Joan Crawford: Not So Bad After All

[Mike Gebert]

Interesting piece in/at Vanity Fair about Joan Crawford. It sets out to make the case that she wasn't the gorgon of Mommie Dearest... but a few too many sentences that start off "Though Joan certainly disciplined her children firmly, the idea that she..." suggest that where there's smoke, there's at least an ember or two. Still, the comments from the other daughter (Cathy) offer a distinct contrast to Christina's view of their childhood.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/featu ... rentPage=1

[Chris Snowden]

Interesting piece in/at Vanity Fair about Joan Crawford. It sets out to make the case that she wasn't the gorgon of Mommie Dearest... but a few too many sentences that start off "Though Joan certainly disciplined her children firmly, the idea that she..." suggest that where there's smoke, there's at least an ember or two. Still, the comments from the other daughter (Cathy) offer a distinct contrast to Christina's view of their childhood.

Everyone seems to agree that Joan was a fine mother where the young twins were concerned; even Mommie Dearest says that. But whether the older kids, Christina and Christopher, were treated the same way, is an open question.

Most of the consternation over Mommie Dearest is about the book being trashy, a stab in the back, and a tastelessly public airing of dirty laundry. And it certainly is all of those things. But is it telling the truth? Or not? It'd be nice if a neutral party would investigate that, to the extent that it can be. I wish somebody would.

Personally, based on what I've read apart from Mommie Dearest, I tend to think it's on the level. Surprisingly, the worst anecdote I've read about Joan's treatment of Christina isn't mentioned in that book, as I recall. It's the first thing you see in one of the other Crawford books, Jazz Baby I think. Joan herself, in Conversations with Joan Crawford, alludes to a lot of overly-strict parenting on her part, without going into specifics. And as far back as 1960, there was a Redbook article centered on Christina's childhood, and the strong mutual bitterness that she and her mother were feeling even then.

Whether the abuse was all true, somewhat true or pure fiction, there definitely was a lot of anger and hurt feelings between the two of them. It's sad that none of it ever got resolved before Joan died.

[Frederica]

Whether the abuse was all true, somewhat true or pure fiction, there definitely was a lot of anger and hurt feelings between the two of them. It's sad that none of it ever got resolved before Joan died.

Or that Christina apparently still hasn't resolved it and moved on. Which is not dismissing her claims, truth and untruth are often quite subjective, and as you say, there was clearly friction and unhappiness between the two. That's sad but frankly it isn't unusual.

I know I'm just a sad voice whining in the wilderness here, but someday, somewhere, I'd really like to see an interview about Joan Crawford that focuses critically on her long and successful career, both as a star and (when she felt like it) a really, really good actress. The woman was on the top of her chosen career for many years and it was a career that didn't often tolerate long reigns by actresses. That shouldn't be dismissed as easily as it usually is.

Fred

[Harlett O'Dowd]

Or that Christina apparently still hasn't resolved it and moved on. Which is not dismissing her claims, truth and untruth are often quite subjective, and as you say, there was clearly friction and unhappiness between the two. That's sad but frankly it isn't unusual.

I know I'm just a sad voice whining in the wilderness here, but someday, somewhere, I'd really like to see an interview about Joan Crawford that focuses critically on her long and successful career, both as a star and (when she felt like it) a really, really good actress. The woman was on the top of her chosen career for many years and it was a career that didn't often tolerate long reigns by actresses. That shouldn't be dismissed as easily as it usually is.

Fred

I think the little documentary-ettes on the new box set attempt to do that, even if they occasionally wallow too much on the camp side (though not too much on the child abuse side, even with Christina as one of the talking heads.)

More, perhaps than any other film actress, Joan continued to re-invent herself time and time again. She had more career resurrections than John Travolta.

The big problem with taking Joan seriosly is that, with very very very few exceptions, she didn't make good films after Sudden Fear. Most of them are a hoot and among my favorites of her films, but good, no.

