017. The Caretakers, 1963

Oh, you’ve never heard of “The Caretakers?” Well, there’s a reason for that…

What’s the Story? Lorna (Polly Bergen) is strolling through the Westside of LA in the middle of a nervous breakdown. She wanders into the Bruins Theater (where Sharon Tate goes to see her movie in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood) and fully freaks out during a newsreel about rocket ships. She’s then carted off to the state mental institution where she is not only freaking out but also violent. She falls into the care of Dr. Donovan McLeod (Robert Stack). McLeod puts Lorna into group therapy sessions with a bunch of other troubled women, including a former prostitute, an immigrant who can’t stop embellishing on her love life, and a mute Barbara Barrie who loves fire. McLeod’s progressive methods get hefty resistance from Lucretia Terry (our Joan) who prefers straight-jackets and rubber rooms for the patients. McLeod battles Terry for how to treat the patients, the hospital for trying to be more compassionate to the patients and the patients themselves.

The movie really tried my patience. Its Oscar-nominated cinematography aside, there’s little to like here. The film is stiff and hokey. You learn a bit more about Lorna as the film progresses but it’s a slog; one stilted talky scene after another. The script is obvious and cloying and the film feels way longer than its 97 minute run time.

Oh, And How’s Joan? She doesn’t pop up until the 32 minute mark and she’s on total autopilot here. The Caretakers is her followup to Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? and the contrast between the two performances are stark. In Baby Jane, there’s a softness and melancholy to Joan that you rarely see, In Caretakers, it’s just her old battle-ax routine once again. The only thing that’s new in this performance is the judo.

Yeah, Nurse Terry thinks that all nurses need to be able to defend themselves against the patients so they practice in a huge school gym… which sure. The judo scene became a publicity tool as well…

Should I See It? No. It’s a slog and tiresome. The score is cool and the photography is cool but you can see the cast be better in other things, especially Joan.

How Can I See It? It’s in rotation on TCM and you can rent it on Amazon Prime.

016. A Woman's Face, 1941

What’s The Story? Ann Holm (our Joan) is on trial in Stockholm for murder. In the courtroom, we see flashback after flashback as witnesses spin the story of how Torsten (Conrad Veidt) falls into the orbit of Anna. In the first flashback, we hear about a dinner party hosted by the profligate businessman Torsten (played ably by Conrad Veidt). After the extravagant meal is over, Torsten’s credit is rejected. He then goes to ask the manager for help.

Turns out Anna and her scar are running a big blackmail ring in Stockholm and a couple of Torsten’s guests are some of her targets, including Vera (Osa Messan) who is cheating on her plastic surgeon husband Gustaf (Melvin Douglas, every bit Joan’s equal). Anna comes to Vera’s and Gustaf’s home to bargain over Vera’s love letters to her beau.

Gustaf arrives home and Anna twists her ankle trying to escape. Gustaf offers to fix her scar in exchange for going straight. Anna admits she got her scar during a fire that killed her father when she was 6. However, Torsten blackmails her into a scheme to kill his 4 year-old cousin Lars-Erik so he can inherit the family fortune. Lots of witty banter, intrigue and line dancing follows as Anna lies her way into becoming Lars-Erik’s nanny and feels conflicted about what she’s to do. I’ll steer away from spoilers here, but a lot of it revolves around the odd ethics of Lars-Erik’s housekeeper (played stiffly by Marjorie Main).

It’s a shame that A Woman’s Face isn’t as well-known as some of her other films because it’s a fun thriller. Director George Cukor (who had directed Joan in both The Women and Susan and God) does a bang up job unfolding the story and teasing the tension out of every scene. The film is very engaging, the camerawork is stellar and the production design is luxurious.

Oh, And How’s Joan? She is marvelous. This kind of role allows for her to play all of her strengths: the steely resolve, the blue collar background, glamour, pathos and humor. The two clips above really show her range. The scene alone with Osa where Joan goes from being powerful to cruel to coy to vulnerable to violent is some of her best work. She is really hitting her stride in this film. She’s dynamite and she is working off of a great ensemble as well.

Should I See It? Absolutely. It’s a treat. It would make a good double bill with Midsommar, showing the creepier sides of Sweden (outside of some Dragon Tattoos).

How Can I See It? It plays on TCM but it’s also available for rent on Amazon, Google Play, iTunes, and Vudu.

015. Dance, Fools, Dance. 1931

This undercover reporter will do anything to sniff out the truth, including dancing at a nightclub.

EDITOR NOTE: After a long hiatus, we’re back! I did not manage to watch all of Joan’s films in the span of a year (funny how producing TV can eat up a lot of one’s time. Sigh…). I’m now going to continue with the Joan Crawford Project as an ongoing thing. I’m still planning on watching all of her films, no matter how long it takes. Thanks!

What’s The Story? Flighty heiress Bonnie (our Joan) has a great life in the late 1920’s. Her family is filthy rich, she parties a lot with her friends on a boat named after her, and she has a boyfriend Bob (Lester Vail) who loves her even though she doesn’t want to be tied down. Her brother Rodney (William Bakewell) is a fellow libertine, partying away. The stock market crash puts an end to all of this. Their father has a heart attack at the Stock Exchange and dies. The siblings are told that their father was actually broke and they have to sell their house and auction off all their furniture. Some of their social set actually comes to the auction to gawk and gloat. Rodney becomes sullen and — unbeknownst to his sister — starts working for the bootlegger and gangster Jake Luva (Clark Gable). Bonnie attacks their new position head on by becoming a cub reporter for a local Chicago paper. One of her friends at the paper is murdered while investigating Luva and Bonnie goes undercover as a dancer:

It all comes to a head in a tale of dancing, deadlines, and murder — all in 80 minutes! It’s a pre-code movie so there is a lot of implied sexuality all around, from Bonnie being a free spirit to some (at the time) risqué dancing. There isn’t much time for nuance or shading and the story is pretty hokey but everyone seems to be having a blast so it’s highly enjoyable.

