S01.E04: More, or Less

[parrotlover]

2 hours ago, Blakeston said:

Is it just me, or did Pauline's script sound terrible?

I mean, I could see it being amusing in a campy, "Can you believe this craziness?" way, but that didn't seem to be what she was going for.

I thought that too. And although I know it's totally not the same story that Pauline described, I don't know why but I thought of "Berserk" - TCM will show it occasionally - if you haven't seen it, definitely one of Joan's stranger post-Jane projects, along with Trog!  Berserk is about murders at the circus that Joan owns. Anyway, while checking the trivia on Berserk at imdb, I found this tidbit:

Joan Crawford was early on the set every day in order to personally make breakfast for some of the crew members.

Reminded me of that scene a few weeks ago when she was bringing gifts to everyone on the set.

And just to add to the chorus, last night's episode was so great. So many outstanding performances last night and this whole series. I will miss it tremendously when it ends.

[caracas1914]

Most of the  male stars  from the 30's and 40's with a few exceptions got reduced to secondary character roles by the sixties, or retreated to making Westerns.

I guess the handful of exceptions who remained leading "stars" were Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne and acting wise Spencer Tracy, who got the bulk of his nominations in the 50's and 60's.

Bette Davis got her first Oscar nom (and win)  in 1935 for "Dangerous" and the last nomination in 1962 with  "WHTBJ", which is a span of 27 years;  again other than Spencer Tracy, no other male star from that era achieved that longevity.

Joan Crawford had starring roles from the late 20's  in the silent era and again was the co star of a big hit in 1962 for span of about 35 years. 

So the series continuously even in this episode treating them like "victims" in a feminist pseudo tract gets tiresome, when both Bette and Joan were incredibly strong driven women.  Jack Warner treated them like crap, but apparently he treated everyone like that.  A series like "Madmen" showed sexism in a more matter of fact way than Ryan Murphy hitting us over the head trying to fit every situation in those terms.

I think the difference between the two which this episode does point out is that Bette could enjoy the process, had a self deprecating sense of humor of the whole crazy show business: whereas Joan was more preoccupied with defending what she had (stardom) or working to regain it.   Joan is reduced to a rather pathetic figure per this episode, petty and small.   

Edited March 27, 2017 by caracas1914

[merylinkid]

8 hours ago, Inquisitionist said:

Fixed it for you.  It was a more subtle historical reference.  ;-)

I liked this episode a lot.  That Bette needed to work, to act, and Joan needed to be a movie star, to be adored is being played very well. 

I knew I had the years wrong.   But I remembered it as "When hitler came to power" and I knew 1937 was not right.    Still an AWESOME line.  

[merylinkid]

7 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

The story of these women and other people in Hollywood really is sad.  To think of all the glamour, money, fame, talent, yet, so many were tormented, miserable and desperate.  Is this just natural for artists?  (Van Gough like misery?)  

As Joan Blondell and Olivia de Haviland explained, Joan's reaction was not that unusual.   You get addicted to the adrenaline high of the public's adulation.   When it's not there, you turn to a substitute.   Drugs or alcohol.   Then "it's a party again."  

[GATenn]

Quote

Bette at least tried to make lemons out of lemonade.  Joan just bemoaned things not going her way and then drank herself into oblivion. 

I think that's what's so sad about Joan. She couldn't accept the natural progression of her career (for the time period) or realize that she was at a different stage in her life and her work. She was trying to cling to the old stardom, still trying to be The Star, and she had aged out. She could have become an elder stateswoman or grand dowager, if you will, and been a legend. Instead, she drank herself into a stupor, and, because she spent money like water, she didn't really have a choice but to take terrible roles.

I think Bette rolled with it a lot better.

[Growsonwalls]

One thing I noticed is that on the show

Bette never saw herself as a victim. That's consistent with real-life accounts of her. Even as the offers dried up and she got less appealing parts she was always willing to do what it took to survive. She had tons of personality and humor and at the end of her life B.D. broke her heart but I don't think she had professional regrets. 

The show's inconsistency is that I don't think real-life Joan Crawford saw herself as a victim either. She had a horrible childhood and she crawled out of that poverty and misery. She was unhappy, an alcoholic with a string of failed relationships but it's hard to imagine her as sadsack as they are writing her out to be. I remember one interview with her where they asked her if she knew all she knew about Hollywood, would she do it again and without hesitation she said "Yes, every minute of it." 

I also don;t think Joan was in the wrong for her treatment of Pauline. Was it a little cold? Yes. But Joan didn't owe Pauline support just because Pauline was a woman. I mean I found the same thing annoying with the presidential campaign. I supported Hillary Clinton because she more closely aligned with my values. Had their been a female version of The Donald running I wouldn't have felt a need to support that candidate, whether she was female or not. Joan was doing what was best for her. She wasn't obligated to make a big principled stand for womanhood especially when her own career was not strong.

[Inquisitionist]

42 minutes ago, caracas1914 said:

Most of the  male stars  from the 30's and 40's with a few exceptions got reduced to secondary character roles by the sixties, or retreated to making Westerns.

