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

[mothmonsterman]

On 4/24/2017 at 11:15 AM, enoughcats said:

At the beginning of this clip, the Charleston is joyful.  Remember this Joan!

You guys here are amazing.  I am loving the movie suggestions, pictures, old Hollywood gossip and videos posted.  

I also really enjoyed this series, I think it would be awesome if someone made a tv show about old hollywood.  It can feature Bette, Joan and everyone else, like Dallas or something.  I would watch.  

[queenanne]

On 4/24/2017 at 2:41 AM, newyawk said:

Yeah, I saw that movie, it was all right.

Joan's grandson really LIKED how Joan was depicted in Feud and thinks it was pretty close to how she was (I guess he overlooked the delusional, arrogant and phony aspects of the "Joan" character's personality, or, she really was like that.)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4375684/Grandson-actress-Joan-Crawford-speaks-TV-s-Feud.html

To be fair, his actual interpretation when you look for just quotes, and not that of the DM writer filling in a lot of expository material, appears to be (a) "It is a better depiction than Mommie Dearest" and (b), "it dovetails with the grandmother I remember" (wouldn't he be half of the fictive representation of the two grandchildren cleaning the floor with their socks)?

On the Faye Dunaway debate, I heard she was a horror show as late as her appearance in Alias, and that her behavior on the set of Alias in fact stopped her character from being a love interest for Ron Rifkin's character.  I heard this years before this (admittedly equally unsubstantiated rumor, but at least she's on a shortlist) article was written, for whatever that's worth:

http://pagesix.com/2016/04/16/j-j-abrams-talks-about-working-with-a-rude-actress-on-alias/

I believed it off the original source/quote I saw, though of course I can't recall what gave it the ring of truth.

[Jules2307]

2 hours ago, psychoticstate said:

But more people defended Joan than maligned her.  I think people wanted to believe the worst because it was more titillating and exciting.  And in 1978, the salacious tell-all was novel (no pun intended.)  

Regardless, those that believe Christina and think Joan was a narcissistic, alcoholic abuser won't be swayed by anything said here; just as those that don't believe that about Joan aren't going to change their minds likewise.

I don't think we'll agree but part of my belief in Christina's version of events is what people said when they defended Joan. Take Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. (her first husband). When he defended her, he insisted that she was too controlled to ever beat Christina. The way he described her, she seemed like a tightly wound individual. After their marriage was over, her career was failing, she was under immense pressure and she became (by all accounts) a serious alcoholic. As Joan said in Feud, she was in a very different place in her life when she adopted Christina and Christopher than when she adopted the twins.

[J-Man]

I noticed that in the "In Memoriam" sequence as it was shown in the episode, Bing Crosby appeared immediately after Joan Crawford. And Bing was the subject of the second major celebrity tell-all/exposé alleging abusive parenting ("Going My Own Way," by Gary Crosby), which was Bing's "Daddy Dearest." 

[SWLinPHX]

18 hours ago, Daisy head said:

On 4/24/2017 at 11:20 PM, SWLinPHX said:

Really?  Because I was sure it wouldn't be.  That was covered thoroughly in Mommie Dearest and Murphy did not want to be seen as competing with that film.  He was more or less filling in the blanks left out of the movie, although he did copy a few scenes and notions from it.

Yes, I did.  I don't think of her appearance on Secret Storm as being the exclusive domain of MD.  She actually did appear.  I thought Murphy was trying to stay away from the allegations of the book, not things that irrefutably happened, but were also mentioned in the book.  I certainly didn't expect to see JL start beating a kid with wire hangers, but that was an allegation, not an event captured on film that thousands of people watched.  JMO.

Yeah, no.  I mean, there was a lot they showed here that they didn't show in Mommie Dearest.  They may have mentioned it but I certainly didn't expect them to try and redo that scene.  It wouldn't make sense.  None of the scenes here were scenes shown in Mommie Dearest, by design.  In fact, Murphy went out of his way to show so many other scenes not in the movie (the twin daughters, Baby Jane/Davis rivalry, Academy Awards, Trog, her shock at seeing how she looked in the newspaper and vow never to do another public appearance, the Christian Science thing, Mamacita, etc.  He did sort of copy the idea of her at the boardroom at one end of the table from the big wigs in her fancy hat letting them have it, but again that wasn't the same event or scene.  In fact, Murphy went to great pains to faithfully recreate so many documented scenes from their earlier movies, Baby Jane, Charlotte, Trog, the Dean Martin roast, Bette singing on a talk show, the Academy Awards acceptance, etc., etc., etc.  The one and only scene that Mommie Dearest did recreate is not one he would do again.

[caracas1914]

6 hours ago, Jules2307 said:

I don't think we'll agree but part of my belief in Christina's version of events is what people said when they defended Joan. Take Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. (her first husband). When he defended her, he insisted that she was too controlled to ever beat Christina. The way he described her, she seemed like a tightly wound individual. After their marriage was over, her career was failing, she was under immense pressure and she became (by all accounts) a serious alcoholic. As Joan said in Feud, she was in a very different place in her life when she adopted Christina and Christopher than when she adopted the twins.