Oh And How’s Joan? Pretty good! You totally buy her being both the hard scrapple working girl and the glamorous doll. She has her presentational moments here and there but she’s mostly very grounded and genuine. Check out this moment where she’s undercover trying to get information about Jake when she answers the phone and realizes that her brother is working for the scoundrel who killed her friend.

Her reaction to hearing Rodney is great. Her recovery to Gable is good and the slow walk away is also nice. (The head grab? Verges on indicating) She’s still getting her sea legs, but Joan is very enjoyable here.

Should I See It? Sure! Dance Fools Dance is one of her shorter films and it’s chockablock with plot, characters and fun costumes. It’s always great to see Joan dance.

How Can I See It? It’s available for rent on YouTube, Amazon Prime, Google Play and iTunes. It also sometimes plays on TCM.

014. Queen Bee, 1955

What’s The Story? Prim Jennifer Stewart (played by Lucy Marlow) arrives in Georgia to spend time with her cousin’s family. She steps into a whirlwind of drama centered around her evil cousin Eva (played very well by Joan Crawford). Eva is barely speaking to her alcoholic husband Avery (Barry Sullivan), who sports a nasty scar on his face from a car accident. Avery’s sister Carol is involved with Avery’s business associate Jud (John Ireland), but Eva still holds a torch for Jud. And poor Jennifer tries to get her footing in all this drama, all while trying to comfort Eva’s son has he has recurring nightmares of the car accident that disfigured his father.

Carol and Jud announce their engagement, which sets Eva off.

Avery and Jennifer start catching feelings for each other. Eva gaslights Carol into thinking that Avery will split up with her. Carol then kills herself in their stable, which sends Eva into hysterics, realizing she's gone too far. When Eva realizes that Avery may actually leave her for Jennifer, she threatens a nasty public divorce. Avery backs off, and then concocts a plan to kill Eva and himself in a car accident. Jud takes Eva in the car, confronts the Queen Bee and then kills them both. Ta-dah!

Now, it sounds very soapy. It isn’t. It should be more. The big problem is that most of the characters are very passive. Eva takes charge of scenes and all of the characters are cowed by her. If they were putting up more of a fight from the beginning and then built to the end, then it would be more satisfying. As it stands, you do root for Eva to get what’s coming to her but if you want a more satisfying experience, you also should want to root for the other people to win against her. And they are so milquetoast you don’t. So, not as satisfying as it should be.

Side note: the film is set in Georgia and there are barely any Southern accents on display, except for Fay Wray (!) as a local eccentric (and early Eva victim). The costumes are gorgeous and were nominated for an Oscar.

Oh, And How’s Joan? Joan really brings her all to this. It’s a good performance. Not only is she super evil when it’s required, she also shows you the severely fucked up person underneath the Jean Louis gowns. Eva is hyper desperate for love and acceptance that she’ll go out of her way to make other people miserable. The scene where she is talking to Jennifer about her feelings for Jud and she starts trashing the room is genuinely scary. Eva is a disturbed person, not just a Queen Bee monster. Eva is similar to Harriet Craig, if Harriet was a full-tilt narcissist sociopath.

Should You See It? Sure. It’s entertaining and fun to look at. Joan is the highlight. It’s not an essential film of hers, so I’d put it lower on the list.

How Can I See It? You can rent the DVD from Netflix. Streaming-wise, it’s available for rental on Vudu, YouTube, Amazon Prime, and Google Play.

013. This Woman Is Dangerous, 1952

So What’s The Story? Hard-boiled mobster Beth Austin (played by Joan Crawford - yes, you read that right) has been robbing Louisiana casinos with her awful boyfriend Matt (David Brian), his brother Will (Philip Carey) and Will’s girlfriend Ann (played ably by Mari Aldon). Beth’s eyesight is getting progressively worse so she goes to Indianapolis to see renown eye surgeon Ben (Dennis Morgan) so she doesn’t go blind. Matt is the jealous type — very, very jealous — and is not happy with Beth leaving his sight for 5 seconds, so he’s unhappy about this. Beth gets the surgery, and she and Ben fall in love… and Matt isn’t having it. Meanwhile, the FBI is closing in Matt and the gang, and their stupid antics make this worse for them. Beth is concealing her criminal past from Ben, and keeps trying to push him away even though they are falling for each other.

Sounds like a possibly good noir, right? Or a maybe a fun Douglas Sirk melodrama? Well, it’s not. Almost everything in this film falls flat, from the direction to the story to a good deal of the acting. The metaphor of Dr. Ben having Beth see the light — literally and figuratively — is very heavy handed. Matt is written so poorly and as played by David Brian, he’s just one note: GRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!! And that gets really tiresome really fast. At one point, Matt and clan are driving up to see Joan in Indianapolis in a camper van. Matt and his brother start fighting over something stupid and Matt throws something through a window, crashing glass on the road by a motorcycle cop. Matt then just kills the cop (!) when he arrives. It’s all just dumb. You don’t see how he’s a leader of the pack or why Beth fell in love with him in the first place.