I guess the handful of exceptions who remained leading "stars" were Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne and acting wise Spencer Tracy, who got the bulk of his nominations in the 50's and 60's.

Bette Davis got her first Oscar nom (and win)  in 1935 for "Dangerous" and the last nomination in 1962 with  "WHTBJ", which is a span of 27 years;  again other than Spencer Tracy, no other male star from that era achieved that longevity.

Katharine Hepburn had an even longer span between Oscar wins:  From 1934 for Morning Glory to 1982 for On Golden Pond. 

But I do think there were more options for male actors of that era.  I'm thinking, for example, of Clark Gable, who had no trouble being cast opposite much younger actresses like Doris Day and Marilyn Monroe in the late 50s and early 60s.  Davis's Jezebel co-star Henry Fonda worked steadily throughout this period.  Still, I'd have to agree that the "youth movement" of the 1960s made it more difficult for aging actors of both genders.

[pbutler111]

  5 hours ago, icemiser69 said:

Random stuff:

The rerun of that Perry Mason episode starring Betty Davis was on TV just a month or so ago.  It certainly wasn't her best work.

Alison Wright has surely played the roles of some seriously crapped on characters.  I hope things turn around for her character (Pauline) on this series.

Given how horrible the Crawford character is in this series, I am surprised someone hasn't knocked her on her ass by now. 

I was just reading about Bette's guest shot on Perry Mason.  This was the first of four episodes of the show where a guest actor (or in this case actress) filled in for Raymond Burr as he recovered from surgery.  Based on what I've read, your opinion about her work on it seems to be the general consensus as her performance is described as awkward and as if she read the script for the first time.

http://www.perrymasontvseries.com/wiki/index.php/EpisodePages/Show169

As someone who has watched Perry Mason compulsively, every weekday morning, for many, many years now (for absolutely no reason I can come up with other than OCD) I've seen the series in its entirety, first episode to last, probably 5 or 6 times now, so I've seen Bette Davis's episode that many times. I didn't feel like her performance was awkward, or that she seemed unprepared. But it does feel very much like watching an Olympic gold medal figure skater participating in an exhibition of children who've been taking skating lessons for a few months. Davis seemed bigger than the part, bigger than the sets, bigger than the co-stars, bigger than the script, and bigger than the show itself. She was terrific, just misplaced. And it isn't like the other actors on that show aren't themselves really good -- they are. Davis was just... bigger.

[ABay]

Re: Toby Huss as Sinatra, I disagree that he looks nothing like Sinatra at that time. During the scenes on the set, especially, there were a couple of moments when the similarity was striking, particularly around the eyes.

[Bama]

I wonder if Pauline's script was an allusion to "Strait-Jacket", a movie Joan made in 1964.

Quote

After a twenty-year stay at an asylum for a double murder, a mother returns to her estranged daughter where suspicions arise about her behavior.

And I don't think Joan turned Pauline down because she was a woman - she gave the reason why - Pauline is a "nobody".  I 100% believe if Pauline was "Paul" and came to Joan in the exact same circumstance - total newbie, only industry experience as Aldrich's assistant - that she would have turned "Paul" down flat, too.

And for me, as a woman, being turned down for something out of my control (gender) would sting a hell of lot worse than being turned down because I'm a "nobody".  Ouch.

[ThatsDarling]

10 hours ago, caracas1914 said:

Have to say this review points out a lot of the issues I have with the story;

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/critics-notebook-faux-feminism-feud-988848

I think Joan and Bette were strong women who would have clashed regardless because they were very different in their personas and acting approach; but as far as Bette was concerned,she wasn't intimidated by another actress (or actor's) talent. 

In her career she had talked about how you are only as good as your fellow actors in a film, so she relished working with such professonals as Olivia De Haviland, Mary Astor, Claude Raines, and Leslie Howard.  She liked Errol Flyn as a person, but lamented his poor work ethic and coasting as far as  his acting.

Joan I think was different, she was hard working, but it seemed every woman (or Man) who took focus away from her in a movie was a constant threat, and from what  Bette recalled  about working with Miriam Hopkins and Robert Montgomery, she had little patience with this type of insecurity.

Yes, Bette struck me as being quite supportive of her fellow actresses, so long as they were talented. She was very generous in her assessments of the younger generation of leading ladies; she had lovely things to say about Gena Rowlands, Liv Ullmann, Glenda Jackson, Jane Fonda, and Carol Kane, to name a few. She even wrote a letter to Meryl Streep expressing her desire to work with her.

This is why her conspiracy with Joan to get the actress playing the neighbor girl fired didn't ring true to me. I don't think the real Davis would have been that insecure about sharing the screen with an ingenue.

[Florinaldo]

This episode did a good job of showing that despite the box office success of WHTBJ, anticipated or verified, no one reaped the benefits, in the short term at least, except for Warner of course.

The actresses got no rush of offers, while the director was still treated like a second- or third-rate hack by Warner and Sinatra. Which is somehow accurate in the latter case: in their book on RA, Alan Silver and James Ursini report that the director summarized in a memo that he was considering suing FS for "failing to complete his assigned work and exacerbating tensions on the set", especially by his callous treatment of the crew. Although, contrary to what the episode depicted, RA adds that Sinatra's derogatory remarks were never directed at him; I suppose the writers decided that it was easier to elicit sympathy when the bad treatment is directed at an already established character like RA, instead of trying to beef up the personality of an assemblage of best boy, sound technician and focus puller newly introduced for the sole purpose of being insulted by Sinatra.

