S01.E07: Abandoned

[Inquisitionist]

18 minutes ago, MonkeySee said:

I've got it (Hush, Hush....) set to record on TCM on Wednesday the 26th!

Oh, goody!  I haven't seen it in eons.

[qtpye]

58 minutes ago, marys1000 said:

I've said before that what hurts this the whole way through is that Sarandon is too good looking for the BD part and Lange is way too old (she may look good for her age but it is still too old).  It just doesn't work.

I agree and it really makes a big disconnect with what they are trying to sell with the script.  The supposedly unattractive one is stunning and the superficial beauty is a pretty decent actress.  It's as if Murphy had a cliche misunderstood feminist plot in mind and he was going to shove these characters into those respective boxes, reality be damned.

[Daisy head]

I guess because my only point of reference for Olivia de Havilland was as Melanie Wilkes (circa 1939), and her Oscar anniversary appearance in the 2000's, I couldn't really see CZJ as a proper choice.  After seeing the clips posted here, I actually think she's nailing it fairly well - especially the voice.

Is that Coke machine shot of Davis, de Havilland and Aldrich real?  I desperately need it to be real...

[NutMeg]

My take from the episode is that Joan C. was steadfast on sticking to her star persona and wouln't contemplate being otherwise. 

For instance, for all of her remembering each crew member by name, when they all party, she coud have joined, but she doesn't, and instead wallows in self-pity because they are all having fun.

Bette D., on the other hand, while behaving like a big shot on set, is right there partying with the cast and crew. And when one of them tells her he disapproves, she's not happy but she hears him. Imagine Joan C. in the same situation: she most likely than not would thrown a vase, with flowers and water, at him, if there were no witnesses. Or maybe she wouldn't. Maybe that's reserved for Mamacita and anyone else (very, very few people, probably) she felt she could be truly herself with. With others, it's just passive aggressiveness, either woe is me or do you know who I am, me, the big star!?

Really, who have we seen Joan C. be real with so far? Mamacita, that awful brother, Aldrich, but this was more in the context of work (do you know who I am, I am the star), and this horrible gossip writer, who she uses as much as she's used by her. On the other hand, we see Bette in a crowd of people this episode, enjoying themselves (for the most part), with friends or what have you after the Oscar fiasco, and Olivia De H. being her steadfast friend.

Again, what I get from this is that Joan is so damaged that she's married to her image and doesn't how to be different, whereas Bette is a real person, warts and all, who might have it as hard at times but still can have fun and connect, really connect, as herself, with real people.     

[hoodooznoodooz]

11 minutes ago, NutMeg said:

 

For instance, for all of her remembering each crew member by name, when they all party, she coud have joined, but she doesn't. . . . 

Am I remembering incorrectly? In one of the first episodes, wasn't Mamacita whispering the name of each crew member to Joan as she and Joan approached them? Kind of like Gary does with Selina Meyer on Veep?

[theatremouse]

Especially in this episode, I'm finding the portrait of Joan as fairly pathetic, and something about that rubs me the wrong way. I'm not discounting that she may very well have been pathetic. She certainly was quite petty. But something about it, and I can't tell if it's more in Lange's performance or just the writing (and it may very well be both) seems like the show has come to this conclusion. I find it unsatisfying? I think it'd be more interesting if there were some more nuance or ambiguity. If it were more letting me draw my own conclusion (which, I guess, maybe I have) but it feels like it's pushing that angle, and that irks me. I'm not even sure what was real, and don't necessarily need the show to cling to "realistic" but it's clear they've taken some liberties, you have to to have a coherent show, but it's just...not as interesting as I want it to be? It's possible Crawford's just not as interesting as I wanted her to be, but I don't know. So many of her attempted manipulations seem so transparent it's frustrating because while the theme does seem to be she made her own misery, I don't know why she ever thought her schemes would work? Although I guess the Oscar coup did, but was also transparent and made her look like an ass. Maybe the show wants me to be frustrated with how obvious her shenanigans are? I don't know. Perhaps my issue is if I'm going to see someone be so calculating I want them to be better at it?

[txhorns79]

Quote

And when one of them tells her he disapproves, she's not happy but she hears him. Imagine Joan C. in the same situation: she most likely than not would thrown a vase, with flowers and water, at him, if there were no witnesses. Or maybe she wouldn't. Maybe that's reserved for Mamacita and anyone else (very, very few people, probably) she felt she could be truly herself with. With others, it's just passive aggressiveness, either woe is me or do you know who I am, me, the big star!?

I doubt Joan would ever become violent with a crew member or other actor with whom she is working.  That kind of thing could easily get out and seriously damage her career.  Having said that, I can agree that she might show that side to someone with whom she is close.

Quote

The Mamacita role - was she really there 24/7?  The woman had 9 children and a billion grandkids.  I'm surprised she had time to work at all. 

I have no particular knowledge of what kind of schedule she kept with Crawford, but my guess would be what we are seeing on the show is mostly dramatic license. 
 