The only scene with some genuine tension is when Ben makes a stop at a women’s prison to do some pro bono work on the prisoners. Joan sits in the car and watches some women file out of a truck.

Trust me when I say that this scene has more tension and suspense to it than the climatic gun fight at the end of the film where Joan literally sits for most of it. Ugh. At least she could have a bit of fun off the set…

“Three more weeks of this, Lucille and you’ll put Warners behind you.”

Oh, And How’s Joan? Joan is on autopilot here. She’s just Harriet Craig without the wit and intelligence. it was the last film of her contract with Warner Brothers and you can tell she just wanted to leave. I know I did.

Should I See It? Unless if you are a total completionist, skip this. It’s one of her forgotten films for a reason.

How Can I See It? It’s available for rental via YouTube, iTunes, Google Play and Vudu.

012. Goodbye, My Fancy, 1951

What’s The Story? Powerful Congresswoman Agatha (our Joan) is lured to her alma mater to receive an award at their commencement ceremony. She confesses to her secretary Woody (Eve Arden, who steals every scene she’s in with sardonic wit and impeccable delivery) that she had an affair with one of her professors, Dr. Merrill (Robert Young, pre-Marcus Welby by about 16 years) back in the day which lead to her expulsion. Nipping at her heels is Life Magazine photographer Matt Cole (Frank Lovejoy), her old flame from their war correspondent days. As Agatha goes down memory lane at her old college, her romance with Merrill is rekindled. She also brings with her a film about the perils of restricting intellectual freedom, which rankles the college’s head trustee.

It’s a good set up for a romantic comedy and the film mostly delivers. Based on Fay Kanin’s play of the same name, the story structure is strong here. Agatha is strong-willed but lonely, good at her job but also wanting love. She’s a woman of conviction in a story that’s all about people compromising their values. The film moves at a nice breezy pace that doesn’t feel too fast.

So why does it feel a bit thin?

Easy. At 1951, Joan was in the middle of her Warner Brothers contract and her star power was just starting to wane. But Joan Crawford at 90% is still way stronger than most actors. The two other vertices of this love triangle — Robert Young and Frank Lovejoy — just don’t have the star power or the mettle to really serve as a strong equal to Joan. So, she easily blows them off the screen in every scene they’re in. And Lovejoy especially is just out of his element. You buy that he’s a cynical guy, but that is the only note he hits. His Matt Cole is too rough with Agatha to really be considered seriously. And while Robert Young is fine in the role, Cary Grant would have really served a better sparring partner for Joan. Also, every time he was on screen, I kept expecting him to sell me some coffee.

Oh, And How’s Joan? One year after Harriet Craig (previous post here), Joan has found a few layers in the Manicured Battle-Axe mode she was in during the 50s. She holds the center of this film quite well. While there are moments where her presentational tics are front and center (see the dazed expression she has when Agatha sees her old dorm room - false notes all around), there are moments where she absolutely shines. There is a lot of talk about freedom and democracy here and Joan sells those moments the best. You can feel that these are the reasons why Agatha got into politics in the first place and her steeliness is how a woman could have survived and thrived in Congress during the 50s. She’s good. Not her best but definitely not her worst.

She apparently did not get along with her co-star, Janice Rule. Ms. Rule, new to film but not to acting, kept missing her marks. Joan wasn’t having that, apparently telling her “Miss Rule, you’d better enjoy making films while you can. I doubt you will be with us long.”

Should I Watch It? Sure. Joan is good, the story is still relevant today and Eve Arden is just genius. It’s not as strong as it should be but it’s still entertaining.

How Can I See It? You can rent it from YouTube here and on iTunes.

011. Susan And God, 1940

What’s The Story? Rich lady about town Susan (our miss Joan) is due back any minute from a long trip to Europe. Her boozy estranged husband Barrie (Frederic March) is none too happy about this. Susan has alienated their daughter Blossom (Ruth Quigley, NOT Mayim Bialik) who gets into a crying fit over being sent to yet another summer camp and just wants her family to get back together. Susan’s good friends Irene, Clyde, Leonora, Charlotte and Hutchie are all at sixes and sevens as well, what with two of them prevented from being together by a lack of divorce and another couple longing for each other but one of them is inconveniently married.

Susan’s (and Joan’s) arrival in the film is on the bow of a speedboat, hurtling towards the group at breakneck speed. While she doesn’t crash into the pier, Susan definitely crashes into her friends’ lives. Talking a mile a minute, Susan waxes about the new religion she learned while in Europe, like she does with Leonora (Rita Hayworth) and her ex boyfriend. (Video can't be embedded, sorry) And Susan’s truth-telling has major consequences for her life and for those around her.

Based on Rachel Crother’s play, Susan And God starts out as a Noel Coward-esque satire on religious fads and superficial spirituality. And the first half of the movie delivers on this. Susan is about as deep as a pancake, and uses this new religion to try to deflect responsibility in her life while insisting it in her friends. There’s a lot of rat-a-tat dialogue which is delivered well by an able cast. But the film turns very serious in its second half, almost losing all of its comedy and bite where Susan tries to make things work with her family and all but forgets about the new religion. The film makes less sense at it goes on. It’s a forgotten part of Crawford’s filmography and it’s easy to see why.