And of course part of the continuing fascination with the Mommie Dearest film is that it *becomes* a post-WB Joan Crawford film, complete with the younger female antagonist.

[Frederica]

The big problem with taking Joan seriosly is that, with very very very few exceptions, she didn't make good films after Sudden Fear. Most of them are a hoot and among my favorites of her films, but good, no.

And of course part of the continuing fascination with the Mommie Dearest film is that it *becomes* a post-WB Joan Crawford film, complete with the younger female antagonist.

Uh oh. I think Sudden Fear is a five star laff riot, the beginning of her risible La Craw Period. Do we disagree there, too? If I had to pick the best of her performances it would be in Humoresque. And I love Mildred Pierce, too (although there's another book to film translation that misses the writer's point entirely). She did a lot of good films in her career. Even when she's bad...very, very bad...you watch her. The woman was a STAR.

Whatever. My point was that despite our quite natural enjoyment of salacious and scurrilous gossip (and we all enjoy it, let's admit it), the Mommie Dearest story is last year's news and it would be nice to cover new ground.

HEY! Maybe we could write a steamy, conspiracy-theory-laden book accusing Joan Crawford of being a terrorist!

Fred

[Harlett O'Dowd]

Uh oh. I think Sudden Fear is a five star laff riot, the beginning of her risible La Craw Period. Do we disagree there, too? If I had to pick the best of her performances it would be in Humoresque. And I love Mildred Pierce, too (although there's another book to film translation that misses the writer's point entirely). She did a lot of good films in her career. Even when she's bad...very, very bad...you watch her. The woman was a STAR.

Whatever. My point was that despite our quite natural enjoyment of salacious and scurrilous gossip (and we all enjoy it, let's admit it), the Mommie Dearest story is last year's news and it would be nice to cover new ground.

HEY! Maybe we could write a steamy, conspiracy-theory-laden book accusing Joan Crawford of being a terrorist!

Fred

1) - re Sudden Fear I was being *somewhat* charitable. Any film where La Craw quotes Nietzche is an automatic laugh riot. But at least she's not trying to play 20 years younger and, silly as it is, it works, especially when compared to, say, Torch Song or Strait-Jacket.

2) Yes, the trilogy of Mildred Pierce, Humoresque and the WB Possessed are the pinnacle of her carreer.

3) Yes, Christina and the MD *story* is old news, but the film lives on in popular culture and, much as we hate the fact, for anyone under 30, MD is most likely one's entry into the world of La Craw. So not to mention it is to ignore the elephant in the living room. But yes, it's time for discussions about Crawford to focus first & foremost on her accomplishments, and, in a still largely dishy way, the box set strives to do that. I just wish that Cathy Crawford would start doing the talking head thing as a way of further neutralizing Christina.[/i]

[Decotodd]

Even in a lousy picture Crawford is amazing. I caught "Our Blushing Brides" the other day, which I hadn't seen in years. Ridiculously melodramatic story but Joan is SO good in it -- she's in nearly every scene and you can't take your eyes off of her (though some of Cedric Gibbons' deco sets were eye popping). Its that "star quality" that is so elusive, yet like Potter Stewart's definition of porn -- you know it when you see it.

[Harlett O'Dowd]

1) - re Sudden Fear I was being *somewhat* charitable. Any film where La Craw quotes Nietzche is an automatic laugh riot. But at least she's not trying to play 20 years younger and, silly as it is, it works, especially when compared to, say, Torch Song or Strait-Jacket.
[/i]

one other thing re Sudden Fear. Silly as it is, it's still a better film than the last of Warners (Flamingo Road, The Damned Don't Cry, etc. which I also love for the wrong reasons) and certainly better than just about anything else she made before Baby Jane (except perhaps for Johnny Guitar which is warped in an entirely different way

[Frederica]

one other thing re Sudden Fear. Silly as it is, it's still a better film than the last of Warners (Flamingo Road, The Damned Don't Cry, etc. which I also love for the wrong reasons) and certainly better than just about anything else she made before Baby Jane (except perhaps for Johnny Guitar which is warped in an entirely different way

Hard to argue with that! I love Sudden Fear, but I'll admit it is for all the wrong reasons. In addition to Joan in Early La Craw, you get that hot little tart, Gloria Grahame. And they wear matching ensembles!