Quote

Is that Coke machine shot of Davis, de Havilland and Aldrich real?  I desperately need it to be real...

 

It is: 

Edited April 18, 2017 by txhorns79

[benteen]

It's amazing that Aldrich was about 45 there but looks like he's in his 60s.  Alfred Molina is 63 but looks much younger than Aldrich does in that picture.

That's hilarious that they took that picture.  That is just a gigantic FU to Crawford.

Edited April 18, 2017 by benteen

[Janc]

20 hours ago, enoughcats said:

A search for images of Joan Crawford and Joseph Cotton yields photos from Sweet Charlotte before she left the set.  Here she's with the daughters of the Governor of Louisiana, John McKeithen,  who were in the movie. (You can tell it's Houmas House by the width of the columns.) 

To me, she looks in good control....you don't mess with the governors children anywhere.)

Why is Joan not being portrayed as a blonde on this series, if she clearly was at the time?  It would make Joan/Jessica appear younger and less matronly.  I don't understand that...

[theatremouse]

I'm guessing because it started as mostly Baby Jane centric and she wasn't blonde then, and they made a choice to have her look remain consistent throughout the series, rather than changing over time as it did in real life. Possibly also because Lange is known for being a blonde, so keeping her not blonde makes her look less like herself and perhaps reinforces the "Joan" persona. That's just a guess though. It's fairly common for shows not to want to change the look of a main character at all during the run.

[Ki-in]

15 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

She never had to be beautiful because she knew how to act beautiful.

That's how I've felt about Davis. She "played beautiful" in Mr. Skeffington as well. I LOVE her transformation in Now Voyager, that shot of her spectator pumps panning up to her hat is iconic. 

I never thought of Crawford as a beauty but as a woman making the most of what she had looks wise.

[Daisy head]

28 minutes ago, theatremouse said:

I'm guessing because it started as mostly Baby Jane centric and she wasn't blonde then, and they made a choice to have her look remain consistent throughout the series, rather than changing over time as it did in real life. Possibly also because Lange is known for being a blonde, so keeping her not blonde makes her look less like herself and perhaps reinforces the "Joan" persona. That's just a guess though. It's fairly common for shows not to want to change the look of a main character at all during the run.

It looks like next week they show her in her brassy-red head phase.

42 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I doubt Joan would ever become violent with a crew member or other actor with whom she is working.  That kind of thing could easily get out and seriously damage her career.  Having said that, I can agree that she might show that side to someone with whom she is close.

I have no particular knowledge of what kind of schedule she kept with Crawford, but my guess would be what we are seeing on the show is mostly dramatic license. 
 

It is: 

This is wonderful!  You can't make some of this stuff up!

38 minutes ago, benteen said:

It's amazing that Aldrich was about 45 there but looks like he's in his 60s.  Alfred Molina is 63 but looks much younger than Aldrich does in that picture.

That's hilarious that they took that picture.  That is just a gigantic FU to Crawford.

45 - Really?!  I would have guessed mid 50's early 60's.  That's some hard living...

[Joimiaroxeu]

Wow, Bette and Joan really redefined the meaning of petty. One can only imagine what they would've pulled if they'd been young during the age of social media.

Joan was her own worst enemy in a lot of ways but if Olivia actually said what she said at the end of this episode I think she was more than a bit of a "c" word herself. Is she really considered the person who destroyed Joan's career or was that just some dramatic hyperbole?

"Let them see what they've done to her." Wasn't that a take on Jackie Kennedy's remark after the assassination when she refused to change out of her bloodied suit? Did Geraldine Page actually say that or was it some more dramatic license-taking? Seems tacky to me either way.

Quote

Joan's wardrobe amazes me. It is insanely gorgeous.  

Yep. Hers and Hedda Hopper's are fabulous. Hedda is usually portrayed as all hat, no fashion sense, but this production I think has been putting her in some wonderful ensembles that "regular" people could've actually worn without looking like a clown show.

[enoughcats]

13 hours ago, newyawk said:

Joan herself invited a lot of the derision and ridicule she received, with the diva stunts she pulled, and her pretentious, holier-than-thou demeanor when it was well known in Hollywood what her actual background was.

In the words of my Grandmother, speaking of some local pretentious folks, "None of them are Mrs. Astor-bilt" , an homage to both the Astors and the Vanderbilts.

Very few of the names of Hollywood were in the social registers of their home towns.  With phenomenal irony, Franchot Tone came close.  And he chose to marry Joan Crawford.  And there are the stories that he was loved by Bette Davis who he didn't chose to marry although she thought with her background, she would be a better Mrs. Tone. 

[Tara Ariano]

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

Feud: Bette And Joan Hushes Up Sweet Charlotte

Joan's feeling aggressed on the set of the new movie, so she comes down with a case of the blue flu. Hope she doesn't overplay her hand!

