The reality of Mommie Dearest (1981)

I couldn’t insist on love, but I could insist on respect. - Joan Crawford on her children

In the ‘Snatch Game’ episode of ‘RuPaul’s Drag Race: All Stars 2’, drag queen Alyssa Edwards portrays “Joan Crawford”. I put the name in quotes, not just because it is a character, but more a caricature of a character within a film that’s adapting a version of a real person through the eyes of a child. She’s all eyebrows, lips, quips, and energy. It’s hilarious, it’s campy, it’s indicative of the cult classic status that has sprung up around the film ‘Mommie Dearest’ (1981) over the past 41 years.

Culture rarely grabs onto complete stories, but rather moments and soundbites. In the film ‘Mommie Dearest’, we got the ultimate Sunset Boulevard version of a real woman. Faye Dunaway, in all but clown face, demands “the axe”. In a full gown, face melting in a sweaty haze, she screams and sobs while beating down a small tree. Isolated, it’s a hilarious image. In context, much like the rest of the film, it’s meant to be terrifying. ‘Mommie Dearest’ is campy, violent, and garish. We treat it culturally as a ridiculous piece of failed Americana.

At least it failed upward?

Joan Crawford is undeniably one of the greats of narrative cinema’s first act. A relative latecomer to the silent pictures, you can track the trends of American film as it modernised throughout the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s. She was the flapper personified, the working girl come good, the single woman approaching middle age. The lives she inhabited in her films were often direct reflections of the zeitgeist in regards to women balancing work and romance. She also played into and against sexual morays, playing mistresses alternatively repentant and bold. Her work in the 1950s and 1960s further established her icon status. There has never been anyone who rivalled her in terms of effort to be and stay a star. She was pure celebrity

What we’re fed of her personal life, outside the autobiography of her daughter, is equally compelling. This was a girl who really rose from the mud. From Lucille LeSueur to international glamour goddess, this was a Cinderella story. A beautiful girl who won against a lifetime of abuse - physical, mental, sexual. Many husbands for many eras, all who loved her dearly. At the centre of every picture two, then four, children appear around her. Christina, Christopher, Cindy and Cathy. Four little angels to with their movie star mother at the centre. Happier smiles were only seen in the movies which Crawford starred.

Upon the death of Crawford in 1977, after a near half-decade in reclusion, two things were immediately apparent. The first was that Hollywood had lost of its great icons. The second was that, with the reading of her will, Crawford’s relationship with her two eldest children had ended on a sour note.

Adopted in the first half of the 1940s, Christina Crawford (originally also named Joan Crawford) and Christopher Crawford (briefly Phillip Terry Jnr. after her husband, changed following their 1946 divorce) were considered problem children. Mayhap retroactively, depending on the source. But via interviews, friends and colleagues of the Crawford household outlined the…issues abundant in the rearing of the two.

“I remember most clearly when a teenaged Christopher spat in my face. He said, ‘I hate you.’ It’s pretty hard to overlook that. I couldn’t.” - Joan Crawford

Christopher was, to many, the more obvious problem. A runner and a fighter, he frequently disappeared for days on end according to sources. Betty Barker, the actress’ secretary, suggested he had a problem with women in a more general sense. But Christina’s issues were considered, in statements from the star’s friends at least, just as apparent. Sent to and then removed from boarding school, she was allegedly prone to misbehaviour and rebelliousness.At least, depending on who is telling the story.

"It is my intention to make no provision herein for my son, Christopher, or my daughter, Christina, for reasons which are well known to them."

Thus wrote Joan Crawford in her will, later successfully challenged to the tune of $27,500 for each child. Both claimed to not understand the statement. Whether in light of their strained relationship or because of Christina’s upcoming memoir, nobody is certain. But with those closing words, the story could actually begin.

The next year, Christina Crawford was able to outline her biography, as she saw fit. Following this release, those close to Joan began to refute her version of events. Many chose to attack the character of the author and her brother.

“The things Christina alleged just never happened.” –Herbert Kenwith, Director

“Christina and Christopher made me glad I didn’t have children.” – Myrna Loy, Actress

“I was there when Christina would deliberately bait Joan. She was a wilful child and a devious little monster.” Larry Carr, Author

There’s plenty of literature concerning the unknowable nature of the abuse in question. People rarely want to make a stand. All parties, including Joan herself, acknowledge she was a “strict disciplinarian”, but many don’t accept the exact descriptions in the book. Biographer Donald Spoto rejects the wire hangers story outright in his book ‘Possessed: The Life of Joan Crawford’ (2010), using evidence of the hired help in the Crawford home to explain away the story, in his estimation, it is impossible for Crawford or her children to have hung their own clothes, or to have responded to them being hung on the wrong type of hanger. The book still acknowledges that the essence of the story may be true, seemingly unable to marry the two concepts of abuse happening and abuse being described. Most biographies aren’t so aggressively and obviously against exact moments, or even the idea that abuse happened. Instead they build a case without conclusion.

It’s safer that way.

‘Bette & Joan: The Divine Feud’ (1989), probably the most famous book on the actress, uses quotes and short anecdotes to allow readers to decide the extent of it. The consistent theme is bratty children and a woman completely unprepared to parent them, often to disastrous results. Shirley Temple seemed to sum it up best in her description of a violent, young Christopher punching his mother in the leg for attention, only for Joan to slap him in the face right back. Neither child nor mother reflect well there.

But one is the adult.

Joan’s other children (Cathy and Cindy Crawford) outright rejected their elder sister’s narrative. Describing their mother as a tough, kind and generous woman, they called Christina a liar to the press.