TCM showed 4 for Texas 2 or 3 months ago; I missed the first 30 or 40 minutes and while it may not be quite the disaster RA always maintained it was, it is a rather unremarkable and lame comedy, where the two male leads simply transpose in a Western context their public personas from the 60s. Quite a let-down for the director after what he achieved in Baby Jane; even the 3 Stooges make a cameo appearance.

JC's assessment of Pauline's chances of becoming a director was very harsh, but realistic for the times. Since the days of Alice Guy and Dorothy Arzner, how many women directors' names (or producers like Nazimova) would have spontanteously come to mind, except for Ida Lupino? Even she is primarily remembered as and actress and was confined mostly to B film noirs and television for her directing work. Being an unknown (a "nobody" as the dialogue had it) was bad enough for Pauline; being a woman added to the obstacles.

Perhaps if they had made the plot for the proposed script written by Pauline more believable (JC replacing the lead ballet dancer, at her age, really?) it would have made that missed opportunity even more cruel.

Olivia de Havilland, if she watches the show, must be deeply flattered (at nearly 101 years of age by now) by how ravishingly idealized CZJ comes across portraying her.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Florinaldo

[MaryMitch]

20 hours ago, Valny said:

The movie BD was pitching to Aldrich to direct about the twins was Dead Ringer right?

 

"Dead Ringer" is on TCM on Wednesday, March 29, 6pm Eastern time

[hypnotoad]

Quote

I've seen Bette Davis's episode that many times. I didn't feel like her performance was awkward, or that she seemed unprepared.

I saw it a year ago or so and I don't even know why because I'm not normally a Perry Mason watcher! Anyway, I had to google because I was wondering where Perry was and why Bette Davis was there instead. I have to say, I rather enjoyed her episode. But maybe that's because I am such a huge Bette Davis fan in general.

And thanks for that clip of her singing that Baby Jane song (whoever posted it, sorry I didn't grab the name)! That is terrific and really does show Davis had a good sense of humor and the good sense to make fun of herself a bit.

[TigerLynx]

I think Davis, Crawford, Hepburn, etc., lasted longer because they were willing to fight for what they wanted.  However, that won't necessarily work for everyone.  Just as there is still racism, sexism, ageism, etc., still in play today, there is also a lot of luck involved in becoming a successful actress/actor or movie star.  There are some very talented people who won't ever get the starring role or be remembered, and there are some very untalented people that achieved stardom, and managed to last for several years in the business.

I think Crawford had insecurities, but I don't believe she was as fragile as she is being depicted here.  Davis does seem like she was a very secure, confident, strong willed woman.  Even early on when she first arrived in Hollywood, Davis would stand up for herself.  Just as Davis didn't have a problem making fun of herself as Baby Jane, she also didn't have a problem doing what she thought was right for a part when she was younger.  I think it was Human Bondage where she played a drug addict, who was involved with Leslie Howard's character, and was very cruel to him.  For Davis' death scene, they were trying to glam her up, and she was pretty much, "I'm a drug addict who has been a complete bitch this entire time, and now that I am dying you want me to be beautiful, glamorous, sappy and sweet?"  Needless to say that wasn't how that scene went.

Edited March 28, 2017 by TigerLynx

[benteen]

4 hours ago, Inquisitionist said:

Katharine Hepburn had an even longer span between Oscar wins:  From 1934 for Morning Glory to 1982 for On Golden Pond. 

But I do think there were more options for male actors of that era.  I'm thinking, for example, of Clark Gable, who had no trouble being cast opposite much younger actresses like Doris Day and Marilyn Monroe in the late 50s and early 60s.  Davis's Jezebel co-star Henry Fonda worked steadily throughout this period.  Still, I'd have to agree that the "youth movement" of the 1960s made it more difficult for aging actors of both genders.

It is interesting to see how stars transitioned in their careers as they got older.  After The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Jimmy Stewart transitioned more into family-friendly roles and even tried his hand on television in the 1970s.  Charlton Heston started doing sci-fi films (I'm a fan of his sci-fi films) and then disaster movies.

[LittleIggy]

I loved Jezebel. Bette was dynamite and had me rooting for her.

[BingeyKohan]

The 'Baby Jane' melody reminds me of that infernal 'tight pants' song Jimmy Fallon does sometimes. I know we're supposed to see her as a good sport but there's something sad about it, like imagining Geraldine Page promoting 'The Trip to Bountiful' by rapping 'Going Back To Bounty' with LL Cool J.

[Christi]

Just realized that Joan in this series doesn't have her signature eyebrows....any talk about this?

I think that's why I'm not sold on the character 

[annzeepark914]

28 minutes ago, Christi said:

Just realized that Joan in this series doesn't have her signature eyebrows....any talk about this?

