Customer Reviews

Joan Crawford: Hollywood Martyr

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(18)

 

 

I purchased the British edition of this book a couple of months ago because I was so hungry for a new Joan Crawford biography. Most of the other biographies do not really describe this fascinating, and talented star.

According to Mr. Bret, just about every major male star during the golden-era was a "switch hitter." And, that seemed to be all he wanted to write about and discuss, which is of no interest to someone who wants to learn about Joan Crawford.

The author claims that Joan's first three husbands had some sugar in their respected tanks. However, the author does not include any exclusive interviews, new information, or background on any of these people (especially Miss Crawford in this regard.) Instead, David Bret relies on old interviews (the newest interviews were more than thirty five years old) pieced together to give these salacious claims the ring of truth. But, it's just second-hand gossip that has been talked about and reported on for nearly forty years.

Joan's life also is not scrutinized or detailed or even fully explained. I am so fascinated with Joan Crawford and I have so many questions about her, but none of my questions are answered. Because the author does not describe the Academy Award Winner in any circumstantiated manner. And if anything, I have more questions.

Instead, the author describes the plots of (most) of Joan's movies and then gives his "professional" critique on Miss Crawford's performance. This should be about Joan Crawford, not about the plots of her films. Roughly 75% of the book is about a movie which made for sloppy reading, and lazy writing on Mr. Bret's part.

As stated, there were no interviews conducted for this book. It would have been so much more interesting for the author to include interviews with Joan's family. Joan's adopted son recently passed away last month, so this would have been extremely interesting to read his story. None of Miss Crawford's family, close friends, or business associates were interviewed for "Hollywood Martyr."

The book also does not include any worthwhile or rare pictures of Joan, which is very unfortunate. (BTW, the British book does include an alternate cover, where Joan looks more youthful.) And there also are not any pictures of Joan before she signed on with MGM. The oldest picture of her being taken in 1927; more than two years after she made her first feature film. And, there also aren't any candid pictures of Joan.

"Hollywood Martyr" included all of Joan's French movie titles with the English translations (in the back of the book) which I really appreciated. I have a good friend in Paris that also likes Joan so this will come in handy for me, but I wonder why the author included this information?

Joan deserves a better biography. Joan, your fans still adore you after all these years and will never stop loving you!!

At first glance, this book seems as if finally someone has pulled together the story of Joan Crawford, warts and all, but the book does not withstand analysis. The only difference between it and the many antiseptic biographies of Crawford is that this book openly acknowledges her promiscuity. It reads like a very long fan magazine article. Even the title smacks of fan magazine junk because if there was one thing Crawford was not, it was a martyr!

The author makes the fatal mistake of padding the story with very detailed plot descriptions of all of Crawford's movies. They take up pages and pages. Given that her films, with very few exceptions, were unashamedly studio products with contrived plots designed to showcase her (she played the same role endlessly), this is really dumb. Having done this, the boredom is compounded by almost no comment on Crawford's performances.

Also, there is more rubbish about that stupid Crawford/Bette Davis feud. Would you believe it began in 1933 when Davis's film "Ex Lady", a film for which she was vocally ashamed, was released and ignored because Crawford stole the headlines on other matters? Give us a break!

Don't be fooled by the description of this book by Amazon. It is a shallow read. Borrow it from a public library because you will knock it over in one night but don't waste your money to add it to your own bookshelf.

This book is gossipy and rehashes some of the stories circulating about Joan Crawford for instance the alleged stag films, her alleged bisexuality and even dips into other gossipy stories about Jean Harlow, Ramon Novarro, and Rudolph Valentino among others.

Also, I wondered why the author or the editors didn't check this over and remove obvious errors. The author states that Norma Shearer never remarried out of respect for her late husband Irving Thalberg. Ms. Shearer had a very well documented marriage to Martin Arrouge, a Ski instructor and their marriage lasted until her death. Also, he states that John Gilbert was replaced by Gary Cooper in Desire. Actually, John Halliday replaced Mr. Gilbert--Gary Cooper was always in the cast. There are other errors but these I found the most striking.

What is good in the book are the summary of the plots of Ms. Crawford's films plus the illustrations. Indeed, Ms. Crawford is one of the most notable actresses of the 20th century along with Bette Davis, Greta Garbo and Katharine Hepburn. The author does do justice to her film career nd chronicles her rise from a bit player at MGM to a Hollywood icon. Her four marriages (two to actors--Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. and Franchot Tone)also receive attention, though there is much gossip thrown in, which has neither been proved or disproved over the years. Her long term relationship with Clark Gable is also discussed.

Overall, the book could have been better. I was disappointed in the factual errors also. Those who admire Joan Crawford should get a copy of her biography by Bob Thomas.