“I think Christina was jealous. She wanted to be the one person she couldn’t be – Mother. I think she’ll use Joan until she can’t get any more out of it. Then she’ll dump her.” - Cindy Crawford

The cultural legacy of Joan Crawford, actress, wife, mother, wife again, superstar, and many other titles is tied up completely in the film ‘Mommie Dearest’ (1981). No biography can wrestle with her career without acknowledging the alleged abuse. No film retrospective can easily platform her films without at least a reference to this second wind of interest.

But the ratio of people who have seen the movie to those who have referenced it is not 1:1. I would argue it’s probably not even 1:10. Between being a drag staple, the references on shows like ‘Family Guy’ and ‘Saturday Night Live’, and the generally easy parodic nature of the scenes, clipped for listicles and viral clips, it’s a sea of allusions and inside jokes. You don’t need to know the movie to reference it.

The film itself cannot bare the weight of that cultural legacy. It’s rare that a movie has this much life after the initial release. But the fact is, that second life is not aligned to any sort of real popularity or respect. Even the most devoted audiences don’t show up to watch reverently. That’s probably for its own benefit.

It isn’t a good film.

That makes things harder to discuss in regards to the story Christina Crawford spent her book attempting to tell. It’s impossible to argue the merits of a story told poorly. Between the theatrics of Dunaway, the blandness of her co-stars, and the script, there’s nothing to defend. A refusal to pull focus from Joan and onto Christina is the entire reason the original film failed creatively, and it’s also the reason it has staying power. But hidden within the failure of cinema is a nugget of truth concerning a home we would call abusive today. One questioned by those at the time, that kept running regardless.

Having celebrity protects the abuser.

As time has gone on, the legacy of the book and the movie have remained as ripples. Ryan Murphy’s 2017 series ‘Feud’, mostly a celebration of both Joan and her ‘Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?’ (1962) co-star Bette Davis, mentions the book in passing as the series ends. In many ways this program is the definitive portrayal of Joan’s later life story for modern viewers. It cannot help but hand wave the whole situation concerning child abuse, or at least, the show only allows it to be referenced in vague moments.

If ‘Feud’ has a main character between the two leads, it's Joan, and if it has a theme, it’s that time heals all wounds. Christina barely registers a mention, just a quickly signed note and a draft of her book. Her mother ends the series a kindly grandmother, alone but saintly in her isolation. This pulls from ‘The Divine Feud’, along with accounts from those that knew her. Joan died lonely but serene. We end on a sweet smile into that long goodnight.

It’s always her story.

“She (Joan Crawford) wasn’t the kind of person Christina wrote about. She was very caring and loving.” said Cindy Crawford of her mother, and for her, it’s probably true for her. There’s a difficulty in dealing with disconnect between yours’ and your siblings’ memories. A household can be a wildly different experience from person to person.

“Different people in the family experience the parenting situation in different ways. Because the parenting situation is different towards them, and that’s a divide-and-conquer type of situation.” – Christina Crawford

The book was adapted in 2017 to a staged musical adaptation that attempted to renegotiate its perception with the public. Unfortunately for Christina, the production was not a runaway success, nor was it particularly well covered during the time. Its timing, with much of the press taking place in 2019, must not have helped. It’s also quite stock standard in quality, from the demos and few clips I’ve seen. For what it is, it’s unlikely to ever have been a hit in the world of theatre. The potential and possibility is there to start fresh in other ways, just maybe not the stage.

It might be that the first step is for people to actually read the book. to examine the claims with fresh eyes, from a woman who never stopped telling this story. For those who believe her, they regard that continual restatement as a “cashing in”. Maybe that is so, maybe it isn’t. But too many people want to discuss the allegations without knowing exactly what they’re talking about. It’s a hard book to read, and you may do so without sympathy for the child at the centre. I’ve seen reviews that call it ghoulish, and others that treat it merely as an extension of the film.

I don’t think anyone needs to put away the films of a century past because of the allegations. Christina herself has acknowledged the cinematic legacy of her mother many times over, while also condemning her actions. At a minimum, the actions of “strict discipline” that, regardless of magnitude, we wouldn’t see as acceptable parenting today. This isn’t a meaningless shout of “death of the author”. That’s an oft misused phrase I don’t want to invoke.

It means very little to deplatform a woman who died in 1977, and almost every actor and actress of the era (and most of ours) have almost equally terrible allegations to reckon with. Crawford’s contemporaries Bette Davis and Marlene Dietrich both had to deal with similar books come out in the wake of ‘Mommie Dearest’. Many regard it as a phenomenon. A trend

If celebrity is abuse, it can and does extend to the children. I completely understand if people are skeptical to accept the word of the book as law. Even if it was an easy thing to digest, the amount of pushback from people who know the Crawford household is enough to make you at least pause. But I find the defensiveness of diehard stans and Crawford truthers (yes, they exist) to be terrifying.

Why is it so hard to believe a person can be kind to some and cruel to others?

The stories of Joan Crawford’s childhood, as Lucille LeSueur, show what kind of abusive and monstrous treatment she came from. Without concerted effort and a lot of internal work, abuse often repeats. The pattern continues. Both Crawfords can have been victims, one doesn’t invalidate the other.

And at the centre of it is one little girl who claimed to be hurt.

Select bibliography

Bette and Joan: The Divine Feud by Shaun Considine - link

Possessed: The Life of Joan Crawford by Donald Spoto - link

Mommie Dearest by Christina Crawford - link

Joan Crawford: Not The Girl Next Door by Charlotte Chandler - link

The Star Machine by Jeanine Basinger - link

Daughter Dearest by Charlotte Chandler - link