Dame of the Day: Joan Crawford

Joan Crawford in the precode melodrama Possessed (1931). Advertisements said it was "for those who like their film fare hot and the morals of their screen heroines loose."

Bloggers ranging from James Wolcott to the Self-Styled Siren to NYCweboy have already weighed in with their Joan Crawford 100th birthday tributes, so I thought I might as well join the festivities. (Though as the Siren points out, technically it's probably actually her 103rd birthday -- but hey, who's counting?)

I'll start with a confession: I've only recently become a Joan Crawford fan. True, I've loved some of her films -- above all, Mildred Pierce and Johnny Guitar -- but aside from those fab shoulders and glorious cheekbones, I didn't think she brought all that much to the party. Those were films I adored for reasons other than Crawford -- or even in spite of her.

But over the last couple of years, having seen again, or for the first time, films like Grand Hotel, Possessed, The Women, The Last of Mrs. Cheyney, The Best of Everything, and  A Woman's Face, I've had a change of heart. To be sure, I'll never include Crawford in my personal pantheon of great actresses of the classic Hollywood era (which, for those of you keeping score at home, would be as follows, and in no particular order: Bette Davis, Barbara Stanwyck, Katharine Hepburn, and Margaret Sullavan). But if Joan Crawford wasn't a great actress, she was surely a great star -- a performer who radiates style and charisma, and who at her best effortlessly compels an audience's sympathy and fascination.

The hubby and I recently finally got TIVO and while we were away on a trip we recorded a bunch of Crawford films that Turner Classic Movies was showing. (Yeah, I know -- now TIVO is really going to think we're gay). So far we've watched two of them, Possessed and A Woman's Face.

The Siren did such a superb job writing about A Woman's Face that I don't have much to add. I liked it more than the Siren did, though -- yes, I agree that the moment Joan turns up "at a dance in some kind of Swedish peasant dirndl-drag" it becomes an unadulterated campfest, but even so, it's still pretty damn entertaining. The picture, directed by the ever-masterful George Cukor, is beautifully shot, with lots of wonderfully noir-ish shadows and high-contrast lighting. And Crawford is really, really good -- in the role of a woman whose deformed face has scarred her emotionally, she gives a moving, sensitive, surprisingly nuanced performance.

There's one moment I particularly liked toward the end, when La Crawford all of a sudden whips out a pistol and starts firing away. It's a startling scene, because (if I recall correctly) up to that point the picture didn't so much as hint that she was packing heat. But once that pistol comes out, Joan takes control and entirely reverses the dire situation her character was facing. That moment is very much in keeping to Crawford's screen persona -- the woman was a true badass. To paraphrase the line from Mommie Dearest, you don't fuck with her, fellas.

Oh, and one last thing about A Woman's Face -- the hats! The hats in A Woman's Face film were teh awesome.

I enjoyed A Woman's Face in spite of (and maybe even partly because of) the cheesiness of the last third of the picture. But for me, Possessed was the real gem in the rough. I should note that Crawford made two completely different films by that title, and the one I'm writing about here is the 1931 one, not the 1947 one.  The '31 film is a precode melodrama co-starring Clark Gable and directed by Clarence Brown.

Brown was one of the MGM's most prolific directors, and though few of the dozens of films he made have much of a reputation, there are two that I'm especially fond of. I adore National Velvet, which for me remains one of the greatest children's films ever made, and features what I still believe is Elizabeth Taylor's finest performance (what can I say? she peaked early). And I also was quite taken by Intruder in the Dust, his adaptation of the Faulkner novel. Not only is it a beautifully made and wonderfully acted film, it stands as one of the best and most outspoken films about race relations Hollywood ever made. It was so far ahead of its time that it wasn't until the 60s and 70s that Hollywood was to make films that dealt with the subject with anywhere near that level of honesty.

Okay, back to Possessed. Watching it was a fascinating experience on many levels, not least of which because the plot centers on a young reformer running for governor of New York state whose political career is threatened by his scandalous relationship with what was known then as "a woman of easy virtue."

The moment when this film first grabbed me by the lapels and wouldn't me let go occurred in the midst of a remarkable set piece toward the beginning. Joan is a factory girl who dreams of escaping the gritty industrial town she's stuck in. It's after work and she's at the railroad tracks, watching the train arrive (and am I remembering right that the train passes through town only once a day?). Anyway, she stands there, her back to the camera, and gazes yearningly at the windows of the train as it passes by. And in each window there's a different tableau of glamorous, gorgeously dressed passengers wining, dining, and in general just living it up.

