S01.E08: You Mean All This Time We Could Have Been Friends?

[mamadrama]

Was I the only one disappointed that neither RETURN TO WITCH MOUNTAIN nor THE WATCHER IN THE WOODS were mentioned? ;-) (If you haven't seen the latter, then you should check it out. I watched it for 25 years, thinking something was "off" about the ending. Then I bought the DVD with the director's commentary and learned that a whole other ending, one that actually explained things, was filmed and not used.) BD was, of course, magnificently creepy. 

[Mindthinkr]

@txhorns79

I hadn't seen your reply and did not know of the trust. It makes me feel better knowing that Margo had someone to watch over things. Thank you. 

[poeticlicensed]

1 hour ago, psychoticstate said:

I also want to say that while some people (not necessarily people here) have felt disgusted over BD's book and BD for writing it, Christina appears to have escaped that same type of criticism.  BD is seen as terrible, horrific for writing that book about her mother while Joan is the one demonized for Christina's book.  Just saying.

I  think that's a function of the book being made into a movie and Faye Dunaway playing and OTT Joan. If it was just a book and no movie, I wonder if it would have had as much attention. Honestly I didn't even remember that BD wrote a book until I started watching, then I have memories of it being published. 

ETA: based on this season, I am so excited for the second season, Charles and Diana. Can't wait!

Edited April 24, 2017 by poeticlicensed

[Twopper]

Quote

Soooooooo. Bette Davis had a daughter in a mental institute ?  

No, she was considered "r*******"  and placed in a home for girls with disabilities called the Lochland School which now serves adults.  I suppose she is still there if she is still living as her father set up a trust fund to pay her expenses.

[atlantaloves]

She did have a trust set up for her daughter Margo, that is a FACT. I loved this series, as for the finale, oh boy, tore my heart out, but I, for one, adored the dream scene, thought it was perfection. Yeah, some of the finale was a let down, and way too much Joan, but all in all, WHAT A SERIES.  Give an Emmy to Jackie Hoffman right now, TODAY! 

[poeticlicensed]

1 minute ago, Twopper said:

No, she was considered "r*******"  and placed in a home for girls with disabilities called the Lochland School which now serves adults.  I suppose she is still there if she is still living as her father set up a trust fund to pay her expenses.

I just wanted to say that by 2017 standards, people might be appalled by BD placing her daughter in an institution, but back then placing a mentally disabled child in an institution was pretty mainstream. My husband has a cousin who spent his life in an institution. Doctors would recommend placement. We had a neighbor growing up who had a child with Down's Syndrome. She elected not to institutionalize her and she was definitely the exception, not the norm. I don't think BD did anything out of the ordinary for the era. 

[Dev F]

4 minutes ago, mamadrama said:

Was I the only one disappointed that neither RETURN TO WITCH MOUNTAIN nor THE WATCHER IN THE WOODS were mentioned? ;-)

I was so hoping we'd get a glimpse of Return from Witch Mountain during the "Bette is taking roles she's too good for" sequence. It probably came too late in her career to fit into the series timeline, but you'd be hard pressed to find a better example of "too good for this" than Bette Davis and Christopher Lee as scenery-chewing villains stuck on the ceiling of a nuclear power plant because two extraterrestrial children used their telekinetic powers to float them there.

[AgentRXS]

So I guess Pauline's story was real and lifted from this Youtube video:

[poeticlicensed]

2 minutes ago, Dev F said:

I was so hoping we'd get a glimpse of Return from Witch Mountain during the "Bette is taking roles she's too good for" sequence. It probably came too late in her career to fit into the series timeline, but you'd be hard pressed to find a better example of "too good for this" than Bette Davis and Christopher Lee as scenery-chewing villains stuck on the ceiling of a nuclear power plant because two extraterrestrial children used their telekinetic powers to float them there.

LOL, if you watch Real Housewives of BH, Kim Richards might disagree. She seems to think that the Witch Mountain series of movies were Oscar worthy grand performances. 

[Chaos Theory]

This isn't really a documentary so I wasn't expecting every moment to be spot on correct. I understand that Joan and Bette have their fans and those will tend to look at this more unfavorably then those who go in blind.

I knew the general story and have seen a couple of the movies (including Baby Jane and Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte).  I was also aware of the. what I always felt was a mean spirited even if more true then people felt comfortable with Mommie Dearest.  I was completely unaware of Bette's daughter' book that came after.  Considering what came of B.D.  I am happier then I should be that it was mostly ignored.

Although Ryan Murphy did keep a lot of the facts in tact I think he did masseuse certain details and timelines to tell a particular story and make a particular point.  Again this isn't a documentary so I didn't expect a word for word account of either woman's life.  

I thiought the season was an amazing success.   

Edited April 24, 2017 by Chaos Theory

[sugarbaker design]

5 minutes ago, Chaos Theory said:

I thiought the season was an amazing success. 

Totally agree, there's so much good television on right now, but this particular show was my only must-see-TV.

[mamadrama]

17 minutes ago, Dev F said:

I was so hoping we'd get a glimpse of Return from Witch Mountain during the "Bette is taking roles she's too good for" sequence. It probably came too late in her career to fit into the series timeline, but you'd be hard pressed to find a better example of "too good for this" than Bette Davis and Christopher Lee as scenery-chewing villains stuck on the ceiling of a nuclear power plant because two extraterrestrial children used their telekinetic powers to float them there.

I was hoping to catch a glimpse of it in the montage. 

And you're totally right about Lee and Davis in that film. Too bad. As a child, I LOVED the first one. But even as an 8 year old I could see how crappy the sequel was. 