[txhorns79]

Quote

Joan was her own worst enemy in a lot of ways but if Olivia actually said what she said at the end of this episode I think she was more than a bit of a "c" word herself. Is she really considered the person who destroyed Joan's career or was that just some dramatic hyperbole?

This episode was the first time I've heard someone suggest that Olivia had any effect on Joan's career.  I doubt anyone "destroyed" Joan's career so much as Joan already was not getting a lot of offers for the kind of work she wanted to do, and stunts like she pulled on Charlotte didn't help change that situation. 

Edited April 18, 2017 by txhorns79

[Blakeston]

1 hour ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

"Let them see what they've done to her." Wasn't that a take on Jackie Kennedy's remark after the assassination when she refused to change out of her bloodied suit? Did Geraldine Page actually say that or was it some more dramatic license-taking? Seems tacky to me either way.

Geraldine Page didn't say it in real life. I think Murphy & company must have been inspired by the line from the Kennedy assassination - which took place the same year that scene was set.

[newyawk]

2 hours ago, enoughcats said:

In the words of my Grandmother, speaking of some local pretentious folks, "None of them are Mrs. Astor-bilt" , an homage to both the Astors and the Vanderbilts.

Very few of the names of Hollywood were in the social registers of their home towns.  With phenomenal irony, Franchot Tone came close.  And he chose to marry Joan Crawford.  And there are the stories that he was loved by Bette Davis who he didn't chose to marry although she thought with her background, she would be a better Mrs. Tone. 

True, but most of them didn't go to the extent that Joan did  to project a pristine, upper crust image, onscreen and off.  Even Katharine Hepburn, who DID come from money and a *very* good family (her father, not only a renowned physician, was a member of the Houghton family which helped start Corning glassworks..which down the road became the Dow-Corning empire) was very down to earth, straightforward and not known to put on airs.

Joan was a pretentious social climber. 

[Corvino]

The character didn't say Olivia destroyed Joan's career, she said she ended it. I see I'm not supposed to mention 

Spoiler

the four movies and several TV roles she did after this fiasco.

Some of that will be covered next week, I see. O dear.

[asabovesobelow]

On 4/17/2017 at 10:49 AM, Chaos Theory said:

Apparently I am the only one who actually liked the pretty/tallented conversation.  Yes it was a little on the nose but it was the basis for the entire feud.  One spent her entire career being lauded for her beauty so much so that she wouldn't "beauty down" for a roll because she didn't think her acting could make up for it.  The other fir her tallent but wasn't exactly known as the prettiest girl on the screen.  Again it was on the nose but it was also played as a "please like me/love me and I'll forgive you everything" kind of scene which I appreciated.

Definitely not alone - I loved that conversation. I didn't see it as cheesy because I think they were both just making a point. Not that Joan was necessarily the most beautiful, or that Bette was the most talented. Just that that's the lens they were viewed with throughout their careers. And they both felt like it was never enough. I thought it was heart wrenching. If only they didn't act like total assholes to each other, they could have had a real friendship and a great support system.

Edited April 18, 2017 by asabovesobelow

[txhorns79]

Quote

I didn't see it as cheesy because I think they were both just making a point. Not that Joan was necessarily the most beautiful, or that Bette was the most talented. Just that that's the lens they were viewed with throughout their careers. And they both felt like it was never enough. I thought it was heart wrenching. If only they didn't act like total assholes to each other, they could have had a great friendship and support system.

I think that's why it was so cheesy.  It was just restating a theme from Baby Jane.

[Chaos Theory]

2 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I think that's why it was so cheesy.  It was just restating a theme from Baby Jane.

But that was also a good point.  And not just something stated once or shown just once.  These are two people of probably equal tallent in their prospective lens and if outside forces / they were able to get over their own shit for even a minute things might have ended differently.   He'll look at the finale title.  Again on the nose but another overriding point.

[asabovesobelow]

10 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I think that's why it was so cheesy.  It was just restating a theme from Baby Jane.

True, but I think that's the recurring theme throughout their Feud. It was senseless and they caused each other unnecessary pain. I love their tiny glimpses of self-awareness.

[Joimiaroxeu]

Quote

The character didn't say Olivia destroyed Joan's career, she said she ended it.

de·stroy
dəˈstroi/
verb
past tense: destroyed; past participle: destroyed
put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it.

Yes, in the actual dialogue Olivia did use the word "end" but as far as one word versus the other, meh, six of one, half dozen of the other. I think Olivia did at least momentarily damage Joan's career by usurping her role in Hush, Hush. Of course, Joan helped things along with her failed power plays but Olivia could've chosen so stay out of it--as several other actresses offered the scab role did.

Quote

Geraldine Page didn't say it in real life. I think Murphy & company must have been inspired by the line from the Kennedy assassination - which took place the same year that scene was set.

Ugh. For the life of me I don't see how anyone could draw a similarity between a distraught, newly widowed First Lady who'd just seen her husband's head pretty much blown off, and an aging movie star who's going off the deep end because her career is fading. If that was intended to be some kind of reference to Jackie's words, I think it was in extremely poor taste.