Actually Joan divorced Douglas Fairbanks back in 1933, arguably when she was still at the peak of her box office career.  In fact, she married Franchot Tone in 1935  and divorced him in 1939, after which in 1940 she adopted Christina .  My contention with Douglas Fairbanks Jr. refutation of Christina's account of her childhood is that he had no way of knowing the private family life of Joan Crawford, it's not like he was a witness to any family issues, particularly since Joan married her third husband in 1942 and divorced him in 1946, so I doubt Fairbanks was hovering at house in the  midst of another  husband of Joan.

Edited April 26, 2017 by caracas1914

[evenstephens]

It broke my heart (in a good way) when Mamacita came back. I could watch a spin-off of Jackie Hoffman playing Mamacita as the  assistant/maid/nanny to the rich and famous. 

[darkestboy]

I really liked that finale episode. The Bette and Joan dream sequence felt super indulgent but it did work rather nicely though.

Joan's declining years were rather tragic to watch though, which I guess was the point.

Bette didn't have it easy either but she did seem to have more people in her life even if like Joan her relationship with her children could be patchy at times.

The Faye Dunaway line made me laugh though and I noticed they were careful about the Mommie Dearest stuff in this one too.

The casting for next season is going to have be as great as this one considering the subject matter doesn't inspire me too much.

Overall, a nice ending to this particular feud, 9/10

[Deanie87]

18 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I honestly think this was about as well-rounded a depiction of Crawford as you're likely to get without white-washing. It avoided much of the campy cliches and presented Crawford as a three dimensional human being instead of a caricature. That she might have appeared somewhat "pathetic" is due to the time period that covers the end of her career rather than the beginning, so the major triumphs in her life were already a thing of the past. I don't think they could have done an honest portrayal of Crawford without acknowledging her alcoholism either, it's pretty well known. Overall it's a fairer assessment of Crawford than Mommie Dearest, that's for sure.

Very true, and I know that they focused on her later life, so it was a fair depiction of her life at that time.  I guess I'm looking at it through the eyes of someone who has absolutely no familiarity with Crawford other than this and the reputation from Mommie Dearest.  I just wish there could have been a little more to indicate WHY this was such a downturn to what she had been.  Maybe Jack Warner could have discussed what a force of nature she had been in the earlier days or had the CZJ and Bates' character talking heads go into a little more than they did.  Just something to provide a little more context as to why both of these actresses being forced to, IMO, degrade themselves was such a big deal.  I think that comes across for Bette, but not so much for Joan.

[psychoticstate]

15 hours ago, Jules2307 said:

I don't think we'll agree but part of my belief in Christina's version of events is what people said when they defended Joan. Take Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. (her first husband). When he defended her, he insisted that she was too controlled to ever beat Christina. The way he described her, she seemed like a tightly wound individual. After their marriage was over, her career was failing, she was under immense pressure and she became (by all accounts) a serious alcoholic. As Joan said in Feud, she was in a very different place in her life when she adopted Christina and Christopher than when she adopted the twins.

 

8 hours ago, caracas1914 said:

Actually Joan divorced Douglas Fairbanks back in 1933, arguably when she was still at the peak of her box office career.  In fact, she married Franchot Tone in 1935  and divorced him in 1939, after which in 1940 she adopted Christina .  My contention with Douglas Fairbanks Jr. refutation of Christina's account of her childhood is that he had no way of knowing the private family life of Joan Crawford, it's not like he was a witness to any family issues, particularly since Joan married her third husband in 1942 and divorced him in 1946, so I doubt Fairbanks was hovering at house in the  midst of another  husband of Joan.

Fairbanks was quoted as saying that he had known Joan at her rawest, when she most real (i.e., when she was still "Billie") and had seen her deal with some hardships and difficult things and had never seen her capable of doing what Christina alleged.   That's his opinion and his perception on the person he knew.   He made the statements after Joan had died and he didn't need to comment at all but he did.   Could Joan have changed?  Of course.

That said, when Joan adopted Christina in 1940, she was divorced; her marriage wasn't failing.  Her career was also not failing in 1940.  She had a huge hit with The Women and 1940 was the year Strange Cargo (a hit) and Susan and God (not a big hit but it was a good role for Joan) were released and A Woman's Face was filming (would also be a hit.)  I recall reading that Joan generally didn't touch alcohol, other than a social drink, until later on in the decade so she most definitely was not an alcoholic when Christina or Christopher were adopted or even during their early years.  

She was definitely in a different place when she adopted Cathy and Cindy but you would think she would have been in a tougher place.  The twins were born and adopted in 1947.  At that time, Joan had gone through her third divorce and was at Warners, which was the polar opposite of MGM so far as stars were treated.  She did have a massive hit with Mildred Pierce, then Humoresque and Possessed but she was getting to a place where her career would get a bit shaky.   You would think if she were going to strike out due to her career situation and maybe even personal life, it would have been more likely with the twins. 

Regardless, I don't know what happened in her home.  Joan was a very controlled person, especially with herself.  She was also a workaholic and defined herself by her work. People can and do lie.  She certainly would have had a reason to lie about how she brought up her children.  Christina would have had a reason to lie about her relationship with her mother.  The absolute truth will probably never be known.  But I am not going to crucify Joan Crawford based on Christina's book and statements of a few others when there are just as many, if not more, who dispute what Christina said and Joan was never able to respond and possibly defend herself. 

[kassa]

I remember most of the criticism being less that "Joan was incapable of that" than "whatever happens in a family should remain within the family."  Lots of cautious "Even if it's true... it's a vicious thing to do to one's mother."  

