The REAL Troublemaker


In my opinion it was more so Robert Aldrich who caused the most trouble. Bette Davis (whom I love) was indeed a main part in Joan Crawford's (whom I also love) departure from the film. Aldrich decided to give Bette $200,000 salary, the same amount he was being paid as director, and because of this agreed Bette would be a sort of co-director. Surely after (the brilliant) "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane" he knew that the women detested each other, and still got Crawford to do the film (no doubt because he knew publicity would get him more money) with Bette having more power. He also went along with whatever Bette said and made her part bigger, and when Crawford asked for more powerful scenes and to make her character jucier, he declined. No doubt Aldrich prefered Bette but I think he was too unprofessional in the way he showed it. In my opinion Joan had every to be mad and walk off the film, although it was a great shame she did (although Olivia De Havilland was brilliant). What's everyone else's thoughts?

reply

[deleted]

Crawford demanded top billing over Davis. Davis countered by demanding more money if Crawford got top billing, which Crawford agreed to. Billing was so important to Joan that she was willing to let Bette get paid much more just so she (Joan) could be billed first. Then she arrived on the set with an entire entourage including huge trunks, one of which was filled with nothing but hairpieces. Oh yeah, I like Crawford's film work, but she REALLY got what she deserved this time!

reply

The billing had a lot to do with Miss Davis getting more jealous, but it was the $200,000 that got Bette to do the film. Crawford tried to associate with the cast but after being pushed away by the cast and crew as Bette turned them against her and so began to "hide away" off set and did things alone. She couldn’t take the bullying, which it was, of everyone involved and so infamously took ill and refused to come back to work. By no means did she "get what she deserved" but was just forced out of a film role in which she had done nothing wrong but been the victim of Robert Aldrich, Bette Davis, and the cast of crew. And in the case of the trunks, it up to Miss Crawford to what she brings with her. Understand I am a HUGE admirer of both women, but in this case it was definitely Crawford who was the victim.

reply

Also part of the problem was Crawford never acted like one of the gang, the way Davis did, making friends with the grips and crew. She always swept in wearing elbow length gloves in 90 degree heat with a queenly attitude; something more down to earth people like Bette and Aggie couldn't abide.

reply

[deleted]

Exactly. Joan was THRILLED Bette didn't win and she went out of her way to tap Bette on the shoulder and sweetly say "Excuse me" as she made her way to the stage to accept Anne Bancroft's Oscar; something she had arranged in advance so she could be photographed clutching the Oscar. I still maintain that she richly deserved what happened to her during the filming of Charlotte.

reply

Once again I disagree. Bette kicked Joan in the head "accidently" during filming of "Baby Jane". Joan put weights in her pockets when Bette had to carry her across a room, causing Bette to strain her back. Bette humiliated Joan (who by the way was always trying to please Bette and make friends with her, something Bette threw back in her face) in front of cast and crew. Joan "sabotaged" Bette's Oscar win. It was really tit for tat, so it is unfair to judge Joan only on the Oscar incident and blame everything on her, and by no means did she "richly deserve what happened to her during the filming of Charlotte", but was merely bullied out the film by cast and crew alike, especially by director Aldrich and Bette who were now pals. And might I add that it was thanks to Joan that "Baby Jane" came into production after she read the book, contacted Aldrich to direct, and suggested Bette for the part of Jane. This was certainly not appreciated.

reply

[deleted]

Bottom line: The casting in Charlotte was perfect. To this day, first time viewers don't see Olivia's character coming. They'd see Joan a mile away. So it all worked out.

reply

[deleted]

yeah, the slapping scene in the car would have been awesome!

reply

I'll agree on that one.

reply

No I am not, I am a 12 year old boy who absolutely adores Joan Crawford and Bette Davis, but I am not one of these stupid, norrow minded people like you who thinks "Joan Crawford. Mommie Dearest. Yeah, she was the one who must have been in the wrong". As such a big fan I know a lot about this subject and on top of this I make sure I know what I am talking about before I say something.

reply

[deleted]

Well to start with me being such a big fan does have a lot to do about it as being one I read a lot of biographies on them and know my stuff. And also, yes I am trying to defend her, but not on selective data. I am trying to get it across to people like you Joan wasn't the one always in the wrong.
And thank you, but I am not sure if you are being nice or patronising in calling me "adorable".

reply

[deleted]

To start with, your earlier argument started with an insult, and it was a very pointless comment; "God. Another effin' queen defending Crawford.", and so that proves to me you think of Crawford as someone who is in the wrong and cant be defended, when indeed she can. Also, me being a big fan does have a lot to do with it; I dont just pick up on bits that I have heard here and there. And I am keeping the conversation in the thread right, it is just your so stubborn you want to think I am not to prove yourself right.
Oh, and again with the insults, I am not a "fawning sycophant", but just so you can attempt to win a debate does mean you have to resort to something that you dont know anything about.
Finally, I am glad to know you were not being patronising.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

"I was being nice!"
Well, it wasn't very nice.

"I have toilet paper dispensers with Crawford's head on it that are older than you, so don't attmept to pull rank."
Age doesn't matter when you're a fan.

