Ode to Joan Crawford

As some of you know, I'm writing a play about Joan Crawford, not particularly to dislodge all of the 'wire hangers' rumors or discredit her daughter Christina's novel 'Mommie Dearest' which for all of it's sincerity was highly and almost comically sensationalized. 

I want (for some reason) to help people know and appreciate Crawford for who she was, and that was the 'ultimate movie star'. I'm sure that when the term was being coined, she was whom they thought of first. Not only was she a consummate professional studying constantly, taking allocation lessons, losing and gaining weight for roles before it was a thing, and even know which eye to cry out of when she needed to for a scene, but as an iconic figure head of old Hollywood, she's one of the most recognizable. She only won one Oscar, but had always stuck to her guns. She played the game until she could play it by her own rules and that's what makes her unique. 

Joan Crawford the flapper under contract at MGM

Aside from the alcoholism, obsessive behavior, abusiveness, chronic infidelities and other personal bullshit, Joan was a true professional, and completely focused, which is exactly how she became what she became. All that other stuff lead to her eventual downfall, but if anyone had a good run and fought the good fight it was her. 

Although she was married four times, she said that the love of her life was ultimately someone she never exchanged vows with; the very Catholic-bound to his marriage Clark Gable. They were too much alike, both from poor obscure families who came to Hollywood when no one would take them seriously and people had to fish their headshots out of the extras pile. They never gave up and before they knew it they were Hollywood gods, having quickies in dressing rooms between takes. They did 5 films together, but the relationship unfortunately dissolved. Gable's wife wouldn't give him a divorce and Joan was too obsessed with herself to care. 

Joan and Gable always had great chemistry on film. Wasn't hard when the two were in love behind the cameras as well.

Here's another thing you might not have known, Joan was bisexual. One of her most famous conquests was Marilyn Monroe, 22 years her junior, whom she incessantly hit on usually in a drunken stupor when Marilyn would spend the night at her Brentwood mansion, and for some reason Marilyn eventually decided to reject her advances, perhaps because she was not her type, or perhaps because Joan was kind of scary at that point, who knows. Anyway, can you only imagine how hot that would be? 

I love Joan because she adapted to every single thing asked of her. She started in Hollywood as a contracted dancer, not an actress, and appeared as a chorus extra in mid-level films where she was nearly unrecognizable. But with limitless drive and determination she learned everything about the business and made friends with the right people until she was number one on her studio boss' L.B. Mayer's list for his next projects. By the time she had achieved that, she had come into what people like to refer to as her 'face' that very recognizable look of the giant eyes, exaggerated eye-brows, and those crazy lips which Max Factor invented calling it 'the smear'. By the time she was declared box-office poison from playing too many shop girls who make good but still manage to wear designer gowns, she decided to keep fighting and told her boss L.B. 'no more goddamn shopgirls'. After that they fought over parts and she was one of the first to move out of her studio and fly solo. Back then, a hugely risky move, but it payed off because rival to MGM (where she got her start), Warner Bros. was inclined to hire her for a little project sitting on the shelf for two years called Mildred Pierce (1945) which one her her first and only Academy Award. 

Joan Crawford still gorgeous in her 40's in Mildred Pierce (1945)

At that point, she was close to mid-40's herself, a battle year for any actress, but she decided to reinvent herself again; had her teeth recapped, cut her hair short, and wore mannish clothing, making herself into some kind of warrior identity which worked perfectly for Nicholas Ray's Johnny Guitar (1954).

Basically after that, it was a slow decline, but the legacy was cemented. That is of course until her adopted daughter Christina wrote a scathing tell-all called 'Mommie Dearest' and tarnished Joan's reputation forever. No one would give you an argument if you said that Joan was not mother of the year, but the book is not exactly fully accurate. Books need to make money too, and I'm not saying I'm agreeing with it one way or the other. As Joan historian William Schoell said 'it's a great tragedy that when people hear the name Joan Crawford the first thing they think is 'no more wire hangers', because there is another Joan Crawford that people should remember.' Which is just exactly what I'm trying to do. Wish me luck!