Laugh we might, but Sudden Fear garnered Oscar nominations. Those overstuffed, overheated melodramas SOLD; audiences loved Joan in La Craw mode as much as they loved Lana Turner in Trash Yourself mode. ME TOO. Give me a choice between Passion of Joan and La Craw Joan...guess which wins every time?

Fred

[Harlett O'Dowd]

Hard to argue with that! I love Sudden Fear, but I'll admit it is for all the wrong reasons. In addition to Joan in Early La Craw, you get that hot little tart, Gloria Grahame. And they wear matching ensembles!


Fred

My favorite SF moment - after Nietzsche - is Joan's fantasy of Gloria en captiva.

[silentfilm]

The Washington Blade, has a nice article on Crawford and her alleged child abuse in their current issue...

http://washblade.com/2008/3-28/arts/feature/12281.cfm

[Jim Roots]

I have great difficulty feeling sympathy for Joan in any of her talkies. It has nothing to do with her acting -- it's her face. She was an unusual beauty in her silent films, but when talkies came in, her face suddenly seemed to move from age 19 to 49.

I don't mean it got wrinkly or saggy. It just very suddenly became the face of your unpleasant middle-aged spinster aunt, the one who never kissed you and always gave you birthday presents that were wildly out of synch with your age.

Adding to that appearance problem was possibly the worst fashion sense of any major female star. In Daisy Kenyon she sports a gruesome match of little-girl trims (Peter Pan collars, smocked sleeves, oversized buttons) and Mrs. Grundy schoolmarm burquas (baggy, monochromatic wool suits buttoned up to the neck). Horrible, especially compared to the usual '30s glamourpuss gowns worn by Ruth Warrick in the same picture.

It's interesting that two of the three greatest actresses of the 30s, 40s, and 50s were women who transformed overnight from exotic young beauties into rivettingly unattractive middle-agers: Crawford and Betty Davis. The third actress, Katharine Hepburn, was generally considered "handsome" rather than beautiful, although for me she is one of the most classical beauties to ever light up a movie screen, and stayed that way for her entire career (was there ever a more beautiful 80-year-old?)

I could see Joan getting completely re-upholstered if she were around today, botoxed and nose-jobbed and depillatoried (sp?) to within an inch of her life ... and losing a lot of her impact as a result. I doubt Davis would have stooped to cosmetic surgery, and Hepburn certainly wouldn't.

Maybe today's actresses should start watching the movies of their forerunners and learn that acting skill can make up for all the wrinkles and bad eyebrows and hooded eyelids that make your face an interesting canvas.

Jim

[Mike Gebert]

After watching Daisy Kenyon the other night, I decided to try another somewhat less familiar Crawford vehicle I had Tivo'd, Susan and God. I'd been wanting to see it since reading about a revival of the play a year or two ago, mainly at Terry Teachout's blog.

It's an unusual subject for Hollywood in those days-- basically, New Age religion. Socialite Crawford comes back from England all flibbertygibberty with a feelgoody religion that tends to make her put her foot in it; it takes some effort from drunken hubby Frederic March to get her to realize that she is the one whose relationships are the furthest from the ideals she preaches to everyone within earshot.

Not very long into it, I conceived three likely notions about it-- that it was Crawford's attempt to have a Philadelphia Story of her own (same director, same social set, same fifth wheel in Ruth Hussey); that her performance was weirdly broad in a way that reminded me of another MGM film of the time, Idiot's Delight, with Norma Shearer; and that it was so far removed from any other performance she ever gave that most likely, she was imitating whoever played it on stage.

