MovieChat Forums > Grand Hotel (1932) Discussion > what made crawford so much better? *spoi...

what made crawford so much better? *spoiler*


I'm just curious for all the die-hard Crawford fans on this board who are slamming Greta Garbo. Personally I didn't find Crawford all that intriguing until her final two scenes (after the Baron had died. She was definitely excellent by that time, but during the rest of the movie it just seemed like another perfuntory performance to me.
Please don't freak out and call me ignorant. Just point out things you liked about her performance that maybe I can look out for the next time I watch this movie.


"Just close your eyes...but keep your mind wide open."

reply

If you watch movies made late 20s and early 30s, the acting is way overdone. You can see the real actress, not the character. I could see Greta on screen doing something they call acting. I could see her act. To me acting is bad when you see an actress act. However, with Joan, I see a character. I dont see Joan, I see stonagrapher girl, the way she moved and smiled and talked, as if she was alive in the movie. Garbo was just like a puppet, only more annoying! my 2 cents

reply

I must agree with the above poster. I found Garbo's acting to be so ridiculously over the top. I kept thinking, if she were on stage, this would probably be the perfect amount of emotion, but on film, she looks like a buffoon.

Joan Crawford, on the other hand, always seemed very natural to me in the role. I always really enjoy her performances, so I suppose I'm biased, but she was the only actor to me who didn't overact to the point of absurdity.

All in all, though, the film was a very big disappointment for me. It didn't get good until the Baron was killed.

Chiggins C-H-I-G-G-I-N-S Aw Peaches!http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=8093247

reply

How can you say Greta Garbo was so over-the-top when Joan Crawford pulled that crazy scene getting Lionel Barrymore out of bed after finding John's body? Or when she ordered 2 tickets to Paris? Positively nutty.

reply

I think Garbo was at her most beautiful in this film but acting-wise I was more impressed with Joan...hers was a far more naturalistic performance, I believe. Actually I feel that out of all the leading players it is Crawford's performance that holds up best. 1932 truly was Joan's breakthrough year as an actress. Not only did she stand out in the cast of GRAND HOTEL, but she also gave a stunning performance as Sadie Thompson in RAIN.

reply

I think Crawford was indeed very good in "Grand Hotel" but the film was an ensemble, all the actors contributed to its success. People who attack Garbo for her performance neglect the fact that her love scenes with John Barrymore are probably one of the reasons why the film is still a classic. No other actress could have done that and as I have mentioned on another thread to Vicky Baum who wrote the book Garbo was by far the most inspired performer in the film. I guess since she wrote the book she knew what she was talking about so I take her word, plus I read the book and I agree. To go back to Crawford. In this film I think she gave one of her most effective performances, although there are some minor flaws. When she gets emotional on the phone with Barrymore when she orders two tickets for Paris is, for me a bit weak, the same when she screams and leaves the room with Presyig after she sees Barrymore's body lying down on the floor. But still she is charming, modern and delightful in the part and I think this is one of her most effective performances of that period of her career. For people who continuously attack Garbo and find everything so modern and wonderful with Crawford I dare to differ. I have seen most of her early talkies and in some she is far from giving a believable performance. In films like "The montana moon" or"Untamed" I thought she was exagerated and almost laughable.

reply

Throughout the whole film, I just couldn't wait to see Joan on screen again. Her presence in GH was just very prominent and effective. Greta was fine, but I do feel she overacted, not just in GH, but in other films as well. She was a beauty though!

reply

In which films did Garbo overact? Have you seen her in her silents? For example "Woman of Affairs", "The kiss" or "The single standard"? Not only she does not overact in these but quite on the contrary, she changes the concept of acting for the screen, she has an extraordinarily subtle way of acting for the screen which is deeply profound and moving. I strongly recommend "Woman of Affairs" for anyone who is interested in seing what made and still makes Garbo a truly great actress and star. Unfortunately it was not released in 2005 on DVD as part of the DVD signature collection dedicated to her, although they do show it occasionally on TCM and it does exist on VHS. It is a must. Try also "The mysterious lady" she really sizzles in that and the same might be said for her sensual explosive performance in the legendary "Flesh and the Devil". Her "Lady of the Camelias" in "Camille" is a masterpiece of great acting (many critics consider it as the greatest performance given by an actress in all film history) and the same might be said for her performances so rich in nuances and so subtle in "Anna Karenina", "Queen Christina", "Ninotschka" and the wonderful although neglected "The painted veil".