Here are some clips. 

The Real Tragedy of Mildred Pierce. All Merkin, No Camp.

My obvious Joan Crawford bias is inapplicable here because I am also a huge huge huge fan of Todd Haynes and think him to be one of the greatest living filmmakers. Hyperbole aside, I was duly disappointed by this remake of the classic pulp novel of James M. Cain written in 1941. The original version was a fail-safe for Warner Bros. when it was made in 1945. At the height of film-noir's popularity, esteemed director of the genre Michael Curtiz cast Joan Crawford who's contract with MGM had just been terminated. The role was a hot property in Hollywood and was turned down by the likes of pain in Warner's ass Bette Davis, Rosalind Russell, and Claudette Colbert. A blessing in disguise considering Crawford was more or less born for Mildred Pierce but had she been directed by Todd Haynes in it currently, I think it would be only a matter of time before she threw something heavy and sharp at his head, or walked off the set for good. Conversely, Kate Winslet is perfect for the new interpretation of this stunning titular character considering this version required alot of sulking, crying, hysterics, and full frontal nudity. 

Really quickly here. Mildred Pierce is the story of a mother of two who's husband walks out on the family after she confronts him about an affair he's been having and now is forced to support her two young girls (teenage Veda, and prepubescent Kay {Ray is the name given in the novel and in the Haynes' mini-series}). In the novel, it is during the depression, and Mildred is reluctant to take a job that slides her down the social class ladder. Out of desperation she finally takes a waitressing job but hides it from superficial Veda who is obsessed with materialism and generally bitchitude. After Kay dies, Mildred and Veda's relationship becomes the central conflict of the story. The 1945 version resets the story in post-war America so they can use the film-noir visual aesthetic without it seeming awkward. The Haynes version goes back to the original setting of 1931 until 1938 or so. The costumes, production design, cinematography and everything aesthetic is beautiful. It harkens back to the Sirk melodrama aesthetic of the 50's which Haynes reinterpreted once earlier for Far From Heaven (2002). The beautiful contrast of colors works in keeping an ironically bleak atmosphere that articulates the meniality and hopelessness of prohibition and depression era women. While the 1945 version's stark black and white photography, campy make-up, and ominous tone recreate the tragedy of Mildred Pierce as a murder caper. But even considering this, the original conveys the central tragedy of Mildred and Veda much more intellectually and not to mention more entertaining. 

A screen test Crawford
gave to the studio reluctantly. Considering her star status,
she felt it beneath her to submit to an
audition. Even when clothed head to toe, Crawford is sublimely sensual and incomparably attractive.

The character of Mildred is portrayed by Crawford as well...Crawford. A strong yet sensitive woman who's obsession to please her family leads to her demise. Through her intensely painful and increasingly torturous conflict with her daugher Veda, she  plays Mildred as a woman who though self-less is not a push over. You may want to fuck her, but you definitely don't want to fuck with her, because she will destroy your life and completely decimate your existence. 

Conversely, (wrongly academy award winning) Kate Winslet is doing her best Medea, via Gloria Swanson through the Ophelia filter, playing with her head down, and her shoulders slugged just to bring the tragic hero point nauseatingly home. In my opinion, it is not a tragedy if the protagonist never experiences success, solace, or happiness. To be fair, there are moments of those aspects transpiring in this new version of Mildred's life, but Kate is playing it as though she is somehow suddenly aware of an impending apocalypse and is upset about the meaninglessness of all existence. It would do better as a character in an Albert Camus novel.

same can't be said for Winslet. With or without clothes.

For all of its aesthetic realism, any version of the novel comes down to the performance of Mildred Pierce. There are many interesting characters, but it must be HER story, and the audience must be endeared to her. If we don't empathize with Mildred the whole film is irrelevant, and it's just hard to empathize with someone who is always manically hysterical and whining. 

