Rating: 
Summary: I love Joan Crawford, but this book was a disappointment!
Review: As a couple of other reviews have pointed out, this biography of Joan Crawford is very biased and one-sided. I liked Quirk's book which reviewed Crawford's films, but this one is supposed to be a biography. It is nothing but one film review after another, sparsely peppered with some typical fan magazine observation. And the authors are sooooo intent on making Joan come across as near-perfect, never the wrong-doer that their book leaves the reader with an opposite impression. And they attempt to completely discredit Christina Crawford's autobiography. I tend to believe Christina, though she does seem to paint herself as a victim (but, then again, she probably WAS A VICTIM!!!), but it doesn't matter here. The authors go in whatever direction they need to in order to keep Joan in their own high estimation. And they end up making her look boring. And how do they know all this stuff, that Joan did or did not do, anyway? And they back their ideas up with stuff like "Now, Joan - she was human, after all - could not be blamed for..." I was so excited to hear about a new bio on JC, she is one of my favorites. And what makes her one of my favorites was her over the top nature, her eccentricities of character. Her two own autobiographies were screamingly fun, she was quite something. But these two authors, so obviously in love with the Joan Crawford legend, are very desperate to impress their readers with their own viewpoints that they end up looking like fools. Too bad.
Rating: 
Summary: Still the best after all these years---
Review: As an avid fan of the late Joan Crawford, I did find this book disturbing. It gave me information that I had never read before. It saddened me to see what her childhood was like. No wonder she became a woman driven to succeed. When I finished reading the book, I left with a sense of sadness and regret. She was molded by her father's abandonment, her step-father's sexual appetite, and then a family who wanted the success she worked so hard to achieve. I am glad I read this book. I still appreciate the actress that I call my all-time favorite. Thank you, Joan Crawford, for everything. She had it rough, but she still persevered to be the best she could be. As a fan, I can only thank her for the years of entertainment and the excellent movies she has left behind.
Rating: 
Summary: Read it for the films
Review: As many of the other reviewers have stated, this book is more of an expanded filmography than a biography. That was okay by me when I read it because I had recently read another book of Lawrence Quirk's: *Fasten Your Seatbelts: The Passionate Life of Bette Davis*, and I had really enjoyed his dissection of her movies. I have always been fascinated by the similarities between these two legends (not to mention their equally legendary emnity!), so when I saw that Quirk had done a book on Crawford, I was delighted by the idea that I would get the same analysis of her movies as in the Davis book, and for the most part, I wasn't disappointed. (I've only seen *The Women* once, so I missed the inaccuracies other reviewers have mentioned)As for the ongoing J Crawford v. C Crawford debate, I found nothing here that convinced me that *Mommie Dearest* was a complete fabrication. The blanket-slam of Christina in the last chapter shows a great deal of bias. I could see that the authors were devoted to Joan, but I also took note of how they disdainfully explained away any conflicts she had with her family and colleagues by repeatedly saying that her detractors were has-beens or jealous. Okay, maybe some of them were, but if Joan was a human being--as Quirk and Schoell also repeatedly assert--then there are going to be situations where she behaved badly simply BECAUSE she was human. The haughty tone destroys any sense one has that the authors were objective. How much of *Mommie Dearest* was motivated by money and how much by genuine grievance over years of abuse and dysfunction is something that only Christina and Joan will ever know for sure. For most of Joan's professional life, she had a wonderful relationship with the press and knowing how to use the press to promote herself is one of the ways Joan became such a tenacious and durable legend. If Christina's account is true, who would have believed her if she *had* spoken up? Or if anyone else had? (In those days, family privacy was sacrosanct anyway) And knowing public relations as well as she did, Joan would never or rarely been so abysmally stupid as to mistreat her children in public. On the other hand, since MD was published after Joan's death, she cannot give her version of those specific events with Christina. I also truly doubt that Joan attempted to have Alfred Steele killed--judging by what I have read of her financial situation at the time, it would have been to her benefit to keep him alive, not do away with him. All in all I found this book very interesting in terms of Joan's movies, but not at all good as a biography. I'd say check it out of the library before you decide if you want to buy it or not.