Oh my, what a trashy, twady book. While it starts off promising enough, soon it drowns in pure hokum and folklore. First, too much emphasis on her films as far as what they're about. More interesting would be the making of these films. Second, too many errors. Did the author do any homework? There are too many inaccuracies to list, but here are a few. When she was worried about new women at MGM, he mentioned Irene Dunne and Betty Grable. Neither of these stars worked for or were under contract to MGM. Irene was with Columbia and Grable was a Fox star. When the author notes that the character of Helen Lawson in VALLEY OF THE DOLLS was based on Joan, he's all wet. Joan was never a stage star like the Lawson character. The Lawson character was based on Ethel Merman who WAS a stage star. And Bette Davis was never in linefor the role. The worse thing about this so-called biograhpy is that any time an actor or actress named is mentioned, it's prefeced with their sexual identity. Come on now. Except for the people actually involved in her personal life, what difference did it make if they were gay or bi? When he mentions actors/actresses who were in any of her films like Marjorie Main, Myrna Loy etc. he has to associate them with the "sewing club" meaning Lesbians. What's the point? If not mentioned once it's mentioned again and again about some the same people. Who cares about Edith Heads sexuality. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Joans life. And just about every person she WAS involved with was either gay or Bi. Really now. That's going a bit too far. Not one of these people are alive to defend themselves. So mac, lay off the "role call" in future books unless it's important to the actual story. This book could be sub-titled OUT IN HOLLYWOOD. Good thing I checked this horrid bood from the Library and didn't buy it. The publisher should be ashamed to have published this piece of crap.

While it may not be legally possible to libel the dead, you can sure as hell insult the intelligence of the living. Both the author and publisher of this steaming pile of unsubstantiated gossip, flat-out wrong information and sheer fantasy have done just that. As an alleged non-fiction work, this travesty is beyond berserk. Christina, the ax!

This is a rather appallingly researched biography. A couple of standout falsehoods are that Norma Shearer never married after Irving Thalberg and that Billie Burke played The Blue Fairy in The Wizard of Oz (duh, Mr Bret, she played Glinda the Good Witch--buy the DVD for crying out loud). On top of that, so to speak, there is the persistent and blatant gay agenda at work. Everyone who ever passed through Joan Crawford's life was either gay or bisexual--especially the most notable stars of the day. Alas there is little to back up this sort of thing except rumor and oft-told tales lacking any foundation. What does that matter when these tales are full of salacious details about sexual prowess and genitalia girth. Steer clear of this one.

I'm sorry I didn't check the reviews on this book prior to purchase, but it was an impulse purchase over the holidays. I have discovered so many inaccuracies in barely the first quarter of the book that I am taking it back to see if I can get a refund. I am VERY disappointed!

Mr. Bret has an engaging and witty writing style and (for me) any new info on Joan is a welcome read.

There is, however, precious little (if any) new information in this book. Mr. Bret is obviously a fan of Joan's (as am I), but he spends most of his time recounting in tedious detail the plots of her films (half the book reads like film synopsis). Yawn.

According to Mr. Bret, every Hollywood star was gay, lesbian, or bisexual... except Bette Davis. Though there are many male and female closet cases in Hollywood history, this book reports and speculates on homosexual behaviors of ever single star it mentions!

Also, according to Mr. Bret, Joan slept with almost everyone in Hollywood, gay striaght and bisexual alike... male and female. Now, it's known that Joan was bisexual and promiscuous, but if she'd laid half the folks claimed in this book, she's never have had time to make a film!

Mr. Bret's research sources are questionable, as well.

Finally, he spends too much time defending Joan as a mother. She beat the kids, okay? Let's move on! It has been fairly well-established, even *prior* to the publication of "Mommie Dearest" that Joan was *not* a good mother. She was an abusive, insecure, narcisistic, alcoholic who came from a physically and emotionally abusive childhood. She took and gave ample physical abuse form her spouses too. It stands to reason she beat Christopher and Tina. It is possible for Joan to have been a bad mother and a brilliant star. They are not mutually exclusive. Her contribution to film history should NOT be tarnished by the fact that she was a bad mother.... nor should we overlook that fact that she was a bad mother simply because she is an immortal film legend.

FACTS:
1) She's one of the greatest stars of all times.
2) She abused the kids and was a poor mother.
3) I am glad this book was a gift and I didn't pay for it myself.

This biography is one of the most inaccurate bio's I've read on Joan Crawford. Most of the mistakes are purely sloppy. Even the index is complete with mistakes; referring to "The Women" as "The Woman" and stating that Norma Shearer never married after Irving Thalberg. If you are a fan, this won't give you any new information and will irritate more than enlighten.

This book is not a biography.It is an attempt at muckraking expose. It is written by an author who cites very few authentic sources, who writes incorrect information ( He says that Ricardo Cortez was Sam Spade in the 1941 version of THE MALTESE FALCON when everyone knows it was Bogart who played the role in that version. Another example of total inaccuracy is when he states in his discussion of Johnny Guitar that Ward Bond played nothing but cop and fighter roles. Has Mr. Bret ever seen a John Ford film?) Bret is totally preoccupied with the sex lives of Ms. Crawford and her acquaintances, even to go so far to discuss stuff that in no way can be proven. He spouts heresy and hearsay. This is an offensive tome and does not attempt to honor Ms. Crawford's illustrious career. It is a sham and I was ashamed to have spent money on it. If you have the slightest respect for Joan Crawford, please avoid.