Oh, And How’s Joan? Joan delivers most of the time. Paired again with her director from The Women George Cukor, Joan proves two films in a row that can can deliver funny dialogue while playing the pathos underneath. Her scenes with Frederic March sparkle. But the story goes off the rails and there’s little Joan can do about it. Joan got the role after Norma Shearer (her main rival at MGM) turned down the role. The film was a financial disappointment and started a run of films which ended in MGM not renewing her contract.

Should I Watch It? Eh. Maybe? She’s fine in it, but she’s way better in The Women (which I will cover later). If you are a completionist, sure give this a whirl. But I think your time will be better suited watching other films of hers.

Where Can I Watch It? I recorded it off of TCM, but you can buy the DVD of it here.

010. Dancing Lady, 1933

What’s The Story? In the middle of the Great Depression, Janie (Joan Crawford) just wants to dance. And the only place that will take her in the Big Apple is a burlesque house. She has an admirer in Tod (played by Crawford’s then-boyfriend-soon-to-be-second-husband Franchot Tone), a rich playboy who brought a bunch of friends to see the act. Janie is one of many dancers who gets arrested in a police raid (!) and then heads to night court (!) where she ends up in jail because she doesn’t have the $30 to post bond. Tod swoops in, pays the bills, and then starts to seriously woo Janie. Meanwhile, our heroine bluffs her way into doing an audition for theater director/auteur tyrant Patch Gallagher (played by Joan’s on-again, off-again lover Clark Gable). Tod pulls some strings and Janie gets into Patch’s newest show. Using her skills, talent and a lot of moxie, Janie proves to be an asset to the show and not just some rich guy’s girl.

Tod starts to put the screws to Janie to give up her career and marry him while Janie just wants to dance. And then sparks begin the fly with her and Patch. After Patch puts her in the lead of the show, she gets a charlie horse and he takes her up to his office.

The sparks, they are a-flyin’.

Now, the plot is pretty conventional but the execution is wonderful. The film is full of strong acting, fun dialogue and tons of charm. Dancing Lady not only features the film debuts of Nelson Eddy and Eve Arden (in a hilarious small role as an actress pretending to be Southern), but also the Three Stooges as stage hands (!) and Fred Astaire! His big number with Joan is a ton of fun, if very… very odd.

The number continues with them landing their flying carpet in Germany (!) where they all sing a song about beer and pretzels. (No, I’m not kidding) The film is a total blast.

Oh, And How’s Joan? She’s great! In 1933, we’re still in a transition between highly presentational and more naturalistic acting. Some of Joan’s co-stars (like Robert Benchley) are playing to the back of the house while others (like Gable) are scaled to the camera. Joan is mostly natural while lapsing every now and then into presentational. She’s very affecting (like the above clip with Gable) and her dancing is good too. In her first few years in Hollywood, she danced at nightclubs to help pay her bills. And that pays off here. She’s also quite funny. Here’s a great scene where she and Gable flirt/fight as they work out.

Joan even pulls the “You should smile more” line on Gable decades before people turned that phrase on its ear on Twitter! (And side note: Gable is suuuuuuuuper sexy in this. And their chemistry is great. it’s a lot better than her chemistry with Tone, who Joan married a couple years after this film… and then divorced.)

Should I See It? Absolutely! It’s fun and charming and super winning. It’s one of the best I’ve seen since i started this project.

How Can I See it? They play it fairly often on Turner Classic Movies. You can also rent it on iTunes here and YouTube here.

009. Montana Moon, 1930

What’s The Story? Joan (played by Joan Crawford) and her sister Elizabeth are heading west to their family ranch in Montana. They are bunch of wealthy folks, being all wealthy, and Elizabeth has the hots for Jeff, a fellow wealthy dude. Jeff has the hots for Joan, which doesn’t settle well with her. During a stop along the way, Joan has had enough and sneaks off the train and doesn’t tell her rich dad. After chatting with a very strange train clerk, Joan walks through the woods and finds cowpoke Larry (played by football player-turned-actor John Mack Brown, Joan’s co-star in Our Dancing Daughters). Larry and Joan have instant chemistry and flirt their way through the night. He even asks Joan to bed, and she begs him off as she’s devouring him with her eyes. They quickly marry (off camera) and then the film shifts to being a fish-out-of-water comedy as Larry tries to assimilate with Joan’s rich friends as she tries to get accustomed to his cowboy ways. She flirts a bunch with Jeff, even kissing him at one point. This pisses Larry off and she sends him away, but then within moments, she begs him back. All hope seems to be lost, and she’s on a train back to New York when a bunch of bandits (!) rob the train and take Joan hostage. Their leader? Larry in disguise. And then a happy ending.

The film is weird, is what I’m saying.

Montana Moon is apparently Hollywood’s first singing cowboy picture. Larry’s fellow cowboys sing a bunch in the movie, and Joan chimes in from time to time. The film lurches from melodrama to comedy to romance to musical with not a lot of aplomb. But there’s a good deal of charm to go around. Adding to the film’s odd nature is that the Production Code demanded a lot of changes to the script. But production had already begun on location in Montana, and it was too late to change the scenes. This is an example of “we’ll fix it in Post” is a huge problem. Due to Prohibition, lots of shots of drinking had to be cut as to a bunch of jokes and shots regarding Joan’s and Larry’s marriage and wedding night. So, tonal unity goes out the window when you have to edit things out that are rather key. Still, the film is fun and engaging.