14 minutes ago, poeticlicensed said:

LOL, if you watch Real Housewives of BH, Kim Richards might disagree. She seems to think that the Witch Mountain series of movies were Oscar worthy grand performances. 

I named all of my stuffed animals "Tony" and "Tia" as a kid and, as an adult, I even have the star symbol tattooed on my back. ESCAPE TO WITCH MOUNTAIN was my jam back in the day! I used to cup my eyes, a la Tia, at every red light, hoping it would change. It is for that reason that I have never watched an episode of RHOBH. I know what became of Kim and I just don't want to see it. (Her sister Kyle was in the Bette Davis movie THE WATCHER IN THE WOODS and she was, uh, interesting.)

[Florinaldo]

2 hours ago, AgentRXS said:

So I guess Pauline's story was real and lifted from this Youtube video:

Is that being drunk or under the effect of painkillers? When I broke my arm and also hurt some shoulder ligaments the doctor prescribed Dilaudid, a morphine derivate; it made me feel so woozy that I could probably have passed for drunk (I decided to stop after two doses).  It may have been the case also with JC; if she took just a little cocktail on the plane (I understand that booze flowed more freely while flying in those days) she would probably have ended up in quite a state. Also, the lighting is very variable in that airport: in some shots she does look quite pasty-faced, almost like a parody of Baby Jane, and in others she appears rather normal looking.

2 hours ago, Dev F said:

I was so hoping we'd get a glimpse of Return from Witch Mountain during the "Bette is taking roles she's too good for" sequence. It probably came too late in her career to fit into the series timeline, but you'd be hard pressed to find a better example of "too good for this" than Bette Davis and Christopher Lee as scenery-chewing villains stuck on the ceiling of a nuclear power plant because two extraterrestrial children used their telekinetic powers to float them there.

In general, in the post-Baby Jane portion of their careers BD and JC were most often way above the quality of the productions they appeared in. When their role is short or their character dies early, the rest of the movie is rather boring in comparison and the awfulness of some just becomes unwatchable from that point on.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Florinaldo

[mamadrama]

I was disappointed to find out that Pauline was a composite character and not a real person. I didn't recognize her name but thought that maybe she was just someone kind of obscure that I hadn't heard of. Apparently, though, her character was just meant to be symbolic and was a composite of several other people. (There WAS a "Pauline Jameson" but she was an actress. Not the same person. Although the REAL Pauline Jameson was in one of my favorite ghost stories, THE HAUNTING OF JULIA.)

[Chaos Theory]

9 minutes ago, mamadrama said:

I was disappointed to find out that Pauline was a composite character and not a real person. I didn't recognize her name but thought that maybe she was just someone kind of obscure that I hadn't heard of. Apparently, though, her character was just meant to be symbolic and was a composite of several other people. (There WAS a "Pauline Jameson" but she was an actress. Not the same person. Although the REAL Pauline Jameson was in one of my favorite ghost stories, THE HAUNTING OF JULIA.)

That is the most disappointing thing about the show.

Also meant to add:  Bette and Joan may be the show's hate story but Joan and Mamacita is the show's love story. 

[iMonrey]

Quote

If the book was in galleys, as they said in the episode, then it wasn't being shopped, it was a done deal, ready for publication.

I think the show took some artistic liberties with the facts. According to the Vanity Fair article linked upthread, Joan was aware there was a book in the works, but it wasn't published until a year after her death, so I don't think she could have been offered an advanced copy or have known what was in it. She probably expected it to be negative since Christina did not reach out to her for help with it. 

According to Christina Crawford, her brother Christopher landed himself in jail over some minor offense and Joan refused to bail him out. Christina persuaded a judge to release him into her custody, and Joan never forgave either one of them for defying her, which is why she cut both of them out of her will. If she heard afterwards there was a book in the works it was another reason for her to suspect it would paint her in a negative light.

Quote

I was so hoping we'd get a glimpse of Return from Witch Mountain during the "Bette is taking roles she's too good for" sequence. 

I don't think we could have expected them to cover every little project Bette and Joan were involved in post Baby Jane. Someone upthread mentioned that Crawford had a guest-starring role on The Lucy Show in the mid 60s. But if they'd covered that incident, they would have needed someone to play Lucille Ball (and possibly Vivian Vance). If they had covered the Night Gallery episode they would have needed to find someone to play Steve Spielberg. She also made an appearance on a show called The Sixth Sense. And there's already a lot of complaining about the miniseries being too Joan-specific.

I'm not really even sure that Catherine Zeta Jones and Kathy Bates as Olivia de Havilland and Joan Blondell were necessary. The framing device felt kind of cheesy to me.

[psychoticstate]

1 hour ago, newyawk said:

 As mentioned elsewhere, Helen Hayes son did see Christopher's bed straps, and was told by Christopher that they were used every night.  It doesn't surprise me that the twins have no memory of the alleged abuse, a lot of it happened when Christina was young and they were even younger, and then Christina was shipped off to boarding school for much of the rest of her school years.

 

This is true but the bed straps were apparently what was considered acceptable and maybe even progressive parenting in the early 1940s when you wanted to keep your child in bed.  Some people may have found them objectionable back in the 40s, very much the way some people today dislike the "harnesses" that are on some children in public while others think it's a perfectly fine way to keep your children close and safe.  Neither is proof of abuse. 

I think Joan was a strict parent.  I think that Christina and Christopher were stubborn and strong willed, like Joan was.  Some of Joan's friends and co-workers later said that Christina did things to incite and bait her mother, that she was a horrid and ungrateful child. 

If abuse did take place, I'm not excusing it by any means. 

1 hour ago, poeticlicensed said:

I  think that's a function of the book being made into a movie and Faye Dunaway playing and OTT Joan. If it was just a book and no movie, I wonder if it would have had as much attention. Honestly I didn't even remember that BD wrote a book until I started watching, then I have memories of it being published. 

