MovieChat Forums > The Gorgeous Hussy (1936) Discussion > Gorgeous? Well, the costumes are.

Gorgeous? Well, the costumes are.

I'll bet Joan Crawford just jumped at the chance to 1) appear in a 'period' picture with 2) the words 'gorgeous' and 'hussy' in the title. "That's me!" she thought, lol. This snoozefest sort-of American History Course is enlivened by bits from Beulah Bondi, James Stewart, Franchot Tone, and (if you like him) lots of folksy drawling by Lionel Barrymore. In the center - Ms. Crawford, acting acting acting. Dressed in the most eye-popping, enormous, frou-frou gowns and hats I have seen in decades of old movies. She does look gorgeous. One can only speculate on the cost of all those yards and yards of fabric, and the elaborate hairdo and the makeup. Stunning costumes, boring movie, miscast Joan Crawford. It goes on far too long, but it's worth a look.


Many many years ago when Crawford was doing silent pics and her first foray into sound movies, She WAS gorgeous. Just look at her in some of those films.
Natural beauty, great teeth and a great body.

She was a big star. But what in the world happened to her later on in the later 40s and on into the 60s?
Talk about a career in Holly weird messing up a person.
Those eyebrows and those dumb hairdos.

I think all the actors who started in silent film were incapable of nuancing their style on film. She and Bette Davis, to me, are so overrated.
Bette Davis has to be the WORST actress EVER.
Katherine Hepburn was always bad.

How in the world did the 1930s-1950s determine good acting? I can't figure it out.