The atmosphere becomes so thick with the Crawford character's desperate longing you can practically taste it. Part of what's so wonderful about this sequence is that the scenes she's viewing in the train windows are like scenes in a movie, and so the film suddenly gets meta on your ass, as you think about the Joan character  longing for the glamorous life she's viewing through the train windows, and all the real-life Joans in the audience who go to the movies for exactly that same vicarious rush of glamor that the Joan character experiences at the train station.

What else did I like about this film? Well, to start with, it was loads of fun to watch Gable and Crawford, who here are young, gorgeous, and hot as hell. And I greatly enjoyed the saucy little precode moments -- particularly one that occurs as Joan and Clark are getting ready for a dinner party. They start pawing each other, and the scene fades to black. The next scene is set in the dining room, where the servants and guests are wondering why their hosts are an hour late. Joan and Clark enter and Joan apologizes for their lateness as Clark fixes his tie, which had become undone. Just that little gesture of Gable futzing with his tie tells you what went on, that he and Joan had clearly been spending the last hour getting busy with each other. That detail creates a nice sexy little frisson, and it also emphasizes the point that yes indeed, the relationship between these two is genuinely passionate.

Also, it must be said: the clothes in this film, which was costumed by Adrian, are amazing. The gowns are to die for, especially a couple of slinky backless numbers which show off Crawford's amazing shoulders. 

But here's what I liked most about the film: it continually surprised me. In part this is because the it was made before the code, enabling the plot to break free of the standard Hollywood narratives. What is most refreshing about the film was the non-judgmental attitude it takes towards its independent-minded, frankly ambitious and mercenary heroine. There's a great scene at the beginning, which features a dialogue between Crawford, her hometown boyfriend, and her mother:

Crawford: You don't own me. Nobody does. My life belongs to me.

Boyfriend: You'll make one fine mess of it.

Crawford: It'll still belong to me.

Mother: Don't, Marian, you frighten me when you talk like that.

Crawford: If I were a man it wouldn't frighten you! You'd think it was right for me to go out and get anything I could out of life, and use anything I had to get it. Why should men be so different? All they've got are their brains and they're not afraid to use them. Well neither am I!

The minute I saw that scene I thought oh boy, there's trouble ahead. I've seen so many classic Hollywood films at this point that I fully expected that the Crawford character would come crawling back at the end, begging her old beau for forgiveness. Either that, or she'd die some hideous death. Because in the Hollywood films of that era, women don't get away with talking like that. The strong-willed woman who tries to live life on her own terms, but instead gets humbled -- humiliated, even -- and ends up embracing the traditional subservient women's role with a vengeance -- well, that is the plot of about 87,000 Hollywood films. So that's what I expected to happen with Possessed.

But the fact that it is a precode, and was written by a woman to boot, allows it do something a lot more interesting. The ending (which I won't give away) is not at all what I expected. Crawford blows town and arrives in New York, where her unambiguous goal is to become a rich man's kept woman. She's quite upfront about that with the men she meets, including Clark Gable, the man whose mistress she does in fact become. Indeed, he's charmed by her directness about this. He takes her out to a restaurant, and then the scene changes and it's three years later. We see a elegant Crawford planning a dinner, and it's clear she's learned a lot in those three years, everything from what wine to serve with the lobster, to "how to eat ice cream with a fork" (I swear that's a line in the movie!). She also dresses beautifully, plays piano and sings in three (!) languages, and is an effortlessly charming hostess. A kept woman she may be, but she's definitely one of the classier sorts.

The only problem, alas, is that she's fallen for Gable and would love to marry him. But he was badly hurt by his first wife and so is gunshy. Then Crawford's old beau enters the picture. He's become a successful businessman (though he's not nearly so rich as Gable). He asks her to marry him and she agrees, because she doesn't want her scandalous relationship with Gable to derail his political career.

The old boyfriend character is quite fascinating. I was expecting him to be portrayed as being as loyal and pure of heart as a puppy dog. But actually, we see that he's rather crude. For one thing, he keeps pestering Crawford to put in a good word for him with Gable, with whom he wants to make a lucrative business deal. So in part he's using her for his own gain. At first he thinks Gable and Crawford are just friends, but when she reveals the true nature of their relationship he suddenly turns on her and all but calls her a whore. But a few minutes later he says he still wants to marry her anyway, because her connections will be good for his business. Now who's the whore here, exactly?

