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

[MyPeopleAreNordic]

On April 24, 2017 at 1:37 PM, mamadrama said:

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. 

I was soooo hoping to see "Watcher in the Woods" just because it was the onlu movie I ever saw Bette Davis in until I discovered "All About Eve" in my early 20s.

Edited April 29, 2017 by MyPeopleAreNordic

[ciprus]

For the first time, Susan Sarandon truly looked like Bette Davis to me.

After being annoyed with Joan in episode 7, I felt sorry for her here. Jessica Lange did a good job.

All in all a decent series, I had just hoped for more. Not sure what it was missing. Sorry to hear they will go with Charles and Diana next, I wish they'd stick to old Hollywood!

[theatremouse]

On 4/24/2017 at 9:03 AM, TimWil said:

They wouldn't have all been in the Green Room backstage at the Academy Awards, though. It just wouldn't have happened. I realize it's a dramatic conceit but still.

I thought the show strongly implied they'd been explicitly invited there to participate, not that they all just happened to be at the event.

On 4/26/2017 at 0:12 PM, enoughcats said:

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

I might be super dense, but I didn't think the issue was it not fitting. I thought they were implying she was already sick and too physically weak to do it up herself so she bailed.

 

While I understand that terminally ill people do hallucinate, that scene did not work for me at all. It's too much of a writing crutch to go dream-sequence/hallucination. Unless there were some report of her hallucinating Jack Warner and they felt it too good to pass up the opportunity to use and expand on that, it's just super weak. Similarly, I dislike the whole "card at the end of what happened to the person later". I didn't have any trouble reading the font or the text in the time allotted; it's just cheap. You wrote a series. Write an ending. This schtick with the cards of what came next is a cop out. Sure, people may be wondering, but that's what google's for. If it's important enough to be in the show, write it into the damn show.

[TimWil]

11 hours ago, theatremouse said:

I thought the show strongly implied they'd been explicitly invited there to participate, not that they all just happened to be at the event.

 

But that's my point. Why would Joan Blondell, Victor Buono and that documentary maker be invited to the Academy Awards to participate? Why would they even be there at all? It's terribly contrived and the only purpose for it was to have them all in one place at the same time in one of the final scenes of the series.

Edited April 30, 2017 by TimWil

[Florinaldo]

On 2017-04-25 at 1:00 AM, SWLinPHX said:

That's somewhat of the point of it.  Murphy wanted to "right a wrong" so to speak by balancing out the legacy of "Mommie Dearest" (book and film) and showing a more objective point of view.  I was very impressed, more so than I thought.  The series wasn't just camp, but something deeper.

One indisputable thing about RM: he certainly knows how to put together eminently watchable shows and to hire excellent writers, cast and crew to bring them to the screen. It may not work every time for every viewer (I quit on Scream Queens, OJ Simpson and the last season of AHS after barely one episode), but it is more often than not a well produced story, especially when the material it is based on is as interesting as the relationship between BD and JC.

This despite the numerous flaws and mistakes that were mentioned over the last few weeks and were again present in this episode; I think that we can safely assume that most of them were deliberate, to buttress RM's mission to rehabilitate JC's character after the hatchet job done on her by her daughter and the ensuing movie adaptation. He also seems to be pushing the point of view that the two women were manipulated and victimised by powerful men throughout their careers, and were ultimately left unhappy and objects of derision in their last years. Which is why for example they depict JC as seemingly having no other NYC friend than Rosalind Russell and being already isolated from everybody else even before the infamous unflattering photo of the two of them that appeared in the press, even though she continued to see and talk to many people. She is so pathetic in this episode that she does not even have a maid or a neighbour to help her zip up her dress! Meanwhile, BD is shown as having been humiliated by the Dean Martin roast devoted to her, whereas she apparently enjoyed it tremendously. Perhaps RM substituted his own feelings towards that event for those of the real-life BD.

I believe that the real details of those last years would have been rich enough without the need for omissions and revisions in service of a pro-JC ideology. It nevertheless was an enjoyable ride, which provided much fodder for discussion; then again, I have a favourable predisposition for behind-the scenes stories involving the production of old movies.

Regarding the framing device of interviews backstage at the Oscars with Blondell, de Havilland, Buono, etc., I think they could have used it more extensively as a means of putting things into context, correct some erroneous perspectives on the part of the two main characters, or even as a critical counterpoint. I don't mean that it should have been given equal time as the main action; but a more efficient use of it would have made it less intrusive and more relevant than it was at times.

7 hours ago, TimWil said:

But that's my point. Why would Joan Blondell, Victor Buono and that documentary maker be invited to the Academy Awards to participate? Why would they even be there at all? It's terribly contrived and the only purpose for it was to have them all in one place at the same time in one of the final scenes of the series.