ETA: based on this season, I am so excited for the second season, Charles and Diana. Can't wait!

I think the book still would have had the attention it had because it was the first tell-all book of its kind.  Smut and smack had been written about celebrities, of course, but never before by a celebrity's child and never before with such terrible accusations.  The fact that Joan died the previous year helped it as well.  She was fresh in people's minds and she wasn't there to defend herself and/or answer to the allegations Christina made. 

Edited April 24, 2017 by psychoticstate

[Corvino]

Well, I'm glad to read the posts of people who thought the episode was moving. Though it had a little that I liked, I thought it was too sad and dreary, did NOT pull it all together so as to get me to record it all from On Demand from end to end (as I said last week), and kind of ruined the excellent first half. But now I will give it another chance, and may very well recapture the whole series and binge-rewatch it with some friends who haven't been watching it and should have been.

Making the very last scene a flashback to a moment in the past when things could all have turned out well is a poignant device which can be devastating. (See "Marie Antoinette", where at the moment Norma Shearer goes to the guillotine a flashback of her happy young face is superimposed saying "Just think, Mother! I will be Queen of France!") I saw how they were trying to do that here, but I don't think it worked; the impulse to swear friendship was too feeble and the characters of both of them as depicted here, especially Joan Crawford, doomed the impulse about five minutes later. Therefore, the ending didn't seem powerful.

And THANK YOU, so many, for complaining about the update text being so hard to read and disappearing too fast. I was wondering if it was me and I was getting old. (Nah!)

Poor Margot Davis was dropped on her head as a baby and got brain damage, according to "My Mother's Keeper". She turned out a sweet girl but one who remained mentally at age six as she grew up. So she did fine in a group home but couldn't have lived on her own, and irritated the living daylights out of Bette when she visited. Not anyone's fault, given Bette's no-nonsense, explosive personality. As depicted there, Margot probably wouldn't have been just unresponsive when Bette visited her and combed her hair; she would have been childishly happy.

The bias of the series' writing is apparent in slanting the roast to be just one more outrage on the dignity and life's meaning of a great actress as she aged. Thank you, dbklmt, for providing the link to the primary source! The roast as a whole is very good-natured, over half the jokes aren't even about Bette but are gags about the business or the speaker's own foibles, and she seems to be enjoying it. The show took the two most painful jokes-- not that painful in context-- and made them the totality. It does come off as an honour, not an outrage.

It is NOT POSSIBLE that Joan Crawford was offered the bound galleys of "Mommie Dearest" to read before she died. I read the Vanity Fair article-- again, thank you for the link, txhorns79-- and maybe Christina was thinking of writing a book before her mother died and Joan heard about it, but (if Christina is telling the truth about their relationship in Joan's last days) why would she have assumed it would be negative, when they were getting along well, without guilty remembrance of what she had done to her in childhood? This whole thing is very complicated, but the best explanation seems to be that with Christina and Christopher there was a combination of inexperience in parenting, Joan's strict standards for cleanliness and discipline not previously tested by having kids around, and a personality clash, which sometimes happens even with biologically linked parents and children, and when Cathy and Cindy came along years later the first and third factors were not there for them.

But in any case, a book Joan knew about cannot have been "Mommie Dearest" as we know it, because that book is (quite deftly) structured around Joan's death. It begins with her dying and Christina weeping over her coffin ("Mommie...Mommie, I loved you so much") and proceeds to the reading of the will and the shock it gives Christina and Christopher, then flashes back to the memoir of Christina's life with Joan from the beginning. Then at the end, it returns to Christina after her mother's death, alleging in the next to last paragraph that she has come through the stormy feelings and can move on with "vigilance, honesty and love." And then, as the last paragraph, the hurtful words of the will just reappear: "'...For reasons which are well known to them.'" She has NOT forgotten and is NOT over it. Well done dramatically, I say. But certainly not anything produced before Joan died.

So does it make sense if Joan heard some rumour of a book and that's why she cut Christina out of her will, though they had a decent relationship by that time? That might be the inference from the data here. But then why Christopher too? Again, a sad mystery.

eta: Oh, I just read iMonrey's post (a lot of posts came in while I was writing this!) saying it may have been because Christina bailed Christopher out of jail when Joan refused to. That means prior knowledge of a book would not necessarily have been a factor.

But, most importantly: when Joan got out of bed on hearing noises and laughter in the living room (a scary situation for a woman who lives alone!) and found Hedda and Jack in her living room, then morphed into well-dressed and well-groomed party mode to sit down with them, I thought this was a wonderful exit for her in which they had come to take her to Heaven. Then I thought, No, these two wouldn't be coming from Heaven, would they? Then Bette showed up, and knowing she outlived Joan (I hadn't known that about Jack Warner) I was disappointed to realize it was just a dream. Too bad! I would have liked more fantasy and dramatic licence at the end, to bring about a reconciliation between these two great-and-terrible women that would have been more believable than the final flashback to the very weak might-have-been at the start of their acquaintance.

Oh, well. A writer friend of mine would say that the series has succeeded with me and all of us in that we're talking about it.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Corvino
to give credit where credit is due

[newyawk]

9 minutes ago, psychoticstate said:

This is true but the bed straps were apparently what was considered acceptable and maybe even progressive parenting in the early 1940s when you wanted to keep your child in bed.  Some people may have found them objectionable back in the 40s, very much the way some people today dislike the "harnesses" that are on some children in public while others think it's a perfectly fine way to keep your children close and safe.  Neither is proof of abuse. 