[LMM]

I apologize if this is not the right place for this question. 

Does anyone have any idea what brand of eyeglasses and sunglasses they've been using for Bette and Joan in this series? They have a little v or chevron rivet. 

I have tried searching all kinds of things online and haven't had any luck. 

Thank you!

[UsernameFatigue]

3 hours ago, asabovesobelow said:

Definitely not alone - I loved that conversation. I didn't see it as cheesy because I think they were both just making a point. Not that Joan was necessarily the most beautiful, or that Bette was the most talented. Just that that's the lens they were viewed with throughout their careers. And they both felt like it was never enough. I thought it was heart wrenching. If only they didn't act like total assholes to each other, they could have had a real friendship and a great support system.

I loved this conversation too, especially Jessica Lange's delivery. I really liked this whole episode. I laughed out loud when Joan showed up on the set in a wheelchair and Bette cracked that Joan didn't remember what movie they were filming. Also after Bette's exchange with BD, when she continues to talk to Aldrich and he is looking horrified at her and says something along the lines of "Jesus Bette, it isn't a competition. She is your daughter". When Bette was actually referring to Joan. Loved it. 

Edited April 18, 2017 by UsernameFatigue

[Casually Observant]

On 4/17/2017 at 10:45 AM, Mojoker said:

If I had to look at this comparison and choose one as the beauty and the other as the ugly duckling, I think I'd be stymied.

I retouched Joan's brows and made them thinner and less close to the nose.  I think it softened her look considerably.

[psychoticstate]

21 hours ago, Twopper said:

 

And why is she in an oxygen tent if her illness is mostly fake?

I don't believe all of her illness was fake.  I think Crawford, when under duress, could make herself sick.  I think she did that when she was nominated for "Mildred Pierce."  She was in bed with an actual fever when her name was announced.  I think her perception of what was going on behind the scenes and on set made her stressed and panicked and as a result, she made herself sick. 

 

10 hours ago, marys1000 said:

I've said before that what hurts this the whole way through is that Sarandon is too good looking for the BD part and Lange is way too old (she may look good for her age but it is still too old).  It just doesn't work.  

I've sort of felt that the show makes the feud out to be mostly on Joan's end with Davis just reacting.  Have no idea whether that is true or not.  This episode seemed to take it to a whole nother level with Joan seeming to be crazy insecure, crazy paranoid, out of control reactions.  When I think about it sort of hard I oh yea, Davis probably set up the hotel and left at the set thing but it sort of leaves it as something that happened believable and then Joan is crazy dramatic about it.  If Davis actively participate in the feud I don't see it as much.  My general impression, much overdone in this episode, is that it was mostly all on Joan.  I didn't enjoy watching it, I felt like this episode and maybe the series at this point should have a different title.  LIke Joan Crawford has paranoid delusions about Bette Davis.  

The Mamacita role - was she really there 24/7?  The woman had 9 children and a billion grandkids.  I'm surprised she had time to work at all.  

I totally agree with this.  Sarandon looks amazing and as fantastic an actress as Bette was, she simply did not look that good by the time of HHSC.  And Lange does make Crawford look more haggard. 

When this show was first announced, after I got done thanking Baby Jesus and squeeing, I honestly thought Sarandon would play Crawford and Lange would take Davis.  I was shocked when I read their respective roles. 

I think that Murphy's bias, for lack of a better word, toward Bette shows in certain episodes. I love both women, although I've always been a hard core Crawford fan, but neither were the easiest people to deal with at times.  While Feud is showing how petty/unprofessional/drunk Crawford could be, Davis is being somewhat sugar coated.  

FWIW, I don't think Crawford was paranoid and I do think that Davis intended to get a little payback.  Both acted horribly either during WHTBJ or HHSC.  And since both women had engaged in relationships with their leading men and/or directors during the years in order to curry favor on set, if Davis and Aldrich were involved, Crawford knew exactly what that could mean for her. 

8 hours ago, theatremouse said:

Especially in this episode, I'm finding the portrait of Joan as fairly pathetic, and something about that rubs me the wrong way. I'm not discounting that she may very well have been pathetic. She certainly was quite petty. But something about it, and I can't tell if it's more in Lange's performance or just the writing (and it may very well be both) seems like the show has come to this conclusion. I find it unsatisfying? I think it'd be more interesting if there were some more nuance or ambiguity. If it were more letting me draw my own conclusion (which, I guess, maybe I have) but it feels like it's pushing that angle, and that irks me. I'm not even sure what was real, and don't necessarily need the show to cling to "realistic" but it's clear they've taken some liberties, you have to to have a coherent show, but it's just...not as interesting as I want it to be? It's possible Crawford's just not as interesting as I wanted her to be, but I don't know. So many of her attempted manipulations seem so transparent it's frustrating because while the theme does seem to be she made her own misery, I don't know why she ever thought her schemes would work? Although I guess the Oscar coup did, but was also transparent and made her look like an ass. Maybe the show wants me to be frustrated with how obvious her shenanigans are? I don't know. Perhaps my issue is if I'm going to see someone be so calculating I want them to be better at it?

