005. Our Dancing Daughters, 1928

What’s The Story? 1928, New York City. The Jazz Age is in full swing and so is rich girl Diana (Joan). She’s the epitome of the flapper. Don’t trust me? How about this:

““Joan Crawford is doubtless the best example of the flapper, the girl you see at smart night clubs, gowned to the apex of sophistication, toying iced glasses with a remote, faintly bitter expression, dancing deliciously, laughing a great deal, with wide, hurt eyes. Young things with a talent for living.””

— F. Scott Fitzgerald

Diana loves the dance, party and flirt. She comes from money, and her parents are super chill and supportive. She is in control of her sexuality at all times and it looking for love. At a party, she meets rich boy Ben (played by real life football star Johnny Mack Brown) and is immediately smitten. They dance a bit and then he ends up dancing with Anne, a seemingly innocent girl played to the hilt by Anita Page. While Diana is the party girl who is looking for love, Anne is the mean gold digger who puts on a front. It’s a tug of war between the women over the affection of Ben, whose affability is genuine but doesn’t register much of a personality past that.

While the gang is out at the beach for a weekend, Anne sinks her claws into Ben and then debuts their engagement to Diana’s disgust.

(Don’t worry - Anne gets what’s coming to her.)

At this point, Joan had been working at MGM for a few years, working her way up the ladder at the big studio. She also was doing what she could to stand out in the crowd of starlets. She apparently stole a copy of the script and brought it to the producer, begging him for the role. He eventually said yes, which turned out well for Joan. It was her biggest hit for her career and it put her on the map. It’s a silent film, but it was released with a synchronized soundtrack complete with music and SFX but no spoke dialogue.

Oh, And How’s Joan? She’s pretty dynamite. The above clip really shows her living the humiliation of losing her love. Joan is feeling things moment-by-moment in a way that works for silent film but also doesn’t read as totally presentational. Anita Page is also dynamite as her rival Anne, really giving Joan something to work off of, sharpening her performance.

Should I See It? Yes. It’s a silent film but don’t let that deter you. It moves very briskly with lots of character. It’s pre-code, so the sexuality on display isn’t explicit but it is rather sophisticated. As played with lots of brio and charisma, Joan makes Diana someone who probably has slept with a bunch of her male friends but is now holding out for her Prince Charming. The ending is rather pat but getting there is a good deal of fun. (There’s also an almost-gay kiss, fyi.)

How Can I See It? It’s available for rental on YouTube and iTunes. You can find it on iTunes here.

004. Harriet Craig, 1950

Joan Crawford - Harriet Craig Wendell Corey - Walter Craig

What’s The Story? Harriet Craig (our Joan) is a woman who runs her home like a ship. Everything in the right place, everyone doing what they’re told. Harriet will maintain control, no matter how many lies she tells her husband Walter (Wendell Corey) to keep him in line or her niece Clare that works as her unpaid secretary. Or even Walter’s boss to prevent him from getting a promotion that would take him to Japan for three months.

Based on George Kelly’s Pulitzer Prize-winning play Craig’s Wife, this movie puts Joan into the anti-hero role. Harriet is conniving, vain, and highly manipulative. You do see flashes of why she’s doing what she does and at the end when her plans unravel, Harriet has a huge monologue detailing why she is the way she in (in a way that only a Pulitzer Prize-winning play from the 1920’s can). The film is very engaging. You really love to hate Harriet even though you get why she is the way she is. When she gets her comeuppance, it’s very well earned.

Oh, And How’s Joan? This is 5 years after Mildred Pierce and a good 12 years before the hagspoiltation apotheosis Whatever Happened To Baby Jane? So, I call this her “Manicured Battle-axe” phase. She has the style and beauty from her earlier years but with the flintiness and coldness of some of her later years. Sure, Bette Davis and other actresses can do this kind of thing too, but Joan does it with cold efficiency and a ton of heart. Helen in Humoresque may on the surface have a lot of things in common with Harriet, but the ticking heart underneath each role is very different. The supporting cast is very game, including Wendell Corey as her husband and KT Stevens as her put-upon niece. Everyone seems like they are in the same film and the same world, which isn’t always the case with Joan’s films.

She also looks amazing. I mean, this is how she looks in a dinner party scene:

Harriet and the only thing she really loved… a Ming Vase full of rice. (No, really)

In her signature red lips and arched eyebrows, Joan added a severe left part in her hair to the look. Which works. It adds a slightly masculine vibe to Harriet, showing she’s the real man of the house. Joan really comes to life in Harriet’s many confrontations with her staff and when she’s having to spin one lie to the next. The script can be very hokey and obvious, but Joan makes it all work.

Should I See It? Absolutely. It’s not one of her best films but she’s great in it. The acting really help to sell a story that was creaky by 1950’s standards (and it practically antediluvian now).