reply

I have seen some of her silents, and others you mentioned. I grew up watching a lot of old/obscure/classic etc... films because of my father (thank the heavens!). The fact that "critics" rave about her like mad, doesn't mean anything to me - I'm just not a fan of her acting. Like I said, she was a beauty and I can see why she has so many fans and is an icon, but she's not one to me.

reply

I agree 100%. She was absolutely mesmerizing in this film. I replayed some scenes over and over...


Mirror inspector is a job I could really see myself doing.

reply

Thank you for this wonderful and thorough reply and insight. I could not agree more with you. Being a foreign myself but having almost always lived abroad (US and now in France) I totally understand your point of view. Garbo had her own unique understanding of words. She could take an english word and give it a special meaning with the way she pronounced it. Her words may appear strange to some people but to others they reveal an incomparable poetry. Just to give some examples. The way she says "strange man" to John Barrymore in their first scene together is so utterly charming and beautiful. Or when she says "The sun, it will be sunny in Tremezzo" with such hope and the way she emphasized the sun, we can totally visualize the "sun of hope" in Grusinskaya's word which of course is an illusion. Garbo's words accompany her extraordinarily facial expressions and body movements. Watch her "Camille" and you will see what I mean, she uses her voice like an equisite musical instrument to convey meanings and shades that sometimes are not easy to grasp from a first viewing of her films. Garbo is a poetic creature, an actress apart. Through poetry she suggests reality and reaches to the hearts of those who are willing to express the mysteries of this incomparable actress.

reply

[deleted]

i think crawford was fantastic, not quite as incredible as people seem to be saying on here except for the scene that she meets the baron.
in that one scene she manages to outshine both the barrymore brothers with ease.

"they should give nicole kidman an oscar for being able to show any emotion after THAT much botox".

reply

I agree, Crystal. This movie has two great cinema queens. Too bad the story doesn't give an excuse for them to act together (I know that acting with Garbo was something that Miss Crawford longed for)

"I love corn!"

reply

This was the first time that I had seen an early Joan Crawford movie and only the second Garbo film ("Ninotchka" was the first).

Two comments:

1. Could it be that Crawford's more "naturalistic" acting style appeals to modern movie audiences because that acting style is the one that has been in vogue in recent decades and the style to which we have become accustomed?

2. For those who dislike Garbo's acting style as melodramatic or "over the top," I think that they need to consider her character in this film. She's playing a ballerina diva, a woman whose job keeps her onstage using grand gestures to play to a theater audience. Being a drama queen comes with her territory.

That said, I now understand better the mass appeal of all of the main cast members to their fans.

reply

I so agree with the poster who said the "acting style appeals to modern movies audiences." Reading the IMDB boards, I am often wanting to do a poll on the ages of the people who write their thoughts here. I can guarantee age has a lot to do with opinions, especially when applied to movies from the 20s to the 50s.

reply

I am not a diehard fan of Crawford, but in this film she really stood out. In fact, I am more used to her later films than her early ones and was surprised she was so good early on. On the other hand, I do not know Garbo at all and was surprised by the overly dramatic performance. I would agree with other posters that Joan seemed very natural and gave a naturalistic performance. Garbo was over the top. Yes, there were some moments there, but most of it seemed like...look at me I am AWWWCTING. I think it probably was the times and the style but it does not hold up.

reply

Garbo was playing a ballerina and they tend to be melodramatic.

reply

Grusinskaya is a depressed, neurotic prima ballerina who perceives she is losing the audiences' adoration and, therefore, is losing her grip on reality. All life is a performance to her. I think Garbo was spot on in her portrayal. Joan, as the common stenographer, gives a wonderful performance as well. I actually perfer her acting here to some of her later attempts.

reply