"No, you're doing the opposite. Your being a big fan says nothing about your data."
It does, it means I do a lot of research on them therefor now a lot on the subject.

""Just to win a debate"?? Something I "dont know anything about"?? You think I know nothing about Crawford?

Is that a gurgling sound or did you just hit puberty??"
Yes I do think you know nothing otherwise you would not be saying that she was in the wrong. Also, I already hit puberty, so it must have just been you.

Now, I would like to end this pety argument by saying I have my views, you have yours, but hey-ho, we're both fans of Joan Crawford so its not all that bad!

reply

[deleted]

But it was!
No, it wasn't.

No, it doesn't!
Thank you for agreeing.

Oh, God. The "research" comment. That's so 2009.
I don't care whether it's so 1909, I'll say what I want.

Do you see how that sounds? If you want credibility, say something wiser.
It was wise, it's just you're not wise enough to see it was wise.

I hit it at 10. I bet your cheek is just squishy and precious!
The "squishy and precious" mocking really doesn't bother me, and suuuuuuuuure you hit it at 10; you're still waiting for it.

"Petty"?
Well yes, this discussion has turned petty.

reply

[deleted]

You're rambling.
So are you.

Was I?
Yes you were.

No one disputed whether or not you'd say what you want. Only that it's stoopid.
Well in saying it's "stoopid" it's trying to make me think I shouldn't say it.

Not a very wise response/
It was, you're just not wise enough to see it.

People hit at 10 all the time. It's pretty common. Aren't you only 12?
Yes, but you're different. And yes I am 12.

No, I said "pretty". Most 12 year old boys usually are.
Well, I don't know if I'm pretty or not but I sure don't need what appears to be a still-not-hit-puberty-pervert to tell me that.

reply

[deleted]

as it is, a stand in was used for that scene because Bette told Aldrich that Olivia had been waiting years to slap her face. And THEY were good friends!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've read that De Havilland was very nervous about slapping scene and Bette Davis told her to just go with it. don't think a stand in was used. they were both professionals. i doubt they would bring personal into it especially after the nonsense with Queen Bee.

reply

[deleted]

Also part of the problem was Crawford never acted like one of the gang, the way Davis did, making friends with the grips and crew. She always swept in wearing elbow length gloves in 90 degree heat with a queenly attitude; something more down to earth people like Bette and Aggie couldn't abide.


Crawford wasn't 'down to earth' but hasn't it been stated over and over by many different people that Joan Crawford knew the name of every single member of the crew, as well as their wives and children and (allegedly) their birthdays? I doubt that was the problem. And God knows, Bette Davis was not exactly the most humble person in existence.

It's pretty well corroborated that Bette did all she could to get Joan off this film. She agreed to make the movie with Joan Crawford but she never had any intention of working with Crawford again, and she told people exactly that. She never forgot Joan's very bitchy antics towards her 'Baby Jane' Oscar nomination. Crawford said this was because (She acted like Baby Jane was a one woman show after they nominated her. What was I supposed to do, let her hog all the glory, act like I hadn't even been in the movie? She got the nomination. I didn't begrudge her that, but it would have been nice if she'd been a little gracious in interviews and given me a little credit. I would have done it for her.)

Bette apparently sat next to the director during Joan's scenes exclaiming loudly 'you're not going to let her do it like that are you?' or, between takes would grab the script and exclaim 'I AM CUTTING SOME LINES' and cross out Joan's lines in Joan's copy of her script with red pen?

What about the story of Bette Davis greeting Celeste Holm on the first day of All About Eve with 'Oh sh*t, good manners.'? I mean, I love Bette but she was not exactly any more of a 'team member' than Joan Crawford.

Could you have seen her doing exactly what Joan did had Joan been nominated? Because from what i've heard, I can.

I love Olivia in this role though, and I completely agree with whoever said that if it was Joan you would have been able to see it a mile off. I watched this movie without knowing the ending, and had Joan been in the role I definitely would not have been surprised the way I was.


But you are, Blanche. You are in that chair!

reply

well I never said that Bette was America's sweetheart! lol

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

The first time I saw the movie, I was completely surprised by her evil intent.


In the original script, apparently, Miriam was this huge bitch and Olivia only agreed to do it if the role of Miriam was changed to make her more 'polite.' According to Olivia, this made her more frightening. She thought the original character was too much of a cliché. I think it's true.

With Joan, the movie would have been so different. With Olivia, it's sort of a mystery movie. You think instead 'who is the real villain? How is it going to unfold? With Joan, it would have been more of a thriller, with Miriam being this obviously evil woman and the audience wondering 'will she get away with it?'

It's hard to tell whether it would have been a better or worse movie, you can only say it would have been different.