I think Joan was a strict parent.  I think that Christina and Christopher were stubborn and strong willed, like Joan was.  Some of Joan's friends and co-workers later said that Christina did things to incite and bait her mother, that she was a horrid and ungrateful child. 

If abuse did take place, I'm not excusing it by any means. 

I think the book still would have had the attention it had because it was the first tell-all book of its kind.  Smut and smack had been written about celebrities, of course, but never before by a celebrity's child and never before with such terrible accusations.  The fact that Joan died the previous year helped it as well.  She was fresh in people's minds and she wasn't there to defend herself and/or answer to the allegations Christina made. 

And other friends of Joan's were taken aback at what they said they saw.  Most parents were not strapping their kids into bed.  There are people on both sides supporting both positions. I think there is more than enough proof that Joan was an unstable woman and certainly, she was an alcoholic and a control freak. Neither lends itself to good parenting.

Edited April 24, 2017 by newyawk

[TexasGal]

2 hours ago, Mindthinkr said:

I was taken aback at the scene when Miss Crawford's daughter came to visit her with the two grandchildren. The actress playing the part looked just like Heather Dubrow from RHOC!! 

I thought the same thing Mindthinkr!!  It was distracting.

I was also really impressed with whoever the actor was playing Dean Martin, he looked so much like him I thought.

[mamadrama]

49 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

 

I don't think we could have expected them to cover every little project Bette and Joan were involved in post Baby Jane.

Yes, I know. I was simply joking because that's my favorite "bad" movie and I like to think the world revolves around me. 

[TheRabbi]

I'm only 30, and have almost no knowledge of the real-life 'feud', but mainly tried this since I try everything on FX, and Murphy has made some great mini-series for them. 

That said, I did really enjoy the show, and think I may hunt down a copy of Baby Jane just for kicks. And I'll also be doing some fact-checking when I get some time.

I did feel at times toward the end that Murphy was a little too infatuated with Joan, and that Sarandon was playing second fiddle. Especially in the epilogue, when they had to add in the comment how Joan was such a star, and Betty had her 100 cigarettes. I hate stuff like that. I want to form my own opinions, I don't need to be told how much of a star she was.

Really enjoyable series though, and glad I watched.

Edited April 24, 2017 by TheRabbi

[Corvino]

Another link (thank you, agentRXS) and more data about how this show has altered what really happened in order to make an artistic work with a very definite theme. If that airport video of Joan Crawford acting a little drunk or high on meds with one busted and another injured ankle was the inspiration for Pauline's story of seeing her coming through an airport in a wheelchair pasty-faced, drunk and all alone, it was screamingly wrenched out of real context. Alone? She had THOUSANDS of people there all completely riveted on her! (And, note, gave a very nice sample of the okay relationship she had arrived at with Christina by that time.) If Pauline caught her alone and forlorn in that condition, she was using her special powers as a fictional character.

[Arynm]

1 hour ago, poeticlicensed said:

I just wanted to say that by 2017 standards, people might be appalled by BD placing her daughter in an institution, but back then placing a mentally disabled child in an institution was pretty mainstream. My husband has a cousin who spent his life in an institution. Doctors would recommend placement. We had a neighbor growing up who had a child with Down's Syndrome. She elected not to institutionalize her and she was definitely the exception, not the norm. I don't think BD did anything out of the ordinary for the era. 

I have an uncle who is mentally disabled and he was also not placed in an institution. He can live on his own, but he has epilepsy as well and is getting to an age where he is going to need help.

Thanks for all the info about Margo not being in the will. I was hoping it was something like a trust, but I didn't have any idea. Is she still alive? She was born in 1951.

Here is some info about her will if anyone is interested. Who is the secretary/friend I wonder? I am going to need to read her book.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-11-07/news/mn-913_1_bette-davis-estate

[iMonrey]

It probably would have been better to avoid mentioning "Mommie Dearest" altogether, because it raises too many questions about the historical accuracy, the timeline, and how much Joan could have realistically known about it before her death. But I understand that Crawford has virtually become identified these days through that book and movie adaptation, so the temptation to address it and allow Joan to offer her thoughts on it must have been too overwhelming to resist.

[Growsonwalls]

1 hour ago, psychoticstate said:

This is true but the bed straps were apparently what was considered acceptable and maybe even progressive parenting in the early 1940s when you wanted to keep your child in bed.  Some people may have found them objectionable back in the 40s, very much the way some people today dislike the "harnesses" that are on some children in public while others think it's a perfectly fine way to keep your children close and safe.  Neither is proof of abuse. 

I think Joan was a strict parent.  I think that Christina and Christopher were stubborn and strong willed, like Joan was.  Some of Joan's friends and co-workers later said that Christina did things to incite and bait her mother, that she was a horrid and ungrateful child.  

Well if Christina was horrid and ungrateful, that doesn't mean abuse was acceptable. Again, the facts of Joan's life don't exactly paint the picture of someone able to be a good parent. An abusive childhood with a cold mother and a sexually predatory stepfather. A very busy career, and some unstable relationships. Alcoholism. Not saying she didn't try, and she did seem to do better with the twins, but as I said, the Golden Age of Hollywood wasn't the golden age of parenting. Many of the parenting methods today would seem downright neglectful. For instance, they don't talk about this but Ronald Reagan's children were away in boarding schools for most of their parents' lives, and "not welcome in the house past five." Some of Ronald's children reacted better to this than others. Patti obviously lashed out while Ron and Michael seemed to accept the cold treatment with a shrug. 

I don't know why you keep mentioning how horrible Christina was. She might have been, and that might have been a cause of the relationship with Joan. But that doesn't mean abuse didn't take place or that it was acceptable.

