S01.E07: Abandoned 2017.04.16

3 hours ago, theatremouse said:

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

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

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

Edited by Florinaldo.

Share Post


Link to post
9 hours ago, SoSueMe said:

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

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

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

I am watching WHTBJ now. Does anyone know if Bette actually did that impression of Blanche/Joan while Jane is on the phone, trying to order liquor, or did they dub in Blanche's/Joan's voice?

Share Post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, hoodooznoodooz said:

I am watching WHTBJ now. Does anyone know if Bette actually did that impression of Blanche/Joan while Jane is on the phone, trying to order liquor, or did they dub in Blanche's/Joan's voice?

My guess is it must have been dubbed. Davis had such a unique accent it would have been amazing if she could tamp it down enough to mimic JC so well.

Share Post


Link to post
On 4/17/2017 at 5:15 PM, LongDistanceClara said:

After finding this trailer, I want to see it too. This includes the scene KZJ recreated. 

The first bit of that trailer pretty much shows up the vacuousness that pervades Catherine Zeta Jones in this role (and just about any role I've ever seen her in). I'm glad that Olivia is still around and we still hear a bit from her because even at 100 she likely still has more personality than the tedium CZJ exudes. 

Edited by Pete Martell.

Share Post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SoSueMe said:

My guess is it must have been dubbed. Davis had such a unique accent it would have been amazing if she could tamp it down enough to mimic JC so well.

It was dubbed by Joan.  Allegedly, she was quite proud of the fact that Bette was unable to imitate her, since so many people were able to imitate Bette's rather distinctive voice and cadence.

Share Post


Link to post
On 4/19/2017 at 9:54 AM, theatremouse said:

I don't know if some of those are real recollections from other humans, either from someone else's memoir or an interview, but a lot of them feel like the show saying "this is how it was". And I think I'd rather the show say "this is what we know happened" and let us decide on the whys more frequently.

This is a common point of contention when it comes to docudramas -- how much they should lean toward docu- and how much they can lean toward -drama. Me, I tend very far to the other side, in that I'm perfectly happy for the writers to take liberties with events and speculate about motives, as long as they remain broadly true to spirit of the story and the people involved. (The line for me might best be illustrated by my feelings about the biopic Ed Wood: while I'm perfectly delighted with the fact that it invents a completely preposterous scene in which Ed meets his idol Orson Welles to get advice on finishing Plan 9 from Outer Space on his own terms, I find it a little bullshitty that the movie insists on giving Bela Lugosi a redemptive farewell right before he goes off and kills himself.) But I know other folks feel much more strongly about the writers' responsibility to the known and unknown elements of the true story.

The problem with the series, though, isn't that it's leaning too far one way or the other. It's that it's leaning simultaneously in both directions, offering very specific speculation about Joan's motivations while doing a lot of "you be the judge" hedging when it comes to Bette's. It's making the whole story seem a bit disjointed and creating a artificial divide between the characters, such that I'm not surprised to see people speculate that Murphy is betraying his favoritism toward Bette.

Edited by Dev F.

Share Post


Link to post

I guess to each their own. I thought Catherine Zeta-Jones was hella-dynamic in Chicago and she was highly entertaining in Intolerable Cruelty. She certainly is not without charisma.

Share Post


Link to post

Loved  that even  the beds in the Baton Rouge hotel room had to be covered in plastic too... and the the sight-gag of Mamacita rolling it up before their bedtime. in the background.

Edited by sheetmoss.

Share Post


Link to post

Someone mentioned Hush, Hush would be on TCM on Wed the 26th but I can't find it.  The only thing I saw was it was available to watch on TCM on demand.  Can someone clarify this for me?

Share Post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Twopper said:

Someone mentioned Hush, Hush would be on TCM on Wed the 26th but I can't find it.  The only thing I saw was it was available to watch on TCM on demand.  Can someone clarify this for me?

I can't find it on the 26th, either - I don't even see it on TCM on demand  :(

Share Post


Link to post
Quote

52 minutes ago

  1 hour ago, Twopper said:

Someone mentioned Hush, Hush would be on TCM on Wed the 26th but I can't find it.  The only thing I saw was it was available to watch on TCM on demand.  Can someone clarify this for me?