I think that's why I'm not sold on the character 

Amen!  I was thinking the same thing last night while watching a close up of "Joan".  Where were those thick eyebrows?  They're what made her look so fierce and tough.

[Christi]

How did they miss that iconic trademark? I couldn't figure out why this portrayal didn't scare me like she used too...yup...its the eyebrows!

[SWLinPHX]

On 3/26/2017 at 8:15 PM, voiceover said:

I have never loved Lange's Joan more than when she told that boardroom of William Morris agents to fuck off.

That's a direct rip off from "Mommie Dearest", right down to the outfit she was wearing and her seated at the head of the boardroom table with empty space between her and the others.  It's obvious Murphy was a huge fan of the movie growing up and that he wanted to recreate that almost as much as the other classics he portrayed.

[SWLinPHX]

On 3/26/2017 at 8:35 PM, enoughcats said:

I will be chuckling about this quote for a long, long time.

Wasn't it 1937, when Hitler invaded Austria??

[voiceover]

7 hours ago, Inquisitionist said:

Katharine Hepburn had an even longer span between Oscar wins:  From 1934 for Morning Glory to 1982 for On Golden Pond. 

In between those two, she won in back-to-back years (1968-69) for Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? and Lion in Winter.

[txhorns79]

I rolled my eyes at the scene with Joan at William Morris.  If Ryan Murphy wanted to rip off a scene from Mommie Dearest (with William Morris instead of the Pepsi board), that's his right, but if one of the points of this series is to show Joan isn't quite the caricature that movie made her out to be, I don't know why he would revisit it.

I'm mixed on the Pauline storyline.  I felt like there were a number of legitimate reasons for Joan to reject Pauline's project, from the fact that the script didn't sound that good, to Pauline not having any experience directing anything.  While you could argue that Pauline's lack of experience stemmed from the lack of opportunity due to her being female, the whole thing felt clunky.  I mean, I was surprised that no one suggested to Pauline that she try to get experience directing something on a smaller scale, where the opportunities might be more available, and work her way back to her movie project.  They made everything feel very all or nothing, and I don't think the reality would be that way.                 

Edited March 28, 2017 by txhorns79

[darkestboy]

Another great episode. Interesting to see how both women were dealing with things, post Baby Jane, pre Oscars.

I do like Bette more and more than Joan and think that Sarandon is somewhat better than Lange. Bette seemed to get on with things whereas Joan wallowed a bit too much in self pity.

The focus on Aldrich, Pauline and Mamacita actually worked well enough in the episode's favour too. I thought the scenes with Mamacita and Pauline in general were actually pretty well done.

Bette's song on The Andy Williams Show was hysterical too, 8/10

[JudyObscure]

20 hours ago, psychoticstate said:

I think that Pauline approached Joan because Joan used to be a dancer and her script centered around a dancer. 

That's what I thought and the script didn't sound too far off from, "Turning Point," to me.  Joan worked very hard to keep her figure all her life and at the time of Baby Jane she was till slim and fit enough to play a dancer.  It makes me feel bad for Joan that Jessica Lange, who has become thick through the middle, has been chosen to play her.  I've always thought Lange was a fine actress in soft sensitive roles like her part in, "Tootsie," but she completely lacks the most distinctive things about Joan Crawford; the throaty voice, the large striking features, and the huge stage presence.

[qtpye]

21 hours ago, Blakeston said:

Is it just me, or did Pauline's script sound terrible?

I mean, I could see it being amusing in a campy, "Can you believe this craziness?" way, but that didn't seem to be what she was going for.

If you tweak it just right...it could be Showgirls.

I love Pauline and the actress that plays her.  I like that, unlike a lot of shows, she just did not show moxy and was handed everything on a golden platter.  I loved the show, but I sometimes wonder if Peggy Olsen's rise from secretary to copy writer was realistic on Mad Men.  I wonder if a secretary could even hope to become a copy writer, today?  Peggy Olsen did not have a college degree (though many secretaries and admin assistant do, today) and that could be an impediment in today's society, no matter her talent level.

Anyway, without getting off topic, you realize the impossible odd Pauline is facing in trying to get this movie made and she is going to have to fight hard.  In many male directed shows it almost feels to easy for "the spunky lady protagonist" to achieve the success, so you wonder what the heck those feminists are always complaining about?

20 hours ago, A Boston Gal said:

 I know it's been said before, but damn...Susan Sarandon looks freaking AMAZING at 70, even counting the fact she's probably had work done. Makes me wonder what Bette might have looked like in her fifties if the same level of quality surgery was available back then.

It was ridiculous when asshole Jack Warner (love Stanley Tucci), came into Joan's mansion and said Bette was hired for her talents and the went with Joan (even though it was Joan's idea in the first place) was kept around because her ass was still good and tits were not bad.  It was even a stupider statement because Lange looks so much older then Sarandon.  I kept on wondering why Sarandon and Bette are coming off so much better and came up with three points.

1.  Sarandon has similar coloring and style to Bette, even though far from exact.  If it looked good on Bette, Sarandon can pull it off.  Lange just does not look right in the Crawford drag.  Heck, she looks nothing like Crawford.