There have been a million such books since from disgruntled celebrity relatives, but it was a real novelty at the time, so a lot of the attention the book got was whether it was ethical to even publish it/buy it, let alone write it.

I would ADORE a series about "the help" in Hollywood homes back in the golden era.  You could work in all the different stars via their staffs, who would naturally gossip about them.  The drivers would hang out talking outside fancy restaurants and awards shows, the nannies would hang out at the park, the maids would... meet wherever maids meet.  Maybe the drycleaners?  Somebody get on that, stat!

[txhorns79]

Quote

I really liked that finale episode. The Bette and Joan dream sequence felt super indulgent but it did work rather nicely though.

I did wonder why Joan would fantasize about attending a party with any of those people.  I know it's for story purposes, and they have to use the actors they have, but you'd think she might want to surround herself with the glamorous people she actually liked. 

[Maccagirl]

On 4/24/2017 at 11:15 AM, enoughcats said:

At the beginning of this clip, the Charleston is joyful.  Remember this Joan!

Thanks so much for the clip.  Pardon my ignorance, but I want to clarify: Ms. Crawford is playing the daughter in this clip; is that correct?  Thanks again for that gem. 

[enoughcats]

3 minutes ago, Maccagirl said:

but I want to clarify: Ms. Crawford is playing the daughter in this clip; is that correct? 

Yes, she was the daughter.  When she wraps the coat around her and makes love to the mirror for how she looks, her eyes are so expressive. 

This was one of her last silent movies.  Then came talkies and they are a lot easier to find nowadays.  I think the thing to remember, or at the least, a take-away point from Feud should have been that Joan Crawford had a phenomenally long career, and that the very pretty young woman was still beautiful when she made WEHTBJ.  

IMO that's all been forgotten thanks to Momie Dearest, and Feud didn't do much to give a background to this. 

Just for fun, go to Google images, and enter "Joan Crawford".  A good cup of coffee, quality tea, or your drink of speakeasy choice.  And get ready for a most pleasant hour or two.

[qtpye]

17 minutes ago, Maccagirl said:

Thanks so much for the clip.  Pardon my ignorance, but I want to clarify: Ms. Crawford is playing the daughter in this clip; is that correct?  Thanks again for that gem. 

Wow, that performance must have been really risqué for an audience just coming out of the Victorian age.  She really had the moves.  Did Joan ever receive any type of formal dance training?

[LittleIggy]

6 minutes ago, qtpye said:

Wow, that performance must have been really risqué for an audience just coming out of the Victorian age.  She really had the moves.  Did Joan ever receive any type of formal dance training?

Edwardian era.

[enoughcats]

From flapper to Trog

[A.J.]

Quote

 

Joan had friends/family until the end, so the series making her much more pathetically alone at the end was so infuriating

I do think she was lonely at times toward the end of her life but certainly not to the point Murphy wrote.  She did give interesting, gracious interviews in the 60s and she had been very charitable throughout her professional life.  She also did continue working with Pepsi until around 1973.  So it's a shame that she was written here as if she were a recluse from 1970 until 1977.

 

I loved the series but this was one of my biggest problems with the show too.  She looked after and stayed in contact of her 2nd husband Frachot Tone up until he died, which was in 1968.  This is the same time span of the series.  She also was a very good friend with William Haines until he died in 1973 who was a famous Hollywood actor back in the day.  Joan helped his interior design business blossom when he refused to leave his gay lover of many years to keep up an act to keep his career going.  She set up a secret hospital room and paid the bills for people in need that didn't have the money.  She was still good friends with Rosalind Russell, Myrna Loy, Barbara Stanwyck and I'm sure many others.  And earlier in this post there is a link from her grandson who talked about how they would visit Joan during the time she didn't go out anymore.  They said they had fun but always stayed at her apartment.  I know you can't put everything in the series, but it makes it seem like she barely had any one at the end except Mamacita and that one visit from her daughter.

I also hate how they made her seem very fragile and whiny.  However, with all that, I do think this portrayal of her was much, much better than the Mommie Dearest film/book. 

Quote

Christina has been a child abuse advocate for decades, why would she waste her time and energy if she made it all up?

I'm sure Christina made a lot of money from Mommie Dearest.  The book, the movie, speaking engagements, etc. were probably very profitable.  She did anniversary editions, countless TV shows and such.  It's a built in source of income for her.  Plus, why not get involved in being a child advocate.  It's a very worthy cause.   

Knowing all I know from over the years, I'm sure that she and Joan clashed many times.  And she most likely did experience unpleasant treatment from Joan, but I think she seriously over dramatized the events to make the book sell.   

[ennui]

18 hours ago, queenanne said:

On the Faye Dunaway debate, I heard she was a horror show as late as her appearance in Alias

I don't think it's a debate. I've never heard anyone say she was nice or pleasant. But I've heard the same thing said about some other famous actresses. Talented, but nightmares.

I finally had a chance to watch this last night, and overall I found it depressing but not unusual. Most women outlive their husbands, and we all face aging. I think I felt for Joan most when her dress didn't fit and she cancelled lunch plans. I'm glad to read that she did not die alone as depicted here. I thought Jessica did an excellent job in this episode, and I forgot it was her although it took her a long time (eight episodes).

