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.

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.

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.

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.