[Spartan Girl]

Reflecting on the scene where Bette delivers her infamous quote after learning about Joan's death --regardless if it wasn't true -- I think the way Susan played it wasn't as heartless as it appeared. You can see that she's visibly shaken by the news, then her face grows cold as she realized that this reporter was just fishing for one more dig at Joan. The way she spoke that line was devoid of any real malice or contempt...or if there was, it was more directed at the reporter than Joan. It's like, "Okay, you vultures, here's one last scrap and then I'm done."

That fits in better with Bette's "too old for this shit" attitude when the documentary people approached her at the Oscars at the end.

[Daisy head]

Wow - after the Oscar stealing episode a few weeks ago, I never expected to feel sympathy for Joan Crawford.  I hope that scene with her daughter and grandchildren - or one like it - really happened, that she was indeed given that validation in real life that she was loved & valued.  I was almost in tears right from the start when she brought the puppy home so she wouldn't be lonely (and I am a HUGE animal lover, besides).

As someone else said, I thought the dream sequence was actually her dying, until Bette showed up.  I knew Hedda had died by then, but I didn't know if Warner had.  I thought maybe they were both dead & were there to welcome her to the other side.  When Bette , who I knew was alive, came in, I figured it was a hallucination.

Maybe my feelings are misplaced, but throughout this series I have really disliked B.D. (the daughter, not Bette Davis).  The actress who played her is a beautiful young woman, but for tonight's episode where she should have been in her mid-20's, she still looked like a kid playing dress up to me.

I have loved this series & am going to miss it.  Although I feel kind of miserable after watching this episode - so sad!  The idea of Charles & Diana doesn't grab me.  Maybe because I lived through it & it all seems too recent for me, but I also lived through O.J. & absolutely LOVED that series last year.  I guess I'm just not interested in the royals.

[Growsonwalls]

4 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

Reflecting on the scene where Bette delivers her infamous quote after learning about Joan's death --regardless if it wasn't true -- I think the way Susan played it wasn't as heartless as it appeared. You can see that she's visibly shaken by the news, then her face grows cold as she realized that this reporter was just fishing for one more dig at Joan. The way she spoke that line was devoid of any real malice or contempt...or if there was, it was more directed at the reporter than Joan. It's like, "Okay, you vultures, here's one last scrap and then I'm done."

That fits in better with Bette's "too old for this shit" attitude when the documentary people approached her at the Oscars at the end.

But it was very inconsistent with Bette's known comments about Joan after Joan's death. Bette was repeatedly asked about her and she had her usual spicy sense of humor but with Joan said that she was very professional. The closest she got was once she giggled "We only worked together for three weeks. I don't know what would have happened if it had been three months ..." Bette Davis loved zingers and obviously was a favorite with the talk show circuit because of her down to earth humor. But most of her zingers were good-humored and funny. That kind of really cold comment doesn't sound like Bette Davis. 

[Snookums]

Quote

"I Saw What You Did" is an awesome movie. It got a remake in the 1980s, too (remake has Candace Cameron in a supporting role). I have the VHS copy of the original and they include the original trailer. What's so funny about the trailer is that it's almost 5 minutes long and is a Cliff Notes version of the entire movie. Spoilers abound! :-)

I first saw it on Svengoolie, and my husband and I loved it, especially the little sister and the dog! Joan just blew my mind. I ended up buying him the DVD fro Christmas!

[psychoticstate]

20 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

Well if Christina was horrid and ungrateful, that doesn't mean abuse was acceptable. Again, the facts of Joan's life don't exactly paint the picture of someone able to be a good parent. An abusive childhood with a cold mother and a sexually predatory stepfather. A very busy career, and some unstable relationships. Alcoholism. Not saying she didn't try, and she did seem to do better with the twins, but as I said, the Golden Age of Hollywood wasn't the golden age of parenting. Many of the parenting methods today would seem downright neglectful. For instance, they don't talk about this but Ronald Reagan's children were away in boarding schools for most of their parents' lives, and "not welcome in the house past five." Some of Ronald's children reacted better to this than others. Patti obviously lashed out while Ron and Michael seemed to accept the cold treatment with a shrug. 

I don't know why you keep mentioning how horrible Christina was. She might have been, and that might have been a cause of the relationship with Joan. But that doesn't mean abuse didn't take place or that it was acceptable.

You left out the last sentence of my initial post when you quoted me.  Which said this:  "If abuse did take place, I'm not excusing it by any means. "

So where in my post did I say that abuse was acceptable?  I've never said that.   And while Joan may not have been Mother of the Year, which she herself admitted in interviews,  "not a great mother" does not equal abuse.   I don't know what happened in that house.  The only people that do 100% are Joan, Christina, Christopher, Cindy and Cathy.  All but two of them are deceased and can no longer say. 

As for why I mention how horrible Christina was, I think I mentioned it once, in the post you quoted.  I have said that I think her book is terrible and I take it with a huge grain of salt and don't believe a lot of what she said.  Plenty of people have said they believe Joan was a monster and a horrible person based solely on that book and nothing else.  So why can't I defend Joan?  Again, none of us were there and can't say for certainty what went down but plenty of people are making assumptions on what Christina wrote, without Joan being able to defend herself or comment. 

[Growsonwalls]

1 minute ago, psychoticstate said:

You left out the last sentence of my initial post when you quoted me.  Which said this:  "If abuse did take place, I'm not excusing it by any means. "

So where in my post did I say that abuse was acceptable?  I've never said that.   And while Joan may not have been Mother of the Year, which she herself admitted in interviews,  "not a great mother" does not equal abuse.   I don't know what happened in that house.  The only people that do 100% are Joan, Christina, Christopher, Cindy and Cathy.  All but two of them are deceased and can no longer say. 

