Customer Reviews

Joan Crawford: The Essential Biography

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(15)
1 star:		(16)

 

 

If you have read any of the earlier books on Joan Crawford's life and career and hope to find new information in this book, don't bother. Aside from snippets about her stepfather and Christina Crawford, everything is old hat. Indeed, this book tends to focus more on her movies, giving a lenghty snyopsis of each one and analyzing her acting as well as her co-stars, and while there is nothing wrong with this, it has been done before! Aside from the movie analysis', the authors always follow with a paragraph or two on who Joan went to bed with during the making of the film (which, unless he was gay, married or ugly, was just about all of them). I was hoping for a biography that delved more into Crawford's private life - what made this woman tick? - what kind of beliefs did she have? - what did she do when she was not working on the set? - what did she eat for dinner at night?. This pedestrian bio only scratches the surface - by page 10, Crawford has already made her first movie - very little info about how she reached this stage in her life is given. The authors apparently only talked to a handful of people for this book and most of the information apparently comes from the author's own interviews with her in the 50s and 60s. And it is very annoying when the author (or co-author) writes about himself as if he were someone else! So, sadly, a definitive biography of Crawford has yet to be published.

While I enjoyed this book's thorough discussions of Crawford's films, I found much to be annoyed by. The authors portray Crawford as nearly a saint--and while I know she was capable of great kindness, I don't believe her motives were ALWAYS pure, and the one-sidedness of this book makes it difficult to swallow. EVERY SINGLE TIME the authors bring up a dispute or spat or negative information from a Crawford rival, they dismiss that person as jealous or washed up or a has-been. Similarly, they dismiss her "jealous" daughter's claims of child abuse as some kind of good old-fashioned "discipline." I don't claim to know whether Mommie Dearest contains a shred of truth or not, but this book does nothing to prove it as inaccurate as they claim. The main source of information here is Lawrence Quirk's own conversations with Joan in her elder years, and let's face it, anybody who's ever read Joan's "My Way of Life" knows that truth-telling is not her forte.

A more balanced biography is Fred Lawrence Guiles's The Last Word (1995). Guiles, at least, is not afraid to discuss unpleasant incidents in Crawford's life from several different viewpoints, and he refrains from opinionizing whenever the truth is unclear.

I just finished reading this "essential" biography and am so disappointed. To me, one of the authors seems to feel a saintliness toward Joan while the other goes from liking her films to trying to like her films. As I read this book, I felt like Quirk and Schoell were trying to convince me about aspects of Crawford's personality and events in her life and believe about them as they do. The job of a biographer is to write an objective narrative of someone's life. It is enjoyable reading but unfulfilling given the subject. One annoyance is encountering the phrase "chewing up the scenery" way too often. Then, there's the bombshell finale chapter in which Christina is put in the pan and roasted. The writing is almost like Faye as Joan - out of control!

I have been a Crawford fan all my life and am fascinated watching her in films, looking at her photographs and reading about her. If only someone in modern times would...could write an accurate objective biography that delves more into the woman, what she was about, what made her tick and NOT try to make her a saint or crucify her. Joan Crawford truly was one of the most fascinating personalities of the Twentieth Century. She deserves that much.

So, I guess we'll have to stick with JOAN CRAWFORD, A BIOGRAPHY by Bob Thomas or JOAN CRAWFORD: THE LAST WORD by Fred Guiles in the meantime. These two biographies are really good, and I highly recommend them.

The main problem with this book can be summed up by quoting its own dust jacket:

"Schoell and Quirk [the authors] move beyond the myths and misconceptions about Crawford by looking extensively at her film work, which in many respects---as Crawford herself admitted---was her life."

And that's it right there: as admirable an actress as Crawford may have been (and I am a fan of many her performances), her roles in films cannot provide much of a basis for a biography about her actual life. The line between fantasy and reality is, in this case, not only blurred, but erased almost completely.