I can't find it on the 26th, either - I don't even see it on TCM on demand  :(

Oops, I am sorry.  My bad.   You are right --it isn't on demand at this time.   I was looking for it and The Human Comedy at the same time, and it is the latter that is on demand.  Bah, I was hoping TCM was aware of Feud and had substituted Hush, Hush for one of their upcoming movies.  Oh, well..... and I still haven't had time to watch Baby Jane which isn't one of my favorite movies.

I am not particularly a fan of either Lange or Sarandon; I wish they had found two relatively unknown actresses to play Joan and Bette.  I find Lange distracting because her Joan looks too much like Leona Helmsley, and when I see Bette  all I can see is Susan Sarandon---my willing suspension of disbelief is not working for Sarandon as Bette.   I would also like an explanation for the absence of the twins;  I would at least think there might be a reference to them--I think the last we heard was they were at summer camp.  

I loved the scene with the coke machine, and am so glad it was real.  Many thanks to txhorns79 who posted the picture of it.

Edited by Twopper. Reason: need to change name

Share Post


Link to post
20 hours ago, ennui said:

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

I appreciate your response! From searching, it doesn't look like any vintage Vuarnet fit the bill. Oh well! 

Share Post


Link to post

I am about two thirds done watching WHTBJ.  In my opinion, they both did a great job.  I applaud Joan for showing restraint-- she could have gone over the top. The only thing I didn't like was Blanche spinning in the wheelchair after Jane put a dead rat on her dinner tray.  I guess that was Aldrich's decision.  

Jane schlumping around in slippers made me laugh.  

BD has no acting talent whatsoever!

Joan still looks quite beautiful in this movie. Her bone structure is amazing.  

Share Post


Link to post
On 4/17/2017 at 4:19 PM, tennisgurl said:

Oh my God, that movie looks even more amazing than I imagined! I guess it was the Snakes on a Plane of the 60s?

But only "adult, responsible" people should see it. :)

Re the episode: This was the first one that shifted my sympathies to Crawford. True, she "brought it all on herself," and all that. But previously, Davis has been the one presented with her head mostly screwed on straight, a force of nature, yes, but somewhat tethered to reality. In this episode (which the Vanity Fair article basically corroborates, to my amazement!), she's just flat-out sadistic and malicious. My heart had to go to the victim, flawed as she was.

Edited by Milburn Stone.

Share Post


Link to post

I'm ready for the show to end. I usually enjoy Jessica Lange, but I can hardly bear to look at her as Joan.  And if I have to hear her wail mamacita one more time ......

Share Post


Link to post

I have no problem with mature actresses, but when Jessica Lange is portraying an aged but still attractive Joan and looks like her close to 70 years,it's like watching actors/actresses in their 30's and 40's portray Romeo and Juliet, the illusion is torn completeley off.

Joan Crawford by then (1964) was manufactured glamour, but it was glamour.  Jessica almost seems to be portraying a  60's Miss Havisham or Norma Desmond,and it's distracting more than somewhat.

When Jessica (as Joan) tries to seduce the Doctor it looks more pathetic than what was probably originally conceived.

Edited by caracas1914.

Share Post


Link to post
On 4/17/2017 at 10:39 AM, AgentRXS said:

To in-show Bette: In about 20 years, Kim Carnes is going to make a very popular song about how your eyes are all a girl needs to be a successful seductress. So your sex appeal wasn't lost on your audience, even if you tried to hide it under costuming. :)

I love that song.  I loved it when it came out and I love it now. Mamacita is killing it (still) and does not make idle threats. 

AFA Jessica Lange's self mutilation is concerned, I'm wondering when Hollywood is going to get the memo that aging gracefully and naturally beats the "nipped and tucked too tight, face frozen with skin like sandpaper" look all day long.  Kudos to the actors/models/famous-for-nothing celebs who don't mess with their faces.

Edited by taurusrose.

Share Post


Link to post
Quote

I usually enjoy Jessica Lange, but I can hardly bear to look at her as Joan.  And if I have to hear her wail mamacita one more time ......

I am so disappointed, because I feel like I shouldn't want this show to end. Sarandon is selling Bette Davis to me and I wish we got more time in her world. But I cannot stomach anymore of Jessica Lange as Joan. She is just so wrong for the role, I feel 2nd-hand embarrassed watching her. 

