MOMMIE DEAREST 1981lecinemadreams.blogspot.com/2011/12/mommie-dearest-1981.html

“After Michael Redgrave played the insane ventriloquist in Dead of Night, bits of the character’s paranoia kept turningup in his other performances; it would be hair-raising if Faye Dunaway were to have trouble shaking off the gorgonJoan.”Pauline Kael - The New Yorker Oct.1981

I grew up during a time when it was common practice to apply hairbrushes, belts, or sturdy switches (a thin branchfrom a tree or a stalk from a root or plant) to the backsides of children in the interest of instilling "discipline." Backthen, kids knew the likely consequence of disobedience or backtalk was to get “a whipping” (spanked), or, if in public,a pluck to the ears or smack to the back of the head (seriously!). Misdeeds failing to warrant physical punishmentwere met with verbal reprimands ("Shut up back there!”), threats (“Mouth off to me again and I’ll slap you clear intonext week!”), or other colorful forms of what we now know to be verbal/psychological abuse ( “What are you,stupid?”).

Welcome to Parenting 101: The Pre Dr. Spock years. Whether it be corporal punishment, verbal abuse, orpsychological intimidation (“Wait ‘til your father gets home!”); our parents did it to us because their parents did it tothem. No one bothered to question such behavior for the administering of strict parental discipline was widely held atthe time to be the single ingredient marking the difference between the raising of a worthless juvenile delinquent, or acontributing member of society.

1/9

This hurts me more than it does you

This is one reason why, when I first read Mommie Dearest—Christina Crawford’s bestselling memoir detailing thephysical abuse she suffered at the hands of her adoptive mother, screen legend Joan Crawford— I was amongthose who had no problem believing the allegations made against Crawford were true. For those of us who grew upin the "spare the rod, spoil the child” era, the behavior described in Mommie Dearest was considerably less shockingthan who was engaging in it: Mildred Pierce herself, Joan Crawford.If ever there was an individual who epitomized the words “movie star,” it was Joan Crawford. Everything about herfinely burnished image fed the public perception of her as a hardworking, glamorous star of ladylike hauteur andrefinement. While other stars were battling studio heads, suffering public meltdowns (would Mommie Dearest havecaused such a sensation had its subject been one of Hollywood’s more famously unstable stars like Judy Garland?),and living flashy lives of decadent excess, Joan always conducted herself as though she were Hollywood’s unofficial Goodwill Ambassador.

Published in 1978 (only one year after Crawford’s death), Mommie Dearest caused quite a sensation. Not only wasit one of the earliest examples of the tell-all celebrity memoir, but it was one of the first popular books to shed light onthe problem of child abuse. These days, I would welcome any public figure who didn’t compelled to publicly air theirabuses, addictions, and mental-illnesses; but in 1978, it was a rare thing indeed to publish such an incendiary airingof dirty-laundry about a movie star. Especially one with an image as scrupulously manicured as that of JoanCrawford.

I saw the film Mommie Dearest the day it opened at Hollywood's Mann's Chinese Theater in 1981. By this time thebestseller had become something of a cause célèbre, galvanizing public opinion into three distinct camps: 1) Those

2/9

who accepted the portrayal of Joan Crawford as a child-abusing, alcoholic, germaphobe; 2) Those who believedChristina’s allegations to have been greatly exaggerated and motivated by greed and vindictiveness; and, 3) Thosewho reveled in the memoir’s voyeuristic sensationalism and camp-tastic portrayal of a headstrong diva thoroughlyout of control.

To this latter group, the events of Mommie Dearest somehow bypassed sympathetic analysis and barreled headlonginto being a book enjoyed as a Jacqueline Susann- esque hybrid of old Joan Crawford movies (specifically QueenBee, Harriet Craig, and Mildred Pierce) crossed with The Bad Seed. I don’t know whether it was Crawford’s granddiva posturing or society’s deep-seated resentment of the rich and famous, but there was just something aboutMommie Dearest that many readers found irresistibly satirical.

