Mommie Dearest (1981) User Reviews

It got a bad rap, and Dunaway was robbed

[Andrew_Eskridge · 8/10 · 29 September 2006]

I saw this movie the first night it opened in Las Vegas in 1981. The large theater was packed, SRO. What may come as a surprise today, the film was received seriously by the audience, who sat transfixed throughout. I don't recall inappropriate laughter (well, maybe a muted laugh or two when little Christina muttered "Jesus Christ" at the end of the wire hanger scene), and I remember hearing favorable comments from people around me, although many were horrified by the depictions of child abuse.

Unfortunately, the movie did not live up to the high expectations at the box office. After all, it was based on a best-selling book that sold 4 million copies.

A few weeks later, Mommie Dearest was re-released and was being advertised as a campfest in the vein of Rocky Horror, and patrons were urged to bring wire hangers to the theater. The studio turned against its own movie in order to milk more money out of it. That's a shame, because Faye Dunaway gave the performance of her life and deserved an Academy Award nomination, if not the award.

Words Can't Do Justice

[evanston_dad · 8/10 · 1 September 2005]

It seems almost pointless for me to add any comments here, since everyone else who's posted has done such a great job of summarizing this film's merits, but I can't resist. How do you rate a movie like this? On the one hand, it's one of the worst movies I've ever seen: completely lacking in coherence, shameful acting, writing so bad it seems to be making fun of itself. In fact, I'm still not convinced this movie isn't supposed to be a parody of Christina Crawford's book rather than a serious attempt to adapt it to the screen. On the other hand, it's such a rip-roarin' good time of a show that I'm tempted to give it 10 stars on the strength of its sheer entertainment value alone.

Faye Dunaway gives the most jaw-droppingly mesmerizing freak out ever captured on screen, whose bizarreness cannot even be topped by Halle Berry's Oscar acceptance speech. Dunaway must have realized early on that she was a rat in a sinking ship, but instead of deserting, she decides instead to devour the crew. I don't know if her performance comes anywhere close to capturing the real Joan Crawford, but if Crawford was even a tenth of a percent as loony as Dunaway portrays her here, I would have been high-tailing it to Canada if I were either of her children. The fabulous lines, many of which are quoted on this site, can't really be done justice when removed from the context in which they appear, and you really have to see the faces of the actors as they're delivering them to get the full effect. The wire hanger scene is of course a classic, but it's really the floor scrubbing scene immediately following, with Dunaway in kabuki makeup squatting on the floor like a Sumo wrestler, that remains more memorable. Watching Joanie jog is a sight to behold, especially when she starts talking to herself and scrunching her face up as if she's imitating Alvin or one of his chipmunks. There's the "I can handle the socks" moment, one of the most seductive moments (hee, hee) in film history, and of course the coup de grace comes when Joanie tackles Christina across the coffee table and begins banging her head into the floor like she's in a women's prison movie.

The editing in this film is atrocious. There's no sense of time; events follow each other in a loosely chronological fashion, but they don't make dramatic or narrative sense. Frank Perry, the director, must have been dozing off through much of this production; either that or his film crew carried out a mutiny, tied him up, threw him in a shed, and went ahead without him. But it seems churlish to criticize a film like this for its poor film making. It's like kicking a dead horse.

All I can say is, if you watch this movie with the right people in the right frame of mind (i.e. with alcohol), you will be howling. I watched this with a group in college, and we had to periodically pause the movie in order to allow everyone to recover before continuing. Thank you, Ms. Dunaway, for giving us "Mommie Dearest." The world will never be able to repay you for your kindness.

Grade: F or A+ (depending on your perspective and level of sobriety)

Fabulous performance by Dunaway

[davispittman · 8/10 · 26 August 2016]

Mommie Dearest is a film based on the book of the same title written by Joan Crawford's daughter, Christina Crawford. This film and the book it is based off of tells the story of how Joan Crawford behaved behind closed doors with her children, how she abused them, had crazy/wild outbursts, which sometimes turned violent. In my honest opinion, mommie dearest is very well acted, Faye Dunaway blew me away in her brutally honest portrayal of Hollywood legend Joan Crawford. In the beginning, we are introduced to ms Crawford as a young actress, at the height of her career, working at Metro Goldwyn Mayer, no children, and two divorces. She applies to an adoption agency, but her application is denied, so she goes through some loopholes, pulls some strings, and adopts her daughter, Christina, and then her son Christopher. Throughout the film Joan is depicted by Dunaway as a self obsessed, selfish, child abusing alcoholic that never really gives her love to her children. In many scenes, a teenage Chrisrina tries desperately to gain her mothers love, but she never really receives it. The chemistry between Joan and Christina is good here and the acting is very dramatic and very intense, as it should be. I don't exactly understand some of the negative reviews this movie has received both when it first came out and over the years. I think mommie dearest is a well made and well acted film telling the very sad true story of actress Joan Crawford and her private life and strained relationships with her children with with whom she woefully mistreated. 8/10 for mommie dearest.

Woman on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown

[TJBNYC · 8 August 2001]

There is no doubt that Christina Crawford's scathing 1978 memoirs did much initial harm to her late mother's reputation. The subsequent 1981 film has eclipsed even the bestselling book to become the standard by which the real-life Joan is judged. However, I'm inclined to believe that those who dismiss Joan today as a psychotic harpy and nothing more never even saw the film version of "Mommie Dearest," and only heard secondhand reports of the most infamous scene ("No...wire...hangers!").

Most tellingly, Christina Crawford reportedly hated the film version of her book, and wailed upon seeing it, "They turned it into a Joan Crawford movie!" She's right. With the exception of the two most graphic scenes ("No wire hangers" and the choking scene), Joan's "abuse" of Christina is not all that much different from what passed as "discipline" in those days--just ask your parents or grandparents--and despite Faye Dunaway's full-throttle acting, Joan always somehow comes off in a strangely sympathetic light.

What we see is an insecure woman fighting for survival in an age-obsessed, male-dominated industry. Such scenes as Joan's heartless dismissal from MGM invite sympathy; while her snarling, veritable takeover of Pepsi Co. elicts cheers for her ballsiness and strength. Christina, on the other hand, is invariably depicted as either gratingly whiny or cardboard stiff. It's difficult to empathize with such an annoying character.

"Mommie Dearest"'s grandest artistic achievement is through the impeccable art direction, which truly makes the audience believe they are watching a film unfold in the 1940's and 1950's. Its lasting legacy, however, is Faye Dunaway's career-ending performance, which, depending on your point of view, is either jaw-droppingly awful or unbelievably brilliant.

Dunaway's acting "choices" are nothing if not idiosyncratic: clutching her bosom frantically as she cries, "You...deliberately...embarass me in front of a REPORTER!"; copying the real-life Crawford's facial expressions from the horror flick "Strait-Jacket" in the axe-wielding scene; and, most famously, her odd, cross-eyed pose that she strikes not once, or twice, but three times: holding baby Christina on the staircase, rubbing moisturizer on her elbows after hiding Christina's dolls, and following her wire hanger/cleansing powder attack.

It is Dunaway's nostril-flaring, hair-pulling, bosom-clutching style that really sends this film into the camp stratosphere. On paper, such scenes as Joan swatting Christina on the butt for defying her orders, or Joan insisting that Christina finish her rare steak, would seem bland. In Dunaway's hands, they become something else altogether!

