MovieChat Forums > Humoresque (1947) Discussion > Joan Crawford...I don't get it.

Joan Crawford...I don't get it.

posted 18 years ago by thatsnumberwang
19 replies | jump to latest

I know I'm gonna get hosed for this. Honestly I don't want to start an argument, I just want to express my astonishment that apparently people think she is an attractive woman. In this movie alone I saw at least 3 other women in bit parts that were leaps and bounds above her in terms of looks. I will admit that her look is unique; I just don't understand how she gets romantic leads. She is such a bitch! I find it unbelievable that all these men are just SOOOO in love with her in this and every other movie. Compared to the looks of Veronica Lake, Lana Turner, Rita Hayworth, etc...well there is no comparison. Outside of gay men elevating her to be this icon of divadom, I don't understand how she had a career. How does that work?

[–] eddyskiva 18 years ago

Good observation... maybe I can help. First, as a Gay man, it probably should be pointed out that Crawford was elevated to 'divadom' or 'stardom' by movie fans in general, throughout the '20's, '30's, and '40's. We Gay men can only take credit for recognizing it as 'camp' and over-stylized melodrama... where others didn't. Second, you are right...she's unique... that's why she's an attractive star. The most beautiful actresses, and many of the most popular, are not traditionally 'beautiful'... i.e. Barbara Stanwyck. The psychology of straight men being attracted to women who are hard and 'bitchy' would fill too many books. Women loved her strength as well. It's simply a matter of 'she's fun to watch being that way'... and in most movies... shows us a softness underneath the hard exterior. It's not about what guys think is 'physically attractive' anyway... it's about screen presence.
Agreed on Lake, Turner, Hayworth... but I think that says more about the 'type' you find attractive. Lake, Turner, and Hayworth... for all the talent they may have had.... had a hard time struggling to be more than that... a physical 'type'.... there were many women that had Hayworth's style of beauty (Anne Sheridan for one)... .there is only one Crawford, Stanwyck, Davis, Garbo, Hepburn, Loren, Christie, Keaton, Streep.

[–] HoferPM-1 17 years ago

I try not ever to think of what these actresses were like in real life. I adored Bette Davis until I read about her in the book by her daughter. I then had a hard time distinguishing the real Bette from her roles. I try only to think of the actress playing the role and I loved all of Joan Crawford's movies after Mildred Pierce and all of Bette Davis'up until BeYond The Forest, except for All About Eve, which was one of her best.

[–] ddeboer 17 years ago

Wow what a good response. I guess I couldn't have said it better myself. Joan actually represents a different type of attractiveness. Some people are attracted to powerful women and she definitely had that look. Personally, I thought she looked stunning and strangely not unlike Gillian Anderson from the X Files.

[–] AssetsonFire 15 years ago

That's strange. I actually thought the same thing while watching this movie, although I hadn't done before.

[–] jaddeo 16 years ago

Great response. Let me add, that Joan Crawford became a star in the 20s, 30s and 40s when most of her fans were women who wanted to see her in those types of roles. You are correct when you say that gay men recognized this after she had already become a superstar. It was women who made her as hugely popular as she was and gay men have sustained her fame through lovingly identifying those qualities in her that made her unique and dare I say an outsider. I agree with you that those women who are legendary are truly unique in their talent and beauty and defy being identified as a "physical type". I for one find an immense vulnerability in Joan Crawford that comes through, even when she is hard as nails, tough, cold and remote. Unbeknownst to her there is a frightened little girl that shows her heart most when she is trying to cover it up. This is what makes her movies so easy to watch over and over again. Even the not so good ones. There is a schizophrenic quality that comes across on screen which I find highly watchable. We are all flawed and I love how Ms. Crawford's flaws seep through. She is extremely human and deserves to be remembered.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jamesabutler44 16 years ago

I agree with you 100% Gay men tend to idolize the archetypical Hollywood actresses from the old studio system. I recommend the autobiographical
"Joan Crawford" Always the Star produced by Turner Classic Movies and on the flip side of the Mildred Pierce DVD. Joan probably was somewhat troubled in her personal life, additionally, she was a victim of her own creation. She was rarely out of character and became her own creation - Joan Crawford! According the biography, she photographed perfectely, was petite, and had flawless skin. We may never know the complete picture of who she was as a person, but we can be thankful we have her films to remember her by.