I understand that Quirk was a fan and professed confidant of Crawford's (that fact is hard to miss, it's mentioned so many times) and his intentions seem to be to try his best to defend her honor and reveal his version of the truth about her. In doing so, however, Quirk makes several missteps, the most notable among them being his complete and utter of savaging of Christina Crawford because of her allegations of abuse against her mother. He says terrible things; for example, he expresses his opinion that Christina's near fatal stroke in 1981 was "Joan getting revenge beyond the grave." For someone who thinks Christina was wrong to say bad things about her mother, Quirk in turn says even worse things about Christina. In trying to dispute the charges she made in "Mommie Dearest," he protests way, way too much, and stoops even lower than the level he accuses her of sinking to.

Even other friends of Crawford's are criticized for not living up to his exacting standards. For example, in 1984 about 125 friends and family of Crawford took out a tribute ad in the "Daily Variety" to show their support in the wake of the "Mommie" book and movie. I thought it was a nice gesture, myself, but Quirk says that it was "put together for the wrong reasons by the wrong people." What really seems to be wrong is the fact that he wasn't included, and now he's pouting.

When I got to the "Notes" section at the end of the book, I thought, "okay, now we'll see where he got all this information." I was disappointed to discover that the majority of his sources are "Joan Crawford to Lawrence Quirk." Interviewing the subject of a biography is of course helpful when it's possible to do, but any writer worth his salt knows that it can't be your only, or even your primary, source. People have an impression of themselves they want to perpetuate; this needs to be balanced by opinions and information from others as well. In that regard, this book falls far short.

What is the actual point of this book? To attempt to dismiss the once-controversial allegations made in Christina Crawford's memoir, "Mommie Dearest", nearly a quarter of a century ago? Get over it! Dozens of film stars, directors, and other personnel have gone on record to say that despite Joan Crawford's professionalism and considerable talent, which enabled her to rise above even the most inept film material--she had serious problems, including alcoholism, sexual dysfunctions, and YES--she was an abusive parent! Even Christina Crawford never disputed her Mother's appeal as a screen star, her professional demeanor, and her endless gratitude and respect for her audiences. Therefore, why bother to refute the personal story told by Crawford's daughter? Much of what is described in "Mommie Dearest" transpired between two people, Joan Crawford, and her daughter. Great parent? No, it would seem, from most accounts. Great star? Undeniably. And a great star deserves a much more balanced, clear-minded, thoughtful biography. The truly "essential" Crawford biography has not yet been written.

The picture of the author with Joan (inside the book) says it all: "An obsessed fan must not let Joan's star fade!" It's amazing that anyone would really think that some of Joan's movies (Queen Bee, Straight-Jacket, and Berserk!)were anything more than crazy camp. But these guys think so. Please! Much of this book is an insult to Crawford's acting credibility in the films where she does shine (and there are many)

Way too much time is spent on going over the plots of each of Joan's films. Who really cares about the minute details of her bad films? There are also huge gaps about the details of Joan's private life. However, these guys spend pages and pages deriding Christina's story. It gets really tiresome. It only made me believe Christina more.

It was nice to hear that Joan garnered respect and understanding from such performers as Ann Blyth, Diane Baker, and even Diana Dors. It was also interesting to read about Joan's sexual appetite for her co-stars. (Why did she even waste her time on Henry Fonda?...yech!)

Joan was one amazing woman. Totally self-made, hard-working, generous, and considerate. Because she loved working so much, she made some bad choices in movies...big deal. And, she screwed up in the parent department; but who didn't in the forties and fifties? By trying to hide Joan's flaws, these guys only discredit her. Too bad.