Actually, Christina Crawford should thank Faye Dunaway; if not for her crazed, unforgettable portrayal, "Mommie Dearest" would have been just another trashy Hollywood memoir that eventually would've been forgotten (does anyone really care about B.D. Hyman's book about Bette Davis anymore?). And a film version without Dunaway would've been rightfully panned, forgotten, and relegated to cut-out bins at your local video emporium. Instead, Faye Dunaway has ensured its place in film immortality. It still stands alone among camp classics, but perhaps some re-evaluation of it (and of Joan Crawford herself) is due.

A camp classic that is better than its reputation

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 12 November 2017]

If anybody in the universe has not seen or heard of this film, this is the filmed version of Christina Crawford's tell all book of the same name, in which her adopted mother Joan Crawford is shown as an unhinged person who really had no business raising a child - she actually adopted four, including Christina. Did she have lots of lovers? Did she overspend and drink herself into a drunken stupor occasionally, especially in the waning days of her career as she lost her looks? Did she probably have more affection for Pepsi CEO Alfred Steele in her 50s than any of her many lovers in her youth and STILL spend him into an early grave anyways? Probably yes to all of these.

She also was the driven star, giving her career her all, and the proof is in the pudding for she was devoted to her fans, answering their mail personally, and in the fact that she kept a youthful figure way into her 50s. But back to the movie. So she was bound to be driven in her raising of children. Maybe she did make a point - like in the swimming scene - to point out that it was true Christina could never beat her because she would always be bigger and stronger and that life is just unfair. After all Joan grew up poor and had to get everything she got the hard way. What we don't know is if this manic depressive person who treats her daughter according to her mood was the real Joan or the revenge of a disinherited child via accusations in which the accused was as helpless to fight back after death as Christina would have been as a child at Joan's mercy.

At the end of the film, and in the book, Christina Crawford openly lays out the motive for her negative portrayal of her mother - she was completely disinherited along with adopted brother Christopher, even though the film portrays Joan and Christina as having an uneasy truce once Christina reached adulthood and was out of the grasp of her mother's potential for physical abuse. Thus her total shock at being disinherited, and especially in the fact that no real reason was given by Joan in her will.

Now, back to the actual film. I think Faye Dunaway did a fine job of portraying the two faced monster Christina talked about in her book. Whether or not that was the real Joan Crawford. However, Dunaway looks so much like Joan Crawford that it is uncanny. Likewise, Diana Scarwid is excellent as the teenage/adult Christina. Cautious around her mother given her behavior when she was a child, trying to eke out a living as an actress once she is an adult, accepting when Joan won't give her a dime in assistance. Steve Forrest is quite good as Joan's lover, attorney Greg Savitt, whom she cuts out of her life - and her photographs - after he lays out some hard truths to her.

The cinematography and art design are top notch. It nails the 40s and 50s look and feel of the fashions, automobiles, and furnishings of the time. I'd say give it a try. The over the top parts are really in the first half, as Christina is growing up. The second half is more low key, humanizing Joan just a bit to where you almost feel sorry for her. In the words of John Waters, in reference to the wire hangers scene, "If you don't like this scene you should never watch movies." For sure, you will not be bored.

Just an aside - Christina isn't the only child of old Hollywood to have mommy issues and to have them end up in print. Somebody of completely different temperament and reputation in life - Jack Benny - wrote an incomplete autobiography due to his sudden death from pancreatic cancer in 1974. It was published with the help of the memoirs of his daughter - also an adopted only child. Although she says largely good things about her dad, she really lays into her mother, Mary Livingston. An interesting parallel.

"Why can't you treat me like I would be treated by any stranger on the street?"

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 23 February 2001]

"Because I am NOT one of your FANS!"

Simply said, this is superb trash. Enjoyable b.s. Faye Dunaway lobbied hard for the role of Joan Crawford (Christina Crawford wanted Anne Bancroft) and she admirably sinks into the part with relish. I loved the opening montage of "Joan" preparing for her day early in the morning: scrubbing her hands and nails, numbing her face in ice cubes, leafing through a script in her car, getting made-up, and then whirling around in her chair and letting loose with a breathy, "Let's go!"... Sadly, Frank Perry's direction is awkward and unsure, cutting off some sequences before they're allowed to build and letting other scenes ramble on. The movie doesn't do justice to the riveting book by Joan's adopted daughter Christina, committing to film the book's highlights, the talked-about bits where Crawford freaked out, but skimping on the details. We learn absolutely nothing about Christina's many tormented years in an L.A. Catholic Boarding School (we see her check in and we see her check out). Joan's marriage to Pepsi czar Alfred Steele and her three other adopted kids are also given the short shrift. What we do get with "Mommie Dearest" is pure, unadulterated Faye. She acts up a storm and revels in these primal opportunities. It's one of the highlights of her spotty career. **1/2 from ****

Unbelievable how misunderstood this film seems to have been.

[dron8587 · 10/10 · 16 March 2014]

One of my favorite movies of all time. This film is in no way a comedy, nor "cult," nor overacted, nor deserving of any Razzies or any other such nonsense. Okay, I did think the young Christina Crawford was a little over the top, but I can completely believe that any daughter of a glamorous and pampered movie star would behave in much the same way. Faye Dunaway's performance is fearless, brutal, complex, even vulnerable, and absolutely unforgettable. I found her character's behaviors incredibly disturbing to watch, and incredibly cathartic, because I was raised a mother who Dunaway's character reminds me of often in this film. Even though most people apparently though the wire hanger scene was ridiculous, to me it rang absolutely true.

I honestly had no idea the film was so poorly received when it came out; I was shocked. I love this movie, and it's one of those films I can watch again every few months. I would ask the critics who poke fun at the film to go back and watch "Sunset Boulevard" again, a brilliant movie I've never heard a bad word about, go and revisit Norma Desmond and all of her vanity and psychosis, so haunting and unforgettable, and tell me again if Faye Dunaway's performance is over-acted.

Don't mess with Joan Crawford, fellas. This ain't her first time at the rodeo. This movie is the mother of all good celebrity tell all stories

[ironhorse_iv · 7/10 · 20 May 2014]

