‎3‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 5:29 PM, psychoticstate said:

@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've always thought that the "feud" between Crawford and Shearer was a one-sided one emanating entirely from Crawford's direction. I do think the Shearer-Thalberg marriage bothered Crawford as, in her view, it put her at a competitive disadvantage. But Crawford and Shearer were very different performers and personalities and I really don't see many instances where one could have substituted in the repertory of the other. During that portion of the silent era when Crawford and Shearer's careers at MGM overlapped (1925-29), Shearer was playing "nice girls" and Crawford hit it big in 1928 playing the flapper in Our Dancing Daughters. During the sound era, they largely went their own ways with Crawford playing shop girls on the rise and Shearer increasingly moving into "prestige" pictures based on historical or literary characters (i.e. Romeo & Juliet, Marie Antoinette).

The one instance when Crawford probably did have a legitimate complaint about the Shearer-Thalberg marriage and the effect it had on the studio involved the 1930 movie, The Divorcee. It was a much sought-after role and it might have gone to Crawford, whose image at the point would have made for a good fit for the part. But Shearer wanted the role and, with the aid of now-legendary photographer George Hurrell, transformed her image in a number of highly sexual photos that convinced Thalberg to give his wife the part. The rest is history: The Divorcee was a big, big hit in 1930 and Norma Shearer won the Best Actress Oscar for the part.

Adding insult to the injury of Shearer's Oscar win was the fact that the studio never secured an Oscar nomination for Crawford in the entire time she was at MGM. This during a time when the industry nominated Shearer 6 times and Garbo 4 times.

Still, LB Mayer's daughter, Irene, had the best take on the Crawford-Shearer "feud" in her memoirs:

"Joan tried harder than anyone else had ever tried. With increasing recognition, her determination became almost tangible. She blamed her overwhelming sense of rivalry on the preferred position Norma Shearer came to hold as Irving's wife, ignoring the fact that even Norma didn't always get the roles she wanted. She also overlooked the fact that Norma had been with the company since early Mission Road and had traveled a long way. The truth was that, as the ever-growing group of MGM actresses reached stardom, each found the competition intense.  Every one of them had come up through the ranks except Garbo; she began as a star."

Edited March 18, 2017 by Jan Spears

[blaase]

Since Crawford's pictures were the ones making more money for MGM in the 1932-1937 years on the whole (money making stars poll) I understand Joan's frustration with MGM and Shearer.

[Jan Spears]

16 hours ago, blaase said:

Since Crawford's pictures were the ones making more money for MGM in the 1932-1937 years on the whole (money making stars poll) I understand Joan's frustration with MGM and Shearer.

There's some justification for her feeling that way as, during the 1932-37 period, her movies were (somewhat) more modestly-budgeted than those of Garbo and Shearer but earned more for the studio than those of the other two did . Crawford had to have felt that she was subsidizing the lavish prestige pictures of Garbo and Shearer. But, as Irene Mayer alluded to in her memoir, Crawford chose to ignore the fact that Garbo and Shearer were big earners for the studio in the period 1925-1932 and had earned those prestige pictures. (And, truthfully, I think Garbo hit her peak during the 1932-37 period with Queen Christina (1933), Anna Karenina (1935) and Camille (1936). So, I'm not unhappy that Crawford may have helped pay for those pictures.)

Edited March 19, 2017 by Jan Spears

[caracas1914]

Yes, Garbo was the huge exception, in that she practically was a big star from the getgo and was able to dictate some good terms with MGM.  Plus Garbo's very reclusiveness worked her mystique as a remote  glamorous siren.  It didn't hurt that her late 20's early 30's movies were both commerical hits AND she had critical acclaim (though the overall quality of most of those earlier films is debatable today)

Norma Shearer had been with MGM the longest of the 3 top female stars (when Garbo first came up one of the early PR spins on her was to call her the "The Norma Shearer of Sweden") so she had worked herself up the ranks.  Sure marrying Irving Thalberg made things easier, but in fairness, she was already a star when they got together and from all accounts willed her self to stardom despite's some huge physical strikes against her, such as problems with her eyes. I wouldn't go as far as say she was cross eyed but just about, but she quickly learned what lighting, camera angles, etc worked for her. 

So Joan Crawford understandably would have had a chip on her shoulder thinking the odds were against her at MGM despite her stardom. She worked hard cultivating her fandom ( unlike Garbo), responding to their letters, did PR appearances and interviews ,though it seems she enjoyed playing the game.  It was easy for her to rationalize that Shearer sleeping with the boss had an unfair advantage.

Crawford's MGM roles weren't exactly the type that got Oscar nominations , look at "Grand Hotel", Garbo plays a glamorous Russian ballerina while Crawford played the stenographer.   In fairness though, it's not as if Crawford was considered a very good actress back then, she wasn't considered among the better comedic actresses (Myrna Loy, Jean Arthur,Claudette Colber, Lombard, etc) nor among the top dramatic actresses ( again Garbo, Shearer, Bette Davis, Hepburn, etc).  However even in her MGM days she gave a couple of terrific performances (The Women, A Woman's Face) but again, she didn't have the rep of a great actress.