Regarding the Bette quote, I could believe it in the context of this episode. Bette knew she was expected to say something bitchy, so she did. 

I loved the dream sequence. It reminded me of my parents and their friends, drinking, laughing, and playing cards. 

[psychoticstate]

7 minutes ago, A.J. said:

I'm sure Christina made a lot of money from Mommie Dearest.  The book, the movie, speaking engagements, etc. were probably very profitable.  She did anniversary editions, countless TV shows and such.  It's a built in source of income for her.  Plus, why not get involved in being a child advocate.  It's a very worthy cause.   

Knowing all I know from over the years, I'm sure that she and Joan clashed many times.  And she most likely did experience unpleasant treatment from Joan, but I think she seriously over dramatized the events to make the book sell.   

It is indeed a worthy cause and that is the very silver lining to come out of MD - - child abuse became much more of an "acceptable" topic for conversation and concern. 

I mentioned this in other threads but I don't believe that someone who suffered what Christina said she did would be making appearances with wire hangers; gifting some and chasing people around with others.  It's tasteless at best;  self-serving and highly questionable (as far as the claims) at worst.  

[A.J.]

4 minutes ago, psychoticstate said:

I don't believe that someone who suffered what Christina said she did would be making appearances with wire hangers; gifting some and chasing people around with others.  It's tasteless at best;  self-serving and highly questionable (as far as the claims) at worst.  

Did this really happen?  I've never heard that.  

[psychoticstate]

1 minute ago, A.J. said:

Did this really happen?  I've never heard that.  

I'll see if I can find a link or links but it was reported when MD the film came out that she either chased people with a hanger or had people chase her and she gifted (bronzed maybe?) wire hangers.   

[enoughcats]

23 minutes ago, ennui said:

I think I felt for Joan most when her dress didn't fit and she cancelled lunch plans.

Although no autopsy was done, many suggest she died of cancer that accounted for her weight loss over the last years of her life. Pancreatic Cancer is mentioned.  Her religion is also suggested as the reason she chose not to have treatment.  Her certificate of death lists Cardiac Arrest.

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

The dress not fitting worked, though, it tugged at your compassion. 

[psychoticstate]

Here is a link to Christina's Town Hall appearance in 1998:  http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/10/style/to-mommie-dearest-a-twisted-mother-s-day.html

From the linked article: 

Quote

One can only wonder what she would have thought of last Wednesday's benefit screening of ''Mommie Dearest'' at Town Hall, an evening whose host was Christina Crawford. Even the modern-day audience found it strange to see Ms. Crawford present a hand-decorated wire coat hanger to Lypsinka, the drag performer, who was impersonating Ms. Crawford's mother, Joan Crawford.  

Also another author on the Town Hall appearance:  http://www.apeculture.com/movies/crawford.htm

From this article:

Quote

At the end of the interview, Christina requested that Lypsynka come out on stage, and she presented Lypsynka with a gold, decorated wire hanger as a token of appreciation.

And from the book Joan Crawford: The Essential Biography by Lawrence J. Quirk: 

Quote

Christina appeared at Town Hall in New York (and venues in other cities) along with publicity hungry drag entertainer Lypsinka (dressed, of course, as Joan) where Christina, in a gesture of dubious taste, presented Lypsinka with a sequined wire hanger.   . . .  Christina has disassociated herself from the film, mostly because her screenplays for it were rejected and she didn't make enough money from it, but this didn't stop her from using it to sell copies of her own book.  As one observer put it, "Christina will whore herself in any way imaginable to make money off her mother's name and to keep herself in the public eye." 

[ennui]

47 minutes ago, enoughcats said:

 Her religion is also suggested as the reason she chose not to have treatment.  

I could understand the reason given in the episode -- medical treatments are barbaric. I know people who've been through cancer and say that if it returns they'll accept it rather than go through it all again. And that's in 2017. Treatment in the 1970s would be worse.

Edited April 26, 2017 by ennui

[meowmommy]

Having just lost both my furbabies (I guess I'm no longer a meowmommy...:(   ) and being at wit's end how to get through my day, the opening scene where Joan wanders through her day and then gets the puppy just made me cry.  

This is the first episode where I felt like SS looked and sounded like BD.

[enoughcats]

16 minutes ago, ennui said:

Treatment in the 1970s would be worse.

My Father had lung cander treatment about the time Joan Crawford died.  The treatment accelerated the cancer which killed him.  My mother's best friend and a month later her first cousin both were diagnosed with lung cancer within a year of my Father's death; both declined treatment. 

When JC died, many Hollywood stars had died of cancer.  Her late husband, was one. From his wiki

Quote

However, many years later, when Tone was suffering with lung cancer, Joan often took care of him, making sure he had food and medical treatments and paying for all of it herself. At one point during this period, Tone even suggested they remarry, which Joan turned down.

[benteen]

2 hours ago, A.J. said:

I loved the series but this was one of my biggest problems with the show too.  She looked after and stayed in contact of her 2nd husband Frachot Tone up until he died, which was in 1968.  This is the same time span of the series.  She also was a very good friend with William Haines until he died in 1973 who was a famous Hollywood actor back in the day.  Joan helped his interior design business blossom when he refused to leave his gay lover of many years to keep up an act to keep his career going.  She set up a secret hospital room and paid the bills for people in need that didn't have the money.  She was still good friends with Rosalind Russell, Myrna Loy, Barbara Stanwyck and I'm sure many others.  And earlier in this post there is a link from her grandson who talked about how they would visit Joan during the time she didn't go out anymore.  They said they had fun but always stayed at her apartment.  I know you can't put everything in the series, but it makes it seem like she barely had any one at the end except Mamacita and that one visit from her daughter.

