I haven't seen this movie or read the book but - Mommie Dearest (1981) Discussion

[–] cookiela2001 9 years ago

Yes.

.

reply

How come Patty Duke (or other women) has every word of hers held onto, but nobody would believe Joan Crawford if she wrote a book or held interviews? Seems like we use dumb-ass selective-reasoning, regardless of the abuse is accurate or not. Why is assumed that Christina Crawford is the angel of truth?

Again, I think the lack of inheritance is the catalyst on 2 levels:
--it conveys or solidifies to people that Joan was abusive to that degree
--it would have been a different book, or no book.

reply

[–] rascal67 8 years ago

Patty Duke or many others weren't in the same standing or league as Crawford was as super movie star. Christina also wrote a compelling book that was written by her and not Joan. Why would she want her mother's input, it was her tale? She was allegedly working on it before Crawford died anyway and she knew about it. Is there any good solid reasoning to believe Joan over Duke though? I don't know how popular Duke's book was; but I doubt many would have heard of her, or even cared about her life. Crawford was a screen legend by the time Christina's book came out and it was a shocking expose on a lifestyle and personality that many were interested in. It was meant to be popular and what a story Christina had to tell. Perhaps you could allow yourself some relief that prevents you from enjoying life and have some flexibility IY, and read the book. I highly recommend it.

Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩

reply

[–] InherentlyYours 9 years ago

But you have to compare the book to the film from what I have gathered; things seem to "change", depending on the incident.

reply

[–] cookiela2001 9 years ago

Lord Inherent is right....Christina Crawford wrote an original draft of the screenplay, which was not used. The book was then adapted through various drafts by a handful of writers, and certain events were condensed, or altered in ways.

For instance, the famous "wire hanger sequence" was actually two different nights. And the floor that was scrubbed was Crawford's dressing room, not Christina's bathroom. She had been given the chore of washing it during the day, then found herself dragged out of bed in the middle of the night to redo it when Crawford decided it was not up to par. The scene continued as it does in the movie, but it was a different night than when the closet was destroyed.

The book is actually really good....kind of impossible to put down. And many of Crawford's contemporaries have attested that they witnessed the star's fantatical, deranged (and, in a word, alcoholic) treatment of her two eldest children.

Crawford was quite a piece of work. As her friend Helen Hayes said, "Joan tried to be all things to all people. I just wish she had never tried to be a mother."

.

reply

[–] Earl-Janoth 9 years ago

many of Crawford's contemporaries have attested

Bit of an exaggeration there. One or two came forward with information, but it's questionable that so many other people within Crawford's inner circle - including her two other adopted children, and the help - claim to have seen nothing.

reply

[–] deem_bastille 8 years ago

correct. also worth mentioning that there is no Carol Ann in the book. there was a revolving door of assistants who joan had throughout the years.

there were also a set of twin girls who were not in the movie because they behaved. also, they didn't think it was worth mentioning in the movie the first Christopher. his mother wanted him back so he was returned to her.

the movie also made joan single throughout Christina and Christopher's childhood although she married phillip terry about 2 years or so after Christina. phillip and joan were the ones who adopted the first Christopher. 'the second christopher' was originally named Phillip terry jr.

Oh God. Fortune vomits on my eiderdown once more.

reply

[–] rascal67 8 years ago

The book is actually really good....kind of impossible to put down. And many of Crawford's contemporaries have attested that they witnessed the star's fantatical, deranged (and, in a word, alcoholic) treatment of her two eldest children.
_____________
Yes, pity the film couldn't capture the same essence of the book. They turned a compelling disturbing story from a first person's pov and experiences living with Joan Crawford, into a cheesy and at times campy and exaggerated tale "about" Joan Crawford. The film needed to be told more from Christina's perspective, with a better cast and superior direction.

Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩

reply

[–] shandy8 8 years ago

Apparently she was a strict mother who didn't put up with bad behavior from anyone.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rascal67 8 years ago

Have you read the book Nan? It is well worth it, even if it could be considered a bit disturbing. Joan was all out for herself and to remain on-top, or at the very least stay relevant. She didn't care for her adopted children as one who should take full responsibility for their well being and upbringing, just a duty she was doing to get promotion and satiate an entitlement she wanted at the time. Unfortunately for Christina and Christopher they didn't remain babies and had minds of their own. If Joan wasn't an alcoholic, I can't say if things would have turned out as bad for them; but the book does focus on her drinking and behaviors due to the boozing. It turned her into a Mr. Hyde.

Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] greenfairyXO 8 years ago

Christina and Christopher but not the much younger twin girls Cathy and Cynthia.

reply