Customer Reviews

Mommie Dearest

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(19)
3 star:		(15)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

As a major Joan Crawford fan AND an advocate for children's rights, I feel compelled to comment. Firstly, it is necessary to separate Joan Crawford the actress from Joan Crawford the mother. MOMMIE DEAREST deals exclusively with the latter, not the former. Christina Crawford was not suggesting that her mother had no talent, and I do not believe that her goal was to destroy her mother's professional reputation. Rather, she felt it was important to expose the horrific reality she endured at the hands of an abusive parent who happened to have a highly positive public profile (part of which stemmed from her having adopted 4 children). Surely we as a society have evolved enough to know that child abusers can come from any race, any socio-economic circle, any profession - it shouldn't be difficult to believe that movie stars, with their fragile egos and often pathological need to succeed, can have major parenting deficits. And yes, obviously, this is a one-sided, subjective account - all autobiographies are! I doubt that any autobiography is objective. The reader should understand that Christina Crawford has provided us with HER perceptions, her recollections, of her childhood. We are being invited to see Joan Crawford, the mother, through Christina's eyes. And to be fair to Christina, there has been enough corroboration from reliable people who knew Crawford well, about specific aspects of Crawford's character (her obsession with cleanliness, for example), and of specific incidents referred to in Christina's book, that I for one do believe that, by and large, Christina has been truthful. It is also noteworthy that Crawford's son Christopher has corroborated what Christina has said. The twins have gone on record as denying that their mother was ever abusive - but it is possible that by the time the twins came along, Crawford had mellowed somewhat (this is not unusual as parents age, particularly when alcoholism sets in - and there is no doubt that Crawford was an alcoholic by the time she turned 50). It is unfortunate, strictly from a credibility perspective, that this book came out only after Christina discovered that she'd been cut out of her mother's will - but this does not mean that the allegations of child abuse are fabricated. Quite the contrary: a parent capable of excluding a child from his/her will may well be the kind of person who was abusive. Whatever your opinion of Crawford the actress (and I repeat that I am a huge fan), it is worthwhile to read her daughter's perceptions - not because it should influence your opinion of Crawford's talent, but because it helps to gain a more complete understanding of the very driven, ambitious and probably highly damaged person that rose to the top of the most competitive field in the world: movie stardom.

When Mommie Dearest was written in the 1970s, many people seemed to think child abuse didn't happen in the homes of the rich and famous. Some disputed the things Christina said about her adptive mother, but people who knew Joan confirmed much of what was described in Mommie Dearest. Some things, such as the "night raids" were probably only witnessed by the children. Even if ( I said if) that was exaggerated, much of what Joan did was abuse, even when you consider people had different standards about discipline 50 years ago. For one thing, people were much less likely to intervene, I think, than they are today, especially when the abusive parent is rich and famous. I don't understand why another reviewer here said Joan paid for college-- I don't remember that part. Christina was out on her own very young. Just because Joan Crawford was famous doesn't mean she was a good person or a good parent, and it is not whining to let people know that.

Having said that, I only gave the book 3 stars. Mommie Dearest is not the best written book I have ever seen. I would have liked to have seen more depth, more understanding of why Joan was what she was, and how she became that way. Of course, Christina is not a professional writer, just someone who had to endure abuse that might have broken a lesser person.

Christina Crawford tells a story that has gone on for years in this country. Child abuse can happen to any family. Unfortunately some narrow minded folks seem to think this only happens in poor or uneducated families. It can and does happen to anyone. Thousands of children are abused and/or killed in this country each year. We hardly hear enough stories about it to scratch the surface. It's a sin and a shame on this whole country that rich people can buy anything, even children. Some have called Christina a "cry baby". Is that perhaps because you feel that since she seemingly lived in a wonderful mansion and had every little frill a child could dream of? You can live in the most marvelous of mansions and have everything your little heart desires. It would still be a living hell if you had to share it with an abusive and/or mentally ill person who controlled your every move.