[–] Pipeman_Toronto 16 years ago

As some of the other posters have said, Joan Crawford's look changed incredibly from her days as an ingenue in 1925, to her more hard-featured image of the '50's and '60's.

Personally I think she was at her most beautiful circa 1928-36 or so. Catch some of her films from this period - Our Dancing Daughters, Grand Hotel, Dancing Lady, Sadie McKee. She is absolutely gorgeous during this period and usually featured in sympathetic roles. Look at some of the portraits George Hurrell took of her and the allure of Crawford will make more sense to you. She is one of the most beautiful women of that period.

By the time "Humoresque" was released, Joan was in her mid 40's - she wasn't a little ingenue anymore, nor was she the ultimnate glamour queen she had been in her 30's. Her perfectly sculpted features also changed during this period. She began to emphasize her eyebrows and her mouth. She abandoned much of the softness of her younger look, and she played up a stronger image. The hair becomes shorter and shorter until it's avery mannish bob by the 1950's.

These changes in her physiognomy may have been a physical reflection of things that had happened to her. MGM, her original studio (where she worked for the first 18 years of her career) let her go and she had to fend for herself, going on contract with Warner Bros., and later working independently. Her marriages failed and she had to rely on herself rather than others.

By the late '40's and '50's, Joan is type-cast as a "bitch" in films with ridiculously misogynistic titles like: "This Woman is Dangerous" and "Queen Bee". Naturally this is what happened to a strong independent woman who could make it in a man's world in those days. She's regarded as a bitch. It's sad really, because she was a wonderful actress and a beautiful woman.

[–] xdayton 16 years ago

Another gay man here (there seem to be a lot of us on this thread!) Let me make another observation:

Don't forget that Joan was supposed to be the "older woman" in this movie. As such, she was pretty damned stunning. I've been trying to think of a modern day equivalent of an actress in her mid to late 40s pursuing a younger man. Perhaps Meryl Streep cast as Mrs. Wright going after matt damon or some such. You wouldn't think of Meryl as competition for a young starlet, in the same way Joan shouldn't be compared, in strictly physical terms, to the younger actresses in this movie.

Having said all that, I think this is one of the last pictures where Joan was truly gorgeous. Yes, "the face" had been started -- the exaggerated eyebrows, lips, cheekbones, etc. -- but it hadn't yet hardened into self-parody.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 9 years ago

She was so beautiful, and became more beautiful with age.

[–] Gubbio 15 years ago

I agree with everyone's analysis of Crawford's appeal. But, on sheer looks alone, I've never been able to see her beauty or believe that so many men (on screen) could be madly in love with her.

In some still photos from the 20's or 30's, you can see how well she photographed..... She looked more like a cold sculpture than a real woman.

But, to me, on film she always appeared masculine and cold. Striking, yes. Beautiful? No.

It's just a matter of taste.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] noki53 15 years ago

Straight guy here and not only is Joan one of my favorite actresses (Barbara Stanwyck being another) but I thought she was stunningly beautiful in this film. I admire her strength both on and off the screen and really don't put much stock into some of the terrible things that have been said about her. She was talented, hard working, very appealing throughout her career and a star in every sense of the word. Beauty I guess, really is in the eye of the beholder and yes, I am SOOOOO in love with her in this and many other movies.
I came to Casablanca for the waters.....

[–] jaddeo 14 years ago

Great post - Crawford does appeal to straight men and it's good to see them come out and support her.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] denis-38 9 years ago

First off, fine you don't think her attractive. It's all subjective. (I mean, there are people who say, "Well, Liz Taylor was pretty, but she wasn't THAT pretty!")

Second--Crawford had a huge female audience. She was a major star and you cannot become a major star on a the affections of gay men alone. That aspect of it can keep a career SOMEWHAT afloat later on, but even then it's mostly publicity.

She was considered glamourous and beautiful (and unique) in her time. She was already a star in silent films, and re-invented herself over and over again.

You can't really "explain" stardom or a person's appeal to somebody who doesn't get it. JC was a genuinely great star and as late as 1952, Oscar-nominated.

The biggest stars are not always necessarily the most classically good-looking.

[–] SamoanJoes 9 years ago

He does have man-like features that are more noticeable more times than not.