Oh, And How’s Joan? Joan is pretty good! She’s in her rich girl flapper mode from Our Dancing Daughters, which is the exact opposite of Joan’s upbringing As Joan went on in her career, she specialized in tough classy women who had cores of steel. In Montana Moon, she’s playing more of a spoiled coy rich girl, a role that Jean Harlow would play. The character is more Katherine Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby than Mildred Pierce, and it shows that Joan actually had a good range. The presentational style that was the norm of 1930s film acting is done to a minimum in her performance and she has genuine chemistry with John Mack Brown. She handles the comedy and the pathos with skill. She’s very charming and even when the character is annoying, Joan Crawford isn’t. She is the center of the film; if she wasn’t giving such a charm attack, this film would fall apart.

Should I See It? Sure! Just go in knowing that a lot of the film doesn’t make a whole lot of sense but Joan and crew seem to having a ball and that enthusiasm is pretty infectious.

How Can I See It? It’s available for rental on iTunes. You can find it here.

008. Possessed, 1931

What’s The Story? Marian is a hardworking gal at a paper box factory in a small town somewhere in America. She’s poor, her mom is poor, and her dad isn’t in the picture. She’s got a dopey fella, a lot of ambitions but few prospects. And then one night while she’s out on a walk, a train goes by.

Based on Marian’s interaction with this drunk richie, she decides to roll the dice and head to New York City. As she dumps her dope, she give a pretty feminist speech about how men are allowed to go do whatever but women are held to a different standard. Anyway, she arrives in New York City and meets dashing lawyer Mark Whitney (Clark Gable). They start an affair. Mark is married, see, and he wants to keep Marian as his side piece so they concoct a false identity for her that covers the fact that she can live well on her own, etc. etc. Cut to a few years later and Mark is running for governor and Marian is now a liability. She sacrifices her own reputation in a public way to save him and he runs to her on an el platform in the rain.

“I love you, sweetie, but the G train is express from here to 95th street.”

During the transition between silent to sound, there were a lot of bumps along the way. And this movie is one of them. It’s very, very stagy. The acting is very presentational. Lots of characters talk to and act each other but you rarely get sense that anyone is actually listening. (Joan does here and there — more below) The film is only 76 minutes long, but trust me, it feels waaaaay longer. It’s slow and sluggish. Possessed wasn’t directed; it was stuffed and mounted.

Oh And How’s Joan? She unfortunately falls into the same stagy trap that afflicts the cast here. The bulk of her acting is highly presentational. There’s a great moment when she’s eavesdropping on Mark and his buddies and you can read the pain on her face very well. She’s feeling that, not just performing it. In the lighter moments, she’s pretty good. She even sings a bit — in three languages.

She and Gable started an affair on the set during the making of Possessed, which lasted longer than the reputation of this movie. You can read that in the film as their chemistry is palpable.

Should I See It? Eh. You can skip this one and go to Grand Hotel. It came out one year later than Possessed and is waaaaaaay better.

How Can I See It? It’s available for rental on iTunes and YouTube, though the iTunes print is not good.

007. The Ice Follies of 1939

What’s The Story? Joan Crawford and Jimmy Stewart (!) are a young couple in love and working the ice rink circuit in late 30’s America. She’s a singer and he’s an ice skater whose best friend Lew Ayers have a fun routine… but no one’s buying it. As the threesome are leaving a gig in Los Angeles, their car gets rear ended by the head of Monarch Studios and he gives them their card. Joan goes the Monarch the next day (after she and Stewart are married off-screen) to get the money for the damaged car and to try to manipulate the head of the studio into giving her a job. Sounds ridiculous, right? Well, it works… but all too well. Joan is now becoming a big movie star and isn’t waiting around at home for Jimmy Stewart to be the breadwinner. He’s all butthurt that his dream of a big ICE FOLLIES is falling on deaf ears… until he pitches it to Lionel Stander who vows to give him backing even though he’s broke. Does it all come together? Duh.

To say this movie is odd is a vast understatement. The script is so slight and obvious that making it anything other than a light frothy romp would cause it collapse under its own weight. And it does. Stewart and Joan attack the material with a ton of effort and the material isn’t nearly up to their standards. The scenes are leaden, the direction is poor and the script is a complete mess. There is some good skating in the film… none of which by Jimmy Stewart or Joan Crawford. The film culminates with a 17 minute skating number in Technicolor (while the rest of the film is in black and white). Here’s how it starts:

Now, it goes on after this for 12 MORE MINUTES, including ice dancing involving the cat and the fiddle with a cow jumping over a moon and 4 and 20 blackbird dancing out of a giant pie. No, no, I’m not kidding. The film is a mess. A bizarre mess, but a mess nonetheless.

Oh, And How’s Joan? Joan is really good in this. Again, she’s way better than the material. There’s one scene where she plays drunk and does some minor physical comedy and she’s very adept at it. She and Jimmy Stewart have some good chemistry and it’s unfortunately wasted on this super-thin material. Meanwhile, most of Joan’s songs are cut out of this film, which is a shame. She does a pretty decent job on the vocals for “Something’s Gotta Happen Soon.”

Joan apparently said that her songs were cut (and the one remaining song was dubbed by another woman) because Jeannette McDonald didn't want to have any singing competition at MGM. I think that’s Joan tooting her own horn just a bit too loud.

[Side Note: “The Ice Follies of 1939” is the film Joan is working on at the beginning of “Mommie Dearest.” See?]

Learning her lines in the car. A true professional…

Joan getting laced up… so she can skate for literally the first 10 seconds of a scene.

