Joan Crawford: The Warner Brothers Era

darkshadows38

darkshadows38

Telly Talk Star
LV
1
 
Awards
7
Honestly i thought Davis was pretty Decent at Comedy, The man who came to Dinner (1941) isn't one of my favorites of hers but i do love The Bride that came C.O.D. (1941) i think she was good in both of those but they were something different than her drama's. even though my all time favorite type of films are her horror films the same with Crawford as well.
 
ClassyCo

ClassyCo

Telly Talk Warrior
Top Poster Of Month
LV
5
 
Awards
11
I watched SUDDEN FEAR today. This 1952 noirish thriller was Crawford's first film after leaving Warner Brothers.

I found the film to be terribly good. Crawford shines in what is probably one of her finest screen portrayals. She plays Myra Hudson, a successful playwright, who marries an actor named Lester Blaine (Jack Palance), after she fires him from her latest production. As luck would have it, Lester and his side-chick, Irene (Gloria Grahame), have plans on riding themselves of Myra so Lester can obtain her fortune.

I don't think that me disclosing such a plotline will ruin the story for anyone wanting to see it for the first time. Most movie watchers will know where this story is going, but the fun is seeing how it all comes to that climax. And the suspense along the way is thrilling.

Crawford had a good run of films between 1945 and 1952, with this probably being one of the last truly great films she'd make. Crawford is superb in this role, with it being a significant step-up from the likes of GOODBYE, MY FANCY (1951) and THIS WOMAN IS DANGEROUS (1952), her final films with the Brothers Warner that didn't perform well at the box office.

As ALL ABOUT EVE did for Davis, SUDDEN FEAR was a career-turnaround for Crawford. Her performance won raves and she was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress for the third and final time. The other cast members, such as Palance and Grahame, are equally strong. I've seen each of them in other films, and I've always enjoyed their work.

Where SUDDEN FEAR works best is in the quiet moments. There are instances where Crawford reacts to situations quietly without any background music whatsoever. We are left to see her fear and worry about where her circumstances will take her. At close to two hours long, the movie moves along smoothly and doesn't feel padded. With such a lengthy running time, I worried of getting bored with the story, but that didn't have time to happen. The story progresses effortlessly and the tension builds right up until the very last frame.

SUDDEN FEAR is definitely an essential Crawford film. If you haven't seen it, I'd urge you to do so.

1660142956668.png
 
ClassyCo

ClassyCo

Telly Talk Warrior
Top Poster Of Month
LV
5
 
Awards
11
I watched the 1955 film QUEEN BEE this morning. YouTube has uploaded a lot of old movies recently, and I've been taking advantage of my free time to mark some off my watch list.

I remember seeing QUEEN BEE on Amazon when I used to search for Joan Crawford movies years ago, and I've always wanted to see it.

This is definitely a "Joan Crawford movie" as she dominates the story. Even when she's not on screen, all the other characters are talking about her. Literally the entire plot revolves around her in some way. She's the "queen bee" of a upper-class Southern family, but you never learn why she's been allowed to rule over her husband and other relatives with such relentlessness.

Crawford, as one would guess, chews the scenery and hams it up in multiple areas of this B&W soapy melodrama. John Ireland and Barry Sullivan are good male leads, although I'd say Betsy Palmer (later famous as "Mrs. Voorhees" in the original FRIDAY THE 13th) gives the other standout performance as Crawford's sister-in-law.

Palmer has spoken openly about how Crawford was on set. Apparently Crawford originally pampered newcomer Lucy Marlow, but her opinion soured as filming continued to the point that little Lucy thought Joan enjoyed slapping her in one scene. Palmer guesses that Crawford might've been jealous of Marlow as the director took time coaching her performance.

I won't say QUEEN BEE is a good movie, but it's better than the material Crawford ended up doing. It kind of reads as a precursor to the "grande dame guignol" movies she languished in throughout the '60s until her career dried up.

I'll probably watch it again one day.

1693681568001.png
 
Snarky Oracle!

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
7
 
Awards
19
ClassyCo said:
I watched the 1955 film QUEEN BEE this morning. YouTube has uploaded a lot of old movies recently, and I've been taking advantage of my free time to mark some off my watch list.

I remember seeing QUEEN BEE on Amazon when I used to search for Joan Crawford movies years ago, and I've always wanted to see it.

This is definitely a "Joan Crawford movie" as she dominates the story. Even when she's not on screen, all the other characters are talking about her. Literally the entire plot revolves around her in some way. She's the "queen bee" of a upper-class Southern family, but you never learn why she's been allowed to rule over her husband and other relatives with such relentlessness.