In 1978, Christina Crawford, the daughter of famous movie star Joan Crawford, wrote and shocked the world with the first tell-all celebrity memoir. In the book, 'Mommie Dearest", she shine light into the hidden life of her mother, claiming Joan Crawford was a cruel, abusive alcoholic. The book was Number 1 New York Times bestseller list for 42 weeks. So, there was no surprise that a movie would be made from that source material. Directed by Frank Perry, the movie had a number of over the top moments. Due to that reason, a lot of people couldn't take this film as a serious bio. Some people think that Faye Dunaway who played Joan Crawford, in the film, act too hammy like an evil cartoony character. I believe Faye Dunaway acting in this movie is amazing. She really show the larger than life sadistic tones well. You cannot feel bit scare or disturb during the infamous wire-hanger or the pruning the garden scenes. Honestly, I don't know how some people can feel that those scenes are funny. It's clearly child abuse. While, the movie isn't as brutal or dark as a lot of newer movies with similar plots. Those scenes are not at all, meant to be funny to watch. You kinda feel bad for any child, going through that. Many assume Dunaway's performance is campy, but I will defend it, because the drunk abusive people, I know, have acted that way in reality. Not to mention how over the top the real life Joan Crawford was in on screen and off screen. After all, she did had a very public feud with another actress, Bette Davis. I kinda wish the movie mention that. However, what they did feature, made Joan a rather pathetic, sad figure who get into fights with people, way too much. It is sadder still however, that she chose to force her anger of that upon a helpless child who couldn't defend herself. Young Christina (Mara Hobel) might not be truly innocent. She does get a bit annoying, and whining at times. Indeed, it's hard to feel too bad for her, when she's living in a pretty spoil rich life during her childhood, but in no way deserve such abuse from any parent. When, she grow up, (played as an adult by Diana Scarwid), she does become a bit of a moocher and smartass due to the years of abuse. Some people question if Christina was actually abused. Defenders of Joan Crawford had argued that Joan's strictness toward her children was grossly overblown by Christina as Joan was only following the stern disciplinarian that was the standards of the era. After all, most of the movie has Joan only spanking her child. While, hitting your child isn't a good idea, people still view spanking as an alright parental discipline. Supposedly, her brother Christopher and the twins that Joan later adopted in which the film forgot to mention, had a much better relationship with their mother. It's hard to believe that, considering that Joan indeed strap Christopher down to his bed to prevent him from masturbating, but it came with the times. Christopher does defend Christina's claims, but the later twins do not. Indeed, being a strict parent and wanting the best for your children does not make you an abusive parent. Was young Christina just a demanding, spoil brat? Was Adult Christina just a bitter young woman trying to make money off her dead mother? Some people have forward to say they did witness some abuse by Joan, but for the most part, it's up to the viewer. Still, you felt sympathy for Joan Crawford whom all she wants is a perfect life. It's just that Joan tend to get caught up in her will power, that she feel disappointed in people who wouldn't live up to her demand perfection. Joan suffered greatly from the sudden rise from rags to riches, causing her to project all of her issues with being poor into her obsessive cleaning and going postal on Christina when she used poor people clothing hangers or using her ultra-expensive make-up. Some people misinterpreted Joan's freak-out over the wire hangers for her having had a wire hanger abortion in the past and not wanting to be reminded of it. She tend to alienation a lot of people, ranging from companies like Pepsi & MGM Grand, to her series of fail relationships like Greg Savitt (Steve Forrest). In the movie, Greg is a combination of the various husbands and lovers Joan Crawford had, while the housekeeper is meant to represent several employees in Joan's house. In the film, Joan Crawford does have some very affectionate, supportive, doting motherhood trying scenes. After all, the movie doesn't make her look all bad. Still, years after Mommie Dearest came out. Joan Crawford's reputation took a battering so ferocious that it has never fully recovered. Go see the movie, it's up to you, if the events being shown are fact or fiction.

Do people forget this is about abused children??

[pnwgirl · 8/10 · 25 September 2023]

I keep hearing how this was received as a comedy and the acting was over the top. Maybe so, I won't debate that. But this movie absolute reality if you are looking at it to the lens of an emotionally abused child. I'm a child of a mother who was very much like this, as Joan Crawford was depicted on screen. In this movie, I can assure you none of her meltdowns are over the top. Holding her children responsible for her anger is not funny. Making everyone around you have to deal with your emotional meltdowns is not funny. The movie is telling a story of a real person, CHRISTINA. The CHILD. The other adults in the room don't appreciate her emotional immaturity either, but they do what most adults do is uncomfortably bear it . She's so oblivious and inside her own stuff she can't see it. I thought they did a perfect job of depicting that type of depicting an abuser. The movie showed repeated emotional abuse and over control. I don't find any of it funny. I wonder how funny the audience would find it if they were the small child being screamed at and unable to leave their home? That's super funny, huh? Nope. Not really.

One of the saddest stories I've ever seen.

[ekontrovitz · 7/10 · 13 January 2021]

Having read most of the reviews I really expected some terribly acted, campy cult flick. What I got is one of the saddest movies I've ever seen. I've never been a fan of Joan Crawford. Just about the only movie of hers I've ever liked was Mildred Pierce. I've always gotten a bad vibe from her. She seemed hard and cold. This movie just justified my feeling.

I remember the publicity when the book and movie came out. I didn't read the book and didn't watch the movie until today. It is gut wrenching. The story is so well known I don't have to go over it. The is as much Joan's story as it is Christina's and each one is flawed. But Joan was an adult her mental and physical cruelty to Christina is inexcusable. Fay Dunaway did a really wonderful job. Why this ruined her career is beyond me. Christina is more complex as a character and both actresses did a fine job. Neither character is portrayed as blameless and that is why the story is so complex. They are both so very flawed.

The end is just another kick in the gut, the final cruelty in a lifetime of cruelties, and the look in Christina's eyes as the camera fades out is chilling. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would laugh at anything in this movie or call it campy. I have no idea why Ms. Dunaway refuses to talk about it, or why it ruined her career. She did a helluva job.

This is hard to watch but is worth the time.

Mommie Deadly: An Alternate Reality In A Galaxy Far, Far Away

[gftbiloxi · 5/10 · 11 June 2007]

Given the film's current cult movie status one is tempted to believe the 1981 MOMMIE DEAREST was a critical debacle and a box office fiasco. That is not really the case. It is true that critics generally considered the film a failure, but many of them admired certain elements of it; it is also true that box office fell below expectations, but it was not a box office disaster in the same sense as the 1980 HEAVEN'S GATE or the 1981 INCHON.

It is also true, however, that audiences howled with laughter at the film when it debuted, and although leading lady Faye Dunaway received a number of critical accolades for her performance as Joan Crawford, she also received an equal number of devastating reviews--and it was these that caught the spotlight. It was a humiliating experience for an actress particularly noted for her perfectionism, and rumor has it that Dunaway feels the film ended her career as a major film star. Whatever the case, Dunaway quickly developed a strategic silence about the film that she has maintained for some two decades.

Seen today, it is easy to identify the core problems of the film. The most obvious is the script, which is extremely inconsistent in quality and yet perversely consistent in a style that can only be described as soap opera hot-house to the nth degree. This is particularly true of the dialogue assigned to Dunaway. Infamous lines such as "No More Wire Hangers Ever," "Tina! Bring Me The Axe," and "I'm Not Mad At You, I'm Mad At The Dirt" have become a staple of every drag queen from Maine to California.

But the ultimate disaster here is director Frank Perry. Joan Crawford was a larger-than-life personality; the role is written to reflect this; Dunaway plays the role as it was written. But it would seem Perry sought to heighten the effect: the rest of the cast is extremely, extremely restrained. This must have seemed like a good idea in theory, but it proves a terrible mistake in actual fact. No matter what Dunaway does with it, she can NEVER seem less than wildly overwrought in comparison to the rest of the cast, and the effect is very peculiar indeed.

The designs and the cinematography also clash in an incredibly bizarre way. There is absolutely no doubt that everything about the film is exactingly accurate: that is indeed the look of the period, right down to the very last detail. But the photography is extremely flat, and you are constantly aware that the sets are indeed movie sets, the costumes are movie costumes, and so on. Yes, it is all beautifully rendered, but you can't buy into it as anything real.

The Hollywood Royalty Edition DVD edition offers a good but by no means flawless print of the film and several bonuses. It is unfortunate that they are not particularly illuminating. While director John Water's commentary is enjoyable, he approaches the film only as a fan. Even so, Water does make several telling points: many of the things that Crawford does which seem so odd (bathing the face in ice, for example) are actually commonplace cosmetic necessities for movie stars; many of the things the film treats as abuse were, although carried to wild extremes in the story, typical of child-rearing practices of the 1940s and 1950s.

There are also three short documentaries featuring a number of cast members, most notably Diana Scarwid; these are actually entertaining for the fact that those who appear still seem to regard the film as "a good movie." The only really significant interview is with Lypsinka, an artist who has driven Crawford impersonations to the level of wicked satire and high art, and who offers a number of interesting personal insights into the iconography involved.