Should I See It? Nah. If you are in the mood for 1939 Joan Crawford, skip this and head straight to “The Women.” It’s a brilliant film and it’s one of her best performances. More on that later.

Where Can I See It? “The Ice Follies of 1939” is available for rental at iTunes and YouTube, if you are so inclined.

006. The Karate Killers, 1967

What’s The Story? The men from The Man From U.N.C.L.E are back in a two-part episode that was put together as a feature film for some reason. A scientist has discovered a formula to extract small amounts of gold from sea water (…okay…) and the evil men from THRUSH are after it and only the guys from U.N.C.L.E. can stop them. There’s late 60s groovy dancing, locations from all over the backlots of Hollywood that substitute for Europe and Asia, Telly Savalas with an embarrassingly bad Italian accent. It’s… ouch. Not campy enough to be fun, not competent enough to be entertaining. Since it was made for late 60’s TV, the cinematography is flat, the production values are super low and everything about it feels cheap. I thought the combo of late-60s pop and counterculture and Joan’s elegance would offer a fun frisson; instead, it’s just embarrassing. I didn’t even finish it. Ugh.

Oh, And How’s Joan? Joan’s billing is “Special Appearance by”, which translates to “Pay me a decent chunk of money and I’ll do one scene for you.” She plays the scientist’s widow who has one scene where she discovers her new lover is a leader in the evil spy organization. She’s… fine. Doing the best with very very little. I mean, this expression says it all, doesn’t it?

“…just get through this scene, Lucille, and you can pay off the twins’ boarding school. You can do it…”

Should I See It? Ask yourself: do you need to absolve yourself of sins? Did you lose a bet? Is masochism an upper level personality trait? Then sure. If not, skip this mess. Joan is way better in other things. Like, here’s her Pan Am commercial for 1973. Same era, same classiness and it’s under a minute:

How Can I See It? It’s on iTunes, if you must. I’m not going to link here. Give it a search and you can find it.

005. Our Dancing Daughters, 1928

What’s The Story? 1928, New York City. The Jazz Age is in full swing and so is rich girl Diana (Joan). She’s the epitome of the flapper. Don’t trust me? How about this:

““Joan Crawford is doubtless the best example of the flapper, the girl you see at smart night clubs, gowned to the apex of sophistication, toying iced glasses with a remote, faintly bitter expression, dancing deliciously, laughing a great deal, with wide, hurt eyes. Young things with a talent for living.””

— F. Scott Fitzgerald

Diana loves the dance, party and flirt. She comes from money, and her parents are super chill and supportive. She is in control of her sexuality at all times and it looking for love. At a party, she meets rich boy Ben (played by real life football star Johnny Mack Brown) and is immediately smitten. They dance a bit and then he ends up dancing with Anne, a seemingly innocent girl played to the hilt by Anita Page. While Diana is the party girl who is looking for love, Anne is the mean gold digger who puts on a front. It’s a tug of war between the women over the affection of Ben, whose affability is genuine but doesn’t register much of a personality past that.

While the gang is out at the beach for a weekend, Anne sinks her claws into Ben and then debuts their engagement to Diana’s disgust.

(Don’t worry - Anne gets what’s coming to her.)

At this point, Joan had been working at MGM for a few years, working her way up the ladder at the big studio. She also was doing what she could to stand out in the crowd of starlets. She apparently stole a copy of the script and brought it to the producer, begging him for the role. He eventually said yes, which turned out well for Joan. It was her biggest hit for her career and it put her on the map. It’s a silent film, but it was released with a synchronized soundtrack complete with music and SFX but no spoke dialogue.

Oh, And How’s Joan? She’s pretty dynamite. The above clip really shows her living the humiliation of losing her love. Joan is feeling things moment-by-moment in a way that works for silent film but also doesn’t read as totally presentational. Anita Page is also dynamite as her rival Anne, really giving Joan something to work off of, sharpening her performance.

Should I See It? Yes. It’s a silent film but don’t let that deter you. It moves very briskly with lots of character. It’s pre-code, so the sexuality on display isn’t explicit but it is rather sophisticated. As played with lots of brio and charisma, Joan makes Diana someone who probably has slept with a bunch of her male friends but is now holding out for her Prince Charming. The ending is rather pat but getting there is a good deal of fun. (There’s also an almost-gay kiss, fyi.)

How Can I See It? It’s available for rental on YouTube and iTunes. You can find it on iTunes here.

004. Harriet Craig, 1950

Joan Crawford - Harriet Craig Wendell Corey - Walter Craig

What’s The Story? Harriet Craig (our Joan) is a woman who runs her home like a ship. Everything in the right place, everyone doing what they’re told. Harriet will maintain control, no matter how many lies she tells her husband Walter (Wendell Corey) to keep him in line or her niece Clare that works as her unpaid secretary. Or even Walter’s boss to prevent him from getting a promotion that would take him to Japan for three months.

Based on George Kelly’s Pulitzer Prize-winning play Craig’s Wife, this movie puts Joan into the anti-hero role. Harriet is conniving, vain, and highly manipulative. You do see flashes of why she’s doing what she does and at the end when her plans unravel, Harriet has a huge monologue detailing why she is the way she in (in a way that only a Pulitzer Prize-winning play from the 1920’s can). The film is very engaging. You really love to hate Harriet even though you get why she is the way she is. When she gets her comeuppance, it’s very well earned.