2. Susan just has a better plastic surgeon.  If you ever look at Julia Louis Dreyfes (Elaine from Seinfield), she looks much better now then 20 years ago, yet still looks like her.  The same can be said for Sarandon.

3. Lange has the job of redeeming Crawford.  So far, Crawford is an incredible sad sack and I am really starting to feel sorry for her children, if this is what they had to deal with.  Crawford seems to get all her self worth from her sexual desirability (which makes sense with her history of abuse) and it comes off as shallow and vain.  Also, it is Crawford that is scheming with Hedda and putting lies in the paper.   She is just a nasty pathetic woman and so far really had not been redeemed in my eyes (though the coming episodes might do it).

Sarandon's Bette is not remarkable, but it is close enough, not to mention charming and fun.  Lange's Crawford is well...not Crawford and an absolute misery otherwise.

I think it was kind of Bette to say that the half the picture's success was due to Joan.  Yes, Bette got the more showy role, but she also took the greater risk.  It could have made her a laughing stock and the risks she took with the role are truly brave.  Joan never could break out of her manicured shell, with her insistence on always looking perfect and gave a decent but forgettable performance.

15 hours ago, ThatsDarling said:

Yes, Bette struck me as being quite supportive of her fellow actresses, so long as they were talented. She was very generous in her assessments of the younger generation of leading ladies; she had lovely things to say about Gena Rowlands, Liv Ullmann, Glenda Jackson, Jane Fonda, and Carol Kane, to name a few. She even wrote a letter to Meryl Streep expressing her desire to work with her.

This is why her conspiracy with Joan to get the actress playing the neighbor girl fired didn't ring true to me. I don't think the real Davis would have been that insecure about sharing the screen with an ingenue.

It made me roll my eyes, because Bette was never like that.  It was very much a male viewpoint that all women are catty vipers, who are threatened by younger more desirable women, even if they are their daughters.  It reminded me of David Kelly and how he viewed women on his shows.

[monakane]

On 3/27/2017 at 10:07 AM, JudyObscure said:

Every thing I've read about Frank Sinatra said he was a jerk 24/7.  Depressed or not doesn't explain talking to people the way he did.  As for Van Gogh, he had schizophrenia, a brain disease, so probably not caused by his art.  I think sometimes the mental illness comes first and the art form helps express the misery, rather than the art causing the misery.

I saw an interview recently with his daughter.  She believes her bather was bi-polar and would have benefited from medication.

[sugarbaker design]

10 minutes ago, monakane said:

I saw an interview recently with his daughter.  She believes her bather was bi-polar and would have benefited from medication.

Yesterday's obnoxious, entitled asshole is today's bi-polar disorder sufferer.

[Auntie Anxiety]

On 3/26/2017 at 11:47 PM, bmoore4026 said:

Turns out the actor playing Sinatra was Toby Huss.  Regardless, he just wasn't Sinatra, in look or sound.

I could tell it was Toby Huss right away, as he had the same mannerisms that he uses on Halt and Catch Fire, so it was difficult for me to see him as Sinatra.

After what I thought was a slow start, Susan Sarandon is killing it now. There are some scenes in which she just IS Bette Davis. Jessica Lange has come a long way in her career, from the ingenue in Tootsie (one of my favorite movies of all-time) to this. She's had an incredible run.

ETA--I was thinking about all the praise being heaped on Susan Sarandon's portrayal of BD and thought about how she probably had an easier time than Jessica Lange; BD had more vocal and physical tics that are somewhat easier to nail than JC had.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Auntie Anxiety

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

Feud: Bette And Joan Finds The Timeless Horror In Hollywood Sexism

Baby Jane is a big success...but you wouldn't know it from the dearth of offers coming Bette and Joan's way. Eric Lillian ranks the episode's players!

[wetmoregal]

5 minutes ago, Auntie Anxiety said:

After what I thought was a slow start, Susan Sarandon is killing it now. There are some scenes in which she just IS Bette Davis

I agree.  I watched WHTBJ on the TCM channel last night (First time to see it.  I recorded it when it played last week).  There were parts that I couldn't tell if "Jane" was Bette Davis or Susan Sarandon.  I enjoyed watching the scene where BD was dragging JC out of the bedroom and how JC added weights to make the job harder for BD.  I also appreciated the "sand" reshoot they had to do in the studio because JC looked too healthy in the original shoot.  The reshoot was very effective as she looked like she was indeed dying.  Certainly a classic, and I'm glad I was able to finally see it.  Especially after learning all about the behind the scenes drama.

[tennisgurl]

It took me ages to realize that guy was supposed to be Frank Sinatra. He looked nothing like him, and he just didn't have the vibe that he did. Say what you will about the guy, but he had a commanding presence about him that's obvious even in his movies and TV appearances. This version just seems like some random asshole they pulled off the street. Not that he was a bad actor, he just didn't look like Frank Sinatra.