Then when Garbo and Shearer eventually retired, Crawford was still plugging away but herself being bumped aside for younger actresses and having Greer Garson emerge as the new "prestige" female queen of the lot star had to be particularly  galling in the early 40's.

Edited March 19, 2017 by caracas1914

[psychoticstate]

I think Joan was considered an exemplary movie star and not necessarily a true actress, which is unfair and unfortunate.  Not to take away from the talents of others but Crawford was entirely self-taught on the set.  Many silent film actresses never made the cut to "talkies" and she did.  It wasn't just her elocution but her exuberance.  She came alive on camera and I think people responded to that. 

Having said that, MGM at the time was fond of keeping their actors in particular genres and not deviating from that plan.  Crawford's shopgirl movies made them a lot of money so why fix something that isn't broken?   I think when Joan was comfortable with her director and co-stars she was terrific, whether it was in drama or comedy.  One of my favorite Crawford movies is one of her lesser known - - They All Kissed the Bride.  It was a part meant to go to Carole Lombard and after Lombard was killed, Joan stepped in. (She also donated all of her salary to The Red Cross in Lombard's name and fired her longtime agent when he took his usual 10% cut of the salary.)  I think Joan is absolutely fantastic in it; she plays her part to perfection and I think it's sad that she didn't have more opportunities to play rom-com/screwball comedy parts.  I also adore Melvyn Douglas and love the two of them together.

I may be one of the very few classic movie buffs who don't particularly care for Garbo.  Maybe she translated better to silent/Depression era audiences. I feel that Shearer and Crawford were more approachable, both in real life and their cinematic counterparts. 

At the time Garbo and Shearer retired, I don't think either considered their careers a top priority any longer. Garbo had threatened to retire many times so perhaps she never really did.  Shearer had recently remarried.  I think both had other things while for Joan, her career was often the only thing.

[Jan Spears]

7 hours ago, caracas1914 said:

Yes, Garbo was the huge exception, in that she practically was a big star from the getgo and was able to dictate some good terms with MGM.  Plus Garbo's very reclusiveness worked her mystique as a remote  glamorous siren.  It didn't hurt that her late 20's early 30's movies were both commerical hits AND she had critical acclaim (though the overall quality of most of those earlier films is debatable today)

Norma Shearer had been with MGM the longest of the 3 top female stars (when Garbo first came up one of the early PR spins on her was to call her the "The Norma Shearer of Sweden") so she had worked herself up the ranks.  Sure marrying Irving Thalberg made things easier, but in fairness, she was already a star when they got together and from all accounts willed her self to stardom despite's some huge physical strikes against her, such as problems with her eyes. I wouldn't go as far as say she was cross eyed but just about, but she quickly learned what lighting, camera angles, etc worked for her. 

Then when Garbo and Shearer eventually retired, Crawford was still plugging away but herself being bumped aside for younger actresses and having Greer Garson emerge as the new "prestige" female queen of the lot star had to be particularly  galling in the early 40's.

Garbo was able to sail above the fray almost from the moment she stepped on the MGM lot. She hit in a big way almost immediately and wasn't the least bit intimidated by Mayer, Thalberg and the rest of the front office.

For all that Crawford felt that Shearer had an unfair advantage because of her marriage, Shearer -- as caracas1914 noted correctly -- had had to overcome some notable physical deficiencies including a cast in one of her eyes that gave her the appearance of being cross-eyed. Also, as Irene Mayer noted, Shearer didn't always get the roles she wanted. Even with The Divorcee, Thalberg had originally turned down his wife's request for the part because he didn't think she was sexy enough (!!!). (I can only imagine what his home life was like after he told Shearer that.) The only reason it worked out in Shearer's favor is that her fellow MGM star and friend, Ramon Novarro, had started working with George Hurrell in 1929 and he showed Shearer the extraordinary photos Hurrell had taken of him. That was how Shearer hit on the idea to work with Hurrell to change her image enough to convince Thalberg to give her the part.

Greer Garson's emergence at MGM in the early 1940s as the top dramatic actress at the studio surely infuriated Crawford. But I have a hard time seeing Crawford in Garson parts like Madame Curie. And I doubt that Crawford's fans really wanted to see Crawford discovering radium!!!

[hippielamb]

On 2/16/2017 at 8:42 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.”

Daaaaaaaaamn... 

On 3/10/2017 at 3:17 PM, psychoticstate said:

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. 

I like that about her. Especially in this day and age where it seems certain manners like thank you notes are disapearing. My youngest daughter actually scoffs when I ask if she wrote a thank you note for a gift or invitation to some event. It makes me feel like a dinosaur. 

 

On 3/17/2017 at 3:05 PM, Growsonwalls said:

Then there was Merle Oberon, who might win the award for the Golden Age of Bad Daughtering. She was born to an Indian mother and she introduced her mother as her servant. That must have made her mother feel real special.

