The amount of people in the comments defending blackface is making me side eye so hard I think my eyeballs are gonna pop out of my head. Alas the weird thing with Joan Crawford superfans is they have a thousands excuses for every bad thing she did.
Joan Crawford did have some sway in how she was presented in her movies; she even demanded to be filmed by her own cameraman, which led to her losing a good role, like Karen in From Here to Eternity, which ended up going to Deborah Kerr. Joan had full control over her wardrobe and film costumes; she was very meticulous about her appearance, which makes it surprising that she would allow herself to look like this unflattering in a movie. The 1950s were a rough time for her.
Defintion of blackface: used to refer to the practice of wearing makeup to imitate the appearance of a Black person. The use of such makeup was associated with minstrel shows in the United States from the 1830s until the mid 20th century; it is now regarded as highly offensive. "he appeared in blackface"
The reason White actors appeared in blackface is because many theaters in the segregated Southern market would not show films with Black actors. BIRTH OF A NATION used almost all White actors in blackface to play the "negroes."
I suspect 47-year-old Crawford insisted on that. Which is understandable, in view of the hideous blackface makeup she wears - for what purpose? This is just about the most ghastly musical number Crawford ever did. In the film she looks an absolute fright when she yanks the dark wig off and exposes her dyed orange hair. This is the last film she made for MGM - no wonder.
There’s nothing that can be done about the past. I’m in no way defending the trauma of Black Face but in this scene it was in no way degrading but a great performance. Despite what many would believe there were activists that used this form of theatre to get people used to accepting black people on TV. For instance, she’s not in “black face” but rather her whole body is brown. She refuses to be in “black face” alone and did not wear any additional extreme colors or put her hair in any way to be degrading. She did it as eloquently as she could because she knew the power of her publicity. Everyone in this schene were white people(segregation laws were not lifted until a year later) so even in most cases the set may not have allowed black people on set. So everyone on the scene were painted brown (entire body). I am black. I’m not defending the stereotype of black face but I do understand the laws at that time and the culture and how many black actors and actresses have stated that in some cruel way black face did make it acceptable for racial activism in general theatres. In fact after 1954 many white actors and actresses refused to act without black counterparts (gone with the wind for example).
It's about white people's nostalgia for the "good old days." White men took black slave music and culture and turned it into a bunch of racist stereotypes, and it became so popular that it morphed into a cultural tradition that continues today.
I could have done without that blackface scene period. I think it was totally unnecessary. She looked crazy. I also could have done without the singing numbers that she wasn't singing. They couldn't call it Torch Song then I guess😅. I love Joan Crawford's acting but this picture is not one of my favorites from her. Maidie Norman who played her assistant had gotten a master's degree in drama in 1937.She also taught at universities during her cayas an actress. She played again with Joan & Bette Davis in What Ever Happened to Baby Jane as the housekeeper. She also acted in several other films & TV shows.
@@Garsons-oq4lh - Its not the "singing" that is terrible here, lol. The singing is not the issue....its the appearance and presentation that is idiotic.
@@PrinceofShebaLook up Judy Garland blackface. Judy's is the definition of blackface. "Blackface is the practice of non-Black performers using burnt cork or theatrical makeup to portray a caricature of Black people on stage or in entertainment. In the United States, the practice became a popular entertainment during the 18th century into the 19th."
I can appreciate how people today are offended by 'blackface'. But really, the blackface performers sang and danced. They, as far as I know, didn't portray black people as bad or doing bad things while impersonating black performers, and if they did of course, that would be very wrong. I suppose as a white person I can't really understand? When I did Blackface in a summer show in 1983 in Jersey, I never once thought I was portraying black people as bad or stupid or ridiculous or even really trying to be black. It was just entertainment. I did think it was a bit odd, as we could have done all the numbers without blackface, which was a real pain putting it on. But from a theatrical point of view, it looked striking on stage and was a gimmick. Blackface by this time was old hat and frowned upon in England, but they could do it in Jersey, the Channel Islands. We had full audiences and they loved it. There was never any feeling of making fun or being racist at all.