Thank you to whoever posted that video of real Bette doing her Baby Jane song! That was just delightful! So very early 60s and kitchy, but also so fun and likable. You could tell that Bette was having fun, and her commitment to something so silly made the whole thing really endearing. Its funny watching Bette basically doing what stars in Hollywood do now right before Oscar nominations come out. Get out in the talk show circuit, do TV appearances, do personnel appearances with fans and critics, just getting her name and face out there so Oscar voters will remember her. It was definitely the right call, as Joan deserved an Oscar nomination just as much as Bette did, but while Bette was out there doing press, Joan was moping around the house getting drunk. I don't know a whole lot about the real Bette and Joan, but it fits in with what I do know about them. Bette had a sense of humor about Hollywood and herself, and was a lot more self aware about her age and relationship to Hollywood. I don't think Joan was as pathetic as this version of her is, but I do think she always wanted to be The Star, and when she wasn't, she took it really hard.

Jack Warner really is just such an asshole. He seems like the villain in every Adam Sandler movie who gets a shot in the nuts by the end of the movie. Oh to see Jack Warner get hit in the balls...

Oh Pauline, it could be worse. You could have to escape to the USSR because it turns out you married a deep cover Russian spy with a bad wig and you kind of accidently committed treason! I did feel bad for her though. Its hard to become a female director NOW in Hollywood, let alone in the early 60s. However, maybe she can try to work on some smaller projects and work her way up from there. Joan was cold, but she did seem to be trying to give her good advice. Although, I did crack up that Joan doesn't seem to actually remember meeting Pauline a million times before. You would think a people pleaser like Joan would want to remember her directors Girl Friday.

Poor Aldrich. I know he's a jerk for cheating on his wife, but he doesn't seem like an awful guy, and he really does seem to have talent, but no one will let him have another chance. I even felt bad for him when he snapped at Pauline. Yeah using her script for scrap paper was jerky, but he's under so much stress, he certainly didn't mean anything by it. He was being beaten down on all ends, and Pauline just rubbed salt in his cut. I hope they make up soon, they seem to have one of the only healthy, supportive relationships in the show.

[sugarbaker design]

32 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

You would think a people pleaser like Joan would want to remember her directors Girl Friday.

Only a people pleaser to men at the top.  Remember, Mamacita had to remind Joan the names of the guys in the crew.

[Joimiaroxeu]

Mamacita shaking a tailfeather while vacuuming was hilarious.

Boffo Box Office for Baby Jane!

Susan finally went all in on depicting Bette's particular speech patterns. She did pretty good, I think, though her accent is a bit inconsistent.

Frank Sinatra: middle-aged boy singer. Sun-tanned manchild. Heh.

Loved that last scene between Mamacita and Pauline. Mamacita seemed like a brilliant woman. Odd that she would put up with Joan's nonsense when she probably could've done much better, even in the pre-women's lib days.

Quote

Re: Toby Huss as Sinatra, I disagree that he looks nothing like Sinatra at that time. During the scenes on the set, especially, there were a couple of moments when the similarity was striking, particularly around the eyes.

I agree, sorta. You could tell Huss had studied old film of Sinatra because the way he carried himself physically seemed like he was trying to imitate Frank's "I'm mob-connected so don't fcuk with me" swagger. The Joisy accent really wasn't there though.

Quote

If you tweak it just right...it could be Showgirls.

A review I read called it something like "Showgirls meets Black Swan."

Edited March 28, 2017 by Joimiaroxeu

[A Boston Gal]

18 hours ago, Florinaldo said:

Olivia de Havilland, if she watches the show, must be deeply flattered (at nearly 101 years of age by now) by how ravishingly idealized CZJ comes across portraying her.

 

I don't think CZJ has ever looked more beautiful...in fact, she she reminds me more of Vivian Leigh than Olivia De Haviland.

[txhorns79]

Quote

Loved that last scene between Mamacita and Pauline. Mamacita seemed like a brilliant woman. Odd that she would put up with Joan's nonsense when she probably could've done much better, even in the pre-women's lib days.

I have no idea how much this version of Mamacita actually resembles the real one, but if she needed a job, had limited skills beyond housekeeping and Crawford could give her steady employment, I'd guess that is why she stayed. 

[hoodooznoodooz]

15 hours ago, Christi said:

Just realized that Joan in this series doesn't have her signature eyebrows....any talk about this?

I think that's why I'm not sold on the character 

For me, it's difficult to see Joan Crawford because Jessica Lange has such different, distinctive cheekbones. 

[tennisgurl]

On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 8:52 AM, caracas1914 said:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/critics-notebook-faux-feminism-feud-988848

I think that article has a lot of good points, and sums up a lot of issues I have with Ryan Murphey work in general. Don't get me wrong, I REALLY like this show, but they are pushing the "evil men manipulated these poor women into hating each other because PATRIARCHY!" story a bit too hard, which doesn't really capture the more complicated women they are portraying. I've done more research on them since the show started, and no way would the want to be pitied as victims of men. Yeah the issues of sexism and ageism in Hollywood at that time (and now) are a big part of their stories, but I disagree with the imagine in the credits of the Evil Guy with Cigar controlling them with puppet strings. These were tough women who had agency in their own lives, they weren't the puppets of men. There was more going on in this feud then pure manipulation. But that's Ryan Murphey for you. If he has a point about homophobia/sexism/racism he wants to make, he needs clear villains to be the Bad Guys with Bad Opinions to prove his Point with a capital P.