Someone who has never seen the movie or read the book called it, "Sickening and an abomination" that she would do this to her "foster" mother. I'd like to remind you that she was SUPPOSED to be a little more than her "foster" mother. She legally adopted these children which means she was supposed to love and protect them as any mother would. If she was unfit mentally then she shouldn't have used them to make a publicity splash or at least realized that she wasn't giving them the love they deserved. The only thing sickening and an abomination was that there were people around who witnessed all this and chose to turn their heads and a deaf ear because she was "Joan Crawford. Hollywood Glamour Star."

I too was abused but I don't have the courage that Christina has because most people don't want to "get involved" or they simply don't want to believe that someone could act so nice in public and be so different behind closed doors. So the victims go on in silence. Ms. Crawford spent 60 years developing her film career? Well, good for her. I'm so glad she was so narcissistic that she chose to spend all her time on her selfish vain needs and "bought" these poor children to live in misery for her own selfish vain need to be looked upon with respect. It only took Hitler 14 years to rise to dictator of Germany and only a few years to kill 6 million Jews and 5 million other people he considered to be mentally deficient or political enemies. So what? It doesn't take hard work to be vain.

Sickening and abominable? Yes that this country will turn it's head and let these things happen because we are so enamored with the rich and famous. I will go on in silence working behind the scenes at abuse shelters and charities. I can sleep at night. Good for you Christina. God bless you. I hope you too can sleep at night now, without fear of a drunken crazed woman coming in to wake you up with her latest torture. God bless America, and thank you for trying to open some of our eyes to the facts of child abuse and to this horrible habit of worshiping people with money and fame.

Christina Crawford's purportedly factual autobiography of her abusive mother Joan Crawford. A lot of people think this book is an outright lie that Christina wrote because her mother didn't leave her a thing after she died. I disagree. Before "Mommie" was published there was a biography of Joan (written by Bob Thomas I believe) which comes right out and says Crawford abused her children. Also quite a few people defended Christina when this came out saying it was all true. Since we now know that Crawford had serious issues this is all the more plausible. Also Christina managed, through this book, to single-handedly destroy her mother's goody two shoes image. So--I believe it all.

It starts off pretty dull and the supposed child abuse Christina and her brother Christopher went through isn't THAT bad--except for the night raids. Indeed Christina comes off like a spoiled brat at times. But, as she got older, the abuse stopped but vicious mind games began. Also Crawford shipped off Christina to boarding schools and had her work there for her keep. These chapters are compelling and pretty well-written. Then she sent her to a convent(!!!) where she became a virtual prisoner. It follows how Christina got over all these and carved a life for herself. The last chapter it seems she and her mother are getting along for years--only to have her mother completely write her off of her will.

So--I tend to believe every word (even if she overdoes it at times) and I find this a compelling well-written story about a woman who managed to come through a life of abuse.

So I caught a few minutes of that cult hit 80s movie on TV. My mother came in the room and said, "It's a true story." I was floored by that because I had just watched the scene in which Joan beats Christina with a can of Ajax or some other such white powdery bathroom cleaner. I had to read this "true story." It really horrified me to think that someone with fame and beauty could treat her children so terribly.

I read the book in just a few short hours. I'll admit it, I didn't really ever want to put it down. It had me compelled, even if it's not written very well. Most of it sounds like it's coming from the mouth of an indignent eleven year old who just wants to get back at her mother. I really wonder if the story is at all true. If it is, I feel for Joan Crawford's children. If not, then, oh well, it's still an entertaining read even if it is slanderous of the "late great" Joan Crawford.

Much of the book details Joan's abuse of her four adopted children, mostly that of Christina, the eldest daughter. Joan beats her with wire hangers, and yes, that bottle of bathroom cleaner too, pulls her around by the hair, belittles her, confines her to a school in the mountains and never really gets to know the girl that Christina is. Christina herself isn't really sure who she is aside from "Joan Crawford's daughter." It's certainly an interesting story. I'll give it that. And it actually left me somewhat emotionally drained. Whenever Joan goes on one of her "night raids," (such as forcing her children out of bed in the middle of the night to cut down every rose bush in the garden) you're left needing a minute to breath because you feel like you've just been reprimanded by your own mother for something that you don't know or understand.