Whatever the case may be, Crawford hadn't a single racist bone in her entire being. She traveled all over the world and embraced all races and cultures. She did so even before her extensive travels later in life. Judy Garland did worse than this in a film, and she too, was absolutely not racist. She did what was called for at the time. Was it in bad taste? Perhaps. Lots of things were then (and are now). Let's all go to a screening of White Chicks (2004) and analyze that, shall we? Or shall we not?
Your attempt to equate the whiteface in White Chicks with blackface or brownface is a false equivalency, because whiteface is not associated with hundreds of years of racist stereotypes and discrimination.
No one is "allowing" or "disallowing" anything, because you are free to do what you want. However that doesn't mean it would be free from consequences, like public condemnation. As to your question; Whiteface should be "allowed" or at least tolerated by whites because there is no history of racist stereotypes and discrimination against whites.
So I’m black and I still support Joan Crawford after this the reason is because I know that it was a different time and I also know that not all actresses were aware that they were going to be in black face when they sign onto certain shows that being said I do find black face appalling and if she were here today I would love to ask her why she took that role if that is actually her and what her feelings are on it I just don’t hate her as a person after this because lots of actresses including Judy Garland ended up in black face
What? You never saw OUR DANCING DAUGHTERS, or DANCING LADY? She got her start in the 1920s as a champion Charleston dancer, when an MGM talent scout saw her after she won a contest. She only became a character actress in the 1950s.
Joan's dancing was always so clunky, lacking grace and finesse. And this number ... did the audience laugh out loud when she appears? She looks ridiculous.
Interesting how many people find 'black face' so upsetting. Originally it was because they wouldn't allow black people on stage, even black performers had to put on black make-up, crazy! So yes, it was a very bad thing and part of our dark history. Then later, it became a gimmick. In the UK in the 70s we had the Black & White Minstrel show on TV. Nobody thought it was racist, and was certainly not because of any kind of segregation. But it became old hat and was deemed offensive. Now the tables have turned a bit and we have 'blind casting'. This is where traditionally white parts are given to black performers. In my opinion, it is just being pc for pc sake. But what I think is bizarre is when they do it with real life historical figures, like a black actress playing Ann Bowlyn, which happened recently, or in the movie Judy, they had Burt Rhodes a very well known white musical director played by a black actor??? Nobody says a word about this or is offended. I wonder what the Rhodes family thought? Obviously, this was just to fill some kind of quota because there weren't any black people in the film. Can you imagine the outcry today if a white person played a real life black person? Oh and another thing, Othello. It was once perfectly exceptable for a classical white actor like Olivier to play the part with 'black face'. Now you would only find a black actor playing this part, which is fair as there are now classically trained black actors. But again, nobody would turn a blind eye if Idris Elba played Macbeth. The media have gone mad putting black people into every possible scenario. In the UK there are only about 10% black population, but if you turn on tv, one would think it was 60%? White guilt???
I find it more interesting that so many people still don't "get it" why blackface is offensive. And when people quote some history to justify their beliefs, it's always completely wrong. You say: "Originally it was because they wouldn't allow black people on stage" No. In the minstrel era and beyond, blackface amounted to whites portraying blacks as talented buffoons. It's true that later they made black performers wear blackface, but that's not "originally" is it? You say: "In the UK in the 70s we had the Black & White Minstrel show on TV. Nobody thought it was racist" Oh, really? Nobody? Wow. You are really dating yourself with that one. Here's the point; Wearing blackface now evokes 200 years of negative racial stereotypes of black people. If you consider the potential magnitude of the damage it has done to their self-esteem, and their opportunities, generation after generation up to and including today, then you would not refer to it as a "gimmick" and you would not whine about the current over-representation and Blackwashing, or racebending of normally "white" characters.
