There has never been a more photographable woman. And almost certainly will never be another. Those days are gone. Most of the true stars are long gone. And she was the queen. That woman constantly gives me goose bumps. The good kind. She was magic. Some of her still photos convey deep and complex emotion through just a look. You can see why she was a muse to the great photographers, cinematographers, and directors. Truly one of a kind.
@@CaliChaos99 Us Crawford fans will win the fight. Hateful tell-alls written by the children of Bette Davis, Bing Crosby and an unflattering one about Marlene Dietrich have not altered the statuses of those stars. Yet Joan Crawford is a "demonic child-abusing narcissist", and God forbid anyone like her. People can be fans of Joan Crawford if they damn well want to. I believe more of B.D. Hyman's book than I do of Christina's.
Same here. I mean I love Bette and she had her moments, but Joan's subtle and non-theatrical acting I feel is way ahead of her time. Even in Baby Jane I find her acting more convincing than Bette's.
@@jaymesguy239 I believe that is just another of the overused canards designed to merely perpetuate the largely mythical notion that actors who were not physically attractive in the classical sense (see Bette Davis), must conversely be extraordinarily gifted in the skill set and gravitas we generally associate with the craft of acting. The flip side of that myth would of course suggest that actors who are physically attractive (see Joan Crawford), must accept that their talents will most likely be seen as somehow secondary to their looks. In reality, it was in fact Davis's acting technique, given its highly histrionic/theatrical style, which naturally suited her for roles which were theatrically driven, as in stagy, affected, or mannered, i.e., Margo Channing and Baby Jane Hudson, to name her two most often acclaimed roles. Crawford's acting was nowhere near as theatrically or histrionically affected, which is why her roles still seem subtly nuanced and highly believable some 70-80-90 years later, whether she is playing the catty and manipulative Crystal Allen, the eternally selfless and devoted Mildred Pierce, or the powerless and victimized Blanche Hudson, to name three of her most often acclaimed roles. None of those three Crawford roles have become histrionic cartoons with the passage of time, while the bulk of Davis's have. Ultimately, however, i believe it was Crawford's gift for 'audience identification' as well as the fact that she was a 'straight forward' creature and creation of the world of motion pictures that allowed her to read much more naturally on film. Sadly for Davis, one could say that she perhaps believed and in fact bought into her own hype, which ultimately trapped her in her own myth, while Crawford always remained acutely and humbly aware of her fans and of their changing demands. Stardom is a different animal altogether, and i just think that Crawford simply devoted infinitely more discipline, care, and effort to hers than anyone else in Hollywood. As a creature of motion pictures from such a young age, being a star is essentially all she ever knew how to be. Of course, her legendary glamour, beauty, and magnetism did not hurt. Crawford remained primarily devoted to her fans while Davis remained devoted to her ego. Food for thought.
As a kid in the 1960s I turned on the TV on a Saturday morning and saw the end of this film. For some reason it always stayed in my memory, partly for a seemingly insignificant misunderstanding by me. I knew this woman was supposed to be wealthy, so when she drove out of her house at 4:17 to go meet up with her old boyfriend at the "Palm Inn" (a name I always remembered for some reason), I wondered why her Mercury convertible was what to me at that time was an "old car" (being about 13-14 years old then). Of course I understood it had been a new, classy car when the film was made, but I couldn't help but wonder about it...this was the first time in my life that I really comprehended that with the passage of time, all kinds of things change. What looks new and modern eventually looks old and outdated. This realization was literally one of the moments in my life that set me on the course of being an archivist and historian as my lifelong career.
BETTE DAVIS? I've seen a good chunk of her performances and I don't see this "great range" some claim she had. It was either the "wistful heiress" or the "embittered woman" where's the "range"? Joan portrayed many different characters and she mastered the art of using facial expressions to convey a variety of moods; something many of TODAY'S actresses should study too--INCLUDING Meryl "Weepy" Streep! Joan said she learned it by studying the performances of LON CHANEY Sr. so she had one heckuva "teacher". The main thing Streep and Davis have in common is that they are both over-rated.
Having made the break from silent pictures to talkies, she had a innate advantage of expressionism. She was exceptional. I'm so glad that we live in a day and time where we can see her work.