It was a narrative contrivance, but it avoided the need to film multiple scenes of each of them reacting to the "in Memoriam" segment of the ceremony and being interviewed in different sets.

Edited April 30, 2017 by Florinaldo

[theatremouse]

9 hours ago, TimWil said:

But that's my point. Why would Joan Blondell, Victor Buono and that documentary maker be invited to the Academy Awards to participate? Why would they even be there at all? It's terribly contrived and the only purpose for it was to have them all in one place at the same time in one of the final scenes of the series.

My impression was the documentary dude did the inviting for his fake-contrived-for-this-show documentary on Joan and/or Bette, and invited the people he interviewed backstage there to be interviewed. They may or may not have otherwise bothered to be at that particular ceremony. It did not seem to me that the Academy invited him or them there to do that. He chose to take the ceremony as an opportunity to have access to boatloads of celebs who knew/interacted with his subjects and somehow convinced the Academy to let him film stuff there. Or something. Was the premise. It's contrived, for sure, but not completely ridiculous to me. I'd rather they show some sort of real time reveal of why the interviews were happening than stick with the more-common straight up contrivance that interviews are happening surrounding the bulk of the show shown in flashback, with no explanation ever for why that's there.

[hippielamb]

I really enjoyed this series, having very little knowledge of the real life people that were portrayed. I thought it was interesting that Bette had rivalries with Faye Dunaway and Katherine Hepburn. Most of my familiarity with old Hollywood movies comes from Hepburn and Cary Grant movies. So it seems Bette had issues with others, not just Joan. Speaking of Joan, she really tugged at my heart in this one. I teared up at the In Memoriam scene for her. Mamacita rules! I was so glad to see her come back. 

[Mindthinkr]

I liked that too but IRL she left Joan and wasn't there for the final farewell. She would have probably (at least the way that their relationship has been portrayed here) been the one person to offer her comfort in her dying moments. It did make for a satisfying ending (as well as that dream sequence). 

[Macbeth]

Given that Murphy actually interviewed Bette Davis - I am surprised he felt a real need to rehabilitate Joan's reputation.  Although given how bad it is/was - it could only go up. 

It was striking, even in the little things, how much Murphy favored Joan - well really Jessica.  In her hallucination - Joan was striking in the red dress and she was framed by beautiful, vibrant green drapes.  She was perfectly framed.  Bette looked great too - but no special framing was used for her.  Once the dream ended - so did those green drapes. 

[qtpye]

50 minutes ago, Macbeth said:

It was striking, even in the little things, how much Murphy favored Joan - well really Jessica.  In her hallucination - Joan was striking in the red dress and she was framed by beautiful, vibrant green drapes.  She was perfectly framed.  Bette looked great too - but no special framing was used for her.  Once the dream ended - so did those green drapes. 

It really did feel like Bette Davis was a supporting character.  Also, for all the framing, Sarandon looked amazing and Lange looked terrible.  Lange is a very good looking woman, but JC's styling does her no favors.

[millennium]

I hate Ryan Murphy's work.  Really hate.  American Horror Story in particular.

And yet Feud was one of the best things I've seen in awhile.   I'm sorry it's over.

[Phoebe70]

I don't have cable or satellite, so I bought the last (finale) episode on Amazon.  Watching it a second time was even more emotional for me.  Seeing how they portrayed Joan's last few years (even if unrealistically) was heartbreaking.  Such a good season finale.

[Shriekingeel]

On 4/24/2017 at 5:56 PM, Growsonwalls said:

McCarthy's HUAC

McCarthy was a Senator and had nothing to to with any House committee. 

[CherithCutestory]

On 4/25/2017 at 8:04 PM, 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.

Fairbanks also said the wire hanger thing couldn't be true because she'd never have wire hangers in the house. Which actually confirms Christina's telling of the story. Or Joan herself explaining how selfish Christina could be as a young child because she wanted the lights on at night or she wouldn't sleep. Or how at a birthday party she was to unwrap every present and go around and show it to everyone. And after awhile got tired. It was supposed to be what a brat story. But in both cases this was a very young child exhibiting normal child behavior, which Joan just could not fathom. And this was Joan telling these stories.

There are lots of people who corroborate that Joan was an OTT controlling mother who have no reason to lie. June Allyson's biography tells how she visited Joan's house and Christina was there all dressed up for a party with a present in her lap not saying a word. Finally, Joan explained that she was invited to a party but she was being punished so she had to sit there with the gift and not leave. June cried on the way home after watching this young child be humiliated.

I can think of few instances where famous child abusers aren't defended to the death. But almost all of Christina's stories are corroborated by others or Joan's behavior elsewhere. She may have exaggerated a few but most of it is well in line with what is said elsewhere. 