I also hate how they made her seem very fragile and whiny.  However, with all that, I do think this portrayal of her was much, much better than the Mommie Dearest film/book.  

Add Steven Spielberg as another friend of hers.  I've mentioned this before but his first TV gig was directing her in the Night Gallery TV movie and after a rocky start, the two got along very well and stayed in touch until her death.  THAT would have been something interesting to see....someone from Hollywood's past working with someone from Hollywood's future.  But that wouldn't have fit the narrative that Murphy was hell bent on presenting of an actress who was forgotten by Hollywood and lonely.  From what I read, Joan still did the occasional TV job and was still being invited to celebrity-related events in the 70s but her health had taken a major toll on her by then.

Even Bette Davis is misrepresented at times.  They mention the Dean Martin Roast being a bad experience for her.  I read an article about that the other day on Bustle and according to the author, Bette seemed to be having a good time and later return as a guest at the roast of Johnny Carson.

[A.J.]

2 hours ago, psychoticstate said:

Here is a link to Christina's Town Hall appearance in 1998:  http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/10/style/to-mommie-dearest-a-twisted-mother-s-day.html

From the linked article: 

Also another author on the Town Hall appearance:  http://www.apeculture.com/movies/crawford.htm

 

Thanks for the links.  I've always felt that Christina was less than trustworthy/honest.  This makes me question her "tales" even more.   

[Jan Spears]

15 hours ago, caracas1914 said:

Actually Joan divorced Douglas Fairbanks back in 1933, arguably when she was still at the peak of her box office career.

Here are Crawford's rankings in the annual Quigley's Top Money Making Stars poll (which began in 1932) of theater owners:

1932 -- 3rd

1933 -- 10th

1934 -- 6th

1935 -- 5th

1936 -- 7th

1937 -- 16th

This was the period Crawford referred to as, "like drifting on a high tide". But then came the infamous 'Box Office Poison' article in 1938 and, thereafter, Crawford never appeared in the exhibitors' poll again during her time at MGM. (She would reappear in the Top 25 in 1947 after the walloping success of Mildred Pierce.)

FYI -- Bette Davis first appeared in the Top 15 of the poll in 1939 and stayed in the Top 15 every year between 1939-1946.

[ennui]

Interesting article about Joan's last days ... apparently, the show wasn't too far off.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/04/fx-feud-finale

I doubt you'd find any celebrity today who was so accessible to her fans. Answered their letters, allowed them to spend the night, fixed them breakfast. What a memory that would be for any fan.

[psychoticstate]

5 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Having just lost both my furbabies (I guess I'm no longer a meowmommy...:(   ) and being at wit's end how to get through my day, the opening scene where Joan wanders through her day and then gets the puppy just made me cry.  

This is the first episode where I felt like SS looked and sounded like BD.

I am so sorry for your losses, @meowmommy.  I've lost three furbabies and it's a painful loss that not everyone understands.   Reading about Rainbow Bridge always helped me as well as books about animals in heaven or on the other side.  Hugs to you.

4 hours ago, enoughcats said:

My Father had lung cander treatment about the time Joan Crawford died.  The treatment accelerated the cancer which killed him.  My mother's best friend and a month later her first cousin both were diagnosed with lung cancer within a year of my Father's death; both declined treatment. 

When JC died, many Hollywood stars had died of cancer.  Her late husband, was one. From his wiki

I'm sorry, @enoughcats.  Cancer is a terrible thing.  I lost my best friend to it.  I understand why people opt out of treatment.  It can be brutal.

I appreciate that you posted that bit about Joan taking care of Franchot Tone at the end of his life.  I can't imagine doing that for my ex but we did not part on good terms.  It's a very caring and selfless thing to do. 

4 hours ago, benteen said:

Add Steven Spielberg as another friend of hers.  I've mentioned this before but his first TV gig was directing her in the Night Gallery TV movie and after a rocky start, the two got along very well and stayed in touch until her death.  THAT would have been something interesting to see....someone from Hollywood's past working with someone from Hollywood's future.  But that wouldn't have fit the narrative that Murphy was hell bent on presenting of an actress who was forgotten by Hollywood and lonely.  From what I read, Joan still did the occasional TV job and was still being invited to celebrity-related events in the 70s but her health had taken a major toll on her by then.

Even Bette Davis is misrepresented at times.  They mention the Dean Martin Roast being a bad experience for her.  I read an article about that the other day on Bustle and according to the author, Bette seemed to be having a good time and later return as a guest at the roast of Johnny Carson.

So true!  The finale did make it appear that Joan was a sad, pathetic creature who had no one, other than her dog and Mamacita.  Simply not true. Heck, on the morning she died, she got up and made breakfast for her nurse and her maid and made sure they were eating it and enjoying it before she passed. 

I think Joan was very active, even if not making public appearances, until shortly before her death, when her health made it difficult, if not impossible. 