Rating:
Summary: Read it for the films
Review: Before I review this book let me first give an introduction of myself. I am a film historian of sorts, admiring Miss Crawford, or "The Dragon Lady" as she was once scandalously dubbed, for years. I've researched her life immensely and offered countless postings on her life and career on several internet message boards under the name Mashari. And even today, I am managing to be both intrigued and fascinated by the original "Queen Bee" and the new revelations on her life--which I found in this book. Film innaccuracies and white-washing aside, it must be noted that his was specifically written to please fans of Miss Crawford. Startling information is presented--most notably, Crawford's sexual abuse and teary-eyed suspicisons of a damning biography to be written at the hands of her daughter. In this arena, the writers excel, making the purchase and the read worthwhile. The do indeed fail miserably when they repeatedly attempt to mask and even rectify the well-known erratic behavior of Crawford as if they were tracking her life with a telephoto lens. Yes, Bob Thomas and Guiles' bios are the definitive portraits of one of Hollywood's most complex and thereby misunderstood stars. Perhaps the title is beguling, but this book revamps the Crawford mystique and does justice to the star, whose image has been greatly tarnished by unfair and untrue tidbits and allegations--many of which were INDEED motivated by jealousy and resentment, as the authors claim. And for the record, I applaud(yes, applaud) the writers for exposing Christina, who unjustly portrays herself as a saint in her own memoir. I for one am an advocator for the abolishment of child abuse and it makes me sickening when someone not only distorts facts on the issue, but makes light of it in shameless public stints for some extra cash. Christina does indeed recall events that she is way too young to remember and much of her story has changed over the years. Christina continues to offer new accusations merely for shock-value and attention--including verbally depicting her mother as a murderess and suspected child molester, of Alfred Steele and Christopher Crawford respectively. For all Christina Crawford/Mommie Dearest defenders, if you all think that Quirk and Schoell were biased, pay close attention. First off Christina declared that her mother was dumped by Louis B. Mayer and then vented her anger on her children by forcing them to demolish a rose garden in the middle of the night. The only problem with this is that for one, Joan ASKED to be let out of her contract to the reluctance of Mayer and even bought it out. In fact, a copy of the check she payed for her MGM farewell exist. Second, it has been proven that there never was a rose garden. In addition, Christina claims that Joan used her power in the film industry to prevent the former from getting her first break with producer Jerry Wald, but he has stated that he doesn't recall such a thing. The truth was she just didn't have the drive it took to suceed--with Joan as her mother or not. There are several other inconsistencies and flat out lies that immediately ruin whatever credibility Christina had or ever hoped to acheive. One also has to question the timing of the book. We now know that Joan knew of the book's arrival(suspecting Christopher was also somewhat involved), but Christina stands firm in her statement that she wrote it after Joan's death. What she doesn't want the public to know is that she originally planned a much-watered down version of MD before she learned, to her amazement, that she was left out of Joan's will. She then sold the film's rights to a publishing company in New York and not only embellished, but added sensational tabloid material(wire hangers, rose garded, regurgitation, and even something that had nothing to with the turbulent relationship between her mother and her--lesbianism). A ghost writer was hired to add the shocking anecdotes and to ultimately polish Christina's diary-style writing(is it any wonder that her subsequent books were poorly received?). It was sure to sell, and with Christina now pushed to the edge with nothing to lose, eagarly awaited its release, insisting on titling it "Mommie Dearest" as an inside joke to Joan--and to highlight the sut-wrenching saccariness she acquired and often inflicted on those close to her. Joan's death no doubt meant a sigh of relief to Christina, therby avoiding a nasty public showdown and lawsuit, which Joan would have probably would have won. Perhaps so many of you are quick to accept Chirstina's memoirs as the Gospel Truth because of the phenomenon that it started, and continues to this day. Or maybe it has to do with the fact that Crawford was hard to swallow and just as with the equally eccentric entertainers Diana Ross and Michael Jackson, everyone was ready to believe the respective allegations pitted against them. I will say that Christina is a masterful manipulator that
was wise enough to know what the public already thought of Joan and to use it to her advantage--capitulizing on her pompousness, eagarness to please, media-consciousness and bitchiness. Does this make her morally corrput? To a point, maybe. But more importantly, does it make her the conving child abuser she's convicted of being? Her youngest children both strongly disagree even to this day. Quirk and Schoell were right in stating that they had no reason to cover up for Joan. Yes they were younger, but at some point they would have witnessed something inordinary or inhumane or likewise been the subject of the alleged mental and physical cruelty that was supposedly inflicted on Christopher and Christina--both who curiously refused to drop the Crawford from their names.
Joan has become famous for fabricating her past, but Christina wrote the book in that department. No pun attended.