There are also the instances where Joan was abusive to other people. Like when she threw all of Mercedes McCambridge's clothes in the dessert while they were shooting Johnny Guitar. Completely consistent with Christina's telling of her character.

Lots of abusive parents are different with their second set of kids. She wasn't a monster and she surely had regrets.

I also don't doubt BD's stories although I think she's a crazy person they all seem mostly consistent with what we know about Bette Davis. 

Quote

He also seems to be pushing the point of view that the two women were manipulated and victimised by powerful men throughout their careers, and were ultimately left unhappy and objects of derision in their last years.

This drove me crazy in both cases.  I know Joan was a bit of a shut in but she definitely was never forgotten and would always have visitors. And Bette always stayed active and had a pretty huge social circle. (She also remained close friends with Anne Baxter from All About Eve. It was getting out of the shower at her house that she first discovered a lump on her breast.)

It's also a false narrative that's clearly false within the reality of the show. As Bette is shown to be someone who picks up friends relatively easily in the show itself (and she did in real life even if she could be difficult.) She's the one we see make new friends and connections. And Joan is shown to be someone who inspires fierce loyalty from not just Mamcita but George Cukor and her younger twins. In both cases, the way they end up doesn't just go against real life it violates the way they are depicted in show.

Also, frankly, these two would never have been friends. It wasn't manipulation or the studio system. They had nothing in common. Didn't even share a similar sense of humor. And were pretty much two people who would never have connected in a real way.

Quote

She was still good friends with Rosalind Russell, Myrna Loy, Barbara Stanwyck and I'm sure many others.

Well, Barbara didn't think too highly of her. She says she was "so lousy, so nasty, so bitter." But she certainly had other friends.

Edited May 9, 2017 by CherithCutestory

[ElectricBoogaloo]

On the one hand, I feel like the series definitely lost some steam after the Academy Awards episode. On the other hand, the last few episodes dealt less with the feud itself and more with the aftermath of it, as well as the aftermath of a successful Hollywood career. The parallel struggles that Joan and Bette experienced trying to continue acting after the age of 60 served to further illustrate that they had things in common that should have made them understand each other and have more empathy for each other, but by that point the lines had already been drawn and they were too stubborn to let bygones be bygones.

While I totally understand wanting to see more of Joan and Bette's later career appearances, I get why Ryan Murphy left them out. It didn't fit into his "we are too old for anyone to hire us" narrative. From that point of view, Trog was a good stopping point for Joan's career in the context of this show because we see that instead of being treated as a movie star, Joan has been reduced to changing into her costume in the back of a van. Who could blame her for seeing how far she's come down in the world and deciding she's had enough?

The thing I totally didn't buy was Joan being rude to a fan at a book signing and then leaving. From all accounts, she was devoted to her fans, always signing autographs and personally answering every piece of fan mail that she received. For her to storm out of a room full of her fans seems really unlike her.

Awwwwww, the return of Mamacita! While part of me wanted to imagine that Mamacita found a new job with someone who appreciated her a lot more (I was so proud of her for sticking to her word and leaving after Joan threw something at her head again!), the other part of me was glad to see her back in the hopes that we would get more of her dry wit.

On 4/24/2017 at 10:54 AM, newyawk said:

I do think there is merit to Christina's book, it is not unusual for parents to treat one child abysmally different than other kids, especially if there is a substance or alcohol issue involved.  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.

I agree that not every kid in the same family is treated the same, particularly when there's a significant age gap (and that's just in general, not just about abuse - my parents were so lax with my younger sister and totally strict with me!). My issue with people who deny the abuse or other specific behavior because they didn't personally see it or experience it is that just because THEY didn't witness it or bear the brunt of it doesn't mean that it didn't happy to someone else. I think it can be true for one person to say that they were abused and just as true for someone else to say that they weren't abused by the same alleged abuser.

And that applies in a broader sense to any kind of depiction of celebrities. There are going to be some things that only certain people witness, whether it's drug use or temper tantrums or even nice things like giving kisses to their puppies. I think that's true of non-celebrities too, but particularly with people in the spotlight because they have a public persona to maintain. Even in this day and age where celebs post all kinds of stuff publicly, I'm sure there are still lots of things they say or do that we are not privy to and that even some of their circle of friends don't see.

But with alcoholism, drug use, physical abuse, etc. there are always cases where friends/family/coworkers are shocked because they never suspected and then there are others who knew about it all along. One of the things I found interesting about the show was what facts they chose to use, which situations they chose to recreate, and what they chose to embellish or completely fictionalize.

