Mommie Dearest (1981)

 Why Can't You Give Me The Respect I'm Entitled To!!!
I sat in a movie theater watching in wide-eyed wonder at the image of Faye Dunaway as Joan Crawford and I knew I was in for a treat! And Boy,did Faye deliver! She was always a bit over the top with directors that didn't know how to handle her(much like Crawford herself) but I wasn't ready for the spectacle I was about to witness! And I howled with laughter and loved her for it! Yes, Crawford would not likely be voted,"Mother Of The Year" but the image of Faye,dressed in black and her face covered in cold cream and a slash of red lipstick is nothing less than a camp nightmare as she stalks about,ripping clothes from the dreaded wire hangers,he face a Kabuki mask of torment! Faye took her place as a Camp Maddonna with this performance and,if you dare,watch it more than once,even twice. Diana Scarwid is much better in the role of Christina than people give her credit for. Faye plays Joan like high opera and Diana wisely underplays,giving her line reading a gravity that other actresses would have been too cowed to attempt. And, now,The Special Collector's Edition! This is a must-have for so many reasons!
April 25, 2008

 Credit where due, Blame where due
Film is considered a director's medium, right? Then the praise or blame for this film belongs primarily to
Frank Perry, a respected director who filmed such classics as "David and Lisa." Secondly, the praise for this
movie should be given primarily to Faye Dunaway, whose fearless, bravura performance lifts it above the
director/producer/writers, who let he down.

Frank Perry and the producer Frank Yablans have first writing credit on the film, and so they should get the
lion's share of praise or blame. Tracey Hotchner and Robert Getchell, who are credited third and fourh, should
come in for lesser shares of praise or blame.

So. Whatever you think of the film, set your sights on these names: Frank Perry, the director, who is primarily
responsible for he film. Frank Yablans, the producer, who chose the writers and the director. And the
four writers. Frank Perry (the director), Frank Yablans (the producer), and the four writers, (Frank Perry,
Frank Yablans, Tracey Hotchner, and Robert Getchell). These are the people to praise and blame. Along, of
course, with the fabulous Faye. April 20, 2008

 A review in defense of Christina
Crawford, Joan 1904-77: hypochondriac; germophobe; cleanomaniac; a maenad; a perfectionist in a world of incompetents; overbearing mother to adopted daughter, Christina; Hollywood actress of the silver screen

Faye Dunaway turns in an extraordinary portrayal of Joan Crawford, as seen through the eyes of daughter, Christina. Dunaway is all made up and even startlingly resembles the late actress in looks, too - contorted pan and all, in those moments whenever the blood begins to boil, on the verge of becoming frenetic. Dunaway 'becomes' 'Mommie Dearest'; this is above and beyond an impersonation. The imitation is so accurate, it's eerie. It's a phenomenal simulation, worth a Best Actress Award, in my opinion. (The movie's not really camp, for Dunaway doesn't overact - she just plays Christina's version of Joan.) The scene which has Dunaway's Crawford imploring Christina from her bedroom balcony to be quiet - the manner in which this is expressed - even Joan herself couldn't have hit just the right note so perfectly.

In fact, the entire cast is impressive: Howard da Silva is excellent as MGM mogul, Louis B. Mayer; Rutanya Alda as Carol Ann, Joan's loyal and long-suffering maidservant, is good; Jocelyn Brando plays Barbara Bennett, writer of a woman's magazine as a visitor doing a piece on Joan; Steve Forrest is terrific as Greg, one of Christina's first "uncles" (no wonder actors can't stay involved in relationships: their partners never can tell where the performance ends and reality begins); Harry Goz is Al, the Pepsi honcho Joan married after her Hollywood years; with the two actresses who play Christina, equally convincing, as well - precocious Mara Hobel as Christina as a child is superb (for the first hour and fifteen minutes); and Diana Scarwid as Christina as an adult (for the last half-hour) embodies the part more than adequately, also.

It was the 'in' thing for film critics at the time of the movie's release to give the film a panning. This was likely due to the fact that, from analyzing their comments, they likely hadn't read the book the movie was based on. It has dawned on me that one alphabetical character is the determining factor between a viewer 'getting' this movie and not getting it: the letter "s".

Why 'Mommie Dearest' was received so poorly by reviewers is because they failed to recognize the movie as an 'adaptation' - and an extremely faithful one, at that. For one who has read the book, the movie deserves commendation - the adaptation is comprehensive, covering the book's material chronically, from fly leaf to fly leaf, if not too linear to a fault. That is to say, one doesn't have to read the book; one might as well just "read" the movie, it's that truthful.