Bette Davis got the short end of the stick insofar as time spent.  The episode rushed through the last decade or so of her life, without a lot of mention. 

3 hours ago, A.J. said:

Thanks for the links.  I've always felt that Christina was less than trustworthy/honest.  This makes me question her "tales" even more.   

It just doesn't sit right. If my mother had beaten me with a hanger, I would never use it as some kind of "prop" or joke about it.  It wouldn't be funny at all. 

One of those links mentioned that the 1998 event, for the 20th anniversary of MD the book, was where she first stated that Joan killed Al Steele.  When she was then asked for further clarification on that, she got pissy about it.  What did she think?  OF COURSE people would want more details or info, since she was not only alleging something that Joan Crawford had never been accused of but calling her mother a murderer.  

The link also said that she signed a copy of Joan's book (the one shown in this episode) with the inscription "Don't believe one word." 

I've felt for a while that Christina is the president of the I Hate Joan Crawford Fan Club; she seems extremely angry and bitter.  I'm not saying that abuse wouldn't make you angry and bitter but it's not healthy to stay in that place.  One of my friends endured an abusive childhood environment and it certainly doesn't control his life.  He doesn't speak of his parents with the vitriol that Christina uses.  

I always go back to what Joan herself said, and I think maybe one of the twins, as well as someone who attended the Town Hall event -- that Christina will ride Joan Crawford's name as long as she can before letting it go.

2 hours ago, ennui said:

Interesting article about Joan's last days ... apparently, the show wasn't too far off.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/04/fx-feud-finale

I doubt you'd find any celebrity today who was so accessible to her fans. Answered their letters, allowed them to spend the night, fixed them breakfast. What a memory that would be for any fan.

The article says this:   "They focused so intently on their careers that they never had truly satisfying relationships with family or friends, "

I don't think that's necessarily accurate.  I do think both women were workaholics who defined themselves by their careers.  Bette never had a successful marriage due, in part, to her career.  Joan did not find marital happiness until she was with Al Steele and that marriage was cut short by his early death. 

Joan had many industry friends from over the years.  She met Billy Haines when she first arrived in Hollywood in 1925 and remained close friends with him until his death in 1973 (I think?) She was also longtime friends with Roz Russell, Myrna Loy, Cesar Romero, George Cukor, James Quirk . . . to name just a few.  And as @enoughcats posted, she remained friendly with Franchot Tone and cared for him during his last days. 

I don't know as much about Bette but it seems that she too had more friendships than the show let on.  I think she may have been more private than Joan but the show at least gave us Victor Buono. 

It is a good article overall though.

I wish I had been old enough to meet Joan back in the day or at least write her a fan letter.  It would have been a great memory to get a real, handwritten response back from her.  Many of the classic stars seemed to truly cherish their fans. 

[ennui]

One publisher is on the ball.  Joan's book is out in paperback. "My Way of Life."  "Part memoir, part self-help book, part guide to being fabulous, "My Way of Life" advises the reader on everything from throwing a small dinner party for eighteen to getting the most out of a marriage. Featuring tips on fashion, makeup, etiquette and everything in between, it is an irresistible look at a bygone era, when movie stars were pure class."

[Growsonwalls]

53 minutes ago, psychoticstate said:

I don't know as much about Bette but it seems that she too had more friendships than the show let on.  I think she may have been more private than Joan but the show at least gave us Victor Buono. 

Bette was friends with Olivia (the show did cover that), Ginger Rogers, Lucille Ball. Bette also wrote a gracious letter to Meryl Streep saying how talented she thought Meryl was and how she was going to be the next great American actress. And she supposedly loved "Bette Davis Eyes." 

[ennui]

9 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

I did wonder why Joan would fantasize about attending a party with any of those people.  I know it's for story purposes, and they have to use the actors they have, but you'd think she might want to surround herself with the glamorous people she actually liked. 

It was mentioned somewhere in this forum ... I think Joan was hallucinating. People who are terminally ill have hallucinations, and you don't get to choose. My interpretation of the scene was Joan was up and wandering around by herself, hallucinating, until Mamacita came and put her back to bed. 

I agree that they had to use other characters from the show. It's just that I don't think Joan was fantasizing as much as hallucinating.

[formerlyfreedom]

Please remember this is about the episode; if you want to discuss Mommie Dearest or Christina Crawford at great length, let's take it to the Hollywood History topic, and focus on the episode here. Posts may be removed going forward.

[ennui]

8 hours ago, enoughcats said:

Just for fun, go to Google images, and enter "Joan Crawford".  A good cup of coffee, quality tea, or your drink of speakeasy choice.  And get ready for a most pleasant hour or two.

Best advice ever.  

[Daisy head]

21 hours ago, SWLinPHX said:

Yeah, no.  I mean, there was a lot they showed here that they didn't show in Mommie Dearest.  They may have mentioned it but I certainly didn't expect them to try and redo that scene.  It wouldn't make sense.  None of the scenes here were scenes shown in Mommie Dearest, by design.  In fact, Murphy went out of his way to show so many other scenes not in the movie (the twin daughters, Baby Jane/Davis rivalry, Academy Awards, Trog, her shock at seeing how she looked in the newspaper and vow never to do another public appearance, the Christian Science thing, Mamacita, etc.  He did sort of copy the idea of her at the boardroom at one end of the table from the big wigs in her fancy hat letting them have it, but again that wasn't the same event or scene.  In fact, Murphy went to great pains to faithfully recreate so many documented scenes from their earlier movies, Baby Jane, Charlotte, Trog, the Dean Martin roast, Bette singing on a talk show, the Academy Awards acceptance, etc., etc., etc.  The one and only scene that Mommie Dearest did recreate is not one he would do again.

