Did anyone in here see it in the theaters??
How was it??
shareI did, back in late summer/early autumn of '81. I remember that I was holding my girlfriend's hand during the movie, and instinctively squeezing it each time that hanger made contact with Christina's young flesh, and finally having to walk out into the lobby during that scene. I have a younger nephew who, as a child was abused and beaten in a similar fashion by his step-father, and the scene brought back powerful and painful memories for me. I have since been able to watch the scene, but it still gives me a bit of a shake everytime I see it.
shareInteresting. I honestly don't know how people think that scene is funny. I have laughed at Mommie Dearest, mainly the why can't you give scene, that's kinda hilarious but I never laugh at the wire hangers scene, that's scary.
sharePeople think it's funny for the same reason you think the other scene is funny, it's ridiculous and filmed like a horror movie. It's not really funny, but in the context of the film it's so weird you have to laugh at it because there's nothing else to do. It's definitely hard to take it seriously, at least it is to me.
groovydoom.blogspot.com
Why? I don't see it as being filmed like a horror movie. What other way could it have been filmed?
shareWell for one thing, Faye Dunaway didn't have to look like she did in that scene. They made her up like she was doing kabuki. She looked less than human, with a scary white face and bright red lipstick, with a stark black dress. She looked like a ghoul. That was definitely a stylistic choice, either by the director or otherwise. The lighting of the scene is like a horror movie, with the shadows and darkness--Joan never turns on the big light in Christina's bedroom, we only see a shaft of light coming out of the bathroom.
The film didn't have to be that way at all. In the book, Christina said only that her mother smacked her over the head repeatedly and shook her by her hair and screamed "No wire hangers!" at her. She did not say anything about being beaten with a hanger on that occasion, nor did she say Joan launched into a delirious, coked-up tirade that was so over the top it was absurd. The other "horror" scenes in the movie are when she cuts off Christina's hair. It's done in a melodramatic manner, intended to invoke suspense, like a horror movie...we see Joan approaching long before Christina does, and we know Joan's going to do something awful when she catches her imitating her in front of her mirror.
The biggest horror moment of all is when Joan violently attacks an orange tree wielding a large axe, just like the real Joan did in the movie "Strait Jacket" when she chopped off the heads of her husband and his mistress. She's bleeding, so they even managed to get some blood into the movie, too, where there really didn't need to be any.
groovydoom.blogspot.com
I'm sorry but you are mistaken. I haven't read the book but in Christina's interview with Donahue she specifically states that she went ballistic on one of her night rades when she found a wire hanger and she even stated that she started screaming and she specifically said that the only light that was on was the bathroom light. So if that is so then it wasn't shot like a horror movie but how she wrote it actually happened.
The hair cutting scene is also not shot in a horror movie fashion. If it had been shot that way we would have had menacing music on the scene, as well as super fast cuts between Joan's face, the scissors, the hair, christina's face as well as an acceleration in the music to cause a crescendo. That's a horror movie style/technique of shooting, and no such thing takes place. There is no music on the scene and it is shot very matter of factly, without any exaggerated manipulation from the editing, the closeups being done only for emphasis on dialogue, nothing more. So it wasn't shot as a horror movie at all.
I believe the axe tree situation actually happened to and was described by Christina in interviews and it is surprisingly similar to what they showed on the screen, and again, I don't see any horror tone or style in the actual shooting and editing of the scene. Like at all.
Well, I did read the book.
groovydoom.blogspot.com
By the way, I'm amused by your pat generalization about what constitutes a horror movie style, and how if it doesn't fit that template it can't be a horror movie. I have seen hundreds of horror movies, all filmed in different ways. Some of them are filmed the way you describe. Many are not. It doesn't mean they're not horror movies.
groovydoom.blogspot.com
I doubt that. There are very very few horror movies made that don't follow the hitchcockian style of horror, very few, in fact there is no other style, the only one exception to that would be The Exorcist, which had an entirely new style. Movies like Antichrist people like to call horror, I guess that's the type of movies you mean, either way Mommie Dearest couldn't possibly be that style of film.
shareWow! If James Whale were alive today, he'd be thrilled to know he held onto that horror standard that Hitchcock set for him. Then "The Exorcist" came along and brought that entirely new style with it. OK, I think I got it. Thanks for schooling me!
groovydoom.blogspot.com
I saw it when it came out in Sept 1981. The suburban theater was packed, and people howled with laughter throughout the picture.
The picture was camp, while the book was not. Yes, many of the scenes in the movie were also in the book, but it's the tone which varied so much.
I'm sorry but you are mistaken. I haven't read the book but in Christina's interview with Donahue she specifically states that she went ballistic on one of her night rades when she found a wire hanger and she even stated that she started screaming and she specifically said that the only light that was on was the bathroom light. So if that is so then it wasn't shot like a horror movie but how she wrote it actually happened.
But Christina has also said Joan wasn't made up with cold creme like the movie.
--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA
share
I'm so jealous you got to see it during its initial run! I was 11 when it came out, and too young to care about Joan Crawford or understand any of the controversy surrounding the book or the movie. But I did see it on HBO the following year, and after that it was love.
groovydoom.blogspot.com
I was still a teenager, but knew all about it at the time. Seems like last week, frankly. lol
--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA
HBO used to have a preview show hosted by Jerry Stiller and Anne Meara. I distinctly remember the clip they showed from "MD" was part of the wire hanger rant, ending with her going "Christinagetouttathatbed!" Meara sort of gave this look afterwards like she was stifling a giggle or...something.
groovydoom.blogspot.com
So you and I were the same age at the time. But I didn't know about the film for years. Eventually I saw Roger Ebert's review and found out more about it as I got older and was more interested in films.
shareIt came out in Sept. of 1981. I guess you could consider it late summer/early autumn.
share