Crawford, as one would guess, chews the scenery and hams it up in multiple areas of this B&W soapy melodrama. John Ireland and Barry Sullivan are good male leads, although I'd say Betsy Palmer (later famous as "Mrs. Voorhees" in the original FRIDAY THE 13th) gives the other standout performance as Crawford's sister-in-law.

Palmer has spoken openly about how Crawford was on set. Apparently Crawford originally pampered newcomer Lucy Marlow, but her opinion soured as filming continued to the point that little Lucy thought Joan enjoyed slapping her in one scene. Palmer guesses that Crawford might've been jealous of Marlow as the director took time coaching her performance.

I won't say QUEEN BEE is a good movie, but it's better than the material Crawford ended up doing. It kind of reads as a precursor to the "grande dame guignol" movies she languished in throughout the '60s until her career dried up.

I'll probably watch it again one day.

View attachment 47243
Click to expand...

Although QUEEN BEE is not part of Crawford's Warner Brothers era -- it was released by Columbia several years after Joan went independent.

The first-time director, Ranald MacDougal was hapless (but a decent screenwriter) yet it hardly matters. Joan directs herself, and does so by necessity. Her frequent collaborator Jerry Wald produced... As I've cited before, daughter Christina said QUEEN BEE was the one film of her mother's she couldn't handle watching because it came the closest by far to the real Joan Crawford.

And Chritina has to be telling the truth. (Although one has to assume Joan's abusive office manager in THE BEST OF EVERYTHING has to come close -- except that Joan wasn't an office manager).

And it's not just because Joan was playing a bitch as, by her own admission, she'd played bitches many times before. I mean, she played an axe-murderess for godssake in inert shocker STRAIT-JACKET more sympathetically.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ClassyCo

ClassyCo

Telly Talk Warrior
Top Poster Of Month
LV
5
 
Awards
11
Snarky Oracle! said:
Although QUEEN BEE is not part of Crawford's Warner Brothers era
Click to expand...
Yeah, I thought about that when I did my little write-up, but we don't have any other Crawford thread going, and there's no need for a new one. Maybe we can just retitle this one?
 
Crimson

Crimson

Telly Talk Enthusiast
LV
1
 
Awards
8
Tonight, I watched AUTUMN LEAVES (1956) for the first time. I was looking for a movie to usher in the fall season; come to find out the movie the movie isn't even (noticeably) set during autumn. I've never bothered with this one before because I assumed it was Joan's take on those mid-50s Kate Hepburn as a spinster finding love at last films. (I hate those.) I guess it kind of is but, as a Crawford film, much more luridly melodramatic.

Even still, I didn't care for it very much. All the pieces are there, but they don't add up. I think think the film would have fared better if it had been made a few years earlier, during Joan's gutsier Warners-era. Being a Columbia feature probably didn't help; that studio tended towards the second rate. Mostly, though, I just don't care for Crawford when she was in her Loretta Young mode -- all wide eyed and fluttery. Except for calling Vera Miles a slut, none of Joan's hard-edged attitude from '45 to '52 is in evidence here.

1695606571122.png
 
ClassyCo

ClassyCo

Telly Talk Warrior
Top Poster Of Month
LV
5
 
Awards
11
Crimson said:
Tonight, I watched AUTUMN LEAVES (1956) for the first time. I was looking for a movie to usher in the fall season; come to find out the movie the movie isn't even (noticeably) set during autumn. I've never bothered with this one before because I assumed it was Joan's take on those mid-50s Kate Hepburn as a spinster finding love at last films. (I hate those.) I guess it kind of is but, as a Crawford film, much more luridly melodramatic.

Even still, I didn't care for it very much. All the pieces are there, but they don't add up. I think think the film would have fared better if it had been made a few years earlier, during Joan's gutsier Warners-era. Being a Columbia feature probably didn't help; that studio tended towards the second rate. Mostly, though, I just don't care for Crawford when she was in her Loretta Young mode -- all wide eyed and fluttery. Except for calling Vera Miles a slut, none of Joan's hard-edged attitude from '45 to '52 is in evidence here.

View attachment 47709
Click to expand...
AUTUMN LEAVES is an okay movie. I watched it a few years back. I'd probably like it less now because of the domestic violence aspect of the story, but I recall liking it fairly well when I first watched it.

I like Crawford's movies for the most part, but I'm weary towards her mid-to-late-'50s movies because of her butchered haircut and the harshness of her face. AUTUMN LEAVES does their own interpretation of disguising those characteristics, which, I'm sure, was at the request of Crawford to make her appear younger. (Crawford apparently dreaded transitioning from B&W to color in the late-'30s because of the things color would reveal that B&W could hide.)

But AUTUMN LEAVES might not be up my alley anymore upon a revisit.

1695607526005.png
 
Top