As for why I mention how horrible Christina was, I think I mentioned it once, in the post you quoted.  I have said that I think her book is terrible and I take it with a huge grain of salt and don't believe a lot of what she said.  Plenty of people have said they believe Joan was a monster and a horrible person based solely on that book and nothing else.  So why can't I defend Joan?  Again, none of us were there and can't say for certainty what went down but plenty of people are making assumptions on what Christina wrote, without Joan being able to defend herself or comment. 

You've mentioned in other threads that Myrna Loy didn't like Christina. Again, I've no doubt that Christina was probably not a bed of roses. But if anything, that IMO makes the abuse MORE likely, not less. If Joan was a strict, unyielding parent she would do better with the twins who were obedient and sweet, and not so well with Christina and Christopher, who seem to have been headstrong and stubborn. I get that you love Joan, but it's not an either/or situation. I love Barbara Stanwyck but her treatment of her son Dion was horrible and so was her enthusiastic support of McCarthy's HUAC. 

I've never even read Mommie Dearest. I have read enough about Joan's life to infer that parenting skills didn't come naturally to her. How could it?  I think the show did enough to show Joan's shades of gray, to say that part of MD might have been true, but that there are, as I said, shades of gray. Just as I'm sure some of BD's story is true. I think you can read MD, watch the show, read biographies about Joan, and draw your own conclusions.  

[psychoticstate]

For questions about MD and whether Joan knew, this is taken from Charlotte Chandler who wrote a book about Crawford.  She says this is what Joan said during a face to face meeting in 1976, a year before her death and 2 years before MD was published.  

When asked whether she planned to read Christina's book:   “I plan not to read it,” she replied. “Why spoil days of your life reading a book that can only hurt you? It’s against my beliefs. You know, Johnny, I’ve become a Christian Scientist. I find it very positive and comforting and a kind of protection. I’ve learned that there are people who will hurt you if you let them—even if you don’t let them. I prefer to cut off people who want to hurt me, rather than to continue to give them power over me to go on inflicting pain.”

Her thoughts on the upcoming book:  “I think this book will be full of lies and twisted truths.  I don’t think my adopted daughter is writing this book just to hurt me. If her purpose were to hurt me, she has already accomplished it without going to the trouble of writing a book.   If Christina had good things to say about the person who adored her, tried to be a good mother to her, she would have told me about the book. I would have helped if I could, if she wanted my help.  

On Christina and Christopher:  "I’ve come to think that what she has wanted is to be me. Or at least to have what I have. I wanted to share everything I had with her, but I couldn’t reach or influence her.   She is her own person, and that person brought me a lot of pain. I said this about Christopher and now I say it about Christina. The problem was I adopted her, but she didn’t adopt me.”

These statements were all made in 1976 so it's clear that Joan did know about the book and knew it was not going to be flattering.  

Two sides to every story, I guess. 

[One Tough Cookie]

4 hours ago, enoughcats said:

5 hours ago, stillhere1900 said:

Soooooooo. Bette Davis had a daughter in a mental institute ? 

  A daughter with mental problems that were so severe that she required full time, professional care.

I remember reading that Merrill was ragingly drunk and dropped Margo on her head, thus causing her brain damage.  I only saw it in one source and I'll be damned if I can remember which.  I also read where Merrill claimed that he supported Margo. 

My friend's mother loved celebrity bio and I would borrow them when she was done.

[psychoticstate]

24 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

You've mentioned in other threads that Myrna Loy didn't like Christina. Again, I've no doubt that Christina was probably not a bed of roses. But if anything, that IMO makes the abuse MORE likely, not less. If Joan was a strict, unyielding parent she would do better with the twins who were obedient and sweet, and not so well with Christina and Christopher, who seem to have been headstrong and stubborn. I get that you love Joan, but it's not an either/or situation. I love Barbara Stanwyck but her treatment of her son Dion was horrible and so was her enthusiastic support of McCarthy's HUAC. 

I've never even read Mommie Dearest. I have read enough about Joan's life to infer that parenting skills didn't come naturally to her. How could it?  I think the show did enough to show Joan's shades of gray, to say that part of MD might have been true, but that there are, as I said, shades of gray. Just as I'm sure some of BD's story is true. I think you can read MD, watch the show, read biographies about Joan, and draw your own conclusions.  

Yes, I did mention on another thread that Myrna Loy did not like Christina which is absolutely true.  Many of Joan's friends came to her defense and did not like Christina for the book and her treatment of Joan.   That said, I think the only time I have said that I personally believe Christina was horrible was in my OP here.

Regardless, there are at least two sides to every story.  According to Cathy and Cynthia, Joan was a wonderful, loving mother.  So it is possible that despite her upbringing she could have good parenting skills.   Just as people today who might not have had the best childhoods did go on to become good parents themselves.   

Again, none of us here know exactly what life in the Crawford home was like.  There are some that side with Christina; some that side with Joan. 

I don't believe that either Joan or Bette could be easy to deal with at times because they were fighting for their careers and reputations at a time when women generally didn't do that.  They also both put their careers above their husbands and families, at least at times.   None of that proves either was abusive or not.

[newyawk]

Joan and Bette were not just difficult to deal with because they were fighting for their careers. They had difficult, arrogant personalities and they were each alcoholics.

[Blakeston]

As much as Ryan Murphy was trying to show a different side of Joan, I'd have a hard time believing that the Joan portrayed on Feud wasn't an abusive mother.

If she'd throw things at poor Mamacita's head, I can't even imagine what she'd do a stubborn, strong-willed child like Christina.

[iMonrey]

Quote

I knew Hedda had died by then, but I didn't know if Warner had.  I thought maybe they were both dead & were there to welcome her to the other side.  