Bingo, bingo, bingo, I learned as I read the IMDB reviews (a pretty good bunch, actually). It was seen as another Philadelphia Story, it was in fact purchased for Norma Shearer (she apparently didn't like the idea of being old enough to have a teenager), and everybody back then said she was imitating Gertrude Lawrence (as Shearer in Idiot's Delight had copied Lynn Fontanne to a T).

Truth is, it's a very odd film that has trouble finding the right tone-- you sense it wanting to be a screwball comedy (indeed, sometimes she seems to be playing Mary Astor's heiress in The Palm Beach Story) yet March is quite serious in his part; it's sort of like if his character from A Star is Born had wandered into My Man Godfrey. And unlike the peerlessly smooth Philadelphia Story, this creaks so obviously with the mechanics of the stage that it feels like one of those 1929 stage-to-talkie adaptations. (Looks who's behind the door now! Just who we were talking about.) Nor does author Rachel Crothers have Phillip Barry's sure hand with characters or situations; we spend the first act with a social set, most of whom we never see again, and bpth Crawford and March are prey to sudden character reversals at convenient moments. (That we are supposed to buy Rita Hayworth having married Nigel Bruce was MGM's contribution to the film's credibility issues.)

Yet for all that, it's a very interesting film, in part because it takes on a subject of the time that nobody else really touched, before or since (maybe not until The Loved One); and to be fair, it has a good number of laughs (enough to make you wish they'd pushed it all that way). Although there's one scene (involving folk singing-- there's something you don't see in any other MGM movie) that ought to be played totally for snarky humor and you can see them just not daring to make fun of religious fervor as much as they want to. (March desperately needed to make one of Martin Mull's cracks from Serial at that point; or they needed to break into the song in Waugh's Vile Bodies, "There Ain't No Flies On the Lamb of God.")

This being a Crawford picture, the gaudiness of the costuming is a matter of endless fascination; several outfits appear to have been designed for her by Ringling Brothers, including in one case a spectacular sort of bow around the neck made of what appears to be surgical tubing or possibly pork intestines. But there is one all-black outfit she wears toward the end that would rank with the best things any actress ever got to wear in any movie ever; she looks like a walking exclamation point, which is pretty much what she was aiming for in her career generally, so it fits.

Crawford and Cukor together made a terrific overlooked movie in the early 40s; it's called A Woman's Face, and it's an underappreciated gem, one of the best (and darkest) things to come out of MGM in that mushy period after Thalberg's death and before Pearl Harbor. Susan and God is more like an underappreciated train wreck, but for all that it doesn't work, there's nothing else like it, and that alone is recommendation enough after you've seen so many other things once already.

[greta de groat]

I found myself quite disappointed, but not surprised, by Susan and God. I was wanting it to be a noir about a scary religious fanatic, which i think would have suited Crawford. But i can understand the studio not wanting to go there. The problem with playing either as a halfway screwball comedy, much less a full blown one, is that Crawford just doesn't do comedy well. I see this as one of her late MGMs where they weren't really sure what to do with her increasingly grim persona, and she really didn't fit in with the feel-good MGM any more. She got the occasional suitable part, like A Woman's Face and Strange Cargo, but also got misfires like this one (and When Ladies Meet, a great script which appeared to have been rewritten to try to undercut Crawford's authority and make her look ridiculous).

I can't remember Frederic March in it, sounds like he didn't know what was going on either!

greta

[Harlett O'Dowd]

After watching Daisy Kenyon the other night, I decided to try another somewhat less familiar Crawford vehicle I had Tivo'd, Susan and God. I'd been wanting to see it since reading about a revival of the play a year or two ago, mainly at Terry Teachout's blog.

What a coinkeydink! I just ILL'd the play Susan and God to compare it to the MGM film and see if the studio hurt or helped the play (apart from the miscasting of Joan et al.) Also to see if the play could in any way work on stage as a second-tier Philadelphia Story (maybe in rep on the same set.)

My understanding is that Joan (with Cukor's blessing) used her renewed cachet from The Women to secure the role, so I would say it was more Joan's desire to break new ground rather than the studio's dilema to figure out what to do with its aging star.

