Mommie Dearest (1981)

 

And now the moment you've all been waiting for... the review of Mommie Dearest. Once a upon time when I was a wee little lad, this movie used to play on TV A LOT. I've always thought of Mommie Dearest as this prestige Oscar-bait film but as the years went by, people kept saying how much of a camp classic it was. I didn't get it at first, but upon watching the film a couple of more times, I can definitely see why. The subject matter is pretty heavy. It's about Child Abuse and Child Abuse is not a laughing matter at all. But what most people found funny about the film is Faye Dunaway's over-the-top performance as Joan Crawford, who is a real person by the way. But I don't think it's entirely her fault. It's more so the direction of the film and how it was presented. Well, let's take a deep dive shall we?

The movie is based on the 1978 autobiographical novel written by Christina Crawford, Joan Crawford's adopted daughter. I feel like the filmmakers really missed the point of the novel. It seems as though they were exploiting Child Abuse instead of making a more grounded psychological film. The novel did a good job of depicting what it was like living with a narcissistic parent. The manipulation, the guilt trips, the humiliation, it doesn't hold back and it's kind of tragic. So it baffles me as to why the filmmakers didn't get this right. At least, Christina Crawford acknowledged her mother as a real person while the filmmakers turned her into a cartoon villain. But I feel like Christina was the one who got screwed over in the end. This novel was written in her words, based on her experiences, whether true or not, and to have the film deviate so much from its source material is downright disrespectful.

As production began, the narrative swayed further and further from Christina. So, it's without a doubt that the true star of the movie is Joan Crawford herself. To add more salt to the wound, Christina Crawford had no involvement in the film, which would've helped it a little bit, I mean these were her experiences. But I guess the filmmakers were more concerned about making a Joan Crawford Biopic instead. There were plenty of actresses up for the lead role but Anne Bancroft, who Joan Crawford accepted the Oscar on her behalf, was the main attraction. Even Mia Farrow was up for the role of adult Christina. But all that fell through when producer Frank Yablans took over. He had his eye on Faye Dunaway. At this time, her career wasn't what it used to be after her Oscar win but she was very much in demand and wasn't afraid to take on risker roles. Faye was sure she was going to win another Oscar nomination for this role. Oh boy, Mrs. Dunaway was going to be in for a surprise. She wanted to go for a more methodical approach to her acting. There's nothing wrong with that persay, but I guess this is one of the reasons why her acting is...a bit over-the-top in certain moments. 

I would like to focus on three memorable scenes. Now just to let you know, these scenes are either totally exaggerated or didn't happen in the book at all, but I would talk about these scenes with an analytical view:

First, we have the "gardening" scene. Now according to Christina, Joan was a little OCD towards her gardening but I didn't think she took it to that level. In the movie, Joan has this reaction when she gets let go of her contract from MGM. But in real life, It was only a month later when Joan signed on to Warner Bros. So it seems as if Joan was just OVERREACTING. I mean geez, she had enough star power at the time to sign better deals. But I guess the filmmakers wanted to use this chain of events as dramatic effect.

Then there's the infamous wire hanger scene. Holy shit, this used to scare me as a kid. To this day, I find it hard to watch because it's something straight out of a horror film. The shadowed lighting, Joan's BOOMING voice, and the most horrifying of all, Joan's makeup. Holy crap! she freaked me out. At first, I thought she was a witch. There is absolutely nothing funny about this scene...

Well, except for this shot...Lol, why is Faye Dunaway making that face? But to be fair this was a really tough shot for her and she almost lost her voice. The scene was actually a compilation of a series of events in the novel. The wire hanger scene was treated subtly, still hard to read but subtle. While the "Cleaning" portion of the scene happened on a separate occasion. The filmmakers decided to combine these two incidents into this long drawn-out scene to accommodate Faye Dunaway's Oscar moment. Like I said this scene would've been effective if Faye Dunaway dailed it down just a notch. 