I really loved the scene where Joan sees everyone cheering at the end of Baby Jane. It was real, actual happiness, not faked or an imagine, just pure triumph.

All the talk about the silent movie era makes me really want a show/movie set in the heyday of silent movies. I know we`ve had a few movies based around the transition from silent film to talkies, but I would like to start a movie/series when silent movies were big, and maybe end with the decline. I've always been interested in that era of Hollywood, it has so many interesting stories and people, and you don't hear about them much anymore, except in the context of it/them being over.

Edited March 28, 2017 by tennisgurl

[psychoticstate]

21 hours ago, Nashville Pete said:

I think that's what's so sad about Joan. She couldn't accept the natural progression of her career (for the time period) or realize that she was at a different stage in her life and her work. She was trying to cling to the old stardom, still trying to be The Star, and she had aged out. She could have become an elder stateswoman or grand dowager, if you will, and been a legend. Instead, she drank herself into a stupor, and, because she spent money like water, she didn't really have a choice but to take terrible roles.

I think Bette rolled with it a lot better.

I disagree to an extent.  Today the "natural progression" would be to play women of a certain age (i.e., a 50 something actress is not going to play a 20 year old) but back in 1962, the natural progression was to retire.   Both Joan and Bette were bucking that trend; both simply wanted to work.  Their careers were really what they were married to, more so than any flesh and blood man.  

The show really hasn't addressed it but Joan became a millionaire from Baby Jane.  She took a smaller salary up front in exchange for a percentage, which paid off very well for her.  She did not drink herself into a stupor and spend money like water, forcing her into terrible roles.  She continued accepting roles in relatively subpar pictures because she wanted to work.  Today she would certainly have a greater choice of roles, as there are more pictures featuring middle aged women but in 1962?  Not so much.

 

21 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

Bette never saw herself as a victim. That's consistent with real-life accounts of her. Even as the offers dried up and she got less appealing parts she was always willing to do what it took to survive. She had tons of personality and humor and at the end of her life B.D. broke her heart but I don't think she had professional regrets. 

The show's inconsistency is that I don't think real-life Joan Crawford saw herself as a victim either. She had a horrible childhood and she crawled out of that poverty and misery. She was unhappy, an alcoholic with a string of failed relationships but it's hard to imagine her as sadsack as they are writing her out to be. I remember one interview with her where they asked her if she knew all she knew about Hollywood, would she do it again and without hesitation she said "Yes, every minute of it." 

 

 

18 hours ago, TigerLynx said:

I think Davis, Crawford, Hepburn, etc., lasted longer because they were willing to fight for what they wanted.  However, that won't necessarily work for everyone.  Just as there is still racism, sexism, ageism, etc., still in play today, there is also a lot of luck involved in becoming a successful actress/actor or movie star.  There are some very talented people who won't ever get the starring role or be remembered, and there are some very untalented people that achieved stardom, and managed to last for several years in the business.

I think Crawford had insecurities, but I don't believe she was as fragile as she is being depicted here.  Davis does seem like she was a very secure, confident, strong willed woman.  

Bette and Joan (and Kate Hepburn) had such lengthy, durable careers because they were survivors.  They blazed the trail instead of following it (although Joan for a great part of her career did generally follow her advisers.)   Neither would have considered themselves victims, although Joan clearly had a terrible childhood and both were somewhat victimized by the studio system.  

I absolutely agree that Joan was not the fragile creature she's being portrayed as here.  I also don't see her as a generally unhappy person.  I think she was most alive when she was working and when she was "Joan Crawford;" i.e., basking in the appreciation from fans, speaking of her experiences in Hollywood, etc.  Yes, she had three failed marriages but look at Liz Taylor, Lana Turner, Mickey Rooney . . . the list could go on.  Her last marriage to Al Steele seems to have been happy; she never remarried and she was interred next to him, with "Steele" added to her name.  

Interestingly, Bette was married as many times as Joan was (four) and widowed once, as Joan was.  Yet people don't seem to indicate that she had bad luck in relationships or failed ones behind her. 

[TexasGal]

2 hours ago, wetmoregal said:

I agree.  I watched WHTBJ on the TCM channel last night (First time to see it.  I recorded it when it played last week).  There were parts that I couldn't tell if "Jane" was Bette Davis or Susan Sarandon.  I enjoyed watching the scene where BD was dragging JC out of the bedroom and how JC added weights to make the job harder for BD.  I also appreciated the "sand" reshoot they had to do in the studio because JC looked too healthy in the original shoot.  The reshoot was very effective as she looked like she was indeed dying.  Certainly a classic, and I'm glad I was able to finally see it.  Especially after learning all about the behind the scenes drama.

I watched it this weekend - it had been many, many years since I'd seen it - and I had the same reaction.  There were scenes where I really thought it was Susan Sarandon.  So, kudos to her!

2 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

Oh Pauline, it could be worse. You could have to escape to the USSR because it turns out you married a deep cover Russian spy with a bad wig and you kind of accidently committed treason!

You rock for this!!

1 hour ago, A Boston Gal said:

I don't think CZJ has ever looked more beautiful...in fact, she she reminds me more of Vivian Leigh than Olivia De Haviland.