Jack Warner died about a year after Joan Crawford.

Quote

 Many of Joan's friends came to her defense and did not like Christina for the book and her treatment of Joan.  

On the other hand, there are some who have substantiated some of Mommie Dearest, such as their next door neighbors in Brentwood, and Crawford's "Mildred Pierce" co-star, Eve Arden.

That's why I said it probably would have been best to omit any reference to Mommie Dearest from this mini-series just to avoid that can of worms. The story takes place after Christina and Christopher have left home, and neither makes an appearance. The book didn't come out until a year after Joan's death. I understand the temptation but they should have left that sleeping dog lie.

[formerlyfreedom]

Agree to disagree please. Differing opinions are fine.

[dorcastrilling]

4 hours ago, Arynm said:

I read that she was also cut out of Bette Davis's will which I can't understand. I wonder what happened to Margo after her mother was not around to pay her bills? They were most likely substantial if she needed full time care. I hope a sibling took over paying for her.

It is not uncommon to leave no actual funds to a special needs child. Doing so would make that person ineligible for services. Funds a person with needs have at their disposal are very quickly exhausted; generally leaving that person with no services whatsoever until starting over in the whole application and assessment of need process. This is why minor children can receive SSI. True a child would not be expected to work, but already being a recipient assures a continuum of services upon reaching majority.

 

Bette Davis did have a trust for Margot's care which Michael Merril oversees. I believe the wording of her will specified a portion of his inheritance be used in this fashion. Handling it in this manner assured that at no time would Margot be without services. Should Margot predecease Michael, the trust will be dissolved and principal be turned over to Michael.

It was my understanding that Bette rarely saw Margot, and when she did it was in response to new stories surfacing about her severely brain damaged child. Her visits were documented and photos released. Gary was devoted to Margot, Michael for years lived primarily with Gary and always knew his sister. In his later years Gary was rarely sober and barhopped in a kilt. The exception to this was his regular visits to Margot. Clean and sober every time.

 

The Merril kids are all older than me, but I do know Gary and Bette were both devastated when it became apparent how severely damaged Margot was and it was paramount to both that she receive the best possible care. She was placed during the marriage, when Bette was still intent on being a wife and mother. In fairness to her, when she returned to living on the West Coast more permanently, Gary's closer proximity to Margot may have had a lot to do with his greater personal involvement. I really don't know how much time Bette actually spent on her east coast farm, or how long she actually held on to it.

The home they shared near me in Maine was lost to a controlled burn/fire fighter training exercise.

[bmoore4026]

I don't think Joan was aware that "trog" was a British slang term for an ugly woman.  Final twist of the knife by the English movie people by changing to the title.  Assholes.

[Growsonwalls]

Margot Merrill according to reports was the daughter of a severe alcoholic and might have suffered pre-natal brain damage. Those were the days when it was not considered part of a doctor's description to tell the mother not to drink or smoke during pregnancy. 

As for care of special needs children, again, this is when the good old days weren't good at all. Rosemary Kennedy (mildly r*******, but able to go to a girls' school) was given a lobotomy, sent away, and was not to be spoken of by family. It wasn't till after Joe Kennedy died that Rosemary's family reached out and had some contact with her. 

As for Davis's later years, it appears she had a Mamacita of her own, a lady named Kathryn Sarnak who was given some money by Bette in her will.

[Deanie87]

Count me in as getting very emotional this episode, I thought it was very well done.  Now I am really jonesing for a mini-series about these stars (and others) in their prime.  I would love to see a mini-series on the heyday of MGM, for example.  

Overall, I have mixed feelings about this series, even though I really enjoyed it. I have always been into classic Hollywood, and the Divine Feud book was one of the first Hollywood history/gossip books that I read so I was very excited about the series.  I thought that both actresses did a great job and the wardrobes and set design were to die for, and I think that Murphy did a pretty good job of depicting two women in context of the times and the Hollywood system, but also making them more than just symbols of the Hollywood Patriarchy, etc. etc.  But I still am disappointed that some may come away with the feeling that in the end, two very strong, very larger than life women, ended up reduced to pathetic, washed up, lonely hags, especially Joan, and that makes me sad.  

I like both actresses (I prefer Bette's movies but find Joan to be fascinating) and I know that Murphy was only really focusing on the end of their careers and it isn't his responsibility to alter or preserve either woman's legacy, but I still come away feeling kind of icky about all of it.  Especially where Joan is concerned.  I think that if you asked a random person on the street who Bette Davis was they would know she was considered a good actress and a witty broad (which she was), but if you ask them about Joan Crawford the first thing that will come to mind is Mommie Dearest, and now maybe that she was a pathetic, insecure bitch (which lets face it, maybe she was).  But she was a lot more than that and I guess I am just hoping for some kind of vehicle (other than her own movies) to come along that might somehow "redeem" her legacy.  I didn't think it would be this, and like I said, I realize that the focus of the whole thing was the "feud" and she did get a more sympathetic portrayal in this episode, but I guess I just wish that more had been included about WHY she was such a legend to begin with.  That could go for Bette as well, but I think that Bette was shown as having friends, great acclaim, a decent family life for the most part and she has kept most of her legacy.  Joan did have friends and many in and out of Hollywood loved her, but I don't think that was shown here and it just seems to reinforce all the negative aspects of reputation.  I'm not saying that any of this was untrue or that she necessarily deserves to have her history or behavior to be "whitewashed" I just hate that this is what she will be remembered for.  Does that make sense?  Also, it makes me miss Robert Osbourne even more because he always loved her and told wonderful stories about her on TCM.

[LoveLeigh]

Yes, the ending was very sad. I think it was so depressing because it validated what we know already: that you can have a life filled with accomplishments and recognition and as you age you have only memories. In the end, you are either cremated or buried and the death thing is always there for us all, sooner or later. 