In general, I prefer Joan's late MGM period (The Women through Above Suspicion) than, well, just about anything post-Grand Hotel (well, certainly post-Sadie McKee.) Her later Thalberg's are just as furmulaic and dull as, well, any other set of formulaic MGM vehicles.

But yeah, Joan and comedy were rarely a good combination.

[Mike Gebert]

It sure seems to work on stage, to judge by the reception both the original and the recent revival got. I'm curious how it's played-- with a lighter touch than Crawford going around looking like a 75-watt bulb just exploded in her head and she's playing invisible castanets, I assume.

I also think it needs a male lead who's more bemused by her latest affectation and finds it endearing (so we will too)-- March's grim determination to win back his crazy, selfish wife when a perfectly likable and sane Ruth Hussey is hanging around seems fairly self-destructive, certainly stubborn. In short, it needs to be played less like The Philadelphia Story and more like My Man Godfrey.

[Harlett O'Dowd]

Nor does author Rachel Crothers have Phillip Barry's sure hand with characters or situations; we spend the first act with a social set, most of whom we never see again,

I have to watch the film with the script in front of me, but this charge, IIRC, seems to be MGM's fault more than Crothers. In the play, the supporting characters are on stage through the second act (page 120 out of 160.) FWIW, Irene (Rose Hobart) and Charlotte (Hussy) are prominantly featured in the third act.

IIRC, the studio opened up and expanded what is essentially the third act of the play to showcase La Craw & March more which results in the balance issues.

Of course the studio opened up the FIRST act of The Women the year before to showcase Shearer & Virginia Weidler and get Crawford on screen earlier - with the result that film is bloated and not very funny until the fashion show is over.

But, miscast as Joan is in Susan and God, my teeth hurt at the thought of Shearer playing the role. There is a God!

[FrankFay]

[quote="Jim Roots"]

It's interesting that two of the three greatest actresses of the 30s, 40s, and 50s were women who transformed overnight from exotic young beauties into rivettingly unattractive middle-agers: Crawford and Betty Davis. The third actress, Katharine Hepburn, was generally considered "handsome" rather than beautiful, although for me she is one of the most classical beauties to ever light up a movie screen, and stayed that way for her entire career (was there ever a more beautiful 80-year-old?)

I've never seen Bette Davis as being an "exotic young beauty" though in her youth she had a fragile quality, but with such a strikingly onbalanced face (and I mean it as a compliment) I think that in her earlier career the studio worked very hard with makeup and lighting to make her fit the standard mold. By the 1950's I think they (and she) probably got tired of it. The change in her vocal tone is what really ages her.

[boblipton]

You might be amused to know that I have just come from MOMA, expecting to see Swanson in one film, but they substituted FINE MANNERS. Ben Model and I agreed that if you squinted you could think you were looking at Crawford in her Shopgirl phase.

Bob

[salus]

I really loved this film and i think Faye Dunaway played her brilliantly, I do believe Joan was this way to Christina because Christina was very headstrong and Joan didn't want her as competition. There was going to be one star in that family and one star only. The thing that convinced me more than anything was when Christina was on that soap opera and became sick and Joan had the chutzpah to try to play an ingenue at 50+. I never really understood why Joan left Christina and Christopher out of the will but included the later twins. Did she leave much to that housekeeper of hers? Christina made quite a bit of money on the bestselling book and movie and lives i believe up in Idaho now, I think Christopher and one of the twins is now dead. The twins didnt back Christina but i believe her brother did. Joan's obsession with her film career create problems the same as did Bette Davis's. They may have been kind to the fans but sometimes you dont respect those right next to you.

[Nitratedreams]

Oh, THIS.

Christina ended up admitting the 'wire hangers' part of MD was untrue. While I'm certain Joan was no angel, something tells me Christina's claims are about as easy to take seriously as, say, this thought-provoking image:

[Brooksie]

But seriously ... the problem here is that MD sent Crawford's image wildly out of balance. For several decades, she was simply a coathanger-wielding nutcase. It's literally only in the past half-decade that a few biographers have crept out and dared to ask the question: was there another side to the story?