Well said, and I wouldn't want to see black actors in "white face" I love the theater and seeing people no matter what race they are playing characters. I appreciate that true biographies need authenticity. But I just want an Eliza Doolittle that is charming and a Dolly Levi that is lovable. Big Joan Crawford fan but this isn't even a good musical number in any face.
I believe you are doing what is fondly called "Whyte-splaining" and minimizing what is going on--- and wrongfully conflating and confusing a number of different issues. It always astounds me that Whyte people get to determine what constitutes racism and what does not..Whytes somehow know racism better than the Oppressed...?
Left out the best part where she rips off her wig at the end and scowls. Just saw this on TCM with Carol Burnett and her spoof Torchy Song.
I caught the same screening as you and has a good chuckle over it. I give her some credit for agreeing to look so bad on screen!
I wondered why this reminded me of Carol Burnett.
The amount of people in the comments defending blackface is making me side eye so hard I think my eyeballs are gonna pop out of my head. Alas the weird thing with Joan Crawford superfans is they have a thousands excuses for every bad thing she did.
So you believe every bad thing written about her, do you?
It is idiotic to even think that she had a choice in the matter given the old studio system. Actors did what they were told. The studios owned them.
Joan Crawford did have some sway in how she was presented in her movies; she even demanded to be filmed by her own cameraman, which led to her losing a good role, like Karen in From Here to Eternity, which ended up going to Deborah Kerr. Joan had full control over her wardrobe and film costumes; she was very meticulous about her appearance, which makes it surprising that she would allow herself to look like this unflattering in a movie. The 1950s were a rough time for her.
This isn’t good, but TONS of other stars from that time did the same and worse. The time was the time. Not ok, but also 1950s, so…
It was of its time. You can't change history, right or wrong to suit the sensibilities of today.
Defintion of blackface: used to refer to the practice of wearing makeup to imitate the appearance of a Black person. The use of such makeup was associated with minstrel shows in the United States from the 1830s until the mid 20th century; it is now regarded as highly offensive.
"he appeared in blackface"
The reason White actors appeared in blackface is because many theaters in the segregated Southern market would not show films with Black actors. BIRTH OF A NATION used almost all White actors in blackface to play the "negroes."
Joan Crawford was playing a role of black Cuban woman.
Most Cubans are not Black, so why the makeup?
Not Cuban....but a Creole Jezebel from New Orleans, Louisiana.
@@LaurenceDay-d2p Cubans are not Black YES THEY ARE CUBANS ARE BLACK ,,,,... GET OVER YOUR RACISM ,..
So frustrating that there are no close ups!
I suspect 47-year-old Crawford insisted on that. Which is understandable, in view of the hideous blackface makeup she wears - for what purpose? This is just about the most ghastly musical number Crawford ever did. In the film she looks an absolute fright when she yanks the dark wig off and exposes her dyed orange hair. This is the last film she made for MGM - no wonder.
I wrote a reply but it won't come up. What gives?
There’s nothing that can be done about the past. I’m in no way defending the trauma of Black Face but in this scene it was in no way degrading but a great performance.
Despite what many would believe there were activists that used this form of theatre to get people used to accepting black people on TV. For instance, she’s not in “black face” but rather her whole body is brown. She refuses to be in “black face” alone and did not wear any additional extreme colors or put her hair in any way to be degrading. She did it as eloquently as she could because she knew the power of her publicity.
Everyone in this schene were white people(segregation laws were not lifted until a year later) so even in most cases the set may not have allowed black people on set. So everyone on the scene were painted brown (entire body).
I am black. I’m not defending the stereotype of black face but I do understand the laws at that time and the culture and how many black actors and actresses have stated that in some cruel way black face did make it acceptable for racial activism in general theatres. In fact after 1954 many white actors and actresses refused to act without black counterparts (gone with the wind for example).