A chilling and haunting tale. True? Who knows. Who cares. Despite the poor quality of writing, a decent read. RECOMMENDED.

Sometimes people assume the author was just making things up out of spite because it seems so bizarre.

Just look for "pathological narcissism" or "pathological narcissistic personality disorder" or "narcissistic mother" or "narcissistic mothers" on the web. You will encounter personal stories from ordinary non-famous folk that will give you a glimpse into what kids do experience in such situations. Narcissism is a spectrum, and actors are often on the spectrum for obvious reasons. A little narcissism is harmless, but Joan sounds like she was on the pathological end of the spectrum, or at least had some other personality disorder with similar problems. She probably had other issues also to explain the erratic behavior.

But don't doubt for a minute that those kids were abused. You don't have to be set on fire to be seriously damaged by an abusive parent. Just the wildly fluctuating behavior, unpredictability, and constant verbal abuse (humans are verbal animals, words cut deep despite the nonsense about sticks and stones especially from parents) can traumatize a child and have long-term effects.

The fact that the younger children say they never witnessed any of it is meaningless. Some children are more resilient than others, and it is not uncommon for the abusive parent to focus the abuse on certain children and treat others kindly ("the scapegoat vs. the golden child"). Children in the same family may not witness the abuse for various reasons (done behind closed doors, age gap, protection of the younger children by a nanny or by boarding school or a new rational spouse, etc.) A friend discovered as an adult that his father had routinely sexually molested both his sisters - neither sister knew the other one was also abused, and their father had threatened each girl that he would start on her sister if she did not keep quiet about it. That's how secretive abuse can be.