How Can I See It? It’s currently available via Amazon Prime. You can watch it here.

003. Strait-Jacket, 1964

What’s The Story? Lucy Harbin (Joan Crawford) came home from a work trip one night to catch her husband (an uncredited Lee Majors!) in bed with another woman. Clad in a flowery dress, a helmet hairdo and a some sharp heels, Lucy went over the edge. She killed both her hubby and his mistress with an axe, all as her 3 year old daughter Carol watched. Well, take a look.

She went into an asylum for 20 years. She gets released and visits a now-grown Carol (Diane Baker) in rural California, who's been living with Lucy’s brother on his farm. As Lucy tries to get settled into life outside the hospital, things start going awry. Is she still crazy? Why are people going missing? Is that big huge obvious twist that you see coming going to actually come to pass? [SPOILER: Yes, yes it is.]

Coming after her return to box office glory in Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?, Joan takes another stab (sorry) at horror based on a book from the guy that wrote Psycho. She took over for Joan Blondell who had to back out of the film due to an injury. Then Joan brought in her The Best of Everything co-star Baker to play her daughter. Joan took a lower salary and 15% of the profit… which proved to be a shrewd move as the film was a hit. She also did some personal appearances for it as well, which helped goose the box office.

Oh, and how’s Joan? By this stage of her career, Joan’s an old pro in the best sense of the term. She can deliver a lot by doing a little (and sometimes does little by doing a lot). She brings a lot of depth to a pretty thin role. You get Lucy’s unease as she’s back out of the asylum, the weird spell she gets under as she dons her old murderous outfit and her shame when she’s trying to reconnect with her daughter. There are moments of brilliance from her (like when she’s trying to calm down after a nightmare”) and moments of absolute BS presentational acting (like when she’s reacting the little girls doing the nursery rhyme outside of the wig shop). She’s the main attraction here, acting her guts out and bringing some class and oomph to the proceedings. The supporting ensemble is good, except for Diane Baker. I don’t buy anything that she’s doing. And Joan being Joan, there’s some Pepsi product placement in one key scene.

Should You See It? Sure! It’s a fun but thin horror movie. The movie is beneath her at this point, but she’s having fun. Don’t expect much and you will be happy.

How Can I See It? It’s available for rental from iTunes and Amazon Prime. Give it a whirl!

002. Humoresque, 1946

What’s The Story? John Garfield plays a poor but very talented classical violinist in early 30s New York who meets wealthy arts patron Helen Wright (our Joan) at one of her cocktail parties. She tries at first to break him down like all of the men in her orbit but, well, Garfield isn’t having it.

The sparks continue to fly as the younger brash artist and his wealthy but troubled — and unhappily married — benefactor fall in love. It’s a sweeping film that very grounded; that’s not only a tribute to director Jean Negulesco but also Garfield’s and Crawford’s performances. (More on Joan below) It’s a gorgeous film - everyone is shot very lovingly and handsomely. The story is engaging and you do root for them to be together even though you know it’s not going to work out. (Spoiler) It serves as a good parallel to “The Fountainhead” which will come out 3 years later. Both feature younger handsome artists who are bound to their craft and the difficult women who fall for them. “Humoresque” works a lot better because it draws their main characters more three dimensionally than Ayn Rand’s work and also lacks Rand’s right wing politics and gonzo camp. Also, there is a lot of classical music on display here and it all sounds amazing.

Joan and John Garfield share equal billing for a reason. Joan doesn’t appear until 33 minutes in. Before that, it’s all about Garfield’s character’s history with falling in love with violin and his difficult relationship with his parents. Garfield is great and so is Oscar Levant as his wise-cracking best friend. If you are coming in looking for Joan, just be patient.

Side note: John Garfield is hella sexy in this. I wasn’t familiar with Garfield until hearing about him on “You Must Remember This.” If you want to know more about his history — and how he got screwed over during the Black List — you can listen to the “You Must Remember This” episode about him right here.

Oh, And How’s Joan? “Humoresque” was Joan’s first film after winning the Oscar (and revitalizing her career) with “Mildred Pierce” and she is at the height of her powers. She’s in her most iconic of looks — arched eyebrows, Adrian-designed gowns with the big shoulder-mah-pads, bold lipsticks. But it’s her acting that is so impressive. Joan had a very difficult childhood — growing up poor, having to work her way through both boarding school and college. This background gave her a core of steel, which is something she brings to all of her characters. As beautiful as she was, you always bought that she was tough. As the counter-balance to that, she was also quite vulnerable. Both of these dovetail beautifully with her portrayal of Helen. She’s tough, a bit bitter but longing for true love can connection. And watching her swoon as she listens to Garfield playing Mozart or Dvorak, you feel how the music is affecting her. She really nails that. (Which also serves as a dry run of her 6 minute reaction in “Sudden Fear” which we’ll cover later.) She knows exactly what she’s doing; she’s showing us sides to a character in a way that doesn’t feel manufactured or stagy.