I like Joan but why couldn’t they just get actual black actors😩
It's about white people's nostalgia for the "good old days." White men took black slave music and culture and turned it into a bunch of racist stereotypes, and it became so popular that it morphed into a cultural tradition that continues today.
I could have done without that blackface scene period. I think it was totally unnecessary. She looked crazy. I also could have done without the singing numbers that she wasn't singing. They couldn't call it Torch Song then I guess😅.
I love Joan Crawford's acting but this picture is not one of my favorites from her.
Maidie Norman who played her assistant had gotten a master's degree in drama in 1937.She also taught at universities during her cayas an actress. She played again with Joan & Bette Davis in What Ever Happened to Baby Jane as the housekeeper. She also acted in several other films & TV shows.
Where's Al Jolson 😁😁😁😁😁😁
Died the year before this was released.
Blackface went on in England far longer than most people would believe.
I wish they had used Joan's own voice.
What voice?
@@ameryek.9607 Joan's singing voice, I hate it when they use dubbed voices. Joan was supposed to have a good voice.
@@ameryek.9607she wasn't a great vocalist, but she could sell a song.
The number is frightening enough!
"Bollywood" didn't exist in 1953.
This is terrible. I prefer the Cyd Charise number.
The singing voice was by India Adams, and her voice suits Joan far more than Cyd's.
@@Garsons-oq4lhI agree
@@Garsons-oq4lh - Its not the "singing" that is terrible here, lol. The singing is not the issue....its the appearance and presentation that is idiotic.
Who the H is Cyd Charise...lol
This was "tropical makeup" - not blackface!
"Brownface in a faux Bollywood production" works too.
@@PrinceofShebaLook up Judy Garland blackface. Judy's is the definition of blackface.
"Blackface is the practice of non-Black performers using burnt cork or theatrical makeup to portray a caricature of Black people on stage or in entertainment. In the United States, the practice became a popular entertainment during the 18th century into the 19th."
I can appreciate how people today are offended by 'blackface'. But really, the blackface performers sang and danced. They, as far as I know, didn't portray black people as bad or doing bad things while impersonating black performers, and if they did of course, that would be very wrong. I suppose as a white person I can't really understand? When I did Blackface in a summer show in 1983 in Jersey, I never once thought I was portraying black people as bad or stupid or ridiculous or even really trying to be black. It was just entertainment. I did think it was a bit odd, as we could have done all the numbers without blackface, which was a real pain putting it on. But from a theatrical point of view, it looked striking on stage and was a gimmick. Blackface by this time was old hat and frowned upon in England, but they could do it in Jersey, the Channel Islands. We had full audiences and they loved it. There was never any feeling of making fun or being racist at all.
She was actually black fishing trying to be black, trying to look black, and this is where it all started .
This not where it started, Minstrel shows in the 1800s is where it started.
Ahhhhhh, So Joan Crawford started blackface ………I see………
Whatever the case may be, Crawford hadn't a single racist bone in her entire being. She traveled all over the world and embraced all races and cultures. She did so even before her extensive travels later in life. Judy Garland did worse than this in a film, and she too, was absolutely not racist. She did what was called for at the time. Was it in bad taste? Perhaps. Lots of things were then (and are now). Let's all go to a screening of White Chicks (2004) and analyze that, shall we? Or shall we not?
Your attempt to equate the whiteface in White Chicks with blackface or brownface is a false equivalency, because whiteface is not associated with hundreds of years of racist stereotypes and discrimination.
No one is "allowing" or "disallowing" anything, because you are free to do what you want. However that doesn't mean it would be free from consequences, like public condemnation. As to your question; Whiteface should be "allowed" or at least tolerated by whites because there is no history of racist stereotypes and discrimination against whites.
Judy was under contract to MGM and had to do what they ordered her to do, alas.
Thank you! Very well said!