Of all the abusive episodes in this book, there are two that really disturbed me. Episode #1: Christina lived at the "Chadwick Boarding & Country Day School", and Joan Crawford, movie star, demanded that Commander and Mrs. Chadwick give detailed accounts, via the telephone ( since she never visted), of Christina's behavior. Joan was drunk one evening, and she called, as usual, for her weekly report. It was unfortunate that, just that morning, Mrs. Chadwick had told Christina to bring a sweater to class, because it might be chilly in the classroom. Christina good--naturedly ignored her Headmistress, and left. She got to class, found it was, indeed, chilly, and left her coat on during the session. Later, at the boarding house, Mrs. Chadwick admonished the child, telling Christina not to be so "short-sighted" again. Christina apologized, and that was the end of the story, right? WRO -- oooONG! If you're Joan Crawford, it's just the beginning. Joan screamed through the telephone at her daughter, "WHY the ---- do you ALWAYS have to disobey EVERYbody?!!", and "Who the ---- do YOU think YOU are to KNOW it all?!!". Then Ms. Crawford dropped a bombshell: "Since you're SO determined to wear your (expletive) coat to class, you can wear just THAT-- and NOTHING else! ALL of your clothes will be picked up. Tomorrow." "Mother, sobbed Christina, "I can't wear just that coat to school- it only has ONE button!" Joan snapped, "You should have thought of that BEFORE you disobeyed!" Click, dial tone. Reading this, I thought, surely, she's not serious- no mother would do that to her own child! However, next day, while Christina was in class, Joan sent someone (God only knows who) to the school, and, indeed, had ALL of Christina's attire picked up- leaving her with the shoes, underwear, and dress she was wearing, and just one cotton dress in the closet. Now, Christina has only TWO dresses to wear, for the next FOUR MONTHS! Here was a glamorous movie star's daughter, surrounded by well dressed, privileged other stars' children, wearing two plaid dresses for sixteen weeks straight. Christina was miserable and embarassed, but, once punishment was meted out, Joan NEVER wavered, even if the child's suffering was obvious and other adults expressed concern; this brings me to Episode #2(and THIS particular story is attested to by various teachers, chaperones, and students who witnessed it ):
Joan Crawford was well known for her organization, structure, and formality. She was REALLY a stickler about writing "Thank You" notes ( rumor has it, she'd write a Thank You" note in RESPONSE to a "Thank You" note) -- and she insisted that her children do the same. Once, Christina did not write a "Thank You" note for a gift she'd received in a timely manner. Instead of revoking the privilege of attending an upcoming school "mix party" and dance, Joan let Christina go; but there was one, (and, to me, one CRUEL) proviso: Christina was to wear her best dress,and be among one of the firsts to arrive at the party. However, Christina was NOT to: dance, eat or drink any of the refreshments, bring a date, or make any "small talk" with her friends. One of Christina's teachers noticed her standing against a wall (she, reportedly, was also not allowed to sit the entire time), and kindly asked for the privilege of dancing with her,but she kept turning him down. He finally asked what the problem was, and simply couldn't believe the answer he received. The teacher tried to "make light" of the situation, thinking, like I did, that no mother would really inflict such a punishment on her own baby, but, I guess, we were both wrong. Christina also had to be the LAST ONE TO LEAVE. And she was. Evidently, Joan applied this sort of discipline to all of her children, and stated "After all, without disipline, what is life?" Shortly before her death, she told writer Roy Newquist that, if she could do it all over again, she would have been "easier", not just on her children, but also on her husbands, and even herself.
As for the the adopted children, there were four. Christina, Christopher, and the "twins" (actually born one month apart) Cathy, and Cindy. Following Joan Crawford's death, the older two claimed abuse, but the younger two hotly disputed this, saying they'd only known kindness and fairness on the part of their "Mommie Dearest". Christina Crawford danced attendance on said "Mommie" all of her life, catering to her whims, writing loving letters, sending thoughtful gifts,etc. Personally, I think she was "waiting her Mother out", so to speak- thinking that, once Joan died, all of her loyalty and hard work would pay off. Thus, the day of the burial, Friday the 13th, May 1977, there Christopher and Christina sat, hand in hand, waiting to hear precisely how much of Joan Crawford's multi-million dollar estate they had been bequeathed. As Joan's lawyer droned on, spouting legalese, it gradually dawned on Christina precisely what "It is my intention that I,Joan (Lucille LeSeur-Casin-Fairbanks-Tone- Terry-- Steele)Crawford , knowingly and with forethought, make NO provison herein for either my son Christopher, nor my eldest daughter Christina -- for reasons which are well known to them" meant. Literally, it meant "nothing". In less than twelve hours, the exact wording of the will would appear in every evening newspaper and newscast across our country, leading to gossip and conjecture about what those "reasons" could be. Christina wrote that it was like her mother's hand came up from the grave, and gave her one final and humiliating public slap in the face. A slap she could not retaliate against, it would seem......
Less than one year later, we were given this book, "Mommie Dearest".
There was alot of detail excised from Christina's original manuscript, and in this, the Twentieth Anniversary Edition, all of it has been put back, making it roughly 100 pages longer than the original "Mommie Dearest"- there are alot more letters ( and instances of Joan's mean spirited parenting) in this edition. One complaint: For some reason, this book is FULL of typos. The proper pronoun "I" is written as "O"- i.e., "O wanted to kill her", at least a dozen times. The word "lose"- as in, "I thought I would lose my mind"- is spelled "l-o-o-s-e", almost exclusively- and, in my opinion, there is no excuse for this - especially when Christina Crawford takes every opportunity to tell us how smart she is, how she was "skipped ahead" two grades,and graduated, suma cum laude, from college- and,since this book was published by her own company. That being said, it's STILL "Mommie Dearest", and therefore a fascinating and dazzling read.
Thirty years on, "Mommie Dearest" still has people buzzing, with Christina Crawford still being sought after for interviews. I DO believe that the essence of what Christina alleges is true, and apparently, the majority of us do;unfortunately, since the book's publication, Joan Crawford's name has become almost synonymous with child abuse. People have come forward, some condemning, others validating Christina's recollections. The strongest authenticator, Christopher Crawford, had no contact with his adoptive mother Joan Crawford from the age of fifteen, until her death, nearly twenty-five years later. She NEVER saw him again, and never mentioned him, even when he was Missing in Action in Vietnam. (Except once:she'd heard that Christopher was married and father to a new baby, so she invited him and his young wife to one of her luxurious hotel suites.Upon examining the baby, she supposedly said, "It doesn't look like you- it must be a bastard." He took his little family and left.) Christopher, who infamously deserted his second wife and ALL of his children, has since died. One of the "twins", Cindy,who was bequeathed a total of $77,000, to be spread out over twenty years, has also passed away. The remaining two-- Cathy Crawford, who was left the same amount as her "twin", (besides all of Joan's earthly belongings), and Christina Crawford herself,now in her seventies--do not speak. So Joan's little "family", started so joyously and optimistically in 1939, is totally gone. Now,in my mind, THAT'S a tragedy...