Should You See It? Absolutely. This was my first time seeing “Humoresque” and I’m kicking myself for waiting this long. See this. It’s great.

How Can I See It? I got my DVD copy from the LA library (a great resource) but you can rent it streaming on YouTube, Amazon Prime, Google Play, iTunes and Vudu.

001. Rain, 1932

What’s The Story? The whole point of The Joan Crawford Project is to see all of her films. In keeping with that spirit, I decided to start with a film from her early career — RAIN. Based on the short story “Miss Sadie Thompson” by W. Somerset Maugham and play version by John Colton and Clarence Randolph, RAIN is set in the South Pacific where a prostitute (the aforementioned Sadie Thompson) is at the center of a battle of wills between the solder who loves her, the doctor who likes her and the missionary asshole who wants to redeem her. Apparently, Joan Crawford hated this movie and said it was her worst film ever. (I’ve seen TROG and BESERK; this film isn’t great but it ain’t THAT bad.) And with this over-cooked script, I can see why.

The film never really leaves its stagy origins. Though it’s set in a tropical locale, the bulk of it takes places in an inn where a bunch of random people are stuck waiting on the next boat to come into port. While director Lewis Milestone does some work with the camera to give us the inn from every angle, the film feels claustrophobic. And the script has a lot of declaring of emotions and intents with very little character progression, except for Sadie. Many scenes without Joan are plodding and dull.

Oh, and how’s Joan? Her performance is uneven. Some moments fall flat, like a big emotional scene at the end - Joan completely whiffs a reaction. But when Joan is on, she’s ON. Sadie is a free-spirit on the run from her past, and Joan plays that to the hilt. But the script is so obvious and flat, she can only do so much with what she’s given.

Her character spends a lot of time fighting with Mr. Davidson, a very influential missionary who is hell-bent (pardon the pun) on saving her hooker soul. Walter Huston plays the stoic, self-righteous nature of Davidson rather one-dimensionally. In one of her best scenes in the film, Sadie and Davidson have a huge confrontation in the lobby of the inn and she lets him have it.

Joan leaves everything on the field here. She’s playing Sadie’s desperation moment-by-moment. And Huston is about as expressive as Mount Rushmore. Her turn at the end is convincing but the script isn’t doing her any favors. I say Joan acquits herself very well. I was really impressed with her even though I wasn’t too fond of the film overall.

Should you see it? Yes. But feel free to fast forward through some of it. Joan wouldn’t have minded.

How Can You See It? I saw it through Amazon. It’s currently part of Prime. If you’re a Prime member, you can watch it for free right here.

000. About The Joan Crawford Project

As a gay man of a certain age, my first exposure to Joan Crawford was 1981’s super campy MOMMIE DEAREST. I thought she was this over-the-top harpy in a movie that was unintentionally funny and often grotesque. (Now there has been a lot of discussion as to whether or not Christina Crawford’s roman a clef is on the up and up, but that’s a topic for a different day.) My love of film grew as I got older, and when I dived into Oscar lore, I read a lot about Ms. Crawford. In college, I saw FEMALE ON THE BEACH, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? and THE BEST OF EVERYTHING — all with the idea that these were camp. That she was this out-of-date, performative actress of a previous generation and she’s just a caricature. It wasn’t until I saw SUDDEN FEAR when I was in my late 20s that I thought “damn, she can be a great actress.”

Karina Longworth’s excellent podcast “You Must Remember This” did a 6 part series on Joan Crawford, which I’ve listened to 3 times over. (The first episode is here; trust me, you’ll love it.) Between that and Ryan Murphy’s Feud, I saw sides of Joan Crawford that I never expected. I really grew to respect the hell out of her.

And then I realized a few days ago, i’ve barely seen her body of work. Per her listing on IMDB, Joan Crawford has acted in 106 film and television projects. 106! Some are uncredited, some are extra work, but still. 106 is a lot of movies for an actress people spent a lot of time writing off because Faye Dunaway decided to chew every piece of scenery she could get her hands on in 1981. So, it’s time to give Ms. Crawford her due.

Between now and Dec. 31 2019, I’m going to watch as many Joan Crawford movies as I can.

The rules:

• I’ll watch every film she’s been in. If I can watch her TV work too, great.

• I will rewatch films I’ve already seen.

• I’ll give as much trivia as I know (which is significant), but this won’t be a deep dive into her history.

• I’ll do one entry per film, writing my feelings about the film and Ms. Crawford’s performance and how it fits in with her stardom and some history.

As the availability of some of these films are sketchy at best, I’m going to watch them in order of convenience instead of chronological.

You all ready to join me? Then let’s dive in!