Rating:
Summary: Mashari Takes a Closer Look into the Crawford Mystique...
Review: Before I review this book let me first give an introduction of myself. I am a film historian of sorts, admiring Miss Crawford, or "The Dragon Lady" as she was once scandalously dubbed, for years. I've researched her life immensely and offered countless postings on her life and career on several internet message boards under the name Mashari. And even today, I am managing to be both intrigued and fascinated by the original "Queen Bee" and the new revelations on her life--which I found in this book. Film innaccuracies and white-washing aside, it must be noted that his was specifically written to please fans of Miss Crawford. Startling information is presented--most notably, Crawford's sexual abuse and teary-eyed suspicisons of a damning biography to be written at the hands of her daughter. In this arena, the writers excel, making the purchase and the read worthwhile. The do indeed fail miserably when they repeatedly attempt to mask and even rectify the well-known erratic behavior of Crawford as if they were tracking her life with a telephoto lens. Yes, Bob Thomas and Guiles' bios are the definitive portraits of one of Hollywood's most complex and thereby misunderstood stars. Perhaps the title is beguling, but this book revamps the Crawford mystique and does justice to the star, whose image has been greatly tarnished by unfair and untrue tidbits and allegations--many of which were INDEED motivated by jealousy and resentment, as the authors claim. And for the record, I applaud(yes, applaud) the writers for exposing Christina, who unjustly portrays herself as a saint in her own memoir. I for one am an advocator for the abolishment of child abuse and it makes me sickening when someone not only distorts facts on the issue, but makes light of it in shameless public stints for some extra cash. Christina does indeed recall events that she is way too young to remember and much of her story has changed over the years. Christina continues to offer new accusations merely for shock-value and attention--including verbally depicting her mother as a murderess and suspected child molester, of Alfred Steele and Christopher Crawford respectively. For all Christina Crawford/Mommie Dearest defenders, if you all think that Quirk and Schoell were biased, pay close attention. First off Christina declared that her mother was dumped by Louis B. Mayer and then vented her anger on her children by forcing them to demolish a rose garden in the middle of the night. The only problem with this is that for one, Joan ASKED to be let out of her contract to the reluctance of Mayer and even bought it out. In fact, a copy of the check she payed for her MGM farewell exist. Second, it has been proven that there never was a rose garden. In addition, Christina claims that Joan used her power in the film industry to prevent the former from getting her first break with producer Jerry Wald, but he has stated that he doesn't recall such a thing. The truth was she just didn't have the drive it took to suceed--with Joan as her mother or not. There are several other inconsistencies and flat out lies that immediately ruin whatever credibility Christina had or ever hoped to acheive. One also has to question the timing of the book. We now know that Joan knew of the book's arrival(suspecting Christopher was also somewhat involved), but Christina stands firm in her statement that she wrote it after Joan's death. What she doesn't want the public to know is that she originally planned a much-watered down version of MD before she learned, to her amazement, that she was left out of Joan's will. She then sold the film's rights to a publishing company in New York and not only embellished, but added sensational tabloid material(wire hangers, rose garded, regurgitation, and even something that had nothing to with the turbulent relationship between her mother and her--lesbianism). A ghost writer was hired to add the shocking anecdotes and to ultimately polish Christina's diary-style writing(is it any wonder that her subsequent books were poorly received?). It was sure to sell, and with Christina now pushed to the edge with nothing to lose, eagarly awaited its release, insisting on titling it "Mommie Dearest" as an inside joke to Joan--and to highlight the sut-wrenching saccariness she acquired and often inflicted on those close to her. Joan's death no doubt meant a sigh of relief to Christina, therby avoiding a nasty public showdown and lawsuit, which Joan would have probably would have won. Perhaps so many of you are quick to accept Chirstina's memoirs as the Gospel Truth because of the phenomenon that it started, and continues to this day. Or maybe it has to do with the fact that Crawford was hard to swallow and just as with the equally eccentric entertainers Diana Ross and Michael Jackson, everyone was ready to believe the respective allegations pitted against them. I will say that Christina is a masterful manipulator that
was wise enough to know what the public already thought of Joan and to use it to her advantage--capitulizing on her pompousness, eagarness to please, media-consciousness and bitchiness. Does this make her morally corrput? To a point, maybe. But more importantly, does it make her the conving child abuser she's convicted of being? Her youngest children both strongly disagree even to this day. Quirk and Schoell were right in stating that they had no reason to cover up for Joan. Yes they were younger, but at some point they would have witnessed something inordinary or inhumane or likewise been the subject of the alleged mental and physical cruelty that was supposedly inflicted on Christopher and Christina--both who curiously refused to drop the Crawford from their names.