Oh, And How’s Joan? This is 5 years after Mildred Pierce and a good 12 years before the hagspoiltation apotheosis Whatever Happened To Baby Jane? So, I call this her “Manicured Battle-axe” phase. She has the style and beauty from her earlier years but with the flintiness and coldness of some of her later years. Sure, Bette Davis and other actresses can do this kind of thing too, but Joan does it with cold efficiency and a ton of heart. Helen in Humoresque may on the surface have a lot of things in common with Harriet, but the ticking heart underneath each role is very different. The supporting cast is very game, including Wendell Corey as her husband and KT Stevens as her put-upon niece. Everyone seems like they are in the same film and the same world, which isn’t always the case with Joan’s films.

She also looks amazing. I mean, this is how she looks in a dinner party scene:

Harriet and the only thing she really loved… a Ming Vase full of rice. (No, really)

In her signature red lips and arched eyebrows, Joan added a severe left part in her hair to the look. Which works. It adds a slightly masculine vibe to Harriet, showing she’s the real man of the house. Joan really comes to life in Harriet’s many confrontations with her staff and when she’s having to spin one lie to the next. The script can be very hokey and obvious, but Joan makes it all work.

Should I See It? Absolutely. It’s not one of her best films but she’s great in it. The acting really help to sell a story that was creaky by 1950’s standards (and it practically antediluvian now).

How Can I See It? It’s currently available via Amazon Prime. You can watch it here.

003. Strait-Jacket, 1964

What’s The Story? Lucy Harbin (Joan Crawford) came home from a work trip one night to catch her husband (an uncredited Lee Majors!) in bed with another woman. Clad in a flowery dress, a helmet hairdo and a some sharp heels, Lucy went over the edge. She killed both her hubby and his mistress with an axe, all as her 3 year old daughter Carol watched. Well, take a look.

She went into an asylum for 20 years. She gets released and visits a now-grown Carol (Diane Baker) in rural California, who's been living with Lucy’s brother on his farm. As Lucy tries to get settled into life outside the hospital, things start going awry. Is she still crazy? Why are people going missing? Is that big huge obvious twist that you see coming going to actually come to pass? [SPOILER: Yes, yes it is.]

Coming after her return to box office glory in Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?, Joan takes another stab (sorry) at horror based on a book from the guy that wrote Psycho. She took over for Joan Blondell who had to back out of the film due to an injury. Then Joan brought in her The Best of Everything co-star Baker to play her daughter. Joan took a lower salary and 15% of the profit… which proved to be a shrewd move as the film was a hit. She also did some personal appearances for it as well, which helped goose the box office.

Oh, and how’s Joan? By this stage of her career, Joan’s an old pro in the best sense of the term. She can deliver a lot by doing a little (and sometimes does little by doing a lot). She brings a lot of depth to a pretty thin role. You get Lucy’s unease as she’s back out of the asylum, the weird spell she gets under as she dons her old murderous outfit and her shame when she’s trying to reconnect with her daughter. There are moments of brilliance from her (like when she’s trying to calm down after a nightmare”) and moments of absolute BS presentational acting (like when she’s reacting the little girls doing the nursery rhyme outside of the wig shop). She’s the main attraction here, acting her guts out and bringing some class and oomph to the proceedings. The supporting ensemble is good, except for Diane Baker. I don’t buy anything that she’s doing. And Joan being Joan, there’s some Pepsi product placement in one key scene.

Should You See It? Sure! It’s a fun but thin horror movie. The movie is beneath her at this point, but she’s having fun. Don’t expect much and you will be happy.

How Can I See It? It’s available for rental from iTunes and Amazon Prime. Give it a whirl!

002. Humoresque, 1946

What’s The Story? John Garfield plays a poor but very talented classical violinist in early 30s New York who meets wealthy arts patron Helen Wright (our Joan) at one of her cocktail parties. She tries at first to break him down like all of the men in her orbit but, well, Garfield isn’t having it.

The sparks continue to fly as the younger brash artist and his wealthy but troubled — and unhappily married — benefactor fall in love. It’s a sweeping film that very grounded; that’s not only a tribute to director Jean Negulesco but also Garfield’s and Crawford’s performances. (More on Joan below) It’s a gorgeous film - everyone is shot very lovingly and handsomely. The story is engaging and you do root for them to be together even though you know it’s not going to work out. (Spoiler) It serves as a good parallel to “The Fountainhead” which will come out 3 years later. Both feature younger handsome artists who are bound to their craft and the difficult women who fall for them. “Humoresque” works a lot better because it draws their main characters more three dimensionally than Ayn Rand’s work and also lacks Rand’s right wing politics and gonzo camp. Also, there is a lot of classical music on display here and it all sounds amazing.

Joan and John Garfield share equal billing for a reason. Joan doesn’t appear until 33 minutes in. Before that, it’s all about Garfield’s character’s history with falling in love with violin and his difficult relationship with his parents. Garfield is great and so is Oscar Levant as his wise-cracking best friend. If you are coming in looking for Joan, just be patient.

Side note: John Garfield is hella sexy in this. I wasn’t familiar with Garfield until hearing about him on “You Must Remember This.” If you want to know more about his history — and how he got screwed over during the Black List — you can listen to the “You Must Remember This” episode about him right here.

