|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Sept 2, 2017 7:44:15 GMT
DVRd it today, again. and this movie is top notch. Faye and the two girls who play her daughter are great.
Two incredibly strong scenes (one with each of the girls), and a Very Serious Faye.
I'm sorry that Faye was made to promote this movie as a 'campy joke', but I don't remember many better performances by an actress than Faye's in this one
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 7, 2017 16:36:38 GMT
DVRd it today, again. and this movie is top notch. Faye and the two girls who play her daughter are great. Two incredibly strong scenes (one with each of the girls), and a Very Serious Faye. I'm sorry that Faye was made to promote this movie as a 'campy joke', but I don't remember many better performances by an actress than Faye's in this one It became iconic in the gay community soon after release. I remember a poster with the caption. "I never touched the bitch."
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Sept 7, 2017 16:46:37 GMT
"No more wire hangers!"
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Sept 7, 2017 19:17:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 8, 2017 17:50:52 GMT
Actually, "No wire hangers....EVER!"
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Sept 9, 2017 1:27:15 GMT
DVRd it today, again. and this movie is top notch. Faye and the two girls who play her daughter are great. Two incredibly strong scenes (one with each of the girls), and a Very Serious Faye. I'm sorry that Faye was made to promote this movie as a 'campy joke', but I don't remember many better performances by an actress than Faye's in this one don't make me go all joan Crawford on your ass!
|
|
|
Post by Sulla on Sept 12, 2017 6:26:02 GMT
Tina! Bring me the axe!
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 12, 2017 7:34:21 GMT
I have read the book twice and very carefully. The film just doesn't do it justice. This was a disturbing tale about child abuse and a self-absorbed, self-important narcissistic control freak who would do anything to remain on top, even at the expense of her children's emotional well being. Crawford only adopted for publicity and to feed her own self-gratification at the time. She forgot to count on it being a lifelong experience, when children, no matter what age, are connected with your life as a parent. This woman should never have been allowed to adopt. Just as well she didn't have any of her own biological children. I wonder if she did, if she would have treated them differently, or if some woman just aren't cut out to be mothers? The book was told from Christina's perspective and the film turned it into a showcase for Faye Dunaway and made it about her from a 3rd person narrative. While there are some interesting scenes, it is too campy and cheesy to be effectual and impactful like the book. Dunaway, looks like she is channeling Crawford from her Straight Jacket performance. I read the book when it first came out and it was generating a lot of attention. I am sure much of it relates incidents that really happened, but I also felt it was exaggerated. People who knew Joan Crawford substantiated and denied it all had happened. Joan's other two younger children claimed it was basically all fiction.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Sept 12, 2017 10:32:11 GMT
You are right, geode. 1/2 of friends, family, workers, neighbors said weird stuff happened whereas the other half said nothing happened. Meanwhile, everyone needs to understand that just because you didn't witness anything doesn't mean that nothing was there. My parents were notorious for pulling wool over the neighbors' eyes. People were all "what will the neighbors think? " back then.
|
|
|
Post by deembastille on Sept 12, 2017 14:02:32 GMT
Anyone hear about Lorenzo Llamas and his ghostly encounter with Joan. She apparently kept on haunting him while he was fixing up his parents place and she pleaded with him to clear her name because Christina had written this nasty book about her. Haha.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 12, 2017 14:49:44 GMT
I read the book when it first came out and it was generating a lot of attention. I am sure much of it relates incidents that really happened, but I also felt it was exaggerated. People who knew Joan Crawford substantiated and denied it all had happened. Joan's other two younger children claimed it was basically all fiction. For me, I am of the ilk that fully believes Christina's story to the max. Crawford was a master manipulator and there are also witnesses who saw what Crawford was doing, but turned a blind eye. Crawford's influence and status allowed her to get away with more than she should have. This was a sign of the times. It was an abusive generation where many children were concerned. Joan pitted people against each other and she would have shrewdly and deceptively pitted her children against each other, and she would have been very careful around the twins, with what she did or said. Christina had a strong personality, was very intelligent with a high IQ and her strong willed personality would have clashed with Joan. She challenged Joan. Joan didn't like what she got, but that is tough tamales! The twins were more submissive. I have seen them interviewed as adults, and they had no personality and looked meek and mild. Something JC would have had no doubt conditioned onto them. Christina tells her tale from her own perspective and how she recalls the incidents, and she does not harshly judge her mother through her writing. She expresses the emotions of how Joan made her feel. The book is very self-introspective and Joan knew she was writing the book even before she died. This woman appeared to be in serious delusion and denial: Crawford's opinion on bookShe couldn't fully control or brainwash her more like it. I was never a fan of Joan Crawford and I'm sure she was difficult to get along with for some. I doubt she was a particularly good mother. But when I look at how effectively the book and film has colored her memory after all these decades I cannot help but feel this somewhat unfair. She wasn't alive to counter Christina's claims, some of which were almost certainly embellished according to the consensus of people who knew Joan.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 13, 2017 1:14:45 GMT
Watched it once after seeing it on the guide by chance and that was it. I know the story but it was just uncomfortable and sad seeing her daughter as a child and adult take that much abuse. Even if it's now seen as camp.
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Sept 13, 2017 1:39:02 GMT
I have read the book twice and very carefully. The film just doesn't do it justice. This was a disturbing tale about child abuse and a self-absorbed, self-important narcissistic control freak who would do anything to remain on top, even at the expense of her children's emotional well being. Crawford only adopted for publicity and to feed her own self-gratification at the time. She forgot to count on it being a lifelong experience, when children, no matter what age, are connected with your life as a parent. This woman should never have been allowed to adopt. Just as well she didn't have any of her own biological children. I wonder if she did, if she would have treated them differently, or if some woman just aren't cut out to be mothers? The book was told from Christina's perspective and the film turned it into a showcase for Faye Dunaway and made it about her from a 3rd person narrative. While there are some interesting scenes, it is too campy and cheesy to be effectual and impactful like the book. Dunaway, looks like she is channeling Crawford from her Straight Jacket performance. It's too bad christina waited until Crawford was unable to address the accusations before she came forward. We will never know for sure if it was true or if she is just a bitter liar. Regardless of what the truth is we know Christina owes any money she has to the book and projects related to it. At least the book and movie helped make more people aware of child abuse.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Oct 17, 2017 15:03:35 GMT
I have read the book twice and very carefully. The film just doesn't do it justice. This was a disturbing tale about child abuse and a self-absorbed, self-important narcissistic control freak who would do anything to remain on top, even at the expense of her children's emotional well being. Crawford only adopted for publicity and to feed her own self-gratification at the time. She forgot to count on it being a lifelong experience, when children, no matter what age, are connected with your life as a parent. This woman should never have been allowed to adopt. Just as well she didn't have any of her own biological children. I wonder if she did, if she would have treated them differently, or if some woman just aren't cut out to be mothers? The book was told from Christina's perspective and the film turned it into a showcase for Faye Dunaway and made it about her from a 3rd person narrative. While there are some interesting scenes, it is too campy and cheesy to be effectual and impactful like the book. Dunaway, looks like she is channeling Crawford from her Straight Jacket performance. It's too bad christina waited until Crawford was unable to address the accusations before she came forward. We will never know for sure if it was true or if she is just a bitter liar. Regardless of what the truth is we know Christina owes any money she has to the book and projects related to it. At least the book and movie helped make more people aware of child abuse. Yes, it would have been far more fair if Joan could have commented on the contents of the book. I remember a Saturday Night Live skit when the book was published that ended with Christina proclaiming a thank you to her mother for the best gift of all, a best seller.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jun 17, 2019 8:44:09 GMT
|
|