Sexually speaking, we must also be enticed by Mildred. The character is said to be attractive for her age (late 30's), statuesque, and classical. Even though Veda is supposed to be a great beauty, and a staunch seductress, Mildred is supposed to surpass her even though she is not as 'socially attractive' considering she is not in her prime. 

Kate Winslet expectantly has numerous scenes of nudity which just become to me, self-indulgent, aggrandizing, and totally unnecessary. I've always thought (ironically enough considering what I write about) that the language of the implied is much more arousing than the language of the explicit. And one scene where the character of Wally Fay (Jack Carson) flirts with Mildred (Joan Crawford) saying something to the effect of he's always wondered what's underneath that robe she's wearing carries more sexual weight than the painfully awkward sex scene in Haynes' version with James Le Gros as Wally Fay, animalistically grabbing Winslet's breasts from behind as if he wants to stuff them back into her body, with Kate breathing heavily as if she's anticipating being shot by him. 

What I think makes the original unique in its representation of sexuality and the sexual conflict between her, Monty Baragon her suitor and later husband, and Veda is the Camp element Crawford, Ann Blyth (who plays Veda) and director Michael Curtiz bring to the film. The insane lipstick, the gold lamé gowns, the insane line-backer shoulder pads, they all work so well aesthetically to accentuate that underneath this tragic crime caper, is a tale of profoundly deviant sexual paradigms. 

Ironically, Haynes (who never shies away from a gratuitous sex scene, and thankfully because up until now this method has been effecting) now peppers the story with cliché and trite visuals that are i guess are supposed to articulate that which was so beautifully aesthetically done in the 1945 version. 

I remember reading an interview with Evan Rachel Wood who plays Veda in the Haynes film about her merkin. For those playing the home game a merkin is kind of like a fake beard for your vagina. She said ever so redundantly that 'the film is set in the 30's and therefore, everything had to have the appearance of the 30's'. She also said that Kate Winslet was the one that talked her into doing her big nude scene in the film, which I swear is dragged out for like 10 minutes. We don't need to see Veda Pierce in front of a vanity staring at her naked self to realize that Veda is a shameless, selfish, super bitch-whore. But thanks I guess, for spelling it out. 

Mildred Pierce is a piece of material that is in its nature unavoidably campy, even in the source material. It is a story ripe for cynicism, gaudy imagery, and debauchery. In my opinion, reinterpreting it as a dragging 5 hour melodrama just doesn't work. And as much as I love Todd Haynes, I think  he dropped the proverbial adaptation ball with this one. For argument's sake, of course we can equate each version to what is popular in cinematic times to both, but I believe Haynes' Mildred Pierce even fails there, as it resembles not much more than an extended Lifeime movie with A-list Academy Award winning actors to carry the mediocre material. 
To conculde, Camp is just not seen as much in the cinema as it once was, which is a great great tragedy. Camp could be one of the most inventive, original, and for lack of a better word fun anomalies in pop-culture, and to see it wither is just such a shame.  The big irony of this whole Haynes' tragedy is that he as a director is so skilled in reinterpreting Camp for contemporary audiences. From his first film (his thesis for Brown University) 'Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story' to loose Bowie bio-pic 'Velvet Goldmine', to his relentlessly emphatic and outlandish remake of Douglas Sirk's 'All That Heaven Allows' as a camp-thriller, he has been brilliant in how he articulates that ideology from film to film, it's just so strange that he completely neglected what he does best and tried to make an 'Oscar' film. Disclaimer, i know it's a mini-series, therefore not eligible for the Oscars, but resembles all of the trite characteristics that Best Picture nominiees tend to have. Could we see this as Haynes' big sell out? I really hope not. Had Todd Haynes directed this mini-series with someone like Penélope Cruz, it would have still resonated with Mildred Pierce's original spirit. 

Here's an article on the apparent death of camp articulated with Todd Haynes' reinterpretation of the James Cain classic. 

Kate Winslet Killed Camp