Like the film itself, the bonus package has two great failures. The first is that Faye Dunaway does not appear in interview or commentary; it would be very interesting to have her own take on the film, its failures, and its afterlife. Given her sentiment, it is an understandable non-involvement; less understandable, however, that there is not so much as a potted biography of the actress--or indeed of any member of the cast, for there are no written notes of any kind.

The second great failure of the bonus package is that it contains no factual information on either Joan or Christina Crawford. There is no indication here that those who knew both women are sharply divided over the accuracy of the portraits both here and in the book by Christina Crawford from which the film is drawn. A number of people, including actresses Betty Hutton and June Allyson, supported Christina Crawford's accounts, but an equal number, including actress Myrna Loy and Christina's younger siblings, flatly stated that Christina's accusations were largely fictitious.

When all is said and done, and in spite of performances and moments that are actually extremely good in isolation, MOMMIE DEAREST is a film that falls under the "so bad it's good" category of cult films. While I am taken aback by the bizarre nature of the movie, I personally find the amusement involved almost as dark as the movie's plot; it is not among my cult film favorites. Even so, I can understand the appeal it has for others, and I give it five stars on that basis.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Why would Faye deny this movie so? She's great.

[alex54ruiz · 8/10 · 25 January 2011]

Alright, this might not be too obscure of a movie but when it came out it wasn't well received and pretty much ignored causing it to have a huge cult following. The acting by Dunaway as Joan Crawford is so exaggerated that it seems unbelievable that it's a biographical tale. More than Crawford's story as an actress, this movie deals with the painful, abusive, and traumatic upbringing of her daughter Christina (she wrote the book that prompted the making of this movie). Some say Christina made a lot of it up to destroy her mother's reputation but others say it might be quite accurate. Either way, Dunaway's performance as the Screen Queen is uncanny. She embodies every quality of Crawford and watching the movie you forget that it's not really Joan but Faye in the role. Sure, this movie won Razzie Awards and the producers even tried to capitalize with its failure by billing it "The worst mother of them all." Dunaway even goes as far as telling interviewers beforehand that she will not talk about this movie. One can understand her seeing that she was campaigning for an Oscar nod and instead won the Razzie for worst actress but none of that matters because this movie is now seen as a great tragedy and you'll definitely get lost in the story wondering if everything is true. Oh, and the scenes with Faye Dunaway and Mara Hobel, who plays young Christina Crawford, are amazing. It's no wonder she won the Young Artist Award. Seriously, watch it. The "No more wire hangers" scene alone is enough to watch this great film.

A triumphant performance in a film that fails on almost every other level

[YellowManReanimated · 7/10 · 12 June 2022]

Mommie Dearest is the cinematic retelling of Christine Crawford's excoriating autobiography in which she details the psychological and physical abuse she suffered from her mother, legendary Hollywood actress, Joan Crawford. In the film, Joan is played by Faye Dunaway, a role which is widely considered to have derailed her own Hollywood career. Although the film is supposedly based on Christine's story, its centrepiece is very much Joan herself. We witness her romantic dalliances, her battles to remain relevant in the film industry and, most memorably, her fits of ferocious insanity and cold manipulation towards her tormented adopted daughter, Christine (played by both Diana Scarwid and Mara Hobel). This involves seismic freakouts over the use of wire hangers, beatings, an attempt to choke an adolescent Christine to death over a perceived public embarrassment, and continual efforts at the forced feeding of rare meat. All the while, Christine is obligated to refer to her mother as "Mommie Dearest".

As a film which was apparently intended to be a hard-hitting investigation of the horrors of child abuse, this movie has a unique and surprising legacy. It is not recognised critically as a film of value; however, its cultural impact has been significant, particularly for those old enough to remember the controversy surrounding the film's release. As a result, discussions over the film tend to centre around the validity and ethics of its vicious portrayal of a Hollywood icon. Fascinatingly, given its subject matter, the movie has also become a camp classic in the mold of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, where audiences will attend in drag and chant key lines from the film in unison followed by unanimous, raucous laughter. Who ever knew that a film that exposed a celebrated figure as being a child-abuser could be such a hoot...

When it comes to analysing the reasons for the above reception, we could do worse than by turning our attention to the first scene. The main character is filmed from behind as she meticulously bathes her face in a bucket of cold ice before rubbing it with a concoction of steaming liquid potions. The camera is focused on filming her from behind and it only shows her from the neck down. The subject is thus eeriely depersonalised in a way which suggests horror undertones. Now this was no doubt intended to show the extreme dedication and the desperation of Joan's attempt to control every aspect about her, especially her looks, but the film-makers only seem to have one approach to their subject: exaggeration.

This approach continues for the rest of the film as we are exposed to a portrayal that is so dramatic, so manipulative, so unhinged that the character fully enters into the territory of horror villain. Joan is shown in scene after scene screaming, howling, beating, chopping, choking. She is depicted as a raging, spit-flecked psychopath, able to be triggered at the slightest perceived provocation: "NO WIRE HANGERS!" One particular scene shows her as capable of murder as poor Christine's life is almost choked into non-existence as a response to a fairly mild moment of defiance. In the words of the angelic looking child Christine, "For Christ's sake."

Due to such unrelenting exaggeration, the film is not centrally a dramatic portrayal of child abuse or any other social subject. It is, rather, both an intensely focused character study and an exploitationist piece of domestically-situated horror. Despite the views of many, I would argue that this is not due to Faye Dunaway's performance per se, but the way in which her performance is contextualised. When you see the first of Joan's dramatic explosions, it is pretty shocking. Joan is played as relatively composed during the film's initial scenes and the child Christine is essentially cuteness and vulnerability personified. Seeing Joan act so cruelly towards her, therefore, initially has the desired effect. The problem is that the entire focus of the film very quickly shifts to a presentation of undiluted rage and insanity, with the rest of the movie lifelessly punctuating the next histrionic detonation. No craft, ambition or skill is shown by anyone behind the camera in channelling what is, in my view, an exceptional central performance into a fully-developed and insightful narrative experience. After all, is Dunaway's performance, from an acting perspective, any more over-the-top than Robert De Niro's in Raging Bull (note the title here) or Gena Rowlands' in A Woman Under the Influence, or Daniel Day Lewis' in There Will Be Blood? Three cinematic performances that demonstrate unmistakable greatness. I would say no. The difference is that De Niro, Rowlands and Day Lewis' performances exist in a wider narrative which is rich, engaging and is able to ground the respective portrayals. Some people are psychotically unhinged, and Joan was played that way here. From a dramatic perspective, there is nothing wrong with that but the film needs to provide a context in which the performance can be meaningfully understood. If the entire rhythm and pulse of the film is based around a performance that is so intense, you risk going from dramatic character study to camp, scenery-chewing, unintentional laugh-fest.

However, as an appreciator of great acting performances, I can not allow Dunaway's efforts to go unnoticed here. She does not over-act, it is the films architecture which under-delivers. This is, actually, a remarkable feat of acting, and it's a great shame that it is now so often seen as hammy to the point of hilarity. Let's bear in mind, De Niro had Scorcese, Rowlands had Cassavetes and Day Lewis had PT Anderson. Who did Dunaway get? Frank Perry.