Crawford is excellent throughout -- so compelling in the early scenes that you can't wait for her shake off her little town blues and make a break for it. And she's wonderfully fresh and energetic nd admirably self-possessed in the New York scenes, while at the same time not afraid of showing us her vulnerability, both in terms of her feelings toward Gable and in her sensitivity about the not-quite-respectable place in society she inhabits.   

I highly recommend the film not only to Crawford fans but to anyone interested precode cinema (a period in the history of film I personally find endlessly fascinating). Only I'm a little worried now that I've oversold Possessed. Though it has that one great train station sequence at the beginning, it's far from a great film. Mixed in with its refreshing qualities are plenty of stock characters, hackneyed situations, and conventional moments. It doesn't always hang together well, and the ending seems rushed and tacked on. Still, there's enough life in the thing that it's well worth checking out.

We've got a few more Crawfords TIVO'd up and ready to go, and I will report back on them if the spirit moves me. Unfortunately, the Crawford I most want to see, another Clarence Brown-directed precode called Letty Lynton, is not on tap. Lynton, sadly, has long been unavailable, apparently due to rightsholder issues. But Crawford fans the world over would rejoice if it could finally play the repertory circuit. Or get released on DVD or shown on TCM. It is supposed to be quite good.         

I suppose, in concluding this, I ought to say something about the Mommie Dearest phenomenon. I am actually very, very fond of that film, which, while it surely is one of the ultimate camp experiences, also, I think, manages to transcend camp. But it deserves an essay in itself, which I don't have time for right now.

Sadly, Mommie Dearest has forever tarnished Joan's reputation, which is unfortunate, because while obviously she was a deeply troubled woman, she is also remarkably  brave and sympathetic. Like so many of the heroines she played, she grew up on the wrong side of tracks. She had a rough childhood and saw some hard times. It's rumored that early on in her career she worked as prostitute and as an actress in pornographic films. But she worked like hell, rose to the top of her profession, and in spite of some devastating setbacks, remained a leading lady for some 30 years, something only a handful of her peers managed to do.

She had multiple husbands and a chaotic love life, but managed to maintain a number of devoted friends. For instance, when her friend the actor William Haines was fired by MGM and all but run out of Hollywood for refusing to give up his male lover, she stood by him and supported him in his second career as an interior designer (which was extremely successful -- in fact, Haines became quite influential in that field. And bye the bye, he and his lover stayed together till death did them part).

Other friends, such as Myrna Loy, were outraged by the Mommie Dearest book and defended Crawford strongly when it was published. (Crawford was not alive to defend herself). Which brings us back again, to the subject of That Book. I was fascinated by an excerpt of a new biography of Crawford that appeared recently in Vanity Fair. The excerpt includes an interview with Cathy Crawford, who had not spoken publicly about her mother before. Now unlike her sister Christina of Mommie Dearest fame, Cathy says that her childhood was happy and that Joan was a loving and devoted mother who never abused her.

It 's difficult to square the rampaging monster portrayed in Mommie Dearest with the loving mother Cathy depicts.  So which of them is right?  Would I sound hopelessly wishy-washy if I said both of them? It's not impossible for a person to be a terrific parent to one child and a horrible one to that child's sibling. I've known of men, for example, who treated their first wives and the kids from their first family like shit, yet were by all accounts good husbands and devoted dads to their second families. 

We've all heard "I love you both the same," but that's got to be one of the top ten all-time lies.  Hell, even with the dogs I've owned, I know damn well I've loved some more than others (and yes, I do feel guilty about it! -- though I have truly loved them all). As a society, we're not comfortable talking about the favoritism and sometimes deeply unequal treatment that occurs in families, but it's there all the same.

The sociologist Dalton Conley has done some fascinating research on the topic of inequality within families. The book he wrote about the subject can be found here, and it contains tales that will make your hair stand on end. His thesis is that an often overlooked source of inequality in our society is indeed the family. Among siblings, who of course grow up in the same environment and share a lot of the same DNA, there is surprisingly large variation later in life in terms of educational attainment, earnings, etc.. Dalton theorizes that much of this is because some siblings are treated much more favorably and win the lion's share of the family's resource. His book provides ample empirical evidence for this theory -- the wildly disparate treatment of siblings in the same family is sometimes quite shocking.