I don't like Joan being portrayed as pathetic either.  I think Joan would HATE being called or portrayed as pathetic.  I think you could certainly argue the point that she was sad and lonely at certain times and most especially at the end of her life, when she didn't tell friends or family that she was terminally ill, but I would never say she was pathetic. 

The real Crawford had a strength and presence that was always there, most especially when she was working and appearing before her fans.  Lange's Crawford is missing that steely character.  Oh, we've seen glimpses of it here and there but if you didn't know anything about Crawford other than what's been shown here, you would think she was a crazy old hag who drank too much and had zero talent.  I've always found the real Joan Crawford to be crazy interesting and absolutely magnetic.  Watching You Tube clips of her interviews around 1963 and 1964 proves that.  She's smiling, delightful and appears full of life; not at all this sad sack we're seeing.  I didn't think about it until I read your post, @theatremouse, but this program is really doing a terrible disservice to Joan Crawford.

[Casually Observant]

23 hours ago, newyawk said:

I think Joan was "handsome" as opposed to beautiful. She had very strong features, certainly she was striking, but she became more masculine in appearance as she aged.   I don't think she was a great beauty in the tradition of Garbo, Vivien Leigh, Hedy Lamarr or Rita Hayworth. 

Beauty is, of course, in the eye of the beholder, just as there are Bettys and Veronicas, there are people who for their own reasons, prefer one over the other.

I agree. I always thought Joan was the female version of Victor Mature. They both had the same sharp, dramatic, heavy brows, the full upper lip, the prominently angled cheek bones, the strong jaw and a nose that was aquiline with a slight hook. 

I think they could have been siblings based on their looks alone.

[UsernameFatigue]

I will admit I was never a real fan of either actress, there were other actresses of their era that I preferred. But today I just happened by TCM when WHTBJ was an hour into the movie. I sat down and watched the rest - it has been years since I have seen it. It did bring back memories though of seeing it as a child and being riveted by Joan Crawford's performance - more so than Bette Davis's. I really think JC deserved an Oscar nomination just as much as BD did, maybe even more since she had the more subtle performance. 

[Jan Spears]

1 hour ago, psychoticstate said:

I didn't think about it until I read your post, @theatremouse, but this program is really doing a terrible disservice to Joan Crawford.

I feel like they've overcompensated for how Mommie Dearest (the book and the movie) depicted Crawford by portraying her as this sad sack. But Crawford was never that even up to the end of her life. She was tremendously resilient and, if you had asked her toward the end whether it had been a good life or not, I think she would have replied that yes, it had been in large part. I don't think she would have claimed that she had done everything to perfection, particularly regarding her first three marriages and her two eldest children. (Crawford admitted at the end that she had expected too much from Christina and Christopher, which is a different thing than outright abuse.) But I think she would have taken pride in knowing that she had pulled herself out of abject poverty and become one of the greatest movie stars in Hollywood history.

[Dev F]

11 hours ago, asabovesobelow said:

Definitely not alone - I loved that conversation. I didn't see it as cheesy because I think they were both just making a point. Not that Joan was necessarily the most beautiful, or that Bette was the most talented. Just that that's the lens they were viewed with throughout their careers.

Yep. And the fact that it was a distorted view is exactly the point. Bette was always beautiful, but people kept insisting that she had to lean on her talent because she was some unfuckable hag. Joan was always talented, but people kept sniffing that she just used her beauty and sex appeal to get ahead. The very thing for which they were celebrated was wielded against them -- yeah, you're beautiful/talented, but that's all you are. Which is why it was never enough.

17 hours ago, marys1000 said:

I've sort of felt that the show makes the feud out to be mostly on Joan's end with Davis just reacting.  Have no idea whether that is true or not.  This episode seemed to take it to a whole nother level with Joan seeming to be crazy insecure, crazy paranoid, out of control reactions.  When I think about it sort of hard I oh yea, Davis probably set up the hotel and left at the set thing but it sort of leaves it as something that happened believable and then Joan is crazy dramatic about it.  If Davis actively participate in the feud I don't see it as much.

To me, this is a much bigger problem with the past couple episodes than all the most beautiful / most talented talk. While I like that the show hasn't insisted that the two main characters mirror each other exactly, it's frustrating that Joan's pettiest behavior is always laid so bare while Bette's is only hinted at. I mean, it's true that we don't know for sure whether Bette actually sabotaged Joan's hotel reservation and stuff like that, but here's the thing -- we don't know whether Joan actually sabotaged Bette's Oscar chances either. The show's creators were perfectly comfortable writing an entire episode around the unconfirmed rumors that Joan and Hedda Hopper campaigned against Bette's Oscar. So what's stopping them from taking a similar stand one way or the other on whether Bette was purposely making Joan's Louisiana stay miserable?