Pathos UnderminedBeing screamed at by your mother: Traumatic

Being screamed at by your mother who's decked out in a sleep mask, chin strap,and night gloves: Priceless

However the memoir was received, the one thing everybody agreed upon was that Mommie Dearest had wreakedirreparable damage to Joan Crawford’s hard-fought-for image. Virtually overnight the name of Joan Crawford hadbecome an instant punch line (no pun intended, but see how easy that was?).

Faye Dunaway IS Joan Crawford

3/9

Diana Scarwid as Christina (adult)

Mara Hobel as Christina (child)

Steve Forrest as Greg Savitt

The audience that crowded the Chinese Theater that opening day in 1981 was abuzz with that rare kind ofanticipation born of knowing you were about to see a film that promised a rollicking good time whether it was atriumph or a travesty. A win-win situation!

Much in the manner that the incredibly stylish cubist/art deco title sequence for Lucille Ball’s Mame (1974) profferedhopes (quickly dashed) of a classy entertainment that never materialized, Mommie Dearest gots off to a verypromising start with a dramatically evocative, cinematically economical montage detailing the pre-dawn preparations

4/9

going into the creation of Joan Crawford, the movie star.

It’s a marvelous sequence of compulsive self-discipline and dues-paying professionalism that turns a morning bathinto a near-religious purging ritual built upon the duty and sacrifice of stardom. (I particularly like how Crawford,autographing photos in the back seat of her limo as she’s driven to the studio, never allows for a moment of idleness.It calls to mind my perception of what Oprah Winfrey must be like in her private moments…I seriously don’t knowwhen that woman finds time to sleep.)

Joan Crawford, world-class multi-tasker

For about five minutes, Mommie Dearest really looks like it’s going to work...and then the audience gets its first lookat Faye Dunaway in her Joan Crawford makeup. Although the transformation is impressive, the effect is startling inall the wrong ways. Gasps are followed by giggles, giggles erupt into guffaws, and Mommie Dearest never reallyregains its footing.

Which is really too bad, because Dunaway, who works her ass off, is really rather good (at least in that dicey, AlPacino in Scarface / Jack Nicholson in The Shining way: where a ridiculous performance can be made to workunder the right circumstances). She deserved a better script, a surer production, and a director protective enough torein her in when she went over top. Which, alas, is pretty often.

Perhaps it was misguided to even attempt to make a serious motion picture about an actress whose extreme senseof glamour (padded shoulders, mannish eyebrows, smeary lipstick, and mannered acting style) had long ago madeher a camp gay icon and favorite among drag queens, impressionists, and parodists (Carol Burnett’s Mildred Fiercecomes to mind). But director Frank Perry (Diary of a Mad Housewife, Last Summer) and a battery of screenwritersonly compounded the risk by failing to find a dramatically viable means of adapting the material.

5/9

For starters, the film can't really decide whose story it is. Are we seeing Joan as Christina sees her (in which caseChristina's psychological perspective gets incredibly short shrift), or is this a "behind the facade" look at a famousactress (which leaves us wondering what's the point)

America was years away from seriously addressing the issues of parental abuse, alcoholism, and possible bipolardisorder (the success of 1981's Arthur still pivoted on how hilarious alcoholics were). Which may explain why themother-daughter conflicts in Mommie Dearest…scenes of familial dysfunction worthy of William Inge…consistentlyfall short of tapping into the pain at their source.

Mommie Dearest, like its titular subject, gets bogged down with the superficial. Lacking in depth, the dialog,costuming, and performances work in concert to turn each of its setpiece scenes into high-style, $#*! My MotherSays.

The illusion of perfection

WHAT I LOVE ABOUT THIS FILMI’m guilty of whatever human frailty it is which causes people to rejoice when cracks are found in the façade of publicfigures who insist on portraying themselves and their lives as perfect. I was one of those so shocked by MommieDearest’s unmasking of little-miss-perfect Joan Crawford as a bit of a nutjob, that I failed to pay much attention to thenot-so-funny issue of child abuse, which should have been my focus from the start. Viewing Mommie Dearest today,so many years after its release, I wonder if the film is not guilty of the same thing. The focus should have been onthe character of Christina, not Joan. It’s her story after all. Since even the most world-famous parent is likely to bejust plain old “mom” or “dad” to a child, the resultant shift in focus might have offered a less traditional view ofCrawford and saved Mommie Dearest from becoming what it frequently feels like: the world’s longest drag act.