I just thought it would be amusing & was hopeful for it, as I know Secret Storm was a soap my mom watched.  I wasn't aware that Murphy was feverishly trying to avoid anything to do with MD - you have obviously thought a lot more about this than I have...

[NutMeg]

18 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

I did wonder why Joan would fantasize about attending a party with any of those people.  I know it's for story purposes, and they have to use the actors they have, but you'd think she might want to surround herself with the glamorous people she actually liked. 

I think it makes sense because it was unfinished business. These people should have loved her, in her eyes, so this fantasy was a nice completion by bringing "to life" what she expected from them. A nice wrap up, in other words. Kind of like one fantasises an old boss would say "you were the best ... I ever knew" or a former flame "I'm sorry I hurt you, it was all so you could become your 'bestest' self" (well, no one would hope for the latter, but hopefully you get my drift :) here).  

15 hours ago, psychoticstate said:

I mentioned this in other threads but I don't believe that someone who suffered what Christina said she did would be making appearances with wire hangers; gifting some and chasing people around with others.  It's tasteless at best;  self-serving and highly questionable (as far as the claims) at worst.  

It's not very different from Joan distributing whatever cardboard replica of the weapon featured in a movie she played in - not her choice, something she even finds distasteful (per Feud; recordings from back then make it like it was all in good fun), but what the publicist insists on.    

9 hours ago, ennui said:

One publisher is on the ball.  Joan's book is out in paperback. "My Way of Life."  "Part memoir, part self-help book, part guide to being fabulous, "My Way of Life" advises the reader on everything from throwing a small dinner party for eighteen to getting the most out of a marriage. Featuring tips on fashion, makeup, etiquette and everything in between, it is an irresistible look at a bygone era, when movie stars were pure class."

That seems like it could be a fun read, because I absolutely love these old whatever slash etiquette books, parts of them are the most fascinating time capsules (my two favourites ones are a French one from early 20th century - how you visit and how you leave your card, with a corner folded if you were there in person, is one of the best things - and an American one from the early 1960s - so cute, so stylish, but also so dated). 

[txhorns79]

Quote

I think it makes sense because it was unfinished business. These people should have loved her, in her eyes, so this fantasy was a nice completion by bringing "to life" what she expected from them. A nice wrap up, in other words. Kind of like one fantasises an old boss would say "you were the best ... I ever knew" or a former flame "I'm sorry I hurt you, it was all so you could become your 'bestest' self" (well, no one would hope for the latter, but hopefully you get my drift :) here).  

I didn't get the impression from the series that Joan thought Jack Warner, Hedda or Bette should have loved her, or that was her expectation from any of them.  If that really was her thought, it probably would have been Louis B. Mayer at the table and not Jack Warner.  As I said before, I understand about story needs and the fact that they already have established characters for her to play off, but it just seemed like an odd grouping of people.   

[newyawk]

I kind of wish they had shown Bette making "The Star" which was a movie written by former close friends of Joan., Dale Eunson and Katharine Albert. "Former friends" because Joan went behind the couple's backs and encouraged their daughter to elope..pretty bizarre thing to do.

From IMDB: "Middle-aged Oscar winning actress Margaret Elliot - Maggie to those that know her - is a Hollywood has-been. Her life is in shambles. She clings to the hope of resurrecting her past movie stardom as a leading ingénue. No one will hire her, she's penniless with creditors selling off anything that she owns that is of monetary value, and she has no one to turn to that can see her through financially. She has in the past supported her sister and brother-in-law, who still want to use her as their meal ticket. Divorced from her actor husband, she shares joint custody of their teen-aged daughter Gretchen, from who Maggie tries to hide her problems."

Shaun Considine's book said that one of the sequences is based on Joan's one-time habit of going out for late night drunken drives along the Pacific Coast Highway..the Oscar in her car might have been an embellishment of the movie or the book might have said Joan would take it with her, I can't remember which. But the movie is amusing, especially when you know the backstory behind it. 

[newyawk]

11 hours ago, ennui said:

One publisher is on the ball.  Joan's book is out in paperback. "My Way of Life."  "Part memoir, part self-help book, part guide to being fabulous, "My Way of Life" advises the reader on everything from throwing a small dinner party for eighteen to getting the most out of a marriage. Featuring tips on fashion, makeup, etiquette and everything in between, it is an irresistible look at a bygone era, when movie stars were pure class."

Oh jeez. I had mentioned earlier that I found this in a military library once upon a time, and flipped through it out of curiosity. That is really what the book is, a curiosity. I found it hard to believe that at the time it was published, 1971, with the burgeoning women's rights movement, and Erma Bombeck's harried housewife bestsellers being the rage, that anyone would still have taken this book seriously as a self-help guide. It is full of some really silly tips and advice, and is fairly corny. But the curiosity/novelty factor does make it fun to check out. 

The copy I saw had a penciled autograph in the front, with the big loopy J and the C. and I thought about sneaking the book out and keeping it, lol, but I thought, she would never sign anything in pencil!