Refusing to do so doesn't make Bette look better; it just renders her characterization more vague and makes it much harder to know what we're supposed to take away from her and Joan's feud.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Dev F

[darkestboy]

Not the strongest episode but a solid one though.

Joan really did alienate everyone with this one. Mamacita was justified in abandoning her at the end as were the studio right for ditching her in favour of Olivia as well for Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte.

I did like the beauty/talent conversation between both Bette and Joan, even if it was on the nose a little too much.

Bette got her own reality check as well with the way BD tore into her about her wedding too.

Can't wait to see how this wraps up though, 7/10

[txhorns79]

Quote

but here's the thing -- we don't know whether Joan actually sabotaged Bette's Oscar chances either. The show's creators were perfectly comfortable writing an entire episode around the unconfirmed rumors that Joan and Hedda Hopper campaigned against Bette's Oscar. So what's stopping them from taking a similar stand one way or the other on whether Bette was purposely making Joan's Louisiana stay miserable?

We don't know for certain as to the Oscar situation, but I do feel like it's unlikely that Joan would have arranged to accept the award on behalf of Lee Remick or Anne Bancroft if she wasn't trying to tilt the scales away from Bette.

I do feel like they kind of are taking a stand on whether Bette was trying to make Joan's time on the Charlotte set difficult.  I mean, they certainly implied that Bette was aware of what she was doing when she would sit next to Bob and give notes while Joan is filming her scenes, or suggest cutting Joan's scenes or lines right in front of her.  Didn't Bob dress Bette down for her actions?

Also, as an aside, I did love Joan's suggestion that they write in some kind of formal ballroom scene where Joan gets to look glamorous while Bette is relegated to the shadows, only able to observe from some hidden corner of the room.    

[theatremouse]

On 4/18/2017 at 11:13 PM, Dev F said:

it's frustrating that Joan's pettiest behavior is always laid so bare while Bette's is only hinted at. I mean, it's true that we don't know for sure whether Bette actually sabotaged Joan's hotel reservation and stuff like that, but here's the thing -- we don't know whether Joan actually sabotaged Bette's Oscar chances either. The show's creators were perfectly comfortable writing an entire episode around the unconfirmed rumors that Joan and Hedda Hopper campaigned against Bette's Oscar. So what's stopping them from taking a similar stand one way or the other on whether Bette was purposely making Joan's Louisiana stay miserable?

Refusing to do so doesn't make Bette look better; it just renders her characterization more vague and makes it much harder to know what we're supposed to take away from her and Joan's feud.

See, I think the whole thing would actually be better if it were more ambiguous on both sides, rather than them taking a stand. It's feud that was likely partly caused by clear, direct actions, and partly caused by them misunderstanding some things each other did and taking them as pointedly personal, when they weren't all. Like Bette's thing about one take, which was indeed a compliment. I think the show would be more interesting if we saw both Bette and Joan thinking the other had slighted them, when it's not quite clear that actually happened. What we're getting is, not entirely, but frequently: Joan really did <whatever petty thing> on purpose. Bette <did something>: you decide. In cases where it's known and definite historical fact, I don't mind them presenting as such, and don't mean to suggest they need to add ambiguity to something that was not at all ambiguous. But some of these smaller things, in this episode and others there keep being scenes of someone telling Joan she's being petty and she literally says, I don't care as long as it'll spite Davis. I don't know if some of those are real recollections from other humans, either from someone else's memoir or an interview, but a lot of them feel like the show saying "this is how it was". And I think I'd rather the show say "this is what we know happened" and let us decide on the whys more frequently.

A good example of them doing this with Davis was her being next to Aldrich on set. I don't doubt she knew it irritated Crawford, but I'm also not sure she was doing it just to irk Crawford. I kind of believe she took that producer credit seriously (even if it weren't meant to be), and she may have sincerely thought her sitting there, and her comments, were her job and helping to make the film better, and she just didn't care that it annoyed Crawford because she thought the output would be improved. Whereas Crawford clearly took it as primarily to criticize and irritate her and throw her off her game. Even the suggestions to cut certain scenes, could go either way whether she was trying to get rid of Crawford's meatier scenes, or if she really thought it should be tightened up. (Although this could've been done in editing, and without enraging the actor(s), and once you don't shoot a scene, you don't have the footage so it'd probably have been better to have it in case it were needed for the film to make sense). Unless after replacing Crawford with DeHavilland those pages suddenly stayed in (for reasons other than Aldrich putting his foot down), again it's ambiguous as to whether some of this behaviour was actually about Crawford.