For myself, I went in to MD (book, not film) with an open mind and came away feeling like I'd just had a one-sided conversation with a teenage girl who'd been grounded.

The number of details that have since been disproven does not fill me with confidence, but that's really beside the point. What matters is trying to refocus on Crawford's career rather than on what kind of mother she was. The focus on one has led to a serious neglect of the other.

[rudyfan]

What matters is trying to refocus on Crawford's career rather than on what kind of mother she was. The focus on one has led to a serious neglect of the other.

Absolutely agree with you here. Like so many stars of the era, Crawford made good and bad films even at her peak (Ice Follies of 1939 anyone?).

As Fred said way back earlier in this thread she was an S-T-A-R.

I''m going to defend Sudden Fear here. It does have some elements of camp (the scene in her office when she listens to the recording of Palance and Grahme) and the is a lot of LaCraw in the character. That said, I still find it to be a taut film and the scene with the little wind-up toy is still amazing and tense. Okay, plus I love all the local scenery. The clothes are truly unfortunate, however. If they'd tried to make Joan look really bad they could hardl have done worse than the really dowdy clothes she wears in this film. Poor Myra Hudson!

The 1931-1934 pre-code Joan is plenty of good fun, I'm quite fond of This Modern Age (with the wonderful Pauline Frederick), Possessed (the early film with Gable), Mannequin. It's almost as much fun to watch her glide through the films in various Adrian gowns as are the films themselves.

I confess to having only seen Johnny Guitar for the first time this last year, hootfest comes to mind.

So, all of this said, are any of the more recent bios of Joan worth a read? I've probably not read anything since MD way back when, and this is a real shame on me kind of thing.

[Harlett O'Dowd]

What matters is trying to refocus on Crawford's career rather than on what kind of mother she was. The focus on one has led to a serious neglect of the other.

Absolutely agree with you here. Like so many stars of the era, Crawford made good and bad films even at her peak (Ice Follies of 1939 anyone?).

Actually, Ice Follies is the end of her "box-office poison" era, before she revived her career with The Women. One can easily argue that Ice Follies was the very lowest ebb of her career at MGM.

Apart from her silents (of which I have seen fewer examples than I would like) my favorite La Craw era is the transitional/pre-code time. Not just because I am fascinated by the films of that time in general, but also to see how MGM tried to keep the Our Dancing Daughters model going through the early years of the Depression, before Joan became the shopgirl.

Dance, Fools, Dance is a particularly wild wide. No classic by any means, but a wild ride.


[/i]

[Nitratedreams]

But seriously ... the problem here is that MD sent Crawford's image wildly out of balance. For several decades, she was simply a coathanger-wielding nutcase. It's literally only in the past half-decade that a few biographers have crept out and dared to ask the question: was there another side to the story?

For myself, I went in to MD (book, not film) with an open mind and came away feeling like I'd just had a one-sided conversation with a teenage girl who'd been grounded.

The number of details that have since been disproven does not fill me with confidence, but that's really beside the point. What matters is trying to refocus on Crawford's career rather than on what kind of mother she was. The focus on one has led to a serious neglect of the other.

Right! I mean, to begin with, for someone who hands out mini coat hangers as souvenirs at appearances (Which more often than not tend to include Crawford-themed drag shows....REAL THERAPEUTIC, THERE), her claims are hard to swallow.

Regardless of whether or not Crawford was an abusive mother (And I don't believe anyone will know for sure), you're totally right about the focus being needed on her career and not as something out of a John Waters film. Why focus on someone as a person when you can continuously fall in love with the characters they play? Hell, thats what acting is all about.

[Michael O'Regan]

I still love how delightful she is in GRAND HOTEL.