I agree with a previous reviewer that abusive parents often do scapegoat certain children in the family as the target of their rage, and also that the passing of time can mellow them to the extent that the ones who did not bear the brunt of their mistreatment and cruelty have a different opinion than the ones who were abused. That explains a lot as to why Christina and Christopher Crawford were on the receiving end of their adoptive mother, Joan Crawford's anger and "disicpline", while the "twins" (which they actually were not), Cynthia and Cathy, have sworn that Crawford was not like how she was portrayed in the book that is the subject of this review, "Mommie Dearest".

It is hard to know what went on behind closed doors, and there are at least two sides to every story, but Christina presented hers and it is an eye-opener. We can't know how much of it was true, how much was exaggerated or blown out of proportion, or even what may have been understated. But many people did back up Christina, perhaps more than those who did not. What cannot be doubted is that Joan Crawford did use her adoptive children as part of her public image to a large degree, in order to present herself as a kind-hearted, loving person - Crawford lived for her public - often described as a fan's dream because she made sure every fan letter was answered. She needed to be in control, those who knew her have attested to that fact. Maybe it was due to her own dysfunctional and abusive childhood, and she clearly did strive for success. I don't think that Joan was an evil person, just a very disturbed and angry one. I think she loved those kids as far as she was capable, and that a part of her really did want to be able to give and receive the love she didn't get as a child. Unfortunately, life is not a movie and can't be written as if it is a movie script. With parenthood comes responsibilty, and not just financially speaking. She couldn't really handle the realities of motherhood, not just due to her demanding career, she didn't seem to have the patience or the emotional stability to deal with it, hence why she sent Christina and Christopher (and later Cynthia and Cathy) to boarding schools. The "hands-off" rearing was very common amongst Hollywood's elite in those days. Abuse was not discussed, and people looked the other way. Disicpline was the word used, even if it went too far. Many of those kids suffered emotionally from the distance and neglect. Let's not forget who was the adult and who was the child. I think the main problem is that some don't want to accept the fact that abuse happens in all walks of life and in different classes - or that money and success doesn't guarantee happiness, love and emotional security. I sense a lot of "rich kid" resentment from some of the reviews and opinions I see not only about Christina but other children of celebrities - just because they happen to have parents who were wealthy, successful and well-known does not mean that they were treated well, or felt loved. Crawford had a public image to maintain, and all abusive people have a facade they use to mask their brutalities and problems that they take out on vulnerable victims. Or that fans don't want to accept that their idols were less than perfect and human, with personality traits that were less than admirable. I'm not disputing that Joan Crawford was a legendary and talented actress, but that doesn't mean that she was a good parent. I think she tried to be all things to all people but not surprisingly, she couldn't do it. No one can.

