Bette and Joan

I took notes here and there throughout the process of watching the five films I thought would best accompany the "Feud" experience, and am interested to see how my opinion has changed since this journey began several weeks ago.

The obvious first choices for this section of the Awards Wiz Film Summer School were "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane" and "Hush...Hush Sweet Charlotte." I had never seen either film and wanted to see where the Crawford/Davis feud began and ended. I also saw this as an opportunity to finally watch "Mommie Dearest." Crawford came across in a very different light on the FX series, but I felt that without the yin to "Feud"'s yang I wouldn't have a clear picture of Crawford's true pop culture status. But I couldn't end things there. I needed to see these actresses in their prime. I had seen "The Little Foxes," "Jezebel" and "Now Voyager," but not the film that won Davis her first Oscar, "Dangerous" or "Mildred Pierce," Crawford's only Best Actress Oscar winning film.

First up, "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane," directed by Robert Aldrich. Baby Jane tells the story of former child star, "Baby Jane" Hudson and her sister Blanche. As the years pass, Blanche (Crawford) becomes the star, but becomes paralyzed after a car accident and must rely on the care of her sister (played by Davis) who seems somewhat trapped in the Baby Jane persona. Billed as a psychological thriller horror film in 1962, the film garnered much success thanks to the publicized "feud" between the stars. By the press tour for the film, the feud was real, and the audience was hungry for blood.

As with many films that I have seen after years of hype, I was quite disappointed with "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane." Warning: spoilers ahead.

First and foremost, so much of the script is ridiculous. Why doesn't Blanche scream for the neighbor? She doesn't appear to have been psychologically manipulated by Jane, not at this point at least. Why isn't she more direct with the doctor? We see the car accident near the beginning, but why doesn't it play more of a part in the actual story and more importantly in the motivations of the characters? If it plays a part at all, it is with Crawford and her remarkable muted performance as Blanche.

Davis's performance is missing something. She doesn't quite commit to being either crazy, child like, jealous or evil, and at times she even seems a bit blase about the whole thing. She mostly seems to rely completely on her look. There are moments, of course--when she sings her signature tune and later as she is going through past pictures, alone, drinking. Her close ups are remarkable. Which tells me a bit about the type of actress Davis was. Or her lack of respect for her costar, seemingly not even making an effort to engage with Crawford. Moments aside, the character isn't fully developed. And that's a shame. It could have been brilliant. But I certainly understand why she didn't win a third Oscar for this performance.

After my disappointment with "Baby Jane" I had low expectations for "Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte." Imagine my surprise when I became completely hooked, almost immediately.

In what was supposed to be a bit of a role reversal for Crawford and Davis, "Hush" begins with Charlotte (I think voiced by Davis, played in shadow by someone else, in one of the film's odder choices) finding her lover decapitated at a party, leading everyone to believe Charlotte is the killer. In the present day, fighting to keep her home, she seeks help from Velma (who, instead of Crawford, is played by Olivia de Havilland) but instead...well...I don't want to give everything away, but let's just say that Charlotte begins to see dead people.

Unlike "Jane" this film is horrific as well as campy and fun.

The opening scene at the plantation created a sense of dread that was missing in Baby Jane, even if it completely telegraphs the action ahead with its hokey obviousness. In the credit scene, Davis goes through every possible emotion as an actress and it is absolutely ridiculous camp fabulousness.

By the end of the film I did wonder what Crawford would've brought to the part, but de Havilland is great.

Next, I decided to go with "Mommie Dearest."

Surely everyone knows that "Mommie Dearest" is the melodrama based on the tell all book by Christina Crawford, daughter to Joan Crawford, about the abuse she received as both a child and adult. Who knows what the film was supposed to be, but what it is, is not great. It's certainly funny at times. The scene in the garden is laugh out loud hilarious, but much of the film's laughs come at the expense of mistakes. In the beginning it's not so much Dunaway's performance but the editing that's the problem. The takes are too long, for one thing, which leaves the actors to either vamp or stagnate.

Although much of the beginning is over the top in its depiction of Crawford, it does set the tone of Crawford as movie star and Crawford as jealous mother. It almost works when you consider that the memories of a child must be heightened. I know that my own memories have been exaggerated in my mind over time as reality has been presented to me. Perhaps Dunaway could have reigned things in a little, but it is an honest portrayal. And the film would certainly not have achieved camp status longevity without it.