I got to interview Vincent Sherman, the director of The Damned Don't Cry. He also directed Bette Davis and had mild affairs with both stars. He said that Bette could be stagey, actressy and pretentious on screen, but down to earth and natural off. Joan he said was just the opposite.
Really cool insight with this short documentary, but why did the makers recycle the opening music from the movie over and over again? Did Warner Bros forbid them for using other movie soundtracks?
I've heard some comments on Joan Crawford's "masculine traits". I say there was nothing masculine about this tigress. She was all woman, stunningly beautiful in a non-conventional way, and a female energy only befitting a queen. Very few women save the likes of Garbo, Dietrich, Bankhead, and Kitt possessed such quality.
How some folks can't see the brilliance and talent JC was blessed with always has not only mystified, but upset me! Go ahead, yes, give BD her rightful due. No argument. But Crawford had more of the "IT" factor than almost any other female of her generation. 1) Her acting talent for film was off the charts. While she did do some radio live acting, she never tried to conquer the stage in theater. Perhaps this was wise on her part, we will never know. Never assume. For certain it kept her grounded in the most fantastic way as to actions for film, which is a very different animal than the over the top movements often brought to the stage. Watch "Susan and God" and be amazed. 2) If you can find a face that was better loved by a camera I'd love to see the face. Hers was from ANY angle a piece of art; sculpture, and perfectly molded so exquisitely that she did not have, or need, a "her best feature" period. 3) The stamina any olympic athlete wish they had. She was driven, committed and sometimes underappreciated for it, but more than tough enough to maintain her "star" for an amazing 6, six, count 'em, VI decades and only that because she passed before a seventh! Still today actresses complain about being "done" after the age of forty. Hmmm....Really when one thinks seriously about it, Joan Crawford really is the best choice in my opinion to represent the word, the history and the icon of Hollywood.
I agree w/you . . . Joan was more like the Kathleen Turner, of her day, or Perhaps even Stockard Channing (in some of her roles . . . ) Definitely NOT a "Meryl Streep!!" . . .
William Caron, I agree to disagree with you. Watch "A Woman's Face", "They All Kissed the Bride", "Possessed" (1947), "Susan and God, as well as "The Women". Quite a range and not narrow!
N arrow range ... hardly watch Sudden Fear...Bette could never do that closet scene.... Joan was an excellent silent actress and she brought this talent to every movie she did
Well, she was detested within her industry for the most part, and she's globally remembered as a freak now, but if worldly goods is one's goal...then Yes, she did do well for herself. Yay for her.
lol. .. . nominated 3 times for best actress winning for the 1945 film mildred pierce... highly respected as a professional .. . ...even betty davis acknowledged her being a professional ….. detested within the industry...lol...and respected and admired within the industry.... now..let's view you...note your vile..posting… which speaks clearly of your lack of character.. .
You are much better of a person, spreading your love (hatred) on videos that you shouldn't watch if you don't like the person in them. Your username is "nurse", but nurses heal the sick and try to make things better...they don't spread crap and troll dead people. I hope. If they do, our medical systems are in jeopardy.
There has never been a more photographable woman. And almost certainly will never be another. Those days are gone. Most of the true stars are long gone. And she was the queen.
That woman constantly gives me goose bumps. The good kind. She was magic. Some of her still photos convey deep and complex emotion through just a look. You can see why she was a muse to the great photographers, cinematographers, and directors. Truly one of a kind.
"Joan Crawford's face was a performance". alec baldwin
@@thomassperduti4500 her eyebrows were
What a real delight to watch a documentary that centers on Crawford's talent, art and persona, not the hateful book Christina wrote.
Indeed
Can I say thank you for that great, honest comment. Yes, finally.
@@CaliChaos99
Us Crawford fans will win the fight. Hateful tell-alls written by the children of Bette Davis, Bing Crosby and an unflattering one about Marlene Dietrich have not altered the statuses of those stars. Yet Joan Crawford is a "demonic child-abusing narcissist", and God forbid anyone like her. People can be fans of Joan Crawford if they damn well want to. I believe more of B.D. Hyman's book than I do of Christina's.
Joan is 45 here. She is fantastic to look at.
That was just absolutely wonderful......interesting, thought provoking, and entertaining.......great great job!