As I have no knowledge of Joan Crawford personally, I'll make no comment on the veracity of Dunaway's performance, although, artistically, I'm not sure that matters. I will say, though, that it is clear Dunaway reaches deep within herself to deliver something quite special here. She is intense as hell and completely committed to the madness, insecurity and deep sadness that must motivate the actions and reactions of someone as disturbing as the character we see onscreen. Dunaway does not strike any false notes, her conception is fully realised and has a depth and texture that is there to be felt by those who are able to appreciate it. As a showcase of the immense craft of one of the greatest cinematic actresses of all time, this film is actually a triumph. The fact is; however, Dunaway's performance would have been worthy of one of cinema's greatest dramatic tragedies. Instead it has been doomed to be unappreciated, or, perhaps even worse, contemptuously appreciated, in a film that is widely regarded as a farce.

7/10 (And all 7 of those points belong to Faye)

There is another Joan in town

[ggallegosgroupuk · 4/10 · 22 April 2017]

Wow! Have you seen Feud? Where Jessica Lange plays Joan Crawford and gives her all the humanity in all its infuriating contradictions. It made me see What Ever Happened To Baby Jane - it was like watching it for the first time, after "Feud" - and now "Mommie Dearest" - Oh dear, Oh dear - It's not that Faye Dunaway is not very entertaining, she is, but her Joan is a one note, maybe one note and a half, a caricature trying to be taken seriously. Was that the intention or was it an accident? Faye Dunaway, in a lengthy interview/tribute with Ben Mankiewicz at the TCM Film Festival, didn't mention Mommie Dearest once, nor Mr. Mankiewicz asked her about it. Was it a demand from the star, not to touch the subject? - That sounds so Crawford. Mommie Dearest, the film is like an amateur movie made by professionals. On the other hand I recommend you to check Jessica Lange's Joan Crawford in "Feud"

Drama? Maybe... The world's funniest comedy? Yep!

[Poseidon-3 · 17 April 2002]

Oh Lord, Here it comes..... This is the big one. Never before has there been (and probably never will there be again) a camp monstrosity as huge as this. An over-the-top "true story" about Christina Crawford being adopted, raised and tormented by the legendary film star Joan Crawford, the film is an amazing exercise in excess. Virtually every line in the film is a quotable hoot (and legions of people can almost recite the script!) It is an overabundance of comedic riches. It's almost impossible to pick a favorite scene. First, though it is likely that certain aspects of this film have a seed of truth, there is no way that this is an authentic film biography.......NO WAY. So, while a few incidents are loosely derived from fact, most of it is guilt-free hilarity. Christina's book was striking, but contained nothing as wild and vicious as this film presents. And it's entirely probable that some of Christina's memories were exaggerated by childhood perspective (although there's no denying that her mother was an obsessive, neurotic, steamroller of a woman.) Even Tina explained, in her book, certain aspects of the bad behavior which shed some light on Joan's actions. None of that is presented here. For example, the infamous rare meat scene...the film doesn't disclose that Joan paid high black market prices for the beef (during wartime rationing) and was appalled that Tina turned her nose up at it and wasted it. Also, the violent night raid scene is actually a compilation of two different occasions, etc.... The film tries to maximize and sensationalize everything and over-do everything to the point where it turns comic. Dunaway (who has, herself, described her mesmerizing and ferocious performance as "Kabuki") is beyond fascinating to watch. She imbues the role with an intense, stunning magnetism which blows everyone else off the screen. It's amazing that the sets were left intact! Despite an explosive, unforgettable performance, Faye actually looks almost nothing like the real Joan Crawford. Her eyes are not nearly large enough and nothing is done to make them appear so, her eyebrows are ridiculous, her chest is not as pronounced as Joan made hers and her hair is almost never the way the real Joan wore it! And both women have HIGHLY unique voices, but which are not alike at all. Still, she radiates all the necessary star quality for the role. Anne Bancroft would have LOOKED the part more, but who knows what the film would have been like? Better? Duller? It certainly could not have been wilder! Highlights of the Faye Dunaway circus act include: the legendary cold cream-faced night raid with the iconic screech, "No Wire Hangers!", her tirade with the scissors when she catches Tina mocking her, her showdown with the boarding school principal, the resultant wrestling match with Tina back home and the magnificent face-off with the Pepsi Board of Directors. It would be impossible to list the many quotes which make this film required viewing (only the surface has been scratched in the Memorable Quotes section.) "I fought worse monsters than you for years in Hollywood. I know how to win the hard way" immediately followed by "Don't F*CK with me fellas!! This ain't my first time at the rodeo", isn't a bad start. Too hilarious! Young Hobel really holds her own as Tina and though Scarwid is less successful as grown Tina, she still gets in a few good licks. In any case, the film has provided untold hours of enjoyment and allowed for some instant bonding whenever people start spouting off the hilarious lines. WHEN is someone going to adapt this into a stage show?!

Nowhere near as bad as its detractors make out

[JamesHitchcock · 6/10 · 3 July 2013]

There are cult movies and then there are cult movies. Some films to which this term has been applied are indeed unjustly neglected masterpieces. Others are rubbish, justly neglected by all except their devotees who loudly maintain that the critics and the public are ignorant Philistines who do not recognise a masterpiece when they see one. "Mommie Dearest", however, is the sort of cult movie that even its cultists do not claim as a masterpiece. It has acquired the reputation of a "guilty pleasure", an expression which can generally be translated as "the sort of film which nobody really likes but which certain people enjoy watching in order to snigger at how bad it is".

The film seems to have started acquiring its dubious reputation almost as soon as it was released in 1981. The critics were less than enthusiastic- Roger Ebert wrote "I can't imagine who would want to subject themselves to this movie". It performed relatively well at the box-office, but that might have been due to the decision by Paramount, realising that they had a potential turkey on their hands, to change their marketing strategy halfway though its run, advertising it as an over-the-top camp comedy. It received five "Razzie" awards, including Worst Picture, Worst Screenplay, and Worst Actress (a tie) for Faye Dunaway. Nine years later it achieved further infamy when the organisers of the Razzies voted it "Worst Picture of the Decade".

I think that the main problem is that the film relies on one single, highly partisan, source, never a good way to produce a biography, whether written or filmed. A year after Joan Crawford died in 1977 her adopted daughter Christina published her memoir "Mommie Dearest" which painted Joan as a cruel and abusive mother with an uncontrollable temper. Christina's allegations unleashed a heated controversy, in which many leading Hollywood figures took part, and many of Joan's friends and colleagues came forward to defend her reputation, as did her first husband Douglas Fairbanks junior and Christina's adoptive sisters Cynthia and Catherine. Some, however, supported Christina, including Crawford's old enemy Bette Davis. The film adaptation, which followed three years later, was bound to be equally controversial

Because of its reliance on a single source, the film is not, and does not aim to be, a comprehensive biography of Joan Crawford. It does not deal at all with Crawford's life before she adopted Christina in 1939. Even after that date there are some curious omissions. No mention is made of Joan's brief marriage in the forties to actor Philip Terry, and Cynthia and Catherine are omitted altogether, doubtless because they refused to support their sister's claims. Her brother Christopher, however, who did support her, does appear. Some of Christina's allegations are referred to, others are not. There is plenty in the film about Joan's alleged cruelty, violent temper and alcoholism, and her various male lovers are much in evidence, but the film is silent on her supposed bisexuality, which Christina also mentioned in her book. Some of the women with whom Joan supposedly enjoyed lesbian affairs were still alive in 1981, and the studio doubtless did not want to risk a libel suit.