In the end, Ryan Murphy failed Bette & Joan. Joan got stuck with a lousy portrayal, and Bette is little more then a guest star in her own Feud.  Both women deserved better, though Bette is getting the more sympathetic angle.

Edited by AgentRXS.

Share Post


Link to post
1 hour ago, taurusrose said:

AFA Jessica Lange's self mutilation is concerned, I'm wondering when Hollywood is going to get the memo that aging gracefully and naturally beats the "nipped and tucked too tight, face frozen with skin like sandpaper" look all day long.  Kudos to the actors/models/famous-for-nothing celebs who don't mess with their faces.

I'm not picking on you; your post made me think of this.

Women, women in the public eye especially, are really damned if they do and damned if they don't. If a woman doesn't attempt to stay ahead of aging, all that's talked about is how old and how bad she looks. When a woman does tweak things in a perceptible way, then she has "ruined" herself. I mention perceptible because many, many people have procedures done that one can't put a finger on and therefore it isn't seen as mutilation. 

Even on this site, on this board, there has been discussion ad nauseam regarding the perceived beauty of Bette, Joan, Susan, and Jessica. 

I realize they are not the main characters in this show, but rarely is it mentioned or debated whether the actors portraying the male characters are right for their parts looks-wise. Whether they're thin enough, young enough, handsome enough, etc. That goes for almost every show and movie.

Share Post


Link to post

I wasn't sure about Lange at first, but I have seen clips of Joan from around that time, and as far as her mannered speaking style, I think Jessica nailed it. Noone can expect her to be a physical ringer for Joan Crawford of course, but I do think JL has the physicality down as well as the speaking style and I think she is doing a very good job.

Share Post


Link to post
Quote

I realize they are not the main characters in this show, but rarely is it mentioned or debated whether the actors portraying the male characters are right for their parts looks-wise. Whether they're thin enough, young enough, handsome enough, etc. That goes for almost every show and movie.

I think a number of people mentioned that John Waters looked nothing like William Castle.  But more to the point, if an actor is playing a real life person, you'll always get comments about whether the casting is a good fit and how much the actor resembles the other person and managed to capture the real life person's mannerisms.  This is particularly true in a situation where you have a 70 year old actor playing someone in their mid-50s.

As to the episode itself, I was curious how much of the film was done on soundstages versus on location shooting.  I know they ended up using a small part of the film shot with Joan (a very far away shot where you wouldn't be able to see her face) for when Miriam arrives at the house in the taxi cab, but did they have to go back an reshoot all those other location shots they would have done?  Or was the reality of the situation that Joan was replaced while they were still doing location shooting in Louisiana?           

Edited by txhorns79.

Share Post


Link to post
4 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

...I was curious how much of the film was done on soundstages versus on location shooting.  I know they ended up using a small part of the film shot with Joan (a very far away shot where you wouldn't be able to see her face) for when Miriam arrives at the house in the taxi cab, but did they have to go back an reshoot all those other location shots they would have done?  Or was the reality of the situation that Joan was replaced while they were still doing location shooting in Louisiana?           

A good rule of thumb (which I'd bet applied to Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte) is that anything that doesn't have to be shot on location isn't shot on location. That applies to all interiors. Paying for cast and crew to shoot on location is expensive, and it's generally more time-consuming to light an actual interior than to light a set on a soundstage. Plus figuring out where to squeeze in the camera in an actual interior can be a logistical nightmare, versus a piece of cake on a soundstage. There are exceptions of course, but a movie like HHSC wouldn't have been one of them. So without specific knowledge, I still feel confident that with HHSC, the only things shot on location were exteriors (some involving the actors, some not) that couldn't be found in Hollywood. For absolutely everything else, they vamoosed back to Hollywood.

Share Post


Link to post
5 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

As to the episode itself, I was curious how much of the film was done on soundstages versus on location shooting.  I know they ended up using a small part of the film shot with Joan (a very far away shot where you wouldn't be able to see her face) for when Miriam arrives at the house in the taxi cab, but did they have to go back an reshoot all those other location shots they would have done?  Or was the reality of the situation that Joan was replaced while they were still doing location shooting in Louisiana?           