Joan has become famous for fabricating her past, but Christina wrote the book in that department. No pun attended.
Rating: 
Summary: A Very Very Long Slanted Movie Review
Review: Buy this book ONLY if you would like to read a very very long and very slanted (sometimes bitchy) movie review of Crawford's films. Also the information that is presented is not linear - the author(s) flip back and forth in time ALOT.
Rating:
Summary: FINALLY-JOAN DEFENDED
Review: Finally someone has come out and stood against Christina Crawford's vicious tales of "abuse". This book clearly shows Joan, both good and bad, but it also does what few others have tried to do...show that Christina Crawford has an agenda and it is not to help victims of abuse. I have always felt that CC was using Joan to make herself famous and sadly, she has done so, by tarnishing the image of one of the most enduring stars of the Golden Era of Hollywood. Thanks to the authors of this book for a fair and balance review of Joan Crawford!
Rating:
Summary: FINALLY
Review: Finally, here is someone to defend Joan Crawford. These days people think of her as the mommie dearest lady, but this really explains what she who she was. I love this book!
Rating:
Summary: Smarmy Dearest
Review: Gawwwwwwwwwd, you can practically see the sweat pouring off authors Quirk and Schoell's brows as they labor desperately to revamp megastar Crawford's image, which was so thoroughly, if perhaps unjustifiably, tarnished by her adopted daughter Christina. While much of Christina's version of her troubled relationship with Crawford should probably taken with a grain of salt, there have been countless verifications of la Crawford's abusive behavior toward her children by several in Hollywood over the years. The authors, however, dismiss these folks as jealous, biased, or (cardinal sin!) untalented. When they get to well-documented instances of Crawford's bad behavior ;which they are unable to refute, they dismiss them with comments such as "she was HUMAN after all," or "she WAS, after all, a star." The complaint of one servant who said Crawford, a "clean freak," made her remove her shoes before entering "la maison Joan" was written off with an inappropriately sarcastic "Horrors!" (What are these guys, 12?) This one-sided apologia for this fascinating, and yes, talented, determined and above-all, hard-working Hollywood star might have been worth a look were the book not riddled with so many blatant errors, or opinions that simply defy reality. Two examples: the mistakes in the section on the plot of "The Women," one of Crawford's best-known and most viewed films. They describe Norma Shearer as meeting Joan Fontaine's character at the dude ranch (which is halfway through the film), when Fontaine appears in one of the very first scenes, as well as several others before the ranch, including on the train trip to the ranch! When they get around to trashing the film version of "Mommie Dearest" (wow, now THERE'S a real challenge!), they write "as an actress, (Faye) Dunaway was never in the league of (Anne) Bancroft," who pulled out of the film and was replaced by Dunaway. HELLLLLLLOOOOO???? Have these guys never seen "Chinatown"? "Bonnie and Clyde"? "Network"? Dunaway's made some clunkers over the years, but really, comments like that just make everything in the book that MIGHT have seemed to bear some validity just seem improbable. Of Diana Scarwid, who played Christina, they write "little has been seen of her since" except for "Psycho III." Well, I'm no fan of Scarwid's, nor an encyclopedia, but just off the top of my head, in the past few years alone she played Rose Kennedy in the widely viewed, lavish miniseries on the Kennedys which aired on a major network, and played Michelle Pfeiffer's daffy friend in the HUGE hit "What Lies Beneath." And who could forget her as Cher's lesbian lover in "Silkwood"? Apparently, the authors. So there. I didn't quite go so far as to toss the book across the room, but I wanted to on several occasions. A final note on this pair's worship at the alter of St. Joan: throughout the book stars are referred to on second reference by their last names: Gable, Loy, Arden etc. But it's always "Joan" this, and "Joan" that, never "Crawford." Hell, they might just as WELL have titled the damned thing "St. Joan," although the George Bernard Shaw estate would like have sued.
Rating: 
Summary: The Queen of Chewin' the Scenery
Review: Great overview of her career and films, seasoned with tasty gossip. This book really takes Christina to task, so probably somewhere between this book and "Mommie Dearest" lies the real truth. At any rate, Crawford was a fascinating creature and this is an entertaining read.
|