[Frederica]

But seriously ... the problem here is that MD sent Crawford's image wildly out of balance. For several decades, she was simply a coathanger-wielding nutcase. It's literally only in the past half-decade that a few biographers have crept out and dared to ask the question: was there another side to the story?

For myself, I went in to MD (book, not film) with an open mind and came away feeling like I'd just had a one-sided conversation with a teenage girl who'd been grounded.

The number of details that have since been disproven does not fill me with confidence, but that's really beside the point. What matters is trying to refocus on Crawford's career rather than on what kind of mother she was. The focus on one has led to a serious neglect of the other.

I'd agree with you, but to me it doesn't matter whether Christina's stories are true or not. As has been said in a different thread, perception is reality. Christina clearly has problems with the way she was raised and it's not unheard of for individual children to have different experiences and perceptions of their parents. But Crawford's skills as a mother are unrelated to her skills as an actress and to her long, successful career. MD should not overshadow her career, but up until recently it usually has. I am pleased that people seem to be taking a more objective look at Crawford these days.

My favorite Crawford period is the early 40s Warner Brothers years.

[George O'Brien]

I could only take about 10 minutes of "Susan and God". Having loved "The Women"(1939) and seeing that this was Cukor and Crawford's follow up to it, I had pleasant expectations.

They were soon dashed. I remember all the characters talking about Susan, and then she arrives by motorboat. What followed was excruciating. Joan seemed to be imitating Gertrude Lawrence, as well as Roz Russell's more manic moments as Sylvia Fowler in "The Women". And the damned hat. Surely fashion historians must mark 1939- 40 as the nadir in the history of Ladies' millinery.

Give me Joan as Diana Medford anytime, or even as Bingo warbling "Chant of the Jungle" in "Untamed"(1929) but a full helping of "Susan and God"? Thank you, no.

[Mike Gebert]

Check out A Woman's Face, that's probably the best of her MGM movies in that period.

[Harlett O'Dowd]

I could only take about 10 minutes of "Susan and God". Having loved "The Women"(1939) and seeing that this was Cukor and Crawford's follow up to it, I had pleasant expectations.

They were soon dashed. I remember all the characters talking about Susan, and then she arrives by motorboat. What followed was excruciating. Joan seemed to be imitating Gertrude Lawrence, as well as Roz Russell's more manic moments as Sylvia Fowler in "The Women". And the damned hat. Surely fashion historians must mark 1939- 40 as the nadir in the history of Ladies' millinery.

Give me Joan as Diana Medford anytime, or even as Bingo warbling "Chant of the Jungle" in "Untamed"(1929) but a full helping of "Susan and God"? Thank you, no.

You bet your sweep bippy Joan was channeling Gerty in Susan and God. Part of Joan's issue at MGM (and, to a lesser extent, beyond) was her need to be seen as a class act. Throughout her starring career at MGM, she was always an also-ran to Norma Shearer and Garbo. As a result, she fought for the roles developed for the other stars, hoping this would give her class and, later, an Oscar.

She got a few of these high profile roles - Rain on loanout, The Gorgeous Hussy, The Bride Wore Red, etc. They mostly flopped as that was not what made Joan ticked. She *was* common. That's why those shopgirl roles were so good for her. The, after 5 reels or so, she could suffer in her mink.

Susan and God, a Broadway vehicle for Gerty, was Joan's reward for The Women. Joan tries, but is out of her element. And yes, Adrian doesn't help her.

As Mike noted, A Woman's Face is a better film from this period - although Marjorie Main as a Swede is a hoot. Strange Cargo is also quite good. I also have a soft spot for the Joan-vs-the-NAZIs opuses (opi?)

But the whole thing lends credence to the story that Joan asked to be released from MGM rather than Metro canceling her contract. When Garbo & Norma retired in 1942, I'm sure Joan thought she would get those high-profiled roles. Instead, MGM started looking at Greer Garson and others.

To MGM, Joan was a clothes horse, but a common one. In their way, they were right. Joan's transfer to Warners, at least for a few years, was one of the best trades in the history of the studio system.