And lastly, we have the "strangulation" scene, you know, with the "BARBRA PLEASE!" line. This is supposed to be another harrowing scene where Joan almost KILLS Christina but, again, it comes off unintentionally funny because of Faye Dunaway's cartoonish expressions and, oh boy, this scene is by far her most over-the-top moment. Good god, this woman blows it over. These were actually two incidents compiled into one from the novel. The first incident was when she was caught with a stable boy at age 11 or 12. Yes, she was that young, so that would've been really inappropriate and downright uncomfortable to show on film. The second incident was when Christina became close with the headmaster and his wife, seeing them as a second family. Joan was not having it and pulled her away from school immediately, which is why Joan lied about Christina getting expelled just to spite her. 

The movie makes it look like Joan simply overreacts about her teenage daughter getting caught making out with a boy her age. According to Rutanya Alda, Faye Dunaway took this scene really seriously to the point where she injured her and co-star Jocelyn Brando. Again, somebody had to tell Faye to dial it down but I get the feeling that filmmakers were enjoying this too much. 

There was a lot of information that out from the book such as the twins Cathy and Cindy, in which they had a very loving relationship with Joan, and most of her early childhood that would become integral to her headstrong nature. If they had at least shown a small portion of her childhood and her climbing out of poverty, it would added more dimension to Joan's character instead of, you know, making her into this maniacal dingbat. Case in point, the whole reason Joan freaked out about the wire hangers is that it was a symbol of her traumatic childhood, working in shop factories and living in poor conditions. If the filmmakers would've added a bit of context to the wire hanger scene instead of just a random event. 

In the more subtle scenes where, you know, Joan is portrayed like an actual human being, Faye Dunaway does some pretty good acting. There was actually a scene where Joan tearfully confides to young Christina at a beach to soften her a little but the scene was cut for some reason. I guess the filmmakers thought it would be more "entertaining" to focus on the shocking, sensationalized moments of the screenplay. 

What I've also noticed about the film is that it has a unique style to it. It does this thing where in each time period the film sort of emulates the style of the movies from within that time period. That's cool and all, I appreciate the effort but what I liked about the Mildred Pierce miniseries is that although it was set in the 1930s and 40s, Todd Haynes went with a gritty, realistic style of the 70s. Since this was made in 1981, I feel like this kind of style would benefit the movie a bit more. 

Even though most of the movie is inaccurate, this incident was very true. You see, Christina tried to make it as an actress herself, and she eventually landed a role in a soap opera called The Secret Storm. When she gets sick, Joan steps in to take over her role. Christina mentions her character is 28 while Joan is way past that age. This is so wrong on so many levels. What parent takes their child's acting job? I feel like this was the moment that broke the camel's back for Christina but that's not even the half of it. But Joan is not to blame here, believe it or not. I blame the producers wholeheartedly. They were probably starstruck by Joan's presence and signing her on into the role, even though she was too old to play the part. From what I gather, Joan was at least in her sixties and was in no condition to film because she was drunk on her ass. So yeah, shame on the producers. 

The movie becomes a little understated after except for the "DON'T FUCK WITH ME FELLAS!" line. But besides all that, it's pretty low-key. 

There's the part where Christina makes an exceptional speech at Joan's televised tribute special and Joan, while lying on her death bed, is deeply touched. It's actually kind of sweet...well, not for long.

By the time she arrives at Joan's funeral and reunites with her brother Christoper, Christina goes to the hearing to see if Joan left a will. She doesn't. When Christoper says, "She always has the last word. Christina stares ahead with fury in her eyes, "Does she? Oh does she..." Thus begins the revenge of Christina Crawford.

Now do I think this is a terrible movie? It has some merits and I can see what the filmmakers "attempted" to do but the result fell flat. As I said, Faye Dunaway is not to blame here, she takes it too far with her acting and she did cause some tension on the set but she is not the one to blame for this movie's failure. It all weighs down on the filmmakers who instead of making a complex psychological drama turned it into an exploitative romp. It's kind of a shame because it was all there. I don't know what the filmmakers were thinking but at least this film will go down in history as a camp cult classic.