And so yes, my best bet is that both Christina and Cathy are telling the truth.

Comments

[Oliver / Cult Punk]

You haven't really seen Joan Crawford 'til you've seen TROG:

http://www.amazon.com/Trog-Joan-Crawford/dp/B000OHZJOG/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1206943734&sr=8-1

Also, the version of Mommie Dearest with the John Waters commentary -- which must be watched while that is ON -- is as equally crucial.

-Oliver

[Oatmeal Cookie Guy]

Mildred Pierce! Mildred Pierce! Mildred Pierce!

[rootlesscosmo]

Nice commentay--thanks. The second Possessed--it's not a remake, whole different story--is worth a look too, as are some other postwar Crawfords, including Sudden Fear.

[Martin E. Hollick]

Interestingly there is some discrepancy on her birth year. The Internet Movie Database has it as 1905 as does wikipedia. The Dictionary of American Biography gives 1906; Who Was Who gives 1908, Encyclopedia Britannica gives 1908. Evidently the 1910 census gives her age as five.

[Kathy G.]

Oliver, thanks for the info. I hadn't known about the John Waters commentary to Mommie Dearest. I'll have to get that version when I have my annual Mother's Day viewing of it!

Oatmeal Cookie Guy -- yes, Mildred Pierce is my favorite Crawford movie as well. I love the noir-y feel of it, and Ann Blyth is one of the best heartless bitches of all time. I especially adore Eve Arden in it -- I think she practically walks away with the movie.

rootlesscosmo, I'll definitely check out the other Possessed.

Martin, yes, the Self-Styled Siren mentioned in her post that it's probably Crawford's 103rd, not 100th, birthday. Interestingly, more than a few actresses of that era shaved years off their age. I think Jean Arthur passed herself off as being something like 10 years younger than she actually was. And if I'm not mistaken K. Hepburn shaved a year or two off her age as well.

[weboy]

Thanks for the link; Ezra mentioned your blog, but I didn't realize you'd already mentioned, er, me. :)

Anyway, I think I've seen Possessed, the early one... and the other one, too. I've seen a lot of Crawford, and it does tend to blur, aside from The Women and Mildred and maybe Grand Hotel. There's a similar film with Spencer Tracy, the name of which escapes me.

Anyway, Your observations are pretty spot-on both in work and life; Crawford's MGM work gets better as she goes - she was a silent star, and like many of them, the idea of naturalistic acting took a while to take root (pantomime favors exaggeration), and in her early talkies there's a lot of overacting... and not just her. Plus these morality plays are, as you point out, not necessarily subtle. Though even after the Code takes hold, you'd be surprised how many quietly pro-feminist messages get through. And Crawford's career, really, was built on the notion that a woman needs to take care of herself and have the inner resolve to do what needs to be done.

So, as others say, I'd recommend her Mildred, and post Mildred films (up to about Flamingo Road) as the best examples of her acting skills - Humoresque, in particular, is remarkable. But even a small, almost throwaway part like her role in The Best of Everything is a reminder of how much she grew, and how much she could convey in a line or a gesture; I'd stack that against Davis any day. And though I don't love Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, it is a great showcase for two great stars and two solid actresses to show off - many people overlook that Joan's underplaying the melodrama was as effective as the over the top approach Davis took, and probably as necessary.

Anyway, I could go on and on. And I probably will, over at my place.

PS - this bio of Joan is the one I read when I was in junior high, and I still recommend it highly:
http://www.amazon.com/Joan-Crawford-biography-Bob-Thomas/dp/0553129422/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207067842&sr=1-5

[Mark Centz]

Nice post. TCM had a special on earlier this month, Thou Shalt Not: Sex, Sin and Censorship in Pre-Code Hollywood , and if they rerun it later on you should certainly Tivo it. What you refer to as "Hollywood" is in fact the product of 'heartland' political meddling, nothing new in this country. Films of the pre-code era were thematically modern, but the studios were still working out the technical and artistic problems of the new sound technology. Most people find it difficult to watch these films because those problems do get in the way of good story telling, but they are rewarding for what they get right. The scene of her watching the train pass by is iconic, it seems to me that it's been used as a clip in Precious Moments, a visual history of film that was widely played about 20 years back.