[Melancholy]

I think there's a conflict between writing an even handed feud and Ryan Murphy and Co. presenting the history as they genuinely interpret it. I think it's perfectly fair for an observer to say Joan was far worse in this feud. Joan left a LOT of smoke like how she accepted the Oscar or how she made the Oscar green room her own party or how she backed out of Hush Hush... to indicate the fire- Joan pulled terrible dishonest crap against Bette. Bette just didn't leave that kind of smoke. And the accounts from Hush Hush, Bette really can defend herself as correct. No, Bette wasn't obligated to invite Joan to her parties. Yes, Bette had every right as producer to give notes on Joan's presentation. 

There a good dramatic symmetry to both women being equally bad. But I don't think that's important enough that TBTB must edit their reasonable (and I think correct) take on the history that Joan was much worse. 

Edited April 19, 2017 by Melancholy

[SoSueMe]

I just caught WHTBJ on tv yesterday (on TCM). I had never seen it before. I really wish that I was more impressed, but it seemed kind of meh to me. The opening with the sisters in their youth seemed much more "quality" to me than the rest of the movie with the BD and JC performances. Still, it was interesting. 

One thing, re: BD's "lack of beauty" (I disagree, btw), at the end of the movie, on the beach, Baby Jane seemed to age backwards and looked almost lovely. I wonder if this was intentional or maybe just my own perception.

Also, it seems like I heard somewhere that BD's figure was the model for the EMMY statuettes. I wonder if that is true. 

[rur]

57 minutes ago, SoSueMe said:

One thing, re: BD's "lack of beauty" (I disagree, btw), at the end of the movie, on the beach, Baby Jane seemed to age backwards and looked almost lovely. I wonder if this was intentional or maybe just my own perception.

I wasn't just you. Molina's character remarked upon it in the show when they were filming the that scene. 

[Willowsmom]

36 minutes ago, rur said:

I wasn't just you. Molina's character remarked upon it in the show when they were filming the that scene. 

Actually they were talking about Crawford getting younger with each take at the beach. She was going to her trailer and having Mamacita tighten her frownies (tap used to give a temporary facelift).

[rur]

1 hour ago, Willowsmom said:

Actually they were talking about Crawford getting younger with each take at the beach. She was going to her trailer and having Mamacita tighten her frownies (tap used to give a temporary facelift).

No . . . I know what you're referring to, but after the filming of the scene where Baby Jane was twirling around on the beach in a circle of people, the discussion was "Jesus, how'd she do that? She looks 20 years younger. "It's the lighting." "It's the acting."   (Which Crawford overheard, of course)

Edited April 19, 2017 by rur
add dialogue

[ennui]

On 4/18/2017 at 3:05 PM, LMM said:

I apologize if this is not the right place for this question. 

Does anyone have any idea what brand of eyeglasses and sunglasses they've been using for Bette and Joan in this series? They have a little v or chevron rivet. 

I have tried searching all kinds of things online and haven't had any luck. 

Thank you!

I'm not having any luck, but if it's a V, try Vuarnet.

On 4/18/2017 at 8:30 AM, Daisy head said:

I guess because my only point of reference for Olivia de Havilland was as Melanie Wilkes (circa 1939)

What?! No "Adventures of Robin Hood"? Olivia was beautiful as Maid Marian, and she always had great chemistry with Errol Flynn. I think they did eight films together. 

[Growsonwalls]

9 minutes ago, ennui said:

What?! No "Adventures of Robin Hood"? Olivia was beautiful as Maid Marian, and she always had great chemistry with Errol Flynn. I think they did eight films together. 

Olivia de Havilland's best performance IMO is in The Heiress. She plays the lonely spinster Catherine Sloper to perfection, and Montgomery Clift and Ralph Richardson are also incredible. 

[iMonrey]

Quote

Where are Joan's children during this time ?

Neither Christina nor Christopher were living at home by this point. However, the twins seem to have disappeared without explanation. I can assume they're off at boarding school somewhere but it would be nice if the show would throw in a line about where they are. BD is still hanging around so why aren't Crawford's kids?

Quote

I just caught WHTBJ on tv yesterday (on TCM). I had never seen it before. I really wish that I was more impressed, but it seemed kind of meh to me. 

I was never overly impressed with the movie either. I recognize it was an acting tour de force for Davis but as a horror movie (as it was considered at the time), or even as a thriller, it falls short. I'd more likely classify it as a psychological drama. And I thought Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte was just dumb. 

[sugarbaker design]

49 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

Olivia de Havilland's best performance IMO is in The Heiress.

Absofuckinglutely!  I always catch it when it airs on TCM.

'Bolt the door, Maria!'

[Daisy head]

1 hour ago, ennui said:

What?! No "Adventures of Robin Hood"? Olivia was beautiful as Maid Marian, and she always had great chemistry with Errol Flynn. I think they did eight films together. 