What I gather from accounts of the shoot, is that production was shut down for 3 weeks beause of JC's absence until she came back July 21, then stopped again a week later when she became ill again. They resumed shooting only on September 9 because of the need to convince OdH (RA said it took him 4 days of discussions in Switzerland and then she had to make arrangements) and of the lawsuits; that's plural because in their book on Aldrich, Silver and Ursini mention a restraining order against BD, but they do not give details.  They obviously had to go back to Baton Rouge for some of the exterior scenes, although some location work was also done in Los Angeles (at the Greystone Mansion for example). It's probably a safe bet that most if not all interior scenes were done in the studio, unless there was a specific room that was so visually striking or too massive to be recreated on set.

I am not aware of any book that gives a detailed day-to-day history of the production of the two films, as there are for movies like Vertigo, Citizen Kane, La Belle et la Bête, Gone with the Wind, etc. It's unfortunate because that is where we could find all of the answers.

Edited by Florinaldo.

Share Post


Link to post

There are some give-aways to watch for to see if that scene was shot at Houmas House.

The width of the columns.  Those columns were made of brick and were very wide at the base and imperceptably tapering close up as they rose.  You could not put your arms around one and have your hands touch (not even Shaquille O'Neal could).  The distance from the house to the levee in the background -in some scenes from inside the levee was too close.  The windows should have had wavy hand poured glass panes. There was no place on the railing that such a large flower pot could have been- winds would have tossed it to the ground sooner. 

I'd also wonder if you could tell where it was shot by how limp the clothes looked.  NOLA with those plants and trees leafed out as they were is hot and humid.  Near 100% humidity.  Heat in the 80s at least.  Fluffy dresses don't stay fluffy for very long without so much starch that they don't look fluffy any more.

Share Post


Link to post
21 hours ago, taurusrose said:

I love that song.  I loved it when it came out and I love it now. Mamacita is killing it (still) and does not make idle threats. 

AFA Jessica Lange's self mutilation is concerned, I'm wondering when Hollywood is going to get the memo that aging gracefully and naturally beats the "nipped and tucked too tight, face frozen with skin like sandpaper" look all day long.  Kudos to the actors/models/famous-for-nothing celebs who don't mess with their faces.

I love that song so much, I named my Bette Davis Pinterest board "All The Boys Think She's A Spy"!!

Share Post


Link to post

Keep reading Feud as Freud. Yes BD comes off as a petulant teenager because she was. What 16 year old isn't?  First Big Little Lies us over, now Feud will be.  Sunday nights now will blow. 

Edited by jacksgirl.

Share Post


Link to post
On 4/21/2017 at 1:20 AM, LMM said:

I'm not picking on you; your post made me think of this.

Women, women in the public eye especially, are really damned if they do and damned if they don't. If a woman doesn't attempt to stay ahead of aging, all that's talked about is how old and how bad she looks. When a woman does tweak things in a perceptible way, then she has "ruined" herself. I mention perceptible because many, many people have procedures done that one can't put a finger on and therefore it isn't seen as mutilation. 

Even on this site, on this board, there has been discussion ad nauseam regarding the perceived beauty of Bette, Joan, Susan, and Jessica. 

I realize they are not the main characters in this show, but rarely is it mentioned or debated whether the actors portraying the male characters are right for their parts looks-wise. Whether they're thin enough, young enough, handsome enough, etc. That goes for almost every show and movie.

I don't find any fault with your post.  I do want to clarify that my comments about excessive tinkering with one's face applies to both genders.  There are plenty of men nipping and tucking and the finished product is equally ghastly.

Share Post


Link to post

A very minor goof that few people -- OK, well maybe just ONE person-- would notice: On the letter that Joan received notifying her of Fox's lawsuit, the address showed "Brentwood, Calif. 94513." Now there IS a city called Brentwood in California, but it's many miles from Los Angeles, in the San Francisco Bay Area. And its ZIP code is indeed 94513.

The Brentwood where Joan lived is a neighborhood within the city of Los Angeles.

Of course all of this is irrelevant because (1) the letter was hand-delivered; it didn't go through the Postal Service and (2) in real life Joan didn't live in Brentwood at the time this episode took place. She was permanently in New York and just maintained an apartment in West Hollywood.