[txhorns79]

Quote

Oh jeez. I had mentioned earlier that I found this in a military library once upon a time, and flipped through it out of curiosity. That is really what the book is, a curiosity. I found it hard to believe that at the time it was published, 1971, with the burgeoning women's rights movement, and Erma Bombeck's harried housewife bestsellers being the rage, that anyone would still have taken this book seriously as a self-help guide. It is full of some really silly tips and advice, and is fairly corny. But the curiosity/novelty factor does make it fun to check out. 

I did wonder to whom the book was aimed.  I can't imagine that younger women in the early 70s were going to give much credence to life advice from a 60-something faded movie star.  Similarly, I can't imagine middle aged or older women were going to care much about Joan Crawford's lifestyle tips.     

[Carolina Girl]

On 4/26/2017 at 7:12 AM, darkestboy said:

The casting for next season is going to have be as great as this one considering the subject matter doesn't inspire me too much.

I hear it's supposed to be Charles and Diana.   I'll probably skip it, since I seriously doubt I'll learn anything more than the 45,761 books/articles/tv movies/documentaries have told me.  And frankly, I detest Charles and am lukewarm about Diana.  I agree with the poster upthread that I'd LOVE to see Louella and Hedda (although "Malice in Wonderland" is really good as I remember).  Most of the famous feuds I've read about occurred during the making of like one film.  But I'd love to see Fontaine/DeHavilland (which may be difficult since the latter is still alive).  Another might be Wallis Simpson and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (the Queen Mother).  

[msrachelj]

On 4/24/2017 at 2:05 AM, newyawk said:

Odd little observation, but I find it hard to believe that Joan would have had gingivitis (the bleeding gums when she brushed her teeth.) She seemed too type A to not be a compulsive flosser.

 

NM, posted that as I started watching the episode. I see they explained that she had previous extractions that became infected.

they (the dentist) did imply that, but how do extractions get infected 40 or more years later?  after the tooth is pulled it heals up, if something were to occur, wouldn't it have been around the time they were worked on? dental-phobe here and someone who has, like most of us, had all 4 wisdom teeth pulled. she most likely had some sort gum disease, receding gums, which is common after a certain age. 

[Melancholy]

I'm not particularly looking forward to Charles v. Diana too. I'll give it a try based on the existing good track record of Ryan Murphy's historical anthologies. Even though I knew the bare bones of Bette v. Joan (but I learned a lot mainly from these boards), there's a suspense and gravitas because these actresses were self-made women who both built up their careers but also the Hollywood celebrity system. It's a meaningful story to see them try to keep their careers and celebrity afloat even though their own kingdom has turned against them. Charles and Diana are so passive by contrast. They were born into celebrity and wealth and that just naturally followed them. I'm not saying that's the case for all monarchy- loved the "actually active But covered in passive" story of Queen Elizabeth in The Crown as she deals with losing the empire of her birthright and tries to keep the monarchy relevant at the start of the modern era. But that's not Charles and Diana. They were/are coasters in a system far bigger than them which provided all of their importance beyond Bitter Married/Divorced Couple. 

Edited April 27, 2017 by Melancholy

[formerlyfreedom]

Here is the spot to discuss next season -

[enoughcats]

3 hours ago, msrachelj said:

the dentist) did imply that, but how do extractions get infected 40 or more years later?  after the tooth is pulled it heals up,

 

That dentist was almost as competent as Bill Murray in Little Shop of Horrors.

Extractions from my head have not become infected 40 years later. Having many dental visits in my life spanning that period, dental implants were not that common.

The smart mouth on that dentist....Bill Murray should be in his mouth in the future.  

[ennui]

28 minutes ago, enoughcats said:

Having many dental visits in my life spanning that period, dental implants were not that common.

I thought that, too. I even Googled implants to see when they were first developed because it seemed an odd thing for the dentist to say.

The other thing that didn't seem true (from my own memory) was frozen microwave meals (they show Joan picking a little box from her freezer). I remember the first microwave on our block, people used them to cook regular foods, only faster. I don't remember prepackaged meals in the beginning.

[queenanne]

8 hours ago, msrachelj said:

they (the dentist) did imply that, but how do extractions get infected 40 or more years later?  after the tooth is pulled it heals up, if something were to occur, wouldn't it have been around the time they were worked on? dental-phobe here and someone who has, like most of us, had all 4 wisdom teeth pulled. she most likely had some sort gum disease, receding gums, which is common after a certain age. 

The only piece of light I can shed is, I once read that the adult's primary goal is to keep as many of their teeth in their jaw as possible for as long as possible, because it's once you have gaps that all hell breaks loose.  (2 wisdom teeth extracted and while I think/hope as it's at the end; this isn't the same thing; also nothing I could have done about it because I flat-out asked the dentist, hopefully (I was in college when one started peeking above the jaw), "Can't I just teethe it on out?"  Dentist to me:  "No, that might mess up the roots of the molars behind it.")  Short version; I think maybe it wasn't Joan's molars that got infected as much as the teeth in front of said molars, because now there's gaps in her mandibles allowing for everything else to go to pot.  (didn't she in fact bleed when she flossed?  if they were trying to imply she bled from the flossing I doubt they'd pick on the section of jaw with no teeth in it.)

Edited April 28, 2017 by queenanne