In the 1970s Dunaway was one of Hollywood's leading stars, but her career went into something of a decline in the eighties, and some have placed the blame on the poor reception given to this film. She did, however, make a number of poor career choices during this decade, and some of her films, such as "The Wicked Lady" and "Supergirl", were considerably worse than this one. In fact, her performance here is not particularly bad, and I cannot see what she did to earn that Razzie award. To bracket it together with Bo Derek's appalling contribution in "Tarzan of the Apes" (the two tied for "Worst Actress") was an insult she did not deserve. Certainly, her performance is often hysterical and over-the-top, particularly during the notorious "no wire coat-hangers" scene, but if Christina Crawford is to be believed her adoptive mother was a hysterical, over-the-top sort of person, so the role could not really have been played in any other way.

The child actress Mara Hobel is enchanting as the young Christina, but one person who did deserve her Razzie was Diana Scarwid for "Worst Supporting Actress" as the adult Christina. Scarwid, 26 at the time, was required to portray Christina from her early teens to her late thirties, and makes a singularly unconvincing teenager, although she is pretty wooden even in the later scenes. None of the other actors really stand out, although at least they do not stand out for the wrong reasons.

Overall, I did not find "Mommie Dearest" to be anywhere near as bad as its detractors have made out. Its factual accuracy has been challenged, but a controversial film is not automatically a bad one. It is notable that the film was made by Paramount, the only major studio for which Crawford never worked. (The likes of MGM and Warner Bros doubtless owed her too much loyalty to get involved). It seems to me quite possible that the film's contemporary unpopularity may have been, at least in part, due as much to Hollywood's distaste for Christina's allegations as to any lack of talent on the part of the film-makers and actors involved. 6/10

Mommy Dearest Does Entertain if You Let It

[daoldiges · 7/10 · 14 November 2022]

Mommie Dearest made a lot of waves during its original release, people seemed to either love it or hate it. After finally seeing it I will just day that I found it entertaining. Dunaway's resemblance to Crawford is uncanny, really. As for Dunaway's actual performance, it is quite good and I think she was worthy of a bit more positive recognition that she received. The production values of the film are very high and overall well done. Then there's the story: we have no way of knowing if Crawford is depicted accurately or not, but we do know that is was based on the book of the same name by Crawford's daughter, so the viewer should accept that it was based on that source material prior to viewing the film and level any issues with accuracy against the book, not the film. If you're curious about Mommie Dearest check it out and decide for yourself.

Must see something no one else can

[stebird · 10/10 · 23 January 2018]

Despite "Mommie Dearest" being around for nearly a decade before I was born, I have only just now got round to watching it, and despite all the negativity surrounding the film, the leading lady Faye Dunaway disowning herself from the film, the film picking up the main prize at the Golden Raspberry awards, I actually found it to be quite charming.

Indeed I must see something no one else can, as I thought "Mommie Dearest" was an awesome, powerfully moving retelling of the life of Joan Crawford and the upbringing of her two adopted children.

Before watching this film, I knew very little about Joan Crawford, now I feel I've been inspired to go out and watch as many of her films as I can, it's gripped me like not many films can.

The way the hair and makeup department managed to get Dunaway to look like Crawford as well as they did is pretty impressive, top marks for them..., and despite not actually being there to see whether the film and the sets are faithful to real life, it really does look legit, amazing-amazing truly.

The acting is dazzling and hits you where it counts, astounding display of emotion that runs deeply throughout the duration of the film and never lets go for a single heartbeat, it hooks you immediately and refuses to relinquish its powerful grasp.

I am shocked and appalled at how much bad press "Mommie Dearest" has received over the years, completely unjust and horrifically unfair, what do people really want huh? It's a good old film depicting the life and times of a good old actress, maybe the actress wasn't exactly good herself, but the film certainly is.

My advice is ignore the reviews, ignore the press, and just sit down and enjoy a very stylish and exciting film, people who moan about it don't know what they're missing, for shame.

Was She A Monster Or Wasn't She?

[Camelot_2000 · 7/10 · 7 April 2021]

That's the ultimate question posed here in this depiction of the dark side of Hollywood's Golden Age. I've viewed this quite a few times in the past few decades and every time, I find it riveting. The elegance and sophistication of being a squeaky clean movie star back then was perfectly highlighted as was the genuine feel of the era with those vintage cars and fashion styles that were featured.

I've always been a sucker for old Hollywood and the stories about the triumph it may sometimes bring or the downright disgrace it could ultimately lead to, but then there's this classic tale of Joan Crawford and the alleged abuse she inflicted on her daughter, Christina.

That's the ultimate downside of this perfectly well made film about classic Tinseltown. It's the focus on the abuse Christina received from this famous, but allegedly anguished vanity queen who adopted her. Joan is depicted as an insanely egotistical movie star with an equally insane drive to meet extreme perfection regarding a reputation and cleanliness. Posing for perfect pictures for the camera and fighting off any microbes of germs in her realm, is excellently portrayed by none other than Faye Dunaway.

There's a lot of stages Faye goes through in her depiction of Joan Crawford, from an elegant and charming movie star, to a downright mentally deranged beast who beats her daughter with a coat hanger because she wasn't hanging her clothes on the proper ones. That's quite a range right there.

I admit there's a lot of eccentricities and obsessively compulsive tendencies some people may carry as well as psychotic behavior, but this depiction is not without its controversies. Was Joan Crawford, the glamorous movie star of her day, a sick and twisted mother in her personal life?

Only Joan can tell. She wasn't around when these allegations came about. Child abuse is indeed a sickening and horrible thing, but there are always two sides to every story and Joan's is definitely not heard in this one sided portrayal of who she once was.

Bravo though to Faye Dunaway for giving a sincere, but sometimes emoting performance of this classic film star. She goes over the top which comes out comical at times, like when she replaces her twentysomething daughter in a 1960s soap opera after her daughter gets sick and is in the hospital. Joan took on the role even though she was middle-aged and had to look at cue cards for her lines while acting. That has major campy value right there.

This is an entertaining film, but only regarding it's classic Hollywood portrayal but, the rest is a sensationalized abuse-fest that even focuses on having the daughter eat extremely rare, bloody looking steak for dinner. If she didn't, she'd have it later for breakfast.

Joan is shown as an ultimate monster in this as well as her compulsion to fight off germs of any kind in her household, but the reason for those traits is never made known here. No cause is given for any deranged actions on her part and she's just portrayed as one ultimately mean woman. A riveting film, but not without the question: was it true or not? Only Joan can tell, but she's unable to defend herself regarding these allegations. It all came out only after she died.

Awarrrarragh!!

[Spuzzlightyear · 8/10 · 25 September 2004]

Indisputable classic of the highest order, 'Mommie Dearest' just SCREAMS cult hit every chance it gets, and just about ruined Faye Dunaway's reputation in the process. Mind you, there's nothing WRONG with Dunaway's performance, as a matter of fact, it's really good, but what's so good about it is how she plays every scene with fearless abandon, whether it's the wirehanger scene, the departure from MGM or chokeslamming Christina through a glass table, Dunaway gives 100% percent! And you should too! The first half is MUCH more frenetic then the 2nd half (aka young Christina vs Old) and the first part has all the best bits, but not to say the 2nd part is good too, it really starts to mellow out and (gasp) you start to feel SOME compassion to the old broad. Diana Scarwid is good too, although her playing what looks to be a 13 year old girl looks a bit too much.

This wasn't my first time at this rodeo (I'd seen this before) and I enjoyed it as much as I had the first time!