But on a lighter note, I found this delightful picture of Bette and Olivia that makes me feel all sorts of happy:

Holy hell! That stuff about Merle Oberon makes me furious. Since we're talking about old Hollywood films that's some Imitation of Life craziness. 

Thanks for those of you for posting photos of these actresses. I like some old films but mostly the comedies, and was not very familiar with either Davis or Crawford. 

[TigerLynx]

11 hours ago, hippielamb said:

Holy hell! That stuff about Merle Oberon makes me furious. Since we're talking about old Hollywood films that's some Imitation of Life craziness. 

To add to the story, Merle Oberon's mother was actually her grandmother.  She knew her real mother as her sister.

Jack Nicholson's mother was actually his grandmother to.  He didn't find out until both his mother and grandmother were dead.  His response was it wasn't that traumatic a reveal, and, "Name me two other broads who could take a secret like that to their graves."

One of the reviewers for Baby Jane asked, "Who wants to see a movie with those two old broads in it?"  Davis' response when the movie did well, "Not to bad for two old broads."  Joan's response to Davis, "Don't call me an old broad."

I wish someone would do a movie about William Desmond Taylor's still unsolved murder.

[Wings]

I have googled but came up empty.  I want to know if the restaurant set is a replica of a famous restaurant in that era.  The peach banquets Look expensive so it seems they must be significant.  Many restaurants back then were not that elaborate and easier to replicate.  

[Growsonwalls]

To add to the creepiness of the story, after her mother's death Merle destroyed all pictures of her mother and then had a portrait painted of her mother as a completely white woman and hung it up in her house. 

[JudyObscure]

My nominee for worst Hollywood mother will always be Jane Wyman.  Immediately after her divorce from Ron Reagan she sent both children away to boarding school as though she saw no use for them without the whole happy family  set up.  Her youngest was only six.  At least Joan and Bette didn't throw out the children with the man.  I think Jane Wyman bothers me the most because she always played such simpering, holier-than-thou characters.

[Milburn Stone]

15 minutes ago, wings707 said:

I have googled but came up empty.  I want to know if the restaurant set is a replica of a famous restaurant in that era.  The peach banquets Look expensive so it seems they must be significant.  Many restaurants back then were not that elaborate and easier to replicate.  

I assume we're talking about the place the two stars shared a meal in Episode 3? It had a vague feel to me of a place called The Smokehouse (across the street from the Warners lot in Burbank) but I think was meant to be suggestive of all sorts of "old school" Hollywood places and no place in particular.

Speaking of the Warners lot, how come Baby Jane wasn't shot there? (The show accurately depicts it as being shot at Producers Studios, on Melrose, which is now Raleigh Studios, a place I shot commercials back in the eighties. The warehouse-looking building in the show is not the actual Producers/Raleigh plant, however.) Was every stage on the Warners lot occupied? It seems strange that Jack Warner wouldn't have wanted to use his own real estate, which was already being amortized, instead of renting space elsewhere.

[Wings]

15 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

My nominee for worst Hollywood mother will always be Jane Wyman.  Immediately after her divorce from Ron Reagan she sent both children away to boarding school as though she saw no use for them without the whole happy family  set up.  Her youngest was only six.  At least Joan and Bette didn't throw out the children with the man.  I think Jane Wyman bothers me the most because she always played such simpering, holier-than-thou characters.

I remember my mother disliking her immensely.  I don't remember her saying why.  Now I know!  Thanks. 

[Wings]

11 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

I assume we're talking about the place the two stars shared a meal in Episode 3? It had a vague feel to me of a place called The Smokehouse (across the street from the Warners lot in Burbank) but I think was meant to be suggestive of all sorts of "old school" Hollywood places and no place in 

No, I was talking about the restaurant with the peach, booth/banquet we have seen several times. 

[psychoticstate]

I think the restaurant is supposed to represent Chasen's but don't quote me on that.  They did have the booths and it was a hangout for the celebs to see and be seen. 

My votes for bad parenting go to Judy Garland's mother Ethel Gumm, who gave her daughter a mixture of speed and sleeping pills from the time Judy was 10. She was also A-okay with keeping her daughter hopped up on drugs in order to work, work, work at MGM and also lose weight because Judy was considered to be chubby as an adolescent.  

Runner up?  Charlotte Shelby, Mary Miles Minter's pushy mother, who changed her daughter's identity and age in order that the young Juliet Mills could be rechristened Mary Miles Minter (a dead relative) and work to support the family.  She also acted as her daughter's manager/agent, signing her to lucrative contracts and then finding loopholes to get her out and move on to another lucrative contract.  If you're at all familiar with Shelby/Minter, you'll recognize that Minter was one of director William Desmond Taylor's leading ladies and Shelby has long been suspected of being his killer (out of jealousy that Taylor was having a romantic relationship with Minter and would take her out of the business; unlikely as Taylor was secretly gay.)