[LCforevah]

As a woman of latin american background, I absolutely know from observation of my fellow latins that parents treat each child differently--and badly. Going completely against type, my parents made a special effort to treat the four of us the same and give us the same opportunities. Of course, the four of us knew who was the favorite(the only son, of course!)but appreciated the effort they made, however flawed.

I remember my mother telling me once that the Spanish-born in her former country would give very special treatment to the eldest son and deliberately neglect the other children, being interested only in the future of the heir. She was offended by that kind of extreme attitude, and whatever drama she saw played out in her childhood certainly affected how she made sure to treat us differently.

[Campaspe]

Your post was such a good read, I'm honored to be linked in it. Now you have me trying to remember where that gun came from. I seem to remember a shot of her bringing it along on the sleigh ride but I can't be sure. Possessed is fascinating and I loved it, though not great as you say. And I agree that just because the twins said Joan was wonderful to them doesn't mean Christina is lying. I would just rather talk about Crawford than Mommie, especially when the thoughts are as spot-on as yours.

[Chiaroscuro]

I recommend Crawford's delightfully vulgar Sadie Thompson in the 1932 gem, "Rain". Watch especially for her first scene in the film -- what an entrance! Walter Huston plays the crusading missionary driven to his own downfall and madness by the sultry Sadie.

[Kathy G.]

Weboy, I remember you as a commenter from Ezra's site, but I didn't realize you had your own blog until Wolcott linked to it (ah, I dream of being linked by Wolcott some day!). I loved your post on The Women -- makes me want to see it again (which I haven't done in a couple of years). I've TIVO'd Humoresque and will check it out soon. And the Bob Thomas bio as well.

Centz, I'm a big fan of the precode era. I disagree with you somewhat about technical quality of precode films. Most of the ones I've seen are up to a pretty high standard technically -- not static or stagy at all, and the dialogue is perfectly intelligible. Then again, almost all the precodes I've seen were made in 1931 or after, and I assume the technical flaws were more characteristic of earlier films.

LCforevah, glad you got to the end of the post where I talked about inequality in families. If the subject interests you, you should check out the Conley book I link to. It's fascinating and highly readable, if heartbreaking at times. And yes, some of what he deals with is inequality in families due to favoring boys, or in nonwhite families, favoring lighter-skin children. It's painful stuff.

Siren, welcome! I'm so glad you liked the post. I've been a big fan of your blog for a while now, and I've learned a lot from it. I only wish you wrote more!

Chiraoscuro, yes, Rain is near the top of my list of Crawfords I haven't seen yet but would love to. I'm a big fan of precode films in general and I love the precode Crawfords I've seen.

[Kathy G.]

Weboy, I remember you as a commenter from Ezra's site, but I didn't realize you had your own blog until Wolcott linked to it (ah, I dream of being linked by Wolcott some day!). I loved your post on The Women -- makes me want to see it again (which I haven't done in a couple of years). I've TIVO'd Humoresque and will check it out soon. And the Bob Thomas bio as well.

Centz, I'm a big fan of the precode era. I disagree with you somewhat about technical quality of precode films. Most of the ones I've seen are up to a pretty high standard technically -- not static or stagy at all, and the dialogue is perfectly intelligible. Then again, almost all the precodes I've seen were made in 1931 or after, and I assume the technical flaws were more characteristic of earlier films.

LCforevah, glad you got to the end of the post where I talked about inequality in families. If the subject interests you, you should check out the Conley book I link to. It's fascinating and highly readable, if heartbreaking at times. And yes, some of what he deals with is inequality in families due to favoring boys, or in nonwhite families, favoring lighter-skin children. It's painful stuff.

Siren, welcome! I'm so glad you liked the post. I've been a big fan of your blog for a while now, and I've learned a lot from it. I only wish you wrote more!

Chiraoscuro, yes, Rain is near the top of my list of Crawfords I haven't seen yet but would love to. I'm a big fan of precode films in general and I love the precode Crawfords I've seen.

[MISAEL]

I think Joan was so underated as an actress. Also try watching, Possesed (1947) Sudden Fear, Strange Cargo, authum Leaves,Harriet Craig, and so many more.

[harkin]

Intruder In The Dust is one of my favorite films. Claude Jarman Jr, Juano Hernandez and Porter Hall are terrific.

National Velvet is one of the most beautiful films ever made. Plus great views of the old Del Monte ranch.

Would also recommend from C Brown:

The Rains Came
The Human Comedy
The Yearling
Come Live With Me