Campy and kitsch soap opera with a exaggerated but unforgettable acting by Faye Dunaway

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 29 October 2022]

It is 1939, Joan Crawford (faye Dunaway) is one of Hollywood's biggest stars and in the pantheon of fame . But she tells sweetheart lawyer Greg Savitt (Steve Forrest) that she isn't happy living in her Brentwood mansion with just her devoted secretary Carol Ann (Rutanya Alda) and housekeeper Helga. Greg arranges for Joan to adopt a baby girl (grown-up is Diana Scarwid) , but then things go wrong . To my darling Christina, with love...Mommie Dearest. The meanest mother of them all...Meet the biggest Mother of them all!. The greatest role of her life...was her life. Faye Dunaway is Joan Crawford, a star...a legend...and a mother...The illusion of perfection. One thing is certain: You'll never look at a wire hanger the same way again!

Movie based on Christina Crawford's memoirs of her incredibly abusive and violent infancy at the hands of her adoptive mother , actress Joan Crawford . The tale is controversial and sometimes corny and trashy , but fairly well made nevertheless . However , it is also campy and the Crawford-Dunaway screech 'No wire hangers ever !' became so associated with Dunaway's awesome acting that it was thought by some to have damaged the actress's extraordinary career . Good intentions to redress the balance of a vengeful Christina against her bad mother adapting on a bestseller bio are in evidence aplenty , but how else than as a campy tale can you take Faye Dunaway's waxwork Joan Crawford screeching for an axe , or throwing a scenary-chewing fit over her daughter's use of wire coathangers in the wardrobe . Director Frank Perry doesn't help with his credit sequence tease withholding our first glimpse of the stellar visage and his determination to pose Joan Crawford in geometrical symmetry with the lines of her spotless deco domestic mausoleum. The picture contains some biographic remarks : By the early 1940s, M. G. M run by Louis B. Mayer : Howard Da Silva , was no longer giving her plum roles ; newcomers had arrived in Hollywood, and the public wanted to see them. Crawford left MGM for rival Warner Bros, and in 1945 she landed the role of a lifetime : Mildred Pierce (1945) gave her an opportunity to show her range as an actress, and her interpretation as a woman driven to give her daughter everything garnered Crawford her first, and only, Academy Award for Best Actress .The following year she appeared with John Garfield in the well-received Humoresque (1946). In 1947, she acted as Louise Graham in Possessed (1947); again she was nominated for a Best Actress from the Academy. Mommie Dearest(1981) is surprisingly well played by Faye Dunaway , providing a sensationalistic and extreme acting . Being finely accompanied by a nice cast , such as : Diana Scarwid as her avengeful daughter , Steve Forrest , Howard Da Silva as Louis B. Mayer , Mara Hobel , Rutanya Alda , Jocelyn Brando , Priscilla Pointer, Michael Talbott , Xander Berkeley, among others .

It contains adequate and evocative musical score by stunning composer Henry Mancini . As well as colorful and appropriate cinematography by cameraman Paul Lohmann. The motion picture was professionally directed by Frank Perry , though it has some flaws , gaps and shortfalls. Frank Perry was an expert director and producer, known for David and Elisa (1962) , The Swimmer (1968) , Last summer (1969) , Trilogy (1969) , and this Mommie Dearest(1981) . Rating : 5.5/10. Passable and acceptable , being especially appointed to Faye Dunaway fans .

.

Tombstone

[giorgiosurbani · 4/10 · 28 September 2009]

I resisted to see "Mommie Dearest" for years but last night I lost a bet and I was forced to sit through it. Surprise. It didn't provoke what I thought it was going to provoke. Nothing personal really. A bad TV movie, cheap in every department, the production design, the hair and make up, the script, oh my God, the script. I never read Christina Crawford's book, maybe it was this amateurishly bad. Anne Bancroft was first going to play Crawford but fortunately she came to her senses. Dunaway has been paying the price ever since. You don't mess around with Crawford, didn't she know that? Other than the outrageous performance by Faye Dunaway, Diana Scarwid gives her Christina a certain amount of dignity, perhaps more dignity than Christina deserved. The supporting cast seems like a round up of the last resort. Atrocious. So much so that it's not even funny. I bet Joan Crawford is turning in her grave unsure whether to cry or to laugh.

Searching - entertainingly but in vain - for Joan Crawford in Mommie Dearest

[bmacv · 8/10 · 16 March 2004]

In Mommie Dearest, we watch Faye Dunaway portray Joan Crawford as portrayed in Crawford's adopted and later disinherited daughter Christina's (necessarily?) one-sided and tendentious memoir. That was less a story than a payback about growing up in a Hollywood hothouse with a headstrong and possibly unhinged star as mother. Where the precise balance lies between truth (obviously, some) and spite owing to being read out of the will is not, or no longer, the point. The point is what justice the movie does to the legendary Crawford - how accurately it reproduces her public façade and private dysfunction (where it's open to skepticism), and how well it evokes the way stars lived and were expected to live under the mid-20th-century studio system (where it fares well).

The movie opens at 4 a.m., the wake-up call for a star operating under the punishing regimen that was then the norm when shooting was underway. Dunaway/Crawford scrubs and steams herself, then closes her pores by plunging her face into rubbing alcohol on the rocks. Then she steps into a limo idling in the dark, where she learns her lines and signs glossies for doting fans. Noblesse oblige, Southern California style.

Crawford had been in movies since the last days of the silents (her first roles, uncredited or as Lucille LeSueur, were in 1925), and had since achieved a blue-and-ivory showplace in Brentwood, two ex-husbands, and entrée to the privileged circle of `Hollywood royalty'. All she wants to round out her life is a baby (or two); Steve Forrest plays an attorney and current paramour who helps her to acquire them, like a pair of occasional tables.

The rest of the movie depicts the ambivalent - almost bipolar - relationship between Joan and Christina (the actual Crawford adopted four children, whom the script cuts to two - just one, really, for son Christopher is seen only a few times tethered to his bed and once again, at the fateful reading of the will). So the plot's main thrust is Christina vs. Joan, and the semi-psychotic episodes that made the movie a cult/camp classic focus on this David and Goliath tug-of-war (`Tina, bring me the axe!' and `What's wire hangers doing in this closet?').

Several episodes, however, weren't witnessed by the skulking, passive-aggressive young Tina (Mara Hobel) or by the wilful and defiant teen-ager and woman she would become (Diana Scarwid, with a growling contralto that brings to mind Joan's adversary Mercedes McCambridge in Johnny Guitar). No little pitcher with big ears was nearby when Joan, in gingham apron and high-heeled white work shoes, scrubs the floor and bellows to the maid `I'm not mad at you, I'm mad at the dirt' or when, in one of Dunaway's rip-the-envelope-open scenes, emasculates the entire board of directors of Pepsico.

Dunaway's impersonation of Crawford is in many ways unforgettably overripe (and her performance been received as both extraordinary and execrable; she herself is on record as regretting that she did the movie at all). Yet despite an at times almost uncanny resemblance provided by makeup and costume, we seldom forget it's Dunaway on camera. The specific Crawford qualities that gave her unparalleled longevity in Hollywood elude Dunaway - they aren't quite there. (Under all the honeyed diction there's little of the tough broad from east Texas.) Maybe Dunaway was right in doing Crawford her own way, rather than resorting to mimicry. But she - and the script - lose too much of her prototype.