Share Post


Link to post
1 hour ago, J-Man said:

A very minor goof that few people -- OK, well maybe just ONE person-- would notice: On the letter that Joan received notifying her of Fox's lawsuit, the address showed "Brentwood, Calif. 94513." Now there IS a city called Brentwood in California, but it's many miles from Los Angeles, in the San Francisco Bay Area. And its ZIP code is indeed 94513.

Ordinarily I would say that someone in the research and fact-checking department should get reprimanded. But I guess this is just another instance where the show does not care about "unimportant" details and is content with approximation.

ETA: Brentwood is also the name of an affluent neighbourhood in Los Angeles. JC did have a home there at 426 N. Bristol Avenue until 1956. i.e. a few years before events depicted in the series. And as you pointed out, the show got the ZIP code totally wrong and used the one from the city in the Bay Area.

Edited by Florinaldo.

Share Post


Link to post
On 4/20/2017 at 10:20 PM, LMM said:

I'm not picking on you; your post made me think of this.

Women, women in the public eye especially, are really damned if they do and damned if they don't. If a woman doesn't attempt to stay ahead of aging, all that's talked about is how old and how bad she looks. When a woman does tweak things in a perceptible way, then she has "ruined" herself. I mention perceptible because many, many people have procedures done that one can't put a finger on and therefore it isn't seen as mutilation. 

Even on this site, on this board, there has been discussion ad nauseam regarding the perceived beauty of Bette, Joan, Susan, and Jessica. 

I realize they are not the main characters in this show, but rarely is it mentioned or debated whether the actors portraying the male characters are right for their parts looks-wise. Whether they're thin enough, young enough, handsome enough, etc. That goes for almost every show and movie.

I certainly mention it when a male character Is perceived one way and looks another onscreen. (I have a huge problem with most of the "War and Peace" Anatoles I've seen in film/TV)  The problem with portraying two iconic female movie stars (or even male stars) of the Golden era (I'd say 30-40's) is that they had larger than life images, and their beauty/star prescence was certainly a big factor.  I would argue that stars back then had that even more in spades.  Add to that that a large premise of the SL is about  two vibrant, if aging  women who were victims of sexism, ageism, despite their talent/beauty etc. and that one is portrayed as having been THE most beautiful woman in the movies and the other is portrayed as suffering from the trauma of not being pretty enough or even ridiculed for her looks, and yes, I think how the actors portraying those characters look is fair game to discuss.  Especially when with the dialogue one character is perceived as more attractive than the other and yet on screen there is cognitive dissonance with one actors seemingly much older.

Overall I think it's a fairly common problem when trying to portray those icons of the silver screen of that era, both male and female, with modern day actors.

Edited by caracas1914.

Share Post


Link to post

Going back to how unfairly the system treated their female stars, homage needs to be paid to how MGM treated its major male heart throb, John Gilbert.  Even to manipulating his voice in some (but not all) early talkies so some thought he was unsuitable for the new medium.

http://www.hollywoodsgoldenage.com/actors/gilbert.html

From the movie Four Walls starring both Gilbert and Crawford

2f5b2971363f2c53c5cfe68fe697b684.jpg

And a bit more about Joan Crawford and her silent films

https://carensclassiccinema.wordpress.com/2011/09/24/our-dancing-daughters-1928-and-our-modern-maidens-1929/

Share Post


Link to post
On 4/19/2017 at 8:07 PM, spankydoll said:

She looks like a snotty little brat.

And her wedding dress is hideous (to me,at least) too "busy", too many fussy parts.

C690mhYWkAAHplC.jpg

Share Post


Link to post

Late to the game here, but I think the Talent Vs Beauty theme (a bit too on the nose as others have mentioned) gets muddied because the era where Bette and Joan were in direct competition (Warner Bros.) was later than Crawford's heyday. Crawford's height was during the transition from silent to talkies and then into the Depression era.

Watch clips of Crawford (and Garbo) in "Grand Hotel" (1932). THAT'S when Crawford was at her most stunning, in my opinion, but I don't think she and Davis were really competing directly that early? I see the dramatic punch it makes in Feud, though.

Joan_Crawford_Wallace_Beery_Grand_Hotel.jpg

Edited by JasonCC.

Share Post


Link to post
On 2017-04-29 at 1:52 PM, enoughcats said:

To me, John Goodman nailed the character.