As many of the other reviewers have stated, this book is more of an expanded filmography than a biography. That was okay by me when I read it because I had recently read another book of Lawrence Quirk's: *Fasten Your Seatbelts: The Passionate Life of Bette Davis*, and I had really enjoyed his dissection of her movies. I have always been fascinated by the similarities between these two legends (not to mention their equally legendary emnity!), so when I saw that Quirk had done a book on Crawford, I was delighted by the idea that I would get the same analysis of her movies as in the Davis book, and for the most part, I wasn't disappointed. (I've only seen *The Women* once, so I missed the inaccuracies other reviewers have mentioned)

As for the ongoing J Crawford v. C Crawford debate, I found nothing here that convinced me that *Mommie Dearest* was a complete fabrication. The blanket-slam of Christina in the last chapter shows a great deal of bias. I could see that the authors were devoted to Joan, but I also took note of how they disdainfully explained away any conflicts she had with her family and colleagues by repeatedly saying that her detractors were has-beens or jealous. Okay, maybe some of them were, but if Joan was a human being--as Quirk and Schoell also repeatedly assert--then there are going to be situations where she behaved badly simply BECAUSE she was human. The haughty tone destroys any sense one has that the authors were objective.

How much of *Mommie Dearest* was motivated by money and how much by genuine grievance over years of abuse and dysfunction is something that only Christina and Joan will ever know for sure. For most of Joan's professional life, she had a wonderful relationship with the press and knowing how to use the press to promote herself is one of the ways Joan became such a tenacious and durable legend. If Christina's account is true, who would have believed her if she *had* spoken up? Or if anyone else had? (In those days, family privacy was sacrosanct anyway) And knowing public relations as well as she did, Joan would never or rarely been so abysmally stupid as to mistreat her children in public. On the other hand, since MD was published after Joan's death, she cannot give her version of those specific events with Christina. I also truly doubt that Joan attempted to have Alfred Steele killed--judging by what I have read of her financial situation at the time, it would have been to her benefit to keep him alive, not do away with him.

All in all I found this book very interesting in terms of Joan's movies, but not at all good as a biography. I'd say check it out of the library before you decide if you want to buy it or not.

I have always been fascinated with Joan Crawford, read just about everything written about her, gone back and forth with the whole "did she do it?" business concerning Christina.

Again, I adore Joan, but this was a full-blown lovefest that was a bit much at times, even for me! The interesting thing about historical events that are in question is that later generations are given room to ponder, to evaluate, to assess their own impressions based upon the information we have.

As such, I've always come to the conclusion that Joan Crawford was a driven force, both in career and in her personal life. A strict disciplinarian as a parent who may have been perhaps too unrelenting. However, there have been too many conflicting accounts to take Christina's story as unadulterated truth (I mean, when you have two other children who say none of this happened...). Perhaps Christina had an axe to grind...

Bizarrely, this rendering of the life of Joan Crawford goes WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overboard in the opposite direction. While its apparent that Joan was not the monster she's has been portrayed as, its a bit difficult to swallow her as the patron saint we read about here. Joan was most likely alot like the rest of us: flawed, but with many good points. I understand the authors intentions and personal motivations (Quirk may have been friends with Joan, but wow! I hope a friend like that to defend me after I'm gone!), but by creating the idea of Joan as being so unlike what else has been said, it tends to stretch their own credibility.

It would have worked in their favor to tackle the big blemishes of Joan's character, included the nice anecdotes and accounts, and presented a warts-and-all subject, who would have still elicited compassion without being implausible.

But this aside, its a good read, and like Joans' movies, good or bad, her fans will love it regardless...

Great overview of her career and films, seasoned with tasty gossip. This book really takes Christina to task, so probably somewhere between this book and "Mommie Dearest" lies the real truth. At any rate, Crawford was a fascinating creature and this is an entertaining read.

Many reviewers here have expressed the same feelings of frustration that I had experienced during and after reading this book, so I won't repeat what has already been written. At one point early in the book, the authors dismissed Christina Crawford's "Mommie Dearest" as being untrue simply because of what they claimed were various inaccuracies in her story. The authors further went on to say that if Christina had factual inaccuracies in her story (and they felt that much--if not all--was inaccurate), then her entire story should be considered to be untrue. As I continued to read Quirk and Schoell's book, I noticed their inaccurate reports on several situations in Joan Crawford's life and career. Their rather acidic judgment of Christina's story kept running through my mind...and so it seemed only fair to place the same criteria upon their work...and it became difficult (if not almost impossible) to place any stock in what they had written.

I was disappointed in my purchase. I should have saved my hard-earned money to buy something else. Reader beware!