The script hews to known chronology in only the most slapdash way. There's a signpost at the beginning - Ice Follies of 1939 (why not the better known and just plain better The Women of the same year?) - and another at the time of her Academy-Award performance in Mildred Pierce (1945). But Crawford's subsequent vehicles, many of them hits, are ignored - and much of Mommie Dearest suggests she was a washed-up has-been. So it's never clear what juncture of her career she's reached - the late '40s and early '50s when she was still going strong, the Grand-Guignol '60s or, near the end, the '70s (Trog and TV)? It's a crucial lapse of basic narrative skills.

But Mommie Dearest eschews many of those skills, seemingly by choice. No longer, as in the movies Crawford made famous, does scene unfold into scene, does motivation shape the story line. True, real life seldom observes the dramatic unities, but events here come so haphazardly that they're baffling. A triumph like winning the Oscar or the humiliation of being fired from MGM by Louis B. Mayer (Howard Da Silva in a memorable cameo) both lead straight into full-tilt rampages. Do they occur the same day, or weeks or months later? The time-line's too shaky to tell. Nor do the drastic mood-swings ever get explained (maybe they can't be explained), though Crawford's ever-present flask of vodka threads through the movie more as a colorful eccentricity than a central fact of her life.

And in expressing this instability, Dunaway plucks not from Crawford's roles but from Gloria Swanson in the last, loony half of Sunset Blvd. Her eyes turn inward while fleeting emotions flicker across her face, hinting at something dreadful dredged up from her psyche. Yet Crawford held on to her star power in a ruthless industry for close to four decades, then snagged Pepsi-Cola CEO Alfred Steele and proved to be a savvy businesswoman. Nothing in Mommie Dearest accounts for those facts, which makes its accounting practices a little bit suspect. It's not a very good movie, but, thanks to Dunaway and her subject, mesmerizing nonetheless.

Awful but Fascinating

[henryonhillside · 6/10 · 10 December 2015]

One tip-off to the badness of this picture is the eyebrows. They dominate every scene in which they appear. You can't take your eyes off them - they're frickin' weird, idiotic, laughable.

The eyebrows provide insight into the thinking of the director and writers of this picture. They saw this project as an exercise in camp; they totally focus on Joan's off-the-charts weirdness. J.C. was obviously weird, but the creators could have made a much more interesting picture by offering a nuanced portrayal.

For the record, Joan Crawford's eyebrows were not invariaby laughable and she was not always wacky. She was extraordinary. She was alive. She was more alive than 99 percent of the women of her generation. She was a handful, to use an outmoded phrase - much too interesting and vital for the hacks who wrote and directed this film.

The creators could have paid more attention to Joan's courage in defying the pigs who ran Hollywood. These pigs tried to tell her what to do; she told them to go screw themselves. I'd say "Bravo!" to that but the word "bravo" apparently never occurred to Frank Perry, Frank Yablans, and their gang of idiots.

The film's creators could have done interesting things with the failure of mainstream doctors to help Joan through hormonal craziness. (She had big-time hormones, no doubt about it; mainstream medicine in the 1940s and '50s had no clue how to deal with big-time female hormones; this fact remains mostly true to this day. Alternative medicine does a much better job; unfortunately for Joan, alternative medicine barely existed in her heyday.)

The film's creators opted instead for wacky eyebrows and weirdness. They made a joke of Joan Crawford. The impulse to make a joke of things was common in Hollywood in the '70s and early '80s when this film was made. See, for instance, what happened to the James Bond franchise via the oh-so-funny Roger Moore and what Dino De Laurentiis did to King Kong. Some of this impulse can be tracked to the "Batman" revival circa 1966.

All of that said, "Mommie Dearest" is fascinating if you're obsessed with show biz and can't get enough of the backstory, no matter how wackily it's presented. (I'm right there with you.) I like the glimpses of 1930s Hollywood homes. I like many of the performances.

Someone should write a decent book about how the entertainment business is portrayed in movies and on TV, examining this film, "Entourage," "Sunset Boulevard," "Tootsie," "Coal Miner's Daughter," "A Star Is Born," "Gods and Monsters," "In a Lonely Place," "Barton Fink," etc.

The Mother to End All Mothers.

[nycritic · 5/10 · 10 May 2005]

Every so often there comes a movie that is so over-the-top it actually saves itself from total oblivion by the sheer force of the laughably bad performances. This one was one of the first movies to sweep the Razzies, not that Faye Dunaway was thrilled to do so, having just won an Oscar in 1977 for her brutal performance in NETWORK, but the same way that little gold guy can be a blessing, it can be a curse. If not, look at Halle Berry's career choices after her win for MONSTER'S BALL. She may still re-bound; her career is still not at a point of no return and her acceptance speech at the Razzies may be the cold water splashing on her face that will take her back to the roles she's supposed to be doing, not the ones which will garner her the "first black woman to..." status.

But not to digress. MOMMIE DEAREST was and is a camp classic de rigeur, right up there with VALLEY OF THE DOLLS. It is the CITIZEN KANE of camp. Producers must have decided that Christina Crawford's tell-all book about her mother -- in case you didn't already know it's Joan Crawford, movie star, Oscar winner, glamor girl, alleged child beater -- would make a brilliant film, and why? Well, for once, biopics featuring stars at their absolute worst weren't that common at the time this film was released, and certainly a book as sordid as this might make for a dark look into a respected actress, recently defunct. And so the casting of an actress who would embody those excesses to the hilt -- and wouldn't you know, the actress who stated years before she admired Crawford stepped into the task of turning herself to Joan from head to toe: not only physical, but in mannerisms, gowns, diction. Faye literally became "Joan Crawford" in image and style. The problem is, the script was so unabashedly exploitative and poorly written, her Crawford became a caricature, a cliché of poses that Crawford herself had created in many of her film credits. There is no real Joan Crawford here: only a repetition of lines that seem to be lifted almost directly from other movies. This Joan as a matter of fact seems to also live in her own time capsule. No mention of her 1920s or 1930s career, no mention of her marriage to Philip Barry, no mention of her later return to MGM to film TORCH SONG or her horror movie period, not even any back story of what happened behind sets in Mildred Pierce or the fact that she had to audition several times before getting that particular part (which won her her only Best Actress Oscar. No mention of her rivalry of Bette Davis (who? not in this film), either, and their one movie together, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? This is all fantasy, seen even more clearly with the inclusion of a completely fictional lover (played awfully by Steve Forrest) and housekeeper Carol Anne (an equally bad Rutanya Alda) and not to mention the horrific performance of Diana Scarwid as Christina Crawford who has some sublimely bad scenes filled with beyond terrible lines. (It made me wonder, was the actual Christina there as a consultant, and if she was, how does one explain how moronic she becomes as the movie progresses to the point that we actually side with Joan?)

Then again, this not being an autobiography nor a book of accounts of actors who knew and worked with Crawford but an amateur attempt at writing, huge inaccuracies were bound to happen. And to portray interminable, disjointed scenes of Crawford gone mad, brutalizing Christina for no other reason than being wigged out -- well, I'm not sure what the director is trying to say here.

So if there's no real Crawford (older and younger), then this is all a mindless exercise in glossy excess. It's the TV biopic of the month that never was; its existence predates future biopics of similar awfulness (if not, check recent tell-all bio-pics that ABC, Lifetime, and other channels have been churning out lately on TV stars clawing each other's eyes out). It's also the precursor of trash TV: if anyone recalls DYNASTY or MELROSE PLACE or even Jerry Springer, all they have to do is rent this baby and enjoy the sublime scene when Dunaway tries to body slam and strangle Diana Scarwid (Christina as an adult) as a reporter watches in horror. Now that's entertainment!