But you are, Blanche. You are in that chair!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

as it is, a stand in was used for that scene because Bette told Aldrich that Olivia had been waiting years to slap her face. And THEY were good friends!

reply

I'm on Joan's side. I wish that she had either been allowed to finish the film or somehow managed to have the entire production canceled. Olivia is great but look at those photos of Joan, her hair, clothes, and jewelry, all great. In my opinion she put more thought into the character of Miriam than Olivia, who was obviously just playing a mean version of Melanie from Gone with the Wind, how original. Also, I'm wondering if Joan had come out and said she was faking would they still have been able to finish the film, because if the insurance company knew she was faking they wouldn't pay whatever it was to compensate the production. I know if she did come out and say she was faking she might not of ever worked again in movies or television.

reply

I can see someone preferring to have seen Crawford, but to think that the entire film shouldn't have been made?? Why? It's still a really good film.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I fail to understand how or why would the starring actress´s salary being equal to the director´s buy that actress any authority over the production & artistic decisions going into the film. Was Aldrich really such a pushover as to allow some over-the-hill yesteryear starlet call the shots to such an extent as is being alleged?



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Davis was not co-director. She became a co-producer. I'm not sure it's mentioned in the credits, but this is what I have read and I believe it's also in the documentary about Hush Hush Sweet Joan.

And regarding deHavilland/Crawford versions. Both would have been good. Although Crawford would have been chewing at the scenery with Davis, deHavilland mearly gnawed at it for 2 hours and fifteen minutes. The first time you see it, you are shocked at her visiousness at the end, but on subsequent watchings you are enjoying her little game of messing with Charlotte and trying to maintain a clear head at the same time.

Davis was quite the professional as opposed to Crawford's diva Prima Donna act.

Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...

reply

I like Bette but she did fight with everyone: Miriam Hopkins, Susan Hayward, and of all people saintly Lillian Gish. Bette Davis mocked Errol Flynn whose pictures while different from Bette's were as important to the success of WB as were Bette's. Errol Flynn's Adventures of Robin Hood is the finest film of that era I have ever seen Bette Davis had 10 years left on her contract when she stormed out of WB and Jack Warner was lucky that Bette broked her contract.

reply

Bette Davis did fight with everyone: Miriam Hopkins, Susan Hayward,Joan Crawford, and of all people Lillian Gish. Bette Davis mocked Errol Flynn whose pictures while different from Bette's were as important to the success of WB as were Bette's. Flynn's Adventures of Robin Hood is the finest film of that era I have ever seen. Paul Muni, James Cagney, Humphrey Bogart were immense stars at Warners but Bette and her slavish fans seem to think only Bette was a star at Warner Bros.

The feud with Hopkins seems to be of Bette's direct cause. She slept with Anatole Litvak then married to Hopkins. Bette also seduced Franchot Tone when Tone was married to Joan Crawford.

Bette Davis left WB she had one great role All About Eve, and then as she said she had "10 black years" until "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane" came along. Bette convinced herself she would be the winner of that years Oscar and blamed Joan Crawford when she lost the Award. Did Bette ever congratulate Anne Bancroft?

Bette Davis had 10 years left on her contract when she stormed out of WB losing out among other film roles she surely would be considered for "A Streetcar Named Desire"

reply

This whole situation on Hush Hush was really Bette’s fault to begin although Joan did not do herself a service by accepting for Bancroft. Davis might have been more amenable to working with Crawford a second time if she had not done that.

According to Bette and Joan: The Divine Feud Crawford and Aldrich had seen Baby Jane complete except for part of the credits, and one short scene with Jane as a young girl, which was being redubbed. Bette had missed that screening so Joan sent her flowers and champagne and told her how wonderful she had been. After some urging, Bette went to a screening and then later after not hearing anything from her Crawford phoned Davis and asked her what she thought of the film to which Davis replied: “You were so right, Joan. The picture was good. And I was terrific.”

To author Shaun Considine years later, Crawford said: “That was it. She never said anything about my performance. Not a word.”

Considine writes: Not once in her entire career, it seemed, had the great actress Bette Davis ever acknowledged that her rival Joan Crawford had any talent.

He then alleges that this last denial of approval led Crawford to cancel the Baby Jane publicity tour with Davis, and to upstage her at the Oscars.


Crawford explained this to Lawrence Quirk when he was visiting the set of Hush Hush and this is according to the 2002 Joan Crawford: The Essential Biography by Lawrence J. Quirk and William Schoell:

“There is just no dealing with that woman.” The author writes: Joan confided in Quirk that she knew Davis was angry because of the Oscar business, but added:

“She [Davis] acted like Baby Jane was a one-woman show after they nominated her. What was I supposed to do, let her hog all the glory, act like I hadn't even been in the movie? She got the nomination. I didn't begrudge her that, but it would have been nice if she'd been a little gracious in interviews and given me a little credit. I would have done it for her.”

But of course Robert Aldrich didn’t help matters either. Actually he did nothing. He pretty much was a coward during Hush Hush and let Bette (whom he obviously favored) run Crawford into the ground until she could take no more.

The author’s words: Aldrich later said that he was disappointed that Joan hadn’t finished the picture despite the added tension her presence had created.

He also admitted that most of the tension was actually caused by Davis, not Joan.




reply

Whatever the reason, it was fortuitous for the film that Joan left it. Even though I like Joan Crawford, I don't think that she would have been as effective in the role of Miriam as Olivia DeHavilland was. Joan would have been too obvious from the start.Olivia was just right for the sweet acting but evil cousin. She gave a brilliant performance in the role.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

reply

[deleted]