Oh, And How’s Joan? “Humoresque” was Joan’s first film after winning the Oscar (and revitalizing her career) with “Mildred Pierce” and she is at the height of her powers. She’s in her most iconic of looks — arched eyebrows, Adrian-designed gowns with the big shoulder-mah-pads, bold lipsticks. But it’s her acting that is so impressive. Joan had a very difficult childhood — growing up poor, having to work her way through both boarding school and college. This background gave her a core of steel, which is something she brings to all of her characters. As beautiful as she was, you always bought that she was tough. As the counter-balance to that, she was also quite vulnerable. Both of these dovetail beautifully with her portrayal of Helen. She’s tough, a bit bitter but longing for true love can connection. And watching her swoon as she listens to Garfield playing Mozart or Dvorak, you feel how the music is affecting her. She really nails that. (Which also serves as a dry run of her 6 minute reaction in “Sudden Fear” which we’ll cover later.) She knows exactly what she’s doing; she’s showing us sides to a character in a way that doesn’t feel manufactured or stagy.

Should You See It? Absolutely. This was my first time seeing “Humoresque” and I’m kicking myself for waiting this long. See this. It’s great.

How Can I See It? I got my DVD copy from the LA library (a great resource) but you can rent it streaming on YouTube, Amazon Prime, Google Play, iTunes and Vudu.

001. Rain, 1932

What’s The Story? The whole point of The Joan Crawford Project is to see all of her films. In keeping with that spirit, I decided to start with a film from her early career — RAIN. Based on the short story “Miss Sadie Thompson” by W. Somerset Maugham and play version by John Colton and Clarence Randolph, RAIN is set in the South Pacific where a prostitute (the aforementioned Sadie Thompson) is at the center of a battle of wills between the solder who loves her, the doctor who likes her and the missionary asshole who wants to redeem her. Apparently, Joan Crawford hated this movie and said it was her worst film ever. (I’ve seen TROG and BESERK; this film isn’t great but it ain’t THAT bad.) And with this over-cooked script, I can see why.

The film never really leaves its stagy origins. Though it’s set in a tropical locale, the bulk of it takes places in an inn where a bunch of random people are stuck waiting on the next boat to come into port. While director Lewis Milestone does some work with the camera to give us the inn from every angle, the film feels claustrophobic. And the script has a lot of declaring of emotions and intents with very little character progression, except for Sadie. Many scenes without Joan are plodding and dull.

Oh, and how’s Joan? Her performance is uneven. Some moments fall flat, like a big emotional scene at the end - Joan completely whiffs a reaction. But when Joan is on, she’s ON. Sadie is a free-spirit on the run from her past, and Joan plays that to the hilt. But the script is so obvious and flat, she can only do so much with what she’s given.

Her character spends a lot of time fighting with Mr. Davidson, a very influential missionary who is hell-bent (pardon the pun) on saving her hooker soul. Walter Huston plays the stoic, self-righteous nature of Davidson rather one-dimensionally. In one of her best scenes in the film, Sadie and Davidson have a huge confrontation in the lobby of the inn and she lets him have it.

Joan leaves everything on the field here. She’s playing Sadie’s desperation moment-by-moment. And Huston is about as expressive as Mount Rushmore. Her turn at the end is convincing but the script isn’t doing her any favors. I say Joan acquits herself very well. I was really impressed with her even though I wasn’t too fond of the film overall.

Should you see it? Yes. But feel free to fast forward through some of it. Joan wouldn’t have minded.

How Can You See It? I saw it through Amazon. It’s currently part of Prime. If you’re a Prime member, you can watch it for free right here.

000. About The Joan Crawford Project

As a gay man of a certain age, my first exposure to Joan Crawford was 1981’s super campy MOMMIE DEAREST. I thought she was this over-the-top harpy in a movie that was unintentionally funny and often grotesque. (Now there has been a lot of discussion as to whether or not Christina Crawford’s roman a clef is on the up and up, but that’s a topic for a different day.) My love of film grew as I got older, and when I dived into Oscar lore, I read a lot about Ms. Crawford. In college, I saw FEMALE ON THE BEACH, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? and THE BEST OF EVERYTHING — all with the idea that these were camp. That she was this out-of-date, performative actress of a previous generation and she’s just a caricature. It wasn’t until I saw SUDDEN FEAR when I was in my late 20s that I thought “damn, she can be a great actress.”

Karina Longworth’s excellent podcast “You Must Remember This” did a 6 part series on Joan Crawford, which I’ve listened to 3 times over. (The first episode is here; trust me, you’ll love it.) Between that and Ryan Murphy’s Feud, I saw sides of Joan Crawford that I never expected. I really grew to respect the hell out of her.

And then I realized a few days ago, i’ve barely seen her body of work. Per her listing on IMDB, Joan Crawford has acted in 106 film and television projects. 106! Some are uncredited, some are extra work, but still. 106 is a lot of movies for an actress people spent a lot of time writing off because Faye Dunaway decided to chew every piece of scenery she could get her hands on in 1981. So, it’s time to give Ms. Crawford her due.

Between now and Dec. 31 2019, I’m going to watch as many Joan Crawford movies as I can.

The rules:

• I’ll watch every film she’s been in. If I can watch her TV work too, great.

• I will rewatch films I’ve already seen.

• I’ll give as much trivia as I know (which is significant), but this won’t be a deep dive into her history.

• I’ll do one entry per film, writing my feelings about the film and Ms. Crawford’s performance and how it fits in with her stardom and some history.

As the availability of some of these films are sketchy at best, I’m going to watch them in order of convenience instead of chronological.

You all ready to join me? Then let’s dive in!