Excellent program -- thanks for posting. Someday Joan will get the credit she deserves as an actress.
CRAWFORD still rules
I rate JC above BD in believable acting performances.
Same here. I mean I love Bette and she had her moments, but Joan's subtle and non-theatrical acting I feel is way ahead of her time. Even in Baby Jane I find her acting more convincing than Bette's.
BUT ONLY when she was playing roles that were a lot like her. Bette was the MUCH superior actress; Joan was the better 'star'.
@@jaymesguy239 I believe that is just another of the overused canards designed to merely perpetuate the largely mythical notion that actors who were not physically attractive in the classical sense (see Bette Davis), must conversely be extraordinarily gifted in the skill set and gravitas we generally associate with the craft of acting. The flip side of that myth would of course suggest that actors who are physically attractive (see Joan Crawford), must accept that their talents will most likely be seen as somehow secondary to their looks. In reality, it was in fact Davis's acting technique, given its highly histrionic/theatrical style, which naturally suited her for roles which were theatrically driven, as in stagy, affected, or mannered, i.e., Margo Channing and Baby Jane Hudson, to name her two most often acclaimed roles. Crawford's acting was nowhere near as theatrically or histrionically affected, which is why her roles still seem subtly nuanced and highly believable some 70-80-90 years later, whether she is playing the catty and manipulative Crystal Allen, the eternally selfless and devoted Mildred Pierce, or the powerless and victimized Blanche Hudson, to name three of her most often acclaimed roles. None of those three Crawford roles have become histrionic cartoons with the passage of time, while the bulk of Davis's have. Ultimately, however, i believe it was Crawford's gift for 'audience identification' as well as the fact that she was a 'straight forward' creature and creation of the world of motion pictures that allowed her to read much more naturally on film. Sadly for Davis, one could say that she perhaps believed and in fact bought into her own hype, which ultimately trapped her in her own myth, while Crawford always remained acutely and humbly aware of her fans and of their changing demands. Stardom is a different animal altogether, and i just think that Crawford simply devoted infinitely more discipline, care, and effort to hers than anyone else in Hollywood. As a creature of motion pictures from such a young age, being a star is essentially all she ever knew how to be. Of course, her legendary glamour, beauty, and magnetism did not hurt. Crawford remained primarily devoted to her fans while Davis remained devoted to her ego. Food for thought.
@@valsainking
I would like to heart this comment ;)
@@fliplinefungus Thank you kindly! :-)
I just saw this movie today, I loved it. What a great script... super fast. Joan was awesome
Thanks for posting. Every now and then a gem turns up on TH-cam.
A wonderful video. Next to Bette Davis Joan Crawford is my for our item actress. This was one super talented and tough lady. RIP Joan.
As a kid in the 1960s I turned on the TV on a Saturday morning and saw the end of this film. For some reason it always stayed in my memory, partly for a seemingly insignificant misunderstanding by me. I knew this woman was supposed to be wealthy, so when she drove out of her house at 4:17 to go meet up with her old boyfriend at the "Palm Inn" (a name I always remembered for some reason), I wondered why her Mercury convertible was what to me at that time was an "old car" (being about 13-14 years old then). Of course I understood it had been a new, classy car when the film was made, but I couldn't help but wonder about it...this was the first time in my life that I really comprehended that with the passage of time, all kinds of things change. What looks new and modern eventually looks old and outdated. This realization was literally one of the moments in my life that set me on the course of being an archivist and historian as my lifelong career.
Wow! Richard Egan (Crawford's husband in "The Damned Don't Cry"). That man needs his own documentary.
BETTE DAVIS? I've seen a good chunk of her performances and I don't see this "great range" some claim she had. It was either the "wistful heiress" or the "embittered woman" where's the "range"? Joan portrayed many different characters and she mastered the art of using facial expressions to convey a variety of moods; something many of TODAY'S actresses should study too--INCLUDING Meryl "Weepy" Streep! Joan said she learned it by studying the performances of LON CHANEY Sr. so she had one heckuva "teacher". The main thing Streep and Davis have in common is that they are both over-rated.
Having made the break from silent pictures to talkies, she had a innate advantage of expressionism. She was exceptional. I'm so glad that we live in a day and time where we can see her work.
Spot on.