You are right - how could I forget the fair Maid Marion? Love Olivia  <3

[Black Knight]

22 hours ago, psychoticstate said:

The real Crawford had a strength and presence that was always there, most especially when she was working and appearing before her fans.  Lange's Crawford is missing that steely character.  Oh, we've seen glimpses of it here and there but if you didn't know anything about Crawford other than what's been shown here, you would think she was a crazy old hag who drank too much and had zero talent.  I've always found the real Joan Crawford to be crazy interesting and absolutely magnetic.  Watching You Tube clips of her interviews around 1963 and 1964 proves that.  She's smiling, delightful and appears full of life; not at all this sad sack we're seeing.  I didn't think about it until I read your post, @theatremouse, but this program is really doing a terrible disservice to Joan Crawford.

But, playing devil's advocate here: You're talking about Crawford in public. This show is showing a lot of Crawford in private, and she wouldn't be the first person to be very different in private. Crawford was a good actress, so of course she could put on a convincing act. She admitted herself that after she heard the news that her part in HHSC had been recast, she cried for nine hours. There's also corroboration that her devoted servant Mamasita indeed left her because she couldn't restrain her temper. Arranging with Bancroft and Page to accept in their place says a lot about the extreme insecurity she had as a person, to go to such lengths. And so on. I think there's plenty to indicate (and I don't mean Mommie Dearest, which is just caricature) that Crawford in private could be a wreck sometimes.

I really didn't know much about Crawford personally before watching this show, but I've not been taking away from this show the impression that she had no talent - only that she wasn't as talented as Davis (who is only one of the best of all time, so there's no shame in that), and the door's been left open as to how much of that was innate and how much was because, 1) she and Davis didn't have an equal start, as Davis was fortunate to receive training that Crawford did not 2) Crawford was unwilling to look bad on camera, which sometimes undercut the effect of her acting. Bancroft, Davis, others have been shown genuinely complimenting Crawford's acting; Page was starstruck; the preview audience was thrilled and mobbed her.

I saw Lady in a Cage long ago, and that brief re-enactment brought it aaaaaaalllllllll back. Loved it in all its ridiculous glory.

[enoughcats]

4 minutes ago, Black Knight said:

Crawford was unwilling to look bad on camera,

See Rain. If ever an actress in her prime was saddled with ghastly makeup, Joan Crawford was in that tarted up version. Even her posture.  

[theatremouse]

6 hours ago, Melancholy said:

There a good dramatic symmetry to both women being equally bad. But I don't think that's important enough that TBTB must edit their reasonable (and I think correct) take on the history that Joan was much worse. 

I don't think both women need to be presented as "equally bad". I just think the story would be infinitely more interesting if the show weren't taking such an unambiguous take on their motivations. They seem to have decided Bette= professional, focused on the work even if it pissed others off, Joan= petty, vindictive, wanted to be the focus of attention even if it pissed others off. And then they present all the real events to support those takes. That's not interesting to me. It's not complex. Maybe, historically, it wasn't complex, but if so, it's much less interesting for me to watch a show about. Crawford can be worse, more vicious, more of a diva than Davis, but what I'm getting so far from the show is Crawford vacillating between "everyone's conspiring against me" and "everyone ought to worship me" and nothing in between. Crawford's scenes feel redundant. It might  be true, but it's boring.

[spankydoll]

On ‎4‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 0:18 PM, Inquisitionist said:

Photo of BD in her wedding dress with Davis.

She looks like a snotty little brat.

I am having such a hard time continuing to watch this show. The acting is stellar but the women are so terrible to eachother. It's why I stopped watching the Bravo housewives. So needless - if those two combined forces that could have really made things happen.

On ‎4‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 9:30 AM, Daisy head said:

I guess because my only point of reference for Olivia de Havilland was as Melanie Wilkes (circa 1939), and her Oscar anniversary appearance in the 2000's, I couldn't really see CZJ as a proper choice.  After seeing the clips posted here, I actually think she's nailing it fairly well - especially the voice.

Is that Coke machine shot of Davis, de Havilland and Aldrich real?  I desperately need it to be real...

There was an excellent interview in Vanity Fair on DeHavillad - well worth a look. I think that CZJ is dead on.

[Florinaldo]

3 hours ago, theatremouse said:

I don't think both women need to be presented as "equally bad". I just think the story would be infinitely more interesting if the show weren't taking such an unambiguous take on their motivations. They seem to have decided Bette= professional, focused on the work even if it pissed others off, Joan= petty, vindictive, wanted to be the focus of attention even if it pissed others off. And then they present all the real events to support those takes.

Plus some invented events (like that unconfirmed "producer" credit for BD), or others that have been conflated together or are presented in the wrong sequence.

I do not expect shows such as this to be strictly faithful to the historical facts and chronology; this story was drawn out over a long period of their lives, with numerous little episodes scattered over the months and years. But the writers have got to tell an interesting story in chunks of only one hour, so some rearrangement is to be expected and a dose of dramatic licence is acceptable for the sake of keeping the viewer's attention. But in this case, I agree with you that the oversimplification of the two main characters and of their relationship makes the story more simplistic and less interesting than the potential that the real-life BD and JC offered.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Florinaldo