It's not all fun and games though. The scene where Joan cuts Tina's hair is so horrific that I found my breath catching. Both Mara Hobel and Dunaway are brilliant in this moment. However, the following scene where Steve Forrest (Greg) and Dunaway have their bedroom rough and tumble is a camp disaster. How both actors look utterly ridiculous with tears and passion in their eyes is, I guess, exactly what makes "Mommie Dearest" what it is. The wire hanger scene is another horrifying one. I thought I would be laughing, but instead my mouth was gaping. That poor, poor child.

I think the real problem in Dunaway's performance is the missing love for her daughter. Perhaps it wasn't there in real life. Or perhaps the whole thing was a fabrication. But that love might have been the missing element that would have "saved" Dunaway from what came next.

I did love the ending though. Christina's reaction to the will reading gives the audience the opportunity to wonder if this whole thing was a revenge piece instead of nonfiction. Now, with "Feud," Crawford might finally get the balance to her legacy that she probably deserved.

Both "Dangerous" and "Mildred Pierce" showed me that these actresses were so much more than their feud.

"Dangerous," the story of a washed up actress, Joyce Heath (Davis), who is discovered, drunk at a restaurant by a fan/architect (played by Crawford's then husband Franchot Tone), decides to help revitalize the career she has lost. Their first scene together is a bit of a tonal disaster. Davis drunk seems like Davis acting drunk. But in the following scene, having woken up hungover and in need of a drink she is fantastic, completely on fire and alive. When she says, "Give me a drink. ...I'd rather be drunk than sober" it is a moment of pure truth. But in the same take, Davis makes a truly baffling transition from heated truth to coquette that rings completely false. It's a risk. She is an actress taking a risk. Probably before a time when performances were created in the editing room. There are moments when she is undeniably brilliant.

I haven't watched many movies from this period, but from listening to "You Must Remember This," the podcast that partially inspired this series, I was aware of the good girl/bad girl theme. I found this so odd. Leaving good girl Gail (a thankless role portrayed by Margaret Lindsay) for the "dangerous" Joyce and then Joyce giving up the man she loves, who goes back to the good girl. Just odd. And the car accident scene near the end of the film is more than a little absurd. But Bette really does own the film. And as frustrated as the good girl/bad girl trope is to me, Bette somehow seems to make the ending work. You understand why Joyce makes the decisions she does. Having not seen any of the performances nominated against her, it's hard to say she deserved to win, but it is an Oscar worthy performance, indeed.

Unlike "Mommie Dearest" Crawford does love her daughter in "Mildred Pierce." She loves her, almost to a fault. I think, of all the films I watched for this series this was the one I enjoyed the most. Stolen from Wikipedia:

When Mildred Pierce's (Joan Crawford) wealthy husband leaves her for another woman, Mildred decides to raise her two daughters on her own. Despite Mildred's financial successes in the restaurant business, her oldest daughter, Veda (Ann Blyth), resents her mother for degrading their social status. In the midst of a police investigation after the death of her second husband (Zachary Scott), Mildred must evaluate her own freedom and her complicated relationship with her daughter.

I haven't seen much film noir over the years, and with "Pierce" I certainly would like to see more. From the opening scene, I was hooked. We begin near the end of the story with Mildred covering up something, that may or may not be a murder she or someone close to her committed. With Mildred telling her own story through voice over, we see Mildred come from almost nothing to start a business, become wealthy and marry a man she probably doesn't love, all for her daughter Veda, and all for nought as Veda is not and more than likely will never be satisfied. Unlike Dunaway's performance in "Mommie Dearest," Crawford's Mildred absolutely loves her daughter. Ironic, isn't it?

There are many great performances in this fantastic film, but Crawford is unbelievable. When Veda slaps Mildred and Joan rises up, finally kicking her out of the house, Crawford seals the Oscar deal. It is a powerful moment. A melding of true movie star and a great actress.

I found myself at the beginning of this process wanted to pit the two actresses against each other, needing to somehow determine which one was the better actress. The takeaway from this is that it is completely unnecessary. Would I even consider trying to determine whether or not DeNiro was better than Pacino? Probably not. They are both incredible. And although they were both haunted by their relationships with the studio system, the men (romantic and otherwise) in their lives, their children and (more than likely) alcoholism, they have been given a great coda by Ryan Murphy, Susan Sarandon and Jessica Lange. I hope that I was able to contribute as well.