I was crying at the end because I thought of the end to that marvelous film: The Dead. It is on YouTube and really is very moving. It says so much about the life experience. 

The end scene of THE DEAD

Edited April 25, 2017 by DakotaLavender
link added

[Penman61]

Murphy too cute by half having Bette Davis slagging future Mommie Dearest star Faye Dunaway.  Davis is rightly iconic, but Dunaway did Chinatown, Bonnie & Clyde, Network, The Thomas Crown Affair, Barfly, Three Days of the Condor, The Eyes of Laura Mars, Little Big Man, The Towering Inferno.  No slouch.  

Since we're on subject:  Questions about Mommie Dearest's veracity notwithstanding, Faye Dunaway's performance is searing and unforgettable, way beyond the camp you see when you watch a famous clip (wire hangers, "...the respect I deserve!" et al.).  And while we can never really know if that was the "true" Joan Crawford, it at least was a believably coherent characterization of a driven star and a tormented human.  Murphy's Crawford is a doddering, congealed, contradictory mess.   Lange is amazing, but she was simply wrong for this part, and the way the part was written, I doubt anyone could have played it convincingly.

Also, agree upthread with Kieran Shipka's execrable acting.  Most of us were far too kind to her during Mad Men (when slack was cut for her youth), but it's clear she has neither an actress's voice or command of body.  She is becoming breathtakingly beautiful, but she is not an actress.

[txhorns79]

Quote

If she'd throw things at poor Mamacita's head, I can't even imagine what she'd do a stubborn, strong-willed child like Christina.

I agree.  If she's willing to be violent with innocent adults, I can't imagine what she would do with a child who was making her upset.  It's honestly hard to know what was true between Joan and Christina.  Maybe the most outrageous things weren't true, but it still would have left her with a parent who was abusive. 

It was an interesting series.  I did feel at some point, they lost interest in Bette and focused way too much on Joan and her struggles.  I also rolled my eyes at the idea that Victor Buono, out of all people, would be criticizing Bette Davis for not being more choosey in the projects she took.  If she had wanted to be a sassy bitch with him, Bette could have pointed out that playing King Tut on Batman was hardly Shakespeare in the Park.       

Quote

Since we're on subject:  Questions about Mommie Dearest's veracity notwithstanding, Faye Dunaway's performance is searing and unforgettable, way beyond the camp you see when you watch a famous clip (wire hangers, "...the respect I deserve!" et al.).  And while we can never really know if that was the "true" Joan Crawford, it at least was a believably coherent characterization of a driven star and a tormented human.

Honestly, I think even Faye Dunaway has said that she wished the director had reigned in her performance.  Physically, it's an amazing transformation, but acting-wise, it's way over the top, even in scenes where it's not meant to be.   

Quote

Also, agree upthread with Kieran Shipka's execrable acting.  Most of us were far too kind to her during Mad Men (when slack was cut for her youth), but it's clear she has neither an actress's voice or command of body.  She is becoming breathtakingly beautiful, but she is not an actress.

I don't know.  The character was pretty limited, and it didn't seem like there was much for her to do. 

Edited April 25, 2017 by txhorns79

[Growsonwalls]

I think in fairness to Kieran Shipka, in Mad Men she was allowed to develop Sally Draper over many seasons. Also Sally Draper was a likable character compared to Don and Betty -- she was down to earth and no matter how angry she was at them she loved her parents. A character like Sally is always going to be likable -- a teen who loves her parents even when they don't deserve all that love. I still cry when I think about Sally cooking dinner for Betty who is smoking a cigarette even as she's dying. B.D. was written as a brat and there's not much opportunity to develop her beyond that bratty, entitled personality. 

[Nordly Beaumont]

8 minutes ago, Penman61 said:

Murphy too cute by half having Bette Davis slagging future Mommie Dearest star Faye Dunaway.  Davis is rightly iconic, but Dunaway did Chinatown, Bonnie & Clyde, Network, The Thomas Crown Affair, Barfly, Three Days of the Condor, The Eyes of Laura Mars, Little Big Man, The Towering Inferno.  No slouch.  

No slouch, but according to Bette on the Johnny Carson show the most unprofessional person she ever worked with. She added that anyone else he asked would tell him the same thing.

[Gemma Violet]

I just want to say something about removing one's back teeth to gain sunken cheeks (buckling, I think she called it).  I've heard that not only actresses would do this but models as well.  I just want to say that even if my heart's desire was to be an actress or model, buckling would be a deal breaker for me.  Ugh, it makes me ill just to talk about it.

1 minute ago, Nordly Beaumont said:

No slouch, but according to Bette on the Johnny Carson show the most unprofessional person she ever worked with. She added that anyone else he asked would tell him the same thing.

Bette said it on Letterman, too.

[Growsonwalls]

Just now, Gemma Violet said:

I just want to say something about removing one's back teeth to gain sunken cheeks (buckling, I think she called it).  I've heard that not only actresses would do this but models as well.  I just want to say that even if my heart's desire was to be an actress or model, buckling would be a deal breaker for me.  Ugh, it makes me ill just to talk about it.

Clark Gable was told to have ALL of his teeth removed. So he did and got dentures, which apparently gave him horrible halitosis. Another person who got all her teeth removed was Greta Garbo. 

And as for modern day modeling, uh ... I know someone who got on the cover of seventeen and stuff. She said that a designer taking a sharpie and circling all the areas you need to lose weight is still common, as is models doing stuff like eating toilet paper to stave off hunger. She wasn't resentful -- she's a doctor now and it's all in the past. Just matter of fact, that's how the fashion world is.