@T Z I agree, Stanwyck is VERY under appreciated by the so called experts!
Crawford + Stanwyck + Swanson= All better than Davis.
You might wanna watch Davis in Now, Voyager or The Man Who Came To Dinner.
Or, Mr Skeffington.
I got to interview Vincent Sherman, the director of The Damned Don't Cry. He also directed Bette Davis and had mild affairs with both stars. He said that Bette could be stagey, actressy and pretentious on screen, but down to earth and natural off. Joan he said was just the opposite.
Now THAT'S a pithily interesting assessment!
Sure as hell don’t make them like that in Hollyweird today. Joan Crawford always a star!
The movie stars Movie Star!
Wow. What a women. That movie I have to purchase.
Joan Crawford was nothing but a STAR and she wanted to be remembered for only that n nothing else She succeeded
and yet she was nominated 3 times for best actress wining for the 1945 film mildred pierce
Really cool insight with this short documentary, but why did the makers recycle the opening music from the movie over and over again? Did Warner Bros forbid them for using other movie soundtracks?
I've heard some comments on Joan Crawford's "masculine traits". I say there was nothing masculine about this tigress. She was all woman, stunningly beautiful in a non-conventional way, and a female energy only befitting a queen. Very few women save the likes of Garbo, Dietrich, Bankhead, and Kitt possessed such quality.
I loved Joan Crawford as a little girl
How some folks can't see the brilliance and talent JC was blessed with always has not only mystified, but upset me! Go ahead, yes, give BD her rightful due. No argument. But Crawford had more of the "IT" factor than almost any other female of her generation. 1) Her acting talent for film was off the charts. While she did do some radio live acting, she never tried to conquer the stage in theater. Perhaps this was wise on her part, we will never know. Never assume. For certain it kept her grounded in the most fantastic way as to actions for film, which is a very different animal than the over the top movements often brought to the stage. Watch "Susan and God" and be amazed. 2) If you can find a face that was better loved by a camera I'd love to see the face. Hers was from ANY angle a piece of art; sculpture, and perfectly molded so exquisitely that she did not have, or need, a "her best feature" period. 3) The stamina any olympic athlete wish they had. She was driven, committed and sometimes underappreciated for it, but more than tough enough to maintain her "star" for an amazing 6, six, count 'em, VI decades and only that because she passed before a seventh! Still today actresses complain about being "done" after the age of forty. Hmmm....Really when one thinks seriously about it, Joan Crawford really is the best choice in my opinion to represent the word, the history and the icon of Hollywood.
They don't make em ' like that anymore !
Joan was Joan❤❤
Only she
The best
I agree w/you . . . Joan was more like the Kathleen Turner, of her day, or Perhaps even Stockard Channing (in some of her roles . . . ) Definitely NOT a "Meryl Streep!!" . . .
sorry, many to write "favourite actress"
The ending where joa n gets beating up was very rough!!!!!!!
Glenn Close or Meryl Streep? Please that would be Bette Davis, but Joan was fine within a narrow range.
William Caron, I agree to disagree with you. Watch "A Woman's Face", "They All Kissed the Bride", "Possessed" (1947), "Susan and God, as well as "The Women". Quite a range and not narrow!
She was fine in a Woman's Face.
"Joans range wasn't wide but within her range she could out do any of her contemporaries". steven speiberg
Sudden Fear, Humoresque
N arrow range ... hardly watch Sudden Fear...Bette could never do that closet scene.... Joan was an excellent silent actress and she brought this talent to every movie she did
what a foul person she was
Well, she was detested within her industry for the most part, and she's globally remembered as a freak now, but if worldly goods is one's goal...then Yes, she did do well for herself. Yay for her.
lol. .. . nominated 3 times for best actress winning for the 1945 film mildred pierce... highly respected as a professional .. . ...even betty davis acknowledged her being a professional ….. detested within the industry...lol...and respected and admired within the industry.... now..let's view you...note your vile..posting… which speaks clearly of your lack of character.. .
You are much better of a person, spreading your love (hatred) on videos that you shouldn't watch if you don't like the person in them. Your username is "nurse", but nurses heal the sick and try to make things better...they don't spread crap and troll dead people. I hope. If they do, our medical systems are in jeopardy.