Back to the letter "s". The book the movie was based on was authored by, lest we forget, Christina Crawford. It is an autobiography of 'her' life, growing up as Ms. Crawford's adopted daughter - 'not' a biography of Joan. Whether or not the depiction of Joan Crawford as presented in the book (and by extension, the movie) is a distortion is not the issue. A reviewer must base his or her opinions of the film strictly on the basis of how true it stays to Christina's recollections and version of events, not on whether these are factual or not. The movie isn't an adaptation of a memoir (a biography of...) but of a memoirs (an autobiography) - emphasis on the "s". The movie, as the book it is based on, isn't about Joan Crawford's life, but Christina's. Hence, such comments like, "'Mommie Dearest' threatens to obscure the real story of Joan Crawford; in turning her into nothing but a witch, it loses the fascinating ordeal and tragedy of her career" (David Thomson), are inadvertent confessions from those who are looking at the film wrongly and totally missing the point of the reason for its existence: bringing to the screen Christina Crawford's diary, not Joan Crawford's life-story!

The movie pays close attention to details Christina had documented: Joan's ankle-strap shoes and chin strap, brother Christopher's "sleep safe" (harness), etc. It chooses a few of the book's infamous episodes and re-enacts them exactly in the manner we had imagined they likely had looked: the Wardrobe incident, the Waking Mommie Up incident (hey, I would be in a mood all day too if I had to awake each day at 4 in the morning six days of the studio work-week), the Bon Ami incident, the Raw Meat incident, the Making Out incident, the Scragging incident, etc. The movie really makes the book live.

The movie opens and it's 1939, the year MGM notified (a fearful) Joan (of being washed-up) of their feelings of her being box-office poison. Barren Joan had seven miscarriages while married to actor Franchot Tone, and desperately wanted children. But for what reason? Did it fill a need in her, or did Joan adopt Christina merely for publicity sake, as the movie, in one scene, suggests? Christina has every right to ponder this, after all the hell she went through. Tears welled up in my eyes as I read some of the horrors and indignities Christina wrote about, and it must have been very cathartic for her to have had "the last word," in her penning and publishing the tell-all account. (Although, a thought did come to my mind during one of the film's final scenes. It was here where I wondered if Christina would have written the book she did had Joan's will not been the catalyst that it was?)

The only minor complaint I have with the film is its running-time, of which I thought it could have been trimmed a bit; for this, I have deducted a rating point.

The book, 'Mommie Dearest' (a title derived from Christina's lip-service address of her mother) presents Christina's mother, Joan, as one who thinks a mote and the end of the world are synonymous, as one fastidious, a fault magnifier, a stickler for hard-and-fast rules and rituals, an overreactor, ill-tempered, capricious, prone to severe mood swings, running amok, blowing her stack (or perhaps a gasket), going ballistic, boiling over, bawling Christina out ... and the daughter who walked the chalk line, stood the gaff, and made the best of it all. This grossly underrated movie simply retells all this, visually. And who of us dare criticize someone's journal? When you condemn the movie, you're actually condemning the victimized Christina.






April 13, 2008

 Mommie Dearest
Classic, the name speak for it self, if you don't know about this movie (young and old) then you need to see it. One to watch over and over for years to come. April 12, 2008

 The Daughter's Last Word
The film begins when a woman awakes at 4AM and begins to wash her hands and face She has a clothes closet big enough for a small store. It is Hollywood in the late 1930s. Joan visits an orphanage to give Christmas presents. Her talk tells about herself. She wants a baby, but must adopt. This child will live in wealth and comfort; what could go wrong? After Christina she adopts Christopher, another unwanted child. Spare presents are sent to the poor children at the orphanage. [No explanation of this personal choice.] Joan seems to be reliving her youth via her daughter. But as Tina grows up she develops a mind and will of her own. Joan gets the part she wanted. Tina imitates her mother.

Joan has a problem with her lawyer friend Greg. She insults him, and it is the end of their relationship. Her children play outside and make noise. L. B. Mayer tells Joan she must find another studio. Joan takes her anger out on her rose bushes. She practices her acting so she can be perfect in her next film. Tina has her own tastes in food. Joan hates wire coat hangers (as if that is Tina's fault?). [Does this reflect her fading career?] Tina is sent to a boarding school. She grows up, and learns acting. Joan has financial difficulties, this will affect Tina. Tina is more grown up now; she learns she was adopted. There is a very emotional scene, and Tina goes to a convent school. Will she benefit from this?

Joan marries a wealthy soft drink executive; her life changes. Christina has started acting. Joan's tastes are too expensive for Alfred. Joan know how to negotiate with top management; she won't be screwed over! Her daughter gets a part on a TV series. When Joan is ill her daughter accepts an award for her. And so the end comes for Joan. Joan's will leaves nothing for Christina and Christopher; no reasons given. [How much was her estate?] Christina's book is her last word.

The moral of this story is to never disinherit any of your children, especially if your closet is full of skeletons.
February 12, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...