So I’m black and I still support Joan Crawford after this the reason is because I know that it was a different time and I also know that not all actresses were aware that they were going to be in black face when they sign onto certain shows that being said I do find black face appalling and if she were here today I would love to ask her why she took that role if that is actually her and what her feelings are on it I just don’t hate her as a person after this because lots of actresses including Judy Garland ended up in black face
Joy Behar is so jealous of this number.....
Unnecessary blackface. Like why? Why?
Pantomime to an obvious voiceover.
They are in freaking Havana for petes sake. Not black face.
Cubans come in all colors
Very Bad number, she was a carácter actor, very out of place in a musical
What? You never saw OUR DANCING DAUGHTERS, or DANCING LADY? She got her start in the 1920s as a champion Charleston dancer, when an MGM talent scout saw her after she won a contest. She only became a character actress in the 1950s.
Bad musical number in so many ways -not she did not need the Tropical make up
Joan's dancing was always so clunky, lacking grace and finesse. And this number ... did the audience laugh out loud when she appears? She looks ridiculous.
Interesting how many people find 'black face' so upsetting. Originally it was because they wouldn't allow black people on stage, even black performers had to put on black make-up, crazy! So yes, it was a very bad thing and part of our dark history. Then later, it became a gimmick. In the UK in the 70s we had the Black & White Minstrel show on TV. Nobody thought it was racist, and was certainly not because of any kind of segregation. But it became old hat and was deemed offensive. Now the tables have turned a bit and we have 'blind casting'. This is where traditionally white parts are given to black performers. In my opinion, it is just being pc for pc sake. But what I think is bizarre is when they do it with real life historical figures, like a black actress playing Ann Bowlyn, which happened recently, or in the movie Judy, they had Burt Rhodes a very well known white musical director played by a black actor??? Nobody says a word about this or is offended. I wonder what the Rhodes family thought? Obviously, this was just to fill some kind of quota because there weren't any black people in the film. Can you imagine the outcry today if a white person played a real life black person? Oh and another thing, Othello. It was once perfectly exceptable for a classical white actor like Olivier to play the part with 'black face'. Now you would only find a black actor playing this part, which is fair as there are now classically trained black actors. But again, nobody would turn a blind eye if Idris Elba played Macbeth. The media have gone mad putting black people into every possible scenario. In the UK there are only about 10% black population, but if you turn on tv, one would think it was 60%? White guilt???
I find it more interesting that so many people still don't "get it" why blackface is offensive. And when people quote some history to justify their beliefs, it's always completely wrong.
You say: "Originally it was because they wouldn't allow black people on stage" No. In the minstrel era and beyond, blackface amounted to whites portraying blacks as talented buffoons. It's true that later they made black performers wear blackface, but that's not "originally" is it?
You say: "In the UK in the 70s we had the Black & White Minstrel show on TV. Nobody thought it was racist" Oh, really? Nobody? Wow. You are really dating yourself with that one.
Here's the point; Wearing blackface now evokes 200 years of negative racial stereotypes of black people. If you consider the potential magnitude of the damage it has done to their self-esteem, and their opportunities, generation after generation up to and including today, then you would not refer to it as a "gimmick" and you would not whine about the current over-representation and Blackwashing, or racebending of normally "white" characters.
Well said, and I wouldn't want to see black actors in "white face" I love the theater and seeing people no matter what race they are playing characters. I appreciate that true biographies need authenticity. But I just want an Eliza Doolittle that is charming and a Dolly Levi that is lovable. Big Joan Crawford fan but this isn't even a good musical number in any face.
@darwinstith6663 A terrible song I agree.
White guilt is an epidemic. Very sad.
I believe you are doing what is fondly called "Whyte-splaining" and minimizing what is going on--- and wrongfully conflating and confusing a number of different issues. It always astounds me that Whyte people get to determine what constitutes racism and what does not..Whytes somehow know racism better than the Oppressed...?
this was a bi-product of a crappy culture, not character.