The industry probably knew to some degree what was going on with Crawford, and probably what went on in other homes too - "Detour: A Hollywood Story" by Cheryl Crane (daughter of Lana Turner), "Uncommon Knowledge" by Judy Lewis (daughter of Loretta Young and Clark Gable), and "Going My Own Way" by Gary Crosby (son of Bing), will give you more of an idea. Hollywood has a dark side, and always has. Lana Turner told her daughter "We all knew about Joan. But nobody talked - the industry closed ranks." It wasn't out in the open like it is today. It's possible that some things in Christina's perspective were blown out of proportion, but even at that, her book did spread awareness about the world-wide problem of child abuse. It also shows something that was quite common among mothers and daughters in the entertainment industry - the mother sometimes becomes jealous and threatened by her daughter's youth (actresses of the time often lied about their date of birth and sometimes made their daughters dress younger than their ages in order to make themselves appear younger). I do think there is some truth in the view that Joan may indeed have had some type of mental illness and alcohol problem. There will probably always be unanswered questions and things that never will be public knowledge.

Read the book, and draw your own conclusions.

Why is it that while many people believe children of abuse need to stop blaming their parents for their resulting difficulties, the very same people will then go on to point out what a hard time these parents had at the hands of THEIR parents? Is this not just a little contradictory? Yes, Joan Crawford would undoubtedly have come from a dysfunctional household, but so did Christina...yet she didn't turn into an abusing parent who terrorised her children.

This book may not have done a thorough inspection and interpretation of Joan Crawford's life, but this was not its purpose. It does do this of Christina's life, about whom after all this book is about. Christina is not a disinterested objective observer, she understandably has emotions in response to the treatment she received at the hands of her mother, and this is what she writes about. GFT, please, if you want to pass judgment on someone in whose shoes you haven't walked, at least get their name right.

This book is important in exploding not only Hollywood myths, but the ultimate myth that mothers would never treat their children in such a way. There are many non Hollywood mothers who do the same, under the guise of "discipline". And many siblings will have vastly different experiences within the same household. Ultimately it seems Christina has disgruntled many readers because she hasn't included a happy ending.

While this book is certainly an interesting read and I suspect that there is basis for Christina Crawford's claims of child abuse, I'm not 100% sure that Joan Crawford's behavior would have been considered full out child abuse during the time it occurred. As a baby boomer, I remember the discipline in my home and the homes of friends. In the glorious '50's, temporal punishment was often considered quite acceptable. So I can't say that I really view this tome as an indictment against child abuse per se. My advice is that if you are looking for a classical case study of child abuse, SKIP THIS BOOK. However, if it is your intention to read about the complexities involved in grabbing the proverbial gold ring and then losing it, THIS BOOK IS A MUST READ.
What is interesting about this book are the ups and downs of Joan Crawford's career and her tenacious and single minded efforts to revive it during the slumps and maintain it during the high points. Her unconventional take on morality amd social propriety make me wonder if Joan was really acting during some of her more manic roles or if art was simply imitating life. Even winning an Academy Award as that mother of all mothers Mildred Pierce proved to be a temporary bandaid while she imitated her fantasy life as a mother. Later she was dealing with poor roles, and was relegated to parts which related to her own mid-life crises.
Aside from the legendary 'no wire hangers' anecdote, this book reflects the sad state of affairs that was Joan Crawford's life as she began her ultimate descent from super stardom since most of the tales of serious abuse appear to have coincided with the most trying moments related to her career. A favorite anecdote in the book relates to J.C.'s assuming her daughter's saop opera role. As a pre-teen viewer I watched the great star and I was convinced she was clearly losing her grip on reality even back then. The backstory as to how she assumed that role is far more interesting than her bizarre performance.
When I started writing this review, I kept thinking that I was a tepid Crawford fan at best. That's false. I buy everything that is published about her, I have most of her movies, and I know her life history. The truth is that there are actresses I like better, but JC definitely was more interesting and complex in life than she ever was in the movies. This woman was a lot of things, but never boring. That's why I keep coming back.