Although in Matinee! JG played his character as much more ebullient and demonstrative than how Castle comes across in his trailers and interviews, he did indeed capture the essence of the real-life showman the character was mostly based on (with some material from directors of aliens and giant bug movies like Jack Arnold, a genre WC never worked in).

Share Post


Link to post
Quote

but I think the Talent Vs Beauty theme (a bit too on the nose as others have mentioned) gets muddied because the era where Bette and Joan were in direct competition (Warner Bros.) was later than Crawford's heyday.

Yeah, it's definitely a stretch and not in line with the time.

I also think it's misunderstanding Bette Davis's line about Joan Crawford being a movie star and she being an actor. (Which Joan echoed in her lines about Franchot seeing Bette as an amazing actor but never a woman.) I don't think Bette Davis just means gorgeous when she says movie star. She means vacuous, insincere, a phony. That's probably completely unfair but it's a fairly consistent critique she had of Joan.

Bette Davis did have gorgeous friends. And she and Joan were never in direct competition except for their brief overlap at WB.

Bette, who was not unattractive, didn't have the right look for the 30s (and definitely not the 20s when Joan was the perfect flapper but they weren't on each other's radar then.) And she certainly felt it. But it's so reductive.

I think Joan envied Bette's honesty. She'd have liked to be that quick witted and not have to put on the Joan Crawford costume every single day of her life. And I think Bette envied Joan's star power and glamor. But I don't think Bette Davis would have wanted to switch lives with Joan Crawford for one minute. I think Joan would have been tempted by the offer to be Bette for a day.

I don't know. I think the show tries to mines the depths and show how they were manipulated, which is true to a degree. But, at the end of the day, they were two very different people. And they had some similarities But there was nothing that was ever going to make them like each other very much. And maybe that's OK? THey shouldn't sabotage each other, obviously. But why force a narrative that they would have been best friends had things been slightly different?

Quote

I doubt Joan would ever become violent with a crew member or other actor with whom she is working. That kind of thing could easily get out and seriously damage her career.

Maybe not violent exactly but what she did to Mercedes McCambridge isn't too far off. She certainly wasn't always thinking longterm as this episode shows.

I think the show as wrong to cut out the PI Aldridge hired. The Bette v. Joan feud was as much an Aldridge v. Joan feud than anything else. He hired the PI, he set them against each other, and he is the one who brought in the coke machine for that picture.

This was really mostly Bob's problem the whole time and they alluded to but never stated it.

Quote

I find it hard to believe that she didn't realize that she had overplayed her hand. She kept saying that she wanted to shut the whole production down. How would it benefit her to cost the studio millions? J

But it is what happened. George Cukor was supposed to do a film with Marilyn Monroe (it would have been her last) but she had to back out. And no woman in Hollywood would take her place. So, they had to shut it down. George has gone on the record as saying that Joan thought the same thing would happen with her and this film. And he was close to her (as is shown.)

Having all of Hollywood stand by her in solidarity would have been her Oscar, really. 

Joan Crawford was not a stupid person. But she was an alcoholic and more than a little delusional.

And this was hardly her one slip into unprofessional behavior. She had acted out on sets before. Several directors (Nicholas Ray among them) wouldn't work with her again. As she began drinking more the professionalism she was known for sank. And that happened well before Baby Jane never mind Charlotte.

Quote

Bette D., on the other hand, while behaving like a big shot on set, is right there partying with the cast and crew. And when one of them tells her he disapproves, she's not happy but she hears him. Imagine Joan C. in the same situation:

This is also clear in Bob's scenes with both women. Until his last scene with Joan he's always buttering her up. Playing to her ego.


With Bette he says she's a pain in the ass. He says that both women made his life hell. He'll yell at her in front of everyone for giving notes. Because the difference isn't necessarily that she's easier to take it's that he can be honest with her. He can lash out at her. And she'll even apologize or seem contrite if she was wrong.

It's like Bette Davis's This Is Your Life when Olivia appears. Olivia says it took some time for Bette to warm up to her and she responds "shame on me. I was probably jealous of you you were so damn good looking."

Yeah, she acted poorly but you can say that to her on national TV and she'll own the wrong.

Edited by CherithCutestory.

Share Post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now