ETA: the above is not all about the abuse allegations either, just my long winded way of saying that (1) your version of the truth/what happened is not always the same as someone else's version of the truth/what happened and (2) that there is and has always been a line between what the public sees vs what your social set sees vs what happens behind closed doors. In addition, in the Old Hollywood days, the public images of celebrities were much more tightly controlled by the studios than they are now - can you imagine the Old Hollywood publicists' horror at today's celebrities being allowed to post whatever they want on twitter and instagram?

On 4/24/2017 at 5:38 PM, Penman61 said:

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.

 

On 4/24/2017 at 5:46 PM, Growsonwalls said:

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. 

I have not seen Kiernan Shipka in Mad Men (the only two things I definitely remember seeing her in were Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt and Flowers in the Attic), so she did not get the benefit of developing her character over several seasons for me. She was really dreadful in Flowers in the Attic, and she is the protagonist who we are supposed to pity. I thought she was pretty terrible as B.D. She looked great in all of those period costumes though! I remember Jane Seymour once semi-jokingly said that the reason she thought she kept getting cast in period pieces was because she's long waisted so the costumes look good on her. Kiernan has the right body type for all of those 60s clothes.

On 4/25/2017 at 11:39 AM, enoughcats said:

Somewhere someone mentioned Joan Crawford's square body shape.

I need a backlit staircase and a long sparkly sheer robe! I mean, but doesn't everyone?

On 4/26/2017 at 10:11 AM, 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?

According to wikipedia: "Beginning in childhood, Crawford's ambition was to be a dancer. One day, however, in an attempt to escape piano lessons so she could play with friends, she leapt from the front porch of her home and cut her foot severely on a broken milk bottle. As a result, she underwent three surgeries to repair the damage. She was unable to attend elementary school or continue with dancing lessons for 18 months."

"Under the name Lucille LeSueur, Crawford began dancing in the choruses of traveling revues and was spotted dancing in Detroit by producer Jacob J. Shubert. Shubert put her in the chorus line for his 1924 show, Innocent Eyes, at the Winter Garden Theatre on Broadway in New York City."

Wikipedia doesn't specify what kind of dance training she had before or after her foot surgery, but I'm guessing that she must have resumed some type of dance classes between cutting her foot in elementary school and dancing in the chorus later.

On 4/27/2017 at 3:21 AM, NutMeg said:

 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). 

I bought a really old etiquette book at a used bookstore because it was so interesting how rigid the social rules for everything back then. I made sure to tell Mr. EB that according to the old rules, he was supposed to buy me a speedster as a wedding gift!

On 4/27/2017 at 4:40 AM, txhorns79 said:

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.   

I didn't see at as Joan thinking that they should have loved her. I thought she was just imagining that things could have been different. Not a total Sliding Doors Situation but just that she imagined there could have been a way for things to be less contentious between her and them.

[Jan Spears]

Here's an interesting take on the 'Shirley Eder Tapes':

http://stargayzing.com/joan-crawford-barbara-stanwyck-shirley-eder-hollywoods-original-two-faced-women/

The comments section is also worth reading.

The first Stanwyck/Eder conversation really gets to the heart of the Crawford/Stanwyck friendship. Crawford and Stanwyck went way back with each other and the tape reveals that Stanwyck was very clear-eyed about her friend's failings. But, however much she may have vented in private about Crawford (and Crawford doing the same about Stanwyck), the two of them managed to keep their friendship going into the 70s and to Crawford's death. It probably helped that they lived on opposite coasts after the mid-50s so these two VERY strong-willed personalities didn't encounter each other face-to-face that often.

Regarding the first party Stanwyck and Eder discuss on the first tape, I think I've figured out all the players besides Crawford and Stanwyck:

Louis B. Mayer - Authoritarian head of M-G-M from 1924 to 1951 and Crawford's boss from 1925-1943.

Edith Mayer Goetz - Mayer's elder daughter who acted as hostess for him during the period when he was separated from his first wife and hadn't remarried.

Claudette Colbert - Referred to as "Claudette" by Stanwyck. Top star of the 30s, 40s and beyond. Seated at the main table at the party, which caused all the trouble with Crawford.

Robert Taylor -- Referred to as "Robert" by Stanwyck. Top star at M-G-M from the mid-30s to the late-50s and Stanwyck's second husband.

Dr. Branch -- Crawford's physician and her date for the party.

Based on Stanwyck's comments about L.B. Mayer's marital status at the time, I would say that the party had to have happened no later than 1947 and most likely between the end of the War and 1947.

[enoughcats]

Missing from the end of this Feud is Bette Davis, as she was.

I've just been reading Michael Westmore's autobiography "Make Up Man" and he had a memorable encounter with Miss Davis towards her end, after he had done her makeup for Mrs. B.

I won't spoil it or the added experience of getting her face on for an appearance on the Bryan Gumble show, but, let's say, it would have made a hell of an alternative ending.