6/9

Joan Crawford's palatial Bel-Air home (top) first appeared as the mansion ofgangster J. Sinister Hulk (Jesse White, bottom photo, left) in the 1964 Annette

Funicello musical, Pajama Party

PERFORMANCESIn spite of the many hours of enjoyment I've had at Faye Dunaway’s expense (tears running down my cheeks,cramped stomach muscles, desperate gasps for air between full-throated howls of joyous laughter), as I've stated, Ireally think she does an amazing job in Mommie Dearest. It’s not so much that she’s good, although she does haveher moments; so much as she’s incredibly brave and frighteningly committed. She throws herself into the role sowholeheartedly that I don’t know that she can be completely faulted for failing to land right on the mark.

I’m of the opinion that much of what is accepted as funny about her portrayal of Joan Crawford is only partially herfault. No insult intended to the Joan Crawford fans out there, but the real Joan Crawford in full “Joan-mode” is prettyhilarious. Dunaway’s impersonation is so spot-on that the laughs she gets can’t really be attributed completely to herperformance/impersonation. I mean, those are Joan’s eyebrows and pinched-constipated smile; that is Crawford’s

7/9

butch, bitch-queen bossiness; and anyone who’s ever seen the level of overwrought emotionalism she’s capable ofbringing to even the most easy-going scenes (check out Trog, sometime), knows that even a lot of Faye's overactingbelongs to Crawford herself.

Dunaway makes some odd choices (the cross-eyed bit during the wire hangers scene is just asking for it, and whoexactly thought the whole “Don’t fuck with me, fellas!” line was going to work?), but within the confines of a ratherchoppy script, there is an attempt on Dunaway’s part to add some dimension to the at-times cartoonish monsterMommie Dearest would have us believe is Joan Crawford.

Joan Crawford (center) flanked by the contenders to the throne. Oscar winnerAnne Bancroft (r.) was Christina Crawford's personal choice for the role of Joan.When Bancroft declined, Faye Dunaway (who, ironically enough was a favorite of

Joan Crawford's) took over the reins.

THE STUFF OF FANTASYOver the years I’ve come to the conclusion that Mommie Dearest isn’t a bad film so much as a series of grossmiscalculations all around. Here are just a few things the makers of Mommie Dearest failed to take into account:a) 40s era Joan Crawford looks disconcertingly like Dr. Frank-N-Furter in The Rocky Horror Picture Show .b) Power plays between curly haired brats and mannish glamour stars are inherently funny.c) Extreme wealth undercuts tragedy.e) Casting a legendarily temperamental actress in the role of a legendarily temperamental actress encourages theaudience to wonder if they're watching Dunaway being Dunaway, or Dunaway being Crawford.

Madonna & Child

THE STUFF OF DREAMSThere was a time when I really couldn’t get sufficiently past Joan Crawford’s extreme look and affected style ofacting to see her as anything other than a comically camp timepiece. Over the years I’ve come to appreciate her skill

8/9

and talent, and today she’s one of my favorite actresses. Mommie Dearest is too flawed a film for even nostalgicrevisionism to one day convert into a misunderstood classic; but I think there stands a good chance that time will bekinder to Faye Dunaway’s performance. Like many of the under-appreciated performances of Marlon Brando thathave come to light to be among his best (Reflections in a Golden Eye), Dunaway’s Joan Crawford may be a bit “outthere” at times, but it is a fascinating, almost athletic performance. Perhaps far more layered and intelligent than thefilm deserves.

Understatement of the Year Dept:"Today Faye sees herself 'as starting on a second phase of my professional life,

just as Joan Crawford did...'" People Magazine Oct.

1981

BONUS MATERIAL

Mommie Dearest First Draft Screenplay (Anne Bancroft version)Mommie Dearest shooting script (Faye Dunaway version)

Copyright © Ken Anderson

About Ken Anderson: LA-based writer and lifelong film enthusiast. You can read more of his essays on films of the’60s & ‘70s at Dreams Are What Le Cinema Is For

9/9