She looks incredible.  Every time I see Kathy Bates, though, I think she's supposed to be Shelly Winters.  So much so that I can't even right now remember who she's supposed to be.

[iMonrey]

Quote

Bette never saw herself as a victim. That's consistent with real-life accounts of her. Even as the offers dried up and she got less appealing parts she was always willing to do what it took to survive. She had tons of personality and humor and at the end of her life B.D. broke her heart but I don't think she had professional regrets. 

What's interesting is that Bette was famously quoted as saying "You never want to be known as a movie star, because you will have a very short career. You want to be known as a character actress, and you will work forever." And yet Davis herself was only interested in playing lead roles. She and her female contemporaries could have continued to work steadily "past their prime" if they had been willing to accept smaller supporting roles.

Quote

So far, Crawford is an incredible sad sack and I am really starting to feel sorry for her children, if this is what they had to deal with.  Crawford seems to get all her self worth from her sexual desirability (which makes sense with her history of abuse) and it comes off as shallow and vain.  Also, it is Crawford that is scheming with Hedda and putting lies in the paper.   She is just a nasty pathetic woman and so far really had not been redeemed in my eyes (though the coming episodes might do it).

I don't think the show has any intention of trying to "redeem" Crawford's reputation. I agree Davis comes off better but that may be due to the fact that Ryan Murphy is apparently an obsessive Bette Davis fan and cares much less how Crawford comes across.

Quote

There are some scenes in which she just IS Bette Davis

Agreed - and there are also some scenes in which she just isn't. Which is why I maintain her performance has been wildly uneven, to the point where I will be disappointed if she is nominated for an Emmy for this. I generally like Susan Sarandon's work but for some reason it's really hit or miss here. (Emmy predictions are mostly academic anyway - I'm confident the ladies of "Big Little Lies" have the "Outstanding Lead Actress in a Limited Series" all wrapped up with Nicole Kidman walking away with the award hands-down.)

[qtpye]

Mamacita is so awesome that I am almost angry that she is stuck being a drudge to this vain pathetic mess of a woman.  I really do not know why Murphy is portraying Joan this way, but it is not making her come off sympathetic. 

[Auntie Anxiety]

49 minutes ago, TexasGal said:

Every time I see Kathy Bates, though, I think she's supposed to be Shelly Winters.  So much so that I can't even right now remember who she's supposed to be.

She's supposed to be Joan Blondell. And I think she's doing a pretty good job of it. Blondell was very sassy.

[enoughcats]

I wonder if the timing was right for these actors.   Not that they appear together, that's a given.  But that Sinatra in his 20's was in his 20s at this time.  I remember a few pictures of him as a skinny kid who was a whole lot less memorable than the (as I remember it) heftier, crooner who owned the stage with his personal confidence.

Likewise, when I remember Joan Crawford, I remember the black eyebrows that looks like wooly worm caterpillars. 

Aside: wooly worm are also called wooly bear and are used to predict the severity of winter in parts of this country.

To me, her later life eyebrows are that incongruous with her lighter hair color and fair skin.

BUT the Joan Crawford I don't recognize in old movie stills is the one with reasonable eyebrows, that fit her face better and that let her be beautiful.  

[enoughcats]

An example of the Joan Crawford I wouldn't have recognized is this one, who played opposite Cary Grant

Eyebrows as a time line?  Who knew?

[Joimiaroxeu]

Quote

 I have no idea how much this version of Mamacita actually resembles the real one, but if she needed a job, had limited skills beyond housekeeping and Crawford could give her steady employment, I'd guess that is why she stayed.  

I don't know that there's reason to assume she had limited skills but even if she did, surely she could've gotten another housekeeping job in LA with someone who wouldn't abuse her. Perhaps Joan was paying her above the usual rates or the perks--dinner in fancy restaurants, movie premieres, etc.--made it worthwhile. Based on the way she's portrayed on this show, Mamacita seems to have been serving more as a personal assistant who also does housework than as a basic housekeeper.

Quote

But that Sinatra in his 20's was in his 20s at this time.

Am confused by this statement. At the time of the events of this show, Sinatra was in his late 40s. Toby Huss is 50 so he's around the right age to be playing Sinatra even if his portrayal may be lacking in other ways.

[enoughcats]

Sorry about the Sinatra confusion.  The image in Feud, slim guy, loose fitting clothes reminded me a lot of Sinatra in his 20s.  And I didn't check the age he was when 4 for Texas was being made. His face was way beyond a wet behind the ears early in his career star.

Way too many lines from life lived well for him to be a kid.

[txhorns79]

Quote

She's supposed to be Joan Blondell. And I think she's doing a pretty good job of it. Blondell was very sassy.

If you ever saw the Jennifer Aniston movie, Rumor Has It, Kathy Bates has what amounts to an extended cameo, and I think she plays a variation of the same character in that movie that she does here.  I honestly think her performance is just Kathy Bates playing herself. 

I do remain amazed at how good Susan Sarandon looks.  I don't know if she's had anything done, but she looks incredible for 70.  She looks substantially better than Bette Davis did in her 50s.